Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England

G. G.

1 I N my former answer unto these your articles which ye call A brief sum of your profession, I kept the same order in which they stand. But now I begin first with your heavy accusation of the four heinous transgressions for which ye condemn and abandon all the assemblies as they generally stand in England: and come after unto those former articles, which contain your association, wherein ye conjoin yourselves, and enter into covenant with God (as ye say) to set up all the ordinances of Christ, for I take this to be the fittest order. Your syxt article which now must be first, being expressed in these words. And now that our forsaking and utter abandoning these disordered assemblies, as they generally stand in England, may not seem strange or offensive to any man, that will judge or be judged by the word of God: we allege and affirm them heinouslie faulty, and willfully obstinate in these four principal transgressions. To this I answered: That Elias did see outward idolatry practiced, and saw none which did mislike, and therefore complained of all. It was an error, but whereas God's word is embraced, and multitudes abhor Idolatry, and labor with sorrowful tears to be purged from their sins, it is an intolerable pride and presumption of men, to set themselves in God's judgment seat, and to condemn all of willful obstinacy. Let it be shown where ever any, led by God's spirit have dealt in this sort, and especially in charging them most falsely, as shall appear.

G. G.

All such as take upon them to judge and condemn whole assemblies, that profess the Gospel, and that with slanderous accusations, as▪ you do, may right well be charged with intolerable pride, presumption, and intrusion into God's judgment seat, seeing the Scriptures do clearly warrant it. For he that judgeth one man to be no true Christian, which holdeth the place of a brother, and laboreth to please God, professing the faith soundly in all fundamental points, either for some errors in judgment, or frailties committed in life, proudlye advanceth himself into God's office, who alone searcheth the heart, and trieth the rains of the children of men. What shall we say then of those which condemn whole multitudes, amongst whom there be many unspotted with gross errors and offenses? But the ground of your doing is from hence, that such as commit principal transgressions, and be wilfullye obstinate in the same, the word of God doth condemn them. And then ye say, that the assemblies in England be heinously faulty, and willfully obstinate in four principal transgressions. Ye boldly allege and affirm, but ye make proof neither of the transgressions, nor of the willful obstinacy. Touching the transgressions, what mean ye by principal? If ye understand great faults and gross errors, and hold withal that there is no faith nor regeneration among those which err grossly, & commit great faults, ye maintain heresy, which is convinced by infinite places and examples of the Scriptures. The best that ever were, did know but in part. 1. Cor. 13. The godliest were regenerate but in part. Rom. 7. Of the strongest it was said, who can tell his errors, Psal. 19. and in many things we sin all, I am. 3. If Noah, Abraham, Lot, David, Solomon, Samson▪ and other holy men, greatly replenished with the holy Ghost and with faith, did sometime fall into great sins: howe many will be the errors, the divisions, the frailties, and offenses among the multitude in the church, where, with the stronger, and such as have the greater knowledge and godliness, there are heaped up together multitudes of weak, and such as be carnal, and but babes in Christ, besides hypocrites, and countersait brethren? If by principal transgressions, ye mean only such as be fundamental, then ye do most falsely accuse the Church of England, which holdeth not any heresy or blasphemy against any one ground or principle of the holy Christian faith. Ye must then either maintain this heresy, which is, that where the true faith is, there can break forth no great faults, errors, and abuses: or this absurd manner of speech which afterward ye use, that all errors and deformities in religion, be heresies, blasphemies, and abominations, or else confess that with intolerable pride presumption, and intrusion into God's judgment seat, ye have taken upon ye to judge and condemn whole assemblies, which profess the faith of Christ sincerely in all fundamental points, among whom there be many particular persons which study earnestly to please God, mourning for their own sins, and are like just Lot, 2. Pet. • . vexed and tormented to behold the wickedness of others? And now touching willful obstinacy, how will ye prove that to be in all the assemblies, and in all members of the assemblies of England? If ye say there be apparent transgressions in which they continue, and therefore they be willfully obstinate, and so to be utterly abandoned. I answer, that your conclusion doth not follow, because the continuance in all sorts of errors and offenses, in such as profess the faith, doth not warrant men utterly to cast them out as Heathen: but where after admonition and conviction, the censure of the Church is despised. The rule of discipline given by our Savior Christ, maketh this very clear. If thy brother sin against thee, tell him of it between him and thee alone▪ If he hear thee, thou hast wunne thy brother: if he hear thee not, take one or two with thee, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be confirmed: If he hear not them, tell it to the Church: if he hear not the Church, let him be as an Heathen or as a Publican. Math. 18. We see that private members may not utterly abandon and cast forth any one brother, that is one which professeth the true faith, and for his profession hath the place and dignity of a Christian: nor judge him so willfully obstinate, that he must be accounted as an Heathen, until the Church have so judged and cast him forth. The same orderly course and rule of discipline is to be observed, in admonishing, accusing, convincing, condemning, and utter abandoning any particular assembly, which hath the dignity of a Christian church, and doth offend so grievously, and show such obstinacy, that it deserveth so heavy a censure. In a particular Church there be errors and sins, I will not say in many, but in all, in as much as everyone hath his blindness and corruption, erreth and sinneth continually one way or other. From hence it cometh, that of necessity there be always in the Church diversities of opinions, discord, division, and dissention, with many corruptions and abuses. For if it be most manifest, that the learnedest and godliest that liveth, doth carry with him his errors, defects, and corruptions: what shall we look for where the multitude is of learned, unlearned, strong and weak, altogether, how innumerable will the frailties and corruptions now among all be: whereupon it followeth, that the universal Church cannot rightly cut off and utterly abandon any particular assemblies, unless it be for errors & abuses which overthrow the faith, & destroy true Christianity. The precept of S. Paul, in that whereunto we are come, let us proceed by one rule, to be like minded, Phi. 3. is here to take place. I will now proceed more particularly. The church of England, even as it generally standeth in the public assemblies, among all godly Churches which know the faith which she doth openly profess and maintain, hath the place & dignity of a sister: They all give unto her the right hand of fellowship, acknowledging her for a mother in Israel, in as much as she hath not been barren, but hath brought forth many dear children to God, and not a few of them crowned with martyrdom. Behold then the inordinate dealing, and arrogant presumption of you Brownists. Yea behold even the top of your pride, against God and man, which professing to set up discipline, and glorying that you suffer for it, do break and utterly abolish the rules thereof given by Christ, by your utter forsaking and abandoning all the assemblies in England: for let it be confessed, that the errors, the sins, the imperfections, the spots, and deformities of our Church be many, so that she is not in her general estate, so fair as the fairest of her sisters: yet hath she heretofore had, and now hath, many noble children, richlye adorned with heavenly jewels, and precious gifts of learning knowledge, faith, and godliness. And howsoever the Papists one way, and the Brownists another way, do aggravate her crimes with pestilent slanders, yet shall they never prove, that either in doctrine or manners she is guilty of any fundamental crime, which separateth from Christ, and destroyeth the life and being of a true Church: yet you Brownists, not observing the rule given by Christ, do utterly abandon and cast forth from their dignity, all our assemblies in England. For ye have condemned all of willful obstinacy, evē to particular members: & who hath given you this authority to thrust them out of God's family, which the whole universal Church cannot rightly do? Who could ever imagine, that under the pretence of setting up discipline, the devil should breath such pride into rotten flesh, as utterly to overthrow the whole substance of it: for whereas all the Churches of Christ in these parts of the world, do know the estate of our Church, and be able to discern the grievousness of our errors: yet do they all acknowledge and reverence our assemblies as holy sisters. And you Brownists, men void of knowledge and discretion, without authority, without any calling or warrant, even upon a frantic bravery, and without observing any rule given by Christ Jesus, take upon ye most presumptuously contrary to the judgment of the Churches, to cast forth and utterly to abandon the same. What Pope hath dealt more proudly in violating the discipline? If there were but this one thing against you, it were sufficient to declare your cursed dealing, but your furies are many, first in your slanderous accusations, which now we come unto.

To this I did answer, that our worship is the embracing of the holy Bible: by the doctrine thereof, we seek to believe in God, to call upon him, and to do all good works, &c.

G. G.

To the intent that mine answer and your accusation may stand the clearer to be seen into, and the better to be judged of, I draw your words into a syllogism thus.

• Whatsoever assemblies worship the true God after a false manner, their worship being made of the invention of man, even of the man of sin, &c. the same are not the true Churches of God.
• But the assemblies as they generally stand in England, do worship the true God after a false manner, their worship being made of the invention of man, &c.
• Therefore the assemblies in England be not the true churches of God.

I did not, nor do not deny the first part of this argument, the proposition, so that we understand by false manner of worship, and the same made of the invention of man, such a false manner as doth overthrow the very ground and foundation of faith, and make an utter separation from the Lord Jesus Christ. Such as the worship is in popery, where they teach and do many things contrary to the principles of faith, placing holiness and the worship of God in their own inventions, and seeking remission of sins, and the merit of eternal life, in every beggarly superstitious observation and ceremony. But if by false manner of worship, ye understand every error, fault & corruption, in matters of religion, which though they be evil and to be condemned, yet overthrow not the faith nor the very essence of God's true worship, but be in circumstances, or in parts that may be maimed, and yet the life remain: then I deny the proposition as most erroneous, false, and heretical For king David with the princes, the Preests, the Levites, and people, erred, and that grossly, contrary to the express law of God, Numb. 7. verse. 9. when they carried the Ark upon a Cart: yet were they even then the true Church of God. It was a great offense, that in the days of some good Kings of Judah, the people sacrificed in the high places, but only to the Lord▪ 2. Kings. 11. &. 14. 15. They should by God's appointment have done it at Jerusalem only: yet were they nevertheless God's people. The Passover was a principal part of God's worship, but they kept it not so precisely according to the law, of a long time, as they did in the 18. year of Josiah. 2. King. 23. 2. Chron. 35. The Preachers at Corinth did very evil in building Timber, Straw, and Hay, upon the foundation: and so did the people which sorted themselves as it were by several companies to follow them. But yet because they held Christ the foundation in the true doctrine, S. Paul saith, their works should burn, they should suffer loss, nevertheless they themselves should be saved as it were by fire. 1. Cor. 3.

Now to come unto the second part of your argument, the assumption, which is, that the Church of England doth worship the true God after a false manner, their worship being made of, &c. I did deny that, by affirming that the worship of our Church, is the embracing the holy Bible, by the doctrine thereof, &c▪ Ye say, I beg the question, and prove not our worship by the Bible. And I say (if ye call it begging) you beg the question, & would have that granted unto ye as true, which is most false. For excepting imperfections, wants, spots, blemishes, & faults, which destroy not the true worship of God, our Church doth worship the Lord aright, without heresy, blasphemy, or idolatry. The doctrine of our Church is published: if ye can take exception against any point, to be heresy or blasphemy, bring it forth that it may be tried by the Bible. Then next ye complain further, that I do not answer one of those 4. apparent reasons which ye bring, why it is false and contrary to the Bible. Well then they may now be considered. Thus ye have noted them with figures over the head, our worship being made of the ¹ invention of man, even of the ² man of sin, ³ erroneous, and ⁴ imposed upon us. I know not for what cause they should be called apparent, unless by a far fetched trope of Metonymy, because they manifest and make apparent your vanity, and Anabaptistical error. For the first three be no more but one bare affirmation of that principal transgression which ye charge us withal. For all false worship is man's invention, whether it be the invention of the man of sin, or of any other man, it is all one before God, who respecteth not persons, but the wickedness of the sin. Also to be man's invention in God's worship, and to be erroneous is all one. For whatsoever man inuenteth in God's worship, is erroneous: and whatsoever in the same is erroneous, hath been invented by man. So that the three first are all one bare affirmation, and the very same with your article. Your Anabaptistical error is in the fourth: for ye challenge such a freedom to the Church, as that nothing may be imposed upon the flocks, no not anything that the Church governors shall decree by the word, which doth overthrow the discipline in a great part. Then ye proceed and say, for further manifestation of our worship in particular, let the book of Common prayer be examined by the word of God: which ye term a great pregnant idol full of errors, blasphemies, and abominations. If the book stand to be tried by God's word, there is no doubt, but as all things done by men, even the best, it shall be found imperfect. He that will have it to be no true worship of God, in which there be errors and spots, holdeth the heresy of perfection, which is very foul and detestable: for it is as far beyond our power, to be perfect in God's worship, as to perform perfect obedience in the second table of the law. And touching the book of Common prayer, let the reader consider, it is not the question between us, whether there be faults in it, great faults, or how many: but whether it be a great pregnant idol, full of heresies, blasphemies, and abominations? I confess that all men ought with utter detestation, to shun our worship, if it be such as you accuse it. But indeed your accusation is false, your slanders are foul and impudent. This shall appear by following your words as they be set down, where ye name those blasphemous abominations, which ye charge the book withal, in their several ranks▪ Ye ask us where we find in the New Testament our Romish fasts, our Ember days, Saints eeues, and Lent. I am indeed out of all doubt, and most assured, that if a man read over, not only the New Testament, but also both old and new, from the very beginning to the end, he shall never find any allowance of Romish fasts. I say likewise of the Book of Common prayer, that there be no Romish fasts in it: and that ye do most injuriously slander and belie us in matching our Church in this point with the blasphemous synagog of Rome. For that Antichristian Church, de rogating in all things from the Cross of Christ, hath upon certain days, and at certain times, times, appointed an abstinence from meats, placing therein the worship of God, remission of sins, and the merit of eternal life. The Church of England doth utterly condemn this as the doctrine of Devils, 1. Timoth. 4 pronouncing them enemies to the cross of Christ, which maintain meritorious fasting. We teach that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy-ghost. Rom. 14. And that there is no holiness in eating or not eating, but an abstinence whereby we may humble our selves, and be more fervent in prayer. The politic laws of this land, which appoint that upon certain days men shall not eat flesh, do it in respect of the common-wealth, as to maintain Nauigation so much the better, by encouraging men to fish, and for the spare of the breed of young cattle: appointing moreover a penalty for such as shall take the days to be observed as meritorious Romish fasts. Therefore let all men here at the first consider, how sophistically ye do argue: that the Church of England doth abstain from flesh upon ember days, Saints Eve’s, and in Lent: therefore the Church of England doth maintain and observe Romish fasts. Thus doth one crack of your great ordinance, vanish only into smoke. Then ye say, your idol feasts, your Alhallowes, Candlemas, several Lady days, Saints days, and dedicating Churches unto Saints. Here also ye thunder out terror, as if the Church of England did worship idols, and celebrate feasts in the honor of false gods: and yet all is but a stark lie, and a wicked slander. And I would wish all men to observe the boldness and eloquence which ye have in this vain. For whereas the synagog of Antichrist, denying the only mediation of our blessed Lord Jesus, did set up the Saints as mediators, did pray unto them, worship them, celebrate holy days in their honor, and dedicate churches unto them: the Church of England for these and such like abominations, hath separate her self from them, teaching by the holy Scriptures, that there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. That the same only true God is to be worshipped alone, and called upon through the only mediation of his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased. That Saints are not to be worshipped, neither the blessed Virgin, nor any other, nor no days to be celebrated in their honor, nor Churches dedicated unto thē: how bitterly then do you slander? Ye will reply, that the Saints days be kept in our Church: yea but ye must show that they be kept in their honor, which ye shall not be able to do, seeing the contrary is manifest, the Statute expressing that our Church doth call thē Holy days, not for the Saints sakes, but for the holy exercises used upon them in public assemblies. Divers Churches also among us are called by the names of those Saints which they were dedicated unto, but to say that we do therefore dedicate Churches unto them, is very ridiculous. In the City Athens there was a place of Judgment which bare the name of Mars, S. Luke calleth it by the same name, doth he therefore dedicate it also unto that heathen God of battle? When we call S. Peters Church, or Paul's Churchyard, it is but to distinguish them by the names by which they are commonly known and called. Then follow our Comminations, Rogations, Purifications. Touching Comminations, they be a part of the Canonical Scripture which is to be read in the Church. Rogations, I take to be the compassing in of the limits and bounds of Parishes, which is commanded only to avoid contention and strife that might grow, and there is nothing in the book of Common Prayer touching these, that ever I could find. Purifications are annexed, only to make up your riming figure: for neither the book, nor the doctrine of the Church of England, doth speak of any Purification, but only in the blood of the Lamb. There is a Thanksgiuing prescribed for Women after Childbirth, but neither for Jewish Purification, or Popish Superstition, & therefore not in such sort to be condemned. After comes in our Tithes▪ Offerings, Mortuaries. For the Tithes and Mortuaries, I do not find them once named in the book, the Offrings in deed are. But ye will say that is no great matter, seeing they be in our Church. That is true, but yet they are but for maintenance of the Ministry, & not as a matter tied of necessity unto a Priesthoode, as in the time of the Law: and if they were, the error could not be fundamental. In the next place are brought in, our manner of visiting the sick, and howsling them with the Sacrament, our Absolution, blasphemous Dirges, and Funeral Sermons over and for the dead. There is prescribed a manner of visiting the sick, and so is there in the leiturgies of some other Churches that profess the Gospel, but where have ye seen it practiced, or the practice urged by those that have the government of our Church, at their hands which are able and diligent Pastors? Whereby your injurious dealing may appear, in charging all the assemblies as they generally stand in England with matters which the greater part do not practice, nor yet are required. For if the sick man be by the Minister of the word instructed, exhorted, comforted, and strengthened in faith and repentance, yea every way prepared to depart joyfully in the Lord, it is that which the book aimeth at, neither is there anymore required, although he use no prescript form set down. By your phrase of howsling with the Sacrament, ye would make the simple believe, that the Popish Howsling is retained among us. This is but a false kind of packing, seeing our Church utterly condemneth all the wicked blasphemous corrupt doctrine of the Papists touching the Lord's Supper: and also denieth that a man is of necessity to receive this Sacrament at his death. If yes reply, that howsoever we teach, yet the book implieth a necessity, which appeareth by that it doth appoint a private Communion. I answer, that even the book doth deny it to be a matter of necessity, and doth appoint it but to relieve the trouble which might arise in weak consciences through the want thereof, for these be the words of the book: The Curates shall diligently from time to time, but specially in the Plague time, exhort their Parishioners to the often receiving in the Church, of the holy Communion of the body and blood of our Savior Christ, which if they do they shall have no cause in their sudden visitation, to be disquieted for lack of the same. And if any sick person that would receive this Sacrament, hath any impediment that he cannot, the Book willeth the Minister to instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ profitably to his souls health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth. How maliciously then do you charge the assemblies in England with howsling the sick with the Sacrament, when all the learned, faithful, diligent Pastors do, as the book requireth, exhort those that be of their flocks to the often receiving of this holy Sacrament in the public assembly, as the due place for public seals, and the people by instruction being grown so strong, that they do not in their sickness require it, and so in the most Congregations which are well taught, the thing is not practice • ? The Sinagog of Antichrist devised a purgatory which is blasphemous against the blood of Christ. They had indeed their Dirges, even blasphemous prayers for the dead. That Purgatory do we utterly deny as a wicked invention, we condemn prayer for the dead, and therefore, where ye term those prayers which are read at burials blasphemous Dirges over and for the dead, ye are more then impudent in lying. Funeral Sermons I find not enjoined by the book, nor commanded by any Law. Ye add further, our corrupt manner of administering the Sacraments, the Font, the Cross in Baptism, Baptism by women, Gossippings, the blasphemous Collects that we use unto this Sacrament, Byshopings, with all the heretical Collects of the Book, which, as ye say, is a weariness unto ye to repeat, though not to us both to tolerate and defend. When ye show some reason, why the Font is an abomination, I shall know what to say. Touching the Cross, it must needs be confessed that it was blasphemously and horribly abused in Popery, they ascribing unto it power to drive out and expel Devils, and worshipping it with divine honor. In my judgment also, the holy Church of God, within short time after the blessed Apostles, and the reverend godly Pastors, did offend, in taking overmuch liberty to ordain Ceremonies Symbolical, as that and such like, yet no doubt very reverend godly learned men, led by the example of those holy Fathers of old, have judged it lawful for the Church to ordain such Ceremonies. Touching the Baptism by women, it is condemned both by the chief governors in our Church▪ and others, and is not practiced unless it be among the popish and superstitious ignorant sort. By Gossyppings, I suppose ye mean the witnesses at baptism, a thing used in the best reformed churches, and thought to be expedient: so that ye do not herein condemn the Church of England, but all Churches▪ Bishoping of children is little practiced, for unless the people require it by offering their children few Bishops do urge them thereunto, only this excepted, that they be taught and instructed in the Catechism. The blasphemous collects which we use in the Sacrament, and all the heretical collects of the book, do trouble ye very sore, and weary ye to repeat. But if it pleased God, I would ye were as weary of lying and slandering, as ye should be in seeking in all the collects of the book, if ye were bound to seek and to find, I will not say some faults, seeing all things framed by the best men, may have imperfections and faults: but some blasphemies or heresies. If ye have any regard at all what ye say, gather your wits together, consider what is blasphemy, and what is heresy, and then note the collect where it is, and what it is▪ There shall never any man be able to prove, that the Church of England doth tolerate, much less defend, either blasphemy or heresy. Yet you, as if your words were true as the Gospel, clap your wings, and crowe, saying, but this candle may not be lighted, least the people should see into the abhominabl • ingredients, which you their Antichristian ministers do give them, or rather sell them, in the whore of Babylon's cup. All this is but your foul tongue, which is no way so eloquent, as in rolling out slanderous accusation of blasphemies, heresies, and abominations, with such like. Moreover, whereas the case standeth thus in the church of England: that there is controversy about the Book: and that one part doth approve all things in the same as good and alowable, or at least as tolerable, the other condemn certain things as corruptions, and such as need reformation. I would know how ye could abandon all the assemblies? to this ye make a double answer, first, that using a part, they do homage to the whole. This is a foolish answer, void of all reason, for can we not praise the good things in a man, but we shall allow his faults and imperfections? Your second answer is this: Neither can the cunningest of ye all make the best part of it other then a piece of Swines flesh, an abomination to the Lord. Who could imagine that such a frenzy might take hold of any, that in mad fury they should not spare after a sort to strike at God, and to blaspheme that which is most holy? for ye know right well▪ that there is in the book of Common Prayer, much of the sacred Canonical Scripture, there is the Lord's prayer, the ten Commandments, with many other partes and sentences, there be the articles of the Christian faith, are all these become Swines flesh an abomination to the Lord? Let not simple men wonder that ye are bold to proclaim all the Ministers of the Gospel within this land, to be the marked servants of Antichrist, when ye dare presume to set your stinking brand of pitch upon the most holy things of God. Ye will here cry out of injury, and say that ye esteem all those parcels of the sacred Canonical Scriptures, in thenselves to be holy and pure. What is it then which turneth them into Swines flesh, and maketh them an abomination to the Lord? is it because they be bound together, and make one book with the heretical Collects? then take you heed, least being in prison, and fettred with heretics, ye be turned also into Heretics. If ye say, it is our abuse which turneth so holy things into Swines flesh, I answer, that the abuse of holy things is abhominable, but the things themselves remain undefiled: and ye must remember that we deal touching the partes of the book, but abuse is no part thereof. When ye say the best part thereof is no other then a piece of Swines flesh, it cannot be transferred from the partes unto the abuses. If it were granted unto ye, which yet is to be denied as most fantastical, that all read prayer offered up unto God as a sacrifice, is Idolatry: nevertheless your saying is wicked and blasphemous, seeing that the reading is not any part of the book, neither doth it pervert or defile the things themselves which are read. Thus your first accusation, that we worship the true God after a false manner, is with false slander, and furious outrage of speech, crying out of Idolatry, blasphemies, and abominations, when as ye can show no one ground of the holy Religion and worship of God, which is not holden sound and entire among us, only ye rip up corruptions and spots in Ceremonies, orders, and circumstances, which touch not the foundation, but are such as men may err in, and yet be God's deer children, and true woorshippers.

G. G.

Read prayer is one chief thing for which ye condemn our worship as Idolatrous and most detestable, and for that cause to be annexed unto this first accusation.

To condemn and overthrow read prayer, ye bring, as the ground or foundation of all your matter, this sentence▪ God is a spirit, and to be worshipped in spirit. John. 5. This scripture indeed is clear and strong, to cut down all carnal worship as disagreeing from the nature of God. And if any do maintain, that the very bodily action of reading prayer, is the worship of God, it may fitly be alleged against them. But to apply it in that manner which you do against red prayer, is frivolous, unless (as I say) ye could prove, that a man cannot pray by the spirit of God, with sighs and groans proceeding from faith, when the prayer is read vpō the book, or uttered after a prescript form. To this you reply with diverse arguments. The first is, that if the sighs and groans were of faith, it would minister matter of prayer without a book. This reason by a connection is drawn from, and dependeth wholly upon the force and effect of faith, to minister matter of prayer. It is to be framed thus. If the prayer with sighs and groans were of faith, it would minister matter without a book: but the matter of their prayer, with sighs and groans, is not ministered without a book, therefore it is not of faith. to make this argument strong and sufficient from the connection of faith, and the lively efficacy thereof to utter prayer, ye must add two things, the one, that faith is perfect unto this efficacy, to minister matter of prayer, and needeth no help. The other, that the effect and power of faith, to minister matter of prayer, cannot stand nor be joined with any outward helps. Unless I say ye add these two, with the cupling together faith and the effect, which are both of them heretical, there can be no necessary consequence. To make it yet more manifest, let it be drawn into another form of syllogysme▪ thus. That which hath power and efficacy of it self to minister matter of prayer▪ need not any outward help, nor cannot touching the utterance of matter in prayer, stand with any outward help: But faith hath force and efficacy in it self to minister matter of prayer: Therefore faith needs not the help of a book, nor cannot stand with any outward help, touching the utterance of matter in prayer: And so consequently, the sighs and groans in prayer red, cannot be of faith. This consequence shall never be brought in, unless ye frame your argument after that sort. So that both these fantastical errors be included in your speech, the one, that faith touching the efficacy to minister matter of prayer is so absolutely perfect, that it needeth no outward help, the other, that it cannot touching prayer stand with any outward help. I do acknowledge that there be no sighs nor groans, nor any prayers that can be regarded of God, but such as come from faith. I do also hold, that faith is not in any, without some efficacy and power to utter some matter of prayer. But now we must consider the degrees thereof: for doubtless if there were in men a perfection of knowledge, of faith, and of quickness, there should need no outward help: but the best come far short of that. Such as approach nearest there unto, need so much the less any outward help. But the most are ignorant, weak, short of memory, dull and slow, and need all helps to stir them up, and to direct them, even as children, that are to be stayed up and led by the hand. Prayer indeed is a spiritual work, proceeding from faith, which is a spiritual gift, but yet it doth stand with outward means and helps. The Holy-ghost alone doth work faith in man, but yet it cometh by hearing, Rom. 10, Faith bringeth forth prayer, but we must consider, that as the same faith cometh by hearing, and is grounded upon the word, so is it cherished, supported, increased, continued, and quickened in efficacy, and made more forcible unto every good work by those helps of outward means. For further confirmation ye add, yea no doubt, a troubled mind is the pen of a ready writer. Let it stand in form of syllogism thus. That which is the pen of a ready writer, needeth not the help of a book. But a troubled mind is the pen of a ready writer: therefore it needeth not the help of a Book. The proposition is true, if by the pen of a ready writer ye understand an absolute perfection of knowledge, cheerfulness, direction, memory and utterance. But that was not in Moses, Daniel, Paul, or any other. Therefore here again ye run upon the rock of an heretical opinion of perfection. Your assumption, where ye say: no doubt, a troubled mind is the pen of a ready writer, is utterly false, and your bold affirmation without scripture is not enough, seeing there be many so perplexed and confused in the trouble of their mind, and oppressed with ignorance, that they cannot pray, nor know not what to utter: which, when they have instruction and consolation ministered unto them by some godly man, or if that chief help fail, by reading upon a book, pour forth tears and supplications.

Your next reason is in many words, which yet I will repeat.

I will also draw it into a syllogism, to the end it may the better be judged of. None worship God in spirit, but they which from the inward faith of the heart bring forth true invocation, that is, such as simply agreeth with the word of God. But all such as read upon the book the prayer which they pray, fetch the cause of their sorrowing from another man's writing in the time that they pray, and do not from the inward faith of the heart, bring forth true invocation. Therefore none that read their prayer upon the book, do worship God in spirit. The proposition I assent unto as sound and good: for it is no true invocation except it agree with God's word. It is not to worship in spirit, unless it proceed from faith out of the heart. But your assumption, which is, that all that read the prayer which they pray, do not from the inward faith of the heart, bring forth true invocation, I cannot allow, seeing ye bring nothing for proof thereof, but that which is most frivolous. For whereas ye say in the first part of your confirmation, that we would have men in steed of pouring forth their hearts, to help themselves upon a book, ye speak untruly and foolishly. For we wish men to use the help of a book that they may the better pour forth their hearts to God. Being such as are not otherwise thoroughly able.

The next part of your confirmation, is even to as great purpose, when ye say,

For how fondly do ye make that to be the cause, which doth but manifest the cause? for the cause of all sighing and sorrowing, is the sin and misery which is within us: which we may the better behold and express by instruction. I have grievous sin, and wrath belonging thereunto, which I do partly know, and can make some moan therein, and pray: I come into the public assembly, where I hear the minister preach the word, which doth more fully lay open and display my sin and misery: I am hereby driven into deeper sighing and sorrowing, with vehement prayer in my heart unto God: shall it be said, that I do now fetch the cause of my sorrowing from another man's speech in the time of my begging at God's hands? If not, then why should I be said to fetch the cause from the book, which also doth instruct me? the like may be said, when the congregation doth pray with their pastor: they fetch not the cause of their sighing from him: but are stirred up by him. Your next words stand thus. Ye are very angry, that I termed your reasons, by which ye oppose read prayer unto spiritual prayer, spiritual fantasies. But take you heed that they grow not to be worse. Ye are also grieved, that I call them your stuff, but how good stuff it is, let the pure word try. I said it is false doctrine to make read prayer serve only for meditation. My proof was this, that Christ saith not, when ye meditate, but when ye pray, say thus, Our Father which art in heaven: and here ye fling about as if ye had Beez. For first ye exclaim that I make small conscience to slander ye, because I said ye make read prayer serve only for meditation, which is false doctrine. Meditation (as I take it) comprehendeth all that is done in studying and musing when one readeth, the praying is another. If ye can show a third use when one readeth prayer, I will confess an error, otherwise, though ye have not expressed the word only, yet ye have in effect uttered so much, when ye say read prayer is not to be prayed. Secondly, ye charge me to deny that read prayer serveth for meditation at all, which is in deed false doctrine: because I said Christ saith not when ye meditate, but when ye pray say thus, Our Father which art &c. Do I not say truly that Christ saith not when ye meditate, but when ye pray, say thus, Our Father which art &c. How can you then but like Spiders suck that poison from thence? Thirdly, ye accuse me, that I make no difference between our own Leiturgies and the Canonical Scripture, which is a most frivolous cavil, seeing our question is about reading of prayer, whether it be Canonical Scripture, or framed from thence according to the rules of godly prayer. Thus have ye answered nothing at all unto that commandment which I alleged given by our Savior, to use that prescript form of prayer, but only by shift and cavil. Then ye go about to prove that every sin against the first Table of the Law is Idolatry, but with no show of reason. And here ye scoff because I said, if every sin that is against the first Table be Idolatry, who shall be saved? and ye demand who is free from Idolatry? an absurd speech: for the Scripture doth not call the godly either murderers, thieves, idolaters, or such like. I thought we had not reasoned about the relics of sin which remain in the best so long as they live here, but of such gross idolatry as a Church is to be condemned and forsaken which is defiled therewith. But seeing ye confess that all men be idolaters, that is, touching the remnants of sin, it must needs follow that there is no Church free from all spots, for if all the partes and members be defiled, the whole cannot be clean. This doth overthrow all the arguments which ye bring to condemn the Church of England, which have no force unless ye will maintain a perfection: for if a Church and every member in it cannot but of necessity be spotted and defiled with some remnants of idolatry, even by your own confession: then can ye not reason thus, this is a fault, it is idolatry, therefore this or that assembly which is spotted is no true Church, but to be forsaken. But ye must stand to prove that the idolatry is so gross, that it destroyeth the faith, overthroweth God's true worship, and so destroyeth the very life & being of a Church. Thus much about your preface, now follow your arguments.

In my first answer I did deal only with the assumption or second part of this Argument, affirming that I could not see how it can be proved, and showing sundry absurdities that would follow; as namely, that a prayer of the Canonical Scripture being read when one prayeth, should become apocrypha, &c. But you replied that those absurdities grow from my mistaking your words, and I saw it was so, for our question being about the reading of prayer, and not about the matter it self, I took it, that although ye hold the Lord's prayer, and other prayers in the holy Scripture to be Canonical in themselves, yet being read to become apocrypha, because ye say all read prayer is apocrypha, and did not express it with this restraint, all read prayer framed by men, is apocrypha. I must now take the Argument as you say your meaning is, and deal with both the parts thereof. First then touching the proposition, no apocrypha is to be brought into the public assemblies, what can be more false? Apocrypha is opposed unto Canonical, if nothing may be brought into the Church but the Canonical Scriptures, then the Sermons and prayers of the pastors and teachers are to be banished. I know your meaning is not at all to exclude these, although your words (taking apocrypha as it is in use among us) do in deed shut them forth, and not only them, but any paraphrase upon the Scripture, as the Psalms in Metre▪ Now to your assumption, which saith, all read prayer is apocrypha: first, it is false touching the Psalms and the Lord's prayer, which be Canonical when they be prayed. Then further, I see no fitness in applying the name apocrypha unto our speech to God, though it be used for that which is not his undoubted word to us. For by what name opposite to apocrypha, will ye call those prayers which ye do allow? ye will not call them Canonical, this Argument therefore is false and frivolous.

To this I answer at the first, that it is great audacity to affirm, that there is no warrant of the word for read prayer, whē there be sundry testimonies to warrant the same, unless ye will make a difference between that which a man readeth upon the book, & that which he hath learned out of the book. Further I said, I do not remember that ever I have read in the holy Scriptures, that God commandeth the prayer shall be read upon the book: for he commendeth this diligence in all his people, that they should thoroughly learn to understand, not only the matters, but also the sentences and phrases, which his spirit taught his holy Prophets and servants to utter in their prayers, and that this is the reason why there be so many prayers prescribed in the book of the Psalms, and in other books of the Scriptures: that whatsoever thing befall a man, wherein he is in the fervent affection of his heart to pray unto the Lord, if he have in memory the speeches which holy men in such distress uttered, it is a great help unto him, if not, he may help his memory with a book. To this you reply, that touching the use of sentences and phrases of scripture, you could easily consent, but that ye perceive I would not agree with ye in certain points, the first, that this is required only at the hands of God's children, with promise to be heard and accepted. I wonder with what eyes ye can see that I would not agree with ye in this thing, I put ye out of doubt, I hold assuredly, that none have promise to be heard and accepted but God's children, though they use never so much the sentences of Scripture in their prayers. The first hindrance of your consent is removed. The second is, that ye see I would not agree with ye, that the same spirit doth now teach God's childrē to pray, which taught the Prophets & holy men in other ages. I profess unto ye, that I hold it a wicked opinion, to deny that the same spirit doth now teach God's children to pray, which taught the Prophets, &c. and so the second let is removed. In deed here you and I dissent, that I hold, that as our faith is wrought by the word of God, so is it nourished and quickened unto prayer, and every good work by the same, and that the holy Ghost hath not only taught matters by the Prophets & Apostles, but also speeches and phrases sit for to utter y ^e same. And you hold that because the same spirit now teacheth to pray, which taught the Prophets & Apostles that either we may not, or we need not use their▪ speeches. The third stop remaineth, which is, that I take it, God should be delighted with words and sentences. You greatly mistake it and do but cavil: for I shown my mind, not that God would regard words & sentences, but we should be holpen and comforted by them. Thus the third and last hindrance is also removed, and now you may consent that in our prayers we may use the prescript forms, sentences, and phrases of the word of God. To my next words, where I said, the reason why there be so many prayers prescribed in the book of the Psalms, is: that whatsoever distress befall a man, &c. you reply: ye think I halt greatly, that our question being about Idolatrous leiturgies, I seek to shroud myself under the use of Canonical scripture. Indeed this would be a learned question, whether idolatrous leiturgies be idolatry? or whether it be not idolatry to pray an idolatrous prayer? who would look for so childish a shift? you know our question is about the reading of a prayer when one prayeth? And if it be not idolatry to use the prayers of the scriptures, even in their prescript form, then all read prayer offered to God as a sacrifice, is not idolatry. I reason thus: it is not idolatry to pray the Lord's prayer, or any other prescript form delivered in the Canonical scriptures: therefore it is no idolatry to use a prescript form of prayer, which is framed after the rules of true prayer: as to ask of God alone, through the only mediation of his son, and for no matters, but such as he hath promised to give: Ye say it is not true doctrine, that those Psalms and Scriptures were written that we should use in our prayers the words there set down. Your reason is because there be other uses. I do confess there be other uses, but that might yet be a special reason, why there be so many prayers prescribed. Then ye say ye do not disallow the speaking, according to the word of God, but that we might not affect so much the phrases of speech, as the true feeling of our wants, He that hath not the feeling of his wants in prayer, but affecteth phrases, is but an hypocrite. But ye are in a vain opinion, if ye think the use of the phrases and sentences of scripture, being fitly applied, is any hindrance either to the feeling or opening our wants, because where skill or memory faileth I would have them use the help of a book. I am, you fear, papistically affected unto words and sentences. I have already shown, that this is not to affect the words and sentences, but the instruction, the support and quickening which our faith receiveth by those words & sentences. And this doctrine is not as you charge it, disagreeing from the counsel of the Holy ghost, which willeth us to continue in prayer, to strive in prayer, nor contrary to David, which said, O my soul, &c▪ nor to Paul, who teacheth that the spirit helpeth our infirmities, and maketh request for us. But your doctrine, which saith, we must continue in prayer, therefore we may not use such helps: the spirit doth help our infirmities, and maketh request for us, therefore we may not be holpen by the prayers, or by the words of the holy scripture, is fantastical, for the Holy ghost doth help our infirmities, and teach us to pray, by the written word. You think it were hypocritical worshipping of God, to take help by a book, when we know not what to ask. If a man know not what to ask, he shall be able to understand little by the book. But a man may know what he should ask, and yet not so well able to express the same without help, both for memory and fervency. Stinted prayers (ye say) are as Cushions for idle papists, hypocrites, and Atheists. I grant that such people do abuse all the best things, shall the godly therefore be debarred from the use? I do teach, that whether a man of himself pray without a book, or upon a book, if he pray not in spirit with faith, he doth but offer the sacrifice of fools, his prayer is abhominable. Therefore it is but your lavish speech, when ye say I give liberty to the lame sacrifices: on the contrary, if a man pray in faith upon a book, or without a book, it is true prayer, and such as God heareth. God will have no strange fire put upon his Altar, say you. I grant it is so: but prayers framed by the rules of scripture, and offered up in faith, are not strange fire. Ye wish all men to take heed of this crafty doctrine, and I wish all men not to be to hasty in receiving new fantastical opinions▪ Your answer unto those two Psalms, which I noted, were given as a prescript form of prayer to be used of the Church, and the form of blessing prescribed to the Preests to bless the people withal, Num. 6▪ is more then frivolous. For touching the first, which is 92▪ appointed for the Sabaoth, ye grant it was at their meeting to magnify the praises of God, & many other Psalms. But ye demand, what this maketh for stinted leiturgies, papistical and erroneous, imposed, &c. I say, it maketh nothing at all for that which is papistical and erroneous. But it proveth that all read prayer is not idolatry, and that it is no stinting of the spirit, to use a prescript form of prayer. These fantasies of yours are first confuted thereby. Then next I argue thus. If I may use a whole prayer of the scripture, and no idolatry, then a prayer that is composed by the rules of the scriptures may be used, and no idolatry. You deny, that the argument drawn from the use of the Psalms doth follow, because prayers composed by men, are not equal to the Canonical scripture: and so shut out all prayers, if ye mark well what ye say, that are framed by the Preacher, For let them be holy and good, yet ye may not set them as equal with the Canonical scriptures. Again ye deny the argument, by affirming, that singing of Psalms was no part of prayer, but only for instruction and meditation: ye take upon ye to prove this a little after, and when I come to that, ye shall have answer. The Psalm. 102. ye say was not a prayer of the Church, because it is said, O Lord hear my prayer, and not, O Lord hear our prayer: a poor shift, when usually the church speaketh of her self in the singular number. Touching the blessing: ye say, that form of words was not to tie them to use those words, but after that manner, which is manifestly false.

Touching the orders of singers appointed by David, I alleged it to no such end, as you seem to draw it unto. But that in singing the Psalms, they did read them upon the book. Heer now ye do not only deny, that singing of psalms was any part of prayer, but also ye will prove it by the testimony of S. Paul to the Ephesians, and to the Collofs. where he exhorteth thē to speak unto themselves in psalms & hymns and spiritual songs. It is a foul audacity, contrary to the manifest word of truth, to affirm that the Psalms were not sunge to God, seeing that not only the speeches be directed in a multitude of places unto him: but also the Holy-ghost doth call upon men in this wise. Sing unto God, sing a new song unto him, sing praises unto the Lord. But beside this you go further, for in both places by you cited, ye leave out the latter part of the sentence, which is, that they should sing unto the Lord with grace in their hearts. Let the reader peruse the places, and judge what kind of trick this is. It is most clear, that they did read the Psalms upon the book when they did sing them. It is also out of controversy, that they did sing them to the Lord, unless we will deny the flat word of the Holy-ghost, and also affirm, that albeit the speech be directed to God, yet they did not in singing speak unto him. It cannot be denied, but that many of the Psalms be full of petitions. Also praise is a part of prayer, and a spiritual sacrifice: this was offered up to God, in reading upon the book, for it is said. Sing praises to the Lord: therefore I conclude, that read prayer hath warrant by the word, and the reading doth not make it idolatry, or contrary to spiritual prayer. Here ye complain again▪ that this argument doth not follow, because prayers composed by men, are not to be matched with the Canonical scriptures. I have answered this poor stale shift already▪ that the prayers composed by men are no further lawful, then they be framed by the rules of God's word for prayer.

Thus have I not, as you charge me, laid aside the question to make new questions: but have disproved that your old question, by showing, that reading the prayer which is godly, doth not make it contrary unto spiritual prayer, nor idolatry.

To the assumption of this argument, I answered at the first which I particularly rehearsed, how can ye then with any show of truth, say my words import a denial of the Antecedents, assumption and all. My words are these: The third argument saith, that the form of prayer is a bondage and breaking our liberty with, &c. The proves which I bring do only overthrow the assumption, for I did and do acknowledge the proposition, which you say my words import a denial of. I would wish ye to use more simplicity, I say it is ungodly and near unto blasphemy, to affirm that prescript form of prayer, is a tradition, bringing our liberty into bondage, and a changing the work of the spirit into an idol. My reason was and is, that the Lord by Moses prescribed a form of blessing which the Preests should use Nomb. 6. The Prophets, as in the Psalms, prescribed many forms of praises and prayers, to be used of the Church. Our Savior Jesus Christ prescribed a form, and said, when ye pray say Our Father, &c. If the very reading, or using the prescript form commanded, were a bondage, breaking Christian liberty, or a changing the work of the Spirit into an idol, then the Lord God, Moses, the Prophets, and our Savior Christ, are charged with a great fault. Your reply is with some roughness of speech, which I omit, because it is but your fashion. But for proof, that read prayer is man's invention, and thrust upon the Church by constraint, ye say England knoweth by woeful experience. There hath been I grant in the Church of England variance about some matters to be read, which are commanded in the Leiturgie, but not about the commanding a prescript form of prayer to be used: for therein our Church doth agree with all godly Churches, that a prescript form of public prayers is convenient, yea, the reformed Churches have and do practice the same.

Here therefore I would wish the Reader to observe, that you Brownists, do not only condemn the Church of England, but all the reformed Churches whatsoever, and can be none other but mere Donatists. For here in this your third argument ye affirm, that prescript form of prayer commanded, is the changing the work of the spirit into an idol, a tradition breaking Christian liberty, and therefore most detestable. In your fifth Argument, ye say, it is a dead letter which doth quench the spirit. But all reformed Churches do by commandment receive and use prescript form of prayers. Consider then what sentence ye have given against all the visible Churches of our time, and of former ages, for it will come to pass, that as the Donatists took themselves to be the only true Church in earth, so must you Brownists of necessity, if your speeches be weighed, seeing all Churches have and do things which you affirm to be most detestable idolatry: but let the matter come into question to be debated among the Churches, and you will be found Anabaptists for imagining such a Christian liberty and freedom in the Church, that nothing is to be received which is imposed by commandment. Then ye say, that it breaketh our liberty, S. Paul proveth most plainly to the Galatians and Colossians. I pray ye then that we may see such plain proof, which as yet none but yourselves can espy: note the sentences that will prove the matter. You take it, there is no warrant to set forth any prescript form of prayer, because Christ hath prescribed a form. Ye think I might more safely reason thus, Christ hath prescribed a form of prayer, therefore neither Pope, Bishop, or Prelate, ought to impose any other upon God's children, until they can show some warrant from God's word so to do. I am fully of your mind, that none ought to impose any other form, until they can show warrant from God's word. But now mark how the Argument will follow: Moses, the Prophets, and our Lord Jesus gave prescript forms of prayer and praising God, to be used by the Church: therefore the reading of a prescript form of prayer when one prayeth or offereth up the sacrifice of praise to God, doth not change the work of the Spirit into an idol, nor is not a breaking Christian liberty, nor idolatry, for the holy Scripture is far from appointing any idolatrous thing. Then I reason further, that if the Prophets and our Savior gave prescript forms to be used, the Church may take order to see them used. And from hence it doth follow, that the Church may impose prescript form of godly prayers, which are framed aright.

If any think this a strange consequence, let them consider that the Lord's prayer in general containeth in it matter touching the substance and sum of all prayers which have been made, or are to be made aright. The Psalms, and other prayers in the Scriptures, do express particulars, with sundry sentences, and phrases, most fit to express the same.

Now the Church hath power and authority, not only to expound these prayers, but also to apply them unto every several use and necessity. This I add withal, that the Church hath no authority to bring in any one thing in prayer, which is not contained in those prayers of God's word: but when the prayers be composed and framed of nothing but the doctrine of the Scriptures, and after the rules of true prayer, nothing is brought in which God hath not commanded. Lay aside therefore all your shifts touching Apocrypha, men's writings, and inequality with Canonical Scriptures, and bring your Arguments against the prescript form and the reading, to prove that they make a prayer holy in it self, to become abhominable, and contrary unto spiritual prayer.

That ye say, our Savior never used the words of the Lord's prayer, when he prayed, neither commanded his Disciples to say over these words, neither do we read that the Apostles did ever use, or enforced others to use certain words, &c. ye speak untruly, for the Disciples desired him to teach them to pray as John taught his disciples to pray, and he commandeth, when ye pray, say thus: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name &c. Luke 11. and S. Matthew an Apostle, with S. Luke the Evangelist, hath delivered the same to the whole Church, if we read not anywhere that they did use the Lord's prayer, or commanded others to use it? Will ye reason thus, we do not read that the Apostles, or the Church in their time, did baptize Infants, therefore Infants were not baptized? or will ye reason thus, we never read that the Apostles did pray either before or after they preached, therefore they did not? your argument is the very same with these two former, yet from hence ye will needs conclude, y ^t we will impose upon whole Churches certain words, even our own words, stinting the spirit of God.

I have already shown, that the Church hath not authority to bring any form of prayer into the assemblies, but such as is agreeable to the rules appointed for prayer by the word of God. And where ye call it a stinting of the Spirit, I answer, that the Spirit of God is not stinted, but some men are furthered by prescript forms, their infirmities requiring such an eye, as I have shown before.

These three I joined together as having no weight. Ye say I answer by plain contradiction, without Scripture, or proof. In deed you quote Scripture to prove those things which are not doubted of, as, that true prayer must be of faith, uttered with heart: that to worship God after another manner then he hath taught, is idolatry: that we must strive in prayer with continuance. But what scripture do ye bring to prove that it is presumptuous ignorance to use the help of a book, that those which read upon a book come not with faith and contrite hearts, &c. but stand reading a dead letter which quencheth the Spirit, and that a book is no help for continuance in prayer, what Scripture I say, bring ye to prove any of these? is not my bare denial as good as your bare affirmation, and in this far better that I have before proved the use of reading by y ^e word of God. David (say you) would praise the Lord with heart and doyce, therefore not upon a book. S. Paul would pray with the spirit, and with understanding, therefore not upon a book. David and Paul had not so much need of the book as other men. But whē they will other to sing praises to God, as in Psalms, & Hymns, and spiritual songs, did they not send them to the book, or to the prescript forms, wherein others might praise God together with them, although they bind not men always to the book. Then ye add a reason, why prayer read, cannot be true prayer: which is, that in reading we fetch the matter from the book which moveth the heart. In true prayer we fetch the matter from the heart, which causeth the mouth to speak: as, I believed, and therefore I spake. This is a most ridiculous vanity, for tell me this, when we bring forth in true prayer, matter from the heart which causeth the mouth to speak, hath not the heart been first moved with the word of faith? why may not the heart be moved again with hearing or reading the word, and so utter true prayer? the heart is moved when one heareth the prayer of the minister, and presently sendeth forth prayers together with him. Do ye imagine that the heart cannot both be moved and pray at the same instant? Is it not possible for one to pray in singing a Psalm?

To this I answered, approving the proposition, and in the assumption I did distinguish of matters to be prayed for, as that there be things necessary to be prayed for at all times, and of all men: of these a prescript form may be used at all meetings of the Church. There be matters not at all times needful to be prayed for: touching these, there can be no prescript form to be used continually, yea some things fall out so rare, that it were hard: for, as it is a fault to omit that which needeth continually and of all men to be prayed for: so is it a gross babbling to pray for things whereof there is no need. And if ye observe the prescript prayers of all Churches, ye shall find the regard of these two things, that nothing necessary be omitted, y ^t no prayer be for such things as fall out seldom, but they are limited to the time. And further, that which falleth out beside the prescript forms, the ministers of the word are to supply. And in the Church of England, the Preachers are not limited touching the matters of their prayers. But if I mean by the things which be necessary to be prayed for at all times, the Sacraments or any such things as Christ hath set forth in his word, we should think our Savior Christ, you say, to have forgotten himself, that when he did command them to preach and baptize, that he did not prescribe some form of words for their prayers, before their doctrine and Sacraments.

To this I answer, I do not hold that for the administration of the word and Sacraments, it is of necessity there should be a form of prayer prescribed: for the Minister may conceive the prayers at the administration of the Sacraments, as well as at the preaching of the word. But prescript form, is for conveniency. Neither am I of the mind, that one precise form is of necessity. Therefore ye reason very fondlye, in saying we might think our Savior forgot himself, that he did not prescribe a form of words for their prayers, before their doctrine and Sacraments. Your next words, that then I must further say, that all things necessary in the worship of GOD, are not contained in the Canonical Scriptures, and so every way uphold the Papists, are even as far wide. For all things necessary and convenient in God's worship be contained in the Canonical Scriptures. But are you ignorant of this, that there be many things contained in the Scriptures, which are not in particular expressed, but to be gathered from the general grounds and rules of doctrine. What if one should object unto ye, there is no commandment nor example of the Apostles in the scriptures, for any prayer to be made at the Preaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments. Therefore it is not contained in the Scriptures, that there should be any, and so a thing not necessary. Would ye not fly to this, that although it be not expressed by any commandment, that there should be such prayers, yet is it to be gathered out of the doctrine contained in the Scriptures? How gross are ye then, in saying that this doth uphold the Papists?

But ye say, it were well I set down what it is, that may be fit at all times, and for all persons to crave? I marvel any should be so babbling, as to propound such a matter, making doubt. For can ye be ignorant, that going through the whole Lord's prayer, and opening the particulars▪ there is no one petition, but almost all branches of it are necessary to be craved at all public meetings and of all persons.

When will there be a time, and an assembly, in which it shall not be fit for all to make supplication, that the name of the Lord may be sanctified: that they may receive the gifts and graces of the Holy-ghost, to embrace the true light of the Gospel, to increase in knowledge, faith, and repentance: to pray for Princes, for the whole Church, and for the overthrow of Christ's enemies? to have grace to obey, and to walk worthy of the Gospel. To crave all benefits for our necessary sustentation, and the pardon of our sins, with deliverance from the devil. They be all contained in the Lord's prayer, but we as children need to have them particularly expressed, in that manner which may best help and guide us.

And touching prayers at the Sacraments, they may very well be the same, seeing the things do ever remain the same which we are then to crave. Unless ye will maintain, that there be things in administration of Sacraments, at sometime to be prayed for, and not at other. Then so far as prescript form of prayer doth fully and fitlye express our need, it is no babbling, and so this your argument doth not condemn it.

Antichrist devised many blasphemous wicked prayers. But to say that the reading or following a prescript form of prayer was his device, is most false: for there were leiturgies in the Church of old, before Antichrist was set in his throne. And moreover, the prescript forms delivered in the scriptures to be used, and which were used and practiced by the Church, show that the thing is allowed by God. Ye say, I have confessed, that I never read in the scriptures any warrant to read prayers unto God: and then it must needs follow that it is antichristian. I say, you know that ye do falsify my speech. For I said and have proved, that it is great audacity to affirm, that there is no warrant in God's word for prescript form of prayer. But I do not remember that ever I read in the scriptures, that God doth command a man to read the prayer upon the book. My reason is rendered, that God doth commend such diligence in all his servants, as to have in memory, &c. Will ye gather thus, it is not expressly commanded, therefore there is no warrant? it is not expressly commanded that ever I read, that the Minister shall make prayer before and after his sermon. Will ye charge me hereupon, that I say there is no warrant for it in the word? There would sundry inconveniences grow for want of prescript form of public prayers. I did only mention this, that every frantic spirit, of which sort there may be some in the Ministry, will not only be unlike themselves, but vary from others. You reply, that the Papists have not so weak reasons for their idolatrous leiturgies, rubrikes, and Canons. It appeareth by all your arguments, how meet men ye are to judge of the weight and sufficiency of reasons, alleged by the Papists or others. Ye say, if it be but in phrases of speech, that they differ, it is no sufficient cause to ordain leiturgies. I grant that is true: then ye say, if it be in doctrine or conversation, the censures of the Church are to help that. I confess that the censures of the Church are to redress such things. But your reason yet hath two defaults. The one, that ye devide differing in administration of Sacraments and public prayers, but into two members, difference of phrases, and difference of doctrine. When as there be sundry other differences, as in order and ceremonies, which the Church is to have regard of, and not to leave arbitrary. Your experience in these matters, is not so great as your boldness. The other fault is, that because the censures of the church should redress defaultes, therefore there needeth no prescribed order. It is a world to see, how many men talk of the Censures and government of the Church, which know not what it meaneth.

The Church hath this power, to ordain according to the word of God, and to appoint such Orders in matters of circumstance about public prayer, preaching of the word, and administering of the Sacraments, as shall most fitly serve for edification. And then these Orders being established by public Authority, the Discipline and Censures of the Church are to drive men to the observation of the same. Who is able to imagine the innumerable divisions and offenses which would arise in the practice of your Anabaptistical freedom, in which, ye deny the Church to have power to ordain and to impose any orders? I would the Ministry of England were better then it is. If by terming it a frantic Ministry, you meant but to speak against unlearned and ungodly men, you should have leave for me: but you comprehend all the learnedest and godly, which you could not be bold to do, unless ye were taken with a frenzy, seeing there be many whom ye are never like in any measure of gifts and graces, either for knowledge, or Godliness, to approach near unto. Well, now ye fall to your sober reasoning again. Paul commanded the Colossians to admonish Archippus, you would have a Leiturgie for your Ministers, not only to tell them what they should do to men, but also to God himself: this is your last reason, and having before spent your strength, it is as a weak child of your old age. If ye had no better, I would never have set this last. For I marvel, unless ye did it to mock, to what ende ye should bring it in. Archippus was to be admonished by the Colossians, the Pastors are to be admonished by their flocks, therefore there ought to be no prescript form of public prayer. Or is your meaning, that the Leiturgies go too far in telling the Ministers what they shall say, not only to men, but to God himself. Then I answer, that the Colossians were to admonish Archippus, to look to his whole duty. Set Archippus aside, for he doth not strengthen, but weaken your argument, and take these words only, which seem to carry a great absurdity, namely, that the Minister should be told by a Leiturgie what he is to speak both to God and men. I answer, that the Leiturgie is not to teach Ministers, which otherwise cannot tell what to say: it is not to maintain an idol Ministry. But to avoid those inconveniences which I have before mentioned, and such like, you may see in the reformed Churches, they have Leiturgies, and yet all their Ministers are able, and know what to speak, both to God and men. I propounded this question, that if read prayers, and imposed Leiturgies be Idolatry, where shall we find a visible Church? You answer, that in this point they might err of ignorance, and yet be the true Church. This is some favor yet: the Church came now unto ye in a lucky hour, but ye may continue thus gracious, least the poor Churches of England crave the like at your hand. Have ye not set down, that to read a prayer upon the book, is to worship him with a worship disagreeing from his nature? have ye not said, it is the devise of Antichrist, a dead letter, quenching the Spirit, stinting the Spirit, not of Faith, Idolatry, a changing the work of the Spirit, into an Idol, a tradition and bondage, breaking our liberty which Christ hath purchased for us, and therefore a thing most detestable? Doo ye not deny that to be the Church of Christ which hath anything imposed? and yet ye say touching Leiturgies imposed upon all Churches, they might err in this point, of ignorance, and yet be a true Church. Your speeches do condemn all the visible Churches in the world, wherein, ye be rank Donatists. But you would hide this, and make show as though ye condemned only the Churches of England. But if read prayers and imposed Leiturgies be such as you affirm in those speeches which I have mentioned, how could ignorance excuse them? And why may not the Church of England be excused by ignorance? let the Reader here observe the pride of ignorant blind Scismatikes, which imagine they know more, then all the Churches of God in the earth. You take it that I use the Popish Argument of universality and Antiquity, and so wonder what I will say against the Papists traditions, seeing I fight with their weapons against the truth. Nay, if ye could see your own blindness, it would make ye marvel in deed.

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

The Papists do draw their Arguments of Antiquity and Vniuersalitie not from the Scriptures, as you may see this reason that I allege is, but against the Scriptures. And now how truly ye conclude touching this question of read Prayer, and prescript form of Leiturgies, let the Reader judge: and whether the Scriptures that I have brought, do not overthrow your fantastical and Anabaptistical errors.

There were joined with these Arguments against read Prayer, two other: the first is this. The Prayers of such Ministers and people as stand under a false Government, are not acceptable, not only because they ask amiss, but because they break God's commandment. The other is, The Prayers of such as be subject to Antichrist, are abhominable. Those Ministers which have no power with their people to receive in, and to cast out, having come in by the window, are Antichristian, and subject to Antichrist, therefore the prayers of &c.

These do concern the third and fourth accusation, and therefore the Aunswere is included in the Aunswere to them. Yet I took exception against the first, that the Church may be holden by force from executing God's commandment touching external Government, and yet be the true Church of God. And for example, I alleged the Church that was held captive in Babylon.

You according to your usual manner, extend this to a willful violating of God's commandment. And further, you deal in that which ye demand, as if all your accusations against the Church of England were true, touching Idolatrous worship. You should answer directly, whether they be not the Church of God which are by force, being willing, kept back from executing Church Government? You take yourselves to be the true Church, and yet ye are restrained from setting up those Orders which ye profess ye would. I would know whether this be not some bondage. If ye say yet this is not to be subject to any false government. To prove that the Church may of ignorance and frailty be in some bondage of a false government, and yet be the true Church, I indeuored to show, that Jerusalem from above is not in this world so fully possessed of her freedom, but that she, and everyone of her children, be in some spiritual bondage. For proof, I alleged that Saint Paul saith, He saw in his members a law, rebelling against the law of his mind, and leading him captive to the law of sin Rom. 7.

You cry out and say, ye will think me a carnal Libertine, if I recant not this doctrine. What Atheist (say you) would thus have defended his gross sin? I do not marvel that ye are moved so sore at this doctrine, for if it be proved that the true Church, and every member of the same, is tied in some spiritual bondage in this world, it breaketh the main pillar of Brownism, which they erect out of this sentence, Jerusalem from above is free with her children, and so their whole frame cometh down: this maketh you so hastily to thrust under a rotten prop, even as it came to hand. Ye say, that Saint Paul never continued captive unto sin after regeneration, neither gave place unto evil thoughts: no more do any of you. S. Paul saith, that the law in his members did lead him captive to the law of sin. He saith I do the evil which I hate. I myself in my mind serve the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sin. Was not David regenerate, and yet gave place to evil thoughts, so far as to commit adultrie and murder. If the regeneration and freedom of Brownists from all spiritual bondage be such, that they give not place unto evil thoughts, they shall never have any great company, unless it be of rank hypocrites, of such indeed there may be stoare. Ye look that I should recant. But I say, either you or S. Paul must recant: for that which you say, is flat contrary and opposite to that which he saith. Look well to it, for I tell ye, he is too constant to recant. If it please God to bestow his grace, you may. Ye say, what Atheist would thus have defended his gross sin? And I say, what Heretike could more boldly speak flat contrary to the blessed Apostle, and to the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures delivered everywhere, then you do? it may be ye stand chiefly upon the words of our Savior, which ye allege: that no man can serve two masters. If the regenerate be held captive in any part unto sin, they serve two masters. This needeth to be opened.

We are most sure that Saint Paul in that he saith, doth not differ from our Savior Christ, and yet in show he seemeth to speak quite contrary. For where the one saith: No man can serve two Masters. The other saith: I myself in my mind serve the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sin. How shall this be reconciled? is there no way but to fall upon the rocks of Brownism, and to imagine that the regenerate are so freed, that they be in no captivity unto sin, nor give place unto evil thoughts? Yes verily: The regenerate do fall into sin, not only in thoughts but in deeds: not only of ignorance, but even against their knowledge, as David, Peter, and many other in the holy Scriptures.

And therefore they may be said to serve sin in the flesh, that is in the corruption yet remaining in them, not extinguished by the law of the mind, that is the grace and work of regeneration▪ Yet the doubt remaineth, for all is but one man, so far as he is regenerate, and so far as he is corrupt: and therefore when in the flesh he doth serve the law of sin, the whole man may be said to serve the law of sin. S. Paul doth deny that, and saith: I do the evil that I hate, I consent to the law of God that it is good, I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man, it is no longer I that sin, but the sin that dwelleth in me. We see then the same man sinneth, and in some respect is said to be in captivity, and to serve sin, and in another respect he is accounted with God, not to serve sin, seeing he is by tyrannous forcing drawn to do that which he hateth. How standeth the freedom then of Jerusalem, and her Children? I say, her perfect freedom with all her children is in the remission of sins. Touching that she hath in this world, it may thus be compared. As if a man lie bound in chains, so that he cannot stir any member, and after his chains be loosed he can rise and walk: but yet his chains hang upon him, and are a burden, he cannot cast them off. For by nature we are so fast chained, that we have no moving at all in us, being dead in sin. But through the work of regeneration we are borne, we are raised, our bands and chains are loosed and broken: we can rise, we can stand, we can walk, though faintlye, our chains, even a lump of corruption in the flesh, pressing us down so sore. Then I conclude, that seeing the Church in this life is in some bondage to sin, and yet the true Church. And seeing there may be the true visible Church under some yoke of outward bondage: let the Church of England have that favor which other churches have had, and not be so rigorouslye condemned. Thus much touching the first accusation▪ together with your arguments against read prayer.

I did confess, and do still with grief, that in very many assemblies in England, all are admitted to the Table of the Lord, which offer themselves, even the most profane and gross sinners. I shown also, the reason of this grievous offense, namely that the ministers which should repel such open offenders, are many times the worst, or at least negligent in that behalf. And moreover, that the Church of England doth neither approve such admission of profane men to the Sacrament, nor yet suffer it in practice wholly. For touching practice, there be many congregations in the land, where sundry for ignorance, and open wickedness, are by the ministers kept back, and not suffered to communicate, until they show repentance. And for not approving such admission, I said, the book of Common prayer doth prescribe and command the repelling of notorious wicked offenders: and also that some are excommunicated justly, & not admitted to public prayer. This was the first part of mine answer: wherein I prove your accusation false. The other is, that the godly are not polluted by the company of the wicked, which are suffered to communicate with them in God's worship, and the thing not in their power to redress. And for example I alleged the Church of the Jews. By which I prove, that if your accusation were true, yet it destroyeth not the Church. Now let us examine how you overthrow this by your reply. Ye ask whether there were no more profane in the parish besides those twenty or thirty which are repelled? And whether those other profane were not admitted? I answer, If there were, yet the repelling of twenty or thirty in a flock, doth show that you accuse falsely, when ye say, all the profane, without exception of any one person, are retained in the body and bosom of our Church: But to prove your article at once, as ye say, by a more direct course, ye bring an argument. And ye demand if I know any in all the realm of England unbaptized. Is not Baptism (say you) a Sacrament belonging to the Church, by which all the faithful and their seed do enter into it? Wherevpon ye argue thus? All being baptized, it followeth that all are received into the body of your Church. Now being once received in, they can no way be cast out but by excommunication. And it is manifest, that the Parson and all his parish, hath not the pour which Christ hath left unto his Church, to excommunicate any offender, be he never so obstinate or notorious, &c. This being the only reason by which ye stand to prove the truth of your accusation, I must bestow the more pains about it. Thus it must be set in form. Where all are received in by Baptism, and no power to cast forth any by excommunication, there all the profane multitudes are without exception of any one person, received into, & retained in the bosom and body of the Church: But in the Church of England all are received in by Baptism, and there is no power to cast forth any by excommunication: Therefore in England, all the profane multitudes, without exception of any one person, are received into, and retained in the bosom and body of the Church. In your proposition there are to be excepted such as are repelled from the Sacrament, who are in some sort, for the time, removed out of the bosom of the Church. And also such Papists, Heretics, and Scismatikes, as depart out of themselves. It is further also to be considered in it, that all the baptized, continuing outwardly obedient, they cannot be justly called the profane multitudes. Your presumption, in which ye charge the Church of England with a principal transgression, for receiving in all by Baptism, and having no power to cast forth any by Excommunication, is with foul error and falsehood.

Touching the Baptism of Infants, this appeareth to be your judgment, that the children of profane men which remain in the Church, and profess the faith of Christ, belong not to the covenant, and therefore ought not to be Baptized. No doubt the Church doth offend, when open notorious sinners are not Excommunicate, and brought to repentance, or at the least to such a show of repentance, as that men cannot further judge them but as Brethren. It is also an offense, where such not being cast forth, their children are received unto Baptism, and that without care to see them brought up and instructed in the Christian Religion, and to lead a Godly life agreeable to the same. But to say, that the children of profane men, taking profane men as you do, which profess Christianity, and remain in the Church, are not to be Baptized, is a very wicked injury to God's people, and contrary to the manifest doctrine of the holy Scriptures, and cannot without Heresy be maintained.

First, touching profane people, it is certain that all Heathen Heretics, all Scismatikes, open contemners of the holy Religion, and all obstinate wicked men which despise the censure of the Church, that hath passed upon them, may be called profane. But you Brownists go further, and condemn them all as Infidels and profane, which profess the faith of Christ, because notwithstanding they do it in some weakness and infirmities: which is a wicked presumption, and intrusion into God's seat, and in which (as I have shown before) ye break the rule of discipline given by our Savior Christ, by which, no brother, that is, none which professeth the true faith, is for his sins and impenitence to be judged as heathen, until he have despised the admonition of the Church, and so be cast forth. You take upon ye to pluck up all the Darnell: ye are commanded the contrary▪ least ye pluck up the Wheat Math. 13. You dare, and that in most savage and desperate manner, rend and tear up the weak plants: ye do it unto whole assemblies, in which there be many that unfeignedly sorrow and mourn for their sins, and study to please God: all that fear the Lord, may tremble at this your intolerable wickedness. But now to proceed. Ye will not allow the children of profane men the Sacrament of Baptism. And what is your reason? they be not the seed of the faithful. In deed in this ye say true, that none are in their infancy to be admitted to this Sacrament, but the seed of the faithful: but when ye take it that the children whose next parents are hypocrites, or wicked and profane persons, which yet remain in the Church, and profess Christ, be not the seed of the faithful at all, and in any respect, and so within the covenant, and to be baptized, ye are far wide: for let it be that their next parents before have been hypocrites and unfaithful, yet may they be the seed of the faithful: for their interest in God's covenant doth (as being the seed of the faithful) not depend upon their next parents, but upon the ancient Christians their forefathers: for when he saith, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, the promise is made to a thousand generations, Exod. 20. It is said, that Leuy paid Tithes unto Melchizedek because he was in the loins of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek, and gave Tythes, Hebrews 7. ver. 9. 10. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Leuie, and yet of Leuie it is said, that he was in the loins of Abraham: yea, it must needs be confessed, that all the whole Nation of the Jews were in the loins of Abraham. Our Savior Christ according to the flesh, was in the loins of Abraham. For this cause, Saint Peter calleth all the Jews the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant Acts. 3. ver. 25. So doth S. Paul Rom. 9. and in that respect, they be all called holy, Rom. 11. If the first fruits be holy, so is the lump: if the root be holy, so are the boughs. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are the first fruits, and the root: all the Israelites the lump, and the boughs: but were they all faithful, no nor yet the greater part? for Esayas crieth, that if the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant should be saved, Isaiah. 10. How often doth the Lord complain everywhere of the grievous infidelity and rebellion in the greatest part of that Nation? Why then are they called holy, and the holy people, being many of them reprobates? Is it not because they be Abraham's seed, and were in the Church by outward profession, adding this withal, that the elect of God, even the right holy seed, were in their loins: for God's chosen did not spring only from the sanctified, but also from other, who touching the outward profession, and touching the holy seed which was in their loins, were esteemed as members in the Church, and were all of them, even the whole nation, called the holy people. It is not disallowed, that in the times of idolatry openly maintained, their children were circumcised. Nay further, the Lord calleth the children of those wicked idolaters, his children, Thou hast (saith he by Ezekiel) taken thy sons and thy daughters which thou broughtest forth unto me, and sacrificed unto them, to be consumed. Thou hast slain my sons, and given them, by causing them to pass through to them, Ezech. 16. ver. 21. These Idolaters did offer their children to Devils, even to the Idols of Canaan, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters, when they caused them to pass through the fire, Psal. 106. If the promise to Abraham and his seed had not been so effectual, as that the holy chosen seed was in the loins of these Idolaters, how could they be said to bring forth Sons & Daughters to the Lord? How could it be said, thou hast slain my sons? or how could they rightly have been circumcised? If ye say, these Idolaters should not have remained in the Church, but if not by the Civil power put to death, yet by the censure of the Church cast forth. Yea, but there was so general a declining, that neither of these was performed: and so they remained still in the Church, and brought forth children unto God, even such as the covenant made with Abraham did belong unto, they were in his loins, they were his seed, and not cut off by the wickedness of their next parents. If ye object that the Jews now at this day are the seed of Abraham, and by that reason should be still the visible Church▪ I answer, that although there be God's elect among them, whom either he taketh away in their infancy, or else calleth them to know Christ when they come to man's estate: yet the Jews cannot now be called the visible Church, nor the Church, in as much as they have rejected him in whom the Covenant was ratified, even the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore he said unto them, the Vineyard shall be taken from those Husbandmen, and let forth unto other. And then expounding himself, he saith, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from ye, and given to a nation, that will bring forth the fruit thereof. The Vineyard was not taken from those naughty Husbandmen that killed the servants of the Lord of the Vineyard which came for fruits, even the Prophets, until they had killed the son and heir himself. Now the natural branches are broken off, and the wild oliues, even the Gentiles, are graffed in, Rom. 11. They are now the children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise, as it is said, I have made thee a father of many Nations. And in thy seed all Nations of the earth shall be blessed. Our forefathers, many of them declyned in the Apostasy, and worshipped Idols: but as the Idolatrous Jews, so they remained still in the Church, and brought forth children to God, that is, such as were within the Covenant, to be accounted the holy seed, and so of right were to have the seal of the covenant set upon them, even Baptism. We cannot say therefore that the Covenant was disanulled, and that the Church utterly failed, no not even in the most horrible confusion of popery, but Antichrist did sit in the temple of God, 2. Thes. 2 Those idolaters were in the Church, and the heirs of promise in their loins, for we and all the Churches are sprung out of them, sealed with the sign of the Covenant, as of right belonging unto us from our holy ancestors. But you Brownists as Catabaptists, deny that we have the sign of the Covenant: for ye say we have no Sacraments. If we be not within the Covenant from our ancestors, what are you? who hath been sent from God to call ye unto a Covenant, which ye were not within before? Who hath given ye the sign of the Covenant? or have ye received a covenant without a sign? How will you endure this terrible voice of Almighty God: ye have rooted up and cast forth my sons and my daughters? For if it were said to idolaters, ye have slain my sons? how much more unto you, which in a most proud fury, with intolerable boldness and cruelty, root up and cast forth the infants of whole assemblies, which have renounced idolatry, and profess the Gospel, because ye do account them profane? Let it be, they are many of them nothing such as they ought to be, but sinners, and such as should by the Censures of the Church be brought into better order, yet professing Christ, and remaining in the Church, their infants are not by their ungodliness cast forth of the Covenant. I conclude therefore, that the Church of England, or at the least many of the teachers and guides do offend, in not executing the discipline upon ungodly men, to bring them to repentance▪ but in receiving their children to be baptized, they do not offend, so they see them taught in the faith, and to live a godly life, as our Church hath established, yea in refusing them the infants should receive great injury.

But to make this matter yet more clear, the question is to be answered, whether the Church of Rome be the Church of Christ. For the Brownists do hold, that our ancestors were not the Church of Christ in the time of popery, and that we now are confused multitudes, not rightlye entered into covenant with God, to become a Church, seeing we were not of God's true Church before, neither orderly entered into covenant. Indeed if we were not within the covenant before from our ancestors, nor entered orderly to become a Church, the matter would seem strong against us. Let it therefore be examined. I know this is the usual speech of the learnedest Deuines, the church of God is in the Papacie, but the Papacie is not the church. And it may be, the sense will differ little or nothing, but I take it a fitter speech to say, the Papacie is in the church, then to say, the church is in the papacy. For Antichrist doth sit in the Temple of God: his laws, his worship, and all his abominations, were brought into the church. All the men which received his mark, and worshipped him, were in the church, yea even the whole Apostasy was in the church. The church was before, and that cometh after, and entereth into or ariseth in it. Then to the question, if by the church of Rome we understand the Pope, his laws, his worship which hath been devised by himself, his adherents, and all that worship him or receive his Mark. I answer, that this is that which may properly be called the church of Rome, which is, the papacy, the apostasy, and seduced to damnation, and not the church of Christ, otherwise then thus, that the Pope, the Cardinals, and all that worship the Beast, be false Christians by profession, bred in the Church, and continuing in it, their seed not excluded from the covenant. But if by the Church of Rome, we understand all those companies of people, over whom the tyranny of the Pope hath heretofore extended it self, or doth at this day: or those things which were given by Christ, which remain in the same. I say, this is not the church of Rome, but the Church of God. First, if we respect the holy doctrine of God, in all those points which were and are kept sound among them, and the holy Sacrament of Baptism. Then secondly, if we consider the kingdoms and people themselves, all did not fall from Christ, but many held the foundation, the most of them lying scattered and hid in the desolations and ruins. Thirdly, if we regard that the infants not only of these faithful, but even of the wicked Apostates which worshipped the beast, were still within the covenant as the holy seed: we shall see that the papacy was, and is, in the Church, which is the Temple of God, and not the synagog of Rome. The Church of Rome then is not the true Church of God: but the Church of Rome is the Apostasy in the church. Let us come then more particularly. The church of England in the time of popery was a member of the universal church, and had not the being of a church of Christ from Rome, nor took not her beginning of being a Church, by separating hir self from that Romish synagog: but having her spirits revived, and her eyes opened by the light of the heavenly word, did cast forth that tyranny of Antichrist, with his abhominable idolatry, heresies, and false worship: and sought to bring all her children unto the right faith, and true service of God: And so is a purer and more faithful church then before. Idolatry was openly set up in the church of Israel, at sundry times. It did not, as I have shown, disannul the covenant of God with them, nor debar their children from the holy sign of circumcision, but all the Jews are called the children of the covenant. Then let the Brownist show some reason, why it should be otherwise in this case with our churches, then it was with the church of Israel.

Thus much for the one part of your assumption, wherein ye blame the church of England, for receiving in all by baptism. Now touching the other part of it, in which ye affirm that there is no power to cast forth any by excommunication, ye speak very falsely. For the church of England hath some power to excommunicate. But you reason thus: the person and all his parish hath not the power to excommunicate any one offender, therefore the church of England hath not pour to excommunicate. Is it possible, if a man would study to reason absurdlie, that he should excel ye? Will ye argue thus: every several part by it self hath not power to excommunicate: therefore the whole together hath not the power? It is not meet indeed, that the Parson and his parish should have the power to excommunicate, unless it be such a Parish as hath the Consitory of Pastors, Teachers, and Governors. It seemeth ye have great skill in the discipline of Christ.

The several flocks about Geneva without the City have everyone a Pastor, and two Elders: but yet they have not the power to excommunicate, but that is referred to the Consisiorie which is within the City, Master Beza, Epist. 20. Will ye say those several flocks cannot be the Churches of Christ, unless their pastors and they together have power to excommunicate? They are members of that church which hath power to excommunicate. But ye will say, that the excommunication of the Commissary is no excommunication, and therefore our parishes be no members of a church, which hath power to excommunicate.

The like ye will say of the excommunication by the Bishop himself, and by the Archdeacon. I answer, that if it should be granted ye, that their excommunication doth not bind in heaven, yet it is of force to remove, and doth remove from the societye of our assemblies, which proveth your accusation false, because we reason about this outward removing. But what if the Bishop, together with sundry other Ministers of the Gospel, do excommunicate duly an obstinate wicked man, is he not excommunicate before God? If there be an heretic convinced, and found obstinate, and the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England assembled, or some competent number of them, as in the convocation, or such synod do duly excommunicate him, is it no excommunication? Will ye reason after this sort, that because every Minister with his flock severally, hath not the power to excommunicate, therefore the Ministers of the Church of England are utterly without this power? You confess that it is the Church of Christ which hath this power, though it fault much by negligence in executing the same. I would all Brownists could consider, what it is to excommunicate, or to cut, not only particular persons, but whole assemblies from Christ, it would abate their horrible presumption.

Then for the suspension from the Sacrament, by which the unworthy, either for ignorance, or open wicked life, are separated from the near fellowship of the Church, I said ye might demand by what right the minister doth it? Ye say, that indeed would be known, adding moreover, that if it be in the nature of Excommunication, it were no small presumption in the Minister to arrogate such absolute authority to himself. I hold it somewhat in the nature of Excommunication, in such, as have been before admitted, but yet not to be compared as anything near so great as Excommunication: and nevertheless, I deem it no presumption for the Minister, to repel the unworthy from the Sacrament. He is to take heed to himself, that he give not holy things to dogs. He is to beware of that which may give public offense, and bring the holy mysteries into contempt. It is in deed no small matter to debar from the Sacrament. The Minister therefore may easily offend in this case diverse ways: as namely, if he be carried with evil will for private respects toward any, and so aggravate their offenses, and make that heinous which is not: or if he do not make the matter apparent so much as he can, that the flock may see there is just cause to repel them, and no injury offered, the crimes for which they are removed being notorious.

Now because I said, the book of common Prayer doth warrant this, here ye set up your bristles, and first it may not be let pass, but noted, that even the best of our Churches stand under this Idol by our own confession. This is a special note, and well marked. Why, did ye not know that we use the book in public prayer, and administration of Sacraments? Then ye ask if the book be Christ's new Testament, that we must fetch our warrant and direction from that Idol? I might ask you a question, whether ye be in your wits? for do we dispute here, whether a Minister is warranted in conscience before God to repel any from the Sacrament? I thought that you Brownists which take upon ye to judge, and utterly to abandon and cast forth whole assemblies which profess the Gospel, and which are esteemed of the godly Churches as Sisters, had made no doubt, but that by God's word the Minister is warranted to repel a notorious wicked man from the Sacrament. But I supposed ye would object, that by the established order and government of our Church, all power to keep the Sacraments from wicked profanation, is taken away from the Ministers, and for this I alleged the book. Let the Reader now judge, how fitly ye clap your wings and crowe, saying: In deed it is a fit Portesse for such Priests, and the suspension ye vaunt of, a fit tool for such workmen, even the instruments of that foolish Shepherd. If the judgment of God (you say) were not upon our right eye, we might see how our Lord's the Bishops do dress us, and perceive how this weapon that they allow us, wanteth both edge and point &c.

You speak, as if the Bishops did take upon them, and we submit our selves unto them, as Lord's over our faith and consciences, and as though we were at their allotting, when as in deed they be but ministers to see those orders kept which be already established, and have not authority to take from any Minister that power which the book doth give him: much less can one word of master Commissaries mouth heal the greatest wound (as you say) we can make with it. Ye say, not one in the Parish setteth a fly by it. Ye speak so confidently, and with such show of honesty, that I should believe ye in these things, if I had not for sundry years tried and seen your words false by experience. I said, such as be justly Excommunicate, as some are, be not admitted to the public prayer. Here ye bid see how God insnareth me in mine own words, and how hard a bad cause is to defend. What is the snare which I am here caught in? Forsooth I do here openly justify Excommunication by the Commissary, because we have no other power or means, and our Church wardens do stand sworn to that Court. But how shall I get out of your snare? I must be fain to break it, if it be not loose of it self. What if when I say some are Excommunicate justly, I have respect, not to those which Excommunicate, but to the desert of them that be Excommunicated. Again, it is untrue that ye say, our Church hath no power, but the Commissaries Court (as I have already shown.) Touching your next speech, wherein ye charge us, that we think to heal, or at the least, to cover enormities with these two dry withered fig leaves, the one, that we cannot remedy the matter, the other, that private men are not to reform: the answer shall be more fit, when we come to show what private men may do.

Now let us come to the other part of mine Answer which denied the consequence, though your accusation were true, which is this: Wicked profane men are received in, and retained in the bosom and body of their Church, therefore the Covenant is disanulled with them, and they are no longer God's people, but a false Antichristian synagog. To disprove this, I did allege, that there were but a few true worshippers that frequented the Temple among multitudes of profane and ungodly men. To which ye reply, that comparing our Church to the Temple of God, and still begging the question, I frame my Arguments as though our people were faithful, and our prayers holy. I pray ye what is the question which I beg? This say you, is the question, whether the assemblies in England be the true Church of God? and then ye would bear the Reader in hand, that I reason in such sort as I would first have this granted, that it is a true Church of faithful people, and holy worship. You should have done well to have shown how I frame my Arguments from the Question granted. But the truth is, ye can show no color here of any such thing.

Now may I charge you, and that justly, which I will also make apparent to all which will not shut their eyes, that instead of answering, ye do not only cavil, but most sottishly with a blind shift. For our question here is this, the Church of England doth receive in and retain in her bosom the profane multitude, therefore the Church of England is not the true Church. To disprove this, I reason thus, the Church of Israel retained the multitude of wicked ones in her bosom, for there were but few true worshippers frequented the Temple among multitudes of profane ungodly men. Therefore this fault doth not destroy the being of a true Church, neither is the worship and prayers of the faithful polluted by the company of the wicked which worship together with them, especially when they cannot remedy the matter. To overthrow this Argument, you must of necessity prove one of these two things, either that the Church of Israel did not retain the profane multitude in her bosom, and so the good and the bad worshipped together: or else that they were not God's Church when this was suffered, but all that came so together fell from God. You shift from this, and speak of Idolatrous times, in which it is most certain that the godly did not mixe themselves with the wicked in idolatrous worship. We do not argue whether the godly did join with the wicked in idolatrous worship, for it is most clear they might not, nor did not. But whether the wicked were suffered, and did join with the godly in the true worship? and whether they were polluted by communicating with them, and that so grievously, as to disannul the Covenant? let the Scriptures be judge in both these. If I should stand to recite all the testimonies, and all the complaints which are made by the Prophets against the multitudes of wicked which worshipped together with the godly at sundry times, it would be long, some few may suffice in a matter so evident. He that readeth the books of Moses touching the state of the Church for the space of forty years in the wilderness, what shall he find in the most but multitudes of profane rebels, against whom, the Lord sware, that they should not see his rest, whose carcasses also he overthrew in the desert, and yet they were not cast out of the assembly, nor separated from the rest so long as they lived, nor their seed rejected? If ye will see an epitome of their rebellions for that space, and for the time of the Judges, look upon the 106. Psalm.

Afterward, when the Kings of Judah reigned even until the captivity, what grievous complaints are made against them? A great part which came to worship in the Temple, were as Sodom and Gomorrah, Iesay. 1. & 3. Being the Lord's Vineyard, they brought forth stinking grapes. Iesa. 5. Having committed thefts, adulteries, perjuries, and other abhominable sins, they came together with the godly to worship in the Temple, in so much that the Lord demandeth, if they took his house to be a Den of thieves, Ierem. 7. The Preests themselves were not free from this horrible pollution, for it is written, they are all dumb Dogs that cannot bark, they love to sleep, they are greedy, and given to Wine, Iesay. 56. The Prophets prophesy lies, the Preests exercise dominion by their hand, the people love to have it so. Ierem. 5. ver. 31. The Preests conspire together, they are like a roaring Lion, they devide the pray, they do violence to the law, profane the holy things, and put not difference between the holy and profane. Ezech. 22.

What horrible things are these, by which the wrath of the Lord was kindled? But were they not still the daughter of Zion? Read for this the Lamentations of Jeremiah. After they were returned from the captivity, the print of the rod being yet in their skrinne, they were not freed from such pollution▪ for Malachi accuseth both Preests and people, and that heinously. They mixed themselves by Marriage with the Heathen, and profaned the Sabbath by keeping market upon it. Ezra. 9. Nehe. 13. From the time that God raised them up no mo Prophets, until the coming of our Savior Christ, their state grew worse and worse, not only by Sects, but also, that the Preests profaned the Temple, John. 2. Math. 21. The Teachers which sat in Moses chair, did expound the law corruptly in sundry points, they mixed their leaven, they were hypocrites, blind guides, covetous, and ambitious. Matth. 5. and 15. and 16. and. 23. These resisted Christ, and would excommunicate those that should confess him. John. 9. And yet the godly did not only worship together with them in the Temple, but also our Savior doth will they should hear them teach. Math. 23. If they had been polluted by worshipping together with them, he would have commanded to separate themselves. This were enough to show the gross heresy of the Brownists in this point: but yet I will add somewhat of the Churches founded by the Apostles. In the Church of Corinth, Saint Paul reproveth many things. There were factions and schisms among them. The Preachers did set forth the Gospel with human wisdom. The Pastors and Governors did not execute the discipline, but suffered the incestuous person. They straue one with another in the law before Heathen Judges. They feasted in the idol Temples, at the feasts which were kept in honor of the idols, and so were partakers of the cup of Devils. They profaned the holy Supper of the Lord, they abused spiritual gifts. There were among them which denied the resurrection of the dead.

A Brownist will here reply, that this Church did repent being reprehended by Saint Paul, as he witnesseth of them, 2. Cor. 7. I answer that they were God's true Church before they repented, 1. Cor. 1. and also that they did not all show repentance, as that second Epistle which he wrote unto them doth declare, and especially, these words: I fear, least when I come, I shall not find ye such as I would, and I shall be found such as you would not: least there be strife, emulations, wrath, contentions, backbitings, whisperings, rumors, tumults: least when I come again, my God abase me among ye, and I shall bewail many of those which have sinned before, and not repented for their uncleanness, fornication, and wantonness which they have committed, 2. Corin. 12▪ verse. 20. 21.

The seven Churches of Asia, Revel. 1. were not in every respect commended: for in some of them the Nicholaitans were suffered, and they that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and a wicked woman, which made her self a Prophetisse, was suffered to teach and to seduce the servants of God. One Church neither hot nor cold. Another had but a few in it which had not polluted themselves, Revel. 2. and 3. Yet are these named the Churches. I conclude therefore, that the not separating of some wicked ones out of the Church, although it be evil, yet is not such an evil as destroyeth the Church, and that the godly are not polluted by the wicked, which come together with them unto the public exercises of the holy religion.

Thus have I proved your article, or your accusation, partly heretical, and partly false. I have also made manifest, that if ye did accuse rightly, yet the consequence is to be disallowed as heretical, in as much as we see, that very often it hath come to pass, that heaps of ungodly men have worshipped together with the godly, and they not polluted by them. It may be some will think hardly that I account it heretical, that the Brownist concludeth after this sort, they have open sinners, and men profane in life, which do worship together with them, as members of their Church, therefore the covenant is disanulled with them all. I will therefore prove that I have said by strong arguments: the first shall be this. Whosoever maintaineth, that where any gross sins break forth and appear, there is not any true faith in the parties which offend, he doth contrary to the express word of God, maintain flat heresy: for we are taught everywhere, that regeneration which consisteth in putting of the old man, and putting on the new, is by degrees wrought in God's elect. Whervpon the holy Ghost compareth the spiritual birth with the natural. A man is borne a poor weak babe, not able to go alone, or yet to stand upright: he is nourished and fed with milk, and so in continuance, doth grow up by degrees unto man's estate. We are borne again, not of mortal but of immortal seed, even the word of God which endureth forever, 1. Pet. 1. wherefore he willeth, that laying aside all malicioiusness, deceit, hypocrisy, and such like, we covet the sincere milk of the word, that we may grow thereby, 1. Pet. 2. ver. 1. & 2. The regenerate are in many places exhorted to put off, and to mortify evil and unclean lusts, & to forsake their wicked sins, Rom. 12. Ephes. 4. Colos. 3. I am. 1. And if in many things we sin all, I am. 4. Yea evē such as are grown up in Christ to man's estate. How many, shall we then suppose, are the falls of poor new borne Babes? if David, Solomon, Samson, and many other, replenished with great grace, did fall grievously, how shall we look that other shall be free? Let the Church of Corinth be for an example in this point, even the teachers and people together, unto whom S. Paul writeth thus: I could not speak unto ye brethren, as unto spiritual men, but as unto carnal men, as unto babes in Christ. I gave ye milk to drink and not meat, for ye could not bear it, neither can ye now: for ye are yet carnal: for when as there are among ye emulation, contention, and discords, are ye not carnal and walk as men? when one saith, I am of Paul, another I am of Apollo, are ye not carnal? 1. Cor. 3. ver. 1. 2. 3. 4. Is not the matter as clear as the Sun, that he calleth them carnal, burdened with the flesh, and in that respect profane, as their open sins did declare, and yet babes in Christ, regenerate through faith, and the deer children of God? It is said of our Savior, He will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking Flax Math. 12. ver. 20. Saint Paul following the steps of his Master, in care, in love, in mercy, and compassion, toward the poor weak babes in Christ, behaved himself in the Churches, as a nursse unto hir little infants. 1. Thess. 2. ver. 8. But the fierce Brownists do maintain contrary to this manifest doctrine of the Scriptures: that where corrupt manners break forth in those that profess the Gospel, they be not only utterly void of faith which offend, but also, that all they which worship together with them, though never so much grieved at their sins, are fallen from the covenant most cruelly by this means, thrusting down all the weak, and casting forth all poor babes. I may say the strong together with them: therefore the Brownists do maintain heresy. Every faithful man is to follow the example of blessed Paul, in that which he doth testify of himself, how he forgot the things which were behind, and pressed forward toward the things which were before, even towards perfection, Phil. 3. ver. 14. But yet it followeth in the same place, nevertheless, in that unto which we are come, let us proceed by one rule, to be like affected. Shall the strong, when all are to take the journey together, run away, and leave the babes and the feeble behind them? nay, rather let them lead them by the hand, carry them in their arms, and upon their shoulders. Let the Brownists alone, who, as if they were airy spirits, disburdened of all lump of the flesh, mount up aloft, and leave poor heavy loden sinners crawling upon the earth. The other argument by which I prove them to maintain Heresy in this their second accusation, is this, Whosoever maketh the stableness of God's covenant towards his people, and with his Church, to depend upon the works of men, he mayntayneth flat Heresy: for albeit the words of the Covenant be these, I will be your God, and you shall be my people, which implieth a true sanctification required to glorify God, and to be thankful, yet the Covenant is wholly and altogether of mercy, yea even of the riches of his free grace, who hath promised and sworn unto us to declare the stableness of his counsel, that we might have strong consolation, Hebrews 6. verse. 17. We are saved by grace, and not by works, Tit. 3. As the Covenant was made unto David in some particular, so was it to Abraham and his seed in general. Then thus it is written: I will make him my first borne, higher then the Kings of the earth. I will keep my mercy for him forever, and my covenant with him shall be stable. I will set his seed forever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children shall forsake my law, and not walk in my judgments. If they shall profane my Statutes, and not observe my commandments: I will visit their defection with the rod, & their iniquity with plagues. But I will not disannul my mercy towards him, nor falsify my faith. I will not profane my covenant, nor alter the thing which is gone out of my lips. I have once sworn by my holiness, I will not lie unto David, Psal. 89. v. 28. If the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, did not stand after the same sort stablished upon the free promise of grace, and upon the oath of God, how could it be said after all the defections and rebellions of the Church of Israel reckoned up, and after he had chastised them, that he remembered his covenant with them, and he repented through the multitude of his compassions, if it be said, they repented, and so returned again into covenant with him, and obtained mercy. I answer, they repent not but by his mercy and grace which he bestowed upon them, because they were within his covenant. Now the Brownists in affirming that by open gross sin committed by any, if they remain still in the Church, the covenant is not only disanulled to them, but unto all that do communicate with them, and so make the stableness of God's covenant, not to depend upon mercy and free grace promised and bound with an oth, but upon our works, yea, and in a more tickle estate, even upon the works of other whom we must judge. Therefore the Brownists maintain very wicked heresy, when they cry out, that those assemblies where any open sinners are not cast forth, they be no longer the true Church of God, but the Covenant is disanulled with them all that do join together in that society. I might here make an ende touching this second principal transgression, but that there be certain particular reasons, by which they stand to maintain their opinion. First, to this effect many do speak. If there be wicked men suffered to come to the Table of the Lord, the Minister and Ecclesiastical Governors do commit so grievous a sin, that they cannot but be utterly void of the true fear of God. Then, he which is a wicked man, cannot be a Minister of Christ, and being no Minister of Christ, there is no Sacrament of Christ delivered, how then shall a man communicate with that assembly? I have shown before, that there be great sins and great neglect of duty oftentimes where there is the true faith in weakness, and so they sin damnablie, which take upon them to judge them no Christians. The faithful in Corinth were blinded in their own faults, and very securely did the Pastors and Governors suffer the incestuous person to continue among them. And whereas they say, that if the Minister be ungodly, he can be no Minister of Christ, it is false: for the man touching his own person may be a reprobate, and yet touching his ministry, a Minister of Christ. Judas was a Minister of Christ, and baptized, John. 4. ver. 2. they were as truly and effectually baptized by him, as by Peter, and yet in himself a Devil, John. 6. verse. 70. The two Sons of Eli were horrible wicked men, 1. Sam. 2. ver. 12. 22. and yet they are called not only Priests, but Priests of the Lord, 1. Sam. 1. verse. 3. Eli himself did offend, and was sharply punished, that being not only their Father, but also high Priest and Judge, he did not put them from the dignity of the Office, but did honor them with the same, not regarding God's honor, 1. Sam. 2. verse. 29. The Scribes and Pharisees who were not all of the Sons of Leuy, for Saint Paul was a Pharisee, and the Son of a Pharisee, but yet of the Tribe of Benjamin, were Ministers of the Church, for Christ saith, They sat in Moses Chair, and willed men to hear them, notwithstanding, they were blind guides, hypocrites, proud, covetous, ambitious, and very reprobates, Matth. 23. Then, next they allege, that a little leaven doth leaven the whole lump, 1. Cor. 5. Therefore where one open notorious Sinner is admitted to be a member of the Church, all are leavened and polluted, all do fall from God. I answer, that Saint Paul rebuketh the Corinthes, that they were puffed up, and did glory when they should have sorrowed: for as many as had the power of the Discipline in their hands, and did neglect, were partakers of his sin, and not only they, but of private members, all that did not mourn and lament to see such a foul matter winked at. As the Lord himself doth clear all those which mourned for the abominations of Jerusalem, Ezekiel. 9. so were they free and not leavened, which did mourn at Corinth for such abuses. Moreover, it is very false to say, that whole Church was leavened, or polluted with the sin of that wicked man, therefore they were not the Church of God. For being guilty not only in that fault, but in many other, he giveth them the honor of God's Church, writing to the Church of God which is at Corinth, 1. Corinth. 1. Then are objected the words and commandment of the Lord by Saint Paul: If any that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunckard, or an extortioner, with such see that ye eat not, 1. Cor. 5. Some hold, that this commandment is given only against the eating with an open sinner at the Lord's Table, seeing we may eat common bread with such as be very wicked. Others do argue thus: If it be not lawful to eat common bread with a wicked man, how much more unlawful shall it be to eat with him that holy bread of the Lord's Table? as the Anabaptists lighting upon these words of our Savior Christ, but I say unto ye, Swear not at all, Matth. 5. do gather, that it is utterly unlawful in any respect or at any time to take an oath, and err, in not considering the circumstances whereby the words uttered in general, are to be restrained unto the particular abuse, and rash swearing. Even so the Brownists, taking the words as they stand, and not waying the circumstances, do maintain absurdities. They draw their Argument of comparison from things in which the sin or pollution is not: for the sin is not in the eating of the common bread, neither in eating the bread of the Lord with the wicked, but in circumstances. For I may eat bread with open sinners, and offend thereby, and I may eat bread with notorious wicked men, and not offend therein, yea, I may grievously sin, in refusing to eat with them. I will express how. If there be open gross offenders, and my familiarity with them, or my eating with them, cannot be, but I shall either be partaker of their sin, or countenance and harden them in the same, I offend, if I do not shun their company. If any brother in the Church be convict of foul sin, found obstinate▪ and so Excommunicate▪ every member of the Church even by the commandment of God, is to have no fellowship with him, that he may be ashamed, 2. Thes. 3. v. 14. But yet we are willed in the same place, not to account him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a Brother. For if men should now in familiarity, receive him to their table, or go to his table, it would harden him in his obstinacy, and bring the censure and power of the Church into contempt. This is that S. Paul dealeth about. The wife of this man, his children, and servants may eat with him, or any other, where it cannot be eschewed, for then it doth not countenance him. Now if I be in a ship upon the sea, among a company of vild wicked men, or in a prison, or in an army, and can have no meat, unless I eat with them, if I refuse, I famish myself to death, and so offend greeuouslie. We see then it is not the very eating with them that doth defile, but the circumstances. Even so is it at the Lord's table, where wicked men be admitted. For such as do admit them, having power to repel, do offend in eating there with them, because they countenance them in their sin. But now a private member which is grieved at this, and doth what lieth in him to have it redressed, doth not offend, nor is not polluted by eating with them. But as he, that among the wicked in the ship, in the prison, or in the Campe, doth offend in refusing his bodily sustenance: so shall he, if he refuse that heavenly food of his soul, for all the wicked cannot corrupt the same unto him.

This man hath no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. This man doth obey the Commandment, come out from among them, separate yourselves, and touch no unclean thing, &c. For he toucheth not their sin, but the holy things of God: for the separation from the wicked, cannot be always in body. Where there is idolatry practiced, and the faith and true worship overthrown, we must depart both in mind and body: but from wicked men in the Church, we cannot depart in body, unless we will also depart from Christ.

If it were otherwise, how should the faithful, without pollution, worship as they did in the Temple, among so many profane men? and how should those few at Sardi, Revel. 3 have kept their garments unpolluted, among that heap of ungodly men? Now let the reader judge, whether I have in a frantic manner, as you accuse me, blasphemed the name of Christ, by comparing ye unto Anabaptists, and Donatists, in this your condemning and forsaking the Church for the evil men which be in it. I would to God both you and others could consider that which is written of King Saul, when as the holy Ghost saith, he was zealous for the Children of Israel and Judah, 2 Samuel. 21. and would root out the Gybeonites. Did not the Lord declare by the three years famine, and by causing some of the house of Saul to be hanged, how cursed his cruel zeal was, which yet he had some color of from the law, which willed them to root out the Heathen? The cruel zeal of Brownists, which seemeth to be for the Church, is more without excuse, when they will needs root up the natural plants, as now they may be called, yea even the whole assemblies, both old and young.

The third fault is an Antichristian ministry imposed and maintained. Here is no reason rendered, why it is a false and Antichristian ministry which is imposed. If ye be Prophets raised up of God, then we must believe that which you say: but they did not lie in any matter, but every man may see that you have in the former article lied, we may not therefore give, &c.

What reasons ye have brought in your two former accusations, or in this third, to prove the Ministry of England Antichristian, let all wise men judge. Indeed if we will admit false accusations, and heretical opinions, for reasons, then have ye said somewhat, for in them ye are prompt and plentiful. The shame ye speak of, that I am like to sustain by mine answers, I do not fear at all. It appeareth plainly by your words, it doth not please ye, that ye are not encountered in disputation by some famous learned men, so desirous ye are of that glory. But is it meet, or is there any reason, that presumptuous, bold, and rash ignorance, should not be encountered but with great learning: Sophisters, nay poor artificers and Husbandmen, are the evenest matches to dispute with ye? If I had counseled with my learned brethren, ye say, they would have counseled me not to write. You have put on the Lions skin, and so imagine, that all the learned do tremble at ye, and the truth is, they have espied your long ears: (But rather to have used my discretion in the Pulpit, as they do, where we may say what we lust without controulement, for they consider an evil matter is to be raked in,) &c. If I did not know the contrary, ye are so confident in your speeches, that I should almost believe ye. But now that I know, as sure as any thing may be known, that you do impudently slander and belie the learned, who though they disdain to deal with mad frenzy, yet they like well, in respect of the poor people which are ready to be seduced, that your matters should be answered, how will ye persuade me, or others, that ye are not without care what ye speak? And if there be any spark of modesty left in ye, I will not say, make some due proof, but even a colorable show, that the learned of this land, if I had conferred with them, would have given that counsel unto me▪ which you affirm, and for that cause which you mention. Now come your reasons, you are persuaded by the word of God, that a true minister of Christ, cannot be a minister of idolatrous and false worship. Ye are rightly persuaded, and I am fully of your mind in this point. But where ye say ye have proved our worship to be such, therein ye fail, for ye have falsely accused, but not proved. Then ye were also persuaded by the word of God, that a true Pastor cannot stand an heard to the Lord's Goats and Swine, blessing them with the blessing of the faithful, and delivering to them the holy things of God, as the Sacraments, &c. I have shown also in that your second accusation, how presumptuously and heretically ye have dealt, in judging Christian men to be Heathen and Swine. In this third accusation, your reason is in the word imposed. That ministry which is imposed upon the flocks, is Antichristian, because they be not freely chosen by the Lord's faithful people, &c. But the Ministry of the Church of England is imposed, &c. I take exception against both the proposition and assumption of this argument. For the proposition, albeit the imposing of a minister upon the flock, may carry an injury to the Church deprived of hir privilege and right: yet it doth not follow, that the same minister or his ministry is Antichristian. Our Savior in the place ye allege, John. 10. speaketh only of Heretics and false Prophets, which clime over into the sheepfold, he speaketh not of any which lead the sheep to the door, that is to Christ, whether their calling to the office have been such in all respects, or not as it ought to be. Secondly, if by free choice of the faithful, you mean that in the choosing of a Pastor, the people or private members of the flock are to give their voices, or else the minister is imposed and Antichristian: then do ye condemn all the Ministers of France, of Geneva, and other Churches. For they are not chosen by the voices of the people, neither do they hold that way the most convenient, for the people to declare their consent, but rather their silence, as ye may see in diverse Epistles of Master Beza, and namely in the last. But when a flock is destitute of a Pastor, their choice is after this sort: The Prebyterie or Senate of Pastors and Teachers, do examine and make trial, and choose him whom they shall find every way qualified for so worthy a function. The matter being made known to as many as may be, and especially to that flock over which he is to be set, that if any can allege just cause why he is unworthy of such an office, they be heard, otherwise after a due kind he is ordained and put into possession of his Ministry. Then touching your assumption, the Ministers of the Church of England (as ye say) be imposed: If ye understand by imposed, that they be all thrust upon the flocks against their will and liking, or that the flocks have no power to take exception, ye speak untruly. For there be many flocks in England, which have those Pastors and Ministers of the Gospel whom they have desired to have, and made choice of, I mean by suite, both to the Patrones, and to the parties whom they desire to have: and if any of the people can show just cause against the party which is to be ordained, the Bishop may not admit him. There follow now many boasting words, with which ye march in triumph, it is pity to put them out of their array. You require one reason at the least to confirm our Ministry: I confess it is a reasonable request, but first, I must answer that which ye bring for to overthrow it. To prove our Ministry not to be of Christ, but to have his negative: Ye say, ye find not in his Testament the names we carry, the offices we bear, the manner of our entrance and administration, our support and maintenance. Touching our names, we are called Ministers of the Gospel, Pastors, and Teachers, which be the Tytles given in God's word. The names of Parsons and Vicars, are not to make any distinction of the Ministry, but of the state of maintenance annexed unto the same. The Offices we bear, are to teach and instruct our flocks by the wholesome word of God, to administer the Sacraments, and to make public prayers. And I am sure, these are prescribed in Christ's Testament, and if your eye were not malignant, ye might espy them there. Our entrance is not by intrusion, but by calling, and that in many, by the desire of the flocks, as I have shown before: and for the manner of our administration, it hath been dealt in at large in the first accusation. Our support by Tythes and such like, is not maintained as a matter of necessity, but as the most convenient. The word of God hath given the general rule, that the Minister of the word is to be liberally maintained: the manner touching circumstances, is to be ordered for most conveniency by the Church, and power of the Christian Magistrate. For many things are lawful, and in the power of the Church to ordain, which are not particularly named in God's word, but contained in general rules. Your next words are far sharper, and cut more deeply, yea, even so deeply, that woe be unto us all, if you have not the venomous tongue of liars and false accusers. Ye use a gradation to set forth our pedigree, for we are (ye say) the children of the Bishops: The Bishops are the creatures of the Pope: The Pope is the eldest son of Satan, and his vicar general in earth. Now, as ye have set us here under a very honorable parentage, so do ye show us great kindness, in setting us forth not to be degenerate, but to bear the image, the mark, the power and life of the Pope: and together with him, to grow, live, reign, stand, and fall, as the branches with the tree. Here is the very bottom of your gall, here is your poisoned sting thrust as deep as is possible. But let your words be examined: and by the steps that you ascend, I will descend. The highest is the Devil, the father of lies: Next unto him, the Pope his eldest son, and vicar general in earth. In deed I am resolutely persuaded, that the Pope is the Beast, unto whom the Dragon gave his power, his Throne, and great authority, Revel. 13. of whom it is said in the same place, that all the world wondered and followed the Beast. They worshipped the Dragon which gave power to the Beast, and they worshipped the Beast, saying: Who is like to the Beast, who is able to war with him? This no doubt is that man of sin, who hath exalted himself above all that is called God, or that hath imperial majesty, sitting in the Temple of God, and boasting himself as God: whose coming should be by the effectual working of Satan, with all lying signs and wonders, 2. Thess. 2. He hath set up the very worship of Devils, with all abhominable Idolatry, and blasphemous heresies and lies. He hath not only usurped and challenged a civil power and Lordship over Kings, but also a spiritual Dominion over the consciences and faith of man, to make Laws at his pleasure contrary to God's word, to bind the same: this is the vicar general of the Devil. Then to come to the next step, where there is no question nor doubt neither to be made, but that all Popish Bishops be the creatures and children of the Pope, in as much as they have their calling, and consecration, and power derived from him; in as much as they swear obedience unto him, to maintain his dignity, his tyranny, his doctrine, and his laws: and in as much as they challenge together with him a Lordship and tyranny over the conscience. But the Bishops of the Church of England have not their calling, consecration, or power frō the Pope, but frō our Church, which hath forsaken the Church of Rome, as the Sinagog of Satan. The Bishops of England acknowledge no subjection to the Pope, but by an oath renounce his usurped power & tyranny. The Bishops of Engl. are not ordained to maintain or defend y ^e religion & laws of Antichrist, but quite contrary, they promise and profess to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, & by the lively word, to cut down all idolatry, heresies, and popish abominations. Finally, the Bishops of Engl. do not usurp a Lordship over the faith & consciences of men; for the power which they have peculiar in the Church, is only in the administration of external government. It is therefore with manifest & wicked sclander, that ye term the Bish. of Engl. Antichristian, the creatures of the Pope, and such as have his power & life in thē, yea such, as whosoever is ordained by thē, hath his ministry frō Antichrist, and from the Devil. There is controversy about the state & government by Bishops, whether y ^e Church of Engl. hath not erred in committing into their hands the execution of discipline, which is the matter to be handled in your fourth accusation: but to gather from hence a pedigree from the Pope, is very foolish. Let us come then to the lowest step, which is in the ministers. We have labored in study of holy things, to be fit for the Ministry, and so furnished and instructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, as to be like Householders that bring out of their Treasures things new and old. We desire to call men that wander in ignorance and sin, unto the light, and so to build the Church of Christ. We know, no man is to be Judge of his own sufficiency, nor to intrude himself into public office, but to be tried and ordained by the Church which hath that power committed into her hands from Christ. The supreme Magistrate, and Church of England have committed this trust unto the Bishops, judging it the quietest and safest way. We are presented unto them to be examined and tried, to be ordained and put into possession of our Ministry by them, and from them to receive the power to execute the same, not as theirs, but the Churches, which hath put it into their hands. It is the ordinance of God, and not the device of Antichrist, that Pastors and Teachers shall be tried and ordained by Elders, Pastors, and Governors, and set over his people. We receive only this Ordinance, and such as have any understanding may see, that the question cannot be whether the power it self be from Antichrist, but whether there be not error and defects in administering the same, to the hurt and damage of the Church? Now further, having received this authority, we Preach the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and by the pure doctrine of the same, we convince and overthrow Idolatry, superstition, and Heresies. We correct and reprove all manner of vices, inform and exhort unto true Godlines. In performing these things, we draw men out of Popery, by letting them understand, that the worship of Popery, is the very worship of Devils, and that the Pope is Antichrist.

This Roman Antichrist and his adherents do feel, that the ministry of the Gospel in England doth destroy his kingdom, and therefore stirred up by the Devil they rage, and by all devilish means, seek to destroy our noble Queen and Country. Except therefore you Brownists had even let loose all the reins of your tongue, and after a shameless manner to lie and slander, how could ye pronounce, that the ministry of England is Antichristian, and of the Devil? or that it is in the life and power of the beast, to live, to reign, to stand, to fall together with him, as the branches with the tree? In the next place, ye have whet & filed your cankered tongue, to utter very vile reproach, against the nurseries of all good learning and holy religion within this land, the two Universities. I know not how idly, and in what heathen vanity ye spent your time there yourselves: but this I dare avow, and make the challenge, and let trial be made, I will bear the shame forever if it be not found true: that there be many in the Universities, and not above the degree of Bachelor of Arts, unto whom the principal Masters of Brownism are inferior: if we respect either the Liberall Arts, or the knowledge of toongs, as of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, or a sound judgment in Divinity. If this can be attained in few years, with more then Moonkish idleness, the Brownists may in something be believed. Some do abuse the liberal Arts: but to condemn Logike, Rhethorike, and the rest as vain and curious, as you do, is a very beastly error. Saint Luke, from whom ye draw your phrase of speech, Act. 19. doth not speak of these, but of Magicall science. I do not marvel, that blind Schismatikes do so bitterly iuueigh against learning, seeing it is their bane. For they seek victory, triumph, and glory over all the learnedest, and if there were no learning to discover and to lay open their nakedness and shame, they would much prevail, and be had in greater reputation. Thus do the Brownists labor to bring in savage barbarism. But yet here, up goeth your sails again, and ye have wind at will, and never so much sea room, as when with bitter slanders and reproaches ye roll away. Ye wrap up altogether for the offenses of some. Ye reckon up certain things of circumstance, and in themselves indifferent and yet upon your credit we must take them to be odious enormities. Ye are up with perfidi, tyranny, and the statutes of Omry. Your frenzy is great, I did advise, that men would suspend their judgment, and inquire of the Churches touching the Ministry of England. Against this ye cry out, and ask, if it be the best counsel I can give them? I answer, it is the best, being that which God hath ordained. Have ye not read, that the Preests lips shall keep knowledge, men shall inquire at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts? By this it is clear, that whensoever Heretics and Schismatikes do raise doubts, it is God's will that the people shall inquire for resolution out of the word, at their mouths whom he hath raised up, and set as the greatest lights in his Church. Yet see how sottishly you cavil against this. Ye take it I would have them do things which they doubt off, and my words are but to have them suspend their judgment, until they inquire, and not to be too rash in following the call of blind, presumptuous, and heretical schismatics. Then ye say, I send them over the sea we wotte not whether, &c. They make doubt of us, we are the men whose Ministry is in question, we send them therefore unto those of whom they can have no doubt, and that is to the worthy instruments and servants of God, the Pastors of other Churches. I do no not send them over the Seas, for there be diverse godly Churches of strangers within the land, as the French, the Dutch, the Italian: there be the churches of Scotland, and no sea to pass, nor diversity of language so great as to hinder: we have also the writings of all the worthiest. Ye say I send them unto the word of man: which is false, for I do send them unto the learned pastors, to be resolved by the word of God. These have the calling unto this office from God, and his blessing upon those which seek it with humility and reverence. It is not to use old popish worn arguments, but yours is the course of all arrogant proud heretics & schismatics, which covet to draw the people to depend upon them, that they may have fame, & to forsake their Pastors, which take it grievously, that they should seek resolutiō anywhere but at their hand. Whether shall we judge the godly learned ministers of the Churches above named, which have their calling from God, or the unlearned & rash Brownists, intruding themselves without calling, and run before they be sent, fittest to inquire at for resolution? It were a pretty thing, to hear the Harlots in the stews, even in good earnest to boast and glory of their chastity. Who is more fierce and outrageous, more uncharitable in condemning, then ye Brownists? And yet ye brag of such patience and charity, as cannot be overcome. Then ye turn yourselves to those poor souls as ye term thē, whom we, like miserable Physicians seek to cure: and your Counsel you give them. I do allow it, for it is the same in effect, if you could see, that I gave them before. I would to God the people did follow it: we should not then have one Brownist, The Devil counterfeiting Christ's voice, in heretical schismatics, should not be able to allure and call away the sheep from their shepherds. Now remaineth the last point only, that I show some reason to prove our Ministry to be of Christ.

The ministry of the Gospel, which bringeth the word of faith and reconciliation between God and the world, is the true ministry of Christ, for the Devil and Antichrist ordain no such ministry. Now the ministry of the Church of England, doth bring no word nor doctrine, but the sacred scriptures. It preacheth faith in God through Christ, and the doctrine of repentance, delivering the holy sacraments, as seals to confirm the same. Let all the schismatics in the world bark against it, and say we have no word nor Sacraments: yet this is the holy word: God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. It may be said, that many ministers in England, do not, nor cannot preach the Gospel, how then is their ministry the ministry of reconciliation? Here note, that as we must distinguish between the ministry and the man himself which is the minister: for the man may be of the Devil, and yet his ministry of God: so must we also distinguish between the function it self, and the execution of the same. For when one is called to be a minister of the Gospel, which is able, and doth not preach, the defect is not in the function, but in his negligence about the execution. Likewise when the office or function is laid vpō him that cannot preach, the function it self is entire, the defect is in the execution thereof, through his disability. I say therefore, that the Ministry of England is the Ministry of the Gospel, though some do not, and some cannot Preach. Then further, such as have the calling and ordination of the Church, have the Ministry of Christ: for it is given to the Church, to have power to call and ordain Ministers. Now if the Church do fault and break, either by error or negligence, in some rules which are to be observed about this calling and ordinatiō, yet the power is not disanulled, nor the function destroyed, unless we will hold, that where there is transgression either of ignorance, or otherwise, the whole is overthrown: and so conclude, that there is no prayer nor worship of God, nor any true service done unto him under heaven, because all is with errors and faults.

In England the Ministers have their calling and ordination by the Church of God. For that people which hath forsaken heresies, and false worship, and embraced the doctrine of the Gospel, hath in it the true Church, which hath the power. And the Ministers intrude not themselves, but have the power given them by the hands of the Bishops, who do it not by their own authority, nor by any authority from Antichrist, but as committed to their trust by public authority. Moreover, that is the Ministry of God, which is to bring men to the faith, and to build up the body of Christ. The Ministry of England is to none other end. For the whole drift, the whole scope, and burden laid upon them, is to feed with wholesome doctrine, and to guide in the way of godliness, the sheep of Christ, walking before them in godly conversation. The Brownist will not take himself here convinced, but will say, these causes are but pretended, and are not in truth. I will therefore now reason from the effect, together with that which is properly adjoined to the Ministry of Christ. That Ministry, with the execution whereof there is joined the effectual grace, power, blessing, and operation of the Holy-ghost, to the true conversion of men's souls, is not a Ministry of the Devil, nor of Antichtist, nor cometh not in the life and power of the beast, but is indeed the true Ministry of Christ. I think the Brownists will not be so beastly as to affirm that the grace and operation of the holy Ghost to the conversion of men's souls, is joined to that, and worketh by that which is of the Devil, and cometh in the life and power of Antichrist. Then it remaineth only, to show that there hath been and is this grace and work in the execution of our function. If the Brownists will deny that ever they felt that majesty and power in the preaching, which cannot be in the words of man, but only in that word which is sharper then any two edged sword, and pierceth so deep, as to be a discerner of the thoughts and secret intents. Or if they will deny that ever they have been driven by it unto hatred, sorrow, and remorse for sin, and raised up with comfort and hope of forgiveness, and with the promises of eternal glory: Yet unto many other which by it are converted unto the Lord in deed, which unto fear and trembling do feel the power and sweetness of the lively word, it may be said, as S. Paul speaketh to the Corinthians: for when his adversaries did deny him to be an Apostle, the Corinthians by his Ministry were begotten in Christ: whereupon he saith, If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet am I unto you, for you are the seal of mine Apostleship in the Lord▪ 1. Cor. 9. ver. 2. Even so, if the Ministry of England, be not the Ministry of Christ unto others, yet you cannot doubt of it: your faith, your repentance, your joy in the Lord, are the seal of it. You cannot but see and know, that they be vile blasphemous wretches, which bear ye in hand, that it is not the word of God, nor the grace of his spirit which worketh in ye, but the power of the Devil, and the spirit of Antichrist. You know it is the direct way which the Devil taketh by his ministers to bring in flat Atheism, to disgrace and throw down the credit of the ministry. But doth it not make against the Ministry of England, that many of the Brownists confess they have been greatly moved at sometimes with the power of the preaching, and at the administration of the Sacraments? for may it not be said hereupon, that it is but a deceyuable show of grace and power, for if it had been in truth, it would have continued? I answer, it is sufficient to prove the Ministry, and that the power of the holy Ghost goeth with it, when men have been so moved, although they do not continue, seeing the reprobate do feel the power, and taste the sweetness of the word for a time, Hebr. 6. He that hath therefore felt the power of God in his soul by the preaching of the word, and now doth not, the fault is in himself. If the Brow. do further reply, that they be not true Christians which yet are moved by the preaching, the motions are deceitful. Then I will frō that which they confess, show that such people are truly faithful. For they confess, that they were blessed and holy Martyrs that suffered in the days of Queen Mary: and I say they were converted by the same ministry which we have now. They had but the same motions at the preaching of Latimer, Howper, Taylor, Bradford, and others, which our people have now. If the people at this day then feel the same effect in their souls at the preaching and Sacraments, touching faith, repentance, and resolution to die with joy for the testimony of the Lord if he shall require it, let the Brownists, and all other wicked Scismatikes bark that we have no Ministry, we have no Word, we have no Sacraments, nor true Church, yet the godly wise shall be able to discern the voice of Christ from the voice of the Devil, and perceive that the power of our Ministry is not of the Devil, but of the holy Ghost, whom they have most wickedly reproached.

The fourth fault is, in the subjection to an Antichristian government. If it were admitted that there is some yoke of Antichristian government, under which, the poor Church may groan, as it is her lot to be oppressed with outward bondage, to be made to keep the Vineyard which is not her own, to be beaten of the watchmen, to have her veil taken from her: is she therefore no longer the Spouse of Christ?

To this fourth accusation, my answer was very short: for I did only propound this question, whether it be no longer the Spouse of Christ which is oppressed, and doth groan under some yoke of Antichristian government? and shown my judgment, that it is the lot of the Church to be oppressed with outward bondage, alleging for proof some what out of the Song of Solomon. At this ye are stricken with such wonderment, that as men carried almost beside yourselves, you begin with a vehement exclamation: and three things there are in my speech which have cast ye into this agony: the first, that (as you say) our Churches stand under an apparent heavy yoke of Antichrist, and I speak of the true Church oppressed with some yoke of Antichristian government: the second, that I say it is the lot of the Church to be oppressed with outward bondage. This ye term a blasphemous error, because as ye say, bondage is the badge of Antichrist, the mark of the Beast, whereby his soldiers are discerned frō the soldiers of Christ, &c. The third, that I falsify & pervert the places of Scripture which I allege to prove that God's Church may be oppressed with some outward bondage: where you will redeem the places from such violence and corruption, and give such a glimpse, that simple men of understanding shall discover and search out the false dealing of such watchmen, and the greatest clarke of us all shall be taught hereafter how to abuse the scripture for a cloak to cover our sins. O what valiant fellows you be, who shall be able to stand in your hands? the greatest clarks in this land are but babes to such mighty giants: how shall I do then? I must now defend myself in these particulars above named. I will let the question about the heavy apparent yoke of Antichrist alone, unto the last place, under which ye falsely charge our Church to stand, and deal with that first which I set down. Where the first question is, whether the true spouse of Christ may be under some yoke of Antichristian government. The second, whether it be her lot to be oppressed with outward bondage. The third, whether those places by me alleged be rightly applied to prove the same. I will not deal severally in these, but in all together, because they be all but one in effect. Now to speak precisely and strictly, the yoke of Antichrist is only spiritual & inward, where the faith & conscience are burdened, and be in subjection, to receive his laws and worship. This cannot be borne, without falling from the freedom we have in Christ. But in a longer sense, we call it Antichristian, whē the pastors of the Church, or any of them, do usurp more then they ought, in external government, or tyrannously abuse the power committed into their hands. This is that which I called some Antichristian yoke. Now the very point of the question is, whether the true spouse of Christ hath ever been oppressed in this by any of her governors, as her lot in some outward bondage? I hold that she hath, and for proof, I alleged those sayings out of the Song, against which you take exception, as places wrested, which shall be considered, after other testimonies shown. Then I demand of ye first, whether it was not the spouse of Christ, whom the Lord calleth Israel, his sheep and his flock? The pastors of Israel did not only scatter these, but ruled over them, and exercised dominion by violence & tyranny, Ezech. 34. v. 4. What say ye to this, the Prophets prophesy lies, the Priests exercise dominiō by their hand, & my people love to have it so, Ier. 5. v. 31. Was there no true Church under this ruling of y ^e priests? Pashur a chief priest in the temple, stroke Jeremiah the Prophet, & put him in the stocks, Ierem. 20. ver. 1. will ye affirm that there was no true Church then? Come to the time in which our Savior lived upon the earth: for as yet the kingdom of God was not taken away from them, which is threatened, Matth. 22: but the high Preest, with the other Preests, with the Pharisees and Elders of the people, had the Ecclesiastical power, which they tyrannously abused, and by it oppressed the faithful, as appeareth in diverse places of the Gospel, and namely in John. 7. ver. 13. and John. 9. ver. 22. Diotrephes ambitiously abused the power of government, when he withstood S. John, as he testifieth in his third Epistle written unto Gaius. I wrote (saith he) unto the Church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore if I come, I will declare his deeds, railing at us with malitions words: and not content therewith, neither he himself receiveth not the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, & casteth them out of the church. ver. 9. 10. Dooth S. John tell the Christians, that this tyrannous oppression by Diotrephes, did make them to be no longer Christ's Church, which remained under him? Did he will them to separate themselves, and not to obey him any longer in anything? Our Savior saith, the time will come, that they shall excommunicate ye. John. 16. ver. 2. Antichrist himself sitting in the Temple of God, seduced the reprobate, but could not destroy the Church, which yet he did grievously oppress, and keep in some bondage. Whereby it appeareth, that Solomon speaketh of that which should fall out often, and be even as it were the lot of the Church, to be injured, oppressed, and kept in some outward bondage, even by those, at whose hands she should find most comfort, holding the places of Pastors and Governors: as we have seen in the Church of Israel before our Savior came, at the time he lived, and also in the Church under the Gospel.

You bring in diverse scriptures, which prove, as you imagine, that an outward oppression of the Church in external government, doth make an utter deuorse betwixt her and Christ: but he that considereth those things which I have before noted, and the sundry oppressions of the Church, by her Pastors, shall easily perceive that Anabaptistical freedom which ye glory of. For howsoever the Church with her Children are free with God, and receive no yoke upon their faith and conscience: yet in outward things they may be oppressed. You could abide well enough that phrase of speech oppressed, but to say, the Church of Christ may be in any bondage, ye term a blasphemous error. Because bondage ye say, is the badge of Antichrist, the mark of the Beast, &c. Take heed of the saying that is written, 2. Pet. 2. ver. 19. That the seducers promise liberty, and are themselves the bend servants of corruption. For you imagine and glory of such a full and perfect liberty, as that ye account it a blasphemous error, to say the Church may be oppressed with outward bondage. It is strange that there should be such a bold spirit in rotten flesh, as flatly to contrary the spirit of God. For the Lord said to Abraham: Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall oppress them. But the nation whom they shall serve, will I Judge, Genes. 15. He saith, he brought them out of the house of bondage, or of bond men, Exodus 20. Will ye affirm that the Church was not oppressed with outward bondage in Egypt? will ye deny that they were led captive, and held in outward bondage in Babylon? cannot this word bondage, which the holy Ghost useth, be allowed of ye? must bondage of necessity be the badge and mark of Antichrist? when the Lord threateneth by his Prophets, that his people should go into captivity, and that there should be a yoke of bondage laid upon them, doth he give them over to wear the badge of Antichrist? or so to be servants unto men, that they could not also be his servants? Indeed the Anabaptists do hold, that we cannot be servants unto men in any outward bondage, & yet be the servants of Christ, grounding their heresy vpō the places which you allege. If all manner of bondage be the mark of the beast, and the badge of Antichrist, and a loosing of Christian liberty, as you and the Anabaptists would have it: then how could S. Paul say, Art thou a bond man, care not: thou art the Lord's free man, 1. Cor. 7? Let no man suppose that I charge ye over hardly, with this gross point of Anabaptistry, because our question is about Church government, and I speak of civil bondage: for ye speak generally of outward bondage, and deny that it can be the lot of the Church, or of any member thereof. The word bondage, though it▪ be outward, cannot in any sense be allowed by you, to agree with your freedom. Now for the places in the song, My mothers sons were angry with me, they set me to keep the Vines, mine own Vine I have not kept. In this place the Church willeth: first y ^t they should not look scornfully upon her, because she is somewhat black. Then she showeth, that it is not her native color, but she is sun burnt: the sun (saith she) hath looked upon me. There followeth the occasion, that her mothers sons were angry with her, set her to keep the Vines. Who these be whom she calleth her mothers sons, is the greatest difficulty to find. Tremellius (whose interpretation in that point ye follow) doth expound it of original sin, & the lusts which she hath frō the womb: other take it, & more fitly, of false brethrē, which boast thenselves to be true worshipers, & children of the church, which she calleth her mothers sons, because they descended frō the ancient mother church, & were the degenerate children of holy forefathers, for I take it somewhat hard to cal sins or concupiscences her mothers sons. But take it whether way ye will, either of original sin & concupiscences, or of degenerate children, among whom there were many, even of the Pastors & governors, yet ye cannot avoid, but y ^t there is a violence, an oppression▪ & some bondage: for she saith, they set her to keep the vineyards. Howsoever you would slily insinuate, that it were but negligence, & that when she repenteth, she is so cleared, that she is in no bondage unto sin at all. But when ye have caviled what ye can, it standeth clear by the scriptures, y ^t the Church in her perfectest repentance, even with all her children, is held in some spiritual bondage unto sin, but yet she is not obstinate I grant, for she hateth the evil she doth, & laboreth against it. I do not gather from this, that the Church either did or may, keep Antichrists Vine, as you demand, what a bold falsifiyng of the place this is? But I say: what a bold impudency is this in you, so to falsify my words? For I allege it, to prove, that the Church is subject to be oppressed 〈1 page missing〉 bable so much of Antichrist and his yoke. Then let him prove that every error, abuse, and great fault in discipline, doth overturn it, and make it become Antichristian, yea, Antichrists yoke, so far as to make it no Church which is subject to such oppression. It is most clear that a Church may err in sundry points of Doctrine, and not be Antichristian, but the true Spouse of Christ. And an error in Doctrine, if it be foul, doth approach nearer towards the overthrow of faith, then an error or an abuse in external government.

Moreover, if the execution of discipline by Bishops be the yoke of Antichrist, and if all the Churches which do stand under the same, do worship the Beast and be no Christians, it must needs follow, that such as did ever execute this power, were Antichrists, and no children of God at that time, or before they repented. But this is false even by your own confession, which acknowledge, that those worthy servants of God which sometime executed that power, and after suffered death for the Gospel in the days of Queen Mary, were blessed Martyrs. I conclude therefore, that the Brownists cannot but with heresies, and most heinous injury, and inordinate dealing, condemn a Church as quite divorced and separated from Christ, for such imperfections and corruptions in God's worship, as be not fundamental, nor destroy the substance: for that wicked men come with the godly to the public exercises of religion: for some wants in calling, and ordaining Ministers, and in Ecclesiastical discipline.

Article 1.

The Brow.

We seek above all things the peace and protection of the most high, and the kingdom of Christ our Lord.

G. G.

The first Article is that which all true Christians do seek indeed. But the kingdom of Christ, or the kingdom of God (as Christ saith) is within men: it consisteth in righteousness and peace and joy of the holy Ghost. For the preservation of this, Christ hath ordained a Church government. They sin against God, which do not covet, and according to their calling, labor to have so great a help. But to transport the name of Christ's kingdom, which is chiefly Spiritual in the heart, unto this, which is but a part, and as though the kingdom of God could not be in any, unless they have this (so they do not willfully despise it) I say is false, and the contrary to be proved by the Scriptures.

The Brow.

Our Article being by you confessed to be the bounden duty of all true Christians, we see not with what equity you can in this manner cavil at our words, or with what conscience you can misconstrue and constrayne them as you do, seeking thereby to retract by sleight, what you cannot gaynesay in truth, and taking occasion to contend about words, namely, the kingdom of Christ, you make it only inward, and use Christ like one of the Physicians Planetarie Signs, assigning to him in hypocrisy your heart and soul to rule, whilst in the mean while you yield your bodies and whole assemblies to the obedience and rule of Antichrist, making no conscience to obey his laws openly, and to transgress Christ's, thinking belike Christ's kingdom so inward and spiritual, as that he requireth no bodily nor outward obedience, or because it consisteth in righteousness and peace and joy of the holy Ghost, that there may be peace without righteousness, or joy without peace or inward righteousness, where is such outward disobedience, and willful transgression, &c.

G. G.

I did confess, and do still acknowledge, that this first Article is that which all true Christians should seek. I hold, that Christ's Kingdom is chiefly inward and Spiritual, and that the discipline is but a part thereof: yourselves have repeated my words, and yet charge me, that I make Christ's Kingdom only inward, assigning the Soul to him, and the body to Antichrist to be ruled. I cannot but wonder at your boldness in lying. You say, that to discuss how far every Christians calling and duty extendeth herein, were to dismiss all mine answers, and to pluck away the mantle of shame wherewith we cover our nakedness, negligence, and abominations. I marvel why ye do not then discuss it: for we hold, that no man is to labor beyond his calling to reform anything amiss in the Church: and when it shall be declared unto what bounds and limits the calling of private men is restrained, I am sure there will be no mantle nor rag to cover the presumptuous dealing of Brownists, which intrude themselves without calling. Ye let this thing pass therefore, and will only ask two questions. The first is, whether any which have their calling of Antichrist, be his marked Ministers and waged servants, can truly and uprightly covet and labor for Christ's sincere government; which is his whip wherewith he scourgeth out all thieves, intruders, and idle bellies out of his house? The other question is, whether to remain wittingly and servilely in the bondage and yoke of Antichrist xxix. years, be to labor for the government of Christ faithfully in our callings? Ye must grant me some time to answer to these two questions, and that shall be when you answer these two which I propound. The first is, whether ignorant, heretical, and rash Scismatikes be meet and competent Judges to condemn all the learned Ministers in a Kingdom? The other is, whether false and lying accusations be to stand for due proof? Ye seem to grant, that the Kingdom of God may be in the scattered faithful which yet have not the discipline: I did not charge ye with the contrary, but only shown how I did allow the Article. Yet remember what ye do hold in this place.

Article 2.

The Brow.

We seek and purpose to worship God aright according as he hath commanded in his word.

G. G.

This second Article ought all men that will please God to approve.

The Brow.

This article say you, ought all that will please God to approve. How then seek you to please God? which continue in idolatry, and are a minister thereof, which prophecy in Baal, and plead for Baal? or how approve you it, when ye condemn us of schism and heresy, because we forsake your false and Antichristian worship, and seek to worship Christ according to his word?

G. G.

When ye have proved that our worship is Idolatry, and that we prophesy in Baal and for Baal, let men take ye to be no schismatics nor heretics. But such as boast that they seek to worship God according to his word, and yet arrogantlye break sundry special rules thereof, cannot but in their vain bosting be liars, as S. James saith, against the truth.

Article 3.

The Brow.

We seek the fellowship and communion of his faithful and obedient servants. And together with them, to enter covenant with the Lord, and by direction of his spirit to proceed to a godly free right choice of Ministers, &c.

G. G.

The third Article, if it be taken in this sense, that ye do set up a society separated from all other within this land, which make public profession: then I see not, when ye have gone by yourselves, and set up your officers, howe you will clear yourselves from Donatism. If theirs were a damnable fact which God did accursse, then take heed to yours. For if it can be shown, that their heresies are not holden by you, I will change my mind.

The Brow.

The words of our article being, that we seek the fellowship and communion of Christ's faithful and obedient servants, &c. clear us of all schism and heresy, so far forth: so that if you would convince us of these crimes, it had been expedient you had first proved your assemblies as they generally stand, by the evidence of God's word, to be true churches of Christ, rightly entered and keeping covenant with the Lord, continuing in the order and obedience of his word, &c. and that we preposterously departed from ye, & uncharitably have forsaken your fellowship. But as soon as you shall show us such a church amongsts you, by the grace of God we will show, how free we are from schism. As likewise when ye shall lay open our error unto us, how far we will be from heresy. In the mean time we will not cease to pray unto God for ye, that he will not lay these sins unto your charge, which in your ignorant zeal you commit, but in mercy show ye, the fearful estate ye stand in, and give ye a heart, unfeignedly to repent, & speedily to turn unto him.

C. G.

Your own bare words, whatsoever ye profess by them, cannot be sufficient to clear ye from schism and heresy. I have shown, that our Churches are from ancient descent within the covenant, and that by such evidence of God's word, as no heretic or schismatic shall be able to overthrow. I have also shown, that the stableness of God's covenant with the Church, is founded upon the free promise of his mercy, which though we have sinned with our fathers, and done wickedly, so that there hath been great apostasy in the Church, yet he remembereth his covenant towards us. I have also shown how preposterously ye have departed, arrogating that power to Judge whole assemblies, which doth belong to the Churches of Christ, and without any orderly proceeding, according to the rule of the Gospel. And moreover, that ye have most uncharitably and falsely accused our Churches. We cannot show ye a church, nor any one member of a church so perfect, but that there be many defects and faults. A true church being shown among us, though ye repent, yet can ye not be free from schism, which is already committed. And touching your heretical opinions, and gross errors, time will declare how well ye will perform this promise, not to become heretics. I know I am in the right way, albeit I am so far from running, that I do scarce creep, I desire the prayers of all the faithful, that I may proceed in it. But the prayer which you promise to make for me, is much fitter for yourselves.

Article 4.

The Brow.

We seek to establish and obey the ordinances and laws of Christ, left by his last will and testament, to the governing of his Church, &c.

G. G.

The fourth article, ought all godly men to practice, so far forth as the limits of their calling do extend. But let it be shown, that ever private men did take upon them to reform when things were amiss in the Church, or that any of the Prophets did will them to take the matter in hand, or show your warrant that ye be not private men.

The Brow.

This Article you first allow, and after restrain it, to we wot not what limits of calling. But if ye grant it to be the duty of every true Christian, to seek to establish and obey the ordinances and laws of Christ, left in his Testament, to the governing of his Church, without any altering, &c. It is as much as we endeavor or purpose. Otherwise we allow not that which the law of God condemneth, either intrusion without lawful calling, either transgression in calling, or presumption above calling. Our purpose is not to meddle with the reformation of the state, otherwise then by our prayers unto God, and by refraining from all things that be contrary to God's laws, &c.

G. G.

You say that I first allow this article, and then after restrain it to ye wot not what limits of calling. How is this true, when I make the restraint even in the first sentence? for I allow it no further then the limites of every man's calling do extend. It is no marvel that ye say, ye wot not to what limites of calling I restrain it. For if ye did regard to keep within the bounds of calling, ye would not thrust forward private men, to do that which GOD hath not called them unto. But ye plead for yourselves, that ye do not indeuor or purpose anything, beyond the limits of private calling. Ye allow not, as ye say, that which the law of God condemneth, which ye express in these words: either intrusion without lawful calling, either transgression in calling, or presumption above calling. If ye could see it, you do here, as it were, put the halter about your own necks, and about the necks of all Brownists: for ye stand to this, that the law of God condemneth intrusion, without lawful calling, and presumption above calling, and I wish no sharper weapon to fight against ye withal. But you think ye are well enough yet for all this, for ye do not purpose to meddle with reformation of the state, but by prayer to God, and refraining from everything that is contrary to God's law: And this is commanded all men that will save their souls: All are willed to come out of Babylon. Here is a poor shift: have ye no other way to pluck of the halter, which ye put about your own neck then this? I grant it is the duty of all men, as well private as other, to obey God's voice, which calleth them out of Babylon, and to separate themselves from false worship I add further, that even in the true Church, it is the duty of every private man, in all humble and peaceable manner, to keep himself unpolluted, from those corruptions and abuses that creep in. But do you proceed no further then thus? Have ye not professed in the third article, that ye will proceed unto a godly free choice of Ministers and other officers? Doo ye not in this profess, that ye seek to establish the laws of Christ, to the governing of his Church? Is this no more, but to obey the voice of God, calling us out of Babylon? Ye go beyond the common saying, Give some an inch, and they will take an ell. For God hath not called nor sent ye to perform such a work. I have before laid open your foul slanders, wherewith ye accuse us, that our worship is idolatrous, and Antichristian. But admit the Church of England were Babylon, and the synagog of Antichrist, and that ye have but obeyed the voice of God, in separating yourselves, which is a work of private men: Yet who hath given ye the power & authority to choose and ordain Ministers, to set up and establish public government? I would know this of ye, whether it be a less work to repair a decayed place of a building, or to build the whole frame? whether it be less to sweep the house, or to set it up? It is the less to repair, and the less to sweep, all men will grant. Then I reason thus, private men have not authority, nor ought not to take upon them so much as to cleanse God's house from abuses, or to repair the ruynes thereof: how much less ought they to take upon them to set up the whole frame? You mean not to medle with reformation of the state, but ye will erect a state and government: for is not the power of the Church both public and great? Ye will not daube the walls of Antichrist, nor build Jericho: no in deed ye are ouerprowd to be daubers or to repair: ye will erect the Altar, and build the Temple in Jerusalem, such worthy men must have a new building of their own. Thus may all men see, that ye confess, the law of God condemneth intrusion without lawful calling, and presumption above calling, and yet ye take upon ye being private, and thrust forward other private men unto the chief public work under the heavens: but more of this in the next Article.

Article 5.

The Brow.

We purpose by the assistance of the holy Ghost, in this faith and order to lead our lives: and for this faith and order to leave our lives, if such be the good will of our heavenly Father, &c.

G. G.

If men have the truth, it is good to stand unto it to the death, rather then to deny it, as our Church in the same estate it is now in, yielded many blessed constant Martyrs. But if a man have not the truth, it is great obstinacy to die for it, as sundry Anabaptists, and other Heretics have shown by their dying. Every true Christian will rather die, then deny the discipline which Christ hath left: but you must show that God commandeth private men to set it up.

The Brow.

The word of God and your own mouth having approved our desires in these Articles, we cannot be moved with Satan's old temptation, to doubt of the Lord's undoubted truth, or call his commandments into question, with if it be the truth, &c. Neither can we be removed with that old Popish reason ye bring of certain blessed Martyrs that died in this estate your Church is now in. This is not to approve the state of your Church by Christ's Testament: which until you do, though all the men in the world should both die in it and for it, yet could they not justify that God condemneth, &c.

G. G.

How the word of God and my mouth approveth your most wicked intrusion without calling, let every wise man judge.

Ye call it an old Popish reason that I bring of certain blessed Martyrs which died in the state our Church is now in. If you had no more frenzy in ye then my reason hath Popery, it were much better for ye. Let us see howe you or any Brownist is able to answer it. That Church which is of the Devil, and hath not the truth, but is Antichristian, cannot bring forth and nourish up children to God: But the Church of England in the estate it is now in, brought forth and nourished up children to God, seeing it yielded many blessed and constant Martyrs: Therefore the Church of England in the estate it is in, hath the truth, and is not a false and Antichristian Church. When you have shown that a false Church can bring forth and nourish up true children to God, ye may well say that this is not to prove our Church by Christ's Testament. If ye cannot prove that, cease to cavil. Ye deny them not to be blessed Martyrs, but ye say, that they died not in our Church, nor for our Church. Ye speak confidently: but in the confirmation of your speech, ye show yourselves most foolish. For ye say, they died not in our Church, being through God's great mercy deprived and disgraded by their enemies. All the Martyrs were deprived by their enemies of their lives, they could not deprive them of their faith, nor of the truth which they had learned before from the mouths of God's Ministers in our Church. What were they all disgraded of? do ye take it they were all members of the Synagog of Antichrist, or stood for any dignities or privileges in that fellowship, until their enemies thrust them forth? Then ye say, they died not for it, but for the truth of Christ. How will you separate things as contrary, which do stand well together? they died both for the truth of Christ, and for our Church: they constantly gave testimony to the truth, and were content to endure any torments to confyrme their Breethren in the same, and therein may be said to die for the Church. I do not mean that everything which they allowed, must needs be good, for they had their errors and imperfections. Neither do I reason after this sort, as though the Martyrs should die for every order and observation of our Church, they died for the substance of that faith and worship which our Church mayntayneth. And (as I said before) you must prove they were not begotten to God by our Church, or else confess our Church to be the Spouse of Christ. Doubtless, if our Church did not bring them forth, and nursse them up to God, they were deceived, and departed out of the world such babes, that they took a wrong woman for their Mother, for they took our Church to be their Mother. But you have another Answer, and that is, that those Martyrs never resisted the truth being shown them, nor never yielded unto any yoke or corruption which God gave them sight of, contrary to their consciences, as ye say we do in these days. Then the difference will fall out between them and us, that they offended of ignorance, and stood under Antichrists yoke, yea, some of them must be Antichrist himself, in as much as they were Bishops, and yet God's true Church. For, ye say, they were faithful in that little light, and we offend of knowledge, and therefore cannot be the true Church.

Your confessing them faithful in that little light, & so God's Church under the same government we be, which ye term Antichrists yoke, doth quite overthrow all Brownism, make what difference ye can between them and us in truth, yet shall it appear, that of necessity grant them to be the Church, ye must confess ours. If ignorance excused them, ignorance should excuse many among us, seeing there be multitudes in the land professing the Gospel that are persuaded we have the truth, and be in the right way both in doctrine and government. And again, ye are much deceived, if ye suppose that every Christian man now hath so great understanding, as the chief of them had that suffered death in the days of Queen Mary. Would ye have men believe, that Brown himself, and those Brownists, which take themselves his equals, have greater light then either Ridley, Cranmer, Howper, Bradford, Philpot, Taylor, and other had? when the learnedest in these days are not ashamed of those worthy men, but acknowledge them as excellent Divines? How absurd a thing is it, that ignorant blind Schismatikes, full of fantastical and heretical opinions, should boast of their great light in comparison of theirs? Now we come to the last point of all, and one of the greatest. I said, ye must show that God commandeth private men to set up discipline. As it standeth ye greatly upon, so ye do apply all your force hereunto: and in very deed look to it, for if ye be weak in this, and cannot show good warrant, all men will see that your presump ion against the holy ordinance of God, is most vile and damnable: let us see then how this question will be concluded. First, ye say, God in his law commandeth everyone to seek the place where he putteth his name. Christ in the Gospel commandeth to seek the kingdom of God, and to take his yoke upon them, &c. I answer, that if a man from these places should conclude, therefore private men are commanded to preach the word, and to administer the Sacraments, it were ridiculous: and yet ye may, as well as to say, that therefore they are to reform, to establish, or to set up the discipline. Your next reason is drawn from the nature of discipline, in that it is perpetual. Indeed the substance, and essential form of discipline are perpetual: and there be circumstances in it which are variable. And thus a man may reason: there is a discipline given by Christ, which is not variable: therefore the authority neglecting it doth offend, and the Church hath wrong, where it is not established: but to say, that therefore mere private men are to establish it, is without any good warrant. For when anything is done that ought not, or any thing let pass, which ought to be done in the Church and common-wealth, and so a perpetual commandment of God broken: it is no warrant for private men to take the matter in hand, and to redress. But you say, the Church cannot be governed by any other laws or government. I am of this mind, that there can be no visible established Churches, but where there are some rules of Christ's discipline observed. As if there be no Pastors or Teachers, no flocks, no calling nor order for Preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments. But to say there is defect or want in some parts of discipline, or it is in some things corrupted, therefore it is no Church that is governed thereby, is very heretical. Seeing the Gospel preached, and embraced with true and lively faith, giveth the being to a church. Yea but true faith, saith the Brownist, cannot be without obedience. I grant it cannot be the Church of God, if it be wholly disobedient, or in matters which concern the grounds of faith and holy doctrine. I say moreover, that one part of this obedience is, that private men keep themselves within the limits of their calling, and do nothing but that which God's word doth warrant them to deal in. Neither ought the Church to be without this discipline, say you. I assent, that so far as it is perpetual, the Church cannot want any part, or have it corrupted, but with injury and damage.

But your meaning extendeth further, as appeareth by your words. For God (say you) holdeth them all in the state of enemies, which have not his son to reign over them▪ And your marginal note is. If they have not his Scepter of grace, they shall have his Iron mace. Indeed, if a man could not have Christ to reign over him, nor be in the state of grace, unless the discipline be erected, that he may be governed thereby, all private men should be warranted by necessity, to set it up and to establish it, if they could nowhere find it already erected, where to join themselves: but have ye not before against this heresy confessed the truth in your reply upon the first article, by affirming Christ's kingdom to extend unto all such as by true faith apprehend and confess him, howsoever they be scattered, or wheresoever dispersed, upon the face of the earth? If ye had not confessed, ye must needs be driven thereto. For ye take it, that Brownists are God's Church, And yet ye have not established the Discipline. If ye reply, that ye endeavor, and are letted by force, which doth excuse ye before God. I answer, that the fetters and chains, can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists, then the hands of private men are bound with the bands of conscience, and the fear of God, from presuming to take upon them public authority.

And let us see where that commandment ye speak of is given unto private men, as namely, that they are willed to come together, with promise of direction and protection, and authority, not only to establish Christ's laws and ordinances among them, but faithfully to govern his house: ye do boldly and presumptuously affirm, and can show no one place of Scripture for it. Ye say, this assembly, before they be planted and established in this order, consisteth hitherto but of particular private persons, none as yet being called to office or function? Who then hath called them together? Or being all private, doth their coming together make them not to be private? or is not the action of many private men assembled, as private as of one seuerallye by himself? Did the assembly of Corah & his companions anything help the matter? Ye will choose Pastors and Elders? who shall ordain them? Doo ye ever read of any ordained, but by Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, and Governors? Was not the power derived at the first, from the extraordinary Ministers to the Ordinary? If all the Brownists in the land should come together, and choose a Minister, and ordain him, should it make him any more a Minister indeed before God, then if all the Apprentises in London taking upon them to choose a Lord Major of the City, and to minister an oath unto him should make him a Lord Mayor? The Queens Majesty hath granted no such authority in the Common-wealth, to the Apprentises: no more hath the Lord God in the Church, unto the Brownists. And as it is in the higher matter, so is their wicked presumption more detestable. But ye proceed and say: therefore we may well conclude, that God commandeth his faithful Servants, being as yet private men, together to build his Church, &c. Ye may even as well conclude, as in the rest of all your heretical conclusions. Is it not woeful, that men should be drawn into most damnable ways, by such blind seducers, which bring not so much as a show or color of warrant out of God's word, to set them a work in that whereof they chiefly glory, as namely that they will establish Christ's laws and ordinances, without altering, changing, &c? But ye allege the examples of the Primitive Churches (for your patterns, and warrant) which sued not to the Courtes and parlements, nor waited upon Princes pleasures, &c. What can be spoken more grossly? The holy Apostles were sent by our Savior into all the world, furnished with authority and commission to set up his kingdom. The Pastors and Governors ordained by them, receive the power, not only for themselves, but also to convey over unto others, What maketh this for private men? Doubtless ye have no pattern in the Scriptures which you follow, but of Corah, Dathan, and Abyram with their company, who cried; Are not all the Lord's people holy: even as you Brownists, with the Anabaptists cry out: Are not all the Lord's people free? Ye hane no commission from GOD, it is the Devil that hath thrust ye forward, and will ye in such vile and wretched manner, pretend the examples of the Primitive Churches? But your reason dependeth much upon this, that the Primitive Churches stayed not the pleasures of Princes. If this were granted, that princes are not to be stayed for, yet doth it not follow there upon, that private men are to establish Church government: but there must be some to do it, which are called and furnished with authority from God.

Yet the question doth remain touching Princes, whether they be to be stayed for? Brown maketh many arguments to prove, that they are not to be stayed for, nor yet have to do by public power to establish religion? which opinion of his, is with such abridging the sacred power of Princes, and with such horrible injury to the Church, contrary to the manifest word of God: that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and detestable heretic, until he show repentance. You follow him here, and allege some reasons which are to be considered. But first the question which is general, must be restrained unto the special. We must distinguish: for there be Heathen and Idolatrous Kings, and there be Christian Princes. Those are against Christ, and these are for Christ.

When the holy Apostles were sent forth to Preach the Gospel in the whole world, the Kings were all Heathen, and bent their power against them. To what end should they, having commission from Christ, to establish discipline, sue unto the Courts and Parliaments of such Princes, or attend their pleasure? The case is all one, where the kings profess Christ in name, and be idolaters. As in France, the Ministers whom God hath raised up, and sent to publish the Gospel in former years, attended not the pleasure of those their idolatrous Kings, for the setting up of discipline: for they might as well, at their inhibition, have ceased from preaching. But where there is a Christian Prince, the sacred power of the sword is with Christ and for his Church, and here the case is clean changed. For this Magistrate, King, or Queen, sitting upon the royal Throne, and holding the Scepter, is the chiefs and principal member of the Church. This Magistrate being God's minister, and bearing the Sword to take vengeance upon all evil doers, Rom. 13. and to maintain peace with all godliness and honesty, Timoth. 2. hath the charge and burden not only to provide for the bodies of the Subjects, and their outward civil estate, but also by good civil Laws, to procure the establishing of God's true Religion and worship among them, for the comfort of their Souls: for how shall he punish all evil, and maintain all Godliness by the Sword, but by establishing Christ's holy Religion? Therefore this Magistrate is to assemble all the learned, the wise, the grave and experienced, that he may conveniently, and to have it discussed by the Word of God, which is the true and pure Doctrine, and which be the rules and orders that Christ hath given for the government & preservation of his Church. Then are Laws to be made (for Kings cannot rule but by Laws) to destroy and abolish all false Religion, Superstition, Idolatry, and Heresies; and to compel all states and degrees of persons within the Kingdom, to receive the holy doctrine and rules of Christ, and to walk in the same. This did the Kings of Judah, as the holy Scriptures do plainly declare.

Now if this Christian Prince do err in some matters of Doctrine, or touching the rules of discipline, yet holding and maintaining all the fundamental points of the Christian faith, so that there be abuses and corruptions in the Church, every private godly man is to keep a good conscience, not breaking the unity and peace of the faithful, but not to take public authority to reform. Then ye demand, If they should tarry Princes leysures, where were the persecution we speak of? Here ye utter a most beastly speech. Saint Paul willeth to make earnest prayers and supplications for Princes, that we may live in peace with all godliness, 1. Timoth. 2. Whereby it appeareth, that the defense of the Christian Magistrate is a singular blessing unto the Church. And you take it, the Cross of Christ is abolished, unless the Magistrate be provoked, and do persecute. The faithful do bear the Cross of reproaches and afflictions under the most Godly Kings, who yet in duty are upon knowledge to redress it. Do ye think the Godly did not bear the Cross under King David, who was not free himself? Or would ye have no peace by Christian Kings? If your meaning be not such, why do ye utter so wicked speech?

Then ye say, we make Christ attend upon Princes.

I answer, that Christ hath ordinary Ministers, if these be slack, when he will have his work done, he can and hath raised up extraordinary workmen. If his Kingdom lie wait, doth that warrant private men to step forth, and to reform or establish? Or shall Christ be brought to stoop unto Princes, if every Schismatike intrude not himself to run when GOD hath not sent him?

There be certain Answers which go under the name of Henry Barowe, where being demanded whether the Queen may make Laws for the Church which are not contrary to the Word of God? The Answer is this, I think no Prince, neither the whole world, nor the Church it self, can make any Laws for the Church, other then Christ hath left in his Word.

This seemeth unto simple men a very sound Answer, drawn from two firm principles, the one, that there is but one Law-giver, which is God: the other, that he hath by Jesus Christ given full and perfect Laws for his Church. The deceypt lieth hid in this, that men do not consider there be general laws or rules given by Christ for matters of circumstance, that be indifferent and variable in the particulars, and so to be altered and abolished, as the peace and edification of the Church shall require. And therefore, that Princes with the Church are to ordain and to establish such orders by those general rules, as may afterward for just cause be altered. Wherefore it is manifest, that the answer of Barow, doth cut off a great part of the Discipline, and shorten the power of the Prince. And moreover, it is not considered, that the Prince, being to punish all evil by the doctrine of Sainte Paul, and to maintain all godliness, cannot do it but by laws, and so is to establish by laws the whole Christian religion.

Where, upon this Anabaptistical answer of Barow (I think it the duty of every Christian, and principally of the Prince, to inquire out, and to reuew the laws of GOD, and stir up all the Subjects, unto more diligent and careful keeping of the same) goeth also very currant among many. Whereas indeed, it denieth a great parte of that power which GOD hath given to Princes.

For shall not the Christian Magistrate, drive the negligent to hear the word Preached? shall he not punish the wicked despisers, blasphemers, Heretics, Schismatikes, Idolaters, and such like? And howe can this be done, but by laws made and established? Yet Brown the root of this heresy, who hath by his writings seduced the rest, doth make very great show in this matter.

The kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and not set up by the arm of flesh and blood, but by the Holy-ghost. The Subjects of Christ come willingly of their own accord, and not by compulsion. None of all the godly Kings, durst compel any to the worship of God. And that all the Kings of Judah, which did reform religion, did it by a spiritual power, as being figures of Christ. Indeed the kingdom of God is spiritual: all the power of Kings in the world, cannot convert one soul unto Christ: that is done by the Holy-ghost, through the lively word of faith. Nevertheless, the civil power is an outward mean to drive men to hear the Gospel preached, and to obey the discipline. Christ's subjects are frank and willing, so far as his holy spirit and word have wrought, and have power in them to subdue, and bring under every high thing, which exalteth it self against God: but before men be converted, compulsion, even with penalties, is a mean to bring them to that, whereby this regeneration is wrought: & after conversion to God, there remaineth still a great lump of corruption, which is to be kept in and bridled with some force. I will make the matter clear, by the chastisement which the Scripture willeth Parents to use to their children. A father hath a son which is dissolute and proud, whom he cannot reclaim by any instruction or exhortation. He correcteth him with stripes, and forceth him to hear the word of God diligently being preached. It pleaseth God so to bless this endeavor of the Father, that his Son is converted, and doth become a right godly man. Shall we say he is none of Christ's subjects, because at the first he came not willingly? The King is the Father of all his Subjects, and by fatherly correction laboreth to bring them to goodness.

And where Brown saith, that none of the Kings of Judah, durst compel their Subjects to the worship of God: it is most false. For beside the punishment of death, mentioned in the days of Asa. It is said statlye, that Josiah compelled them to worship the Lord God of their Fathers, 2. Chron. 34. The Hebrew word is Iagnabed, which is, he bound them, or made them serve. And finallye, where Brown faith, the Kings of Judah did reform religion by a spiritual power, as figures of Christ, it is absurd and false. First seeing they did that which Christ himself did not: for he never reformed the state of religion.

Had they a spiritual power, to reform and to establish religion, because they were figures, and so did break down and root out false worship: and Christ himself, who then should have had all the power, did not meddle that way? Was not the high Preest as worthy to be deposed, as he whom Solomon did depose? Were there not horrible abuses▪ among the Priests, the Scribes and Pharisees, which he did but Preach against? Again, will Brown be so foolish as to imagine, that the kings of Judah set bodily penalties by a spiritual power? It is as clear as may be, that they reformed by that civil Kinglye power, which God gave them.

Cyrus the King of Persia, who made the Decree for the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, Ezra. 1. was no figure of Christ.

Jehu King of Israel, who destroyed the Temple, the Idols, and the Priests of Baal, 2. Kings. 10. was no figure of Christ. I conclude therefore, that the wickedness of Brown, and of Brownists, is great in this point, when they in this manner abridge the power of Princes, spoil the Church of her comfortable aid and protection, and thrust forward private men, to take upon them that which God hath not called them unto.

And I do entreat all Godly Christians, and warn them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they look to these holy rules of God's Word. First, with all humility, modesty, subjection, and lowliness of mind, to keep themselves within the bounds and limits of their calling, studying to be quiet, and to do their own business, 1. Thess. 4. verse. 11.

Then, that they turn not the holy Religion of GOD, or the profession thereof, into questions, bitter disputations, wrath, contentions, and vain-glorious boasting: but that in practice they follow after Righteousness, Faith, Love, and Peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, 2. Timoth. 2. verse. 22. Finally, not in rigor and presumption to judge, to condemn, and to treaddowne. But with mercy, with pittye, and compassion, to supporte the weak, Gal. 6. This is the plain, straight paved, and holy way of GOD: and whosoever maketh account of salvation, let them take heed they be not drawn out of it into crooked by ways, and into miry flows, by presumptuous Heretics, and Schismatikes.