A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments

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

The word gospel signifying the preaching of the gospel, the furtherance or hindrance thereof maketh to purpose in this matter, or else nothing doth.

I acknowledge it with all thanks to God: and whatsoever difference of judgment or practice there be, betwixt them and us in the present controversy, yet I love and reverence them for their gifts and pains. But what then? Though there were ten times as many more, and everyone as sufficient as the best, yet these times require all. Num. 11.29. 2 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1.

The note with c I pass by. When they show our proofs not to prove our intent, we will either strengthen them, or bring better.

Double Sophistry. 1 Whereas the author saith, those Ministers that are so hated of the world etc: are the Ministers of Christ, this answerer saith, they (not those Ministers) that are so qualified etc. 2 He leaveth altogether out the last point taken from the success of their Ministry whose art it is so to clip words, I need not to note.

We have such ill neightours that as by their daily false accusations and slanders against us, do urge us to plead our own innocence, as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, Paul and Christ himself, having the like neighbovrs were urged to justify themselves. Usury cannot be so truly proved to be taught and practiced by us, as all men see many conformitans to be usurers, Symonists, non residents, gamesters, potcompanions etc. Yea, and to defend also some of these things.

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

Thus may the suffering of all Martyrs be eluded. For heretics have suffered as much. etc. But mark here his cunning. The author speaketh of suffering wrongs, indignities etc. M. Powel speaketh of suffering more, leaving out the substantive of the comparative adjectiue more. If he do understand the former substantive wrongs etc: then heretics, Papists suffer not more. For they are worthy of whatsoever they suffer. If he understand another substantive, then he doth sophisticate, and equivocat.

Such good words are little worth, where there is such actual unmercifulnes. James 2.16. We look not back, but they that call themselves our Fathers, have beaten & driven us from the plough, except we would wound our souls by sinnyng against Christ.

You know the contrary. Paul may as well be said to hold this doctrine as we: because he spake much more of his labors & of the blessing of God upon them, then we have done or can do. 2 Cor. 11.23 The Pharisaical comparison I leave to them, that take upon them Pharisaical authority.

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

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

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

1 The kingdom of heaven consisteth as well in the abuse of outward things, as in other matters. 2 The Prelates most offend in that which is here objected: in that they put men from preaching the kingdom of heaven, that will not yield to their outward things. To reproach us with gross impudency or blind ignorance beseemeth not M. Powell, especially he supposing those arguments to be written by consent of all of our side: whereof some were preachers before he was borne,

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

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

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

1 As it is the duty of all to speak for common Christians not only in matters properly belonging to christianity, but also in matters of their outward estate, peace, liberty, life, and things belonging to their life etc: so it is the duty of all Christians, not to speak only for Ministers in matters only properly, and necessarily concerning their ministry, but also in other matters. The liberty also of preaching necessarily (though not properly) concerneth the ministry of the gospel (preaching being the most principal parte of the said ministry) so also to preach without givyng offense to the weak, and without disgrace to their ministry. For what hope can there be of comfortable success where the ministry is joined with offense or disgrace? These things are necessary though not proper: wherein the answerer committeth a great error, in confounding that that is necessary, with that that is proper. For many things may be necessary for every calling, which are not proper. Further for the whole ministry to be performed in all purity and sincerity, (as nigh as is possible) according to God's word and practice of the Apostles, without inventions of men etc: this (I say) is also necessary (not proper) to the ministry, because by inventions of men, the ministry of the gospel is corrupted & weakened, even as mixture of water with wine so weakeneth the wine, that in time also it doth corrupt and decay. These things are supplicated for to the Parliament: If Cross and surplice be laudable Ceremonyes, then when or where, the Sacraments are celebrated without them, there wanteth some laudable ceremonies. This is absurd and jmpious. What would further follow heerof I need not to write, we may here also noate his cūnyng, in that he saith not that these things are for order and decency: but commanded for order and decency. Many men wear long hair, and command their sons to do the like for order and decencyes sake. In like respect many husbands command their wives to paint their faces, thus and thus to attire themselves: Are these things therefore orderly and decent?

The marginal notes.

The first with (a) shall be answered afterward.

These words into which things the Angels desire to behold, 1 Pet. 1.12. must of necessity have relation to the things before said to be shown by them that had preached the gospel. For there is no other antecedent to the relative, into which. Therefore the consequence is not to be so scorned by any that knoweth a consequence. Here also the answerer abuseth his reader, by wrangling with the conclusion and leaving out the principal confirmation thereof, Ephes. 3.10. Where it is expressly said, that Paul had received the ministry of the gospel, to the intent that unto Principalityes and powers in the heavenly places now (not before in that manner) might be known by the Church (let that be also noted) the manifold wisdom of God.

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

Further answer to the 2 Argument.

No paradox at all. Neither had the answerer any cause to make the two first questions, if he had considered the places alleged. That which he opposeth to the third against knowledge of the wisdom of God by the gospel etc: may as well be opposed to men's knowledge of the wisdom of God by his word. For they are also taught the wisdom of God by his creatures and works. psa. 19.1 Rom. 1.1920. The further meaning of this argument, in any special manner differing from other, I leave to the author himself: who is able (no doubt) to defend his meaning, or ready to yield better reason to the contrary. But be it, that he had no other meaning in this point then other men have, yet the common doctrine of the scriptures touching Angels in this behalf, maketh the argument good. For the Angels of themselves, know not who be elect, and who be reprobate. This knowledge before calling is proper to the Lord. 2 Tim. 2.19. The election of men is made known to the Angels, by their calling and conversion, wherein it is said the Angels rejoice Luc. 15.7. & 10. And so accordingly they glorify God, in glorifiyng of whom consisteth their happiness. The more therefore the word is preached, and men converted thereby, the more the Angels rejoice, and glorify God: the less the word is preached, the less they rejoice: yea, they may be said in some sort the more to mourn. In this respect therefore, the gospel may be said to be for the Angels. So this great paradox is unfolded. The substance of the second parte of this answer to this 2 Argument hath been answered before. Whereas he chargeth us to forsake our ministry for a few petty accidental circumstances; therein he discovereth the nakedness of the Prelates, in inflicting so material and substantial punishment, for a few petty accidental circumstances. For justice requireth a proportion betwixt the offense and the punishment. But we acknowledge no offense. For we may not purchase liberty of doing the greatest good, with committing the least evil. He that saith do good, first saith, eschew evil. psal. 34.14. These things being also proved evil in other books, they are not to be accounted petty and accidental circumstances. The least sin against the great God, is to be accounted a great matter.

In his third answer he proclameth again, but proveth not our error and faction. If we err or be factious, let us in that respect be punished (so notwithstanding that the people be not punished with us) and let us be holpen as we are Ministers.

Indeed now you speak sure: and if always you speak so, you shall not be trapt. If the Parliament justly refuse etc. and if we be schismatiks and singular etc. then all is well on your side: But when will you prove us such? As I shall anon prove the contrary, so in the mean time for singularity, it belongeth not to us, but to the Prelates, that are singular by themselves, differing from the word, and from more Churches reformed then we; both in judgment & also in practice. But to return to your other words, thus I reason from them against you. The wise and judicious Parliament will not intermeddle in the quarrel of Sdhismaticall ministers further then only to admonish them to desist from their singularity etc: all these are your own words.

But the Parliament hath further intermeddled for us etc. ergo. We are not schismatical. Either therefore recant your commendation of the Parliament, or else revoke yous reproachful accusing us to be schismatics. Vtrum horum mauis accipe. I suppose you will not charge the Parliament, with anything contrary to the commendation you have before geiven of them; and which all wise and judicious men will acknowledge to be due unto them. Therefore I hope you will de nobis palinodiam canere, and never hereafter charge us as you have done.

Here is one thing more to be noated as some what crossing my former supposal, for not revoking his former commendation of the Parliament, yea, & making me to fear that he will rather impute folly to them (according to the manner of some other Prelates) then revoke his reproaches against us. What is this that is to be noted? viz. That to prove, if they should take parte with us, then they should provoke God and the whole host of heaven against us, that (I say) to prove this, he applieth unto them, psal. 50.17.18. Whereby he insinuateth, that they having interceded for us, do therefore hate to be reformed, have cast God's word behind them, have run with thieves, and taken part with adulterers. For these are the express words of the psalm, which he applieth to the Parliament for dealing in our behalf: so indeed accusing us as the principal offenders in those sins, that are mentioned in that psalm, but yet making the Parliament also accessory with us in them.

1 Marginall notes.

And again.

One reply shall serve to both these notes. Especially because (as it is noted before) all the answer is grounded upon a false principle, that we are schismatiks etc. and so worthy of all that hath been done unto us. To insist therefore upon this point, I say first of all, that this accusation of us to be such, is a most beggarly begging of the question, most unjust, untrue, and uncharitable, never yet proved, neither able to be proved, until they prove the matters in controversy, to be merely indifferent to such uses, as whereto they are employed & urged by them, yea, good and laudable Ceremonies, matters of decency, and order in the Church: yea, that we also refuse to conform our selves unto them, more of stomach, then of conscience. Much less can they justify their proceedings against & and punishing of us: yea not only of us, but also of our people (a thing most unrighteous and odious to God & men) in such manner as they have done, especially more for these things (which themselves call indifferent, small, petty, accidental, circumstantial) then they do other, for things expressly forbidden by God himself, & a thousand times more offensive to other, and more reproachful and disgraceful to our Church, profession, and kingdom then these things. Yea it is to be observed, that notwithstanding all these proceedings against us, all our books written against the ceremonies, (only to show the righteousness of our cause) and all their writtyngs against us, none of them have ever yet, either in open consistory, or in private conference (that I have heard of) or in public writing, made any one, (no not one) demonstrative reason, necessarily concluding the lawfulness, and the good and necessary use, of the things they so heavily impose upon us. Some indeed have written against some of our arguments, but no otherwise, then the wit of man may cavil against any principle of religion, though never so substantially proved by the best divine upon the earth.

But to return to the point, there is nothing in these two notes and in the rest of the book objected against us, where with our ancients and betters, have not been charged in former times. Elia was charged with troubling Israel. 1 King. 18.17. Michaiah might have been charged with singularity and schism, for dissenting from all the 400 Prophets in Ahab's time. 1 King 22. Jeremiah was accused by the Priests and Prophets of his time, to have spoken against the state of the City, and to be therefore worthy to dyc. Ierem. 26.11. Amos was charged by Amazia the priest, with such conspiracy against the King, that the land was not able to bear all his words. Amos 7.10. All the Jews was generally accused by Haman to Ahasuerus, not to have observed the Kings laws. Ester 3.8. Ezra and the Jews with him, were accused by Rehum, Shimshay, and other beyond the river to Artashasht the King, as rebellious and wicked for building of Jerusalem: Yea, they were not only so accused for the time present, but also for the time to come, (as we are afterward in the 16 Argument in the marginal note with (r) that if they were suffered to proceed in building of the City, they would not pay toll, nor tribute: nor custom, yea, Ezra and his companions were not only charged to be such, but the whole City of Jerusalem for former times was also charged to have been a rebellious & noisesome City unto Kings and Provinces, that the inhabitants thereof had moved sedition of old time, & that for that cause, that City had been destroyed. Therefore also the said Rehum and Shimshay and their companions, pretended regard of the Kings Honor, in writing so against Ezra and the rest of the Jews, Ezra 4.12. etc. The enemies of Daniel framed the like accusation of him to Darius, Daniel 6. Our Savior himself was blasphemed by the name of a seducer & deceiver of the people. John. 7.12. Yea oft times as a blasphemer, profaner of the Saboth, a friend to publicans and sinners. Paul was accused to have taught men against the law and the Temple. Acts 21.28. and to be a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition. Acts 24.5. yea to be an heretic verse 14.

Such also have been the accusations of all Martyrs by the common adversaries the Papists. It is therefore the more to be marveilled at, that our Prelates (professing, and sometime preaching the gospel) do accuse us in like manner. Yea, charge us to disturb the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the ministry, and yet allege no reason heerof: or at least no other reason then such as for which all or the most part of those before named, were so charged as we have heard. For besides traditions of men, antiquity (not proved, at least not true antiquity) the commandments of Princes (procured by themselves, uncharitably misinformyng such princes) besides thes things (I say) what else have they said, do they say, or can they say?

Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the scriptures? Nay, rather many of them do much more swerve from the same: especially sithens their late strong patronizing and urging of these things: yea, they have fallen frō that that heertofore hath been constantly, and generally held by our Church now teaching these things, which have been accounted and are in truth, popish, or Lutheran errors: viz: touching general grace, & the death of Christ for every particular person: against particular election & reprobation: for images in Churches, both for remembrance of history and also for devotion: touching the manner of Christ's presence in the supper of the Lord: That the Pope is not the Antichrist, which is the next step to say, that he is Christ's vicar, & whereby they hinder (what they may) the zeal of Christian Princes from executing that against him in general, and against his members in particular, which the word partly foretelleth, and partly commandeth to be done: concernnyng also the necessity of Baptism: touching auricular confession: for ignorance (according to the popish saying, that ignorance is the mother of devotion ) that it is not necessary for the people to have much knowledge, and that therefore not much preaching, but that it is sufficient, if they can say the Lord's prayer, the ten commandments, and the articles of faith: which is directly contrary to the scriptures. John. 6.69. Ephe 4.13. Philip. 1.9. & 3.7.8. Colos. 3.16. Ephes. 5.17. 2 Pet. 3.18. Who can lay any such points to us, or to any of us? This point is not lightly to be regarded: yea, it is of great moment. For the Apostle describeth schismatics, not to be such, as make division only, but he addeth, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. Rom. 16.17. Yea in the very next verse he describeth them further, saying, They that are such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies, and with fair speeches, and flattering, diceaue the hearts of the simple. Do we so? Nay rather we labor only for the ordinances, which the Apostle hath taught us. In this respect we serve not our own bellies, but rather for those ordinances sake, and to serve the Lord Jesus by them, and according unto them, we deprive our own bellies of that which otherwise they might have; neither do we use fair speeches, and flattering, but by plain dealing for those ordinances of Christ Jesus, we procure the displeasure of all men against us. As therefore this place maketh for us, and evidently showeth us to be no schismatics, so likewise it doth as plainly prove them to be schismatics that make division for human inventions, either in doctrine, or otherwise in practice in the worship of God, contrary to those things which they have learned from the Apostle; who also therein, serve not the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies, using fair words and flattering in that behalf to deceive not only the simple, but also if it be possible, them that are wise.

Agayne have we made any departure from the Church? We are deprived of our Ministry, and so thrust out of our lyvinges, perforce against our wills, as any man leaveth that which is violently taken away: but though we be thus put from our ministry and lyvinges by our Prelates, yet we do not forsake the communion of the Church. The cause also why we are put out, is not for respect of our selves, but for fear of sinnyng against God, and of aggravating the burden of our own conscience thereby. We disturb not the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the ministry, but in all humility, and with the words of sobriety, we condemn the corruptions of our profession and of the ministry, most duetifully and by all lawful means (and no other) desiring both to be reformed, according to God's word. So in like manner we desire to be eased of those cloggs, which hinder both us in the work of the ministry, and also the people so, that they neither do, neither can so edify themselves in their most holy faith, as otherwise they and we would do. On the contrary, the Prelates stoutly maintain and support the said corruptions, and in love of them (or rather of some other matter depending upon them) they hate and molest us.

Agayne have we loytred in the work of the ministry? Have we heaped benefice upon benefice? Have we eat̄ and drunk, and beaten our fellow servants? Have we sought our own, & not that which is Jesus Christ's? Phil. 2.21. Have we made our bellies our God? Have we minded earthly things? philip. 3.19. I speak not these things boastingly (as before we have been charged) but only to purge our selves of those crimes, which the former two notes did cast upon us, and to prove that we have not been disturbers but furtheres of the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the Ministry. Therefore let them that do so untruly accuse us, take heed that he (whose check no fleesh shall be able to endure) do not charge them, rather to have taken away the key of knowledge, and to have shut up the Kingdom of heaven before men, not goeyng in themselves, neither suffering them that would enter, to come in. Mat. 23.13. whereas also the word Schism in the Greek language signifieth a renting, and the word sedition in the latin tongue signifieth seorsim ire, to go aside or, a going a side: as we have proved that in these significations, we cannot be justly charged with them, so let them that do charge us in this behalf see and consider well, whether themselves may not more truly be said to have rent themselves, and to have gone a side, first from the word (the rule of all Churches) in the points of doctrine before mentioned, and in some other, as also in the observing & maynteyning of human Ceremonyes in the worship of God: 2 From other Churches of Christ Jesus: both the ancient Apostolical Churches, and also the present Churches reformed in other Coūtries: nether of which either held or do hold such points of doctrine as before I have named: or have or do observe & maintain such human Ceremonyes in the worship of God, as are here in question. We being charged with heresy & schism by the Papists for renouncyng the doctrine and communion of the present Romish Synagogue, do truly return the same charge upon the papists touching heresy and schism, because they have fallen away from the doctrine and ancient simplicity in the worship of God, that at the beginnynge was in the Auncient Roman Church, and in other true Churches, planted by the Apostles. In like mannner therefore let our accusers in the fear of God consider, whither the blame of schism do not for the causes before expressed, more aptly belong unto them, then to us etc.

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

All Schismatikes are abomination to the Lord: The Ministers pleaded for: are not abomination to the Lord, but in grace and favor with him, Ergo: The Ministers pleaded for, are no Schismatikes. The proposition or first parte of the Argument, is Solomon's, who among the six things which the Lord hateth, and the seven which the soul of the Lord abhorreth, he reckoneth him that raiseth up contention among brethren. The assumptiō or second part of the former Argument is granted by the answerer answerer himself in his answer to the first Argument: yea it is manifest by the good success of their ministry from God in the said Argument mentioned. Yea, and that this argument from the blessing of God upon their ministry, is of force, and much to be respected, appeareth by the words of the blind man reported with commendation by S. John. This is a mervelous thing that ye know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doth his will, him heareth he. And verse 33. If this mā were not of God, he could have done nothing. Was this argument good from the opennyng of the eyes of the body of one that was borne bodily blind, and is it not much stronger: from the opening of the eyes of the mind of many that are borne spiritually blind?

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

The marginal notes.

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

Is it not a strange thing (I had almost said, sin) that it should be accounted sin, superstition, and willful obstinacy, yea, such as makes men vnserviceable in the Church, (in fear of sinnyng against God) soberly to refrain from human Ceremonyes, and yet swearing, swaggering, rioting, gamyng, drunkenness, whoredom, adultery, (even in the sight of the world) should not make men unserviceable etc? That such things are, in many suffered and countenaunced in the ministry, is known to many of the Parliament house. If his Christian Majesty were also rightly informed thereof, I doubt not but that things would be otherwise ordered.

Further answer to the 4 Argument.

If men should always be so answered, when in their necessities they should require some help and comfort, in regard of some former kindness; would not men condemn such answerers of great ingratitude & in humanity? viz. Thus to be answered, that which you have done was but your duty?

See how wise the children of this world are in their kind? The author altogether wisely and purposely (as it seemeth) concealed the name of Saul in the argument; that he might reason from the comparison of the work only of Jonathan in a bodily deliverance, for the better regard of the Ministers now silenced etc. In respect of the spiritual deliverance of the people by them. This (I say) he doth without any mention at all of Saul, that so the work might be generally and simply respected in it self; without any particular eye unto Saul, out of whose hands the people delivered Jonathan. He respected their thankfulness in delivering Jonathan from death, without respect of the person that would have put him to death.

Agayne, I know not why the answerer should think the author to mean rather our gracious King as answerable to Saul, then the Prelates, the chief and principal actors, in all wrongs and injuries done unto the Ministers pleaded for: except that either he had rather impute all hard dealing to his Majesty than to the Prelates: or that hereby he would provoke the more wrath, against the author and all by him supplicated for, whom before notwithstanding he seemed greatly to spare. Further if the Israelites justly rescued Jonathan as the answerer confesseth they did justly ) much more just is it, that many ministers should be relieved in their troubles. If yet they press the author further for meaning Saul, and comparing our King unto him (as Saul was the Lord's annointed) what is the danger, wherein the answerer before should brag of sparing his brethren? Can he gather any undutifulnes towards his Majesty? Or can he imagine, the author to have intended any forcible means to be used by the Parliament, that sitting to make laws against force and violence towards any subject, must therefore much more themselves be far from offering any force and violence towards their Sovereign? Do the words in the Argument (to be Zealous and earnest) import any such matter? Force and violence of any, especially of subjects against their Princes, is rather of Popish fury and madness, then of any Christian zeal and earnestness. Besides, the often most Honorable mention of his Majesty in the Arguments, and his express pressing the Parliament to do all in humility & modesty, (in the next argument) yea, that they should not only use boldness, but Christian boldness, yea, that they should put forth all their gifts and graces, of knowledge, Zeal, compassion, modesty and humility: yea, finally, that in the preface he petitioneth, nothing by him written, to be understood of any other means, then good, honest, lawful, peaceable, and agreeable to every man's calling; All these things do abundantly clear the author from all undnetifull intent and meaning against his Majesty. That the Israelites did not in such humility speak for Jonathan to Saul as they should have done, in regard that Saul was the Lord's annointed; this is not so much to be respected, as the consideration and reason, why they rescued Jonathan. Neither is the Argument, by that wherein they failed any weakened, but rather the more strenghtened. For if they so respected a bodily deliverance wrought by Jonathan, that they passed the bounds of their duty; should not the regard of a spiritual deliverance, move such a Christian assembly to speak what lawfully they may, with all modesty and humility.

Marginall notes.

This note is impertinent, as shall appear by his answer afterward, and the reply thereunto.

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

These scoffs can hardly come from a pure mind, but do rather beseem profane Angels of darkness, then the children of light: much less the Preachers of holiness. Whether we that are deprived and silenced, are fitter for the work of the ministry, then 5000. in the land that stand for ministers, and receive the wages of Ministers; I will not say, let the whole High Court of Parliament judge, but, let many of the Prelates and other conformitans judge.

Let all those that charge us with impudency, and making our selves uncapable of the ministry, take heed that one day, they be not ashamed before the Son of God at his coming: and that then also the Son of God be not a shamed of them, before his Father and his holy Angels, and so pronounce them uncapable of the kingdom of heaven; yea, least also the master of such a servant come in an hour, that he is not ware of, cut him of, and give him his portion with hypocrites. Mat. 24.50.51. Michael the Archangel durst not blame the Devil with cursed speaking, but said, the Lord rebuke thee. Iud. 9. You know what is written by an orator, of an orator. Ex eius ore, verba magno impetu atque aestu erumpebant, non secus ac feruentes aque ebulliunt et exiliunt. That which is said of his words, may be said of the reproaches, railings, scoffings etc: of this notary. But are we false Prophets? False Prophets run before they are sent. They speak out of their own hearts, they follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Eze 13.2.3. Ierem. 14.14. They flatter, & heal the hurt of God's people with sweet words, saying, Peace, peace, where there is no peace. Ierem. 8. 11. They are hypocrites, pretending great holiness, coming in sheep's apparel, but being inwardly ravenyng wolves. Math. 7.15. They are covetous and cruel like a roaring Lion, ravenyng the pray, devouring souls; taking riches and preciouss things etc: Ezech. 22.25. They are proud and ambitious, loving the praise of men, more then the praise of God.

Can we be charged with these things? Hath not the Lord sent us? Do we speak anything but that the Lord hath put into our mouths? Our flattery consisteth in plain reprehending of sin, and denouncyng the judgment of God against the same. Our covetousness is inspendyng all we have, and leaving nothing to our posterity. Our cruelty is in suffering the manifold injuryes that are done unto us. Our hypocrisy is in a care of keeping a good conscience. Our ambition is in the abasing of our selves, beneath the parentage and education of many of us: and in bearing the scorns & reproaches of the world, yea, in being accounted the skumme of the world and contemned by some, that have been glad of the crustes that have come from some of our tables. Why then doth this Notary call the author of those Arguments, or any other by him pleaded for in his Arguments, by this odious name of a false Prophet? If the Lord rebuke him for so calling us, I pray that it may not be in anger. Touching our in capacity of any place in the ministry, wherefor are we so incapable? What be our errors in doctrine? What are our vices in life? Is conformity the chief and most cardinal virtue? Is it the soul of a minister, tota in toto, et tota in qualibet parte? Must all learning, all piety, all gravity, all soundness give place to conformity? So it seemeth. For learned men, godly men, grave men, and sound Divines (I speak not of myself, I confess my self the meanest of many hundreds) such men (I say) are thrust out, and ignorant men, wicked men, young men, corrupt and Popish men, are put into the service of the Church. May we not say, Plead thou our cause O Lord etc? psal. 35.1. Yea rather may we not say, Arise O Lord, maintain thine own cause: remember thy daily reproaches by the foo: man. psal. 74.22.

This is but a scoff and mock. But though we be mocked, yet let this mocker remember, that God is not mocked. The author speaketh expressly of the ministry of the gospel which is for instruction, this Notary saith, he meaneth thereby, their Presbytery, which is for government. But more of this afterward.

Do you gather this, because mention is made of removyng of the lets and impediments of the sincere ministry of the gospel? Then it seemeth that either you would have a sharp phisitian for the casting of waters, since you can see such invisible things in a man's words, or else that your own conscience told you that the Bishops are great lets and impediments to the sincere ministry of the gospel. If you be of that mind and show the same, it will be no small let and impediment to your own preferment with the Bishops, If you be not, then surely this your note is not worth the noting.

What an untruth is this? Where have we denied Christ here to be professed, and his gospel maintained? But though we profess Christ & maintain his gospel, yet we plead, 1 for the better continuance of the gospel where already it is: 2 That so it may the better be where it is not: 3 That it may be more glorified, and the better flourish and fructify in all places: all which things cannot be, if the proceedings begun be not stayed and mitigated. 4 May not a kingdom in general profess Christ and maintain his gospel, and yet have some superfluityes, which obscure Christ and hinder his gospel; as also want some things belonging to Christ and his gospel, which may make Christ more glorious, and further his Gospel?

So cried the High Priest, when Christ confessed himself to be the Son of the livyng God. Math. 27.65. If it had pleased you notwithstanding, you might in charity have otherwise understood the authors words. But let the meaning be as you take it: have you caught him in any trap? Nothing less. For what else can be gathered, but that in the profession of the gospel here in England, there are defects and wants? That the Church of Christ among us, is in some sort defective? And although we have Christ in his word and Sacraments, and in other exercises of religion, yet we have not whole Christ, in that we have not all his ordinances? And that therefore something more ought to be added, that Christ may reign more fully & absolutely over us? Neither is there any such ataxie in the Discipline by these words signified. For we desire nothing but the order, wherein the Apostle rejoiced. Colos. 2.5. Whereof also we have the rudera, and (as it were) the stumps yet remaining, in our Parishonal Church-wardens and sidemen: though entitled with other names, and wanting that ordination and authority, which with the Pastors within there own Parishes, Elders ought to have. This Discipline (if we might have equal hearing) we could casily free from all such imputations, as whereby it is commonly disgraced by the adversaries thereof with Princes and Nobles. Yea we could plainly and truly show the same to be nothing prejuditiall, but very helpful both to all Royal authority, and also to Nobility: yea better agreeing with the one and the other, then all other inventions of men for Ecclesiastical government whatsoever. Touching the intolerable blasphemy, imputed in the end of this note to the author of the Arguments by way of an exclamation, it lieth upon them, that fear not openly to deny Christ Jesus to be law giver and King of his Church. How it can be cast upon us, for desiring whole Christ Jesus (I mean all his ordinances) I cannot discern.

Further answer to the Fith Argument.

Now you pay home indeed. If Cardinal Wolsey were livyng, he could speak no more imperiously. For except by a frivolous quarrel, and a cause not justifiable, you mean not the cause of the Ministers; you speak nothing to the purpose. If you mean that (as needs you must) then do you not speak to us poor Ministers alone, but also to the Parliament, and to all other (Noble men or gentlemen) that have intermeddled, or shall intermeddle in our cause. Yea, them you do not cunnyngly, but openly & plainly, charge all such with rashness and foolehardines. If you had been a man that in heart had not cared for the opposition of any, yet this speech would scarce have beseemed your person. One of us for half so much against the meanest Prelat, yea against the basest Chancellor, should have paid full sweetly. But your side seem to have privilege of speak and writing what you please against any, yea against many: yea against the High Court of Parliament. Yea, against whole Churches and kingdoms For the rest if we cannot make our cause good and justify the same, so that all your side shall not be able substantially to answer, without scoffing, railing, wrangling and sophisticating, then let our quarrel be accounted frivolous, and our cause not justifiable.

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

I will not say your words are like to his words that boasted saying, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing: but this I say, that all being granted that you say, doth not hinder but further the cause. The more the Church flourisheth, the more easy it is to grant that, which the Arguments plead for. Ministers also of the word, are as necessary for the preserving and increasing of the glory of Churches, as for the procuring thereof at the first. But alas I would God our Church did so flourish as you pretend. Indeed it hath many rich mercies, God be blessed for them; but he that seeth not what the Church wanteth, doth not rightly acknowledge that which it hath. Is this the glory of a Church for Prelates to flourish and flant it out gallantly: and for their men to ruffle it out lustily? Nay rather, this is the glory of the world, and better beseeming the Courts of Princes, and houses of Noble men, then the calling of orthodox Bishops, who should as well in their life as in their doctrine, preach humility, modesty, and contempt of the world. The more glorious that Prelates are outwardly, the less glorious (for the most part) they are inwardly. Yea it is to be observed, that the more the outward glory of Churchmen (as they are called) hath increased, the more hath true & inward glory decayed. The more also, that the inward and true beauty of the Church hath decayed, the more hath the outward state and pomp of the officers thereof increased. When were the Priests of the law, of greater outward authority, and took more upon thē, then when the church of the Jews touching true beuty, was in worst case? Serch the scriptures for they bear witness heerof. Yea, were there ever so many degrees of dignity in the Church, and do we ever read of so great state and pomp of the Preistes in the former times, as there was of the Priests, Scribes & Pharisees at the first coming of Christ? And were ever things in so bad case before, as thē they were? So also sinc that, the more that truth of doctrine, and purity of Discipline decayed in the Church, after the golden and most glorious age of the Apostles, the more did the Church grow unto, and swell in outward riches, pomp and glory. Experience also teacheth, that the more glorious Prelates are in their outward state, the less benefit the rest of the Church hath by them; because they take the less pains; at the least, such pains, as are most agreeable to the true Episcopal and ministerial calling, described in holy scripture. Wherein then is the true glory of the Church? 1 in such ministers of the word and other officers; as Christ hath commended. 2 In the performance of such duties by them, as he requireth, that is in preaching the word faithfully, in administering the Sacraments sincerely, in praying zealously and aptly according to the necessityes of the Church, and in executing Discipline wisely, and justly: 3 In the effects of the former two, viz: in true knowledge, faith, love, zeal, humility, patience, temperance, righteousness, peace, etc. Touching these things, the more we want some of those officers that Christ hath commended by his Apostles to the Church, and the more negligent those that we have are in their duties, the more lamentable it is to see the carved pillars of the temple broken down, and the faithful workmen in God's house to be cast out, by whose labors it had been before built & brought to some good beauty. Touching the last, what Christian heart is so stony, that it doth not mourn? What eye so dry, that it doth not shed tears, yea rather, gush out with tears, to consider and behold, the mesery of our supposed glorious Church, by the spiritual nakedness, blindness & poverty thereof? I mean the great ignorance, the superficial worship of God, the fearful blasphemies and swaringes in houses, and streets, so also the direful cursings, the open contempt of the word & Sacraments, the wicked profanations of the Lord's days, the dishonor of superiors, the pride, the cruelty, the fornications, adultryes, and other uncleannesses, the drunkenness, the covetousness, the usuryes, and other the like abominations, almost as grevous as either heertofore in the time, or now in the places of Popery, when, and where, there was no preaching at all of the gospel? O M. Powel, and ye my Reverend Fathers, and brethren in the ministry (even of the conformable sort, flatter not yourselves in this behalf, but behold and pity the woeful and lamentable stat of our Church in these things.

But to return, herein you err not a little, in that you confound the state of the Church, and of the common wealth of the Jews. The Common wealth was indeed at that time, in much misery. But was the Church also amongst them, for such things as wheerin chiefly consisteth misery, in as bad condition? Had they not those officers that God had prescribed? Were the Priests and Levites either so ignorant, or so idle, or so scandolous, as many called Ministers amongst us? Were the faithful and painful Priests and Levites, so urged to the observation of men's traditions and Ceremonyes in the worship of God, and otherwise so molested, as now many godly ministers are? Were the people so blind, so irreligious, so unrighteous as now they are? Were the godly forced to hear dumb dogs, or corrupt teachers? Or restrained from hearing of those that preached wholesome doctrine, or urged to communicate with the Preistes in human Ceremonyes, to the grief of their souls, and wounding of their consciences, as many now are? The Lord give you all such consideration of these things, that ye may not so much labor for outward pomp, preferments, honors, dignities etc. As for the true felicity of our English Jerusalem and Zion, that God may build up the walls thereof, and still love, and delight therein.

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

Touching his worthy Nehemiah (whom he compareth to ancient good Nehemiah, ) let this be observed, that although he speak of the prayer and fasting of the ancient Nehemiah, yet he speaketh not of any prayer and fasting of his new Nehemiah. What may be suspected or noted herein, I leave to the consideration of the wise and judicious reader, that remembereth what opposition many of the Prelates have always made to true fasting, and that also knoweth what be the things which men may safely commond in prayer unto God, especially, for which they may humble themselves extraordinary in fasting before God. Touching the Tobiahs, Sanballat’s, and Geshems, (whom fain he would have to be those that he calls refractary ministers, as well as the Papists,) let him not deceive himself herein. For the wise & Christian readers, are able to discern, thē to be most worthy of these nāes, that strive most for men's precepts, that study more to please men then God, that preach not themselves, and hinder them that would: whose chief work, is not to increase God his kingdom, but to uphold their own, fearing nothing more then the downfall thereof: which also feed not the Lord's people, with the bread of eternal life, but their own bodies with the meat that perisheth and with all carnal delights: who care not to enrich the Lord's people, with durable riches, that shall not be taken away, but plod day and night to enrich themselves in this world, and to build great house for their posterity. Such are indeed the Sanballat’s, Tobiahs, and Geshems, that do most oppugn the spiritual building of the spiritual Jerusalem. Now although this answerer, & other not much unlike those before described, for a time reproach and scorn us, by such odious names and comparisons; yea, plough upon our backs and make long furrows, yet the righteous Lord, in the end shall plead our cause against them, and bring forth our righteousness even as the morning Sun; it may be in this world, that even those that have been through their railings, and suggestions against us, hardly persuaded of us, may at the last see and acknowledge our innocence: if not, yet in the world to come, when the longer the equity of our cause hath been obscured and disgraced, the more glorious it shall be made, when some of our adversaries (without repentance in the mean time) shall be thrown into the place, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth: and where to be indeed, is more then only to dream thereof. Yea, the same righteous Lord shall (certaynely one day) cut the cords of the wicked. They that hate Zion, shall be ashamed, and turned backward.

See how this man tumbleth up and down, and how he contradicteth himself. Hath he not before expressly charged all of us, to do that which we do for carnal respects? Hath he not also in the same place (I mean in his preface) as expressly said, (speaking not particularly of some of us, but indefinitely of all) that it cannot be denied, but that presumptuously; and willfully, we contend with the Magistrate, impugnyng his authority. etc. How often else where also doth he object unto us, wilfullnes, obstinacy etc? Yea in the very next Argument, the note with (d) chargeth us with willfulness and superstitious obstinacy: yet here, he saith that most of us sin of ignorance. If also he and other prayed in truth, that God would open our eyes, then let thē not pluck our tongues out of our heads: and so thirst for our blood, as many speeches in this answer seem to bewray then to do.

The whole Church of one place, and a whole kingdom, may fare the worse for the sin of someone: yea, somtims long after the death of him, by whom that sin was committed. All Israel for the cruelty of Saul towards the Gibeonits (who yet were not Israelites) were punished, even in their bodily states, long after the death of Saul. May we then fear nothing to our whole Church and kingdom, for the hard dealing of the Prelates, towards the souls of many thousands of our own Nation? Let no man deceive us with vain words. Blessed is the man that feareth always. There is danger in security, there is much safety in a godly fear. As for the spiritual danger of the Church, it appeareth by the decay of the spiritual beauty, and by the increase of the spiritual deformity, that is of ignorance & of impiety, in those places already, which are deprived of their good Ministers. How will these things increase in continuance of time? Yet it may be, that as the more the Egyptians by oppression labored to suppress the Israelites, the more they multiplied: so the more that Prelates shall oppress and silence us, the more God shall change the minds of the conformitans themselves, to dislike those things, which yet a little they yield unto. If they shall hold their peace, yet God shall open the mouths of children to give him praise, and to bear witness unto his truth: If they also be silent, the Lord can make even the stones to cry.

The Argument speaketh of the honorable burial of Christ's body, the answerer only of the burial, leaving out honorable; Is not this sophistry? Though perhaps Pilate had no reason, to deny the burial of Christ; yet Christ being put to death (in part) for supposed treason, he had carnal reason, to deny honorable burial: the more because of the spite and malice of the Scribes and Pharisees against Christ. For as before, when they said, he that maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar, he made the more hast to judgment against him, so he had cause in fear of their like hatred and malice, to be the slower in granting his body to them to be buried, who he knew in respect of their honorable persons and places, would bury it in the most honorable manner they could. As Pilate had cause to fear the malice of the Scribes and Pharisees herein, so also and much more, had Joseph & Nicodemus cause to fear the same, by performyng the least honorable service unto Christ: especially Nicodemus, being one of the same coat might fear it. If the Ministers request concerning Cross and Surplice, be not of such importance, as the burial of Christ's body, this weakeneth not, but addeth strength to the Argument. For the less it is, the more easily it may be granted, and the more easily it may be granted, the more boldly it may be sued for.

Marginall notes.

We must so have compassion one our sheep, that we wound not our own souls. We must (as hath been said) eschew evil, and do good: not commit evil, to do good. As gold may be bought to deer, so may the good of our people. That which is here said against us touching cross and surplice, may also be said touching images, if we were commanded to worship them, Our yielding also would be so offensive, that we should not do that good, that we intend by yielding. We may also fear the hardenyng of our hearts by yielding, as well as we see the hearts of other by little sins, to be hardened for greater.

The note with (b) is often anserwred.

Absurd. Our Savior speaketh not that of that womā, but of the Centurion. Though the Notary were an Archbitshop, yet I might entreat him, better to read the place. But Christ said, O woman, great is thy faith? What then? Though as she was elect, she was also blessed: yet as she was out of the visible Church, the words of our Savior might be spoken of her. Neither doth the author say, that she was a dog: but that she was little better then a dog, & in that respect, that is, as she was a Cananit, & none of the children of Israel. Is there no difference betwixt these words, & to say plainly, that she was a dog? Yet the words of our Savior are plain. It is not meet to take the children's bread, & to cast it to dogs, or whelps. Therefore this note reproveth our Savior, and not the author of the Arguments.

The two next scoffing notes with (d) and (e) have been often answered. We leave not our flocks in the plain field, but are driven from them by force, because we will not displease God, to please the Prelates.

A man should first cast out the beam that is in his own eye, before he find fault with a mote in another man's eye. As Christ is the only Archbishop of the Church, so I acknowledge him also the only husband of his spouse. For the one title, is as proper unto Christ, as the other. But here the Notary falleth again, over head and ears, into the same sophistry, that in the former note with (c) he did. The author saith, that such Ministers had performed the duty as it were of husbands; the notary crieth out blasphemy, as if he had simply called them, the husbands of the churches. The author therefore, did not blasphemously papize. But let other take heed of like papizing, that usurp such names and authority, as are proper only to Christ; and neither are, nor can be maintained by any other Arguments, then such as whereby the Papal dignity of the Antichrist of Rome is supported. The latter part of the note is to loathsome for any Christian tongue to read, or chaste ears to hear: therefore I cast it out on the dunghill, as unworthy of any answer.

Then belike the Prophet Malachi, (upon alleging of whose words this note is grounded) used a lying hyperbole. God that putteth up all the tears of his children into his bottle, knoweth and beholdeth this, and will one day, wype a way these, and all other tears from their eyes: when they that in the mean time scorn such tears of the godly ( so far are they from mournyng with them that mourn, and being sory for the afflictions of Joseph ) shall except they repent) have more, then their bellies full of weeping and waylyng, and gnashing of teeth.

The Lord that searcheth the hearts of all men, knoweth the affections of some of the Ministers now deprived, to be such towards their people, that if they might stay with their people with comfortable conditions, they had rather stay, (though their maintenance be but small) then accept of a thousand pound by the year else where with as good conditions. Therefore hardness of heart is not to be objected unto them. Touching the rest of this note, it is strange, that in the question of depriving ignorant Ministers, according to the law & statute in that behalf, this hath ben the principal objection, where, or how, will you have their places supplied? Much like to the question of the Disciples, whence should we get so much bread in the wilderness, as should suffice so great a multitude? Now the question being of our deprivation against law, and the paucity of sufficient Ministers being objected, reply is made, There is store, the Churches may be relieved otherwise. But let them be first relieved, that have ignorant Ministers, not knowing the principles of religion themselves, much less able to teach other.

Further answer to the 6. Argument.

The substance of these words being the same with the former note, is answered before: yet here I ad, 1 that it is more cruelty for the Prelates, for little or no cause to deprive such Pastors. 2 that this answerer seemeth still to account, sinnyng against God to be little or nothing. 3. that a thief by the like reason, may complain of the hardness of his heart, that had rather lose his Purse, then have his throat cut.

Take away tautologyes and other superfluityes, and this answer it self would scarce have been an obular or two farthing pamphlet. The first part of this answer, hath been removed before. Those that will not run away, where are they to be found? What net may one have to ketch them, what keep to hold them? For do not the Formalists daily run away from their people? Do they not take another lyving, and keep the former also, leaving one to some journyman, fit for all companyes? Yea, both Master & man, oftentimes leave both flocks to the Wolf, yea, I know some that for sake their own charges, and are curats else where under other. And to whom do some of them leave their own? To one, that all the week long goeth to hedging, ditchyng, throshyng, and other day labor for his livyng: who on the Lord's day, is at Church, with a white Surplice to read service. In harvest also they take harvest work, as ordinarily as other harvest men. I have seen it, not long since with my eyes. Some also within a fortnight after they are possessed of a living, of good worth, let it out for divers years, and so take their leave of the people, to serve a cure under another. O miserable condition of such a people. Whose heart melteth not to think of such wretched watchmen? What liklyhod therefore is there, that the Congregations deprived of their godly, loving & painful Pastors, shall have other as faithful, that will not run away from them? Touching the answer to the consequence of the former Argument, that the Pastors should rather return to their people and comfort them, obeying the wholesome ordinances of the Church etc: I answer that we will so do, when such ordlnances are proved by God's word to be wholesome.

The Marginall Notes.

1 Cosmographers in some Maps describe a bird called a Ruc, of such bigness, that she taketh up an Elephant with her talants very high into the air, and then letteth him fall to be broken and bruised, for her to feed on. It seemeth, this Notary hath an hand as large as the foot or tallants of this bird, since he maketh but an handful of all the Ministers suspended, deprived, or like so to be, for these matters now in question. Secondly, As the loss of one of his Majesty's shipps Royal, or of one of his strongest holds, or of one of his most worthy warriors, may be said to weaken the whole Kingdom, especially in the time of great war: and as the cutting in sunder of one principal post, or beam or pillar of an house, doth weaken the whole house; so, and much more is the loss & cutting of of so many worthy ministers of the gospel, the weakenyng of the whole land. For is not Satan, and are not Papists, and all the rest of Satan's army, so much the more strenghtned? Elia was but one, and accounted (as we are) a troubler of Israel: and left Elisha behind him: and yet the Argument telleth you; how they were accounted, though in their time there were many other Prophets. O therefore, that the meanest able and godly Minister, might not be lightly regarded, in these last and dangerous times. Howsoever they are esteemed of by the world, yet they are of more price, then great riches.

If there had been no name set to this book, these two notes, and many other the like, might have brought it in suspicion to have been penned by some professed Atheist. For (who almost but smelling of religion,) would have objected such things? Yea, who that had but tasted of logic, would have denied the conclusion, not regarding the proofs and premises? The wicked do indeed, sometimes in joy outward prosperity, either to molifie their own hearts, or to harden them the more to be the fitter for God's judgmentes, or to be scourges of God unto other: or to make them the more in excusable: yet they have no assurance, either of gettyng, or of holding such prosperity. Neither can they have anymore comfort thereby: then the godly may have discomforte by their afflictions: because indeed they have no interest thereunto from God. It is also a shameful untruth, that the Persians, Romans, or any other, in outward prosperity excelled the Jews, so long as the Jews regarded the word, honored the Prophets and other Ministers thereof, and maintained the pure worship of God. All that while, they were even in outward things the glory of all the world. What people ever had the like victoryes? What Nation for all prosperity was comparable to Israel in the days of Solomon, and to the Jews afterward, in the time of many other Kings? Of what City are so glorious things ever written as of Jerusalem? Read the places in the margin. Indeed after that they contemned the word of the Lord, abused his prophets, and neglected God his worship (and that especially through the fault of their Priests etc.) then the Lord forsaking them, made their enemies the chief etc.

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

Further answer to the 7 Argument.

The title refractary omitted, he is a senseless man, that can make nothing of that enthymem: especially these ministers pleaded for, being proved true and faithful. For though the gospel and Ministers thereof be distinct, yet he that speaketh for one, speaketh for both, and he that speaketh for both, speaketh for the land, the safety whereof dependeth upon both. But mark here again, the answerers sophistry; For whereas the author saith, that the Parliament is to speak for the gospel & Ministry thereof, the answerer taketh the word gospel, and altogether leaveth out, the other words, and the ministry thereof.

As there are some other faithful Ministers, so there are not many thousands that are able, much less faithful besides us. Generally throughout the land, there are Six reading ministers, for one preacher, at the least by practice. For there are some that are licensed to preach, that never did, are, or were able to preach. Many also that can preach seledome do Preach. Some also that do preach, (and that often) do it so Popishly or otherwise so corruptly: so foolishly and ridiculously, to make sport rather then to edify: so vainly and unprofitably, that it were better to hold their peace then so to preach.

That Ministers are called chariots and horsemen for gathering the Saints, (viz: out of the power and holds of the Devil) may be the truth in part: but yet, they being (in the places alleged) called the chariots and horsemen of Israel, not of the Saints, (and most of the Israelites being then wicked) and these titles being acknowledged of Elisha by a wicked King, that respected not the gathering of the Saints, but the outward defense of his kingdom, by the prayers and preaching of Elisha: it cannot be the whole truth. That we are such sores as the answerer speaketh of, is not proved. Indeed some conformitans so account us, because we rub their sores so much, and desire so earnestly the healing of them, that so their souls may be the better saved. We are also eye-sores to them: but sure I am, that we are not so to the godly, many of whose sores, God hath cured by us, and to whom our ministry hath been the savor of life, unto life. Other things in this argument, have received their reply.

The marginal notes upon the 8 Argument.

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

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

Nay rather, would not the Prelates be glad to have all persons and all causes subject to themselves? But more to this afterward.

A simple cavil, from the misplacing of a comma. The Notary might well have perceived, that these words, (in matters of eternal life,) were to be joined with the words going before, ambassadors of Jesus Christ, not with the words following, should be cast out of their freehold. This I say he might well have perceived, because there had been no speech of our freehold of eternal life, but only of this life.

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

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

When the Prophet exhorteth the Church, to open her doors for the King of glory to come in: did he signify that the Church had not before interteyned the King of glory? When Christ saith, Open unto me my sister etc. doth he meāe that his sister had him not at all before? Christ daily knocketh by his word and Sacraments, at the hearts of all the faithful to be let in. Are they therefore altogether without Christ? Allthough therefore Christ be already president in the Parliament, yet by the propounding of any good cause, he desireth to be further interteyned amongst them. This the author hath acknowledged, by calling thē often a Christian assembly: by commending their Christian zeal against the Papists etc. But this is the answerers sophistry before noted, to reason from the want of a thing in part, to the want thereof altogether. Therefore this is an unchristian and simple collection.

Further answer to the 8 Argument.

Nay we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced. We have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. Neither to evident Arguments out of holy scripture, will you submit your human ordinances, or yourselves: neither by any gentle and humble petitions, will ye Prelates come to any brotherly peace. Mildnes doth as much provoke you as bitterness. M. Nichols of Kent, writing most mildly and humbly, was rewarded severely, with suspension, deprivation, degradation. Our most humble petition to the Convocation, at the first Session of this Parliament, received a most rough answer. We seek peace, and when we speak thereof, ye are bent to war. As though ye sat in heavenly places, we have been unto you more vile then the earth. I complaīe not thus of all the Prelates. I know that some are wiser, milder, kinder, and more courteous thē other. As the bramble took more upon it, then the Olive tree, the vine or the fig tree, so sometime it is among Prelates.

We neither prayed nor urged anything to be done, but with all humility and loyalty: hoping that his most excellent Majesty upon the sight of the reasons, why they had decreed or determined anything (so far as they might among themselves) would likewise in his Princely and Christian regard, have vouchafed his Royal assent to their such decrees and determinations: which although it have not pleased his Highnes yet to do, yet we hope that hereafter upon further consideration, some other may find further grace with his Majesty in the like behalf.

Touching the former answer, may it please the reader, first to remember, that all the authors speech of the proceedings of the Bishops against Ministers suspended etc: is only to be understood of such Ministers, as whom they suspend and deprive, only for such causes as are mentioned in the title of the Arguments, not of other whom they suspend or deprive for any just cause. Now to proceed, that such Ministers have not yet in law (whereof the present question is) justified there cause, and declared that they are unjustly oppressed, nor can ever do, is not for want of matter of justification, or for want of the truth of unjust oppression (I mean only by the Prelates) but because they have not been admitted, to prosecute the justice of the land, nor to call in question the proceedings of their ordinaryes: who have been hitherto both Agents and Judges; both accusers and advocats in their own cases against them. And especially because upon pretense of a Canon lately made, (repugnant to the laws, statutes; and customs of the Realm) they be not suffered by the Archbishops Judge ad quem, to plead and to prosecute their appeals, and to declare their innocence according to the ancient laudable, and common usage and justice of the land: unto which grevance also many more exorbitant injustices (by the Prelates) hereafter mentioned may be added. Let the answerer therefore understand, that some Ordinaryes in their public sentences, have most unjustly charged some Ministers, with denial of the oth to the Kings supremacy: which notwithstanding, divers times before, they had willingly sworn unto, and which at the very instance of pronouncyng the sentence, they offered before their Ordinary to swear unto again. And not only thus lesingly, (to make the Persons of the said Ministers more odious to our most Christian King, his State, and all his people) in their public sentences of deprivation, have some Ordinaryes traduced the good name and estimation of the Ministers, but also without any other special crime worthy deprivation mentioned in their sentences, have they stussed their sentences full, only with general words of general crimes, contrary to the right form of judgment. For by right form of judgment, the Ordinaryes ought not to have impeached the Ministers, because of general crimes, but they ought to have said, and put in certain, in what things, and in what manner the said ministers have done anything worthy punishment of deprivation.

An other grevance & unjust oppression (by the said Prelates) of the said silenced ministers, is, that upon sentence of deprivation and appeals of the Ministers, the Ordinaryes have given notice to the Patron of the voydance of the Church, and upon new presentation of the Patron, have not only instituted new clerks; but also (to avoid the possession of the Minister deprived and appealing) have suggested and intimated by their certificatory writ, under their public seal unto the King, into his Court of Chancery, that the possession of the church was kept per vim laicam, & withal have prayed the Kings writ de la vi laica removenda. By virtue of which writ (upon their suggestion & intimation) granted, (for without their suggestion and intimation it would not be granted) the party appellant, before the appeal finished, hath ben removed out of his possession by the Sheriff of the Coūty. Notwithstanding in truth, the Church, parsonage or vicarage house, had within the same, no manner of vi laica at all: but was only quietly and peaceably possessed, by the late derived spiritual person, and his poor family.

And that this manner of a possession of a Church, by a spiritual person and his family, by the law of the Kingdom, is not to be holden vis laica, is plainly justified, by a late judgment given by the Kings Justices, touching the possession of the Church of Newton Valencoe in the Diocese of Winton. For where as a spiritual person possessed of the same Church, by virtue of the Kings writ de vi laica removenda, was removed out of his possession, and another spiritual person put in possessiō of the same church; the spiritual person dispossessed, upon the matter heard and examined, before the Kings Justices, that he was a mere spiritual person, and that his Church was possessed only by himself, and his domestikes, was by another of the Kings writs restored into, and possessed of the same Church; and which Church unto this day, he peaceably holdeth and enjoyeth.

A 4 grevance of the silenced Ministers, is that (there being a Canon made in the last Synod, that no judge ad quem shall grant any Inhibition to the judge a quo, unless he first see the original appeal) sundry Ordinaryes upon appeals made before them, have taken order with their Registers and Notaryes, not to deliver to the parties appellant, any noate or copy of any act or sentence, made or given before them. Where upon not only the party appellant is wronged, but the Notary also upon refusal of grāting to the party appellant (demanding and tendering to the Notary his fee) a public instrument of the public Acts and Records of the Court, cannot but incur the infamy of corruption and perjury: in as much as he being a public Notary, is sworn faithfully to execute the office of a public Notary; the execution of part of which office, consisteth (he being required thereunto) in his testimony and delivery of the public acts made in his presence.

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

A 6 grevance or rather a nullity is, because the whole power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, touching causes criminal, without exception or reservation of the examination and definition of the crimes of Ministers, by sundry Diocesans under their seal at arms, before that time was committed in solidum for term of life & years not expired unto their principal Commissaryes, Officials, or vicars general: whereupon it consequently followeth, the same Diocesans having no power by the Kings Ecclesiastical laws, to resume at their pleasure their said Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that the sentences given by the said Diocesans, in these cases are sentences void and of none effect in the law, as being given a Iudicibus iurisdictione in ea parte carentibus.

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

An 8 injustice is, because some acts and sentences have been made and given in some private chamber of some common Inn or Tavern, and not in publico et competente foro, in any public or competent seat, of Ecclesiastical justice. As M. Vinall and M. Warren, in the Diocese of Chichester were deprived, in a common Tavern, viz. at the sign of the Ounce and Ivy bush in Greensteed.

The 9 injustice is, because some sentences, given by some Ecclesiastical judges, for not use of rites and Ceremonyes, or not observing of the book of Common prayer, have not been given according to the tenor of and effect of the statute of the first of our late Queen, upon inquisition, information, or accusation, but only upon process ex mero officio. A thing if not directly, yet by consequence repugnant to the said statute; and therefore unwarrantable by the said statute. And therefore it is to be noted, that this marginal note (the Ecclesiastical judge may proceed ex officio ) in pag 37. and this parēthesis (which they may do ex officio ) inserted in the body of the statute pag 42. is but a begging of the question.

An other injustice against some Ministers hath been committed by some ordinaries, for that they have deprived them for none other cause, then only for not subscribing to the 3 articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon. And this wrong hath been openly in Parliament acknowledged, to be a wrong by the Archbishop himself, and by the Judges and advocats of his own Courts.

These and many such like things being thus, may it not be truly said, that the Ministers pleaded for are unjustly oppressed? And being so oppressed and without relief any other way, have they not just cause to supplicat to the High Court of Parliament? And hath not the said High Court great reason, yea is it not bound to find remedy, and to relieve them?

The answer concerning the person of him who is said abundantly to have proved the unlawfulness of the proceedings against the deprived ministers, that he is no judge nor any good Civilian or common lawyer, what reason have you to be so resolut herein? He may be a judge, a good Civilian, or common lawyer for ought you know, though you seem never so doubtless thereof. But what is this answer to the point in question? Seeing it mattereth not, what the person of the probator be, if his proofs be sufficient? And yet how mean so ever you think him, or his learning to be (if he be the party whom I aim at) I shall do no wrong (as I suppose to the chiefest judge, and best approved Civilian, of the now Archbishop of Canterburyes courts, if (without flattering the party) I shall affirm that he was a student and an advocate, and a Judge, yea, I may (as I think) say more, a reader of and a director in the practice of the civil law about 30 years passed, to sone that be now Doctors of the same law.

But to let the person and learning of the probator pass, I resolutely and directly answer to the answerers 3. Queres (the same being partly fraught with equivocations, and partly childish and absurd,) that the one sort can receive no resolute answer, before he have resolved his intrinsical and mental sense and understanding, and that the other without question, is a question questionless. His first Quere then being this, namely, [Quere. 1] whether the Church under Christian godly Magistrates, hath any tribunal proper unto it self, for the decyding of controversies, and punishing of such persons as shall refuse the ordinances thereof? Unto this Quere, when he shall distinguish and make his so many equivocations (contained in the Quere ) prespicuous and plain, to the understanding of every simple & plain meaning man, I shall (God willing) make him a simple, plain, resolute, & direct answer. In the mean time let him understand, first that we may justly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church: and namely, whether he mean the universal Church, or a National, a Provincial, a Diocesā, an Archidiaconall, a Decanall, a Capitular, or lastly a Parochial Church. For all men (as usually and commonly we speak) do understand, that every of these Churches, hath her proper name, after which she is so called: as namely the Church dispersed throughout the world, is called the universal Church, the Church within England is commonly called the National Church of England; the Church within the Province of Canterbury, the Provincial Church of Canterbury, the Church of the Diocese of London, the Diocesan Church of London, etc. And lastly the Church of great S. Ellens in London, the Parochial Church of S. Ellens in London. And therefore I crave a resolute and direct answer, of what only persons you mean that the universal, this National, Provincial, Diocesan, Archidiaconall, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochial Church consisteth? Who only be the Christian godly Magistrates, under whom everyone of these Churches liveth? Whether the same Christian godly Magistrates may personally be present, give their express consents, and have their decisive voices, to & in making all and every decrees of every of these Churches? What is the tribunal proper to it self, of every of these Churches? What only manner of controversies, by every of these Churches may be decided? What only kind of ordinances, every of these Churches may decree? What only kind of subject, and with what only kind of punishment, and none other, every of these Churches may punish the refusers of every their ordinances?

Our second main scruple, touching this first Quere, ariseth from these words (under Christian godly Magistrates) For if by these words (under Christian godly Magistrates) he understand that every of these Churches, livyng under the obeisance of such Magistrates, hath a tribunal proper unto it self, immediately derived to the same by the holy law of God, wholly secluded from the Christian godly Magistrates presence (as was the Sanctuary divided from the Court) and whereinto the Christian godly Magistrates may no more at this day enter, or no more give their consents and decisiue voices, in making the ordinances thereof, then it was lawful in times past for the Kings of Judah to enter into the holy place, and to burn incense at the Altar: then must we frame him one kind of reply: but if he shall inform us, his mental understanding to be thus, namely that the Christian godly Magistrates, have none other power, by law divine or human, but only to assemble every of the said Churches, to ratify the ordinances of every of the said Churches, or hath only power to command the same ordinances to be put in execution under them, then unto this answer we must shape him another manner of reply. Notwithstanding, in the meāe time this he must understand generally, that in right (though not always in possession & practice) the church being distinguished from the common wealth, hath the same power under a Christian, and under an Infidel Magistrate.

To dance after your Pipe, (I will not say, what a foolish and ridiculous question, but) what an od tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, before the Pipe be stricken up? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and other laws since made, be said to be contrary to them? This is as much, as one should ask, whether Adam not Circumcising Cain and Abel, did contrary to the law given for Circumcision, to Abraham many years after? Or whither Ishmael persecuted Isaac, before Isaac was borne? Or whether stealing of horses an hundred years past, were punishable with death, before any law made for death in that behalf? One thing cannot be said contrary to another, that is not, neither ever was extant in rerum natura. The Second part of this Quere, whether since the granting of Magna Charta unto this age, the judicial acts of deprivation of Bishops etc: were ever held to be contrary to the law of this kingdom, and Magna Charta, we shall answer (if God permit) more plentifully anon.

Though it were a sufficient answer to bid him go look, and himself to ask the opinion of every judge & learned officer, yet will I not altogether yield him so short and cutted an answer. And though it be a principle in Philosophy, that forma dat esse rei, yet to the being of everything there must be matter, to which the form giveth being. And therefore in this case, besides due form, there must be also due matter, inserted in due sentences. Wherupon I crave a resolute and direct answer, whether by those words (passed in due form) he mean passed for matter and form, in due form? Or whether he mean, passed without due matter in due form only? For if he mean by passed, (for matter and form,) in due form, then is his question (without question) either a foolish question, or no question at all. For who would question, whether any Judge or learned officer, could doubt, that a sentence passed for matter, and form in due form, were a sentence contrary to any, much less to many statutes? As though there were any Statuts so ridiculous and absurd? On the other side, if he mean by passed in due form, only due form without due matter, then we answer that the same sentence may be unjust, for want of due matter, and yet be just by reason of due form. And so on the other parte, we affirm, that a sentence may be just, by reason of due matter, and yet unjust by reason of an undue form. How many sentences therefore of deprivation soever, as have been lately given without due and just matter, or without due and just form, we answer so many not to have passed in due matter and form, and so contrary to some laws or statutes. But were this question wholly granted, what ease and advantage can the opinion of any judge or learned officer yield to those Judicial acts of deprivation (whereupon the controversy is grounded) which are not passed in any due form of any law, or Statute Ecclesiastical whatsoever?

Furthermore touching this question, if the Prelates did intend that all their sentences should be according to law, wherefor did they make a Canon against the ordinary prosecution of appeals? Yea, what needed such a Canon? What benefit is there to any appellant by his appeal, from a just sentence? Or what danger to the Judge a quo by such appeals? The whole danger is to the appellant himself. For the sentence being just, he shall be sure to get nothing, neither the Judge a quo to lose anything by the appeal.

Doth everyone that desireth limitation of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and laboreth to restrain it from all communion of forreyne laws, seek the subversion thereof? If also the laws Ecclesiastical, be the Kings Ecclesiastical laws, and the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, the Kings Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then is this place of Magna Charta, so far from subverting the jurisdiction or law Ecclesiastical, as that by that place, the same law and jurisdiction is up held, and more thoroughly established. That the law & jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ever hath been, and yet is accounted the Kings Ecclesiastical law and juridiction shall be shown anon.

All sent ces of Ecclesiastical Courts, are not so grave but that some are sometimes repealed by Higher courts, and sometimes revoked by themselves. Sometyme also they meddle with matters not belonging unto them, and therefore by ordinary course of Commmon law, they are prohibited to proceed. Finally in some case the Bishop giveth not Institution to a benefice, until by a Jury of 12. men (whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy, and 6 of the Layity) the controversy de iure patronatus be decided. Yea sometime the Bishop having instituted a clarke, is forced by writ from the common law, to admit of another clark presented by another Patron, and so to displace him whom before he had instituted.

The Prelates should make sure work indeed, if they could make, that no laws were against their power. Thē might they take upon them without controlment, what they would under color of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: as indeed they do now pretily begin to do.

Then belike the Kings Majesty is restrained by Magna Charta, but the Prelacy is not. Is not this good stuff? The King shall wear the Crown, but the Prelates will bear the sword. Whether now do they that are falsely called Puritans, or the Prelates most encroch upon the Royal authority?

This is utterly false: yea the falsehood thereof is evident by the testimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cook, in the book alleged by the answerer. For he saith expresely, that as in temporal causes, the King by the mouth of Judges in his Courts of Justice, doth judge the same by the temporal laws of England; so in causes Ecclesiastical etc. (the connusance whereof doth not belong to the common laws of England) the same are to be judged and determined, by Ecclesiastical Judges, according to the Kings Ecclesiastical laws, etc.

And again, observe good reader, (saith S. Edward Cook) seeing that the determination of heresies etc. belongeth not to the Common law, how necessary it was for administration of Justice, that his Majesty's progenitors Kings of this Realm, did by public authority authorize Ecclesiastical Courts under thē, to determine those great and important causes, etc. by the Kings Ecclesiastical laws. The jurisdiction therefore, Courts, and laws Ecclesiastical, in the opinion of the Kings progenitors were thought & held to be their own Kingly laws, Courts, and jurisdiction. The same is further proved by the said S. Edward Cook: by the president of Renulphus, in discharging and exempting the Monastery and Abbot of Abinden, from the jurisdiction of the Bishops and granting also to the said Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction etc: by the president of William the first, who made inpropriatiō of Churches with cure, to Ecclesiastical persons etc. and by divers presidents of other Kings since the conquest.

That which in this parte of the answer, is afterward added of the necessary restitution of the right of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to the Crown is also confuted by the same S. Edward Cook, who plainly saith, that though there had been no such law of restitution made, yet it was resolved by all the Judges, that the Kings and Queens of England for the time being, by the ancient prerogative law of England, may make such a Commision etc. And therefore by the ancient laws of this Realm, this kingdom of England is and absolute Empire, and Monarchy, consisting of one head, which is the King, and of a body politic, &c. Also that the Kingly head of this body politic is furnished with plenary power. &c. to render justice and right, to every part and member of this body. Thus far S. Edward Cook. From all which it followeth, that the restitution of the ancient right, howsoever lawfully made (as being made by the whole body of the kingdom) was notwithstanding not necessarily made, as though without it, the King or Queen, for the time being, could not have used their ancient right.

That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 answer to the consequence of this 8 Argument, doth not belong to the matter, because it doth nothing justify the proceedings of the Bishops or other Ecclesiastical Judges, in depriving of the Ministers pleaded for, in such manner and for such causes, as for which they have depriveded them. The question is not whether jurisdiction Ecclesiastical by the laws of the land doth be long (under the King) unto the ordinaryes: nor whether the Ordinaryes in the exercise of the Kings jurisdiction Ecclesiiasticall, and Consistoriall trials, ought to proceed by virtue of Peers, etc: but whether some Ordinaryes, exercising the Kings Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, have proceeded in their Ecclesiastical Consistories, against some Ministers, without authority of the Kings Ecclesiastical law: & therefore in that respect, contrary to Magna Charta, which requireth nothing to be done without the Kings law.

Further, although we grant (as S. Edw. Cook instructeth us) all laws Ecclesiastical derived from other (which by and with a general consent are approved and allowed here) to be aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiastical laws of England: yet I deny that all laws Ecclesiastical, derived by the Kings progenitors, either before or since the Conquest from others, are now in this age our Sovereign Lord King James his Ecclesiastical laws: and therefore howsoever many judicial Acts of deprivation, of Bishops & Priests, from their benefices &c. according to the Ecclesiastical law, which is called ius Pontificium, & which was derived, by the Kings Progenitors, from the Bishops of Rome, either before, or since the Conquest, unto Magna Charta, and since that, to the 25 of King Henry the eyght, were never, all held, to be contrary, but were ever all held, to be agreeable to the laws of this kingdom: yet notwithstanding, I affirm that all Judicial Acts and sentences, (how many soever, of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices) had made and given, by the Ecclesiastical Judges, since the 25. of King Henry the 8. only according, or only by force, and virtue of the said ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Rome his law, (the sentences given in the time of Queen Mary excepted) are, and ought to be holden, not to be had, made & given, by the laws of this kingdom, or by the Kings Ecclesiastical law: And why? Even because the whole ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Rome's law was altogether (excepting the time of Queen Mary ) abrogated, adnulled, and made void, by an Act of Parliament; and consequently is but a mere Alien, Forraine and strange law, and no municipal law of England, and therefore not the Kings Ecclesiastical law.

Wherefore our Sovereign Lord King James, by this grant of Magna Charta made by his progenitors, being obliged, to suffer no Free man of the Realm, to be taken or imprisoned, or disseissed of his Frrehold, or liberties, &c. Nor to pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. We again assume from this statute of the great Charter, that sundry sentences of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices, for causes before specified, are unlawful; because such Ministers have been condemned, and judgment hath been passed upon them, without lawful judgment of their Peers, or law Ecclesiastical of the land. For here we must give the answerer to wit, by these words, (or law of the land,) that all the Kings laws, of what nature or quality soever, whether Ecclesiastical or temporal, and not only the laws temporal, (as he insinuateth) are included. As therefore no temporal Free man of the Realm, may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, and freehold, &c. in a temporal cause, and in a temporal Court, without lawful judgment of his Peers, or temporal law of the land. Even so likewise, no Ecclesiastical person, (being a freeman of the Realm) may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, or frehold, but by lawful Ecclesiastical judgment, according to the law Ecclesiastical of the land. And hereupon we grant, if the King have any law Ecclesiastical of the land, for the deprivation of a Minister, from his liberty and frehold, for not subscription, perjury, contempt of Canonical (so called obedience, omission of Rites, and Ceremonyes, not precise observation of the book of Common prayer &c. Then we grant, that the Ordinaryes (being the Kings Judges Ecclesiastical) may rightly deprive a Minister from his benefice, for these offenses.

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

It is therefore erroneously alleged, that that which was done by jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, when Magna Charta was granted, was not at that time taken to be done by the King, or by his authority, and that the laws which Ecclesiastical Judges practiced, were not then held, to be the laws of the land, or the Kings laws. For the Kings progenitors, did both think and held, that jurisdiction Ecclesiastical did in right belong unto their Crowe, and therefore in fact, by right of their crowns, did they both exercise, and command to be exercised, in their Kingly names, their Kingly right, authority and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within their Realms. For how could those Kings, have commanded, and how could their subjectes have obeyed, if the Kings themselves, had thought, and held, that the Ecelesiasticall courts, laws or jurisdiction, were not in right, no more then in fact, at that time belonging unto the Crown as the answerer, vainly, and childishly fancyeth? Which fancy also seemeth sufficiently confuted by the very title of S. Edward Cooks book, de iure regis Ecclesiastico. For how could the Kings before and after the Conquest unto Magna Charta have been justly entitled to Kingly right of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, if the Kings had no Kingly Ecclesiastical right, or jurisdiction at all.

It is a most plain and clear case, that neither the case of Cawdrie, is the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers; nor that the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers, is the case of Cawdrie.

Cawdrie was deprived, not by his Ordinary, but by the Queens Ecclesiastical high Commissioners; not for not subscribing to the 3 Articles; not for the not use of rits and Ceremonyes; not, for the not exact, and precise observation, of the book of Common prayer: But as well, for that he had preached against, and depraved the said book, as also for that he refused to celebrate divine service, according to the said book.

Agayne, in his cause, it being found before the High Commissioners, that he had uttered verba convitiosa and contumeliosa, convitious, and contumelious words, against the boke of Common prayer; the case was not, whither his fact were punishable by the Statute, (for of that no man then doubted;) but whether his depravation, and preaching against the book of Common prayer, being the first offense committed by him against the Statute; he was punishable by tenor of the statute, for the same his first offense, by depravatiō, yea or no? Lastly Cawdries offense was punishable as well before the Queens Justices by imprisonment, and loss of one whole years profits, of his spiritual promotions, as by deprivation before his Ordinary. None of all which things, were within the compass, of sundry the late deprived Ministers. For non of thē ever preached against the book, nor depraved the same. They never refused to observe the same book, according to the proeme of the book & tenor of the statute. They were so far from claymyng any immunity, from being depraved, for their first offense, as that they stood and yet do stand, upon their innocencyes, not to have committed any offense at all, against the statute punishable with deprivation, by the statute they allege, that they were not punishable before the Kings Justices by the statute, for these facts which they were charged by their Ordinaries to have committed against the statute, and for which they were deprived. Lastly, some of them were deprived not for any fact done, committed, or perpetrated: but for not promissing hereafter, to observe the whole book. And what an unconsiderate part therefore is it, to avowe the lawfulness of the deprivation of all the late silenced Ministers, to be a plain case adjudged in open Court; when neither their case, nor any like case to some of theirs, was ever yet brought or argued before the Kings Justices in any of the Kings open courts at all.

Touching the statut alleged, 1. Elizabeth, it helpeth nowhitt at all the late deprivations of sundry Ministers, First, because such Ministers as have been deprived only for not conformyng themselves, to the use of the book provided by the parishioners cannot truly be charged to have refused the book commanded by the statute. Because the same book was never provided for them. Secondly, the statute punisheth not every refuser, but willful and obstinate refusers. They then that upon conscience only of God's word, do refuse to observe all things contained in the book, cannot be justly called obstinate refusers, till their grounds out of the word, be by the word removed. Thirdly, the statute requireth some Act, done, committed or perpretrated against the Statut: but some Ministers have been deprived only for not promising &c: as before was said. Fourthly, the statute appointeth the Ordinaries to proceed by inquisition, accusation, or information: But many of us have been deprived without any of these means, and only upon Proces, Ex officio mero. Heerby therefore appeareth, how unjustly, and directly contrary to the words of the statute, you insert this Parenthesis, (which they may do Ex officio, ) as if they might by virtue of this Statute proceed Ex officio, whereas the Statute expressly requires inquisition, accusation, or information. Is this good interpretation? If you do so interpret the scripture directly contrary to the words of scripture, in the same place you make but mad interpretations.

Touching that which is objected against all hitherto spoken in the point of the law, of the opinion of the Judges to be against the same, may it please the reader to remember the saying of an Honorable and most renowned Counselor in that behalf, viz. that in such cases and all other, men are not so much to respect what judges speak standing bare headed, as what they say sitting upon the judgment seat, representing the Kings person (yea not executing the judgment of man but of the Lord ) when all men stand bare headed before them.

Concernyng the oth Ex officio, we affirm that the law of the land is against the exercise of the same oath, by Ordinaries and other judges Ecclesiastical.

[ A] The Common law of this kingdom which is grounded upon the law of God, and of reason doth hate and abhor it.

[ B] First in respect of the frailty of man who for the safitie of his life, liberty, credit, and good name, will not spare to profane even that which is most holy, and by committing sinful perjury hazard his soul. which the subtle serpent well knew in general though he were deceived in the particular, in that he said unto God concerning Iobskinne for skin, and whatsoever a man hath will he give for himself and for his life, but stretch out thy hand (saith Satan) and touch his bones, and his fleesh, and see if he will not then blaspheme [ C] thee to thy face. Secondly in respect of the feebleness of the judgment and sentence, that should be grounded upon the oath of such a party, being even then at his convention, aforehand defamed, and of suspected faith or credit.

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

[ E] And the renowned Prince King Edward the first saith by the pen of the learned Judge Briton, that no judgment may be of fewer, then three persons, that is to say; a Judge, a plantiefe, and a defendent, and in case (saith the King) that we be a party, we will that our Court shall be Judge.

[ F] Then if the party convented be constrained to accuse himself, he susteineth two of the said parties in judgment, viz. actoris et rei, which the law hateth, or else the Ordinary or Judge susteineth two of the said parties in judgment, that is both Judge and Promoter, which the law doth also abhor.

[ G] Therefore true judgment cannot so consist.

[ H] If it be objected that common brute and fame may lawfully stand in steead of an accuser, and put a person cōvented to purge himself thereof, and to deliver his knowledge also of others by oeth; I answer that fame is tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri, and ought to have no credit until it be presented in course of law or proved, For the law is, that the Judge himself (if he would of his own knowledge affirm the party to be in famous) is not to be received or believed. For that the law will, quod secundum acta et probata iusticia ministretur.

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

[ K] That which is objected (that if this course should not be taken by proceeding by oth Ex officio mero, vice would abound; for that accusation is dangerous, and odious,) is easily answered. That the commō law seeth this also, and therefore hath ordained common enformers to proceed against such as private persons will not deal with by witnesses and such legal courses, and allow them part of the penalty for their labor, and yet alloweth the party wrongfully accused his damages and costs if the accusation be wrongful and injurious. In so much as if the enformer will not, or be not able to render it, he shall receive corporal punishment for his offense, and for the redemption of the defendant credit and reputation.

The Statute law also is, that no free man shall be apprehended or imprisoned, or to be disseased of his free hold, or liberties, or free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or any wise distroyed, nor we shall pass upon him, nor deal with him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, that is by presentment, Indictmēt, witness, verdict, voluntary confession, or process of utlary.

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

After this in the height of the Popes pride in the days of King Henry the 4. (who was willing to please him being a King in facto, but not de iure, ) this oath crept in, as a Canonical sanction, by the statute of 2. H. 4.

But the iniquity, injustice; and repugnancy thereof to the Common laws & statutes of the Realm appearing to the State, it was by K. H. 8. by the whole Parliament abrogated as injurious to the Crown, and utterly against the common justice of the kingdom, and so it resteth condemned to this day. So that no Ordinary can practice it by any power under the Crown.

Then it followeth that the use thereof must needs be by color of the Canon law, which being in that point derogatory to the Crown, repugnant to the law of this kingdom, and abolished by Act of Parliament, it consequently cannot be used, but by a foreign power and thē it is premunire.

And to that which is alleged by the Civilians, that the Common law alloweth it in that, which is termed the wager of law, or doing of his law, it appeareth that they are therein utterly mistaken, which may easily arise out of their ignorance thereof.

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

2 The wager of law cometh from the certain knowledge of the deponent, who best knoweth whither he ow the debt or not: This is contrary, most uncertain, what shall be demanded or interrogated

3 Again, the wager of law maketh an end of the strife; but this is contrary viz: the beginning of strife: for it is not final, but frō thence the Judge gathereth the ground whereupon to proceed against the party convented.

4 The wager of law is in case mere and only civil, for an honest man may be in debt; but this oath is ministered in case mere criminal, in which case the oath is so much the more odious to the Common law, by how much it is an apparent occasion of perjury: which carnal men will rather fall into, then to subject themselves to corporal punishment, or to lay open their own turpitude or shāe?

Neither can this proceeding by oath ex officio be found in the Honorable Court of Starr chamber. For although the courts of Starr chamber and Chauncery proceed not by Jury, yet they observe the due form of justice, and enforce no man to answer, but where he hath a known accuser and perfect understanding of the cause or crime objected, and therewithal is permitted to have a copy of the bill of complaint or information, and allowed more over both time convenient and council learned, well to consider & advise of his oth & answer, and if his adversaries complaint, be either in sufficient in form, or such as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine, the defendant upon demurrer without oath is dismissed, and that with costs. And admtit the accusation be such as is every way aunswerable, yet if the interrogatoryes ministered be impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendant without offense to the Court, may refuse to make answer to the same.

Therefore no similitude or likeness between this oth used in these Honorable courts of Justice & that constrained oath ex mero officio Iudicis.

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

2 The one where the plantiff and matter of complaint are manifest, the other where neither accuser nor matter of accusation doeth appear, unless the bare suspicion of the Judge, fame unproved, or private insinuation, may be allowed for competent persons in judgment, against whom the party defendāt is deprived of all legal exceptions, & is often, after great trouble dismissed and (though innocent) yet dampnified and slandered and without recompense, there being no complanant found, but the Judge himself.

3 The one made upon certain knowledge and good advisment, the other soddenly without all discretion upon uncertain demands.

4 The one wisely restrained to certain limits & bounds the other foolishly wandering at the doubtful will of a sly and subtle opposer.

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

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

That which is objected that the said proceeding is warranted by the Canon law or Civil law, is answered many ways; but briefly by the positive law it self, that banisheth all Canon Civil, or other law, or preeminence, or power whatsoever, which is contrary or repugnant to the common law of the land; But this proceeding by the parties own oath ex officio mero, is contrary and repugnant to the common law of the land. Ergo

Thus we see that this proceeding by oth ex officio was a mere stranger in England, and how it arrived herein Anno 2. H 4. but yet as a masker, disguised, marching in the rowte of Cannonicall sanctions & obscured from the view of the State under that name; but after being discovered as an adder in the grass, was damned and expelled, by the Statute of 25. H. 8. as a traitor to the King and his laws, and hath no lawful or warrantable interteynment by the statute of primo Elizab, For that there by no jurisdiction excercised by the Bishop of Rome in this kingdom is annexed to the crown, but that which was then lawfully used and excercised within this kingdom:

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

Now to pass from the oth ex officio, to the Canons, and yet not to deal with those that are of indifferent sort, but with those only, that are either contrary to God's word, or repugnant to the laws of the land, neither also to say all of these in this place, that might be said, but only (for brevities sake) to give a taste, and to point at some; may it please the Christian reader, yea the answerer himself, yea all our adversaries in this cause (that are not too much blinded with malice) to consider, that all such Canons generally as pronounce a man ipso facto excommunicate, for saying thus or thus, against the Canons themselves, against the Ceremonies, against the book of Common prayer, and the strict observation thereof, etc: cannot be justified in this behalf by the word of God. For as (to prevent an objection that might be made from the commandment for reading of them publicly in Churches) albeit the sacreed scriptures be daily publicly read and preached, yet many things are both wittingly and unwillingly spoken, and actually committed, against the said sacreed scriptures, for which notwithstanding, such persons are not presently to be held ipso facto excommunicate: so certainly (except the authority of the Church be greater then the authority of God, and the Canons of this last Synod more authentical, then the holy scriptures given by inspiration from God, ) it must be acknowledged of these Canons, and all other constitutions of the Church whatsoever, that every word spoken, or act committed against thē (especially unwittingly) is not so heavily to be punished.

Agayne, whereas the said Canons, do forbid any man by speech so offending, without public revocation, of his said (pretended) wicked error, to be restored: since the said offense may be committed as well privately, as publicly, and since the Canons speak generally (whosoever shall affirm etc,) without any exception of private affirmations; how can the said Canons in this respect, be warranted by the word of God? If all offenses against God's word, (at least of man against man) be not publicly to be reprehēded; much less are all affirmations in disgrace of any Ecclesiastical constitutions of men, to be punished with public penance.

Furthermore whereas divers of the said Canons, do forbid many offenders by such affirmations, to be restored by any other means, then only by the Archbishop: since the said offense may not only be unwitting & private, but also by a poor ignorant man, yea perhaps a lame impotent man, dwelling also it may be an hundred miles, or almost 200. miles from the Archbishop. What equity is there, that such an offender, should be debarred from all restoring by any other? And so, for want thereof, be deprived (perhaps all his life) from all public communion with the Church, and from all spiritual comfort for his soul thereby? Is this the mercy that is better then sacrifice? And whereby we do represent our heavenly Father?

The 13. Canon commandeth the celebration of holy days, as well as of the Lord's day, and that as equally agreeing to God's holy will and pleasure. I deny not, but that as God's word is to be preached at all times, in season and out of season, so it is also to be heard as oft as men have opportunity: but yet that the holy days now commanded to be celebrated, are as equally according to God's holy will and pleasure, as the Lord's day (especially so to be celebrated, as they are enjoined, with greater solemnities sometimes then the Lord's day it self,) this is contrary both to the 4 commandment, and also to many other Scriptures, which condemn such observation of days, and times. The holy days also now commanded to be kept, may be abrogated by the Magistrate, as well as other, that were wont to be observed. But I hope, that although some are bold to say as much of the Lord's day, yet our Prelates will not publicly allow of any such rash & impious opinion.

The 14. Canon commanding all divine service, prescribed in the book of common prayer to be read upon the days appointed, without any diminishyng in regard of preaching or in any other respect; is against charity and consequently against the word. For the weakness of some men's body, at all times is such, that they are not able to read all and to preach. At sometime also, the strongest man, may have such an infirmity, that he may not be able to endure the performance of both. In winter, many times the extremity of cold, will not permit the whole auditory, to continue so long at Church. Then (will some say,) let preaching by such persons as are so weak, or at such times, be omitted. This indeed is that which many would have. But this is to perform bare reading before preaching: ignorance before knowledge: and the ordinances of man, before the commandments of God.

The 18 Canon for bowing at the mention of the name of Jesus, is absurd in that respect: because the place whereon it seemeth to be grounded, is not literally so to be understood. First for that it speaketh of things not only in earth but also in heaven, and under the earth, in which places there are no knees. 2. It speaketh not only of men, but also of all other creatures. For it saith of all things. By the literal interpretation therefore, all creatures at the mention of the name of Jesus, should bend their knees. 3. By this interpretation, no man must sit whilst anything is read, that hath that name, or else the must rise at the mention thereof to bow their knee. 4. It is superstition, to give more reverence, to the name Jesus then to the name Christ, God, Jehovah, or the Holy Ghost. 5. If the knee be so to be bowed, at the name of Jesus, why not also at the name Savior? For what doeth Jesus signify but Savior? 6. The place speaketh not of that which is due to the name, but of that which is due to the person of Jesus. So the Canonists are deceived, with that fallacy, which is a rebus ad voces. 7. It speaketh of that which is due to him, as well in private, as in public places: in our houses, at our tables, in our beds: as we sit, as we walk, as we lie: If then we sit at table, or lie in our beds etc: we must not speak of Jesus, but we must arise to make a leg. Lastly, this name Jesus, is no more then Joshua, who therefore is called Jesus Act. 7.45. It is also the name of Iozadak. Zech. 3.1: compared with Ecclesiasticus 49.12: and Ezra 3.2: and of the Son of Sirach: and of one Iustus Coloss. 4.11. The common people therefore for want of preaching and by their own negligence, being so ignorant, that they cannot well discern the name Jesus our Savior from the same name of other, they may mistake themselves and bow the knee, as well at the mention of other so named as of Jesus our Lord and Savior, and so ignorantly they should commit blasphemy. That which is said for defense heerof by some, that we should the rather bow at this name, to testify our hatred against Arianism, is more dotage thē divinity: and therefore not worthy any answer. The Deity of Christ is more manifest by other names, especially by the name Emmanuell, then by the name Jesus.

Touching the Canons for Coapes, Surplices, Cross, and other Conformitie, as also touching the present Hierarchy, and manner of ordaynyng Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc: and for Subscription; it is too long in this place, to set down particular reasons against them. Therefore I refer the reader to particular treatises of those things, both heretofore, and also lately written.

The 49. Canon, for no Minister to preach or expound any Scripture or matter of doctrine, without a special license in that behalf; is a most lamentable contrariety to the word, which commandeth every Minister, both to be apt to teach, and to teach indeed. And I would gladly know of such Canon -makers, whither those that they call by the name of Ministers, be Ministers of the word or no? If they be Ministers of the word, shall they not have power to expound and preach the word by virtue of the said Ministry? Yea, do not they themselves, when they ordain them Ministers, bid them take power to preach the word? It is yet more lamentable in the said Canon, that they command all Ministers (not specially licensed, to preach or expound in their own chardges) only to study to read plainly and aptly (without glozing or adding) the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be published etc. For do not these words plainly import, that some Ministers are not able to read without studiyng for it, even after they be made Ministers? Yea, do not the words (only to study to read plainly and aptly the Homilies etc.) imply a precept against studiyng to read the scriptures, which are harder then Homileis: especially against studiyng to preach hereafter? O miserable condition then of such people, as have such Ministers as must go to school to learn to read the Homilies, not the scriptures, yea and which must not study at all ever to Preach.

The 53. Canon against confuting of any public doctrine (how heretical or dangerous so ever) before the Bishop be made acquainted with the said doctrine; is most prejudicial to the salvation of the hearers of such erroneous teaching. For the souls of men being by nature as capable of any errors, as their bodies are of any infectious disease; and the Bishop of the same Diocese, sometime perhaps dwelling or being an hundred miles from the Church, wherein such errors were delivered; and the life of man being most uncertain; and Bishops themselves being sometime erroneous, and therefore not very hasty to have errors confuted: may not many a soul be infected with such error, yea, and die in them, before any remedy can be had against them?

This shall suffice for a taste of the contrariety of divers Canons, to God's word. If I should particularly run over other, that have like cōtrariety; this volume would much exceed, both my own purpose, and also the likyng of all readers.

Before I proceed to the Canons repugnant to the laws of the land; let me here interlace one reason in a word generally to prove, both the Canons and also the book of Common prayer (now imposed upon Ministers,) not yet to be established by law, and so consequently all the proceedings of the Prelates against the said Ministers for not subscribyng, observing the book, conformity etc, to be without law, and a gainst law. This one reason, is from the late Bill of the Bishops presented to the Parliament for the establishing both of the book of Common prayer, and also of their Canons. For if the said book and Canons were already good in law; what needed any new statute to establish them? If they say that abundance cautela non nocet, plentiful caution is not hurtful, they must also remember, that they have likewise learned, frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora: It is in vain to do that by many things, which may be done by few.

Now to the Canons repugnant to the law.

We decree and appoint (saith the Synod) that no judge, ad quem, shall admit or allow any his or their appeals (speaking as they call them of obstinate and factious appellants) unless he have first seen the original appeal. But the King (say I) is a judge ad quem. Ergo, the King (saith this Synod) may not admit or allow any appeal etc. The liberty, and franchise then of the Kings will, and grace, after this unwonted manner, (by a Synodal decree only) being thus blemished, impeched, and restrained; what dignity, preeminence, superiority, or prerogative, hath the Kings grace, when the King himself is chardged, not to grant any inhibition out of his Court of Chauncery, but conditionally and upon an unless etc.

And if by this Canon, the Kings will and grace, receive let, hindrance, and prejudice; what should we think, but that this Canon also tendeth, to the weakenyng of the Kings arm and power? For how can his power be strong, and his arm able to help, when his grace is bound, and his will, unable to will?

And then again, if these two main pillars of his Majesty's prerogative Royal (namely his grace and his power) be thus shaken by this Canon, must it not necessarily follow, that the Lord's and Commons in Parliament, are prejudiced thereby? For the rights & perogatives, of the Kings Crown, by the laws of the Realm, be not invested, and appropried, unto the Kings person, only in regard of his Majesty's own Royal estate; but also for the good condition, and preservation of his body Politic, which is the Common wealth. Which body also for the just, and necessary defense both of the head (which is the King) and of it self, hath such a proper claim, and interest, in, and to the grace, and power of the head, as the lest jot of the power and grace of the head, may not be blemished to the prejudice of the body, without consent of the body. viz: of the Lord's & Commons in Parliament, who are the very image, and true representiue body of the Realm: yea and thus much in effect, have the Kings progenitors, and the Auncestors of our Nobles, and Commons agreed upon in Parliament; when by their authority and consent, it was forbidden, that anything should be attempted, which should tend, to the blemishyng of the Kings prerogative, or to the prejudice of his Lord's & Commons. And when also, by common consent, it was enacted in effect, that neither King John, nor any other King, could bring his Realm and people in thraledome, and subjection, but by consent in Parliament.

Furthermore appeals being de iure naturali, and introduced into judgment seats, tam ob defensionem et presidiū innocentiae, quam ad deprimendam iniquitatem, et corrigendam imperitiam iudicis; as well for the defense and savegard of innocence, as for the depressing of the iniquity, and correcting the unskillfulness of a Judge, as they have been evermore allowed by the laws, & custōes of the Realm, so have they been suffered, as freely to be prosecuted, as interposed. For otherwise, how should either innocence be protected, or the injustice of a judge reformed, in case an appeal being interposed, might not be prosecuted, frustra (saith S. Edward Cook) expectatur eventus, cuius effectus nullus sequitur.

And according unto this natural equity, hath it been specially provided by a Statute of the realm, that the Kings subjects, being grieved, should not only have liberty, to make, but also, to take, have, use, and prosecute all manner of appeals, after such manner, form, and condition, as is limited, for appeals, to be had, and prosecuted. And for lack of Justice many Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm, it is lawful for the party grieved, to appeal to the Kings Majesty in his Court of Chauncery. And upon every such appeal, a Commission (saith the Statute) shall be directed under the great Seal, to such persons, as shall be named by the Kings Highnes, to hear and definitivly determine such appeals, with the causes, and all circumstances. It is therefore apparent, that this Canon, is contrary or repugnant to this Statute. For this Canon, and this statute thus repugnantly providing, and working divers repugnant effects, the statute simply, admitting the use and prosecution of all manner of appeals, the Canon not admittyng but conditionally the use and prosecution of some appeals; cannot stand together.

Agayne, some inferior Ordinaryes having liberty, to take the bridle in their own teeth, & to lay the reins loose, on their own necks, may in time (being proudly pampred) wax wanton in their judgment seats; when they shall stand in no awe, of having, the nullity or injquity of their process and sentences, weighed in the balance of any superior Judge. By reason whereof, this Canon, cannot but prove exceeding onerovs to the subject.

For let a man or woman, dwelling at Michaels Mount, be but once judicially, (though perhaps wrongfully) cited by the name of a factious or obstinate person, & cōtemner of ceremonies, and from such wrongful citations, let his, or her appeal, made to the Kings Majesty in his Court of Chauncery (if it be frō the Archbishop, ) or unto the Archbishop (if it be from the Diocesan ) be never so just, & equal, there is no remedy in this case, before his, or hirs appeal, be admitted or allowed, but the same man or woman (by the letter of this Canon ) must personally appear, in the Archbishops Consistory, if the appeal be by the Archbishop, and if the appeal be to the King in the Kings Court of Chauncery, though the same should be at Barwicke. Yea, and though the party appellant be never so poor, aged, weak, and impotent. Nay not only personal appearance, but personal subscription also, by this Canon is required, to the Kings Supremacy, to the Articles of Religion, to the book of Homilies, to the book of Common prayer, and to the book of Consecrating Bishops, be the party appellant, never so simple a laborer, or never so silly a spīster.

The 37. Canon disauthoriseth every Minister by what authority so ever he be admitted, to preach, or to read a Lecture in any place within the Realm, unless he be licenced, either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the Diocese, or by one of the two Universities under their hands and seal. Let the King then under his broad seal, grant license to any of his Chapleines to preach within his own chapple, this licenc by this Canon, is of no value; then the which what can be more derogatory, to the Sovereign dignity of the King in causes Ecclesiastical?

Unto the mould of this Canon, agreeth the 47. Canon, (before mentiōed) which concludeth, that no Minister not licēsed a Preacher, under the hand & seal of the Bishop of the Diocese, or Archbishop of the Province, or under the seal of one of the Universities, shall take upon him to expound, in his own cure any scripture, or matter of doctrine, but shall only study to read plainly, and aptly, without glossing or adding, the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be published by lawful authority. The King then by this Canon, may not license, a Minister to preach or to expound any scripture, no not in his own cure, no though the ministers Cure, be the Kings own household, or the household of the Prince, or any other of the Kings children. Nay by these two Canons and the Canon of subscription it is evident, that the Prelates intended, that every Scottish Minister havyng renounced the Hierachie, and embraced the single form of Goverment in Scotland, should be barred from preaching at any time before the King in England, unless he should subscribe to the Hierarchy of England. For without a license may none preach, and without subscription may none be licenced.

And not only is this 47. Canon, derogatory to the Kings prerogative, but it is also repugnant, to other the Kings laws and statutes. For whereby that statute, made against Lolardy, and Heresy,, it was enacted, that none should presume to Preach openly, or privily, without the license of the Diocesan, first required & obtained, yet by the same Act, Curates in their own Churches, and Parsons privileged were excepted, and by the Provincial Constitutions, confirmed and ratified by Parliament, it is provided thus: We establish, that no secular, or regular, not authorised by written law, or protected by special privilege, to preach the word of God, may take upon him the preaching or exercise of the same word, within any Church, or without any Church, unless first he present and submit himself, to the examination of the Diocesan etc: But concerning aperpetuall Curate, we understand such a one, by law and right to be sent to the place, and people of his Cure. And that we may understand whom the Canon meaneth, to be a perpetual Curate the gloss showeth us, that a Bishop in his Diocese, a Parson and Vicar in his Parish, and every other Person entitled, to any benefice whereunto apper teyneth cure of souls, is to be understood to be a perpetual Curate, and that he may preach in his own Cure, without the Bishops license.

Moreover by the book of ordering Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, everyone made a Minister, promiseth that he will give all faithful diligence always, to minister the doctrine etc: as the Lord hath commanded etc: so that he will teach the people committed to his cure and chardg, withal diligence to keep and observe the same. But how can a Minister instruct and teach the people committed to his chardge, according to his public vow, if (as it is said in this Canon ) he shall not take upon him to expound in his own Cure, any scripture or matter of doctrine at all, but shall only study to read plainly and aptly, (without glossing or adding) the Homilies etc?

Lastly, the words of the Bishops institution are these. Teque rectorem eiusdem, ac de, et ineadem instituimus canonice, et investimus, cum suis iuribus, et pertinentiis universis, curamque et regimen animarum prochianorum ibidem in Domino cōmittimus per-presents. And we (speaking of a Clarke to be instituted into a benefice) Canonically institute thee rector of the same Church, and of, and in the same do invest thee, withal her rights & appertinances; and by these presents, we in the Lord commit unto thee both the cure and government, of the souls of the Parishioners in that place. The Clearke then instituted into a benefice, by these words of the Bishops institution, by the book of ordering of Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, and by the Provincial Constitutions, having not a private, but a public office, of cure and regiment of souls, committed unto him; how can it seem reasonable, that he should be countermanded by reason of a Provincial decree not confirmed by Act of Parliament, not to excercise the same his public office, without a Bishops license? For what if the Bishops refuse to grant him a license? Or what if the Bishops and his officers see, for granting, writing, & sealyng his license be greater then the poor Minister is able to disburst, is it reason that his chardg by this meāes should be left uninstructed? Nay is it not, as if a Sergiant at law, called to the bar of the Common pleas, by the Kings writ, solemly created a Sergiant, and publicly admitted to the same bar, should afterward be forbidden by the chief Justice of that Court, to plead at that bar, without license otteyned, under his hand and seal? Or is it not, as if a Doctor of Physic, solemnly created in the University, and publicly admited to practice artem medica, should notwithstanding, without a new faculty from the Doctor of the Chair be inhibited, to minister any Pill, or Portion, to any patient?

The 53. Canon, before also mentioned, viz. against public opposition between preachers, is not only repugnant to the doctrine of holy Scripture, & contrary to the practice of the Prophets & Apostles, but also crosseth the Ministers vow solemly made at his ordination. Whose promise is that he will be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish, & drive away, all erroneous, and strang doctrine contrary to God's word, and to use both public, and private motions, and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure. But upon occasion given, by any false Prophet, publicly broaching false doctrine, in a Ministers chardg, how shall the Minister with all faithful diligence drive away the same false doctrine, and publicly teach the truth, if he may not teach, admonish, or exhort his people, without a license first obtained from the Bishop of the Diocese? For what if the Bishop be upon an embassadg in Denmark? Or what if the Bishop himself be of the same judgment with the false teacher?

The 91. Canon entitled Parish Clearks to be chosen by the Ministers, is contrary and regugnant to the customs of the Realm, in many Parishes of the Realm. And in this regard, this Canon hath been blown to pieces, at the bar of the Common Pleas, by the opinion of the whole beench in Hylarie term last: when upon a writ of prohibition, procured by certain Parishioners, in the County of Hertford, the Judges denied a consultation, to the Minister of the same Parish, who had convented the Parishioners, before the Ecclesiastical Judge, for gaynsaying his election of the parish clearke; which by virtue of this Canon, he had declared in the Ecclesiastical Court, to belong unto himself a lone.

The 77. Canon entitled, none to teach school without license, is repugnant to a statute made the first Session of this Parliament in divers poyntse. First the statute permitteth ascholemaster to teach, in any public free grāmer school, without any license of the Bishop of the Diocese; or Ordinary of the place: but this Canon commandeth, that none teach public school, but such as shall be licensed by the one; or by the other. Secondly, the statute permitteth any person, in any Noble man's or Noble woman's; gentle man's or gētlewomās house, being not recusants, to teach without any license of etc: but this Canon, commandeth that no man shall teach in private house, but by license etc. Thirdly, the statute permitteth not any person to be ascholemaster by any other license, thē by the Archbishop Bishop, or guardian of the spiritualties. But this Canon permitteth a scholemaster to teach, if he be allowed by an Ordinary of the place a lone. Which many times, and in many places, is neither Archbishop, nor Bishop, nor guardian of the spiritualties.

Lastly, this Canon commandeth, that none teach in public school, or private house, unless he first subscribe, to the first and third articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon simply, and to the two first clauses of the second article, whereas the statute requireth no manner of subscription at all.

All these things before written considered, we may safly affirm concerning many of the said late Canons, that they be not to be put in execution within the Realm, unless they shall be confirmed by Act of Parliament: yea that we may also truly speak this in generality: that eiall the Churcwardens and side men throughout England sworn to present all offenses committed against the said Canons, must be falsely perjured; or else that there is not one Minister which shall exercise his ministerial functiō, nor any one man, or woman, which shall usually come to common prayer, and divine service, but they must stand continually at the Ordinaries mercy, for one offense or other. For the things commanded, or forbidden, being innumerable, and impossible at all times to be kept, into what a servitude these Canons have brought both Ministers and people, and what an excessive chardg, is laid up on the purse of every person be he bond or be he free, be he young, or be he old, for citations, Excommunications, absolutions, and dimissions, licences, faculties, and dispēsations, Who havyng but half an eye seeth not? Nay, that many, in many places, have already borne the Yoke, and felt the burden of these Canons, cannot be denied. Agayne, howsoever at the petition of the Prelates, his Majesty hath been pleased generally to allow, ratify and cōfirm, the book of Canons, under the broad seal of England; yet may no loyal and honest subject hereupon infer, that his Majesty intended by the general words of his confirmation, to authorize any particular matter, devised and decreed, by the Synod, contrary to the holy scriptures, hurtful to the rights, prerogatives, and dignities, of his Highnes Crown; repugnant to any laws, statutes, or customs of the Realm, prejudicial to his Lord's & commons in Parliament, or onerous to his people. The contents then of sundry the late Canons, in as much as the same be contrary to the holy scriptures, tend to the blemishing of the liberty and franchise of the Kings will, grace, & power, be cōtrariant, or regugnant, to the laws, statutes, and customs of the Realm, be prejudicial to the Lord's, and Commons in Parliament, without whose consent, no new binding law, ought to be made, or be such, as may become very onerous to the people; it is a plain case, that every of the Kings liege & faithful subjects, ought to defend the Kings right, Honor and dignity against all such Canons.

For hereby it seemeth that as all other the wisest and best Princes that ever have been, have in some things at some times erred, so we without offense (I hope) may say, that the King also veritate tacita, or falsitate exressa, was unawares somewhat mistaken in his grant. In regard whereof, such Canons, by the laws, statutes, and customs of his kingdom be merely void, and of none effect to all constructions & purposes: whereupon also, that necessarily followeth, that the same can receive no being, by his, Majesty's confirmation, Quod omnino, non est, confirmari non potest.

Marginall notes.

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

The first part of this note being but a scorn I leave to scorners. The other divinity of this note, is very deep and profound. How shall I sound the bottom of it? Doth Christ speak of John, in respect of his knowledge, or of his office? Did the people go out into the wilderness unto John, in respect of his knowledge, or in respect of his office, to be baptized of him? Doth Christ also ask whether the knowledge, or the baptism, (that is the ministry) of John were frō heaven or of men? Heerby it is manifest that Christ compareth John with the Prophets in respect of office, not in respect of knowledge. Therefore also in the same respect he compareth the least in the kingdom of heaven with him, and preferreth the least Minister of the gospel for his ministeryes sake as much before John, as he had before preferred John before the Prophets.

Lastly, the ministry of the gospel is greater then the knowledge of the gospel, because it is both the end for which God giveth more knowledge to some then to other, and also the cause that worketh knowledge in other. If therefore the least in the kingdom of heaven, be greater thē John the Baptist in respect of knowledge, which is the least, then much more is the least minister of the gospel greater then John the Baptist, in respect of his ministry which is the greater. The note with (c) is not worth a Cee (as they speak at Oxford ) of single beer.

Further answer to the 9. Argument.

What a multitude of conformable Ministers are quite overthrown by this Argument? For do not many of them otherwise then they ought? Yea, do not more of them otherwise, then all thes now in question? Is not this so to stand in a gap, as that the gap is trodden down, and a door opened, for all men to deny all duty to all Ministers? For who doth not otherwise, thē he ought to do?

What is that diligent and humble obedience etc? To put on a Surplice, to make a vanishing Cross, to read service, to acknowledge the Prelates to have power to make ordinances against God's word etc. How shall they supplicat? With an 100. or 200. in a bag. Then perhaps if they arise betymes, and ride a pase, they shall have a pair of benefices; an Archdeconry etc: yea liberty also to go whither they will, & never to come at any of their benefices, but only in gathering time or if they lie at one of their benefices they shall have leave I to suspēd themselves from preaching as long as the list: yea to do what else they will without controllment, so it be not against conformity. Notwithstanding the Canon for half years residence at either of their livinges, they have many quirkes to avoid the danger thereof.

Further answer to the 10. Argument.

Who doth so tax them? Doth everyone that admonish other of that which God forbiddeth or threateneth, tax them whom he doth so admonish of those faults that are forbidden? Your self have taxed them indeed before, of matters nothing beseemyng you: yea, and the Prelates do daily tax (if not also threathen to excommunicate them) for dealing so much for us: for opposing themselves so much to the Prelacy: for doeyng so much as they have done against non residency, the disorders of the high Commission, the abuse of citations, the horrible abuse of the great censure of the Church, Excommunication etc: yea for dealing at all in the matters of religion: yea, have they not more stoutly then wisely sent out their Inhibition against them in that behalf? Thus they may do what they list, as though their tongues were their own, and there were no Lord over them: but we poor men oppressed by them, may not humbly petition to the Parliament, but that we are presently exclaymed of, as ungrateful and ungracious, & as undutifully and unchristiantly taxeyng them for unjust, cruel and merciless dealing. Wherefore do they thus charge us? Because they fear that we will lay the same things to their charge. But though they do thus esteem of our petition, yet we hope it is better accepted of the Honorable Courte, unto which it was directed.

Whereas in the rest of the answer to this 10. Argumēt, he saith the refractary Ministers (as he calleth them) were never proceeded against for preaching the gospel, or for appertune & sober executing their Ministry, this is utterly untrue, for some have been molested for preaching any thing tendyng against the present Hierarchy, or any other corruptions: some also for confuting the Popish doctrine of other, though they have done it never so soberly: and some for other matters, which are points of the gospel as well as other.

The Marginall Notes.

In divine matters, neither superstition must sit Judge, neither must things be pleaded by nature or reason, but all must be done by the word of God, the store house of divinity. They are superstitious, that strive more for retaining and practicing of human Ceremonyes in the worship of God, (be the pretense what it will) then they regard the truth of God. The (answerer as a very pitiful man) crieth out, Alas it is lamentable etc. But one of these poor Ministers, yea many of them by reason of their troubles, may come ten-times to some of his great Masters houses, and not be offered once, to drink of a cupe: but the truth is, they have forgotten Apostolical hospitality, and they have learned Lordly Episcopal hostility. Further mark here his contradiction, or oblivion. Before in his consideration of the preface to the Arguments, he hath expressly charged them with divers particular carnal respects, etc. Now he saith, that he knoweth not for what carnal respects they curry favor etc. As for currying of favor; it belongeth rather to some hungry trencher chaplines, then to those against whom he writeth. Yea, as Shimei that cursed David when his kingdom was somewhat doubtful, yet at his safe return and reestablishing of the Crown unto him, was as forward as any other, by creepyng and crouchyng, by flattering and fawnyng to curry favor again with David, so it is well if there have been no such curryers of favor among the Prelates. The place of Timothy is abused. It might in like sort have been applied to all the Martyrs. We must not provide for our families by doing anything against God's word. That we had rather live of our own, then of other men's, is manifest in that we do so earnestly sue to be restored to our places, the rather that we may not be chargable to other.

This is spoken more like an Archbishop that had power to prefer other, then like a young chapline that needed and waited for preferment himself. I know not, who may more justly be charged with quarrelling, then they that beat and buffet their fellow servants: yea then they that smite Christ's Syster, his love, his Dove, his undefiled, yea, not only smite her, but also wound her, and take her veil from her. We would gladly live in peace, (with holiness) but we cannot be suffered.

Further answer to the 11. Argument.

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

As Pharaoh was in error touching the religion & obedience of his Priests, so are our Prelates touching our refractariness and superstition, as hath been sheewed. Our obedience to his Majesty is as good, as of the best of their side. That man's obedience to a Mayor of a town or to any other inferior officer of a Prince, is always the best, that is most agreeable to the pleasure of the Prince himself. In like manner, that obedience is best unto Princes, that doth best agree with the pleasure of the Prince of Princes, and King of Kings. To obey the inferior without due regard of the superiors pleasure, is but flattery and fawnyng, not good obedience. So to obey Princes, without due regard to our duty to God. For it is more prejudicial and hurtful, then beneficial or profitable to such Princes. See the words of Samuel to the Israelites. 1 Sam. 12.15. & 25: & the example of Joab in numbering the people by the commandment of David, whereupon followed an exceeding plague.

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

The more justly, that Monks and Friars were put out, the stronger is the Argument for us to be provided for, that are put out unjustly: without objection of any such foul crimes to us, as for which they were put out. Yet it is false, that they were put out for heresy or Idolatry; though they were heretics and Idolaters. For they were suffered still in their heresy & Idolatry, as well after their putting out as before. Neither also are we willingly, deprived, any othewise then Mariners, willingly throw their goods over board into the sea, to save their lives and the ship the better. Of superstition I have spoken often; this now I ad, that many account carefulness to keep a good conscience in small matters as well as in great, to be superstition. And in the mean time, themselves care neither for great nor small matters, any further thē there are laws of man in that behalf. As for superstition indeed, we are silenced and deprived because we will not yield to humā Ceremonyes, that have been and are superstitiously abused in the worship of God, and of Idols, amongst the Papists, whatsoever they are amongst us. It is also as false, that we refuse to be conformable to Christian laws.

I know no condition of submission offered to Monks etc: Touching the rest, we thank you for nothing. This is the courtesy of Prelates, to make us pay decree for our lyvings, even to buy them with sinnyng against God, (as some of them are said to do,) with Simony, and otherwise. But we dare not accept them at the price. The rest have been often answered. I have not such leisure, to use tautologies as the answerer seemeth to have had at the writing of his answer, as though he were connyng a lesson by heart, in fear of beating for forgetting the same.

Marginall notes.

What man? Have you unchristened us? Are we now Heathen and infidels again? It may be you will say we are worse; yea you have already called us Apes. Before also in a note we have been secretly compared to swine. But how then do you call us your brethren? He is certainly of a strange stock, that hath Schismatikes, falss prophets, heathens and infidels, Apes and swine to his brethren. But it were good that some of the Prelates that made the Canons and do execute the same, did consider, in what danger they are by the statute of Excommingment, for making and executing Canons contrary to former laws, and statutes of this kingdom. Here again behold, the admirable efficacy of conformity, as that wherein consisteth the life of the Church, and whereby men are members, yea Angels of the Church in England: & without which, men are not so much as members thereof.

So long as we keep our selves to God's word, we fall not from our rule or obedience. For we acknowledge no other rule or obedience. Luther left the rules and obedience of Monks: so many other left other rules of Popery. Yet, I hope you will not deny thē to have been faithful, or call them schismatics. As for your rule and obedience of Conformity in some particulars, many of us have not fallen from them: First because we never yielded to them. 2 Because to leave Conformity, is not to fall, that is to go downward; but to arise, that is to go upward. Bittter roots spring up, that is, come out of the earth frō beneath. But the way of life is on high, and every good and perfect gift cometh from above. They that have left conformity, are more ashamed and grieved for having been Conformable, then for leavyng it, though they pay sweetly for it.

Further answer to the 12. Argument.

This answer consisteth of 3 parts, according as I have noted the same. Concernyng the first, it is not much to be denied if men be schismatics indeed, and not only in name. Therefore touching that and the second, neither the answerer nor all the Prelates in the world: shall ever prove us schismatics and refractaryes, as they unjustly term us. For the third, albeit the High Court of Parliament would do nothing in our behalf, yet we will say with Samuel, God forbid that we should sin against the Lord and cease praying for them. Notwithstanding it cannot be denied, but that the more justice and kindness we shall receive from them or by them, either at this Session or at any other hereafter, the more we should be both bound and quickened to pray for them. But the zeal of the Parliament, in doeyng so much all ready for us as they have done, is worthy our remembrance whilst we live. Though it have not that success presently, that we have desired, yet we know not what it may have in time, upon further consideration thereof by his most excellent Majesty, and by his wise and most Honorable Counsel. No seed groweth presently: yea the best seed lieth longest in ground (for the most part) before it appear, especially before it yield fruit again. That that is done also, shall be a good evidence for us, and for the equity of our cause, as also against the Prelates, to all posterity; whatsoever reproaches, and other indignityes in the mean time we sustain either by their speeches, or by their unjust writing (upon record) against us. But here is further to be noted, the contradiction or at the least the contrariety of this answerer, even in this very part of his answer. For in the first parte thereof he saith, the prayers of Schismatikes are not much to be regarded. Where his meaning by comparyng these words with other his terms of being rent & cut of frō the Church, obstinate, willful etc: must needs be, that our prayers are of no regard. In the third parte notwithstanding, he saith that we ought to pray for the Parliament, though they should do nothing for us according to our desire. Ought we to do that which is of no regard, of no use, of no benefit, to no purpose? Shall not we give account of every idle word, much more of every idle prayer? Yea are not the prayers of all obstinate, willful, impudent, schismatical and seditious persons, and of all liars, and false Prophets (such as he hath often called us to be) abominatiō to the Lord? How then are we bound to pray for the Parliament, or for any other? Are we bound to do that tnat is sin, and whereof we shall give an account?

Behold what conscience these men make of subscription, Cross, surplice, conformity, and other particular obedience; that make no conscience of preaching: yea not of coming to their flocks once in a year; yea some not once in 3. or 4. years. Is it not strange also, that surplice and cross should ad such efficacy to prayers? How merry then would it be with England, if all men in all places, were forced to were a red, blue, green, white, or yellow cross, upon their hats, sleeves, or breasts etc? And if every man, woman and child might never pray privately, or publicly, but in a surplice? Further I pray God, that such as make so light account of our prayers for them, do not by their hard dealyngs with us, force us to cry for help from God against them, and then feel the virtue and efficacy of our prayers in this behalf, to their grief. For shall not God aveng his elect, which cry day and night unto him, yea though he suffer long for them? I tell you he will aveng them quickly. Let not this be lightly thought on. In the mean time also, how vilesoever our prayers are in their judgments; yet let this answerer & all other our greatest adversaries understand, that they are not so in the sense & feeling of those mercies, that they do daily enjoye, as well by our prayers, as by their own. For our consciences bearing witness, our prayers are of faith, and in truth & love, we doubt not, but that the King and whole kingdom, yea our greatest adversaries do daily fare the better by them. And this I fear would too soon appear, if they should or could suspend us from praying, as they have done from preaching.

Marginall notes.

Though you take your pleasure of us, yet take heed, take heed, you blaspheme not the ordinances of Christ. Such certainly are little better thē mad men, who impute giddines to the Discipline of Christ, commanded to be kept without spot and unrebukeable until his appearing. It is no new thing for them that stands for God's truth to be accounted mad men, or besides themselves, and in these days, Protestants scared out of their wits. But let them that now offend this way, and especially that account God's ordinances to be giddines, let them (I say) repent and come to themselves, lest the Lord strike them with a far worse spirit of giddines then yet they have, which will not be cast out by any means, no, not by prayer and fasting.

If you so call it, we do exclame as we do, that we may profess Christ and his word more sincerely, without any traditions of men in God's worship. The Churches of Ephesus, Pergamos and Thyatira, professed Christ and his word and had many excellent things in them; yet our Savior himself exclameth, and calleth them to reformation of the few things amiss with them. So did Paul to the Churches of Corinth and Galatia.

Let scoffers and mockers take heed, that he that dwelleth in the heaven laugh not: yea that the Lord have them not in derision: yea least he laugh at their destruction, and mock when their fear cometh etc.

Further answer to the 14. Argument.

It hath indeed been said before: but by whom, when, or where hath it been declared and proved? Which of us hath ever said that we are Christ or his word? As the Church is called Christ. 1. Cor. 12.12. so both the Ministers & all true believers are the Ministers of Christ. Lastly, they that strive against human Ceremonyes in God's worship, and for the ordinances only of Christ Jesus, do strive also for Christ and his word.

The Marginall Notes.

These things being repugnant to the purity and sincerity of ihe gospel, under which God will not be worshipped in any such Ceremonial sort, but in spirit and truth; Being also such, as for which the Ministry of the gospel is restrained (upon the liberty whereof dependeth the salvation of the people and their reconciliation with God) There is no cause, why such scoffing and frumping outcries should be made against us, as here & else where are made. Yea, though the ministry of the gospel, were not for these things restrained, yet being urged in the worship of God, they are unlawful: and men standing against them, and in all humility desiring them to be removed by lawful authority, may well be said to stand in God's cause, and to plead for God.

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

You have not proved us to offend, in those things wherein you impute most offense unto us. If we do offend, we are more then told of it: yea our punishment is greater then our offense, because it is greater both then the law appointeth, and also then the punishment of other whose offenses are greater.

The first parte of this note is plentifully justified, not only by the book Scottish Genevating, by the most scurrilous book of The picture of a Puritan, and by the answerers own book De Adiaphoris, but also by this present answer, enjoined and allowed by authority: wherein (for ought I know) there are more railing, scoffing, and untrue speeches, then are in all the books here unjustly termed pamphlets and libels. If any notwithstanding of us do offend in this kind, they are not justified by the rest: yet this is not to be forgotten, that they that be the losers, and go away with the blows, may be the better borne withal, in their words.

If the word conformitan be a disgracfull term, is there not disgrace in Conformity and being conformed? For are not these words Conformed, conformity, and conformitans coniugata? Why then are we urged to conform? Either therefore you justify us in not conforming our selves (for who would disgrace himself?) or else you do ill to say, we call you by a disgraceful name, when we call you conformitans.

It needeth no answer. All men know and daily hear, how they galle us in every sermon, and how little we deal with them.

Neither malicious, nor lie. All men, good & bade do too well know, too many both ignorant and scandalous to be in the Ministry. If it might please his most excellent Majesty, or his most Honorable Council, to send out Commissions into all Countries, and to appoint indifferent Commissioners (neither Bishops nor any other Prelatical persons, because such are parties, but religious Noble men and gentlemen) to inquyre of this matter, the truth would much better appear to the everlasting reproach, of all those that do so justify the present state of the Ministry. For the rest of the former note, who knoweth not, that one lewd person (how base and abject soever) may, and daily doth procure & work more trouble to a good Minister, and doth more easily prevail to his ejection, then twenty good men (though of never so good credit) yea, then sometimes the whole Parish besides (though never so great) can do for the good and peace, of the best Minister? That also for a man, not to were a surplice, or make a cross in the air (or I cannot tell where or how) etc: should be less tolerable, then many great sins expressly forbidden by God himself, is very strang, yea lamentable, yea fearful to think: much more to speak and write: most of all to print, for all the world, yea for all posterity to behold. Especially, that a learned man, a divine and Minister of the word should so think, speak, write, and publish. If this be not to prefer the authority of mortal and frail man, before the authority of the immortal and most mighty God, yea to make the word of God of no authority by traditions which men have ordained, I know not what is. As for false doctrine, or phanaticall conceits, which of you all, can justly charge us with them, as many conformitans may be with divers points of Popery, with toys in the pulpit (more fit for a stage, then for Moses chair ) with foolish allegoryes, and with such pleading for Ceremonyes, as that the people are not only not edified, but also corrupted and infected: yea & the minds of those that are judicious, and have any taste of goodness, exceedingly wounded? The like commission, that before I spake of, would sheew the truth of these things also.

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

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

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

Not any. No Sacraments. No other Ceremonyes. For the Sacraments that now are, were ordained before Christ's sufferings, and before the abrogation of the Ceremonial law upon his Cross. These words go teach all Nations, baptissing them etc. do but ratify and confirm that which was before instituted: as also make for the commucating of the word and Sacraments to the Gentiles, which before had been peculiar to the Jews. All other things now in the Church for the government thereof, differing from those that were under the law, were ordained by Christ (or at least he had given commandment for them to the Apostles) before his passion, and therefore before the abrogation of the Ceremonyes. For Christ commanded his Apostles to teach only such things, as he had commanded them: and the Holy Ghost was only to teach them althinges, and to bring althinges to their remembrance, which he (Christ himself) had told them.

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

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

As the news of Christ birth at the first troubled all Jerusalem, so it troubleth all Papal Prelates to think of Christ's coming, in the Discipline that he hath ordained. These words, their Discipline and new Discipline, are but marginal Mathematical fictions. None of us desire anything of our own, but only the ordinances of Christ Jesus: which cannot be otherwise called new, then his commandment for loving one another, is called a new commandment.

This Discipline we have never attempted to bring in, by any unduetifull means, but by all humble supplication to the supreme authority, to which we acknowledge the establishment thereof to belong. Therefore, that we will be more wrestles either before or after the obtaining thereof then becometh us, is but his own imagination, frō the experience (perhaps) of the restlesnes of some Prelates, till they be Bishops, and afterward till they come to be Archbishops. Yea thē also, till they get some further honor, yea till they have suppressed all those, that they think do any ways dislike of such places. If it might please his Majesty and the other States of this Kingdom, but to permit it in some places where it might be most conveniently, it should much more clearly appear, both how we would content our selves with all humble thanks to his Majesty and to the other States in that behalf: and also how much better this would agree with all Civil Magistracy, then their present Hierarchical and Ecclesiastical government doth: yea how far more beneficial it would be to the Common wealth: and finally how untrue many other imputations are, whereby it is commonly disgraced. If any should abuse the same, or himself in the execution thereof, we never denied, but that such offenders should be subject to the censure of his Majesty, or of any his inferior officers.

You must first prove us to be in a schism and faction. In the mean time, sound and solid peace would a thousand times better be made by removing all human Ceremonyes, by a more free preaching of the gospel of peace: If all Ministers should conform themselves, yet if the gospel should be sincerely preached, (though never any word should be spoken against the Ceremonyes, and other things in controversy particularly) certeynly, the Ceremonyes and other matters now in question, would be as odious, and in as great disgrace as now they are. It is therefore a vain thing to labor for peace, without removing of those things. Touching obedience it can never be perfect to man, where it is not sound towards God. The establishing of God's ordinances, will teach & work perfect obedience unto men, to whom obedience is due.

Further answer to the 16. Argument.

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

How doth the first point of this answer agree with that that some of the great Prelates hold, that their authority is Apostolical, and the Ceremonyes matters of order and decency? Are not things Apostolical and decent, common to all Churches? Or may our Church, alter that that is Apostolical? Or why should these ceremonies, be more necessary for our Church, then for other Churches? Or not decent for other Churches, and yet decent for ours? If also Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, be in vested into the crown, except the King and with him the officers of the crown, be only the Church; our Church hath no power to alter them, having no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction resident in it self. The latter part of this answer is needles, our assemblies being already gathered. What a foolish & gross absurdity also is it, to insinuate that an invisible cross, or a smockish surplice, should be of any effecacy for gathering of assemblies?

What if they be commanded only by the Christian Magistrate, not jmposed by the Church? Or jmposed by the Church only, the Magistrate being an infidel, or a persecutor of the Church? Can pain of sin also be without pain of damnation? Are not those things that are to be obyed, under pain of damnation, necessary to salvation? Hence also it followeth, that things once commanded by the Church or Magistrate (especially by both) are as holy, as the jmmediate commandments of God. The particular inconveniences and absurdities heerof are infinite. What also is here said, that was not wont to be said by the Papists against the Martyrs?

Alas M. Powell, make not such account of your book De Adiaphoris, then which, there never came more simple stuff from any man reputed learned. You had need to recant your blasphemous point therein, against the authority of Christ Jesus for making laws in his Church. Verily you might as well have denied him to be a King, and a redeemer. To the 5 part of this answer unto this 16. Argument, reply hath often been made. That thes things are become bones of contention, is only the fault of the Prelates, that strive with might and main for them. They acknowledge that they have power to alter and remove them, and the see great reason so to do: neither can they give any reasons but childish for continuance of them, and yet to the great dishonor of God, and to the grief of thousands of the godly, they retain them. For our parts, if we were not troubled for them, we would be so far from contending about them, that we would never ask after them, neither would we care if we never saw them.

Marginall notes.

Nay, you have forgotten your Logike, in mistaking the end for the efficient cause. The Gentiles did not affirm themselves plagued, to the end the Christians might contemn their God's, but because they thought they had contemned their God's. This error is in all the answer following. For the author took not upon him, to particularize the sins for which God had visited the land, but only to show what the Lord looked for from us, both by his works of Justice, and also by his works of mercy and goodness amongst us. Therefore the notary and answerer in all that followeth, sitteth besides the cushion. Agayne, what doth this note else import, but a soothing up of thenselves and of all other in their sins, that they may not enter into particular examination and judging of themselves? When as every man, and every state should particularly censure and judge himself and his sins, to have had a stroke in provoking the wrath of God so against us. And therefore happy had it been for the Prelates, if they had smitten themselves upon the breasts, for their hard dealing with the Church, in restraynyng the Lord's servants, that would have given everyone in the Lord's household, his portion in due season. So happy also were it, if every other state and person, would do the like touching their particular sins.

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

So the wise may consider, how foolish malice is, for want of matter from words, to wrangle with a man's meaning, The example is good and holy. The Be will gather honey, out of a stinkyng weed: but the Spyder sucketh deadly poison, out of the fairest and sweetest flower. The flatterer careth not what he say against one, so that he may please another.

I grant this; it being understood of such schismatical refractaryes, as in part rent themselves, both from the Apostolical doctrine, and also from the ancient Apostolical Churches, as likewise frō all other Churches thoroughly in doctrine reformed: and so stand in medio, betwixt such Churches, and the Romish Synagogues. Who also being admonished thereof, in dutiful manner by their brethren; yea by some special works of God's loving severity, do persist in their said schism, in a most refractary manner.

Let the reader be pleased to see, whereupon this note is gathered, and he shall see, that there is no ground thereof. The author only asketh a question upon former promises, whether such and such things considered, the Parliament would dissolve their meeting without doeyng any further matter in that behalf (that is for the Ministers pleaded for) then they had donne. He doth not say, without doing any good, but any further matter, insinuating thereby, that they had done something already: again he speaketh not of all causes, but only saith, in that behalf. But this is the answerers sophistry, often detected. Howsoever he say no good hath been done by Ministers whō he calleth refractary, yet thousands that fear God can testify, that the Church hath received more good by such Ministers, then ever it hath or will by any Papal Prelates, careless Non-residents, trencher chaplins and idle bellies, that seek their own, and not the things that are Jesus Christ's, and who are noted, in all public meetings for reformation of abuses, more to hinder then to further all good motions against the Papists, against swearing, & for the religious observation of the Sabbaths etc, then common Christians, at the least then those, that they do contemptuously call lay persons.

None at all. But who do more comfront the Magistrate in all kingdoms, then Papal Prelates, that hold their own jurisdiction to be iure divino by God's law, and that therefore deny all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be absolutely invested into the crown of those kingdoms where they live, that take upon them to deal withovt law, besides law, and directly contrary to law, and that many ways oppress the Magistrates subjects at their pleasure? As for us, I have said before, I say again, and it is published to all the world in the book entitled, A protestation of the Kings Supremacy, that we are so far from confronting the Magistrate, that we attribute much more unto him, then all rhe Prelates do. Touching repinyng at brethren, I know none guilty heerof, except wishing that Christ Jesus may have his own, the Church her own, the Magistrate his own, the Ministers of Christ, and the subjects of the Magistrate their own, yea every Byrd to have her own feathers, I know none (I say) to repine, except wishing of these things, and that every mortal man would content himself with his own, be to repine. The rest of this note hath been answered.

What? To say that unworthy persons are thrust out into some of their places that are deprived? A man need not to ascend into an high mountain, or to ride many miles out of London for proof thereof.

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

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

Are no appurtinances of Romish religion to be hated, but such as proper thereunto? This is wonderful. For what appurtinances are there of Romish religion, which agree not either with Judaism, or Paganism? We are therefore to abhor whatsoever appurtinance of Romish religion, whereof there is no necessary use in the service of God, and which were better abolished, then retained. Thus much to the marginal notes, of this 17 Argument. In the rest of the answer he dealeth deceitfully, racking divers particular examples, applied by the author, only for amplyficaton and illustration of this general Argument, or of some particular branch thereof, racking (I say) such particular examples, and applying them to the main conclusion and petition, as intended by the author for a several Argument to confirm the same. Whereas in like manner, he might have done the like with divers other particulars in this general Argument comprehended. But let us see what he saith.

Further answer to the 17. Argument.

In these words, let the contrariety of the answerer, to almost in his whole answer written, be observed. For he being a scholar, his words must be schollerly interpreted. Because therefore we are not to doubt, but that the answerer remēbreth, as well what he hath learned in the Ethics, as in the Elenchs of Aristotle, may it please the reader to understand, or (rather) to remember, that Aristotle in his said Ethnics, maketh great difference, betwixt bonum & been, good and well: iustum and just, that which is just, and justly. For he teacheth, that good & just things may be done, by evil and ujust men, which have not the habit either generally of goodness, or particularly of Justice: but he saith, that only good and just men, which have the habit of goodness and justice, can do things well and justly. And this distinction is agreeable to holy writ. For Herod is said to have done many things; viz. that were in themselves good: the like may be said of Saul and divers other. But certain it is, that evil men can do any good or just thing, well and justly. This cometh only from the spirit of regeneration, and from a true faith wrought thereby, without which it is impossible to please God. For as much therefore, as this answerer doth here testify generally of the Supplicants, that they do discourse in this Argument not only of many worthy and Christian points, but also worthily, and Christianly, yea very worthily and Christianly: yea also for as much as he setteth this down for a certeynty, saying certeynly, how doth this, or can this agre, with all the reproach full terms before given by him unto them, of Schismatiks Refractaryes, willful contenders with the Magistrate, presumptuous censurers, willful and malicious confronters of the Magistrate, boasters, liars, impudent, blind and ignorant persons, false Prophets, fowers of sedition, disturbers of the Church etc? For can it be said of such men, and that for a certeynty, that they discourse very worthily and Christianly of sundry things? Let it not be said, that to discourse, is but a matter of words. For their is the same reason of words and works. No man can say well and rightly that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Though an evil man therefore may speak many good and Christian things, yet only good men, speak good and Christian things, well and christianly.

I have told you, of your mistaking your Logike before. The author disputeth not particularly of the sins that moved the Lord to visit us etc: but of the general end wherefor he did both correct us, but also magnify his mercy towards us. The which he applied to the particular point of favor for the Ministers molested. Notwithstanding, to answer your question, though it cannot be denied, that for other sins the Lord hath so heavily scourged us, yet why should the suppressing of the Ministry of the gospel be concluded? Was, not to receive and hear the Disciples of our Savior, which were sent out by two & two but for a time to prepare men for the gospel, so great a sin, that our Savior pronounceth, that it should be easier for Sodom and Gonorrha in the day of judgment then for such a City, as should not so receive and hear his Disciples, and shall the silencyng, and depriving of so many Ministers settled in particular Congregations, and all ready blessed in their labors, be accounted no sin? Yea not only the silencyng of them etc: but also, providyng that they shall have no other means whereby to maintain themselves, their wives and children? God open your eyes to see, and move your hearts so to consider hereof, that ye may not flatter yourselves, but see your sin herein. Yea, because yourself speak of unthankfulness, as one special sin provokyng God's indignation, what greater unthankfullnes can there be, then so to entreat his servants, whom he hath so graced and blessed? Judge yourselves ye Reverend Fathers (that are principal actors in this matter) that ye may not be judged of the Lord. Take heed (I humbly beseech you, in the fear of God) take heed (I say) in time, least fire break forth frō the Lord, and there be none to quench the same. In the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnetzer, and the carrying of the people away captive to Babel: and in the last desolation of the same City by the Romans, the like misusing of the Lord's Prophets is set down as one principal cause thereof. And who I beseech you, in such misusage of the Lord's messengers, had always a principal hand? Had not the Priests of the Lord, that should have done the contrary? Serch the scriptures, and see if they bare not witness in this behalf. If God once set things in order before you, shall it be sufficient to plead, that the Ministers of his word, against whom ye have so proceeded, were Schismatikes, refractaryes etc. Alas, alas this will be but a weak plea. Ye have herd before, that the Prophets were so termed.

Lastly, concerning the particular sins by you mentioned and other the like, from whence do they more proceed, then frō the restraint of the word, by the Preaching whereof, they would be either repressed or restrained? If the liberty and free passage of the gospel, work an holy fear, humility, and dutiful thankfulness, yea, if the preaching of the word, do restrain the most wicked and reprobate themselves, that they bite in their lips, hold their hands, and refrain from many sins, which otherwise they would commit, (as it cannot be denied) do not security, pride, unthankfulness, & all other sins come from the restraint of the word?

The answer to the Second supposed Argument, in this 17 contained, hath in part been answered before, because it hath been proved, that we are no Schismaticall Ministers. Touching the rest of the said answer, we deny not but that there are other means whereby that Honorable Court, may testify their thankfulness, yet this hindereth not, but that this may also be one: yea if it be granted that there are other, then by virtue of relation, this also must be granted to be one. Yea, if mercy to the soul, be more then mercy to the body (as the soul is better then the body: and the misery of the soul greater then of the body; and cruelty to the soul worse then to the body) then it followeth that this is a special & principal means, whereby to testify their thankfulness.

His answer to the third supposed argument in the 17 Argument hath also been answered. The same I say of his answer to the 5 supposed argument. Only therein the answerers censure of the Parliament if they should restore us, is to be observed, viz. that they shall not only attract guilt and remorse of Conscience, but also prejudice their Honorable age, and make their names reproachful to all posterity. This toucheth not only the Lord's of the upper house, and body of the Commons in the Netherhouse, but also his most excellent Majesty, without whose Princely authority nothing can be done by the other. Let all Prelates that plead more stoutly for superstitious Romish rags, then they do duly regard God's holy ordinances, let such Prelates rather take heed, that such things as are here threatened to the Parliament by the answerer, do not be fall unto them.

Whereas the answerer, in his answer to the • 4 supposed Argument betwixt the third and the first, reckoneth us up (in the bitterness of his spirit) with all Schismatikes, Heretics, Papists, Athists, murderers, thieves, cutpurses, etc: therein he sheeweth his brotherly love and kindness towards us, and how well he spareth us. But since Christ Jesus was counted among the wicked; yea crucified betwixt two thieves. yea, and had also a murderer preferred before him; why should we his servants, wretched men, and great sinners be grieved or ashamed, thus to be reckōed with such vile persons? Yea rather we may the more comfort our selves, because if we suffer with him, we are the better assured that we shall reign with him, who hath prayed the Father, that we may be with him, even where he is, to behold his glory.

Was not Sisera also the creature of God, and in that respect may it not be said, that he had no evil in him? And is not the Pope also an enemy to the people and Church of God, as well as Sysera was? Yea is he not much more, in as much as he is enemy to their spiritual state, and everlasting salvation? Moreover, touching the ornaments of Popery mentioned in the Argument, do we speak of them as they were the creatures of God, or as they were and are still by many Papists abused to Idolatry? What doth the answerer say for them, that might not have been said for the covering of the images of silver, which the Jews (that should truly repent of Idolatry) were to pollute, that is to account as things polluted; and for the rich ornaments of the images of gold, which also they were to cast away as a menstrous cloth, and (with great disdain) to say unto it, get thee hence. What fallacy this is, the answerer knoweth.

Are you sure, their is never a Surplice now in England, that was abused to Idolatry publicly in Queen Mary's time, or secretly sithens that time? If it be true of surplices, are you sure it is true of all Coapes? Nay rather, I scarce think, that there is not any Coape now, that was not in the time of Popery. Besides, have you forgotten the distinction of idem specie, and idem numero? Ahas sent not the same Alter to Jerusalem, that was at Damascus, but only commanded the like thereof to be made. By this reason also we may erect new images in Churches, (as some all ready are in some places) and say that these images were never worshipped or abused. Here therefore behold agaīe your sophistry. Touchyng the substance of things abused to Idolatry, we urge not the destroying thereof, neither do we deny the restoring of them to any good civil, or natural use from which they were first taken and employed to Idolatry. But we deny that we ought to have any such honorable use, as to have any place in the service of God, who expressly forbiddeth to be so worshipped. I understand this of such things as God hath not commanded, or whereof there is no necessary use. Such are the ornaments in question. The objections against this are plentifully answered in other books. The 11. chapiter of your book whereunto you refer us, is not worth the reading of a learned man. It containeth objections of your own making not of ours. Which of us, was ever so mad, as to say, que ad Dei gloriam fiunt, iis colitur Deus. For are not the duties of the second table performed for the glory of God? Is God worshipped by them? This is to confound both the tables. Who ever also said, Quicquid fit ex fide et Deo placet, whatsoever is done of faith, and pleaseth God, is the worship of God? So our eating, drinking, and whatsoever else we do, shall be the worship of God. I wonder you blushed not to impute such things unto us, and to cast your own shame upon us.

The third objection indeed in that chapter, touching the proposition, is in part (yet not wholly) ours. But your answer thereunto maketh more for us then against us, as a child that hath well learned the principles of religion might easily show. But I for bear answer of them, and leave them to other to show your childish weakness there in, and in that whole book. By the sight whereof I pray God you may see, what it is to write against the truth. In other things you have written well, and we thank God for your pains: but in these causes your arguments are like fagots of thorns full of pricks without substance, bound with bonds of straw, which by the fire of God's truth, are quickly burnt up, though for a time they fill agreat room, and seem to make a great blaze: yea they are like to ignis fatuus, which terrifieth simple men, as if it were a spirit, but is in truth, but a little fire of certain slymie exhalations: at the most they are but like a Comet or blazing starr, which though it seem to ignorant men, to be above in the starry heavens, with the fixed stars, yet for all that is but in the highest region of the air, and at the last is dissolved into winds.

Thus much for reply to the 17. Argument: yea to all. For to the conclusion of all (which the Notary & answerer unaptly call a distinct Argument) their is nothing answered requyring any further reply, then hath been already made. This therefore shall suffice, for defense of the former Arguments. In the answer whereof, though (perhaps) there be the more scoffs, reproaches, cavils, bitter speeches, and uncharitable collections, to have provoked us unto the like, that thereby some further advantage might have been ministered unto them, against our cause and against our selves: yet as the author of the arguments, used not any such word to provoke them, so I thought good to walk in the like stepes of modesty, that the defense of the Arguments might be the more suitable to the Arguments thenselves: that the author of them might have no cause justly to blame me, for disgracing his work and the cause it self by a contrary course: and that the minds of the Prelates may rather be molified towards us. then anything more exasperated against us. If it fall out otherwise, and that our mildness do still increase their rigor, God (I hope) shall give us patience, to endure whatsoever he shall suffer them to do unto us: together also with such comfort, as all the world shall not be able to take away from us. For we are so thoroughly persuaded, from the evidence of God's truth, revealed in his word: and sealed up in our hearts by his spirit, the cause wherein we stand, to be the cause of Christ Jesus, that we say with Paul, we are ready, not to be bound only, (neither only to loose our livings) but also (herein) to die for the name of the Lord Jesus. I speak not this seditiously (and therefore let no man so wrest my words) but I speak, with that mind, and in that manner, that Paul spake the former words, to signify our readiness, for suffering anything, which the Prelates shall do unto us: not for doing anything to resist them. Some of thē harp much upon this string, (as appeareth by wresting of our words in most malicious manner in the former answer against us) yea, they seem also to think long, for some law or other of this land to be wrested against us, to make some of us examples unto other, by sheading of our blood; but if they should so fare prevail (which I hope they shall never do, in the days of gracious and merciful King James, nor in the days of any of his most Royal blood) let them remember the words of Jeremiah in the like case, to the Priests and Prophets that sought his blood, As for me, be hold I am in your hands, do with me as you think good and right. But know you for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this City, and upon the inhabitants thereof: etc. For of a truth the Lord hath sent me to speak all these words unto you. Yea, let them not only remember those words, but so also take admonition by them, that in the presence of God, they be not guilty of high treason against our most Christian Sovereign, against his Royal issue, and against the whole land, by provoking the Lord, to inflict such judgments upon all, as the words before mentioned do insinuate. We are in their hands, ready without any resistance meekly to suffer anything: but he that judgeth righteous judgment, though he sit in the heavens, will look upon it, and one day (as Zechariah in the like case said) will require it: as indeed then he did.

Not withstanding, I am so far from Prophecying or wishyng any judgment to the whole land, (though I cannot but fear it) that I do, and will earnestly pray, spare (this) thy people ô Lord, and give not (this part of) thine heritage into reproach etc. Yea, I do the more hope of mercy in sparyng us yet a while longer, because of the great multitude of the righteous in the land: and because particularly of many that have been and yet are (under Christ) dressers of this the Lord's vineyard, that day and night (whiles many Prelates eat and drink, and take their ease and pleasure) do pray the Lord of this his vineyard, to let it yet alone, and to spare it a while longer. But for all this, whosoever shall procure the blood of the meanest of us to be shed, (under whatsoever pretence) let them know that such blood, shall cry louder in the ears of the Lord of Hosts, for vengeance upon the procurers thereof, then ever we have cried in the ears, either of our most gracious Sovereign (whom God long preserve in person, and in uprightness of heart) or of the High Court of Parliament for Justice. If their shall be judgment merciless, to him that showeth no mercy, what shall the portion be of the cruel & blood thirsty? Verily, though they cry, yet the Lord shall not hear them.

As also they that put the Martyrs to death, missed of their purpose, so shall all blood thirsty and ambitious Papal Prelates. Sanguis martirum, semen Ecclesie. The blood of Martyrs is the seed of the Church: and foecundi (saith Calvin) sunt martyrum cineres. The very ashes of Martyrs are fruitful. The truth may be oppressed, but it cannot be suppressed: yea the more it is oppressed, the more it shall bud forth & spring. If one of us in this cause should be put to death (though perhaps under color of some other offense, by perverting of words, wresting of law or otherwise) yet for that on, the Lord can raise up ten: yea, there is nothing that hath made, or doth make the cause of Papal Prelates more odious, and the reformation desired, more gracious and honorable (even with some that before the consideration of that which I now say, were of another mind) then the unjust, and especially the unmerciful proceedings of such Papal Prelates, against the seekers of reformation. Therefore in this case (as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians) we do in nothing fear our adversaries, because as to be our adversaries in such respects, is to them a token of perdition, (if they repent not) so also, to be hated and persecuted by the Prelates, is a like token to us of salvation, and that of God. But being so confident, why do we conceal our names to our writings? Because as Christ Jesus, notwithstanding all his heavenly fortitude without any defect, did for all that, oft times hide and with draw himself, from the fury and rage of the Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, till his appointed time was come, so do we by this means, hyde our selves from the violence of some of our Prelates.

To your conclusion I will answer little, because it hath little, that hath not been answered before. Whereas you say that words are to be numbered to so great states, I answer that words are not only to be numbered, but also for the quality, truth, modesty, sincerity, and equity of them to be weighed and considered; which if you had done, your whole labor had ben spared. If you did grieve in your soul, to hear us complain of our poverty, why do you by bitter railing, false accusations, and most unjust & unreasonable wresting of your antigonists words against all other Ministers of his sort, ad affliction to our affliction: do you not know, that by this circumstance, David amplified his cōplaynts and deprecations against his adversaries? Is this to judge wisely of the poor? Whereas you wish us to be a shamed of our feeding on shales, and husks at other men's treēthers, you mistake your mark. For this belongeth not to us, but to trencher chaplins, that gape after dead men's shoes, or live in miserable hope of the livings of their brethren better then themselves, to be unjustly deprived: and that in the mean time wait at their Masters table, till they have said grace, and then sit down (if there be any roōe) at the nether end, after all the meat served in. Who also are glad of ii s. vi d. or five shillings for examinyng some clarke presented, to a benefice, or that (which is worse) do now and then take a brybe, for allowing one to be sufficient for the Ministry, that is scarce fit to be a Ministers clarke, except only to help on with the Surplice: who finally (for the most part) are every tawny coats companion, to play at cards, tables (perhaps also at dyce) and at bowles etc: Yea sometimes to drink, quaffe, and all most quid non. All your reasons out of Arretius, against popular contributions (as you call them) and for set stipends and tithes I pass over with silence, because the author of the arguments hath commenced no suit against you in this behalf. Therefore I leave you to fight herein, with your own shadow. Touching you M. Powell, as Job said to Eliphaz, What maketh thee bold so to answer? Or as some other read it, what provoketh you so to answer? So truly I cannot but admire the bitterness, sharpness, and unrighteousness of your pen (according as before I have discovered the same) against one that hath used so great mildness in all his Arguments. Notwithstanding remembering the fall of Peter, and the means thereof, viz. His being in the high Priests Hall, and not forgetting his gracious repentance afterward, testified by many a salt tear, I do the more pity your present state, by considering that provocation, which from other you have had, so to write; and I do the better also hope of your repentance. For though it be more advisedly to write an whole book, then on the sudden to speak a few words, yet in other respects, I will not compare your fault in thus writing to the fall of Peter, as equal thereunto: and if you had so fallen, yet would I not, neither might I, despair of your risng. Only in unfeigned love towards you, I do seriously exhort you, to take heed hereafter of any such service. Be not to ready, be not to ready, to be commanded such a work by any Prelat whatsoever. You may perhaps have some reward in the end of such pains: (such as men can bestow upon you) but look more to that reward, that is in the right hand of the great master of all rewards. Remember well, what Balaam a sorcerer refused at the hands of King Balak, being sent for by very honorable messengers, to curse Israel: yea, remember what a worthy answer he made, though himself were a most unworthy man. If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more. Yea, remember (I say once again) how constant he was in the said answer. For he repeated it afterward, when Balak was much provoked, because he would not satisfy him in cursing of the Israelites, and threatened as much evil against him, as before he had promised and offered preferment. If such a person made such an answer to a King, and were so constant therein, should the Ministers of the Gospel be so easily commanded by less then Kings, to revile, and (in some sort) to curse, so many worthy Ministers of Christ Jesus, which have been valiant captaynes of his armyes against Satan himself, and all his forces? Whatsoever you have in this book written against them, yet I appeal to your own conscience for the contrary: yea you have expressly before professed, that you hope they are the Ministers of Christ Jesus, and in grace and favor with him. Look therefore heerunto in time, before you be too much hardened against him.

Touching the cause also it self, beware, yea, I say again beware, you sin not for any worldly preferment, against your former knowledge. Pleade not better judgment now, then before you had. Examine your own heart (as it were) upon your bed, whether this plea be insincerity, or only from regard and hope of some prelatical advancment. The more knowledge, the more dangerous it is to fall away. A little disease is ofttymes the beginning of great sickness. Small hurtes also at the first neglected, grow in the end to grievous and incurable sores. Remember Lots wife. Finally remember from whence you are already fallen, and repent, and do your first works etc: and let not the precious promises made to them in the word, that endure to the end, be forgottē. Wherof he that hath made them; make both you and me partaker, for his sake in whom they are made: to whom be all praise and glory for evermore, Amen.