THe true cause of the pretended discontinuance mentioned by Master Noy, Atturny Generall in his motion Termino Michaelis 1632. was this; That the Plaintiffe Huntley, beganne his Action by originall, and drew up the impar­liances by Bill, and so had discontinued his Action by originall in drawing up the imparliances by bill, and had not begun any action by bill, and so had no Action at all either by bill or originall depen­ding in Court against the Defendants: hereupon the Court granted the order following.

I presently got a copy of the foresaid order but I could not get my Counsell to shew cause to the contrary within the time li­mited in the Order, neither was I permitted within that time to shew cause to the contrary my selfe and thereupon the Defendants Atturney Mr. Barker entred upon the foresaid Rolle the following discontinu­ [...]nce in these words.

The foresaid discontinuance enrred upon the said roll is neither grounded upon the pretended cause of discontinuance mentioned in [...]he Atturney, Gralls motion, nor upon the foresaid Order of the Court, but onely on my request, and I was so farre from requesting [...]ny such thing, that I offered 40 pound, nay 100 pound to have the foresaid error reformed. And the foresaid Order mentions no error, [Page 2] or cause of discontinuance but onely supposeth one, and what can it suppose, but onely that, which Master Atturney Generall mentioned in his foresaid motion? and that's onely this because I began my said Action by originall, and drew up the imparliances by bill in these words, Petunt licentiam jnde ulterius interloquendi ad billam predictam, and this I doe sixe times mention in the plea, for so many Termes the Judges gave the defendants to put in their Plea; and that being onely an error in forme and not specially and particularly set downe and expressed by the parties demurring toge­ther with their demurrer (as appeares by the said Record rolle and the originall paper booke under both our Counsells hands, which I have to shew) cannot discontinue the Action, Plea or Demurrer, nor hinder, the hearing of the cause, nor bee the ground of a writt of error nether suspend nor reverse a Judgement, but is to reformed and amended by the Judges even after demurrer joyn'd and entred as appeares by the 5. chapter of the 27. of Eliz. which runnes thus:

Now these two parts of the High Commissioners first finall sentence, containe the whole originall matter, for which alone the High Commissioners aforesaid did fine me five hundred pounds and imprisoned me on the 19 day of Aprill 1627. and kept me in prison two whole yeares; And for which alone without any other crime or fault afterward objectd against mee in any new articles, or in any ad­ditionalls or superadditionalles to the first articles, the Commissioners did on the 25 day of Iune, 1629. by a sentence, wherin they charge me with grievous and enormous crimes, excesses and delicts mentioned in the foresaid articles, (in which articles there is never a crime char­ged upon me) deprive and degrade me, and thereupon kept me a pri­soner untill the 10 day of May 1633. And for which alone, on their [Page 6] last court day in Hilarie Terme 1630. they did excommunicate me, because I would not deliver up my orders diaconatus & presbytera­tus. And for which alone, yet neither certified into the Exchequer by the h High Commissioners together with the fine aforesaid, nor legally seene nor understood by the Barons of the Exchequer, my Lord chiefe Baron sir Humphrey Daverport and the other Barons of the Exchequer refusing to grant me a certiorarj to the High Commiti­on Court to command them to certfie the cause & to permit mee to pleade to the foresaid fine, did the 10. of May 1633. commit me to the Fleet in execution of the foresaid fine, & there detained me a full yeare, untill I to procure my liberty, paid the fourth part of the said fine to Mr. Motershed pecunijs numeratis, and stal'd the other three parts to the Kings use. And for which, and also for a Petition delivered at the Counsell Table to crave justice therein according to his Majesties mandate, under sir Edward Powels hand to my Lord chiefe Justice, sir Iohn Bramston and the other Judges of the Kings Bench court, dated the 29. of December 1635. and delivered with mine owne hand to the said Judges in open Court the first day of Hilary Tearme 1635. I was by my most reverend Diocesan and provinciall Wil­liam Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace, and other right Honora­ble Lords of his Majesties most honorable privie Councell, on the third day of February 1636. committed to custodie of the Warden of the Fleet, by a warrant wherein no cause of commitment was ex­prest, and there detain'd a prisoner by him, untill Trinity Tearme 1639. and then upon an habeas corpus issuing out of the Kings Bench Court I was brought to that court in Trinity Tearme 1639. and the foresaid warrant for my commitment returned and then I was presently bayled, and thereby tyed to appeare in court divers daies, both that Tearme and the Tearme thence next following, and because none of the Kings Counsell in all that time came in against me, I was on the last day of that Michaelmas Tearme 1639. delive­red from the said baile and imprisonment, by the joynt consent of all the Reverend Judges then of that court. As I formerly had beene in the same court, Termino paschae 1629. after the first two yeares im­prisonment upon the foresaid originall matter, returned to an habeas, and fully debated by Counsell on both sides and Mr Justice Bertley then the Kings Sergeant in open court professing himselfe fully satis­fied. And for the former originall matter onely, may for nothing at all in the judgement of the Law, even for the foresaid sentence of de­privation and degradation, charging mee with grievous and enormous [Page 7] crimes excesses & delicts mentioned in the said Articles and those Ar­ticles not given in evidence, nor found by the Jury in the speciall ver­dict betweene Allen and Nash, entred upon record in the Kings Bench court termino Sancti michaelis 8. Car. rot. 508. my Lord chiefe Justice of that court, sir Iohn Bramston did for himselfe and his bre­thren Termino Trinitatis 1637. affirme the foresaid sentence, and de­liver his opinion against me for the intruder Robert Carter.

Whence it followeth that if the Commissioners aforesaid first finall sentence against me & the 500 pounds fine thereby imposed upon me, & the two yeares imprisonment thereby sustained by me be just & le­gall, then all the other sentences, censures and punishments following and depending thereupon, may be just and legall: But if the former the only ground of all the rest, be unjust and illegall, then all the o­ther must of necessity be unjust and illegall.

And whether the former be just or unjust, let the indifferent reader judge impatially, upon the perusall of the following argument.

MY Honoured Lord cheife Iustice, and my Hono­red Iudges, the first thing in this Controversie, concerning the points of the Canon law in question, whereunto cheifly I am to speake, is the very stating of the controversie it selfe be­tween me & my adversaries; And for that pur­pose in the first place I humbly desire your Lordship & the Court to observe, that the defendants charge me with faults of severall degrees, some principall and especiall, others inferiour and ac­cessory·

The Principall and Especiall are two, as appeares by their first finall sentence alleaged in their plea, wherein they say, that upon the opening of the cause, they found the aforesaid George Huntley charged in the said Articles, with these two perticulers principallyThis word specialiter, in this sence is 3. times used in the defendants plea. twice in the first part of their first finall sentence, and once in the Commission, & of 14. Articles obiected a­gainst me, 12. doe expresly mention my re­fusall to Preach the Visitation sermon, as a fault, or pre­pare the way theieunto; and the fourth saith that I offered two or three peeces to the Arch-deacon, to procure one to preach that sermon, only the sixth and thirteenth Articles doe not mention it.or especially, first that he refused to preach a visitation sermon at the Arch-deacons of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys command contrary to his Canonicall obedience, and secondly that he raised an opinion amongst the Clergy, that the said Arch-deacon had no power to [Page 8] command him the said Huntley or any other incmbent to preach the said visitation Sermon.

The Inferiours or Accessories are foure; first that the said Hunt­ley came unsent for, or uncal'd for to Master Arch-deacon afore­said, he being in his visitation amongst the Clergie, and sitting there to heare causes; Secondly that the said Huntley did then and there very malepertly and irreverently charge the said Arch-deacon of falsehood or injustice, thirdly that the said Huntley did at the same time and place in a very arrogant & irrespective man­ner, lay downe an hundred pounds in Gold upon the table and of­fered to lay wagers with him the said arch-deacon, that he had done him the said Huntley wrong or the like in effect: and fourth­ly and lastly that the said Huntley refused to performe his submis­sion conceptis verbis as was enioyned him by the Commissioners, and therein gave a great affront and contempt both against his Maiesties supreame power and authority, in matters and causes Ecclesiasticall, and also against the high commission court, to whom the same by letters patents under the great seale of Eng­land is delegated and committed.

And for these six particulers, the defendants confesse, that they imprison'd me two yeares, namely from the nineteenth day of Aprill 1627. to Aprill 1629. In which moneth upon my appea­rance in this court the first day of that Easter Terme 1629. to save my baile, you Master Iustice Heath, then the Kings Attourney Ge­nerall were first call'd for by the Court in the Kings behalfe against me, and you came and confest, that you had nothing to say against me, and then Master Iustice Bertley being then the Kings Sergeant, whoseMaster Iu­stice Bertley at this time was in the custody of the Sheriffe of London.absence I much lament, whose presence I much desire, was called for by the court for the same purpose against mee, and hee came and confest, that he had formerly spoken twice against mee upon the matter return'd to the habeas corpus (which was the very same for substance, that is now pleaded against mee) and hee then further added, that he was now satisfied, he had no more to say a­gainst me; and yet the court would not upon that day deliver me, but ordered mee to make my appearance in court two severall dayes after that, and then when no man came in against mee, I was on 29. day of that moneth of Aprill 1629. delivered by the joynt consent of all the reverend Iudges, then of this court, and therein, (I speake it with singuler exultation) I received as much favour as a Rogue at Newgate, who when no man comes [Page 9] in against him, is acquitted by Proclamation, which is the most that I could ever get since, except it were greater injuries and in­dignities, I speake it with much greife, and lamentation.

Now my Lord the two principall, and especiall pretended faults against mee, will descide the whole controversie betweene me and my adversaries, and either justifie them, and condemne mee, or else condemne them, and justifie me, for if the defendants can make good these two Principall or Especiall pretended faults against me, that my refusall to Preach the Arch-deacons visitation Sermon is a breach of Canonicall obedience, and that I in main­taining it to be the Arch-deacons duely to Preach his owne visi­tation Sermon, have raised among the Clergy a new opinion contrary to the Canons, then I shall confesse my selfe faulty in all the rest, and justly fin'd, imprison'd, depriv'd degraded and excom­municated. But if the defendants faile in these two points, being by their owne Testimony, the two Principall and especiall points against mee, then they faile and fall in all the rest, for according to their law; Siprincipalis causa non subsistat, ea quae sequuntur, locum non habent. And then your Lordship and the court, are not to give credit unto the defendants in any other part of their plea, that makes either for them or against mee, for qui semel est malus, semper, presumitur malus in eodem genere mali, and qui semel ve­ritatis & verecundiae limites transilierit, eum oportet esse guaviter imprudentem, nec ei deinceps nisi paenitenti, culpam consitenti, & ve­niam expetenti, est in aliquo credendum. And therefore if the de­fendants haue wittingly, and willingly, palpably and grossely falsified the law in the principals, Your Lordship and the court are not to give credit unto them in the accessories. If in the prin­cipalls they have called my obedience to the word of God, to the Articles, Statutes, Canons, to his Maiesties Letters Patents, roy­all Prerogative and oath of supremacy (which are all extant to the veiw of the world) a breach of Canonicall obedience, a princi­pall or especiall fault, a greivous and enormous crime, what cre­dit is to be given unto them concerning any fact, they charge me with in the Accessories, seing therein they may speak false secure­ly, and not be confuted by any law, as in the former? And so my Lord, having stated the controversie betweene me and my adver­saries concerning the points of the Canon law in difference be­tweene us, I proceed to speak to the controversie thus stated, and first to the principalls.

[Page 10]My Honoured Lord cheife justice, and my Honoured Judges my refusall to Preach the Archdeacon of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys Uisitati­on Sermon, and the publishing of an opinion amongst the Clergy, that the said Arch-deacon had no power to command mee, or any o­ther incumbent to preach the said visitation Sermon are the two maine and Capitall crimes, for which I have beene imprisoned these two yeares 1627. and 28. by the defendants Doctor Kingsley and the rest.

This appeares out of the High Commission sentence alleaged in the defendants plea, put in to my Declaration, for therein they say, that upon the opening of the cause, they found me charged in the said ar­ticles with these two particulers principally or especially, first that I refused to Preach a Uisitation Sermon at the Arch-deacons command contrary to my canonicall obedience, and secondly that I set up an opi­nion amonst the Clergy, that the said Arch-deacon had no power to command me or any other incumbent to Preach the said Uisitation Sermon.

Now my Lord, if these two be my Principall or Especiall faults, as the defendants themselves confesse they are, & testimonium ab ad­versario contra se fortissimum, then by the force of comparison drawn from the adversaries owne estimate, all the other must needs be infe­riour and accessory, and then if the Principall or Especiall faults prove no just causes of imprisonement nay further prove no faults at all nay further yet, prove vertues and eminent vertues even the vertues of ca­nonicall obedience, much lesse can the inferiours or accessories be any faults or any just causes of imprisonement, for according to their owne law, accessorium debet sequi naturam principalis, & si principalis cau­sa non subsistat ea quae sequuntur locum non habent.

Now my Lord these two Principall or Especiall faults pretended against me, doe beget two Principall or Especiall questions, the one of practise and action, and it is this; whether my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons Uisitation Sermon be a breach of Canonicall obedience, or not? the other of Speculation and Opinion and it is this; whether this my opinion that the Archdeacon hath no power to command me or any other incumbent to Preach his Uisitation Sermon, be held and published contrary to the Canons, or not? And these two questions are so lincked together that they do invieem se ponere & auferre & are to be both, either joyntly affirmed or joyntly denied, for if my refusall to Preach the Arch-deacons Uisitation Sermon, be a breach of Canoni­call obedience, then this my opinion, that the Arch-deacon hath no [Page] power to command mee or any other incumbent to Preach his Uisita­tion sermon must of necessity be held & published contrary to the Ca­nons. And on the contrary, if this my refusall to preach the arch-dea­cons Uisitation Sermon, be no breach of Canonicall obedience, then this my opinion that the arch-deacon hath no power to command me or any other incumbent to preach his Uisitation Sermon, is neither held nor published contrary to the Canons: so that handle one, handle both, cleere one, cleere both, and faile in one, faile in both.

And this first Principall or Especiall question of practise and action, whether my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons Uisitati­on Sermon be a breach of Canonicall obedience, or not? Doth ei­ther way, that is, whether it be or be not, beget another questi­on, If it be a breach of Canonicall obedience, then it begets this question; whether for the breach of a Canon, or of Canonicall o­bedience unto the Canons, according to the lawes and customes of this land, men are to be fetcht from the judgement and juris­diction of the ordinary up to the High Commission Court, and there to be fined and imprisoned for it, or else whether they are to be left to the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary, and he to proceed against them according to the power of the keies?

And though my Lord, this question be no question, if the high Commissioners by the first of the first of Elizabeth, never had any power to fine or imprison for any crime within that statute, and the cognisance of the high Commission, as is declared by a statute made the first Session of this Parliament, which statute makes wholely for me, and against the high Commissioners, and puts the former question out of question: yet my Lord in favour of the high Commissioners, and to my owne disadvantage, I doe for­beare to take the benefit and advantage of the former statute and Declaration, and granting to the high Commissioners a power to fine and imprison for crimes, within the first of the first of Eliza­beth, according to the Commissioners practise before, and at the time of my censure, according to the wordes of their commission, and the approbation both of the Exchequer, who did imprison me for the 500. pounds fine estreated by the high Commissioners into the Exchequer, and of this Court also, which would not upon an habeas corpus deliver me from that imprisonement: I doe in this sence and respect onely, propose the former question, whether for the breach of a Canon or Canonicall obedience unto the canons, [Page] according to the lawes and customes of this land, men are to be fetcht from the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary, up to the high commission court, and there to be fined and imprisoned, or else whether they are to be left to the judgement and jurisdicti­on of the ordinary, and he to proceed against them, according to the power of the keys.

And though this question my Lord, bee within the compasse and cognisance of the common Law, and therefore ought to bee spoken unto by the worthy professors of this Honorab. profession; yet seeing it is in defence of the Episcopall or ordinary jurisdicti­on, which the Bishops themselves have wrong'd, and which at this time in this my case no common Lawyer will undertake to defend, and that for this very reason as I conceive, because they have mens persons in admiration for advantage sake,Epist. 16. as St. Iude speakes, and do prefer the person of some Bishop before and a­bove the Episcopall or Ordinary jurisdicton it self. Therfore ut ne­quid detrementi capiat respublica Episcopalis vel ordinaria, and to the intent that all men may know, that I both truely love and re­verence the Episcopall or Ordinary jurisdiction, not onely above and beyond you the common Lawyers, who will not according to your profession defend it, but also above and beyond those Bi­shops who contrary to their callings have wrong'd it, and also that I onely oppose the usurpation and presumption of some Bi­shops and not the Episcopall or ordinary jurisdiction it selfe, I will endeavour to shew and that by seven reasons,Thesis prima septem rationi­bus confirma­ [...]a. that the breaches of canons or of canonicall obedience unto the canons according to the Lawes & custome of this land belong to the juridiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High commission court.

Ratio 1 My first reason, my Lord, is taken from the sence and meaning of this word Ordinary, as it is expressed by Doctor Lyndewode in the first booke of his Prov. tit. de constitut. cap. Exterior habitus. Verbo Ordinarij, in these very words. Nota quod haec dictio Ordinarius dicitur, quia habet ordina­riam iurisdicti­onem in iure proprio, & non per deputatio­nem Cokes in­stitutes. f. 96 Ordinarius principaliter habet locum de Episcopo. & aliis su­perioribus, qui sunt universales in suis iurisdictionibus & de iure communi solus Episcopus est ordinarius super omnes subditos suos, sed sunt sub eo alij ordinarii, hi vid. quibus competit iurisdictio or­dinaria de iure, privilegio, vel consuetudine. By which words my Lord, it appeares, though there be some other subordinate, & inferi­our ordinaries under the Bishop in some parts of his Diocesse, who have and hold under him in those parts an ordinary jurisdiction [Page] either iure, privilegio, vel consuetudine: yet de iure communi, over the whole Diocesse, the Bishop only is Ordinary, and onely hath a generall and an universall jurisdiction.

And this generall jurisdiction of the ordinary or Bishop extends not to all causes both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall, but only to all causes meerely Spirituall, so called not in respect of their owne nature, but because they are assign'd to the Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall jurisdicti­on. And those are of two sorts, either civill Ecclesiasticall causes, as Tithes, Oblations, Legacies Pentions, and portions, or else criminall causes, and both these belong to the generall jurisdiction of the Ordi­nary, for the former it appeares principally in two cap. of Lyndewodes Provinc. and that in the very text, first in his second booke tit. de foro competenti. cap. circumspecte agatis, which though it be King Edw. 1. direction to his Judges or Justices or Commissioners concer­ning the Bishop of Norwich and other of the Clergy, and bee extant among the Statutes 13. Edw. 1. yet seeing it treates of the spirituall jurisdiction of Ordinaries, it is set downe by Lyndewode among the provinciall constitutions of our Archbishops of Cant. Secondly, in his 5. booke tit. de paenis, cap. aeternae Sanctio voluntatis.

And for the latter, namely criminall causes, it appeares both in the two chapters before alleaged, and more especially in the first booke of Lyndewodes Provinc. tit. de constitutionib. c. exterior habitus. ver. Inquirant. upon which word Lyndewode shewes, that there is triplex inquisitio, generalissima, generalis & specialis vel singularis. and each of these is twofold, either praeparatoria or Solemnis, praeparatoria est fine exactione juramenti, solemnis est cum juramento, and the one of these makes way and worke for the other. The preparatory inquisition findes out and starts the game, and the solemne inquisition persues and takes it.

And the most generall inquisition both preparatory and solemne belongs to a generall councell or to a provinciall Synode; but the inquisition generall and speciall both preparatory and solemne be­longs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. And this generall inquisi­tion hath three degrees; for it is generall either in respect both of per­sons and of crimes: or it is generall onely in respect of persons, and speciall or singular in respect of crimes or lastly it is generall in respect of crimes and speciall or singular in respect of persons, as the Ordinary shall thinke fit, and the matter require.

Now my Lord, the High Commission hath nothing to doe with the first of these causes, namely civill Ecclesiasticall causes: no nor [Page 14] a generall jurisdiction in the latter, namely criminall causes, and both these are evident by divers judgements at the common Law.

Hilary. 8. Iacobi, In the common Pleas in the case of Huntley and Clifford it was resolved, that the High Commission had not power to meddle with civill Ecclesiasticall causes and therefore none might sue before them for Tythes, Legacies, Oblations Pentions or Portions. First because this would bee a meanes to take away all Ecclesia­sticall proceedings from the Ordinary. Secondly, because their sentences and Decrees are finall, and no appeale lieth from them, so that it might be very mischeivous if they should hold plea of all manner of Ecclesiasticall causes. Thirdly, because the first of Eli­zabeth giveth them power only in enormities. 1. in hainous, hor­rible and exorbitant crimes.

In the Exchequer in Ailemers case, it was resolved that the High Commission might not meddle to punish one for working upon holy dayes, & 44 Eliz. rot. 1255. in the Common Pleas in the case of Tailer and Masse, a prohibition was granted, where one was convented before the high Commission for giving irreverend speeches of a Minister for carrying his corne on holy daies, and for not suffering the Parson and parishioners to goe through his yard upon Rogation weeke, and for not giving them a repast in the perambulation, as hee had used to doe, and for whistling and knoeking upon the doore of the parson, and saying, hee did it to make the parson musick for the marriage of his Daughter, for this ought to be before the Diocesan.

But my Lord there is one case at the common Law, which I more esteeme than the three former, because in this very point it conteines not only the resolution of all the reverend Judges then of this Court, but also a reall confession of the High Commissio­ners themselves my very adversaries, and that's this mire owne case: for the high Commissioners did at first Pasohae 1627. com­mitt me to prison for breach of canonicall obedience in refusing to Preach the Archdeacons Uisitation Sermon, & after two yeares imprisonment, when upon an habeas corpus, I was set at liberty by the court paschae 1629. because that matter was coram non ju­dice: then trinitatis 1629 in their second finall sentence upon the same Articles, wherein there is no crime objected against mee, they charge me with grievous and enormous crimes mentioned in the Articles, that so they might make the matter coram judice, and within the cognisance of the High Commission. So that by [Page 15] the canon and common Law and by the reall confession of my very adversaries, the breaches of Canons or of Canonicall o­bedience unto the Canons belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Or­dinary, and onely grievous and enormous crimes to the cog­nisance of the High Commission court.

Ratio. 2 My 2. reason my Lord is taken from the custome & practise o­ver England, for it is the generall custome & uniforme practise o­ver all Eugl. for the Church wardens to make their presentments at the Ordinary or episcopall jurisdiction, & not at the High Com­mission Court, & therfore the breaches of Canons, or of canonicall obedience unto the canons belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordi­nary, & not to the cognisance of the high commission court. And this reason being the generall custome & uniforme practise over all England time out of minde both of all the Church-wardens in ma­king their presentments, & of all the ordinaries in receiving them, is the Common Law of the Land & being in use nono. Hen. 3. is confir­med by the 1. chap. of Magna Charta under the name of the Rights & Liberties of the Church, for as Lyndewode in the fifth booke of his provinc. tit. de sententia ex communicationis. cap. cum saepius. verbis Ecclesiasticae libertatis. Saith Ecclesiastica libertas inter caetera con­sistit in libero exercitio Iurisdictionis Ecclesiasticae. And this custome & Ecclesiasticall liberty & jurisdiction hath lately been cleer'd by the resolution of all the reverend Judges then of the 3. Honorable Courts of Common Law, as appeares by his Majesties Proclamation dated at Lyndhurst 18. August. 13. Caroli. wherein they affirme that the Bi­shops Archdeacons & other Ecclesiasticall persons may keepe their vi­sitations as usually they have done, & then they may receive all pre­sentations from the churc-wardens as usually they have done & then they now have a generall jurisdiction as formerly they have had. And this their resolution is fully warranted by the fift proviso of the 2. cha. of the 1. of Eliz. for that proviso and paragraph gives power to all Archbishops Bishops & to every of their Chancellours Commissaries Archdeacons and other ordinaries, aswell to inquire in their visitations synods, and elsewhere within their jurisdiction at any other time and place to take accusations and informations of all and every the things above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdictions & authority & to punish the same by admonition, excommunication, sequestration or deprivation & other censures and processe inlike forme, as hath heretofore been used in like cases, that is cases of Ecclsiasticall cognisance, by the Queenes Ecclesiasticall lawes, not by a commission, as some would have it, but by the Queenes Ecclesiasticall [Page] lawes. Which last words doe approve of such a jurisdiction, as the ordinaries at that time did exercise according to the Ecclesiasticall lawes of the land, & at that time & both before, and since that time the Ordinaries did & do exercise a generall jurisdiction according to the Ecclesiasticall lawes of the land, without a commission as appeares up­on record in their owne Courts & the Canons & Ecclesiasticall lawes of the land doe approve of that generall jurisdiction of the Ordinaries, as appeares by the body both of Lyndewodes provinciall, & of the le­gantine constitutions of Otho and Othobon, and also by tenne of our last Canons made primo Iacobi, namely by the 109. to the 119. so that in this second reason the Common and Canon and Statute Law doe concurre, and all three shew, that the breaches of Canons or of canonicall obedience unto the canons belong to the jurisdicton of the ordinary and not to the cognisance of the High Commision Court.

Ratio. 3 My third reason; my Lord, is taken from his Majesties Letters Pa­tents confirming the canons of our Church made primo Iacobi for therein after he hath in the first place confirmed those canons with his Letters Patents out of his supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and in the second place charged all his loving subjects of both Provinces to keepe and observe all those Canons in every point, wherein they doe or may concerne every or any of them, and in the third place charged all Archbishops, Bishops, and all others, that exercise any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within this Realme, to see and procure that all within their jurisdictions doe observe the foresaid canons in the former manner: then in the fourth place he gives power to the said Archbishops Bishops and to all others that exercise any Ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction within this Realme, to inflict all the punishments mentioned in those canons upon the violators of those canons; so that by his Majesties owne gift & grant primo Iacobi. The breaches of ca­nons or of canonicall obedience unto the canons are assigned & deputed to the Episcopall or ordinary jurisdiction, and not reserved to the juris­diction of the crowne or cognisance of the high commission.

Ratio. 4 My fourth reason my Lord, is taken from his Majesties commissi­on granted to, and pleaded by the commissioners, which gives unto them onely a particular and a limited jurisdiction consisting in cer­taine Ecclesiasticall causes, and certaine particuler offences against certaine particular lawes, and not a generall jurisdiction in and over all Ecclesiasticall causes and offences, as large and spatious, as the canons and Ecclesiasticall lawes themselves: And this will appeare my Lord, by a particular enumeration of all the severall branches of the commission it selfe. But this would bee a great labour, and will [Page 17] be altogether needlesse, whether the Defendants can shew any such branch of their commission or not, for if they cannot shew any such branch of their Commission, then doubtlesse the labour will bee need­lesse seeing the proofe lies on their side & no proofe being made suffi­cet neganti ut neget, dummodo non probetur in contrariū. And if they can shew any such branch of their commission, then it shall suffice to confute that branch when the defendants or their counsell shal produce it. I confesse my Lord that the Commission dated 11. Iacobi extends as far as the canons & ecclesiasticall lawes themselues in cases concerning the reformation of Ministers, for it gives in expresse termes power and authority to the commissioners to punish a Minister for any fault com­mitted in his owne cure or else where, that is punishable by the Ec­clesiasticall lawes of the Land: but I am sure my Lord, that there is no such branch in the commission pleaded by the Defendants, and therefore in that very respect, if in no other, an information lies good against the commissioners, and this court hath rightly assigned me for a prosecutor in an information against the commissioners for going beyond their commission. And if there were any such branch in their commission, that branch under favour were void, because it is contrary to the sence and meaning, to the scope and drift, to the ve­ry letter and text of the 1 of the 1 Eliz. (the statute whereupon their commission is grounded) as shall now appeare by my next: and

Ratio. 5 Fifth reason, which is taken from the 1 of the 1 Eliz. and from the 19 of the 25. of Hen. 8. reviv'd in the first of Eliz. and therefore whatsoever the 1 of the 1 Eliz. doth particularly and expressly esta­blish by reviving the 19 of the 25. of Hen. the 8. It is to bee presu­med, that it doth not in the same statute afterwards by generall tearmes abrogate, for that were to make that statute like the high commission sentence against me, to be at variance with it selfe, and to have our part contrary to another: why then my Lord, seeing the first of the first of Eliz. by reviving the 19, of the 25. of Hen. 8. doth par­ticularly and expressly allow unto the ordinary with in his diocesse a generall jurisdiction in reference to the canons and Ecclesiasticall lawes of this land. It is not to bee supposed that in the following parts of that statute, the Parliament did afterwards by generall tearmes take that away from the ordinary, and therefore those insu­ing generall words, which enables the King to nominate commissio­ners, and by his commissioners to reforme and correct all manner er­rors, heresies, schismes, faults offences, enormities, which by any man­ner of power or authority may be reformed, doe not make voide the the former statute, and generall jurisdiction of the ordinary, but only [Page 18] shew, that be the fault never so great, so that the ordinary by vertue of his subordinate jurisdiction, cannot sufficiently punish it, yet it may be sufficiently punished by the Kings supreame jurisdiction within the land without going to the Pope out of the land for by that paragraph that is invested in the crowne, which by the former paragraph was abolished and extinguisht in others, and in the former para­graph all forraigne usurped power onely, and not the ordinary ju­risdiction is extinguisht. So that by those former generall wordes, such grear, grievous and enormous crimes onely, as the ordina­ry by vertue of his subordinate jurisdiction cannot sufficiently pu­nish, may be brought to the high Commission court, and there fully punisht, and yet the former statute and generall jurisdiction of the ordinary remaine whole and intire, namely that breaches of Cannons, or of Canonicall obedience unto the Canons belong to the jurisdiction of the ordinary, and that be within his diocesse hath power to punish any fault punishable by the Ecclesiasticall lawes of this land.

And this interpretation, My Lord, is warranted, first by the ve­ry title of that statute, which is an act to restore unto the crowne the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiasticall, and for abo­lishing all forraigne power repugnant to the same, not for abo­lishing the ordinary jurisdiction, which is subordinate unto it, but for abolishing all forraigne power repugnant to the same.

And the abolishing of the one, and the restoring of the other, is the whole and sole cause and occasion of that statute, as is more fully exprest in the beginning of that statute, where the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the Commons do all acknowledge, that from the 25. yeare of Henry the 8. at which time all forraigne usurped power was by divers good lawes and statutes abolisht, and the ancient Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction fully restor'd and uni­ted unto the Crowne, they were kept in good order, and were disburdened of divers great and intollerable charges and axacti­ons untill such time, as the aforesaid good laws an Statutes made since the 20. yeare of Henry the eight by one act in the first and second of Philip and Mary were all cleerely repeal'd whereby, as they there complaine, they were againe brought under an usur­ped forraigne power, and yet remaine in that bondage to their intolerable charges, if some releife be not had and provided, and thereupon they supplicate that both the foresaid statute of repeale may be repealed, and the foresaid good laws and Statutes for abo­lishing all forraigne usurped power, and for restoring the ancient [Page 19] Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction unto the Crowne may be revived. In all which there is not any one word spoken against the Ordinary ju­risdiction, but onely against forraigne usurped power, and this be­ing the onely greivance and the totall occasion of that law, must direct us in the interpretation of that law, for occasio legis indicat & mentem legislatoris & sensum legis.

Secondly by the oath of Supremacy extant in the same statute, and made for the same purpose, namely to abolish all forraigne power repugnant to the jurisdiction of the Crowne, not to abolish the ordinary jurisdiction, which is subordinate unto it.

Thirdly, by those generall wordes, wherein the Kings jurisdicti­on is exprest, namely by these wordes, all errors, heresies, schismes, faults, offences, enormities: which last word doth and must qua­lifie all the rest, and doth shew that by those wordes, not every fault punishable by the Ecclesiasticall lawes of this land, but only all great greivous and enormous crimes punishable by the Ecclesi­aticall lawes of this land, are reserved to the jurisdiction of the Crowne and cognisance of the high Commission, for otherwise those wordes will abrogate the nineteenth of the twenty fifth of H. the eight before revived in that Statute, and will also swallow up all the ordinary Jurisdictions over England, contrary to an other Statute there revived in behalf of the ordinary jurisdiction, made 23. Henry 8. intituled, an act that no person shall be cited out of the diocesse where he or shee dwelleth except in certaine cases, and also con­traty to the foresaid fift Proviso of the second cap. of the first of Elizabeth.

And Lastly, by this excellent rule of Saint Hilary in his ninth book, de trinitate, Intelligentia dictorum ex antecedentibus & conse­quentibus expectetur. For this makes the severall parts of that Sta­tute accord one with another, and the whole Statute to be as a body at unity in itself, and yet herein my Lord by making one part of a statute interpret another, we give no more to that Honourable Court than is due to every discret man for unusquisque suorum verborum optimus interpres, & condentis est interpretari.

Ratio. 6 My sixt reason, My Lord, is taken from the oath of Canonicall obedience, which every Bishop administers, and which every in­cumbent takes at his admission and institution, and it is alleaged against me in the defendant plea, both in the first and third arti­cles, and also in the high Commission sentence and the oath it selfe is expressed in the instrument of my admission and institution in these very wordes; Te primitus de legitima & canonica obedientia [Page 20] nobis & successoribus nostris in omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda ad sancta evangelia rite iuratum ad­mittimus. We admit thee saith the ordinary, having first been right­ly sworne by the holy Gospells to performe lawfull and Canoni­call obedience to us and our successours in all our lawfull and ho­nest mandates. And this canonicall obedience, as Lyndewode in the first booke of his provincicall. tit. de maior. & obedientia, cap. Presbiteri verbis, in virtute obedientiae, shewes, is such obedi­ence as the canons and constitutions rightly made and published doe require, and the Cannon law shewes, that this canonicall obe­dience consists in these three things. In reverentia exhibenda, in mundato suscipiendo, & in iudicio subeundo. In yeilding canoni­call reverence to the ordinaries person, in undertaking his cano­nicall mandates, and in standing to his canonicall judgements. And therefore my Lord, as wee the incumbents by taking this oath of Canonicall obedience, are bound by this oath in thinges con­cerning the Canons to stand to the ordinaries canonicall judgements: so the ordinary by administring this oath unto us, and by accepting this oath from us, is bound by this oath in things concerning the ca­nons to judge us according to the canons. And by both these it ap­peares, that the breaches of canons, or of Canonicall obedience unto the Canons, belongs to the Jurisdiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High Commission Court.

And this reason my Lord is stronger against my adversaries by their own confession in their plea then it is in truth and by my allega­tion, for the defendants in their plea challeng canonical obedience from every incumbent to and for every ordinary, and they do extend this canonicall obedience not onely so farre as the Canons, but also as far as the lawes in generall and the custome reacheth: and therefore in challenging canonicall obedience from every incumbent to and for every ordinary, and in extending that canonicall obedience not one­ly so farre as the Canons, but also as farre as the laws in generall and the custome reacheth, they doe under the name of canonicall obedience challenge from every incumbent to and for every ordi­nary a jurisdiction as generall, as the canons, lawes in generall and the custome will warrant; whieh is as generall as can be, un­lesse they would bring in arbitrary and blind obedience.

Ratio. 7 My seaventh and last reason; My Lord, to prove that the brea­ches of canons or of canonicall obedience unto the canons, be­longs to the iurisdiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance [Page] of the high Commission, is taken from the opinion of our late Lord and Soveraigne King Iames, and of Arch-bishop White-gift, whereof the former being ad miraculmm usque acutissimus, did in his time give the authority to the High Commission court, and the latter being a Bishop according to this rule of Saint Paul, a Bi­shop must be holy, just, and unrebukeable, was in his time the cheife person under the other to excercise and execute that autho­rity in the high Commission court. And this their opinion, as it was at first publickely deliv'rd in a solemne assembly of the church to reforme what was amisse, and confirme what was well esta­blished: so it hath beene extant in print to the view of the world full 30. yeares and upwards in a Treatise stil'd, the summe and sub­stance of the conference at Hampton Court. In the eighty ninth pag. whereof King Iames makes this exception against the High Commissioners, that the matters wherein they dealt, were base and meane, and such as ordinaries at home in their owne jurisdictions might censure whereunto in the 90. pag. Arch-bishop Whitegift answereth, that though the matters be base and meane, and the fault of that nature that the ordinary jurisdiction may censure it, yet in two cases, no more, onely in two cases the high Commission may interpose.

First, when the party delinquent is to great, so that the ordinary dares not proceed against him. or,

Secondly, so wealthy in his estate, or so wilfull in his contuma­cy, that he will not obey the summons and censure of the ordinary, and so the ordinary is forced to crave helpe at the High commission

And it seemes My Lord, that the High Commissioners, and the defendants would make this latter my case, for in the 14. Article objected against me in the high Commission court, and pleaded a­gainst me in this court by the defendants, they both say, that the ordinary desired the assistance of the High commission against me.

But it is certaine, My Lord, that in this matter I am not within either of these cases, for I being but a Presbyter, and of a single benefice, am not so great, as great as I am and as great as the de­fendants would make me that the ordinary my Lords Grace of Canterbury Primate of all England, should be afraid to proceed against me at his ordinary jurisdiction if his cause were good; nei­ther was I ever contumacious, for I was never summoned or ci­ted to appeare at the ordinary jurisdiction. And therefore in this case seeing the fault, if it be a fault is but petty and small, but the [Page] breach of a canon or of canonicall obedience unto the canons testanti­bus ad versarijs; the person but meane & poore, but a Presbyter, a mi­nister, an incumbent, and that onely of a single benefice, and never any waies contumacious, this matter belongs not to the cognisance of the High commission but to the jurisdiction of the ordinary and then it hath beene all this while coram non judice, and so the sentence and whole proceedings are utterly voyd. And thus much concerning this first question, which my refusall to preach the Archdeacons visitation Sermon, if it be a breach of Canonicall obedience, begets namely that the breaches of canons or of canonicall obedience to the canons accor­ding to the Lawes and customes of his land, belong to the jurisdicti­on of the Ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High commission court; or that for the breach of a canon or of canonicall obedience to the canons according to the Lawes and customes of this land men are not to be fetcht from the judgement & jurisdiction of the Ordinary up to the High Commission court, and there to be fin'd & imprisond but are to be left to the judgement and jurisdicton of the ordinary, and he to proceede against them according to the power of the Keies.

Now on the other side, my Lord if this my refusall to preach the Archdeacons visitation sermon, be no breach of canonicall obe­dience, then it begets this question, whether the high commissio­ners, your Lordship this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsell have power to punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law? And least the high commissio­ners; this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lordes of the counsell should all thinke to escape by maintaining the affir­mative, that they have power to punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law, and peradventure in a desperate case, they will not sticke to maintaine a desperate opinion, especially seeing your Lordship hath shew'd and lead them all the way. For termino trinitatis 1637. When your Lordship delivered your opi­nion in the especiall verdict betweene Allen and Nash, your Lord­ship not onely affirmed the high commission sentence of depriva­tion and degradation against me, but also maintained, that your Lordship and this court were bound to affirme it, whether it were true or false, grounded upon a cause or upon no cause.

Therefore my Lord, to stoppe up that gap, to prevent that starting hole, to overthrow that parodox, and with one argument to confute those foure Honorable, senates whereof the first and the last, the high commissioners and the Lords of the counsell chal­lenge [Page 23] as great authority, as the King himselfe hath, and all of you in this my case usurpe a greater, for you all punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law: I must in the first place Thesis 1 shew, that no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreame, hath any power, prerogative, or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evill, some sinne, some transgression of some law. Thesis 2 And secondly I must shew, that my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, my principall or especiall fault in the judgement of my adversaries, is no fault, no offence, no vice, no error, no evill, no sinne, no transgression of any Law whatsoever: and that therefore neither the high commissioners, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, the Lords of the counsell, nor any other Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, prerogative, or authority, to punish me, muchlesse to imprison me for it.

And for the first of these positions, that no Magistrate whatso­ever, no not the supreame, hath any power,Thesis 1. Tractatio. prerogative or autho­rity, to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evill, some sinne, some transgression of some law, this appeares out of the 13. chapter to the Rom. verse. 3. where the Apostle speaking of that Magistrate, to whom the sword is committed, of that Magistrate, to whom we pay tribute, of that magistrate, to whom we must submit, not onely for wrath, but for conscience sake, of that Magi­strate to whom every soule is to be subject, that is, of the soveraigne, supreme, Monarchicall Magistrate, Gods immediate deputy and vicegerent, he saith of that Magistrate, the Magistrate is not a ter­ror to good workes, but to evill. wilt thou then be without feare of the power? doe well, so shalt thou have praise of the same, for he is the Minister of God for thy wealth. But if thou do evill, then feare, for he beares not the sword in vaine, for he is the Minister of God, to take vengeance on him that doth evill, Saint Paul then is cleere, that no Magistrate whatsoever, can justly punish any man, except it be for some evill.

And Saint Peter testifies as much 1 Epist. 2. chap. 13. and 14. verses. Submit your selves, saith he, to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King, as the supreame, or un­to governours as them, that are sent of him, sent of him, for what purpose? Even for the same purpose, that he before is sent of God, [Page 24] namely for the punishment of them that doe evill, and for the praise of them tbat doe well. So that by the expresse word of God, no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreame, hath any power, prerogative or authority to punish any man within his jurisdicti­on, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some er­ror, some evill, some sinne, some transgression of some law.

And this much, my Lord, king Artashast saw by the very light of nature, as appeares by the wordes of his Commission, granted to Ezra, and expressed Ezra. 7. chap. 25. 26. verse, And thou Ezra (after the wisedome of thy God, that is in thy hand) set Magistrates and Iudges, which may judge all the people beyond the river, even all that know the law of thy God and teach-yee them, that know it not. And whosoever will not doe the law of thy God, and the law of thy King, let judgement be speedily executed upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, to confifcation of goods, or to imprisonment. In which wordes King Artashast, just as Saint Peter, and Saint Paul before did, gives power unto Ezra to punish men, not for well doing, but for evill doing, no for keep­ing, but for breaking Gods lawes and the Kings, not for obedience, but for disobedience, not for vertue but for vice.

Nay God himselfe chalengeth no greater prerogative, then to reward the observers and to punish the transgressers of his law. Cursed be he, saith Moses, that confirmeth not all the wordes of Gods law to doe them. Deut. 27. or as the Apostle expresseth it, Gal. 3. Cursed is every man, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the booke of the law to doe them. And if they onely, who breake Gods law, be cursed, then all those who keep his law, must needs be blessed, and this much Moses expresly tel­leth the Israelites Deut. 11. Behold saith he, I set before you this day a Blessing and a Curse, the Blessing, if ye obey the commande­ments of the Lord your God, The Curse if ye will not obey the com­mandements of the Lord your God. And if God the supreme Magi­strate of all the world, and the creator of all men and Magistrates will not punish any man, except it be for some breach of his law, how can any of his deputy Magistrates, without pride or presum­tion arrogate more, or chalenge any power, prerogative or au­thority to punish any man for that which is no fault, no offence, no vice, no error, no evill, no sinne, no transgression of any law whatsoever.

And here now my Lord behold the conformity both of our [Page 25] Kings and of the lawes of our Kingdom unto the word of God in this particuler, ourKing Iames confesseth so much in his speech to the Lords & com­mons at white­hall on Wed­nesday 21 Mar­tii 1609. p. 12. & pag. 13. hee saith, all Kings that are not ti­rants or periu­red wil be glad to bound them selves within the Jimites of their lawes, & they that per­swad them the contrary, are vipers & pests, both against them and the Common Wealth. Kings chalenge no more, our lawes made by their owne appointment, confirmed by their owne authority, which by oath they are bound to maintaine, and which hisK. Charles in his declara­tion to all his loving subiects published by the advice of his privy coun­cell 1641. pag. 20. saith wee doubt not, it will bee the most accepta­ble declaration a King can make to his subiects, that for our part we are resolved not only duely to observe the lawes Our selfe, but to mainetaine them against what opposition soever; though with the hazard of our being. Majesty professeth, he will maintaine against whatsoever opposi­tion with the hazard of his owne being, gives them no more. This appeares out of the first of the first of Eliz. an act to restore unto the crowne the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesia­sticall, which Sir Edward Coke in Cawdreys case calls, an act one­ly declaratory and assertory of the ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne, not collatory or introductory of any new right. And what jurisdiction doth that act restore, or more properly declare to be restored to the Crowne? Namely all such spirituall and Eccle­siasticall jurisdiction, as by any manner spirituall or Ecclesiasti­call power or authority hath heretofore beene, or may lawfully be exercised for the Uisitation of the state Ecclesiasticall, and for the reformation of all manner errors, heresies, schismes, abuses, faults, offences, contempts, enormities.

In which wordes, my Lord, there are three things expressed, incident to the ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne.

First it is Soveraigne and supreame, over and above all, exclu­ding and abrogating all forreigne, including but not abrogating all domesticke jurisdiction.

Secondly, it is such a jurisdiction, as may lawfully be exercised, it is not then an unlawfull, but a lawfull jurisdiction.

And Thirdly it is for the reformation of all errors, heresies, schismes, abuses faults, offences contempts, enormities. It is no power then to punish men for truthes for conformity to the doc­trine and discipline established for vertues, for obedience to the Ecclesiasticall lawes of this land, no, but for errors, heresies, schis­mes, abuses, faults, offences, contempts enormities.

And this my Lord doth likewise appeare by the end of that an­cient jurisdiction of the Crowne expressed in that statute, which is, that all thinges in the Ecclesiasticall courts by vertue of that ancient Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of the Crowne may be done to the pleasure of Almighty God to the increase of vertue, and to the maintenance of the peace and unity of this realme.

Now my Lord if the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne be for the maintenance of the peace and unity of this realme, then that ancient iurisdiction of the Crowne, cannot pu­nish [Page 26] men for peace and unity, but for discord and dissention; not for obeying the lawes of this land, which is a principall meanes, to maintaine the peace and unity of this realme, but for violating the lawes of the land, which is a forcible meanes to breed discord and dissention.

Againe, if the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne, be for the increase of vertue, then that ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne cannot punish men for their vertues, but for their vices, for otherwise that would be a meanes to decrease vertue, and to increase vice.

And thirdly, seeing the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne, is, that thereby all thinges in the Ecclesiasticall courts should be done to the pleasure of Almighty God, and the pleasure of Almighty God, as I have before shew'd out of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, is, that the Magistrate shall not be a terror to good workes but to evill; Therefore the ancient jurisdiction of the Crowne cannot punish men for well doing. but for evill doing, not for keeping, but for breaking Gods lawes and the Kings, not for obedience, but for disobedience, not for vertue but for vice.

And this much my Lord, is evident by all lawes, for all lawes doe consist of a direction and a punishment, and they inflict the punishment onely upon the transgressers, not upon the observers of the direction of the law, and this the Apostle sheweth in his 1. E­pist. to Tim. chap. 1. ver. 8. We know the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, howes that? why thus, knowing this, saith the Apostle that the law is not given to the righteous, but to the lawlesse and disobedient, what is not the law given to the righteous, yet in re­spect of the direction, not in respect of the punishment, for be­cause he observeth the direction of the law, he is freed from the punishment of the law, but to the lawlesse and disobedient, the law is given in respect both of the direction and punishment, and because they observe not the direction of the law, they and they onely are liable to the punishment of the law, and thereupon if a­ny judge shall impose the punishment of the law, upon any that doth not violate the direction of the law, he crosses and confounds the very law it selfe, and incurres that foule fault committed by A­ [...]aniae the high Priest and excepted against by Saint Paul, Acts. 23. Thou sittest to judge me after the law, and contrary to the law commandest thou me to be smitten? And therefore my Lord see­ing the nature, property, and purpose of all lawes, is to secure the [Page 27] observers, and to lay the punishment of the law onely upon the violaters of the direction of the law, It is needlesse to alleage any more particuler lawes, to prove that which is the scope and in­tent of all lawes. Yet I cannot pretermit one, and I will alleage but one law of the land more to this purpose, and that's the twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta most fully and strongly confirmed 3. Caroli, by the Kings Majesty, in his answer to the Commons Petition of right in these wordes, let right be done, as is desired ac­cording to that twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta.

Now what saith that twenty nine Chapter of Magna Charta? No freeman, saith that chapter, shalbe taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customes, or be out­lawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed, neither will we passe upon him, nor condemne him, saith the King, but by the lawfull iudgement of his Peeres, or by the law of the land. That is, under your Lordships, & the Courts correction whose office it is to inter­pret statutes, unlesse that party be first convicted & found culpable of the breach of some law of this land, by a legall proceeding, either at the common law, or else in some other court, and whosoever shall either condemne, or punish any freeborne subject of this king­dome, either for his obedience to the lawes of this land, or for that which is no breach of any law of this land he doth violate that twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta, and for that he stands ex­communicate by a double excommunication, the one deliver'd publikely here in Westminster Hall,Tempore Bo­nifacii Archie [...] regnante tunc in Anglia. H. 3. videlicet anno. Dom. 1253. Id ibus Maii. in­aula. Westmon. 15. Epis. legun­tur sententiam de qua hic sit mentio, fulmi­nasse. Lyndew. Prov. lib. 5. tit. de sententia excom. cap. cum malum. Parag. Item ex­com. verbis. ab omnibus. Daniell in the life of H. 3. 37. Henry 3. by Bonifacius then Archbishop of Cant. assisted with 14. other Bishops, all in their pontificalls, and tapers in their hands, which after the excommu­nication denounced, they threw upon the ground, and as they lay there smoaking they cried so let all them, that incurre this sentence, be extinct, and stincke in hell, and all this was done in the presence of the Commons, Nobles, yea and of the King himselfe, who at the same time with a loud voyce said, as God me helpe, I will as I am a man a Christian, a Knight, a King crowned and anointed in­violably observe all these things, and the excommunication it selfe is set downe at the end of the statutes made 52. H. 3. in the booke of statutes at large put out by judge Rastall, & the other is extant in the same booke at the end of the statutes made 25. Edward. 1. and ut­tered by Robert Winchelsee Arch-bishop of Canterbury in his time, & both against the violaters of this renowned law of Magna Char­ta often confirmed not onely by the following Kings, the successours [Page 28] of Henry the third, and Edward the first, but also by the Pope him selfe, as appeares out of the fift booke of Lyndewodes provinciall, titulo de sententia excommunicationis cap. Cum Malum parag. Item excommunicatj.

And besides the former confirmations and excommunications, the authority of Magna Charta was made sacred and inviolable, as it were 25. Edward. 1. first, by decreeing, that that charter under the Kings seale should be sent unto all the Cathedrall Churches through­out the Realme there to remaine, and to bee read before the people twice a yeare. And secondly by enacting that that Charter should ever after be propugnated and vindicated by the sentence of excom­munication, to be denounced twice a yeare by all Archbishops, and Bishops in their Cathedralls, against all those that by word, deede, or counsell did doe contrary to the foresaid charter, or that in any point did breake or undoe it: and if the same Bishops or any of them should be remisse in the denuntiation of the said sentence that then the Arch­bishops of Cant. and Yorke, for the time being, should compell and distraine them to the execution of their duties in forme aforesaid as ap­peares by the 3. and 4. chap. 25. Ed. 1.

And surely my Lord those two former solemne excommunications were & those other continuall semiannuall excommunications might have beene hitherto, and may hereafter bee, rightly and justly de­nounced against the violaters of this 29. chap. of Magna Charta for this 29. chapter, that no free man is to be punished but for the breach of some law is good Divinity, & accords excellently with the word of God. The Apostle Rom. 4.15. telles us [...], the law causeth wrath, that is punishment; and how doth the Law cause wrath or punishment? not simply & singly of it selfe not observ'd but transgrest, and therefore in the next words the Apostle saith, [...], where there is no Law, there is no transgressi­on. And as where there is no [...], no law, there, there cannot bee any [...], any transgression of Law: so where there is no [...] no transgression of law, there there cannot be any [...], any fault or offence, and where there is no [...] no fault or offence, there, there ought not to be any [...] any wrath or punishment.

Nay my Lord, though there be a law, yet if that law be not trans­grest there cannot justly be any [...], any wrath or punishment: At most, though there may bee [...] proposita, [...] denuntiata, wrath proposed or denounced in the Law, to terrifie all persons from sinne, which is nothing but the binding power of the Law: yet just­ly [Page 29] there cannot be [...], imposita, [...] inflicta, wrath imposed or in­flicted by the Judge, upon any person to punish him for sinne, untill the Law be transgrest, and sinne committed by that person. And this the Apostle Rom. 5.12. doth most acutely & divinely shew by im­puting the punishment partly to the Law, and partly to the transgres­sion of the law, to the Law as to a just rule inflicting punishment up­on the transgression & to the transgression, as to a meritorious cause deserving that punishment, according to the just rule of the Law [...]. By sin, which is the trans­gression of the law, Death, the wrath, & punishment of the law entred into the world.

So then my Lord, this is most certainely and most undoubtedly true, wheresoever there is any [...], any wrath or punishment, any fining or imprisonment, any deprivation, degradation, excommuni­cation, or any other censure sentence, mulct, or punishment whatso­ever rightly and justly inflicted: There there must of necessity, of ne­cessity my Lord there, there must be some [...] some fault or offence Wheresoever there is any [...] any fault or offence, there there must of necessity of necessity my Lord there there must be some [...] some transgression of Law. Wheresoever there is any [...], any transgression of Law, there, there must of necessity, of necessity my Lord, there, there must be some [...], some law transgrest. If there be no [...] no law transgrest then it is impossible it is impossible my Lord, that there can be any [...], any transgression of Law. If there be [...], no transgression of law, then it is impossible, it is impossible my L. that there can be any [...], any fault or offence. If there be no [...], no fault or offence then it is impossible, 'tis im­possible my Lord, that there can be any [...] any wrath or punish­ment any fining or imprisonment, any deprivation, degradation ex­communication, or any other censure sentence, mulct or punishment whatsoever, rightly and justly inflicted.

Nay further my Lord, this law must be a knowne law; for by the law is the knowledge of sinne, saith the Apostle Rom. 3.20. and by what law is the knowledge of sinne? surely by a knowne law, not by an unknowne law, for seeing sinne is the transgression of the law, he that will know sin, which is the transgression of the Law, must know it by the law transgrest, and therefore he must first know, that law which is transgrest; and this the Apostle doth expressely and pregnantly shew Rom. 7.7. What shall we say (saith the Apostle) is the Law sinne? God forbid; nay I know not sinne, but by the [Page 30] Law for I had not knowne lust, to be a sinne, unlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust. So that first we know the Law, and then by vertue of the law, we know sinne, which is the transgression of the Law.

And here my Lord, I must againe repeate the Apostles question, What shall we say, saith the Apostle, is the Law sinne? God forbid, yea, God forbid it in deede, my Lord, for if the law be sinne, then the lawyers cujuscunque generis, eo nomine are sinners, and the grea­ter Lawyers, the greater sinners, and Judges the greatest of Lawyers, the greatest of sinners and how shall wee avoid or confute this con­sequence, my Lord, which to toucheth all our copyholds. Why, just as the Apostle doth the former. The Apostle proves the law to bee no sinne, because the law discovers, forbids, condemnes, and puni­sheth sinne. And if the Lawyers doe so, then the Lawyers cujus­cunque generis, eo nomine are no sinners but the ornaments both of Church and common wealth, and Gods Ministers and Deputies to reforme and preserve both. But if in steed of discovering sinne, they conceale sinne, in stead of forbidding sinne, they command sinne, in stead of condemning sinne, they justifie sinne, and in stead of punish­ing sinne, they patronize, protect and preferre sinne, then Lawyers cu­juscunque generis eo nomine are sinners, and the greater lawyers the greater sinners, and judges the greatest of Lawyers, the greatest of sinners, for as the law doth first discover sinne, and then condemne and punish it: so must Judges, first discover a particular sinne, a par­ticular transgression of law, and particular law transgrest, and then condemne and punish it. Otherwise they are not judges according unto law, but sinners against law, and their very act and worke of judging, in respect of the anomy, obliquity and irregularity of it, is not judging according unto law, but sinning against the law.

Nay my Lord, not onely Judges, but every man is to shew unto his brother, his particular sinne, his particular transgression of law, and the perticular law transgrest, even by Gods owne expresse com­mand Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainely reprove him, and not suffer sinne upon him, and if every man must plainely reprove his brother, and not suffer sin upon him, then every man must plainely shew his brother his particular sinne; and if every man must plainely shew his brother his particular sinne, then seeing sin is the transgression of the Law, eve­ry man must plainely shew his brother his particular transgression of law, and if every man must plainely shew his brother the par­ticuler [Page 31] transgression of law, then every man must plainely shew his brother the particular law transgrest. And if every man must doe this in love as a brother, then ever Judge must doe it, both in love as a brother, and in Justice as a Judge: and therefore no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreame, can justly inflict any wrath or pu­nishment upon any man whomsoever unlesse he first discover in him and to him, to him and in him, some particuler fault, some particuler offence, some particuler vice, some particuler error, some particuler evill, some particuler sinne, some particuler transgression of Law.

And by this, my Lord, it appeares, that the two finall sentences of the High Commission Court against mee, are both voide: first that of the deprivation and degradation, because in twelve sheets as it it stands upon record in this Court, it mentions no one parti­cular fault, but onely generalls, namely grievous and enormous crimes, excesses & delicts contumacies contempts & incorrigibilities, & therfore my Honored Lord Cheife justice, under favour your L^P. was much mistaken, when your Lordship delivering your opi­nion in the speciall verdict between Alllen & Nash did paralell my case and Caudreys case in the principall point. The principall point, in Caudreys case,And that the said Cau­drey before time of the said trespasse supposed, was deprived of his said benefice before the said Commissio­ners, as well for that he had preached a­gainst the said booke of com­mon prayer, as also for that he refused to celebrate Divine Service according to the said booke. & shewed par­ticulerly wher­in, Caudreys case. Fol. 3. was not, whether the sentence found against Caudrey did charge Caudrey with any particuler crime within any branch of the Commission found, for that's evident, & granted on both sides in Caudreys case, & is the principall point in my case, & the negative thereof is as evident in my case, as the affirmative thereof was in Caudrys case, and that negative makes the princi­pall point and question in my case to be this, whether the matter be coram non iudice or not, seeing the sentence found against mee doth not charge me, with any particuler crime within any branch of the Commission found, but onely with generalls, namely grie­vous & enormous crimes mentioned in the articles and those Ar­ticles not found; so that in very deede there is nothing at all found against me, according to this rule of the common law, de non ap­parentibus et non existentibus cadem est ratio, idem iud [...]cium.

But the principall point and question in Caudreys case was, whe­ther the High Commissioners had persued the forme of their com­mission, or not, in depriving Caudrey upon his first conviction, who by the Statute, the 2 of the 1. Eliz. was to be deprived upon his second conviction, which is no point or question in my case. And if your Lordship will paralell these two cases in the princi­pall point, your Lordship must either shew, that the sentence found againg Caudrey did not charge Caudrey with any particuler crime [Page 32] within any branch of the Commission found, but onely with ge­neralls, as in my case. Or else that the sentence found against me, doth charge me, not onely with generalls, but also with some particuler crime within some branch of the Commission found, as in Caudreys case. And unlesse your Lordship can doe one of these two, your Lordship may sooner bring together Hercules his two pillers, or the two poles, then paralell our two cases in the principall point. And untill then, this sentence containing onely generalls, shall according to Gods word, the word of truth, stand charg'd and branded with injustice and uncharitablenesse, and in respect of the anomy obliquity and enormity of it, shall be taken by all men of sound judgement to bee as indeede it is not a sentence according unto law, but a sinne, and a foule sinne against law; or rather to use the words of that erronious sentence in a true sence, a grievous and enormous crime contrary to the Law, and therefore voide. And both the High Commissioners in giving of it, and your Lordship and this Court in affirming of it, have shewed your selves, not Judges according unto law, but sinners against Law, and I out of love to all your persons, our of duty un­to God, and out of obedience unto his word, am bound to tell you so much expressely by the former text. Levit. 19 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainely reprove him and not suffer sinne upon him.

And secondly my Lord, this High commission first finall sentence of the five hundred pounds fine, and two yeares imprisonment a­gainst me, is for the same reason likewise voide, because though it mention a particular, namely my refusall to preach the Arch­deacons Uisitation Sermon; yet that particular, that refusall to preach that Uisitation Sermon, is no fault, no offence, no vice, no errour, no evill, no sinne, no transgression of any law whatsoever, but a vertue, and an eminent vertue, even the vertue of canonicall obedience unto the 36. 49. and 52. Canons to his Majesties Let­ters Patents, Royall prerogative and supreame Ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction, as shall now fully and amply appeare out of my second position. And thus much concerning my first position, that no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the Supreame, hath any power, pre­rogative, or authority, to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it bee for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evill,Thesis 2, pro­ [...]atio. some sinne, some transgression of some law.

I now proceede to my second position, that my refusall to preach [Page 33] the Archdeacon of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys visitation Sermon, my principall or especiall fault in the judgement of my adversaries, is no fault, nor offence, no vice, no errour, no evill, no sinne, no transgression of any law whatsoever, and that therefore neither the High Commissioners, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of Exchequer, the Lords of the Counsell, nor any other Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, Prerogative or authority to punish me, much lesse to imprison me for it.

And that I may begin and goe on in this position, with that up­on which I did much insist in the former; certaine it is, my Lord, that here is [...], here is wrath and punishment, here is [...] ad octo, here is wrath in the highest degree, here is wrath as grievous as the fire is hot; here is wrath incomparable, implacable, inexpli­cable, wrath unparalel'd, wrath superlative, [...]; as Greg. Nissen, [...], in another case speakes. The evill, the mischeife is beyond expression, beyond con­solation.

The two finall sentences of the Honorable Court of High Com­mission against me, may not unfitly be compared to that winde in the first of Iob: for as that winde strooke upon the foure corners of Iobs eldest sonnes house, and so did utterly ruinate it: so have these two finall sentences strooke upon the foure quarters of my estate, and utterly ruinated me in all, if they stand good. first they have strooke me in my goods by a fine of five hundred pounds, e­streated into the Exchequer, and partly paid and partly stall'd. Secondly, they have strooke me in my liberty by foure times impri­sonment, and nine full yeares and three quarters continuance there­in. Thirdly, they have strooke me in my benefice by deprivation. Fourthly, they have strooke me in my Ministeriall function by de­gradation; nay my Lord, they have strooke me one stroke more, above and beyond all the former: they have drawne out the spi­rituall sword of excommunication against mee, and therewith as much as in them lies, they have strooke me out of this orthodox Church, cut me off from the communion of Saints, delivered me up to Satan, and adjudged my soule (for the salvation whereof our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed his most precious blood) to the eternall torments of hell fire, so that if ever there were, then here is wrath incomparable, implacable, inexplicable, wrath unpa­ralel'd, wrath superlative.

Now my Lord, if herein the defendants have proceeded accor­ding [Page 34] to the rule of Justice, which placeth and observeth a propor­tion and correspondency betweene fault and the punishment, ac­cording to this rule of Gods word, Deut. 25.2. Secundum mensurā dilicti erit plagarum modus: then it must needes be, that this grei­vo [...]s & enormous punishment must argue some greivous & enormous crime, some crying sinne, like that of Cain in murdering his brother Abell, whose blood calles to God for vengeance, out of the dumbe and dead Element of the earth: nay it must argue some ascending, some soaring, some mounting sinne, flying up into the presence of God, and laying hands as it were upon the Almighty, and violent­ly haling & pulling him downe, to execute vengeance unpon the of­fender like the sinnes of the Sodomites and what is it? Why it is my refusall to Preach the the Archdeacon of Canterbury Doctor Kingsleys visitation Sermon. Parturiunt montes, nasceturridiculusmus.

And now my Lord, to examine this their sentence and procee­ding to law and justice. If this wrath this incomparable wrath and punishment, or any peere or particle thereof, be rightly and justly inflicted upon me for my refusall to preach the Archdeacons Uisitati­on Sermon: Then according to the former rule delivered in the former position, this my refusall to preach the Uisitation Sermon, must of necessity be some [...], some fault or offence. If this my refusall to Preach the Uisitation Sermon be [...], some fault or offence, then it must of necessity be some [...], the transgression of some law. If it bee [...] the transgression of some law, then there must of necessity be some [...], some law transgrest, that bindes me to Preach that Uisitation Sermon. My Lord the High Commissioners by the very Letter and text of some Commissions, that I have seene, have this power, that they may punish a Minister for any fault committed in his owne cure or else where, that is pu­nishable by the Ecclesiasticall lawes of this land. By which words my Lord it appeares, that first there must bee some fault. Secondly, that that fault must be against some law. Thirdly that it must bee against some Ecclesiasticall law of the land or else that Honorable Court by the very Letter and text of the largest commissions, that I ever saw, have no power to punish a Minister.

And though this their Commission my Lord, doth much outstrip the first of the first of Eliz. the statute whereon it is grounded: for that statute extends not to every fault punishable by the Ecclesiasti­call lawes of this land, for then it would swallow up all the ordina­ry [Page 35] jurisdictions over England: but onely to greivous and enormous crimes punishable by the Ecclesiasticall lawes of the land, as the Counsell on both sides in the speciall verdict betweene Allen and Nash have confest, and the wordes of the statute, as I before have shewed, doe necessarily enforce. Yet in this case of mine, to shew mine owne innocency and the goodnesse of my cause, not to make a precedent in other mens cases, I will give the defendants free leave and liberty to exceed both the statute and their Commission. I will not coope them up, and confine them, within the lists and limits of the Ecclesiasticall lawes as the most indulgent and munificent Com­missions that ever I saw doe yea and must doe, unlesse they will make their Commission as well Temporall as Ecclesiasticall: no my Lord, I will not require an Ecclesiasticall law, let them produce an law, canon, civill common, statute or divine, nay my Lord, I will once againe deale more Nobly and generously more heroically and munificently with that Honorable court with those Augustins Hie­romes, Gregories, Ambroses, with those Nazianzens, Chrysostomes, Origens, Basils, with those reverend right reverend most reverend Prelates and Patriarchs of our church, I will not require a whole law, noe not a full period of a law. Let them onely produce some co­lon, nay some comma of law onely, nay my Lord I will once againe deale more Nobly and generously more heroically and munificent­ly with that Honorable court, I will not require a whole colon, no, nor a whole comma of law neither, that were too too an Hercule­an labour for that Honorable Court, for those Canonists, Civilians, and Divines, for those commissaries, chancellours, Arch-deacons, Deanes, Bishops Arch-bishops, let them onely produce [...], some shaving, some scraping, some paring, some shred, peece, particle or fragment of Law, nay let them onely pro­duce [...], unum unum apicem, one jot, one apex, one tittle, one pricke or point of law, of any law my Lord, and I doe most willing­ly and most instantly submit.

And now my Lord as the defendants doe pretend a fault, so like­wise they doe pretend a law: the pretended fault is my refusall to Preach the Archdeacons Visitation Sermon: the pretended law is the Law of Canonicall obedience. They say, that my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon, at the Arch-deacons command, is a breach of Canonicall obedience.

And now my Lord, we are come to the [...], ad statum causae, ad caput controversiae, for this Canonicall obedience is the [Page 36] whole and sole ground and foundation and supportation of the whole sentence against mee, and it cannot be understood and determined, whether my refusall to preach the visitation sermon, be a breach of canonicall obedience or not, unlesse it be first knowne and under­stood, what this Canonicall obedience is: so that in the first place, my Lord, there is a necessity imposed, upon mee, breiflly to present unto your Lordship what this Canonicall obedience is.

The high Commissioners in the first part of their finall sentence, as it was given in their owne Court, make Law, custome, and Ca­nonicall obedience three different and distinct thinges. For therein they say, that the Archdeacon in injoyning Huntley to preach his visi­tation sermon, hath commanded him no more, than the said Hunt­ley was bound to doe by law, custome and by his Canonicall obe­dience, and herein by making Canonicall obedience a third and di­stinct thing from law and custome, they shew that they onely use the name of Canonicall obedience, but intend arbitrary or blind obedi­ence, that is, a generall and universall obedience to all the Arch-deacons commandes, though they swarve both from law & custome, whereby they make every Arch-deacon, Bishop and Arch-bishop a law-maker within his owne jurisdiction, and every of their com­mands binding and compulsive, though fortified neither by law, nor Custome.

But your Lordship, as it seemes, not content herewith steps a degree further, and makes Canonicall obedience, not onely a third and di­stinct thing from law and custome, but also a thing opposite, and contrary to law and custome: for termino trinitatis 1637. when when your Lordship delivered your opinion in the speciall verdict betweene Allen and Nash, your Lordship said, that if the Arch-deacon did owe me an 100. pounds by bond he might by vertue of my Canonicall obedience, command mee to deliver up that bond, the money, not being yet paid. Or he might command me by vertue of my Canonicall obedience, to send him a yoke of fat oxen, a cou­ple of good Coach-horses, or a score of fat weathers, which I am sure is not onely beyond, but contrary to law and custome, and more than either his Majesty or any of his royall predecessours did ever chalenge of any freeborne subject, either by the oath of allegiance or oath of supremacy, & whether your Lordship have altered this your opinion, or no, I know not, the high Commissioners I suppose, have altered theirs.

For certaine it is, that the former wordes of the first part of their [Page 37] first finall sentence, as it was given in their owne Court, are altered in the defendants plea, wherein they make Canonicall obedience, not a third and distinct thing from law and custome, as before, but a subordinate, relative, and a proportionable thing to law and custome, by changing these their former wordes, law, custome and his cano­nicall obedience, into these, law and custome according to his Ca­nonicall obedience.

And this alteration, as I suppose, proceeded from the acute and polite wit of you Master Justice Heath, at that time the Kings At­tourney Generall and Commissioners counsell, who seeing that the Commissioners by the former wordes, did make canonicall obedi­ence, a third and distinct thing from law and custome, that there­by they did under the name of canonicall obedience, chalenge ar­bitrary and blind obedience to and for every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop, that thereby they made themselves all lawma­kers within their severall jurisdictions, and that so at once by two wordes, they gave two deadly woundes, one to his Majesties su­preame jurisdiction, who under God is the onely lawmaker with­in this land, the other to the freedome and liberty of all his free-borne Subjects, who are not tyed to any lawes, but to those one­ly, whereunto they give their consents; did prettily and wittyly invent and contrive this trimme and almost undiscernable alterati­on, to cure these two deadly woundes: for which Sir, you did then, deserve a better fee from the Commissioners, than either from his Majesty, or from his other free-borne Subjects.

But my Lord, though, Master Justice Heath hath with that one salve well cured those two sores, yet therein he hath not right­ly and truely exprest and discover'd the nature of canonicall obe­dience, for Canonicall obedienee hath no reference to custome; that's customary obedience, which is due to custome, neither hath canonicall obedience relation to the laws in generall, of what kind soever they bee, but onely to that part and kind of law, which is called the canon law, for canonicall obedience, is such obedience as the canons require, and such obedience as the canons require, is canonicall obedience, they are convertible of the same circuit and circumference, just even: whatsoever is within compasse of ca­nonicall obedience, is within the compasse of the canons: and what­soever is without the compasse of the canons, is without the com­passe of canonicall obedience, so that if I am bound by my cano­nicall obedience to preach the Arch-deacons visitation Sermon, [Page 38] then I am thereunto bound by some canon, and if not by some canon,Thesis tertiae probatio. then not by my canonicall obedience. And that this is so, that canonicall obedience is such obedience as the canons require, I will now endeavour to prove by foure reasons, such I hope, as shall satisfie your Lordship, this Court, and all men that will be satisfied with reason, and I hope, shall silence them, that will not with reason be satisfied.

Ratio 1 My first reason to prove that Canonicall obedience is such o­bedience, as the canons require, is drawne a vi & virtute ipsius vocis Canonicae, from the very sence and signification of this word Canonicall, for as legall obedience is such obedience as the law requires, Evangelicall obedience such obedience as the Gospell re­quires, customary obedience such obedience as the custome re­quires, arbitrary obedience, obedience ad arbitrium praelati, ac­cording to the praelates pleasure, blind obedience such obedience as is requir'd of blind men, and unreasonable obedience such o­bedience as is requir'd of unreasonable creatures, so a vi & virtu­te ipsius vocis canonicae from the very strength, sence and signifi­cation of this word Canonicall, Canonicall obedience must be such obedience, as the canons require. And this reason is further confirmed by an argument drawne Hor argu­menti genus quandoque a­cuminis, quan­doque virium multum, quan­doque u­trumque ha­bebit. Elegan­ter itaque apud Terentium est; Homo sum, hu­mani nihil ame alienum pu­to. Rod. Agri­cola de Inven­tione lib. 1. cap. 10. [...]. Arist. Secundo Topicor. libr. His illud adiicere ridiculum putarem, nisi eo Cicero uteretur, quod coniugatum vocant. Vt eos qui rem [...]ustam faciant iuste facere: quod certe non eget probatione Quntil. Institut. lib. 5. a conjugatis or denomi­nativis, a toprike place delivered by Aristotle and Quintilian, and approved, and put in practise by Saint Iohn 1. Ep. 3. chap. 7. ver. there the holy Apostle, saith; Hee that d [...]th righteousnesse is righteous, even as he is righteous, that is, as our Lord and Savi­our Jesus Christ is righteous. In which wordes Saint Iohn argu­eth from one conjugate to an other, from doing of righteousnesse to being righteous: and so after his example I argue he that doth the canons, is canonicall, he that performeth obedience to the ca­nons, performeth canonicall obedience. And that this is true sence of this word canonicall, appeares by the authority of William Lyndewode in the fifth booke of his Provincicall titulo de Haereti­cis, cap. Reverendissime. where he doth thus expound this word ca­nonicall, Item eodem lib. tit. de Purgatione canonica. cap. statuimus, verbo. Canonice: canonice id est, secundum exigentiam Canonum. canonice id est secundum ex gentiam canonum, ca­nonically that is, saith hee, according as the canons require. And this my Lord, is my first reason, drawne a vi & virtute ipsius vocis [Page] canonicae together with an argument drawne a Conjugatis or De­nominativis, a topicke place deliver'd by Aristotle and Quintili­an, and approved and put in practise by Saint Iohn, and confirmed by the authority of William Lyndewode.

My second reason my Lord, is taken from the generall consent of learned men, not onely in our owne church, and of our owne religion but also from those, who though they are of our religion, yet they are not of our Church, I meane of our nationall Church, nay from those, that are neither of our church nor of our religion. And this reason being drawne from the joynt consent of learned men, ought to be of great force and authority according to that of vincentius Lerinensis, quod abomnibus, quod ubique quod semper te­netur, illud pro certissima veritate habendum & tenendum est. I will begin my Lord, with those that are furthest from home.

My first Man is Bellarmine, a learned man in the judgement of those, that are soundly and deepely learned on our side: my most reverend diocesan and provinciall my Lords Grace of Cant. in his relation of the conference betweene his Grace and Master Fi­sher the Iesui [...]e doth divers times highly magnifie him for his acute solid and profound discourse upon divers points of controversie. sect. 3. num. 2. & num. 17.

And Doctor Rainolds speaking of Bellarmine and Campian Stiles them nobile par Iesuitarum, and prefers Bellarmine as far before Campian notitia rerum, as he doth Campian before Bellarmine structura verborum. This learned man in a particuler treatise im­mediately following his bookes of Justification, the title whereof is de bonis operibus in particulari. 10. chap. speaking of Canoni­call houres, doth there thus describe them, canonicall houres, saith he, are such houres, as are appointed by the canons, to praise God, and to pray unto God, and these houres, saith he, are call'd cano­nicall, because they are assigned, deputed and appointed by the canons to that purpose. And Petro soave Polano the learned au­thour of that excellent history of the councell of Trent in his sixt booke, doth give the same reason of the same name, Collegiate churches by their institution have this function among others, to assemble themselves in the churches to praise God, at the houres appointed by the canons, which saith he, are therefore call'd ca­nonicall and Brentius a learned man of our owne religion in his Confessione wittenburgensi. cap. 20. de Horis Canonicis, doth give the very same reason of the same name, that the two former doe.

[Page 40]Againe, Gregory the great in the 11. booke of his Epistles and 51. Epist, to Iohn Bishop of Panormum, and received into the body of the Canon Law, writes thus; Si quid de quocunque clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit, quod te juste possit offendere, facile non credas, nec ad vindictam te res accendat incognita, sed praesentibus Ecclesiae tuae senioribus, diligenter est perscrutanda veritas, & tunc (si qua­litas rei poposcerit) canonica districtio culpam feriat delinquentis. Let a Canonicall punishment bee inflicted upon the offender for his offence; now what's this canonica districtio, or canonica paena? The most learned Bishop Bilson in that excellent treatise of his De perpetua Christi Ecclesiae gubernatione. 11. cap. interpreting the former words of Gregory, doth in these very words shew, paena cano­nica. 1. paena canonibus congruens. A canonicall punishment that is, a punishment agreeable to the Canons; and so doth William Lyndewode in the 5. booke of his Provinciall. tit. de Paenis. Cap. Evenit. verbo. Canonicas. paena canonica. id est. paena a sacris cano­nibus approbata. A canonicall punishment, that is, a punishment approved by the Canons. and Iohanes de vanquall in Breviario in sextum Decre­talium. fol 43. tit. de supplen­da praelatorum negligentia ul­tima conelusio. Episcopum ex­communica­tum pro culpa sua punire po­test Archiepis­copus paena canomica et arbitraria. Pro­batur hic in fine tex. & glo. fi. et facit. c. de causis de offi. deleg. & si di­catur puniri debet paena arbitraria tum non canonica. quia paena canonica dicitur, quae est in canone & iure expressa. ut in l. siqua paena. ff. de verbo. sig. solutio. Dicit Io. Mo. & Archid. quod paena expressa & de terminata a Canonibus proprie dicitur canonica. ut in dict. lo. Siqua paena. Illa tamen quae non est expressa & determinata a canone, datur tamen secundum moderationem canonum, qualitate personae & quantitate culpae consideratis, dicitur proprie & completive arbitraria. eo quod iudex sua discretione supplet, quod in canone non est expressum. potest tamen talis paena dici canonica, saltem inceptive, & quia per canones dirigitur iudex in moderatione Iohanes de vanquall Iohanes Mo­lanus, and Archidiaconus, do all make this the difference be­tweene a canonicall and an arbitrary punishment, that the one is ex­pressed in the Canons, the other is not, but left to the discretion of the Prelate. Paena Canonica dicitur, quae in Canone & jure est expressa & determinata: illa autem quae non est expressa & determinata a canone est arbitraria.

Now to recollect the force and strength or this argument; If ca­nonicall houres bee so called because they are assigned deputed and appointed by the canons, as in the judgement of Brentius Bellarmine, and Petro Soave Polano they are: and againe if a canonicall pu­nishment bee such a punishment, as is agreeable to the Canons, such a punishment, as is approved of the canons such a punishment, as is expressed and determined in the Canons, and if not expressed and determined in the Canons, not a canonicall but an arbitrary punish­ment in the judgement of Bishop Bilson, William Lyndewode, Iohanes de vanquall, Iohones Molanus and Archidiaconus; Then [Page] by the same analogie canonicall obedience, must bee such obedience as is assigned, deputed, and appointed by the canons, such obedience as agreeable to the canons, such obedience as is approved by the canons, such obedience as is expressed and determined in the Canons, other­wise it is not canonicall but arbitrary obedience; and this is my se­cond reason which being drawne from the joynt consent of learned men, ought to be of great authority according to this former rule of Ʋincentius Lerinensis, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper tenetur, illud pro certissima veritate habendum & tenendum est.

My third reason my Lord,Ratio 3. strikes the naile on the head, and drives it home, & it is the very definition of canonicall obedience, delivered by William Lyndewode, in the first booke of his Provinciall. tit. de maioritate et obedientia. cap. Presbyteri. verbis. in virtute obe­dientiae: where he doth in the former words terminis terminantibus, define canonicall obedience thus. Nota circa hanc materiam obedientiae, quod obedien­tia, quae homi­ni debetur ab homine, est de­bita minoris ad maiorem reve­rentia. Vnde si mandatur id quod iustum est, obedien­dum est, si in iustum, nequa­quam, si du­bium, tunc il­lud propter bonum obedi­entiae est ex­plendum. Lyndewode Prov. 1. lib. tit. de Constituti­onibus. cap. Quia inconti­nentiae. ver. o­bedientiae. Canonica obedientia, est obedi­entia secundum canones & constitutiones rite editas et publicatas, canonicall obedience is such obedience, as the canons and constitu­tions rightly made and published doe require.

Now this mans testimony and authority, ought to bee of great esteeme for divers reasons; first because he is the only glossator & com­mentator upon the provinciall constitutions of our Archbishops of of Cant. Secondly, because he was Doctor of both lawes, and sin­gulerly verst both in Church governement, and in deciding of con­troversies, and the ef [...]re doubtelesse did well understand what this canonicall obedience was: and unicuique in sua arte perito creden­dum: especially if he be not Judge in his owne case, as the Defen­dants against mee are. Thirdly because hee was officiall to Henry Chichley Archbishop of Cant. to whom he did dedicate his provin­ciall; and therefore in all likely hood he would not write any thing therein in the behalfe of the Rectors and Uicars of this kingdome, to the prejudice of the Episcopall or Archiepiscopall authority or Sea of Cant. Lastly, because he lived about 200. yeares since, and was long dead before this controversie was on foote, although this ^* hath [Page 42] beene on foot full 16. yeares, which is a larger portion of time, than the tearme of two mens lives is valued at by the common law, and and therefore certainely hee wrote the truth without all respect of persons, without prejudice or partiality on either side, and for these reasons his definition of canonical obedience standes good against all exception.

Besides, that Canonicall obedience is such obedience as the ca­nons require, appeares by the opposite member of the division: for the obedience now used in the Church of Rome, is either canonicall; that is, such as the canons require, and the Prelate by vertue of the canons may require, or else arbitrary Neque probamus cae­cum illud o­bedientiae ge­nus, nuper a Iesuitis exco­gitatum, nem­pe ut secun­dum prouerbi­um, sint caeci caecorum du­ces: quo volunt simpliciter & absolute, atque adeo [...] inferiores pendere a su­perioribus, [...], ut verbis utar Theodoreti [...]. ve­rum ut iniquit Chrysost. [...]. Chamier. that is such as the superiour shall require by his Dictats, whatsoever it be. This the Papists call religi­ous obedience because they make it a part, & a principall part of their religion, to become the servants, yea the slaves of men; contrary to Gods word, 1 Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, bee ye not the servants of men: and we rightly call it blinde obedience, because they that yeeld unto it, have as it were their eyes thrust out and must like blinde men be wholy led by others. But it is properly called arbitrary obedience that is obedience according to the will and plea­sure of the superiour.

And as it appeares in the constitutions of the society of Jesus; part 6. chap. 1. parag. 1. this arbitrary obedience consists in things Obedien­tiam omnes plurimum ob­servare & in ea excellere stu­deant, nec so­lum in rebus obligatoriis, sed etiam in a­liis; licet nihil aliud, quam signum voluntatis superioris sine ullo expresso praecepto videre tur. Constit. societatis Iesu parte. 6. c. 1. parag. 1. obligatory, and in things not obligatory: and in respect of this latter in respect of things not obligatory, this arbitrary obedi­ence may bee subdivided into obedience, uncanonicall, preterca­nonicall or ultra canonicall, that is besides or beyond the canons, and into obedience anticanonicall or contracanonicall, that is, a­gainst or contrary to the canons. And this Obedientia quod ad executionem attinet, tunc praestatur, cum res iussa completur quod ad voluntatem, cum ille qui obedit, id psum vult, quod qui iubet: quod ad intellectum, cum id ipsum sentit. quod ille; & quod iubetur, bene iuberi existimat. & estimperfecta ea obedientia, in qua praeter executionem, non est haec eiusdem voluntatis & sententiae inter eum, qui obedit, Conseusio. Ibidem in delarationibus. arbitrary obedi­ence as appeares out of the place last cited, is either perfect in re­spect of execution will and understanding, or else imperfect; per­fect obedience in respect of execution, is when the thing comman­ded is fully done. In respect of the will, when he that obeyes, doth will the same thing, that he who commands doth. In respect of un­derstanding, [Page 43] when there is the same opinion in both, and hee that obeys, thinkes as he that commands doth, and though the thing commanded be fully done, yet if there be not a full consent and conformity of will and opinion both in him that commandes, and in him that obeys the obedience is imperfect.

And in the same place, my Lord, they give us Et sibi quisque persua deat, quod qui sub obedi­entia vivunt, se ferri ac regi a divina provi­dentia per su­periores suos sinere debent, perinde ac si cadaver essent, quod quoquo versus ferri, & quacunque ra­tione tractarise sinit vel si­militer atque senis baculus, qui ubicunque & quacunque in re velit eo uti, quieum manu tenet, ei inservit. Ibi­dem in con­stitutionibus. two emblems of this arbitrary obedience, whereof the one is a dead body, which suffers it selfe to bee carried whethersoever and to be handled, how­soever the living will: and the other is a staffe in a mans hand, which is wholy at his service that hath it, and to be used howsoever, when­soever, and in whatsoever, he that hath it pleaseth.

Indeede my Lord, in the same place they interpose Sancta obedientia tum in executi­one, tum invo­luntate, tum in intellectu sit in nobis sem­per omni ex parte perfecta; cum magna celeritate, spirituali gaudio, & perseverantia, quic quid nobis iniunctum fuerit, obeundo: omnia iusta esse, nobis persuadendo, omnem senten­tiam ac iudicium nostrum contrarium caeca quadam obedientia abnegando; & id quidem in omnibus, ubi definiri non possit, quemedmodum dictum est, aliquod peccati genus interce­dere. a plau­sible condition, which if it were sincere and truly observ'd, would in a great measure rectifie and iustifie their arbitrary obedience, and that's this, that it is not to bee performed, if the thing commanded appeare to be a sin, but this my Lord is only a Jesuiticall and jugling trick to glose the matter and to gull the world, for this condition is contrary to the two former embles of Arbitrary obedience, for can a dead body or a staffe discerne what is sinfull or whether they be lawfully or unlawfully used? It is contrary to the name and na­ture of blind obedience, whereby as they there say, wee must re­nounce and deny our owne opinion and contrary judgement. It is contrary to the third condition of perfect obedience, which requires that there bee a full conformity of minde and opinion both in him that commands, and in him that obeyes. And lastly, it is contrary to the practise of the Jesuites, who require and performe obedience not onely in things, that are and appeare sinfull, but also in things that are and appeare grossely, palpably and transcendently wicked, as I shall presently shew.

And they doe derive this arbitrary obedience, and the two parts and kinds thereof, uncanonicall and an anticanonicall from the words of Greg. the seventh produceth Samuell to prove, that it is Idolatry and Infidelity to disobey the Pope. He that will not obey this most wholesome precept of ours (forbidding Priests their wives under colour of fornication) incurreth the sinne of Idolatry, as Samuell witnesseth, not to obey is the sinne of witchcraft, and not to be content, is the wickednesse of Idolatry. Distinct. 81. Si qui sunt. What said Samuell more of God, than the Pope here applieth to himselfe. Bishop Bilson in his true difference betweene Christian subiection and uncristian rebellion. second part pag. 231. 1 King. 20.32.33.42. Ipse prorex sive papa etiam solus sine concilio quaecunque ad reipub. Statum pertinent, decernit, eique non secus ac regi ipsi Christo, omnes dicto audientes esse oportet. Gasper scioppius in his Ecclus. cap. 55. Samuell unto King Saul, rebuking him for sparing Agag. and the best of the cattell, contrary to the conmmandment of the Lord, under pretence to offer sacrifice to the Lord. 1 Sam. 15. [Page 44] 22. Hath the Lord saith Samuell, as great pleasure in burnt offe­rings and sacrifices as when the voyce of the Lord is obeyed? Be­hold, to obey is better then Sacrifice, and to hearken is better than the fatt of rammes: for rebellion is as the sinne of witchcraft, and transgression is wickednesse and idolatrie.

In which wordes my Lord, as God require, that his word be taken, first for a law, secondly for an universall law or a law in all thinges, and thirdly for a law of that authority, that if he com­mand any man to kill a man, yea a King, the cheife of men, and Gods immediate deputy, he must doe it, and if he doe it not, hee sinnes greatly, which was Sauls case here. So doe the defenders of this arbitrary obedience, strive in these three thinges, to be similes altissimo, to be very Gods. First they wil have their bare word to be taken for a law, secondly for an universall law, or law in all thinges, and thirdly for a law of that authority, that if they bid kill a man, it must be done by them that are under their jurisdiction.

And this appeares my Lord, by a plea or argument, stiled the arraignement of the whole society of the Jesuites in France, made in the Court of Parliament in Paris, the twelfth and thirteenth of Iuly 1594. by Master Anthony Arnould Counsellour for the Vni­versity of Paris against the Iesuites: wherein he shewes, that the Jesuites fourth vow is to obey their generall ubique & in omnibus, every where and in all thinges and he further addes, that the wordes of their fourth vow are that they must acknowledge Jesus Christ present as it were in their generall, and that if Jesus Christ should command them to goe and There are above 3000. persons that know that Commo [...] let Preaching at Christmas last in Saint Bartholomewes Church, tooke for his theme the third chap. of the booke of Iudges, where it is reported, that Ehud slew the King of Moab, and scaped away, and after he had discour­sed at large upon the death of the King, and exalted and placed amongst the Angels, this Ty­ger, this Devill incarnate, Iames Clement, he fell into a great exclamation: we have neede of an Ehud, we have neede of an Ehud, were he a Frier, were he a Souldier, were he a Lac­key, were he a sheapherd, it made no matter: needes we must have an Ehud, one blow would settle us fully in the state of our affaires, as we most desire The Arraignement of the whole so­ciety of the Iesuites. fol. 12. kill they must doe so. And to this purpose Ignatius Loyola in his Epist. de virtute obedientiae, sect. 18. [Page 45] gives his Disciples the Jesuites this one generall rule of obedience Statuere debetis vobis­cum, quicquid superior praeci­pit, ipsius Dei praeceptum esse & voluntatem atque ut ad cre­denda quae Ca­tholica fides propo-nit, toto animo assensu­que vestro sta­tim incumbitis, sic ad ea facien­da, quaecunque superior dixerit, caeco quodam impetu volun­tatis parendi cupidae, sive ul­la prorsus dis­quisitione feri mini. Sic egisse credendus est Abraham filium Issaac immolare iussus. Mysteria Patrum Iesui­tarum. pag. 62. Statuere debetis vobiscum, quicquid superior praecipit, ipsius Dei praeceptum, esse & voluntatem &c. You must resolve with your selves, that whatsoever the superiour commands, is the very prae­cept and will of God himselfe and as you betake your selves with a full mind and assent to beleeve those thinges, which the Catho­licke faith proposeth: so be ye carried with a blind zeale and an obe­dient will, to doe all thinges, which the superiour shall say, with­out making any question or disquisition at all, for so Abraham is thought to have done, being commanded to offer his sonne Isaac & in the twentieth section of his former Epist. Ignatius Loyola adds, Quae de obedientia dix­imus, aeque privatis erga proximos superiores, atque rectoribus prae­positisque loca­libus erga Pro­vinciales, Pro­vincialibus er­go gralem, gra­li denique er­ga illum quem ipsi praefecit Deus, nempe suum in ter [...]is vicarum obser­vanda sunt. Ibi­dem. Pag. [...]1. Quae de obedientia diximus &c. Those thinges which we have said concerning obedience, are equally to be observed by private men towards their next superiours, by inferiour governours and Rulers of severall places, to their provincialls, by provincialls to their generall, and by the generall to him, whom God hath set o­ver him, namely to Gods Vicar on earth.

Here then my Lord, we have now the full extent of this religi­ous, irreligious, blind, detestable, damnable, devillish obedience in two respects; in respect of the persons, to whom it is due, and in respect of the nature of the thing it selfe. In respect of the per­sons to whom it is due, it is to be given by every inferiour to eve­ry Ecclesiasticall superiour, In respect of the nature of the thing it selfe, it is a generall and universall obedience to all their com­mands whatsoever. And if we looke a little more perticularly and narrowly into it wee shall find, that they extend it sometimes to thinges fond & frivolous sometimes to thinges ridiculous and ab­surd and sometimes to thinges wicked and ungodly.

First to thinges fond and frivolous; an instance hereof we have in Anselmus Arch-bishop of Cant. who after he was bishop of that See, wrote to Pope Vrban to appoint him some man, accor­ding to whose commands he might frame his whole life, and Pope Vrban appointed him Edmerus, and as Malmesburien. in his first booke de gestis pontificum Anglorum in the life of Anselmus saith, the Arch-bishop did so much esteeme the command of Ed­merus, that being in bed, he would not so much as rise, nay he would not so much as turne himselfe a latere ad latus, from one side to the other, sine praecepto Edmeri, unlesse Edmerus first com­manded him, and herein the Arch-bishop shewed himselfe a true patterne & a lively portraiture of blind obedience. For Caeca obe­dientia [Page 46] est, ut quis sit tanquam corpus exanime, quod requiescit ubi quis reposuerit, sine motu. This is blind obedience, that a man be like a dead body, which rests where it is laid, without motion untill it be stirred, as my late Lord of Ely Bishop White in his ex­planation of the Orthodox faith and way, cap. 3. parag. 13. shewes.

Secondly, they extend it to thinges ridiculous and absurd, E­thelwold the Abbot of Abington having set workemen to repaire the Abbey, charged one of his Monkes called Elstan, to see their diet well prepared for them. Thereupon the Monke betakes him into the Kitchin, makes it cleane, trimmes up the vessels, and pre­pares meat for the workmens dinner, a little before dinner, the Abbot comes into the kitchin and finding the Monke busie in pre­paring meate for the workemens dinner, askes him, what his mea­ning was? The Monke answers, that he was yeilding obedience to his command: the Abbot replied, that he gave him no such com­mand, he commanded him only to over-see others, not to doe those thinges in his owne person, yet he told him, that he had done well to let his obedience outstrippe his command, but added with­all that his obedience was not yet perfect: if he would have his o­bedience perfect indeed, the Abbot bid him thrust his naked arme into a great seething pot full of meat & pull out the lowest peece of meat, that was in the pot and added, that if the scalding liquor did not hurt his naked arme, then his obedience was perfect indeed, Malmesburiensis in his second book de gestis Pontificum Anglorum in the life of Elstan, saith that the Monke did doe so, and his hand and arme received no harme and thereby as by a miracle his obe­dience was knowne to be perfect indeed.

In the third place they extend it to thinges wicked and ungod­ly, Cardinall Bellarmine de Pontifice Rom. lib. 4 cap. 5. tells us, that if Si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel pro­hibendo virtu­tes, teneretur Ecclesia crede­re vitia esse bona, et virtu­tes malas, misi vellet contra conscientiam peccare. the Pope should so farre forth erre, as to command vices, and to forbid vertues, the Church were bound to beleeve, that vi­ces are good and vertues are evill unlesse she will sinne against her owne conscience and Cardinall Cusanus excitat. lib. 2. Serm. 2. & excitat. lib. 6. serm. super respice domine de caelo, & vide, re­quires every man to yeild both implicite faith & blind obedience, not onely to the Popes erronious doctrine, but also to the erroni­ous doctrine of his own prelate, and that without any further search [Page 47] or inquiry after the truth, Quam fir­ma est aedifica­tio ecclesiae? quia nemo potest decipi etiam per ma­lum praesiden­tem. si dixeris domine obedi­vi tibi in prae­posito, hoc tibi sufficiet ad sa­lutem. Tu e­nim per obedi­entiam, quam facis praeposito quem ecclesia tollerat, decipi nequis, etimasi praeceperit alia quam debuit: praesumit enim ecclesia de illa sententia, cui si tu obedieris, magna erit merces tua. O­bedientia igitur irrationalis est consummata o­bedientia & prefectissima, scil. quando o­beditur sine inquisitione rationis, sieut iu­mentum obe­dit domino suo. how strong, saith he, is the building of the Church: for no man can be deeeiued, no not by an evill pre­late. If thou say unto God, O Lord, I have obeyed thee in my pre­late, this shall suffice thee unto salvation, for thou canst not be de­ceived by thine obedience, which thou yeildest unto thy prelate whom the church suffereth, though he command thee other thinges, than he ought to doe, for the Church presumeth his sentence to be good, which sentence if thou obey, thy reward shall be great. O­bedientia igitior irrationalis est consummata obedientia & perfec­tissima. Therefore saith hee, obedience unreasonable, obedience without reason blind obedience is consummate and most perfect o­bedience, that is, saith he, when thou obeyest thy prelate without seeking a reason, even as an horse obeyeth his Master.

Suppose now my Lord, that the Pope should teach the Church, and the Bishop should teach those of his diocesse and the generall of the Jesuites, should teach those of his order, not such doctrine as Defens. fidie. lib. 6. cap. 6. mysteria pa­trum Iesuit. p. 159. 160. 161. Swarez teaches that it is lawfull for any man actually to depose, and kill a King by the Popes sentence, First excommunica­ed, deposed, and devested of his Subjects allegiance and fealty:

But such doctrine, as Mr. Antho­ny Arnoulds plea. pag. 11. 12 Varade Principall of the Iesuites in France taught Barriere, namely, that to murder Henry the fourth of France, though a Catholique, and not excommuni­cate, was a meritorious worke, and that for that deed hee should goe straight unto Paradise: or that to murder any other good King, good Magistrate, good man is a meritorious worke, and that for that deed, hee that doth it shall goe straight unto Heaven: In this case according to this doctrine, what were the Church, the Bishops sub­jects, and the Jesuites bound to doe, onely vi mandati, & virtu­te obedientiae, without any reference to those manifold subtilties, di­stinctions, and subdistinctions in the Jesuites King-killing doctrine? why, the Church saith Bellarmine it tied in conscience, to beleeve and obey the Pope, though he teach vertue to be vice, and vice to be vertue, otherwise she sinnes against her conscience. The Bishops subjects must obey him, without requiring a reason, as an horse, having a bridle on his head, followes his Master, and this saith Cu­sanus is perfect obedience, and after the fact is done, if they say un­to God, O Lord, wee have obeyed thee in our prelate, they have every one his quietus est, this shall suffice them unto salvation, nay their reward shall be great. And the Jesuites, even by their vow, are bound to obey their generall, even as Iesus Christ himselfe, u­bique [Page 48] & in omnibus, every where and in all thinges, yea when he commands them to kill and murder.

And hereupon Campian in that one of his three Generalis praepositi no­stri d [...]creto, quod ego tan­quam manda­tum caelitus missum, & a Christo ipso sancitum ve­neror, Praga Romam, ubi Generalis no­stri perpetua sedes est, Roma deinde in An­gliam conten­di. Campian. Epist. pre­fixed before his ten reasons, directed to Queene Elizabeths coun­sell, saith that he came over into England, iussu sui Generalis, tan­quam iussu ipsius Christi, at the command of his generall, as at the command of Christ himselfe, and what to doe? Even by his owne confession, as Sir Edward Coke in Caudreys case saith, to make a party for the Catholicke cause, that is, to withdraw the Queenes subjects from her allegiance and to reconcile them to the Church of Rome, which as Sir Edward Coke there saith, is treason and punish­able with death by the common lawes of the Land.

And if any will further see the fruites and effects of this arbitra­ry and blind obedience, let him cast his eyes upon Felton at the com­mand of Pope Pius Quintus setting up upon the Bishop of Lon­don his gates, an excommunication against his owne Soveraigne Queene Elizabeth that peerelesse Lady. Let him cast his eyes upon Iacob Clement murdering King H. the 3. upon Francis Ravaillac murdering King Henry the fourth both of France.

And lastly upon the Gun-powder treason plotted and contrived by the advice and approbation of Henry Garnet, superiour of the Jesuites here in England, and of Oswold Tesmond, Iohn Garrard and other Jesuites, as appeares by the 2. of the third of Iames.

And this is the reason my Lord, that such monstrous impieties, and such matchlesse villanies, are done by the inferiour at the com­mand of the superiour in the Church of Rome, & not in the Church of England, because the Church of Rome doth approve and em­brace arbitrary and blind obedience, and the two parts and kinds thereof, uncanonicall and anticanonicall, and extends it, to thinges fond and frivolous, ridiculous and absurd, yea wicked and un­godly, which the Church of England doth utterly reject, and con­tents her selfe with Canonicall obedience onely, that is, with such obedience as the canons require.

For as Bishop Bilson in his forcited treatise, de perpetua Chris­ti. Ecclesiae gubernatione, saith, In our Church, metropolitani & d [...]aecesani, scriptis in quaque re legibus diriguntur: and againe in our Church, minime sibi sumunt diaecesani ut diaecesibus suis le­ges constituant, quod tamen presbyteriis vestris in qualibet paraecia licere contenditis, He speaks against the Presbyterians, sed ut quas pii principes & concilia rite celebrata decreverius, executioni [Page 46] mandari faciant. And thereupon afterwards he calls the Bishops of our Church, in their severall jurisdictions, custodes non conditores canorum, which wordes of his, doe fully approve of canonicall o­bedience, and utterly exclude all arbitrary and blind obedience out of our Church. And so my Lord, by the definition both of ca­nonicall and arbitrary obedience it appeares, that Canonicall obe­dience is such obedience, as the canons require, and if if it exceed the Canons never so little, it is no longer Canonicall, but arbi­trary.

My fourth reason to prove that canonical obedience, is such o­bedience as the canons require, is in my apprehension of more strength and force, than the three former, and it is taken from the 19. and 21. chap. of 25. of Henry. 8. which acts doe so limit and confine the Clergy of this land unto the canons, either made by a provinciall synode in this land, and confirmed by his Majesties letters patents out of his prerogative royall or else made beyond sea, and received here for lawes of this land, by the Kings suffe­rance, and the subjects free consent and usage, that none of the Clergy in their severall jurisdictions, can goe beyond those canons, without incroaching upon the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of the Crowne: and therefore the Canonicall obedience approved and required in our Church by the oath of canonicall obedience, must of necessity, be such obedience, as those canons require, be­cause the superiour clergy cannot out of command require more, nor the inferiour clergy out of obedience yeild more, without pre­judice to the Kings supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction.

This will appeare most evidently, by the first of the first of Eliz. by the 19. and 21. chap. of the 25. of Henry 8. and by the oath of supremacy. The first of the 1. of Elizabeth is an act to restore un­to the crowne, the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall; then the crowne hath a jurisdiction and an ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical. And as the first of the first of Eliz. doth shew, that the crowne hath an ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiasticall: so the 19. and 21. chap. of the 25. of Henry 8. both revived in the first of the first of Elizabeth, as parts of that ancient jurisdiction of the crowne over the state Ecclesia­sticall doe shew, how farre that ancient jurisdiction of the crowne doth extend over the state Ecclesiasticall and they doe extend it, over the whole clergy, and submit the whole clergy unto it, in these two points or respects.

[Page 50]First concerning canons made beyond sea, and then concerning canons made in this land. Concerning canons made beyond sea, they so farre submit the whole Clergy unto the prerogative royall and su­preme jurisdiction of the Crowne, that none of the clergy in their se­verall jurisdictions, can execute or put in use, any such forreine ca­nons untill those forreine canons are first received heere for lawes of this land, by the Kings sufferance and the Subjects free consent and custome.

Secondly among the canons in this land formerly made, they ab­rogate all such canons, as are contrary, either to the supreme juris­diction of the Crowne, or to the statutes, customes or common lawes of this land, and approve and establish all the rest, untill they be o­therwayes ordered and determined by the 32. persons there mentio­ned, and then concerning canons hereafter to be made in this land, they submit the whole clergy unto the supreme jurisdiction of the crowne in these foure particulers.

The first particuler is, that the Clergy cannot make any canons in their severall jurisdictions, but onely when they meete in a pro­vinciall synode.

The second particuler is, that they cannot meete in a provinciall synode, untill they be first call'd thither by the Kings writ.

The third particuler is, when the clergy are so met, being so call'd, and have made canons, that they cannot execute or put in use, nay they cannot promulge, or publish any one of these canons, untill those canons are first confirmed by his Majesties letters patents out of his supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction.

And the fourth perticular is, that so farre they may goe, further they cannot.

And then in the third place, comes the oath of supremacy, and that binds every Bishop, every judge, every Clergie-man, and eve­ry other person that hath taken that oath, to defend and maintaine all those foresaid particulers, of the prerogative royall of the crowne over the whole Clergy. For the last clause of that oath bindes every one that takes it, The words of the oath, are to his power: but they are so interpreted by the right Honorable Thomas Earle of Arundell and Surrey, Earle Marshall of England, and Generall of his Maiesties forces in his treatise stiled: Lawes and Ordinances of warre, pag 26. where he expounds the former wordes by these, even to the utmost of my power and hazard of my life. to the utmost of his power, to defend and maintaine all jurisdictions, priviledges, preheminences and autho­rities united, or annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this realme. So that if any of them shall extend canonicall obedience, or the [Page 51] oath of canonicall obedience, or the archidiaconall, Episcopall, or Archiepiscopall jurisdiction, by vertue of canonicall obedience, or of the oath of canonicall obedience, beyond those canons; he doth incroach upon the prerogative royall of the crowne, withdraw his submission from his Maiesty, presume to make canons within his owne jurisdiction, violate the oath of supremacy, transgresse the first of the first of Elizabeth and the 19. of the 25. of Henry 8. and is therefore by that statute, liable to be fined and imprison'd at the Kings pleasure. And so my Lord, I have by foure reasons proved, that the canonicall obedience in force in our church, is such obedi­ence, as the canons in force in our church doe require, and that all arbitrary and blind obedience is quite excluded, as a thing utterly repugnant, to the word of God, to the doctrine and discipline of their orthodox church, to the supreme jurisdiction of the crowne, and to the ancient and just libertie and freedome of every free­borne Subject.

And now my Lord by one syllogisme grounded upon this ca­nonicall obedience I will acquit my selfe and all other, incum­bents from preaching the visitation Sermon, and shew that every visiter, every Arch-deacon, Bishop and Arch-bishop is bound to preach his owne visitation Sermon, and both these by vertue of canonicall obedience, so that these two wordes, which the defendants have abused to acquit themselves, and condemne me, being rightly understood, shall condemne them and acquit me, and this is the syllogisme. Iudge Do­dridge in his English lawyer saith, although the common lawyers of this land, do use a continued speech & non concisis argu­mentis, yet do they observe very oft the formes of ar­guments, used in the schooles, as [...]yllogismes, enthimems, inductions, examples, sorites, dilemmata &c. as may be proved by sundry instances, and first of syllogismes in Shellies case, In Calvins case.

• Canonicall obedience is such obedience as the canons require.
• But the canons bind every visiter, every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop to preach his owne visitation Sermon, licensed preachers to preach at their owne cures onely, and forbid me, and such as I am, that are not licensed preachers, to preach and ex­pound any Scripture in our owne cures, or elsewhere.
• Ergo by canonicall obedience every visiter, every Arch-deacon, Bishop and Arch bishop &c.

The Major or first proposition, that canonicall obedience is such [Page 52] obedience as the canons require, hath formerly beene proved by foure reasons, and therefore that cannot justly be denied, untill those foure reasons are first answered and confuted; and it is contra­ry to the rule of Logick, yea and of law too, to deny the conclusion before the premisses are confuted: so that all the question is con­cerning the Minor. That hath three parts, Thesis 4 the first is, the canons binde every visiter, every Archdeacon Bishop, and Archbishop to preach his owne visitation Sermon. Thesis 5 The second is, the canons bind licensed Preachers to preach at their owne cures onely. Thesis 6 The third is, the canons forbid me, and all such as I am, that are not licensed Preachers, to preach or expound any Scripture in our owne cures or elsewhere. And these three being prov'd; it will bee evident, that every visiter, and hee onely, and that by canonicall obedience, is bound to preach his owne visitation Sermon, and I will now prove these three in order one after another, beginning at the first: That that the canons bind every visiter, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to preach his owne visitation Sermon.

Thesis pro∣batio. 4 Amongst the Canons the word of God hath the prime place: for that is canon Canonum, lex legum, regula regularum and that yeelds us three arguments, to prove that every visiter every Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop, is bound to preach his owne visitation Ser­mon.

Argument 1:My first Argument is taken out of the first Epistle of Saint Peter, 5. chap. 2. verse, where Saint Peter chargeth all his compresbyters, to feede every one his owne flocke. Feede saith hee, the flocke of God, [...], which is amongst you, which is committed unto you, or which dependeth on you: that is, as Saint Paul expounds it, Acts 20.28. whereof the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, whence I thus argue.

Every flocke is to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by that pastor to whose charge it is committed.

But the incumbents, curates, Churchwardes, Sidemen, and the rest by the visiters authority, assembled at the visiters visi­tation are there committed to the visiters charge, and not to any of the incumbents charge there present. Ergo.

They are there to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by the visiter, and not by any of the incumbents there present.

The Major, or first proposition, that every flocke is to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by that pastor, to whose charge it is committed, is the plaine, evident, and expresse word of God in the places before [Page] alleadged, and therefore that cannot be denied without manifest in­jurie and violence to the Word of God in the places before allea­ged.

The Minor or second proposition, that the Incumbents, Curats, Churchwardens, Sidemen, and the rest by the visiters authority, as­sembled at the visiters visitation, are there committed to the visiters charge, and not to any of the incumbents charge there present, is likewise evident: for the visiter calls them thither, if they come not, he punisheth them if they come, hee examines them, if they depart before he dismisseth them, he cites them againe. And the visiter, if he be a Lynde­wode Provinc. l. 4. tit. de clau­destina despon­satione. cap. Humana con­cupiscentia. verbo. diaece­sanorum qui, cum habeant curam in soli­dum per totam diocesin, pos­sunt licentiam de qu [...] sequi­tur, concedere vbique per to­tam diaecesin. Pr. lib. 5: tit. de Haereticis cap. Reveren­dissime. v. Diae­cesano. Paulus. dicit, quod epus loci vel superior prae­latus sacerdo­dotis, maiorem gerit curam in ecclesia, quam curatus, & al­legat ad hoc de pae. & re. c. si epus. l. 6. vide Pr. lib. 5. tit. de pae. & re. c. In confessione verb. Non re­cipiantur. Bishop is nector totius Diaecesis, and hath curam ani­marum over them whom he visits.

And if he be an Archdeacon, then he is oculus Episcopi, to observe them, manus E;piscpi, to governe them to reward and punish them, lingua Episcopi, to instruct and teach them, and vicarius Episcopi, to doe them all for the Bishop, for vicarius tenetur implere vicem eius, cuius est vicarius. and he likewise under the Bishop hath curam animarum over them, whom he doth visite as these texs of law shew; Decretal. lib. 1. tit. 6. de electione Cap. 7. Inferiora etiam ministe­ria, ut puta decanatum, Archidiaconatum, & alia, quae curam ani­marum habent annexam. And upon these words the glosse notes. Et est verum, quod Archidiaconus, qui habet inquirere & visitare parochiam suam, curam habet animarum. And againe, eodem lib. tit. 23. de officio Archidiaconi, Cap. 1. Vt Archidiaconus post E­piscopum, sciat se vicarium esse eius in omnibus, & omnem curam in clero, tam in urbe positorum, quam eorum, qui per parochias habi­tare noscuntur, ad se pertinere, sive de eorum conversatione, sive ho­nore & restauratione ecclesiarum, sive doctrina Ecclesiasticorum, vel caeterarum rerum studio, & delinquentium rationem coram Deo redditurus est. And againe, Cap. 7. cum super his i.e. super clericis & ecclesiis eorum, sit redditurus rationem in districti examinis iu­dicio. and so both propositions are prov'd, and therefore the con­clusion, following directly upon the premisses, must needes bee true.

Argument 2 My second argument is taken out of the 10, Chapter of Saint Lukes Gospell. 7. vers. From these wordes of our Saviour, The la­bourer is worthy of his hire, which is true [...] converso. He that hath the hire, is bound to performe the labour, and the canon law doth approve of the rule both wayes: Qui sentit onus, debet sentire & commodum, & qui sentit commodum, debet seutire & onus, inter [Page] regulas iuris regula 55. Now the labour of the visitation, is to cor­rect and preach, else why am I fin'd, imprison'd, depriv'd, degra­ded, and excommunicated, for refusing to preach a visitation ser­mon: and the hire for that labour, is procurations, and both these appeare by the definition of Procurations. Decretalium lib. 1. tit. 23. de officio Archidiaconi cap. 10. Est procuratio necessariorum sumptuum exhibitio, quae debeter praelatis, diaecesim seu subditos vi­sitantibus, and every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop con­fesseth as much. For alwayes before Easter in their processe, they cite us to appeare at their next visitation, and there to pay unto them, procurationes sibi ratione visitationis debitas, procurations due to them, for visiting, that is, for preaching, and correcting, saith the Canon Law. Procurations, there is the hire of the visita­tion, due for visiting, that is for preaching and correcting there is the labour or worke of the visitation. So that the visiter and he onely, and that by the rule of naturall equity, is bound to preach his owne visitation Sermon, because he receives his procurations of the incumbents for that worke: whence I thus argue.

Whosoever receives the hire of the visitation, which is procu­rations, he is bound to performe the labour of the visitation, which is to preach and to correct.

But every visiter, every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop, receiveth the hire of the visitation, namely procurati­on. Ergo.

Every visiter, every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop, is bound to performe the labour of the visitation, to teach and to correct, to preach and punish.

That procurations are the hire of the visitation, and that the la­bour of the visitation is to preach and to correct, and that every visiter receiveth that hire, for visiting, these three are without all question, all the question is, whether to visite, bee to preach and to correct, and that will I prove most plentifully, when I come to the canon law; I onely suspend the proofe thereof, untill I have allea­ged my third and last argument out of the word of God.

Argument 3 Which is taken out of the first Epistle of Saint Paul to Tim. 3. cap. 1. v. out of these wordes; This is a true saying, if any man de­sire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy worke. In which wordes Saint Paul admonisheth Bishops, not to make a divorce betweene their office and their worke, not to take to themselves, [Page] the dignity and profit of their office, and to cast the labour, and worke upon others: but to joyne them both together, and in their owne persons, as well to doe the worke, as to desire the calling: And this doth analogically bind all others, of what calling soever they be, to joyne the office and worke both together, according to that of the same Apostle Rom. 12.7. [...]. Let him that hath an office, waite on his office: whence I thus argue.

Whosoever hath desired, whatsoever hath obtained the of­fice of a visiter, he is bound to desire, he is bound to performe, the worthy worke belonging to that office, namely to teach, and to correct.

But every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop hath desired, hath obtained the office of a visiter: Ergo. Every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop is bound to desire, is bound to performe the worthy worke belonging to that of­fice, namely to teach and to correct, to preach and punish.

The onely thing questionable in this syllogisme, is that which was questionable in the former, namely, whether to teach and to preach be the visiters worke at the visitation, and that being pro­ved, then by the former argument, every visiter is tied to desire it, and doe it in his owne person, or by some other lawfully procured. For quod quis legitime facit per alium, idem est ac si faceret per se. And I will now prove that, the visiters duety, so evidently out of the Canon law, that no man shall doubt of it, & so my two last argu­ments, out of the word of God shal stand good against al exception.

Lyndewode in the first booke of his Provinciall, tit, de officio Ar­chidiaconi cap. 1. sets downe this canon, made by Steven Langhton Arch-bishop of Cant. about 400. yeares since.

Ʋt Archidiaconi secundum Apostolum, non quae sua sunt quaerant, sed quae sunt Iesu Christi: in sua visitatione provideant, quod canon missae emendetur, & quod sacordotes, rite noverint pro­ferre verba canonis & baptismatis, & quod in hac parte sanum ha­beant intellectum. Doceant quoque laicos, in qua forma baptizare debeant, ut saltem hoc faciant aliquo idiomate.

This Canon binds the Archdeacon, to teach the Clergy and Lai­ty at his visitation: and what must he teach them? why, hee must teach the Clergie, how to pronounce the words of the canon of Masse and of Baptisme, and the Laity how to baptise in some tongue: and where were the Clergie and Laity to doe these things? In their owne Parishes, not at the visitation. So that by this canon, the Archdea­con [Page 56] is bound, to teach the Clergie and Laity at the visitation, how to doe their owne duties, at home in their owne Parishes, not how to doe his duty at the visitation. And that all this is the Archdea­cons duty, it is evident by the title of the canon. It is de officio Archi­diaconi. The text is plaine, Lyndewodes glosse makes it plainer, for up­on these words, ut sacerdotes in hac parte sanum habeant in­tellectum, Lyndewode gives this glosse.

Sanum intellectum, 1. fidelem intellectū sive Catholicum: & ex hoc apparet, quod in Archidiacono requiritur Scripturarum scientia: quo­modo namque possit in aliis canonis missae, verborum baptismatis sa­nuum intellectum exquirere, nisi ipse prius eadem sano sapuerit intel­lectu? Nam non convenit talem aliis praefici in magistrum, Good my Lord, marke this, non convenit talem aliis praefici in magistrum, qui nondum se noverit esse discipulum. By which words it is evident, that the Archdeacon is made a teacher, an instructer, a Doctor to the in­cumbents, and they Disciples, Schollers, and hearers unto him, and therefore he is ex debito, ex officio, to teach and to Preach unto them at his visitation, and not they unto him.

From the provinciall constitutions of our Archbishops of Cant. I proceed to the Legantine constitutions of this Kingdome, & amongst them I finde this canon or constitution made by Otho the Popes le­gate, tit. de septem sacram. c. Sacram. Ecclesiast. parag. statuimus.

Statuimus quod in susceptione curae animarum, & ordinis sacer­dotii, examinentur de sacramentis praecipue, ordinandi. Archidia­coni quoque in singulis Decanatuum suorum conventibus, sacerdo­tes, in his studeant erudire, docentes eos, qualiter circa baptismum, eucharistiam, matrimonium, paenitentiam se habere debeant.

This canon likewise bindes the Archdeacons at their visitation, to teach the incumbents, how to carry themselves in administring the Sacraments, which are to bee administred by them, in their owne Parishes, to their owne people, and not at the visitation to strangers. So that by this canon also, the Archdeacons are bound at their visi­tation, to teach the incumbents, how to doe their owne duties at home in their owne cures, not how to doe the Archdeacons dutie at the visitation. And which is especially to be observed in this canon, the Archdeacons are here bound to teach the incumbents in singulis decanatuum suorum conventibus, at every meeting of the Deaneries, at every visitation, and therefore the incumbents are not bound to teach the Archdeacons, or one another at any visitation.

Againe among Othos legantine constitutions tit. de Archidiaconis c. De Archi. quoque. par. sint solliciti. I find this canon or constitution.

[Page 57] Sint solliciti Archidiaconi, frequenter interesse capitulis per singulos decanatas: In quibus diligenter instruant inter alia sacer­dotes, ut bene vivant, ut sciant & sane intelligant verba canonis & baptismatis.

This Canon also bindes the Archdeacons at their visitation, to teach the incumbents, and that frequently, carefully, and diligently, both how to leade their lives, and how to discharge their cures. And Iohanes de Athona in his glosse, shewes as much, & withall shewes, how the Archdeacons did then neglect that duty, and why, even be­cause it brought no profit with it.

These are his very words upon the last text: Hic textus requi­quirit sollicitudinem & diligentiam in Archidiaconis. Haec tamen constitutio perraro ab Archidiaconis servatur, quia lucrum pecu­niarium, eis inde non applicatur. And this is also the reason, my Lord, that our Archdeacons, Bishops & Archbishops violate these constitutions, which bindes them to preach their owne visitation Sermons, and inforce that duty upon the incumbents, because it is for their profit and ease so to doe.

But if either profit or ease, my Lord, would have prevailed with the Archdeacon, this controversie concerning Preaching the visita­tion Sermon, had never beene betweene him and me: for in his plea, the fourth Article hee confesseth, that I offered him two or three peeces, that is, by his owne interpretation, forty shilling or three pounds, to procure one to preach the visitation Sermon: so that if he would have Preached that Sermon himselfe, he might have had a rich reward for his owne paines, in doing his owne worke: or if he would not, he might with part of the reward, have procured another to have preached it, & so he might have had both profit and ease. But his spleene against me was so great, that hee would not accept of either, but preferred a most unjust warre, before a most just peace, and so quod pessimorum est ingeniorum, hee hath rewar­ded me evill for good, and hatred for my good will.

From the provinciall and legantine constitutions of this King­dome, which are as it were an epitome, or breviat of the whole bo­dy of rhe canon law, I proceed to the body of the canon law it selfe, and there in the Decretals 3. booke. 39. tit. de Censibus &c. cap. 23. parag. porro, I find this canon or constitution.

Porro visitationis officium exercentes, non quaerant, quae suae sunt, sed quae sunt Jesu Christi, praedicationi & exhortationi, cor­rectioni & reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit.

[Page 58]The first thing, my Lord, to be inquired into, in this canon, is, who these visitationis officium exercentes are? The former part of the canon shewes, that they are Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Arch-bi­shops: what are they to doe at the visitation? non quaerant, quae sua sunt, sed quae sunt Jesu Christi: They must not seeke for their owne thinges, that is, for procurations, but for the thinges of Jesus Christ, that is, for the salvation of their soules, whom they visite. How is that to be done? Praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & re­formationi vacando. By imploying themselves in preaching and ex­horting, there's the first thing; By imploying themselves in correct­ing & reforming, there is the second thing. Where must these thinges be done? In visitationis officium exercendo, at the visitation. By whom? a visitationis officium exercentibus. By them that keep the vi­sitation, who are they? Arch-deacons, Bishops, Arch-bishops, who is now, my Lord, to preach the visitation sermon, The visiter or the visited?

And here my Lord, I doe how make good my two last argu­ments out of the word of God, wherein there was nothing doubt­full, but onely these two thinges, whether to visite were to preach and to correct, and both they the visiters worke at the visitation? and both these appeare out of this text. For here, exercere visitatio­nis officium, est praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & refor­mationi vacare. To visite or keepe a visitation, is to imploy ones selfe in preaching and exhorting, in correcting and reforming. So that when the canon law gives the visiter, his procurations for visi­ting, it gives him his procurations for preaching and correcting: and when the Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Arch-bishops of this realme, in their processe chalenge their procurations, of us the in­cumbents for visiting us: they chalenge their procurations of us, for preaching unto us, and for correcting of us: and the reason hereof is, quia visitare vel visitationis officium exercere, nihil aliud est, quam praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & reformationi vacare. Because to visite or keepe a visitation, is nothing else but to imploy ones selfe in preaching and exhorting, in correcting and reforming. And therefore my Lord, seeing without all question, without all peradventure, it is the visiters duety to visite, and to visite is to preach and to correct: therefore it is his duety to preach and correct, as this text shewes: and this much shall likewise ap­peare out of my next canon, which is taken ex Sexti decretal. lib. 3. tit. 20. de censibus, exactionibus & procurationibus cap. 1. pa­rag. Sane. The wordes are these.

[Page 59]Sane Archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo Dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in eccle­siis.

This canon my Lord, just as the former did, doth shew, what it is, impendere visitationis officium, it is proponere verbum Dei, & quaerere de vita ministrantium in ecclesiis. To preach the word of God, and to examine the lives of the Church ministers. And both these, as this canon shews, must be done by the visiter, yea by the cheife ecclesiasticall visiter, by the Arch-bishop himselfe at his visi­tation. Archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito ver­bo Dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis.

Vives makes this one difference, my Lord,lib. de causis corruptarum artium. betweene a base wit and an ingenuous minde: that the one will strive for victory, in a knowne error, the other will rather seeke, how true that is, which he holds, than how he may defend it, and make greater price of ve­rity, than of victory. And hereupon my Lord, I hold my selfe bound in conscience, to acquaint your Lordship with the onely exception, that the advocates for the office, have made against all my proofes, that so it may appeare, that I am not partiall in mine owne cause, nor wedded unto it, whether it be right or wrong: but that I am in­differently affected, nay wholy bequeathed unto the truth, that that may take place, and get the victorie, whether it be against me, or for mee.

When this last text was alleaged in my behalfe, at informations in Doctors Commons, Doctor Rives the Kings advocate, and one of the advocates for the office against me, a learned Lawyer and an e­legant orator, made this exception against it. He granted, that by the former text, praeponere verbum dei, was the Arch-bishops du­ty at his visitation. But he added, that proponere verbum dei, did not bind the Arch-bishop to preach the word of God at his visitati­on, but onely to lay the word of God before him at his visitation: as if the words of the text had beene, Praeposito verbo Dei, and not proposito verbo dei.

Dulhard vives his schoole-master was of opinion, that the worst Grammarian would make the best logician: and it seemes,Ibidem. that Doctor Rives is of Dulhards opinion and thinkes to prove himselfe a great canonist, by shewing himselfe a weake grammarian, by taking pro or prae, or by confounding pro with prae. But this my Lord, is not expositio or interpretatio, but nugatio, nay corruptio & depravatio textus: or if it be an interpretation, it is such an in­terpretation, [Page 60] as gave occasion to this old proverbe, mala glossa corrumpit textum. And as at that time, I entreated Doctor Rives to compare his glosse, with the approved glosse upon these words, which I suppose satisfied him at that time, I am sure it made him silent: so I desire your Lordship to observe the difference betweene Docter Rives his glosse, and the ordinary glosse, and to judge which comes neerest the text.

The ordinary glosse upon these former wordes, Sane Archie­piscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo Dei. quae­rat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis, makes this question, Hic quaeritur, quid primo debet facere Archiepiscopus vi­sitans? It gives this answer, Respondetur, quod primo debet praedicare verbum dei, deinde debet inquirere, de vita & moribus habitanti­um ibidem vid. clericorum & laicorum.

Proponere verbum dei then, not onely by its owne grammaticall signification, but also by the glosses approved interpretation, is prae­dicare verbum dei, to preach the word of God: & thereunto the Ar­chbishop himselfe, the cheife visiter, under the King, is tied, & that ex debito, ex officio, out of debt & duety. Nay it is his primum debi­tum, his primum officium: his second debt & duety at the visitation, is to correct, and reforme: and both these this last glosse doth ex­pressely shew. Archiepiscopus visitans debet, primo debet predicare verbum dei, deinde deber inquirere, de vita & moribus ibidem habi­tantium vid. clericorum & laicorum. So that both by this last text & glosse, Archiepiscopus visitans tenetur, tenetur ex debito, tenetur ex officio, praedicare, primo praedicare verbum dei, secundo corrigere & reformare.

And now my Lord having prov'd it the Archbishops, the cheife Ecclesiasticall visiters, debt and duty, which he is to pay and per­forme to the Clergy and Laity at his visitation, nay his prime debt and duty, in the first place to preach his owne visitation Sermon, I may easily by an argument, drawne a majore ad minorem, a supe­riore ad inferiorem, prove it the duty of every inferiour visiter, of every Bishop, and Archdeacon, to preach his owne visitation Ser­mon; for quod valet in majore, valebit etiam in minore. But I stand not in neede of these topicall and analogicall arguments. The last paragraph of that chapter, the paragraph Hanc autem, requi­ers as much of every Bishop, and Archdeacon, at their visitation, as is by the former paragraph, the paragraph Sane, enjoyned the Arch-bishop at his visitation.

Vltima conclusio. Prae­dicta forma visitationis de­bet servari in epis & aliis inferioribus: regularium consuetudini­bus exceptis. Probatur hic in Parag. fin. & intellige de forma tradita a Parag. Sane usque in finem non de forma tradita in prin­cipio textus. se­cundum Do. Iohannes De vanquall in Breviario super sextum Decre­tal. in his con­clusions upon the Parag. Hanc autem. ultima con­clusio. Hanc autem visitandi forman ab universis etiam Episcopis, [Page] aliisque praelatis, ordinario jure subjectos suos visitantibus, plene observari praecipimus. praecipimus.

Here my Lord wee have this word praecipimus, and this word being inserted in a canon, makes canonicum praeceptum [...], in the highest degree, as the Canonists speake: and there fore the canonicall obedience here required, must needes bee canonica obedientia by an excellency. And upon this word prae­cipimus, Lyndewode gives this note:Lynde­wode Pro­vinc. lib. 1. tit. de consti­stutionibus. cap. Quia in continentiae vitium. verbo. Praecipimus. Ex hoc apparet, quod con­trafaciens peceat, saltem ille, qui est subditus praecipientis: and Greg. ad Iovinianum saith, quod praecipitur imperatur, quod imperatur necesse est fieri, si non fiat, paenam habet.

This Canonicall precept then requiring canonicall obedience, is of necessity to be obeyed, and he that breaketh it, sins, saith Linde­wode, and is to be punished, saith Greg. Now what is the canoni­call obedience required by this canonicall precept? why, Hanc visi­tandi formam observari, That the precedent forme of visiting, en­joyned the Archbishop before in the paragraph, Sane. namely, that first he preach his owne visitation Sermon, and then correct and re­forme the parties visited, be observed. By whom must it bee obser­ved: ab universis etiam episcopis, by all Bishops. By whom else? aliisque praelatis. By all other Praelates. Scilicet. Archidiaconis, namely Archdeacons, saith the glosse: and lastly, how must it bee observed? why, plene observari praecipimus, it must be fully obser­ved, not semiplene, not by peeces or halfes, they must not onely preach, and omit to correct, nor onely correct, and omit to preach: but they must doe both joyntly together. If they omit either, they breake their canonicall obedience, they violate this canonicall prae­cept, and therein they sinne, and therefore they are to bee puni­shed.

And if to omit to preach the Uisitation Sermon, my Lord, be a sin in the Archdeacons, Bishops, & Archbishops, and to bee puni­shed: what a sinne is it in them, wholy to reject that duty from themselves, and without both canon and colour, to put it upon the incumbents, and if any incumbent refuse it, to cite him to the high Commission Court, and there to fine, imprison, deprive, degrade, and excommunicate him? this surely is a transcendent and a super­lative sinne, and therefore deserves a transcendent and a superlative punishment.

But I proceede, and from the text and glosse, I proceede to the Commentators and glossators upon the text. And in the first place [Page] I produce these three; Iohanes Andreas in apparatu suo super sex­tum decretalium, Helias Regnier, in his casus literales & notabilia super sextum decretal. And the third is anonymus quidam, the title of whose worke is, casus longi super sextum decretalium, com­pilati in alma unversitate Pictavensi; and I joyne these three toge­ther, because they write upon the same text, and use the very same words upon the text.

The text they write upon, is the text last cited, ex sexti decretal. lib. 3. tit. 20. de censibus exact, & procurat. cap. 1. cap. Romana parag. Sane. Sane archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis. And upon this text, they all give this glosse in these very wordes. Hic quaeritur, quid primo debet facere Archiepiscopus visitans? Respondetur, quod primo debet praedicare verbum dei, deinde debet inquirere, de vita & moribus habitantium ibidem, vi­del. clericorum & laicorum: and it seemes, that Johanes An­dreas was the first authour of those wordes, and that the other two, and the glosse in the last and best edition of the body of the canon law, put out by Gregory the thirteenth, borrowed them from him. For I finde them in the glosse of that edition, but in the glosses of former editions, I finde them not. But howsoever that prove, this is certaine, that this their glosse is uncontradicted by any, that ever I saw, and I have seene as many, as I could upon a diligent search finde in Pauls Church-yard, Duck-lane, and some other by-cor­ners.

My fourth authour is Johanes de vanquall Coloniensis, Doctor utriusque juris, in his Breviary on the sixt book of the Decretals. in his conclusions upon the text last cited, conclusione 2. where he thus writes.

Spectat ad officium visitatoris primo discutere statum clericorum, qualiter baptismum & alia sacramenta administrent, & qualiter se habeant in ecclesia & vita. Et si omnia recte inveniat, deo gra­tias agat, sin autem aliter inveniat, ignaros instruat, & haec nocte, qua venit, expediat: sequenti die de mane plebi vocatae, debet prae­dicare verbum dei, docendo fidem, and quod mortalia vitent: & se continue in bonis operibus exerceant.

This glosse is agreeable to the former text, and binds the visiter, ex debito, ex officio, to preach at his visitation, and there to teach both Clergy and laity.

My fift man is Cardinall Hostiensis in the third booke of his [Page 63] summe, tit. de Censibus, exactionibus & procurat. Expounding the text last mentioned. His wordes are these.

Archiepiscopus in secunda visitaione illos visitet, qui in prima non fueriut visitati: & imprimis verbo dei proposito, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium. Praecipit autem dominus noster u­niversis episcopis, aliisque praelatis, ordinario jure, exceptis religiosis, visitantibus, ut hanc formam studeant observare. ut omnia haec le­guntur in authentica Domini.

In which words, my Lord, this is very observable, that Hostiensis saith, it is expresly set downe in the very text of the canon law, even in the Popes authenticke Epistle, that every Arch-deacon, Bishop and Arch-bishop, is first to preach his owne visitation sermon, and then to correct and reforme the parties visited. And if this much be expresly set downe in the very text, what need we any more glosses to prove that, which is cleere and evident in the very text, and if a­ny glosse shall contradict a plaine text, we may lawfully reject it, and conclude that it is mala glossa, quia corrumpit textum.

Now upon the other text, before alleaged out of the Decretals lib. 3. tit. 39. De censibus exactionibus & procurationibus. cap. 23. parag. Porro. The wordes whereof are these. Porro visitationis offi­cium exercentes, non quaerant quae sua sunt sed quae sunt Jesu Christi, praedicationi & exhortationi correctioni & reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit. I produce these three glossators, Petrus de Anchorano, Cardinall Zabarell, and Abbot Panormitan.

Petrus de Anchorano upon the former text sayes. Praelati tunc sunt procurandi cum personaliter visitant. Et debent tunc consilium Lateranense servare, & praedicationi, exhortationi, & reformationi vacare.

Cardinall Zabarell upon the same text, gives us this glosse. Octa­vo nota quod debet visitans instare praedicationi, exhortationi, & correctioni, & quid a clericis exquirere debeat, & quid eos doce­re, traditur in decretis, causa decima, quaestione prima, cap. placuit. Abbot Panormitan upon the former wordes sayes, visitator debet praedicare ex munere. and he further adds. Quid debeat facere prae­latus tempore visitationis, vide bonum textum in decretis. causa de­cima. quaestione prima. cap. placuit.

There are two thinges my Lord in these three gloss [...]tors to be observed. The first is, that they doe expresly affirme, that it is the visiters duety to preach his owne visitation sermon. The other is, that for fuller information in that point, they doe referre us to two, [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] canons: The first, is the tenth canon of the second Lateran Councell, mentioned by Petrus de Anchorano. The other is the first canon of the secondBrachara metropolis in provincia Gal­laeciae. The city Braga or Bra­cha in Portu­gall. ex Binnio. Bracharen Councell, conteined in the decrees, the tenth cause, the first question, the Chapter Placuit, mentioned by Zabarell and Panormitan: And these two canons lay a greater bur­den upon the visiter, than to preach his owne visitation sermon, at the publicke meeting of the deaneries; or at a generall chapter and visitation of many parishes. For the first canon of the second Bra­charen Councell contained in the chapter placuit, binds every Bi­shop to goe over his whole diocesse parochiatim, and in every pa­rish to teach, both clergy and laity: The clergy, how to doe their owne dueties in their owne Churches: and the laity, how to un­derstand the Articles of the Christian faith, and how to lead a god­ly life, and then that canon concludes. Et sic postea Episcopus de il­la ecclesia proficiscatur ad aliam.

And if any Bishop eitheir through multitude of businesse, or bo­dily sicknesse, or want of knowledge, or through other occasions, cannot in his owne person, preach the word of God Parochiatim through his whole diaecesse: Then the other canon, the tenth canon of the second Lateran Councell binds him, assumere viros idoneos, potentes opere & sermone, qui plebes sibi commissas, vice ipsius (cum ipse per se idem nequeat) sollicite visitantes, verbo aedificent & exemplo. To take unto himselfe able men powerfull in deed and word, who carefully visiting the people committed to him, may in his steed, when he himselfe cannot, edifie them by word and ex­ample And it ties the Bishop to give them competent allowance. Quibus ipse cum indiguerint, congrue necessaria ministret, and it shewes, that the Bishop is bound so to doe, by the law of naturall equity, because they are his coadintors & cooperators, non solumin praedicationis officio, verum etiam in audiendis confessonibus & panitentiis iniungendis, ac caeteris peragendis, quae ad salutem per­tinent animarum, and it concludes, si quis hoc neglexerit adimplere districtae subiaceat ultioni. If any Bishop shall not preach the word, heare confessiones, injoyne penance Parochiatim, through his whole diaecesse, either in his owne person, or else substitute others under him, to doe so for him, and give them a good allowance for it, he is severely to be punished.

And thus my Lord, whereas our Archdeacons, Bishops and Arch­bishops, make it the incumbents duty, out of canonicall obe­dience, to Preach the visiters visitation Sermon: I have [Page 65] proved, that canonicall obedience is such obedience as the canons require, and that the canons bind every visiter, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to preach his owne visitation Sermon, at the publicke meeting of the Deaneries, & also in his owne person, or by deputies, to preach parochiatim in every incumbents cure, through his whole Diocesse, and I will now conclude this first particular, with the repetition of the first part of my former syllogisme.

• Canonicall obedience is such obedience, as the canons require.
• But the Canons binde every visiter, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to Preach his owne visitation Sermon:
• Ergo. By Canonicall obedience, every visiter, every Arch­deacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, is bound to preach his owne visitation Sermon.

Thesis Pro∣batio. 5 & 6 I now proceede to my other two particulars; That the Canons bind licensed Preachers, to preach at their owne cures only, and for­bid me, and such as I am, that are not licensed preachers, to preach, or expound any Scripture in our owne cures, or else where: And for brevities sake, I will handle them both together, and so vna fide­lia duos parietes de albare.

And in the first place, my Lord, I must put a difference betweene the auntient and moderne canons. The auntient canons gave pow­er to every Presbyter, that had cure of soules, to preach the word, and to doe all other offices of his calling in his owne cure. In the fift booke of Lyndewodes Provinciall tit. de Haereticis. cap. Reveren­dissime. Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Cant. speakes thus; Cu­ratum perpetuum missum intelligimus a jure, ad locum & populum curae suae. We understand, saith he, that a perpetuall curate is sent by the Law, to the place and people of his charge; and who this perpetuall curate is, Lyndewode in his glosse upon those words doth in these words shew: Perpetuus curatus, sicut Episcopus in sua Diae­cesi, rector & vicarius in sua parochia, & quilibet perpetuo intitu­latus ad beneficium, cui imminet cura animarum. So that then, e­ven by the Law it selfe, every Rector and Uicar was a licensed Preaher in his owne cure, as well as the Bishop was in his owne Diocesse, and might doe all functions belonging to the office of a Presbyter, in his owne Parish without any licence from the Bishop, as well as the Bishop in his Diaecesse may doe all the Offices of a Bishop, without any license from the Archbishop.

[Page 66]And to that purpose in the first booke of Lyndewodes Provinciall tit. De officio Archipresbyteri, cap. Ignorantia sacerdotum. I finde this canon made by Iohn Peccan, Archbish. of Cant. Praecipimus ut quilibet sacerdos plebi praesidens, quater in anno per se vel per alium dilucide exponat subditis suis, articulos fidei decem mandata deca­logi duo praecepta evangelij, vid geminae charitatis septem opera miserecordiae, septem peccata mortalia, sua cum progenie, septem vir­tutes principales, ac septem gratiae sacramenta.

But our moderne canons, our canons made in King Iames his raigne, hath altered this point and permits not any incumbent to Preach or expound any Scripure no not in his owne cure, untill hee be first made a Licensed Preacher: so that our Church according to those canons, hath two sorts of incumbents, some that are licensed Saint Chrysost. on 1. Cor. 1.17. saith, Evange­lizare perpau­corum est, bap­tizare autem cuiuslibet, mo­do sungatur sacerdotio. and a little after: Siquidem presbyteris, qui simpliciores sunt, hoc ma­nus tradimus, ut baptizent; verbum autem ut doceant, non nisi sapi­entioribus: hic sapientia & la­bor. quamob­rens & alibi inquit: qui be­ne praesunt presbyteri, du­plici honore digni sunt, maxime qui laborant in verbo. Quilibet sacerdos cum ordine accipit potestatem consecrandi, baptizandi, praedicandi & ab­solvendi ab omnibus peccatis: sed interdicitur exercitium illius potestatis, donec conceda­tur de licentia eius, qui potest: quare reservare non est non concedere potestatem absolvendi, sed minuere potestatem. Itaque non caute Sotus est loquutus. Compendium Navarri de irre­gularitate, cap. 28. pag. 337. tit. De casibus reservatis. preachers, others that are not. These licenses are onely gran­ted, either by one of the Vniversities, or by a Bishop or an Arch­bishop: He that is licensed by one of the Vniversities must be licen­sed under their Scale onely, he that is licensed by a Bishop, or any Archbishop, must be licensed under their hand and Scale. And at the time of his licensing, the Bishop that licenceth him, is to see him subscribe to the three Articles for the conformity of Religion, extant in the 36. canon. Otherwise the Bishop that licenseth him, is to be suspended for a tweluemoneth, by the 36. canon: And such a li­cense is qualification to hold two benefices, by the 41. canon: And he that is thus licensed, is bound to preach in his owne cure once e­very Sunday only, by the 45. canon. He that is not thus licensed, is no licensed preacher, & is forbidden to preach, or expound any Scrip­ture in his owne cure or elsewhere, by the 36. 49. & 52. Canon.

Now my Lord, can the Archdeacon, or any other Prelate by canonicall obedience, command a licenced preacher to preach either twice a sunday in his owne cure, or once in the weeke daies, either in his owne cure, or at the visitation, or elsewhere? He cannot by canonicall obedience, which is such obedience as the canons re­quire, command him beyond the Canons. If he doe, he brings in uncanonicall, praetercanonicall, or ultracanonicall obedience, the first part or kinde of Arbitrary or blinde obedience, and therein, [Page 67] he goes contrary to the nineteenth of the 25. of Hen. 8. which in submission to the Kings supreame Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, limi­teth the whole Clergie of this Land, to the Canons of this land, he incrocheth upon the royall prerogative of the Crowne, hee withdrawes his submission from his Majestie, he presumes to make Ca­nons within his owne jurisdiction, & for that by the former statute being convict therfore, he is liable to be fin'd and imprison'd at the Kings pleasure. And beside both he, and they that obey him, and they that assist him, and they that pleade or argue for him, and they that give sentence or judgement with him, doe all violate the oath of supremacy: for by that oath they are all bound to the utmost of their power to assist & defend all jurisdictions of the Crowne, and they to the utmost of their power doe overthrow and betray the aun­tient jurisdiction of the crowne over the state Ecclesiasticall.

But this is not my case, my Lord, for I am not a licenced Prea­cher, neither was I, when this controversie first began: and the Defendants confesse so much in their plea, the fift Article: neither could I since procure a licence of them, though I sued unto them twice for it, and they both in their Articles and sentence, extant in their plea, confesse me to be sufficiently qualified for a licensed prea­cher. And therefore I then was, and am now forbidden to preach or expound any Scripture in mine owne cure, or elsewhere, by the 36. 49. and 52. canons.

Now these Canons my Lord were made by a provinciall Sy­nod, call'd together by the Kings writ, and they were afterwards confirmed by his Majesties Letters Patents, out of his prerogative royall. His Majestie therein straightly chargeth, all his loving sub­jects of both provinces, to keepe and observe all those Canons, in every point, wherein they doe, or may concerne every, or any of them: and hee doth likewise charge all Archbishops, Bishops, and all others, that exercise any Ecclesiasticall authority within this Realme, to see and procure that all within their jurisdictions, doe observe and keepe them in the former manner. So that his Maje­sty doth charge mee, being no licensed preacher, to keepe and ob­serve the former canons, which forbid me to preach in mine owne cure, or elsewhere: and doth likewise charge the Arch-deacon, Bi­shop and Arch-bishop of Canterbury to see and procure, that I doe observe them. And to the intent that both clergy and laity may the better observe them, his Majesty chargeth all incumbents, to read them publickely, in their owne Churches, to their owne people, once every yeere.

[Page 68]Now can the Arch-deacon, or any other prelate, by canonicall obedience command me to preach, contrary to these canons? No surely, canonicall obedience is such obedience as the canons require: but this is contrary to the canons, and therefore is arbitrary obedi­ence, and the worst part or kind of Arbitrary obedience, namely anticanonicall or contracanonicall obedience.

What then am I to doe in this case? For this is my case, my Lord; am I to obey the Contu­max est, qui bene intelligit Canones prae­cipientes con­trarium, & ta­men non vult eis obedire, sed scienter con­trafacit. Vnde contumax idem est, quod superbus iniu­riosus, repug­nans, contem­nens, sive in obediens se­cundum Ianu­ensium Lynde­wode. Prov. lib. 1. tit. de Saera unctione. Cap. cum sacri. verb. contumaci. See Bishop Whites Trea­tise of the Sab­bath day. pag. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. con­cerning of Ec­clesiasticall precepts and constitutions with the mar­nall notes. canons, his Majesties letters patents, his royull prerogative, a royall prerogative invested in the crowne, by God himselfe, acknowledged by article, by statute, by canon, nay a royall prerogative, which every one, that hath taken the oath of supremacy, as I have done, is sworne to the utmost of his power, to defend and mainetaine? or am I to obey the Arch-deacons Apo­cryphall, uncanonicall, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antipre­rogative, antisuprematicall postscript, private letter, or message, con­trary to all the former?

This question my Lord, is as if a man should aske, which is highest heaven or earth? lightest day or night? largest the circumfe­rence or center? greatest the whole or a part? And therefore at the very first hearing, without any discourse at all, even by the inbred light that is in it it may be resolved. Yet seeing my adversaries do But in particuler, for that which first caused, and now continues the losse of unity in the Churh of Christ, as I make no doubt, but that the pride of men, is one cause, so yet can I not think, that pride is the adaequate and sole cause thereof. But in part pride caused it, & pride on all sides: Pride in some that would not at first, nor will not since submit their private iudge­ments, where with good conscience they may and ought: and pride in others, that would not first, nor will yet mend, manifest, great, and dangerous errours, which withall good conscience they ought to doe. But it is not Pride, not to submit to knowne and grosse errours. My Lords Grace of Cant. Archbishop Laud in his relation of the conference betweene his Grace and Master Fisher the Iesuite. Parag. 38. Numb. 24. wilfully oppose the evident truth of Gods word, of the articles, statutes canons, of his Majesties letters patents, royall prerogative, and cath of supremacy, which are as cleere in this my case, and as easie to be discerned, as the light of the sunne, the heate of the fire, the weight of the earth, and the water of the Sea: By your Lord­ships favour, I will presume to adde light to the sunne, heate to the fire, weight to the earth, and water to the sea, and by some few texts of law, endeavour to make that more cleere, which is of it selfe most cleere.

Felinus de rescriptis. cap. si quando. gives this rule: Subditi de­bent resistere praelato legem ignoranti instruendo eum, multo ma­gis [Page 69] legem violanti, maxime vero legem conculcanti. And if this rule be a good rule, then the 36. 49. and 52. canons, made by a pro­vinciall synode, for the lawfully authority of a Bishop over a Presbyter, according to Gods word and the uniforme practise of the Christian Church for 1500. yeeres after Christ & confirmed by his Majesties letters patents, out of his prerogative royal, are to be pre­fer'd before the Arch-deacons apocryphall, uncanonicaIl, anticano­nicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall post­script, private letter, and message: And then I have done well, & the Arch-deacon, the defendants, the Honourable Court of high Com­mission, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsell have all done ill.

Hostiensis gives this rule, si quid praecipit praelatus, quod canonicis obviat institutis, non est obediendum sed resistendum. 3. Lib. summae. tit. de maiori­tate & obedi­entia. Provinc. lib. 2. tit. de Appel­lat cap. In con­cilio Oxoni­ensi. verbis. sta­tutum. Huius statuti. And if this rule be a good rule, then &c.

Lyndewode gave this rule, nihil potest statuere Episcopus, contra canones, nec inferior tollere legem superioris. And if this rule be a good rule, then &c.

In consultati­onibus. Martinus ab Aspilcueta Doctor Navarrus gives this rule. Non est obediendum vni superiori, cum superior eius contrarium praecipit. And if this rule be a good rule, then &c.

Loco praeal­legato. Decretal. lib. 1. tit. 2. De con­stitut. cap. 1. Hostiensis againe gives this rule, cum duo domini contraria iu­bent, maiori est obediendum, minori resistendum. And if this rule be a good rule then &c.

The body of the Canon law, gives this rule; Canonum statuta ab omnibus custodiantur. & nemo in actionibus vel iudiciis Ecclesia­sticis suo sensu, sed eorum authoritate ducatur: and if this rule be a good rule: then, &c.

Bellarmine gives this rule,Lib. 2. De concil. cap. 8. parag. Alii di­cunt Concili­tum. Nisi mani­festissime con­stet intolera­bilem errorem committi. parag. 33. numb. 3. as it is well expressed by my most re­verend Diaecesen and provinciall, my Lords Grace of Cant. in his relation of the conference betweene his Grace, and Master Fisher the Jesuite in these words; Inferiours may not judge whether their superiours, (and that in a Councell) doe proceede lawfully, or not, unlesse it manifestly appeare, that an intollerable error be commit­ted. And this caution or exception, that an intollerable error doe first manifestly appeare, doth free Bellarmine from inclining to a private 2 Pet. 1.20.21. Knowing this first, that no Prophecy of Scripture is of any private inter­pretation; for the Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. An interpretation may bee private, ratione personae, and yet more then private, ratione medii. spirit, as his Grace doth seeme there to imploy. And if this [Page 70] rule bee a good rule, then, &c. and have all inclind to a private spirit.

Parag. 33. Numb. 4. Againe my most reverend Diaecesan and Provinciall, my Lords Grace of Cant. in his forecited treatise gives this rule; The Church is never more cunningly abused, then when out of this truth, that she may erre, men inferre this falsehood, that she is not to be obey­ed. For it will never follow, shee may erre, therefore shee may not governe. For he that saies, obey them, which have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your soules. Heb. 13. commands obedience, and expressely ascribes rule to the Church. And this is not onely a pastorall power, to teach and direct, but a praetorian also, to correct and censure too, where errors or crimes are against points fundamentall or of great consequence else Saint Paul would not have given the rule for Excommunication. 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ himselfe have put the man, that will not heare and obey the Church, into the place and condition of an Ethnicke and a Publican, as hee doth. Saint Mat. 18. And Solomons rule is generall, and he hath it twice, My sonne forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy mother. Now this is either spoken and meant of a naturall mother, and her authority over her children is confir­med Ecclesiasticus 3. And the foole will be upon him, that dispiseth her, Prov. 15. Or it is extended to our mysticall and spirituall mo­ther the Church: and so the Geneva note upon the place expresses it: and I cannot but incline to this opinion, saies his Grace, because the blessings, which accompanie this obedience, are so many and great, as that they are not like to bee the fruits of obedience to a naturall mother only as Solomon expresses them all, Prov. 6. In all which here is no exception of a mothers erring. Hitherto my Lords Grace, verbatim. Now my Lord, I demand, which best deserves the name of Church, and of spirituall Mother, A provinciall Synod, or an handfull of men in the high Commission Court, sitting Judges in their owne cause, wherein they are all parties? surely a provin­ciall Synod. And if this rule bee a good rule then &c. and have all (to use his Graces owne words) followed the swinge and whirle­wind of a private spirit.

Contra fund. Cap. 4. Saint August. gives this rule; and my most reverend Diaecesan & provinciall my Lords Grace of Cant. in his forecited treatise renders it thus;Parag. 33. Con­sideration 5. numb. 2. Consent of nations, authority confirmed by miracles and antiquity; Saint Peters Chaire, and succession from it, must not hold me, saith Saint August. against demonstration of the truth: [Page 71] which if it bee so clearely demonstrated, that it can not come into doubt, it is to be prefer'd before all those things, by which a man is held in the Catholicke Church. Therefore saies his Grace, an Evi­dent Scripture, or demonstrationAn argu­ment necessary and demon­strative, is such as being pro­posed to any man, and un­derstood, the minde cannot chuse but in­wardly assent unto it. parag. 33. Consider. 5. numb. 1. out of Hookers preface. pag. 29. of trueth, must take place every where, but where these cannot be had, there must be submis­sion to authority. And if this rule bee a good rule, then &c. and have all followed the wildnesse of a private spirit.

Solomon Prov. 28.4. gives this rule. They that forsake the law, praise the wicked: but they that keepe the law, contend with them, and if this rule be a good rule, then &c.

Saint Peter 1. Epist. 2. cap. 13. and 14. verse. gives this rule. Sub­mit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lordes sake, whe­ther it be unto the King as the supreame, or to governours, as them that are sent of him. First to the King, then to governours, first to the supreme, then to the subordinate: for so, saith Saint Peter, is the will of God, that by well doing yee might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. It is then the will of God, the word of God, and a good worke, to preferre the King the supreme, before Governours the subordinate, and they that maintaine the contrary, are ignorant and foolish men, saith Saint Peter. In which wordes Saint Peter is very bold with his pretended successour the Pope, and with all those who being subjects, doe with that [...] Advance them­selves above & before their owne Soveraignes: for he calls them all in expresse tearmes ignorant and foolish men: and if this rule &c.

But were there no other rule my Lord, but canonicall obedience onely, which my adversaries by abusing it against mee, have thrust into my hand, that were enough to decide this question, for cano­nicall obedience is such obedience, as the canons require, and if this rule be a good rule, then the canons are to be prefer'd before the Arch-deacons uncanonicall and anticanonicall postscript, private letter, and message: and then I have done well and the Arch-deacon, the defendants, and the Honorable Court of high Commission, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsell have done ill. So that now canonicall obedience, which the defendants have abused, as a net to insnare mee, and a buckler to defend themselves, being rightly understood, prooves an engine to deliver mee, and a net to entrap themselves: and in the very same net, that they have joyntly laid for mee is their owne foote taken and I am deliver'd. Hic est digitus Dei. This is the Lords doing, and it is wonderfull in my eyes.

[Page 72]And that all that heare mee, may further behold the wonderfull worke of God, being acquitted in this first particuler, by vertue of Canonicall obedience, I am likewise by vertue thereof, acquitted in all the rest, and that by the testimony of my very adversaries. For the defendants themselves confesse, that my refusall to preach the Archdeacons visitation Sermon, is my principall or especiall fault: and therefore by the force of comparison, drawne from the adver­saries owne estimate, whatsoever else they charge mee with, must needes be inferiour and accessory: and then seeing the principall or especiall fault prooves no fault at all, noe breach of any law what­soever, but a vertue and an eminent vertue, even the vertue of ca­nonicall obedience: all the other being by the testimony of my ad­versaries, which is the strongest proofe against them and for me, lesser than that refusall, they must needs be vertues, and great vertues, no faults or vices.

And yet once againe, my Lord behold the wonderfull worke of God, qui non tantum liberat innocentes, sed etiam capit astutos in astutia sua. By vertue of this first particuler I am not onely acquit­ted, but the defendants themselves convicted and found culpable of a double crime.

First in that they bring into this Orthodox church, arbitrary or 2 Kings c. 6.18.19. ver. Patemur sacer­dotes non esse audiendos, ni­si docuerint iuxta legem Domini. Canus lib. 3. c. ultimo. Beleeve no e­very spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. 1 Iohn 4. Trie all things, and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. Bee not unwise, but understand, what the will of the Lord is. Ephes 5. He that is spirituall, discerneth all thinges. 1 Cor. 2. you may have a thousand like both places and proofes, that the faithfull looke and take heede, they be not seduced. And except you will excuse the people before God, if you mislead them, why should you barre them all triall and understanding, whether they follow faith unto Salvation, or withdraw them­selves unto perdition? when the blind leadeth the blind, and they fall both into the pit of destruction, is not he that followeth, as sure to perish, as he that leadeth? Bishop Bilson in his difference betweene Christian subiection, and unchristian rebellion. 2 Part. pag. 261. blinde obedience, and the worst part or kind thereof, namely an­ticanonicall or contracanonicall obedience: A thing preiudiciall to Gods glory, repugnant to his word, contrary to the doctrine and discipline of this Orthodox Church, dangerous to the safety of all good Kings good Magistrates, good men, the introduction of ty­ranny and slavery, and the subversion of all lawfull authority, obe­dience and liberty, and lastly the seminary & noursery of vices, & the bane and ruine of vertues, and one of the most damnable villanies and profound subtilties, that ever Satan brought into the Church of Rome: And therefore to be opposed and cried out against by eve­ry good man and Minister, not onely though he should with me, be fin'd imprison'd, deprived, degraded and excommunicated for it, [Page 73] but also though it should be his lo [...], to were a Tiburne tippet for it.

And secondly in that they have called the Canons, the oath of canonicall obedience, his Majesties letters patents, his royall prero­gative, the first of the first of Elizabeth, the 19. of 25. of Henry the eight, the oath of supremacy, the 37. Article of our Church, and the word of God, breaches of Canonicall obedience, principall or especiall faults, greivous and enormous crimes: and have fin'd im­prison'd, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated a provinciall sy­node, the high Court of Parliament, this Orthodox Church of England, and his Majesty: for in calling my obedience to the for­mer, a breach of Canonicall obedience, a principall or especiall fault, a greivous and enormous crime, they doe virtually by conse­quence, and by necessary implication, call all the former breaches of Canonicall obedience, principall or especiall faults, greivous and enormous crimes: and in fining, imprisoning, depriving, de­grading, and excommunicating mee, for my obedience to the latter, they doe virtually by consequence, and by necessary implication, fine, imprison, deprive degrade, and excommunicate all the latter for requiring such obedience of mee.

For as Saint James in his Epist. 4. cap. 11. vers. saith, Hee that speaketh evill of his brother, or he that condemneth his brother, speaketh evill of the law, and condemneth the law: which wordes of Saint James are absolutely unavoidable with this limitation; he that speaketh evill of his brother, or he that condemneth his bro­ther, walking according to the law, he speaketh evill of the law, or condemneth the law according to which his brother walketh: and threfore seeing the defendants call my obedience to the word of God, and to all the former, a breach of canonicall obedience, a principall or especiall fault, a greivous and enormous crime, they doe virtually, by consequence, and by necessary implication, call If you be railed on for the name of Christ, blessed are yee; for the spirit of glory & of God rest­eth upon you: which on their part is evill spoken off: but on your part is glorified. 1 Pet. cap. 4.14. the word of God and all the former, breaches of canonicall o­bedience, principall or especiall faults, greivous and enor­mous crimes: and seeing they doe fine imprison, deprive, degrade and excommunicate me, for my obedience to the King, and to all the latter, they doe virtually, by consequence, and by neccessary im­plication, fine imprison deprive, degrade, and excommunicate the King, and all the latter, for requiring such obedience of mee.

And so my Lord the defendants have eminently committed that foule fault, in these very wordes, condemned in the canon law. [Page 74] Turpissimum est, ut inde nascerentur injuriae, ubi iura nascuntur. It is a most shamefull thing, that Courts of Justice, should be courts of injustice, and not onely against private persons, but also against that Orthodox Church, wherein they live, against the Churches doctrine and discipline, Articles and Canons, which ought to be rules, not onely to guide the lives and opinions of private men, but also to regulate the censures and sentences, even of the highest ec­clesiasticall Courts.

And to conclude this point, my Lord: If to punish for obedience, to the word of God, to the Articles, Statutes, Canons, to his Maje­sties Letters Patents, Royall prerogative, and oath of supremacy, be to punish for vertue & piety: and to beginne that their sentence: In the name of God, Amen. And in the body of the sentence to affirme, That they did first call upon the name of Christ, And that they had God himselfe alone set before their eyes, be to hide iniquity under the cloake of Hypocrisie and fained sanctity: Then the high Com­missioners have both punisht me for vertue and piety, and have co­vered that iniquity, not with the short cloake, for that will not doe it, but with the long robe of deepe dissimulation and profound hy­pocrisie: And then by the confession of my Lords Grace of Cant. my most reverend Diocesan and provinciall in his speech in the Starchamber Termino Paschae 1637. there is all the reason in the world, that his Grace, the High Commissioners, and the defen­dants should all for that be severely punished themselves.

Should be? my my Lord, they are all ipso Libro primo Pr. tit. de off. Archidiaconi. c. eisdem. verb. ipso facto. & est dicere ipso facto, ac si di­ceret ipso iure, scil. nullo ho­minis ministe­rio interveni­ente. facto severely & deser­vedly punished. They are all by a double excommunication, excom­municate ipso facto & to be excommunicate ipso facto is, saith Lind­wode to be excommunicate, lege ante lata, vel sententia ante data, nullo interveniente hominis ministerio post actum peccantis: and so are all they, for by punishing me, in the former manner, not onely for that, which is no breach of any law of the land, but also for my obedience to the Lawes of the land, contrary to the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, they have all ipso facto drawne upon themselves, those two dreadfull sentences of Excommunication, denounced a­gainst all the future violaters of Magna Charta, the one by Arch­bishop Boniface 37. Hen. 3. the other by Archbishop Winchelsee. 25. Ed. 1.

And my Lord, seeing pares in culpa, pares in paena, your Lord­ship, this Court the Barons of Exchequer, & the Lords of the Coun­sell have all likewise ipso facto, drawne upon your selves that dou­ble [Page 75] excommunication: your Lordship and this Court by affirming the Commissioners second finall sentence, the sentence of depriva­tion and degradation, contrary to that 29. chap. of Magna Charta: The Barons of the Exchequer by imprisoning me contrary to that 29. chap. for the five hundred pounds fine, imposed upon mee, by the Commissioners first finall sentence, contrary to the foresaid cap. and the Lords of the Counsell likewise, by imprisoning me contrary to the foresaid chap. for a Petition, wherein I justly complained both against the High Commissioners for their former exorbitances, and also against your Lordship, and this Court, because you would not doe mee justice, according to his Majesties most just man­date.

And yet my Lord in this matter, the High Commissioners have a double precedency above your Lordship this Court, the Barons of Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsell: for the high Com­missioners have punisht me sixe times, contrary to the 29. chapter of Magna Charta. They have twice imprison'd, and once fin'd, depriv'd, degraded, and excommunicated me: and for every time they are ipso facto, twice apeece excommunicate, once every time with the two former excommunications, in all twelve times: your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsell, have punisht me only once apeece, contrary to the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, and so are all ipso facto only twice a­peece excommunicate.

Againe, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, & the Lords of the Counsell stand excommunicate by the two former excommunications only: but the high commissioners, besides the two former excommunications, stand excommunicate also by that very excommunication, which they unjustly denounced against me, ac­cording to this rule of the canon law, Qui aliquem injuste excommu­nicat, non excommunicat sed excommunicatur, non ligat, sed ligatur.

For my Lord, excommunication, the Spirituall sword of the Church is [...], gladius ex utraque parte acutus, 2 Sam. 1.22. a two ed­ged sword: and that like the sword of Saul, doth never returne emp­ty from the blood of the slaine: but whether it be justly or unjustly unsheath'd, It alwaies killes and slaies one or other. If it be justly drawne against any man, then it kills and quite cuts off, from the Communion of Christ, and of his Church, that man against whom it was justly drawne, unlesse he submit and repent. But if it be un­justly drawne against any man, then let the stroake bee ne­ver [Page 76] so great, and the edge never so sharpe, yet by the innocency of the party and Christs institution, that stroake is warded, that edge blunted, and thereby the sword is recoiled & reverberated upon him, that unjustly drew it, and so with the other edge doth kill and quite cut off him, from the Communion of Christ, and of his Church.

And this my Lord is evident by the very words of our Saviour, wherein he gives power to his Apostles to excommunicate. Iohn 20. Whose soever sinnes yee remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sinnes ye retaine they are retained: And the retaining of the sinnes of an impenitent sinner, is the excommunicating, and casting him out of the Church, for his sinnes, and for his impenitency.

Why then my Lord, a man cannot bee justly excommunicated, except it bee for some sinne: and then our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot justly be excommunicated. For he did no sinne, nei­ther was there any guile found in his mouth. 1. Pet. 2.22. and if our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be justly excommunicated, neither can any man be justly excommunicated, for his Communion with, or his obedience to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

What then is the effect of that excommunication, when a man de facto is excommunicated,Luke 6.22. for his communion with, or his obedi­ence to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? why this, my Lord, that excommunication makes no separation betweene the parties excommunicated, and Jesus Christ, but unites and knits them nearer, and faster together: and makes a seperation onely, between the parties excommunicating on the one side, and Jesus Christ and the party united by that excommunication on the other side.

And this is evident, my Lord first in the Iewes. Iohn 9. who by excommunicating the man borne blind, and cur'd by Christ, for professing and defending Christ, did not excommunicate or seperate him from Christ: (for Christ did immediately after that, entertaine him most gratiously) but did excommunicate and separate them­selves both from him and Christ, united by that excommunica­tion. And secondly, in the Councell of Trent, who by Anathema­tising the reformed Churches, for divers divine trueths, wherein they hold communion with Jesus Christ, have thereby united Christ, and the reformed Churches more strongely and neerely to­gether: and have made a separation onely, betweene that Councell and all that hold with it, on the one side, and Jesus Christ and the re­formed Churches thereby united on the otherside.

And so likewise my Lord, the high commissioners by excommu­nicating [Page 77] me, for my obedience to Jesus Christ, to this Orthodox Church, to the Kings Majesty to the high Court of Parliament, and to a provinciall synode, have thereby indeed united mee, and all these more neerely together, and have made a separation onely be­tweene themselves on the one side, and me and all the former, united by that excommunication on the other side. And as among the high Commissioners, my Lord, some are oftner or seldomer excommunicate, according as they have had their fingers, oftner or seldomer in my punishments: so they that have beene actors and parties in all my six punishments, are excommunicate full 13. times. And whilst they stand and continue thus excommunicate, without either pleading the Kings pardon, or performing publicke penance, I for my part shall account them fitter for Amsterdam, and for Rome, than for this orthodox Church of England, out of which they have justly cast themselves by excommonicating me unjustly, for my communion therewith, and for my obedience thereto.

And this much my Lord, concerning the principalls:The Defen­dants 3. Argu­ments. I should now proceed to the accessories, but that their are three arguments, first to be answered. The first is taken from law, the second from custome, and the third from a title, given to the Archdeacon in the canon law, and alleaged in the defendants plea, the third Article, namely because the Archdeacon is oculus episcopi, and therefore may enjoyne the incumbents within his Archdeaconry, to preach his visitation sermon: that thereby he may see, and learne, and know their sufficiency. I will begin with the Argument taken from Law. The law is the fift commandement of the decalogue: Honour thy father and thy mother: and from these wordes a right learned com­missioner in giving the first part of the first finall sentence against me argued thus;The first Ar­gument,

You Sir (saith he to me) will doe nothing, but what you are bound to doe by law, will you? and doth not the law bind you to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon? doth not the fift Com­mandement bind you to honour your Father? and is not the Arch-deacon your spirituall father, and are not you his spirituall sonne? and hath not a spirituall father power by the fift Commandement to command his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke? and is not a spirituall sonne bound by the same commandement, to obey the spirituall command of his spirituall father, in doing the spirituall work commanded by him? Ergo you Sir are bound by the fift com­mandement, to doe this spirituall worke, to preach the Arch-dea­cons visitation sermon at the Archdeacons command.

[Page 78]This was the argument my Lord, Socratically drawne from law: and this argument in and of it selfe, is very weake and feeble, all the strength of it, depends upon the authority and credit of the argumentator: and therefore unlesse I will be injurious to the argu­ment it selfe and to the cause of my adversaries, I must make known the Authour of this Argument, that so the strength and validity thereof may the more appeare.

It was the right worthy, and right worshipfull Sir Henry Mar­tin, vir cum cura dicendus, a man not to be mentioned without sin­gular reverence. A man that hath a long time, and did very lately Dominari in Curits Ecclesiasticis; A man that deserved that Elogy, which Eunapius gives to Longinus, he was [...]. A living Library, and a walking study; or as the same Eunapius saith of Plutarch, that he was [...]: The very Uenus and harpe of all Philosophy; So wee may truely say of the eminently learned Sir Henry Martin, that he was [...]: the Ue­nus, the delicacy, the musicall instrument, the Harpe, the Lute, the Theorbo, the Polyphon of all the law both Civill and Canon; he was like Servius Sulpitius, Iurisconsultorum eloquentissimus & eloquen­tium iurisconsultissimus. And as one said of Saint Augustine Deest theologiae, quicquid Augustino deest. Wherein so ever Augustine is defective, Theology it selfe is defective: so Deest legi, quicquid ma­rtino deest. Wherein soever sir Henry Martin was defective, the very law it selfe is defective; and then surely the former argument, if it bee answerable to the Author of it, must needes be of great force and vertue, or else the Law it selfe must needes be defective.

But my Lord, though the Authour of this Argument was so ac­complished, yet if we examine the argument it selfe, we shall finde it very weake and feeble, and being reduced into a syllogisme, it runnes thus:

• By the fift commandement every spirituall Father, may com­mand his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke, and by the same commandement every spirituall sonne is bound to obey the spi­rituall command of his spirituall father in doing the spirituall worke commanded by him.
• But the Archdeacon is my spirituall father, and I am his spi­rituall son and he hath commanded me a spirituall worke, name­ly to preach his visitation sermon:
• Ergo. By the fift commandement I am bound to doe that spirituall [Page 79] worke, to preach that visitation Sermon at the Archbishops command.

This syllogisme my Lord, in respect of the forme is good, and all the doubt is concerning the matter of the major or first proposition. If that be true,, then the conclusion is true, if that be false, then the conclusion will faile. And first my Lord, I will confute the major or first proposition (wherein the whole strength of the argument lies) by granting it, and by shewing what a multitude of errors ab­surdities, and inconveniencies, will follow and flow from it. The major or first proposition is this:

By the fifth Commandement every spirituall father may com­mand his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke, and by the same commandement every spirituall sonne is bound to obey the spirituall command of his spirituall father, in doing the spirituall worke com­manded by him.

Confutatio 1 And if this proposition be good Divinity, then the Archdeacon may command me or any other incumbent within his Archdeaconry not onely to Preach one Uisitation Sermon for him, which is the ut­most that the Archdeacon himselfe challengeth, as appeares in his plea, the third Article, but he may also command me to preach at every Uisitation holden by him, so long as we two live together. And besides, he may command me to preach for him alwaies at his pre­bend, at his Donative, at his two benefices, and so he shall take his ease, and have all the gaines, and I take all the paines and discharge his cures and neglect mine owne. Neither shall Sir Henry Martin si reviviscoret, interpose any limitation, qualification, restriction, or exception, to overthrow any of these consequences, or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same will overthrow his major proposition, and free my selfe from preaching the Uisitation Sermnn.

Secunda. Secondly if the foresaid proposition be good Divinity, then there­by I will free my selfe and all other incumbents from preaching both at the Uisitation, and in our owne cures, and put both those workes upon our Parishioners. For if the Archdeacon may command mee, because I am his spirituall sonne, to doe any spirituall worke, and therfore to preach his Uisitation Sermon; then I likewise being a spi­rituall Father to my Parishoiners, may command any of them, to do any spirituall worke and therefore to preach that visitation Sermon. And if I may command any of my Parishoners, because I am their spirituall father, and they my spirituall sonnes, to preach the Arch­deacons [Page 80] visitation Sermon, then I may likewise command them, to preach either monethly or weekely in mine owne Parish, and so free my selfe from both those labours, and yet legally discharge them both by my Parishioners, for quod quis legitime facit per alium, idem est ac si faceret per se: nay further then that Parson or Uicar, in whose Parish sir Henry Martin did dwell, dum viveret, might have commanded him to have Preacht in his cure weekely or monethly, and that Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop within whose Ju­risdiction Sir Henry Martin did dwell dum viveret, might have commanded him to have preacht their visitation Sermon: for hee was a spirituall sonne to all them, as well as I am to the Archdea­con: neither shall Sir Henry Martin si revivisceret interpose any limitation, qualification, restriction or exception to overthrow any of these consequences or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same, will overthrow his major proposition, and free my selfe from preaching the visitation Sermon.

Tertia. Thirdly, if the foresaid proposition bee good Divininity, then it will confound and make common the offices of Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Laymen, which the word of God makes, and all antiquity [...]. Ig­gat. Epistola ad Trall. in and ever since the Apostles time held distinct and dif­ferent. The most learned Bishop Bilson in his forecited Treatise De perpetua Christi Ecclesiae gubernatione, observes that there were eight things in the Apostles, whereof foure were ordinary and per­petuall, and foure extraordinary and temporary. The foure extra­ordinary and temporary are these; To bee sent immediately by Christ, to have infallibility of judgement, a power to worke mi­racles, and to bee sent over the whole world. The foure ordinary and perpetuall are these, a power to preach the word, to admini­minister the Sacraments, to ordaine Ministers and to excommuni­cate. All the eight were onely in the Apostles: The foure ordi­nary and perpetuall onely in Bishops, two of them, namely a power to preach the word, and to administer the Sacraments, onely in pres­byters: and none of all the former in Lay men.

But if the former proposition be good Divinity, then every pa­rochiall Presbyter may command any of his Parishioners to do the forsaid foure ordinary workes, namely to preach the word, to ad­minister the Sacraments, to ordaine Ministers, and to excommuni­cate any man, both in his owne Parish, and over the whole world, and then every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop may com­mand all them, that are under their authority, to doe like. And so [Page 81] every Parish Priest, Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, shall have not onely Episcopall and Archepiscopall authority by his bare word, to make licensed preachers over all England, which is con­trary to the Canons, but also Apostolicall power, to send li­censed Preachers over the whole world: which is the usurpation and presumption, which the Pope of Rome challengeth to the pre­judice of all the Bishops, Archbishops, and Churches of Christen­dome, and to the diminishing of the supreame jurisdiction of all the temporall Princes through the world.

Whence my Lord, will arise an intollerable confusion of all the foresaid functions: and every lay man, by the Command of his spi­rituall superiour, shall be enabled to excommunicate any man, even Kings and Princes, and then surely every Clergie man may doe as much, and then neither Clergie nor Laity can justly except aginst Pope Pius Quintus for excommunicating Queene Eli­zabeth, nor against Felton, for setting up that excommunica­tion upon the Bishops of Londons gates. Neither shall sir Hen­ry Martin, si revivisceret, interpose any limitation, qualificati­on, restriction, or exception to overthrow any of these consequen­ces or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same, will overthrow his major proposition, and free my selfe from preaching the visitation Sermon.

Confutatio 4 But in the fourth place, my Lord, to deale gratiously and in­dulgently with Sir Henry Martin, and not to stretch his words, so farre, as by true Logick, sound reason, and good consequence they reach, but onely so farre as he intended them; certainely his intent was to prove, that the Archdeacon might thereby command me to preach his visitation Sermon, and it was knowne unto him, that I was not a licensed preacher; for he together with the other Commissioners saies as much in the fift article extant in the Defen­dants plea: and it was also knowne unto him, that by the 36. 49. and 52. canons made. 1. Iacobi, no incumbent may preach or ex­pound any Scripture, no not in his owne cure, untill he be first made a lycensed preacher, either under the seale of one of the Universities, or else under the hand and seale of a Bishop or an Archbishop: and it was likewise known unto him, that theseGraviter peccat, qui o­bedientiam in­fringit, & prae­sertim si veniat contra leges si­ve constitutio­nes per superi­orem rite & rationabiliter editas & pro­mulgatas. Lyndewode. Prov. lib. 1. tit. de Constitut. cap. Quia in­continentiae. ver. obedien­tiae. canons were made by a provinciall Synod, called together by the Kings writ, and confir­med by his Majesties Letters Patents out of his Prerogative Royall, out of a Prerogative Royall invested in the Crowne by God him­selfe, acknowledged by Article, by Statute, by Canon, nay out of a [Page 82] Prerogative Royall, which he and I, by the oath of Supremacy were both bound to the utmost of our powers, to defend and main­taine.

So that by the former argument drawne from the fift comman­dement, Sir Henry Martin would bring into this orthodoxe Church, arbitrary or blind obedience, and the worst part or kinde thereof, not that onely which is uncanonicall, pretercanonicall, or ultra canonicall, but that also which is anticanonicall or contraca­nonicall, even contrary to the Hic dicit Glossa Hebra­ica: si dixerit tibi, quod dex­tra sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextra, talis s [...]ntentia est tenenda, quod pater manifeste falsum. Quia sententia nul­lius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis, est tenenda, si contineat ma­nifeste falsita­tem vel erro­rem. Et hoc patet per id, quod praemit­titur in textu. Indicabunt ti­bi iudicii veri­tatem; Postea subdi [...]ur: & docuerint te iuxta legem e­ius. Ex quo patet, quod si dicant falsum, & declinent a lege Dei manifeste, non sunt audiendi Lyran. in 17. cap. Devt. Canons, Statutes, Articles, oath of supremacy, and to the word of God, and thereby doth himselfe, and would make me preferre the single command of my spirituall father the Archdeacon, above and before the joynt command of all my spirituall fathers met in a provinciall Synod. 1. Iacobi, nay above the command of all the fathers gathered together in Parlia­ment, 1. Eliza. & 25. Henry 8. yea before the command of the King himselfe, Gods immediate deputy, who is Pater patriae, pater reipublicae, yea and Pater Ecclesiae too: for though he be not Pater generans Ecclesiam, yet he is pater nutrient Ecclesiam, as the Pro­phet Esay speakes, Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queenes thy nursing mothers, Esay 49.23. nay above the command of God himselfe, who hath commanded us to render unto Cesar those things which are Cesars, Mat. 22. and to obey Cesars just lawes, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. Rom. 13.5. and that in the first place, above and before the command of any subordinate officer whatsoever, 1 Pet. 2.13.14.

So that Sir Henry Martin deales with the fift commandement, just as Pope Gregory the seventh did with the words of Samuell to unto King Saul. 1 Sam. 15.22. for whereas the word of God saith, to avoid fornication, let every man have his owne wife, and every woman her owne Husband. 1 Cor. 7.2. which is an absolute precept enioyning all those to marry, who cannot otherwaies avoid fornication, Gregory the seventh by the foresaid In concernentibus fidem, etiam dictum vnius privati esset praeferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti, quam Papa. Panormit, de elect. cap. significasti. prope finem. text of Samuell, doth contrary to the foresaid word of God, 1 Cor. 7.2. command all Priests to put away their wives under pretence of fornication. He saith Gregory that will not obey his most wholesome precept of ours, forbidding Priests their wives, under colour of fornication in­curreth the sin of Idolatry, as Samuel witnesseth not to obey is the [Page] sinne of witchcraft, and not to be content, is the wickednesse of Ido­dolatry. Distinct. 81. si qui sunt.

So that Pope Gregory the seventh and Sir Henry Martin agree both in this: They both approve of Arbitrary or blinde obedi­ence, they both make the word of God the ground of it, they both derive it from generall texts of Scripture, and by vertue of those generall texts, they challenge a power to command, even contrary to God himselfe, speaking in other plaine, evident, and perspicu­ous texts; they differ only in this Pope Gregory the seventh, de­rives this arbitrary obedience from the former words of Samuell, 1. Sam. 15.22. and chalengeth it onely for himselfe. Sir Henry Martin deduceth it from the fift commandement, and chalengeth it, for every spirituall father, for every incumbent Archdeacon, Bi­shop, and Archbishop.

Nay farther, Sir Henry Martin by his former argument from the fift commandement endeavours to make our Church, like the Church of Rome, as it is defined by Gasper Scioppius in his Ecclesiasticus. cap. 147. both in his summe and booke at large, where he thus defines the Church of Rome. Ecclesia As Bishops ought to dis­cerne which is truth before they Teach: so must the people dis­cerne, who teacheth right, before they beleeve. Bi­shop Bilson in his true diffe­rence between Christian sub­iection, and unchristian rebellion. 2. part. pag. 259. est mandra, sive grex aut multitu­do jumentorum & asinorum. The Chrurch is a society or a com­pany or a multitude of cattell and asses.

And where there are horses, & asses, & mules, there if there be any good done with them, must be Horse-keepers, Assekeepers, & Mule­tors: and their whole Church as Scioppius saith, consists of these two. The Horses, Asses, & Mules, are the Laity: & the Horsekee­pers, Assekeepers, & Muleters, are the Clergy of the former he saies: Nos Dei jumenta sumus, sive peccora subiugalia, tanquam equi, aut muli, sive asini Clitellarij, veterini, dossuarij, sarcinarij sagmarij: we are Gods juments or yoke cattell, as it were horses or mules or asses, to carry packes, to be girt with circingles, to carry Dossours, to beare burdens, to bee sumpters. And of the latter he saith, illi agasones, illi muliones nos fraenant, nos loro alligant, nos agunt, nos stimulant, nobis jugum & onus imponunt: those horse-keepers,Sic nimirum se reshabet, Iu­dicant oves & privati om­nes iudicio dis­cretivo: Judicant Episcopi & pastores iudicio directivo & clavium potestate coactivo; sed iudicant saepe errante Clave; quo casu videntur solum ligare, non ligant. Judicat Christus solus iudicio infallibili, nec unquam errante clave. Non sic vel Pontifex vestere suo tripode, vel Concilium, vel tota Ecclesia Iudicat. Doctor Crakanthorpe Def. Ecclsiae Anglic. contra Archiep. Spalat. cap. 13. parag. 20. those muletors put the bridle upon us, they tye us with the raines, they drive us, they spurre or goade us, they put the yoke and burden [Page 84] upon us. And doth not Sir Henry Martin endeavour to make our Church like theirs, in giving power, by the former argument, to every incumbent, to lay his burthen upon his Parishioners, to every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop, to lay their burdens up­on the Clergie and Laity within their jurisdiction. This is so evi­dent, my Lord, that it cannot be denied, and all the harm I would wish him for it, si revivisceret, is only this, ut patiatur interpreta­tionem, quam tulerit, that the blessing of Ishachar, Gen, 49.14. which by his former argument he endeavours to bring upon the whole Church of England may fall upon himselfe only, and that in the highest degree.

Confutatio 5 But my Lord, in the same Author, and in the same place, there is one thing of an higher ranck and nature; and so high, that it tran­scends all Religion and piety, all modesty and honesty, all humanity and civility, and savours altogether of Antichristian and Luciferian pride and arrogancie and that's this: That Scioppius ranks amongst these Asses; not only such as are Subjects, but also such as are Soveraigns, even Kings and Princes, Gods immediate Deputies, as well those of their Religion, as those of ours; but with this dif­ference, those of their Religion, he calls understanding and obe­dient Asses; those of our Religion, refractory Asses without understanding.

He calls them all To Bishops speaking the word of God. Princes as well as others must yeeld obedi­ence: but if Bishops passe their Commis­sion, and speak beside the word of God, what they list, both Prince and people may despise them. If Apostles and Angels be tyed to this condition, much more others our first addition (which speake unto you the word of God) is ever intended in the Bishops function, though it be not ex­pressed. Bishop Bilson in his true difference betweene Christian subiection, and unchristian rebellion, pag. 261, 262. Asses for his former reason, because they were to beare what burdens those Agasones, those Muliones, the Popish Clergie should lay upon them; and their Kings he calls o­bedient and understanding Asses, because they did do so, they did submit their backs and shoulders to those burdens. And amongst them, he especially commends Charles the Great for a wise mori­gerous, and a patient Asse because he was a ringleader to all other Asses, to submit to this his own rule in the Canon law. In memo­riam B. Petri honoremus sanctam Romanam & Apostolicam sedem. Servanda est cum mansuetudine humilitas, ut bicet vix ferendum, ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum, tamen feramus & pia deve­tione toleremus. Let us in memorie of S. Peter honour the holy Romane and Apostolike See. Humility with meeknesse is to be ob­served, that although a yoke hardly to be borne, be put upon us by that holy See, yet let us beare and endure it with pious devo­tion: [Page 85] By which words saith Scioppius, thou mayest know him to be a true Ishachar, of whom it is written, Gen. 49.14. Ishachar is a strong Asse couching down between two burdens, he bowed his shoulder to bear.

And our Kings he calls refractory Asses without understanding, because they would not submit their backs and shoulders to these burdens, but did pedibus recalcitrare, kick against these horse­keepers and muletors the Popish Clergie, which would put these burdens upon them. And in particular, he calls our late Lord and Soveraigne King Iames (whom I mention with singular reverence) a very Asse without understanding; because he would neither suf­fer the bridle to be put into his mouth, nor any burden to be put up­on him by that chiefe horse-keeper and Arch-muleter the Pope of Rome; and was moreover, a ringleader to the Romish Asses, to do the like, both by his example, and also by his exhortation unto them, in these words of the third Psalme, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

And though my Lord, I do not charge either the High-Commis­sioners, your Lp. this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, or the Lords of the Counsell, with those shamelesse and immodest words of Scioppius, which even impudency and insolency would blush to utter against the Lords Anointed, and his immediate deputies and Vicegerents. Yet I must tell your Lordship, that all of you have a great part and share in the matter it selfe.

The High-Commissioners by two finall sentences, as I have for­merly shew'd; have advanc'd the Apocryphall, uncanonicall, antica­nonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall post­script, private letter and message of M. Doctor Ringsley, Arch-Deacon of Cant. above the Canons of this orthodox Church, above his Majesties Letters Patents, above his royall Prerogative, above a royall Prerogative invested in the Crown by God himself acknow­ledged by Article by Statute by Canon; nay, above a royall Prero­gative, which every one that hath taken the oath of Supremacy, is bound to the utmost of his power to defend and maintain.

And they have fin'd, imprison'd, depriv'd, degraded, and excommu­nicated me for my obedience to the Canons of this Church, to his Majesties Leters Pat. and to his royall Prerogative and so vertually, by consequence, and by necessary implication, they have fin'd, impri­son'd depriv'd, degraded and excommunicated the King himselfe, for requiring such obedience of me. And your Lp. and the Court, by af­firming [Page 82] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86] the Commissioners second finall sentence, the sentence of deprivation and degradation have approved of all this, and the Barons of the Exchequer by imprisoning me for the 500 l. fine im­pos'd upon me by the Commissioners first finall sentence, have done as much; and the Lords of the Counsell by imprisoning me for a Petition, wherein I justly complain'd both against the High-Com­missioners for their former presumptions, and also against your Lordship and this Court, for your disobedience to his Majesties most just mandate, have approved of both.

So that youQuilibet homo doctus potest & debet toti concilio resistere, si vi­deat illud ex malitia vel ig­norantia erra­re. Gerson 1. parte de exa­minatione do­ctrinarum Cosider. 5. all joine together Regem fraenare, to put a bridle upon the King; yea, Regem loro alligare, to raine in the King, and his supreame jurisdiction: nay, in very deed Regi jugum & onus imponere, to put a yoke and burden upon the King, and such a yoke and burden, as was never yet put upon any of his royall Pre­decessors. If the first of the first of Eliz. 19. of 25. of Hen. 8. and Sir Edw. Coke in Cawdries Case deceive me not.

For by all these it appears, that the Crown had ever a jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiasticall, and now you all do not only ex­empt the state Ecclesiasticall from the jurisdiction of the Crowne, but also subordinate the jurisdiction of the Crown to the state Ec­clesiasticall, and do both advance the postscript, private Letter, and message of every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop above the Canons of this Church, above his Majesties Letters Patents and roy­all Prerogative: and thereby also elevate the person of every Arch-deacon, Bishop, and Arch-bishop above the person of the King according to this rule; Cum duo Domini contraria jubent, qui obedit minori & resistit majori, is minorem majori proefert & proeponit: which is an intollerable injury, indignity, and injustice; the King himselfe, but also against not only against God himselfe, from whom the King hath receiv'd his Supreame jurisdiction, and whose immediate Deputy the King is.

And therefore as my most reverend Diaecesan and Provinciall my Lords Grace of Canterbury in his Epistle before his Speech in the Starchamber, termino paschae, 1637. doth rightly observe against Scioppius and such as he is, that blasphemy against God, and slan­dering the footsteps of Gods Anointed, are joyned together, Psa. 89. Because he that blasphemes God, will never stick at the slander of his Prince; and he that gives himselfe liberty to slander his Prince, will quickly ascend to the next highest and blaspheme God.

[Page]So I may as truly observe against his Grace, the High-Commis­sioners, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsell, that justice towards the King, and justice towards God, are both joyned together by our Saviour in one verse, Mat. 22. because he that out of conscience, is just towards one, will be just towards both: and he that is wittingly unjust to­wards one, will easily be unjust towards both.

Nay my Lord, seeing the King receives his supreame jurisdicti­on immediately from God, he that is unjust towards the King, by depriving him of any part of his supreame jurisdiction, must of ne­cessity, ipso facto, be unjust towards God: for as hee that renders unto Cesar, that which is Cesars, by the gift of God, doth eo ipso, render unto Cesar, that which is Cesars, and unto God that which is Gods: so he that takes from Cesar that which is Cesars, by the right of God, doth eo ipso, take from Cesar, that which is Cesars and from God that which is Gods.

And therefore my Lord, when the High Commissioners, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsell doe all in the former manner regem fraenare, put a bridle upon the King, yee doe all eo ipso, Deum fraenare, put a bridle upon God himselfe: when ye doe all in the former manner regem loro alligare, raine in the King and his supreame jurisdiction, yee doe all eo ipso Deum loro alligare, raine in God and his jurisdiction: and when ye doe all in the former manner, regi jugum & onus im­ponere, put a yoake and a burden upon the King, ye doe all eo ipso Deo jugum & onus imponere, put a yoke and burden upon God himselfe.

And how neere this comes to the cheifeD. Downe­ham of Anti-Christ 1. Book 5. chap. character of the man of sinne, who exalts himselfe above all that is called God, above God [...], above God [...], above God by nature, above God by deputation, above God and Gods, immediate Deputy the King, I leave it to your Lordship and the Court, as it was then, to inquire onely, not determine because in this case ye are all both parties and offenders, and in both those respects incompetent Judges.

But now my Lord, in the last place, let us see, whether Sir Henry Martines argument be not directly contrary to the fift commande­ment, to the very text, whence it is taken. The question is, whose duty it is, to Preach the Archdeacons visitation sermon, the Arch­deacons, or the incumbents. Sir Henry Martin out of the fift com­mandement, would prove it the incumbents duty to preach the Archdeacons visitation sermon, and not the Archdeacons, because [Page 88] the Archdeacon is the incumbents spirituall father, and the incum­bents are the Archdeacons spirituall sonnes; and by the fift com­mandement, the spirituall sonne is to teach the spirituall father, and not the spirituall father his spirituall sonnes: and therefore by the fift commandement the incumbents, and not the Archdeacon are to Preach the Archdeacons visitation Sermon.

Confutatio 5 For answer hereunto, it is certaine, my Lord, that the fift com­mandement speakes primarily and literally of naturall fathers and naturall sonnes, and by consequence and analogy of spirituall fa­thers and spirituall sonnes: and then if by the fift commandement it be the duty of the naturall father to teach the naturall sonne, then by consequence & analogy, it is the duty of the spirituall father to teach the spirituall son: & if by the fift commandement it be the duty of the naturall son, to teach the naturall father, then by consequence and analogie, it is the duty of the spirituall sonne to teach the spiri­tuall father. The tenne Commandements for their brevity are called ten words Deut. 4. and for that reason, in Greeke the de­calogue: and therefore if any thing bee obscure and darke in them, it is to be cleared out of the larger commentaries of Moses, the pro­phets, and the Apostles; let us then see, how these divine com­mentators resolve this question betweene the naturall father and the naturall son and between the spirituall father and the spirituall son.

In the 6. and 11. chapters of Deut. God commandeth the Isra­elites, to lay up his words in their hearts, and to teach them their children, when they sit in their houses, and when they walke by the way, and when they lye downe, and when they rise up: and Proverbs 1. Solomon saith, my sonne heare thy fathers instruction, and forsake not thy mothers teaching; and Ephesians the sixt chap. Saint Paul sayes Ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath,11. verse.but bring them up in the instruction and information of the Lord: and in the first Epistle to Tim. 2. chap. the same Apostle delivereth one text which decides the question betweene all kindes of fa [...]hers, and all kindes of sonnes: I permit not, saith hee, a woman to teach, [...], nor to exercise or usurpe authority over the man. whence it appeares, that they are to teach others, who have authority over others; and then the naturall father is to teach the naturall sonne, the spirituall father the spirituall sonne, the aecono­micall father, the master of the family, the aeconomicall son, & the Magistrate, the politick father, the politicke sonne, and not on the contrary: and Saint Paul of purpose as it were, interpreting the fift commandement, makes this one reason, why the spirituall sonne [Page 89] is to honour his spirituall father. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and Doctrine. 1 Tim. 5. and in this very thing consists the spirituall paternity and filiation,17. verse. they are both wrought by the spirituall seede of Gods word, the spirituall father begets, and the spirituall son is begotten by the spirituall seede of Gods word. Saint Paul telles the Corinthians, I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I admonish you, for though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers: for in Christ Iesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. 1 Cor. 4. and to the Gal. he saith my little children of whom I travaile in birth againe, untill Christ be formed in you. 14.15. verse. Gal. 4.19. and how is that done? why, by preaching the Gospel. Gal. 3.1.

And therefore my Lord, seeing Sir Henry Martin by his chi­micall interpretation will extract the contrary out of the fift com­mandement, & make it every spirituall sonnes duty to teach his spi­rituall father, the Parishioners duty to teach the incumbents, the incumbents duty to teach the Archdeacon, the Archdeacons duty to teach the Bishop, the Bishops duty, to teach the Archbishop, the Archbishops duty, to teach the Patriarches the Patriarches duty to teach the Apostles, the Apostles duty to teach Christ, and Christs duty to teach God: I thinke I may truly say, that Sir Henry Mar­tin hath found out that in this commandement, which God never put into it, just as Anah found out Mules in the wildernesse, as hee kept his father Zibeons Asses. Gen. 36. the one found out a crea­ture which God never made; the other a sence, which God never intended. And therefore seeing so eminent a man, so transcendent a lawyer, who was vox legis, lex legis, rex legis, and Deus legis, a kind of omnipotent Lawyer, who could creare legem de non se­ge, & annihilare legem in non legem, could not yet find out any one good argument, either in the civill or canon Law, no nor in the word of God neither, nisi afferat sensum ad scripturam, and such a sence as is repugnant both to the analogy of the place and of faith too. I thinke it is more than probable that neither the canon, ci­vill, or divine law will afford, my adversaries any one good ar­gument against me in this whole controversie.The second Argument.

The Defendants second Argument, my Lord, is taken from custome: they say it is the custome, that the Incumbents should preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon. And this they say both in their third Article, and in the first part of their first finall sentence extant in their Plea. And in speeding the Commission at [Page 90] Canterbury, they brought up ten or twelve Processes to prove this custome. But after they had brought them up, they durst not so much as shew them, either at informations, or at the finall hearing of the Cause. And yet what they cannot prove, my Lord; I out of a desire of peace and concord with them, will voluntarily grant unto them.Concessio 1. & retortio in ad­versarios. Dabo ex supposito, quod non dabo ex animo. Let it then be custome, what followes? why this; Then the Cause is a civill Ecclesiasticall Cause, and not a criminall Cause, and then it is and hath been all this while coram non judice, and so the sentence and whole proceedings of the Commissioners are utterly voyd.

Concessio 2. & retortio in ad­versarios.Secondly, be it custome, then the Arch-deacon hath broken the custome and not I; for the Commissioners in the first part of their first finall sentence extant in their Plea, made an Order, that I upon the Arch-deacons Mandate, and a competent warning thereby to me given, should preach a Sermon at the Arch-deacons next Visita­tion. Now this Order is the custome, or else it is not. If this Order be not the custome, then I being bound to observe the custome, am not bound to observe this order: or else being bound to observe this order, I am not bound to observe the custome. Let them chuse which they will, they are faulty in either. If this Order be the custome, then the Arch-deacon, and not I hath broken both Order, and custome; because he only sent an Apparitor with a postscript private letter, or message to warne me to preach his Visitation Sermon; but sent no mandate, or processe, or publike instrument for that purpose, out of his Court by his Apparitor, as he should have done, both by the Order and custome; and both these the Defendants confesse in their Plea, and they shall be both shewed against them at large, in my answer to to the fourth accessory.

Confutatio 1 Thirdly, it is not custome; for if it be custome, then it is custome contrary to the 36. 49. and 52. Canons made 1. Iacobi, that is, a­bout 39 years since; and then it must be custome either before those canons were made, or else only since. If it were custome before those canons were made, then it was before that time tried and obtained in some contradictory judgement; for consuetudo non valet, nisi sit ob­tenta in Contradictorio judicio. Now can the Defendants shew any contradictory judgement before that time, wherein this pretended custome was determined to be custome? If they can, let them shew it, and I submit: If they cannot, idem est nen esse, & non apparere. If it were not custome before the former Canons were made, it cannot grow to be a custom since. Nine and thirty years prescrip­tion, is not sufficient to make a custome, for consuetudo est, cujus [Page 91] contrarium memoria hominum non existit, and if this custome be but of 39. years standing, there are divers men yet living, which can remember the contrary.

Nay, my Lord, seeing a custome cannot grow in the time of op­position; if we will make an exact computation, we must from the former 39. years, defalke full 16. years, because so long this controversie hath been on foot, and this custome oppos'd. And then at the begining of this controversie, there remains but 23. years, since the making of the former Canons, and since the begin­ing of this pretended custome, if it began since those Canons were made. And then at begining of this controversie, this pretended cu­stome, being but of 23. years standing, could not be custome accor­ding to the former rule; seeing at the begining of this controversie, there were divers men then living, who could remember the contrary.

Concessio 3 Confutatio 2 But in the fourth place, my Lord, let it be custome, and a tried and determined custome in a contradictory judgement; and that before those Canons were made: yet by those Canons it is abroga­ted. For cannot an Act of Parliament cut off a known custome of England, tried and determined in a contradictory judgement at the Common Law? There is I suppose, no question of it; and the rea­son as I conceive is, because all the parties that have right in that custome, are either personally, or vertually present in Parliament, and there by making a contrary Act, give up their right to that cu­stome; and then by the same reason, seeing none had right in the former custome, but the Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Arch-bishops on the one side, and the Incumbents under them on the other side; and the three former, were personally present in a provinciall Sy­nod, and the others vertually present in the Clerks of the Convo­cation and all on both sides, by making the former Canons, gave up their right to the former custome, that custome is, and must be abrogated by the former Canons.

Confutatio. 3 But in the fift place, my Lord, it cannot be custome: First, be­cause it is contrary to the Word of God, as appears by my three first arguments. Secondly, because it is contrary to the whole course and tenour of the Canon Law; in the body of the Canon Law, in Lyndewodes provinciall, in the Legantine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon, and in our last Canons, all which I have formerly shew­ed. And lastly, because it is contrary to naturall equitie, and con­tra naturalem aequitatem nulla valet consuetudo etiamsi omnes ho­mines de mundo aliter facerent, saith the Canon Law.

[Page 92]Now this rule of naturall equity, is deliver'd by our Saviour, Luke 10, 7. The labourer is worthy of his hire, which is true, e converso, he that hath the hire, is bound to performe the labour. And this labourer is the Visiter, and his labour is to Visit, that is to preach, and to correct, and his hire for that labour, is Procura­tions: and all these I have formerly proved. It is then contrary to naturall equitie, for us to detain Procurations from the Visiter, when he Visits us, that is preacheth unto us, and correcteth us. It is likewise contrary to naturall equity, for the Visiter to require Procurations, when he doth not Uisit, that is preach and correct. It is most apparently contrary to naturall equitie, for the Visiter to require Procurations of the Incumbents for Visiting them. that is for preaching unto them, and for correcting them, and yet to impose upon them the Visitation Sermon, the speciall part of that labour, for which the Visiter requireth and receiveth his Procurations of the Incumbents. And upon this ground the Canon Law affirms, quod in procuratione ratione visitationis debita, non currit praescriptio. And then there can be no custome to binde the Incumbents, either to pay Procurations, or to preach the Visitation Sermon.

The third Ar­gument. There is one weake argument my Lord, yet remaining, and that's this. The Arch-deacon is tanquam oculus Episcopi; and therefore may enjoyn the Ministers within his jurisdiction to preach his Vi­sitation Sermon, that thereby he may see, and learn, and know their sufficiency.

I do confesse, my Lord, that in the Canon Law, the Arch-dea­con is called oculus Episcopi, and which is more, vicarius Episcopi. And I have often wondred, why they should so much presse the for­mer, and wholly passe over the latter; and the reason as I conceive, is this: The latter, gives not only some part of Episcopall autho­ritie to the Arch-deacon, but also bindes him to performe some part of Episcopall duty. Now the Bishops duty, he being Rector, to­tius Diaecesis, and having curam animarum is to Visit his Diaecesse, and to preach to, and instruct all there, and to reforme those that are faulty, and this much the name of Vicar imposeth upon the Arch-deacon; for Vicarius tenetur implere vicem ejus, cujus est Vica­rius. And therefore Master Arch-deacon doth willingly omit this title, because this doth binde him as well to preach and correct at his Visitation, as give him power to hold a Visitation under the Bishop. He only insists upon this title of oculus Episcopi, as if he were tied not to preach himselfe, but only to see the Incumbents [Page] preach, and that not in their parishes, at their own Cures, but at the Visitation, his Cure.

Confutatio. But what force the former title hath, the Canon law which gives it him, will best shew. It was first given to the Deacons, and then to the Arch-deacons. Decreti 1. parte. Dist. 93. cap. 6. we have these words, Diaconi Ecclesiae, tanquam oculi sunt Episcopi, ober­rantes & circum-lustrantes cum verecundia actus totius Ecclesiae, & perscrutantes diligentius, si quem videant vicinum praecipitio, & proximum esse peccato: and the glosse upon that Text notes, quod loco Diaconorum successerunt Archidiaconi, qui dicuntur occuli Epis­copi, quia perlustrant.

Now could the Deacons, because they were oculi Episcopi, en­joyn the Presbyters to preach a Visitation Sermon? They could not, and if they could not; neither can Master Arch-deacon do it, by vertue of that title which was theirs, before it was his. All that was thereby required of them, was to go about, & to observe with modesty, what was done in the whole Church, and to marke and view diligently, if any man ran head-long into sinne and wicked­nesse, and to certifie the Bishop thereof; and in this sence, let the Arch-deacon be oculus Episcopi in Gods name, and be as vigilant to prevent sin, and to recover sinners, as may be. But this gives him no power to command the Incumbents to preach at his Visita­tion; but only to observe how they lead their lives, and how they discharge their Cures; and if he finde them defective in either, then tanquam oculus Episcopi to inform the Bishop thereof.

And how ever, my Lord, it cannot be denied; but that the Arch-deacon by the abuse of this title of oculus Episcopi; that is, by wincking at the faults of some Incumbents, and by prying into, and aggravating the faults of others; hath drawn divers Incum­bents to preach his Visitation Sermon, which else would not: yet there is no such power or vertue in the title it selfe, but rather the contrary, as will appeare out of the Decretalls, lib. 1. tit. 23. De officio Archidiaconi, cap. 7. which sets downe the severall respects, in which the Arch-deacon is called oculus Episcopi. I will alleage the words at large.

Oculus Episcopi Archidiaconus appellatur, ut loco Episcopi per Episcopatum prospiciens, quae corrigenda viderit, corrigat & emen­det. & institutio corporalis tam super beneficiis quam etiam digni­tatibus, ad ipsum debeat pertinere. Examinatio etiam clericorum, si fuerint ad sacros ordines promovendi: Et hoc idem in collationihus [Page 94] beneficiorum credimus observandum; Vt qui beneficiis Ecclesiasti­cis praeficiendi fuerint, a suo prius examinentur Archidiacono, & per ipsum post Episcopo praesententur.

In this text, my Lord, the Arch-deacon is called oculus Episcopi, in these three respects. First, because in the Bishops stead, he is to looke over the whole Diaecesse, and to correct and reforme such things, as are out of order, or else to inform the Bishop thereof. Secondly, because he is to examine the Clergie at their Ordination, and according to their deserts; either to turn them backe, or else to present them to the Bishop: and this much likewise is given to the Arch-deacons in our Church, as appears by the booke of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And thirdly, because the Arch-deacon is to do the like at the Collation of Benefices; that is, before the Bi­shop admits and Institutes into Benefices, and then to induct those, whom the Bishop upon his commendation admits and Institutes.

All the power then, that the Archdeacon hath by being oculus E­piscopi, is either a generall power to observe and reform all faults o­ver the whole Diaecesse, or to inform the Bishop thereof; or else a more especiall power to examine the Clergie at their Ordination and Institution, but not to enjoyne them then and there to preach. And seeing the Arch-deacon at Ordination and Institution, can dis­cover the sufficiencie of the Clergie by examination, without hea­ring them preach; why may he not by the same course, do the like at the Visitation? Nay, why should he at the Visitation, go about by examination, to question the sufficiency of those In­cumbents, whose sufficiency he had before discover'd and approv'd, both at their Ordination and Institution? How ever, this is cer­taine, my Lord, that the Arch-deacon by that Text and title, hath no more power at the Visitation, than he had at Ordination and In­stitution: And therefore seeing at these latter, he hath by the fore­said Text and title, a power only to examine the Clergie, that's the utmost that he can challenge at the former, as oculus Episcopi.

But see my Lord the Art and wisedome of Master Archdeacon, or rather his deceit and subtilty in interpreting the former text. To examine the incumbents at his visitation, which by the former text and title he may doe, would be to his trouble; to command them then and there to preach, which by the former text and title he may not doe, would be for his profit and ease: therefore in the foresaid Text, by a verball transmutation, he would convert exami­nation into preaching, and Ordination and Institution into Visita­tion. [Page 95] And so where the Canon Law saith, that he is to examine us at our Ordination and Institution; he would make it say, that we are to preach to him and for him at his Visitation: where the Law saith, that this eye is to looke into the Clergie by examination at their Ordination and Institution, that is, before their preferment: He would make it say, that this eye is to looke into them after their preferment, by hearing them preach at the Visitation; as if their preferment were to go before their tryall and not their tryall before their preferment.

But my Lord, this is not oculum agere, to perform the part of an eye; or if it be, it is of a weak and dimme sighted eye, which takes one thing for another, like the blinde man in the Gospel, who in the begining of his cure, saw men walke like trees, Marke 8. For I can never think that eye, whose so ever it be, quick-sighted, nor fit to be oculus Episcopi, which cannot discern examination from preaching, and Ordination and Institution from Visitation.

And so my Lord, for a farwell to the Principals; I leave it to your Lordship, and the Court to consider whether the Commissi­oners were not invited by the presumption of their own strength, and of my weaknesse, to use the foresaid arguments, which upon ex­amination make quite against them: Or whether they were not at that time like men in danger of drowning, who being taught by nature to do their best to save themselves, and yet being deprived of the right use of their sences, do divers times seeke helpe, and lay hold on things that hurt them, and keepe them under water, and thereby drown themselves the sooner.

And thus much concerning the principalls,The accesso­ries. and the Defendants three Arguments. I now proceed to the accessories. And here my Lord, seeing the Defendants have falsified the Law in the prin­cipals, your Lordship, and the Court are not to give credit unto them, concerning the accessories: seeing in the principalls they have called my obedienc to the Word of God, to the Articles Statutes, Canons, to his Maiesties Letters Patents, royall Prerogative, and oath of Supreamacie (which are all extant to the view of the world) a breach of Canonicall obedience, a principall or especiall fault, a grievous and enormous crime; they are not according to their own Law, to be credited concerning any fact, they charge me within the accessories; for qui semel est malus semper praesumitur malus in eo­dem genere mali and qui semel veritatis & verecundiae limites tran­silierit, cum oportet esse gnaniter impudentem, nec ei deinceps [Page 96] nisi paenitenti, culpani confitenti, & veniam expetenti, est in aliqua credendum.

But my Lord, though according to these axioms, the defendants are not to be credited in any of the accessories, because they have falsified the Law in the principalls. Yet I labour not to impeach their cre­dit in all, but in one only circumstance, which runs through the three first accessories, which is grosly and palpably false, and con­trary to the Records of their own Court. For whereas in the first accessorie, they charge me, that I came unsent for, or uncall'd for, to Master Arch-deacon aforesaid he being in his Visitation among the Clergie; and sitting there to heare Causes: and in the second accessorie, that I did then and there charge the said Arch-deacon of falshood and i [...]justice: and in the third accessorie, that I did at the same time and place lay down an hundred pounds in gold upon the table, and offered to lay wagers with him the said Arch-deacon, that he had done me wrong, or the like in effect. I confesse I did these three, but not at the same time and place, not whil'st Master Arch-deacon sate in his Visitation to heare Causes; but afterwards, as will appear by these three circumstances.

The Visitation is alwaies kept in Saint Margarets Church in Canterburie; this was in the parlour of the Checker Inne in Cant. The Visitation is alwaies begun, continued and ended in the fore­noone before dinner; this was in the after-nooneafter dinner. At the Visitation are present both Clergie, and Laity, the Ministers, and the Churchwardens; here were present the Clergie only; and the Defendants themselves in their Plea mention only the Clergie: the Arch-deacon, say they, being in his Visitation among the Clergie, not amongst the Laity. And it is evident by the Records of their own Court, and by the testimony of their own witnesses, Dr. Say, and Henry Ienkins that these things were said and done in the Checker Inne in Canterburie after dinner and not in Saint Mar­garets Church at the Visitation. And it appeares likewise by the submission enjoyned me; for by their own Order that submission was to be uttered before the Clergie in the dining roome before dinner, and not in Saint Margarets Church, at the Visitation. And beside I here make oath in truth in justice and in judgement, that these three accessories were said and done, not in Saint Margarets Church at the Visitation, but in the parlour of the Checker Inne in Canterburie, where I never yet knew any Visitation kept by Master Arch-deacon.

[Page 97] acces∣sorie. The first And now my Lord, this one circumstance being confuted; what fault was it for me to come to Master Arch-deacon in the Checker Inne uncall'd for or unsent for? might not I, in the parlour of the Checker Inne after dinner, come uncall'd, or unsent for to Master Arch-deacon, with whom I din'd, as well as come to your Lord­ship, and to these my honored Judges, at the side-Barre in this Hall, nay in this very Court, uncall'd, or unsent for? I am sure your Persons and places are more eminent, and your imployments more, and weightier; and yet I, and some others as meane as I, have come unto you and gone from you, in both these places with­out offence.

accessorie. The second Or did I offend in charging the said Archdeacon with falshood, wrong, and injustice? nothing at all. For I have before shewed, how under the name of Canonicall obedience, he would have brought in arbitrary and blinde obedience, and the worst part or kind therof; not that only which is uncanonicall pretercanonicall, or ultracanonicall, but that also which is anticanonicall, or contracano­nicall. A thing repugnant to the Word of God, to the doctrine and discipline of this orthodox Church, to the Prerogative royall of the Crown, and to the freedome and liberty of every free-born Subject. Is not this falshood, wrong, and injustice? I have before shewed, how he hath advanced his apocryphall, uncanonicall, anti­canonical, antidiplomatical, antiprerogative antisuprematicall post­script, private letter and message, above the Canons of this Church, his Majesties Letters Patents, and royall Prerogative; above a royall Prerogative invested in the Crowne by God himselfe; ac­knowledged by Article, by Statute, by Canon, nay, above a royall Prerogative, which he and I by the oath of supremacy, are both bound to the utmost of our power to defend and maintain; and yer he hath violated it, and would have made me have violated it, as he hath made many others. Is not this falshood, wrong, and injustice?

Yea but though it be; yet peradventure I might not tell him so much. Yes, my Lord, I was bound to tell him of it by the Word of God, by the Canon Law, by the law of Nature, and by the oath of Supremacy. The Word of God, Levit, 19.17. saith, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainly reprove him, and not suffer sin upon him. So did I. The rule of the Canon Law set down by Felinus de rescriptis cap. si quando, is this: Sub­diti debent resistere pralato legem ignoranti instruendo eum, multo [Page 96] magis legem violanti, maxime vero legem conculcanti. So did I. The law of Nature bindes every one to challenge and defend his own right, and to repell injurie, So did I. And the oath of Supre­macie bindes me to the utmost of my power; to defend and main­taine all jurisdictions of the Crown; and therefore this among the rest, that none of the Clergie in their severall jurisdictions can go beyond, much lesse contrary to the Canons without incroaching upon the Prerogative royall, and supreame Jurisdiction of the Crowne.

accessory. The third The wager.And this doth likewise justifie the wager of an hundred pounds, laid down to defend the Kings supreame Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over the Clergie, to the utmost of my power, according as I was, and am expressely bound by the oath of supremacie. And for that purpose I have made choice rather to be fin'd, imprison'd, depriv'd, degraded, and excommunicated by the High-Commissioners, and to endure those tedious delaies, and those manifold disgraces, indig­nities, and injuries in this Court, than by betraying the Kings su­premacie to the Arch-deacons usurpation, with the High-Commis­sioners, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsell, to violate that oath, and so to commit perjury; know­ing it a thing most acceptable in Gods sight, to endure the greatest punishments for to avoid the least sin, much more for to avoyd the greatest sin; so that set aside this one untrue circumstance, there is nothing at all culpable in these three first accessories.

The manner of speaking and of laying the wager.And though the Defendants say, that I did speake very malepert­ly, and irreverently to Master Arch-deacon, and offered to lay the wager with him in a very arrogant and irrespective maner; yet seeing they mention no one particular evill word or deed, I hope your Lordship, after so many arguments upon the generall sentence of deprivation, and degradation, and this argument of mine upon the speciall matter; will remember, that in generalibus latet fraus, and vir dolosus versatur in universalibus; and will then conceive, that that which they say, was spoken and done very malepertly, ir­reverently, and arrogantly, was spoken and done discreetly, reso­lutely, and heroically; that I might to the utmost of my power de­fend the Kings supreame Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over the Clergy, according as I was, and am expressely bound by the oath of the su­premacie; and then there is no fault at all, either in my words, or wager, in the things or circumstances.

But now my Lord, though that one circumstance be false, and [Page] the Defendants according to their own law, are not to be credited in the accessories; because they have falsified the Law in the prin­cipalls. Yet my Lord, seeing we are now in a demurrer, according to the nature of a demurrer, let all be granted in these three first ac­cessories, that the Defendants themselves affirme. Let the words be uttered very malepertly and irreverently, let the wager be offe­red in a very arrogant and irrespective manner; let the Archdea­con at the same time be in Saint Margarets Church in Canterbu­rie at the Visitation among the Clergie, and sitting there to heare Causes. Yet now I will make it appeare by the Defendants owne confession, and by a necessary consequence from their confession, that in these foure accessories, there is no fault at all.

The Defendants, as your Lordship may remember, charge me with six particulars; amongst which they make my refusall to preach the Visitation Sermon, and my maintaining it to be the Arch-deacons duty to preach his own Visitation Sermon, the two principall or especiall faults. And if they two be the principall and especiall faults; then by the force of comparison drawne from the adversaries own estimate, the other foure must needs be inferiour and accessory. And then if the principall and especiall faults be no faults, no breach of any Law; much lesse can the inferiours or ac­cessories be any faults, or any breaches of Law; for si principalis causanon subsistat, ea quae sequuntur locum non habent. Now I have before shewed, that the two principall or especiall faults are no faults, but vertues and eminent vertues, even the vertues of Canonicall obedience; and therefore the other foure being in the Defendants own judgement lesser and inferiour vices, than the two former, they cannot be any faults, but must needs be vertues, and greater and superior vertues. And the Defendants cannot ex­cept against this consequence, because it is necessarily drawne from their own estimate and testimony, and testimonium ab adversario contra se fortissimum.

accessory. The fourth Now for the fourth and last accessory; my refusall to performe the submission, conceptis verbis, which the Defendants pretend to be a great affront and contempt both to the Kings supremacy, and to the High-Commission authority, seeing therein I was enjoyned to acknowledge my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, at the Arch-deacons and Arch-bishops mandate, to be a breach of Canonicall obedience. It is certain my Lord, that if that my refusall to preach that Sermon be no breach of Canonicall obe­dience, [Page] then my refusall to perform that submission, conceptis ver­bis, is no affront or contempt, either to the Kings, or Commissio­ners authority. And if I make good the former, the Defendants must of necessity grant the latter.

And for the cleering of this former, it is to be observed; that there is a two-fold Canonicall obedience, the one due to the Ca­nons only, the other to the Prelates mandate according to the Ca­nons. To the former, we are bound by the Canons themselves, and by his Majesties Letters Patents confirming the Canons. To the latter, we are beside bound by the Prelates mandate, and by the oath of Canonicall obedience. The breach of the former, in all such as submit unto the canons, is but only disobedience. The breach of the latter, is not only disobedience, but also contumacie, yea and perjury too, in all them that have taken the oath of Canonicall obe­dience.

This will appeare, my Lord, by the oath of Canonicall obedi­ence, extant in the instrument of my Admission, and Institution (which I have here to shew) wherein the oath runs thus; Te pri­mitus de legitima & Canonica obedientia, nobis & successoribus nostris in omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda, ad sancta Evangelia ritè junatum admittimus, we admit thee, saith the Ordinary, having first been rightly sworn by the holy Gospels, to perform lawfull and Canonicall obedience to us, and our successours, in all lawfull and honest mandates.

In which words, my Lord, it is first to be observ'd, that the thing that I sweare, is not arbitrary and blinde obedience, that is such obedience as the Prelate shall require by his Dictates, whatso­ever it be; but lawfull and Canonicall obedience; that is, such o­bedience as the Canons and Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Land re­quire. Secondly, that the persons to whom I have sworn, are only the Bishop and his successours, not the Arch-deacon: and there­fore though I am bound to yeeld Canonicall obedience to all the Arch-deacons lawfull and honest mandates, yet I am not by oath bound thereunto; and therefore when I violate his lawfull and honest mandates, I commit only contumacie not perjury, And lastly, that I have not sworne this Canonicall obedience to the Ca­nons themselves; for then every time I broke a Canon. I should commit perjury: but only to the Bishop, and his successours man­dates nor to his words or private letters, or postscripts, or messages; but only to his and his successours mandates; no, nor to al their man­dates [Page 101] neither, but only to all their lawfull and honest mandates.

Now what is a Prelates mandate? A Prelates mandate, saith Provincialis lib. 3. de Insti­tutionibus & commendis. cap. 1. verbis. Archidiaconis suis. Extorque­ri. & cap. 3. Verb. superio­ris. & tenentur. See 120. 122. 124, Canons. Such are the mandates in the Kings-Bench, their habeas corpus, their Latitats, Capias, and o­ther mandates, and these are made in the the Kings name, and sub­scribed with the chiefe Iu­stices hand, and sealed with the seale of the Court. And such are all the processes, mandates, letters Missive, Decres of the High-Commission Court, and ought to be such, as appears by the latter part of their Commission, and I have one of their mandates or letters missive here to shew. A Writ is the Commandement of the King, formed in Latine; directed either to some Mini­ster of his Courts, or sometime to the party-Defendant, at the pursuit of the Plaintiffe, for the better administration of Iustice. Writs touching their forme are breife and short, and therefore are called in Latine Brevia; in French Breifs, for their shortnesse, in English Writs, for that they are short mandates in writing. Iudge Dodrige in his English [...]awyer, p. 43: Lyndewode is a publick instrument out of the Prelates court, made in the Prelates name, under the seale of his office and the hand of a publick Notary. Without such a mandate sent from the Bishop to the Arch-deacon; the Arch-deacon, though he hath taken the oath of Canonicall obedience to the Bishop, is not bound to In­duct any man instituted by the Bishop, neither is he in contumacie if he refuse. But after he hath received such a mandate. if he do then refuse, he is then both in contumacie, and perjury too. And of these mandates, I have two out of the Arch-deacons Court here to shew; one for my Induction, another to reverse a suspension. And such mandates are daily sent out of the Arch-deacons and Bi­shops Courts, to command us to p [...]blish the excommunications, and other censures of their Courts against our Parishioners; and upon our Parishioners submission and reformation, there comes out other mandates, commanding us to publish the assoiling, acquitting and restitution of our Parishioners, and the abolition or abrogation of the former censures. And so likewise there are daily sent out mandates or processes, commanding both us and our Parishioners to appeare at our Prelates Courts. And all these mandates are a­greeable unto the former definition of a Prelates mandate, given by William Lyndewode.

And of those mandates, the Canon Law makes twoClementinarum lib. 2. titulo de Dolo & Contumacia. cap. unic. verbo. manifeste. Con­tumax in non veniendo non appellat. Contumax in non parendo, appellat. quod iste pec­cat in uno tantum, ille in duobus. Quod intelligo, quia iste venit, sed non paret. ille nec venit, nec paret. Decretal. lib. 2. titulo 14. de Dolo. & Contumacia cap. 4. verbo. Conrumaciter. Contuma [...] est, qui cum debet parere, non paret. [...] Ibidem cap. 2. verbo Contumaciter. Multis modis committitur Contumacia, quandoque attenditur respectu non venientis, quandoque respectu non restituentis, quandoque respectu non respondentis, vel obscure respondentis, quod idem est, ac si. non responderet; quandoque respectu non iurantis, quandoque respe­ctu recedentis infecto negotio, & quandoque respectu non exhibentis; unde versus. Non veniens, non restituens, citiusque recedens. Nil dicens, pignusque tenens, iurareque Nolens. Obscureque loquens, isti sunt iure rebelles. Quibus adde alios versus eodem libro. ut lite non contestata, &c. tit. 6. Casibus in tribus his, quis dicitur esse rebellis. Impedit, occultat, iussis parere recusat. sorts; there is mandatum pro apparendo, and mandatum pro parendo a mandate for appearing, and a mandate for obeying. And so accordingly there is a two-fold contumacie, contumacia in non apparendo and contumacia in non parendo; a contumacie in not appearing, and a contumacie in not obeying. The contumacie in not appearing, is [Page 102] committed when we violate the Prelates mandate for our appear­ing at his Court. The contumacie in not obeying, is committed, when we violate the Prelates mandate, enjoyning us to obey some act of his Court: and without one of these mandates first had and received, neither of these contumacies can be committed.

Now with what contumacy do the Defendants charge me? not with any contumacy in not appearing: neither can they, for neither did the Archdeacon, no nor my Lords Grace neither, send out any mandate, to command me to appeare, either at their Archidia­conall, Episcopall, or Archiepiscopall Courts, and I alwaies observed the mandates of the High-commission court for my appearance. So that they neither can nor do charge me with any contumacy in not appearing. They onely charge me with contumacy in not obeying the Archdeacons and Archbishops mandates, commanding mee to preach the Archdeacons visitation sermon.

This appeares my Lord, out of their owne sentence for in the first part of their first finall sentence, alleaged in their plea, the defen­dants say; Super aperientiam causae, ipsi invenerunt Georgium Huntley specialiter oneratum in articulis praedictis cum duobus par­ticulariis, primo pro recusatione ad praedicandum visitationis sermo­nem, ad requisitionem & mandatum Archidiaconi diaecesis, scilicet praedicti Willielmi Kingsley in Contrarium suae canonicae obedientiae. And afterward in the first part of that first finall sentence, they say, that I violated the Archbishops mandate in the same matter, quod quidem mandatum dicti Archiepiscopi, dictus Georgius Huntley, e­tiam neglexit, and afterwards in the second part of that first finall sentence, they charge me with perjurie for violating, that my Lords Graces mandate.

Now my Lord, if I have violated my canonicall obedience to the Archdeacons and Archbishops mandate, and therein have com­mitted disobedience, contumacy and perjury, as the Defendants [Page] pretend: then I have violated some Canon, and some Canonicall mandate of the Archdeacons and Archbishops, Canonicall both for forme and matter; where these three concurre, a Canon and a mandate Canonicall, both for forme and matter: there if the par­tie that breaks them, hath taken the oath of Canonicall obedi­ence, he committeth anticanonicall disobedience, contumacie, and perjury. But where the first of these is wanting where there is no Canon, there, there cannot be a Canonicall mandate for mat­ter: and though there may be a Canonicall mandate for forme; yet when the other two are wanting, the breach of that only, is neither contumacie, nor perjury; no, nor any anticanonicall diso­bedience neither; much lesse can there be any anticanonicall dis­obedience, contumacie, and perjury, when all the three former are wanting.

Now let us see, my Lord, which of the three former, the Defen­dants can shew against me. First, can they shew any Canon that bindes me to preach the Visitation Sermon? No, the Canons, as I have before shewed, binde every Visiter, every Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop to preach his own Visitation Sermon, Li­censed Preachers, to preach at their own Cures only, and forbid me, and such as I am, that are not licensed Preachers, to preach, or expound any Scripture, in our own Cures or else-where.

Secondly, can the Defendants shew any mandate Canonicall for matter, sent from the Archdeacon, or Archbishop to command, me to preach the Visitation Sermon? Why, that's impossible; for seeing the Canons do not only not command, but forbid me to preach at my own Cure, or else-where. The mandate that com­mands me to preach at the Visitation; must of necessity be for mat­ter, not only uncanonicall, pretercanonicall, or ultracanonicall but also anticanonicall or contracanonicall.

Thirdly, and lastly, can the Defendants shew any mandate, Ca­nonicall for forme of the Archdeacons, or of his Graces, sent un­to me, to command me to preach the Visitation Sermon? If they can then they can shew some publicke instrument out of the Arch­deacons, or Arch-bishops Court, made in the Arch-deacons, or Archbishops name, under the seale of their Office, and the hand of a publicke Notary, commanding me to preach the Visitation Sermon. If they can do so, though that mandate for matter be not only beyond the Canons, but contrary to the C [...]nons; and their mandates ought not to exceed the Canons: yet let them onely [Page 106] shew, that canonicall mandate for forme, that publicke instrument out of the Archdeacons, or Archbishops court, made in the Arch­deacons, or Archbishops name, under the seale of their Office, and the hand of a Publick-Notary, commanding me to preach the Archdeacons Visitation Sermon: and I will be so indulgent unto them, that I will acknowledge my selfe culpable of contumacie, in disobeying such a canonicall mandate of the Arch-deacons for forme, though uncanonicall, and anticanonicall for matter; and both of contumacie, and perjury, in disobeying such a canonicall mandate of his Graces for forme, though uncanonicall, and antica­nonicall for matter. Can they do it?

No, no, my Lord, in their Plea, the Defendants confesse the con­trary; they only mention three private letters written to me, to re­quire me to preach the Visitation Sermon, one from his Grace in the seventh Article, another from Sir George Newman, the Arch­deacons Officiall, in the ninth article; and another from the Arch­deacon himselfe in the eleventh article.

But private letters, my Lord, are no canonicall mandates for forme: neither am I tied by oath, to performe canonicall obedience to the Prelates private letters, but only to his mandates; to the pub­licke instruments out of the Prelates Court, made in the Prelates name, under the seale of his Office, and the hand of a Publicke-Notary: and unlesse the Defendants can produce some such cano­nicall mandate for forme, sent unto me, to command me to preach the Visitation Sermon; they cannot make any shew or colour, that I have committed either any contumacie, or perjury; no, nor any anticanonicall disobedience neither.

Nay my Lord, unlesse the Defendants can shew such a canoni­call mandate for forme, sent from the Archdeacon to me, to com­mand me preach his visitation Sermon, they cannot make any shew or colour, that I have broken the order of the High Commission Court, in refusing to preach the Archdeacons visitation Sermon. For in the first part of their finall sentence, given the eighth of Feb. 1626. the High Commission Court made an Order, that upon the Archdeacons mandate, and a competent warning thereby to mee given, I should preach a Sermon at the next visitation, to be holden by the Archdeacon. These are the very words of their sentence or Order upon record in this Court. Nihilominus dicta curia alta com­missionis, ad tempus illud reservans sibi ipsis eorum ulteriores cen­suras, prout occasio oblata foret, pro co tempore tantum mode ordina­vit [Page 107] ipsum dictum Georgium Huntley, super mandatum praedicti Archidiaconi Cant. super competenti monitione ei danda, ad prae­dicandum sermorem ad proximam visitationem, tenendam per magi­strum Archidiaconum Cantuarien. So that by their owne Order extant in the Defendants plea, I was not bound to preach that next visitation Sermon nisi super mandatum Archidiaconi Cant. & su­per competenti monitione mihi danda. But upon the Archdeacons mandate, and upon competent warning, thereby to me given; So that by their owne order, the Archdeacon was first to send his man­date to the Apparitor, and then the Apparitor by vertue of that man­date, was to warne mee, to preach that next visitation Sermon.

Now did the Archdeacon at that his next visitation, send out such a mandate, such a publicke instrument out of his Court, made in his owne name, under the seale of his office, and the hand of a publicke notary, to his apparitor, to enable him to warne me to preach that his next visitation Sermon? can the defendants shew any such mandate or processe, sent from the Archdeacon to the Apparitor for that purpose. No, no, my Lord, the Defendants confesse the contrary in their plea: they acknowledge in the second part of their first finall sentence, given the ninteenth of Aprill 1627. extant in their plea, that George Huntley then alleaged in his owne behalfe, quod Praedictus magister Archidiaconus non admonuisset cum per le­galem processum: and they grant it, that there was no legall mandate or processe, sent by the Archdeacon to the Apparitor for that pur­pose; so that by their owne confession in their plea, in refusing to preach that visitation Sermon, I have neither committed any anti­canonicall disobedience, contumacy, nor perjury, no nor transgressed the order of the High-commission court, because there was no pro­cesse or mandate sent from the Archdeacon to the Apparitor, to warne me to preach that sermon, as there should have beene accor­ding to their owne Order.

What then doe they alleage against me? onely this my Lord; That it appeared to the Court by affidavit made, quod praedictus Magister Archidiaconus dedisset ej sufficientem admonitionem per publicum officiarium. That Master Archdeacon had sent an Appari­tor, or publicke officer to warne me, to Preach the Uisitation Ser­mon. There's the warning indeed, given by the apparitor, and I confesse it: yea but where is the Archdeacons mandate or processe to the apparitour, to enable him to warne me to preach that sermon? That my Lord is either shrunke in the wetting, or lost in the carry­ing, [Page 108] for they themselves grant, that that apparitour or publike offi­cer, had no mandate or legall processe from the Archdeacon, to warne me to preach that sermon.

And then my Lord, how have I transgrest, either the Archdea­cons mandate, or the order of the High-commission Court, or what authority had that apparitor, or publik officer, to warne mee to preach that Uisitation Sermon? just none at all, as appeares by the 138. canon, made 1. Iacobit where it is said, all apparitors shall by themselves, faithfully execute their offices, neither shall they by any colour, or pretence whatsoever, cause or suffer their mandates to bee executed, by any messengers or substitutes.

In which words my Lord it appeares, that an apparitor doth then faithfully execute his office, when he doth faithfully execute his mandates, that is, neither goe beyond, nor come short of his mandates, so that the apparitours have no power to warne or sum­mon any man with out such a mandate.

No, nor the Bishop, Chancellour, Archdeacon, Officiall, nor a­ny other Ecclesiasticall Judge, as appears by this 120 Canon. No Bishop, Chancellour, Archdeacon, Officiall, or other Ecclesiasti­call Judge, shall suffer any generall Processes of Quorum nomina, to be sent out of his Court, except the names of all such, as thereby are to be cited: shall be first expressely entred by the hand of the Regester or his deputy, under the said Processes; and the said Pro­cesses and names be first subscribed, by the Judge, or his deputy, and his seale thereto affixed. So that whensoever any Bishop or any other Ecclesiasticall Judge, will cite any man to appear before him; he must send out by his Apparitor a mandate, or processe and therein the name of the party to be cited, must be first entred by the Regester, or his deputy, and then subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy, and his seale thereto affixed.

And if any Ecclesiasticall Judge whatsoever, shall by his Ap­paritor without such a processe or mandate, Summon any man to appeare before him, the party is not bound to appeare; and though he do not appear, yet he is not culpable of any contumacy, as appears by this 122 Canon.

When any Minister is complained of in any Ecclesiasticall Court belonging to any Bishop of this Province, for any crime: the Chan­cellour, Commissary Officiall, or any other, having Ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction, to whom it shall appertaine shall expedite the cause by processes, and other proceedings against him; and upon contumacy for not appearing, shall suspend him.

[Page 109]First then, after complaint made against any one, the Judge must cite the party by processe to appeare before him; if the party obey not the processe, he is then contumacious; but without pro­cesse there is no contumacy.

If your Lordship shall aske me what authority the Apparitour pretended when he warned me to preach the said Visitation Ser­mon. I answer, that he pretended a processe or mandate from the Archdeacon: and it is true, my Lord, that he had a processe and mandate from the Archdeacon, and yet no processe or mandate from him. He had a processe or mandate to warne me to appeare at the Archdeacons Visitation, and there to pay my procurations due to him for Visiting; and that processe or mandate was a pub­licke instrument out of the Archdeacons Court, made in the Arch­deacons name, under the seale of his Office, and the hand of a pub­licke Notary.

But he had no such mandate or processe, to warne me to preach the Archdeacons Visitation Sermon; but only anIn this par­ticular, Doctor Kingsley, and the Commissi­oners are more Popish and pre­sumptuous, than the Pope himselfe. For the Pope sends out only his Bulls, Diplo­maes, or Man­dates, formally and regularly made, sign'd, and seal'd with out any post­script, accord­ing to this old proverb, Mittit plumbum, ex­igit aurum; But these together, with their Mandates, or Processes, send out their said Postscripts; and thereby they will abro­gate the Word of God, the Articles, Statutes, Canons, his Maiesties Letters Patents, royall Prerogative, and oath of Supremacie; Iust as the Pope presumeth to do with his Bulls. And for the violation of these Postscripts, they will Fine, Imprison, Deprive, Degrade, and Ex­communicate; which is a Popery, pride, and presumption more than papall. apocryphall, uncanonicall, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript in these very words; You are to warn George Huntley Parson of Stouremouth, to preach at the time and place above mentioned.

And this postscript set under the processe, after the test and Re­gesters hand was made in no mans name, subscribed with no mans hand, confirmed with no mans seale, and is contrary to the Canons both for forme, and matter: for matter, to the 49 Canon, which forbids me being no licensed preacher, to preach, or expound any Scripture in mine own Cure, or else-where: for forme, to the 120 Canon, which forbids any thing to be written under a generall processe of Quorum nomina, such as that was: but only the names of the parties to be cited, and those names must first be entred by the Regester or his deputy, under the processe, and then subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy. Here were not only names, but also new matter; namely, the preaching of the Visitation Sermon; and yet neither names, nor matter, either entred by the Regester, or his deputy, nor subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy.

[Page 110]Unto this warning thus given by the Apparitour, by vertue of his vicious postscript, I gave only this answer; that on the morrow I would send my answer in writing to Master Archdeacon, and on the morrow I sent this letter to Master Archdeacon, and he received it, and it was read in the High-Commission Court by Doctor Ducke, one of the Advocates for the Office against me, the 19 day of Aprill, 1627. when the second part of the first finall sentence was given against me, and I Fined five hundred pounds, and first imprisoned.

Now may it please your Lordship, to knit and unite these seve­ralls together; Canonicall obedience, is such obedience as theIus Cano­nicum. i. e. ab ecclesia seu vi­ris ecclesiasticis institutum, & dicitur canoni­cum a Canon, quod est regu­la: Eo quod tanquam regu­la recte ducit, nec aliquando aliorsum trahit. vel quia recte regit, & Nor­mam recte vi­vendi praebet, & id quod dis­tortum, pra­vumque est corrigit. L. P. lib. 1. tit De Postulando. c. veloces ad au­diendum Glos­sa in Ius cano­nicum. Canons require. The Canons do not only not require, but forbid me to preach at my owne Cure, or else-where. The High-Com­mission Court make an order contrary to the Canons, that I upon the Archdeacons mandate, and a competent warning thereby to me given should preach the Archdeacons next Visitation Sermon, and this say they, is the custome. The Archdeacon sends an Appa­ritor with an apocryphall and anticanonicallIncorrigibilis est, qui reverti­turad priora de­licta, vel in eis perseverat, vel qui ter monitus non desistit. Sic sentire videtur Io. An. de iudi. c. cum non ab homine. Et concordat ibi Antho. de butrio. Lyndewode Pro. lib. 5. tit. de paenis. c. Item statuimus. verb. Incorrigibilis. postscript to warn me, but without any mandate; and so neither observes either or­der, or custome. An Apparitor without a mandate, even by the Canons, hath no authority to warn any man. I writ to the Arch­deacon to observe both the custome, and order of the High-Com­mission, to summon me by a mandate or Processe, and proffer to preach that his next Visitation Sermon. He doth not, he will not, in plain termes my Lord, he dares not.

Is it not most cleare, then my Lord, that in refusing to preach that Visitation Sermon, I have neither transgressed the Canons, nor ca­nonicall obedience, nor the Archdeacons mandate, nor the custome, nor the order of the High-Commission Court, nor the oath of Ca­nonicall obedience, and therefore am most free, not only from contumacie and perjury, but also from all anticanonicall disobe­dience?

All this is most cleare and evident. And why then, my Lord, should I have submitted to the submission, and contrary to a most evident truth, and mine own conscience; have acknowledged my [Page 113] selfe culpable of disobedience, contumacie, and perjury? Nay further, if I had yeelded to the submission, I must have advanced the Archdeacons apocryphall, uncanonicall, anticanonicall, antidi­plomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript, above the Canons of this orthodox Church, above his Majesties Letters Pa­tents, above his royall Prerogative, above a royall Prerogative in­vested in the Crowne by God himselfe, acknowledged by Article by Statute, by Canon; nay, above a royall Prerogative, which I by the oath of supremacy am bound to the utmost of my power to defend and maintain. So that I could not have submitted to that submission, without palpableYou made it sacriledge to dispute of the Popes fact, he­resie to doubt of his power, paganisme to disobey him, blasphemy a­gainst the holy Ghost, to do, or speake a­gainst his De­crees or Ca­nons; and that which is most horrible, you made it pre­sumption not to go to the Devill after him without grudging. O shamefull and sinfull subiecti­on, such as Lucifer him­selfe never of­fered the bond­ssaves of hell. Bishop Bilson in his true dif­ference of chri­stian subiecti­on and unchri­stian rebellion 2. part. pag. 23 [...] perjury; and I am sure, that per­jury is transcendently unlawfull, and propter unum illegitimum tota submissio fit illegitima, especially seeing as it appeares upon Record in this Court, that submission was framed by the Commis­sioners, in conceptis verbis, in a set forme of words; and by their own order, that set forme of words was to be uttered, without ad­dition, or alteration; and therefore any one part thereof being un­lawfull the whole must needs be unlawfull.

And so my Lord, it appears, that in refusing to preach that Visi­tation Sermon, I have not transgressed the order of the High-Com­mission Court, because the Archdeacon sent no mandate as he should have done by that order; neither if he had, was I bound to performe either that mandate, that order, or the submission en­joyned; because both that mandate, that order, and that submission enjoyned are contrary to the Canons, to his Majesties Letters Pa­tents, and to his royall Prerogative, and supreme Ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction of the Crowne; which by the oath of supremacie I am bound to the utmost of my power to defend and maintaine; and against which, no man that hath taken that oath, can speake, plead argue, or give sentence without perjury: neither can any Judge, according to that his oath, to the utmost of his power, defend and maintaine all jurisdictions of the Crowne unlesse in this case of mine, he doth speedily without delay, without procrastination give judgment for the Canons his Majesties Letters Patents, his royall Prerogative, and mine obedience unto them; against that apo­cryphall uncanonicall, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antipre­rogative, antisuprematicall postscript of the Archdeacon of Cant. Master Doctor Kingsley.

And so my Lord I do conclude, and I do most instantly and most importunately sue, and supplicate to your Lordship, and to these [Page 114] my just Judges, in the presence of a most just God, for a just judge­ment, as a just man should do, both for my selfe and for my adver­saries. First for my adversaries, if their Cause be better then mine, and they can confute what I have said: and if they cannot, then for myselfe, and for both speedily without all further delay, with­out all further procrastination; for it hath been fall twelve years three quarters, since this action first began in this Court; full twelve years three quarters, before I could get this first hearing, this one Argument. A long and a tedious time, in which divers interessed in this controversie have ended their lives: and as Iulian the Em­perour, though an Apostata saies. [...].Epistola 35. It is a fearful a terrible thing, that he that sues for justice, shall sooner lay down his life at the judgement seat, then procure judgement from the just Judges that sit upon the seat: that he shall stand in need of two lives to deter­mine one controversie, and yet end them both, before he can end that his one controversie.

What a blemish and disgrace is it, that the justice of private men, shall exceed and surpasse the justice of Judges, and of Courts of justice? and if private men do all that ever they can to have their Causes heard, and determined; and Judges do all that ever they can, to delay, procrastinate, and stave off the hearing and deter­mining of them; doth; not the justice of private men exceed and surmount the justice of judges, and of Courts of justice?

And yet the justice of private men is but the private and particu­lar justice of the Kingdome; and if there be any question concern­ing that, it must passe per libram per trutinam, sub examine justi­tiae judicum & Curiarum. And therefore the justice of Iudges and of Courts of justice is the generall, universall, aecumenicall, epi­demicall justice of the Kingdom. The light of the body saith our Saviour is the eye; if that light be darknesse, how great is that darknesse? So the generall, universall, aecumenicall, epidemicall justice of the Kingdome, is the justice of Iudges, and of Courts of justice. If that justice be injustice, how great is that injustice? It is then the generall universall, aecumenicall, epidemicall plague pesti­lence, consumption, desolation, and destruction of the whole King­dome.

And though, my Lord the difficulty to get justice, and the dan­ger to lose it, is alwaies very great; because there are so many things needfull, even in an honest course to prevaile in a sute at [Page 115] Law, as a good and a just cause, a diligent, faithfull, and expert Solicitor, an honest, skilfull, and incorrupt Attourney, a learned, faithfull and couragious Counsell, and a just and an upright Iudge; of which if any one faile to do his duty, a good cause may have an ill successe: Yet certainly amongst all the former, next after a a good Cause, a just and an upright Iudge is the principall and e­speciall. And because even in a good Cause, the three former cannot prevaile without this latter, and this latter can and may correct and amend the faults and errors of the three former; therefore Iulian the Emperour makes this latter the only necessary thing, to prevaile in a good Cause. His words are worthy to be ingraven in letters of gold, on every Court of justice, for a direction and caution to all Iudges, Counsellours, Atturnyes, Solicitours, and Clients. [...];Epistola prae­allegata. This is the only thing, saith he, for them that suffer wrong, to get their right name­ly, to get such a judge as both can and will judge rightly, can and will do justice. If the Iudge either cannot, or will not, if either through weaknesse he cannot apprehend the truth, or else through wickednesse will not heare, or will betray the truth; there is then a necessity, that right and justice most be subverted.

Wherefore my Honoured Lord Chiefe Iustice, and Honoured Iudges; to the intent that your Lordship and the Court may shew your selves such Iudges as men oppressed according to Iulians ad­vise, should seeke for; such Iudges as both can and will judge rightly, can and will do Iustice; such Iudges as both can and will rectifie and reforme the faults and errors of Solicitours, Atturneys, and Counsellors; nay such Iudges; as in a good cause will supply the want of all these, which is my case for I can get none of them. Consider I beseech you, by how many bonds you are tyed to do ju­stice; you tied by your places titles, offices oathes by the Lawes of the Land by the Word of God; and in these two particular ca­ses of mine in this action of false imprisonment, and in the speci­all Verdict betweene Allen, and Nash, by his Majesties speciall mandate deliver'd to your Lordship with mine own hand here in open Court, on the first day of Hilary Tearme, 1635.

All these binde you to do justice, but none of these prove you to be just. The only rule to prove you just, is this of St. Iohn 1 Epist. 3. cap. 7. vers. He that doth righteousnesse, is righteous. The works [Page 116] of justice, & not the titles of justice must prove you just: without these works, you may be call'd Iustices; but it is [...] abusive, [...] & antiphrasis est vox signans contraria dicto; and then you have no better right to be call'd Iustices, than the Lords supper hath to be call'd missa, and missa signifies the Lords supper, just as excommunication doth the Communion, as Bishop Bilson shewes; for missa is a sending away from the Lords Supper, as excommu­nication is from the Communion.

Or if you have any better right to be called Iustices, yet without the works of justice, it is only ratione officii, not ratione meriti; and in that sence, as the Papists say, if Iudas or Simon Magus were Popes, they had right to, and might be honoured with the title of holinesse. And in this respect, as Gerson saies, absque mendacio Papa nequissimus dici potest Sanctissimus, and in that regard, any of the lapsed Angels, even Belzebub himselfe, the prince of devills, in regard of originall purity, and Gods law written in him in the Creation, which ex officio is over bound to observe, may be call'd Angelus Sanctissimus; although in respect of his workes, now and ever since his fall, he be spiritus impurissimus & diabolus ne­quissimus.

But if you will be truly called Iustices, both ratione officii, & ratione meriti, then you must do the works of justice; you must do justa juste, that is, as Aristotle expounds himselfe, you must doe justice volenter, scienter, constanter, willingly without any backwardnesse; wittingly by hearing sifting, and searching the al­legations and proofes alwaies on both sides; and constantly with­out any intermission or deviation. Or if you had rather have the rule from Solomon; you must do justice joyfully. It is joy, saith Solomon, to the just to do judgement, Prov. 21.15. And this one word of Solomon, includes the three former of Aristotle. For if it be joy to the just to do judgement, then he will do it willingly, wittingly, and constantly; or if you please, take the rule out of your own Lawes, out of the common Lawes of the Land, out of the epitome an principall part thereof magna Charta, cap. 29. you shall deny to no man, you shall delay to no man, you shall sell to no man justice, or right; you shall deny to no man, you shall de­lay to no man justice, or right; therefore you shall do to every man justice and right speedily; you shall sell to no man justice or right; therefore you shall do to every man justice and right freely: and joyne all these together, and then you have the absolute and [Page] compleat rule of justice: The observation whereof, will make you all, not only Iustices, but also chiefe Iustices; if not ratione loci, tituli, & officii, which is the inferiour; yet ratione operis & me­riti, which is the superiour; and will make suum cuique, which is anima, vigor, & executio legis, take place in every cause that comes before you: wherein next after the service and worship of God, and the exercise of the true Orthodox Religion, consists the welfare and flourishing estate, both of Church and Common-wealth.

And this my Lord, will be the best, if not the only course, to vin­dicate the credit of this your Court, and to confute that opprobri­ous distinction of Court Christian, and not Christian; whereby the name of Court Christian is appropriated only to the Ecclesiasti­call Courts, and all Temporal Courts reputed Ethnick or heathenish, but both very erroneously. For it is the doing of justice, that makes Courts Christian and the omitting or neglect of justice, much more the doing of injustice, that makes Courts Ethnick or Heathenish, as the Apostle shewes in his 1. Epistle to the Corinths 6. chapter, 1. vers. Dare any of you having a matter against another, be judg­ed under the unjust, and not under the Saints? which Apostolicall Dichotomy, if it be rightly made, and the members thereof truly opposite; then they which are unjust, cannot be Saints or Christi­ans; and they which are Saints or Christians, cannot be unjust. And to make the matter more cleare, those whom the Apostle in the first verse calls [...] unjust, those in the 6. verse, he calls [...] unbe­leevers or infidells. And those whom the Apostle calls [...] Saints or Christians, Saint Iohn calls doers of righteousnes; If you know that Christ is righteous know ye, that every one that doth righteous­nesse is borne of him, in his first Epistle, 2. chap. 29. verse. and in his 3. chap. 7, verse, he calls them both righteous, and doers of righteousnesse. He that doth righteousnesse, is righteous, even as Christ is righteous. And therefore, my Lord, that Court which doth justice, is a Court Christian, and that Court which doth not do justice, is a Court not Christian. If the Ecclesiasticall Court doth justice more cheerefully, readily, and freely, than the Temporall Court, then the Ecclesiasticall Court is more Christian; if the tem­porall Court doth justice more cheerefully, readily, and freely, than the Ecclesiasticall Court, then the temporall Court is more Christian; if they both do justice, as they both should do, then both are Chri­stian, if neither do justice, then neither is Christian. Or if both Ec­clesiasticall and Temporall Iudges, will have themselves, and their [Page] Courts reputed christian, though they do not do justice; yet they must be content to be ranked among those christians, who professe they know God, but by their works deny him. Tit. 1.16. or among those, who have indeed a shew, or forme of godlinesse, but have de­nied the power thereof. 2. Tim. 3.5.

Wherefore my honoured Lord Chiefe Iustice, and my honou­red Iudges, to the intent that you may shew yourselves and this your Court truly Christian; [...] do most humbly and most heartily beseech your Lordship, and these my honoured Iudges, to observe the former excellent rules of justice, both in this case of mine, now after full twelve years three quarters, and in all other mens cases at the first, as you will answer the contrary before the dreadfull tribunall of God himselfe: whose deputies you are, whose names you beare, whose oath you have taken, whose worke you are here to do, and in whose presence and judgement, as you now sit to judge others, so you shall hereafter stand to be judged your selves; and that [...], without prejudice, without partiality: ubi plus valebunt pura corda quam astuta verba: & conscientia bona, quam marsupia plena.