I

WE willingly grant that the Refractary Mini­sters are indeed the Ministers of Christ in the ministration of his Gospell, Answere.that they are brought in question: and we hope also, that they are sent by GOD, and in grace and fauour with GOD. Yet must they remember, that their Sanctification being in part, they haue but their measure of gifts and gra­ces: for our knowledge is but in part, as the Apostle te­stifieth; and therefore that they may be ignorant and ouerseene in some things, wherein they ought not to flatter themselues, but by all meanes labour to come to vnderstanding, that they may attaine vnto the knowledge of the truth.

The Defender replieth. Heere is a mnaifest contrarietie. Replie. He that is refractarie, cannot be such a Minister of Christ. He that is in grace and fauour with God, Reioynder. In what sense the refractarie Ministers may be good Men. ought not to be disgraced and molested by men.

But I wonder the Defender is so Eagle-sighted, that he can spie a contrarietie, where there is none at all. He that is [Page 108]Refractarie, cannot be such a Minister of Christ. Well. Nei­ther do I say that he is such, as he is Refractarie, but in the ministration of the Gospell, which words the Defender hath purposely, if not maliciously, omitted in my answere, lest his cunning might haue bin espied at the first blush. Aaron was the Priest of almighty God, in grace and fauour with him; but not in that he made the golden Calfe, (Exod. 32.4.) Peter was the Apostle of Iesus Christ, in grace and fauour with him; but not as he went not the right way to the truth of the Gospell, (Galat. 2.14.) So the refractarie Ministers may be the Ministers of Iesus Christ, and in grace and fauor with him, but not as they erre, or are schismaticall or Refra­ctarie. Where is the contrarietie? Ad populum phaleras: the Defender disputeth not ad idem. His error is two-fold, 1. [...]. 2. [...].

But, he that is in grace and fauour with God, ought not to be disgraced and molested by men. True, they ought not to be molested, in or for that thing which procures them grace and fauour with God: which must be so restrained. Other­wise the Defender must needs plead for immunitie and freedome for any transgressor and disturber of ciuil society, to do what he listeth, vncontrouled by the Magistrate; or deny that any such is in grace and fauour with God, which I thinke he will not doe. The Errour, is the same with the former.

II.

It is true also, Answere.that not to speake and take paines for the Ministers of the Gospell, for such things as properly be­long vnto their Ministerie, or are requisite vnto the performance thereof, is to spare speech for GOD, and for Iesus Christ, according vnto the places quoted in the Argument, and also to hinder the saluation of Gods people.

Here the Defender, Reply and Reioynder. as if he had lost himselfe in some in­extricable labyrinth, idly discourseth of the tearmes, proper [Page 109]and necessarie, and saith that I confound both, which any man, though but of meane capacitie, may easily see I doe not: adding moreouer, Note, the De­fenders ab­surd Position. that the Libertie of preaching doth not properly belong to the ministerie of the Gospell; as if it were lawfull for Coblers and Tinkers to preach the Gospell, which is absurd and scandalous. The error, is Pu [...]ida [...], and [...] in Theologia.

I.

That the Ministers of the Gospell is for Angels, Answere.is an ambiguous and perplexed speech, and sauours of a Paradoxe. For how will the Suppliants vnderstand this saying? Is the Ministerie of the Gospell, so or­dained for Angels, that they should bee Ministers thereof? Vnpossible. Is the Ministerie ordained to conuert them, and to preach repentance vnto them? Absurd. Seeing they neuer sinned. Or is it because thereby they might learne and know the Wisdome of God? But so doe they also by all other the crea­tures and actions of God.

The Defender replieth: No paradoxe at all. Reply. Neither had the Answerer any cause, to make the first two questions. That which he opposeth to the third, against the knowledge of the Wise­dome of God by the Gospell, may as well be opposed to mens know­ledge of the Wisedome of God by his word: for they are also taught the Wisedome of God by his creatures and workes.

But I neuer denied, Reioynder.that the Angels vnderstood the Wise­dome of God by the preaching of the Gospell, as appea­reth manifestly by my words; wherefore vaine and idle is this needlesse defence. Yet the Defender at last, leauing his Auctor lying flat vpon his backe in the plaine field, to shift for himselfe, saith, The further meaning of this argument, in any speciall manner differing from other, I leaue to the Auctor himselfe: who is able, no doubt, to defend his meaning, or to yeeld better reason to the contrarie. To the contrarie of what? to the contrarie, that the Auctor cannot defend himselfe? I know not what the Defender should meane by these last words, to the contrarie: but whatsoeuer his meaning be, he confes­seth plainly, that he is not able to defend the Auctor of the Supplication, and so leaueth him to our mercie.

II.

What can this make for the Suppliants? Answere.The Controuersie betweene them and vs, is not concer­ning the Ministerie of the Gospell, but touching a few petie accidentall circumstances: for which, if any man forsake the necessarie function of his Ministe­rie and calling, he hath the more to answere for.

The Defender, Reply.faining that this second answere hath re­ceiued sufficient satisfaction alreadie; (but where?) addeth. Whereas he chargeth vs, to forsake our Ministerie for a few petie accidentall circumstances, therein he discouereth the na­kednes of the Prelates, in inflicting so materiall and substantiall punishment, for so few petie accidentall circumstances. For iu­stice requireth a proportion betwixt the offence and the punish­ment. But we acknowledge no offence.

Very well. They acknowledge no offence. Therfore, Reioynder.they [Page 114]doe not offend. A found consequence, I warrant you. As touching the Prelats, I answer, that in inflicting the punish­ment he speaketh of, they doe but their dutie, by executing the lawes vpon offenders, in obedience towards the supe­riour Magistrate, for the peace and quietnes of the Church: and let all the World iudge, whether it be more meet & fit, that these self-conceited refractaries should dutifully con­forme themselues, or that the Magistrate, to satisfie their wrangling and restlesse humour, should dissolue the whole frame of so well setled gouernment.

III.

Euery man is bound to promote the Ministerie of the Gospell to his power, Answere.and also to helpe and fur­ther a Minister thereof, as he is a Minister, not as he is in error, or caried away with faction.

The Defenders replie is, Reply. In his third answere, he proclai­meth againe, but proueth not our error and faction. If we erre, or be factious, let vs in that respect be punished (so notwithstanding that the people be not punished with vs) and let vs be holpen, as we are Ministers.

I haue proued so much as the Defender desires alreadie at large, Reioynder.in my booke De Adiaphoris, neither was I in the Consideration to make any idle digressions, but to keepe my selfe strictly to the point and question in controuersie there handled. The refractarie Ministers are punished, only as they are in error, and factious, as euery man knoweth, and haue as much fauour as they can desire, as they be Mi­nisters. And for the people, neither are they punished with them, nor for their sakes: but both are and shall be suffici­ently prouided for, without their helpe, seeing they doe so vndutifully forsake them.

I

It doth not follow, Answere.that because the wise and iu­dicious assemblie of Parliament iustly refuse to in­termeddle [Page 115]in the quarell of Schismaticall Ministers, farther then to admonish them to desist from their singularity and turbulent dealing, that therfore they shall prouoke the Lord of Hostes, and all the An­gels and Saints in heauen against them. But rather it followeth on the contrarie.

II.

If that Honorable Court should take part with Schismatikes, and intercede for them, to detaine both them and the people still in faction and error, then certainly they should prouoke the wrath of God, and the whole Host of heauen against them, Psal. 50.17.18. &c.

What saith the Defender to this? Replie. I reason from your owne words against you. The wise and iudicious Parliament will not intermedle in the quarrell of Schismaticall Ministers, fur­ther than to admonish them to desist from their singularitie. But the Parliament hath further intermedled for vs. Ergo, We are not Schismaticall.

I answere. To let passe the forme of this Syllogisme; Reioynder.the Assumption is a foule and slanderous imputation malepert­ly and vniustly laid vpon the high Court of Parliament: The Defender slandereth the honorable Parliament. most impudently charging and challenging that honorable Assemblie, not onely to fauour their seditious faction, but also, as a partie in their schisme, to haue intermedled and dealt in their behalfe, contrarie to the knowledge of the whole kingdome. For what hath the Parliament done? what haue they spoken for them? where is their decree and statute? Are two or three, the whole Parliament? What re­ward the Defender deserueth for this bold slander against the Parliament house, I leaue to their wise consideration and censure, whom it concerneth and more neerely tou­cheth. His error is, Crimen falsi.

I.

IT is true: Answere.good deeds must be rewarded, special­ly the Ministers faithfull labours. The Apostle saith (1. Cor. 9.11.) If we haue sowen vnto you spirituall things, is it a great thing &c.

II.

But in that the refractarie Ministers haue looked backe, and withdrawne their hands from the plough (Luk. 9.62.) making a manifest Schisme, and di­sturbing the peace of the Church, this deserueth no recompense.

Here the Defender bestirreth himselfe, Reply.and produceth all his forces, Whether the refractarie Ministers be Schismatiques to prooue that the refractarie Ministers are not Schismatiques. I say first of all (saith he) that this accusation of vs to be Schismatiques, is a most beggerly begging of the Question, most vniust, vntrue and vncharitable, neuer yet pro­ued, neither able to be proued; vntill they proue the matters in controuersie, to be meerely indifferent to such vses, as whereto they are imploide and vrged by them, yea good and laudable ce­remonies, matters of decencie and order in the Church: yea that wee also refuse to conforme our selues vnto them, more of sto­macke, than of conscience.

Two things the Defender saith must be performed by vs, The Defen­ders first Rea­son, that the Ministers are not Schisma­tiques, ouer­throwne. before the refractarie Ministers will acknowledge them­selues to be Schismatiques; 1. That we proue the matters in [Page 117]controuersie to be indifferent. 2. That we euince them, to refuse conformitie rather of stomacke, then of conscience. Touching the first, we haue already in diuers Bookes and Treatises purposely written to that end, more then sufficiently pro­ued the things in controuersie, to be meerely indifferent, both in their owne nature, and to such vses as the Church allotteth and appointeth them. And for the Second, I know not well what the Defender meaneth thereby. What? shall a thiefe be a thiefe, notwithstanding that to steale be not a­gainst his conscience? shal an heretique be an heretique, al­beit he thinketh he holdeth nothing but truth? and must not a Schismatique be a Schismatique, vnlesse he be conuin­ced to sinne against his owne conscience? Note, the De­fenders absur­ditie. What Schisma­tique will euer confesse, that he is such euen against his con­science? By this meanes no man shall euer be conuinced to be a Schismatique. But we know, that obstinate contuma­cie against the Church in things lawfull, is a schisme, what­soeuer a mans conscience be. Consciences are of two sorts. 1. Too large. 2. Too strict. Consciences are of diuers and sundrie sorts; there is one Conscience that is too large and prophane; and another Conscience too strict and supersti­tious; a Popish Conscience; and a Precise Conscience, I meane in the extreame. So then the first part of this Argu­ment being abundantly proued by vs; and the second be­ing atheologicall and ridiculous, what remaineth but that the Defender labour the refractarie Ministers, to acknow­ledge their ouersight, and to yeeld to conformitie.

The Defenders second Reason, Reply.to proue that the refra­ctarie Ministers are not Schismatiques, is this. There is no­thing heere obiected against vs, wherwith our ancients and bet­ters haue not been charged in former times. Eliah was charged with troubling Israel. Michaiah might haue been charged with singularitie and Schisme, for dissenting from the 400. Prophets. Ieremie was accused by the Priests and Prophets, to haue spo­ken against the State of the Citie. Amos was charged with con­spiracie against the King. The enemies of Daniel framed the like accusation against him to Darius. Our Sauiour himselfe was blasphemed by the name of a seducer and deceiuer. Paul [Page 118] was accused, that he taught against the Law and the Temple. Such also haue been the accusation of all Martyrs by the com­mon Aduersaries the Paptsts. And such are the Prelats accu­sations against vs.

I answere. Reioynder. The Defen­ders 2. Reason ouerthrowne. As for Michaiah, because the false Prophets did not accuse him of singularitie and schisme, the Defen­der becomes their Aduocate, and doth as much for them: by what right, let himselfe looke to it. But who will not de­test the impudencie of the Defender, in that he dareth e­quall the refractarie Ministers case, with the condition of the Prophets and Apostles, of the blessed Martyrs, yea of CHRIST himselfe? But, not to particularize, I answere, in generall. The difference betweene the examples alleadged and their case, is very great, & easie to be discerned. 1. Those holy men did nothing contrarie to their vocation; these do. 2. They taught nothing but the truth of God, necessarie to be receiued; these teach their owne fancies. 3. They neuer oppugned the lawfull auctoritie of the Magistrate in Eccle­siasticall causes, and Things indifferent; these do. 4. They were vniustly accused by the false Church for doing their office and dutie; these are iustly taxed by the true Church (as themselues cannot deny) for hatefull schisme and facti­on. 5. The Error is, [...].

His third Reason, Reply.is: Do we varie from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay, rather many of them doe much more swarue from the same; touching generall grace, and the death of Christ for euery particular person; against particular electi­on and reprobation; for Images in Churches for deuotion; tou­ching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist; that the Pope is not the Antichrist, whereby they hinder the zeale of Christian Princes from executing that against him in generall, and against his members in particular, which the Word partly foretelleth, and partly commandeth to he done; concerning the necessitie of Baptisme; touching auricular confession; for igno­rance in the people. Who can lay any such points to vs, or to any of vs?

I answere, Reioynder.1. The Defenders report of our doctrine, is vt­terly [Page 119]vntrne: The Defender slandereth our Church for false Do­ctrine. for we derest and abhorre euen all and euery of the particular points, he saith we teach. Wherefore let him either iustifie these things to be true, out of the Confes­sion of the faith of our Church (which he ought to do, if he challenge vs for Doctrine) or by any writer of ours of cre­dit in the Church: or let him feare without repentance and satisfaction for it by confessing his ignorance, and malice in thus slandering the Church of God, the iust condemnati­on of Lyers and false witnesses, whose portion is with hy­pocrites. 2. His Argument is this, The Defen­ders 3. Reason ouerthrowne. The refractarie Ministers do not varie from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures. Ergo, They are not Schismatiques. To let the Antecedent passe; for I haue not obserued, that any of them erre in any funda­mentall or materiall point of doctrine (which we thanke God for, praying farther for their preseruation vnto the end, in the vnity of faith with vs) albeit I know that many amongst them haue their particular fancies in some smaler points: I deny the Consequence; for a man may be a Schis­matique, and yet hold the entire and sound profession of the sauing truth of God, as shall be manifest presently. The Eiror is, [...]. The Defender seemes not to vnderstand what Schisme is. His returning of the Schisme vpon vs, is ridiculous, and not worthy the answering: for Schisme is a contumacie or separation of the paits from the whole, not of the whole from the parts.

The fourth Reason is, Reply. Haue wee made any departure from the Church? We are depriued of our Ministerie, and so thrust out of our liuings perforce against our willes, as any man leaueth that which is vielently taken away: but though wee be thus put from our Ministerie and liuings by our Prelats, yet doe we not for sake the communion of the Church.

The argument is briefly thus: Reioynder. The Defen­ders 4. Reason ouerthrowne. Schismatiques of two sorts. 1. Separatists. 2. Factious men. The refractarie Ministers haue not for saken the Communion of the Church of England. Ergo, They are not Schismatiques. I answere, Schismatiques are of two sorts; 1. Such as separate themselues from the Church; and that either from the whole Catholique, or from any particular Church. 2. Such as raise contentions [Page 120]and stirre vp factions in the Church, and are contumacious and disobedient towards their Gouernours: Of which sort are the refractarie Ministers. Touching that the Defender saith, they leaue their charge, as a man leaueth that which is violently taken away from him: that doth not extenuate their fault any whit, seeing they by their obstinate supersti­tion, disable themselues from doing that good in their pla­ces, which they ought to doe; and so disturbe the peace of the Church, that for preseruation of vnitie, the Magistrate is compelled to thrust them out of their places.

The fifth Reason, Reply.is: Haue wee loitered in the worke of the Ministery? haue we heaped benefice vpō benefice? haue we eaten and drunke, and beaten our fellow-seruants? haue we sought our owne, and not that which is Iesus Christs? haue wee made our bellies our God? haue we minded earthly things? Whereas the word Schisme in the Greeke language signifieth a renting; and the word Sedition in the Latine, signifieth seorsim ire, to goe a­side, or a going aside; we haue proued that in these significations, we cannot be charged with Schisme.

I answere. Reioynder. The Defen. ders 5. Reason ouerthrowne. This Reason is parallel vnto the next going before. I marueile the Defender braggeth of the refracta­ries diligence in their Ministerie, seeing they wilfully aban­don their calling. If at any time they haue been diligent, I would God they had not looked backe, but continued their diligence still. As for pluralitie of benefices; what difference is there, between heaping one benefice vpon another, and one benefit vpon another? their gifts and beneuolences are not vnknowne. Is not reuiling and slandering their fel­low-seruants, to beate them? Doe they not wilfully refuse their charge, because they may not be tolerated in their su­perstition and faction? Doe they not refraine to labour in Gods seruice, to serue their owne appetites and affections? and yet, Ignorance of the Defender. loe, they minde no earthly things! And for the De­fenders philosophie, touching Schisme and Sedition, tis no marueile (the rest of his booke being sutable vnto this) he is ignorant, that Sedition is that in the Common-wealth, which Schisme is in the Church; for he consounds both.

The sixt and last Reason, is: Reply. All Schismatiques are abomi­nation to the Lord. The Ministers pleaded for are not abomina­tion to the Lord, but in grace and fauour with him. Ergo, The Ministers pleaded for, are no Schismatiques. The Proposition is Salomons. The Assumption is the Answerers.

I answere, 1. The Proposition is true, with this restraint, Reioynder. The Defen­ders 6. Reason ouerthrowne. to wit, as they be Schismatiques: otherwise (questionlesse) diuers elect and holy Children of God, by reason of the in­firmitie of their nature, may fall, aswell into the sinne of Schisme, as vnto any other sinne, except that against the ho­ly Ghost. 2. The Assumption may be vnderstood two waies; 1. The Ministers are not abomination to the Lord, to wit, as they be Ministers of the Gospell, or holy men, which is the sense that I granted it in; and so it is true: but then the middle tearme is not spoken ad idem with the Proposition, for there are foure tearmes (as the Schoole speakes) in the Syllogisme, contrarie to the law of true reasoning, and so concludeth nothing. 2. It may be vnderstood thus, The Ministers are not abomination to the Lord, to wit, as they be schismaticall and factious, which is the sense of the Propo­sition, neuer granted by me; and so the Assumption is vtter­ly false: for the Ministers, as they are schismaticall, sinne; and so are an abomination to the Lord. The Error, is [...].

Hauing refuted the Defenders Reasons, That the re­fractarie Mi­nisters are properlie Schismatiques whereby he la­boured to cleere the refractarie Ministers from the iust im­putation of Schisme, I thinke it not impertinent (seeing the Defender hath referred this point to bee here discussed) to speake something of SCHISME, and to make it plaine and euident vnto all men, that the refractarie Ministers are in­deed and properly SCHISMATIQVES; which wee will (God willing) irrefutably euince out of the true definition and nature of Schisme: and the rather, to stop their mouthes, that hereafter, when wee shall tearme them (as they are in­deed) Schismatiques, they may not except, that wee begge the Question.

ΣΧΙΣΜΑ Schisme, Of SCHISME. is properly a renting, diuiding, or cut­ting in sunder of a solide bodie, such as is the cleauing of wood, which diuideth and separateth the vnited parts of the same.

This word is metaphorically retained in the Church, and vsed by Diuines, to signifie such as raise contentions and dis­quietnes in the Church, or separate themselues from the same, or institute or frequent priuate conuenticles and as­semblies.

Schisme therefore is a wilfull breaking of the vnity of the Church, Schisme defi­ned. either by separation from the same, or by raysing contention within it, or by refusing to submit and yeeld o­bedience to the lawfull Pastors and Guides thereof.

Thus the Corinthians were Schismatiques, in that they diuided themselues into factions, and caused dislentions in the Church, whereby the societie of the faithfull was distur­bed and diuided into sundrie partiall Sects, the one holding of Apollos, the other of Paul, and the third of Cephas, 1. Cor. 1.10.11.12. 1. Cor. 3.3.4.

Yea in Rites and Ceremonies they dissented one from another, and auoyded one anothers communion, as damna­ble. 1. Cor. 11.16.17.18.

And the Defender confesseth, that he that rayseth vp dis­sention among Brethren, is a Schismatique, though he doth not separate himselfe from the Church. Milde Def. pag. 48.

As for Separation, Separation two-fold. it is two-fold: for a Man may separate himselfe, either absolutely from the whole Militant Church, being caried away with error of mind; and such is not in the Church. Or, by reason of some infirmitie, or perturbation of mind, because of offences, he may separate himselfe from this or that particular Church: Such may be of the Church, seeing he is but rent from this or that member, not from the whole body.

It is one thing to be cut off from the Body, NW.and another thing to be cut from a Member of the body. He that is cut [Page 123]from the Body, hath nothing common with the body. He that is cut from a Member, may be, both formally by the Spirit, and also materially by touch and cohesion of some other member, ioyned to the body. Now euery particular Church, is a member of that Catholique body.

Also, Vnitie consi­dered two waies. the Vnitie of the Church may be considered two waies: for either it is Internall and formall by the Spirit of Christ, in faith; or it is Externall and materiall, in the proses­sion, exercises and signes of faith. The former may really consist without the later; but not contrariwise, the later without the former. For a Schismatique may breake the ex­ternall Vnion, without breaking the Internall.

Neither do I speake this, N.any way to excenuate the crime of this kind of Schisme: for certainly euen this is a most per­nicious Sinne; because such a Schismatique, as much as in him lieth, destroyeth both himselfe and the whole Church also.

Which that we may the better vnderstand, we must call to minde the Philosophers distinction of the WHOLE, WHOLE two-fold. which is of two sorts. There is one WHOLE, euerie part whereof is [...], alike or of the same kind; as earth, wa­ter, blood, salt, milke, &c. If diuision be made of any of these, the powers of the whole do after a sort perish: for by that separation and plucking in sunder, it is much weake­ned; yet in the parts the nature of the whole is preserued; for euery part of earth is earth, of water water, &c. There is another WHOLE, euery part whereof is [...], of vnlike or diuers kind; Such be all liuing creatures and plants, made of diuers members and parts. If a man diuide these, then neither the Whole, nor the parts can remaine. A man being drawen asunder into parts, ceaseth to be a man.

Now the Church, NW.being a bodie composed of diuers parts, when it is diuided, both it selfe after a sort is ruined, and the parts thereof being distracted doe perish.

Schisme is two-fold, Pure; or Mixedwith Heresie. Schisme two­fold. 1. Pure.

Pure Schisme, is that whereby the Vnitie of the Church is broken, either by separation, or other contumacie; not­withstanding [Page 124]that such retaine an intire profession of the truth of God. 2. Mixed with Heresie.

Schisme mixed with Heresie, is that wherein together with the departure or contumacie, there is ioyned some error in matters of faith. Which likely happeneth in the end of all Schismes; euery one being desirous to iustifie his disobe­dience and contumacie, or departure from the rest of Gods people.

Schisme differeth from Heresie. The differēce betweene Schisme and Heresie.

1 Because Heresie holdeth some false point of doctrine: Schisme breaketh societie to defend it.

2 Heresie ouerthroweth the sinceritie of faith: Schisme hurteth the bond of peace.

3 Heresie in the beginning thereof holdeth some per­uerse opinion: Schisme in the end bringeth foorth He­resie.

4 Schisme is as it were the generall kinde: Heresie the speciall kinde. For euery Heresie is a Schisme; but not con­trariwise, euery Schisme an Heresie.

5 Schisme is a certaine disposition: Heresie an indurate habite.

6 Heresie may bee kept secret a long time: Schisme is presently discouered.

Againe, Schisme may be, 1. In Externall things. 2. In prosession. Schisme is either in Externall things, as in the choice of Bishops, or other Gouernours and Pastors of the Church. Or in the Profession of life, as the diuers orders of Monkes and Friers, wherein euery Sect followeth a diuers rule or way to attaine eternall life, condemning all other different from it. 3. In Ceremo­nies, 4. Jn phrases and words. Or in Rites and ceremonies of religion, as that of the keeping of Easter. Or in Phrases and strife of words, as is that concerning the reall presence among the Reformed Churches, and of Christs Passion and Descent into hell with vs.

Furthermore, NW.Schisme euen from the originall thereof proceedeth from euill. For all good is vnited, not diuided: and GOD, the auctor of all good, is one, simple, without diuision.

Amongst Schismatiques, Some Schis­matiques greater sin­ners, then o­thers. some are greater sinners than other: neither are all induced to bee such, vpon the same grounds and reasons.

For, Some are carried with hatred towards their brethren: with which vice the Donatists seeme to haue been infected in Augustines time.

Others are lead by ambition and desire of rule: Many such schismes haue happened in the Synagogue of Antichrist, at what time there were two, or three, or foure Popes toge­ther at once.

Others are carried with blind affection and fauour to­wards mens persons: such were the Corinthians in the A­postles time; and such at this day are those fond Preachers that, not caring for truth, labour to please men.

Others follow factions of meere ignorance of the truth, who are the more tolerable, if their ignorance be not wil­full and affected: such were the people in Christs time (Ioh. 7.12.40.41.42.43.) For some said of Christ, He is a good man. Other said, nay, but he deceiueth the people. Some said, Of a truth this is that Prophet. Other said, This is that Christ. And some said, But shall Christ come out of Galile? &c. So there was (saith Iohn) a Schisme among the people.

Others are puffed vp with admiration of their owne ver­tues, or with a vaine perswasion of their owne holinesse: Such were the Catharists or Puritanes in the daies of Ter­tullian, who sought for pure assemblies.

Others flie out by reason of discontentments and want of preferments: of which sort we haue too many examples in our daies.

I neede not particularly to applie these things, either vnto the Brownists, who haue separated themselues from vs; or vnto the refractarie Ministers, who are disobedi­ent vnto their lawful Gouernours amongst vs, and disquiet our Church with Contentions. These grounds, which I haue laid, are so plaine and easie; that (I thinke) there is not any man so simple, but may manifestly discerne how, and in [Page 126]what sense they are, and may be rightly termed Schisma­tiques.

If it be demanded; How Schisme may be excu­sed. Whether in any case Schisme may be excused?

I answere; It may so, in some speciall cases.

I. Necessitie excuseth Schisme: namely when good men are publikely expelled and banished, and violently put out of their Churches, so that they can haue no place left them, neither among the Teachers, nor among the hea­rers. As at this day we see whole families and assemblies compelled to flie out of their owne countrie, and to liue in exile for Religion sake.

II. When the sinceritie of faith is so corrupt, that hole­some doctrine (as the Apostle speaketh) can bee neither taught, nor learned; the godly may depart. For agreement and vnitie is commendable onely in the truth: if truth be away, wee ought to make no question of agreement and vnitie.

III. When the Sacraments are so corruptly administred, that there is not scarse any step to be seene of Christs in­stitution; There is no doubt but a man may lawfully sepa­rate himselfe from that societie which retaineth not true Doctrine and the lawfull vse of the Sacraments.

But here both the Separatists and the Refractaries step in, Obiections of the Brownists and Refracta­ries. and labour to defend their Schisme, alleaging; 1. That we liue not according to our dostrine neither Ministers, nor people. 2. That whereas we abound with wickednesse yet we admit euery one promiscuously vnto the Lords Supper, without further cen­sure or discipline. 3. That we vse Popish ceremonies in the wor­ship of God.

I answere, Answ.generally: These are no iust and sufficient causes, to make a Schisme, as appeareth in that the truth of doctrine and puritie of faith, consist not in these things: which whilest they grant vnto vs, they condemne them­selues in that they haue inconsideratly made a schisme from vs without iust cause.

Neither is it any hard matter, to answere all their argu­ments in particular excepting the first.

Touching the Munisters therefore; It is most certaine, Of Scanda­lous Ministers that a faithfull Minitier of Christ ought not onely to know the will of God but also to do thereafter. What Paul spake of the Law, that not the hearers, but the doers thereof should be iustified, (Rom. 2.13.) that Christ speaketh of his Disciples, (Ioh. 13.17.) If you know these things, happie are you if you doe them. But it cannot bee denied but that some Ministers of­fend this way, which how they will answere before God, let themselues looke vnto. For my owne part, I can say no more of such Ministers, than what Christ saith of the Scribes and Pharisies, (Mat. 23.2.3.) They sit in Moses chaire: All therefore whatsoeuer they bid you obserue, that obserue and doe; but after their works do not; for they say and do not. It ought to content vs, that they teach true doctrine; and that they liue not thereafter, it hurteth not me, for they shall carrie their owne burdens. The doctrine is ours; the life is theirs: let vs take the doctrine, and leaue the manners. I had rather haue a sincere Preacher of Gods Word, that will declare Christ vn­to me purely, rebuke my sinful liuing, comfort me with the sweete promises of the Gospell, shew me how I ought to frame my life according to the will of God, &c. albeit his manners be somewhat corrupt, and dissent from his prea­ching; then to haue a wicked Heretique, a pestilent Phari­sie, or a superstitious Hypocrite, who outwardly shall pre­tend a certaine grauitie, and a pure manner of liuing, and yet corrupt the holy Scriptures, leade the people into su­perstitious errors, slatter the hearers, preach for lucre, man­gle the doctrine of Christ, and obscure the way of truth. Of such Christ warneth vs to take heed saying. (Matth. 7.15.) Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing, but inwardly are rauening wolues. These things our Schisma­tiques know very well; but not contented herewith, they vrge; Such a man was vnworthie to be admitted, and now be­ing in the Ministerie, be ought to be put out; which I leaue to the Magistrates and such as be in auctoritie to consider of.

As for the People: Of Scanda­lous People. the Separatists and Refractaries do li­mite and hedge in the Church too narrowly and straightly. It is very lamentable indeed, that the doctrine of truth is not heard with more fruit; yet do they offend, who looke for pure assemblies in earth, without spot or blemish. Christ compareth the Gospell vnto a net, that containeth fish and filth: and the Lords field hath in it both good corne and tares; which yet must not be weeded out, vntill haruest be come. Vainely therefore doe they labour to seeke pure as­semblies; albeit if they would looke into their owne socie­ties, it may be they might finde therein as many Sinners as are in ours. But these men ought to content themselues, as the godly haue euer done, that the wicked being knowne cannot hurt the saithfull; who either haue no auctoritie to curbe them, or cannot otherwise prouide for publique peace, then by tolerating such. And yet there want not in the meane time publique Lawes and penalties to restraine and bridle such as be notorious offenders.

That which they speake concerning the Communion, Of promiscu­ous admission to the Com­munion. is very inconsiderate also and foolish: seeing neither Christ, nor the Apostle Paul, did euer speake any thing at all, con­cerning the censuring and examining of others; But com­mand only that euery man should examine himselfe. Christ celebrated his Supper with his weake Disciples, and admit­ted Iudas to be partaker thereof, as many excellent Diuines do hold. Paul expressely commandeth, that euery man exa­mine himselfe. It is my dutie to looke vnto my selfe, and thine vnto thy selfe, & of euery other vnto himselfe. So that a faithfull Minister seemeth to haue sufficiently discharged his dutie, if he shall diligently admonish the Communi­cants hereof, and not curiously prie into the secrets of other men. Concerning manifest crimes the Church hath prescri­bed Lawes of admonition, of Counsell, &c. If any list to communicate contemning these; I see not how any man may exclued those from the Communion, whom God the Father, and Christ Iesus admit their ghuests: neither doest thou know what God may worke in a Sinner, euen in that [Page 129]very houre. It is not a signe of an ingenuous and charitable mind, to depart because of Sinners, whom Christ inuiteth to come vnto him. The Apostle saith. (2. Tim. 2.20.) In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and siluer, but also of wood and of earth, &c. we must endeuour, that we may be vessels of gold and siluer: God only is to breake the vessels of earth in pieces.

As touching that we vse Popish Ceremonies in the Wor­ship of GOD, that appeares otherwise, in my booke De A­diaphoris, whereunto I referre the Reader.

Many men moue this Question. Whether Schismatiques may be com­pelled. Whether Schismatiques ought to be compelled to vnitie? I answere; Compulsion see­meth to be hard, specially in such things as ought to be vo­luntarie. Augustine confesseth, that he was once of mind, that neither Schismatiques, nor Heretiques ought to bee compelled. (Lib. Retract. cap. 5.) But afterwards hauing by vse and experience learned what good a little discipline would effect, he altreth his opinion, and plainly defendeth, that Schismatiques ought by all meanes to be compelled to concord and vnitie.

Yet herein great moderationought to be vsed: we must otherwise deale with the Auctors of Schisme, and such as be stubborne and wilfull; than with such as of meere igno­rance and preposterous zeale of pietie, are Seduced by o­thers. But I leaue this vnto the graue and religious conside­ration of the wise Magistrates.

I

THis Argument is parallel vnto the former, Answere.and is there fully answered.

II.

The Ministers, in deliuering thousands from spiritu­all enemies, did but their duty, for which they deserue loue of the people, and commendation of all men: but they should stil haue continued faithful in their Ministery, and not shamefully haue forsaken their calling.

The Defender replies. Reply. If men should alwaies be so answe­red, when in their necessities they should require some helpe and comfort in regard of some former kindnesse; would not men con­demne such Answerers of great ingratitude and inhumanitie? viz. thus to be answered, That which you haue done, was but your dutie?

But with what conscience doth this man write; The Defen­ders malici­ous dealing. that in­steed of the second answere vnto this Argument, layeth downe only these words, The Ministers did but their dutie &c. suppressing the rest of the Answere, and then shapes his Reply in most bitter manner, to perswade all men, that I had neither common humanitie, not compassion, not feeling of their miserie: whereas the Lord knoweth, my heart many times yerneth for sorow, when I thinke of our domesticall controuersies, which would GOD I might appease and re­concile, that so the Church might enioy rest and quietnes, though it were with the effusion of my dearest BLOOD. In the meane time, I feele oftentimes such inward pangues and griefe, that (I thinke) the Defender hath neuer bin ac­quainted with the like. Neither could my compassionate af­fection [Page 131]towards the refractarie Ministers, be altogether vn­knowne vnto this wrangling Aduocate, if he had not alrea­die made shipwracke both of ingenuitie and conscience. For euen in this very Answere, which he mangleth and cur­tolizeth at his pleasure, he might haue seene, that I acknow­ledge, that for their labour and diligence in the Ministerie, the Ministers deserue loue of the people, and commendation of all men. Also in the Argument going before, It is true, Good deedes must be rewarded, specially the Ministers faithfull la­bours, &c. And lastly (to omit diuers other places) in the Conclusion, I cannot but grieue in my very soule, when I heare the Ministers complaine of their pouertie, and want of the be­nefits of this life, &c. And againe, Loe the malice, the enuie and spite, which we, whom they terme their Accusers, doe beare vn­to them, GOD being witnesse vnto our consciences, that we wish them all the good that may be. These things whilest the De­fender dissembleth, how is he as good as his promise, where he saith, I will collect his words with such faithfulnes, that the Answerer shall haue no iust cause to complaine of the said col­lections, as vniust, or not agreeing to his owne words (Mild De­fence pag. 1.) What iustice is it, to take only a piece of a sen­tence, and to racke that vpon the tenture-hooke of mali­tious construction, directly against the Auctors meaning?

III.

Ionathans example, alleadged by the Suppliants, Answere.is vnlike vnto the Ministers case. For Saul in deepe hypocrisy, had made a rash vow, that whosoeuer did taste any food, &c. (1. Sam. 14.24.) should be accursed, and die the death, wherefore the people iustly rescu­ed him from the furie of Saul. But the actions of our dread Soueraigne are not so exorbitant, they are not rash and headie, but aduised and iust, intended for vnity and quietnesse in the Church, to preuent and represse phanaticall giddinesse, schisme, factions and innouation.

The Defender replies. Reply. See how wise the children of this world are in their kinde? The auctor altogether wisely and pur­posely (as it seemeth) concealed the name of Saul in the Argu­ment, that so the worke might be generally and simply respected in it selfe, without any particular eye vnto Saul, out of whose hands the people deliuered Ionathan. If the Israelites iustly res­cued Ionathan, as the Answerer confesseth they did iustly, much more iust is it, that many Ministers should be relieued in their troubles.

Reioynder.I thinke the Auctor of the Supplication is but little be­holding vnto the Defender, for ranging him amongst the Children of this world, a phrase in Scriptures properly be­longing vnto the Reprobates. But I answere vnto the Rea­son. The fallacie is, [...]. For hee maketh that lesse, which is not lesse: there was greater rea­son for rescuing of Ionathan, being the auctor of so great deliuerance, from the furie of Saul, who hypocritically without warrant from God, had vowed that whosoeuer should taste any foode &c. should die the death; than there is for the rescuing of the refractarie Ministers from the iust execution of Law vpon them: as well because by their wil­full obstinacie in perseuering singular and forsaking their calling, they are not the auctors of deliuerance, but rather of destruction to Gods people; as also because the punish­ment inflicted vpon them, is not vniust and vndeserued, as Ionathans should haue been, but iust and deserued for their schismaticall cariage, &c.

I

Answere.This Consequence hath no coherence with the Antecedent. For there are great ods betweene these examples proposed, and the refractarie Ministers case.

The Defender replieth. Reply. There should be such ods. For the Auctor reasoneth not à similibus, or paribus, from likes or equals, but from the lesse to the greater.

But the oddes are such, Reioynder.that they make the Argument to be plainly inconsequent: for the Auctor of the Suppli­cation makes that lesse, which is euery way greater, as shall appeare in examining the particulars.

II.

In the time of Nehemiah, Answere.the Church of the lewes, hauing been long captiuated, was in great af­fliction and reproach, and the walles of Hierusalem were broken downe, (Nehem. 1.3.) which was not so in the daies of their Fathers. But our Church hauing (by the mercies of God) now long continued in pro­sperous and flourishing estate, is (God be thanked) glorious still, yea more now, then euer it was in the daies of our Fathers. Furthermore, Nehemiah, after he had wept, mourned, fasted and prayed, (Nehem. 1.4.) spake vnto King Artashaste, an Heathen and prophane man, and finding grace in his eyes, obtained leaue to build vp Hierusalem. (Nehem. 2.6.) But Sanballat, To­biah, Geshem and others deriding and despising the [Page 135]Iewes, laboured to hinder the worke, but preuailed not (Nehem. 2.19. and 4.7.15.) Then Nehemiah pray­ed, My God, remember thou Tobiah and Sanballat, accor­ding vnto these their workes. (Nehem. 6.14.) So euen in the very beginning of our religious Soueraignes raigne, many worthy Nehemiahs finding grace in his eyes, haue moued his Maiestie for the continuance of the prosperous estate of our Church, as it was in the daies of our late blessed Queene, albeit his High­nesse was more readie to graunt their request, then they to aske it. And now so many Sanballats, Tobiahs, and Geshems, as there be refractarie Ministers and Papists, deriding and despising vs, labour to hinder our Ministerie, blaspheming the same, either to be none at all, or adulterate and very corrupt, but (God willing) shall not preuaile. And we still thinking that most of them do sinne of ignorance, cease not to pray vnto God: O Lord, open the eyes of these men, and lay not this sinne to their charge.

The Defender replies. Reply. All things being granted that you say (concerning the glorie of our Church) doth not hinder, but further the cause. The more the Church flourisheth, the more easie it is to grant that, which the Arguments pleade for. Ministers also of the Word are as necessarie for preseruing and increasing of the glorie of Churches, as for the procuring there­of at the first.

Not hinder? Reioynder.If our Church be glorious and flourishing both in the entire and sound profession and practise of Gods truth, in the exercises, meanes, and signes of faith, (which is the true and principall glorie of the Church) and also in the outward state, Discipline and Gouernment thereof (which Glorie is secondarie and depending of the former) how can it bee, but that giddie innouation, the vt­ter ouerthrow of Ecclesiasticall policie, and the bringing [Page 136]in of the Presbyterian prelacie, euen almost equalizing Papall tyrannie, should be a maine blemish, and vncurable maime vnto the GLORIE of our Church? It is true indeed: that the Ministers of the Word are necessarie for preseruing and encreasing of the glorie of Churches; but are there no Mi­nisters, but such as be refractarie? Haue we not store (God be praysed) of sufficient religious Ministers alreadie? And are not the Vniuersities able continually to afford farther supplie?

But alas, Reply.saith the Defender, I would God our Church did so flourish, as you pretend: Indeed it hath many rich mercies, God be blessed for them; but he that seeth not what the Church wanteth, doth not rightly acknowledge that which it hath. We want some of those Officers, that Christ hath commended by his Apostles to the Church, What Christian heart is so stonie, that it doth not mourne; what eye so blind, that it doth not gush out with teares, to consider and behold the miserie of our supposed glorious Church, by the spirituall nakednes, blindnes, and pouer­tie thereof? I meane the great ignorance, the super ficiall worship of God, the fearefull blasphemies and swearings in houses and streetes, the direfull cursings, the open contempt of the Word and Sacraments, the wicked prophanations of the Lords dates, the dishonor of superiours, the pride, the crueltie, the fornications, adulteries and other vncleannesses, the drunkenes, the couetous­nes, the vsuries, and other the like abominations; almost as grie­uous, as either heretofore in the time, or now in the places of Poperie, when and where there was no preaching at all of the Go­spell? O behold and pittie the woefull and lamentable state of our Church in these things!

What maruell is it, Reioynder.that the Owle cannot SEE, in a cleare Sun-shining day, whose only delite is to flutter, and to roue about in the profound darkenesse of the night? And can a­ny man thinke it strange, that the Defenders eyes dazle at the Glorie and goodly order of our Church, when nothing pleaseth him, but the Aërian or Presbyterian confusion? Oh, but there want some Officers in our Church, which Christ commended vnto vs, by his Apostles. What Officers be those? [Page 137]ô they are the Lay Presbyterian Aldermen. Hinc illae lachri­mae; heere lyeth the soare a bleeding. We want the suppo­sed Apostolicall Senate of Aldermen; and for this cause, we are spiritually naked, and blind, and poore, and miserable, and what not? But when wil the Defender proue, that either Christ, or his Apostles commended any such Aldermen vn­to vs? Shall we beleeue him on his bare word? What other proofe brings he, or any other of the faction? And yet vp­on this most beggerly Supposition, neuer granted by vs, because neuer proued, nor able to be proued by them; he openeth his foule mouth, The Defen­ders slanders against the Church. most wickedly traducing and slandering the Church of GOD, as guiltie of great igno­rance, of superficiall worship of GOD, of blasphemies, swearings, direfull cursings, and many other horrible and monstrous enormities, which my pen doth euen blush to relate after him. We reade (1. King. 22.21.22.) of a wicked Spirit, that liberally promised his seruice in seducing King Ahab, by being a lying Spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets: Ex­cept this foule fiend hath entred into the Defender, and wholly possessed him; I cannot possibly imagine, how his pen could so leasingly raue against our whole Church. I be­seech the Lord, that hee would vouchsafe, to rebuke the euill Spirit, and to giue the Defender grace to repent him in time, by confessing his malice against the Church of God. But let vs heare what he saith further.

But to returne, herein you erre not a little, Reply. in that you con­found the state of the Church, and of the Common-wealth of the Iewes. The Common-wealth was indeede at that time in much miserie. But was the Church also amongst them, for such things as wherein chiefly consisteth miserie, in as bad condi­tion?

Doe I confound the Church and Common-wealth of the Iewes? Was not the CHVRCH in distresse, Reioynderbeing but lately returned from the Captiuitie of Babylon? Can the Common-wealth be in extreame miserie, and the Church haue no feeling thereof? Was not the Temple at Hierusa­lem the speciall place of Gods worship, which now, by rea­son [Page 138]of the desolation of the Citie, was but little regarded, and the lawes not executed? Did not Nehemiah, after his returne from Artashaste, reforme many things as well in the Church, as in the Common-wealth? It seemes the De­fender cares not what he writes, so he contradicts my say­ings. But he proceedeth.

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

As I said before, Reioynder.so I say still, that there is GREAT ODS betweene the example of Nehemiah, and the refractarie Ministers case. And doe I now make those ODS LIKES? Nay contrariwise, I make Nehemiahs case to be OVRS, and the refractarie Ministers, Tobiahs, Sanballats and Geshems. Is not this adidem, and to purpose? Where is the Defen­ders vnderstanding?

Touching his Worthie Nehemiah (whom he compareth to ancient good Nehemiah) let this be obserued, Reply. that although he spake of the prayer and fasting of the ancient Nehemiah, yet he speaketh not of the prayer and fasting of his new Nehemiah. What may be suspected or noted herein, I leaue to the considera­tion of the wise and iudicious Reader, that remembereth What oppositiō many of the Prelats haue alwaies made to true fasting.

I spake not of ONE, Reioynder.but of MANY worthy Nehemiahs: neither needed these to haue fasted and prayed, the Church being not then afflicted, as it was in auncient Nehemiahs daies: and (I thinke) the Defender is not ignorant, that Si­militudes runne not with foure feete, as the Prouerbe is. As for the Opposition of many of the Prelats to true fasting, it is vtter­ly vntrue that any Prelat euer opposed himselfe against true fasting, except it were peraduenture against the disordered conuenticles, and presumptuous practises of some hare­braind Refractaries, contrary vnto all good Discipline and order.

Touching the Tobiahs, Reply.Sanballats, and Geshems (whom faine he would haue to be those that he cals refractarie Mini­sters, as well as the Papists) let him not deceiue himselfe herein. For the wise and Christian Readers, are able to discerne them to [Page 139]be most worthy of these names, that striue most for mens pre­cepts, that studie more to please men then God, that preach not themselues, and hinder them that would: whose chiefe worke is not to encrease God his kingdome, but to vphold their owne, fea­ring nothing more, then the downefall thereof: which also feed not the Lords people, with the bread of eternal life, but their owne bodies with the meate that perisheth, and with carnall delights, &c. but the righteous Lord in the end shall plead our cause, if not in this life, yet in the world to come, when some of our aduer­saries (without repentance in the meane time) shall be throwne into the place, Wherein is Weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Cease your rash iudgement, [...]and restraine your censuring and lying Spirit, if you can awhile; and turne the back­side of the wallet before you: then consider, that they most aptly resemble Tobiah, Sanballat and Gesoem, who by tooth and naile labour to let the building of the spirituall Hieru­salem, by withdrawing their seruice, breaking vnitie, and disturbing the peace of the Church; of which sort are both the refractarie M [...]sters and the Papists, who are as guiltie herein, as were Tobiah, Sanballat, and Geshem, for hindering the building of the materiall Hierusalem.

Moreouer whereas I had said, that I thought that most of the refractarie Ministers and Papists did sinne of ignorance, the Defender replieth, See how this man tumbleth vp and downe and how he contradicteth himselfe? Hath not he before expressely charged all of vs, to do that which we do for carnall re­spects? I meane in his Preface.

See how the Defender iugleth vp and downe! [...] on. 1. Are no [...] my words spoken aswell of the Papists, as of the refractar [...] Ministers? 2. What is in my Preface contrarie to what I a [...] firme heere; or rather, doth not the Defender by some iug­ling tricke, suppresse some words in my Preface, whereby, deceiuing his Reader, he might perswade a contradiction? The words are these;

It cannot be denied, but that the Ministers pre­sumptuously and wilfully contend with the Magi­strates, [Page 140]impugning his auctority in Things indifferent, and soueraigntie in Ecclesiasticall causes, which all of them do for carnall respects: Some because they know not otherwise how to be maintained, but by depending vpon that faction; some to gratifie their benefactors and patrons, and to please their friends; some for discontentment and want of preferment; some for giddines of innouation; some for pride of heart and selfe loue; some for hatred of order and restraint of their libertie; some still to retaine the o­pinion of constancie in perseuering singular; and o­thers OF MEERE IGNORANCE, which yet is wilfull and affected, seeing they will not learne the state of the Controuersie, which they are bound to know, and therefore cannot be excused.

What? Haue not I named IGNORANCE heere amongst the rest? and is not Ignorance carnall? Where then is the Contradiction? Let the Reader iudge.

III.

In the daies of the noble and renowmed Queene Hester, Answere.all the Iewes should haue been swallowed vp by the tyrannie of Haman, had not that vertuous Queene, by aduenturing her owne life, deliuered her people from destruction. But I hope the Sup­pliants do not thinke our Church to be in so despe­rate a state, neither outwardly, nor spiritually: and if they do, yet none can be so foolish as to beleeue it.

The Defender replieth. Reply. May we feare nothing to our whole Church and Kingdome, for the hard dealing of the Pre­lats towards the soules of many thousands of our owne Nation? Let no man deceiue vs with vaine words; Ephes. 5.6. Prou. 28.14. Blessed is the man that feareth alwaies. There is danger in securitie, there is much more safetie in a godly feare. As for the spirituall danger of the [Page 141]Church, it appeareth by the decay of the spirituall beautie, and by the encrease of the spirituall deformitie, that is, of ignorance and of impietie in those places already which are depriued of their good Ministers.

But what is this, Reioynder. to proue that the example of Q. Hester was rightly alleadged by the Suppliants, to prouoke the high Court of Parliament, to speake for the refractarie Mi­nisters? The danger of the Church in Hesters time was ve­ry great and imminent: The danger of ou [...] Church (GOD be thanked) is but an exstaticall imagination of the Suppliants and Defenders braines. Oh, but the hard dealing of the Pre­lats towards many thousand Soules, ought to cause vs to feare continually. What? Is the remouing of SCHISMATIQVES, and the stopping of the mouthes of such clamorous wrang­lers, as stirre vp dissention and discord in the Church, hard dealing towards mens soules? Who will say so, besides the Refractaries, and their abettors, the Brownists? But how doth this Elymas peruert that saying of Scripture, Blessed is the man that feareth alwaies, (Pro. 28.14.) Is this feare meant of the feare of punishment? Nay, let him remember, that GOD will send FEARE vpon the wicked, where no feare is: that such as obserue not Gods commandements, shall feare day and night, (Deut. 28.66.) that the same which the Wicked feareth, shall come vpon him, (Prou. 10.24.) As for his slandering our Church with decay of Spiritual bew­tie in those places, which are depriued of their good Mini­sters; if it be so, then woe vnto them by whom the offence commeth, that so easilie gaue place vnto the Wolfe: But I maruell he was not ashamed, so impudently to auerre that, which all the Land and daily experience testifie to be an impious Calumnie.

IV.

The examples of Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicode­mus, are altogether impertinent: Answere.for neither had Pi­late any reason, to deny the buriall of Christs body being dead: nor is the Ministers request, concerning [Page 142]Crosse and Surplice any thing of such importance, as was the buriall of Christs body. For it is not true that they contend about Whole Christ Iesus, and the Ministerie of the Gospell, as the Suppliants heere sug­gest.

The Defender replieth. The Argument speaketh of the ho­norable buriall of Christs bodie: the Answerer only of the buri­all, leauing out honorable; is not this Sophistrie?

Is not this Sophistrie? Nay, is not this Knauerie? The ve­ry words of the Argument are these (pag. 7. of the Supplica­tion) Further to adde one other example briefely: If fearefull Ioseph of Arimathea went boldly to Pilate, and ASKED THE BODY OF IESVS. And if Nicodemus (before as fearefull as the said Ioseph) ioyned with him in the honorable buriall thereof, &c. Did Ioseph of Arimathea desire of Pilate, that he might HONORABLY burie the body of Iesus? This indeed is the Defenders dreaming, or rather doating conceipt; which neither the Auctor of the Supplication doth affirme; nor can be proued by Scriptures. Search the text (Matth. 27.57. Mark. 15.43. Luk. 23.52. Ioh. 19.38.) and you shall find that Ioseph of Arimathea asked the Body of Iesus; but not a word spake he to Pilate, of the BVRIALL thereof, much lesse of HONORABLE BVRIALL.

The Defender vrgeth. Reply. If the Ministers request concerning Crosse and Surplice, be not of such importance, as the buriall of Christs body, this weakeneth not, but addeth strength to the Ar­gument. For the lesse it is, the more easily it may be granted, and the more easily it may be granted, the more boldly it may be sued for.

Yes, it so weakeneth the Argument, that it ouerthroweth it altogether. For the lesse that the thing desired by the Sup­pliants is, the more ought they to be ashamed, in being so troublesome vnto the honorable Court of Parliament to intercede for them in so needlesse and small a suite.

I.

IF the Antecedent be true, Answere.as the Suppliants seeme confidently to affirme, then surely the more hard hearts haue those cruell Tyrants, rather then shep­heards, that hauing no pitie, nor compassion vpon those sillie sheepe, desperately forsake their flockes, ouer whom the Lord had made them ouerseers; and relinquish their vocation for litle or no cause at all.

The Defender replies two things. 1. Replie. We must haue pitie and compassion on our sheepe, that we wound not our owne soules. We must (as hath been said) eschew euill, and doe good: not commit euill, to doe good. As gold may be bought too deare, so may the good of our people.

As if dutifully to obey the ordinances of our Church, Reioynder.were to commit euill. Whereas indeed rebellion is as the sinne of witchcraft, and he that resisteth the Magistrate shall not be guiltlesse. The Error is [...].

2. By the like Reason, Reply. a Theefe may complaine of the hard­nes [Page 144]of his heart, that had rather lose his purse, than haue his throate cut.

The Reason is not like; Reioynder.for there is great ods betweene wearing a Surplice, and hauing ones throate cut, as euery man knoweth. How doth this reason argue? As hee hath an hard heart, that had rather lose his purse, than haue his threate cut: So he hath an hard heart, that had rather lose his liuing, than weare a Surplice. The error, is [...]. And, [...].

II.

Those Congregations, Answere. Men, Women, Children, &c. may cease to mourne any longer, and comfort them­selues herewith, viz. that seeing their vnfaithfull and vngratefull Pastors, haue dealt so vnkindly and vndutifully with them; yet (God be thanked) the Lord hath store of good & faithfull Seruants, which he will send forth into the Haruest, who both can and will breake the bread, and powre out the water of eternall life vnto them, and performe the duties of faithful Shepheards, that wil neuer forsake them, nor runne away when they haue most need of their helpe.

The Defender replies. Reply. Those that will not runne away, Where are they to be found? What net may one haue to catch them? what keepe to hold them? For doe not the FORMALISTS dai­ly runne away from their people? Doe they not take another Liuing, and keepe the former also, leauing one to some tourney man fit for all companies? Yea both Master and man, oftentimes leaue both flockes to the Wolfe: yea I know some that forsake their owne charges, and are Curats elsewhere vnder other. And to whom doe some of them leaue their owne? To one that all the weeke long goeth to hedging, ditching, threshing, and other day labour for his liuing: Who on the Lords day, is at Church with a white Surplice to reade Seruice, &c.

If the Formalist be such a man, Reioynder.as the Defender paints him out in this place; would GOD our Church were faire­ly rid, as well of the Formalist (if any such be amongst vs) as of the refractarie Minister; seeing the one is as negligent and slothfull, as the other is schismaticall and factious; and both of them pernicious vnto Gods people. And let the Defender informe the Gouernours of the Church of any such in the Ministerie, and I doubt not but he shall see all such persons either speedily reformed, or turned out of the Church. But if the Defender meanes by Formalists, all such Ministers, as be regular and obedient vnto the gouernment and discipline of our Church, then hath hee entred againe into his Common place of Calumniation and lies, which needeth no further answere.

I

WHat can a sensible man make of this Enthy­meme? Answere. The refractarie Ministers are the safetie of the whole land: Ergo, The Court of Parliament must speake for the Gospell.

The Defender replieth. Reply. The title REFRACTARIE omitted, he is a senselesse man that can make nothing of that Enthymeme: especially these Ministers pleaded for being pro­ued true and faithfull. For though the Gospell and the Ministers thereof be distinct, yet he that speaketh for one, speaketh for both, and he that speaketh for both, speaketh for the Land, the safetie whereof dependeth vpon both.

The Defender speakes so resolutely and confidently of this Enthymeme, Reioynder. Note the De­fenders skill in Logike that he should seeme to be some very pro­found & acute Logician. But let vs examine his skill a litle. Suppose that which is most false, to wit, that the Schisma­ticall [Page 147]Ministers are not refractarie, yea that they are not Schismaticall, that they are not disobedient vnto their law­full Gouernours, nor stirred vp dissention amongst vs; which is more, that they are good and faithfull Ministers. Suppose (I say) all this; What can a SENSIBLE Logician (not such a one as the Defender is) conclude out of this Enthymeme? The Ministers (whereof we speake) are the safetie of the whole Land. Ergo, The Court of Parliament must speake for the Gospell. How many termes hath this Enthy­meme? Let vs recken them. 1. Ministers, 2. Safetie of the Land, 3. Court of Parliament, 4. The Gospell. Can this En­thymeme be reduced into a Syllogisme, hauing foure termes? Here we want some of the Defenders skill to helpe vs. Yea but, He that speakes for the Gospell, speaketh for the Ministers thereof. The Consequence is not necessary. But grant it so. Are there no other Ministers, but such as be Refractarie? The error, is [...]. And, [...].

II.

The Antecedent is very improbable, Answere.if not alto­gether false; both because there bee thousands of Godly faithfull Ministers in the Kingdome, which are not of their faction, that are as Charets and Horse­men: and also because the Ministers are therefore termed Charets and Horsemen, because they are Gods instruments for gathering of his Saints by the exer­cise of their Ministerie. But these men refuse to ex­ercise their Ministerie; they haue relinquished and forsaken their calling: wherefore they can, by no reason, be termed Charets and Horsemen. And so far are they from being the Safetie of the Land, that would God they were not the Sores of the Church, and Sowers of sedition, I meane Schisme and fa­ction.

The Defender replieth, Reply. Generally throughout the whole [Page 148]Land, there are Sixe reading Ministers, for one Preacher; at the least, by practise. For there are some that are licensed to preach, that neuer did, are, or were able to preach. Many also that can preach, seldome doe preach. Some also that doe preach (and that often) do it so Popishly, or otherwise so corruptly; so foolishly and ridiculously, to make sport rather than to edifie; so vainely and vnprofitably, that it were better to hold their peace, then so to preach.

I defend not ignorant or negligent Ministers, Reioynder. neither also such as preach Popish, corrupt, or foolish doctrin: but hartily wish, that al such were either reformed or remoued. But sure I am that this speech of the Defenders, is a calum­nious and lying Hyperbole, which if he were enforced to proue by particular Induction, he would come farre short of his reckonning. Whosoeuer in his Sermons taxeth their singularitie and schisme, these men will presently calum­niate him to preach Popish, corrupt, foolish and ridiculous do­ctrine. The Error, is [...].

III.

For the Consequence, Answere.I am sure it is from a To­pique place called A baculo ad angulum, from the Staffe to the corner: for it hath not the least cohe­rence with the Antecedent, except the Suppliants meane that these words, Refractarie Ministers, the Gospell, the Ministerie of the Gospell, be conuertible termes: which is absurd and vnpossible.

To this the Defender Replieth NOTHING.

II.

In the meane time I would propound two or three Questions vnto the Suppliants, Answere.wherein I would craue their resolution and direct answere.

• I. Quaere.
  3. Quaeres proposed to the refractarie Ministers.
  Whether the Church vnder Chri­stian godly Magistrates, hath any Tribunal proper vnto it self, for deciding of Contro­uersies, and punishing of such persons, as shall refuse the ordinances thereof?
• II. Quaere. Whether so many iudiciall Acts of depriuation of Bishops, Priests, Ministers, from their Benefices &c. since the Con­quest to the time of Magna Charta, and si­thence that to this age, were euer held to be contrary to the Lawes of this Kingdome, and Magna Charta?
• [Page 156]III. Quaere. Whether any Iudge of this Realme, or any chiefe officer learned in the Lawes, be of opinion, that such Sentences of de­priuatiō, as haue lately passed in due forme, in any Ecclesiasticall Court, be contrarie to any, much lesse to many Statutes?

At these 3. Quaeres, the Defender standeth so astoni­shed and amazed, as if they were so many heads of Me­dusa. And knowing not whither to wind & turne himself, lest he might seeme to be altogether mute (as indeed he is for any thing he answereth to the purpose) he so inuolues himselfe, in such intricate Labyrinths of obscuritie, that a­ny man may easily perceiue, he laboureth of purpose to decline the questions, babling he knoweth not what, su­specting euery word, as if he feared a Scorpion vnder e­uery stone. To the first Quaere he answereth.

Vnto this Quaere, Reply. when he shall distinguish, and make his so many Equiuocations (contained in the Quaere) perspicuous, and plaine, to the vnderstanding of euery simple and plaine meaning man, I shall (God willing) make him a simple, plaine, resolute and direct answere. In the meane time, let him vnderstand, first that we iustly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church; and namely, whether he meaneth the Vniuersall Church, or a Nationall, a Prouinciall, a Diocesan, an Archidiaconall, a Decanall, a Capitular, or lastly a Parochiall Church. For all men (as we vsually and commonly we speake) doe vnderstand, that euery of these Churches, hath her proper name, after which shee is called: as namely the Church dispersed throughout the world, is called the Vniuersall Church, the Church within Eng­land, is commonly called the Nationall Church of England; the Church within the Prouince of Canterburie, the Prouinciall Church of Canterburie, the Church of the Diocesse of London, the Diocesan Church of London &c. And lastly the Church of great S^t. Ellens in London, the Parochiall Church of S^t. El­lens in London. And therefore I craue a resolute and direct an­swere, of what only persons you meane, that the Vniuersall, this [Page 157]Nationall, Prouinciall, Diocesan, Archidiaconall, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochiall Church consisteth? Who only be the Christian godly Magistrates, vnder whom euery one of these Churches liueth? Whether the same Christian godly Magi­strates may personally be present, giue their expresse consents, and haue their decisiue voices, to and in making all and euery decrees of euery of these Churches? What is the Tribunall pro­per to it selfe, of euery of these Churches? What only manner of Controuersies, by euery of these Churches may be decided? What only kind of circumstances, euery of these Churches may de­cree? What only kind of subiect, and with what only kind of pu­nishment, and none other, euery of these Churches may punish the refusers of euery their ordinances?

Our second maine scruple, touching this first Quaere, ariseth from these words (vnder Christian godly Magistrates.) For if by these words &c.

Vanitas loquax, saith S^t. Augustine; Reioynder.and the Defender so behaueth himselfe in this kind, as if he were some foole in a play. But that he may pretend no farther excuses, I an­swere, By the word CHVRCH, I meane euery Church that hath power to make and ordaine Lawes, as namely the Vniuersall Militant, in a generall Councell; a Nationall Church in a nationall Synode; and a Prouinciall Church in a prouincial Synode; the Diocesan and Parochiall Churches haue only power to celebrate Synodes and meetings, for execution of the Decrees already made, not to ordaine new Lawes. What the Defender meaneth by Archiadico­nall, Decanall and Capitular Churches, I know not, but would faine learne of him, it should seeme he is ignorant, NW.that the Deane and Chapter, and the Archdeacon, are as it were the eyes and hands of the Bishop in the gouernment of the Diocesse, for the better execution and practise of the ordinances and decrees of the Vniuersall, Nationall, and Prouinciall Synods, and do not constitute any particular Churches different from the Diocesan. By CHRISTIAN GODLY MAGISTRATES, I meane the King in a Mo­narchie, and others principall States in any other gouern­ment, [Page 158]who are the Keepers of both Tables. As touching that Question, Whether the Magistrate may personally be present, giue his expresse consent, and haue a decisiue voice, to and in the making of all the Decrees of the Church; albeit it be impertinent for the satisfying of my Quaere, yet as I do not deny this, if the Magistrate be so pleased, so I craue the De­fenders resolution, and direct answere vnto this same que­stion: for they of his faction are thought, so to commit the care of these things vnto their Presbyterie, vnto whom they subalternate, yea subiect the Ciuill Gouernours, that they vtterly exclude the Christian Magistrate, and giue him no more power in Church matters, NW.then if he were an heathen or Infidell, as indeed the Defender seemeth not obscurely to insinuate in the later end of this very paragraph. Con­cerning the rest of his interrogatories; The TRIBVNALL proper vnto the Church, are the Councels and Synods of the same. The CONTROVERSIES there to be handled, are such as be of Ecclesiasticall cognisance. The ORDINAN­CES there to be made, are such as are declarations of the circumstances necessarie, or profitable for keeping of the first table of the Decalogue. The SVBIECT, are such as haue giuen their names to the Church, and vowed obedi­ence. And the PVNISHMENT, is admonition, suspention, sequestration, excommunication, depriuation, or such as the qualitie of the crime deserueth, and is by Law in that case prouided. To the Defenders tautologie, concerning the supposed equiuocation in the words (Vnder Christian godly Magistrates) I haue answered already.

To the 2. Reply. Quaere, he answereth: To dance after your Pipe, (I will not say, what a foolish and ridiculous Question, but) what an odde tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, be­fore the pipe be striken vp? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and other Lawes since made, be said to be contrary to them; This is as much, as one should aske? Whether Adam, not Circumcising Caine and Abel, did contrary to the Law giuen for Circumcision to Abraham many yeeres after? Or whether Ishmael persecuted Isaak, before Isaak was borne? Or whe­ther [Page 159]stealing of horses an hundreth yeeres past, were punishable with death, before any Law made for death in that behalfe? One thing cannot be said contrary to another, that is not, nei­ther was extant in rerum natura.

Grosse and palpable stupiditie! Reioynder.Where is the Defen­ders witte and reason? Are not the Words [Lawes of this Kingdome] in this second Quaere, to be referred to such acts of depriuation, as were made since the Conquest, to the time of Magna Charta? And the words [Magna Charta] to be referred to those acts, that were made since the time of the great Charter, to this day? But this sillie fellow, to couer his manifest tergiuersation, will not vnderstand plaine English!

To the 3. Quaere, he saith, Reply. Though it were a sufficient an­swere to bid him go looke, and himselfe to aske the opinion of e­uery Iudge and learned Officer, yet will I not altogether yeeld him so short and cutted an answere. And though it be a princi­ple in Philosophie, that Forma dat esse rei, yet to the being of e­uery thing, there must be matter, to which the forme giueth be­ing. And therefore in this case, besides due forme, there must be also due matter, inserted in due sentences. Wherefore I craue a resolute and direct answere, whether by those words (passed in due forme) he meane passed for matter & forme, in due forme? Or whether he meane, passed without due matter in due forme only?

To omit the Defenders Philosophie concerning Matter and Forme, and to vse his owne words; Reioynder.I answere resolute­ly and directly, that by the words [passed in due forme] I meane as the Defender saith, passed for matter and forme, in due forme: neither am I ignorant, that all the Iudges and learned Officers in the Law, do approue those Sentences of depriuation, so giuen in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, which causeth me the more to maruel at the impudencie and pre­sumption of the refractarie faction, that contradict all the Iudges, and traduce all such Sentences, as vniust, vnlaw­full, &c.

That which followeth, concerning the Statute of Mag­na [Page 160]Charta, and the lawfulnes of the Depriuation of the re­fractarie Ministers for not conforming themselues &c. re­quireth no farther answere; seeing the Defender himselfe (pag. 93.) confesseth such depriuation to be iust, and accor­ding to Law, Depriuation for non-con­formitie gran­ted lawfull by the Defender. saying: Hereupon WE GRANT, that if the King haue any Ecclesiasticall Law of the Land (which thing was neuer doubted by any man) for the DEPRIVATION of a Minister from his libertie and freehold, for not subscripti­on, periurie, contempt of Canonicall (so called) obedience, omis­sion of rites and ceremonies, not precise obseruation of the booke of Common Prayer &c. then WE GRANT, that the Ordina­ries (being the Kings Iudges Ecclesiasticall) MAY RIGHT­LY DEPRIVE A MINISTER FROM HIS BENEFICE for these offences.

Yet I can but wonder at the giddines of the Defenders Spirit, where he seemeth expressely to deny what heere he confesseth. Notwithstanding (saith he) I affirme that all Iu­diciall acts and Sentences (how many soeuer of depriuation of Ministers, from their Benefices) had, made and giuen, by the Ecclesiasticall Iudges, since the 25. of King Henry the 8. only according, or only by force, and vertue of the said Ius Pontifi­cium, or Bishop of Rome his Law, (the Sentences giuen in the time of Queene Mary excepted) are, and ought to be holden, not to be had, made and giuen, by the Lawes of this Kingdome, or by the Kings Ecclesiasticall Law. And why? Euen because the whole Ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Romes Law was altoge­ther (excepting the time of Queene Mary) abrogated, annul­led, and made void, by an Act of Parliament; and consequent­ly is but a meere Alien, Forraine and Strange Law, and no mu­nicipall Law of England, and therefore not the Kings Ecclesia­sticall Law.

I answere, I. The Defender had been a good Anuocate for bloodie BONER and other Popish Prelats, that were depriued in the daies of that renowmed Prince, King ED­VVARD the VI. and also in the beginning of the raigne of our late noble Queene: for all the Lawiers in England were not then able to espie, what now the Defender plainely [Page 161]seeth, except his eyes deceiue him. II. The Depriuation of the refractarie Ministers, for non-conformitie is grounded, not vpon the Canon Law, but vpon the expresse words of the Statute (of 1. Eliz. cap. 2.) ‘All and singular Archbishops and Bishops &c. shall haue full power and auctoritie by vertue of this Act &c. to punish by admonition, excom­munication, sequestration, or DEPRIVATION, &c.’ III. It is not true that the Canon Law was euery yet, How farre the CANON Law is abrogated. or is now altogether abrogated, annulled, and made void by Act of Parliament, and so consequently it is not a meere Alien, Forraine and Strange Law, but is the Law of the Land, yea and the Kings Ecclesiasticall Law: as is manifest by the ve­ry words of the Statute, which the Defender would haue pointed at, (25. H. 8. cap. 19. in fine.) ‘Prouided also, that such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances and Synodals prouinciall, being already made, which be not contrari­ant, nor repugnant to the Lawes, Statutes and customes of this Realme, nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings prero­gatiue Royall, SHALL NOVV STILL BE VSED AND EXECVTED, as they were afore the making of this Act. And in the 21. Chapter more plainely, (25. H. 8. cap. 21. non longè à princip.) Where this your Graces Realme recog­nising no Superiour vnder God, but only your Grace, hath bin & is free from all subiection to any mans Lawes, but only to such as haue been deuised, made and ordained within this Realme, for the wealth of the same, NW.or To SVCH OTHER, as by sufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the people of this your Realme, haue taken at their free libertie, by their owne consent to be vsed a­mongst them, and haue bound themselues by long vse and custome, to the obseruance of the same, not as to the ordinance of the Lawes of any forraine Prince, Potentate or Prelate, but as to the CVSTOMED AND ANCIENT LAVVES OF THIS REALME, NW.originally established as LAVVES OF THE SAME, by the said sufferance, con­sents and custome, and none otherwise. It standeth there­fore with naturall equitie and good reason, that all and e­uery [Page 162]such Lawes humane, made within this Realme, or in­duced into this Realme by the said sufferance, consents and custome, your royall Maiestie, &c.’ Thus farre the words of the Statute. Both which Acts being repealed by Queene Mary, were reuiued againe by Queene Elizabeth (1. Eliz. cap. 1. in princip.) and so stand in force at this day.

The Defenders long and tedious Digressions, touching the Oath ex Officio (a point learnedly hādled by M. Doctor Cosens, in his Apologie, whereunto I referre the Reader) and also concerning the Canons, it were to wearisome vn­to the Reader here to refute; Neither haue I such leasure to follow him in his idle and adle discourses; but haue deter­mined precisely, to keepe my selfe within the bounds pre­scribed by the Suppliants. Linquo coax ranis, &c.

I

OVr Sauiour saith, Answere. He that receiueth a Prophet, in the name of a Prophet, shall receiue a Prophets re­ward, (Matth. 10.41.) So shall he also that doth any kindnes vnto a Minister. But if a Minister do other­wise [Page 163]then he ought (as these Refractaries do) what kindnes then ought such to haue done vnto them?

The Defender replieth two things. I. Reply. There is a secret contradiction in this Answere, for as a Maior out of his Of­fice is no Maior, so a Minister out of his Ministerie is no Minister.

Was there euer heard such a Proposition vttered by any Diuine! A Minister out of his Ministeris is no Minister! Reioynder. An absurd Po­sition of the Defender. Then belike as oft as a Minister is silenced, or suspended, or depriued, if he shall be restored againe, or called into some other place, hee must haue a new ordination. Vnpossible and absurd. Neither can the Office of a Maior, being but temporary, for a yeere only, be compared vnto the Office of a Minister, being perpetuall. The Error, is [...] in Theologia: Also, [...].

II. Reply. What a multitude of conformable Ministers are quite ouerthrowne by this Argument? For do not many of them o­therwise then they ought?

But what aduantageth this the refractarie Ministers? Reioynder.We doe not affirme that such as doe otherwise then they ought, whether conformable, or refractarie, ought to receiue any fauour in that respect. The Error, is [...].

II.

Let the refractarie Ministers dutifully serue GOD and his Church, Answere.in their diligent and humble obe­dience, in the worke of their vocation, and then let them supplicate for kindnesse to be shewed vnto them.

The Defender replies. Reply. What is that diligent and humble obedience &c? To put on a Surplice, [...]o make a v [...]nishing Crosse, to reade Seruice, to acknowledge the Prelats to haue power to make ordinances against Gods word, &c? How shall they sup­plicate? With a 100. or 200. in a bagge? Then perhaps if they arise betimes, and ride a pase, they shall haue a paire of benefi­ces, an Archdeaconrie, &c. yea libertie a soto go whither they will, and neuer to come at any of their benefices.

This scorning and lying Spirit needeth no other re­proofe, but The Lord rebuke thee, Reioynder. Sathan.

I.

NEither did the honorable Court of Parliamēt, Answere.nor the Magistrates of this Land, euer intend the least wrong to any Subiect in this Kingdome, much lesse to any Minister of the Gospell, no not in their outward estate, much lesse towards the salua­tion of their soules. And certainly it is an vngratefull, yea an vngracious part of these Suppliants, to taxe that honorable Assemblie, or any Magistrate of this Land, so vndutifully and vnchristianly, for vniust, cruell and mercilesse dealing.

The Defender 1. Reply and Reioynder. Denieth that any of his faction, euer taxed either the house of Parliament, or any Magistrate; [Page 165]but only admonished them of those faults, which GOD forbid­deth; as if vniust admonition and reprehension, were not presumptuous taxing of men. 2. Retorteth the argument vpon vs, affirming that we, not they, taxe the high Court of Parliament, all which needeth no farther answere. Let the discreet Reader conferre the Supplication and the Milde Defence together, and then iudge indifferently where the fault resideth.

II.

The refractarie Ministers were neuer proceeded against, for preaching the Gospell, Answere.or for opportune and sobcrexecuting their Ministeriall function: but only for giddie innouation and noueltie, for facti­on, schisme, and impugning the Magistrates aucto­ritie, for disturbing the peace and quietnesse of the Church. And would they request these vile enor­mities to bee left vnpunished? An vnreasonable Suite.

The Defender replies. This is vtterly vntrue. Reply. For some of vs haue been molested for preaching any thing tending against the present Hierarchie, or any other corruptions: some also for confuting the Popish doctrine of other, though they haue done it neuer so soberly: and some for other matters, which are points of the Gospell, as well as other.

Preaching against the present state and gouernment of the Church, is not preaching the Gospel. Reioynder.Preaching against corruptions, or sober confuting Popish doctrine, was ne­uer no cause of the refractarie Ministers trouble. By those OTHER MATTERS he speaketh of, he meaneth the pre­tended DISCIPLINE, which euery man knoweth is no point of the Gospell. Heere is nothing but a meere contra­diction of what I say. It should seeme the Defender growes very barren.

I.

Pharaoh ministered daily food vnto such Priests, Answere.whom he thought professed true Religion, and di­ligently obeyed him in the function of their Office. A rare example of a bountifull and magnificent Prince, though otherwise in error. But the refracta­rie Ministers, though professing true Religon, yet do they obstinately, being blinded by superstition, [Page 167]refuse to serue GOD and his Church, in the faithful and diligent function and exercise of their Mini­sterie.

The Defenders replie is. 1. Reply. As Pharach was in error tou­ching the religion and obedience of his Priests, so are our Pre­lats, touching our refractarines and Superstition.

Not so. Pharaoh was indeed deceiued, and in error: Reioynder.but our Prelats are not; neither touching the Ministers Refra­ctarines, as daily experience testifieth; nor touching their Superstition, seeing they accompt that sinne, which is no sinne.

2. Our obedience towards his Maiestie is as good, Reply. as of the best of their side. That mans obedience to a Maior of a towne, or to any other inferiour Office of a Prince, is alwaies the best, that is most agreeable to the pleasure of the Prince himselfe. In like manner, that obedience is best vnto Princes, that doth best agree with the pleasure of the Prince of Princes, and King of Kings. To obey the Inferiour, without due regard of the Supe­riours pleasure, is but flatterie and fawning, not good obedience. So to obey Princes, without due regard to our dutie to God. For it is more preiudiciall and hurtfull, then beneficiall and profi­table to such Princes.

Well. Your obedience to his Maiestie is good. Reioynder.You say so. But your deeds proue the contrarie: for you daily kicke against his Maiesties auctoritie, and will not be reduced to obedience. Neither is there any thing here spoken, but the Papists will say as much for themselues. You limite how farre you are to be obedient vnto the King: so do the Pa­pists; for neither of you will serue God, vnder his Maiesties gouernment, according vnto the Religion established. You say you are as dutifull and obedient, as any of our side: so will the Papists pronounce of themselues, if they might be their owne iudges. But in the meane time, the Defender doth not iustifie Pharaohs example rightly alleadged, to procure compassion towards the refractarie Ministers. Let vs come to the next instance.

II.

The Monkes and Friers were depriued of all, Answere.a­gainst their will, for Sodomie, Heresie, and Idola­trie, which they had embraced in time of their ig­norance. But the refractarie Ministers are willingly depriued, for obstinate superstition, in refusing sin­cerely to preach the Gospell of Christ with vs, not being conformable vnto the Christian Lawes of our Church and Magistrates.

The Defender replies. Reply. The more iustly that Monkes and Friers were put out, the stronger is the argument for vs, to be prouided for, that are put out vniustly.

It is true, Reioynder.if you were VNIVSTLY put out: but in say­ing so, you beg the Question; proue it, if you can.

III.

The Monkes and Friers could not haue retained their places and possessions, Answere.not not by submitting themselues: But the refractarie Ministers may, if they will but conforme themselues vnto the lawful Ordinances of our Church.

The Defender replies. Reply. I know no condition of submission of­fered to Monkes &c. Touching the rest, we thanke you for no­thing. This is the curtesie of the Prelats, to make vs pay deare for our liuings, euen to buy them with sinning against God.

What needed there be any condition of submission of­fered to Monkes, Reioynder.when they could not haue kept their places by any submission they could make? For the rest, you shew your desperate resolution, still to continue in your schisme and faction, and that vnder such a pretense, as will neuer stand before the tribunall seate of God to excuse you. The Lord soften your hard and stonie hearts. The Er­ror in both the instances, is [...].

I.

NEither are the Prayers of Schismatiques much to be regarded: Answere.neither will the honorable Court of Parliament altogether neglect the refra­ctarie Ministers, but will labour by all good meanes for their recalling: neither can the refractarie Mi­nisters in Charitie, but stil pray for that high Court, yea in case they did not satisfie their desire.

The Defender replies. Reply. As for the Prayers of Schisma­tiques, it is not much to be denied, if men be schismatiques in deed, and not only in name: but neither the Answerer, nor all the Prelats in the world, shall euer proue vt Schismatiques and Refractaries, as they vniustly tearme vs.

That the refractarie Ministers are PVRE SCHISMA­TIQVES, Reioynder.hath been abundantly proued before (in the Re­ioynd. to the Defence of the 3. Arg. pag. 116. & seqq.) I will not adde a word more vntill that be answered. Only I de­sire I may not be mistaken in this point, to wit, that the Prayers of Schismatiques, are not much to be regarded, I meane, as they are SVCH; otherwise the Prayers of Gods [Page 170]Saints are very behoouefull and necessary for vs.

II.

If they had still made conscience of their dutie in their Ministerie, Answere.their Prayers had been much more effectuall.

The Defender replies. Reply. Behold what conscience these men make of Subscription, Crosse, Surplice, Conformitie, and other particular obedience; that make no conscience of preaching, &c. Is it not strange also, that Surplice and crosse should adde such efficacie to prayer?

It is true, Reioynder.we make conscience of obedience. Do they of the Defenders faction, make no conscience thereof? But that we make no conscience of Preaching &c. also, that Crosse, Surplice, &c. adde any efficacie to prayer, is a palpable vn­truth. The Error is [...].

I.

I Grant the whole. Answere.If the Suppliants will insist, Why then do you silence and depriue the Ministers?

II.

I answere. They are not such Labourers, whom our Sauiour meaneth: neither are they thrust forth [Page 171]of the haruest, for labouring, but for labouring as they ought not, for sowing the tares of sedition, Schisme and faction, for disturbing the peace of the Church, and for molesting other sincere and faith­full Labourers.

The Defender replies. Reply. Touching the sowing of the tares of sedition, schisme, faction, and disturbing of the peace, hath bin often answered. All which doe rather belong to them that teach that a true iustifying faith may be lost, that there is no certentie of Saluation, that pleade for ignorance and an ig­norant Ministerie, and such other like things.

When the Defender hath nothing to say for the refra­ctarie faction, then hee falles a rayling, Reioynder.or to slaunder our Church: for what other thing doth hee, seeing wee are so farre from defending any of these blasphemies he speakes of, as any man of their side. The Error is perpetua [...].

I

AS if there were not able Ministers inough (God be praised) in both the Vniuersities, Answere.and other parts of this Kingdome (if competent main­tenance could be procured for them) sufficiently to furnish euery Congregation, to instruct the peo­ple in religion, to refute the Aduersarie &c. but that the small handfull of Schismaticall Ministers must needs be entreated to make vp the number. Reply.

The Replie vnto vnto this Answere, consisting of meere [Page 173]tautologies, contradictions of what I say, Reioynder.scoffes and bitter slanders against our Church and Ministerie, deserueth no other Reioynder, but Thou liest, Satan.

II. Answere.

Suppose there were not able Ministers inough, for this purpose: haue not the Refractaries then greater reason, to ioyne with thei Brethren, in prea­ching the Gospell, confuting the Papists &c. then superstitiously to quarrell about Crosse and Sur­plice, and to forsake their necessarie vocation and function? Reply.

The Defender replieth. Nay, haue not the Prelats the more reason, to suffer vs still in the worke of the Ministerie with them? We are all willing so farre to ioyne with any in preaching the Gospell, as we may doe nothing against the Gospell, to craze the peace of our owne conscience. Reioynder.

Haue the reuerend and wise Prelats any reason, to ad­mit such to labour in the Ministerie; who they know will disturbe the peace of the Church? yea who plainly professe that they will neuer bee conformable vnto the Discipline established? None at all. Especially seeing the superiour Magistrate hath reposed such trust in their fidelitie and di­ligence, that they would carefully, to their vtmost abilitie, endeuour to preserue pure Religion and vnitie among his subiects. If the Refractarie Ministers were permitted to la­bour amongst vs; why then, their Consciences (forsooth) would not suffer them to performe, either faithfull scruice vnto their Brethren, or loyall obedience to his Maiestie. Better it is for the Church of God, that such Ministers, and such Consciences should haue no part in our societie, than that all States should be set together by the eares about idle and needlesse questions.

I.

IF the matters in question betweene vs, Answere.bee but Subscription, Ceremonies &c. as here the Suppliāts ingenuously confesse; wherefore haue they hither­to mainely cried out, that their contention was a­bout the CAVSE OF GOD, and his WORD, WHOLE CHRIST and his GOSPELL, the MI­NISTERIE thereof, and SALVATION of the peo­ple?

The Defender replieth. Reply. The least transgression of Gods Word, and the least obedience to Gods Word, is the Cause of God, as well as the greatest.

But the Defender ought first to haue proued, Reioynder.that wilfull contemning and kicking against the gouernment and rites established in our Church, is OBEDIENCE TO GODS WORD: also, that dutifull and peaceable conformitie, and exercising of the said ceremonies and rites established, [Page 175]is TRANSGRESSION OF GODS WORD; and then he had said somewhat. But that will neither the Defender, nor all the packe of the faction, be neuer able to do.

II.

Albeit we also do not hold Subscription, Answere. Ceremo­nies &c. to be absolutely necessarie to saluation, nor to be imposed vpon euery Church (for why should not other Churches vse their owne libertie?) yea and our Church also hath power to alter these par­ticulars: yet we know that some Ordinances and Ceremonies, are necessary for gathering of assem­blies, establishing of a Church, and to be as it were the bonds and lincks of societie.

The Defender replies. Reply. How doth the first point of this An­swere agree with that, that some of the great Prelats hold, that their auctoritie is Apostolicall, and the Ceremonies mat­ters of order and decencie? Are not things Apostolicall and de­cent, common to all Churches? Or may our Church alter that, that is Apostolicall? Or why should these Ceremonies, be more necessarie for our Church, then for other Churches? Or not de­cent for other Churches, and yet decent for ours?

I answere particularly. 1. Reioynder.There is no contratietie be­tweene what I writ, and what the Defender saith others of our side do hold: for the calling of Bishops is Apostolicall, who denies it? 2. The Ceremonies we vse are matters of order and decency. 3. There are many things both Apo­stolicall and decent, which all Churches at all times are not bound vnto. 4. The particular occasions, and circumstan­ces of our Church may be such, that some things may be decent vnto vs, which are not so for other Churches. All which are perspicuously laid downe and proued by instan­ces and examples in my Booke de Adiaphoris, which here need not be repeated, vnto which I referre the Reader.

III.

Yea euen these particulars, Subscription, Answere. Ceremo­nies [Page 176]&c. being imposed by the Church, and com­manded by the Magistrate, are necessary to be ob­serued vnder paine of sinne, seeing he that resisteth auctoritie, resisteth the ordinance of God. Rom. 13.

The Defender replies. Reply. What if they be commanded only by the Christian Magistrate, not imposed by the Church? Or im­posed by the Church only, the Magistrate being an Infidell, or a persecutor of the Church? Can paine of sinne also be without paine of damnation? Are not those things that are to be obey­ed vnder paine of damnation, necessarie to saluation? Hence al­so it followeth, that things once commanded by the Church or Magistrate (especially by both) are as holy, as the immediate Commandements of God. The particular inconueniences and absurdities hereof are infinite. What also is heere said, that was not wont to be said by the Papists against the Martyrs?

The Magistrate cannot impose any thing vpon the Church, Reioynder.without the consent thereof: but the Church may impose any indifferent ordinance vpon it selfe, without the consent of the Magistrate, if the Magistrate be an Infidell, or a Persecutor; which cannot be wilfully transgressed vn­der the penaltie of Sinne, and so consequently of damna­tion, without repentance for it. Yet it followeth not, that such Decrees are as HOLY, as the Ordinances of God, the reason hereof is apparant in my booke De Adiaphoris. The Popish ordinances and rites are not things indifferent, or lawfull in themselues; ours are. The Error is, [...].

IV.

And that they are things Indifferent in them­selues, Answere.and may bee vsed without sinne, wee haue proued at large, in a peculiar Booke written of that Argument. Lib. de Adiaphoris.

The Defender replies. Reply. Alas M. Powel, make not such ac­count of your Booke de Adiaphoris, then which, there neuer came more simple stuffe from any man reputed learned. You [Page 177]had neede recant your blasphemous point therein, against the auctoritie of Christ Iesus for making lawes in his Church. Verily you might as well haue denied him to be a King, and a Redeemer.

As by writing that Booke DE ADIAPHORIS (a work not voluntarily vndertaken by my selfe, Reioynder.but imposed by Authoritie) I neuer regarded to please Man, at whose hands I looke not for my reward; but laboured to serue the necessitie of Church, vnto whose seruice I owe my self: So now being written and published abroad, I weigh not what any priuate Spirit, being ouerruled by inordinate passions of loue or hatred, will censure or account there­of, for friends will flatter, and aduersaries raile; but whol­ly referre it vnto the iudgement of the CHVRCH of God, at whose graue and iudicious sentence, I stand, or fall. And touching the generall doctrine of the Protestants, that CHRIST IS NO LAVVGIVER, which you in your deep ignorance terme BLASPHEMIE; obiect against it, & you shall (God willing) be answered. But you professe (pag. 156.) that you will leaue that Book to other to shew my chil­dish weakenes therein. You doe very well; for by so doing you prouide the better for your owne credit: for that Book is written in Latin, & you cannot write true English.

V.

Now that they are become the Bones of contenti­on, and Causes of diuision among vs, Answere.is very much to be lamented, seeing the free course of the Gospell is somewhat troubled, and the common enemie ad­uantaged thereby. But the fault rests on them, who of meere superstition and grosse ignorance, cannot find in their consciēces to embrace the wholesome Ordinances and Constitutions of the Church, not any way preiudiciall vnto the Gospell, nor repug­nant vnto the Word of God, but most agreeable and consonant vnto the same.

The Defender replies. Reply. That these things are become bones of contention, is only the fault of the Prelates, that striue with might and maine for them. They acknowledge that they haue power to alter and remoue them, and they see great reason so to doe: neither can they giue any reasons but childish for conti­nuance of them; and yet to the great dishonour of God, and to the griefe of thousands of the godly, they retaine them.

It is not the fault, Reioynder.but the dutie of the Prelats, to labour to reduce Schismatiques and factious persons to vnitie and concord: neither doe they striue with might and maine for Ceremonies, but for the peace of the Church: neither can the Prelats, without direction from the Christian Ma­gistrate, and the consent of the Church, alter or remoue the Ceremonies now vsed: neither if they could, were they, in policie, to institute any importune innouations, which would bee a speciall scandall to many, both within, and without the Church.

I.

THis Argument is parallel, Answere.& the very same with the 8. Argument before, and is there answered.

II.

In one word. I grant the Antecedent, and deny the Consequence: because the refractarie Ministers are not such, as are specified in the Antecedent, as is often declared before.

The Defender replies. Reply. This is the Conclusion of all, which the Notarie and Answerer vnaptly call a distinct Argument. Neither is there any thing heere answered requiring replie, then hath been already made.

Reioynder.I haue followed the Auctor of the Supplication in num­bering his Arguments, who in the beginning of this Argu­ment or Conclusion (terme it what you will for me) pag. 28. of the Supplication, layeth downe this number [18.] and so goeth on with the Paragraph, as he had done in all the Ar­guments before, adding their proper number. And had not I reason to take it for a distinct Argument, being so laid downe by the Auctor? But let it be, as indeed all the rest are no Argumēts, a goodly CONCLVSION forsooth, the De­fender seeth nothing in the Answere worthy a Reply, nor I any thing in the Reply worthy a Reioynder.

AND thus haue I encountered with IGNORANCE it selfe, ioyned with extreame MALICE, passions wherewith the Defender seemeth to be notoriously qualified. First, his IGNORANCE is palpable, in that he hath neither Arte to dispute, nor Stile to discourse, nor Iudgemēt to discerne such matters as he handleth: al which are euidently confirmed, I. By his immethodicall and euil-featured thapsodie, being full of vaine tautologies, and far­sed with much friuolous and idle talke, as it were of a di­scrasied braine, lest his Booke (forsooth) might be termed a TRIOBOLAR PAMPHLET, or a TVVO-LEAVED LIBELL, as himselfe seemeth to confesse (pag. 17.) II. By his senselesse Periods, and grosse Solecismes euen in the English tongue: as (pag. 38) The Auctor is able to defend his meaning, or ready to yeeld better reason TO THE CON­TRARIE; also (pag. 46.) The Cause why wee are put out, is not FOR RESPECT of our selues, but FOR FEARE of sin­ning against God; and (pag. 58) Except you meane NOT the cause of the Ministers; and (pag. 150.) Let the contrarietie of the Answerer, to almost IN his whole Answere written, be obserued, &c. III. By his absurd Paradoxes, which no Di­uine euer maintained before him: as (pag. 34.) The King­dome of heauen consisteth in the ABVSE of outward things; also (pag. 36.) The libertie of Preaching doth NOT PRO­PERLY belong to the Ministerie of the Gospell; and (pag. 120.) A Minister out of his Ministerie, is NO MINISTER: there are many more such examples, but I labour to be short.

Secondly, his MALICE is apparent in euery page, yea almost in euery line of his Defence, wherein hee scorneth, and reproacheth, and slaundereth, not only my poore selfe (whom he extreamely hateth for no other cause, but be­cause I am not of his faction) but also all the reuerend Pre­lats and Magistrates of this Land, yea the whole Church of God amongst vs, as we haue heard alreadie.

When I had first perused ouer this vile and disgracefull Libell, I could but maruel at the impudencie of the Defen­der, that in so learned an age, durst presume to publish so fillie a worke: Whereupon I purposed to haue passed it ouer with silence, as disdaining to accept so Ignorant a Man for my Antagonist, and to encounter with such, as with an Aduersarie, whom it were fitter to instruct, as a Schoole-boy. But when I had better considered the humor of the refractarie faction, who embrace euery Sentence proceeding from their RABBINES, as an ORACLE, be it neuer so absurd; and perceiued the Booke it selfe, to bee preiudiciall to his Maiesties auctoritie and Lawes, to the peace of GODS Church, and propagation of the Gospell, I was perswaded (for this once) to take a litle labour to shew the Defēders folly in his weaker Defence of so weake Arguments; which I haue done as briefely as I could: for why should I speake much of a Discourse so little worth?

And heere I openly testifie, and plainely professe, both vnto the Defender, and to all others of his straine; that if hereafter any of them shall set vpon, or attempt any thing against any Booke or Writing of mine; if they shall doe it in the common Idiome of the English, I will passe it ouer with silence, and not vouchsafe them any Answere: and this, 1. Because it is not fit and conuenient that this Con­trouersie, being moued only amongst Scholers, and no way concerning the Lay-people, should be vulgarly hand­led, to the increase of factions and part-takings in the Church. 2. Because that, hauing other imployments more necessarie for these times, by this meanes I shall be free from being troubled with the tedious prating, the clamo­rous and scornefull gybing of euery DVNSE, that can but chatte English.

Wherefore I require and adiure you (my reuerend Bre­thren) as you tender the quietnes of the Church, yea and your owne honest reputation, that hereafter (if you be not yet satisfied) you will write in the LATINE tongue, which is the tongue of the Learned, and not in the ENGLISH, to [Page 191]fill the Common-peoples heads with idle and vaine que­stions: Which reasonable request, if you shall refuse to yeeld vnto, surely it will be thought that all you do, is but ad faciendum populum, and also that you are but ignorant and vnlearned men, not able to write in Latine, as indeed all the DISCIPLINARIANS in English are reported to be: I speake not this of all that stand out for the Ceremo­nies, among whom there are some whom I reuerence for their gifts; but of the giddie Presbyterians, such as this sim­ple Defender is, who could bee contented these twelue monethes, to suffer my Booke De Adiaphoris, to passe vn­answered, because it was written in Latine, but no sooner came there any thing vnder my name in English, but pre­sently he set vpon it, according vnto the Prouerb, Who more bold, then blind Bayard?

The Lord heale the wounds of his Church, appease this intestine dissention among Brethren, and grant that wee may do all things to the glory of his holy Name.