[...]irst. THe Judgement of the Court was earnestly craved and desired by R. Mayo and his Councellors, against E B. upon a verdict on record in the Court formerly gi­ven by an injust jury (as my former account of the former proceeding declareth.) And E. B. was called [...] answer for himselfe, and shew what reason he could that Judgement [...]ould not be given against him, who did appear, and answer in the [...]ar of the Lord, saying, that he was come before their judgement seat, [...]ith great boldnesse, because he had the Lord on his side, and Truth [...]n his side, and the witnesse of God in all Consciencies on his side, to [...]stifie him that he had done R. Mayo no wrong, but had spoken the [...]ruth of him; And for this cause judgement ought to be arrested, and [...]ot given against him, because (said he) the Law condemnes no man [...]or speaking the Truth, and he had spoken nothing but the Truth, con­ [...]erning R. Mayo, as he was alwayes ready to prove that R, Mayo had [...]eld forth damnable Doctrine and Error; and this was sufficient reason, [...]hat judgement ought to be arrested and not given, nor he condemned [...]or speaking the Truth, And he referred himselfe to the Court, and [...]o the witnesse of God in them all, whether they would condemn [...]im or justify him; but and if they did passe judgement upon him, it [...]as onely for speaking the Truth, and not for any wrong done by him [...]nd it should lye upon themselves and be their burden, though he [...]ight unjustly suffer in this life by unjust judgement, yet theirs would [...]e the judgement and the suffering in the life to come, when God did [...]eward every man according to his work, and he would leave it upon [...]hem, and to this purpose he spoke unto them. Then R. Mayos Coun­ [...]ellors and the Court pleaded, that there was a verdict by jury against [...]im, and that the Court was to go upon the verdict, which appeared [...]pon record against the defendant, to which E. B. replyed it was true, [...]n unjust verdict they had against him; but what then? he would [...]pply himselfe, and his cause to the Judge in the sight of the Lord, if [...]ossibly he might be convinced of the unrighteousnesse of the verdict, [...]nd might not he then justly mitigate in the judgement, and deferre it, [...]nd deny the verdict? and he did appeal to their Consciencies, that it was an unjust verdict, for the jury had brought the matter to a wrong [...]ssue, and had not determined and judged according to the Truth and [...]nnocency of the matter, nor brougth it to a Lawful issue, but had damnified him falsely, before they found any matter of fact against him, or the Tru [...]h of the matter was not searched into, nor the Doctrine [...]as not tryed nor determined of by the jury which he had charged and [...]roved in Court against R. Mayo, which Doctrine was damnable and error; [Page 2] but of the Doctrine the Jury had not judged whether it was sound and true, or damnable and error, which the true issue of the matter stood up­on; but the Jury had unjustly damnified him (for speaking maliciously as they said) before any matter of fact truly found, and made appear according to equity, and that was injust, and therefore again, judge­ment ought to be arrested upon that reason, because they had not truly tryed the matter, whether R. Mayos sayings, charged and proved a­gainst him, were damnable Doctrine and Error, or whether they were not so, which was the true cause to be tryed, but they had condemned him for speaking such words, not trying and determining whether the words were true or false words, and till that was tryed, and his words proved false words; he could be no Transgressor, this was the substance and intent of his words, then R. Mayos Councel again replyed, that he might then blame the Jury, but according to the verdict upon re­cord against the defendent the Court was to proceed; then the Recorder of the Court said reasonably to this purpose, that the Jury was Judges of matter of fact, and he was judge in matter of Law; and if any thing could be objected, or error discovered in the businesse as in matter of Law, by what appeared upon record, to that he would harken, for R. Mayo had in his Replication, laid in that E B. spoke the words char­ged against him without any such cause by him in his plea alledged, &c. Whereupon T. Moor gave divers Arguments as in matter of Law; and also produced the judgement of one Judge and three Lawers in writing under their hands, shewing divers sound reasons, wherefore judgement ought to be arrested in this cause, shewing clearly according to Law, that the words charged against E. B. (to wit,) saying R. Mayo held forth damnable Doctrine and Error, (which is reckoned his offence, and wherefore the Jury gave verdict against him, and the Priest, and his Councellors begged judgement,) are not actionable in Law; in­stancing out of Cookes Institutes, particular causes of the like nature, which could not bear an action, and much as to that purpose was spoken, and shewed under the four mens hands as afore said, which were just excep­tions in point of Law, against the verdict upon record, wherefore judge­ment ought to be arrested, and not passed in this cause against the de­fendant, but to all what was shewed and spoken to that purpose R. Mayos Councels replyed, the time was now past, to aledge these things, for the Jury had given their verdict upon oath against the defendant, wch was upon record, and thereupon waved all the reasons that could be given, though never so sound, and begged the judgement of the Court as afore said against him, but then E. B. returned to the naked Truth, and came again to the simplicity and innocency of the matter, and waved all the multitude of Arguments, that could be spoken about points and formalities. of the Law, pleading that whereas the Court had given him liberty according to his right and birth right priviledge, that he might plead his own cause, and he instanced the time of his alledgement where­in he did say peradventure he might not plead his cause in the formalities and punctilios in the course of Law, yet he could plead the justness and [Page 3] simplicity of the Truth in the matter, and the Court then had said, that would serve, and be sufficient; and said E. B. the Court having thus spoken formerly; must I now be condemned for the want of a form and punctilio in Law, wanting no part of Truth on my side, nor manifesta­tion of it, if they did, might not he say they had as it were betrayed him? though yet he could not say so, and at this Argument some of the Court seemed to be highly offended, as if he reflected upon them, wronging and retorting upon their former kindnesse to him, which he did not, but spoke simply and innocently in the matter, onely to manifest Truth, and to perswade them to do Truth and Justice, alwayes keeping close to the Truth of the cause, and still affirmed (as lawfully he may) that the particulars (which is declared in my first account) charged and proved against R. Mayo the Plantiffe in open Court, are damnable Do­ctrine and Error, and that he would justifie, if there he were pleading for his life, as it was but for his liberty at most, he would, nor could in Conscience say no lesse; and if they would condemne him, and judge him in an hundred pounds for speaking the truth, he would bear it in patience and suffer, as for righteousnesse sake, and he doubted not in the Lord, but to have the peace and presence of the everlasting Father, with him, if he suffered all his dayes, to this purpose he spoke, and thus shewed great courage in the Lord against all unrighteous judgement, looking onely to the Lord, and above all the World and suffering in it, as if he mattered nothing of all what they could do against him, saying when they had done all that could be against him; the Law whereby he might proceed a­gainst them was the Law of Christ, and he might pray for his Ene­mies, and blesse them that persecute, and say the Lord forgive them, when they had done the evil they could, still affirming that he had spo­ken the Truth concerning his adversary; Then R. Mayo being sitting upon the bench, he made some answer, seeming to justify his Doctrine formerly delivered by him, and charged against him to be damnable, wch he repeated, and would have vindicated, and said; that the light which Christ lighteth every man withall, John 1.9. is carnall and darkness. 2. And that he did exhort the people in his Sermon, to follow and obey a light which is not Christ, nor the light of the Gospel. 3. The Apostle Paul did exhort the Saints to follow and obey a light, which was not the Light of the Gospel. 4. Christ was not that word that David walked by, when he said thy word is a light, &c. 5. A man may be a righteous man, and not a godly man; He seemed a little to vindicate these things, but to no purpose, as to men of understanding in the things of God; for he brought not one scrip­ture to prove his Doctrine at that time, though some of the Court his friends bid him: so its manifest he continues in ignorance and blindness still, and his own folly cannot reprove him, nor make him ashamed: Then T. Moor said, he would take in hand to prove to all people, in the steeple house, or any other publique place, where R. Mayo would meet him, if he would give him a meeting, that he was guilty of holding forth damnable Doctrine and error: and he should maintain it in Argument against him, at any time and place where he would meet him, that the par­ticulars [Page 4] held forth by him, and proved in Court against him, are damna­ble doctrine and error, then John Feilder spoke to the Judges, that R. May [...] should come off the bench, for it was against Act of Parliament, that any Priest sould sit upon the bench in any Judicatory: and I say it was also unseemly, that the plantiffe and Accuser should sit upon the bench as if he was Judge in his own cause, and the Defendant, and accused stand as at the Barr: but the Court caused R. Mayo to come down off the bench, who did with shame, and his practise shewed, he is truly such a one as Christ cryed wo against who loved the Chief-seats, and uppermost rooms in the Assemblies, Mat. 23. But R. Mayo the Priest seemed to speak some­thing as if he would give T. Moor a meeting with 20. people as such a number, but before he had ended his words as to that, the Court stop­ped him, and his own friends would not suffer him to speak further to it: then he sell upon the matter in hand, much desiring he was and craved to have judgement by the Court against E. B. and produced the opinion in writing of Serjeant Maynard to this purpose, that if the word, were true, he deserved deprivation of his place, &c. and therefore the words spoken against him were actionable, &c. some controversy arose about the meaning of the words: (if the words be true) and by (if the words be true) we understood and said he meant, if that it was true, that he was guilty of preaching damnable doctrine and error: then he dis­served deprivation, &c. but R. Mayo and his Councel, would have gi­ven some other meaning upon the words, for their own advantage, and what the true meaning of Serjeant Maynard is, remains in his own brest, the words seemed doubtful.

And now I come to some more particulars of R. Mayos damnable Doctrines, charged against him, and perferred to be proved in open Court, whereby his wickednesse, and E. Bs. guiltlesseness may more ap­pear: first it was charged, that R. Mayo had affirmed, that the Devill is the power of God. 2ly. That the Gospel was not the power of God, a rose­cake is as much the power of God. 3ly. R. Mayo affirmed, if one man killed and murthered another, he did it by the power of God: These things were charged upon R. Mayo, and not denyed by him, but he went to justify them in open Court, and affirmed that the Devil is the power of God, and said he would prove it by Scripture, and brought that Scrip­ture Acts 8, 9, 10. where the unclean Spirits and poor bewiched, peo­ple of Samaria, whom Simon Magus the Scorcerer had bewiched, said of him this man is the great power of God, as you may read: and this was his proof, that the Devill is the power of God: and here all may see R. Mayos error and damnable doctrine, and wickednesse, and ignorance, and blasphemie, who hath brought the Testimony of poor bewitched people, and unclean Spirits, that know not God, but were wholly without him in the World, to prove what he affirmed, (to wit) that the Devil is the power of God, and its the same Spirit in him that affirmes it, as it was in the bewitched people, that said the Sorcerer was the great power of God, who are his Witnesses and Testimonie of what he af­firms, and he may as well say, Christ hath a Devil, and bring the Pha­risees [Page 5] words, who said thou hast a Devil: and this is the same in nature with his vvords: but the vvhole Court savv his folly and ignorance, and he vvas sensible of his ovvn blindnesse, and might be of the deceit of his ovvn heart. And is not this damnable Doctrine and Error, and of the Devil to affirm, and endevour to vindicate that the Devil is the power of God? vvas ever the like heard, or held forth by sober men? may not he and all his people be ashamed of his doctrines: Christ said the Devil was out of the Truth, and there vvas no Truth in him, and vvas a murtherer, and a Lyar from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, and all the holy Prophets and Apostles gave their Testimony against the Devil and his Works, and did distinguish betvveen Christ, vvho is the povver of God, and the Devil vvho is against him, for the Apostle vvas sent to turn from Satans povver, from the Devil, to the povver of God, Acts 18. Here the Apostle makes them tvvo, and shevvs they vvere not one, but contrary one to the other: and he called the Devil the adversary of their souls, the roaring Lyon that vvent about seeking vvhom he might devour, and the Devil made vvar against Christ, and tempted him to evill, and persecuted the Woman, and the rem­nant of her seed: and Hell was prepared for the Devill and his Angels, Mat. 25.41. search through the Scripture, and see vvhat is spoken of the Devil, and see if the Devil and the povver of God be one, and the same as R. Mayo holds forth, or vvhether they are not distinguished to be contrary one to the other, through the Scripture, and Christ is called the power of God, and the povver of God made the vvorld, and upholds all things: and if the Devil be the povver of God as is affirmed by this vvicked man, then the povver of God is out of the Truth, and abode not in it, but is a murtherer and a lyar, and there is no Truth in it, and is the adversary of souls, and the roaring Lion that seeks to devour souls, and the power of God made war against Christ, and tempted him to evil, and persecuted the Saints, and the seed of God, and made war against them, and Hell is prepared for the power of God, and must go into the lake, according to this doctrine; and if his doctrine be true, then the power of God is the Devil, and made the world, and upholds it, and Christ is the Devil, or else R. Mayos doctrine is damnable and error; but this doctrine is damnable and error, and of the Devil as all men may be­hold and see, for the Devil and the power of God is contrary one to the other, and are not one but two distinct; Blasphemy and error in the high­est nature is this his doctrine; and the Scripture saith Christ was made manifest, to destroy the Devil, and the works of the Devil: now if the Devil be the power of God, as R. Mayo saith, then Christ was manifest to destroy the power of God and his works, which he also affirmed as may be proved against him, Oh! error and damnable doctrine in the highest nature, which is held forth publiquely in the open Court! may not the Court be ashamed of this their Minister, and the Jury also, who hath given verdict against E. B. for speaking Truth? for is not R. Mayo guilty of holding forth damnable doctrine and error? let the light in all mens Consciences judge, and let them tremble to give judgements in this [Page 6] cause, against a man for speaking the Truth, least the Lord God bring judgement, and wrath upon them, and all men behold their shame, if they condemn the innocent, and justifie the ungodly 2. R. Mayo af­firmed that the Gospel was not the power of God, but a rose cake was as much the power of God.

Answ And this is damnable Doctrine, for if the Gospel be not the power of God as R. Mayo saith, then the Gospel is not to be believed for salvation, nor cannot convert Sinners to God, nor is to be preached to save souls, for nothing can save, nor convert sinners but the power of God. And the Apostle said the Gospel is the power of God, Rom. 1.16. but R. Mayo hath said quit the contrary, that the Gospel is not the power of God, and the Gospel is everlasting, and converted and saved Sinners, and the Gospel the power of God was preached to Abraham, before the Scriptures were written, and was preached to all the Saints by the Apo­stles, and if any preached another Gospel, then the power of God, that Paul preached, let him be accursed, saith the Apostle: but a rose cake is a dead thing and without life, and cannot convert Sinners, nor save souls, nor is everlasting, nor the power of God: is any upon earth so blind, to believe that a dead rose cake is as much the power of God as the Gospel, and to be equal with the Gospel, as R. Mayo saith? is not this the greatest blindnesse that ever was uttered by a man, professing the Ministery of Christ his blindnesse may be felt, and it is damnable Doctrine and er­ror, to hold forth that the glorious Gospel of Christ is no more the power of God, then a dead rose cake, which cannot p [...]ce people to the heart, as the Gospel did the Jews, and Gentiles, its error, and contempt against the Gospell, and scornful blasphemous words against God, and Christ, and the Gospel, to make it of no more esteem then a rose cake, as this man hath done: and is it not time for people, to turn from such a man, whose er­ror and damnable doctrine is thus fully manifest, and his vvickedness in persecuting a man, and begging judgement of a hundred pound against him, for saying his doctrine is damnable and error, which is nothing but the Truth against him? but all just men will see his shame, and the un­justnesse of that Jury that passed on the matter, who gave such unrea­sonable dammage, for truth speaking, having no respect to the just cause, nor to the danger they run their own soules into and some knows it be­fore this, who God suddenly after cut off by judgement, and took his life from the earth, which may be a warning to the rest of them all to repent.

R. Mayo affirmed that if one man killed and murdered another, he did it by the power of God. Ans. And this is damnable doctrine and error, for all murder is of the Devil, and he is a murderer from the beginning. John 8.44 and murder is of him and from him, and not by the power of God; for the power of God in Christ, and Moses for bad all murder and the A­postles said murder was a work of the flesh, and murderers should not enter the Kingdom of God. but were without the gate, to be nodden in the wine presse of the wrath of God: search the scriptures and see what Testimony all the servants of God gave of murder, and shewed [Page 7] that it is [...] the Devil, and not by the power of God, as R: Mayo saith: and if it be [...] saith, that it is by the power of God, then murder is no sinne; for what the power of God leads to do, and doth, is no sinne, and then people may be justified in murdering and killing: for what the creature doth by the moving of the power of God, God condemns him not in it, but justifies him, and is not [...]is [...]nable doctrine and errour? Can any man be so blinde as not to see it? the Lord will judge these wicked doctrines, and confound them: but one named that scripture to prove his doctrine, and would have vindicated that if one man murder another, he did it by the power of God, mentioning where Christ said to Pilate, Thou could have no power against me except it were given thee from above, not minding the last words, He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sinne; and by this he would have proved, That murder is by the power of God: And it was asked further, if the power of God murdered Christ? Or did the Jewes murder him by the power of God? but to this no answer w [...] given: so this is written as a further account of Richard Mayo his false d [...]s, that are damnable, and errours in the highest degree, as all spiritual [...] may judge, and how can the Court justly comdemn Ed. Burrough, except t [...] will proceed wholly against reason and equity, and against God, and the [...] in their own consciences, for to all mens sight and knowledge that fears God Richard Mayo is guilty of holding forth damnable doctrine and error, and if they condemn Ed. Burrough in an hundred pounds for so affirming (and nothing [...] they have against him) then the Lord shall condemn them, and their false judgement everlastingly, and all sober men shall see their folly and wickednesse, and that they become also guilty of Richard Mayo's sin: but con­cerning of them I hope better, whom I verily believe, may shew moderati­on in the [...]d, and clear the innocent, that God may blesse them, and not act against [...] and their own consciences, which if they do so, the Lord shall lay it to their charge, and it shall be their burden when God ariseth to judge­ment. One thing more at the last the Judge spake, thus, If Edward Burrough the Defendant would in the least confesse he was sorry, and had wrongd Rich. Mayo, he would perswade R. Mayo, and he thought he could prevail with him to acquit and discharge the sute, and clear Ed. Burrough, and end the matter, to which E. B. replied, if his life were to be taken away for it, he could not do it: for to keep his conscience clear and free from offences to God, is of more price with him then all outward liberty or things, and asked R. Mayo if he would con­fesse. That the light which he exhorted people to follow, were the light of the Gospel, it so, then some mistake would be found between them; and more might be said, but R. Mayo would not acknowledge that. So then Ed. Bur­rough alwayes affirmed himself clear, and that R. Mayo was guilty of preaching damnable doctrine and errour.

And whereas it was alleadged in Court against Ed. Burrough That Rich. Mayo Plantiffe saith in his Replication, That Ed. Burrough the Defendant spoke the Words (thou holdect forth damnable doctrine and errour) of his own wrong and malice, &c. without any such cause by him alleadged in his plea, and as if Ed. Burrough had shewed no just cause yet, wherefore he spake the words against R. Mayo Defendant.

To which I answer, It is strange that the Court would shew such mistake, or ignorance; for hath nor Ed. Burrough proved lawfully and justly; first that he was invited by R. Mayo three times to make what objections he could against his doctrine. Secondly, he heard him preach such things, and affirm them under his hand (vvhich are proved against him) vvhich to all spirituall men are seen to be false and erronious doctrine, which if people obey and believe they cannot be saved, And these are sufficient reasons and causes wherefore Ed. Burrough might justly charge upon him damnable doctrine and errour. So hee hath lyed to the Court in his Replication, And hereby the Court and Judge may fully know that Ed. Burrough had sufficient reason to affirme against Rich. Mayo. What he did, & he did it not without lawfull reason, which reason is pure and may justifie him in what he hath done; and the Court need not alleadge that against Ed. Burrough if they will but come to the truth and innocency of this cause.

Then in the Adjourning of the Court, the Recorder of himself justly and so­berly propounded the differing of judgement in the Cause, and judgement is deferred for a season, till after the Terme.

Much more might be written, but this in short is true for substance, and I leave it to others to give an account at large; if any unjust proceedings in the Court require it; but enough is done and said about this matter, if it be now ended, and the more that is medled in it, the greater will be the shame of him that doth the wrong, and Truth will bring all things to light, and confound all damnable doctrine and errour, and unrighteous Judgement.