A Plain Declaration that our Brownists be full Donatists, by comparing them together from point to point out of the writings of Augustine. Also a reply to Master Greenwood touching read prayer, wherein his gross ignorance is detected, which labouring to purge himself from former absurdities, doth plunge himself deeper into the mire. By George Gyffard Minister of God's word in Maldon.  
BY PEACE PLENTY BY WISDOM PEACE  
TO   printer's or publisher's device 
AT LONDON, Printed for Toby Cook, dwelling at the tigers head in Paul's Churchyard. 1590.   

TO THE RIGHT Honourable, Sir William Cecil, Knight of the Garter, Baron of Burghley, Lord high Treasurer of England, and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge: Grace and peace.  
I Published a Book (Right Honourable) against the Brownists, who complain of hard dealing, and not only they, but others, in that I have termed them Donatists, and charge them with sundry foul matters. And having now received from them an answer unto one part of that my book; I have also framed this reply: In which I first set down from point to point out of the writings of the holy Father Augustine, with what Scriptures and arguments it was defended, and so compare our men's writings and doings with the same. They must for this, choose either to affirm, that the Donatists had the truth, and the churches were perished: or else show some material points of Donatisme, which they do not hold. And then in the latter part of this my book, I answer to that which is published now by them against read prayer. As I was bold to present the former unto your Honour, so do I also humbly offer this, presuming upon your honours favourable acceptation. And thus I beseech the Lord God to bless and prosper your honour.  
Amen.   

To the Reader.  
GOod Christian reader, I published a book against the Brownists, whom I have in the same termed the Donatists of England. How far of I was from purposing any such thing at the first, and how I was drawn into it afterward, I have in that former book truly reported. And for warrant of my doing before the Lord, I had no doubt but that it should be an acceptable service to Christ: notwithstanding when I respect the weightiness and necessity of the work, I have always wished, and do wish, that some man of greater learning might deal against them. Neither as yet am I cast into any thoughts of doubting, by the mislike, or fault finding of some in all places, which are no Brownists: But I am rather thrust forward by beholding that weakness of judgement and want of understanding not in a few, touching the foulness of Donatisme, and by the sight of such nearness of multitudes unto the danger, which before I could not suspect. Now touching the faults which are found, which causeth the mislike, they are partly for the matter itself, and partly for the manner of dealing both in it, as also towards the persons themselves against whom I writ. In the matter some have found fault as though I should stand to clear & to justify all things, not only in the Book of Common prayer, but also in the calling and ordination of our Ministers, and in our Church government, others affirm that I have diminished the faults which are esteemed to be in these, and made them lighter, at the least by not reproving them. The first sort I cannot but marvel at, seeing I have in that my former book set down expressie in these words, that the matter in question between the Brownists and me, is not about the controversy in our Church, as whether there be imperfections, corruptions and faults, in our Worship, ministery and Church government, nor how many great or small: but whether there be such heinous enormities as destroy the very life, and being of a true Church, and make an utter divorce from Christ. I do then lay open the state of this question so plainly, as I know not how to make it more plain: now unless I should run through every particular which we deal in, which I thought to be needless, but now I will a little stand upon it. They reckon Romish fasts, Ember days, Saint's eves and Lent: Idol feasts, as All-hallows, Candlemas, several Lady days, Saint's days, dedicating Churches unto Saints. Comminations, Rogations, and Purifications, Tithes, Offerings, Mortuaries, howsling the sick, with the Sacrament, absolution, and blasphemous dirges, and funeral Sermons, over and for the dead. Corrupt manner of administering the Sacraments, the Font, the cross in Baptism, Baptism by women, gossipings, blasphemous and heretical collects. These and certain other have they set down, to be in the Book not under the terms of faults, blemishes and corruptions, but as heresies, blasphemies, and abominations, and that such as overturn the foundation of the Christian faith, destroy the substance of God's worship, and take away the life, and being of a true Church. To this I have answered, that they be foul slaunderours' liars, & false accusers, showing that our Church hath renounced in those former things that which is blasphemous and heretical, or so abominable, as that it approacheth nearest to the destroying of the faith and holy worship of the Lord. As namely the remission of sins, and merit of eternal life by fasting, which is the doctrine of the Romish church. The worship and invocation of Saints and Angels, the power of expelling Devils by the sign of the cross, and such like things which the papacy is full of, but rejected by us. If the Brownists in their reply against that I have written, shall prove by the word of God, that there be great corruptions in our prayers, in our fasts, in our keeping the Saints days, in the Cross, and in many other things which be in our Church, as in our ministery and Church government. And further if their proofs be never so clear & strong from the Scriptures, yet they answer not me at all, nor touch the question or controversy between them and me, unless they can prove them to be such faults as destroy the worship of God, overturn the foundation of the faith, and take away the very life and being of true Christianity. If (I say) they do not prove them, according as they have set them down, to be blasphemies, heresies, abominations, yea the very worship and yoke of Antichrist, the mark of the beast, and his power: I remain unanswered, and they stand convicted as liars, slanderers and most wicked false accusers not of particular persons, but of whole Churches. For I showed in express words that I do not meddle at all in these questions, whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by God's word, whether they be many or few, whether they be small or great, but only thus far whether they be such or so great, as make our Churches Antichristian. Here therefore I do entreat the Christian Reader to fix his eyes in reading my writings and theirs, only upon this one question, whether there be in our Church any errors or faults that be fundamental? Look if I have in this point by denying that there be swerved from the sacred word of God, from the judgement of the holy Churches, and writings of the most worthy & noble instruments which God hath at all times given to be the guides and lights in the same. And if it can be proved, that I have gone awry from the truth but an heir breadth, I will revoke it: for truth is to be bowed unto and reverenced, wheresoever she showeth her sweet face, of all that look to have any part in her. Mark also their writings as they shall come forth, and see wherein they can convince me of any error, falsehood or corruption, touching this one forenamed question, unto which they are to be held seeing we set all other controversies aside.  
Then touching the second sort, which find fault about handling the matter, as if that I should mitigate or make lighter the faults of our Churches, at least in this, that I do not reprehend them. To this I answer, first, that unless it can be showed, that our Church is guilty in some of those crimes which I stand to clear it in, I see no reason why I should be charged to make things lighter, which I meddle not withal, further than in showing that they be not fundamental. secondly, I entreat all men to consider that I stand to defend a Church, and not the infirmities or offences of a Church, in which as there be many bad members, so the best are trail. If a godly man because of some apparent sins, should be accused to be an Atheist, an infidel, a traitor, or a most vile and filthy wretch: might not he clear himself of such horrible crimes, but it must be said, he doth mitigate his own infirmities or make them lighter? thirdly, I do request them to consider the state of our people, how speedily very many are carried into great evils and dangers, though not all in the same degree. I am of this mind, that where any thing is amiss in God's Church, it is the part and duty of the faithful Ministers of Christ, all dutiful reverence and submission being observed towards Magistrates & public authority, peaceably to seek redress of the same, with godly and charitable reprehension. I do also hold that every christian man is wisely and soberly (with the like duties of reverence, submission, and peaceable behaviour observed) to seek to have his conscience informed in all matters, which may any way concern himself. But we see how far some have swerved and do serve from this. For the rule of charity and christian duties being neglected, the utter disgrace and contempt of men is sought, and that on either part. The war is made as deadly, as if the grounds of christianity were in question: while some passing the bounds of modesty, others do reply against them after the same manner. Our Saviour saith Satan doth not cast forth Satan: and shall we think then that sin, shall cast forth sin? Such as condemn and abhor Schism and errors, and inordinate dealing, must be burdened and reproached with the same notwithstanding, which is injurious. And what is in the mouths of many against this, but that the Papists then may as well be excused, which condemn Master Luther and other as the fathers of heretics, because swarms of Anabaptists did follow immediately upon their preaching the Gospel? When shall we then here come to an end? There will be contention in the Church: and humane frailty hath showed itself this way, even among the holy teachers of old, to the sharp reprehension, and in manner reproaching one of another, as Master Beza noteth in the Epistle of his Book against Erastus: but godly men when they have somewhat gone awry, seek to amend their fault, by subduing their passions. Now look also upon the people, where we may see very many; who not regarding the chief christian virtues & godly duties, as namely to be meek, to be patiented, to be lowly, to be full of love and mercy, to deal uprightly and justly, to guide their families in the fear of God, with wholesome instructions, and to stand fast in the calling, in which God hath set them) give themselves wholly to this, even as if it were the sum and pith of religion, namely to argue and talk continually against matters in the Church, against Bishops and Ministers, and one against another on both sides. Some are proceeded to this, that they will come to the assemblies to hear the Sermons and prayers of the Preacher, but not to the prayers of the book, which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose. But yet this is not the worst, for sundry are gone further, and fallen into a damuable Schism: and the same so much the more fearful & dangerous, in that many do not see the foulness of it, but rather hold them as godly Christians, and but a little overshot in some matters. The sore is grievous, and the wound is deep; as I have small joy to behold it, so have I less desire to make it deeper, wishing from my heart, that it might rather be cured. Such as be of another mind, either in this, or in any thing that I have written, I crave of them, that they will give me leave, according to the doctrine and rule of the Apostle, fraterne dissentire, to dissent in some thing, without the breach and hindrance of brotherly love. For as I do greatly esteem that rule of S. Paul, let as many as be perfect be thus minded: if any be otherwise minded, God will reveal it. But so far as we are come, let us proceed by one rule, to be like affectioned Phil. 3. so do I much lament to see it almost utterly neglected, and the breach of love & concord as violent among many, for every matter wherein they descent, as if some ground of christianity were in question between them. I do not mean that a man ought to consent unto any error, or unto any evil committed by others, or to neglect the instructing and admonishing, as his place and calling doth require. But I had rather (as one saith) answer to God, if I must give account, for mercy, rather than for rigour and severity. I know there be faults in extremities on both sides: as on the one side under a persuasion of love, a man may be over favourable in esteeming and bearing as brethren, such as hold the foundations of the faith, and yet err in some things, and have great faults: so on the other side, under a persuasion of zeal against all falsehood and wickedness, they may fall into an uncharitable rigour, as very many do. The nature of man is more prone to this latter, and the fall is more grievous than in that former; few are carried with abundance of godly love, to offend in over favourable judging their brethren: and because the elect of God have great infirmities, & the Scripture doth not warrant men to be rigorous in condemning, if a man holding the hatred & zeal against all sin, judge & repute them as christian brethren, which it may be are not, his fall is not great, although he be over favourable; for through humility he is below. Whereas on the other part, such as condemn with uncharitable rigour, they are lifted up with swelling, and so their fall is deeper. This is my meaning in that I said, I had rather answer to God for mercy than for rigour: now as I eschew it in myself, so would I be loath, seeing rigour aboundeth among many, to give any occasion to nourish the same by my writing. If I sin in this, yet I trust it is so, as no godly charitable man & well advised will make an outcry against me for it; if I shake hands with sin let me be condemned for it, otherwise I crave that I may follow the rule of the Apostle. But now it will be said by the third sort which find fault with my book that I have broken this rule towards the Brownists: as also that rule of S. Paul, who willeth to instruct with patience such as be contrary minded, because I charge them not only with foul Schism, but also with heresies, and for which I take it that obstinacy if it be found in them, will make them heretics. They differ not from us, say some, in matters of faith, but do over shoot themselves, & that on the right hand: for answer unto these, first touching the rules of Paul, I know he himself did practise them. And he that gave these rules, so far as we are come let us proceed by one rule, etc. and instructing with patience etc. said also beware of dogs, beware of evil workmen, beware of the concision. Philip. 3.  
Why did. S. Paul this, but moved with the danger which the Churches were in by them? Men have not now the consideration what it is to condemn the whole worship & the Ministry as Antichristian, and so utterly to take away the credit and power of the Ministry and preaching God's word. Will they esteem it to be less than that which the false Apostles did? Again, I see men are ignorant what the power of Donatisme was, how it prevailed and spread not only among the common sort, but had hundreds of preachers to publish and set it forth. Neither do men know the foulness of Donatisme, nor the points of it, and that maketh them offended, that I term the Brownists Donatists, & hold it as a schism and heresy. Cresconius the Donatist writing against Augustine, doth reprehend him for calling them heretics; because they held the same doctrine, as he saith, and if they offended, it could be but as in a schism. Augustine replieth, that Schisma inveteratum est haeresis, Inveterate schism is heresy. And showeth that some things they held were heretical. The Churches have condemned it not only as a schism, but also as an heresy. I have out of large discourses of the controversies between▪ the Churches and the Donatists, drawn forth briefly all the chief heads of Donatisme, and how they did stand to maintain them, and with what scriptures. I compare the Brownists and them together in all points generally held, and will stand to justify that they be full Donatists, even in the rankest Donatisme. If I have not set down the Donatisme aright, and if the Brownisme be not the same, let me have the shame for ever, that I have given them the title, and can not justify that they are worthy of it. Let the Brownists choose which part they will, either to affirm that the Donatists had the truth, or else to clear themselves from Donatisme, I will join with them, or rather against them in either. And in the mean time I do exhort all other to be sober minded and discreet, and not to thrust the simpler sort headlong into it, by exclaiming that they be over hardly dealt withal. For what say some? If these that are called Brownists be godly men, and but overseen in some matters, we will choose to join with them, rather than with the public assemblies of our Church. These men are they in compassion of whom I writ. Now, the chief heads in which I compare them are these: The Donatists did falsely accuse and condemn the Churches and all the Ministers to be utterly polluted, and all their worship, and separated themselves without all order of discipline: So have the Brownists done. The Donatists took beginning by occasion of one man, whom they held to be no Minister of Christ, but after they made their defence that all were polluted, and all the Ministers the generations of Traitors, judasses, and persecutors of the just: that the Churches in the beginning after the times of persecution were not well ordered by separation of the faithful from the wicked. For because there were many both Ministers and people which in time of persecution to save their lives had denied the faith & sacrificed to Idols, and delivered the holy Scriptures to the persecutors: and when Constantine gave peace, being become Christian, returned and were not cast forth. Hereupon the Donatists said all were utterly polluted: & that because some such did ordain Ministers, at least as they reported, they accused all the Ministers to be the sons of traitors which ordained them, and so were no ministers of Christ, had no true prayer, nor Sacraments. The Brownists affirm that all our assemblies which openly committed Idolatry, were at the sound of a Trumpet, at the coronation of the Queen called to be Churches: that the bad were not separated from the good: that our ordainers were Idolaters, & that we are their children; no Ministers of Christ, but Baal's priests & persecutors: & so have no word of God, nor no Sacraments, nor true church, all being polluted with the open sins committed. Thus both make the holy things of the Lord, which indeed are unchangeable, or else we could have no comfort: as namely, the word of God, the prayers, the Sacraments, & the ordination of Ministers, to be polluted & destroyed by the wickedness of men. The Donatists held that Princes were not to compel unto religion, & so cried out of persecution, & gloried of their sufferings & multitude of martyrs. And what do the Brownists? These things with the rest will better appear in the several comparisons, as they follow in my book. I now entreat the reader not to judge of any one thing until he have read the whole. I also desire that the sayings of the ancient writers which I allege may be well weighed, for proof of that for which I cite them. If any shall say, what shall we ground upon men? I answer, I allege them but to show what the controversy was & how it was disputed on both sides: & for this they are sufficient witnesses. Believe their reasons as ye find they be confirmed by the holy Scriptures: I have set down the Latin, lest any should think I have not dealt plainly. And touching the last part of this my book which is an answer to Master Greenwood, concerning read prayer, peruse it throughlie and then judge whether I have charged him wrongfully in any matter. I do lament that many of our people which have been hearers of the Gospel, should be so ignorant, as to suck in such dregs as he offereth. Now to conclude, there are two things which deceive many, which I desire them to consider: one is that they are carried away with many true and notable sentences of Scripture & worthy principles which the Brownists set down, not considering or not espying how they from them do draw out false assumptions, and thereupon conclude that which is untrue. The other is that they look not upon that which followeth upon their words by consequence, but stand upon this, O they hold no such thing, they have wrong. Master Greenwood crieth out that he doth not condenneal Churches, he denieth not that the psalms are to be sung to God, he saith not that the regenerate do not sin, he hath no such meaning, he hath wrong. But mark if I have done him any wrong at all: look upon his sayings, and upon that which must needs follow upon them. The other Brownists cry out of the like wrongs. judge not until both ye hear wherein they have wrong, and see mine answer. If I have charged them with matter which either their words do not express, or that followeth not from them by necessary consequence, let me then be judged rash and uncharitable.  
FINIS.   

That the Brownists are full Donatists.  
NO Apostle, no Prophet, no Evangelist, no true pastor or teacher can have his own name put upon the Disciples which he gathereth: but as they be all gathered only by Christ's doctrine and unto Christ alone, according as it is written, one is your Doctor, even Christ: Matth. 23. so are they only by his title called Christians. But it hath been the manner of old, and even from the time of the Apostles, in God's Church, when any wicked schism or heresy hath sprung up, to call the scholars and followers by the names of the first masters of the same, and chief leaders. As of Montanus, the Montanists; of Novatius, the Novatians; of Arrius, the Arrians; of Pelagius, the Pelagians; of Donatus, the Donatists; of the Pope, the Papists, etc. And who shall reprehend this as vain, or condemn it as a thing unjust, seeing we follow his example, who saith to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, Revel. 2. Thou hast them which hold the doctrine of the Nicholaitanes? Now, there is a sect in England commonly called Brownists, not because Browne was the first original of it, but for that he hath written and published books in maintenance and enlargement thereof, and with more skill and learning than others which either as yet have followed, or gone before him. Many men think that they be sprung up but of late, whereas in very deed it is well known there was a Church of them in London 20. years past, and one Bolton a principal doer therein, whose fearful end is not forgotten. I have termed them the Donatists of England. How justly, and how charitably, and with what due consideration, it standeth me now upon to show; lest the ignoranter sort of such as somewhat favour them, should imagine, that I have injuriously and falsely given them this odious title, to work their unjust discredit. For Donatisme in old time, about twelve hundred years past, was condemned as a detestable proud Schism and heresy, that began at Carthage in Aphrica, and was vehemently withstood by the faithful Pastors, and cut down by the holy Scriptures, as no learned godly man will deny. The holy Father Augustine was the chief that did overthrow them, as his writings which are extant, answering to their writings at large do declare. Now, my purpose at this time is to compare them together, the Donatists and the Brownists, from point to point out of the writings of Augustine. If it fall out clear and manifest that they agree together, as even as two pieces of cloth that are of the same wool, the same thread, colour, working & breadth: and that an Egg is no liker to an Egg, than they be each to other: I hope all that be sober minded will not blame me for giving them the same title. Their original, first, (of the Donatists I mean, and how they cut off themselves) is to be noted & set forth; which was this. From the birth of our Saviour Christ, for the space of three hundred years & more, there were ever anon great and grievous persecutions raised up against the Church, by the Roman Emperors, until the Emperor Constantine the great embraced the holy Gospel, and gave peace to the Christians. In those days of persecution, such as through fear, or otherwise, did deliver to the cruel persecutors, either the books of the holy Scriptures, that they might burn and deface them, or the vessels appointed for holy use in the public assemblies, that they might carry them away; or the names of the brethren, that they might find them out: such (I say) were called traditores, that is, deliverers or traitors. There was a rumour that such offence had been by some committed, as no doubt it was by many. Now, as Augustine reporteth in his Psalm against the Donatists, there came certain Bishops from Numidia unto Carthage, a famous City in Aphrica, to ordain a Bishop, and found Caecilianus already ordained and placed in the Seat: then were they wroth that they could not ordain. They joined together, and laid a crime upon Caecilianus. They say his ordainer delivered the holy books and was a traitor: whereupon they will have him reputed no Minister of Christ, but the son of a traitor. There was no assembly of the learned Pastors for to judge in this case according to Christ's ordinance and discipline: the accused and the accuser did not stand forth for trial. There were no witnesses produced to prove the crime: neither were matters scanned by the Scriptures. But furor, dolus, & tumultus, that is, fury, deceit, and tumult, did bear the sway, as Augustine showeth in the same his Psalm. They assembled which were the accusers, and Caecilianus is condemned being absent, by Tigisitanus Secundus, as he showeth in his first book against Parmenian Chap. 3. and in his third book against Cresconius Chap. 40. Now was there great stir and division begun: Donatus, he steppeth forth and requireth of the Emperor Constantine to have judges (not of Aphrica, out beyond the seas) to hear the crime which was to be objected against Caecilianus. The Emperor appointed that the matter should be heard at Rome, where Caecilianus was cleared, and Donatus and his part receiving repulse appealed, accusing Meltiades then Bishop of Rome, that he was also traditor, as Augustine reporteth in his first book against Parmenian, Chapt. 5. and so they require to have the cause heard by the Emperor, unto whom they had appealed: where having also the repulse, as false accusers, they say the Emperor was corrupted through favour. They made a separation from Caecilianus and those that clave to him. The division grew greater and greater, they had assemblies and Bishops on Donatus part in process of time in great number. They condemned not only the Church at Carthage, and the neighbour Churches in Aphrica, as guilty therewith, but all Churches through the world as wrapped together in the guiltiness of those Churches of Aphrica. They pronounced them all polluted, unclean, abominable and utterly fallen from the Covenant of God, through the pollution of such as had committed sacrilege, and were not separated. They said there were no Ministers of Christ, no Sacraments, & so no true Church among them, but heaps of wicked polluted sacrilegious persons, whose teachers were all generations of traitors, judasses, & persecutors of God's Saints, and that as many as would be saved must separate themselves, and join with the pure selected company of Donatus. And for these respects they baptised again all such as fell unto them, as not being baptised before, but polluted with a profane washing. Now, through the show of burning zeal, and stiff rigorous severity in condemning sin, and by the vehement outcries which they made that the discipline was not duly executed, in as much as the profane were mingled together in the assemblies with the pure, and no separation made: many of the people not well settled and grounded in the truth, were terrified and turned unto them, taking them to be most zealous holy men, and the only true Church in earth: and with exceeding bitterness condemned all other as abominable Idolaters and cursed traitors, whose worship God abhorred. It was before the days of Augustine that this sect began, and in his time was greatly spread. And when he wrote that it was against all equity to condemn (as they did at the first) the whole world for the sin of Caecilianus, because if he were guilty, yet the Churches far off knew not so much, but might rather judge him clear, being cleared in judgement. They maintained the matter to prove that there were no true flocks, nor pastors after another sort: and did affirm, that as the Church of Carthage, and the Churches elsewhere in Aphrica, were fallen from God by the pollution of the sacrilege of Caecilianus and other: so all other Churches in the world were destroyed by the like sacrileges committed in the days of persecution by wicked men among them, whose sins were open and known and no separation made. For thus speaketh Parmenian a Donatist Bishop, as Augustine doth set it down in his first book against him, and third Chapter. Dicit etiam Parmenianus; hinc probari consceleratum fuisse orbem terrarum criminibus traditionis, & aliorum sacrilegiorum: quia cum multa talia fuerint tempore persecutionis admissa, nulla propterea facta est in ipsis provincijs separatio populorum. That is, Parmenian also saith, that from hence it is proved, that the world hath been together made wicked, or heinously polluted with the crimes of treason and of other sacrileges: because, when many such things were done in the time of persecution, there was no separation of the people made for the same in the Provinces. Mark well this saying of Parmenian the Donatist, for it doth expressie set down the ground of Donatisme. The words of Petilian another Donatist Bishop, to prove all the Ministers of the Churches to be but successors of traitors (as Augustine doth report them in his second book against him Chapt. 8.) are many, I will only recite the chief of them. This Petilian having before said, that he which is baptised by one that is dead, his washing doth profit him nothing: then proceedeth to show how far (as he saith) an unfaithful traitor may be accounted dead while he liveth. And for this be frameth a comparison between judas and the Pastors of the Church, condemning them as the worse. For after he hath set forth that judas was an Apostle when he betrayed Christ, and spiritually dead when he had lost the honour of an Apostle: and as it was foretold by David that another should have his place, so Mathias succeeded him in the Apostleship. He would have no fool here dispute that Mathias dare away triumph and not injury, which by the victory of Christ, had the spoil of the traitor. Then he demandeth, how canst thou by this deed challenge to thyself the office of a Bishop, being the heir of a more wicked traitor? judas Christum carnalem tradidit, tu spiritualem; furens evangelium sanctum flammis sacrilegis tradidisti. judas betrayed Christ carnal, thou spiritual; being in fury thou hast delivered the holy Gospel to the fire. judas legislatorem tradidit perfidis: tu quasi eius reliquias legem dei perdendam hominibus tradidisti. judas betrayed the lawgiver to the wicked: thou hast betrayed as it were his relics the law of God unto men to be destroyed. Si hominis mortui testamentum flammis incenderes, nun falsarius punireris? quid de te ergo futurum est, qui sanctissimam legem dei judicis incendisti? If thou shouldest burn the will of a dead man, shouldest thou not be punished as a falsifier? what then shall become of thee, which hast burnt the most holy law of GOD the judge? judam facti vel in morte poenituit: te non modò non poenitet, verumetiam nequissimus traditor nobis legem seruantibus, persecutor & carnifex existis. judas repent him of his deed, at least in death: but thou dost not only not repent, but also being a most wicked traitor, remainest a persecutor and a tormentor of us that keep the law. Cresconius a Grammarian (one as it seemeth that taught some Grammar school) took upon him to write against Augustine in the defence of Petilian, or rather of the whole Donatisme, and he layeth to the charge of Caecilianus the unpardonable sin against the holy Ghost, in betraying the scriptures to the persecutors, using this argument: Holy men of God delivered them as they were led by the holy Ghost, (Augustine in the 4. book against Cresconius, Chapt. 8.) Petilian (though otherwise full of great bragging) being very unwilling to have open disputation in any open assembly of learned men, used this arrogant speech: Indignum est ut in unum conveniant filii martyrum, & progenies traditorum. It is an unworthy thing that the sons of the Martyrs and the generations of traitors should be assembled together. Thus much may suffice for this point. Where we see that the Donatists departed disorderly out of the Church, condemning it not for any point of doctrine (for therein they did not disagree) but for that many, which in the time of persecution dissembled, many which revolted, and to save their lives did sacrifice to the Idols: many which delivered the books of holy Scripture to be burned, and betrayed the names of the brethren; when the storm was over, & there was a sudden calm, the Emperor Constantine being become Christian, such joy in all Christian lands, Christianity magnified with such honour: for that (I say) many such returned to profess the Gospel again as members of the Church, and were received. For, said the Donatists, the Church is holy, consisting of such as be called forth and separated from the unpure and wicked world: and therefore no separation being made, but such villainous traitors, so vile Idolaters, and their children being communicated withal, all your assemblies through this mixture are none other before GOD, but heaps of abominable unclean persons. Your teachers are the sons of Apostates and traitors, and no Ministers of Christ. Now look upon the Donatists of England: Antichrist hath been exalted according to the prophesy of S. Paul, he hath sat in the Temple of God, boasting himself as God, persecuting and murdering Gods true worshippers. He is disclosed by the glorious light of the Gospel: his damnable doctrine, cursed Idolatry, and usurped tyranny are cast forth of this land by the holy sacred power of our dread Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth, whom God hath placed & settled upon the Throne of this noble Kingdom. The true doctrine of faith is published, and penalties are by laws appointed for such as shall stubbornly despise the same. Our Donatists cry out, that our assemblies, (as ye may see in their printed books) and that the people were all by constraint received immediately from Idolatry into our Church without preaching of the Gospel, by the sound of a Trumpet at the Coronation of the Queen, that they be confused assemblies, without any separation of the good from the bad. They affirm also that our Ministers have their descent and ordination, and power, from Antichrist, and so are his marked servants. Hereupon, not understanding the manifest Scripture, that the Apostasy having invaded the Church, it continued still even than the Temple of God in which Antichrist did sit, and that the very Idolaters were within the Church, were sealed with the sign of baptism, professed Christ in some points rightly, their children from ancient descent being within the covenant of God, and of right to be baptised, the ministery of Christ so far remaining, as that it was the authentic seal which was delivered by the same; in a mad fury, like blind hypocrites they condemn the reformation by civil power, and purging God's Temple by the authority of Princes, because the Church of Christ is founded and built by the doctrine of the Gospel. Herein they are deceived, that they imagine the Princes take upon them to compel those to be a Church which were none before: whereas indeed they do but compel those within their kingdom over whom the Lord hath set them, which have received the sign of the covenant, and profess themselves to be members of the Church, accordingly to renounce and forsake all false worship, and to embrace the doctrine of salvation. What other thing did josias and other holy Kings of juda, when they compelled the multitude of Idolaters which were the seed of Abraham, and circumcised, to forsake their Idolatry and to worship the Lord? It is most clear also, that where the reformation of the Kings was not perfect, (as appeareth in the books of the Kings and Chronicles) yet all the foulest things being abolished, and the substance of truth brought in, they were reputed godly Churches, where many were false brethren and open offenders. The Brownists blinded with their swelling pride, and not seeing the evident matters of the Scriptures, without all order of that holy discipline of Christ, accuse, condemn and forsake our Churches, under the appearance of fervent zeal, and rigorous severity against all sin, not inferior to the Donatists; as if they were the only men that stood for Christ and his kingdom, they cry out aloud and proclaim all the Ministers of our Churches to be Antichristian, the sons of the Pope, false Prophets, Baal's Priests, that prophesy in Baal, and plead for Baal, persecutors of the just, bearing the mark, the power and life of the beast, because they say our ordeiners be such. They say we have no word of God, no Sacraments nor true Church, but that all is utterly polluted and become abominable: our assemblies they call the very Synagogues of Antichrist, utterly fallen from the covenant of God, and all that join with them, through the pollution of open sinners which are not cast forth: and therefore they have separated themselves, and cry aloud unto others to do the same if they will be saved. What rule of discipline have they observed in this? Have these things been brought forth, scanned, discussed, and judged in the Synods of the learned Pastors and teachers of the Churches? Nay, but even as Augustine saith of the other, furor, dolus, & tumultus, fury, deceit and tumult, do bear the sway. Then I conclude, that in this point of accusing, condemning, and manner of separating themselves from the Church, the Donatists and the Brownists do agree and are alike. Some man will here reply, that I build upon a weak ground, or rather upon the sand, in proving the Brownists and the Donatists to be all one, because they are alike in accusing and condemning the Churches, and separating themselves from the same. For the matter resteth not simply upon the actions; but whether there were just cause. The question will be whether the Brownists do that justly, which the Donatists did ungodly. For the Donatists did accuse the Churches and Ministers falsely, condemned them most wickedly, and therefore their separation could not be good, because it was from the true Churches of Christ: but now if the Brownists object open and manifest crimes, such as cannot be denied, their case doth differ far. May not a man separate himself from those assemblies, where he seethe open sinners suffered on heaps to remain in the bosom of the Church, and where idolatries, blasphemies and abominations are committed, where the Ministers and government be Antichristian, but he must be a Donatist? Moreover, it is certain the Donatists did condemn all Churches in the world; the Brownists do condemn only the assemblies as they generally stand in England, which is a very great difference. The Donatists hold that the Sacraments or the efficacy of them doth depend upon the worthiness of the Minister: the Brownists are not of that mind. The Donatists did rebaptize; the Brownists do urge no such thing. It may be also they are unlike in some other things: if it be so, why should they be termed Donatists? Indeed if there be such differences, the Brownists have great wrong to be called Donatists, and to be condemned with so wicked a sect? But what if it fall out otherwise, and that it be showed and proved manifestly that they be all one in these things? Shall we not then say they be even brethren? shall they not stand or fall with the Donatists? shall they be ungodly schismatics, and not these? I will proceed from point to point, to compare them together, that it may appear whether there be difference. Touching the first, it is most true that the Donatists did accuse and condemn the Churches and the Ministers of the Churches most falsely: and I say the Brownists are as false accusers as they, and condemn as injustly in all crimes which they object, and shall in no wise be found unlike in this point. Yea, will it be said, how shall that appear? All men do know that the Brownists may without any false accusing lay grievous faults to the Church of England. I grant they may: and I say likewise, the Donatists might lay as great faults to the charge of many Churches then, and in some points greater, & yet be no liars. This is to be proved by comparing the Churches of those times with ours: for so shall we see how far both have justly accused, or might accuse, and where they meet together as false accusers. The Brownists may stand forth and accuse the church of England in this manner: That there be heaps of open sinners not separated from among the good, but suffered and admitted to the Lords table, at least wise in many, or in the most assemblies: There be profane ignorant persons that despise the holy religion: There be swearers and cursers: There be those that are puffed up and swell in pride and vain glory: There be swarms of drunkards, gluttons and unchaste persons: There be covetous worldlings, and greedy usurers, extortioners, oppressors, bribers and defrauders: There be liars, backbiters, and slanderers: There be envious, hateful and contentious persons: yea, what sins almost are wanting? Where shall a man go but he is ready to fall into companies of wicked men? This is not alone among the common people; but very many of those that should be guiders, lights, and patterns of godliness unto others, are nothing less. Who is able to deny these things? heaven and earth will witness against him. We may lift up our voices and say: we have sinned with our fathers, we have done wickedly. We may confess that our iniquities are heaped up and reach above the clouds, and that shame and confusion of face is due unto us. We may cry, save Lord for the godly cease, the faithful are diminished from the children of men. The complaints that the Prophets do make every where against the Church of Israel, may very well be applied against us. Where is love, where is fidelity, where is mercy, where is truth? But now shall we think that the Donatists had no such things to accuse the Churches of in those days? Can they not say your assemblies are full of covetous men, proud persons both men and women? Had they not just cause to complain that many walked in hatred and discord? Do ye imagine that there were no ungodly Ministers? or will ye suppose that Augustine and other holy men stood to clear and justify the Churches that way against the Donatists and other Heretics? Nay, let their words be heard what they testify in this behalf. Cresconius alleged this saying of the Lord, I will give ye shepherds according to my heart, which shall feed ye with knowledge and understanding. jeremy. 3. This he cited to prove that the Pastors ought to be faithful. Augustine maketh answer thus: Scio, completum est, tales Apostoli fuerunt, tales etiam nunc, etsi pro ecclesiae latitudine perpauci, non tamen desunt. That is, I know it is fulfilled, such were the Apostles, such also there be now, though very few in respect of the largeness of the Church, yet they are not wanting. This is a plain testimony that in the time of Augustine the faithful sincere godly Pastors were very few in comparison. Many testimonies may be brought out of divers ancient writers for this matter: but I will bring but some few, and first out of Cyprian, which alone are sufficient being both large and clear. Cyprian was in the time of persecution before the Donatists sprung up; and after one persecution was over, he wrote an Epistle de lapsis, of those that fell and denied Christ: In which first he triumphantly rejoiceth over them which stood; then he mourneth dolefully for those that fell: and after that he showeth why God sent that persecution. Si cladis causa cognoscitur, & medela vulneris invenitur, Deus probare familiam suam voluit. If (saith he) the cause of the slaughter be known, the cure of the wound is found also, God would prove his family. Et quia traditam nobis divinitus disciplinam pax longa corruperat, iacentem fidem, & poenè dixerim dormientem, censura coelestis erexit. That is, and because long peace had corrupted the discipline delivered us of God, the heavenly censure hath raised up the faith lying along, I may say almost sleeping. Then showing that God did not punish them so much as they deserved, he setteth forth the grievous open sins committed in the Church. Studebant augendo patrimonio singuli, & obliti quid credentes, aut sub Apostolis ante fecissent, aut postmodum facere deberent, insatiabili cupiditatis ardore ampliandis facultatibus incubabant. That is, They studied every one to increase their patrimony, and having forgotten either what the believers had done before in the time of the Apostles, or what they ought to do afterward, they all did apply themselves to increase their riches with an insatiable burning heat of covetous desire. Here is one sin that overspread: then he addeth further. Non in Sacerdotibus religio devota, non in ministris fides integra, non in operibus misericordia, non in moribus disciplina. There was not devout religion in the Priests, there was not the sound faith in the Ministers, there was not mercy in works, there was not discipline in manners. And what more? Corrupta barba in viris, in foeminis forma fucata. Adulterati post dei manus oculi, capilli mendacio colora●i. Ad decipienda corda simplicium callidae frauds, circumueniendis fratribus subdolae voluptates. jungere cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonij, prostituere cum gentilibus membra Christi. Non jurare tantum temerè, sed adhuc etiam peierare. Prapositos superbo tumore contemnere, venenato ore sibi maledicere. Odijs pertinacibus invicem dissidere. The beard was corrupted, or disguised, in men: the beauty was counterfeit or painted in women. The eyes corrupted from the form in which Gods hands had made them, the hairs were set out with a false colour: subtle frauds to deceive the hearts of the simple; deceitful pleasures to cirumvent the brethren. They coupled themselves in marriage with infidels; they prostituted the members of Christ with the heathen: they did not only swear rashly, but also forswear. They contemned their governors with swelling pride, and cursed themselves with venymed mouth, being at discord among themselves with stiff hatreds. Are not these horrible sins which overflowed in the church? Is there no more? Yes, he saith, Episcopi plurimi, quos & ornamento esse oportet ceteris, & exemplo, divina procuratione contempta, procuratores rerum secularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe deserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes negociationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari. Esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere argentum largiter velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus foenus augere. That is, very many Bishops, which ought to be an ornament and an example unto other men, despising the divine cure, became factors in worldly matters, leaving the chair, forsaking the people, wandering through other Provinces, did hunt after fairs or markets of gainful traffic. The brethren hungering in the Church they had silver in great plenty: they would in ravening manner get lands by subtle fraud, increase their gain with usury. What shall we say, did this holy Cyprian falsely accuse the Churches of his time, in laying these grievous crimes to the charge both of the Pastors and the people? Doubtless he spoke the truth. It will be demanded whether Cyprian and the rest of the godly did worship together with those open sinners, joining with them in prayer & receiving the Sacraments. We see it is manifest they did: for he describeth not the heathen, or such as had been cast forth of the Church, but such as God sent chastisement upon to raise up the faith which was almost, as he saith, a sleep. He doth also testify in plain words, that the godly could not separate themselves from the Church, because of such open sinners, without proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption. He speaketh upon this occasion: there were certain which had suffered imprisonment for the Gospel; among whom was one Maximus an Elder, and certain brethren, which when they came out of prison, separated themselves from the Church, taking offence at the open sinners which were not cast forth, as it appeareth by the words of Cyprian. For having testified his gladness that they had forsaken their schism, and did return again into the Church: he addeth, Nam etsi videntur in ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen impediri debet aut fides, aut charit as nostra, ut quoniam zizania esse in ecclesia semper cernimus, ipsi de ecclesia recedamus. Nobis tantummodo laborandum est, ut frumentum esse possimus, ut cum caperit frumentum dominicis horreis condi, fructum pro opere nostro & labour capiamus. That is, Although there be tars seen to be in the Church, yet neither our faith nor our charity ought to be hindered, that because we always perceive tars to be in the Church, we ourselves should go out of the Church: we must only labour that we may be corn, that when the corn shall begin to belayed up in the Lords barns, we may receive fruit for our work & labour. Then further he addeth: Apostolus in Epistola sua dicit, in domo autem magna, non solum vasa sunt aurea, & argentea, sed & lignea, & fictilia, et quaedam quidem honorata, quaedam vero inhonorata: nos operam demus, & quantum possumus laboremus ut vas aureum, vel argenteum simus. The Apostle his Epistle saith, but in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, and some unto honour, and some unto dishonour: let us do our endeavour, and labour what we can, that we may be vessels of gold, or at least of silver. Finally he saith: Caeterum fictilia vasa confringere domino soli concessum est, cui & virga ferrea data est. Esse non potest maior domino suo servus: nec quisquam sibi quod soli filio pater tribuit vendicarit, ut se putet universa posse zizania, humano judicio segregare: superba est ista obstinatio, & sacrilega presumptio, quam sibi furor praws adsumit, & dum sibi semper quidam plus quam mitis justicia deposcit, assumunt, de ecclesia pereunt: & dum se insolenter extollunt, ipso suo tumore caecati, veritatis lumen amittunt. But it is granted only to the Lord to break the earthen vessels, to whom also the iron mace is given. The servant cannot be greater than his Lord, neither shall any challenge that to himself, which the father hath given to the son alone, that he should think he can by human judgement sever all the tars. That is a proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, which wicked fury doth take to itself. And while some do always take more upon them, than meek justice doth require, they perish out of the Church: and while they insolently extol themselves, being blinded with that very swelling of theirs, they lose the light of the truth. What can be more manifest than these testimonies, which show that there were grievous open sins committed by multitudes in the Church, not only of the common sort, but even of the teachers? We see they did communicate together, as in the old Church under the law, heaps of notorious wicked men did flock unto the Temple and worship at the same Altar and Sacrifices with the godly. Hierom in his Epistle to Paulinus showeth, there were many of all sorts, both men and women, which did presumptuously, ignorantly, & with bane glory prattle of the scriptures, and so abuse the holy word of God. And in the Ministry there were that had stepped from secular learning to deal with the Scriptures, which being able to roll out words, thought they made goodly sermons. Therefore if the Donatists had but complained that there were multitudes of open sinners in the Church, as proud, covetous, hateful persons, irreligious and profane abusers of the Scriptures, and not only of the common sort, but also of the teachers: their complaint had been true. But when they proceeded thus; That all that did communicate with any such open sinners, were polluted by them, and fell from God: and so termed all the Pastors wicked traitors and judasses, wretches, whose worship and prayers were abominable, and all the people that joined with them profane and heathen: therein they became false accusers and wicked coudemners: they did with most intolerable pride and sacrilegious treachery publish a divorce between Christ and his spouse. The Brownists offend in the same degree in accusing, condemning, and casting forth the Churches of Christ, affirming that by open sinners admitted to the Lords table, all are fallen from the covenant of grace, have no true Sacraments, nor Church, but are as an heap of polluted heathen, whose worship and prayers are abominable.  
Now that it may appear unto every one that will not shut his eyes, that in this point our Brownists, (I speak of the Captains) are full Donatists, I wilenter into the particular discourses, and show upon what Scriptures they stood, and with what arguments they maintained this their wicked heretical opinion. And what answer they received from the holieseruants of God, the pastors of the Churches. Wherein I desire the reader to observe whether there may be found one hair breadth of difference between them: talk with the Brownists about this point which they hold, that where open sinners are admitted to the participation of the Sacraments, all which communicate with them are polluted, and cast away: or read the books and writings of theirs which are spread, mark well the sentences and places of Scripture which they allege and quote, and what reasons they draw out of them, and then look upon these. For I will note the chief Testimonies of holy Scripture that the Donatists did allege, to prove that all Churches were polluted by the mixture of open sinners, and that a separation was commanded by God from such assemblies, which are these. Come out from among them (saith the Lord) and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive ye, and I will be your Father, and you shall be my Sons and my Daughters, saith the Lord God Almighty. 2. Cor. 6. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. Ephes. 5. Be not partakers of other men's sins. 1. Tim. 5. A little leaven doth leaven the whole lump; and take away the evil from among ye. 1. Cor. 5. Ifanie which is called a Brother be a Fornicator, an I dolater, or covetous, etc. with such see that ye eat not. 1. Cor. 5. What hath the Chaff to do with the Corn? jerem. 23. Also depart, depart, come out from thence, and touch no unclean thing, come out from the midst thereof and separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord. I say. 52. All these and some other did Parmenian the Donatist Bishop allege in his Epistle. We may not think that these Scriptures were alleged only by some one Donatist: for Augustine in his book De unico Baptismo against Petilian Chapter 14. saith, Magis enim solent in ore habere, quando peccatis aliorum alios criminantur, ad excusandum nefas separationis suae, videbas furem & concurrebas cum eo, etc. For they are wont rather to have in their mouth, when they accuse some to be guilty or polluted by the sins of other, to excuse their wicked separation? Thou sawest a thief and didst run with him. Psal. 50. And be not partakers of other men's sins, depart and come out from thence, touch no unclean thing, & he that shall touch that which is unclean shall be polluted, and a little leaven doth leaven the whole lump, and other such like. Now what the estate of the question was, (and how they held men polluted, if they did not separate themselves) the disputation between the Catholic Bishops and the Donatists which were assembled at the commandment of the Emperor doth show. Where the names of the Donatist Bishops that had subscribed their consent to that conference, were two hundredth seventy and nine, but some of them were not there. Thus Augustine reporteth their words in the conference of the third day. Chapter 4. Quia & in eo quod dicebant, & divinis testimonijs velut astruebant, non esse malos in ecclesia tolerandos, sed ab eis recedendum propter contagium peccatorum: Itase dicere demonstrabant, ut tamen ignoratis peccatis alienis neminem maculari posse faterentur. Because even in that which they said, and which they did as it were confirm by the Scriptures, that the evil are not to be tolerate in the Church, but we must departed from them for fear of the contagion of their sins: they showed that they spoke it to be understood thus, that nevertheless they confessed, that no man could be spotted with other men's sins which are secret. In this conference the Donatist Bishops stood upon this, that the Lord saith of the Church Esay. 52. There shall no uncircumcised or unclean pass through thee any more. And upon that which is written by the Prophet Hag chap. 2. Ask the Priests concerning the Law. If a man carry holy flesh in the lap of his garment, and the lap of his garment shall touch the bread, etc. Shall he be sanctified? The Priests answered, no. Then if a man that is unclean touch any of those things, shall it not be unclean? The priests answer, it shall be unclean. So is this people, and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord, and so is the whole work of their hands, yea that which they have offered there, hath been unclean. Stay now and see whether the very same Scriptures be not in the mouths of the common sort of the Brownists, and whether the writings of the chief Brownists be not every where spatred with the quotations of them. And to prove the same thing which the Donatists held, and maintained by them; namely that such as communicate with open sinners are polluted by their sins, and therefore they separate themselves? But that this agreement between them may yet more fully appear, I will proceed further and show how these matters were discussed. For otherwise it may be, some man will imagine that the ancient Fathers might defend the Churches against those allegations of the Donatists after such a sort as we can not truly defend ours at this day. Whereas therefore it was by the Donatists urged; depart, depart, come out from among them, separate yourselves, touch no unclean thing, etc. the answer was by the Pastors of the Churches, that this separation was not to be made in body when the Church is pestered with open sinners, but in heart, and not consenting in mind unto the sins openly committed by those with whom they did communicate in the Church. These be the words of Augustine against Parmenian, in the second book Chapt. 18. Qua verba isti carnaliter sentientes, per tot divisiones seipsos minutatim in ipsa una Aphrica conciderunt. Non enim intelligunt neminem coniungi cum infidelibus, nisi qui facit peccata Paganorum, vel talia facientibus favet: Nec quenquam fieri participem iniquitatis, nisi qui iniqua vel agit vel approbat. Quis autem communicat tenebris, nisi qui per tenebras consentionis suae, dimisso Christo sequitur Belial? quis ponit cum infidelibus partem suam, nisi qui eius infidelitatis fit particeps? Ita enim templum dei esse desinit, nec se aliter simulachris adiungit. Qui autem sunt templum dei vivi, & in medio nationis tortuosae ac perversae apparent sicut luminaria in mundo verbum vitae habentes, nihil eos quod pro unitate tolerant inficit, nec angustiantur. quia in illis habitat & deambulat deus; & exeunt de medio malorum, atque separantur interim cord, ne forté cum id facere per seditionem Schismatis volunt, prius a bonis spiritualiter, quam a malis corporaliter separentur. That is to say, which words they undetstanding carnally; (for he had before repeated their allegation, Come out from among them and touch no unclean thing) they have cut themselves by morsels into so many divisions in that one Aphrica: for they do not understand that no man is joined with Infidels, but he that doth commit the sins of the Pagans, or else doth favour those that do such things: neither that any man can be made partaker of the iniquity, but he that either doth the wicked things, or else doth approve them. And who hath fellowship with darkness, but he that by the darkness of his consent forsaking Christ doth follow Belial? who putteth his part with infidels, but he which is partarker of that infidelity? for that way he ceaseth to be the temple of God, neither otherwise doth he join himself to idols. And they which are the temple of the living God, and in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation appear as lights in the world, having the word of life; nothing doth infect them which they tolerate for unities sake, neither are they penned up in any strait, because God doth dwell in them and walk in them And they depart out of the midst of the evil, and in the mean while are separate, at leastwise in heart, lest perhaps while they would do that by sedition of Schism, they should rather be spiritually separated from the good, than corporally from the bad Thus far Augustine, for separation in heart when it cannot be in body. Again he saith, answering Parmenian to this sentence, be not partaker of other men's sins, chap. 20. Nos dicimus, quod qui non facit malum, nec facienti consentit; & facientem arguit, firmus atque integer inter iniquos tanquam frumentum inter paleas, conversatur. We say that he which doth not commit evil, nor consent to him that doth, and rebuketh him that doth, he is conversant firm and sound among the wicked, as the corn among the chaff. Now whereas the Donatists did reply that the separation from the open sinners which God commandeth could not be meant of a separation only in heart and mind, for so we ought to be separate from the heathen: with whom yet it was lawful to eat, for S. Paul willeth If an infidel bid thee to a feast go, but if any that is called a brother be a fornicator an idolater or covetous, with such see that ye eat not: this must needs be understood of a bodily separation, the Brownists pressing this Argument, also as the Donatists did, say we might eat common bread with infidels, yea at the same common table with such ungodly Christians as Paul forbiddeth to eat with, and therefore the commandment of the Apostle they say is plain, which all men ought to obey, that if open sinners come to the holy table of the Lord, we ought not there to eat with them. But let us see the answer of Augustine in the third book against Parmenian Chap. 3. His words in deed are many, but I will set them down, because they be so full and pregnant to declare, wherein the controversy lay between the Donatists and the Churches, and why the Donatists made separation. In hac velut angustia quaestionis, non aliquid nowm aut insolitum dicam, sed quod sanitas observat ecclesiae, ut cum quisque fratrum, id est Christianorum intus in ecclesiae societate constitutorum, in aliquo tali peccato fuerit deprehensus, ut anathemate dignus habeatur, fiat hoc ubi periculum Schismatis nullum est, atque id cum ea dilectione, de qua ipse alibi praecipit dicens, ut inimicum eum non existimetis, sed corripite ut fratrem, non enim estis ad eradicandum, sed ad corrigendum: quod si se non agnoverit, neque poenitendo correxerit, ipse for as exiet, & per propriam voluntatem ab ecclesiae unitate dirimetur. Name & ipse dominus cùm servis volentibus ZiZania colligere dixit, sinete utraque crescere usque ad messem: praemisit causam dicens, ne forte cum vultis colligere Zizanea eradicetis simul & triticum. Vbi satis ostendit, cum metus iste non subest, sed omnino de frumentorum certa stabilitate, certa securitas manet: id est quando ita cuiusque crimen notum est omnibus, & omnibus execrabile apparet, ut vel nullos prorsus, vel non tales habeat definsores, per quos possit schisma contingere: non dormiat severitas disciplinae, in qua tantò est efficacior emendatio pravitatis, quantò diligentior confirmatio charitatis, tum autem hoc sine labe pacis & unitatis, & sine laesione frumentorum fieri potest, cùm congregationis ecclesiae multitudo ab eo crimine quod anathematizatur aliena est. Tunc enim adiwat praepositum potius corripientem, quam criminosum resistentem: tunc se ab eius coniunctione salubriter continet, ut nec cibum cum eo quisquam sumat, non rabie inimica, sed coertione fraterna. Tunc etiam ille & timore percutitur & pudore sanatur, cum ab universa ecclesiasc anathematizatum videns, sociam turbam cum qua in delicto suo gaudeat, & bonis insultet non potest invenire. That is to say, As it were in this strait of the question. I will not speak any thing that is new or unwonted, but that which the soundness of the Church doth observe: that when any of the Brethren, that is of the Christians, which have place within in the unity of the Church, be taken in some such sin, that he may be accounted worthy to be excommunicate; let it be done where there is no danger of a Schism, and the same with that love, of which he commandeth elsewhere, saying, esteem him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a Brother, for ye are not to root up, but to amend. If that he shall not acknowledge himself, neither reform himself by repentance, he shall departed out, and by his own will shall be cut from the unity of the Church. For the Lord himself, when he said to the servants, which would gather the tars, suffer both to grow together, showed a cause, saying, lest peradventure while ye go about to root up the tars, ye pluck up also with them the wheat. Where he doth plainly show, that when there is no such fear, but there remaineth a full security of the undoubted stability of the corn; that is when the crime of any one is so known to all, and appeareth execrable unto all, that either it can have no defenders at all, or else not such by whom there may a Schism fall out: let not the severity of discipline sleep, in which the curing of the disease is so much more effectual, as the confirmation of love is more diligent. Then also this may be done without any blot of peace and unity, and without hurting the corn, when the multitude of the assembly of the Church is free from that crime, for which the excommunication is denounced. For than they rather help the pastor that doth chastise, than the guilty offendor which resisteth, than every man doth healthfully abstain from his fellowship, and not so much as eat meat with him, not of an enemy like mad rage, but of a brotherly reprehension. Then he also is stricken with fear, and healed through shame, when seeing himself excommunicate of the whole Church, cannot find a multitude to be of his fellowship with which he may rejoice in his sin, and insult over the good. Thus far Augustine, which ye see expoundeth that place of Paul, with such eat not, of those that be excommunicate justly by the Church, showing that this excommunication cannot be executed when such a multitude do sin that it would breed a Schism, if they should be all cast forth and so pluck up the wheat: seeing as he showeth this censure is ordained as a remedy to heal, and not to pluck up and destroy. This point peradventure will seem strange unto many, that the severity of the discipline should cease as it were when it is a multitude that doth offend: and lest it may be thought not to be his meaning and as he speaketh, that which the soundness of the Church did observe, I will show how he proceedeth further in his answer. Neque enim potest esse salubris a multis correptio, nisi cum ille corripitur, qui non habet sociam multitudinem, cum verò idem morbus plurimos occupaverit nihil aliud bonis restat quam dolour & gemitus, ut perillud signum quod Ezechieli sancto revelatur illae si evadere ab illor●m vastatione mereantur. For neither can that reprehension by many (saith he) be for health, but when he is reprehended, which hath not the multitude his companion. But when the same sickness hath taken hold of very many, there remaineth nothing else to the good, but sorrow and bewailing, that through that sign which is revealed unto holy Ezechiel, they may deserve to escape unhurt and free from the destruction of those wicked.  
When Augustine hath uttered this, a little after he bringeth in Paul himself for example in his practice: for he willed them to excommunicate the incestuous person, and he that had willed not to eat bread with a brother so called that were a fornicator, doth not will them to cast them forth, and not to eat bread with them whom he complaineth of: 2. Epistle 12. that had not repent for the uncleanness, and fornication and wantonness which they had committed: for these he saith were many: and therefore that S. Paul doth not threaten that when he came he would cast them forth, but he would, as he saith, bewail them. The like we see in those that denied the resurrection, he willed them not to cast these forth, lest a schism might grow thereupon. After this he addeth, Et re vera si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit, divina disciplinae severa misericordia necessaria est: nam consilia separationis, & inania sunt & perniciosa atque sacrilega, quia & impia & superbafiunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos, quam corrigant animosos malos. That is: And in very deed if the contagion of sinning hath invaded the multitude, the severe mercy of divine discipline is necessary: for the counsel or enterprises of separation are both vain and pernicious, yea sacrilegious, because they become both wicked and proud, and do more trouble the good which are weak, than chastise the sturdy ones which are evil. What can be more vehemently thundered out against the Donatists than this? and yet the Brownists which are the same in their schism, may not be spoken sharply unto. Then a little after Augustine doth as it were conclude in this point: Misericorditer igitur corripiat homo quod potest: quod autem non potest patienter ferat, & cum dilectione gemat atque lugeat, donec aut ille desuper emendet & corrigat, aut usque ad messem differat eradicare zizania, & paleam ventilare. Let a man therefore with mercy correct that which he can: and that which he cannot, let him bear with patience, and with love let him mourn and lament, until he from above do either redress and amend, or else differre until the harvest to root out the tars, and to winnow out the chaff. Here he allegeth the example of that holy Martyr Cyprian which had been Bishop of Carthage, who describing the multitude to be so full of gross sins, yea very many of his fellow Bishops spotted with very foul crimes, yet he communicated with them, though not in their sins, which he did evermore reprehend, but in the Sacraments and holy worship of God. Furthermore, answering to the sentence alleged by the Donatist out of jeremy, what hath the chaff to do with the corn? He saith among all things the Donatists in this did bewray their sacrilegious swelling pride. For though being demanded they would confess themselves to be sinners; yet in this they did not only challenge to be the true Church alone, but also such as the holy Church shall be after the last winnowing. Cui sacrilegae praesumptioni & nephandae elationi, quid addi possit ignoro. That is, To which sacrilegious presumption and cursed abominable swelling, I know not what can be added. Read the books of Browne and the writings of other Brownists, and ye shall ever and anon find great outcries, as they charge us, against our wicked tolerating. If it were swelling pride in the Donatists that caused them to deny any tolerating, what is it in the Brownists? But to proceed yet further, in the third book against Cresconius, Chapter 50. he saith: Haec omnia displicent bonis, & ea prohibent, & cohibent quantum possunt, quantum autem non possunt ferunt, & sicut dixi, pro pace laudabiliter tolerant, non ea laudabilia, sed damnabilia iudicantes: nec propter zizania segitem Christi, nec propter paleas aream Christi, nec propter vasa inhonorata domum magnam Christi, nec propter pisces malos retia Christi derelinquunt. That is to say, All these things displease the good, and they forbidden them and restrain them as much as they can, and as much as they cannot restrain, they bear: and as I have said, they tolerate laudably for peace sake, not judging the things laudable but damnable: neither do they forsake the corn of Christ for the tars, nor the fl●aer 
Matth. 13 Matth. 3. 1. Timo. 5 Matth. 14  of Christ because of the chaff, nor the great house of Christ because of the vessels for dishonour, nor the nets of Christ for the evil fishes. I have showed already, that the Donatist Bishops when they were by the commandment of the Emperor assembled in great number at Carthage, that there might be a conference; declared this to be their mind: when they affirm that the good are polluted and cast away by communicating with the bad, that it is when the sins are manifest. Now I think it is not amiss to show somewhat of their disputation, that the things which I allege touching their opinions, may not seem to be from some few, which peradventure might differ from others. Look in the conference of the third day, Chapt. 4. The Bishops of the true Church to prove that there should be open wicked sinners in the Church mingled together with the good unto the end of the world, alleged first that the Church is called Christ's flower where the corn and the chaff are mixed together, but he hath his fan, and will purge his flower, and gather the corn into his barn, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matth. 3. The Donatists at the first rashly reply, that there was not the word flower expressed in the Scripture: but when they were convinced manifestly in that, than they say the chaff did signify the hypocrites and close sinners: as though the chaff did so resemble the corn, that it could not be discerned. Then next was alleged the parable of the good seed and the bad, and that the servants were forbidden to pluck up the tars, lest they should in plucking up the tars, pluck up also together with them the wheat, but they are willed to let them grow together unto the harvest. Matth. 13. Now because it is expressly said that the tars appeared or showed themselves and that the servants did discern them, so the it cannot be taken alone of close sinners: The Donatists did fly unto the Cavil, that the field is not the church, because he saith, the field is this world. And so they stood upon this, that the godly & open sinners are together in the world, but not in the Church: For they did allege many testimonies to show that the world is taken for the wicked. It was replied by the Catholic Bishops, that the world was sometimes put in good part, as when it is said, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself: And indeed, if it were not taken to be the Church, & that the gdooseede & the bad in the field, were together in the Church, how should the servants have a desire to pluck them up? what had they to do to meddle with such as were without▪ or why should there be danger in rooting them up, lest they should together root up the wheat? Then further when it was said that our saviour compareth the kingdom of heaven unto a Net cast into the sea, which gathereth together of all sorts both good bad and, which when it is full men draw to land, & gather the good into vessels, & cast the bad away. Math. 13. The Donatists to this said that the evil fishes did signify close hypocrites, and such sinners as could not be espied. Victi evidentia veritatis malos in ecclesia usque ad finem seculi permixtos esse, confessi sunt: sed occultos eos esse dixerunt, quoniam sic a sacerdotibus ignorantur, quemadmodum pisces intraretiacum adhuc in mari sunt a piscatoribus non videntur. That is, Being overcome with evidence of truth, they confessed that the evil are mixed in the Church even to the end of the world, but they said they are secret because they are unknown of the Pastors, even as the fishes within the nets, while they are yet in the Sea are not scene of the fishers. But if the Donatists had been asked whether the fishes together in the Net do not see one another, what would they say? How then are they secret, and not seen of the Pastors, who are also together with them in the Net▪ For they did err in taking the Pastors to be the fishers that shall draw the N●t to the shore. For expounding it, ou Saviour saith: The Angels shall go forth, and separate the evil from among the just. The Angels than are they that draw the Net to the shore. Were those ungodly sinners secret as fishes under the water which the Prophets complained of in old time, and yet did not in body separate themselves from them in the Temple▪ The like may be demanded touching the pharisees and Saducees, and the multitude of common people in the Church, from whom our Saviour did not separate himself in body. But the Donatists were impudent in denying that the Prophets and the other godly did worship together in the temple, and at the same Altar with the wicked multitude whom they so sharply reprehended.  
Now may the reader see what the Donatists maintained, and wherefore they separated themselves: which I will express in the words of Augustine in his third book against Cresconius Chapt. 81. Ibi enim tota defensi● vestra consistit, quia propterea vos separastis, ne aliorum peccatorum contagione periretis: undenowm genus areae vos secisse gloriamini, aut quae solum triticum habeat, aut in qua solum triticum appareat, cui non sit necessarius ventilator, sed perscrutator. That is For therein doth your whole defence consist, that therefore ye have separate yourselves, that ye might not perish by the contagion of other men's sins: whereupon ye glory that ye have made a new kind of floor, which either hath in it only wheat, or else in which there appeareth wheat alone which needeth not a winnower, but a searcher. The Donatists alleging against the Churches for the open sinners mixed among them the saying of Esay, woe be to them that call evil good and good evil, light darkness, and darkness light, etc. Augustine answereth, Quisques ergo vel quod potest arguendo corrigit, vel quod corrigere non potest, saluo pacis vinculo excludit, vel quod saluo pacis vinculo excludere non potest, aequitate improbat, firmitate supportat, hic est pacificus & abisto maledicto immunis quod scriptura dicit, va his qui dicunt quod nequam est bonu, etc., Whosoever therefore doth either amend that which he can by reproving, or that which he cannot amend, he casteth forth, the band of peace being kept safe, or that which he cannot cast out with the safety of the band of peace, by equity he disalloweth, and beareth it with constancy: this man is the peacemaker, and is free from that curse which the Scripture pronounceth, Woe be to them which call evil good, etc. Against Parmenian book 2. chap. 1. The Donatists alleging the sentences of the Prophets to prove that all aught to separate themselves from those, among whom the open notorious wicked men were suffered, and not cast forth: he answereth that they cited the testimonies of Scripture, and did not look upon the deeds of the Prophets, and so to know how the words of the Prophets were to be understand. Then he demandeth, Dixit jeremias quid paleis ad triticum? Vt ipse recederet a paleis upopli sui, in quas illa tanta & vera dicebat? Did jeremy say what hath the chaff to do with the corn, for this end, that he himself should departed from the chaff of his people, against which he did utter those so great things, and the same most true? Dixit jesaias, Recedite, recedite, exite inde, & immundum nolite tangere. Sed cur ipse in illo populo immunditiam quam graviter arguebat, in una cum eis congregatione tangebat? Legant quanta in malos populi sui, & quam vehementer ac veraciter dixerit, a quibus se tamen nulla corporali diremptione separaverit. That is, Esay said, Depart, depart, come out from thence, and touch not that which is unclean. But why did he himself in one congregation with them, touch that uncleanness which he reproved in that people? They may read how great things he uttered against the wicked of his people, how vehemently and truly, from whom notwithstanding he did separate himself with no bodily separation. After he hath shwed the like in the holy Prophet David who professed he had not sit in the counsel of vain men, and yet was not separate in body from the ungodly in his days: He addeth Nun, si eorum verba factis eorum obijceremus responderent nobis, nos planè cum talibus nullum habuimus in cord consortium, nec tangebamus immundum ubi potest coinquinari contactus: id est consensione at que placito conscientiae recedebamus, & exibamus ab eyes, qui non solùm talia non faciebamus, sed nec facientibus tacebamus. If we should object their words against their deeds, would they not answer us, we have had utterly no fellowship in heart with such wicked men, neither did we touch that which is unclean, where the touching may be defiled: That is to say, we did departed and come out from them in consent and likening of conscience, which ourselves, not only, did not do such things, but also kept not silence to them that did such wickedness. Against Parmenian book 3. chap. 4. Again, in the same place he addeth. Postremò si Prophetae posteros monuerunt ut se ante tempus ultimae ventilationis a paleis corporaliter separarent, & tali separatione cauerent tangere immundum, & cum facinorosis non introirent, cur hoc non fecit Apostolus Paulus? An palea non erant, qui non ex veritate, sed ex invidia Christum annunciabant? An immundi non erant, qui non castè evangelium praedicarunt? Hos in illis temporibus ecclesia fuisse testatur, cuius excellentissimam charitatem omnia tolerantem, etiam posteriores imitati sunt. That is, lastly if the Prophets gave warning to the posterity that they should before the time of the last winnowing separate themselves from the chaff in body, and by such separation take heed of touching any unclean thing, and that way not to enter with the wicked doers, why did not the Apostle Paul do so? Were not they chaff which preached Christ of envy, and not for the truth? Were not they unclean, which preached the Gospel not purely? That there were such in the Church at those times he doth testify Philip▪ 1. Whose most excellent charity enduring or tolerating all things, those that succeeded have also imitated. Having thus affirmed, that this most excellent love of Paul tolerating open wicked men in the church where they could not without danger of schism be cast forth was imitated of the godly pastors that succeeded: he allegeth for example holy Cyprian: who testifying that not only the people, but also many of his fellow Bishops were horribly wicked, yet lived in peace with them, and did not separate himself in body. Thus he demandeth, An immunditia, an etiam avaritia, quam Cyprianus cord non tetigit, & tamen inter avaros collegas pacatisssimè vixit? Was it not uncleanness, was it not also covetousness, which Cyprian touched not in heart, and yet lived most peaceably among his covetous fellow Bishops? He knew right well what God commandeth in the Psalm, that he should not sit in the counsel of vain men, nor enter with the wicked doers. An non erat conventiculum vanitatis in eyes, qui esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus, largissimo argento nitere cupiebant? An non erant facinorosi qui fuundos insidiosè fratribus rapiebant? An nequissimi & impij non erant qui usuris multiplicantibus foenus augebant? Ille vero, lavabat manus suas cum innocentibus & circundabat altare domini. Ideo quip tolerabat nocentes, ne deser●ret innocentes come quibus manus lavabat, quia diligebat speci●m domus domini, quae species in vasis honorabilibus fuit. That is, Was not the conventicle of vanity among them, which while their brethren endured hunger or penury in the Church, did covet to shine gorgeously with most abundant wealth? Were not they wicked doers, which by deceitful means in such ravening sort took from their brethren possessions of Lands? Were they not most ungodly and wicked, which with multiplying usury did increase their gain? But Cyprian did wash his hands with innocents, and compassed the Altar of the Lord. He tolerated the wicked, lest he should forsake those innocent, with whom he washed his hands, because he loved the beauty of the Lords house, which beauty was in the vessels for honour. Now where the Donatists might object, shall the discipline then be neglected, and wicked men suffered to live at their pleasure in the Church? Augustine answereth both them and all others touching this objection, first in his third book against Parmenian chap. 1. Quapropter quisquis etiam contempserit ecclesiae Dei disciplinam ut malos cum quibus non peccat, & quibus non favet, desistat monere, corrigere, arguere: si etiam talem gerit personam, & pax ecclesiae patitur, ut etiam à sacramentorum participatione quem piam possit separare, non alieno malo peccat sed suo, ipsa quip in tanta re negligentia grave malum est, & ideò sicut Apostolus admonet, si auferet malum a seipso, non solum aufirre● audaciam committendi, aut pestilentiam consentiendi, sed etiam pigritiam corrigendi, & negligentiam vindicandi adhibita prudentia & obedientia in eo quod praecepit dominus, ne frumenta laedantur. That is to say, Wherefore, whosoever also shall despise the discipline of God's Church, so that he give over admonishing, correcting, and reproving the evil men with whom he doth not sin, and whom he doth not favour, yea if he bear such office, and the peace of the Church permit, that he may also separate any from the participation of the Sacraments, and doth not, he sinneth by his own fault and not by the fault of another. For the very negligence itself in so great a matter is a grievous sin, and therefore as the Apostle doth warn. If he will take away evil from himself, he must not only take away the boldness of committing it, or the pestilence of consenting thereto, but also the slothfulness of correcting and negligence of revenging the same, prudently obeying in that which the Lord hath commanded, that the wheat may not be hurt.  
In his third book against Petilian, Chapt. 4. having before showed that there is a worthy patience in suffering the false brethren for the unities sake: he addeth, Neque hoc ideo dixerim ut negligatur ecclesiastica disciplina, & permittatur quisque facere quod velit sine ulla correptione & quadam medicinali vindicta▪ & terribili lenitate, & charitatis severitate. That is, Neither have I therefore said this, that the ecclesiastical discipline should be neglected, and that every one should be suffered to do what he will without rebuke, and without a certain medicinable revenge, terrible lenittie, and severity of love. In the 37. Chap. of the same book, having spoken of the corn and the chaff mixed together, the wheat and the tars growing together, the good fishes and the had in the same net together unto the end of the world, he than inferreth: Nec propterea tamen ecclesiastica disciplina negligitur à constantibus, & diligentibus, & prudentibus dispensatoribus Christi, ubi crimina ita manifest antur, ut nulla possint probabili ratione defendi. That is, Notwithstanding the ecclesiastical discipline is not therefore neglected of the constant, diligent and wise dispensers of Christ, where the crimes are manifested in such sort that they can in no probable manner be defended. In the fourth Chapter of his book after the conference with the Donatists, taking advantage of a saying which they uttered, which was this: Nec causae causa praeiudicat, nec personae persona. That is, neither doth cause prejudicate cause, neither one person another. He saith that the cause and person of the tars doth not prejudicate the cause and person of the wheat growing together in the same field until the harvest come: The cause and person of the chaff doth not prejudicate the cause and person of the corn, being together in the same floor until the last winnowing: The cause and person of the goats, doth not prejudicate the cause and person of the sheep, kept together in the same pastures, until the great shepherd shall separate them to the right hand and to the left in the last day: The cause and person of the evil fishes doth not prejudicate the cause and person of the good fishes, though they be held in the same net to be separated in the last shore. Then he addeth, Quibus parabolis, & figuris ecclesia praenunciata est usque in finem seculi bonos & malos simul habitura, ita ut nec mali bonis obesse possint, cum velignorantur, vel pro pace & tranquillitate ecclesiae tolerantur, si eos prodi aut a●cusari non oportuerit, aut alijs bonis non potuerit demonstrari: ita sanè ut nec emendationis vigilantia quiescat, corripiendo, degradando, excommunicando, caeterisque coertionibus licitis atque concessis, quae salva unitatis pace in ecclesia quotidie fiunt secundum praeceptum Apostolicum charitate seruata qui dixit, si quis autem non obaudit verbo nostro, per epistolam hunc notate, & nolite commisceri cum eo, ut erubescat, & non ut inimicum existimetis, sed corripite ut fratrem. Sic enim & disciplina servat patientiam, & patientia temperat disciplinam, & utrumque refertur ad charitatem, ne fortè aut indisciplinata patientia foveat iniquitatem, aut impatiens disciplina dissipet unitatem. That is to say, By which parables and figures, the Church is foreshowed that it shall have the good and the bad together unto the end of the world, so as the evil cannot hurt the good, when either they are not known, or else are tolerated for the peace and tranquillity of the Church, if it be not behoveful that they shall be manifested or accused, or that it cannot be showed to others that be good: even so verily as yet the watchfulness of redressing may in no wise rest, in rebuking, degrading, excommunicating, and in other lawful and allowable restraints, which, the peace of unity receiving no damage, are daily practised in the Church without any hindrance or breach of love, according to the Apostles precept, which said: If any obey not our word, note him by an Epistle, and have no fellowship with him, that he may be ashamed, and esteem him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. For in so doing, the discipline doth keep patience, and patience doth temper the discipline, and both are referred unto charity, lest either undisciplined patience should foster iniquity, or impatient discipline, might dissolve and scatter the unity.  
Thus far Augustine: by which words he showeth, that albeit the good and the bad shall always even to the end of the world be mixed together on heaps in the Church, so that oftentimes open sinners cannot be all cast forth without danger of schism, and therefore are to be tolerated for the peace of the Church: yet the discipline is not to sleep, but sinners are to be rebuked: such as bear public office, if they deserve, are to be degraded and deprived. The notorious wicked are to be excommunicated, where the multitude is not guilty with them, but that they may be forsaken of all and so made ashamed: but love, according to the rule of Saint Paul, is to sit at the stern and to order the whole matter, lest the severity of chasticing discipline, if it were not mixed and tempered, or as I may say, delayed with patience, might breed tumults and schisms, and separations: or lest on the other side, if tolerating patience were not sharpened by the severity of discipline, it might nourish all manner of wickedness.  
We see then what was the practice of the ancient Churches, and that touching the Ecclesiastical censures, the mixture of patience and severity, wholly referred unto love, do make a sovereign plaster and medicine, to salve and cure the sores of the Church. Where these be not tempered together there is great decay: for as the rigorous severity of Donatisme, without any aswaging the heat of severity with the mixture of love and patiented toleration, doth rend up and furiously tear all in pieces: so doth overmuch or a lose sufferance (for it deserveth not the name of patience, not regarding God's honour nor men's salvation) suffer the Lord's field to overgrow with tars, and fill the Lords Courts with Goats and Swine: whereby holy things are greatly profaned, the weak are made to stumble, and many are cast down. Touching this first point then in controversy between the Donatists and the Churches, I will conclude it with that which Augustine writeth in his treatise De unitate Ecclesiae, Chapt. 16. where having showed in the former parts of the same book that the controversy was not about the head, which is Christ, but about the body, which is his Church. For touching the head they agreed, and touching the books of holy Scripture and their authority, there was no dissent at all between the Donatists and them.  
Then further he cometh to this point, that as Christ the head is to be sought for and known only in the Canonical Scriptures: so the Church, which is his body, is likewise to be sought for, found out, and judged only by the same books of Scripture. Then he calleth for trial not by those dark places of the Bible which are spoken in figures and may be expounded divers ways in probable sense; but from the manifest clear testimonies, which also he allegeth out of many books both of the old and new Testament, to prove that the Church should be spread over all the kingdoms and nations of the world. He answereth the places of Scriptures which they alleged to prove that the world at sundry times had so fallen away from God, that a very few true worshippers remained, and why might not they be now as those few? He showeth that there be innumerable testimonies to prove, that the open bad did communicate together with the good in the Sacraments, and that the good were few in comparison of the bad so mixed with them, of which (after he hath cited many) he cometh at the last as it were to a conclusion, that all other things removed, he would have them show their Church out of the holy Scriptures, and from the places which are not dark. And then it followeth, Quisquis ergo huic epistolae responderese praeparat, ante denunciationem mihi dicat, illi codices dominicos ignibus tradiderunt, illi simulacris gentium sacrificaverunt, illi nobis iniquissimam persecutionem fecerunt, et vos eye in omnibus consensistis. Breviter enim respondeo quod saepè respondi, aut falsa dicitis, aut si vera sunt, non ad frumenta Christi, sed ad eorum paleam pertinent ista quae dicitis, non inde perit ecclesia, quae optimo judicio ventilata, istorum omnium separatione purgabitur. That is to say, Whosoever therefore prepareth himself to answer this Epistle, let him before the denouncing, say unto me; such delivered the Lords books to the fire, such sacrificed to the Idols of the Gentiles, such have persecuted us most unjustly, and you have consented unto them in all things. For I answer briefly, which I have often answered, either ye speak things which are false, or else if they be true, that which ye speak pertaineth not to the corn of Christ but to the chaff thereof, the Church doth not perish thereby, which winnowed with most perfect judgement, shall be purged by the separation of that same chaff. He addeth: Ego ipsam ecclesiam requiro ubi sit, quae audiendo verba Christi & faciendo aedificat super petram, & audiendo & faciendo tolerat eos, qui audiendo & non faciendo aedificant super arenam. Vbi sit triticum quod inter zizania crescit usque ad messem, non quid fecerint vel faciant ipsa zizania. Vbi sit proxima Christi in medio filiarum malarum, sicut lilium in medio spinarum non quid fecerint, vel faciunt ipsae spinae. Vbi sunt pisces boni qui donec ad littus perveniant, tolerant pisces malos pariter irretitos, non fecerint aut faciant ipsi pisces mali. That is to say, I seek the Church, where she is, which in hearing the words of Christ and doing them doth build upon a rock, and which hearing and doing doth tolerate those, which hearing and not doing do build upon the sand. Where that wheat is which groweth up among the tars until the harvest come, not what the tars have done, or what they do. Where that spouse of Christ is in the midst of the evil daughters, as the lily among the thorns, not what the thorns have done, or what they do. Where the good fishes be, which until they come unto the shore do tolerate the evil fishes held in the same net together, not what the evil fishes have done, or what they do.  
Thus have I laid open, that the Church in old time was full of open wicked men both of ministers and people: That the Donatists under the colour of zeal and severity against sin did separate themselves, affirming that all were polluted and fallen from the covenant, which did communicate in the worship of god and Sacraments with such notorious evil men. All men may see by that which I have noted, that the Donatists did maintain this their opinion with the same Scriptures and arguments that the Brownists do maintain it withal now: And received the same answers to confute them, which we make now to confute the Brownists. This was the main point of Donatisme, and as it were the pith & substance thereof: & it is one of the four chief pillars of Brownisme, Yea but now the Brownists do separate themselves from a worship which is Idolatrous, full of blasphemies and abominations: The Donatists did rend themselves from an holy and true worship. Indeed where the worship is Idolatrous and blasphemous, a man is to separate himself. But there are many and great corruptions before it come to that: for it is the true worship of God where the foundation is laid and standeth sure. If there be timber, Hay, and stubble built upon the foundation, the fault is great, such things are not to be approved: But yet there is God's true worship. And now to come to the very point of the matter: I do affirm & will stand to justify, that there were greater corruptions in the worship of God, even in those Churches from which the Donatists did separate themselves, than be at this day in the worship of the Church of England. So that if Brownisme be any thing to be excused in that, the Donatisme may as justly therein be defended. For if we consider matters which concern doctrine, what can any man show so corrupt in this our Church, as in the public worship to pray for the souls of the dead, and to offer oblations for the dead? This corruption was general in the Church then, yea long before the days of Augustine, as it appeareth in Cyprian and by Tertullian which was before him, and nearer to the time of the Apostles; who in his book De Monogamia reasoning against second marriage (for he was fallen into that error) would persuade any woman that had buried her husband not to marry again, because, he being separated from her in peace & not divorced, she was to pray for his soul, and yearly to offer oblation for him: thus he writeth, Et pro anima eius oret, & refrigerium interim ad postulet ei, & in prima resurrectione consortium: & offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius. That is, And let her pray for his soul, and crave refreshing for him now in the mean time, and his fellowship in the first resurrection, and let her offer yearly upon the day of his departure. It will be said by some ignorant man, that this was but the mind and practise of some few, which were corrupt and superstitious. I answer it was the practice of the Church in general, and the corruption so ancient, that the same Tertullian in his book De corona militis, speaking of it & certain other things saith they were observed by tradition from the Apostles, they were observed so generally in the Churches and no scripture to warrant them. These be his words, Oblationes pro defunctis, annua die facimus. We make oblations for the dead in the yearly day. The doctrine of Purgatory, and the doctrine of Free will were crept in also, besides divers other gross errors which sundry of the chief teachers held, some in one point some in an other. Touching Ceremonies not for order and comeliness, but with signification, the liberty was exceeding which men took, and the corruption grievous, which was not espied but of few. Tertullian for his time nameth these, which he saith were received by tradition and had no scripture to warrant them. first in baptism having showed what they professed, and the three times dipping into the water, he addeth, Ind suscepti lactis & mellis concordiam pragustamus. Exque ea die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadam abstinemus. That is Taken from thence (he meaneth from the water we first taste the concord of milk and honey, and from that day we abstain from the daily washing a whole week. Die dominico jeiunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare: Eadem immunitate a die paschae in Penticostem usque gaudemus. That is, We account it an heinous matter to fast on the Lord's day, or to worship upon the knees: by the same freedom, from Easter unto Penticost we rejoice. And by and by after he saith, Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum, & exitum, ad vestitum, ad calciamentum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus. That is, At every setting forward and moving, at every coming to, or going forth, at our appareling, and putting on our shoes, at washing at table, at lighting the candle, at bed, at sitting, whatsoever we are busied about, we wear our forehead with the sign of the Cross. These superstitious observations were crept into the Church, and in the days of Tertullian who lived not much more than two hundredth years after our Saviour Christ, received so generally, that he saith they were by tradition from the Apostles. Augustine unto januarius complaineth that there was such a multitude of rites or ceremonies in the Church. But what should I labour in this point? If the Brownists will affirm that there be as great corruptions in the worship of the Church of England, if we respect either doctrine or ceremonies, as were in the Churches from which the Donatists did separate themselves, they shall be convinced of gross ignorance. And if they stand in it, they shall show themselves shameless: let the reader in the mean time but look upon the Epistle of Master Beza before the new Testament, and see what he affirmeth in this matter, how corrupt the Churches were. Then I conclude that the Donatists separating themselves from Churches more corrupt than the Church of England in the worship of God, as I dare stand to maintain against them: if they deny it, may as well be excused as the Brownists, and so hitherto they be even brethren with them, or their natural Children, no difference to be found at all. And now touching the third and fourth pillars of Brownisme; the Donatists cried out that the Churches had no true Ministers, but that they were all false Prophets, judasses, persecutors of the just, generations of Traitors, because as they said they had their ordination from those that were such. The Brownists with all their might lift up their voices, and call us Baal's Priests, the marked servants of Antichrist, false Prophets, seducers and such like, because, as they say, we are ordained by Antichristian Bishops, which exercise a Discipline contrary to the Discipline of Christ. Here we have to consider of two things at once the Ministers and the Discipline: let us first see what the Donatists held against the Ministers. This was the common voice among the Donatists, O that matters might be disputed, discussed, and scanned. But when by the commandment of the Emperor, the conference should be holden what miserable shifts and delays did they find out? And in the conference of the third day, Chapt. 2. It is showed that the Donatists did accuse them as Traitors and persecutors: and that this saying had been uttered. Indignum est ut in unum conveniant filii Martyrum & progenies traditorum. It is an unworthy thing, that the sons of Martyrs, & the generations of traitors should come together. When Augustine had said he was no traitor, Cresconius the Donatist replieth. Sed ille qui tradidit te, creavit. font deducitur riws, & caput membra sequuntur, sano capite omne sanum est corpus, & si quid in hoc morbi vel vitij est, omnia membra debilitat, or iginem suam respicit quicquid in stirpe processit. Non potest innocens esse qui sectam non sequitur innocentis. But he that created thee played the Traitor, the river or stream is derived from the Fountain, and the members follow the head. The head being sound, the whole body is sound, and if there be any disease in it, it weakeneth all the members. It respecteth it own original, whatsoever groweth out of the stock: he cannot be innocent, which followeth not the sect of the innocent. These be the words of Cresconius the Donatist, by which he taketh upon him to prove that Augustine, and all the Pastors of the Churches had no true ordination, were not true Ministers of Christ, but the generations of traitors: He useth as we see three similitudes. The first is to this effect, as the river is derived from the Fountain, and must needs be such as it is, so those that be ordained Ministers are like the stream derived from the fountain, the ordeinors being trators, judasses, false prophets, persecutors; the ordained must needs be such also. The second is that the members do follow the head: He that ordaineth is the head, the Ministers ordained are the members. If the head be infected, the poison of it goeth into the members, Thy ordeinor, even thy head was a traitor, thou art then a traitor also. The third similitude is from the stock and the branches that grow out of it: such as the stock is, such are the branches that grow out of it. But he that ordained thee or created thee a Minister, was a false Prophet: therefore thou art a false prophet: for he is the stock out of which thou dost grow, how canst thou but be such as the root, out of which thou dost spring. The Brownists handling this point, to prove that we be no Ministers of Christ set forth the matter thus: your descent and pedigree is in few degrees derived from the Pope, you being the Children of your Antichristian Bishops, which are the creatures of the Pope, who is the eldest son of Satan, and his vicar general in earth, whose image, mark, power, and life you bear, and together with him grow, live, reign, stand, and fall as the branches with the Tree. This is the eloquence of the Brownists, which differing in words, containeth the same reasons that the Donatists did use: for in stead of the Fountain and the stream, the head and the members, they put the Fathers and the Children: for the stock and the branches they put the Tree and the boughs which is all one: And from the root, as it were from the Fountain and head, they derive the life, the power and the Image, etc. Thus they agree then, that the one part said those which ordained ye were such as sacrificed to Idols, and Traitors, very judasses, you are their children and like them. The other part saith, those that ordained ye be the creatures of Antichrist, ye receive the very life and power of your ministery from them, ye are their Children, and so the Children of the Pope. Now let us see the answer which Augustine maketh, which is this, In his omnibus verbis tuis creatorem meum caput meum, non fecisti nisi traditorem, quem quidem accusare tantùm, non convincere potuisti. Ego autem nec eius innocentiam mihi creatricem vel fontem caputúe constituo. Sed tu ad illud redis in quo Petilianus erravit, cum cuiusque in sanctificatione baptismatis Christu● sit orig● caputque nascentis: & nos vis venire in maledictum, de quo scriptum est: maledictus omnis qui spem suam ponit in homine. That is to say, In all these thy words thou hast made my ordainer, my head, none other than a traitor, whom thou couldst only accuse, but not convince. But I do not hold his innocency to be that which hath ordained me a Minister, or to be fountain or head: but thou dost return to that in which Petilian erred, when as Christ in the sanctification of baptism is the original and the head of every one that is borne again: and wilt have us come into the curse, of which it is written: Cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man.  
Thus far Augustine, whose answer hath two parts. The first is, that the Donatists did accuse, but could not prove that the ordainers were such as in time of persecution had yielded to sacrifice to Idols, or delivered the holy book to the fire. The other part is, that whether he that ordained him were a godly man or a wicked man: the matter is all one touching his ordination and Ministry. The ordination not being man's, the innocency of man cannot be the ordainer, it cannot be the head or fountain: neither can it make his ordination the better. Then likewise, the wickedness of the man that ordaineth, cannot be the root nor the fountain, nor the head. The men which ordain, are not the fathers of the Ministry, because it is not theirs which they deliver, but Christ's. That this is Augustine's meaning it is clear by that he telleth Cresconius he returned to that in which Petilian erred. Petilian denying that it was baptism that had been ministered by an ungodly man: rendereth this reason, that every thing must have an original and an head, or else it is nothing. Augustine replieth, that Christ only is the original and the head of him that is baptised: and that the baptism being Christ's, and not theirs that did deliver it: the goodness of the Minister made it not one jot the better, nor the wickedness of the Minister any whit the worse. Adding moreover, that such as take the baptism ministered by a godly man to be better in itself, than that which is ministered by a naughty man: fall into the curse, of which it is written, Cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man. He that hangeth the matters which are Christ's upon men, putteth his trust in men. The same answer that he hath made to those his Donatists of Aphrica, do we make unto our Donatists of England. First they accuse in most bitter and heinous manner, but shall never be able to prove their accusation: for there is no Ministry in England ordained by the Pope or for the Pope. The Ministry of publishing the Gospel and delivering the Sacraments is not the device of man, but Christ's ordinance: and therefore we receive it not as theirs that deliver it, neither doth their godliness or ungodliness make it better or worse unto us. The Ministry was not utterly destroyed in the Popery, for there remained the Sacrament of baptism, howsoever the Catabaptists deny the same. How much is the Ministry of Christ to be acknowledged when it is only to that end for which he ordained it, though the men that ordain should be most ungodly? This thing will more fully appear when we come to handle the agreement of the Brownists with the Donatists in that rank Donatisme, affirming it to be no Sacrament which is ministered by an open wicked man.  
Thus much may suffice to show, that in denying the ministry to be Christ's, they hold the same ground and arguments, and receive the self same answer. And for their railing terms, as generations of traitors, seducers, false Prophets, judasses, persecutors, and such like; I need not mention the comparison of our men with them, seeing they do in this, as in one of the chief veins of their eloquence, apparently excel. Their basest disciples can cry out Antichrists, Baal's Priests, false Prophets, seducers, and what not? But it will be said, that in the matter of discipline the Donatists and Brownists are unlike. I grant the Donatists, that ever I have read, did take no exception that way. That is not alone in question, but whether there were any fault, so that exception might betaken. And for this, men are to consider, that as corruption in doctrine and ceremonies did enter betimes into the Church, and grow a pace: so also the discipline or external government was of many neglected, abused and corrupted. Sundry of the Pastors being proud and ambitious, the steps were made for Antichrist to climb up, who challenged not only an external power over all other, but also a Lordship over the conscience. Thus much touching the first objection.  
The second difference objected is, That the Donatists did condemn all Churches in the world: The Brownists condemn but the Churches of England. Indeed the Brownists do affirm that they be far from condemning all churches: and so here is an apparent difference, and a great, at the first sight, if men do not narrowly way and consider all matters. They know it is a great prejudice unto them, if it be found that they condemn all Churches: but we may not look upon their words of denial, but upon the consequence of their matters. For he that shooteth an arrow at one thing and together therewith striketh another, cannot be said not to have stricken it because he had no such intent. So must we consider whether the dart of condemnation which they have shot at the Church of England, do not together with the same run through the sides of all Churches. I stand to prove it doth, and so that they are in this also full Donatists. But if they did not, yet they shall be found thus far in Donatisme, as to condemn some Churches of Christ. My first reason shall be from hence, that the Church of England is esteemed and reverenced among the Churches as a sister, and communicated withal: and yet they all know what her faults be, in her assemblies, in her worship, in her ministry and government, in as much as they are open and apparent to them, even as to ourselves. Now, that they justify her as a true Church, we have their own words: for the harmony of confessions of the Churches, collected and set forth by the Churches of France and of the Low Countries, doth receive and approve the confession of the Church of England, and call it one of the reformed Churches. Whereupon I argue thus: If the Church of England be Antichristian, and idolatrous, and worship the beast, bow down unto him and receive his mark, because of the government by Bishops: then the Churches which do perfectly know the same, and yet do acknowledge her as a sister, and communicate with her, are partakers of her sin, and so to be condemned with her. Therefore the Brownists condemning it, condemn those that justify it, knowing the estate. The Brownists condemn all those as persecutors of the just, enemies of Christ, and of his kingdom, that shall hold them to be Heretics and schismatics for condemning the Church of England and separating themselves. I argue thus: All the Churches which know the Church of England▪ and her form of government, and yet do love and reverence her as a true Church of Christ, condemn those as heretical schismatics which call it Antichristian and separate themselves from it. For how can the Churches as they do esteem the Church of England as a true sister, and yet not condemn the Brownists as wicked schismatics, which call it the synagogue of Satan? Then let the Brownists show that the Churches have revoked this their former judgement of the Church of England: or else let them answer whether they condemn not all those as no true Christians, which shall affirm them to be wicked schismatics for separating themselves from the assemblies of England: If they will deny that the churches esteem our Church as a sister, and therefore condemn them as ungodly schismatics, the matter is so clear that all men shall see them then to be impudent. It may be some Brownist will reply, that it cannot be extended unto all Churches a far off which is verified in some that be nigh. Well, let us see then for the Churches a far off. Do not the Brownists condemn the Church of Geneva? They will say no. But I say they do. For as I said before, will they not condemn all such as do reject them as wicked schismatics? This doth the Church of Geneva. Which I prove thus: In that the Church of Geneva doth approve the doctrine of those that have been and are her most learned and godly Pastors: as Master Caluin, with whom the rest consent in doctrine. Now, touching the doctrine of Master Caluin published, whereby he condemneth the Brownists as schismatics, ye may read it in fourth book of his Institutions, and the first Chapter. It is too large to recite the whole, I will allege but some parts. Look upon the seventh section where he saith: that in the visible Church in earth, there are very many hypocrites mingled; very many that be ambitious, covetous, envious, cursed speakers, some of more impure life, which tolerated for a time, either because they cannot in lawful judgement be convinced, or else because that severity of discipline which ought to be, is not always in force. In the ninth section he affirmeth, that the reason is somewhat divers in esteeming private men and in esteeming the churches: for it may come to pass (as he saith) that we ought to handle them as brethren, and account instead of believers, such as we shall think utterly unworthy the fellowship of the godly, even for the common consent of the church, by which they are tolerated in the body of Christ. We do not approve such by our voice to be members of the Church; but we leave unto them that place which they hold among the people of God▪ until it be taken from them by lawful judgement. Then he addeth, but we must think otherwise of the multitude: which if it have the ministery of the Word, and give honour, if it have the Administration of the Sacraments, no doubt it deserveth to be accounted a Church: because it is certain, those things are not without fruit: so we both keep for the Universal Church her unity, which devilish Spirits have always endeavoured to cut in sunder: neither do we defraud of their authority, the lawful assemblies which are severed according to the fitness of places. In the tenth section he uttereth that the Lord maketh so great account of the communion of his Church, that he esteemeth him as a runagate, and forsaker of religion, whosoever he be that frowardly shall separate himself from any Christian society, which imbraseth but the true Ministry of the word and Sacraments. And a little after he inferreth upon some ground of reason, that the departure from the Church is the denial of God and of Christ: affirming moreover that no crime can be devised more horrible than with sacrilegious treachery, to violate the marriage which the Son of God hath vouchsafed to contract with us. In the twelft section he doth expound what is his meaning when he requireth a pure ministery of the word, and pure order of administering the Sacraments, as notes infallible of the true Church. For he saith there may somewhat that is faltie creep in, either in the administration of the word, or of the Sacraments, which ought not to separate us from the Communion of that Ministry. Because there be principles of Religion, without which we cannot be saved, and there be points in which men descent, and the one part erreth, and yet the unity of faith and brotherly love is kept: not that we are to approve the least error in doctrine, or the sialest corruption in the administration of the Sacraments. In the thirteenth section he saith, that in tolerating the imperfection of life, we ought to be much more favourable: for here we are upon slippery ground where we may easily fall. And the evil doth here lie in wait, and assault us with special engines; for there have been always some, which being carried with a false persuasion of an absolute perfection, as if they were now become certain airy spirits despised the fellowship of all men, in whom they saw any thing that is humane or corrupt remaining. Such were of old time the Cathari, and the Donatists which fell into the same fury: such are at this day some of the Anabaptists which would seem to have profited more than others: There be other some that offend rather of an inconsiderate zeal of righteousness than of that mad pride: for while they see the life is not answerable to the holy doctrine in bringing forth good fruit among such as have the Gospel preached, they judge by and by that there is no Church. Then he showeth further that the offence is just, and God must needs punish that there is such wounding of weak consciences: but in this they offend, as he saith, that they know not how to keep any measure in being offended; or omitting that clemency which the Lord requireth, they give themselves wholly unto immoderate severity. And because they think there is no Church, where there is not sound purity and integrity of life, through the hatred of wickedness they depart away from the lawful Church, while they think they turn a side from the faction of the wicked. Then he proceedeth in answering their objections, they allege that the Church of Christ is holy; he willeth them also to understand by the parables in the Gospel, that the good and the bad are mixed together. They erie out that it is a thing intolerable that the contagious pestilence of vices doth in such violent raging sort overspread all, he setteth before them the vices that were in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia. They object that Paul doth will we eat not with any called a brother which is of an ungodly life. Yea here they cry out that if it be not lawful to eat common bread with such, how should it be lawful to eat with them the bread of the Lord? He answereth that it is a great reproach in deed, if dogs and swine be admitted to have place among the children of God: yea it is also much greater, if the sacred body of Christ be prostituted unto them. And where the Churches are well ordered, they do not keep in their bosom the notorious wicked, nor admit all without difference to that holy banquet: but the pastors are not always diligent, sometime they favour more than they ought or be more remiss. And sometime they cannot but are letted from exercising that severity which they would. Now when the Church ceaseth to do her duty herein, it is not for every private man (saith he) to separate himself: every godly man is indeed to keep himself from the fellowship of sin; but it is one thing to eschew the fellowship of sin, and another for hatred thereof to renounce the Communion of the Church. Then he answereth further, that Saint Paul willeth every one to examine himself when he cometh to eat of that bread; and if it were a wicked thing to communicate with the unworthy, Paul would certainly have willed us to look about least there should be some in the multitude, by whose uncleanness we might be defiled. These things he hath in the fourteenth and fifteenth sections: in the sixteenth section having showed that the chief ringleaders in such separation are led with pride, he willeth the godly to consider that in a great multitude there are many which are truly, holy and innocent before the eyes of the Lord, which are hid from their sight; that of those which seem diseased or infected, there are many which do not please or flatter themselves in their vices, but being eftsoons awakened with an earnest fear of God labour to amend. That they must not judge of a man for one fact: when the holiest men do sometime fall most grievously: That the Ministry of the word, and the participation of the Sacraments, have more force to gather a Church, than that by the fault of certain wicked men, that whole power may vanish or come to none effect. Finally let them consider that in esteeming a Church, the judgement of God, is of more weight and certainty, than the judgement of man. In the eighteenth section, he setteth forth how the holy Prophets of God did not separate themselves, in those horrible and lamentable desolations which they describe: when most of the people and the Priests themselves were openly wicked.  
Thus may we see that Master Caluine condemning the Brownists so severely by the Scriptures, they must either revoke Brownisme in this point, that the bad pollute the good, and therefore separation to be made, which he termeth sacrilegious treachery; or else condemn him not only with the Church of Geneva which he taught, but also all other Churches that embrace his writings, and acknowledge him for a noble instrument of God. Furthermore let the Brownists show any one assembly at this day in the World, in which there be not open sinners admitted to the Lords table, and which sin in great sins, as either in pride, self love, ambition, covetousness, idleness, hatred, envy, contention, backbiting, lying and in such like. They say all are polluted and fallen away from the covenant, where any that openly sinneth is admitted to the holy Communion. How can they say then that they do not condemn all Churches under heaven? Finally when in their writings they affirm that prescript form of prayer imposed is Idolatry, a bondage breaking christian liberty, a thing most detestable, they do so far condemn all Churches, in as much as there is no one which hath not prescript form of Prayer imposed. And the Brownist which hath published in Print, a defence of the same, allegeth the extreme curse against those that add to God's word Revel. 22. and saith they add which make Laws in the Church, in matters of circumstance, or things indifferent. Which in deed all the Churches do; and therefore he layeth that extreme curse upon all the reformed Churches: let no man therefore be so simple, as to imagine that the Brownists do condemn but the English Churches, when their extreme severity in condemning reacheth over all.  
Now to the third thing objected wherein they may seem to differ from the Donatists: namely that the Donatists did hold that the Sacraments, or the efficacy of them doth depend upon the worthiness of the minister: but the Brownists are not of that mind. I answer that in this great and rank point of Donatisme I can find no difference at all between them and the Brownists: and let the words and meaning of both be scanned, and it shall appear manifestly that they hold the self same thing, neither more nor less like even brethren.  
The Brownists affirm that we have neither word of God nor Sacraments in our Church. But demand of them, doth the Sacrament or the efficacy thereof depend upon the worthiness of the minister? They will answer, it doth not, but yet it can be no Sacrament of Christ unless he be a minister of Christ that doth deliver it. If it be said unto them judas was a most wicked man, and our Saviour calleth him a devil yet was he a minister of Christ for the time, and the baptism he administered as effectual as the baptism of any other. They will reply and say, that was so because the sin of judas was secret, they were not polluted by his uncleanness, because they did not know it: But he that is an open sinner cannot be a minister of Christ; and such as receive the Sacrament at his hand, knowing his wickedness cannot but be partakers of his sin and polluted by the same. This will they say is not to make either the being of a Sacrament, or the efficacy thereof to depend upon a man, but upon God's ordinance that he be a minster that deliver it. I will not deny that he must be a minister that doth deliver it: And I say withal that although the Donatists may seem by some of their speeches to hold a further thing touching this matter, yet lay all their sayings together, and it is manifest they held, that where the sin was secret in him that did administer, the Sacrament delivered by him was effectual, notwithstanding he were never so wicked inwardly: but if his sin were open, he was no minister, and so no Sacrament, but the party that communicateth with him is polluted by him.  
Potilian the Donatist Bishop in the beginning of his epistle denying that they did rebaptize, but that such as were baptised in the Churches were not baptised at all, before they baptised them, for confirmation useth this saying, Conscientia namque dantis attenditur, quae abluat accipientis. For the conscience of him that giveth is attended, which may wash the conscience of him that receiveth. Further he saith, Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem percipit sed reatum. He that will take faith of the faithless, receiveth not faith but guiltiness. And rendering a reason for confirmation he saith, Omnis enim res origine et radice consistit: & si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est. For every thing doth consist of an original and root: and if any thing have not a head; it is nothing. Augustine answereth to these sayings of Petilian, demanding first, what if the conscience of him that giveth be secret, and perhaps unclean, how can it wash the conscience of him that receiveth? For if the Donatist shall say it appertaineth not to the receiver, whatsoever evil lie hid in the conscience of the giver, that ignorance perhaps shall be of this force, that unwittingly he cannot be defiled by the conscience of him that baptizeth him: let it suffice therefore that the defiled conscience of an other while it is not known doth not pollute, yet will they say it shall also wash? From whence is he washed then that receiveth baptism of one that hath a polluted conscience, and he doth not know so much? Seeing he saith, he that will take faith of him that is faithless, doth not receive faith, but guiltiness. Behold a faithless man doth stand to baptise, but he that is to be baptised doth not know his unfaithfulness, what dost thou think he shall receive, faith or guiltiness? If the Donatist say, he receiveth faith, than he inferreth, that it is granted it may come to pass, that a man may receive faith and not guiltiness from an unfaithful man, and so the former saying is false. But if the Donatist should answer, he receiveth guiltiness: then he saith the Donatists should baptise those again which were baptised among themselves by wicked men, whose wickedness was secret at such time as they did baptise, but afterward they were be●raied, convict, and condemned. I say then it is manifest by the practice of the Donatists, in not baptizing again any of those which had been among them baptised by their own Ministers whom they esteemed godly, but afterward were disclosed to be rank hypocrites, and so they condemned and cast them forth, that their judgement was, that he was a Minister of Christ, though a reprobate touching his own person, and the Sacrament delivered by him a true Sacrament, so long as his wickedness say hid from the knowledge of men: howsoever the reasons of Petilian which he uttered in the rash heat of his fury, may seem to stretch further. And where as Augustine answering to the rest of the words saith: Quapropter sive à fideli, sive à perfido dispensatore Sacramentum baptismi quisque percipiat, spes ei omnis in Christo sit, ne sit maledictus qui spem suam ponit in homine. Alioquin si talis quisque in gratia spirituali renascitur, qualis est ille à quo baptizatur, & cum manifestus est qui baptizat homo bonus, ipse dat fidem, ipse origo & radix, capútque nascentis est: cùm autem latet perfidus baptizator, tunc quisque à Christo percipit fidem, tunc à Christo ducit originem, tunc in Christoradicatur, tunc Christo capite gloriatur: laborandum est omnibus qui baptizantur ut baptizatores perfidos habeant, & ignorent eos. That is to say: Wherefore whosoever receiveth the Sacrament of baptism, whether it be of a faithful, or whether it be of an unfaithful dispenser, let all his hope be in Christ, lest he be accursed as one that putteth his trust in man. Otherwise if every one that is borne in spiritual grace be such an one, as he is by whom he is baptised: and when he that baptizeth is manifest a good man, he giveth faith, he is the original, the root and the head of him that is new borne: but when he that baptizeth is unfaithful being not known so to be, than every one receiveth faith of Christ, taketh original from Christ, is rooted in Christ and glorieth in Christ his head: then all men are to endeavour which are baptised, that they may have unfaithful baptizers, so they know them not to be such. His reason is, that when the man that baptizeth is secretly wicked, it is most absurd to say his conscience baptizeth, or that he is the root or head of him that is regenerate, and therefore the Donatists confessing such to be truly baptised, he saith it must needs then be Christ that doth baptise. And thereupon inferreth, that this absurdity must needs follow, which is most foolish to believe, that it is better to be baptised of a secret wicked man, than of the best manifest godly man, because Christ is incomparably better than the best men. Wherefore he wisheth them to confess whether the Minister be good or bad, it is Christ alone that doth baptise, that giveth faith, that is the root and the head. It will now be said, that by this it appeareth the Donatists did ascribe all to the man, if he were godly. Let us see therefore what they answer. Cresconius taking upon him to defend the saying of Petilian, in this that the conscience of the giver doth wash the conscience of the receiver: and Augustine demanded, what if the giver be of a defiled conscience, and secret? Cresconius answereth: Conscientia dantis attenditur, non secundum eius synceritatem, quae in illa videri non potest, sed secundum famam quae de illa seu vera, seu falsa est: quia videlicet eius est hominis, qui & si sceleratus occultus sit, sufficit accipienti, quod bonae sit existimationis nondum cognitus, nondum iudicatus, nondum ab ecclesia separatus. That is, The conscience of the giver is attended, not according to the sincerity thereof, which in it cannot be seen, but according to the fame which is of it whether true or false: that is to say, because it is of that man, who though he be secretly wicked, it is sufficient for the receiver, that he is of good estimation, not yet known, not yet judged, not yet separate from the Church. Book. 2. Chapt. 17. This blind shift had Cresconius alleged to avoid those former absurdities, and fell into as great that false fame doth baptise. By which it appeareth that the whole matter of the Donatists opinion rested in this, that an open wicked man only did not, or could not baptise. Cresconius calleth upon Augustine thus: Respond quomodo baptizent quos damnavit ecclesia? Answer how they can baptise whom the Church hath condemned? Augustine doth answer: Sic eos baptizare, quomodo baptizant quos damnanit Deus, antequam de illis quicquam iudicaret ecclesia. That they baptise as those do whom GOD hath condemned, before the Church hath judged any thing of them. And seeing the secret wicked man is condemned already by Christ, and the Church is subject to Christ: he inferreth, Non igitur debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere, ut putet baptizare posse ab illo iudicatos, à se autem iudicatos baptizare non posse, cum ille semper veraciter judicet, ecclesiastici autem judices sicut homines plerunque falluntur. Therefore the Church ought not to prefer herself before Christ, as to think that such as are condemned by him can baptise, but such as are condemned by her cannot baptise, when he always judgeth truly, where the ecclesiastical judges as men are oftentimes deceived. Hereupon he concludeth, Baptizant ergo quantum attinet ad visibile ministerium, & boni, & mali, invisibiliter autem per eos baptizat, cuius est & visibile baptisma, & invisibilis gratia. Tingere ergo possunt & boni & mali, abluere autem conscientiam non nisi ille, qui semper est bonus. Therefore both the good and the bad do baptise in as much as appertaineth to the visible ministry, but invisibly by them doth he baptise whose is both the visible baptism, and also the invisible grace. Both the good then and the bad may dip them in the water, but to wash the conscience, there can none but he which is always good. Book. 2. Chapt. 21. Cresconius proceedeth, demanding what can be uttered more wicked than this, Vt purificet alium maculosus, abluat sordidus, emundet immundus, det infidelis fidem, criminosus faciat innocentem. That he which is spotted should purify another, he that is foul should wash, he that is unclean should cleanse, that an Infidel should give faith, that he which is criminous should make another innocent? Book. 3. Chapt. 5. Augustine answereth: Nec maculosus, nec sordidus, nec immundus, nec infidelis, nec criminosus est Christus, qui dilexit ecclesiam & seipsum tradidit pro ea, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo, faciens nos certos de bonis suis, ne malis viciaremur alienis. Christ is not spotted, nor foul, nor unclean, nor an infidel, nor criminous which hath loved his Church and given himself for it cleansing it by the laver of water through the word, making us sure of his good things, that we cannot be defiled with the evil of other men.  
But now to come to a more clear opening of this matter, whereas Petilian had said that every thing consisteth of an original and root, and if any thing have not an head it is nothing: and the answer was made, that Christ is the original, the root and the head of him that is baptised: and that he is accursed which putteth his trust in man. Cresconius doth reply, as Augustine reporteth his words, Hoc & nos suademus & volumus, ut semper Christus det fidem, Christus sit origo Christiani, in Christo radicem Christianus infigat, Christus Christiani sit caput. Non quaerimus hominem in quo spem constituat accepturus, sed quaerimus per quem hoc melius fiat? Et quia sine ministro nec vos dicitis hominem posse baptizari, quaerimus utrúmne melius iniustus sit minister, an justus? This also (saith the Donatists) we will and persuade, that Christ always giveth faith, Christ is the original of a Christian, in Christ the Christian must fix his root, that Christ is the head of the Christian, we seek not a man in whom he that is to be baptised may set his hope, but we seek by whom this may better be done. And because you also say a man cannot be baptised without a minister, we demand whether is the better, that the minister be unjust, or that he be just. Book 3. chapt. 6, 7, and 8. Augustine replieth. Vbi respondeo, ad hoc esse melius, ut sit justus minister, quod infirmitas hominis, cui sine exemplo laboriosum est & difficile quod imperat Deus, imitatione boni ministri ad vitam bonam facilius erigatur. unde dicit Apostolus Paulus, imitatores mei estote, sicut & ego Christi. ad hominem vero baptizandum, & sanctificandum, si tantòest melius quod accipitur, quantò est melior per quem traditur: tanta est in accipientibus baptismorum varietas, quanta in ministris diversitas meritorum. Si enim, quod sine controversia creditur, melior erat Paulus quam Apollo, meliorem baptismum profectò dedit, secundùm istam vestram vanam perversamque sententiam. Et si meliorem baptismum dedit, profecto eis quos a se non baptizatos gratulatur invidit. Porro si interbonos ministros, cum sit alius alio melior, non est melior baptismus qui per meliorem datur, nullo modo est malus qui etiam per malum datur, quando idem baptismus datur, & ideo per ministros dispares, Dei munus aequale est, quia non illorum, sed eius est. Where I answer (saith Augustine) That in this respect it is better, that the minister be godly, because the infirmity of man, to whom without an example it is labour some and difficult to do that which God commandeth, may more easily by the imitation of a good minister be raised up and supported unto good life. Whereupon the Apostle Paul saith, Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ. But for the Baptizing, and sanctifying a man, If it be so much better which is received, as he is better, by whom it is delivered: then there is as great variety of Baptisms in the receivers, as there is diversity of worthiness in the ministers. For if Paul were better than Apollo, which is believed without controversy, than he verily, according to that your vain and perverse sentence, gave a better baptism. And if he delivered a better baptism, doubtless he envied those for whom he is glad that they were not baptised by him. Moreover if it be so, that among the good Ministers, when one is better than another, the baptism is not better which is delivered by the better, it is by no mean evil when it is given by a naughty man, seeing the same baptism is delivered. And therefore by unequal Ministers, the gift of God is equal, because it is his, and not theirs. Thus far Augustine. It is apparent enough by that which I have already cited, what the Donatists meant in denying it to be Baptism which was administered by an open wicked man: and requiring for the truth and efficacy of Baptism, that it should be administered by a godly man, or at the least by a man godly in show: but yet I will add somewhat more. Petilian replying upon Augustine with great railing, said also that those absurdities which he gathered were his own. book 3. chap. 45. And whereas Augustine had demanded, what if the conscience of him that delivereth be unclean & secret, what doth wash (if any thing be to be that way regarded in man)? he answereth it is as to say, Quid si nunc coelum ruat? What if the sky should now fall? Moreover he saith that two words of his were omitted by Augustine, in his two sayings: the one is, the conscience of him that giveth, where he saith his words were sanctè dantis, of him that giveth holily: The other, he that will take faith of an unfaithful man, he receiveth not faith but guiltiness: where he saith this word sciens, was omitted: which is knowing. So that howsoever Petilian seemed in his heat to utter otherwise, he will have this to be his meaning, that he which receiveth Baptism of a Minister whom he knoweth to be a wicked man, because his sins are open, he receiveth not Baptism, but pollution and guiltiness, by Communicating with him. book 3. Chapter 31. Again, where Petilian and the rest affirmed, that he which is baptized of one that is dead, his washing doth not profit him, he meaneth by one that is dead, not the secret wicked, nor yet the open sinner, until the Church have condemned him Book 1. Chap. 10. Parmenian that Donatist Bishop, to prove that it was no Baptism which was ministered by an open wicked man, allegeth that the wicked which sacrificeth a sheep, is as he that cutteth off the head of a dog; and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the lord Esay. 66. And that the man which had any blemish, or spot in him should not come to offer as a Priest to the Lord Leuit. 21. And that God heareth not sinners. john. 9 As Augustine reporteth against Parmenian Book 2. Chapt. 6, 7, 8. Where Augustine answereth, unicuique retribuit Deus secundùm cor suum. Nam si primis temporibus non obfuerunt mali sacerdotes, vel collegis bonis, sicut fuit Zacharias: vel popularibus, sicut fuit Nathaniel in quo dolus non erat, quantò magis nihil obest in Christiana unitate Episcopus malus, vel coepiscopis vel lucis bonis, cùm iam ille sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech & pontifex noster sedens ad dextram patris, interpellat pro nobis, etc. God rendereth unto every one according to his heart. For if in the first times, the naughty Priests did not hurt either their fellows which were good, such as was Zacharie: or any of the people, such as was Nathaniel, in whom was no guile. How much more doth an evil Bishop in the Christian unity, nothing hurt, either his fellow Bishops being good, or any of the laity? when now that Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, even our high Priest, sitting at the right hand of the Father, maketh intercession for us, etc. Dicant ergo mihi, cui sancto secundùm salutem spiritualem obfuerit vel in sacerdotibus, vel inter populum constituto, malus aut maculatus sacerdos? Let them show unto me therefore which holy one either of the Priests or among the people, an evil and spotted Priest did hurt touching spiritual salvation. Where was Moses and Aaron, there were the wicked murmurers: where was Caiphas and other such like, there were Zacharie, simeon and other godly ones: where Saul was, there was David; where Esay, jeremy, Ezechiel, and Daniel were, there were the wicked Priests, and naughty people. Sed sarcinam suam unusquisque portabat. But every one did bear his own burden. And having showed that the words of Balaam a wicked man were heard of God for the people, he addeth, unde non mirum est, verba bona quae propopulo dicuntur in precibus, etiam si a malis dicantur episcopis, exaudiri tamen, non pro perversitate praepositorum, sed pro devotione populorum. From whence it is no marvel, that good words which are uttered in prayer for the people are heard, though they be uttered by naughty Bishops, not for the perverseness of the guides, but for the devotion of the people. No man can take any thing unless it be given him from above; Petilian saith thereupon: Doce igitur traditor simulandi mysteria quando acceperis potestatem, Show therefore thou Traitor, when thou didst receive the power of counterfeiting the mysteries. Book 2. Chapter. 31. He termeth it a counterfeiting, or feigning of the sacraments when they be ministered by one that is openly wicked, because he holdeth, that God never authorised any such to deliver them. And what is the whole pith of Brownists touching this point, when they cry out that we have no word of God, nor Sacraments, but even the very same that the Donatists held, namely that if he be openly wicked, because God commandeth there should be no such in the ministery, he hath no authority to Baptize, and so it is no Sacrament which is delivered by them? The Brownists affirm that the efficacy is of God, the faith is of God, the grace is of God alone, but God bestoweth these by such only as be his true Ministers, and those are none that be openly wicked. The Donatists did affirm nothing but the very same: For Augustine thus rehearseth the words of Cresconius, Ideo magis te dicis justum & fidelem, per quem hoc sacramentum celebretur inquirere, quia spem & fiduciam Dei non hominis habes: Dei esse autem fidem atque justitiam, quam semper in ministris eius attendis. Thou sayest that because thy hope and confidence is in God and not in man, thou dost so much the rather seek for one that is just and faithful by whom this Sacrament may be celebrated: and that the faith and righteousness is of God, which thou dost attend in his Ministers. Book 3. Chap. 9 I hold him therefore a very sharp discerner, which weighing throughlie all the sayings of the Donatists, shall be able in this point of hanging the being and efficacy of the Sacraments, upon the worthiness of the Ministers, to show any small difference between the Brownists and them. Yea but herein they may seem to differ very much, that the Donatists did rebaptize, but the Brownists do not. In deed herein I confess they differ, but yet so that in this difference the Brownists are the grosser, if we may reason from that which they hold: for if this were true, which the Brownists affirm most stiffly to be true, as the Donatists did before them, that where an open wicked man doth administer the Sacraments they be no Sacraments at all. And if this also were as true, which they both have taken upon them to justify, the Donatists of old saying, they had no true Sacraments in the Churches, and the Brownists that we have none now: It must needs be granted that the Donatists did the better of both, in baptizing those which were not before baptised: for he that is not baptised aught to be baptised. And as no uncircumcised might eat of the Passeover, but was to be cut off from the people of GOD: so no unbaptized is to eat at the table of the Lord. How gross are the Brownists which take it as a thing undoubted that we have no Sacraments, and must needs thereupon be assured that they themselves were never baptised, and so can be but as an heap of uncircumcised, and yet seek not to have the Sacrament? I would have them answer this question, whether a man that knoweth he was never baptised, can be saved, if he seek not to be baptised, when he may come by it? Let no man imagine that I speak this as though the Brownists should do well in rebaptizing, for their former ground is false, wicked and heretical, when they say it is no Sacrament that hath been administered by open offenders: and that we have no Sacraments. But if that were true which they hold, they should do much better, I will not say to rebaptize, but to baptise such as were not before baptised.  
Now, where it is generally objected, that the Donatists perhaps held divers things which the Brownists do not. I answer, that the Donatists indeed held somewhat which the Brownists do not, and the Brownists hold something which they did not. For some of the Donatists did cast themselves down from high places, and into the fire, accounting them holy Martyrs that so died, and others defended their doing. For thus saith Gaudentius a Donatist Bishop in his Epistle, An ista persecutio est, quae tot milliq innocentum martyrum arctavit ad mortem? Christiani enim secundum evangelium spiritu prompti, sed carne infirmi à sacrilega contaminatione caminorum reperto compendio suas animas rapuerunt, imitati presbyteri Raziae in Machabaeorum libris exemplum, nec frustra timentes: quisquis enim eorum manus inciderit, non evasit: sed quantum velint faciant, quod certum est, dei esse non possunt qui faciunt contra Deum. Whether is that a persecution (saith he) which hath penned up in a strait so many thousands of innocent martyrs even unto death? For Christians according to the Gospel, being ready in spirit, but weak in the flesh, finding out a compendious way of their chimneys, have delivered their souls from the sacrilegious pollution, imitating the example of old Razia in the books of the Maccabees, not fearing without cause: for whosoever falleth into their hands, doth not escape: but let them do as much as they will, that which is certain, they cannot be of God, which do against God. book 2. against Gaudent. Chapt. 20. Augustine showeth, that Gaudentius meaning was not that they burned themselves in their attorneys for fear of persecution unto death, for the civil Magistrate did not so persecute them, having made a law against them for banishment, but not for death: as Augustine showeth book 2. against Gaudentius chap. 11. Mitiora in vos constituit Imperator propter mansuetudinem Christianam: exilium vobis voluit infer, non mortem. The Emperor hath decreed more gentle things against ye through Christian mildness: he would lay banishment upon ye and not death. But his meaning is that such as fell into their hands were drawn to join with them in worship, which he calleth the sacrilegious defilement. And therefore doth abuse that place of the Gospel, to colour such horrible murdering of themselves, the spirit is ready but the flesh is weak: for fearing least through weakness they should yield to join with the Churches, they rather chose to kill themselves. This the Brownists do not: but they condemn read prayer, or praying after any prescript form of words which the Donatists did not, as may be gathered by these words of Petilian: Si p●ecem domino facitis, aut funditis orationem, nihil vobis penitus prodest. Vestras enim debiles preces cruenta vestra conscientia vacuat, quia dominus deus puram magis conscientiam quam preces exaudit, domino christ dicente, non omnis qui dicit mihi domine, domine, intrabit in regnum coelorum, sed is qui facit voluntatem patris mei qui est in coelis. Voluntas dei utique bona est, nam ideo in sacra oratione sic petimus, fiat voluntas tua sicut in coelo, & in terra. If ye make prayer to the Lord (saith the Donatist) or power forth supplication, it doth profit ye nothing at all, for your bloody conscience doth make your weak prayers of none effect, because the Lord God doth rather hear a pure conscience than prayers, the Lord jesus saying, that not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven. The will of God is good, for therefore in the holy prayer we pray thus, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Thus we see that the Donatist denying that any prayed but they, showeth with all that praying they used the Lords prayer.  
But what do I stand to seek differences between them, which can hardly be found: whereas indeed whole books do set forth at large their agreement. I will therefore proceed further to declare in particulars touching the power of Christian Princes, in reforming the Church, in establishing religion, and in punishing heretics, schismatics, and disturbers, and in compelling their subjects to the obedience of the truth, or to embrace the true worship, how injuriously Browne hath dealt in his book, and the Brownists that have written since, I have laid open in my former book, let their sayings be throughlie perused, and now shall ye see a little whether they be not the very natural children of the Donatists in this point also. Thus writeth Gaudentius a Donatist Bishop: Per opificem rerum omnium dominum Christum omnipotens deus frabricatum hominem ut deo similem, libero demisit arbitrio. Scriptum est enim, fecit deus hominem & dimisit eum in manu arbitrij sui. Quid mihi nunc humano imperio eripitur quod largitus est deus? Aduerte vir sum quanta in deum sacrilegia perpetrentur, ut quod ille tribuit auferat humana praesumptio, & pro deo se inaniter iactet magna iniuria dei, si ab hominibus defendatur. Quid de deo aestimat qui eum violentia vult defendere, nisiquia non valet suas ipse iniurias vindicare? God almighty (saith this Donatist) by the maker of all things the Lord Christ, left man to his own free will being created as in the likeness of God. For it is written, God made man and left him in the power of his own will. Why should that be plucked from me by human authority, which GOD hath bestowed upon me? Mark most worthy man, how great sacrileges are committed against God, that human presumption should take that away which he hath given, and vainly boast itself for God with great injury to God, if he must be defended by men. What doth he esteem of God, which will defend him with violence, but that he is not able to revenge the injuries done unto him? In what sense this Donatist spoke thus, may best appear by the answer of Augustine. Secundum illas vestras fallacissimas vanissimásque rationes, babenis laxatis atque dimissis, humanae licentiae impunita peccata omnia relinquentur nullis oppositis repagulis legum, nocendi audacia, & lasciviendi libido bacchetur, non rex suum regnum, non dux militem, non provincialem judex, non dominus servum, nec pater filium à libertate & suavitate peccandi minis ullis paenisue compescat. Auferte quod sana doctrina pro sanitate orbis terrarum sapienter per Apostolorum dicit, & ut confirmetis in arbitrio tanto peiore quanto liberiore filios perditionis, delete quod ait vas electionis, omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus, subdita sit: non est enim potestas nisi à deo. Quae autem à deo sunt, ordinata sunt. Quapropter qui resistit potestati, dei ordinationi resistit. Qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi judicium acquirunt. Principes enim non sunt timori boni operis, sed mali. Vis autem non timere potestatem? Fac bonum, & habebis laudem ex illa. Dei enim minister est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit. Delete ista si potestis, aut ista, sicut facitis, si non potestis delere, contemnite. Habete de his omnibus pessimum arbitrium, ne perdatis liberum arbitrium, aut certe quia sicut homines hominibus erubescitis, clamate si audetis, puniantur homicidia, puniantur adulteria, puniantur caetera quamtalibet sceleris, sive libidinis facinora seu flagitia. sola sacrilegia volumus à regnantium legibus impunita. An verò aliud dicitis, cum dicitis, magna dei iniuria si ab hominibus defendatur. Quid de deo aestimat qui eum violentia vult defendere, nisi quia non valet suas ipse iniurias vindicare? Haec dicentes, quid aliud dicitis, nisi nulla hominis potestas contradicat atque obstrepat nostro libero arbitrio, quando iniuriam facimus deo. That is, According to these your most deceivable & most vain reasons, the rains being let lose to human licentiousness, all sins shall be let go unpunished, no bars of laws opposed, the boldness to hurt, and lust of rioting shall rage's every where, the King shall not with any threatenings or penalties restrain his kingdom, nor the Captain the soldier, nor the judge any of his circuit, nor the master his servant, nor the father his son from the liberty and sweetness of sinning. Take away that which sound doctrine, for the health of the world saith wisely by the Apostle, and that ye may confirm the children of perdition in a will, by how much the more free, by so much the worse, blot out that which the elect vessel saith; Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Wherefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For Princes are not a terror for well doing but for evil. Wilt thou not fear the power? Do well and thou shalt have praise of it: for he is the minister of God for wrath to take vengeance upon the evil doer. Blot out these things if ye can, or else as ye do, despise these things, because ye cannot blot them out. Have a will concerning all these things most evil, that ye may not lose your free will. Or verily, because as men ye are ashamed before men, cry out if ye dare, let murderers be punished, let adulteries be punished, let other whatsoever enormities & heinous deeds of wickedness & lust be punished, we will that only sacrilegies go unpunished by the laws of princes. Do ye say any other thing, when ye say, it is great injury to God, that he should be defended by men? What doth he esteem of God which will defend him with violence, but that he is not able to revenge the injuries done to him? saying these things, what other thing say ye▪ but that no power of man must gainsay or mutter against our free will when we do injury to God? Thus far Augustine? But let us see further what Gaudentius saith, Sed belliferae pacis cruentaeque unitatis se incolas iactant, audiant Dominum dicentem, pacem meam do vobis, pacem relinquo vobis: non sicut seculum dat, ego do vobis. Seculi enim pax inter animos gentium dissidentes armis & belli exitu foederatur: domini Christi pax, salubri lenitate tranquilla, volentes invitat non cogit invitos. But they boast themselves (saith the Donatist) as inhabitants of warring peace, and bloody unity. Let them hear the Lord, saying, My peace I give unto ye, my peace I leave unto ye: not as the world giveth, do I give. For the peace of the world, when the minds of the Nations are at discord, is covenanted or established with armour and event of war: The peace of the Lord Christ being calm with healthful lenity inviteth the willing, compelleth not the unwilling. This Donatist addeth, Ad docendum populum Israel omnipotens Deus prophetis praeconium dedit, non regibus imper avit. salvator animarum Dominus Christus, ad insinuandam fidem, piscatores, non milites misit. To teach the people of Israel almighty God gave prophets to preach, he enjoined not Kings. The saviour of Souls the Lord Christ, to insinuate faith sent fishers and not Soldiers. Book 2. against Gaudentius chapt. 11. 16. 26.  
Let us see also what Petillian that other Donatist Bishop saith, book 2. against him Chapter 78. Charitas non persequitur non adversus caeteras animas Imperatores inflammat. Charity doth not persecute it doth not inflame or kindle the wrath of rulers against others. This was the outcry of the Donatists against the godly teachers of the churches when the Emperors made any laws to drive them from their madness, that they had inflamed the rulers to persecute them. jesus Christus it a sidem vener at facere, non ut cogeret homines, sed potius invitaret. jesus Christ came so to work faith, not that he might compel men, but rather invite them. Quodsi cogi per legem aliquem vel ad bona licuisser, vosipsi miseri a nobis ad sidem purissimam cogi debuistis. Sed absit, absit a nostra conscientia, ut ad nostram sidem aliquem compellamus. If it were lawful (saith this Donatist) that any should by the Law be compelled, yea even unto good things, you wretches ought to be compelled by us, to the most pure faith: but far be it, far be it, from our conscience, that we should compel any unto our faith. chapped. 83. Quid vobis est cum regibus seculi quos nunquam Christianit as nisi invidos sensit? What have you to do with the Kings of the World which the Christianity hath never felt but envious against it? Chapter. 92. Compare now the doctrine of our Brownists and their sayings with these former of the Donatists, and see if there be any difference? They say Princes are not to make Laws for Church matters, Princes are not to reform the Church by their authority: Princes are not to compel their subjects to the true worship of God by penalties: If Prince's pleasures are to be attended, where is the persecution we speak of? None of the godly Kings of judea durit compel any to the covenant. The people of Christ's Kingdom are spontanes, such as come of their own free accord, etc. It were too long and tedious, to set forth all the outcries of the Donatists, their glorying in suffering persecutions for the truth, their accusations against the pastors of Christ's Church and the Princes while they sought to restrain their fury, the one by God's word, the other by laws; that they persecuted, and therefore could not be the true Church which as they say is persecuted, but never persecuteth: read the epistle of Parmenian, of Petilian, and of Cresconius. The Brownists are not behind them an intch in this matter, but cry out as fast of Antichristian persecutors, boasting of their patience and sufferings, calling themselves the persecuted remnant, the poor afflicted, etc. Aug. answereth those Donatists at large, I will recite but a little. Cum phreneticus medicum vexet, & medicus phreneticum liget, aut ambo invicem persequuntur, aut si persecutio quae malo sit, non est, non utiq, persequitur medicus phreneticum, sed phreneticus medicum. When the man that is in frenzy doth vex the physician, and the physician doth bind him that is in frenzy, either both do persecute each other, or else if that be not a persecution which is done to the evil, then verily the physician doth not persecute the frantic or mad man, but the frantic or mad man doth persecute the physician. Against Cresconius Book 4. Chapter. 51. his application is that the penal Laws of the Princes were as the bands of the Physician to bind the Frenzy and furious outrage of the Donatists. And whereas they boasted of patience, and would compel none. He answereth, that because they be not able to resist so many nations which were Catholic, they gloried of patience, that they compelled none to their part. He than addeth, Isto modo & miluus cum pullos rapere territus non potuerit, co lumbum se nominet. After the same sort the Puttock when he is afraid and can not snatch away the chickens, may name himself a Dove. For he doth demand of them what they have not done which they were able? When julian the Apostata being Emperor, & envying the peace of Christ, showed them favour, and granted to them Churches, what slaughters they committed? Likewise he showeth in many places what revel their circumcellions made, which in companies walking with clubs and staves did spoil, and beat such as light into their hands, using moreover a savage cruelty in putting vinegar and lime into men's eyes when they had beaten them. And verily what is it which men of exceeding intemperate heat will not do, if it be once in their power against such as they shall judge to be but as vile Idolaters and persecutors of Christ's truth.  
The impatient heat of most Brownistes is not unknown, but when the Kites for fear can not snatch up the Chickens, must profess the meekness of Doves; as to say wear Christ's poor afflicted servants, we be meek and patiented, we bear the cross. Where it is taught that private men are authorized to deal, and fury aboundeth, which things are among the Brownistes: who is able to express the tragedies that would ensue, if power were not wanting in them: the Princes may not stop their course, and who shall then resist? The Donatists abusing the scriptures in their plentiful allegations, and finding that their grossness was detected much by the skill of arts, found fault that any thing should be scanned by the rules of Logic. The Brownistes are even with them, if not beyond. In his first book against Cresconius Chap. 14: Augustine reporteth the words of that Donatist thus: Vestros Episcopos laudas quod nobiscum velut dialecticis nolint habere sermonem. Thou dost commend your Bishops, that they refuse to have speech or conference with us as being Logicians. He answereth at large in showing what Logic is, and the worthy and necessary use thereof in discussing matters of religion. Browne in the preface of his book which (he saith) showeth the life and manners of Christians, calleth them sophistical divines which deal by the rules of Logic. The Brownistes with whom I deal, charge the students of the Universities, as trained up in vain and curious Artes. And what other cause shall ever be showed of so barbarous an error, but that they would not have their matters tried by the rules which make manifest which is truth, and which is falsehood. Thus have I briefly laid open that the whole Donatisme is maintained by the Brownistes, and therefore I have rightly termed them the Donatists of England.   

An answer to Master Greenewood, touching read prayer.  
MAster Greenewood in the preface of his book, doth show, that the reasons spread abroad in writing against read prayer were his, which I did not know before now, and therefore be taketh upon him the defence of them. He would seem to have found out such a depth of spiritual wisdom touching the holy exercise of prayer, and so reproveth the grossness of this age, that we must esteem him for the abundance of spirit, as an other Montanus. For whereas he seemeth to charge this age only as gross in this point, in very deed he accuseth all ages, all Churches, and all the learned teachers that have been since the Apostles; so that in the gifts of the spirit he excelleth all. He saith he could yet never see it set down, which is the true prayer that only pleaseth God. It is a strange thing he hath never heard, that whosoever asketh in faith, whether it be with prescript form, or otherwise it is the only true prayer that pleaseth God. He saith I have flien upon him with bitterness of spirit and carnal wisdom, loading him and the faithful with opprobrious titles. It is to no purpose that I should answer again with words, but when men shall once see throughlie into the foulness and dangers of Brownism, and what filthy gear they spread abroad, they will th●nke it requisite and necessary to call a spade, a spade: Donatisme must be called Donatisme, schism must be called schism, and heresies and fantasies must have their due titles. And now touching the defence he maketh, it is nothing but certain rags which he peeceth together to cover his nakedness, which also must be plucked from him. It seemeth he doth trust to the ignorance, or rashness of some, which either cannot, or will not examine things aright.  
God is a spirit, & to be worshipped in spirit. I did & do confess, that this scripture doth cut down all carnal worship, as disagreeing from the nature of God: & therefore may most fitly be alleged against such as shall maintain that the very bodily action in reading is the worship of God. But it is frivolous to apply it against praying after a prescript form: seeing a man may upon a book pray reading or after a prescript form with sighs and groans which proceed of faith. Master Greenewood termeth this a bodily distinction. Doubtless if it be a bodily distinction to affirm that the very bodily action of reading a prayer is not the worship of God (which we maintain against the Papists in their lip labour) I know not what Master Greenwood will allow to be spiritual. What manner of spirit is his? But now that he will put away all my distinctions by his affirming still (for those be his words) and what? Even the whole matter in question between us: who cannot see what a valiant champion he is, for how falsely he saith he hath proved, shall appear? Then having stoutly affirmed that which is in question, he saith, and yet say you to apply this scripture thus against read prayer is frivolous. How cometh in this word (yet)? Doth it follow that I do not well in saying so, notwithstanding you affirm the contrary: but you have a reason of great force, which is in these words, I appeal to all men's consciences for the weight thereof. Shall the consciences of all men be made judge whether that scripture be rightly applied? Nay, I appeal from the consciences of the Brownists. Now in the next words where I affirmed that a man may pray by the Spirit of GOD, with sighs and groans upon a book, or when he prayeth after a prescript form, and therefore the application of that scripture is frivolous, his shifts are as slender. For touching this clause, that I say, (or after a prescript form) he saith, I go about to alter the question at the first step. For as much as all our prayers ought to be uttered after a prescript form, even that perfect rule and form our Saviour gave to his disciples and all posterities. A great piece of work. By uttering after a prescript form, I mean when a man hath learned a prayer either of the scripture, or framed from thence, and can utter it without the book, as it is written.  
And whereas it can not be denied, but that many do pray fervently with sighs and groans and tears, which read the prayer upon the book, or have it as we use to say, by heart: He answereth that I beg the question. If a man do prove the cause by the effects, which I do here, it is no begging of the question, but a firm proof. Where any thing is burnt, there hath been fire. Where there be sighs and groans in prayer with inward comfort, there is faith, there is God's spirit, but these are in some that read their prayers upon the book, or use prescript form.  
Master Greenewood thinketh he hath disputed subtly, and covered himself, when he can say, ye altar the question, ye beg the question, ye assume the question. Now touching the defence of his reasons he brought. If those sighs and groans (saith he) were of faith, that would minister matter of prayer without a book. This reason (as I said) is by connection drawn from the force and effect of faith, and to make it strong and good, I said these two things must be added, that faith needeth no outward help to minister matter of prayer, and that it can not stand or be joined with any outward helps, which I said are both heretical. He saith he will lay the words again before me, if peradventure I may have grace to call myself back. I look upon them again, and although I did not two years (as you vainly imagine) nor yet two days, consider of that one saying, yet can I not call myself back, unless I be convinced with the light of truth: and that ye say I shallbe, and will so confirm your sayings by scriptures, that no perverted spirit shallbe able to gainsay or resist. If the sighs and groans were of faith, that would minister matter without a book, for the scripture (ye affirm) teacheth every where that in praying, the spirit only helpeth our infirmities, no other helps mentioned, or can be collected in the present action of prayer through the scripture. He hath sent into our hearts the spirit of his son crying Abba father, we believe, therefore we speak. From hence now Master Greenewood concludeth that I have erred, and from an idle brain, & godless heart have coined those heresies, because I constrain the proposition of the present action, in praying unto a general sentence of all times and actions. This is the sum of your answer, that before prayer there need helps and outward means, but in the present action of prayer, only the spirit doth help, let us see how true this is, and how it doth excuse ye from those heretical opinions, which ye go about to wipe away with this distinction.  
First whereas ye say that in the very time and action of prayer, it is the spirit alone without any outward means, because the scripture saith, God hath sent into our hearts the spirit of his son crying abba Father. I answer, that howsoever the scripture doth extol or magnify outward helps, and means, yet when they are compared with God which worketh all in all by them, or when the scripture will set forth the efficacy and work to be his alone, they are either not mentioned, or else if they be mentioned, so cast down as if they were nothing. God buildeth his Church by the ministery of men: yet he saith Paul planteth, Apollo watereth, but God giveth the increase: So that neither he which plants is any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. 1. Co. 3. And therefore to gather from those sentences of scripture where the spirit of God is only mentioned to work prayer, because the work is his alone, that there need or there may be no outward helps or means in the very instant and action of praying, is far awry. For I would have master Greenwood answer whether the voice of an other that prayeth, whether fasting, listing up the eyes and hands (which he mentioned) or whether prosirating the body and kneeling be prayer itself, or outward means to make the prayer more fervent? Every simple man will laugh at him, if he say they be prayer itself, whereupon he must be forced to confess they be but outward helps and means. Then ask master Greenwood again, whether a man be to fast, to kneel down, to prostrate his body, to lift up his eyes and hands only before the action of prayer, or in praying? If he answer, what a question is that, what fool will say before? those things are to be done in the very instant and action of prayer. Then all men may see that master Greenwood hath brought this, I will not say from an idle brain, for I should not say true; but from an unsound brain: that he may confirm by many testimonies of scripture, that the spirit only helpeth our infirmities in the present action of prayer, that no perverted spirit shallbe able to gainsay or resist. Ye see the spirit of truth can resist it, and prove that not only before prayer, but even in the very action of prayer, outward helps and means especially for the ignorant and dull are needful and good, and therefore the Brownists spirit is a false spirit, which saith, The scripture teacheth every where that in praying the spirit only helpeth our infirmities, no other helps mentioned or can be collected in the present action of prayer. In the next place, where he had said, A troubled heart is the pen of a ready writer, & therefore needeth not a book. I said here can be no good argument without an absolute perfection in knowledge, cheerfulness, direction, memory and utterance, and that many are so perplexed in their troubles of heart, that they cannot pray, which through help of outward means do power forth tears and supplications: He will not allow this for any answer; but doth distinguish of troubled minds. The troubled mind he speaketh of, which is the pen of a ready writer, is (when the mind is presently moved with the sight of some sin or urged by other occasion,) a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. Psal. 51. and not the mind which in despair or doubt is perplexed. Then I answer that he must allow these latter the helps and outward means, that they may be rid of their doubt and perplexity. Moreover, there is no man so perfect in faith, but he hath great remnants in him of despair and doubting. Why else did David cry out, Correct me not in thy wrath, my bones are troubled. Psal. 6. Cast me not out from thy face Psal. 51 While I kept silence my bones did wear away, my moisture was turned into the drought in Summer. psal. 32. Hath God forgotten to be merciful, hath he shut up his compassions in wrath, psal. 77. Whereupon it doth follow, that there is no man but may before troubled and perplexed with doubts, when the hand of God is heavy upon him, and the sight of his sins doth terrify him. It is not the glory of faith to be where there are us doubts of despair or no perplexities▪ but to get the victory over them when they do assail it. Therefore the ignoranter sort in perplexity need outward helps. The next part of mine answer, that such as be troubled and perplexed and cannot pray, are helped by a book, and by other means, he doth allow and agree unto, So that we make reading one thing and praying another. Who doubteth that they be two things? did not I set down at the first that the bodily action of reading is not the worship of God? Then master Greenwood hath his desire (seeing as he saith) we cannot do both at once, he that prayeth speaketh to God, My God why dost thou hide thy face from me? But the Priest may say, My book why art thou so evil printed? For when they read, the heart cannot reason and talk with God. If the matter written in the book be a speech directed unto God, as In thee O Lord have I put my trust, let me never be confounded, let master Greenewood or all the Brownists in the world, bring any colour of reason to prove, that a man cannot at the same instant both utter it with his mouth in reading, and pray it with his heart. Master Greenwood must deny this again. For alas what stuff is this? or else how did they sing psalms to GOD and read them upon the book? how can a man hear and pray both at one instant? Then in the next where he saith, I did but assume the question, in affirming that a man may pray by the spirit upon a book, etc. his argument being thus, That none worship God but they which from the inward faith of the heart bring forth true invocation. This do not they that read upon the book while they pray. I said he bringeth nothing to prove the assumption, but that which is frivolous. For that it is said, we would have men instead of pouring forth their hearts, to help themselves upon a book. I answer, that we wish men to use the help of a book that they may the better power forth their hearts to GOD, being such as are not otherwise thoroughly able. And that we would have men to fetch the cause of their sighing and sorrowing from another man's writing, even in the time of their begging at God's hand. I answered, how fondly do ye make that to be the cause, which doth but manifest the cause? For that which we read or hear doth but show unto us the misery which is within, and how it shall be cured. Now let the reader observe how simple shifts he findeth here. The first is the difference between reading and praying, the one being a pouring forth of supplications, the other a receiving into the soul such things as we read. I pray ye tell me but this, when one heareth a prayer pronounced by another with whom he prayeth, doth not his hearing receive it into his soul, and at the very same instant also he doth power it forth as a prayer to GOD? Are not the receiving in and the pouring forth done both at once? How will he avoid the folly that I charged him withal, when receiving in, and pouring forth, go together at the same instant? But it is beyond all the rest, that he saith, I grant the whole question, by granting that reading the prayers is not the prayer, but an help. Is it all one to ask whether a man may be helped to prayer by reading, and whether the reading itself be prayer? Hereupon he also inferreth, that all our assemblies have had none other invocation of God's name, but an help to teach them to power forth their hearts. Then belike it followeth that wheresoever the help is, there is, or there can be no more: because such as read upon a book when they pray have a good help to further them, therefore they do not pray. Because I said it is an help to such as be not otherwise throughlie able: I must confess that our whole ministery is unable; a reason worthy a Brownist. There be other causes why all Churches use prescript form, yea whereas all Ministers be able to pray without a book.  
Where I said ye speak fondly to call that the cause which doth but manifest the cause: ye reply that I have forgotten mine atts, because there be more causes than one, there be instrumental causes. I grant there be more causes than one. And it is certain that the efficient cause is manifold, if you mean by fetching the cause of their sorrowing from the book in the time of their begging at God's hand, the efficient cause instrumental: I would have ye but answer whether the instrumental cause cannot go with the action, but the action is overthrown or disgraced? I would also demand whether it follow which ye collect, there is an instrumental cause which is an help: therefore there is nothing else? Are these things other than trifles? I said ye did answer nothing to that saying of our Saviour, When ye pray, say our Father which art in Heaven, etc. Luke 11. Ye seem, that ye will not answer unless I conclude from this place by Syllogism: but yet afterward ye do●. And indeed what needeth a Syllogism where the words are of themselves sufficient, without any further consequence or collection. If our Saviour command to say those words praying, then is it most clear, that to use a prescript form of words in praying is not idolatry, nor a thing most detestable. But ye say ye manifested in your first writing, that our Saviour did not command to use those words when we pray: but to pray according to that form. Saint Matthew say you and Saint Luke, keep not the same words, nor that number of words: he said not read these words, or say th●se words by rote when ye pray. These reasons I have slily passed over, as you accuse me. What reasons? If it be a reason there is but one: for Christ's speech is plain, when ye pray say thus: therefore we may use those words. But must we use them of necessity and never none other? Not so, but we may use, and it is necessary for us to use particulars, which are contained in those generals which are the ground and direction of all prayers. Your one reason or that which hath show of reason is in this, that Saint Luke doth omit for thine is the Kingdom, etc. And that in the fourth and fift petitions they express the same matter with some difference of words. As though the question were about such a preciseness in words, that we might not express the same petition in another phrase, but it ceaseth to be the same? Now where I conclude that it is therefore lawful to use a prescript form of prayer, which is framed according to the Scriptures, in the assemblies. To this ye reply that because no man's writings are without error, it is pernicious and blasphemous doctrine which I collect. This ye affirm stoutly, and for proof bring nothing but those stolen cavils which I have sundry times answered: and now ye will answer to the two places alleged, Numb. 6. and Luke. 11. The priests ye say were not commanded to use those very words of the blessing, when they blessed the people, the reason ye bring is from the Hebrew words which are as you say, Coh teborcu, thus shall ye bless, Where the word Coh is an adverb of similitude, as we say after this manner: which cannot be to say the same, but according to the same instructions. This word Coh is used throughout the Bible in this manner, in all the prophets, when they say, thus saith the Lord. To this I answer, first let all men of any mean learning, in the Hebrew be witness, how unfit Master Greenewood is to reason from that tongue, when he can not so much as read two words of it aright. For he saith Coh teborcu, and it is Coh tebaracu. Then for the matter itself, this learned Hebrucian saith, that Coh being an adverb of similitude, as we say after the same manner, it cannot be to say the same, but according to the same instructions. Where ignorance & boldness are met together, what children they bring forth? We must believe that the Lord when he saith, thus shalt thou bless, and prescribeth the words, willeth the Priests not to speak the same words, but the like. And when our Saviour saith, When ye pray, say thus, Our father etc. It is as much as if he should say, in any wise say not these words at any time, but the like. For, thus, is not the same, but the like. God said to Moses, I will send thee to Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring the children of Israel out of Egypt. Moses draweth back, saying, when I shall come to the children of Israel and shall say unto them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto ye: If they shall say unto me, what is his name? what shall I say unto them? The Lord said. Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, Eheie hath sent me unto ye. Moreover, God said to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto them, The God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaak, the God of jaacob hath sent me unto ye. Exod. 3. vers. 13, 14, 15.  
Now, according to Master Greenwoods' exposition of Coh, Moses is not commanded to say those words but the like. If they should demand what is his name that hath sent thee? he may not say Eheie hath sent me, because God said Coh, that is thus, which is not the same words but the like. He might not say the God of Abraham, the God of Isaak, the God of jaacob hath sent me unto ye, which GOD saith is his name and memorial for ever, because God said Coh, that is, thus shalt thou say, but he must say the like words. He saith further, that Coh is so used in all the Prophets, when it is said, thus saith the Lord. That is, GOD hath not spoken these very words, which we bring, might the Prophets say, but the like. It is a like thing that Master Greenwood, or some other Hebrucian among the Brownists, hath read over all the Prophets in the Hebrew tongue, to find how Coh is every where used, when he could not read two words right. And now what shall we say of the Scriptures? the words, if we shall believe the Brownists, are not Gods words, but the words of the Prophets. Is this wholesome doctrine? Did the Prophets bring any one word which GOD did not put into their mouth? I pray ye Master Greenwood, or any other Brownist, tell me, did not God speak in the Prophets all the words that they uttered, even at the very instant when they say, thus saith the Lord? How can it then so wickedly be said, they were not the very same words which God spoke, but the like, because the adverb thus doth signify the like, and not the same? But he rendereth a reason, which is, that we have but the sum of their prophecies recorded unto us by the holy Ghost, and not all the words. Because we have not all the words, therefore have we not the same in those that are set down? Did the holy Ghost use this word Coh, to give us to understand that there is written but an abridgement or sum of matters, and not the same words, that they were uttered in, but some such like? Again, did the holy Ghost record them, & are they not all his words which are written in the sum of the prophesies set down? Shall we believe this man? I do believe him in this that he saith the holy Ghost did record them: for therein he speaketh the truth. But when he saith, that thus saith the Lord, is not these same words saith the Lord, but the like, because thus is an adverb of likeness, it is a vile saying. Is not the holy Ghost the Lord? If he had spoken those things before in more words, and now recordeth them in fewer, saying, thus saith the Lord, doth not he speak these fewer words which are written, as well as those more words which were uttered? Are they not then, thus saith the Lord, even the very same words which the Lord speaketh, and not like? If ye make many such expositions of words ye may lead me whether ye will. There is then another reason rendered to prove that the Priests were not tied unto those words in blessing the people, namely, that in prayer they are blessed in the Psalms and in the Chronicles with many other words. And Eli blessed Hanna in other words. It is not the question whether at any time the people might be blessed in other words, in fewer, or in more: but whether the Priests had not that form prescribed to utter in blessing the whole assembly, and whether it were Idolatry to use those prescript phrases of words? As likewise it is not maintained that when our Saviour saith, say thus, that we may not pray in other words, or express our petitions more particularly: but that we may use those words and sentences as most excellent petitions. Against this Master Greenwood bringeth nothing in his words that follow. For Master Caluine never held it unlawful to pray in that form of words, though he teach truly, that men are not so tied unto it, that they may use none other. And therefore it standeth firm and sure that the form of words in the Lord's Prayer is to be lawfully used praying.  
In the next part Master Greenwood is in a great heat, and maketh an outcry to call men to the beholding of an injury, which I, as he saith, as a godless man have done him. Here (saith he) I must call all men that read this fruitless discourse, to be witness, etc. Indeed ye may well call it a fruitless discourse, which ye call men that read to bear witness with ye: and let the reader judge by your exposition of Coh, whether it be not worse than fruitless which ye spread among the ignorant sort, which are ready to suck in such filthy dregs. The abuse of my tongue to the defacing of God's truth, is that I said, he calleth all men Idolaters. And to make the matter clear that he spoke not the words, but I myself, he maketh a brief repetition how we fell into that matter. But before we proceed any further, I pray ye tell me what is the reason, that I having set down your whole discourse touching this point, so that you cannot deny but that I have also set it down truly, you forsake that and set down by piece meal but some of your words, and reason from them: If I had meant in a godless manner wilfully to pervert your words, would I have delivered them whole and together in print? It seemeth ye have some hope that some men will read your book, which will not compare it with mine, or which being carried with blind heat, cannot. Now I crave no more of the reader but to mark the whole speech which you delivered, and mine answer to it, and to judge indifferently. If Master Greenwoods' words be not such as must needs include that which I have collected, let me bear the blame for that matter, which is one of the least. He saith I have an evasion to avoid this foil, because I said I took it we reasoned about such gross Idolatry, as a Church is to be condemned and forsaken for which is defiled therewith. He saith he never reasoned to that end in this whole discourse. And I say then he must go from his own words, which affirm that read prayer offered up to GOD as a sacrifice is Idolatry: that to read the prayer while one prayeth, is a changing the work of the spirit into an Idol, a bondage and breaking of Christian liberty, a thing most detestable, a device of Antichrist. Let all men judge by these speeches what manner of Idolatry was in question between us. Master Greenwood as if he had won the field, will needs put me to my ransom, and asketh what mends I will make him for this slandering? I answer, that as your victory is but in a dream, so my ransom must be thereafter. If I could see I had done ye wrong, I would be sorry. Ye will have no man free from such foul Idolatry, but yet no Idolaters. No Church is free ye confess from all spot upon earth. Hereupon ye grow again into a new heat, and charge me out of one mouth to give contrary sentence, because I call ye Donatists. Why man, are ye ignorant of this, that the Donatists did confess all men to be sinners, and yet the arguments by which they would maintain their schism could not be strong, unless they would maintain a perfection, and some of their reasons though they meant not so reached so far. And so is it with you Brownists. If one should follow ye in all the gross absurdities which will follow from your exposition of Coh, thus saith the Lord, could you have any way but to protest ye did mean no such thing▪ We may not look what men protest they hold, but what doth follow of their reasons, and then ye shall see that such as be in schism and heresy are with the blasts of their swelling pride tossed and hurled upon contrary Rocks. Now, whereas I said the confession of the Brownists, that there is no Church in earth without spots of Idolatry, doth overthrow the reasons which they bring to condemn the Church of England. Because they cannot argue thus, this is a fault, it is Idolatry: therefore this or that assembly which is spotted is no true Church. But they must prove the Idolatry to be such as destroyeth the faith, etc. Master Greenwood would bear men in hand, that I reason as simply, as to say, if there be no true Church in earth without spots, than the Church of Rome is the true Church, for that hath many spots. I answer, that we do not take it that the spots do make it a true Church, but because there be only spots and not fundamental errors? The foolish cavil here is that I assume that which I should prove. Do I not prove it by answering the vile and shameless slanders of yours, when ye affirm every spot in our Churches to be blasphemies and heresies and abominations, and Egyptian sores? You must prove these your slanders true, and I will cease.  
Now we come to the arguments which were set down at the first. No Apocrypha is to be brought into the public assemblies, all read prayer is apocrypha. Here you say I have nothing to utter, and yet oppose against both propositions, to roil the doctrine with my feet lest others should drink of it. I said your proposition is false because the exposition of the scriptures by the preacher, and the prayers of the preacher are not canonical, which your proposition doth exclude. Your reply is, that the Sermons and prayers of of the Preacher be the lively voice of Gods own graces which ye mention in your proposition, and so neither Canonical, nor apocrypha: and so not excluded. Touching the Paraphrase upon the Psalms in meeter, I hold not Canonical in some respects: If you banish all writings that be not Canonical, than ye banish then. Your answer is, that it I will affirm them to be Apocrypha, as ye say I cannot but do; you will prove they are not to be brought into the public assemblies. Your proofs do follow: First no man's writings are given by the testimony of God's spirit, whom alone we are to hear. No man's writings are without errors and imperfections: The Church is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets: If we might bring in men's writings, than all men's writings which are agreeable to God's word. No man's writings carry that majesty that the pen of the holy ghost. No man's writings are authentic confirmed by signs and wonders. The scripture is all sufficient; all men must walk by that one rule: To think there were not rules enough prescribed by the Lord for his house, is blasphemous and papistical. Then ye say, the gifts to prophesy, are not Apocryphal, and so ye conclude your proposition: that only God's word and the lively graces of his holy spirit are to be offered up unto him in the public assemblies. Then touching your assumption: I said I see not how our speech to God should be called Apocrypha. Ye reply that it answereth not you, which do not hold an other man's writing to be our speech unto God. Finally because I said that Apocrypha is that which is not God's undoubted word unto us: ye say I have overthrown myself and cast out all read prayer, in as much as I deny them to be Canonical. And so affirming that I have not in both writings made one direct answer to this most firm proposition: Only the Canonical scriptures and lively voice of Gods own graces are to be brought into the public assemblies for doctrine and prayers: But men's writings are neither Canonical, nor the lively voice of Gods own graces. Now master Greenwood having thus played the man in erecting (as he supposeth) so mighty a pillar, that cannot be shaken, could content himself to go no further. I might end here saith he with this vain man, considering the whole matter is proved against him: And all that solloweth but repetitions of the same cavils: but that I must clear myself of his unconcionable slanders. He ●●●●mphing thus fully, what shall I do now? I answer, first that he is much deceived and would deceive others: as it is written, The deceivers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being▪ deceived. For like as one that among many Apples doth hide and sell one Crab, so he among many true principles doth bring in one false conclusion which deceiveth his Scholars. For if he did reason thus, we must hear only the voice of God's spirit, therefore all things in the Church are to be tried by the voice of the spirit. No man's writings are without errors and imperfections: therefore men cannot ground upon them any further than they be consonant to the Canonical scriptures. The Church is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, therefore our faith is to rest no further upon the sayings and writings of men, than they be proved by the doctrine of the Apostles & Prophets; he should conclude a truth which is unanswerable. But now where master Greenwoods' conclusion is after this sort, therefore nothing but the Canonical scriptures, and the lively voice of God's graces is to be brought into the public assemblies; he concludeth falsely, as shall appear. For if nothing but the perfect rule itself is to be brought into the Church: If nothing done by man which hath errors in it, is to have place in the assemblies: If nothing but either such or that which is the lively voice of Gods own graces is to be uttered in the congregation; then must be taste forth not only all written prayers: but also the whole bible, unless it be in the Hebrew & Greek, with the Sermons and prayers of the Pastors. For there is no translation of the Bible without errors, and the books are thus far man's writing respecting only the translation. And furthermore we decide not controversies by any translation of the Bible, but by the authentic copies of the Hebrew and Greek, in one of which the old testament is set down by the Prophets, in the other the new testament by the Apostles. So that your conclusion doth not shut out only the Psalms in meeter, but the whole scriptures; unless you will be so bold as to say that translations be without errors, and so the perfect rule.  
And now touching the second part, will Master Greenwood be so unwise as to affirm that the errors in the Sermons and in the prayers of the Pastors, be the lively voice of Gods own graces? He will assuredly deny it: for the graces of GOD (all simple men know) bring not forth errors. Then let him mark his conclusion, no men's writings are without errors and imperfections, therefore no men's writings are to be brought into the public assembly: is not this conclusion as strong, no translations of the Bible, no Psalms in meeter, no Sermons, nor Prayers of the Pastors, are without errors and imperfections, therefore none of these are to be brought into the public assemblies? Is there any so void of sense, that can not taste how sour this Crab is, which Master Greenewood conveyeth in among so many sweet Apples? But he replieth further to confirm his matter by argument thus, if any men's writings may be brought into the public assemblies, than all men's writings which are thought to be agreeable to God's word, may be brought in. To prove the consequence of this proposition, he saith; If God command any to be brought in as being agreeable to the Scriptures, then by that commandment all are to be brought in that be agreeable: If there be no commandment, than none are to be brought in. I answer that God hath commanded that in the Church all things be done for edification, now the prayers being the same, being holy & good, are of like majesty & dignity in themselves uttered by him that conceiveth them, or from a prescript form, the matter resteth not in that, but in the faith and fervency of those that pray, there be errors and imperfections, as well in the one as in the other, but to avoid inconvenience, and for the benefit of the simpler sort, a prescript form is needful, & so far commanded. Then see how frivolous this conclusion is, that so all men's writings which are thought to be agreeable to the word, are to be brought in, seeing that which is convenient in some, is not convenient in all. His reasons which follow are in effect all one with the former, and prove not that conclusion of his, to shut forth the prescript form of prayer. Let the Brownist now set the word apocrypha aside, which is but a word, and not of the Scriptures, and go to the matter itself, drawing by firm conclusion▪ that nothing is to be allowed any place in the Church which is not the perfect rule itself, in writing, or without errors uttered in speech, and I will yield. But this shall all the Brownistes in the world be never able to do, as I have sufficiently showed before. What then, or where is his glory and victory which he boasteth off, to be such that he needeth to proceed no further? But now I would have the reader to understand my meaning aright, and how I argue: lest any should think I compare the having the Bible in a translation, and the prayers and Sermons of the Pastors, with the prescribed form of prayer, to be of but equal or like necessity. The sum of that I set down is to this effect, that it is false which Master Greenewood standeth to prove, namely that nothing with error in it is to be brought into the public assemblies, seeing there is a necessity of having the scriptures in a translation: there is also a necessity of having the sermons and Prayers of the Ministers, and yet errors in both, that which is of necessity to be had, may not be cast forth, because of imperfections and errors: then also prescript form of prayers, though not of necessity, yet for conveniency unto edification, is not to be cast forth, because of imperfections, being not to increase, but to diminish the errors in praying.  
The next argument is this, We must do nothing in the worship of God, without warrant of his word. Read prayers have no warrant of his word.  
How false this assumption is, namely, That to read a prayer when one doth pray, or to follow a prescript form, hath no warrant in God's word, I have showed by sundry scriptures and reasons, and answered all the shifts brought against them, for which I refer the Reader to my former book.  
Master Greenewood pressed with the weight of truth, and finding he had uttered gross matter, could be content (but that as he saith to answer unconscionable slanders) to stay in the first argument: as having won the field, but yet he goeth on, and by vain shifts will do as well as he can to cover his fault. First he accuseth me that not having answered one reason, I have with much evil conscience (as the handling showeth) perverted them, saying he will leave them to be judged of them that shall see his writing: and seeing I would not Print it, he will answer my chief objections. Touching this I answer, that your words are many, and I esteemed it a weariesome matter to write them all, accounting it sufficient to note your reasons, but look whatsoever ye complain off, that I have perverted and done ye wrong in, ye shall have them in those points fully and wholly delivered, that all the world may see and judge between us, whether I have wilfully, and unconscionably, and as a godless man (as ye accuse me) charged ye with any one thing which your words do not contain.  
Now to proceed to your reply: First, ye say that I grant your Argument is sound, if ye put difference between reading upon the book, and that which one hath learned out of the book. For by your own confession (say you) God hath not given any commandment to read prayer, and so it hath no warrant. Hereupon ye charge me, that as an unconstant man, I call back again that which I had granted: I said I did not remember that ever I did read in the holy Scriptures that God commandeth the prayer shall be read upon the Book, If I have called now to remembrance, where it is read, It were no unconstancy to say now, there is commandment. But in deed I do not remember I have ever read any such commandment. But now you boast of your gains by this confession, saying that I grant then there is no warrant. Lay all my words together, and ye may put your gain in your eye, and see never the worse. I set down first of all that it is great audatitie, to affirm that there is no warrant of the word, for read prayer, seeing there be sundry testimonies to warrant the same, as I have showed: for the Lord prescribed a form of blessing, and commanded the Priests so to bless Num. 6. He prescribed a form of prayer for the people at the offering the first fruits, and commanded them to use it Deutr. 26 The Psalm for the Sabbath was commanded to be song, the Psalm 22. was to be sung every morning, and these they were tied unto by express commandment, though not to the book, because it is more commendable to have them by heart. And the Lord doth not tie a man to that which is less commendable. This is the sum of that reason which I used, from whence there is warrant to follow a prescript form. Master Greenewood urgeth this, if there be no commandment, than there is no warrant: and affirmeth it to be inconstancy to say there is no commandment to read praying, and yet some warrant for it by the word. I have answered, that God tied the Priests and people unto some prescript forms, though not precisely to the book. And though that were legal, and no such commandment to tie men of necessity: now yet it showeth the thing to be holy and lawful. Further I add, if we respect the matter as we say in the These, or for a generalty there is no commandment: for than it should be of necessity and not for conveniency. But if we regard it in the Hypothese for circumstances in particularity, there is commandment: as thus, God hath commanded those things too be done which serve as helps for edification, or be most convenient. Then where the state of any man, or the state of the assemblies is such, as that prescript form of prayer is convenient and needful for edification, there it is commanded. Now let the reader observe again your words, which are that all our ministers must leave reading their stincted prayers upon the book, or else stand under God's wrath, and all that so pray with them. Master Greenewood complaineth of great injury, when I gather from his words, that he condemneth all Churches, because he knoweth that is a matter sufficient alone to bewray the wickedness of Brownisme. Now if all our Ministers which pray upon the book, and the people, that pray with them stand under the wrath of God for this thing, then cannot they be the Church of God: for GOD loveth his Church; and all Churches have prescript forms of prayer which their Ministers use: therefore they all stand under God's wrath. But they do it ignorantly, will he say; and so (say I) did all our Churches, until his papers came abroad, and many have not as yet seen them: and some that have seen them are not persuaded, and so are ignorant still. The next thing ye deal with, is the Argument which I draw from the singing Psalms upon the book: it is so clear they did sing them upon the book, that the Brownist himself cannot deny it. It is also most manifest they did sing them (as he also now confesseth) to God, for so are we commanded in many places, sing praises to God. Then further he that offereth up praise to God reading, it cannot be gainsaid, but that he offereth up a spiritual sacrifice to God reading. Yea praise is one part of prayer: and it is as hard a thing to speak praises to God upon the book, as to crave by petitions upon the book, and as spiritual a work; and I may say a more high service: where is then that gross fantasy of Master Greenewood, which because reading is one thing; and speaking to God is another, saith a man cannot both read and speak to God at once. He cannot say O my God when he readeth, but O my book why art thou so evil printed? I argue if the people of God in old time, did both read the Psalms upon the book, and speak unto the Lord at the same instant: how should it not now be both possible and lawful, for to speak unto God in prayers while one readeth? He saith, I deny your Argument. I say that is not sufficient to deny the Argument: let us therefore see the reasons of the denial. Admit that singing were a part of prayer (sayeth he) yet doth it not follow that all prayer may be read upon the book: we must take this upon your bare word, at least such as will, may believe ye. I stand to affirm that one part of prayer is as spiritual a work as another; thereupon I also affirm, that if one part may be read upon the book, and no turning the work of the spirit into an Idol, no st●nting the spirit, no quenching the spirit, no Idolatry. no hindrance, but that he which readeth may speak unto God: it may be so in any other part. And let us see what he will be able to disprove this withal? But he saith I speak like an ignorant man, to say that singing is prayer, because they be two divers actions and exercises of our faith. The one never read for the other, nor said to be a part of the other, throughout the Scriptures, but are plainly distinguished, As I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with understanding, I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with understanding, saith Saint Paul. I answer you could no where more untimely accuse me of ignorance, then where your own speech in this and that which followeth next, is patched up with errors, almost as thick as the patches upon a beggar's cloak. And for answer I say, first, that Saint Paul doth distinguish them there is great reason, not only because the very singing itself is not prayer, no more than reading or speaking: but also that there be many prayers which are not song, and many Psalms and songs, which are no forms of prayer; nor the speech directed to God: a prayer that is no psalm is never called a psalm, nor any reason why it should: but a Psalm that is a prayer, is called both a Psalm and a prayer. The Psalm 86. is called Tephillah a prayer, and consisteth of sundry petitions. The Psalm 90. is so called, being the prayer of Moses. Psalm 102. is called Tephillah leaavi, the prayer for the poor, when he is in perplexity, and poureth forth his meditation before the Lord. The people praying for Christ's Kingdom did use to say, Hosanna, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Psal. 118. The Psalm 50. and 119. with many other conta ne petitions, almost in every verse, which if a man did pray or desire them earnestly singing, it was no Idolatry: singing I grant is not called prayer, but men might sing Psalms to God, and were commanded, which contained praises and petitions: but they were given to the Church, to be song or read in the form of prayer (saith he) but denieth that this was to be done praying. He not only confesseth they were to sing them unto God, but also saith the Lord keep me from such an error, as to deny that: & yet even in this confession falleth into as gross a matter. for what can be more absurd, than that a man should utter and speak even unto God that which is a prayer and yet might not pray▪ as when out of the Psalm. 118. praying for the kingdom of Christ, they cried Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: or when for some special benefit the whole Church was to sing praise to God, and had a prescript form delivered unto them: were they to mock with God, and not to speak praises unto him indeed from the heart and with cheerfulness▪ or did God command them to do two things which cannot be done at once▪ or will any deny that many in singing, (though the singing itself be not praying) do give hearty thanks to God where thanksgiving is expressed, and crave earnestly when they utter petitions▪ Master Greenewood doth grievously complain of me for doing him foul wrong in saying he denieth that the Psalms are to be sung to God. And what other thing in effect doth he utter here, when he saith they were not to utter the words of a Psalm to God praying? But I willset down his first words which are these. The same may be said for the hundredth and second Psalm: for although some have taken it as a prayer of the Prophet when he was in affliction, yet may I grant with you to be taken in the future tense, and avoid that superstition you would fall into, for if it had been given unto the Church to have been read as a prayer unto God, it should have been said, O Lord hear our prayer, and let our cry come unto thee. And therefore it is manifest that this Psalm was given to the Isralites in time of their captivity at Babylon, or some other such calamity, to comfort and instruct them how to settle themselves, and power forth their prayers before the Lord. But how will you prove that the people were to say over these words unto God▪ for we may see the like by Habbacuc, prescribing the people a form of prayers to comfort themselves, and delivered it to be sung in the assemblies. Moreover after many other words master Greenwood saith thus: And that singing of Psalms is no part of prayer we may see by the exhortation which the Apostle useth to the Ephesians, saying Speak unto yourselves in Psalms and Hymns and spiritual songs: And to the Collos. where it is said Let the word of God dwell in ye plenteously in all wisdom teaching & admonishing yourselves in psalms & hymns and spiritual songs. And further we read that Christ our Saviour did give thanks and then sing a Psalm after the institution of the Lords Supper: for that singing is a rejoicing ourselves, and instructing ourselves.  
Now let the reader judge, by comparing that which I have written in my former book with these words of his, whether I or he be the godless man which dealeth by unconscionable slanders, and with much evil conscience. Master Greenwood denying the use of prescript form when we speak unto God, and I alleging the Psalms, demandeth how I will prove that the people were to say over those words unto God▪ And after as you see to prove that the words were not to be uttered or said over to God praying▪ he allegeth the sayings of Paul, Speaking to yourselves and instructing yourselves in Psalms and Hymns and spiritual songs, leaving out in both places the latter end of the sentence of singing to the Lord. Now when I have proved that the very words of some Psalms were to be said over to God, because the scripture is clear in many places, Sing Psalms to God, sing praises to God, etc. and charged him with denying that the Psalms are to be sung to God contrary to such express commandment, and blamed him for leaving out the part of the sentence which maketh against him, he crieth shame upon me. But master Greenwood it is the light of God's word, and the weight thereof which doth press ye, and cutteth down all ungodly fantasies, and not I. You confess now, because the scripture is plain, that the Psalms were to be sung to God, and yet ye did ask how I would prove the people were to say over the words. Then it followeth that the very prescript forms of words were to be said over to God by your confession, which is the whole matter that I have stood to prove. And now choose whether you will deny that Psalms were to be sung to God, or confess that those very words of the Psalms and the prescript forms were to be said over unto him in singing.  
What will he say now? This he will say, that they were in those words to be song unto God, but not praying: for he saith I must prove the Church did use to read the psalms. for praying, I wonder how a man can speak to God the sentences which are prayers, and not praying. Again I would have any Brownist show me what speech we can have to God which is not prayer: if he say a man doth speak to God in giving him thanks and praise, in acknowledging his benefits, in ascribing unto him all wisdom, power, glory, goodness, bountifulness, faithfulness, and mercy. A man doth speak to God, when he confesseth his sins, when he complaineth of the injuries and wrongs of others: I confess, and I say withal, that they be all of them parts of prayer. Why doth a man give thanks and praise, and mention God's benefits; but to support his faith, and hope that he shall receive further, and to move the Lord to continue still good unto him, or such like? Why do we speak unto him of his glorious power, wisdom, mercy and truth, but that our faith and prayer doth rest upon those pillars? Why do we confess our sins, but as entreating for pardon; and what do we rehearse the unjust outrage of our adversaries, but to procure his just defence and protection: But he demandeth what this maketh for reading prayers framed by men: I answer to the same effect which I have ever done, that this is one of the poorest cavilles that may be among a thousand. We reason not about the matter of prayers, but about the reading: for if the matter be corrupt and nought, the pronouncing or the reading cannot make it better. If the matter be erroneous, it is no more authentic pronounced, then read: if it be pure and good pronounced, the reading cannot hurt it, or make it unpure. The reading itself is not unpure when we speak to God: for than should not the Psalms have been song upon the book unto him. Who is so senseless then as not to see this conclusion to follow, to utter a prescript form of words, in a Psalm when one speaketh to God is no sin. Therefore to follow a prescript form of words in any godly prayer, when one prayeth is not sin; for where shall we find the sin? If it be in following a prescript form, it should have been unlawful to follow it in the Psalms. If it be in the matter, because there be errors in all men's writings; and therefore to be cast forth: then I say the errors, and not the reading is in the fault, and for which only there must be the casting forth, and so we must cast forth the prayers of the preachers. To his next words, I answer that it is not the repeating over the same godly petitions again every day, that maketh it the sacrifice of fools, but when men do it of custom without faith and fervent affection: for if a man with faith and zeal pray every day the same prayer to God, it is acceptable. The rest of his words are not worth the repeating, and yet he concludeth most falsely that read prayer hath no warrant in God's word.  
The next Argumentis this, We may not in the worship of God receive any tradition, which bringerh our liberty into bondage: read prayer upon commandment is a tradition that doth bring our liberty into bondage.  
Against this I opposed that Moses, the Prophets, and our Saviour gave prescript forms of prayers, and if the very following a prescript form imposed by commandment, be so detestable a thing, how are not they charged with this heinous sin? He answereth that here is a great storm, and yet nothing but wind; do ye not know the wind may be so great, as to blow down the house upon your head, especially when the blast of truth cometh against your building, which standeth upon the rotten pillars of errors. The counterfeit zeal of caiphass against the truth, ought not to stay any man from being earnest for the truth. But now to the matter, your wonted song was heretofore when such prescript forms were alleged, prove that those words were to be said over to God: but now being convinced, and confessing that some Psalms were song to God, and for fear least bidding me prove again that the prescript form was followed, when they spoke to GOD, I should again charge ye openly to deny the singing of Psalms to God, which I have showed ye do covertly, ye seek another shift, and say your Minor proposition (which is that I stand to disprove) speaketh of the reading for praying, and not of the form of prayer. This is poor stuff, seeing we reason about prescript form and reading the same, praying. I do not say that the reading itself is praying: but I have proved, that they went together, and whether there were commandment to follow the prescript forms or not, in the blessing, for the Priests to use. In the prayer prescribed for the people to say at the offering the first fruits, and in some of the Psalms, whether it be not also lawful to say the Lords prayer praying, let wise men judge. Now where as I said the Brownistes do condemn all Churches by these three arguments against read prayers, Master Greenewood at this is in no small heat as his speech doth show: for if he could dip his words ten times deeper in gall, it appeareth he would not spare. I trust (saith he) your madness will appear unto all men, the poison of Asps is under your tongue. But Master Greenewood, If I have said the truth which is justifiable by your own speeches, your sober mind is not to be boasted off. And if your sentence include all Churches, what milk and honey doth flow from under your lips? Hear is much a do, this man layeth about him as if he were half mad: but that he is blindfold, I could not escape some sound blows. Here he hath up the beggar with his clap dish, and the Priest with his Mass book, canuesing over the Paternoster for their belly. Here he saith I breath out my accustomed lies, slanders, and railings, calling them Brownists and Donatists, here he detesteth Donatus his heresies: Browne, and the Brownists, he saith are ours, he willeth me to remember who is the Father of such untruths, when I say they condemn all reformed Churches, but because my conscience (as he saith) did witness I had wrongfully charged him, and for him all true Christians, I bring it in by necessary consequence. Now if the heat be any thing passed hear a little what I say, show that I have any way slandered ye, or railed upon ye, in that I have termed you Brownists and Donatists: and let me have open shame among all men. I have affirmed that the very pith of all your matter is from Master Brownes books, convince me therein if ye can, I have now published that Brownisme and Donatisme are all one: let any Brownist in the land confute me. The thief will not abide to be so called, but will say I defy all thieves: doth that clear him when he liveth by thievery? what are you the better to say I detest the heresies of Donatus, and yet hold all that he held, and know not what ye say, nor what the heresies of Donatus were, more than doth a post: show openly that ye renounce those things I have noted to be the furies of the Donatists, & then ye may cry out that ye are slandered.  
And now for condemning all Churches, will ye deny that which is concluded by necessary consequence from your words? Is that against conscience which is brought in by necessary consequence? Ye would seem to make light of it in this respect, that a multitude is not to be followed to do evil, when ye condemn all Churches: but yet it doth sting ye so near, that by no means ye can abide to hear of it. Thus I did reason, and thus I reason still without any witness of conscience against me. You affirm prescript forms of prayer brought into the public assemblies, to be the changing the work of the spirit into an Idol, a tradition breaking Christian liberty, and therefore a thing most detestable, a dead letter which doth quench the spirit; but all reformed Churches have prescript form of prayer imposed: therefore ye condemn all Churches. I am glad your book may be seen of all men, that they may judge the soundness of that answer by which ye would clear yourself. Ye cannot go from your first words, they be spread in the hands of so many, but ye should shame yourself. Ye reply therefore again, that the true Churches might err in this, and yet remain Churches of God. This is strange that ignorance should excuse men that worship an Idol in stead of God, that take away the Christian liberty from the consciences of men, and do that which is most detestable. What do the Papists more than these? or what can they be charged withal which is worse than that which is most detestable? And have ye not set down now in this your book in replying upon the second Argument, that all our Ministers must leave reading their stinted prayers, or else stand under God's wrath and all that pray with them? How are the Ministers and people of other Churches privileged from standing under God's wrath, having read prayers, imposed liturgies, and as you term them stinted prayers? or tell me, are they the Churches of God that stand under his wrath? Now remember who is the father of lies. Well, your meaning was not to condemn the Churches, nor to meddle with them. Why then do ye give such sentence of condemnation which reacheth unto them? Tell me but this, is there any Brownist which is a disciple, and giveth credit unto ye in this matter, that read prayer is most detestable, and that such as join in it stand under God's wrath, which yet durst join himself or might join himself unto any assembly in the world, even the most reformed? Tell me either you or any other chief Brownist, will say they may pray with any assembly where they follow a prescript form? If ye dare not say this (I mean that ye would counsel men to join with a Church that hath read prayer) but say they must reprove and condemn it, and if it were not redressed forsake them: then be also ashamed so furiously to cry out upon me, which speak nothing herein, that I say ye condemn all churches, but that which all indifferent men must needs see your own words and doctrine do uphold. As for your bitter accusations upon no show I leave them: and whereas ye require that if I have any sparkle of grace, I would procure that ye might decide the truth with other Churches. I answer, that if ye had any spark of sober wisdom, ye could not with such condition lay that upon me, which ye know not how unable I am to perform. You say you might justly be called an Anabaptist, if you should reason thus, Imposing of men's writings to be read for praying, is an heinous sin, therefore they that use it are no Church. Have ye said no more, but that it is an heinous sin? Have you forgotten all your former sayings of Idolatry, bondage breaking Christian liberty, most detestable, standing under God's wrath? I hold him no Anabaptist nor Donatist, which from such speeches concludeth no true Church. For I never heard that the true Church doth stand under God's wrath. The next words are sore; Abaddon is the father of such Prophets, saith Master Greenewood, because I say the Brownists maintain such a freedom as that will have nothing imposed by commandment. I pray ye tell me whether you be one of those which set out the brief sum of the profession? And when I had written against it, I would know if ye were one that made the defence, or approved the same? Did ye not approve of the answers that go under the name of Henry Barrow? Imposed is put for an argument by itself in those writings, and so noted with a figure. Can the very word imposed be an argument by itself, if any imposing by commandment be lawful in God's worship? If the civil Magistrates have power but to review the laws of Christ, and to move men or stir them up to the more diligent keeping of the same, may they then impose by commandment? And as you speak here of that which is not only received, but also by commandment, as though there were great weight in the words, by commandment. I pray ye tell me then what force ye repose in the words imposed, and by commandment, when ye oppose them against Christian freedom? Tell me also whether ye deny not that any Canons and constitutions made in Synods, in matters variable, are to be imposed by commandment? If they be, what is the reason that you Brownists when ye cry out against Church government as it is in England, speak in general against Canons? And a little after in this your book, ye deny all power of making laws in things indifferent, terming it an adding to God's word, and alleging against it the extreme curse of God. I grant the Church's power is limited by the word in making such laws: and so is the power of Princes. There hath been much said already touching the Lord's Prayer and other prescript forms in the Scriptures: but yet here come in new reasons (if I may so call them) which are void of reason. Houtos' is the same that the Hebrew Coh, after this manner. I answer that this hath been dealt in before, where ye must unsay somewhat again, or else the words of the Scripture now written are not the words of the Lord, but the like. Further, because Christ saith, when ye pray, if he willed we should say over the words, than should we ever when we pray, say them. To this I answer, that respecting the rules for matters, when ye pray, when is as much as to say whensoever ye pray, because we may not departed from those matters contained in the general petitions. But if we respect withal the prescript form of words, there is a double consideration to be had: for in themselves they be most excellent, perfect and full, and so briefly do contain the whole sum and substance of all things which we ought to crave of God, as that nothing is wanting. But our mind is not able so largely or unto such depth at one instant to spread or extend itself in desire, as to be mindful of every particular therein contained. And also we are more moved, as several matters of need do press us to crave them particularly. Hereupon it doth follow, that as on the one part, it were a great injury and hindrance that any man should bind us, when any particular need urgeth, to beg relief only in the general form which includeth many things, and not suffer us to express the very particulars and singulars: so on the other part, to bind us always in such sort to the several particulars, that we may not at all use the generals, is very absurd, and a disgrace to those most excellent petitions. For by this it must needs follow, that I may not say, Let thy Kingdom come: or forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them, that trespass against us: until the Brownists disprove this, he is fully convict. For if I may use one petition of the general heads when I pray, I may use any one; if any one, than all.  
The next argument which is brought, is to this effect, that if we be commanded to say those words, than should we sin in using any other form, for those being in the best form, we are bound always to bring the best sacrifice we have, or else we are accursed. This reason I have fully answered in that which went before, for I have showed in what respect, it is the most excellent & absolute form, & the best, and can by no means, without great absurdity, yea wicked impiety, be rejected: & withal what is necessary and fit for us.  
Now for conclusion, let the Reader judge, whether I have more need to leave of, as he saith, my popish dreams, or he his spiritual fantasies, I am far from maintaining, that our Saviour, or his Apostles did stint, or bind men unto certain words which of necessity they must use, and none other: but this is the thing which the Brownistes must join issue in with me, whether I may not pray saying, let thy kingdom come, or if I may so use the prescript form of words in one petition, whether I may not in any, and so in all? And here let the Reader observe that Master Greenewood crying out for freedom, complaining of a tradition that bringeth our liberty into bondage, he doth himself take away freedom, and would lay a bondage upon men, and upon the Churches. For it is to lay a yoke of bondage when men will restrain that which God hath left free to be used, as shallbe most convenient and profitable for edification, as to follow a prescript form, or to read praying. Among the jews in the time of the Law, God tied them to the Temple, and unto certain set hours for the Evening and Morning sacrifice, but in this we are set free in the Gospel. For I may lawfully go to the Temple to hear the word and to be partaker of the Sacraments with the assembly: and I may lawfully frequent other places, where the public worship is. The Churches may appoint the same hours for there meetings that were under the law, if it be convenient, and they may appoint other if it shallbe more fit he that in these shall take away the freedom which is given to the Churches, doth lay a yoke of bondage. In like case prescript form of prayer to use praying, being an help to the weak, and a thing sanctified of God, and left free to the Church as need shall require, he that denieth that free use, doth lay a yoke of bondage. And so I charge Master Greenewood here to do.  
In the next place there were three Arguments of Master Greenewoods which I answered at once by denying the assumptions, and showing the reasons that moveth me, for in deed, he setteth down some propositions: and out of them affirmeth that which is false, and so concludeth from thence another falsehood. It is his whole manner of reasoning; if I set down this proposition, God is a spirit, it is most true: if I will now make such an assumption as this, a bodily substance cannot worship a spirit, this being most false: there will follow a false conclusion, which is that no man can worship God in body; he is now therefore to prove his assumptions, and before he cometh to it, he crieth out, stay and wonder, they are blind and make blind. Who be blind and make blind the Brownists? This man hath some great thing in his mind, which he seeth and doth wonder, and now calleth upon all other to stay, until he hath uttered it, and so to wonder with him. Is there any doctrine more spiritual (saith he) any more inculcated by the holy Ghost, than this access to God in the mediation of Christ, etc. I answer who doth doubt of this▪ You confess I will say the propositions be true and weighty matters: which I do in deed, and thereby do acknowledge that prayer is a spiritual and Heavenly thing, far from the power of man to perform of himself. Now Master Greenewood confessing I do this, like as a great wave of the Sea cometh rolling and doth in sh●w, threaten to overwhelm all, but suddenly falleth of itself: So he swelling with the wind of his vanity, crieth out stay and wonder, as if I should be over whelmed with the stream of his words, and by and by falleth of himself, confessing that I allow the propositions: which in deed include the excellency of prayer, and there is an end of his wonder. The first assumption, he must prove is that to read upon the book when one prayeth is a quenching the spirit; for this he allegeth the saying of Saint Paul, Quench not the Spirit, when he hath set down this, he addeth that to suppress and leave unuttered the passions of our own heart, by the work of the Spirit, giving us cause of prayer, and in steed thereof to read another man's writing, he doth not doubt will be found and judged of all that have spiritual eyes to see a quenching of that grace. I answer to this, that the speeches of the Scripture are most fit to utter our passions by. And what have ye brought, but the matter in question? If we respect such as be not able so well to utter: the spiritual eyes to see and judge that to be a quenching of the Spirit, are but the eyes of Brownists. Therefore all his beggarly cavils which follow, and which have been answered before, are to be let pass as they come.  
The second assumption to be proved is that it is presumptuous ignorance to come with a book. This is a lame sacrifice, because a man doth know how to do better and doth not; still he would have that granted which is denied. For I say the book is to help men to do the better, which are in themselves dull, and full of wants, and without help should rather offer a lame sacrifice. The third is for striving in prayer, for which when he hath spoken much of this striving which is not denied, for continuance and importunacy; he imagineth that the whole matter is proved, for this as he would make us believe, cannot be effected unless the Priest read till he sweat again, with vain repetitions. I might follow with many words in these and the rest: but seeing he hath confessed, that the Psalms were to be sung unto God, let him show how the very reading then can be so grievous a thing; for this the reader must consider, that our question is not about the matter of prayer, nor any corruption by vain repetitions or otherwise, nor about the hypocrisy and vain babbling of such as pray but of fashion, but simply of the reading, when one prayeth: which until he can prove that divers Psalms either were not uttered to God as prayer, or that they did not read them when they did sing, he proveth nothing, but deceiveth the simple with the sight of true things which he spreadeth, and from which he draweth forth such false conclusions. I leave to the reader but to compare his answers he maketh to the rest touching these arguments, and see if they make any thing for him, and not rather against him.  
The next Argument is that, We must pray as necessity 
●rgu. 7.  requireth: but stinted prayers cannot be as necessity requireth.  
Whereas I affirmed that there be things necessary to be prayed for at all times and of all men: which indeed are the most things which we are to beg of the Lord. Of these there may be prescript forms for all times: and for other things that fall out seldom the prayer is to be applied to the time, and necessity. Here are large discourses and such as this Replier doth much please himself in, as a most spiritual man. This I take to be the drift of the whole that in praying to GOD, we must come with feeling our wants, that so we may pray earnestly, which I do yield unto as an undoubted truth. He holdeth it as a great absurdity that we should want the same thing to morrow which we do to day, or that all congregations should need the same one day which they do another. He is most foolish in this and such like objections: for if I should stand to follow particulars, there be few things which we may not either for ourselves or for our brethren at all assemblies beg of the Lord. If there be special necessities, they are to be supplied. The matter is clear, I will not spend time about it, more than I have in my former book.  
But whereas the Brownist doth object, that a prescript form doth show that men take upon them to know men's secrets, which God alone doth know, it is most vain and frivolous. The Scriptures do show that we all stand in need of the same things and evermore, being sick of one disease, though there may be some particular cases wherein some have their several need. And let him answer me now unto this point: There be five or six hundred in one flock, which come together to pray; if it be as you would bear us in hand, that there is such a variableness in our needs, that to day our necessity requireth one thing, to morrow another: then every particular man and woman hath several wants, and is to pray for no more than they come with present feeling off, how then shall the Minister frame his prayer to fit them all? One shall say, this pertaineth not to me, how shall I pray? Another shall say, this or that toucheth not my estate. Many shall complain that their several wants are not touched. Tell me Ma. Greenwood, or any Brownist, doth the Minister know what is in every man? doth he know every man & woman's particular wants? He is to make the prayer in which they are all to join which him, in every request that he maketh. Or is your meaning that every man and woman shall come unto him before every assembly, and make their state known what their several need is? Or can the Minister bear in mind when he hath heard? Ye may see into what absurdities blind fantasy doth cast men. Men are to pray for nothing but that which they feel the want of, and are prepared to ask, & are fit to receive. For these (saith the Brownists) there can be no set form. And I demand whether the preacher doth know every man's feeling, how they are prepared, & how fit to receive▪ Will ye affirm this▪ or will ye confess that these gross fantasies which yet you will father upon God's spirit, do quite overthrow all public prayer? For if it be sin for any to pray for more than he cometh with the present feeling off, if in the multitude the desires are several, if it be unpossible for the Minister to know them, and how the hearts be prepared and affected, how shall he make prayer for them all? how shall they all join with him in every request? How much better is it to confess that the most things which all are to pray for, and at all times are invariable: and that men come not only to pray for that which they feel their need in; but also to be stirred up to pray for such things as either they think not of, or be dull in. I must needs here lament the state of our people which profess the Gospel, and cannot espy the grossness of these things. When the assemblies do meet, and holy petitions are made which men have heard at every meeting, they ought to be as fervent in praying as the first time they heard them. For it is a gross wickedness in men not to be moved with matter because they have often heard it, but account it stolen: as we see man's mind coveteth still that which is new. If men have not feeling it is their fault.  
Touching the faults in any Liturgy, the question is not between us, which reason what should be. That wh●ch I spoke of the preachers not limited in their prayers, I mean the prayers before and after their Sermons which they conceive. That our Saviour prescribed no form, I showed the reason, that it is not a thing of necessity, but to avoid inconvenience: neither are men tied to one form in all churches. Against this the Brownist replying, biddeth me stand to this, and saith I will go from it in the next argument. I say, all the Brownists under heaven shall never be able with force of reason to drive me from it. He first opposeth, that if I say it be at all times necessary, than the Testament is not perfect. How can I say it is at all times necessary, when I say it is not of necessity? Christ's Testament is most absolutely perfect: but yet all things touching comeliness, order, and conveniency, which are variable and may be changed, are not expressly mentioned. And that is one chief thing whereby the Brownists do seduce many a simple man. For this Brownist doth confess that there be things contained in the general rules of the Scripture, which are not expressed, but he will not have any of those things variable, that is, such as may be for good cause altered. For thus he reasoneth, I▪ it be a part of God's worship, and all times convenient, then is it necessary: and if it be not necessary, put (saith he) such conveniency in your cornered cap, or surplice. And a little after, but you grant (saith he) it is not of necessity, therefore it is not commanded in particular, nor contained in any general rule. Thus may we see, that he holdeth there is nothing in matters of convenience or circumstance in God's worship, which is not of necessity. The ground of his reason is this: If it be either expressed in particular, or contained in any general rule, it is commanded of GOD, and man hath not authority to alter God's commandment, therefore it is necessary. I grant that matters of conveniency are commanded of GOD by the general rules, and that men may not take authority over God's commandment. I say therefore the Church doth sin either of ignorance or of negligence, when it faileth in matters of circumstance which should serve for edification. But herein the Brownist showeth himself most absurdly ignorant, that he will have that which is commanded to be of necessity at all times. For that he may not wind out here with shift, as his manner is when any gross thing uttered by him is detected. Let the reader observe his words, and he shall see plainly he reasoneth for a necessity at all times. For he saith, If it be a part of God's worship, and at all times convenient, then is it necessary. And to manifest that he holdeth it all times convenient: saying, if it be not necessary, put such conveniency into your cornered cap. And again he joineth commanded in God's word and necessary at all times together. And a little after he saith, Whatsoever is commanded either in particular or in necessary collection from the general rules, are of necessity to be obeyed, and not to be altered. This I note to stop his evasion: for many matters of circumstance serving for conveniency and order, are fit at some times in some places, and for some persons, and so by the commandment of GOD then to be used, who willeth that all things be done comely, in order, and to edification. Now, as the times do vary with the circumstances of place, of persons, and of other occasions, the same things which were convenient may become inconvenient, and so not necessary at all times, as the blind Brownist doth bear in hand, but to be altered. As for example, in the time of peace it is most convenient that the assemblies should meet in some Temple or Church built for the purpose: the Church is then to ordain that it may be so. In the times of war and cruel persecution when the enemies range about and rage's: it may be far more safe for fear of entrapping, to meet in the woods, or secret places. Kneeling is the fittest gesture of the body when men in earnest prayer are to worship the Lord: the Church is to command it where it may fitly be done: but if the assemblies be driven to meet in such places as the ground being wet, and through the trampling of their feet doth become miry, it is inconvenient that the multitude should be compelled to kneel in the mire: and therefore the former ordinance is now changed. I might run through a number of particulars, but these are sufficient to declare what a learned Divine master Greenwood is, and how perfect a spirit doth guide his pen. He demandeth also full wisely, whether we do not hold it of necessity, seeing men are excommunicate, and deposed for not observing it: or as some very ignorantly use to say, if it be a thing indifferent, why is it not left indifferent for men to use or not to use? I answer, that which is a thing indifferent, God commandeth it shall be done when it is convenient and for edification, and therefore when the Church doth appoint or ordain it, rightly he that breaketh it, wilfully breaketh the commandment of God. And so on the other side, when it falleth out not to be convenient, and the Church doth alter it, he that will now observe it with a resisting mind doth like wise offend against the rule of God's word. I never doubted but that by necessary consequence it is to be drawn from the doctrine of the scriptures, that prayer is to be made before and after the word preached, but I speak of a commandment in express words: therefore the places are cited here by the Brownist to no purpose. And all the rest of his words that follow are either in matters wherein we agree, or such as he collectetth from his own ignorance, and which are answered before.  
The next argument is, Read prayers were devised by Antichrist and maintain superstition and Idol ministery, etc.  
Here the Brownist, if he would at all speak to the purpose should prove that the very reading a prayer when one prayeth is the devise of Antichrist, maintaineth superstition & an Idol ministry. But he flieth & dealeth about the matter of liturgies, saying: he hath heard, the Pope would have approved ours, if it might be received in his name. If master Greenwoods' news from Rome were true which he heard, the matter were not great, for the Pope will approve the Lords prayer, the commandments and articles of the faith, but he will expound them as it pleaseth him. The Pope also to wind in himself, will approve in show many things which he misliketh, so they be not directly against his crown and dignity. And it is to be considered that the controversies between us and the Papists are not about the matters which we are to beg in prayer. There is no likelihood that the Pope made such offer, because he knoweth we hold in the substance and grounds of the faith, that which quite overthroweth him: but if he did, men may see by these things which I have noted, that master Greenwood doth but shift and trifle. He confesseth liturgies were before Antichrist, and yet saith he was the deviser. See the gravity of this man: he is sore afraid that he should here again be said to condemn all Churches because they have read prayer: and therefore he saith his arguments are falsely wrested. Answer yourself then, and tell us what ye hold them which receive the devise of Antichrist. Why cry ye not out of the mark of the beast? It is a pitiful thing to see in what a case the Brownist is: For he will not condemn the Churches; and yet after he hath set forth what liturgy is, and affirmed that the new Testament is Christ's liturgy: he allegeth that they be accursed that add thereto; and holdeth prescript form of prayer an adding. Let him now be asked: is the curse laid upon the true Churches? he will say no. Then prescript form is either no adding to Christ's Testament, or else they be under the curse that use it. He saith liturgies are another gospel. Then all Churches have received another gosepl. The words that follow have been answered before. Where I said there would sundry inconveniences grow for want of prescript form of public prayer. After he hath set down that Christ is a perfect law giver, and that the word of God is sufficient, he termeth it blasphemy to say there would be inconveniences without liturgies: then all the Churches commit blasphemy, whether do ye yet condemn them or not? This is from his grossness which doth not see that Christ's Testament is perfect, and yet there are things commanded in general rules which are variable, as I have before showed for circumstances of time, place, persons, sitting, kneeling, etc. He saith there can be no particular laws made without breaking the law of God, as though the Church were not to see what in these is fit and convenient upon every occasion and time, and for that time to establish the same: But every man to do as he shall like, or shall take the general rule of order and decency, for men will not agree: this is from rules of order to draw confusion. Now this great divine saith I have made a fair hand in affirming liturgies to be but a matter of order, or conveniency for edification. Seeing as he saith, it is all the worship we have: this cometh from him that hath the beauty of Zion, as he boasteth: which the enchanters of Egypt cannot judge of. This cometh from him that with his fellows hath the cloud between them and us, and the pillar of fire before them as he speaketh in the next words. Because I say the prescript form and the reading are but for order, he concludeth that I confess the prayer is but a matter of order or conveniency: ye say I have made a fair hand. But I tell ye master Greenwood, if ye should go into the Schools and reason so in earnest, the young boys would be ready to hiss ye forth as a non proficiens, and how fair hand should you make then? they will not believe ye have it from your pillar of fire, but out of that dark cloud of your ignorance which is between yourself and the light of the truth. Now whereas I said, the Church hath power to ordain according to the word of God, & to appoint such orders in matters of circumstance, about public prayer, preaching of the word, and administering of the Sacraments, as shall most fitly serve for edification: and then these orders being established by public authority the discipline and censures of the Church are to drive men to the observation of the same that stubbornly break them. Here the poor Brownist layeth open himself again to be as blind as a beetle: he will needs have it to be papistical mud, and that I am in an Apostasy. Because there can as (he saith) no other laws be made in matters of circumstance, than Christ himself hath made: that to ordain laws in the Church is to plead for unwritten verities: and to make the law of God unsufficient. It is an adding to the word of God, which is execrable pride. All the Pope's trinkets might be brought in by the same ground. This is the foundation of Popery, and Anabaptistrie, to give liberty to make laws in the worship of God. And by your judgement which would have men driven to observe them, our Saviour Christ was an anabaptistical Schismatic that would not himself nor his disciples obey the traditions of the Elders. Thus speaketh this Brownist. But what beastly ignorance doth he bewray and that in sundry points? and with what horrible things in his blind fury, doth he charge all Churches withal? For first when he saith that for matters of order and circumstance, there can be no other laws made of them, than Christ hath made: he seethe not the difference between the giving general rules of charity, of come lives, and order, which serve for edification that are to be followed in making laws touching matters in themselves merely indifferent, and the very particular laws themselves that are so to be made. Then if it be true which he saith the matters of order and circumstance are not variable, but stand fixed as inviolable laws of Christ in the particulars to be observed, which is false, seeing these circumstances are no part of God's worship: As Paul saith, The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, etc. but as handmaids, to attend upon it, and to adorn it; and so are used and not used, as occasion serveth. I have showed this before in some particulars, as that the assemblies are in time of peace gathered in temples, and fixed places and open, in time of persecution and tumult in the fields, in woods, and secret places which they change, and at the commandment of the pastors and governors: the wise reader may consider the like not only for kneeling and such like, but in many other. And we see that the Apostles themselves did decree some things for the time, which afterward were to be altered, when the occasion was taken away, as namely to avoid giving offence to the weak jews which stuck in the ceremonies of the law: they made this decree Act. 15. That the gentiles should abstain from blood and from strangled. We do not now observe this decree of the Apostles, neither are we to observe it, seeing the occasion is removed for which it was made.  
Furthermore, if there be no laws to be made in matters of circumstance, how shall the flocks know what to follow or to observe where the pastors shall dissent and vary in judgement? Shall not some be rend into one part, and some into another? Now when he saith this is to plead for unwritten verities, to make the Law of God unsufficient, to add to the word, alleging those Scriptures, which show how cursed a thing that is: he doth but ignorantly abuse those Scriptures, and wickedly seduce the simple sort of men. For those Scriptures are against the adding of humane precepts and laws to be kept as parts of God's worship, to bind the conscience, to seek righteousness, and the forgiveness of sins, or the merit of eternal life in them, or against such rules of government, as God hath set to be perpetual. This is against the perfection of the word, against Christian liberty, and in the chief things which concern God's worship, against the ground and foundation of our faith: and so a thing most detestable and accursed, which our saviour also and his Apostles refused justly to observe with the blind pharisees. But now where the Brownist hath his eyes so dazzled with that pillar of fire which he saith they have before them, that he cannot perceive that to make and constitute laws in matters of circumstance for comeliness, and order according to the general rules of the Scripture and not to bind the conscience, is no adding to the word, nor mixing God's worship with man's inventions, he is much to be pitied. And doubtless before this pillar of fire be removed, which is not the heavenly light of God's spirit, but a frantic presumption, by which the devil doth delude men and blind them with their swelling, he shall never see well. Some will say if these constitutions be not to bind the conscience of men, why are men forced to keep them? Why should the discipline and censures of the Church drive men thereunto? In deed this is that which the freedom of the Brownists can at no hand endure. To answer this, the reader must consider what is the binding of the conscience. It is not to say simply ye must for conscience sake do it, or ye are bound for conscience sake to do it; for then all the humane constitutions and laws of princes may be said to bind the conscience, because Saint Paul willeth to obey them for conscience Rom. 13. But by binding the conscience is meant, that such laws are laid upon the conscience to be observed as part of the worship of God: when men are punished for not keeping them as contemning God's worship, then is the Christian liberty withstood. But when the discipline & censures of the Church, do compel men to observe the laws, which in matters of comeliness and order are made according to the rules of the Apostle: they are not punished for doing or not doing the things themselves, but that by doing that which is forbidden, or refusing to do that which is commanded, they disturb the peace, breed divisions and offence, disobey where they are commanded obedience: these be sins, and for these, men are to be punished. This is where the orders be, not against the word of God, but fit for edification.  
And now to conclude about this matter, all the Churches of God under heaven do make such laws, such Canons, and constitutions in matters of circumstance, and by their discipline compel both Ministers and people to obey the same. The Brownist allegeth against this, not only the sentences. Proverbs. 30. vers. 5. 6▪ and Deut. 4. vers. 12. 32. but also, Revela. 22. vers. 18. 19 Where the Lord threateneth, that he that shall add to the words of that prophesy, he will put upon him the Plagues written in that book.  
Tell me now Master Greenewood, do ye yet condemn all Churches? Ye do affirm that they which make any laws, do add to the word of God, and allege against them, that God will put upon them the plagues written in that book: which is a denouncing of the extreme wrath of God, for there is the lake of fire set forth? If ye were not quite beside yourself, how could you thus hurl your darts of extreme condemnation, and strike all churches, and yet when I tell ye of it, cry out, that I am a liing Prophet, and will me to remember who is the father of untruths? But lest I may seem to father that upon the Churches, which is far from them, I will note somewhat out of the harmony of confessions Section. 17. The latter Helvetian confession saith, Quod in Ecclesijs dispares inveniuntur ritus, nemo Ecclesias existimet ex eo esse dissidentes. That there are unlike rites or ceremonies found in the Churches, let no man judge hereby, that the Church's dissent. And the confession of Bohemia hath. Quare illi tantum ritus, illaeque ceremoniae bonae servari debent, quae in populo Christiano unicam & veram fidem, sincerúmque cultum Dei, concordium, charitatem, & veram atque Christianam se● religiosam pacem aedificant. Sive igitur, ab episcopis, sive a consilijs Ecclesiasticis, aut à quibuscumque aucthoribus alijs extiterint, aut introductae sint, de eo simpliciores laborare non debent, neque hoc mou●ri, aut perturbari: sed quia bonae sunt ijs ad bonum uti. Wherefore those rites and those good ceremonies ought only to be kept, which among the people of Christ do edify the only and true faith, and the sincere worship of God, concord, charity, and the true and Christian or religious peace. Therefore whether they be exstant, or brought in by the Bishops, or by the Counsels Ecclesiastical, or by other authors whatsoever, the simpler sort are not to trouble themselves about that, neither with this to be moved or disquieted, but because they be good, to use them unto that which is good. And a little after, Et quanquam nostri, non omnes ritus aequè servant cum alijs Ecclesijs, id quod & fieri non potest, & non est necesse fieri, ut omnibus in locis Christianorum conventuum, unae & eadem ceremoniae usurpentur: non tamen ulli bonae & piae constitutioni repugnant, seseuè opponunt, neque ita animati sunt ut ceremoniarum causa dissidia ulla commovere velint, etiamsi aliquae non admodum necessariae esse iudicarentur, modò Deo & cultui atque gloriae huius non reperiantur contrariae, & quae veram in jesum Christum fidem quae sola justitiam conciliat, non diminuant. That is to say, And although our men do not equally observe all rites with other Churches, a thing which both cannot be done, and is not necessary to be done, that in all places of the christian assemblies, one and the same ceremonies should be used: yet they do not repugn any good constitution, or oppose themselves, neither are they so minded as that for the cause of ceremonies they will move any dissensions, although some might be judged to be not altogether necessary, so that they be not found contrary to God, to his worship and glory, and which diminish not the true faith in jesus Christ, which only doth justify. Again a little after, Docentur & hoc agnoscere homines, traditiones humanas non complecti legem perpetuam & immutabilem, sed quemadmodum justis de causis ab ●●minibus instituuntur, ita etiam justis & gravibus de causis, & re ita postulante, violari, abrogari, atque mutari sine ullo peccato posse. That is, Men are taught also to acknowledge this, that human traditions do not contain a perpetual law and unchangeable, but as for just causes, they are ordained by men, so also for just & weighty causes, & the matter so requiring, they may be violated, abrogated and changed without offending. The Augustine confession, Quaerat igitur aliquis an vitam hanc hominum, sine ordine, sine ritibus esse velimus? nequaquam, sed docemus pastores veros Ecclesiarum posse in Ecclesijs suis publicos ritus instituere: That is, Some man them may demand whether we would have this life of men to be without order, without ceremonies? In no wise. But we teach that the true pastors of the churches may in their churches ordain public rites or ceremonies.  
I might set down to the same effect out of the confessions of the other reformed Churches, but I will omit it as not necessary, and only note a few things out of Master Beza his Epistles. After he hath set down Epist. 24. that things indifferent are so called, not that men may without exception do or leave undone as often as they lust and as it shall please them and not sin: but that they are so called, because a man may use and not use them well, and he may use them and not use them evil. And moreover, that things indifferent by themselves or otherwise, do after a sort change their nature, when by some lawful commandment they are either commanded or forbidden. And further, that the use of them is generally restrained by the law of charity, and specially or more particularly by constitution either politic or ecclesiastical. He addeth, Etsi enim conscientias propriè solus deus ligat, tamen quatenus vel Magistratus, qui dei minister est, judicat interesse reipublicae, ut quippiam alioqui per se licitum non fiat: vel ecclesia ordinis & decori adeóque aedificationis rationem habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè conduit: eiusmodi leges pijs omnino sunt obseruande, & eatenus conscientias ligant ut nemo sciens & prudens rebellandi animo possit absque peccato vel facere quae ita prohibentur, vel ●mittere quae sic pr●cipiuntur. That is to say, For although properly God alone doth bind the consciences, yet so far as either the Magistrate which is the minister of God, doth judge it profitable for the Commonwealth that something should not be done, which otherwise of itself is lawful: or the Church having regard of order and comeliness, & so of edification, doth rightly make some laws in matters indifferent: such laws are many wise to be observed of the godly, and do so far bind the conscience that no man wittingly and willingly with a mind to rebel can without sin, either do the things which are so forbidden, or leave undone things so commanded.  
What have I said more than the Churches do hold, master Beza and all the most noble Instruments of GOD in these last days, if I should stand to show it. Then ye may see when Master Greenwood doth so ragingly take on, and strike he knows not whom, such fury is not fit for disputation in the Church. Let not the reader here suppose that I go about to maintain that the prayer of any is pleasing to God, which come with customary words of course without feeling their wants: or that I should hold, that a set form of prayer is of men to be uttered without meditation and preparation, as many do of an idle custom, as if the very saying were a great service to God. Nor yet do I hold that all men alike stand in need of prescript form in their private prayers, or that the fervency of prayer is not often times more vehement in uttering any request in private prayer without prescript form than with it, if a man be able. I say further; A man is to call upon God not only as his need in any particular shall urge him, even at all times: but he is also to stir up himself and to prepare himself to beg more things than be in his present feeling and memory, which prescript forms are an help to direct him unto. And when a man cometh to the public assemblies to pray, the case is somewhat differing from making his private requests: for there he cometh not to crave those things alone which he feeleth present need of, or which he is moved withal, but to make common requests with the whole congregation, in all things that they are to crave. To this he must now frame himself: Among five or six hundred, the particular wants or desires are sundry, one moved more in one thing: another in another thing: some come more fit to pray, for this, and some for that. It is most certain, that neither the prescipt form, nor the preacher can see into these several estates of men's minds & consciences, or to the desires which they are most fit and prepared to express: neither is that so much to be regarded, seeing that which should be fittest for one part, should not be so fit for another: but they must every one frame himself to pray for all things which the assembly doth pray for, which are necessary to be prayed for at all times and of all persons. Shall any man say, I am not prepared to beg these things, therefore they be not fit for me? Let him not be so wicked, but stir up himself rather to beg them with the congregation. Shall any be so foolish as to say, we know these things before, I am not moved with them, men for the most part do but repeat them of custom? Nay rather let him strive against such impiety, and say the things are not any thing the less precious which we crave, because we hear them often or know them before, or that many abuse them: and therefore we endeavour to beg them earnestly with all faithful ones in the assembly, seeing they be such as are needful to be prayed for. In the rest I leave the reader to compare his book with my former.  
The last Argument. The prayers of such Ministers and people as stand under a false government are not acceptable. Those Ministers which stand subject to the Bishops and their Courts, are subject to a false government and to Antichrist.  
I did refer the answer of these to the third and fourth accusation: but yet I did take some exception, as my book showeth. The Brownist in replying here is in great distemper: I will let all his words pass, and come to the matter. I alleged out of the Epistle to the Romans Chapt. 7. that S. Paul was held in some bondage, and therefore that jerusalem from above is not in this world so free, but that she and all her children are in some spiritual bondage. At this he did cry out of Atheism & carnal Libertinisme, affirming that S. Paul never continued captive unto sin after regeneration, neither gave place unto evil thoughts. Where I have justly charged him with very foul matter, which now labouring to wash away, he doth bemire himself. First he crieth out of wrong in divers things without any cause. Such as do touch the question of government and the blasts he bloweth that way, I do here omit, because his fellows do make reply as he mentioneth unto those things, and I must then answer. Only I deal with him now touching the place to the Romans. He willeth if I have any common honesty, to let his former answer be seen. I promise ye it will be small to your credit and honesty let whosoever see it, seeing ye do in shameless manner cry out of wresting and I know not what. Against my reason out of the words of Saint Paul, deny if ye have the forehead, these to be your words. And now (say you) that Scripture which the Apostle hath set down in the anguish of his soul, concerning the inward strife of the flesh and the spirit, you shamefully pervert to your own condemnation except you repent: for Paul never continued captive unto sin after his regeneration, neither gave place unto evil thoughts. Paul speaketh there of the unperfectness of his own righteousness, which maketh the law deadly unto him. I will think you a fleshly Libertine, if you recant not this doctrine. What Atheist would thus have defended his own gross sins? Thus far go your words, and now let such as have knowledge judge what wrong I have done ye. Let them look upon that which I have published, and see whether I have wrested your words, or set down any unsound point of doctrine as you would yet accuse me, and do importunately cry out: but now your words are in the light, and your answer also which ye cannot use such shifts to excuse. You lay open the disagreement between you and me. First you cannot agree to this, that the regenerate may be said to stand in any bondage to sin. You cannot conclude against it, but bring in another saying and so draw a conclusion: And that is, how I also affirm that one standing in bondage to open known sin, may in that estate be accepted and communicated with as the servant of Christ by outward profession both at one instant: which is as to say, we may be to man's sight the servant of the devil, and the servant of Christ both at one time by outward profession. So none should be excommunicate, none without, the world and the Church, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, should be mingled together. Well, than I ask this question both of yourself and of your fellows, whether there be any one of ye that can stand forth and say, I see no sin in myself; but so soon as I have espied I overcome and am not at all led by it. Tell me further, whether ye have not this, that ye may say there is evil always in ye which you cannot be rid of; and that doth hold ye fast and press ye? Do ye not leave the good undone and commit evil, and such evil as is always present in ye? Do not ye find great sins that ye stand under as not able to come out of? If any Brownist shall deny he is such, or in this estate, he can be but a proud hypocrite. If ye confess it, what do you but confess some bondage? Let me ask ye further, is there any of ye which dare stand forth and say I am not a sinner in the sight of men? I stand not holden under any outward sin: the Brownist must answer these questions, for he holdeth that men can not outwardly appear sinners and be the servants of Christ at one instant. What beastly gear is this? There is sin that appeareth in the best men at all times, in gesture, in words, in deeds, in negligence, in wants, yea a thousand ways: who is able to endure the trial of God's law even in that which outwardly doth appear in him for an hour? And will ye cast forth all in whom there appeareth sin that he doth abide in? The gross open sinners I confess, which contemn and give offence are to be cast forth, but are those which abide within at any time free from open sin? covetousness is a foul sin, so is pride, self love, and wrath. Do all Brownists so fully shine in brightness before men that in none of these nor any other they can be discerned to be sinners? Doth all virtue shine forth in them? And touching that which I charged you withal, look better now upon your own speech: If there be any modesty in ye, it will be hard for ye to deny, but that I have laid no more to your charge than your own plain words. For are not these words plain, Paul never continued captive unto sin after his regeneration, neither gave place unto evil thoughts? But now you make a protestation that you have ever been free from such an heresy, and your last writing did testify much. Touching your writing it was both last and first, except your bare argument: and there is no heed to take what ye say, for your matter cometh forth as the stream doth turn the wheel, even unto contrary motions. When before the rage of the stream turned the wheel to utter the freedom of the Church, than it must be in such perfection that the regenerate is not partly held captive unto sin, nor giveth place unto evil thoughts.  
Now when the wheel must have a contrary motion to purge yourself, there cometh as violent a stream that way. For here ye say, the children of God after regeneration may commit any sin, except the sin against the holy ghost. And you also affirm that they may commit sin of presumption and obstinate sin: In my judgement you had need of some favourable exposition of your speech. The regenerate doubtless, as we have examples in the scriptures may fall into grievous sins, and do through frailty: but that it may be of presumption and obstinacy, you must declare how filthy incest is not the sin against the holy ghost, nor if a man kill his Father, Mother, or Children. No more is witchcraft, and familiarity with devils. Is it your meaning, that the regenerate may of presumption and obstinacy commit these? If not, why do you utter such words and not make them plain. I spoke upon the place to the Romans', that the freedom of the Church in this world is but in part and not perfect: he cried out, a fleshly liberty. If I should have spoken as he speaketh here, what would he have said? But he now he is afraid lest while he hath washed himself over clean from Anabaptisme, he should overthrow Brownisme, as indeed he doth. And that is the cause why he tempereth his speech in the words following: that although in Gods fight obstinate sinners may be regenerate and so his children, yet not to men by outward profession: but are to be cast forth which I do not deny; and then for the least bowing down to a false government, they are to be cast forth. This I omit as not the question between him and me, and leave his words to be considered of the reader. But where he proceedeth in reasoning against me as if I held that obstinate gross sinners are not teo be cast forth by excommunication: I marvel from whence he can gather that. But let us come to S. Paul again, and see how master Greenwood excuseth his own speech, and condemneth mine. It is out of doubt that as God is immortal & doth beget by immortal seed, as S. Peter speaketh: so all which are borne of GOD and have therefore received the spirit of regeneration, can never lose that spirit. Whosoever is borne of God doth not commit sin because his seed abideth in him: neither can he sin because he is borne of God. 1. john. 3. v. 9 From hence master Greenwood holdeth himself cleared, and may well say that S. Paul after regeneration stood not in any bondage to sin, nor gave place unto evil thoughts: because he ever repent, and the spirit of God in him did not, nor could not consent or give place unto sin. His meaning then is this, that the regeneration which is from the spirit cannot be in bondage to sin, and the graces of the spirit cannot consent or give place unto evil thoughts. This is most true, unless a man will be so wicked as to hold that the grace of God may be in bondage and consent to the work of the devil. If this had been the matter in question between us, and he had said no more, it could not be reproved. But he proceedeth further and chargeth me with error, that when S. Paul reasoneth of the old man, or corruption in him, I will needs conclude it of the new man, or inner man, or of the whole man. My words are extant in print, let all the Brownists sconne them, and see whether they can without falsehood and lying gather from them that I conclude that the new man or inner man which is the grace of regeneration is in bondage to sin, or doth consent unto evil thoughts: the whole course of my words doth lay open the contrary. For I show how Paul touching the inner man consented to the law of God: And that in his mind, that is in the regeneration, he did serve the law of God. What is it then which maketh master Greenwood so boldly to accuse, and so falsely? Even the mother of heady boldness, and much falsehood, palpable ignorance. For where I stand to affirm, that paul a regenerate man stood yet in some captivity and bondage unto sin. He doth imagine it will follow, that I affirm the regeneration to be in bondage unto sin: because Paul is the whole man, and he that concludeth upon the whole, concludeth upon every part. In deed this is it which hath deceived the Brownist, and by which he thus laboureth to seduce others: that where the Scripture calleth the regeneration, or the graces of the spirit, the new man and the inner man, (as it calleth the corruption of nature the old man, and the body of sin) he understandeth it, as though the person himself, who is regenerate were called the new man, or the inner man, which is far wide: for the graces of the spirit, the work of the spirit, the regeneration called the inner man, are one thing, and the man himself which is regenerate, another. The body and soul are Paul, the regeneration called the inner man, or the graces of the Spirit, are not Paul himself, but in Paul. The soul & body are Paul, the corruption through concupiscence called the old man, is not Paul himself but is in Paul? because the regeneration shall never be extinguished the regenerate are reckoned and esteemed after it, not that the regeneration itself is, either the man or a part of the man. David was a man regenerate, he committed adultery, and murder, the soul and body of David sinned, whole David doth acknowledge himself a sinner, that is, he was a sinner both in body and soul: and yet the regeneration, the seed of God in him, the graces of the Spirit, which were as coals of fire for the time covered in the ashes, did not sin, nor consent unto evil thought. Paul a regenerate man, when he saith Autos ego, I myself in the mind serve the law of God, but in the flesh the law of sin, calleth not the regeneration, I myself, but his soul and body which were Paul: then the body and soul of Paul in the mind, that is so far as they were regenerate, did serve the law of God. The same body and soul of Paul in the flesh, that is in the corruption of nature remaining, because regeneration is not full and perfect, did serve the law of sin: for he saith I myself for both. The flesh in this place is not Paul, nor no part of Paul, but the corruption of sin spread over the body and soul of Paul. Even so, the mind is not Paul, nor any part of Paul, but the work of Grace remaining, the soul and body of Paul.  
Now the Brownist, not understanding, but as the Apopostle saith, They would be Doctors of the law, not knowing what they speak, nor whereof they affirm. 1. Timon▪ 1. would have us believe him, that Paul after regeneration was not in any respect held captive unto sin, nor gave place unto evil thoughts: because the grace of God in Paul was not in bondage unto sin nor consented.  
Saint Paul saith, I myself in the flesh serve the law of sin: which as I expounded in my former book, doth not prove that sin did reign, or that it is to be accounted such a service to sin as is done on the other part to God, because this is by violent tyranny against the will, so far as the grace of regeneration hath reform it; and the service to the law of God is with delight and willingness. This is the reason why he saith, It is no longer I, but the sin that dwelleth in me. It is not reckoned his sin before God, because he doth hate it: but yet it sticketh fast both in his soul and body. It is no longer I that sin: The Brownistes exposition is to this effect, It is no longer I that is the inner man, or the graces of the spirit that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Did the grates of regeneration ever commit sin, or the inner man▪ If not, how can it be said it is no longer I, for nothing can be said to do no longer, that hath not done before? And when he saith, but sin that dwelleth in me, this in me, is not in the regeneration, for though sin dwell in man together with the works of grace, yet is it no fit speech to say sin dwelleth in the regeneration▪ Therefore this I, when he saith, it is no longer I that do it, is not the inner man, but the person of Paul consisting of soul and body. How fond then doth Master Greenewood affirm, that S. Paul in that place touching his bondage to sin, speaketh but of that which is called the old man? The old man is the concupiscence and corruption of sin. Where I alleged that Paul saith, he saw a law in his members that did lead him captive to the law of sin, he saith I falsify the text: because it is leading me captive, and not did lead me captive. Paul speaketh in the time present, lest he might seem to speak of a former estate which he was not in then. And it was more effctuall to lay open the bondage to sin, which in some respect the regenerate are in, though sin have not dominion over them, for him to say, at that instant holding me captive, then to say did leave me captive. The cause why I put it in the time past is, that Paul is delivered long since. The disciples saw jesus walking on the water, do I falsify the text, if I say they saw jesus did walk upon the water▪ But this is not all, for this Brownist saith, holding him captive, but it did not hold him. What can be a more flat contradiction than this▪ his reason is because there was a stronger, that suffered not the law in his members to reign. The matter is not about a full dominion of sin, but whether the body and soul were not so yoked still with it, as to be forced to commit sin. Now let me have an answer to this, either from Master Greenewood, or any other Brownist whether the regeneration be perfect in any. He will say I do him great wrong to ask him such a question, because he professeth the contrary. Well then, answer also whether the freedom of God's children from sin, while they live here be perfect, or but in part, as the regeneration is? If ye will say the freedom is perfect, show how there can be a perfect freedom from sin, by a sanctification which is but a part. If ye say the freemdome is but in part and unperfect, as ye must needs say, (unless ye will be right Anabaptists indeed) then tell me how it is possible, that where the freedom is but in part, that should be no bondage? For what is the imperfection of freedom, but that it taketh not away all bondage? look how far the freedom cometh short of perfection, so far bondage doth remain, choose whether part ye will to affirm, either the freedom of God's children from sin while they live here to be perfect, or else to be unperfect. For if ye shall say the freedom is already perfect, (as ye have hitherto, by affirming that the regenerate are in no bondage to sin) then shall ye continue in Annabaptistrie. If ye deny the freedom of the regenerate to be perfect as yet, (which in deed is the sound truth) then consider that how much is wanting of perfect freedom, so much remaineth of that bondage to sin, which as yet all stand under that line, and acknowledge your madness in affirming so directly contrary to the Scriptures, that Paul never continued captive unto sin after regeneration, nor gave place unto evil thoughts.   
FINIS.