A MILD AND JUST DEFENCE OF CERTAIN ARGUMENTS, AT THE LAST SESSION OF Parliament directed to that most Honourable High Court, in behalf of the Ministers suspended and deprived &c: for not Subscribing and Conforming themselves etc. AGAINST AN INTEMPERATE AND UNJUST CONSIDERATIon of them by M. Gabril powel. The chief and general contents whereof are briefly laid down immediately after the Epistle.  
G. powel.  
Let there be no strife I pray thee between thee and me, for we be brethren: Gen. 30: 8.  
Reply.  
The words of his mouth were softer than butter, yet war is in his heart: His words were more gentle than oil, yet they were swords. Psal: 55, 21.  
Out of one mouth proceedeth blessing & cursing: my brethren these things ought not to be so. james 3.10.  
My little children let us not love in word neither in tongue only, but in deed and in truth: 1 Ioh: 3: 18:  
Imprinted, 1606.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND MOST CHRISTIAN HIGH covert OF PARliament which lately was, and shortly again is to be assembled.  
RIght Honourable and most Christian Senate, as at your last Session, there were certain Arguments directed unto You for the quickening of your godly Zeal to speak, not only boldly, but also in all humility to the Kings most excellent Majesty, for the Ministers suspended and deprived for not Subscribing and Conforming themselves to some present Constitutions, and as ye did graciously accept of the said Arguments, and most worthily acquit yourselves to the utmost of your powers, touching the matter pleaded for by them: so now vouchsafe (I most humbly beseech you) the like favourable acceptance of a sober, modest, and just defence of the same Arguments against a late uncharitable, unchristian, bitter, calumnious, and cavilling answer, published under the title of A consideration of them by M. Gabril Powel. I am bold in steed of the author himself of the Arguments, to take the defence of them upon me, and to present them to your Honours, because M. Powel himself in his said pretended answer unto them, hath so often referred the judgement of the Arguments of his consideration of them, and of the whole cause, to your most grave and gracious company. Yea, there is nothing that I am more willing unto, or which I do more earnestly desire, then that the cause betwixt M. Powel and all those for whom he pleadeth on the one part, and the author of the Arguments and me the defendant with all other in whose behalf we speak on the other part, might be iudicioussy and equally heard at the bar of your most Christian Court. But the truth is, because we desire and endeavour this, hinc illae lacrymae. Hence is their chief hatred of us, their great contention with us, and their bitter writing against us. Notwithstanding though now we be unjustly charged as writing from Cimmerian darkness, for concealing our names; yet if public liberty might be granted to both parts, to stand before your judgement seat, there freely to plead & debate the cause by the word of God, and that neither the worldly might and pomp of our adversaries, nor our meanness and baseness might be respected, but the truth itself simply considered and regarded, we would also account it as a singular mercy of God, and as a special favour of you towards us in that behalf.  
In the mean time, I do in all humility refer the Arguments, together with the defence of them to your grave and judicious consideration against your next meeting in Parliament: not doubting but that the equity of the cause, and the innocency of ourselves will thereby be so apparent unto you, that though before some perhaps among you, did think the one not to be so just, and the other not so free from all blame, yet when ye shall again assemble, ye will all with one mouth as one man, both justify the cause, and also speak more than ever before ye have done, for favour unto us, and to our people: betwixt whom the bond before made by the Church, and sealed by the holy Ghost in the effects of our Ministry, cannot by any Lordly Episcopal severity be justly dissolved.  
I do further likewise humbly crave your Honourable lawful favour more specially towards me (if at any time I shall be discovered) against all those that shall not well brook the sober and modest taxing of their corruptions in this defence: especially considering the same is not done of any contentious mind; but only in love of the truth, to support it against those that deprave it: and in regard of our own good names, to maintain our own innocency against those that under the name of brethren, do most unbrotherly disgrace us.  
Moreover, if any thing in this defence following, or in the Arguments themselves, by the malice of any shallbe wrested and perverted, thereby also to wrest and pervert the law to the danger of the several authors of the one or the other (being found out) may it likewise please you, in all lawful and righteous manner to put forth yourselves for protection of the said authors: as chief because such wresting of words and perverting of judgement, may procure God's judgements against themselves that shall so offend, and against the whole land; so likewise because to speak in such matters and for such persons (whatsoever the answerer saith to the contrary) shall not only bring much peace & comfort to such speakers themselves, but shall also be beneficial to the whole land, as is showed in the Arguments, nothing infringed or weakened, by all M. powel's opposition unto them.  
Yea let this consideration be a third reason to move you the rather so to speak, viz. that if one man had the divinity & knowledge in law, as also all other learning, wit and wisdom of all men, yet could he not so warily and circumspectly write in all things, but that some wrangler or other (instructed and set a work by the serpent, that is more subtle, not only then all beasts, but also then all men now living on the earth) might and would find some matter or other, whereby to molest and trouble him.  
I had thought much more to have enlarged this my preface, but the prolixity of the defence itself much exceeded my first purpose, I will here conclude, both humbly and with all thanks to God & to yourselves acknowledging your most religious & gracious endeavours at your last Session for the cause and for the persons pleaded for in the arguments; and most hearty & instantly likewise praying for you & yours as Nehemiah 
Nehem: 5: 19: & 13: 4:  prayed for himself: viz. that God in goodness would remember you (and yours) according to all that ye have done for us: and that he will never wipe out your kindness that ye have showed on the house of your God, and on the officers thereof.   

A BRIEF NOTE OF SOME OF THE CHIEF general points handled in this defence following.  
THat the author of the Arguments is falsely accused to impute any dissembling or equivocating to the Kings most excellent Majesty, but that in all things he hath conceived and written most reverently, Christiantly and dutifully of his Majesty.  
2 That he is as untruly charged with any undutiful speeches against the Nobility, or any other that have obeyed his Majesty's proceedings  
3 That the Ministers pleaded for are not refractory, superstitious, or schismatical: neither confronters of the Magistrate, or troublers of the state, but that these and other the like imputations do rather belong to their accusers  
4 That our Churches of England are in nothing so glorious state as is pretended by M. Powel, and other prelatical persons but rather in diverse respects, and for diverse parts thereof in lamentable condition.  
5 That the late proceed of the Prelates against such Ministers for not subscribing, conforming etc: & that many of the late Canons or constitutions are contrary to the word of God, & the laws of this Realm.  
6 That the oath likewise Ex Officio is repugnant to the laws of this Realm: yea abrogated by them, & only enforced by foreign Canons.  
7 That the obedience & loyalty of the Ministers for conscience of God's word not conforming themselves, is as good as of the greatest conformitans, yea that their not conforming themselves in that respect, maketh more than conformity for the good & safety of his Majesty.  
8 That the Considerer of the arguments, in his inconsiderate consideration of them, hath most unreverently and undutifully censured the High Court of Parliament, for their late most religious endeavours in behalf of the Ministers pleaded for in the said Arguments.  
9 That the Ministers so deprived, do not forsake their callings.  
10 That although the number of the Ministers so deprived be but small in comparison of other, yet the deprivation of them & the loss of their Ministry is dangerous for the whole Church in this kingdom.  
11 That the Considerer of the arguments ofttimes offendeth in those things which unjustly he objecteth unto the author of the arguments: viz: in sophistications in general, and particularly in begging of the question: as also in equivocations, & in vain repetitions of the same things for increasing of his volume: and lastly incontradicting himself, yea sometime in one and the same place.  
12 That he and other the Prelates most striving for conformity, do attribute more to conformity, then to any more material & principal duties of the Ministry expressly commanded by God.   

A DEFENCE OF THE ARGUMENTS Lately directed to the High Court of Parliament for the Ministers silenced ect, against the answer unto them by M. Gabriel powel.  
All though the late answer of M. powel to the Arguments in the title mentioned, for moment of matter be not such, that either any disgrace of the said Arguments or of the cause itself, with any wise and judicious reader, need to be feared thereby; or that therefore the said answer should have reply thereunto: yet for their sake that are not so judicious; and that neither the answerer himself, neither any other by our silence may have any cause to insult and triumph, as having won some great field, and gotten some worthy victory, I have presumed to take upon me the replying thereunto, instead of the author himself.  
Herein (notwithstanding the answerer his scoffing at our triobular Pamphlets) I will labour as much as I may for brevity, that so the Christian reader may the less behindred from his other weighty affairs. For this cause I neither will reply to the whole answer, neither will cause the said answer to be wholly reprinted, but will only most briefly collect such things, as may most seem to require reply; but yet with such faithfulness, that the answerer shall have no just cause to complain of the said collections, as unjust, or not agreeing to his own words. The marginal notes I will reply unto by themselves, and that according to the letters prefixed unto them: and the rest that he writeth, in that order they are by himself set down.  
But before I proceed any further, let me admonish M. Powel of one fault in him, and common to many other of that side; that is to attribute that to all of us which is done by any one. I mean in things which they think to be blamable. These Arguments were written by one alone, yet whatsoever he can by hook or crook gather as worthy of rebuke or show of rebuke, that he imputeth to all that crave any favour? In good things they deal not so, but that which is well said or done by one is imputed to one only, so that the rest far not the better thereby. My humble desire therefore is, that howsoever thes men deal with us, yet that other would deal otherwise. viz. That if there be any thing blamable in the Arguments, or in any other one man's writing of our side, it may be taken as the fault only of one, and not imputed to all. Especially let this be considered, when there is no fault at all, but only by surmise, and upon uncharitable misconstruing & wresting of a man's words. It was the fault of Saul, for the supposed offence of Abimelech, to kill both him, and also all the rest of the Lords Priests. It was the sin of Haman, for the suspected pride of Mordecai in not bowing unto him, to hate him & all the jews, and to plot and contrive the ruin of them all. So the Apostle noteth it as a fault of the heathen, that knew not God, and were given over to a reprobate mind, to take all things in the evil part. Rom. 1.24. Let this therefore be the sin of such wicked men, but let all true Christians that love and fear the Lord, be free thereof. Now to proceed, I will begin with the preface.  
TOuching the preface there being not much therein which is not afterward mentioned in the rest of the book, I may the more cursorily pass and run it over.  
The first point here to be observed, as also in the place of scripture subscribed to the title Gen. 13.8. Is that he calleth us brethren, as if he did so account and regard us. Notwithstandidg whether he do any otherwise, or with any other mind so call us, then only as joab called Amasae his brother with his mouth, and yet at the same instant killed him with his hand. 2 Sam. 20 9 I leave it to be judged by his opposition to our petition, by his most unchristian, & uncharitable railings, revilyng, reproaches & scoffs, as also by his most unjust collections; as directly contrary to the words, & much more to the meaning of the author of the said Arguments, so likewise to all reason, & common sense. sharpness & bitterness are the common weapons and principal armour of that side, which is an evidence of the badness of their cause, and no less testimony of the goodness of ours. For truth and righteousness can support themselves without any such means. Notwithstanding in this kind, this answerer hath far exceeded many other, yea, he may well be acknowledged to have won the spurs from many other. They commonly object this fault unto us, and it may be some one of his private motion and disposition, doth a little sometime offend this way, to the grief of the rest that favour the cause. But if all speeches of that kind that have ever been used by any of our side, were gathered into one (truly and without any wresting) they would not a mount to the number proportionably, that is apparent and evident in this answer.  
The which fault is so much the greater, because the arguments are propounded with all temperance, & without any just occasion to provoke him, except it be as a weak stomach is sick with the best and most wholesome meat. Notwithstanding I do the less marvel hereat, because as the more extreme the love of Amnon was towards Tamar at the first, and the more extreme also his hatred against her afterward, 2. Sam. 13.15. So this is often to be observed, that such as sometime have been most hot in dislike of the corruptions of our Church, they changing their minds and for preferment conforming themselves, have become more bitter and heavy adversaries, than any of those that were never other than conformable men. But was M. Powel at any time of such a mind? Yea certainly within these few years he was so over strong, that he called the Communion book a Mass book. At another time likewise being at a Church, and hearing the Latiny, he rose up saying, come let us go, what, shall we now hear conjuring? So likewise the time hath been when some other (now very conformable) have publicly in pulpit (I will not say in my hearing) to the disgrace of the Bishops said, If ever the Bishops do good in the Parliament house let me be damned. Many other the like instances might be named, But I regard brevity. These things willbe justified. Did any of us ever so be have ourselves? If we had, we might be justly blamed in that behalf. But I will press this point no further. I have the rather reported this, for the better answer of the matter of giddiness afterward by him objected unto us.  
2 The next point in the preface, is, that he chargeth us with emulation of foreign novelty.  
Ans. Neither novelty, nor foreign. We desire nothing, wherein we have not proved our desires by such Arguments of God's word (the best antiquity, and besides which, the more ancient any thing is, the more rotten is the same) such arguments (I say) as never have been yet sufficiently answered. touching the word foreign, though indeed the things desired by us are in all Churches of other Countries fully reform in doctrine with ours, yet those Churches being all the same household of faith that we are, they are not aptly called foreign. As Englishmen travelling in other Countries and living after English fashion, are not therefore Foreigners in respect of England whiles they so travel, but still to be accounted of the same country, so all Churches and all members of the Church, in what Country so ever they be, are not to be accounted Foreigners one to another, because they are all Citizens of heaven, and we make all one family or body.  
Besides, the things in controversy which we desire to be removed, may much more justly be called both Noviltie & Foreign, because they were not of Apostolical institution, neither heard of in the Apostles time, yea, condemned by general arguments in the writings of the Apostles, as hath been showed in diverse other books written one our side, not yet answered: especially in the A bridgment made by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, the Demands, and in the 12 Arguments: as also because they are in use in more Foreign Popish Synagogues, than there are reform Churches in all Europe. Lastly, although Communion with the Churches of Christ in what country soever, be much more to be respected, than fellowship with the synagogues of Antichrist, yet we do not therefore desire that which we do, because it is in other Churches, but because the word requireth the same.  
G. Powel  They refuse to conform themselves. 

Answer.  None of us have ever had the book of Common prayer authorized by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. And some of us have never had the book now urged by the Bishops provided for us, or tendered unto us: How then have we refused to conform ourselves? Yet we are deprived. By what right and equity I know not.  The ancient approved Discipline & Ceremonies of our Church. 
Not ancient, because they have not warrant from God. Neither ever so approved, but that from the first Preaching of the Gospel in this kingdom, they have been by diverse godly and learned men oppugned.  His Highness sought to reclaim them by some correction of their obstinacy, as by silencing etc. 
That which his Majesty permitted on that behalf, was qualified with gracious provisors; 1. To proceed no otherwise therein then according to the laws of God and the land. 2 To execute even that with all mildness & moderation. And thirdly, to endeavore to persuade by all arguments, rather than by censures: which things because they have not been done, but that in many respects the Bishops and other Prelates have exceeded their commission, we doubt not but that if it might please some attending upon his Highness and in grace with him, in all humble manner to inform him, we doubt not (I say) but that his Majesty, according to his most christian disposition, would graciously respect the humble desires of his subjects therein. Touching the other part of M. powel's speech, it is no small abuse of his Majesty to impute unto him the severity of the Bishops against us: whereas in truth whatsoever his Majesty doth therein, is only through their importunity, and by their accusing us of schism, disorder, sedition etc.  The moderate severity of the Bishops, 
Gab. Powel  is unfitly and unduetifully termed oppression, and cruelty. 
Is it moderate severity to turn so many Ministers as are now silenced, out of their livyng? Yea, 
Answ.  to provide also, that they shall have no other way or means whereby to live, that so they, their wives and children may go abegging, to the disgrace of the gospel, the dishonour of the land, the grief of the godly, and the joy of the wicked? Especially, is it moderate severity so to do for such causes? Did they ever read in any antiquity, so many of such quality, & whose labours God had so blessed, to be thrust and cast out as unsavoury salt in the time of the gospel, in a kingdom whereof both King and people do profess the gospel, and in an age, in respect of the sins thereof, requyering ten times as many preachers more than their are, if they could be gotten? If these be the mercies of the Bishops, what would be their cruelties? If this be their moderate severity, what would be their extremity if they might be suffered?  
If a Father should cast his son out of house & home, & utterly disinherit him, because he would eat no cheese, were this moderate severity? What then may be said of them that cast out other from the inheritance of the Lord, whose labours God hath blessed to the joy of many an elect soul, & that only for not doing that, against which they can yield a far better reason from God his will revealed in his word, than any man can do for his not eating of cheese or for any other the like action, from the secret instinct of nature?  
G. Powel  The author of these arguments, is not afraid; to persuade & provoke your Honourable Court (these are his own words) to intercede with his Majesty, that he would compel the Reverend Prelates to surcease their rigorous and cruel dealing. 
The Apostle biddeth us to provoke one another to love & to good works. Heb. 10.24. Therefore why might not the author of these arguments use this word unto the Parliament for so good a work, as in all the said arguments is intended. But for the latter words of M. Powel, to compel the Reverend Prelates to surcease their rigorous and cruel dealing etc. Where doth the author use them? The drift of all the arguments insinuateth so much. If it be but insinuation, than all the words before set down, are not the express own words of the author, as M. powel hath said. 2 It may be taken for granted, that the said Prelates are so resolute for maintaining of their Hierarchy, Discipline, Ceremonies, and other conformity, that they will not yield one inch, yea not to his Majesty, exceept they be compelled.  
Gab. Powel  The Prelates have soberly and temperately carried themselves in their proceed. 

Answ.  We will all with one accord most thankfully acknowledge this, when we shall find it. In the mean time, we do acknowledge it comparatiuly true, in respect of their wills and desires. For by this answer written by their authority and by diverse other tokens, it is apparent that they would gladly provoke us to give them further advantage against us, and also that for these causes they would do more than they do (yet I speak not of all, I do unfeignedly confess that their is great difference of affections amongst them it respect of us) they would I say do more than they do If they feared not the people? No, but if his Majesty, his most Honourable counsel would give them leave: and if they feared not as much indignation from his Highness as now they seem to be in grace with him; and as much opposition by the honourable Counsel, as now perhaps they seem to have furtherance by some of them that do not so well understand the cause.  
G. Powel  Their obstinate superstition hath worthily made them subject to the proceed of the Bishops. 
What? Superstition? And obstinate superstition? 
Answ.  We were never before (to my remembrance) charged with superstition, much less with obstinate superstition: but have always been accounted great adversaries to superstition. Yea, we hate it with a perfect hatred, yea our souls abhor and detest the least superstition, much more obstinate superstition, as much as the best of them do hate it: yea, much more than some of them: it is one of our reasons against some points of conformity, that we judge them superstitious. How then may we be charged with superstition? Yea with obstinate superstition? But what if we were superstitious? May we therefore be punished contrary to law, or above that that the law requireth? Were not this to add transgression to transgression, and to punish sin with sin? We may not do evil, that good may come thereof.  
G. Powel  The author crieth out, as if the gospel by such proceed were banished, God's worship profanely adulterated, to the eternal peril of many thousand souls. 
Where is this outcry? It is very low and soft, 
Answer.  in some secret corner, or written in very small letters, that no man can see or hear of it. The author might well cry out, that the gospel is in part banished, by the suppression of so many able, godly, faithful & painful ministers; that God's worship is in part corrupted, both in the doctrine, especially sithence this late vehement striving by our Prelates for conformity (as shallbe afterwards touched) and also in the other public exercises of religion by mixture of human inventions, Ceremonies and Traditions. Yea, and that hereby we are in danger to have the candlestick removed, and the kingdom of Heaven taken from us, and given to a Nation more worthy than we, except by repentance & doing our first works Revel. 2.5. Yea, making our last works more than our first vers. 19 We do in time prevent this judgement.  
G. Powel  The Parliament is able to convince him herein of malapert Sycophancy, and manifest untruth. 

Answer.  I would such accusers (notwithstanding their such threats of the Parliaments kindness) would stand with us, & that we might be admitted to stand with them at the bar of the Parliament for trial of this accusation, and whether the author of those Arguments, or this answerer have abused that most worthy Senat.  
G. Powel  This author feareth no rebuke of shame, for his unconscionable dealing. 

Answer.  Let this unsconscionable dealing be showed in the author: or else let this answerer be ashamed.  
G. Powel  This man speaketh from Cimmerian darkness, by concealing his name. 

Answer.  Then also by the same reason many books of the scripture, the writers whereof have concealed their names, were written from Cimmerian darkness. The like may be said of many other most worthy Theological books, without name of any writer. Much more may the same be said of the book entitled SCOTTISH GENEVATING & ENGLISH SCOTIZING, and many other such disgraceful and scornful books published without name of any author, against the desired reformation, and all the favourers thereof. It is also the severity of the Prelates that maketh us the rather to conceal our names. If we had as much liberty to publish our books for ourselves, as every railer hath to put forth any thing against us: Yea, as there is for Printing of many profane, filthy, scurrilous, lascivious, & ungodly books authorized by some of them, you should quickly see our names.  The author is bold to offer his writing even to your Honours, 
Gab. Powel  to provoke you to supplicat to his excellent Majesty, in behalf of their cause, or else to determine it of yourselves. 

Answ.  The author never desired this determination you speak of by the Parliament, as though that would or might be authentical without his Majesty's Royal assent, but only that his Majesty thereby seeing the equity of the cause, and the affection of his people thereunto, might also be the more easily persuaded to vouchsafe his princely favour towards them therein.  
G. Powel  I was commanded by some in authority to peruse and briefly to refute these Arguments, which at the first I was unwilling to take upon me. 
If you be so ready to be commanded to write against such a cause, take heed you be not found a servant of men. 
Answer.  But if any in authority have commanded you this work, did they also command you to rail and revile your antagonist (as you call him) in such manner as you do? It is lamentable that any in authority in such a Christian Church, should either command any such thing, or allow of it being done. But it is more lamentable to obey. The time was when you did well employ yourself against the Common adversaries. You did then run well. What letted you that you did not hold on in that course? What hath provoked you to turn your pen from them, and to whet it now the second time against those, whom you call and should in truth acknowledge your brethren? Do you fear any violence from the Papists by holding on against them, because perhaps of some former experience? Indeed, you may well fear such violence from them, and be secure touching all danger from us, because you have learned from the apothegm (after mentioned) of D. Elmer late Bishop of London, and much more from all experience, that you may justly fear your life and cutting of your throat in the company of one Papist, but that no such thing is ever to be feared amongst ten thousand of (those whom it pleased him to call) prescisians.  
G. Powel  In diverse respects I feared to plead in so high a Court, before such judges etc. Yet the equity and holiness of the cause moved me etc. 

Answer.  Why should you fear, being commanded? Would not your comnaunders bear you out? It may be they will before men, but who shall plead for you before God, except you repent? Take heed you commend not that to be equal and holy, which agreeth not with the ways of God.  
G. Powel  I presently resolved to stand in the gap and breach, between our brethren and us. 

Answer.  This resolution upon bare commandment of a man, (it may be also contrary to the liking of some to whom you are more bound) was too present to be sound. How have you stod in the gap & breach? By treading it down to make it lower that wild beasts, or at the least strange cattle may the more easily break in to devour the Lords vine, and to eat up the Lord's people as it were bread.  
G. Powel  Albeit I knew my brethren's affections to be somewhat unkind, and their pens foul and shameful. 

Answer.  Whereby knew you their unkindness and foulness towards you? Indeed they have seen and daily do see your unkindness towards them: yea towards the Lord, in oppossing yourself to the Lords cause, and to them in seeking thereof, and that in this bitter manner: yea for the foulness of your pen you might justly fear the like measure from them again to you. But God forbidden that for that we should sin against God, and cease praying for you.  
G. Powel  Seeing it lieth not in our powers to make them modest & peaceable, and that we are called to serve God and his Church, which we are bound to do in good and evil report. 

Answer.  You should first have proved us immodest and unpeaceable, before you had used these words. God give those graces to you and us. The serving of God and of his Church, is not in railing & reproachful speeches, in sharpness and bitterness, in untrue and unjust collections directly contrary to the words of our brethren. But what mean you by good and evil report? If as patients, it is well: if as agents it is not so. But though by your book I have little cause, yet I will take you in the better sense.  
G. Powel  I pray our heavenly Father to forgive them any injury etc. 

Answer.  Before prayers you should lay aside all wrath of heart, and bitterness of word. Math. 5.22. 1 Tim. 2.8. Pray also  the forgiunes of the wrongs you do to us, both in this book, and also in your latin treatise De adiaphoris.  I have not with drawn myself from this work, 
Gab. Powel  no not for the estimation & reverence I have of the grave judgements of your honours. 
If you had duly reverenced their Honours, 
Answ.  you would have feared the offering unto them such a present of railings, unjust collections etc. As if they had been void of judgement, not able to discern of such accusations.  
G. Powel  I maintain here the glory of God, and honour of our Prelates. 

Answer.  As our Saviour said, They shall excommunicate you, yea, the time shall come, that whosoever killeth you, shall think that he doth God service. joh. 16.2. So this answerer thinketh that he glorifieth God by railing on his cause & servants. As for the Honour of our Prelates, you should first have been on a sure ground for the lawfulness thereof, before you had taken upon you (like a champion) the defence thereof. 2. Even a good cause is rather overthrown then upheld by such means of scoffing and railing, as in this this book you have used. Thus much for the answer to the Preface of M. powel's.  

THE NEXT THING TO BE CONSIDERED is his marginal Notes upon the preface of the author.  
The first note with (a) I pass by.  
G. Powel  b This pretence unto the Christian reader, is because they would not seem to be petitioners unto the Parliament. 

Answer.  What a strange collection is this? Have we expressly directed all the said arguments unto the Parliament house, and yet would we not seem to be petitioners unto them? Nay rather sigh this answerer thus carpeth at these words the Christian reader, 
M. powel maketh the Parliament no christian assembly.  gatthering from the humble petition of the Author of those Arguments to the Christian Reader etc. that he would not seem to be Petitioner to the Parliament, may not this be better gathered that the answerer distinguisheth the christian readers from the Parliament, and the Parliament from them, and so maketh the Parliament no christian assembly? But why did the author use those words, the christian reader? The reason seemeth double: 1 because he did so account of every one in the Parliament house: 2 because he thought that those arguments might come to the hands of other Christian readers, then only of Parliament men.  
G. Powel  c The supplicants make the profession of the gospel and all religion to consist in refusing cap, surplice, cross etc. Great cry, little wool. 

Answer.  This etc. After the word cross, is well added. For otherwise although we hold those things to be matters of religion, yet never any of us did affirm all religion to consist in them. without this etc. therefore, this is an unchristian slander, and to speak according to the answerers' learning in Aristotle's Eleuches, a fallacy ab eo quod est secundum quid, ad id quod est simpliciter. The adage in the end of this note is too homely for that Honourable Court to whom the answerer speaketh, as being taken from swine, which for some causes (not fit to be written) being sometimes shorn, make a great cry, & yield little wool. And though the answerer by this adage seem to esteem us no better than swine, (as also in his other book De adiaphoris it pleaseth him to compare us to Apes) yet indeed may he well say that the most of us have but little wool on our backs, we have been so long and often shorn & shaved, that we hage nothing left but our very skin: Yet it may be that some of our adversaries hope for wool and fat from our live.  
G. Powel  d As if his Majesty would be displeased if any promoted a religious or honest cause. A malapert and presumptuous (if not a disloyal) censure. 
Is this man in his right mind, 
Answ.  that he maketh such collections? The author persuadeth all men from all such un-christian and disloyal suspicions of his Majesty, how then may this note be applied unto him. 
contradiction in the answerer.  In the last Argument (or rather conclusion of all the arguments) where the author speaketh of some that are always accusing and disgracing the ministers (pleaded for with Nobles and Princes,) the answerer maketh this marginal note, An unjust calumny. Whether it be so or no let all men judge, as by his whole answer, so particularly by this note, and them that follow, yea by his whole answer to all the preface before the arguments. But to return, sith sometimes some fear that even of Christian Princes which they neither need nor aught to fear, what mallepartnes, presumption, or disloyalty was there in the author to prevent such fear. Doth not the Apostle oftentimes Rom. 7.7. and 9.14. and Galt. 3.21. and often else where, prevent objections that might, but needed not be made? Shall he therefore be charged with malapert presumption against God and his truth?  
G. Powel  e I know not whereto all his whole Paragraph tendeth, if the Suppliants deem not his Majesty to have forsaken his first love, and to have revolted from religion, at least in show for a time. (f) A malicious, uncharitable and unchristian allegation to be applied unto the whole State (that loyally obey his Majesty) especially to his Nobles and servants. 

Answer  O uncharitable collections. Let the reader by them judge whither this man do not accuse us, and provoke (what he can) our gracious Prince, his Nobles and all other against us: Yea, directly contrary to the words of the author, who laboureth by the whole Paragraph spoken of by the answerer, to persuade all men to conceive well & Honourably of his Majesty, according to many former most worthy testimonies of his Princely piety and religion. And albeit all in the said Paragraph be spoken only to that purpose, yet the answerer wresteth the same as intended also against the whole State, especially against his Majesty, Nobles and servants. But he that judgeth righteously, to whom we commend the cause and ourselves, shall one day make our righteousness known.  
G. Powel  g If they had particularly applied these things, their malice had been the more manifest. 

Answer  It greeveth this answerer most, that we are not so maliticious as himself, and that we give no just occasion of further quarrel with us. When they want matter of just accusation, than they pretend that aliquid latet quod non patet, some thing is hid that is not manifest. But of this afterward.  
G. Powel  h No bolder & securer censurers of all sorts & degrees of men, under the cope of heaven, than these singular & self conceited refractaryes. 

Answer.  Yes, this notary is a more bold and secure censurer, in as much as in his notes before he hath censured the author of the arguments, and all other desiring that which he desireth, (of what sort and degree soever) for that that is not expressed, neither intended, nor any ways to be justly gathered from his words. When this censuring he speaketh of, is proved by any of us, let the party against whom it is proved bear the blame thereof. If any man censure a tree according to the fruits it bearerh, he doth no more than he may.  
G. Powel  i How prodigal they are of the King's thanks. 

Answ.  This note showeth the prodigality of this answerers' malice and words.  
The k. is answered before.  
G. Powel  l Is a triobular pamphlet such an huge quantity or volume? It may seem the pen man of this supplication was the worthy author of the late two leaved libels. 
Seeing words (as this answerer saith in his conclusion) ought to be numbered to so great States, 
Answer.  why should respect of brevity be thus scornfully objected to the author? Especially considering the other manifold & weighty affairs of that Honourable assembly, unto whom the said Arguments were directed. If the Arguments were a triobular pamphlet, what would the answer have been without them: especially without all his cavils, reproaches, unjust collections, vain repetitions, and that false ground that always he buildeth upon, viz. his supposition that we are schismatics? The answerer his former book also De adiaphoris, what were it with a less margin, without the great multiplicity of sections, and if every bird had her own feather. The two leaved libels whereof he speaketh, are perhaps the more offensive unto him, because some of them do attribute more authority to his Majesty, than they would have us to do, or then the prelates do, that the challenge so much to themselves.  
G. Powel  l Such presumptuous and self conceited Elihues, are these male content Ministers, who take upon them to instruct such, as be wiser than themselves. Vide Gregorium in hunc locum. 

Answer.  What a thing is this? For want of matter against the author, this answerer falleth out with the worthy Elihu, as a presumptuous and selfe conceited man, whose wisdom notwithstanding, modesty, and singular humility are evident in holy scripture, by his silence till other (more ancient than himself) had spoken all they could, as also by his pleading the cause of God himself, when all the rest there present had geiven over the same, (in which respect also all in these days that plead for God against the oppositions of those that would be accounted the only wise and learned men, are likewise reproached as presumptuous and self conceited) and last by the elegancy & eloquence of his speeches, and by the profound and divine matter therein contained. Finally are humble petitioners, that bow themselves to the ground, before them to whom they do petition, are such petitioners (I say) before heaven and earth to be proclaimed presumptuous and selfe conceited instructors? Is this the man that erst now blamed other as bold and secure censurers?   

A REPLY TO THE FURTHER ANSWER OF the preface to the Arguments.  
G. Powel  Some have foolishly made a breach and division amongst us about cross and surplice etc. 
Wisdom consisteth in understanding what the will of the Lord is, Ephe. 5.17. And in a conscience of keeping Gods commandments and observing his word. 
Answer  Deut. 4.6. The which to reject is the greatest folly jerem. 8.9. We have made no breach or division at all: But as joseph for telling his divine dreams, was hated of his brethren, and at the last sold a way to strangers by themselves: and as the blind man john 9 for confessing Christ, and stoutly standing in that confession, was thrown out of the jewish Synagogue by the pharisees, so (to use the words of this answerer) we are violently and unjustly broken of and divided, and thrust out of the ministry by other, and yet charged that we have made a foolish breach and division.  
G. Powel  And therefore I cannot allow the opinion of such as give out, 
Answer.  Yet we do all as heartily and faithfully love and affect our Prince and King (yea of whatsoever religion) and are as ready and willing to defend his person & honour, against all adversaries etc. that these our factious brethren are as dangerous enemies unto the state as the papists etc. 
Neither you nor any other, have ever yet had, or ever (I hope) shall have cause justly to speak, writ, or think otherwise concerning either our love & loyalty towards our Sovereign, or our duty to any of his governors: yea though we should cunningly be solicited to some undutiful practices, as some not many years since were, in the days of late Q. Elizab. of most Honourable memory, who were so far from enterteyning any such motions, as that most dutifully, they discovered the same to other in higher authority. Though (I say) we should be cunningly solicited to any undutiful practices or to the approbation of any such practice, yet I trust that never any of us shall be found so to offend against his Majesty's meanest and lowest officers.  
G. Powel  D. Elmer late B. of London gravely said, If I were in the company but of one Papist, I might justly fear the loss of my life, but being amongst ten thousand Precisians, well might I be afraid of my Bishopric, but never of my throat: the one would cut my coat, and the other my throat. 
The Precisians (as it pleaseth B. Elmer to call them) never desired the Bishopprickeses of any of their adversaries, 
Answer  but only that they would give glory to him that sitteth upon the Throne, and cast their mitres at the feet of the Lamb, acknowledging him worthy of all rule and Dominion, & contenting themselves with the places and Honours commended in the scriptures: according to an other apothegmatical exhortation of the said Bishop, both made openly at Paul's cross, and also printed (before himself was so advanced in the world) viz. that Bishops and other Prelates should come down from their thousands, and content themselves with an hundred, until which abasing of themselves, and resigning that which unjustly they hold, reigning as Lords & Kings over the Lord's inheritance, neither the Church of God in general, neither our Sovereign in special, shall have so much service, and good by their service, neither themselves so much peace and comfort of conscience, as otherwise would be.  
G. Powel  Though they be free from suspicion of treason and rebellion, yet it cannot be denied, but that presumptuously and wilfully, they contend with the Magistrate, impugning his authority in things indifferent. 
Cannot that be denied, which never was, neither ever can be proved against us? 
Answer.  1 We deny that it is the Magistrates mere pleasure that we should conform, otherwise then by misinformation of our adversaries against us, as David upon the like misinformation of Ziba against Mephibosheth, gave all to Ziba that had been Mephibosheths 2 Sam. 16.2. Yea, they do not only give all the misinformations themselves against us which they can jmagine, or wherewith they are informed by other, but also they labour what they can to keep the Magistrates from all right information in our behalf by any other: yea they endeavour their utmost to keep both Parliament and all other, from mediation for us. 2 Though we yield not in all things required of us, yet it is not presumptuously and wilfully, but in all humility & modesty: we contend not by the sword nor any violence, but only by word, yea, pleading the word of God for our cause. Our contention also is in a patiented suffering, with a dutiful cleared of our innocency against the false imputations wherewith we are burdened. The things in question have been said, but never substantially proved to be indifferent in such sort, and to such uses as now they are urged. Our adversaries have so long striven to maintain the things (which they call indifferent) for such uses as to which they are not indifferent, that they have made religion itself an in different thing to many men. In things truly indifferent, it is already justified, and shallbe further justified (if need require) that we attribute no less to the magistrate, than our adversaries do. Let them name in what sense and degree the Papists deny the Sovereignty of Princes in any thing, and I doubt not, but that it may be proved that themselves (holding their own principles) do deny the same, in the same sense and degree.  
G. Powel  All of them make a faction and schism in the Church for carnal respects: some because they know not otherwise how to be maintained: some to gratify their benefactors and Patrons and to please their friends: some for discontentment and want of preferment: some for giddiness of innovation etc. 
What? all M. powel? How do you forget yourself? 
Answer.  You should have left this general judgement of all, to the general judge of all. There is none of these of whom you speak, but for the world and outward things they might live better conforming then not conforming themselves. What benefit have any by gratifying their Patrons? Will their Patrons give them better maintenance otherwise? Nay some Patrons are their adversaries, and are gratified by them that put such Ministers out, that so they may present again etc. Some so displease their friends hereby that by their displeasure they lose more in one day than they get all their life by any Ecclesiastical living. Some also by displeasing their friends do not only lose temporal benefits for them and theirs, but do also hinder themselves of as great Ecclesiastical promotion, as many or the most of the conformable sort do ateyne unto. Some by their troubles for this cause, having had good patrimonies: have consumed & wasted them so, that in their age (when they need most comfort) they live in penury and want, and at their death leave not so much to their wives & many children, as was left to themselves alone. Some by want for this cause, are forced to take their children of very great hope and forwardness for learning from the school, and to make them apprentices to their own great grief, and in time to the detriment of the Church. Again, this imputation of carnal respects unto us (such as you reckon) is contrary to your often imputation of superstition unto us. For what is superstition, but to make that sin that is not sin; and so to fear sinning against God, as that we do not that which lawfully we may do: or one the contrary to make that good, holy, and necessary, that is neither good, holy, nor necessary, and so to think himself bound to do that, which well he might leave undone? If then we be superstitious, and do that which we do in fearing to sin against God, how can such carnal respects as before are particularized, be imputed unto us? But the truth is, that these carnal respects do belong rather to conformiry, for which many will do any thing rather than they will lose their livyngs. Of how many also of them may it be said that they seek their own, and not that which is jesus Christ's? Philip. 2.21. Yea, that their belly is their God, their glory their shame, and that they mind earthly things? Philip. 3.19. that also with Diotrephes, that love to have the pre-eminence? 3. joh. 9 How many of that side have received 500 or 600. pounds from their people, since their last Sermon, yea, since their last presence amongst them? Yea, are their not some that buy & sell benefices, as men buy and sell horses? Truly there are sun that being not old men have in their days passed through many benefices, and those of very good worth. To whom then doth this imputation of carnal respects belong. Cease therefore, cease M. powel to charge us with that against which there are so many reasons. Yea, wherein all the world can convince you.  
G. Powel  They have altered the state of the question. For the question being about subscription, Ceremonies, Conformity etc. (which are but things indifferent and of small moment) they make it the cause of God, the ministry of the gospel, the salvation of the people, the main cause of the land. 
How do we alter the state of the question? Do we mince that which sometime we held? 
Answer  Do we go from any thing which before we maintained? What ever was in controversy betwixt you and us, that is not comprehended under subscription, or some other of the particulars by you here mentioned? It is mere folly so often to repeat the indifferency of these things, that hath never been neither can be proved by you. For as much also as for not subscribing, and for not conforming to Ceremonies etc. Many more are thrust out of the ministry then for any other matter of ten times greater moment, may it not be truly called the cause of God? Especially it being in so many books proved that they are unlawful & contrary to the word of God? Yea, sith for these things the word is restrained, may we not say that the salvation of the people dependeth thereupon? And consequently that it is the main cause of the land? What is greater than salvation? Yourself grant that we are Ministers of Christ, in grace and favour with God. It followeth therefore that our cause is the cause of God. Luc. 10.16. Yea, of the land also, because besides salvation many other benefits do depend upon the ministry of the word, and many evils upon the restraint thereof. Prov. 29.18. For this cause the Apostle joineth these two together in the jews, that they were contrary (or adversaries) to all men, and forbade them to preach to the Gentles. 1. Thessalonians 2. ver. 15.16. Touching your often objection of our suspension and deprivation for not conforming ourselves, consider this one thing M. powel, and consider it seriously, viz. that when as john and some other Disciples took upon them to forbid one casting out Devils, (that had before done it in the name of Christ) and that only because he would not join with them and follow them to Christ: and that afterward when they made relation unto Christ, of that which they had done, and of the reason why they had done it (as though they had done some great service, as many think they do now great service in forbidding us to preach) consider (I say again) that our Saviour was so far from approving that which they had done, that he rather reproved it saying, Forbidden him not. Mar. 9.38.39. Whether was a juster cause of suspension, not to join with such worthy Disciples of our Saviour, and that in following them, and going with them to our Saviour himself, or not to join with the Bishops, & to conform ourselves unto them in those things, wherein we are persuaded we should sin against Christ, and in part go away from him? For we follow not Christ, neither walk with him any longer, than we do observe his word. Further also consider whether is a greater, or at the least a better and more necessary work, to cast out Devils from their possession which they had of the bodies of men, or to cast them out from the spiritual possession they have of the soul of men, which ejection is wrought by the preaching the gospel Acts 26.18.  
G. Powel  They make this such a cause, as if all religion depended on refusing of a cross and furplice etc. 
No, no. 
Answer.  All religion and piety doth not depend on these things. Yet religion is the less, and doth the more decay, the more that the preaching of the gospel, for thes things is restrained. The increase of sin and iniquity in those places already where such Ministers are put out, doth too much testify this thing. Hear again is his former fallacy, as eo quod est secundum quid, ad id quod est simpliciter. We say, that some religion dependeth on refussing of a cross, surplice eat. Hence he concludeth, that all religion dependeth etc. Further, whether we make all religion to depend on refussing a cross, surplice etc. or no, it seemeth that the Bishops make all religion (or the most) to depend on cross, surplice, etc. For if a man yield to these things, he may pass away with any other matter uncontrolled: but if he stands in these things, than he is unworthy the ministry, whatsoever gifts he have, how godly soever he be, and what good so ever he have done, or might do by his continuance. Is it not so?  
G. Powel  They boldly, presumptuously, and unduetifully censure his Majesty for coldness in religion, for losing his first love, deep dissembling, seeming to pretend one thing and to intend another as if he had been trained up in the jesuits schools to equivocat: which fault I would some of their faction did so little practice, as his Majesty abhors it. 
Wheris there any such censure of his Majesty for coldness 
Answer.  in religion, for losing his first love, and for deep dissembling? Nay, doth not the author expressly labour the quit contrary, professing that he wrote that which he did to this very end, that men might not judge Christian Princes upon outward apperences, yea adding supposed apparences? Yea, wishing also less censuring of them, and were praying for them? Is there not by all authors a difference made betwixt Simulare and di●simulare, that the one may be used in godly policy and christian wisdom, but that the other is always of the flesh fleshly? In allegation of examples, every particular is not nicely and strictly to be respected, but that point only is to be considered for which they are produced, and whereto they be applied. Otherwise, from the application of David's eating of the show bread, unto the Disciples plucking the ears of corn to eat. Math. 12.3. A man may gather that because David used lying as a means to obtain the sheew bread at the Priests hands, therefore also it is lawful for us by lying to obtain some thing in our necessity. By the same reason also, because the midwives of Egypt are commended to fear the Lord etc. and to have spared the male children of the Israelits, the same fault of lying may be justified, because they being examined by Pharaoh of that their doing, excused themselves by a lie. The like may be said of Rahab, commended for her faith in saving the israelites spies, Heb. 11.31. Though she defended herself from the inquisitors of the King of jericho by a lie. Ios. 2.4.  
If the example of Constantius and jehu, may for some things be excepted against, yet it might have been considered, that the author to express his general meaning the better, did mention also the example of joseph, and of our Saviour Christ jesus, against whom there can be no exception. And now to clear his meaning the better, let the example of Solomon in that wherein he is so highly commended, be also remembered: who to try whither of the two women were the mother of the living child, commanded the lyving child to be divided in twane, and the one half to be given to the one woman, the other half to the other woman. 1 Kings 3.25. Here is a manifest pretence of that which was not intended. Let the answerer therefore learn, that there is great difference betwixt pretending only for trial of the affections of other, and deep dissembling or jesuitecall equivocating, for the hiding or maintaining of some impiety and wickedness. I doubt not therefore, but I may justify the author from all such things, as by allegation of the examples of Constantius & jehu, are most uncharitably imputed unto him: yea, that also I may truly affirm his meaning in them to have been, only to show that he conceived of his Majesty's meaning, that which he was persuaded to be best. Therefore far was he from all undutiful conceits against his Majesty.  
It is also to be observed, that he doth not absolutely say this or that to be his Majesty's meaning, but only that it might be like to the meaning of Constantius, jehu, joseph, and our Saviour: for aught that any man else did know. If it be otherwise, Gods will be done: and I hope that whatsoever some do imagine of such as are silenced and deprived, that upon sight of his Majesty's full resolution for the countenancing and authorizing of the Bishops to hold on their course against us, than many will yield etc. yet it shall well appear that we have not depended upon any other then upon God alone: and that that which we have done, is not done upon any vain hope or expectation, but in conscience of that word which is our only rule and canon whereby to live, and whereby to die. Touching the answerers wish that some of our faction (as he unbrotherly speaketh) did so little practice equivocating as his Majesty abhors it, either let him name such (if he know any) and let them bear their iniquity, or else let him spare such wishes, as whereby he implieth a secret accusation.  
G. Powel  Whereas his highness heart is evidently discerned to be fully seasoned with true piety etc. 

Answer  Though flattery be odious, and the wages thereof fearful, yet if his Majesty or any other do well consider the best fruits of a true heart, our love and loyalty towards his Majesty should be sound as good, as the best Prelate in the land.  
G. Powel  It sufficeth me to have detected the licence of their raving pens, the restraint of which fury, specially belongeth to your Honourable & judicious Court. 

Answer.  O M. powel you do to much forget modesty. Whither pen raveth most, yours or the authors, or whither he or you, (I will not say ye though you writ by authority of some other) be in most fury, let that Honourable and judicious Court judge. Yea, if it might please his Majesty to vouchsafe the reading of the wrighting, and in his Princely wisdom to consider the dealing on both sides, we would not fear his Royal judgement concerning our cause or ourselves. We fear the judgement of one Lordly Bishop ten times more, than the judgement of ten such religious Princes. For we assure ourselves of more equity from his Majesty, than we do from all Lordly Bishops in the land.  
G. Powel.  Which your Honours will the rather perform, considering what unchristian conceits they have of this Honourable assembly, and of all other his Majesty's loving subjects, who loyally obey him and serve God, according to the religion established: resembling them to Constantius his Nobles. Who became Idolaters and Atheists upon his commandment. 
As before we have seen how untruly the answerer maketh this note upon the author's conclusion, 
Answer.  with the letter e an unjust calumni pag 77. in as much as he hath accused the author before of bold, presumptuous, and unduetifull censuring of his Majesty etc. thereby to provoke his Majesty's heavy indignation against us all, 
Contrariety  so now contrary to the same note, he accuseth us also before the Nobles, yea, before all the states of the whole kingdom. Doeht this man spare us, as he professeth to do in his second note upon the 4 argument? Touching the matter here objected, it is partly answered before. The author's intent and purpose was only to persuade all his Majesties christian subjects to think Honourably of his Highness, and not to judge him by outward supposed apparences. Therwas nothing to insinuate any such unchristian censure of this Honourable assembly and of other loving subjects as this wrangling answerer would wrest from the author's words. The matters in question concern only or specially the ministers of the word. The things also commanded by his Majesty are nothing like to the things commanded by Constantius. How injurous therefore it is, to conclude the same sin to be of them that obey his Majesty in the things now commanded, that was in those that obeyed Constantius, I leave to the judgement of all reasonable men. The fallacies of this collection, in respect of the difference both of things and also of persons commanded, I leave to the sentence of them that are as skilful in Aristotle his Elenches, as M. powel seemeth to be. The childish accusation of the author from the 8 Argument (here inserted either of malice, or to increase his volume) shall be discovered in the defence of that 8 Argument.  
Concerning the Arguments themselves, may it please the Christian reader first of all to take a general view of the general frauds of the answerer in his answer unto them.  
His first general fraud is, that he setteth upon these Arguments, as though in them the main cause betwixt, the Prelates and us were handled. Whereas the purpose of the author was not to inform the minds and judgements of the Parliament, but, taking that to be already done by other books written in that behalf, & the rather because he did already see them to deal in the cause; he laboured altogether, to quicken their affections, and to whet and increase their zeal to be the more earnest in that cause, of the equity and sincerity whereof, by former books touching their judgements they were abundantly informed and persuaded. And herein he had the more reason to provoke their godly zeal, in respect of the manifold & mighty adversaries the cause had, and because he knew that the said adversaries would make strong opposition thereunto and labour what they might to hinder the same. 2 Because the main controversy betwixt the Prelates and us is not handled in these Arguments, therefore he insulteth mightily, and often (almost in every page) he objecteth petitionem principii & begging of the question unto us, as though because the controversy were not handled in the said arguments, therefore it were not handled else where. But sith it is handled by other whose books & reasons are not yet answered, neither ever will be substantially, therefore this is but a vain boasting.  
His third general fraud is, that himself committeth the same fault in all his answer, that he objecteth to the author of the arguments. For whereas the said author upon sufficient proof made of the cause by other books, doth make this the general conclusion of all the arguments, that it would please the whole State graciously to relieve the ministers oppressed for that cause etc: this answerer maketh this his conclusion, that it would please the State to relieve the refractory and schismatical Ministers. So never proving us, neither any other having ever proved us to be refractory, schismatical etc. (except every Bishop be a Pythagoras, and do always speak oracles, which they seldom do) yet he taketh it for granted that we are such. Huic arenoso fundamento tota strues et moles sequentis Praelatici responsi innititur. Upon this sandy foundation the whole frame and lump of all the Prelatical answer following doth rely.   

M. POWEL TO THE TITLE OF THE Arguments.  
G. Powel  All the Arguments following be common (excepting one or two) and may be urged for popery or any other heresy etc. 
Are Popish or other herericall Priests, ministers of Christ, 
Answer.  in grace and favour with Christ etc. Do the Angels so long after, and rejoice in their Ministry as in ours? Do they as truly interpret the mysteries of God to eternal life, as joseph interpreted dreams for this life? May they as truly be commended for the spiritual deliverance of many souls, as jonathan did work the bodily deliverance of the Israelits? etc. The like may be said of the other arguments. How then are they so common as the answerer chargeth them to be? This beginning showeth, what we are to look for in the rest of the answer.  

The first Argument.  
The Ministers supplicated for, are evident to be the true Ministers of Christ. 1 By the special hatred of all wicked men against them: john 15.19. 2 By their godly life. 3 By their gifts and by the blessing of God upon their labours. Rom. 10.15. 1 Cor. 9.2. 2 Cor. 3.2. 3. Therefore the State ought to relieve them being now oppressed: because that which is done for them or denied unto them, is done for Christ, or denied unto Christ. Exod. 16 2. 1 Sam. 8.7. Luc. 10.16. Math. 25.40 Gal. 3.25. Ephe. 5.30.  

THE MARGINAL NOTES OF M. POWEL upon the former Argument.  a 
Gab. Powel  That is but justly omitted that makes nothing to the purpose. 

Answ.  The word gospel signifying the preaching of the gospel, the furtherance or hindrance thereof maketh to purpose in this matter, or else nothing doth.  
G. Powel  b There be other Ministers of the gospel. 

Answer.  I acknowledge it with all thanks to God: and whatsoever difference of judgement or practise there be, betwixt them and us in the present controversy, yet I love and reverence them for their gifts and pains. But what then? Though there were ten times as many more, and every one as sufficient as the best, yet these times require all. Num. 11.29. 2 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1.  
The note with c I pass by. When they show our proofs not to prove our intent, we will either strengthen them, or bring better.  
G. Powel  d Palpable ignorance. Many lay men, I are hated of the world. 2 lead an unblamable life. 3 have sufficient gifts, ergo They are Ministers of Christ. 
Double Sophistry. 1 Whereas the author saith, those Ministers that are so hated of the world etc: 
Answer.  are the Ministers of Christ, this answerer saith, they (not those Ministers) that are so qualified etc. 2 He leaveth altogether out the last point taken from the success of their Ministry whose art it is so to clip words, I need not to note.  
G. Powel  e They have ill neighbours, that commend themselves. But I could wish they were such indeed albeit they are generally noted to be great teachers and practisers of usury. 
We have such ill neightours that as by their daily false accusations and slanders against us, 
Reply.  do urge us to plead our own innocency, as Moses, Samuel, jeremy, Paul and Christ himself, having the like neighbours were urged to justify themselves. Usury cannot be so truly proved to be taught and practised by us, as all men see many conformitans to be usurers, Symonists, non residents, gamesters, potcompanions etc. Yea, and to defend also some of these things.  
G. Powel  f Why do you not name them? 

Reply.  It is needles. The naming also of such Prelates as have commended those whom they have deprived, may perhaps purchase them as much ill will and hatred with their greater Prelates, as Nicodemus and some other had envy with the pharisees, for speaking any good word in behalf of Christ.  g All this evidence can make but a conjecture, and that scarce probable, seeing many heretics, papists etc. 
Gab. Powel  Have suffered more than all this comes to, for their heresies and superstition. 
Thus may the suffering of all Martyrs be eluded. 
Reply.  For heretics have suffered as much. etc. But mark here his cunning. The author speaketh of suffering wrongs, indignities etc. M. Powel speaketh of suffering more, leaving out the substantive of the comparative adjective more. 
Sophistry  If he do understand the former substantive wrongs etc: then heretics, Papists suffer not more. For they are worthy of whatsoever they suffer. If he understand an other substantive, than he doth sophisticate, and equivocat.  h As we envy not their gifts, so we commend their pains: and wish they had not put their hands to the plough and looked back. 

Reply.  Such good words are little worth, where there is such actual unmercifulness. james 2.16. We look not back, but they that call themselves our Fathers, have beaten & driven us from the plough, except we would wound our souls by sinning against Christ.  i 
Gab. Powel  It seems they favour the doctrine de opere operantis: especially weighing the latter part of this Pharisaical comparison. 

Reply.  You know the contrary. Paul may as well be said to hold this doctrine as we: because he spoke much more of his labours & of the blessing of God upon them, than we have done or can do. 2 Cor. 11.23 The Pharisaical comparison I leave to them, that take upon them Pharisaical authority.  
G. Powel  a They commend themselves to disgrace other. A lying and malicious censure. 

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

Reply.  This is a jest, like as if a man should fall upon another & beat him that had an ague, and say, he beat not him, but his ague. Of innovation and schism else where.  
(c) and (d) I pass by as nothing worth.  
G. Powel  e As if the kingdom of heaven consisted in meat, drink, or other outward things. Gross impudence, or blind ignorance. 

Reply.  1 The kingdom of heaven consisteth as well in the abuse of outward things, as in other matters. 2 The Prelates most offend in that which is here objected: in that they put men from preaching the kingdom of heaven, that will not yield to their outward things. To reproach us with gross impudence or blind ignorance beseemeth not M. powel, especially he supposing those arguments to be written by consent of all of our side: whereof some were preachers before he was borne,  
G. Powel  f They spare speech for Christ. Wherefore? Because the godly have put on the Lord jesus. A ridiculous conclusion. 
A little thing will make him laugh, 
Reply.  that will laugh at this conclusion. They that have put on Christ, are also his members, flesh of his flesh etc: as likewise is expressed in the argument at large, but sophistically omitted by the answerer: who were best to take heed he clip not the King's coin, as he clippeth men's words. If the godly be Christ's members, do not they spare speech for Christ, that spare speech for the godly. Call not therefore such conclusions ridiculous, but make you graver if you can. The last note where, when, by whom, being ridiculous, I dismiss with this merry answer, that the predicament quando is before ubi, and so is the answer of the Beadles questions in Cambridge. Solent quaeri questiones, quando, ubi, sub quo?   

THE FURTHER ANSWER OF M. POWEL to the first Argument.  
G. Powel.  We grant the refractory Ministers to be indeed the ministers of Christ, neither is their calling brought into question: yea we hope they are sent by God, and in grace and favour with God: yet all their gifts and sanctification being but in part, they may be over seen in some things. 
Hear is a manifest contrariety. He that is refractory cannot be such a Minister of Christ. 
Reply.  He that is in grace & favour with God, ought not to be disgraced and molested by men. The later part of the answer we never denied. But are not the gifts and sanctification of the Prelates also in part? May they not be, yea are they not in some things overseen?  
G. Powel  It is true also properly in matters that belonging unto their ministry, not to speak for them etc. is to spare speech for God and Christ jesus. But such are not the things in question, viz. Cross surplice, etc: which are laudable ceremoyes, commanded for order and decency. 

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

The Second Argument.  
By the ministry of the gospel the Angels of heaven receive divine revelation to their further joy etc. Exod. 25.20. 1 Pet. 1.12. Ephes. 3.10. Ergo To speak for the ministry and ministers of the gospel, is to speak for Angels etc.  

The marginal notes.  
The first with (a) shallbe answered afterward.  
G. Powel  b What a consequence is this? The Angels desire to see into the secrets of our redemption, ergo. The ministry of the gospel is prepared for them. 
These words into which things the Angels desire to behold, 
Reply.  1 Pet. 1.12. must of necessity have relation to the things before said to be showed by them that had preached the gospel. For there is no other antecedent to the relative, into which. Therefore the consequence is not to be so scorned by any that knoweth a consequence. Hear also the answerer abuseth his reader, by wrangling with the conclusion and leaving out the principal confirmation thereof, Ephes. 3.10. Where it is expressly said, that Paul had received the ministry of the gospel, to the intent that unto Principalityes and powers in the heavenly places now (not before in that manner) might be known by the Church (let that be also noted) the manifold wisdom of God.  
The other two notes touching schism and contention have been answered, and shall afterwards be answered more fully: yet here I add, that he doth unjustly here say, their contention. For we contend not with them, but they with us. We seek to take nothing from them: they seek and take all from us. Abraham for peace with Lot (his younger, and nepheu) was content to part from his own right: but these are such holdfasts of their rites and ceremonies, that for peace with us, they will not part with an inch, though they get nothing by the whole. No marveill: for they will not part with that which is the right only of Christ. Let it be therefore here noted, how unfitly in the title pag, the answerer hath prefixed the sentence of Abraham Gen: 13.18. Let there be no contention etc.   

Further answer to the 2 Argument.  
G. Powel  This Argument is ambiguous and savours of a paradox. For how will they understand it? That Angels should be ministers of the gospel? Impossible. Or that they should be converted thereby etc? Absurd: they never sinned: or that they might learn to know the wisdom of God? So they do by all other creatures, and actions of God: 

Reply.  No paradox at all. Neither had the answerer any cause to make the two first questions, if he had considered the places alleged. That which he opposeth to the third against knowledge of the wisdom of God by the gospel etc: may as well be opposed to men's knowledge of the wisdom of God by his word. For they are also taught the wisdom of God by his creatures and works. psa. 19.1 Rom. 1.1920. The further meaning of this argument, in any special manner differing from other, I leave to the author himself: who is able (no doubt) to defend his meaning, or ready to yield better reason to the contrary. But be it, that he had no other meaning in this point then other men have, yet the common doctrine of the scriptures touching Angels in this behalf, maketh the argument good. For the Angels of themselves, know not who be elect, and who be reprobat. This knowledge before calling is proper to the lord 2 Tim. 2.19. The election of men is made known to the Angels, by their calling and conversion, wherein it is said the Angels rejoice Luc. 15.7. & 10. And so accordingly they glorify God, in glorifying of whom consisteth their happiness. The more therefore the word is preached, and men converted thereby, the more the Angels rejoice, and glorify God: the less the word is preached, the less they rejoice: yea, they may be said in some sort the more to mourn. In this respect therefore, the gospel may be said to be for the Angels. So this great paradox is unfolded. The substance of the second part of this answer to this 2 Argument hath been answered before. Whereas he chargeth us to forsake our ministry for a few petty accidental circumstances; therein he discovereth the nakedness of the Prelates, in inflicting so material and substantial punishment, for a few petty accidental circumstances. For justice requireth a proportion betwixt the offence and the punishment. But we acknowledge no offence. For we may not purchase liberty of doing the greatest good, with committing the least evil. He that saith do good, first saith, eschew evil. psal. 34.14. These things being also proved evil in other books, they are not to be accounted petty and accidental circumstances. The least sin against the great God, is to be accounted a great matter.  
In his third answer he proclaimeth again, but proveth not our error and faction. If we err or be factious, let us in that respect be punished (so notwithstanding that the people be not punished with us) and let us be helped as we are Ministers.  
G. Powel  It doth not follow, that if the wise and judicious Parliament, should justly refuse to deal in the cause of Schismatical Ministers, further than only to admonish them to desist from their singularity, etc: therefore they should provoke God and Angels: Yea, if they should take part with Schismatics, and intercede for them, to detain them and the people still in faction, then they should provoke God, etc. psa: 50: 1718 

Reply.  Indeed now you speak sure: and if always you speak so, you shall not be trapped. If the Parliament justly refuse etc. and if we be schismatics and singular etc. then all is well on your side: But when will you prove us such? As I shall anon prove the contrary, so in the mean time for singularity, it belongeth not to us, but to the Prelates, that are singular by themselves, differing from the word, and from more Churches reform then we; both in judgement & also in practice. But to return to your other words, thus I reason from them against you. The wise and judicious Parliament will not intermeddle in the quarrel of Sdhismaticall ministers further than only to admonish them to desist from their singularity etc: all these are your own words.  
But the Parliament hath further intermeddled for us etc. ergo. We are not schismatical. Either therefore recant your commendation of the Parliament, or else revoke your reproachful accusing us to be schismatics. Vtrum horum mavis accipe. I suppose you will not charge the Parliament, with any thing contrary to the commendation you have before geiven of them; and which all wise and judicious men will acknowledge to be due unto them. Therefore I hope you will de nobis palinodiam canere, and never hereafter charge us as you have done.  
Here is one thing more to be noted as some what crossing my former supposal, for not revoking his former commendation of the Parliament, yea, & making me to fear that he will rather impute folly to them (according to the manner of some other Prelates) then revoke his reproaches against us. What is this that is to be noted? viz. That to prove, if they should take part with us, than they should provoke God and the whole host of heaven against us, that (I say) to prove this, he applieth unto them, psal. 50.17.18. Whereby he insinuateth, that they having interceded for us, do therefore hate to be reform, have cast God's word behind them, have run with thieves, and taken part with adulterers. For these are the express words of the psalm, which he applieth to the Parliament for dealing in our behalf: so indeed accusing us as the principal offenders in those sins, that are mentioned in that psalm, but yet making the Parliament also accessary with us in them.    

THE THIRD ARGUMENT.  
It was a fault in Pharaoh his butler, that he did no sooner remember to speak to Pharaoh for the liberty of joseph, and for his release from his affliction. Gen. 40.14. & 23. Seeing joseph had interpreted his dream of reconciliation to the grace of Pharaoh, and to his former place of earthly honourable service in the house of Pharaoh. Ergo  
The Parliament ought so to remember the interpretation of the mysteries of God his favour and heavenly kingdom by the ministers now silenced: etc. That they do what lawfully they may, to release them of their troubles.  

1 Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a This and most of the arguments following are grounded upon a false principle, viz. that the refractory Ministers quarrel against the Church of England, is the ministry of the gospel, the salvation of the people etc: whereas indeed all the contention is about cross, surplice, and some other indifferent Ceremonies. and actions in the Church. And all these arguments do specially make against them, seeing they be only disturbers of the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the ministry: yea seeing they forsake their calling, and move so great contention. 
And again.  
G. Powel  b would God they were half so diligent in a good cause, as they are importunate to sow schism and sedition among brethren. But they deserve small commendation etc. 

Reply.  One reply shall serve to both these notes. Especially because (as it is noted before) all the answer is grounded upon a false principle, that we are schismatics etc. and so worthy of all that hath been done unto us. To insist therefore upon this point, I say first of all, that this accusation of us to be such, is a most beggarly begging of the question, most unjust, untrue, and uncharitable, never yet proved, neither able to be proved, until they prove the matters in controversy, to be merely indifferent to such uses, as whereto they are employed & urged by them, yea, good and laudable Ceremonies, matters of decency, and order in the Church: yea, that we also refuse to conform ourselves unto them, more of stomach, then of conscience. Much less can they justify their proceed against & and punishing of us: yea not only of us, but also of our people (a thing most unrighteous and odious to God & men) in such manner as they have done, especially more for these things (which themselves call indifferent, small, petty, accidental, circumstantial) than they do other, for things expressly forbidden by God himself, & a thousand times more offensive to other, and more reproachful and disgraceful to our Church, profession, and kingdom than these things. Yea it is to be observed, that notwithstanding all these proceedings against us, all our books written against the ceremonies, (only to show the righteousness of our cause) and all their writtyngs against us, none of them have ever yet, either in open consistory, or in private conference (that I have heard of) or in public writing, made any one, (no not one) demonstrative reason, necessarily concluding the lawfulness, and the good and necessary use, of the things they so heavily impose upon us. Some indeed have written against some of our arguments, but no otherwise, than the wit of man may cavil against any principle of religion, though never so substantially proved by the best divine upon the earth.  
But to return to the point, there is nothing in these two notes and in the rest of the book objected against us, where with our ancients and betters, 
Our betters heretofore charged as we are now.  have not been charged in former times. Elia was charged with troubling Israel. 1 King. 18.17. Michaiah might have been charged with singularity and schism, for dissenting from all the 400 Prophets in Ahabs' time. 1 King 22. jeremy was accused by the Priests and Prophets of his time, to have spoken against the state of the City, and to be therefore worthy to dyc. jerem. 26.11. Amos was charged by Amazia the priest, with such conspiracy against the King, that the land was not able to bear all his words. Amos 7.10. All the jews was generally accused by Haman to Ahashuerosh, not to have observed the King's laws. Ester 3.8. Ezra and the jews with him, were accused by Rehum, Shimshay, and other beyond the river to Artashasht the King, as rebellious and wicked for building of jerusalem: Yea, they were not only so accused for the time present, but also for the time to come, (as we are afterward in the 16 Argument in the marginal note with (r) that if they were suffered to proceed in building of the City, they would not pay toll, nor tribute: nor custom, yea, Ezra and his companions were not only charged to be such, but the whole City of jerusalem for former times was also charged to have been a rebellious & noisome City unto Kings and Provinces, that the inhabitants thereof had moved sedition of old time, & that for that cause, that City had been destroyed. Therefore also the said Rehum and Shimshay and their companions, pretended regard of the King's Honour, in writing so against Ezra and the rest of the jews, Ezra 4.12. etc. The enemies of Daniel framed the like accusation of him to Darius, Daniel 6. Our Saviour himself was blasphemed by the name of a seducer & deceiver of the people. joh. 7.12. Yea oft times as a blasphemer, profaner of the Saboth, a friend to publicans and sinners. Paul was accused to have taught men against the law and the Temple. Acts 21.28. and to be a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition. Acts 24.5. yea to be an heretic verse 14.  
Such also have been the accusations of all Martyrs by the common adversaries the Papists. It is therefore the more to be marveilled at, that our Prelates (professing, and sometime preaching the gospel) do accuse us in like manner. Yea, charge us to disturb the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the ministry, and yet allege no reason hereof: or at least no other reason then such as for which all or the most part of those before named, were so charged as we have heard. For besides traditions of men, antiquity (not proved, at least not true antiquity) the commandments of Princes (procured by themselves, uncharitably misinforming such princes) besides thes things (I say) what else have they said, do they say, or can they say? 
The Ministers not yielding to conformity, are no schimatickes.   
Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the scriptures? Nay, rather many of them do much more serve from the same: especially sithence their late strong patronizing and urging of these things: yea, they have fallen from that that heretofore hath been constantly, and generally held by our Church now teaching these things, which have been accounted and are in truth, popish, or Lutheran errors: viz: touching general grace, & the death of Christ for every particular person: against particular election & reprobation: for images in Churches, 
Exeter  both for remembrance of history and also for devotion: touching the manner of Christ's presence in the supper of the Lord: That the Pope is not the Antichrist, which is the next step to say, that he is Christ's vicar, & whereby they hinder (what they may) the zeal of Christian Princes from executing that against him in general, and against his members in particular, which the word partly foretelleth, and partly commandeth to be done: concernning also the necessity of Baptism: touching auricular confession: for ignorance (according to the popish saying, that ignorance is the mother of devotion) that it is not necessary for the people to have much knowledge, and that therefore not much preaching, but that it is sufficient, if they can say the Lords prayer, the ten commandments, and the articles of faith: which is directly contrary to the scriptures. joh. 6.69. Ephe 4.13. Philip. 1.9. & 3.7.8. Colos. 3.16. Ephes. 5.17. 2 Pet. 3.18. Who can lay any such points to us, or to any of us? This point is not lightly to be regarded: yea, it is of great moment. For the Apostle describeth schismatics, not to be such, as make division only, but he addeth, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. Rom. 16.17. Yea in the very next verse he describeth them further, saying, They that are such serve not the Lord jesus Christ, but their own bellies, and with fair speeches, and flattering, diceave the hearts of the simple. Do we so? Nay rather we labour only for the ordinances, which the Apostle hath taught us. In this respect we serve not our own bellies, but rather for those ordinances sake, and to serve the Lord jesus by them, and according unto them, we deprive our own bellies of that which otherwise they might have; neither do we use fair speeches, and flattering, but by plain dealing for those ordinances of Christ jesus, we procure the displeasure of all men against us. As therefore this place maketh for us, and evidently showeth us to be no schismatics, so likewise it doth as plainly prove them to be schismatics that make division for human inventions, either in doctrine, or otherwise in practice in the worship of God, contrary to those things which they have learned from the Apostle; who also therein, serve not the Lord jesus, but their own bellies, using fair words and flattering in that behalf to deceive not only the simple, but also if it be possible, them that are wise.  
Again have we made any departure from the Church? We are deprived of our Ministry, and so thrust out of our lyvinges, perforce against our wills, as any man leaveth that which is violently taken away: but though we be thus put from our ministry and lyvinges by our Prelates, yet we do not forsake the communion of the Church. The cause also why we are put out, is not for respect of ourselves, but for fear of sinning against God, and of aggravating the burden of our own conscience thereby. We disturb not the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the ministry, but in all humility, and with the words of sobriety, we condemn the corruptions of our profession and of the ministry, most dutifully and by all lawful means (and no other) desiring both to be reform, according to God's word. So in like manner we desire to be eased of those clogs, which hinder both us in the work of the ministry, and also the people so, that they neither do, neither can so edify themselves in their most holy faith, as otherwise they and we would do. On the contrary, the Prelates stoutly maintain and support the said corruptions, and in love of them (or rather of some other matter depending upon them) they hate and molest us.  
Again have we loitered in the work of the ministry? Have we heaped benefice upon benefice? Have we eaten and drunk, and beaten our fellow servants? Have we sought our own, & not that which is jesus Christ's? Phil. 2.21. Have we made our bellies our God? Have we minded earthly things? philip. 3.19. I speak not these things boastingly (as before we have been charged) but only to purge ourselves of those crimes, which the former two notes did cast upon us, and to prove that we have not been disturbers but furtheres of the sincere profession of the gospel, and work of the Ministry. Therefore let them that do so untruly accuse us, take heed that he (whose check no fleesh shall be able to endure) do not charge them, rather to have taken away the key of knowledge, and to have shut up the Kingdom of heaven before men, not going in themselves, neither suffering them that would enter, to come in. Mat. 23.13. whereas also the word Schism in the Greek language signifieth a renting, and the word sedition in the latin tongue signifieth seorsim ire, to go aside or, a going a side: as we have proved that in these significations, we cannot be justly charged with them, so let them that do charge us in this behalf see and consider well, whether themselves may not more truly be said to have rend themselves, and to have gone a side, first from the word (the rule of all Churches) in the points of doctrine before mentioned, and in some other, as also in the observing & maintaining of humane Ceremonies in the worship of God: 2 From other Churches of Christ jesus: both the ancient Apostolical Churches, and also the present Churches reform in other Countries: neither of which either held or do hold such points of doctrine as before I have named: or have or do observe & maintain such humane Ceremonies in the worship of God, as are here in question. We being charged with heresy & schism by the Papists for renouncing the doctrine and communion of the present Romish Synagogue, do truly return the same charge upon the papists touching heresy and schism, because they have fallen away from the doctrine and ancient simplicity in the worship of God, that at the beginning was in the Ancient Roman Church, and in other true Churches, planted by the Apostles. In like manner therefore let our accusers in the fear of God consider, whither the blame of schism do not for the causes before expressed, more aptly belong unto them, then to us etc.  
Let me yet also (though somewhat perhaps out of place) add one reason more, to prove the Ministers pleaded for, not to be Schismatics.  
All Schismatics are abomination to the Lord: The Ministers pleaded for: are not abomination to the Lord, but in grace and favour with him, Ergo: The Ministers pleaded for, are no Schismatics. The proposition or first part of the Argument, is salomon's, who among the six things which the Lord hateth, and the seven which the soul of the Lord abhorreth, he reckoneth him that raiseth up contention among brethren. The assumption or second part of the former Argument is granted by the answerer answerer himself in his answer to the first Argument: yea it is manifest by the good success of their ministry from God in the said Argument mentioned. Yea, and that this argument from the blessing of God upon their ministry, is of force, and much to be respected, appeareth by the words of the blind man reported with commendation by S. john. This is a mervelous thing that ye know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doth his will, him heareth he. And verse 33. If this man were not of God, he could have done nothing. Was this argument good from the openning of the eyes of the body of one that was borne bodily blind, and is it not much stronger: from the opening of the eyes of the mind of many that are borne spiritually blind?  
The further answer of M. Powel to this third Argument containeth nothing, but that which is partly answered before, and partly to be answered afterward. Therefore I pass the same by and come to the 4 argument.    

The Fourth Argument.  
The israelites so respected a bodily deliverance wrought by jonathan for them, that they saved him from danger of death. Ergo Much more ought this Christian high Court of Parliament, (being not a company of rude soldiers, but the chief flower of this Realm, and representing the whole Realm) so to respect the spiritual deliverance of themselves and of many other, wrought by the Ministers now silenced etc. That they speak what lawfully they may for all lawful relief of them against their troubles.  

The marginal notes.  
G. Powel.  a jonathans' case and the Schismatical Ministers is altogether unlike. And the urging of this zeal, having not the like cause, seems to be dangerous. But I spare my brethren. 
The author urgeth not this argument from jonathan as from a like example, but from a comparison a minore ad maius, from the less to the greater. Therefore though there be not the like cause, yet there being greater, viz. From consideration of a spiritual deliverance there is no danger therein. The author by this example moveth only the Parliament to be zealous for the said Ministers, Is there danger now in the zeal, of so wise & judicious an assembly? It is also acknowledged by the answerer afterward, that the Israelits did justly rescue jonathan. Is there any danger then by an example of them that did justly, to provoke the wise Parliament, to plead with a wise and religious Prince for the Ministers. Wherein then doth this answerer spare us, that seeketh every corner, to find something for which he might (if he could) hang us?  
G. Powel  b The greater is their sin, whose superstition, and wilful obstinacy hath restrained their liberty, and made them unserviceable in the Church. 

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

Further answer to the 4 Argument.  The Ministers did but their duty etc. 
If men should always be so answered, when in their necessities they should require some help and comfort, in regard of some former kindness; would not men condemn such answerers of great ingratitude & in humanity? viz. Thus to be answered, that which you have done was but your duty?  
G. Powel  jonathans' example is unlike unto the suppliants. For Saul in hypocrisy had made a rash vow etc. But the actions of our Sovereign are not so exorbitant, etc: but advised and just etc. 
See how wise the children of this world are in their kind? 
Reply.  The author altogether wisely and purposely (as it seemeth) concealed the name of Saul in the argument; that he might reason from the comparison of the work only of jonathan in a bodily deliverance, for the better regard of the Ministers now silenced etc. In respect of the spiritual deliverance of the people by them. This (I say) he doth without any mention at all of Saul, that so the work might be generally and simply respected in itself; without any particular eye unto Saul, out of whose hands the people delivered jonathan. He respected their thankfulness in delivering jonathan from death, without respect of the person that would have put him to death.  
Again, I know not why the answerer should think the author to mean rather our gracious King as answerable to Saul, than the Prelates, the chief and principal actors, in all wrongs and injuries done unto the Ministers pleaded for: except that either he had rather impute all hard dealing to his Majesty than to the Prelates: or that hereby he would provoke the more wrath, against the author and all by him supplicated for, whom before notwithstanding he seemed greatly to spare. Further if the israelites justly rescued jonathan as the answerer confesseth they did justly) much more just is it, that many ministers should be relieved in their troubles. If yet they press the author further for meaning Saul, and comparing our King unto him (as Saul was the Lords anointed) what is the danger, wherein the answerer before should brag of sparing his brethren? Can he gather any undutifulnes towards his Majesty? Or can he imagine, the author to have intended any forcible means to be used by the Parliament, that sitting to make laws against force and violence towards any subject, must therefore much more themselves be far from offering any force and violence towards their Sovereign? Do the words in the Argument (to be Zealous and earnest) import any such matter? Force and violence of any, especially of subjects against their Princes, is rather of Popish fury and madness, then of any Christian zeal and earnestness. Besides, the often most Honourable mention of his Majesty in the Arguments, and his express pressing the Parliament to do all in humility & modesty, (in the next argument) yea, that they should not only use boldness, but christian boldness, yea, that they should put forth all their gifts and graces, of knowledge, Zeal, compassion, modesty and humility: yea, finally, that in the preface he petitioneth, nothing by him written, to be understood of any other means, then good, honest, lawful, peaceable, and agreeable to every man's calling; All these things do abundantly clear the author from all undnetifull intent and meaning against his Majesty. That the Israelits did not in such humility speak for jonathan to Saul as they should have done, in regard that Saul was the Lords anointed; this is not so much to be respected, as the consideration and reason, why they rescued jonathan. Neither is the Argument, by that wherein they failed any weakened, but rather the more strenghtened. For if they so respected a bodily deliverance wrought by jonathan, that they passed the bounds of their duty; should not the regard of a spiritual deliverance, move such a christian assembly to speak what lawfully they may, with all modesty and humility.    

THE FITH ARGUMENT.  
Nehemiah spoke to an heathen King for the material jerusalem. So did Hester to the like King for her people, and that not without great danger to herself. joseph also of Arimathea and Nicodemus, (both timorous men) spoke boldly to Pilate, (an heathen also) for the body of Christ being dead, that they might honourably bury it: yea this they two did, when all the Disciples of Christ had forsaken him, as also when his enemies had prevailed against him. Yet all these had good success in that for which they spoke. Ergo Much more ought this High Court of Parliament, to speak to a Christian and religious King, for the building of the spiritual jerusalem, for the spiritual state and furthering of the souls of many depending upon the Ministers now molested, and for whole Christ jesus now living and reigning.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a Impertinent example. 

Reply. G. Powel  This note is impertinent, as shall appear by his answer afterward, and the reply thereunto.  b A foul begging of the question, as if the schism of a few, were so just and important a matter, as the delivery of the whole Church, from intended certain destruction. 
Reply.  
The substance of this note (touching schism) being like the song of the April bird that hath but one note, I have often answered. Though we were such schismatics as the answerer chargeth us to be, yet we ought to have that benefit of law which Paul claimed even in Nero his time, and was not denied it. Acts 25.12.  
G. Powel  c These pure Angels of light think all the world in darkness, besides themselves. 
These scoffs can hardly come from a pure mind, but do rather beseem profane Angels of darkness, than the children of light: 
Reply.  much less the Preachers of holiness. Whether we that are deprived and silenced, are fit for the work of the ministry, than 5000. in the land that stand for ministers, and receive the wages of Ministers; I will not say, let the whole High Court of Parliament judge, but, let many of the Prelates and other conformitans judge.  
G. Powel  d An impudent untruth of a false Prophet. They made themselves uncapable of any place in the ministry. 

Reply.  Let all those that charge us with impudence, and making ourselves uncapable of the ministry, take heed that one day, they be not ashamed before the Son of God at his coming: and that then also the Son of God be not a shamed of them, before his Father and his holy Angels, and so pronounce them uncapable of the kingdom of heaven; yea, lest also the master of such a servant come in an hour, that he is not ware of, cut him of, and give him his portion with hypocrites. Mat. 24.50.51. Michael the Archangel durst not blame the Devil with cursed speaking, but said, the Lord rebuke thee. jud. 9 You know what is written by an orator, of an orator. Ex eius ore, verba magno impetu atque aestu erumpebant, non secus ac feruentes aque ebulliunt et exiliunt. That which is said of his words, may be said of the reproaches, railings, scoffings etc: of this notary. But are we false Prophets? False Prophets run before they are sent. They speak out of their own hearts, they follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Eze 13.2.3. jerem. 14.14. They flatter, & heal the hurt of God's people with sweet words, saying, Peace, peace, where there is no peace. jerem. 8.11. They are hypocrites, pretending great holiness, coming in sheep's apparel, but being inwardly ravening wolves. Math. 7.15. They are covetous and cruel like a roaring Lion, ravening the prey, devouring souls; taking riches and preciouss things etc: Ezech. 22.25. They are proud and ambitious, loving the praise of men, more than the praise of God.  
Can we be charged with these things? Hath not the Lord sent us? Do we speak any thing but that the Lord hath put into our mouths? Our flattery consisteth in plain reprehending of sin, and denouncing the judgement of God against the same. Our covetousness is inspending all we have, and leaving nothing to our posterity. Our cruelty is in suffering the manifold injuries that are done unto us. Our hypocrisy is in a care of keeping a good conscience. Our ambition is in the abasing of ourselves, beneath the parentage and education of many of us: and in bearing the scorns & reproaches of the world, yea, in being accounted the scum of the world and contemned by some, that have been glad of the crusts that have come from some of our tables. Why then doth this Notary call the author of those Arguments, or any other by him pleaded for in his Arguments, by this odious name of a false Prophet? If the Lord rebuke him for so calling us, I pray that it may not be in anger. Touching our in capacity of any place in the ministry, wherefore are we so incapable? What be our errors in doctrine? What are our vices in life? Is conformity the chief and most cardinal virtue? Is it the soul of a minister, tota in toto, et tota in qualibet part? Must all learning, all piety, all gravity, all soundness give place to conformity? So it seemeth. For learned men, godly men, grave men, and sound Divines (I speak not of myself, I confess my self the meanest of many hundreds) such men (I say) are thrust out, and ignorant men, wicked men, young men, corrupt and Popish men, are put into the service of the Church. May we not say, Plead thou our cause O Lord etc? psal. 35.1. Yea rather may we not say, Arise O Lord, maintain thine own cause: remember thy daily reproaches by the foo: man. psal. 74.22.  
G. Powel  e They mean their Presbytery. 

Reply.  This is but a scoff and mock. But though we be mocked, yet let this mocker remember, that God is not mocked. The author speaketh expressly of the ministry of the gospel which is for instruction, this Notary saith, he meaneth thereby, their Presbytery, which is for government. But more of this afterward.  
G. Powel  f Note this, They would have all the Bishops removed & deprived. 
Do you gather this, because mention is made of removing of the lets and impediments of the sincere ministry of the gospel? 
Reply.  Then it seemeth that either you would have a sharp physician for the casting of waters, sith you can see such invisible things in a man's words, or else that your own conscience told you that the Bishops are great lets and impediments to the sincere ministry of the gospel. If you be of that mind and show the same, it willbe no small let and impediment to your own preferment with the Bishops, If you be not, then surely this your note is not worth the noting.  
G. Powel  g If we profess Christ and maintain his gospel, what do they plead for then? Wherhfore have they denied it all this while, pretending they labour for nothing but the gospel, & the ministry thereof? 
What an untruth is this? Where have we denied Christ here to be professed, 
Reply.  and his gospel maintained? But though we profess Christ & maintain his gospel, yet we plead, 1 for the better continuance of the gospel where already it is: 2 That so it may the better be where it is not: 3 That it may be more glorified, and the better flourish and fructify in all places: all which things cannot be, if the proceedings begun be not stayed and mitigated. 4 May not a kingdom in general profess Christ and maintain his gospel, and yet have some superfluityes, which obscure Christ and hinder his gospel; as also want some things belonging to Christ and his gospel, which may make Christ more glorious, and further his Gospel?  
G. Powel.  h Lo: now the Disciplinariay ataxy, for which the suppliants plead so much, is whole Christ jesus. Intolerable blasphemy. 
So cried the High Priest, 
Reply.  when Christ confessed himself to be the Son of the living God. Math. 27.65. If it had pleased you notwithstanding, you might in charity have otherwise understood the author's words. But let the meaning be as you take it: have you caught him in any trap? Nothing less. For what else can be gathered, but that in the profession of the gospel here in England, there are defects and wants? That the Church of Christ among us, is in some sort defective? And although we have Christ in his word and Sacraments, and in other exercises of religion, yet we have not whole Christ, in that we have not all his ordinances? And that therefore some thing more ought to be added, that Christ may reign more fully & absolutely over us? Neither is there any such ataxy in the Discipline by these words signified. For we desire nothing but the order, wherein the Apostle rejoiced. Colos. 2.5. Whereof also we have the rudera, and (as it were) the stumps yet remaining, in our Parishional Churchwardens and sidemen: though entitled with other names, and wanting that ordination and authority, which with the Pastors within there own Parishes, Elders ought to have. This Discipline (if we might have equal hearing) we could easily free from all such imputations, as whereby it is commonly disgraced by the adversaries thereof with Princes and Nobles. Yea we could plainly and truly show the same to be nothing prejuditiall, but very helpful both to all Royal authority, and also to Nobility: yea better agreeing with the one and the other, than all other inventions of men for Ecclesiastical government whatsoever. Touching the intolerable blasphemy, imputed in the end of this note to the author of the Arguments by way of an exclamation, it lieth upon them, that fear not openly to deny Christ jesus to be law giver and King of his Church. How it can be cast upon us, for desiring whole Christ jesus (I mean all his ordinances) I can not discern.   

Further answer to the Fith Argument.  
G. Powel  Zeal and courage for defence of God's truth and Church is commendable: but it were rashness and fool hardiness: for any to adventure hazard and danger, by intermeddling in a frivolous quarrel, and in a cause not justifiable. 

Reply.  Now you pay home indeed. If Cardinal Wolsey were living, he could speak no more imperiously. For except by a frivolous quarrel, and a cause not justifiable, you mean not the cause of the Ministers; you speak nothing to the purpose. If you mean that (as needs you must) then do you not speak to us poor Ministers alone, but also to the Parliament, and to all other (Noble men or gentlemen) that have intermeddled, 
M powel's censure of the Parliament house.  or shall intermeddle in our cause. Yea, them you do not cunningly, but openly & plainly, charge all such with rashness and foolhardiness. If you had been a man that in heart had not cared for the opposition of any, yet this speech would scarce have beseemed your person. One of us for half so much against the meanest Prelate, yea against the basest Chancellor, should have paid full sweetly. But your side seem to have privilege of speak and writing what you please against any, yea against many: yea against the High Court of Parliament. Yea, against whole Churches and kingdoms For the rest if we cannot make our cause good and justify the same, so that all your side shall not be able substantially to answer, without scoffing, railing, wrangling and sophisticating, then let our quarrel be accounted frivolous, and our cause not justifiable.  
G. Powel  There are great odds between these examples proposed, and the refractory ministers case. 
There should be such odds. 
Reply.  For the author reasoneth not á similibus or paribus, from likes or equals, but from the less to the greater.  
G. Powel  In the time of Nehemiah, the jews by long captivity, were in great affliction, the walls of jerusalem broken down etc. But our Church hath long flourished, is glorious still, and more and more increaseth. 
I will not say your words are like to his words that boasted saying, I am rich and increased with goods, 
Reply.  
Revel. 3.17  and have need of nothing: but this I say, that all being granted that you say, doth not hinder but further the cause. The more the Church flourisheth, the more easy it is to grant that, which the Arguments plead for. Ministers also of the word, are as necessary for the preserving and increasing of the glory of Churches, as for the procuring thereof at the first. But alas I would God our Church did so flourish as you pretend. Indeed it hath many rich mercies, God be blessed for them; but he that seethe not what the Church wanteth, doth not rightly acknowledge that which it hath. Is this the glory of a Church for Prelates to flourish and flaunt it out gallantly: and for their men to ruffle it out lustily? Nay rather, this is the glory of the world, and better beseeming the Courts of Princes, and houses of Noble men, than the calling of orthodox Bishops, who should as well in their life as in their doctrine, preach humility, modesty, and contempt of the world. The more glorious that Prelates are outwardly, the less glorious (for the most part) they are inwardly. Yea it is to be observed, that the more the outward glory of Churchmen (as they are called) hath increased, the more hath true & inward glory decayed. The more also, that the inward and true beauty of the Church hath decayed, the more hath the outward state and pomp of the officers thereof increased. When were the Priests of the law, of greater outward authority, and took more upon them, than when the church of the jews touching true beauty, was in worst case? Search the scriptures for they bear witness hereof. Yea, were there ever so many degrees of dignity in the Church, and do we ever read of so great state and pomp of the priests in the former times, as there was of the Priests, Scribes & pharisees at the first coming of Christ? And were ever things in so bad case before, as then they were? So also since that, the more that truth of doctrine, and purity of Discipline decayed in the Church, after the golden and most glorious age of the Apostles, the more did the Church grow unto, and swell in outward riches, pomp and glory. Experience also teacheth, that the more glorious Prelates are in their outward state, the less benefit the rest of the Church hath by them; because they take the less pains; at the least, such pains, as are most agreeable to the true Episcopal and ministerial calling, described in holy scripture. Wherein then is the true glory of the Church? 1 in such ministers of the word and other officers; as Christ hath commended. 2 In the performance of such duties by them, as he requireth, that is in preaching the word faithfully, in administering the Sacraments sincerely, in praying zealously and aptly according to the necessities of the Church, and in executing Discipline wisely, and justly: 3 In the effects of the former two, viz: in true knowledge, faith, love, zeal, humility, patience, temperance, righteousness, peace, etc. Touching these things, the more we want some of those officers that Christ hath commended by his Apostles to the Church, and the more negligent those that we have are in their duties, the more lamentable it is to see the carved pillars of the temple broken down, and the faithful workmen in God's house to be cast out, by whose labours it had been before built & brought to some good beauty. Touching the last, what christian heart is so stony, that it doth not mourn? What eye so dry, that it doth not shed tears, yea rather, gush out with tears, to consider and behold, the mesery of our supposed glorious Church, by the spiritual nakedness, blindness & poverty thereof? I mean the great ignorance, the superficial worship of God, the fearful blasphemies and swaringes in houses, and streets, so also the direful cursings, the open contempt of the word & Sacraments, the wicked profanations of the Lords days, the dishonour of superiors, the pride, the cruelty, the fornications, adultryes, and other uncleannesses, the drunkenness, the covetousness, the usuryes, and other the like abominations, almost as grevous as either heretofore in the time, or now in the places of Popery, when, and where, there was no preaching at all of the gospel? O M. Powel, and ye my Reverend Fathers, and brethren in the ministry (even of the conformable sort, flatter not yourselves in this behalf, but behold and pity the woeful and lamentable stat of our Church in these things.  
But to return, herein you err not a little, in that you confound the state of the Church, and of the common wealth of the jews. The Common wealth was indeed at that time, in much misery. But was the Church also amongst them, for such things as wheerin chiefly consisteth misery, in as bad condition? Had they not those officers that God had prescribed? Were the Priests and Levits either so ignorant, or so idle, or so scandalous, as many called Ministers amongst us? Were the faithful and painful Priests and Levites, so urged to the observation of men's traditions and Ceremonies in the worship of God, and otherwise so molested, as now many godly ministers are? Were the people so blind, so irreligious, so unrighteous as now they are? Were the godly forced to hear dumb dogs, or corrupt teachers? Or restrained from hearing of those that preached wholesome doctrine, or urged to communicate with the priests in humane Ceremonies, to the grief of their souls, and wounding of their consciences, as many now are? The Lord give you all such consideration of these things, that ye may not so much labour for outward pomp, preferments, honours, dignities etc. As for the true felicity of our English jerusalem and Zion, that God may build up the walls thereof, and still love, and delight therein.  
G. Powel  As Nehemiah having by prayer and fasting, found favour with an heathen King for the building of jerusalem, was resisted and hindered, by Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem etc. So worthy Nehemiah in the beginning of our religious sovereigns reign, finding grace for the continuance of the prosperous estate of our Church, begun in the days of our blessed Queen, so many Sanballats, Tobiah'sses and Geshems, as there be refractory ministers and Papists, deriding and despising us, labour to hinder our ministry etc. 
The odds that before he spoke of, 
Reply.  now he maketh likes. Is this to dispute ad idem, and to the purpose?  
Touching his worthy Nehemiah (whom he compareth to ancient good Nehemiah,) let this be observed, that although he speak of the prayer and fasting of the ancient Nehemiah, yet he speaketh not of any prayer and fasting of his new Nehemiah. What may be suspected or noted herein, I leave to the consideration of the wise and judicious reader, that remembreth what opposition many of the Prelates have always made to true fasting, and that also knoweth what be the things which men may safely commend in prayer unto God, especially, for which they may humble themselves extraordinary in fasting before God. Touching the Tobiah'sses, Sanballats, and Geshems, (whom fain he would have to be those that he calls refractory ministers, as well as the Papists,) let him not deceive himself herein. For the wise & Christian readers, are able to discern, them to be most worthy of these nanes, that strive most for men's precepts, that study more to please men then God, that preach not themselves, and hinder them that would: whose chief work, is not to increase God his kingdom, but to uphold their own, fearing nothing more than the downfall thereof: which also feed not the Lords people, with the bread of eternal life, but their own bodies with the meat that perisheth and with all carnal delights: who care not to enrich the Lords people, with durable riches, that shall not be taken away, but plod day and night to enrich themselves in this world, and to build great house for their posterity. Such are indeed the Sanballats, Tobiah'sses, and Geshems, that do most oppugn the spiritual building of the spiritual jerusalem. Now although this answerer, & other not much unlike those before described, for a time reproach and scorn us, by such odious names and comparisons; yea, plough upon our backs and make long furrows, yet the righteous Lord, in the end shall plead our cause against them, and bring forth our righteousness even as the morning Sun; it may be in this world, that even those that have been through their railings, and suggestions against us, hardly persuaded of us, may at the last see and acknowledge our innocency: if not, yet in the world to come, when the longer the equity of our cause hath been obscured and disgraced, the more glorious it shallbe made, when some of our adversaries (without repentance in the mean time) shall be thrown into the place, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth: 
psal. 129.4,  and where to be indeed, is more than only to dream thereof. Yea, the same righteous Lord shall (certainly one day) cut the cords of the wicked. They that hate Zion, shall be ashamed, and turned backward.  
G. Powel  We still thinking most of these men to sin of ignorance, cease not to pray unto God, O Lord open the eyes of these men, and lay not this sin to their charge. 
See how this man tumbleth up and down, and how he contradicteth himself. 
Reply.  Hath he not before expressly charged all of us, 
contradiction.  to do that which we do for carnal respects? Hath he not also in the same place (I mean in his preface) as expressly said, (speaking not particularly of some of us, but indefinitely of all) that it cannot be denied, but that presumptuously; and wilfully, we contend with the Magistrate, impugning his authority. etc. How often else where also doth he object unto us, wilfulness, obstinacy etc? Yea in the very next Argument, the note with (d) chargeth us with wilfulness and superstitious obstinacy: yet here, he saith that most of us sin of ignorance. If also he and other prayed in truth, that God would open our eyes, then let them not pluck our tongues out of our heads: and so thirst for our blood, as many speeches in this answer seem to bewray then to do.  
G. Powel  In ester's time, all the jews were in danger to have been swallowed up by Haman, if Queen Hester had not interceded. I hope the Supplicants think not our Church to be so desperate, neither outwardly nor spiritually. 
The whole Church of one place, 
Reply.  and a whole kingdom, may far the worse for the sin of some one: yea, somtims long after the death of him, 
Josh. 7: 11. 2 Sam. 21.  by whom that sin was committed. All Israel for the cruelty of Saul towards the Gibeonits' (who yet were not israelites) were punished, even in their bodily states, long after the death of Saul. May we then fear nothing to our whole Church and kingdom, for the hard dealing of the Prelates, towards the souls of many thousands of our own Nation? Let no man deceive us with vain words. Blessed is the man that feareth always. There is danger in security, 
Ephes. 5.6 Pro. 28.14.  there is much safety in a godly fear. As for the spiritual danger of the Church, it appeareth by the decay of the spiritual beauty, and by the increase of the spiritual deformity, that is of ignorance & of impiety, in those places already, which are deprived of their good Ministers. How will these things increase in continuance of time? Yet it may be, that as the more the Egyptians by oppression laboured to suppress the Israelits, the more they multiplied: so the more that Prelates shall oppress and silence us, the more God shall change the minds of the conformitans themselves, to dislike those things, which yet a little they yield unto. If they shall hold their peace, yet God shall open the mouths of children to give him praise, and to bear witness unto his truth: If they also be silent, the Lord can make even the stones to cry.  
G. Powel  The examples of joseph and Nicodemus, are altogether impertinent. For neither had Pilate any reason, to deny the burial of Christ's body: neither is the ministers request, concerning cross and surplice, of such importance as the burial of Christ's body: for it is not true that they contend about whole Christ. 

Reply.  The Argument speaketh of the honourable burial of Christ's body, the answerer only of the burial, leaving out honourable; Is not this sophistry? Though perhaps Pilate had no reason, to deny the burial of Christ; yet Christ being put to death (in part) for supposed treason, 
Sophistry:  he had carnal reason, to deny honourable burial: the more because of the spite and malice of the Scribes and pharisees against Christ. 
john 19.12  For as before, when they said, he that maketh himself a King, speaketh against Cesar, he made the more haste to judgement against him, so he had cause in fear of their like hatred and malice, to be the slower in granting his body to them to be buried, who he knew in respect of their honourable persons and places, would bury it in the most honourable manner they could. As Pilate had cause to fear the malice of the Scribes and pharisees herein, so also and much more, had joseph & Nicodemus cause to fear the same, by performing the least honourable service unto Christ: especially Nicodemus, being one of the same coat might fear it. If the Ministers request concerning Cross and Surplice, be not of such importance, as the burial of Christ's body, this weakeneth not, but addeth strength to the Argument. For the less it is, the more easily it may be granted, and the more easily it may be granted, the more boldly it may be sued for.    

THE SITX ARGUMENT.  
If God respected the tears of reprobate Hagar, in want of water of this life for Ishmaell: and of the women, cruelly used by their husbands. 
Gen. 21.16 Malachi 2: 13: 14: Mat: 15: 22.  If Christ also pitied many in their bodily miseries, yea some, that being heathen, were in that respect little better than dogs; then much more this Honourable Court, aught to pity the moan and lamentation of many Congregations, deprived of their faithful Pastors, for want of the water and bread of eternal life, which sometime the said Pastors, were wont to give unto them.  
But the first is true, Ergo. The second ought to be performed; & consequently, the Honourable High Court of Parliament, aught to speak for those Ministers and people, that do so mourn.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a The refractory ministers, aught to have had compassion on their sheep, and not desperately to have forsaken them for cross & surplice. 
We must so have compassion one our sheep, 
Reply.  that we wound not our own souls. We must (as hath been said) eschew evil, and do good: not commit evil, to do good. As gold may be bought to dear, so may the good of our people. That which is here said against us touching cross and surplice, may also be said touching images, if we were commanded to worship them, Our yielding also would be so offensive, that we should not do that good, that we intent by yielding. We may also fear the hardening of our hearts by yielding, as well as we see the hearts of other by little sins, to be hardened for greater.  
The note with (b) is often anserwred.  
G. Powel  as that Christ himself testified of her, that he had not found so great faith in Israel. Read the place. 
Reply.  c Absurd. The woman was such, 
Absurd. Our Saviour speaketh not that of that woman, 
Math: 8, 10  but of the Centurion. Though the Notary were an Archbitshop, yet I might entreat him, better to read the place. But Christ said, 
Mat. 15.28.  O woman, great is thy faith? What then? Though as she was elect, she was also blessed: yet as she was out of the visible Church, the words of our Saviour might be spoken of her. Neither doth the author say, that she was a dog: but that she was little better than a dog, & in that respect, that is, as she was a Cananit, & none of the children of Israel. Is there no difference betwixt these words, & to say plainly, that she was a dog? Yet the words of our Saviour are plain. It is not meet to take the children's bread, & to cast it to dogs, or whelps. Therefore this note reproveth our Saviour, 
Sophistry.  and not the author of the Arguments.  
The two next scoffing notes with (d) and (e) have been often answered. We leave not our flocks in the plain field, but are driven from them by force, because we will not displease God, to please the Prelates.  
G. Powel  f Only Christ is the husband of his spouse. Hear the supplicants blasphemously papize. For I think they mean not this literally. If they do, they are surely very honest men in the mean time: 

Reply.  A man should first cast out the beam that is in his own eye, before he find fault with a mote in another man's eye. 
Math: 7, 5  As Christ is the only Archbishop of the Church, so I acknowledge him also the only husband of his spouse. For the one title, is as proper unto Christ, as the other. But here the Notary falleth again, over head and ears, into the same sophistry, that in the former note with (c) he did. The author saith, that such Ministers had performed the duty as it were of husbands; 
Sophistry  the notary crieth out blasphemy, as if he had simply called them, the husbands of the churches. The author therefore, did not blasphemously papize. But let other take heed of like papizing, that usurp such names and authority, as are proper only to Christ; and neither are, nor can be maintained by any other Arguments, than such as whereby the Papal dignity of the Antichrist of Rome is supported. The latter part of the note is to loathsome for any Christian tongue to read, or chaste ears to hear: therefore I cast it out on the dunghill, as unworthy of any answer.  
G. Powel  g A lying hyperbole: 
Then belike the Prophet Malachi, 
Reply  (upon alleging of whose words this note is grounded) used a lying hyperbole. 
Mala: 2.13: 14  God that putteth up all the tears of his children into his bottle, knoweth and beholdeth this, and will one day, 
Rom 12, 15 job. 30, 25 Amos 6, 6  wipe a way these, and all other tears from their eyes: when they that in the mean time scorn such tears of the godly (so far are they from mourning with them that mourn, and being sorry for the afflictions of joseph) shall except they repent) have more, than their bellies full of weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.  
G. Powel.  h If the refractory Ministers be so unkind, and hard hearted, that they will have no pity upon them, then may they be otherwise relieved well enough: 
The Lord that searcheth the hearts of all men, 
Reply.  knoweth the affections of some of the Ministers now deprived, to be such towards their people, that if they might stay with their people with comfortable conditions, they had rather stay, (though their maintenance be but small) then accept of a thousand pound by the year else where with as good conditions. Therefore hardness of heart is not to be objected unto them. Touching the rest of this note, it is strange, that in the question of depriving ignorant Ministers, according to the law & statute in that behalf, this hath been the principal objection, where, or how, will you have their places supplied? Much like to the question of the Disciples, whence should we get so much bread in the wilderness, as should suffice so great a multitude? Now the question being of our deprivation against law, and the paucity of sufficient Ministers being objected, reply is made, There is store, the Churches may be relieved otherwise. But let them be first relieved, that have ignorant Ministers, not knowing the principles of religion themselves, much less able to teach other.   

Further answer to the 6. Argument.  
G. Powel  If such congregations do so mourn, than the more hard hearts have those cruel tyrants rather than shepherds, that without pity, desperately forsake them, for little or no cause: 

Reply.  The substance of these words being the same with the former note, is answered before: yet here I add, 1 that it is more cruelty for the Prelates, for little or no cause to deprive such Pastors. 2 that this answerer seemeth still to account, sinning against God to be little or nothing. 3. that a thief by the like reason, may complain of the hardness of his heart, that had rather lose his Purse, then have his throat cut.  
G. Powel  Those Congregations may cease mourning, and comfort themselves, because there is store enough of able Ministers, and they shall have those, that will not run away from them: 
Take away tautologyes and other superfluityes, and this answer itself would scarce have been an obular or two farthing pamphlet. 
Reply.  The first part of this answer, hath been removed before. Those that will not run away, where are they to be found? What net may one have to catch them, what keep to hold them? For do not the Formalists daily run away from their people? Do they not take another lyving, and keep the former also, leaving one to some journyman, fit for all companies? Yea, both Master & man, oftentimes leave both flocks to the Wolf, yea, I know some that for sake their own charges, and are curates else where under other. And to whom do some of them leave their own? To one, that all the week long goeth to hedging, ditching, throshing, and other day labour for his living: who on the lords day, is at Church, with a white Surplice to read service. In harvest also they take harvest work, as ordinarily as other harvest men. I have seen it, not long since with my eyes. Some also within a fortnight after they are possessed of a living, of good worth, let it out for diverse years, and so take their leave of the people, to serve a cure under another. O miserable condition of such a people. Whose heart melteth not to think of such wretched watchmen? What liklyhod therefore is there, that the Congregations deprived of their godly, loving & painful Pastors, shall have other as faithful, that will not run away from them? Touching the answer to the consequence of the former Argument, that the Pastors should rather return to their people and comfort them, obeying the wholesome ordinances of the Church etc: I answer that we will so do, when such ordlnances are proved by God's word to be wholesome.    

THE 7 ARGUMENT.  
All true Ministers, 
2 king. 2, 12 & 13.14 Prov. 3.16 psal. 45.12 1 Sam. 4, 21 Ephes. 6. 5 Isai. 2: 4 and 65: 25: 2 chron, 14: 14, 17.10: 27.6,  are as the Chariots and horsemen of those kingdoms where they are. In the Ministry of the gospel, and sincere worship of God therein commended, consisteth the glory of Kings and kingdoms. So also the peace: yea also their whole outward prosperity. And the contempt of the gospel and of the sincere worship of God, procureth all outward calamities of Kings and Kingdoms. Ergo  
As men willbe faithful to Kings and Kingdoms, so they must maintain the sincere Ministry and Ministers of the gospel, and therefore speak for them.  

The Marginal Notes.  
G. Powel  a Is a handful of refractory ministers, the safety of the whole land: 
1 Cosmographers in some Maps describe a bird called a Ruc, of such bigness, that she taketh up an Elephant with her talants very high into the air, 
Reply.  and then letteth him fall to be broken and bruised, for her to feed on. It seemeth, this Notary hath an hand as large as the foot or talons of this bird, sith he maketh but an handful of all the Ministers suspended, deprived, or like so to be, for these matters now in question. Secondly, As the loss of one of his Majesty's ships Royal, or of one of his strongest holds, or of one of his most worthy warriors, may be said to weaken the whole Kingdom, especially in the time of great war: and as the cutting in sunder of one principal post, or beam or pillar of an house, doth weaken the whole house; so, and much more is the loss & cutting of of so many worthy ministers of the gospel, the weakening of the whole land. For is not Satan, and are not Papists, and all the rest of Satan's army, so much the more strenghtned? 
2 king. 2, 15 and 9.1.  Elia was but one, and accounted (as we are) a troubler of Israel: and left Elisha behind him: and yet the Argument telleth you; how they were accounted, though in their time there were many other Prophets. O therefore, that the meanest able and godly Minister, might not be lightly regarded, in these last and dangerous times. Howsoever they are esteemed of by the world, yet they are of more price, then great riches.  
G. Powel  b As if God never had defended any Pagan, in case of innocency and justice etc: c Outward prosperity consisteth in pure worship: They speak so profoundly, as an intelligent and sensible man, cannot understand them: As if the ungodly flourished not oft-times, as a green bay three: and the outward prospeity of the Persians and Romans, did not surpass the mean estate of the jews, the true Church of God: 

Reply  If there had been no name set to this book, these two notes, and many other the like, might have brought it in suspicion to have been penned by some professed Atheist. For (who almost but smelling of religion,) would have objected such things? Yea, who that had but tasted of logic, would have denied the conclusion, not regarding the proofs and premises? The wicked do indeed, some times in joy outward prosperity, either to mollify their own hearts, or to harden them the more to be the fit for God's judgmentes, or to be scourges of God unto other: or to make them the more in excusable: yet they have no assurance, either of getting, or of holding such prosperity. Neither can they have any more comfort thereby: then the godly may have discomfort by their afflictions: because indeed they have no interest thereunto from God. It is also a shameful untruth, that the Persians, Romans, or any other, in outward prosperity excelled the jews, so long as the jews regarded the word, honoured the Prophets and other Ministers thereof, and maintained the pure worship of God. All that while, they were even in outward things the glory of all the world. What people ever had the like victories? What Nation for all prosperity was comparable to Israel in the days of Solomon, and to the jews afterward, 
psal. 48: 2: 87: 2: & 12: Lament. 1: 1 and 2: 1:  in the time of many other Kings? Of what City are so glorious things ever written as of jerusalem? Read the places in the margin. Indeed after that they contemned the word of the Lord, abused his prophets, and neglected God his worship (and that especially through the fault of their Priests etc.) then the Lord forsaking them, made their enemies the chief etc. 
Lament: 1: 5   
The other notes upon this Argument, I pass by, as either answered before, or being of no moment.   

Further answer to the 7 Argument.  
G. Powel  What can a sensible man make of this enthymem? The refractory ministers are the safety of the whole land, Ergo, the Court of Parliament must speak for the gospel. 

Reply.  The title refractory omitted, he is a senseless man, that can make nothing of that enthymem: especially these ministers pleaded for, being proved true and faithful. For though the gospel and Ministers thereof be distinct, yet he that speaketh for one, speaketh for both, and he that speaketh for both, speaketh for the land, the safety whereof dependeth upon both. But mark here again, the answerers' sophistry; 
Sophistry:  For whereas the author saith, that the Parliament is to speak for the gospel & Ministry thereof, the answerer taketh the word gospel, and altogether leaveth out, the other words, and the ministry thereof.  
G. Powel  There are thousands of faithful Ministers besides them in this kingdom, that are Charets and horsemen etc. Ministers are therefore termed Charets and horsemen, because they are Gods instruments for gathering of the Saints, Ergo: The antecedent is improbable, if not false: Again, these men refuse their Ministry, wherefore they cannot be called charets: yea so far are they from being the safety, that would God they were not the sores of the Church, and sowers of sedition. I mean schism and faction: 

Reply.  As there are some other faithful Ministers, so there are not many thousands that are able, much less faithful besides us. Generally throughout the land, there are Six reading ministers, for one preacher, at the least by practice. For there are some that are licenced to preach, that never did, are, or were able to preach. Many also that can preach seledome do Preach. Some also that do preach, (and that often) do it so Popishly or otherwise so corruptly: so foolishly and ridiculously, to make sport rather than to edify: so vainly and unprofitably, that it were better to hold their peace then so to preach.  
That Ministers are called charets and horsemen for gathering the Saints, (viz out of the power and holds of the Devil) may be the truth in part: but yet, they being (in the places alleged) called the charets and horsemen of Israel, not of the Saints, (and most of the israelites being then wicked) and these titles being acknowledged of Elisha by a wicked King, that respected not the gathering of the Saints, but the outward defence of his kingdom, by the prayers and preaching of Elisha: it cannot be the whole truth. That we are such sores as the answerer speaketh of, is not proved. Indeed some conformitans so account us, because we rub their sores so much, and desire so earnestly the healing of them, that so their souls may be the better saved. We are also eyesores to them: but sure I am, that we are not so to the godly, many of whose sores, God hath cured by us, and to whom our ministry hath been the savour of life, unto life. Other things in this argument, have received their reply.    

THE 8 ARGUMENT.  
The proceed of the Bishops & other Ecclesiastical judges, against the Ministers in silencing and depriving of them, is against the law, Ergo.  
This High Court of Parliament, being the chiefest Court of justice in all this kingdom, aught to relieve them.  

The marginal notes upon the 8 Argument.  
The first 3 notes I pass by; as note-les.  
G. Powel  d Object against these, and you shall be answered: 
How shall we be answered? With words, and railings, 
Reply.  as before, not otherwise. To the oath Ex Officio, and to the Canons afterward.  
G. Powel  a These men would bring in all by popular trial: 
Nay rather, 
Reply.  would not the Prelates be glad to have all persons and all causes subject to themselves? But more to this afterward.  
G. Powel  b A senseless sentence: How can a man in matters of eternal life, be cast out of his freehold: 

Reply  A simple cavil, from the misplacing of a comma. The Notary might well have perceived, that these words, (in matters of eternal life,) were to be joined with the words going before, ambassadors of jesus Christ, not with the words following, should be cast out of their freehold. This I say he might well have perceived, because there had been no speech of our freehold of eternal life, but only of this life.  
G. Powel.  c The Ecclesiastical judge may proceed Ex officio: (d) directly against the statute, 1 Elizab: cap: 2 

Reply.  These two notes being in the margin contiguoe, and touching one another, I join together in my reply; the rather because (d) the letter of the second note, and the mention of the statute in the end of the said second note omitted, they may both in better sense and truth, be read thus together, Ecclesiastical judges may proceed ex officio, directly against the statute. For touching the former note with (c) let the best Civilian show (if he can) by what other law, the Ecclesiastical judge may proceed ex officio, then by the Canon law abolished by statute. The second note with (d) shall be satisfied afterward.  
The note with (e) of begging the question, is now too stolen.  
G. Powel  f As if God and his Son Christ jesus were not precedent of the religious assembly already: An unchristian suggestion: 

Reply  When the Prophet exhorteth the Church, to open her doors for the King of glory to come in: 
psal. 24, 7: 9 Cant: 5: 2:  did he signify that the Church had not before entertained the King of glory? When Christ saith, Open unto me my sister etc. doth he mean that his sister had him not at all before? Christ daily knocketh by his word and Sacraments, 
Revel. 3.20  at the hearts of all the faithful to be let in. Are they therefore altogether without Christ? Although therefore Christ be already precedent in the Parliament, yet by the propounding of any good cause, he desireth to be further interteyned amongst them. This the author hath acknowledged, by calling them often a Christian assembly: by commending their Christian zeal against the Papists etc. But this is the answerers' sophistry before noted, 
Sophistry:  to reason from the want of a thing in part, to the want thereof altogether. Therefore this is an unchristian and simple collection.   

Further answer to the 8 Argument.  
G. Powel  I am constrained to dance as the suppliants Pipe: They lead, and I follow. 
Nay we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced. 
Reply.  We have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. 
Mat, 11.19  Neither to evident Arguments out of holy scripture, will you submit your human ordinances, or yourselves: neither by any gentle and humble petitions, will ye Prelates come to any brotherly peace. Mildness doth as much provoke you as bitterness. M. Nichols of Kent, writing most mildly and humbly, was rewarded severely, with suspension, deprivation, degradation. Our most humble petition to the Convocation, at the first Session of this Parliament, received a most rough answer. We seek peace, and when we speak thereof, ye are bend to war. 
psal. 120 7. job. 31: 8.  As though ye sat in heavenly places, we have been unto you more vile than the earth. I complain not thus of all the Prelates. I know that some are wiser, milder, kinder, and more courteous than other. As the bramble took more upon it, than the Olive tree, 
judg. 8.15  the vine or the fig tree, so sometime it is among Prelates.  
G. Powel  Hitherto they prayed your Honours but to speak for them etc. Now they urge you to determine, and actually to decree something in their behalf: 
We neither prayed nor urged any thing to be done, but with all humility and loyalty: 
G. Powel  hoping that his most excellent Majesty upon the sight of the reasons, why they had decreed or determined any thing (so far as they might among themselves) would likewise in his Princely and christian regard, have vouchafed his Royal assent to their such decrees and determinations: which although it have not pleased his Highness yet to do, yet we hope that hereafter upon further consideration, some other may find further grace with his Majesty in the like behalf.  
G. Powel  To the consequence of the former Argument: The consequence hath 2 parts, whereof the first is granted, but that the deprived and suspended ministers ought to be restored is denied, because they have not justified their cause, and declared that they are unjustly oppressed, nor can ever do: 

Reply.  Touching the former answer, may it please the reader, first to remember, that all the author's speech of the proceed of the Bishops against Ministers suspended etc: is only to be understood of such Ministers, as whom they suspend and deprive, only for such causes as are mentioned in the title of the Arguments, not of other whom they suspend or deprive for any just cause. Now to proceed, that such Ministers have not yet in law (whereof the present question is) justified there cause, and declared that they are unjustly oppressed, nor can ever do, is not for want of matter of justification, or for want of the truth of unjust oppression (I mean only by the Prelates) but because they have not been admitted, to prosecute the justice of the land, nor to call in question the proceed of their ordinaries: who have been hitherto both Agents and judges; both accusers and advocates in their own cases against them. And especially because upon pretence of a Canon lately made, (repugnant to the laws, statutes; and customs of the Realm) they be not suffered by the Archbishop's judge ad quem, to plead and to prosecute their appeals, and to declare their innocency according to the ancient laudable, and common usage and justice of the land: unto which grevance also many more exorbitant injustices (by the Prelates) hereafter mentioned may be added. Let the answerer therefore understand, that some Ordinaries in their public sentences, 
The Bishop of Lincoln against the the Ministers of Leicestershire.  have most unjustly charged some Ministers, with denial of the oath to the King's supremacy: which notwithstanding, diverse times before, they had willingly sworn unto, and which at the very instance of pronouncing the sentence, they offered before their Ordinary to swear unto again. And not only thus lesingly, (to make the Persons of the said Ministers more odious to our most Christian King, his State, and all his people) in their public sentences of deprivation, have some Ordinaries traduced the good name and estimation of the Ministers, but also without any other special crime worthy deprivation mentioned in their sentences, have they stussed their sentences full, only with general words of general crimes, contrary to the right form of judgement. For by right form of judgement, the Ordinaries ought not to have impeached the Ministers, because of general crimes, but they ought to have said, and put in certain, in what things, and in what manner the said ministers have done any thing worthy punishment of deprivation.  
another grevance & unjust oppression (by the said Prelates) of the said silenced ministers, is, that upon sentence of deprivation and appeals of the Ministers, the Ordinaries have given notice to the Patron of the voidance of the Church, and upon new presentation of the Patron, have not only instituted new clerks; but also (to avoid the possession of the Minister deprived and appealing) have suggested and intimated by their certificatory writ, under their public seal unto the King, into his Court of Chancery, that the possession of the church was kept per vim laicam, 
Old natura brevium fol 33. Que brief ne ser grant, avant que levesque de tiel am eit certify en le Chancery person breit de tiel resistance.  & withal have prayed the King's writ de la vi laica removenda. By virtue of which writ (upon their suggestion & intimation) granted, (for without their suggestion and intimation it would not be granted) the party appellant, before the appeal finished, hath been removed out of his possession by the Sheriff of the County. Notwithstanding in truth, the Church, parsonage or vicarage house, had within the same, no manner of vi laica at all: but was only quietly and peaceably possessed, by the late derived spiritual person, and his poor family.  
And that this manner of a possession of a Church, by a spiritual person and his family, by the law of the Kingdom, is not to be holden vis laica, is plainly justified, by a late judgement given by the King's justices, touching the possession of the Church of Newton Valencoe in the Diocese of Winton. For where as a spiritual person possessed of the same Church, by virtue of the King's writ de vi laica removenda, was removed out of his possession, and another spiritual person put in possession of the same church; the spiritual person dispossessed, upon the matter heard and examined, before the King's justices, that he was a mere spiritual person, and that his Church was possessed only by himself, and his domestikes, was by an other of the King's writs restored into, and possessed of the same Church; and which Church unto this day, he peaceably holdeth and enjoyeth.  
A 4 grevance of the silenced Ministers, is that (there being a Canon made in the last Synod, that no judge ad quem shall grant any Inhibition to the judge a quo, 
Bishop of Chichester & Salisbury  unless he first see the original appeal) sundry Ordinaries upon appeals made before them, have taken order with their Registers and notaries, not to deliver to the parties appellant, any note or copy of any act or sentence, made or given before them. Where upon not only the party appellant is wronged, but the Notary also upon refusal of granting to the party appellant (demanding and tendering to the Notary his fee) a public instrument of the public Acts and Records of the Court, cannot but incur the infamy of corruption and perjury: in as much as he being a public Notary, is sworn faithfully to execute the office of a public Notary; the execution of part of which office, consisteth (he being required thereunto) in his testimony and delivery of the public acts made in his presence.  
A fith injustice or rather nullity is, because sundry sentences of deprivation have been given a judicibus non suis, namely by such Ordinaries, whose power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical at the time of giving their sentences, was suspended, shut up and closed, by the Archbishop of Canterburyes Commission and his archiepiscopal visitation.  
A 6 grevance or rather a nullity is, because the whole power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, touching causes criminal, without exception or reservation of the examination and definition of the crimes of Ministers, by sundry Diocesans under their seal at arms, before that time was committed in solidum for term of life & years not expired unto their principal Commissaries, officials, or vicar's general: whereupon it consequently followeth, the same Diocesans having no power by the kings Ecclesiastical laws, to resume at their pleasure their said Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that the sentences given by the said Diocesans, in these cases are sentences void and of none effect in the law, as being given a judicibus jurisdictione in ea part carentibus.  
A 7 grevance or rather nullity is, that sentences have been given nullo juris ordine servato: but omni juris ordine spreto et neglecto.  
An 8 injustice is, because some acts and sentences have been made and given in some private chamber of some common Inn or Tavern, and not in publico et competent foro, in any public or competent seat, of Ecclesiastical justice. As M. Vinall and M. Warren, in the Diocese of Chichester were deprived, in a common Tavern, viz. at the sign of the Ounce and Ivy bush in Greensteed.  
The 9 injustice is, because some sentences, given by some Ecclesiastical judges, for not use of rites and Ceremonies, or not observing of the book of Common prayer, have not been given according to the tenor of and effect of the statute of the first of our late Queen, upon inquisition, information, or accusation, but only upon process ex mero officio. A thing if not directly, yet by consequence repugnant to the said statute; and therefore unwarrantable by the said statute. And therefore it is to be noted, that this marginal note (the Ecclesiastical judge may proceed ex officio) in pag 37. and this parenthesis (which they may do ex officio) inserted in the body of the statute pag 42. is but a begging of the question. 
Certain Ministers in the Diocese of Oxford & Lichfeld etc.   
another injustice against some Ministers hath been committed by some ordinaries, for that they have deprived them for none other cause, then only for not subscribing to the 3 articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon. And this wrong hath been openly in Parliament acknowledged, to be a wrong by the Archbishop himself, and by the judges and advocates of his own Courts.  
These and many such like things being thus, may it not be truly said, that the Ministers pleaded for are unjustly oppressed? And being so oppressed and without relief any other way, have they not just cause to supplicat to the High Court of Parliament? And hath not the said High Court great reason, yea is it not bound to find remedy, and to relieve them?  
The answer concerning the person of him who is said abundantly to have proved the unlawfulness of the proceed against the deprived ministers, that he is no judge nor any good Civilian or common lawyer, what reason have you to be so resolute herein? He may be a judge, a good Civilian, or common lawyer for aught you know, though you seem never so doubtless thereof. But what is this answer to the point in question? Seeing it mattereth not, what the person of the probator be, if his proofs be sufficient? And yet how mean so ever you think him, or his learning to be (if he be the party whom I aim at) I shall do no wrong (as I suppose to the chiefest judge, and best approved Civilian, of the now Archbishop of Canterburyes courts, if (without flattering the party) I shall affirm that he was a student and an advocate, and a judge, yea, I may (as I think) say more, a reader of and a director in the practice of the civil law about 30 years passed, to sun that be now Doctors of the same law.  
But to let the person and learning of the probator pass, I resolutely and directly answer to the answerers 3. Queres (the same being partly fraught with equivocations, and partly childish and absurd,) that the one sort can receive no resolute answer, before he have resolved his intrinsical and mental sense and understanding, and that the other without question, is a question questionless. His first Quere then being this, namely, Quere. 1 whether the Church under Christian godly Magistrates, hath any tribunal proper unto itself, for the deciding of controversies, and punishing of such persons as shall refuse the ordinances thereof? Unto this Quere, when he shall distinguish and make his so many equivocations (contained in the Quere) prespicuous and plain, 
Equivocations.  to the understanding of every simple & plain meaning man, I shall (God willing) make him a simple, plain, resolute, & direct answer. In the mean time let him understand, first that we may justly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church: and namely, whether he mean the universal Church, or a Nationall, a Provincial, a Diocesan, an archidiaconal, a Decanall, a Capitular, or lastly a Parochial Church. For all men (as usually and commonly we speak) do understand, that every of these Churches, hath her proper name, after which she is so called: as namely the Church dispersed throughout the world, is called the universal Church, the Church within England is commonly called the Nationall Church of England; the Church within the Province of Canterbury, the Provincial Church of Canterbury, the Church of the Diocese of London, the Diocesan Church of London, etc. And lastly the Church of great S. Ellens in London, the Parochial Church of S. Ellens in London. And therefore I crave a resolute and direct answer, of what only persons you mean that the universal, this Nationall, Provincial, Diocesan, archidiaconal, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochial Church consisteth? Who only be the Christian godly Magistrates, under whom every one of these Churches liveth? Whether the same christian godly Magistrates may personally be present, give their express consents, and have their decisive voices, to & in making all and every decrees of every of these Churches? What is the tribunal proper to itself, of every of these Churches? What only manner of controversies, by every of these Churches may be decided? What only kind of ordinances, every of these Churches may decree? What only kind of subject, and with what only kind of punishment, and none other, every of these Churches may punish the refusers of every their ordinances?  
Our second main scruple, touching this first Quere, ariseth from these words (under Christian godly Magistrates) For if by these words (under Christian godly Magistrates) he understand that every of these Churches, living under the obeisance of such Magistrates, hath a tribunal proper unto itself, immediately derived to the same by the holy law of God, wholly secluded from the Christian godly Magistrates presence (as was the Sanctuary divided from the Court) and wherinto the christian godly Magistrates may no more at this day enter, or no more give their consents and decisive voices, in making the ordinances thereof, than it was lawful in times passed for the Kings of juda to enter into the holy place, and to burn incense at the Altar: then must we frame him one kind of reply: but if he shall inform us, his mental understanding to be thus, namely that the Christian godly Magistrates, have none other power, by law divine or human, but only to assemble every of the said Churches, to ratify the ordinances of every of the said Churches, or hath only power to command the same ordinances to be put in execution under them, then unto this answer we must shape him an other manner of reply. Notwithstanding, in the mean time this he must understand generally, that in right (though not always in possession & practice) the church being distinguished from the common wealth, hath the same power under a Christian, and under an Infidel Magistrate.  Quere. 2 
G. Powel  2 Quere. Whether so many judicial acts of deprivation of Bishops from their benefices since the conquest, to the time of Magna Charta, and since that to this age, were ever held to be contrary to the laws of this Kingdom? 
To dance after your Pipe, (I will not say, what a foolish and ridiculous question, 
Reply.  but) what an odd tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, before the Pipe be stricken up? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and other laws since made, be said to be contrary to them? This is as much, as one should ask, whether Adam not Circumcising Cain and Abel, did contrary to the law given for Circumcision, to Abraham many years after? Or whither Ishmael persecuted Isaac, before Isaac was borne? Or whether stealing of horses an hundred years past, were punishable with death, before any law made for death in that behalf? One thing cannot be said contrary to an other, that is not, neither ever was extant in rerum natura. The Second part of this Quere, whether since the granting of Magna Charta unto this age, the judicial acts of deprivation of Bishop's etc: were ever held to be contrary to the law of this kingdom, and Magna Charta, we shall answer (if God permit) more plentifully anon.  Quere. 3 
G. Powel  3 Quere. Whether any judge of this Realm, or any chief officer learned in the laws, be of opinion, that such sentences of deprivation, as have lately passed in due form, in any Ecclesiastical Court, be contrary to any, much less to many statutes. 

Reply.  Though it were a sufficient answer to bid him go look, and himself to ask the opinion of every judge & learned officer, yet will I not altogether yield him so short and cutted an answer. And though it be a principle in Philosophy, that forma dat esse rei, yet to the being of every thing there must be matter, to which the form giveth being. And therefore in this case, besides due form, there must be also due matter, inserted in due sentences. Whereupon I crave a resolute and direct answer, whether by those words (passed in due form) he mean passed for matter and form, in due form? Or whether he mean, passed without due matter in due form only? For if he mean by passed, (for matter and form,) in due form, then is his question (without question) either a foolish question, or no question at all. For who would question, whether any judge or learned officer, could doubt, that a sentence passed for matter, and form in due form, were a sentence contrary to any, much less to many statutes? As though there were any Statutes so ridiculous and absurd? On the other side, if he mean by passed in due form, only due form without due matter, than we answer that the same sentence may be unjust, for want of due matter, and yet be just by reason of due form. And so on the other part, we affirm, that a sentence may be just, by reason of due matter, and yet unjust by reason of an undue form. How many sentences therefore of deprivation soever, as have been lately given without due and just matter, or without due and just form, we answer so many not to have passed in due matter and form, and so contrary to some laws or statutes. But were this question wholly granted, what ease and advantage can the opinion of any judge or learned officer yield to those judicial acts of deprivation (whereupon the controversy is grounded) which are not passed in any due form of any law, or Statute Ecclesiastical whatsoever?  
Furthermore touching this question, if the Prelates did intend that all their sentences should be according to law, wherefore did they make a Canon against the ordinary prosecution of appeals? Yea, what needed such a Canon? What benefit is there to any appellant by his appeal, from a just sentence? Or what danger to the judge a quo by such appeals? The whole danger is to the appellant himself. For the sentence being just, he shall be sure to get nothing, neither the judge a quo to lose any thing by the appeal.  
G. Powel.  Who having but half an eye, doth not see, but that (by pleading Magna Charta cap. 29:) they would not only weaken, but also subvert and utterly overthrow all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical? 
Doth every one that desireth limitation of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
Reply.  and laboureth to restrain it from all communion of foreign laws, seek the subversion thereof? If also the laws Ecclesiastical, be the King's Ecclesiastical laws, and the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, the King's Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then is this place of Magna Charta, so far from subverting the jurisdiction or law Ecclesiastical, as that by that place, the same law and jurisdiction is up held, and more thoroughly established. That the law & jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ever hath been, and yet is accounted the King's Ecclesiastical law and juridiction shall be showed anon.  
G. Powel  The sentences and grave determinations whereof (that is of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction) have never yet in any age or Country, been submitted to popular trial, by the judgement of Peers etc: 

Reply  All sent ces of Ecclesiastical Courts, are not so grave but that some are sometimes repealed by Higher courts, and sometimes revoked by themselves. Sometime also they meddle with matters not belonging unto them, and therefore by ordinary course of common law, they are prohibited to proceed. Finally in some case the Bishop giveth not Institution to a benefice, until by a jury of 12. men (whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy, and 6 of the Laity) the controversy de iure patronatus be decided. Yea sometime the Bishop having instituted a clerk, is forced by writ from the common law, to admit of another clerk presented by another Patron, and so to displace him whom before he had instituted.  
G. Powel  The place of Magna Charta, cannot be understood of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or the practice thereof, especially if we consider the end why this law was made, and the time when: 
The Prelates should make sure work indeed, 
Reply.  if they could make, that no laws were against their power. Then might they take upon them without controlment, what they would under colour of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: as indeed they do now prettily begin to do.  
G. Powel  The end was, that the Kings of this Realm, might not challenge an infinite and absolute power, (as some Kings else where did, and yet do) without judgement and lawful proceed, to take away any man's liberty, life, Country, goods, or lands. 
Then belike the King's Majesty is restrained by Magna Charta, but the Prelacy is not. 
Reply.  Is not this good stuff? The King shall wear the Crown, but the Prelates will bear the sword. Whether now do they that are falsely called Puritans, or the Prelates most encroach upon the Royal authority?  
G. Powel  It was made at such time, as the Kings thought Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, no more in right then in fact, to belong to the Crown. Therefore the words have no relation to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
This is utterly false: 
Reply  yea the falsehood thereof is evident by the testimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cook, in the book alleged by the answerer. For he saith expresely, that as in temporal causes, the King by the mouth of judges in his Courts of justice, doth judge the same by the temporal laws of England; 
lib. de jure regis Eccle. fol: 8  so in causes Ecclesiastical etc. (the connusance whereof doth not belong to the common laws of England) the same are to be judged and determined, by Ecclesiastical judges, according to the King's Ecclesiastical laws, etc.  

fol. 39  And again, observe good reader, (saith S. Edward Cook) seeing that the determination of heresies etc. belongeth not to the Common law, how necessary it was for administration of justice, that his majesties progenitors Kings of this Realm, did by public authority authorize Ecclesiastical Courts under them, to determine those great and important causes, etc. by the King's Ecclesiastical laws. The jurisdiction therefore, Courts, and laws Ecclesiastical, in the opinion of the King's progenitors were thought & held to be their own Kingly laws, Courts, and jurisdiction. The same is further proved by the said S. Edward Cook: 
fol. 9  by the precedent of Renulphus, in discharging and exempting the Monastery and Abbot of Abinden, from the jurisdiction of the Bishops and granting also to the said Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction etc: by the precedent of William the first, 
fol 10. 11:  who made inpropriation of Churches with cure, to Ecclesiastical persons etc. and by diverse precedents of other Kings since the conquest.  
That which in this part of the answer, is afterward added of the necessary restitution of the right of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to the Crown is also confuted by the same S. Edward Cook, who plainly saith, that though there had been no such law of restitution made, yet it was resolved by all the judges, that the Kings and Queens of England for the time being, by the ancient prerogative law of England, may make such a Commission etc. And therefore by the ancient laws of this Realm, this kingdom of England is and absolute Empire, and Monarchy, consisting of one head, which is the King, and of a body politic, etc. Also that the Kingly head of this body politic is furnished with plenary power. etc. to render justice and right, to every part and member of this body. Thus far S. Edward Cook. From all which it followeth, that the restitution of the ancient right, howsoever lawfully made (as being made by the whole body of the kingdom) was notwithstanding not necessarily made, as though without it, the King or Queen, for the time being, could not have used their ancient right.  
That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 answer to the consequence of this 8 Argument, doth not belong to the matter, because it doth nothing justify the proceed of the Bishops or other Ecclesiastical judges, in depriving of the Ministers pleaded for, in such manner and for such causes, as for which they have depriveded them. The question is not whether jurisdiction Ecclesiastical by the laws of the land doth be long (under the King) unto the ordinaries: nor whether the Ordinaries in the exercise of the King's jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, and consistorial trials, aught to proceed by virtue of Peers, etc: but whether some Ordinaries, exercising the King's Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, have proceeded in their Ecclesiastical Consistories, against some Ministers, without authority of the King's Ecclesiastical law: & therefore in that respect, contrary to Magna Charta, which requireth nothing to be done without the King's law.  
Further, 
De jure Regis Ecclesi. fol. 9  although we grant (as S. Edw. Cook instructeth us) all laws Ecclesiastical derived from other (which by and with a general consent are approved and allowed here) to be aptly and rightly called the King's Ecclesiastical laws of England: yet I deny that all laws Ecclesiastical, derived by the King's progenitors, either before or since the Conquest from others, are now in this age our Sovereign Lord King james his Ecclesiastical laws: and therefore howsoever many judicial Acts of deprivation, of Bishops & Priests, from their benefices &c. according to the Ecclesiastical law, which is called ius Pontificium, & which was derived, by the King's Progenitors, from the Bishops of Rome, either before, or since the Conquest, unto Magna Charta, and since that, to the 25 of King Henry the eight, were never, all held, to be contrary, but were ever all held, to be agreeable to the laws of this kingdom: yet notwithstanding, I affirm that all judicial Acts and sentences, 
25. Hen. 8 cap. 17  (how many soever, of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices) had made and given, by the Ecclesiastical judges, since the 25. of King Henry the 8. only according, or only by force, and virtue of the said ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Rome his law, (the sentences given in the time of Queen Mary excepted) are, and aught to be holden, not to be had, made & given, by the laws of this kingdom, or by the King's Ecclesiastical law: And why? Even because the whole ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Rome's law was altogether (excepting the time of Queen Mary) abrogated, anulled, and made void, by an Act of Parliament; and consequently is but a mere Alien, Foreign and strange law, and no municipal law of England, and therefore not the King's Ecclesiastical law.  
Wherefore our Sovereign Lord King james, by this grant of Magna Charta made by his progenitors, being obliged, to suffer no Free man of the Realm, to be taken or imprisoned, or disseissed of his Frrehold, or liberties, etc. Nor to pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the law of the land. We again assume from this statute of the great Charter, that sundry sentences of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices, for causes before specified, are unlawful; because such Ministers have been condemned, and judgement hath been passed upon them, without lawful judgement of their Peers, or law Ecclesiastical of the land. For here we must give the answerer to wit, by these words, (or law of the land,) that all the King's laws, of what nature or quality soever, whether Ecclesiastical or temporal, and not only the laws temporal, (as he insinuateth) are included. As therefore no temporal Free man of the Realm, may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, and freehold, etc. in a temporal cause, and in a temporal Court, without lawful judgement of his Peers, or temporal law of the land. Even so likewise, no Ecclesiastical person, (being a freeman of the Realm) may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, or frehold, but by lawful Ecclesiastical judgement, according to the law Ecclesiastical of the land. And hereupon we grant, if the King have any law Ecclesiastical of the land, for the deprivation of a Minister, from his liberty and frehold, for not subscription, perjury, contempt of Canonical (so called obedience, omission of Rites, and Ceremonies, not precise observation of the book of Common prayer etc. Then we grant, that the Ordinaries (being the King's judges Ecclesiastical) may rightly deprive a Minister from his benefice, for these offences.  
And yet still we deny, and shall be able to maintain, that sundry sentences of deprivation, made and given, by sundry Ordinaries, against sundry Ministers, be either unjust or unlawful; or no sentences at all, for the reasons and causes before specified.  
It is therefore erroneously alleged, that that which was done by jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, when Magna Charta was granted, was not at that time taken to be done by the King, or by his authority, and that the laws which Ecclesiastical judges practised, were not then held, to be the laws of the land, or the King's laws. For the King's progenitors, did both think and held, that jurisdiction Ecclesiastical did in right belong unto their Crow, and therefore in fact, by right of their crowns, did they both exercise, and command to be exercised, in their Kingly names, their Kingly right, authority and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within their Realms. For how could those Kings, have commanded, and how could their subjects have obeyed, if the Kings themselves, had thought, and held, that the Eccelesiastical courts, laws or jurisdiction, were not in right, no more then in fact, at that time belonging unto the Crown as the answerer, vainly, and childishly fancyeth? Which fancy also seemeth sufficiently confuted by the very title of S. Edward Cooks book, de iure regis Ecclesiastico. For how could the Kings before and after the Conquest unto Magna Charta have been justly entitled to Kingly right of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, if the Kings had no Kingly Ecclesiastical right, or jurisdiction at all.  
G. Powel.  Briefly, the lawfulness of they deprivation, of the refractory Ministers. is a plain case adjudged, in open Court, as appeareth in S. Edward Cooks Report part 5 in Cawdries case according to a Statute of I. Elizab. cap 2. etc. 
It is a most plain and clear case, that neither the case of Cawdrie, 
Reply.  is the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers; nor that the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers, is the case of Cawdrie.  
Cawdrie was deprived, not by his Ordinary, but by the Queen's Ecclesiastical high Commissioners; not for not subscribing to the 3 Articles; not for the not use of rits and Ceremonies; not, for the not exact, 
S. Edward Cook de jure regis eccl. Cawdries case fol. 3  and precise observation, of the book of Common prayer: But as well, for that he had preached against, and depraved the said book, as also for that he refused to celebrate divine service, according to the said book.  
Again, in his cause, it being found before the High Commissioners, that he had uttered verba convitiosa and contumeliosa, convitious, and contumelious words, 
look sent against Caw.  against the book of Common prayer; the case was not, whither his fact were punishable by the Statute, (for of that no man then doubted;) but whether his depravation, and preaching against the book of Common prayer, being the first offence committed by him against the Statute; he was punishable by tenor of the statute, for the same his first offence, by depravation, yea or no? Lastly Cawdries offence was punishable as well before the Queen's justices by imprisonment, and loss of one whole years profits, of his spiritual promotions, as by deprivation before his Ordinary. None of all which things, were within the compass, of sundry the late deprived Ministers. For non of them ever preached against the book, nor depraved the same. They never refused to observe the same book, according to the poem of the book & tenor of the statute. They were so far from claiming any immunity, from being depraved, for their first offence, as that they stood and yet do stand, upon their innocencyes, not to have committed any offence at all, against the statute punishable with deprivation, by the statute they allege, that they were not punishable before the King's justices by the statute, for these facts which they were charged by their Ordinaries to have committed against the statute, and for which they were deprived. Lastly, some of them were deprived not for any fact done, committed, or perpetrated: but for not promising hereafter, to observe the whole book. And what an unconsiderate part therefore is it, to avow the lawfulness of the deprivation of all the late silenced Ministers, to be a plain case adjudged in open Court; when neither their case, nor any like case to some of theirs, was ever yet brought or argued before the King's justices in any of the King's open courts at all.  
Touching the statut alleged, 1. Elizabeth, it helpeth nowhitt at all the late deprivations of sundry Ministers, First, because such Ministers as have been deprived only for not conforming themselves, to the use of the book provided by the parishioners cannot truly be charged to have refused the book commanded by the statute. Because the same book was never provided for them. Secondly, the statute punisheth not every refuser, but wilful and obstinate refusers. They than that upon conscience only of God's word, do refuse to observe all things contained in the book, cannot be justly called obstinate refusers, till their grounds out of the word, be by the word removed. Thirdly, the statute requireth some Act, done, committed or perpretrated against the Statut: but some Ministers have been deprived only for not promising &c: as before was said. Fourthly, the statute appointeth the Ordinaries to proceed by inquisition, accusation, or information: But many of us have been deprived without any of these means, and only upon Process, Ex officio mero. Hereby therefore appeareth, how unjustly, and directly contrary to the words of the statute, you insert this Parenthesis, (which they may do Ex officio,) as if they might by virtue of this Statute proceed Ex officio, whereas the Statute expressly requires inquisition, accusation, or information. Is this good interpretation? If you do so interpret the scripture directly contrary to the words of scripture, in the same place you make but mad interpretations.  
Touching that which is objected against all hitherto spoken in the point of the law, of the opinion of the judges to be against the same, may it please the reader to remember the saying of an Honourable and most renowned Counsellor in that behalf, viz. that in such cases and all other, men are not so much to respect what judges speak standing bare headed, 
2 chro: 19: 6  as what they say sitting upon the judgement seat, representing the King's person (yea not executing the judgement of man but of the Lord) when all men stand bare headed before them.  
Concerning the oath Ex officio, 
of the oath ex officio  we affirm that the law of the land is against the exercise of the same oath, by Ordinaries and other judges Ecclesiastical.  
The Common law of this kingdom which is grounded upon the law of God, and of reason doth hate and abhor it.  
First in respect of the frailty of man who for the safety of his life, liberty, credit, and good name, will not spare to profane even that which is most holy, and by committing sinful perjury hazard his soul. which the subtle serpent well knew in general though he were deceived in the particular, in that he said unto God concerning jobskinne for skin, and whatsoever a man hath will he give for himself and for his life, but stretch out thy hand (saith Satan) and touch his bones, and his fleesh, and see if he will not then blaspheme thee to thy face. Secondly in respect of the feebleness of the judgement and sentence, that should be grounded upon the oath of such a party, being even then at his convention, aforehand defamed, and of suspected faith or credit. 
Bracton   
Again, it is against the common law which constantly holdeth that, judicium est in qualibet actione trinus actus trium personarum judicis, actoris, et rei. Secundum quod large accipi possunt huiusmodi personae, quod duce sunt ad minus inter quas vertatur contentio et tertia persona ad minus qui judicet; alioquin non erit judicium cum istae personae sunt partes principales in judicio, sine quibus judicium consistere non potest.  

Britton  And the renowned Prince King Edward the first saith by the pen of the learned judge Britton, that no judgement may be of fewer, than three persons, that is to say; a judge, a plantiefe, and a defendant, and in case (saith the King) that we be a party, we will that our Court shall be judge.  
Then if the party convented be constrained to accuse himself, he sustaineth two of the said parties in judgement, viz. actoris et rei, which the law hateth, or else the Ordinary or judge sustaineth two of the said parties in judgement, that is both judge and Promoter, which the law doth also abhor.  
Therefore true judgement cannot so consist.  
If it be objected that common bruit and fame may lawfully stand in steead of an accuser, and put a person convented to purge himself thereof, and to deliver his knowledge also of others by oeth; I answer that fame is tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri, and aught to have no credit until it be presented in course of law or proved, For the law is, that the judge himself (if he would of his own knowledge affirm the party to be in famous) is not to be received or believed. For that the law will, quod secundum acta et probata justicia ministretur.  
That which is often objected, that private relation made unto the judge, is sufficient to put the party convented to answer upon his oeth, is answered before; for that the parties in judgement must not be feigned persons but such as may stand upright in Court, and answer the party convented his damages and costs if his prosecution be wrongful, otherwise a man may be greatly wronged, his good name and fame unjustly brought into question, put to great charges without any recompense and malicious backbiting maintained, and all by colour of this proceeding which the common law hateth.  
That which is objected (that if this course should not be taken by proceeding by oath Ex officio mero, vice would abound; for that accusation is dangerous, and odious,) is easily answered. That the common law seethe this also, and therefore hath ordained common informers to proceed against such as private persons will not deal with by witnesses and such legal courses, and allow them part of the penalty for their labour, and yet alloweth the party wrongfully accused his damages and costs if the accusation be wrongful and injurious. In so much as if the enformer will not, or be not able to render it, he shall receive corporal punishment for his offence, and for the redemption of the defendant credit and reputation.  
The Statute law also is, 
9: H: 3: c: 29  that no free man shallbe apprehended or imprisoned, or to be deceased of his free hold, or liberties, or free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or any wise destroyed, nor we shall pass upon him, nor deal with him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land, that is by presentment, Indictment, witness, verdict, voluntary confession, or process of utlary.  
In so much as when the Popish Clergy would neverlesse be tampering with this oath ex officio, (as their practice was to be meddling for the advancement of Antichrist in all States) there was a writ of prohibition awarded, as warrented formerly by the Common law; to be directed to the Sheriff commanding him that he shall not permit etc: and thereupon an attachment against the Bishop if he disobey:  
After this in the height of the Pope's pride in the days of King Henry the 4. (who was willing to please him being a King in facto, 
2: H: 4: c: 15  but not de iure,) this oath crept in, as a Canonical sanction, by the statute of 2. H. 4.  
But the iniquity, injustice; and repugnancy thereof to the Common laws & statutes of the Realm appearing to the State, 
25 h. 8: c. 14 23: H: 8: c: 9  it was by K. H. 8. by the whole Parliament abrogated as injurious to the Crown, and utterly against the common justice of the kingdom, and so it resteth condemned to this day. So that no Ordinary can practise it by any power under the Crown.  
Then it followeth that the use thereof must needs be by colour of the Canon law, which being in that point derogatory to the Crown, 
25 h. 8. c. 19  repugnant to the law of this kingdom, and abolished by Act of Parliament, it consequently cannot be used, but by a foreign power and then it is praemunire.  

wager of law  And to that which is alleged by the Civilians, that the Common law alloweth it in that, which is termed the wager of law, or doing of his law, it appeareth that they are therein utterly mistaken, which may easily arise out of their ignorance thereof.  
First the wager of law is voluntary for he that offereth it may be tried per patriam at his election; This is contrary viz. extorted and constrained.  
2 The wager of law cometh from the certain knowledge of the deponent, who best knoweth whither he owe the debt or not: This is contrary, most uncertain, what shallbe demanded or interrogated  
3 Again, the wager of law maketh an end of the strife; but this is contrary viz: the beginning of strife: for it is not final, but from thence the judge gathereth the ground whereupon to proceed against the party convented.  
4 The wager of law is in case mere and only civil, for an honest man may be in debt; but this oath is ministered in case mere criminal, in which case the oath is so much the more odious to the Common law, by how much it is an apparent occasion of perjury: which carnal men will rather fall into, then to subject themselves to corporal punishment, or to lay open their own turpitude or shane?  
Neither can this proceeding by oath ex officio be found in the Honourable Court of star chamber. For although the courts of star chamber and Chancery proceed not by jury, yet they observe the due form of justice, 
star chamber:  and enforce no man to answer, but where he hath a known accuser and perfect understanding of the cause or crime objected, and therewithal is permitted to have a copy of the bill of complaint or information, and allowed more over both time convenient and council learned, well to consider & advise of his oath & answer, and if his adversaries complaint, be either in sufficient in form, or such as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine, the defendant upon demurrer without oath is dismissed, and that with costs. And admtit the accusation be such as is every way answerable, yet if the interrogatoryes ministered be impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendant without offence to the Court, may refuse to make answer to the same.  
Therefore no similitude or likeness between this oath used in these Honourable courts of justice & that constrained oath ex mero officio judicis.  
1 Since the former sort be orderly taken in courts of justice, the other without all course of judgement.  
2 The one where the plaintiff and matter of complaint are manifest, the other where neither accuser nor matter of accusation doth appear, unless the bare suspicion of the judge, fame unproved, or private insinuation, may be allowed for competent persons in judgement, against whom the party defendant is deprived of all legal exceptions, & is often, after great trouble dismissed and (though innocent) yet damnified and slandered and without recompense, there being no complanant found, but the judge himself.  
3 The one made upon certain knowledge and good advisment, the other suddenly without all discretion upon uncertain demands.  
4 The one wisely restrained to certain limits & bounds the other foolishly wandering at the doubtful will of a sly and subtle opposer.  
5 Upon the one the deponent answereth to the accusation of his adversary, by the other he is compelled to be his own accuser and condemner.  
6 The one requireth an answer to matter in fact done either to the injury of some private person, or hurt of the public state, the other constraineth revealing of words, deeds, and thoughts though never offensive to any.  
That which is objected that the said proceeding is warranted by the Canon law or Civil law, is answered many ways; but briefly by the positive law itself, that banisheth all Canon Civil, or other law, or pre-eminence, or power whatsoever, which is contrary or repugnant to the common law of the land; But this proceeding by the parties own oath ex officio mero, is contrary and repugnant to the common law of the land. Ergo  
Thus we see that this proceeding by oath ex officio was a mere stranger in England, 
Conclusion:  and how it arrived herein Anno 2. H 4. but yet as a masker, disguised, marching in the rout of Cannonicall sanctions & obscured from the view of the State under that name; but after being discovered as an adder in the grass, was damned and expelled, by the Statute of 25. H. 8. as a traitor to the King and his laws, and hath no lawful or warrantable entertainment by the statute of primo Elizab, For that there by no jurisdiction exercised by the Bishop of Rome in this kingdom is annexed to the crown, but that which was then lawfully used and exercised within this kingdom:  
Then, for any Ordinary or judge Ecclesiastical to entertain it and use it in their courts & proceed; is a high misprision against the King his Crown and dignity, and punishable by the Statute of the 16. year of K. R. 2.  
Now to pass from the oath ex officio, to the Canons, 
of the Canons  and yet not to deal with those that are of indifferent sort, but with those only, that are either contrary to God's word, or repugnant to the laws of the land, neither also to say all of these in this place, that might be said, but only (for brevity's sake) to give a taste, and to point at some; may it please the Christian reader, yea the answerer himself, yea all our adversaries in this cause (that are not too much blinded with malice) to consider, that all such Canons generally as pronounce a man ipso facto excommunicate, for saying thus or thus, against the Canons themselves, against the Ceremonies, against the book of Common prayer, and the strict observation thereof, etc: cannot be justified in this behalf by the word of God. For as (to prevent an objection that might be made from the commandment for reading of them publicly in Churches) albeit the sacreed scriptures be daily publicly read and preached, yet many things are both wittingly and unwillingly spoken, and actually committed, against the said sacreed scriptures, for which notwithstanding, such persons are not presently to be held ipso facto excommunicate: so certainly (except the authority of the Church be greater than the authority of God, and the Canons of this last Synod more authentical, than the holy scriptures given by inspiration from God,) it must be acknowledged of these Canons, and all other constitutions of the Church whatsoever, that every word spoken, or act committed against them (especially unwittingly) is not so heavily to be punished.  
Again, whereas the said Canons, do forbidden any man by speech so offending, without public revocation, of his said (pretended) wicked error, to be restored: sith the said offence may be committed as well privately, as publicly, and sith the Canons speak generally (whosoever shall affirm etc,) without any exception of private affirmations; how can the said Canons in this respect, be warranted by the word of God? 
1 Tim: 5.1  If all offences against God's word, (at least of man against man) be not publicly to be reprehended; much less are all affirmations in disgrace of any Ecclesiastical constitutions of men, to be punished with public penance.  
Furthermore whereas diverse of the said Canons, do forbidden many offenders by such affirmations, to be restored by any other means, then only by the Archbishop: sith the said offence may not only be unwitting & private, but also by a poor ignorant man, yea perhaps a lame impotent man, dwelling also it may be an hundred miles, or almost 200. miles from the Archbishop. What equity is there, that such an offender, should be debarred from all restoring by any other? And so, for want thereof, be deprived (perhaps all his life) from all public communion with the Church, and from all spiritual comfort for his soul thereby? Is this the mercy that is better than sacrifice? And whereby we do represent our heavenly Father?  
The 13. Canon commandeth the celebration of holy days, as well as of the Lords day, and that as equally agreeing to God's holy will and pleasure. I deny not, but that as God's word is to be preached at all times, in season and out of season, so it is also to be heard as oft as men have opportunity: but yet that the holy days now commanded to be celebrated, are as equally according to God's holy will and pleasure, as the Lords day (especially so to be celebrated, as they are enjoined, with greater solemnities sometimes then the Lords day itself,) this is contrary both to the 4 commandment, and also to many other Scriptures, 
Gal: 4.10: Coloss. 2. 16  which condemn such observation of days, and times. The holy days also now commanded to be kept, may be abrogated by the Magistrate, as well as other, that were wont to be observed. But I hope, that although some are bold to say as much of the Lords day, yet our Prelates will not publicly allow of any such rash & impious opinion.  
The 14. Canon commanding all divine service, prescribed in the book of common prayer to be read upon the days appointed, without any diminishing in regard of preaching or in any other respect; is against charity and consequently against the word. For the weakness of some men's body, at all times is such, that they are not able to read all and to preach. At sometime also, the strongest man, may have such an infirmity, that he may not be able to endure the performance of both. In winter, many times the extremity of cold, will not permit the whole auditory, to continue so long at Church. Then (will some say,) let preaching by such persons as are so weak, or at such times, be omitted. This indeed is that which many would have. But this is to perform bare reading before preaching: ignorance before knowledge: and the ordinances of man, before the commandments of God.  
The 18 Canon for bowing at the mention of the name of jesus, is absurd in that respect: because the place whereon it seemeth to be grounded, 
philip. 2.10.  is not literally so to be understood. First for that it speaketh of things not only in earth but also in heaven, and under the earth, in which places there are no knees. 2. It speaketh not only of men, but also of all other creatures. For it saith of all things. By the literal interpretation therefore, all creatures at the mention of the name of jesus, should bend their knees. 3. By this interpretation, no man must sit whilst any thing is read, that hath that name, or else the must rise at the mention thereof to bow their knee. 4. It is superstition, to give more reverence, to the name jesus then to the name Christ, God, jehovah, or the Holy Ghost. 5. If the knee be so to be bowed, at the name of jesus, why not also at the name Saviour? For what doth jesus signify but Saviour? 6. The place speaketh not of that which is due to the name, but of that which is due to the person of jesus. So the Canonists are deceived, with that fallacy, which is a rebus ad voces. 7. It speaketh of that which is due to him, as well in private, as in public places: in our houses, at our tables, in our beds: as we sit, as we walk, as we lie: If then we sit at table, or lie in our beds etc: we must not speak of jesus, but we must arise to make a leg. Lastly, this name jesus, is no more than joshua, who therefore is called jesus Act. 7.45. It is also the name of jozadak. Zech. 3.1: compared with Ecclesiasticus 49.12: and Ezra 3.2: and of the Son of Syrach: and of one justus Coloss. 4.11. The common people therefore for want of preaching and by their own negligence, being so ignorant, that they cannot well discern the name jesus our Saviour from the same name of other, they may mistake themselves and bow the knee, as well at the mention of other so named as of jesus our Lord and Saviour, and so ignorantly they should commit blasphemy. That which is said for defence hereof by some, that we should the rather bow at this name, to testify our hatred against Arrianisme, is more dotage than divinity: and therefore not worthy any answer. The Deity of Christ is more manifest by other names, especially by the name Emmanuell, then by the name jesus.  
Touching the Canons for Copes, Surplices, Cross, and other Conformity, as also touching the present Hierarchy, and manner of ordaining Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc: and for Subscription; it is too long in this place, to set down particular reasons against them. Therefore I refer the reader to particular treatises of those things, both heretofore, and also lately written.  
The 49. Canon, for no Minister to preach or expound any Scripture or matter of doctrine, without a special licence in that behalf; is a most lamentable contrariety to the word, which commandeth every Minister, both to be apt to teach, and to teach indeed. And I would gladly know of such Canon-makers, whither those that they call by the name of Ministers, be Ministers of the word or no? If they be Ministers of the word, shall they not have power to expound and preach the word by virtue of the said Ministry? Yea, do not they themselves, when they ordain them Ministers, bid them take power to preach the word? It is yet more lamentable in the said Canon, that they command all Ministers (not specially licenced, to preach or expound in their own charges) only to study to read plainly and aptly (without glozing or adding) the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be published etc. For do not these words plainly import, that some Ministers are not able to read without studying for it, even after they be made Ministers? Yea, do not the words (only to study to read plainly and aptly the Homilies etc.) imply a precept against studying to read the scriptures, which are harder than Homileis: especially against studying to preach hereafter? O miserable condition then of such people, as have such Ministers as must go to school to learn to read the Homilies, not the scriptures, yea and which must not study at all ever to Preach.  
The 53. Canon against confuting of any public doctrine (how heretical or dangerous so ever) before the Bishop be made acquainted with the said doctrine; is most prejudicial to the salvation of the hearers of such erroneous teaching. For the souls of men being by nature as capable of any errors, as their bodies are of any infectious disease; and the Bishop of the same Diocese, sometime perhaps dwelling or being an hundred miles from the Church, wherein such errors were delivered; and the life of man being most uncertain; and Bishops themselves being sometime erroneous, and therefore not very hasty to have errors confuted: may not many a soul be infected with such error, yea, and die in them, before any remedy can be had against them?  
This shall suffice for a taste of the contrariety of diverse Canons, to God's word. If I should particularly run over other, that have like contrariety; this volume would much exceed, both my own purpose, and also the liking of all readers.  
Before I proceed to the Canons repugnant to the laws of the land; let me here interlace one reason in a word generally to prove, both the Canons and also the book of Common prayer (now imposed upon Ministers,) not yet to be established by law, and so consequently all the proceed of the Prelates against the said Ministers for not subscribing, observing the book, conformity etc, to be with out law, and a 'gainst law. This one reason, is from the late Bill of the Bishops presented to the Parliament for the establishing both of the book of Common prayer, and also of their Canons. For if the said book and Canons were already good in law; what needed any new statute to establish them? If they say that abundans cautela non nocet, plentiful caution is not hurtful, they must also remember, that they have likewise learned, frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora: It is in vain to do that by many things, which may be done by few.  
Now to the Canons repugnant to the law.  
We decree and appoint (saith the Synod) that no judge, ad quem, shall admit or allow any his or their appeals (speaking as they call them of obstinate and factious appellants) unless he have first seen the original appeal. But the King (say I) is a judge ad quem. Ergo, the King (saith this Synod) may not admit or allow any appeal etc. The liberty, and franchise then of the Kings will, and grace, after this unwonted manner, (by a synodal decree only) being thus blemished, impeched, and restrained; what dignity, pre-eminence, superiority, or prerogative, hath the King's grace, when the King himself is charged, not to grant any inhibition out of his Court of Chancery, but conditionally and upon an unless etc.  
And if by this Canon, the Kings will and grace, receive let, hindrance, and prejudice; what should we think, but that this Canon also tendeth, to the weakening of the King's arm and power? For how can his power be strong, and his arm able to help, when his grace is bound, and his will, unable to will?  
And then again, if these two main pillars of his Majesty's prerogative Royal (namely his grace and his power) be thus shaken by this Canon, must it not necessarily follow, that the Lords and Commons in Parliament, are prejudiced thereby? For the rights & prerogatives, of the King's Crown, by the laws of the Realm, be not invested, and appropried, unto the King's person, only in regard of his Majesties own Royal estate; but also for the good condition, and preservation of his body Politic, which is the Common wealth. Which body also for the just, and necessary defence both of the head (which is the King) and of itself, hath such a proper claim, and interest, in, and to the grace, and power of the head, as the lest jot of the power and grace of the head, may not be blemished to the prejudice of the body, without consent of the body. viz: of the Lords & Commons in Parliament, who are the very image, and true representive body of the Realm: yea and thus much in effect, have the King's progenitors, and the Ancestors of our Nobles, and Commons agreed upon in Parliament; when by their authority and consent, it was forbidden, that any thing should be attempted, which should tend, to the blemishing of the King's prerogative, or to the prejudice of his Lords & Commons. And when also, by common consent, 
Acts & Monuments 4: Ed. 3 pag 422. 424:  it was enacted in effect, that neither King john, nor any other King, could bring his Realm and people in thraledome, and subjection, but by consent in Parliament.  
Furthermore appeals being de iure naturali, and introduced into judgement seats, tam ob defensionem et presidium innocentiae, quam ad deprimendam iniquitatem, et corrigendam imperitiam judicis; as well for the defence and safeguard of innocency, as for the depressing of the iniquity, and correcting the unskilfulness of a judge, as they have been evermore allowed by the laws, & customs of the Realm, so have they been suffered, as freely to be prosecuted, as interposed. For otherwise, how should either innocency be protected, or the injustice of a judge reform, in case an appeal being interposed, might not be prosecuted, frustra (saith S. Edward Cook) expectatur eventus, 
de jure Reg Eccles.  cuius effectus nullus sequitur.  
And according unto this natural equity, hath it been specially provided by a Statute of the realm, that the King's subjects, being grieved, should not only have liberty, to make, but also, to take, have, use, and prosecute all manner of appeals, after such manner, form, and condition, as is limited, for appeals, to be had, and prosecuted. And for lack of justice many Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm, it is lawful for the party grieved, to appeal to the kings Majesty in his Court of Chancery. And upon every such appeal, a Commission (saith the Statute) shallbe directed under the great Seal, to such persons, as shallbe named by the King's Highness, to hear and definitiuly determine such appeals, with the causes, and all circumstances. It is therefore apparent, that this Canon, is contrary or repugnant to this Statute. For this Canon, and this statute thus repugnantly providing, and working diverse repugnant effects, the statute simply, admitting the use and prosecution of all manner of appeals, the Canon not admitting but conditionally the use and prosecution of some appeals; can not stand together.  
Again, some inferior Ordinaries having liberty, to take the bridle in their own teeth, & to lay the reins lose, on their own necks, may in time (being proudly pampered) wax wanton in their judgement seats; when they shall stand in no awe, of having, the nullity or injquity of their process and sentences, weighed in the balance of any superior judge. By reason whereof, this Canon, can not but prove exceeding onerous to the subject.  
For let a man or woman, dwelling at Michael's Mount, be but once judicially, (though perhaps wrongfully) cited by the name of a factious or obstinate person, & contemner of ceremonies, and from such wrongful citations, let his, or her appeal, made to the King's Majesty in his Court of Chancery (if it be from the Archbishop,) or unto the Archbishop (if it be from the Diocesan) be never so just, & equal, thereiss no remedy in this case, before his, or hers appeal, be admitted or allowed, but the same man or woman (by the letter of this Canon) must personally appear, in the Archbishop's Consistory, if the appeal be by the Archbishop, and if the appeal be to the King in the King's Court of Chancery, though the same should be at Berwick. Yea, and though the party appellant be never so poor, aged, weak, and impotent. Nay not only personal appearance, but personal subscription also, by this Canon is required, to the King's Supremacy, to the Articles of Religion, to the book of Homilies, to the book of Common prayer, and to the book of Consecrating Bishops, be the party appellant, never so simple a labourer, or never so silly a spinster.  
The 37. Canon disauthoriseth every Minister by what authority so ever he be admitted, to preach, or to read a Lecture in any place within the Realm, unless he be licensed, either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the Diocese, or by one of the two Universities under their hands and seal. Let the King then under his broad seal, grant licence to any of his chaplains to preach within his own chapel, this licenc by this Canon, is of no value; then the which what can be more derogatory, to the Sovereign dignity of the King in causes Ecclesiastical?  
Unto the mould of this Canon, agreeth the 47. Canon, (before mentioned) which concludeth, that no Minister not licenced a Preacher, under the hand & seal of the Bishop of the Diocese, or Archbishop of the Province, or under the seal of one of the Universities, shall take upon him to expound, in his own cure any scripture, or matter of doctrine, but shall only study to read plainly, and aptly, without glozing or adding, the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be published by lawful authority. The King then by this Canon, may not licence, a Minister to preach or to expound any scripture, no not in his own cure, no though the ministers Cure, be the Kings own household, or the household of the Prince, or any other of the King's children. Nay by these two Canons and the Canon of subscription it is evident, that the Prelates intended, that every Scotish Minister having renounced the Hierachie, and embraced the single form of Government in Scotland, should be barred from preaching at any time before the King in England, unless he should subscribe to the Hierarchy of England. For with out a licence may none preach, and without subscription may none be licensed.  
And not only is this 47. Canon, derogatory to the King's prerogative, but it is also repugnant, to other the King's laws and statutes. For whereby that statute, made against Lolardy, and Heresy,, it was enacted, that none should presume to Preach openly, or privily, without the licence of the Diocesan, first required & obtained, yet by the same Act, Curates in their own Churches, and Parson's privileged were excepted, and by the Provincial Constitutions, confirmed and ratified by Parliament, it is provided thus: We establish, that no secular, or regular, not authorized by written law, or protected by special privilege, to preach the word of God, may take upon him the preaching or exercise of the same word, within any Church, or without any Church, unless first he present and submit himself, to the examination of the Diocesan etc: But concerning aperpetuall Curate, we understand such a one, by law and right to be sent to the place, and people of his Cure. And that we may understand whom the Canon meaneth, to be a perpetual Curate the gloss showeth us, that a Bishop in his Diocese, a Parson and Vicar in his Parish, and every other Person entitled, to any benefice whereunto appear teyneth cure of souls, is to be understood to be a perpetual Curate, and that he may preach in his own Cure, without the Bishop's licence.  
Moreover by the book of ordering Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, every one made a Minister, promiseth that he will give all faithful diligence always, to minister the doctrine etc: as the Lord hath commanded etc: so that he will teach the people committed to his cure and chardg, withal diligence to keep and observe the same. But how can a Minister instruct and teach the people committed to his charged, according to his public vow, if (as it is said in this Canon) he shall not take upon him to expound in his own Cure, any scripture or matter of doctrine at all, but shall only study to read plainly and aptly, (without glozing or adding) the Homilies etc?  
Lastly, the words of the Bishop's institution are these. Teque rectorem eiusdem, ac de, et ineadem instituimus canonice, et investimus, cum suis iuribus, et pertinentiis universis, curamque et regimen animarum prochianorum ibidem in Domino committimus per-presentes. And we (speaking of a Clerk to be instituted into a benefice) Canonically institute thee rector of the same Church, and of, 
Cure & government by law ought to go together in a minister  and in the same do invest thee, withal her rights & appertinances; and by these presents, we in the Lord commit unto thee both the cure and government, of the souls of the Parishioners in that place. The Clerk then instituted into a benefice, by these words of the Bishop's institution, by the book of ordering of Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, and by the Provincial Constitutions, having not a private, but a public office, of cure and regiment of souls, committed unto him; how can it seem reasonable, that he should be countermanded by reason of a Provincial decree not confirmed by Act of Parliament, not to excercise the same his public office, without a Bishop's licence? For what if the Bishops refuse to grant him a licence? Or what if the Bishops and his officers see, for granting, writing, & sealing his licence be greater than the poor Minister is able to disbursed, is it reason that his chardg by this means should be left uninstructed? Nay is it not, as if a Sergeant at law, called to the bar of the Common pleas, by the King's writ, solemnly created a Sergeant, and publicly admitted to the same bar, should afterward be forbidden by the chief justice of that Court, to plead at that bar, without licence otteyned, under his hand and seal? Or is it not, as if a Doctor of Physic, solemnly created in the University, and publicly admitted to practise artem medica, should notwithstanding, without a new faculty from the Doctor of the Chair be inhibited, to minister any Pill, or Portion, to any patient?  
The 53. Canon, before also mentioned, viz. against public opposition between preachers, is not only repugnant to the doctrine of 
(a) levit 5.1 2 Tim. 4.2:  holy Scripture, & contrary to the practice of the 
(b) 2. Chron. 18.7 jerem. 27.9 & 28: 7 Acts 13.10. Galat. 2: 11  Prophets & Apostles, but also crosseth the Ministers vow solemnly made at his ordination. Whose promise is that he willbe ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish, & drive away, all erroneous, and strange doctrine contrary to God's word, and to use both public, and private motions, and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure. But upon occasion given, by any false Prophet, publicly broaching false doctrine, in a Minister's chardg, how shall the Minister with all faithful diligence drive away the same false doctrine, and publicly teach the truth, if he may not teach, admonish, or exhort his people, without a licence first obtained from the Bishop of the Diocese? For what if the Bishop be upon an embassadg in Denmark? Or what if the Bishop himself be of the same judgement with the false teacher?  
The 91. Canon entitled Parish Clerks to be chosen by the Ministers, is contrary and regugnant to the customs of the Realm, in many Parishes of the Realm. And in this regard, this Canon hath been blown to pieces, at the bar of the Common Pleas, by the opinion of the whole bench in Hylarie term last: when upon a writ of prohibition, procured by certain Parishioners, in the County of Hertford, the judges denied a consultation, to the Minister of the same Parish, who had convented the Parishioners, before the Ecclesiastical judge, for gainsaying his election of the parish clerk; which by virtue of this Canon, he had declared in the Ecclesiastical Court, to belong unto himself alone.  
The 77. Canon entitled, none to teach school without licence, is repugnant to a statute made the first Session of this Parliament in diverse poyntse. First the statute permitteth ascholemaster to teach, in any public free grammar school, without any licence of the Bishop of the Diocese; or Ordinary of the place: but this Canon commandeth, that none teach public school, but such as shallbe licenced by the one; or by the other. Secondly, the statute permitteth any person, in any Noble man's or Noble women; gentle man's or gentlewoman's house, being not recusants, to teach without any licence of etc: but this Canon, commandeth that no man shall teach in private house, but by licence etc. Thirdly, the statute permitteth not any person to be ascholemaster by any other licence, than by the Archbishop Bishop, or guardian of the spiritualties. But this Canon permitteth a schoolmaster to teach, if he be allowed by an Ordinary of the place alone. Which many times, and in many places, is neither Archbishop, nor Bishop, nor guardian of the spiritualties.  
Lastly, this Canon commandeth, that none teach in public school, or private house, unless he first subscribe, to the first and third articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon simply, and to the two first clauses of the second article, whereas the statute requireth no manner of subscription at all.  
All these things before written considered, we may safely affirm concerning many of the said late Canons, that they be not to be put in execution within the Realm, unless they shall be confirmed by Act of Parliament: yea that we may also truly speak this in generality: that eiall the Churcwardens and side men throughout England sworn to present all offences committed against the said Canons, must be falsely perjured; or else that there is not one Minister which shall exercise his ministerial function, nor any one man, or woman, which shall usually come to common prayer, and divine service, but they must stand continually at the Ordinaries mercy, for one offence or other. For the things commanded, or forbidden, being innumerable, and impossible at all times to be kept, into what a servitude these Canons have brought both Ministers and people, and what an excessive chardg, is laid up on the purse of every person be he bond or be he free, be he young, or be he old, for citations, Excommunications, absolutions, and dimissions, licences, faculties, and dispensations, Who having but half an eye seethe not? Nay, that many, in many places, have already borne the Yoke, and felt the burden of these Canons, cannot be denied. Again, howsoever at the petition of the Prelates, his Majesty hath been pleased generally to allow, ratify and confirm, the book of Canons, under the broad seal of England; yet may no loyal and honest subject hereupon infer, that his Majesty intended by the general words of his confirmation, to authorize any particular matter, devised and decreed, by the Synod, contrary to the holy scriptures, hurtful to the rights, prerogatives, and dignities, of his highness Crown; repugnant to any laws, statutes, or customs of the Realm, prejudicial to his Lords & commons in Parliament, or onerous to his people. The contents then of sundry the late Canons, in as much as the same be contrary to the holy scriptures, tend to the blemishing of the liberty and franchise of the Kings will, grace, & power, be contrariant, or regugnant, to the laws, statutes, and customs of the Realm, be prejudicial to the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, without whose consent, no new binding law, aught to be made, or be such, as may become very onerous to the people; it is a plain case, that every of the King's liege & faithful subjects, aught to defend the King's right, Honour and dignity against all such Canons.  
For hereby it seemeth that as all other the wisest and best Princes that ever have been, have in some things at some times erred, so we without offence (I hope) may say, that the King also veritate tacita, or falsitate exressa, was unawares somewhat mistaken in his grant. In regard whereof, such Canons, by the laws, statutes, and customs of his kingdom be merely void, and of none effect to all constructions & purposes: whereupon also, that necessarily followeth, that the same can receive no being, by his, Majesties confirmation, Quod omnino, non est, confirmari non potest.    

THE 9 ARGUMENT.  
God hath promised to recompense the least kindness showed to his servants, especially to the Ministers of the Gospel. And the same God is not unrighteous to forget etc: but faithful, and hath always performed his promise, as appeareth by diverse examples. 
Heb. 6: 10 and 10.23:  Ergo: In this regard the High Court of Parliament ought the more to help and relieve the Ministers pleaded for, and the people depending upon them.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a Ministers are to be rewarded as they be such, and in their office: but not as they be Schismatics, and disturbers of the peace of the Church. 
Thereis a secret contradiction in the first part of this answer. 
Reply.  For as a Mayor out of his office is no Mayor, so a Minister out of his ministry is no Minister. See the answerer at large. Secondly, Ministers violently thrust out without just cause, are not to be blamed. Touching disturbance, we say that not we, but the Prelates that plead for human and Romish Ceremonies (much hurtful and nothing profitable,) are they that trouble the Church. For the Church would otherwise be quiet enough.  
G. Powel  b Arcadian wisdom. The place Math. 11.11. is to be understood not in regard of the office, but in respect of the clear knowledge they should have of Christ, after his resurrection. 
The first part of this note being but a scorn I leave to scorners. The other divinity of this note, is very deep and profound. 
Reply.  How shall I sound the bottom of it? Doth Christ speak of john, in respect of his knowledge, or of his office? Did the people go out into the wilderness unto john, in respect of his knowledge, or in respect of his office, to be baptized of him? 
Math. 3.6.7  Doth Christ also ask whether the knowledge, 
Math 21.25  or the baptism, (that is the ministry) of john were from heaven or of men? Hereby it is manifest that Christ compareth john with the Prophets in respect of office, not in respect of knowledge. Therefore also in the same respect he compareth the least in the kingdom of heaven with him, and preferreth the least Minister of the gospel for his ministries sake as much before john, as he had before preferred john before the Prophets.  
Lastly, the ministry of the gospel is greater than the knowledge of the gospel, because it is both the end for which God giveth more knowledge to some then to other, and also the cause that worketh knowledge in other. If therefore the least in the kingdom of heaven, be greater than john Baptist in respect of knowledge, which is the least, then much more is the least minister of the gospel greater than john Baptist, in respect of his ministry which is the greater. The note with (c) is not worth a Cee (as they speak at Oxford) of single beer.   

Further answer to the 9 Argument.  
G. Powel  He doth any kindness to a Minister, as he is a minister, shall have reward. But if a Minister do otherwise then he ought (as these refractories do) what kindness then ought such to have? 
What a multitude of conformable Ministers are quite overthrown by this Argument? 
Reply.  For do not many of them otherwise then they ought? Yea, do not more of them otherwise, than all thes now in question? Is not this so to stand in a gap, as that the gap is trodden down, and a door opened, for all men to deny all duty to all Ministers? For who doth not otherwise, them he ought to do?  
G. Powel  Let the refractory Ministers dutifully serve God and his Church, in their diligent and humble obedience, in the work of their vocation. Then let them supplicat for kindness etc. 
What is that diligent and humble obedience etc? 
Reply.  To put on a Surplice, to make a vanishing Cross, to read service, to acknowledge the Prelates to have power to make ordinances against God's word etc. How shall they supplicat? With an 100 or 200. in a bag. Then perhaps if they arise betimes, and ride apace, they shall have a pair of benefices; an Archdeconry etc: yea liberty also to go whither they will, & never to come at any of their benefices, but only in gathering time or if they lie at one of their benefices they shall have leave I to suspend themselves from preaching as long as the list: yea to do what else they will without controlment, so it be not against conformity. Notwithstanding the Canon for half years residence at either of their livings, they have many quirks to avoid the danger thereof.    

THE 10. ARGUMENT.  
The Lord hath forbidden all wrong to any of his servants, especially to Ministers. He threateneth also to revenge the least injury done unto them: 
psal. 105.15 exod. 17.14 15. 1. Sam. 15.3 judg. 5.23.  and performeth that which he hath threatened. Neither doth he account them only guilty of the former fault, that do his people any hurt, but those also that do not, help in their need. Ergo The high Court of Parliament, aught to take the present opportunity for relieving the Ministers molested.  
The marginal notes of this Argument contain nothing but a vain repetition of matters before noted and answered; they contain nothing, but that we are schismatics, false prophets etc: cruel, in forsaking our charges for little or nothing etc. I do therefore dismiss them, with admiration, as of the notaries barrenness and folly, so also of the virtue of Cross and Surplice. As the Ephesians cried out of their Diana, 
Acts 19.28:  Great is Diana of the Ephesians; so say I, great are Cross and Surplice of the Conformitans. The use of them, maketh men Gods, Prophets, true prophets, peaceable men, faithful Ministers: but the refusal of them makes men schismatical, cruel, superstitious, false prophets etc. Who would not be in love with them, wherein there is such excellent virtue? How many may more truly sacrifice to them; 
Habba. 1: 16  then some sometimes are said to have sacrificed to their nets?  

Further answer to the 10. Argument.  
G. Powel  It is an ungratfull, yea an ungracious part of these supplicants, to tax the Honourable assembly, or any Magistrate in this land so undutifully and unchristiantly, for unjust, cruel and merciless dealing. 
Who doth so tax them? 
Reply  Doth every one that admonish other of that which God forbiddeth or threateneth, tax them whom he doth so admonish of those faults that are forbidden? Yourself have taxed them indeed before, of matters nothing beseeming you: yea, and the Prelates do daily tax (if not also threathen to excommunicate them) for dealing so much for us: for opposing themselves so much to the Prelacy: for doing so much as they have done against non residency, the disorders of the high Commission, the abuse of citations, the horrible abuse of the great censure of the Church, Excommunication etc: yea for dealing at all in the matters of religion: yea, have they not more stoutly then wisely sent out their Inhibition against them in that behalf? Thus they may do what they list, 
Psal: 12  as though their tongues were their own, and there were no Lord over them: but we poor men oppressed by them, may not humbly petition to the Parliament, but that we are presently exclaimed of, as ungrateful and ungracious, & as undutifully and unchristiantly taxeing them for unjust, cruel and merciless dealing. Wherefore do they thus charge us? Because they fear that we will lay the same things to their charge. But though they do thus esteem of our petition, yet we hope it is better accepted of the Honourable Court, unto which it was directed.  
Whereas in the rest of the answer to this 10. Argument, he saith the refractory Ministers (as he calleth them) were never proceeded against for preaching the gospel, or for appertune & sober executing their Ministry, this is utterly untrue, for some have been molested for preaching any thing tending against the present Hierarchy, or any other corruptions: some also for confuting the Popish doctrine of other, though they have done it never so soberly: and some for other matters, which are points of the gospel as well as other.    

THE 11 ARGUMENT.  
Pharaoh in the great Egyptian famine, at his own cost provided for all his Idolatrous priests, 
Gen: 47: 22  that they might not sell their lands. The Monks, and Friars in Popery (yet in the twilight of the gospel) at the dissolution of the Abbeys, were provided for, during their life tyme. Ergo, The high Court of Parliament, in this clear light of the gospel, ought much more to provide that the ministers of the gospel; may not be turned out a begging with their wives and children, as they are; when all other have their fill.  

The Marginal Notes.  
G. Powel  e Where superstition fitteth judge, there neither nature, nor reason may dare to plead the cause. Alas, it is very lamentable, that some men (I know not for what carnal respects) had rather curry favour with other, and beholding to other men, than conscionably live 〈◊〉 ●●eir own. They should well consider the saying of the Apost 1: Tim. 5.8. 

Reply.  In divine matters, neither superstition must sit judge, neither must things be pleaded by nature or reason, but all must be done by the word of God, the store house of divinity. They are superstitious, that strive more for retaining and practising of human Ceremonies in the worship of God, (be the pretence what it will) than they regard the truth of God. The (answerer as a very pitiful man) crieth out, Alas it is lamentable etc. But one of these poor Ministers, yea many of them by reason of their troubles, may come tentymes to some of his great Masters houses, and not be offered once, to drink of a cup: but the truth is, they have forgotten Apostolical hospitality, and they have learned Lordly Episcopal hostility. Further mark here his contradiction, or oblivion. Before in his consideration of the preface to the Arguments, he hath expressly charged them with diverse particular carnal respects, etc. Now he saith, 
contradiction  that he knoweth not for what carnal respects they curry favour etc. As for currying of favour; it belongeth rather to some hungry trencher chaplains, then to those against whom he writeth. Yea, 
2 Sam. 16 13 2 Sam: 19 18  as Shimei that cursed David when his kingdom was somewhat doubtful, yet at his safe return and re-establishing of the Crown unto him, was as forward as any other, by creeping and crouching, by flattering and fawning to curry favour again with David, so it is well if there have been no such curryers' of favour among the Prelates. The place of Timothy is abused. It might in like sort have been applied to all the Martyrs. We must not provide for our families by doing any thing against God's word. That we had rather live of our own, then of other men's, is manifest in that we do so earnestly sue to be restored to our places, the rather that we may not be chargeable to other.  
G. Powel  b Alas let them have pity upon themselves, and leave their quarrelling, and they shall not be neglected. 
This is spoken more like an Archbishop that had power to prefer other, 
Reply.  then like a young chaplain that needed and waited for preferment himself. I know not, who may more justly be charged with quarreling, than they that beat and buffet their fellow servants: yea than they that smite Christ's Sister, his love, his Dove, his undefiled, yea, not only smite her, but also wound her, and take her veil from her. We would gladly live in peace, (with holiness) but we cannot be suffered.   

Further answer to the 11. Argument.  
G. Powel  The Argument doth not follow, because of the dissimilitude in the instances, or examples: 
The Argument doth follow the better, 
Reply.  because of the similitude of instances (as the answerer speaketh) or rather because it is a minore ad maius, from the less to the greater. This inequality of examples, rather strenghtneth than weakeneth the Argument and the cause. But let us see his dissimilitudes.  
G. Powel  i Pharaoh thought his priests to profess true religion, and diligently to obey him etc: But refractory Ministers, though professing true religion, yet do obstinately (being blinded with superstition) refuse to serve God etc: 

Reply.  As Pharaoh was in error touching the religion & obedience of his Priests, so are our Prelates touching our refractariness and superstition, 
The obedience of the molested ministers to his Majesty: as good as the best Conformitans:  as hath been sheewed. Our obedience to his Majesty is as good, as of the best of their side. That man's obedience to a Mayor of a town or to any other inferior officer of a Prince, is always the best, that is most agreeable to the pleasure of the Prince himself. In like manner, that obedience is best unto Princes, that doth best agree with the pleasure of the Prince of Princes, and King of Kings. To obey the inferior without due regard of the superiors pleasure, is but flattery and fawning, not good obedience. So to obey Princes, without due regard to our duty to God. For it is more prejudicial and hurtful, then beneficial or profitable to such Princes. See the words of Samuel to the israelites. 1 Sam. 12.15. & 25: & the example of joab in numbering the people by the commandment of David, whereupon followed an exceeding plague.  
Touching the serving of God and his Church, in the faith full and diligent function and exercise of the Ministry; we are unjustly charged to refuse it, for we humbly and earnestly desire it, above all maintenance: and for this desire we are thrust out of our living.  
G. Powel  2 The Monks and Friars, were put out against their wills for Sodomi, heresy, Idolatry etc: The refractory Ministers are willingly deprived for obstinate superstition, in refusing sincerely to Preach the gospel, not being conformable to the Christian laws of our Church, and Magistrate: 
The more justly, that Monks and Friars were put out, 
Reply.  the stronger is the Argument for us to be provided for, that are put out unjustly: without objection of any such foul crimes to us, as for which they were put out. Yet it is false, that they were put out for heresy or Idolatry; though they were heretics and Idolaters. For they were suffered still in their heresy & Idolatry, as well after their putting out as before. Neither also are we willingly, deprived, any otherwise then Mariners, willingly throw their goods over board into the sea, 
Acts 27.38:  to save their lives and the ship the better. Of superstition I have spoken often; this now I add, that many account carefulness to keep a good conscience in small matters as well as in great, to be superstition. And in the mean time, themselves care neither for great nor small matters, any further than there are laws of man in that behalf. As for superstition indeed, we are silenced and deprived because we will not yield to human Ceremonies, that have been and are superstitiously abused in the worship of God, and of Idols, amongst the Papists, whatsoever they are amongst us. It is also as false, that we refuse to be conformable to Christian laws.  
G. Powel  Monks and Friars could not have kept their places, by submitting themselves: But these may by conforming themselves: etc. 
I know no condition of submission offered to Monks etc: Touching the rest, we thank you for nothing. 
Reply.  This is the courtesy of Prelates, to make us pay decree for our lyving, even to buy them with sinning against God, (as some of them are said to do,) with Simony, and otherwise. But we dare not accept them at the price. The rest have been often answered. I have not such leisure, to use tautologies as the answerer seemeth to have had at the writing of his answer, as though he were cunning a lesson by heart, in fear of beating for forgetting the same.    

THE 12. ARGUMENT.  

james 5.6 Apoc. 5: 8: Ezra 6: 10 Cenes: 20: 7  The prayers of all the godly are much to be esteemed. Especially of the Ministers of the word. Ergo In this behalf the Ministers now troubled, are the more to be respected.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a True: if they continue diligent in their vocation: But being members, rend and cut from the body of the Church of God in this land, they are unserviceable for the same: 
What man? Have you unchristened us? Are we now Heathen and infidels again? It may be you will say we are worse; 
Reply. lib: de Adiaphoris:  yea you have already called us Apes. Before also in a note we have been secretly compared to swine. But how then do you call us your brethren? He is certainly of a strange stock, that hath Schismatics, falss prophets, heathens and infidels, Apes and swine to his brethren. But it were good that some of the Prelates that made the Canons and do execute the same, did consider, in what danger they are by the statute of Excommingment, for making and executing Canons contrary to former laws, and statutes of this kingdom. Hear again behold, the admirable efficacy of conformity, as that wherein consisteth the life of the Church, and whereby men are members, yea Angels of the Church in England: & without which, men are not so much as members thereof.  
G. Powel  b Are they faithful that fall from their rule of obedience? 

Reply.  So long as we keep ourselves to God's word, we fall not from our rule or obedience. For we acknowledge no other rule or obedience. Luther left the rules and obedience of Monks: so many other left other rules of Popery. Yet, I hope you will not deny them to have been faithful, or call them schismatics. As for your rule and obedience of Conformity in some particulars, many of us have not fallen from them: First because we never yielded to them. 2 Because to leave Conformity, is not to fall, that is to go downward; but to arise, that is to go upward. Bittter roots spring up, that is, come out of the earth from beneath. 
Heb: 12: 15 prov. 15: 24 james 1.17.  But the way of life is on high, and every good and perfect gift cometh from above. They that have left conformity, are more ashamed and grieved for having been Conformable, then for leaving it, though they pay sweetly for it.   

Further answer to the 12. Argument.  
G. Powel  1 Neither are the prayers of schismatics much to be regarded: 2 Neither will the Honourable court of Parliament, altogether neglect the refractory ministers: 3 Nether can the refractory ministers in charity but pray for the high court, yea in case, they did not satisfy their desire: 
This answer consisteth of 3 parts, according as I have noted the same. Concerning the first, 
Reply.  it is not much to be denied if men be schismatics indeed, and not only in name. Therefore touching that and the second, neither the answerer nor all the Prelates in the world: shall ever prove us schismatics and refractaryes, as they unjustly term us. For the third, albeit the High Court of Parliament would do nothing in our behalf, yet we will say with Samuel, 
1 Samuel 12: 13 Genes: 20: 7 Ezra: 6: 10  God forbidden that we should sin against the Lord and cease praying for them. Notwithstanding it cannot be denied, but that the more justice and kindness we shall receive from them or by them, either at this Session or at any other hereafter, the more we should be both bound and quickened to pray for them. But the zeal of the Parliament, in doing so much all ready for us as they have done, is worthy our remembrance whilst we live. Though it have not that success presently, that we have desired, yet we know not what it may have in time, upon further consideration thereof by his most excellent Majesty, and by his wise and most Honourable Counsel. No seed groweth presently: yea the best seed lieth longest in ground (for the most part) before it appear, especially before it yield fruit again. That that is done also, shall be a good evidence for us, and for the equity of our cause, as also against the Prelates, to all posterity; whatsoever reproaches, and other indignities in the mean time we sustain either by their speeches, or by their unjust writing (upon record) against us. 
Contradiction or contrariety.  But here is further to be noted, the contradiction or at the least the contrariety of this answerer, even in this very part of his answer. For in the first part thereof he saith, the prayers of Schismatics are not much to be regarded. Where his meaning by comparing these words with other his terms of being rend & cut of from the Church, obstinate, wilful etc: must needs be, that our prayers are of no regard. In the third part notwithstanding, he saith that we ought to pray for the Parliament, though they should do nothing for us according to our desire. Ought we to do that which is of no regard, of no use, of no benefit, to no purpose? 
math. 12: 23  Shall not we give account of every idle word, much more of every idle prayer? Yea are not the prayers of all obstinate, wilful, impudent, schismatical and seditious persons, and of all liars, and false Prophets (such as he hath often called us to be) abomination to the Lord? 
prov: 15: 8  How then are we bound to pray for the Parliament, or for any other? Are we bound to do that tnat is sin, and whereof we shall give an account?  2 If they had still made conscience of their duty in their Ministry, 
Reply.  their prayers had been much more effectual. 
Behold what conscience these men make of subscription, Cross, surplice, conformity, 
G. Powel  and other particular obedience; that make no conscience of preaching: yea not of coming to their flocks once in a year; yea some not once in 3. or 4. years. Is it not strange also, that surplice and cross should add such efficacy to prayers? How merry then would it be with England, if all men in all places, were forced to were a red, blue, green, white, or yellow cross, upon their hats, sleeves, or breasts etc? And if every man, woman and child might never pray privately, or publicly, but in a surplice? Further I pray God, that such as make so light account of our prayers for them, do not by their hard deal with us, force us to cry for help from God against them, and then feel the virtue and efficacy of our prayers in this behalf, to their grief. For shall not God aveng his elect, which cry day and night unto him, 
Luc: 10: 7:  yea though he suffer long for them? I tell you he will aveng them quickly. Let not this be lightly thought on. In the mean time also, how vilesoever our prayers are in their judgements; yet let this answerer & all other our greatest adversaries understand, that they are not so in the sense & feeling of those mercies, that they do daily enjoy, as well by our prayers, as by their own. For our consciences bearing witness, our prayers are of faith, and in truth & love, we doubt not, but that the King and whole kingdom, yea our greatest adversaries do daily far the better by them. And this I fear would too soon appear, if they should or could suspend us from praying, as they have done from preaching.    

The 13 Argument.  
We must pray the Lord of the harvest, 
Math: 9: 23: 38:  to thrust forth labourers into the harvest. God will not have men only to pray, but also to use other means. Ergo The High Court of Parliament, must be the more careful, to provide what they may, that godly and painful Ministers whose labours God hath already blessed, may not by head and shoulders, be thrust out of the Church, as they are.  
There is but one marginal note upon this Argument, which hath been often answered.  
So also hath all his other answer to the said Argument touching the sowing of the tars of sedition, schism, faction, and disturbing of the peace. All which do rather be long to them that teach that a true justifiyng faith may be lost, that there is no certainty of Salvation, that plead for ignorance and an ignorant Ministry: (the mother of rebellion and treason, and all other sins against God & man) and other such like things.   

THE 14. ARGUMENT.  

Luc: 9: 26  In the time of persecution, men ought not to be ashamed of the word of Christ, but to confess and speak for the same. Ergo. They ought much more so to do in the time of peace, in a kingdom, and to a King and State professing the gospel.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a As if that Disciplinarian giddiness, were God's word. 

Reply.  Though you take your pleasure of us, yet take heed, take heed, you blaspheme not the ordinances of Christ. Such certainly are little better than mad men, who impute giddiness to the Discipline of Christ, commanded to be kept without spot and unrebukable until his appearing. 
1 Tim: 6: 13  It is no new thing for them that stands for God's truth to be accounted mad men, 
2 King 9, 11 Acts: 26.24 Luc: 15: 17:  or besides themselves, and in these days, Protestants scared out of their wits. But let them that now offend this way, and especially that account God's ordinances to be giddiness, let them (I say) repent and come to themselves, lest the Lord strike them with a far worse spirit of giddiness then yet they have, which will not be cast out by any means, no, not by prayer and fasting.  
G. Powel  b Here again the Supplicants confess that we profess Christ and his word. Why do they exclaim then? 
If you so call it, we do exclaim as we do, 
Reply  that we may profess Christ and his word more sincerely, without any traditions of men in God's worship. The Churches of Ephesus, Pergamus and Thyatira, professed Christ and his word and had many excellent things in them; yet our Saviour himself exclaimeth, and calleth them to reformation of the few things amiss with them. So did Paul to the Churches of Corinth and Galatia.  
G. Powel  c Fear and weakness forsooth, because they will not partake with Schismatics. 
Let scoffers and mockers take heed, 
Reply. Psal. 2.4 prov: 1: 26  that he that dwelleth in the heaven laugh not: yea that the Lord have them not in derision: yea lest he laugh at their destruction, and mock when their fear cometh etc.   

Further answer to the 14. Argument.  
G. Powel  The argument followeth not: for refractory Ministers are neither Christ, nor his word, as hath been declared before. 
It hath indeed been said before: but by whom, when, 
Reply.  or where hath it been declared and proved? Which of us hath ever said that we are Christ or his word? As the Church is called Christ. 1. Cor. 12.12. so both the Ministers & all true believers are the Ministers of Christ. Lastly, they that strive against human Ceremonies in God's worship, and for the ordinances only of Christ jesus, do strive also for Christ and his word.    

THE 15. ARGUMENT.  
As the Parliament hath had a godly care of severity, for the better converting of the Papists, so likewise there ought to be the like godly care for their good instruction by such able Ministers, as against whom they may have no just exception. Ergo.  
In this respect the Parliament ought to do the more; for the liberty of the Ministers suspended etc.  
I defferr the reply to all the marginal notes, to the further answer following.  
G. Powel  As if there were not able Ministers enough, in both Universities & in other parts of the kingdom (if competent maintenance might be procured for them) for every Congregation, without the small hand full of schismatical Ministers. 

Reply  Part of this hath been answered before: yet to help the answerers' memory (if it be weak) I tell him again, that if we had ten-times as many more, as there are, either in the universities, or else where, there would be use of them all. The Lord's harvest is great: the day is far spent: the labourers that are, are some so weak, some such loiterers, and some so unskilful, that they make no clean work, but leave as much behind them, as they gather and carry before them.  
Besides is it a small matter, for the Minister to be acquainted with the people, and the people with the Minister? As likewise for the Minister to affect the people, and the people the Minister? Again, are all fit to teach & to govern the people, that are learned and good scholars in the University? It hath been justly blamed by learned writers of our side, that some Papists have blasphemously called the scriptures a nose of wax, & a shipman's hose. But now would God, it were not so made in open pulpit, by some great scholars, that are accounted great divines. Yea, it is lamentable, that in some great places (if not in the greatest) men preach of the scriptures; and yet never interpret the scripture whereof they preach: yea that indeed so hammer the scripture, as though it were a piece of metal, the which they might work or cast: into what form themselves best liked: who also make the pulpit a place rather to sheew their own wit, whereby to win credit and praise to themselves, (perhaps also to get a Bishopprike in the end) then faithfully to deliver the message of God, whereby to glorify God, and either to win souls unto him, or to confirm and further in godliness, those that are already won. Lastly, who rather play with the scripture as if it were some guegawe, then wisely handle the same.  
As for competent maintenance, I remember what one (that hath now turned his coat, and every where almost chafeth at us like a Cook, I remember (I say) what he once answered a Bishop being asked, where he would have sufficient maintenance for preachers in every Congregation: A good thong (quoth he) might be cut out of your hide. As also what john Baptist said unto the people, 
Luc: 3: 11  He that hath two coats, let him part with him that hath none. So say I, that for the better maintenance of the gospel where there were need; there might be many a good share had out of the surperfluity of those, that maintain their wives in satin and damask gowns, velvet kirtles, chains etc: that bring up their children like the children of Noble men, that fat themselves and theirs, and starve the Lords people: and who after their great abundance Preach not so much in 4 years, as they did before, in one.  
G. Powel  Suppose there were not able Ministers enough for this purpose: Have not the refractory Ministers, than greater reason to join with their brethren in preaching the gospel, confuting the Papists etc: then superstitiously to quarrel about cross and surplice, and to forsake their necessary vocation? 
Nay. 
Reply,  Have not the Prelates the more reason to suffer us still in the work of the Ministry with them? We are all willing, so far to join with any in preaching the Gospel, as we may do nothing against the Gospel, to craze the peace of our own conscience. The answerer often charging us with superstition, convinceth them that say that we do not that which we do of conscience. For if we be superstitious in not yielding to cross, surplice, etc: then are they to us mere matters of conscience. For superstition is not in words, but hath her seat in the conscience.   

THE 16. ARGUMENT.  

Ephes: 2: 14 15:  As Christ jesus to make peace betwixt jews and Gentiles, took away the Ceremonies ordained by God himself, because they had been a partition wall betwixt the said jews & Gentiles: and instituted no other in their places: so the Ceremonies & other things now in question, having been the means of much debate amongst us, whereby the building of the Church hath been greatly hindered, and the enemies thereof strenghtned; they ought in this respect to be removed. Ergo.  
The Ministers now molested for the said things inquestion, aught to be spoken for and relieved, and that by the Parliament, because none may do it better.  

The Marginal Notes.  
G. Powel  a Hence appeareth what things they be, that the refractaryes are offended with, why then do they pretend, the gospel of Christ, reconciliation with God etc: Ad populum phaleras: 

Reply.  These things being repugnant to the purity and sincerity of ihe gospel, under which God will not be worshipped in any such Ceremonial sort, 
john: 4: 23:  but in spirit and truth; Being also such, as for which the Ministry of the gospel is restrained (upon the liberty whereof dependeth the salvation of the people and their reconciliation with God) There is no cause, why such scoffing and frumping outcries should be made against us, as here & else where are made. Yea, though the ministry of the gospel, were not for these things restrained, yet being urged in the worship of God, they are unlawful: and men standing against them, and in all humility desiring them to be removed by lawful authority, may well be said to stand in God's cause, and to plead for God.  
G. Powel  c O, Martin was an modest man. 
Thanks be to God, 
Reply  that you have no other than Martin to upbraid us with: who was unknown what he was, and whose writing was never approved by us: and who also though he jested at some manners of your side, yet never wrote so bitterly as many of you now do.  
G. Powel  d They will offend, and yet will not be told of it. 
You have not proved us to offend, 
Reply.  in those things wherein you impute most offence unto us. If we do offend, we are more than told of it: yea our punishment is greater than our offence, because it is greater both than the law appointeth, and also then the punishment of other whose offences are greater.  
G. Powel  e Heat of contention may carry men further than were expedient. But are the refractaryes milder in this kind? Witness all their Pamphlets and libels written against us. 
The first part of this note is plentifully justified, not only by the book Scotish Genevating, 
Reply.  by the most scurrilous book of The picture of a Puritan, and by the answerers own book De Adiaphoris, but also by this present answer, enjoined and allowed by authority: wherein (for aught I know) there are more railing, scoffing, and untrue speeches, then are in all the books here unjustly termed pamphlets and libels. If any notwithstanding of us do offend in this kind, they are not justified by the rest: yet this is not to be forgotten, that they that be the losers, and go away with the blows, may be the better borne withal, in their words.  
G. Powel  f A disgraceful term. But do they acknowledge themselves non conformitans and schismatical? 

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

Reply.  It needeth no answer. All men know and daily hear, how they gall us in every sermon, and how little we deal with them.  
G. Powel  h A malicious lie. There are few or none in the Church of England, so ignorant and so scandalous in the Ministry, as here the suppliants insinuat: and if any such be amongst us, sure I am that (upon complaint and intimation otherwise) they are severely censured and punished for it. Yet I must give them to understand, that scandalous Ministers for life, are more tolerable in the Church, than such as be factious, Schismatical, or scandalous for doctrine, and fanatical conceits. Plus enim nocent doctrinae scandala, quam morum delictae. 

Reply.  Neither malicious, nor lie. All men, good & bade do too well know, too many both ignorant and scandalous to be in the Ministry. If it might please his most excellent Majesty, or his most Honourable Council, to send out Commissions into all Countries, and to appoint indifferent Commissioners (neither Bishops nor any other Prelatical persons, because such are parties, but religious Noble men and gentlemen) to inquire of this matter, the truth would much better appear to the everlasting reproach, of all those that do so justify the present state of the Ministry. For the rest of the former note, who knoweth not, that one lewd person (how base and abject soever) may, and daily doth procure & work more trouble to a good Minister, and doth more easily prevail to his ejection, than twenty good men (though of never so good credit) yea, then sometimes the whole Parish besides (though never so great) can do for the good and peace, of the best Minister? That also for a man, not to were a surplice, or make a cross in the air (or I cannot tell where or how) etc: should be less tolerable, than many great sins expressly forbidden by God himself, is very strange, yea lamentable, yea fearful to think: much more to speak and write: most of all to print, for all the world, yea for all posterity to behold. Especially, that a learned man, a divine and Minister of the word should so think, speak, writ, and publish. If this be not to prefer the authority of mortal and frail man, before the authority of the immortal and most mighty God, 
Mar. 7: 13:  yea to make the word of God of no authority by traditions which men have ordained, I know not what is. As for false doctrine, or fanatical conceits, which of you all, can justly charge us with them, as many conformitans may be with diverse points of Popery, with toys in the pulpit (more fit for a stage, then for Moses chair) with foolish allegories, and with such pleading for Ceremonies, as that the people are not only not edified, but also corrupted and infected: yea & the minds of those that are judicious, and have any taste of goodness, exceedingly wounded? The like commission, that before I spoke of, would sheew the truth of these things also.  
G. Powel  i An impudent and loud lie. 
What an exclamation and accusation is this, upon the Printers fault, in setting Conformitans for unconformitans? If malice had not overswayed reason, he might easily have seen it to be so, by the scope of the author. I have also seen (and so many other) diverse copies corrected herein, with the authors own hand.  
The notes with (k) l) and m) are often answered. The Greek word of the next note, the Printer for want of Greek letters, was fain to omit. For which reason also all the fallacies in the end of every answer, are left out: the rest of the note followeth.  
G. Powel  n The time of the old Testament being expired, Christ abolished the Ceremonial law, and ordained the New Testament: what will they conclude from hence? 

Reply  That no Ceremonies being instituted by God himself since the death of Christ whereby the former were abrogated, God is therefore now to be worshipped in spirit & truth; and that no man or Church whatsoever hath power to ordain Ceremonies for the worship of God.  
G. Powel  o What? Not any? No Sacraments? No other Ceremonies? 

Reply  Not any. No Sacraments. No other Ceremonies. For the Sacraments that now are, were ordained before Christ's sufferings, and before the abrogation of the Ceremonial law upon his Cross. These words go teach all Nations, 
Colos: 2: 14: math. 28: 19 Rom. 3.2: Psal. 1 47.19: 26  baptissing them etc. do but ratify and confirm that which was before instituted: as also make for the commucating of the word and Sacraments to the Gentiles, which before had been peculiar to the jews. All other things now in the Church for the government thereof, differing from those that were under the law, were ordained by Christ (or at least he had given commandment for them to the Apostles) before his passion, and therefore before the abrogation of the Ceremonies. For Christ commanded his Apostles to teach only such things, as he had commanded them: 
Mat: 28: 20: Ioh: 14: 26.  and the Holy Ghost was only to teach them allthings, and to bring allthings to their remembrance, which he (Christ himself) had told them.  
The (p) hath been answered in the marginal note with h) of the 5 Argument.  
G. Powel  q False. They are the bonds of society, besides other uses for edification. 
Then, where there is no Cross and surplice, 
Reply.  there is no society; or at the least but lose and weak society. But perhaps he means no Lordly Episcopal society, because no Ceremony, no Bishop. He may also mean society betwixt a Minister and his benefice. So some have found it true. Touching the other uses for edification, we desire to see them.  
G. Powel  r If the supplicants request were granted in the Ceremonies, yet would the refractory Ministers be restless still, until they had altogether brought in their New Discipline: and (peradventure) more restless then, then ever they were before: 
As the news of Christ birth at the first troubled all jerusalem, 
Reply.  so it troubleth all Papal Prelates to think of Christ's coming, in the Discipline that he hath ordained. These words, their Discipline and new Discipline, are but marginal Mathematical fictions. None of us desire any thing of our own, but only the ordinances of Christ jesus: which cannot be otherwise called new, than his commandment for loving one another, 
john 13.34  is called a new commandment.  
This Discipline we have never attempted to bring in, by any unduetifull means, but by all humble supplication to the supreme authority, to which we acknowledge the establishment thereof to belong. Therefore, that we will be more restless either before or after the obtaining thereof then becometh us, is but his own imagination, from the experience (perhaps) of the restlessness of some Prelates, till they be Bishops, and afterward till they come to be Archbishops. Yea then also, till they get some further honour, yea till they have suppressed all those, that they think do any ways dislike of such places. If it might please his Majesty and the other States of this Kingdom, but to permit it in some places where it might be most conveniently, it should much more clearly appear, both how we would content ourselves with all humble thanks to his Majesty and to the other States in that behalf: and also how much better this would agree with all Civil Magistracy, than their present hierarchical and Ecclesiastical government doth: yea how far more beneficial it would be to the Common wealth: and finally how untrue many other imputations are, whereby it is commonly disgraced. If any should abuse the same, or himself in the execution thereof, we never denied, but that such offenders should be subject to the censure of his Majesty, or of any his inferior officers.  
G. Powel  s Sound and solid peace, will never be wrought, but by recalling the refractory Ministers from Schism and faction unto perfect obedience. 

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

Further answer to the 16. Argument.  
G. Powel  1 If the question be but subscription, cross etc: wherefore then, have they mainly cried out that it was the cause of God etc: 
All this is often answered. 
Reply  The least transgression of God's word, and the least obedience to God's word, is the cause of God, as well as the greatest. I wonder the answerer was not ashamed, so often to repeat the same things.  
G. Powel  2 We hold not Subscription Ceremonies, etc. absolutely necessary to salvation, nor to be imposed upon every Church (for why should not other Churches use their liberty?) Yea our Church hath power to alter these particulars, yet we know some ordinances necessary for gathering assemblies, establishing of a Church, and be as it were bonds and links of society. 
How doth the first point of this answer agree with that that some of the great Prelates hold, 
Reply  that their authority is Apostolical, and the Ceremonies matters of order and decency? Are not things Apostolical and decent, common to all Churches? Or may our Church, altar that that is Apostolical? Or why should these ceremonies, be more necessary for our Church, then for other Churches? Or not decent for other Churches, and yet decent for ours? If also Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, be in vested into the crown, except the King and with him the officers of the crown, be only the Church; our Church hath no power to alter them, having no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction resident in itself. The latter part of this answer is needles, our assemblies being already gathered. What a foolish & gross absurdity also is it, to insinuate that an invisible cross, or a smockish surplice, should be of any effecacy for gathering of assemblies?  
G. Powel  3 Yea these particulars, Subscription, Ceremonies etc, being jmposed by the Church and commanded by the Magistrate, are necessary to be observed under pain of sin, seeing he that resisteth authority, resisteth the ordinance of God. 

Reply  What if they be commanded only by the Christian Magistrate, not jmposed by the Church? Or jmposed by the Church only, the Magistrate being an infidel, or a persecuter of the Church? Can pain of sin also be without pain of damnation? Are not those things that are to be obyed, 
contradiction  under pain of damnation, necessary to salvation? Hence also it followeth, that things once commanded by the Church or Magistrate (especially by both) are as holy, as the jmmediate commandments of God. The particular inconveniences and absurdities hereof are infinite. What also is here said, that was not wont to be said by the Papists against the Martyrs?  
G. Powel  4 That they are things indifferent etc. and may be used without sin we have proved in a book De Adiaphoris. 

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

THE 17. ARGUMENT.  
God hath lately visited us with a fearful pestilence, which yet is not ceased: and the end of all his chastisements is, 
Psal. 94: 12: Heb. 12: 19 Revel: 3: 19 Levi: 26: 18 john 5: 14: Psal: 193: Psa: 116: 12  to make us all the better by them. Yea to make us more Zealous: which if we do not, he threateneth worse things unto us. God hath also lately mightily delivered us, from the greatest danger, that ever any people were in: to this end also that we might praise him the more: and that all Estates may more seriously consult and deliberate, what to give unto the Lord for all his benefits. 
2 Chron: 32 25:  And this is the more to be considered, because the Lord took the unthankfulness of Hezekia in a small matter for his health, very unkindly. This our former deliverance also was the greater, because it was wrought without the means of our prayers. Ergo  
The High Court of Parliament, aught to be the more Zealous for the gospel etc: the rather now, because they know not (at least many of them) whither ever they shall have the like opportunity again or no. Yea that so also, their thankfulness may be as public and renowned, as our deliverance: Yea, their zeal must be the more against all Popery (in respect of our danger by the Papist) for the rooting out of every stump thereof, that their souls may have the more comfort, especially in death: and that their memory may be the more honourable, with all posterity.  
This is the general substance of the 17. Argument, though amplified by many particular places, examples of scripture. Now let us see what is said against the same, in the notes, and in the Further answer.  

Marginal notes.  
G. Powel  a The mistake the ends, as those Gentiles did, who affirmed they were plagued, because of the Christians contempt of their Gods. 

Reply.  Nay, you have forgotten your Logic, in mistaking the end for the efficient cause. The Gentiles did not affirm themselves plagued, to the end the Christians might contemn their Gods, but because they thought they had contemned their Gods. This error is in all the answer following. For the author took not upon him, to particularise the sins for which God had visited the land, but only to show what the Lord looked for from us, both by his works of justice, and also by his works of mercy and goodness amongst us. Therefore the notary and answerer in all that followeth, sitteth beside the cushion. Again, what doth this note else import, but a soothing up of themselves and of all other in their sins, that they may not enter into particular examination and judging of themselves? When as every man, and every state should particularly censure and judge himself and his sins, to have had a stroke in provoking the wrath of God so against us. And therefore happy had it been for the Prelates, if they had smitten themselves upon the breasts, for their hard dealing with the Church, in restraining the Lords servants, that would have given every one in the Lord's household, his portion in due season. So happy also were it, if every other state and person, would do the like touching their particular sins.  
The second note with (b) is nothing: because the schism is not yet proved against us. Though we deny not, but that for our sins, the Lord hath visited this land as well as for the sins of other, yet not for any schism of ours. The like I say for the like cause, of the note with (c) And though it behoveth the Parliament, especially, to consider of the works of God, (as representing the body of the land,) yet I wish all other likewise to consider of the same.  
G. Powel  a I will not descant of the Suppliants meaning, in alleging this example. The wise may consider it. 
So the wise may consider, how foolish malice is, 
Reply  for want of matter from words, to wrangle with a man's meaning, The example is good and holy. The be will gather honey, out of a stinking weed: but the Spider sucketh deadly poison, out of the fairest and sweetest flower. The flatterer careth not what he say against one, so that he may please another.  
G. Powel  e To wit by settling the state thereof, against heretical Papists, and schismatical refractarves. 
I grant this; 
Reply  it being understood of such schismatical refractaryes, as in part rend themselves, both from the Apostolical doctrine, and also from the ancient Apostolical Churches, as likewise from all other Churches thoroughly in doctrine reform: and so stand in medio, betwixt such Churches, and the Romish Synagogues. Who also being admonished thereof, in dutiful manner by their brethren; yea by some special works of God's loving severity, do persist in their said schism, in a most refractory manner.  
G. Powel  f As if no good could come unto the Church, but the restitution of schismatical Ministers, which is indeed no good. 

Reply.  Let the reader be pleased to see, whereupon this note is gathered, and he shall see, that there is no ground thereof. The author only asketh a question upon former promises, whether such and such things considered, the Parliament would dissolve their meeting without doing any further matter in that behalf (that is for the Ministers pleaded for) than they had done. He doth not say, without doing any good, but any further matter, insinuating thereby, that they had done something already: again he speaketh not of all causes, but only saith, in that behalf. But this is the answerers' sophistry, 
Sophistry.  often detected. Howsoever he say no good hath been done by Ministers whom he calleth refractory, yet thousands that fear God can testify, that the Church hath received more good by such Ministers, than ever it hath or will by any Papal Prelates, careless non-resident, trencher chaplains and idle bellies, that seek their own, and not the things that are jesus Christ's, and who are noted, in all public meetings for reformation of abuses, more to hinder then to further all good motions against the Papists, against swearing, & for the religious observation of the Saboths etc, then common Christians, at the least than those, that they do contemptuously call lay persons.  
G. Powel  g What godliness is there, in wilful and malicious confronting the Magistrate, in repining at their brethren, and superstitous for sakinge their callings, flocks and all to the undoing of themselves, their wives children, and friends? 

Reply.  None at all. But who do more comfront the Magistrate in all kingdoms, then Papal Prelates, that hold their own jurisdiction to be iure divino by God's law, and that therefore deny all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be absolutely invested into the crown of those kingdoms where they live, that take upon them to deal without law, besides law, and directly contrary to law, and that many ways oppress the Magistrates subjects at their pleasure? As for us, I have said before, I say again, and it is published to all the world in the book entitled, A protestation of the King's Supremacy, that we are so far from confronting the Magistrate, that we attribute much more unto him, than all the Prelates do. Touching repining at brethren, I know none guilty hereof, except wishing that Christ jesus may have his own, the Church her own, the Magistrate his own, the Ministers of Christ, and the subjects of the Magistrate their own, yea every Bird to have her own feathers, I know none (I say) to repine, except wishing of these things, and that every mortal man would content himself with his own, be to repine. The rest of this note hath been answered.  
G. Powel  h A calumnious censure. 
What? 
Reply  To say that unworthy persons are thrust out into some of their places that are deprived? A man need not to ascend into an high mountain, or to ride many miles out of London for proof thereof.  
The next note with (b) after (h) and before (a, (as though the Notary had forgotten his alphabet) is often answered. The next note also with (a (after b) is not worthy of answer.  
G. Powel  l We must wisely distinguish between such things as are proper to the Papicy, and what they have by usurpation, but are proper to the true Church of God. 
Are Copes, Surplices and Cross etc: 
Reply.  proper to the true Church of God? If they be not, why is this noted upon the author's petition in this Argument, for removing of Popish ornaments? If they be, then either it is no Church, or an imperfect Church, that wanteth them.  
G. Powel  m Proper thereunto. 
Are no appurtinances of Romish religion to be hated, 
Reply.  but such as proper thereunto? This is wonderful. For what appurtinances are there of Romish religion, which agree not either with judaisme, or Paganism? We are therefore to abhor whatsoever appurtinance of Romish religion, whereof there is no necessary use in the service of God, and which were better abolished, then retained. Thus much to the marginal notes, of this 17 Argument. In the rest of the answer he dealeth deceitfully, racking diverse particular examples, applied by the author, only for amplyficaton and illustration of this general Argument, or of some particular branch thereof, racking (I say) such particular examples, and applying them to the main conclusion and petition, as intended by the author for a several Argument to confirm the same. Whereas in like manner, he might have done the like with diverse other particulars in this general Argument comprehended. But let us see what he saith.   

Further answer to the 17. Argument.  
G. Powel  In this Argument the Suppliants do certainly very worthily & christianly discourse, as of sundry other things, so especially concerning the Lords great mercies etc. 
In these words, let the contrariety of the answerer, to almost in his whole answer written, 
Reply.  be observed. For he being a scholar, his words must be schollerly interpreted. Because therefore we are not to doubt, but that the answerer remembreth, as well what he hath learned in the Ethics, as in the Elenches of Aristotle, may it please the reader to understand, or (rather) to remember, that Aristotle in his said Ethnics, maketh great difference, betwixt bonum & bene, good and well: justum and just, that which is just, and justly. For he teacheth, that good & just things may be done, by evil and ujust men, which have not the habit either generally of goodness, or particularly of justice: but he saith, that only good and just men, which have the habit of goodness and justice, 
Marc: 6: 20:  can do things well and justly. And this distinction is agreeable to holy writ. For Herod is said to have done many things; viz. that were in themselves good: the like may be said of Saul and diverse other. But certain it is, that evil men can do any good or just thing, well and justly. This cometh only from the spirit of regeneration, and from a true faith wrought thereby, without which it is impossible to please God. For as much therefore, 
Heb: 11: 6.  as this answerer doth here testify generally of the Supplicants, that they do discourse in this Argument not only of many worthy and Christian points, but also worthily, and Christianly, yea very worthily and Christianly: 
contrarity  yea also for as much as he setteth this down for a certeynty, saying certainly, how doth this, or can this agree, with all the reproach full terms before given by him unto them, of schismatics Refractaryes, wilful contenders with the Magistrate, presumptuous censurers, wilful and malicious confronters of the Magistrate, boasters, liars, impudent, blind and ignorant persons, false Prophets, fowers of sedition, disturbers of the Church etc? For can it be said of such men, and that for a certeynty, that they discourse very worthily and Christianly of sundry things? Let it not be said, that to discourse, is but a matter of words. For their is the same reason of words and works. No man can say well and rightly that jesus is the Lord, 
1 Cor: 12: 3.  but by the Holy Ghost. Though an evil man therefore may speak many good and Christian things, yet only good men, speak good and Christian things, well and christianly.  
G. Powel  Doth God plague us, because of the proceedings against the refractory Ministers? And not rather for our horrible sins of security, pride, unthankfulness etc: This is certain: and the rest unproved: 
I have told you, 
Reply  of your mistaking your Logic before. The author disputeth not particularly of the sins that moved the Lord to visit us etc: but of the general end wherefore he did both correct us, but also magnify his mercy towards us. The which he applied to the particular point of favour for the Ministers molested. Notwithstanding, to answer your question, though it cannot be denied, that for other sins the Lord hath so heavily scourged us, yet why should the suppressing of the Ministry of the gospel be concluded? Was, not to receive and hear the Disciples of our Saviour, which were sent out by two & two but for a time to prepare men for the gospel, so great a sin, that our Saviour pronounceth, that it should be easier for Sodom and Gonorrha in the day of judgement then for such a City, 
Mat. 10: 14. 15:  as should not so receive and hear his Disciples, and shall the silencing, and depriving of so many Ministers settled in particular Congregations, and all ready blessed in their labours, be accounted no sin? Yea not only the silencing of them etc: but also, providing that they shall have no other means whereby to maintain themselves, their wives and children? God open your eyes to see, and move your hearts so to consider hereof, that ye may not flatter yourselves, but see your sin herein. Yea, because yourself speak of unthankfulness, as one special sin provoking God's indignation, what greater unthankfullnes can there be, than so to entreat his servants, whom he hath so graced and blessed? judge yourselves ye Reverend Fathers (that are principal actors in this matter) that ye may not be judged of the Lord. 
1 Cor: 11.31  Take heed (I humbly beseech you, in the fear of God) take heed (I say) in time, lest fire break forth from the Lord, and there be none to quench the same. In the destruction of jerusalem by Nebuchadnetzer, 
2 Chron: 36 16:  and the carrying of the people away captive to Babel: and in the last desolation of the same City by the Romans, the like misusing of the Lords Prophets is set down as one principal cause thereof. 
Mat: 21.35: 23: 37:  And who I beseech you, in such misusage of the Lords messengers, had always a principal hand? Had not the Priests of the Lord, that should have done the contrary? Search the scriptures, and see if they bore not witness in this behalf. If God once set things in order before you, 
Psal: 50.12:  shall it be sufficient to plead, that the Ministers of his word, against whom ye have so proceeded, were Schismatics, refractaryes etc. Alas, alas this willbe but a weak plea. Ye have herd before, that the Prophets were so termed.  
Lastly, concerning the particular sins by you mentioned and other the like, from whence do they more proceed, then from the restraint of the word, by the Preaching whereof, they would be either repressed or restrained? If the liberty and free passage of the gospel, work an holy fear, humility, and dutiful thankfulness, yea, if the preaching of the word, do restrain the most wicked and reprobate themselves, that they bite in their lips, hold their hands, and refrain from many sins, which otherwise they would commit, (as it cannot be denied) do not security, pride, unthankfulness, & all other sins come from the restraint of the word?  
The answer to the Second supposed Argument, in this 17 contained, hath in part been answered before, because it hath been proved, that we are no Schismatical Ministers. Touching the rest of the said answer, we deny not but that there are other means whereby that Honourable Court, may testify their thankfulness, yet this hindereth not, but that this may also be one: yea if it be granted that there are other, then by virtue of relation, this also must be granted to be one. Yea, if mercy to the soul, be more than mercy to the body (as the soul is better than the body: and the misery of the soul greater than of the body; and cruelty to the soul worse than to the body) than it followeth that this is a special & principal means, whereby to testify their thankfulness.  
His answer to the third supposed argument in the 17 Argument hath also been answered. The same I say of his answer to the 5 supposed argument. Only therein the answerers' censure of the Parliament if they should restore us, is to be observed, viz. that they shall not only attract guilt and remorse of Conscience, but also prejudice their Honourable age, and make their names reproachful to all posterity. This toucheth not only the Lords of the upper house, and body of the Commons in the Netherhouse, but also his most excellent Majesty, without whose Princely authority nothing can be done by the other. Let all Prelates that plead more stoutly for superstitious Romish rags, than they do duly regard Gods holy ordinances, let such Prelates rather take heed, that such things as are here threatened to the Parliament by the answerer, do not be fall unto them.  
Whereas the answerer, in his answer to the ●4 supposed Argument betwixt the third and the first, reckoneth us up (in the bitterness of his spirit) with all Schismatics, Heretics, Papists, Athists, murderers, thieves, cutpurses, etc: therein he showeth his brotherly love and kindness towards us, 
Esa: 53: 12 Mar: 15: 27.  and how well he spareth us. But sith Christ jesus was counted among the wicked; yea crucified betwixt two thieves. yea, and had also a murderer preferred before him; why should we his servants, wretched men, and great sinners be grieved or ashamed, thus to be reckoned with such vile persons? 
2 Tim 2.12 john 17.24  Yea rather we may the more comfort ourselves, because if we suffer with him, we are the better assured that we shall reign with him, who hath prayed the Father, that we may be with him, even where he is, to behold his glory.  
G. Powel  For Siserae was a special enemy of the children of Israel, 
judges 4.2:  The instance of jaeel is altogether different, and Church of God, but the ornaments the Supplicants speak of, are the good creatures of God, having no hurt at all in them. 
Was not Sisera also the creature of God, 
Reply.  and in that respect may it not be said, that he had no evil in him? And is not the Pope also an enemy to the people and Church of God, as well as Sysera was? Yea is he not much more, in as much as he is enemy to their spiritual state, and everlasting salvation? Moreover, touching the ornaments of Popery mentioned in the Argument, do we speak of them as they were the creatures of God, or as they were and are still by many Papists abused to Idolatry? What doth the answerer say for them, that might not have been said for the covering of the images of silver, 
Isa. 30: 22  which the jews (that should truly repent of Idolatry) were to pollute, that is to account as things polluted; and for the rich ornaments of the images of gold, which also they were to cast away as a menstruous cloth, 
Sophistry.  and (with great disdain) to say unto it, get thee hence. What fallacy this is, the answerer knoweth.  
G. Powel  Neither were the Popish Priests, ever decked with our ornaments, neither are they now. Neither, were our ornaments ever worshipped, or abused to Idolatry, either are they yet. Neither, if they had been, is it absolutely necessary to destroy the substance of them etc, but only to take away the abuse, and to restore the right use. The reasons are sheewed chap 11 De adiap horis. 
Are you sure, their is never a Surplice now in England, 
Reply  that was abused to Idolatry publicly in Queen mary's time, or secretly sithence that time? If it be true of surplices, are you sure it is true of all Copes? Nay rather, I scarce think, that there is not any Cope now, that was not in the time of Popery. Besides, have you forgotten the distinction of idem specie, and idem numero? Ahas sent not the same Altar to jerusalem, that was at Damascus, 
2 Kings 16: 10:  but only commanded the like thereof to be made. By this reason also we may erect new images in Churches, (as some all ready are in some places) and say that these images were never worshipped or abused. 
Exeter  Here therefore behold again your sophistry. 
Sophistry.  Touching the substance of things abused to Idolatry, we urge not the destroying thereof, neither do we deny the restoring of them to any good civil, or natural use from which they were first taken and employed to Idolatry. But we deny that we ought to have any such honourable use, as to have any place in the service of God, 
Deut 12.31  who expressly forbiddeth to be so worshipped. I understand this of such things as God hath not commanded, or whereof there is no necessary use. Such are the ornaments in question. The objections against this are plentifully answered in other books. The 11. chapter of your book whereunto you refer us, is not worth the reading of a learned man. It containeth objections of your own making not of ours. Which of us, was ever so mad, as to say, que ad Dei gloriam fiunt, iis colitur Deus. For are not the duties of the second table performed for the glory of God? Is God worshipped by them? This is to confound both the tables. Who ever also said, Quicquid fit ex fide et Deo placet, whatsoever is done of faith, and pleaseth God, is the worship of God? So our eating, drinking, and whatsoever else we do, shall be the worship of God. I wonder you blushed not to impute such things unto us, and to cast your own shame upon us.  
The third objection indeed in that chapter, touching the proposition, is in part (yet not wholly) ours. But your answer thereunto maketh more for us then against us, as a child that hath well learned the principles of religion might easily show. But I for bear answer of them, and leave them to other to show your childish weakness there in, and in that whole book. By the sight whereof I pray God you may see, what it is to write against the truth. In other things you have written well, and we thank God for your pains: but in these causes your arguments are like faggots of thorns full of pricks without substance, bound with bonds of straw, which by the fire of God's truth, are quickly burnt up, though for a time they fill a great room, and seem to make a great blaze: yea they are like to ignis fatuus, which terrifieth simple men, as if it were a spirit, but is in truth, but a little fire of certain slimy exhalations: at the most they are but like a Comet or blazing star, which though it seem to ignorant men, to be above in the starry heavens, with the fixed stars, yet for all that is but in the highest region of the air, and at the last is dissolved into winds.  
Thus much for reply to the 17. Argument: yea to all. For to the conclusion of all (which the Notary & answerer unaptly call a distinct Argument) their is nothing answered requiring any further reply, then hath been already made. This therefore shall suffice, for defence of the former Arguments. In the answer whereof, though (perhaps) there be the more scoffs, reproaches, cavils, bitter speeches, and uncharitable collections, to have provoked us unto the like, that thereby some further advantage might have been ministered unto them, against our cause and against ourselves: yet as the author of the arguments, used not any such word to provoke them, so I thought good to walk in the like steps of modesty, that the defence of the Arguments might be the more suitable to the Arguments themselves: that the author of them might have no cause justly to blame me, for disgracing his work and the cause itself by a contrary course: and that the minds of the Prelates may rather be mollified towards us. then any thing more exasperated against us. If it fall out otherwise, and that our mildness do still increase their rigour, God (I hope) shall give us patience, to endure whatsoever he shall suffer them to do unto us: together also with such comfort, as all the world shall not be able to take away from us. For we are so thoroughly persuaded, from the evidence of God's truth, revealed in his word: and sealed up in our hearts by his spirit, the cause wherein we stand, to be the cause of Christ jesus, that we say with Paul, 
Acts 21.13:  we are ready, not to be bound only, (neither only to lose our live) but also (herein) to die for the name of the Lord jesus. I speak not this seditiously (and therefore let no man so wrest my words) but I speak, with that mind, and in that manner, that Paul spoke the former words, to signify our readiness, for suffering any thing, which the Prelates shall do unto us: not for doing any thing to resist them. Some of them harp much upon this string, (as appeareth by wresting of our words in most malicious manner in the former answer against us) yea, they seem also to think long, for some law or other of this land to be wrested against us, to make some of us examples unto other, by shedding of our blood; but if they should so far prevail (which I hope they shall never do, in the days of gracious and merciful King james, nor in the days of any of his most Royal blood) let them remember the words of jeremy in the like case, 
jeremy 26: 14: 15  to the Priests and Prophets that sought his blood, As for me, be hold I am in your hands, do with me as you think good and right. But know you for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this City, and upon the inhabitants thereof: etc. For of a truth the Lord hath sent me to speak all these words unto you. Yea, let them not only remember those words, but so also take admonition by them, that in the presence of God, they be not guilty of high treason against our most Christian Sovereign, against his Royal issue, and against the whole land, by provoking the Lord, to inflict such judgements upon all, as the words before mentioned do insinuat. We are in their hands, 
2 Chron: 24 22:  ready without any resistance meekly to suffer any thing: but he that judgeth righteous judgement, though he sit in the heavens, will look upon it, and one day (as Zechariah in the like case said) will require it: as indeed then he did.  
Not withstanding, I am so far from Prophesying or wishing any judgement to the whole land, (though I cannot but fear it) that I do, and will earnestly pray, 
joel 2.17 Gen, 18, 26  spare (this) thy people o Lord, and give not (this part of) thine heritage into reproach etc. Yea, I do the more hope of mercy in sparing us yet a while longer, because of the great multitude of the righteous in the land: and because particularly of many that have been and yet are (under Christ) dressers of this the Lords vineyard, that day and night (whiles many Prelates eat and drink, and take their ease and pleasure) do pray the Lord of this his vineyard, to let it yet alone, 
Luk. 13: 8  and to spare it a while longer. But for all this, whosoever shall procure the blood of the meanest of us to be shed, (under whatsoever pretence) let them know that such blood, shall cry louder in the ears of the Lord of Hosts, for vengeance upon the procurers thereof, then ever we have cried in the ears, either of our most gracious Sovereign (whom God long preserve in person, and in uprightness of heart) or of the High Court of Parliament for justice. If their shall be judgement merciless, to him that showeth no mercy, what shall the portion be of the cruel & blood thirsty? 
james 2: 13: Pro: 21: 13  Verily, though they cry, yet the Lord shall not hear them.  
As also they that put the Martyrs to death, miss of their purpose, so shall all blood thirsty and ambitious Papal Prelates. 
Epist: 243.  Sanguis martirum, semen Ecclesie. The blood of Martyrs is the seed of the Church: and foecundi (saith Calvin) sunt martyrum cineres. The very ashes of Martyrs are fruitful. The truth may be oppressed, but it cannot be suppressed: yea the more it is oppressed, the more it shall bud forth & spring. If one of us in this cause should be put to death (though perhaps under colour of some other offence, by perverting of words, wresting of law or otherwise) yet for that on, the Lord can raise up ten: yea, there is nothing that hath made, or doth make the cause of Papal Prelates more odious, and the reformation desired, more gracious and honourable (even with some that before the consideration of that which I now say, were of another mind) than the unjust, and especially the unmerciful proceed of such Papal Prelates, against the seekers of reformation. 
Philip: 1: 28  Therefore in this case (as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians) we do in nothing fear our adversaries, because as to be our adversaries in such respects, is to them a token of perdition, (if they repent not) so also, to be hated and persecuted by the Prelates, is a like token to us of salvation, and that of God. But being so confident, why do we conceal our names to our writings? Because as Christ jesus, notwithstanding all his heavenly fortitude without any defect, did for all that, oft times hide and with draw himself, from the fury and rage of the Priests, Scribes, and pharisees, till his appointed time was come, so do we by this means, hide ourselves from the violence of some of our Prelates.  
To your conclusion I will answer little, because it hath little, that hath not been answered before. Whereas you say that words are to be numbered to so great states, I answer that words are not only to be numbered, but also for the quality, truth, modesty, sincerity, and equity of them to be weighed and considered; which if you had done, your whole labour had been spared. If you did grieve in your soul, to hear us complain of our poverty, why do you by bitter railing, false accusations, and most unjust & unreasonable wresting of your antagonists words against all other Ministers of his sort, ad affliction to our affliction: do you not know, that by this circumstance, David amplified his complaints and deprecations against his adversaries? Is this to judge wisely of the poor? 
Psal. 69 and 109.16 Psal. 41.1.  Whereas you wish us to be a shamed of our feeding on shells, and husks at other men's trenthers, you mistake your mark. For this belongeth not to us, but to trencher chaplains, that gape after dead men's shoes, or live in miserable hope of the live of their brethren better than themselves, to be unjustly deprived: and that in the mean time wait at their Master's table, till they have said grace, and then sit down (if there be any roone) at the neither end, after all the meat served in. Who also are glad of ij s. uj d. or five shillings for examining some clerk presented, to a benefice, or that (which is worse) do now and then take a bribe, for allowing one to be sufficient for the Ministry, that is scarce fit to be a Minister's clerk, except only to help on with the Surplice: who finally (for the most part) are every tawny coats companion, to play at cards, tables (perhaps also at dice) and at bowls etc: Yea sometimes to drink, quaff, and all most quid non. All your reasons out of Arretius, against popular contributions (as you call them) and for set stipends and tithes I pass over with silence, because the author of the arguments hath commenced no suit against you in this behalf. Therefore I leave you to fight herein, with your own shadow. Touching you M. powel, as job said to Eliphaz, 
job. 16.3  What maketh thee bold so to answer? Or as some other read it, what provoketh you so to answer? So truly I cannot but admire the bitterness, sharpness, and unrighteousness of your pen (according as before I have discovered the sane) against one that hath used so great mildness in all his Arguments. Notwithstanding remembering the fall of Peter, and the means thereof, viz. His being in the high Priests Hall, and not forgetting his gracious repentance afterward, testified by many a salt tear, I do the more pity your present state, by considering that provocation, which from other you have had, so to write; and I do the better also hope of your repentance. For though it be more advisedly to write an whole book, then on the sudden to speak a few words, yet in other respects, I will not compare your fault in thus writing to the fall of Peter, as equal thereunto: and if you had so fallen, yet would I not, neither might I, despair of your risng. Only in unfeigned love towards you, I do seriously exhort you, to take heed hereafter of any such service. Be not to ready, be not to ready, to be commanded such a work by any Prelate whatsoever. You may perhaps have some reward in the end of such pains: (such as men can bestow upon you) but look more to that reward, that is in the right hand of the great master of all rewards. Remember well, what Balaam a sorcerer refused at the hands of King Balak, being sent for by very honourable messengers, to curse Israel: yea, remember what a worthy answer he made, though himself were a most unworthy man. 
Numb. 22.18  If Balack would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more. Yea, remember (I say once again) how constant he was in the said answer. 
chap. 24. 1●  For he repeated it afterward, when Balak was much provoked, because he would not satisfy him in cursing of the Israelits, and threatened as much evil against him, as before he had promised and offered preferment. If such a person made such an answer to a King, and were so constant therein, should the Ministers of the Gospel be so easily commanded by less than Kings, to revile, and (in some sort) to curse, so many worthy Ministers of Christ jesus, which have been valiant captains of his armies against Satan himself, and all his forces? Whatsoever you have in this book written against them, yet I appeal to your own conscience for the contrary: yea you have expressly before professed, that you hope they are the Ministers of Christ jesus, and in grace and favour with him. Look therefore hereunto in time, before you be too much hardened against him.  
Touching the cause also itself, beware, yea, I say again beware, you sin not for any worldly preferment, against your former knowledge. Plead not better judgement now, then before you had. 
Psal. 4.4  Examine your own heart (as it were) upon your bed, whether this plea be insincerity, or only from regard and hope of some prelatical advancement. The more knowledge, the more dangerous it is to fall away. A little disease is oft-times the beginning of great sickness. Small hurts also at the first neglected, grow in the end to grievous and incurable sores. Remember Lot's wife. 
Luc. 17.32 Revel 2. ●.  Finally remember from whence you are already fallen, and repent, and do your first works etc: and let not the precious promises made to them in the word, that endure to the end, be forgotten. Whereof he that hath made them; make both you and me partaker, for his sake in whom they are made: to whom be all praise and glory for evermore, Amen.      

Pag Lin Errata Correct. 4 17 what what? 8 5 intended intended? 9 3 supestion superstition 15 10 hage have 16 4 his this 18 1 put out the,  23 1 that love they love, 31 12 they some. 36 1 properly in matters that belonging, that in matters properly belonging: 35 15 answer order, 38 30 yield yield to 42 20 and us: 34 21 was were 45 22 1 Pet. 2 Pet: 47 17 furthers furtherers 52 vlt.  ad thing, 56 6 foo: foolish  19 have have made 57 30 stamps stumps 58 29 them then, 59 4 put out two  61 7 extraor: extraordinarily 64 31 doth doth he 80 14 vi vis 81 24 and in 87 28 so so to be 91 1 and an 94 9 crow crown 95 18 depravation deprivation  28 depraved deprived 98 9 duce due  29 tenex tenax 106 11 performed prefer,  l, 24 the: for he:  l: 25: there, for his 111 29 many in any 119 18 exressa expressa 121 11 he he that 123 28 appertune opportune 124 18 and and be 126 22 to of 129 17 the that,  21 therefore but 130 28 this the next,  29 should shall 131 3 obedience obedience to men's precepts. 133 26 Ministers members 134 5 deffer differ 136 9 seat seat is 140 3 comformitans, comformitans?  l: 5, so, for so have. 142 25 by and by 147 27 promises premises 149 27 as as are 150 22 Ethnics Ethics  vlt. can cannot 151 29 but and 152 2 concluded excluded  16 herein herein repent 154 16 14 4  17 first fift 156 7 we they  

Marginal Notes.  
pag. 48, lin. 31 & Prov. 6.19. pag 49. l 7, john 9 30.31, pag 125, l 25: Cant 5.7.  
pag. 131, l 16. Luk 10.7 for Luk 18, 7. & l. 25 before over, ad that.  
pag 132: l 17, Luk 9: 2 for Luke 9.26.