AN ARGUMENT upon a general Demurrer joined and entered in an Action of false Imprisonment in the King's Bench Court termino Trinitatis 1631. rot. 1483. parte tertia, between George Huntley Clerk plaintiff, and William Kingsley Archdeacon of Canterbury and others Commissioners Defendants as it was prepared to have been uttered in Court by the said George Huntley, but was not permitted by the Judges of that Court because, as they pretend, the said Action or Plea or Demurrer was discontinued termino Sancti Michaelis. 1632.  
Published by the said George Huntley to show whose duty it is to preach the visitation Sermon, and thereby principally to vindicate the ancient jurisdiction of the Crown over the State Ecclesiastical against the usurpation and presumption of the High Commissioners whereunto he is bound to the utmost of his power by the oath of supremacy, and secondly to clear his own innocency, and to recover his former credit and good name much blemished by their scandalous and opprobrious sentences, whereunto he is tied iure naturali.  
A discovery also and confutation of the foresaid pretended discontinuance, with a true copy of so much of the two parts of the High Commissioners, first final sentence, as is pleaded by the Defendants and as contains the whole matter to justify the said Huntleys nine years three quarters imprisonment at several times, his five hundred pounds fine deprivation degradation and excommunication. Both placed before the Argument, the one to remove the foresaid rub of the pretended discontinuance, and to open a fair and clear passage f●r the Argument, the other to show the state of the controversy and ground of the Argument out of the defendants own words, against which the Law admits no exception.  
Dicere viva voce in curia per judices non permissus.  
Dicere in scriptis ex prelo per juramentum cogor.  
London, Printed for George Huntley, and are to be sold be Michael Sparkes in Green-harbour in the Little Old-baily, 1642.   

The discovery and confutation of the foresaid pretended discontinuance.  
THe true cause of the pretended discontinuance mentioned by Master Noy, Attorney General in his motion Termino Michaelis 1632. was this; That the Plaintiff Huntley, began his Action by original, and drew up the imparliances by Bill, and so had discontinued his Action by original in drawing up the imparliances by bill, and had not begun any action by bill, and so had no Action at all either by bill or original depending in Court against the Defendants: hereupon the Court granted the order following.  

Dies Sabbati prox. post Crastinum Animar. Anno octavo Car. Reg.  
Huntley vers. Kingsley & alios.  
Nisi causa ostensafuerit in contr. die jovis prox. post Crastin. sancti Martini actio Discontinuetur ex motione Attorn. Gralis. per curiam.   
I presently got a copy of the foresaid order but I could not get my Counsel to show cause to the contrary within the time limited in the Order, neither was I permitted within that time to show cause to the contrary myself and thereupon the Defendants Attorney Mr. Barker entered upon the foresaid roll the following discontinuance in these words.  Recordatur percuriam 27. die Novem. Anno Reg. Dmini Regis nunc Angliae 8º quod istud placitum non habet Deum continuationis ●er islud rotulum ultra non post predict. Octab. sancti Michaelis. Ideo ●lacitum illud ad requi sitionem predcti Georgij Huntley disconti●uatur. 
The foresaid discontinuance entered upon the said roll is neither grounded upon the pretended cause of discontinuance mentioned in ●he Attorney, Gralls' motion, nor upon the foresaid Order of the Court, but only on my request, and I was so fare from requesting ●ny such thing, that I offered 40 pound, nay 100 pound to have the foresaid error reform. And the foresaid Order mentions no error, or cause of discontinuance but only supposeth one, and what can it suppose, but only that, which Master Attorney General mentioned in his foresaid motion? and that's only this because I began my said Action by original, and drew up the imparliances by bill in these words, Petunt licentiam jnde ulterius interloquendi ad billam predictam, and this I do six times mention in the plea, for so many Terms the Judges gave the defendants to put in their Plea; and that being only an error in form and not specially and particularly set down and expressed by the parties demurring together with their demurrer (as appears by the said Record roll and the original paper book under both our Counsels hands, which I have to show) cannot discontinue the Action, Plea or Demurrer, nor hinder, the hearing of the cause, nor be the ground of a writ of error nether suspend nor reverse a Judgement, but is to reformed and amended by the Judges even after demurrer joined and entered as appears by the 5. chapter of the 27. of Eliz. which runs thus:  
Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, etc. That from henforth after Demurrer joined and entered in any action or suit in any Court of Record within this Realm the Judges shall proceed and give judgement according as the very right of the cause and matter in Law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfection, defect or want of form in any writ, return, plaint, declaration or other pleading process, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only, which the party demurring shall specially & particularly set down and express together with his Demurrer. And that no judgement to be given shall be reversed by any writ of error, for any such imperfection, defect or want of form, as is aforesaid, except such only as is before expressed.  
And be it further enacted, that after Demurrer joined and entered, the Court where the same shall be, shall and may by virtue of this Act from to time amend all & every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, as is before mentioned, other than those only which the party demurring shall specially and particularly express and set down together with his Demurrer, as is aforesaid.   

A true Copy of so much of the two parts of the High Commissioners, first final sentence as it is pleaded by the Defendants Doctor Kingsley and the rest follows.  
ANd upon opening of the cause, the foresaid George Archbishop of Cant, Richard of Durham john of Rochester, Thomas of Coventrey and Lichfield Theophilus of Landaffe, Robert of Bristol Bishopps, and some other of the Commissioners aforesaid, found the aforesaid George Huntley, especially charged in the Articles with two particulars, first for refusing to Preach a Visitation Sermon at the requisition and command of the Archdeacon of the Diocese contrary to his Canonical obedience; and secondly for setting up an opinion and maintaining it before the rest of the Clergy of the Diocese, that the Archdeacon of the Diocese had no power to require or command him or any other Minister to preach a Sermon at his Visitation, with many other abusive behaviours about that matter, it now appeared, that the said Mr. Huntley in the months and years articulate, especially since the 27 of March 1625. had been by the said Mr. Archdeacon divers times willed or required to Preach a Visitation Sermon, and had time sufficient to provide himself, that Mr. Huntley without all due respect of Mr. Archdeacon, or the canonical obedience, he ought unto him with words of scorn and contempt, refused to perform that duty, as was justified out of his own answers, both in words and writing, that Mr. Doctor Kingsley hereupon appealed to the Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace, (who is immediate Ordinary and Metropolitan to them both) for redress herein, that his Grace upon notice thereof, wrote a particular letter to said Mr. Huntley, the true copy whereof after the original showed to Mr. Huntley, was left with him) and therein advised and required Mr. Huntley to prepare himself to preach a Visitation Sermon he having time enough given him to prepare himself for that purpose, which commandment of his Grace, the said Mr. Huntley slighted and utterly refused to perform that duty, and not desisting after such refusal, came unsent for, or uncalled for to Mr. Archdeacon aforesaid being in his Visitation amongst the Clergy, and sitting there to hear causes & very malapertly and unreverently charged him the said Mr. Archdeacon of falsehood or injustice and in a very arrogant and irrespective manner, laid down an hundred pounds in gold upon the table, and offered to lay wagers with him the said Mr. Doctor Kingsley the Archdeacon, that he had done him the said Huntley wrong, or the like in effect, without any due respect of the said Archdeacon his person or place, and to the encouragement of other refractory persons, as was there also proved to the Court, for which his gross abuses and contempts, the Court held him well worthy to be punished, and so much the rather, because the court was of opinion, and so proncunced, that the said Mr. Huntley was by the Lord's Grace of Cant. his Ordinary & the Archdeacon aforesaid enjoined to do no more, than what by Law and custom according to his canonical obedience, he was tied to perform, yet nevertheless the court at this time reserving to themselves their further censure, as occasion should be offered, for the present only ordered him the said Mr. Huntley upon the commandment of the Archdeacon of Cant. upon a competent warning to be given him, to Preach a Sermon at the next Visitation to be holden by Mr. Archdeacon of Cant. and afterwards before the Clergy in the said Visitation to acknowledge his fault in conceptis verbis, as shall be prescribed by any three or two of the Commissioners Judges of the Court, unto whom it is now referred to set down the same, & he is juditially admonished, and required to appear here personally in this place, the second court day of the next term, to certify of his due performance thereof accordingly, whereupon afterwards namely, one the 19 of April Anno Dom. 1627. at Westminster aforesaid, in the County of Middlesex aforesaid, the aforesaid George Huntley then and there, being publicly called, appeared personally. And being then & there by the foresaid most Reverend father in Christ & Lord, the Lord George by Divine providence Archbishop of Cant. primate of all England, and Metropolitan: Richard of Durham john of Rochester, Lewis of Bangor, Thomas of Coventry and Lichfield, William of Bath and Welles, Theophilus of Landaffe, Robert of Bristol, respectively Bishops, Dudley Digges, and Henry Marten Knights, john Donne, Walter Balcanqnall, William Kingsley, Thomas worral, professors of Divinity, Edmond Pope, Hugh Barker, Doctors of Law, Commissioners aforesaid, demanded whether he the said George had performed the foresaid order, made the foresaid vl day of February, Ann. Dom. 1626. foresaid, as is aforesaid or no, to wit, whether he had Preached his Visitation Sermon according to the requisition and command of the foresaid Archdeacon of Cant. and made his submission conceptis verbis before the Clergy, as was enjoined him by the foresaid Court of high Commission aforesaid; he the said George Huntley, then and there acknowledged that he had done neither, and then and there alleged frivolous matter in excuse thereof, to wit, that Mr. Archdeacon aforesaid had not warned him by a lawful process to Preach. But it appeared to the said Court of high Commission by affidavit made, that the foresaid Master Archdeacon had given him sufficient warning by a public officer, and a competent time to provide himself, to Preach a Visitation Sermon, and he being a man sufficiently qualified, by his gifts of learning for that purpose, not withstanding contemptuously refused to perform his duty therein, and also that he the said George Huntley refused to perform his submission conceptis verbis, as was enjoined unto him: The said Court of High Commission unamimi consensu prononuced him guilty of a great affront and contempt, not only to the said Mr. Archdeacon, and the Lord Archbishop of Cant. primate of all England, and metropolitan, and his the said Huntleys immediate Ordinary, unto whom the said Huntley is tied by oath, to perform canonical obedience, but also against his Majesty's supreme power and authority in matters and causes Ecclesiastical, and this Court, unto whom the same by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England is delegated and committed, and therefore the said Court of high Commission held the said George worthy to be punished, and first fined him in five hundred pounds to his Majesty's use, & committed him to the new prison (namely to the custody of Brian Wilton, than warden of the new prison) and there ordered him to remain, until he shall give sufficient bond with sureties in a competent sum to his Majesty use, aswell for the payment of his fine, as it shall be mitigated as for the performance of his submission heretofore enjoined him, etc.  
Now these two parts of the High Commissioners first final sentence, contain the whole original matter, for which alone the High Commissioners aforesaid did fine me five hundred pounds and imprisoned me on the 19 day of April 1627. and kept me in prison two whole years; And for which alone without any other crime or fault afterward objectd against me in any new articles, or in any additionals or superadditionalles to the first articles, the Commissioners did on the 25 day of june, 1629. by a sentence, wherein they charge me with grievous and enormous crimes, excesses and delicts mentioned in the foresaid articles, (in which articles there is never a crime charged upon me) deprive and degrade me, and thereupon kept me a prisoner until the 10 day of May 1633. And for which alone, on their last court day in Hilary Term 1630. they did excommunicate me, because I would not deliver up my orders diaconatus & presbyteratus. And for which alone, yet neither certified into the Exchequer by the h High Commissioners together with the fine aforesaid, nor legally seen nor understood by the Barons of the Exchequer, my Lord chief Baron sir Humphrey Daverport and the other Barons of the Exchequer refusing to grant me a certiorarjs to the High Commition Court to command them to certfie the cause & to permit me to plead to the foresaid fine, did the 10. of May 1633. commit me to the Fleet in execution of the foresaid fine, & there detained me a full year, until I to procure my liberty, paid the fourth part of the said fine to Mr. Motershed pecunijs numeratis, and staled the other three parts to the King's use. And for which, and also for a Petition delivered at the Counsel Table to crave justice therein according to his Majesty's mandate, under sir Edward powel's hand to my Lord chief Justice, sir john Bramston and the other Judges of the King's Bench court, dated the 29. of December 1635. and delivered with mine own hand to the said Judges in open Court the first day of Hilary Term 1635. I was by my most reverend Diocesan and provincial William Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace, and other right Honourable Lords of his Majesty's most honourable privy Council, on the third day of February 1636. committed to custody of the Warden of the Fleet, by a warrant wherein no cause of commitment was expressed, and there detained a prisoner by him, until Trinity Term 1639. and then upon an habeas corpus issuing out of the King's Bench Court I was brought to that court in Trinity Term 1639. and the foresaid warrant for my commitment returned and then I was presently bailed, and thereby tied to appear in court divers days, both that Term and the Term thence next following, and because none of the King's Counsel in all that time came in against me, I was on the last day of that Michaelmas Term 1639. delivered from the said bail and imprisonment, by the joint consent of all the Reverend Judges then of that court. As I formerly had been in the same court, Termino paschae 1629. after the first two year's imprisonment upon the foresaid original matter, returned to an habeas, and fully debated by Counsel on both sides and Mr Justice Bertley then the King's Sergeant in open court professing himself fully satisfied. And for the former original matter only, may for nothing at all in the judgement of the Law, even for the foresaid sentence of deprivation and degradation, charging me with grievous and enormous crimes excesses & delicts mentioned in the said Articles and those Articles not given in evidence, nor found by the Jury in the special verdict between Allen and Nash, entered upon record in the King's Bench court termino Sancti michaelis 8. Car. rot. 508. my Lord chief Justice of that court, sir john Bramston did for himself and his brethren Termino Trinitatis 1637. affirm the foresaid sentence, and deliver his opinion against me for the intruder Robert Carter.  
Whence it followeth that if the Commissioners aforesaid first final sentence against me & the 500 pounds fine thereby imposed upon me, & the two year's imprisonment thereby sustained by me be just & legal, than all the other sentences, censures and punishments following and depending thereupon, may be just and legal: But if the former the only ground of all the rest, be unjust and illegal, than all the other must of necessity be unjust and illegal.  
And whether the former be just or unjust, let the indifferent reader judge impatially, upon the perusal of the following argument.   

MY Honoured Lord chief justice, and my Honoured judges, the first thing in this Controversy, concerning the points of the Canon law in question, whereunto chiefly I am to speak, is the very stating of the controversy itself between me & my adversaries; And for that purpose in the first place I humbly desire your Lordship & the Court to observe, that the defendants charge me with faults of several degrees, some principal and especial, others inferior and accessory·  
The Principal and Especial are two, as appears by their first final sentence alleged in their plea, wherein they say, that upon the opening of the cause, they found the aforesaid George Huntley charged in the said Articles, with these two particulars principally 
(a) This word specialiter, in this sense is 3. times used in the defendants plea. twice in the first part of their first final sentence, and once in the Commission, & of 14. Articles objected against me, 12. do expressly mention my refusal to Preach the Visitation sermon, as a fault, or prepare the way theieunto; and the fourth saith that I offered two or three pieces to the , to procure one to preach that sermon, only the sixth and thirteenth Articles do not mention it.  or especially, first that he refused to preach a visitation sermon at the Arch-deacons of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys command contrary to his Canonical obedience, and secondly that he raised an opinion amongst the Clergy, that the said  had no power to command him the said Huntley or any other incmbent to preach the said visitation Sermon.  
The Inferiors or Accessories are four; first that the said Huntley came unsent for, or uncaled for to Master  aforesaid, he being in his visitation amongst the Clergy, and sitting there to hear causes; Secondly that the said Huntley did then and there very malepertly and irreverently charge the said  of falsehood or injustice, thirdly that the said Huntley did at the same time and place in a very arrogant & irrespective manner, lay down an hundred pounds in Gold upon the table and offered to lay wagers with him the said , that he had done him the said Huntley wrong or the like in effect: and fourthly and lastly that the said Huntley refused to perform his submission conceptis verbis as was enjoined him by the Commissioners, and therein gave a great affront and contempt both against his Majesty's supreme power and authority, in matters and causes Ecclesiastical, and also against the high commission court, to whom the same by letters patents under the great seal of England is delegated and committed.  
And for these six particulars, the defendants confess, that they imprisoned me two years, namely from the nineteenth day of April 1627. to April 1629. In which month upon my appearance in this court the first day of that Easter Term 1629. to save my bail, you Master justice Heath, than the King's Attorney General were first called for by the Court in the King's behalf against me, and you came and confessed, that you had nothing to say against me, and then Master justice Bertley being then the King's Sergeant, whose 
(b) Master justice Bertley at this time was in the custody of the Sheriff of London.  absence I much lament, whose presence I much desire, was called for by the court for the same purpose against me, and he came and confessed, that he had formerly spoken twice against me upon the matter returned to the habeas corpus (which was the very same for substance, that is now pleaded against me) and he then further added, that he was now satisfied, he had no more to say against me; and yet the court would not upon that day deliver me, but ordered me to make my appearance in court two several days after that, and then when no man came in against me, I was on 29. day of that month of April 1629. delivered by the joint consent of all the reverend judges, then of this court, and therein, (I speak it with singular exultation) I received as much favour as a Rogue at Newgate, who when no man comes in against him, is acquitted by Proclamation, which is the most that I could ever get since, except it were greater injuries and indignities, I speak it with much grief, and lamentation.  
Now my Lord the two principal, and especial pretended faults against me, will descide the whole controversy between me and my adversaries, and either justify them, and condemn me, or else condemn them, and justify me, for if the defendants can make good these two Principal or Especial pretended faults against me, that my refusal to Preach the Arch-deacons visitation Sermon is a breach of Canonical obedience, and that I in maintaining it to be the Arch-deacons duly to Preach his own visitation Sermon, have raised among the Clergy a new opinion contrary to the Canons, than I shall confess myself faulty in all the rest, and justly fined, imprisoned, deprived degraded and excommunicated. But if the defendants fail in these two points, being by their own Testimony, the two Principal and especial points against me, than they fail and fall in all the rest, for according to their law; Siprincipalis causa non subsistat, ea quae sequuntur, locum non habent. And then your Lordship and the court, are not to give credit unto the defendants in any other part of their plea, that makes either for them or against me, for qui semel est malus, semper, presumitur malus in eodem genere mali, and qui semel veritatis & verecundiae limites transilierit, eum oportet esse guaviter imprudentem, nec ei deinceps nisi paenitenti, culpam consitenti, & veniam expetenti, est in aliquo credendum. And therefore if the defendants have wittingly, and willingly, palpably and grossly falsified the law in the principals, Your Lordship and the court are not to give credit unto them in the accessories. If in the principals they have called my obedience to the word of God, to the Articles, Statutes, Canons, to his Majesty's Letters Patents, royal Prerogative and oath of supremacy (which are all extant to the view of the world) a breach of Canonical obedience, a principal or especial fault, a grievous and enormous crime, what credit is to be given unto them concerning any fact, they charge me with in the Accessories, seeing therein they may speak false securely, and not be confuted by any law, as in the former? And so my Lord, having stated the controversy between me and my adversaries concerning the points of the Canon law in difference between us, I proceed to speak to the controversy thus stated, and first to the principals.  
My Honoured Lord chief justice, and my Honoured Judges my refusal to Preach the Archdeacon of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys Visitation Sermon, and the publishing of an opinion amongst the Clergy, that the said  had no power to command me, or any other incumbent to preach the said visitation Sermon are the two main and Capital crimes, for which I have been imprisoned these two years 1627. and 28. by the defendants Doctor Kingsley and the rest.  
This appears out of the High Commission sentence alleged in the defendants plea, put in to my Declaration, for therein they say, that upon the opening of the cause, they found me charged in the said articles with these two particulars principally or especially, first that I refused to Preach a Visitation Sermon at the Arch-deacons command contrary to my canonical obedience, and secondly that I set up an opinion amongst the Clergy, that the said  had no power to command me or any other incumbent to Preach the said Visitation Sermon.  
Now my Lord, if these two be my Principal or Especial faults, as the defendants themselves confess they are, & testimonium ab adversario contra se fortissimum, then by the force of comparison drawn from the adversaries own estimate, all the other must needs be inferior and accessary, and then if the Principal or Especial faults prove no just causes of imprisonment nay further prove no faults at all nay further yet, prove virtues and eminent virtues even the virtues of canonical obedience, much less can the inferiors or accessories be any faults or any just causes of imprisonment, for according to their own law, accessorium debet sequi naturam principalis, & si principalis causa non subsistat ea quae sequuntur locum non habent.  
Now my Lord these two Principal or Especial faults pretended against me, do beget two Principal or Especial questions, the one of practice and action, and it is this; whether my refusal to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon be a breach of Canonical obedience, or not? the other of Speculation and Opinion and it is this; whether this my opinion that the Archdeacon hath no power to command me or any other incumbent to Preach his Visitation Sermon, be held and published contrary to the Canons, or not? And these two questions are so linked together that they do invieem se ponere & auferre & are to be both, either jointly affirmed or jointly denied, for if my refusal to Preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, be a breach of Canonical obedience, than this my opinion, that the  hath no power to command me or any other incumbent to Preach his Visitation sermon must of necessity be held & published contrary to the Canons. And on the contrary, if this my refusal to preach the arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, be no breach of Canonical obedience, than this my opinion that the  hath no power to command me or any other incumbent to preach his Visitation Sermon, is neither held nor published contrary to the Canons: so that handle one, handle both, clear one, clear both, and fail in one, fail in both.  
And this first Principal or Especial question of practice and action, whether my refusal to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon be a breach of Canonical obedience, or not? Doth either way, that is, whether it be or be not, beget another question, If it be a breach of Canonical obedience, than it begets this question; whether for the breach of a Canon, or of Canonical obedience unto the Canons, according to the laws and customs of this land, men are to be fetched from the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary up to the High Commission Court, and there to be fined and imprisoned for it, or else whether they are to be left to the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary, and he to proceed against them according to the power of the keys?  
And though my Lord, this question be no question, if the high Commissioners by the first of the first of Elizabeth, never had any power to fine or imprison for any crime within that statute, and the cognisance of the high Commission, as is declared by a statute made the first Session of this Parliament, which statute makes wholly for me, and against the high Commissioners, and puts the former question out of question: yet my Lord in favour of the high Commissioners, and to my own disadvantage, I do forbear to take the benefit and advantage of the former statute and Declaration, and granting to the high Commissioners a power to fine and imprison for crimes, within the first of the first of Elizabeth, according to the Commissioners practise before, and at the time of my censure, according to the words of their commission, and the approbation both of the Exchequer, who did imprison me for the 500 pounds fine estreated by the high Commissioners into the Exchequer, and of this Court also, which would not upon an habeas corpus deliver me from that imprisonment: I do in this sense and respect only, propose the former question, whether for the breach of a Canon or Canonical obedience unto the canons, according to the laws and customs of this land, men are to be fetched from the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary, up to the high commission court, and there to be fined and imprisoned, or else whether they are to be left to the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary, and he to proceed against them, according to the power of the keys.  
And though this question my Lord, be within the compass and cognisance of the common Law, and therefore aught to be spoken unto by the worthy professors of this Honorab. profession; yet seeing it is in defence of the Episcopal or ordinary jurisdiction, which the Bishops themselves have wronged, and which at this time in this my case no common Lawyer will undertake to defend, and that for this very reason as I conceive, because they have men's persons in admiration for advantage sake, 
Epist. 16.  as St. jude speaks, and do prefer the person of some Bishop before and above the Episcopal or Ordinary jurisdicton itself. Therefore ut nequid detrementi capiat respublica Episcopalis vel ordinaria, and to the intent that all men may know, that I both truly love and reverence the Episcopal or Ordinary jurisdiction, not only above and beyond you the common Lawyers, who will not according to your profession defend it, but also above and beyond those Bishops who contrary to their callings have wronged it, and also that I only oppose the usurpation and presumption of some Bishops and not the Episcopal or ordinary jurisdiction itself, I will endeavour to show and that by seven reasons, 
Thesis' prima septem rationibus confirma●a.  that the breaches of canons or of canonical obedience unto the canons according to the Laws & custom of this land belong to the juridiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High commission court.  
Ratio 1 My first reason, my Lord, is taken from the sense and meaning of this word Ordinary, as it is expressed by Doctor Lyndewode in the first book of his Prov. tit. de constitut. cap. Exterior habitus. Verbo Ordinarij, in these very words. Nota quod haec dictio 
(c) Ordinarius dicitur, quia habet ordinariam iurisdictionem in iure proprio, & non per deputationem Coke institutes. f. 96  Ordinarius principaliter habet locum de Episcopo. & aliis superioribus, qui sunt universales in suis iurisdictionibus & de iure communi solus Episcopus est ordinarius super omnes subditos suos, sed sunt sub eo alij ordinarii, high vid. quibus competit iurisdictio ordinaria de iure, privilegio, vel consuetudine. By which words my Lord, it appears, though there be some other subordinate, & inferior ordinaries under the Bishop in some parts of his Diocese, who have and hold under him in those parts an ordinary jurisdiction either iure, privilegio, vel consuetudine: yet de iure communi, over the whole Diocese, the Bishop only is Ordinary, and only hath a general and an universal jurisdiction.  
And this general jurisdiction of the ordinary or Bishop extends not to all causes both Temporal and Ecclesiastical, but only to all causes merely Spiritual, so called not in respect of their own nature, but because they are assigned to the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And those are of two sorts, either civil Ecclesiastical causes, as Tithes, Oblations, Legacies Pentions, and portions, or else criminal causes, and both these belong to the general jurisdiction of the Ordinary, for the former it appears principally in two cap. of Lyndewodes Provinc. and that in the very text, first in his second book tit. de foro competenti. cap. circumspect agatis, which though it be King Edw. 1. direction to his Judges or Justices or Commissioners concerning the Bishop of Norwich and other of the Clergy, and be extant among the Statutes 13. Edw. 1. yet seeing it treats of the spiritual jurisdiction of Ordinaries, it is set down by Lyndewode among the provincial constitutions of our Archbishops of Cant. Secondly, in his 5. book tit. de paenis, cap. aeternae Sanctio voluntatis.  
And for the latter, namely criminal causes, it appears both in the two chapters before alleged, and more especially in the first book of Lyndewodes Provinc. tit. de constitutionib. c. exterior habitus. ver. Inquirant. upon which word Lyndewode shows, that there is triplex inquisitio, generalissima, generalis & specialis vel singularis. and each of these is twofold, either praeparatoria or Solemnis, praeparatoria est fine exactione juramenti, solemnis est cum juramento, and the one of these makes way and work for the other. The preparatory inquisition finds out and starts the game, and the solemn inquisition pursues and takes it.  
And the most general inquisition both preparatory and solemn belongs to a general council or to a provincial Synod; but the inquisition general and special both preparatory and solemn belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. And this general inquisition hath three degrees; for it is general either in respect both of persons and of crimes: or it is general only in respect of persons, and special or singular in respect of crimes or lastly it is general in respect of crimes and special or singular in respect of persons, as the Ordinary shall think fit, and the matter require.  
Now my Lord, the High Commission hath nothing to do with the first of these causes, namely civil Ecclesiastical causes: no nor a general jurisdiction in the latter, namely criminal causes, and both these are evident by divers judgements at the common Law.  
Hilary. 8. jacobi, In the common Pleas in the case of Huntley and Clifford it was resolved, that the High Commission had not power to meddle with civil Ecclesiastical causes and therefore none might sue before them for Tithes, Legacies, Oblations Pentions or Portions. First because this would be a means to take away all Ecclesiastical proceed from the Ordinary. Secondly, because their sentences and Decrees are final, and no appeal lieth from them, so that it might be very mischievous if they should hold plea of all manner of Ecclesiastical causes. Thirdly, because the first of Elizabeth giveth them power only in enormities. 1. in heinous, horrible and exorbitant crimes.  
In the Exchequer in Ailemers case, it was resolved that the High Commission might not meddle to punish one for working upon holy days, & 44 Eliz. rot. 1255. in the Common Pleas in the case of Tailor and Mass, a prohibition was granted, where one was convented before the high Commission for giving irreverend speeches of a Minister for carrying his corn on holy days, and for not suffering the Parson and parishioners to go through his yard upon Rogation week, and for not giving them a repast in the perambulation, as he had used to do, and for whistling and knoeking upon the door of the parson, and saying, he did it to make the parson music for the marriage of his Daughter, for this aught to be before the Diocesan.  
But my Lord there is one case at the common Law, which I more esteem than the three former, because in this very point it contains not only the resolution of all the reverend Judges then of this Court, but also a real confession of the High Commissioners themselves my very adversaries, and that's this mire own case: for the high Commissioners did at first Pasohae 1627. commit me to prison for breach of canonical obedience in refusing to Preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon, & after two year's imprisonment, when upon an habeas corpus, I was set at liberty by the court paschae 1629. because that matter was coram non judice: then trinitatis 1629 in their second final sentence upon the same Articles, wherein there is no crime objected against me, they charge me with grievous and enormous crimes mentioned in the Articles, that so they might make the matter coram judice, and within the cognisance of the High Commission. So that by the canon and common Law and by the real confession of my very adversaries, the breaches of Canons or of Canonical obedience unto the Canons belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary, and only grievous and enormous crimes to the cognisance of the High Commission court.  
Ratio. 2 My 2. reason my Lord is taken from the custom & practice over England, for it is the general custom & uniform practice over all Eugl. for the Church wardens to make their presentments at the Ordinary or episcopal jurisdiction, & not at the High Commission Court, & therefore the breaches of Canons, or of canonical obedience unto the canons belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, & not to the cognisance of the high commission court. And this reason being the general custom & uniform practice over all England time out of mind both of all the Churchwardens in making their presentments, & of all the ordinaries in receiving them, is the Common Law of the Land & being in use nono. Hen. 3. is confirmed by the 1. chap. of Magna Charta under the name of the Rights & Liberties of the Church, for as Lyndewode in the fifth book of his provinc. tit. de sententia ex communicationis. cap. cum saepius. verbis Ecclesiasticae libertatis. Saith Ecclesiastica libertas inter caetera consistit in libero exercitio jurisdictionis Ecclesiasticae. And this custom & Ecclesiastical liberty & jurisdiction hath lately been cleared by the resolution of all the reverend Judges then of the 3. Honourable Courts of Common Law, as appears by his Majesty's Proclamation dated at Lyndhurst 18. August. 13. Caroli. wherein they affirm that the Bishop's Archdeacon's & other Ecclesiastical persons may keep their visitations as usually they have done, & then they may receive all presentations from the churc-wardens as usually they have done & then they now have a general jurisdiction as formerly they have had. And this their resolution is fully warranted by the fift proviso of the 2. cha. of the 1. of Eliz. for that proviso and paragraph gives power to all Archbishop's Bishops & to every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacon's and other ordinaries, aswell to inquire in their visitations synods, and elsewhere within their jurisdiction at any other time and place to take accusations and informations of all and every the things above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdictions & authority & to punish the same by admonition, excommunication, sequestration or deprivation & other censures and process inlike form, as hath heretofore been used in like cases, that is cases of Ecclsiasticall cognisance, by the Queen's Ecclesiastical laws, not by a commission, as some would have it, but by the Queen's Ecclesiastical laws. Which last words do approve of such a jurisdiction, as the ordinaries at that time did exercise according to the Ecclesiastical laws of the land, & at that time & both before, and since that time the Ordinaries did & do exercise a general jurisdiction according to the Ecclesiastical laws of the land, without a commission as appears upon record in their own Courts & the Canons & Ecclesiastical laws of the land do approve of that general jurisdiction of the Ordinaries, as appears by the body both of Lyndewodes provincial, & of the legantine constitutions of Otho and Othobon, and also by ten of our last Canons made primo jacobi, namely by the 109. to the 119. so that in this second reason the Common and Canon and Statute Law do concur, and all three show, that the breaches of Canons or of canonical obedience unto the canons belong to the jurisdicton of the ordinary and not to the cognisance of the High Commission Court.  
Ratio. 3 My third reason; my Lord, is taken from his Majesty's Letters Patents confirming the canons of our Church made primo jacobi for therein after he hath in the first place confirmed those canons with his Letters Patents out of his supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in the second place charged all his loving subjects of both Provinces to keep and observe all those Canons in every point, wherein they do or may concern every or any of them, and in the third place charged all Archbishops, Bishops, and all others, that exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within this Realm, to see and procure that all within their jurisdictions do observe the foresaid canons in the former manner: then in the fourth place he gives power to the said Archbishops Bishops and to all others that exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within this Realm, to inflict all the punishments mentioned in those canons upon the violators of those canons; so that by his Majesties own gift & grant primo jacobi. The breaches of canons or of canonical obedience unto the canons are assigned & deputed to the Episcopal or ordinary jurisdiction, and not reserved to the jurisdiction of the crown or cognisance of the high commission.  
Ratio. 4 My fourth reason my Lord, is taken from his Majesty's commission granted to, and pleaded by the commissioners, which gives unto them only a particular and a limited jurisdiction consisting in certain Ecclesiastical causes, and certain particular offences against certain particular laws, and not a general jurisdiction in and over all Ecclesiastical causes and offences, as large and spacious, as the canons and Ecclesiastical laws themselves: And this will appear my Lord, by a particular enumeration of all the several branches of the commission itself. But this would be a great labour, and will be altogether needless, whether the Defendants can show any such branch of their commission or not, for if they cannot show any such branch of their Commission, then doubtless the labour will be needless seeing the proof lies on their side & no proof being made sufficet neganti ut neget, dummodo non probetur in contrarium. And if they can show any such branch of their commission, than it shall suffice to confute that branch when the defendants or their counsel shall produce it. I confess my Lord that the Commission dated 11. jacobi extends as far as the canons & ecclesiastical laws themselves in cases concerning the reformation of Ministers, for it gives in express terms power and authority to the commissioners to punish a Minister for any fault committed in his own cure or else where, that is punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of the Land: but I am sure my Lord, that there is no such branch in the commission pleaded by the Defendants, and therefore in that very respect, if in no other, an information lies good against the commissioners, and this court hath rightly assigned me for a prosecutor in an information against the commissioners for going beyond their commission. And if there were any such branch in their commission, that branch under favour were void, because it is contrary to the sense and meaning, to the scope and drift, to the very letter and text of the 1 of the 1 Eliz. (the statute whereupon their commission is grounded) as shall now appear by my next: and  
Ratio. 5 Fifth reason, which is taken from the 1 of the 1 Eliz. and from the 19 of the 25. of Hen. 8. revived in the first of Eliz. and therefore whatsoever the 1 of the 1 Eliz. doth particularly and expressly establish by reviving the 19 of the 25. of Hen. the 8. It is to be presumed, that it doth not in the same statute afterwards by general terms abrogate, for that were to make that statute like the high commission sentence against me, to be at variance with itself, and to have our part contrary to another: why then my Lord, seeing the first of the first of Eliz. by reviving the 19, of the 25. of Hen. 8. doth particularly and expressly allow unto the ordinary with in his diocese a general jurisdiction in reference to the canons and Ecclesiastical laws of this land. It is not to be supposed that in the following parts of that statute, the Parliament did afterwards by general terms take that away from the ordinary, and therefore those ensuing general words, which enables the King to nominate commissioners, and by his commissioners to reform and correct all manner errors, heresies, schisms, faults offences, enormities, which by any manner of power or authority may be reform, do not make voide the the former statute, and general jurisdiction of the ordinary, but only show, that be the fault never so great, so that the ordinary by virtue of his subordinate jurisdiction, cannot sufficiently punish it, yet it may be sufficiently punished by the King's supreme jurisdiction within the land without going to the Pope out of the land for by that paragraph that is invested in the crown, which by the former paragraph was abolished and extinguished in others, and in the former paragraph all foreign usurped power only, and not the ordinary jurisdiction is extinguished. So that by those former general words, such great, grievous and enormous crimes only, as the ordinary by virtue of his subordinate jurisdiction cannot sufficiently punish, may be brought to the high Commission court, and there fully punished, and yet the former statute and general jurisdiction of the ordinary remain whole and entire, namely that breaches of Cannons, or of Canonical obedience unto the Canons belong to the jurisdiction of the ordinary, and that be within his diocese hath power to punish any fault punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of this land.  
And this interpretation, My Lord, is warranted, first by the very title of that statute, which is an act to restore unto the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical, and for abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same, not for abolishing the ordinary jurisdiction, which is subordinate unto it, but for abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.  
And the abolishing of the one, and the restoring of the other, is the whole and sole cause and occasion of that statute, as is more fully expressed in the beginning of that statute, where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons do all acknowledge, that from the 25. year of Henry the 8. at which time all foreign usurped power was by divers good laws and statutes abolished, and the ancient Ecclesiastical jurisdiction fully restored and united unto the Crown, they were kept in good order, and were disburdened of divers great and intolerable charges and axactions until such time, as the aforesaid good laws an Statutes made since the 20. year of Henry the eight by one act in the first and second of Philip and Mary were all clearly repealed whereby, as they there complain, they were again brought under an usurped foreign power, and yet remain in that bondage to their intolerable charges, if some relief be not had and provided, and thereupon they supplicate that both the foresaid statute of repeal may be repealed, and the foresaid good laws and Statutes for abolishing all foreign usurped power, and for restoring the ancient Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto the Crown may be revived. In all which there is not any one word spoken against the Ordinary jurisdiction, but only against foreign usurped power, and this being the only grievance and the total occasion of that law, must direct us in the interpretation of that law, for occasio legis indicat & mentem legislatoris & sensum legis.  
Secondly by the oath of Supremacy extant in the same statute, and made for the same purpose, namely to abolish all foreign power repugnant to the jurisdiction of the Crown, not to abolish the ordinary jurisdiction, which is subordinate unto it.  
Thirdly, by those general words, wherein the King's jurisdiction is expressed, namely by these words, all errors, heresies, schisms, faults, offences, enormities: which last word doth and must qualify all the rest, and doth show that by those words, not every fault punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of this land, but only all great grievous and enormous crimes punishable by the Ecclesiaticall laws of this land, are reserved to the jurisdiction of the Crown and cognisance of the high Commission, for otherwise those words will abrogate the nineteenth of the twenty fifth of H. the eight before revived in that Statute, and will also swallow up all the ordinary Jurisdictions over England, contrary to an other Statute there revived in behalf of the ordinary jurisdiction, made 23. Henry 8. entitled, an act that no person shall be cited out of the diocese where he or she dwelleth except in certain cases, and also contraty to the foresaid fift Proviso of the second cap. of the first of Elizabeth.  
And Lastly, by this excellent rule of Saint Hilary in his ninth book, de trinitate, Intelligentia dictorum ex antecedentibus & consequentibus expectetur. For this makes the several parts of that Statute accord one with another, and the whole Statute to be as a body at unity in itself, and yet herein my Lord by making one part of a statute interpret another, we give no more to that Honourable Court than is due to every discreet man for unusquisque suorum verborum optimus interpres, & condentis est interpretari.  
Ratio. 6 My sixth reason, My Lord, is taken from the oath of Canonical obedience, which every Bishop administers, and which every incumbent takes at his admission and institution, and it is alleged against me in the defendant plea, both in the first and third articles, and also in the high Commission sentence and the oath itself is expressed in the instrument of my admission and institution in these very words; Te primitus de legitima & canonica obedientia nobis & successoribus nostris in omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda ad sancta evangelia rite iuratum admittimus. We admit thee saith the ordinary, having first been rightly sworn by the holy Gospels to perform lawful and Canonical obedience to us and our successors in all our lawful and honest mandates. And this canonical obedience, as Lyndewode in the first book of his provincicall. tit. de maior. & obedientia, cap. Presbiteri verbis, in virtute obedientiae, shows, is such obedience as the canons and constitutions rightly made and published do require, and the Cannon law shows, that this canonical obedience consists in these three things. In reverentia exhibenda, in mundato suscipiendo, & in iudicio subeundo. In yielding canonical reverence to the ordinaries person, in undertaking his canonical mandates, and in standing to his canonical judgements. And therefore my Lord, as we the incumbents by taking this oath of Canonical obedience, are bound by this oath in things concerning the Canons to stand to the ordinaries canonical judgements: so the ordinary by administering this oath unto us, and by accepting this oath from us, is bound by this oath in things concerning the canons to judge us according to the canons. And by both these it appears, that the breaches of canons, or of Canonical obedience unto the Canons, belongs to the Jurisdiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High Commission Court.  
And this reason my Lord is stronger against my adversaries by their own confession in their plea than it is in truth and by my allegation, for the defendants in their plea challenge canonical obedience from every incumbent to and for every ordinary, and they do extend this canonical obedience not only so fare as the Canons, but also as far as the laws in general and the custom reacheth: and therefore in challenging canonical obedience from every incumbent to and for every ordinary, and in extending that canonical obedience not only so fare as the Canons, but also as fare as the laws in general and the custom reacheth, they do under the name of canonical obedience challenge from every incumbent to and for every ordinary a jurisdiction as general, as the canons, laws in general and the custom will warrant; whieh is as general as can be, unless they would bring in arbitrary and blind obedience.  
Ratio. 7 My seaventh and last reason; My Lord, to prove that the breaches of canons or of canonical obedience unto the canons, belongs to the jurisdiction of the ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the high Commission, is taken from the opinion of our late Lord and Sovereign King james, and of Archbishop Whitegift, whereof the former being ad miraculmm usque acutissimus, did in his time give the authority to the High Commission court, and the latter being a Bishop according to this rule of Saint Paul, a Bishop must be holy, just, and unrebukeable, was in his time the chief person under the other to excercise and execute that authority in the high Commission court. And this their opinion, as it was at first publicly delivered in a solemn assembly of the church to reform what was amiss, and confirm what was well established: so it hath been extant in print to the view of the world full 30. years and upwards in a Treatise styled, the sum and substance of the conference at Hampton Court. In the eighty ninth pag. whereof King james makes this exception against the High Commissioners, that the matters wherein they dealt, were base and mean, and such as ordinaries at home in their own jurisdictions might censure whereunto in the 90. pag. Archbishop Whitegift answereth, that though the matters be base and mean, and the fault of that nature that the ordinary jurisdiction may censure it, yet in two cases, no more, only in two cases the high Commission may interpose.  
First, when the party delinquent is to great, so that the ordinary dares not proceed against him. or,  
Secondly, so wealthy in his estate, or so wilful in his contumacy, that he will not obey the summons and censure of the ordinary, and so the ordinary is forced to crave help at the High commission  
And it seems My Lord, that the High Commissioners, and the defendants would make this latter my case, for in the 14. Article objected against me in the high Commission court, and pleaded against me in this court by the defendants, they both say, that the ordinary desired the assistance of the High commission against me.  
But it is certain, My Lord, that in this matter I am not within either of these cases, for I being but a Presbyter, and of a single benefice, am not so great, as great as I am and as great as the defendants would make me that the ordinary my Lord's Grace of Canterbury Primate of all England, should be afraid to proceed against me at his ordinary jurisdiction if his cause were good; neither was I ever contumacious, for I was never summoned or cited to appear at the ordinary jurisdiction. And therefore in this case seeing the fault, if it be a fault is but petty and small, but the breach of a canon or of canonical obedience unto the canons testantibus ad versarijs; the person but mean & poor, but a Presbyter, a minister, an incumbent, and that only of a single benefice, and never any ways contumacious, this matter belongs not to the cognisance of the High commission but to the jurisdiction of the ordinary and then it hath been all this while coram non judice, and so the sentence and whole proceed are utterly void. And thus much concerning this first question, which my refusal to preach the Archdeacon's visitation Sermon, if it be a breach of Canonical obedience, begets namely that the breaches of canons or of canonical obedience to the canons according to the Laws and customs of his land, belong to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, and not to the cognisance of the High commission court; or that for the breach of a canon or of canonical obedience to the canons according to the Laws and customs of this land men are not to be fetched from the judgement & jurisdiction of the Ordinary up to the High Commission court, and there to be fined & imprisoned but are to be left to the judgement and jurisdicton of the ordinary, and he to proceed against them according to the power of the Keys.  
Now on the other side, my Lord if this my refusal to preach the Archdeacon's visitation sermon, be no breach of canonical obedience, than it begets this question, whether the high commissioners, your Lordship this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsel have power to punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law? And lest the high commissioners; this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsel should all think to escape by maintaining the affirmative, that they have power to punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law, and peradventure in a desperate case, they will not stick to maintain a desperate opinion, especially seeing your Lordship hath showed and lead them all the way. For termino trinitatis 1637. When your Lordship delivered your opinion in the especial verdict between Allen and Nash, your Lordship not only affirmed the high commission sentence of deprivation and degradation against me, but also maintained, that your Lordship and this court were bound to affirm it, whether it were true or false, grounded upon a cause or upon no cause.  
Therefore my Lord, to stop up that gap, to prevent that starting hole, to overthrow that parodox, and with one argument to confute those four Honourable, senates whereof the first and the last, the high commissioners and the Lords of the counsel challenge as great authority, as the King himself hath, and all of you in this my case usurp a greater, for you all punish me for that which is no fault, no breach of any law: I must in the first place Thesis' 1 show, that no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, prerogative, or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evil, some sin, some transgression of some law. Thesis' 2 And secondly I must show, that my refusal to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, my principal or especial fault in the judgement of my adversaries, is no fault, no offence, no vice, no error, no evil, no sin, no transgression of any Law whatsoever: and that therefore neither the high commissioners, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, the Lords of the counsel, nor any other Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, prerogative, or authority, to punish me, muchless to imprison me for it.  
And for the first of these positions, that no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, 
Thesis' 1. Tractatio.  prerogative or authority, to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evil, some sin, some transgression of some law, this appears out of the 13. chapter to the Rom. verse. 3. where the Apostle speaking of that Magistrate, to whom the sword is committed, of that Magistrate, to whom we pay tribute, of that magistrate, to whom we must submit, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake, of that Magistrate to whom every soul is to be subject, that is, of the sovereign, supreme, Monarchical Magistrate, God's immediate deputy and vicegerent, he saith of that Magistrate, the Magistrate is not a terror to good works, but to evil. wilt thou then be without fear of the power? do well, so shalt thou have praise of the same, for he is the Minister of God for thy wealth. But if thou do evil, then fear, for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the Minister of God, to take vengeance on him that doth evil, Saint Paul then is clear, that no Magistrate whatsoever, can justly punish any man, except it be for some evil.  
And Saint Peter testifies as much 1 Epist. 2. chap. 13. and 14. verses. Submit yourselves, saith he, to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King, as the supreme, or unto governor's as them, that are sent of him, sent of him, for what purpose? Even for the same purpose, that he before is sent of God, namely for the punishment of them that do evil, and for the praise of them tbat do well. So that by the express word of God, no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, prerogative or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evil, some sin, some transgression of some law.  
And this much, my Lord, king Artashast saw by the very light of nature, as appears by the words of his Commission, granted to Ezra, and expressed Ezra. 7. chap. 25. 26. verse, And thou Ezra (after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thy hand) set Magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people beyond the river, even all that know the law of thy God and teach-yee them, that know it not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of thy King, let judgement be speedily executed upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, to confifcation of goods, or to imprisonment. In which words King Artashast, just as Saint Peter, and Saint Paul before did, gives power unto Ezra to punish men, not for well doing, but for evil doing, no for keeping, but for breaking Gods laws and the Kings, not for obedience, but for disobedience, not for virtue but for vice.  
Nay God himself challengeth no greater prerogative, then to reward the observers and to punish the transgressers of his law. Cursed be he, saith Moses, that confirmeth not all the words of God's law to do them. Deut. 27. or as the Apostle expresseth it, Gal. 3. Cursed is every man, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them. And if they only, who break God's law, be cursed, than all those who keep his law, must needs be blessed, and this much Moses expressly telleth the Israelites Deut. 11. Behold saith he, I set before you this day a Blessing and a Curse, the Blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, The Curse if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God. And if God the supreme Magistrate of all the world, and the creator of all men and Magistrates will not punish any man, except it be for some breach of his law, how can any of his deputy Magistrates, without pride or presumption arrogate more, or challenge any power, prerogative or authority to punish any man for that which is no fault, no offence, no vice, no error, no evil, no sin, no transgression of any law whatsoever.  
And here now my Lord behold the conformity both of our Kings and of the laws of our Kingdom unto the word of God in this particular, our 
(d) King james confesseth so much in his speech to the Lords & commons at whitehall on Wednesday 21 Martii 1609. p. 12. & pag. 13. he saith, all Kings that are not tyrants or perjured will be glad to bond themselves within the Jimites of their laws, & they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers & pests, both against them and the Common Wealth.  Kings challenge no more, our laws made by their own appointment, confirmed by their own authority, which by oath they are bound to maintain, and which his 
(e) K. Charles in his declaration to all his loving subjects published by the advice of his privy council 1641. pag. 20. saith we doubt not, it will be the most acceptable declaration a King can make to his subjects, that for our part we are resolved not only duly to observe the laws Ourself, but to maintain them against what opposition soever; though with the hazard of our being.  Majesty professeth, he will maintain against whatsoever opposition with the hazard of his own being, gives them no more. This appears out of the first of the first of Eliz. an act to restore unto the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical, which Sir Edward Coke in Cawdreys' case calls, an act only declaratory and assertory of the ancient jurisdiction of the Crown, not collatory or introductory of any new right. And what jurisdiction doth that act restore, or more properly declare to be restored to the Crown? Namely all such spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as by any manner spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised for the Visitation of the state Ecclesiastical, and for the reformation of all manner errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, faults, offences, contempts, enormities.  
In which words, my Lord, there are three things expressed, incident to the ancient jurisdiction of the Crown.  
First it is Sovereign and supreme, over and above all, excluding and abrogating all foreign, including but not abrogating all domestic jurisdiction.  
Secondly, it is such a jurisdiction, as may lawfully be exercised, it is not then an unlawful, but a lawful jurisdiction.  
And Thirdly it is for the reformation of all errors, heresies, schisms, abuses faults, offences contempts, enormities. It is no power then to punish men for truths for conformity to the doctrine and discipline established for virtues, for obedience to the Ecclesiastical laws of this land, no, but for errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, faults, offences, contempts enormities.  
And this my Lord doth likewise appear by the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown expressed in that statute, which is, that all things in the Ecclesiastical courts by virtue of that ancient Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Crown may be done to the pleasure of Almighty God to the increase of virtue, and to the maintenance of the peace and unity of this realm.  
Now my Lord if the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown be for the maintenance of the peace and unity of this realm, than that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown, cannot punish men for peace and unity, but for discord and dissension; not for obeying the laws of this land, which is a principal means, to maintain the peace and unity of this realm, but for violating the laws of the land, which is a forcible means to breed discord and dissension.  
Again, if the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown, be for the increase of virtue, than that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown cannot punish men for their virtues, but for their vices, for otherwise that would be a means to decrease virtue, and to increase vice.  
And thirdly, seeing the end of that ancient jurisdiction of the Crown, is, that thereby all things in the Ecclesiastical courts should be done to the pleasure of Almighty God, and the pleasure of Almighty God, as I have before showed out of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, is, that the Magistrate shall not be a terror to good works but to evil; Therefore the ancient jurisdiction of the Crown cannot punish men for well doing. but for evil doing, not for keeping, but for breaking Gods laws and the Kings, not for obedience, but for disobedience, not for virtue but for vice.  
And this much my Lord, is evident by all laws, for all laws do consist of a direction and a punishment, and they inflict the punishment only upon the transgressers, not upon the observers of the direction of the law, and this the Apostle showeth in his 1. Epist. to Tim. chap. 1. ver. 8. We know the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, how's that? why thus, knowing this, saith the Apostle that the law is not given to the righteous, but to the lawless and disobedient, what is not the law given to the righteous, yet in respect of the direction, not in respect of the punishment, for because he observeth the direction of the law, he is freed from the punishment of the law, but to the lawless and disobedient, the law is given in respect both of the direction and punishment, and because they observe not the direction of the law, they and they only are liable to the punishment of the law, and thereupon if any judge shall impose the punishment of the law, upon any that doth not violate the direction of the law, he crosses and confounds the very law itself, and incurs that foul fault committed by A●aniae the high Priest and excepted against by Saint Paul, Acts. 23. Thou sittest to judge me after the law, and contrary to the law commandest thou me to be smitten? And therefore my Lord seeing the nature, property, and purpose of all laws, is to secure the observers, and to lay the punishment of the law only upon the violaters of the direction of the law, It is needless to allege any more particular laws, to prove that which is the scope and intent of all laws. Yet I cannot pretermit one, and I will allege but one law of the land more to this purpose, and that's the twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta most fully and strongly confirmed 3. Caroli, by the King's Majesty, in his answer to the Commons Petition of right in these words, let right be done, as is desired according to that twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta.  
Now what saith that twenty nine Chapter of Magna Charta? No freeman, saith that chapter, shallbe taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed, neither will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, saith the King, but by the lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the law of the land. That is, under your Lordships, & the Courts correction whose office it is to interpret statutes, unless that party be first convicted & found culpable of the breach of some law of this land, by a legal proceeding, either at the common law, or else in some other court, and whosoever shall either condemn, or punish any freeborn subject of this kingdom, either for his obedience to the laws of this land, or for that which is no breach of any law of this land he doth violate that twenty nine chapter of Magna Charta, and for that he stands excommunicate by a double excommunication, the one delivered publicly here in Westminster Hall, 
(f) Tempore Bonifacii Archie● regnante tunc in Anglia. H. 3. videlicet anno. Dom. 1253. Id ibus Maii. inaula. Westmon. 15. Epis. leguntur sententiam de qua hic sit mentio, fulminasse. Lyndew. Prov. lib. 5. tit. de sententia excom. cap. cum malum. Parag. Item excom. verbis. ab omnibus. Daniel in the life of H. 3.  37. Henry 3. by Bonifacius then Archbishop of Cant. assisted with 14. other Bishops, all in their pontificals, and tapers in their hands, which after the excommunication denounced, they threw upon the ground, and as they lay there smoking they cried so let all them, that incur this sentence, be extinct, and stink in hell, and all this was done in the presence of the Commons, Nobles, yea and of the King himself, who at the same time with a loud voice said, as God me help, I will as I am a man a Christian, a Knight, a King crowned and anointed inviolably observe all these things, and the excommunication itself is set down at the end of the statutes made 52. H. 3. in the book of statutes at large put out by judge Rastall, & the other is extant in the same book at the end of the statutes made 25. Edward. 1. and uttered by Robert Winchelsee Archbishop of Canterbury in his time, & both against the violaters of this renowned law of Magna Charta often confirmed not only by the following Kings, the successors of Henry the third, and Edward the first, but also by the Pope himself, as appears out of the fift book of Lyndewodes provincial, titulo de sententia excommunicationis cap. Cum Malum parag. Item excommunicatj.  
And besides the former confirmations and excommunications, the authority of Magna Charta was made sacred and inviolable, as it were 25. Edward. 1. first, by decreeing, that that charter under the King's seal should be sent unto all the Cathedral Churches throughout the Realm there to remain, and to be read before the people twice a year. And secondly by enacting that that Charter should ever after be propugnated and vindicated by the sentence of excommunication, to be denounced twice a year by all Archbishops, and Bishops in their cathedrals, against all those that by word, deed, or counsel did do contrary to the foresaid charter, or that in any point did break or undo it: and if the same Bishops or any of them should be remiss in the denunciation of the said sentence that then the Archbishops of Cant. and York, for the time being, should compel and distrain them to the execution of their duties in form aforesaid as appears by the 3. and 4. chap. 25. Ed. 1.  
And surely my Lord those two former solemn excommunications were & those other continual semiannuall excommunications might have been hitherto, and may hereafter be, rightly and justly denounced against the violaters of this 29. chap. of Magna Charta for this 29. chapter, that no free man is to be punished but for the breach of some law is good Divinity, & accords excellently with the word of God. The Apostle Rom. 4.15. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the law causeth wrath, that is punishment; and how doth the Law cause wrath or punishment? not simply & singly of itself not observed but transgressed, and therefore in the next words the Apostle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where there is no Law, there is no transgression. And as where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no law, there, there cannot be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any transgression of Law: so where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no transgression of law, there there cannot be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any fault or offence, and where there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no fault or offence, there, there ought not to be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any wrath or punishment.  
Nay my Lord, though there be a law, yet if that law be not transgressed there cannot justly be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any wrath or punishment: At most, though there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proposita, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denuntiata, wrath proposed or denounced in the Law, to terrify all persons from sin, which is nothing but the binding power of the Law: yet justly there cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imposita, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inflicta, wrath imposed or inflicted by the Judge, upon any person to punish him for sin, until the Law be transgressed, and sin committed by that person. And this the Apostle Rom. 5.12. doth most acutely & divinely show by imputing the punishment partly to the Law, and partly to the transgression of the law, to the Law as to a just rule inflicting punishment upon the transgression & to the transgression, as to a meritorious cause deserving that punishment, according to the just rule of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By sin, which is the transgression of the law, Death, the wrath, & punishment of the law entered into the world.  
So then my Lord, this is most certainly and most undoubtedly true, wheresoever there is any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any wrath or punishment, any fining or imprisonment, any deprivation, degradation, excommunication, or any other censure sentence, mulct, or punishment whatsoever rightly and justly inflicted: There there must of necessity, of necessity my Lord there, there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some fault or offence Wheresoever there is any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any fault or offence, there there must of necessity of necessity my Lord there there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some transgression of Law. Wheresoever there is any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any transgression of Law, there, there must of necessity, of necessity my Lord, there, there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some law transgressed. If there be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no law transgressed than it is impossible it is impossible my Lord, that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any transgression of Law. If there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no transgression of law, than it is impossible, it is impossible my L. that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any fault or offence. If there be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no fault or offence than it is impossible, 'tis impossible my Lord, that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any wrath or punishment any fining or imprisonment, any deprivation, degradation excommunication, or any other censure sentence, mulct or punishment whatsoever, rightly and justly inflicted.  
Nay further my Lord, this law must be a known law; for by the law is the knowledge of sin, saith the Apostle Rom. 3.20. and by what law is the knowledge of sin? surely by a known law, not by an unknown law, for seeing sin is the transgression of the law, he that will know sin, which is the transgression of the Law, must know it by the law transgressed, and therefore he must first know, that law which is transgressed; and this the Apostle doth expressly and pregnantly show Rom. 7.7. What shall we say (saith the Apostle) is the Law sin? God forbidden; nay I know not sin, but by the Law for I had not known lust, to be a sin, unless the law had said thou shalt not lust. So that first we know the Law, and then by virtue of the law, we know sin, which is the transgression of the Law.  
And here my Lord, I must again repeat the Apostles question, What shall we say, saith the Apostle, is the Law sin? God forbidden, yea, God forbidden it in deed, my Lord, for if the law be sin, than the lawyers cujuscunque generis, eo nomine are sinners, and the greater Lawyers, the greater sinners, and Judges the greatest of Lawyers, the greatest of sinners and how shall we avoid or confute this consequence, my Lord, which to toucheth all our copyholds. Why, just as the Apostle doth the former. The Apostle proves the law to be no sin, because the law discovers, forbids, condemns, and punisheth sin. And if the Lawyers do so, than the Lawyers cujuscunque generis, eo nomine are no sinners but the ornaments both of Church and common wealth, and Gods Ministers and Deputies to reform and preserve both. But if in steed of discovering sin, they conceal sin, in stead of forbidding sin, they command sin, in stead of condemning sin, they justify sin, and in stead of punishing sin, they patronise, protect and prefer sin, than Lawyers cujuscunque generis eo nomine are sinners, and the greater lawyers the greater sinners, and judges the greatest of Lawyers, the greatest of sinners, for as the law doth first discover sin, and then condemn and punish it: so must Judges, first discover a particular sin, a particular transgression of law, and particular law transgressed, and then condemn and punish it. Otherwise they are not judges according unto law, but sinners against law, and their very act and work of judging, in respect of the anomy, obliquity and irregularity of it, is not judging according unto law, but sinning against the law.  
Nay my Lord, not only Judges, but every man is to show unto his brother, his particular sin, his particular transgression of law, and the particular law transgressed, even by Gods own express command Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainly reprove him, and not suffer sin upon him, and if every man must plainly reprove his brother, and not suffer sin upon him, than every man must plainly show his brother his particular sin; and if every man must plainly show his brother his particular sin, then seeing sin is the transgression of the Law, every man must plainly show his brother his particular transgression of law, and if every man must plainly show his brother the particular transgression of law, than every man must plainly show his brother the particular law transgressed. And if every man must do this in love as a brother, than ever Judge must do it, both in love as a brother, and in Justice as a Judge: and therefore no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, can justly inflict any wrath or punishment upon any man whomsoever unless he first discover in him and to him, to him and in him, some particular fault, some particular offence, some particular vice, some particular error, some particular evil, some particular sin, some particular transgression of Law.  
And by this, my Lord, it appears, that the two final sentences of the High Commission Court against me, are both void: first that of the deprivation and degradation, because in twelve sheets as it it stands upon record in this Court, it mentions not one particular fault, but only generals, namely grievous and enormous crimes, excesses & delicts contumacies contempts & incorrigibilities, & therefore my Honoured Lord Chief justice, under favour your LP. was much mistaken, when your Lordship delivering your opinion in the special verdict between Alllen & Nash did parallel my case and Caudreys' case in the principal point. The principal point, in Caudreys' case, 
(g) And that the said Caudrey before time of the said trespass supposed, was deprived of his said benefice before the said Commissioners, as well for that he had preached against the said book of common prayer, as also for that he refused to celebrate Divine Service according to the said book. & shown particularly wherein, Caudreys case. Fol. 3.  was not, whether the sentence found against Caudrey did charge Caudrey with any particular crime within any branch of the Commission found, for that's evident, & granted on both sides in Caudreys' case, & is the principal point in my case, & the negative thereof is as evident in my case, as the affirmative thereof was in Caudries case, and that negative makes the principal point and question in my case to be this, whether the matter be coram non iudice or not, seeing the sentence found against me doth not charge me, with any particular crime within any branch of the Commission found, but only with generals, namely grievous & enormous crimes mentioned in the articles and those Articles not found; so that in very deed there is nothing at all found against me, according to this rule of the common law, de non apparentibus et non existentibus cadem est ratio, idem iud●cium.  
But the principal point and question in Caudreys' case was, whether the High Commissioners had pursued the form of their commission, or not, in depriving Caudrey upon his first conviction, who by the Statute, the 2 of the 1. Eliz. was to be deprived upon his second conviction, which is no point or question in my case. And if your Lordship will parallel these two cases in the principal point, your Lordship must either show, that the sentence found againg Caudrey did not charge Caudrey with any particular crime within any branch of the Commission found, but only with generals, as in my case. Or else that the sentence found against me, doth charge me, not only with generals, but also with some particular crime within some branch of the Commission found, as in Caudreys' case. And unless your Lordship can do one of these two, your Lordship may sooner bring together Hercules his two pillars, or the two poles, then parallel our two cases in the principal point. And until then, this sentence containing only generals, shall according to God's word, the word of truth, stand charged and branded with injustice and uncharitableness, and in respect of the anomy obliquity and enormity of it, shall be taken by all men of sound judgement to be as indeed it is not a sentence according unto law, but a sin, and a foul sin against law; or rather to use the words of that erroneous sentence in a true sense, a grievous and enormous crime contrary to the Law, and therefore void. And both the High Commissioners in giving of it, and your Lordship and this Court in affirming of it, have showed yourselves, not Judges according unto law, but sinners against Law, and I out of love to all your persons, our of duty unto God, and out of obedience unto his word, am bound to tell you so much expressly by the former text. Levit. 19 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainly reprove him and not suffer sin upon him.  
And secondly my Lord, this High commission first final sentence of the five hundred pounds fine, and two year's imprisonment against me, is for the same reason likewise void, because though it mention a particular, namely my refusal to preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon; yet that particular, that refusal to preach that Visitation Sermon, is no fault, no offence, no vice, no error, no evil, no sin, no transgression of any law whatsoever, but a virtue, and an eminent virtue, even the virtue of canonical obedience unto the 36. 49. and 52. Canons to his Majesty's Letters Patents, Royal prerogative and supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as shall now fully and amply appear out of my second position. And thus much concerning my first position, that no Magistrate whatsoever, no not the Supreme, hath any power, prerogative, or authority, to punish any man within his jurisdiction, except it be for some fault, some offence, some vice, some error, some evil, 
Thesis' 2, pro●atio.  some sin, some transgression of some law.  
I now proceed to my second position, that my refusal to preach the Archdeacon of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys visitation Sermon, my principal or especial fault in the judgement of my adversaries, is no fault, nor offence, no vice, no error, no evil, no sin, no transgression of any law whatsoever, and that therefore neither the High Commissioners, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of Exchequer, the Lords of the Counsel, nor any other Magistrate whatsoever, no not the supreme, hath any power, Prerogative or authority to punish me, much less to imprison me for it.  
And that I may begin and go on in this position, with that upon which I did much insist in the former; certain it is, my Lord, that here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here is wrath and punishment, here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad octo, here is wrath in the highest degree, here is wrath as grievous as the fire is hot; here is wrath incomparable, implacable, inexplicable, wrath unparalleled, wrath superlative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as Greg. Nissen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in another case speaks. The evil, the mischief is beyond expression, beyond consolation.  
The two final sentences of the Honourable Court of High Commission against me, may not unfitly be compared to that wind in the first of job: for as that wind strooke upon the four corners of jobs eldest sons house, and so did utterly ruinated it: so have these two final sentences strooke upon the four quarters of my estate, and utterly ruinated me in all, if they stand good. first they have strooke me in my goods by a fine of five hundred pounds, estreated into the Exchequer, and partly paid and partly stalled. Secondly, they have strooke me in my liberty by four times imprisonment, and nine full years and three quarters continuance therein. Thirdly, they have strooke me in my benefice by deprivation. Fourthly, they have strooke me in my Ministerial function by degradation; nay my Lord, they have strooke me one stroke more, above and beyond all the former: they have drawn out the spiritual sword of excommunication against me, and therewith as much as in them lies, they have strooke me out of this orthodox Church, cut me off from the communion of Saints, delivered me up to Satan, and adjudged my soul (for the salvation whereof our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed his most precious blood) to the eternal torments of hell fire, so that if ever there were, than here is wrath incomparable, implacable, inexplicable, wrath unparalleled, wrath superlative.  
Now my Lord, if herein the defendants have proceeded according to the rule of Justice, which placeth and observeth a proportion and correspondency between fault and the punishment, according to this rule of God's word, Deut. 25.2. Secundum mensuram dilicti erit plagarum modus: than it must needs be, that this grievous & enormous punishment must argue some grievous & enormous crime, some crying sin, like that of Cain in murdering his brother Abel, whose blood calls to God for vengeance, out of the dumb and dead Element of the earth: nay it must argue some ascending, some soaring, some mounting sin, flying up into the presence of God, and laying hands as it were upon the Almighty, and violently haling & pulling him down, to execute vengeance unpon the offender like the sins of the Sodomites and what is it? Why it is my refusal to Preach the the Archdeacon of Canterbury Doctor Kingsleys visitation Sermon. Parturiunt montes, nasceturridiculusmus.  
And now my Lord, to examine this their sentence and proceeding to law and justice. If this wrath this incomparable wrath and punishment, or any peer or particle thereof, be rightly and justly inflicted upon me for my refusal to preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon: Then according to the former rule delivered in the former position, this my refusal to preach the Visitation Sermon, must of necessity be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some fault or offence. If this my refusal to Preach the Visitation Sermon be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some fault or offence, than it must of necessity be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the transgression of some law. If it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of some law, than there must of necessity be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some law transgressed, that binds me to Preach that Visitation Sermon. My Lord the High Commissioners by the very Letter and text of some Commissions, that I have seen, have this power, that they may punish a Minister for any fault committed in his own cure or else where, that is punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of this land. By which words my Lord it appears, that first there must be some fault. Secondly, that that fault must be against some law. Thirdly that it must be against some Ecclesiastical law of the land or else that Honourable Court by the very Letter and text of the largest commissions, that I ever saw, have no power to punish a Minister.  
And though this their Commission my Lord, doth much outstrip the first of the first of Eliz. the statute whereon it is grounded: for that statute extends not to every fault punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of this land, for than it would swallow up all the ordinary jurisdictions over England: but only to grievous and enormous crimes punishable by the Ecclesiastical laws of the land, as the Counsel on both sides in the special verdict between Allen and Nash have confessed, and the words of the statute, as I before have showed, do necessarily enforce. Yet in this case of mine, to show mine own innocency and the goodness of my cause, not to make a precedent in other men's cases, I will give the defendants free leave and liberty to exceed both the statute and their Commission. I will not coop them up, and confine them, within the lists and limits of the Ecclesiastical laws as the most indulgent and munificent Commissions that ever I saw do yea and must do, unless they will make their Commission as well Temporal as Ecclesiastical: no my Lord, I will not require an Ecclesiastical law, let them produce an law, canon, civil common, statute or divine, nay my Lord, I will once again deal more Nobly and generously more heroically and munificently with that Honourable court with those Augustins' Hieromes, Gregory's, Ambroses, with those Nazianzens, Chrysostom's, origen's, Basils', with those reverend right reverend most reverend Prelates and Patriarches of our church, I will not require a whole law, Noah not a full period of a law. Let them only produce some colon, nay some comma of law only, nay my Lord I will once again deal more Nobly and generously more heroically and munificently with that Honourable court, I will not require a whole colon, no, nor a whole comma of law neither, that were too too an Herculean labour for that Honourable Court, for those Canonists, Civilians, and Divines, for those commissaries, chancellors, Arch-deacons, Deans, Bishops Archbishops, let them only produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some shaving, some scraping, some paring, some shred, piece, particle or fragment of Law, nay let them only produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unum unum apicem, one jot, one apex, one tittle, one prick or point of law, of any law my Lord, and I do most willingly and most instantly submit.  
And now my Lord as the defendants do pretend a fault, so likewise they do pretend a law: the pretended fault is my refusal to Preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon: the pretended law is the Law of Canonical obedience. They say, that my refusal to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon, at the Arch-deacons command, is a breach of Canonical obedience.  
And now my Lord, we are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad statum causae, ad caput controversiae, for this Canonical obedience is the whole and sole ground and foundation and supportation of the whole sentence against me, and it cannot be understood and determined, whether my refusal to preach the visitation sermon, be a breach of canonical obedience or not, unless it be first known and understood, what this Canonical obedience is: so that in the first place, my Lord, there is a necessity imposed, upon me, breiflly to present unto your Lordship what this Canonical obedience is.  
The high Commissioners in the first part of their final sentence, as it was given in their own Court, make Law, custom, and Canonical obedience three different and distinct things. For therein they say, that the Archdeacon in enjoining Huntley to preach his visitation sermon, hath commanded him no more, than the said Huntley was bound to do by law, custom and by his Canonical obedience, and herein by making Canonical obedience a third and distinct thing from law and custom, they show that they only use the name of Canonical obedience, but intent arbitrary or blind obedience, that is, a general and universal obedience to all the Arch-deacons commands, though they swarve both from law & custom, whereby they make every , Bishop and Archbishop a lawmaker within his own jurisdiction, and every of their commands binding and compulsive, though fortified neither by law, nor Custom.  
But your Lordship, as it seems, not content herewith steps a degree further, and makes Canonical obedience, not only a third and distinct thing from law and custom, but also a thing opposite, and contrary to law and custom: for termino trinitatis 1637. when when your Lordship delivered your opinion in the special verdict between Allen and Nash, your Lordship said, that if the  did owe me an 100 pounds by bond he might by virtue of my Canonical obedience, command me to deliver up that bond, the money, not being yet paid. Or he might command me by virtue of my Canonical obedience, to send him a yoke of fat oxen, a couple of good Coach-horses, or a score of fat weathers, which I am sure is not only beyond, but contrary to law and custom, and more than either his Majesty or any of his royal predecessors did ever challenge of any freeborn subject, either by the oath of allegiance or oath of supremacy, & whether your Lordship have altered this your opinion, or no, I know not, the high Commissioners I suppose, have altered theirs.  
For certain it is, that the former words of the first part of their first final sentence, as it was given in their own Court, are altered in the defendants plea, wherein they make Canonical obedience, not a third and distinct thing from law and custom, as before, but a subordinate, relative, and a proportionable thing to law and custom, by changing these their former words, law, custom and his canonical obedience, into these, law and custom according to his Canonical obedience.  
And this alteration, as I suppose, proceeded from the acute and polite wit of you Master Justice Heath, at that time the King's Attorney General and Commissioners counsel, who seeing that the Commissioners by the former words, did make canonical obedience, a third and distinct thing from law and custom, that thereby they did under the name of canonical obedience, challenge arbitrary and blind obedience to and for every , Bishop, and Archbishop, that thereby they made themselves all lawmakers within their several jurisdictions, and that so at once by two words, they gave two deadly wounds, one to his Majesty's supreme jurisdiction, who under God is the only lawmaker within this land, the other to the freedom and liberty of all his freeborn Subjects, who are not tied to any laws, but to those only, whereunto they give their consents; did prettily and wittyly invent and contrive this trim and almost undiscernible alteration, to cure these two deadly wounds: for which Sir, you did then, deserve a better fee from the Commissioners, than either from his Majesty, or from his other freeborn Subjects.  
But my Lord, though, Master Justice Heath hath with that one salve well cured those two sores, yet therein he hath not rightly and truly expressed and discovered the nature of canonical obedience, for Canonical obedienee hath no reference to custom; that's customary obedience, which is due to custom, neither hath canonical obedience relation to the laws in general, of what kind soever they be, but only to that part and kind of law, which is called the canon law, for canonical obedience, is such obedience as the canons require, and such obedience as the canons require, is canonical obedience, they are convertible of the same circuit and circumference, just even: whatsoever is within compass of canonical obedience, is within the compass of the canons: and whatsoever is without the compass of the canons, is without the compass of canonical obedience, so that if I am bound by my canonical obedience to preach the Arch-deacons visitation Sermon, than I am thereunto bound by some canon, and if not by some canon, 
Thesis' tertiae probatio.  than not by my canonical obedience. And that this is so, that canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require, I will now endeavour to prove by four reasons, such I hope, as shall satisfy your Lordship, this Court, and all men that will be satisfied with reason, and I hope, shall silence them, that will not with reason be satisfied.  
Ratio 1 My first reason to prove that Canonical obedience is such obedience, as the canons require, is drawn a vi & virtute ipsius vocis Canonicae, from the very sense and signification of this word Canonical, for as legal obedience is such obedience as the law requires, Evangelicall obedience such obedience as the Gospel requires, customary obedience such obedience as the custom requires, arbitrary obedience, obedience ad arbitrium praelati, according to the praelates' pleasure, blind obedience such obedience as is required of blind men, and unreasonable obedience such obedience as is required of unreasonable creatures, so a vi & virtute ipsius vocis canonicae from the very strength, sense and signification of this word Canonical, Canonical obedience must be such obedience, as the canons require. And this reason is further confirmed by an argument drawn 
(h) Hor argumenti genus quandoque acuminis, quandoque virium multum, quandoque utrumque habebit. Eleganter itaque apud Terentium est; Homo sum, humani nihil ame alienum puto. Rod. Agricola de Inventione lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Secundo Topicor. libr. His illud adiicere ridiculum putarem, nisi eo Cicero uteretur, quod coniugatum vocant.  eos qui rem●ustam faciant iuste facere: quod certe non eget probatione Quntil. Institut. lib. 5.  a conjugatis or denominativis, a toprike place delivered by Aristotle and Quintilian, and approved, and put in practice by Saint john 1. Ep. 3. chap. 7. ver. there the holy Apostle, saith; He that d●th righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous, that is, as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is righteous. In which words Saint john argueth from one conjugate to an other, from doing of righteousness to being righteous: and so after his example I argue he that doth the canons, is canonical, he that performeth obedience to the canons, performeth canonical obedience. And that this is true sense of this word canonical, appears by the authority of William Lyndewode in the fifth book of his Provincicall titulo de Haereticis, cap. Reverendissime. where he doth thus expound this word canonical, 
(i) Item eodem lib. tit. de Purgatione canonica. cap. statuimus, verbo. Canonice: canonice id est, secundum exigentiam Canonum.  canonice id est secundum ex gentiam canonum, canonically that is, saith he, according as the canons require. And this my Lord, is my first reason, drawn a vi & virtute ipsius vocis canonicae together with an argument drawn a Conjugatis or Denominativis, a topicke place delivered by Aristotle and Quintilian, and approved and put in practice by Saint john, and confirmed by the authority of William Lyndewode.  
My second reason my Lord, is taken from the general consent of learned men, not only in our own church, and of our own religion but also from those, who though they are of our religion, yet they are not of our Church, I mean of our national Church, nay from those, that are neither of our church nor of our religion. And this reason being drawn from the joint consent of learned men, aught to be of great force and authority according to that of vincentius Lerinensis, quod abomnibus, quod ubique quod semper tenetur, illud pro certissima veritate habendum & tenendum est. I will begin my Lord, with those that are furthest from home.  
My first Man is Bellarmine, a learned man in the judgement of those, that are sound and deeply learned on our side: my most reverend diocesan and provincial my Lord's Grace of Cant. in his relation of the conference between his Grace and Master Fisher the Iesui●e doth divers times highly magnify him for his acute solid and profound discourse upon divers points of controversy. sect. 3. num. 2. & num. 17.  
And Doctor Rainolds speaking of Bellarmine and Campian Styles them nobile par jesuitarum, and prefers Bellarmine as far before Campian notitia rerum, as he doth Campian before Bellarmine structura verborum. This learned man in a particular treatise immediately following his books of Justification, the title whereof is de bonis operibus in particulari. 10. chap. speaking of Canonical hours, doth there thus describe them, canonical hours, saith he, are such hours, as are appointed by the canons, to praise God, and to pray unto God, and these hours, saith he, are called canonical, because they are assigned, deputed and appointed by the canons to that purpose. And Petro soave Polano the learned author of that excellent history of the council of Trent in his sixth book, doth give the same reason of the same name, Collegiate churches by their institution have this function among others, to assemble themselves in the churches to praise God, at the hours appointed by the canons, which saith he, are therefore called canonical and Brentius a learned man of our own religion in his Confession wittenburgensi. cap. 20. de Horis Canonicis, doth give the very same reason of the same name, that the two former do.  
Again, Gregory the great in the 11. book of his Epistles and 51. Epist, to john Bishop of Panormum, and received into the body of the Canon Law, writes thus; Si quid de quocunque clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit, quod te juste possit offendere, facile non credas, nec ad vindictam te res accendat incognita, sed praesentibus Ecclesiae tuae senioribus, diligenter est perscrutanda veritas, & tunc (si qualitas rei poposcerit) canonica districtio culpam feriat delinquentis. Let a Canonical punishment be inflicted upon the offender for his offence; now what's this canonica districtio, or canonica paena? The most learned Bishop Bilson in that excellent treatise of his De perpetua Christi Ecclesiae gubernation. 11. cap. interpreting the former words of Gregory, doth in these very words show, paena canonica. 1. paena canonibus congruens. A canonical punishment that is, a punishment agreeable to the Canons; and so doth William Lyndewode in the 5. book of his Provincial. tit. de Paenis. Cap. Evenit. verbo. Canonicas. paena canonica. id est. paena a sacris canonibus approbata. A canonical punishment, that is, a punishment approved by the Canons. and 
(k) johanes de vanquall in Breviario in sextum Decretalium. fol 43. tit. de supplenda praelatorum negligentia ultima conelusio. Episcopum excommunicatum pro culpa sua punire potest Archiepiscopus paena canomica et arbitraria. Probatur hic in fine tex. & glow. fi. et facit. c. de causis de offi. deleg. & si dicatur puniri debet paena arbitraria tum non canonica. quia paena canonica dicitur, quae est in canone & iure expressa. ut in l. siqua paena. ff. de verbo. sig. solutio. Dicit Io. Mo. & Archid. quod paena expressa & de terminata a Canonibus proprie dicitur canonica. ut in dict. lo. Siqua paena. Illa tamen quae non est expressa & determinata a canone, datur tamen secundum moderationem canonum, qualitate personae & quantitate culpae consideratis, dicitur proprie & completive arbitraria. eo quod iudex sua discretione supplet, quod in canone non est expressum. potest tamen talis paena dici canonica, saltem inceptive, & quia per canones dirigitur iudex in moderatione  johanes de vanquall johanes Molanus, and Archidiaconus, do all make this the difference between a canonical and an arbitrary punishment, that the one is expressed in the Canons, the other is not, but left to the discretion of the Prelate. Paena Canonica dicitur, quae in Canone & jure est expressa & determinata: illa autem quae non est expressa & determinata a canone est arbitraria.  
Now to recollect the force and strength or this argument; If canonical hours be so called because they are assigned deputed and appointed by the canons, as in the judgement of Brentius Bellarmine, and Petro Soave Polano they are: and again if a canonical punishment be such a punishment, as is agreeable to the Canons, such a punishment, as is approved of the canons such a punishment, as is expressed and determined in the Canons, and if not expressed and determined in the Canons, not a canonical but an arbitrary punishment in the judgement of Bishop Bilson, William Lyndewode, johanes de vanquall, johones Molanus and Archidiaconus; Then by the same analogy canonical obedience, must be such obedience as is assigned, deputed, and appointed by the canons, such obedience as agreeable to the canons, such obedience as is approved by the canons, such obedience as is expressed and determined in the Canons, otherwise it is not canonical but arbitrary obedience; and this is my second reason which being drawn from the joint consent of learned men, aught to be of great authority according to this former rule of Vincentius Lerinensis, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper tenetur, illud pro certissima veritate habendum & tenendum est.  
My third reason my Lord, 
Ratio 3.  strikes the nail on the head, and drives it home, & it is the very definition of canonical obedience, delivered by William Lyndewode, in the first book of his Provincial. tit. de maioritate et obedientia. cap. Presbyteri. verbis. in virtute obedientiae: where he doth in the former words terminis terminantibus, define canonical obedience thus. 
(l) Nota circa hanc materiam obedientiae, quod obedientia, quae homini debetur ab homine, est debita minoris ad maiorem reverentia. Vnde si mandatur id quod iustum est, obediendum est, si in iustum, nequaquam, si dubium, tunc illud propter bonum obedientiae est explendum. Lyndewode Prov. 1. lib. tit. de Constitutionibus. cap. Quia incontinentiae. ver. obedientiae.  Canonica obedientia, est obedientia secundum canon's & constitutiones rite editas et publicatas, canonical obedience is such obedience, as the canons and constitutions rightly made and published do require.  
Now this man's testimony and authority, aught to be of great esteem for divers reasons; first because he is the only glossator & commentator upon the provincial constitutions of our Archbishops of of Cant. Secondly, because he was Doctor of both laws, and singularly versed both in Church government, and in deciding of controversies, and the ef●re doubtless did well understand what this canonical obedience was: and unicuique in sua arte perito credendum: especially if he be not Judge in his own case, as the Defendants against me are. Thirdly because he was official to Henry Chichley Archbishop of Cant. to whom he did dedicate his provincial; and therefore in all likely hood he would not write any thing therein in the behalf of the Rectors and Vicars of this kingdom, to the prejudice of the Episcopal or archiepiscopal authority or Sea of Cant. Lastly, because he lived about 200. years since, and was long dead before this controversy was on foot, although this 
* It began at the Archdeacon's Visitation, Octob. 1624. and continued at his Uisitations Aprill 1625. and 26. and the last day of that April 1626. Articles were exhibited in the High Commission against me, and the 19 of April 1627. I was by the Commissioners committed to prison, and there continued two years, and then being delivered on the 29. of April 1629. I did that Term begin an Action in the King's Bench Court against the Commissioners, which this 24th day of March 1641. hath depended 12. years three quarters.  hath been on foot full 16. years, which is a larger portion of time, than the term of two men's lives is valued at by the common law, and and therefore certainly he wrote the truth without all respect of persons, without prejudice or partiality on either side, and for these reasons his definition of canonical obedience stands good against all exception.  
Besides, that Canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require, appears by the opposite member of the division: for the obedience now used in the Church of Rome, is either canonical; that is, such as the canons require, and the Prelate by virtue of the canons may require, or else arbitrary 
(m) Neque probamus caecum illud obedientiae genus, nuper a jesuitis excogitatum, nempe ut secundum proverbium, sint caeci caecorum deuces: quo volunt simpliciter & absolute, atque adeo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferiores pendere a superioribus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut verbis utar Theodoreti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. verum ut iniquit Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chamier.  that is such as the superior shall require by his Dictates, whatsoever it be. This the Papists call religious obedience because they make it a part, & a principal part of their religion, to become the servants, yea the slaves of men; contrary to God's word, 1 Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men: and we rightly call it blind obedience, because they that yield unto it, have as it were their eyes thrust out and must like blind men be wholly led by others. But it is properly called arbitrary obedience that is obedience according to the will and pleasure of the superior.  
And as it appears in the constitutions of the society of Jesus; part 6. chap. 1. parag. 1. this arbitrary obedience consists in things 
(n) Obedientiam omnes plurimum observare & in ea excellere studeant, nec solum in rebus obligatoriis, sed etiam in aliis; licet nihil aliud, quam signum voluntatis superioris sine ullo expresso praecepto videre tur. Constit. societatis jesu parte. 6. c. 1. parag. 1.  obligatory, and in things not obligatory: and in respect of this latter in respect of things not obligatory, this arbitrary obedience may be subdivided into obedience, uncanonical, pretercanonicall or ultra canonical, that is besides or beyond the canons, and into obedience anticanonicall or contracanonicall, that is, against or contrary to the canons. And this 
(o) Obedientia quod ad executionem attinet, tunc praestatur, cum res iussa completur quod ad voluntatem, cum ille qui obedit, id psum vult, quod qui iubet: quod ad intellectum, cum id ipsum sentit. quod ille; & quod iubetur, bene iuberi existimat. & estimperfecta ea obedientia, in qua praeter executionem, non est haec eiusdem voluntatis & sententiae inter eum, qui obedit, Conseusio. Ibidem in delarationibus.  arbitrary obedience as appears out of the place last cited, is either perfect in respect of execution will and understanding, or else imperfect; perfect obedience in respect of execution, is when the thing commanded is fully done. In respect of the will, when he that obeys, doth will the same thing, that he who commands doth. In respect of understanding, when there is the same opinion in both, and he that obeys, thinks as he that commands doth, and though the thing commanded be fully done, yet if there be not a full consent and conformity of will and opinion both in him that commands, and in him that obeys the obedience is imperfect.  
And in the same place, my Lord, they give us 
(p) Et sibi quisque persuadeat, quod qui sub obedientia vivunt, se ferri ac regi a divina providentia per superiores suos sinere debent, perinde ac si cadaver essent, quod quoquo versus ferri, & quacunque ratione tractarise sinit vel similiter atque senis baculus, qui ubicunque & quacunque in re velit eo uti, quieum manu tenet, ei inservit. Ibidem in constitutionibus.  two emblems of this arbitrary obedience, whereof the one is a dead body, which suffers itself to be carried whethersoever and to be handled, howsoever the living will: and the other is a staff in a man's hand, which is wholly at his service that hath it, and to be used howsoever, whensoever, and in whatsoever, he that hath it pleaseth.  
Indeed my Lord, in the same place they interpose 
(q) Sancta obedientia tum in executione, tum involuntate, tum in intellectu sit in nobis semper omni ex parte perfecta; cum magna celeritate, spirituali gaudio, & perseverantia, quic quid nobis iniunctum fuerit, obeundo: omnia iusta esse, nobis persuadendo, omnem sententiam ac iudicium nostrum contrarium caeca quadam obedientia abnegando; & id quidem in omnibus, ubi definiri non possit, quemedmodum dictum est, aliquod peccati genus intercedere.  a plausible condition, which if it were sincere and truly observed, would in a great measure rectify and justify their arbitrary obedience, and that's this, that it is not to be performed, if the thing commanded appear to be a sin, but this my Lord is only a Jesuitical and juggling trick to gloze the matter and to gull the world, for this condition is contrary to the two former embles of Arbitrary obedience, for can a dead body or a staff discern what is sinful or whether they be lawfully or unlawfully used? It is contrary to the name and nature of blind obedience, whereby as they there say, we must renounce and deny our own opinion and contrary judgement. It is contrary to the third condition of perfect obedience, which requires that there be a full conformity of mind and opinion both in him that commands, and in him that obeys. And lastly, it is contrary to the practice of the Jesuits, who require and perform obedience not only in things, that are and appear sinful, but also in things that are and appear grossly, palpably and transcendently wicked, as I shall presently show.  
And they do derive this arbitrary obedience, and the two parts and kinds thereof, uncanonical and an anticanonicall from the words of 
(r) Greg. the seventh produceth Samuel to prove, that it is Idolatry and Infidelity to disobey the Pope. He that will not obey this most wholesome precept of ours (forbidding Priests their wives under colour of fornication) incurreth the sin of Idolatry, as Samuel witnesseth, not to obey is the sin of witchcraft, and not to be content, is the wickedness of Idolatry. Distinct. 81. Si qui sunt. What said Samuel more of God, than the Pope here applieth to himself. Bishop Bilson in his true difference between Christian subjection and uncristian rebellion. second part pag. 231. 1 King. 20.32.33.42. Ipse prorex sive papa etiam solus sine concilio quaecunque ad reipub. Statum pertinent, decernit, eique non secus ac regi ipsi Christo, omnes dicto audientes esse oportet. Gasper scioppius in his Ecclus. cap. 55.  Samuel unto King Saul, rebuking him for sparing Agag. and the best of the cattles, contrary to the conmmandment of the Lord, under pretence to offer sacrifice to the Lord. 1 Sam. 15. 22. Hath the Lord saith Samuel, as great pleasure in  offerings and sacrifices as when the voice of the Lord is obeyed? Behold, to obey is better than Sacrifice, and to hearken is better than the fat of rams: for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and transgression is wickedness and idolatry.  
In which words my Lord, as God require, that his word be taken, first for a law, secondly for an universal law or a law in all things, and thirdly for a law of that authority, that if he command any man to kill a man, yea a King, the chief of men, and Gods immediate deputy, he must do it, and if he do it not, he sins greatly, which was saul's case here. So do the defenders of this arbitrary obedience, strive in these three things, to be similes altissimo, to be very Gods. First they will have their bare word to be taken for a law, secondly for an universal law, or law in all things, and thirdly for a law of that authority, that if they bid kill a man, it must be done by them that are under their jurisdiction.  
And this appears my Lord, by a plea or argument, styled the arraignment of the whole society of the Jesuits in France, made in the Court of Parliament in Paris, the twelfth and thirteenth of july 1594. by Master Anthony Arnould Counsellor for the University of Paris against the jesuites: wherein he shows, that the Jesuits fourth vow is to obey their general ubique & in omnibus, every where and in all things and he further adds, that the words of their fourth vow are that they must acknowledge Jesus Christ present as it were in their general, and that if Jesus Christ should command them to go and 
(s) There are above 3000. persons that know that Commo● let Preaching at Christmas last in Saint Bartholomewes' Church, took for his theme the third chap. of the book of judges, where it is reported, that Ehud slew the King of Moab, and scaped away, and after he had discoursed at large upon the death of the King, and exalted and placed amongst the Angels, this Tiger, this Devil incarnate, james Clement, he fell into a great exclamation: we have need of an Ehud, we have need of an Ehud, were he a Friar, were he a Soldier, were he a Lackey, were he a shepherd, it made no matter: needs we must have an Ehud, one blow would settle us fully in the state of our affairs, as we most desire The Arraignment of the whole society of the jesuites. fol. 12.  kill they must do so. And to this purpose Ignatius Loyola in his Epist. de virtute obedientiae, sect. 18. gives his Disciples the Jesuits this one general rule of obedience 
(t) Statuere debetis vobiscum, quicquid superior praecipit, ipsius Dei praeceptum esse & voluntatem atque ut ad credenda quae Catholica fides proponit, toto animo assensuque vestro statim incumbitis, sic ad ea facienda, quaecunque superior dixerit, caeco quodam impetu voluntatis parendi cupidae, sive ulla prorsus disquisitione feri mini. Sic egisse credendus est Abraham filium Issaac immolare iussus. Mysteria Patrum jesuitarum. pag. 62.  Statuere debetis vobiscum, quicquid superior praecipit, ipsius Dei praeceptum, esse & voluntatem &c. You must resolve with yourselves, that whatsoever the superior commands, is the very precept and will of God himself and as you betake yourselves with a full mind and assent to believe those things, which the Catholic faith proposeth: so be ye carried with a blind zeal and an obedient will, to do all things, which the superior shall say, without making any question or disquisition at all, for so Abraham is thought to have done, being commanded to offer his son Isaac & in the twentieth section of his former Epist. Ignatius Loyola adds, 
(u) Quae de obedientia diximus, aeque privatis erga proximos superiores, atque rectoribus praepositisque localibus erga Provinciales, Provincialibus ergo gralem, grali denique erga illum quem ipsi praefecit Deus, nempe suum in ter●is vicarum observanda sunt. Ibidem. Pag. ●1.  Quae de obedientia diximus etc. Those things which we have said concerning obedience, are equally to be observed by private men towards their next superiors, by inferior governor's and Rulers of several places, to their provincials, by provincials to their general, and by the general to him, whom God hath set over him, namely to God's Vicar on earth.  
Here then my Lord, we have now the full extent of this religious, irreligious, blind, detestable, damnable, devilish obedience in two respects; in respect of the persons, to whom it is due, and in respect of the nature of the thing itself. In respect of the persons to whom it is due, it is to be given by every inferior to every Ecclesiastical superior, In respect of the nature of the thing itself, it is a general and universal obedience to all their commands whatsoever. And if we look a little more particularly and narrowly into it we shall find, that they extend it sometimes to things fond & frivolous sometimes to things ridiculous and absurd and sometimes to things wicked and ungodly.  
First to things fond and frivolous; an instance hereof we have in Anselmus Archbishop of Cant. who after he was bishop of that See, wrote to Pope Vrban to appoint him some man, according to whose commands he might frame his whole life, and Pope Vrban appointed him Edmerus, and as Malmesburien. in his first book de gestis pontificum Anglorum in the life of Anselmus saith, the Archbishop did so much esteem the command of Edmerus, that being in bed, he would not so much as rise, nay he would not so much as turn himself a latere ad latus, from one side to the other, sine praecepto Edmeri, unless Edmerus first commanded him, and herein the Archbishop shown himself a true pattern & a lively portraiture of blind obedience. For Caeca obedientia est, ut quis sit tanquam corpus exanime, quod requiescit ubi quis reposuerit, sine motu. This is blind obedience, that a man be like a dead body, which rests where it is laid, without motion until it be stirred, as my late Lord of Ely Bishop White in his explanation of the Orthodox faith and way, cap. 3. parag. 13. shows.  
Secondly, they extend it to things ridiculous and absurd, Ethelwold the Abbot of Abington having set workmen to repair the Abbey, charged one of his Monks called Elstan, to see their diet well prepared for them. Thereupon the Monk betakes him into the Kitchen, makes it clean, trimmes up the vessels, and prepares meat for the workmen's dinner, a little before dinner, the Abbot comes into the kitchen and finding the Monk busy in preparing meat for the workman's dinner, asks him, what his meaning was? The Monk answers, that he was yielding obedience to his command: the Abbot replied, that he gave him no such command, he commanded him only to oversee others, not to do those things in his own person, yet he told him, that he had done well to let his obedience outstrip his command, but added withal that his obedience was not yet perfect: if he would have his obedience perfect indeed, the Abbot bid him thrust his naked arm into a great seething pot full of meat & pull out the lowest piece of meat, that was in the pot and added, that if the scalding liquor did not hurt his naked arm, than his obedience was perfect indeed, Malmesburiensis in his second book de gestis Pontificum Anglorum in the life of Elstan, saith that the Monk did do so, and his hand and arm received no harm and thereby as by a miracle his obedience was known to be perfect indeed.  
In the third place they extend it to things wicked and ungodly, Cardinal Bellarmine de Pontifice Rom. lib. 4 cap. 5. tells us, that if 
(x) Si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes malas, misi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.  the Pope should so fare forth err, as to command vices, and to forbid virtues, the Church were bound to believe, that vices are good and virtues are evil unless she will sinne against her own conscience and Cardinal Cusanus excitat. lib. 2. Serm. 2. & excitat. lib. 6. serm. super respice domine de caelo, & vide, requires every man to yield both implicit faith & blind obedience, not only to the Pope's erroneous doctrine, but also to the erroneous doctrine of his own prelate, and that without any further search or inquiry after the truth, 
(y) Quam firma est aedificatio ecclesiae? quia nemo potest decipi etiam per malum praesidentem. si dixeris domine obedivi tibi in praeposito, hoc tibi sufficiet ad salutem. Tu enim per obedientiam, quam facis praeposito quem ecclesia tollerat, decipi nequis, etimasi praeceperit alia quam debuit: praesumit enim ecclesia de illa sententia, cui si tu obedieris, magna erit merces tua. Obedientia igitur irrationalis est consummata obedientia & prefectissima, scil. quando obeditur sine inquisitione rationis, sieut iumentum obedit domino suo.  how strong, saith he, is the building of the Church: for no man can be deeeived, no not by an evil prelate. If thou say unto God, O Lord, I have obeyed thee in my prelate, this shall suffice thee unto salvation, for thou canst not be deceived by thine obedience, which thou yeildest unto thy prelate whom the church suffereth, though he command thee other things, than he ought to do, for the Church presumeth his sentence to be good, which sentence if thou obey, thy reward shall be great. Obedientia igitior irrationalis est consummata obedientia & perfectissima. Therefore saith he, obedience unreasonable, obedience without reason blind obedience is consummate and most perfect obedience, that is, saith he, when thou obeyest thy prelate without seeking a reason, even as an horse obeyeth his Master.  
Suppose now my Lord, that the Pope should teach the Church, and the Bishop should teach those of his diocese and the general of the Jesuits, should teach those of his order, not such doctrine as 
* Defence. fidie. lib. 6. cap. 6. mysteria patrum jesuit. p. 159. 160. 161.  Swarez teaches that it is lawful for any man actually to depose, and kill a King by the Pope's sentence, First excommunicaed, deposed, and devested of his Subjects allegiance and fealty:  
But such doctrine, as 
* Mr. Anthony Arnoulds plea. pag. 11. 12  Varade Principal of the jesuites in France taught Barriere, namely, that to murder Henry the fourth of France, though a Catholic, and not excommunicate, was a meritorious work, and that for that deed he should go strait unto Paradise: or that to murder any other good King, good Magistrate, good man is a meritorious work, and that for that deed, he that doth it shall go strait unto Heaven: In this case according to this doctrine, what were the Church, the Bishop's subjects, and the Jesuits bound to do, only vi mandati, & virtute obedientiae, without any reference to those manifold subtleties, distinctions, and subdistinctions in the Jesuits King-killing doctrine? why, the Church saith Bellarmine it tied in conscience, to believe and obey the Pope, though he teach virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue, otherwise she sins against her conscience. The Bishop's subjects must obey him, without requiring a reason, as an horse, having a bridle on his head, follows his Master, and this saith Cusanus is perfect obedience, and after the fact is done, if they say unto God, O Lord, we have obeyed thee in our prelate, they have every one his quietus est, this shall suffice them unto salvation, nay their reward shall be great. And the Jesuits, even by their vow, are bound to obey their general, even as jesus Christ himself, ubique & in omnibus, every where and in all things, yea when he commands them to kill and murder.  
And hereupon Campian in that one of his three 
(z) Generalis praepositi nostri d●creto, quod ego tanquam mandatum caelitus missum, & a Christo ipso sancitum veneror, Praga Romam, ubi Generalis nostri perpetua sedes est, Roma deinde in Angliam contendi. Campian.  Epist. prefixed before his ten reasons, directed to Queen Elizabeth's counsel, saith that he came over into England, iussu sui Generalis, tanquam iussu ipsius Christi, at the command of his general, as at the command of Christ himself, and what to do? Even by his own confession, as Sir Edward Coke in Caudreys' case saith, to make a party for the Catholic cause, that is, to withdraw the Queen's subjects from her allegiance and to reconcile them to the Church of Rome, which as Sir Edward Coke there saith, is treason and punishable with death by the common laws of the Land.  
And if any will further see the fruits and effects of this arbitrary and blind obedience, let him cast his eyes upon Felton at the command of Pope Pius Quintus setting up upon the Bishop of London his gates, an excommunication against his own Sovereign Queen Elizabeth that peerless Lady. Let him cast his eyes upon jacob Clement murdering King H. the 3. upon Francis Ravaillac murdering King Henry the fourth both of France.  
And lastly upon the Gunpowder treason plotted and contrived by the advice and approbation of Henry Garnet, superior of the Jesuits here in England, and of Oswold Tesmond, john Garrard and other Jesuits, as appears by the 2. of the third of james.  
And this is the reason my Lord, that such monstrous impieties, and such matchless villainies, are done by the inferior at the command of the superior in the Church of Rome, & not in the Church of England, because the Church of Rome doth approve and embrace arbitrary and blind obedience, and the two parts and kinds thereof, uncanonical and anticanonicall, and extends it, to things fond and frivolous, ridiculous and absurd, yea wicked and ungodly, which the Church of England doth utterly reject, and contents herself with Canonical obedience only, that is, with such obedience as the canons require.  
For as Bishop Bilson in his forcited treatise, de perpetua Christi. Ecclesiae gubernation, saith, In our Church, metropolitanis & d●aecesani, scriptis in quaque re legibus diriguntur: and again in our Church, minime sibi sumunt diaecesani ut diaecesibus suis leges constituant, quod tamen presbyteriis vestris in qualibet paraecia licere contenditis, He speaks against the Presbyterians, sed ut quas pii principes & concilia rite celebrata decreverius, executioni mandari faciant. And thereupon afterwards he calls the Bishops of our Church, in their several jurisdictions, custodes non conditores canorum, which words of his, do fully approve of canonical obedience, and utterly exclude all arbitrary and blind obedience out of our Church. And so my Lord, by the definition both of canonical and arbitrary obedience it appears, that Canonical obedience is such obedience, as the canons require, and if if it exceed the Canons never so little, it is no longer Canonical, but arbitrary.  
My fourth reason to prove that canonical obedience, is such obedience as the canons require, is in my apprehension of more strength and force, than the three former, and it is taken from the 19 and 21. chap. of 25. of Henry. 8. which acts do so limit and confine the Clergy of this land unto the canons, either made by a provincial synod in this land, and confirmed by his Majesty's letters patents out of his prerogative royal or else made beyond sea, and received here for laws of this land, by the King's sufferance, and the subjects free consent and usage, that none of the Clergy in their several jurisdictions, can go beyond those canons, without encroaching upon the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Crown: and therefore the Canonical obedience approved and required in our Church by the oath of canonical obedience, must of necessity, be such obedience, as those canons require, because the superior clergy cannot out of command require more, nor the inferior clergy out of obedience yield more, without prejudice to the King's supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
This will appear most evidently, by the first of the first of Eliz. by the 19 and 21. chap. of the 25. of Henry 8. and by the oath of supremacy. The first of the 1. of Elizabeth is an act to restore unto the crown, the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; then the crown hath a jurisdiction and an ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical. And as the first of the first of Eliz. doth show, that the crown hath an ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical: so the 19 and 21. chap. of the 25. of Henry 8. both revived in the first of the first of Elizabeth, as parts of that ancient jurisdiction of the crown over the state Ecclesiastical do show, how fare that ancient jurisdiction of the crown doth extend over the state Ecclesiastical and they do extend it, over the whole clergy, and submit the whole clergy unto it, in these two points or respects.  
First concerning canons made beyond sea, and then concerning canons made in this land. Concerning canons made beyond sea, they so fare submit the whole Clergy unto the prerogative royal and supreme jurisdiction of the Crown, that none of the clergy in their several jurisdictions, can execute or put in use, any such foreign canons until those foreign canons are first received here for laws of this land, by the King's sufferance and the Subjects free consent and custom.  
Secondly among the canons in this land formerly made, they abrogate all such canons, as are contrary, either to the supreme jurisdiction of the Crown, or to the statutes, customs or common laws of this land, and approve and establish all the rest, until they be otherways ordered and determined by the 32. persons there mentioned, and then concerning canons hereafter to be made in this land, they submit the whole clergy unto the supreme jurisdiction of the crown in these four particulars.  
The first particular is, that the Clergy cannot make any canons in their several jurisdictions, but only when they meet in a provincial synod.  
The second particular is, that they cannot meet in a provincial synod, until they be first called thither by the King's writ.  
The third particular is, when the clergy are so met, being so called, and have made canons, that they cannot execute or put in use, nay they cannot promulge, or publish any one of these canons, until those canons are first confirmed by his Majesty's letters patents out of his supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
And the fourth particular is, that so fare they may go, further they cannot.  
And then in the third place, comes the oath of supremacy, and that binds every Bishop, every judge, every Clergyman, and every other person that hath taken that oath, to defend and maintain all those foresaid particulars, of the prerogative royal of the crown over the whole Clergy. For the last clause of that oath binds every one that takes it, 
(a) The words of the oath, are to his power: but they are so interpreted by the right Honourable Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Earl Martial of England, and General of his Majesty's forces in his treatise styled: Laws and Ordinances of war, pag 26. where he expounds the former words by these, even to the utmost of my power and hazard of my life.  to the utmost of his power, to defend and maintain all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences and authorities united, or annexed to the imperial Crown of this realm. So that if any of them shall extend canonical obedience, or the oath of canonical obedience, or the archidiaconal, Episcopal, or archiepiscopal jurisdiction, by virtue of canonical obedience, or of the oath of canonical obedience, beyond those canons; he doth encroach upon the prerogative royal of the crown, withdraw his submission from his Majesty, presume to make canons within his own jurisdiction, violate the oath of supremacy, transgress the first of the first of Elizabeth and the 19 of the 25. of Henry 8. and is therefore by that statute, liable to be fined and imprisoned at the King's pleasure. And so my Lord, I have by four reasons proved, that the canonical obedience in force in our church, is such obedience, as the canons in force in our church do require, and that all arbitrary and blind obedience is quite excluded, as a thing utterly repugnant, to the word of God, to the doctrine and discipline of their orthodox church, to the supreme jurisdiction of the crown, and to the ancient and just liberty and freedom of every freeborn Subject.  
And now my Lord by one syllogism grounded upon this canonical obedience I will acquit myself and all other, incumbents from preaching the visitation Sermon, and show that every visitor, every , Bishop and Archbishop is bound to preach his own visitation Sermon, and both these by virtue of canonical obedience, so that these two words, which the defendants have abused to acquit themselves, and condemn me, being rightly understood, shall condemn them and acquit me, and this is the syllogism. 
(b) judge Dodridge in his English lawyer saith, although the common lawyers of this land, do use a continued speech & non concisis argumentis, yet do they observe very oft the forms of arguments, used in the schools, as syllogisms, enthimems, inductions, examples, sorites, dilemmata etc. as may be proved by sundry instances, and first of syllogisms in Shellies' case, In Calvin's case.  

Canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require.  
But the canons bind every visitor, every , Bishop, and Archbishop to preach his own visitation Sermon, licenced preachers to preach at their own cures only, and forbidden me, and such as I am, that are not licenced preachers, to preach and expound any Scripture in our own cures, or elsewhere.  
Ergo by canonical obedience every visitor, every , Bishop and Arch bishop etc.    
The Major or first proposition, that canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require, hath formerly been proved by four reasons, and therefore that cannot justly be denied, until those four reasons are first answered and confuted; and it is contrary to the rule of Logic, yea and of law too, to deny the conclusion before the premises are confuted: so that all the question is concerning the Minor. That hath three parts, Thesis' 4 the first is, the canons bind every visitor, every Archdeacon Bishop, and Archbishop to preach his own visitation Sermon. Thesis' 5 The second is, the canons bind licenced Preachers to preach at their own cures only. Thesis' 6 The third is, the canons forbidden me, and all such as I am, that are not licenced Preachers, to preach or expound any Scripture in our own cures or elsewhere. And these three being proved; it will be evident, that every visitor, and he only, and that by canonical obedience, is bound to preach his own visitation Sermon, and I will now prove these three in order one after another, beginning at the first: That that the canons bind every visitor, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to preach his own visitation Sermon.  
Thesis' probatio. 4 Amongst the Canons the word of God hath the prime place: for that is canon Canonum, lex legum, regula regularum and that yields us three arguments, to prove that every visitor every Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop, is bound to preach his own visitation Sermon.  

Argument 1:  My first Argument is taken out of the first Epistle of Saint Peter, 5. chap. 2. verse, where Saint Peter chargeth all his compresbyters, to feed every one his own flock. Feed saith he, the flock of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is amongst you, which is committed unto you, or which dependeth on you: that is, as Saint Paul expounds it, Acts 20.28. whereof the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, whence I thus argue.  
Every flock is to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by that pastor to whose charge it is committed.  
But the incumbents, curates, Churchwardes, Sidemen, and the rest by the visiters authority, assembled at the visiters visitation are there committed to the visiters charge, and not to any of the incumbents charge there present. Ergo.  
They are there to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by the visitor, and not by any of the incumbents there present.  
The Major, or first proposition, that every flock is to be fed ex officio, ex debito, by that pastor, to whose charge it is committed, is the plain, evident, and express word of God in the places before alleged, and therefore that cannot be denied without manifest injury and violence to the Word of God in the places before alleged.  
The Minor or second proposition, that the Incumbents, Curates, Churchwardens, Sidemen, and the rest by the visiters authority, assembled at the visiters visitation, are there committed to the visiters charge, and not to any of the incumbents charge there present, is likewise evident: for the visitor calls them thither, if they come not, he punisheth them if they come, he examines them, if they depart before he dismisseth them, he citys them again. And the visitor, if he be a 
(c) Lyndewode Provinc. l. 4. tit. de claudestina desponsatione. cap. Humana concupiscentia. verbo. diaecesanorum qui, cum habeant curam in solidum per totam diocesin, possunt licentiam de qu● sequitur, concedere ubique per totam diaecesin. Pr. lib. 5: tit. de Haereticis cap. Reverendissime. v. Diaecesano. Paulus. dicit, quod epus loci vel superior praelatus sacerdodotis, maiorem gerit curam in ecclesia, quam curatus, & allegat ad hoc de pae. & re. c. si epus. l. 6. vide Pr. lib. 5. tit. de pae. & re. c. In confession verb. Non recipiantur.  Bishop is nectar totius Diaecesis, and hath curam animarum over them whom he visits.  
And if he be an Archdeacon, than he is oculus Episcopi, to observe them, manus E; piscpi, to govern them to reward and punish them, lingua Episcopi, to instruct and teach them, and vicarius Episcopi, to do them all for the Bishop, for vicarius tenetur implere vicem eius, cuius est vicarius. and he likewise under the Bishop hath curam animarum over them, whom he doth visit as these texts of law show; Decretal. lib. 1. tit. 6. the electione Cap. 7. Inferiora etiam ministeria, ut puta decanatum, Archidiaconatum, & alia, quae curam animarum habent annexam. And upon these words the gloss notes. Et est verum, quod Archidiaconus, qui habet inquirere & visitare parochiam suam, curam habet animarum. And again, eodem lib. tit. 23. de officio Archidiaconi, Cap. 1.  Archidiaconus post Episcopum, sciat se vicarium esse eius in omnibus, & omnem curam in clero, tam in urbe positorum, quam eorum, qui per parochias habitare noscuntur, ad se pertinere, sive de eorum conversatione, sive honore & restauratione ecclesiarum, sive doctrina Ecclesiasticorum, vel caeterarum rerum study, & delinquentium rationem coram Deo redditurus est. And again, Cap. 7. cum super his i.e. super clericis & ecclesiis eorum, sit redditurus rationem in districti examinis iudicio. and so both propositions are proved, and therefore the conclusion, following directly upon the premises, must needs be true.  
Argument 2 My second argument is taken out of the 10, Chapter of Saint Luke's Gospel. 7. verse. From these words of our Saviour, The labourer is worthy of his hire, which is true ● converso. He that hath the hire, is bound to perform the labour, and the canon law doth approve of the rule both ways: Qui sentit onus, debet sentire & commodum, & qui sentit commodum, debet seutire & onus, inter regulas iuris regula 55. Now the labour of the visitation, is to correct and preach, else why am I fined, imprisoned, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated, for refusing to preach a visitation sermon: and the hire for that labour, is procurations, and both these appear by the definition of Procurations. Decretalium lib. 1. tit. 23. de officio Archidiaconi cap. 10. Est procuratio necessariorum sumptuum exhibitio, quae debeter praelatis, diaecesim seu subditos visitantibus, and every , Bishop, and Archbishop confesseth as much. For always before Easter in their process, they cite us to appear at their next visitation, and there to pay unto them, procurationes sibi ratione visitationis debitas, procurations due to them, for visiting, that is, for preaching, and correcting, saith the Canon Law. Procurations, there is the hire of the visitation, due for visiting, that is for preaching and correcting there is the labour or work of the visitation. So that the visitor and he only, and that by the rule of natural equity, is bound to preach his own visitation Sermon, because he receives his procurations of the incumbents for that work: whence I thus argue.  
Whosoever receives the hire of the visitation, which is procurations, he is bound to perform the labour of the visitation, which is to preach and to correct.  
But every visitor, every , Bishop, and Archbishop, receiveth the hire of the visitation, namely procuration. Ergo.  
Every visitor, every , Bishop, and Archbishop, is bound to perform the labour of the visitation, to teach and to correct, to preach and punish.  
That procurations are the hire of the visitation, and that the labour of the visitation is to preach and to correct, and that every visitor receiveth that hire, for visiting, these three are without all question, all the question is, whether to visit, be to preach and to correct, and that will I prove most plentifully, when I come to the canon law; I only suspend the proof thereof, until I have alleged my third and last argument out of the word of God.  
Argument 3 Which is taken out of the first Epistle of Saint Paul to Tim. 3. cap. 1. v. out of these words; This is a true saying, if any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work. In which words Saint Paul admonisheth Bishops, not to make a divorce between their office and their work, not to take to themselves, the dignity and profit of their office, and to cast the labour, and work upon others: but to join them both together, and in their own persons, as well to do the work, as to desire the calling: And this doth analogically bind all others, of what calling soever they be, to join the office and work both together, according to that of the same Apostle Rom. 12.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let him that hath an office, wait on his office: whence I thus argue.  
Whosoever hath desired, whatsoever hath obtained the office of a visitor, he is bound to desire, he is bound to perform, the worthy work belonging to that office, namely to teach, and to correct.  
But every , Bishop, and Archbishop hath desired, hath obtained the office of a visitor: Ergo. Every , Bishop, and Archbishop is bound to desire, is bound to perform the worthy work belonging to that office, namely to teach and to correct, to preach and punish.  
The only thing questionable in this syllogism, is that which was questionable in the former, namely, whether to teach and to preach be the visiters work at the visitation, and that being proved, then by the former argument, every visitor is tied to desire it, and do it in his own person, or by some other lawfully procured. For quod quis legitime facit per alium, idem est ac si faceret per se. And I will now prove that, the visiters duty, so evidently out of the Canon law, that no man shall doubt of it, & so my two last arguments, out of the word of God shall stand good against all exception.  
Lyndewode in the first book of his Provincial, tit, de officio Archidiaconi cap. 1. sets down this canon, made by Steven Langhton Archbishop of Cant. about 400. years since.  
 Archidiaconi secundum Apostolum, non quae sua sunt quaerant, sed quae sunt jesu Christi: in sua visitatione provideant, quod canon missae emendetur, & quoth sacordotes, rite noverint proferre verba canonis & baptismatis, & quoth in hac parte sanum habeant intellectum. Doceant quoque laicos, in qua forma baptizare debeant, ut saltem hoc faciant aliquo idiomate.  
This Canon binds the Archdeacon, to teach the Clergy and Laity at his visitation: and what must he teach them? why, he must teach the Clergy, how to pronounce the words of the canon of Mass and of Baptism, and the Laity how to baptise in some tongue: and where were the Clergy and Laity to do these things? In their own Parishes, not at the visitation. So that by this canon, the Archdeacon is bound, to teach the Clergy and Laity at the visitation, how to do their own duties, at home in their own Parishes, not how to do his duty at the visitation. And that all this is the Archdeacon's duty, it is evident by the title of the canon. It is de officio Archidiaconi. The text is plain, Lyndewodes gloss makes it plainer, for upon these words, ut sacerdotes in hac parte sanum habeant intellectum, Lyndewode gives this gloss.  
Sanum intellectum, 1. fidelem intellectum sive Catholicum: & ex hoc apparet, quod in Archidiacono requiritur Scripturarum scientia: quomodo namque possit in aliis canonis missae, verborum baptismatis sanuum intellectum exquirere, nisi ipse prius eadem sano sapuerit intellectu? Nam non convenit talem aliis praefici in magistrum, Good my Lord, mark this, non convenit talem aliis praefici in magistrum, qui nondum se noverit esse discipulum. By which words it is evident, that the Archdeacon is made a teacher, an instructor, a Doctor to the incumbents, and they Disciples, Scholars, and hearers unto him, and therefore he is ex debito, ex officio, to teach and to Preach unto them at his visitation, and not they unto him.  
From the provincial constitutions of our Archbishops of Cant. I proceed to the Legantine constitutions of this Kingdom, & amongst them I find this canon or constitution made by Otho the Pope's legate, tit. de septem sacram. c. Sacram. Ecclesiast. parag. statuimus.  
Statuimus quod in susceptione curae animarum, & ordinis sacerdotii, examinentur de sacramentis praecipue, ordinandi. Archidiaconi quoque in singulis Decanatuum suorum conventibus, sacerdotes, in his studeant erudire, docentes eos, qualiter circa baptismum, eucharistiam, matrimonium, paenitentiam se habere debeant.  
This canon likewise binds the Archdeacon's at their visitation, to teach the incumbents, how to carry themselves in administering the Sacraments, which are to be administered by them, in their own Parishes, to their own people, and not at the visitation to strangers. So that by this canon also, the Archdeacon's are bound at their visitation, to teach the incumbents, how to do their own duties at home in their own cures, not how to do the Archdeacon's duty at the visitation. And which is especially to be observed in this canon, the Archdeacon's are here bound to teach the incumbents in singulis decanatuum suorum conventibus, at every meeting of the Deaneries, at every visitation, and therefore the incumbents are not bound to teach the Archdeacon's, or one another at any visitation.  
Again among Otho's legantine constitutions tit. de Archidiaconis c. De Archi. quoque. par. sint solliciti. I find this canon or constitution.  
Sint solliciti Archidiaconi, frequenter interest capitulis per singulos decanatas: In quibus diligenter instruant inter alia sacerdotes, ut bene vivant, ut sciant & sane intelligant verba canonis & baptismatis.  
This Canon also binds the Archdeacon's at their visitation, to teach the incumbents, and that frequently, carefully, and diligently, both how to lead their lives, and how to discharge their cures. And johanes de Athona in his gloss, shows as much, & withal shows, how the Archdeacon's did then neglect that duty, and why, even because it brought no profit with it.  
These are his very words upon the last text: Hic textus requiquirit sollicitudinem & diligentiam in Archidiaconis. Haec tamen constitutio perraro ab Archidiaconis servatur, quia lucrum pecuniarium, eye inde non applicatur. And this is also the reason, my Lord, that our Archdeacon's, Bishops & Archbishops violate these constitutions, which binds them to preach their own visitation Sermons, and enforce that duty upon the incumbents, because it is for their profit and ease so to do.  
But if either profit or ease, my Lord, would have prevailed with the Archdeacon, this controversy concerning Preaching the visitation Sermon, had never been between him and me: for in his plea, the fourth Article he confesseth, that I offered him two or three pieces, that is, by his own interpretation, forty shilling or three pounds, to procure one to preach the visitation Sermon: so that if he would have Preached that Sermon himself, he might have had a rich reward for his own pains, in doing his own work: or if he would not, he might with part of the reward, have procured another to have preached it, & so he might have had both profit and ease. But his spleen against me was so great, that he would not accept of either, but preferred a most unjust war, before a most just peace, and so quod pessimorum est ingeniorum, he hath rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my good will.  
From the provincial and legantine constitutions of this Kingdom, which are as it were an epitome, or breviate of the whole body of the canon law, I proceed to the body of the canon law itself, and there in the Decretals 3. book. 39 tit. de Censibus etc. cap. 23. parag. porro, I find this canon or constitution.  
Porro visitationis officium exercentes, non quaerant, quae suae sunt, sed quae sunt Jesu Christi, praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit.  
The first thing, my Lord, to be inquired into, in this canon, is, who these visitationis officium exercentes are? The former part of the canon shows, that they are Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Archbishops: what are they to do at the visitation? non quaerant, quae sua sunt, sed quae sunt Jesu Christi: They must not seek for their own things, that is, for procurations, but for the things of Jesus Christ, that is, for the salvation of their souls, whom they visit. How is that to be done? Praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & reformationi vacando. By employing themselves in preaching and exhorting, there's the first thing; By employing themselves in correcting & reforming, there is the second thing. Where must these things be done? In visitationis officium exercendo, at the visitation. By whom? a visitationis officium exercentibus. By them that keep the visitation, who are they? Arch-deacons, Bishops, Archbishops, who is now, my Lord, to preach the visitation sermon, The visitor or the visited?  
And here my Lord, I do how make good my two last arguments out of the word of God, wherein there was nothing doubtful, but only these two things, whether to visit were to preach and to correct, and both they the visiters work at the visitation? and both these appear out of this text. For here, exercere visitationis officium, est praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & reformationi vacare. To visit or keep a visitation, is to employ one's self in preaching and exhorting, in correcting and reforming. So that when the canon law gives the visitor, his procurations for visiting, it gives him his procurations for preaching and correcting: and when the Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Archbishops of this realm, in their process challenge their procurations, of us the incumbents for visiting us: they challenge their procurations of us, for preaching unto us, and for correcting of us: and the reason hereof is, quia visitare vel visitationis officium exercere, nihil aliud est, quam praedicationi & exhortationi, correctioni & reformationi vacare. Because to visit or keep a visitation, is nothing else but to employ one's self in preaching and exhorting, in correcting and reforming. And therefore my Lord, seeing without all question, without all peradventure, it is the visiters duty to visit, and to visit is to preach and to correct: therefore it is his duty to preach and correct, as this text shows: and this much shall likewise appear out of my next canon, which is taken ex Sexti decretal. lib. 3. tit. 20. de censibus, exactionibus & procurationibus cap. 1. parag. Sane. The words are these.  
Sane Archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo Dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis.  
This canon my Lord, just as the former did, doth show, what it is, impendere visitationis officium, it is proponere verbum Dei, & quaerere de vita ministrantium in ecclesiis. To preach the word of God, and to examine the lives of the Church ministers. And both these, as this canon shows, must be done by the visitor, yea by the chief ecclesiastical visitor, by the Archbishop himself at his visitation. Archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo Dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis.  
Vives makes this one difference, my Lord, 
lib. de causis corruptarum artium.  between a base wit and an ingenuous mind: that the one will strive for victory, in a known error, the other will rather seek, how true that is, which he holds, than how he may defend it, and make greater price of verity, than of victory. And hereupon my Lord, I hold myself bound in conscience, to acquaint your Lordship with the only exception, that the advocates for the office, have made against all my proofs, that so it may appear, that I am not partial in mine own cause, nor wedded unto it, whether it be right or wrong: but that I am indifferently affected, nay wholly bequeathed unto the truth, that that may take place, and get the victory, whether it be against me, or for me.  
When this last text was alleged in my behalf, at informations in Doctors Commons, Doctor Rives the King's advocate, and one of the advocates for the office against me, a learned Lawyer and an elegant orator, made this exception against it. He granted, that by the former text, praeponere verbum dei, was the Archbishops duty at his visitation. But he added, that proponere verbum dei, did not bind the Archbishop to preach the word of God at his visitation, but only to lay the word of God before him at his visitation: as if the words of the text had been, Praeposito verbo Dei, and not proposito verbo dei.  
Dulhard vives his schoolmaster was of opinion, that the worst Grammarian would make the best logician: and it seems, 
Ibidem.  that Doctor Rives is of Dulhards' opinion and thinks to prove himself a great canonist, by showing himself a weak grammarian, by taking pro or prae, or by confounding pro with prae. But this my Lord, is not expositio or interpretatio, but nugatio, nay corruptio & depravatio textus: or if it be an interpretation, it is such an interpretation, as gave occasion to this old proverb, mala glossa corrumpit textum. And as at that time, I entreated Doctor Rives to compare his gloss, with the approved gloss upon these words, which I suppose satisfied him at that time, I am sure it made him silent: so I desire your Lordship to observe the difference between Doctor Rives his gloss, and the ordinary gloss, and to judge which comes nearest the text.  
The ordinary gloss upon these former words, Sane Archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo Dei. quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis, makes this question, Hic quaeritur, quid primo debet facere Archiepiscopus visitans? It gives this answer, Respondetur, quod primo debet praedicare verbum dei, deinde debet inquirere, de vita & moribus habitantium ibidem vid. clericorum & laicorum.  
Proponere verbum dei then, not only by its own grammatical signification, but also by the glosses approved interpretation, is praedicare verbum dei, to preach the word of God: & thereunto the Archbishop himself, the chief visitor, under the King, is tied, & that ex debito, ex officio, out of debt & duty. Nay it is his primum debitum, his primum officium: his second debt & duty at the visitation, is to correct, and reform: and both these this last gloss doth expressly show. Archiepiscopus visitans debet, primo debet predicare verbum dei, deinde deber inquirere, de vita & moribus ibidem habitantium vid. clericorum & laicorum. So that both by this last text & gloss, Archiepiscopus visitans tenetur, tenetur ex debito, tenetur ex officio, praedicare, primo praedicare verbum dei, secundo corrigere & reformare.  
And now my Lord having proved it the Archbishops, the chief Ecclesiastical visiters, debt and duty, which he is to pay and perform to the Clergy and Laity at his visitation, nay his prime debt and duty, in the first place to preach his own visitation Sermon, I may easily by an argument, drawn a majore ad minorem, a superiore ad inferiorem, prove it the duty of every inferior visitor, of every Bishop, and Archdeacon, to preach his own visitation Sermon; for quod valet in majore, valebit etiam in minore. But I stand not in need of these topical and analogical arguments. The last paragraph of that chapter, the paragraph Hanc autem, requires as much of every Bishop, and Archdeacon, at their visitation, as is by the former paragraph, the paragraph Sane, enjoined the Archbishop at his visitation.  

(d) Vltima conclusio. Praedicta forma visitationis debet servari in epis & aliis inferioribus: regularium consuetudinibus exceptis. Probatur hic in Parag. fin. & intellige de forma tradita a Parag. Sane usque in finem non de forma tradita in principio textus. secundum Do. johannes De vanquall in Breviario super sextum Decretal. in his conclusions upon the Parag. Hanc autem. ultima conclusio.  Hanc autem visitandi forman ab universis etiam Episcopis, aliisque praelatis, ordinario jure subjectos suos visitantibus, plene observari praecipimus. praecipimus.  
Here my Lord we have this word praecipimus, and this word being inserted in a canon, makes canonicum praeceptum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the highest degree, as the Canonists speak: and there fore the canonical obedience here required, must needs be canonica obedientia by an excellency. And upon this word praecipimus, Lyndewode gives this note: 
(e) Lyndewode Provinc. lib. 1. tit. de constistutionibus. cap. Quia in continentiae vitium. verbo. Praecipimus.  Ex hoc apparet, quod contrafaciens peceat, saltem ille, qui est subditus praecipientis: and Greg. ad jovinianum saith, quod praecipitur imperatur, quod imperatur necesse est fieri, si non fiat, paenam habet.  
This Canonical precept then requiring canonical obedience, is of necessity to be obeyed, and he that breaketh it, sins, saith Lindewode, and is to be punished, saith Greg. Now what is the canonical obedience required by this canonical precept? why, Hanc visitandi formam observari, That the precedent form of visiting, enjoined the Archbishop before in the paragraph, Sane. namely, that first he preach his own visitation Sermon, and then correct and reform the parties visited, be observed. By whom must it be observed: ab universis etiam episcopis, by all Bishops. By whom else? aliisque praelatis. By all other Praelates. Scilicet. Archidiaconis, namely Archdeacon's, saith the gloss: and lastly, how must it be observed? why, plene observari praecipimus, it must be fully observed, not semiplene, not by pieces or halves, they must not only preach, and omit to correct, nor only correct, and omit to preach: but they must do both jointly together. If they omit either, they break their canonical obedience, they violate this canonical precept, and therein they sin, and therefore they are to be punished.  
And if to omit to preach the Visitation Sermon, my Lord, be a sin in the Archdeacon's, Bishops, & Archbishops, and to be punished: what a sin is it in them, wholly to reject that duty from themselves, and without both canon and colour, to put it upon the incumbents, and if any incumbent refuse it, to cite him to the high Commission Court, and there to fine, imprison, deprive, degrade, and excommunicate him? this surely is a transcendent and a superlative sin, and therefore deserves a transcendent and a superlative punishment.  
But I proceed, and from the text and gloss, I proceed to the Commentators and glossators upon the text. And in the first place I produce these three; johanes Andreas in apparatu suo super sextum decretalium, Helias Regnier, in his casus literales & notabilia super sextum decretal. And the third is anonymus quidam, the title of whose work is, casus longi super sextum decretalium, compilati in alma unversitate Pictavensi; and I join these three together, because they writ upon the same text, and use the very same words upon the text.  
The text they writ upon, is the text last cited, ex sexti decretal. lib. 3. tit. 20. de censibus exact, & procurat. cap. 1. cap. Romana parag. Sane. Sane archiepiscopus visitationis officium impensurus, proposito verbo dei, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium in ecclesiis. And upon this text, they all give this gloss in these very words. Hic quaeritur, quid primo debet facere Archiepiscopus visitans? Respondetur, quod primo debet praedicare verbum dei, deinde debet inquirere, de vita & moribus habitantium ibidem, videl. clericorum & laicorum: and it seems, that Johanes Andreas was the first author of those words, and that the other two, and the gloss in the last and best edition of the body of the canon law, put out by Gregory the thirteenth, borrowed them from him. For I find them in the gloss of that edition, but in the glosses of former editions, I find them not. But howsoever that prove, this is certain, that this their gloss is uncontradicted by any, that ever I saw, and I have seen as many, as I could upon a diligent search find in Paul's Churchyard, Duck-lane, and some other by-corners.  
My fourth author is Johanes de vanquall Coloniensis, Doctor utriusque juris, in his Breviary on the sixth book of the Decretals. in his conclusions upon the text last cited, conclusione 2. where he thus writes.  
Spectat ad officium visitatoris primo discutere statum clericorum, qualiter baptismum & alia sacramenta administrent, & qualiter se habeant in ecclesia & vita. Et si omnia recte inveniat, deo gratias agate, sin autem aliter inveniat, ignaros instruat, & haec nocte, qua venit, expediat: sequenti die de mane plebi vocatae, debet praedicare verbum dei, docendo fidem, and quod mortalia vitent: & see continue in bonis operibus exerceant.  
This gloss is agreeable to the former text, and binds the visitor, ex debito, ex officio, to preach at his visitation, and there to teach both Clergy and laity.  
My fift man is Cardinal Hostiensis in the third book of his sum, tit. de Censibus, exactionibus & procurat. Expounding the text last mentioned. His words are these.  
Archiepiscopus in secunda visitaione illos visitet, qui in prima non fueriut visitati: & imprimis verbo dei proposito, quaerat de vita & conversatione ministrantium. Praecipit autem dominus noster universis episcopis, aliisque praelatis, ordinario jure, exceptis religiosis, visitantibus, ut hanc formam studeant observare. ut omnia haec leguntur in authentica Domini.  
In which words, my Lord, this is very observable, that Hostiensis saith, it is expressly set down in the very text of the canon law, even in the Pope's authentic Epistle, that every , Bishop and Archbishop, is first to preach his own visitation sermon, and then to correct and reform the parties visited. And if this much be expressly set down in the very text, what need we any more glosses to prove that, which is clear and evident in the very text, and if any gloss shall contradict a plain text, we may lawfully reject it, and conclude that it is mala glossa, quia corrumpit textum.  
Now upon the other text, before alleged out of the Decretals lib. 3. tit. 39 De censibus exactionibus & procurationibus. cap. 23. parag. Porro. The words whereof are these. Porro visitationis officium exercentes, non quaerant quae sua sunt sed quae sunt Jesu Christi, praedicationi & exhortationi correctioni & reformationi vacando, ut fructum referant, qui non perit. I produce these three glossators, Petrus de Anchorano, Cardinal Zabarell, and Abbot Panormitan.  
Petrus de Anchorano upon the former text says. Praelati tunc sunt procurandi cum personaliter visitant. Et debent tunc consilium Lateranense servare, & praedicationi, exhortationi, & reformationi vacare.  
Cardinal Zabarell upon the same text, gives us this gloss. Octavo nota quod debet visitans instare praedicationi, exhortationi, & correctioni, & quid a clericis exquirere debeat, & quid eos docere, traditur in decretis, causa decima, quaestione prima, cap. placuit. Abbot Panormitan upon the former words says, visitator debet praedicare ex munere. and he further adds. Quid debeat facere praelatus tempore visitationis, vide bonum textum in decretis. causa decima. quaestione prima. cap. placuit.  
There are two things my Lord in these three gloss●tors to be observed. The first is, that they do expressly affirm, that it is the visiters duty to preach his own visitation sermon. The other is, that for fuller information in that point, they do refer us to two, canons: The first, is the tenth canon of the second Lateran Council, mentioned by Petrus de Anchorano. The other is the first canon of the second 
(f) Brachara metropolis in provincia Gallaeciae. The city Braga or Bracha in Portugal. ex Binnio.  Bracharen Council, contained in the decrees, the tenth cause, the first question, the Chapter Placuit, mentioned by Zabarell and Panormitan: And these two canons lay a greater burden upon the visitor, than to preach his own visitation sermon, at the public meeting of the deaneries; or at a general chapter and visitation of many parishes. For the first canon of the second Bracharen Council contained in the chapter placuit, binds every Bishop to go over his whole diocese parochiatim, and in every parish to teach, both clergy and laity: The clergy, how to do their own duties in their own Churches: and the laity, how to understand the Articles of the Christian faith, and how to lead a godly life, and then that canon concludes. Et sic postea Episcopus de illa ecclesia proficiscatur ad aliam.  
And if any Bishop either through multitude of business, or bodily sickness, or want of knowledge, or through other occasions, cannot in his own person, preach the word of God Parochiatim through his whole diaecesse: Then the other canon, the tenth canon of the second Lateran Council binds him, assumere viros idoneos, potentes opere & sermone, qui plebes sibi commissas, vice ipsius (cum ipse per se idem nequeat) solicit visitantes, verbo aedificent & exemplo. To take unto himself able men powerful in deed and word, who carefully visiting the people committed to him, may in his steed, when he himself cannot, edify them by word and example And it ties the Bishop to give them competent allowance. Quibus ipse cum indiguerint, congrue necessaria ministret, and it shows, that the Bishop is bound so to do, by the law of natural equity, because they are his coadintors & cooperators, non solumin praedicationis officio, verum etiam in audiendis confessonibus & panitentiis iniungendis, ac caeteris peragendis, quae ad salutem pertinent animarum, and it concludes, si quis hoc neglexerit adimplere districtae subiaceat ultioni. If any Bishop shall not preach the word, hear confessiones, enjoin penance Parochiatim, through his whole diaecesse, either in his own person, or else substitute others under him, to do so for him, and give them a good allowance for it, he is severely to be punished.  
And thus my Lord, whereas our Archdeacon's, Bishops and Archbishops, make it the incumbents duty, out of canonical obedience, to Preach the visiters visitation Sermon: I have proved, that canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require, and that the canons bind every visitor, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to preach his own visitation Sermon, at the public meeting of the Deaneries, & also in his own person, or by deputies, to preach parochiatim in every incumbents cure, through his whole Diocese, and I will now conclude this first particular, with the repetition of the first part of my former syllogism. 

Canonical obedience is such obedience, as the canons require.  
But the Canons bind every visitor, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, to Preach his own visitation Sermon:  
Ergo. By Canonical obedience, every visitor, every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, is bound to preach his own visitation Sermon.    
Thesis' Probatio. 5 & 6 I now proceed to my other two particulars; That the Canons bind licenced Preachers, to preach at their own cures only, and forbidden me, and such as I am, that are not licenced preachers, to preach, or expound any Scripture in our own cures, or else where: And for brevity's sake, I will handle them both together, and so una fidelia duos parietes de albare.  
And in the first place, my Lord, I must put a difference between the ancient and modern canons. The ancient canons gave power to every Presbyter, that had cure of souls, to preach the word, and to do all other offices of his calling in his own cure. In the fift book of Lyndewodes Provincial tit. de Haereticis. cap. Reverendissime. Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Cant. speaks thus; Curatum perpetuum missum intelligimus a jure, ad locum & populum curae suae. We understand, saith he, that a perpetual curate is sent by the Law, to the place and people of his charge; and who this perpetual curate is, Lyndewode in his gloss upon those words doth in these words show: Perpetuus curatus, sicut Episcopus in sua Diaecesi, rector & vicarius in sua parochia, & quilibet perpetuo intitulatus ad beneficium, cui imminet cura animarum. So that then, even by the Law itself, every Rector and Uicar was a licenced Preaher in his own cure, as well as the Bishop was in his own Diocese, and might do all functions belonging to the office of a Presbyter, in his own Parish without any licence from the Bishop, as well as the Bishop in his Diaecesse may do all the Offices of a Bishop, without any licence from the Archbishop.  
And to that purpose in the first book of Lyndewodes Provincial tit. De officio Archipresbyteri, cap. Ignorantia sacerdotum. I find this canon made by john Peccan, Archbish. of Cant. Praecipimus ut quilibet sacerdos plebi praesidens, quater in anno per se vel per alium dilucide exponat subditis suis, articulos fidei decem mandata decalogi duo praecepta evangelij, vid geminae charitatis septem opera miserecordiae, septem peccata mortalia, sua cum progeny, septem virtutes principales, ac septem gratiae sacramenta.  
But our modern canons, our canons made in King james his reign, hath altered this point and permits not any incumbent to Preach or expound any Scripure no not in his own cure, until he be first made a Licenced Preacher: so that our Church according to those canons, hath two sorts of incumbents, some that are licenced 
(g) Saint Chrysost. on 1. Cor. 1.17. saith, Evangelizare perpaucorum est, baptizare autem cuiuslibet, modo sungatur sacerdotio. and a little after: Siquidem presbyteris, qui simpliciores sunt, hoc manus tradimus, ut baptizent; verbum autem ut doceant, non nisi sapientioribus: hic sapientia & labour. quamobrens & alibi inquit: qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni sunt, maxim qui laborant in verbo. Quilibet sacerdos cum ordine accipit potestatem consecrandi, baptizandi, praedicandi & absolvendi ab omnibus peccatis: sed interdicitur exercitium illius potestatis, donec concedatur de licentia eius, qui potest: quare reservare non est non concedere potestatem absolvendi, sed minuere potestatem. Itaque non caute Sotus est locutus. Compendium Navarri de irregularitate, cap. 28. pag. 337. tit. De casibus reservatis.  preachers, others that are not. These licenses are only granted, either by one of the Universities, or by a Bishop or an Archbishop: He that is licenced by one of the Universities must be licenced under their Scale only, he that is licenced by a Bishop, or any Archbishop, must be licenced under their hand and Scale. And at the time of his licensing, the Bishop that licenceth him, is to see him subscribe to the three Articles for the conformity of Religion, extant in the 36. canon. Otherwise the Bishop that licenseth him, is to be suspended for a twelvemonth, by the 36. canon: And such a licence is qualification to hold two benefices, by the 41. canon: And he that is thus licenced, is bound to preach in his own cure once every Sunday only, by the 45. canon. He that is not thus licenced, is no licenced preacher, & is forbidden to preach, or expound any Scripture in his own cure or elsewhere, by the 36. 49. & 52. Canon.  
Now my Lord, can the Archdeacon, or any other Prelate by canonical obedience, command a licenced preacher to preach either twice a sunday in his own cure, or once in the week days, either in his own cure, or at the visitation, or elsewhere? He cannot by canonical obedience, which is such obedience as the canons require, command him beyond the Canons. If he do, he brings in uncanonical, praetercanonicall, or ultracanonicall obedience, the first part or kind of Arbitrary or blind obedience, and therein, he goes contrary to the nineteenth of the 25. of Hen. 8. which in submission to the King's supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, limiteth the whole Clergy of this Land, to the Canons of this land, he incrocheth upon the royal prerogative of the Crown, he withdraws his submission from his Majesty, he presumes to make Canons within his own jurisdiction, & for that by the former statute being convict therefore, he is liable to be fined and imprisoned at the King's pleasure. And beside both he, and they that obey him, and they that assist him, and they that plead or argue for him, and they that give sentence or judgement with him, do all violate the oath of supremacy: for by that oath they are all bound to the utmost of their power to assist & defend all jurisdictions of the Crown, and they to the utmost of their power do overthrow and betray the ancient jurisdiction of the crown over the state Ecclesiastical.  
But this is not my case, my Lord, for I am not a licenced Preacher, neither was I, when this controversy first began: and the Defendants confess so much in their plea, the fift Article: neither could I since procure a licence of them, though I sued unto them twice for it, and they both in their Articles and sentence, extant in their plea, confess me to be sufficiently qualified for a licenced preacher. And therefore I then was, and am now forbidden to preach or expound any Scripture in mine own cure, or elsewhere, by the 36. 49. and 52. canons.  
Now these Canons my Lord were made by a provincial Synod, called together by the King's writ, and they were afterwards confirmed by his Majesty's Letters Patents, out of his prerogative royal. His Majesty therein straightly chargeth, all his loving subjects of both provinces, to keep and observe all those Canons, in every point, wherein they do, or may concern every, or any of them: and he doth likewise charge all Archbishops, Bishops, and all others, that exercise any Ecclesiastical authority within this Realm, to see and procure that all within their jurisdictions, do observe and keep them in the former manner. So that his Majesty doth charge me, being no licenced preacher, to keep and observe the former canons, which forbidden me to preach in mine own cure, or elsewhere: and doth likewise charge the , Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury to see and procure, that I do observe them. And to the intent that both clergy and laity may the better observe them, his Majesty chargeth all incumbents, to read them publicly, in their own Churches, to their own people, once every year.  
Now can the , or any other prelate, by canonical obedience command me to preach, contrary to these canons? No surely, canonical obedience is such obedience as the canons require: but this is contrary to the canons, and therefore is arbitrary obedience, and the worst part or kind of Arbitrary obedience, namely anticanonicall or contracanonicall obedience.  
What then am I to do in this case? For this is my case, my Lord; am I to obey the 
(h) 
Contumax est, qui bene intelligit Canones praecipientes contrarium, & tamen non vult eis obedire, sed scienter contrafacit. Vnde contumax idem est, quod superbus iniuriosus, repugnans, contemnens, sive in obediens secundum januensium Lyndewode. Prov. lib. 1. tit. de Saera unctione. Cap. cum sacri. verb. contumaci.  
See Bishop Whites Treatise of the Sabbath day. pag. 99 100 101. 102. 103. concerning of Ecclesiastical precepts and constitutions with the marnall notes.   canons, his Majesty's letters patents, his royull prerogative, a royal prerogative invested in the crown, by God himself, acknowledged by article, by statute, by canon, nay a royal prerogative, which every one, that hath taken the oath of supremacy, as I have done, is sworn to the utmost of his power, to defend and maintain? or am I to obey the Arch-deacons Apocryphal, uncanonical, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript, private letter, or message, contrary to all the former?  
This question my Lord, is as if a man should ask, which is highest heaven or earth? lightest day or night? largest the circumference or centre? greatest the whole or a part? And therefore at the very first hearing, without any discourse at all, even by the inbred light that is in it it may be resolved. Yet seeing my adversaries do 
(i) But in particular, for that which first caused, and now continues the loss of unity in the Church of Christ, as I make no doubt, but that the pride of men, is one cause, so yet can I not think, that pride is the adequate and sole cause thereof. But in part pride caused it, & pride on all sides: Pride in some that would not at first, nor will not since submit their private judgements, where with good conscience they may and aught: and pride in others, that would not first, nor will yet mend, manifest, great, and dangerous errors, which withal good conscience they ought to do. But it is not Pride, not to submit to known and gross errors. My Lord's Grace of Cant. Archbishop Laud in his relation of the conference between his Grace and Master Fisher the jesuite. Parag. 38. Numb. 24.  wilfully oppose the evident truth of God's word, of the articles, statutes canons, of his Majesty's letters patents, royal prerogative, and oath of supremacy, which are as clear in this my case, and as easy to be discerned, as the light of the sun, the heat of the fire, the weight of the earth, and the water of the Sea: By your Lordship's favour, I will presume to add light to the sun, heat to the fire, weight to the earth, and water to the sea, and by some few texts of law, endeavour to make that more clear, which is of itself most clear.  
Felinus de rescriptis. cap. si quando. gives this rule: Subditi debent resistere praelato legem ignoranti instruendo eum, multo magis legem violanti, maxim vero legem conculcanti. And if this rule be a good rule, than the 36. 49. and 52. canons, made by a provincial synod, for the lawfully authority of a Bishop over a Presbyter, according to God's word and the uniform practice of the Christian Church for 1500. years after Christ & confirmed by his Majesty's letters patents, out of his prerogative royal, are to be preferred before the Arch-deacons apocryphal, uncanonicaIl, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript, private letter, and message: And then I have done well, & the , the defendants, the Honourable Court of high Commission, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsel have all done ill.  
Hostiensis gives this rule, si quid praecipit praelatus, quod canonicis obviat institutis, non est obediendum sed resistendum. 

3. Lib. summae. tit. de maioritate & obedientia.  
Provinc. lib. 2. tit. de Appellat cap. In concilio Oxoniensi. verbis. statutum. Huius statuti.   And if this rule be a good rule, than etc.  
Lyndewode gave this rule, nihil potest statuere Episcopus, contra canon's, nec inferior tollere legem superioris. And if this rule be a good rule, than etc.  

* In consultationibus.  Martinus ab Aspilcueta Doctor Navarrus gives this rule. Non est obediendum uni superiori, cum superior eius contrarium praecipit. And if this rule be a good rule, than etc.  

* Loco praeallegato. Decretal. lib. 1. tit. 2. De constitut. cap. 1.  Hostiensis again gives this rule, cum duo domini contraria iubent, maiori est obediendum, minori resistendum. And if this rule be a good rule then etc.  
The body of the Canon law, gives this rule; Canonum statuta ab omnibus custodiantur. & nemo in actionibus vel iudiciis Ecclesiasticis suo sensu, sed eorum authoritate ducatur: and if this rule be a good rule: then, etc.  
Bellarmine gives this rule, 
Lib. 2. De council. cap. 8. parag. Alii dicunt Concilitum. Nisi manifestissime constet intolerabilem errorem committi. parag. 33. numb. 3.  as it is well expressed by my most reverend Diaecesen and provincial, my Lord's Grace of Cant. in his relation of the conference between his Grace, and Master Fisher the Jesuit in these words; Inferiors may not judge whether their superiors, (and that in a Council) do proceed lawfully, or not, unless it manifestly appear, that an intolerable error be committed. And this caution or exception, that an intolerable error do first manifestly appear, doth free Bellarmine from inclining to a private 
(k) 2 Pet. 1.20.21. Knowing this first, that no Prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation; for the Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. An interpretation may be private, ratione personae, and yet more than private, ratione medii.  spirit, as his Grace doth seem there to employ. And if this rule be a good rule, then, etc. and have all inclined to a private spirit.  

Parag. 33. Numb. 4.  Again my most reverend Diaecesan and Provincial, my Lord's Grace of Cant. in his forecited treatise gives this rule; The Church is never more cunningly abused, then when out of this truth, that she may err, men infer this falsehood, that she is not to be obeyed. For it will never follow, she may err, therefore she may not govern. For he that says, obey them, which have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls. Heb. 13. commands obedience, and expressly ascribes rule to the Church. And this is not only a pastoral power, to teach and direct, but a praetorian also, to correct and censure too, where errors or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence else Saint Paul would not have given the rule for Excommunication. 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ himself have put the man, that will not hear and obey the Church, into the place and condition of an Ethnic and a Publican, as he doth. Saint Mat. 18. And Solomon's rule is general, and he hath it twice, My son forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy mother. Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural mother, and her authority over her children is confirmed Ecclesiasticus 3. And the fool will be upon him, that despiseth her, Prov. 15. Or it is extended to our mystical and spiritual mother the Church: and so the Geneva note upon the place expresses it: and I cannot but incline to this opinion, says his Grace, because the blessings, which accompany this obedience, are so many and great, as that they are not like to be the fruits of obedience to a natural mother only as Solomon expresses them all, Prov. 6. In all which here is no exception of a mother's erring. Hitherto my Lord's Grace, verbatim. Now my Lord, I demand, which best deserves the name of Church, and of spiritual Mother, A provincial Synod, or an handful of men in the high Commission Court, sitting Judges in their own cause, wherein they are all parties? surely a provincial Synod. And if this rule be a good rule then etc. and have all (to use his Graces own words) followed the swinge and whirlwind of a private spirit.  

Contra fund. Cap. 4.  Saint August. gives this rule; and my most reverend Diaecesan & provincial my Lord's Grace of Cant. in his forecited treatise renders it thus; 
Parag. 33. Consideration 5. numb. 2.  Consent of nations, authority confirmed by miracles and antiquity; Saint Peter's Chair, and succession from it, must not hold me, saith Saint August. against demonstration of the truth: which if it be so clearly demonstrated, that it can not come into doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which a man is held in the Catholic Church. Therefore says his Grace, an Evident Scripture, or demonstration 
(l) An argument necessary and demonstrative, is such as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent unto it. parag. 33. Consider. 5. numb. 1. out of hooker's preface. pag. 29.  of truth, must take place every where, but where these cannot be had, there must be submission to authority. And if this rule be a good rule, than etc. and have all followed the wildness of a private spirit.  
Solomon Prov. 28.4. gives this rule. They that forsake the law, praise the wicked: but they that keep the law, contend with them, and if this rule be a good rule, than etc.  
Saint Peter 1. Epist. 2. cap. 13. and 14. verse. gives this rule. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King as the supreme, or to governor's, as them that are sent of him. First to the King, then to governor's, first to the supreme, then to the subordinate: for so, saith Saint Peter, is the will of God, that by well doing ye might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. It is then the will of God, the word of God, and a good work, to prefer the King the supreme, before Governors the subordinate, and they that maintain the contrary, are ignorant and foolish men, saith Saint Peter. In which words Saint Peter is very bold with his pretended successor the Pope, and with all those who being subjects, do with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Advance themselves above & before their own Sovereigns: for he calls them all in express terms ignorant and foolish men: and if this rule etc.  
But were there no other rule my Lord, but canonical obedience only, which my adversaries by abusing it against me, have thrust into my hand, that were enough to decide this question, for canonical obedience is such obedience, as the canons require, and if this rule be a good rule, than the canons are to be preferred before the Arch-deacons uncanonical and anticanonicall postscript, private letter, and message: and then I have done well and the , the defendants, and the Honourable Court of high Commission, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the counsel have done ill. So that now canonical obedience, which the defendants have abused, as a net to ensnare me, and a buckler to defend themselves, being rightly understood, proves an engine to deliver me, and a net to entrap themselves: and in the very same net, that they have jointly laid for me is their own foot taken and I am delivered. Hic est digitus Dei. This is the Lords doing, and it is wonderful in my eyes.  
And that all that hear me, may further behold the wonderful work of God, being acquitted in this first particular, by virtue of Canonical obedience, I am likewise by virtue thereof, acquitted in all the rest, and that by the testimony of my very adversaries. For the defendants themselves confess, that my refusal to preach the Archdeacon's visitation Sermon, is my principal or especial fault: and therefore by the force of comparison, drawn from the adversaries own estimate, whatsoever else they charge me with, must needs be inferior and accessary: and then seeing the principal or especial fault proves no fault at all, no breach of any law whatsoever, but a virtue and an eminent virtue, even the virtue of canonical obedience: all the other being by the testimony of my adversaries, which is the strongest proof against them and for me, lesser than that refusal, they must needs be virtues, and great virtues, no faults or vices.  
And yet once again, my Lord behold the wonderful work of God, qui non tantum liberat innocentes, sed etiam capit astutos in astutia sua. By virtue of this first particular I am not only acquitted, but the defendants themselves convicted and found culpable of a double crime.  
First in that they bring into this Orthodox church, arbitrary or 
* 
2 Kings c. 6.18.19. ver. Patemur sacerdotes non esse audiendos, nisi docuerint iuxta legem Domini. Canus lib. 3. c. ultimo.  
Believe no every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. 1 john 4. Try all things, and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. Be not unwise, but understand, what the will of the Lord is. Ephes 5. He that is spiritual, discerneth all things. 1 Cor. 2. you may have a thousand like both places and proofs, that the faithful look and take heed, they be not seduced. And except you will excuse the people before God, if you misled them, why should you bar them all trial and understanding, whether they follow faith unto Salvation, or withdraw themselves unto perdition? when the blind leadeth the blind, and they fall both into the pit of destruction, is not he that followeth, as sure to perish, as he that leadeth? Bishop Bilson in his difference between Christian subjection, and unchristian rebellion. 2 Part. pag. 261.   blind obedience, and the worst part or kind thereof, namely anticanonicall or contracanonicall obedience: A thing prejudicial to God's glory, repugnant to his word, contrary to the doctrine and discipline of this Orthodox Church, dangerous to the safety of all good King's good Magistrates, good men, the introduction of tyranny and slavery, and the subversion of all lawful authority, obedience and liberty, and lastly the seminary & nursery of vices, & the bane and ruin of virtues, and one of the most damnable villainies and profound subtleties, that ever Satan brought into the Church of Rome: And therefore to be opposed and cried out against by every good man and Minister, not only though he should with me, be fined imprisoned, deprived, degraded and excommunicated for it, but also though it should be his lo●, to were a Tyburn tippet for it.  
And secondly in that they have called the Canons, the oath of canonical obedience, his Majesty's letters patents, his royal prerogative, the first of the first of Elizabeth, the 19 of 25. of Henry the eight, the oath of supremacy, the 37. Article of our Church, and the word of God, breaches of Canonical obedience, principal or especial faults, grievous and enormous crimes: and have fined imprisoned, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated a provincial synod, the high Court of Parliament, this Orthodox Church of England, and his Majesty: for in calling my obedience to the former, a breach of Canonical obedience, a principal or especial fault, a grievous and enormous crime, they do virtually by consequence, and by necessary implication, call all the former breaches of Canonical obedience, principal or especial faults, grievous and enormous crimes: and in fining, imprisoning, depriving, degrading, and excommunicating me, for my obedience to the latter, they do virtually by consequence, and by necessary implication, fine, imprison, deprive degrade, and excommunicate all the latter for requiring such obedience of me.  
For as Saint James in his Epist. 4. cap. 11. vers. saith, He that speaketh evil of his brother, or he that condemneth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and condemneth the law: which words of Saint James are absolutely unavoidable with this limitation; he that speaketh evil of his brother, or he that condemneth his brother, walking according to the law, he speaketh evil of the law, or condemneth the law according to which his brother walketh: and therefore seeing the defendants call my obedience to the word of God, and to all the former, a breach of canonical obedience, a principal or especial fault, a grievous and enormous crime, they do virtually, by consequence, and by necessary implication, call 
(m) 
If you be railed on for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; for the spirit of glory & of God resteth upon you: which on their part is evil spoken off: but on your part is glorified. 1 Pet. cap. 4.14.   the word of God and all the former, breaches of canonical obedience, principal or especial faults, grievous and enormous crimes: and seeing they do fine imprison, deprive, degrade and excommunicate me, for my obedience to the King, and to all the latter, they do virtually, by consequence, and by neccessary implication, fine imprison deprive, degrade, and excommunicate the King, and all the latter, for requiring such obedience of me.  
And so my Lord the defendants have eminently committed that foul fault, in these very words, condemned in the canon law. Turpissimum est, ut inde nascerentur injuriae, ubi iura nascuntur. It is a most shameful thing, that Courts of Justice, should be courts of injustice, and not only against private persons, but also against that Orthodox Church, wherein they live, against the Church's doctrine and discipline, Articles and Canons, which ought to be rules, not only to guide the lives and opinions of private men, but also to regulate the censures and sentences, even of the highest ecclesiastical Courts.  
And to conclude this point, my Lord: If to punish for obedience, to the word of God, to the Articles, Statutes, Canons, to his Majesty's Letters Patents, Royal prerogative, and oath of supremacy, be to punish for virtue & piety: and to begin that their sentence: In the name of God, Amen. And in the body of the sentence to affirm, That they did first call upon the name of Christ, And that they had God himself alone set before their eyes, be to hid iniquity under the cloak of Hypocrisy and feigned sanctity: Then the high Commissioners have both punished me for virtue and piety, and have covered that iniquity, not with the short cloak, for that will not do it, but with the long robe of deep dissimulation and profound hypocrisy: And then by the confession of my Lord's Grace of Cant. my most reverend Diocesan and provincial in his speech in the Starchamber Termino Paschae 1637. there is all the reason in the world, that his Grace, the High Commissioners, and the defendants should all for that be severely punished themselves.  
Should be? my my Lord, they are all ipso 
* Libro primo Pr. tit. de off. Archidiaconi. c. eisdem. verb. ipso facto. & est dicere ipso facto, ac si diceret ipso iure, scil. nullo hominis ministerio interveniente.  facto severely & deservedly punished. They are all by a double excommunication, excommunicate ipso facto & to be excommunicate ipso facto is, saith Lindwode to be excommunicate, lege ante lata, vel sententia ante data, nullo interveniente hominis ministerio post actum peccantis: and so are all they, for by punishing me, in the former manner, not only for that, which is no breach of any law of the land, but also for my obedience to the Laws of the land, contrary to the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, they have all ipso facto drawn upon themselves, those two dreadful sentences of Excommunication, denounced against all the future violaters of Magna Charta, the one by Archbishop Boniface 37. Hen. 3. the other by Archbishop Winchelsee. 25. Ed. 1.  
And my Lord, seeing pares in culpa, pares in paena, your Lordship, this Court the Barons of Exchequer, & the Lords of the Counsel have all likewise ipso facto, drawn upon yourselves that double excommunication: your Lordship and this Court by affirming the Commissioners second final sentence, the sentence of deprivation and degradation, contrary to that 29. chap. of Magna Charta: The Barons of the Exchequer by imprisoning me contrary to that 29. chap. for the five hundred pounds fine, imposed upon me, by the Commissioners first final sentence, contrary to the foresaid cap. and the Lords of the Counsel likewise, by imprisoning me contrary to the foresaid chap. for a Petition, wherein I justly complained both against the High Commissioners for their former exorbitances, and also against your Lordship, and this Court, because you would not do me justice, according to his Majesty's most just mandate.  
And yet my Lord in this matter, the High Commissioners have a double precedency above your Lordship this Court, the Barons of Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsel: for the high Commissioners have punished me six times, contrary to the 29. chapter of Magna Charta. They have twice imprisoned, and once fined, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated me: and for every time they are ipso facto, twice apiece excommunicate, once every time with the two former excommunications, in all twelve times: your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsel, have punished me only once apiece, contrary to the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, and so are all ipso facto only twice apiece excommunicate.  
Again, your Lordship, this court, the Barons of the Exchequer, & the Lords of the Counsel stand excommunicate by the two former excommunications only: but the high commissioners, besides the two former excommunications, stand excommunicate also by that very excommunication, which they unjustly denounced against me, according to this rule of the canon law, Qui aliquem  excommunicate, non excommunicate sed excommunicatur, non ligat, sed ligatur.  
For my Lord, excommunication, the Spiritual sword of the Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gladius ex utraque parte acutus, 
2 Sam. 1.22.  a two edged sword: and that like the sword of Saul, doth never return empty from the blood of the slain: but whether it be justly or unjustly unsheathed, It always kills and slays one or other. If it be justly drawn against any man, than it kills and quite cuts off, from the Communion of Christ, and of his Church, that man against whom it was justly drawn, unless he submit and repent. But if it be unjustly drawn against any man, then let the stroke be never so great, and the edge never so sharp, yet by the innocency of the party and Christ's institution, that stroke is warded, that edge blunted, and thereby the sword is recoiled & reverberated upon him, that unjustly drew it, and so with the other edge doth kill and quite cut off him, from the Communion of Christ, and of his Church.  
And this my Lord is evident by the very words of our Saviour, wherein he gives power to his Apostles to excommunicate. john 20. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained: And the retaining of the sins of an impenitent sinner, is the excommunicating, and casting him out of the Church, for his sins, and for his impenitency.  
Why then my Lord, a man cannot be justly excommunicated, except it be for some sin: and then our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot justly be excommunicated. For he did no sin, neither was there any guile found in his mouth. 1. Pet. 2.22. and if our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be justly excommunicated, neither can any man be justly excommunicated, for his Communion with, or his obedience to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  
What then is the effect of that excommunication, when a man de facto is excommunicated, 
Luke 6.22.  for his communion with, or his obedience to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? why this, my Lord, that excommunication makes no separation between the parties excommunicated, and Jesus Christ, but unites and knits them nearer, and faster together: and makes a separation only, between the parties excommunicating on the one side, and Jesus Christ and the party united by that excommunication on the other side.  
And this is evident, my Lord first in the jews. john 9 who by excommunicating the man borne blind, and cured by Christ, for professing and defending Christ, did not excommunicate or separate him from Christ: (for Christ did immediately after that, entertain him most graciously) but did excommunicate and separate themselves both from him and Christ, united by that excommunication. And secondly, in the Council of Trent, who by Anathematising the reformed Churches, for divers divine truths, wherein they hold communion with Jesus Christ, have thereby united Christ, and the reformed Churches more strongly and nearly together: and have made a separation only, between that Council and all that hold with it, on the one side, and Jesus Christ and the reformed Churches thereby united on the otherside.  
And so likewise my Lord, the high commissioners by excommunicating me, for my obedience to Jesus Christ, to this Orthodox Church, to the King's Majesty to the high Court of Parliament, and to a provincial synod, have thereby indeed united me, and all these more nearly together, and have made a separation only between themselves on the one side, and me and all the former, united by that excommunication on the other side. And as among the high Commissioners, my Lord, some are oftener or seldomer excommunicate, according as they have had their fingers, oftener or seldomer in my punishments: so they that have been actors and parties in all my six punishments, are excommunicate full 13. times. And whilst they stand and continue thus excommunicate, without either pleading the King's pardon, or performing public penance, I for my part shall account them fit for Amsterdam, and for Rome, than for this orthodox Church of England, out of which they have justly cast themselves by excommonicating me unjustly, for my communion therewith, and for my obedience thereto.  
And this much my Lord, concerning the principals: 
The Defendants 3. Arguments.  I should now proceed to the accessories, but that their be three arguments, first to be answered. The first is taken from law, the second from custom, and the third from a title, given to the Archdeacon in the canon law, and alleged in the defendants plea, the third Article, namely because the Archdeacon is oculus episcopi, and therefore may enjoin the incumbents within his Archdeaconry, to preach his visitation sermon: that thereby he may see, and learn, and know their sufficiency. I will begin with the Argument taken from Law. The law is the fift commandment of the decalogue: Honour thy father and thy mother: and from these words a right learned commissioner in giving the first part of the first final sentence against me argued thus; 
The first Argument,   
You Sir (saith he to me) will do nothing, but what you are bound to do by law, will you? and doth not the law bind you to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon? doth not the fift Commandment bind you to honour your Father? and is not the  your spiritual father, and are not you his spiritual son? and hath not a spiritual father power by the fift Commandment to command his spiritual son any spiritual work? and is not a spiritual son bound by the same commandment, to obey the spiritual command of his spiritual father, in doing the spiritual work commanded by him? Ergo you Sir are bound by the fift commandment, to do this spiritual work, to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon at the Archdeacon's command.  
This was the argument my Lord, Socratically drawn from law: and this argument in and of itself, is very weak and feeble, all the strength of it, depends upon the authority and credit of the argumentator: and therefore unless I will be injurious to the argument itself and to the cause of my adversaries, I must make known the Author of this Argument, that so the strength and validity thereof may the more appear.  
It was the right worthy, and right worshipful Sir Henry Martin, vir cum cura dicendus, a man not to be mentioned without singular reverence. A man that hath a long time, and did very lately Dominari in Curits Ecclesiasticis; A man that deserved that Elegy, which Eunapius gives to Longinus, he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A living Library, and a walking study; or as the same Eunapius saith of Plutarch, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The very Venus and harp of all Philosophy; So we may truly say of the eminently learned Sir Henry Martin, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the Venus, the delicacy, the musical instrument, the Harp, the Lute, the Theorbo, the Polyphon of all the law both Civil and Canon; he was like Servius Sulpitius, jurisconsultorum eloquentissimus & eloquentium iurisconsultissimus. And as one said of Saint Augustine Dost theologiae, quicquid Augustino deest. Wherein so ever Augustine is defective, Theology itself is defective: so Dost legi, quicquid martino deest. Wherein soever sir Henry Martin was defective, the very law itself is defective; and then surely the former argument, if it be answerable to the Author of it, must needs be of great force and virtue, or else the Law itself must needs be defective.  
But my Lord, though the Author of this Argument was so accomplished, yet if we examine the argument itself, we shall find it very weak and feeble, and being reduced into a syllogism, it runs thus: 

By the fift commandment every spiritual Father, may command his spiritual son any spiritual work, and by the same commandment every spiritual son is bound to obey the spiritual command of his spiritual father in doing the spiritual work commanded by him.  
But the Archdeacon is my spiritual father, and I am his spiritual son and he hath commanded me a spiritual work, namely to preach his visitation sermon:  
Ergo. By the fift commandment I am bound to do that spiritual work, to preach that visitation Sermon at the Archbishop's command.    
This syllogism my Lord, in respect of the form is good, and all the doubt is concerning the matter of the major or first proposition. If that be true,, then the conclusion is true, if that be false, than the conclusion will fail. And first my Lord, I will confute the major or first proposition (wherein the whole strength of the argument lies) by granting it, and by showing what a multitude of errors absurdities, and inconveniencies, will follow and flow from it. The major or first proposition is this:  
By the fifth Commandment every spiritual father may command his spiritual son any spiritual work, and by the same commandment every spiritual son is bound to obey the spiritual command of his spiritual father, in doing the spiritual work commanded by him.  
Confutatio 1 And if this proposition be good Divinity, than the Archdeacon may command me or any other incumbent within his Archdeaconry not only to Preach one Visitation Sermon for him, which is the utmost that the Archdeacon himself challengeth, as appears in his plea, the third Article, but he may also command me to preach at every Visitation holden by him, so long as we two live together. And besides, he may command me to preach for him always at his prebend, at his Donative, at his two benefices, and so he shall take his ease, and have all the gains, and I take all the pains and discharge his cures and neglect mine own. Neither shall Sir Henry Martin si reviviscoret, interpose any limitation, qualification, restriction, or exception, to overthrow any of these consequences, or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same will overthrow his major proposition, and free myself from preaching the Visitation Sermnn.  
Secondly if the foresaid proposition be good Divinity, than thereby I will free myself and all other incumbents from preaching both at the Visitation, and in our own cures, and put both those works upon our Parishioners. For if the Archdeacon may command me, because I am his spiritual son, to do any spiritual work, and therefore to preach his Visitation Sermon; then I likewise being a spiritual Father to my Parishoiners, may command any of them, to do any spiritual work and therefore to preach that visitation Sermon. And if I may command any of my Parishioners, because I am their spiritual father, and they my spiritual sons, to preach the Archdeacon's visitation Sermon, than I may likewise command them, to preach either monthly or weekly in mine own Parish, and so free myself from both those labours, and yet legally discharge them both by my Parishioners, for quod quis legitime facit per alium, idem est ac si faceret per se: nay further than that Parson or vicar, in whose Parish sir Henry Martin did dwell, dum viveret, might have commanded him to have Preached in his cure weekly or monthly, and that Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop within whose Jurisdiction Sir Henry Martin did dwell dum viveret, might have commanded him to have preached their visitation Sermon: for he was a spiritual son to all them, as well as I am to the Archdeacon: neither shall Sir Henry Martin si revivisceret interpose any limitation, qualification, restriction or exception to overthrow any of these consequences or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same, will overthrow his major proposition, and free myself from preaching the visitation Sermon.  
Thirdly, if the foresaid proposition be good Divininity, than it will confound and make common the offices of Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Laymen, which the word of God makes, and all antiquity 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iggat. Epistola ad Trall.  in and ever since the Apostles time held distinct and different. The most learned Bishop Bilson in his forecited Treatise De perpetua Christi Ecclesiae gubernation, observes that there were eight things in the Apostles, whereof four were ordinary and perpetual, and four extraordinary and temporary. The four extraordinary and temporary are these; To be sent immediately by Christ, to have infallibility of judgement, a power to work miracles, and to be sent over the whole world. The four ordinary and perpetual are these, a power to preach the word, to adminiminister the Sacraments, to ordain Ministers and to excommunicate. All the eight were only in the Apostles: The four ordinary and perpetual only in Bishops, two of them, namely a power to preach the word, and to administer the Sacraments, only in presbyters: and none of all the former in Lay men.  
But if the former proposition be good Divinity, than every parochial Presbyter may command any of his Parishioners to do the forsaid four ordinary works, namely to preach the word, to administer the Sacraments, to ordain Ministers, and to excommunicate any man, both in his own Parish, and over the whole world, and then every Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop may command all them, that are under their authority, to do like. And so every Parish Priest, Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop, shall have not only Episcopal and Archepiscopall authority by his bare word, to make licenced preachers over all England, which is contrary to the Canons, but also Apostolical power, to send licenced Preachers over the whole world: which is the usurpation and presumption, which the Pope of Rome challengeth to the prejudice of all the Bishops, Archbishops, and Churches of Christendom, and to the diminishing of the supreme jurisdiction of all the temporal Princes through the world.  
Whence my Lord, will arise an intolerable confusion of all the foresaid functions: and every lay man, by the Command of his spiritual superior, shall be enabled to excommunicate any man, even Kings and Princes, and then surely every Clergy man may do as much, and then neither Clergy nor Laity can justly except against Pope Pius Quintus for excommunicating Queen Elizabeth, nor against Felton, for setting up that excommunication upon the Bishops of London's gates. Neither shall sir Henry Martin, si revivisceret, interpose any limitation, qualification, restriction, or exception to overthrow any of these consequences or collections from his major proposition, but I by the same, will overthrow his major proposition, and free myself from preaching the visitation Sermon.  
Confutatio 4 But in the fourth place, my Lord, to deal graciously and indulgently with Sir Henry Martin, and not to stretch his words, so fare, as by true Logic, sound reason, and good consequence they reach, but only so fare as he intended them; certainly his intent was to prove, that the Archdeacon might thereby command me to preach his visitation Sermon, and it was known unto him, that I was not a licenced preacher; for he together with the other Commissioners says as much in the fift article extant in the Defendants plea: and it was also known unto him, that by the 36. 49. and 52. canons made. 1. jacobi, no incumbent may preach or expound any Scripture, no not in his own cure, until he be first made a lycensed preacher, either under the seal of one of the Universities, or else under the hand and seal of a Bishop or an Archbishop: and it was likewise known unto him, that these 
* Graviter peccat, qui obedientiam infringit, & praesertim si veniat contra leges sive constitutiones per superiorem rite & rationabiliter editas & promulgatas. Lyndewode. Prov. lib. 1. tit. de Constitut. cap. Quia incontinentiae. ver. obedientiae.  canons were made by a provincial Synod, called together by the King's writ, and confirmed by his Majesty's Letters Patents out of his Prerogative Royal, out of a Prerogative Royal invested in the Crown by God himself, acknowledged by Article, by Statute, by Canon, nay out of a Prerogative Royal, which he and I, by the oath of Supremacy were both bound to the utmost of our powers, to defend and maintain.  
So that by the former argument drawn from the fift commandment, Sir Henry Martin would bring into this orthodox Church, arbitrary or blind obedience, and the worst part or kind thereof, not that only which is uncanonical, pretercanonicall, or ultra canonical, but that also which is anticanonicall or contracanonicall, even contrary to the 
* Hic dicit Glossa Hebraica: si dixerit tibi, quod dextra sit sinistra, vel sinistra dextra, talis s●ntentia est tenenda, quod pater manifeste falsum. Quia sententia nullius hominis cuiuscunque sit authoritatis, est tenenda, si contineat manifeste falsitatem vel errorem. Et hoc patet per id, quod praemittitur in textu. Indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem; Postea subdi●ur: & docuerint te iuxta legem eius. Ex quo patet, quod si dicant falsum, & declinent a lege Dei , non sunt audiendi Lyran. in 17. cap. Deut.  Canons, Statutes, Articles, oath of supremacy, and to the word of God, and thereby doth himself, and would make me prefer the single command of my spiritual father the Archdeacon, above and before the joint command of all my spiritual fathers met in a provincial Synod. 1. jacobi, nay above the command of all the fathers gathered together in Parliament, 1. Eliza. & 25. Henry 8. yea before the command of the King himself, God's immediate deputy, who is Pater patriae, pater reipublicae, yea and Pater Ecclesiae too: for though he be not Pater generans Ecclesiam, yet he is pater nutrient Ecclesiam, as the Prophet Esay speaks, Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers, Esay 49.23. nay above the command of God himself, who hath commanded us to render unto Cesar those things which are Caesar's, Mat. 22. and to obey Caesar's just laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. Rom. 13.5. and that in the first place, above and before the command of any subordinate officer whatsoever, 1 Pet. 2.13.14.  
So that Sir Henry Martin deals with the fift commandment, just as Pope Gregory the seventh did with the words of Samuel to unto King Saul. 1 Sam. 15.22. for whereas the word of God saith, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own Husband. 1 Cor. 7.2. which is an absolute precept enjoining all those to marry, who cannot otherways avoid fornication, Gregory the seventh by the foresaid 
* In concernentibus fidem, etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto Papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti, quam Papa. Panormit, de elect. cap. significasti. prope finem.  text of Samuel, doth contrary to the foresaid word of God, 1 Cor. 7.2. command all Priests to put away their wives under pretence of fornication. He saith Gregory that will not obey his most wholesome precept of ours, forbidding Priests their wives, under colour of fornication incurreth the sin of Idolatry, as Samuel witnesseth not to obey is the sin of witchcraft, and not to be content, is the wickedness of Idodolatry. Distinct. 81. si qui sunt.  
So that Pope Gregory the seventh and Sir Henry Martin agree both in this: They both approve of Arbitrary or blind obedience, they both make the word of God the ground of it, they both derive it from general texts of Scripture, and by virtue of those general texts, they challenge a power to command, even contrary to God himself, speaking in other plain, evident, and perspicuous texts; they differ only in this Pope Gregory the seventh, derives this arbitrary obedience from the former words of Samuel, 1. Sam. 15.22. and challengeth it only for himself. Sir Henry Martin deduceth it from the fift commandment, and challengeth it, for every spiritual father, for every incumbent Archdeacon, Bishop, and Archbishop.  
Nay farther, Sir Henry Martin by his former argument from the fift commandment endeavours to make our Church, like the Church of Rome, as it is defined by Gasper Scioppius in his Ecclesiasticus. cap. 147. both in his sum and book at large, where he thus defines the Church of Rome. Ecclesia 
* As Bishops ought to discern which is truth before they Teach: so must the people discern, who teacheth right, before they believe. Bishop Bilson in his true difference between Christian subjection, and unchristian rebellion. 2. part. pag. 259.  est mandra, sive grex aut multitudo jumentorum & asinorum. The Chrurch is a society or a company or a multitude of cattles and asses.  
And where there are horses, & asses, & mules, there if there be any good done with them, must be Horse-keepers, Assekeepers, & Muletors: and their whole Church as Scioppius saith, consists of these two. The Horses, Asses, & Mules, are the Laity: & the Horsekeepers, Assekeepers, & Muleteers, are the Clergy of the former he says: Nos Dei jumenta sumus, sive peccora subiugalia, tanquam equi, aut muli, sive asini Clitellarij, veterini, dossuarij, sarcinarij sagmarij: we are Gods juments or yoke cattles, as it were horses or mules or asses, to carry packs, to be girt with circingles, to carry Dossours, to bear burdens, to be sumpters. And of the latter he saith, illi agasones, illi muliones nos fraenant, nos loro aligant, nos agunt, nos stimulant, nobis jugum & onus imponunt: those horse-keepers, 
Sic nimirum se reshabet, judicant oves & privati omnes iudicio discretivo: Judicant Episcopi & pastors iudicio directivo & clavium potestate coactivo; sed iudicant saepe errante Clavae; quo casu videntur solum ligare, non ligant. Judicat Christus solus iudicio infallibili, nec unquam errante clavae. Non sic vel Pontifex vestere suo tripod, vel Concilium, vel tota Ecclesia judicat. Doctor Crakanthorpe Def. Ecclsiae Anglic. contra Archiep. Spalat. cap. 13. parag. 20.  those muletors put the bridle upon us, they tie us with the reins, they drive us, they spur or goad us, they put the yoke and burden upon us. And doth not Sir Henry Martin endeavour to make our Church like theirs, in giving power, by the former argument, to every incumbent, to lay his burden upon his Parishioners, to every , Bishop, and Archbishop, to lay their burdens upon the Clergy and Laity within their jurisdiction. This is so evident, my Lord, that it cannot be denied, and all the harm I would wish him for it, si revivisceret, is only this, ut patiatur interpretationem, quam tulerit, that the blessing of Ishachar, Gen, 49.14. which by his former argument he endeavours to bring upon the whole Church of England may fall upon himself only, and that in the highest degree.  
Confutatio 5 But my Lord, in the same Author, and in the same place, there is one thing of an higher rank and nature; and so high, that it transcends all Religion and piety, all modesty and honesty, all humanity and civility, and savours altogether of Antichristian and Luciferian pride and arrogancy and that's this: That Scioppius ranks amongst these Asses; not only such as are Subjects, but also such as are Sovereigns, even Kings and Princes, Gods immediate Deputies, as well those of their Religion, as those of ours; but with this difference, those of their Religion, he calls understanding and obedient Asses; those of our Religion, refractory Asses without understanding.  
He calls them all 
(*) 
To Bishops speaking the word of God. Princes as well as others must yield obedience: but if Bishops pass their Commission, and speak beside the word of God, what they list, both Prince and people may despise them.  
If Apostles and Angels be tied to this condition, much more others our first addition (which speak unto you the word of God) is ever intended in the Bishop's function, though it be not expressed. Bishop Bilson in his true difference between Christian subjection, and unchristian rebellion, pag. 261, 262.   Asses for his former reason, because they were to bear what burdens those Agasones, those Muliones, the Popish Clergy should lay upon them; and their Kings he calls obedient and understanding Asses, because they did do so, they did submit their backs and shoulders to those burdens. And amongst them, he especially commends Charles the Great for a wise morigerous, and a patiented Ass because he was a ringleader to all other Asses, to submit to this his own rule in the Canon law. In memoriam B. Petri honoremus sanctam Romanam & Apostolicam sedem. Servanda est cum mansuetudine humilitas, ut bicet vix ferendum, ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum, tamen feramus & pia devetione toleremus. Let us in memory of S. Peter honour the holy Roman and Apostolic See. Humility with meekness is to be observed, that although a yoke hardly to be borne, be put upon us by that holy See, yet let us bear and endure it with pious devotion: By which words saith Scioppius, thou mayest know him to be a true Ishachar, of whom it is written, Gen. 49.14. Ishachar is a strong Ass couching down between two burdens, he bowed his shoulder to bear.  
And our Kings he calls refractory Asses without understanding, because they would not submit their backs and shoulders to these burdens, but did pedibus recalcitrare, kick against these horsekeepers and muletors the Popish Clergy, which would put these burdens upon them. And in particular, he calls our late Lord and Sovereign King james (whom I mention with singular reverence) a very Ass without understanding; because he would neither suffer the bridle to be put into his mouth, nor any burden to be put upon him by that chief horsekeeper and Arch-muleter the Pope of Rome; and was moreover, a ringleader to the Romish Asses, to do the like, both by his example, and also by his exhortation unto them, in these words of the third Psalm, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us.  
And though my Lord, I do not charge either the High-Commissioners, your Lp. this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, or the Lords of the Counsel, with those shameless and immodest words of Scioppius, which even impudence and insolency would blush to utter against the Lords Anointed, and his immediate deputies and Vicegerents. Yet I must tell your Lordship, that all of you have a great part and share in the matter itself.  
The High-Commissioners by two final sentences, as I have formerly showed; have advanced the Apocryphal, uncanonical, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript, private letter and message of M. Doctor Ringsley, Archdeacon of Cant. above the Canons of this orthodox Church, above his Majesty's Letters Patents, above his royal Prerogative, above a royal Prerogative invested in the Crown by God himself acknowledged by Article by Statute by Canon; nay, above a royal Prerogative, which every one that hath taken the oath of Supremacy, is bound to the utmost of his power to defend and maintain.  
And they have fined, imprisoned, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated me for my obedience to the Canons of this Church, to his Majesty's Leters Pat. and to his royal Prerogative and so virtually, by consequence, and by necessary implication, they have fined, imprisoned deprived, degraded and excommunicated the King himself, for requiring such obedience of me. And your Lp. and the Court, by affirming the Commissioners second final sentence, the sentence of deprivation and degradation have approved of all this, and the Barons of the Exchequer by imprisoning me for the 500 l. fine imposed upon me by the Commissioners first final sentence, have done as much; and the Lords of the Counsel by imprisoning me for a Petition, wherein I justly complained both against the High-Commissioners for their former presumptions, and also against your Lordship and this Court, for your disobedience to his Majesty's most just mandate, have approved of both.  
So that you 
* Quilibet homo doctus potest & debet toti concilio resistere, si videat illud ex malitia vel ignorantia errare. Gerson 1. part de examinatione doctrinarum Cosider. 5.  all join together Regem fraenare, to put a bridle upon the King; yea, Regem loro alligare, to rain in the King, and his supreme jurisdiction: nay, in very deed Regi jugum & onus imponere, to put a yoke and burden upon the King, and such a yoke and burden, as was never yet put upon any of his royal Predecessors. If the first of the first of Eliz. 19 of 25. of Hen. 8. and Sir Edw. Coke in Cawdries Case deceive me not.  
For by all these it appears, that the Crown had ever a jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical, and now you all do not only exempt the state Ecclesiastical from the jurisdiction of the Crown, but also subordinate the jurisdiction of the Crown to the state Ecclesiastical, and do both advance the postscript, private Letter, and message of every , Bishop, and Archbishop above the Canons of this Church, above his Majesty's Letters Patents and royal Prerogative: and thereby also elevate the person of every , Bishop, and Archbishop above the person of the King according to this rule; Cum duo Domini contraria jubent, qui obedit minori & resistit majori, is minorem majori proefert & proeponit: which is an intolerable injury, indignity, and injustice; the King himself, but also against not only against God himself, from whom the King hath received his Supreme jurisdiction, and whose immediate Deputy the King is.  
And therefore as my most reverend Diaecesan and Provincial my Lord's Grace of Canterbury in his Epistle before his Speech in the Starchamber, termino paschae, 1637. doth rightly observe against Scioppius and such as he is, that blasphemy against God, and slandering the footsteps of Gods Anointed, are joined together, Psa. 89. Because he that blasphemes God, will never stick at the slander of his Prince; and he that gives himself liberty to slander his Prince, will quickly ascend to the next highest and blaspheme God.  
So I may as truly observe against his Grace, the High-Commissioners, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsel, that justice towards the King, and justice towards God, are both joined together by our Saviour in one verse, Mat. 22. because he that out of conscience, is just towards one, will be just towards both: and he that is wittingly unjust towards one, will easily be unjust towards both.  
Nay my Lord, seeing the King receives his supreme jurisdiction immediately from God, he that is unjust towards the King, by depriving him of any part of his supreme jurisdiction, must of necessity, ipso facto, be unjust towards God: for as he that renders unto Cesar, that which is Caesar's, by the gift of God, doth eo ipso, render unto Cesar, that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is Gods: so he that takes from Cesar that which is Caesar's, by the right of God, doth eo ipso, take from Cesar, that which is Caesar's and from God that which is Gods.  
And therefore my Lord, when the High Commissioners, your Lordship, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsel do all in the former manner regem fraenare, put a bridle upon the King, ye do all eo ipso, Deum fraenare, put a bridle upon God himself: when ye do all in the former manner regem loro alligare, rain in the King and his supreme jurisdiction, ye do all eo ipso Deum loro alligare, rain in God and his jurisdiction: and when ye do all in the former manner, regi jugum & onus imponere, put a yoke and a burden upon the King, ye do all eo ipso Deo jugum & onus imponere, put a yoke and burden upon God himself.  
And how near this comes to the chief 
* D. Downeham of Antichrist 1. Book 5. chap.  character of the man of sin, who exalts himself above all that is called God, above God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above God by nature, above God by deputation, above God and Gods, immediate Deputy the King, I leave it to your Lordship and the Court, as it was then, to inquire only, not determine because in this case ye are all both parties and offenders, and in both those respects incompetent Judges.  
But now my Lord, in the last place, let us see, whether Sir Henry Martin's argument be not directly contrary to the fift commandment, to the very text, whence it is taken. The question is, whose duty it is, to Preach the Archdeacon's visitation sermon, the Archdeacon's, or the incumbents. Sir Henry Martin out of the fift commandment, would prove it the incumbents duty to preach the Archdeacon's visitation sermon, and not the Archdeacon's, because the Archdeacon is the incumbents spiritual father, and the incumbents are the Archdeacon's spiritual sons; and by the fift commandment, the spiritual son is to teach the spiritual father, and not the spiritual father his spiritual sons: and therefore by the fift commandment the incumbents, and not the Archdeacon are to Preach the Archdeacon's visitation Sermon.  
Confutatio 5 For answer hereunto, it is certain, my Lord, that the fift commandment speaks primarily and literally of natural fathers and natural sons, and by consequence and analogy of spiritual fathers and spiritual sons: and then if by the fift commandment it be the duty of the natural father to teach the natural son, then by consequence & analogy, it is the duty of the spiritual father to teach the spiritual son: & if by the fift commandment it be the duty of the natural son, to teach the natural father, then by consequence and analogy, it is the duty of the spiritual son to teach the spiritual father. The ten Commandments for their brevity are called ten words Deut. 4. and for that reason, in Greek the decalogue: and therefore if any thing be obscure and dark in them, it is to be cleared out of the larger commentaries of Moses, the prophets, and the Apostles; let us then see, how these divine commentators resolve this question between the natural father and the natural son and between the spiritual father and the spiritual son.  
In the 6. and 11. chapters of Deut. God commandeth the Israelites, to lay up his words in their hearts, and to teach them their children, when they sit in their houses, and when they walk by the way, and when they lie down, and when they rise up: and Proverbs 1. Solomon saith, my son hear thy father's instruction, and forsake not thy mother's teaching; and Ephesians the sixth chap. Saint Paul says Ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath, 
11. verse.  but bring them up in the instruction and information of the Lord: and in the first Epistle to Tim. 2. chap. the same Apostle delivereth one text which decides the question between all kinds of father's, and all kinds of sons: I permit not, saith he, a woman to teach, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor to exercise or usurp authority over the man. whence it appears, that they are to teach others, who have authority over others; and then the natural father is to teach the natural son, the spiritual father the spiritual son, the aeconomical father, the master of the family, the aeconomical son, & the Magistrate, the politic father, the politic son, and not on the contrary: and Saint Paul of purpose as it were, interpreting the fift commandment, makes this one reason, why the spiritual son is to honour his spiritual father. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and Doctrine. 1 Tim. 5. and in this very thing consists the spiritual paternity and filiation, 
17. verse.  they are both wrought by the spiritual seed of God's word, the spiritual father begets, and the spiritual son is begotten by the spiritual seed of God's word. Saint Paul tells the Corinthians, I writ not these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I admonish you, for though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers: for in Christ jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. 1 Cor. 4. and to the Gal. he saith my little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be form in you. 
14.15. verse.  Gal. 4.19. and how is that done? why, by preaching the Gospel. Gal. 3.1.  
And therefore my Lord, seeing Sir Henry Martin by his chemical interpretation will extract the contrary out of the fift commandment, & make it every spiritual son's duty to teach his spiritual father, the Parishioners duty to teach the incumbents, the incumbents duty to teach the Archdeacon, the Archdeacon's duty to teach the Bishop, the Bishops duty, to teach the Archbishop, the Archbishop's duty, to teach the patriarchs the patriarchs duty to teach the Apostles, the Apostles duty to teach Christ, and Christ's duty to teach God: I think I may truly say, that Sir Henry Martin hath found out that in this commandment, which God never put into it, just as Anah found out Mules in the wilderness, as he kept his father Zibeons Asses. Gen. 36. the one found out a creature which God never made; the other a sense, which God never intended. And therefore seeing so eminent a man, so transcendent a lawyer, who was vox legis, lex legis, rex legis, and Deus legis, a kind of omnipotent Lawyer, who could creare legem de non siege, & annihilare legem in non legem, could not yet find out any one good argument, either in the civil or canon Law, no nor in the word of God neither, nisi afferat sensum ad scripturam, and such a sense as is repugnant both to the analogy of the place and of faith too. I think it is more than probable that neither the canon, civil, or divine law will afford, my adversaries any one good argument against me in this whole controversy. 
The second Argument.   
The Defendants second Argument, my Lord, is taken from custom: they say it is the custom, that the Incumbents should preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon. And this they say both in their third Article, and in the first part of their first final sentence extant in their Plea. And in speeding the Commission at Canterbury, they brought up ten or twelve Processes to prove this custom. But after they had brought them up, they durst not so much as show them, either at informations, or at the final hearing of the Cause. And yet what they cannot prove, my Lord; I out of a desire of peace and concord with them, will voluntarily grant unto them. 
Concessio 1. & retortio in adversarios.  Dabo ex supposito, quod non dabo ex animo. Let it then be custom, what follows? why this; Then the Cause is a civil Ecclesiastical Cause, and not a criminal Cause, and then it is and hath been all this while coram non judice, and so the sentence and whole proceed of the Commissioners are utterly void.  

Concessio 2. & retortio in adversarios.  Secondly, be it custom, than the  hath broken the custom and not I; for the Commissioners in the first part of their first final sentence extant in their Plea, made an Order, that I upon the Arch-deacons Mandate, and a competent warning thereby to me given, should preach a Sermon at the Arch-deacons next Visitation. Now this Order is the custom, or else it is not. If this Order be not the custom, than I being bound to observe the custom, am not bound to observe this order: or else being bound to observe this order, I am not bound to observe the custom. Let them choose which they will, they are faulty in either. If this Order be the custom, than the , and not I hath broken both Order, and custom; because he only sent an Apparitor with a postscript private letter, or message to warn me to preach his Visitation Sermon; but sent no mandate, or process, or public instrument for that purpose, out of his Court by his Apparitor, as he should have done, both by the Order and custom; and both these the Defendants confess in their Plea, and they shall be both showed against them at large, in my answer to to the fourth accessary.  
Confutatio 1 Thirdly, it is not custom; for if it be custom, than it is custom contrary to the 36. 49. and 52. Canons made 1. jacobi, that is, about 39 years since; and than it must be custom either before those canons were made, or else only since. If it were custom before those canons were made, than it was before that time tried and obtained in some contradictory judgement; for consuetudo non valet, nisi sit obtenta in Contradictorio judicio. Now can the Defendants show any contradictory judgement before that time, wherein this pretended custom was determined to be custom? If they can, let them show it, and I submit: If they cannot, idem est nen esse, & non apparere. If it were not custom before the former Canons were made, it cannot grow to be a custom since. Nine and thirty years' prescription, is not sufficient to make a custom, for consuetudo est, cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit, and if this custom be but of 39 years standing, there are divers men yet living, which can remember the contrary.  
Nay, my Lord, seeing a custom cannot grow in the time of opposition; if we will make an exact computation, we must from the former 39 years, defalk full 16. years, because so long this controversy hath been on foot, and this custom opposed. And then at the beginning of this controversy, there remains but 23. years, since the making of the former Canons, and since the beginning of this pretended custom, if it began since those Canons were made. And then at beginning of this controversy, this pretended custom, being but of 23. years standing, could not be custom according to the former rule; seeing at the beginning of this controversy, there were divers men then living, who could remember the contrary.  
Concessio 3 Confutatio 2 But in the fourth place, my Lord, let it be custom, and a tried and determined custom in a contradictory judgement; and that before those Canons were made: yet by those Canons it is abrogated. For cannot an Act of Parliament cut off a known custom of England, tried and determined in a contradictory judgement at the Common Law? There is I suppose, no question of it; and the reason as I conceive is, because all the parties that have right in that custom, are either personally, or virtually present in Parliament, and there by making a contrary Act, give up their right to that custom; and then by the same reason, seeing none had right in the former custom, but the Arch-deacons, Bishops, and Archbishops on the one side, and the Incumbents under them on the other side; and the three former, were personally present in a provincial Synod, and the others virtually present in the Clerks of the Convocation and all on both sides, by making the former Canons, gave up their right to the former custom, that custom is, and must be abrogated by the former Canons.  
Confutatio. 3 But in the fift place, my Lord, it cannot be custom: First, because it is contrary to the Word of God, as appears by my three first arguments. Secondly, because it is contrary to the whole course and tenor of the Canon Law; in the body of the Canon Law, in Lyndewodes provincial, in the Legantine Constitutions of Otho and Othobon, and in our last Canons, all which I have formerly showed. And lastly, because it is contrary to natural equity, and contra naturalem aequitatem nulla valet consuetudo etiamsi omnes homines de mundo aliter facerent, saith the Canon Law.  
Now this rule of natural equity, is delivered by our Saviour, Luke 10, 7. The labourer is worthy of his hire, which is true, e converso, he that hath the hire, is bound to perform the labour. And this labourer is the Visitor, and his labour is to Visit, that is to preach, and to correct, and his hire for that labour, is Procurations: and all these I have formerly proved. It is then contrary to natural equity, for us to detain Procurations from the Visitor, when he Visits us, that is preacheth unto us, and correcteth us. It is likewise contrary to natural equity, for the Visitor to require Procurations, when he doth not Visit, that is preach and correct. It is most apparently contrary to natural equity, for the Visitor to require Procurations of the Incumbents for Visiting them. that is for preaching unto them, and for correcting them, and yet to impose upon them the Visitation Sermon, the special part of that labour, for which the Visitor requireth and receiveth his Procurations of the Incumbents. And upon this ground the Canon Law affirms, quod in procuratione ratione visitationis debita, non currit praescriptio. And then there can be no custom to bind the Incumbents, either to pay Procurations, or to preach the Visitation Sermon.  

The third Argument.  There is one weak argument my Lord, yet remaining, and that's this. The  is tanquam oculus Episcopi; and therefore may enjoin the Ministers within his jurisdiction to preach his Visitation Sermon, that thereby he may see, and learn, and know their sufficiency.  
I do confess, my Lord, that in the Canon Law, the  is called oculus Episcopi, and which is more, vicarius Episcopi. And I have often wondered, why they should so much press the former, and wholly pass over the latter; and the reason as I conceive, is this: The latter, gives not only some part of Episcopal authority to the , but also binds him to perform some part of Episcopal duty. Now the Bishop's duty, he being Rector, totius Diaecesis, and having curam animarum is to Visit his Diaecesse, and to preach to, and instruct all there, and to reform those that are faulty, and this much the name of Vicar imposeth upon the ; for Vicarius tenetur implere vicem ejus, cujus est Vicarius. And therefore Master  doth willingly omit this title, because this doth bind him as well to preach and correct at his Visitation, as give him power to hold a Visitation under the Bishop. He only insists upon this title of oculus Episcopi, as if he were tied not to preach himself, but only to see the Incumbents preach, and that not in their parishes, at their own Cures, but at the Visitation, his Cure.  
Confutatio. But what force the former title hath, the Canon law which gives it him, will best show. It was first given to the Deacons, and then to the Arch-deacons. Decreti 1. parte. Dist. 93. cap. 6. we have these words, Diaconi Ecclesiae, tanquam oculi sunt Episcopi, oberrantes & circum-lustrantes cum verecundia actus totius Ecclesiae, & perscrutantes diligentius, si quem videant vicinum praecipitio, & proximum esse peccato: and the gloss upon that Text notes, quod loco Diaconorum successerunt Archidiaconi, qui dicuntur occuli Episcopi, quia perlustrant.  
Now could the Deacons, because they were oculi Episcopi, enjoin the Presbyters to preach a Visitation Sermon? They could not, and if they could not; neither can Master  do it, by virtue of that title which was theirs, before it was his. All that was thereby required of them, was to go about, & to observe with modesty, what was done in the whole Church, and to mark and view diligently, if any man ran headlong into sin and wickedness, and to certify the Bishop thereof; and in this sense, let the  be oculus Episcopi in God's name, and be as vigilant to prevent sin, and to recover sinners, as may be. But this gives him no power to command the Incumbents to preach at his Visitation; but only to observe how they lead their lives, and how they discharge their Cures; and if he find them defective in either, then tanquam oculus Episcopi to inform the Bishop thereof.  
And how ever, my Lord, it cannot be denied; but that the  by the abuse of this title of oculus Episcopi; that is, by winking at the faults of some Incumbents, and by prying into, and aggravating the faults of others; hath drawn divers Incumbents to preach his Visitation Sermon, which else would not: yet there is no such power or virtue in the title itself, but rather the contrary, as will appear out of the decretals, lib. 1. tit. 23. De officio Archidiaconi, cap. 7. which sets down the several respects, in which the  is called oculus Episcopi. I will allege the words at large.  
Oculus Episcopi Archidiaconus appellatur, ut loco Episcopi per Episcopatum prospiciens, quae corrigenda viderit, corrigat & emendet. & institutio corporalis tam super beneficiis quam etiam dignitatibus, ad ipsum debeat pertinere. Examinatio etiam clericorum, si fuerint ad sacros ordines promovendi: Et hoc idem in collationihus beneficiorum credimus observandum;  qui beneficiis Ecclesiasticis praeficiendi fuerint, a suo prius examinentur Archidiacono, & per ipsum post Episcopo praesententur.  
In this text, my Lord, the  is called oculus Episcopi, in these three respects. First, because in the Bishop's stead, he is to look over the whole Diaecesse, and to correct and reform such things, as are out of order, or else to inform the Bishop thereof. Secondly, because he is to examine the Clergy at their Ordination, and according to their deserts; either to turn them bacl, or else to present them to the Bishop: and this much likewise is given to the Arch-deacons in our Church, as appears by the book of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And thirdly, because the  is to do the like at the Collation of Benefices; that is, before the Bishop admits and Institutes into Benefices, and then to induct those, whom the Bishop upon his commendation admits and Institutes.  
All the power then, that the Archdeacon hath by being oculus Episcopi, is either a general power to observe and reform all faults over the whole Diaecesse, or to inform the Bishop thereof; or else a more especial power to examine the Clergy at their Ordination and Institution, but not to enjoin them then and there to preach. And seeing the  at Ordination and Institution, can discover the sufficiency of the Clergy by examination, without hearing them preach; why may he not by the same course, do the like at the Visitation? Nay, why should he at the Visitation, go about by examination, to question the sufficiency of those Incumbents, whose sufficiency he had before discovered and approved, both at their Ordination and Institution? How ever, this is certain, my Lord, that the  by that Text and title, hath no more power at the Visitation, than he had at Ordination and Institution: And therefore seeing at these latter, he hath by the foresaid Text and title, a power only to examine the Clergy, that's the utmost that he can challenge at the former, as oculus Episcopi.  
But see my Lord the Art and wisdom of Master Archdeacon, or rather his deceit and subtlety in interpreting the former text. To examine the incumbents at his visitation, which by the former text and title he may do, would be to his trouble; to command them then and there to preach, which by the former text and title he may not do, would be for his profit and ease: therefore in the foresaid Text, by a verbal transmutation, he would convert examination into preaching, and Ordination and Institution into Visitation. And so where the Canon Law saith, that he is to examine us at our Ordination and Institution; he would make it say, that we are to preach to him and for him at his Visitation: where the Law saith, that this eye is to look into the Clergy by examination at their Ordination and Institution, that is, before their preferment: He would make it say, that this eye is to look into them after their preferment, by hearing them preach at the Visitation; as if their preferment were to go before their trial and not their trial before their preferment.  
But my Lord, this is not oculum agere, to perform the part of an eye; or if it be, it is of a weak and dim sighted eye, which takes one thing for another, like the blind man in the Gospel, who in the beginning of his cure, saw men walk like trees, Mark 8. For I can never think that eye, whose so ever it be, quicksighted, nor fit to be oculus Episcopi, which cannot discern examination from preaching, and Ordination and Institution from Visitation.  
And so my Lord, for a farewell to the Principals; I leave it to your Lordship, and the Court to consider whether the Commissioners were not invited by the presumption of their own strength, and of my weakness, to use the foresaid arguments, which upon examination make quite against them: Or whether they were not at that time like men in danger of drowning, who being taught by nature to do their best to save themselves, and yet being deprived of the right use of their senses, do divers times seek help, and lay hold on things that hurt them, and keep them under water, and thereby drown themselves the sooner.  
And thus much concerning the principals, 
The accessories.  and the Defendants three Arguments. I now proceed to the accessories. And here my Lord, seeing the Defendants have falsified the Law in the principals, your Lordship, and the Court are not to give credit unto them, concerning the accessories: seeing in the principals they have called my obedienc to the Word of God, to the Articles Statutes, Canons, to his Majesty's Letters Patents, royal Prerogative, and oath of supremacy (which are all extant to the view of the world) a breach of Canonical obedience, a principal or especial fault, a grievous and enormous crime; they are not according to their own Law, to be credited concerning any fact, they charge me within the accessories; for qui semel est malus semper praesumitur malus in eodem genere mali and qui semel veritatis & verecundiae limites transilierit, cum oportet esse gnaniter impudentem, nec ei deinceps nisi paenitenti, culpani confitenti, & veniam expetenti, est in aliqua credendum.  
But my Lord, though according to these axioms, the defendants are not to be credited in any of the accessories, because they have falsified the Law in the principals. Yet I labour not to impeach their credit in all, but in one only circumstance, which runs through the three first accessories, which is grossly and palpably false, and contrary to the Records of their own Court. For whereas in the first accessory, they charge me, that I came unsent for, or uncalled for, to Master  aforesaid he being in his Visitation among the Clergy; and sitting there to hear Causes: and in the second accessory, that I did then and there charge the said  of falsehood and injustice: and in the third accessory, that I did at the same time and place lay down an hundred pounds in gold upon the table, and offered to lay wagers with him the said , that he had done me wrong, or the like in effect. I confess I did these three, but not at the same time and place, not whilst Master  sat in his Visitation to hear Causes; but afterwards, as will appear by these three circumstances.  
The Visitation is always kept in Saint Margaret's Church in Canterbury; this was in the parlour of the Chequer Inn in Cant. The Visitation is always begun, continued and ended in the forenoon before dinner; this was in the after-nooneafter dinner. At the Visitation are present both Clergy, and Laity, the Ministers, and the Churchwardens; here were present the Clergy only; and the Defendants themselves in their Plea mention only the Clergy: the , say they, being in his Visitation among the Clergy, not amongst the Laity. And it is evident by the Records of their own Court, and by the testimony of their own witnesses, Dr. Say, and Henry jenkin's that these things were said and done in the Chequer Inn in Canterbury after dinner and not in Saint Margaret's Church at the Visitation. And it appears likewise by the submission enjoined me; for by their own Order that submission was to be uttered before the Clergy in the dining room before dinner, and not in Saint Margaret's Church, at the Visitation. And beside I here make oath in truth in justice and in judgement, that these three accessories were said and done, not in Saint Margaret's Church at the Visitation, but in the parlour of the Chequer Inn in Canterbury, where I never yet knew any Visitation kept by Master .  
accessorie. The first And now my Lord, this one circumstance being confuted; what fault was it for me to come to Master  in the Chequer Inn uncalled for or unsent for? might not I, in the parlour of the Chequer Inn after dinner, come uncalled, or unsent for to Master , with whom I dined, as well as come to your Lordship, and to these my honoured Judges, at the side-Barre in this Hall, nay in this very Court, uncalled, or unsent for? I am sure your Persons and places are more eminent, and your employments more, and weightier; and yet I, and some others as mean as I, have come unto you and gone from you, in both these places without offence.  
accessory. The second Or did I offend in charging the said Archdeacon with falsehood, wrong, and injustice? nothing at all. For I have before showed, how under the name of Canonical obedience, he would have brought in arbitrary and blind obedience, and the worst part or kind thereof; not that only which is uncanonical pretercanonicall, or ultracanonicall, but that also which is anticanonicall, or contracanonicall. A thing repugnant to the Word of God, to the doctrine and discipline of this orthodox Church, to the Prerogative royal of the Crown, and to the freedom and liberty of every freeborn Subject. Is not this falsehood, wrong, and injustice? I have before shown, how he hath advanced his apocryphal, uncanonical, anticanonical, antidiplomatical, antiprerogative antisuprematicall postscript, private letter and message, above the Canons of this Church, his Majesty's Letters Patents, and royal Prerogative; above a royal Prerogative invested in the Crown by God himself; acknowledged by Article, by Statute, by Canon, nay, above a royal Prerogative, which he and I by the oath of supremacy, are both bound to the utmost of our power to defend and maintain; and yet he hath violated it, and would have made me have violated it, as he hath made many others. Is not this falsehood, wrong, and injustice?  
Yea but though it be; yet peradventure I might not tell him so much. Yes, my Lord, I was bound to tell him of it by the Word of God, by the Canon Law, by the law of Nature, and by the oath of Supremacy. The Word of God, Levit, 19.17. saith, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but thou shalt plainly reprove him, and not suffer sin upon him. So did I. The rule of the Canon Law set down by Felinus de rescriptis cap. si quando, is this: Subditi debent resistere pralato legem ignoranti instruendo eum, multo magis legem violanti, maxim vero legem conculcanti. So did I. The law of Nature binds every one to challenge and defend his own right, and to repel injury, So did I. And the oath of Supremacy binds me to the utmost of my power; to defend and maintain all jurisdictions of the Crown; and therefore this among the rest, that none of the Clergy in their several jurisdictions can go beyond, much less contrary to the Canons without encroaching upon the Prerogative royal, and supreme Jurisdiction of the Crown.  
accessary. The third 
The wager.  And this doth likewise justify the wager of an hundred pounds, laid down to defend the King's supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Clergy, to the utmost of my power, according as I was, and am expressly bound by the oath of supremacy. And for that purpose I have made choice rather to be fined, imprisoned, deprived, degraded, and excommunicated by the High-Commissioners, and to endure those tedious delays, and those manifold disgraces, indignities, and injuries in this Court, than by betraying the King's supremacy to the Arch-deacons usurpation, with the High-Commissioners, this Court, the Barons of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Counsel, to violate that oath, and so to commit perjury; knowing it a thing most acceptable in God's sight, to endure the greatest punishments for to avoid the least sin, much more for to avoid the greatest sin; so that set aside this one untrue circumstance, there is nothing at all culpable in these three first accessories.  

The manner of speaking and of laying the wager.  And though the Defendants say, that I did speak very malepertly, and irreverently to Master , and offered to lay the wager with him in a very arrogant and irrespective manner; yet seeing they mention no one particular evil word or deed, I hope your Lordship, after so many arguments upon the general sentence of deprivation, and degradation, and this argument of mine upon the special matter; will remember, that in generalibus latet fraus, and vir dolosus versatur in universalibus; and will then conceive, that that which they say, was spoken and done very malepertly, irreverently, and arrogantly, was spoken and done discreetly, resolutely, and heroically; that I might to the utmost of my power defend the King's supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Clergy, according as I was, and am expressly bound by the oath of the supremacy; and then there is no fault at all, either in my words, or wager, in the things or circumstances.  
But now my Lord, though that one circumstance be false, and the Defendants according to their own law, are not to be credited in the accessories; because they have falsified the Law in the principals. Yet my Lord, seeing we are now in a demurrer, according to the nature of a demurrer, let all be granted in these three first accessories, that the Defendants themselves affirm. Let the words be uttered very malepertly and irreverently, let the wager be offered in a very arrogant and irrespective manner; let the Archdeacon at the same time be in Saint Margaret's Church in Canterbury at the Visitation among the Clergy, and sitting there to hear Causes. Yet now I will make it appear by the Defendants own confession, and by a necessary consequence from their confession, that in these four accessories, there is no fault at all.  
The Defendants, as your Lordship may remember, charge me with six particulars; amongst which they make my refusal to preach the Visitation Sermon, and my maintaining it to be the Arch-deacons duty to preach his own Visitation Sermon, the two principal or especial faults. And if they two be the principal and especial faults; then by the force of comparison drawn from the adversaries own estimate, the other four must needs be inferior and accessary. And then if the principal and especial faults be no faults, no breach of any Law; much less can the inferiors or accessories be any faults, or any breaches of Law; for si principalis causanon subsistat, ea quae sequuntur locum non habent. Now I have before shown, that the two principal or especial faults are no faults, but virtues and eminent virtues, even the virtues of Canonical obedience; and therefore the other four being in the Defendants own judgement lesser and inferior vices, than the two former, they cannot be any faults, but must needs be virtues, and greater and superior virtues. And the Defendants cannot except against this consequence, because it is necessarily drawn from their own estimate and testimony, and testimonium ab adversario contra se fortissimum.  
accessary. The fourth Now for the fourth and last accessary; my refusal to perform the submission, conceptis verbis, which the Defendants pretend to be a great affront and contempt both to the King's supremacy, and to the High-Commission authority, seeing therein I was enjoined to acknowledge my refusal to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon, at the Arch-deacons and Archbishops mandate, to be a breach of Canonical obedience. It is certain my Lord, that if that my refusal to preach that Sermon be no breach of Canonical obedience, than my refusal to perform that submission, conceptis verbis, is no affront or contempt, either to the Kings, or Commissioners authority. And if I make good the former, the Defendants must of necessity grant the latter.  
And for the clearing of this former, it is to be observed; that there is a twofold Canonical obedience, the one due to the Canons only, the other to the Prelate's mandate according to the Canons. To the former, we are bound by the Canons themselves, and by his Majesty's Letters Patents confirming the Canons. To the latter, we are beside bound by the Prelate's mandate, and by the oath of Canonical obedience. The breach of the former, in all such as submit unto the canons, is but only disobedience. The breach of the latter, is not only disobedience, but also contumacy, yea and perjury too, in all them that have taken the oath of Canonical obedience.  
This will appear, my Lord, by the oath of Canonical obedience, extant in the instrument of my Admission, and Institution (which I have here to show) wherein the oath runs thus; Te primitus de legitima & Canonica obedientia, nobis & successoribus nostris in omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis per te praestanda & exhibenda, ad sancta Evangelia ritè junatum admittimus, we admit thee, saith the Ordinary, having first been rightly sworn by the holy Gospels, to perform lawful and Canonical obedience to us, and our successors, in all lawful and honest mandates.  
In which words, my Lord, it is first to be observed, that the thing that I swear, is not arbitrary and blind obedience, that is such obedience as the Prelate shall require by his Dictates, whatsoever it be; but lawful and Canonical obedience; that is, such obedience as the Canons and Ecclesiastical laws of this Land require. Secondly, that the persons to whom I have sworn, are only the Bishop and his successors, not the : and therefore though I am bound to yield Canonical obedience to all the Arch-deacons lawful and honest mandates, yet I am not by oath bound thereunto; and therefore when I violate his lawful and honest mandates, I commit only contumacy not perjury, And lastly, that I have not sworn this Canonical obedience to the Canons themselves; for then every time I broke a Canon. I should commit perjury: but only to the Bishop, and his successor's mandates nor to his words or private letters, or postscripts, or messages; but only to his and his successor's mandates; no, nor to all their mandates neither, but only to all their lawful and honest mandates.  
Now what is a Prelate's mandate? A Prelate's mandate, saith 
(n) 
Provincialis lib. 3. de Institutionibus & commendis. cap. 1. verbis. Archidiaconis suis. Extorqueri. & cap. 3. Verb. superioris. & tenentur. See 120. 122. 124, Canons. Such are the mandates in the Kings-Bench, their habeas corpus, their Latitats, Capias, and other mandates, and these are made in the the King's name, and subscribed with the chief justice's hand, and sealed with the seal of the Court. And such are all the processes, mandates, letters Missive, Decres of the High-Commission Court, and aught to be such, as appears by the latter part of their Commission, and I have one of their mandates or letters missive here to show.  
A Writ is the Commandment of the King, form in Latin; directed either to some Minister of his Courts, or sometime to the party-Defendant, at the pursuit of the Plaintiff, for the better administration of justice. Writs touching their form are brief and short, and therefore are called in Latin Brevia; in French Breifs, for their shortness, in English Writs, for that they are short mandates in writing. judge Dodrige in his English ●awyer, p. 43:   Lyndewode is a public instrument out of the Prelate's court, made in the Prelate's name, under the seal of his office and the hand of a public Notary. Without such a mandate sent from the Bishop to the ; the , though he hath taken the oath of Canonical obedience to the Bishop, is not bound to Induct any man instituted by the Bishop, neither is he in contumacy if he refuse. But after he hath received such a mandate. if he do then refuse, he is then both in contumacy, and perjury too. And of these mandates, I have two out of the Arch-deacons Court here to show; one for my Induction, another to reverse a suspension. And such mandates are daily sent out of the Arch-deacons and Bishop's Courts, to command us to publish the excommunications, and other censures of their Courts against our Parishioners; and upon our Parishioners submission and reformation, there comes out other mandates, commanding us to publish the assoiling, acquitting and restitution of our Parishioners, and the abolition or abrogation of the former censures. And so likewise there are daily sent out mandates or processes, commanding both us and our Parishioners to appear at our Prelate's Courts. And all these mandates are agreeable unto the former definition of a Prelate's mandate, given by William Lyndewode.  
And of those mandates, the Canon Law makes two 
(o) 
Clementinarum lib. 2. titulo de Dolo & Contumacia. cap. unic. verbo. . Contumax in non veniendo non appellat. Contumax in non parendo, appellat. quod iste peccat in uno tantum, ille in duobus. Quod intelligo, quia iste venit, sed non paret. ille nec venit, nec paret.  
Decretal. lib. 2. titulo 14. de Dolo. & Contumacia cap. 4. verbo. Conrumaciter. Contuma● est, qui cum debet parere, non paret. _____ Ibidem cap. 2. verbo Contumaciter. Multis modis committitur Contumacia, quandoque attenditur respectu non venientis, quandoque respectu non restituentis, quandoque respectu non respondentis, vel obscure respondentis, quod idem est, ac si. non responderet; quandoque respectu non iurantis, quandoque respectu recedentis infecto negotio, & quandoque respectu non exhibentis; unde versus.  
Non veniens, non restituens, citiusque recedens. Nil dicens, pignusque tenens, iurareque Nolens. Obscureque loquens, isti sunt iure rebels. Quibus adde alios versus eodem libro. ut lite non contestata, etc. tit. 6. Casibus in tribus his, quis dicitur esse rebellis. Impedit, occultat, iussis parere recusat.   sorts; there is mandatum pro apparendo, and mandatum pro parendo a mandate for appearing, and a mandate for obeying. And so accordingly there is a twofold contumacy, contumacia in non apparendo and contumacia in non parendo; a contumacy in not appearing, and a contumacy in not obeying. The contumacy in not appearing, is committed when we violate the Prelate's mandate for our appearing at his Court. The contumacy in not obeying, is committed, when we violate the Prelate's mandate, enjoining us to obey some act of his Court: and without one of these mandates first had and received, neither of these contumacies can be committed.  
Now with what contumacy do the Defendants charge me? not with any contumacy in not appearing: neither can they, for neither did the Archdeacon, no nor my Lords Grace neither, send out any mandate, to command me to appear, either at their archidiaconal, Episcopal, or archiepiscopal Courts, and I always observed the mandates of the High-commission court for my appearance. So that they neither can nor do charge me with any contumacy in not appearing. They only charge me with contumacy in not obeying the Archdeacon's and Archbishop's mandates, commanding me to preach the Archdeacon's visitation sermon.  
This appears my Lord, out of their own sentence for in the first part of their first final sentence, alleged in their plea, the defendants say; Super aperientiam causae, ipsi invenerunt Georgium Huntley specialiter oneratum in articulis praedictis cum duobus particulariis, primo pro recusatione ad praedicandum visitationis sermonem, ad requisitionem & mandatum Archidiaconi diaecesis, scilicet praedicti Willielmi Kingsley in Contrarium suae canonicae obedientiae. And afterward in the first part of that first final sentence, they say, that I violated the Archbishop's mandate in the same matter, quod quidem mandatum dicti Archiepiscopi, dictus Georgius Huntley, etiam neglexit, and afterwards in the second part of that first final sentence, they charge me with perjury for violating, that my Lords Graces mandate.  
Now my Lord, if I have violated my canonical obedience to the Archdeacon's and Archbishop's mandate, and therein have committed disobedience, contumacy and perjury, as the Defendants pretend: then I have violated some Canon, and some Canonical mandate of the Archdeacon's and Archbishop's, Canonical both for form and matter; where these three concur, a Canon and a mandate Canonical, both for form and matter: there if the party that breaks them, hath taken the oath of Canonical obedience, he committeth anticanonicall disobedience, contumacy, and perjury. But where the first of these is wanting where there is no Canon, there, there cannot be a Canonical mandate for matter: and though there may be a Canonical mandate for form; yet when the other two are wanting, the breach of that only, is neither contumacy, nor perjury; no, nor any anticanonicall disobedience neither; much less can there be any anticanonicall disobedience, contumacy, and perjury, when all the three former are wanting.  
Now let us see, my Lord, which of the three former, the Defendants can show against me. First, can they show any Canon that binds me to preach the Visitation Sermon? No, the Canons, as I have before shown, bind every Visitor, every Archdeacon, Bishop and Archbishop to preach his own Visitation Sermon, Licenced Preachers, to preach at their own Cures only, and forbidden me, and such as I am, that are not licenced Preachers, to preach, or expound any Scripture, in our own Cures or elsewhere.  
Secondly, can the Defendants show any mandate Canonical for matter, sent from the Archdeacon, or Archbishop to command, me to preach the Visitation Sermon? Why, that's impossible; for seeing the Canons do not only not command, but forbidden me to preach at my own Cure, or elsewhere. The mandate that commands me to preach at the Visitation; must of necessity be for matter, not only uncanonical, pretercanonicall, or ultracanonicall but also anticanonicall or contracanonicall.  
Thirdly, and lastly, can the Defendants show any mandate, Canonical for form of the Archdeacon's, or of his Graces, sent unto me, to command me to preach the Visitation Sermon? If they can then they can show some public instrument out of the Archdeacon's, or Archbishops Court, made in the Arch-deacons, or Archbishop's name, under the seal of their Office, and the hand of a public Notary, commanding me to preach the Visitation Sermon. If they can do so, though that mandate for matter be not only beyond the Canons, but contrary to the Canon's; and their mandates ought not to exceed the Canons: yet let them only show, that canonical mandate for form, that public instrument out of the Archdeacon's, or Archbishop's court, made in the Archdeacon's, or Archbishop's name, under the seal of their Office, and the hand of a Publick-Notary, commanding me to preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon: and I will be so indulgent unto them, that I will acknowledge myself culpable of contumacy, in disobeying such a canonical mandate of the Arch-deacons for form, though uncanonical, and anticanonicall for matter; and both of contumacy, and perjury, in disobeying such a canonical mandate of his Graces for form, though uncanonical, and anticanonicall for matter. Can they do it?  
No, no, my Lord, in their Plea, the Defendants confess the contrary; they only mention three private letters written to me, to require me to preach the Visitation Sermon, one from his Grace in the seventh Article, another from Sir George Newman, the Archdeacon's Official, in the ninth article; and another from the Archdeacon himself in the eleventh article.  
But private letters, my Lord, are no canonical mandates for form: neither am I tied by oath, to perform canonical obedience to the Prelates private letters, but only to his mandates; to the public instruments out of the Prelate's Court, made in the Prelate's name, under the seal of his Office, and the hand of a Publicke-Notary: and unless the Defendants can produce some such canonical mandate for form, sent unto me, to command me to preach the Visitation Sermon; they cannot make any show or colour, that I have committed either any contumacy, or perjury; no, nor any anticanonicall disobedience neither.  
Nay my Lord, unless the Defendants can show such a canonical mandate for form, sent from the Archdeacon to me, to command me preach his visitation Sermon, they cannot make any show or colour, that I have broken the order of the High Commission Court, in refusing to preach the Archdeacon's visitation Sermon. For in the first part of their final sentence, given the eighth of Feb. 1626. the High Commission Court made an Order, that upon the Archdeacon's mandate, and a competent warning thereby to me given, I should preach a Sermon at the next visitation, to be holden by the Archdeacon. These are the very words of their sentence or Order upon record in this Court. Nihilominus dicta curia alta commissionis, ad tempus illud reservans sibi ipsis eorum ulteriores censuras, prout occasio oblata foret, pro co tempore tantum mode ordinavit ipsum dictum Georgium Huntley, super mandatum praedicti Archidiaconi Cant. super competenti monitione ei danda, ad praedicandum sermorem ad proximam visitationem, tenendam per magistrum Archidiaconum Cantuarien. So that by their own Order extant in the Defendants plea, I was not bound to preach that next visitation Sermon nisi super mandatum Archidiaconi Cant. & super competenti monitione mihi danda. But upon the Archdeacon's mandate, and upon competent warning, thereby to me given; So that by their own order, the Archdeacon was first to send his mandate to the Apparitor, and then the Apparitor by virtue of that mandate, was to warn me, to preach that next visitation Sermon.  
Now did the Archdeacon at that his next visitation, send out such a mandate, such a public instrument out of his Court, made in his own name, under the seal of his office, and the hand of a public notary, to his apparitor, to enable him to warn me to preach that his next visitation Sermon? can the defendants show any such mandate or process, sent from the Archdeacon to the Apparitor for that purpose. No, no, my Lord, the Defendants confess the contrary in their plea: they acknowledge in the second part of their first final sentence, given the ninteenth of April 1627. extant in their plea, that George Huntley then alleged in his own behalf, quod Praedictus magister Archidiaconus non admonuisset cum per legalem processum: and they grant it, that there was no legal mandate or process, sent by the Archdeacon to the Apparitor for that purpose; so that by their own confession in their plea, in refusing to preach that visitation Sermon, I have neither committed any anticanonicall disobedience, contumacy, nor perjury, no nor transgressed the order of the High-commission court, because there was no process or mandate sent from the Archdeacon to the Apparitor, to warn me to preach that sermon, as there should have been according to their own Order.  
What then do they allege against me? only this my Lord; That it appeared to the Court by affidavit made, quod praedictus Magister Archidiaconus dedisset ej sufficientem admonitionem per publicum officiarium. That Master Archdeacon had sent an Apparitor, or public officer to warn me, to Preach the Visitation Sermon. There's the warning indeed, given by the apparitor, and I confess it: yea but where is the Archdeacon's mandate or process to the apparitor, to enable him to warn me to preach that sermon? That my Lord is either shrunk in the wetting, or lost in the carrying, for they themselves grant, that that apparitor or public officer, had no mandate or legal process from the Archdeacon, to warn me to preach that sermon.  
And then my Lord, how have I transgressed, either the Archdeacon's mandate, or the order of the High-commission Court, or what authority had that apparitor, or public officer, to warn me to preach that Visitation Sermon? just none at all, as appears by the 138. canon, made 1. jacobit where it is said, all apparitors shall by themselves, faithfully execute their offices, neither shall they by any colour, or pretence whatsoever, cause or suffer their mandates to be executed, by any messengers or substitutes.  
In which words my Lord it appears, that an apparitor doth then faithfully execute his office, when he doth faithfully execute his mandates, that is, neither go beyond, nor come short of his mandates, so that the apparitours have no power to warn or summon any man with out such a mandate.  
No, nor the Bishop, Chancellor, Archdeacon, Official, nor any other Ecclesiastical Judge, as appears by this 120 Canon. No Bishop, Chancellor, Archdeacon, Official, or other Ecclesiastical Judge, shall suffer any general Processes of Quorum nomina, to be sent out of his Court, except the names of all such, as thereby are to be cited: shall be first expressly entered by the hand of the Register or his deputy, under the said Processes; and the said Processes and names be first subscribed, by the Judge, or his deputy, and his seal thereto affixed. So that whensoever any Bishop or any other Ecclesiastical Judge, will cite any man to appear before him; he must send out by his Apparitor a mandate, or process and therein the name of the party to be cited, must be first entered by the Register, or his deputy, and then subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy, and his seal thereto affixed.  
And if any Ecclesiastical Judge whatsoever, shall by his Apparitor without such a process or mandate, Summon any man to appear before him, the party is not bound to appear; and though he do not appear, yet he is not culpable of any contumacy, as appears by this 122 Canon.  
When any Minister is complained of in any Ecclesiastical Court belonging to any Bishop of this Province, for any crime: the Chancellor, Commissary Official, or any other, having Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to whom it shall appertain shall expedite the cause by processes, and other proceed against him; and upon contumacy for not appearing, shall suspend him.  
First then, after complaint made against any one, the Judge must cite the party by process to appear before him; if the party obey not the process, he is then contumacious; but without process there is no contumacy.  
If your Lordship shall ask me what authority the Apparitor pretended when he warned me to preach the said Visitation Sermon. I answer, that he pretended a process or mandate from the Archdeacon: and it is true, my Lord, that he had a process and mandate from the Archdeacon, and yet no process or mandate from him. He had a process or mandate to warn me to appear at the Archdeacon's Visitation, and there to pay my procurations due to him for Visiting; and that process or mandate was a public instrument out of the Archdeacon's Court, made in the Archdeacon's name, under the seal of his Office, and the hand of a public Notary.  
But he had no such mandate or process, to warn me to preach the Archdeacon's Visitation Sermon; but only an 
* In this particular, Doctor Kingsley, and the Commissioners are more Popish and presumptuous, than the Pope himself. For the Pope sends out only his Bulls, Diplomaes, or Mandates, formally and regularly made, signed, and sealed with out any postscript, according to this old proverb, Mittit plumbum, exigit aurum; But these together, with their Mandates, or Processes, send out their said Postscripts; and thereby they will abrogate the Word of God, the Articles, Statutes, Canons, his Majesty's Letters Patents, royal Prerogative, and oath of Supremacy; Just as the Pope presumeth to do with his Bulls. And for the violation of these Postscripts, they will Fine, Imprison, Deprive, Degrade, and Excommunicate; which is a Popery, pride, and presumption more than papal.  apocryphal, uncanonical, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript in these very words; You are to warn George Huntley Parson of Stouremouth, to preach at the time and place above mentioned.  
And this postscript set under the process, after the test and registers hand was made in no man's name, subscribed with no man's hand, confirmed with no man's seal, and is contrary to the Canons both for form, and matter: for matter, to the 49 Canon, which forbids me being no licenced preacher, to preach, or expound any Scripture in mine own Cure, or elsewhere: for form, to the 120 Canon, which forbids any thing to be written under a general process of Quorum nomina, such as that was: but only the names of the parties to be cited, and those names must first be entered by the Register or his deputy, under the process, and then subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy. Here were not only names, but also new matter; namely, the preaching of the Visitation Sermon; and yet neither names, nor matter, either entered by the Register, or his deputy, nor subscribed by the Judge, or his deputy.  
Unto this warning thus given by the Apparitor, by virtue of his vicious postscript, I gave only this answer; that on the morrow I would send my answer in writing to Master Archdeacon, and on the morrow I sent this letter to Master Archdeacon, and he received it, and it was read in the High-Commission Court by Doctor Duck, one of the Advocates for the Office against me, the 19 day of April, 1627. when the second part of the first final sentence was given against me, and I Fined five hundred pounds, and first imprisoned.  
To the Right worshipful, Mr Doctor Kingsley Archdeacon of Cant. give these.  
Sir,  
I Marvel, that being a member of the High-Commission, you should not better observe the order of that Honourable Court. Their order is, that you must command me to preach a Visitation Sermon, and that I must obey your command, and this they say is the custom. And therefore as I must obey according to custom, so you must command according to custom. What the custom in this point is, Sir George newman's answer ad septimum articulum declares; who there deposeth, that for these thirty years of his own knowledge, the Archdeacon of Canterbury for the time being, hath sent Process by his Apparitor, to command the Ministers to preach at his Visitation. Do you observe this custom, command me by Process to preach at your Visitation, and I will preach a sermon for your Visitation, as effectually as I can. Your Apparitor shown me Process, and no Process; Process to command me to appear at your Visitation, no Process to command me to preach at your Visitation. When you conceive meanly, and not evilly of me, you conceive as I myself do, and both aright; yet if I may speak it without arrogancy, I am not so stupid and obtuse, but that I can discern between the Text, and a marginal Note; which corrupts the Text, between the Canon, and the Apocrypha; between the Process for my appearance, made in the Archdeacon's name, confirmed with the public seal of his Court, subscribed with the hand of his Register, and an unwarrantable and an unjustifiable additament or postscript, which hath neither hand or seal unto it: whose Author is anonymus, whose authority apocryphal, which hath no warrant or foundation in the Process, nay, which quite outstrips the Process. The Process commands me only to appear, and pay procurations; which saith your Process, are due to you for Visiting; this is, saith the Canon Law, for preaching and correcting. Decretal. lib. 3. tit. 39 De Censibus etc. cap. 23. parag. Porro. & Sexti Decretal. lib, 3. tit. 20. De Censibus etc. cap. 1. par. Sane. & par. Hanc autem. But the postscript commands me to preach, which is more than to appear; It is to appear, and to do something else, namely, to perform one part of the Visiters duty, for which I pay my procurations. If you cannot command me to appear without Process, can you command me to preach (which is more than to appear) by a postscript, which is less than Process, which is no Process, no part of your Process? If you command me by Process to pay procurations; which say you, are due to you for Visiting, that is, for preaching and correcting? Will you by a postscript command me to do your principal duty, namely, to preach at your Visitation, for which I pay my procurations? This postscript than is faulty, in a double respect; it exceeds your Process, and is contrary to your Process. It exceeds your Process, because it commands me to preach at your Visitation, your Process commands me to appear only. It is contrary to your Process, because it makes it my duty to preach at your Visitation, your Process makes it yours. It is your duty to visit, that is to preach and correct, and for that it requires procurations. And what small authority your Process and postscript have, to compel me to preach at your Visitation; the wisdom of your Advocates may teach you, who would not produce either in open Court, although they were thereunto urged by my Counsel; for thereby they should have discovered your most palpable usurpation, who command that by postscript, which you dare not do by Process, and yet pretend you do it by Process; because the Process and postscript are both written upon one sheet of paper, although the postscript hath no correspondency with the Process, because it is not made in your name, confirmed with the seal of your Office, subscribed with your Regesters' hand, neither hath any warrant or confirmation, in or by the Process. If you will have me take this postscript for a Process, you must either put it into the body of the Process, or else like a Process, make it in your own name, confirm it with the seal of your Office, subscribe it with your Regesters' hand, and then I will take it for Process, and obey it as Process. Without one of these you neither observe the order of the Court, nor the custom, which you strive for; and in your brief allege Sir George newman's testimony to prove it. Do you observe both these and I will break neither. And so desiring you to command me by Process to preach at your Visitation or to provide a Sermon elsewhere, I commend you to the Almighty, and rest  
Stouremouth, Feb. 23. 1626. The next day after the Apparitor was with me. Yours according to law, custom & canonical obedience, GEORGE HUNTLEY.  
Now may it please your Lordship, to knit and unite these severals together; Canonical obedience, is such obedience as the 
(p) Ius Canonicum. i e. ab ecclesia seu viris ecclesiasticis institutum, & dicitur canonicum a Canon, quod est regula: Eo quod tanquam regula recte ducit, nec aliquando aliorsum trahit. vel quia recte regit, & Normam recte vivendi praebet, & id quod distortum, pravumque est corrigit. L. P. lib. 1. tit De Postulando. c. veloces ad audiendum Glossa in Ius canonicum.  Canons require. The Canons do not only not require, but forbidden me to preach at my own Cure, or elsewhere. The High-Commission Court make an order contrary to the Canons, that I upon the Archdeacon's mandate, and a competent warning thereby to me given should preach the Archdeacon's next Visitation Sermon, and this say they, is the custom. The Archdeacon sends an Apparitor with an apocryphal and anticanonicall 
(q) Incorrigibilis est, qui revertiturad priora delicta, vel in eyes perseverat, vel qui ter monitus non desistit. Sic sentire videtur Io. An. de iudi. c. cum non ab homine. Et concordat ibi Antho. de butrio. Lyndewode Pro. lib. 5. tit. de paenis. c. Item statuimus. verb. Incorrigibilis.  postscript to warn me, but without any mandate; and so neither observes either order, or custom. An Apparitor without a mandate, even by the Canons, hath no authority to warn any man. I writ to the Archdeacon to observe both the custom, and order of the High-Commission, to summon me by a mandate or Process, and proffer to preach that his next Visitation Sermon. He doth not, he will not, in plain terms my Lord, he dares not.  
Is it not most clear, than my Lord, that in refusing to preach that Visitation Sermon, I have neither transgressed the Canons, nor canonical obedience, nor the Archdeacon's mandate, nor the custom, nor the order of the High-Commission Court, nor the oath of Canonical obedience, and therefore am most free, not only from contumacy and perjury, but also from all anticanonicall disobedience?  
All this is most clear and evident. And why then, my Lord, should I have submitted to the submission, and contrary to a most evident truth, and mine own conscience; have acknowledged my self culpable of disobedience, contumacy, and perjury? Nay further, if I had yielded to the submission, I must have advanced the Archdeacon's apocryphal, uncanonical, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript, above the Canons of this orthodox Church, above his Majesty's Letters Patents, above his royal Prerogative, above a royal Prerogative invested in the Crown by God himself, acknowledged by Article by Statute, by Canon; nay, above a royal Prerogative, which I by the oath of supremacy am bound to the utmost of my power to defend and maintain. So that I could not have submitted to that submission, without palpable 
(r) You made it sacrilege to dispute of the Pope's fact, heresy to doubt of his power, paganism to disobey him, blasphemy against the holy Ghost, to do, or speak against his Decrees or Canons; and that which is most horrible, you made it presumption not to go to the Devil after him without grudging. O shameful and sinful subjection, such as Lucifer himself never offered the bondssaves of hell. Bishop Bilson in his true difference of christian subjection and unchristian rebellion 2. part. pag. 23●  perjury; and I am sure, that perjury is transcendently unlawful, and propter unum illegitimum tota submissio fit illegitima, especially seeing as it appears upon Record in this Court, that submission was framed by the Commissioners, in conceptis verbis, in a set form of words; and by their own order, that set form of words was to be uttered, without addition, or alteration; and therefore any one part thereof being unlawful the whole must needs be unlawful.  
And so my Lord, it appears, that in refusing to preach that Visitation Sermon, I have not transgressed the order of the High-Commission Court, because the Archdeacon sent no mandate as he should have done by that order; neither if he had, was I bound to perform either that mandate, that order, or the submission enjoined; because both that mandate, that order, and that submission enjoined are contrary to the Canons, to his Majesty's Letters Patents, and to his royal Prerogative, and supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Crown; which by the oath of supremacy I am bound to the utmost of my power to defend and maintain; and against which, no man that hath taken that oath, can speak, plead argue, or give sentence without perjury: neither can any Judge, according to that his oath, to the utmost of his power, defend and maintain all jurisdictions of the Crown unless in this case of mine, he doth speedily without delay, without procrastination give judgement for the Canons his Majesty's Letters Patents, his royal Prerogative, and mine obedience unto them; against that apocryphal uncanonical, anticanonicall, antidiplomaticall, antiprerogative, antisuprematicall postscript of the Archdeacon of Cant. Master Doctor Kingsley.  
And so my Lord I do conclude, and I do most instantly and most importunately sue, and supplicate to your Lordship, and to these my just Judges, in the presence of a most just God, for a just judgement, as a just man should do, both for myself and for my adversaries. First for my adversaries, if their Cause be better than mine, and they can confute what I have said: and if they cannot, then for myself, and for both speedily without all further delay, without all further procrastination; for it hath been fall twelve years three quarters, since this action first began in this Court; full twelve years three quarters, before I could get this first hearing, this one Argument. A long and a tedious time, in which divers interessed in this controversy have ended their lives: and as julian the Emperor, though an Apostata says. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epistola 35.  It is a fearful a terrible thing, that he that sues for justice, shall sooner lay down his life at the judgement seat, then procure judgement from the just Judges that sit upon the seat: that he shall stand in need of two lives to determine one controversy, and yet end them both, before he can end that his one controversy.  
What a blemish and disgrace is it, that the justice of private men, shall exceed and surpass the justice of Judges, and of Courts of justice? and if private men do all that ever they can to have their Causes heard, and determined; and Judges do all that ever they can, to delay, procrastinate, and stave off the hearing and determining of them; doth; not the justice of private men exceed and surmount the justice of judges, and of Courts of justice?  
And yet the justice of private men is but the private and particular justice of the Kingdom; and if there be any question concerning that, it must pass per libram per trutinam, sub examine justitiae judicum & Curiarum. And therefore the justice of judges and of Courts of justice is the general, universal, aecumenicall, epidemical justice of the Kingdom. The light of the body saith our Saviour is the eye; if that light be darkness, how great is that darkness? So the general, universal, aecumenicall, epidemical justice of the Kingdom, is the justice of judges, and of Courts of justice. If that justice be injustice, how great is that injustice? It is then the general universal, aecumenicall, epidemical plague pestilence, consumption, desolation, and destruction of the whole Kingdom.  
And though, my Lord the difficulty to get justice, and the danger to lose it, is always very great; because there are so many things needful, even in an honest course to prevail in a suit at Law, as a good and a just cause, a diligent, faithful, and expert Solicitor, an honest, skilful, and incorrupt Attorney, a learned, faithful and courageous Counsel, and a just and an upright judge; of which if any one fail to do his duty, a good cause may have an ill success: Yet certainly amongst all the former, next after a a good Cause, a just and an upright judge is the principal and especial. And because even in a good Cause, the three former cannot prevail without this latter, and this latter can and may correct and amend the faults and errors of the three former; therefore julian the Emperor makes this latter the only necessary thing, to prevail in a good Cause. His words are worthy to be engraven in letters of gold, on every Court of justice, for a direction and caution to all judges, Counselors, Atturnyes, Solicitours, and Clients. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
Epistola praeallegata.  This is the only thing, saith he, for them that suffer wrong, to get their right namely, to get such a judge as both can and will judge rightly, can and will do justice. If the judge either cannot, or will not, if either through weakness he cannot apprehend the truth, or else through wickedness will not hear, or will betray the truth; there is then a necessity, that right and justice most be subverted.  
Wherefore my Honoured Lord Chief justice, and Honoured judges; to the intent that your Lordship and the Court may show yourselves such judges as men oppressed according to julian's advise, should seek for; such judges as both can and will judge rightly, can and will do justice; such judges as both can and will rectify and reform the faults and errors of Solicitours, Attorneys, and Counsellors; nay such judges; as in a good cause will supply the want of all these, which is my case for I can get none of them. Consider I beseech you, by how many bonds you are tied to do justice; you tied by your places titles, offices oaths by the Laws of the Land by the Word of God; and in these two particular cases of mine in this action of false imprisonment, and in the special Verdict between Allen, and Nash, by his Majesty's special mandate delivered to your Lordship with mine own hand here in open Court, on the first day of Hilary Term, 1635.  
All these bind you to do justice, but none of these prove you to be just. The only rule to prove you just, is this of St. john 1 Epist. 3. cap. 7. verse. He that doth righteousness, is righteous. The works of justice, & not the titles of justice must prove you just: without these works, you may be called justices; but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abusive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & antiphrasis est vox signans contraria dicto; and than you have no better right to be called justices, than the Lords supper hath to be called missa, and missa signifies the Lord's supper, just as excommunication doth the Communion, as Bishop Bilson shows; for missa is a sending away from the Lords Supper, as excommunication is from the Communion.  
Or if you have any better right to be called justices, yet without the works of justice, it is only ratione officii, not ratione meriti; and in that sense, as the Papists say, if judas or Simon Magus were Popes, they had right to, and might be honoured with the title of holiness. And in this respect, as Gerson says, absque mendacio Papa nequissimus dici potest Sanctissimus, and in that regard, any of the lapsed Angels, even Belzebub himself, the prince of devils, in regard of original purity, and God's law written in him in the Creation, which ex officio is over bound to observe, may be called Angelus Sanctissimus; although in respect of his works, now and ever since his fall, he be spiritus impurissimus & diabolus nequissimus.  
But if you will be truly called justices, both ratione officii, & ratione meriti, than you must do the works of justice; you must do justa just, that is, as Aristotle expounds himself, you must do justice volenter, scienter, constanter, willingly without any backwardness; wittingly by hearing sifting, and searching the allegations and proofs always on both sides; and constantly without any intermission or deviation. Or if you had rather have the rule from Solomon; you must do justice joyfully. It is joy, saith Solomon, to the just to do judgement, Prov. 21.15. And this one word of Solomon, includes the three former of Aristotle. For if it be joy to the just to do judgement, than he will do it willingly, wittingly, and constantly; or if you please, take the rule out of your own Laws, out of the common Laws of the Land, out of the epitome an principal part thereof magna Charta, cap. 29. you shall deny to no man, you shall delay to no man, you shall sell to no man justice, or right; you shall deny to no man, you shall delay to no man justice, or right; therefore you shall do to every man justice and right speedily; you shall sell to no man justice or right; therefore you shall do to every man justice and right freely: and join all these together, and then you have the absolute and complete rule of justice: The observation whereof, will make you all, not only justices, but also chief justices; if not ratione loci, tituli, & officii, which is the inferior; yet ratione operis & meriti, which is the superior; and will make suum cuique, which is anima, vigour, & executio legis, take place in every cause that comes before you: wherein next after the service and worship of God, and the exercise of the true Orthodox Religion, consists the welfare and flourishing estate, both of Church and Commonwealth.  
And this my Lord, will be the best, if not the only course, to vindicate the credit of this your Court, and to confute that opprobrious distinction of Court Christian, and not Christian; whereby the name of Court Christian is appropriated only to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and all Temporal Courts reputed Ethnic or heathenish, but both very erroneously. For it is the doing of justice, that makes Courts Christian and the omitting or neglect of justice, much more the doing of injustice, that makes Courts Ethnic or Heathenish, as the Apostle shows in his 1. Epistle to the Corinth's 6. chapter, 1. verse. Dare any of you having a matter against another, be judged under the unjust, and not under the Saints? which Apostolical Dichotomy, if it be rightly made, and the members thereof truly opposite; then they which are unjust, cannot be Saints or Christians; and they which are Saints or Christians, cannot be unjust. And to make the matter more clear, those whom the Apostle in the first verse calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unjust, those in the 6. verse, he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbelievers or infidels. And those whom the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints or Christians, Saint john calls doers of righteousness; If you know that Christ is righteous know ye, that every one that doth righteousness is borne of him, in his first Epistle, 2. chap. 29. verse. and in his 3. chap. 7, verse, he calls them both righteous, and doers of righteousness. He that doth righteousness, is righteous, even as Christ is righteous. And therefore, my Lord, that Court which doth justice, is a Court Christian, and that Court which doth not do justice, is a Court not Christian. If the Ecclesiastical Court doth justice more cheerfully, readily, and freely, than the Temporal Court, than the Ecclesiastical Court is more Christian; if the temporal Court doth justice more cheerfully, readily, and freely, than the Ecclesiastical Court, than the temporal Court is more Christian; if they both do justice, as they both should do, than both are Christian, if neither do justice, than neither is Christian. Or if both Ecclesiastical and Temporal judges, will have themselves, and their Courts reputed christian, though they do not do justice; yet they must be content to be ranked among those christians, who profess they know God, but by their works deny him. Tit. 1.16. or among those, who have indeed a show, or form of godliness, but have denied the power thereof. 2. Tim. 3.5.  
Wherefore my honoured Lord Chief justice, and my honoured judges, to the intent that you may show yourselves and this your Court truly Christian; 〈◊〉 do most humbly and most hearty beseech your Lordship, and these my honoured judges, to observe the former excellent rules of justice, both in this case of mine, now after full twelve years three quarters, and in all other men's cases at the first, as you will answer the contrary before the dreadful tribunal of God himself: whose deputies you are, whose names you bear, whose oath you have taken, whose work you are here to do, and in whose presence and judgement, as you now sit to judge others, so you shall hereafter stand to be judged yourselves; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without prejudice, without partiality: ubi plus valebunt pura corda quam astuta verba: & conscientia bona, quam marsupia plena.  
Dixi.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignatius Epist. ad Polycarpum.  
FJNJS.  

Errata.  
Faults in some Copies, and their Corrections. P. and the first number shows the Page. L. and the second number the line. M. the Margin. E. signifies expunge. F. for. R. read. W. wants.  
TItle Pag. line 34. read by, for be. p. 1. l. 24. r. Diem. p. 2. l. 1. r. it f. I, p. 3. l 27. w. the. p. 6. l. 8. r. certify. l. 22. w. the. l. 33. r. desisting. l. 35. w. corpus. l. 38. r. nay, f. may. P. 7. l. 16. r. impartially. p. 9 l. 5. r. decide. l. 11. r. duty. l. 23. r. gnaviter. l. 24. r. confitenti. p. 12. l. 8. r. cognisance. p. 17. l. 32. r. expressly. p. 19 l. 17. r. asticall. p. 20. l. 7. r. provincial. l. 8. r. presbyteri. l, 12, r, mandato. p, 22, l, 11, r, this f, his. l, 32, r, special. p. 24, l, 14, r, the f, thy. l, 32, r, provincial. p, 29, l, 25, w, no. p, 30, l, 40, r, his f, the. p, 31, l, 3, marg. w the. p, 34, l, 17, w. according. p, 38, l, 30, w, the. p, 40, l, 25, r, of, f. or. p. 42, l, 28, mar, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l, 45, mar, r, consensio. p, 43, l, 17, r, gloss. p, 47, l, 9, r, igitur. p, 51, l, 18, mar, r. Enthymems. p, 55, l, 8, r, whosoever. p, 56, l, 40, r, soliciti. Item p, 57, l. 1, and l, 12. p, 59, l, 28, r, proponere. p, 64, l, 22, r, solicit. p, 68, l, 6, m, E, &, l, 36, m, r, marginal. p, 69, l, 3. r, lawful. l, 37, r imply. p, 79, l, 1, r, Archdeacon's. p, 82, l, 27, E, to. l, 35, r, this, f, his. p, 86, l, 29, r, not only against the King himself, but also against Cod himself. p, 87, l, 15, r, gift, f, right. p, 90, l, 38, r, non. p, 93, l, 10, r, oculi.