THE PREFACE, SHOWING. THE OCCASION OF This following Answer, with somewhat of the Story of H. B. the principal Argument thereof.  
AMONGST the several commendations given unto Charity by Saint Paul, we find these particulars. Charity vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up; doth not behave itself unseemly; seeketh not her own; is not easily provoked: thinketh no evil: Which if they be the certain marks of Charity, as no doubt they are; we may affirm it of too many in these later days, that whatsoever Faith they pretend unto, they have little Charity. Such boasters are they of themselves, so arrogant, so unadvised in all their doings, so greedy either after lucre or vain applause, so peevish and intemperate in their speech and writings, and finally so jealous and distrustful of all those who concur not with them in opinion: That though they had all Faith, so that they could remove mountains, 
1 Cor. 13.23.  which I think they have not; or should they give their bodies to be burned, as I think they will not; it would profit nothing. Of such, as these it was that S. Peter tell's us, that they are Presumptuous, self-willed, 
2. Pet. 2.10.  and are not afraid to speak evil of dignities: of whom S. Judas relates, 
Judas 16.  that they were murmurers, complainers, walkers after their own lusts, and that their mouth speaketh great swelling words. Would you a further censure of them? As natural bruit beasts (saith the Apostle) made to be taken and destroyed, 
2. Pet. 2.12.  they speak evil of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption. These are the mockers of whom the Apostles have foretold us, 
Judas 17.18.  that they should come in the last times, and being come; we must accordingly expect they should play their parts, and do the will of him that sent them: And so they do. The Church continually traducea, as if she were unsound in her intentions towards Christ; as if there were a day at hand, in which the Saints i. e. themselves, must be tried and sifted. The Prelates generally condemned, their cause un-heard, as factors for the Mystical strumpet in S. John's Apocalypse, to make men drunken with the Cup of her abominations. And as for the inferior Clergy, which know no better sacrifice than obedience, and willingly submit themselves unto the just commands of their Superiors, what are they but the common marks whereat each furious Malcontent doth shoot out his Arrows, even bitter words. Nor hath the supreme Majesty, the Lords anointed escaped so clear, 
Judas 15.  but that they also have had part of those hard speeches, which these ungodly sinners have spoken against them, in Saint Judes' language. Antoniuses epistolae, Brutique conciones, falsa quidem in Augustum probra, sed multa, cum acerbitate habent, as he in Tacitus. No times more full of odious Pamphlets, no Pamphlets more applauded, nor more dearly bought; then such as do most deeply wound those powers, and dignities, to which the Lord hath made us subject. Egregiam vero laudem, et spolia ampla.  
Not to go higher than the Reign of our now dread Sovereign, how have both Church and State been exercised by those factious Spirits, Layton, and Prynne, and Bastwick, the Triumvirs▪ with H. Burton the Dictator, what noise and clamours have they raised; what odious scandals have they fastened on their Reverend Mother? what jealousies & fears (that I say no worse) have they seditiously infused into people's minds? And thereby turned those weapons on their Mother's Children, which might have been employed more fitly on the common Enemy.  
But when those of the Triumvirate had received their judgement, Layton and Prynne in the Star-chamber, & Bastwick in the high Commission, the greatest comfort of the cause, did seem to be entrusted to Dictator Burton: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a man in whom the Element of fire had the most predominancy, which made that which is zeal in others, to be in him a zealous fury. The rather since he had deceived himself in his expectations, and swallowed down those hopes, he could not digest. That which hath heretofore made so many Heretics, occasioned his first dislike of the holy Hierarchy. When once Aerius lost his hopes of being made a Bishop, as Saint Austin tells us; 
De haeres. c. 23.  he set on foot this peevish doctrine, Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla ratione debere discerni, that by no means there was a difference to be made, between Priests and Bishops. And that once broached, there followed next, non celebranda esse jejunia statuta, sed cum quisque voluerit jejunandum? that no set fasts were to be kept, but every man might fast when he would himself. This was the very Case of our Grand Dictator. He had been a servant in the Closet to His Sacred Majesty, than Prince of Wales: and questionless being in the Ascendent, he thought to Culminate. But when he saw those hopes had failed him, and that by reason of his violent and factious carriage, he was commanded to depart the Court, he thought it then high time to Court the people; that he might get in the hundreds, what he lost in the County. This pincheth him it seems, to this very day; and he is so ingenious, (which I wonder at) as to let us know it. For in the Epistle to His Majesty before his Sermon (if at the least a railing and seditious declamation may be called a Sermon) he styles himself His Majesty's old and faithful servant: and in the other to His Majesty before the Apology he bemoanes himself, as an old outcast Courtier, worn out of all favour and friends there. Hinc illae lachrymae; Hence the opinion of these quarrels. Here he declares most plainly where his grief doth lie; what made him first fly out, and bend his thoughts, to foster and foment a faction: Such is the humour of most men, whom the Court casts out; that they do labour what they can, to outcast the Court.  
Being thus entered and engaged, he found it necessary to acquaint himself with such as were affected like himself, and in their several professions might best aid and help him: this made him pick out Master Prynne, an utter Barrister of Lincoln's Inn, for his learned Counsel: Layton and Bastwicke, two that had the name of Doctors, to be Physicians to his person: His Doctors finding by some Symptoms, which they had observed, that he was very fretful, and full of Choler, persuaded with him, either by preaching, or by writing to vent that humour: which otherwise for want of vent, would soon burn him up: his learned Counsel standing by, and promising that whatsoever he should write or say, he would find Law for it. On this encouragement he began to cast abroad his wildfire, endeavouring nothing more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to raise combustions in the state: and like Erostratus of old, seeing he could grow famous by no other means, to burn down the Temple. The Pulpit, first erected only for preaching of the word of God, 
Cann. 83.  was by him made a Sanctuary, or privileged place, from whence to rail against the times, to cry down all the orders of holy Church, and to distract the people with needless controversies, in despite of his Majesty's Declaration, which he cared not for, or would interpret for his purpose: And had this happiness withal, that whatsoever he said there, did instantly become God's truth; and therefore not to be suppressed by Prince, or Prelate. The Press, which was devised at first for the advancement and increase of learning; was by him made a means to disperse his pasquils, that they might fly abroad with the swifter wing, and poison men's affections, whom he never saw. And howsoever some of his unlicenced Babel's, were guilty of sedition, and tended to incense the Commons against the King; yet, being dedicated to the Parliament, As himself relates it, P. 45. he came off bravely, and brought his adversaries to a nonplus. Fortunate man, one of the sons, no question, of the young white hen; to whom, both Press & Pulpit prostitute themselves, and yet account it as an honour that he hath abused them. Too fortunate indeed, had it so been carried. But not long after, this brave man of Arms, that dares encounter with Goliath, as he boasts himself, received the foil, being first suspended for his preaching, and afterward imprisoned, and brought into the High Commission for his printing, as he relates the story. p. 52.  
Oh, but by God's great blessing, and the King's good Laws he was fetch't off those shelves (where else as he complaineth, he had suffered shipwreck) by a Prohibition. P. 53. for that he was beholding to his friend Mast. Prynne who both advised him to it, & had led the way; and having Layton's valour in admiration, thought it a far more Noble suffering, to lose one ear or two by sentence in the Star-chamber, then lend an ear to the censure of the High Commission, so fared it with his learned Counsel, whose punishment might have persuaded him to more moderate courses, but that he had a strong desire to fill up the measure of his iniquities: and having been a stickler in the same cause with him, conceived it most agreeable to the rule of fellowship, that he must suffer with him also. 
Orat. pro M. Marcell.  Tully indeed did so resolve it. Ut qui in eadem causa fuerunt, in eadem item essent fortuna: and certainly it was very fit that it should be so: nor was it possible to stay him being once resolved: only he wanted opportunity for the accomplishment of his designs, which the last Gunpowder day did present unto him; that day being by him thought most proper for their execution, whom he had long before condemned, and meant to blow up now without help of Powder. In that more merciful indeed, than Faux or Catisby; they purposing to blow up the three estates together; he but at once. The place designed for this dispatch, that which he had so long abused, the Pulpit; the way of bringing it about, that which hath always served his turn on the like occasions, a seditious Sermon: wherein he had drawn up together, what ever spirit of malice he had found dis●●rsed in all or any of those scurrilous and pestilent Pamphlets, which had been published to the world since Martin's time, of purpose to defame the Clergy, and inflame the people; his own store being added to it: Nor did he think it was enough thus to disgorge his stomach, of purpose to excite his audience against their superiors, and startle them with dreadful fears, as if both tyranny and Popery, were likely in short time to be thrust upon them: that was an undertaking fit for private persons, whose gifts might be confined to one place or Parish: For his part, he was now the general Superintendent of all the Churches, the forlorn hope, the Sentinel perdue of the whole brotherhood: and therefore the most choice and material points of the Declamation, (like the Enclyclicall Epistles of the elder times) must briefly be summed up, and scattered all abroad the Kingdom, as News from Ipswich: Nay, lest one title of his word should fall to ground, the Declamation presently must become a Libel, 
Ep. to the King.  and was by him thought fit to have been printed (as soon as spoken) for the general god (as he assures us) of all his Majesty's loving Subjects throughout the Kingdom: and printed at the last it was, and with a monstrous impudence dedicated to his Majesty, and Copies of the same given forth, (as he saith himself) in hope that it might come at last to his Majesty's hands.  
Two things there were especially which did embolden him thus to preach and publish his own personal quarrels, as the truth of God: First an opinion of some extraordinary calling from above, the same perhaps that Hacket was possessed with in Queen Elizabeth's reign: This he avoweth in his Epistle to the King. I heartily thank my Lord Jesus Christ, who hath accounted me faithful, & called me forth to stand in his case, and to witness it before the World, by publishing my said Sermons in Print, etc. And in that directed to the truehearted Nobility, where he speaks more plainly Certainly I am one of the watchmen of Israel (though the meanest) yet one that hath obtained mercy to be faithful. Nor have I inconsiderately or rashly rushed upon this business, but have been by a strong hand drawn into it. Yea my Lords, know assuredly that Christ himself my great Lord & Master, hath called me forth, to be a public witness of this great cause, who will certainly maintain both it and me, against all the Adversaries of God and the King. The second was a confidence, that no man durst to question so great a prophet, greater then which, was never raised up from the dead, to preach to Dives and his brethren. And this he lets us know in his Apology, p. 7. I never so much as once dreamt (saith he) that impiety and impudency itself, in such a Christian state as this is, and under such a gracious Prince, durst ever thus publicly have called me in question, and that upon the open stage, etc. No marvel if so strange a calling, seconded by so strong a confidence, spurred him bravely on; and made him lift up both his voice and hand against what ever is called God: and how know we, but that in some of his spiritual raptures, he might feign an hope, that his dread name should be as famous in the stories of succeeding times, as Muntzers, or King John of Leidens. But these imaginations failed him too, as his Court-hopes did. For contrary to what he dreamt (such filthy dreamers, S. Judas speaks of) Upon the Third of December next ensuing, a Pursuivant (as he tells the story) served him with letters missive from the high Commission, to appear before Doctor Duck at Cheswick, then and there to take his oath to answer to such Articles as were laid against him. Bold men, that durst lay hands upon a Prophet of such an extraordinary calling, who if his power had been according to his spirit, would have commanded fire from heaven, to have burnt them all, or sent them further off with a noli me tangere. But caught or not caught, all was one. For though it was no time to move the Court for a Prohibition, being out of Term, yet he bethought himself of another way to elude his Judges: and that was by a strange Appeal, being neither a gravamine, nor a sententia, to decline that Court; and put the cause immediately into his Majesty's hands, where he might be, he thought, both a defendant and complainant, as he saith himself. p. 1. of the Apology. A fine invention doubtless, but more sine then fortunate. For on a new Contempt, as himself informs us, he was suspended by the high-Commissioners, both from his Benefice and Office, and the suspension published (as he now complains) in his own Parish Church, to his intolerable disgrace and scandal. Indignum facinus. Therefore that all the World might knowted and on what suspended, Lo a necessity (so he saith) is laid upon him, as formerly to Preach, now to Print his Sermon (for Sermon he will have it called, whosoever saith nay.) And printed at the last it was, as before was said, and therewithal was printed also an Apology for the said Appeal, with several addresses to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, to all the truehearted Nobility of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Counsel; and to the Reverend and Learned Judges: the Copies of them both being spread abroad, for the greater consolation of the Brethren, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here and there dispersed, like Simeon and Levi, brethren in evil, in the tribes of Israel.  
This is the substance of the story, which I have here laid down together by way of preface, that with less interruption I might ply the Argument presented to us, both in the Sermon and Apology. For howsoever neither of them be considerable in regard of the Author, who since his being thrust out of the Court, hath been an open and professed enemy of the Public Government: yet in relation to the Church and Rulers of it, whom he endeavoureth to expose to the common hatred; and next in reference to the people, whom he hath laboured to possess with false and sinister conceits of the present state; it hath been thought convenient by authority, that an Answer should be made unto them. The preservation of Religion is a thing so Sacred, that we cannot prise it to the height: and therefore they that labour to preserve it, are of all men, the most to be esteemed and honoured. Proximus diis habetur, per quem deorum majestas vindicatur, as the Historian rightly noted. So that we cannot blame poor men, if they are startled and affrighted at those scandalous rumours which are diffused and spread amongst them, to make them think that Religion is in no small danger: or if they hold a Reverend esteem of those, who seem to them to have a principal care thereof, and the safety of it. Only they are to be admonished, not to be too credulous in matters of so high a nature, till they are throughly certified of the truth thereof: that they conceive not ill of the Church, their mother, upon the light and false reports of every male contented spirit; or think them Champions of Religion, who are indeed the bane, and disturbers of it: That Faction in the Church, which Mast. Burton, and his Copesmates, have so much laboured to promote: hath since the first beginning of it accused the Church of England of the self same crimes, whereof they now pronounce her guilty: nor have they found any new matter wherewithal to charge her, than that which their forefathers had been hammering on in the times before them: yet they cry out with no less violence but far more malice, than their fathers did; and fill the minds of jealous and distrustful people with doubts and fears of innovations, of and in the worship of God, & the whole doctrine of Religion; as if the banks were broken down, and Popery were breaking in a main upon us; only because they can no longer be permitted to violate all the orders of God's Church, here by Law established. The Papists and these men, how different soever they may seem to be in other matters, have, as it were by joint consent, agreed in this, to charge this Church with novelties and innovations: the one especially in the points of Doctrine; the other principally in matters of exterior order, & the service of God. But as we say unto the one, that in the reformation of this Church, we introduced no novelties into the same, but only laboured to reduce her to that estate and quality, wherein she was in her original beauty, and the Primitive times: so may we say unto the other, that all those Innovations which they have charged upon the Church in their scandalous Pamphlets, are but a restitution of those ancient orders, which were established here at that Reformation. This that the world might see, and see how scandalously and seditiously they traduce the Church; I was commanded by authority to return an Answer to all the challenges and charges, in the said two Sermons and Apology of Master Burton. For being it was the leading Libel, in respect of time, (the principal matters in the News from Ipswich, being borrowed from Master Burtons' Sermon) and that those many which have followed, are but a repetition of, and a dilating on those points which are there contained: it was conceived, that be being answered, the rest would perish of themselves. On this command I set myself unto the Work; and though I knew no credit could be gotten from such an Adversary, Vbi & vincere inglorium est, & atteri sordidum; and that there are a sort of men, who hate to be reform in the Psalmists Language: yet being so commanded, I obeyed accordingly, & cannot but account it an especial honour to me, to be commanded any thing in the Church's service. Besides I could not but be grieved, to see my dearest Mother traduced so foully in things whereof I knew her guiltless; and it had argued in me a great want of Piety, not to have undertaken her defence herein, being called unto it. From which two great and grievous crimes, defect of piety, and true affection to the Church our mother; and disobedience to the commands and orders of the higher powers; no less than from the Plague and Pestilence, good Lord deliver us. Having thus rendered an account, both of the reasons why the Sermon and Apology of Master Burton, have been thought worthy of an Answer; and why, for my part, I have undertaken a Reply unto him: I must now settle close unto the business, beginning first with the Apology, so far forth as it justifieth his said Appeal; and leaving those particulars, which he doth charge upon the Prelates, to be considered of more fully in due place and time.   

CHAP. I. Containing a particular answer to the several Cavils of H. B. in defence of his Appeal.  Appeals unto His Majesty, in what case admitted. The high Commissioners, neither parties in the cause, nor Adversaries to the Person of the Appellant. The Bishops no usurpers of the Jurisdiction belonging to the King. The Oath of Supremacy not derogatory to Episcopal power. Objections against the Oath Ex Officio, with an answer to them. Other objections against the Proceedings in the high-Commission answered. Of giving forth a Copy of ones Sermon, upon Oath. Sedition, how it may be punishable in the High Commission. Archbishop whitgift's name abused, and his words misreported by H. B. 
HItherto Mass. Burton, we have laid you open, by the way of an Historical narration (though all Historical narrations be offensive to you, for the sake of one) and consequently spoke only of you in the third Person, as hic et ille. But being now employed in the Examiner's Office, I must deal with you, as if Coram, in the second Person, which I persuade myself will better sort with your ambition; the second Person (if you remember so much of your Accidens) being more worthy than the third. And first, I would fain know what moved you to appeal unto His Majesty at your first conventing, before you had just grievance, or an unjust sentence. Your conscience sure accused you, and pronounced you guilty, and told you what you should expect in a legal trial: and on the other side your presumption flattered you, that being an Old Courtier, though worn out of favour, you might have some friend there to promote your suit. Sir you forget it seems, what is related in the conference at Hampion Court, in the self same case. My L. of London, moved his M tie. that then was [K. James of B. memory] that Pulpits might not be made Pasquil's (Pray sir mark this well) wherein every humorous or discontented fellow might traduce his Superiors. This the King very graciously accepted, exceedingly reproving that as a lewd custom, threatening, that if he should but hear of such a one in a Pulpit, He would make him an example: (this is just your case) And that if any thing were amiss in the Church Officers, not to make the Pulpit a place of personal reproof, but to let His Majesty hear of it, yet by degrees. First let complaint be made unto the Ordinary of the place, from him to go to the Archbishop; from him, to the Lords of the Counsel, and from them, if in all these places no remedy is found, to his own self: which Caveat His Majesty put in, for that the Bp. of London had told him, that if he left himself open to admit of all complaints, neither His Majesty should ever be quiet, nor his under Officers regarded: seeing that now already, no fault can be censured, but presently the delinquent threateneth a complaint to the King. Here is a long gradation, and that after censure: but you will venture on the King, per saltem, not by fair degrees; and that not only before censure, but before any grievance to be complained of. The King would quickly have his hands full, were that course allowed of; and we must needs conceive him God, as well by nature, as resemblance: it being impossible he should have any spare time left, either to ear, sleep, or refresh his Spirits, or whatsoever other business doth concern this life, or show him mortal.  
But we must needs conceive, there was some special reason in it, which might induce you to cry out, before you were hurt; more than the matter of the Articles which were read unto you; or your own guilty conscience, which had precondemned you. Yes sure, for you except against as well the incompetency of the Judges, as the illegal manner of proceedings in the high Commission. The Judges you except against (excepting those honourable Nobles, Judges, Counsellors of state, which are seldom there) as parties in the cause, and adversaries to your person for the causes sake; p. 6. parties, 
Apolog. p. 6  because you have traduced them for Innovators, and Adversaries, for the reasons which hereafter follow. Suppose them parties, and what then? Then by the Laws of God and nature, as also by the Common, Canon, and Civil Laws, they are prohibited from being Judges. This is the first Crutch your Appeal halts with; and this will fail you. For howsoever it be true, in ordinary course, that no man can be Judge in his own cause, there where the cause concerns himself in his own particular; yet it is otherwise in a body aggregate, or a public person. Suppose in time of Parliament, a man should tax that great assembly with some grievous crime, should the whole body be disabled from proceeding with him? Or that a man should raise some odious scandal on my Lords the Judges, should he escape unpunished because there is none else to judge him? Or that some saucy fellow behaves himself audaciously and Contra bonos mores, before the Justices on the bench, at their Quarter Sessions; should not the Bench have power to bind him to his good behaviour? Or that a man within the Liberties of London, should say a fig for my Lord Major, might not my Lord Major clap him in the Counter? And yet the Parliament, and the Judges and the Justices, and the Lord Major of London, are as much parties in these cases; as the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Chancellors, and the rest of the High Commission, are by you said, and only said, to be in the other. For that they are not parties, we shall see anon, when we shall come to clear them of those imputations, which in a furious zeal you have laid upon them.  
That which you next attempt, is to prove them Adversaries, and Adversaries to your person for the causes sake. Good Sir, what see you in yourself, that you should think such great and eminent men should bear malice to you. Tully, a wiser man than you, and a better Orator, as I take it, and in more credit with the common people (though you grieve to hear it) might have taught you better. 
Philip. 2.  Non video nec in vita, nec in gratia, nec in hac mea mediocritate quid despicere possit Antonius. Was it not you, sweet Sir, that did Protest thus roundly of my LL. the Bishops, I speak not this, 
Pag 111.  God is my witness, out of any base envy to their Lordly honour and pomp, which is so far beneath my envy. Poor soul, are those great persons, and their honours beneath your envy; and is your person a fit mark for theirs? Diogenes; and yourself, two magnanimous Cynics. You know the story well enough, and can best apply it. Calco Platonis fastum, 
Diog. Laert.  sed mafore fastu. Yea, but they are the Adversaries of your person for the causes sake: Say then the Adversaries of the cause; let your person go, as a contemptible thing that provokes no Adversary. Yet we will take you with us to avoid exceptions, and see what proof you have to make them Adversaries to your person for the causes sake. And first they are your Adversaries, because the Adversaries of those truths by you delivered in your Sermon, p. 7. Hold there a little brother B. As far as you have said the truth, they will all join with you. Veritas a quocunque est, est a Spiritu Sancto, said St. Ambrose truly. In that assuredly you shall find no Adversaries. But when you leave to speak the truth, which is the Office of a Preacher; and fall upon Seditious, false and factious discourses, to inflame the people, and bring them into ill opinion, both of their King, and those to whom the government of the Church is by him entrusted; you are no more a Preacher, but a Prevaricator, a dangerous Boutefeu, and Incendiary, as you have been hitherto. That this is true, shall be most plainly manifested in the Anatomy of your Sermon, (for we will call it so to please you) where the charge is pressed.  
A second reason which you have to prove them your Adversaries, is that they have usurped such a title of jurisdiction, as cannot consist with that title of Jurisdiction, which the Law of the Land hath annexed to the Crown Imperiall, p. 7. If so, they are the King's Adversaries in the first place, robbing him of the fairest flower in the Regal diadem: and as the King's Adversaries, the common Adversaries of all loyal subjects, no more yours then mine. But how may it appear unto us, that they have made so great and manifest an usurpation, as you charge them with? Because, say you, they do continually exercise their Episcopal jurisdiction, without any Letters Patents of His Majesty, or His Progenitors, in their own names and rights only, not in His Majesty's Name and right, etc. Great pity but you should be made the King's Attorney; you would bring all the Clergy doubtless in a Praemunire, and make them fine more deeply for it, then when King Henry the 8th first charged them with it. But this being objected to them in that sermon also; we shall there meet with it. One thing I must take with me now, for fear I find it not hereafter. You say the Bishops exercise their Episcopal jurisdiction, in their own names and rights only, not in his Majesty's name and right, to the manifest breach of their oaths aforesaid. Alas poor Prelates, cast away your Rochets, and resign all to Brother B. Before he had indicted you at the King's Bench, for usurpation; and now he files a bill against you in the Star-Chamber, as in case of perjury. For he assures us, that the Statute, 1. Eliz. c. 1. uniting all manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical whatsoever, unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm, enacteth the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance eo nomine, to that very end and purpose, that none should presume to exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this Realm, but by virtue of the King's Letters Patents, and in the King's Majesty's name and right Qui nunquam risistis nunc ridete. Here's such a piece of learned ignorance, as would make Heraclitus laugh; It seems you had no conference of late with your learned Counsel; who, had he seen this passage, might have marred the merriment; For pray you Sir, was the Oath of Allegiance enacted 1. of Elizabeth? Then certainly my books deceive me, in which it is reported to have been enacted 3. Jacobi, on the occasion of the Gunpowder Treason. And for the Oath of Supremacy, made indeed 1. Eliz. was it enacted eo nomine, to that end and purpose, as you please to tell us? What? that no Bishop might proceed in exercise of his ordinary Episcopal Authority, without especial Letters Patents; and in the Queen's Majesty's Name and right only? Find you in all the Statute any mention of Letters Patents, more than in and for the erection and establishment of the High Commission, for excercise of that supreme, and highest jurisdiction of right invested in the Crown? as for the Oath, look it well over once again, if there be any one word which reflecteth that way, of suing out especial Letters Patents by the Party sworn, for the discharge of the authority committed to him; or that makes mention of the Queen's name to be used therein. Assuredly, learned sir, that Oath was framed, to settle the abolishment of all foreign power and jurisdiction, such as the Popes of Rome had lately practised in this Kingdom; and for no other end and purpose. Or if it were enacted, eo nomine, to that end and purpose, that none should exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within this Realm, but by virtue of the Kings (or Queens) Letters Patents: then certainly it must be thought, that all, and every Temporal Judge, Justice, Major, and other lay and temporal Officer or Minister; all that take wages of the King in any of His dominions, those that sue out their Livery, or Oustre le main; young Scholars in the University, when they take degrees, or finally, whosoever is required by the Statute to take that Oath; have in them a capacity of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, but may not exercise the same without Letters Patents: or else must forthwith take up arms against those that do. As for that clause which follows after, And in the King's Majesty's name and right, that's just like the rest. It was indeed enacted so, in some certain cases. 1 Edw. 6. c. 2. but was repealed by Parliament, 1. Mar. c. 2. and stood repealed all the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and therefore could not be intended in the statute 10. I see Sir, you are as excellent in the Law, as in the Gospel: and marvel that you have not mooted all this while in some Inn of Chancery.  
Le's on Sir to those other Arguments which you have studied, to prove the High Commissioners to be your adversaries; and if we follow your account they are three in number: but stilo novo we shall find but one, and that one worth nothing. First, they who are adversaries of God and the King, are your adversaries, p. 9 Secondly, they which are Christ's enemies are your enemies. And thirdly, they which are the King's enemies are your enemies. p. 10. This is as good as handy dandy, pretty sport for Children. I hope you will not divide Christ from God, and I am sure you cannot divide the King from himself. Let then your three arguments pass this once for one: and show us how you mean to prove, that the Bishops are the adversaries of God and the King. That's made as clear as all the rest, by arguing a non-concessis pro concessis; by taking it for granted, because you say it, that they are dangerous innovators, hinderers of the Gospel, opposers of his Majesty's Laws, Proclamations, and Declarations against all innovations of religion, etc. What proof you have of this, more than your own bare Ipse dixit, we shall see hereafter: and when we see it, we will answer to it as we see occasion. Mean while, I would fain know how this concerns you, more than others: why any schismatic or delinquent may not pretend the self same reasons, to decline the judgement of that Court, as well as you. Pope Boniface tells us of Saint Peter, that he was taken in consortium individuae Trinitatis; and doubtless you deride him for it: yet in effect, you take as much unto yourself. God's cause and yours are so alike, of such near kin to one another, that they are hard to be distinguished. Our Saviour Christ hath no advantage of you, but that he was the first-begotten, and therefore is your elder brother: As for the King, according to the Puritan tenet, he's but a Minister of the State, only a sworn Bailiff of the Common wealth, and to be called unto account when the people please: the Saints, i. e. yourself and such as you, being kings indeed, to whom the earth belongs of right, and the fullness of it; and at whose feet, in case the Presbyterian discipline were once established, all Kings and Princes of the world must lay down their sceptres, Huic disciplinae omnes orbis Principes & Monarchas fasces suos submittere, & parere necesse est. As your friend Travers stated it in his book of Discipline. Yes marry Sir, now I perceive there's somewhat in it, why God's cause, Christ's, the King, and yours, are so linked together.  
So far we have gone after you, or with you rather, to see how you could justify your Appeal, as it related to the incompetency of the judges: we must next look upon you whilst you plead your cause, as it reflects upon the illegality of their proceedings. And this you branch into two parts also, (for you are excellent at making a division:) the one general which concerns their usual practice in all other cases; the other particular, in your own case, p. 11. It had been fitter sure you had left out the general, and fallen on the particular only: for in such things, which are, you say, their usual practice, what cause have you to make appeal more than other men. And should all other men take liberty to decline the Court, that would dislike their course and manner of proceedings: his Majesty might quickly call in the Commission, as an unnecessary thing, of no use at all. This therefore only was put in to beget an Odium to that Court, and buzz into the people's heads (who if once seasoned with your leaven, are apt to credit it) that the proceedings there are contrary to piety, to law, to charity, and utterly against the liberty of the King's good subjects. But being put in, we must do what we can to raze it out again: and therefore speak, what is it that you are aggrieved at in their usual practice. Your first exception is against the oath ex officio, in which you say they do transgress in three particulars: first in regard it is exacted of the delinquent, before a copy of the Articles or Libel is exhibited unto him; and secondly in that the deponent is not permitted to have a copy of the Articles, before he doth depose unto them, that he may answer to them by advise of Counsel: both which, you say, are contrary unto the practice of all the other Courts of justice. Thirdly, in that the oath exacted is contrary both unto faith and charity; to faith, in that an oath so taken must needs be taken for a rash oath, and so against the nine and thirtieth Article of the Church of England; to charity, in that it makes a man to accuse his brother, and betray himself, and so against that general maxim, nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, p. 11. and 12. This is the sum of what you say, (for that which follows of putting in Additionals to the information, on the discovery of new matter, was not worth the saying:) and all this is no more, but quod dictum prius, that which hath formerly been alleged, and already answered, your learned Counsel furnished you with these particulars, when you were both delinquents in that Court together: and he might do it easily without much study. They were collected before he was borne, and by some that had as evil will to the Church as he, and spread abroad amongst that party in Queen Elizabeth's time: but very learnedly refelled by Dr. Cousin, than Deane of the Arches, to whom for brevity's sake I might well refer you.  
Yet since your libel is made public, and dispersed abroad, I will in brief lay down such answers as are made by him, to your several cavils; adding a little of mine own, and one thing specially for your satisfaction which he could not know of. In answer to the first, 
part 3. c. 15.  he tells you (if you would have learned) that though the Articles or Libel, be not exhibed inscriptis, before the oath, yet that the general heads are signified and opened to the party criminal: which was observed, as you confess, in your particular: For you inform us in the beginning of your Apology, that the occasion of your Appeal was upon the reading of certain Articles unto you, by the Register of the Court before Doctor Duck, and by his appointment who thereupon tendered unto you an oath to answer to the said Articles. This was as much favour as could be shown you, and more than needed. The reason why the Articles are not given in scriptis, is chiefly upon observation, that some of those to whom that favour hath been shown, have used it only as a means to instruct their confederates, for the concealing or the disguizing of the truth; (a thing of dangerous consequence in punishment of Schisms, Heresies, and such other things which this Court takes notice of:) themselves, upon perusal of the Articles, remaining still as obstinate in the refusal of the oath, as they were before. Nor is it generally contrary to the practice of the Common-law, as it is pretended; the grand inquest taking an oath before the judges, that they shall diligently inquire, and truly present all offenders against any such point, as shall be given them in charge: and yet the charge not given till the oath be taken. As to the second, touching the advice of Counsel to draw up the answer, that's universal neither in law nor practice. For on inditements at the common law upon life and death, there is no counsel given the party to draw up his answer. And in proceedings in the Star-chamber, Chancery and Court of requests, however they commence suits there by bill and answer: yet when they come to interrogatories, the parties first take oath to answer truly to the points; and then the Interrogatories are proposed unto them piece by piece, in the Examiner's office. Besides that in such Cases, as principally do concern the high Commission, it hath not been thought sit to admit of Counsel, for drawing up an answer unto the Articles objected; the better to avoid delays, and that foul palliating of schisms, and errors, which might thence arise.  
As for the first part of the third exception, it's true, that vain and rash swearing is condemned by the nine and thirtieth Article: but than it resteth to be proved, that taking of an oath to answer to the points proposed, doth come within the compass of rash swearing. For howsoever men are sworn aforehand, in the proceedings of that Court, to answer truly to the things objected, when they come to hear them; yet they are never sworn to answer to them before they hear them. And for the breach of charity, and the old said saw, 
part. 3. c. 9  Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, 'tis answered, that the oath is not exacted in things merely secret, which are left to God (for de occultis ecclesia non judicat, as the saying is,) but in such cases which are partly manifested, as by bruit or fame, and such like indicia, in which the Church is to be satisfied. And in this case and such as these the oath is tendered, not to betray the party whom it doth concern, but rather, if it be possible to clear his innocency; on both sides to bring truth to light, which is a jewel worth the finding. Which cou●se is also used in the Star-chamber, where the defendant is to answer, even in criminal matters, on his corporal oath: and that not only to the bill preferred against him, but to as many Interrogatories, and some cross ones too, as the Plaintiffs Counsel shall devise.  
Add here, which Doctor Cousin could not know of, the resolution of King james of blessed memory, at Hampton Court. When the Lord Chancellor, and after him the Lord Treasurer, had spoke both for the necessity and use of the oath ex officio, in divers Courts and cases; his excellent Majesty preventing that old allegation, Nemo cogitur detegere suam turpitudinem, said that the Civil proceedings punished only facts, but in Courts Ecclesiastical it was requisite that fame and scandals should be looked into. That here was necessary the oath compurgatorie, and the oath ex officio too; and yet great moderation should be used, first, in gravioribus criminibus, and secondly, in such whereof there is a public fame, and thirdly, in distinguishing of public fame, either caused by the inordinate demeanour of the offender, or raised by the undiscreet proceeding in trial of the fact. All which just cautions were observed in this proceeding against you Mass. B. and therefore your appeal was causeless, as your grievance none.  
Now for your own case next, and then illegality of proceeding in it, you have no less than ten exceptions; you might have spun them out as you do your uses, to as many more. These we will sum up briefly, that the world may see them; and afterwards reply to such as are considerable, though peradventure we may touch at all, for your satisfaction. First, you except in reference to the matter charged upon, which was sedition, and so belonging to the Civil Courts; and secondly against the manner of proceeding, viz. first, inciting you to a private house, before one Commissioner alone; secondly, excluding your friends and neighbours that they might not hear; thirdly, in tendering you an oath in a matter, which if true concerned your life; fourthly, in calling for a copy of your Sermon to be delivered upon oath; fifthly, in that you were suspended, being absent; sixthly, notwithstanding your appeal; seventhly, and the suspension published in your own parish Church, to your intolerable disgrace and scandal; eightly, in taxing you of sedition in the said suspension; and ninthly, in denying you a Copy of the Articles, and other Acts of Court, whereby to perfect that appeal to his sacred Majesty. Of all these ten, there are but two considerable, (the other eight being only added to make up the tale:) to wit, of the matter charged upon you, which was sedition; and then the tendering of an oath in the said matter, being a crime, which might if true, concern you, in point of life. For that you were convented before one Commissioner alone, at his private house is no rare matter; that his conventing of you being only to tender you an oath, to make true answer to those Articles which were read unto you: there being a particular clause in the very Commission, that any one Commissioner may give the oath to party or witness. And why you should bring your friends and neighbours with you; or being there, why should you think to have them present at your examination is beyond my reach: unless perhaps you were desirous to let them see how valiantly you durst outface authority. You cannot be so ignorant, having had business in that Court before, as not to know, that though the party cited do for the most part take his oath in the open Court, to make true answer, whensoever he is called unto it: Yet the examinations are in private, in some other place. And so they are also in the Examiner's office for the Star-chamber, Chancery, and Court of Requests, and all Commissions thence awarded: where the Examiner and the Party, the Commissioners and Deponents are alone in private, remotis arbitris. The calling for a Copy of your Sermon to be delivered upon oath, is neither any new matter, or used only in your case: it being Ordinary in the Universities; and by the Vice-chancellours there done of common course. And it seems wondrous strange to me, you should deny to give a private Copy of your Sermon, when it was required of you by authority: and notwithstanding publish it in Print a little after, being not required. As for the Example of our Saviour, (whose case you parallel with your own upon all occasions) who being demanded of his doctrine by the Highpriest, made answer, that he spoke openly in the Synagogue, and in the Temple, and said nothing in secret, and therefore they might ask the question of those that heard him: that makes nothing for you. And yet from hence you draw a most factious inference, that no Minister ought to be put so much as to give an answer, much less a Copy of what he publicly preached in the Church p. 15.16. The case is very different between Christ and you, though you make it one: he being demanded of his doctrine in the general, without particulars, either time or place, or any matter charged upon him; you being questioned for a Sermon preached at such a time, and in such a place, containing such and such seditious and factious passages, as were read unto you. Less reason have you to complain of being suspended being absent, because being warned to be there, you refused to come: or that you were suspended notwithstanding your appeal, to his sacred Majesty, since your suspension, as you grant, was grounded on a new contempt, not the first refusal of the oath. That the suspension should be published in your own Parish Church, and that therein you should be taxed of sedition; was both just and necessary. For if you were convented first, because of your seditious Sermon, and a seditious Sermon Preached to your own Parishioners: good reason that your censure should be published there, where you committed your offence, that so the people might beware of the like false teachers. And for denying you a Copy of the Articles, and other Acts of Court, I see no cause at all why you should demand them. For having at the first declined the judgement of that Court, by the refusal of the oath, and your said Appeal; and afterwards contemptuously neglected your appearance on the second summons: what cause had you to expect any favour from them, or to consult those Acts which you cared not for; Especially considering you continued still in your disobedience, and desired the Articles, not to answer to them, but thereby, as you say yourself to perfect your Appeal; or rather, as it may be thought, to scatter them abroad in imperfect copies, with such false answers to them as you pleased to make. Yourself and such as you, have long used the art, 
Tacit. in vica Agricolae.  of getting the first start upon men's affections: non ignari instandum famae, & prout prima successerint fore universa.  
But come we now unto the main of your Appeal, in reference to the illegality of proceedings in your own particular: for all that hath been answered hitherto, was but the vantage as it were, which you cast in out of your abundance, to make up the reckoning. It is pretended, that being charged with sedition, you were not bound to answer to it. And why? Because sedition is no ecclesiastical offence against the Church, but a civil against the King and State; and therefore to be tried only in his Majesty's Courts of Civil justice, and not before the High Commissioners, who have no cognizance thereof. Your Enthimeme doth halt extremely. For there are many matters punishable in either jurisdiction, which since you are ignorant, I will name you some. Usury, contrary to the statute, 21. jac. c. 17. is punishable at the Common-law, and it is also punishable in the Court Christian; as in the 109. Canon. The self same Canon reckoneth drunkenness and swearing, as punishable by the Ordinary upon presentment: and yet are punishable by the Civil Magistrate, by virtue of two several statutes, viz. 4. jac. 5.21. jac. and 21. jac. 20. So for prohibited, either works or recreations on the Lord's day, the parties so offending are by the Statute 1 Car. c. 1. & 3. Car. c. 1. to be convented and corrected by the justices of the Peace: and yet there is a salvo there, for the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to proceed as formerly. All persons that offend against the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 2. either in depraving the Book of Common prayer, or else not using it as they ought to do, or using any other form of prayer (N. B.) then is there prescribed, etc. are punishable either by indictment at the Common-law, or by the censures of the Church According as complaint is first made unto either Court: I could inform you of many such particulars, were it convenient. So that you see, your proposition is not true, in that full latitude wherein you propound i●: viz. because sedition is to be tried in the Courts of civil justice, therefore in you, and as it was an offence by you committed, it was not to be censured in the High Commission. For Sir, I hope you can distinguish between sedition in the field, or in the Marketplace, and a seditious Sermon (for Sermon I must call it for fear of angering you) in the Church or Pulpit. Had you behaved yourself seditiously in any other place, no better dealing with you, then by the Constable first, and so on. But if you preach seditiously, and make the House and Ordinance of God, only a Pander to your discontent or your ambition, I hope my Lords the judges will not be offended, if your Superiors in the Lord do chastise you for it, yet this, at last, you make a just gravamen, upon the which you might appeal. But had you thought indeed, as you say you do, that the Ecclesiastical Commssioners, could take no cognizance of the crime objected to you: you might with better hopes have laboured for a prohibition, as formerly you did upon weaker grounds; then run yourself so hastily on a new experiment, of making an Appeal, when you were not grieved. Lastly, you plead, that being the matter charged upon you, was Sedition, and so if true, your life might have been called in question; you were not bound to take the oath propounded to you, and this you ground upon a Passage of Archbishop Whitgift in the conference at Hampton Court, saying, as you report his words, that in matter of life, liberty, and scandal, it is not the course of that Court to require any such oath: wherein you do most shamelessly misreport the words of the said Archbishop. All that he said, is this, which will help you little, viz. If any Article did touch the party any way, either for life, liberty, or scandal, he might refuse to answer, neither was he urged thereunto. He doth not say, as you make him say, that in those cases there recited, it was not the course of that Court, to require any such oath, but that the party might refuse to answer to those Articles which did so concern him. It is the custom of the Court to give an oath unto the party, to answer truly to such Articles as shall be propounded: and the indulgence of the Court, at the examination, that if the party will, he may challenge any of them, as not being bound by law to answer to them; and his refusal, if the law bind him not to answer, is to be allowed.  
You might then, subtle Sir, have taken the oath; and yet demurred on any such Article, when you came unto it. And so far we have traced you in your Apology, wherein is nothing to be found, but poor surmises: which being proved only by an Aio, might have been answered with a Nego; but that I am resolved to dissect you throughly, and lay you open to the world, which hath so long been seduced by you.   

CHAP. II. The King's authority restrained, and the obedience of the subject limited within narrow bounds, by H. B. with the removal of those bounds.  The title of the Sermon scanned, and the whole divided. H. B. offended with the unlimited power of Kings, the bounds by him prescribed to the power of Kings, both dangerous and doubtful. The power of Kings how amplified by jews, Christians, Heathens. What the King cannot do, and what power is not in him, by Mass. Burtons' doctrine. The Positive Laws of the Realm confer no power upon the King, nor confirm none to him. The whole obedience of the subject restrained by H. B. to the Laws of the Realm; and grounded on the mutual stipulation between King and people. The dangerous sequels of that doctrine. 
A Pravis ad praecipitia. 
Paterculus.  We are on the declining hand, out of the Hall into the Kitchen, from an Apology that was full of weakness, unto a Sermon or rather a Pasquil far more full of wickedness: yet were we guided either by the Text or Title, we might persuade ourselves there were no such matter, nothing but piety and zeal, and whatsoever a fair show can promise. But for the Title Sir (I hope you know your own words in your doughty dialogue between A. and B.) you know the proverb, Fronti rara fides, the foulest causes may have the fairest pretences. For whereas you entitle it, for God and the King, you do therein as Rebels do most commonly in their insurrections: pretend the safety of the King, and preservation of Religion, when as they do intend to destroy them both. The civil war in France, raised by the Duke of Burgundy and Berry against Lewis the eleventh, was christened by the specious name of Le bien Public, 
Phil. de Comives.  for the Commonwealth; but there was nothing less intended than the common good. And when the jews cried Templum Domini, Templum Domini, they did but as you do, abuse the people, and colour their ambition, or their malice, choose you which you will, with a show of zeal. So that your Title may be likened very fitly, to those Apothecary's boxes which Lactantius speaks of, quorum tituli remedium habent, 
lib. 3. cap. 15.  pixides venenum, poisons within, and medecines writ upon the Paper. So for your Text, we will repeat that too, that men may see the better how you do abuse it. My son fear thou the Lord, and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change; For their calamity shall arise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both, Prov. 24.21, 22. A Text indeed well chosen but not well applied. For had you looked upon yourself and the Text together, and followed the direction which is therein given you, you had not so long hunted after Innovations, as for these many years it is known you have; and so might possibly have escaped that calamity which is now like to fall upon you. But it's the nature of your humour, as of some diseases, to turn all things unto the nourishment of the part that is ill affected: Mean while you make the Scriptures but a nose of wax, as Pighius once prophanly called it; by wresting it maliciously to serve your turns; and so confirm the vulgar Papists in contempt of that, which were it not for you, and such as you, they might more easily be induced both to hear and reverence. Now for the method of your Sermon (I mean to call it so no more) though you observe no method in it, but wander up and down in repetitions and tautologies, as your custom is: I must thus dispose it. The passages therein, either of scandal or sedition, I shall reduce especially unto these two heads: those which reflect upon the Kings most excellent Majesty, and those which strike directly against the Bishops. That which reflects upon the King, either relates to his authority, or his actions. That which doth strike against the Bishops is to be considered as it is referred either unto their place, or to their persons, or finally to their proceedings: and these proceedings are again to be considered, either in reference to their Courts, and behaviour there, or to their government of and in the Church, and carriage in that weighty office, wherein you charge them with eight kinds of Innovations, most of the general kinds being subdivided into several branches. For a conclusion of the whole, I shall present unto yourself, by way of Corollary, or resultancy out of all the premises, how far you are or may prove guilty of sedition, for that Pulpit pasquil of yours: and so commend you to repentance, and the grace of God. In ripping up whereof, as I shall keep myself especially to your Pulpit-Pasquill: so if I meet with any variae lectiones, in your Apology, or Epistles, or the News from Ipswich, or your addresses to the Lords of the Privy Council, and my Lords the judges, I shall use them also either for explication or for application. Such your extravagancies, as cannot easily be reduced to the former heads, I either shall pass over, or but touch in transitu. This is the order I shall use.  
First for the King, you may remember what I told you was the Puritan tenet, that Kings are but the Ministers of the Commonwealth, and that they have no more authority than what is given them by the people. This though you do not say expressly, and in terminis, yet you come very near it, to a tantamont: finding great fault with that unlimited power which some give to Kings, and as also with that absolute obedience which is exacted of the subject. One of your doctrines is, that all our obedience to Kings and princes and other superiors must be regulated by our obedience to God. Your reason is, because the King is God's Minister and Vicegerent, and commands as from God, so for God, and in God. Your doctrine and your reason, might become a right honest man. But what's your use? Your first use is, for reprehension or refutation of those that so advance man's ordinances and commandments, as though they be contrary to God's Law, and the fundamental laws of the State, yet so press men to the obedience of them as they hold them for no better than rebels, and to deserve to be hanged drawn and quartered that refuse to obey them, pag. 77. So pag. 88 a second sort come here to be reproved, that on the other side separate the fear of the King from the fear of the Lord: and those are such as attribute to Kings such an unlimited power, as if he were God Almighty himself; so as hereby they would seem to ascribe that omnipotency to the King which the Pope assumes, and his Parasites ascribe to his holiness. So pag. 89. Thus these men crying up, and exacting universal absolute obedience to man, they do hereby cast the fear of God, and so his Throne, down to the ground. Finally you reckon it amongst the Innovations wherewith you charge the Prelates in point of doctrine, that they have laboured to make a change in the doctrine of obedience to superiors, setting man so in God's Throne, that all obedience to man must be absolute without regard to God and conscience, whose only rule is the word of God, pag. 126. In all which passages, however you pretend the word of God, the fundamental Laws of state, and conscience: yet clearly you express your disaffection unto the sovereignty of Princes, and in effect leave them no greater power than every private man shall think fit to give them. Besides there is a tacit implication also, that the King exercises an unlimited power, which cannot possibly consist with the subjects conscience, the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, or the word of God. It had been very well done of you to have told the people, what were the fundamental laws of State, which were so carefully to be preserved; within what bounds and limits the authority of Kings is to be confined, and to have given them a more special knowledge of the rule of conscience. For dealing thus in generals only, (Dolosus versatur in generalibus, you know who said it) you have presented to the people a most excellent ground, not only to dispute, but to disobey the King's commands.  
Now Sir I pray you what are you, or by what spirit are you guided, that you should find yourself aggrieved at unlimited power, which some of better understanding than yourself have given to Kings: or think it any Innovation in point of doctrine, in case the doctrine of obedience to our superiors be pressed more home of late than it hath been formerly. Surely you have lately studied Buchannan dejure regni, or the vindiciae writ by Beza under the name of junius Brutus: 
In Rom. cap. 13. Institut. lib. 4. c. ult.  or else perhaps you went no further than Paraeus, where the inferior Magistrates, or Calvin, where the three estates have an authority to control, and correct the King. And should the King be limited within those narrow bounds which you would prescribe him, had you power; he would in little time be like the ancient Kings of Sparta, in which the Ephori, or the now Duke of Venice, in which the Senate bear the greatest stroke: himself mean time, being a bare sound, and an empty name, Stet magni nominis umbra, in the Poet's language. 
Lucan.  Already you have laid such grounds, by which each private man may not alone dispute but disobey the King's commandments. For if the Subject shall conceive that the King's command is contrary to God's word, though indeed it be not; or to the fundamental laws of state, although he cannot tell which be fundamental; or if he find no precedent of the like commands in holy Scripture, which you have made to be the only rule of conscience: in all these cases it is lawful not to yield obedience. Yourself have given us one case in your Margin, pag. 77. we will put the other. Your reprehension is of those, that so advance man's ordinances and commandments, as though they be contrary to God's Law, and the fundamental laws of state, yet press men to obedience to them, your instance is of one which was shrewdly threatened (how true that is we mean to tell the world hereafter) for refusing to do that which was not agreeable to the word of God, viz. for refusing to read the book of sports, as you declare it in the Margin, pag. 26. whether you refer us. So then the case is this. The King permits his people honest recreations on the Lord's day, according as had been accustomed, till you and your accomplices had cried it down: with order to the Bishops to see his declaration published in the Churches of their several dioceses, respectively. This publication you conceive to be repugnant to God's word, (though none but a few factious spirits ever so conceived it, and that your doctrine of the Sabbath be contrary to all antiquity and modern Churches:) and therefore by your rule they do very well that refuse to publish it. It's true indeed, in things that are directly contrary to the law of God, & such as carry in them a plain and manifest impiety; there is no question to be made, but it is better to obey God then man. 
Acts 4.  But when the matter chiefly resteth either in misapplying, or misunderstanding the word of God, (a fault too incident to ignorant & unstable men, & to none more than to your disciples & their teachers too) or that the word of God be made a property like the Pharisees Corban, to justify your disobedience unto Kings and Princes: your rule is then as false, as your action faulty. So for your second limitation, that's but little better; and leaves a starting hole to malicious persons, from whence to work on the affections of the common people. For put the case, the King in necessary and emergent causes, touching the safety of his empire, demand the present aid of all his subjects; and any Tribunitian spirit should inform them, that this demand is contrary unto the fundamental laws of state: according to your rule, the subject is not bound to obey the king, nay he might refuse it, although the business doth concern especially his own preservation. But your third limitation, that of conscience, is the worst of all. For where you make the word of God to be the only rule of conscience, you do thereby conclude expressly that neither Ecclesiastical or Civil ordinances do bind the conscience: and therein overthrow the Apostles doctrine, who would have Every soul be subject to the higher powers, 
Rom. 13.5.  not for wrath only but for conscience sake. So that in case the king command us any thing, for which we find not some plain precept or particular warrant in the word of God; as if the King command all Lecturers to read the service of the Church in their ●oodes and surplices, before their Lectures; such his command is plainly against conscience, at least the Lecturers are not bound in conscience to submit unto it, because there is no special precept for it in holy Scripture. And certainly this plea of conscience, is the most dangerous buckler against authority, which in these latter ages hath been taken up. So dangerous that were the plea allowed, and all the judgements of the king in banco, permitted to be scanned and traversed in this Court of Conscience; there were a present end of all obedience. Si ubi jubeantur, quaerere singulis liceat, peunte obsequio, 
hist. l. ●▪  imperium etiam intercidit, as he in Tacitus. If every man had leave to cast in his scruple, the balance of authority would be soon weighed down.  
Yet since you are so much aggrieved at the unlimited power which some gives to Kings, will you be pleased to know, that Kings do hold their crowns by no other Tenure, than Dei gratia: and that what ever power they have, they have from God, by whom King's reign, and Princes decree justice. 
Lib. 7. c. 17.  So say the Constitutions ascribed to Clement's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Irenaeus also an ancient father, Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, ejus jussu reges constituuntur. And Porphyry remembreth it amongst the Tenets of the Essees a jewish Sect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that no man ever did bear rule but by God's appointment. Holding then what they have from God, whose deputies they are, and of whose power they are partakers; how and by whom do you conceive they should be limited? doubtless you mean to say by the laws of the Land. But then if question be demanded who first made those laws, you must needs answer also, the kings themselves. So that in case the kings in some particulars had not prescribed limits unto themselves, and bound their own hands, as it were to enlarge the people's: neither the people, nor any laws by them enacted could have done it. Besides the law of Monarchy is founded on the Law of nature, not on positive laws: and positive laws I trow are of no such efficacy, as to annihilate any thing, which hath its being and original, in the law of nature. Hence is it, that all sovereign Princes in themselves are above the laws, as Princes are considered in abstracto, and extent of power; and how far that extent will reach, you may see in the first of Sam. and 8 chap. though in concreto a just Prince will not break those laws, which he hath promised to observe. Princes are debtors to their subjects, as God to man; 
In Psal. 100LS.  non aliquid a nobis accipiendo, sed omnia nobis promittendo, as S. Austin hath it. And we may say of them in S. Bernard's words▪ Promissum quidem ex misericordia, sed ex justitia persolvendum: that they have promised to observe the laws, was of special grace; and its agreeable to their justice to observe their promise. Otherwise we may say of kings, as the Apostle of the just; justo lex non est posita, saith the Apostle, and Principi lexnon est posita, saith the law of nature. Do you expect more proof than you use to give, Plutarch affirms it of some kings. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hist. l. 53.  that they did not govern only by the law, but were above it. The like saith Dion of Augustus Caesar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was sure and had an absolute authority, aswell upon his laws as upon himself. Besides in case the power of kings were restrained by law, after the manner, that you would have it; yet should the king neglect those laws, whereby you apprehend that his power is limited; how would you help yourself by this limited power? I hope you would not call a Consistory and convent him there; or arm the people to assert their pretended liberties: though as before I said, the Puritan tenet is, that you may do both. Your learned Council might have told you out of Bracton, an ancient Lawyer of this kingdom, omnem esse sub Rege & ipsum sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo; And Horace could have told you, that kings are under none but God. Reges in ipsos imperium est jovis, as he there hath it. You may moreover please to know, what Gregory of Tours said once to a king of France; Si quis e nobis, O Rex, justitiae tramites transcendere voluerit, a te corripi potest; si vero tu excesseris quis te corripiet? etc. If any of us, O king, offend against the rules of justice, thou hast power to punish him, but if thou break those rules, who hath power to do it? We tell you of it, and when you list, you please to hear us, but when you will not, who shall judge you, but he that tells us of himself, that he is justice.  
This was you see the ancient doctrine, touching the power and right of kings, not only amongst jews and Christians but in heathen states: what ever new opinion of a limited power, you have pleased to raise.  
But you go further yet, and tell us of some things the king cannot do, and that there is a power which the king hath not; what is it, say you, that the king cannot do? Marry you say he cannot institute new rites and ceremonies, with the advice of his Commissioners Ecclesiastical, or the Metropolitan, according as some plead from the Act of Parliament before the Communion book, pag. 65. Why so? Because, according to your law, this clause of the Act is limited to Queen Elizabeth, and not extended to her successors of the Crown. This you affirm indeed, but you bring no proof: only it seems you heard so from your learned council. You are I see of calvin's mind, who tells us in his Commentary on the 7 of Amos, what had been said by Doctor Gardiner, after Bishop of Winchester, and then Ambassador in Germany, touching the headship or Supremacy of the king his master: and closeth up the story with this short note, inconsiderati homines sunt, qui faciunt eos nimis spirituales, that it was unadvisedly done, to give kings such authority in spiritual matters. But sir I hope you may afford the king that power, which you take yourselves, or which your brethren at the least have taken before you: who in Queen Elizabeth's time had their Classical meetings without leave or licence, and therein did ordain new rites, new Canons, and new forms of service. This you may do, it seems, though the king's hands are bound that he may not do it. And there's a power too, as you tell us, that the king neither hath nor may give to others. Not give to others certainly, if he have it not; for nemo dat quod non habet, as the saying is. But what is this? you first suppose and take for granted, that the Bishops make foul havoc in the Church of God, and persecute his faithful servants: and then suppose, which yet you say is not to be supposed, that they have procured a grant from the king to do all those things which of late they have done, tending to the utter overthrow of religion by law established. And on these suppositions you do thus proceed. Yet whatsoever colour, pretext or show they make for this, the king (to speak with all humble reverence) cannot give that power to others, which he hath not himself. For the power that is in the king is given him by God, and confirmed by the laws of the kingdom. Now neither God in his law, nor the laws of the land, do allow the king a power to alter the state of religion, or to oppress and suppress the faithful ministers of the Gospel, against both law and conscience. For kings are the ministers of God for the good of his people, as we showed before. p. 72.73. So you, and it was bravely said, like a valiant man. The Brethren now may follow after their own inventions, with a full security: for since you have proclaimed them to be faithful ministers, no king nor Keisar dares suppress them; or if he should, the laws of God, and the law of the land to boot, would rise in judgement to condemn him, for usurpation of a power which they have not given him. But take me with you brother B●● and I perhaps may tell you somewhat that is worth your knowledge. And I will tell you sir if you please to hearken, that whatsoever power is in the king, is from God alone, and founded on the law of nature. The positive laws of the land as they confer none on him, so they confirm none to him. Rather the kings of England have parted with their native royalties for the people's good: which being by their own consent, established for a positive law, are now become the greatest part of the subjects liberties. So that the liberties, possessions, and estates of the king's liege people, are, if you will, confirmed by the laws of the land; not the king's authority. As for the power of kings which is given by God, and founded on the law of nature, how far it may extend in the true latitude thereof, we have said already: Whether to alter the state of religion, none but a most seditious spirit, such as yours would put unto the question: his majesties piety and zeal, being too well known to give occasion to such quaeres. Only I needs must tell you, that you tie up the king's hands too much, in case he may not meddle with a company of schismatics, and refractory persons to all power and order, only because you have pronounced them to be faithful ministers of the Gospel. Such faithful ministers of the Gospel as you and yours, must be suppressed, or else there never will be peace and unity in the City of God. And yet I see you have some scripture for it, more than I supposed: kings being, as you tell us from S. Paul, the ministers of God for the good of their people, and no more than so? I thought S. Paul had also told us, that the King is a minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil: 
Rom. 13.4.  yea more than so too brother B. and it may concern you, viz. if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain. Aut undequaque pietatem tolle, 
Cicero Philip. 2.  aut undequaque conserva; Take the whole text along good sir, or take none at all: and if you take all be afraid, as you are advised, verbum sapienti.  
I must go forwards with you yet from the authority of the king, to the obedience of the subject; which you do press indeed, but on such false grounds, as in conclusion overthrow the whole frame of government. The absolute obedience of the subject you have dashed already, and reckon it amongst those Innovations in point of doctrine, which you have charged upon the Prelates: and in the place thereof bring in a limited or conditional obedience, of your own devising; Your first condition or limitation rather, is, viz. that our subjection unto the king, is to be regulated as by God's law, the rule of universal obedience to God and man, so by the good laws of the king. p. 38. the king as you inform us p. 42. having entered into solemn and sacred covenant with all his people, to demand of them no other obedience, but what the good laws of the kingdom prescribe & require: as on the other side, the people swearing no other obedience to the king than according to his just laws, pag. 39 and 40. In which restraint, there are two things to be observed, first that we are to obey the king no farther than there is law for it, and secondly no farther than that law seems good; So that in case the king commands his people any thing for which he hath no positive law to warrant his command; and of this sort are many Proclamations, orders, decrees, injunctions, set out from time to time by the king's authority, and Prerogative royal, by brother Burtons' rule the people are at liberty to obey or not. And on the other side, in case the said command be grounded on some positive law which they like not of, whether it be a Penal statute, or some old Act of Parliament almost out of use, by the reviving of the which they may be prejudiced in purse or otherwise: this is no good law in their judgement, and so no more to be obeyed than if the king's command were founded on no law at all. But your next limitation is far worse than this, though this bad enough. For in the next place you have grounded all obedience on the people's part, upon that mutual stipulation which the king and his subjects make at his Coronation. Where the king takes an explicit solemn oath to maintain the ancient laws and liberties of the kingdom, and so to rule and govern all his people according to those laws established; consequently and implicitly all the people of the land do swear fealty, allegiance, subjection and obedience to their king, and that according to his just laws, pag. 39 your inference from hence is this, that if the king so solemnly by sacred oath, ratified again in Parliament under his royal hand, do bind himself to maintain the laws of his kingdom, and therein the rights and liberties of his subjects, then how much are the people bound to yield all subjection and obedience to the king, according to his just laws, p. 40. So that according to your doctrine, the people is no longer to obey the king, than the king keeps promise with the people. Nay of the two the people have the better bargain; the king being sworn explicitly and solemnly to maintain their liberties; the people only consequently and implicitly to yield him subjection. Is not this excellent doctrine think you? or could the most seditious person in a state have thought upon a shorter cut to bring all to Anarchy; for if the subject please to misinterpret the kings proceedings, and think though falsely, that he hath not kept his promise with them: they are released ipso facto from all obedience and subjection, and that by a more easy way, then suing out a dispensation in the Court of Rome. You tell us, p. 129. of the kings free subjects; and here you have found out a way to make them so: a way to make the subject free, and the king a subject; and hard it is to say whether of the two be the greater Contradiction in adjecto. I have before heard of a free people, and of free states, but never till of late of a free subject: nor know I anyway to create free subjects, but by releasing them of all obedience to their Princes. And I have read too of Eleuthero Cilices, which were those people of Cilicia that were not under the command of any king: but never read of an Eleuthero Britannus, nor I hope never shall. I will but ask you one question, and so end this point. You press the king's oath very much about maintaining of the laws of the Kingdom, as pag. 39.40. and 42. before recited, as also, pag. 72. again and again, and finally in your address to my LL. the Judges: is it by way of Commemoration or of Exprobration? if of Commemoration, you forget the Rule; memorem immemorem facit, qui monet quae memor meminit. But if of Exprobration, what meant you, when you needed not to tell us, that in a point of Civil Government, it is a dangerous thing to change a Kingdom settled on good laws into a tyranny; and presently thereon to add a certain speech of Heraclitus, Viz. That Citizens ought to fight no less for their Laws, then for their walls. I only ask the question, take you time to answer it.   

CHAP. III. An Answer to the Challenge of H. B. against His Majesty's Actions and Declarations.  The King accused for breach of promise, touching the Petition of Right; but falsely. His Majesty's Declaration before the Articles censured by H.B. as tending to suppress the Truth, and advance the contrary errors. Of the law of amnesty. His Majesty's Declaration about Sports condemned and censured. H. B. falls scandalously fowl upon King James, by reason of the like Declaration by him set forth. H. B. makes the people jealous of the King's intentions. His Majesty accused for the restraint of Preaching in infected places, contrary to his Declarations, and the former practice; and thereunto the increase of the Plague imputed. His Majesty's Chapel paralleled with Nebuchadnezars' golden Image, and Julian the Apostates Altar. H. B. encourageth disobedient persons, and makes an odious supposition about setting up Mass in the King's Chapel. 
FRom your restraint and curtailling of the King's authority, proceed we to your censure of His Actions and Declarations which we have separated from the other, because in this we have some intermixture of your invectives against the Bishops: your scandalous clamours against whom, in reference to their place and persons, are to follow next. And first we will begin with the Petition of Right, as having some resemblance to the former point: on which you please to play the Commentator and spoil a good text with a factious gloss. It pleased His Majesty, being Petitioned (amongst other things) in Parliament, 1628., that no Freeman (and not a Free Subject, as you phrase it) should be imprisoned, or detained without cause showed, and being brought to answer by due course of Law: to pass His Royal assent to the said Petition. What Comment do you make thereon? That no man is to be imprisoned, if he offer bail. p. 52. You do indeed resolve it so, in your own case too; and fall exceeding fowl on His Sacred Majesty, because your Comment or Interpretation could not be allowed of. Now your case was thus. During that Session, you had printed a seditious Pamphlet (as all yours are) entitled Babel no Bethel; tending to incense the Commons against the King: for which, being called before the High Commission, order was made for your commitment. And when you offered bail, it was refused, you say, by my Lord of London that then was, affirming that the King had given express charge, that no bail should be taken for you: That thereupon you claimed the right and Privilege of a Subject, according to the Petition of Right, but notwithstanding your said claim, were sent to Prison, and there kept Twelve days, and after brought into the High Commission. This is the case, as you relate it. p. 52. and 53. And hereupon, you do refer it unto the consideration of the sagest, whether that which he fathered on the King, were not a most dangerous and seditious speech, tending to possess the bystanders, and consequently all the people of the land with a sinister opinion of the King's Justice and Constancy in keeping His solemn Covenant made with His people, as in that Petition of Right. And you have noted it in the margin, p. 53. for a most impious and disgraceful speech, to bring the people into an hard conceit of His Majesty, who but a little before had signed the Petition of Right. This is yet pressed again both in the same, and the next page, as also in your address unto the Judges: as if the King had violated His solemn promise made unto the people, and bear down all the rights and liberties of the Subject mentioned in the said Petition; by suffering, or appointing a Seditious Phamphletter to be sent to prison, without bail. But tell me Sir I pray you, for I know not yet, how you could plead the benefit of that Petition; or how it could advantage you in the smallest measure. It was petitioned, that no Subject being a Freeman, should be committed to the prison without cause showed, and being brought to answer in due course of Law. Tell me of all loves, how doth this concern you; or how can you complain of being imprisoned contrary to His Majesty's answer unto that Petition: the cause of your commitment being shown unto you; which was that Book of yours formerly mentioned; and you being brought to answer in the High Commission, according to due form of Law, as yourself inform us. Here was no matter of complaint, but that you have a mind to traduce His Majesty, as if he had no care of His Oaths and promises: more of which treacherous Art to amate the people, we shall see hereafter. Besides Sir, you may please to know, that your case was not altogether such as those which were complained of in the said Petition, there being always a great difference made between a man committed on an Ecclesiastical, and a Civil crime; And I will tell you somewhat which reflects this way. It appears in the Diary of the Parliament, 4. H. 4. what time, the Statute 28. Edw. 3. mentioned in the Petition (which you call) of right, was in force and practise, how that the Commons exhibited a Petition that Lollards arrested by the Statute. 2· H. 4. should be bailed, and that none should arrest but the Sheriff, and other lawful Officers: and that the King did answer to it, Le Roys ' advisera. This I am bold to let you know; take it as you please.  
Next for His Majesty's Declarations, you deal with Him in them, as in the Petition, if not somewhat worse. His Majesty finding by good tokens, that some such wretched instrument as yourself, had spread a jealousy amongst the Commons in that Parliament, that there was no small fear of an Innovation in Religion: as also, that by the intemperate handling of some unnecessary questions, a faction might arise both in the Church & Commonwealth: thought fit to manifest himself in two Declarations. Of these, the first related unto the Articles of Religion, in this Church established, wherein His Majesty hath commanded that in those curious and unhappy differences, which were then on foot, no man should put his own sense or Comment to be the meaning of the Article, but take it in the literal and Grammatical sense: shutting up those disputes in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scriptures; and the general meaning of the Articles according to them. The second did contain the causes which moved His Majesty to dissolve the Parliament, Anno 1628. wherein his Majesty protesteth, that he will never give way to the authorising of any thing, whereby any Innnovation may steal or creep into the Church, but preserve that unity of Doctrine and Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth. So far his Majesty. And those his Majesty's Declarations, are by you either peevishly perverted, in defence of your disobedience; or factiously retorted on his Majesty, as if not observed; or scandalously interpreted, as if intended principally to the suppression of God's truth. I will begin first with that particular mentioned last, of which you tell us plainly, that Contzen the Jesuit in his Politics prescribes this rule of silencing Controversies, as an excellent way for the restoring of their Roman Catholic Religion in the Reformed Churches. p. 114. As also from the Centuries that the Authors of corruptions and errors do labour to compose all differences with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or silencing of all Disputes; that by such counsels the Emperor Anastasius▪ being a favourer of the Arian heresy, was moved to bury the principal heads of Controversy in an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and finally, that the Arian Bishops did the like in the Council of Seleucia, called by Constantius an Arian Emperor, who did therein suppress by perpetual amnesty the mention of Homousios' and Homoiousios, that so they might coin a new faith, and utterly extinguish that of the Council of Nice. p 115. This you ascribe indeed unto the Prelates, as an Art of theirs; but you must needs intend it of the King, whose Act it was.  
Nor do you only misinterpret his Majesty's most pious Act, in an undutiful & scandalous manner; but you pervert both this and the other also to serve your turn, and sometimes factiously retort them on His Majesty, as if not observed. What ever thing you challenge, or except against, that is forthwith proclaimed to be against his Majesty's Declarations, so solemnly set out and published for satisfaction of his people: as Viz. in your two Epistles to his Sacred Majesty; in your Apology p. 6. in your address to the Nobility. p. 23.24. and to the Judges. p. 28.30.31. and in your Pulpit Pasquil p. 51.52.54.64.65.67.72.146. and finally, no less than thrice in the News from Ipswich. As for example. His Majesty intended by the first, that before the Articles, to silence those disputes which might nourish faction; and in the other, to nourish in his Subjects a good opinion of his constancy to the Religion here established: but you, and such as you, will abuse them both. You were convented, as you tell us, unto London house, for Preaching on the point of Predestination, and there it was objected to you, that you had done therein contrary to his Majesty's Declaration, pag. 51. which in the Margin there, you affirm to be A dangerous and false charge laid upon the King. And thereupon you answered that you never took the King's Declaration to be by him intended for the suppressing of any part of God's truth, nor durst you ever conceive a thought so dishonourable to the King, as to think him to be an instrument of suppressing God's truth. No doubt you had good ground for so quick an answer; and what was that? His Majesty in his Declaration about the Parliament, had professed as much. p. 52. Here is the King against the King, one Declaration against another, both by you abused, both made to serve your turn, as occasion is. But why do you thus construe his Majesty's words? Because, say you, it was no part of his Majesty's meaning to prohibit Ministers, to Preach of the saving Doctrines of Grace and Salvation, without the which, the very Gospel is destroyed. p. 51. the ministry of the Gospel overthrown, and nothing but orations of morality to be taught the people. And doth the whole ministry of the Gospel, the saving doctrines of Grace and Salvation, depend alone upon those difficult and dangerous points of God's secret counsels? Are all the Doctrines of the Gospel, matters of mere morality; save those at which Saint Paul did stand astonished, and cried out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O the depth and height! Cannot Christ Crucified profit us, rather you and your disciples? unless we must be taught, that the greatest part of mankind, is cast off for ever, without any regard had to their sins, and all the promises of the Gospel made unto them of none effect? Or do you think that Faith, and an honest life will become unprofitable, unless we vex poor people with the noise of doubtful disputations, which Saint Paul prohibited. Take heed Sir, I advise you as a special friend, lest that befall you, 
Rom. 14.  which Saint Austin did once complain of, Viz. lest honest, though unlearned men get heaven, whilst you with all your subtleties are excluded thence. Surgunt indocti et rapiunt coelum, 
Confess. ●. 8.  et nos cum doctrinis nostris, sine cord, ecce ubi volutamur in carne et sanguine. But to what purpose do I seek to charm so deaf an Adder? Be the King's purposes never so sincere and pious, yet you are bold to quarrel with his Declaration, and to cry out unto the people, that the Doctrines of God's Grace, and man's salvation are hushed, and banished out of City and Country; and that there's not a Minister, one amongst a thousand, that dare clearly and plainly according to the word of God, and the Articles of our Church, preach of these most comfortable doctrines to God's people, and so sound and roundly confute the Arminian heresies (as you call them) repugnant thereunto. p. 116.  
But so you will not leave the King, he must hear more yet. His Declaration about lawful recreations on the Lord's day, is the next you quarrel with. In this you fall more foully on him than you did before, more than a civil honest man would, or could probably have done upon his equal; and yet you ground this too on his Declaration. For thus you say. No wise and honest man can ever imagine that the king would ever intend to command that which mainly tendeth to the dishonour of God and his word, to the violation and annihilation of the holy Commandment touching the Sabbath, and to the alteration of the doctrine of the Church of England. How so? Because, say you, this were against all those solemn Royal protestations of the King, etc. p. 56. Stay here a little I beseech you. How doth this business of the Sabbath touch the Declaration about dissolving of the Parliament, which is cited by you. Yes, in a very high degree, because, say you, it is a mighty Innovation in the doctrine of the Sabbath, which hath been ever since the Reformation, and so from the Reign of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, constantly universally, and unanimously maintained in the Church of England, pag. 57 Qui semel verecundiae limits, etc. And if you proceed on a little, you will shortly blush at nothing. For the point in hand: Men of far more credit, than I trow you are, assure us, that your new doctrine of the Sabbath, was never known in England, until the year, 1596; and being made known then, not before, was neither universally, nor unanimously received, as you inform as. For had it been a Doctrine constantly maintained ever since the Reformation, as you falsely say, assuredly Arch-Bp Whitgift, had never called in those Books which maintained that argument, as it's well known he did in his visitation, Anno 1599 nor had Judge Popham done the like at the Assizes in Saint edmond's bury, in the year 600. You must tell likelier tales than this, or all the old wives in your Parish will beshrew you for it: who cannot but remember with what harmless freedom they used to behave themselves, that day, in their younger times. You stay not here, but as before you set the King against himself, one Declaration of the Kings against another; so next, you set the King against the Parliament: and tell us, that the profanation of the Sabbath or Lords day, which the Books seems to give allowance to, as in sundry sports here specified, is contrary unto the Statute 1. Caroli, in which all unlawful Exercises and Pastimes are prohibited upon that day; and therefore dancing, leaping, and the rest, which the Book allows of p. 57 For this you are beholding to your learned Counsel, the first that ever so interpreted that Statute: and thereby set the Statute and the Declaration at an endless odds. But herein you go far beyond him, for he only quarrelled with the living, who had power to right themselves: You lay a scandal on the dead, who are now laid to sleep in the bed of peace: and tell us of that Prince of blessed memory, King James, that the said Book for Sports, was procured, compiled, and published in the time of his progress into Scotland, when he was more than ordinarily merrily disposed. p. 58. When he was more than ordinarily merrily disposed? Good Sir, your meaning. Dare you conceive a base and disloyal thought, and not speak it out, for all that Parrhesia which you so commend against Kings and Princes: p. 26. Leave you so fair a face with so foul a scar: and make that peerless Prince, whom you and yours did blast with daily Libels when he was alive; the object of your Puritanical, I and uncharitable scoffs now he is deceased. Unworthy wretch, whose greatest and most pure devotions, had never so much heaven in it, as his greatest mirth. I could pursue you further, were you worth my labour, or rather, if to Apologise for so great a Prince, non esset injuria virtutum, as he in Tacitus, were not too great an injury to his eminent virtues; and therefore I shall leave your disloyal speeches of the King deceased, to take a further view of those disloyal passages, which do so nearly concern the King, our now Royal Sovereign. For lest the people should continue in their duty to him, being the thing you fear above all things else; you labour what you can to take them off: at least to terrify his Majesty with a fear to lose them. For you assure us on your word, because you would have it so. p. 64. that pressing of that Declaration with such cursed rigour (as you call it) both without and against all Law, and all example, and that also in the King's name, is very dangerous, to breed in people's minds, as not being well acquainted with His Majesties either dispositions or protestations (still you bring in that) I know not what strange scruples or fears, causing them to stagger in their good opinion of his Majesty. And in the Apology, giving distaste to call your Majesty's loyal subject who hereupon grow jealous of some dangerous plot. p. 6. You would fain have it so, else you would not say it. Quod minus miseri volunt, hoc facile credunt. But hereof, and how you encourage men to stand it out, we have more to come.  
A man would think that you had said enough against your Sovereign, charging him with so frequent violating of his protestations, and taxing in such impudent manner his Declaration about sports, as tending mainly to the dishonour of God, the profanation of the Sabbath, the annihilation of the fourth Commandment, and the alteration of the doctrine of the Church of England. Yet that which follows next is of far worse nature; no less a crime, then pulling down of preaching, and setting up Idolatry: pretty Peccadillo's. For Preaching first, it pleased his sacred Majesty out of a tender care of his people's safety, to ordain a fast, by his Royal Proclamation to provide, that in infected parishes there should be no Sermon, the better to avoid the further spreading of the Sickness, which in a general confluxe of people, as in some Churches, to some Preachers, might be soon occasioned. This his most royal care you except against as an Innovation contrary to his Majesty's public Declarations, p. 146. and in the News from Ipswich, you tell us also that it is a means to inhibit preaching, and consequently to bring God's wrath upon us to the uttermost. p. 147. You call it scornfully a mock-fast, p. 148. a mock-fast, and a dumb-fast distasteful to all sorts of people, in the Ipswich news: and in plain language tell the King, that this restraint, with other innovations which you have charged upon the Prelates, do fill the people's minds with jealousies and fears of an universal alteration of religion, p. 147. What people's minds are filled so I beseech you sir, but those whom you and such as you have so possessed? I trow you have not had the people to confession lately, that you should know their minds and fears so well, as you seem to do. But know, or not know, that's no matter; the King is bound to take it upon your word; especially considering that the restraint of preaching in dangerous and infected places, and on the day of fast, when men come empty to the Church, and so are far more apt to take infection then at other times; is such an Innovation, as certainly the like was never heard of in the holy Scripture, or any of the former ages; and withal so directly contrary unto his Majesty's solemn Protestations made unto his people. Here's a great cry indeed, but a little wool. For how may we be sure, that the holy Scripture and all former ages have prescribed preaching as a necessary part of a public fast, yea as the very life and soul of a fast, as you please to phrase it, both in your Pulpit Pasquil, p. 144. and the news from Ipswich. That so it was in holy Scripture, you cite good store, as viz. 2 Chron. 6.28.29.30. Chap. 7.17.14. Numb. 25.6. to 10. joel. 1. & 2. Zeph. 2.1.2.3. all in the margin of the News book. Of all which texts, if there be one that speaks of preaching, let the indifferent Reader judge. The Scripture being silent in it, how shall we know it was the custom in all former ages? For that you tell us, in the same margin of the News book, that so it was 1. jacobi & Caroli. Most fairly proved. I never knew till now, but that the world was older than I see it is. Men talk of certain thousands that the world hath lasted: but we must come to you for a new Chronologie. The world, my masters, and all former ages, (which comes both to one) contain but 34 years full, not a minute more. An excellent Antiquary. No marvel if his Majesty be taxed with innovations, changing, as he hath done, the doctrine of the Sabbath, first set on forth Anno 1596, and the right way of celebrating a public fast, for which you have no precedent before the year 1603. Nor can I blame the people, if they fear an alteration of religion, when once they see such dreadful Innovations break in upon them; and all his Majesty's solemn protestations so soon forgotten & neglected. Yet let me tell you sir, that fast and pray was the old rule, which both Scriptures and the Church have commended to us; as in the texts by you remembered, and that delivered by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 7.5. Oratio jejunium sanctificat, jejunium orationem roborat, was the Father's Maxim. I never read of Fast and preach, till you made the Canon; at least till you first brought it hither, if you made it not. And yet because of this, and such like terrible Innovations as this, you fly out extremely. First unto Gods most secret Counsels, affirming most unchristianly, and withal most shamelessly, that this restraint of preaching (in infected places) was the occasion that the plague increased, double to any week since the Sickness began p. 144. that it brought with it a double increase of the plague, p. 50. an extraordinary increase the very first week of the fast, together with most hideous storms, etc. p. 148. Sir, you forget that which was taught you by the Prophet, Abscondita, Domino Deo nostro; that secret things belong to God: and we may ask this question of you out of holy Scripture, What man hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his Counsellor? Surely, until you usurped that honour by reason of that extraordinary calling which you so much brag of, no man ever did. Yet since you are so curious in the search of causes, & will needs tell us what occasioned so great a sickness; look in the last words of the second homily of Obedience, and you will find that nothing draws down greater plagues from almighty God, then murmuring & rebellion against Gods Anointed. Next you fall foul upon his Majesty, and tell him plainly in effect, but cunningly as you imagine, that if he look not better to his Protestations, the beauty of his royal name will be blasted in the Annals delivered to posterity, and that in them it will be said, This King had no regard to sacred vows, and solemn protestations. I see what Chronicles we shall have when you come to write them, Caesarum contumeliis referta; 
Tacit. Annal.  there's no question of it.  
From pulling down of Preaching, proceed we next to setting up Idolatry; which how you charge the King withal, must next be showed. You tell us, that the Prelates to justify themselves in those Innovations, which you unjustly lay upon them, do plead the whole equipage, furniture, and fashion of the King's Chapel, as a pattern for all Churches: in which there is an Altar, and bowing towards it; Crucifixes, Jmages, and other guises. And why should Subjects be wiser than their King? p. 165. To this you answer, that the worship and service of God and of Christ (you will needs separate Christ from God do I what I can) is not be regulated by humane examples, but by the divine rule of the Scriptures. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. p. 165. Well said! the service in the King's Chapel, and that which is conform unto it, is a ●aine worship in the first place: And what follows next. The three Children would not bow to the King's goodly golden Image. The old Christians would not so much as offer incense in the presence of Julian the Emperor at his Altar, nor at his command, though he propounded golden rewards to the doers, and fiery punishment to the deniers. p. 166. This is plain enough. Here's the King's Chapel and the furniture thereof compared to Nebuchadnezars' golden Image, and Julian's Altar: by consequence the King resembled ●o those wicked tyrants. I now perceive what 'twas you meant, when you extolled so highly that Parrhesia, which you conceive so necessary in a child of God; p. 26.27. instancing there, as here, in the three Children, Who feared neither the Kings big looks, nor furious threats; and Maris Bishop of Chalcedon, who coming before Julian the Apostata, called him Atheist, Apostata, and a desertor of the faith: As in Elias, when he retorted King ahab's words upon him, and the stout answer which Elisha made to the King of Israel: adding for close of all, that it were endless to recite examples in this kind, except to convince the cowardice of these times. You would have every man, it seems, as bold a Bravo as yourself; to bid defiance to the King, at least to stand it out against all authority. For, for the proof of that brave Parrhesia, which you so extol, you instance chiefly in such opposition: as was made to Kings, and therefore all your uses must be construed to reflect that way: now your fourth use is this. This makes for exceeding consolation to the Church of God, especially in declining times of Apostasy, (in these days of lukewarmness and Apostasy, in the proposal of your uses, p. 128.) and when the truth is openly persecuted and oppressed, and idolatry and superstition obtruded in stead thereof: when notwithstanding we see many Ministers of jesus Christ, to stand stoutly to their tackle, and rather than they will betray any part of God's truth, and a good conscience, they will part with their ministry, liberty, livelihood, and life too, if need were. This is that which keeps Christ's cause in life. This gives God's people cause of rejoicing, that they see their Captains to keep their ground, and not to fly the field, or forsake their colours, or basely yield themselves to the enemy, etc. p. 31. They are your own words, one of the pious uses which you make of your so celebrated Parrhesia, that freedom and liberty of speech against Kings and Princes, or whatsoever is called God, which you so specially commend unto your disciples. Well then, here's superstition and idolatry, but is there not a fear of the Mass also. Sure it seems there is. For thus you close your answer, touching the equipage (as you call it) of the King's chapel, the fashion, and furniture thereof. Lastly suppose, (which we trust never to see, and which our hearts abhor once to imagine) Mass were set up in the King's Chapel; is this a good argument why it should be admitted in all the Churches throughout the Realm of England? p. 166 Why how now zealous sir; what? Suppositions, Ifs & Ands, in such an odious intimation as setting up of Mass in the King's Chapel? I will not tell you any thing of my opinion in this place, but keep it till I meet you at the half turn in the close of all. Only I needs must tell you here, you might have dealt more courteously with your Sovereign and Patron, as you style him, had you the least part of that piety which you pretend to: seeing so manifestly that (in Seneca's words, Jllius vigilia omnium domos, illius labor omnium otia, illius industria omnium delicias, illius occupatio omnium vacationem tueatur. The King's great care to keep his people in wealth, peace, and godliness, if considered rightly, might make the vilest of us all, to serve, honour, and humbly obey him, according to God's holy word and Ordinance. But you, and such as you, have a special privilege: which I much muse you did not plead, when you were questioned publicly for your misdemeanours.   

CHAP. IU. A plain discovery of H. B. quarrels against the Bishops, in reference to their calling, and their Persons.  H. B. displeased that the Bishops do challenge their Episcopal authority from our Saviour. The challenge of Episcopal power from Christ and his Apostles, neither new nor strange, as H. B. pretednds. Of the Episcopal succession in the Church of England. Episcopal succession, how esteemed and valued amongst the Ancients. The derivation of Episcopal descent from the Church of Rome, no prejudice unto the Hierarchy, or Church, as H. B. makes it. The Bishops anciently called Reverend Fathers. The scandalous and scornful attributes given by H. B. to the Bishops in the general, and to some of the chief of them in particular. A brief reply to all his cavils against the chief of those particulars. H. B. makes his address to all sorts of people to join together with the King, to destroy the Bishops; and is content to run an hazard of his own life, so it may be done. The ruin of the Bishops, made by H. B. the only present means to remove the Plague. A general answer to these slanderous and Seditious passages. 
LEt us now look upon your dealing with my LL. the Bishops, how you handle them, their place, their persons, their proceedings: who being the principal object of your malice, must not expect more civil usage, than the King their Master, 
Epistle De●●●●t. to the king.  especially considering in cold blood how they have provoked you, by calling you forth upon the stage. However use them as you please, you have one good shelter. For if your style seem sharper than usual, we are to blame, if we impute it not to your zeal and fidelity for God and the King, being you are to encounter those who be adversaries to both: Begin then zealous sir, we stand ready for you. First then, you quarrel with the calling, and stomach it exceedingly, that some of them should say in the High Commission, being put unto it by your Brother Bastwick, that they had their Episcopal authority from Christ, and if they could not prove it, they would cast away their Rochets. And so, say you, they might their Caps too, for any such proof they can bring for it. p. 68 What more? It's plain that they usurp, profess and practise such a jurisdiction, as is not annexed to the Imperial Crown of England, but with the Pope and Prelates of Italy, they claim from Christ. Ibid. Well then, what hurt of this! Thus you see our Prelates have no other claim for their Hierarchy, than the Popes of Rome have and do make, which all our Divines since the Reformation, till yesterday, have disclaimed, and our Prelates cannot otherwise assume, but by making themselves they very limbs of the Pope, and so our Church a member of that Synagogue of Rome. And this you say, because it is affirmed by Dr. Pocklington, that we are able lineally to set down the succession of our Bishops from Saint Peter to Saint Gregory, and from to our first Archbishop Saint Austin, our English Apostle, downwards to his Grace that now sits in the chair, etc. p. 69. Thus also in the News from ipswich, you are much offended with the Prelates, that they will needs be Lord Bishops, jure divino, by the holy Ghosts own institution, and shame not to style themselves the Godly Holy Fathers of our Church, and Pillars of our faith, when as their fruits and actions manifest them to be nought else but Step-fathers' and Caterpillars, the very pests and plagues of both. And not long after, you bestow a gentle touch on Dr. Pocklington, calling the Prelates, as your use is, the truebred sons of the Roman Antichrist, from whom D. Pocklington boasts they are lineally descended. But whatsoever be the claim from Christ, or his Apostles, or the Church of Rome; you have found out a fitter Author of the holy Hierarchy; even the spirit that bears rule in the air, the devil. Who doth not only haunt the Palaces of Prelates (perhaps he went sometimes upon your occasions) but hath infused such a poison into the chair of this Hierarchy, as that man, who sits in it, had need to be strongly fortified with Preservatives and Antidotes of true Real Grace, (not nominal and titular) that is able to overcome the infection of it. p. 106. This is the sum of what you say, or repeat rather with a nil dictum quod; and this is hardly worth the saying by so great a Rabbin, the answer being made before the objection, yet since you say it, something must be said about it, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Your first exception is, that the Episcopal authority is claimed from Christ; and that some of the Bishops said in the High Commission, that if they could not prove it they would cast away their Rochets. This is no more than what had formerly been said in the conference at Hampton Court; when on occasion of Saint Hieromes saying, that a Bishop was not divinae ordinationis: the Bishop of London (Dr. Bancroft) interposed, that unless he could prove his ordination lawful out of the Scriptures, he would not be a Bishop four hours. You see then this is no new saying devised but yesterday, and contrary to what hath been the judgement of all our Divines since the reformation, as you please to tell us. The learned works of Bishop Bilson, entitled The Perpetual government of Christ's Church, and those of Dr. Adrian Saravia against your Patriarch Theodore Beza, de diversis ministerii gradibus; with many others of those times: show manifestly that you are an impudent Impostor, and care not what you say, so you make a noise. And yet I cry you mercy, I may mistake you; not knowing exactly what you mean by your Our Divines: For if by your Divines, you mean the Genevian Doctors, Calvin and Beza, Viret and Farellus, Bucan, Vrsinus, and those others of foreign Churches, whom you esteem the only Orthodox professors: you may affirm it very safely, that the derivation of Episcopal authority from our Saviour Christ, is utterly disclaimed by your Divines. Calvin had never else invented the Presbytery, nor with such violence obtruded it on all the reformed Churches: neither had Beza divided Episcopatum, into Divinum, humanum, and Satanicum, as you know he doth. But if by our Divines, you mean those worthies of the Church, who have stood up in maintenance of the holy Hierarchy against the clamours and contentions of the Puritan faction; or such as are conformable unto the Articles and orders of the Church of England: you do most shamelessly traduce them, as your custom is, and make them Patrons of that Tenet, which they most opposed. For tell me of a truth, who is it, which of our Divines, that holds Episcopal authority to be derived from any other fountain then that of Christ and his Apostles? and that conceive their ordination is not the jure divino, grounded and founded on the Scriptures, and thence deduced by necessary evident and undeniable illation? if any such there be, he is one of yours, Travers, and Cartwright, and the rest of your Predecessors; men never owned for hers by the Church of England. Of whom we may affirm, what the historian saith of the Athenians, 
Paterculus.  when besieged by Sylla, animos extra moenia, corpora necessitati servientes intra muros habuerunt. Geneva had their hearts, we their bodies only. I hope you do not here expect that I should show you what precedency or superiority our Saviour gave the twelve Apostles, before and over all the seventy: or how the Apostles in their own persons exercised authority over other Pastors; or how they settled several Bishops in convenient places, as Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete, with power of ordination, Tit. 1.5. and power of Ecclesiastical censure, 1 Tim. 5.19. or finally what successors they left behind them, in those particular Sees where they most resided. This were but actum agere, to sing our old songs over, as you use to do: and therefore I refer you to the writings of those worthies before remembered, our Divines indeed. Nor had I said thus much, but to let you see, that neither the claim is new, devised but yesterday; nor by all our Divines disclaimed since the reformation: both which with shame enough you are bold to say.  
The next thing that offends you, and you clamour of, is that they claim a visible and perpetual succession, down from S. Peter to Pope Gregory, from him by Austin the Monk, first Arch Bishop of Canterbury, unto his Grace now being, and Sic de coeteris. For by this means, you say, they make themselves the very limbs of the Pope, the truebred sons of the Roman Antichrist: and consequently our Church a member of that Romish Synagogue. Who would have thought but this had pleased you. For if the Bishops be the sons of the Roman Antichrist, and the Church a member of the Romish Synagogue; then are you acquitted: and all your clamours, railings, and opposition, aswell against the one, as the other, may be fairly justified. But let your inference alone till another time, what is it that you quarrel in the ground thereof. Is it that Saint Peter was at Rome, or was Bishop there, (whether for 25. years as Eusebius tell's us, we will not dispute) you may remember it is granted, or rather not denied by Calvin. HOwever his mind served him to have made a question of it; yet, propter Scriptorum consensum non pugno, 
Institut. l. 4. Sect. 15.  the evidence was so strong he could not deny it. Is it that Gregory Pope of Rome, surnamed Magnus, after a long descent succeeded him? The Tables of succession in the Church of Rome make that clear enough: 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  and Irenaeus brings down the succession till his own time; during which time, the lineal succession in that Church, by reason of the many persecutions under which it suffered, might be made most questionable. That Gregory sent this Austin into England to convert the Saxons, and made him (having before been consecrated by the Archbishop of Arles) the first Archbishop of the English; is generally delivered by all our writers, from Venerable Bede to these present times; as by those also which have writ the life of the said Pope Gregory. Finally that my Lord the Archbishop that now is, is lineally descended, in a most fair and constant tenor of succession you shall easily find, if you consult the learned labours of Mr. Francis Mason, de ministerio, Ang●icano. The Papists would extremely thank you, and think you borne into the world for their special comfort, could you but tell them how to disprove that lineal succession of our Prelates, which is there laid down. A thing by them much studied, but conatu irrito: and never cast upon our Prelates, as a stain or scandal, that they could prove their Pedigree from the holy Apostles, till you found it out. Whatever you conceive hereof, you cannot choose but know, that the succession of the Prelates in the purest times, was used as an especial argument against those Sects and heresies which were then on foot. And since you challenge Dr. Pocklington, for the succession of the Bishops in the Church of England, I will send you to him for three instances, which might have satisfied you in that point, if you will be satisfied: the first from Irenaeus, l. 3. cap. 3, 4, 5. the second from Tertullian, de prescript. cap. 11. and the last from S. Austin, contra Petil. l. 2. c. 51. In all of which it is apparent, (and see them you must needs, being the occasion of his instance in the Church of England) that the succession of the Bishops in their several Churches, ita ut primus sit aliquis ex Apostolis, beginning their descent from some one or other of the holy Apostles, hath been a special means to confound those heretics, which took up arms against the Church, as some men do now.  
Now for your instance, you plead, that if this rule of succession hold, our Bishops are the truebred sons of the Roman Antichrist; and tell me then I pray you Sir, whose son are you, that had your ordination, and received your Ministry from those Bishops which were so descended, you must needs be a limb of the Pope also; like it as you list: But never fear it Sir, there is no such danger as you dream of, either that any Priest or Prelate in the Church of England, should therefore be a son of the Roman Antichrist; or that the Church should be a member of that Romish Synagogue: because we claim by and from them, a visible succession of and in the sacred Hierarchy. We may receive our orders from them and challenge a succession by them, from the blessed Apostles; and yet not be partakers with them in their corruptions. When Hezekiah purged the temple, and set all things right, which had been formerly amiss in the jewish Church: think you that the High-Priests which followed after, thought it a shame to fetch their Pedigree from Aaron? Or do you find it was objected against them that did, that because some of those from and by whom they claimed it, had misbehaved themselves in so great an office, and possibly advanced Idolatry in that tottering state, therefore all those that followed them and descended from them, were also guilty of the same crimes? Or to come nearer to yourself, think you your ministry the worse, because you did receive it from the hands of them, whom you accuse for true borne sons of the Roman Antichrist: and that your brethren in New England will not think themselves the purest and most perfect Church in the Christian world, although they once were members of that here established which they have forsaken. 'Twas not the purpose of those holy men in King Edward's time to make a new Church, but reform the old; and only to pair off those superfluities, which had in tract of time been added to God's public service. In which regard, they kept on foot the Priesthood and Episcopate, which they had received; with many of those rites and ceremonies to which they were before accustomed: not taking either new orders, or bringing in new fashions, never known before. If you have any other pedigree, as perhaps you have, from Wiclif, Hus, the Albigenses, and the rest which you use to boast of; keep it to yourself. Non tali auxilio, the Church of England hath no need of so poor a shift. Nor did she ever think it fit, further to separate herself from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremony, than that Church had departed from herself, (when she was in her flourishing and best estate) and from Christ her head. And so King james resolved it at Hampton Court. That which remaineth touching the poison which the spirit hat ruleth in the air, hath infused into the chair of the Hierarchae; and your distinction between nominal and real grace, for which I make no question but you do hug yourself in private: is not worth the answering. I shall produce your railings, as I go along, but not confute them: as knowing little credit to begotten by contending with you, and far less by scolding. But where you seem to be offended with the Bishops, ●hat they should style themselves the Godly holy Fathers of the Church: I hope you know the title is not new nor first used by them. All ages, and all languages have so entitled them. The Grecians everused to style them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Latins, Reverendos in Christo Patres; the English our Reverend fathers in God: all of them as of common course, you cannot but know it. As for that patch which follows after, viz. the Pillars of our faith; and your conceit upon them both, of Caterpillars and stepfathers; those you may hear amongst the scoffs, reviling, and reproachful terms, which with a prodigal hand and a venomous pen, you cast upon them, every where, in your several Pasquil's; to which now I hasten.  
To begin therefore where we left, for fathers you have made them Step-fathers'; for Pillars, Caterpillars; their houses haunted, and their Episcopal chairs poisoned by that spirit, that bear's rule in the air. These we have told you of before go on then. They are the limbs of the beast, even of Antichrist, taking his very courses to bear and beat down the hearing of the Word of God, whereby men might be saved, p. 12. Their fear is more towards an Altar of their own invention, towards an image or crucifix, towards the sound and syllables of jesus, than towards the Lord Christ. Pag. 15. Miscreants, 28. the trains and wiles of his [the dragons] doglike, flattering tail, pag. 30. New Babel-builders, 32. blind watchmen, dumb dogs, plagues of souls, false prophets, ravening wolves, thiefs and robbers of souls: which honorary attributes you bestow upon them from the Magdeburgians, pag. 48. Either for shame mend your manners, or never more imprison any man, for denying that title of succession, which you so belly by your unapostolicall practice. pag. 49. If the Prelates had any regard either to the honour of God, and of his word, or to the settled peace of the kingdom, as they have but little, as appeareth too palpably by their practices in disturbing and disordering all, pag. 63. The Prelate's actions tend to corrupt the kings good people's hearts, by casting into them fears and jealousies, and sinister opinions towards the king, as if he were the prime cause of all those grievances, which in his name they do oppress the kings good subjects withal, pag. 74. These factors for Antichrist, practise to divide kings from their subjects, and subjects from their kings, that so between both they may fairly erect Antichrists throne again, pag. 75. Antichristian mushrooms, pag. 83. They cannot be in quiet till res novas moliendo, they may set up Popery again in her full equipage. 95. tooth and nail for setting up of Popery again, 66. trampling under their feet Christ's kingdom, that they may set up Antichrists throne again, p. 99 According to that spirit of Rome which breatheth in them, by which they are so strongly biased to wheel about to their Roman Mistress, pag. 108. the Prelates confederate with the Priests and jesuits, for rearing up of that religion. pag. 140. by letting in a foreign enemy, which these their practices and proceedings pretend and tend unto. pag. 75. The Prelates make the mother cathedrals (the adopted daughters of Rome) their concubines whereon to beget a new bastard generation of sacrificing idolatrous Massepriests throughout the land, p. 163. Nothing can now stay them, but either they will break all in pieces or their own neck, p. 164. All this sir in your Pulpit-pasquill. So also in your Apology, jesuited Polypragmaticks, and sons of Belial: and in the news from Ipswich, Luciferian Lord Bishops, Execrable traitors, devouring wolves, with many other odious names not fit to be used by Christians. Finally in your Pulpit libel, you seriously profess that you are ashamed that ever it should be said, you have lived a minister under such a Prelacy, p. 49. Great pity sir, you had not lived a little in king Edgar's time, amongst whose Laws it was ordained, that that man's tongue should be cut out which did speak any slanderous or infamous words, tending to the reproach of others.  
Hitherto for the generals. And there are some particulars, on which you spend your malice more than all the rest; you descant trimmely, as you think, in the News from Ipswich, on my Lord of Canterbury, with your Arch-pietie, Arch-charitie, if Belzebub himself had been Archbishop, Arch-Agent for the devil, and such like to those. A most triumphant Arch indeed to adorn your victories. His costly and magnificent entertainment of the king at Oxford, you cry out against in your said Pulpit libel, for a scurrilous interlude, made in disgrace of that which is the greatest beauty of our religion, to wit true piety, and learning▪ and will him in this shrift to confess, how unseemly it was for him, that pretendeth to succeed the Apostles, p. 49. You tax a certain speech of his as most audacious and presumptuous, setting his proud foot on the king's laws, as once the Pope did on the Emperor's neck p. 54. in marg. and tell him that the best Apology he can make, is that his tongue did run before his wit, and that in the flames of his passion he had sacrificed his best reason and loyalty. p. 55. You tell us also that the republishing of the book [for sport's] with some addition, was the first remarkable thing which was done presently after the Lord of Cant. did take possession of his Grace-shippe, pag. 59 that with his right hand he is able to sweep down the third part of the stars in heaven, p. 121. Having a Papal infallibility of spirit, whereby as by a divine oracle, all questions in religion are finally determined pag. 132. However in your general charges, I left you to run riot, and disperse your follies, according as you would yourself: yet now you are fallen on a particular, and a particular as eminent in virtue as he is in place; you may perhaps expect a particular answer. And lest your expectation should be frustrate, I will see you satisfied. First for your language such it is, as one may thence conjecture easily what foul heart it comes from. They that have pure hearts cannot possibly have so impure a mouth: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the abundance of the heart it is that the mouth speaketh. And though your railing accusation doth deserve no other answer, than the Lord rebuke thee: yet I must tell you now, being thus put to it, that you are much mistaken in the man you drive at. And you had come more near unto him, and the truth itself, had you bestowed that character on him, which Possidonius gives you of S. Austin, viz. Profactibus & studiis favens erat, & exultans bononum omnium, 
In vit. Augustini. c. 8.  indisciplinationem pie & sancte tolenans fratrum, ingemiscens que de iniquitatibus malorum, sive eorum qui intra ecclesiam, sive eorum qui extra ecclesiam constituti sunt, dominicis lucris semper gaudens, & damnis moerens, which may thus be Englished; He was a favourer of learning a friend of goodness and good men, and suffered with great both patience and piety, the inconformable averseness of his brethren from the public discipline, and grieved at the iniquity of ill men, whether they were within the pale of the Church, or without the same; as one that always was affected with the successes of God's Church, according as it gained, or lost, as it thrived or faded. This character if your malice will not suffer you to apply unto him, give me leave to do it; and disproove any of it if you can. And I will add withal, though you grieve to hear it, that both for the sincerity of his conversation, as a private man, and for the piety of his endeavours as a public person, you would be shrewdly troubled to find his equal in this Church, since the first reformation of religion in K. Edward's time. And for a witness hereunto I dare call yourself; who making all the search you could into him, and that with a malicious eye, which commonly is wont to spy the smallest error; you have not yet detected him of any personal default as a private man. And as for those particular charges which you lay unto him, as a public person, they are so poor (more than the clamour that they make) that they are hardly worth the answering▪ Next for your charges, which that you may the better see, I mean to take them all as they lie in order, and speak as briefly to them, as you would desire. First for the entertainment, of his Majesty at the university, tell me I pray you of all loves, how would you have contrived it better, had you been master of the Ceremonies for that place and time? Would you have had a sermon? Why the king had one. Would you have fitted him with Academical exercises? there was as little want of that: Orations in the fields, the Church, the Colleges, the Convocation, and the Library. Would you have left out plays? When did you ever know an Academical entertainment of the king without them. Would you have had the plays in Latin? Consider that the Queen was a principal guest, and they were commanded to be in English. But sir conceal your grief no longer. I know what 'tis that troubles you, and makes you call it scurrilous interlude, and say that it was made in disgrace of piety. All that offends you is, that Melancholico, a Puritan passion in one of the comedies, was in conclusion married to Concupiscentia; In case you do not like the wedding, why did you not come thither to forbid the banes. The Spartans' used to show their drunken slaves unto their children, the better to deter them from so base a vice. And how know you but that the representing of that humour on the open stage, may let men see the follies of it, and so wean them from it. But however the person you so grossly abuse, could not possibly have leisure, farther than in the general to command all things should be without offence, which he most carefully did. That which you next except against, is the audacious & presumptuous speech that you so much talk of. And what was that? Assuredly no more, than that his Grace, than Bishop of London threatened your learned Counsel Mr. Prinne, to lay him by the heels for his too much sauciness. Not as you say, (and would have simple folk believe you) for bringing a Prohibition from the Courts of law; but for his insolent and irreverent behaviour intendring it unto the Court of the high Commission. Yourself Mass. Burton are not called in question, for your preaching; but for your factious and seditious preaching: nor was he threatened because he tendered to the Court a Prohibition, but because he tendered it in such a malapert and ungracious manner. This makes a difference in the case. Had he behaved himself contra bonos mores, before an Ordinary justice, he must have either found out sureties for his good behaviour; or been committed for his fault; no remedy. And will you not allow the Court of high-Commission, or any Prelate in the same, as much if not a little more authority, than a common justice? Perhaps you think, because Mass. Prinne is of a factious Tribunitian spirit; he must be Sancrosanct and uncontrollable as the Tribunes were. When you can prove his calling to so high a place; you may do well to challenge the prerogatives belonging to it. In the mean time suffer him to be taken up and censured as he hath deserved. Next for his Majesty's declaration about lawful sports, you have no reason to charge that on my Lord Archbishop, as if it were a matter of his procuring: or if it were, to reckon it amongst his faults.  
His sacred Majesty treading in the steps of his royal Father, thought fit to suffer his good Subjects to enjoy that innocent freedom, which before they did; in using moderate and lawful recreations on the Sunday, after the divine and public Offices of the Church were ended, both for morning and evening▪ and of the which, they had been more deprived in these latter days, then before they were. And it was more than time, perhaps, that somewhat should be done to repress your follies: who under a pretence of hindering recreations upon that day, had in some parts, put down all feasts of dedications, of the Churches commonly called Wakes, which they which did it, did without all authority. A pious and a Princely Act, however you and such as you, traduce it every day in your scandalous pamphlets. Nor doth it more belong to a Christian King, to keep the holy days by the Church established, whereof that is one, from being profaned by labour, and unlawful pleasures; then to preserve them, quantum in ipsis est, at least, from being overcome with judaism or superstition. And you might see how some out of your principles came to have as much if not more of them jew, than the Christian in them, about the time when the declaration came forth. All that my Lord the Archbishop had to do therein, was to commit the publication of it to his suffragan Bishops according to his Ma.tie just will and pleasure: and if that be the thing you except against, your quarrel is not at his Act, but his obedience. Last of all, where you say, that with his right hand he is able to sweep down the third part of the stars in heaven; and that he hath a Papal infallibility of spirit, by which as by a Divine Oracle all questions in religion are finally determined: that only is put in because you have a mind to charge on him those innovations, as you call them, that you complain of in the Church. What innovations you have noted we shall see hereafter; when they will prove to be no other than a sick man's dream. I only tell you now, that in all the Hierarchy, you could not possibly have pitched on one less liable and obnoxious to the accusation. For being vir antiquae fidei, and antiquissimi moris, take them both together: you may be sure he neither will nor can do any thing that tends to innovation either in faith or discipline. In case yourself and such as you, would suffer him in quiet, to restore this Church to its ancient lustre; and bring it unto that estate in which it was in Queen Elizabeth's first time, before your predecessors in the faction had turned all decency and order out of the public service of Almighty God: I dare presume he would not trouble you nor them, by bringing in new ordinances of his own devising. But this if he endeavour, as he ought to do, you charge him presently for an innovator: not that he innovates any thing in the ancient forms of worship in this Church established, but that he labours to suppress those innovations, which you and those of your descent have introduced into the same. But one may see by that which follows, that it is malice to his person, and no regard unto the Church, that makes you pick out him to bear so great a share in these impudent clamours. For where his grace had taken great care for inhibiting the sale of books tending to Socinianism; and had therefore received thanks from the pen of a jesuit, as yourself informs us: that his most pious care is by you calumniated, for prohibiting of such books, as exalt the sole authority of Scripture for the only rule of faith, p. 153. I see Socinus and his followers are beholding to you for your good opinion: and so you may cry down the Prelates, you care not how you do advance the reputation of such desperate heretics. But it is now with him, and the other Prelates, as heretofore it was with the Primitive Christians. Tanti non est bonum, quanti est odium Christianorum, as Tertullian hath it.  
Nor stay you here. Other particulars there are which you have a fling at. You tell us of my Lord of Ely, whose books you are not fit to carry, that if he undertake an answer unto your doughty dialogue between A. and B. Surely he will sacrifice all the remainder of his reason (if any be left in him) upon it. Why so? For you are sure he can never answer it, except with railing and perverting, wherein lieth his principal faculty, (your own you mean) in fight against the truth, etc. p. 127. Of my Lord Bishop of Chichester you give this Item, that it were strange if such a mystery of iniquity (as you there complain of) should be found in any but a Prelate, and in this one by name, for a tried champion of Rome, and so devout a votary to his Queen of Heaven, p. 126. My Lord of Norwich is entitled in the News from Ipswich, by the name of little Pope Regulus, most exceeding prettily. And finally you tell us of those Bishops that attend the Court whom you include un●er the name of Amasiahs'; as did your learned Counsel in his Histriomastix: that there's not any thing more common in their mouths then declamations against the good Ministers of the land, the Kings most loyal, dutiful, faithful, obedient, peaceable subjects; whom they accuse, you say, as factious, seditious, and turbulent persons, dissaffected to present government, enemies of the King's prerogative, and what not. p. 48.49. So you, but were it any thing material, I could tell you otherwise, and make it manifest both to you and all the world, that those whom you traduce most foully, and against whom your stomach riseth in so vile a manner; are such who both for their endeavours for this Church's honour, fidelity unto the service of the King, and full abilities in learning, have had no equals in this Church, since the Reformation. This could I do, if I conceived it proper to this place and time; and that I did not call to mind what Velleius taught me, viz. Vivorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura est difficilis.  
Nor do you only breath out malice, but you threaten ruin, you conjure all the kingdom to rise up against them, and magnify those disobedient spirits, which hitherto have stood it out in defiance of them: and seem content, in case their lives might run an hazard, to forego your own. For likening them unto the builders of the Tower of Babel, p. 32. you do thus proceed. But as then so now, the Lord is able by an uncouth way, which they never dreamt of, to confound them and their work, to their eternal infamy. Even so O Lord. p. 33. And more than so, you tell us also by what means it shall come to pass, viz. that it shall rise, as it were from beneath them, whereas their height seems to secure them from all danger, as trampling all things under feet, etc. yet by that which seemeth to them most contemptible, shall they fall from that which is below them, shall their calamity arise, p. 97. However to make all things sure, you stir both heaven and earth against them. You let the nobility to understand, that if we sit down thus and hide us under the hatches, whilst the Romish Pirates do surprise us and cut our throats, etc. What Volumes will be sufficient to chronicle to posterity, the baseness of degenerous English spirits, become so unchristianized, as to set up antichrist above Christ and his anointed, and to suffer ourselves to be cheated and nose-wiped, of our religion, laws, liberties, and all our glories, and that by a sort of bold Romish mountebanks and jugglers, p. 20. What then advise you to be done? that in the name of Christ they rouse up their noble and christian zeal, and magnanimous courage for the truth, and now stick close to God and the King, in helping the Lord and his anointed against the mighty. p. 23. In your address unto the judges, you conjure them thus. For God's sake therefore, sith his Majesty hath committed unto you the sword of justice, draw it forth to defend the laws against such innovators, who (as much as in them lieth) divide between the King and the people. p. 31. In that from Ipswich, you and your brethren in that, made it call out upon the nation generally, saying, O England, England, if ever thou wilt be free from Pests, and judgements, take notice of these thy Antichristian prelate's desperate practices, innovations, and Popish designs, to bewail, oppose, redress them, with all thy force and power. Then those of the better sort, O all you English Courtiers, Nobles, and others, who have any love or spark of religion, piety, zeal, any tenderness of his Majesty's honour or care for the Churches, Peoples, or the Kingdom's safety, yet remaining within your generous breasts, put to your helping hands and prayers to rescue our religion & faithful Ministers now suspended, from the jaws of these devouring wolves, and tyrannising Lordly Prelates, etc. All sorts of people thus implored to promote the cause, you labour to persuade the King, in your Epistle Dedicatory, before the Pasquil, how deeply he is engaged to close with God and his good subjects, against all these innovators, and disturbers of the peace, and distracters of the unity of his kingdom, especially considering whose Vicegerent he is, and before whose woeful Tribunal he must give a strict account, how he hath managed so weighty a charge; in the Epistle to your Apology. Finally in your Pasquil, p. 141. You tell us how it doth concern our gracious Sovereign, our Nobles and Magistrates of the land, to strengthen their hands with judgement and justice, to cut of these workers of iniquity, and to root them out of the confines and limits of the Kingdom, etc. applying so to them a passage in the book of prayers, for the Gunpowder day, intended by the Church against all such as are so treacherously affected, as those traitors were.  
Here is enough, a man would think, to effect the business; yet this is not all. For should there come a Parliament, you would adventure your own life, to make sure work on't. Assuring us, that if it were a law in England, as once amongst the Locrians, that whosoever would propound a new law, should come with an halter about his neck, that if it pleased not the Senate, the hangman was ready to do his office; and that if opportunity served, you would come with an halter about your neck with this proposition, that it would please the great Senate of this land to take into their sad consideration, whether upon such woeful experience, it were not both more honourable to the King, and more safe for his kingdom etc. That the Lordly prelacy were turned into such a godly government, as might suit better with God's word, and Christ's sweet yoke. p. 109.110. Nay so transcendent is your malice, that you propose a speedy execution of them as the only remedy to divert God's judgements, for thus you state the question in the news from Ipswich. Is, it not then high time for his Majesty to hang up such Arch traitors to our faith, Church, Religion, and such truebred sons of the Roman Antichrist? And anon after more expressly. Certainly till his Majesty shall see these purgations rectified, superstition and idolatry removed, etc. and hang up some of these Romish Prelates and inquisitors before the Lord, as the Gibeonites once did the seven sons of Saul, we can never hope to abate any of God's Plagues, etc. And to the same effect, in your address to the nobility, All the world feel in what a distracted state things do stand, what a cloud of divine displeasure hangs over us, how ill we thrive in our affairs, etc. Certainly if such be suffered to go on thus as they do, God must needs destroy us. p. 24. Finally, that you may seem to show some compassion on them, before the executioner do his office, you thus invite them to repentance. Certainly hell enlargeth herself for you, and your damnation sleepeth not, if you speedily repent not, p. 81. Of your Pulpit-libell. Hanging, and hell, and all too little to appease your malice: which is advanced so high, that no chastisement of their persons, but an utter abolition of the calling, will in fine content you. You may remember what you preached once at a fast in London. Where pleading for reformation under Ioshua's removal of the accursed thing, you told the people, 
Bishop of Elys Epistle Ded. before his treatise of the Sabbath.  that the main thing to be removed was that damnable Hierarchy of Bishops who made no matter of sinking Church and State, so they might swim in honours and worldly wealth. This is the thing you aim at, and so greatly long for: which to effect, you care not what strange course you run, so you may effect it. Scelus omne nefasque hac mercede placent. 
Lucan lib. 1   
Thus have I briefly summed together those most uncharitable and unchristian passages, which every where occur, dispersed and scattered in your Pamphlets. And having summed them up, dare make a challenge unto all the world, to show me if they can, such a railing Rabsakeh, so sanguinarian a spirit, so pestilential a disease in a Christian Church. All the marre-Prelates, and make-bates of the former times, with those which have succeeded since, though Masters in this art of mischief, come so short of this, that I persuade myself you do condemn them in you heart, as poor spirited fellows, in whom there is too much of that Christian prudence which you so deride. p. 28. But I forget my first intent, which was to muster up your railings, and produce them only; but not to quit you with the like: though should I use you in your kind, and lay the whip on the fool's back, it were a very easy error, and such as possibly might receive a fair construction. Nam cujus temperantiae fuerit de Antonio querentem, 
Tully. Phil. 2.  abstinere maledictis. To speak of such a thing as you, and not fly out a little, were a kind of dulness. Yet I shall hold my hand a while, until we meet again at the half turn, where possibly I may be bold to tell you more of my opinion. Mean time, I hope you do not think, that all this barking at the Moon, will make her either hide her head, or change her course: or that by all this noise and clamour you can attract, the Nobles, judges, Courtiers, or any other to take part with you; and follow those most desperate counsels which you lay before them. The world is grown too well acquainted with these dotages, to be moved much at them. Nor could my Lords the Bishops but expect before hand, what censures would be passed upon them by such tongues as yours; if once they went about to suppress your follies, and to reduce the Church to that decent order, from which yourself and your accomplices have so strangely wandered: Howsoever their great care deserve better recompense; yet was it very proper you should do your kind: and they may count it for an honour, that such a one as yourself, hath declaimed against them. Reg●um est cum bene feceris male audire. 
Lib. 4.14.  And it is very well observed by our incomparable Hooker, to be the lot of all that deal in public affairs whether of Church or Commonwealth, that what men list to surmise of their doings, be it good or ill, they must before hand patiently arm their minds to endure. Besides being placed on high, as a watchtower, they know full well how many an envious eye will be cast upon them: especially amongst such men as brother B. to whom great eminences are far more dreadful than great vices, and a good name as dangerous as a bad. Sinistra erga eminentes interpretatio, 
Tacit. in vi●a Agricol.  nec minus periculum ex magna fama, quam ex mala. And herein they may comfort and rejoice their hearts, that whatsoever sinister and malicious censures are now passed upon them; yet there will one day come a time, in which all hearts shall be open, all desires made known, and when no counsels shall be hid: and then the Lord shall make it known, who were indeed on his side, and who against him. In the mean time, suspense of censure and exercise of charity, were far more sit and seemly for a Christian man; then the pursuit of those uncharitable and most impious courses, whereby you go about to bring the Church of God and the Rulers of it, into discredit and contempt. I know assuredly, how gloriously soever you conceive of your own dear self, that you are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no searcher of the heart, nor no discerner of the spirits. And therefore I am bold to tell you what I have learned from Venerable Bede, viz. ut ea facta, quae dubium est quo animo fiant, in meliorem partem interpretemur, that all men's actions, whereof we know not the intent, should be interpreted to the better. How much the rather should this rule be in use amongst us in points of counsel: the hearts of Kings (for he hath had his share in the declamation) being unsearchable in themselves, and unseen to us; the resolutions of the Church, grounded on just and weighty reasons, being to be obeyed, and not disputed, much less rashly censured. This counsel, if it come too late to you, may yet come soon enough to others; and to them I leave it.   

CHAP. V. An Answer to the quarrels of H. B. against the Bishops, in reference to their jurisdiction, and Episcopal government.  H.B. endites the Bishops in a Praemunire for exercising such a jurisdiction, as is not warrantable by the Laws. The Bishops not in danger of any Statute made by King Henry the eight. The true intention of the Statute, 1. Eliz. c. 1. The Court of High-Commission in the same established. The Statute 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. on what ground enacted: repealed by Qu. Mary, and so still continueth. The use of excommunication taken away by that statute of King Edward. A final answer to the cavils about the exercise of Episcopal jurisdiction. Why H. B. and the Brethren do seem to plead so hard for the King's supremacy; the Bishops challenged for oppressing the King's liege people; the judges, for not sending out their Prohibitions to retain them. H. B. the only Clergy man that stands for Prohibitions. King james his order in that case. The quality of their offence, who are suspended by their ordinaries, for not publishing the book for sports. The Bishops charged with persecuting Gods faithful Ministers, and how deservedly. 
HAving made known your good affections, unto the calling and the persons; we must now see what you have to say against the proceedings of the Bishops, in their place and calling. For sure you would not have it thought, that you have lifted up your voice so like a Trumpet, to startle and awaken the drowsy world; and that there was no cause to provoke you to it. No, there was cause enough you say, such as no pure and pious soul could endure with patience; their whole behaviour both in the consistory and the Church being so unwarrantable. For in their consistory they usurp a power peculiar to the supreme majesty, and grievously oppress the subject against law and conscience: and ●n the Church, they have endeavoured to erect a throne for Antichrist, obtruded on it many a dangerous innovation, and furiously persecuted the Lords faithful servants for not submitting thereunto. Therefore no wonder to be made, if being called forth by Christ, who hath found you faithful, 
Epist. Dedicat.  to stand in his cause, and witness it unto the world; you persecute the Prelacy with fire and halter, and charge them with those usurpations, oppressions, innovations and persecutions, which you have brought in readiness to make good against them; hoping in very little time to see their honour in the dust, and the whole government of the Church committed to the holy Elders, whereof you are chief. In case you cannot prove what you undertake, you are contented to submit to the old Law amongst the Locrians, & let the Executioner do his office. I take you at your word, and expect your evidence: first that the Prelates have usurped a power peculiar to his sacred Majesty, which is the first part of your charge. How prove you that. Marry say you, because of sundry statutes, as in King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth's time, which do annex all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto the Crown of England; so as no Prelate or other person hath any power to visit Ecclesiastical persons, etc. but he must have it immediately from the King, and confirmed by Letters Patents under the great Seal of England, pag. 68 So far the tenor of the Law, if you tell us true; or rather if your learned Counsel rightly informed Dr. Bastwicke in it, from whose mouth you took it. Now for the practice of our Prelates, you tell us that they neither have at any time, nor never sought to have any the King's Letters patents under the great Seal of England, for their keeping Courts and Visitations. But do all in their own names, and under their own Seals, contrary to the Law in that behalf, pag. 69. There be your Major and your Minor. The conclusion follows. So as being a power not derived from the King, as the immediate fountain of it, it proves to be at least a branch of that foreign power altogether excluded in the Statute, 1. Eliz. c. 1. And it is flatly against the oath of supremacy in the same statute which all Prelates take, wherein they profess and promise faith and true allegiance to the Queen's highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to their power to defend all jurisdictions, privileges, etc. granted to the Queen's highness, her heirs, etc. p. 70.71. In fine you bring them all in a praemunire, & leave them to the learned in the law: of which if you were one, or that your learned Counsel might sit judge, to decide the controversy; Lord have mercy upon them.  
For answer hereunto we would fain know of you, where it is said, what Law, what Statute so resolves it, that no Prelate or other person hath any power to visit Ecclesiastical persons, etc. but he must have it immediately from the King and confirmed by Letters patents under the great Seal of England. None of the Acts of Parliament made by King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth or Queen Elizabeth, speak one word that way. The act of the Submission of the Clergy, 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19 on which your fond conceit is grounded, if it hath any ground at all, saith not as you would have it say, the Clergy shall not put in ure, etc. any constitutions, of what sort soever, without the King's royal assent, and authority in that behalf: but that without the King's royal assent and authority in that behalf first had, they should not enact or put in ure any new Canons, by them made in their Convocations, as they had done formerly. This law observed still by the Clergy to this very day, not meeting in their Convocation, until they are assembled by his Majesty's writ, directed to the Archbishop of either Province; nor when assembled, treating of or making any Canons, without the King's leave first obtained; nor putting any of them in execution, before they are confirmed by his sacred Majesty under the broad Seal of England. Is there no difference gentle brother, between enacting new Canons at their own discretion; and executing those which custom and long continuance of time have confirmed and ratified. If you should be so simple as so to think (as I have no great confidence either in your law or wisdom) you may be pleased to understand, that by the very self same statute, All Canons which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws, statutes and customs of the Realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative Royal, shall be now still executed and used as they were before the making of that act, till the said Canons should be viewed by the 32. Commissioners in the same appointed, which not being done, as yet, (although the said Commission was revived by Parliament 3, 4. to Edw. 6. c. 11.) all the old Canons qualified as before is said, are still in force. So that for exercise of any Episcopal jurisdiction, founded upon the said old Canons, or any of the new which have been since confirmed by the King or his predecessors: there's no necessity of special Letters Patents under the broad Seal of England, as you fain would have it. There was another Statute of King Henry the eight concerning the King's highness to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and to have authority to reform all errors, heresies and abuses in the same. But whatsoever power was therein declared, as due and proper to the King, is not now material: the whole act being repealed A. 1. & 2. Ph. and M. c. 8. and not restored in the reviver of Qu. Eliz. 1. Eliz. c. 1. in which you instance in your Margin. [Nor can you find much comfort by that Statute, 1. Eliz c. 1. wherein you instance, if you consider it, and the intention of the same, as you ought to do. You may conjecture by the title of it, what the meaning is; For it's entitled, An act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state Ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same. The preamble unto the act makes it yet more plain. Where it is said that in the time of King Henry the eight, diverse good Laws, and Statutes were made and established, aswell for the utter extinguishment and putting away of all usurped and foreign powers and authorities out of this Realm, etc. as also for the restoring and uniting to the imperial Crown thereof the ancient jurisdictions, authorities, superiorities and preeminences to the same of right belonging and appertaining: by means whereof the subjects were disburdened of diverse great and intolerable charges and exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted by such foreign power and authority, as before that was usurped. Which makes it manifest that there was no intent in the Queen or Parliament, to alter any thing in the ordinary power Episcopal, which was then and had long before been here established: but to extinguish that usurped and foreign power, which had before been challenged by the See of Rome, and was so burdensome unto the subject. The body of the Act is most plain of all. For presently on the abolishment of all foreign power and jurisdiction, spiritual and Ecclesiastical, heretofore used within this Realm, there followeth a declaration of all such jurisdictions, etc. as by any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and authority hath heretofore or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order and correction of the same, and of all manner errors, heresies, schisms, etc. to be for ever united and annexed to the imperial crown of this Realm. Then in the next words followeth the establishment of the High Commission: it being then and there enacted that the Queen's highness, her heirs and successors, shall have full power and authority by virtue of the said act, by letters Patents under the great Seal of England, to assign, name and authorize, etc. such person or persons being natural borne subjects to her highness, her heirs and successors, as her Majesty shall think meet to exercise, use, occupy and execute under her highness, her heirs and successors, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and preeminences within these her Realms of England, etc. and to visit, reform, order, redress, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences; contempts & enormities whatsoever, which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, authority or jurisdiction, can or may be lawfully reform, etc. Plainly in all this act there is nothing contrary to that ordinary jurisdiction, which is and hath been claimed and exercised by Episcopal authority, in the Church of England: nothing at all which doth concern the purchasing or procuring of Letters Patents, for their keeping Courts, and Visitations; as you seduced by your learned Counsel, bear the world in hand. My reason is, because whatever jurisdiction was here declared to be annexed unto the crown, is called a restoring of the ancient jurisdiction unto the same: and certainly, the ordinary Episcopal power, of ordination, excommunication, and such like Ecclesiastical censures, were never in the crown in fact, nor of right could be: and therefore could not be restored. And secondly because whatever power is here declared to be in the Queen, her heirs and uccessours; she is enabled to transfer upon such Commissioners, as she or they shall authorize under the great Seal of England, for execution of the same. Now we know well that there is no authority in the high Commission (which is established on this clause) derogating from the ordinary Episcopal power; and therefore there was none supposed in the act itself, to be invested in the Queen: the said Episcopal authority remaining as it did, and standing on the self same grounds as it had done formerly. Which said, the last part of the Argument touching the oath of supremacy, taken and to be taken by every Bishop, that's already answered in the Premises: the said oath being only framed, for the abolishment of all foreign and extraordinary power; not for the altering of the ordinary and domestical jurisdiction, if I so may call it, in this Church established.  
I hope the Prelates are now out of danger of the Praemunire, which you threatened them; though you not out of danger of the Locrian law: And if K. Edward the 6. help you not, I know no remedy, but that according to your own conditions, the executioner may be sent for to do his office. Now for K. Edward the 6. the case stood thus. King Edward being a Minor about nine years old, at his first coming to the crown; there was much heaving at the Church, by some great men which were about him, who purposed to enrich themselves with the spoils thereof. For the effecting of which purpose it was thought expedient, to lessen the authority of those Bishops which were then in place; and make all those that were to come, the more obnoxious to the Court; upon this ground there passed a statute 1o of this King consisting of two principal branches: whereof the first took off all manner of elections, and writs of Congee d'peslier, formerly in use; the other did if not take off, yet very much abate the edge of Ecclesiastical censures. In the first branch it was enacted, that from thenceforth no writ of Congee d' peslier be granted, nor election of any Archbishop or Bishop, by Deane and Chapter made; but that the king may by his letters Patents at all times, when any Archbishopricke or Bishopric is void, confer the same on any whom the king shall think meet. The second clause concerned the manner of proceeding from that time to be used in spiritual courts, viz. that all summons, Citations, and other process Ecclesiastical in all suits and causes of instance, and all causes of correction, and all causes of bastardy, or bigamy, or de jure patronatus, Probates of Testaments and Commissions of administrations of persons deceased, etc. be made with in the name and with the style of the king, as it is in writs Original or judicial at the Common Law, etc. As also that no manner of person or persons who hath the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction use other seal of jurisdiction but wherein his majesties Arms be engraven, etc. on penalty of running in his Majesty's displeasure and indignation, and suffering imprisonment at his will and pleasure. The reason of this order is thus delivered in the Preamble. To the second branch, viz. because that all authority of jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is derived and deducted from the king's Majesty, as supreme head of these Churches, and Realms of England and Ireland, etc. and that all Courts Ecclesiastical within the said two realms, be kept by no other power or authority, either foreign, or within the Realm, but by the authority of the kings most excellent Majesty. Which Act, with every branch and clause thereof was afterwards repealed, 1 of Queen Marie, cap. 2. and hath stood so repealed to this very time. For howsoever you pretend, and all your fellow libelers insist upon it, that the said statute was revived in the first year of K. james of blessed memory, and therefore that you are yet safe from the Locrian law: yet this pretence will little help you. That their assertion or pretences, if examined rightly will prove to be a very poor surmise; invented only by such boutefeus as you and your Accomplices, to draw the Prelates into obloquy with the common people, and make your Proselytes believe that they usurp a power peculiar to his sacred Majesty, it being positively delivered by my Lords the judges, with an unanimous consent, and so declared by my Lords chief justices in the Star-chamber, the 14 of May now last passed, that the said Act of Repeal 1 of Queen Mary, doth still stand in force, as unto that particular statute by you so much pressed; your desperate clamours unto the contrary notwithstanding. Nor doth there want good reason why the said Statute of K. Edward was at first repealed, or why the said Repeal should be still in force. For being it was enacted in that Statute that from thenceforth all Ecclesiastical process should be made in the king's name and style, not only in all suits or causes of instance, bastardy, bigamy, Probates of Testaments, etc. which have much in them of a civil, or a mixed nature at the least; but in all causes of correction also: it came to pass that excommunication, and other censures of the Church, which are spiritual merely, & in no sort civil, were thereby either quite abolished, or of none effect. And it continued so all King Edward's reign, to the no small increase of vice, because it nourished a presumption of impunity in the vicious person. This Father Latimer complaineth of in his sermon preached before that King at Westminster, Anno 1550. thus. Lechery is used throughout England, and such Lechery as is used in none other place of the world. And yet it is made a matter of sport, a matter of nothing, a laughing matter and a trifle not to be passed on, nor reform, etc. Well I trust it will one day be amended, etc. And here I will make a suit to your highness, to restore unto the Church the discipline of Christ, in excommunicating such as be notable offenders; nor never devise any other way, For no man is able to devise any better way, than that God hath done; with excommunication to put them from the congregation till they be confounded. Therefore restore Christ's discipline for excommunication. And that shall be a mean both to pacify God's wrath and indignation, and also that less abomination shall be used, than in times past hath been, and is at this day. I speak this of a Conscience, and I mean to move it of a will to your Grace and your Realm. Bring into the Church of England open discipline of Excommunication, that open sins may be stricken withal. So far Father Latimer. What think you sir of this? See you not reason for it now, why your said Statute was repealed, and why the said repeal, should continue still. Put all that hath been said together, and I can see no hopes you have to scape the penalty of the Law by yourself proposed; but that you cry peccavi, and repent your follies.  
So far in answer to your Cavils, (for Arguments I cannot call them) I have been bold to justify the proceedings of the Bishops, in their Courts Episcopal: wherein there is not any thing that they usurp upon the King, or that authority which is inseparably annexed to the Regal diadem. For granting that all authority of jurisdiction spiritual is derived from the King, as supreme head of the Church of England (although that title by that name, be not now assumed in the style Imperial) and that all Courts Ecclesiastical within this Realm be kept by no other authority, either foreign or within this Realm, but by authority of the kings most excellent majesty; as is averred in the said Preamble of King Edward's statute: yet this if rightly understood, would never hurt the Bishops, or advantage you. But my reason is, because that whensoever the king grants out his Congee d' peslier for the election of a Bishop, and afterwards doth pass his royal assent to the said election, & send his Mandate to the Metropolitan for consecration of the party which is so elected: he doth withal confer upon him, a power to exercise that jurisdiction, which by his consecration, done by the king's especial Mandate, he hath atteined to. And this may also serve for answer to your other cavil; but that Bishops may not hold their courts or visitations without letters Patents from the king. For were there such a law, (as there is no such) yet were the Prelates safe enough from your Praemunire: because the Royal assent to the election, and Mandate for the consecration, passing by broad seal, as the custom is; enable them once consecrated to exercise what ever jurisdiction is by the Canon incident to Episcopal power. No need of special letters Parents for every Act of jurisdiction, as you idly dream. No more than if a man being made a justice of the Peace under the broad seal of England, and having taken his oath as the law requires; should need for every special Act some special warrant; or any other kind of warrant than what was given him in the general, when first made a justice. And yet I trow the King is the immediate fountain also of all temporal power; and no man dare execute authority, but from and by him. Touching his Majesty's supremacy, more than in answer to your clamours, I shall say nothing at this present as neither of this place nor purpose. It is an Argument of great weight; fit rather for a special treatise, than an occasional replication. Only I will be bold to tell you, that if the king's supremacy were not more truly and sincerely, (without any colour or dissimulation) as the Canon hath it, defended by my Lords the Bishops, than by such as you: it would be at a loss ere long, and settled on the vestry wherein you preside. For wot you what King james replied on the like occasion. When Dr. Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton Court, came in unseasonably once or twice with the King's Supremacy. Dr. Reynolds quoth the King, you have often spoken for my supremacy: and it is well. But know you any here, or any elsewhere, who like of the present Government Ecclesiastical, that find fault or dislike with my supremacy! And (shortly after) putting his hand unto his hat, his Ma.tie said, My Lords the Bishops I may thank you, that these men do thus plead for my Supremacy. They think they cannot make their party good against you, but by appealing unto it, as if you or some that adhere unto you, were not well affected towards it. But if once you were out and they in place, I know what would become of my supremacy. No Bishop, no King, as before I said. How like you this Mass. Burton, is not this your case? Mutato nomine de ie fabula narratur. You plead indeed for the King's supremacy; but intent your own.  
The next great crime you have to charge upon the Bishops, is that they do oppress the king's Liege people, against law and conscience. How so. Because, as you inform us, Prohibitions are not got so easily from the Courts of justice, as they have been formerly: and being gotten, find not such entertainment and obedience▪ as before they did. This you conceive to be their fault: and charge them that by stopping the ordinary course of law, the King's people are cut off from the benefit of the King's good laws: so as it is become very geason and a rare matter to obtain a Prohibition against their illegal practices, in vexing and oppressing the kings good subjects. Nay, they are grown so formidable of late, (as if they were some new generation of Giants) that the very motion of a Prohibition against a Prelate, or their proceedings in the high Commission, makes the Courts of justice startle; so as good causes are lost, and Innocents' condemned because none dare plead and judge their cause according to the King's Laws, whereby we ought all to be governed, p. 69.70. My Masters of the Law, and my Lords the judges, will con you little thanks for so soul a slander, greater then which cannot be laid on the profession, or the Courts of justice. What none dare plead, nor none dare judge according to the Laws? So you say indeed. And more than so, in your address unto the judges. What meane's, say you, that difficulty of obtaining prohibitions now adays, whereby the King's innocent Subjects (you are an innocent indeed, God help you) should be relieved against their unjust molestations and oppressions in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and high Commission? What meaneth that consternation of spirit among Lawyers, that few or none can be found to plead a cause be it never so just, against an oppressing Prelate, and are either menaced or imprisoned if they do. p. 29. Hoc est quod palles? Is this the thing that so offends you, that prohibitions are restrained, or not sent out so frequently from the Courts of Law, as of late they were, to the diminishing if not annulling the authority of the Court Christian? I trow you are the only Clergyman that complains of this. Or if there be more such, they be such as you, who only make a property of the civil Courts, by them to scape their censures in the Ecclesiastical. Were you so innocent, as you would have us think, you rather should rejoice for the Church's sake, that Prohibitions fly not out so thick, as they have done formely, to the great oppression of the Clergy in their suits and businesses, especially in those which did concern the Patrimony of the Church, their tithes. And if my Lords the judges, are with more difficulty moved, to send abroad their Prohibitions, than were their predecessors in the place before them; it is a pregnant evidence of their great love to justice: Nor can it but be counted an honour to them to leave every Court to that which is proper to it, and for the which it was established. And God forbid the Church should ask or do any thing that should encroach upon them, or invade any of their rights. What doth this grieve your conscience also? Good Sir consider with yourself, what mischiefs Clergymen were put to, when they could scarce commence a suit, but prohibition cautio est; a Prohibition was sent out, to stop the course of his proceedings, or if he had a sentence to reverse that also. Or if you will not trouble yourself in thinking of it, will you be pleased to hear what our late Sovereign King James hath observed therein. If (saith he) Prohibitions should rashly, and headily be granted, than no man is the more secure of his own, though he hath gotten a sentence with him: for as good have no law or sentence, as to have no execution thereof. A poor Minister with much labour and expense, having exhausted his poor means, and being forced to forbear his study, and to become nonresident from his flock, obtains a sentence; and then when he looks to enjoy the fruits thereof, he is defrauded of all by a Prohibition: And so he is tortured like Tantalus, who when he hath his Apple at his mouth, & that he is gaping to receive it, then must it be pulled from him by a Prohibition, and he not suffered to taste thereof. So far the Royal Advocate hath pleaded the poor Clergies cause. And did he nothing as a Judge? Yes, he declared it to be his Office, to make every Court contain himself within his own limits; and thereupon admonished all other Courts, that they should be careful, every of them, to contain themselves within the bounds of their own jurisdictions; the Courts of Common law, that they should not be so forward and prodigal in multiplying their Prohibitions.  
But you will say perhaps, that your exception lieth against the stopping of the course of Prohibitions, not so much, if at all, in real, as in personal actions: and that you are offended only, because by this means the King's Innocent Subjects, are not relieved (as you and Mr. Prynne once were) from the unjust oppressions of the Courts Ecclesiastical, and High Commission. Why, what's the matter? There is, you tell us, a great persecution in the Church, and many a faithful godly Minister, hath been of late suspended from his ministry, and outed of his benefice, by the Prelates, in the Courts aforesaid: no remedy being to be had, as in former times from the Common Law. For as the common rumour goeth (at least you make a rumour of it) the course of Justice is stopped in these cases, there being none dares open his mouth to plead a cause against the Prelates. So you in your address to my Lords the Judges. p. 29. For an example of the which, as well the persecution, as the want of Remedy, you instance in the Ministers of Surrey, who are suspended of their ministry, and outed of their means and freeholds against all law and conscience: yet are so disheartened and overawed that they dare not contend in law against their Prelate, [the Lord Bishop of Winton] for fear of further vexations, and are out of hope of any fair hearing in an ordinary legal way. p. 70. of your Pasquil. What want of remedy can you or they complain of, if they have not sought it: or rather if their conscience tell them, and those with whom they have advised, advertise them, that in such cases as this is, the Judges cannot by the law, award a Prohibition, if they should desire it. Do you conceive the case aright? If not, I will take leave to tell you; His Majesty having published his Declaration about lawful pastimes on the Sunday, gives order to his Bishops that publication thereof be made in all their several dioceses, respectively. The Bishops hereupon appoint the Incumbent of every Church, to read the book unto the people; that so the people might the better take notice of it: and finding opposition to the said appointment; made by some refractory persons, of your own condition, press them to the performance of it by virtue of that Canonical obedience, which by their several oaths they were bound to yield unto their Ordinaries: But seeing nothing but contempt, and contempt upon contempt, after much patience and long-suffering, and expectation of conformity to their said appointment, some of the most perverses amongst them, have in some places, been suspended, aswell a benificio as officio, for an example to the rest. No man deprived, or outed, as you say, of his means and livelihood, that I hear of yet? This is the Case. Which being merely Ecclesiastical, as unto the ground, being a contempt of and against their Ordinary; and merely Ecclesiastical, as unto the Censure, which was suspension: I cannot see what remedy you can find for them amongst the Lawyers, but that which every man might give them, good and wholesome Counsel. And call you this a persecution? when a few refractory persons are justly punished in a legal way, for their disobedience? For howsoever they and you pretend, that the Command was contrary to the Law of God, and could not be performed with a safe conscience; yet this was only a pretence: their reading of the book (had the Contents thereof displeased them) being no more an Argument of their approbation of any thing therein contained; then when a Common Crier reads a Proclamation, which perhaps he likes not▪ It must be therefore some Association had and made amongst them, to stand it out unto the last; and put some baffle or affront on that authority which had imposed it.  
Such also is the persecution doubtless, which you so complain of in the two whole Counties of Norfolk, and Suffolk, where in a very short space, (as you say) there hath been the foulest havoc of Ministers, and their flocks, etc. as ever our eyes have seen: there being already, as you tell us, 60 Ministers suspended, and between 60. and 80. more having had time given them till Christ-tide (take head of Christmas by all means, by which time, as you say, they must either bid their good conscience farewell, or else their precious Ministry, and necessary means. In all Queen Maries time, no such havoc made, in so short a time, o● the faithful Ministers of God, in any part of, yea, or in the whole land. p. 65. The same is also told us in the News from Ipswich. Nay, more than so, you tell us how one or two godly Ministers (some of your Associates) were threatened by Doctor Corbet, Chancellor of that diocese, with Pistolling and hanging, and I know not what; because they had refused to read His Majesty's Declaration about lawful sports. In this you do as shamefully belie the Chancellor, as you have done the Bishop in all the rest: of whose proceedings in that diocese, I will present you with a short account, that you may see how grossly you abuse the world. And first, you may be pleased to know, that the Clergy of that Diocese, comprehending all that are in spiritual dignity or office, and all Parsons, Vicars, Curates and Schoolmasters (taking in the Lecturers with all) amount unto the number of 1500. or thereabouts. So that in case there had been 60. of that Fifteen hundred suspended by the Bishop, as you say there were; had this been such a terrible persecution, as you give it out for? But yet it is not so as you tell us neither. For at the beginning of November, when you Preached that Pasquil, of the Fifteen hundred, there were not twice fifteen, & that's not half your number involved in any Ecclesiastical censure of what sort soever; and not above sixteen suspended. Sixty and sixteen are alike in sound; but very different in the number: and of those sixteen, eight were then absolved for a time of further trial to be taken of them; and two did voluntarily resign their places; so that you have but six suspended absolutely, and persisting so. Now of the residue, there was one deprived, after notorious inconformity for 12. years together, and final obstinacy after sundry several monitions: eight excommunicated for not appearing at the Court, and four inhibited from preaching; of the which four, one by his education, was a Draper, another was a Weaver, and the third was a Tailor. Where are the 60. now, that you so cry out of? I have the rather given you this in the particulars, (which were collected faithfully unto my hands, out of the Registerie of that Diocese) that you, and other men may see, your false and unjust clamours: the rather, because it was related to me by a friend of mine in Glocestershire, that it went current there amongst your Brethren, that your said 60. were suspended for no other cause, then for repeating the doxology at the end of the Lords Prayer. So for your other number between 60. and 80. suspended upon day till Christmas (or Christide as you please to phrase it) upon examination of the Registers, there appear but eight; and those not all suspended neither: two being Excommunicated for not appearing. Eighty and Eight do come as near in sound, as Sixty and Sixteen before: but differ more a great deal in the Calculation. And so much for the grand persecution in the Diocese of Norwich. How do you find it pray you, in other places? Why more or less say you over all the Kingdom. For you complain as truly, but more generally, p. 27. that many Godly Ministers in these days, are most unjustly, illegally, yea, and incanonically also, in a most barbarous and furious manner, suspended, excommunicated, outed of their livings, and deprived of all livelihood and means to maintain themselves. How just soever the cause be on the Prelate's part, and that there be no other means to bring things to right, there where the Orders of the Church are so out of order, then by the exemplary punishment of the most perverses, to settle and reduce the rest: yet persecution it must be, if you please to call it so. Such Innocent people, as yourself, that run pointblank against the Orders of the Church, cannot be censured and proceeded with in a legal way; but instantly you cry out, a Persecution. But thus did your Forefathers in Queen Elizabeth's time: et nil mirum est si patrizent filij.   

CHAP. VI The four first Innovations charged by H. B. upon the Bishops, most clearly proved to be no Innovations.  Eight Innovations charged upon the Bishops by H. B. King James his order to young Students in Divinity made an Innovation in point of doctrine: the reason of the said order; and that it was agreeable to the old Canons of this Church. Another Order of King James, seconded by his Majesty now being, with several Books of private men made an Innovation of the Bishops. No difference between the Church of Rome and England in Fundamentals. Private opinions of some men, made Innovations in point of doctrine. The Pope not Antichrist, for any thing resolved by the Church of England. The doctrine of Obedience and of the Sabbath, not altered, but revived, explained, and reduced to what it was of old. No Innovation made in point of discipline. A general view of Innovations charged upon the Bishops in point of worship. Bowing at the Name of Jesus, praying towards the East, and adoration towards the Altar, no new Inventions; not standing up at the holy Gospel. Crosse-worship falsely charged upon the Bishops. No Innovation made by the Bishops in the civil government. The dignity and authority of the High-Commission. 
AS is the persecution, such are the Innovations also, which you have charged upon the Bishops, both yours and so both false alike. Yet such a neat contriver are you, that you have made those Innovations which you dream of, the cause of all that persecution which you so cry out of. For in your Pasquil, it is told us, that we may see or hear at the least, of o●d heaving and shoving to erect Altar-worship and Jesu-worship, and other inventions of men, and all, as is too plain, to set up Popery again; and for not yielding to these things ministers are suspended, excommunicated, etc. pag. 25, And pag. 64. you ground the persecution (as you call it) in the Diocese of Norwich, upon the violent and impetuous obtruding of new Rites and Ceremonies. moneys. You call upon the Bishops by the name of jesuitical novel Doctors, to blush and be ashamed, and tell them that they do suspend, excommunicate and persecute with all fury Gods faithful ministers, and all because they will not, they may not, they dare not obey their wicked commands, which are repugnant to the laws both of God and man. p. 81. If this be true, if those that be thus dealt with be Gods faithful ministers, and the commands imposed upon them so wicked as you say they are, contrary to the laws both of God and man: and tending so notoriously to set up Popery again: you have the better end of the staff, and will prevail at last, no question. Mean while you have good cause, as you please to tell us, to comfort yourself, and bless the name of God, in that he hath not left himself without witness, but hath raised up many zealous and courageous champions of his truth, I mean faithful ministers of his word, who choose rather to lose all they have, then to submit and prostitute themselves to the wicked, unjust, and base commands of usurping & Antichristian mushrooms: their very not yielding in this battle being a present victory. p. 83 But on the other side, if the commands of the Superior be just and pious, agreeable to the orders of the Church, and all pure antiquity: then are your godly faithful ministers no better then factious and schismatical persons: and you your own dear self a seditious Boutefeiu, so to encourage and applaud them for standing out against authority. This we shall see the better, by looking on those Innovations, which as you say, The Prelates of later days have haled in by head and shoulders, being beside and against the law of the land, and much more the law of God. p. 111. These you reduce to these eight heads, viz. 1. Innovation in doctrine. 2. in discipline, 3. in the worship of God, 4. in the Civil government, 5. in the altering of books, 6. in the means of knowledge, 7. in the rule of faith, and 8. in the Rule of manners. It is a merry world, meanwhile, when you and such as you, the Innovators and Novatians of the present times, complain of other men for that very fault, of which yourselves are only guilty. Quis tulerit Gracchoes?  
But to go with you point per point, what Innovations have you to complain of in point of doctrine? Marry, say you, There was an order procured from King james of famous memory to the Universities, that young Students should not read our modern learned writers, as Calvin; Beza, and others of the reformed Churches, but the Fathers and Schoolmen. p. 111. Quid hoc ad Ithycli boves? What have the Bishops now alive to do with any act of King James his time: or how can this direction of that learned Prince be brought within the compass of Innovations in point of doctrine? Directions to young Students how to order and dispose their studies, are no points of doctrine: nor do I find it in the Articles of the Church of England, that Calvin or Beza are 〈◊〉 be preferred before Saint Austin or Aquinas. But do you know the reason of the said direction? or if you do not, will you learn? Then I will tell you. There was one Knight a young Divine that preached about that time at Saint Peter in Oxford, and in his Sermon fell upon a dangerous point (though such perhaps as you like well of) viz. that the inferior Magistrate had a lawful power to order and correct the King if he did amiss: using this speech of Trajan's unto the Captain of his Guard, Accipe hunc gladium, quem pro me si bene imperavero distringes; sin minus contra me. For this being called in question, both in the University and before the King, he laid the fault of all upon some late Divines of foreign Churches, who had misguided him in that point: especially on Paraeus, who in his Comment on the Romans had so stated it, and in the which he found that saying of the Emperor Trajan. On this confession Paraeus Comment on that Epistle was publicly and solemnly burnt at Oxford, Cambridge, and Saint Paul's Cross London: And shortly after came out that order of King James, prohibiting young ungrounded Students to begin their studies in Divinity with such books as those, in whom there were such dangerous positions, tending so manifestly to Anarchy and disobedience: but that they should begin with the holy Scriptures, so descendendo to the Fathers, and the School men, and by degrees to those Divines you so much magnify. Wh●● hurt in this good sir, but that it seems, you are possessed with your old fear, that by this means the Kings may come to have an unlimited power: and absolute obedience will be pressed more throughly on the subjects conscience. Besides, you cannot but well know that generally those divines of foreign Churches are contrary in the point of discipline, unto the Hierarchy and rites of the Church of England: which some implicitly, and some explicitly, have opposed and quarrelled. Which as it is the only reason why you would have them studied in the first place, that so young students might be seasoned with your Puritan principles: so might it be another motive, why by the King's direction they should come in last; that Students finding in the Fathers, Counsels, and Ecclesiastical historians, what was the true and ancient kind of government in the Church of Christ, might judge the better of the moderns when they came to read them. Nor was this any new direction: neither it being ordered by the Canons of the year 1571. Cap. de Concionatoribus, that nothing should be preached unto the people, but what was consonant unto the doctrine of the old and new Testament, quodque ex illa ipsâ doctrina Catholici Patres & veteres Episcopi collegerint, and had been thence collected by the Orthodox Fathers, and ancient Bishops.  
As for your dealing with the Fathers, of whom you say as Virgil said of Ennius, that they which read them must margaritas e Coeno legere, gather pearls out of the mud; p. 112. thats but a taste of your good manners. Nor would you slight them so, I take it, but that the most of them were Bishops. But whatsoever you think of them, a wiser man than you hath told us, qui omnem Patribus adimit authoritatem, nullam relinquet sibi.  
Your second Innovation in point of doctrine, is so like the first; that one would swear they were of one man's observation: and that is the procuring of another order in King James his na●● inhibiting young Ministers to preach of the doctrines of election and reprobation, and that none but Bishops and Deans should handle those points? Good Sir what hurt in this? Are those deep mysteries of Gods secret Counsels, fit argument for young unexperienced Preachers, wherein, calores juveniles excercere, to try their manhood, and give the first assay of their abilities? or call you this an Innovation in point of doctrine, when as for aught you have to say, the doctrine in those points continued, as before it did: only the handling of the same was limited and restrained to graver heads. The like complaint you make of his Majesty's Declaration before the Articles, by means whereof you say, the doctrines of the Gospel must be for ever hushed and laid asleep. p. 114. what Sir, are all the doctrines of the Gospel hushed and laid asleep, because you are inhibited to preach of predestination and that not absolutely neither, but that you may not wrest the Article in that point, as you were accustomed. This was the Devil's plea to Eve, and from him you learned it; that God had said to our first father, he should not eat of every or any tree in the Garden of Eden; whereas he was restrained only from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But hereof we have spoke already, and refer you thither. Hitherto also you reduce the publishing of certain books, most of the which were either answered, or called in: and therefore you have little reason to except against them. My Lord of Chichesters' appeal, was, as you say, called 〈◊〉 by our gracious Sovereign: and had not other men free leave to print and publish a discourse in answer to it? The Historical narration you disliked, and that was called in too, to please you. If Doctor jackson's books, were as you falsely tell us, to maintain Arminianism; I doubt not but you have in keeping, a book invisible to any but to such as you, said to be writ by Doctor Twisse, as much against his person, as against his argument. For Doctor Cousin's Private Devotions, that still lieth heavy on your komacke, as not yet digested: though both yourself and your learned Counsel disgorged yourselves upon him in a furious manner. Brownes' prayer before his Sermon if you are aggrieved at, you may find the very clause verbatim in King Edward's first liturgy, Anno 1549. which in that very act of Parliament, wherein the second was confirmed, is said to be a very Godly order, agreeable to the word of God, and the Primitive Church. As for Franciscus a S. clara, being the book is writ in latin; and printed in the parts beyond sea; how can you charge the Bishops with it: for that it hath been printed in London, and presented to the King by a Prelate, you dare not certainly affirm; but speak it only upon hearsay. p. 117. Or were it so, yet being written in the latin, it is meet for Scholars, and such as understand that language: not as your pamphlets are, proposed unto the common people, either to misinform them, or to inflame them. As for the book entitled the Female glory, you find not in it, that I see by your collections, any thing positively or dogmatically delivered, contrary unto any point of doctrine established and received in the Church of England. Some swelling language there is in it, and some Apostrophes, I perceive by you, to the virgin Marie; which if you take for Invocations, you mistake his meaning: who tells us plainly, as you cite him, p. 125. that the more we ascribe unto her, setting Invocation apart, the more gracious we appear in our Saviour's sight. No Innovation hitherto in point of Doctrine.  
From books set out by private men, proceed we to the opinions of some certain Quidams, which you are displeased with: and were it so, as you report it, yet the opinions of some private men, prove not in my poor Logic an Innovation in the Doctrine by the Church delivered, though contrary unto the Doctrine so delivered. To make an Innovation in point of Doctrine, there must be an unanimous and general concurrence of minds and men, to set on foot the new, and desert the old: not the particular fancy of one private man. And yet I think, you will not find me out that particular man, that hath defended any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and passed uncensured. Yes that you can, you say, for certain. For a great Prelate in the High Commission Court, said openly at the censure of Dr. Bastwick, that we and the Church of Rome, differ not in fundamentalibus, but circa fundamentalia: as also that the same had been affirmed by one Chounes. p. 122. Suppose this true, and how comes this to be an Innovation in the Doctrine of the Church of England. Hath the Church any where determined, that we, and those of Rome do differ in the Fundamentals: if not, why do you make this saying an Innovation in the Church's Doctrine. The Church indeed hath told us in the Nineteenth Article, that the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith: it hath not told us that that Church hath erred in Fundamentals. The learned Junius could have told you that the Church of Rome is a true Church, quoad essentiam, according to the essence of a Church; lib. de Eccl. cap. 7. and Dr. Whitakers, that there were many things in the Church of Rome (Baptism, the Ministry, and the Scriptures) quae ad veram ecclesiam pertinent, which properly appertain to a true Church? An argument that neither of them thought that Church had erred in Fundamentals. And certainly, if that confession of Saint Peter, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, Matth. 16. be that Rock, on which the Church of Christ is founded; as all our Protestant Divines affirm it is: the Church of Rome, doth hold as fast on that foundation, as you, or any Zealot of your acquaintance; and hath done more against the Heretics of this Age, in maintenance of the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, than you, or any one of your Divines, be he who he will. But for the Church of Rome, that it is a true Church, and that we do not differ from them in fundamentals, you may see further in a little book called the Reconciler (do not you remember it, and the occasion of it too?) writ by the Bishop of Exeter, now being: and therein the opinion of some Bishops, to the self same purpose, and of some others also, learned men, whose judgement you prefer in other things more than any Bishops. Had you but throughly studied the Reconciler, as you should have done, you had not made this quarrel, perhaps none at all.  
As for the other opinions of more private men, that have offended you, you go on, and say, that Justification by works was maintained in Cambridge, at the Commencement, not long ago; and that Shelfords' book will prove Justification by Charity: as also, that the said Shelford, in that book, maintaineth that the Pope is not Antichrist, contrary, as you say, to the resolved Doctrines of our Church, in our Homilies, and elsewhere. p. 122. and 123. In answer to the first of which, I hope you do not think in earnest, that whatsoever point is ventilated, and discussed in the Public Schools, is presently conceived to be a Doctrine of the Church: or that there hath been nothing handled in those disputations, but what is agreeable thereto. Many things there, both are, and may be handled and propounded problematically, and argued Pro and Con, as the custom is; as well for the discovery of the truth, as the true issue of the question between the parties. And if you please to cast your eye upon those questions, which have been heretofore disputed at those solemn times: how many will you find amongst them, and those of your own special friends, in which the Church hath not determined: or not determined so, as they have then and there been stated, and yet no clamour raised about it. Nor do you truly relate the business neither; Thesis not being so proposed, as you inform us: Viz. That we are Justified by Works; but only that good Works are effectually necessary to Salvation: so that the principal part of our justification, was by the Doctor, then and there, ascribed to faith; works only coming in, as effectual means to our salvation. For Shelfords' Book, what ever is in that maintained, should as little trouble you, if he ascribe a special eminency unto Charity, in some certain things; it is no more than what was taught him by Saint Paul, who doth prefer it, as you cannot choose but know, before Faith and Hope. Nor doth he attribute our justification thereunto in any other sense, than what was taught him by Saint James. And here I purposed to have left you with these opinions of particular and private men, but that you tell us by the way, that by the Doctrine of our Church, in the Homilies and elsewhere, it is resolved that the Pope is Antichrist. Your elsewhere I am sure is no where, and that which you allege from the book of Homilies, is as good as nothing. The Second Homily for Whitsunday, concludeth with a Prayer, that by the mighty power of the holy Ghost, the comfortable Doctrine of Christ may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed in all places, to the beating down of sin, death, the Pope, the Devil, and all the Kingdom of Antichrist. Can you conclude from hence, that by the Doctrine of the Church, the Pope is Antichrist? the Devil soon. For they are put there as distinct things, the Pope, the Devil, and the kingdom of Antichrist: and being put down as distinct, you have no reason to conclude that it is resolved by that Homily, that the Pope is Antichrist. Nor doth the 6 Homily of Rebellion, say the Pope is Antichrist. Though it saith somewhat of the babylonical beast of Rome. The whole clause is this. In King John's time the Bishop of Rome understanding the bruit blindness, ignorance of God's word, and superstition of Englishmen, and how much they were inclined to worship the babylonical beast of Rome, and to fear all his threatenings and causeless curses, he abused them thus, etc. Where certainly, the babylonical beast of Rome is not the same with the Bishop or Pope of Rome; but rather the abused power of that then prevalent and predominant See. Or were it that the Pope is meant, yet not being spoken positively and dogmatically, that the Pope is, and is to be believed to be the babylonical beast of Rome; it is no more to be accounted for a doctrine of the Church of England, then that it was plain Simony in the Prelates then to pay unto the Bishop of Rome great sums of money for their Bulls, and conformations, as is there affirmed, I have yet one thing more to say unto you in this point. Saint John hath given it for a rule, that every spirit that confesseth not, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, but is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard etc. So that unless you can make good as I think you cannot, that the Pope of Rome confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, you have no reason to conclude that he is that Antichrist.  
Hitherto we have followed you to find an innovation in point of doctrine; and are yet to seek: and if we find it not in the next two instances both we and you have lost our labour. There you say somewhat doubtless, and charge the Bishop with two dangerous innovations; one in the doctrine of obedience to superiors, the other in the doctrine of the Sabbath or Lordsday. These we have met withal already, and therefore shall say little here. Only I would fain learn, for I know not yet, where that conditional obedience which you only like of, is delivered to us by the Church; where there is any thing laid down, for a public doctrine, against that absolute obedience, which you so dislike, and reckon the enforcing of it, amongst the Innovations made in point of doctrine! your brethren in the Conference at Hampton Court, put in a scruple, how far an ordinance of the Church was to bind them, without impeaching of their Christian liberty: where at the King being much moved, answered, that it smelled very ranckely of Anabaptism; adding, I charge you never to speak more to that point, (how far you are bound to obey?) when the Church hath ordained it. What think you Sir. here is an absolute obedience preached to the Church's Ordinances. I hope you cannot tender less unto the Orders of the King. As for that other Innovation which you tell us of, about the doctrine of the Sabbath; there is indeed a mighty alteration in it, I could wish there were not: but it was made by you and yours, who little more than 40. years agone, first broached these Sabbath-speculations in the Church of England; which now you press upon her for her ancient doctrine. This hath been shown at large elsewhere, and therefore I will say nothing now. But where you say, that for the maintenance of that change which you lay upon them, their novel Doctors, have strained the veins of their conscience no less than of their brains. p. 126. I am bold to tell you, that at the best you are a most uncharitable man, to judge the hearts of those, whose face you know not. For my part, I can speak for one, and take almighty God to witness that in the part committed to me, I have dealt with all ingenuity and sincerity: and make this protestation before God and man, that if in all the scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, modern writers, or whatsoever monument of the Church, I met within so long a search, I had found any thing in favour of that doctrine, which you so approve; I would not have concealed it, to the suppression of a truth, for all the world. How ever you accuse me, yet my conscience doth not. Delectat tamen conscientia quod estanimae pabulum, incredibili jucunditate perfusum, in Lactantius language.  
Your Innovations in the points of Doctrine being blown to nothing, let us see next what is it that you have to say for the change of discipline; the second Innovation which you charge upon my Lords the Bishops. And here you say, that where of old the censures of the Church were to be inflicted upon disordered and vicious persons, as drunkards adulterers, heretics, Apostatas, false-teachers and the like: now the sharp edge thereof is turned mainly against God's people and Ministers, even for their virtue and piety, and because they will not conform to their impious orders p. 127. That Bishops sometimes turn the edge of their authority, on those who you entitle God's ministers, and people, is as true, as necessary: but that they turn it on them even for their piety and virtue, is both false and scandalous. Just so a Brother of yours, whom I spare to name, preached once at Oxford, that good and honest men were purposely excluded from preferments there, ob hoc ipsum quod pij, quod boni, only because they were inclined to piety and virtue. But Sir, those godly folk you speak of, are Godly only in your eye, and in such as yours: and if the edge of authority be turned upon them, it is because they have too much of your spirit in them. The censures of the Church proceed no otherwise now then of old they did. Look in the ancient Canons, and you shall see with what severity the Church of old did punish Schismatics and Separatists: and tell me if the Church now doth not deal more mercifully with you, then of old it did. And where you seem to intimate, that now the censures of the Church are not inflicted as of old, upon disordered and vicious persons: that's but your wont art to traduce the Bishops and make them odious to your followers. For look unto the Articles for the Metropolitan visitation, of my Lord of Canterbury Anno 1635. and for the visitation of my Lord of Norwich, Anno 1636. both which I am sure you have perused, or any of the rest which you meet next with. Look on them well, and tell me truly, if you can, whether there be not special order for the presenting of all those vicious and disordered persons, of the kinds you mention: you could not choose but know this, having seen the Articles: and therefore do belie them against your conscience. And so I leave you and this point of the Church's discipline: which if it be not changed is no fault of yours, who have endeavoured nothing more than to introduce a total alteration of it.  
The third general Innovation which you make complaint of, is in the worship of God, which (as you tell us) they go about to turn inside outward, placing the true worship which is in Spirit and truth, in a Will worship of man's devising. p. 128. Particularly, in bowing to the name of jesus, to the Communion table or rather Altar, praying with their faces towards the East, standing at the reading of the Gospel. As also reading their second service at the Altar, and the like. p. 129. You tell us also of their teaching, practising, and preaching new forms of worship, secundum usum Sarum, and setting them up again in Churches, as Altar-worship, jesu-worship, Image-worship, Crosse-worship, and the like: and make it a plain evidence that they have no fear of God in them. p. 15· As also, what an old heaving and shoving there is, to erect Altar-worship and jesu-worship, and other inventions of men; and that the end thereof is to set up Popery again. p. 25. The like you tell us also, p. 32. and make those rites you instance in, a degree to Popery. Rome, say you, was not built in one day. And Rome being about to be rebuilt in this Land cannot be done all at once, but it must be by degrees; although the builders do every day get ground, and the building goeth on a main with incredible celority. Finally, that I press you with no more particulars, you lay it home unto them, that all their actions tend to bring in the Mass▪ p. 105. And thus you marshal the degrees. If, say you, our new refounders of Popery would set up the Masse-god in our Churches, they cannot effect it all at once. They must first down with Tables, and up with Altars. For that cause all seats must down at the end of the Chancel, that the Altar may stand close to the wall, because, as their Oracle saith (Arch-Prelate of Canterbury, in the Margin) none must sit above God Almighty. And if Ministers be so stiff as not to yield to this Innovation, at least the table must be railed about that none touch it, as being more sacred than Pulpit, Pew, or Font. Then some Adoration as lowly bowing, must be given to it. Then the second service, as dainties must be said there, as being more holy than the Readers Pew. What then? Surely a Priest is not far off. But where is the sacrifice? Stay a while, that service comes at last, and all these are preparations to it, tending to usher in the great God of the Host, so soon as it is well baked, and the people's stomaches fitted to digest so hard a bit. I have laid down this place at large, because it makes a full discovery of your malicious thoughts and imaginations: as also of your full intent to amate the people, and make them apt to any desperate attempt, which you may put them to when occasion serves. But these your wicked and uncharitable surmises will soon come to nought. For if it be made evident, that those particular Innovations wherewithal you charge them, are either falsely charged upon them, or no Innovations: then I presume, that any charitable Reader, will find that your surmises proceeded only from envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, from which deliver us good Lord.  
That which you instance first in, is bowing to the name of jesus: and where find you that? Who presseth you, or any else to bow unto the name of jesus, suppose it written on a wall, or where else you will? That, if it be an Innovation, is no man's but yours. The Church enjoineth us no such matter. For bowing at the name of jesus, that's no Innovation, made by the Prelates of these times: but enjoined in the Canon of the year 1603, and there no otherwise enjoined than it was before. For so the Canon hath appointed, 
Can. 18.  that when in the time of divine service the Lord jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed. Can. 8. No Innovation then good Sr. if so long since ordained by Canon; and an old custom too before it. A custom certainly as old as the Reformation. For it is said expressly in the Queen's Injunctions, that whensoever the name of jesus, shall be in any Lesson, Sermon, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, that due reverence be made of all persons young and old, with lowness of courtesy, and uncovering of heads of the menkind, as thereunto doth necessarily belong, and hath been accustomed. It's almost fourscore years ago, since that Injunction; yet than it was an ancient custom: and more than custom too, conceived a necessary duty. I could inform you what is said by B. jewel in this point, did I conceived fit, to add unto the public order of the Church, the testimony of a private though a learned man. Yet if you please to look, you shall see his judgement, in his reply to Harding. Art. 8. Sect. 1. So that you see, that jesu-worship, as you call it, is no Innovation: or if it be, it is as old at least in the Church of England at the reformation. Higher we need not go for your satisfaction, in this or any other of these Innovations by you objected: such men as you are not regarding what hath been done in the most pure & perfect times of the Chrstian Church; but what was here observed and practised since the reformation, as before was said. Otherwise we could give you sufficient evidence of this and all the other ancient usages, by you termed Innovations, in the Church of Christ, out of the Fathers, Counsels, & other uncorrupted Monuments of true antiquity.  
Your second instance is of bowing to the Communion table, or Altar rather, as you please to correct yourself: and praying with the face towards the East. Here you have to it, as before; but there's no such thing done, as to it. Towards it if you will, not to it, When you say Grace before the table, or said your prayers in the last conventicle you were at, at the board's end: I hope you prayed not to the table, nor said Grace to it. Neither do they bow to the Altar, or Communion table, call it which you please, which bow towards it. It was an ancient custom in the primitive times, as Tertullian notes in his Apologeticke, ad orientis regronem precari, to turn themselves unto the East when they said their prayers; and hath continued so till this very time: most of our Churches, except some of late, being built accordingly. The Fathers tell you of it more than once or twice: but what care you or such as you for the holy Fathers. Had Calvin said as much, or Beza, than it had been somewhat. The Fathers had their spots or naevi, and he that readeth them must margaritas e coeno legere, as you told us lately. Well Sir, upon this general custom of praying towards the East came in that adoratio versus Altar, you complain of, though not Altaris, as you charge it. When men first entered into the house of God, they used some lowly reverence to express or intimate that the place they stood upon was holy ground: and because men diduse to pray with their faces towards the East where the Altar stood, they made their reverence that way also. Why should that offend you? Old people use it still, both men and women; though now it be interpreted as a courtesy made unto the Minister. If bowing towards the Communion table or before it be offensive to you, at the administration of the Sacrament: I would fain know upon what reasons, or why you stomach it, that men should use their greatest reverence in so great an action? Think it you fit, the Priest should take into his hands the holy mysteries, without lowly reverence, or that it is an Innovation so to do? Then go to school to B. jewel, and let him teach you. Harding makes mention of some gestures, which at that time the people used: as viz. standing up at the Gospel, and at the preface of the Mass, bowing themselves down & adoring at the Sacrament; kneeling at other times, as when mercy & p●rdon is humbly asked. What saith the Bishop unto this? 
Art. 3. ● 26  he alloweth them all kneeling saith he, bowing (i. e. that kind of bowing which Harding speaks of) and standing up, and other like are commendable gestures and tokens of devotion, so long as the people understandeth what they mean, and applieth them unto God. If you look higher into the use and practise of the primitive times, you cannot miss a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an honour to the Altar; in Ignaltus; a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a respect shown unto the holy table in Dionysius de Heir. cap. 2. as also an adgeniculationem aris Dei, a kneeling down before Altars in Tertullia's time; besides what you may find in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy to the self same purpose. No Innovation therefore, as you would have it, to bow before or towards the Communion table; or to pray with our faces towards the East, whatsoever you tell us.  
On then good Sir, to the rest that follow, and first of standing up at the Gospel, and reading the second service at the Altar: what are they Innovations also? For standing up at the Gospel, it was enjoined expressly in the first Liturgy of K. Edward 6. and practised also, though not prescribed, under that now in use amongst us. Bp. jewel, as you see allows it, with whom you are not worthy to be named in the same day. And for the practice of it, take this of Hooker. 
Lib. 5.29.  Because the Gospels which are weekly read, do all historically declare something, which our Lord jesus Christ himself either spoke, did, or suffered in his own person, it hath been the custom of Christian men, then especially, in token of the greater reverence to stand, to utter certain words of acclamation, and at the name of jesus to bow. Which harme'esse ceremonies, as he tells us, there was not any man constrained to use; nor was it necessary: all sorts of people using them without constraint, till you and your forefather Cartwright made a scruple of it. The first original hereof is by antiquity referred to Pope Anastasius who lived in the 5. Centurie: therefore no Innovation surely. As little Innovation is there, in reading the second service at the Altar or Communion table. The Rubric of the Church appointeth, that it shall be so. Compare the last Rubric before the Comunion, with the first after it: and you will sooner find yourself an Innovator in so saying, than any of the Bishops in so doing. Nor was it only so appointed, and not done accordingly. For learned Hooker tells us in the place last cited, that some parts of the divine service of the Church are such, that being they serve to singular good purpose, even when there is no communion administered; nevertheless, being devised at the first for that purpose, are at the table of the Lord for that cause also commonly read? No Innovation hitherto Mass. Burton, but what comes after. You make a noise of Image-worship and Crosse-worship; I know no such matter: no such enjoined, that I am sure of, nor no such practised that I can hereof. If any such thing be, tell me who, and when, or I shall take you always for a very false brother, that make no conscience what you say, or whom you slander. I hope you do not mean by Crosse-worship, the signing young children when they are baptised with the sign of the Cross: or if you do, I trow you cannot take it for an Innovation. Nor need you fear Idolatry in that Christian usage, as some clamoured once. The 30. Canon hath so fully removed that fear, that they that fear it now, must be more than madmen. Thuanus, one more wise than you, is of another mind by much: conceiving that the cautious and restrictions in that Canon used, 
Lib. 131.  have in a manner more abolished than confirmed the true and proper use of that ancient ceremony. For speaking of the Synod in London An. 1603. and of the Canons then agreed on, he saith as followeth. Crucis ceremonia in Baptismate retinetur, et explicatur, sed ita et tot adhibitis cautionibus, ut sacrosancti signi reverentia omnis aboleri potius, quaem confirmari videatur. No Innovations all this while, but such as you have falsely charged upon the Bishops, of Image-worship, and Crosse-worship: and therefore all your fears of setting up the Masse-God, as you call it, are all come to nought.  
Hitherto we have found no novelty, nothing that tends to Innovation in the worship of God: but a reviver and continuance only of the ancient usages which have been practised in this Church since the reformation, and were commended to it from the purest ages. And here we would have left this charge, but that you tell us p. 158. that all those rites and ceremonies which are to be used in our Church are by an Act of Parliament prefixed to the Communion book restrained to those only which are expressed in the same book. Either you are a very unlucky Lawyer, or a very bad Churchman. For tell me I beseech you, where do you find in all that statute, that there shall be no other rites and ceremonies used in the Church then are expressed in the book of Common prayer? That all those ceremonies which are expressed in the said book shall be observed; the statute doth indeed inform you: but that none other shall be added, that you find not there. The contrary you may find there, if you please to look. 
Statute 1. Eliz. cap. 2.  For it is said expressly that the Queen's Majesty may by the advice of her Commissioners Ecclesiastical or Metropolitan ordain and publish such further ceremonies or rites as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and Sacraments. This you restrain unto the person of the Queen affirming p. 66. that it is not to be extended to her successors in the Crown. How truly this is said, hath been shown elsewhere. And were it so in point of Law, yet a good Church man as you are could not choose but know, that in the Articles of the Church it is acknowledged and agreed on, that the Church hath power to decree Rites or ceremonies. Art. 20. and more than so, that every particular or national Church, hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. Art. 34. These Articles you have subscribed to more than once or twice, and therefore cannot choose but know, that other ceremonies may be used in the Church, than those which are expressed in the Common prayer book. Nor were these Articles confirmed only in the Convocation, the power and authority of the which you regard but little: but were confirmed, and subscription to the same exacted by Act of Parliament, as your unlearned Counsel can at large inform you. It's true, some such as you have quarrelled with the 20. Article, as if that clause of giving power unto the Church, to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, were not coequal with the Article, but thrust in of late: and for that cause, by some undue and sinister practice, the book of Articles was lately printed in the Latin tongue, and that clause left out. But in the ancient Copies published in the year 1563. the Article is entire and whole, according as it is in all those books of Articles to which you severally subscribed. Nor saith that Article any more, as to the matter of ordaining ceremonies, than what is afterwards affirmed in the 34. Article, as before was said: nor more than what hath positively been affirmed by your own Divines, as you please to style them. Calvin whose judgement in this point you neither may nor can decline, hath said as much upon these words of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order. Non potest haberi, quod Paulus hic exigit nisi additis constitutionibus tanquam vinculis quibusdam, ordo ipse et decorum servetur. That which St. Paul requires, cannot be done, saith he without rules and Canons, by which as by some certain bonds, both order and decorum may be kept together. Paraus yet more plainly, and unto the purpose; Facit ecclesiae potestatem de decoro et ordine ecclesiastico libere disponendi, et leges ferendi. So that you see the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies in things that appertain to order, decency, and uniformity in Gods public service: and which is more, a power of making laws and Canons to enforce conformity unto the same, in the opinion of your own Doctors. And if it please his Majesty with the advice of his Commissioners or Metropolitan, to ordain new ceremonies, or if the Church think fit to add further rites, to those which are received already: I know no remedy either in Law or conscience, but that you must submit unto them. Which said we will proceed to those other Innovations, which you have falsely charged upon the Prelates.  
The fourth change is, you tell us, in the civil government, which they labour to reduce and transfer to ecclesiastical, while they seek to trample on the laws of the land, and step between the King and his people, (the Prelate's power overswaying the subjects right) in the free use and benefit of the Laws, pag. 129. You make the like outcry to my LL. the judges, saying. Do not your wisdoms see a new generation of Innovators risen up in this Land, 
Art. 3. s 26  who usurping and practising a Papal and Antichristian power and jurisdiction, exempted from the King's Laws etc. do thereby begin to overtop the Royal throne, and trample the Laws, liberties and just rights of the King's Subjects under their feet. p. 29. Quid dignum tanto? What is the ground of all this noise. Nought else it seems, but that the high Commissioners think that Court of too high a nature, to be affronted by such fellows as your Learned Counsels, of which you tell us. p. 129. and that my LL. the judges, out of their honourable love to justice, are not so easily moved to send their writs of prohibition to that Court, as some of their Predecessors were before them. And is there not good reason think you? For if (as Dr. 
apology. part 3 cap. 15. p. 226.  Cousin pleads the case) his Majesty's supreme Royal authority and power ecclesiastical granted by Commission to others be as highly vested in his Crown as is his Temporal: then will it be probably gathered, both of them being in their several kinds supreme and the exercise of them committed over to others under the great Seal; that the one of them is not to be abridged, restrained, or controlled by the other. And you may also know, if you please to know it, how that it was affirmed once by K. james of blessed memory, in his speech at Whitehall before both houses of Parliament An. 1609. That the high Commission was of so high a nature, that from thence there was no appellation to any other Court. Both Courts being thus supreme in their several kinds, and neither of them being to be abridged, restrained and controlled by the other, as long as the judges in the high Commission keep themselves (within their bounds) to causes of ecclesiastical cognizance: what reason have you of complaint, in case you cannot get a Prohibition, as before you did. Most likely that my LL. the judges are grown more difficult in that kind, as for divers other reasons, so most especially because they see the judges in that other Court so carful, as not to meddle in any thing which may entrench upon the Courts of common Law or the subjects liberty.  
Call you me this an overtopping of the Royal throne, a trampling of the Laws, liberties, and just rights of his Majesty's subjects under their feet? Cannot so insolent a wretch as you be denied a Prohibition from the Courts of Law, or may not Mr. Prynne be threatened for his sawey and irreverent carriage by the high Commission: but presently you must raise an outcry, ac si Anniball ad portas, as if the liberty of the subjects was endangered in the free use and benefit of the Laws, as you please to phrase it? yet this amongst the rest you have made a cause of your seditious libelling against Church and State; as if the one were like to devour the other; and all were in a way to ruin, but for such Zelots' as yourself, the careful watchmen of the times. But good Sir be assured there is no such danger. For as the reducing of the civil government so ecclesiastical, which you so much fear, there must be other means to do it, then by a difficulty of obtaining Prohibitions from the Common Law. And it is never more likely to be effected, then when yourself sit chief in your longed▪ for Consistory, with your Lay-elders round about you.  
Then Kings and Queens and whatsoever is called God, must cast themselves before your footstool, as you yourselves have told us in your public writings: And as for business, the Lawyers, 
v. Hooker in the Preface to his Eccl: Polity.  howsoever you count them now, will have too little to maintain them. For this is reckoned by your Brethren, amongst the excellencies of your discipline, both for the wealth of the Realm, and quiet of the subjects, that thy Church is to censure those who are apparentle troublesome and contentious, and without reasonable cause (which you mean to judge of) upon a mere will and stomach do vex and molest their brother and trouble the Country. Where will your Civil government be then? and who shall send out Prohibitions, when that comes to pass.   

CHAP. VII. The four last Innovations charged upon the Bishops, examined severally and confuted.  The Alterations said to be in the Common Prayer-book, Father of thine Elect and of their seed, left out; and why? Of bowing in the name of jesus. The alterations said to be in the book of Prayer for the fifth of November. Prayers intended first against Recusants aswell appliable to the Puritans, as some Laws and Statutes. The religion of and in the Church of Rome, whether it may be said to be Rebellion; and how the Prelates are challenged in that respect. The Arguments produced by H. B. to prove that the Religion of the Ch. of Rome is rebellion, are either false; or may be turned upon himself. Of alterations in the Fast-booke. The Litany of K. Edward altered, because it gave offence and scandal, 
The Prelates falsely charged with attributing Popish merit unto Fasting, of putting down Lectures, cutting short of Sermons, the prayer before the Sermon, & Catechising. No innovations either in the role of faith, or manners.  to those which were affected to the Ch. of Rome. Some prayers omitted in the Fast-booke; and the reason why: The Lady Eliz: and her Children, why left out in the present Collect. 
IN nova fert animus. Your mind is still upon your Metamorphosis; more changes yet, and the next head of changes is altering the formen of prayer: particularly the book of Common prayer, that for the fifth of November, and lastly that for the fast, set forth by his Majesty's appointment, An. 1636. And first, you say, in the Communion book set forth by Parliament, and commanded to be read without any alteration, and none other, they have altered sundry things p. 130. Ho there. Who told you that the common-prayer-book was set forth by Parliament? Think you the Knights and Burgesses of the house of Commons, were busied in those times, in making or in mending prayerbooks? The Statute 2. & 3. Edw. 6. c. 1. will tell you that the Common prayer book was set forth (in that very word) by the Archbp. of Cant. and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of this Realm: and being so set forth, was by authority of Parliament confirmed and ratified, as it related to the Subject. Which course was after taken, in the review of the said book, both in the fifth and sixth of King Edward the sixth, and in the first of Queen Elizabeth. Being set forth then by the Clergy, it was, as you inform us, commanded to be read without any alteration: that was indeed done by authority of Parliament. Do you observe that ordinance, do not you alter it, and chop and change it every day; at lest if you vouchsafe to read it, as perhaps you do not. And if it must be read without any alteration, and none other; why do you quarrel at the reading of the second Service at the Communion Table before and after Sermon, being there so ordered? or use another form of prayer than is there appointed? Remember what you tell us here, for you and I must talk about it in the next general change. Mean time what are the sundry things which you say are altered in the book set forth by Parliament. You tell us but of two, and you talk of sundry. How shall I credit you hereafter, if you palter thus in the beginning. But for those two, what are they I beseech you? Marry you say, that in the Collect for the Queen and the Royal Progeny, they have put out Father of thine elect and of their seed, as it were, excluding the King, Queen, and Seed Royal, out of the number of Gods elect, p. 130. This you have told us of in your Epistle to the King, and in your Apology, and the News from Ipswich. The Queen is more beholding to you, than I thought she had been; you take such special care for her Election. But Sir, a word before we part. Who told you that this Collect was set forth with the book allowed by Parliament? I trow King Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth had no royal progeny: so that this Collect could not be then in Esse when the book was made.  
The first time it was made and used, was at the happy entrance of King james on this Realm of England; neither set forth nor ratified by any Parliament that hath been since. Now King james had at his first coming hither, a royal seed; but when his Majesty the King, came unto the crown, he was then unmarried; and after he was married, had not children presently you know well enough. Would you have had the collect pass as it did before; Father of thine elect and of their seed, when as the king, whom you must needs mean by Elect in that place and prayer, had no seed at all? I hope you see your folly now, your most zealous folly; which made you in the News from Ipswich, on the recital of this supposed alteration to cry out, O intolerable impiety, affront, and horrid treason; Most bravely clamoured. The other alteration which you charge them with, is, that in all the common prayer books printed since the year 1619. in the Epistle for the Sunday before Easter, they have turned in the Name of jesus, to at the name of jesus: to countenance, as you say, their forced bowing to the name of jesus; (you are still for to it.) Such change there is indeed, but yet no alteration from the book or text; The Bishop's Bible, as they call it, out of the which the Epistles and Gospels were first taken readeth at the name: and so doth Bishop jewel too, citing this very text in the place and passage noted to you in the last Chapter. And if you look into the Bible of the last translation, you find that it is therein also, at the name of jesus: so that you have no reason to repine at this, which is a restitution only of the proper reading, and no change at all.  
The second book which they have altered, as you say, is that appointed to be read on the fifth day of November, published by authority of Parliament, p. 131. set forth by act of Parliament, p. 41. in the Margin ordered by Parliament, in the second p. of your apology, ordered, set forth and published, all by Parliament, and yet the Parliament did nothing in it. All that was done by Parliament was that the day of that deliverance was appointed for a kind of holy day, wherein the people were to meet together to set forth God's glory: and it was there enacted also, that upon every such day, that very statute of the institution, should be read publicly to the Congregation. Of any form of prayer, set forth, or afterwards to be set forth, ne gry, I am sure, in all that statute. The book was after made and published by the King's authority without the trouble of a Parliament. However being set out, and published, though not by Parliament, you cannot but be grieved at the alterations. Well what are they. First you complain, that whereas in the former book there was this passage, Root out that Babilonish and Antichristian sect which say of Jerusalem, etc. in the Edition A. 1635. it is set down thus, Root out that Babilonish and antichristian Sect of them which say of Jerusalem, etc. Here's of them added more than was. And this you think doth make a great and fearful difference. For whereas in the Original it was plainly meant, that all Jesuits, Seminary Priests and their confederates are that Babilonish and Antichristian sect, which say of Jerusalem, etc. this latter book either restrains it to some few that are of that mind, or else mentally transfers it on those Puritans that cry down with Babylon, that is, Popery, which these men call Jerusalem, and the true Catholic Religion, p. 130, 131. It seems you have a guilty conscience, you would not start so much at this else. Quid prodest non habere conscium, habenti conscientiam, said the Father rightly. That Babylonish Sect which say, and that Babylonish Sect of them which say makes so little difference: that were you not guilty to yourself, of many ill wishes against Jerusalem, you would not have so stomached at the alteration. And being that it is confessed by you, their Oracle, that the Puritans do cry down with our Jerusalem, by them called Popery: they come within the compass of the prayer, take which form you list, either that Babilonish Sect, or that Babilonish Sect of them. Nor is it strange that so it should be. For howsoever the Jesuits, Priests and their confederates were at first intended: yet if the Puritans follow them in their designs of blowing up the Church and State, and bringing all into a lawless and licentious Anarchy; the prayer will reach them too, there's no question of it. The Statute, 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirmatory of the Common prayer book, hath ordained several penalties for such as shall deprave the said book of Common prayer, or obstinately refuse to use it, or use any other form of prayer then that there appointed: as also a particular mulct of 12d, toties quoties upon every man that doth absent himself from Church on Sundays and holy days. This was intended at the first against Recusants there being then no Puritan in rerum natura. And may not therefore all the penalties therein contained, be justly laid upon the Puritans, if they offend in any of the kinds before remembered? The like may also be affirmed of the High Commission, established hereby at the first, for the correction and reduction of the Papists, being then the only opposite party to the Church: and yet you know, the High Commissioners may take a Puritan to task, if they find him faulty.  
That which you next complain of, is that whereas in the old book, the prayer went thus, Cut off these workers of iniquity, whose Religion is rebellion, whose faith is faction: it is now altered into this, who turn Religion into rebellion, and Faith into faction. Hereupon you infer, that these Innovators would not have the Popish Religion to be termed rebellion, and their Faith faction, as the ancient Copy plainly shows it to be: but turn it off from the Religion to some persons, which turn Religion into rebellion, and Faith into faction, so as by this turning they plainly imply, that the Religion of Papists is the true Religion, and no rebellion, & their Faith the true faith, & no faction, p. 131. You make another use of it in your Apology, and tell us that it tendeth to justify and extenuate notorious treasons & traitors, and to usher in Popery, Superstition and Idolatry, p. 3. Here is a change indeed, you say right in that; but that which you infer thereon, is both false and scandalous. For taking it for granted, that they by whose authority the said clause was altered, thought it not fit to call the Religion of the Church of Rome rebellion, or the Faith therein professed, faction: must it needs follow thereupon, that by so doing they imply, that that religion is the true religion, and that faith the true faith. There's a non sequitur with a witness. There is a kind of religion amongst the Turks. Because I cannot say that their religion is rebellion; do I imply so plainly (as you say they do) that therefore their religion is the true religion. And there's a faith too questionless among the several Sects of Christians in the Eastern, Muscovite, and African Churches. Because I think not fit to say of any of them, that their faith is faction must I conclude astringently, therefore the faith professed by each particular Sect, is the true faith. You might well tax me should I say the one; and I may laugh at you for concluding the other. Adeo argumenta ex falso petita, inepto habent exitus, as Lactantius hath it. Your use is yet more scandalous, than your inference false. For how doth this tend to justify and extenuate notorious treasons and Traitors. The treasons and the traitors stand as before they did, unless the stain be laid more deep upon them then before it was. Before the imputation seemed to rest on the faith itself: which being a general accusation concerned no more the guilty, than it did the innocent. But here it resteth where it ought, upon the persons of the Traitors, who are not hereby justified, or their crime extenuated: but they themselves condemned, and the treason aggravated in an higher manner. That which comes after of ushering in Popery, Superstition and Idolatry, is but your ordinary flourish, one of your general calumnies; and needs not a particular answer.  
O but say you, and undertake to make it good, the very religion is rebellion, and the faith is faction: and therefore there was somewhat in the change which deserved that censure. That their religion is rebellion, you prove two ways. First because the Jesuits and Seminary priests refuse to take the oath of Supremacy, which is enjoined to all Papists, 3. jac. c. 4. You must needs show your law, you have such store of it. For speak man, was the oath of supremacy enacted 3. jacobi. Then am I out again, for my books tell me it was 1 Elizabethae. In your Apology you place the oath of allegiance 1. Elizabethae, and here to make your ignorance the more remarkable, you place the oath of Supremacy 3. jac. Cujus contrarium verum est. The oath of alleigeance 'tis you mean. And sure you will not say, all Seminary Priests and laypapists refuse the oath of alleigeance; considering that of each sort, some have written very learnedly in defence thereof: therefore according to your way of disputation, the religion of all Papists is not rebellion, and consequently their faith not faction. The second proof you offer, is, that by Doctor john White and Dr. Cracanthorp it is affirmed that the Church of Rome teacheth disloyalty and rebellion against kings; that Popish Authors do exalt the Pope's power over kings; that some of them have said that Christian kings are dogs, which must be ready at the Shepherd's hand, or else the Shepherd must remove them from their office. p. 134.135. This argument is full as faulty as the other was; and will conclude as much against yourself and the Puritan faction, as any Papist of them all. The Citizens of Geneva expelled their Bp. as the Calvinians in Emden, did their Earl; being their immediate Lords and Princes. 
(a) Instit. l. 4. c. ult.  Calvin hath taught us that the three estates 
(b) In Rom. 13.  Paraeus that the inferior Magistrate, & 
(c) De jure regui.  Buchanan that the people may correct and control the Prince; and in some cases too depose him. And you Mass. Burton have condemned that absolute obedience unto Kings and Princes which is due to them from their subjects; and that unlimited power which is ascribed unto them, because theirs of right. Therefore we may from hence conclude, or else your argument is worth nothing, that out of doubt the Puritan religion is rebellion, and their faith faction. As for your general challenge, p. 191. viz. What one Protestant can they bring that ever committed treason against his king, or lifted up an hand against his sacred person: I leave it to the Papists to make answer to it, to whom your challenge is proposed. But I could tell you in your ear, (which I would to God were otherwise) of more than one or two twice told and twice told to that, Protestants of that sort which you most labour to defend, and make to be the only right ones. Had you distinguished as you ought, between the doctrines of that Church, and the particular either words or actions of particular men: you had not made so rash a venture, and lost more by it than you got. So then the religion of the Church of Rome not being in itself rebellion, though somewhat which hath there been taught may possibly have been applied to rebellious purposes; there is a little fear that their faith is faction: and so the alteration not so grievous as you fain would have it. What further reason there was in it you shall see anon.  
The third book, altered as you say, is that set forth by the king for the public fast, in the first year of his reign: and which his Majesty by his proclamation commanded to be reprinted and published, and so read in the Church every Wednesday. What find you altered there? In the first Collect, as you tell us, is left out this remarkable pious sentence entirely, viz. Thou hast delivered us from superstition and idolatry, wherein we were utterly drowned, and hast brought us into the most clear & comfortable light of thy blessed word, etc. And then you add; Lo here these men would not have Popery called Superstition and Idolatry, nor would they have the Word of God so commended, as that clear and comfortable light, which teacheth us all duties both to God and man. p. 142. This is the last of all these changes, which tend, as you inform us, to bring in Popery; and therefore I will tell you here, what I conceive to be the reason of those alterations which you so complain of. You cannot choose but know, (because I think you have it in your Pamphlet against D Cousins) that in the Litany of King Edward 6. there was this clause, viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, from all false doctrine etc. Good Lord deliver us. This was conceived to be, as indeed it was, a very great scandal and offence to all those in the Realm of England, which were affected to the Church of Rome: and therefore in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, it was quite left out. Had you been then alive, you might perhaps have quarrelled it, and taxed those learned men that did it, of Popery, Innovation, & I know not what: and then conclude it that they would have the people think that there was neither tyranny in the Pope, nor any detestable enormity in the Church of Rome. But as that then was done with a good intent, and no man quarrelled for it that I can hear of: why should you think worse of the changes now or quarrel that authority which gave order for it, before you knew by whose authority it was so done, conceive you not that those, who in this Kingdom, are affected to the Church of Rome; are not as apt to take offence now, as they were before; or that there is not now as much consideration to be had of those which are that way affected, as was in any part of the said Queen's time? the matter being of no greater moment than this is, how great soever you pretend it.  
Most of our faults before have been of Commission; but these that follow, most of them are omission● only. First you except against the leaving out of the whole prayer, It had been best for us, etc. And this was done with an Alas, because therein was commended the profitable use of continual preaching the Word of God, p. 142. The News from Ipswich calls it, the most effectual prayer of all, because it magnifies continual often preaching, etc. and calls our powerful Preachers Gods servants. Say you me so? Then let us look upon the Prayer, where I persuade myself there is no such matter. All that reflects that way is this. It had been also well, if at thy dreadful threats out of thy holy word, continually pronounced unto us by thy servants our Preachers, we had of fear; as corrigible servants, turned from our wickedness. This all, and in all this where do you find one word that magnifies continual preaching, or that takes any notice of your powerful Preachers, quorum pars ego magna, as you boast yourself. Cannot the dreadful threats of Gods holy word, be any other way pronounced, and pronounced continually by God's servant, then by the way of Sermons only, or if by sermons only, by no other Preachers than those whom you style powerful preachers, by a name distinct? I trow the reading of God's Word in the congregation, presents unto the people more dreadful threats, than what you lay before them in a sermon; and will sink as deep: Therefore assuredly there was some other reason for it, then that you dream of. ●nd think you that it might not be, (there being prayers enough without it) because in the whole Tenor of it, it soundeth rather like a complaint or a narration, than a prayer? Two other prayers you find omitted, the one for the Navy, and the other for seasonable weather: as if a form of prayer fitted for a particular time and purpose, must be still observed; when there is no such cause to use it, as at first to make it. The Navy than went out against a great and puissant Monarch, to set upon him on his own coasts, many leagues from home: the honour and the fortune of the kingdom being laid at stake. Now it keeps only on our own coasts, without an enemy to bid battle or to cope withal: and rather is set forth to prevent a danger, then to remove it being come. The cases being different, must we needs use the Prayers which were then set forth? What think you of this clause, Lord turn our enemy's sword into their own bosom; Would that be proper at this time, when as his Majesty is at peace with all his neighbours? Had you not longed to pick a quarrel; I find not any thing in this, that might provoke you: nor could you possibly have pitched on any thing, that had less become you. For are not you the man that spoke so much against long prayers, as we shall see anon in your next general head of Innovations; because thereby the preacher is enforced to cut short his sermon? and do you here complain that the Prayers are shortened, that so you may have liberty to preach the longer? I see it were a very difficult thing to please you, should a man endeavour it. That which comes next, is that the Prayer for the Lady Elizabeth and her Children, is left out in the present fast-booke, which were expressed in the former p. 143 and that as the Newes-booke saith, while they are now royally entertained at Court. My Lord the Prince Elector cannot but take this very ill, that you should make his royal entertainment here a mask to cover your seditious and malevolent projects. For you know well enough, that not alone in this new fast-booke, set forth since his arrival here, but long before his coming hither, that excellent Lady and her children, had not by name, been specified in the Common prayer book. Why did you not dislike that omission there, as well as leaving out the Father of thine Elect? Or will you have a reason for it, why it was laid aside in both; if you will promise to be satisfied by reason, I will give you one, and such a one as may suffice any one but you. In the first fast-booke, his Majesty our Sovereign Lord had not any children, to be remembered in our prayers: and the remainder of the royal seed, was in that most illustrious Lady and her Princely issue. That case now is altered. His Majesty God's name be praised hath many children, as well male, as female; none of the which are specified by name, particularly, but the Prince alone: the rest together with the Lady Elizabeth and her Princely issue, being all comprehended in the name of the Royal Progene. The Lady Elizabeth and her children, finding no more neglect in this, than the Kings own most Royal issue, will give you little thanks for so vain a cavil.  
More anger yet. You charge the Bishop's next, that they cry up with fasting, and down with preaching. For crying up fasting, you produce this instance, that in the order for the East, these words are left out of the new book, viz. To avoid the inconvenience that may grow by fasting; some esteeming it a meritorious work; others a good work, and of itself acceptable to God without due regard of 〈…〉 etc. p. 142. Hereupon you conclude, tha● 〈…〉 esteem fasting a meritorious work; and acceptable unto God, without due regard of the end. Ibid. I have had patience all this while. But patientia ●●sa. I must now tell you in plain terms, in all my life, (and I have seen the world a little) I never met with such an impostor. For good Sir, take the passage as it lieth together, and how can you have conscience so to delude your audience; whose souls you say you tender as you do your own. The Order than is this, Num. 6. Admonition is here lastly to be given, that on the fasting day there be but one Sermon at morning Prayer, and the same not above an hour long, and but one at evening Prayer of the same length, to avoid the inconvenience that may grow by the abuse of Fasting: some esteeming it a meritorious work: others a good work, and of itself acceptable to God without due regard of the end: others presuming factiously to enter into public fasts without the consent of authority, and others keeping the people together with over much weariness, and tediousness, a whole day together: which in this time of contagion is very dangerous, in so thick and close assemblies of the multitudes. This is the place at large, so pricked and commade, as I find it in the said old book. Deal honestly, if you can in any thing, in this. These words, To avoid the inconvenience which may grow by the abuse of fasting; Are they the beginning of a new period, as you lay them down? or what do they relate unto, unto the merit of a fast? No Sir, but to the former words touching the number and the length of Sermons, wherein, some men (your self for one) had placed so much sanctity; that public fasts so solemnised were by some thought (no doubt) meritorious works; by others many times kept without due authority: by others so spun out with Sermons of four hours a piece, that with much weariness and tediousness it took up the day; no care at all being taken to avoid contagion, which in such close and thick assemblies is exceeding dangerous. This is the plain Analysis of that passage, in the said first book. Assuredly, what ever other cause there was, there is no reason to suspect that it related anything to the point of merit. These times are so fallen out with fasting. (Unless it be a Fast of their own appointment) that you have little cause to fear lest any man should place a part of merit in it. Non celebranda esse jejunia Statuta. To cry down all set times of fasting, which was the heresy of Aerius in the former times, is reckoned a chief point of orthodox doctrine, in the present times. No merit placed in fasts, ordinary or extraordinary, that I can hear of, unless perhaps you place some merit in your long Sermons on those fasts, as before is said, And dare you then affirm as in the newes-booke, that this place and passage, was purposely left out to gratify the Papists, or to place any popish merit in the present fast? if any body may be said to be gratified in it, it is you and yours, whose absurd course and carriage had in the former book been described so lively. But you are still the same. Primus ad extremum similis sibi. You and the Black Moor's skin will wash white together. This is, I hope enough to satisfy you, touching the crying up of fasting: and for the crying down of preaching on the days of fast, that hath been spoken of already. How far it is suppressed at all other times, you mean to tell us in the next of your general heads; and we expect to hear what you have to say.  
On then. Your sixth general innovation is in the means of salvation, in which there are particulars very many which you charge them with. As viz. in suppressing lectures, cutting short preaching, forbidding any prayer before the Sermon but that barren form of words in the Canon; using no prayer at all after the Sermon, but reading a second or third service at the Altar. Having no sermon in the afternoon; catechising only for half an hour, and that by question and answer only; and finally limiting all Sermons in great Cities and the universities to one hour, so as the people cannot enjoy the benefit of more than one Sermon a day, p. 150. These are the severalties contained in that general head; and they relate either to preaching or to praying; or indeed altogether unto preaching, and unto praying no further than as subservient thereunto. First for suppressing Lectures, why do you reckon that for an innovation, when as the very name of Lecturers, and Lectures, are in themselves a new and late invention? borrowed by Travers and the rest towards the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's time, from the new fashions of Geneva. We in the Church of England know no other names, but Bishops and Curates; and Curates are again divided into Parsons & Vicars, and those which do officiate for and under them, now in the use of speech called Curates as by a proper and distinct name. Your Lecturer hath no place in the prayers of the Church of England, nor none amongst the terms of Law. But being Geneva had it so; a Doctor superadded to the ordinary Pastor, whose office only was to teach, not to administer the sacraments or execute any other ministry to the Priest belonging: it must needs be disposed so here, that by degrees, insensibly we might be brought more near that Church. There is a story of the Bats or Rearmice, that when the birds came to demand tribute of them, showing them their breasts they said they were beasts: and when the beasts came to them and craved the like, showing them their wings, they said they were birds. Your Lecturers, in the same occasion, are like these Rearmice. When subsidies were granted for his Majesty's use, if any thing was demanded of them by the Clergy, they had no benefice, no title, and so passed for Lay: and on the like demand made by the Laity, they only showed their gowns, and that made them Clergy. Being then in themselves but a new invention, and such as tended to bring in the greatest innovation in this Church, that possibly could be projected how could you reckon the suppressing of them an innovation? Now for these Lecturers, we may distinguish them into Weekes-day Lecturers, and Lordsday Lecturers, As Weeke-day Lecturers, you complain how they are suppressed by that restriction in his Majesty's Proclamation about the fast: and tell us, that the Prelates do extend the letter of the Proclamation, that if but one house in a Parish be infected, the pestilence thus continuing and the fast not ceasing, all wednesday sermons in the whole City must be suppressed. p. 147, If so, as so it is not, (you know well enough) what reason had you of complaint. Are there not holidays so many, that you and yours do reckon them as a burden, both to Church and State? Observe the holy days as you ought with prayers and Preaching: and see what loss the Church would have, or any of the people find, for want of Wednesday or any other weeke-day Lectures. As Lordsday Lecturers we shall meet them in the afternoon, wherein all sermons are put down, if you tell us true.  
Next follows cutting short of Preaching. How comes that to pass? For that we must needs seek elsewhere, for here you tell us not. Look therefore in your 17. p. and there we have it. There you find fault with them that are all for outward formalities (you being for none at all yourself) in that they place all the service of God in reading long-prayers, and thereby excluding preaching as unnecessary: and p. 158. commanding of long Matins instead of Preaching; which as they are performed, in Cathedral Churches, you call profanely Long Babylonish service, p. 160. This is the block you stumble at, that whereas formerly you used to mangle and cut short the service, that you might bring all piety and the whole worship of God, to your extemporary prayers and sermons: now you are brought again to the ancient usage, of reading the whole prayers, as you ought to do. And call you this an innovation? Are not you he that told us that the Communion-booke set forth by Parliament, is commanded to be read without any alteration, and none others, p. 130. And if you read it not as it is commanded, make you alteration think you? Do you not find it also in the 14. Canon, that. All Ministers shall observe the Orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer, as well in reading the holy Scriptures, and saying of Prayers, as in administration of the Sacraments, without diminishing in regard of preaching or any other respect, (how like you that Sir) or adding any thing to the matter or form thereof. The very self same answer we must also make to another of your cavils, about the using of no prayer at all, after the Sermon, but reading a second or third service at the Altar. For being it is so appointed in the book of Common Prayer, that on the holidays if there be no Communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church, etc. The innovation is on your part, who have offended all this while, not only against the Canon, but the Act of Parliament, by bringing in new forms of your own devising. As for forbidding any prayer before the Sermon, but that barren form of words in the Canon, (for being in the Canon you can give it no better Epithet;) if any such forbidding be, it's but agreeable unto the Canon, which hath determined of it long ago: and so no innovation of these present times. Nor was that Canon any new invention neither, when it first was made: but only a repetition and confirmation of what had formerly been ordered both in King Edward the sixth, the Queen's injunctions according to the rule and practise of the former times; the Preachers then using no form of prayers before their Sermons, but that of bidding, moving, or exhorting, which is now required in the Canon; as may be plainly seen in Bishop Latimers' Sermons, Bishop jewels, Bishop Andrew's, and divers others. Your afternoon Sermons on the Sundays, if performed by Lecturers, are but a part of that new fashion which before we spoke off: and having no foundation in the Church at all, it cannot be an Innovation to lay them by. And if the Curate of the place, or whosoever hath the Cure of Souls; bestow his time in Catechising, as he is appointed, that in effect is but to change one kind of Preaching for another. So that if he that hath the Cure, doth carefully discharge his office, and perform his duty: you have no reason to complain for want of having Sermons in the after noon. I know it is the custom of you and yours, to take up Sermons more by tale then weight: and so you have your number, you think all is right. But as in feeding of the body, one temperate meal digested presently and concocted throughly, addes more unto the strength of nature, than all that plentiful variety of delicates which gluttony hath yet invented: So do they profit best in all heavenly wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not who hear many Sermons, but which hear good ones. For limiting the Catechising unto half an hour, that's ordered by the Canon also: and it is ordered by the Canon, that Children shall be taught no other Catechism, then that set forth in the book of Common prayer. Not that the Curate, is to examine them by question and answer only, without expounding any of the principles of religion, which is that you quarrel: but to examine and instruct them, as the Canon hath it. Yet so that under the pretence hereof, nor you nor any such as you, may assume that liberty, as to turn simple Catechising for the instruction of the youth and ignorant persons of the Parish; into a Catechism Lecture of some two hours long, not differing from your morning's sermons, but in name alone. If in great Cities and the Viniversities, Sermons are limited to the same time of the day, or as your own phrase is, to one hour only; assuredly it is neither new, nor strange. The Sermon appointed for the morning being a part of the second service, is to be read or spoken in all Churches, at the time appointed by the Church. Nothing in this de novo, that I can hear of. In Oxford it was always so, since I first knew it; the Sermon for the University and Town being expressly at the same time. Nor need you be offended at it, if by that means the people in those places cannot hear above one sermon in a day: it being not many but good sermons, not much but profitable hearing, which you should labour to commend unto them; but that you would be some body for your often preaching. Our Saviour tells us of some men, that thought they should be heard by much speaking; and you are one of them that teach the people that they shall be saved by much hearing.  
Your two last innovations I shall join together; the one being in the rule of Faith, which is now made, you say, to be the dictates of the Church, to wit, the Prelates, p. 151. the other in the rule of manners, which must not be any more the word of Christ, but the example of the Prelate's lives, and dictates of their writings only. p. 156. In this you have most shamefully abused yourself, and all them that heard you. The rule of faith is still the same, even the holy Scriptures: nor can you name a man who hath changed this rule, or made the dictates of the Church, to wit the Prelates, the rule of faith. The application of this rule, that is the exposition of the Script. you must acknowledge to be in the Church's power, or else you are no son to the Church of Eng. For in the Articles of the Church, to which you have subscribed more than once or twice, it is said expressly that the Church hath authority in controversies of faith, & that it is uwitnes & a keeper of holy writ: As also that it hath authority to expound the scripture, conditioned that it so expound one place, that it be not repugnant to another. And for the judgement of prelates, I know not how you can excuse yourself before God almighty, for not submitting thereunto; having called God to witness, that you would so do. For when you took the order of holy Priesthood, it was demanded of you in the Congregation, whether you would reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom the government and charge is committed over you, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourself to their godly judgements: and you made answer, that you would, the Lord being your helper. Either then you must first convince their judgements of some plain ungodliness, or else your not submitting to them, must be a plain colluding both with God and man. Reeve, whom you jeer at so, both in your Pasquil; p. 152. and in your dialogue between A. & B. saith no more than this: and if you say not this, you have not lied unto men only, but unto God▪ Nor is this any other doctrine, than what was held for currant in Ignatius his time▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let the Priests (saith he) submit themselves unto the Bishop; Deacons, unto the Priests, the people to the Priests and Deacons. And then he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My soul for theirs that faithfully observe this order. So he. And had you kept this order, you had not so engaged yourself in these factious brabbles, wherewith you have disturbed both yourself and others. Touching the rule of manners, that any hath affirmed or written, that it must be according to the Prelate's lives and dictates, you produce no proof. Only you say, and say it only, that they do countenance, allow, and by Episcopal authority dispense with an heathenish kind of life, especially in most sacred times, as the Lords day. This is no proof I hope, but an ipse dixit, or a petitio Principii take it at the best; although it be an argument you are used most to. And I must answer you to this in the words of Tully, Quid minus est, non dico Oratoris sed hominis, quam id objicere Adversario, quod si ille verbo negarit, ulterius progredi non passis. Till you bring better proofs for your innovations, yourself must be reputed for the Innovator: and all the mischief which you have imagined against other men, will fall upon your own pate, and deservedly too.  
Hitherto you have acted the false Accuser, and have done it excellently well, none better. In the next place you come to play the Disputant; and that you do us wretchedly, none worse. For first you say, that it is pleaded by our changers, (as you please to call them) that they bring in no changes, but revive those things which ancient Canons have allowed and prescribed; as standing up at the Gloria Patri, and at the reading of the Gospel, bowing at the name of Jesus, and to the high Altar; removing the communion table to stand Altarwise; placing of Images in Churches, erecting Crucifixes over the Altars, commanding of long Matins instead of preaching and the like. This said, you answer hereunto, that we in this land, are not to be ruled by the Pope's Canons, or the Canon Law, but by the law of God and the King. And that there are no other rites and ceremonies to be used in our Church, than those that are allowed by the Act of Parliament, prefixed to the communion book, and are expressed in the same book. But Sir, you may be pleased to know, that the commanding of long prayers is warranted by that Act of Parliament, which you so insist on; the prayers being made no longer, than that Act commandeth: and that our bowing at the name of Jesus is enjoined by the 18. Canon, which being authorized by his Majesty, is the law of the King, and being grounded on the second of the Philipians, is the law of God. Our standing at the Gospel, and praying with our faces towards the East, have been still retained by our Church, not out of any special Canon, but ex vi Catholice consuetudinis, by virtue of the constant and continual custom of the church of God. The placing of the holy Table Altarwise, and standing at the Gloria Patri, have generally been observed in Cathedral Churches, since the Reformation: it being granted by a good friend of yours, the Author of the holy Table, that in some Cathedral Churches, where the steps were not transposed in tertio of the Queen, and the wall on the backside of the Altar untaken down; the table might stand, as it did before, along the wall. For bowing to the high Altar, I know no such matter, either in practice or in precept: for bowing towards it, we have the practice of antiquity but no present precept. Your friend and fidus Achates, the good minister of Lincolnshire, could have told you this, that although the Canon doth not enjoin it, yet reason, piety, and the constant practice of antiquity doth: that Churchmen do it in Saint Chrysostom's Liturgy; and the Laymen are commanded to do it in Saint Chrysostom's Homily: and finally if there be any proud Dames, quae deferre nesciant mentium religioni, quod deferunt voluptati as Saint Ambrose speaks, that practice all manner of courtesies for masks and dances, but none by any means for Christ, at their approach to the holy Table: he declares them schismatics, bequeathing them unto Donatus, with a protest, that he will never write them in his Calendar for the Children of this Church. For Images, in Churches, and Crucifixes over the Altars, find you, of all loves, that the Church hath any where commanded them, or any of the Prelates in their visitations, given order for their setting up? if not, why do you charge it on her, and bring not any proof at all that she hath imposed it. So that your answer being thus come to nothing, the objection by you brought on the Church's part, remains unanswearable. Viz. that the Prelates of the Church have brought in no changes, but only have revived those things which the ancient Canons have allowed and prescribed; the Law of God, the King, and the Act of Parliament, either enabling them to do so, or not gainsaying it.  
Secondly you object on the Prelate's part, that they bring in no Innovations, no new rites, but what hath been in use ever since the Reformation, and that in the most eminent places even the Mother Churches of the land; so as all that they go about is to reduce inferior Churches to an unity and conformity to their Mother-Churches; that bringing all to unity, they may take of that reproach which the Adversaries cast upon us in this kind. This is their Plea indeed, you say wondrous honestly. Would you could hold long in so good a vein, and not fly out unto your wont arts of Scandal and false clamours upon no occasion. For having pleaded thus, you make an answer presently, that the Cathedrals are the old high places not yet removed; the ancient dens of those old foxes; the nests and Nurseries of superstition and Idolatry, wherein the old Beldame of Rome hath nuzzled up her brood of Popelings, and so preserved her VSUM SARUM, to this very day. p. 159. and finally that the Prelates make these mother cathedrals (being Rome's adopted daughters) their Concubines, whereon to beget a new bastard generation of sacrificing Idolatrous Masspriests throughout the land. p. 163. But Sir, consider in cold blood, that this is not to answer, but to rail down Arguments. His sacred Majesty, in his resolution of the case about Saint Gregory's Church, near the Cathedral of Saint Paul, did determine positively, that all Parochial Churches ought to be guided by the Pattern of the mother Church upon the which they do depend: and yet he did declare his dislike of all Innovations and receding fromantient constitutions grounded upon just and warrantable reasons; Which makes it manifest that he conceived not this conformity with the mother Churches, to come within the compass of an Innovation. But wherefore tell we you, of his Majesty's pleasure, which are not pleased with any thing that his Majesty doth, except it may be wrested to advance your purposes. The Minister of Lincolnshire, and any thing from him, will be far more welcome; and something you shall have from him to confute your follies▪ who can do more with you, I am sure, than the world beside. Now he, good man, the better to pull down the authority of his Majesty's chapel, 
Holy Table p 183  hath told you somewhat of the authority of the Mother Churches. What's that? Marry saith he, In the name of God let the same offices be said in all the Provinces, as are said in the Metropolitical Church; aswell forth order of the service, the Psalmody, the Canon, as the use and custom of the ministration: & this he tells us was the old rule of the ancient Fathers▪ For this he cities good store of Evidence in his margin, (as his custom is) and then concludes, that it is a current direction in all Authors; where you may see that by the rule of the old Fathers, and your friends to boot, whatever is the use and custom of the Ministration in the Metropolitical Church; the same is universally to be received throughout the provinces. And thereupon we may conclude, that by the old rule of the Ancient Fathers, by the direction of all authors, and the authority of your good friend the minister of Lincolnshire; in case the things that you complain of, have been and are retained in the ministration by the Mother Churches; they ought to be retained also in Parochial Churches; especially if it be so ordered by the higher powers, the Bshops and Pastors of the same. Your scandalous and opprobrious speeches, we regard not here, in attributing to the Mother Churches those most odious names of high places, dens of foxes; nurseries of superstition; and styling the conformable ministers of this Church, a generation of Idolatrous sacrificing Masspriests. You know what he in Tacitus replied on the like occasion, Tu linguae ego aurium Dominus sum. And you may rail on if you please, for any answer we shall give you, but neglect and patience. Only I will be bold to tell you, that were it not for those cathedrals, (howsoever you vilify and miscall them) we had not only before this time, been at a loss amongst ourselves, in the whole form and order of divine service, here established: but possibly might have had far more Recusants in this kingdom then now we have. Which if you take to be a Paradox, as no doubt you will, you may remember that it was affirmed by marquis Rhosny Ambassador here for King Henry the fourth of France, having observed the majesty of our divine service in Cathedrals, that if the same had been observed by the Protestants in France, there had not been so many Papists left in it, as there were at that time. For your particular instances in the Cathedral Churches of Durham, Bristol, Saint Paul's, and Wulpher Hampton 161. (though, I trow, Wulpherhampton be no Cathedral but that you have a mind to match your friend the Minister, for his Cathedral Church at D●ver) the most that you except against, are things of ornament: which you are grieved to see you more rich and costly than they have been formerly. Judas and you alike offended at any cost, that is bestowed upon our Saviour, either on his body, or about his Temples: both of you thinking all is lost, that is so disposed of; and that it would do better in the common bag, whereof he was, and you perhaps have been the bearers. And so I should proceed to the third Argument, which you have made in the behalf of these Innovations, as you call them, drawn from the furniture & fashion of his M ●●. Chapel, and to an answer thereunto. But we have met with them already; partly in answer to your own wretched & seditious comparison of his Majesty's Chapel and the Altar there, to Julian the Apostates Altar and Nebuchadnezars golden image: and partly in reply to the self same answers, made to the sold Argument by your friend the Minister, your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true yoke-fellow in this cause; whither I refer you. So having traced you up and down, from one end of your Pasquil unto the other: and looked upon those factious and seditious doctrines which you have preached unto the people: nothing remaineth but that I lay before you, and your Audience, a word of Application, and so conclude.   

THE CONCLUSION.  Containing an address to H. B. and representing to him the true condition of his crime, and punishment thereto, belonging, if he should be dealt withal according to the Law in that behalf. Oldnols' case. The Puritans use to practise on the people, for the accomplishment of their designs. Scandalum magnatum, what it is, and how punished. Seditious writings brought within the compass of Treason; and several persons executed for the same. Many of the Principal of the faction, hanged up, by a particular Statute in Q. Elizabeth's time. The power ascribed unto the people by the Puritan doctrine. An Exhortation to the People, to continue in obedience, to God, the King, and his public Ministers. No further Answers to be looked for to those pestilent libels, which every day are cast abroad. The close of all. 
IT pleased King James of blessed memory, 
speech in Star. Chamber.  to leave unto the World at once, both a complaint for, and commendation of the Church of England. It is a sign (saith he) of the latter days drawing on; even the contempt of the Church, and of the Governors and Teachers thereof, now in the Church of England: which I say in my conscience, of any Church that ever I read or knew of, present or past, is most pure, and nearest the Primitive and Apostolical Church in Doctrine and Discipline, and is sureliest founded upon the Word of God, of any Church in Christendom. Which commendation as the Church doth still retain; so may it take up the complaint in more grievous manner: those times being modest then in respect of these; and those contempts which he complains of, being now grown to such an height, Supra quod ascendi non possit, that greater cannot be imagined. Wherein, as the Triumvirs, whom at first I spoke of, have well played their parts: so there is none of any age, nor all together in all ages, which hath shown greater malice unto the Church, and to the Governors and Teachers of it, than you, Mass. Burton. Not to the Bishops only, and inferior persons, whom either for their place or calling, you were bound to honour; but to the supreme Governor thereof, your Sovereign and Patron, as you please, sometimes to call him: your carriage towards whom, I shall first lay down, according as before delivered; and after tell you my opinion freely, what I think therein. First, for the King, you call His royal power in question, and are offended very much that any one should attribute unto him an unlimited power, as you mean unlimited, or that the Subject should be taught that his obedience must be absolute, that being (say you) a way, to cast the fear of God, and so his Throne, down unto the ground. You tell us of some things the King cannot do, and that there is a power (in government) which he neither hath, nor may transfer upon another. You had my censure of this before, in the Second Chapter. Yet I will here be bold to tell you, that as it is a kind of Atheism to dispute pro and con, what God can do, and what he cannot; though such disputes are raised sometimes by unquiet wits: so it is a kind of disobedience and disloyalty to question what a King can do, being God's Deputy here on earth; especially to determine what he can, and what he cannot. Then for the obedience of the Subject, you limit it to positive laws; the King to be no more obeyed then there is special Law or Statute for it: the King's Prerogative Royal, being of so small a value with you, that no man is to prise it, or take notice of it, further than warranted by Law, and which is worse, you ground this poor obedience, which you please to yield him, upon that mutual stipulation, which is between the King and people; and thereby teach the people, that they are no longer to obey the King, than he keeps promise with the people.  
This ground of obedience laid, you next proceed unto the censure of his Majesty's actions: complaining that in your commitment unto Prison, his Majesty had not kept his solemn covenant made with his people, touching their Petition (which you call) of right. That by his Declaration before the Articles, the Doctrines of God's Grace and man's salvation have been hushed, and silenced, and that by silencing those needless controversies, there is a secret purpose to suppress God's truth, and to bring in the contrary errors, as did the Arian Emperors by their law of Amnestia. His Majesty's Declaration about lawful sports upon the Sunday, you tax, as tending manely to the dishonour of God, the profanation of the Sabbath, the annihilation of the fourth Commandment: and charge him that thereby, and by his silencing of those doctrines before remembered, and restraint of preaching on the fast-days, in infected places; he hath given way to Innovations, contrary to his solemn promise made unto his people. His Majesty's Chapel Royal and the furniture thereof, you liken unto Nehu chadnezzars golden Image, and Julian's Altar: the King himself to Nabuchadnezzar, the Apostate Julian, and that Idolatrous King Ahab: encouraging the people both by particular instances, and a general exhortation to stand stoutly to it. Finally you lay down a most odious and disloyal supposition, touching the setting up of Mass in his Majesty's Chapel, and what is to be done when that comes to pass. And ever and anon inform him (as if you meant to terrify and affright him with it) how much the people do begin to stagger in their good opinion of his Majesty; that they grow jealous of some dangerous plot, that all the people of the Land (by your commitment to the prison) may be possessed with a sinister opinion of the King's justice and constancy in keeping his solemn Covenant made with his people as in that Petition of right; and if he observe his word no better, it will be said of him in succeeding Annals, that he had no regard to sacred vows and solemn Protestations. Thus having taught the people that all obedience to the King is founded on a mutual stipulation between him and them; and telling them, how often, and in how great matters, he hath broke the Covenant made between them: you have released the people ipso facto of all obedience, duty, and allegiance to their Sovereign Lord; and thereby made them free subjects, as you please to call them, so free that it is wholly in their pleasure whither they will obey, or not.  
Thus have I briefly laid together your carraige and behaviour towards our Lord the King: 
3 Edw. l. 33  wherein expressly contrary to the Statute of Westminster, that no man tell or publish any false news or tales, whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the King and his people or the nobles; you have as much as in you was, made a breach between them. For though (the Lord be praised) no such discord be; yet is your crime no less than if it were: the law forbidding such false tales, not only by the which discord or slander doth arise, but by which it might. Oldnoll, a yeoman of the Guard, was on this very Statute indicted in Queen Mary's time, pour parrols horrible, & slanderous parrols deal Roigno, for horrible and slanderous words against her Highness, unde scandalum in regno inter dominam Reginam & Magnates vel populum suum ●riri poterit. etc. And howsoever no dissension did arise on the said false tales, yet seeing there was occasion given, he was proceeded with, and punished, according to that Statute, as you may find in justice. Dier. p. 155. So far the laws provide to prevent all discord, and the occasions of the same: but for preventing of sedition, and seditious either words or writings, they are more severe: of which how far you have been guilty, we shall see anon. Mean time you may take notice, if at lest you will, that it hath been the ancient practice of those men, whose steps you follow, to put into the people's minds seditious humours, thereby to make themselves of power against the Magistrates: and sometimes also to terrify and affright the Prince or supreme Magistrate with the fear of uproars, the better to accomplish what they had projected. This was the device of Flacius Illyricus the father of the stiff or rigid Lutherans in high Germany: whom as you follow in his doctrines, deprovidentia, Praedestinatione, Gratia, Libero arbitrio, Adiaphoris, and such heads as those; so do you also follow him, in his fiery nature, and seditious Principles. One of which was, Principes potius metu seditionum terrendos, quam vel minimum pacis causa indulgendum, 
Necessaria Respon●io p. 83.  that Princes should be rather terrified with the fear of tumults, than any thing should be yielded to for quietness sake. The other was, ut plebs opiniones suas populari seditione tueretur, that the common people ought to take up arms against the magistrate, 
Cont. Bellar. de Peccat. origi.  in maintenance of those opinions which they were possessed of. Which as Paraeus tells us, hath been the practice ever since of all his followers; whereof you are chief. And for your odious supposition, of setting up of Mass in the King's Chapel, let me tell you this. That it is Criminal, 
Hist. of K. H. 7. by the Vis. S. Alb.  if not Capital, to use Ifs and Ands, and suppositions in matters of so high a nature; and such as in some cases hath been judged high Treason. Sir William Stanley, a man as of especial merit, so in especial favour with King Henry the seventh, found it no jesting matter to use Ifs and Ands, in things which do so nearly concern a King. For saying only, that if he thought the young man (Perkin Warbeck) to be the undoubted son of King Edward the fourth he never would bear arms against him he was condemned of treason, and executed for the same: the Judges thinking it unsafe to admit ifs and and's in such dangerous points.  
So for your dealing with the Bishops, you labour to expose them as much as in you is, to the public hatred; and to stir up the people to effect their ruin. Not to repeat those scandalous and odious names, which passim, almost in every page you have cast upon them, to bring them into discredit and contempt with the common people: you have accused them of invading his Majesty's supreme authority, and left them, as you think, in a Praemunire; the better to incense his Majesty against them also. whom having exasperated, as you hope, against them, you call upon him in plain terms to hang them up, as once the Gibeonites did the 7. sons of Saul; at least to join with God and his good subjects, Courtiers, Nobles, Judges, Magistrates, and the rest together, to cut them off, and root them out. Which if he will not do, you tell him roundly that for his own part, he will make a very sorry account to almighty God, for the great charge committed to him; and then, that God for his part, will rather add unto, then decrease our Plagues; till he hath utterly destroyed us. But fearing lest this should not edify with so wise a Prince, you practise next upon the people. And knowing that there is nothing, which they prise so highly, as the defence of their religion and lawful liberties; you lay about you lustily, to let them see how much they are in danger of losing both. For this cause you accuse the Prelates almost every where for bringing in of Popery, tooth and nail for Popery, confederating with Priests and Jesuits, for rearing up of that religion; and setting up again the the throne of Antichrist: and all their actions you interpret to tend that way. Next you cry out, how much the people are oppressed contrary to their rights and liberties, affirming that the Bishops do not only over top the royal throne, but that they trample the laws, liberties, and just rights of the King's subjects under their feet; and cut the people off, from the free use and benefit of the King's good laws. Which said, and pressed in every place with all spite and rancour, you call upon the nobles to rouse up their noble Christian zeal and magnanimous courage; upon the judges, to draw forth their sword of justice; upon the Courtiers, nobles, others, if they have any spark of piety, now to put their helping hands in so great a need; and lest all these should fail, you call upon the nation generally to take notice of their Antichristian practices & to redress them withal their force and power. What do you think of this Alarm, this Ad arma ad arma, this calling of all sorts of people to combine together, to rouse their spirits, draw their swords, put to their hands, muster up all their force and power: do you not think this comes within the compass of sedition? have not you done your best (or your worst rather) to raise an insurrection in the state, under pretence of looking to the safety of religion, and the Subject's rights? I will not judge your conscience, I leave that to God. But if one may collect your meaning by your words and writings; or if your words and writings may be censured, not only according to the effect which they have produced but which they might: you are but in a sorry taking. And because possibly when you find your danger, you will the better find your error, and so prepare yourself for a sincere and sound repentance; I will a little lay it open. Make you what use there of, you shall think most fit.  
And first, supposing, that these your factious and false clamours, are only such as might occasion discord between my LL. the Bishops and the Commons; where had you been then? there passed a Statute (still in force) 2. Ric. 2. cap. 5. for punishment of Counterfeiters of false news, and of horrible and false messages (mistaken in the English books for the French Mensonges, i. e. ●●es) of Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons, and other No●●es and great men of the Realm, etc. of things which by the said Prelates, Lords, etc. were never spoken, 〈◊〉, or thought, (pray mark this well) in great slander of the said Prelates, etc. whereby debates and discords might arise (not doth, but might arise) betwixt the said Lords and Commons, which God forbid, and whereof great peril and mischief might come to all the Realm, and quick subversion and destruction of the said Realm, if due remedy be not provided. And for the remedy provided, which in this statute was according to that of Westminster the first before remembered; that in the 12. of this King Richard, cap. 11. is left to the discretion of his Majesty's Council. So that what ever punishment His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council may inflict upon you, you have justly merited, in taking so much pains to so bad a purpose, as to set discord and debate between the Prelates and the people. But where you have gone further to excite the people; what say I, people? nay, the Lords, Judges, Courtiers, all the Nation generally, to draw their powers and force together: I see no reason why you should be so angry with the High Commissioners for laying sedition to your charge; or if that please you better, a seditious Sermon. And being a seditious Sermon then, and a seditious Pamphlet now, dispersed up and down throughout the kingdom, especially amongst those, whom you, and such as you have seasoned with a disaffection to the present government: What have not you for your part done, to put all into open tumult? I do not mean to charge it on you, 
Glanvil● l 14  but I will tell you how it was resolved in former times, by Bracton, and Glanvill, two great Lawyers in those days; viz. Siquis machinatus fuerit, vel aliquid fecerit in mortem D. regis, vel ad seditionem regis, vel exercitus sui, vel consenserit, consiliumve dederit, &c licet id quod in voluntate habuit non produxerit ad effectum, tenetur tamen criminis laesae Majestatis. 
Bracton l. 2.  Construe me this, and you will find yourself in a pretty pickle. And I will tell you also two particular cases, which you may find with little pains, in our common Chronicles. 
Stews A●n.  The first of one John Bennet, Woollman, who had in London scattered schedules full of sedition, and for that was drawn, hanged, and beheaded in the fourth year of Henry the Fifth, The other of Thomas Bagnall, Jo. 
Holling h. p. p. 778.  Scot, Jo. Heath, and Jo. Kennington, who being all Sanctuary men, of Saint martin's le Grand, were taken out of the said Sanctuary for forging of seditious Bills, to the slander of the King, and some of his Counsel, (will you mark this well?) for the which three of them were condemned and executed, and the fourth upon his plea returned to Sanctuary, in the ninth year of King Henry the Seventh. I instance only in these two, because both ancient; both of them happening before the Statute 23. Eliz. 〈…〉 which being restrained unto the natural life of the said Queen, is not now in force; and which, as long as it continued, was a strong bridle in the mouths of your forefathers in the Faction, to hold them in, from publishing and printing such seditious Pamphlets. The common Chronicles will tell you, how that most excellent Lady dealt with those, who had offended her in that kind, wherein you excel: Tha●ker and Capping, Barrow, Greenwood, Studly, Billot and Bowlar, Penry and Udall, zealous Puritan all, being all condemned to death; and the more part executed. And you may please to know for your further comfort, that in King James his time, May the third, Anno 1619. one john Williams, a Barrister of the middle Temple, was arraigned at the King's Bench, for a seditious book by him then but lately written, & secretly dispersed abroad never printed (as yo●urs are) or which he was condemned, and executed at Charing cross, some two days after. And it was afterwards resolved at the first censure of Mass. Prynne, in the Star-chamber, by the Lord Chief Justice that then was, that had he been put over to his Tribunal, he had been forfeit to the gallows. All which being represented to you, I close up my address in the words of Tully, Miror te, quorum act a imitere, eorum exitus non perhorrescere. So God bless the man.  
And yet I must not leave you so. As I have raised one use for your reprehension; so give me leave to raise one more for the instruction of others, those most especially whom you have seduced. My use shall be, that they continue steadfast in their full obedience to God; the King, God's deputy; the Prelates of the Church being God's Ministers, and the Kings: and that they do not suffer themselves to be carried up and down with every blast of doctrine, by the subtlety of those who only labour to deceive them. I know it is a fine persuasion to make the common people think that they have more than private interest in the things of God, and in the government of States: nothing more plausible nor welcome to some sort of men, such whom you either make or call free Subjects. This buchanan's device, to put the sword into the hands and managing of the people; 
Deiure Reg.  in that his most seditious maxim, Populo jus est imperium eui velit deferat. And such the doctrine of Cleselius, one of your brethren in the cause, a furious Contra-Remonstrant of Rotterdam, who laid it for a doctrine before his audience, 
Marca. Resp. pars 2. p. 50.  that if the Magistrates and Ministers did not do their parts to preserve Religion, than the people must, licet ad sanguinem usque pro ea pugnarent, what blood soever should be spent in pursuit thereof. Such grounds were also laid in Queen Elizabeth's time, by those who then were held as you think yourself, the Grand supporters of the cause: men like to Theudas in the Acts, who thought themselves, as you do now, to be some great Prophets, and drew much people after them, so many that they threatened to petition to the Queen's highness, with no fewer than 100000. hands. But what became of these jolly fellows. They perished, & as many as followed after them, & redacti sunt ad nihilum, and are brought to nothing: nothing remaining of them now, but the name and infamy. Nor can I promis better to those who pursue their courses; and either furiously run, or else permit themselves to be drawn along into those rash counsels: which as they are begun in disobedience, and prosecuted equally with pride and malice; so can we not expect that they should have a better end, then calamitous ruin. And therefore I shall earnestly beseech and exhort all those, who have been practised with by this kind of spirits, (if such at least may cast their eyes on any thing which is not made to feed their humour) that they would seriously endeavour the Church's peace, and conscionably submit themselves to their superiors in the Lord: not following with too hasty feet those Ignes fatui, who only lead them on to dangerous precipices, and dreadful down-falls. The greatest virtue of a Subject is his free obedience; not grudgingly or of necessity, or for fear of punishment: whether it be unto the King, as unto the chief; or unto Governors as unto them which are sent by him, 
1. Pet. 2.13.14.  for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Suspicion, as it is in Kings, the sickness of a tyrant (and so his Majesty King james conceived it) so is it in a Subject, the disease and sickness of a mischievous brain, apt upon every light surmise, to entertain undutiful and pernicious counsels. The safest man is he, that thinks no evil, and entertains not rashly those unjust reports, which are devised and spread abroad by malicious wits, of purpose to defame their betters: that they themselves might gain applause, and be cried up, and honoured, yea tantum non adored by poor ignorant men, who do not understand aright what their Projects aim at.  
Lastly, I must inform both you and them, that howsoever it was thought not to be unfit, that at this present time an Answer should be made unto all your quarrels, that so the people whom you have seduced might see the error of their courses: yet neither you nor they must expect the like on all, or any of those factious provocations which every day are offered to the public government. Things that are once established by a constant law, are not at all to be disputed, but much less declamed against: or if they be, will find more shelter from the laws, then from their Advocates. These scandalous and seditious pamphlets are now grown so rife, that every day (as if we lived in the wild of Africa) doth produce new Monsters: there being more of them divulged at this present time, than any former age can speak of; more of these factious spirits quam muscarum olim cum caletur maxim, than there are Scarabees and Gadflies in the heat of Summer. And should the State think fit, that every libel of yours, and such men as you, should have a solemn Answer to it: you would advance your heads too high, and think you had done something more than ordinary, which should necessitate the state to set out Apologies. That, as it would encourage you to pursue your courses; so would it suddenly dissolve the whole frame of government; which is as much endangered by such disputations, as by disobedience. And yet I would not have you think, that you are like to find those days whereof Tacitus speaks, ubi & sentire quae velis, 
Hist, l. ●.  & quae sentias loqui liceat; in which you may be bold to opine what you list, and speak what ever you conceive: much less to scatter and disperse in public what ever you dare speak in private. Princes have other ways to right themselves, and those which are in authority under them, then by the pen: and such as will fall heavier, if you pull them on you. Kings & the governors of states, as they participate of God's power and patience, so do they imitate him in their justice also; and in their manner of proceeding against obstinate persons. God is provoked every day, so Kings: God did sometimes expostulate with his faulty people, and so do Kings: God sometimes did employ his Prophets to satisfy the clamours and distrusts of unquiet men; and thus Kings do also. But when the people grew rebellious, and stiffnecked, and would not hear the Charmers voice, charm he never so wisely; God would no longer trouble himself in seeking to reclaim them from their peevish folly: but let them feel the rod and the smart thereof, till the mere sense of punishment had weaned them from it. So howsoever it be true, convitia spreta exolescunt, that scandalous pamphlets, such as yours, and those which if not yours, are now spread abroad, have many times with much both moderation, & wisdom, been slighted and neglected by the greatest persons: yet if the humour be predominant, and the vein malignant, it hath been found at other times as necessary, that the tongue which speaketh proud words be cut off for ever. Nor would I have you so far abuse yourself, as to conceit that none of these seditious Pasquil's, which are now cast into the world, do concern the King. For as Saint Paul hath told us, that whosoever doth resist the power, resists the ordinance of God, 
Rom. 13  because there is no power but it is from God: So whosoever doth traduce and defame those men, which are in chief authority under the King, do defame the King, because they have their dignities and authorities from and under him. And thus it was affirmed in Vdals' case, 
Sutel●sses Answ p. 3.  one of your Fathers in the faction, being arraigned upon the Statute 23 Eliz. cap. 2. For when it was pretended for him, that he defamed not the Queen which the law provided for, but the Bishops only: it was resolved that they who spoke against her Majesty's supreme government in cases Ecclesiastical, her laws, proceedings, and all those Ecclesiastical officers, which rule under her, did defame the queen. Your case being just the same with Vdalls, nor you, nor any such as you have reason to persuade yourselves, but that your scandalous Pasquil's do as nearly concern the King, as those did the Queen; or that you shall be answered always, edictis melioribus, with pen and paper. If Authority hath stooped so low, this once, to give way that your seditious pamphlets should come under an examination, and that an Answer should be made to all the scandalous matters in the same contained, I would not have you think it was for any other cause, but that your Proselytes may perceive what false guides they follow, and all the world may see how much you have abused the King and his Ministers, with your scandalous clamours. Which done, and all those cavils answered, which you have been so long providing; it is expected at their hands; that they rest satisfied in and of the Church's purposes, in every of the things objected; and look not after fresh Replies upon the like occasions. And so I leave both you and them with those words of Solomon, which you have so perverted to your wretched ends: My son fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change: for their calamity shall arise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
For Saltem p. 3. l. 9 r. Saltum. p. 17. l. 2. for of. r. that of. il. l. 12. deal And. p. 28. l. 25. for ab r. at that. p. 33. l. 24. for sure r. free. p. 37. l. 27. for and r. what. p. 52. l. 10. for I audr. i e. p. 53. l. 23. for by. r. and by. p. 70. l. 26. for Instance, r. inference. p. 78. l. 16. d. next for your charges. p. 86. l. 1. del. in. p. 90. l. 20. for a. r. on a. p. 96. l. 25. for. to. r. of. p. 104. l. 3. for will, r. good will. ib. l. 31. deal. But. p. 105. l. 9 deal. But. p. 107. l. 3. for cautio r. cautum. p. 115. l. 22. deal. momes. p. 119. l. 12. for Ithicly r. Iphycly. p. 122. l. 29. for a discourse, r. their discourses. p. 123 l. 23. for meet, r. meat. p. 127. l. 1. r. the Thesis. p. 142. l. 5. for coequal. r. co●evall, p. 144. l. 20. for For as the, r. And as for the. p. 146. l. 1. for Count, r. court. l. 11. for your, r. the. p. 149. l. 2. for change r. charge. p. 153. l. 4. for hereby, r. verily. p. 157. l. 6. for a r. as.