CERTAIN DEMANDS WITH their grounds, drawn out of holy Writ, and propounded in foro conscientiae by some religious Genntl. unto the reverend Fathers, Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bishop of London, William Bishop of Lincoln, Garvase Bishop of Worcester, William Bishop of Exeter, & Thomas Bishop of Peterbourough, whereunto the said Gentl. require that it would please their Lordships to make a true, plain, direct, honest and resolute answer.  Isai. 66. 5. 
Hear the word of the Lord, all ye that tremble at his word, your brethren that hated you, & cast you out for my Names sake, said, let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shallbe ashamed.  jer. 23. 27 
Think they to cause my people to forget my Name by their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their forefathers have forgotten my Name, for Baal?  Isai. 8. 16. 
Bind up the Testimony: seal up the Law among my disciples.  Isai. 8. 20. 
To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word: it is because there is no light in them.  
1605.   

To the Reverend Fathers, etc.  
RIght Reverend Fathers, your Lordship's having been a long time Divinity Readers in the school of Christ, and some of us also, a long time scholars brought up in the same school at your feet, give us leave, we pray you, by way of Question, and not of Definition, to propound these Demands following. And as we briefly and plainly have opposed, so let your Lordships be well pleased simply and honestly to make us answer. For we having (as the men of Beraea did) searched the scriptures, for our satisfaction in the doubts propounded, and out of them, not being able to resolve ourselves, our desire is, to be resolved, by men of greater skill, and not to rest ourselves upon our own judgements. Now than we thus propound, and we thus demand:  
FIRST, whether every supreme Christian Magistrate, for 
The like demand we make concerning the command of the Church.  every command to be given by virtue of his Christian Magistracy, touching the worship of God, ought not to have the word of faith, for the ground and warrant of his command; that so his command being of faith, may not be of sin?  
Secondly, whether any supreme Christian Magistrate, by Authority 
The like demand we make of the ability of the Church.  of holy Writ, be enabled to devise, ordain and appropriate a Ministerial garment for the ministery of the Gospel, without putting on of which garment, he may command the Ministers of the Gospel, neither publicly to pray, to preach the word, nor administer the Sacraments?  
Thirdly, if it be lawful for a sovereign Christian Magistrate, by authority of holy Writ, to ordain and appropriate a Ministerial garment, for the Ministers of the Gospel, than we demand, whether by Authority of holy Writ, he may ordain and appropriate such a Ministerial garment, as in matter and form, differeth not from that proper and necessary Priestly garment, which the Prince, & chief Priest of Idolatry hath appropriated to be worn by his Jdolatrous Priests in their Idol service?  
The reason moving us to make the first demand, respecteth some others, rather than ourselves. For we doubt not, but that every supreme Christian Magistrate, will agnize, that every his mandatorie action concerning the outward worship of God, of what nature, or quality soever it be (if it be not sin) must be of faith. And that no such action of his, can be of faith, unless the same have the word of faith for the ground and warrant thereof.  
Concerning the second Demand, For our parts we never yet read of any commandment, of any word of faith, or of any godly example in holy Writ, whereby the supreme Christian Magistrate, is either directly, or by consequence enabled to ordain and appropriate a Ministerial garment, for the Ministers of the Gospel.  
For howsoever by imitation of the Priestly garments, ordained for the levitical Priesthood, under the Law, your Lordships may think that a ministerial garment may lawfully be commanded for the Ministers of the Gospel: nevertheless, there being an express commandment given unto Moses, under the law, for the one, and no general or particular rule delivered unto a Christian Magistrate, in the Gospel, for the other, we desire to be satisfied by your Lordships, whether such an imitation of levitical garments, be lawful, yea or no? If your Lordship's answer, that the institution of a Ministerial garment, under the Gospel, is not by imitation from the levitical law, than we demand, from whence the original and offspring of that Ministerial garment came?  
If your Lordship's answer, that it sprang originally from Man's invention, than you directly charge the Christian Magistrate, to have no rule of faith for the guidance of his conscience in the institution of a ministerial garment. For your Lordship's very well know, and according to this your own knowledge, have a long time taught us, that no devise or invention of man, can be a divine rule, for a Christian Magistrates conscience to be guided by.  
But aswell for the better clearing of the proper and right use of the Priestly garments under the law, as also of the clear opening of this point, namely, that no reason can be yielded, from the use of the priestly garments under the law, for the use of ministerial garments under the Gospel, we demand:  
Whether your Lordships did ever read in any part of holy Writ, that the Priests were commanded to eat the Passeover in any other garments, then in their ordinary garments?  
Whether your Lordships did ever read in any part of holy Writ, that any holy Ministerial garment was commanded to be worn, by him, that cut of the foreskin of the flesh upon the eight day?  
Whether your Lordships have read in any place of holy Writ, that the Prophets had any proper or special attire, enjoined unto them, as a proper and necessary habit, wherein they should exercise, and without which they might not exercise their prophetical office? For we find it 
1. Ki. 20. 41.  written; When the Prophet hasted, and took the ashes away from his face, that the King of israel knew him, that he was of the Prophets. Whereby it seemeth unto us, that, that Prophet, rather by his face, then by his proper Prophetical garment, was discerned from other men to be a Prophet, especially in the execution of that his prophetical function: 
1. Sam. 9 1●  And this again is made more manifest, by those words which Saul used, when meeting with Samuel in the midst of the gate of one of the Cities of Zuph, he questioned with him after this manner: Tell me, I pray thee, where the Seers house is? For had the Prophets been known in those days by their proper prophetical garments, than needed not Saul in the midst of the gate, and at so solemn a feast, to have inquired of Samuel, for the Seers house.  
But it is written, that Saul knew that it was Samuel, when an old 
Objection. 1. San. 28. 14 Isa. 20. 1.  man came up, lapped in a mantel, And Isayah was commanded to lose his sackcloth from his loins, and to put off his shoe from his foot. And again it is written: And in that day shall the Prophets be ashamed every 
Zech. 13. 4.  one of his vision, when he hath prophesied, neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: And lastly, that john the Baptist had his 
Math. 3. 4.  garment of Camel's hair, and that a girdle of a skin was about his loins: By all which places it is apparent, that in old time the Prophets used a special attire, or habit, and were accustomed to put upon them a distinct kind of garment from other men.  
We confess plainly and simply, that your Lordships herein speak 
Answers.  the truth, neither do we deny, that it is both lawful and convenient for the Minister of the Gospel, daily & ordinarily, to wear such a special kind of civil apparel, as whereby he may be known from being a Merchant, a Lawyer, a Gentleman, or an Husbandman: But what for that? For to the point in question, what resolution is that? For how followeth is, that the prophet Isayah, the other old prophets, and john Baptist▪ by their every days rough and hairy apparel, wheresoever in the streets, in the fields, in the Markets, in the schools, in the gates, in the Court, or in the country, they were seen, how (we say) doth it follwe (they being known by their special garments to be of the number of the prophets) that therefore whensoever in the Temple, in the Synagogue, or in any other place, wherein they prophesied, that they put upon that their ordinary and usual garment, some other garment, necessarily and properly to be worn in their prophetical office? and without which necessary and prophetical garment, it was not lawful for them to prophesy?  
If your Lordships could make good your objection by the holy scriptures, you should then have some colour from the example of the old prophets, to affirm that extraordinary prophets, (if there were any in our times) might wear some rough and haytie garments; But to allege these examples, as sufficient authorities for ordinary Pastors & Teachers, that they may or aught to wear proper ministerial garments, whensoever they pray, preach the word or administer the Sacraments, is to allege quidlibet pro quolibet? instead of a kernel, to give a nutshale, and to imagine as Saul imagined, that he saw Samuel when he saw Satan, who to blind Saul's eyes, had put upon him the form of an old man lapped in a mantel.  
And yet nevertheless we grant that from the place of Samuel, we may learn thus much: viz. If any person in our age were so sottish, as to seek unto a Witch, to have the body of an Archbishop raised up; that Satan in this case, by lapping himself in an Archbishop's Pall, Rochet and square Cap, might transform himself to the shape and likeness of Thomas Beckett, though he be long since dead.  
As for that which is alleged out of the prophesy of Isaiah, it proveth directly that his garment of Sackcloth, was not any proper prophetical garment, but only such an ordinary garment, as whereby in his common and daily attire, his condition of being a Prophet, was distinguished from the apparel of other men, who were no Prophets. For if by the commandment of losing the sackcloth from his loins, the Lord had meant a proper prophetical mantel or garment, which was only usual in the execution of his prophetical function, then might the same wellinough have been put of, and yet Jsaiah not have been naked, and his buttocks uncovered.  
Besides, if by Isaiahs' garment, a proper prophetical garment in the exercise of prophesy, and not a special ordinary garment, common with other Prophets in their daily use, had been noted; then by Isaiahs' shoes likewise, why should not a proper & prophetical kind of shoes be understood?  
And if so, why then by this place might not Ministers be appointed, (whensoever they pray, preach or minister the Sacraments) to have proper ministerial shoes or pantofles upon their feet, aswell as proper ministerial Surplices or Copes upon their backs?  
The place out of Zacharie, and that argument from john Baptists apparel, be of like interpretation with that of Esai. And that out of Zachary, what else proveth it, but that the false Prophets ordinarily did wear some such manner of special rough garments, as were after the form of ordinary garments, worn by the true Prophets? and that those false Prophets, for deceiving of the people, by colour of their garments, should have those garments, (as it were) plucked over their ears, and no more be suffered by their garments, to make their doctrine seem more holy: seeing they were never sent from God, to be Prophets for the good of his people, but might still have continued husbandmen or herds men, as not having any true prophetical doctrine, but only making a show their of by their outward rough garments, as if their garments had been sufficient to have approved their prophecies? In like manner as at this day a number of idol ministers, have nought▪ else to approve them to be ministers, but only that they wear a large whit Surplice with two wide sleeves, and a little black Cap with four narrow corners.  
Nay, again we demand, whether your Lordships have read in holy 
1 Chro. 23. 6 1 Chro. 25. 1. 1 Chro. 26. 20. 1 Chro. 9 ●2. 2 Chro. 19 25.  Writ, that King David dividing Offices to the sons of Levy, & separating some to be Singers, some to be Porters, and some to be over the Treasures of the House of God, according to the commandment of the Lord, by the hands of the Prophets Samuel, Gad and Nathan, did appoint any other songsterlike, porterlike or other ministerlike garments, to be worn by these Officers in the service of the House of God, than such only as were appointed by the Law.  
And if your Lordships can produce no place out of holy Writ for the proof of these questions; then from the example of celebrating the Passover, ministering Circumcision, Prophesying by the Prophets, and from services done by the Singers, Porters and Treasures, without other ministerial garments than were appointed to be under the Law:  
We demand what good proof your Lordships can make out of holy Writ, that ministers of the Gospel may be commanded, not to pray, not to preach, and not to administer the Sacraments without ministerial garments, not appointed by God, but by man in the time of the Gospel?  
And yet touching certain holy garments, used by the Priests and Levites under the Law, your Lordships have not read (as we suppose) that either Moses or Aaron, did appoint any other holy garments for the Priests or Levits in their priestly or levitical Offices, than such 
Exo. 28. 12 29. 30. 35. 41. 43. Eze. 42, 13. 14. Eze. 44. 15. 17. 18. 19  only as the Lord himself commanded to be made and worn; which holy & Priestly garments also, you read that they might not be worn by the Priests or Levites in the utter Court, but only in the holy place, when they came to minister in the Priests and Levites Office before the Lord.  
And so from the proportion of the Ministry of the Priesthood under the Law, unto the ministery of faith under the Gospel, we question thus: If God the only author of the Priesthood under the Law, were the only author of the Priests holy and ministerial garments, under the Law, why should not the same God, being the holy author of the ministery of the Gospel, be likewise the only author of ministerial garments under the Gospel? For otherwise how should the Ministers perfectly understand, that the wearing of ministerial garments in the time of the Gospel, be aswell pleasing to the Lord, as were the Priests holy garments in the time of the Law?  
Besides, for so much as the Priests when they came out of the inner Court even to the utter Court to the people, and approached to those 
Ezek. 42. Eze. 44. 15. 17. 18. 19  things which were for the people, were then commanded to put of their holy and Linen garments, and to put on their other garments, namely, their woollen garments which they had put of when they entered into the inner Court.  
From whence we again demand, what reason your Lordships can yield out of holy Writ, that the Ministers of the Gospel when they approach to pray, to preach the Word & to administer the Sacraments, which are things for the people under the Gospel, should put upon them ministerial Linen garments? And not rather from the identity of reason and equity of that order, which was given to the Priests under the Law, challenged a free and liberal use of their ministery in their ordinary garments? We mean such comely and cleanly woollen garments, as by the law, use, or custom of the country, wherein they live, may lawfully be worn.  
Where it is written that David had on him a linen garment, as all the 
1 Chro. 15.  Levites that bore the Ark, & the singers: If your Lordships from this place shall urge, that linen garments were ordinarily worn by the Levites, among the people, when they approached to the services, which were for the people, you shall in this case but wrest the holy scriptures, to an other sense then rightly can be gathered from the same, because the same your sense directly repugneth the aforesaid testimony of the Prophet Ezekiell: neither indeed doth this place any more prove, the ordinary wearing of linen garments, by the Levites among the people, in the utter court, than it doth prove the ordinary wearing of an Ephod by King David, whensoever he came into the Temple to worship.  
The reason then of the Levites wearing of linen garments at this time, being in the presence of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord which was now to be removed from the house of Obed Edom, and 
Num. 4. 15.  to be carried upon the shoulders of the sons of Koath, and to be attended upon by other of the Levites their brethren, in holy garments, it seemeth plain that this wearing of holy garments, in this peculiar service thus performed to the Lord, in the presence of the Ark, excludeth the wearing of the same garments in common services done among the people.  
Besides, that the Singers and Levites did not at any time minister in their linen garments, among the people, is apparent. For that the proper place of their ministration was before the Ark in the inner court; And this is evident by the scriptures:  
For it is written, that 
a 1. Chr. 15 17. 19  Heman and Asaph and Ethan were singers, and that the King left 
b 1. Chro. 16 37.  before the Ark of the Lords covenant, Asaph the chief and his brethren to minister continually before the Ark, that which was to be done every day, to sing with 
c 1. Chro. 45. 16.  instruments, and to lift up their voice with joy, and to 
d 1. Chro. 16. 41.  praise the Lord, because his mercy endureth for ever: yea and this manner of singing and ministering before the Ark in the Tabernacle of the congregation did not only continue until 
e 1. Chr. 6. 32.  Solomon had built the house of the Lord in jerusalem, but then also, the singer's continued their office according to their custom for it is written thus. And the 
f 2. Chro 5. 12.  Levites the singers of all sorts, as of Asaph, of Heman, and jeduthun, and of their sons, and of their brethren being clad in fine Linen, stood with Cymbales and with Vyolles, and haps, at the East end of the Altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests, blowing which Trumpets, unless then your Lordships be able to prove by holy writ, that the inner court, or holy place, wherein the Altar stood, was not a place separated for the priests, & Levites alone, but that the people as well, as the Priests and Levites, came into the same place, to worship before the Ark, we may boldly (as we think) affirm that you shall never be able to prove, that the Priests or Levites under the law, did at any time wear any Ministerial garments, when they approached into their utter court, to the people, to do services for the people. Among the reasons (why the Priests under the law were commanded to put on their linen garments when they ministered in the sanctuary and at the table) one reason among other is rendered to be this: namely, for that the garments were holy garments, as having from the God of holiness an holy institution.  
The reason also why the priests were commanded to put of their linen garments, and to put on other woollen garments, when they approached to those things which were for the people, is this: viz. for that they should not sanctify the people with their garments: From which two reasons, we question thus:  
First, seeing under the ministery of the Gospel, the Ministers thereof, have neither holy place, nor inner court, separated from the people; neither any garments, by any holy institution, appointed by the name of holy garments to minister in; we demand, what authority your Lordships can allege out of holy Writ, that it should not be as comely and as decent a thing, for the Ministers of the Gospel, to approach unto prayer, preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments (which are things for the people under the Gospel) without any Ministerial garments devised, and instituted only by man: as it was for the Priests to approach unto the like things, which were for the people under the Law, without those holy garments, which were ordained by God?  
Secondly, the reason of the prohibition of the Priests putting on their holy and priestly garments, when they approached into the utter court to those things which were for the people: being this: Namely, that they should not sanctify the people with their garments; we demand with what reason deduced from holy Writ, you can impugn this position, viz.  
That our Saviour Christ (to preserve the equity and integrity of that prohibition, aswell in the time of the Gospel, as in the time of the Law, did not institute any proper ministerial garments, for the Apostles, Evangelistes, Prophets, Doers of Miracles, or Teachers, to exercise any their ministerial function in, lest the people putting an opinion of holiness in their garments, might think the doing of miracles, preaching the word, prophesying, or ministering the Sacraments, to be sanctified by their garments? And therefore from the manner of preaching the word, administering Baptism, celebrating the lords Supper, doing Miracles, and praying by the Apostles, Evangelistes, Prophets, etc. without any proper ministerial garments: we question thus:  
In as much as john Baptist did both cry in the wilderness, and baptize in Iorden, having upon him none other proper ministerial garments, but only his ordinary garment, of Camels hair, with a girdle of a skin about his loins: And seeing the Apostles did neither preach the word, nor administer the Sacraments, nor do miracles, among the people, in any other garments, then in their usual and ordinary garments. And beside, seeing the Apostles, did not institute or command any proper ministerial garments for their successors, namely for Bishops, Pastors and Teachers to minister in: seeing (we say) these things can not be proved out of holy writ to be otherwise, our desire is to be satisfied from your Lordships, by some holy rule of faith, why Bishops, Pastors, and Teachers, so long after the Apostles times, should be commanded, to wear any other form or manner of garments in their holy ministrations, than such their ordinary and usual garments, (being comely and cleanly garments) as by custom, or law of the Country, they usually wear.  
For if all ordinary garments be sanctified a like, to minister, and people, by the word of God and prayer, as all ordinary meats and drinks be, we demand, what reason your Lordships can allege out of holy writ, that the public service, accomplished by the Minister, in his ordinary apparel, should not be as acceptable to the Lord, as is the public service performed by the people, in their ordinary garments.  
And if your Lordships can afford us no reason out of holy Writ, why offering up of prayers, preaching the word, or administering the Sacraments, should be less acceptable to the Lord, when the same are performed in an ordinary garment, and not in a proper ministerial garment: we then demand, whether your Lordships by any rule of holy Writ, can prove unto us, that the word preached, Sacraments administered, and prayers offered up in a proper ministerial, rather than in an ordinary garment, can be of more efficacy, profit or edification unto men?  
For as the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal, so must all things which are done in the Church, be done to the use, benefit and profit of the Church: Unto these two latter questions, if your Lordships shall answer, that the ministration of the word and Sacraments, can not be proved by holy Writ, to be in it own nature, either more acceptable to the Lord, or of more efficacy, profit and edification unto men, when the same is accomplished by a Minister, wearing only his ordinary garment: And yet notwithstanding shall tell us, that the not wearing of a proper ministerial garment in the service of prayer, preaching the word, and ministering the Sacraments, may be both displeasing to God, & hurtful to the people, upon circumstance & contempt of the Churches, or Magistrates command: Then we reply and affirm, that you beg the thing in question, driving us▪ back again, to seek your resolution of that doubt, which we moved above, in the second principal demand:  
For unless the Church and sovereign Christian Magistrate, be enabled by holy Writ to command a proper ministerial garment under the Gospel, the not wearing of such a proper ministerial garment, commanded by the Magistrate, or by the Church, can be neither an offence to God, nor hurtful to the people.  
Besides if neither the Church nor Magistrate, have any certain rule out of holy Writ, for the resolution of faith, in commanding a proper ministerial garment; Then lieth the same Ministerial garment under a just suspicion of abomination, as being a thing invented by man: And then also how should a Minister being bound to take for his mark the only will of God, as it is manifested & opened unto him in the word, be excusable in foro conscientiae, if in the execution of his ministery, he may fashion himself to the invention of man?  
But the preaching of the word of God, is of greater moment and importance, 
Objection.  then that the same should be left of for the not using of a proper ministerial garment.  
That is true indeed (say we) if a Minister by the use of such a garment 
Answer.  should not sin? But that a Minister not fully persuaded in his mind of the lawful use of a proper ministerial garment, may wear it doubtingly, and so sin, to the end he may preach the word: we doubt greatly whether your Lordships be able to prove this out of holy Writ & of this we pray your resolutions? For how should a man do evil that good may come thereby, when as the Scripture teacheth us, that his damnation is just, that so doth?  
The not preaching of the word then, being no sin in a Minister, when for the keeping of a good conscience, in not using a proper ministerial garment, he is commanded by a superior power not to preach the word; we demand hereupon, whether your Lordship's sin not rather in pressing, than the Minister in refusing this kind of Ministerial garment.  
And seeing we are fallen by occasion upon this comparison of preaching the word, and wearing a proper ministerial garment, we pray your Lordships patiently to hear, and quietly to answer our demands?  
Our demand then, is whether in your judgements, the preaching of the word be not in it own nature more precious, more needful and more profitable for the people, then can be the wearing of a proper ministerial garment?  
If your Lordships should prefer the wearing of such a ministerial garment to the preaching of the word, in this case, if we should hold our peace, the very stones might cry out shame upon our faces; for we are taught out of holy Writ, that Marie was commended before Martha, for that she sitting at the feet of jesus to hear him preach the word, had chosen the better part, even one thing that was necessary, and which might not be taken from her.  
If your Lordship's answer (as the truth is) that the preaching of the word, is more precious, needful and profitable for the Church, then is the wearing of a proper ministerial garment; Then we demand why grave, learned and Godly Preachers, whom the King himself confesseth to love and to honour, have been put to the worse, commanded to silence, suspended & excommunicated for the not wearing of such a Ministerial garment, when as notwithstanding light, lascivious, and unlearned Ministers no-preachers, (if so be they have worn a proper ministerial garment) have been suffered quietly to enjoy their functions, and their benefices?  
But all Preachers were never silenced, only certain Preachers not 
Bishops.  submitting themselves to the wearing of a ministerial garment according to the orders and laws of the Church are displaced.  
Well be it so? what other thing doth this argue, but that the not 
Gentl.  wearing of a ministerall garment, is reputed to be a sin more heinous than is the not preaching of the word?  
But there are a multitude of Ministers who be not able to preach 
Bishops.  the word; whereas there is not one preacher but he is able to put on a ministerial garment:  
What then? did ever any Preacher (we pray you) when he was 
Gentl.  made a Minister, bind himself by a solemn vow to wear a ministerial garment? No. And did not every Minister when he was made a Minister, bind himself by a solemn vow to preach the word? Yea: And how then cometh it to pass, (unless the wearing of a ministerial garment, be reputed more precious than is the preaching of the word) that the not wearing of the one by a Preacher, and the not preaching of the other by a Minister, should be offences, in degree of pain unmatchable? especially when as the not preaching is a breach of the ordinance of God, and the not wearing of a Ministerial garment, but a transgression of the law of man?  
When any husbandman shall have sown clean and pure wheat in his field, if the envious man shall sow tars, in this case, if the husbandman pluck up the wheat, and let the tars grow, would you commend his husbandry?  
But your Lordships will sow the fields with purer Wheat, and provide 
●ishops.  men of softer Spirits, less Novelous, better affected to the state, and of more discretion and maturity of judgement.  
Indeed if it may please your Lordships, this is soon said; but by 
Gentl.  your leaves, the thing is not so soon done; yea and besides we demand what good security your Lordships can give unto the King and State in this case?  
For in a matter of so great danger, as is the peril of the souls of the kings subjects, it were no good safety (in our opinion,) to trust your bare words for the time to come; when as in time passed upon pretence of the want of able & preaching Ministers, ye have thought it fit, rather than to have none at all, to retain a number of unpreaching ministers, known to be no better then idle beasts and flow bellies.  
And if your Lordships already have such a sufficient number of learned, sober, wise and soft spirited Preachers, to be disposed upon vacant benefices at your command, as that you be able to furnish the Churches of all those ministers, whom you intent to deprive, for not conformity upon an instant: we pray your Lordships to resolve the King what charity you have carried toward his people in time past, when you have collated (for a great part) the benefices of your own gifts, either upon no Preachers, or at leastwise upon strawberry preachers; but if your Lordships intend hereafter to send forth Preachers, that shall yield berries, not once in the year only, but at the least straw once every month; then we demand? what thanks you would con your Stewards, in case they should provide no better Cooks for the dressing of your gardeners, than such only, as under one whole months space, could not dispatch the roasting of an egg, or frying of a smelled?  
If your Lordships think that the preaching Ministers, not yielding to the Christian Magistrates authority, in the not using of this ministerial (falsely by you so called indifferent) apparel, by such their disobedience, may be an example unto the people, of like disobedience in other matters: Then we demand, whether your Lordships carry not a testimony in your own consciences, that their abstaining from the use of Ministerial apparel, proceed not rather from an honest and good heart, to the obedience of GOD, then of any evil affection conceived against the authority of the Magistrate? for before the Kingdom of England was lawfully invested in the Royal person of our Sovereign Lord King JAMES, did not sundry of them abide many sharp reproaches and bitter taunts, for their Scotizing, and defending the single form of church policy, upheld by the King's authority in the Realm of Scotland? yea and do not the same Ministers now at this day heartily and devoutly pray, for the life and prosperity of the King, the Queen, the noble young Prince, and all other the Kings Royal progeny? yea and excepting this one point of their not conformity unto the ceremonies (wherein they allege for themselves, the conscience of the unlawfulness and inconvenience of the said ceremonies) are they not known to be men worthy to be respected as the Ministers of Christ? men of good reputation for learning? of honest conversation? and peaceable among their neighbours? and men very obedient (this one thing excepted) to all authority? by whose good doctrine also, and example of life, the Magistrates in every County have found it more easy to continue the common people in the duties of their subjection, and loyalty to the supreme power?  
Nay, which is more at this very instant, do not they extraordinarily declare and testify their love, their loyalty and their fidelity unto the King, when by their loans they supply the King's want, though in the mean time they themselves want, and be driven to borrow to supply their own necessities? if then in these great and weighty things, appertaining to the dignity of the King's Crown, they carefully and holily approve themselves to be both teachers & followers of the Apostles doctrine, would they not aswell (trow you) by the wearing of a ministerial garment, subject their necks to the King's authority, if by a greater band of faith & obedience to the most high and mighty God, they were not drawn to the not wearing thereof?  
Touching the reason yielded by some, that ministerial apparel, is to distinguish the minister from other men: it seemeth unto us to be a reason altogether without reason: for albeit the outward form of a Ministers ordinary apparel may lawfully and expediently differ from the outward fashion of apparel common to other men, and so the Ministers person by his apparel may be known unto all such as know him not by face: Nevertheless it is void of all sense, that his ministerial apparel, in the public service of that Church, whereof he is a Minister, should be an inseparable note, to distinguish his person, from the persons of every of his people: For sithence by name, by face, by office, by place, by voice, yea by ordinary apparel also, every minister is, or aught to be known unto his people, what a kind of soundness is it, to imagine that a minister can better be known by wearing of a ministerial garment, then by the dew execution of his ministerial function.  
Concerning the reason of decency and comeliness urged by some, for the use of a white ministerial garment, in the ministery of the Gospel, because the same cometh more aptly to be discussed in the question following, we will not trouble your Lordships at this time with any other matter, about the two first demands: And therefore we will proceed to the third; which for your Lordship's better remembrance, we hold it not amiss to repeat again.  
If it be lawful for a sovereign Magistrate, by authority of holy writ, to ordain and appropriate a ministerial garment, for the ministers of the Gospel, than we demand, whether by authority of holy Writ, he may ordain and appropriate such a ministerial garment▪ as in matter, form and specie differeth not from that ministerial garment, which by the high Priest & chief Prince of idolatry, hath been, and still is ordained and appropriated to be a necessary priestly garment, for his idolatrous Priests, in their idol service?  
And to the end your Lordships may perceive our demands to be made constionably & not humorously, or novelously, we have thought necessary to lay down and annex certain principles or canons out of holy Writ, whereupon our Demands and reasons are grounded, which grounds and reasons also, we extend against crossing in Baptism, and Kneeling in the act of receving the Communion.  

The first ground.  
The graven images of their Gods, shall ye burn with fire, and covet 
Deut. 7. 25.  not the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it to thee, lest thou be snared therewith, for it is an abomination.  
Bring not therefore abomination into thine house, lest thou be accursed 
Deut, 7. 26.  like it, but utterly abhor it, and count it most abominable, for it is accursed.  
There shall cleave nothing of the damned thing to thine hands; All 
Deut. 13. 17 Isa. 44. 9  they that make any image are vanity, and their delectable things shall nothing profit.  
And shall pollute the covering of the images of silver, and the rich 
Esa. 30. 22.  ornaments of gold, and cast them away, as a menstruous cloth, and thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence.  
Neither be ye idolaters, as some of them were. 
1 Cor. 10. 7 ● john. 5. 2●   
Babes keep yourselves from idols.   
From these grounds of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, we demand whether your Lordships against these, can oppose any other rules of holy Writ, to prove that any Christian Magistrate, Christian Minister, or Christian people may be blameless and without fault, in foro conscientiae, if in the public and outward worship of God, either he shall command, or they shall use, any the relics, monuments or memorials, any the delectable, vain, and unprofitable things, some times, or now appertaining to the idolatrous sacrifice of that great and known idol, the Popish Mass.  
For if every commandment of the first Table of the Law, be a way, and be a path out of the which no Christian ought to turn a side, either to the right hand, or to the left; but in the which every Christian is bound aswell in the time of the Gospel, as every Israelite was bound in the time of the Law to walk; than not only that great Idol of the Popish Mass itself, set up and worshipped in the time of the Gospel; but then also, all relics, monuments, memorials and delectable things with their accessaries, appendices, and appurtinances, as a menstruous cloth, aught to be cast away, and to be bidden get ye hence; especially we say in the public service and worship of the true God.  
For by how much more, the glory of the Son, who spoke from heaven, doth far excel the honour of a servant, which spoke on earth, by so much the more ought that Idol & that Idolatry, which is set up and committed in the time of the Gospel, be esteemed more vile and detestable, then was that Idol and that Idolatry set up and committed in the time of the law.  
The reasons of the prohibition of coveting, and of taking any the images, their cover, their ornaments▪ their gold and their silver, under the Law were in number four: Namely:  
First they were an abomination to the Lord.  
Then: A fear of the people's being snared.  
Thirdly, a threat of being accursed:  
And lastly, for that they were vain, and could nothing profit.  
If then that great Idol of the Popish Mass, with all the Copes, Vestments, Surplices, Crosses, Kneel, Candles and other memorials and delectable things, invented for the adorning and pomp thereof, be abominable and accursed in the sight of God, be also vain and can nothing profit men: If also the Magistrate, the Ministers and people believing the Gospel, may be snared, and shallbe accursed after the manner of the Israelites, if so be without warrant from holy Writ, they shall use these things in the worship of God; we demand, whether from the doctrine of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, we may not conclude thus:  
With whatsoever things, either Magistrate, Minister, or people may be snared, and for the use of whatsoever things they may be accursed, those things may not lawfully be commanded or used in the public worship of God.  
But aswell the Magistrate as the Ministers and people may then be snared, and shallbe accursed with, and for the command and use of Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. when in the public worship of God, they be commanded and used without warrant of his word:  
Therefore Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. may not be commanded nor used in the public worship of God, without warrant of his word.  
If your Lordships deny the assumpt; and answer, that Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. commanded and used for the adorning, and beautifying of that great Idol the Mass, be in their own nature things indifferent, and none other otherwise can be accursed or be a snare to any Christian Magistrate, Minister or people, then as they be employed to the use and service of that Idol; and in this regard, their free and liberal use is no more now forbidden, then is the eating of meats sacrificed unto Idols, and that therefore all fear of being snared and accursed, doth cease, because we have free liberty by the word for the eating of meats sacrificed unto Idols; then hereunto we reply, that your answer is very unsufficient and uncertain, and without any strength of reason, drawn from holy Writ.  
For though we grant that nothing is unclean of itself, and that we ought not to account that polluted, which God hath purified: nevertheless we pray your Lordships to resolve us by holy Writ, that God hath by his word aswell purified Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. for the outward use of his public worship, as by his word he hath purified meats sacrificed unto idols, for the private use of man's life.  
When Peter had fastened his eyes upon the sheet, let down from 
Act. 11.  heaven by the four corners, he considered and saw four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the heaven, which were all the good creatures of God, and which also in the beginning were created for the food of man: only for a time while Israel was under the Schoolmaistership of the Law, certain of these creatures were forbidden to be eaten, not because they were in their own nature evil, or unclean, but only because they were made unclean for a time, by prohibition: And therefore when the fullness of time was come, and that Christ the end of the Law, was risen from the dead, the law of not eating meats forbidden ceased: And by letting down the sheet, and commandment given to Peter, to slay and to eat, Peter was assured that all those meats were restored to their primary use, integrity, and purity. And therefore these creatures being in their own original nature good; and in the beginning sanctified by the Lord, to the use of man's life, howsoever the idolaters profanely & abusively did sacrifice them unto their idols, yet could those idols never so pullute them by their abuse, as that they might utterly take away the good and profitable use, for the which they were first created.  
But that Copes, Surplices, Crosses, Candles, and other memorials and delectable things, authorized by that man of sin, for the pompous service of his great idol, the Mass, be of the nature of meats, or of the nature of gold and silver, (howsoever sacrificed unto idols) we deny.  
For first: meats, gold and silver in their own nature, were by creation (as erst was said) good, and to the end whereunto they were created ever blessed of God, and never accursed; whereas on the other side, no relics, monuments, or memorial of any idolatry, were ever blessed, but ever accursed.  
Secondly, they were never in their first original good or profitable, no not for that use whereupon they were employed: for as the Idol itself, is vain, unprofitable, polluted and abominable, yea nothing in respect of that thing which it representeth, even so also be all the accessories and appurtenances thereof, damned and execrable.  
Thirdly, these relics, monuments and memorials of Idolatry, being not the works of God, created in the beginning for the use of man, but the works of men's hands, applied to the service of an Idol, are not by the prohibition of God, unclean, and polluted only for a time, as certain meats were, but are evermore by a perpetual decree, things damned and accursed for the use of any service unto God: And therefore howsoever (as meats are usually sold in the shambles) they may be sold in a spinsters, or in an Embrotherers' shop, and may be used by man, to some benefit of this life: yet that they may be translated from the service of an Idol, to the worship of the true God, without warrant of being sanctified to that use, by the word of God, or that the Ministers and people professing the gospel, may as entirely & freely use and receive them in the outward worship of the true God, as the popish priests and people did in the service of their great Idol the Mass; we deny: And whether you be able to prove the contrary out of holy Writ, we demand your resolutions?  
And thus much for confirmation of the assumption of our former request: it followeth that we demand, whether your Lordships by any rule out of holy Writ, be able to repugn these conclusions following.  
First.  
All Idols with all their ornaments, and all their appurtenances, by the doctrine of holy Scriptures, as a menstruous cloth, are to be cast away and to be bidden get you hence:  
But the Popish Mass is an Idol, and all the Copes, Surplices, Crosses, Candles, etc. have been, and yet be, ornaments and appurtenances unto that Idol of the popish Mass:  
Therefore the popish Mass, and all Copes, Surplices, Crosses, Candles, etc. as a menstruous cloth are to be cast away, and to be bidden get you hence.  
Secondly.  
Whatsoever hath been first invented by man, and afterward appropried by authority of the great whore, to be a note, token, badge or ensign unto all her lovers, in the act of her fornication, the same ought not to be any note, token, badge, or ensign unto the spouse of Christ, or any her lovers, in the act of the outward worship of the true God.  
But all Copes, Surplices, Cross have been first invented by man, & appropried by authority of the great whore, to be notes, tokens, badges, and ensigns unto all her lovers in the act of her fornication:  
Therefore no Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. aught to be any badge, token or ensign, to the Spouse of Christ, or any her lovers, in the act of the worship of the true God.  
If your Lordships deny the truth of the first proposition of the first argument to be proved by those places before quoted out of the law, the Prophets and Apostles, than we pray your Lordships to yield us some reason, from other places of holy Writ, for the confirmation of such your negation? For unto us the letter of the scriptures, seem to be very direct & plain to the purpose, for the which we have alleged them:  
If your Lordships deny the consequence of the first proposition, of the second argument, and affirm that the spouse of Christ, and her lovers may lawfully wear in the outward act of the worship of the true God, the notes, tokens, badges and ensigns, commanded by the great whore to be worn in the act of her fornication; then we demand, by what places of holy Writ your Lordships be able to prove this your affirmation? in the mean time give us leave, according to the measure of our skill, to discharge the assumpt: of the first argument, from such error, as happily at the first view may seem in your opinions, to be contained therein.  
If then your Lordships shall challenge the assumpt: of the first argument, either of particularity, or ambiguity of the words (Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc.) for that all Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. have not been, ●e now be ornaments, and appurtenances unto that great Idol of the Mass, because some Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. be ornaments and solemnites for the administration of Baptism, celebration of the Lords Supper, and other divine services; then for the adnulling aswell of your Lordship's distinction, as for the overthrow of all, both new and old Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. to be used by the Spouse, and her lovers, in the act of the worship of the true God, we propound unto your Lordships these grounds of holy Writ following, whereunto also we demand your resolutions?  
Beware lest thou be taken in a snare after them after that they be 
Deu. 12. 30 31  destroyed before thee, & lest thou ask after their gods, saying, how did these nations serve their gods, that I may do so likewise, thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God.  
Ye are the children of the Lord your God, you shall not cut yourselves 
Deu. 14. ●. 2  nor make you any baldness between your eyes for the dead: for thou art an holy people, unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a precious people unto himself, above all the people that are upon the earth.  
What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? what communion 
1. Cor. 6. 14 15. 16  hath light with darkness? what concord hath Christ with belial, or what part hath the believer with the infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God, with Idols?  
Come I will show thee the damnation of the great whore, that fitteth 
Rev. 17 1. 2  upon many Waters; with whom have committed fornication the Kings of the earth, and the inhabitants of the earth are drunken with the wine of her fornication.  
And I saw seats, and I saw the souls of them that were dead for 
Revel. 20. 4  the witness of jesus, and for the word of God, and which did not worship the beast, neither his image, neither had taken his mark upon their foreheads, or on their hands.  
From these grounds of holy Writ, taken out of the law, we demand, 
Deut. 12. 30. 31.  whether the worship of every Idol, and false god, or not, rather every superstitious, and false worship of the true God be forbidden? And whether this superstitious and false worship of the true God, be not intended to be that manner, form and fashion of worship, both wholly and in part, which the Gentiles used in the worship of their Idols?  
For there being a commandment given before unto the children of Israel, for the burning of the Images, and of the utter destruction of all the Idols of the Canaanites: it is by these Scriptures commanded (after these Idols were destroyed, and the Images burnt) that the children of Israel should not so much as once hearken after, or inquire; how those nations served their gods, lest they should be taken in a snare, to do so, and likewise unto the Lord their God, as the nations did unto their Idols:  
And thus much also doth that argument, drawn from the doctrine of the gospel enforce, of not having fellowship, concord, part, or agreement with belial; or with an Idol: of the not taking of the mark of the beast in their hands, or in their foreheads; And therefore we again demand, whether the Church (falsely so called) of Rome, be not this great whore, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication? And whether she also be not from the earth, and of this world? Whether the beauty of this great whore stand not in outward pomp of apparel, and outward shows, after the manner of a strumpett?  
Whether this outward pomp of apparel and shows of impudence consist not partly in Copes, Surplices, Crosses, and such like trash? And whether these Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. be not designed by that whore, to be the proper and peculiar cognisances, tokens, badges and ensigns of her lovers, committing fornication with her great Idol the breaden God?  
If your Lordships can justly deny our demands, in the affirmative to be true: we then again demand; If the bride of the lamb, being a pure virgin, shall at any time be appareled, in the act of the service of her beloved, like to the minions waiting upon the great Whore, in the act of her fornications: we demand (we say) whether the Bride (in this case) can be precious and amiable in the eyes of the Bridegroom? can be said to have no concord with belial? no part with an infidel? no agreement with an Idol? can be said, not to take upon her hand, upon her forehead, or upon her back, the mark of the beast? Can be said, not to do so, and likewise to the bridegroom, as the minions of the whore, do to their Idol? or not to do so, and likewise, to God, as the papists do to the devil?  
Nay, if the Church of England herself alone; be not the bride, but one of the maids of the Bride, and if also she profess herself, to be the first of the three, rather than the last, of the the thirty worthies and honourable Virgins; we demand what holy reason should move this maid of England, still to fashion her Necklaces, her Bracelets, her Frontlet's, her Chains, her jewels, her linen Apornes, her gaudy Kirtles, like to those which the most famous strumpett, that ever was, (for pompous ostentation and bravery) daily useth and putteth on, especially sithence all her other fellow maids, in other Countries attending upon the Bride with most solemn vows and obtestations, and with a most holy disdain and indignation have abandoned and cast away, as a menstruous cloth, what attire soever hath been, or yet is proper, to the minions of that great Whore?  
If your Lordship's answer that the Maid of England, being perfectly instructed from the Bridegroms' voice, (that no Cope, Surplice or Cross is unclean of itself,) may command her Damsels, to attire and fashion their liveries, colours and badges, like to those which the minions & lovers of the great whore, commonly deck themselves withal: if so be her commandment tend not, that her Damsels should be defiled or be drunken with the Wine of the fornication of the great whore, but only that they should be humbled at the feet of the Christian Magistrate, whom the Bridegroom hath armed with power, to be a protector and a nursing father of all the liberties and franchises of the Bride, and of her Maids: if your Lordships (we say) to discharged the Maid of England, in foro conscientiae, shall answer thus and thus: then because the Christian Magistrate is himself not the Bridegroom; but one of the children of the Bride chamber, & a friend of the Bridegrooms; and for this cause, & in this respect, can not rightly command the Maid of England to be apparelled otherwise in the service of the Bridegroom, then as the Bridegroom hath licensed the Magistrate to command; we then demand, by what rule of holy Writ, your Lordships can prove, that the Christian Magistrate hath commission from the Bridegroom, to command the Maid of England at all seasons, and in all the courts of his abode, to wait and to attend, to present, and to put up her requests, her prayers, and her services, in such suit and change of raiment, as is common with that of the minions of the great whore?  
For unless the Christian Magistrate be armed with power from the Bridegroom, to charged the maid of England to be thus attired, your Lordships can not be ignorant, but that aswell the nursing Father in commanding, as the nurse Child in obeying, shall sin against the Bridegroom.  
For howsoever it may be lawful for the Christian Magistrate to command or forbid the use, or not use of every kind of creature, which in it own nature, by virtue of creation, is good, and therefore only called indifferent, because indifferently at the moderate pleasure of every man, the same with prayer and thanksgiving, may be used, or refused, for the use of this life without offence to God; nevertheless we greatly stand in doubt, whether the Christian Magistrates authority reach so far as to command that the work of man's hands be used in the outward worship of the true God, which for the pollution and profanation thereof in the service of an Idol, is become for the service of the true God, abominable and damned.  
Nay; if Hezekiah King of judah, be commended in holy Writ, for 
2 Ki. 1●. 3. 4  doing uprightly in the sight of the Lord, when he broke in pieces the brazen Serpent, & called it a piece of brass, when the children of Israel, by burning incense to it, abused it to Idolatry, notwithstanding the same were first set up by Moses, at the commandment of God: How much more ought Christian Magistrates to destroy and to break in pieces all manner works of men's hands, never commanded in holy writ, either for the service of God, or for the profit of his people?  
But Hezekiah might have done well and uprightly also, if so be he 
Bishops.  had still reserved the Serpent, as a memorial of the miracles wrought by the looking upon it, though for the abuse of burning incense before it, he had not broken the same in pieces.  
But we beseech your Lordships to inform us rightly out of holy 
Gentl.  Writ, whether this your answer in the sight of the Lord, be upright, yea or no?  
First, after the people's hearts were once turned aside, by burning incense to the Serpent, it was not in the power of Hezekiah to know, whether the people's hearts would have been again upright in the memorial of the miracles, yea or no? And as for the restitution of the Serpent, to that integrity of doing miracles, after the people's departure out of the wilderness, when they were no more stung by Serpents, that to do, was much less in the power of Hezekiah: Besides, because by the doctrine of holy Writ, we be taught, not only that the forbidding of one thing, includeth a commandment of the contrary, and that the commandment of one thing enforceth a forbidding of the contrary; but also that aswell the omission of a duty required, as the commission of a thing prohibited, is an offence to God: We pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy writ; whether the holy Ghost, commending the uprightness of Hezekiah, aswell for breaking to pieces the 
2. K●. 18. 4.  brazen Serpent, as in taking away the high places, and breaking the Images and cutting down the groves, do not instruct us that he was to have been discommended, in case he had let the Serpent stood unbroken down, though he had cut down the Groves, broken the Images, and taken away the high places?  
For in our judgements by the doctrine aforesaid, founded upon holy Writ, the breaking of the Serpent, being reckoned as a part of his uprightness, and for the which he is commended, the not breaking thereof, must needs have been as an unupright and as discommendable a thing, as the not cutting down of the Groves, the not breaking the Images, and the not taking away the High places.  
But such Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc. as heretofore have been worn, 
Bb.  and used at, & for Idols service, are not eadem numero with ours: For all the old Popish Copes, Surplices, etc. be long since out of date, and we will have all spick and span new.  
Yea be it so, yet if the fashion and workmanship of their old, be the 
Gentl.  true patterns of our new, how shall not ours be like unto theirs? King Ahaz though he sent not the very same Altar which he saw at Damascus, 
2. Ki. 10. 10  but the pattern and the fashion of it, and all the workmanship thereof to Vriah the Priest, yet doth the holy Story witness, that he trespassed, and did evil, and commendeth Hezekiah, that 
2. Ki. 29. 5● 15. 16. 17  in the first year and first month of his reign, he commanded the Levites to carry forth the filthiness out of the Temple, and all the uncleaneness that they found in the Temple of the Lord, brought in by their Fathers.  
In the second book of the Kings, the holy Ghost testifying what 
2. Ki. 17. 15  evil Hoshea the son of Elah King of Israel & his Fathers had done, in the sight of the Lord, showeth us, that they followed vanity, and became vain, and followed the Heathen, that were round about them; concerning whom the Lord hath charged them, that they should not do like them. And again that they walked according to the fashion 
8. 11.  of the Heathen; And again that they burned incense in the High places as did the Heathen.  
And again, that they would not obey, but hardened their necks, 
12. 40.  like to the necks of their Fathers: and again, that they obeyed not, but did after their old custom? yea and the Lord by the mouth of Abijah King of judah reproved jeroboam to his face, not for that he had made Priests of other countries, but that he had made him Priests, like the people of other countries.  
But by your patience, Sirs, these cases be not alike, For there was an 
Bb.  express commandment in the Law, that there should be but one Altar, the pattern also whereof, was given to Moses in the holy Mount, whereas we be not expressly forbidden in the Gospel to wear Copes, Surplices, or to make Crosses.  
But by your Lordship's favour (say we) the cases (notwithstanding this 
Gentl.  your exception) be a like: for the Bride (say we) of the Lamb; by the doctrine of the Gospel, is aswell expressly taught and bound as the Israelites were, to observe and keep the second commandment of the Law; yea she is commanded not to fashion herself like to this world; not to wear the livery of the great whore: not to mark herself in the hand or in the forehead, with the mark of the Beast: not to have any fellowship, concord, part or agreement with belial, with an infidel, or with an Idol.  
If then the great whore do still reign, though not over us; if the beast do still rage, though his horns push not at us; if belial be still worshipped, though not by us: And if also this belial, and this Beast, vaunt himself, and this great Whore glory and deck herself in, and with this kind of appareling, and this manner of Crossing, we humbly pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, whether among our Priests, whosoever shall come to pray, to preach, or to administer the Sacraments, with a Cope, with a Surplice, with a Taper, with a Cross, or with a shaved Crown, like to the Copes, Surplices, Tapers, Crosses and shaved Crowns, of those Priests which are Priests to them which are no gods, whether such our Priests (we say) borrowing this attire from the great whore, and using the same in the service of the true God; do not follow vanity and become vain, and follow the Popish Idolaters about us, concerning whom, the Lord hath forbidden we should not do like them, neither walk according to their fashion, and after their old custom, neither to have any part, fellowship, communion, concord, or agreement with them?  
What Sirs? would you then have us, to have no manner of agreement, 
Bishops.  concord, or communion, with the Papists with the Beast, or with the great whore? what, no thing at all? why then Sirs, you would belike have us pull down our Churches, our Oratories and our chapels?  
Though our desire be to keep ourselves from all the defilements 
Gentl.  and pollutions of that Romish strumpett, yet do we dislike the pulling down of Churches, etc. For we know and are fully persuaded, by rules of holy Writ, that we may lawfully use, not only Churches, Oratories and chapels: but also that we may have seats in Churches; Pulpits in Churches; Fonts in Churches; Tables together with fair linen table clothes, to cover these Tables in Churches; Bells, and Ropes for Bells▪ in Churches; yea and besides that, Reading, Praying, Preaching, administering of Sacraments, Singing, yea and Ringing too: are things which lawfully may be performed by us in Churches, because all these and every of these things being of some holy, natural, necessary, profitable, comely or good, orderly use for the people, in, for, and toward the service of God, by some general rule of holy Writ, be approved, and therefore by the same commanded, and sanctified for our use.  
But as for Copes, Surplices, Crosses, Candles at noon days, and such like superstitious ornaments, rites and ceremonies, because there is neither holiness, neither nature, neither necessity, neither utility, neither decency, neither any good order that require the same; Nay, because what soever good order, decency, utility, necessity, nature, or holiness can require, may without those ornaments, rites, and ceremonies, be fully accomplished; we affirm that they ought as a menstruous cloth be cast away, and to be bidden, get ye hence.  
Why, Sirs? do you approve of a white linen tablecloth to cover the 
Bishops.  communion table, and do you disallow a white linen Surplice? What? is it not as comely a thing, and as good an order, we pray you, for the Minister at the communion table, to stand in a fine, large, and clean linen Surplice, as it is a thing decent and orderly, for the communion table, to be overspread with a fine and clean linen tablecloth?  
Until your Lordships shall be able to prove unto us, either out of 
Gentl.  holy Writ, or by some good reason, that it is, as undecent a thing for your pages, to wait and to attend upon your trenchers and upon your cups, without wearing whit linen Surplices, as it is a slovenly manner, for any kind of persons to sit down, to eat, and to drink, at the table, without having laid before them a whit linen tablecloth, or napkin; we are bold to affirm, that there is great odds, between the decent use of a white linen tablecloth, for the communion table, and between the use of a white Surplice, for the back of a minister.  
Indeed, if it were as comely and as orderly a thing, for all sorts of people, aswell women, as men, to wear Surplices upon their upper garments, when they come to the Lords table, as it is a decent and orderly manner for all men and women, whensoever they sit down to eat, and to drink, to have their tables covered, with fair linen table-clothes; we would not then much stand with your Lordships, that the wearing of a Surplice, by a Minister, at the communion table, might be as decent, and as orderly a thing, as is the covering of the communion table, with a fair linen tablecloth: but the first being a thing undecent, we deny the second to be decent: And yet were the latter granted to be decent, what advantage, we pray your Lordships, doth this argument of comparison (from a white linen tablecloth, to a whit linen Surplice) bring for the use of a silken, Embroidered, & yellow glittering Cope? Are the hearts of the Priests in Cathedral and Collegiate churches, so golden, as they must signify their golden hearts, by their golden garments?  
Hic tacuere phriges, auro sua somnia caelant:  
Well, by your patience (Sirs) though we have not much to say for 
Bb.  maintenance and defence of our Copes, which are to be used only in our Cathedral and great churches, and not in your Parochial churches, yet we pray you to carry a better estimation of the wearing of Surplices, by your Ministers, than you do of the wearing of Surplices, by the popish Priests: Because the fountain from whence ours sprang, and the end whereunto ours tend and are applied, be much every way different from theirs.  
Why then give us leave▪ by your Lordship's favour, to demand what 
Gentl.  were the fountains from whence, and what are the ends whereunto both theirs and ours sprang, and do tend? Your Lordships can not deny but as theirs were first worn, without any commandment of God, so be ours, and that therefore, as the wearing of theirs was but by devise and authority of man, so is ours: As theirs were commanded for order, comeliness and decency, unto the minions of the great whore, so be ours commended to be decent, comely and orderly garments, for the maids of the bride. As theirs were for a conformity among the lovers of her that committed fornication, so be ours for an uniformity among the lovers of a pure and chaste virgin: As theirs were for 
Treat: of ceremon: sect. 3.  notes and distinctions between the people and the priests, so be ours held to be marks between the shepherds and the sheep: As theirs might not be worn but upon the upper pelts of their priests, so must not ours be used, but upon the upper garments of our ministers: As their Priests might not sacrifice, nor make holy water without them, even so is it not lawful for our Ministers without them, to pray or to administer the Sacraments. As theirs were significant, and yet notwithstanding, were altogether idle, vain, fruitless, and without edification: so be ours maintained to be neither dark nor dumb ceremonies, to serve as a decent order, and discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man, to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some special signification, whereby he might be edified, to have respect how to please God and profit the church. Whereas nevertheless they be in truth without edification, without profit, nay rather hurtful to the church, without pleasing God, without use, idle, vain, and needles; As theirs might not be used at any other time, or in any other place, but only in the place & at the time of their service of their false god; so may not ours be used in any other place, or at any other time, but only at the time, and in the place of the worship of the true God.  
And lastly, whosoever among the Priests, refused to wear their Surplices, were adjudged schismatics and to be excommunicated; even so what soever minister, among our Ministers, denieth to receive and to put on one of our Surplices, he is at the pleasure of his ordinary, for such refusal, to be suspended, excommunicated, and deprived. In so much as there is not any one lest circumstance to be found, wherein their, and our Surplices, differ in matter, form, use, end, or application.  
And thus much of our Demands, grounded upon holy Writ, whether the Christian Magistrate, may command and appropriate a Ministerial garment for the Ministers of the Gospel, and especially such a Ministerial garment, as hath been a priestly garment, for the Priests of that great Idol the Mass. Now it followeth that we demand, upon what rules of holy Writ the making of a Cross, and signing of the child in the forehead in the administration of Baptism is grounded; against which we propound these grounds of holy Writ.  

Grounds out of holy writ against the use of the Cross in Baptism.  
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image. 
Exod. 20   
All they that make an Image are vanity, & their delectable things 
Isa. 44. 9  nothing profit.  
Every man is a beast by his own knowledge. 
jerem. 10▪ 14. 15. 17 Isa. 29, 13   
This people have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me, was taught by the precept of man.  
In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of 
Math. 15. 8.  men.   
From which grounds we demand:  
Whether your Lordships can prove out of holy Writ, that there can be a service yielded unto God, where God hath not given a commandment?  
Whether the more a man thinketh to do any thing by his own wisdom, and not as God instructeth him, the more he do not prove himself to be a vile beast?  
Whether any thing can be acceptable in the sight of God, which he never required at our hands?  
Whether God willbe honoured, according to man's fantasy, or rather doth not detest, whatsoever is not grounded upon his word?  
If your Lordships for the avoiding of these demands, shall deny the feigned making of a cross, and feigned signing of the child in the forehead with a cross, in the administration of Baptism, to be any service, or to be any worship unto God, and therefore neither voluntary service, neither will-worship unto God: then we demand for what intent, or to what end, the making of a Cross, and signing the forehead of the child with a cross, is commanded as a necessary service, to be performed by the Minister, in that public act of God's worship? for if the form and manner of God's worship (as you say) be established, prescribed, & contained in the book of common 
Constitut. & ca published 1604. come. 4. 10.  prayer, if also the ministration of the Sacrament commanded in that book, be (as you say) no corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship, neither containing any thing in it that is repugnant to the scriptures: how should not the making of a Cross, and signing of the child in the forehead with a cross, but be a pure, a religious, & a lawful worship unto God? Besides, if making a cross upon the child's forehead, and signing the forehead of the child with a cross, be no act of gods worship in the administration of Baptism; Then we demand, how the Minister in foro conscientiae, can be guiltless of taking the holy name of God in vain, when as in the act of God's service and worship, he doth neither worship, nor serve God?  
But, Sirs, by your patience, the Minister in obeying the authority of 
Bishops.  the Church, when she commandeth him, to make a Cross, herein obeyeth God.  
Why then, by your Lordship's favour, we demand, whether the 
Gentl.  church do serve God, or do but please herself, in that her commandment? For (say we) where no commandment of God, there no service unto God: And therefore if the Church, by such her commandment, do but please herself; and not serve and please God. Then we demand, whether the Church in thus pleasing herself, and not serving ●od, do not offend God, as much, nay rather more, then if she had commanded a voluntary service, and a will-worship unto God?  
But, Sirs, the act of making a Cross, and signing the child in the 
Bishops.  forehead with a cross, is no part of baptism, for we grant, that baptism is perfect and absolute without it.  
But yet by your Lordship's favour, the question is not, whether making 
Gentl.  of a cross, or signing with a cross, be any part of baptism, but whether making of a cross, and signing with a cross, be any part of the continued act of the outward and divine worship given unto God in the public administration of baptism? For if it be a mere traditional, and no divine or religious action▪ or if it be partly traditional, and partly divine, we still urge your Lordships to prove unto us, by the holy scriptures, whether it were ever lawful in any act of God's worship, to act a thing merely traditional, or partly traditional, and partly divine.  
As for the action of sitting, standing, kneeling, going, reading, praying, preaching, and if there be any other Divine, natural, or necessary actions, powers or faculties of the body or mind, without which no outward service can be yielded unto God.  
We confess, that the Church with the Magistrates consent, may determine of the comely and orderly acting of these things: because Aliquo per Deum mandato, omnia ea mandantur, ne quibus illud mandatum commodè & religiosè adimpleri non potest: And therefore those divine, necessary, and natural actions before remembered, depending upon, or proceeding from the powers and faculties of the body or mind, being such as without which the outward service of God can not▪ commodiously, decently, and orderly be accomplished, we affirm, that they be confirmed unto us from general rules of holy writ.  
And this also may serve for an answer, for the having of water, & a vessel to contain water; because, as water of necessity is required to the administration of baptism, so must also water (we having no waters running through our churches) of necessity be contained in some vessel▪ but as for making a cross, or signing the forehead of the child with a cross in baptism, because the same by your confession, is no part of Baptism; And because also the same is not properly and simply any necessary, natural or divine action, as without which Baptism can not be administered; Nay, because it is such an action, as without which Baptism very decently and orderly may be administered: we pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, how the Minister may act the sign in the outward act of God's worship: And yet not break (as erst hath been said) either the second commandment, by outwardly serving God otherwise then he hath commanded in his word, or not violate the third commandment, by taking his holy Name in vain?  
But by your patience, Sirs, this making a cross upon the child's forehead, 
Bishops.  and this signing him with a sign of the cross, in token, etc. though the same be no part of Baptism, nor any part of the outward worship of God, nor any natural, nor necessary action of the body or mind, without which Baptism can not be administered, yet is the same a solemnity, & an ornament appertaining unto Baptism, by the order of the church▪ which ought not to be omitted and left undone.  
But by your Lordship's favour, this your Apology is of no fresher 
Gentl.  hue, nor of any deeper dye, then wherewith the great Papists and fond canonists have always bepainted and becouloured their signing, their salting, their spitteling, their oiling, their chrismating, and their other such like solemnities, according to these verses:  
Sal, oleum, chrisma, cereus, chrismate, saliva,  
Flatus, virtutem Baptismatis ista figurant;  
Haec cum patrinis, non mutant esse, sed ornant.  
And therefore we pray your Lordships to resolve us by some place of holy Writ, whether the Papists and you, or either of you, be enabled to invent, or ordain such solemnities, ornaments, signs & figures of crosses to be used in the public administration of Baptism, as never once came in the mind of God to have devised or used? And so much the rather do we desire your Lordship's resolutions herein, because there is no manner of solemnity, sign, figure or ornament of a cross, required by the book of common prayer, to be used in that administration of Baptism, which in the same book, is entitled private Baptism.  
For if Baptism without any real solemnity, or actual ornament of a cross, or of the sign of a cross, may be administered privately, how much more without these human solemnities and ornaments might baptism be administered publicly?  
There being then in the Church of England, two forms & manners of the administration of Baptism, the one private, the other public; the one with a cross, the other without a cross, and both of these concluded by your late Canons, not to be corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful, by means also whereof there is to be seen no conformity, or uniformity between having solemnities & ornaments of crosses, & signs of crosses in public baptism, & between the not having solemnities and ornaments of crosses, and signs of crosses in private baptism: we pray your Ll. to resolve us out of holy writ; whether these ornaments & solemnities of crosses, & signs of crosses, for the stability of public peace & quiet in the church, & the not enforcing of any man's conscience with the use of the cross, might not aswell be left out in the administration of public, as it is in the administration of private baptism?  
For whether respect be had to the brethren offended, or made weak by the use thereof, or whether we regard the not confirming & strenghtening of the superstitious in their error, there is far much more danger like to ensue, both to the one sort & to the other, by the use of it, in public, then in private Baptism, by reason that the assembly generally is evermore great in the one, and never but small in the other.  
But to let pass this deformity of crossing & not crossing, in public & private baptism, we will prosecute some few demands, not yet moved, concerning the feigned imaginary and airy crossing, used in public Baptism. And first, we pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy writ, how a Minister, in foro conscientiae, can be clear & without sin, when as in the same public & continued act of God's worship, imaginarily & feignedly he shall affirm the doing of a thing, which indeed & in truth he doth not, ne possibly can do? if the Minister then without some instrument, chalk, rudle or such like, can make no cross upon the child's forehead, and yet shall say (as the book prescribeth) that he signeth him with the sign of the cross, what a gross fitten call ye that?  
To affirm that the passing of the Ministers hand, thumme or finger, crosswise in the air over the child's forehead, is to make a cross upon the child's forehead, & that the same passing in the air, is also the sign of a cross, this (we say) to affirm, is as if a man should assevere, that the flying of a bird in the air, & the sliding of a serpent upon a stone, leaveth a bird, and the sign of a bird in the air; a serpent, and the sign of a serpent, upon a stone: And to say that there is an invisible cross, or a sign of an invisible sign of a cross, remaining in the air over the child's forehead, how absurd, and without all reason that saying is, we leave to your Lordship's considerations.  
For if it be unpossible to make a cross, or the sign of a cross, upon the running water, much more unpossible is it to make a cross, or the sign of a cross, in the subtle and replenishing air: wherefore unless your Lordships can prove by some rule of holy Writ, that every Minister is endowed with power from above, to make crosses, and signs of crosses, which be invisible, and that these invisible signs and crosses be also invisible tokens in the child's forehead, of his being not ashamed of Christ crucified, of his manful fight, etc. we demand, what good plea in foro conscientiae, your Lordships can frame to discharged the Minister from being guilty of a thrice feigned, imaginary & lying cross? we say, thrice feigned at the least.  
First, we receive and do sign thee: secondly, with the sign; and thirdly, of the Cross. And what, if we said fourthly, in token? for what token can the child, or his witness, in his name receive & keep, when as neither he, nor they, have any cross, any sign, or any token of a cross given or delivered unto them at all? which manner of crossing, signing and tokening, may well be compared to our attorneys proceeding by signs and proffers, signs and proffers; when indeed by such their plead they hasten not, but delay their clients causes, only making signs and proffers, signs and proffers, as though by this means they hastened to an end, when as indeed they mind nothing less.  
But to speak no more of the Ministers feigned signs and proffers of making crosses & signs of crosses in the air, upon or over the child's forehead; We demand? whether not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified; whether not to be ashamed manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world and the devil; whether not to be ashamed to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant to his life's end? We demand (we say) whether these three graces, be not all, & every of them, inward, invisible and spiritual graces, yea or no?  
If your Lordship's answer, (as the truth is) that these graces be all spiritual, invisible & inward graces, then because by the book of common prayer (so the Minister make a cross) it is not material of what form the cross be made: we demand, by what rules of holy writ, your Lordships can prove, that the sign of the cross of saint john's of jerusalem, the sign of saint Andrews cross, the sign of saint Peter's cross, the sign of the cross made after the Greek T. or like the Hebrew χ. or like the Greek X. or the sign of any other cross, (for there be diverse other forms of crosses) can be a token of these spiritual and invisible graces, if so be they were engraven with a Diamond upon the child's forehead.  
If your Lordship's answer affirmatively, that the sign of saint Andrew's cross, of saint john's cross, of saint Peter's cross, or the sign of any other cross, made by the Minister upon the child's forehead, is a token of these inward, spiritual and invisible graces; then we demand, whether your Lordships ascribe not like power to every minister, for the transubstantiation of every invisible cross, feignedly made in the administration of Baptism, to the form of a true & visible cross, as the Pope attributeth to every Priest, for the transubstantiation of every piece of bread, whereupon he bloweth at the Altar, into the Body of Christ? or if your Lordship's answer (because there is no cross sensibly to be seen, but intelligibly to be understood) that the imaginary feigned & airy cross is a token of these invisible & spiritual graces; then again we pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, whether God did ever ordain any invisible signs, to be invisible tokens, of invisible graces, yea or no?  
And if God did never ordain such signs; then we demand, what authority man hath to ordain such signs?  
But if your Lordships shall answer negatively, viz: that the invisible sign of the cross, imaginarily pretended to be made by the Minister, is not a token of these inward and spiritual graces; then we demand, whether your Lordships with your own mouths pronounce not that thing to be false, which the book of common prayer commandeth every Minister, with his lips to proclaim to be true?  
But Sirs, by your leave, the Church hath power from Christ to ordain 
Bb.  rites and ceremonies, and the Magistrate may command that all things be done decently and according to order, in the time of prayer and administration of Sacraments.  
Yea, and so say we too: Nay we say more, that the Christian Magistrate 
Gentl.  knowing any thing to be done undecently and unorderly, shall sin against God, if by his authority, he take not order, for reformation of such disorder; but by your Lordship's favour, the question is not whether the Church may ordain Rites and Ceremonies, or whether the Christian Magistrate may command such things, as by the Apostles doctrine are to be done, that the same be done decently and orderly: but the question is, whether all rites and ceremonies indefinitely, and without limitation approved by the Church and commanded by the Magistrate to be decent, and to be in order, be in deed and without contradiction absolutely decent, and absolutely in order? And for this cause and in this regard only, both by ministers and people, without any search or inquisition of their agreeableness with holy writ, absolutely to be received, as if the same by some holy oracle, were immediately sent unto them from God?  
For be it supposed, that some rites and ceremonies ordained by the Church and commanded by the Christian Magistrate, be of the nature of things either unlawful, or inexpedient, or that they be vain, idle, unnecessary and unprofitable things: in these cases, we pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, whether the Apostles rule of having all things to be done decently and according to order in the Church cease not? For how should those things be done decently and orderly in the Church for the which the Church hath no warrant, that the same should be done at all?  
The Apostle then having taught the Corinthians, that the things 
● Cor. 14. 40.  which he wrote, were the commandments of the Lord, and concluding that all things treated of by him in the former parts of that chapter, touching the right use of spiritual gifts, are to be done decently and in order, we demand, whether your Lordships from this apostolical rule can religiously conclude any otherwise then thus?  
All the commandments and all the spiritual gifts of the Lord, are to be done and used in the Church decently and orderly.  
But the wearing of a Surplice, in time of prayer and administration of Sacraments, the making of a Cross upon the child's forehead, etc. And kneeling in the act of receiving bread and wine at the lords Table, be spiritual gifts, or at leastwise be the commandments of the Lord:  
Therefore these things are to be done decently and in order.  
But now if your Lordship's being not able to strengthen your minor proposition by any place of holy Writ, shall make the same answer which the Romanistes frame in all like cases, for the Authority of their church, namely: that the Ministers, and people, ought precisely to observe and do these things, if not propter Authoritatem Apostolicam, yet propter authoritatem Ecclesiae, seu Christiani Magistratus sic statuentis: Then do your Lordships but as they do, even run from the Rock, and build upon the Sand; yea and besides, flee from the point in question: making the Church, and Christian Magistrate not only to be preservers, but commanders of all evangelical decency and order, And then might not this consecution, and conclusion infallibly be true?  
What soever things by the Church, with consent of the Christian Magistrate, be, or shallbe appointed, for evangelical decency and order in the Church: the same without all exception, and challenged of any undecency, or disorder, must and aught to be received of every member of the Church, for decent and orderly things:  
But all such and such things by the Church, with consent of the Christian Magistrate be appointed, etc.  
Therefore all such and such things, must & aught, without all exception, be received, etc.  
Yea, Sirs: and is not this a good consecution, and doth not this 
Bb.  conclusion necessarily follow? For who shall be judge of evangelical decency and order, if not the Church and Christian Magistrate alone?  
Before we answer unto this question, we deny your proposition, 
Gentl.  because the same seemeth unto us to be rather an inversion, than a true conversion of the Apostles rule, viz.  
Let all things be done decently and in order.  
1 Cor. 14. 4●  
The meaning whereof, according to the Analogy of the place, we take to be this, namely: that all things, or what soever things are to be done in the Church, that the same things ought to be done decently and in order:  
But what agreement, we pray you, hath this rule with your proposition? or what coherence hath your proposition with this rule? for by what art can you frame this your proposition upon the Apostles foundation?  
This your proposition (we say) namely all things, or whatsoever things the Church with consent of the Christian Magistrate shall authorize for decency and order, the same are all decent and orderly things.  
Indeed, if this your proposition could be proved true by any doctrine drawn from any other place of holy Writ, we would easily grant, the church with consent of the christian Magistrate having commanded Copes, Surplices, Crosses, kneel, etc. to be used in the church, that this the Apostles rule did bind all those to kneel, to make crosses, and to wear Copes, and Surplices, not ungaynely, disorderly or slovenly, but comely, handsomely, and netely; but seeing your proposition is false, and can not by any other place of holy scripture be proved true, you have drawn in the Apostles rule, as it were by the hair, and plucked it in, as it were by the heels, to a wrong purpose, and forced it to a wrong sense.  
Furthermore, because these words decency and order, mentioned in your proposition, carry a double sense, we pray your Lordships to resolve us, whether by these words decency & order, you mean simply such a decency, and such an order, as for the allowance whereof, plain and evident testimonies may be found in holy Writ, that the same decency and order is pleasing unto God? or whether you mean such a decency and order only, as for the which (we having no other warrant, than tradition or commandment of man) is only pleasing unto man? touching which latter kind of decency and order, the same being but human, we demand, if either Ministers or people be not fully persuaded in mind, that this human decency and order, is by some general rule of holy Writ, aswell pleasing unto God; as the same by some law of man, is known to be well pleasing unto man: we demand (we say) in this case whether Minister or people, in foro conscientiae, be obliged to use this so called and commanded decency or order, yea or no? For albeit every soul be subject to the higher powers; nevertheless, for the avoiding of error, and that the conscience of every soul may be upright with God, in her subjection, to the ordinance of man: the conscience must take direction, not from the only will and authority of man, but from the only Writ and authority of God. And therefore as every Magistrate, aught to be fully persuaded in his conscience of his command, before he conscionably may require, that to be obeyed which he commandeth: even so it be hoveth every soul, before he obey, to be persuaded fully in his mind, that the thing commanded, aught for conscience sake, to be obeyed, because the same is approved by the holy word of God: For otherwise howsoever outwardly he may serve, and please the Magistrate, yet inwardly & in the spirit, he can never be assured that in this case, he shall serve God: because the Magistrate's commandment simply considered in itself, is not any true spiritual guide, for the conscience of any soul, to be led and conducted by.  
Now then to your Lordship's former question, whether the Church and supreme christian Magistrate, ought not to sit, as sovereign judge, upon the conscience of every soul, about the determination of all decency and order to be kept by that soul, your Lordships by this our discourse, easily may perceive, that we may well answer your demand, if we propound but one question to another.  
And therefore we demand, who shallbe sovereign judge over that soul and conscience, that commandeth decency & order in the church, if not only the holy word of God alone? And if the christian Magistrate must for the safety of his soul, have some rule of holy writ, to be his sovereign judge, for the thing that he commandeth; how should not the christian subject in like sort for the safety of his soul, have some word of faith, to be his sovereign judge, for his subjection in the thing which he obeyeth? for so shall not the conscience of him that commandeth, be any more a sovereign judge over him that obeyeth, then shall the conscience of him that obeyeth, be sovereign judge over him that commandeth.  
But, Sirs, if this be so, what soverainitie do ye yield unto the Christian 
Bb.  Magistrate, above the subject, or what shall his authority avail, when every soul commanded to be subject to his power, shall examine the validity of the lawfulness of his command? shall not every rule of holy writ, whereupon the christian Magistrate doth ground his conscience, for the thing commanded, be a good and sufficient ground for the conscience of every one, in the thing that is obeyed?  
Unto this we answer; that the Christian Magistrates conscience can 
Gentl.  not be any sufficient discharge for the conscience of him that obeyeth, unless your Lordships be able to prove unto us by some place of holy Writ, that the Magistrate touching the lawfulness of the thing commanded, can not err. For every soul, aswell of the subject, must answer & give an account for himself unto God, for the thing wherein he obeyeth, as the Magistrate must for the thing which he commandeth; for the good and rightful obedience, and command whereof, he hath appointed his holy word alone, to be the only judge aswell unto the subject, as unto the Magistrate: or else what soverainitie should the word of God bear over the conscience of a subject, if so be the Magistrate's conscience & command should be the sovereign judge over the subjects soul, & sway the subjects conscience? And yet by this means do we not take away the due pre-eminence and authority, which by the holy word of God is given to the civil Magistrate, over the subject: For in that, 
●om. 13.  that every soul is commanded to be subject, for conscience sake, to the higher powers, this scripture by your Lordship's patience (as we take it) is to be understood, not for the conscience of him that commandeth, but for the conscience of him that obeyeth: because the subject, without the breach of his conscience, can not contemn the civil government, which God hath appointed, not to be over the soul, but to be over the body. And indeed to establish the command or conscience of the civil Magistrate, to be the squire & plummet of every subjects conscience, were to wrest the holy Scriptures, & to establish (as the Antichristianites do) a tyranny over the consciences of subjects: Thus much touching that later kind of human decency and order before spoken of.  
And as concerning that kind of decency & order for the which there may be testimonies found in holy Writ, that they be pleasing unto God: we affirm that the church and Christian Magistrate ought not only to be commanders and preservers of the same, but that both Ministers and people also aught to be followers and embracers thereof.  
Nay, we say more, yea we affirm, that every human decency & order whatsoever ought to stoop and give place unto that order and decency for the which testimonies are to be found in holy writ, that the same be pleasing unto God, And therefore we demand, by what rule of holy writ, your Lordships can prove your late convocationall canons, to have allowance from the spirit of Christ, when as by the same ye have commanded a decency & order, merely human precisely to be observed in the church, instead of that decency & order which at the beginning was in the church & which being pleasing unto God could not be but divine?  
It had been (in our judgements) a fact not simply commendable, if your Lordships had but invented and added an human decency and order unto that which hath warrant from holy writ, to be divine: but wholly to disseise the Church of that decency and order, which by testimony of holy Writ, is witnessed to be pleasing unto God; and to give your own devises, decencies and orders, livery and seisin this to do, we demand, whether, in foro conscientiae, it be not a double sin, and in curiae Christianitatis, deserve not a double censure?  
But, Sirs, by your patience, what is that Divine order, and what is that 
Bishops.  Divine decency, whereof we have disseised the Churches, and what decency and order, of our own, have we put in seisin thereof?  
By your Lordship's favour, before we make full answer unto this your 
Gentl.  question; we demand, whether your Lordships be able to prove out of holy Writ, that the outward form and manner of acting any service unto God, by our Saviour Christ or his Apostles in prayer, preaching the word & administering the Sacraments, was an unorderly, or an undecent form or manner of acting that service before God, yea or no?  
If your Lordship's answer, as the truth is, that the outward manner of acting every kind of service by our Saviour Christ & his Apostles, was so decently & orderly done, and so acceptable unto God, as nothing in the outward acting thereof could be more, we then pray your Lordships to resolve us first, what warrant you have out of holy writ, to disseise all the Ministers of the outward acting of the whole worship of God in prayer and administering the Sacraments, without a Surplice?  
Secondly, what warrant you have from the spirit of Christ, to disseise all the Ministers of the acting of some part of God's worship, in the administration of public Baptism, without making a cross upon the child's forehead, and signing him with the sign of the cross?  
Lastly, what approbation you have from the spirit of Christ, wholly 
Const. 27  to disseise all the sons and daughters of God, of the act of sitting in the act of receiving the Sacrament of the lords Supper? For in that you have commanded that no Minister, when he celebrateth the communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, you have, by consequence, inhibited every one that sitteth, to receive the same. And thus to establish your own human decency and order of kneeling, in the act of receiving the communion, you have disseised us of that evangelical decency and order of sitting, warranted unto the Ministers and unto us by the example of our Saviour Christ and his 
Mar. 14. 18.  Apostles, when as at his last Supper, he himself delivered both the Bread and the Wine unto his Apostles, as they sat, and not as they kneeled at the Table; whereby it appeareth that you looked not unto the holy one of Israel, nor sought unto the Lord; and he yet is wisest. 
Isa. 21. 1. 2   
But, Sirs, by your patience, it is not required as a thing of mere necessity, 
Bb.  as though without kneeling the Sacrament might not lawfully be ministered and received at all, but for reverence and conformities sake only, it is commanded that the people should kneel.  
Why then, by your Lordship's favour, we demand, unto whom this reverence 
Gentl.  is yielded, and unto what thing this conformity is proportioned? for that this form of kneeling is not conformed to the Apostles manner of sitting at the table, is evident, neither can it be denied, but that this kind of reverence is fashioned like to that manner of reverence, which every catholic fornicator, by the ordinance of his love the great whore, doth yield unto his Idol, when he received his breaden 
Levi. 18. 3. 19 27. 2. Cor. 6. 14 15. 16.  god: wherefore we pray your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, whether your conformity, and your reverence of kneeling (in the act of receiving the Sacrament of the lords Supper) may not rightly be condemned, as things not having any due reverence, conformity or proportion with the written Law of God, or example of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles before mentioned?  
Besides, we demand, whether your Lordships had not worthily deserved to have been much praised and commended by all the churches, for that thanks might have been given by many unto God, for you, if so be for reverence unto the example of our Saviour Christ, who did all things well, and conformity to his Apostles, ye had commanded the people not to have kneeled in the act of receiving after the fashion of the catholic fornicators, who do all things ill, but rather to have sitten after the manner of the Apostles? especially sithence between this manner prescribed of receiving the Sacrament of the lords Supper kneeling, & the manner of the receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yea and the word itself, sitting or standing, and not kneeling, there can be found no manner of conformity at all; And yet as we deny not (when we come to the Font, or to the Sermon, both before, & after the Word preached and Baptism administered) but that we ought reverently and uniformly to kneel in prayer & thanksgiving prescribed by the book. Even so also, we acknowledge, when we come to the Lords Table, that before and after the delivery and receiving of the Sacrament, we ought to confess our sins, to pray and to give thanks, reverently and uniformly kneeling upon our knees: But that we should more kneel in the very act of receiving Bread and Wine, at the Minister's hand, at the Lords Table, then in the name of our children, in the very act of our children's receiving Water upon their faces, or being dipped in Water, we should kneel at the Font, in the time of Baptism; we for our parts must confess, that as yet this mystery of conformity and reverence, to kneel in the act of receiving the communion, is hidden from us: because we see no more needfulness of reverence and conformity for kneeling, to be in the act of receiving the one Sacrament, then to be in the act of receiving the other: nor that there is any greater reverence, or conformity of kneeling to be used, when the Minister breaketh bread for our bodies, which perisheth at the communion Table, then when he breaketh the bread of life for our souls, which perisheth not in the Pulpit.  
Nay, furthermore what conformity is there prescribed in the book of common prayer; when in one & the same church, and in one & the same act of receiving the Lords Supper, it permitteth the Minister to receive standing, and prescribeth the people to receive kneeling? or what greater reverence is there required by the sheep, then is to be performed by the shepherd, who should be an example to the flock?  
The words of the book for the Ministers standing, when he receiveth the communion, seem unto us to be so perspicuous and without all manner of ambiguity, as without an absurdity they can not be construed to command a Minister to kneel▪ for the manner how the Minister of the place, or how other Ministers, if any be present to help him, should receive, is not prescribed at all, unless it be prescribed, that he and they, should receive standing.  
Nay, howsoever in the same book it be said, that the Minister shall deliver the communion in both kinds to the people in their hands kneeling, nevertheless it followeth not hereupon, (the law being not in the negative, but in the affirmative) that the Minister may not deliver the communion to the people standing or sitting, or that the people be exactly bound not to stand or to sit, but to kneel.  
Besides, because by the book of common prayer of the second of Edw. 6. whereunto only (as we take it) touching ornaments▪ rites, and ceremonies our book hath reference (which book also of Edw. the 6. by the repeal made of the statute of primo of Queen Mary, in the first session of this last Parliament is revived) because (we say) by this book of common prayer of the second of Edw. 6. kneeling, crossing, holding up of hands, knocking upon the breast, and other gestures are to be used, at least, as every man's devotion serveth, without blame: We pray your Lordships to suffer us without blame, and danger of your late canons, peaceably, and quietly to enjoy and possess our liberty; That so we may receive the communion, sitting, standing, or kneeling, as every man's devotion serveth.  
And thus much for our full and perfect answer unto your questions of disseysing the church of her evangelical decency and order, and of reverence and conformity, in kneeling in the act of receiving the communion; whereupon we most instantly pray your Lordships, that you would be well pleased upon your second thoughts, to heal your former errors; And withal to be content, not only to suppress the use of your Copes, Surplices, making of Crosses, signing with Crosses, tokening with Crosses▪ kneeling, etc.  
But also to restore our possession, and to give us livery and seisin of all those decencies, conformities, and reverend manner of prayer, preaching the word, receiving and administering the Sacraments (without Copes, Surplices, Crosses, and kneel) whereof the Churches were seized in the Apostles times: And which being moderated by the wisdom and authority of our Saviour Christ, we are most assured, can not be but wellpleasing unto God.  
But, Sirs, by your patience, our Christian Magistrate imposeth them, 
Bb.  as matters of order, according to that form, wherein he found the church at his coming, and this his pleasure must command, & may satisfy us; if it should please the King not to command them, we, for our parts▪ could be well content not to urge them.  
See, see, what a dalliance is this in a matter of so high a quality, and 
Gentl.  touching the dignity, & pre-eminence of so excellent a person? what? was your melody yesterday, and that in the presence of the King, and assembly of his Nobles; was your melody but yesterday (we say) viz. No ceremony, no Bishop: no Bishop, no King? and can your Lordships 
Lord Bishop of Lincolae  to day, sitting judicially in your Consistory (to censure the Ministers for not conformity) thus suddenly change your note, and cry openly; No commandment of ceremonies by the King; no imposition of ceremonies by the Bishop? For is it not? as if you should have laid the whole blame upon the King, and have spoken thus: No ceremonious King, no ceremonious Bishop? And yet for all this, do not all men know, that your Lordships were too too ceremonious, and too too great masters of ceremonies, before ever the King saw your faces?  
And how then cometh it to pass (ceremonies having hitherto been upheld by your Lordlines) that your Lordlines should not now stand but by ceremonies? or how cometh it to pass (your Lordlines heretofore being propped up by the crown and sceptre of our late Queen) that your Lordlines should now uphold the sceptre & crown of our Christian King?  
This your Lordship's gradation therefore, made upon the first day from the not being of a Ceremony, to the not being of a Bishop, to the not being of a King: And this your protestation made upon the next day, of the being of a King, to the being of a ceremony, what else doth the one and the other argue and import, but a fear and a suspicion (if the King should once command down your laws of Ceremonies) that the Laws of your lordliness likewise would of themselves, soon after fall to the ground. And therefore whether the King did conceive, that you might but gloze and flatter with your gradation, or whether poor, simple and plain meaning men might be seduced by your protestation, we know not, neither is it our purpose to inquire.  
Only we can not but much marvel, that each of you professing himself to be a Gad, and to be a Nathan: to be a Seer, and to be a Prophet unto our christian Magistrate, should thus protest, & thus charged the King, to be the only spirit, by whom yourselves do speak, and the only prophet from whom yourselves do learn.  
Nay, what a thing is this? your Lordship's prophesying unto the King, in the name of the Lord; That your rites and ceremonies, are no way contrariant, or repugnant, but every way agreeable and consonant to the holy word of God, and meet to be retained, aswell for the manner and form of God's worship, as for edification of the church, should notwithstanding openly avow the King's pleasure, and the King's command, to be the fountain and wellspring of your prophecies?  
Nay, which is more, yourselves, making for yourselves Ceremonious horns of Iron, & assuring the king, that with the same he should be able to overthrow and push down all such as by your Lordships be falsely called puritanes, What a thing is this, that you should notwithstanding, proclaim the king's mind, to be, as it were, the only mould wherein your ceremonies were cast?  
Nay, which is more, What a thing is this? your Lordship's assuring to yourselves, to be the chiefest of the lords Priests and Levites, should notwithstanding put the holy Censores into his majesties hand, and lay the holy ark of the covenant, upon the kings shoulders, to burn incense, and to bear it, and to carry it himself alone?  
Nay, which is more, What a thing is this (your Lordships by a definitive sentence, publicly given, read and divulged in your sacred (so called) Synod, having not only judicially decreed, the lawfulness of ornaments, rites and ceremonies, but also humbly and professedly desired the same to be confirmed by the King's royal authority under the broad Seal of England) that you should notwithstanding, for the execution of your said Decree, call to witness the King's command, and the King's pleasure? As though the King's pleasure and command were the only cause, and not the effect of your decree; and not rather your decree the only cause and not the effect of his highness command?  
Your second canon, by which the same power is justly (as we confess) given to our Sovereign Lord the King in causes ecclesiastical, that the godly Kings had among the jews, will not serve to excuse you, in the making of your canons, if any of them be blame worthy; for the godly Kings of judah, never had any authority to command what ceremonies should be ordained among the Jews: Neither did King David, neither any other of the godly kings of judah, do any thing in building of the Temple, in distribution of offices among the Levites, or in any manner services performed to the Lord, but the same was sent unto them in writing from the hand of the Lord, or by the mouth of the Prophets, or by casting of lot.  
What soever authority then the godly Kings of judah had, to command ceremonies once made, to be observed, the same authority, and none other in matter of ceremonies, doth your canon yield unto the King: And therefore we beseech your Lordships hereafter to carry such a loyal and conscionable reverence, and estimation, to the honour and dignity of our Christian King, and the nobleness of his kingly charity declared by his proclamation, as that hereafter in your consistories and public seats of judgement, you would use conferences, arguments, and persuasions, ways of love, and gentleness, workings by clemency, and weight of reason, to reclaim all that be in the ministery, to the obedience of the church laws, according as by the King's proclamation you are required; rather than by rigour of law, shaking the king's sword, and pressing the king's commandment, to enforce the trembling consciences of your weak brethren, contrary to the Kings most noble & christian intention plainly uttered by his proclamation.  
There be sundry other points in his majesties proclamation, which by your Lordships worthily deserved consideration, before you had begun those violent courses, which some of you have pursued in this case: The peremptory day assigned to the Ministers for their conformity by the King, being of more authority than 1000 of your canonical admonitions, 
●  would have been fully expired, before you had troubled the Ministers about this matter, otherwise then by conferences, arguments, persuasions, etc.  
All Ministers who had incurred no censures of the church or penalties 
2.  of the law in the Queen's time, or since the King's reign, before the sixth of july 1604. be exempted out of the proclamation; though before the day appointed, they have not conformed themselves, to the orders of the Church. And yet many such have you disquieted?  
The Laws and orders of the Church remain very uncertain, so as 
3.  it is not certain, to what laws and orders established the ministers should conform themselves, And yet before the day expired, you have urged some Ministers to conform themselves to Canons divulged since the Proclamation.  
The Canon law, is utterly void within the Realm, and therefore 
4.  your oath of Canonical obedience is of no force, and all your Canonical admonitions not worth a rush.  
The old provincial constitutions, entreat of no such oath, beside 
5.  they little or nothing respect any orders, or ceremonies of our Church.  
To which book of common prayer the Ministers should subscribe, 
6.  in that manner and form, as by the Canon is required, is not decided. If they subscribe to the book published since the King's reign, they may then be called into question, at every sessions & assizes, for using an other form, then is prescribed in the Queen's book, the same remaining still in force & vnrepealed: if subscription be urged to the Queen's book, then may not the Ministers yield thereunto, because the King and Bishops have concluded to reform some things contained in the same, as being repugnant to the holy word of God.  
Besides, the book of common prayer of the second of Edward 6. touching ornaments, rites and ceremonies, and whereunto for the same respect both the Queens and the King's book hath reference, revived this last Parliament, by disannulling the statute of repeal made the first of Queen Mary.  
This book, we say of the 2. of Edw. 6▪ establishing other ornaments, rites and ceremonies, than the former books do, some of those ceremonies also to be used, or at least at every man's devotion, and the ornaments after another manner than ours, make us greatly to stand in doubt, whether all ceremonies, contained in every of these books, or but some, or which of them, are to be used, yea or no.  
Touching the late Canons, of what authority many of them be, may justly be questioned: because some of them seem unto us, to be contrariant or repugnant to the laws, statutes, & customs of the realm, some to be derogatory to the King's prerogative royal, and other some to be repugnant to the holy word of God, and therefore in all these three respects 
25. H. 8. c. 19  to be void canons, by the common law, & statutes of the realm.  
Lastly, howsoever some ministers might be within the compass of the proclamation, not conforming themselves, before the last of Novemb. to the laws established before the 16. of july, nevertheless the Bishops after the day expired, aught to have attended the King's pleasure, by what ways and means, he had determined to take from among the people; all occasions of sects, divisions and unquietness, much less before the day, should they have attempted any thing, unless, as the proclamation requireth them, they had provided meet persons, to be substitutes, in the places of those, who wilfully had abandoned their charges.  
These things being thus most providently, nobly, and Royally, for the quietness of the church, set forth by the King's proclamation, it had been a part of very great wisdom and moderation for your Lordships (in our opinions) patiently to have expected the King's further direction, before by your untimely pressing the kings commandment, authority and rigour of his laws, ye had endeavoured the enforcing of their consciences, without persuasions by weight of reason; And so much the rather should your Lordships have done this, that hereby ye might have satisfied, all civil Magistrates, Gentlemen and others of understanding, that they seeing by your conferences, arguments, persuasions, love, gentleness, clemency, and weight of reason, that the cause which you maintain, & not that which they impugn, is good, might not in any sort have supported, favoured, or countenanced any factious ministers, in their obstinacy, as by the proclamation they are required.  
And yet by your Lordship's favour, not to conceal any thing, which hitherto we have (as we think) rightly conceived of the kings proclamation, we can not but inform your Lordships, that by the same the King hath more tendered the good estate of the ministers, & of their controversy in hand, than ever was tendered, by any former Prince, since popery was banished. For when was there in England, before this time, by any kingly proclamation, any conference, argument, persuasion, love, gentleness, clemency▪ & weight of reason, commanded, & rigour of the law forbidden to be used by the Archbishops & Bishops, for the reclaiming of the ministers to the laws of the church?  
When were any ministers by public authority, called, as it were, into open field, to stand upon arguments and weight of reason?  
When was it appointed by public authority, that any ministers should answer, and that Archbishops & Bishops should oppose? that the ministers should be defendants, and the Bishop's plaintiffs?  
When was it proclaimed, by any Prince's authority, that the Archbishops and Bishops, to their uttermost endeavours, by arguments, and weight of reason, should prove unto the ministers, that the book of common prayer, books of homilies, book of consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, book of Articles, and other laws, & orders of the church contain nothing, in the whole, or in any part, disagreeable either in doctrine, or government to the word of God?  
All which things by the proclamation, are intended should be done, which things also if the Archbishops & Bishops have done, them indeed we confess, the ministers (that have not yielded to conform themselves) to be wilful, & the King to be righteous, for the abandoning of sects, divisions and unquietness, among his people, if he shall allow no factious ministers in their obstinacy.  
But if the Archbishops and Bishops have not endeavoured, much less not endeavoured to the uttermost of their powers (as by the king they are required) by conferences, arguments, persuasions, love, gentleness, clemency, and weight of reason, to reclaim all ministers, to the obedience of the church laws; then we can not see, how any civil Magistrates, Gentlemen, or others of understanding, can be intended by the proclamation to be favourers, supporters, or contenancers, of factiousness, or obstinacy in the ministers, which are not conformable.  
As for those two and twenty thousand Ministers, if possible there 
judg. 7. 3.  could have been so many, who, without any conferences, arguments, persuasions, or weight of reason used by the Archbishops, or Bishops, have turned their heels, and as gedeon's timorous and fearful soldiers, have returned and departed early from mount Gilead, before the appointed time came, we leave them to the Lord, unto whom in this case they have stood, or fallen. And who is able, to raise them up though for a time they be down?  
Nay, if of the ten thousand (if possible there were so many) which be left, there should nine thousand seven-hundered, bow down their knees, to drink water at the Bishop's pool, and but 300. only should stand up, to lap water with their tongues, as a dog lappeth, in that well of water, which springeth to eternal life, yet by these 300. only, is the Lord able to save Israel, and to deliver the Medianites 
Reve. 11. 3. 4. 5.  into gedeon's hand.  
Nay, if of these 300. but two only shall stand up, clothed in sackcloth, to be witnesses, yet in the end, shall these two witnesses, be two olive trees, and two Candlesticks standing before God, who governeth the earth, out of whose mouth, if any will hurt them, shall fire proceed and devour their enemies.  
And thus much have we thought necessary to be spoken, touching our understanding of the King's pleasure and command, declared by his highness proclamation; yea this also have we done, not only in regard of our loyalty unto our christian King, but also in regard of the clearing of ourselves from every unjust imputation of being favourers, supporters, or countenancers of factious ministers in their obstinacy, praying your Lordships to carry a favourable construction of these our Demands; Because our desire is to be fully satisfied by holy Writ, and not rest our judgements upon human authority, especially sithence both your Lordships and ourselves, by the experience of full fifty years, have both heard and seen how unprofitably, and to no good purpose this salve of human power hath been applied unto the church surfeited with drink, and eatings, of that romish strumpet: yea and for our parts, we can not but be heartily sorry, that after so long a time of trial, your Lordships should still remain so unperswasible, as not once to make experiment of the pouring in of some more sweet and medicinable oil, to this so deadly and desperate a wound: Especially, the sore being at this day as deep, as noisome, and as full of dead flesh, as the same was the very first moment, that your predecessors began to stop the issue thereof, with this kind of human tent. And so we will proceed to our last ground drawn out of holy Writ, for the resoluteness of our judgements whereupon, and wherein we yet stand.  

The third ground.  
If thy brother be grieved for the meat, now walkest thou not charitably, 
Rom. 14. 15. Rom. 14. 20. 21.  destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.  
It is evil for the man, which eateth with offence.   
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any other thing, whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak.  
Let us not therefore judge one an other any more, but use your judgement 
Rom. 14. 13.  rather in this, that no man put an occasion to fall, or a stumbling block before his brother.  
From which grounds we demand.  
First, whether your Lordships judge not all godly Ministers & true believers within your jurisdictions, to be your Christian brethren. And whetherye, and they be not all sons unto one Father, and servants unto one Lord?  
Whether your Lordships be not of opinion, that the putting, and not putting on of a Surplice, the making & the not making of a cross upon the child's forehead in Baptism, the wearing & not wearing of a square Cap; and kneeling and not kneeling, in the act of receiving bread and wine at the Lords Table, be not things in their own nature of like indifferency, as were the eating, and not eating of meats, drinking and not drinking of wine, or any thing in the Apostles time?  
Whether your Lordships can prove by any place of holy writ, that these rules and precepts given by the Apostles of not grieving a brother for meat; of not walking charitably by eating meat: of not destroying him, for whom Christ died with meat; of not doing evil by eating meat, of not eating or drinking, whereby a brother stumbleth, is offended, or made weak, and of not putting an occasion, to fall before a brother by eating meat. We demand, (we say) whether these the Apostles commandments, in the not doing of all things of like indifferency, with that of not eating meat, and not drinking wine, do not aswell bind your Lordships at this day, as they did the Bishops, Pastors, Elders and Brethren of that time? And therefore we demand:  
If any of your Ll. had been Archbishop of Ephesus, or of Crete, had been Bishop of jerusalem, Rome or Colosse, in the Apostles time: whether under the title of order & uniformity, or by right of superiority & power, (you might without breach or contradiction of the Apostles doctrine) have commanded any brethren, within your charge, being weak in faith, to have eaten meats, forbidden by the law, or sacrificed unto Idols?  
Again, if any of your Lordships in the Apostles time, had been an Archbishop or a Bishop, and by your archiepiscopal, or Episcopal authority, had commanded the Pastors, Elders and Brethren under your charged, being weak in faith, by example of the strong in faith, and for conformities sake, to have eaten meats sacrificed unto Idols, or forbidden by the law; we demand, whether such your commandment had been a charitable commandment, yea or no?  
Yea, and we demand, whether the same your commandment (under what pretence of canonical obedience, unity or conformity, soever) might have excused the weak in faith, from sinning against Christ, if at your commandment they being not fully persuaded in their minds, had eaten of these meats doubtingly?  
And if the Apostles charity were so great, as that he would never have 
1. Cor. 8. 13.  eaten flesh, while the world standeth, rather than he would grieve or offend his weak brother, or give him an occasion to sin; we demand how small charity the men of our age may seem to have, who be so far from not grieving & not offending a weak brother, & of not giving him an occasion to sin, as that not only they content not themselves, by eating flesh themselves, to grieve & to offend a weak brother, & to give him an occasion to sin, but also command a weak brother to eat that meat, by eating whereof, he can not but fall, but stumble, but grieve, but offend, but sin, and but destroy himself? This kind of charity may deserve unhappily the name of some Synodal or Provincial charity, but certes it can neverworthely deserve to be called an Apostolical charity.  
But, Sirs, you mistake the matter very much, you deceive yourselves, & 
Bishops.  draw not the cases rightly: The use of Crosses, Copes, Surplices, Caps, & kneel are commanded by the christian Magistrates sovereign authority, only as things indifferent for order's sake, & not that men should be grieved and offended, or that they should fall, stumble, sin, & destroy themselves:  
Touching the christian Magistrates authority about ordering rites 
Gentl.  & ceremonies in the church, we have somewhat at large argued before, which we had thought might have fully satisfied your Lordships, but because it pleaseth you still to press us with the same, we must once again plainly signify unto you; that we believe, that yourselves do not attribute any more spiritual authority unto the King, to make, constitute and ordain canons, constitutions, rites or ceremonies, than you give unto him spiritual power to preach the word, administer the Sacraments, and excommunicate: For we believe, that yourselves with the residue of the clergy, assembled by the Kings writ, in your convocation, do challenge all spiritual power unto yourselves, to make, ordain and decree all manner of canons, constitutions, ordinances, ornaments, rites and ceremonies in the Church.  
Yea, and this spiritual power we believe, that you pretend to be derived unto yourselves, and the rest of the clergy in the convocation, not from any spiritual power invested in the person of our sovereign Lord the King, but only from the spiritual power of our Saviour Christ alone. And this is manifest by your Cxxxix. canon, for so are your words: Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Sacred Synod of this nation in the name of Christ, and by the King's authority assembled, is not the church of England by representation, let him be excommunicated, etc. These words (we say) of your canon, viz. Sacred Synod is assembled in the name of Christ, and by authority of the King, plainly testify, that you hold your Synod not to be assembled by authority of the King, in the name of the King, or in the name of Christ and the King, but only in the name of Christ: And therefore by your own words, we are enforced to believe that you attribute unto the King none other authority, than such as you attribute to the godly Kings of Judah: namely an authority to assemble and command your persons, as they assembled and commanded the persons of the Priests. What? to execute the 
1. Chron. 13. 2.  rites and ceremonies of the Kings of judah? No: but to execute the rites and ceremonies of God.  
And so we believe your persons being assembled by authority and commandment of the King, that yourselves by your own authority, and that in the name and by the power of Christ, and not in the name and power of the King, do ordain, decree and make canons, constitutions, rites and ceremonies, as if they were sent unto us, by your hands, from God. And thus much do the very first words of your first canon, and some words in your 140. 141. canons clearly prove: For howsoever in the title of your book, you use these words: Constitutions and Canons treated and agreed upon, by the Bishop of London, etc.  
Yet both in the proheme & body of your first canon, you affirm as followeth. In your proheme or title you say thus: the King's supremacy over the church of England in causes ecclesiastical, you say not over the church & causes, but over the church in causes▪ and in the body of the same canon you say, we first decree & ordain, that the Archb. of Canterbury, etc. and in the Cxl. canon your words are these: Whosoever shall affime, that no manner of person, etc. are to be subject to the decrees thereof (speaking of the Synod ecclesiastical) made & ratified by the king's majesties supreme authority, etc. let him be, etc. your words also in your last canon, are these, whosoever shall hereafter affirm, etc. that the sacred Synod assembled, etc. was a company of persons, etc. in making canons & constitutions in causes ecclesiastical, etc. aught to be despised, etc. the same being ratified, confirmed and enjoined by the regal power, supremacy and authority, let them be excommunicated; Now by all these your own words and sentences, we decree & ordain: decrees of the Synod, making canons by the sacred Synod; ratified, confirmed, enjoined by the regal power, etc. by all these words (we say) we can not but believe, that you challenge your ecclesiastical power of ordaining, decreeing, & making decrees, canons, constitutions, rites and ceremonies, to be invested in your own persons assembled by authority of the King, from the authority and power of Christ; and not from any spiritual or ecclesiastical power, invested in the person of the King, and derived, and conveyed unto your persons assembled by his regal writ, For then how should we not believe also, but that you judged the Kings writ, to be no civil, but an ecclesiastical and spiritual writ. But howsoever (as yet) we believe not this latter, yet still we believe, that you appropriate unto your own persons assembled by the Kings writ, a sole power, and that from our Saviour Christ, to give unto your decrees, canons, constitutions, rites and ceremonies, their first being and their first birthright: and that you assign unto the King none other power, but a power of their after birth, & of ratifying and confirming of that life, & being, which your persons have first put into them: So that the King is in this, but as it were an executioner of your canons, and not you the executioners of the King's decrees. Yea & thus much M. Doctor Bilson, in his Book entitled, True difference, between Christian subjection, & unchristian rebellion, Pag. 243. avoweth & testifieth, whose words are these; We never said that Princes had any spiritual power, it is a false collection of yours, it is no part of our confession, & the sword which they bear, we never called but external & temporal.  
Again to devise new rites and ceremonies for the Church, is not the Prince's vocation, but to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and canons commend, and such as the Bishops & Pastors of the place shall advise, not infringing the Scriptures or canons, & so for all other ecclesiastical things & causes, Princes be neither the devisors nor directors of them, but the confirmers and establishers of that which is good, and displacers, and revengers of that which is evil, which power we say they have in all things, be they spiritual, ecclesiastical or temporal. ibid. pag. 252.  
Yea, and moreover we believe, if any should impugn or gainsay, this your power of making spiritual and ecclesiastical decrees, in your convocation, not to belong properly to your ministerial power which you have by your divine offices in the church, that you would then fly for the interpretation of the statute: 1. Elizab. to our late Queen's injunctions; 
Title, admonition to simple men.  whereby it is declared that nothing was, is, or shallbe meant, or intended by the oath required, to have any other duty allegiance, or band, than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings, of famous memory K. H. the eight her majesties Father, or to K. Ed. 6. her majesties brother: And that the Kings and Queens of this Realm, may not challenged authority and power of any ministry of divine offices in the Churches.  
But under God to have sovereignty & rule of all manner of persons borne within her Realms, so as no other foreign power, shall or ought to have any superiority over them; upon this injunction (we say) we build our former credence, that your Lordships judge your only persons, and the persons of the rest of the Clergy, & not the ministery of your divine offices, or any part thereof, to be under the obedience of the King's power; unto which ministery also of divine offices, you attribute right of ordaining and making canons, rites and ceremonies in the Church, as a right properly incident and appertaining to that ministry, not of doctrine, but of divine government, which you challenged to be due unto you, as unto Ministers and Officers appointed to rule and govern the Church under Christ, by the holy Scriptures; And therefore we pray your Lordships henceforwards to put us unto no more pain, to answer this your argument, of Kingly and supreme authority.  
For we believe assuredly, if Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's and the rest of the clergy, assembled by the Kings writ, by their deliberate counsel, voluntary and unconstrained will, had not in their Synod decreed the use of Copes, Surplices, Crosses, square caps, Tippets, and such trash, or if they had not by the precedent of their assembly, most instantly supplicated the King to command the use of these things, thus ordained by themselves: we persuade ourselves assuredly, that the King by his absolute, regal and supreme power, would never have constrained, Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, &c. to have undergone the yoke of these ceremonies; for the King right well knoweth, that in so doing, he should not have walked in the ways of the Godly kings of judah, than whose holy example to follow, his Highness hath protested, to desire nothing more.  
Neither for any other purpose, as it seemeth unto us, by your late speeches in the ears of the King (no ceremony, no Bishop) do yourselves press these ceremonies, then that they should be in your own hands, as crosier staves, to stay up from falling the tottering walls of your Lordly jurisdictions. And yet because we never read in holy Writ, that any ceremony was ever planted by our heavenly Father, to be a leanetoo, for any Bishops of Gods planting, or that the unplanting of an human ceremony, would be the unplanting of any of God's Bishops, what should we gather from hence, but that your Lordships be no Bishops of Gods planting; for Bishops planted by the hand of God, in the Vineyard of Christ, be so fast set, and so deeply rooted, that by no blast or storm of human ceremonies, they can be blown up.  
And thus much touching your argument of the King's commandment, for order's sake; As for the indifferency of the things commanded, the same hath already been handled in an other place; but touching the last part of your exception, that the use of these things is not commanded, to the end, that men should be grieved, offended, fall, stumble, sin, & destroy themselves; we reject this, as an impertinent & insufficient answer to our demand; for our demand tendeth not to insinuate, that we think, that these things be commanded to the end, that every man by the use of them, should sin, but our demand concerneth the uncharitable commandment, of the use of these things imposed upon a weak brother, which weak brother, by the use of these things (notwithstanding the commandment) can not but full, but stumble, but give an offence, but sin. What? because of the commandment? No: but by reason of his weakness, which the commandment hath not power to rid, and take from him. And therefore unless your Lordships by some learning taught you in holy Writ, can inform yourselves, & our Christian Magistrate, that your Synod in the Apostles absence, is placed in the Apostolic chair, and being so placed, hath also received by the Apostles doctrine, an Apostolic authority, to command those things in his absence, which he expressly forbade in his presence, we doubt greatly whether your convocationall assembly, can charitably by God's Law command the weak in faith, to eat meat sacrificed unto Idols, and so by consequence to wear a Surplice, a Cope, a square Cap, a shaved Crown, a friars Cowl, or a monks Hood, yea or no?  
Nay, sithence the Apostle hath directly, and in plain terms forbidden 
1. Cor. 10 28.  the strong in faith, the eating of meat sacrificed unto Idols; because of him that showed it, and for the conscience, not of thine, but of that other which sayeth, this is sacrificed unto Idols; and if withal, he have taught, that it is evil, for a man to eat with offence: we demand, by what rule of holy Writ, your Lordships can assure the conscience of our Christian Magistrate, and the souls of your assembly in convocation, that his Highness and they shall do charitably, uprightly, and not sin, in the sight of the Lord, in case by a commandment, ye impose a necessity of eating meats, or using things of like indifferency, upon the weak, which the weak, by the Apostles doctrine have free liberty, nay rather which by the Apostles doctrine they be taught, so long as they be weak, not to use.  
Besides, if eating, drinking, appareling, crossing or kneeling, doubtingly & without faith, or with offence, be sins against the soul & defilements of the soul, we then pray your Ll. to deal plainly with us, & divinely to teach us, whether it be an Apostolic charity, to command the doing of a thing which can not be done, either by the weak in faith, but doubtingly; or by the strong in faith without offence, giving an occasion to fall, or putting a stumbling block before his brother?  
But, Sirs, by your patience, the Christian Magistrate doth not enjoin, 
Bishops.  neither doth the Clergy in their convocation decree, that the Ministers or people, should wear a Surplice, make a Cross, or kneel doubtingly and without faith, only his commandment is, that they kneel, that they make a cross, and that they wear a Surplice.  
Yea, by your Lordship's favour, we demand, whether such their doubting, 
Gentl.  & such their being without faith, can either be purged by any glister or be dispensed with, by any faculty of human authority?  
Yea, and whether any human dispensation, or purgative receipt, may be of such validity and operation, in foro conscientiae, that it may exempt the patient, or the dispenser in foro conscientiae from sin, in case he judge his apparel, cross and kneel, to be unclean?  
For though the Christian Magistrate, be persuaded through the Lord 
Rom. 14. 14  jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, yet to him that judgeth it unclean, to him it is unclean. And therefore albeit the christian Magistrate may not sin in his commandment, yet may neither Minister nor people, be without sin, in their obedience.  
For the conscience only of the commander (be he never so Christian) can not be any warrant for the conscience of him that obeyeth doubtingly.  
But, Sirs, it is their folly, & their wilful peevishness, that (having been so 
Bb.  long a time instructed) they have no better profited, in the knowledge of their christian liberty, & of the cleans of the things: (by my faith) if they continue weak long, it were not amiss to bring some of them to the stake. Oh! my Lords, bona verba quaesumus, soft fire maketh sweet malt, preach 
Gentl.  faith we beseech your Lordships, but swear not by your faith: For by your Lordship's favour, if the Apostle (having aswell by doctrine as by example taught the weak brethren, among the Romans and Corinthians, of their 
Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 8.  Christian liberty, did neither reprove them of peevishness, wilfulness, or folly, neither yet condemn their ignorance of Christian liberty to be a sin against Christ, albeit the same their ignorance, consisted only about the use of meats, created for the benefit of man's life; we desire your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, whether ignorance of Christian liberty, in the weak of our time, which consisteth about the use of things dedicated to the service of an Idol, may be a sin against Christ, for not using the same, in the worship of the true God?  
Besides, we demand, by what rule of holy wtitt your Lordships in these things may condemn an other man's servant, or judge his error of christian liberty in this case, to be worthy of punishment? For seeing ye be not able to make him stand, whom God hath left weak, & not enabled to stand: And seeing the Apostle did not prescribe unto the weak brethren of his time, any time for the amendment of their error, of the not use of things indifferent, but did rather bind himself & all other, for all ages to come, by his example, never to eat flesh, while the world standeth, that he might not offend his brother, or cause him to fall, or to stumble: The Apostle, we say, having appointed no time, no not while the world standeth in this case, & all others of the same nature, we demand, by what rule of holy Writ, your Lordships may limit a certain time, as by the eight, tenth or twelve month for the reformation of judgement, in this but supposed error, of not using Popish apparel, cross and kneel?  
Nay if by the decree & canons of the Apostle, both Ministers & people, be enfranchised, to use, and not to use, these things freely & frankly without let; we then demand, by what rule of holy Writ, it may be lawful for your Synod, by a provincial ordinance and constitution, to change and to turn this their Christian freedom and liberty, into a mere slavish servitude and necessity? And therefore we protest from your Synod, and avow, that your Synod in this case, was not guided by the spirit of Christ, and that thereupon it followeth your decrees, (so many of them) as abate the edge of charity, whetted upon the brethren, by the Apostles rule, or bringing into bondage again, servants 
Cor. 10. 28.  manumissed by the authority of Christ, that the same your decrees are both erroneous in themselves, and injurious to the church of God.  
For unless the world have been dissolved since the Apostles time, and that the same world, stand not now, which stood then; or unless the same be not charity now, and the same freedom now, which the Apostle commended for charity, and left for freedom: or unless you would have us, wink with our eyes, lest we should see, and stop our ears, lest we should hear, and harden our hearts lest we should understand, & consequently have no faith, except it be a synodal, a Provincial, or a Canturbury-church faith: we must needs speak both what we have seen, what we have heard, and what we have understood, out of holy scriptures; Namely that some of your synodal decrees be opposite & repugnant to the Apostles both christian charity and christian liberty.  
For if it be sin for one brother, to do any act, by doing whereof an other brother's conscience, is wounded and made weak; if also whosoever shall wound the weak conscience, of a brother, and sin against a brother, doth sin against Christ: then of necessity be your canons of popish rites & ceremonies, both uncharitable canons against your brethren, & sinful canons against Christ. For though it were free for christians to use Copes, Surplices, square caps, Crosses, etc. civilly upon their backs, heads or foreheads; yet if some remain ignorant of this liberty, and thinking them to be unclean, as having been things offered to the service of an Idol, should by the example of others, with wavering consciences, enterprise to use them, when inwardly they think the use of them to displease God: if in this case (we say) men shall sin against Christ: how much more shall they sin against Christ, when they shall use them in the worship of God? against which use, they have many testimonies out of holy Writ, seated in their consciences by the finger of God, that their use is altogether unlawful in the worship of God.  
On the other side, if it be no sin against Christ, for weak brethren not to use either these or any other relics, monuments and memorials of Idolatry; in the service and worship of the true God: If also the weak in faith can not use them waveringly, without sin against Christ, If lastly they have liberty and freedom, by the Apostles doctrine, not to use them at all; we desire your Lordships to resolve us out of holy Writ, how it may be lawful, in foro conscientiae, to bring weak brethren, before the seats of Magistrates, to excommunicate them, to revile them, & to speak all manner of evil against them, for using their Apostolical freedom, for being charitable, and for not committing sin.  
But, Sirs, by your patience, they be not handled after any such manner, simply, 
Bb.  and only for not using the Surplice, not making a cross, not kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, but for contempt of not using and making the same, and not kneeling at the commandment of the christian Magistrate, whom not to obey in things indifferent, is to sin against Christ; and for this sin they ought to be excommunicated, etc.  
Though this be a Maxim in some learning, non solent quae superabundant 
Gentl.  vitiare scripturas; yet by your Lordship's favour, your etc. swelleth to high, and gulleth the passages of a soft spirit overmuch: your argument also of christian Magistracy; at the least three times already urged, is in this place more than superabundant, as amounting above the third, unto a fourth degree of comparison. But to the points. And first, because (as erst hath been said) it was the decree, and supplication of your Synod that begat this commandment, and not this commandment, that travailed, and brought your synodal decree and supplication to the birth: touching which your synodal decree, for the use of these ornaments, rites & ceremonies, by the weak, what else is there to be added, then that we deny again, what in effect, more than once, & twice, we have in this behalf denied before: namely granting these things in their own nature to be indifferent, and that they may be used in the service of God, by them that be strong in faith, & have knowledge of their indifferency: nevertheless we deny that by any Decree of the Church, they may be appointed to be used, by the weak, and them that have no knowledge of their indifferency: For this we have learned of the nature of things indifferent, if the conscience be strong, that the things be good; if the conscience be weak, that they be evil: not in regard of their own nature, but in regard of the conscience of him that judgeth them to be evil.  
For as it is not meat itself, but the use of meat, whereunto the Apostle would have men stick, so is it not apparel, a Cross, or a Ceremony, whereupon the servants of Christ are to cast their eyes, that they may not be reprehended, by their consciences rightly guided, for the use of that thing which they use; And how should a conscience be rightly guided in the thing which he useth, unless he have ground out of God's word for the thing which he useth? But he hath (you will say) a commandment of God, to obey the higher powers, in the use of things indifferent. This is true in deed (say we) if they (having for the guide of their consciences, the holy word of God) shall judge the things, and the use of the things, for the service whereunto they be commanded, to be indifferent; but they being not fully persuaded in their minds, both of the indifferency of the things, and of the use of the things, in that service whereunto they be commanded, how can your Lordships prove, that in this case the Church may decree, and the Magistrate command them to do an act, in the doing whereof, they shall commit sin, yea and which they can by no means avoid, if in doing the thing commanded, they stand in doubt. For he that doubteth is condemned, 
Rom. 14. 23  in that he doth, because he doth it not of faith. And what soever is not of faith, is sin.  
Wherefore, because no canon, nor decree of the Church, can cleanse a man's conscience of the weakness of faith, or pour strength into the same that he sin not; we affirm, that every decree, and canon of your Synod, which giveth an occasion of offence, and emboldeneth the weak in faith to sin, by the use of these rites and ceremonies, in the worship of God, is a Canon and is a Decree containing matter in the substance of it, contrary and repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostle: And that therefore it is no sin, for any brother weak in faith, not to obey the same, though at the request of your Synod, it hath pleased our Christian Magistrate to enjoin him thereunto: because the groundwork of your Decree being sandy, the building of the Magistrate, can not surely and firmly stand: This your Lordship's argument therefore of the lawful use of indifferent things, by commandment of the christian Magistrate, for order's sake, is but a begging of the point in question: For we hold, that no church, nor christian Magistrate, can decree or impose any rites and ceremonies (being relics, monuments, or memorials of idolatry) to be used, no not for order's sake, in the worship of the true God; because the use of all relics, monuments, and memorials of idolatry, in divine worship, is not a thing, not only not indifferent, but a thing in all respects, merely and absolutely unlawful. And therefore it importeth your Lordships to prove unto us, by some holy Writ, the contrary of that which we affirm: namely, that the use of all Relics, Monuments, and Memorials of Idolatry, (as things indifferent for order's sake) may be decreed by the Church, and enjoined by the Christian Magistrate, in the worship of God; what we have alleged out of holy Writ, for the proof of our general negative, your Lordships have seen and read, And now we wait and expect that you would produce your strong reasons, for the proof of your general affirmative.  

Our general negative is this.  
No Relics, Monuments, or Memorials of Idolatry may lawfully be decreed by the Church, or enjoined by the Christian Magistrate to be used by the ministers and servants of Christ, as indifferent rites and ceremonies, for order's sake, in the worship of God: And if none, Than not your Copes, Surplices, Crosses, etc.   
Your Lordship's affirmation.  
All Relics, Monuments, and Memorials of Idolatry, may lawfully be decreed by the Church and enjoined by the Christian Magistrate to be used by the Ministers & servants of Christ, as indifferent rites & ceremonies, for order's sake in the worship of God: And if all, why not then a friars cowl, for an Archbishop: a Monks hood, for a Bishop: a shaved crown, for a Deane? and a shaved chin for an Archdeacon? But now alas, alas, to add and to speak but one word touching the use of these rites, etc. appointed by your Synod for order's sake, may not we, and all the Churches take up a complaint, and lamentably cry, saying: Alas, alas, what? Was it not possible for your sacred Synod assembled (as you say) in the name of Christ, but that the same must decree popish and Idolatrous rites and ceremonies, to be still continued in the church for order's sake? Or was it not possible, for your sacred Synod, assembled (as you say) in the name of Christ, but that the same must needs devise and decree such rites, and ceremonies, for order's sake, as by the use whereof your weak brethren, the servants of Christ, can not be but tempted, and captiously ensnared? Or was it not possible for your Synod, to have used their judgement, but to the peril of the souls of their brethren? but to put occasions of falling and of stumbling, before their brethren?  
But by your patience, Sirs, we abhor the popish pollutions of the Surplice, 
Bb.  of the Cross, and of the Idolatrous kneeling to a piece of bread. And as we take not our garments, rites, and ceremonies from the papists, but from their betters, so we profess the detestation of their superstitious abuses, and restore them to their ancient integrity.  
But by your Lordship's favour, all men have not knowledge of the Idol, 
Genel.  as you have, All men's knowledge among us doth not edify, but by their knowledge many men be puffed up: All men among us profess not a detestation of their pollutions: All men do not know those betters from whom (as you say) they were taken. Neither last do all men understand, what that ancient integrity is whereof you speak.  
The Papists you know, as they daily commit fornication with that great whore, so do they greatly delight, and much solace themselves, to see their minionly Priests attired in the unchaste colours of their wanton paramour.  
Nay, with great insolency and ostentation they vaunt, that Crosses, 
In a libel cast out in London against one of the Sheriffs and certain Ministers.  Surplices, etc. are to be received and used, not as things indifferent, but as necessary parts of God's divine worship.  
The Atheists, as they neither embrace the doctrine, nor reverence the person of the Minister of Christ, much less do they regard from whence ministerial apparel originally came. Only if they live under an ordinary, who glorieth to be a ceremony master, they can then find wit, and opportunity, and agility, and nimbleness enough, to make use of these ceremonies, as by them to work mischief against their Godly Minister, if at any time themselves be reproved for their drunkenness, whoredom, usury, swearing, popery and such like: But if any of them 
Bishop Horn.  being of the age of 60. 70. or 80. years, shallbe willed by their honest ordinary, to return home, and to learn of their Minister the Catechism, before they prosecute their presentment, for the not wearing of a Surplice in this case, rather than they willbe religiously taught the principles of godliness, at their Minister's hand, they force not for xxv. years space together, to be wholly silent: Liking in the mean while the not wearing of a Surplice well enough. And as for our parts, and others of the Religion, we doubt very much whether your Lordships be able to prove, that the Surplice, the cross in Baptism, or kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, were by their first original of any integrity, for an orderly or comely use of outward divine service or worship, as now they be used, yea or no; For though now they be urged as decent and comely signs and ornaments, to the form of God's worship; yet if at the beginning they were not for this end and purpose, drawn directly or by consequence, from some express commandment of God, but were merely the devises & inventions of men: then can we not assure ourselves, that they be restored, to their ancient integrity. For how should their original be of ancient integrity, when they had beginning, not from the will of God, but from the wit of man? not from the Well of life, but from the pit of death? when they 
Deut. 31. 28  were not pure, but corrupt, & therefore without integrity? For which cause we are to beware lest we be taken in a snare by them, provoking the Lord to anger through the works of our own hands.  
And howsoever these ceremonies be taken from men, better affected to the Gospel, then be the Papists: nevertheless seeing servants (be they never so young) are not to be guided by their fellow servants (be they never so old) without knowledge of their Lord & Master's pleasure, first declared unto them by his Prophets or Apostles, we pray your Lordships to prove unto us, out of holy Writ, that these ceremonies hold their original from God.  
For, if they be not according to the old way, which is the good way, 
jerem. 16  and wherein we are bid to stand, and to behold, and to ask after it, namely, the Testimony which is bound up, and the Law which is sealed 
Isai. 8. 16  up among God's Disciples, then shall the Pastors offend for running 
jere. 2. 8. 36  about so much, to change their ways, going after things that do not profit; yea (if they do not according to this word) they may justly 
Isa. 16. 20  be reproved, because their is no light in them.  
The ancienty then of your ceremonies, let the same be as ancient as possibly ye can devise, yet in respect of the ancient of days, and of him that inhabiteth the eternity, they shallbe but novelties, and the Author of them but a novelist. For as this saying in the School of reason, is true, omne magnum tum est parvum, cum sit aliquid maius; so is this saying also in the same School true, omne vetus tum est novum, cum sit aliquid vetustius.  
Yea and the holy Scriptures teach us, to call those things new, whatsoever man inventeth, be the error never so old. They have (saith the holy Ghost) offered unto Devils, not unto God, but to gods whom they 
Deu. 32. 17  knew not: new gods, that came newly up, whom their Fathers feared not; And in an other place, they are pronounced to be accursed when 
Deut. 27. 5.  they turn after other gods, which they have not known, whereby also is reproved the vanity and fondness of those men, which leave that which is certain, to follow that which is uncertain.  
If the Apostle then, the first and most ancient father of all the children whom he begat with the word of the Gospel, and the planter of all the Churches among the Gentiles, never knew those or any the like rites, ornaments, or ceremonies, much less never knew them to be for any decent and orderly form of God's worship, in any of the churches which he begat, and which he planted; it must needs follow (as we conceive) that the children of the Church, (who devised and appointed these rites and ceremonies, for an orderly and decent form of God's worship, in the ages succeeding the Apostles) left the ancient integrity together with the certain and single form of God's worship, settled in the Apostolical churches, without any ministerial apparel, cross or kneel in the act of receiving the communion: And so following their own hearts, became Novelistes unto the Apostles, in these uncertain and new found ceremonies.  
Neither for the point in question is it material, whether they were children, next and immediately succeeding the Apostles, yea or no: For so soon as they declined from that integrity, & simple manner of God's 
Deut. 9 12.  worship, and from that certainty, wherein the Apostle left the Churches, even so soon was their uncertain and newly start up form of God's worship corrupt and impure: For when the Lord hath once spoken 
Deut. 5. 22.  words, and doth add no more, thereby we are taught, by his example, to lay our hands upon our mouths, to be content with his word, and to add nothing of our own. Yea and we be warned to beware, 
Deu. 11. 16  lest our hearts deceive us, and lest we turn aside by devising foolish inventions, according to our own fantasies.  
Wherefore your Lordship's argument, of such ancienty, and of such integrity of these ceremonies, as declineth from that ancient, and in all points and qualities certain and upright form of God's worship practised without Copes, Surplices, Crosses, and kneel in the act of receiving the communion, by the Apostle in all the Churches planted by his ministery, argueth rather corruption and novelty, then either any ancienty or integrity.  
And therefore we pray your Lordships, that hereafter you would be advised by us, not to licence your Scribes and prolocutors, to cast an imputation of Novelty upon the Ministers of Christ: or to upbraid them with that odious and reproachful name of Novelistes: lest for their safeguard, and just defence in this behalf, they be constrained to pray for remedy, protection, & aid from our Sovereign Lord King james: That by a writ of error, out of the Records of the High Court of Parliament, to be granted unto them, they may procure the reversing, and annihilating of your worthy orators, their unjust and Novelous accusation: For unless it should seem a small matter, in your Lordship's sight, to upbraid our Sovereign Lord the King, his Nobles and Commons of both Realms, with a blemish of being Novelistes, and to be complotters of Novelties, for that his Highness, and they, by all good counsels, endeavour, that the English, and Scottish nations, should be united into one people, and be restored to their first and ancient name of Britain's: And that the two Realms, England and Scotland, as in most Ancient time should be called by the name of Great Britain, unless (we say) it should seem a small matter, in your eyes, to traduce the King, his Nobles and Commons, in this case, of being Novelistes, we pray your Lordships to bear with us; if we tell you plain, that for our parts we can not thoroughly discern, with what honesty your Scribes be endowed, when as in their pamphlets, they blaze the Ministers of Christ to be Novelistes. Which Ministers notwithstanding hate nothing more than Novelty, and crave nothing so much as that the most certain and most single form of God's worship, left to the Churches, by the Apostle, without your many, and uncertain rites and ceremonies, might be restored, to her primitive, and Apostolical ancienty, and integrity.  
God save King JAMES.   


Faults escaped in the Print.  
Pag. 6. lin. 6. is for it.  
Pag 6. li. 10. follow, for follow.  
Pag. 17. li. à fine 8. oovet, for covet.  
Pag. 18. li. à fine 7. prohibition, for prohibition.  
Pag 24. li. 4. outward, for outward.  
Pag. 26. ad marg. li. 2. Numb. 21. 8. 9  
Pag. 27. marg Kin 10. 10, for 16 10.  
Pag. 42. li. 12. comn: and, for command.