A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

4. As for choosing Ministers by Prophecy, that was very extraordinary, and therefore hath no place in the question of ordinary calling. Yet 1. Prophecy did no less require the concurrence of the Churches consent, in an ordinary Minister, then it did the Presbyteries ordination in Timothy's person. 1. Tim. 4.14. It was only an extraordinary cause of that consent, which otherwise should have been grounded on the persons qualification. Prophecy also or Vision did sometime follow the Churches election, as in Celerinus, of whom Cyprian (Epist. 34. ed. Goulart.) recordeth:¹ When he wavered about consenting to the Church, by a vision of the night he was forced to assent.

4. As for choosing Ministers by Prophesie, that was very extraordinary, and therefore hath no place in the question of ordinarie calling. Yet 1. Prophesie did no lesse require the concurrence of the Churches consent, in an ordinary Minister, then it did the Presbyteries ordination in Timothies person. 1. Tim. 4.14. It was onely an extraordinary cause of that consent, which otherwise should have beene grounded on the persons qualification. Prophesie also or Vision did sometime follow the Churches election, as in Celerinus, of whom Cyprian (Epist. 34. ed. Goulart.) recordeth:¹ When hee wavered about consenting to the Church, by a vision of the night he was forced to assent.

1. 1Cum consentire dubitaret Ecclesiae, in vision, per noctem, compulsus est, no negaret.Cum consentire dubitaret Ecclesiae, in visione, per noctem, compulsus est, no negaret.

5. As for election by lot, I do not think any example can be given of it, wherein the Churches election of ⟨p. 414⟩divers persons betwixt whom the lot should design, with their consent, did not concur.

5. As for election by lot, I do not thinke any example can be given of it, wherein the Churches election of ⟨p. 414⟩divers persons betwixt whom the lot should designe, with their consent, did not concurre.

6. As for the Primitive Churches tenet of Divine authority, nothing can be proved out of the Council of Laodicea, which was after Julians time. The Synod of Africa (Epist. 68. Cypr. ed. Goul.) doeth inform us thus: The people it self hath power both to choose worthy Priests, and to refuse unworthy ones. The which also we see to come from Divine authority. ¹Yet Calvin answereth, that even that Laodicean Council did not restrain from election, but only from disorderly electing, by themselves. And is therein learnedly seconded against Bellarmines rejoinder, by Junius, in Bell. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7.

6. As for the Primitive Churches tenet of Divine authority, nothing can be prooved out of the Councell of Laodicea, which was after Iulians time. The Synod of Africa (Epist. 68. Cypr. ed. Goul.) doeth informe us thus: The people it selfe hath power both to chuse worthy Priests, and to refuse unworthy ones. The which also we see to come from Divine authority. ¹Yet Calvin answereth, that even that Laodicean Councell did not restraine from election, but onely from disorderly electing, by themselves. And is therin learnedly seconded against Bellarmines rejoynder, by Iunius, in Bell. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7.

1. 1Plebs ips• maxim habet potestatem vel aligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina autheritate descendere, &c.Plebs ips• maxime habet potestatem vel aligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina autheritate descendere, &c.

8. To say, that the Patrons and Bishops sending without the Churches consent, is as good, or better then the Churches free consent, well ordered, and directed; is all one as to say, it is as good, or better, that Women should be married without their consent, then with it.

9. As for the final answer, I refer the Reader partly to that already said, and partly to D. Ames his answer ⟨p. 415⟩unto Bellarmine, tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3.

9. As for the finall answer, I referre the Reader partly to that already sayd, and partly to D. Ames his answer ⟨p. 415⟩unto Bellarmine, tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3.

Ministers going to law for their places.

6. The question is, if this was known in the Primitive Church? It is rejoined 1. that Bishops were often in question at Synods, about their title to their places, which was as much. But 1. This was not in the Apostles time. 2. Questioning before Synods, about Ecclesiastical affairs, is of Ecclesiastical nature; going to law, not so. In Synods all things ought to be determined by Gods Word: at the Kings Bench, and Assizes, the Judges pronounce sentence by mans law. Yet the good ancient Bishops, were so far from seeking a title to their places, by Synodical judgement, that they withdrew themselves, as being afraid to have such a title put upon them, either by Churches or Synods: examples of which modesty, we have even in declining times, Basil, Gregory &c. A law we find also (Cod. de Epist. & Cler.) mentioning the same disposition:¹ The Prelate ought to be so far from ambition, that nothing but compulsion should draw him, though he be desired, let him give back, and when invited, let him shift, &c. For certainly he is unworthy the office of Priesthood, unless he be ordained unwillingly. Certainly, these men would never have sought those places by course of law, which they hardly accepted, being obtruded upon them. 2. The Rejoinder saith, Lawing about places ariseth upon the title of Patronage, a civill inheritance. Whereas the question is not from whence it ariseth, but if it appeared in the face of the Primitive Mother-Church? ⟨p. 416⟩This answer is as much as to say, our Church hath a special wound, or sore in her face, which the Primitive Church had not; and therefore must have a plaster upon it now, in those times unknown: that is, our face doth not lively represent that face, which is the question. Beside, if the lawing be necessary, about the Patrons civill title, what hath the Minister to do with it, except ambition or covetousness, doth cause him to take other mens business upon him, for his own advantage?

6. The question is, if this was knowne in the Primitive Church? It is rejoyned 1. that Bishops were often inquestion at Synods, about their title to their places, which was as much. But 1. This was not in the Apostles time. 2. Questioning before Synods, about Ecclesiasticall affaires, is of Ecclesiasticall nature; going to law, not so. In Synods all things ought to be determined by Gods Word: at the Kings Bench, and Assizes, the Iudges pronounce sentence by mans law. Yet the good ancient Bishops, were so farre from seeking a title to their places, by Synodicall judgement, that they withdrew themselves, as being afraid to have such a title put vpon them, either by Churches or Synods: examples of which modesty, we have even in declining times, Basil, Gregorie &c. A law we finde also (Cod. de Epist. & Cler.) mentioning the same disposition:

Pluralists, Non-residents, Dumb-Ministers.

7. About these, the Rejond. confesseth that they are the sore of our Church, but not allowed, or tolerated, further then Mr. Hooker showeth. Now 1. If they be sores, being also in the face, that is, our chief eminent, Convocation men, bearing them in their •ore-heads, surely they must needs dis figure the Primitive face. 2. Though I have no more leisure to seek and confute Mr. Hookers mitigations, then the Rejoynd. had to allege them; yet I dare say, if the Stews be tolerated, and allowed at Rome, th•se sores are tolerated, and allowed in England, they are as well known; more publicly professed; they are practised in the Bishops Palaces; and not only the Court of Faculties, but most Bishops do gain by them. But (saith the Rej.) If you can tell us the Certain and safe remedy of this sore, I am persuaded the Church will thank you. But I am neither so persuaded of the Convocation-Church, not yet that the Rejoinder himself is so persuaded Men ⟨p. 417⟩do not usually give thanks, for that which formerly they did not desire, and if this Church had desired a remedy, the Convocation-men would long since have begun (according to their skill and power) with themselves, their Chaplains, the Benefices in their gifts, &c. They would also have hearkened unto Parliament-remedies of wise and careful Physicians, which have been often prescribed, prepared, tendered, & almost applied, but by the Convocation-men, refused, and opposed, as the world knoweth, and the Rej. is not ignorant of it. In the close of this question, the Rej. insinuateth, and (as half ashamed) only insinuateth a secret distinction, betwixt carelesse-Non residents, and another kind, of them that are careful: the former of which he affirmeth to have been often condemned, though never removed. Of which distinction, as being left obscure, I cannot speak so much as I muse. Only this: Carefull Non-residents seeme to be such as have great care to get some pretence in Court, University, or some great mans house, for absenting themselves from their charges (which God hath laid upon them, if they be lawfully called) and some care to provide a tolerable Curate, for supplying their places. Now these the Rej. seemeth to excuse, for which they are more beholding to him, then the Churches are, upon whose spoils they live, and aspiring by them unto higher places.

7. About these, the Rejond. confesseth that they are the sore of our Church, but not allowed, or tolerated, furher then Mr. Hooker sheweth. Now 1. If they be sores, being also in the face, that is, our chiefe eminent, Convocation men, bearing them in their ore-heads, surely they must needs dis figure the Primitive face. 2. Though I have no more leisure to seeke and confute Mr. Hookrs mitigations, then the Rejoynd. had to allege them; yet I dare say, if the Stues be tolerated, and allowed at Rome, thse sores are tolerated, and allowed in England, they are as well knowne; more publikely professed; they are practised in the Bishops Palaces; and not onely the Court of Faculties, but most Bishops doe gaine by them. But (saith the Rej.) If you can tell us the Certaine and safe remedie of this sore, I am perswaded the Church will thanke you. But I am neither so perswaded of the Convocation-Church, not yet that the Rejoynder himselfe is so perswaded Men

And as for the carelesse Non-residents, how cometh it to pass, that non conformity can as easily be removed, as condemned; and such condemned felons as these, be so long reprieved, after their condemnation? Certainly, if they were as great ⟨p. 418⟩enemies to the Bishops kingdom, as they are to Christs, a quicker dispatch would have been made of them.

And as for the carelesse Non-residents, how commeth it to passe, that non conformity can as easily be remooved, as condemned; and such condemned fellons as these, be so long reprived, after their condemnation? Certainely, if they were as great ⟨p. 418⟩enemies to the Bishops kingdome, as they are to Christs, a quicker dispatch would have beene made of them.

Simony.

8. Of this, it was asked, if it were so ordinary either in the Primitive Church, or (almost) in the Popish, as it is in England? Here the Rejoynd. venteth a proverb, that almost saveth many a lye; adding, that the Papists faces are washed with fair water, and foul water cast upon us: and then telleth of a Canon imposing an oath for prevention of Simony: and not only the guilty man looseth his place, but the Patron his title, for that time. Now though all this be nothing to the Primitive Churches face, yet it is not so to be passed over. For (to begin with the last) 1. The course taken against Simony, which he speaketh of, is no Canon of the Convocation house, but a Parliament-law. Canons (I hope) do not deprive Patrons of their title, which they have by civill inheritance, as the Rejoinder told us even now. 2. This oath imposed (if it be generally urged) doeth make our English Simony worse then that which is found among Papists, as adding perjury unto it. 3. Because the Rej. will not take the considerate limitation of almost, in other sense, then as if it were the cover of a lye, I am content it be left out, and then desire him to prove the assertion a lye. If he cannot, it had been sufficient for him (who so familiarly accuseth others of scurrility) to have denied that which was said, putting us to prove it. And prove it ⟨p. 419⟩we can (so far as vices of that nature use to be proved) by the general voice, even of conformable men. Doctor Andrewes (long since) in a latin Sermon before the Convocation, told them enough, after his playing fashion: They give out, ¹that not only we Minorites do with money, or more basely purchase our Parsonages, but also you Majorities do either with great sums of money, or with the spoils of the Churches, unworthily huckster your Cathedral places, of which disease our Church hath long been sick, and for which it hath long been ill spoken of: Did his fere, or almost all save a ly? If it did then, now it hath not so much to save. For many conformable men, will almost (if I may use that word with good leave) swear, that nothing hath hindered them all their days, from Benefices, and kept them in Curateships, but only the general abuse of Simony. Every Page, and Lackey, at the Court, and many Scriveners, can tell, how much this and that Bishop, or Dean, gave to such or such a Buckingham;

8. Of this, it was asked, if it were so ordinary either in the Primitive Church, or (almost) in the Popish, as it is in England? Heere the Rejoynd. venteth a proverb, that almost saveth many a lye; adding, that the Papists faces are washed with faire water, and foule water cast upon us: and then telleth of a Canon imposing an oath for prevention of Simony: and not onely the guilty man looseth his place, but the Patrone his title, for that time. Now though all this be nothing to the Primitive Churches face, yet it is not so to be passed over. For (to begin with the last) 1. The course taken against Simony, which he speaketh of, is no Canon of the Convocation house, but a Parliament-law. Canons (I hope) doe not deprive Patrones of their title, which they have by civill inheritance, as the Rejoynder told us even now. 2. This oath imposed (if it bee generally urged) doeth make our English Simony worse then that which is found among Papists, as adding perjury unto it. 3. Because the Rej. will not take the considerate limitation of almost, in other sense, then as if it were the cover of a lye, I am content it be left out, and then desire him to proove the assertion a lye. If he cannot, it had beene sufficient for him (who so familiarly accuseth others of scurrility) to have denied that which was said, putting us to proove it. And proove it

and how much the said Bishop received from his under Officers, and other, by him promoted. Neither is all Simony in buying of Benefices, and Bishoprics. Selling of Visitations (which is an usual practise of our Prelates) and such like tricks are in the same nature in the fourth degree. 4. As for washing the Papists faces with fair water, the Rejoinder may as well say, that he washed Sodoms face with fair water, who said, that Israel, and Judah, had justified Sodom in her abominations.

and how much the said Bishop received from his under Officers, and other, by him promoted. Neither is all Symony in buying of Benefices, and Bishoprickes. Selling of Visitations (which is an usuall practise of our Prelates) and such like trickes are in the same nature in the fourth degree. 4. As for washing the Papists faces with faire water, the Rejoynder may as well say, that hee washed Sodoms face with faire water, who said, that Israel, and Iudah, had justified Sodome in her abominations.

Profane contemners of Religion, members of the Church.

Prophane contemners of Religion, members of the Churche.

9. The question was, if so many such, were members of any Primitive Church? This the Rejoinder doeth not affirm: but denieth any members of our Church to contemn professedly our Religion. Which I leave to the judgement of every Reader; if he doeth not know some in England, who contemn Religion? I would to God, the Rejoinder were (in this point) on the true part, and and the Replier on the false. But when the practise of Religion is derided on stages, and that derision applauded by so many spectators, when those that make conscience of sin, be they never so conformable, are scorned by so many, as Puritans; when in all Pulpits that are possessed of good Preachers, warning is ordinarily given, of scoffers and scorners at Religion: I think the Rej. will not find so many assenting to this negation, as he shall to the point of Conformity. His meaning is such, that by the same reason, it may be said, there is no professed contemner of all Christian Religion, among the Papists, nor of all Religion, among the Turks.

9. The question was, if so many such, were members of any Primitive Church? This the Rejoynder doeth not affirme: but denieth any members of our Church to contemne professedly our Religion. Which I leave to the judgement of every Reader; if he doeth not know some in England, who contemne Religion? I would to God, the Rejoynder were (in this point) on the true part, and and the Replier on the false. But when the practise of Religion is derided on stages, and that derision applauded by so many spectators, when those that make conscience of sinne, be they never so conformable, are scorned by so many, as Puritans; when in all Pulpits that are possessed of good Preachers, warning is ordinarily given, of scoffers and scorners at Religion: I thinke the Rej. will not finde so many assenting to this negation, as he shall to the point of Conformitie. His meaning is such, that by the same reason, it may be sayd, ther is no professed contemner of all Christian Religion, among the Papists, nor of all Religion, among the Turkes.