SIR : As you throughout your Rejoynder addressed your speech to me , in particular : so doe I in like sort here direct my speech unto you in this worke of mine . For although I neyther purposed nor promised it , nor others , ( I suppose ) expected it , yet that which you have of late published against my Reply hath provoked me once more to set penne to paper in defence of that cause which you so much strive against in vaine In the beginning of that your Rejoynder , you say , that although wee bee different in religion , yet you desire much , that wee be united in affection . This speech of yours I dislike not because it savoureth ( as I conceive it ) of that humanitie and charitie which is to be entertayned , and continued amongst us , notwithstanding these differences in points of religion : as also of some good affection , and inclination in you unto Gods trueth : wherein chiefely it is , that wee are to be united . For , as touching any other kindes of unitie , namely that which is in error and falsehood , I hope you desire it not because it is as S. Augustine rightly calleth it , Error is conspiratio , a conspiracie of error against the truth . The unitie , which is joyned with divine veritie , is it which S. Paul calleth , The unitie of the spirit , and which hee would have all Christians to be evermore verie carefull to observe , saying , Ephes. 4.3 Endevour to keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace : and hee saith againe thus : Ephes. 4.15 . Let us follow the truth in love , and in all things grow up into him which is the head , that is , Chirist ; This truth if we did all earnestly seeke after and follow , and that in love , and in a charitable manner ( as here we are required to doe ) all our controversies would the better , and the sooner be ended and determined which have now so long disquieted many mens mindes , and doe so much hinder that which is indeede most requisite , namely , the good and due practise of true religion in the world . For how can any practise religion aright , before they know which is the right religion , which they are to practise , and to walke in ? Or how can they know which is the right religion they are to walke in , so long as they be doubtfull of it , by reason of questions , and controversies , that doe perplexe and distract them ? The first thing then , which men desirous to live good and godly lives are to seeke after , is , in the middest of all these controversies to get & obtain within themselves a resolution of a right religion : which resolution they can never certainely have or attaine unto , but by meanes of the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures , which be the onely infallible rule of all divine truth , as I have shewed in my first Booke : So that the purpose and intention of that my first Booke , as likewise of the second , which is my Reply , and of this also , was not , nor is , to have men to dwell continually and everlastingly in controversies , but cleane contrariwise to have them all ended and determined , and that as speedily as might bee , in every mans conscience by diligent searching of those holy Scriptures , and finding out thereby what is the undoubted trueth in them : that men being once thus satisfied and resolved of the truth and true religion , might afterward the better , and the more freely apply themselves to the good and due practise of it in their affections , words , workes , lives and conversations , refusing all other religions of humane invention whatsoever , and the wayes thereof . But now though the truth be never so manifest and apparant , yet some there be of that froward and perverse disposition , that they will not yeelde unto it , but as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses , 2. Tim. 3.8 . so doe these also resist the truth , being men of corrupt mindes and reprobate concerning the faith , as S. Paul speaketh of which sort of men ( if I could helpe it ) I would not have you to be , though you be mine Adversarie , yea though you were mine utter enemie . And therefore , as to the answere which you made to the two Chapters contayned in the first part of my first Booke , I replyed : so to your Rejoynder , I have here also thought it good to make a Surreplication ; wherein I must not omit to tell you , that as touching the second Chapter of my Reply , you have in your Rejoynder made no answere at all unto it , but it remaineth wholly and entirely unanswered , and consequently in his full force & strength against you . And as touching the first Chapter of my Reply , concerning the Supremacie ( upon which point it seemeth that all your thoughts were wholly fixed , & imployed ) although you make some kinde of answere in your Rejoynder unto it , and such as perchance , you and your partakers may thinke to be somewhat strong , yet it is indeede of that great debilitie , as that upon the matter , it is as good as no answere , as will appeare by the sequele : and yet have you moreover left a great part , even of that first Chapter also unanswered . Beside that you have againe in your Reioynder , sundry things which were before answered in my Reply , and much other idle , futile , and frivolous stuffe , which I suppose you would never have inserted into your booke but fro want of better matter in your cause .

For , first , what an idle exception is this , that you take to my Reply in that I dedicated it to the Right Honourable the Lord Deputie ? Why might I not doe so ? Was it not lawfull ? Or was there any inconvenience , or indecorum in it ? You say that his Lordship hath taken the Oath of Supremacie , which maketh him a direct Partie , & being a Partie , he may not also be a Iudge in the same cause . What ? have you so soone forgotten what your selfe did ? For when you made your answere to the two Chapters of my first Booke , you may remember that you dedicated it , To your dearest countreymen , the Lawyers of Ireland . You then thought it lawfull and seemely enough for you so to dedicate it , notwithstanding that by their refusall and utter dislike to take the Oath of Supremacie , they manifestly shewed themselves to be Parties . And was this lawfull for you to doe , and was not the other as lawfull at least , or rather much more lawfull , and seemely ( all things considered ) for mee to doe ? Howbeit , you know also , that Bookes be not alwayes dedicated to men to make them Iudges , but sometimes , and usually to the end , they should be the Patrons thereof , albeit therein also , they be not disallowed but well allowed to passe their judgement and censure upon the same . But indeede no reason had you to dislike of the dedication of that my Booke unto his Lordship , in whom your selfe doe acknowledge that there is sufficiencie to understand , wisedome to discerne , and power to commaund . A like second exception you take for that I call the Papists of this kingdome Pretended Catholickes , which title ( say you ) they doe not acknowledge . But whether they acknowledge it or no , it must bee graunted , that whilest they call themselves Catholickes , when re vera they bee not so , ( as I have shewed and prooved in my first Booke ) they can bee no other but Pretended Catholickes : As likewise hee that calleth himselfe an honest man , when revera he is not so , is at the most , but a pretended honest man . Yet another exception you take in this , that you say , I call you Canis festinans and Luscus inter caecos : But you mistake , in both . For , ( in that my epistle dedicatorie , of my Reply ) I did not say , that you were Cani● festinans , but that whilest in your Answere , you strived to make more hast , then good speede , you shewed your selfe to be , like Canis festinans , caecos edens catibos : which is a proverbiall speech , tolerable enough in the judgment of such , as be not over captious , and often and ordinarily vsed in that sort and sence , & to that purpose that I used it . Neither did I say definitely , & expressely of you , that you were Luscus inter caecos , but my words be these : Regnat inter caecos Luscus , which may be aswell spoken of any other , as of you , vnlesse you will needs be the man , and so take and apply it , ( as you doe , ) to your selfe , particularly .

2. After these exceptions , you come next to the the three requests , I made to him , that would take up●n him to answer my first booke : in the first whereof I desired , that he would answere it , not by parts , or peasemeals , but wholly and entirely , from the beginning of it unto the end : The second was , that he would doe it , not superficialie , and sophistically , but substantially , soundly , & satisfactorily , if he could : Thirdly , I desired him to doe it , as in love , and charity , so also with an affection , only to follow Gods truth , and with all , to set his name unto it , as I had done to that booke of mine . But hereunto , you take divers exceptions , though now somewhat lately in your Reioynder . First you say , that these being conditions , they should have beene agreed upon by the mutuall consent of parties : and that if any advantage be given , it should be in favour of the defendant , as in matter of challenge : for the defendant appoints the weapon , time , and place ; But in this challenge of mine , contrary unto law and custome , I have ( say you ) assumed unto my selfe , being the challenger , the proposing of such conditions as doe disadvantage the defendant . It is true , that in contracts , and bargaines betweene man and man , the conditions must be agreed upon by mutuall consent of parties , before it be , or can be a perfect contract , or a perfect bargaine , howbeit conditions for all that , not onely may be , but also must be , first propounded before they can bee assented unto , or agreed upon . Againe there is aswell a subsequent agreement , as a precedent : As if a man propound , or offer unto you a Lease for yeares of lands , upon certaine conditions : you may choose , whether you will accept of it , or no , upon those conditions ; but if , though not at the first , yet afterward , you having the election , doe declare your consent , and acceptance of it , by entring upon the lands , manuring them , taking the profits , is it not reason you should performe the conditions thereunto annexed ? You know how to make the application . And yet neyther was I , when I made that my Booke , contracting , or bargaining with you , or with any other man in particular : For , I then neyther did , nor could possibly know before hand , who was to be the Answerer of it , with whom I might so contract , nor did I take upon me the person of a Challenger , as you affirme : For I knew of no duell , that was in the case . And as for my defending of Protestancie against Poperie , it no more proveth me to be a challenger , then your defending of Poperie against Protestancie , proveth you to be the challenger . Yea in the conclusion of that my first booke Pag. 417. it appeareth , that I was so farre from taking upon me the person , or using the words of a challenger , that cleane contrariwise , I used onely the peaceable , and friendly words , of Desiring , and Requesting . For there I desire of him , whosoever hee were , that would take upon him to answere that booke of mine , that hee would , in that his answere , be pleased to observe , and performe those three requests , or three conditions before mentioned , which I there propounded . All which were reasonable conditions , and such as ( if you well consider them ) were not ( as you say ) disadvantageable , but much advantageable rather to the cause of the answerer , if hee had performed them . But here , by the way , you tell me , of a verie compendious course , how that my whole first booke is answered and confuted : For you say , that he which fayleth in one point of faith , fayleth in all , and that a refutation or disproofe of any one particular in my booke , is a refutation and disproofe of all . And for proofe hereof , you cite S. Iames cap. 2. Iam. 2.10 . This you also cited , and alledged in your first booke . This is a verie speedy course , and briefe manner of answering and confuting whole bookes , and volumes , if it might be allowed . Howbeit , touching that text of S. Iames , which you somuch abuse , and touching that your Paradoxe and strange opinion , you have been before sufficiently answered in my Reply Chap. 2. pag. 110. 111. 112. Whereunto you in your Reioynder have said nothing . But , admit your Maior proposition were true ( which is indeede utterly untrue ) yet how doe you prove your Minor ? that is to say , how doe you prove any one point or position of mine , contayned in that booke to be false ? Shew , or name that one , which you have disproved , or confuted , if you can : but you are not able to doe it . From henceforth therefore bee not so prodigall of your words . But yet further to derogate from the credite of that my first booke , you say , that it is onely a collection out of Protestant authors : and that you can discover the Bookes , Chapters , and Pages , of Master Fulke , Master Whitakers , Master Downam , & of others , whence I have borrowed , verbatim , whatsoever is expressed in it . This is too overlavish a speech , and more then you will bee ever able to prove . Indeede , as touching the substance of the matter , and doctrine , contayned in that my first booke , and in my second , and in this also , I thinke it no shame , but contrarywise I thinke it honour , and reputation , freely to confesse , that I have learned it of those , and of such other learned , and reverend Protestant Divines : Yea I hold it a part of dutie in me , not onely ingenuously , but thankefully also to acknowledge those my teachers : especially considering , that what they have taught mee herein , appeareth to bee certainely , and irrefutably true . This therefore doth rather adde credite to the matter and doctrine , contayned in those my bookes , then derogate , or take any from them . But was there ever any reader of other mens workes , that was not allowed to take collections out of them , & to make use of them as occasion requireth : yea , if that were an exception sufficient , I might also say , that as touching the matter , all that you have spoken eyther in yovr first answer , or in your Reioy●der , is likewise but a collection out of Popish authors and that the Bookes , Chapters , & Pages of Bellarmine , Stapleton , Suarez , and of others , might be shewed , whence you have borrowed , and taken them all . But to what end , were this ? For the question is not , what I have learned , or collected out of the one , or you out of the other : but whether of those doctrines , and religions , which wee have severally learned of those our severall teachers , bee the truer , and which of them is approved of God , and by his word : namely , whether Protestancie , or Poperie . Heere then , as touching the substance of the matter delivered in all my bookes , you might have spared your labour : for you have therein tould no newes , nor any more , then my selfe had before , affirmed , confessed , and acknowledged . But you proceede , and say , that although you for your part , have answeted but onely to two Chapters of that my first booke ( the force of which your answer , I have also overthrowne in my Reply ) that the whole booke is neverthelesse answered , and compleatly finished , and extant any time these two yeares and a halfe past , and yet not divulged , for want of meanes , and opportunitie for the impression : And , for that cause , doe you desire of mee , that I would bee a meane to procure it to bee Printed , by the Protestant Presse here in Dublin . A verie bold , unbeseeming , and strange request , to be demaunded , especially at my hands . But if it be ( as you say it is ) fully answered , and compleatly finished , so long since , why is not printed all this while ? For whereas you pretend want of meanes , and opportunitie for the impression : It is well knowne , that the Papists ( as sundrie other their workes printed , sufficiently declare ) doe if they list , want neyther meanes nor opportunitie for the impression : And I have tould you heretofore , that if your workes , and bookes bee so excellent , and so worthy the printing , as you make shew for , you might got them to bee Printed , eyther at Doway , or at Rhemes , or at some other place beyond the Seas . And therefore it was altogether idle for you , to give me this election , eyther to receive it in a Manuscript , or to procure the printing of it : for it is needlesse to receive it in a Manuscript , when it may be Printed : And for the printing of it , not I , but your selfe must procure it , if you will have it done . So that as touching that choyce or offer , you make mee , I hold my selfe free , and not necessarily tyed or bound , to doe eyther the one , or the other . Yea the very name of a Protestant Presse ( if there were no more ) might have beene sufficient to tell you , that it were utterly unmeete , for Popish workes to come into it , especially those that bee purposely , and directly made , and contrived , against such cleere , high , and important points , as bee also by law established . Now then to come to my second request : I trust , you likewise finde nothing in it , unreasonable : for I therein desired no more of the answerer , but to answer , not superficially , or sophistically , but substantially , soundly , and satisfactorily , if he could : so that if he could not make such an answer , hee might have said so , and so have beene excused . But you are loth to disable your selfe , and therefore as touching the answer you made to the two Chapters of that my first booke , you say , that I am not to judge , whether it be substantiall , sound , and satisfactory , but that the equall , and indifferent Reader , is to judge of it : which I am well contented , hee should doe , by conferring my Reply , with that your ananswer . And therefore I proceede to my third request : which consisteth of two partes : ( for I make not foure requests , or foure conditions , as you surmise : ) The first part of that my third request , was this , that I would have him , whosoever was to be the answerer , to answer in love , and charitie , and with an affection onely to follow Gods truth . Thus far I am sure , you cannot denie it to bee a reasonable request . And as touching the other part of it , whereby I desired him that would answer , to put his name to his answer , as I had done to that booke of mine : although this be it , you chiefly except against : yet even this part of it also , was not unreasonable : and therefore did I justly reprove you , for that in stead of your right name , you gave your selfe the wrong , false , & counterfeite name of Iohn at Stile . But yet , in your Reioy●der , you , herein , seeke to excuse & defend your selfe , by the example of Abram , who comming into Pharaoh● Court in Egipt , Gen. 12.11.12.13 . &c. called Sarai his wife , by the name of his Sister : and you adde further , and say , that Matthew Sutcliffe , a Protestant writer , did put for his name unto his worke . O.E.

First concerning Abram , though hee were an holy man , yet hee had his faults and imperfections , amongst which this is reckoned for one , which you here alleage : And can then that which was a fault in him , make yours to bee no fault ? But yet in all that , hee neyther changed his name , nor his wifes name , into a false , and counterfeite name , as you did . For hee still called himselfe Abram , and his wife Sarai , without any alteration , or change of those their proper names . And as touching Doctor Sutcliffe , the reason why hee put for his name those two letters O. E. was , because the man , whom hee answered , had likewise for his name , subscribed certaine letters : but , the case betweene you and mee is not like . For I subscribed my name truely , and as it was , and therefore so should you also have done . Howbeit , at the first , you excused your selfe herein , by reason of the Statute of 2. Eliz. which doth ( say you , in your first answer ) binde mens tongues , and pennes within this kingdome , with the cord of a Premunire , from oppugning the Supremacie , eyther by word or writing . Vpon which answer of yours , it is true , I did , and who could otherwise suppose , but that you then thought ( whatsoever you say now ) that the penaltie for that your first offence against that Statute , in oppugning the Kings Supremacie , was a Premunire : For to what end else doe you so specially mention , that to bee the penaltie , if you had not thought so ? I did not therefore wrong you ( as you now alleage in your Reioynder ) when I taxed you being a Lawyer , See the Statute it selfe , of 2. Eliz. cap. 1 made in Ireland . with ignorance in your owne profession , concerning that Statute . For that Statute doth not ( as you then supposed ) for any mans first offence , inflict the penaltie of a Premunire , but ( as I then likewise tould you ) the losse of goods and chattels : after once conviction and attainder , it is indeede for the second offence a Premunire : & after twice conviction , & attainder , it is for the third offence , high treason . Did you then account it , a wrong done unto you , that I supposed this to be your first offence , against that statute ? Or would you have had me to think ( which was more then I knew at that time & more then yet I know ) that you had bin once before convicted & attainted of that offence , & that this was your second offence in that kinde ? For , unlesse this were thus your second offence , you needed not to have feared , or mentioned a Premunire , to have beene your penaltie in the case : you might aswell , & as wisely have named , & mentioned the penaltie , to have beene high treason , in asmuch as for the third offence , that Statute also maketh it to be high treason , aswell as it maketh it , for the second offence , to bee a Premunire . But I conceived ( as I thinke any man else , not knowing any thing to the contrarie , would have conceived ) that it was not any your second offence , nor third offence , that you then , and there meant , or had any reason , or purpose to speake of , but your first offence , the penaltie of which first offence , is , by that Statute , neyther Premunire nor high treason ( as I said before ) and consequently ( if you would deale ingenuously ) you must confesse , that you then mistooke , and were deceived in opinion , whilest you thought the penaltie for that your first offence to bee a Premunire , by that Statute . But then you say , that you will not bee so sawcie , as to taxe mee with ignorance in my profession , concerning the same Statute , and yet you see not ( say you ) how the subscribing of your name unto the answer , could have beene any legall plea , to have saved you from penaltie , if you had beene indicted upon that Statute : Neyther doe I see , how it could , although you would faine wrest my words from their true sence , unto that construction . For , whereas you have said , that my requiring of the Answerer , to put his name unto the Answer , was , in effect , asmuch , as to debarre any man from answering unto it ? I thereunto replyed , that hee that in answering , is required to put his name to his answere , is so farre from being debarred from answering , that cleane contrarywise , hee is thereby ( that is , by such requiring of him to answer in that sort ) permitted to answer ( if hee please ) so as hee put his name thereunto . I did not say ( as you seeme purposely to misconstrue and mistake ) that by answering in that sort , viz. with his name subscribed to his answer , he was to be freed from all manner of penaltie contayned in that Statute of 2. Eliz. I was never so absurd , or sencelesse to say or thinke it . Yea you might have observed , that I there shewed and expressely affirmed the cleane contrarie , namely , that the penaltie even for the first offence against that Statute ( whether with his name subscribed , or not subscribed , or howsoever , ) was losse of goods , and chattels . And therefore whether this were ignorance of that point of the Statute in me , or grosse , perverse , and malicious cavilling , and quarrelling in you , let the equall Reader judge . But yet in your Reioynder , you further say : that you cannot imagine why I should so much covet the answerers right name , unlesse it be by advantage of the Statute in persecuting him , to confine him into the Castle , there to argue with him , as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner . I know no reason you have thus to charge me , with so much coveting of the Authors , or Answerers name . For though it bee lawfull for mee so to doe , yet have I not beene much inquisitive after it : much lesse reason have you to charge mee , in your imaginations , with persecuting him , or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle , which I never did : though I confesse hee deserveth it , and a farre greater punishment then that : because , contrary to the lawes , and statutes of the Kingdome , which himselfe professeth , being ( as he saith hee is ) a Lawyer ; and contrary to that dutie , which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble , most gracious , religious , and most worthy Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES , and contrarie to that fealtie also , or fidelitie , which ( professing himselfe to bee a Christian ) hee likewise oweth unto CHRIST IESVS , the onely spirituall King Monarch , & head of the whole Church Militant , aswell as of the triumphant , hee doth , and dareth thus audaciously to offend . Neyther is prosecuting , or punishing of such bold , and notorious offenders to bee called ( as you after the Romanisticall manner untruly call it ) Persecuting . For though Prosecution doth well befit delinquents , and offenders , yet Persecution is a word properly , and usually applyed to the Martyrs of Christ , and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist , or Antichristian doctrine , unlesse it bee Catacrestically , & abusively . Howbeit I deale not with you by authoritie , or as a Iudge , or Iusticer , but doe onely debate , dispute , and reason the matter with you , seeking , and endeavouring first by this meanes , ( if I can , ) to reduce , and reclayme you , and the like unto you , from those your grand errours , unto a most certaine , and evident truth . But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdome , which maketh the penaltie , even for the first offence , to be , although not a Premunire , yet losse of goods and chattels , and that therefore in respect of this losse and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me , to demaund an answer with the Answerers name , thereunto subscribed : Thereunto I then further say : First , that I know no reason why you , or any man else , should make any answer , or any Bookes , or writings at all , against the Kings Supremacie , which you ought in all good dutie to uphold , and defend . Secondly , I demaunded not any answer at all to be made eyther by you , or any other ; but , if any did , or would answer , then I desired , that hee would answer in that sort , viz. with his name subscribed : so that hee might have chosen , whether hee would have answered , yea , or no : and by not answering , hee might have kept , and freed himselfe from penaltie of the Statute : but if hee would needes answer , then hee was to doe it , at his owne perill , if any perill did ensue . And yet I might also further tell you , that such a one possibly might have beene the Answerer , as needed not to feare that perill , or penaltie . For be there not divers Schollers , in Colledges , and Vniversities , and elsewhere , that live onely upon other mens exhibition , and beneficence , and have no manner of goods , or chattels , lands or tenements , of their owne ? Might not such an one have answered , and put his name to his Answer , without any feare of that penaltie . Againe , might not some forrein-borne Papist , living out of the Kings Dominions , and that were no Subject to the King , having well , and perfectly learned the English tongue , have beene the Answerer , and put his name likewise to his Answer , without any feare of that danger . Or , ( which was most likely , ) might not some English m●n , or some Irish man , living & abiding perpetually at Rhemes , Rome , Doway , or some other place beyond the Seas , have beene the Answerer ? And would you then have thought it a thing unreasonable for such a one to have beene demaunded to put , and subscribe his name to his Answer ? For these men living continually beyond Sea out of the Kings Dominions , feare not , ( as wee see by experience , ) nor thinke , so long , as they be so farre distant , that they neede to feare the penaltie , or danger of any Law , or Statute amongst us , to bee executed upon them . Yea , what if it were your selfe , that were the Answerer of it , ( as you tooke upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it ) had it beene unreasonable to have demaunded of you , to put your name to the Answer , in respect of any feare of penaltie , or danger , upon that Statute , or of any other Statute , whatsoever ? For what penaltie or danger upon any Statute , should you feare , who in your first Answer , in the Epistle to your Countrey-men , write so confidently in this your supposed Catholicke cause , as if you feared no manner of danger at all , but would willingly undergoe all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it ? But I am now glad to see , that you have some feare in you : For , indeede , feare in everie man , and not forwardnesse or boldnesse in any , best becommeth yours so bad a cause . But yet further , what reason have you now , in your Reioynder , to except against any of these three conditions , or three requests , or against any part of any of them , as unreasonable , which in your first Answer , you tooke no exception against ? Yea which you then seemed well to approve and allow well of , saying , concerning the same my whole first Booke , that , It should shortly be answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me . Yea , lastly if you would needs be , ( as you were ) the Answerer to a part of that my first Booke , ( namely , to two Chapters therein , ) and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it : yet , should you not , in stead thereof , have given your selfe , a wrong , false , and counterfeyte name , ( which is the thing , I reproved in you : ) For , as I said formerly in my Reply , so I say againe , that it had beene much better for you , to have put no name at all to that your Answer , then a false , wrong , and counterfeyte name , as you did .

3. From thence , you goe on , and renew a former taxation of yours , namely , for that being a Lawyer by profession . I neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie , & concerning religion : But , concerning this , I told you before , that I had made a sufficient Apologie for these my doings , in that my first Booke , whereto , as yet I see no Answer made : and I added further in my second Booke , namely , my Reply that even you your selfe did justifie mee therein , in asmuch , as you , being likewise a Lawyer , ( as you then affirmed , and yet still affirme your selfe to bee , ) did neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie , and concerning religion , aswell , as I. Neyther is it any excuse , or defence for you to say , ( as you doe , ) that I began to commit this fault , and that you doe but follow me therein : For , if you saw it to bee a fault in mee , you should rather have eschewed it , then committed it , upon any mans example whatsoever . He that knoweth an Act to be a sinne , and reproveth , and condemneth another man for it , and yet will himselfe commit it , is not his sinne and fault , Rom. 2.1 . so much the greater ? Therefore art thou inexcusable , O man , whosoever thou art , ( saith S. Paul , ) that condemnest another : for in that thou condemnest another , thou condemnest thy selfe , for thou that condemnest , dost the same things . Yea , you say further , that in your Answer formerly made , you signified this to be a fault , aswell in your selfe , as in mee . But if you then thought so , in verie deede , why did you commit it ? Or why doe you still commit , and continue it ? For so your Reioynder declareth : doth not this then more & more aggravate your offence ? And doth it not declare you to bee a man of little conscience , that dare thus wittingly and willingly , to sinne against your owne conscience , and to persist also in it ? For , if our heart condemne us , 1. Ioh. 3.20 . ( saith S. Iohn , ) God is greater then our heart , and knowes all things . It is high time therefore for you , to give over writing in these matters of Religion , if it be against your conscience , and that you verily thinke it to be unlawfull for you , so to doe . But , as for me , I am not of that minde , neyther have you shewed , nor can you shew , any sufficient or good reason , to disswade mee . For , whereas you suppose it to bee unlawfull , or unmeete for Lawyers , or other lay-men , to meddle with the Scriptures ; and matters concerning Religion , as being a thing out of their element , calling , and profession : First , to forbid or denie lay people , the medling with the Scriptures and with Religion , is knowne to bee an old Popish policie , and a most wicked , and damnable device : by meanes whereof , mens eyes , being in times past thus blinded , and as it were put out , it came to passe , that both Pope , and poperie , in those dayes so mightily prevayled , as they did , in the world , & yet still prevayle , amongst too too many . For what is it else but ignorance of Gods word , and will in the people that keepeth them so fast fettered and chayned both to Pope and poperie . Secondly the untruth of this irreligious , and Antichristian opinion , is formerly , and at large discovered , and manifested in my first Booke , which I see not yet answered : And yet thirdly , you must further know , ( if already you know it not ) that a Lawyer , or any other lay-man , hath a double calling , or a double profession : one worldly , which concerneth the things of this life : the other is his Christian calling , which concerneth , & respecteth things belonging to a farre better life , namely to a life everlasting . This Christian calling , Ephes. 4.1 . S. Paul proveth , desiring men , to walke worthy of that calling , whereunto they are called . Againe , hee prayeth for some , that God would make them worthy of this calling S. Peter likewise speaketh thus : 2. Thes. 1.11 Yee are a chosen generation , a royall Priesthood , an holy nation , a people set at libertie , that yee should shew forth the vertues of him , 1. Pet. 2.9 . that hath called you , out of darkenesse , into his mervailous light . And sundrie other Texts of holy Scripture there be to prove , that there is aswell a Divine , and Christian calling and profession , as there is a worldly , and terrestriall . For what ? Have not men soules to looke to , aswell as bodies ? Or , are men to bee no more but naturall , and meere men ? 1. Pet. 1.23 . Are they not also to become Christian men , and to bee regenerated , aswell as generated ? And doth not S. Peter tell us , that men are regenerated , or borne a new , not by corruptible , but by incorruptible seede , even by the word of God , who liveth , and endureth for ever . 1. Pet. 2.2 . And doth he not further advise some , as new borne babes , to desire the sincere milke of the word , that they may grow thereby . 1 Cor 3 1 2. For , men , after that they bee once begotten and borne a new , by Gods word , Hebr. 5.12.13.14 . and the power of his spirit working therewithall , are first Babes in Christ , and afterward by degrees , they grow to bee strong men , and able to digest strong meates , untill they come , at last , to bee a perfect man , as S. Paul speaketh . Yea , Ioh. 6.27 . doth not Christ himselfe bid men to Labour not for the meate which perisheth , but for that meate which endureth unto life everlasting ? Luke 10.39 40.41.42 . And did he not also further tell Martha , that shee was troubled about many things , but this was the unum necessarium , the one thing that was necessarie , which Mary had chosen , namely the hearing of his word ? Seeing then that Gods word , ( which is now long sithence committed to writing , and is in the sacred , and Canonicall Scriptures to bee found , and where all truth , concerning points of Divinitie , and Religion is to be had , ) is so necessarie , as that it is the foode , meate , and nourishment of Christians , to life everlasting : How can it be rightly , and truely said , that when they be thus within their aliment , they bee out of their element ? For is not the life of the soule , to bee preserved , and maintayned aswell , or rather much more heedefully , then the life of the body ? Or will any say , that the fish is out of his element , when hee swimmeth in the water , where he liveth , and most delighteth ? Yea as the fish removed out of his proper element , dieth within a while after : and as the bodie that is destitute of corporall foode to sustaine it , must needes decay , and die . So the soule that hath not this spirituall foode of Gods word , to cherish , and maintayne it in a spirituall life , must likewise needes consume , decay , and pine away , untill it come in the end , to utter ruine . You see then , that a true Christian , Iohn . 17.16 ( Who though he bee in the world , yet is not of the world , but hath his affection set upon things that are above , & not on things which are on earth , ) Col. 3.1.2 . Phil. 3.20 is so farre from being out of his element , as that , contrarywise , hee is within his right , and true element , in respect of his soule , and the things belonging to a better world , and keepeth himselfe within the compasse , & bounds of that his divine , & Christian calling , so long , as hee humbly and reverently , heareth , readeth , searcheth the word of God , delighteth in it , museth and meditateth upon it , talketh of it , and thereout learneth truths and true religion , and propoundeth them also unto others , for their benefite and instruction , aswell as of himselfe . Yea , all duties of a Christian , a Lawyer , or other lay-man , may and ought to doe , and performe , as hee is able , and as occasion requireth : so that hee doe them discreetely , and with due respect to all manner of persons , and so long as withall , hee intrudeth not into those duties , that bee proper , and peculiar to the office , and function of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers . As for that your other reason , whereby you would disswade me , because these are points of great difficultie , & surpasse a Lawyers abilitie , ( as you speake : ) although I arrogate nothing to my selfe , yet why should you say , that it surpasseth a Lawyers abilitie , to deale in these things , when as you your selfe , being a Lawyer , doe neverthelesse intermedle in them ? Or why should it surpasse or exceede a Lawyers talent , or a Lawyers abilitie , in mee , more then in you ? Indeede , if a man be nothing else , but a meere Lawyer , in respect of that his meere worldly calling , he is not fitte to deale in matters concerning God , and his religion ; But if hee bee a Christian Lawyer , exercised in the Booke of God , and well grounded in the points of his faith and religion , ( as all Lawyers , and other lay-men ought to be , ) then in respect of that his divine and Christian calling , hee may meddle with points of Divinitie and Christianitie , Eatenus , Quatenus , so farre forth as is before shewed , and as is in my first Booke more at large declared . And yet there is also a more speciall reason , why I should bee permitted to intermeddle herein , because being not onely a Lawyer , but a Iudge also in the Common-weale , it well becommeth mee , and is my dutie , ( as I conceive it , ) for that reason , ( so much as in me lyeth , ) to seeke to have the Lawes , and Statutes of the Realme , especially in these most high , and most important points , aswell as in other , that bee inferiour points unto them , to be observed of all his Majesties Subjectes within this kingdome . Neyther are there any such great doubts , or difficulties , in these points , as you would perswade : yea , they bee verie cleare , plaine , open , and evident points , and such as any man , though but of meane understanding , may easily , and readily conceive , and apprehend . For , first , the verie name of a Subject , ( if there were no more ) may serve to teach any man , that the King , whose Subject hee is , hath of due right a Regall , and Temporall Supremacie , not onely over him , but over all the rest of his Subjects within his owne Dominions : and secondly the verie name of a Christian , may serve to teach a man , to beleeve , and to professe , no other religion , but that which Christ himselfe taught , eyther by himselfe , or by his Apostles , as also , to acknowledge no other to bee the spirituall King , head , and Monarch , of the whole Christian Church , but the same CHRIST IESVS onely .