Apology of Henry Airay, Part 1
THE IVST AND NECESSARY APOLOGIE of Henrie Airay the late reuerend Prouost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford, touching his suite in Law for the Rectorie of Charleton.
THe rule of the holy Apostle is: Against 1. Tim. 5. 19.an Elder receiue none accusation, but vnderunder two or three witnesses. Which rule, if it were as well obserued, as it may be easily knowne, calumnies against an Elders innocencie would not so hastily be beleeued, as many times they are; nor should I now need to trouble my selfe with a taske of this kind. But hauing learned out of Solomon, that a good name is better then Eccl. 7. 3.a good ointment, and to be chosen aboue Prou. 22. 1great riches; and out of the heathen Oratour, that Dissoluti hominis est negligere quid quisque de … sentiat, None but a dissolute person will neglect what men thinke or speake of him: and hauing heard by sundrie my good friends, that vntounto much vexation and distraction, vntounto great trouble and charges by occasion of a tedious suite in Law, this also is added, that many aspersions are cast, and many speeches passe vponupon me, which some beleeue, and touching which others desire to be satisfied: it is my desire, in regard of my ministerie, of my degree, of my seruice, and of my place of gouernment, and out of that care to prouide things honest, 2 Cor. 8. 21.not onelyonly before the Lord, but also before men, which the Apostle requireth, to satisfie others with those things, wherewith, I thanke God, I satisfie my selfe in this case. And to that purpose I hauehave plainly and nakedly set downe a simple and true narration of passages in that businesse, and of the case in that suite, and of the grounds whereon I leaned both for law and conscience, together with the exceptions which are taken against me, and the answers thereunto; that when men are truly informed in that matter, and see what is answered vntounto all obiections, they may either cleare me in their iudgments, or censure me at their pleasures.
A suite betweene M. Iohn Alcock and me, about a Lease of the Rectorie of Charleton vponupon Otmoore in Oxford shire, long depended in sundrie Courts at VVestminster Hall, which he began in the Chancerie, and wherein afterwards sometimes he, and sometimes I were Plaintiffes. Wherein the case will the better appeare, if first the state of that Rectorie be opened; which is as followeth.
The Advowson of that Rectorie being in the King, M. Dennys who was Prouost of this Colledge, and Incūbent in that Rectory, affected the purchase of it for the Colledge. For the effecting whereof, because the Benefice was held in Capite, and the Colledge then through want of Mort-maine was vncapable of it, he put into that businesse one Andrewes & one Temple: who, according to M. Dennys his desire, purchased the Rectorie from the King, Ann. 35. Henr. 8. and in the same yeare made it ouer vntounto M. Dennys then Prouost, and vntounto M. Shaw then Fellow of this Colledge, as in trust for the Colledge. Which Rectorie being so purchased and passed ouer, M. Dennys died in the last yeare of Queene Maries reigne.
M. Dennys being dead, and M. Hodgeson succeeding in the Headship of the Colledge, M. Alan Scot then Fellow of the Colledge, was presented vntounto the Rectorie of Charleton, 1. Elizab. not by M. Shaw the suruiuer feoffee, but by Hugh Hodgeson Prouost, and the Fellowes of the Colledge, &c. when there was no right of patronage at all by law in the Colledge, and was thereupon admitted. Which M. Scot comming to be Prouost, 5. Elizab. made, as Incumbent, a Lease of the Rectory of Charleton vntounto one VVilliam Izod, aliàs Shillingford, 10. Elizab. for the terme of 81. yeares, reseruing onelyonly to the Incumbent during that terme 20. lib. per annum, or 30. lib. per annum if he should serue the Cure, together with a chamber in the Parsonage; and laying all other burthens vponupon the Leasee, procured the Lease to be confirmed, as it is said, by the Ordinarie, and by the Colledge as Patron. Which Lease so made by M. Scot, as Incumbent, & confirmed by him as Prouost, was enioyed by M. Izod, aliàs Shillingford till 20. Elizabethae.
In the meane time M. Scot died, viz. about 17. Elizab. and M. Shepheard then Fellow of the Colledge was presented vntounto the Rectorie of Charleton by M. Bowsfield then Prouost, and the Fellowes of the Colledge, hauing as yet no right of patronage in law, vnlesse it were by vsurpation, and was thereunto admitted. Which M. Shepheard seeing the Glebe-land of the Rectorie to be exchanged and alienated by M. Izod, and perceiuing the Lease made by M. Scot to M. Izod to be naught in Law, and as bad in conscience, accordingly spake of the Lease, and of his purpose to question it. Whereupon M. Izod taking aduice, and finding great cause to feare the inualiditie of his Lease, tendered the sale of it to M. VVilliam Alcock, who then kept his Courts, and who being a Counsellor at Law, was better able to maintaine it, if it should be questioned, then he was. Howbeit M. VVilliam Alcock refused to meddle with it, vnlesse M. Izod would secure his peaceable possession for the space of ten yeares, hoping in that time, as it may seeme, to saue by his bargaine.
After sundrie passages between them, M. Izod assigned ouer the Lease to M. VVilliam Alcock, 20. Elizab. with a clause of warrantize for peaceable possession for the space of ten yeares, as appeareth by the Assignement. Which Lease so assigned, M. William Alcock enioyed, and died seized of it, hauing before his death much molested M. Shepheard for speeches against his Lease, and at length released him of all personall actions betwixt them, with a prouiso, that that release should not extend to preiudice any right, estate, or terme of yeares which he had in the Rectorie of Charleton vponupon Otmoore.
After M. William Alcocks death, such right and estate as he had in the Lease came vntounto his widow, and vntounto M. Iohn Alcock his Executor. VponUpon whose comming vntounto it, the Lease was questioned by M. Shepheard, and for a while trauersed; but the suite not continued vntounto triall, for that M. Shepheard was so poore that he was not able to prosecute the law, and besides had preiudiced himselfe by the acceptance of that which was reserued vponupon the Lease vntounto the Incumbent.
VponUpon M. Shepheards death, M. Harper then Fellow of the Colledge, was presented by the Colledge to that Rectorie: who resigning after one halfe yeare and somewhat more, for that he could not through the weaknesse of his body endure such trauell and toile for the ouerthrowing of the Lease by due course of Law, as the whole companie desired hee should do; I was by the Colledge presented vntounto it; and, both out of the same considerations which moued M. Shepheard, and out of commiseration of the state of that people where the Benefice is, and out of my due regard of my owne dutie vntounto this Colledge, and of my Companies earnest desire, and after much deliberation for matter, both of Law, with many very skilfull in the Law, and of conscience, with sundrie reuerend and iudicious Diuines, I endeuoured to do the best seruice I could to this Colledge and that Church, for the ouerthrowing of that vnreasonable and vnconscionable Lease.
This being the state of that Rectorie hitherto, the question is, whether that Lease so dimised by M. Scot, so confirmed by M. Scot and his companie, when the Colledge was not Patron in law, and by a wrong name of the Colledge, so doubted of both by M. Izod, and by M. William Alcock before the Assignement, and so questioned since M. Scots death by M. Shepheard, be a good Lease, or no?
M. Iohn Alcock, though at the first he seemed by suing me in the Chancerie, to flic the Law, and to leane onelyonly vntounto conscience, yet afterwards pretended the Lease to be good both in Law and in conscience, which I euer thought (vnderunder reformation) to be naught in Law and in conscience.
And first, in Law I held the Lease to be naught vponupon two grounds: first, because it was neuer confirmed by the true Patron, no Lease being good in Law, 10. Elizab. which was not confirmed by the Ordinary, Patron, and Incumbent. And that the Lease was neuer confirmed by the true Patron, it appeareth, because it was neuer confirmed by M. Shaw, in whom alone as suruiuer feoffee, the patronage truly rested till 24. Elizab. when vponupon the procuring of a Mort-mane for the Colledge by my Lord Bishop of Carlile, then Prouost of the Colledge, M. Shaw made it ouer to the Colledge, as appeareth by his instrument vnderunder his hand and seale. Which being so cleare that it cannot be denied, M. Alcocks onelyonly euasion is, that the Colledge had gained the patronage by vsurpation, because their Clerke, M. Scot, presented by the Colledge, was admitted, and not disturbed. In which case, though I know not what the Law is, whether vponupon our presentation a right of patronage will be gained by vsurpation, or whether vsurpation will enable the vsurper, not onelyonly to present to the Church, but also to confirme a Lease against the good of the Church; or whether a Lease leaning on vsurpation vponupon one presentation in the beginning, be strengthened by the accesse of mo presentations afterwards; or whether the Colledge can gaine or hold a right indirectè, whereof it is not capable directè, that is, whether vsurpation can gaine a right vntounto a Colledge, whereof it is not capable in it selfe, yet in reason, which Lawyers say is the ground of the Law, the plea of vsurpation seemeth to be very harsh in this case. For if an vsurper be an intruder and wrongfull possessor, then what is vsurpation, but intrusion and wrongfull possession? And then what is the plea of right gained by vsurpation, but a plea of right wrongfully gained? And then what is M. Alcocks plea for the goodnesse of his Lease in Law, but that his Lease is good out of a right which the Colledge gained wrongfully? Which plea seemeth yet the lesse reasonable, because it may seeme, that the gaining of right by vsurpation was prouided for the good, and not for the hurt of the Church; which in this case falleth out quite otherwise. For albeit by the presentation from the Colledge the Church was filled, which may seeme to hauehave bene for the good of the Church; yet the stablishing of the Lease by the right so gained, is in perniciem Ecclesiae, because so, during the terme of yeares in the Lease, the Church, through the smalnesse of maintenance reserued vponupon the Lease for the Incumbent, cannot be prouided of a Pastor sufficient to feed and instruct that people.
A second ground whereupon I held the Lease to be naught in Law, is, because of the errour in the true name of the Colledge, both in the Lease and in the Confirmation: the true name of the Colledge being, Aula scholarium Reginae de Oxon. as appeareth by the licence of Edward the third vntounto our Founder, wherein he licenseth him to found and build Aulam quandam Collegialem de scholaribus, capellanis, & alijs, perpetuis temporibus duraturam, sub nomine Aulae scholarium Reginae de Oxon. and the Lease being dimised and confirmed by the name of, the Queenes Hall or Colledge in the Uniuersitie of Oxford. Which sheweth, that what difference there is betweene Aula scholarium Reginae de Oxon. and Aula Reginae de Oxon. the like difference there is betweene the name of the Colledge and the name in the Lease and confirmation, that is, a substantiall difference.
Againe, in conscience I hold the Lease to be naught for these causes: first, it is a Lease of a Benefice presentatiue, and with the cure of foules, where are three villages, and much people: which kinde of Leases was by a whole Parliament thought vnconscionable and vnreasonable, and a law made against all such Leases in future times, about three yeares after the dimising of this Lease, viz. Ann. 13. Elizabethae.
Secondly, it is a Lease whereupon so small allowance is reserued vntounto the Incumbent, as that the maintenance is not sufficient to maintaine any fit Minister for the instruction of that great people; whereof what conscience ought to be made, eueryevery man knoweth.
Thirdly, the terme of yeares in the Lease is so long, that the Benefice being presentatiue for 81. yeares, that great people is in great hazard to be too much neglected, if the Lease shall continue so long, without euiction at Law, or reliefe in Chancerie against it.
Fourthly, the Lease is so preiudiciall vntounto the Glebe land of that Benefice, as that thereby much of it is alienated and exchanged with other men vponupon inclosures, and alreadie growne almost out of knowledge.
Fiftly, the Lease hath bene noted from chiefe seates of Iudgement to be so vnreasonable and vnconscionable, as that it was pitie the Leasour had not bene hanged before the dimise; to be such as I was bound in conscience to ouerthrow if by the Law I could; and to be no whit, or verie little better then sacriledge, depriuing them which waite at the altar, of the things due to them which there waite.
Sixtly, whence was it that when the matter was referred vponupon the motion of the Barons of the Exchequer, vntounto Sir Iulius Caesar, Sir Thomas Parrie the then Lord chiefe Iustice, and Iustice VValmesley, M. Alcock refused to be bound to stand to their order; that when vponupon request from the Lord Chancellor vntounto those great persons of their paines againe for an order in the matter, an order was set downe by them, and the same made an order in the Chancerie, M. Alcock would not obey the order, but stood out in contempt thereof vntounto a writ of rebellion, and the sending of a Serieant at Armes for him; and that alwayes he refused to submit vntounto a finall end by the Lord Chancellor, or the Maister of the Rowles, without further suite, but that his owne conscience told him that his Lease was naught in conscience?
But a valuable consideration was giuen for the Lease.
It is said that M. Izod payd for it 280. pounds, whereof 80. pounds came to the Colledge, and that M. W. Alcock payd for the Assignement 400. pounds. But it doth not appeare vponupon the accounts of the Colledge; where if any such thing were, it should appeare, that any penie came to it, either by the Lease, or by the Assignement. Howbeit if it were so, that M. Izod payed for the Lease 280. pounds, he may seeme to be well satisfied by the commoditie of the Rectory for ten yeares before, and by 400 pounds payed to him for the Assignement. And if it were so, that M. VVilliam Alcock payed for the Assignement 400. pounds, he and his heire may seeme to be well satisfied by the commoditie of the Rectorie for thirtie yeares and vpwards, and by 500. pounds which M. Iohn Alcock is said to hauehave had of M. VVhite vponupon the morgage of the Lease.
But an hundred Markes were payed to my Lord of Carlile then Prouost, to the vse of the Colledge, for the securing of the Lease, as his note …
Whatsouer colour there be of such a note, yet by two Letters written from his Lordship vponupon my desire to be satisfied in that point, and still to be shewed, it may appeare that the Colledge being in much debt at his comming to this Headship, that sum of 100 Markes was borrowed of M. Izod vponupon fiue seuerall bonds for the repaying thereof in fiue seuerall yeares, and was accordingly repayed in the fiue yeares next following, and the seuerall bonds vponupon the seuerall paiments redeliuered, and was not otherwise for any vse of the Colledge. Which being the tenour of two Letters vnderunder his Lordships hand and seale, is in reason more to be esteemed then an odde peece of paper of an hand breadth.
But M. William Alcock purchased the Lease from M. Izod as good.
He knew the Lease to be disabled in M. Izods time so well, that he would not meddle with it, till M. Izod yeelded to secure the peaceable possessiō for ten yeares, though M. Izod had moued him often through feare of trouble, by occasion of it, to buy it. And how can they denie the Lease to hauehave bene doubted of by M. William Alcock, who say that 100. markes were giuen for the securing of it, to my Lord of Carlile, who was not Prouost for some yeares after the Assignement?
But it is hard for a Colledge to seeke the auoidance of its owne act.
It is an act of M. Scot, as Incumbent of the Rectory of Charleton, and whereinto being Prouost he drew by meanes so many of the Colledge as serued his turne, to hauehave a hand in the confirmation thereof, (as also the same yeare he did to the leasing of an Impropriation for 500. yeares, and had done the yeare before to the making away of some Land belonging to the Colledge in Dorcetshire for euer,) which I laboured to ouerthrow by legall courses, and not any Lease either dimised by the Colledge, or duely confirmed by the Colledge.
But it is hard to disturbe possession after thirtie or fortie yeares.
It is harder to be wrongfully kept out of possession so long. And that possession was in that time disturbed, appeareth, inasmuch as vponupon speeches against the Lease, it was made ouer to M. William Alcock; and after the Assignement, suite was commenced by M. Shepheard for the euicting of it, howsoeuer he was not able to prosecute the suite vntounto a triall, through want of meanes necessary in such case.
But it is hard to take aduantage vponupon a misnomer.
Is it not harder to auoide a cleare case in Law, which requireth confirmation by the Patron, by a refuge of vsurpation? Or is it hard in my case, which is vsuall in many cases of Colledges and Cathedrall Churches, as is well knowne by Merton Colledge, which auoided a Lease vponupon the verie like misnomer as in my case, there the name of the Colledge being, Custos & scholares Collegij scholarium de Merton. and in the Lease being, Custos & scholares Collegij de Merton; as in my case the name of the Colledge is, Praepositus & scholares Aulae scholarium Reginae de Oxon. and in the Lease the name is, Praepositus & scholares Aulae Reginae de Oxon. and many other like cases? Or rather is not an aduantage of misnomer in this case well taken, where a right is onelyonly claimed by title of vsurpation against the good of the Church?
But to auoide the Lease, is to ouerthrow the state of a poore Gentleman and his family, which is hard.
How much his estate is decayed through his continuall wranglings, I know not: but how much the state of soules is more to be commiserated then the state of bodies, and the states of many more then of few, so much more is the state of that people, which feeding with their corporall things cannot be fed with spirituall things while that Lease lasteth, to be commiserated, then the state of M. Alcock and his family. And if further it shall be considered, that before any suite, I made this offer to M. Alcock, in the presence of some witnesses, that if vponupon sight of his Lease, and due consideration of the validitie thereof by foure Iudges, or other, indifferently chosen betweene vsus, and informed by our learned Counsell, his Lease should be deemed good in Law, I would neuer further molest him; and if it should be deemed naught in Law, yet whatsoeuer they thought meet for me to do out of any conscionable respect towards him & his, I would very willingly do it; and withall, that the beginning of the suite was from him, I hope I shall not be censured to hauehave bene vncharitable, but he rather to hauehave bene wilfull.
But this suite was much against the liking of many of the Fellowes of the Colledge.
VponUpon this false report and suggestion they all testified vnderunder their hands (which is yet to be seene) that out of an aduised consideration of the vnconscionablenesse that Lease, dimised to the great preiudice of that Church and of our Colledge, and out of a long setled purpose to put that Lease in suite when they should hauehave opportunitie, the suite was at the first commenced, and stil continued, not onelyonly with their liking, but with their great desire that the Lease might be auoided; and that they were so farre from auouching any thing to the contrarie, as that they professed it was alwayes their purpose vponupon the first auoidance of the Benefice, to conferre it vponupon such a one as would trie the Lease with M. Alcock.
But some of my owne degree hauehave said, that for many Benefices they would not hauehave entred into such a businesse.
Nor would I, if regard of my oath, and dutie to this Colledge and that Church had not pressed me thereunto. Which men of my owne degree might rather deeme and conceiue of me, then seeme to censure my courses, the grounds whereof they either know not, or consider not.
But why then did not my Lord of Carlile question the Lease?
M. Shepheard was presented vntounto the Benefice long before my Lord of Carlile was Prouost, and continued in it all his time, and long after my coming to be Prouost; and durig his incumbencie, none but he could question the Lease, to bring it to a trial in Law.
But in the Exchequer, Iudgement passed long since for M. Alcock.
No Iudgement passed there at all in the cause, but after some arguing of the case by Baron Hearn, and somewhat by Baron Altham; vponupon some fault in the speciall verdict, a new Uenire facias was willed to be sued out, or else an arbitrable course to be agreed vponupon for the ending of the matter. Which was done, but without effect, because M. Alcock would not be bound to abide the order of such honorable Arbitrators, as after much ado we had agreed vpō.
But now Iudgement is passed for him, and against me in the Kings Bench.
It appeareth by the order of the Arbitrators, which was made an order in the Chancerie, that the Lord chiefe Iustice Flemming, and Iustice Walmesley were of opinion that the Lease was naught in law. And M. Iustice Dodderidge, who had bene alwayes of counsell against me, and professed from the Bench, that he had very seriously studied the case for his owne full satisfaction therein, clearely deliuered his opinion to be, that the Lease was naught in Law. But it is true, that the swaying sentence was for the Lease, vpō two points: first, because Nihil facit error nominis quando constat de corpore; secondly, because there is no substantiall difference betweene the name of the Colledge and the name in the Lease, but onelyonly a transpositiō of words, which makes no materiall error. Touching the first of which points, I desire to know, whether it be a receiued rule in the Common Law, that nihil facit error nominis quando constat de corpore; and if it be, how then so many Leases hauehave bene auoided, so many Graunts hauehave bene frustrated, so many Writs hauehave bene miscaried, vponupon misnomers? For although many instances may be giuen wherein men hauehave not preuailed in suites vponupon misnomer, when the error was not materiall; yet certaine it is also by many instances, that men hauehave often preuailed in suites vponupon misnomer, when the errour hath beene materiall. Touching the latter point also I desire to know, whether the difference betweene, Aula scholarium Reginae de Oxon. the name by which the Colledge was licensed to be founded, and Aula Reginae de Oxon. which our Founder vsed, and by which the Lease was dimised, be not a substantiall difference. I see the license of Edw. 3. to be this:
De gratia nostra speciali concessimus, & licentiam dedimus pro nobis, & haeredibus nostris quantum in nobis est etdem Roberto de Eglesfield, quòd ips in quodam Messuagio suo cum pertinentijs in Oxon. in parochiae S. Petri in Oriente situato, quandam Aulam Collegialem de scholaribus, capellanis, & alijs, perpetuis temporibus duraturam, sub nomine Aulae scholarium Reginae de Oxon. quae per vnum Praeprositū de dictis scholaribus iuxta ordinationem praefati Roberti inde faciendum gubernabitur, construere, & de nouo fundare; ac Messuagium illud cum pertinentijs praefat. Praeposito & scholaribus dare possit, & assignare. And I see the words of our Founder to be these: Eandem Aulam, Aulam Reginae in Oxon. aeternaliter institui nominandam. Wherein whether our worthy Founder hath not vnawares vsed a name substantially differing from the name whereby he was licensed to found the Colledge, I desire to know: as also, whether a Founder may swerue at all from the name whereby he is licensed to found; and whether whatsouer is put (sub nomine) be not to be counted sacrum, & nulla ex parte mutandum. And further, for the name attended with the persons, I desire to know, what is the name of the Colledge licensed by the former words to be founded, whether this, Praepositus & scholares Aulae scholarium Reginae de Oxon. or this, Praepositus & scholares Aulae Reginae de Oxon. and whether out of the name, Aula scholarium Reginae de Oxon. the word Scholares, can be transferred vntounto the persons, Praepositus et scholares, and so the name to remaine as in the foundation, Aula Reginae de Oxon. VponUpon better knowledge of which points, another point wil be cleared, viz. whether there be an error in the iudgment passed against me.
But the cause found no reliefe in Chancerie.
I hoped for reliefe there, whatsoeuer the euent should be at Cō mon Law, against a Lease of this nature, either by reasonable increase of allowance for the Incumbent, or by abridgement of the terme of yeares in the Lease, or by prouisiō for the Glebe land, that the Church should not therein be preiudiced; or by all of these, or some other meanes, but am yet without reliefe, and so am like to be, vnlesse after eight yeares toile and charges there as Defendant against a Lease, onelyonly good vponupon title of vsurpation, and otherwise vnconscionable & vnreasonable, I will renew the suite, and henceforth become Plaintisse there.
But the suite hath bene easie for me, and hath vndone him.
In distraction and vexation, in toile and trauell, it hath bene very grieuous vntounto me, and in charges it hath bene so costly and heauie vntounto me, that if I had so many hundreth pounds in my purse as I hauehave spent in the suite, I might therewith be a very good Benefactor vntounto our Colledge. As for my Aduersarie, the suite hath bene verie aduantageous vntounto him; first because he during the whole suite payed nothing out, either to me, or to the Curat, or to the King for tenths or Subsidies, or to the Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeacon, or others, for Visitations, Procurations, Synodals, and the like, which amounting to 40. pounds a yeare, or thereabouts, he was by his Lease to hauehave payed, and yet, vntill order for sequestration, receiued, by the space of sixe yeares, all the fruites and profites of the Rectorie, saue some fruites which in two yeares I receiued by composition with some of the Parish, for which I hauehave bin accountant. Secōdly, because the Lease, which before our suite would not yeeld 1200. pounds to him, will now, as it is said, yeeld vntounto him 1800. pounds and vpwards. Thirdly, because the yearely rent of the Rectorie is now improued vntounto 200 lib. per annum, which before the suite was not aboue 150. lib. or 160. lib. per annum.
Let it then be considered, that the Lease was ab initio naught in Law, for want of Legall confirmation by the true Patron, that vponupon feare of the inualiditie of the Lease and trouble by it, M. Izod assigned it vntounto M. William Alcock, that M. William Alcock would not meddle with it without warrant from M. Izod for peaceable possession for ten yeares; that M. William Alcock much molested M. Shepheard with suites for disabling the Lease; that the Lease was questioned by M. Shepheard, and onelyonly not prosecuted vntounto triall because of his pouertie; that the beginning of the suite betweene him and me was from him; that the onelyonly strength whereon the Lease standeth against the maine point in Law which quelleth it, is the right of patronage pretended to be gained to the Colledge by vsurpation; that the error in the name is, as I conceiue it with submission, a materiall error, and that many Leases hauehave bene auoided, and Graunts and Writs frustrated vponupon such error; and againe, that the Lease is of a Benefice presentatiue, and for an vnreasonable terme of yeares, and with reseruation of an vnfit allowance for a fit Minister, and whereby the Glebe of the Benefice is exchanged and alienated, and that M. Alcock by his owne courses bewrayed the testimonie of his owne conscience against himselfe for matter of conscience; and that there is not any exception against my suite for the ouerthrowing of the Lease, but hath that due answer which may cleare it from aspersions cast vponupon me and it, and then let iudicious and indifferent men, not interessed in this businesse, or in the like case, censure me at their pleasures, so as it becometh men that louelove the Gospel, and the Ministers and professors thereof, and with respect vntounto the cause, not vntounto my person.
I am not, nor hauehave bene in this case, I praise God, willing to giuegive offence, but rather much desire to cleare my selfe from any offence which hath bene taken any way. And if I be not partiall in my own cause, that (I hope) may satisfie others, which I thank God doth satisfie my selfe in this case. Howbeit I willingly submit all, onelyonly wishing that men may not with Iosephs maister be too credulous, especially against an Elder, as I said in the beginning, but rather may beware how they condemne where God condemneth not. If I had not out of many reasons bin throughly well perswaded of the goodnes of my cause, I would not for the world hauehave dealt in it; and if any man think otherwise of me, God forgiue him.
FINIS.