answer is that the very obteyning receyving of such a licence is unlavvfull because it is a reall acknovvledgement that such a Byshop hath a lavvfull povver to grant it Which is neyther so nor so for 1. The asking receyving of leave or licence which are both one doeth not allways implie an acknowledgement of his lawful authoritie from whome it is sought If any man of violence shall usurpe a power to him self of permitting or hindering the lawful good offices that pertaine unto honest men so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell or teach any science or trade of life if an honest man whome these duties concerne should in that case take a licence from that usurper though hee were no better then a strong theif no reasonable man will say that in so doeing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful The rulers of Iewish synagoges had no lawfull power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministerie neyther would Paul ever acknowledge so much yet hee Barnabas accepted of such licence or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authoritie See an example act 13.15 Mr. R. him self hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochiall assemblie which leave must bee given by the parochiall minister churchwardens whose authoritie hee holdeth one with the Bishops If therfore leave or licence whether in word or writing that is all one may be lawfully taken from them without acknowledging any authoritie lawfull which is unlawfull why not from the Byshop 2. There is some authoritie in the Bishops derived from the king which may bee acknowledged lawfull Such is this of giving licence libertie civill authoritie for men to doe good The civill magistrat may doe it him self or appoint others to doe it 2 chro 17.7 The abuse of this authoritie doeth not make it unlawfull But Iohn Claydon sayth Mr. R. a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded vvhen he vvitnessed that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author for hee could neyther write nor read 2. Whosoever was the author the meaning was that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops the persons that usually obteyned their approbation licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome though those conditions beeing removed ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found For concerning the Byshops licence hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop Sir as touching your letters of licence or other Byshops vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach vvee knovv vvel that neyther yovv sir nor any other Byshop of this land vvill grant to us any such letters of licence but if vvee should oblige us to yovv to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes not to passe the bounds termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us And since in this matter your termes bee some too large some too strait vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit as yovv doe to friers such other preachers 3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimonie in such a sense as Mr. R. wil haue it understood in yet the generall consent of almost if not absolutely al the other martyrs beeing otherwise as is wel knowen to such as have read their stories this one of it self could work no great praejudice This for the answer directly applied unto the demand Vnto the comparative reason annexed that a man may ask leaue of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions he opposeth 2 things 1. A difference betwixt leave licence that to ask leaue is to desire one not to hinder him but to obteine a licence of the Byshop is to obteine publique authoritie of the publique officer according to the publique lavves of the church to exercise a publique ministerie 2. That the great Turk is a lavvfull civill magistrat vvith vvhose civill authoritie it is lavvfull to partake But so is not the Byshop a lavvfull ecclesiasticall officer vvith vvhose spirituall iurisdiction gods servants may communicate In all which ther is not one sound sentence For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave licence my meaning was that it was lawfull to obteine a licence of the Turk for to preach the gospell in his Dominions 2. Leave from one that is in authoritie so as he that hath it shal be hindered of none subject unto that authoritie is a licēce with authoritie So that the difference betwixt leave licence insinuated by him must consist onely in the great sound of the word publique so oftē repeated in vaine publique authoritie publique officer publique lavves publique ministerie Which how idle it is hath formerly been shewed 3. He that hath a Byshops licence orders too hath no such authoritie actuall conferred upon him therby but that hee may bee hindered many ways even by those that are subiect unto the Byshop from ever exercising that wherto he hath licence so that in this respect ther seemeth not so much as full perfect leave to bee conteyned in a Byshops licence 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrat it would trouble Mr. R. to prove 5. The Byshop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes which may lawfully bee communicated with 6. And lastly though all this were so as Mr. R. sayth that it were unlawfull for to seek or take such a licence of a Byshop yet it doeth not follow but it might be lawfull to communicat with him that hath taken it especially seeing it was lawful before and the man doeth hath all good that he did or had before onely with this difference that he doeth that with licence of the Byshop which he did before with his connivence So that this demand remaineth unanswered which was not made of the getting of licence but of communicating with him that had gotten one Which communion can be no more unlawfull then that which schollers haue with a schoolmaister who hath takē a Bishops licēce according as many are urged to doe from the same Bishop or that which subiects haue had with their lawfull king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that forme of admission which is called
A SECOND MANVDVCTION For M r. ROBINSON Or a confirmation of the former in an ansvver to his manumission ANNO DOMINI M. D C. XV. A Second Manuduction For M r. ROBINSON Or a confirmation of the former in an ansvver to his manumission IT is not much to bee merveiled at if one assay praevaileth not with him for publick communion whoe was so hardly drawen unto privat by many long strivings Wee may rather hope that in time he wil bee brought to see reasō for that as wel as for this The successe beeing left unto God I thinck it a Christian part to stretch out a litle strengthen that hand which before was lent him for a manuduction First then must bee marked how farr M. R. is come already and then the points that hee stayeth at with the grounds of that his stay He granteth If a man remayning a member in some parish of England intending the ministerie competently qualified therto having approbation of godly learned men shall vvithout any further calling for a time performe the actions of prayer prophefijing by leave in a publick assembly there that it is lavvfull to communicate vvith him in that vvork And moreover that if the same man shall continue in that course for some yeares not having any further vvarant but the seal vvhich God setteth to his labour in the fruight of it the consent of those people vvhich repaire unto him for instruction it is lavvfull still to have communion vvith him All this he acknowledgeth though not in so plaine a māner as ingenuous dealing requireth in calling of it privat This grant of M. R. is of no small moment in the consequence of it For by vertue therof those of his minde may bee present at many sermons in England upon occasion not onely to the spiritual comfort aedification of their soules but also to the avoyding of much danger damage in their outward estate For of this kinde are a multitude of religious exercises ordinarilie performed by students in the colledges of both the universities whoe are wonte in their colledge chappels to make trial of their giftes though they be not ordeyned ministers not onely there but in such assemblies of the countrie as they haue oportunitie Some also haue been knowen to continue long even for 20 yeeres together in preaching by no other warrant then this as by name M. Flood of Northampton M. Marburie By the same reason it will follow also as by by wee shall see that communion may bee had in the like actions of those which have further authoritie for this communion is of publick nature a church action so for substance of one reason with the other That this doeth follow upon the former grant if so bee that such exercises of religion bee publick actions M. R. doeth well understand therfore to avoyd that which he is loth to acknowledge he denieth such actions to bee of publick nature To this purpose he insinuateth 2 reasons 1. Becaus a privat action may bee performed in a publick place as a publick may in a privat and 2 because no action is publick that is not performed by publick calling or authoritie The former of which I willingly grant and therfore made no such mention of the place as if it were of it self sufficient to make these exercises publick The second I doe flatly denie until I see that reason which as he sayth without any further proofe doeth of it self teach it For this purpose he willeth the reader to see Mr. Perkins in treatise of christian equity where nothing is to be found that perteyneth unto this purpose For there Mr. P. speaketh onely of such publick actiōs as are usually called actions of lavv wherin publick justice is quaestioned the mitigation wherof perteyneth unto that christian equitie which there is handled such as execution of penall statutes suing of bondes taking forfeitures fines are If he would know Mr. Perkins his judgement about this point let him see to the purpose his treatise of divine or religious worship the thing that now is in hand where he shall find this description church service is that vvhich is performed publickly in the congregation of the people of God But leaving his testimonie let us search a litle after that reason which Maister Robinson telleth us will teach us what actions are publick Publick is as much as peoplelick because that which is not restreined unto one or a few but extended as commune to a people eyther civill or ecclesiasticall that is peoplelick or publick Thus some actions doen first in privat and after extending to the knowledge of the people become therby publick scandals though the actors of them haue no publick calling or authoritie for doeing of them Much more are those actions to bee esteemed publick which are performed in a publick place extending to the praesent knowledge or use of the people so intēded whether they bee good or evil in which respect no mā cā denie the prophecies of Zedekiach other his fellowes 2 Crō 18. to have beē as publick as that of Michaia though hee onely not they had lawfull calling or authoritie for that action Those exercises of religion which are ordinarily used in the seperat assemblies called prophecijngs wherein prayers are offered up in the name of all the people the word interpreted unto all they are I think esteemed publick by them selves sure I am they are so however they bee esteemed yet the actors in those businesses have no special set calling or authoritie for that they doe In the time of VVickliffe when many that receyved light of truth from him did upon al occasions publish the same unto others eyther in churches or churchyards or else in markets faires such like open assemblies though they did it without licence of the ordinaries or other sufficient authoritie of that kinde yet they are sayd to preach publikely It is the phraze of king Richards letters against them as is to bee seene in M. foxe p. 406. Like phraze is used in like case by all that write or speake therof So that both by reason custome all good rule of speech it is manifest that these exercises of religion which M. R. granteth lawfull are publick actions and so that not onely privat but also publick communion is by his owne confession lawfull in the parish assemblies of England THus farr then wee haue Mr. R. consenting Now at the third demād hee maketh a stād but with such oppositiō as will not stand The demand was of the same mā whoe formerly did lawfully preach in a publick assemblie if hee should obteyne a licence from the L. Byshop of the diocesse without any unlawfull condition for to continue in that his course whether that leave or licence given doeth pollute the actions seeing a man may ask leave of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions His
orders of the diocessan not knowing any evill in it whether such a fault if it bee a fault doeth pollute that communion with him which otherwise is lawfull that it doeth not Mr. R. seemeth to witnesse in his former treatise p. 15. For this he referreth the reader unto that answer which he gave to the former demand and so doe I to the refutatiō of it Wheras he addeth that his testimonie is misaplied because his meaning was that a humaine infirmitie about an externall ordinance doeth not hinder from communion in actions performed meerely by personall grace I answer that it is possible for a man which hath such orders to performe the actions of prayer preaching even in a publick place meerly by vertue of the personal grace gifts which God hath endued him with all Especially this man of whom heere we speak who yet hath no speciall state or reference by office unto those that communicate with him in the word prayer The reason therfore is one and the same in this case that which Mr. R. speaketh of THe fift quaestion was of a man that being desired so chosen by some assembly wherin there are many fearing God apparently he taketh a pastoral charge of them hauing the Byshops patrons admission but cheifly grounding his calling upon the peoples choyse and that he doe nothing but the same he did before besides the administration of the sacraments to such as are in charitie discretion to bee esteemed worthy what hindereth from communion heer To this a four fould answer is given in shew though none in deed 1. Hee denieth an assembly gathered consisting of many fearing God many vvithout the fear of God to bee a lavvfull church assemblie hauing right in communion to call enjoy a Pastor But the question was made of an assembly wherin are many fearing God apparently without his supplie of many not fearing God though with them ther may be mingled some which give not such apparent evidence of Gods grace to be in them but rather praesumptions of the contrarie Will Mr. R denie the title of a true church unto all assemblies that haue some such amongest them then must hee condemne most rashly not onely a multitude of praesent churches Dutch Frēch but those of Corinth Galatia Pergamus Thyatira Sardis Laodicea also of which the Apostles Christ him self gave other judgement 2. He telleth us that none can truely take a pastoral charge in the Parish assemblies because he cannot governe or rule the flock But first a man may truely take upon him that which he cannot fully in every part performe or fullfill desiring endeavoring so farr as his knowledge abilitie extendeth Otherwise no high Preist in Israel from the time of Salomon unto the time of Hezekia did truely take upon them the charge of a high preist because none did celebrat the passouer which was a principall sacrament in such sort as was writtē 2. Cron. 30.5.26 Nor keepe the feast of tabernacles in a far lōger time Nehem. 8.17 Nor did any king al that time truly take upon him the charge or office of a king because none did reforme things as he ought If any difference bee their sinne was greater that might haue doē their duty would not then theirs that would cannot Secondly the meere want of performing one part of the charge doeth not hinder but that a man may well communicat in the other parts which are well undertaken discharged also 3. He addeth that the church of Englād acknovvledgeth no such calling as is cheifly grounded on the peoples choyce Such private intendimēts underhand professions of particular persons in secret are cloaks of shame craftinesse like unto disguised familisme And if any ministerie bee so grovnded it is not the ministerie of the church of England But what that church of England alloweth which he understandeth by this title it maketh nothing to the quaestion It is enough if such a calling bee in some assemblies of England Yet for a minister to lay the cheif ground of his calling upon the peoples choice so that he haue withall those formallities required I know no law in England that doeth forbid or disallow it Ther is therfore no necessitie for him that doeth so to speak of it in secret onely hee may professe it in the pulpit as many haue been knowen to doe yet bee a minister of a church established by the law of England Neyther is that after consent by acceptance submission which Mr. R. speaketh of so slight a matter for this purpose as he would make it For as in wedlock the after consent of parents or parties doeth often make that a lawfull state of mariage which before without that was none in governement acceptance submission doeth make him a king which before was a tyrant though in their nature these actions bee rather consequences then causes of that calling so is it betwixt minister people All the wind that he spendeth therfore in this answer is but a venting of his praejudiciall passions The quaestion it self he secretly granteth in making a ministerie grounded on the peoples choyce to bee no ministerie of the church of England insinuating therby that with such a ministerie he cannot say but communion is lawfull Now that ther is such a ministerie to be found in England as it is manifest in diverse places so he him self doeth as much as witnesse it in the next page where he affirmeth that in sundry places the people are ready to suffer persecution with their ministers For if the lifting up of a hand in tokē of consent be a choosing a cōsent declared by such fruights must needes implie no lesse 4. He excepteth against baptizing of all infants borne in the Parish But to absteine from by controversies it shall suffice for that that other churches doe extend the use of that sacrament to as great largenes as England doeth with whome not withstanding Mr. R. wil not denie all communion publick The 6 quaestion was of a deprived silenced minister why a man should not hear him when he preacheth Mr. R. after a censorious note or two passed upon such ministers giveth for answer that such a man remayning still a minister of the church of England preaching by that calling cannot bee communicated vvith vvithout submission unto and upholding of the prelats antichristian authoritie vvhich in that vvork hee exerciseth Which is a conceyt past commune apprehension That hee which by the prelat the prelats cannons all that his authoritie can make is forbidden to preach often times excommunicated also by him and all this for witnessing against his usurped authoritie should in performing that duty which also he did law fully before he receyved any commission from any prelat not onely exercise the prelats authoritie but so exercise it that no christian man may bee present therat without actuall submission to antichristian
possibly staÌ„d 1. All the ministers are made appoynted by the Bishops if therfore the Bishops be taken avvay hovv can the ministers remayne the same take avvay the correlative relation ceaseth Trew the relation ceaseth But is that externall relation unto an efficient cause any part of the substance or essence of the ministerie I had thought that the substance essence of a thing had consisted in matter forme not in such externall relations Mariages are also made as Mr. R. affirmeth by Bishops authoritie take away Bishops therfore by this reason the mariages shall not remayne the same for substance which they are now Licences for teaching school in many places for practizing of physick are given by the Bishops their officers take away the Bishops may not the same schoolmasters physitians yet stil remayn for substaÌ„ce that were before Fie upon sophistrie 2. Take avvay the prelacie sayth Mr. R. and hovv can such a ministerie continue vvherof one part viz ruling shall bee usurped by the prelat As if when once that power is taken from the minister it now apperteyned to the substance of his ministery by whome it were usurped whether he that possessed it were a Byshop or a high commissioner or of some other place that which is without a thing may be changed without any substantiall change of the thing it self else how can Mr. R. say that eyther the function of masspreists or of Popish Byshops doe remaine still in England as of olde for substance when ther is so great an alteration in that supreme power from whence of olde they were derived The office of a king also it remayneth the same for substance now that it was in time of poperie for the substantiall parts of it yet one part therof was in those times usurped possessed by the pope is now restored to the crowne viz power over ecclesiasticall persons in ecclesiasticall causes It cannot therfore be denied but by the same reasoÌ„ the parochial ministery should abide the same for substance that now it is thovgh that part which is now usurped by Byshops should be restored againe So that Bishops being removed whether that power of ruling should be translated unto some other officers or setled in the ministers as it ought Mr. R. argument hath by neyther way any waight or force at all 3. Take avvay sayth he the provinc diocesan churches prelats the parochiall churches ministers as partes of them must fall also As partes of them in deed they must of necessitie fall that is they must cease to be partes of them but it doeth not therfore follow that any thing of their internall substance should fall The nationall church of England so the provincial diocesan did once stand members or partes of the oecumenicall papall church of Rome now that is removed out of England so farr at least that this nationall church is not subiect unto Rome nor dependant on it or conteyned in it as a part in a wholl yet Mr. R. will say that the same diocesan provinciall nationall church remayneth for substance that was before Why doeth he not then see that parochiall churches may remayn the same for substance though diocesses and provinces did follow the other 4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions idoll preists crosse surplice vvith such vanities mixture of profane vvith the godly and asketh if it be possible that the prelacie beeing abolished such things should remayne as novv I answer 1. It is possible Ther are more meanes of disorder corruption then one Neyther can any such necessarie coÌ„junction be shewed betwixt the prelacie these abuses but that it is possible to seperat one from the other Yet 2. If they should all be abolished with the prelacie no reasonable man wil therfor say that the substance of parochial churches should be therin chaÌ„ged If praejudice could be set apart the shallownesse of this the former reasons could not be hid from the eyes of him that framed them TO a mayn obiection by Mr. R. urged viz that all parochiall ministers are subiect unto the spirituall iurisdiction of prelats answer was given first that so are privat christians subiect unto the same jurisdictâ—â— not onely in their church actions which they performe with others in publick but also for personall private opinions behaviours this subiection therfore doeth no more hinder coÌ„munion with the one then with the other in things that are good To which answer Mr. R. replieth nothing but referreth unto his former book where as good as nothing is to be found If there had bene a fit answer to be given wee should certainly eyther haue had it repeated heere for of repetition Mr. R. is not so nice or at least the page quoted where wee might haue found it But in deed it is not possible but if meere subiection to Bishops bee in it self a sufficient barr against publick communion it must also be held sufficieÌ„t against such privat in for which a man is also subiect The second answer unto the forenamed obiection was that the greatest part of the prelats iurisdiction is from the king derived unto those that doe exercise the same and therfore must of necessitie be a civill power such as the king might as well performe by other civill officers as it is in the high commission The lawes of the land doe so esteeme it c. In this Mr. R. insisteth much as thinking no small advantage to be given him therfore requireth of the reader wel to observe what heere is sayd on both sides In which request I ioigne with him so that it be marked withall that I doe not undertake to justifie the Byshops wholl state much lesse their proceedings but onely so far that some subiection unto some of their authoritie is not simply unlawfull Mr. R. plea after his praeamble ariseth unto these 3 defenses 1. The lavves doe no vvhere derive from the kings civill authoritie the povver of the Bishops spiritual administratioÌ„s but doe onely make the king an establisher up holder civilly of this povver 2. Though the lavves of the laÌ„d did esteeme this iurisdiction civill yet it doeth not follovv that therfore it is such in deed because they misesteeme diverse things 3. That the prelats iurisdiction is not civile as appeareth playnly by 5 reasons of him alledged For the first of these I appeal 1. To the oth of the clergie to the king established by a statut law in the reign of king Henry 8. exstaÌ„t in Mr. Fox p. 961. Where the Byshop sweareth that he knovvledgeth himself to hold his Bishoprick of the king onely 2. To the act that was then made for the supremacie wherin all iurisdictions belonging to the title of head of the church in EnglaÌ„d are giveÌ„ to the king as it is in the same book p. 963.3 I appeal to the 5. Book of Sr Edward Cooks reportes where he sheweth out of
the law that Bishops are the kings spirituall judges their lawes his ecclesiasticall lawes their iurisdiction so dependāt on him that he may exempt any man from it grant the same also to whome he will For the which purpose he that desireth may finde plētiful proofs in a book intitled an assertion for church policie Now wheras M. R. aledgeth that the same iurisdiction ecclesiasticall vvhich had been in use in popery a great part of the popish hierarchy vvas confirmed primo Elizabethae he hath put another weapon in our hands for to wound his cause withall For the very title of that statute is an act restoring to the crovvne the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical And the whol house of commons haue so interpreted the meaning of that restauration which is therin made that by vertue therof the king is inabled to give povver jurisdiction ecclesiasticall to any subiect borne so if it please him all causes may bee taken from Byshops their officers given unto other men in every parish of England This interpretation is found in the bill of greivances presented to the king by those of the lower house an 1610. Printed in a book called a recorde of some vvorthy proceedings c. That this or any other judgemēt of the law is not infallible I easily admit especially touching the quaestion of lawfull or unlawfull good or evill of which kind those instances are which Mr. R. chooseth in this place to appose But 1. Seeing that when we alledge the parishes to be severall churches to be considered as they subsist in their severall conditions and the calling of ministers in many assemblies to be grounded on the peoples choice c. wee hear it still opposed with loud voyce the lavves of the land allovv no such things they acknovvledge no such matter c. Was it not both fit necessarie then to declare the judgement of lawe or can he with honestie reject the sentence of lawe so ligtly now whoe a litle before built all upon it 2. The quaestion is heere of a matter of fact and the positive not morall nature of it whether this authoritie commeth from the king or no not whether it bee every way good laudable as is the controversie about crosse syrplice such like abuses which he mentioneth and in such a case if the the lawes say yea and those that submit to them say also yea Mr. R. must pardon us if his no be reiected except his reasons be passing strong His first reason why this power is not civil is because it is not coactive or bodily enforcing but the Bishop after excomunication can goe no further except he procure a civill coactive processe by vvritt out of another court I answer 1. Though it had no bodily enforcing at all annexed unto it yet it might be a civill power Bodily enforcing is but a penall sanction which commeth after the authoritie or power civil may bee seperated from it 2. It is therfore coactive or bodily enforcing because it may directly require as due by law belonging unto it such coactive assistance by other officers as Mr. R. himself speaketh of So many civill commissions letters patent are granted to men which haue no authoritie seated in themselves for forcing of mē unto obedience but haue authoritie to charge the constable or justice that next is to ayd them in their affayres which authoritie of theirs notwithstanding is civil in that respect coactive A second reason is taken from the works of prelats iurisdiction vvhich are for substance sayth he the making of ministers excommunicating of offenders vvith their contraries appurtenances vvhich are not civil vvorkes neyther can be performed by any civil magistrat Where if by can or may he understandeth such right as men haue for their deedes by the law or word of God then I willingly grant that no civil magistrate may by his civill office performe those workes of ordination excommunication c. Neyther can the Byshop so performe them heerin consisteth that presumptuous usurpatiō wherof they are guilty before God man But if he understandeth such right or power as men haue for their deedes by mans law then I avouch out of the former grounds testimonies of law that any other civil magistrat may receyve authoritie of iurisdiction in those causes as well as prelats Which experience confirmeth de facto in the high commissiō some other courts Wherby it is manifest that though these workes in their nature be spirituall yet thorough great abuse they are performed by civill authoritie Secondly I answer that these workes of ordination excommunication vvith their contraries appurtenances are not the substance or in effect the vvholl iurisdiction vvhich Bishops doe exercise in their provinces dioces though Mr. R. affirme it againe againe For 1. The principall iurisdiction which prelats haue is under the king to make certain rules canons or lawes for ordering of certain causes cōmitted unto them 2. Those causes are for a great part of them meerely civil such as by Gods law the civil magistrat hath power to order Of which kind are the causes of matrimonie of wills or testaments many circumstances pertayning to the severall churches within their precincts 3. In the very businesse of ordination excommunication it is of substance to see that worthy men be admitted unworthy excluded The formes of ordination excommunication usurped by them are corrupt appurtenances to those lawfull actions not the substance wherto all the rest apperteyne Neyther doeth Mr. R. agree with himself in making all the substance of spirituall government to consist in calling of ministers and exercising of censures or ordination excommunication seeing his opinion is that all this may be doen by the people yet in his former book p. 26. affirmeth government not to belong to them vvherin sayth he doeth the people govern as many please to reproach us The third argument is taken from the forme used in consecration of Byshops vvherin no mention is made of civil authoritie but onely of spirituall Wherunto I answer 1. That their episcopall jurisdiction over a special diocesse or province is not expressed in that consecration nor any thing of substance which is not conteyned in a parochiall ministers ordination Which is an argument that the Byshop receyveth not that iurisdiction from him by whose hands he is consecrated but from some other power that is from the king 2. It is not necessarie that words formes of consecration should agree in all pointes with the state of a Byshop For a Byshop in that state proceeding which now is in use is partly fish partly flesh or such a compound as were the feete of Nebuchadnetsars image that were part of yron part of clay which did not cleave one to the other for so is he part of civill power which is of sound mettall or yron part of
spirituall usurpation like myrie clay The. 4. Argument is vaynly built upon a supposition which formerly was proved false viz that all the civil iurisdiction which prelats haue cōsisteth in their being privy councellers high commissioners or iustices of the peace This therfor needeth no further answer Onely let it be observed that Mr. R. in defending of the separation as well as I in opposing it doeth iustifie some part of the authoritie which Byshops exercise in England professing communion vvith it and submission unto it The onely quaestion is how much of their authoritie is such Let preiudiciall insinuations groundlesse imputations therfore be layd aside and that quaestion onely discussed The last argument is raised from a forme of words used by the-Byshops in that they proceed in the name of God not in the kings name as all civile proceedings doe Wherunto I answer 1. That a sound convincing argument cannot be brought from words of forme office If they should change their stile begin their actiōs in the king name I doubt whether Mr. R. would allow of that as any strong reason for their civill authoritie 2. Many actions are performed with the same words of forme as all wills or testaments c which yet are no spiritual but civil deedes So Henrie the fourth king of England began his clayme to the crowne In the name of God amen I Henrie of Lanc. c as it is in Mr. Foxe p. 474. Yet was not any other then a civil claime 3 I affirme thatit is an abuse against lawe that Byshops in their acts of iurisdiction doe not use the kings name and therfore howsoever that the formal words be wanting yet the thing it self is to bee understood viz as Sr Ed. Cooke hath written that howsoever the forme runneth in the Byshops name yet the authoritie is no other but the kings This I will shew by an instance most pregnant Byshop Farrar in king Edwards days being troubled vexed by evil Willershad amōgest other these 2 articles obiected agaynst him as deserving deprivation 1. that he appoynted his Chancelour by his letters of commission omitting the kings maiesties stile authoritie c. 5. Item he hath commonly made his collations iustitutions as he did his first commission in his ovvne name authoritie vvithout expressing the kings supremacie To the first the Byshops answer was that what formalities soever be wanting in his commission yet the kings maiesties stile authoritie was fully set forth in the same commission Neyther did the sayd chancelour offer to visit but in the kings name authoritie to the sayd Bishop committed To the fifth he sayth that the sayd defendāt made his collations institutions in his owne name not by his ovvne āuthoritie nor by any others fave onely the kings authoritie according as he hath declared in his first article expressing in them the kings supremacie with the Byshops owne name seale of office as he ought to doe according to the prouision of the kings statute in such a case See Mr. Foxe p. 1405.1406 In which one plea we haue the authoritie of statute the sentence of lawyers iudges with the confession practise of prelats themselves for the kings name authoritie to give life unto their proceedings Heere it must be observed that this accusation answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediatly on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherin it was enacted that the Byshop should make their proces vvritinges in the kings name and that theyr seales should be the kings armes Which act was but an appendix declaring adding forme to that statute of supremacie made in Henry 8 his dayes wherby ecclesiasticall iurisdiction was annexed to the crowne so as all Byshops were to fech it from thence Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queere Maries time and not since revived yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henrie 8. to be such as hath been sayd which statute is now in force Howsoever the Byshops haue undoubtedly the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therfore they were thē civil officers proceeding by the kings authoritie they are also now such viz of civil nature for their state deriving their iurisdiction frō the king though they proceed not in his name so formaly as in king Edwards days they did now in reason they should THus much for that obiection touching spiritual subiection Concerning which I found nothing further directly perteyning unto the purpose except one passage which I found p. 30. Where these words are they vvho thus disclaym in vvord the Byshops governement confesse themselves therin to be under no spirituall externall government at all so be lavvles persons inordinate vvalkers c. This because it sounded as a dangerous deepe charge ensuing upon that former defense which was made that good ministers are no branches of the prelacie nor necessarily dependent on them as spiritual officers I thought it needfull to give answer unto it My answer therfore did consist in these 3 branches 1. That ther was no such want of spirituall governement in the ministers which governe themselves well as could be a iust barrt against all communion with them seeing privat men living in the same want may well be communicated with 2 That they are subiect unto some spirituall governement And 3. That for that want of government which they are in they are no more lawlesse walkers or inordinate walkers then Mr. R. himself is whoe is not subiect to any other spirituall government then they are except he will say that the people governe him which he counteth to be a reproche Now let us hear what replie he maketh 1. He pleadeth that he did not infer this exception upon the former ground But let that passage of his book be wayed p. 29.30 And it will be found that against his allegation of the parochiall ministers being a branch of the prelacie this was one defense that they are not subiect to their government wherupon this inference followeth that then they are inordinate vvalkers lavvles persons Which is the very same order of inference that I observed 2. He sayth it vvas not alledged to prove communion unlavvfull vvith them but as a reproof c. But seeing the main reason was for unlawfulnesse of communion because of their branching out of prelacie and the allegation nothing but an establishing of that reason by removall of one principall defense supposed to be brought for it it must of necessitie tend unto the same ende of barring from all communion And in deed if it were not a slander it were none of the weakest arguments which he hath alledged 3. He affirmeth the 1. and 2. Ansvver to be beside the purpose because they speak onely of personall or civill or else a more generall kind of government then he intended vvhoe spake onely of outvvard guidance and