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
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
ordering of the church in her publike affaires in vvhich respect he affirmeth all in the parrish assemblies to be lavvlesse persons if they be not under the prelates jurisdiction spirituall Wherto I answer 1. That such good governmēt as he granteth these mē personally civilly generally to be ruled lawfully religiously by for all this he denieth not is more then sufficient to remove from them that imputation of lawlesse inordinate walkers which he without law or limit had cast upon them And for this purpose were those 1 2 answers opposed Neyther yet can it be with any truth affirmed that in that strict acception of government the former imputation doeth cleave unto all in all assemblies Are there none in any assemblies that are any way in any measure guided ordered by their ministers in publique affaires what not in those prayers wherin they goe before the people and direct them in their supplicatiōs by a special gift of prayer is there no guidance ordering by the preaching of the word surely this accusatiō may in no sense be excused frō overlashing Lastly it is alledged that this not beeing subiect to government is misapplied by me unto ministers vvhē he spake it of the people as is evidēt by his reply Wheras indeed the cōtrarie may better be gathered out of the replie For therin p. 30. he speaketh first in general termes excluding none after doeth take in the ministers in special expressely naming them no lesse thē 6 times in that one side of a leaf The truth is he findeth himself touched not with a touch of wit as he termeth it but with a glance of his owne toung and therfore hath now to help that changed the terme of spirituall government into another of the povver of Christ for the censures and because he doeth not acknowledge himself to be under any externall spiritual government yet under the power of censures he is therfore the want of this in ministers people he choseth now to impute for a lawlesse inordinate state p. 19 As if this power of censuring were such a thing as every want therof were a sufficient cause of so deepe a censure and this were not rather an audacious abusive strayning of the apostles phraze applijng that unto most godly men which he spake of the scandalous Or as if all power of censuring in any degree were wanting because the liberty of proceeding is in a great part restreyned But thus much for this obiection and so for the justification of some publike communion to be lawful in England THese thinges hitherto discussed were all that I could or can yet find in M. R. book directly concluding against al publick communion Yet because ther be 2 other obiections which by some might be thought to perteyne unto the same purpose viz that all are urged to communion by penall statutes and that a set forme of prayer is appointed I added therfore concerning them this answer following What fault soever may be found with them they lie not so in the way as that they should hinder from all communiō publick seeing there are many exercises of religion wherin none are present by constraint where the service book doeth not so much as appear As by name Mr. Perkins his exercise was where Mr. R. hath often been and at whose successors he hath once been since he professed seperation wherof I am perswaded also he doeth not yet repent Further to reason about them is beside the purpose of my writing and in deed needlesse seeing the accuser hath answered himself in the one p. 9. Whē he grāteth that the reformed churches generally use a stint forme of prayer with whō yet he wil not refuse al publick cōmunion make like answer to the other out of the lawes of Geneva where he shall find like strictnesse to be used toward all the inhabitants of that citie though he hath unadvisedly denied it in his so large assertion of our assemblies difference therin from all true churches in the world This answer of mine I was forced to repeat that the reader may see how Mr. R. being putt as it seemeth to hard shifts hath miserablie mangled the same without giving any answer directly to the purpose 1. He bringeth in my first answer thus he neyther purposeth nor thinks it needfull to deal about these thinges seeing there are many exercises of religion vvhere none are present by constraynt c. Was this my answer why doeth he leave out that wherin the mayn quaestion consisteth wherupon all that followeth dependeth viz that those things doe not hinder from al communion publick For this that reason was brought which he mentioneth and not for that wherunto he pleaseth to applie it Great distance ther was in my writing betwixt those words which he patcheth together Neyther was it my saying that I had no purpose to deal about those thinges at all but not further then I had answered before this mangling patching confoundeth all 2. He chargeth me with changing the state of the question after my evill custome vvhich is not sayth he about mens being present by constreynt at the exercises of religion but of churches gathered by constreynt of al the profane parishioners vvith the other handfull But what goodnesse is in this custome to passe by the wholl quaestion in hand and then to move controversie about other matters the state of our quaestion thorougout this dispute is whether all publick communiō in the parish assemblies of England be unlawfull or no the obiection in this place was that all are urged to communion by penall statutes For answer of which I sayd that ther be many exercises of religion publick where none are present by vertue of such constreynt therfore such constreynt could not hinder from all communion though it might from some Could any thing be more direct presse to the matter in hād Take we in also that which he sayth our quaestion is about that churches are gathered by constreynt of all the profane parshioners vvith the other handfull what advantage hath he by it nothing at all but onely that his charirie moderation is therby made knowen For 1. There be many parrishes in England which are but a handfull in all diverse of them consisting onely of a familie two or three having none in them that are profane Diverse also there are more populous which haue more then a handfull of such in them as no holy man having bridle of his tongue can cal profane 2. Though lawes doe urge unto such communion yet it cannot be reasōably gathered that al which practise accordingly are cōstreyned unto it except Mr. R. will say that all men which live orderly with their wives children absteyne from murder treason such like offences doe it by constreynt because lawes doe require urge the same under great paynes 3 Though all were gathered into churches by constreynt yet that constreynt apperteyneth