to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes etc. fol. 39 And againe obserue good reader sayth S. Edward Cooke seeyng that the determination of heresies etc. belongeth not to the Common law how necessary it was for administration of Iustice that his Maiesties progenitors Kings of this Realme did by publike authority authorize Ecclesiasticall Courts under thē to determyne those great and important causes etc. by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes The jurisdiction therfore Courts and lawes Ecclesiasticall in the opinion of the Kings progenitors were thought held to be their own Kingly lawes Courts and jurisdiction The same is further proved by the sayd S. Edward Cooke fol. 9 by the president of Renulphus in discharging and exempting the Monastery and Abbot of Abinden from the jurisdiction of the Bishops and granting also to the saide Abbot Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction etc by the president of William the first fol 10. 11 who made inpropriatiō of Churches with cure to Ecclesiasticall persons etc. and by divers presidents of other Kings since the conquest That which in this parte of the answer is afterward added of the necessary restitution of the right of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne is also confuted by the same S. Edward Cooke who plainely saith that though there had been no such law of restitution made yet it was resolved by all the Iudges that the Kings and Queenes of Englād for the tyme being by the auncient prerogatiue law of England may make such a Commision etc. And therfore by the auncient lawes of this Realme this kingdome of England is and absolute Empire and Monarchy consisting of one head which is the King and of a body politike c. Also that the Kingly head of this body politike is furnished with plenary power c. to render iustice and right to every part and member of this body Thus farre S. Edward Cooke From all which it followeth that the restitution of the auncient right howsoever lawfully made as being made by the whole body of the kingdome was notwithstāding not necessarily made as though without it the King or Queene for the tyme being could not haue used their auncient right That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 answer to the consequence of this 8 Argument doth not belong to the matter because it doth nothing justifie the proceedings of the Bishops or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges in depriving of the Ministers pleaded for in such manner and for such causes as for which they haue depriveded them The question is not whether jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall by the lawes of the land doth be long under the King unto the ordinaryes nor whether the Ordinaryes in the exercise of the Kings jurisdiction Ecclesiiasticall and Consistoriall trialls ought to proceed by vertue of Peeres etc but whether some Ordinaryes exercising the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction haue proceeded in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories against some Ministers without authority of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law therfore in that respect contrary to Magna Charta which requyreth nothing to be doone without the Kings law Further De jure Regis Ecclesi fol. 9 although we grant as S. Edw. Cooke instructeth us all lawes Ecclesiasticall derived from other which by and with a generall consent are approved and allowed here to be aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of England yet I deny that all lawes Ecclesiasticall derived by the Kings progenitors either before or since the Conquest from others are now in this age our Soveraigne Lord King Iames his Ecclesiasticall lawes and therefore howsoever many judiciall Acts of deprivation of Bishops Preists from their benefices c. according to the Ecclesiasticall law which is called ius Pontificium which was derived by the Kings Progenitors from the Bishops of Rome either before or since the Conquest unto Magna Charta and since that to the 25 of King Henry the eyght were never all held to be contrary but were ever all held to be agreable to the lawes of this kingdome yet notwithstanding I affirme that all Iudiciall Acts and sentences 25. Hen. 8 cap. 17 how many soever of deprivation of Ministers from their benefices had made and given by the Ecclesiasticall Iudges since the 25. of King Henry the 8. onely according or onely by force and vertue of the sayd ius Pontificium or Bishop of Rome his law the sentences given in the time of Queene Mary excepted are and ought to be holden not to be had made given by the lawes of this kingdome or by the Kings Ecclesiasticall law And why Even because the whole ius Pontificium or Bishop of Romes law was altogether excepting the tyme of Queene Mary abrogated adnulled and made voyd by an Act of Parlament and consequently is but a meere Alien Forraine and straunge law and no municipall law of England and therefore not the Kings Ecclesiasticall law Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Iames by this graunt of Magna Charta made by his progenitors beyng obliged to suffer no Free man of the Realme to be taken or imprisoned or disseissed of his Frrehold or liberties c. Nor to passe upon him nor condemne him but by lawfull judgment of his Peeres or by the law of the land We agayne assume from this statute of the great Charter that sundry sentences of deprivation of Ministers from their benefices for causes before specified are unlawfull because such Ministers haue been condemned and judgment hath been passed upon them without lawfull judgment of their Peeres or law Ecclesiasticall of the land For heere we must giue the answerer to witt by these words or law of the land that all the Kings lawes of what nature or quality soever whether Ecclesiasticall or temporall and not only the lawes temporall as he insinuateth are included As therefore no temporall Free man of the Realme may be condemned passed upon or disseissed of his liberty and freehold c. in a temporall cause and in a temporall Court without lawfull judgment of his Peeres or temporall law of the land Even so likewise no Ecclesiasticall person beyng a freeman of the Realme may be condemned passed upon or disseissed of his liberty or frehold but by lawfull Ecclesiasticall judgement according to the law Ecclesiasticall of the land And heereupon we graunt if the King haue any law Ecclesiasticall of the lād for the deprivation of a Minister from his liberty and frehold for not subscription perjurie contempt of Canonical so called obedience omission of Rites and Ceremonyes not precise observation of the booke of Common prayer c. Then we graunt that the Ordinaryes being the Kings Iudges Ecclesiasticall may rightly depriue a Minister from his benefice for these offences And yet still we deny and shall be able to mainteyne that sundry sentences of deprivation made and given by sundry Ordinaries against svndry Ministers be either unjust or unlawfull or no sentences at
not Circumcising Cain and Abell did contrary to the law given for Circumcision to Abraham many yeares after Or whither Ishmael persecuted Isaack before Isack was borne Or whether stealing of horses an hundred yeares past were punishable with death before any law made for death in that behalfe One thing cannot be sayd contrary to an other that is not neyther ever was extant in rerum natura The Second part of this Quere whether since the granting of Magna Charta unto this age the judiciall acts of deprivation of Bishops etc were ever held to be contrary to the law of this kingdome and Magna Charta we shall answer if God permit more plentifully anone Quere 3 G. Powel 3 Quere Whether any Iudge of this Realme or any cheife officer lerned in the lawes be of opinion that such sentences of deprivation as haue lately passed in due forme in any Ecclesiasticall Court be contrary to any much lesse to many statuts Reply Though it were a sufficient answer to bid him goe looke and himselfe to aske the opinion of every judge learned officer yet will I not altogether yeld him so short and cutted an answer And though it be a principle in Philosophy that forma dat esse rei yet to the beyng of every thing there must be matter to which the forme giveth being And therefore in this case besides due forme there must be also due matter inserted in due sentences Wherupon I craue a resolute and direct answer whether by those words passed in due forme he meane passed for matter and forme in due forme Or whether he meane passed without due matter in due forme onely For if he meane by passed for matter and forme in due forme then is his question without question either a foolish question or no question at all For who would question whether any Iudge or learned officer could doubt that a sentence passed for matter and forme in due forme were a sentence contrary to any much lesse to many statuts As though there were any Statuts so ridiculous and absurd On the other side if he meane by passed in due forme only due forme without due matter then we answer that the same sentence may be unjust for want of due matter and yet be just by reason of due forme And so on the other parte we affirme that a sentence may be iust by reason of due matter and yet unjust by reason of an undue forme How many sentences therefore of deprivation soever as haue been lately given without due and just matter or without due and iust forme we answer so many not to haue passed in due matter and forme and so contrary to some lawes or statuts But were this question wholly grāted what ease and advantage can the opinion of any iudg or learned officer yeeld to those Iudiciall acts of deprivation wherupon the controversie is grounded which are not passed in any due forme of any law or Statute Ecclesiasticall whatsoever Furthermore touching this question if the Prelats did intend that all their sentēces should be according to law wherfore did they make a Canon against the ordinary prosecution of appeales Yea what needed such a Canon What benefite is there to any appellant by his appeale from a just sentence Or what danger to the Iudge a quo by such appeales The whole danger is to the appellant himselfe For the sentence beyng just he shall be sure to get nothing neither the Iudge a quo to lose any thing by the appeale G. Powel VVho having but halfe an eye doth not see but that by pleading Magna Charta cap. 29 they would not onely weaken but also subvert and utterly overthrow all jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Doth every one that desireth limitation of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Reply and laboreth to restrayne it from all communion of forreyne lawes seeke the subversion therof If also the lawes Ecclesiasticall be the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes and the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then is this place of Magna Charta so farre from subverting the jurisdiction or law Ecclesiasticall as that by that place the same law and jurisdiction is up held and more throughly established That the law jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ever hath been and yet is accounted the Kings Ecclesiasticall law and juridiction shall be shewed anone G. Powel The sentences and graue determinations whereof that is of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction haue never yet in any age or Country been submitted to popular triall by the judgment of Peeres etc Reply All sent ces of Ecclesiasticall Courts are not so graue but that some are somtymes repealed by Higher courts and sometymes revoked by themselues Sometyme also they meddle with matters not belonging unto them and therfore by ordinary course of Commmon law they are prohibited to proceed Finally in some case the Bishop giveth not Institution to a benefice untill by a Iury of 12. men whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy and 6 of the Layity the controversie de iure patronatus be decided Yea sometyme the Bishop having instituted a clarke is forced by writ from the common law to admit of another clark presented by another Patrone and so to displace him whom before he had instituted G. Powel The place of Magna Charta cannot be understood of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or the practise thereof especially if we consider the end why this law was made and the tyme when The Prelats should make sure worke indeed Reply if they could make that no lawes were against their power Thē might they take upon them without controlment what they would under coloure of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as indeed they doe now pretily beginne to doe G. Powel The end was that the Kings of this Realme might not challenge an infinit and absolute power as some Kings else where did and yet doe without judgment and lawfull proceedings to take away any mans liberty life Country goods or lands Then belike the Kings Majestie is restrayned by Magna Charta but the Prelacy is not Reply Is not this good stuffe The King shall weare the Crowne but the Prelats will beare the sword Whether now doe they that are falsely called Puritans or the Prelats most encroch upon the Royall authoritye G. Powel It was made at such time as the Kings thought Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction no more in right then in fact to belong to the Crowne Therfore the words haue no relation to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This is utterly false Reply yea the falshood therof is evident by the testimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cooke in the booke alleadged by the answerer For he sayth expresely that as in temporall causes the King by the mouth of Iudges in his Courts of Iustice doth iudge the same by the temporall lawes of England lib. de jure regis Eccle. fol 8 so in causes Ecclesiasticall etc. the connusance wherof doth not belong to the common lawes of England the same are to be iudged and determyned by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according
all for the reasons and causes before specified It is therefore erroniously alleadged that that which was done by jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall when Magna Charta was granted was not at that tyme taken to be done by the King or by his authority and that the lawes which Ecclesiasticall Iudges practised were not then held to be the lawes of the land or the Kings lawes For the Kings progenitors did both thinke and held that jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall did in right belong unto their Crowe and therefore in fact by right of their crownes did they both exercise and commaund to be exercised in their Kingly names their Kingly right authority and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall within their Realmes For how could those Kings haue commaunded and how could their subjectes haue obeyed if the Kings themselues had thought and held that the Ecelesiasticall courts lawes or jurisdiction were not in right no more then in fact at that tyme belonging unto the Crowne as the answerer vaynly and childishly fancyeth Which fancy also seemeth sufficiētly confuted by the very title of S. Edward Cooks booke de iure regis Ecclesiastico For how could the Kings before and after the Conquest unto Magna Charta have been justly intituled to Kingly right of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction if the Kings had no Kingly Ecclesiasticall right or jurisdiction at all G. Powel Breifely the lawfullnes of they deprivation of the refractary Ministers is a plaine case adjudged in open Court as appeareth in S. Edward Cookes Report part 5 in Cawdries case according to a Statute of I. Elizab. cap 2. c. It is a most playne and cleere case that neither the case of Cawdrie Reply is the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers nor that the case of sundry the late deprived Ministers is the case of Cawdrie Cawdrie was deprived not by his Ordinarie but by the Queenes Ecclesiasticall high Commissioners not for not subscribing to the 3 Articles not for the not use of rits and Ceremonyes not for the not exact S. Edward Cook de jure regis eccl Cawdries case fol. 3 and precise observation of the booke of Common prayer But as well for that he had preached against and depraved the said book as also for that he refused to celebrate divine service according to the sayd booke Agayne in his cause it being found before the High Commissioners that he had uttered verba convitiosa and contumeliosa convitious and contumelious words looke sent against Caw against the boke of Common prayer the case was not whither his fact were punishable by the Statute for of that no man then doubted but whether his depravation and preaching against the booke of Common prayer beyng the first offence committed by him against the Statute he was punishable by tenor of the statute for the same his first offence by depravatiō yea or no Lastly Cawdries offence was punishable as well before the Queenes Iustices by imprisonment and losse of one whole yeares profites of his spirituall promotions as by deprivation before his Ordinary None of all which things were within the cōpass of sundry the late deprived Ministers For non of thē ever preached against the booke nor depraved the same They never refused to obserue the same booke according to the proeme of the booke tenor of the statute They were so farr from claymyng any immunitie from being depraved for their first offence as that they stood and yet doe stand upon their innocencyes not to haue committed any offence at all against the statute punishable with deprivation by the statute they alleadge that they were not punishable before the Kings Iustices by the statute for these facts which they were charged by their Ordinaries to haue committed against the statute and for which they were deprived Lastly some of them were deprived not for any fact done committed or perpetrated but for not promissing heereafter to obserue the whole booke And what an unconsiderate part therefore is it to avowe the lawfulnes of the deprivation of all the late silenced Ministers to be a playne case adjudged in open Court when neither their case nor any like case to som of theirs was ever yet brought or argued before the Kings Iustices in any of the Kings open courts at all Touching the statut alleadged 1. Elizabeth it helpeth nowhitt at all the late deprivations of sundry Ministers First because such Ministers as haue been deprived onely for not conformyng themselues to the use of the booke provided by the parishioners cannot truly be charged to haue refused the booke commaunded by the statute Because the same booke was never provided for them Secondly the statute punisheth not every refuser but wilfull and obstinate refusers They then that upon conscience onely of Gods word doe refuse to obserue al things conteyned in the booke cannot be iustly called obstinate refusers till their groundes out of the word be by the word removed Thirdly the statute requyreth some Act done committed or perpretrated against the Statut but some Ministers haue been deprived only for not promising c as before was sayd Fourthly the statute appoynteth the Ordinaries to proceed by inquisition accusation or information But many of us haue been deprived without any of these meanes and onely upon Proces Ex officio mero Heerby therfore appeareth how unjustly and directly contrary to the words of the statute you insert this Parenthesis which they may doe Ex officio as if they might by vertue of this Statute proceed Ex officio wheras the Statute expresly requyres inquisition accusation or information Is this good interpretation If you doe so interprete the scripture directly contrary to the wordes of scripture in the same place you make but mad interpretations Touching that which is objected against all hitherto spoken in the poynt of the law of the opinion of the Iudges to be against the same may it please the reader to remember the saying of an Honorable and most renowned Counseller in that behalfe viz. that in such cases and all other men are not so much to respect what judges speake standing bare headed 2 chro 19 6 as what they say sittyng upon the judgment seate representing the Kings person yea not executing the iudgment of man but of the Lord when all men stand bare headed before them Concernyng the oth Ex officio of the othe ex officio we affirme that the law of the land is against the exercise of the same oath by Ordinaries and other judges Ecclesiasticall The Common law of this kingdome which is grounded upon the law of God and of reason doth hate and abhorre it First in respect of the fraylty of man who for the safitie of his life libertie credit and good name will not spare to prophane even that which is most holy and by committing sinfull perjury hazard his soule which the subtle serpēt wel knew in generall though he were deceaved in the perticuler in that he sayd unto God concerning Iobskinne for skinne and
and holdes of the Devill may be the truth in part but yet they being in the places alleaged called the charets and horsmen of Israel not of the Saints and most of the Israelits being then wicked and these titles being acknowledged of Elisha by a wicked King that respected not the gathering of the Saints but the outward defence of his kingdome by the prayers and preaching of Elisha it cannot be the whole truth That we are such sores as the answerer speaketh of is not proved Indeed some conformitans so account us because we rub their sores so much and desire so earnestly the healing of them that so their soules may be the better saved We are also eye-sores to them but sure I am that we are not so to the godly many of whose sores God hath cured by us and to whom our ministery hath been the savor of life unto life Other thinges in this argument haue received their reply THE 8 ARGVMENT The proceedings of the Bishops other Ecclesiasticall Iudges against the Ministers in silencing and depriving of them is against the law Ergo. This High Court of Parliament being the chiefest Court of iustice in all this kingdome ought to releeue them The marginall notes upon the 8 Argument The first 3 notes I passe by as note-les G. Powel d Object against these and you shall be answered How shall we be answered With words and raylings Reply as before not otherwise To the oth Ex Officio and to the Canons afterward G. Powel a These men would bring in all by popular triall Nay rather Reply would not the Prelats be glad to haue all persons and all causes subject to themselues But more to this afterward G. Powel b A sensles sentence How can a man in matters of eternall life be cast out of his freehold Reply A simple cavill from the misplacing of a comma The Notary might well haue perceived that these wordes in matters of eternall life were to be joyned with the words goyng before ambassadors of Iesus Christ not with the words following should be cast out of their freehold This I say he might well haue perceived because there had been no speech of our freehold of eternall life but only of this life G. Powel c The Ecclesiasticall judge may proceed Ex officio d directly against the statute 1 Elizab cap 2 Reply These two notes being in the margine contiguoe and touching one another I joyne together in my reply the rather because d the letter of the second note and the mention of the statute in the end of the sayd second note omitted they may both in better sense and truth be read thus togeather Ecclesiasticall Iudges may proceed ex officio directly against the statute For touching the former note with c let the best Civilian shew if he can by what other law the Ecclesiasticall judge may proceed ex officio then by the Canon law abolished by statute The second note with d shall be satisfied afterward The note with e of begging the question is now too stale G. Powel f As if God and his Sonne Christ Iesus were not president of the religious assembly already An unchristian suggestion Reply When the Prophet exhorteth the Church to open her dores for the King of glory to come in psal 24 7 9 Cant 5 2 did he signifie that the Church had not before interteyned the King of glory When Christ saith Open unto me my sister etc. doth he meāe that his sister had him not at all before Christ dayly knocketh by his word and Sacraments Revel 3.20 at the heartes of all the faithfull to be let in Are they therfore altogether without Christ Allthough therfore Christ be already president in the Parliament yet by the propounding of any good cause he desireth to be further interteyned amongst them This the author hath acknowledged by calling thē often a Christian assembly by commending their Christian zeale against the Papists etc. But this is the answerers sophistry before noted Sophistry to reason from the wāt of a thing in part to the want thereof altogether Therefore this is an vnchristian and simple collection Further answer to the 8 Argument G. Powel I am constrayned to dance as the suppliants Pipe They lead and I followe Nay we haue piped unto you and yee haue not danced Reply We haue mourned unto you and yee haue not lamented Mat 11.19 Neither to evident Argumentes out of holy scripture will you submit your human ordinances or your selues neither by any gentle and humble petitions will yee Prelats come to any brotherly peace Mildnes doth as much provoke you as bitternes M. Nichols of Kent writyng most mildly and humbly was rewarded severely with suspension deprivation degradation Our most humble petition to the Convocation at the first Session of this Parliament received a most rough answer We seeke peace and when we speake thereof ye are bent to warre psal 120 7. Iob. 31 8. As though yee sate in heavenly places we haue been unto you more vile then the earth I complaīe not thus of all the Prelats I know that some are wiser milder kinder and more curteous thē other As the bramble tooke more upon it then the Oliue tree Iudg. 8.15 the vine or the fig tree so sometyme it is among Prelats G. Powel Hitherto they prayed your Honors but to speake for them etc. Now they urge you to determyne and actually to decree something in their behalfe We neither prayed nor urged any thing to be doone but with all humility and loyalty G. Powel hoping that his most excellent Majesty vpon the sight of the reasons why they had decreed or determined any thing so farre as they might among themselues would likewise in his Princely and christian regard haue vouchafed his Royall assent to their such decrees and determinations which although it haue not pleased his Highnes yet to doe yet we hope that heerafter upon further cōsideration some other may find further grace with his Majestie in the like behalfe G. Powel To the consequence of the former Argument The consequence hath 2 parts whereof the first is granted but that the deprived and suspended ministers ought to be restored is denyed because they haue not justified their cause and declared that they are vnjustly oppressed nor can ever doe Reply Touching the former answer may it please the reader first to remember that all the authors speech of the proceedings of the Bishops against Ministers suspended etc is only to be understood of such Ministers as whom they suspend and depriue onely for such causes as are mentioned in the title of the Argumentes not of other whom they suspend or depriue for any just cause Now to proceede that such Ministers haue not yet in law whereof the present question is justified there cause and declared that they are unjustly oppressed nor can ever doe is not
of the first of our late Queene vpon inquisition information or accusation but only upon proces ex mero officio A thing if not directly yet by consequence repugnant to the sayd statute and therefore unwarrantable by the sayd statute And therefore it is to be noted that this marginall note the Ecclesiasticall judge may proceed ex officio in pag 37. and this parēthesis which they may doe ex officio inserted in the body of the statute pag 42. is but a begging of the question Certain Ministers in the Dioces of Oxford Lichfeld etc. An other injustice against some Ministers hath been cōmitted by some ordinaries for that they haue deprived them for none other cause then only for not subscribing to the 3 articles mentioned in the 36. Canon And this wrong hath been openly in Parliament acknowledged to be a wrong by the Archbishop himselfe and by the Iudges and advocats of his owne Courts These and many such like thinges being thus may it not be truely sayd that the Ministers pleaded for are unjustly oppressed And being so oppressed and without releefe any other way haue they not just cause to supplicat to the High Court of Parliament And hath not the sayd High Court great reason yea is it not bound to finde remedy and to releeue them The answer concernyng the person of him who is sayd abundantly to haue proved the unlawfulnes of the proceedings against the deprived ministers that he is no iudge nor any good Civilian or common lawyer what reason haue you to be so resolut heerin He may be a judge a good Civilian or cōmon lawyer for ought you knowe though you seeme never so doubtles therof But what is this answer to the poynt in question Seeing it mattereth not what the person of the probator be if his proofes be sufficient And yet how meane so ever you thinke him or his learning to be if he be the party whom I ayme at I shall doe no wrong as I suppose to the cheefest judge and best approved Civilian of the now Archbishop of Canterburyes courts if without flattering the party I shall affirme that he was a student and an advocate and a Iudge yea I may as I thinke say more a reader of and a director in the practise of the civill law about 30 yeares passed to sōe that be now Doctors of the same law But to let the person and learnyng of the probator passe I resolutely and directly answer to the answerers 3. Queres the same being partly fraught with equivocations and partly childish and absurd that the one sorte can receaue no resolute answer before he haue resolved his intrinsecall and mentall sense and understanding and that the other without question is a question questionles His first Quere then being this namely Quere 1 whether the Church under Christian godly Magistrats hath any tribunall proper unto it selfe for the decyding of controversies and punishing of such persons as shall refuse the ordinances therof Unto this Quere when he shall distinguish and make his so many equivocations conteyned in the Quere prespicuous and playne Equivocations to the understanding of every simple playne meanyng man I shall God willing make him a simple playne resolute direct answer In the meane time let him understand first that we may justly doubt what he meaneth by the word Church and namely whether he meane the vniversall Church or a Nationall a Provinciall a Diocesā an Archidiaconall a Decanall a Capitular or lastly a Parochiall Church For all men as usually and commonly we speake doe vnderstand that every of these Churches hath her proper name after which she is so called as namly the Church dispersed throughout the world is called the universall Church the Church within England is commonly called the Nationall Church of England the Church within the Province of Canterbury the Provinciall Church of Canterbury the Church of the Diocesse of London the Diocesan Church of London etc. And lastly the Church of great S. Ellens in London the Parochiall Church of S. Ellens in London And therefore I craue a resolute and direct answer of what onely persons you meane that the universall this Nationall Provinciall Diocesan Archidiaconall Decanall Capitular and Parochiall Church consisteth Who onely be the Christian godly Magistrats under whom every one of these Churches liveth Whether the same christian godly Magistrates may personally be present giue their expresse consents and haue their decisive voyces to in making all and every decrees of every of these Churches What is the tribunall proper to it selfe of every of these Churches What onely manner of controversies by every of these Churches may be decided What onely kind of ordinances every of these Churches may decree What only kind of subject and with what onely kind of punishment and none other every of these Churches may punish the refusers of every their ordinances Our second mayne scruple touching this first Quere ariseth from these words vnder Christian godly Magistrats For if by these words under Christian godly Magistrats he understand that every of these Churches livyng under the obeysance of such Magistrats hath a tribunall proper unto it selfe immediatly derived to the same by the holy law of God wholly secluded from the Christian godly Magistrats presence as was the Sanctuary divided from the Court and wherinto the christian godly Magistrats may no more at this day enter or no more giue their consents and decisiue voyces in making the ordinances therof then it was lawfull in times past for the Kings of Iuda to enter into the holy place and to burne incense at the Altar then must we frame him one kinde of reply but if he shall informe us his mentall vnderstanding to be thus namely that the Christian godly Magistrats haue none other power by law divine or human but only to assemble every of the sayd Churches to ratifie the ordinances of every of the sayd Churches or hath onely power to commaund the same ordinances to be put in execution under them then unto this answer we must shape him an other manner of reply Notwithstanding in the meāe tyme this he must understand generally that in right though not alwayes in possession practise the church beyng distinguished from the common wealth hath the same power under a Christian and under an Infidell Magistrat Quere 2 G. Powel 2 Quere Whether so many judiciall acts of deprivation of Bishops from their benefices since the conquest to the time of Magna Charta and since that to this age were ever held to be contrary to the lawes of this Kingdome To dance after your Pipe I will not say what a foolish and ridiculous question Reply but what an od tune is this For can a man dance after a pipe before the Pipe be striken up So could acts done before Magna Charta and other lawes since made be sayd to be contrary to them This is as much as one should aske whether Adam