England the same are to be iudged and determyned by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according 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
them and were praying for them Is there not by all authors a difference made betwixt Simulare and diâ—simulare that the one may be used in godly policy and christian wisdome but that the other is alwayes of the flesh fleshly In allegation of examples every particular is not nicely and strictly to be respected but that poynt onely is to be considered for which they are produced and wherto they be applyed Otherwise from the application of Davids eating of the shewe bread vnto the Disciples plucking the eares of corne to eat Math. 12.3 A maÌ„ may gather that because David used lying as a meanes to obtayne the sheew bread at the Preists handes therefore also it is lawfull for us by lying to obteyne some thing in our necessity By the same reason also because the midwiues of Egypt are commended to feare the Lord etc. and to haue spared the male children of the Israelits the same fault of lying may be justified because they being examined by Pharoh of that their doeing excused themselues by a lye The like may be saide of Rahab commended for her faith in savyng the Israelits spyes Heb. 11.31 Though she defended her selfe from the inquisitors of the King of Iericho by a lye Ios 2.4 If the example of Constantius and Iehu may for some things be excepted against yet it might haue been considred that the author to expresse his generall meanyng the better did mention also the example of Ioseph and of our Saviour Christ Iesus against whom there can be no exception And now to clere his meanyng the better let the example of Salomon in that wherein he is so highly commended be also remembred who to try whither of the two weomen were the mother of the living child commaunded the lyving child to be divided in twane and the one halfe to be given to the one woman the other halfe to the other woman 1 Kings 3.25 Here is a manifest pretense of that which was not inteÌ„ded Let the answerer therfore learne that there is great difference betwixt pretending onely for triall of the affections of other and deepe dissembling or Iesuitecall equivocating for the hiding or maynteyning of some impiety and wickednes I doubt not therefore but I may justifie the author from all such thinges as by allegation of the examples of Constantius Iehu are most uncharitably imputed unto him yea that also I may truely affirme his meanyng in them to haue been onely to shew that he conceaved of his Majesties meanyng that which he was perswaded to be best Therfore farr was he from all undutifull conceits against his Majestie It is also to be observed that he doth not absolutly say this or that to be his Majesties meanyng but onely that it might be like to the meanyng of Constantius Iehu Ioseph and our Saviour for ought that any man else did knowe If it be otherwise Gods will be done and I hope that whatsoever some doe imagine of such as are silenced and deprived that upon sight of his Majesties full resolution for the countenancyng and authorizyng of the Bishops to hold on their course against us then many will yeeld etc. yet it shall well appere that we haue not depended upon any other then upon God alone and that that which we haue done is not done vpon any vayne hope or expectation but in conscience of that word which is our onely rule and canon whereby to liue and whereby to dy Touching the answerers wish that some of our faction as he unbrotherly speaketh did so litle practise equiuocating as his Maiesty abhorres it either let him name such if he know any and let them beare their iniquity or else let him spare such wishes as whereby he implieth a secret accusation G. Powel Whereas his Highnes heart is evidently discerned to be fully seasoned with true piety etc. Answer Though flatery be odious and the wages therof fearfull yet if his Majestie or any other doe well consider the best fruites of a true heart our loue and loyalty towards his Majestie should be sound as good as the best Prelate in the land G. Powel It sufficeth me to haue detected the licence of their raving peÌ„nes the restraint of which fury specially belongeth to your Honorable judicious Court Answer O M. Powell you doe to much forget modesty Whither pen raveth most yours or the authors or whither he or you I will not say yee though you write by authoritie of some other be in most fury let that Honorable and judicious Court judge Yea if it might please his Majestie to vouchsafe the reading of the wrightings and in his Princely wisedome to consider the dealing on both sides we would not feare his Royall judgment concerning our cause or our selues We feare the judgment of one Lordly Bishop ten times more then the judgment of ten such religious Princes For we assure our selues of more equitie from his Majestie then we doe from all Lordly Bishops in the land G. Powel Which your Honors will the rather performe considering what unchristian conceits they haue of this Honorable assembly and of all other his Majesties loving subjectes who loyally obey him and serue God according to the religion established resembling them to Constantius his Nobles Who became Idolaters and Atheistes upon his commaundement As before we haue seene how untruely the answerer maketh this note vpon the authors conclusion Answer with the letter e an vniust calumni pag 77. in as much as he hath accused the author before of bold presumptuous and unduetifull censuring of his Maiestie etc. thereby to provoke his Majesties heavie indignation against us all Contrariety so now contrary to the same note he accuseth us also before the Nobles yea before all the states of the whole kingdome Doeht this man spare us as he professeth to doe in his second note upon the 4 argument Touching the matter here objected it is partly answered before The authors intent and purpose was only to perswade all his Majesties christian subjectes to thinke Honorably of his Highnes and not to judge him by outward supposed apparences Therwas nothing to insinuate any such unchristian censure of this Honorable assembly and of other loving subjectes as this wranglinge answerer would wrest from the authors words The matters in question concerne onely or specially the ministers of the word The things also commaunded by his Majestie are nothing like to the thinges commaunded by Constantius How injurous therefore it is to conclude the same sinne to be of them that obey his Majestie in the thinges now commaunded that was in those that obeyed Constantius I leaue to the judgment of all reasonable men The fallacies of this collection in respect of the difference both of thinges and also of persons commaunded I leaue to the sentence of them that are as skilfull in Aristotle his Elenchs as M. Powell seemeth to be The childish accusation of the author from the 8 Argument heere inserted
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