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 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
conscience of keeping Gods commaundements and observing his word Answer Deut. 4.6 The which to reject is the greatest folly Ierem. 8.9 We haue made no breach or division at all But as Ioseph for telling his divine dreames was hated of his brethren and at the last sold a way to strangers by themselues and as the blinde man Iohn 9. for confessing Christ and stoutly standing in that confession was throwne out of the Iewish Synagogue by the Pharises so to use the words of this answerer we are violently and unjustly broken of and divided and thrust out of the ministery by other and yet charged that we haue made a folish breach and division G. Powel And therefore I cannot allow the opinion of such as giue out Answer Yet we doe all as hartily and faithfully loue and affect our Prince and King yea of whatsoever religion and are as ready and willing to defend his person honor against all adversaryes etc. that these our factious brethren are as dangerous enimyes vnto the state as the papists etc. Neither you nor any other haue ever yet had or ever I hope shall haue cause justly to speake write or thinke otherwise concernyng either our loue loyalty towards our Soveraigne or our duety to any of his governors yea though we should cunningly be solicited to some vndutifull practises as some not many yeares since were in the dayes of late Q. Elizab. of most Honorable memory who were so farr from enterteyning any such motions as that most dutifully they discovered the same to other in higher authority Though I say we should be cunningly solicited to any undutifull practises or to the approbation of any such practise yet I trust that never any of vs shall be found so to offend against his Majesties meanest and lowest officers G. Powel D. Elmer late B. of London gravely sayd If I were in the company but of one Papist I might justly feare the losse of my life but being amongst ten thousand Precisians well might I be afrayd of my Bishopricke but never of my throate the one would cut my coate and the other my throate The Precisians as it pleaseth B. Elmer to call them never desired the Bishopprickes of any of their adversaryes Answer but onely that they would giue glory to him that sitteth vpon the Throne and cast their miters at the feete of the Lambe acknowledging him worthy of all rule and Dominion contenting themselues with the places and Honors commended in the scriptures according to an other apothegmaticall exhortation of the sayd Bishop both made openly at Paules crosse and also printed before himselfe was so advanced in the world viz. that Bishops and other Prelats should come downe from their thowsands and content themselues with an hundred vntill which abasing of themselues and resignyng that which uniustly they hold reigning as Lords Kings over the Lords inheritance neither the Church of God in generall neither our Soveraigne in speciall shall haue so much service and good by their service neither themselues so much peace and comforte of conscience as otherwise would be G. Powel Though they be free from suspition of treason and rebellion yet it cannot be denyed but that presumptuously and willfully they contend with the Magistrat impugning his authority in things indifferēt Cannot that be denyed which never was neither ever can be proved against us Answer 1 We deny that it is the Magistrats meere pleasure that we should conforme otherwise then by mis information of our adversaryes against us as David upon the like mis information of Ziba against Mephibosheth gaue all to Ziba that had been Mephibosheths 2 Sam. 16.2 Yea they doe not only giue all the mis informations them-selues against us which they can jmagine or wherwith they are informed by other but also they labour what they can to keep the Magistrats from all right information in our behalfe by any other yea they indeavour their vtmost to keep both Parliament and all other from mediation for us 2 Though we yeeld not in all thinges required of us yet it is not presumptuously and wilfully but in all humility modesty we contend not by the sword nor any violence but onely by word yea pleading the word of God for our cause Our contentiō also is in a patient suffering with a duetifull cleering of our innocency against the false imputations wherewith we are burdened The things in question haue been said but never substantially proved to be indifferent in such sorte and to such vses as now they are urged Our adversaries haue so long strivē to maintayne the things which they call indifferent for such uses as to which they are not indifferent that they haue made religion it selfe an in different thing to many men In things truely indifferent it is already justified and shal be further justified if neede requyer that we attribute no lesse to the magistrat then our adversaryes doe Let them name in what sense and degree the Papists deny the Soveraignty of Princes in any thinge and I doubt not but that it may be proved that themselues holding their owne principles doe deny the same in the same sense and degree G. Powel All of them make a faction and schisme in the Church for carnall respects some because they know not otherwise how to be mainteyned some to gratifie their benefactors and Patrons and to please their frends some for discontentment and want of preferment some for giddines of innovation etc. What all M. Powell How doe you forget your selfe Answer You should haue left this generall judgment of all to the generall judge of all There is none of these of whom you speake but for the world and outward things they might liue better conformyng then not cōforming themselues What benefit haue any by gratifying their Patrons Will their Patrons giue them better mayntenance otherwise Nay some Patrons are their adversaryes and are gratified by them that put such Ministers out that so they may present againe etc. Some so displease their frends heerby that by their displeasure they loose more in one day then they get all their life by any Ecclesiasticall living Some also by displeasing their frends doe not only lose temporall benefits for them and theirs but doe also hinder themselues of as great Ecclesiasticall promotion as many or the most of the conformable sort doe ateyne unto Some by their troubles for this cause having had good patrimonyes haue consumed wasted them so that in their age when they need most comfort they liue in penury and want and at their death leaue not so much to their wiues many children as was left to themselues alone Some by want for this cause are forced to take their children of very great hope and forwardnes for learnyng frō the schoole and to make them apprentises to their owne great greife and in time to the detriment of the Church Agayne this imputation of
for want of matter of justification or for want of the truth of unjust oppression I meane only by the Prelats but because they haue not been admitted to prosecute the iustice of the land nor to call in question the proceedings of their ordinaryes who haue been hitherto both Agents and Iudges both accusers and advocats in their owne cases against them And especially because upon pretense of a Canon lately made repugnant to the lawes statutes and customes of the Realme they be not suffered by the Archbishops Iudge ad quem to plead and to prosecute their appeales and to declare their innocency according to the auncient laudable and common usage and iustice of the land unto which grevance also many more exorbitant injustices by the Prelats heereafter mentioned may be added Let the answerer therfore vnderstand that som Ordinaryes in their publike sentēces The Bishop of Lincolne against the the Ministers of Leicestershire haue most uniustly charged some Ministers with denyall of the oth to the Kings supremacy which notwithstanding divers tymes before they had willingly sworne vnto and which at the very instance of pronouncyng the sentence they offred before their Ordinary to sweare unto agayne And not onely thus lesingly to make the Persons of the sayd Ministers more odious to our most Christian King his State and all his people in their publike sentences of deprivation have som Ordinaryes traduced the good name and estimation of the Ministers but also without any other speciall crime worthy deprivation mētioned in their sentences haue they stussed their sentences full only with generall wordes of generall crimes contrary to the right forme of judgment For by right forme of judgment the Ordinaryes ought not to haue impeached the Ministers because of generall crymes but they ought to haue sayd and put in certeyne in what thinges and in what manner the sayd ministers haue done any thing worthy punishment of deprivation An other grevance unjust oppression by the sayd Prelats of the sayd silenced ministers is that upon sentence of deprivation and appeales of the Ministers the Ordinaryes haue given notice to the Patron of the voydance of the Church and upon new presentation of the Patron haue not onely instituted new clarkes but also to avoyd the possession of the Minister deprived and appealing haue suggested and intimated by their certificatory writ under their publike seale unto the King into his Court of Chancery that the possession of the church was kept per vim laicam Old natura brevium fol 33. Que breife ne ser grant avant que levesque de tiel lieu eit certifie en le Chācerie per sō breit de tiel resistance withall haue prayed the Kings writ de la vi laica removenda By vertue of which writ upon their suggestion intimation granted for without their suggestion and intimation it would not be granted the party appellant before the appeale finished hath ben removed out of his possession by the Shiriffe of the Coūty Notwithstanding in truth the Church parsonage or vicarage house had within the same no manner of vi laica at all but was onely quietly and peaceably possessed by the late derived spirituall person and his poore family And that this manner of a possession of a Church by a spirituall person and his family by the law of the Kingdome is not to be holden vis laica is playnly iustified by a late judgment given by the Kings Iustices touching the possession of the Church of Newton Valencoe in the Diocesse of Winton For where as a spirituall person possessed of the same Church by vertue of the Kings writ de vi laica removenda was removed out of his possession and another spirituall person put in possessiō of the same church the spirituall person dispossessed upon the matter heard and examined before the Kings Iustices that he was a mere spirituall person and that his Church was possessed onely by himselfe and his domestikes was by an other of the Kings writs restored into and possessed of the same Church and which Church unto this day he peaceably holdeth and injoyeth A 4 grevance of the silenced Ministers is that ther beyng a Canon made in the last Synod that no iudge ad quem shall grant any Inhibition to the judge a quo Bishop of Chichester Salisbury unlesse he first see the originall appeale sundry Ordinaryes upon appeales made before them haue taken order with their Registers and Notaryes not to deliver to the partyes appellant any noate or copy of any act or sentence made or given before them Where upon not onely the party appellant is wronged but the Notary also upon refusall of grāting to the party appellant demaunding and tendring to the Notary his fee a publike instrument of the publike Acts and Records of the Court cannot but incurre the infamy of corruption and perjury in as much as he beyng a publike Notary is sworne faithfully to execute the office of a publik Notary the execution of part of which office consisteth he being requyred thereunto in his testimony and delivery of the publike acts made in his presence A fith injustice or rather nullity is because sundry sentences of deprivation haue been given a Iudicibus non suis namely by such Ordinaryes whose power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall at the time of giving their sentēces was suspended shut up and closed by the Archbishop of Canterburyes Commission and his Archiepiscopall visitation A 6 grevance or rather a nullity is because the whole power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall touching causes criminall without exception or reservation of the examination and definition of the crimes of Ministers by sundry Diocesans under their seale at armes before that tyme was committed in solidum for terme of life yeares not expired unto their principall Commissaryes Officialls or vicars generall wherupon it consequently followeth the same Diocesans having no power by the Kinges Ecclesiasticall lawes to resume at their pleasure their sayd Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that the sentences given by the sayde Diocesans in these cases are sentences voyd and of none effect in the law as being given a Iudicibus iurisdictione in ea parte carentibus A 7 grevance or rather nullity is that sentences haue been given nullo Iuris ordine servato but omni iuris ordine spreto et neglecto An 8 injustice is because some acts and sentences haue been made and given in some private chamber of some common Inne or Taverne and not in publico et competente foro in any publike or competent seate of Ecclesiasticall justice As M. Vinall and M. Warren in the Diocesse of Chichester were deprived in a common Taverne viz. at the signe of the Ounce and Ivy bush in Greensteed The 9 injustice is because some sentences given by some Ecclesiasticall judges for not use of rites and Ceremonyes or not observing of the booke of Common prayer haue not been given according to the tenor of and effect of the statute
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