possibly staÌ„d 1. All the ministers are made appoynted by the Bishops if therfore the Bishops be taken avvay hovv can the ministers remayne the same take avvay the correlative relation ceaseth Trew the relation ceaseth But is that externall relation unto an efficient cause any part of the substance or essence of the ministerie I had thought that the substance essence of a thing had consisted in matter forme not in such externall relations Mariages are also made as Mr. R. affirmeth by Bishops authoritie take away Bishops therfore by this reason the mariages shall not remayne the same for substance which they are now Licences for teaching school in many places for practizing of physick are given by the Bishops their officers take away the Bishops may not the same schoolmasters physitians yet stil remayn for substaÌ„ce that were before Fie upon sophistrie 2. Take avvay the prelacie sayth Mr. R. and hovv can such a ministerie continue vvherof one part viz ruling shall bee usurped by the prelat As if when once that power is taken from the minister it now apperteyned to the substance of his ministery by whome it were usurped whether he that possessed it were a Byshop or a high commissioner or of some other place that which is without a thing may be changed without any substantiall change of the thing it self else how can Mr. R. say that eyther the function of masspreists or of Popish Byshops doe remaine still in England as of olde for substance when ther is so great an alteration in that supreme power from whence of olde they were derived The office of a king also it remayneth the same for substance now that it was in time of poperie for the substantiall parts of it yet one part therof was in those times usurped possessed by the pope is now restored to the crowne viz power over ecclesiasticall persons in ecclesiasticall causes It cannot therfore be denied but by the same reasoÌ„ the parochial ministery should abide the same for substance that now it is thovgh that part which is now usurped by Byshops should be restored againe So that Bishops being removed whether that power of ruling should be translated unto some other officers or setled in the ministers as it ought Mr. R. argument hath by neyther way any waight or force at all 3. Take avvay sayth he the provinc diocesan churches prelats the parochiall churches ministers as partes of them must fall also As partes of them in deed they must of necessitie fall that is they must cease to be partes of them but it doeth not therfore follow that any thing of their internall substance should fall The nationall church of England so the provincial diocesan did once stand members or partes of the oecumenicall papall church of Rome now that is removed out of England so farr at least that this nationall church is not subiect unto Rome nor dependant on it or conteyned in it as a part in a wholl yet Mr. R. will say that the same diocesan provinciall nationall church remayneth for substance that was before Why doeth he not then see that parochiall churches may remayn the same for substance though diocesses and provinces did follow the other 4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions idoll preists crosse surplice vvith such vanities mixture of profane vvith the godly and asketh if it be possible that the prelacie beeing abolished such things should remayne as novv I answer 1. It is possible Ther are more meanes of disorder corruption then one Neyther can any such necessarie coÌ„junction be shewed betwixt the prelacie these abuses but that it is possible to seperat one from the other Yet 2. If they should all be abolished with the prelacie no reasonable man wil therfor say that the substance of parochial churches should be therin chaÌ„ged If praejudice could be set apart the shallownesse of this the former reasons could not be hid from the eyes of him that framed them TO a mayn obiection by Mr. R. urged viz that all parochiall ministers are subiect unto the spirituall iurisdiction of prelats answer was given first that so are privat christians subiect unto the same jurisdictâ—â— not onely in their church actions which they performe with others in publick but also for personall private opinions behaviours this subiection therfore doeth no more hinder coÌ„munion with the one then with the other in things that are good To which answer Mr. R. replieth nothing but referreth unto his former book where as good as nothing is to be found If there had bene a fit answer to be given wee should certainly eyther haue had it repeated heere for of repetition Mr. R. is not so nice or at least the page quoted where wee might haue found it But in deed it is not possible but if meere subiection to Bishops bee in it self a sufficient barr against publick communion it must also be held sufficieÌ„t against such privat in for which a man is also subiect The second answer unto the forenamed obiection was that the greatest part of the prelats iurisdiction is from the king derived unto those that doe exercise the same and therfore must of necessitie be a civill power such as the king might as well performe by other civill officers as it is in the high commission The lawes of the land doe so esteeme it c. In this Mr. R. insisteth much as thinking no small advantage to be given him therfore requireth of the reader wel to observe what heere is sayd on both sides In which request I ioigne with him so that it be marked withall that I doe not undertake to justifie the Byshops wholl state much lesse their proceedings but onely so far that some subiection unto some of their authoritie is not simply unlawfull Mr. R. plea after his praeamble ariseth unto these 3 defenses 1. The lavves doe no vvhere derive from the kings civill authoritie the povver of the Bishops spiritual administratioÌ„s but doe onely make the king an establisher up holder civilly of this povver 2. Though the lavves of the laÌ„d did esteeme this iurisdiction civill yet it doeth not follovv that therfore it is such in deed because they misesteeme diverse things 3. That the prelats iurisdiction is not civile as appeareth playnly by 5 reasons of him alledged For the first of these I appeal 1. To the oth of the clergie to the king established by a statut law in the reign of king Henry 8. exstaÌ„t in Mr. Fox p. 961. Where the Byshop sweareth that he knovvledgeth himself to hold his Bishoprick of the king onely 2. To the act that was then made for the supremacie wherin all iurisdictions belonging to the title of head of the church in EnglaÌ„d are giveÌ„ to the king as it is in the same book p. 963.3 I appeal to the 5. Book of Sr Edward Cooks reportes where he sheweth out of
the law that Bishops are the kings spirituall judges their lawes his ecclesiasticall lawes their iurisdiction so dependāt on him that he may exempt any man from it grant the same also to whome he will For the which purpose he that desireth may finde plētiful proofs in a book intitled an assertion for church policie Now wheras M. R. aledgeth that the same iurisdiction ecclesiasticall vvhich had been in use in popery a great part of the popish hierarchy vvas confirmed primo Elizabethae he hath put another weapon in our hands for to wound his cause withall For the very title of that statute is an act restoring to the crovvne the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical And the whol house of commons haue so interpreted the meaning of that restauration which is therin made that by vertue therof the king is inabled to give povver jurisdiction ecclesiasticall to any subiect borne so if it please him all causes may bee taken from Byshops their officers given unto other men in every parish of England This interpretation is found in the bill of greivances presented to the king by those of the lower house an 1610. Printed in a book called a recorde of some vvorthy proceedings c. That this or any other judgemēt of the law is not infallible I easily admit especially touching the quaestion of lawfull or unlawfull good or evill of which kind those instances are which Mr. R. chooseth in this place to appose But 1. Seeing that when we alledge the parishes to be severall churches to be considered as they subsist in their severall conditions and the calling of ministers in many assemblies to be grounded on the peoples choice c. wee hear it still opposed with loud voyce the lavves of the land allovv no such things they acknovvledge no such matter c. Was it not both fit necessarie then to declare the judgement of lawe or can he with honestie reject the sentence of lawe so ligtly now whoe a litle before built all upon it 2. The quaestion is heere of a matter of fact and the positive not morall nature of it whether this authoritie commeth from the king or no not whether it bee every way good laudable as is the controversie about crosse syrplice such like abuses which he mentioneth and in such a case if the the lawes say yea and those that submit to them say also yea Mr. R. must pardon us if his no be reiected except his reasons be passing strong His first reason why this power is not civil is because it is not coactive or bodily enforcing but the Bishop after excomunication can goe no further except he procure a civill coactive processe by vvritt out of another court I answer 1. Though it had no bodily enforcing at all annexed unto it yet it might be a civill power Bodily enforcing is but a penall sanction which commeth after the authoritie or power civil may bee seperated from it 2. It is therfore coactive or bodily enforcing because it may directly require as due by law belonging unto it such coactive assistance by other officers as Mr. R. himself speaketh of So many civill commissions letters patent are granted to men which haue no authoritie seated in themselves for forcing of mē unto obedience but haue authoritie to charge the constable or justice that next is to ayd them in their affayres which authoritie of theirs notwithstanding is civil in that respect coactive A second reason is taken from the works of prelats iurisdiction vvhich are for substance sayth he the making of ministers excommunicating of offenders vvith their contraries appurtenances vvhich are not civil vvorkes neyther can be performed by any civil magistrat Where if by can or may he understandeth such right as men haue for their deedes by the law or word of God then I willingly grant that no civil magistrate may by his civill office performe those workes of ordination excommunication c. Neyther can the Byshop so performe them heerin consisteth that presumptuous usurpatiō wherof they are guilty before God man But if he understandeth such right or power as men haue for their deedes by mans law then I avouch out of the former grounds testimonies of law that any other civil magistrat may receyve authoritie of iurisdiction in those causes as well as prelats Which experience confirmeth de facto in the high commissiō some other courts Wherby it is manifest that though these workes in their nature be spirituall yet thorough great abuse they are performed by civill authoritie Secondly I answer that these workes of ordination excommunication vvith their contraries appurtenances are not the substance or in effect the vvholl iurisdiction vvhich Bishops doe exercise in their provinces dioces though Mr. R. affirme it againe againe For 1. The principall iurisdiction which prelats haue is under the king to make certain rules canons or lawes for ordering of certain causes cōmitted unto them 2. Those causes are for a great part of them meerely civil such as by Gods law the civil magistrat hath power to order Of which kind are the causes of matrimonie of wills or testaments many circumstances pertayning to the severall churches within their precincts 3. In the very businesse of ordination excommunication it is of substance to see that worthy men be admitted unworthy excluded The formes of ordination excommunication usurped by them are corrupt appurtenances to those lawfull actions not the substance wherto all the rest apperteyne Neyther doeth Mr. R. agree with himself in making all the substance of spirituall government to consist in calling of ministers and exercising of censures or ordination excommunication seeing his opinion is that all this may be doen by the people yet in his former book p. 26. affirmeth government not to belong to them vvherin sayth he doeth the people govern as many please to reproach us The third argument is taken from the forme used in consecration of Byshops vvherin no mention is made of civil authoritie but onely of spirituall Wherunto I answer 1. That their episcopall jurisdiction over a special diocesse or province is not expressed in that consecration nor any thing of substance which is not conteyned in a parochiall ministers ordination Which is an argument that the Byshop receyveth not that iurisdiction from him by whose hands he is consecrated but from some other power that is from the king 2. It is not necessarie that words formes of consecration should agree in all pointes with the state of a Byshop For a Byshop in that state proceeding which now is in use is partly fish partly flesh or such a compound as were the feete of Nebuchadnetsars image that were part of yron part of clay which did not cleave one to the other for so is he part of civill power which is of sound mettall or yron part of
orders of the diocessan not knowing any evill in it whether such a fault if it bee a fault doeth pollute that communion with him which otherwise is lawfull that it doeth not Mr. R. seemeth to witnesse in his former treatise p. 15. For this he referreth the reader unto that answer which he gave to the former demand and so doe I to the refutatiō of it Wheras he addeth that his testimonie is misaplied because his meaning was that a humaine infirmitie about an externall ordinance doeth not hinder from communion in actions performed meerely by personall grace I answer that it is possible for a man which hath such orders to performe the actions of prayer preaching even in a publick place meerly by vertue of the personal grace gifts which God hath endued him with all Especially this man of whom heere we speak who yet hath no speciall state or reference by office unto those that communicate with him in the word prayer The reason therfore is one and the same in this case that which Mr. R. speaketh of THe fift quaestion was of a man that being desired so chosen by some assembly wherin there are many fearing God apparently he taketh a pastoral charge of them hauing the Byshops patrons admission but cheifly grounding his calling upon the peoples choyse and that he doe nothing but the same he did before besides the administration of the sacraments to such as are in charitie discretion to bee esteemed worthy what hindereth from communion heer To this a four fould answer is given in shew though none in deed 1. Hee denieth an assembly gathered consisting of many fearing God many vvithout the fear of God to bee a lavvfull church assemblie hauing right in communion to call enjoy a Pastor But the question was made of an assembly wherin are many fearing God apparently without his supplie of many not fearing God though with them ther may be mingled some which give not such apparent evidence of Gods grace to be in them but rather praesumptions of the contrarie Will Mr. R denie the title of a true church unto all assemblies that haue some such amongest them then must hee condemne most rashly not onely a multitude of praesent churches Dutch Frēch but those of Corinth Galatia Pergamus Thyatira Sardis Laodicea also of which the Apostles Christ him self gave other judgement 2. He telleth us that none can truely take a pastoral charge in the Parish assemblies because he cannot governe or rule the flock But first a man may truely take upon him that which he cannot fully in every part performe or fullfill desiring endeavoring so farr as his knowledge abilitie extendeth Otherwise no high Preist in Israel from the time of Salomon unto the time of Hezekia did truely take upon them the charge of a high preist because none did celebrat the passouer which was a principall sacrament in such sort as was writtē 2. Cron. 30.5.26 Nor keepe the feast of tabernacles in a far lōger time Nehem. 8.17 Nor did any king al that time truly take upon him the charge or office of a king because none did reforme things as he ought If any difference bee their sinne was greater that might haue doē their duty would not then theirs that would cannot Secondly the meere want of performing one part of the charge doeth not hinder but that a man may well communicat in the other parts which are well undertaken discharged also 3. He addeth that the church of Englād acknovvledgeth no such calling as is cheifly grounded on the peoples choyce Such private intendimēts underhand professions of particular persons in secret are cloaks of shame craftinesse like unto disguised familisme And if any ministerie bee so grovnded it is not the ministerie of the church of England But what that church of England alloweth which he understandeth by this title it maketh nothing to the quaestion It is enough if such a calling bee in some assemblies of England Yet for a minister to lay the cheif ground of his calling upon the peoples choice so that he haue withall those formallities required I know no law in England that doeth forbid or disallow it Ther is therfore no necessitie for him that doeth so to speak of it in secret onely hee may professe it in the pulpit as many haue been knowen to doe yet bee a minister of a church established by the law of England Neyther is that after consent by acceptance submission which Mr. R. speaketh of so slight a matter for this purpose as he would make it For as in wedlock the after consent of parents or parties doeth often make that a lawfull state of mariage which before without that was none in governement acceptance submission doeth make him a king which before was a tyrant though in their nature these actions bee rather consequences then causes of that calling so is it betwixt minister people All the wind that he spendeth therfore in this answer is but a venting of his praejudiciall passions The quaestion it self he secretly granteth in making a ministerie grounded on the peoples choyce to bee no ministerie of the church of England insinuating therby that with such a ministerie he cannot say but communion is lawfull Now that ther is such a ministerie to be found in England as it is manifest in diverse places so he him self doeth as much as witnesse it in the next page where he affirmeth that in sundry places the people are ready to suffer persecution with their ministers For if the lifting up of a hand in tokē of consent be a choosing a cōsent declared by such fruights must needes implie no lesse 4. He excepteth against baptizing of all infants borne in the Parish But to absteine from by controversies it shall suffice for that that other churches doe extend the use of that sacrament to as great largenes as England doeth with whome not withstanding Mr. R. wil not denie all communion publick The 6 quaestion was of a deprived silenced minister why a man should not hear him when he preacheth Mr. R. after a censorious note or two passed upon such ministers giveth for answer that such a man remayning still a minister of the church of England preaching by that calling cannot bee communicated vvith vvithout submission unto and upholding of the prelats antichristian authoritie vvhich in that vvork hee exerciseth Which is a conceyt past commune apprehension That hee which by the prelat the prelats cannons all that his authoritie can make is forbidden to preach often times excommunicated also by him and all this for witnessing against his usurped authoritie should in performing that duty which also he did law fully before he receyved any commission from any prelat not onely exercise the prelats authoritie but so exercise it that no christian man may bee present therat without actuall submission to antichristian