him not to hinder him For to obteyn licence of the Bishop is to obteyn publique authority of the publique officer and according to the publique lawes of the church to excercise a publique ministery 2. The great Turk is a lawfull civill Magistrate in his Dominions with whose civill authority it is lawfull to partake but so is not the Byshop a lawfull Ecclesiasticall officer in his Province or Diocesse with whose spirituall jurisdiction Gods servants may communicate And is this to lead men by the hand to take for graunted the mayn question in controversy to wit that the Bishops jurisdiction in their Provinces Diocesses is lawfull which I have also by sundry arguments proved vnlawfull antichristian Surely they who suffer themselves thus to be led must be as destitute of spirituall sight as was Saul of bodily when men led him by the hand to Damascut Theyr authority then being proved so confessed by this myne opposite els where antichristian so consequently one of the sinns of Babylon whether excercised by themselves or by others eyther Officials in the CoÌ„sistories or ministers in the Parochiall churches may not by Gods people be partaken with no not in actions though otherwise lawfull under the peyn of Babylons plagues And this answer also serveth to the 4 th demaund or Supposition of this persons takeing besydes his licence the form of admission called orders of the Diocesan And so that which I bring pag 15. Arg 2. of my book is here misapplyed I there speak of lawfull actions performed merely by the personall grace of fayth the Spirit in a godly man though of infirmity remayning in an estate standing otherwise culpable but here of actioÌ„s though in themselves lawfull yet performed immediately by vertue or vice rather of that very vnlawfull state standing Suppose after this that being desyred so chosen by some assembly wherein there are many fearing God apparently he taketh a Pastorall charge of them haveing the Bishops Patrons admission but cheifly professedly grounding his calling vpon the peoples choyse that he do nothing but the same he did before besydes the administration of the Sacraments to such as are in charity discretion to be esteemed worthy what hindreth from communion here Indeed if men may take liberty in disputeing first to suppose what themselves have a mynde vnto and after to suppose that others are also of the same mynde with them and yet have litle reason eyther for the one or other they may then easily conclude theyr purposes But .1 I deny that an assembly gathered consisting of many fearing God many which must also be supplied without the fear of God is a lawfull Church-assembly haveing a right in communion or common right to call enjoy a pastour his pastorall administrations 2. I deny that any doth or can truely take a pastorall charge in the parrish assemblyes It belongs to the pastours charge not onely to teach minister the sacraments but also that as a mayn parte or duety thereof to govern and rule the flock which no parochiall minister doth oâ— can take vpon him 3. The Church of England doth acknowledge no such calling as is cheifly grounded vpon the peoples choyce but onely that which is grounded vppon the Bishops ordination at the first and to the ministery at large and determinately eyther uppon the Bishops license or vppon the patrons presentation Bishops institution and Arch-deacons induction confirmed by the publique lawes of the same Church both ecclesiasticall civill According to which publique lawes and orders especially submission vnto them being publiquely professed and given as is by the minister here deciphered we are to judge of the publique ministery of the Church not according to the private intendiments and vnderhand professions of particular persons And let God all reasonable men judge between me myne opposite whether a man goeing to the publique governers of a Church desyreing of them a publique office or publique orders so receaving them according to the publique lawes of the same Church therewith authority to preach the word so preaching publiquely in the same Church whether I say such a man be not to be esteemed as called to that work by these governers so by coÌ„sequence whither al men pertakeing with him in that work of preaching for which he was so sent do nor partake therin withall what in them lyeth in the authority of the sender And for such a man except he have publiquely renounced his former calling to pretend in secret vnto his freinds whom he dare trust who he thinks will agayn trust beleeve him eyther that he preacheth not by that calling or by an other principally is but to put on a cloak of shame to walk in craftines more like in truth to a disguized familist then a minister of Iesus Christ. And if any ministery grounded as this man supposeth be to be found in any of the assemblyes I deny the â—ame to be the ministery of the Church of EnglaÌ„d about which our question is And howsoever men do build much vppon the peoples acceptance of and submission vnto theyr ministery yet is this a very sandy foundation wherevpon to build such a weight If they be not the lawfull ministers of those Churches before it is theyr syn to accept of them submit vnto them as such The peoples acceptance and submission are not causes but consequences of the ministers calling duetyes which they ow vnto them all theyr life long 4. The supposition is but an imagination that any parochiall minister doth administer the sacrameÌ„ts onely to such as are in charity discretion to be esteemed worthy He is by his parochiall cure shew me the man whose practise is not answerable to administer the sacrament of Baptism to all the infants born in the parrish though neyther parent can no not in the most enlarged if â—ot over-stretched charity be judged to be of the fayth so in the covenant of Abraham according to which covenant Baptism is to be administred Lastly I would know of this man so of others who would bring the presbiteriall government vpon the parrish assemblyes without a separation what should be done with such men of years in the parrish as are to be esteemed vncapeable of the L Supper It should seem as the common opinion is that such should be suspended so consequently remayning obstinate incorrigible excommunicated But by what law of God or reason of man do the Censures of the Church apperteyn vnto such as had never right to be of the Church nor were within Gods covenaÌ„t made onely with theyr faythfull theyr seed And since the Church is onely to iudg them which are within the same faln from theyr former holines at least externall how should not excommunication be greatly prophaned vpon such as never came vnder that
it in manner form then have been ever since the Pope was expelled not onely for not preaching for which no man is so censured but for all other wickednes of what kynde soever though abounding in the ministery there By which that theyr set service is advaunced above all that is called God made a very hatefull Idol to which both great small are compelled to bow down it to honour Which Idol-serviâ—e also vpholdeth an Idol-ministery which as it is truely so called would without it be vvell nigh as dumb as the Idols of the heathens which have mouthes speak not For conclusion he affirmeth that by the lawes of Geneva like strictnes to vvit vnto that in Engl is vsed towardes the inhabitants of that city though I vnadvisedly deny it in myne assertion of the Engl assemblyes difference therein from all â—mue Churches in the world pag 20. In that place of my book I observ tvvo mayn differences betvveen the Churches of Christ as the scriptures testify of them and the parrish asseÌ„blâ—es in their very constitution With these differences thus propounded he medleth not eyther by shewing how the assemblies agree therein with the Apostolicall Churches or how disagreeing from them in the one and other they can be true visible Churches rightly gathered constituted But where by the way for amplication I mention the reformed Churches as inâ—eressed in the same differences froÌ„ Engl he there stâ—ps in and takes me by the hand and leades me along to Geneva as bâ—like rayther hopeing to make the Church of Engl agree in some thing with the lawes of Geneva then with the lawes of Christs testament But was the Church of Geneva indeed gathered of all the apparently wicked and flâ—gitious persons in the citty amongst the rest scarse sensible in so vast a heap as were and are the English parrochiall assemblies If the state of Geneva did in a politique râ—spect expell out of the citie such the inhabitants as were not well affected towards the religion and that the Church were gathered of the rest being judged in charity capable of the holy things of God uppon their personall confessior how then standeth this agreement between the Genevean and Engl assemblies And if the Church of Gen had been gathered after popery as the Engl assemblies were and it was not of all the vnhallowed rowt in the citty vvithout separation I should confesse myne unadvisednes in my better judgement of it then it deserved And thus much for this letter which the Authour might more fitly have called â—n exercise of wit then â— Manuduction as he doth And for that it is in effect intended for the justification of the Ministerie it shall not be amisse for the better help of the Reader and furtherance of the truth breifly to set down such particulars as by the scriptures and good reason thereunto agreeable are of absolute necessitie for a true ordinary Church-officer and minister of Christ which for order sake I will reduce to four heads The first is that there be a true visible Church in which he is to be appoynted God haveing set in the Church Apostles Prophets Teachers etc mention being made every where of the makeing and ordeyning of Elders or Bishops in the Churches Whereupon 1. I desire to know how the ministers of the Church of England can be true Ministers not being made and ordeyned such in and to any particular Church 2. Since as is rightly acknowledged in the former part of the book Every true visible Church is a company of people called and separated out fâ—oÌ„ the world I would know how many and which of the parrish Churches consist of such a separated people and are not both at the â—est in their persons mixt of the people of God and the world and also mixt in one nationall provinciall and diocesan Church or body with all the godles multitude and part of the world in that land 3. I ad that since a separated people from the world is but the matter of the Church and that for a true Church a true form is also required it must also be shewed how that can be found there This form cannot be any particular act which is transeunt and passeth away but something constant and permanent without which resydeing actually in the whole and all the partes thereof the Church cannot consist one moment neyther yet can it be any personall thing eyther disposition or other relation whatsover nor other as I conceav then a publique orderly covenant and union of a particular assembly by which it hath in it self entyre right to Christ and to all the meanes of enjoying him which I rayther wiâ—h could be theÌ„ beleefe can be for the present found in any parrish Church in the land Lastly if the Provinciall and Diocesan Churches be not true visible Churches which I suppose is this Authours judgment I would know how the parrish assemblies being partes of the other and so partes of false Churches can any more be reputed true Churches then could a particular Iewish Synagogue be reputed a true Church which should have made it self an entyre and independent body in respect of the nationall Church and Temple But now if any of the parrish assemblyes be thus separated in theyr personall church estate and formed accordeingly though with defects wants we desire to take knowledg of them and which they be that we may rejoyce for the grace of God towards them and perform vnto them the dutyes of Christian fellowship as is meet The 2 d necessary for a true ministery is a fit person in whom apâ—nes to teach vnreproveablenes in conversation is found even reason teaching that whomsoever God calleth to any estate he fitteth coÌ„peâ—ently for the mayn works thereof In whom also for his own comfort with God is required an inward calling which with Calvin I conceav to be an holy disposition desire to administer the gospell of Christ to the glory of God and furtherance of mans salvation Which inward calling as a true minister before men may want as did Indas so for that they in Engl much pretend it wheÌ„ they caÌ„noâ— justify their outward I demaund whether a man thus inwardly called of God forefitted accordingly being withall perswaded in his heart that a lawfull outward calling without sin in the enterance continuance cannot he had in the Ch of Engl whether I say such a maÌ„ be not bound in conscience to seek out or procure an other Church then the Church of Engl in the present state thereof by vnto which he may laâ—fully enter administer how otherwise he doth not eyther carelesly neglect or sinfully profane the Lordes inward calling in his heart The 3 d thing necessary is a true lawfull office or function of ministery there being as the Apostle teacheth diversityes of administrations but by the same Lord even the L Iesus who when he â—scended on high gave gifts vnto men some Apostles some Prophts some EvaÌ„gelists some Pastours Teachers Now this office order not being a matter of dignity as the order of knighthood or the like but of work service this worke standing summarily in feeding the flock Act. 20. 28. and this feeding in teaching ruleing as the two mayn partes thereof I demaund how that can possibly be the true lawfull function or office of a Byshop or Pastour vnto vvhich preaching to the flock is not necessarily required not ruleing so much as permitted as vve all knovv the case standeth vvith the English ministery Lastly there is required a true lavvfull outvvard calling of the ministers by those in vvhom the Lord hath left that right povver vvhich if the scriptures may bear svvay are the particular congregations in and vnto vvhich they are to administer And of such force is this true lawful outvvard calling as that by it none othervvise this fiâ— and lavvfull person becomes properly immediately a true pastour And hovv then can he be a true pastour vvhose calling vnto his function or office of preisthood in the Ch of Eng is merely by the prelate of the province or Diocesse by vvhose licence or institution he is also aftervvards designed to his more particular charge These 4 conditions every of them are necessarily requyred to the constitution of a true pastour are none of them to my knovvledg save the 2 d to be found in the parochiall ministery Let myne opposite eyther disprove the former or manifest the latter hovv vvhere such a ministery is to be found but let him do it in that godly simplycity vvhich becommeth the gospel and the things thereof pâ—escribeing to himself vvith due reverence of God in vvhose vvorke he dealeth the sacred bounds of the Apostle saying we can do nothing agaynst the truth but for the truth In into vvhich the God thereof guide both him and my selfe and all his alvvayes Amen * Isa 35. 8. psalm 84. 6 8. Pro 8. 8. ◠†Ps. 119. â—â— * 1 Sam 17. 51. 1. Quaere Answer Act. 1. 13. c. 10. 30 47. 〈◊〉 7. 2. Quaere Anâ—w 3 Qu Ans. 14â—5 Mr. Fox Rev. 13. 15. 16. 17. 14 9. 10. Act 9. Rev. 18. 4. 4 Qu Ans. 5 Qu Ans Act. 20. 17. 20 1 Thes 5. 1â— 1 Tim 5. 17. â— Cor. 4. 2. Rom 15. 31 Heb 13 17 * Gen 17. †1 Cor 5. 12. â— Qu Ans Ioh 10. 7 Qu Ans 1 Tim 5 Numb 16. Act. 6 14 * Book of ordering of Preists Mat. 10 40 1 Cor 16. 10. Quae 1 2. Heb. 6. â— Quare impedit Pag 10. Ans to the 3 obiect * 1 Cor 10. Iohn 16. 39. †De excoÌ„municato capiâ—nâ—o Coâ—secration of Byshops 1 Tim. 5. 17 Heb 13 17. Mat. â—8 20. Deut. 4. 2. 6. 1. 2. Psal 119. 8. 1. Cor. 5. â— â— 1 Cor. 5. 4. â— Math. 28. Mark 16. Psal. 115. * 1. Cor. 12. 28. Act. 14. 23 20. 17. 28 1 Tim. 3 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim 3. 1 Cor 12. 5 Eph 4. 8. 11. 12 13. 1 Tim 3. 1. 1 Tim. 5. 17 Heb 5. 4. 5 Act. 1 c 14. 1. Tim 3.
condition of eternall holines Suppose at length that he be deprived by that prelate which formerly admitted him for not conforming to humayne corruptiâ—ns his people for fear of 〈◊〉 forsake him if he I say now reiected by the prelate witnessing agaynst his corruptions shal without seeking any new licence fynde place to preach the gospell in occasionally els where why should any refuse to hear him First this his deprivation especially for well doeing or not doeing evill by the prelates spirituall jurisdiction shewes his spirituall bondage vnto the Anticristian Hâ—erarchy as doth also his forsakeing his flock when â—he wolfe thus cometh declare by the testimony of Christ himself of what Spirit he is And very fadeing is the colour which here he sets vpoÌ„ the ministers cessâ—ation from theyr ministery which is the peoples forsakeing them for fear of daâ—nger whereas the contrary is most true that the ministers did vniversally for fear of daunger forsake the people and that in sundry places where the people offered to suffer persequution with them at the magistrates handes But myne answer is that this man remayning by the prelates ordination a minister of the Church of Engl as he was before his institution or licence so preaching by that calling communion cannot be had with him therein without submission vnto vpholding of the Prelates Antichristian authority which in that work he exerciseth Suppose lastly that the sâ—me man doth besydes the good actions which God hath commaunded admit of some thing at mans commaund which is not lawfull yet houlding the fayth building faythfully in the mayn things of the Gospell and it may be repenting also of what he hath done at his admission is no communion lawfull with him in those very things which if they were done by another after the same manner were heavenly dutyes May not his fault be an humayn infirmity in an externall ordinance May not some faultes of his enterance be circumstantiall personall actions by which his calling is not abolished This Quaere is in effect comprehended in the former in whose answers it hath also been answered But for more full satisfaction I further ad that I may not partake in the sinns though of humâ—yn infirmity of persons otherwise goâ—ly whether those sinâ—s be in the work done or in the vnlawfull calling of the doer of which we here speak and not of any personall or circumstantiall action as is in vayn insinuated And he that breaks down the partition wall which an vnlawfull especially an antichristian calling sets vp in the Ch not making coÌ„science of partaking therwith in duetyes how heavenly soever in themselves makes way for all Babylonish confusion neyther is Israel now to be blamed for communicateing with Corah in the heavenly duety of burning inceâ—se to the Lord to whom onely a lawfull outward calling was wanting he so ministering by an Anti-mosaicall as do the men of whom we speak by an Anti-Christian calling And for the ministers repenting of what he hath done at his admission it may well be called as truely being a supposition but of an impossibility and contradiction He cannot repent of his sin which is his reâ—â—eaving authority from the Bishop to preach but he must forsake renounce the same authority as he receaved it which if 〈◊〉 indeed truth he ceaseth to be a minister of the Church of England And thus it appeareth how this Authour is so far from leading a good conscience by the hand aâ—â—e promiseth as that he doth not so much as poynt out with the finger any passible way into publique communion with the parrish assemblyes as they stand but rayther haveing framed a plot of ministery other devise in his study sends men by doubtfull suppositions to seek they know not what nor where It remaynes we now come to his removall of the barrs which I in my book set in the way the first whereof is that such a parrishional minister is a branch of the prelacy as receaving power from it by which it doth administer and therefore all communion with it to be avoyded by Gods people His answer is that in proper accurate speach the minister whom he formerly described is no branch of the prelacy nor doth receave his power of ministering froÌ„ any prelate The question is not whether the minister which he describeth or rather Supposeth be a branch of the prelacy so minister or no but whether the ministery of the parrish assemblyes being partes of the Diocesses and Provinces be such or no. He addeth that the power of right he that is his supposed minister had before ever he had to do with any prelate which power is from God by the Church but a power of externall legall abillity to do that which from God by the people he had formerly right to do this he may be sayd to receav from the prelate He looseth himself in the labyrinth of his own devise for even his supposed minister had to do with the prelate both for license to preach orders of ministery before this supposed right conveyed to him by the people as appears in his Quae 3. 4. 5 compared together 2. None of the parrish assemblyes have in theyr hands as Churches power of right to chuse theyr ministers nor are the Lords free people in that case but do on the contrary stand in subjection bondage spirituall to the prelate and patron by whose appoyntment they must receave them will they nil they Indeed some of them do by favour or mony get ius patronatus into theyr handes so do agree amongst themselves what person they will present vnto the Bishop for theyr Clark but this they do not as a Church neither will or may the Bishop so receave him from them or appoynt him over them but as a patron which right any one profane person may have enioy as well as they nor that such a person may be ordeyned a minister in of that Church accordeing to the order Apostolicall but that being before or first a minister at large of the Bishops makeing and ordeyning he may by the same episcopall authority in way of licence or institution conveyed be determined to that particular parrish according to the Popish order So that if there were any thing in the distinction between the power of right of freedom he hath the power of right or authority by the Byshop at the first in his ordination the legall ability or freedom afterwards by the patron prelate presenting appointing him to his place so the parrish as a Church onely receaves him so appoynted by others But the distinction is more subtile then sound iâ— not a distinction without a difference yet a division of things inseparable in this kynde No man hath externall spirituall power of right to minister the holy things of God but by a lawful calling no man haveing a lawful calling wants
external spiritual power of ability or freedom to minister them of this power we speak as being that which the Bishops as the spirituall governers of theyr Prov Dioc do confer I know a man may be restreyned by violâ—nce or other bodily impediment from the vse of this spirituall freedom but then he is restreyned from the vse of his power of right also Whosoever hath the one hath the other by the same act whosoever hath a lawfull calling hath both Of his great mistakeing vpon which notwithstanding he builds the weight of his answer both in this the former parte of the book which is that the Bishops Provinciall Diocesan authority administrations are civile derived from the king I shall speak hereafter He ads that it cannot stand with my plea that such a man preaching diligently professing that to be his mayn office should in this work be a branch of the prelacy dâ—â—t by his power receaved by him For. 1. this is not any parte of the prelates power as he is a prelate to preach the word Which he also would prove by an affirmation in my book which is though he weaken the evidence of the truth thereof in relateing it that the prelates office and order is founded vppon theyr usurpation of the rights and libertyes wherewith Christ the Lord in his word hath endowed his Church the Elders for theyr government and the people for theyr liberty for the calling of officers censureing of offenders Power therefore sayth he of preaching can be no parte of it First that which he admits in myne affirmation hath enough in it to overthrow his consequence For if it belong to the prelates to call ministers that in calling them they give them power authority though no absolute charge to preach according to the order of that Church then followeth it vndeniably that those ministers thus preaching do therein excercise the prelaâ—es power that it may be sayd of the ministers and Bishops as Christ sayd of his disciples himself that whosoever receaves them which are sent receaves them which send them In submitting vnto or withdrawing from him that is sent by the king in a work of his office men do submit vnto or withdraw from the king himself his authority so is it in all estates subordinations whether Ecclesiasticall or civile as every one that dimms it not in himself may see by the light of nature And if vnto this be added that as the whole nation is devided into two provinces vnder the two Arch-Bishops and the Provinces into â—â—ndry â—â—oâ—eses vnder the Bishops and they into theyr severall parrishes vnder the ministers thereof so the Arch-Bishops and Bishops do share out vnto the parrish preistes in theyr ordination other assignementes a parts of theyr charge to wit so much as concerns the ordinary service of the parrish as vnto theyr chancelours commissaryes and Arch-deccors on other parts for inferiour government reserveirg to themselves the Lordship ever both for the best advantage of theyr own honour and profit it will then evidently appear as that the part is a branch of the whole that the parochial ministery is a branch of the diâ—â—esâ—n provinciall pâ—â—lacy By which ministery we are not to vnderstand as doth myne opposite the work of preaching or any other work whatsoever but the office power exequuted vsed in these works For if we will exactly weigh things in a just ballance we must consider of these three distinct poynts in the ministery 1. The office 2. The power 3. The workes The office is the very state function conferred vpon a man by his calling from which office ariseth immediately power charge to minister and to perform the workes of that office in the performance of which workes the office is exequuted and power vsed And if preaching diligently faythfulâ—y were the pastours mayn office then should Apostles Prophets Evangelists have the same mayn office with pastours for they all do that work of diligent preaching one as we â—as an other besides that this work is lawfully performed by him that hath no office at all therefore cannot be the Pastours office mayn or mean 2ly It followeth not because the office of the prelates is founded vppon theyr vsurpation of the Churches rights in calling of officers consureing of â—fferdersâ— that therefore power of preaching is no parte of theyr office Men may by theyr office have power to do more then the very things vppon which theyr office is founded otherwise the parochiall ministery should be very slightily founded considering how many trifles and superstitions the ministers have not onely power but charge also to perform By this mans reasoning theyr office should be founded vppoÌ„ the wearing of a surplice makeing a crosse c. for these they have power to do yea not power to leav vndone by theyr office There are among men many lawfull offices or orders those lawfully founded and yet not so perfitly but that some evil actions are through humayn fraylty done in by them so on the contrary is the office of prelacy vnlawfull vnlawfully founded and yet not so absolutely but that the good work of preaching may be and is performed in and by it Which preaching being also an inferiour work of that office and order which is principally set vp for government and that wherwith the Bishops do litle trouble the Churches it maâ— well be excluded froÌ„ the foundation of theyr office though a work thereof as there are also many doctrines of Christian religion besydes those which are properly called the foundations thereof though a work good in it self yet in the extent of theyr power to preach when and where they list in theyr provinces and diocesses exorbitant and antichristian so a parte of theyr usurpation whether of the foundation or building it matters not a parte of which power they also share out vnto the ministers in theyr severall parrishes An other argument he bring vpoÌ„ an affirmatioÌ„ in my book p. 29 that preaching is no natural or necessary parte of the parochiall ministers office This myne assertion in the first place he reprocheth as an intemperate speach proceeding from an impotent sicknes of mynde which yet sayth he may be vsed agaynst my selfe If I were sick of any such impotency of mynde as he in his potency of mynde pronounceth I should surely fynde him a phisition of no value which brings no other medicine then a reproch to cure me withall Onely he insinuates a reason agaynst that I say which is that preaching the word is expresly mentioned in the ministers ordination And is it not also mentioned in the ordination of a Mas-preist of whose office notwithstanding it is no necessary or naturall parte yea is it not evident that one and the same ordination serves both for a Mas-preist parochiall minister being given by a popish Byshop and so
be of the Church the minister of them to take charge as his flock as the parochiall ministers do but as the same is a part of the Bishops flock well serving for to supporte his lawlesse Lordship Now no man weighing these things with an equall hand will judge them light and sleighty matters but weighty as he speaks substantiall in about the ministery Which therefore cannot stand as now it doth in the severall parrishes when God in mercy to that nation shall root out that plant of the prelacy which his hand never planted Where after to myne obiection charge that all the parochiall ministers are subject vnto the jurisdiction of the prelates spiritually in theyr citations suspentions and excoÌ„munications he for answer alledgeth that prevate Christians are subiect to the same jurisdiction personally for personall private opinions and behaviours also it is that which I say vppon which I infer a separation from the formall state government of that Church every manner of way since with the sinns of Babylon whereof I have proved in my former book the Hierarchicall government one no man may partake But if herevppon he would conclude the vnlawfulnes of private or personall communion with the godly as well as of publique or Church communion I must deny his consequence because I would not repeat the same things agayn do desire the Reader to take knowledg of the double difference about this matter shewed in my former book But he gives a 2 d answer vppon which also the lawfulnes of the Byshops authority is much pleaded throughout the whole book Which by the way I desyre the Reader to observ withall how such as go on in opposeing our separation are driven in the end to justify the Bishops authority though diversly His answer defence is The greatest parte of theyr jurisdiction being externall coactive or forcing is from the king derived vnto those that do exercise the same therefore must of necessity be a civile power such as the king might as well perform by other civile officers as it is indeed exercised in the high-commission some other courts also â—he lawes of the land do so esteem it as Sir Edward Cook now L cheif justice of Engl hath largely shewed in the first book of his reportes Divers pleas for the prelates have been made by men diversly mynded touching them but that theyr jurisdiction in theyr provinces Diocesses should be civile coactive for externall we graunt it to be which is ill joyned as the same with civile coactive since even spiritual ordinaunces are externall also this I say is a plea which to my remembrance I never heard of before The Authour in the front of his book proclaymes the vnreasonablenes of our separation but I hope the Lord will give me grace and modesty never to defend or continue in that state standing for which I shal be driven to make so vnreasonable a defence which is indeed an argument of an ill cause of no good consideration that I say no more in the writer For the better then both clearing of this poynt here and elsâ—where in the book help of others otherwise it must be considered that the Byshops have in theyr haÌ„ds a double authority the one civile as magistrates the other spirituall as Church-officers and so do perform workes of divers kyndes according to these their divers callings By the former they sit with other Barrons in the parliament-howle for the enacting of lawes statutes vnder bodily punishments some of them also being of the kings pâ—ivy councell some of his high commission haveing therein ioynt authority with other Lords Magistrates civil They are generally in the Countyes Shyres where they live Iusticers of peace in the same Commission with other honourable worshipfull personages thus they sit vppon the bench at Assises Sessions have authority civil ioyntly with the other Iusticers so severally as they at other tymes to apprehend imprison fyne punish bodily malefactors according to the common lawes of the land theyr office of Iusticeship and all these theyr administratioÌ„s they perform expresly in the kings name In which also they are to be honoured obeyed as are other civil magistrates whatsoever by all the kings subiects wherein for my self I professe communion with submission vnto theyr authority power But besydes this theyr civil authority they have also ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as they are the Arch-Byshops of Provinces Byshops of Dioceses And thus they with the rest of theyr triumphant Church Clergy sit in the convocation house frameing Canons constitutions ecclesiasticall vnder spirituall penaltyes Thus they ordeyn ministers institute them to theyr several charges give them licences to preach within theyr provinces Diocesses Thus they keep theyr spirituall courts by themselves theyr subordinates Chauncelours Commissaryes Arch-Deacons other theyr officials citeing men thither by theyr Apparitours as on the contrary in theyr civil administrations though in matters ecclesiasticall they vse Pursivants Constables There and thus they suspend depose degrade ministers as at the first they ordeyned and appoynted them as they also excommunicate absolv both ministers and people as they see cause proceeding in all these not in the name of the king as in the former but expresly in the name of God in vnto which theyr vsurpation of the name or power of God Christ no communion may be had or submission yealded And where he affirmeth that the greatest parte of theyr Iurisdiction to wit in theyr Provinces Diocesses is derived from the king which he might as well perform by other civile officers that the lawes of the land do so esteem it alledging to that end S. Edw Cook L cheif Iustice there is a great mistakeing in the matter No onely the greatest parte of but in effect theyr whole Iurisdiction in theyr provinces diocesses standes in theyr ordeyning of ministers excommunicateing of offenders with theyr apurtenances in theyr contraryes of the same nature Now to make the power of excommunication of ordination of ministers civile or these such workes as may be performed by civile magistrates the king or others is to confound heaven earth to make Christs kingdome whereof these works in theyr nature are administrations to be of this world This power of the prelates is in it self nature spirituall in the extent of it over an whole Province Diocese all the Congregations therein to the abolishing of the power both of officers people papall antichristian Of which the kings civile authority is no parent but onely a nurseâ— otherwise the king should be not the dâ—fender onely but the authour of the Churches sayth in her government ministery Papists have made of Popes kings by deriveing from them civile governments and will protestants make of kings Popes by
by consequence that there is one the same office of both though exercised in some different workes So also is ministring the disciplyne of Christ as the Lord hath commaunded expresly mentioned in his ordination is it therefore a necessary work of the Parochiall minister or is he any more then the Bishops mans man in publishing his court censure The Bishop also expresly bids his ordeyned one Receav the H Ghost Doth he therefore so receav it Or know we not that it is Antichrists guise and that not a litle advantageable to the mistery of his iniquity to keep the formes of good wordes without the substance of things so vnder the name of Christ to subvert Christs truth and ordinances I would to God the notorious ignorance and vtter inability to preach the gospell in the greatest parte by farr of the parochiall ministers to the destruction of so many 1000 soules for which Christ dyed did not cry out vnto God and men agaynst both that Church Prelacy and ministery that preaching is no necessary parte or work of theyr office There is but one order or office of preisthood in that church how can that be a naturall or necessary parte of that office which the most of those officers want this especially being by the constant practise of the puqlique governers according to the constitution and state of that Church ministery and government the publique lawes thereof also both ecclesiasticall and civile approveing it as otherwise so by appoynting homilyes to be read by such as are vnable to preach Such a one the patron may present for his Clâ—rk to any parishonall charge and may also compell the Bishop will he â—ill he to institute him by processe of law whom the people also are bound to receav as theyr minister with him to communicate vnder penaltyes civil and spirituall Let Baal then plead for himself even the wearing of a surplice and signeing a babes forehead with the crosse are more naturall and necessary to the parochiall ministery considered both in the common practise and publique lawes then is preaching of the gospell For inability to preach though most ordinary no minister is or can be deposed but for not conforming how many in a few years Myne affirmation then how licenciously soever myne opposite censureth both it me is so appareÌ„â—tly true as it cannot be denyed without losse of credit both to the person cause of the denyer in the eyes of all reasonable men Vppon which affirmation of myne his inference notwithstanding is of no force viz. that such ministers as give themselves to preaching do not in that buesines excercise any power receaved from the prelate as a branch of him because that power must then have been a naturall parte of his office It followeth not For as some partes or workes of the parochiall ministers office are naturall and necessary as to read divine service c. so are other workes or partes thereof but casuall arbytrary as is this of preaching as the person can or will It is not by any absolute necessity required of every minister to preach but yet he that doth preach doth it by authority of the prelate in his parrish as in a parte of the prelates province or Diocesse And where he speaks of the ministers not excercisâ—ing the power receaved from the prelate in that buesines of preaching it is as a poore shift so a vayn insinuation that though in other buesinesses he did excercise the prelates power yet not in that of preaching Wheras he both preacheth readeth divine service doth whatsoever he doth publickly by one the same ecclesiastic power office He is not one officer in the desk another in the pulpit though his works be divers â—ut the B ps minister in both He ads as opposite to an affirmation of myne pag 30. that though the prelacy were pluckâ—d vp yet the parochiall ministery might stand still as reason he sayth but shewes none will teach and experience sheweth in Denmark Saxony Hâ—ssia other partes of Germany But wherefore doth he lead me to Churches so far off whose estate I neyther can easily know nor he happily justify Why doth he not rayther insist in the better both known reformed churches in the low couÌ„tries I perceav if I follow him in his ManuductioÌ„ he wil lead me coÌ„passe enough Well I deny marvell he would affirm that the same parochiall office and power of ministery doth remayn in those Churches which was in vse before the extirpation of the prelacy there The office it self was the order of Mas-preisthood the power derived from the Pope popeish prelacy That the works of preaching and prayer performed by many of the parochiall ministers and also by some of the Masse-preists may remayn though the prelacy be taken away with it the parochiall preisthood also is without doubt as they do in the reformed Churches and with vs where there is neyther prelate not parochiall minister but our question is not about some particular workes as myne opposite makes it but as hath been oft observed about the very function it self and the power by which it is given and vsed And for the poynt since all the ministers of that Church are made appoynted by the Bishops authority take away the same Bishops authority and how can the ministers remayn the same ministers Take away the correlative and the relation ceaseth 2. Take away the prelacy and how possibly can such a ministery continue as is the parochiall whereof the one of the two partes though the inferiour which stands in feeâ—ing the flock by ruling shal be vsurped and possessed by the prelates and theyr ordinaryes 3. Take away the Provin and Dioc Prelates and with them the prov and dioc churches and then the parochiall churches as partes of them must fall with them theyr whole and with the churches the ministers as partes of them 4 It is not possible that the prelacy being abolished such an office of ministery of which office the reader must still remember our question to be should survive as whereof men vtterly vnapt to teach should be capable as it is with the parochiall ministery Can such stuffe passe thorough any but Byshops fingers or will the Lord ever wipe away so much of theyr shame as to suffer any other hands but of prelates and theyr chaplayns to be layd vppon the heads of such Idoll-preists Or is it possible that in any other then the Episcopall governmeÌ„t the ministery of â—o many zealous and learned teachers should hang vppon the cop-web of conformity to Crosse Surplice such vanityes be in daunger every day for refusall thereof to be broken asunder Can this web be woven by others then Byshops or of other stuffe then comes out of theyr bowels Lastly is it possible that in such light of the truth as now shineth in Engl all the profane parrish without difference should be compelled to