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
spirituall usurpation like myrie clay The. 4. Argument is vaynly built upon a supposition which formerly was proved false viz that all the civil iurisdiction which prelats haue cōsisteth in their being privy councellers high commissioners or iustices of the peace This therfor needeth no further answer Onely let it be observed that Mr. R. in defending of the separation as well as I in opposing it doeth iustifie some part of the authoritie which Byshops exercise in England professing communion vvith it and submission unto it The onely quaestion is how much of their authoritie is such Let preiudiciall insinuations groundlesse imputations therfore be layd aside and that quaestion onely discussed The last argument is raised from a forme of words used by the-Byshops in that they proceed in the name of God not in the kings name as all civile proceedings doe Wherunto I answer 1. That a sound convincing argument cannot be brought from words of forme office If they should change their stile begin their actiōs in the king name I doubt whether Mr. R. would allow of that as any strong reason for their civill authoritie 2. Many actions are performed with the same words of forme as all wills or testaments c which yet are no spiritual but civil deedes So Henrie the fourth king of England began his clayme to the crowne In the name of God amen I Henrie of Lanc. c as it is in Mr. Foxe p. 474. Yet was not any other then a civil claime 3 I affirme thatit is an abuse against lawe that Byshops in their acts of iurisdiction doe not use the kings name and therfore howsoever that the formal words be wanting yet the thing it self is to bee understood viz as Sr Ed. Cooke hath written that howsoever the forme runneth in the Byshops name yet the authoritie is no other but the kings This I will shew by an instance most pregnant Byshop Farrar in king Edwards days being troubled vexed by evil Willershad amōgest other these 2 articles obiected agaynst him as deserving deprivation 1. that he appoynted his Chancelour by his letters of commission omitting the kings maiesties stile authoritie c. 5. Item he hath commonly made his collations iustitutions as he did his first commission in his ovvne name authoritie vvithout expressing the kings supremacie To the first the Byshops answer was that what formalities soever be wanting in his commission yet the kings maiesties stile authoritie was fully set forth in the same commission Neyther did the sayd chancelour offer to visit but in the kings name authoritie to the sayd Bishop committed To the fifth he sayth that the sayd defendāt made his collations institutions in his owne name not by his ovvne āuthoritie nor by any others fave onely the kings authoritie according as he hath declared in his first article expressing in them the kings supremacie with the Byshops owne name seale of office as he ought to doe according to the prouision of the kings statute in such a case See Mr. Foxe p. 1405.1406 In which one plea we haue the authoritie of statute the sentence of lawyers iudges with the confession practise of prelats themselves for the kings name authoritie to give life unto their proceedings Heere it must be observed that this accusation answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediatly on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherin it was enacted that the Byshop should make their proces vvritinges in the kings name and that theyr seales should be the kings armes Which act was but an appendix declaring adding forme to that statute of supremacie made in Henry 8 his dayes wherby ecclesiasticall iurisdiction was annexed to the crowne so as all Byshops were to fech it from thence Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queere Maries time and not since revived yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henrie 8. to be such as hath been sayd which statute is now in force Howsoever the Byshops haue undoubtedly the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therfore they were thē civil officers proceeding by the kings authoritie they are also now such viz of civil nature for their state deriving their iurisdiction frō the king though they proceed not in his name so formaly as in king Edwards days they did now in reason they should THus much for that obiection touching spiritual subiection Concerning which I found nothing further directly perteyning unto the purpose except one passage which I found p. 30. Where these words are they vvho thus disclaym in vvord the Byshops governement confesse themselves therin to be under no spirituall externall government at all so be lavvles persons inordinate vvalkers c. This because it sounded as a dangerous deepe charge ensuing upon that former defense which was made that good ministers are no branches of the prelacie nor necessarily dependent on them as spiritual officers I thought it needfull to give answer unto it My answer therfore did consist in these 3 branches 1. That ther was no such want of spirituall governement in the ministers which governe themselves well as could be a iust barrt against all communion with them seeing privat men living in the same want may well be communicated with 2 That they are subiect unto some spirituall governement And 3. That for that want of government which they are in they are no more lawlesse walkers or inordinate walkers then Mr. R. himself is whoe is not subiect to any other spirituall government then they are except he will say that the people governe him which he counteth to be a reproche Now let us hear what replie he maketh 1. He pleadeth that he did not infer this exception upon the former ground But let that passage of his book be wayed p. 29.30 And it will be found that against his allegation of the parochiall ministers being a branch of the prelacie this was one defense that they are not subiect to their government wherupon this inference followeth that then they are inordinate vvalkers lavvles persons Which is the very same order of inference that I observed 2. He sayth it vvas not alledged to prove communion unlavvfull vvith them but as a reproof c. But seeing the main reason was for unlawfulnesse of communion because of their branching out of prelacie and the allegation nothing but an establishing of that reason by removall of one principall defense supposed to be brought for it it must of necessitie tend unto the same ende of barring from all communion And in deed if it were not a slander it were none of the weakest arguments which he hath alledged 3. He affirmeth the 1. and 2. Ansvver to be beside the purpose because they speak onely of personall or civill or else a more generall kind of government then he intended vvhoe spake onely of outvvard guidance and