published which hath but the shew of a booke then as it seemeth hath the Clergie no law but the shewe of a law to enforce the vse of such a booke as the State hath not authorized And therefore we may not for clearing the Clergies iust reproofe confesse an vntrueth and still conceale a kinde of iniustice vnwitting to the State executed by the Cleargie vnder a colour of Iustice as if their iniustice by colour of errour were maintainable by the State For so contrarie to all reason and good duetie which we owe to the state and to the Church we should not only interlace the innocencie of the State with the guiltines of the Cleargie but also mingle the churches industrie with the Clergies ill husbandrie It is therefore no cavill to oppose a iust and true answere to an vntrue and vnsound plea For albeit the two bookes agree in many pointes and specially in mencioning the making of a crosse c. nevertheles the parish booke can not therefore any more truely be counted that booke which is authorised by act of Parliament then can that coyne bee reckoned to be the Kings coyne which hath in it nine partes silver and the tenth part copper nether is it any more lawfull for an ordinary to presse the vse of a booke in it selfe corrupted though in many points it agree with the originall then it is sufferable for the Kings Iustices to enforce the vse of a coyne in it selfe counterfeite though in forme and charactere it be like the Kings Image and superscription Wherefore the mencion made in the parish booke of making of a crosse c. not being a matter of power sufficient to warrant the parish booke but the booke authorised by act of Parliament being a matter of power to warrant the making of a crosse c. wee may iustly avow the booke of common prayer attayned and gotten by the parishioners not to bee that booke which the Ministers in their day he ministration of divine service be bound to vse notwithstanding the making of a crosse and signing the child in the forehead with a crosse be therein mencioned If reply bee made that this plea would but litle ease or advantage the Ministers in case the right booke should be reviewed corrected and new printed we then reioyne and averre First that the day is past long since before which time this worke should have bene refined and that therefore it is now too late without a new law to reviewe and amend the same Secondly that this plea will not only but litle ease and advantage the nullities iniquities and iniustices of sentences heretofore passed by the ordinaries vnder colour of that booke but also much advantage the King and his state if his Maiestie might bee pleased to do as King Ioash king of Iudah or as K. Henry the eighth king of England did king Ioash in or about the beginning of his raigne as it seemeth having appointed the Priestes to take all the silver of dedicate thinges brought to the house of the Lord and therwith to repaire the broken places of the house wheresoever any decay was found and the Priests vntill the three and twentith yeare of his Raigne not having mended that which was decayed nor repayred the ruines of the Temple the king I say because of the Priests negligence commanded the Priests to receive no more money and tooke from them the ordering of the money and committed the same to his Secretary and to Iehoâ—ada the high Priest who gaue the money made ready into the hands of them that vndertooke the worke and that had the oversight of the house of the Lorde of whom there was no reckoning taken because they dealt faithfully If the Priestes then of our age have not only not within three and twentie but not within three and fortie yeares published that booke which is mended and corrected by the Queene her state in the first yeare of her Raigne but also for the space of eight and fortie yeares have suffered a corrupted booke to be intruded into the place of a true booke we commend it to the wisedome of our Soveraigne Lord king IAMES who is as an Angell of God to discerne betweene things that differ there being no high Priest in our dayes like faithfull as was Iehoiada the high Priest in the dayes of king Ioash whether his Maiestie might not be pleased for the redresse of this and other corruptions in the Ecclesiasticall state to appoint as king Henry the eighth did an other Cromwell to be his Maiesties Vicegerent and Vicare generall over the Clergie Vnto these differences and alterations betwene the two bookes not mencioned in the statute may be annexed both an addition of certaine new prayers and some alteration also of the forme of the old prayers to be said after the end of the Letanie By addition in the parish booke there be set three severall prayers not any one of them mencioned in the Kings booke viz. A prayer for our Bishops Curates beginning thus Almightie and everlasting God which only workest great marveilles send downe vpon our Bishops and Curats c. Secondly a prayer out of the 2. of Corint 13. 13. viz. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ c. And thirdly a prayer beginning thus O God whose nature and propertie is ever to have mercie c. And whereas by the forme of King Edwards booke the Letanie should ever end with this collect following viz. Almightie God which hast given vs grace at this time with one accord c. and so this collect should be after the prayers for rayne for faire weather in the time of dearth in the time of warre and in the time of any common plague or sicknes as the time requireth This collect I say by King Edw. booke appointed to be said after all these prayers is by the parish booke set before all these Yea and it is to be said also before the prayer beginning O God whose nature propertie is ever to have mercy By meanes wherof the very forme and order of some prayers appointed in the Kings booke and by the statute commaunded to be vsed and none other or otherwise is so transposed and inverted as that the minister observing the parish booke can not but breake the order and forme of common prayer commanded to be vsed and so can not but cast his body one whole yeares fruites of his benefice vpon the kings Iudges and Iustices mercy Moreover besides these additions and alterations in the end of the Letany of King Edw. booke there is one prayer inserted which by the parish booke is wholy left out namely O God mercifull Father which in the time of Heliseus c. Lastly at the latter end of the communion in the kings book there is one Rubrick concerning kneeling at the communion which Rubrick is not in the parish booke the same beginneth thus Although no order c. There is also one Rubrick among those Rubricks
provided to bee worne the Surplice may not be worne For the better manifestation whereof it is necessary that we set downe the wordes of the Statute of the parish booke and of the booke of the second of K. Edw. the sixth vnto which booke of king Edward for the vse of ornaments the Ministers be referred both by the parish booke statute of 1. Eliza. c. 2. the wordes of which statute are these Provided alwayes and be it enacted That such ornamentes of the Church and of the Ministers shall be retayned and be in vse as was in the church of England by authoritie of Parliament in the second yeare of the raigne of King Edward the 6. vntill other order shal be therein taken by authoritie of the Queenes Matestie with the advise of her Commissioners appointed and authorised vnder the great seale of England for causes Ecclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme Thus farre the statute the wordes of the parish booke follow It is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion and other times in his ministration shall vse such ornamentes in the Church as were in vse by authoritie of Parliament in the second yeare of King Edw. the sixth according to the act of Parliament in that case enacted and provided The wordes of which booke of the second of King Edward are these Vpon the day and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy Communion the Priest that shall execute the holy ministerie shall put vpon him the vesture appointed for that ministration that is to say A white Albe playne with a vestiment or cope Afterward it is said thus Vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes the English Letany shal be said or song c. And though there he none to communicate with the Priest yet those dayes after the Let any ended the Priest shall put vpon him a playne Albe or Surplice with a Cope and say all things at the Altar c. From all which places it is plaine First that no Minister at any time vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes after the Letany ended was bound simplie to weare a surplice at the Altare for it was in his choyse to put vpon him a playne Albe or Surplice with a Cope Secondly that no Priest vpon the day and at the time appointed for the Ministration of the holy communion might put vpon him a Surplice but only a white Albe playne with a vestiment or Cope Thirdly that no Minister vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes when hee read the Letany did weare or was bound to weare an Albe or Surplice and Cope For it had bene in vayne and a thing ridiculouse for the booke to have willed the Minister after the Letany ended to put vpon him those ornamentes if in the time of reading the Letany hee had had them vpon his backe Fourthly that no minister at or in any of the times services aforesaid is bound to put vpō him a Surplice vnlesse therewithall he weare a Cope For the vse of ornamentes ought to be according to the act of Parliament And therefore where no Cope there by the act no Surplice where no Altar to goo vnto after the Letany ended there no Surplice to be put on after the Letany where a Communion with a white Albe plaine a vestiment or Cope there a cōmunion without a Surplice There is yet one other speciall observation before touched though for an other purpose worthy to be reiterated in this place against the vse of the Surplice at the communion reading the Letany and saying prayers at the Altar And that is this Namely for that as well the Statute 1. Eliza. as the parish booke hath revived and commaunded the vse of those ornamentes according to the Act of Parliament 2. Edw. 6. which were repealed and forbidden by the booke of the 5. and 6. of King Edward the sixth It is to be noted saith the booke of 5. and 6. of King Edw. 6. That the Minister at the time of the communion and all other times in his ministration shall vse neither Albe vestiment nor Cope but being an Archbishop or Bishop he shall have and weare a Rochet and being a Priest or Deacon he shall have and weare a Surplice only And here it is to be noted sayeth the parish booke that the Minister at the time of the communion and at all other tymes in his ministration shall vse such ornamentes in the church as were in vse by Authoritie of Parliament in the 2. yeare of the reigne of King Edw. the 6. according to the Act of Parliament in that case made and provided which were as the booke of K. Edw. saith an Albe with a vestiment or Cope at the communion and an Albe or Surplice with a Cope vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes after the Letany ended But by the Provinciall constitutions ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament the parishioners are enioyned at their costes and charges to provide a Surplice and in vayne were this charge layde vpon them if so be the Minister were not bound by the law to weare it It is true and can not be denied that all parishioners are enioyned and that every Masse-priest is bound by the Provincials the one sorte to provide the other to weare a Surplice for and at the celebration of the Masse and for and in the vse of other popish services The reason of the vse of which Surplice by the popish Glosers and Provincials is yeelded to be this That the Priest must be clothed with white to signifie his innocencie and puritie and also ob reverentiam Salvatoris nostri totius caelestis curiae quam sacramento altaris consiciendo confecto non est dubium interesse But how doeth it follow either from the provincall or reason of the provinciall that a Minister of the Gospell is bound by the provinciall to weare a Surplice at the ministration of the word and Sacraments of the Gospell when the doctrine and service of the Gospell is contrarie and repugnant to the service and doctrine of the Masse And when by the statute the Provinciall is not to be vsed and executed but as it was vsed and executed before the making of the statute which was Anno 25. of King Henry the eight at what time the service of the Masse called the Sacrament of the Altar was only in request A Minister therefore of the Gospell by the Provinciall is no more bound to weare a surplice then by the Provincials other lawes of the Realme he is bound to say a Masse For the Provinciall appointeth a surplice to bee worne at the Masse and other idolatrous services all which services and which Masse as being blasphemous to the sacrifice of our Saviour Christ once made vpon the crosse repugnant to the holy worship of God is abrogated by the lawes of the Realme Now then it were to bee wished that all states were given to vnderstand by what equitie law or good conscience
soever they should have grounds and causes so to doe Mary since when as the Discipline and governement provinciall diocesan ministred and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased and his Suffraganes was diversly handled disputed and controverted not to be agreeable but repugnant to the holy Scriptures necessarie also for the repressing of vice the increase of faith and Christian religion to be changed they herevpon iustly fearing that the most vertuous Christian Queene deceased vpon sundry cōplaints made in open Parliament against their many vniust greevances would have reformed the same their maner of governement they then presently vpon new advise and consulation taken boldly and constantly avouched the same their governement to have bene from the Apostles times and agreeable to the holy scriptures and therefore also perpetuall and still to be vsed in no case to be altered by any king or Potentate whatsoever By meanes of which this their enclyning to the popish opinion and holding their Iurisdictiō to bee de iure divino professedly mainteyning in the Homilie wherevnto also subscription is vrged that the King and all the Nobilitie ought to be subiect to excommunication there is now at length growne such a mayne position of having a perpetuall Diocesan and Provinciall governement in the church that rather then their Hierarchie should stoope they would cause the Kings Supremacie which he hath over their said Iurisdiction to fall downe to the ground In so much as by their supposition the King hath no authoritie no not by his supreame power to alter their sayd governement at all And to this end and purpose as it seemeth in their late canons have they devised and decreed this booke of ordination to be subscribed vnto Which subscription can not but quite and cleane overthrow the Kings supremacie and auncient iurisdiction in the most dangerous degree For if their Provinciall and Diocesan orders and degrees of Ministerie together with their iurisdiction be to bee vsed as established and derived vnto them by the holy scriptures how then can it be in the power and iurisdiction of the King to graunt or not to graunt the vse of Provinciall and Diocesan Bishopisme and iurisdiction Or how may the provinciall Bishops with their Diocesan Suffraganes be called the kings ecclesiasticall officers if their iurisdictions be not derived vnto them from the king For if they be called Gods Bishops or Bishops of Gods making how then may they anie more be called the kings Bishops or Bishops of the kings presenting nominating and confirming Nay besides who then can alter them who can restreyne them who can revoke or recall their power and iurisdiction who can resist them or what king of England may pluck his neck from vnder their yoke Nay how should the kings Supremacie as by the ancient Lawes of the Realme it ought remayne inviolable when his Royall person whole Nobilitie and Realme is subiect and lyable to the censure of the canon Law excommunication Which law the Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops to this day in right and by vertue of their Provinciall and Diocesan iurisdiction and none otherwise do stil vse practise and put in execution Besides if Bishops Provinciall and Diocesan as they be described in that book be commanded in the Scriptures and were in vse ever since the Apostles times then ought they to be in the Church of England though the King and his law never allowed nor approved of them But to hold this opinion as it will vphold the Popes supremacie because the generall reasons which vphold a Provinciall Bishop will vphold a Pope so will it once againe not only impeach the Kings supremacie but also be repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realm By which supremacie lawes and customes only the provinciall diocesan Bishops have bene hitherto vpheld For seing the lawes and customes of the Realme doe make the Kings nomination presentation and confirmation the very essence and being of a Provinciall Diocesan Bishop with vs So that these offices ought to be held only from the authoritie gift and graunt of the King how ought not the kings nomination presentation authoritie and gift yea and the law it self in this case wholy cease if the order degree ministerie and iurisdiction of a provinciall and diocesan Bishop be founded in holy Scripture Vnlesse we shall affirme that that was in the Apostles times which was not or that that is to be found in holy Scripture which is not Namely that there were in the Apostles times and that there be in the holy Scriptures no Bishops but provinciall and dioceasan Bishops to bee found And that by the law of God and the Gospell every King and Potentate hath supreme power to suffer none but Provinciall Diosan Bishops to be in the Churches So that by subscription to allow that provinciall and Diocesan Bishops be Scripturely Bishops and that their iurisdiction and power is a Scripturely iurisdiction and power is to deny that their iurisdiction and power dependeth vpon the kings iurisdiction and power or that by the kings gift and authoritie they be made Bishops But how doeth subscription you will say to the booke of ordination approve the orders and degrees of provinciall diocesan Bishops to be by Divine right rather then by humane ordinance How Why thus it is evident saith the preface of that booke to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have bene these orders of Ministers in Christes Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Yea and by the whole order of prayer and of Scripture read vsed in the forme of consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop it is apparant that the order of an Archbishop or Bishop consecrated by that booke is reputed taken to be of Divine institution And therfore seing the names of those orders of Ministers must necessarily be taken and vnderstood of such orders of Ministers as be sett forth and described in the body of that booke it must needes be intended that the Ministers by their subscription should approve the orders of Ministers mencioned in that booke to be of Divine institution and consequently that provinciall and diocesan Ministers or Bishops have not their essence and being from the nomination gift authoritie of the King Besides if we should vnderstand by the word Bishop him that hath the Ministrie of the word and Sacraments as the Pastor teacher and by the word Priest the Presbiter that is the Governing elder and by the word Deacon the provider for the poore then for the Ministers to subscribe to the booke of ordination would no way iustifie those officers or degrees of Ministers which are described in that booke but would indeed vtterly subvert and overthrow them Because the orders and degrees of a provincial diocesan Bishop of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that booke be of a farr differing nature from those orders and degrees of Ministers which are mencioned
Parliament and doctrine of the church of England Concerning addition and alteration specified in the act there be divers and sundry other alterations and some additions also in the parish booke differing from the booke of King Edward in wel-nigh l. materiall poyntes And for the vse of which pointes if the Kings Iudges and Iustices should as strictly and rigorously proceed as the Bb. have done and yet doe for the not vse of the Suâ—plice Crosse they might bring all the ministers of the church within danger of sixe monethes imprisonment and of the losse of one yeares profite of all their spirituall promotions to the King For these words of the statute that all and singular ministers in any Cathedrall or Parish church c. be bound to say and vse the Mattens Evensong celebration of the Lords Supper and administration of each of the Sacramentes and all their common and open prayer in such order and forme as is mentioned in the said booke so authorized by Parliament in the fifth sixth yeeres of the Raigne of King Edward the sixth with one alteration c. and none other or otherwise These wordes I say doe as exactly and precisely bind all Ministers to vse the book of King Edw. and none other or otherwise in all poyntes excepting the excepted as they binde anie Ministers to vse the rites ceremonies mencioned in the said booke But how can any Minister vse that order of service and none other or otherwise which is appointed in the booke of fift and sixt Edw. 6. excepting the excepted when as some other order of service exceptinge the excepted is concluded within the booke provided by the Parishioners And for the vse of which booke rather then for refusall of the vsâ— of which booke a minister is punishable by the statute And to make the thing which we have in hand to be vndeniable without cavil namely that the booke provided by the Parishioners is not that booke which is authorised by act of Parliament it is to be noted besides the alterations and additions specified in the statute that there is one great and mayne alteration betweene the two bookes of sundrie chapters appointed to be read for the first lessons at Mattens Evensong vpon divers festivall dayes Which alteration also it is evident that the same was made generally and for the most part from the better to the worse namely from the canonicall scriptures to the Apocriphall writings from whole chapters to peeces of chapters and that as it seemeth not without fraud and collusioÌ„ to the Queene Realm The proofe of which alteration is apparantly scene by the severall kalenders of both bookes Vnto which kalenders for the first second lessons except the same be proper lessons at morning and evening prayer the minister is referred For in a Rubrick before Te Deum at morning prayer it is said There shal be read two lessons distinctly with a loude voyce the first of the old testament the second of the new like as they be appointed by the kalender except there be proper lessons assigned for that day And in the order for evening prayer it is thus said Then a lesson of the old Testament as is appointed likewise in the kalender except there be proper lessons appointed for that day And after Magnificat then a lesson of the new Testament Now these first and second lessons whether they be proper or not proper lessons assigned by the parish booke that many of them doe vary from thâ— first and second lessons appointed by the booke of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. is plainly to be seene not only by the kalenders of both bookes but also by the order appointed for proper lessons A paterne whereof at certeyne feast dayes followeth  Kalender of King Edwards originall printed booke Kalender of the Parishes printed booke Stevens day Morning prayer 1. lesson Esa 56 Morning prayer 1. lesson Pro. 28 Evening prayer 1 lesson Esa 57 Evening prayer 1. lesson Eccle. 4. Saint Iohn Morning prayer 1 lesson Esa 58 Morning prayer 1 lesson Eccle. 5. Evening prayer 1 lesson Esa 59 Evening prayer 1 lesson Eccle. 6. Innocents Evening prayer 1. lesson Esa 60 Evening prayer 1 lesson Wisd 1â— Vpon the circumcision day both bookes agree saving that King Edwa. readeth the whole 10. chapter of Deuter. at evening prayer and the Parish booke but part vpon the Epiphanie the chapters at morning and evening prayer for first and second lesson by both bookes are the same But the Genealogie of our Savior Christ mencioned in the third of Luke by the Kings booke is appointed to be read whereas by the Kalender and one rubricke in the parish booke the same is appointed not to be read  King Edw. Kalender The parish bookes Kalender Convers of Paule Morning prayer 1 lesson Ge. 46 Morning prayer 1 lesson Wisd 5 Evening prayer 1 lesson Gen. 47 Evening prayer 1 lesson Wisd 6 Purification of Mary Morning prayer 1 lesson Ex. 12 Morning prayer 1 lesson Wisd 9 Evening prayer 1 lesson Exo. 13 Evening prayer 1 lesson Wisd 12 Mathias Morn prayer 1 lesson Num. 33 Morning prayer 1 lesson Wis 19 Even prayer 1 lesson Num 34 Evening prayer 1 lesson Ecclus. 1 Annunciat of Mary Morning prayer 1 lesson Jos 21 Morning prayer 1 lesson Ecclus. 2 Evening prayer 1 lesson Jos 22 Evening prayer 1 lesson Ecclus. 3 Vpon Monday and Tewsday in Easter weeke vpon the ascension day and Whitsunday King Edwa. booke appointeth no proper Chapters for the first Lessons but only proper chapters for the second lessons and so referreth the Minister for the first lessons on those dayes to the chapters which by the common Kalender are appointed to bee read vpon those dayes Whereas the parish Booke appointed proper chapters aswell for the first as second lessons vpon all those dayes Vpon Monday and Tewsday in Whitsunday weeke by the K. book there be no proper chap. appointed for the first or secoÌ„d lesson at morning or evening prayer whereas the parish book appointed vpon Monday part of Gene. 11. at morning prayer for the first lesson and for the second lesson 1 Corint 12. And for the first lesson at evening prayer of the same day parte of the 11. of Numbers Vpon Tewsday in the same weeke for the 1. lesson at morning prayer part of the 19. 1. kings and for the first lesson at evening prayer Deut. 30.  King Edwa. Kalender The parish bookes Kalender Marke Morn prayer 1 lesson 2. K. 3 Morn prayer 1 lesson Ecclus. 4 Evening prayer 1 lesson 2. K. 4 Evening prayer 1 lesson Ecclus. 5 Philip and Iacob Morn prayer 1 lesson 2. K. 15 Morn prayer 1 lesson ecclus 7 Evening prayer 1 lesson 2. K. 16 Evening prayer 1 lesson ecclus 9 Barnabe Morn prayer 1 lesson Hest 3 Morn prayer 1 lesson ecclus 10 Evening prayer 1 lesson Hest 4 Evening prayer 1 lesson ecclus 12  King Edw. Kalender The parish bookes Kalender Peter Morn
of this act Now by what other words then by these of this provisoe could the Parliament more fully and clearly have expressed their mind that the same by the tenor and effect of this provisoe intended for ever wholy to seclude all Papall and foraine canons from being vsed and executed within this Realme For at the petition and submission of the clergie the Parliament having first enacted that neither they nor any of them from thencefoorth should presume to attempt alleadge clayme or put in vre any constitutions o◠ordinances Provincionall or Synodalles or any other Canons And againe at the petition and submission of the Clergie the same Parliament having committed to the view search examination and iudgement of the King and 32. persons such Canons constitutions and ordinances or the said Canons constitutions and ordinances provinciall and Synodall which as thertofore had bene made by the Clergie of this Realme And lastlie by this proviso the same Parliament having enacted that such Canons provinciall constitutions provinciall ordinances provinciall Synodalls Provinciall for the word Provinciall by the whole tenor and effect of this Act can not in this place but have reference to everie of these wordes shall still be vsed and executed c. till such tyme as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said two thirtie persons c. Seeing these things I say be thus First submitted then afterwards committed and lastly provided and not one word sillable or lotter ayming at the continuance vse keeping or obedience of the popish canon law it can not bee averred by any vnlesse he be too too conceited opiniative that the Canon law or any part thereof made by the Pope without the Realme may lawfully at this day be attempted alleadged claymed or put in vre within the Realme by any Iudge Ecclesiasticall what soever yea and thus much also is confirmed by a statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. Howsoever therefore the Kings of England deryving their Ecclesiasticall Lawes from others being proved approved and allowed hereby and with a generall consent are rightly and aptly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande in like maner as those lawes which the Normans borrowed from England were called the lawes of Normandie and as those lawes which the Romans fetching from Athens being allowed and approved by that state were called Ius ciuile Romanorum howsoever I say this be true nevertheles herevpon it will not follow that those Ecclesiasticall lawes thus borrowed and derived from others may then any more rightly and aptly be called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande when once by and with a generall consent in Parliament they have bene disproved and disallowed Yea and when also they have bene vtterly adnulled and commanded never to be put in execution within the Realme of England From whence it seemeth to follow that whatsoever subiect shall take vpon him full and plenarie power to deliver iustice in any cause to any the Kinges subiects or to punish any crime and offence within the Kings Dominions by vertue of those lawes once by so absolute high an authoritie disanulled that the same person denyeth the Parliament to have full power to allow and disalow lawes in all causes to all the Kinges subiects and consequently that the high Court of Parliament is not a compleat Court for the whole and intyre body of the Realme Wherefore albeit we graunt as the trueth of the Kings law is vnto the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries that lawfully they may proceede to inquire in their visitations and Synodes and els where to take accusations and informations of all and every thing and things above mencioned done committed and perpetrated within the limites of their iurisdictions and authoritie and to punish the same by admonition suspension sequestration or deptivation though thus much had never bene provided by the statute nevertheles we desire to be resolved whether any minister ought to bee punished by these or any other censures and processe before the ordinarie for any offence mencioned in this act if for the same offence the same Minister by vertue of this act be not punishable before the Kings Iustices And therefore for example sake put this case viz. That a Minister for the not crossing of a childe vpon the forehead after baptisme is fully administred be indighted before some of the kings Iustices and afterward vpon a traverse before some other of the kings Iustices the same Minister be found to have ministred the same sacrament of Baptisme in such order and forme as in the booke is prescribed Notwithstanding the omission of this ceremonie after baptisme and that vpon such a traverse the indightment before the said second Iustices be found to be vnsufficient in law and the Minister by the same Iustices be adiudged not to be in danger of the penaltie of imprisonment c. because his such not crossing is no offence against the law we demand we say in this case whether the same Minister by the Bishops of the Diocesse may be suspended or deprived from his ministerie or from his benefice for the same his not crossing yea or no. Considerations against the deprivation of a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice in divine service IN the whole body of the statute there is not one syllable or letter frō the which any semblance of reason can be deduced that any Minister of the church for refusing to vse or for the not vsing of any ornament appointed by the statute or by the book to bee in vse should be punished with the peyne of deprivatiō For what soever punishment a Minister for the breach of the Statute may sustayne by the kings Iustices the same is only to be imposed for such offences as are specified before the last provisoe of the statute Ornamentes therfore of the church provided to be reteyned and to be in vse being not cōteyned in those premises or things mencioned before the second provisoe concerning the Archbishops and Bishops authoritie and for refusing whereof a Minister by the premises is punishable it followeth there being no punishmēt for refusing the vse of ornaments in the last provisoe that the not vse of ornamentes is not punishable before the kings Iustices And if there be no punishment appointed to be inflicted before the kings Iustices for the refusing to vse any ornament thē much lesse is there any punishment to be inflicted for the refusall of the vse of a Surplice For the Surplice is so farre from being commanded to be worne as an ornament in every service of the church as the same is not so much as once particularly mencioned either in the parish booke or in the statute Nay by the generall wordes both of the statute and the booke the Surplice is wholy secluded from being appointed to be an ornament of it selfe in some part of the service of the Church For if with the same in some part of the service there be not a Cope
as he was perswaded grounded vpon the holy commandement of the most high God that he durst not for feare of wounding his owne conscience and displeasing God to weare the surplice in any part of Divine worship For if the request of an earthly king superior to an Archb. be a reasonable excuse to save a BB. from contempt against an Archb. How much more ought the authoritie and precept of an heavenly king be a iust and reasonable impediment to save a minister from contempt against a Bishops admonitiō Vnlesse then a Bishop will avow and be able out of holy writ to iustifie that a Ministers conscience especially a Ministers conscience who walketh as Zakarias did in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe can not be any iust or reasonable excuse or impediment why he ought not or may not or will not in Divine worship weare a surplice being thervnto admonished by his ordinary vnles I say the Bishop out of holy writ be able fully to prove that such a Ministers conscience is no iust or reasonable cause to stay him from wearing a surplice in Divine worship in this case I say that even by the Romish canon law it self there can no contempt be charged vpon such a Minister for not obeying his ordinaries first second third admonitions the reasons whereof even out of the same canon law have bene alleadged before in the first parte of these cōsiderations But to leave the foraine canon law and all the rules thereof as being no branches of the Ecclesiasticall lawes of England let it be granted that before the statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. some canon or constitution Synodall or Provinciall had bene made or since have bene made by the Clergie of the Realme in their cōvocation assembled by the Kings writ that a Parson or Vicare for periurie or contempt ecclesiasticall should bee deprived of his benefice neverthelesse it seemeth that the same is a voide canon and a void constitution Because it is contrary or repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realme By which lawes and customes no free man of the Realme can be dispossessed of his franck tenement for contempt or periury in any of the kings temporall Courts All Parsons and Vicars then canonically instituted inducted being not subiects at this day to any forain power but being freemen of the Realme in as large and ample maner as any Layickes the Kings other subiects be it seemeth that a Parson Vicare by the lawes and customes of the Realme being a Freehoulder should for none other cause loose his Freehould then for the which like cause a Layicke may loose his Yea and because no Layicke by the laws customes of the Realme may bee put from his Freehould for contempt no though the same cōtempt be committed against the kings Proclamation or any decree made in his high Courte of Chancerie by so much the more vnreasonable it seemeth to be that a Parson or Vicare for contempt against his ordinaries admonition should bee deprived from his benefice by how much a contempt against the Kings commaundement is more heinous then is a contempt against the ordinaries admonition You mistake the cases as it seemeth you vnderstand not the law The Freehold of a layick and the Freehold of an ecclesiasticall person be not of one nature The former belongeth vnto him by a title invested in his person but the latter apperteyneth vnto a Church-man in the right of his Church If then the Churchman be displaced from his Church it followeth by a necessary cōsequence that he must likewise be discharged from his freehold For he being in the eye of the law dead vnto his Church can no more enioy the freehold which he held in the right of his Church then can a dead Layick any longer holde a Franktenement in right of his person And for your better satisfaction herein I would have you to consider that the like course of Iustice is kept and ministred against certeine officers in the common weale which officers so soone as for any iust cause they shall be put frō their offices doe withall and forthwith loose such their freeholdes as iointly with their offices and in regard of their offices they held The Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete having their offices graunted for terme of life though other of them by the same graunt be seised of a freehold the one of the house called the Rolles the other of the house called the Fleete nevertheles if the first bee put from his Mastership and the second from his Wardenship neither can the one nor the other by the law and iustice of the Realme reteyne either of those houses as his Freehold For as the houses were iointly with their offices in respect of their offices granted So their offices being once taken from thē they must withal by necessary consequence forgo those their houses w ch for the time they held as their freeholds Well if this be all that may gaynesay our position then be not our cases mistaken neither yet have we so ignorantly vrged applied the law and free customes of the Realme as you would beare vs in hande For though we grant whatsoever you have excepted to be true yet can not the same be a barre against our pleading For wee have hetherto pleaded no more in effect but thus viz. that a Parson or Vicar during his ministeriall function being in the eye of the law no dead but a living person and a free man of the Realme ought no more for a contempt vnto his Ordinaries admonition by any law of he Realme bee dispossessed from the freehold which in right of his function he enioyeth then can a Layicke for contempt vnto the Kings commandement be disseised of his And what if the Freeholdes of a Layick of an ecclesiastical person be as you say they be diversly possessed the one by right of church the other by right of person what doeth this I say impugne our saying that no Freeholder for cōtempt of the Kings cōmandment may be punished with losse of his freehold whē the great Charter of England telleth vs that a freemā shall not be amerced for a small fault but after the quantity of the fault And for a great fault after the maner therof saving to him his contenement or freehold If then vnto every freemā punishable by the law though his fault be great his Contenement or Freehold ought to be reserved it seemeth much more reasonable to follow that no Churchman being a freeman of the Realme may for contempt be punished with losse of his Contenement or Freehold And that you may consider against our next conference more deeply of this matter let me put this case vnto you viz. That a Churchman and a temporall person both freemen of the Realme for one and the selfe same contempt against the king were punishable by the great Lordes in the starre chamber