must beare his owne burthen and that every man ought by his owne innocencie to purge himselfe bee other mens offences never so great or seeme his owne in his owne eyes never so small But we have therefore balanced the toleration of scandalous and vnlearned ministers with the molestation of learned and godly Ministers to the end your Lordshippes vnderstanding the number of sinnes and impieties every where daily abounding by the multitude of the former and the scarcitie of godlines in every place to be seene by the paâ—citie of the later your Lordshippes by your wisedomes might foresee and by your authorities prevent that pestilent contagion of ignorance of Gods revealed will which by this preposterous sufferance of the one violent progresse against the other is ready to infect the whole Church and by consequence to lay wast the common weale as a pray to the popish faction For is there not by this meâ—nes a way prepared and made ready for the greatest part of the people to revolt from the Gospell to poperie and so from their naturall and Christian Lord and King to a forein antichristian Pope For let the booke of God be once sealed vp from the people in English as in time of poperie it was sealed vp vnto our fathers in Latine and let the people by example of the wicked scandalous life of Ministers be drawne along in their owne naturall corruption who will not be ready to assist every Iesuite Seminarie wheÌ„ he shal preach poperie the very mistris and mother of all corruption rebellion The wearing of a whit Surplice and the feyned making of an ayrie crosse in Baptisme how litle the popish faction by the same wil be quieted and kept in awe the late outragious starting out in Wales and their madd combynings in other places may be a good caveat for your Lordshippes to consider whether their driftes bee not rather to enterprise a more publike disturbance then to continew them selves within the listes of that obedience wherevnto they were constreyned in the raigne of our late Soveraigne of blessed memorie Queene Elizabeth Your Lordships therefore could not but performe a most acceptable service first vnto God and his Church secondly vnto the King his Realme if your Lordships would be pleased to bee petitioners vnto his Maiestie that by his Regale and Supreame power there might bee an healing of the former errour and vncharitablenes of the Diocesans and other ordinaries For it can not be denied but that by their manner of proceedings they haue sinned against God in this that they have aequaled nay rather in some things preferred their owne Canons Decrees before the commaundement of God And therfore it cannot be but that they have herein as much as in them lay provoked the wrath of God against the King and his whole Realme if by the Kings zeale this their so grosse a sinne be not reformed My Lordes we are well advised what we speake herein before your Lordships for we speake nothing but what we prove thus Whosoever for not wearing a Surplice or for not crossing in Baptisme suspendeth or depriveth a Preaching Minister otherwise vnreproveable for life and doctrine and not suspendeth nor depriveth but tolerateth an vnpreaching minister scandalous in life ignorant of doctrine the same person preferreth in this thing the observation of his owne Canon and Decree before the commandement of God But some Diocesans and ordinaries for not wearing a surplice for not making a crosse in Baptisme do suspend and deprive preaching Ministers otherwise vnreprovable for life and doctrine and yet doe neither suspend nor deprive but tolerate vnpreaching ministers scandalous in life and ignorant of doctrine Therefore some Diocesans and Ordinaries in this thing preferre the observation of their owne canons and decrees before the commandement of God We could heape argument vpon argument vnanswerable to this purpose but we should then passe the boundes of an epistle and become over tedious vnto your Lordshippes Only therefore we most humbly beseech your Lordships in the behalfe of the faithful Ministers of Christ with patience to heare thus much viz. that for their dissenting in matter of ceremonie from the Diocesans they ought no more by the Diocesans to be traduced for factious sectaries or seditious scismatickes then the Diocesans them selves ought to be traduced for such maner persons by their owne dissenting from the Cardinals and Popes of Rome For there being as litle difference betweene a sect and a scisme as there is betwene a besome a broome there being also as smal oddes betweene faction and sedition as betweene an edifice and a building it followeth the Ministers dissenting from the Diocesans of England or the same Diocesans dissenting from the Cardinalls and Popes of Rome if neither of them be seditious scismatickes that neither of them can be factious sectaries When Paule was accused by Tertullus that he was found a pestilent fellow and a moover of sedition among all the Iewes thorough all the world the Apostle answered that they neither found him in the temple disputing with any man neither making vproare among the people neither in the Synagogues nor in the Citie Art not thou saith the chief Captaine speaking to Paule the Egyptian who before these dayes raysed a sedition and led out into the wildernes foure thousand men that were murtherers By which places it appeareth that a seditious or factious person by the holy scriptures is adiudged to be such a kind of person as who boasting himselfe rayseth leadeth or draweth away much people after him and vnto whom much people resort and obey yea and by the civile law not every one that omitteth some duetie commanded but such a one as gathereth people together or stirreth theÌ„ to make a tumult and shall drawe him selfe and his followers to some place of safetie to defende him selfe and them against an evident commandement and publike discipline only such a man I say by the civile lawe is to be punished as a seditious factious person For these kind of meÌ„ only are properly said seorsum ire partes facere Seditio then being quasi seorsum itio and faction quasi partium factio yea a sect also being sic dicta quia fit quasi sectio vel divisio and a scisme being illicita divisio per inobedientiam ab vnitate Ecclesiae facta vel illicita diâ—cessio eorum inter quos vnitas esse debet it followeth that whosoever by inobedience or tumultuouslie goeth not a part or maketh not a part from the vnitie of the Church but either in doing or suffering quietly submitteth him self to the lawes that he can neither be factious sectarie nor seditious scismaticke And indeed my Lords from hence is it that the Diocesans and whole Clergie of England ever since they made a separation from the vnitie of the Church of Rome have falslie bene named and reputed sectaries scismatickes as though they
had without cause devided them selves from the vnitie of the true church of Christ. Whereas in trueth the Church of Rome by hir Apostasie having cut hir selfe from the vnitie and vniversalitie of the doctrine and discipline of the true and mother church of Ierusalem is hir selfe become the most notable and prime sectarist and scismatick of all the world And of whose schismes our Diocesans so farre as they partake with hir can not be but guiltie Vnles then the Diocesans can approve them selves touching their vse of ceremonies and Diocesan governement to stand in vnitie with the true new Ierusalem in these dayes repaired departed from the old scismes and sectes of Rome we assure our selves that they shall never bee able to prove those ministers which stand not in vnitie either of iudgement or practise with them but be conscionably and so lawfully divided in these things from them for such division to be sectaries or scismatickes For it must be an vnlawful discession by inobedience from the vnitie of the first and mother church of Ierusalem and not a lawfull departure vpon conscienc efroÌ„ the vnitie of the daughterâ—daughterâ—church of England that maketh a sect or scisme For otherwise ought not all other Churches stande in vnitie of ceremonies and governement with the church of England or vnlawfully dividing them selves from the church of England must they not become scismatickes sectaries And how then are not almost all the christian and reformed churches in the world not onely almost but altogether scismatickes and heretickes For have they not divided them selves from all those rites ceremonies and ornaments yea from that maner of Diocesan governement which are yet reteyned in the Church of England My Lords I confesse that brevitie and perspicuitie are two commendable graces of the toung and of the penn such as in all mens speeches and writings are much to be affected But yet how long or tedious soever already I have bene I most humbly beseech your Honorable Lordshippes to licence me to passe on one steppe further especially the matter being of such importance as the same may not well bee passed over with silence It hath pleased Sir Edward Cooke Knight his Maixsesties Attornie Generall with all candor and charitie to confirme and satisfie by demoÌ„strative profes all such as were not instructed in these points following First that an ecclesiastical Iudge may punish such Parsons Vicars c. as shall deprave or not observe the booke of common prayer by admonition excommunication sequestration or deprivation other censures and processe in like forme as heretofore hath beene vsed in like cases by the Queenes Ecclesiasticall lawes though the act of primo Eliza had never insflicted any punishment for depraving or not observing the same Secondly seeing the Authoritie of an Ecclesiasticall Iudge is to proceed and to give sentence in ecclesiasticall causes according to the ecclesiasticall law that the Iudges of the common law ought to give faith credit to their sentence and to allow it to be done according to the ecclesiasticall law when the iudge ecclesiasticall hath given sentence in a case ecclesiasticall vpon his proceedings by force of that law For saith he cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum Now then as these two pointes bee plainly taught and demonstrated vnto vs so also even by the same demonstrative reasons it is cleere that there must be first a depraving or not observing of the booke secondly that every sentence given by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge in a case of depraving or not observing of that booke must be given according to the ecclesiasticall law and vpon his proceedings by force of that lawe in like forme c. From whence it followeth that all sentences touching depravation or not observatioÌ„ of the booke be either voyd sentences by reason of nullitie or no good sentences by reason of iniquitie and iniustice if by the Iudges Ecclesiasticall vpon their proceedings the same sentences have not bene given by force and according to the same lawes in like forme as heretofore hath bene vsed in like cases by the Kings Ecclesiasticall Lawes or if the factes charged vpon the Ministers by the iudges ecclesiasticall by the letter intendement of the law be no depravations or not observations of the same booke And therefore to the end all questions touching these two poyntes might hereafter vtterly cease and bee quite buried your Lordshipps could not performe a more acceptable service to the King the Church and Realme then by an humble importuning his Maiestie to have it explaned by parliament both who by the letter and true meaning of the Statute bee depravers or not observers of the booke and also what lawes Ecclesiasticall may and of right ought to be called indeed and trueth the Kings Ecclesiastical Lawes For vnlesse aswell touching these pointes as touching the former pointes of Sir Edward Cooks it be throughly decided what is the binding and assured law how should the Ministers or others content and satisfie themselves with an vndoubted trueth And that this maner of controversie about the invaliditie of sentences of deprivation given by ecclesiasticall Iudges is not a controversie now first moved but that the same hath bene long since handled and discussed is a matter yet remayning I doubt not vpon publike record For whereas sentences were given in the tyme of King Edward the sixt for the depriving of Steven Gardener from the Bishoprick of Wincester Bonner from the Bishopricke of London Heath from the Bishoprick of Worcester Day from the Bishopricke of Chester Tunstall from the Bishopricke of Durham Vessay from the Bishopricke of Exeter wherein many grave and learned commissioners were imployed as the Archbishop Cranmer Ridlie Bishop of London Goodrick Bishop of Elie Sir William Peeter and Sir Thomas Smith the Kings Secretaries Sir Iames Hales one of the Iudges of the Law Maister Gosnell Maister Goodrick Maister Lisley Maister Stamford men notably learned in the common lawes of this Realme Mai. Leveson and Mai. Oliver Doctors of the Civill Law nevertheles the same sentences were in the tyme of Queene Mary revoked and disannulled without Perliament within the space as myne Authour sayth of three dayes by vertue of other Commissioners for faultes found in the processes viz. that the former Commissioners had proceeded ex officio without authoritie contrary to the Kings Ecclesiastical Law sometimes quod iuris ordo non fuerit servatus c. sometimes that the Interrogatories were ministred to divers persons without knowledge of the defendants c. sometimes that some of the witnesses were examined privately without oath sometimes that their exceptions and appellations were not admitted but their persons committed to prison pendente appellatione c. And therefore most honorable Lords it is to be considered if the like or greater and more notorious defaultes and enormities bee to bee found in any sentence of deprivation given ex officio by a Diocesan governour at this day whether the same sentence
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
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
grounded vpon the said statute bookes or Provincials sundry grave learned and godly Pastors and other Ministers for sundry yeares passed have bene deprived suspended or excommunicated from their benefices dignities promotions and ministeries for not vsing the surplice If the Archbishops Bishops and other ordinaries have heretofore proceeded lawfully in this case by any other right then statute lawe it were greatly to be wished a thing tending every way to their honor credite and reputation that the same their Iustice were made publikely knowne to the end all maner persons and states might rest them selves fully satisfied and well perswaded of the integritie of such their proceedings as wherof they now stand in doubt For our partes we acknowledge that the Queenes Highnes had authoritie by the statute with the advise of her Commissioners c. or Metropolitane to take other order for ornamentes But wee never yet vnderstood that any other order was taken accordingly and especiallie in any such sorte as that the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries might warrant their sentences of deprivation to be lawfull against the Ministers which refuse to vse the Surplice By the Advertisements wherevpon as it seemeth they did principally rely and by authoritie whereof they did chiefly proceed it is apparant that neither the letter nor intendement of the statute for the alteration of ornamentes was observed And that therefore the commaundement of wearing a Surplice in steed of a white Albe playne by the advertissementes was not duely made For though by her Highnes letters it doth appeare that she was desirous as the preface to the advertisemēts importeth to have advise from the Metropolitane cōmissioners that she might take order nevertheles that her Highnes by her authority with their advise did take order alter the ornamēts this I say doth no where appeare no not by the advertisements them selves Howsoever then the Metropolitane vpon the Queenes mandative letters that some orders might be taken had conference and communication and at the last by assent and consent of the ecclesiasticall commissioners did think such orders as were specified in the advertisements meete and convenient to be vsed and followed neverthelesse all this proveth not that these orders were taken by her Maiesties Authoritie For the Metropolitane and Commissioners might thinke agree and subscribe that the advertisementes were meete and convenient and yet might these advertisements be never of any valew as wherevnto her Highnes authoritie was never yeelded But be it graunted that the Surplice by the Advertisements or other canons hath bene duely authorized yet herevpon it can not bee concluded that an ordinary by his ordinarie Iurisdiction hath power to deprive a Minister from his benefice for not vsing a Surplice vbi non sertur in contra facientes aliqua poena constitutio est imperfecta modicum prodesse poterit quoad contra facientes there being thē no peine mencioned in the advertisementes to bee imposed vpon a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice how should a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice suffer the losse of his benefice which is one of the greatest peynes Herevnto happily it wil be answered that vbi certa poena statuta est non debet Iudex ab ea recedere vbi vero non est statuta tunc est imponenda ad arbitrium Iudicantis And further that respectu poenae infligendae proper contemptum Iudicis non reperitur provisio regulariter à lege facta ideo Judex potest arbitrio suo poenam imponere Touching which answeres it may brieflie be replyed that the peyne spoken of in the civil law is generally vnderstoode of a pecuniarie peyne to be assessed and applied to the silke or more specially it may be vnderstood that among many corporall peynes the Iudge arbitrarily may choose which shall seeme to him most modicinable Now these kinde of peynes it is manifest that neither of them by the ordinarie Iurisdiction ecclesiasticall in the church of England can be imposed for contempt And as for that which to the same effect may bee alleadged out of the forein canonistes or forein canon law thus standeth the case The whole plott frame of the building of the canon law as before hath bene proved is cleane ruinated and wasted From whence it followeth that all the posts sommers walles plates rafters and roofe of that pallace with all the yron leaden and wooden implementes and vtensilles thereof be all likewise rotten and naught else but drosse canker And so from the Nullitie thereof it is to be inferred that an ordinary can not defend or practise his ordinarie Iurisdiction by that law against any of the Kings subiectes For all strange and forein law is both a strange power and a forein traytor to the Kings crowne and for that cause can not be pleaded in any of the kinges ecclesiasticall courtes without being in danger of loosing her head Howsoever then this rule in the romish consistories by the Romish law be true that an Ordinarie for inobedience or contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne where a statute or constitution hath appointed no peyne yet because this rule is an irregular enimy to the regiment of the kings Crowne it seemeth that the kings subiect is wronged whensoever an ecclesiasticall ordinary for contempt shal impose arbitrarily any peyne for the which peyne he hath not expresse warrant from the kings ecclesiasticall law Besides if the Romish canon law were the Kings ecclesiasticall law yet doth not the former exception prove that a Parson or Vicare may be deprived from his benefice by the ordinaries iurisdiction for the not vse of a surplice only the said exceptiō affordeth thus much viz. that if an ordinarie iudicially and canonically as they call it according to the sanctions not of the English but of the Romish church have admonished a Minister to weare a surplice the exception I say affordeth in this case thus much that his ordinary for contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne if so be nether by common right nor by constitutiue law there be an ordinarie peyne imposed But now so it is that this case falleth not out to be within the compasse of the peyne of deprivation for not wearing a surplice For it is contempt only and not the not wearing of a surplice that arbitrarily may bee punished in this case Why then though an ordinary be not able by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes to drawe in a Ministers deprivation principally and by the head for not wearing a surplice yet it seemeth that he may drawe in the same consequently as it were by the tayle namely by chardging him with wilfull periury or obstinat contempt for the which causes he may iustly be deprived Nay soft good Sir your conclusion is without premisses For who ever graunted that the Romish canon lawe was the Kings ecclesiasticall law howsoever then from part of mine answere made to the exception of contempt you
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
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