Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	power_n	3,023	5	5.3607	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77860	Reasons shewing the necessity of reformation of the publick [brace]1. doctrine, 2. worship, [double brace] 3. rites and ceremonies, 4. church-government, and discipline, reputed to be (but indeed, not) established by law. Humbly offered to the serious consideration of this present Parliament. By divers ministers of sundry counties in England.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1660 (1660)	Wing B5678; Thomason E764_4; ESTC R205206	61,780	69

de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct

Order to have the sole power of Ordination which hath been proved not to be so It is requisite that herein also some Declaration be made to the contrary that we may not give offence to the Protestant Churches with whom we hold Communion nor admit of such an untruth among our selves to which all must subscribe 4. As for Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops in which the same Scripture 1 Tim. 3. is read again that was used in Ordaining of Priests which sheweth that the Compilers of that Book never dreamt of a distinction of Orders between Bishops and Presbyters we onely say thus much That there being no warrant in Scripture for Archbishops but onely from the practice of after-times whereby they were by men onely called to that height we see no necessity of their Consecration no more doth our Church for that it makes the same Consecration which is for Bishops to serve for Archbishops Upon this account we see no reason why a solemn Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Archbishop should then be administred to every person that is to be Bishop The Exception against that Expression of the Archbishop in the act of Consecration of a Bishop Take the Holy Ghost being spoken to before here we onely make the same profession against it which there we did and so leave it and proceed to the next Head of Ecclesiastical Government which is Jurisdiction II. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IT hath been of late the claim of our Bishops to have in them the sole power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical which is now pleaded for so boldly and openly by their Advocates and such as asspire to the same Office and Dignity that it is now made though very groundlesly an Essential part of Episcopacy by Divine Right witness among other the Author of an Answer to a Letter sent to Doctor Turner to Oxford who alledgeth several Scriptures viz. 1 Tim. 5.19 Tit. 1.5 to prove that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is in Bishops onely To the same effect the Author of another Book intituled Church-Lands not to be sold So others But seeing Bishops can exercise no Jurisdiction in England but what is allowed by the Laws of the Land as we shall after make it manifest to every eye we shall not much trouble our selves at this time with their claim by Divine Right Howbeit lest they should think there is nothing to be said against it we desire it may be considered which is known to all that have seriously consulted Antiquity that in the Primitive Ages of the Church there was no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercised but by the Bishops and their Consistory of Presbyters together Even in Rome it self there was even in Cyprians time a number of the Clergy who acted with the Bishop as well as elsewhere Thence grew by Corruption their Conclave of Cardinals And from the same Original here in England first Monks afterwards Deans and Chapters were joyned with the Bishops to assist both in Ordination and Jurisdiction although of late times they joyned with them in neither Such was the Pride of the one and the Idleness of the other Which last his late Majesty was content to part withal They being of no use but onely to confirm Grants of the Bishop as he confirmed theirs keeping sundry Benefices of Cure in their hands and seldome or never residing on them under pretence of residence near the Bishop whereas the Canons of 1603. require them to reside on their Benefices with Cure all but the space of one moneth in the year * Can. 44. unless he be a Dean Master Warden or chief Governour of a Cathedral or Church who by Can. 42. is to reside there ninety days Conjunctim or Divisim This is spoken not to justifie the Continuation of Deans and Chapters or to move for reducing them to the ancient course of corrupt times in making them alone to be the Adjutors of Bishops for Jurisdiction is as proper to all the Presbytery as to those Cathedral Presbyters But we urge it meerly and onely to demonstrate the falshood of that upstart Assertion that Bishops have sole power of Jurisdiction And that we may contract our selves within necessary brevity considering to whom we make our Address we shall give but one instance more and that shall be out of the Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests Where among other Questions propounded by the Bishop to him that is to be ordained Priest this is one Will you reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you following with a glad mind and will their godly Admonition and submitting your self to their godly Judgements To this each of them that are to be ordained answereth I will so do the Lord being my helper By this it is evident that more beside Bishops have power of Jurisdiction If it be said this may be meant of ARchdeacons Deans c. that have it under the Bishop what is this to the intituling of all Ministers thereunto It is answered out of the Rubrick before the Communion whereby every Curate is authorized to keep off from that Sacrament every open and notorious Liver by whom the Congregation is offended until he have openly declared himself to have truely repented and amended his former wicked life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied Yea where he finds hatred and variance he is to suspend from the Sacrament the party refusing to be reconciled to the other and be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath transgressed against him and to make amends for that he himself hath offended What is this but as much and as high Jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular If this suffice not take one passage more In the same Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests The Bishop asketh every person whom he ordaineth a Priest this Question Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the DISCIPLINE of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same c. To which each Priest is to answer I will so do by the help of the Lord. What can be a more clear evidence of the intention of our Church in the first Reformation then to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in the Administration of it How long Bishops and others under them have had Ecclesiastical Consistories to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to us is not certain Yet it appeareth by Sir Edw. Cook ● Instit ca. 53. p. 2259. that William the Conqueror was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln did prohibit Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts wherein before-time all Ecclesiastical matters were heard and determined to intermedle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them to the Bishops Thence some conclude that Bishops have held Courts ever since William 1. Others finding no

exigitur quam consulitur there is a service set up which however it was appointed by God to be once used by the children of Israel so soon as they were gone over Jordan into Canaan Deut. 27. yet is now no way warrantable in the Publique Worship of God that is for the Minister openly to denounce Curses upon all sinners divers times in the year and that not in the ordinary Reading-place but out of the Pulpit To which all the people are required to say Amen Whereby many of them are necessitated to curse themselves But as for that place in Deuteronomy that is no warrant for this now Because that was no part of the Publique Service then incumbent on the Priests or Levites nor to be done by any in the place of Publique Worship but upon Mount Ebal and that by six of the Tribes to wit Reuben Gad Asher Zebulun Dan and Naphtali ver 13. and that but once And let it be observed that Levi was none of them that were appointed to Curse nor were they of that Tribe so much as among them But he was to be upon Mount Gerizzim with Simcon Judah Iss●char Joseph and Benjamin to bless ver 12. And this was the charge before given of God by Moses unto Aaron and his sons as their constant duty at all publique Assemblies of the Congregation for Worship Numb 6.23 c. to bless the Congregation thus The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace This indeed was an Ordinance to which God there promiseth a good success saying They shall put my Name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them For Ministers of the Gospel then whose Office it is to be Messengers of Peace and to bring glad tidings of good things to his people to be imployed and that often in cursing the people as a part of his Office and of publique Worship not this or that particular offender being according to Christs Ordinance convicted and censured and still remaining refractory and impenitent is such a piece of humane and unchristian-like invention as hath no warrant from the Word of God nor from the practise of the Primitive Church which this very Commination it self in the first lines of it plainly confesseth where it saith that then the Discipline was to put notorious sinners to open penance in Lent and that in stead thereof until the said Discipline may be restored it is thought good to use this Which shews plainly that this is no other then a later spawn of Antichrist in his Popish Services More might be said of sundry other particulars in the Service-Book but we suppose that he that shall duly weigh that which hath been already noted will think these enow III. Of RITES and CEREMONIES HAving spoken of the necessity of Reformation in Worship it is necessary in the next place to shew the like necessity of Reformation in Rites and Ceremonies which are appurtenances of and appendents to Worship in relation to the Injunctions of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order a 1 Cor. 14.40 and to the use of edifying b 1 Cor. 14.26 And here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies which be Divine by Gods own Institution for these are all in some respects parts of external Divine Worship in their use prescribed by himself such are the outward elements in the Sacraments c. and in other respects Ceremonies appendent to that Worship which is internal and principally intended in and by that which is external by Divine Institution But we speak of Rites and Ceremonies appointed by the Lights and Guides of the Church for decency order and edification being of Humane institution and alterable although used in the exercise of Religious Worship according to the 34th Article of Religion which teacheth that it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countries Times and Mens manners c. The reasons why such Ceremonies not only may but sometimes must be changed according to the diversities of Countries Times and Mens manners which may make it evident that what is now desired no way tendeth to disorder confusion or Schism but to godly order without the least infringement of holy unity in the Church are plainly set forth before the Book of Common-prayer it self under that Preface or Title Of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained Where it is said Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church and have had their beginning by the institution of man some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition some entred into the Church by indiscret Devotion and such a zeal as was without knowledge and for because they were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more abuses which not only for their unprofitableness but because they have much blinded the people and obscured the glory of God are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected The same Preface saith further Some are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these later days that the burden of them was intolerable whereof St. Augustine in his time complained that they were grown to such a number that the estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter then were the Jews And he counselled that such yoke and burthen should be taken away as time would serve quietly to do it But what would St. Augustine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark that they did more confound and darken then declare and set forth Christs benefits unto us Upon these and other reasons it was that many Ceremonies introduced into the Mass-Books and other Popish Breviaries such as ducking and bowing to the East to the Altar the standing up at Gloria Patri or Glory be to the Father c. at the reading of the Gospels of the Day the wearing of Robes Copes Lawn sleeves or other Vestments save onely a Rochet to be worn by an Archbishop or Bishop and Surplice only by Priests and Deacons the wearing of Sandals or Slippers when men go into Churches or Chappels the turning Communion Tables and setting them Altar-wise at the East end of the Chan●●l or setting up Altars of stone in that place whether the Congregation can hear or not womens wearing of Vails and offering of Chrisomes at Churchings and that at the high Altar the reading of the Lessons in one place and the second Service at the Altar which second Service was never appointed by the Common-prayer-book to

Law it being no where Recorded and in sundry things beside those mentioned in the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2. varying from that which was once Recorded as hath been before demonstrated To say the Book in what remaineth still bindeth in tanto at least is but a mistake for any Record or Deed vitiated in any one part makes void the whole in Law And as for those Rites enjoyned in the Book of Canons we shall forbear to speak of the Legality of them till we come to shew the necessity of Reformation in Discipline a great part whereof is contained in that Book Nor is it our purpose to insist upon the unlawfulness of those Ceremonies so as to make any dispute thereupon nor to justifie or condemn those who hold them simply unlawful in themselves But we taking it for granted that they are in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or things indifferent do humbly pray that these things may be duely considered in the general 1. That being such they ought not to be imposed on those who cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds and Consciences that they are lawful and therefore must sin if they use them This is St. Paul's own Doctrine and Practise touching things of this nature notwithstanding his own judgement of the lawfulness of them In his days many godly Christians both in Rome Corinth and elsewhere made scruple of sundry meats forbidden in the Levitical Law and of omitting days enjoyned by it Others satisfied of the lawfulness of both did eat those meats and omit those days at which others were scandalized some by adventuring through other mens example to do the like albeit they were not fully satisfied of the lawfulness thereof and thereby sinned others took offence and were grieved and thereupon censured all that used their Christian Liberty in those things of which they that used it were fully satisfied and hereupon the weak for censuring sinned also and by both these the weak were in danger to be destroyed Rom. 14.15 Now what was our Apostles Doctrine and Practise herein His Doctrine was this I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean Rom. 14.15 And All things indeed are pure but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is made weak vers 20 21. His Practise was this 1. Touching himself If meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend 1 Cor. 8.13 And as toward others he straitly chargeth on all these two things 1. To take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak ibid. vers 9. that is by using that Liberty before others not satisfied in the lawfulness of it 2. If the one will yet use this liberty and the other will take offence then his charge is Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth Rom. 14.3 But as for enjoyning the eating of what himself held to be lawful on those that doubted the lawfulness of it although he had more Authority then all our Bishops and Clergy in Convocation to make Canons we never find that he did it but warned and forbade all the very use of it before any that through weakness took offence at it If then Authority will follow the Apostles rule they will find a necessity not onely of taking off all Impositions already made but the taking away of all the things so imposed at which so many able and godly peaceable Ministers and People do take offence and for which so many thousands have deeply suffered to avoid sinning against God by conforming to them For whatsoever is not of faith is sin 2. If it be said The instances last given concern onely private things and private practises what is this to Publick Order in the House of God where the Service and Worship of Almighty God by the Hedge of Ceremonies is preserved from lying open to all profaneness as a confident stickler for Ceremonies groundlesly pretendeth To this it is answered That Ceremonies are no such Hedge unless to keep out such as have as good right to the Ordinances as they who do impose them for which they must one day give a sad account and that it is much more dangerous and sinful to enjoyn things of this nature for Publick use in the Administration of Publick Ordinances Because those private meats c. may be avoided by such as take offence at them for what necessity to be present at the use of them But there is a necessity of being present at the other which he that neglecteth is lyable to punishment by the Law The Law tyeth all to come to the Common Service every Sunday and Holy-day to receive the Holy Communion thrice at least in every year and imposeth a sharp penalty for neglect hereof So that while these are imposed or used where weak Christians take offence at them many godly men are forced to offend either against God by submitting to that they are not satisfied in the lawfulness of it or against the Laws of the Land by not conforming to them which they cannot do without sin So that the imposing of them upon all or the using of them before all who cannot without sin submit to them is the abusing of Authority and the making it to sin against Christ by putting it upon the forcing those for whom Christ died to sin against their own Consciences and to drive them on to destruction in Hell as a man would force a Beast into the water or fire that will surely devour him It is then a groundless put off to say that such things being commanded by just Authority the indifference by that command determineth and they become necessary which is quite contrary to the Apostles rule 3. If these be retained in some places where no offence is taken at them yet there is no reason to impose or use them in other places where any are offended at them For 1. to plead Imposition for order and unity in the Church of England is to no purpose because there is no necessity of the same in all places no more then of all the same Orders and Practises in all Corporations in England and of every Company within those Corporations who all have different Orders and Rules to preserve Order and Unity in the Civil Government of the Kingdom 2. Our very Articles of Religion as hath been shewed say Art 34. That it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countries times and mens manners 3. If it be said These refer to different Countries not

inrollment of that Charter until 2 Ric. 2. will not admit of so great Antiquity thereof And the same Sir Edw. Cook there alledgeth the Red Book of Hen. 1. De general Placitis Comitatuum Cap. 8. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein in the Sheriffs Tourne Court is said Ibi agantur primo debita verè Christianitatis jura Secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum dignis satisfactionibus expleantur There let be handled first all due Laws of Christianity or Court-Christian Secondly Pleas of the King Lastly Causes of particular persons c. Whereupon they that is others conclude that Ecclesiastical causes were handled in the Tourn in H. 1. long after the said supposed Charter Then he addeth And certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourn to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book But let the Antiquity thereof be what it will it is most certain that however the Popes and their Agents did often intrude and usurp Authority within this Realm yet the King and Parliament ever held the Bishops and Clergy of England within the verge of the Laws of the Land never permitting them either by colour of Magna Charta or otherwise to exercise any Authority but with submission to the Municipal Laws So that whoever shall endeavour to put them into any further power in case they have a mind to restore them to former Jurisdictions doth put to his hand to make them so many Popes which this Realm even in times of Popish Religion here would never endure And whereas some are pleased to affirm that by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. there was a stricter restraint laid upon the Bishops and Clergy than in the times before when they sate in Convocation viz. No Canons should be made and put in exercise that were contrariant or repugnant to the Laws of the Land it is manifest that the same limitation was long before set upon them For Sir Edw. Cook ibid cap. 74. pag. 323. saith That the King did often appoint Commissioners by Writ to sit with them at the Convecation and to have cognizance of such things as they meant to establish that nothing should be done in prejudice c. and for this he citeth 51. Ed. 3. nu 42.46 Edw. 3. prem 8.21 Ed. 4.45 Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. 2. nu 114. from which he concludeth that the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 is but Declaratory of the old Common Law And so strict were the Kings anciently over Bishops and Archbishops too that when the Clergy petitioned in Parliament 51. Edw. 3. 4 Instit ca. 74. of Archdeacons p. 339. num 83. that of every Consultation conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without appeal to the King whereupon Delegates by Commission under the Great Seal might hear and determine the same The Kings answer was that the King cannot depart with his right but to yeeld to his Subjects according to Law To which Sir Edw. Cook subjoyns an Item to all his Readers Nota hoc stude bene Nay this is not all For so far did the Kings of England engage in the over-ruling of Bishops that they did not onely limit their Jurisdiction but allowed them not liberty to make a Will without licence from the King till they made composition with him as the same Author telleth us saying Ibid. p. 338 It appears by many Records in the reigns of H. 3. Edw. 1. as taking some one or two examples for many that by the Law and custome of England no Bishop could make his Will of his Goods or Chattels coming of his Bishoprick c. without the Kings licence The Bishops that they might freely make their Wills yeelded to give to the King after their deceases respectively for ever six things 1. Their best Horse or Palfrrce with Bridle and Saddle 2. A Cloke with a Cape 3. One Cup with a Cover 4. One Bason and Ewre 5. One Ring of Gold 6. His Kennel of Hounds For these a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer after the decease of every Bishop Whether this be still in use we meddle not but mention it onely to shew what a strict eye our Kings have ever had upon Bishops so as the Law allows them not power so much as of their own personal Estates much less of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction without the King What power they had in the High Commission Court is needless to mention the Court being happily laid aside by the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 11. But whereas they insisted upon sole Jurisdiction and now begin to exercise it or at least to renew their claim thereunto it is very well known that by the Statute of 1. Edw. 6.2 they could hold no Courts but in the Kings name nor that without Commission under the Great Seal which power was indeed revived and re-established by the Act of 1. Eliz. after it had been repealed 1. Mar. 2. Howbeit all that power is again repealed and made void for ever by the same Act of 17. Car. 1. and now no Commissions to be granted them any more To make this out we shall rehearse the words of both those Acts of Parliament which run thus 1. The Act of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. having first united and annexed all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom it after addeth what power shall be given by Commission under the Great Seal to exercise the same in this following Clause onely viz. And that your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority by vertue of this Act by Letters patents under the Great Seal of England to assigne name and authorize when and as often as your Highness your Heirs or Successors shall think meet and convenient and for such and so long time as shall please your Highness your Heirs or Successors such person or persons being natural born Subjects to your Highness your Heirs or Successors as your Majesty your Heirs or Successors shall think meet to exercise and use occupy and execute under your Highness your Heirs and Successors all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within these your Realms of England and Ireland or any other your Highnesses Dominions and Countries And to visit reform redress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Vertue and the Conservation of the Peace and Vnity of this Realm And that such person or persons so to be named assigned authorized and appointed by your Highness your Heirs or Successours after