the law that Bishops are the kings spirituall judges their lawes his ecclesiasticall lawes their iurisdiction so dependāt on him that he may exempt any man from it grant the same also to whome he will For the which purpose he that desireth may finde plētiful proofs in a book intitled an assertion for church policie Now wheras M. R. aledgeth that the same iurisdiction ecclesiasticall vvhich had been in use in popery a great part of the popish hierarchy vvas confirmed primo Elizabethae he hath put another weapon in our hands for to wound his cause withall For the very title of that statute is an act restoring to the crovvne the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical And the whol house of commons haue so interpreted the meaning of that restauration which is therin made that by vertue therof the king is inabled to give povver jurisdiction ecclesiasticall to any subiect borne so if it please him all causes may bee taken from Byshops their officers given unto other men in every parish of England This interpretation is found in the bill of greivances presented to the king by those of the lower house an 1610. Printed in a book called a recorde of some vvorthy proceedings c. That this or any other judgemēt of the law is not infallible I easily admit especially touching the quaestion of lawfull or unlawfull good or evill of which kind those instances are which Mr. R. chooseth in this place to appose But 1. Seeing that when we alledge the parishes to be severall churches to be considered as they subsist in their severall conditions and the calling of ministers in many assemblies to be grounded on the peoples choice c. wee hear it still opposed with loud voyce the lavves of the land allovv no such things they acknovvledge no such matter c. Was it not both fit necessarie then to declare the judgement of lawe or can he with honestie reject the sentence of lawe so ligtly now whoe a litle before built all upon it 2. The quaestion is heere of a matter of fact and the positive not morall nature of it whether this authoritie commeth from the king or no not whether it bee every way good laudable as is the controversie about crosse syrplice such like abuses which he mentioneth and in such a case if the the lawes say yea and those that submit to them say also yea Mr. R. must pardon us if his no be reiected except his reasons be passing strong His first reason why this power is not civil is because it is not coactive or bodily enforcing but the Bishop after excomunication can goe no further except he procure a civill coactive processe by vvritt out of another court I answer 1. Though it had no bodily enforcing at all annexed unto it yet it might be a civill power Bodily enforcing is but a penall sanction which commeth after the authoritie or power civil may bee seperated from it 2. It is therfore coactive or bodily enforcing because it may directly require as due by law belonging unto it such coactive assistance by other officers as Mr. R. himself speaketh of So many civill commissions letters patent are granted to men which haue no authoritie seated in themselves for forcing of mē unto obedience but haue authoritie to charge the constable or justice that next is to ayd them in their affayres which authoritie of theirs notwithstanding is civil in that respect coactive A second reason is taken from the works of prelats iurisdiction vvhich are for substance sayth he the making of ministers excommunicating of offenders vvith their contraries appurtenances vvhich are not civil vvorkes neyther can be performed by any civil magistrat Where if by can or may he understandeth such right as men haue for their deedes by the law or word of God then I willingly grant that no civil magistrate may by his civill office performe those workes of ordination excommunication c. Neyther can the Byshop so performe them heerin consisteth that presumptuous usurpatiō wherof they are guilty before God man But if he understandeth such right or power as men haue for their deedes by mans law then I avouch out of the former grounds testimonies of law that any other civil magistrat may receyve authoritie of iurisdiction in those causes as well as prelats Which experience confirmeth de facto in the high commissiō some other courts Wherby it is manifest that though these workes in their nature be spirituall yet thorough great abuse they are performed by civill authoritie Secondly I answer that these workes of ordination excommunication vvith their contraries appurtenances are not the substance or in effect the vvholl iurisdiction vvhich Bishops doe exercise in their provinces dioces though Mr. R. affirme it againe againe For 1. The principall iurisdiction which prelats haue is under the king to make certain rules canons or lawes for ordering of certain causes cōmitted unto them 2. Those causes are for a great part of them meerely civil such as by Gods law the civil magistrat hath power to order Of which kind are the causes of matrimonie of wills or testaments many circumstances pertayning to the severall churches within their precincts 3. In the very businesse of ordination excommunication it is of substance to see that worthy men be admitted unworthy excluded The formes of ordination excommunication usurped by them are corrupt appurtenances to those lawfull actions not the substance wherto all the rest apperteyne Neyther doeth Mr. R. agree with himself in making all the substance of spirituall government to consist in calling of ministers and exercising of censures or ordination excommunication seeing his opinion is that all this may be doen by the people yet in his former book p. 26. affirmeth government not to belong to them vvherin sayth he doeth the people govern as many please to reproach us The third argument is taken from the forme used in consecration of Byshops vvherin no mention is made of civil authoritie but onely of spirituall Wherunto I answer 1. That their episcopall jurisdiction over a special diocesse or province is not expressed in that consecration nor any thing of substance which is not conteyned in a parochiall ministers ordination Which is an argument that the Byshop receyveth not that iurisdiction from him by whose hands he is consecrated but from some other power that is from the king 2. It is not necessarie that words formes of consecration should agree in all pointes with the state of a Byshop For a Byshop in that state proceeding which now is in use is partly fish partly flesh or such a compound as were the feete of Nebuchadnetsars image that were part of yron part of clay which did not cleave one to the other for so is he part of civill power which is of sound mettall or yron part of
answer is that the very obteyning receyving of such a licence is unlavvfull because it is a reall acknovvledgement that such a Byshop hath a lavvfull povver to grant it Which is neyther so nor so for 1. The asking receyving of leave or licence which are both one doeth not allways implie an acknowledgement of his lawful authoritie from whome it is sought If any man of violence shall usurpe a power to him self of permitting or hindering the lawful good offices that pertaine unto honest men so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell or teach any science or trade of life if an honest man whome these duties concerne should in that case take a licence from that usurper though hee were no better then a strong theif no reasonable man will say that in so doeing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful The rulers of Iewish synagoges had no lawfull power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministerie neyther would Paul ever acknowledge so much yet hee Barnabas accepted of such licence or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authoritie See an example act 13.15 Mr. R. him self hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochiall assemblie which leave must bee given by the parochiall minister churchwardens whose authoritie hee holdeth one with the Bishops If therfore leave or licence whether in word or writing that is all one may be lawfully taken from them without acknowledging any authoritie lawfull which is unlawfull why not from the Byshop 2. There is some authoritie in the Bishops derived from the king which may bee acknowledged lawfull Such is this of giving licence libertie civill authoritie for men to doe good The civill magistrat may doe it him self or appoint others to doe it 2 chro 17.7 The abuse of this authoritie doeth not make it unlawfull But Iohn Claydon sayth Mr. R. a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded vvhen he vvitnessed that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author for hee could neyther write nor read 2. Whosoever was the author the meaning was that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops the persons that usually obteyned their approbation licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome though those conditions beeing removed ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found For concerning the Byshops licence hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop Sir as touching your letters of licence or other Byshops vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach vvee knovv vvel that neyther yovv sir nor any other Byshop of this land vvill grant to us any such letters of licence but if vvee should oblige us to yovv to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes not to passe the bounds termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us And since in this matter your termes bee some too large some too strait vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit as yovv doe to friers such other preachers 3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimonie in such a sense as Mr. R. wil haue it understood in yet the generall consent of almost if not absolutely al the other martyrs beeing otherwise as is wel knowen to such as have read their stories this one of it self could work no great praejudice This for the answer directly applied unto the demand Vnto the comparative reason annexed that a man may ask leaue of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions he opposeth 2 things 1. A difference betwixt leave licence that to ask leaue is to desire one not to hinder him but to obteine a licence of the Byshop is to obteine publique authoritie of the publique officer according to the publique lavves of the church to exercise a publique ministerie 2. That the great Turk is a lavvfull civill magistrat vvith vvhose civill authoritie it is lavvfull to partake But so is not the Byshop a lavvfull ecclesiasticall officer vvith vvhose spirituall iurisdiction gods servants may communicate In all which ther is not one sound sentence For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave licence my meaning was that it was lawfull to obteine a licence of the Turk for to preach the gospell in his Dominions 2. Leave from one that is in authoritie so as he that hath it shal be hindered of none subject unto that authoritie is a licēce with authoritie So that the difference betwixt leave licence insinuated by him must consist onely in the great sound of the word publique so oftē repeated in vaine publique authoritie publique officer publique lavves publique ministerie Which how idle it is hath formerly been shewed 3. He that hath a Byshops licence orders too hath no such authoritie actuall conferred upon him therby but that hee may bee hindered many ways even by those that are subiect unto the Byshop from ever exercising that wherto he hath licence so that in this respect ther seemeth not so much as full perfect leave to bee conteyned in a Byshops licence 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrat it would trouble Mr. R. to prove 5. The Byshop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes which may lawfully bee communicated with 6. And lastly though all this were so as Mr. R. sayth that it were unlawfull for to seek or take such a licence of a Byshop yet it doeth not follow but it might be lawfull to communicat with him that hath taken it especially seeing it was lawful before and the man doeth hath all good that he did or had before onely with this difference that he doeth that with licence of the Byshop which he did before with his connivence So that this demand remaineth unanswered which was not made of the getting of licence but of communicating with him that had gotten one Which communion can be no more unlawfull then that which schollers haue with a schoolmaister who hath takē a Bishops licēce according as many are urged to doe from the same Bishop or that which subiects haue had with their lawfull king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that forme of admission which is called
power I can say no more but let him that readeth give judgement To the 7 last demand which was of one that thorough infirmitie admitteth of some corruptions in the exercise of his ministerie he answereth nothing of momēt but what was examined before therfore need not a several triall THus much for maintenance of the arguments implied in the foresayd quaeres Wherin also those barrs are now removed which were by Mr. R. opposed before in generall now as wee haue seen particularly applied Yet further some what to pursue the matter it may bee a defense of that which is sayd allready The principall in deed the onely ground of opposition was layd by him in this that such a Parishionall minister is a branch of the prelacie as receyving povver from it by vvhich it doeth administer My answer was by deniall with this distinction that a parishionall minister as I formerly described had power of right unto his ministery before ever he had to doe with the prelat though a power of externall legall abilitie he may bee sayd to receyve from the prelat in part When I sayd he had nothing to doe with the prelat before he had gotten right my meaning was that he had not to do about that pastorall charge Yet wee may suppose him also not to haue proceeded by such degrees as were formerly for argumēt sake set in ranke but first to have dealt with the people or been dealt with by them having never seen any prelat in all his life or as good as not seen him To come then to the poynt his answer is that no parish assemblies haue povver of right to choose their ministers Wheras on the contrarie it is most evident that every congregatiō of christians hath right unto this thing from Christ him self so inseparablie annexed unto it that no externall oppression by others or abuse of their owne cā possiblie deprive them of this right so long as they remaine a christian assemblie or congregation Suppose they bee in externall bondage that in some sense spirituall yet no matter of fact can take away right while they abide such as Christ hath given that right unto The whol case may be cleared in this example two single persons agree on mariage betwixt themselves with allowance of parents haue by vertue of that cōtract mutual right one in other yet the lawes of the place where they live hauing ordered that none shall be held for married persons without certain formes which they appoint they haue not externall legall povver or libertie one in the other before such rites be performed Even so standes the matter betwixt minister people in Englād they agreeing or cōtracting betwixt them selves have right one in other but externall legall power or libertie they must receyve from others Another example also I would haue considered the emperor sometime was so subiect unto the pope that he had not liberty of emperiall rule untill he receyved his crowne from Rome yet was the emperor then no proper part of the papacie nor did he take his right from the pope neyther did those that submitted unto him therin communicat with the popes authoritie So is this in hand If Mr. R. will shutt his eyes against the light I cannot make him see the difference that is betwixt these two powers OVt of Mr. R. his owne grounds there were certain assertions observed which shew that the power of preaching which ministers in England doe exercise professing that to be their main office is not properly a part of the prelats power The first was that the office of the prelats is founded on their usurpation of the churches rights in calling of officers censuring of offenders power therfore of preaching can bee no part of it To which first he answereth that that vvhich I admitt in his affirmation hath enough in it to ouerthrovv my consequence for if it belong to the prelats to cal ministers that in calling them they giue thē povver authoritie to preach then it follovveth undeniablie that those ministers thus preaching doe therein exercise the prelats povver And if unto this bee added such an aestimation of all the ecclesiasticall state in England as he cōceyteth would haue others to take for granted then he sayth all wil follow that he desires Onely he disliketh that diligent preaching should be accounted the ministers mayn office because that in abstracted notions it is rather a work then an office such a work as may bee performed by Apostles or others that are no pastors therfore as he full wisely concludeth it cannot bee the pastors office maine or mean Secondly he descants upon the word founded affirming that men may haue povver to doe more then they very thinges upon vvhich their office is founded c. But 1. A man may take an argument from that which he doeth not with consent admit And so did I in using his assertion concerning the Byshops authoritie in calling of ministers never granting as former passages doe sufficiently witnesse that all authoritie of calling them resteth in the prelat 2. A man may bee in some sort called by another to exercise some power which is not his that so called him As when a physitian is called by the civil magistrat or by a Bishop to exercise such art as he hath amōg the people that are ruled by him For no man I think will say that such a phxsitian in giving of a potion doeth exercise a kingly or an episcopall power So likewise is the case of a schoolmaister set in place by a Bishops licence authoritie in teaching of grammar he doeth not exercise the power of a Byshop 3. Though in strictnes of distinction an office dissereth from the vvork of it yet Mr. R. I hope will give us leave to follow in phraze of speach the custome of speakers writers whoe doe usually call that work mens office wherto by office they are seperated Especially seeing the Apostle Paul himself doeth call the office of a Byshop a vvorke 1. tim 3.1 And the work of ministrie a ministerie Rom. 12.7 But it seemeth he doeth not esteeme preaching any proper work of a pastors office because Apostles others may doe it As if the apostles ordinarie pastors had not one generall office because they haue not the same in speciall or that one man may not be tied by office unto a work which another also hath libertie by oceasion to doe without such a speciall office As if it were not a deacons office to distribute unto the poore becaus others may doe so 4. His strict acception of the work founded cā neyther stād with his other interpretation of the word office nor with that sentence wherto it belongeth For a prelats office or state is in nature before that usurpation he speaketh of not founded upon it Neyther is the quaestion whether prelats haue power to preach or no nor yet whether that be in the
possibly staÌ„d 1. All the ministers are made appoynted by the Bishops if therfore the Bishops be taken avvay hovv can the ministers remayne the same take avvay the correlative relation ceaseth Trew the relation ceaseth But is that externall relation unto an efficient cause any part of the substance or essence of the ministerie I had thought that the substance essence of a thing had consisted in matter forme not in such externall relations Mariages are also made as Mr. R. affirmeth by Bishops authoritie take away Bishops therfore by this reason the mariages shall not remayne the same for substance which they are now Licences for teaching school in many places for practizing of physick are given by the Bishops their officers take away the Bishops may not the same schoolmasters physitians yet stil remayn for substaÌ„ce that were before Fie upon sophistrie 2. Take avvay the prelacie sayth Mr. R. and hovv can such a ministerie continue vvherof one part viz ruling shall bee usurped by the prelat As if when once that power is taken from the minister it now apperteyned to the substance of his ministery by whome it were usurped whether he that possessed it were a Byshop or a high commissioner or of some other place that which is without a thing may be changed without any substantiall change of the thing it self else how can Mr. R. say that eyther the function of masspreists or of Popish Byshops doe remaine still in England as of olde for substance when ther is so great an alteration in that supreme power from whence of olde they were derived The office of a king also it remayneth the same for substance now that it was in time of poperie for the substantiall parts of it yet one part therof was in those times usurped possessed by the pope is now restored to the crowne viz power over ecclesiasticall persons in ecclesiasticall causes It cannot therfore be denied but by the same reasoÌ„ the parochial ministery should abide the same for substance that now it is thovgh that part which is now usurped by Byshops should be restored againe So that Bishops being removed whether that power of ruling should be translated unto some other officers or setled in the ministers as it ought Mr. R. argument hath by neyther way any waight or force at all 3. Take avvay sayth he the provinc diocesan churches prelats the parochiall churches ministers as partes of them must fall also As partes of them in deed they must of necessitie fall that is they must cease to be partes of them but it doeth not therfore follow that any thing of their internall substance should fall The nationall church of England so the provincial diocesan did once stand members or partes of the oecumenicall papall church of Rome now that is removed out of England so farr at least that this nationall church is not subiect unto Rome nor dependant on it or conteyned in it as a part in a wholl yet Mr. R. will say that the same diocesan provinciall nationall church remayneth for substance that was before Why doeth he not then see that parochiall churches may remayn the same for substance though diocesses and provinces did follow the other 4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions idoll preists crosse surplice vvith such vanities mixture of profane vvith the godly and asketh if it be possible that the prelacie beeing abolished such things should remayne as novv I answer 1. It is possible Ther are more meanes of disorder corruption then one Neyther can any such necessarie coÌ„junction be shewed betwixt the prelacie these abuses but that it is possible to seperat one from the other Yet 2. If they should all be abolished with the prelacie no reasonable man wil therfor say that the substance of parochial churches should be therin chaÌ„ged If praejudice could be set apart the shallownesse of this the former reasons could not be hid from the eyes of him that framed them TO a mayn obiection by Mr. R. urged viz that all parochiall ministers are subiect unto the spirituall iurisdiction of prelats answer was given first that so are privat christians subiect unto the same jurisdictâ—â— not onely in their church actions which they performe with others in publick but also for personall private opinions behaviours this subiection therfore doeth no more hinder coÌ„munion with the one then with the other in things that are good To which answer Mr. R. replieth nothing but referreth unto his former book where as good as nothing is to be found If there had bene a fit answer to be given wee should certainly eyther haue had it repeated heere for of repetition Mr. R. is not so nice or at least the page quoted where wee might haue found it But in deed it is not possible but if meere subiection to Bishops bee in it self a sufficient barr against publick communion it must also be held sufficieÌ„t against such privat in for which a man is also subiect The second answer unto the forenamed obiection was that the greatest part of the prelats iurisdiction is from the king derived unto those that doe exercise the same and therfore must of necessitie be a civill power such as the king might as well performe by other civill officers as it is in the high commission The lawes of the land doe so esteeme it c. In this Mr. R. insisteth much as thinking no small advantage to be given him therfore requireth of the reader wel to observe what heere is sayd on both sides In which request I ioigne with him so that it be marked withall that I doe not undertake to justifie the Byshops wholl state much lesse their proceedings but onely so far that some subiection unto some of their authoritie is not simply unlawfull Mr. R. plea after his praeamble ariseth unto these 3 defenses 1. The lavves doe no vvhere derive from the kings civill authoritie the povver of the Bishops spiritual administratioÌ„s but doe onely make the king an establisher up holder civilly of this povver 2. Though the lavves of the laÌ„d did esteeme this iurisdiction civill yet it doeth not follovv that therfore it is such in deed because they misesteeme diverse things 3. That the prelats iurisdiction is not civile as appeareth playnly by 5 reasons of him alledged For the first of these I appeal 1. To the oth of the clergie to the king established by a statut law in the reign of king Henry 8. exstaÌ„t in Mr. Fox p. 961. Where the Byshop sweareth that he knovvledgeth himself to hold his Bishoprick of the king onely 2. To the act that was then made for the supremacie wherin all iurisdictions belonging to the title of head of the church in EnglaÌ„d are giveÌ„ to the king as it is in the same book p. 963.3 I appeal to the 5. Book of Sr Edward Cooks reportes where he sheweth out of