condition of eternall holines Suppose at length that he be deprived by that prelate which formerly admitted him for not conforming to humayne corruptiâ—ns his people for fear of 〈◊〉 forsake him if he I say now reiected by the prelate witnessing agaynst his corruptions shal without seeking any new licence fynde place to preach the gospell in occasionally els where why should any refuse to hear him First this his deprivation especially for well doeing or not doeing evill by the prelates spirituall jurisdiction shewes his spirituall bondage vnto the Anticristian Hâ—erarchy as doth also his forsakeing his flock when â—he wolfe thus cometh declare by the testimony of Christ himself of what Spirit he is And very fadeing is the colour which here he sets vpoÌ„ the ministers cessâ—ation from theyr ministery which is the peoples forsakeing them for fear of daâ—nger whereas the contrary is most true that the ministers did vniversally for fear of daunger forsake the people and that in sundry places where the people offered to suffer persequution with them at the magistrates handes But myne answer is that this man remayning by the prelates ordination a minister of the Church of Engl as he was before his institution or licence so preaching by that calling communion cannot be had with him therein without submission vnto vpholding of the Prelates Antichristian authority which in that work he exerciseth Suppose lastly that the sâ—me man doth besydes the good actions which God hath commaunded admit of some thing at mans commaund which is not lawfull yet houlding the fayth building faythfully in the mayn things of the Gospell and it may be repenting also of what he hath done at his admission is no communion lawfull with him in those very things which if they were done by another after the same manner were heavenly dutyes May not his fault be an humayn infirmity in an externall ordinance May not some faultes of his enterance be circumstantiall personall actions by which his calling is not abolished This Quaere is in effect comprehended in the former in whose answers it hath also been answered But for more full satisfaction I further ad that I may not partake in the sinns though of humâ—yn infirmity of persons otherwise goâ—ly whether those sinâ—s be in the work done or in the vnlawfull calling of the doer of which we here speak and not of any personall or circumstantiall action as is in vayn insinuated And he that breaks down the partition wall which an vnlawfull especially an antichristian calling sets vp in the Ch not making coÌ„science of partaking therwith in duetyes how heavenly soever in themselves makes way for all Babylonish confusion neyther is Israel now to be blamed for communicateing with Corah in the heavenly duety of burning inceâ—se to the Lord to whom onely a lawfull outward calling was wanting he so ministering by an Anti-mosaicall as do the men of whom we speak by an Anti-Christian calling And for the ministers repenting of what he hath done at his admission it may well be called as truely being a supposition but of an impossibility and contradiction He cannot repent of his sin which is his reâ—â—eaving authority from the Bishop to preach but he must forsake renounce the same authority as he receaved it which if 〈◊〉 indeed truth he ceaseth to be a minister of the Church of England And thus it appeareth how this Authour is so far from leading a good conscience by the hand aâ—â—e promiseth as that he doth not so much as poynt out with the finger any passible way into publique communion with the parrish assemblyes as they stand but rayther haveing framed a plot of ministery other devise in his study sends men by doubtfull suppositions to seek they know not what nor where It remaynes we now come to his removall of the barrs which I in my book set in the way the first whereof is that such a parrishional minister is a branch of the prelacy as receaving power from it by which it doth administer and therefore all communion with it to be avoyded by Gods people His answer is that in proper accurate speach the minister whom he formerly described is no branch of the prelacy nor doth receave his power of ministering froÌ„ any prelate The question is not whether the minister which he describeth or rather Supposeth be a branch of the prelacy so minister or no but whether the ministery of the parrish assemblyes being partes of the Diocesses and Provinces be such or no. He addeth that the power of right he that is his supposed minister had before ever he had to do with any prelate which power is from God by the Church but a power of externall legall abillity to do that which from God by the people he had formerly right to do this he may be sayd to receav from the prelate He looseth himself in the labyrinth of his own devise for even his supposed minister had to do with the prelate both for license to preach orders of ministery before this supposed right conveyed to him by the people as appears in his Quae 3. 4. 5 compared together 2. None of the parrish assemblyes have in theyr hands as Churches power of right to chuse theyr ministers nor are the Lords free people in that case but do on the contrary stand in subjection bondage spirituall to the prelate and patron by whose appoyntment they must receave them will they nil they Indeed some of them do by favour or mony get ius patronatus into theyr handes so do agree amongst themselves what person they will present vnto the Bishop for theyr Clark but this they do not as a Church neither will or may the Bishop so receave him from them or appoynt him over them but as a patron which right any one profane person may have enioy as well as they nor that such a person may be ordeyned a minister in of that Church accordeing to the order Apostolicall but that being before or first a minister at large of the Bishops makeing and ordeyning he may by the same episcopall authority in way of licence or institution conveyed be determined to that particular parrish according to the Popish order So that if there were any thing in the distinction between the power of right of freedom he hath the power of right or authority by the Byshop at the first in his ordination the legall ability or freedom afterwards by the patron prelate presenting appointing him to his place so the parrish as a Church onely receaves him so appoynted by others But the distinction is more subtile then sound iâ— not a distinction without a difference yet a division of things inseparable in this kynde No man hath externall spirituall power of right to minister the holy things of God but by a lawful calling no man haveing a lawful calling wants
be of the Church the minister of them to take charge as his flock as the parochiall ministers do but as the same is a part of the Bishops flock well serving for to supporte his lawlesse Lordship Now no man weighing these things with an equall hand will judge them light and sleighty matters but weighty as he speaks substantiall in about the ministery Which therefore cannot stand as now it doth in the severall parrishes when God in mercy to that nation shall root out that plant of the prelacy which his hand never planted Where after to myne obiection charge that all the parochiall ministers are subject vnto the jurisdiction of the prelates spiritually in theyr citations suspentions and excoÌ„munications he for answer alledgeth that prevate Christians are subiect to the same jurisdiction personally for personall private opinions and behaviours also it is that which I say vppon which I infer a separation from the formall state government of that Church every manner of way since with the sinns of Babylon whereof I have proved in my former book the Hierarchicall government one no man may partake But if herevppon he would conclude the vnlawfulnes of private or personall communion with the godly as well as of publique or Church communion I must deny his consequence because I would not repeat the same things agayn do desire the Reader to take knowledg of the double difference about this matter shewed in my former book But he gives a 2 d answer vppon which also the lawfulnes of the Byshops authority is much pleaded throughout the whole book Which by the way I desyre the Reader to observ withall how such as go on in opposeing our separation are driven in the end to justify the Bishops authority though diversly His answer defence is The greatest parte of theyr jurisdiction being externall coactive or forcing is from the king derived vnto those that do exercise the same therefore must of necessity be a civile power such as the king might as well perform by other civile officers as it is indeed exercised in the high-commission some other courts also â—he lawes of the land do so esteem it as Sir Edward Cook now L cheif justice of Engl hath largely shewed in the first book of his reportes Divers pleas for the prelates have been made by men diversly mynded touching them but that theyr jurisdiction in theyr provinces Diocesses should be civile coactive for externall we graunt it to be which is ill joyned as the same with civile coactive since even spiritual ordinaunces are externall also this I say is a plea which to my remembrance I never heard of before The Authour in the front of his book proclaymes the vnreasonablenes of our separation but I hope the Lord will give me grace and modesty never to defend or continue in that state standing for which I shal be driven to make so vnreasonable a defence which is indeed an argument of an ill cause of no good consideration that I say no more in the writer For the better then both clearing of this poynt here and elsâ—where in the book help of others otherwise it must be considered that the Byshops have in theyr haÌ„ds a double authority the one civile as magistrates the other spirituall as Church-officers and so do perform workes of divers kyndes according to these their divers callings By the former they sit with other Barrons in the parliament-howle for the enacting of lawes statutes vnder bodily punishments some of them also being of the kings pâ—ivy councell some of his high commission haveing therein ioynt authority with other Lords Magistrates civil They are generally in the Countyes Shyres where they live Iusticers of peace in the same Commission with other honourable worshipfull personages thus they sit vppon the bench at Assises Sessions have authority civil ioyntly with the other Iusticers so severally as they at other tymes to apprehend imprison fyne punish bodily malefactors according to the common lawes of the land theyr office of Iusticeship and all these theyr administratioÌ„s they perform expresly in the kings name In which also they are to be honoured obeyed as are other civil magistrates whatsoever by all the kings subiects wherein for my self I professe communion with submission vnto theyr authority power But besydes this theyr civil authority they have also ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as they are the Arch-Byshops of Provinces Byshops of Dioceses And thus they with the rest of theyr triumphant Church Clergy sit in the convocation house frameing Canons constitutions ecclesiasticall vnder spirituall penaltyes Thus they ordeyn ministers institute them to theyr several charges give them licences to preach within theyr provinces Diocesses Thus they keep theyr spirituall courts by themselves theyr subordinates Chauncelours Commissaryes Arch-Deacons other theyr officials citeing men thither by theyr Apparitours as on the contrary in theyr civil administrations though in matters ecclesiasticall they vse Pursivants Constables There and thus they suspend depose degrade ministers as at the first they ordeyned and appoynted them as they also excommunicate absolv both ministers and people as they see cause proceeding in all these not in the name of the king as in the former but expresly in the name of God in vnto which theyr vsurpation of the name or power of God Christ no communion may be had or submission yealded And where he affirmeth that the greatest parte of theyr Iurisdiction to wit in theyr Provinces Diocesses is derived from the king which he might as well perform by other civile officers that the lawes of the land do so esteem it alledging to that end S. Edw Cook L cheif Iustice there is a great mistakeing in the matter No onely the greatest parte of but in effect theyr whole Iurisdiction in theyr provinces diocesses standes in theyr ordeyning of ministers excommunicateing of offenders with theyr apurtenances in theyr contraryes of the same nature Now to make the power of excommunication of ordination of ministers civile or these such workes as may be performed by civile magistrates the king or others is to confound heaven earth to make Christs kingdome whereof these works in theyr nature are administrations to be of this world This power of the prelates is in it self nature spirituall in the extent of it over an whole Province Diocese all the Congregations therein to the abolishing of the power both of officers people papall antichristian Of which the kings civile authority is no parent but onely a nurseâ— otherwise the king should be not the dâ—fender onely but the authour of the Churches sayth in her government ministery Papists have made of Popes kings by deriveing from them civile governments and will protestants make of kings Popes by
external spiritual power of ability or freedom to minister them of this power we speak as being that which the Bishops as the spirituall governers of theyr Prov Dioc do confer I know a man may be restreyned by violâ—nce or other bodily impediment from the vse of this spirituall freedom but then he is restreyned from the vse of his power of right also Whosoever hath the one hath the other by the same act whosoever hath a lawfull calling hath both Of his great mistakeing vpon which notwithstanding he builds the weight of his answer both in this the former parte of the book which is that the Bishops Provinciall Diocesan authority administrations are civile derived from the king I shall speak hereafter He ads that it cannot stand with my plea that such a man preaching diligently professing that to be his mayn office should in this work be a branch of the prelacy dâ—â—t by his power receaved by him For. 1. this is not any parte of the prelates power as he is a prelate to preach the word Which he also would prove by an affirmation in my book which is though he weaken the evidence of the truth thereof in relateing it that the prelates office and order is founded vppon theyr usurpation of the rights and libertyes wherewith Christ the Lord in his word hath endowed his Church the Elders for theyr government and the people for theyr liberty for the calling of officers censureing of offenders Power therefore sayth he of preaching can be no parte of it First that which he admits in myne affirmation hath enough in it to overthrow his consequence For if it belong to the prelates to call ministers that in calling them they give them power authority though no absolute charge to preach according to the order of that Church then followeth it vndeniably that those ministers thus preaching do therein excercise the prelaâ—es power that it may be sayd of the ministers and Bishops as Christ sayd of his disciples himself that whosoever receaves them which are sent receaves them which send them In submitting vnto or withdrawing from him that is sent by the king in a work of his office men do submit vnto or withdraw from the king himself his authority so is it in all estates subordinations whether Ecclesiasticall or civile as every one that dimms it not in himself may see by the light of nature And if vnto this be added that as the whole nation is devided into two provinces vnder the two Arch-Bishops and the Provinces into â—â—ndry â—â—oâ—eses vnder the Bishops and they into theyr severall parrishes vnder the ministers thereof so the Arch-Bishops and Bishops do share out vnto the parrish preistes in theyr ordination other assignementes a parts of theyr charge to wit so much as concerns the ordinary service of the parrish as vnto theyr chancelours commissaryes and Arch-deccors on other parts for inferiour government reserveirg to themselves the Lordship ever both for the best advantage of theyr own honour and profit it will then evidently appear as that the part is a branch of the whole that the parochial ministery is a branch of the diâ—â—esâ—n provinciall pâ—â—lacy By which ministery we are not to vnderstand as doth myne opposite the work of preaching or any other work whatsoever but the office power exequuted vsed in these works For if we will exactly weigh things in a just ballance we must consider of these three distinct poynts in the ministery 1. The office 2. The power 3. The workes The office is the very state function conferred vpon a man by his calling from which office ariseth immediately power charge to minister and to perform the workes of that office in the performance of which workes the office is exequuted and power vsed And if preaching diligently faythfulâ—y were the pastours mayn office then should Apostles Prophets Evangelists have the same mayn office with pastours for they all do that work of diligent preaching one as we â—as an other besides that this work is lawfully performed by him that hath no office at all therefore cannot be the Pastours office mayn or mean 2ly It followeth not because the office of the prelates is founded vppon theyr vsurpation of the Churches rights in calling of officers consureing of â—fferdersâ— that therefore power of preaching is no parte of theyr office Men may by theyr office have power to do more then the very things vppon which theyr office is founded otherwise the parochiall ministery should be very slightily founded considering how many trifles and superstitions the ministers have not onely power but charge also to perform By this mans reasoning theyr office should be founded vppoÌ„ the wearing of a surplice makeing a crosse c. for these they have power to do yea not power to leav vndone by theyr office There are among men many lawfull offices or orders those lawfully founded and yet not so perfitly but that some evil actions are through humayn fraylty done in by them so on the contrary is the office of prelacy vnlawfull vnlawfully founded and yet not so absolutely but that the good work of preaching may be and is performed in and by it Which preaching being also an inferiour work of that office and order which is principally set vp for government and that wherwith the Bishops do litle trouble the Churches it maâ— well be excluded froÌ„ the foundation of theyr office though a work thereof as there are also many doctrines of Christian religion besydes those which are properly called the foundations thereof though a work good in it self yet in the extent of theyr power to preach when and where they list in theyr provinces and diocesses exorbitant and antichristian so a parte of theyr usurpation whether of the foundation or building it matters not a parte of which power they also share out vnto the ministers in theyr severall parrishes An other argument he bring vpoÌ„ an affirmatioÌ„ in my book p. 29 that preaching is no natural or necessary parte of the parochiall ministers office This myne assertion in the first place he reprocheth as an intemperate speach proceeding from an impotent sicknes of mynde which yet sayth he may be vsed agaynst my selfe If I were sick of any such impotency of mynde as he in his potency of mynde pronounceth I should surely fynde him a phisition of no value which brings no other medicine then a reproch to cure me withall Onely he insinuates a reason agaynst that I say which is that preaching the word is expresly mentioned in the ministers ordination And is it not also mentioned in the ordination of a Mas-preist of whose office notwithstanding it is no necessary or naturall parte yea is it not evident that one and the same ordination serves both for a Mas-preist parochiall minister being given by a popish Byshop and so
by consequence that there is one the same office of both though exercised in some different workes So also is ministring the disciplyne of Christ as the Lord hath commaunded expresly mentioned in his ordination is it therefore a necessary work of the Parochiall minister or is he any more then the Bishops mans man in publishing his court censure The Bishop also expresly bids his ordeyned one Receav the H Ghost Doth he therefore so receav it Or know we not that it is Antichrists guise and that not a litle advantageable to the mistery of his iniquity to keep the formes of good wordes without the substance of things so vnder the name of Christ to subvert Christs truth and ordinances I would to God the notorious ignorance and vtter inability to preach the gospell in the greatest parte by farr of the parochiall ministers to the destruction of so many 1000 soules for which Christ dyed did not cry out vnto God and men agaynst both that Church Prelacy and ministery that preaching is no necessary parte or work of theyr office There is but one order or office of preisthood in that church how can that be a naturall or necessary parte of that office which the most of those officers want this especially being by the constant practise of the puqlique governers according to the constitution and state of that Church ministery and government the publique lawes thereof also both ecclesiasticall and civile approveing it as otherwise so by appoynting homilyes to be read by such as are vnable to preach Such a one the patron may present for his Clâ—rk to any parishonall charge and may also compell the Bishop will he â—ill he to institute him by processe of law whom the people also are bound to receav as theyr minister with him to communicate vnder penaltyes civil and spirituall Let Baal then plead for himself even the wearing of a surplice and signeing a babes forehead with the crosse are more naturall and necessary to the parochiall ministery considered both in the common practise and publique lawes then is preaching of the gospell For inability to preach though most ordinary no minister is or can be deposed but for not conforming how many in a few years Myne affirmation then how licenciously soever myne opposite censureth both it me is so appareÌ„â—tly true as it cannot be denyed without losse of credit both to the person cause of the denyer in the eyes of all reasonable men Vppon which affirmation of myne his inference notwithstanding is of no force viz. that such ministers as give themselves to preaching do not in that buesines excercise any power receaved from the prelate as a branch of him because that power must then have been a naturall parte of his office It followeth not For as some partes or workes of the parochiall ministers office are naturall and necessary as to read divine service c. so are other workes or partes thereof but casuall arbytrary as is this of preaching as the person can or will It is not by any absolute necessity required of every minister to preach but yet he that doth preach doth it by authority of the prelate in his parrish as in a parte of the prelates province or Diocesse And where he speaks of the ministers not excercisâ—ing the power receaved from the prelate in that buesines of preaching it is as a poore shift so a vayn insinuation that though in other buesinesses he did excercise the prelates power yet not in that of preaching Wheras he both preacheth readeth divine service doth whatsoever he doth publickly by one the same ecclesiastic power office He is not one officer in the desk another in the pulpit though his works be divers â—ut the B ps minister in both He ads as opposite to an affirmation of myne pag 30. that though the prelacy were pluckâ—d vp yet the parochiall ministery might stand still as reason he sayth but shewes none will teach and experience sheweth in Denmark Saxony Hâ—ssia other partes of Germany But wherefore doth he lead me to Churches so far off whose estate I neyther can easily know nor he happily justify Why doth he not rayther insist in the better both known reformed churches in the low couÌ„tries I perceav if I follow him in his ManuductioÌ„ he wil lead me coÌ„passe enough Well I deny marvell he would affirm that the same parochiall office and power of ministery doth remayn in those Churches which was in vse before the extirpation of the prelacy there The office it self was the order of Mas-preisthood the power derived from the Pope popeish prelacy That the works of preaching and prayer performed by many of the parochiall ministers and also by some of the Masse-preists may remayn though the prelacy be taken away with it the parochiall preisthood also is without doubt as they do in the reformed Churches and with vs where there is neyther prelate not parochiall minister but our question is not about some particular workes as myne opposite makes it but as hath been oft observed about the very function it self and the power by which it is given and vsed And for the poynt since all the ministers of that Church are made appoynted by the Bishops authority take away the same Bishops authority and how can the ministers remayn the same ministers Take away the correlative and the relation ceaseth 2. Take away the prelacy and how possibly can such a ministery continue as is the parochiall whereof the one of the two partes though the inferiour which stands in feeâ—ing the flock by ruling shal be vsurped and possessed by the prelates and theyr ordinaryes 3. Take away the Provin and Dioc Prelates and with them the prov and dioc churches and then the parochiall churches as partes of them must fall with them theyr whole and with the churches the ministers as partes of them 4 It is not possible that the prelacy being abolished such an office of ministery of which office the reader must still remember our question to be should survive as whereof men vtterly vnapt to teach should be capable as it is with the parochiall ministery Can such stuffe passe thorough any but Byshops fingers or will the Lord ever wipe away so much of theyr shame as to suffer any other hands but of prelates and theyr chaplayns to be layd vppon the heads of such Idoll-preists Or is it possible that in any other then the Episcopall governmeÌ„t the ministery of â—o many zealous and learned teachers should hang vppon the cop-web of conformity to Crosse Surplice such vanityes be in daunger every day for refusall thereof to be broken asunder Can this web be woven by others then Byshops or of other stuffe then comes out of theyr bowels Lastly is it possible that in such light of the truth as now shineth in Engl all the profane parrish without difference should be compelled to
for the outward guidance ordering of the Church in her publique affayrs by the Byshops or Elders And thus and in this regarde all in the parrish assemblyes if not vnder the Prelates spirituall iurisdiction as many would make themselves and others beleev are lawlesse persons inordinate walkers neyther is this myne assertion eyther lavish or lawlesse but a just necessary testimony agaynst theyr transgression of which I wish them from the Lord more conscience for that purpose better counsayl then in this manuduction they finde Lastly to make way to a touch of wit vnto which he cannot get by my wordes meaning truely related he takes liberty to change the one other for his advantage I do p 30 propound sundry defences made by such both ministers people as dislike the prelaâ—y and the first of the people to wit that they are not subiect to the prelates government And that I intend this of the people is evident by my reply in the same place the words whereof I have formerly noted down in the 2 d consideration of his answer This by me spoken and intended of the people he misapplyeth to the ministers putting as my wordes These ministers are vnder no spirituall government and so would in wantonnesse of wit fasten the same reproof vpon my self as haveing been formerly with none now with one Elder without government also and so an inordinate walker The truth then is that the people professing themselves though most vntruely to be from vnder the Prelates Spirituall government do therein professe themselves to be from vnder all christian church government that both ministers and people professing themselves to be from vnder the prelates spirituall power do therein professe themselves to be from vnder all power of Christ for the censures in those respects and considerations of which onely I speak though he streach my words further then he should eyther in charity or equity to be lawlesse persons inordinate walkers without the yoak of Christ one speciall means of theyr salvation And thus much for the confirmation of my testimony agaynst communion with the parochiall assemblyes in the particulars though far froÌ„ all in my former book as myne opposite pretendeth wherin he hath endeavoured to weaken it where I also desyre the Reader well to note that whatsoever eyther he pretendeth or others conceav of publique coÌ„munion following vppon private yet the issue unto which things come between him me is in these two questions 1. whether the Bishops jurisdiction in theyr provinces diocesses be lawfull or no 2. whether the parochial ministers being ordeyned instituted licensed by the Bishops do preach by theyr authority or no The other two stumbling blockes as he calls them viz. that all are vrged to communion by poenall lawes that a set form of prayer iâ— appointed he neyther purposeth nor thinks it needfull to deal about seing 1. there are many excercises of religion where none are present by constraynt nor the service book so much as appeareth for which he instanceth in Mr. Parkins his excercise And wherefore doth he still after his but an evill custome chaunge the state of the question which is not about mens being presonâ— by constreynt at the excercises of religion but about Churches gathered by constreynt of all the profane parrishioners with the other handfull as vvas that parrish church whereof Mr Perkins was a member where he taught that by authority from vnder the prelates My being once at his successours sermon since I professed separation is neyther pertinently nor truely obiected by him I was there as in many other places since I made question of it disputed for it but had not otherwise professed it And vppoÌ„ this occasion I think good to note down the work of Gods providence towards me in this matter Comeing to Cambridge as to other places where I hoped most to fynde satisfaction to my troubled heart I went the fore-noon to Mr Cha his excercise who vppon the relation which Mary made to the disciples of the resurrection of Christ delivered in effect this doctrine that the things which concerned the whâ—le church were to be declared publiquely to the whole Church not to some parte onely bâ—inging for instance proofe the wordes of Christ Mat 1817. Tell it to the Church confirming therein one mayn ground of our difference from the Ch of Engl which is that Christ hath given his power for excommunication to the whole church gathered together in his name as 1 Cor 5 the officers as the governers the people as the governed in the vse thereof vnto which Church his servants are comaunded to bring theyr necessary complaynts And I would desyre myne opposite eyther to shew me how where this Church is haveing this power in the partish assemblyes or els by what warrant of Gods word I knowing what Christ the Lord coÌ„maunded herein may with good conscience remayn a member of a Ch without this power much lesse where the contrary is advanced so go on in the known transgression of that his coÌ„maundement Tell the church In the afternoon I went to hear Mr B the successour of Mr. Perkins who from Eph 5. v 7. or 11. shewed the vnlawfulnes of familiar conversation between the servants of God the wicked vpon these grounds or the most of them 1. that the former are light the other darknes between which God hath separated 2. that the godly hereby are endaungered to be levened with the others wickednes 3. that the wickâ—d are hereby hardened in receaving such approbation from the godly 4 that others are thereby offended occasioned to think them all alike as birdes of a fâ—ther which so floâ—k together Whom afterwardes privately I desyred as I do also others to consider vvhether these very Reasons make not as effectually much more agayâ—â—â—th sâ—irituall communion of Gods people especially vvhere there vvants the means of reformatioÌ„ vvith the apparently vvicked to vvhom they are as light to dâ—rknes To that vvhich he alledgeth in the 2 d place of the reformed Churches generally vsâ—â—ng a stint form â—f prayer with whom yet I will not refuse all publique coÌ„munion I ansvver that for the very vse of a set form of prayer or other the like fayling I vvill not refuse communion vvith a true Church in things lavvfull but between the set form of prayer vsed in the reformed Churches in the vnreformed Ch of Engl I put great difference not onely in the matter sundry orders thereof but especially in the manner of imposeing it which in the reformed Ch is not by compulsioÌ„ nor in the first place as in the Ch of Engl where the reading of it is preferred before above the preaching of the gospell and where more ministers and those of the best sorte have been deprived of theyr ministery in a few monthes for the not reading and observeing
deriving spirituall authority from them And because Popeish kings have given theyr power to the beast shall Christian kings therefore take the beasts power vnto them which they should surely do in makeing themselves the spring-heades from whence floweth the power of makeing ministers excommunicateing offenders which the Prelates vse in theyr Provinces Diocesses And albeit for want of the bookes I cannot exactly set down the judgment of the lawes in this case yet may I safely affirm that they no where derive from the kings civile authority the power of these spirituall administrations but do onely make the king the establisher vphoulder civily of this power The same ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had been in vse in popery a great part of the popish Hierarchy was confirmed Eliz pri so continueth at this day in vayn men apply theyr industry arâ— in the washing of this blackmore Neyther yet doth it follow though the lawes of the land did esteem this Iurisdiction civile that therefore it were such indeed They may and do misesteem many things especially of this kynde They esteem the Crosse Surplice c. indifferent yea comely â—dificative ceremonyes are they therefore such or so esteemed by this authour So for those corrupt vsurpations abuses which he affirmeth to be mingled with the Byshops so seeming vnto him civile power do not the lawes of the land esteem even them also lawfull laudable ordinances orders The Arguments therefore from the lawes esteem to the nature of the thing is of no force Now that the prelates Iurisdiction in theyr Prov Dioc is not civile but ecclesiasticall a spiritual externall power appeareth playnly by these Reasons First where he makes it civile because it is coactive or bodily enforceing I conclude on the contrary that because it is not so coactive therefore it is not civile The furthest the Byshops can go as Byshops is to excommunicate a man or to pronounce him an heretique which done they may deliver him to the secular power or procure a civile coactive processe agaynst him from the L Chauncelour in certayn cases 2 dly Where he affirmeth that the king might perform the works of theyr jurisdiction by other civile officers there neyther can be stronger nor need be other Arguments to prove the contrary then the very consideration of the nature of those theyr workes which are for substance the makeing of ministers excommunicateing of offenders with theyr contraryes appâ—rtenances which to call civile workes what is it but to make a civile religion 3 dly Let theyr consecration to theyr byshopricks be looked into and there wil be found in them no word or sillable insinuateing any civile authority but onely that which is spirituall for the feeding of the flock doeing the work wherevnto the H Ghost hath called them such scriptures also being therevnto applyed as conteyn in them onely the callings offices workes of the ministers of the Church 4 ly Theyr civile authority whether that which is peculiar to some of them as to be of the pryvy councell or high commission or that which is more ordinary coÌ„mon to all as to be Iusticers of peace in the countryes where they live is but one the same conveyed by one and the same ioynt calling commission with that of other counsaylers commissioners Iusticers therefore is nothing at all to that iurisdiction by which they ordeyn ministers and excommunicate offenders which the foresayd civile magistrates neyther have nor can have power to practise though by theyr civile power they do and may civilely restreyn men vnder peyn of bodily punishmeÌ„t Ad vnto this also that the Byshops may do excercise all every part of theyr episcopall authority where they have not the least civile authority viz in the cittyes and corporations within theyr Provinces and Diocesses as for example the Bishop of Norwich in the city of Norwich where his civile authority is no more then myne Lastly whereas all civile proceedings are made in the name of the king they on the contrary side proceed In the name of God though too oft verifying the old saying In nomine Dei incipit omne malum And by these reasons that which I did not suspect that any would have denyed is confirmed to wit that the Prelates power in theyr Provinces and Diocesses is not civile but a kynde of externall spirituall power which I have also in my former book proved Antichristian as vsurpeing vppon Christes royal prerogatives subverting the order of true Christian government su allowing vp as with full mouth both the peoples liberty and Elders government wherewtih Christ the Lord hath invested the true Church He proceedeth But if this be so then sayth Mr Rob those ministers are vnder no spirituall government and so be lawlesse persons and inordinate walkers c. His answers are 1. that they so govern themselves as that no honest man hath cause to abhor from theyr communion 2 that they are subiect to civile government even in spirituall actions in the larger acception of the word to externall regiment merely spirituall 3. that they are no more lawles persons then I my self was when I had no elder ioyned with me or am now with myne one Elder since I exclude the people from all government In these answers he neyther dealeth with me nor the cause of the Lord as is meet For first I do not in my book inter this exception vppon the former ground as he sets it down for his advantage as will appear in the examination of the 3. answer 2. I do not alledg it to prove communion vnlawfull with them as he insinuates but to reprove that vppon theyr own plea theyr Church-state standing as such as wherein they neyther do nor can enioy the spirituall externall government of Christ in his Church so neyther have that conscience which is meet of the commaundements of Christ by his Apostles to give due honour to them who rule well to submit themselves to those who are over them in the Lord nor of theyr own frayltyes in what need they stand of the Lords ordinances of this in speciall for theyr guidance conservation in his wayes And though he passe by this reproof not myne but the H Ghostes turning it off another way yet let the godly Reader with good conscience remember that the disciples of Christ are to observ whatsoever he hath commaunded his Apostles withall that it was the Prophets comfort that he should not be confounded when he had respect to all Gods cammaundemeÌ„ts 3. In his 1. 2. answer he speakes not at all to the purpose in hand our question not being about the personall government which a man hath over himself nor about civile government though in spirituall actions nor about government at all in the larger acceptation of the word ut onely as it is taken