or in any other Court by other of the Kings Iustices would our lawes freecustomes of the Realme think you iustifie that the spirituall person enioyning still his spiritual function might in this case be mulcted with the losse of his benefice and yet the teÌ„poral person not to be punishable by the losse of his freehold The examples produced by you relieve no whit at all your case nay rather they stand on our side and make good our part For how long soever the Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete doe enioy their offices for so long time by your owne collection they ought to enioy their Freeholdes annexed to their offices yea and you assume in effect that they may not lawfully for contempt or any other cause be disseised of their freeholds so long as they be possessed of their offices Now then if from the identity of reason you would conclude that a Parson or Vicare for contempt lawfully deposed from his ministeriall function should in like maner lawfully loose his freehold annexed to his office as the Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete put from their offices should loose theirs we would not much have gainsaid your assertion For we hold it vnreasonable that a Parson or Vicar deposed from his ministeriall function should enioy that freehold or maintenance which is provided for him that must succeed in his ministerial charge But then your assertion would make nothing against vs. For so you must prove that your officers for contempt only may lawfully be put from their freeholds annexed to their offices and yet notwithstanding remaine the same officers still And then indeed froÌ„ some parity or semblance of reason you might have inferred that a Parson or Vicare for coÌ„tempt deprived of his free hold annexed to his function might notwithstanding such coÌ„tempt enioy his ministeriall function still But to dispute after this sort were idlely to dispute not to dispute ad idem For how doth this follow The Kings officer if for contempt he be displaced from his office can not withall but be displaced from his freehold which ioyntly with his office and in regard of his office he possessed Therfore a Parson or Vicare for contempt may lawfully be deprived from his benefice or freehold annexed to his ministeriall function and yet notwithstanding enioy his ministeriall function still And this is the maine point generall case for the most part of all the Ministers which at this day for contempt stand deprived For among all the sentences pronounced for contempt there is scarce one to be fouÌ„d which deposeth a Parson or Vicare from his ministerial office but onlie which depriveth him from his Church Parsonadge or Vicaradge Whereby the vnreasonablenes of certeine ordinaries in their processe of deprivatioÌ„s become so much the more vnreasonable by how much more vnreasonable it seemeth to be that any publicke officer should lawfully be continued in his publicke office and yet not be suffered to enioy any publick meanes to mainteine the same his office And thus much have we replied vnto your answere made vnto our pleadings that by the lawes and freecustomes of the Realme a Parson or Vicar being a freeman of the Realme may not for coÌ„tempt vnto his ordinaries admonitioÌ„ be deprived from his freehold if so be you grant that he may enioy his ministerial function still As touching the lawes of the church it hath ben already sufficiently demonstrated that there is then no contempt at all committed against an admonition wheÌ„ the partie admonished can alleadge any iust or reasonable cause of his not yeelding to his admonisher And if no contempt in such case be made then no deprivatioÌ„ from a benefice or deposition from the ministerie in such case ought to follow Considerations against subscription to the booke of the forme and maner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons WHat the reason or cause should be that subscription vnto this booke of consecration ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons hath bene of lâ—te yeares so hotly and egerly pursued by the Lords of the Clergie is a misterie perhaps not of many of the laytie well vnderstood And how soever vnder colour of the maintenance of obedience to the statute of the Realme whereby this booke is confirmed the same subscription may seeme to be pressed nevertheles if the maine drift and reason of this pressure were well boulted out it is to be feared that not only the vnlawful supremacie of an Archbishop is sought to be advaÌ„ced above the lawfull supremacie of our Soverayne Lord King Iames but also that the Synodals Canons and Constitutions made by the Clergie in their convocation are intended if not to be preferred above yet at leastwise to be made equall to the common law and statutes of the Realme By the ancient lawes and customes of the Realme one parcell of the Kings iurisdiction and imperiall Crowne hath evermore consisted in graunting ecclesiasticall iurisdiction vnto Archbishops Bishops and other Prelats For the maintenance of wich imperiall iurisdiction and power against the vsurped supremacie of the Bishop of Rome divers statutes not introductorie of new law but declaratorie of the old in the time of King Henry the eight King Edward the sixth and of our late most Noble Queene deceased have bene made and enacted Yea and in a book entituled The Institution of a Christian man composed by Thomas Archbishop of Canterburie Edward Archbishop of Yorke all the Bishops divers Archdeacons Prelates of the Realme that then were dedicated also by them to King Henry the eight it is confessed and acknowledged that the nomination presentation of the Bishopricks apperteyned vnto the kings of this Realme And that it was and â—halbe lawfull to Kinges and Princes and their Successors with consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call againe into their owne handes or otherwise to restreine all the power and iurisdiction which was given and assigned vnto Priests Bishops by the lycence consent sufferance and authoritie of the same Kings and Princes and not by authoritie of God and his Gospell whensoever they shall have grounds and causes so to doe as shal be necessarie wholesome and expedient for the Realmes the repressing of vice the increase of Christian faith and religion Ever since which time vntill of late yeares the late Archbishops of Canterbury with the counsel of his colledge of Bishops altered that his opinion which some times in his answere made to the admonition to the Parliament he held it was generally and publickely maintained that the state power and iurisdiction of Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops in England stood not by any Divine right but meerly and altogether by humaine policie and ordinance alone And that therefore according to the first and best opinion and iudgment of the said Archbishops Bishops c. the same their iurisdiction might be taken away and altered at the will and pleasure of the kings of England when
soever they should have grounds and causes so to doe Mary since when as the Discipline and governement provinciall diocesan ministred and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased and his Suffraganes was diversly handled disputed and controverted not to be agreeable but repugnant to the holy Scriptures necessarie also for the repressing of vice the increase of faith and Christian religion to be changed they herevpon iustly fearing that the most vertuous Christian Queene deceased vpon sundry cōplaints made in open Parliament against their many vniust greevances would have reformed the same their maner of governement they then presently vpon new advise and consulation taken boldly and constantly avouched the same their governement to have bene from the Apostles times and agreeable to the holy scriptures and therefore also perpetuall and still to be vsed in no case to be altered by any king or Potentate whatsoever By meanes of which this their enclyning to the popish opinion and holding their Iurisdictiō to bee de iure divino professedly mainteyning in the Homilie wherevnto also subscription is vrged that the King and all the Nobilitie ought to be subiect to excommunication there is now at length growne such a mayne position of having a perpetuall Diocesan and Provinciall governement in the church that rather then their Hierarchie should stoope they would cause the Kings Supremacie which he hath over their said Iurisdiction to fall downe to the ground In so much as by their supposition the King hath no authoritie no not by his supreame power to alter their sayd governement at all And to this end and purpose as it seemeth in their late canons have they devised and decreed this booke of ordination to be subscribed vnto Which subscription can not but quite and cleane overthrow the Kings supremacie and auncient iurisdiction in the most dangerous degree For if their Provinciall and Diocesan orders and degrees of Ministerie together with their iurisdiction be to bee vsed as established and derived vnto them by the holy scriptures how then can it be in the power and iurisdiction of the King to graunt or not to graunt the vse of Provinciall and Diocesan Bishopisme and iurisdiction Or how may the provinciall Bishops with their Diocesan Suffraganes be called the kings ecclesiasticall officers if their iurisdictions be not derived vnto them from the king For if they be called Gods Bishops or Bishops of Gods making how then may they anie more be called the kings Bishops or Bishops of the kings presenting nominating and confirming Nay besides who then can alter them who can restreyne them who can revoke or recall their power and iurisdiction who can resist them or what king of England may pluck his neck from vnder their yoke Nay how should the kings Supremacie as by the ancient Lawes of the Realme it ought remayne inviolable when his Royall person whole Nobilitie and Realme is subiect and lyable to the censure of the canon Law excommunication Which law the Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops to this day in right and by vertue of their Provinciall and Diocesan iurisdiction and none otherwise do stil vse practise and put in execution Besides if Bishops Provinciall and Diocesan as they be described in that book be commanded in the Scriptures and were in vse ever since the Apostles times then ought they to be in the Church of England though the King and his law never allowed nor approved of them But to hold this opinion as it will vphold the Popes supremacie because the generall reasons which vphold a Provinciall Bishop will vphold a Pope so will it once againe not only impeach the Kings supremacie but also be repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realm By which supremacie lawes and customes only the provinciall diocesan Bishops have bene hitherto vpheld For seing the lawes and customes of the Realme doe make the Kings nomination presentation and confirmation the very essence and being of a Provinciall Diocesan Bishop with vs So that these offices ought to be held only from the authoritie gift and graunt of the King how ought not the kings nomination presentation authoritie and gift yea and the law it self in this case wholy cease if the order degree ministerie and iurisdiction of a provinciall and diocesan Bishop be founded in holy Scripture Vnlesse we shall affirme that that was in the Apostles times which was not or that that is to be found in holy Scripture which is not Namely that there were in the Apostles times and that there be in the holy Scriptures no Bishops but provinciall and dioceasan Bishops to bee found And that by the law of God and the Gospell every King and Potentate hath supreme power to suffer none but Provinciall Diosan Bishops to be in the Churches So that by subscription to allow that provinciall and Diocesan Bishops be Scripturely Bishops and that their iurisdiction and power is a Scripturely iurisdiction and power is to deny that their iurisdiction and power dependeth vpon the kings iurisdiction and power or that by the kings gift and authoritie they be made Bishops But how doeth subscription you will say to the booke of ordination approve the orders and degrees of provinciall diocesan Bishops to be by Divine right rather then by humane ordinance How Why thus it is evident saith the preface of that booke to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have bene these orders of Ministers in Christes Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Yea and by the whole order of prayer and of Scripture read vsed in the forme of consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop it is apparant that the order of an Archbishop or Bishop consecrated by that booke is reputed taken to be of Divine institution And therfore seing the names of those orders of Ministers must necessarily be taken and vnderstood of such orders of Ministers as be sett forth and described in the body of that booke it must needes be intended that the Ministers by their subscription should approve the orders of Ministers mencioned in that booke to be of Divine institution and consequently that provinciall and diocesan Ministers or Bishops have not their essence and being from the nomination gift authoritie of the King Besides if we should vnderstand by the word Bishop him that hath the Ministrie of the word and Sacraments as the Pastor teacher and by the word Priest the Presbiter that is the Governing elder and by the word Deacon the provider for the poore then for the Ministers to subscribe to the booke of ordination would no way iustifie those officers or degrees of Ministers which are described in that booke but would indeed vtterly subvert and overthrow them Because the orders and degrees of a provincial diocesan Bishop of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that booke be of a farr differing nature from those orders and degrees of Ministers which are mencioned
of this act Now by what other words then by these of this provisoe could the Parliament more fully and clearly have expressed their mind that the same by the tenor and effect of this provisoe intended for ever wholy to seclude all Papall and foraine canons from being vsed and executed within this Realme For at the petition and submission of the clergie the Parliament having first enacted that neither they nor any of them from thencefoorth should presume to attempt alleadge clayme or put in vre any constitutions o◠ordinances Provincionall or Synodalles or any other Canons And againe at the petition and submission of the Clergie the same Parliament having committed to the view search examination and iudgement of the King and 32. persons such Canons constitutions and ordinances or the said Canons constitutions and ordinances provinciall and Synodall which as thertofore had bene made by the Clergie of this Realme And lastlie by this proviso the same Parliament having enacted that such Canons provinciall constitutions provinciall ordinances provinciall Synodalls Provinciall for the word Provinciall by the whole tenor and effect of this Act can not in this place but have reference to everie of these wordes shall still be vsed and executed c. till such tyme as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said two thirtie persons c. Seeing these things I say be thus First submitted then afterwards committed and lastly provided and not one word sillable or lotter ayming at the continuance vse keeping or obedience of the popish canon law it can not bee averred by any vnlesse he be too too conceited opiniative that the Canon law or any part thereof made by the Pope without the Realme may lawfully at this day be attempted alleadged claymed or put in vre within the Realme by any Iudge Ecclesiasticall what soever yea and thus much also is confirmed by a statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. Howsoever therefore the Kings of England deryving their Ecclesiasticall Lawes from others being proved approved and allowed hereby and with a generall consent are rightly and aptly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande in like maner as those lawes which the Normans borrowed from England were called the lawes of Normandie and as those lawes which the Romans fetching from Athens being allowed and approved by that state were called Ius ciuile Romanorum howsoever I say this be true nevertheles herevpon it will not follow that those Ecclesiasticall lawes thus borrowed and derived from others may then any more rightly and aptly be called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande when once by and with a generall consent in Parliament they have bene disproved and disallowed Yea and when also they have bene vtterly adnulled and commanded never to be put in execution within the Realme of England From whence it seemeth to follow that whatsoever subiect shall take vpon him full and plenarie power to deliver iustice in any cause to any the Kinges subiects or to punish any crime and offence within the Kings Dominions by vertue of those lawes once by so absolute high an authoritie disanulled that the same person denyeth the Parliament to have full power to allow and disalow lawes in all causes to all the Kinges subiects and consequently that the high Court of Parliament is not a compleat Court for the whole and intyre body of the Realme Wherefore albeit we graunt as the trueth of the Kings law is vnto the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries that lawfully they may proceede to inquire in their visitations and Synodes and els where to take accusations and informations of all and every thing and things above mencioned done committed and perpetrated within the limites of their iurisdictions and authoritie and to punish the same by admonition suspension sequestration or deptivation though thus much had never bene provided by the statute nevertheles we desire to be resolved whether any minister ought to bee punished by these or any other censures and processe before the ordinarie for any offence mencioned in this act if for the same offence the same Minister by vertue of this act be not punishable before the Kings Iustices And therefore for example sake put this case viz. That a Minister for the not crossing of a childe vpon the forehead after baptisme is fully administred be indighted before some of the kings Iustices and afterward vpon a traverse before some other of the kings Iustices the same Minister be found to have ministred the same sacrament of Baptisme in such order and forme as in the booke is prescribed Notwithstanding the omission of this ceremonie after baptisme and that vpon such a traverse the indightment before the said second Iustices be found to be vnsufficient in law and the Minister by the same Iustices be adiudged not to be in danger of the penaltie of imprisonment c. because his such not crossing is no offence against the law we demand we say in this case whether the same Minister by the Bishops of the Diocesse may be suspended or deprived from his ministerie or from his benefice for the same his not crossing yea or no. Considerations against the deprivation of a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice in divine service IN the whole body of the statute there is not one syllable or letter frō the which any semblance of reason can be deduced that any Minister of the church for refusing to vse or for the not vsing of any ornament appointed by the statute or by the book to bee in vse should be punished with the peyne of deprivatiō For what soever punishment a Minister for the breach of the Statute may sustayne by the kings Iustices the same is only to be imposed for such offences as are specified before the last provisoe of the statute Ornamentes therfore of the church provided to be reteyned and to be in vse being not cōteyned in those premises or things mencioned before the second provisoe concerning the Archbishops and Bishops authoritie and for refusing whereof a Minister by the premises is punishable it followeth there being no punishmēt for refusing the vse of ornaments in the last provisoe that the not vse of ornamentes is not punishable before the kings Iustices And if there be no punishment appointed to be inflicted before the kings Iustices for the refusing to vse any ornament thē much lesse is there any punishment to be inflicted for the refusall of the vse of a Surplice For the Surplice is so farre from being commanded to be worne as an ornament in every service of the church as the same is not so much as once particularly mencioned either in the parish booke or in the statute Nay by the generall wordes both of the statute and the booke the Surplice is wholy secluded from being appointed to be an ornament of it selfe in some part of the service of the Church For if with the same in some part of the service there be not a Cope
grounded vpon the said statute bookes or Provincials sundry grave learned and godly Pastors and other Ministers for sundry yeares passed have bene deprived suspended or excommunicated from their benefices dignities promotions and ministeries for not vsing the surplice If the Archbishops Bishops and other ordinaries have heretofore proceeded lawfully in this case by any other right then statute lawe it were greatly to be wished a thing tending every way to their honor credite and reputation that the same their Iustice were made publikely knowne to the end all maner persons and states might rest them selves fully satisfied and well perswaded of the integritie of such their proceedings as wherof they now stand in doubt For our partes we acknowledge that the Queenes Highnes had authoritie by the statute with the advise of her Commissioners c. or Metropolitane to take other order for ornamentes But wee never yet vnderstood that any other order was taken accordingly and especiallie in any such sorte as that the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries might warrant their sentences of deprivation to be lawfull against the Ministers which refuse to vse the Surplice By the Advertisements wherevpon as it seemeth they did principally rely and by authoritie whereof they did chiefly proceed it is apparant that neither the letter nor intendement of the statute for the alteration of ornamentes was observed And that therefore the commaundement of wearing a Surplice in steed of a white Albe playne by the advertissementes was not duely made For though by her Highnes letters it doth appeare that she was desirous as the preface to the advertisemēts importeth to have advise from the Metropolitane cōmissioners that she might take order nevertheles that her Highnes by her authority with their advise did take order alter the ornamēts this I say doth no where appeare no not by the advertisements them selves Howsoever then the Metropolitane vpon the Queenes mandative letters that some orders might be taken had conference and communication and at the last by assent and consent of the ecclesiasticall commissioners did think such orders as were specified in the advertisements meete and convenient to be vsed and followed neverthelesse all this proveth not that these orders were taken by her Maiesties Authoritie For the Metropolitane and Commissioners might thinke agree and subscribe that the advertisementes were meete and convenient and yet might these advertisements be never of any valew as wherevnto her Highnes authoritie was never yeelded But be it graunted that the Surplice by the Advertisements or other canons hath bene duely authorized yet herevpon it can not bee concluded that an ordinary by his ordinarie Iurisdiction hath power to deprive a Minister from his benefice for not vsing a Surplice vbi non sertur in contra facientes aliqua poena constitutio est imperfecta modicum prodesse poterit quoad contra facientes there being thē no peine mencioned in the advertisementes to bee imposed vpon a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice how should a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice suffer the losse of his benefice which is one of the greatest peynes Herevnto happily it wil be answered that vbi certa poena statuta est non debet Iudex ab ea recedere vbi vero non est statuta tunc est imponenda ad arbitrium Iudicantis And further that respectu poenae infligendae proper contemptum Iudicis non reperitur provisio regulariter à lege facta ideo Judex potest arbitrio suo poenam imponere Touching which answeres it may brieflie be replyed that the peyne spoken of in the civil law is generally vnderstoode of a pecuniarie peyne to be assessed and applied to the silke or more specially it may be vnderstood that among many corporall peynes the Iudge arbitrarily may choose which shall seeme to him most modicinable Now these kinde of peynes it is manifest that neither of them by the ordinarie Iurisdiction ecclesiasticall in the church of England can be imposed for contempt And as for that which to the same effect may bee alleadged out of the forein canonistes or forein canon law thus standeth the case The whole plott frame of the building of the canon law as before hath bene proved is cleane ruinated and wasted From whence it followeth that all the posts sommers walles plates rafters and roofe of that pallace with all the yron leaden and wooden implementes and vtensilles thereof be all likewise rotten and naught else but drosse canker And so from the Nullitie thereof it is to be inferred that an ordinary can not defend or practise his ordinarie Iurisdiction by that law against any of the Kings subiectes For all strange and forein law is both a strange power and a forein traytor to the Kings crowne and for that cause can not be pleaded in any of the kinges ecclesiasticall courtes without being in danger of loosing her head Howsoever then this rule in the romish consistories by the Romish law be true that an Ordinarie for inobedience or contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne where a statute or constitution hath appointed no peyne yet because this rule is an irregular enimy to the regiment of the kings Crowne it seemeth that the kings subiect is wronged whensoever an ecclesiasticall ordinary for contempt shal impose arbitrarily any peyne for the which peyne he hath not expresse warrant from the kings ecclesiasticall law Besides if the Romish canon law were the Kings ecclesiasticall law yet doth not the former exception prove that a Parson or Vicare may be deprived from his benefice by the ordinaries iurisdiction for the not vse of a surplice only the said exceptiō affordeth thus much viz. that if an ordinarie iudicially and canonically as they call it according to the sanctions not of the English but of the Romish church have admonished a Minister to weare a surplice the exception I say affordeth in this case thus much that his ordinary for contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne if so be nether by common right nor by constitutiue law there be an ordinarie peyne imposed But now so it is that this case falleth not out to be within the compasse of the peyne of deprivation for not wearing a surplice For it is contempt only and not the not wearing of a surplice that arbitrarily may bee punished in this case Why then though an ordinary be not able by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes to drawe in a Ministers deprivation principally and by the head for not wearing a surplice yet it seemeth that he may drawe in the same consequently as it were by the tayle namely by chardging him with wilfull periury or obstinat contempt for the which causes he may iustly be deprived Nay soft good Sir your conclusion is without premisses For who ever graunted that the Romish canon lawe was the Kings ecclesiasticall law howsoever then from part of mine answere made to the exception of contempt you
as he was perswaded grounded vpon the holy commandement of the most high God that he durst not for feare of wounding his owne conscience and displeasing God to weare the surplice in any part of Divine worship For if the request of an earthly king superior to an Archb. be a reasonable excuse to save a BB. from contempt against an Archb. How much more ought the authoritie and precept of an heavenly king be a iust and reasonable impediment to save a minister from contempt against a Bishops admonitiō Vnlesse then a Bishop will avow and be able out of holy writ to iustifie that a Ministers conscience especially a Ministers conscience who walketh as Zakarias did in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe can not be any iust or reasonable excuse or impediment why he ought not or may not or will not in Divine worship weare a surplice being thervnto admonished by his ordinary vnles I say the Bishop out of holy writ be able fully to prove that such a Ministers conscience is no iust or reasonable cause to stay him from wearing a surplice in Divine worship in this case I say that even by the Romish canon law it self there can no contempt be charged vpon such a Minister for not obeying his ordinaries first second third admonitions the reasons whereof even out of the same canon law have bene alleadged before in the first parte of these cōsiderations But to leave the foraine canon law and all the rules thereof as being no branches of the Ecclesiasticall lawes of England let it be granted that before the statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. some canon or constitution Synodall or Provinciall had bene made or since have bene made by the Clergie of the Realme in their cōvocation assembled by the Kings writ that a Parson or Vicare for periurie or contempt ecclesiasticall should bee deprived of his benefice neverthelesse it seemeth that the same is a voide canon and a void constitution Because it is contrary or repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realme By which lawes and customes no free man of the Realme can be dispossessed of his franck tenement for contempt or periury in any of the kings temporall Courts All Parsons and Vicars then canonically instituted inducted being not subiects at this day to any forain power but being freemen of the Realme in as large and ample maner as any Layickes the Kings other subiects be it seemeth that a Parson Vicare by the lawes and customes of the Realme being a Freehoulder should for none other cause loose his Freehould then for the which like cause a Layicke may loose his Yea and because no Layicke by the laws customes of the Realme may bee put from his Freehould for contempt no though the same cōtempt be committed against the kings Proclamation or any decree made in his high Courte of Chancerie by so much the more vnreasonable it seemeth to be that a Parson or Vicare for contempt against his ordinaries admonition should bee deprived from his benefice by how much a contempt against the Kings commaundement is more heinous then is a contempt against the ordinaries admonition You mistake the cases as it seemeth you vnderstand not the law The Freehold of a layick and the Freehold of an ecclesiasticall person be not of one nature The former belongeth vnto him by a title invested in his person but the latter apperteyneth vnto a Church-man in the right of his Church If then the Churchman be displaced from his Church it followeth by a necessary cōsequence that he must likewise be discharged from his freehold For he being in the eye of the law dead vnto his Church can no more enioy the freehold which he held in the right of his Church then can a dead Layick any longer holde a Franktenement in right of his person And for your better satisfaction herein I would have you to consider that the like course of Iustice is kept and ministred against certeine officers in the common weale which officers so soone as for any iust cause they shall be put frō their offices doe withall and forthwith loose such their freeholdes as iointly with their offices and in regard of their offices they held The Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete having their offices graunted for terme of life though other of them by the same graunt be seised of a freehold the one of the house called the Rolles the other of the house called the Fleete nevertheles if the first bee put from his Mastership and the second from his Wardenship neither can the one nor the other by the law and iustice of the Realme reteyne either of those houses as his Freehold For as the houses were iointly with their offices in respect of their offices granted So their offices being once taken from thē they must withal by necessary consequence forgo those their houses w ch for the time they held as their freeholds Well if this be all that may gaynesay our position then be not our cases mistaken neither yet have we so ignorantly vrged applied the law and free customes of the Realme as you would beare vs in hande For though we grant whatsoever you have excepted to be true yet can not the same be a barre against our pleading For wee have hetherto pleaded no more in effect but thus viz. that a Parson or Vicar during his ministeriall function being in the eye of the law no dead but a living person and a free man of the Realme ought no more for a contempt vnto his Ordinaries admonition by any law of he Realme bee dispossessed from the freehold which in right of his function he enioyeth then can a Layicke for contempt vnto the Kings commandement be disseised of his And what if the Freeholdes of a Layick of an ecclesiastical person be as you say they be diversly possessed the one by right of church the other by right of person what doeth this I say impugne our saying that no Freeholder for cōtempt of the Kings cōmandment may be punished with losse of his freehold whē the great Charter of England telleth vs that a freemā shall not be amerced for a small fault but after the quantity of the fault And for a great fault after the maner therof saving to him his contenement or freehold If then vnto every freemā punishable by the law though his fault be great his Contenement or Freehold ought to be reserved it seemeth much more reasonable to follow that no Churchman being a freeman of the Realme may for contempt be punished with losse of his Contenement or Freehold And that you may consider against our next conference more deeply of this matter let me put this case vnto you viz. That a Churchman and a temporall person both freemen of the Realme for one and the selfe same contempt against the king were punishable by the great Lordes in the starre chamber
must beare his owne burthen and that every man ought by his owne innocencie to purge himselfe bee other mens offences never so great or seeme his owne in his owne eyes never so small But we have therefore balanced the toleration of scandalous and vnlearned ministers with the molestation of learned and godly Ministers to the end your Lordshippes vnderstanding the number of sinnes and impieties every where daily abounding by the multitude of the former and the scarcitie of godlines in every place to be seene by the paâ—citie of the later your Lordshippes by your wisedomes might foresee and by your authorities prevent that pestilent contagion of ignorance of Gods revealed will which by this preposterous sufferance of the one violent progresse against the other is ready to infect the whole Church and by consequence to lay wast the common weale as a pray to the popish faction For is there not by this meâ—nes a way prepared and made ready for the greatest part of the people to revolt from the Gospell to poperie and so from their naturall and Christian Lord and King to a forein antichristian Pope For let the booke of God be once sealed vp from the people in English as in time of poperie it was sealed vp vnto our fathers in Latine and let the people by example of the wicked scandalous life of Ministers be drawne along in their owne naturall corruption who will not be ready to assist every Iesuite Seminarie wheÌ„ he shal preach poperie the very mistris and mother of all corruption rebellion The wearing of a whit Surplice and the feyned making of an ayrie crosse in Baptisme how litle the popish faction by the same wil be quieted and kept in awe the late outragious starting out in Wales and their madd combynings in other places may be a good caveat for your Lordshippes to consider whether their driftes bee not rather to enterprise a more publike disturbance then to continew them selves within the listes of that obedience wherevnto they were constreyned in the raigne of our late Soveraigne of blessed memorie Queene Elizabeth Your Lordships therefore could not but performe a most acceptable service first vnto God and his Church secondly vnto the King his Realme if your Lordships would be pleased to bee petitioners vnto his Maiestie that by his Regale and Supreame power there might bee an healing of the former errour and vncharitablenes of the Diocesans and other ordinaries For it can not be denied but that by their manner of proceedings they haue sinned against God in this that they have aequaled nay rather in some things preferred their owne Canons Decrees before the commaundement of God And therfore it cannot be but that they have herein as much as in them lay provoked the wrath of God against the King and his whole Realme if by the Kings zeale this their so grosse a sinne be not reformed My Lordes we are well advised what we speake herein before your Lordships for we speake nothing but what we prove thus Whosoever for not wearing a Surplice or for not crossing in Baptisme suspendeth or depriveth a Preaching Minister otherwise vnreproveable for life and doctrine and not suspendeth nor depriveth but tolerateth an vnpreaching minister scandalous in life ignorant of doctrine the same person preferreth in this thing the observation of his owne Canon and Decree before the commandement of God But some Diocesans and ordinaries for not wearing a surplice for not making a crosse in Baptisme do suspend and deprive preaching Ministers otherwise vnreprovable for life and doctrine and yet doe neither suspend nor deprive but tolerate vnpreaching ministers scandalous in life and ignorant of doctrine Therefore some Diocesans and Ordinaries in this thing preferre the observation of their owne canons and decrees before the commandement of God We could heape argument vpon argument vnanswerable to this purpose but we should then passe the boundes of an epistle and become over tedious vnto your Lordshippes Only therefore we most humbly beseech your Lordships in the behalfe of the faithful Ministers of Christ with patience to heare thus much viz. that for their dissenting in matter of ceremonie from the Diocesans they ought no more by the Diocesans to be traduced for factious sectaries or seditious scismatickes then the Diocesans them selves ought to be traduced for such maner persons by their owne dissenting from the Cardinals and Popes of Rome For there being as litle difference betweene a sect and a scisme as there is betwene a besome a broome there being also as smal oddes betweene faction and sedition as betweene an edifice and a building it followeth the Ministers dissenting from the Diocesans of England or the same Diocesans dissenting from the Cardinalls and Popes of Rome if neither of them be seditious scismatickes that neither of them can be factious sectaries When Paule was accused by Tertullus that he was found a pestilent fellow and a moover of sedition among all the Iewes thorough all the world the Apostle answered that they neither found him in the temple disputing with any man neither making vproare among the people neither in the Synagogues nor in the Citie Art not thou saith the chief Captaine speaking to Paule the Egyptian who before these dayes raysed a sedition and led out into the wildernes foure thousand men that were murtherers By which places it appeareth that a seditious or factious person by the holy scriptures is adiudged to be such a kind of person as who boasting himselfe rayseth leadeth or draweth away much people after him and vnto whom much people resort and obey yea and by the civile law not every one that omitteth some duetie commanded but such a one as gathereth people together or stirreth theÌ„ to make a tumult and shall drawe him selfe and his followers to some place of safetie to defende him selfe and them against an evident commandement and publike discipline only such a man I say by the civile lawe is to be punished as a seditious factious person For these kind of meÌ„ only are properly said seorsum ire partes facere Seditio then being quasi seorsum itio and faction quasi partium factio yea a sect also being sic dicta quia fit quasi sectio vel divisio and a scisme being illicita divisio per inobedientiam ab vnitate Ecclesiae facta vel illicita diâ—cessio eorum inter quos vnitas esse debet it followeth that whosoever by inobedience or tumultuouslie goeth not a part or maketh not a part from the vnitie of the Church but either in doing or suffering quietly submitteth him self to the lawes that he can neither be factious sectarie nor seditious scismaticke And indeed my Lords from hence is it that the Diocesans and whole Clergie of England ever since they made a separation from the vnitie of the Church of Rome have falslie bene named and reputed sectaries scismatickes as though they
published which hath but the shew of a booke then as it seemeth hath the Clergie no law but the shewe of a law to enforce the vse of such a booke as the State hath not authorized And therefore we may not for clearing the Clergies iust reproofe confesse an vntrueth and still conceale a kinde of iniustice vnwitting to the State executed by the Cleargie vnder a colour of Iustice as if their iniustice by colour of errour were maintainable by the State For so contrarie to all reason and good duetie which we owe to the state and to the Church we should not only interlace the innocencie of the State with the guiltines of the Cleargie but also mingle the churches industrie with the Clergies ill husbandrie It is therefore no cavill to oppose a iust and true answere to an vntrue and vnsound plea For albeit the two bookes agree in many pointes and specially in mencioning the making of a crosse c. nevertheles the parish booke can not therefore any more truely be counted that booke which is authorised by act of Parliament then can that coyne bee reckoned to be the Kings coyne which hath in it nine partes silver and the tenth part copper nether is it any more lawfull for an ordinary to presse the vse of a booke in it selfe corrupted though in many points it agree with the originall then it is sufferable for the Kings Iustices to enforce the vse of a coyne in it selfe counterfeite though in forme and charactere it be like the Kings Image and superscription Wherefore the mencion made in the parish booke of making of a crosse c. not being a matter of power sufficient to warrant the parish booke but the booke authorised by act of Parliament being a matter of power to warrant the making of a crosse c. wee may iustly avow the booke of common prayer attayned and gotten by the parishioners not to bee that booke which the Ministers in their day he ministration of divine service be bound to vse notwithstanding the making of a crosse and signing the child in the forehead with a crosse be therein mencioned If reply bee made that this plea would but litle ease or advantage the Ministers in case the right booke should be reviewed corrected and new printed we then reioyne and averre First that the day is past long since before which time this worke should have bene refined and that therefore it is now too late without a new law to reviewe and amend the same Secondly that this plea will not only but litle ease and advantage the nullities iniquities and iniustices of sentences heretofore passed by the ordinaries vnder colour of that booke but also much advantage the King and his state if his Maiestie might bee pleased to do as King Ioash king of Iudah or as K. Henry the eighth king of England did king Ioash in or about the beginning of his raigne as it seemeth having appointed the Priestes to take all the silver of dedicate thinges brought to the house of the Lord and therwith to repaire the broken places of the house wheresoever any decay was found and the Priests vntill the three and twentith yeare of his Raigne not having mended that which was decayed nor repayred the ruines of the Temple the king I say because of the Priests negligence commanded the Priests to receive no more money and tooke from them the ordering of the money and committed the same to his Secretary and to Iehoâ—ada the high Priest who gaue the money made ready into the hands of them that vndertooke the worke and that had the oversight of the house of the Lorde of whom there was no reckoning taken because they dealt faithfully If the Priestes then of our age have not only not within three and twentie but not within three and fortie yeares published that booke which is mended and corrected by the Queene her state in the first yeare of her Raigne but also for the space of eight and fortie yeares have suffered a corrupted booke to be intruded into the place of a true booke we commend it to the wisedome of our Soveraigne Lord king IAMES who is as an Angell of God to discerne betweene things that differ there being no high Priest in our dayes like faithfull as was Iehoiada the high Priest in the dayes of king Ioash whether his Maiestie might not be pleased for the redresse of this and other corruptions in the Ecclesiasticall state to appoint as king Henry the eighth did an other Cromwell to be his Maiesties Vicegerent and Vicare generall over the Clergie Vnto these differences and alterations betwene the two bookes not mencioned in the statute may be annexed both an addition of certaine new prayers and some alteration also of the forme of the old prayers to be said after the end of the Letanie By addition in the parish booke there be set three severall prayers not any one of them mencioned in the Kings booke viz. A prayer for our Bishops Curates beginning thus Almightie and everlasting God which only workest great marveilles send downe vpon our Bishops and Curats c. Secondly a prayer out of the 2. of Corint 13. 13. viz. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ c. And thirdly a prayer beginning thus O God whose nature and propertie is ever to have mercie c. And whereas by the forme of King Edwards booke the Letanie should ever end with this collect following viz. Almightie God which hast given vs grace at this time with one accord c. and so this collect should be after the prayers for rayne for faire weather in the time of dearth in the time of warre and in the time of any common plague or sicknes as the time requireth This collect I say by King Edw. booke appointed to be said after all these prayers is by the parish booke set before all these Yea and it is to be said also before the prayer beginning O God whose nature propertie is ever to have mercy By meanes wherof the very forme and order of some prayers appointed in the Kings booke and by the statute commaunded to be vsed and none other or otherwise is so transposed and inverted as that the minister observing the parish booke can not but breake the order and forme of common prayer commanded to be vsed and so can not but cast his body one whole yeares fruites of his benefice vpon the kings Iudges and Iustices mercy Moreover besides these additions and alterations in the end of the Letany of King Edw. booke there is one prayer inserted which by the parish booke is wholy left out namely O God mercifull Father which in the time of Heliseus c. Lastly at the latter end of the communion in the kings book there is one Rubrick concerning kneeling at the communion which Rubrick is not in the parish booke the same beginneth thus Although no order c. There is also one Rubrick among those Rubricks
or shall wilfully and obstinately standing in the same vse any other rite ceremonie order forme or maner c. By which Letter of the Statute it seemeth that the Minister is none otherwise punishable before the Kings Iustices vnlesse wilfully and obstinately standing in the same hee shall vse some other rite ceremonie order forme or maner of celebrating the Lords Supper then is mencioned c. And vpon this clause as hath bene heretofore generally conceaved certaine inditements exactly framed even by some Iustices of assises sitting vpon the bench against certaine Ministers for the not observation of the booke before other of the Queenes Iustices haue ben traversed and avoyded as being in this point erroneous and not agreeable to the intendement of the statute Yea and it hath bene the opinion of some great Lawyers who have bene since Iudges that it is almost impossible to frame an indightement against a Minister for the breach of the first parte of the former clause of the statute which is not traversable and avoydable Fift Quaere If a Minister bound to say common prayer in any parish church shall not refuse to vse but indeed shall vse the said common prayers in such order and forme as they bee mencioned in the said booke whether he be punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed if he refuse to say any part chapter or section of the said booke which part chapter of section conteyneth no prayer For howsoever the whole booke be authorised yet the peyne seemeth in this case to have bene inflicted only for the omission of prayer and not for the omission of every part chapter or section of the booke Besides these questions and their reasons there bee other reasons to induce vs to be of opinion that a Minister before the Kings Iustices is not punishable in maner and forme above expressed for his refusing to vse all and every prayer and prayers rite and rites ceremonie and ceremonies section and sections in such order and forme as they bee mencioned and set forth in the said booke In the preface to the booke it is confessed that nothing can almost so plainly be set forth but that doubts may arise in the vse and practising of the same and therefore for the appeasing of all such diversiâ—ie and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the maner how to vnderstand doe and execute the things conteyned in the booke it is provided that the parties that so doubt or diversly take any thing shalresort to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrarie to any thing contained in the said booke And in the two last clauses of the preface it is said that all Priestes and Deacons shall be bound to say daylie the morning evening prayer either privately or openly except they be lett by preaching studying of Divinitie or by some other vrgent cause And that the Curate that ministreth in any parish Church or Chappell being at home and not otherwise reasonably lett shall say the same in the parish Church or Chappell where hee ministreth From which places of the preface being part of the booke it is plainly to be gathered that the intent and meaning of the Parliament was not to have the Ministers to be punished before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed for refusing to vse all and singuler the prayers rites ceremonies and sections in such order forme as they be mencioned in the said booke if either vpon the Ministers doubts rysing in the vse and practise of these things the Bishop by his discretion did not take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same or if the Minister by preaching the word studying of Divinitie or by some other vrgent or reasonable cause were let so to doe And if no Minister in any of the cases before meÌ„cioned be punishable by the Kings Iustices in maner and forme aboue expressed then it is manifest by the provisoes following that the Archbishops and Bishops have no power and authoritie by vertue of this act to inquire and punish the default of any minister in these cases by admonition excommunication sequestration or deprivation And this not onely by the letter of the last provisoe ordeyned for corroboration of the Archbishops Bishopps and other Ordinaries power and authoritie but also by the provisoe next and immediately following that Provisoe is a matter most cleere and vndeniable Provided alwayes and be it enasted c. That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops c. shall have full power and authoritie by vertue of this Act aswell to inquire in their Visitation Synodes c. to take accusations and informations of all and every the thinges above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limites of their Jurisdictions c. And to punish the same by admonition excommunication sequestration or deprivation c. If then a Minister shall not doe commit or perpetrate any of the things above mencioned and so not be punishable by the Kings Iustices it followeth that the same minister is not punishable by the Ordinarie And this also by the next Provisoe is more playne by which it is enacted That What soever person offending in the premises shall for his offence first receyne punishment of the Orainarie shall not for the same offence est soones be convicted before the lustices And likewise receyving for the said first offence punishment by the Iustices he shall not for the same offence est soones receyve punishment of the Ordinarle No offence then punishable before the Iustices no offence punishable by the Ordinarie From all which premises it seemeth that the Queene the Lords and Commons never intended to impose such an exact and precise observation of the booke of common prayer vpon the Ministers as that in no place nor at any tyme they should omitt the reading saying or vsing of a chapter a prayer a section a rite or ceremonie vpon peyne of imprisonment c. before the Queenes Iustices or vppon peyne of deprivation before the ordinary And therefore the intent of the Parliament not beeing so much to binde the Minister to such an exact and precise observation as to seclude all orders and formes of prayers ministration of Sacramentes vse of rites and ceremonies not mentioned and set forth in the saide booke it seemeth very vnreasonable and much derogatorie to the authoritie of that Parliament that Archbishoppes and Bishoppes who were all secluded from that Parliament should by their extentions constructions and interpretations as it were invert the playne meaning of the Parliament and that ea qua sunt destinata in vnum sinem should by them bee converted to an other end But now if the Archbishops and Bishops at the abandoning of the Popes power out of the Realme have as we confesse they had an ordinarie iurisdiction by the statutes of the Realme reserved to their
Archâ—episcopall and Episcopall seas shall therevpon thinke that lawfully by their ordinary iurisdiction onely without regard of any Authoritie graunted vnto them by the statute they may proceed ex officio to punish these defaultes then we pray their Lordships to resolve vs by what law besides this statute they may so proceed First this booke before 5. and 6. of Edward the sixth was never alive and being once dead by the statute of Queene Mary was but restored to life by the Queenes statute of Reviver Before this statute theÌ„ was revived these offences were no offences for where no lawe was there could be no offence Besides we have some reason to conceave thus well of the Ordinaries that they should be more prudent discreete then to iustifie their criminall processe ex officio by a plenarie power or a soveraigne pleasure And to say that ex officio by vertue of the popish canon Law they may lawfully proceed to suspension excommunication or deprivatioÌ„ of any Minister of the Gospell for the not observation of the booke of common prayer we assure our selves that so to say were to say amisse yea and more then ever they will be able to proove First the whole forme order of common service administration of Sacramentes vse of rites and ceremonies as they be mencioned and set forth in the booke of common prayer by all the groundes rules of that popish law is adiudged to be erroneous scismaticall and hereticall And therefore the refusing to vse the same booke or any parte thereof is so farre from being punishable by the same law as by the same law it is a matter worthy of high prayse and commendation for a Minister to refuse to vse it Againe what a vaine part were it for an ordinarie to plead the popish canon law for the validitie of his proceding ex officio when as the whole body and every title chapter and versicle of the same law at the petition and submission of the Clergie hath long since bene for ever adnulled made voide and of no value by an act of Parliament In regard whereof and in regard also that every ordinaries processe ex officio may be aswell iustifiable in respect of him selfe as aequall toward the Kings subiects it much every way importeth him that his proceedings ex officio be tempered hereafter with better morter and grounded vpon a surer foundation then be the maximes principles of that law Namely it behooveth that they bee founded and established vpon the Kings either ecclesiasticall or temporall lawes and statutes of which sorte of the Kings lawes we may bouldly and honestly say that the Popish and foraine canon law is none which saying also of ours we briefly proove thus The Clergie of the Realme aswell for their successors as for themselves having like humble and obedient subiects to the King promised in verbo sacerdotij that they would never from thence forth presume to attempt alleage claime or put in vre or enact promulge or execute any new canons costitutions or ordinances provinciall or other c. It was enacted by authoritie of Parliament according to the said submission and petition of the Clergie that neither they nor any of them from thence forth should presume to attempt alleadge claime or put in vre any constitutions or ordinances Provinciall or Sinodalls or any other canons All canons then by these wordes or any other canons of what sort or degree soever whether domesticall and homebread or strangbread and foraine canons before that time made were once vtterly forbidden to be attempted alleadged claimed or put in vre by which meanes they were once concerning their practise and execution with vs adnulled and made void And therefore so many of them as at that time were not or since that time have not bene revived and reauthorized ought not to be attempted alleadged claymed or put in vre at this day It remaineth then to be discussed what canons constitutions ordinances Provinciall or Synodall or what other canons were at that time or have at any time sithence bene recommanded reestablished vnto which point from the whole scope plaine letter of the statute we answere that only such canons constitutions and ordinances provinciall or Synodall may be attempted alleadged claimed and put in vre as were made before that time by the Clergie within the Realm were not contrariant nor repugnant to the lawes statuts and customes of the Realme nor to the domage or hurt of the Kings prerogative Royall And that therefore all canons decrees decretall sextes clementines extravagants and all other whatsoever constitutions and ordinances Papall being strangers and aliens from the common wealth of England and not begotten by the Clergie within the Realme are forbidden at this day to be attempted alleadged claimed or put in vre The reasons of which our answere drawne from the letter of the statute be these The Parliament having enacted as before is mencioned did neverthelesse according to an other branch of the petition of the Clergie not only give to the King 32. persons by him to be nominated c. power and authoritie to viewe search and examine the said constitutions and ordinances Provinciall and Synodall before that time made by the Clergie of this Realme but also enacted that such of them as the Kings highnes and the said 32. persons should deeme adiudge worthy to be continued and kept should be from thence forth kept obeyed and executed within this Realme All canons then made before that time without the realme being secluded by the Parliament from the view search and examination of the King and 32. Persons though he and they had deemed and adiudged the said canons to have bene continued kept and obeyed yet notwithstanding the same Canons ought not to have bene kept obeyed and executed For only such canons by the King and 32. Persons ought to have ben deemed adiudged worthie to be continued kept for the continuance and keeping wherof power authoritie by Parliament was given to the King and 32. Persons But such canons constitutions and ordinances Provinciall or Sinodall only and not Papall were committed c. Therefore Papall being once disclaymed and disauthorised by Parliament and not againe committed by Parliament to view search and examination were never by intendement of Parliament to bee continewed kept and obeyed within this Realme And this againe most pregnantly is confirmed vnto vs by the last provisoe of this act the wordes whereof are these Provided also that such canons constitutions ordinances and Synodalls Provinciall being already made which be not contrariant or repugnant to the lawes statutes and customes of the Realme nor to the domage or hurt of the Kings prerogative Royall shall now still be vsed and executed as they were before the making of this act till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said 32. persons or the more part of them according to the tenor and effect
in the Scriptures because they only agree in name and not in nature Wherfore seeing there be other orders and degrees of Bishops then Provincial Diocesan Bishops found in the holy Scriptures seeing also Kings and Princes being Vicarij Dei be commanded to authorise all things for the trueth and nothing against the trueth it seemeth necessarie that his Maiestie should not only restrayne the Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops from vrging subscription to this booke of ordination being so derogatory in their sence and construction to his supremacie as nothing can be more but also to keepe the Bishops them selves within the tether and compasse of the word of God For if the word of God doe approve amongst the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments a primacie of order only denyeth vnto them any primacie of iurisdiction and power in ecclesiasticall governement as the learned Protestants have proved against the Papists touching Peters supremacie then will it follow that ours also ought to bee reduced to the same compasse both for the Kings Maiesties safetie and the Churches good Least Princes giving them more then God alloweth them they shoud them selves loose that right and authoritie which they ought to reteyne in their owne Royall persons Now that it may not be obiected that we begge the question of Scripturely Bishops not having any primacie of iurisdiction power in ecclesiasticall government to let passe all particuler reasons of the Protestants against the Papists in this point it shall suffice in this place to produce for witnesses six forty Iurors against whoÌ„ no chalendge or exception can be taken Namely the said Thomas Crammer Archbishop of Canterburie Edward Archbishop of Yorke Iohn Bishop of London Cuthhert Dunèlmem Steven Winton Robert Cariolen Iohn Exon Iohn Lincoln Rowl and Coven Lichfield Thomas Elien Nicholas Sarum Iohn Banger Edward Herefordien Hugh Wigornen Iohn Roffen Richard Cicestren William Norwicen William Meneven Robert Assaven Robert Landaven Richard Wolman Archdeacon of Sudbur William Knight Archdeacon of Richmond Iohn Bell Archdeacon of Gloster Edmond Boner Archdeacon of Lecester William Skipp Archdeacon of Dorset Nicholas Heeth Archdeacon of Stafford Cuthbert Marshall Archdeacon of Notingham and Richard Curren Archdeacon of Oxford Together with William Cliff Galfrid Downes Robert Oking Radulf Bradford Richard Smith Simon Mathew John Fryn William Lukemaster William May Nicholas Wotton Richard Cox Iohn Edmonds Thomas Robertson Iohn Baker Thomas Baret Iohn Hase and Iohn Tyson Sacrae Theologiae iuris ecclesiastici civilis Professores All which Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and Prelates having with one voyce and accord shewed vnto King Henry the eight that divers good Fathers Bishops of Rome did greatly reprove and abhorre as a thing cleane coÌ„trarie to the Gospell the Decrees of the church that any Bishop of Rome or elswhere should presume vsurpe or take vpon him the tytle and name of the vniversall Bishop or of the head of all Priestes or of the highest Priest or any such like tytle proceede further and in the end conclude and give vp their verdict thus For confirmation whereof it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neither in scripture neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctour or Authour of the Church being within the tyme of the Apostles That Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power order or iurisdiction betweene the Aposties them selves or betweene the Bishops them selves but that they were all aequall in power order authoritie and iurisdiction And that there is now and sith the tyme of the Apostles any such diverâ—â—tie or difference among the Bishops it was devised by the ancient Fathers c. For the said Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men and taking examples of the ould Testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees to be among Bishops and spirituall governours of the Church and so ordeyned some to be Paâ—riarkes some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archpishops some to be Bishops c. Which differences the said holy Fathers thought necessarie to enact and establish by their Decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed and established in the Gospell or mencioned in any Canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiasticall Writer within the Apostles tyme. And thus farre their verdict But let vs graunt that orders of Bishops Priestes and Deacons bee conteyned in the holy scriptures yet if those orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons which are established in the booke be not the same orders of Bishops Priestes Deacons which are authorised by the scriptures then through the aequivocation of these wordes Orders of Bishops Priestes and Deacons there being afalacie how should this forme and maner of subscription be lawfull viz. that the booke coÌ„teyneth nothing contrarie to the word of God that it lawfully may be vsed For only such orders of Bishops Priestes and Deacons ought to be acknowledged subscribed vnto vsed as by the holy scriptures are warranted And therefore such as are conteyned in the booke if so be they be divers froÌ„ those which are approved in the holy scriptures how should they without sinne be subscribed vnto and vsed Vnlesse we shall affirme that Ministers of the Gospell of God may rightfully approove of such orders of Ministers as the Lord and Law giver of the Gospell never allowed ne approoved And thus much have we spoken touching not subscription touching the not exact vse of the order and forme of the booke of common prayer and touchinge the not precise practise and wearing of the rites ceremonies and ornaments of the church Wherein if we have spoken otherwise then as for our speaking wee have warrant from the Kings lawes our earnest desire is that it may be shewed vnto vs wherein we haue erred For if there be any thing whereof we be ignorant we shal be willing to be taught the same and having learned it to yeald to the practise thereof In the meane time seing not to weare a Surplice in the ministration of Divine service not to make a crosse in Baptisme not to subscribe c. in it selfe is not a sinne against any commandement of God nor a thing scandalous vnto the people And seeing also the Parsons who refuse to weare and vse the same be in every respect men of good note condition fame qualitie and behaviour yea such as against whom no misdemeanor for doctrine or life which might aggravate their offence can iustly be obiected we may lawfully as we thinke conclude in their behalf that de aequitate misericordia iuris they ought to be respected and tolerated rather then for their refusall meerely standing vpon their consciences whether erroneous or not erroneous it skilleth not de rigore iuris if there be any such rigour to be suspended excommunicated or deprived yea and in so generall and doubtfull a case