Assertion.

The benefit of all exceptions, and ad­vantages, to the invalidity, vncertainty, imperfections, & infufficiēcy, of this ad­monitory bill, & matters therein contey­ned, alwayes saued; for aunswere to so much as concerneth this clause, & eue­rie other clause, and article, of the bill hereafter following, and without that, that there is any matter, or thing, in the same bill, or admonition materiall, to be aunswered vnto, and not herein, or hereby sufficiently answered, confessed, & avoyded, traversed & deemed is true, in such manner and forme, as in the same is set forth, and declared; the de­fendant is ready to aver, maintayne, and proue his aunswere, as shall please the King, to award, and to commaund. And therefore hee most humbly beseecheth the King, if it please the King, & that he haue found favour in his sight, that his [Page 5] exceptions may be admitted, and reade, and that his counsel, learned in the law, may be heard, and suffered to speake.

This platforme of gouerment, inten­ded Booke of com. pray. tit. commi­nation. Homil. 2. part. of the right vse of the Church. Admo. pag. whitgift pag. 654. M. Nowell in his cathe. M. Calvin. M. Iunius. looke Petic. to her excel­lent Maie. pag. 11. by the admonitor, not to bee liked of in this place, is that platforme of Church gouernement, by Pastours and Elders which the booke of common Prayer, the doctrine of the Church of Englande doe highlie commande, and which he him self M ^r. D. Whitgift, now Lord Archbishop of Canturbury, & verie manie other ^c reuerend Diuines of our age, doe publickely confesse in their writings, to haue bene practised by the Apostles, and primitiue Church. From whence it followeth that the gouerment of the church, by Archbishops, Bishops, Suffraganes, Archdeacons, Deacons, Chancelours, Commissaries and Offici­alls, now already planted and liked of, was not practised by the Apostles, and primitiue Church. And therefore for my part, I can not, but marueile, that a disciple of the Apostles doctrine, and a successor in the Apostles Chayre, should bee drawne by humane reasons, not to like of the Apostles gouerment, nor to tread in the steps of the primitiue [Page 6] church. For seeing the same is acknow­ledged by himselfe to bee the first way, to be the old and ancient way, as being the Apostles way, why should wee not Iere. 6. 16. walke therein, as in the onelie good and perfect way? The reuerend Bishops will not deny, that the Apostles, and primi­tiue Church for their manner of gouer­ment, had the mind of Christ, and that we should follow the Apostles, as hauing them for examples, because they were the followers of Christ. Againe they can not but graunt, that the manner of gouerment, practised by the Apostles & primitiue church, is written within the booke of the couenants of grace. All which notwithstanding wee see in this place that from the new Testamēt, from the articles of grace, from the law, from the testimony, from the example of the Apostles, and from the mind of Christ, we are addressed and turned ouer to our state of gouerment, to our countrey, to our people, to our common weale, and to our lawes. But this turning of de­uises shall it not be esteemed, as the pot­ters Isaiah. 29 16. clay?

But (saith he) to plant those things in this church, which are required to bee [Page 7] redressed, might bring rather the ouer­throw of the Gospell, then the end, that is desired. Indeed (say I) if this might be as soone proued, as it was soone said, the case might haue gone well with him. But this parable is so darke, that (vnlesse it be opened) there is no light at all to be seene in it. For hee well knew, that in steed of the gouerment practised by the Apostles and primitiue church, the iu­risdiction of Archbishops, Bishops, Suf­fraganes, Deacons, Archdeacons, Chan­celours, Commissaries and Officials, is already planted in this church: And he was not ignorant also that the same iu­risdiction onely, and none other, is re­quired to be redressed. Now then if re­quest be made, that this manner of go­uerment bee redressed, how can it eui­dently be seene that to plant that maner of gouerment, might bring rather the ouerthrowe of the Gospell, then the end that is desired? But it may be that hee ment more lightsomely then he spake. Yea let it be, that he intended thus: viz. to vnplant that, which is now planted, and to plant those things, which are yet vnplanted (by reason of many and great alterations) might bring rather an ouer­throw [Page 8] of the Gospell, then the end that is desired; well (I say) be it so, that he thus ment. How is this thing euidently seene, or how can it euidently be proued? The best sight, that the seruant of Christ can haue, is faith. For Faith is an eui­dence of thinges which are not seene. Heb. 11. This ouerthrow then of the Gospell, not being seene with his bodily eyes, must needes be intended to haue bene seene with the eyes of his faith. But where is that word of Christ, wherevpon the eyes of his faith were fixed? If then hee hold no word of faith, then of necessitie was his euident sight, but an euident fancie. And in deed what else could it be? For what other thing is there desired, to bee planted in this church, but onely the Apostolicall gouernement of Christ? And what other Gospell could hee eui­dently see, that might bee ouerthrowne by holding foorth this scepter, but on­lie the Apostolicall doctrine of Christ? A merveylous strange and vnkind sight, (I trow) to be seene, that the Apostolicall gouerment could no sooner be planted, but that the Apostolicall doctrine must needs be rooted vp. That Christ by his owne scepter, were not able to maintaine [Page 9] his own grace, by his own order, should weaken his owne oath, or by his owne sword, should cut from the people of God, his owne word. But seeing it was his purpose to perswade the people vnto a dislike of the Apostolicall gouerment, by arguments and reasons drawen from humane policie, rather then to confirme them in a good opinion of the prelati­call gouerment, by proofes taken from the authoritie of holy Scripture, we will follow him in this his veine. Yea, and by the helpe of God, we will trie of what efficacie, such his politicke and humane reasons may be, as wherewith he did as­saye, to disswade the people frō consen­ting vnto any other maner of Church gouermēt, then is already setled among vs. The generall effect of all which, both here and els where spoken of, by him brieflie gathered, is this:

If any shall obiect that by thus ga­thering his argumēt, I had in this place falsified his argument, by adding more, then is here expresly vttered by him: let such one vnderstand, that this charge is but a meere and needlesse cauill. For sithence both here, and throughout his booke, his intent was to dispute for the gouerment already receiued, against the [Page 11] gouerment, which is required, to be planted, in the Church: And for so much also, as none other gouerment, is required to bee planted, but that onely gouerment, which was practised, by the Apostles and primitiue Church, it must necessarilie follow, that the arrowes, which hee shott against the gouerment, required to be planted, were shott onely against the gouerment which was pra­ctised by the Apostles, and primitiue Church. And therefore there can bee no iust charge of any falsification, vsed in the gathering of his arguments. A­gainst which I argue as followeth:

The trueth of which argument will thē appeare, when the Admonitors argu­ment shalbe conuinced of errour: for the disproofe of the one, is the proofe of the other, and if his fall, then can not this but follow. And touching the in­validity of the first proposition, of his second sillogisme, we affirme, that the alterations, of the state of gouerment, & of the lawes (bee they neuer so many and neuer so great) can neuer bring any ouerthrowe of the Gospell, if the same alterations, be made, for the planting of the Gospell. For the lawes once altered, can ouerthrow naught, because they are then no more lawes. And to say, that the Gospell once planted by autho­rity of new lawes, cā be ouerthrowne by the same lawes, is more absurd. For the new lawes giue life to the enterteyning of the Gospell, by meanes whereof, the Gospell, can not discontinue, so long as [Page 13] those lawes continue. And herevpō also it followeth, that no alteration of laws, for sweeping, & clensing of the Church, for casting, and whippyng buiers and sellers, and choppers of churches, out of the Church, can ouerthrow the Gos­pell. For if all drosse, filth, and corrup­tion, be cast out; if all lets, and impedi­ments, be done a way, it can not be but that the Gospell, must needs haue a freer, & larger passage, as wherunto, a wider doore can not be, but opened, for the bringing in of a more plentiful haruest. And if the Church bee beautifull as Tyrsa, and comely as Ierusalem, if she Solo. Song 6. 3. 4. looke as the morning, If she be faire as the Moone, pure as the Sunne, and ter­rible as an army, then is she set as a seale on the Lords heart, and as a signet vpon his arme, and then shall the coles of his [...]elouzie be as fiery coles, and as a vehe­ment flame, that much water shal neuer quench it, nor any floods euer drowne [...]t. But if he should rather meane, that [...]he alterations of the state of gouerne­ment, would be so many and so great, as that therevpon he did strongly imagine, [...]uidentlie to see the ouerthrow of the Gospell, then we say that no state of go­uerment, [Page 14] can euer vndergoe, either ma­nie, or few, either small, or great altera­tions, vnlesse by alteratiō of lawes made by the same state of gouermēt, the same [...] of gouerment bee altered. Now [...] if our politicke state of gouerment, (whereof he must needes speake, for o­therwise his speech were to no purpose) to amend and reforme abuses in it selfe, may iustly put it selfe vnder the yoke of a new law, (as it hath done and daylie doeth vnto many newe lawes) and so in this respect, after a sort, in some part al­ter it self (for euery reformatiō is a kind of alteration) without any domage, ha­zard, or preiudice to it self, if (I say) this may well be so, what a silly skarr crow, is there here, brought into the field, to fray our politick state of gouuerment, from attempting a reformation in the Church? Belike he knew some to faine, that our state of gouermēt, must neces­sarily fancy, whatsoeuer they fancy. And namely that a reformation of the Church, can not but infer a desolation of the State: or that the State can not be well ordered, except it suffer the Church to bee disordered, or that the Church could not be fayre, well fauoured, and [Page 15] in good plight, but the state of our coū ­try, people, and common weale, must be foule, ill fauoured and out of heart; or lastly that the State can not launce, bind, draw, & heale vp the sores, woūds, & contagions of the church, but it must with all fester, infect, and poyson it self. All which how vnsavory and void of all sense it is, I leaue to the iudgement, both of the state, and of the Church. For who seeth not, but that the state of politicke gouerment, may wholy alter the state of church gouernement, and not so much as alter one least iote, of the politicke state of gouerment it selfe? Besides, since our state of politicke gouerment, hath in our dayes, and before our eyes, repea­led verie many old lawes, & disavowed sundry ancient customes, to enterteyne, and harbour the Gospell, must our state of politicke gouerment, no sooner now attempt, to repayre certaine breaches, made into the vineyarde, but it must streight wayes, roote vp, that whiche it hath planted, & pull downe that, which it hath builded? He that diggeth about, and dungeth, he that spreadeth and pru­ [...]eth the root [...] and branches of a tree, doeth he not rather quicken, then kill [Page 16] the roote? and doth he not rather cause the boughes, to sprought, then the body to wither? Can seuen times trying, and fining of golde, breed a canker in gold: or may a riuer be dreyned dry, by one, who shutteth not, but openeth the springs? The body of a corpulent, and diseased man, the more it is purged, the more ful of health it is, & of better con­stitution. And howe then can it be con­cluded, that the Gospell, the life & soule of the Church, can lāguish, and giue vp the goast, when the Church; for the bet­ter preservatiō of her health, shal receyue by some new and wholesome lawe, some new and wholesome purgatiue receite? Moreouer, for so much as heere is men­tion made, how the publishers of this booke, did consider on the one part, of things that were required to be re­dressed, and on the other side, of things required to be planted, together with the state of our country, people, and commō weale; it is playne, that their re­solutiō was rather still to cōtinue things amisse, in the Church vnredressed, then to plant the things required, to be plan­ted. And alas what a resolution was that among pillers and Fathers (for so they [Page 17] wilbe counted) of the church? Especial­lie, when as the things required to be re­dressed, were required to be redressed at the hands of the whole state of gouern­ment, that is at the hāds of the Queene, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and commons in open Parliamēt assembled. And could any damage (I pray you) haue ensued to the state of gouerment, to the state of the Queene, to the state of our countrey, people, common weale, & lawes, or to the state of the Gospell, if things amisse in the Church, had bene redressed, and thinges wanting in the Church, had bene planted, by so high, and supreame a power? I trow not. Nay seeing our country, people, and commō weale, not only once, and twise, & thrise, but many times, haue humbly and ear­nestlie prayed, & sollicited in open Par­leamēt, a redresse of things amisse in the church, is it not most evidēt, that things were not considered a right but amisse by these fathers of the church? and that the cōsiderers by keeping things vnplā ­ted, rather aymed at their owne profit, honor, and dignitie, thē that our coun­trey, people, and common weale, should [Page 18] fare the better, by hauing things amisse, to be redressed? The cōsiderers then be­ing them selues parties, yea & such par­ties as by whom things were caried a­misse, in the Church, and whose defects only were required to be redressed: no marveyle (I say) if they vsed all kinde of artificiall advisement and cōsideration, to keepe things still vnplanted, by the planting whereof their owne vnfather­lie miscariadges, must haue bene refor­med.

On the other side, if things required to be planted, might in deed be once plā ­ted, how soeuer happelie our former Church-officers, might bee some-what mal-cōtented, and discouraged, to haue their superfluities pared, and the edge of their swords abated, yet is there no least cause at all, for our countrey, people, & common weale, to feare any trouble, or hurly burly among vs. For if the hande of God be in Iudah, so that he giue the 2 Chron. 30. 12. people one heart, to doe the command­ment of the King, and of the Rulers, ac­cording to the word of the Lord, and if the King, the Nobles & commons shall condescend & agree in one, and if their [Page 19] voyces shall be all, but as the voyce of one man, to allow and approoue that, which doeth touch and concerne them all, then shall neither the Nobles haue anie occasion to disdaine the commons, nor the commons any reason to envie the Nobles. Much lesse can the Nobles be at variance with the Nobles, nor the commons be at defiance with the Com­mons. For they be all of them so pru­dent, and so prouident, as that they will not bite one another, least they should be deuoured one of the other. And in deed, why should any of our Cleargy-Maisters be so voyd of iudgement, as to denie the Nobles and Commons, after foure and fortie yeeres experience, of a most prosperous peace, weighting vpon the Gospell, to be now growne so vncir­cumspect and simple vvitted, as that a reformation of disorders to be made by their consents in others, should bring forth a confusion in them selues? What? will they bicker one with the other, will they beat, and buffet one another, when there is no cause of disagreement, or va­riance betweene them? For they shalbe sure to loose neither libertie, nor digni­tie; [Page 20] they shall endanger neither honor, nor profite. Our Nobles shalbe tres-no­ble still, they shalbe Princes and Cap­taines ouer our people: They shalbe De­puties and Presidentes in our publicke Weale: They shalbe Peeres, and Ancients of the Kingdome: their Privileges, Pre­rogatiues, Preheminēces, stiles, ensignes, and titles of prowesse, and honor, shall not be raced, defaced, or diminished. But they shall (as they may and ought) remayne and continue whole, and vnvi­olable, both to them, and their posteri­ties, throughout their generations. Our Iudges, Iustices, and Lawiers, shall haue and enioy their authorities, credites, and reputations, as in auncient times. They shalbe Recorders of our Cities, Townes, and Boroughes: They shalbe Stewardes of the Kings Leates and law-dayes. Our Knights, Esquiers and Gentlemen, shall still be Burgeses in Parleaments, & Con­servators of the Kings peace: they shalbe assistants to examine & represse, theftes, rapines, murders, roberies, riots, routs, & such like insolencies. Yea they shall be our Spokes-men, and our dayes men, to arbitrate and compose, strifes and de­bates [Page 21] betweene neighbour and neigh­bour. Our common people, they with­out disturbance, shall quietlie and pea­ceablie, retayne and enioy (as in former ages) their immunities, franchises and liberties, as well abroad as at home, as well in their houses, as in their fieldes. They shall possesse their tenancies with­out ciectiō, they shalbe inheritors with­out expulsion, as well to the lawes, liber­ties and customes, as to the lands & pos­sessions of their Auncestors. They shall not be compelled to goe to warefare vp­pon their owne costes: they shall not be tried, arraigned, or condemned, by for­rein power, or by forren lawes. There shall no husbandrie, no clothing, no handicraft, no mariner, no marchādize, no lawes of the land, no maner of good learning whatsoeuer, in Schoole, Col­ledge, or Vniversitie, bee decreased, or laid aside. Wherfore the Admonitor toy­ing neuer so much; how so euer he hath made his flourish, & cast about with his May bees, his, I feare, his I pray God, his, yfes, & his andes, how­soeuer (I say) it pleased him to trifle with [Page 22] these gew gawes; yet shall none euer be able, to proue by anie proofes dravvne from the holy Scripture, or humane reason, that anie hinderance in dignitie, or incumbrance can euer betide our Nobles, our Commons, the state of our Countrey, people, lawes, or common Weale, if the state of church-gouermēt, were translated from Archbishops, Bi­shops, Archdeacons, Chancelours, Cō ­missaries, and Officialls (which are offi­cers in the house of God, onelie accor­ding to the commaundements and tra­ditions of men) vnto the gouernment practised by the Apostles and primitiue Church, which they can not denie, but must cōfesse to haue bene according to the holy pleasure of God. Nay our No­bles, and our commons, are most assu­red to be so farre from being endama­ged, or loosing ought hereby, as herby they shall purchase that vnto them sel­ues, which neuer yet any oppugner of so good and holy a cause, could attayne vnto. Namely, they shall seale vp vn­to their owne soules, infallible testi­monies of good and sincere conscien­ces: testimonies (I saye) of their fideli­ties [Page 23] vnto God, testimonies of their alle­giance vnto him, by whom they haue bene redeemed, and testimonies of loue, and compassion vnto the whole church of God. Nay further our cōmons, shal­be so farre from bringing anie damage vpon them selues, as they shall marve­louslie benefit them selues. First by pur­chasing vnto themselues, a large immu­nitie from manie foule and great gree­uances, and exactions of money impo­sed & leuied vpon them, by officers and deputies of Archbishops, Bishops, Arch­deacons, &c. Secondlie by hauing the Lord Christ, whose cause they vnder­take, and whose glorie they advance, to be a friend vnto their friends, and an e­nemie vnto their enemies. And if our Nobles, and our Commons, be all hu­shed, if they be all at sleepe, at peace and at rest, we may cast away all feare, and be past all doubt, that the King can not, but holily recreate and solace him selfe, and that his gray haires, when soeuer they shall come, shall neuer be brought to the graue, in sorrow, but in a good & perfect age, and peace.

But happelie it may be replied, that Pag. [...]9. [Page 24] some of our Nobles, and most of our commons, be so backwardlie affected Pag. 79. to the trueth of Religion, as that rather they would turne head vpon the Gos­pell, then brooke an alteration of Ar­chiepiscopall, Episcopal, and Archidia­conall Church gouerment. In deed if a reformation of the state of the Cleargie were attempted by anie other meanes, then by publicke tractation and cōsent of Parleamēt, I could not but leane vnto this opinion, that the attempting there­of, might bring an overthrow to the at­tempters. Because the same attempt, should be dishonorable to the name of God, as being contrarie to the forme of doctrine receiued. But since thinges a­misse are required to be redressed by the King and Parleament alone, this obie­ction is altogether vaine and frivolous, and is alreadie sufficientlie convinced, by that peaceable agreement betweene Nobles and Commons, before remem­bred. But let vs wade a litle deeper, and search a litle more narrowlie into euery vaine, creeke, and corner of this suppo­sition. And let vs see, by what maner of persons this pretensed ouerthrow of the [Page 25] Gospell, might be wrought.

All carnall, sensuall, and earthly men, No fe [...]re that pro­phane men will ouer­throw the Gospell. either whose belly is their god, or whose god is this world, all such men (I say) as in euery age, be of Domingoes religion, namely, iust & iumpe, of that religion, which the King and State professe, they are so farre from attempting ought, to ouerthrow the Gospel, as vnder the sha­dow of the name thereof, they wil euer­more croude, and couer their carnalitie and prophanes. For they being euer­more of euery religion, and so in deede of no religion, and passing not whether our Sauiour Christ, or Beliall be their God, sing as the Poët singeth; Ais? Aio. Negas? Nego: becke and bow, cap and knee, to whatsoeuer the state and lawe commandes. If the King be a Gospeller, the Gospell, the Gospell, and naught els, but the Gospell shalbe found to roule in their mouthes. But let the Crowne once turne, by and by, they haue turned their coates, and as wether cockes, with euery puffe of wind, are huffed about. What­soeuer order, or maner of gouerment be planted, or displanted in the Church, the same shalbe no corosiue to them. [Page 26] It shall neuer sticke in these mens sto­mackes, neither will they lay it to their hearts. The King and Counsell is wise inough, and knowe what they haue to doe well inough. They will not be more forward, nor wiser thē the Prince, they will not checke and controll the whole Realme. They can not brooke these busie bodies, and medlers in matters a­boue their reach. They wilbe none of these new fangled and precise fooles; they will not bee backward, and come behinde the law, as the Papistes doe; nei­ther will they be to forward, and runne before the law, as the Puritans doe. But they wil behaue themselues in all things, and at all seasons, as discrete & politike Protestants ought to doe, cōforming & submitting themselues alwayes to all or­der & authoritie of the Queenes booke, & lawes setled. Yea and though they be not booke learned, nor any pen clerkes, yet they beleeue well. And therefore they will goe to the Church, and say a few prayers, yea & they will receaue the Sacrament at Easter, as deuoutlie as the best precisian of them all. All these A­theistes and godlesse men, being neither [Page 27] hot nor cold, neither fish nor flesh, nor good red hering, plant what plants you will, and sow what seedes you list, yea make what ditch, hedge, pale, wall, or fence you please, they set cocke vpon hoope, & passe not a button for it; euery season, be it wet, or be it dry; euery kind of lād, be it clay, or be it sand; euery fur­row, be it broad, or be it narrow, be it deepe, or be it shallow, pleaseth & cōten­teth these medley coates alike. They are like vnto Iacobs [...]wes, which hauinge straked and party coloured rods, laid be­fore them in the gutters, at a ramming time, brought forth none other but par­tie coloured lambes. And therfore they will neuer stir hand nor foote, nor once steppe ouer a straw to worke any least anoyance to the Gospell. It is good slee­ping alwayes, for these men, in a whole skinne: And not much vnlike to these partie coloured slepers, are the admoni­ [...]orie protestants. For they, as the dutie of faithfull subiectes doe bind them, li­ [...]ing in a state of a Church reformed, and hauing libertie in externall gouer­mēt, & other outward orders, to choose such as they thinke, in wisedom & god­linesse, [Page 28] to bee most convenient for the state of their countrie, and disposition Admonito­rie Prote­stants by their owne doctrine, ought not to bind the Church, to a perpetuall goverment of prelacie. of the people; and hauing the consent of their godly Magistrates, to that out ward forme of iurisdiction, and deciding of Ecclesiasticall causes, these kind of pro­testants, (I say) alwayes blowing out the trumpet of obedience, and crying an alarum of loyaltie to euery ordinance of man, and grauelie, wiselie, and stoutlie demeaning them selues against all the giddy heads, and fanaticall scismatikes, and wrangling spirits of our age, dare not (I trow) slip the collar, nor cast of the yoke, dare not push with the horne, nor wince with the heele against the Go­spel; If so bee by the authoritie of our Christian King, with the consent of his Parleamēt; the platforme of gouerment (as hee saith) deuised by some of our neighbour Churches, but (as we & they thē selues confesse) practised by the Apo­stles and primitiue Church, might bee receiued and established, to bee the best and fittest order of gouerment, for the Church of Englande, as well as it hath bene a long time, and yet is of Scotland, & of most of all other Christian Chur­ches. [Page 29] For if it be to great a bridle of chri­stian libertie (as they say) in thinges ex­ternall, to cast vpon the Church of Christ, a perpetuall commandement, & if the church haue free libertie to make choise of what gouerment soeuer, shee thinketh convenient, then is she neither restrained at her pleasure, to forsake that, which by long experience she hath found to be inconvenient, neither is she tied still to retaine Archiepiscopall, E­piscopall, and Archidiaconall gouer­ment, though for a long season the same haue bene vsed. For that in deed might well and iustlie be said, to be too great a bridle of christian libertie, when by ne­cessitie there is cast vpon the Church, such a perpetuall regiment of prelacie, as may not be remooued. Wherefore if our continued prelaticall discipline, whereby the libertie of the church is ta­ken away, by publike authoritie of the King and States might be discontinued, and libertie graunted to the Church, to vse the Apostolical discipline, either our Admonitorie Protestantes must yeelde, stoup, and obey, or else be found to be a wayward, a contentious and a from­ [...]ple generation.

And if these two former kinds of our people (which the land beeing deuided into fiue partes make three at the least) shall euery way be supporters of vnitie, and conformitie, to the Gospell, and no way disturbers of the peace, libertie and tranquilitie of the Church, what ouer­throw, or what damage may the Gospell sustaine by the other parts? Yea though they should vnite, linke and confederate themselues in one. For are they not wea­ker in power, poorer in purse, & of farre lesse reputation then the former? And yet neuertheles, these partes are at such deadlie feude one against the other, and at such an irreconciliable enimitie be­tweene them selues, that the case stan­deth now betweene them, as sometimes it stood betwene Caesar and Pompey; not whether of them, should reigne, but whether of them should liue. And how then can these parts thus diuided, possi­blie agree together, against the other partes, so surelie combined?

Besides, the first sort of these two sorts, Puritane Protestants, can neuer o­throwe the Gospell. whom it pleaseth our Protestantes, the Admonishers, for difference sake, to dubb with the Knights Hood of Precisi­ans, [Page 31] or precise and puritane Protestants. Why? They are the onelie and princi­pall spokes-men and petitioners for the Apostolicall Discipline, required to bee planted. Nay these men, out of the holy Scriptures, so resolutelie are perswaded, of the trueth of God, conteyned there­in, as without which, they know perfe­ctlie that the doctrine of the Gospel can neuer powerfullie florish, or be enter­teyned with so high a maiestie in the hearts of men, as it ought to be. And as The Gospel hath ouer­thrown the papist, ther­fore he can neuer ouer­throwe the Gospell. for the other sort, (the Papistes I meane) alas that poore ratt, what ouerthrow can he worke to the Gospel, whose bane the Gospell hath wrought so long since? Alas this faynt goast is so farre spent; his disease growne so desperate, & his sicke­nesse, now at such an hay-now-hay, as al the phisicke of all the Phisitions in the world, cā not recouer his health, or once take away his hed-ach. This silly snake, then, hauing hissed out all his sting, spit out all his venime, & vngorged him self of all his poyson, how can his skin, or how should his tayle anoy the Gospel? If therefore it might please the Admoni­shers, vpon a reuew of our State, our [Page 32] countrey, and our people, to cast such men, as be open enemies to the Gospell, into squadrons, causing them to march rancke, by rancke, & troupe, by troupe, and deliuering vnto the King, a muster roule, of all the names, qualities & con­ditions of the principal popish recusants within the Realme (for none but such onely can be suspected openly to bande them selues against the Gospell) it is not to be doubted, but the least part of all the other foure partes would bee as great in number, as these. And what thē should the King and state feare the mul­titudes of recusantes, when one standing on the Kings side, should be able to with­stand tenne; and tenne an hundreth; and an hūdreth a thousand; and a thousand tenne thousand papistes. King Asa cry­ing vnto the Lord his God, that it was nothing with him, to helpe with many, or with no power, and resting vpon the 2 Cron. 14. Lord, ouercame tenne hundreth thou­sand, and three hūdreth chariots, of the Ethiopians, and Labimes. For the eyes of the Lord behold all the earth, to shew him selfe strong with them, that are of a perfect heart toward him: And when [Page 33] King Ioash remembred not the kindnes which Iehoiada the Priest had done vn­to 2 Chro: 24. him, but slew Zechariah his sonne, the Lord deliuered the King, & a verie great armie, into the hands of a small compa­nie of the host of the King of Aram, who gaue sentēce against the King, slew all the Princes of Iudah frō among the people, and caried the spoyle of them vnto Damascus. And thus much con­cerning the Admonitors proposition, viz: Whatsoeuer will draw with it many and great alterations of the state of go­uernment, and of the lawes, the same may bring rather the ouerthrow of the Gospell, then the end that is desired; All which speach of his, I affirme to be but a vaine and trifling ridle, as the vvhole strenght whereof resteth onely vppon a may bee. Wherevnto if I should onelie haue spokē thus, and no more, viz: that manie and great alterations, &c. might rather not bring an ouerthrow of the Gospell, &c. I suppose, and that vpon good ground, that such (may might not be) might euerie way be as forcible, to disproue the one, as his (may be) can any way be pregnant to proue the other.

And touching his assumption viz: but the planting of the gouerment, pra­ctised by the Apostles and primitiue Church, will draw with it many & great alterations, of the state of gouerment & of the lawes: If in this place he vnder­stood, the state of Church gouerment, and of the lawes Ecclesiasticall now in vse, then is the proposition true. And yet notwithstanding we avow, the Gospell to be so farre from incurring any ouer­throw by such an alteration, as thereby it is certayne, that the same shal more & more florish, and be perpetuallie esta­blished: by reason that this alteration should be made frō that which by long experience, is knowne to be corrupt, vn­to that, which is knowne by the holy Scriptures, to be pure and sincere. From a gouerment (I say) and lawes authori­zed, by tradition, and commandements of man alone, to a policy & lawes foun­ded and descended, by and from God him selfe.

But if the Admonitor, by the assumpti­on ment to enforme vs, that the planting of the Apostolical gouerment will draw with it manie and great alterations, of [Page 35] the temporall state of gouernment, and of the temporall lawes, statutes, or cu­stomes of the kingdome: then as before to his first, so now also to his seconde, I answere negatiuely: and affirme, that the The planting of the Apo­stolicall gouermēt will draw no altera­tiō of the lawes of the realm with it. planting of the said Apostolicall gouer­ment, will not draw with it any least al­teration, of anie part, of that temporall state of gouerment, nor almost of anie one common statute, or customarie law of the Land, which may not rather bee altered, thē reteyned. For this platforme of gouerment, we are able by the helpe of God, to defend the same generallie, & for the most part, to be most agreeable, and correspondent, to the nature, quali­tie, disposition, & estate of our countrey, people, common weale, and lawes, as in our particular answeres, to his particu­lar reasons shall more at large appeare. In all new, and extraordinarie alterati­ons, it is not onely requisite to abolish al bad opinions, out of the minds of those that know not the drift of the enterpri­sers, but it is also necessarie, that the de­fence of such alterations be made forci­ble against the opposition of all gayne­sayers: We will descend to the particu­lars, [Page 36] & ioyne issue with the Admonitor. And vpon allegations, exceptions, wit­nesses, and recordes to be made, sworne, examined, and produced out of the ho­lie Scriptures, and lawes of the Land al­readie setled, on the behalf of our cause, before our Soveraigne Lord the King, his Nobles, and cōmons in Parleament, we shall submit our selues and our cause to the Kings Royall, and most Christian Iudgement. In the meane time, we [...] that not onely the former clause of this admonitorie Bill, but that al other clau­ses following in the same bill, for the in­validitie, insufficiencie, indignitie, and nullitie of them, are to be throwne out and dismissed from the Kings Court, es­peciallie for that the particulars opened by the Admonitor, can not serue for any reasonable warning, to induce the com­mon people, to relie themselues vpō his, I am of opinion to the which wee plead at barr as followeth.

Assertion.

When by a common acceptance and vse of speech, these words (whole state of the lawes of the Realme) are vnderstood of the common and statute lawes of the Realme, that is to say of the Kings tem­porall lawes, and not of Canon or civill lawes, it cannot followe, that the whole state of the lawes of the Realme should Canon and civil laws no part of the laws of the Realme, but only by suffe­rance. be altered, though the Canon and civill lawes, with all Offices to the same belon­ging, should be vtterly taken away & be wholy overthrowne. For no more could the Admonitor prove, the canon or ci­vill law, at any time heretofore, to haue bin any part of the lawes of this Realm, (otherwise then onlie by 2. 25. H 8. C 21. in y ^e pre­amble. sufferance of our Kings; acceptance, long vse and cu­stome [Page 38] of our people) then can any man proue a parsly-bed, a rosemary-twigge, or an ivie-branch, to be any part of the scite of the Castle of Farnham: And therefore he might aswell haue conclu­ded thus, the whole scite of the Castle of Farnham wilbee transposed: for the Boxetrees, the heythorn arboures, and the quicke set hedges planted within the Castle-garden must be removed & cast away: which were but a proof prooue­lesse, and a reason reasonlesse. If then by the abrogation of the canon or civill law, scarce any one part of the lawes of this Realme should bee changed, what reason haue we to thinke that the whole state of the lawes of the Realme must be altered? Besides, to conclude the whole, by an argument drawen ab enumeratio­ne partium, and yet not to number the tenth part, (of such parts as were to bee numbred) is, I am sure, neither good lo­gike nor good law. Moreover, if all the canon-law, (I meane all the papall and forraigne canon law, devised and ordei­ned at Rome, or els where without the Realme, and consequently all the Offi­ces & functions to the same belonging) [Page 39] bee alreadie vtterlie taken away, what hope of reward can Civilians expect from the vse of such things, as are with­in the compasse of that law? or of what efficacie is this argument, to prove an al­teration, of anie part of the lawes of this Realme, or that the studie of the Civill Law should be vtterly overthrowne? For the whole state of the lawes, properlie called the lawes of the Realme, hath stood, and continued many yeeres since the same Papal and canon law was abo­lished. And as touching the Civilians, for them to seeke after prefermentes, by An imba­semēt for Civiliās to haue prefer­ment by offices of y ^e canon law. offices, and functions of the canon law, is an embasement of their honorable profession, especiallie since farre greater rewardes, might verie easilie be provided for them, if once they would put to their helping handes, for the onely establish­ment and practise of the civil law, in the principall causes now handled by them in the Courtes called Ecclesiasticall. The ca­non law be aboli­shed out of the Realme & ought not to be vsed.

But how may it be proved, that the Pa­pall and forreign canon law, is alreadie taken away, and ought not to be vsed in England? For my part, I heartilie wish, that some learned men in the common [Page 40] law, would vouchsafe to shew vnto the King and Parleament, their clere know­ledge in this point. In the meane season, I shall not be negligent, to gather & set downe, what (in mine vnderstanding) the Statut-law hath determined therof. By the statute of submission 25. H. 8. revived 1. Eliz. (as the verie wordes and letter of the petition and submission of the Cleargie, of the body of the lawe, & of the provisoes doe import) the verie true meaning and intent of the King & Parleament, is evident and apparant to be thus as foloweth, & none other, Viz. That such Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Synodall, or Provinciall, which before that time were devised & ordeyned, or which from thencefoorth should be devised or ordeyned by the Cleargie of the Realme, being not con­trariant or repugnant, &c. should onely, and alonelie be authorised, and to bee put in vre, and execution. And conse­quentlie, that all canons, constitutions, and ordinances papal, and made by for­reign power without the Realme, should wholy and vtterly be abrogated, adnul­led, abolited, and made of no value. [Page 41] The words touching the petitiō, & sub­mission, mētioned in that statute, in sub­stance, are these: Where the Kings hum­ble and obedient subiectes the Clear­gie, &c. haue submitted them selues, & promised in verbo Sacerdotij, that they will never from hence foorth presume to attempt, alledge, claime, or put in vre, No Canons provinciall or other to bee put in vre, therfore no papal ca­nōs in force. anie canons, constitutions, ordinances provinciall or other; or enact, promulge or execute any newe canons, &c. And where also divers constitutions, ordinā ­ces, and canons Provinciall or Synodal, which heretofore haue bin enacted, and beethought, not only to be much preiu­diciall Canons provincial, here­tofore ena­cted, beeing preiudiciall, are to bee abrogated. to the Kings prerogatiue Royall, &c: the Cleargie hath most humbly be­sought the Kings Highnes, that the said constitutions, and canons, may be com­mitted, to the examination and iudge­ment of his Highnes, and of two and thirtie persons of his subiectes, &c: and that such of the said canons and consti­tutions, as shal be thought and determi­ned by the said 32 persons, or the more part of them, worthie to be abrogated, and adnulled, shalbe abolite, and of no value: and such other of the same con­stitutions, [Page 42] and canons, as by the said 32 persons: &c. shalbe approved to stande with the lawes of God, and consonant to the lawes of this Realme, shall stande in their full strength and power, &c. These are the wordes of the Petition and Submission, &c. the letter of the bodie of the statute in effect is this: Bee it ther­fore enacted, &c. That they, nor anie of them, from hence foorth shall presume to attempt, alledge, clayme, or put in vre, any constitutions, or ordināces provin­ciall, No cōstitu­tions or or­dinances Provinciall or o­ther canons to be alled­ged, there­fore once they were all abolited. or Synodall, or any other canons. And for as much as such canons, con­stitutions, &c. as heeretofore haue bene made by the Cleargie of this Realme, can not, &c. by reason of the shortnes, &c: be it therefore enacted, &c: that the Kings Highnes, &c: shall haue power, &c: & that the said 32 persons, &c: shall The Kinge and 32. per­sons have no power to examine papal canons; ther­fore papall canons intē ­ded to bee wholy abo­lished. haue power & authoritie to view, search and examine the said canons, constituti­ons, &c: Provinciall and Sinodall here­tofore made, and such of them as the Kings Highnes, &c. shall deeme and ad­iudge worthie to be cōtinued and kept, shalbe from hence foorth kept, &c. and the residue of the said canons, constitu­tions [Page 43] and ordinances provinciall, which the Kings Highnes, &c: shall neuer bee put in execution within this Realme. These are the wordes of the bodie of the law: the words of the Proviso are these: Provided that such canons, constituti­ons, Canons provinciall al­readie made onely onau­thorised by the proviso, therefore no papall can [...] in force. ordinances, and Sinodals Provin­ciall, being alreadie made, which be not contrariant, &c: shall now still bee vsed and executed, as they were before the making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, &c: by which words of the petition, bodie of the statute, and proviso, three things seeme principally to be ment and intended. First an vtter & absolute abolition of all canons, consti­tutions, ordinances, and synodals before that time made by the Clergie within the Realme, or by any forrain power without the Realm whatsoever: Second­lie, a view, search and examination of all canons, constitutions and ordinances provinciall or synodall before that time made by the Clergie within the Realm: And lastly, because the Church should not vtterly be destitute of al canons, &c: (Provinciall or Sinodall) a reestablish­ment, or reauthorisement of all such of [Page 44] the said canons Provinciall or Synodall, as were not onerous to the people, con­trariant or repugnant to the lawes, sta­tutes, or customes of the Realme, nor preiudiciall to the Kings prerogatiue Royall, was agreed vpon, till the saide Provinciall Canons, &c: were viewed, searched, and examined.

All papall & forreign canon law then, before that time made without the Realme, being once inhibited, to be at­tempted, alledged, claymed, or put in vre, and by consequence adnihilated, a­bolited & made voide: vnlesse the same be againe revived and reestablished, re­maine frustrate and adnulled still, and therefore ought not to be attempted, al­leaged, claymed, or put in vre. Besides, it is plaine, that forraigne & papall canon law was never intended to be reauthori­zed, because the same law was never cō ­mitted to the view, search and examina­tion of the King and 32. persons. The King therefore and 32 persons, by ver­tue of this acte, not having any authori­tie to view, search, and examine any for­reign canon law, though hee and they, had deemed and adiudged any part of [Page 45] the same law, worthy to haue bene con­tinued, kept and obeyed, yet nevertheles had not the same bene of any force or validitie. For onelie such canons, con­stitutions and ordinances Provinciall or Synodal (being not cōtrariant, onerous or prei [...]diciall to the King, to the lawes, or to the people) were reestablished, as were committed. Besides, whereas about twentie yeares passed, divers canons, cō ­stitutions and ordinances, aswell papall as provincial, were alleaged by him that collected an Abstract, against an vn­learned ministerie, against dispensations for many benefices, against excommu­nication, and against civill iurisdiction in ecclesiasticall persons: the aunswerer, in the behalf and maintenance of those Tit. pag. [...]. & 2. The answe­rer vnto the Abstract, proveth by his reasons the P [...]pall canon lavve now vsed to be abolished abuses, chalenged the Author for not hauing proved his intent by lawe in force: affirming that the canons and lawes by him alleaged, were but preten­ded necessarie and disused lawes; that they were not inspired with the life of lawes; that such were fathered for lawes, as be not lawes; and that it remayned by him to be discussed how many of them were to be called in trueth, her Maiesties [Page 46] lawes. The reason of all which his ex­ceptions, he yeeldeth to be this: namely, that the Author ought to haue proved them, not to haue ben repugnant to the customes of the Realme, but to haue bin in vse and practise before the making of that acte of submission. For hee must proue (sayth the Answerer) that they are not repugnant to the customes of this Realme, and shew vs how they haue bin vsed and executed heere, before the ma­king of the statute: yea he can say, that they are by lawe established among vs. Which points (saith he) because we learn by law, quod facta nō presumantur, mat­ters in fact, are not intended to be done, vntill they bee proued so: we must still put him to his proofes, & in the meane time say, that hee hath gaped wide to say nothing to the purpose, and that in his whole booke, he hath talked, but not reasoned. All which asseveration of this Answerer, if the same be true, and, if this plea be a good avermēt to barre the Au­thor from having proved a learned mi­nisterie to be commanded by the lawe; dispensations for many benefices to bee vnlawfull; excommunication by one [Page 47] alone to bee forbidden; and civill gou­verment to be vnlawfull in ecclesiastical persons, then much more forcibly may this argument be retorted, vpon all such as clayme, alleage & put in vre any por­tion of the forraigne canon law. For sithence it hath never yet bene proved, that the forraigne canon lawe, vsed and executed at this day, was accustomed & vsed 25. H. 8. then because wee learne by law (as he saith) quod facta non presu­mantur, wee must still put him, & his clients to their proofe, and in the meane while tell them, that their Advocat hath twisted for them but a bad threed, when by his reason he hath vntwined all their lawes, and broken a sunder the bands of their gouverment. Moreover because it is not yet proved, that the forraigne and papall canon law is not contrariant nor repugnant to the lawes, statutes or cu­stomes of the Realme, nor derogatorie to the prerogatiues of the regall Crown; nay because the contradictorie hereof is affirmed, and this denied: and because we learne by law (as he saith) that mat­ters in fact, are not intented to be done [...]ill they be proved so, wee must still put [Page 48] the vpholders and executioners of this law, to their proofe, and in the meane while tell them that the forraign & pa­pall law, is but a pretended necessary & disused law; that it is not inspired with the life of law, and that it is fathered by them to be such a law, as is an hedlesse, a fetherlesse and a nocklesse arrow which is not fit to be drawn, or shot against any subiect of the King. And from this voy­dance, abolition & nullitie of forraigne and papall canon law (because sublato principali, tolluntur accessoria) it follow­eth that all offices and functions of pa­pall Archbishops, papall Bishops, papall Suffraganes, papall Archdeacons, papall Deanes and Chapters, papall Priestes, papall Deacons, papall Subdeacons, pa­pall Chancelors, papall Vicars generall, papall Commissaries, and papall Offici­als, meerely depending vpon the autho­ritie, and drawen from the rules and grounds of that lawe, are likewise adni­hilated, and of no value. Howbeit for­so By the opi­nion of the Civiliās, the papal canon law seemeth to bee in force. much as by the opiniō of some lear­ned Civilians, there seemeth vnto them a necessarie cōtinuance of the same for­raign and papall law, by reason that [Page 49] Archbb. and Bishops doe now lawfully Apologie of certain pro­ceedings in courts Eccle­siasticall. (as they say) vse ordinarie Archiepisco­pall and Episcopall iurisdiction, which they could not (as they thinke) doe, if the same common lawe were vrterly a­bolished: and for so much also, as some learned in the canon lawes, do main­teyne, that since the statut of 1. Eliz. c. 1. the Archbb. and Bb. cannot lawfullie clayme anie ordinarie spirituall iurisdi­ction at all, but that the spirituall iuris­diction, to be exercised by them, ought to be delegated vnto them frō the King, by a commission vnder the great Seale: Forasmuch (I say) as there are these dif­ferences of opinions, it seemeth expedi­ent to be considered, by what law, & by what authoritie, Archbb. and Bb. exer­cise Archiepiscopal, & Episcopall pow­er in the church: And to the end this question may fully be knowen, and no scruple nor ambiguitie be left, what po­wer spirituall may be intended to be ex­ercised by them: We distinguish spiritu­all power, into a power properly called spirituall; and into a power improperlie Power pro­perly, and improperly called spiri­tuall. or abusivelie called spirituall. The pow­er properly called spirituall, is that spi­rituall [Page 50] power, which consisteth, and is conversant in preaching the Woord; ad­ministring the Sacraments; ordeyning and deposing Ministers; excommunica­ting or absolving; and if there be anie other spirituall power of the like pro­pertie and nature. Now that this power properly called spirituall, could haue bin drawen from the person of our late Soveraigne Ladie the Queene vnto Power pro­perly called spirituall, was neuer in y ^e Queens person. Archbb. and Bishops, we denie. For the Queenes Royall person, being never capable of any parte of this spirituall power, how could the same be derived from her person vnto them? Nemo po­test plus iuris in alium transforre, quam ipse habet. Archiepiscopall and Episco­pall power therefore, exercised in, and about these mysteries of our holie Reli­gion, ordinarily & necessarilie must be­long vnto the Archbb. and Bb. by the canon of the holy Scriptures; otherwise they haue no power (properly called spi­rituall, touching these things at all. The power which improperlie is called spi­rituall, Power im­properly cal­led spiritual, is indeed but a temporall power. is such a power, as respecteth no [...] the exercise of any pastorall or ministe­riall church, to the internall begetting [Page 51] of faith, or reforming of maners in the soule of man; but is such a power, as whereby publike peace, equitie and iu­stice is preserved, and mainteigned in externall things, peculiarly appropried, and apperteyning vnto the persons, or affaires of the church; which power in­deede is properlie a temporall or civill power, and is to be exercised onelie by the authoritie of temporall and civill Magistrates. Now then to returne to the state of the point in question touching this later power, improperly called spi­rituall, by what law, or by what authori­tie the Archbishops and Bishops doe ex­ercise this kind of power in the church: I answer that they cannot haue the same, from any forraign canon lawe, because the same law, with all the powers & de­pendāces thereof is adnulled: And there­fore that this their power, must & ought to be derived vnto thē from Bb. where, From whence then is their power deri­ved? Herevnto we answere, that (before the making of that act) spirituall iuris­diction did apperteyne vnto Bishops, and that Bishops were ordinaries, aswell by custome of the Realme, canons, con­stitutions [Page 52] and ordinances provinciall & synodall, as by forraign canon law. And Bishops re­maine ordi­naries by cu­stome, pro­vincial cāōs, and statute law, though papal canon law be abo­lished. that therefore these canons, constituti­ons & ordinances provinciall or syno­dall, according to the true intent of that act, could not still haue bene vsed and executed as they were before, if the Bi­shops had not still remained ordinaries. Moreover, it is cleare by two statutes, that the Archbishops & Bishops ought 25. H. 8. c. 20. 25. H. 8. c, 16. to be obeyed in all maner of things, ac­cording to the name, title, degree and dignitie, that they shall bee chosen, or presented vnto, and that they may doe and execute, minister, vse, and exercise all and euerie thing and thinges, touching or perteyning to the office or order of an Archbishop or Bishop, with all en­signes, tokens and ceremonies therevnto lawfullie belonging, as any Archbishop or Bishop might at any time heretofore doe, without offending of the proroga­tiue Royall of the Crown, and the lawes and customes of this Realme. Let it be then that by custome, canons provinti­all and statute law, Bishops bee and doe remaine ordinaries; yet aswell vppon those words of the statute 25. H. 8. with­out [Page 53] offending of the prerogatiue Royal, as vpon the statute of 1. Eliz. c. 1. there remaineth a scruple and ambiguitie, whether it be not hurtfull, or derogato­rie vnto the Kinges prerogatiue Royall, that Ordinaries should vse and exercise their ordinarie power (improperly cal­led spirituall) without a commission vn­der the great Seale, or that such their power should be as immoderate, and ex­cessiue now, as in times past it was by the papall canon law? Concerning the first, by the statut of 1. Eliz. c. 1. and by the statute of 8. Eliz. c. 1. the Queene was recognized to be in effect the Ordinarie The Queen was su­preme ordi­narie of or­dinaries. of Ordinaries, that is, the chief, supream and Souveraigne ordinarie over all per­sons, in all causes, aswell ecclesiasticall as temporall. Where it seemeth to followe, that all the branches, & streames, aswell of that power which improperlie is cal­led spirituall, as of that power which properly is called temporal, should haue bene derived originally vnto the Bishop from her Highnes person, as from the onlie head & fountaine of all the same spiritual power within her Kingdomes, in such maner and from, and by such [Page 54] commission vnder the great Seale, as her H. temporal Officers, Iusticers & Iudges, had their authorities committed vnto them. And to this opinion Maister D. Bilson seemeth to accord. For all power Pag. 348 (saith he) is not onely committed to the sword, which God hath authorised, but is wholie closed in the sword. Against the head, that it shall not be head, to rule and guide the feete, can be no prescripti­on; by reason Gods ordinance, for the head to governe the bodie, is a perpetual and eternall law: and the vsurpation of the members against it, is no prescripti­on but a confusion, and the subuersion of that order, which the God of heaven hath immutably decreed and setled. Be­sides, there resteth (saith the Remon­strance) Pag. 114. & 130. vnto the Bishops of this Realm, none other but subordinate, & delegate authoritie: and that the matter & heads wherein their iurisdiction is occupied, are by, and from the Christian Magi­strats authoritie: In whom, as supream Governour, all iurisdiction, within her dominions, aswell ecclesiastical as civill, by Gods and mans law is invested, and their authoritie ecclesiastical is but sub­ordinat [Page 55] vnder God & the Prince, derived for the most part from the Prince. From which two statutes & iudgements of the 1. Eliza. c. 1 & 8. Eliz. c. 1 Governours of the Church conteined in these two bookes (for these two bookes were seene & allowed by the Governors of the church) I leaue it to be cōsidered, if the Bishop did exercise the same im­proper and abusive spirituall power and iurisdiction ecclesiasticall onelie and a­lonelie, in their owne names, stiles and dignities, and vnder their owne seales of office, & that also by authoritie of for­raigne and papall lawes; if (I say the Bishop did these things, after this & this manner, I leaue it then to be considered, whether their exercise of such power were derogatorie and preiudiciall in a very high degree, to the prerogatiues of the Royall Crown or not. For my part because I find by the forraigne canon lawe, that papall Bishops be the Popes sonnes, and are privileged to carry the the print & image of the Pope their fa­ther, namely that they haue plenitudinen potestatis within their diocesses, as the Ex de Ma­ior: & o [...]. Pope pretendeth to have power over the whole worlde: For quilibet ordinarius [Page 56] saith the same law in sua diocaesi est maior quolibet principe, and because also (not withstanding what socuer the Bb. haue written, that they were the Queenes Bb. and had their authoritie derived vnto M. Bilson pag. 330. them from the Queene) they did in her life time, put the same papall law in exe­cution, & by the same law did take vpon them, plenitudinem potestatis, within their Diocesses: I for my part (I say) can not as yet otherwise conceyue, but that exceedinglie they did intrude them sel­ues into the Royall preheminences, pri­viledges, & prerogatiues of the Queene. For by what other authoritie, then by a certain plenarie power, did they in their owne names, for the gouernment of the The Bb. by a plenarie power devi­sed & pro­mulged new canons, with out the Queens assent. seuerall Churches within their seuerall Diocesses, from time to time, make, pro­mulge, and by vertue of mens corporall oathes put in execution, what new Ca­nons, Iniunctions, and articles soever seemed good vnto them, without any li­cence, or cōfirmation from the Queene, first had and obteyned therevnto? By which pretensed plenarie power, it see­meth that the statute made to bring the Cleargie in submission to the King, was [Page 57] covertlie deluded, and our late Sove­raigne Ladie the Queene, cunningly be­reaved of that regall authoritie, over e­uerie partieular Diocesan, or Ordinarie, which notwithstanding, by the Parlea­ment was giuen vnto her Highnes, over the whole body and state of the Clergie. For if once there be no necessitie of the Kings licence, assent, or confirmation to such articles, canons, or iniunctions, as euerie ordinarie shall make within his iurisdiction, then must it bee intended, that the statute of submission hath co­vertlie permitred, severall members, se­verally to doe, & to execute those things which apparantly, & in expresse termes, the whole convocation was commaun­ded, and with the same, in verbo sacer­dotij, had promised, not to doe: then the which what can seeme more vnreaso­nable and absurd? For then might all the Ordinaries ioyne hand in hand, and agree all togither in one, never in anie of their convocations assembled, by the Kinges writt, to devise, make, or pro­mulge, any canons Ecclesiasticall at all. And what assent, licence, or confirmati­on from the King, could then bee need­full? [Page 58] Or how then was the Cleargie, brought in submission to the King? For then, should it not be with them, as it is in the proverbe; A threefold coard is not easilie brokē: but then should it be with them, contrarie to the proverbe; for they being all fast knit and bound togither vnto the Kings authoritie, by a coard of 24 threads, might easilie be broken; but being severed and pluct a sunder, into 24. Bishops, can make no lawe with­out leaue. And yet e­verie Bb: doeth make many lawes 24 partes, one from the other, the King with all his regall power, might not be [...] able so much as to breake one of the least threedes, wherewithall one of their cordes was twisted. If the Lorde Ma­ior, the Sheriffes, Aldermen, and whole communaltie of the Citie of London, should promise vnto the King vpō their fidelities, not to set anie price vpō Wines or other victualles, by their common Councell, within the said Citie, vnlesse the King, vnder his privie signett, should first authorize thē so to doe, were it not a meere collusion of the Kings meaning, if everie particular Aldermā, should sett prices of such things in every particular Ward? But against the collection made from the Statutes. 1. & 8. Eliza: & the [Page 59] iudgement of the diuinies aforesaid, the A collection made a­gainst the former rea­son by an Apologie for sundry proced by iurisdi. Eccl. pag. 5. author of an Apologie, to his vnder­standing, reckoneth the same collection to be a very simple collection, & against the same, hee answereth and reasoneth in effect thus.

The consequence of his maior propo­sition being false, he laboureth notwith­standing to make the same good, and in effect for the same argueth thus:

The consequence of which enthime­me followeth not, though the antece­dent be true. For although as well all tē ­porall, as all the said spiritual authoritie improperlie so called, was reallie & ab­solutelie in the person of the Queene; yet herevpon it followeth not, that by one and the selfe same meanes alone, and namelie, by a cōmission vnder the great Seale, all temporall, and the said spiri­tuall power, in euerie part and braunch thereof, should be drawen alike, frō the Queenes person. For there be divers and sundrie meanes, to derive temporall au­thoritie, whereas there seemeth to be but one onely meanes to derive the said spi­rituall authoritie, and then marke the substance of the Authors argument.

Which argument drawen from a par­ticular affirmatiue, vnto a general nega­tiue, what weaknes it hath, euery yong Logician can discerne. And as for Ste­wardes af Leetes, though they haue no Though all temporal of­ficers drawe not their power from the Kinge, by the great Seale, yet by one meanes or other w ^t ­drawe it frō the King. commission vnder the great Seale, yet for the executiō fo their Stewarships they haue a cōmission vnder the Seale of the Exchequer, Constables, Decennary, or Tythingmen, and Thirdboroughes, haue their authorities derived vnto the from the Kings person, by the verie ori­ginall institution of their offices, Sherifs of Countries, Coroners, Escheators, and Verderors, haue their offices and their [...]uthorities warranted vnto them, by the Kings writts out of the Chancerie. But [...] was not the mind of the Law-makers saith the Author) that the Ordinaries, [Page 62] by a commission vnder the great Seale, should draw their saide spirituall power from the Queene. What the mindes of the Law-makers were, touching this poinct, it mattereth litle or nothing at all. Neither is it to purpose, whether a commission vnder the great Seale, bee necessarily required, or not required by vertue of that statut 1. Eliz. c. 1. to war­rant the said spirituall power vnto Ordi­naries. Only it sufficeth, that the Queen having all power, improperly called spi­rituall, invested in her Royall person, & being really & actually seysed of all the said supreme spirituall authoritie, could not haue any parte of the same spirituall power drawn from her, but by some one lawfull and ordinarie meanes or other. For if this rule be true in euerie cōmon person, quod meum est, sine mea volun­tate à me auferri non potest; how much more doth the same rule holde, in the Royall prerogatiues, rightes, privileges, dignities, and supremities of a King! Wherefore to saie that all supreme and ordinarie power (improperly called) spi­rituall, was really and actually inherers in the Royall person of the Queene, and [Page 63] to say also, that some of the same inferi­or, and ordinarie power, not derived frō the Queen, was neuerthelesse in the per­sons of inferior ordinaries, is as much to say, that some braunches of a tree, may receyue nourishment from ells-where then from the roote; that some mēbers of the bodie, are not guided by the head; and that some streames, flow nor from their fountaines. And now to cō ­clude this part, against the canon law, & their Offices and functions thereof, I dispute thus:

Which canon law also, with other lawes & functions, how easely the same without any inconveniences, may bee supplied, shall (God willing) be present­lie made apparant, if first we shall aun­swere to that challenge, which the state [Page 64] of Prelacie may seeme to make for the continuance of their Lordly primacie, Chalenge for Lordly primacy, out of the great Charter, an­ [...]vered. out of the wordes of the great Charter. Concerning which challenge, namelie, that by the great Charter, Lordly Archie­piscopal, and Episcopall primacie or iu­risdiction belonging to the state of Pre­lacie, is belonging vnto them: I demand vnto what Church this great Charter was graunted? And whether it were not graunted vnto the Church of God in England? The words of the Charter are these: Concessimus Deo, & hac presenti Charta nostra confirmavimus, pro nobis Mag. Char­ta. c. 1. & haeredibus nostris, in perpetuum, quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, & habeat omnia iura sua integra, & libertates suas illaesas. We haue graunted vnto God, and by this our present writing haue confir­med for vs, and for our heyres for ever, that the church of England be free, and that shee haue all her rights, and liber­ties whole and vnhurt. Nowe by this Charter, if the same be cōstrued aright, there is provision made; first, that such honour and worship bee yeelded by the King and his subictes, his and their suc­cessors and posteritie vnto God, as truely, [Page 65] and in deed belongeth vnto him: Se­condlie, that not onely such rightes and liberties, as the King & his progenitors, but also that such as God had endowed the Church of England with, should in­violably be preserued. And in verie deed, to speake truely & properly, such rights and liberties onely, are to be cal­led, the rightes & liberties of the church of England, which God him selfe hath giuen by his lawe vnto his vniuersall Church, & not which the Kings of En­gland, by their Charter, haue bequea­thed to the particular church of En­gland. When therefore questiō is made, that by the great Charter, the Kinges of England are bound to maintayne the rights and liberties of the Church of Englande, we are to enquire and search what rights and liberties, God in his ho­lie word, hath granted vnto his vniver­sall Church; and so by consequence vn­to the Church of England, one part of the Catholike church. And this questi­onlesse was the cause, that moved the victorious Prince Henry the eight, so effectuallie and powerfully to bend him selfe against the Popes supremacie, vsur­ped [Page 66] at that time over the Church of England. For (saith the King) wee will with hazard of our life, and losse of our Crowne, vpholde and defend in our Realmes whatsoever wee shall know to be the will of God. The church of God then in England, not being free, nay ha­ving her rights and liberties according to the great Charter, whole and vnhurt, but being in bondage and servitude to the Sea of Rome, contrarie to the lawe of God; the King iudged it to stande highlie with his honor, & with his oath (according to the measure of knowe­ledge, which then was giuen vnto him) to reform, redresse, & amend the abuses of the same Sea. If then it might please our gratious Soveraigne Lord King IAMES, that now is (treading in the godly steppes of his renoumed great Vncle) to vouchsafe an abolishment of all lordlie primacie, executed by Archi­episcopal, & Episcopall authoritie, over the Ministers of Christ; His Highnes in so doing, could no more rightlie bee charged with the violation of the great Charter, then might King HENRY the eight with the banishment of the Popes [Page 67] supremacie; or then our late Soveraigne Ladie the Queene could be iustlie bur­thened with the breach of her oath, by the establishment of the Gospell. Nay if the Kings of England, by reason of their oath, had bin so straightlie tied to the wordes of the great Charter, that they might not in anie sort, haue disannulled any supposed rightes, & liberties of the church then vsed, and confirmed by the great Charter, vnto the church that thē was supposed, to be the Church of God in England; then (belike) King Henrie the eight, might bee atteinted to haue gone against the great Charter, and a­gainst his oath, whē by the overthrow of Abbayes & Monasteries, he tooke away the rightes, and liberties of the Abbotts and Priors. For by expresse wordes of the great Charter, Abbotts and Priors, had as ample and as large a Patent, for their rightes and liberties, as our Archb. & Bb. can at this day chalenge for their primacies. If then the rightes and liber­ties of the one, as being against the lawe of God, be duly & lawfully taken away, notwithstanding any matter, clause, or sentence, conteyned in the great Char­ter; [Page 68] the other haue but litle reason, by colour of the great Charter, to stand v­pon their pantofles, and to contend for their painted sheathes. For this is a rule & maxime in all good lawes, that in omni iuramento, semper excipitur authoritas maioris: vnlesse then they be able to iu­stifie by the holy scriptures, that such rightes and liberties, as they pretend for their spirituall primacie over the Mini­sters of Christ, to be granted vnto them by the great Charter, be in deed & truth likewise confirmed vnto them by the holy law of God: I suppose the Kinges Highnes, as a successor to King Henrie the third, and as a most iust inheritour to the Crown of England, by the words of the great Charter, and by his oath (if once the same were taken) to be bound vtterlie to abolish all Lordly primacie, as hetherto vpheld and defended, partly by ignorance, and partlie by an vnrea­sonable and evill custome.

Assertion.

This collection dependeth vppon his former Reason, & is borrowed to proue a necessary continuance of canon law, and concludeth in effect thus:

But we denie the assumption, and af­firme The main­tenance of Civiliās, dependeth not vpō the fun­ctions of the canon lavve. that Civilians might haue farre better reward & maintenance then now they haue, if the offices and functions of the canon lawe, and such things as are conteyned within the same, were simply and absolutely taken away. And further we say, if there were none other vse, nor end of the studie of the civill lawe, then hope of reward, and mainte­nance by some office & function of the canon lawe, that then Civilians should in vaine seeke for knowledge in the civill lawe, because without the know­ledge thereof, and by the only know­ledge of such things, as are within the compasse of the canon law, they might reape that rewarde and maintenance. Nay, sithens by experience wee haue known that some, who neuer vnclapsed the institutions of Iustinian, out of the same to learne the definition of civill iustice, haue bin & yet are authorized, [Page 71] to exercise the offices and functions of the canon law; how should the studie of the civill lawe, bee furthered by these offices and functions, when as with­out any knowledge of the civill law, these offices and functions haue bin and yet are dayly vndertaken, and executed to the full? And what mā then (if there were none other rewarde for Civilians) would tenne or twelue yeres togither, beat his braine, and trouble his witts, in the studie of the civill lawe, when every silly canonist might be able and learned inough, to sit in the Bishops throne, and to be iudge in his consisto­rie? Besides, if the Admonitor speake sooth, viz: that Civilians in this Realm, liue not by the vse of the civill lawe, to what end then should he feare an over­throw of the studie thereof? For if there be no vse of it in this Realme, for the maintenance of this life, to what vse then should men studie the same in this Realme? As for the vse of it among strangers, and forraigne nations with­out the Realme; the same (as I suppose) is no greater then such as 3. or 4. Civi­lians may bee able well inough, fully to [Page 72] deliver the law, touching all matters of controversie, that may grow to question during the whole space of a Kinges raigne. If no man lived in this Realme by the trade of brewing Beere, but that all Brewers did live by the trade of brew­ing Ale, what should we neede to feare the decaye of Beere-brewers, or what vse were there of them? In like sort, if men liue onelie by the vse, offices and functions of the canon law, & that men liue not (as he saith) by the vse of the ci­vill law within the Realme, what follie were it to studie the one, whereas with­out the knowledge therof, he might live by the other? And therefore it seemeth that the Admonitor by his own weapon, as much as in him lay, hath given the whole studie of the civill law, a most de­sperate and deadly wound. And to the end we may vnderstand what reward & maintenance, Civilians by the offices & functions of the canon law, doe receyve yearely for their service and attendance, in the Bishops and Archdeacons their Courts; We will examine what fees Do­ctors of the civil law, being Chancelors, Commissaries or Officials, haue vsually, [Page 73] and ordinarily allowed vnto them, by their Lords and Maisters. Fees for pro­bat of Testaments, graunting of admi­nistrations, Fees for probat of testa­ments let to farme. with their appendances, of late yeares in some places (whether in all or how many I know not) haue bin de­mised vnto farm for an annual rent; out of which, either a small or no portion at all, hath bin allowed vnto the Chance­lor or Official, for his service in this be­half. Wherevpon (as I coniecture) it hath fallen out, rather then that those Offi­cers would worke, keepe courts, & tra­vaile for litle, or nought, there have bin exacted greater fees, for the dispatch of these things, then by law ought to haue bin paied. Perquisits of courts, arising vpon suits, commenced betwene partie and partie, it must bee a plentifull har­vest, and there must be multi amici curiae in a Bb. consistorie, if ordinarily (com­munibus annis) they amoūr in the whole to twentie pounds by the yeare: and yet these perquisits, belong not wholy to the Chancelor, but are to be devided be­tweene him & the Register. And touch­ing Fees for excommunication, and ab­solution, fees for institutiō & induction, [Page 74] licences to preach, licences for Curates and Readers. For testimoniall of sub­scription, or licences to marrie without banes; fees for cōmutation of penance, & fees for relaxation of sequestrations: touching these manner of Fees, if the same be fees no way warantable, howe are not then such Fees every way disho­norable for a Doctor of the civill lawe, Fees due for the executiō of the func­tions of the canon lavve, dishonora­ble for a Doctor of the civil lavv to take, either of Ministers or people? There must bee therefore some other hope of better reward & maintenance, to incite and incourage schollers, to the studie of the civill law, thē are these beg­gerlie and vnlawfull fees, depending v­pon the functions, and exacted by the officers of the canon law: or ells the vse of the civil law (as the Admonitor saith) must necessarilie in short time be over­throvven. For if Fees for probat of Te­staments, and granting of administrati­ons with their appendices, shall still be let to farme; and if also, many vnlawfull Fees were quite inhibited, there would remaine (I trowe) but a very poore pit­tance for Civilians out of the functions of the canon law, to maintaine their Do­ctoralities withall. But what better re­ward [Page 75] can there bee for Civilians, then hath already bin mentioned? If the Ad­monitor had not willingly put a hood­wincke Civilians [...] Englād liue not only, by the functiōs of canō lavv before his eyes, hee might haue seene that the civilians liue not wholy & altogether by the practise of the canon law; but partly also, and that most ho­norably by the vse of the civill lawe. If a Doctor of the civill lawe, bee Iudge or Advocate, in the Court of Admiral­tie; if he be Iudge or Advocate in the prerogatiue Court, so farre as the same Court handleth onely matters of Lega­cies, Testaments and Codicills, to what vse can the canō law serue him, or what advantage can the same lawe bring him in? Besides, to what vse serveth the ca­non law vnto a Doctor of the civill law, if he shall finde favor in the Kings sight, & if it please the King to make him one of the Maisters of his Requestes, or one of the twelue Maisters of his high Court of Chancerie, or to be the Maister of his Roles; or to be his Highnes Embassa­dor vnto forreyne Nations, of to be one of his H. most honorable privie Coun­cel, or to be one of his principall Secre­taries. It followeth not therefore (as the [Page 76] Admo, pretendeth) that eyther the Ci­vilians in this Realme, live not by the vse of the civill law, but by the offices, & functions of the canon lawe, and such things as are within the compasse ther­of; or that the hope of rewarde, and by that meanes, the whole studie of the ci­vill law must be taken away, if once the canon law should be abolished. Neither would it bee any hard matter for the King (if the Civilians might finde grac [...] in his sight) to appoint Courtes, offices, and all maner of processe and procee­dings in iudgement for Doctors of the civill law, to heare & determine in the Kings name, all causes being now with­in the compasse of any civill, or ecclesi­asticall law within this Realme. And although a litle candle can giue but a litle light, and a small Spring can send [...] forth but a small streame, yet because great fiers are kindled sometimes by [...] ­tle sparkles, and smal streames [...] togither, may in tyme growe into great rivers; I shall desire the great Civilians with their floods & lamps of learning to helpe forward such a law, as where [...] the studie of the civill law, may bee vp­holden, [Page 77] the reward and maintenance of Civilians, without any function frō the Canon law, may be enlarged, many cō ­troversies, and disorders in the church, may be pacified, and the Kings preroga­tive Royall be duely advanced. Which things if it might please them rightly to consider, then let them humblie and se­riouslie beseech our Sovereine Lord the King, and States in Parleament, to giue their consentes to such a law, as the pro­iect ensuing, may warrant thē, the same not to be dangerous to the overthrowe of their civill studies.

Assertion.

In deed we hold, that all these matters whereof mention is here made, and all Matters of tythes and other causes of like na­ture perteine to civill Iu­stice. others of the like nature, are merely ci­vill and temporall, and by the temporall Magistrate alone, to bee dealt in, and to be discussed, if we consider the admini­stration of externall and civill iustice. And this wee thinke wilbe graunted of all, and not be denied of any vnlesse they be too to popishly addicted. In regard whereof wee haue drawen (as before is mentioned) a proiect, howe Courts and maner of processe and proceedinges in iudgement, by Doctors of the civill law may be appointed by the King, and his high Court of Parleamēt, without that, that the common law of the Realme, by [Page 92] the occasion of any such courts, officer, or maner of processe and proceedings, must receave any alteration at al, much­lesse a very great alteration. Howbeit if it should not please the King, and that the Civilians could not finde favour in his sight, by courts, offices, and maner of processe and proceedings in iudgement before specified, or by the like to have the studie of the civill law advanced, yet we thinke it convenient once againe to [...]owe mat­ters of Ty­thes, &c. may be dealt in by the Kings Iud­ges. be examined howe these matters may be dealt in, according to the rules & groūd [...] of the common lawe, before the Kings Iudges, and Iustices of the Kings bench, and common pleas.

By a statute of 32. H. 8. c. 7. it is cleare, that all tythes, oblations &c. and other ecclesiasticall or spirituall profits, by the lawe or statutes of the Realme, may bee made temporal, as being admitted to be, abide, & go to, and in, temporall hands, laye vses, and profits. From the reason [...] which statute it is cleere, that those law [...] likewise, may be reckoned amongst [...] for temporall lawes, which by the law [...] and statutes of the Realme, may be exe­cuted by temporall and lay persons, and [Page 93] which are conversant about temporall and lay causes. If then the execution of the lawes, touching these matters may lawfully remaine, & abide in the hands of Doctors of the civill law, being tem­porall and lay persons (as alreadie vnder the Bishops they doe); it can not be de­nied but that the Kings Iudges, and Iu­s [...]icers of both Benches, may be as com­petible Iudges, to put in execution the lawes concerning these matters, as Do­ctors of the civill law, or other lay-men be. But the causes are not reputed and called temporall, & lay causes amongst vs. What for that? if in their owne na­ture simply considered, these causes bee meerely laye and temporall causes, such causes (I meane) as whereof the King, a [...]ay, civill and temporall Magistrate, by his lay, civill and temporal Magistracie, [...]erived vnto him immediatly from the holy law of God, may, and ought to take [...]ognizāce, & thervpō, either in his own Royall person, or by the person of any of his inferior Officers, may giue abso­ [...]te & peremptorie iudgement: If (I say) [...]hese things be so, what booteth it, or that wisedom is it contend, that these [Page 94] causes and matters, have bin, and are stil adiudged to be therefore ecclesiasticall, & no temporal causes, because through an abusive speech, or through a vaine and evill custome, they haue bin so cal­led and accompted in times past? And what if it hath pleased the Kinges Pro­genitors, by sufferance to tollerate the execution of such lawes, as concerne these things, to be in the hands & power of Ecclesiasticall persons; yet here vpon it followeth not that in very deede and trueth, the Magistracie of the said eccle­siasticall persons, was an ecclesiasticall Magistracie, or that they were ecclesia­sticall Magistrats; but their Magistracie was, and remayned still a temporall ma­gistracie, & they were and aboade tem­porall Magistrates. For not more can the qualitie of the person, alter the na­ture of the cause, then can the qualitie of the cause, alter the nature of the per­son. And, if it be true, that matters de­terminable (in tymes past) by a Magi­stracie abusivelie called ecclesiastical, be notwithstandinge properlie tempora [...] matters, and that the same Magistracie also, be a temporall & no spirituall Ma­gistracie, [Page 95] what a childish & poore cōceit is it, to challenge & threp vpō the tēpo­rall Magistrat, that he hath none, or ve­rie few temporall lawes, touching those matters? And that therefore the people should not sollicit an alteratiō of abuses in Church-goverment, least for want of temporall lawes, the people should bee without ecclesiasticall discipline? It will be no small matter (saith hee) to applie these things to the temporall lawe; yea and so say I to. But what of that? The question is not how hardly these things may be applied to the temporall lawe, but how small a matter it were to applie the temporall law vnto these thinges. For it is not said in any law, that, casus ex iuribus, but it is said in all lawes, that The tempo­ral law may easily be ap­plied to cau­ses nowe re­puted eccle­siasticall. ex casibus [...]ura nascuntur. And in deede the Phisition applieth not the disease to his phisicke, but he prepareth his phi­sicke for the disease. The husband-man he measureth not his groūd by the seed, but his seed by the ground. The Dra­per, he meateth not his yarde by the cloth, but his cloth by the yarde. If in like maner the temporall lawes, and the grounds and rules thereof, were applied [Page 96] to these matters of tythes, marriages, &c. whereof he speaketh, what more altera­tion could there be of the temporall law by such an application, then there is an alteration of the plūmet, by laying it to the stone, or then there is an alteration of the rule or yard, by laying them to the timber & cloth? Besides, he that rightly and after an exact, & equall proportion, can apply one rule or maxime of the tē ­porall lawe, to many more cases, then wherevn to it hath bin vsually in former times applied, he may rather be reputed an additioner, then an alterer of the law. But how may the temporall lawe be ap­plied to those matters? How? even so, and so, as followeth. By the statute 32. Howe Tythes may bee recoue­red in the Kings tēpo­rall Courts. H. 8. c. 7. it is declared, that tythes, obla­tions, &c. and other ecclesiastical or spi­rituall profitts, &c. bein̄g in laye mens handes, to laye vses, be no more ecclesi­asticall, but temporall goods, and pro­fittes; and that if any person were dissey­sed, deforced, wronged, or otherwise kept, or put from his lawfull inheritāce, estate, seysin, &c. of, in, or to the same, by anie person, clayming, or pretending to haue interest, or title, in, or to the same, [Page 97] that then, in all and euerie such case, the person so disseysed, deforced, or wrong­fullie kept from his right or possession, shall and may haue his remedie in the Kings temporal Courtes, as the case shal require, for the recouvery of such inheri­tance by writt originall, &c. to be devi­sed and graunted out of the Kinges Court of Chancerie, in like maner, &c. It is there likewise provided, that that Act shal not extend, nor be expounded, to giue anie remedie, cause of action or suite, in the Courtes temporall, against any person, which shall refuse to set out his Tythes, or which shall deteigne, &c. his Tythes and offerings. But that in all such cases, the partie, &c. having cause to demand, or haue the same tythes, shal haue his action for the same, in the Ec­clesiasticall Courtes, accordinge to the ordenance, in the first part of that act mentioned, and none otherwise.

Now then sit hence euery person, whe­ther he be laie or Ecclesiasticall, having [...]ght to demand tythes and offeringes, hath the partie from whom those tythes [...] due, bound & obliged vnto him: and thence also, the partie not dividinge, [Page 98] yeelding or paying his tythes, doth actuallie and reallie deteigne the same, and thereby doth vniustlie wrong the partie to whom they be due: contrarie to iu­stice, & the Kings lawes; sithence (I say) these things be so, what alteratiō, or dis­advantage could befall or ensue to the common law, or the Professors thereof; if so bee it might please the King, with his Parleament, to haue the last part of this Act so to be explaned, extended, and enlarged, as that the same might giue remedie in the Kings temporall Courts, by writt original, to be devised & gran­ted out of the Chācerie, against any per­son deteigning his tythes and offerings [...] the Hospitall of S ^t Leonards in Yorke, of the Kings foundatiō and Patronage, Hospitall of S. Leonard 1. 2. H. 6. c 2 endowed of a thrave of corne, to be ta­ken yerely, of euery ploūgh earing, with in the Counties of Yorke, Comberlande, Westmerland and Lancaster, hauing no sufficient, or covenable remedie, at the common law, against such as withheld the same thraves, it was ordeigned by the King in Parleament, that the Maister of the said Hospitall, and his successors, might haue actions by writt, or plaintes [Page 99] of debt, or detinue at their pleasure, a­gainst all and every of them that detey­ned the same thraves, for to recover the same thraves with their damages. And by a statute 32. H. 8. c. 44. it is enacted, That the Parsons and Curates of five pa­rish churches, whereinto the Towne of Roysen did extend it selfe, and everie of them, & the successors of every of them, shall haue their remedie, by authoritie of that Act, to sue, demaund, aske, & re­cover in the Kings Court of Chancerie, the Tythes of corne, hay, wooll, lambe and calfe, subtracted or denyed to bee paide by any person or persons. Againe, Vicars, Parsons, or Improprietaries, do implead any man, in the ecclesiasticall Court, for tythes of wood, beeing of the age of 20. yeeres, or aboue, for tyth-hay out of a medow, for the which tyme out of mind & memorie of man, there hath onely some Meade-silver bin paied: or if a debate hang in a spirituall Court for the right of tythes, having his origi­nall, from the right of Patronage, & the [...]uātite of the same tythes, do passe the [...]urth part of the value of the benefice, prohibition in all these, and sundrie [Page 100] other cases doth lie, and the matters are to be tried, and examined in the Kinges Courts, according to the course of the common lawe, vnlesse vpon iust cause there be graunted a consultation. And if in these cases, in maintenance of the common law, the defendants haue relief in the Kinges Courts; I thinke it more meete to leave it to the consideration ra­ther of cōmon, then to the iudgemēt of canon Lawiers, to determine, what alte­ration the common law could sustayne, in case all Plaintiffes, aswell as some de­fendants, might pray the Kings ayd, for the recovery of tythes; especially seeing at this day, the maner of paying tythes in England, for the most part, is now li­mited by the cōmon and statute lawes of the Realm, and not by any forraigne ca­non law. Obiect. But there is some fact happely so difficile, so secreat, and so mystical, in these causes of tythes, as the same can­not, without a very great alteration of the common law, be so much as opened before a lay Iudge; or, of the hidden knowledge wherof, the Kings temporall Iudges are not capable. Answere. Why then let vs see of what nature that inextricable fact [Page 101] may bee. I haue perused many libels; made and exhibited, before the ecclesia­sticall What facts touching the witholding of tythes are examinable in the eccle­siasticall Courts. Iudges, yea and I haue read them over and over, and yet for grounde of complaint, did I never perceave any o­ther materiall and principall kinde of facte, 'examinable in those Courts, but onely such as follow.

These and such like are the chief mat­ters The Kinges Iustices are as able to iudge of ex­ceptions a­gainst tithes, as the eccle­siastical Iud­ges. of fact, wherevpon in the ecclesiasti­call Courts, proofes by witnesses, or re­cordes rest to be made for the recoverie of tythes. And who knoweth not, but that these facts, vpon proofes made, be­fore the Kinges Iustices, may aswell bee [Page 103] decided by them, as by any of the reve­rende Bishops or venerable Archdea­cons, their Chancelors, or Officials. If there be ame exception alleaged by the defendant, as of composition, prescri­ption, or privilege, the Kinges Iustices are as able to iudge of the validitie, of these, as they are now able to determine customes de modo decimandi, or of the vse of high wayes, of making and repay­ring of bridges, of commons of pasture, pawnage, estovers, or such like. Trueth it is, that of legacies and bequestes of Legacies how they may be re­couered at the cōmon lawe. goods, the reverend Bishops by suffe­rance of our Kinges and consent of our people, haue accustomablie vsed, to take cognyzance, and to hold plea, in their spirituall Courts. Notwithstanding if the legacie be of landes, where landes be divisible by Testament, the iudgement thereof, hath ben alwayes vsed, and hol­den by the Kings writ, and never in any ecclesiasticall Court. Wherfore if it shall please the King, to enlardge the autho­ritie of his Courtes temporall, by com­mandinge matters of legacies and be­questes of goods, aswell as of landes, to be heard, and determined in the same, it [Page 104] were not much to be feared, but that the Kings Iustices, the Kings learned Coun­sell, and others learned in the law of the Realme, without any alteration of the same law, would spedelie find meanes, to applie the grounds thereof, aswell to all cases of legacies, and bequests of goods, as of landes. For if there bee no goods divisible by will, but the same are graūt­able, and confirmable, by deede of gift, could not the Kings Iustices, aswel iudge of the gift, & of the thing given by will, as of the graunt, & of the thing graun­ted by deede of gift? or can they not de­termine of a legacie of goods, aswell as of a bequest of landes? If it should come in debate before them, whether the Te­stator, at the time of making his will, were of good & perfect memorie, vpon profes, and other circumstances to bee opened, and made of the Testators me­morie by livelie testimonies, either the Admonitor must condemne the Kinges learned and discreete Iustices to be [...] mentis & insanae memoriae, or els it must be confessed, that they be as well able to iudge of the distraction of wits and vn­soundnes of memorie, in a person de­ceased, [Page 105] as they be to determine the que­stion of Lunacie, madnesse, or idiocie, in a man living.

If anie question should arise vpon the revocation of a former will of the a­demptiō of a legacie, or of a legacie gi­uen vpon cōdition, or in diem, it would be [...] matter, for the learned Iud­ges; vpon sight of the Will, and proofes to be made, to define, which is the first, and which is the last will; whether the legacie remayne, or whether it be revo­ked, whether it be legatum per rerum or [...], whether condicionall or with­out condition: And if it bee condicio­nal whether the same be possible or impossible; honest, or dishonest; and if it be [...], whether the day bee past, or to come. But there lyeth no action at the commō lawe, for a legatorie, against the executor to recover his legacie. I graunt. But a creditor to recover his d [...]t, due by the testator vpon specialtie, may bringe an action, at the common law, against the executor. And then what is the cause, that a creditor, may recover his debt, & that a legatorie can not recover his legacie, in the Kinges [Page 106] Court, but onlie, for that remedie could not be giuen vnto legatories complay­nantes by any writt out of the Chance­rie. And therefore that such plaintifes, might not be deferred of their right, & 21. Ed. 1. statute vpon the writt of consultation remedie in such cases, to their great da­mage, it hath pleased the Kinges, by sufferance, to tolerate the Church offi­cers, to determine these cases. Where­fore if it might please the King, to cause Writtes to bee made out of his Court of Chancerie, for the recoverie of Lega­cies, it were cleere by the common law of the Realme (as from the statute may be gathered) that the cognizance of these cases, did not appertayne anie more, to the spirituall Court. For then might the legatorie, by that Writt, bring an actiō against the executor, to obteine his Legacie. But how should that acti­on be tryed? How? even as other acti­ons of debt, detinue, or trover be tried, namelie (as the case should require) ei­ther by the countrey, or by the Iudges vpon a moratur in lege.

As Testamentes with their adheren­ces, so likewise matters of Spousalles, Matters of mariages, more meete to bee deci­ded by the Kings, then by the Bb. officers. Mariages, divorces, &c. togither [Page 107] their accessories, by common right, of the Imperiall Crowne, did in auncient times properlie apperteyne to the exa­minations, and sentences of the Empe­rours them selues, & to their Provostes, Deputies, and Presidentes, of Cities and Provinces, as by the several titles, de Te­stamentis, Legatis, Fidei commissis, Nu­ptijs, repudijs, divortio, dote, &c. in the books of the civil law appeareth. By the Law of England also, the King hath the mariadge of an heyre being within age, & in his warde. Widowes also that hold of the King in chiefe, must not marie them selues without the Kings licence. And by an Act made 4. and 5. Phil. and Mary, there is a streight punishment provided against all such, as shall take away Maydens, that be inheritors, being within the age of sixteene yeres; or ma­rie them without consent of their Pa­rentes. And what reason letteth them, that the King, might not as well haue the care, and cognoyzance of all the cō ­tractes of mariage, especially of the ma­riage of all children and Widowes, in his temporall Courtes, as he hath of some parties, to bee contracted, of the [Page 108] Dower, of the ioynture, of the dis a­ragment, of the age, of the [...] way, of the deflouring, and of man­age without parentes consent in some cases? or what a verie great alteration of the common Law, could ensue, in case the Kings temporall Iustices, did exa­mine, and determine whether the con­tract were a pefect and simple, or condi­cionall contract yea or no? For if vpon the statute made by Phi. and Mary, that Maydens and Women, children of No­ble men, & Gentlemē, &c. being heyres apparant, &c. and being left within age of xvj. yeares, should not marie against the will or vnknowing, of, or to the Fa­ther, or against, &c. If I say vpon the pu­blishing of this Act, there hath no alte­ration of the common law hitherto fol­lowed, it is but a meere superstitious er­rour, to feigne, that a change of the cō ­mon law must followe, if so be this sta­tute were extended, to all children, both Sonnes and Daughters, of what pa­rentage, sexe, estate, or age so euer. For if the King in his temporall Courts, had the definitiō of all, aswell as of some contractes, made by children, without [Page 109] consent of parents, then should a multi­tude of lewde and vngodlie contractes, made by flatterie, trifling gifts, faire and goodly promises, of many vnthriftie, and light personages thervnto wonne, by intreatie of persons of lewde demea­noure, be pronounced voide, and of no efficacie, yea & on the other side, a num­ber of honest, lawfull, and godlie con­tractes, should bee confirmed, and re­maine in their full strenght, and force; which nowe vpon certeyne frivolous, and trifeling quiddities, and nicities of Much a doe in the eccle­siasticall Courts, a­bout acci­pio, & acci­piam. wordes and sillabes are pronounced in the ecclesiasticall Courts, to be no con­tracts. And in good earnest, is there now a dayes, any soundnes of reason at all, to be heard amongst the Doctors and pro­ctors of those courts, where they inform out of the canon law in these cases? For doth not their whole dispute and infor­mation rest principallie, whether the contract bee made by wordes of the present, or of the future tence? whether it be made with an oath, or without an oath? yea and doe they not exceedingly besweate, and besmyre them selves, by turning, and returning, by folding, and [Page 110] vnfolding, their great and hydeous vo­lumes, for profe, and reprofe, of accipio, & accipiam? yea and sometimes of let­ters, and accentes? If the yong-man and mayde, having both of them their pa­rents consent, shall answere onelie in the future tence: I will haue thee, or, I will take thee; or I am content to take thee, or I will haue none other but thee, or if ever I marie, I will marie thee; and do not answere directlie, I do take thee to mine husbande, or I doe take thee to my wife: oh! it is a world to see, and a wonderment to beholde, what canva­sing, heaving, and shoving, what a stirre, quoyle, and garboyle, the Canonistes make, about the lifting, and removing of these fethers. And whatsoever the ho­lie Scriptures haue determined of the necessitie of parents consent, or of what necessitie likewise so ever the Institu. de [...]up. §. 1. civill law, hold the consent of parentes to bee, yet in the ecclesiasticall Courts, the pa­pall canon lawe must needes take place, because by the same law, consent of pa­rentes, is not de necessitate, but de hone­state tantum, and because also matrimo­nia debent esse libera, & non pendere ex [Page 111] alieno arbitrio. Wherein the reverend Bishops, (vnder their favourable paci­ence) The canon law prefer­red by the reverēd Bb. before the law of God and the civil law. can not clearly excuse them selves, of much oversight, in so slender manag­ing, of a matter, of so great, and high a consequence. The holie law of God, by publike authoritie, hath bene comman­ded within this Realme, to be sincerelie, and purelie taught, received and embra­ced. The civil law, hath not had her free course, in this case hindered, by any law of the Realme. And how then commeth it to passe, that the canon lawe, beeing in this point repugnāt to both these lawes, should notwithstanding, bee preferred, beare sway & take place, in this Realm, before & aboue both these lawes, espe­ciallie the same in this point, as beeing against the law of God, being vtterly ta­ken away. The abuses past, & mariages past, vnder coloure and pretext of this law, may and ought to be bewayled, and repented of: yea and that no such mari­ages, in time to come, may bee made, I leave it to bee considered, whether it Certaine speciall pointes to be provi­ded about mariages. might not tend to the advancement of the lawe of God, bee honorable for the King, & commodious for the common [Page 112] weale, providentlie to provide, these things following: viz. First, that no matrimonie secretlie contracted, against the will, or vnknowing of, or to the Fa­ther, or him, or her, that hath the kee­ping, educatiō, or goverment, of the par­tie to be maried, before he, or thee come to a certaine age, should in any sorts, be good or avaylable to make the pos [...] ­tie of those, who shall bee so maried, legitimate, or inheritable.

Secondlie, that euery contract of mari­age concluded, with consent of Parents, Tutor, Governour, or Gardian, should be forcible, and effectuall, to bind both parties irrevocablie: whether the same contract (with an intent to conclude a mariage) be made by wordes of the pre­sent, or future tence, it skilleth not. Thirdlie, that euery man stealing away, contracting, and marying a mayde, vn­der the age of certeyne yeeres, without consent of Father, Tutor, Governour, or Gardian, should be a felon, and for such his felonious act, suffer the paynes of death. And lastlie, that all licēces to ma­rie without banes asking, according to the intendement of the booke of com­mon [Page 113] prayer, be forbiddē and vnlawfull for euer. Which things if they might be observed, it is verie likelie, that mens in­heritances (as now many times they do) should not hang in suspence, vpon que­stion of legitimation, or illegitimation of their children, to be alowed, or disal­lowed, by the canon law. There should not any such long, and tedious s [...]tes & variances hereafter fall out, betwene the posterities and children of one man, for the right, & interest of their Auncestors Complaint heeretofore made vpon stealing a­way & ma­rying mens daughters, howe they may cease. Lands. Neither should Sir Thomas Lu­cie, nor Sir Edmund Ludlow, nor the La­die Norton, nor Maister Cooke the Kings Atturney generall, nor many moe Knights, Esquiers, & Gentlemen, com­playne and bewayle, the stealing away, and mariages of anie their daughters, Neeces, nere Kinswomē, or Wardes. Nei­ther could it bee possible, that one Wo­man might procure foure, or fiue seve­rall licences for the mariage of foure or five severall husbands, all of them being alive together, & not one of them dead. Neither should there anie Licēce of ma­riage be graunted out of an Ecclesiasti­call Court, to anie man or woman with [Page 114] a blanck, whereby the partie licēsed was enabled to haue maried an other mans wyfe, or his owne, or his wyves sister. Neither should any couples maried, and livinge together, foure, sixe, or more yeeres, as man and wyfe, vpon a new, and suddayne dislike, or discontentement, & vpon a surmised precontract, to be pre­tensedlie proued, by two suborned wit­nesses, be adiudged (by vertue of the canon law) to be no husband, and to bee no wife. Neither should any man (being solemlie maried to a wyfe, & afterward by reason of a precontract, solemlie di­vorced from the same his wyfe, and by censures of the Church compelled to marie her for whom sentence of precō ­tract was adiudged) be reauthorized by the same Consistorie, about tenne, or twelve yeres after the divorce, to resom­mon, recall, & rechalenge his first wife: especiallie she having a testimoniall out of the same Consistorie, of her lawfull divorce, and being againe solemlie ma­ried to an other husband. Wherefore to conclude these matters of Tythes, Testa­ments, and Mariages (if the King should not be pleased, to haue the studie of the [Page 115] civill law advanced, by some such lawe, as whereof the former proiect maketh mencion) I dispute for the enlargement of the common law, thus:

Assertion.

We are in deed of this iudgemēt, that in regard of the Kinges Royall Office, these iudgements of adultrie, and other criminall causes comprised within this clause, &c. ought no more to be exemp­ted, from the Kings temporall Courtes, then matters of theft, murther, treason, and such like ought to be. And for the mayntenance of our iudgementes, wee affirme, that there is no crime, or offēce of what nature or qualitie soever, respe­cting any commaundement, conteyned within either of the two tables, of the holie law of God, if the same bee nowe corrigible by spirituall power, but that some fault and contempt, one, or other, of the like nature, and qualitie, as com­prised vnder the same commandement, [Page 117] hath bene evermore, and is now punish­able, by the Kings Regall, and temporal iurisdiction.

For, adulterie, as the same is to be cen­sured, by penance in the Ecclesiasticall Courtes, so is ravishment also, buggerie & sodomie, to be punished in the Kings Court, by payne of death. And, as hath bene accustomed, that Ordinaries, by cē ­sures of the Church, may correct forni­cators, so fornication also, (as in some bookes written of the common lawe, is reported) hath bene in times passed, pre­sented, and punished in leetes, and Law­dayes, in divers places of the Realme, by the name of Letherwhyte, whiche is, as the booke saieth, an auncient Saxon terme. And the Lord of the Leete (where it hath bene presented) hath euer had a fyne, for the same offence. By the statute of those, that be borne beyond the Seas, 25. Ed 3. it appeareth, that the Kinge hath cogni­zance, of fome bastardie. And nowe in most cases of bastardie, if not in all, by the statute of Eliza. the reputed fa­ther, of a bastard borne, is lyable to bee punished at the discretion of the Iustices of peace.

Touching periurie, if a man loose his action, by a false verdict, in plea of land, Periurie if punishable, temporallie in some ca­ses, why not in all. he shall haue an attaynt, in the Kinges Court, to punish the periurie, and to re­forme the falsitie. And by divers statutes it appeareth, that the Kings tēporall Of­ficers, may punish periurie committed in the Kings tēporal Courtes. And though it be true, that such periurie as hath ri­sen, vpon causes reputed spirituall, haue bene in times past, punished onlie by ec­clesiasticall power and censures of the Church; yet herevpon it followeth not, that the periurie it selfe, is a meere spiri­tuall, and not a temporall crime or mat­ter, or that the same might not to be ci­villie punished.

By a statute of Westminster 25. Ed. 3. it was accorded, that the King, & his Vsurie. heyres shall have the cognizance of the vsurers dead; and that the Ordinaries haue cognizance of vsurers on lyfe, to make compulsion, by censures of the Church for sinne, and to make restitu­tion of the vsuries taken, against the lawes of holy church. And by another statute, it is provided, that vsuries shall 20. H. 3. c. 5. not turne against any being within age, [Page 119] after the time of the death of his Aun­cestoure, vntill his full age. But the vsu­rie, with the principall debt, which was before the death of his Auncestor, did remayne, and turne against the heyre. And because all vsurie being forbidden by the law of God, is sinne, & detestable, 13. Eliz. c. 8. it was enacted, that all vsurie, lone, and forbearing of money, &c. giving dayes, &c. shall be punished, according to the forme of that Act. And that everie such offendor shal also be punished, & corre­cted, according to the Eccle. lawes, be­fore that tyme made against vsurie. By al which statutes, it seemeth that the co­gnizance, & reformatiō of vsurie, by the lawes of the Realm, partayneth onlie to the Kinge, vnles the King by his lawe, permit the Church, to correct the same, by the censures of the church, as a sinne committed against the holy law of God.

Touching heresies, and schismes, al­beit the Bishoppes, by their Episcopall, Heresies & schismes are punishable by the Kings lawes. and ordinarie spirituall power, groūded vpon canon lawe, or an evill custome, have vsed by definitive sentēce pronoū ­ced in their Consistories, to condemne men for heretickes and schismatickes; [Page 120] and afterward being condemned, to de­liver them to the seculer power, to suffer the paynes of death, as though the King being custos vtriusque tabulae, had not power by his Kinglie office, to enquire of heresie, to condemne an hereticke, & to put him to death, vnlesse he were first condemned, & delivered into his hands by their spirituall power, although this hath bene (I say) the vse in England, yet by the statutes of Richard the second, & Henrie the fift, it was lawfull for the Kings Iudges, and Iustices, to enquire of heresies and Lollardes, in Leetes, She­rifes turnes, and in Lawdayes, and also in Sessions of the peace. Yea the King, by the common law of the Realme, re­vived 25. H. 5. c. 14. by an Act of Parleament, which before by the Statute of Henrie the fourth, was altered, may pardon a man condemned for heresie: yea and if it should come to passe, that any heresies, or schismes should arise in the Church of Englande, the Kinge by the lawes of the Realme, and by his Supreame & So­veraigne power, with his Parleament, may correct, redresse, and reforme, all such defaultes and enormities. Yea fur­ther, [Page 121] the King and his Parleament, with consent of the Cleargie, in their Convocation, 1. Eliz. ca. [...] hath power to determine what is heresie, and what is not heresie. If then it might please the King, to haue it ena­cted by Parleament, that they which o­piniativelie, and obstinatelie, hold, de­fende, 1 Eliz [...]. 1. and publish, any opinions which according to an Act of Parleament, al­readie made, haue bene, or may bee or­dered, or adiudged to be heresies, should be heretickes, and felons, and their he­resies, If it please the Kinge, heretickes may bee ad­iudged fe­lons, and he­re [...]ies felo­nies. to be felonies, and that the same heretickes and felons, for the same their heresies, and felonies, beeing araigned, convicted, and adiudged by the course of the common law, as other felons are, should for the same their heresies, & fe­lonies, suffer the paynes of death: there is no doubt, but the King, by vertue of his Soveraigne, and Regal Lawes, might powerfullie ynough, reforme heresies, without anie such ceremoniall forme, papall observance, or superstitious so­lemnitie, as by the order of the canon lawe, pretendeth to bee still in force, hath bene accustomed.

And as these offences before mencio­ned, [Page 122] be punishable partlie by temporall, and partlie by ecclesiasticall authoritie, so drunkennes; absence from divine ser­vice, and prayer; fighting, quareling, and brawling in church and church yeard; diffamatorie wordes and libels; violent laying on of hands vpon a Clarke, &c. may not onlie be handled, and punished in a Court ecclesiasticall, but they may also be handled & punished by the King, in his temporall Courts. By all which it is evident, that the Clergie hath had the correctiō of these crimes, rather by a cu­stome, & by sufferance of Princes, thē for that they be meere spiritual, or that they had authoritie, by the immediate law of God. And if all these, as well as some of these crimes, by sufferance of Princes, The cogni­zance of all crimes as well as of some crimes by the lawe of God, be­long to the King. and by a custome may be handled & pu­nished spirituallie, then also if it please the King, may all these, as well as some of these crimes, without a custome, bee handled, and punished temporallie. For by custome, and sufferance onlie, some of these crimes be exempted from the cognizance of the King, and there­fore by the immediate law of God, the cognizance as well of all, as of some [Page 123] of these crimes, properlie apperteineth vnto the King. And then the iudgment, of those men, who defend iudgements of adulterie, slaunder, &c. to be more tem­porall, and by the temporall Magistrate, onelie to be dealt in, seemeth every way, to bee a sincere, and sound iudgement. Howbeit, they doe not hereby intend, that the partie offending, in any of these things, & by the Kings law punishable, should therefore wholly be exempted & freed from all censures of the Church. Nay we iudge it most requisite, and ne­cessarie, No offendor freed frō the censures of the Church. for the bringing the partie which offendeth, to repentance, and a­mendement of life (if presentlie vpon sentence of death, he be not executed) that besides his temporall punishement, the censures of the Church, according to the qualitie of the offence, may bee vsed, and executed against against him: yea and we thinke, that the Kinge, by the holie law of God, is bound by his regal power, to command the church, dulie & right­lie, to vse the same censures, not onelie against everie adulterer, defamer, vsu­rer, &c. but also against everie thiefe, e­verie manslayer, everie traytor, and every [Page 124] other offendor: For not onlie sinnes, re­puted with vs ecclesiastical, but al sinnes, of what kind soever, ought to be repen­ted of, & cōsequentlie against all sinnes, the ecclesiasticall censures ought to bee vsed. And by whom should the same be exercised, but by the church? Why then belike, where an offendour is pu­nished in the Kings Court, hee shall a­gaine bee punished in the Ecclesiasticall Court, and so for one offence, be twise punished, which were vnreasonable.

To this wee answere, that it is not against reason, that one man, for one For a mā to be punished twise for one fault in two respects is not vnrea­sonable. fault, should bee punished both tem­porallie and spirituallie. First he consi­steth of two parts: viz. of a bodie, and of a soule, in both which parts he hath of­fended. Secondlie he hath offended, a­ginst two lawes, the law of God, and the law of the King. For the execution of which two lawes, there be two kindes of officers, of two severall natures, the King for the one lawe, and the Officers of the Church for the other law; & both these kindes of officers, haue power given them, immediatlie from God, to execute the one, Kinglie and temporal; the other [Page 125] Pastorall & spirituall power. And there­fore we say, it stādeth with great reason, that the soule causing the body to sinne, should no more escape that punishmēt which is appointed for the soule, by the law of God, then the body should escape that punishment which is appointed for the bodie, by the law of the King: why then the Officers of the Church, may medle with matters apperteyning to the Kinges law, & what an indignitie to the King were that? To this we answere, that the Officers of the church, in a severall respect, and to a severall end, dealing in one, and the selfe same matter, wherein the King dealeth, may no more be char­ged with dealing in matters appertey­ning to the Crowne, by the exercise of their spirituall sword, then can the King be charged, with medling in the same matters, to medle with matters pertei­ning to the soule, by the exercise of his temporall sworde. So that the spirituall power of the officers of our Saviour Christ, (which consisteth onelie in bin­ding and loosing of the soules of men) can not possiblie, by any reason or good [...]ntendement, bee construed, now to be [Page 126] any more preiudiciall, to the Kings pre­rogative, or contrariant to the lawes of the Realme, then it hath bin heretofore: Because vsurie, incontinencie, & divers other crimes ecclesiasticall haue not bin punished only by ecclesiastical correcti­on, but also by tēporall peyne. And ther­fore to take away this frivolous obiecti­on, we instantlie pray, that the lawes of the Realm may still keepe their due and ordinarie course, and that the Kinges Scepter, may reteyne, that ancient and Royall estimatiō, which belongeth vnto it: and that it may be ordered, by an ir­revocable law as followeth.

Whervpon also falleth to the ground, [Page 127] that cavillous and odious slaunder fol­lowing in the Admonition: viz. that the lawes mainteyning the Queenes Supre­macie, in governing of the church, and her prerogatiue in matters ecclesiastical, as well elections, as others, must be also abrogated. The contrarie whereof, be­ing avouched throughout this whole Assertion, it shall be needlesse, to spend any time, in the refutation of so grosse an vntrueth.

Assertion.

By a statute 15 R. 2. c. 6. because di­vers damages, and diseases oftentimes had happened, and daylie did happen, to the parochians of divers places, by the appropriation of benefices, of the same places, it was agreed and assented, that in everie licence, from thence foorth to be made in the Chancerie of appropriati­on [Page 128] of any parish church, it should be ex­preslie conteined & comprised, that the diocesan of the place, vpon the appro­priation of such churches, should or­deine according to the value of such Churches, a convenient summe of mo­ney, to bee paid and distributed yerelie of the fruites, and profits of the same churches, by those that shall haue the same churches in proper vse, & by their successors, to the poore parochiās of the same churches, in aide of their living, & sustentation for ever; and also that the Vicar be well and sufficientlie endowed. By which statute, it appeareth, that every impropriatiō, ought to be made by licēce out of the Chancerie, that it ought to be made, to the vse of ecclesiasticall persons onlie, & not to the vse of temporall per­sons, or patrones. Now then, all such pa­rish churches, as without licence of the King, in his Chancerie, haue bin appro­pried, to any ecclesiasticall person; and againe all such parish churches, as by li­cence of the King in his Chancerie, haue bene appropried, to the vse of laye per­sons, they are not to be accompted, mens lawfull possessions, & heritages. Besides [Page 129] this, as many impropriations, as where­vpon the Diocesan of the place, hath not ordeined, according to the value of such churches, a convenient summe of money, to be paid, & distributed yearlie of the frutes of the same churches, &c. to the poore Parochians of the same churches, in aide of their living and su­stentation for euer; yea & every church also appropried, as wherevnto a perpe­tuall Vicare is not ordeined, canonically to be instituted, & inducted in the same, and which is not convenably endowed, to doe divine service, and to enforme the people, and to keepe hospitalitie there, all and everie such church, & churches (I say) otherwise then thus appropried, by the law of the Realme (as it seemeth) are not mens lawfull possessions and in­heritances: For by a statute of Kinge Henry the fourth, everie church, after the 15. year of King Richard the second, 4 H. 4. c. 12 appropried by licence of the King, a­gainst the form of the said statute, of R. 2. if the same were not dulie reformed, after the effect of the same statute, with­in a certeyne time appointed, then the same appropriation and licence thereof [Page 130] made, presentlie (the parish Church of Hadenham, onlie excepted) was adiud­ged to be voyd, and vtterly repealed, and adnulled for euer. And therefore I leaue it to the inquisition of our Soveraigne Lord the King, whether the impropria­tiō of the parish church of B [...]lgraue in the Countie of Leycester, wherevnto two Chapples are annexed, and other Churches appropried to the Bishop of Leycester, since the statutes of Richard the seconde, and Henry the fourth, bee the lawfull or vnlawfull possession and heritage of the same Bishop, yea or no. And if it be lawfullie appropried and so a lawfull possession, and heritage, then I leaue it againe to the inquisition of the King, what summe of money, out of the fontes of the same church ought yearlie to be distributed, to the poore Parochiās; what the endowment, of a Vicare cano­nicallie to be instituted, and inducted, in the same church, should be: what house is appointed for the same Vicar to keepe his hospitalitie in, and whether any Vicare, for the space of these many yeres passed, hath bin Canonicallie instituted, and inducted in the same church, to pos­sesse [Page 131] that endowment, to inhabite that same house, and enforme that people. For if by the appropriation it selfe, or by the abuse thereof, the poore Parochians, haue bin defrauded of their yearelie di­stribution, or if no Vicares haue bene Canonicallie instituted and inducted in the same, or if being inducted, they haue their indowments so small, or so cove­touslie kept backe from them, as that they can not sufficientlie mainteine thē selues, much lesse keepe hospitalitie: thē (as the Admonitor cōfesseth,) there must needes be a lamentable abuse of impro­priations; and that therefore it is great­lie to be wished, that by some good sta­tute, it might be remedied.

And as those churches which are vn­lawfully appropried, are not the lawfull possession and heritage, of the proprieta­ries, so on the other side we a [...]irme, that those impropriations, which were made & reformed, according to the statutes of Ri. 2. & He. 4. may well stand, as mens lawfull possessions and heritages, even with those things, which are required to be planted & brought into the Church, whatsoever the Admonitor hath written [Page 132] to the contrarie. For wee doe not holde that maintenance, must onlie and neces­sarilie be provided for everie Minister, by the payment of tythes, oblations and other ecclesiasticall profites, belonging to churches appropried, or disappropri­ed. For there being no direct proofe, to be made out of the law of God, that Mi­nisters of the Gospell, must onelie liue vpon tythes; the King and Parleament, may well and competentlie inough, ap­point covenable endowments for everie Minister, without disapproprying of any church appropried. And therefore litle cause had the Admonitor, to insinuate the ruine of impropriations, vpon the bringing in, the discipline of our Savior Christ, because the same may bee well planted, and yet to other not vnplanted. But what neede we to argue against his insinuation, considering he him selfe, before he came to the end of this page, by his owne disclayme, contradicted his insinuation. For if the forme of finding Ministers by tythes, must with the canon law (as he saith) be abolished, and if there must be some other order for this devised, because this may seeme papisticall and [Page 133] Antichristian, what should anie man feare the taking away of those lawes, whereby impropriations do stand? For if such as heretofore haue spoken or writ­ten against them, because (as he insinua­teth) the forme of finding Ministers by tythes, seemed to be vnlawfullie taken a­way, and as he would also insinuate by their iudgement, ought againe to be re­stored, and not to stande any longer as mens lawfull possessions and heritages. How (I saye) doth it followe that they which desire impropriations, to bee re­stored to their pristinate state, should withall require, to haue the findinge of Ministers by tythes, to bee abolished? It seemeth therefore, that the Admonitor, so he might be talking, passed but a [...]itle what he talked. For what a double talke is heere? or to what purpose was this talke? Was it because some men do thinke, that the Ministers, ought not to receyue tythes, for their reliefe, & paynes in the Ministerie? Why then, let all men knowe, that we disclayme such some mens opinions. For wee accompt all things, perteyning to this lyfe, directlie, or by consequence, not commaunded, [Page 134] nor prohibited, by the holy and sacred Scriptures, to be things indifferent, and that therefore we may vse them, or not vse them, as the commoditie, or incom­moditie of the Church shall require. And therfore as we doe not affirme, that the maintenance of the Ministers, must onelie, and necessarilie bee levied out of tythes, oblations, and such like, so also we do not denie, but that the tenth part of the increase of all our goodes, by the authoritie of the King, & his lawes, may be allotted for their possession and h [...]ri­tage: especiallie in our coūtrey, the same manner of payment beeing so auncient, and so agreeable to the maners, vsages, and disposition of our State and people, Nay since the payment of tythes, for ser­vice accōplished in the spiritual Sanctu­arie, is correspōdent in the nature there­of, to the equitie of the Lawe of Moyses, for the Levites attendance about the earthlie Tabernacle; and since also wee be bound by the cōmaundement of the Apostle, to make him that teacheth vs in the word, to bee partaker of all our goodes, I see not (so Iewish and popish ceremonie, and superstition be avoyded) [Page 135] but that this duetie, may as christianlie be performed, by the payment of the trenth part of the increase of our corne, hay, wooll, lambe, &c. as by the eight, twelfeth, twentieth, or any other part of our money, and coyne. By payment al­so of which tythes, the Ministers at eve­rie season, with everie kinde of necessa­rie provisiō towards hospitalitie, might thoroughlie be furnished, which manie times they shall want, by reason of mens backwardnes, when collections of mo­ney are to be made. But to speake no more of this matter of tythes, we will re­turne to the obiection made against the Apostolicall government, drawen from taking away impropriations. And here­in we wil not handle, whether the lawes whereby impropriations do stande, as mens lawfull possession, and heritage must (as he saieth) bee taken away: but whether impropriations, now devided from the Ministerie, and dispersed into many severall mens handes, and imploy­ed to many vses in the common weale, may not in tract of time by some whole some lawe, be reduced, eyther wholie, or in part, to be the only lawful possessions [Page 136] and inheritances for the Ministers of the Gospell, yea and that without any preiudice or damage vnto Prince, or people.

It is evident in the eyes of all, thatthe Churches now appropried, do stand & remaine, as the lawfull possessions & in­heritances, either of the King, or of the Nobles, or of the Knightes, Esquyres, Gentlemen, and other temporall per­sons: or of Archbb. Bb. Archdeacons, Deanes, Prebendaries, and other ecclesi­asticall persons, or of the Vniversities, of the Colledges in the Vniversities, of col­legiate and Cathedrall Churches, of Scholes, Hospitalls, Fraternities, and o­ther bodies Politicke, and Corporate. Wherefore to the end our meaning may the better be vnderstood, and that wee may proceed orderlie, we think it good, to examine first, by how many severall wayes, some of these impropriations may be wholy and thoroughly reduced: secondlie, by how many several meanes, other some in part, may be brought to the vse of the Ministerie. To reduce som of them whollie may bee done by resti­tution, Impropria­tions may bee reduced to the mini­stery by fo­wer meanes. commutation, redemption, and [Page 137] contribution. And first that I preiudice not the Lords spirituall, and Church­men of their auncient priviledges, from being placed in the first ranck, reason is, that (they teaching the people, not to possesse other mens goodes wrongfully) we speake first of restitution to be made by them. In declaration whereof, wee thinke it not fitt, in this place to shew, to Porochiall Churches to what vse they were founded. what end the state of the Cleargie was first founded into a state of prelacie, by the King, Earles, Barons, & other great men (because the same cometh after­ward to be handled more at large) but it shall suffice at this present, for the pur­pose whereof we now intreate, to lett the Reverend Bb. vnderstand, that the small Parochiall churches, were founded, and endowed, with glebe Landes tythes; and other fruites by the Lordes of Manors, This may bee proved by 15. R. 2. and 4. H. 4. c. 2. and is confessed by M. Bilson in his perpet. gouerment Pag. 365. 366. to the end that the Lords tenantes with­in the same manors, should be informed of the lawe of God, and that Hospitali­ties might be kept, and the poore of the same Parishes be relieved. And besides the reverend Bishoppes, we hope, will graunt, that the great Cathedrall, and Collegiat Churches, were not founded [Page 138] by the Kings progenitors, Nobles, and great men of the Realme, to the ende, that those great Churches (as great hawkes pray vpō litle fowles) with their great steeples, should care and devoure the litle steeples; or that with their great Quiers, they should overthrow, & iustle downe the small pulpittes. And there­fore we most humblie pray ayde frō the King, for the casting of new clappes to be erected in the little pulpittes, that be would be pleased, to graunt restit [...]o­nes in integrum, to all the litle churches, and that all impropriations, of all Paro­chiall churches and benefices, nowe by spoliation, parcell of the revenues, of Archbb. Bishoppes, Deanes, Archdea­cons, Prebendaries, and other ecclesia­sticall persons, restantes within those great churches, may be whollie restored to their auncient, and originall vse, ac­cording to the mindes and intentes of the first Donours, and Patrones of the same Parochiall and little Churches. For if (as Maister Bilson saith) it be true, that the Lords of Villadges, having ere­cted churches, and allotted out portions for divine service, eyther by Gods or [Page 139] mans lawe, by their later graunts could not haue their former rights, vnto their patronages overthrowen; and if the al­lowance given at the first, to the Mini­sters of ech Parish, by the Lorde of the soyle, were matter inough, in the iudge­ment of Christes Church, to establish the right of patrones, that they alone should present Clerckes, because they alone provided for them, if (I say) this be true, then haue the Ministers of those Villadges, and of that soyle, iust cause to require, at the Dioc [...]sans handes, a r [...]sti­tution of such allowances, as were first given and provided for them, by the pa­trones: Especiallie the Diocesans by their own act nowe enioyning, and con­verting the same allowances, to their owne vse. If it be answered, that this can not well and convenientlie bee brought to passe, because the same impropriati­ons, by the Archbishops, Bishops and o­ther Ecclesiasticall persons, for divers summes of money, are now lawfully de­mised to farme, for many yeares yet to come: herevnto we answere, that these leases should hinder nothing at all, the restitution of the right and interest in [Page 140] reversion, or remainder of those impro­priations. Onlie (if the impropriations haue bene made according to the lawes of the Realm, & the leases dulie graun­ted) these leases for a time, may hinder the incumbent Ministers, from the pre­sent possession of the Tythes, Fruits and glebe Land belonging to the same im­propriations. And yet may not the in­cumbent Ministers, bee hindered in the meane while, from receyving the re [...]tes reserved vpon such Leases, and which by the same Leases are nowe payable to the Archbishops, Bishops and other ecclesia­asticall persons. Neither after the deter­mination of the same Leases, should the incumbent Ministers, bee any more let­ted, to enioy & receyve, the whole pro­fits in right of their churches, then other Ministers bee now letted to enioy theirs. If any shall say, that manie of these im­propriations, are annexed, & appropri­ed, as Prebendes for the provision, of some of the Prebendaries, of the same greate churches, and that the same Pre­bendaries, in the right of their prebēds, be the lawfull Rectors of the churches appropried, and haue cura [...] animaru [...] [Page 141] in the same parishes; then wee must in­stantlie againe pray the King, that those Prebendaries, by some wholesome lawe may be constreyned, to reside, and to in­cumbe vpon their saide prebendes, and parochiall churches, and that by conti­nuall preaching of wholsome doctrine, they may endevoure to cure the soules of the people, over whō, by the order of those great churches, they be set, & over whom they haue taken charge. And withall that they may no more be suffe­red, to lye and to liue idlelie in their Cloysters, in their caves, and in their dennes, sometimes at Worcester, some­times at Hereforde, sometimes at Glou­cester, sometimes at Salisburie, some­times at Westminster, sometimes at Soutwell, sometimes at Windsore, some­times at Paules, sometimes at Oxforde, and sometimes at Cambridge. When in the meane while both seldome, and very slenderlie, they feede other sheepe, whose fleeces they take in, and about London, Winchester, Tewkesburie, Rea­ding, and other places of the Countrey. Besides we pray that these prebendes, af­ter the determinatiō of leases now in be­ing, [Page 142] may never any more be let to farm, so that the frutes thereof may serve for those Prebendaries, or other succeeding Ministers, to make Hospitalities, Almes, and other workes of charitie. If it be al­leadged that the King now hauing first frutes, Tenthes and Subsidies, out of the impropriatiōs of those great churches, as being all comprised, vnder a grosse summe of the Tenthes payable for the whole revenues of the same churches, should loose the first frutes, Tentes and subsidies, of the same impropriations, if hereafter they become, either donative, or presentative; to this the aunswere is readilie made, viz. that Tenthes, first frutes, and Subsidies, might as well bee paide then, as now. And that the Kinge might then aswell haue right to the do­nation of the benefice disappropried, as the Bishop now hath the gift of the pre­bend appropried.

In the next ranck cometh commuta­tion to be spoken of. Wherein, because the impropriations of Parochiall chur­ches apperteyning now to the King, No­bles, Commons, Colledges, Scholes, Bodies politicke, &c. were at the firste [Page 143] appropried one lie by the discretion of the Diocesans, Predecessors, to the reve­rend Bishoppes that now are, vnto Ab­bottes, Prioures, Nunnes, Friars, &c. and because the Successours of those Dioce­sans be bound in the same band of ini­quitie with their predecessors, vnles by all good meanes they labor that things may be brought to their first, and pristi­nate state, it seemeth equall, & iust, that this commutation, should likewise pro­ceede and be drawen frō the Diocesans, and great Churches before specified. The reasons whereof may bee such as follow.

The Landes and possessions given by the Kings progenitors, the Earles, Ba­rons, & other great men of the Realme, to Bishoprickes, were not giuen (as Mai­ster Bilson affirmeth) to vnburden the people of the support, and chardges of Perpetu. po­wer. Pag. 367. their Bb. but they were given, (as the law of our lande teacheth vs) first to en­forme the people in the lawe of God, in those churches; Secondlie, to keepe Ho­spitalities, almes, & other workes of cha­ritie; And thirdlie, for the soules of the founders, their heyres, and of all christi­an. [Page 144] Now then, if some of these condi­cions be such as for the impietie thereof ought not to be performed, and if other some also, being good and godly, be not performed, and so the thinges are to re­turne to their first nature, as in the same statute is alleaged; then is it reason, that the Kinge and Nobles, who are the iust inheritors and successours, to those who were firsT Donoures, and Founders of those Churches, should haue as free a disposition, and donation of those lands and possessions now, as his, and their progenitors and auncestours ever had. And seeing it is manifest, that the lands & possessions of Archbishops, Bishops, Deanes and Chapters, doe not, for the most part, nowe a dayes serue for those good vses, for the which they were first granted, namelie to enforme the people in the law of God, to keepe Hospitali­ties, Almes, and other workes of cha­ritie, but partlie for the vse of chaun­ting, and singing in the Quyers; & part­lie to vayne, idle, superfluous, and pom­pous vses, the King, can not do a better, and more charitable deede, then to con­vert parcell of the same landes and pos­sessions [Page 145] (thus by defect of the condici­ons not performed, returning to their first nature) to and for the necessarie & perpetuall provision of learned, able, & preaching Ministers, to bee planted in Parochiall churches, nowe destitute of sufficient Pastoures, for want of suffici­ent maintenance, naye sit hence Archbi­shoprickes, Bishoprickes, & other Pre­lacies, by the verie expresse letter of the statute, are said to be founded to super­sticious vses: viz. for the soules of the founders, their heyres, and of all christi­an, the same reason whiche led Kinge Henrie the eight, his Nobles, and Par­leamentes, to dissolve Abbayes and Mo­nasteries, & the same reason also, which moved King Edward the sixt, with his Nobles, & Parleament, to dissolve Col­ledges, free Chappels and Chauntries, the same reason, may be a sufficient rea­son, to perswade our Soveraigne Lord King IAMES that now is, with his No­bles and Parleament, to dissolve Arch­bishoprickes, Bishoprikes, Deanries, &c First to the end these Prelacies and Dig­nities may never in anie succeding ages, serve to anie such superstitious vses, as [Page 146] wherevnto they were at the first erected. Secondlie, that the King having them al in his owne hands, and free disposition, may be the onlie Foundor and Donour of so many new Bishoprickes as might please him to erect, & endowe with such liberall, and covenable endowmentes, as might serve for learned Evangelicall Bishoppes to enforme the people in the holy Evangill of Christ, to keepe hospi­talities, almes, and to doe other workes of charitie, rather then to be expended, as now for a great parte they are, vpon the keeping of great horses, coroches, and troupes of serving idlers. The com­mutation then whereof we speake, and which wee most humblie commend, to the consideration of the King, is, viz: That parcell of the temporall Landes & possessions of Archbb and Bishoppes, togither with all the landes and possessi­ons, serving to the mainrenance of idle Ministers, and idle Songsters, in Cathe­drall and Collegiat churches (the Colle­giat churches of Eaton and Winchester, and the Cathedrall and Collegiat chur­ches in Oxford & Cambridge excepted) by an equal and reasonable proportion. [Page 147] may bee made, with such impropria­tions, as belong to the King, the No­bles, Commons, Colledges, Hospitals, Scholes, &c. Provided as before hath bin said, that there may be a liberall and couvenable endowment, for the learned Bishops or Pastors, to be continued and placed in all the chief and principall townes & cities of the Realm. And that the impropriations of Parochiall chur­ches may for ever, be livings for the Mi­nisters of the same churches. And there­fore in the iust defence of the innocen­cie of all such as require a godlie and re­ligious reformation, wee say, that they ought not, to haue ben traduced before the Kinge, as robbers and ransackers of the church. And that some of the plot­ters for the Prelacie, more honestlie might haue imployed both their Latine and their labour, then latelie they did. When by drawing letters (as they pre­tended) congratulatorie to the King, on­lie in the name of preaching Ministers, they procured notwithstanding igno­rant, & vnpreaching Ministers, to ioyne in the action, and to affix their handes and names. That such letters haue bene [Page 148] made and signed, is sufficientlie to bee proved, but whether they haue ben pre­sented to the Kinges handes, is not yet knowne. Onely if they shall hereafter come, then may they be known by these wordes: Nos Concionatores, &c. ab omni domestica capacitate eorum, qui pretextu religionis, ecclesiae insidiantur. My Lord the King is wise, according to the wise­dome 2 Sā. 14. 24 of an Angell of God, to vnder­stand all things whereof he is informed.

The third meanes to reduce impropri­ations, vnto the possession of the Mini­sterie Publick re­demption of impropria­tions. is by way of publicke redemption or purchase. For the accomplishment whereof it is necessarie, that not onelie a common treasure be provided, but also that the price of impropriations, by a publicke consent be valued, at a reason­able rate to make, which rate will bee a matter of small weight, whether they be valued, to be bought and sould, at their old and auncient, or at their new & im­proved rentes. To provide a common treasure, though to some it may seeme a matter intricate, and troublesome, yet seeing the same possiblie, and conveni­enlie may be done, there is no cause, that [Page 149] men should feint, before they fight, or be at an end, before they beginne. It is written that the cause when Kinge So­lomon 1 K. 9. 15. raised the tribute, to wit, was to build the house of the Lorde, his owne house and Millo, and the wall of Ierusa­lem. After that wicked Athaliah and 2. Cron. 24 her children, had broken vp the hous [...] of God, & had bestowed all the things, that were dedicate for the house of the Lorde, vpon Baalim, King Ioash com­manded the Priestes and Levites, to goe vnto the Cities of Iudah, and to gather of al Israell money to repayre the house of God, from yeare to yeare, and they made a chest, and made Proclamation to bring the tax of Moses, & the Princes reioyced, and brought in, and cast into the chest. And when there was much silver, they emptied the chest, and caryed it, to his place againe, and thus day by day, they gathered silver in abundance. If thē towards the building of an earth­lie house, the Princes & people of Iudah and Israell, willinglie with ioy of their heartes, from yeare to yeare, and from day to day, threwe silver in abundance into the chest, how much more were it [Page 150] praise worthy, if Christian people, did encourage them selves, to pay a small tribute towards the provision of a com­petent maintenance, for their spirituall Pastours, by whose labours, as livelie stones, they might be buylded vp into a spirituall temple in the Lord? That ma­nie and great taxes and tributes of late yeares haue bene made for many vses, and to many purposes, there is no man ignorant thereof. And therfore though there bee litle reason, that the people standing, alreadie burdened, with great charge, should be again recharged, espe­ciallie when without any extraordina­rie burden, there is an ordinarie meanes (if the same were accordingly bestowed) by the people yeelded, to relieve the Mi­nisters in all places, with a decent and comelie portion; yet notwithstanding, to be eased, from those publicke pay­ments, and annuall greevances, imposed by the ecclesiasticall Courtes, vpon the people, it is not to be doubted, but the Parishioners in al places would willing­lie pay, any reasonable taxe or tribute, to be demanded of them for this pur­pose.

An other meanes to rayse this publike treasure, may be a dissolution of all free The disso­lution of Chappels may bee a good meane to rayse a tribute. Chapples, and Chapples of ease in the Countrey, together with an vnion of two or moe churches into one, especial­lie in Cities and great Townes. For as in these Cities and Townes, the poorest, & meanest livings be provided, so general­lie for the most part, are they fitted, with the poorest and meanest Curates, as by most lamētable experience is to be seene, in all the Episcopall cities of the Realm, excepting London. Nay the chiefe and Metropolitane citie of Canterburie is not to bee excepted. For in that Citie there being about 12. or 13. Parish churches, there hath not bene ordinarilie of late yeares aboue 3. or 4. able Preachers, pla­ced in the same Churches.

The Chapples to be dissol­ved, and the Churches to be consolida­ted by two, and two into one, & one, can be no fewer in number then one thou­sand at the least. All which if they might be solde, the money to bee raysed vpon their sale, could be no lesse then twentie thousand poundes, if they were soulde onlie for twentie pounds a peece. But if [Page 152] they be well worth, double or treble so much, then would the treasure also bee doubled or trebled. This dissolution of Chapples, and vnion of Churches, is no new devise, nor strange innovation: But hath ben heretofore thought vpon, and in some parte confirmed alreadie by our Kinges in their Parleaments. Touching the dissolution of Chapples, the most Dissolution of Chappels noe newe devise. reverēd Father Thomas Crammer, Arch­bishop of Camterburie, with the residue of the Kings Commissioners, appointed for the reformation of Ecclesiasticall lawes alloweth of the same. And for the vnion of Churches, there was an acte made 27. H. 8. so they exceeded not the value of six pounds. And by a statute Titu. de ec­cles. gard. fol. 54. r. Ed. 6. it was lawfull for the Mayor & Recorder of the Citie of Yorke, and the Ordinarie or his Deputie, & six Iustices Lawfull for the Maior of Yorke, &c. to vnite Churches in the Citie of Yorke. of the peace in the same Citie, to vnite and knit together, so many of the poore Parishes of the same Citie and suburbes of the same, as to thē should be thought convenient, to be a living for one honest incumbent. And it was lawfull for the said Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, to pull downe the Churches, which they [Page 153] should think superflous in the said citie, and suburbes of the same, and to bestow the same, towardes the reparation and enlargement of other Churches, of the Bridges in the Citie, and to the reliefe of the poore people. The considerations which moved the King and Parleament, What rea­sons moved K. Ed 6. to vnite chur­ches in York may moue King Iames to vnite Churches in Canterbu­rie, &c. to ordeyne this act, were these, viz. The former incompetēcie of honest livings, the former necessitie of taking verie vn­learned and ignorant Curates not able to do any part of their duties; the former replenishing of the Citie, with blinde guides and Pastors; the former keeping of the people, aswell in ignorance of their duties to God, as also towardes the King, and common weale; and lastlie the former danger of the soules of the Citi­zens. If then in these dayes it might please the King to applie, like playsters, to the like sorcs, to provide remedies, for the like mischieves, and for the like dis­eases, to minister like medicins, it would come to passe no doubt, in few yeares, that the lame & the blind, & the broken, with a number of vnhallowed and vn­cleane beastes, should be swept, and cast foorth of all the Parochiall churches, [Page 154] within Canterburie, Winchest, Chiche­ster, Lichfield, Oxford, and other great Cities of the Realme. For these Chap­ples, and smaler churches, being the ve­rie Chapples, the semina­ries of hy­relings. Seminaries, of all hyrelinges, and idoll Sheapheards, a benefice can no sooner become voyd, but the poore, and hungrie Chapleynes, wearie of their thynne dyet, and long leaping after a beane, presentlie trudge to the patrone, offering, or accepting any condicions to be presented by him. And not onelie should the Church by this meanes, bee rid of these vermine, but also the lear­ned & preaching Minister, without fur­ther aide or cōtribution, in those places, might haue more liberall maintenance, then erst they haue had. For then should they be no more constreyned, to deduct out of their livings, by reason of Chap­ples yet standing, and as it were annex­ed to their Parish churches, some 10. lb. some 20. lb. some 30. lb. by the yeare, for the wages of these hyrelings. Besides this, a singuler and apparant benefite, By y ^• disso­lution of Chappels many suites in law shold be avoyded. could not but redound to the common weale, by the dissolution of these Chap­ples, when as many, long, tedious, and [Page 155] changeable, & vncharitable sutes, here­tofore had & commenced, should here­after bee extinguished, between the Pa­rochians of the mother Churches and the inhabitants of Hamblets, for & con­cerning the repayre, and reedifying of the said Churches, and Chapples, & for other rights, and duties chalenged to belong from one vnto the other.

A third meanes to leavie a treasure, Sequestra­tion of the fruits of the Churches of pluralists may further the treasure for the re­demption of impropria­tions. for the redemption of impropriations, may be a sequestration of the fruites of the Churches of non Residentes, and commendames, with the fruites of the Churches of the pluralistes, and perinde valeres, from the which the same pluri­sied persons are to depart; the said seque­stration no longer to endure, then some able Ministers may be provided & pla­ced in the same Churches.

A fourth meane to rayse this treasure, if it please the King, and that the church have found favour in his sight, may bee the money due vnto the King vpō such penall lawes, as for the benefite of the commō weale, are necessarilie to be put in execution, & especially vpon the law of provision and premunire, not pardo­ued [Page 156] by the Queene. And albeit happelie the King, vpon a most worthie and chri­stian zeale, be well pleased hereafter not to vrge vpon the popish recusantes, the paymēt of their forfeytures, for absence from divine service, yet because they be able, and do daylie contribute to semi­naries abroad, and be favourers, and a­bettours of popish Priestes and Iesuites, lurking at home, the most treasonable & daungerous enemies, that can be to the Kings Person and State, in cōsideration heereof (I say) if it may please the King, it seemeth not vnreasonable, (the lawe standing still in force, and vnrepealed) that the popish recusants be vrged to the payment of such summes of money, as are alreadie forfeyted; the same by the commaundement, and free gift of the King to be imployed vpon the redemp­tion of such impropriatiōs, as are with­in the parishes of their abodes. To the end that learned, and preaching Mini­sters, being placed in the same, they, their wyves, children, servaunts, tenants, and dependantes, by the powerful prea­ching of the worde, might be converted vnto the Gospell.

It followeth now in order, that wee speak of contributiō, the fourth meanes By what cō ­tributiō im­propriati­ons may be brought to the vse of y ^e ministerie. whereby some impropriations may bee reduced whollie to the vse of the Mini­sterie. Wherein there can not any cer­teyne rule, or direction bee prescribed: because it must proceed onlie frō those, whose heartes God shall touch, stirre vp, & encourage, willinglie to bring a free offering, vnto the Lord, for the building vp of his spirituall house. For of everie one (saith the Lorde) whose heart offe­reth Exod. 25. 2 it freelie, yee shall take an offeringe for me. And everie one whose heart en­couraged him, and whose Spirite made him willing, and men, and women, as manie as were free-hearted, came and Exod. 35. brought, taches, and earings, and ringes, and bracelettes, all were iewells of gold, and blewe silke, and purple, & skarlett, and fine linnen, and goates hayre, and Rammes skinnes, and Badgees skinnes, and silver, and brasse, & Shittim wood, and Onix stones, and Spice, and Oyle: Everie man, and woman, (I saye) whose heartes moved them willinglie to bring for all the worke, which the Lorde had Exod. 36. 5. commaunded, brought a free offering. [Page 158] yea and the people brought too much, and more thē ynough, for the vse of the worke of the Lord. King Salomon, ha­ving 2. King. 8. all the Elders, the heads, the chiefe Fathers, and all the men of Israell, & the Priestes, and Levites, to bring vppe the Arck, and Tabernacle of the Lord, offe­red Beeves, and sheepe which could not be numbred for multitude. Yea and af­ter these offeringes were made, and after the Kinge had prayed, that their heart might bee perfect with the Lord their God, to walke in his statutes, & to keepe his commaundementes, as at that day; the King agayne offered a sacrifice of two and twentie thousande beeves, one hundred and twentie thousande sheepe, and so was the house dedicated. After the returne of the people out of captiui­tie, certeyne of the chiefe Fathers, when they came to the house of the Lorde, which was in Ierusalem, they gave after their abilitie, vnto the treasure of the worke, even one and three score thou­sand drammes of golde, and five thou­sande pieces of silver, and an hundred priestes garmentes: they gave money al­so, E [...] 2. 2, 68 &c. to the Masons, and to the workmen, [Page 159] and meate, and drinke, and oyle. Yea at the exhortatiō of Nehemiah, the Priests, the great men, the people, and the wo­men, Nehe. 2. [...] that they might bee no more a re­proch, sett their mindes to the building of the Walls, and at their owne charges, builded some, one gate, some another; some one doore, some another; som one tower, some another: some one portion of the Wall, some an other. Wherefore, seeing we haue not an Ester, to succeed our Deborah, but a Salomon rather, to succeede a David; yea such a Salomon, as whose heart the Lord hath filled with an excellent spirite of wisedome, of vn­derstanding, and of knowledge, to finde out, and to dissolve hard & curious pa­rables, & hath put in his heart, to teach and to guide others; we rest perswaded in our hearts, that the King for his part, treading in the steppes of the godlie Kings, Princes, & Governours of Iudah, will goe in, and out, before his people, as they did before theirs. And that he will rather not eate of the bread, nor drinke of the wine, of the governoures Nehe. 5. that were before him, then that he will not remitt the provisions the seasements [Page 160] the fynes, the impositions, & the amer­ciamentes, that have bene exacted. Yea also that he will feede from his owne ta­ble, an hundred and fiftie Prophetes, & prepare for them oxen, and sheepe, and birdes, and wine in all abundance, be­cause they are come vnto him, from a­mōg the prelatistes that were about thē, because their bondage hath bene grie­vous vnto them. Yea further also, we are 2 Chro. 11. perswaded, that he will shake out of his Lapp everie servāt of his, that shall beare rule over his people. And thus much of the meanes whereby some impropriati­ons, may wholie be reduced to the vse of the Ministerie. It followeth to shewe by what meanes other some impropria­tions, may be converted in part, to the maintenance of Ministers to be planted in Parochiall Churches, now destitute of able Pastoures, in case the sayde im­propriations by none of the former meanes, can be reduced whollie to their first and auncient institution. Wherein these two things come principally to be considered.

First, whether it were not convenient, How impro­priatiō, may be in parte, reduced to the Mini­stery. by some wholesome lawe, to haue it or­deyned, [Page 161] that the Heades, Governours, Rulers, and Maisters of the Vniversities, Colledges, Cities, Townes, Hospitalls, free Scholes, and other bodies politicke and Corporate, should not from hence­forth demise or sett to farme their, or a­nie of their impropriations, or anie of the glebe Lande, tythes, or other fruites belonging to the same, vntill such time as all leases heretofore made, bee fullie ended, or otherwise determined.

Secondlie, whether it were not con­venient, to have it enacted, by the same lawe, that all and everie impropried Church & Churches, with their glebes, tythes, and other fruites, after the deter­mination of the Leases now in being, should be demised and sett to farme, on­lie to the incōbent Ministers of the same Churches, for terme of their naturall lyves, if so long they did continue rese­ant, and faithfullie preach in the same Churches, the doctrine of the Gospell, according to the articles of Religion, concerning Faith and Sacramentes, by publick authoritie, now established in the Church of England. And because by likelihood the Vicares will not bee [Page 162] able to pay fynes or incomes vnto the Colledges, Hospitalls, and other places; and because also it seemeth reasonable, that the Colledges, Hospitalles, & other places, by some other meanes, should be recompenced, we leave it agayne to bee considered, whether it were not conve­nient that the Vicars, in consideration of non payment of fynes, should yeelde in money, corne, or other provision, to the double, or treble value, of the ani­cient and vnimproved rentes. For m [...]n experienced in these affaires of this life, know, that the profites arising out of churches appropried, vnto the farmours thereof, are commonlie sixe, eight, or tenne tymes more worth by iust estima­tion, thē are the old rentes, payable vn­to Colledges, Hospitalles, & other like places. And thus we see howe together with the bringing in of these thinges, which are required to be planted in the Church, imp [...]opriations may stande, as mens lawfull possessions, and heritages, or otherwise how without damage or hurt to the King, or Realme, they may be converted to the vse and provision of the Ministers, what soever hath bene in­sinuated [Page 163] by the Admonitor to the con­trarie. And yet do I not in anie of these things, or of any other thing, first or last spoken, or to bee spoken, desire mine owne advyse and iudgement so to be re­spected, as though I should arrogate vn­to my selfe more knowledge then all o­thers, which labour in the cause of re­formation: but onelie I submitte these my private meditations with their rea­sons, to the censures of all wise, godlie, and learned men. Hūblie praying them so to bestir their own wits, and so to be­stowe their own cunning, and learning, that a better & more easier way, by their ingenuousnes, may be found out, & pro­cured to take place. And in the meane season, that these motions tendered to their vewes, may not altogether bee ne­glected but duly weyed, and considered. Especiallie for that I haue not tendered any other thing to be performed, by any of these meanes, vnto any other, then such as whervnto I my self, to my power, yea and beyond my power, as far as in me lyeth, shall bee readie to yeelde.

And howsoever the Bishoppes & other great Clergie Maisters, with their statelie [Page 164] favourites, may pretēd some part of this devyse, to be an hinderance of learning, and other some parte, not to be for the Kings profite; yet to the first we answere brieflie, that learninge is not so much furthered, by a few great rewardes, pro­vided for a few great learned men, as it is by many good rewardes, appointed for many good learned men, as hereafter more at large, in a more convenient place is declared. Touching the Kinges profite, we affirme, that it is not onelie most profitable, but also most honora­ble for the King, to haue a multitude of loyall, vertuous, and godlie subiectes. And that such manner of subiectes, can by no meanes better be procured, then by a continuall preaching Ministerie of the worde, to bee planted in everie pa­rish, of the Kings Realmes. And because no man better, knoweth the reciprocall dueties, betweene a Christian King, and christian Counsellers, we leave the dis­cerning of the spirites of these profite preachers, to the triall and iudgement of our most Christian King; whom if he shall finde, either by flatterie, to fawne vpon the Kings profite, or by labouring [Page 165] to keepe the King in a good opinion of thinges amisse, we most hūblie beseech the King, to accept them, and rewarde them for such, as could wishe in their heartes, the King should rather be im­poverished by having many bad, & vn­profitable subiectes, then that them sel­ues would not be enriched, by enioying manie good and profitable impropria­ons. As for the Lawes whereby Patro­nages do stande, as mens lawfull posses­sions, and inheritances, which (as the Admonitor saith) must also be taken a­way, how the same lawes may still en­dure, or by consent of Patrones, be alte­red, without their damage (if God per­mit) when we come to speake, of the ele­ction of Ministers, wherein, the refor­mers are charged with the hurling, and thrusting out of patrones, shal be decla­red.

Assertion.

Not to stand vpon termes with the Admonitor, that the lawes vsually cal­led the common lawes of the lande, be­ing meere customary lawes, did neuer yet stande by the authoritie of the three Estates, I will take his meaning to be, that the statute lawes of England, to this day haue stood by authority of the three Estates; which to alter nowe by leaving out the one, &c. and then therevnto, I aunswere, that not any one of the three The brin­ging in of y ^e discipline by pastours and elders is not the lea­uing out of Parleament any one of of the three Estates. Estates should be left out, or barred, frō having authoritie in making and pro­mulging statute lawes, though the go­verment of the Church, by Pastors and Elders were brought in. For we which so much cry (as he saith) for this maner of gouerment, to be planted, are so farr from exempting, or excluding any one of the three Estates, from their auncient power, priviledge, and preheminence, in the making of statute lawes, as that we pronounce him to bee guilty of high treason, to the King, and to the Realme, that avoweth the contrary. And we af­firme [Page 167] directly, and confesse plainly, that it belongeth onely, wholy, and altoge­ther to the three Estates, as well to roote out, and to pull vp, whatsoever gover­ment, is not iustifiable, by the holy law of God: as also to plant & to setle, what­soever discipline is warrantable by the same law. And to speake as the thing is, how were it possible to haue the disci­pline by Pastors & Elders planted by au­thoritie of the three Estates, if one of the three Estates should be left out? Or can it be imagined, that any one of the three Estates, would euer consent, to the brin­ging in of such a governement of the Church, as whereby (the same gover­ment being once brought in) the same estate, should ever afterwards cease, to be any more an estate? Besides we acknow­ledge that all powers are of God, & ther­fore euery one of the three Estates, being a power, wee graunt that the same hath his stateship, by the authoritie of God. And if all the three Estates, be lawfull by the holie law of God; how can it be ve­rified against vs, that we, which vrge the same holy law, for the bringing in of the discipline by Pastors and Elders, should [Page 168] notwithstanding contrary to the same law, intend the leaving out, or altering of any one of the three Estates? But which of the three Estates was it that he ment, should be left out? I trow, there The state of the Prelacie is not one of the three e­states in Par­leament. is none of the state of Prelacie, so ill ad­vised, as to take vpon him the proofe of this position: viz. That the Lords spi­rituall by them selves alone, doe make one of the three Estates, or that the sta­tutes of England, to this day haue stood by their authorities, as by the authoritie of those, who alone by themselves, are to be accompted, one of the three Estates. For if that were so, how much more thē, might the great Peres, Nobles, and tem­porall Lords, chalenge to make by them selves an other estate? And without con­tradiction, to this day, the Commons summoned by the Kings writ, haue ever bene reckoned a third Estate. Now then if statutes haue hitherto stood, by autho­ritie of the Lords spiritual, as of the first Estate, by authoritie of the Lordes tem­porall, as of the second Estate, & by au­thoritie of the Commons, as of the third Estate, I would gladly be resolved, what accoumpt the Admonitor made of the [Page 169] Kings Estate. It had not bene liegnes, nor loyaltie (I am sure) howsoever hee spake much of the Lords spirituals duty and fidelitie in the execution of our late Queenes lawes, to haue set her Royall person, authoritie and State, behind the lobby, at the Parliament doore. Either the Kinges Royall person then, as not comprised within the compasse, and cir­cumscription of the three Estates, by his meaninge (which had bene but a very bad meaning) must be thought to haue bene hitherto secluded, from authori­zing the statute lawes, made in Parlia­ment. Or it is a most cleare case, that the Lords spiritual them selves alone, do not make any one of the three Estates. And what matter then of more weight, may it happelie seeme to be, to alter the authoritie of the Lords spirituall, and to leaue them out of the Parliament, when as notwithstanding, they being left out, the statutes of England, may remaine, & continue by authoritie of the three E­states? And it were not amisse for the Lords spirituall, to consider, that the bo­die and state of the weale publike, both now is, and euer hath bene, a perfect, [Page 170] entire and complete body, and State, without the body and state of Prelacie: And that the King, the Nobles, & Com­mons of the Realme, without Prelates, Bishops, or Clerckes, do make vp all the members, and parts of this body, and of this state; and may therefore ordaine, promulge, and execute, all maner of lawes, without any consent, approbati­on, or authoritie yeelded vnto the same, Anno 36 H 8. fo. 58. b. & Anno [...]. j. fo. 93. 2 by the Bishops spirituall, or any of the Clergie. And thus much our Divines, Histories, & Lawes do iustifie. Sir Iames Dier, Lord chiefe Iustice of the cōmon pleas, in his reportes, telleth vs, that the state and body of a Parliament in Eng­land, consisteth first of the Kinge, as of the head and chief part of the body; se­condlie of the Lordes, as principall members; and lastlie of the Commons as inferiour members of that bodie.

By a Statute of provisoes, it appeareth, 25. Ed. 3. holy church founded in the state of Prelacie by the King. That the holy Church of England, was founded into the state of Prelacie with­in the realme of England, by the grand­father of King Edward the third, and his progenitours, and the Earles, Ba­rons, and other Nobles, of the Realme, [Page 171] and their Auncestors, for them to en­forme the people, of the law of God, & These vses are changed to the kee­ping of great horses, great troupes of idlers with long hayre, and great chaines of golde. to make Hospitalities, and almes, and o­ther workes of Charitie, in the places where the churches were foūded. From whence it followeth: First that the Arch­bishoppes & Bishoppes onelie & alone, doe not make of themselues any state of Prelacie: but that the whole holy church of England, was founded, into a state of Prelacie. Secondlie, it is playne, that the 6. Eliz. c. [...]. Kings of England, before they, and the Earles, Barons, and other Nobles, and great men had founded the holy church of Englande, into a State of Prelacie, ought and were bounden, by the accord The Kinge boūd to doe lawes made without as­sent of Pre­lates to bee kept as laws of the realm. of their people, in their Parleaments, to reforme and correct whatsoeuer was of­fensive, to the lawes, and rightes of the Crowne, and to make remedy, and lawe in avoyding the mischieves, damages, oppression, and greevances of their peo­ple, yea and that the Kings were bound by their oathes, to doe the same lawes so made, to be kept, as lawes of the Realm, though that thorough sufferance, and negligēce, any thing should at any time be attempted to the cōtrarie. For where­as [Page 172] before the statute of Caerlile the Bi­shoppe of Rome, had vsurped the Seig­nories, of such possessions and benefices, as whereof the Kinges of the Realme, Earles, Barons, and other Nobles, as Lords and Avowes ought to haue the custodie, presentements, and collations. King Edward the first, by the assent of the Earles, Barons, and other Nobles, & of all the communaltie, at their instan­cies and requestes, and without mention of anie assent of the state of prelacie, in the said Parleament holden at Caerlile, ordeyned that the oppressions, greevan­ces, and damage susteyned by the Bb. of Romes vsurpation, should not from thenceforth, be suffered in any manner. And for as much as the greevances and mischieves mentioned in the said Act of Caerlill, did afterward in the time of K. Edward the thirde, daylie abound to greater damage and destruction of the 31. Ed. 5 sta. of heering. 36. Ed. 3. c. 8. Realme, more then euer before, and that by procurement of Clerkes, & pur­chasers of graces from Rome, the sayde King Edward the third, by assent & ac­cord, of all the great men, and cōmons of his Realme, and without mention of [Page 173] any assent of Prelates, or Lords spiritu­all, having regarde to the saide Act of Caerlile, and to the causes conteyned in the same to the honor of God, and pro­fit of the Church of England, and of all this Realme, ordeyned and established, that the free elections of Archbishopps, Bishoppes, and all other dignities, and benefices electiue in Englande, should holde from thenceforth, in the manner as they were graunted by the Kings pro­genitors, and founded by the Ancestors of other Lords. And in diuers other sta­tutes, made by King. Ed. the third, it is said, that our Soveraigne Lord the King by the assent of the great men, and all the cōmons hath ordeyned remedy, &c. That it was accorded by our Sovereigne Lord the King, the great men, and all the commons, that the Kinge chieflie 8. Edw. 3. [...] statute of. Provisours desiring to susteyne his people in tran­quillitie and peace, and to governe ac­cording to the lawes, vsages, and fran­chises of his lande, by the assent and ex­presse will and accord of the Dukes, Earles, Barons, and the commons of his Realme, and of all other whom these things touched, ordeyned that all they, [Page 174] &c. By which desire of the Kinge, and wordes of the Act, wee learne, that our Sovereigne Lord Kinge IAMES, may susteyne his people, in tranquillitie and peace, and governe accordinge to the lawes, vsages, and frāchises of his king­dome, though the assent, and accord of Prelates bee never required to the ena­cting of anie statute in Parleament. Nay such hath bene and yet is the power of The king with the as­sent of the Nobles and commons, may repeale Statutes without cō ­sent of Pre­lates. 15. Ed. 3. the King, that with the assent and accord of the Nobles, and commons, hee hath authoritie to adnull, and make voyde, even those Actes which in favor of Pre­lacie, and assent of Prelates, haue bene enacted in Parleament. As by an Acte made in the time of King Edwarde the third, is plainlie to be seene. For where­as the Kinge by assent of the Prelates, Earles, &c. had willed and graunted for him, and for his heyres, certeyne arti­cles firmelie to be kept, and holden for ever, namelie, that the Ministers of ho­lie Church for money taken for redem­ption of corporall penance, nor for proofe, & accompt of Testaments, nor for solemnitie of Mariage, &c. should not be impeched, &c. before the Kinges [Page 175] Iustices; nevertheles the same Kinge, in the same yeere, with assent of the Earles, Barons, & other wise men of the Realm, and without assent of Prelates, revoked and adnulled the same articles againe.

Againe King Richard the second hea­ring the complaints of his faithful liege 3 Ric. 2. cap. 3. people, and by their clamour in diuers Parleamentes of divers abuses crept in against the solemne, and devour ordina­tions of Churches, &c. at the request, & 7 Ric. 2. cap. 12. complaint of the Commons, by the ad­vise and common assent of the Lordes temporal (without mētion of any Lords spirituall) is said to haue ordeined, That none of the Kinges liege people, &c. should take or receive within the Realm of England, any procuracie, &c. And in the eleventh yeare of of the same same Kings reigne, it is specially provided, that the appeales, pursuits, &c. made & given in the same Parleament, be approved, affir­med & stablished, as a thing duly made, for the weale and profit of the King, and of all the Realme, notwithstanding that Act & Mo. Rich. 2. the Lords spirituall, and their Procura­tors, did by protestatiō, absent them out of the Parleament, at the time of the said [Page 176] iudgment given. And the like protesta­tion being made by the Prelats, & Cler­gie, at a Parleament, holden the thirde yeere of the same King, it was replied for the King, that neither for their said pro­testation, or other words in that behalf, The King bound by his oth, to do his laws to be made though pre­lates protest against him. the King would not stay to graunt to his Iustices in that case, and all other cases, as was vsed to be done in times past, and as he was bound, by vertue of his oath at his Coronation. By all which premises it is as cleare, as the sunne shining at noone day, that the Lordes spiritual bee so far from making any one of the three Estates, as that (if it please the King) they may not be so much, as any member, or part of any of the three Estates at all. If in the time of King Henry the eight, the Lords spirituall (being then more in The Lords spiritual no principall members of the Parlea­ment other­wise then as y ^e King plea­seth. number then the Lordes temporall) had bene but such principal members of the high Estate of Parleament, as without whō, neither law could haue bin made, Monasterie nor Priorie might haue ben dissolved; what could the Kinge haue done as Head, and the Commons haue done as feete, and the Nobles haue done as the Heart, the Liver and the Longes, [Page 177] to the dislording and discloystering of the Abbots, and Priours, the Monkes, and the Friers of those dayes. In case the Prelates with their armes, and with their shoulders, with their handes, and with their hornes, had heaved and shouved, had pushed, and thrusted to the contra­rie. But to come nearer vnto our owne times, and remembrances, if it can not be proved, that anie one Lord spirituall No Lordes spiritual pre­sent in par­leament, 1 Eliza. was present in Parleament, or gaue anie assent to the enacting of statutes, made in the first yere of the Queenes Maiesties raigne deceased, but that it be a cleare case, that the auncient iurisdiction, pre­heminences, rightes, and priviledges of the Kinges Crowne, were restored, that poperie and superstition was banished, & the doctrine of the holy Gospell har­boured onely by the Queene, the Lords temporall, and commons, what more playne euidence or better proofe can there be, that the Lords spiritual, by any necessitie be neither principalls, nor ac­cessaries, neither branches, nor buddes, neither hanginges nor sealings, nor anie furniture for the house of Parleament. And of this opiniō are the soundest Hi­storians, [Page 178] and sincerest Divines of our age.

In the fifteenth yeere of King Edward Act. & Mo. fol. 320. the third (saieth Maister Fox) divers pe­titions being put vppe in Parleament a­gainst provisions comming from Rome, the Kinges answere and agreement was made in forme following: viz: It is a­greed by the Kinge, Earles, Barons, Iu­stices, & other wise men of the Realme, That the petitions aforesaid, be made in sufficient forme of law. Where it is to be noted (saith he) that at the graunt here­of, the consent of the Bishoppes is nei­ther named nor expressed, with the Lords of Parleament, and yet the Parlea­ment standeth in his full force notwith­standing. At an other Parleament (saith he) William Wicham, Bishoppe of Win­chester, Act. & Mo. 525. for a slaunderous report, savou­ring of a contumelious lye, and procee­ding of a subtile zeale, meaning false­hoode, was so by the Duke of Lancaster pursued, that by act of Parleament, hee was condemned, and depriued of all his temporall goods. And this seemeth to haue bin done (saith Maister Fox) with­out assent, and against the willes of the [Page 179] Lords spirituall; for afterwarde at an o­ther Parleament, great sute was made by the Cleargie, for deliverance of the said Bishoppe: and being asked a subsidie in the Kings behalfe, with great lamentati­on they complayned, for lacke of their fellow and brother of Winchester, and denied to ioyne them selves in anie tra­ctation of anie such matter. And in an­other Parleamēt holden at Yorke, in the sixt yeere of King Edward the third, all Act. & Mo. 519. such lawes, as then passed, and were cō ­cluded by the King, Barons, and Com­mons, were good, notwithstandinge the absence, or malice of the Lordes spiritu­all. For it is recorded (saith he) that on­lie the Archb. of Yorke, the Bishoppe of Lincolne, and the Abbottes of Yorke & Silby were there present.

In a booke intituled the burninge of Paules church in London 1561. and in the fift question moved by a papist, it is said, that this maner of ministration of Sacramentes, set foorth in the booke of cō ­mō prayers, was neuer allowed, nor agreed vpon, &c. no not by the Clergie of En­glande at the last Parleament, but onlie it was agreed vpon, by the Laitie, which [Page 180] had nothing a doe with spirituall mat­ters, or causes of religion. Wherevnto the Reverend Father Maister Pilkington M. Pilking­tō Bishop of Duresme. Bishop of Duresme aunswering: was there not (saith he) a disputation for Re­ligion, appointed by the Queenes Maie­stie, wherein your Clergie was affraid, to vtter their foolishnes, in defending their superstition, least they had taken more shame in answering, thē they did in hol­ding their peace.? I thinke the Vniver­sities with so manie places of the Realm, receiving religion, & these other dispu­ting for it, may be counted to bee some part of the Clergie of the Realme. And so it was not receyued without consent of the Clergie: But these were not of the Parleament, What then? But as Ioash, Iosaphat, Ezekias, and Iosias, did not make a new religion, but restored that which was defaced & had long lien bu­ried, so our Parleament, did not set forth a new religion, but restore that, which was godlie begane vnder the good King Edward, confirmed by the Parleament, and Clergie then, &c. But nothing can be concluded, as a lawe by Parleament, (say they) without consent of the Cler­gie [Page 181] there present. But this havinge not their consent, can not be counted a law, as they thinke. I had rather (saith Mai­ster Pilkington) leaue this to bee aun­swered by the Lawiers, then otherwise. Yet that the world may see, that some thing may be saide in it, we graunt him, not this to be true, that no law at all can be made without consent of Bishoppes. Looke your old statutes of Parleament, when Bb. were highest, afore Edward the third, and yee shall reade, that they passed by the consent of the Lords tem­porall and commons without any men­cion of the Lords spirituall, which sta­tutes many of them stand in strenght at this day. Then it may well be gathered, that the consent of the Clergy was not alwayes so necessarie as they thinke it. The Lawyers, Iudges, and Iustice [...]s put in practise & execute these lawes, ther­fore their doinges, may bee a sufficient reason, to lead the vnlearned, what opi­nion they haue of these statutes. For Re­ligion (except Iustice Raftall) first exe­cuting that, and afterward runing a­way, may condemne the rest, which I trust he may not; I thinke they would [Page 182] not execute them, except they had the strength and nature of lawes. If they doe contrarie to their knowledge and opinion, they can not bee able to an­swere their doings, but I thinke no wise men are of this opinion. Only these cor­ner creepers, that dare not shew their face, and would deceyue the people, goe about to deface all good & godly order, that displeases them. In the dayes of King Edward, they had the like fonde opinion, that the Kinge could not make lawes in his minoritie, vntill he came vnto full age, and to make the people to disobey their Prince. Hetherto Maister Pilkington Lorde Bishop of Duresme; with whom the most worthy & learned Maister Iewell, late Bishop of Salisburie, M. Iewel B. of Salisbury agreeth in every point.

The wise and learned (saith he) could haue told you that in the Parleaments of England, matters haue evermore vsed to passe, not of necessitie by the speciall consent of the Archbishops & Bishops, as if without them no statute might law­fully be enacted, but onely by the more part of voyces, yea although the Archb. & Bishops were neuer so earnestly bent [Page 183] against it. And statutes so passing in Parleaments, onely by the voyces of the Lords temporall, without the consent, and agreement of the Lordes spirituall, haue nevertheles bin alwayes cōfirmed, and ratified by the Royall assent of the Prince, and haue bene enacted, and pu­blished, vnder the names of the Lordes spirituall and temporall Read (saith he) the statutes of K Edward the first, there shall ye find, that in a Parliamēt holden at S ^t Edmondsbury, the Archbishops & Bishops were quite shut foorth, and yet the Parleament held on and good, and profitable lawes, were there enacted, the departing, or absence, or malice of the Bishops spirituall notwithstanding. In the recordes thereof it is written thus: Habito Rex cum suis Baronibus Parlia­mento, & Clero excluso statutum est: The King keeping a Parleament, with his Barons, the Clergie, that is to say the Archbishops and Bishops beeing shut foorth, it was enacted, &c. In provisione de matrona in the time of King Edward the third, whereas matter was moved of bastardy touching the legitimation of bastards, borne before mariage, the sta­tute [Page 184] passed wholy, with the Lordes tem­porall, whether the Lordes spirituall would or no. And that contrary to the expresse decrees & canons of the church of Rome. And thus much the most re­verend and godly Father Maister Iewell Bishop of Salisbury, wherefore to con­clude this point against the Admonitors position, I dispute thus:

If our Evangelicall Bishops be of that opinion, of which the Popish Bishops were, viz, that the house of Parleament is an vnfit, & an vnmeete place, to haue [Page 185] the holie cause of the religion of God, debated and concluded vpon, and that the Layitie without the Clergie ought not to conclude any thinge in religion, & that in respect hereof, their presences, their voyces, and their assents are neces­sarie in the Parleament: If our Evange­licall Prelates (I say) make this obiecti­on: then besides that hereby they vn­seemely, vnmannerly, & vnchristianly, accuse the whole land of ignorance and blindnes in religion, supposing neither King, nor Nobles, nor Commons, to be able to discerne betwene night and day, besides this (I say) so shamefull an abuse, of a whole Christian nation, I would pray them to remember what the most reuerend Fathers, Maister Pilkington & Maister Iewell haue aunswered, to such cavillous slaunders. For what els inten­ded they by many examples, & proofes brought for the Parleamentes of Eng­land, consisting of the King, the Nobles, and the Commons to be lawfull Parlea­ments, and to haue right to establish re­ligion, but to iustifie against Popish scof­fers, that religion might be receyued, & established in Parleament, notwithstan­dinge [Page 168] the absence or exclusion of the Clergie? Besides, since our lawes do vp­hold the state & authoritie of the Con­vocation Matters of religion not concluded in Parlea­ment, before the same bee consulted of in conuoca­tion. house, for the examination of all causes of Religion, surely it can not be truely averred, that it is necessarie for Evangelicall Bishops, to be members of the Parleament house, least controversie of religion, should be handled, and dis­cussed without them. For how should any matter of religion bee concluded without them in Parleament, when first of all, the same is to be argued among them selves in convocation? or let them hardely (if they can) shew any one in­stance, of any change, or alteratiō, either from religion to superstition, or from superstitiō to religion, to haue bin made in Parleament, vnlesse the same freely, & at large haue bene first agreed vppon in their Synodes and Convocations? And what booteth it, then to haue a double or treble consultation, and consent of Archbishops & Bishops in Parleament? Is the holy cause of God, any whit bette­red, by their Bishops riding from Paules to Westminster? Or can it receiue any more strength, by their walking from [Page 187] Westminster Church, to Westminster Pallace? Nay it hath bene oftentimes so farr from being promoted by their Bi­shops, as not onelie in their convocati­ons, but also in the Queenes Parlea­ments, the same hath ben shamefully in­treated, and taken the foile: as may wit­nesse the bill for the better observation of the Sabboth 27. Eliz. which beeing passed by both houses of Parleament, was notwithstanding gainesaid & with­stood, by none so much as by certayne Evangelicall Bishops, & which (as there all men generallie conceaved) was onlie stayed from being made a law, by the Queene, vpon their counsell, and per­swasion.

Assertion.

And is it not morbus hereditarius in Steuen Gar­deners ar­gument, and the Admo­nitors argu­mēt in effect one. Prelates to picke quarrels against refor­mation of errours? For even this did Steven Gardener reason against the Lord Protector.

And even of this stāpe, & of this streyne is the argument of picking quarrelles a­gainst lawes settled: for thus in effect he argueth:

But forasmuch as that noble and re­ligious Lord Protector (notwithstan­ding Steven Gardiners sophistrie) con­tinued constant, and couragious in the abolishment of Poperie, and superstiti­on which King Henrie left, & did with­out dangerous alterations of lawes then settled, innovate religion: How much more now may the Kings Maiestie, the Lesse dāger to reforme the Church by newe lawes, then to continue corruptiō by old lawes. Lords and Commons in Parleament, at­tempt with effect, an innovation of that state of Ecclesiasticall goverment, wher­in the Queene left the Church? And if it can not be denied, but it had bene farre more daungerous, for the Realme, and for the Lord protector, not to haue setled the holy doctrine, of the everla­sting Gospel, by new lawes, then to haue mainteyned, and continued antichristi­anitie by old lawes: how should it bee lesse danger, for the King, in these dayes to continue corruptions in the Church, by tolleration of old lawes, then to haue the same corruptions reformed by esta­blishment of new lawes? But vnto whō, or vnto what, hath it bene daungerous, to picke quarrelles against lawes setled? What? Hath it bene dangerous to lawes [Page 190] setled? No. For how should lawes setled be indangered by quarelers? sithence quarellers are euermore in daunger of lawes settled. Or hath it bene alwayes dangerous for a King, for a State, for a people, or for a Countrey, to picke qua­relles against lawes setled? No. For what man is he, or what face carieth he, that dare vpbrayde a Countrey, a people, a State, or a King, minding to vnsetle, evil lawes, & euill customes, to be quarelers against lawes setled? Let it then onlie be daungerous for private persons, vpon private malecontentment, to picke qua­relles against good lawes, wel, & rightly setled; and let it not be hurtfull or dan­gerous for supreame Kings, powers, and Principalities, by publicke edicts, to al­ter evill lawes, evilly setled. For to what other end should evill lawes evilly set­led, be continued, but to continue evill? And what a thing were that? This argu­ment then for lawes setled, being the so­phisme of that Fox Steven Gardener, is but a quarelsome, and wrangling argu­ment.

Assertion.

This argument seemeth to be drawne from kitchin profite, and is but a bug­begger to scarr covetous men from sub­mitting their neckes vnto the yoke of that holy Discipline, which our Savior Christ hath prescribed, and which the Admonitor himselfe confesseth, to haue bene practised by the Apostles, and pri­mitive Church. And yet because this argument seemeth to lay a very heavie [Page 192] burden on mens shoulders, such as is impossible to be borne, it is an argumēt That Seni­ours & Dea­cons should be found at the charge of y ^e Parish is absurd. worthy to bee examined, though in it selfe, the same be very vntrue & absurd. For who did ever fancie that a Pastour, a company of Seniours, and a Deacon, or two at the least, should be men of occu­pations, or that they should be all found of the parish, because they must leaue their occupations, to attend vpon the matters of the Church? Why? there be many hūdreths of parishes in England, wherein there dwelleth not one man, of an occupation. And what reason then or likelihood of reason was there, to fa­ther such an absurd necessitie vpon the Church? As for the necessitie of having one Pastour in every particular parish, and of his finding by the parish, because it is his duety, to attend vpon reading, exhortation, & doctrine, although he be no man of occupation, this (I say) is a­greable & consonant, to the goverment of the church practised by the Bishops. And therefore in the finding, & having of one Pastour in every parish, they, and we differ not. But that men of occupa­tions onelie should bee chosen Seniours [Page 193] and Deacons in every parish; or if Seni­ours and Deacons, were men of occupa­tions in any parish, that they should bee all found of the parish, wee vtterly dis­clayme as an absurditie of absurdities. And yet wee deny not, but in Cities and great Townes wherin for the most part, men of trade, do inhabite, that Seniours & Deacons must of necessitie be men of occupations. Vnlesse then an occupati­on must of necessitie hinder men, from being faithfull, religious, & godly men, there is no reason to inforce, that mē of occupations in Cities, and great townes, should not be chosen Seniors, and Dea­cons. And as for Countrey parishes, What kinde of mē ought to be chosen Seniours & Deacons. wherein either verie fewe, or no men of occupations doe reside, this obiection is altogether idle. In which parishes also we affirme, that men of greatest gravitie, integritie, wisedome, faith and godlines, ought to be chosen Seniours, and Dea­cons. And we doubt not, but all such men as whom we intend, ought to bee chosen Seniours, and Deacons, whether dwelling in Cities & Townes, or in the Coūtrey, would be as readie, as willing, and as watchfull, prudentlie to imploy [Page 194] them selues hereafter, in matters of the Church, as now either them selues, or their equalles, are busied in matters of their corporations, or common weale, without anie maner of contribution, to be yeelded towards their finding.

When the people of Israell were com­manded to pay their tythes, first fruites, and other oblations vnto the Priestes & Levites, for their attendance and service in the Sāctuarie, we doe not reade in the whole booke of God, that they were in­ioyned to be helpers and cōtributors to the reliefe and sustentation of the Cap­taynes over thousands, of the Captaines over hundreds, nor of the Elders & Go­vernours, placed Citie by Citie, for the affaires of the King. And therefore si­thence we haue neither precept nor pre­sident, that all the officers of the church should bee founde at the costes of the Church; and sithence also as well in Coūtrey parishes, as in Cities, & townes (to the prayse and glorie of God be it spoken) we haue many able, wealthie, & substantiall persons, who haue giuen their names vnto Christ, what necessi­tie is there that any such Seniours, and [Page 195] Deacons should be elected, as haue need to be relieved, and supported by a com­mon purse? And had the Admonitor wel and advisedlie pōdered that our Church Church war­dens & side men are not found at the chardges of the parishes. Wardens, & side men (who carie a sem­blance of governing Seniours) that our collectors also for the poore (who iustle out the Deacons) being all of them men of occupations, poore husbandmen, or day labourers, and being not founde of the parish, are notwithstandinge often­times in the yere, troubled and turmoy­led, from one end of the Diocesse vnto the other, and that which is more, from attendance vpon their day labour hus­bandrie and occupations, to weight, and to attend not vpō matters of the church, but vpon money matters, perteyning to the officers of the Bb. Consistorie: Had he (I say) wiselie and sincerelie conside­red these things, he would certeinlie not once haue mencioned this so sillie and simple a suggestion. But quite & cleane to cutt of at one blow all the skirtes of the coat of this sillie bulbegger, that the verie buttockes of it may bee bare, and that the church may see, there is no such burdensome charge, to bee layde vpon [Page 196] her, as is feyned; the graue and godlie iudgement, and policie of King Edward The iudge­mēt of King Ed. y ^e sixt cō ­missioners touching Elders and Deacons. the sixt his Commissioners, authorized to compile a booke, for the reformatiō of lawes ecclesiasticall, according to an Act of Parleament, in that behalfe pro­vided, shall rise vp for vs, and pleade the trueth and equitie of this our sayinges. The Commissioners names were these: viz. The most reverend Father Thomas Crammer, Archbishoppe of Canterburie. Thomas Bishoppe of Ely, Richard Cox, the Kings Almoner: Peter Martyr, pro­fessor of Divinitie, William May, Row­land Taylor, Doctors of the Lawe, Sir Iohn Cheeke, Iohn Lucas, Richard God­dericke, Maister Hadon, and others. All Titul. de di­uiois officijs cap. 10. fol. 45. which reverend, learned, and religious men, as with one voyce & accord speak one thing: so thus and thus they speake: Evening prayer being finished, where­vnto all shalbe attēdant, after sermon in their owne Churches, the chief minister whom they call Parochies, and the Dea­con, if happely they shalbe present, or they being absent, let the Ministers, Vi­cars and Elders, (lo the Archb. of of Cā ­terburie, afterwards a godlie Martyr, and [Page 197] Bishoppes can skill of the name of Dea­con and Elders) with the people conferr about the money put apart to godly vses how the same may bee best imployed; And let the Discipline (loe these sage Counsellours were all Disciplinarians) be reserved vntill that time. For they whose frowardnes hath bene publicke, and tending to the common offence of the Church, let such be recalled to the acknowledgement of their faultes, and let them publicklie for the same be cen­sured, that the Church by their whole­some coertion, may be brought in good frame. Afterward, let the Minister go­ing apart, with some of the Elders, take counsell, how the others (whose man­ners are said to be lewd, and whose life is saide to be full of mischiefe) may first according to the commaundement of Christ in the Gospell, come together, & be communed with, by sober and dis­creete men, and with a certeine kinde of brotherly loue. By whose admonition if they shall reforme themselues, thanks are diligently to be giuen vnto God. But if they shall proceed foorth in their wic­kednes, they are to be bound with that [Page 198] sharpe payne, which by the Gospell wee know to bee prepared for contumacie. And when the force and vehemencie of excommunication shalbe shaken, first let the Bishoppe be sought vnto, who if he shall consent, and oppose his autho­ritie, let the forme of excommunicatiō be dispatched, before the whole church that we may bring in as much as may be the auncient Discipline.

Thus much haue these most Christi­an Disciplinarians, and renewers of the auncient Discipline, by Pastours, El­ders, and Deacons both written and spoken. And yet haue they sounded ne­uer a word, to the finding of Elders and Deacons by the Parish, nor by hauing men of occupatiōs to leaue their busines, to attend vpon matters of the Church. For men thus meeting together once onely in the weeke, and that vpon the Lords day, and that onely within their owne parishes, and without payment of any fees, may very well notwithstan­ding these attendances, giue themselues wholie all the weeke following, to their ordinary vocations. And therefore a­gainst his not able to find one tollerable [Page 199] Minister, much lesse to find a company, &c. I conclude thus:

Where the Admonitor complayneth, Tollerable and intolle­rable Mini­sters. that many parishes are not able to finde one tollerable Minister, we would glad­lie learne, by what brand tollerable Mi­nisters, are knowne from intollerable Ministers, according as the Lords spiri­tuall iudge, or iudge not, of tollerable, & vntollerable Ministers. For if all rea­ding Ministers (as nedes with them they must be) or ells why doe they tollerate them, bee tollerable Ministers, what a vayne, and idle distinction, hath he coy­ned touching the scarcitie of mainte­nance, for tollerable Ministers? Consi­dering all Ministers by intendement of lawe, be able to reade: and considering also a verie small maintenance, is estee­med to be a tollerable maintenance, for reading ministers. For ells why doe the great Bishoppes, in their great Churches [Page 200] of Cōmendames, and the rich Doctors in their rich Churches of non residen­cies, make so small allowances to their reading and stipendarie Curates? And where then is that parishe in Englande, that is not able to mainteyne a tollera­ble Minister?

The next argument, that the people might not choose their Pastours, Elders Pag. 78. and Deacons, as is required, is drawen partlie from a feare, that the same wilbe a matter of schisme, discord, and dissen­tion in many places: partlie from affe­ction and want of right iudgement of the people, partlie from the vnrulines of the parishes, and partlie from the broyle and trouble which may follow.

Assertion.

Vnto this obiection if I should aun­swere nothing at all, but onely should The obie­ctiō of feare &c. answe­red. deny, that any feare, or any other incon­venience at all, pretended in this place, is to be feared to ensue, my simple nega­tion were more to be tollerated, then his simple affirmation: for by the canon lawe, non inficienti, sed ponenti, incumbit [Page 201] onus probandi. And yet because the Lord hath spoken vnto Iosua, & in him vnto Doct. in c. 6 cui. depreb. Lib. 2. vs all, that wee should not feare, nor bee discouraged to obserue, and to doe all, that is written in the law, for then (sayth the Lord) shalt thou make thy way pros­perous, and then shalt thou haue good successe, therefore in the word of the Lord (I say) that none of all this feare, broyle, trouble, or turmoyle, is to bee feared at al. Nay that it is most assuredly, and without all doubt, to bee hoped, & looked for, that he would so blesse, the attempt of putting his order in executi­on, as that the peoples approbation, and allowance of their Ministers, should bee a matter of all peace, quietnes, vnitie, concorde, good successe and prosperitie to the whole Church of God in Eng­land.

For what an heathnish incredulitie, were it for vs to replie vpon the errone­ous conceyte of a timorous, and suspi­cious fancie, that feare, and I wot not what vnrulines, & vnquietnes shall fol­low, when we (receyving the lawes of peace from the Prince of peace) haue his most stable trueth, that his peace shall [Page 202] rest vpon vs, and that all feare and evill successe shall cease and vanish away. No busie headded body therefore, shall bee able to leade any man away, to disquiet either Church or common Wealth, (o­therwise then as the Church in all ages by the malice of Satan and his instru­mentes hath euermore bene disquieted) if once the holy law of the Gospell tou­ching this point were obserued & put in vre. And if it be feared, that the choyce to be made by the people of God, and which is allowed vnto them, by the holy lawes of God would proue to be a mat­ter of schisme, discord, and dissention; howe much more reason haue wee to feare, that the fire of schisme, discorde, and dissention, being blowen alreadie, should not break out, and flame among vs, if still one man alone, be suffered to thrust vpon the people of God, not tol­lerable Ministers, accordinge to Gods heart, but intollerable ministers, accor­ding to mans tradition. The Admonitor hath insinuated vnto vs often in this ad­monition, that it is dāgerous to innovate. And so I say too, vnlesse there be evident M. de cōsti­tu. prim. L. 2 vtilitie of innovation. For (saith the Em­perour) [Page 203] in rebus novis constituendis evi­dens esse vtilitas debet, vt ab eo iure rece­datur, quod diu aequum visum est. But is it not as perilous, yea sometimes much Dangerous to innouate vnlesse there bee euident vtility of in­novation. more perilous not to innovate? for proofe whereof, it shall suffice, to take witnes of our owne times & of our own experiences. It seemed equal a long time, and for many yeres, that the sacrifice of the Masse with all the pelfe and trumpe­rie thereof, should not once be spoken against. But we all know, that the aban­doning thereof, hath not yet brought any perilous subversion, vpō any nation, that purely and soundly in place therof, hath embraced the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper. It seemeth also to be equal for many ages past that the Bishop of Rome might haue supreame and ab­solute power over all persons, states, and causes, not only in Rome, Italy, Spaigne, Germany, & other forraigne Kingdoms, but also in England and Scotland. But as yet to the view of al the world, it hath not proved perilous for the King, & Queen of England and Scotland, to establish new lawes, for the alteration of that an­cient abuse. And why hath it not bene [Page 204] dangerous so to do? Why? forsooth be­cause there was evident vtilitie in doing of it. But how could an evident vtilitie appeare before it was done? How? For­sooth because the holy law of God had warranted an alteration. For faith ha­ving eyes to see the wisedom, the power, and the trueth of God in his word, dis­cerned a far of that the institution of the Lords Supper, was long before the sa­crifice of the masse. And therefore our Kings by abandoning popery out of the Realme, did not institute any new religi­on, but onely they restored the old. Now then if the same holy lawe of God, doe condemne the choyce, and thrusting of a Pastour vpon the people by one man alone; and againe if the same lawe, doe impugne the primacie of one Pastour over all Pastours, as wel in a Diocesse, or Province, as in the whole West part of Christendome, what daunger can it be, not to disfrāchise the one, sithence with­out any maner of danger, we haue abo­lished the other? or what perill can it be, not to countenance the sonnes, sithence without peril we haue discountenanced the father? Especially seeing in this place [Page 205] of the admonition we haue a playne cō ­fession, that the common maner of ele­ction of Pastors, Elders and Deacons in the old Churches was made by the peo­ple. For if the examples of schisme, dis­cord Common manner of elections in y ^e olde chur­ches was by the people. & contention, did commonly ap­peare in the olde churches, while that maner of election did continue, then by his owne mouth that maner of election was common, and did continue in the olde churches. Besides, this inconveni­ence (saith he) caused Princes & Bishops so much to entermedle in this matter. From whence it necessarily againe fol­loweth, that by the holy Scriptures, and law of God, Princes and Bishops, did not entermedle with that matter at all. For had it bin simply lawful for thē, to haue Bb. medle not with e­lection of Pastours by the holie Scriptures. dealt in those causes by the worde of God, thē as well before schisme, discord, and dissention, as afterward, yea rather much more before then afterward. For then by their own right, might Princes and Bishops haue prevented all occasion of schisme, and contention, and haue so preserved the Church, that no tumult, or disorder, should once haue bin raysed or begun therein. Againe if by the lawe [Page 206] of God, Princes & Bishops, had medled in these matters, and had not entermed­led by humane devise, then lawfully by their authoritie alone, might they haue chosen Pastours, Elders and Deacons in the olde Churches: which thing in this place by necessarie inference he denieth. For schisme (saith he) caused thē to en­termedle. So as by his confession, they were but entermedlers, and entercom­moners, by reason of schisme, & not cō ­moners, and medlers by vertue of Gods word. And yet now a dayes our reverend Bishops in this case, are no more enter­commoners, with Princes and with the people, they are no more entermedlers as in olde times they were; but they haue now so farre encroched vpon the prerogatiues of the Prince, and privi­leges of the people, that neither Prince Bishops en­croch vpon the right of prince and people. nor people, haue any commons in the election of Pastours, Elders & Deacons with them at all. Besides if schisme, and contention among the people were the reason, why Bishops first entermedled in the choise of Pastours, we now having no schisme nor contention about the choise of Pastours, by the people, and so [Page 207] the cause ceasing, why should not the effect likewise cease? But this effect, is therefore still to be continued, because otherwise the cause would a new sprout out, and spring vp againe. Nay rather inasmuch, as for these many yeares, we haue had schisme, discord & dissention, because the Bishops wholy and altoge­ther haue medled in the choise of Pa­stours, and haue thrust vpon the people, whatsoever Pastours please not the peo­ple, but pleased themselves, & haue not suffered the people to medle, no not so much as once to entermedle in these matters; in as much (I say) as these things be so: it seemeth most expediēt, requisite, & necessarie, for the appeasing, & paci­fying of this discord, & the taking away of this schisme, to haue that maner of e­lection, which was in the old Churches, restored to the people; and this wherein the Bishops haue entermedled, without authoritie from the worde, to be aboli­shed: that so againe the cause of schisme and strife, which is now among vs cea­sing, the effect might likewise cease.

After I had ended this tract, in this maner, touching this poynt, there came [Page 208] into mine handes a booke intituled The perpetuall gouernment of Christes church written by Thomas Bilson, Warden of Winchester Colledge: in the fifteenth chapter of which booke is handled this question, viz: to whom the election of Bishoppes and Presbiters doth rightlie belong, and whether by Gods lawe the people must elect their Pastours or no. In whiche Chapter also the matter of schisme, strife, and contention is hand­led. The finall scope and conclusion whereof, is as the proposition impor­teth, two fold: First, cōcerning Bishops, then concerning Pastours. ‘The quarell taken against Bishoppes doth not so much touch (sayth he) the office, and functions of Bishoppes, as it doth the Princes prerogatiue. When you rather thinke the Prince may not name her Bishoppes without the consent and ele­ction of the people, you impugne nor vs, but directlie call the Princes fact, and her lawes in question.’ As touching this poynt of the proposition, because the people by any lawe, or custome; never chalenged anie right, or interest in the choyse of the Kings Bishoppes, we haue [Page 209] nothing to medle or to make about the choyse, of any of his Kinglie Bishoppes. The Kinge only hath power without the people to nomi­nate his Kingly Bb. Nay we confesse, as his Highnes proge­nitours Kings of England, haue bin the Soveraigne Donours, Founders, Lords and Avowes of all the Bishoprickes in England without ayd of the people; that so likewise it is a right, and interest in­vested into his Imperiall Crowne, that he onely, his heyres & successours, with­out cōsent of the people, ought to haue the free nomination, appointment, col­lation, investiture, and confirmation of all Bishoppes frō time to time to be pla­ced in anie of those Bishoprickes; yea & we say further, that the King alone, hath not power onely to nominate, collate & confirme, but also to translate, yea and if it please him to depose all his Kingly Bi­shoppes without anie cōsent of his peo­ple at all. For (say we) eius est destruere, cuius est construere; eius est tollere, cuius est condere: Neither will we dislike, but rather content our selues, that our late Queenes Bishoppes (if they shall finde fauour in the Kings eyes) should be also the Kings Bishoppes, condicionallie they submit them selues to the lawes, & pre­rogatiues [Page 210] of the Kings Crowne, content themselues with the only name of King­lie and Princelie Bishoppes, & not chal­lenge anie more the titles of Godly and Christian Bishoppes, as though without iniurie to the law of God, and Gospell of our Savior Christ, they could not be dis­possessed of their Lordlie Bishoprickes. And therefore our most humble prayer to the King is, that his Maiestie would be pleased, that such his Kingly Bishops may not henceforth overcrow, and iustle our Gods Bishoppes: nor haue any pri­macie over Gods Bishoppes. And with­all that the King him self would vouch­safe, to hearken to the doctrine of such as are in deed Gods Bishoppes, rather thē to the Counsel of those who lately were the Queenes Bishoppes.

As touching the second part, viz. whe­ther Mai. Bilson confirmeth the peoples election of their Pa­stour. Pag. 339. the people by Gods lawe, must elect their Pastours, or no; Maister Bilson by reasons, and profes brought for the first vse of it, rather confirmeth then impu­gneth the same. ‘For (saith he) Well may the peoples interest stande vppon the groūds of reason and nature, and be de­riued from the rules of Christian equi­tie [Page 211] and societie: That each Church and people stand free by Gods law, to admit, mainteyne, or obey no man, as their Pa­stour without their likinge, vnlesse by law, custome, or consent, they haue re­streyned them selues: That the people 360. had as much right to choose their Pa­stour, as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge: That the Apostles left electi­ons indifferenthe to the people & Cler­gie at Ierusalem: That the Apostles in the Actes, when they willed the Church at Ierusalem to chose the seuen, did not make anie remembrance or distinction of the seuentie Disciples from the rest: And lastlie, against the cursing, & figh­sting of the late Bishoppes of Rome, till 359. excluding both Prince and people, from yeelding his consent, or making their request, they had reduced the election wholie to the Clergie, he telleth them by their leaue, it was not so from the begin­ning.’ From all which sayinges of Mai­ster 339. Bilson, I conclude thus:

The whole proposition and euery part thereof, together with the assumpt, and euery part thereof, is drawen from M ^r Bilsons owne confession. Onely to the proposition hee hath annexed certeyne condicions or exceptions, viz. Vnlesse by law, custome, or consent, the people haue restreyned themselues, or transfer­red, or altered their right, or els by their [Page 213] default, or abuse, the canons, counsels, superior powers, princely, or publicke lawes, haue abridged, altered, or abro­gated the same. Now then it remayneth to know, whether any consent, default, abuse, custome, canons, counsels, superi­our powers, publike or Princely Edicts, may bee a good and sure warrant, to a­bridge, transferr, or abrogate, the peo­ples interest, from hauing to doe, in the choyse of their Pastours.

Our Sauiour Christ, whē he came in the flesh, he came to reforme the abuse crept in of the Law, and to improue the corruptions of doctrine taught by the Scribes, Pharisies, and Doctors of the lawe, but hee tooke not away any least title of the law, ne abolished any iote of true, & sound doctrine in the Church. The Gospell teacheth vs to order our iudgements aright, to bridle the vnruli­nes of our affections, & to moderate our inordinate appetites. But yet, doth not the same commaund vs, to empty our soules of all iudgement, to bury our af­fections in our bellies, and to become as dead as stones, without all sense, or ap­petite. In like sort wee graunt, that cu­stome, [Page 214] consent, Canons, Coūcills, Supe­riour powers, publick, & princely Laws, Canons and coūsells, &c. may bridle disordered electiōs, but not disannul elections of the people altogether. may reforme, reproue restreyne, direct, moderate, and bridle the disordered vn­rulines, and contentious brawlinges of the people, in, and about their elections; yea and wee graunt further, that they may alter, abridge, or enlarge the forme and manner of elections. All this wee graunt: but that Christian Kings or any Superiour powers, may take this right into their owne handes (as hee sayeth) from the people; or that the people by anie lawe, custome, consent, canon, or coūcill, may transferre or abolite their right, freedome, and interest giuen and deduced vnto them, by these rules and by these groundes, I do not yet perceiue anie good groūd or reason for the same. For in so doing, howe should the holy wisedome and providence of God, who hath imprinted in our nature, these rules and these grounds, this equitie and this freedome, be so holily regarded, and so highly reverenced, as it ought to be. For hath he made vs free men, and can wee without contempt of this grace become bondmen? Hath he given vs leaue and [Page 215] libertie to choose, & shall we with pro­phane Esau, sett litle by this our birth­right, and post our libertie vnto others, for lesse then a messe of wort pottage? And albeit in some cases, that may bee well saide, quod volenti non fit iniuria, and that quilibet potest recedere [...] suo iure; yet the cases must bee such, as a mans willingnes, and readines to forgoe his right, bee not tyed to him with so strong a bande, as is the bande of the groundes of reason and nature, of the rules of Christian equitie, & of the free­dome of the lawe of God. It is free, I graunt, for a man to eate or not to eate, to drinke, or not to drink, but for a man not to eate at all, or not to drinke at all, and so with hunger and thirst to sterue him selfe, is not free: and in this case vo­lenti sit iniuria. Euery man that hath a wife, that hath sonnes and daughters, that hath men-servantes, and mayd-ser­vantes; as by the verie instinct of nature, and by rhe equitie of the lawe of Christ, he hath freedome to provide for them, so must hee carefullie vse this his free­dome. And therefore he may not wholy and altogether put from him selfe, and [Page 216] expose at haphazard, the provision, edu­cation, instruction, dieting, appareling, and lodging of his wife, his sonnes, his daughters and his servaunts vnto stran­gers: neither may Husbandes, Fathers, nor Maisters giue their consent, to the making of anie lawe, or the bringing in of anie custome, whereby their free­domes, should be restreyned, adnihiled, or made voyde in this behalfe. For by thus violating the rules, and grounds, & by thus treading, as it were, vnder foote, the equitie of Christ, and the freedome they haue by the lawe of God: should they not most prophanelie, and impi­ouslie despight God, and, as it were, over turne the whole order he hath set in na­ture? And if the people may not cast off these rules, and these groundes, this e­quitie, and this freedome in thinges ap­perteyning to this frayle, bodily, transi­torie, and earthlie life: howe much lesse may they, cast them off, or sett litle by them, in things apperteyning to the sal­vation of their soules, and to a durable, spirituall, everlasting and heavenlie life?

But the peoples right to choose their Obiection, that the peoples right did neuer depend vpō the expresse commande­mēt of God Bishoppes, did never depende vpon the [Page 217] expresse commaundement of God: nei­ther can the people chalendge by Gods law, the right to chose their Bishoppes: I meane (saieth he) no such thinge is ex­pressed, and conteyned in the Scriptures. What then? if it doe depend, or bee con­teyned vnder the generall groundes, and rules of reason, nature, christian equitie, christian societie, principles of humane fellowshippes, the law of God, the pra­ctise of the Apostles, and that which was from the beginning: Is it not sufficient? Though it bee not expressed in these termes, viz: That the people must chose, or that the people haue right to choose their Bishoppes? It is not expressed and conteyned in the scriptures, that everie man must choose his owne wife; or that everie woman must choose her own hus­band. And yet by the doctrine expres­sed, or conteyned in the scriptures, is it true that no man hath right either to choose an other mans wife, or to choose an other womans husband. And that e­verie man hath right to chose his owne wife, and every woman right to choose her owne husbande. Againe, it is not ex­pressed and conteyned in the scriptures, [Page 218] that infantes must bee baptized: Nei­ther is it expressed and conteyned in the scriptures that the Bishopp of Lichfield must haue but one wife. Yet because it is conteyned in the scriptures, that God in the beginning, brought but one woman vnto one man, and gaue to one woman but one husband. I assure my selfe it wil not be denied, but that the Bishops must and doth content him selfe with one wife, and that every Christian ought to bring their children to be Baptized. Be­sides if Maister Bilson distinguish Bi­shops in England from Pastors in Eng­land, and Arch-Bishops in England, and Pastours in England, two severall orders and degrees of Ministers in the Church of England, then I graunt that it is nei­ther expressed nor cōteyned in the Scri­ptures that the people must choose their Bishops in England. And why? but be­cause the Scriptures (having put no dif­ference betwene Bishops and Pastours) knowe no such Bishops as wee haue in Bishopps in England are only Bishops by y ^e Kings grace, & not by diuine institution. England. And therfore Bishops in Eng­land, being Bishops only by the Kinges grace, and not by divine institution and ordination, as Pastours in Englande be, [Page 219] hence is it, that the Kings of England, by their prerogatiue Royall, and not the people, by the rule of Scriptures, haue chosen their Bishops in England. And for this cause also was it, that Kinge Henry the eight, with advise of the Par­leament, did reassume, the nomination, appointment, investiture, & cōfirmati­on, of his Kingly Bishops from the Pope. As for the nomination of Pastoures, ha­ving cure of soules in parishes (other­wise Pastors in parochiall Churches were neuer placed by the King; as Bb. are in their Bishoprickes. then all patrones by right of patro­nage, doe giue presentmentes) their choyse, institution, translation, or depri­vation, the Kings of Enland by their re­gall power, never yet hetherto tooke the same vpon them. And if the Kinges of England by any fact, or by any law, did never take away the right, interest, and freedome from the people, in choosing their Pastours; what right, other, then by vsurpation, can the Bishops haue, to impose, or thrust vpon the people Pa­stours without their liking? But by cu­stome and consent the people haue re­streyned them selves. Herevnto (if it were not already sufficiently answered, that the people could not lawfully re­streine [Page 220] them selves) yet Maister Bilson him selfe answereth: That the late Bb. of The people lost their cō sent by cur­sing & figh­ting of the Popes. Rome neuer left cursing & fighting, till they had excluded both Prince, and peo­ple, and reduced the electiō wholy to the Clergie. By cursing, and fighting then haue the people bene overruled, and ex­cluded, and not by custome or consent, haue they restreyned them selues. Yea & by vertue of this cursed fight onely, doe the Bishoppes of Englande at this day, exclude both Prince and people, from medling in the choyse of Pastoures. For by authoritie of the canon law, made by those late cursing and fighting Bishopps of Rome, the Bishoppes of Englād haue the sole ordination, and placinge of Pa­stours over the people. And from hence also is it playne, that the peoples right, was not by their default, or abuse, relin­quished, and forfeyted. For then then late Bishoppes of Rome, needed not to haue cursed, and fought for it. And now whe­ther it bee not meete, that the Lord Bb. professing them selues to bee Christian Bishoppes, should still reteyne in their handes, and not restore vnto Christian people, the possession of their Christian [Page 221] equitie, and freedome, extorted from them, by the cursings and fightinges of antichristian Bb. I leaue it to the con­sideration of the reverende Bishoppes them selues.

Touching the mischieves and incon­veniences of schisme, troubles, strifes, & contentions so often inculcated, and so much vrged, and excepted against the election of the people, there is no man able (as I thinke) to produce any one pregnant proofe, out of any auncient, or late Historie, that any Kinge or Sove­raigne power, hath interposed any su­preame authoritie, to appease any dis­cord or dissentiō, ensuing or raised, vpō the bare choise, made of any meere Pa­rochiall Pastour, by any faithfull and Christian people. The schismes, strifes, and factions, that were raysed in the old Schismes & contentions spring from schismaticall and proud clergy mai­sters. Churches, sprang out, and flowed onely from the heads, and fountaynes of those schismes, strifes & factions: and namely from proud, ambitious, and hereticall Bishops, and great Clergie maisters. For they being infected, and poysoned with the contagion of schisme, and heresie, & having sowred the mindes of their Dis­ciples, [Page 222] with the leaven of their hereticall doctrines, no merveile if the people be­came followers of the evill maners of their teachers, and no merveile if they verified the proverbe, Like Maister, like Man; like Priest, like People. Eustatius Bishop of Antioch being a Sabellian he­reticke, Socr. lib. cap [...]8. was deposed by the Counsell of Antioch: after whose deposition, a fiery flame of seditiō was kindled in Antioch: because one sort of the common people sought to translate Eusebius Pamphilus from Caesarea to Antioch; some other would bring againe Eustatius. Euse­bius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, beeing both Arians, with their cōfederates, raised skirmishes Socr. lib. 2. cap. 2. and tumults against Athanasius. After the death of Alexander, Bishop op Con­stantinople about the electiō of a Bishop, there was greater sturre then ever before time, and the Church was more gree­vously turmoyled: The people were de­vided into two parts: the one egerlie set with the heresie of Arius, claue to Ma­cedonius; the other cleaved very cōstant­lie Socr. lib. 2 cap. 4. to the decrees of the Nicene Coun­sell, and choose Paulus to bee their Bi­shop. [Page 223] The cause of division among the Citizens of Emisa, about the election of Eusebius Emisenus, was, for that he was Socr. lib. 2. cap. 6 charged with the studie of the Mathe­matickes, and accused of the heresie of Sabellius. After the death of Eusebius, when the people of Constantinople, had brought againe Paulus, to be their Bi­shop, the Arians chose Macedonius. The authours and chiefe doers, in that sturre were certaine Arian Bishops, who before ayded Eusebius, that turned vp Socr. lib. cap. 9. side down the whole state of the church. These and sundry such like sturres, dis­cords, factions, & dissentions, are found to haue bin raised, & pursued by schis­maticall, and heretical Bishops, their fa­vourites & followers, in the olde Chur­ches; but that these or the like mis­chieves, and inconveniences can be pro­ved, to haue fallen out, by the election of parochiall Pastours in the olde chur­ches, we deny. And why then should not the interest, and freedome of faithfull, & Christian people, wrested from them by cursings and fightings, of faithlesse, and antichristian Popes, be restored to them againe? And the cause ceasing, why [Page 224] should not the effect likewise cease? And therefore we humbly intreate the Lords Bishops, that against the grounds of rea­son and nature; against Christian equi­tie A request to the reuerend Bishoppes. and society; against the right & free­dome of the lawe of God; against the principles of humaine fellowshippes; against that which was in the begin­ning; and against that which the Apo­stles left in the Churches, by colour of lawes brought into the Church, by the cursings and fightings of the late Ro­mane Bishops, they would not hence­foorth, barre & seclude the Kings Chri­stian and faithfull people, from giving their consents vnto their Pastours. Yea and we further beseech their Lordships, that as schollers vnto the Apostles, and as servants vnto the olde way, of reason, of nature, of the law of God, of the equi­tie of Christ, and of humane societie, they would hereafter imbrace that way, which was from the beginning; which is the old way, and the best way, and not any lōger persist, in a cursed and quare­ling way, which is the new way, and the worst way. But if the Lordes spirituall A supplica­tion to bee King by the Lords and commōs for the restituti­on of their right in the choyse of their Pastors of their owne accord, shall not readily [Page 225] voutchsafe to yeelde vnto vs this our right, at our intreaty: then for my part, I will briefly shew mine opinion, what were expedient, for the Lords and com­mons, in open Parleament dutifully to pray, and to supplicate at the Kings Ma­iestes hande. Namely:

At the humble petitions and suppli­cations, of all his Lords temporall, and Commons in Parleament assembled, his Maiestie would be well pleased, to giue his Royall assent to an Act: to be intitu­led: An Act, for the restitution of the auncient right, and freedome which the people of God in the old Churches had, and which the people in England ought to haue, in, to, or about the election of their Pastours, and abolishing all papall power repugnant to the same. For if (as it is plainlie confessed) the people of all Churches, haue right, and freedome by the law of God, by the equitie of Christ, by the grounds of reason, and nature, by the principles of humane fellowshipps, and by that which was from the begin­ning, to elect their Pastours: and if also the same right, and freedome being left to the old churches, and especially to the [Page 226] Church at Ierusalem by the Apostles, haue bene taken away by the cursings, and fightings of the late Bishoppes of Rome: then can not the people without violatiō of those lawes, rules, & groūds, by any Episcopall power, bee anie more excluded from their said right, and free­dome; then could, or might the ancient iurisdiction of the Crowne of England, haue bene still vsurped by the Pope frō the Kings of Englande.

Assertion.

The Admonitor in one place of his admonition, telleth vs, that he must not [Page 227] put all that he thinketh in writing, and yet he writeth in this place, that thinge, which might farre better haue bene vt­terly vnthought, then once written: For could he thinke, to winne the common people of England, to a continuall good liking, of high and stately Prelacie, by vpbrayding and charging them to their faces, in a booke dedicated vnto them, with affection, and wantinge of right iugement? Was this the way to procure grace, favour, and benevolence at their handes? And albeit this slaunder deser­ued rather to haue bene censured by the Commons in Parleament, then by con­futation to haue bene answered, yet for the better clearing of the right iudge­ment, of the common people, givinge their consents, to most worthie men, in all offices of gayne, or dignitie, remay­ning in their handes, I thinke it necessa­rie to shew the indignitie of this contu­melie.

There be (I confesse) in London, Yorke, Lincolne, Bristow, Exceter, Norwich, Coventry, and other principall Cities, and Townes, corporate, Mayors, She­riffes, Stewardes, Recorders, Baylifes, [Page 228] Chāberlaynes, Bridge-maisters, Clerks, Swordbearers, Knightes, Burgeses, and such like offices, some of dignitie, and some of gayne, but that the officers, of these, or any other places, whether of dignitie, or gaine, be chosen by the mul­titude of those places, is vtterlie vntrue: for onely accordinge to their auncient customes, priviledges, and Charters, by the chiefe Citizens, Townsmen, and Bo­rough-maisters, are those officers cho­sen. The number also of which Electors in all places is not alike. In London the Aldermen, choose the Lord Mayor.

In other Cities and Townes, sometimes eight and fortie, sometimes fourteene, sometimes twelfe, sometimes only such as haue born office, as Mayors, Sherifes, or Baylifes in the same places, nominate and elect their new Mayor, Sherifes, and Baylifes. But that the Aldermen, princi­pall Townsmen, Boroughmaisters, and men having borne chief offices in those Cities, Townes, & Boroughes, haue easi­lie bene wrought by ambitious persons, to giue their consents vnto vnworthie men, though it haue pleased the Ll. Bb. [Page 229] (with seene and allowed) to haue spred and published this saying, yet that the same saying is wholy vnworthie, of anie credite to be giuen vnto it, or to bee re­garded of any wise and indifferent man, let the sober & peaceable elections made of the worthies of the lande hereafter mencioned, be witnesses; And to leaue to speake of the election of the Lord The officers in Cities & Townes corporate cho­sen without contentiō & ambitious working of vnworthy men. Mayor of the Citie of London, Sherifes, Aldermen, Wardens of companies, Chā ­berlaynes, Bridge-maisters, and other annuall officers, of honor and dignitie, let vs consider whether the Citizens of London haue bene wrought by ambiti­ous persons to choose Maister Wilbra­ham, Maister Onslie, M ^r Bromly, to bee their Recorders all three afterwarde the Queenes sollicitors, and Maister Bromly Lord Chancelour of Englande: and let vs consider whether the same Citizens, as men of affection, and want of [...]ight iudgement, did elect to be Recorders of the same Citie Mai. Serieant Fleetwood, Maister Serieant Fleming, Maister Serie­ant Drue, and now Maister Crooke, a mā wise, learned, and religious, & a Coūseler and Iusticer within the Principalitie of [Page 230] Wales. The Recorder of the Towne of Bedford, is the right honorable, the lord S ^t Iohns of Bletsoe. The Recorder of Bristoll was a long time Maister Pop­pam, now Lord chief Iustice of England. The Recorder of Northampton, before he came to be Iudge in the Kings bench, was Maister Serieant Yelverton, a favou­rer of the trueth, & an vpright Iusticer: The Recorder of Warwicke, was Maister Serieant Puckering, afterward Lord Kee­per of the great seale: And of the same Towne the Recorder now is, a worthie Knight, descended from a noble house, Sir Foulke Grevile: The Recorder of Covētrie, is Sir Iohn Harrington Knight, a man zealous for the true feare of God: The Recorder of Chichester, was Mai. Serieant Lewkner, now chief Iustice in the principalitie of Wales. The Recor­der of Norwich was Maister Cooke, the Kings Atturney generall. And who soe­uer shall enquire, after the names, & af­ter the maner of election of all the Re­corders, in all other Cities & Boroughes of the land, I doubt not but he shall find them all, to haue bene farre frō any least shew, of ambitious working, the Citie­zens, [Page 231] and Townsmen to nominate, and elect thē. Moreover, as these Noble per­sons, these sage, graue, learned, and chri­stian Gentlemen, quietlie, and in all pea­ceable manner, with vpright, and good affectiō and iudgement, & without am­bitiō, haue bene chosen by the Citizens, Townsmen, & Borough-masters, to the offices of Recordershippes. So likewise manie, & sundrie honorable Coūselors, Honorable Counselors chosen high stewardes, without ambitious working. haue bene, and as occasion is ministred, are daily elected by Citizens, & Towns­men to be their high Stewards. Sir Frā ­cis Knolles, an honorable Counsailour, & one, whose faith was famous among the churches, as well abroad, as at home, by the electiō of the Citizens of Oxford, remayned vntill he died, high Stewarde of the Citie of Oxford. The right hono­rable Sir Francis Walsingam, by the cō ­mon Counsayle of Ipswich, was made high Steward of the same Towne: after whose decease, the same cōmon coūsell, by their electiō, surrogated into the same place, the right honorable the L. Huns­don, late L. Chamberlaine: the right ho­norable Sir Christopher Hattō, L. Chan­celour of Englande, by the Townsmen [Page 232] of Cābridg: was chosen to be high stew­ard for the town of Cābridge. The right honorable the old Earle of Arundell; & after him the right honorable Earle of Lincolne; and after his death, the right honorable, the Lord High Admirall of England, now Earle of Notingham, by the Borough-maisters of the Towne of Gildforde, was elected to be high stew­ard of the Towne of Gildeford; Of all which honorable persons, and of all o­ther their Peeres, chosen in other places of the Kingdome, by the same meanes, to the like offices, there is great reason, & iust cause for the reverend Bb. to cary a more reverend estimation towards thē, then to burthen them as ambitious per­sons, to haue sought their places, at the hands of men affected, & wanting right iudgment. As for any other offices of credite, dignitie, charge, and gouerment in the common weale, now remayning in the choyse of the commons: it may easilie be proved, that the common peo­ple in sundrie places, haue bent, and op­posed thē selues, against ambitious per­sons, who by sinister, & indirect meanes, haue hunted for preferrement at their handes.

And what if it can not be gayne-said, but that some publicke officers chosen by publicke applause of the people, haue corruptly behaued themselues, in their charges, and haue not so equally, and indifferently distributed iustice, to all degrees, as it became them: yet this their misdemeanor can no more iustly be laid as a fault, nor any more disgrace, or discountenance the ancient and com­mendable forme, and manner of electi­on, then the hipocrisie, or counterfeyt zeale, of an euill man ordeyned by the Bishop to be a Minister, can be imputed vnto his letters of orders or manner of ordination. Besides if none bee able to proue, that the choyse of the Knights Knights of the Shires & other offi­cers chosen by the peo­ple without trouble to the state. of our Shires, Coroners of the Coun­ties, Verderers of the Kings forrests, re­sting in the free voices, and consents of the freeholders; that the nomination of the high Constables being in the dis­position of the Iustices of peace, at their quarter sessions; that the choyse of our peti-Conestables, third Boroughes, Ty­thing men, Church wardens, Wardens for the high wayes, overseers for the poore, side men & such like, remayning [Page 234] altogether in the free election of the su­tors to courts, leets and law dayes, and of the inhabitants, & Parishioners of every Village, Hamlet, or Tything, haue bene troublesome to the Lievetenants of the Shires, to the Stewards of our Courts, to the Lords of our liberties, nor to the Or­dinaries of the Diocesses: If (I say) there be not any one man able to bring foorth some few persons, for many yeres passed, by whom the Officers and Magistrates of the Queenes peace, haue bene sued vnto, and importuned, for the pacifica­tion of any strife, contention, or debate, of any busy head, or ambitious person, raysed among the people, about the choise of any one of these Officers; then (I say) it is meete, and it importeth the Lords Bishops very deepely, that for ever hereafter they bee silent, and never any more vtter so vile a slander, against so Noble a people, as are the people of England: viz. ‘that vpon affection, and want of right iudgment, they will easily be led by ambitious persons to preferre vnworthy persons vnto all Offices of gayne or dignitie. Or that this nation Pag. 8. of Englande, vpon light causes, is more [Page 235] enclined to broile, and trouble then any other.’

And to speake the trueth (as daily ex­perience teacheth vs) what feare of trou­ble No feare of trouble a­bout the choyse of an ecclesiastical Officer. is there likely any way to ensue by reason of dissentiō, & ambition among the people in the choyse of an ecclesia­sticall Officer, when most of the people, shall rather shune and eschew, then long or desire to beare any ecclesiasticall of­fice? The cōmon people among whom I dwell vse oftentimes many delayes, yea they procure what favour & friendship they can, not to be appointed, to any the inferiour offices before specified: And why do they so, but because those offices be full of bodily care, and trouble? And is there then any Christian, knowing, how the whole soule, minde, and spirite of a man is altogether to be imployed in the dischardge of a spirituall function, that will dissentiously and ambitiously seeke to be chosen an Elder?

The Admonitor telleth vs, that men Pag. 79. by experience know that many parishes vpon some private respect, do send their letters of earnest cōmendation for verie vnfit, and vnable persons, insinuating [Page 236] thereby what an inconvenience might follow, if Parishes had the whole dire­ction, and order to sound out, who were fit and able persons. But as this fancie was never yet by any of sound iudgment on our behalf, so much as once thought, much lesse insisted vpō: so may it please the reverend Bishops to bee advertized, that the meanest and simplest Parishio­ner, among a thousand, can quicklie re­tort this reason against their Lo. viz. that no parishes by letters of commen­dacion, can commend vnto any Bishop, any person, as an able and fit man, vnto any particuler parish or speciall charge: vnlesse the same, or some other Bishop haue formerly ordeyned him, and ap­proved him to bee a fit and able person for every place. And how then were it possible if the choyse of having one, to be their Pastor, were wholy in the hands of a parish, that the same parish could choose any worse men, any more igno­rant, and vnlearned men, then their Ll. haue cōmended vnto vs. For haue they not chosen, sent, & cōmended such vnto vs as know not a bee from a batle doore, as vneth knowe to read English, and as [Page 237] knowe not the Lordes prayer from the Articles of faith: Of which sort of Mi­nisters, Ministers sent vnto the people, which know not a b. frō a batle doore. the Parson of Haskam now li­ving a Chaplin in Winton-diocesse may be produced for a witnesse omni excepti­one maior. For thus much is to bee pro­ved from the report of a good and reli­gious Knight dwelling within that Dio­cesse, that vpon a time in the presence, & at the instant request of the said Knight, when a protestant Bishop of the same The person of Haskams aunswere to the Bishopp of Wincester Diocesse deceassed, had demanded of the new Parson of Haskam, which was the first Petition of the Lordes prayer, the saide Parson, after hee had a prety space paused and gased towardes heaven, at length made this answere, viz: I beleeve in God the Father Almightie, at which answere the Knight merelie smoyling, I told you my Lorde, quoth the Knight, what a profound Clerke your Lordship should find this fellowe. Well how vn­clerkly, and how vnprofoundly soever this Clercke then aunswered, and albeit at that present, he could not obteine the institution, which hee came for, to that benefice (for the good Bishop hated such grosse ignorance), yet this Clerke after­wardes, [Page 238] by the corruption of the same Bishops Chancelour, was instituted into the same benefice, and to this day pos­sesseth it quietly, though he can hardlie read Englishe to the vnderstanding of his people. I could haue enformed him also of many other such Clerkes re­siant and beneficed in that Diocesse: and namely of the Vicar of W: who vpon an holy day, in steed of preaching the Word Fables read in the church which hee could not, or in reading of Homilies w ^h he would not, (to terrifie his Parishioners with the iudgments of God, & to moue them vnto repentance) solemly reade and published a contre­faict fable out of a litle Pamphlet, intitu­led, Strange newes out of Calabria; pretē ­ded to be prognosticated by M. Iohn D [...] leta. Of these & of a nūber of such able & skilful Clerks & Chaplins; my Lords of the Clergie may be enformed. And therefore on the behoof, and in the de­fence If the people had choyse of their Pa­stors, they would pro­vide better then the Bi­shopps send them. of the cōmon people of England, I am to testifie and to protest vnto their Lordships, that by the mercifulnes and goodnes of our God, we are not yet be­come so ignorant, rude, & barbarous, as that wee would admit such maner of [Page 239] Clerkes & Chaplins, to haue the cure of our soules, in case, it laide in our power to chuse, and refuse out owne Pastours. No, no, our soules, and the soules of our wives, children and families should bee more deare, and more precious in our eyes, then that carelesly wee would ha­zard, all our birthrights, vpon the skill & habilitie of such a messe of hirelings, and idoll-sheapheards. And surelie me thinks it standeth greatlie with the cha­ritie of our Lorde Bishops to conceave the commons, to haue so much naturall vnderstanding, as not to choose a cob­bler, when they want a carpenter; nor to reteine a loyterer in lieu of a labourer; nor to hire a sleeper, in steed of a watch­man. But (alas) be it, that the poore cō ­mons of Englande, were thus wretched Though the cōmon peo­ple bee not able to dis­cerne of Pa­stours, yet the Nobles are able. and thus bewitched; yea be it, that they were thus desperate and besides them­selues: should therfore the Nobles and Peres of the Realme, be as prophane, as impious, and as heathenish as they? Are the great men also vnworthy, vnable, & vnfitt to discerne betweene night and day, betweene light and darkenes? Can they also put no difference betweene [Page 240] good and evill, betweene a blind guide, and him that hath his eye-sight? or haue they no better stomach, then to cast vpp Methridat, and to digest hemlocke? will they also chuse them Capteines from a­mong Corvysers? and will they call sheepheards from among swineheards? or will they take them Pastours from a­mong Pedlers? or will my Lords of the Clergie charge them to bee those ambi­tious persons, to worke the Commons, (for their private respect) to the choyse of vnworthie men? or will they (being them selues vnder his Maiestie, the wor­thies of the land) and chiefe guydes and leaders of men in peace & in warre vpon earth, chuse the scumme, the refuse, & the baggage of the lande, to guide their owne soules to hell? For to heaven by the labour and industrie of such idoll ministers (as whose lippes preserve no knowledge) they can never be brought. A great part of the cōmon people (saith he) are backwardlie affected towardes The com­mon people accused to bee back­wardly affe­cted to reli­gion. the trueth of Religion: from whiche backwardnes he draweth an argument against the allowance of the Pastors by the people. But (alas) is there any mer­veyle, [Page 241] that the common people (for the most part) be backwardlie affected? For how is it possible, that they should stepp The back­wardnes of the people proceedeth from the ba [...]kward­nesse of their guides. one foote forward, when eyther their guides stand still, or goe not at all, or at least runne fromward? or can the com­mon people become good schollers in the schoole of Christ, & learne to know the trueth of his religion, when their Maisters and Tutours (whom my Ll. of the Clergie haue begotten, provided, & thrust vpon them) be vnlearned and ir­religious dullardes? What? Can trueth spring from errour? or can light arise out of darknes? Doe men pluck, or pull corne, frō a dead stalke, or a full eare frō a dead roote? Can a Vintener draw wine out of an emptie casque? Or doth a Ba­ker powre meale out of a bottomlesse bagge? If then the common people be foolish and ignorant, if they doe erre, & be irreligious, they may iustlie challeng the Lords spirituall of vnkindnesse, and want of loue: not because they haue sent Embassadours vnto them as the Gibeo­nites sent vnto Iosua, with old sackes, & old botles, with old shoes and olde ray­ment; with provision of bread dried, and [Page 242] mouled: but because they haue sent thē such Embassadoures, as haue had no sackes, no bottles, no shoes, no rayment, yea and no maner of bread at all. All which notwithstanding, the Admonitor (by the backwardnes of the people) la­boureth Pag. 116. mightilie to acquite the Lord Bb. laying to the peoples charge, that this fault hath not happened for wante of teaching by the Ministers, but for want of profiting by the people. The scripture (sayth he) in no place teacheth vs, that the offences and faultes of the Ministers, are alwayes the onely cause, why the worde of God doeth not take place in mens hearts. It is commonlie, and almost alwayes imputed to the way­wardnes, vnthankfulnes, and obstinacie of the people that heare it. But (alas) who euer fancied that the faultes of the Ministers of God, were the onely cause, why the word of God, preached by thē, did not enter into the heartes of men? Where the Minister sincerelie preacheth the Word of God, if there the people doe not worthily embrace the same, the peo­ple are onlie in blame and not the Mini­ster, no, though hee may haue manie [Page 243] faultes: for when they teach the trueth, the people are bound to doe as they say, Mat. 23. 2. 3 and not to doe as they doe, because they saye and doe not. But the cōplaint that hath bene, & is still made, is this: name­lie, that the people generally in most pla­ces of the Lande, and for the most part, haue no seed at all sowen, for want of husbādmen; that the people can not be hearvested, for lacke of labourers; that the people could bring foorth no fruit, because they were not ered & plowed; & that the people could not heare. What? for want of their own eares? no, but for want of the Priests lippes, which should haue preserved and taught knowledge. and therefore this general backwardnes and vnfruitfulnes of the people in reli­gion, must still light vpon such as haue bene the occasion that there haue bin so few drivers to hayte them on, and to whistle them forward. No? why this Realm of England (as saith the Admo.) never had so many learned men, nor of Pag. 140. so excellent gifts, in delivering the word of God; it is the greatest ornament, that ever this Church had; for my part (saith he) surely I do reverence, and merveile [Page 244] at the singuler gifts of God, that I see in many. And doe my Lordes of the Cler­gie merveyle in deed of so great a num­ber Men of ex­cellent gifts and men of no gifts, are vnequallie marched in the ministe­rie of the Gospell. of excellent men, and of so singular gifts in them? And should not then also the people merveyle beyond merveyle, that some of the Lordes spirituall, for small matters, & of so litle importance, should put to silence, many of the chie­fest of many excellent and learned men? Nay may not the people bee astonished at the litle loue of some of the Bishops, when as vpon displeasure conceaved against many excellent & learned men, their Lordshippes suffer, the people to sterue, and famish for want of food, ra­ther then those learned and excellent men should break vnto them, the bread of life? But bee it graunted that many excellent mens mouthes be not yet stop­ped, or if they haue bene stopped, they are nowe opened againe; what is this to that, that they haue no moe learned mē, The vse of an hire­ling. or that, they haue any hirelings at all? For to what vse serveth an hireling, but first to robbe, to spoile, and to kill, & af­terwards to trust to his heeles, to trudge, and to runne away? As for that, that [Page 245] many learned and excellent men, in ma­nie places of the lande doe still feede the The nom­ber of excel­lent Mini­sters in the ministerie, is small, in cō ­parison of vnlearned Ministers. people, they may be saide (in respect of the people vn [...]ed) to be an hand-full, to an house-full or as an inch to an elle. Besides how are the people fed in many places by some of these many learned men? is not one of them allotted (by a licence in a box) to breake bread vnto twentie or fourty thousande people? What? by them selues in one place sit­ting round and close together? Nay but in a 1000. and moe Parishes distant farre and wide a sunder, and that at sundrie times, one time long after an other: and what a strange and new kind of feeding call ye that? Is it not as if a victualler, should provide one meales meate for a companie at Lōdon, and another meales meate for a companie at Lincolne, and another meales meate for a companie at Exceter, and another meales meate for a companie at Bristoll, to feed his guestes vntill he had ridden from coast to coast The maner of dyet set before the people, by such Mini­sters as wan­der frō place to place. to provide new viand? And yet this is the common maner of Diet, and the cō ­mon maner of food prepared and sett before the soules of the people. For ma­nie [Page 246] of these learned Preachers, galloppe from place to place, and trott from Pa­rish to Parish, and giue vnto the people at one time bread, half baked, at another time, beere half brued; sometimes either meat twise sodden, or halfe rawe; and many times drink, both dead, sower, & wallowish. And how then is it possible, that the soules of the people shuld pro­sper, wax strong, and be pliable in going forward in the trueth of Religion, they being so thinlie dieted, and enterteigned with so small cost. But to let these gallo­pers passe, wee will conclude this point: and thus we saye, that the backwardnes of the people in the trueth of religion (how backward so ever they be, & how soever the same backwardnes may hap­pen) cā be no good plea in barre to take from the people of God, their right, in­terest, and freedome, from the allowance and approbation of their Pastour. As for that vaine and ridiculous gibe, whether Answere to the abstract. all (hand over head) men & boyes, woe­men and girles, yong and old, &c. should giue their consentes, to this fonde gibe, I aunswere, that there is no such vanitie of vanities intended. For when we saye, [Page 247] that the people of every Parish, ought to chuse and elect their Pastour, wee meane not that the electiō should soly be com­mitted to the multitude, but we intende onely that the chief Fathers, Ancientes, and Governours of the Parishe in the name of the whole should approove the choyse made by the holy Ministerie: wherein we follow the example of the auncient people of God, whose affayres were committed to the chief Fathers sit­ting in the gate.

Where the Admonitour hath preten­ded Pag. 80. that it is impossible to bee brought to passe, which (as he saith) is most of all pretended for the common maner of election, that the people may know their The people may know a man to be a fit minister though hee bee not brought vp among them. Minister, and thereby haue the better liking of him, vnlesse every Parish shall haue within it selfe, a Schoole or Col­lege, where those should be brought vp that shalbe preferred to the ministerie amongst them: This (I say) is an other vanitie of vanities, & a vexation of spirit without all meane or measure, yea it is an asseveration void of all sence and so­bernes. For is it not possible for a Lorde Bishop, to know the equities, condition, [Page 248] and behaviour of a mā fit to be reteined for his Secretarie or Gentleman-vsher, vnlesse the same party be brought vp, in some Schoole or College within his owne house? Or is it impossible for his Lordship to knowe the education, life, learning, gifts of vtterance, and aptnesse to teach, of a man, & so to haue the bet­ter liking of him, to make him a Mini­ster, vnlesse within his Parish, there be a Schoole or Colledge, wherin such as are to be preferred, to the ministerie bee brought vp? If then without having any Schoole or Colledge, within his owne house, or within his owne Parish, for the bringing vp, of such as are received, by a Lord Bishop either to his private ser­vice, or to the publique ministerie; his Lordship may know, & so haue the bet­ter liking of them, whom he would pre­ferre. How then followeth it, to be im­possible, that the people should know their Minister, and so haue the better li­king of him, vnlesse every Parish had in it self a Schoole or College, where those should be brought vp that should bee preferred to the Ministery amōgst them? What? is one toung, of one man alone [Page 249] able to enquire and learne the maners of many men to be ordeined and placed Ministers in many places, and are many tongues, of many men not able to en­quire and learne the cōversation of one man to be placed in one place? or haue the eyes & eares of one man, sight quick inough, and hearing good inough, to heare & to see into the educatiō & life of all the Ministers, within all the parishes of one whole diocesse? & are all the eares and eyes of many men, deaf and dimme to heare and to [...], into the life and edu­cation, of one Minister, in one Parish? If the Parish of Maries in Cambrige, or the Parish of All-hollowes in Oxford, were destitute of an able, and preaching Mi­nister, might not the people of the first know Maister Doctor Overall, & haue the better liking of him; and might not the people of the second, know Maister Doctor Reynolds, and haue the better liking of him to be their Pastor, vnlesse Corpus Christi College in Oxford stood in All-hollowes Parish, or Katherin Herle in Cambrige stand in Maries Pa­rish? or did the Deane and Chapiter, the Clerkes and people of Lincolne and [Page 250] Wincester, therefore know H. C. and thereby had they the better liking of him to choose him first Bishop of Lin­colne, and secondly Bishop of Wincester, because hee was brought vp in some Schoole or College in any of the Pari­shes of Lincolne and Wincester? I trow, him selfe, if he were now liuing, would not so affirme: and what then should eale the Gentlemen of the Temple, or the people of the Parish of Bow in Lon­don, that they may not know, & thereby haue the better liking of M. Travers, & M. Barber to be their Ministers, albeit neither of the twaine, were brought vp in any Schoole or College, in, or about the Temple, or Parish of Bowe? For who knoweth not, that there be meanes inough, & inough to know a mā with­in and without, and to haue a good opi­nion & liking of him, though the same man be not brought vp in any Schoole or College amongst them? Wherefore his argument of (cannot possibly bee brought to passe) may passe, and repasse as the only streame of an humorous pas­sion. Neither may the people in this The people would not doe, as the Ordinaries vse to doe, first choose Ministers & thē set them to schole. case doe as the Ordinaries vse to doe. [Page 251] For the Ordinaries first ordeyne Mini­sters; secondlie, they set them to schole, and giue them their tasques, that by their Archdeacons they may know, how they profit; and lastlie they haue the bet­ter liking of them because they be brā ­ded with their owne stampe. But the people (I say) may not, ne yet would they, thus vngainly sett the cart, before the horse. But they would vse all good and circumspect care and diligence, firste to know them, secondly vpon iust and e­qual cause, to like them, and lastly, vpon their liking, to allow and approve them. For how should a man allow any thing, before he like it, or how should hee like it before he know it, or how should hee know it, before he had seene, heard, or enquired after it? And heerevpon also his two asseveratiōs next ensuing, fall to Pag. [...]0. If the people were admit­ted, to the election of their Mini­ster they should bee better ac­quainted w ^t him, then now they be the ground. For albeit he affirme, that if this maner of election were admitted, the people (neverthelesse) should haue as litle acquaintāce with their Ministers as now they haue: albeit (I say) he thus thought, yet neverthelesse his (ipse opi­natus sum) I am of opinion, is no (ipse dixit) vnto me. No, I averre and holde [Page 252] the contrarie to be true, and therfore his opinion (in this case) to be erroneous. For this can not be denied, that there is not any one man, or woman amongest fortie, in any one Parish amongst fortie, that can tell, that ever he, or shee, did see, or heare, of the Minister appointed, and sent by the ordinarie, to be Pa [...]son or Vi­car of the Parish Church vacant, before such time, as he did heare, or see, the Pa­rish Clerke to trudge with the Church­dore keyes, to let in the Sextin, to ring the bell, for the saide Parson, or Vicars induction, and reall possession.

And if the people of every Parish had their consents in the choyse and appro­bation of their Minister, were it possible to haue lesse acquaintāce with him then this? For we avow that the people ought not to giue their consents vnto any Pa­stour, before they haue seene him, before they haue heard him devide the worde, before they haue procured a good testi­monie of his gifts, from those who by the worde haue interest to approove him; and lastly before they haue gotten sufficient notice of his condition, estate, conversation, birth, education and life. [Page 253] Wherefore these thinges being carefully and diligently searched into, not by one, but by many; not for a fee, but of duty; not for reward, but for conscience; not for one day, but for many dayes; I trust it will not still bee holden for an oracle, that the people should haue as litle ac­quaintance with their Ministers as now they haue.

As for the seconde point, that farre No partiall suits cā fol­low the ele­ction of Mi­nisters by the people. greater occasions of partiall suits should follow this manner of common electiō, whereof we speake, then nowe there is: this is also (I say) not true; nay that farre l [...]sse occasion of partiall suites, should follow, then now there is, this (I saye) is true. For by this meanes all partiall suites now happening, may eyther bee extinguished, or with lesse charges, pur­sued, then now they be. For there can bee no suites, much lesse can there bee anie partiall suites, when neither Plain­tif, nor defendant may be foūd, & where also there can lie no writ, nor any acti­on be commenced. For who be the par­ties betweene whom these partiall suites should arise? Be there many Ministers, who for one place, and at one time, are [Page 254] found meete for the same? And do they sue and contende one against another, which of them should possesse the place? or should these so many partiall suites, consist betweene the inhabitants of one Parish; one part leaning to one side, and another part cleaving to the other side? Touching the Ministers, we affirme that none may or ought to sue or sollicit any mans voyce, directly or indirectly, much lesse to labour for a place of Ministerie. And therefore, we desire by an irrevoca­ble law (according to the manner of the Medes and Persians) to haue it enacted, That as well every procurer, and labou­rer for a voyce, as also every suitor, and sollicitor for a place of Ministerie, bee adiudged ipso facto, incapable for ever of the same place. For the second, tou­ching partiall suits to arise betwene the No occasion of partiall suits about election, be­tweene pa­rishioners. Parishioners, about the election of their Pastour, these suits, for ought I yet con­ceaue, (wherein I graunt I may erre and conceave too litle) may easelier bee dis­patched, then bee once begunne. Pari­shioners ordinarily in the Countrie, sue not, ne molest one the other for plea­sure, but for profit; they are not so la­vish [Page 255] of their purses, nor so carelesse of their thrifts, as to iangle in vaine, when before hand, they know there is no hope of gayne. And in deed what advantage, or what pleasure should Ancientes divi­ded against Ancientes, and chief men di­stracted against chief men in a Parish, a­bout the election of a Minister, reape by such a division, and distraction? Besides, by our daylie experience, wee haue lear­ned, that verie rarely, or not at all about elections, made by the people of any of­ficers, eyther in the Countrie or in Ci­ties and Townes, anie variance or parti­all suites haue bene stirred, betweene the Electors. For though some times per­happes they varie in their iudgementes one from another, yet rest they more wise & provident, then to empaire their owne estate, to advance an other mans reputation. And if in former times there hath no occasiō of partial suits (touching publike Officers in the common weale) No partiall suites can be among pa­rishioners, when one only is pro­pounded to bee chosen by them. fallen out betwene the people, when out of a multitude they haue chosen one: much lesse can there be any occasion of partiall suits, if onlie there remaine but one, to be chosen to be a Church-Offi­cer. [Page 256] For if all the ancients agree to chuse that one, then is all the suite (about him) ended: and if the greater part disagree, yet this their disagreement can bee no occasion to breed and nourish suite and contention. And why? first because no other cause by the greater part ought to bee alleaged, to withdraw their consent, but only such a cause as the law should precisely allowe, in the same case, to be a iust cause: Secondly because this iust cause before the day of election, ought to be made known vnto the Magistrate, and by him to bee approved; so that if the greater parte vpon the day of ele­ction shall dissent, not having before hande, alleaged, and provided a iust cause of their dislike, the voyces of the lesser part (as being supposed the better part) shall prevaile, confirme and make good the election. Oh! heere is much (saide my Lordes) spoken of a choise, & election to be made by the Ministers & people, by proofes to be made before the Magistrate, but here is not any one word spoken, or any mention made of the Patrone, of the Bishop, or of the Arch­deacon; of presentation, institution, or [Page 257] induction. And what an alteration, and innovation would that bee, and what a dangerous attempt were it, to alter lawes setled; and that Patrones should be cur­bed, and that Bishops and Archdeacons should not medle in these businesses any more? Well then to wipe away as much as in me lyeth, this cavillous reproch, & obloquie from the servants of God, who are chalenged to bee newfangled, gid­die-headed, & fanaticall spirites, strange innovators, and desirers of perilous alte­rations: to wipe away (I say) this slaun­der, If it may please the King, with his The forme of Church policie now in practise by the Bi­shops, & the platforme of Church po­licie. desired to bee plan­ted by Pa­stours, com­pared toge­ther. Princely wisdome to conferre, the forme of pollicie now in vse, and practise, tou­ching ordinations, presentations, insti­tutions, and inductions, by Bb. Patrones & Archdeacons, with the maner of that platforme of Discipline (cōcerning the substance of these things) which is pro­pounded. And if the Propounders pre­ferre but the commaundement of God, before the traditions of men; but the Kings Crowne, before the Bishops My­ters; but a feast of fat things, yea of fatt things full of marrow, before leane spits and emptie platters; but a feast of wines, [Page 258] yea of wines fined and purified, before sower & vntoothsome whey: I hope his Maiestie will gratiouslie vouchsafe so to protect the propoūders (being his faith­full, loving and obedient subiectes) as that hereafter they shall not be charged with any moe so vniust and scandalous imputations.

The practise and pollicie then nowe in vse, is after this and this manner: The Bishoppe oftentimes at his pleasure, (be­side the lawe, nay rather against the ex­presse letter of the law, and publike Ca­nons of the Church) not onely ordey­neth Ministers alone, without assistantes of such number of Ministers, as is requi­red; but he also ordeyneth them (for the most part) when there is no place of mi­nistration Inconveni­ences of Bi­shoplie or­dination are these, peste­ring of the churches w ^t vnlearned Ministers. Vnlawfull gaine for letters of orders the breach of many good lawes. voyde. Now the budds, which (to the grief of many godly men, and to the obloquie of the Professors of the go­spell) haue sprong from this manner of ordination, haue bene these, viz: The publique breach of many good lawes; the pestering of the Church with multi­tudes of vnable Ministers, togither with much vnlawfull gaine (by immeasura­ble exaction of money) for letters of or­ders. [Page 259] For it can not bee denied, but the Bishopes Secretarie, Gentl.-vsher, grome of his chamber, Butler, Pantler, Porter, and other the Bb. menialls, (besides his owne & his Registers fees, & his Clerke for expedition) doe vsuallie (all, or most of them) chalenge & receyue fees, (some more, some lesse) before the poore Mini­ster with his box of orders can be suffe­red to passe by the Porters lodge: these are the fruites of the Bb. sole ordination. The suites which haue growen & daylie doe growe, by the Patrones presentation Suites be­twene the Patrone & the Bishop. to the Bb. haue bin and are these, Some­time contention & suite in law, betwene the Patron and Bishopp, for disallowing the Patrones Clerke, for non abilitie, or as being criminous. Sometime, if two Patrones pretend right of patronage, if one of their Clerkes be instituted, & the other reiected (as necessarilie it must Suites be­twene Clerk and Clerke. come to passe, for one wyfe can haue but one husbande) then followeth suite at lawe, betweene the Clerke refused, and the Clerke admitted, wherein also the B. is made a partie by a writ of quare impe­dit: Suites be­twene the Bishop and the Clerke. sometime suite falleth out betweene the Clerke presented, and the Bb. when [Page 260] the Clerke calleth the Bb. (by a double quarrel) before the Archb. for not graū ­ting institution: and sometime also like­wise debate is moved, & law attempted, betweene the Clerke instituted, and the Suites be­twene the Clerke and Archdeacon Archdeacon, who (knowing the church not to be vacant) refuseth to execute the Bb. inductorie mandat. For many times vpon pretence that the Church standeth voyd (being in deed ful) the Patron, vpō suggestion graunteth a presentation, and the Bb. also institution; whiche if the Archdeacon refuse to execute, then (be­sides the discord betweene the Bb. & the Archdeacon, for cōtempt of the Bishops mandat) he, who pretendeth title by va­cancie, Suites be­twene the Bishop and the Arch­deacon. thinking to haue right, though a reall incombent be in possession, brin­geth their two titles to be tried in the ec­clesiasticall Court: but before the mat­ter cā be finallie sentēced by that Court; many foule riotts, breaches of the Kings peace, & vnlawfull assemblies, vpon en­tries Riots and breaches of the Kinges Peace. and keeping possessions doe ensue: as was wel inough latelie knowen in the case betweene Rogers, and Baker, for the title to the Parsonage of Barby in the Countie of Northampton.

Howbeit, let it bee supposed that none of these variances in law fal out betwene the Bb. and the Patron, betwene the Bb. and the Clerke, betweene the B. and the Archd. betwene the Clerk & the Archd. and betweene Clerke & Clerke: the ex­action (notwithstandinge) of vnlawfull gaine, for fees of letters of institution, & fees vsuallie payable to the Bb. his Offi­cers, as aforesaid; for fees of the Archd. induction; his Register; his Clerk, & his Apparators fees: the vnconscionable ex­actiō Vnlawfull fees for let­ters of insti­tution, &c. (I saye) of these vnreasonable fees, may seeme to be a conscionable motiue, to cause better things thē these, without daunger, to be attempted, & innovated. And yet these are uot all the bad eventes that happen, and fall out vpon the pre­sentation, institution, and inductiō now vsed. But by the interest wherby the Bb. challengeth to be custos Ecclesiarum, there happen as badd, if not worse then these. For there is no sooner a Church voyd, but a post is sent in all haste, with Vnlawfull fees for let­ters of se­questration. letters of sequestration, to sequester the fruites, to the vse of the next incumbent. Which next incūbent, for the great care taken to preserve the fruites to his vse, [Page 262] (before he can obteyne to be put in reall possession) must pay x. shill. or a marke, or more, for those letters of sequestrati­on, with as much more also for letters (so called) of relaxation; besides ij. pēce, iij. pen. or iiij. pēce a mile for portage to the Somner. And from hence is the Pa­trone (as I take it) verie much iniuried. For he being (as it appeareth) by the sta­tut of 25. of King. E. 3. Lord & Avower of the benefice, ought to haue the custo­die and possession thereof during the va­cancie. Besides many times wilfull per­iuries are committed by the Clerke, and Periurie by the Clerke, and robbe­rie by the Patrone. manie times sacrilegious robberies are perpetrated by the Patrone. The Clerke (when he sweareth that neither directly, nor indirectly, any compact, promise, bande, or agreement hath bin made or passed by him, for him, or in his name to the Patron); many times for sweareth him selfe. And if the Clerke be presen­ted to a Vicarage, then the Bishop (if hee Every Vicar sweareth or ought to sweare to be resident. be faithfull to the law) sweareth him to bee resident vppon the same Church: Which oath (notwithstanding) is after­wards broken; when as the same Vicar, accepting an other benefice (and retai­ning [Page 263] withall the former by purchase of a dispensation) betaketh him selfe to be resident vpon his second benefice, and so by nonresidence from his first Vica­rage, committeth periurie. Touching the Patrons robbery, thus it is, and thus Patrones robberie. many times hath it fallen out. The Pa­tron, when (at the handes of two, three, or moe such periured Clerkes) he hath (time out of minde) possessed, the man­sion house, or gleebe-lande of the Par­sonage; finally (in time) spoiled the Church both of the house, and glebe-lande: the glebe-land being often inter­mingled with his own inclosed groūds, he possesseth thē as his own inheritance; and in steed of the Parsonage house, ey­ther he buildeth an other new, or ells hi­reth some cottage or farm-house for the Parson and his successors to inhabite in. These abuses (we see) are many, and yet besides these cōtinuing at this day in the goverment established, there remayneth Chopping of benefices despensati­ons, &c. others, as foule, & as grosse as any of the rest: which is the too too inordinate, and licentious chopping and chaunging of churches from Minister to Minister; for dispensations, cōmend [...]mes, perinde va­res, [Page 264] pluralities, & non residencies: wher­in not the people to be taught, but their owne backes and bellies to bee clothed and fedde, is wholy respected. Now thē that this manner of goverment, wher­in the afore specified, and the like discō ­modities daylie fall out, vnder colour of not diminishing the Kings prerogatiue, of not altering lawes setled, of not at­tempting dangerous innovations, & of the preserving of the right of Patrones, Bb. and Archd. should still be continued without any mention or remembrance to be once had, of their discontinuance, especiallie in the time of peace, & vnder a Christian Magistrate, and in a state (as he sayeth) reformed; wee humbly leaue to the wise, and mature deliberation of our most Christian King, and State in Parleament. And we most humbly be­seech the King & State, that indifferent­lie, freelie, and largelie, it may be argued, Supplicatiō to the Kinge and State in Parleament. heard, and examined; whether it be pos­sible, that the tenth parte of these, or anie other the like disorders, corruptions, & grievances, can possibly fall out in the church, by that platforme of Discipline, which is required to be planted. And to [Page 265] the end that the Kings Maiestie, and the State, might rightlie and perfectlie, bee Petition, or­dinatiō, &c. of Ministers or Pastours, howe the same may be made with­out Bb. or Archdeacōs, not disagree able to di­vers lawes alreadie set­led. informed and resolved of those pointes, whereof we now speake, viz: of the pe­tition, ordination, election, presentation and admittance of every Parochiall Pa­stour, to any church with cure of soules; how the same may stand, and not be dis­agreeable to diuers lawes alreadie setled, and in force; it is requisite that the sub­stance of these thinges, in this place bee intreated of. wherein against the base office, & meane person of the Archdea­con, we oppose the Royall office, & most excellent person of the King: against the immoderate office, and stately person of one lordly Bishop; we oppose the meeke and tēperate cariage of a Senat, or Pres­byterie, of many wise, learned, and grave Ministers, togither with a Reverend as­semblie of the Ancientes, and chiefe Fa­thers of every Church destitute of a Pa­stour. As for the Patrones right, wee are so far from diminishing any iotte of the true right which by laws setled he ought to haue, as that he shall quietlie possesse his interest, and that with lesse trouble and expence, yea and with greater pri­viledge [Page 266] then he did before. Thus there­fore touching the office and person of the King, the duetie of the Presbiterie & people, the right of the Patron, and the person of the Minister to bee ordeyned, thus and thus we saye, and thus and thus (as we think) may our sayings well stand with lawes setled.

By an Act primo Eliz. c. 1. the King hath ful power and authoritie, by letters patētes vnder the great seale of England, when, and as often as need shall require, as he shall thinke meete and cōvenient, and for such and so long time as shall please his H. to assigne, name, & autho­rize, such person, or persons, beeing na­turall born subiectes, as his Maiestie shal thinke meete, to exercise, vse, occupie, & exequut, vnder his H. all manner of iu­risdictions, privileges, and preheminen­ces, in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall, or ecclesiasticall iurisdi­ction, within this Realme of Englande. Agayne, by the booke of ordeyning Bi­shoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, it is pre­scribed, that the Bishoppe with their The Bb. & Priests must lay on their hands. Priestes, shall laye their handes severally vpon the heads of everie one that recea­veth [Page 267] Orders; that every one to be made a Minister, must be of vertuous conver­sation, and without crime, sufficientlie instructed in the holy Scriptures; a man meete to exercise his ministerie duelie; that he must be called, tried, and exami­ned; that he must bee presented by the Archd. and be made openly in the face of the Church, with prayer to God, and exhortation to the people. And in a sta­tute made 21. of King H. 8 it is affir­med, That a Bishoppe must haue sixe The Bishops must vse six Chapleines at giuing of orders. Chapleines, at giving of orders. Besides, by an ancient and lowable custome, the Parishes and Parish Churches, within every Archdeaconrie, remayne vnto this daye, distributed into certaine Deanries; Every Arch­deacon de­vided into Deanries. amōg the Ministers of which Deanries, the Parson or Vicar of the auncientest Church, commonly called the Mother Church of the Deanrie, (vnles by con­sent some other be chosen by the Mini­sters them selues) hath the first place, and is the chief director, and moderator of whatsoever things are propounded in their Synodall meeting; which Minister also is called Archipresbiter or Decanus curalis, according to the appellation of [Page 268] the chief Minister, of the mother, or chiefe church of that Diocesse, who is called Archipresbiter or Decanus cathe­darlis: so that vnto this day these Mini­sters meeting at the Archdeacōs visitati­ons once in a yeare at the least, there re­mayneth in the Church of England, a certaine image or shadowe of the true, ancient, & Apostolicall conferences, and meetings. Wherefore from these lawes, & from this ancient maner of the mee­tinges of Ministers, and of having one principal and chief moderator amongst them; according to the Apostolicall practise, and vsage of the primatiue church, thus alreadie setled in the church of England, wee humbly leave it to bee considered by the Kings Maiestie.

First, whether it were not meete and convenient for his Highnes by his let­ters patentes vnder the great Seale of A Minister to be ordei­ned by the Bishops, and a companie of Ministers at the Kings commande­ment. England, to assigne, name, & authorize, the Bishops & six or moe Ministers with­in everie Deanerie continually resiant vpon their benefices, and diligentlie teaching in their charge, to vse and exe­cute all maner of iurisdiction, privilege, and preheminence, concerning any spi­rituall [Page 269] ordination, election, or instituti­on of Ministers to bee placed in the Pa­rochiall Churches, or other places with cure of soules, within.

Secondlie, when any Parish Church or other place with cure of soules shalbe voide, whether it were not meete & con­venient, that the auncientes and chiefe Fathers of that place, within a time to be limited for that purpose, should inti­mate the same vacancie vnto the office Vacancie of a benefice to be intimated to the kings office. of the Kings civill Officer appointed for that Shire or Diocesse: to the end the same Officer by authoritie frō the King, might command in the Kings name, the Bishop and other Ministers, to elect, and ordeine, and the people of the same place to approve & allow of some able and godlie person, to succ [...]ede in the Church.

Thirdly, the Patrone, (if the same be A lay pa­trone, insteed of va­rying his Clerck may present, two Clerkes at one time. a common and laie person having now libertie to vary his Clerk, if he be found vnable) whether it were not meete and convenient, (to avoid all maner of vary­ing) that, within the time prefixed, hee should nominate at one time two Clerks to bee taken out of the Vniversities or [Page 270] other Schooles, and Nurseries or of the Prophets, & that the same nomination be made vnto the Bishop and the said six Ministers, to the ende that both the Clerkes being tried and examined by them, the abler of the twoo might bee preferred to that charge. And of this maner of presenting two Clerkes by the Patrone, we haue a president not much vnlike, in the statute for nomination of Suffraganes. By which act every Arch­bishop and Bishop, desiring to haue a Suffragane, hath libertie to name, and present vnto the Kinge two honest and discrete spirituall persons, &c. that the King may giue to one such of the saide two spirituall persons, as shall please his Maiestie, the tytle, name, stile and digni­tie of a Suffragane.

Fourthly, the Bb. and Presbiters ha­uing thus, vpon triall and examination, A minister found able for gifts, is to be sent to the parish, y ^t his life may be examined and to haue the cōsent of the people. founde one of the Patrones Clercks, to be a fitt and able man, to take vpon him the execution of the ministery in that Church; whether it were not then meet & convenient, that by them hee should forthwith bee sent to the same Church, aswell to acquaint the people with their [Page 271] iudgement and approbation, of his gifts and abilitie to teach, as also that, for a time, he should cōuerse & abide amōgst them, to the end his life, manners, and behauiour, might bee seene into, & en­quired after, by their careful indeuours?

Fiftlie, (the people within a time to be perfixed, not making and prouing before the Magistrate, any iust exception against his life, manners and conversa­tions), whether it were not then meete, and conuenient, that the Bishop with six other Ministers or moe of the same Deanrie, authorized by the Kinge, as a­foresaid, A man al­lowed for giftes and cōuersation, is to bee or­deined, with prayer fa­sting & lay­ing on of hands. vnder some payne, and within a certaine time, should be bound (in the presence of the Elders and people, and in the same Church, with fasting, pray­er, and laying on of handes) to ordeyne and dedicate him to the Ministerie, and Pastorall charge of that Church.

Lastly, these thinges being thus fini­shed, whether it were not then meete & A Minister, to be indu­cted, into the Church, by the Kinges writt. convenient that the Bishoppes with the other Ministers, and some of the chief of the people, should giue the partie ordey­ned, a testimoniall vnder their handes, or vnder some authenticall seale, to cer­tifie [Page 272] the Kings officer of the execution of his writt; and that the Patron also should present the same person to the Kings officer, humbly praying the same officer, by authoritie to be derived from the King, to cause him by some other writt, to bee confirmed, and really in­ducted, into the possession of the same Church, and into the mansion-house, glebe-land, and other profites Ecclesia­sticall to the same apperteyning.

Oh! but this were a strange kinde of innovation, and a dangerous attempt to To execute the premises no daunge­rous attēpt. alter lawes setled, especiallie in a setled estate of the Church. Well, well, let my Lordes of the Clergie sing this song, and pipe this melodie at their pleasure. How be it for asmuch as this platforme, in some parte thereof hath alreadie bene agreed vpon by divers Committees in Parleament; in other some part thereof, by lawes alreadie setled, ought to haue bin practised; and that in other some part thereof is an advancement of the Kings authoritie, which last part also is lively pourtraicted out vnto vs, by presi­dents from the Archbishop, and Bishop them selues, we shall through the grace [Page 273] of God, and favour of the King, be able well inough, quite and cleane to wipe away all the spots of this calumniation. And first, touching the intimation, and supplication to be made vnto the King, Petition and intimatiō to the King, a­greable to laws setled. that his H. would be pleased to cōmand every Minister to be presented by the pa­trone, ordeyned by the Bb. & Ministers, and elected by the people; and that the King, being certified by them of the exe­cution of his writt, should vpon their te­stimoniall, by another publike writt, cause the Clerke ordeyned, to be confir­med, admitted, and inducted to the real possession of the temporalities of the be­nefice; This manner (I say) of intimati­on, petition, testimoniall, & admittance, in substance and effect, differeth but lit­tle from the forme of the petition, no­mination, 25. H. 8. c. election, investiture, confir­mation, and consecration of the Arch-Bb. and Bb. of this Realme. For when soever the Church of Canterburie, Win­ton, or other Bishoppes sea becommeth destitute of a Pastor, doth not the Deane and Chapiter of the same sea, intimate vnto the King their want of a B. & doth not the same Dean and Chapiter, hum­bly [Page 274] supplicate his Maiesties favour and licence, to elect an other? And doth not the King vpon their supplicatiō, by let­ters patents vnder his great Seale, favou­rably grant their petition; willing them, vt talem eligant in Episcopum & Pasto­rem, qui Deo devotus, & Ecclesiae suae ne­cessarius, nobis (que) & regno nostro vtilis & fidelis existat? And with the same let­ters patentes, doth not the King sende a letter missiue, conteyning the name and commendation of the person to bee ele­cted? After the election finished, doth not the Deane and Chapiter intimat the same also vnto the King, and humbly a­gayne pray the King, to yeeld his Royall assent to the lord elected? Wherevppon doth not the King againe direct his let­ters patentes of warrant to the Archb. or some other whō the King shall appoint, to performe all things, whiche accusto­mably are to bee done, apperteyning to his confirmation, and consecration, ac­cording to the lawes and statutes of his Realme of England? Lastly, the conse­cration and cōfirmation being finished, and the Bb. hauing done his homage, & sworne fealtie, is not the Kings writt out [Page 275] of the Chancery directed to the Eschea­tor, to restore vnto him, the temporali­ties of the same Bishopricke? Yea and may not the Bishoppe also, if it please him, procure another writt out of the Chancery directed to his tenantes, com­maunding them to atturne, and to take him for their Lord?

Now thē in this platform wherof men­tiō hath bin made touching the placing of a parochiall Pastour (any parochiall church with cure of soules being voyd) when it is craved that the people of the same parish, might intimate their want vnto the Kings officer, and that the same officer might command the Patron to present, the Ministers to ordeyn, and the people, according to the Kings lawes, to assent vnto, and approve the Clerk; what other intent or meaning haue wee, then that the King hath as ample, and as law­full The Kinge hath as large a power to command a Minister to be elected & ordeined, as a Bishop, to be chosen & consecrated. a power to commaund a Minister to be presented, ordeyned, & elected, to be a Pastour in a parochiall Church, as hee hath to cōmaund a Bishop to be elected, confirmed, and cōsecrated to an Episco­pall sea? And are we not then mervey­louslie giddi-headded, new-fangled, and [Page 276] strange innovators? Againe, when wee desire, that the King at the humble suite of the Ministers, the Patron and the peo­ple, would be pleased, to confirme and admitt the Patrones Clerke, in, & to the temporalities of a benefice, what other thing is required, but that the possession of no church should be delivered vnto any Minister without the Kings publike writt. And would not this breed a peri­lous sturr, garboyle, discord, and con­tention, when the Archdeacons pretie signet, as Dagon falling downe before the Arck, should giue place, bow down, and do reverence vnto the Kings of En­gland seale at armes.

Oh! but in this platforme, there be o­ther dangerous innovations and altera­tions, not to be attēpted: Yea? And what then be they? The Admonitor him self, The Pro­phets ought to bee tried by the Pro­phetes. in his admonition holdeth: Yea Mai. Bilson, and all other supporters of the Hyerarchie defended, That the Cleargie ought to i [...]dge of the Clergie, and that the Prophetes ought to be tried, exami­ned, and ordeyned, onely by the Pro­phetes, and that the spirites of the Pro­phetes, are subiect to the spirites of the [Page 277] Prophetes. Wherein then consisteth the disagreement and variance betweene vs and them, touching the ordination of a Prophet, by Prophetes, or of a Minister by Ministers? Certes to mine vnderstan­ding, there is none other matter of disso­nancie in this case, but even alonely this: viz. That he by these wordes (the spi­rites Corinth. of the prophetes are subiect to the prophetes) intendeth that the Spirits of many prophetes, touchinge their triall, examinatiō, and ordination, are subiect to the spirit of one prophet, and that Whether y ^e spirites of manie Pro­phets be subiect to one, or of one to many. therefore one prophete by his owne spi­rite, may trie, examine, and ordeyne ma­nie Prophetes: Whereas on the other side, we affirme, that one prophet accor­ding to this rule of our holy faith, is to speake, and the other prophetes are to iudge, and that no one prophete may trie, examine, or ordeyne many pro­phetes: Because from this place wee ga­ther, that the spirites of many prophetes in the ordinarie course of the ministerie of the Worde, were neuer subiected in this case to the spirite of one Prophete. But in this platforme there is no menti­on made of the King, if he bee patrone, [Page 278] neither is there any institution spoken of; and then howe can any action of quare impedit, bee brought, to try the right if two patrones pretend title to the Patronage: besides the Patrone by this platforme must fetch his Clerckes only from the Vniversities, Schooles of lear­ning, and Nurseries of the Ministerie, whereas now he hath libertie, to present any Clerke wheresoever or howsoever ordayned: Againe, strife and contention may arise in the presbytery betwene the Bishops and the Ministers them selues, appointed to be examiners, and ordey­ners, which of the two Clerkes nomina­ted, by the Patrone is most worthy to be preferred. If both the Patrones Clerkes, for non abilitie, or criminousnes, be re­fused, who shall then nominate, and to whom shall the election devolue? And lastlie, what if the Bishop and presbytery shall disalow one for vnabilitie, which in deed is notwithstanding, of abilitie to teach? to all these difficulties, thus wee aunswere.

If the Kinges Maiestie be Patrone, to any benefice with cure of soules, because Touching the Kinges patronage. we iudge and confesse him, to be a King, [Page 279] endowed with a rare and singuler spirit of zeale, for the glorie of our God, with an excellent spirit of loue, for the salua­tion of the soules of his subiects, and to be the Nehemiah of our age, sent vnto vs from aboue, for the building of the walls, and reedifying of the ports of the house of God, which were brokē downe and devoured: We for our partes doubt nothing at all, nay rather we most cer­teynly perswade our selues, his Highnes, having once bene pleased, to prescribe all wholesome & commendable lawes, vnto his people, will also vouchsafe, much more to prescribe lawes, yea and to be a law vnto him selfe: And that his Maiestie wil set this busines of the Lords house, so neare vnto his Kingly & Chri­stian heart, by the planting of able Mi­nisters, in all the Churches, of his High­nes Patronage; as that all other Patrons, by his godly example, wilbe excited rea­dily to walke in the Kings path, to weare the Kinges coloures, and to become the Kinges chiefe favourytes in this so ho­lie a worke. And therefore touching the Kings Patronages, cum Maiestas impe­ratoria, H. de ley. & fidei. 3. l. ex imperfecto. legibus esse soluta videatur, wee [Page 280] commend them wholy to the Kinges most Christian care, providence, and fi­delitie.

The Bishops institution, and writt of quare impedit, wee graunt must cease: The Bishops institution may cease. but in place of institution, the election & ordination by the Presbytery succee­deth: and the Clerke nominated by the Patrone, elected and ordayned by the Presbyterie; shall haue idemius, ad Ec­clesiam, & in Ecclesia, which in forme [...] times, the Clercke presented by the Pa­trone, and instituted by the Bishop, was wont to haue.

If any suite in law, happē for the right of Patronage, betwene two or moe Patrōs, If suite fall out betwene two patrons what then may bee done. pretending title to the gift of one bene­fice: It seemeth that this suit, might haue far easier, and more speedie way of triall, by some other writt, then by the writ of quare impedit; for vpon this writ many times by negligence, or vnskilfulnes of the Aturneyes, it falleth out, that one of the parties is driven some times to sitt downe by great losse, and not to haue his title tried at all, onely for want, of some ceremoniall forme, not observed in the pleadings of the cause: And therefore, [Page 281] both Patrones, within the time to be li­mited by the Kings writ, having nomi­nated their Clerkes, to the Presbytery, as heretofore they presented to the Bishop, we leaue it to be considered, whether it were not meet, and convenient, that the Presbitery should wholy defer the electi­on, & ordinatiō, of eyther their Clerks, vntill the right of patronage were final­lie adiudged before the Kings Iustices at the common law: vpō which iudgment passed, they might then without scru­ple, or impediment, proceede to the full election, & ordination, of that Patrones Clerke, for whom the iudgment was gi­ven. By which maner of triall, if the action might bee brought in the nam [...] of Patrone, against Patrone, the Clerkes should not onely be freed from much obloqui, wherevnto they are now sub­iect, by prosecution of suites at law, one Clercke against another, but also they should bee exempted, from all expence, labour and turmoile, with which here­tofore they haue incumbered thē selues, to the hinderance of their studies, and decay of their estates, by pursuing the Patrones title, at their owne charge. [Page 282] Neither might the occasion of suite a­bout the right of Patronage, be any lett or hinderance that the Church, in the meane time should be left as a Widow destitut of an husbād. For any one of the Clerkes nominated by either of the Pa­trones, might be apointed by the Presby­terie, to preach the word, and publickly to pray, vntill the controversie were en­ded. And out of the fruites also, of the same Church remayning in the custo­die, of one of the Patrones, or sequestred by the Kinge, to the vse of the next in­cumbēt, he might haue such allowance, as were requisite for the time of his con­tinuance in that place. And for the Sa­craments, if any were of necessitie to bee administred, some other Minister, neare adioyning, might be provided, to admi­nister the same, as in many places, it hath bin, and is now daylie vsed, in like cases of vacancie.

That the Patrone should bee curbed with two hard a bridle, as being barred The cur­bing of a patrone w ^t to hard a bridle, an­swered. to fetch his Clerckes, from any other place, then frō the Vniversities or other Schooles and Nurseries of learning, is a matter, if it be well weighed, of lesse im­portance, [Page 283] then the Admonitor would insinuate the same to bee. First it is not of necessitie required, that all Patrones should at all times fetch all their Clerks, from those places & not frō else where. For many times it may happen vpon iust cause, (for the benefite of the Church) that a Clerke already ordained, and pla­ced in one Church, may bee remoued from the same; to another. But only the meaning is according to the lawes and canons already setled that the greatest parte, of the Patrones Clerckes, must of necessitie, bee called thence, because they can not ells where bee had.

Now then whereas the law intendeth, euery Church to be a wife, and to haue an husbande, to be a body, and to haue an head; the lawe as a parent vnto the Church hath provided, vntill shee bee a widow in deed, that no husband, be pro­vided for her. And therefore by sundrie as well ancient Decrees, as by Canons of Ex: de pre­bend. c. tui [...] lib. 6. de pre­bēd. si Epis­copus. Discipline, made and published by the Bishoppes 1571 it is decreed and con­firmed, That the Bishoppe shall lay his handes on none, or at anie other time, but when it shall chaunce some place of [Page 284] ministratiō is voyd in the same Diocesse As for stipendarie Curates, it is expresly against the policie of our Church, that any should bee ordeyned a Minister, to serue onlie as an hireling. From which Decrees, and Canons, alreadie setled (as I sayd before) it followeth, for the most part, that the Patrones Clerkes to be or­dained, of necessitie must be called from the Vniversities; or other places of lear­ning. For if every place of ministration, be full, and none must be made a Mini­ster, vntill some place be voyde, then al­beit some patrones, vpon good causes, to be allowed by publick discipline, might be permitted, to nominate some Clerkes alreadie placed in administrations: Yet in the end, as well the patrones of those Churches, from whence these are to bee remoued, as other patrones also (ma­nie benefices at one time beeing voyde) must of necessitie, seeke out men, to bee ordeyned, which never were ordeyned to the ministerie before. And where are these to be sought, if not onelie at the Vniversities, or other Schooles & Nur­series of learning? For that prophetes in the ordinarie time of prophesying, shuld [Page 285] be taken from the feete of the Apothe­caries, Taylors, Drapers, Milners, Mer­cers, Prophets in the ordinary time of pro­phesying to be taken out of y ^e Scholes of Prophets. or from the butry, pantry, kitchen, celler, or stable, of any Bb. Peere, Knight or Gentleman, and not from the feete of the prophetes, is a thing abhominable, and odious vnto God, and man. Where­in thē, doth this platforme, in this point of fetching Ministers, onely from the Vniversities, or other places of learning, differ from the intendement of lawes setled? Or wherein can the patrones re­ceyue any detriment by such a practise? Nay they are so farr from receiuing anie The diffe­rēce betwene the platform and the Bi­shopps pra­ctise. preiudice hereby, as indeed both they & their Clerkes shall reape great commo­ditie by it. Wherin I grant some discre­pance, to consist betweene the Bb pra­ctise, and this platforme. For the Bb. at one time, allowe a Clerke for habilitie, and at another time, dissallowe the same Clerke for non habilitie. And him, whō they haue ordeyned, and adiudged, to day, worthie of an office, they manie times disordayne him to morow, and re­fuse him as a person vnworthie, to pos­sesse a benefice: Whereas on the contra­rie part, we thinke it verie absurd, & vn­reasonable, [Page 286] to barre any man from a be­nefice, whom the Governours of the Church shall iudge worthie to beare an office. So that the Patrone by this plat­forme, should be sure, if at any time, hee nominate a Clerke alreadie ordeyned, that the same Clerke (vnlesse it were for crime, or some defect after happeninge) should neuer be refused. And if such be the lawes, & liberties of the Ordinaries, what alteration of the law, or preiudice to the Patrone, could it be, if by a newe law, the King provided new meanes, to put his old lawes in due execution?

If vpon difference of iudgement, anie variance should arise, betweene the Mi­nisters Vpon diffe­rēce of iudg­ment about the abilitie of a Clerke what may be done. appointed to elect, and ordeyne, whiche of the Patrones Clerkes, were most worthie, the same diuersitie, we as­sure our selues, can breede no greater in­convenience, nor further daunger, then doth now daylie fall out in the election of schollers, fellowes, & heades of Hou­ses, in the Vniversities, or of other Offi­cers in Colledges, Cathedrall churches, and bodyes politicke or corporate. As those controversies therefore haue bene, and are appeased by the good orders & [Page 287] lawes of those places, evē so might these also. And therfore some good law might be made to this effect, viz. If any foure of the seven did agree togither, vpon a­nie one Clerke nominated by the pa­trone, that the same foure, should strike the stroke, and make the election good, against the other three. Neither doe we thinke it to stande with reason, that the Archipresbyter, or any other Minister a­mong the seuen, should necessarilie be of the quorum. For if any one of the seuen, should necessarilie be of the quorum, thē (having, as it were, a negatiue voyce a­gainst all the rest) if he should bee way­ward, and apt to contention, hee might then alwayes frustrat the election, either by opposing him selfe to all the rest, or by inclining to the lesser, & worser part, as lately came to passe about the electiō of a Scholler, among great Doctours. If A Clerke refused for nonabiliti [...] to whom the nomina­tion may devol [...]e. both the Patrones Clerkes, should bee disabled, by those vnto whom the iudg­ment of their nonhabilitie did apper­tayne, we leaue it to be considered, whe­ther the right, to nominate, elect, & or­dayne, for that time onelie, might not hereafter devolve vnto the presbyterie, [Page 288] as in like case it hath done heeretofore vnto the Bb. And from that Presbyterie, if the same should make default, that the benifice, should be then in lapse vn­to the King.

Lastly, touching the nonhabilitie of A Clerke wronged by a refusall for nonabilitie how he may be releued. a Clerke: if the Clerke whom the pre­sbytery should refuse, come from one of the Vniversities, then as a Clerke before time refused for non abilitie, by the Bb. was to be tried by the Archbishop, and by him to be alowed, or disalowed, so in this case we leaue it to be cōsidered, whe­ther it were not meete that this Clerke, so refused, and complayning himselfe vnto the Magistrate, to bee wronged, should haue his abilitie to bee againe tried, by that next Synode of Ministers to be cōgregated within that Deanry. And if vpon triall made, and bringing a testi­moniall vnder some authentike seale, from the Synode, of his habilitie: whe­ther the Presbyterie, vpon a good peyne within a time to bee prefixed, should not be constreined, to ordeyne, and dedicate A Clerk re­fused for crime to vvhom the nomination may devolve the same Clerke, to the ministerie of the same Church. And as for the refusall of a Clerke by the Presbyterie, vpon ob­iection [Page 289] of crime, if the crime be so hay­nous as for which by the canons of the church, he might not be promoted, to the Ministery, then is it to be cōsidered, whether the presbytery in this case also, as in the former of nonhability, might not nominate, elect, and ordeyne, the Clerke to that place, for that time only? and vpon the presbyteries default, the lease also to be vnto the King.

And thus haue we cōpared, the man­ner of church gouerment, now in vse, touching these points, with that forme of Discipline, which is desired to bee planted. By which cōparison the Kings The bene­fits ensuing, the platform of ordinati­on, &c. re­quired. Highnes, may very easely discerne, the differences betweene them, to be such, as whereby the Kings dignity and pre­rogatiue, shall highly be aduanced, the Kings poore subiects, both Ministers & people, diuers wayes eased, & vnburde­ned, & the lawes better obserued, to the vnspeakeable peace, & trāquilitie, both of church, & common weale. The Pro­phets triall of the Prophetes; the peo­ples approbation of their Pastours; the Ministers entrance into their Mini­sterie, according to the Apostolicall [Page 290] practise of the primitive church, would be a meanes vtterly to extinguish, that schisme, that remaineth yet among vs; that we haue no Christian Ministers; no Christian Sacramentes; no Christian Church in England. Besides, the Mini­sters, for letters of orders; letters of insti­tution; letters of inductions; for licences to serue within the Diocesse; for licences to serue in such a cure; for licences to serue two cures in one day; for licences to preach; for licences of resignation; for testimonials of subscription; for letters of sequestration; for letters of relaxatiō; for the Chancelours, Registers, & Som­ners diners; for Archidiaconal annuall, and for Episcopall trieniall procuratiōs, the Ministers (I say) to bee nominated, elected, ordeyned, approved, confirmed, and admitted, by the Patrone; by the Presbyterie; by the People, and by the King, should be disburdened, from all fees, for these things, and from all these, and such, and such like grievances. On­lie for the Kings writts, and for the tra­veyle and peynes of his Highnes Offi­cers, taken in, and about the execution of the same writts, some reasonable fees, [Page 291] (as it shal please the King,) may be taxed, and set down. The people also in soules, in bodies, and in their goods could not but be much comforted, relieved, and benefited. They should not hencefoorth to the perill of their soules, haue vnlear­ned, vnable, and vndiscreete Ministers thrust vpon them, and set over them: Neither should they be compelled, vpō light occasions, to take many frivou­lous oathes in vaine. They should not be summoned, from one end of the Di­ocesse, vnto the other: nor bee posted from court, to court, & from visitation, to visitation, The Churchwardens, and sidemen, of every Parish, should not vpō peine of excommunication, be constrey­ned, once, or twise in the yeare, to pay six or eight pence, for a sheet of three halfe­peny articles. They shall not any longer, out of the common treasurie, reserved for the poore, beare the charge of their Parishes for making bills, visitation & divers other expenses. There should be no more suits at law, betwene Clerke and Clerke, about the Patrons title; no more suites of double quarell, betwene the Clerke and the Bishop no more de­bate [Page 292] betwene the Bishop and the Arch­deacon; and lastly there should be no occasion of any riots, and vnlawfull as­semblies to bee made vpon entries and possessions, by vertue and colour of two presentations, two institutions, and two inductions, into one benefice, at one time. The Patrones as being Lords and avowers of the Churches, might haue the custodie of the Churches, during their vacancies, and their ancient right, in this behalfe, restored. All swearing of canonicall obedience, vnto the Bishops by the Ministers: all swearing, and for­swearing of Clerks, for any symoniacal bandes, promises, or agreemēts, betwene them and their Patrones, and all robbe­ries 31. Eliz. c. 6 and spoyling of the Churches, by the Patrones, should determine & cease. Especially if it might please the King & Parleament, to haue one clause of a sta­tute, against abuses, in electiō of Schol­lers, and presentation, to benefices en­larged. For although euerie corrupt cause, & consideration, by reward, gift, profit, or benefite to present, be inhibi­ted by that act; yet notwithstanding by experience in many places we finde, that [Page 293] the Patrones for small rentes, and for many yeres, are in possessiō, some of the mansiō houses, some of the glebe lands, and some of the tythes, of such benefices as since the publishing of that act, haue bin bestowed vpon Clerks: which bree­deth great suspicion and ielouzie in the mindes of men, that the Clerke and Pa­trone at the beginning directly or indi­rectlie, did conspire to frustrate and de­lude, the intendement of the statute: And therefore wee leaue it to be considered by the Kinges Maiestie and Parleament. If any Clerke after confirmation & pos­session A meanes to restraine pa­trons from corruption. to any benefice, hereafter to bee made and given vnto him, shall willing­lie and wittingly, suffer the Patrone of the same benefice, or any other person, in his name or to his vse, directly or in­directly, mediatly or immediatly, to vse, occupie, or enioy, the mansion house, gleebe land, or other ecclesiasticall com­modities, or any part thereof, belonging to the same benefice: In this case (I say) we leaue it to be considered, whether it were not meete & convenient, that every such willing and witting sufferance by the Clerke, and every such willing, and [Page 294] witting possession, vse, or occupation, by the Patrone, should not be adiudged, to be a iust cause, to determine the presen­tation, to haue bin first made vpon cor­rupt respect, and consideration. And that therefore the Clerke, ipso facto, to loose the benefice, and the Patrone, ipso facto, to forfeyte his right of patronage to the King, for the two next turnes fol­lowing. And these being the principall reasons, and groundes of our desires, we are humbly to pray the Lordes spiritu­all, either to convince them of indigni­tie, insufficiencie, and incongruitie, or else to ioyne with vs vnto the Kinges Maiestie, for the restitution of that ma­ner of governement, which they them­selues confesse to haue bene practised, at the beginning by the Apostles & primi­tiue Church: but the Admonitor hath yet moe reasons vnanswered against this platforme.

Assertion.

In some part to iustifie this opinion, I graunt, that no man is able in these dayes, to devise, to bring it to passe, that every Parish should haue a learned and discrete Minister. And why? because in these dayes not any one Bishop hath af­forded, to ordeyne one learned and dis­crete Minister, for fiue Parishes: second­lie, because where some of the reverend Fathers, haue ordayned and placed in many Parishes, many learned and dis­crete Ministers, some others of the same Fathers, haue againe disgraded, and dis­placed those learned and discrete Mini­sters, & in their romes haue placed ma­nie vnlearned and vndiscreet Ministers. Now then if these dayes wherein so few learned & discrete Ministers, & so many [Page 296] vnlearned & vndiscreet Ministers be or­deyned, & wherin also, so many learned, & discreet Ministers are disgraced, & so many vndiscreet & vnlearned Ministers graced: If these daies (I say) were ended; then albeit no perfection, whereof never any one of vs dreamed, could bee attey­ned vnto, and albeit no one man were able to devise, how to bring it to passe, that every Parish should haue a learned Minister: Yet nevertheles, all good and holy meanes being vsed, to ayme and to shoote after perfection, & all good and holy men laying to their heads, and ap­plying their hearts to further this enter­prise, and service vnto God, wee knowe that the Lord might call, and make, and fill with the Spirit of God in wisedome, and in vnderstanding, and in knowlege, and in spirituall work-manship, many Bezaliels, and many Aholiabs, spiritual­lie to karue, graue, and imbroyder the Lords spirituall Temple. The perfection therefore after which we long, and the change of the Clergie, whereof we in­treate, is but such a perfection, and such a change, as (good meanes for the resti­tution of impropriations beeing vsed) [Page 297] may easily bee atteyned, and well made. What per­fection of a Minister is required by this plat­forme. For the perfection required by vs, to be in a Minister, is none other then such as the holy law of God, and the lawes, ca­nons and iniunctions already setled, doe require. viz. that every Minister, to whō cure of soules is committed, with some competent knowlege, according to the measure of the grace, of the gift of Christ, be able to teach, to exhort, and to reproue the people, yea and to con­vince the gainesayers, if any should arise among them. From whence also sprin­geth the change intended by vs. viz. that in the Churches of all Ministers, vnable to teach, &c. There might bee a change of Ministers able to teach, &c. Wherefore if the Admonitour ment otherwise then wee intend, and if vp­pon placing a learned and discrete Mi­nister in every Parish, hee should not intende, the change of an vnlearned, and vndiscreet Clergie, but a change of the high and Papall state of Pre­lacie: then either is not his aunswere pertinent to the question, or else it must necessarily follow, from his intendemēt, that the high and Papall state of Pre­lacie, [Page 298] and the placing of a learned and Prelacy & a learned Mi­nistery can not stād to­gether. discrete Minister in every Parish, are like vnto Coleworts planted among Vines, or vnto Parsly sowed among Bishoppes Weede, which will never spring, grow, and prosper together. Because the rising of such a learned Ministerie must be the fall, ruine, and break necke of Prelacy. And this followeth inevitable vpon his owne reason, drawen from the taking away of the great rewardes of learning, by the change of the Clergie.

For the great rewardes of learninge, whereof he speaketh, must of necessitie be the Prelacies, viz. Archbishoprickes, Bishopricks, Deanries, Archdeaconries, Prebendaries, Canonries, Chanterships, Commendames, non Residencies, and Pluralities. And then lett vs obserue, whether in effect hee hath not reasoned thus: If Prelacies (beeing the great re­wardes of learning) should not stand, & not be changed, there is no man able to devise, how a learned and discreet Mini­ster may be placed in euery parish: but if Prelacies (the great rewardes of lear­ning) may once be chāged & not stand, then were it possible to haue it deuised, [Page 299] that a learned and discreete Minister, might bee placed in euery parishe. And then hath he not profoundlie, and lear­nedlie disputed, when he hath preferred the Damsell, before her Dame, and the mayd, before her Mistris? When he hath aduaunced a great deale of learninge in one before a great deale of learninge in many, and learning in some places, be­fore learning in all places; lastlie, when by continuance, and furtherance of the great rewards of learning, he hath great­lie hindered, & discōtinued learnednes, and greatly furthered and cōtinued vn­learnednes? For if Prelacies were no hin­derances, but only furtherances of dis­creet and learned Ministers; and agayne, if Prelacies were no furtherances, but onlie hinderances, of vnlearned, & vn­discreet ministers, to be had in every pa­rish, then might the great rewardes of learning, still remayne, and men should not be discouraged, to send their sonnes to the studie of good learning, For ge­nerallie mē be not so much incouraged, to set their sonnes to learninge, where a few great rewardes of learning are pro­vided for a few men greatly learned, as [Page 300] where many good rewardes of learning, are provided for many good learned mē are more encouraged to learning, where many good re­wardes then where fewe great re­wards are provided. men. And to speake as experience tea­cheth vs, and as the trueth is, what one father among twentie, will dedicate his sonne, to learning, if men (as the case now stādeth vnder Prelacie) not broght vp at the feete of Gamaliel, but at the feete of some swashbuckler; not taught from any Doctors chayre, but schooled vpon some craftes man stoole, when mē who can but read, and can not preache, may be Ministers, & capable of the fat­test benefice, within a whole Countie? In the common weale, if there be manie places, of honor, profite, & dignitie, for such onlie as haue valiantly served the King in his warres, or paynefullie atten­ded vpon him in the Court, then will many fathers incite, and encourage their sonnes to prepare and furnish them sel­ues to the warres, and to the Court. But if all mens sonnes, in the campe, and in the court, be capable of enterteynments alike; if as well a labourers sonne fol­lowing the cart, as a noble mans sonne a wayter in court, may be the Kings lord Chamberlayne, in time of peace; and if [Page 301] as well a carpet knight, as a valiant war­riour, may be lord generall in time of warre, would any father for many yeeres together, costly, and gorgeouslie braue his sonne at Court; or would any father advēterouslie, and dangerouslie hazard his sonne in the field? Againe, fathers do not therfore send their sonnes to be stu­dents, at the Innes of Court, or to be ap­prentices in the Citie of London, only in regard, that they may bee all great Citi­zens, and all great rich men, all great lawyers, and al great Iudges of the land. It sufficeth all parentes, and the purpose and intent of all parentes is, that their sonnes, become such lawyers, and such Citizens, as by their lawe, and by their trades, they may thriue, and liue ba [...]re­sterlike, & lawyerlike; marchantlike, & citizen-like, though they be not able to liue Serieantlike, or Iudge-like, Allder­manlike, or Lord-like. In like sort que­stionles would it be an excellent encou­ragement, to many fathers, to sende ma­nie sonnes, vnto many Scholes and Vni­uersities of learning, if so bee there were manie and good rewardes, rathet then few & great rewardes, provided for ma­nie, [Page 302] rather then for fewe learned men in the Church. For if there be but fewe re­wards, albeit the same be great, then but a few fathers among many, will adven­ture the spending of their substance, vp­pon a vayne hope, that their sonnes shall obtayne great rewardes of learning. For what father knoweth the capacitie, and diligence of his sonne? Or who can di­vine, that his sonne, shalbe one, among the number of a few men greatly lear­ned, worthie of a great reward, & to liue Deanlike, Archdeaconlike, Bishoplike, or Archbishoplike? Wherefore if such a change of the Clergie, as whereof wee speake, were made, that is to saye, if an vnlearned, and vndiscreete ministerie, were changed into a discreet and lear­ned ministerie: it is not to bee doubted, but a farre greater number of sonnes, would be sent by their fathers, to the stu­die of good learning, then now there be.

From whence also it followeth, that either Papall Prelacie is the onely bane Prelacy the bane of a learned mi­nisterie. of a learned Ministerie, or ells that an vnlearned Ministerie, is the vntimely fruite of the wombe of Papall Prelacie. Both which twaine, rather then one of [Page 303] which twaine, being true, we leaue it to be considered, whether the mother con­ceyving to soone, or the daughter borne out of time, or both as an after birth, & superfluous members should not bee cast away, and cut of from the body of the Church? The Admonitors next ar­gument, is drawen from the small con­tinuance in the Vniversities.

Assertion.

This argument is as an headlesse ar­rowe shott against a corslet of steele, out of a bow vnbent, for what can this ar­gument pearce, when in effect the con­clusion is thus:

The reason of which consequence is this: viz. The very necessitie of places Pag. 80. (saith he) shall draw men away before they come to any ripenes: The learned­nes then, and discretion, of a Minister, by his reason, dependeth vpon his long continuance in the Vniversitie. And what shall we then say of the learnednes and discretion, of such Ministers of the Bishops making, as did never continue in the Vniversitie, one day in all their whole life? but herevnto they answere, that the very necessitie of the one, is so great, as that the people must haue prayer said, and the Sacraments admi­nistred, [Page 305] least the people in the country should grow to an heathnish barbaritie: vnto which aunswere, againe I reply and reason thus: If a man of vnlearnednes, and without knowledge & ripenes, may be a Minister, then a man of small vn­learnednes, of small knowlege, and of small ripenes, may bee a Minister much more; and againe:

The second proposition of which sil­logisme, is confirmed by practise, & pre­cept, by worde, and by deede, of most of our reverend Bb. And then from their owne practise, I argue thus: If the neces­sitie of sayinge prayers, of reading ser­uice, [Page 306] and of deliuerie of the elements, b [...] of necessitie, & of necessitie require vn­learned Faith more necessary to be preached then the Sa­craments be administred ministers, rather then no mini­sters: then much more the necessitie of hauing faith; the necessitie of the salua­tion of our soules, and the necessitie of God his glorie, is of necessitie; and being of necessitie requireth ministers of small learning, of small continuance, of small knowledge, and of small ripenes: rather then ministers of no learning, no conti­nuance, no knowledge, and of no ripe­nes. And if Faith, saluation of men, and the glorie of God, as soundly, and as sin­cerelie may be preached and promoted, by yong and rude Timothy, as by aged learned, and eloquent Apollo, what ne­cessitie is there of continuance in the Vniuersitie, to obteyne more profound knowledge, or anie other riper vnderstā ­ding, then is that knowledge, & that vn­derstanding, whereby faith to the salua­tion of men, & to the glorie of God, is of necessitie to be preached? Agayne, if by continuance in the Vniuersitie, profoūd knowledge, & ripenes, be so necessarie, that (as is pretended) in respect thereof, a change of the Clergie may not bee [Page 307] made, and that vnlearned, & vndiscreet ministers, as it were by necessitie, should still be placed; then seemeth it reasona­ble, to moue the Lord Bishoppes, that it would please them, to effect an abolish­ment of some of the statutes, of all the Colledges in Oxford and Cambridge: whereby all Maisters of Art, of what youth, ignorance, or rudenes soever they be (excepting some smal number, which by order of their foundation, bee put a­part to the studie of Lawe or Phisicke) some after two, some after three, & some after foure yeres, of their cōmencement, are compelled eyther to enter into the ministerie, or to leaue their fellowships: Nay in some Colledges, if Bachelers of arts be chosen felows, & be not ministers after one yeare, by statut they loose their places. The principle reason of the foū ­ders of all which statutes (to my best re­membrance) is this: namely that the haruest being great, and the laborers but few, many labourers, shalbe sent from those Colledges, into the haruest. Nei­ther can it be intended, that many labo­rers of long continuance, many labou­rers of profound knowledge, or manie [Page 308] labourers of ripenes should be sent. But it is simply provided, that many labou­rers, and not loyterors should be sent, & yet now the Admonitor, rather thē that some loyterers should not bee sent, con­tendeth to seclude some labourers from the worke. Besides, how can they be of any long continuance, of any ripenes, or of any profound knowledge, in the my­steries of faith, and Godlines, when not hauing accōplished the age of 24 yeres, 26 yeres, or 28 yeares at the most, & not hauing giuen them selues aboue 2. 3. or 4. yeares at the most, to the studie of di­vinitie, nay which after the studie of 3. or 4. yeares of Philosophie or artes, and no studie of Divinitie, must notwith­stāding enter into the ministerie? wher­fore from the statutes of the Colleges in the Vniversities I thus dispute: If the necessitie of the Colledge statutes, doe compell:

Assertion.

Assertion.

Let it be graunted, that their whole drift is to bring the government of the Church to that manner of government which the learned cal Aristocracie, what incommoditie should the Church or cō ­mon weale receyur by such a govermēt? when as the same goverment is not on­lie authorised by the holy lawe of God, but also commended vnto vs by the de­sires Book of cō ­mon prayer title, cōmu­nation and cōfirmed by 5. and 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. prim. Eliz. c. 2. 8. Eliz. c. 1. Aristocracie in the church not hurtfull to the com­mon wealth and wishes of sundrie Actes of Par­leaments. For sayth the booke of com­mon prayer, the Discipline of the primi­tiue church, is greatly to be wished. Ari­stocracie therefore, and the discipline of the primitiue Church, differing but in name, and not in nature; it can not bee hurtfull to the common weale, that the principles and reasons thereof should by [Page 351] experiēce, be made familiar in the minds of the common people; nay it can not but be beneficial vnto the cōmon weale, when the same shal vnderstand, that the best observers of the law of God, & the best friendes vnto God and his people, are to bee the Officers in the house of God. Neyther is their whole drift, to be disliked, but to be commended, that la­bour to bringe the government of the church from a Papal Prelacie, to a chri­stian Aristocracie: the one viz. Aristo­cracie, Aristocracie in y ^e Church optimarum, Prelacia pes­simarum, potestas. accordinge to the interpretation of the name thereof, being optimatum potestas, a power of the best observers of the lawe; the other, viz. Prelacie, ac­cording to their practise, being pessima­tum potestas, a power of the worst ob­servers of the law: the first derived from the law of God, & practise of Gods peo­ple; the other deduced from the lawes and customes of the Gentiles and idola­trous Priestes. And this of necessitie, in defence of the trueth, the Admonitors argument, forceth me to speake; for by an implicatiō of the dislike of bringing the government of the Churches by Pa­stors and Elders, to a Democracie or A­ristocracie, [Page 352] he hath by consequence, dis­claymed and disavowed the goverment of the Church by Prelacie to be anie of those two. And what other government then should we think Prelacie to be, but eyther Oligarchie, or Tyrannie? For nei­ther Monarchie may it be, neyther Polli­cie, Prelacie ei­ther Oligar­chie or ty­rannie. or polliticall estate can it be: and o­ther kinde of government besides these there is not anie. For my part, I more charitably iudge of the government of the Church by Prelacie, then to match it with Tyrannie. And although the Ad­monitor, and the Pervsers and allowers of his booke, were men in their genera­tion wise, yet had they well weighed the nature of the goverment of Oligarchie, they would rather in this argumēt, haue bin silent, then vpon disclayme of De­mocracie, and Aristocracie, (goverments both of them commendable in their kinde) haue cast the commendation of their owne goverment of the Church by Prelacie, to so desperat an estate, as is the estate of Oligarchie. Wherein if any doe glorie, because not many of the best, but some fewe of the wealthiest, and richest sort doe governe, then lett him hearken [Page 353] and cōsider, what (long since) was prea­ched before Pope Ʋrban the fifte, by Act. & Mo. one Nicolas Orem, a man singularly commended for learning in his time. Nicholas Orem his o­pinion of Oligarchie. Amongst all the regiments of the Gen­tiles, none (saith he) is more to be found, wherein is to bee seene so great and ex­ceeding ods, thē in the policie of Priests: Amongst whom one is drunken, ano­ther is sterved, amongst whom some be so high, that they exceed all Nobles & Princes of the Earth; some againe be so abased, that they are vnder all rascalls; and such a common weath (saith hee) may well bee called Oligarchie. But Thomas Aquinas, he seemeth to set the discommodities of Oligarchie, a pinne Thomas Aquinas what hee thinketh of Oligarchie. higher: for (saith hee) as a Kingdome hath in it the commodities of all other good regiments; of Aristocracie, that the Noblest and chiefest persons among Aristocracie a good re­giment. the people, be taken to Councell: of Po­licie, or politicall estate, where an assem­blie of all estates is had, & whē the very best of all sorts, are chosen, to consult, and deliberate, of the publique weale: so doeth Tyrannie conteine, and hath in it all incommodities, and vices of all [Page 354] naughtie & corrupt regiments: of Oli­garchie it borroweth, that the most wic­ked Oligarchie a corrupt regiment & corruptest men be Counsaylors, & that (as it were) a route of Tyrants doe govverne. The reasons and pillers of which Oligarchie, are immoderatnes, excessivenes, disparitie, and inequalitie, passing and beyond all meane and mea­sure. Now if our reverend Bb. shall shew them selues to bee mal-contented with mee, as though out of the opinions of these learned men, I would gather that the governement of the Church by Pre­lacie, is one of the corruptest governe­ments; I am to desire them to haue pa­tience vntill they shall plainly demon­strate vnto vs, that the same is not Oli­garchie. For if hereafter they shall re­voke their former disgraceful iudgmēts, against the discipline by Pastors and El­ders, conteyning in it the very nature of true Aristocracie; and withall, instruct vs better of the true nature of their own governement, of the Church by Prela­cie; they shall finde vs plyable to their opinion, so that it be grounded vpon the principles and reasons of trueth. In the meane season (after the fashion of the [Page 355] Admonitors maner of admonishing the people, wee most humbly beseech the King and Parleament to bee enformed, that it is greatly to be feared (if Prelacie be Oligarchie) that the Prelates will en­devour, It is to bee feared least (by the exā ­ple of Pre­lates) Oli­garchie bee brought in the common weale. to transferre that maner of go­verment, frō the Church vnto the com­mon weale. And that the cōmon weale shall as miserably be rent, & torne, with factions & vproares, as now the church is disquieted by schismes and divisions. For if only a few of the richest and wel­thiest sort, shal get an head, and beare all the sway in the cōmon weale, they shall thinke by the principles and reasons of Oligarchie, that they haue iniury, if they haue not as much to do in civil matters, as the Prelats haue to doe in the matters of the Church: And what hereof may follow, as the Admonitor leaveth, so doe I also leaue it to the iudgement of other. Onelie if the way hereof alreadie hath bin troden out vnto them, by some who A caueat a­gainst Oli­garchie. haue not written, nor spoken, but yet practised the principles and reasons of Oligarchie in the common weale, onelie then this I say, and adde as a caveat, that the daunger to come, is more heede­fully [Page 356] to be prevēted. For like as in good harmonie (to make the Musike perfaict) is required a moderate, & proportionate inequalitie of voyces; which, if it too much exceed, taketh away all the sweet melodie, so by too much immoderate inequalitie, or disparitie of Citizens, the common weale falleth to ruine. But why may not the governement of the The gouer­ment of the Church by Prelacie, is not Monar­chicall. Church by Prelacie, be a Princely and a Royall governement? In deed this que­stion, if it should be resolued, by the rules and principles of the canon law, I could hardly disproue that government to be Princelike: for, (as hath bin saide before) quilibet Ordinarius in sua Dio­coesi; est maior quolibet Principe. Yea and every Bishop, by the same lawe, hath as absolute a spirituall power, within his Diocesse, as a Kinge hath a temporall power within his Kingdome. But be­cause that law with the rules & princi­ples thereof, is, or ought to be discarded out of this Kingdome, we will not wade in it. Only we say that the governement of the Church by Prelacie, cannot bee any kinde of Royall and Monarchicall [Page 357] governement, because Prelates haue not like power spirituall, as Kings and Mo­narches haue power rēporall. For there was never yet lex regia, de Prelatorum spirituali imperio, lata, qua Prelatis, & Institut. de iure natur. gent & ci. § Sed & quod. in eos, omne imperium suum, & potesta­tem, aut Deus, aut populus Dei contule­rit. And therfore where the people haue made the fore said regall law, as there it is iustly said, quodcunque Imperator per epistolam constituit, vel cognoscens de­creuit, vel edicto praecepit, legem esse con­stat: and quod Principi placuit, legis ha­bet vigorem; So likewise, where there is no such regall law, made in the church, there it is as iustly affirmed: quod Pre­lato placuit, legis non habei vigorem; quodcunque Prelatus per epistolam con­stituit, cognoscens decrevit, vel canone praecepit, legem non esse constat. And then how can every Prelate, or why doth eve­rie Prelate, by his sole authoritie, in­ioyne canons, articles, iniunctions, and orders, to be observed as lawes, in all the Churches of his iurisdiction? If the Admonitor supposed the governement If the gou­vernment of y ^e Church by Prelacie bee Monarchi­call, thē may the govern­ment by Pa­stors be so to of the Church by Prelacie to be Monar­chicall, because the Queene was a Mo­narch, [Page 358] and that the reverend Bishop go­verned vnder a Monarch; then what did hee els, but put a weapon into the handes of Pastors and Elders, to prove their governement also, to be Princelie and Monarchicall? Because Pastors & Elders desire not to haue that maner of governement, to bee brought into the Church, otherwise then by the Royall assent, Souveraigne authoritie, and ex­presse commandement of our most gra­tious King and Monarch. Besids, if any governement may be therefore saide to be a Monarchie, because the same is de­rived from an earthly Monarch, howe much more then may the governement of the Churches, by Pastors and Elders be adiudged Monarchical, by reason the same is deduced from our heavenly and everlasting Monarch. For the reverend Bb. by their publike preachings, & apo­logeticall Ma. Horne, Bishoppe of Winch. Ma. Iewell, Bi­shop of Sali. Mai. Bilson, Bishoppe of Winch. writings testifie, that power & authoritie to ordeine and depose Mini­sters; to excommunicate and to absolue; to devise and to establishe rites and cere­monies in the church; to define what is trueth; to pronounce what is falsehood; to determine what is schisme; and to cō ­demne [Page 359] what is heresie: our reverend Bb. (I say) confesse this power, to bee origi­nallie decided, vnto the true Bishoppes, and Pastours of the Church from the Kinglie and Soveraine power of our Sa­viour Christ. By what name therefore soever the gouvernment of Pastours and Elders in the Churches be called, there is no manner of cause to dislike of the planting of that government in a Mo­narchie, because the same is instituted by the Monarch of Monarches, who is able, and readie, to vphold the state of al Monarchies in common weales, togi­ther with the state of Aristocracie in his No cause for a Monarch to feare, that his Christi­an subiectes should haue the sence of Aristocracie in Church goverment. Church. Neither is there any cause for anie Monarch in the world, to feare the making of christian commō people, by familiar experience, to haue the sence & feeling of the principles and reasons of Aristocracie.

For if a people haue once submitted their necks to the yoke of Christ, they can liue a peaceable & godly life, vnder all kinds of powers, because they knowe all kind of powers, to be the ordenance of God. But especially, there is not, ney­ther euer was, neyther euer can there be, [Page 360] any cause for any King, or Monarch of England, greatly (as the Admonitor in­sinuateth) to feare, that the common people, will very easely transferre the principles, and reasons of Aristocracie, to the gouerment of the common weale; and therevpon bee induced to thinke that they haue iniurie, if they haue not as much to doe in civill matters, as they haue in matters of the Church, seeing they also touch their commoditie and benefit temporallie, as the other doeth spirituallie. And certes it seemeth that the Admonitor was drawen very drie of reason, whē he was fayne to plucke this stake from the hedge, to make a fire, and to kindle the wrath of the Magistrate, against the forme of discipline, by Pa­stors and Elders. For whether hee in­tendeth that the Pastors and Elders will thinke them selues to haue iniurie, if they deale not in all causes of the com­mō weale, as well as in all causes of their churches; or whether he ment, that the common people, will easely transferre, the government of the common weale, from a Kingly Monarchie, to a noble Aristocracie, there is neither soothnes [Page 361] nor soundnes in his meaning. For si­thence Pastors dis­claime to deale in civil matters. the learned Ministers against the reuerend Bishopps by the holy rules of our faith, mainteyne that it is not lawful for a Minister of the Gospell, to exercise civill magistracy, and that it is not law­full for the man of God, to bee intan­gled with the affaires of this life; how is it probable, that those Ministers will easely oppugne their owne knowledge, by their owne cōtrary practise? Or how is it probable, that they would over­loade them selues with that burthen, to ease the Church wherof they haue con­tentedly exposed thē selues into a num­ber of reproches, contempts, bytings, & persecutions? As for that other intende­ment of the Admonitors, that it is great­lie to be feared, that the commō people will easely transferre Monarchie, vnto Democracie, or Aristocracie, if the prin­ciples and reason thereof, by experience, were made familiar in their minds. this reason (I say) might seeme to carrie some shewe of affrighting a Monarch, if the same were insinuated vnto a king, whose people were neuer acquainted with the principles & reasons of Democracie, or [Page 362] Aristocracie: but this feare being insi­nuated vnto our late Souveraigne Ladie the Queene, whose people euer since the time they first begā to be a people, haue had their witts long exercised, with the The people of England haue their wits exerci­sed with the sence of De­mocracie & Aristocrarie sence and feeling, of the reasons & prin­ciples, aswell of Democracie, as also of Aristocracie, what sence had the Ad­monitor to vrge this feare? That in the Kingdome of Englande, the common people haue alreadie the sence and fee­ling of the reasons & principles of De­mocracie, cannot be denied. For in eue­rie cause almost, aswell of criminall, as ciuill iustice (some few only excepted) to be executed in the common weale, by the common lawes of the Realm, haue they not some hand, and dealing in the same, by one meanes or other? Nay which is more, haue they not the sence and feeling, of the making, and vnma­king their owne lawes in Parleament? And is not their consultation in Parlea­ment, a mere Democraticall consulta­tion? As much also there is to bee avo­wed, for the sence, and feeling of the reasons, and principles of Aristocracie, to be alreadie in the minds of the Peres, [Page 363] the Nobles, the Iudges, and other great men of the Realme. For are not the Wisest, the Noblest, & the Chiefest taken out of these, by the King, to bee of his Counsell, and to be Iudges and Iusticers in his Courts? Yea, and is not their as­sembly also in Parleament, a mere Ari­stocraticall assembly? And what tran­slation then is there greatly to be feared, out of the Church to bee made into the common weale, when the minds of all sorts of our common wealthes-men, be already seasoned, with the things which hee feareth? And when the common weale is alreadie seysed of the principles and reasons, which he would not haue familiarly known vnto it. Wherefore that the King, the Nobles, and cōmons, may no more be scarred, with the stran­genes of these vncouth, and vnknowne greeke names, of Democracie, and Ari­stocracie, writtē in his booke with great and capitall letters; I haue thought it my duty, by these presents to informe them, that the govermēt of the church by Pastors and Elders nowe wanting a­mongst vs, and desired to bee brought into the Church, by the Souveraine au­thority [Page 364] of our King, Nobles, and com­mons in Parleament (for the outward form & manner thereof) is none other manner of gouerment, nor forme of The maner of policie, by Pastors and Elders in the Church, is agreeable to the govern­ment in the cōmō weale pollicie, thē such as they, and their pro­genitors and Ancestors, for many hun­dred yeares togither, without interrup­tion, haue vsed and enioyed in the com­mon weale. And that therefore it will be a very easy matter, to transferre the same, to the gouerment of the Church. For by the reasons and principles of their own gouerment, in the common weale, and by the sence, & feeling thereof, they may wel be induced, to thinke, that they haue iniurie, if they haue not as much to doe in matters of the Church, as they haue to doe in matters of the common weale, seeing they touch their commo­ditie and benefitt spiritually, as the other doeth temporally. And withall on the other side, I shall doe my best indeavour, to aduertise them that the gouernement of the Church by Prelacie, is such a ma­ner of gouernment, as was neuer yet The government of the Church by Prelacie, dis­agreeable to the govern­ment vsed in the common weale. in the administration of iustice by any subiect (no not touching the outward forme thereof) once admitted into any [Page 365] part of common weale: and that there­fore the same (if it may please the King) will very easely bee sent, and transmari­ned vnto Rome, frō whence it first came, & where it had it originall and birth­right. And to the end, that we may clea­relie discerne, whether the nature of the gouerment of the Church by Prelacie, or the nature of the gouerment, desired to be planted by Pastors and Elders, be more agreable to the nature of the pol­licie, receaued and vsed both by the No­bles, and common people, in the com­mon weale; it is necessarie that the man­ners and formes, both of Prelaticall, & Pastorall gouernment, be made familiar vnto the minde of the Reader. And be­cause wee haue alreadie declared, the manner of the election, and confirma­tion both of a Bishopp, into his Episco­pall Sea, & of a Minister, into his Pasto­rall charge; what the one is by the lawe alreadie established, and what the other, by a law desired to be established, ought to be, wee will not any more speake of their entrāce, into eyther of their places, vnles only (a litle to recreate the Reader) we merely note what answere some Bb. [Page 366] haue made, when as long chasing after Bishopricks, they haue chafed in their minds, for feare of loosing their pray: as was the answere of that Italian Bishopp, The answer of an Italian Bishop, loth to loose his Bishopricke. who beeing thrise demaunded of the Archb. (as the manner is) vis Episcopa­ri? vis Episcopari? vis Episcopari? and being willed by one standing by, thrise againe to aunswere (as the maner is) no­lo, nolo, nolo. He making no bones at the matter, aunswered aloude with an oath, Proh Deum, dedine ego tot milia Flore­norum, pro volo Episcopari, & iam debeo dicere nolo? or as was the answere of that English Bishop, who having promised a Courtier one annuitie of xx. pound, du­ring The answer of an En­glish Bishop, having ob­teyned his congedelier. his life, out of his Bishopricke, if he could procure the speedie sealing of his congedelier: within a while after, whē it was sealed, he rapt out an oath, & sware by Iesus God, that the same Gentleman had done more for him, then an other great Courtier, who before hande, for that purpose, had receyued frō him one thousand markes: But whether all Bi­shoppes buye their congedeliers dearer, or better cheape, is not a matter incident to this treatise; onlie if they buie deare, [Page 367] they may happelie think with them sel­ues, that they may sell deere, vendere iu­re potest, emerat ille prius, setteth not a­nie price vpon any wares in the Royall exchange. But to returne to our pur­pose, whence by occasion of those Bi­shoplie oathes and answeres, wee haue a little digressed: let vs see what is the ma­ner The maner of the admi­nistration of spiritual iu­stice in the Church, by Prelacie. and forme, of the administration of spirituall iustice, in the gouernment of the Church, by Prelacie, as the same is ordinarilie administred, in all places throughout the Church of Englande. Wherein that we be not mistaken, it is to be vnderstood, that the maner of ad­ministratiō of iustice, wherof we speak, is that administration of iustice onlie, whiche respecteth the punishment of crimes eccllesiasticall to be inflicted by spirituall censures. In all which cases, penances, suspension, and excommuni­cations, in the Bishops consistorie, pro­ceed from the iudgement, and authori­tie of the Bishoppe alone, if he bee pre­sent, or from the sentence and power of his Vicar generall, or Cōmissarie alone, if he be absent: Nay doth not everi such censure likewise in the Archdeacons [Page 368] consistorie, proceede from the sole au­thoritie of the Archdeacon? or if he bee absent, from the sole authoritie of his officiall? But if the like course of the execution of Iustice as this is, can not be found, to be an ordinarie course of Iu­stice, in the common weale, where Iu­stice is administred in criminall causes, by the ministerie of a subiect: I would faine learne, what preiudice may be fea­red to redound vnto the cōmon weale, if the administration of spirituall Iustice (after a sort) were established, to be after the same manner in the Church, after which civill Iustice is alreadie practised in the common weale. I said after a sort, to this end, least I should bee mistaken. For the meaning is not, that spirituall Iustice should bee ministred exactly, in No one sub­iect in the cō mon weale, can alone exercise civill iustice, in causes cri­minall. every respect, after the maner of civill Iustice, but the comparison standeth on­lie in this; that, as not any one tempo­rall subiect alone hath authoritie to heare, to examine, and to iudge any one criminall cause, in any Court of civill iustice, in the common weale; so like­wise that not any one spirituall person alone should haue authoritie, to be ex­aminer [Page 369] and iudge of any one criminall cause in any Court of spirituall Iustice in the Church. For if certain principall The admi­nistration of spiritual Iu­stice, by Pa­stors & El­ders, agree­able to the execution of civill iustice in the com­mon weale. & godly persons, associated vnto a lear­ned and zealous Pastor, in the presence, and with the consent and authoritie of the people of every Parish, did enioyne penance, suspend, or excommunicate a spirituall offendor, were not this forme of administration of spirituall iustice, more consonant, agreeable, and confor­mable, to the daily executiō of civill Iu­stice in the Courts of the cōmon weale, then is the administration of spirituall Iustice, by the Bishopp alone, or by his Vicar general alone, in his Consistorie? and to make this matter more familiar in the mind of the Reader, for an instāce or two let vs suppose, that Mai. Doctor Bancroft were still Parson of S. Andros Maister D. Bancroft w ^t his assistāts letter, able to represse Puritanes in one Parish, then Maister D. Stanhope alone, to re­presse all in a Diocesse. in Holborne, and that hee had chosen Maister Harsnet to bee his Curat, and withall that Mai. Dodge, Ma. Merbury, Maister Flower, and Maister Brisket, (all cheefe attendants on his late great Lord and Maister) were inhabitants within the same Parish, & that the chiefe men, of the same Parish, had chosen those to [Page 370] be assistants to him, and to his Curat, for the inquisition of the demeanours of all the Puritanes and Precisians with­in his Parish; let this (I say) bee suppo­sed, would not hee and they (trow wee) thinke it a high scorne, and an indigni­tie to be offered vnto their Maisterships, in case it should bee insinuated, that Maister Doctor Stanhope, were better able, with one litle blast of breath, vpon a peece of paper, to blow away all Puri­tanisme, out of the Citie and Diocesse of London, then these great Chaplins, and discrete gentlemen, with their thun­drings, and with their lightnings, were able to fright the same out of one poore Parish in Holborn? And againe, to make this matter yet a litle more familiar to the minde of the Reader, let vs suppose againe that thundering Mai. Merburie now Lecturer in in the church of Saint Mary O [...]eris, were Pastor of the same church, & had, to be his assistants in the Ministery but simple M. Buttertō, & that they two, for the Elders of the same Church, to be chosen by the Parish, had such, and such, and such, and such men louers, of all honestie and godlines, and [Page 371] enemies vnto all dishonestie, and vn­godlines; could not these learned and graue Ministers, with the assistants of such wise & godly Borough-maisters, be as well able, to reforme Papists, Atheists, swearers, prophaners of the Sabaoth, Drunkerds, adulterers, and such like, within the Borough of Southwark; as is Maister Doctor Ridley, to bring to any good amendement of life, all such kind of persons, within the whole Diocesse of Winchester? If the examination and iudgement of all theeueries, pickeries, burglaries, robberies, murders and such like, were committed to Maister Do­ctor Ridley alone, for the Diocesse of Winchester, and to Maister D. Stanhope alone for the Diocesse of London, were it not like, that for one such malefactor, as there is now, we should shorthly haue an hundred? And therefore to hold vs still to the point in question, it is very plaine and euident, that this manner of spirituall Iustice, mentioned to be exe­cuted, by the Pastors and Elders, is more correspondent, to the administration of civill Iustice, in the common weale, then is that manner of the execution of spi­rituall [Page 372] Iustice, by Doctor Stanhope or Doctor Ridley; by the Bishop of Londō, or by the Bishoppe of Winchester. For to begin with our meanest, and basest Courts, let thē shew vnto vs, any Court, Leete, Law-days, or Sherifs turnes, with­in Matters in Leets and Lawdayes not ouerru­led by one alone. any Countie, Citie, Towne, Borough, Village, or Hamblet within the Realme, wherin matters of civil Iustice are heard, examined, and adiudged by one man alone. If for the common benefit of the Tenants against incrochmēts, ouerlay­ing of cōmons, wast, nuisances, or such like, any payne is to bee offered, or pre­sentment made, the same is not set or made, by the Steward, Sherif, or other Officer alone, but by the commō voice and consent of all the homagers, and suitors to the Court. The Steward indeed is the director, and moderator of the Court, the giuer of the charge, and the mouth of the whole assembly, to pro­nounce and enact the whole worke of their meeting, but he is not the only in­quisitor, the presentor, the informer, or the Iudge, to dispose all things accor­ding to his owne discretion. Besides, matters of the Kings peace, are not com­mitted [Page 373] in any Countie, or other place within the Realme, only to one Iustice of the peace alone. For neither at the ge­nerall Breaches of the Kinges peace, not punishable by one alon Sessions of the peace, nor at any other lesse publike meetings, any per­son, for any offence, (whereof he stan­deth indighted, or for which he is pu­nishable) can be fined, amerced, or bo­dily punished, at the discretion of one Iustice alone, but by the greatest part of the Iustices assembled, his penaltie is to be imposed vpō him. Furthermore, this manner of the examination of the fact, and declaration of the law, for the triall of the fact, and iudgement of the lawe, doth not reside in the brest of one Iuror or Iudge alone. In the Courte of the Kings Bench, if a prisoner bee brought to the Barre, and confesse not the crime, Iustice in a­nie of the B. Courts, is not execu­ted by one Iudge alone by the Iustice of that Court hee can re­ceaue no iudgement, vnlesse he be first indicted, by inquisition of 12. grand Iu­rors at the least, and afterward againe be tried by other 12. brought iudicially in­to the Court face to face. Yea & in this Court, neither the interpretation of the common law, nor the exposition of any statute dependeth vpō the opinion, cre­dite, [Page 374] or authoritie of one Iudge, no not of the Kinges chiefe Iustice him selfe alone; for his other three brethren and Co-juges; varying from him in point of law, may lawfully over-rule the Court. The same maner of iudgement, for the law is in vse, and is practized by the Iud­ges, in the Court of common Pleas, and by the Barons of the Exchecquer in the Latin Courte of the Exchecquer. And not onely in these Courtes of lawe and In y ^e Courts of Equitie are many as­sistances. Iustice, but also in all the Kings Courtes of equitie & cōscience; it is not to be sene that any one person alone, hath any absolute power, without assistants, fi­nally to order, iudge, and decree, any cause apperteining to the iurisdiction of those Courtes. In the Courte of Re­questes, there are not fewer then two, Court of Requests. yea some times three, or fower, with Maister of Requestes in commission, to heare and determine matters of equitie in that Court. In the Courte of Wardes and liveries, there sitteth not onely the Court of Wards. Maister of the Wardes, but also the Kinges Attorney, the Receaver and o­ther Officers of the same Courte. In Court of the chequer Chamber. the Courte of the Checquer-chamber, [Page 375] with the Lord Thresorer, (who is chiefe and President of that Councell) yet with him as assistants, doe sit the Chan­celor of the Exchequer, the Lord chiefe Baron, and the other Barons. Whatso­ever decree finall is made in the Kinges High courte of Chance­rie. high Courte of Chancerie, the same is decreed, not by the Lorde Chancelour alone, but by the Lord Chancelour, and the high Court of Chancerie: wherein the Maister of the Roles, and the twelfe Maisters of the Chancerie as coadiutors, doe sitt and giue assistance. In the most honorable Court of Starre-chāber, the Court of Starre-chā ­ber. 3. H. 7. c. 1. &. 21. H. 8. c. 20. Lord Chancelor, the Lord Thresaurer, and the President of the Kings most ho­norable Coūcell, & keeper of the Kings privie Seale, or two of them, calling vnto them one Bishop, & one temporal Lord, of the Kings most honorable Councell, the two chiefe Iustices of the Kinges bench, and common Pleas for the time being, or other two of the Kings Iustices in their absence, haue full power and authoritie, to punish, after their deme­rits, all misdoers being founde colpable before them. If wee search our statutes (besids the Courts, and matters determi­nable [Page 376] in these spoken of before) we shall find, that the complaints of errour, whe­ther it touch the King, or any other per­son, 31. E 3. c. 21 made in the Exchecquer, should be done to come before the Chancelor, & Treasurer, who taking to them two Iustices, & other sage persons, are duely to examine the busines; and, if any er­rour be found to correct, & amend the Roles, &c. By reason of delayes of iudg­ments, vsed in the Chauncerie, in the 14. E. 3. c 5 Kinges bench, common bench, and in the Exchecquer, it was assented, establi­shed, and accorded, that a Prelate, two Earles, and two Barons chosen by the Parleamēt, by good advise of the Chan­celour, &c. shall proceed to take a good accord and to make a good iudgement. When it was complayned vnto the King. that the profites, &c. of his Realme by [...]0. K. 2. c. 1 some great Officers, &c. were much withdrawen and cloyned, &c. it pleased the King, &c. to cōmit the surveighing, aswell of the estate, &c. of his house, &c. vnto the honourable Fathers in God, William Archbishop of Canterburie, and Alexander Archbishop of Yorke, &c. by a statute of commission for 6. H. 6. Sewers: [Page 377] by a statute for punishmēt of 11. H. 5. c. 25. periurie: by a statut against making or executing of actes, or ordinances, by any 19 H. 7. c. 7. Mai­sters, &c. being not examined, &c. by the Lord Chancelour, Treasurer, or chiefe Iustices, &c. By a statute for the erection of the Court of 27. H. 8. c 27. Augmētation: by a sta­tute for erection of the Court of firste 32. H. c. 45. fruits & tenthes: and lastly by an 27. Eli. c. 8 acte for redresse of erroneous iudgements in the Court commonly called the Kinges Bench: By all these statutes (I say) it is very apparant; that the Administration of publike affaires, in the cōmon weale, hath never bene vsually committed, to the advisemnet, discretion, or definitiue sentence, of any one man alone. Which point is yet more fully, and more per­fectly Lord presi­dent, and counsell in Wales. Lord presi­dent & coū ­sell in the North parts Lord Depu­tie, & coun­sell in Ire­lande. The Kinge, and his ho­norable pri­vie Counsel to be vnderstood, by the establish­ment, & continuance, of the Kings Lord President and Councell in Wales; of the Kings Lord President and Counsel esta­blished for the North; of the Kinges Lord Deputie and Councell within the Realme of Irelande; of the Kings High­nesse most honorable privie Councell, chosen by him for the assistance of his Royall person, in matters apperteyning [Page 378] to his Kingly estate; and lastly of the su­preame and grand Councell of the three estates in Parleament, for matters con­cerning The Kinge & his grand Counsell in Parleament. the Church, the King, and the common Weale. For whether respect bee had vnto the secrete affaires of the Kings estate, consulted vpō in his High­nesse Councell Chamber, by his privie Counsaylors, or whether we regard the publike tractation of matters in Parlea­ment, there can bee no man so simple, as not to knowe, both these privie and open negotiatiōs, to be carried by most voyces of those persons, who by the King are called to those honorable as­semblies. And what a vaine iangling then doth the Admonitor keepe, & how idlely and wranglingly doth he dispute; when against the government of the church by Pastours and Elders, he obie­cteth, that the same will interrupt the lawes of the Realme: that it wilbe great occasion of partiall & affectionate dea­ling, that some will incline to one parte, and that the residue wilbee wrought to favour the other; and that thereby it wilbe a matter of strife, discord, schisme and heresies? Howbeit if never any of [Page 379] these extremities and dangers, haue fal­len out in the common weale, by any partiall or affectionate dealing of the Kings Deputies, Presidents, Iudges, Iu­sticers, and other Officers & Ministers, associated vnto thē for the administratiō of Iustice, or equitie in any of the Kings civill Courtes; howe much lesse cause haue we to feare any partialitie, affectiō, working inclination, favour, strife, de­bate, schismaticall or hereticall opini­ons, if once Pastours and Elders in every Congregation, and not thoroughout a Diocesse one Bishop alone, had the spi­rituall administration of the Church­causes? Can many temporall Officers, Iusticers and Iudges, rightly and indif­ferently administer the law, and execute iustice and iudgment, without that, that some doe incline to one part, & without that the residue bee wrought to favour the other part? And cannot spirituall Officers dispatch spiritual affaires, with­out that, that they be partially & affecti­onally disposed? What? is it so easie a matter that the Ancients of God, and the Ministers of Christ, can the one part in­cline to righteousnes, and the residue be [Page 380] wrought to favor wickednes? can some incline to God and vnto Christ; and can other some be wrought to follow Satan and Antichrist? For what other contro­versie, is required to be decided by Pa­stours and Elders, then the controversie of sinne, betwene the soule of man, and his God? And is there any Christian Pastour or Elder, that wilbe wrought, rather to favour the sinne of a mortall man, then the glorie of his immortall God? But to leaue the state of the King­dome and common weale, and the good vsages and customes of the same; let vs come to the state of the Church it selfe, and to the lawfull government thereof, established even amongst vs at this day. The gouer­ment of the Church, ought not to be, by one alone. For whatsoever our reverend Bishoppes practise to the contrarie, yet touching ordination and deposition of Ministers; touching excommunication and abso­lution; touching the order and rule of Colleges, Cathedrall churches, and the Vniversities, the ecclesiasticall law doth not commit the administration of these things, and regiment of these places, to any one person alone. The Vniversities admit not the goverment of the Chan­celour [Page 381] being present, nor of his Vice­chancelour The gouer­ment in the Vniuersities not by one alone. (him selfe being absent) as of one alone: the Doctors, Procurators, Regents, & non-Regents, haue all voy­ces, and, by most of their voyces, the V­niversitie causes take successe. The bu­sinesses The gover­ment in Colleges not by one alone. of Colleges, by the statutes of their founders, are commended to the industrie and fidelitie of the President, Vice-president, and fellowes; vnto the Provost, Viceprovost, and fellowes; vnto the Warden, Sub-warden, and fellowes; vnto the Maister and followes: and vnto such like Officers & fellowes. The Ca­thedral The gover­ment in Ca­thedral churches, not by one alone. churches their livings, and their landes, their revenues & their dividents, their chapiters, and their conferencies, depend vpon the will and disposition of the Deane and Chapiter, and not of the Bishop alone. Neither can the Bishoppe Ex. de exces. Prela. c. [...]. Exc. de [...] quaes. cons. cap c. novit. alone, by any ancient canon lawe (pre­tended to be in force) place, or displace, excommunicate, or absolue, any ecclesi­asticall person, without the iudgment of the Chapiter. And aswell by a statute 21. H. 8. c. 13. as also by the booke of consecrating Archbishops, &c. the pre­sence of divers Ministers, and the people [Page 382] is required, at the ordination of every Minister. As for the deposition, or de­gradation of Ministers (vnder the cor­rectiō whether the degradation of a Minist. be waranta­ble. of the reverend Bb. be it spoken) I thinke, they haue not so much as any colour of any law for it. The forme of the degradation of a Popish and sacrifi­cing Priest, by the canon law can bee no pretexte to degrade a Minister of the Monsieur de Plesis 164. in the seconde book of the Masse. Gospel, because a Minister of the Gospel is not set into his charge, per calicem, & patinam, with a cup full of wine, & dish full of hostes: Neither receaveth he any charecter at al of a shaveling Priest. And because a Minister of the Gospell, is or­deyned onely after that manner, which the statute lawe hath appointed, howe should the ordination made by so high an authoritie, bee vndone by any other power? vnto the former maners, of the administration of the causes of the V­niversities, Colledges, and Cathedrall churches, may bee added the executi­on of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, com­mitted heretofore by the Queene vn­to the ecclesiasticall Commissioners. For althoug by the words of the statute, her Highnes had full power, and autho­ritie, The ecclesi­astical com­missiō exer­cised by ma­nie commis­sioners, and not by one. [Page 383] by her letter patents, to assigne, name, and authorize, any one person, a naturall borne subiect, to execute spiri­tuall iurisdiction; yet neverthelesse, ac­cording to the laudable vsages, and cu­stomes of her kingdome, and Courts temporal, shee evermore authorised, not one alone, but diuers & sundrie, aswell temporall, as ecclesiasticall persons, for the execution thereof. Which manner of commissiō, because the reverend Bb. commend the same, and avowe that it would doe more good, if it were more common, it cannot but seeme, to bee a most gratefull thing, vnto all good men, especiallie vnto those reuerend Fathers, if humbly wee beseech the Kinge, that his Highnes would be pleased, to make it more common. And therefore, in the The ecclesi­astical com­mission commanded by the Bb. if it please y ^e king may be en­larged vnto all Parishes wherein are godlie prea­ching Mini­sters. behalfe, aswell of the reverend Bb. as of all the learned and graue Doctors, and Pastors of every church, we most instātly intreat our most gracious Souverayne Lord the King, that where in any Parish, there shalbe found a learned preaching Minister, resident vpō his benefice, that there he would be pleased by his autho­ritie Royal, vnder the broad Seale, to en­able [Page 384] him, and some other godly and faithfull Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen, Citizens, Borough-Maisters, or other chief men of the same Parish, to execute spirituall Iustice against drūkards, adul­terers, swearers, raylers, and such like ecclesiasticall offendours, inhabitants only within the same Parish. For in this case we say, as the reuerend Bb. say, bo­num quò communius, eò melius. If any No exceptiō to be taken against lay Elders to be authorized by the king in every Pa­rish; sithence the king au­thorizeth laie Elders, in everie ec­clesiasticall cōmission. exception should be taken, or challenge made scoffinglie, and with scornefull termes, against these lay parochians, as heretofore hath bin vsed, against laie el­ders, or lay Aldermen (as they call thē) let him that taketh such exception, ad­vise him selfe wel, and remember before he speake, that in speaking he controle not the policie, the practise, the wisdom, & the authoritie, both of our late Queen deceased, and of our Souverayne Lord the King now raigning; who authori­zed, and doth authorize lay-men to bee ecclesiasticall commissioners. Which kind of lay men, or lay Elders (as they call them) that they haue ioyned in the exercise of the chiefest censure of the Church, viz. excommunication, with [Page 385] ecclesiasticall persons, hath bin already proved, by the sentence of excommuni­catiō pronounced against E. by Maister W. and his associates, whereof diuers were laie-men. Againe if one laie Elder dwelling at Winchester, may call and ssociate vnto him self, one ecclesiasticall Elder, dwellinge at S. Georges in South­warke, to excōmunicate any Parochian or Minister subiect vnto the iurisdiction of the Archdeacō of Surrey, in what Pa­rish soeuer of the same iurisdiction the partie shall dwell: if it be lawfull (I say) Discipline of excom­munication exercised by one laie El­der and one ecclesiastiall Elder. for euerie ordinarie, to ioyne one laie Elder, & one ecclesiasticall Elder, toge­ther in cōmission, the one to pronounce sentence of contumacie, the other to de­nounce sentence of excōmunication, for everie spirituall contumacie, committed within his iurisdiction; what reason can any man pretend, why it should not, be much more lawfull, for the King by his Royall authoritie, to apoint a learned, & preaching Pastor with the assistance of some cōpanie of faithfull inhabitants of the same Parish, to exercise all maner of spiritual iustice within their own parish?

If the King shall stand in doubt, whe­ther [Page 386] any Discipline by excommunicatiō be exercised, after this, and this maner, in the church of Englande, then to put his Highnes out of all doubt hereof, may it please the King to consider the precept of the reverend Bishoppes made in their convocation; togither with the practise of the venerable Archdeacon of Surr. following. The precept is this; Ʋnus­quisque Articlo pro clero. c. de quibusdam circa excom: excessib. coercend: 1584. Vicarius generalis, officialis, seu Commissarius, qui ordines ecclesiastico; non susceperit, eruditum aliquem presby­terum, sibi accerset, & associabit, qui suf­ficienti authoritate, vel ab ipso Episcopo, in iurisdictione sua, vel ab Archidiacono (presbytero existente) in iurisdictione sua munitus, id (que) ex praescripto iudicis tunc praesentis, excommunicationis sententiam pro contumacia denunciabit. Everie Vi­car generall, Officiall, or Commissarie, which hath not taken vpon him, eccle­siasticall orders, shall call and associate vnto him some learned Presbyter, who being armed with sufficient authoritie from the Bishopp in his iurisdiction, or from the Archdeacon, beeing a Presby­ter in his iurisdiction, shall denounce, & that by the prescript of the Iudge pre­sent, [Page 387] the sentence of excommunication for contumacie. Now the maner of the D. Hones practise of the Bishopps article. practise of this precept, ensueth in these wordes: Iohannes Hone, legum Doctor, Officialis venerabilis viri domini Archi­diaconi Surr. omnibus & singulis rectori­bus, &c. salutem. Cùm nos rite & legiti­me procedentes, omnes & singulos quorum nomina, &c. in nō comparendo coram no­bis, &c. seu saltem in non satisfaciendo mandatis nostris, &c. pronunciaverimus contumaces, ipsos (que), &c. excommunican­dos fore decreverimus. Cum (que) discretus vir magister Roul. Allen presbyter, eosdē omnes & singulos subscriptos, ex officio nostro excommunicaverit in scriptis iu­sticia id exigente, vobis igitur committi­mus, &c. quatenus eos omnes, &c. sicut prefertur ex officio nostro mero excōmu­nicatos fuisse & esse, &c. palam denunci­etis, &c. Datum sub sigillo officialitatis nostrae, 19. die Decembris Anno Domi­ni 1587. John Hone Doctor of the Lawes, Officiall of the venerable man, the Archdeacon of Surr. to all and sin­gular persons, &c. greeting: Whereas we, otherwise rightlie, and lawfully pro­ceeding, all and singular whose na [...]s [Page 388] are vnderwritten, in not appearing be­fore vs, or at least-wise, in not satisfying our mandates, haue pronounced contu­macious, and decreed them to be excō ­municated: And whereas also the dis­crete man M. Rouland Allen presbyter, out of our office, hath excōmunicated, all and singuler vnder written, iustice so requiringe, wherefore wee charge you that openlie you denounce, and declare them, & everie of them, so as aforesayd out of our office to be excōmunicated. Giuen vnder the seale of our officialitie. The 19. day of December. 1587.

By this practise, it doth appeare, that Doctor Hone, and Rouland Allen can­vased manie poore men verie piteouslie. And that this poore curate Rouland Al­len, had a warme seruice, to attend vpon Doctor Hone, and to ierk those, whose points soeuer hee should vntie. But be­cause this precept, was an article con­cluded vpon, by the reuerend Bishopps, in their convocation, and confirmed (as I suppose) by the Royall authoritie of our late Queene, wee will forbeare, to speake what we thinke, might iustlie be spoken, against the incōgruitie ther­of. [Page 389] Onely this without offence, to the reuerend Bishoppes, wee may safely de­maund: sithence everie ordinarie, whe­ther he be a Bishopp, or a presbyter, by this article of their owne devise, hath such an absolute power, resiant in his person, as that thereby, thoroughout his whole iurisdiction, he may thus cō ­mit, the execution of discipline, by ex­communication, partlie to one laie per­son, and partlie to one ecclesiastical per­son, partly to a supposed spiritual Elder, and partlie to a lay Elder: sithence (I say) this is so; we may safelie demande, what reason they can produce, to hinder the King, from having authoritie, to cō ­mande three, or fo [...]re, or (if occasion The Kinge, hathas good right to cō ­mand, excō ­munication, to bee exer­cised, by a Pastor and Elders, as y ^e Bb. haue to commit the same to a Curate, and one lay El­der. serue) fiue or six lay Elders (as they call them) and one spirituall Pastor, being a true spirituall Elder in deede, all lawful­lie chosen ecclesiasticall Officers in the house of God, that they ioyntly should not execute the discipline of Christ, viz. excommunication and other censures of the church, in every Parish within his Kingdome? If it bee aunswered, that in this case, the Presbyter alone doth excō ­municate, is it not, as if one should say, [Page 390] that the executioner doth giue iudgmēt when at the cōmandment of the Iudge, he smiteth of the head, or casteth downe the ladder? or may not as much be said, for the excommunication whereof wee speake, that the Pastor onlie should ex­communicate, when by vertue of his office, with the consent, and not by the prescript of the Elders associated vnto him, he should declare and pronounce the partie to be excommunicated? But let it bee graunted, that Rouland Allen, denounceth the lesson which is writtē in the paper, for him to read; yet is it cleare by the precept, that the same must bee done, by the prescript of Doctor Hone. Besides Doctor Hone, he citeth; he pre­cognizateth, the parties, and they being absent, he pronounceth them contuma­citer absentes, and in paenam contumaci­arum suarum huiusmodi, decreeth them to be excōmunicate: and are not al these necessarie partes incident to the executi­on of discipline by excommunication? And how then can the Minister, be saide to excommunicate alone, when Doctor Hone of necessitie must play three parts of the foure; without all, or without any [Page 391] one of which parts, the excommunica­tion by reason of a nullitie, is merelie voide? Againe, the acte being done as it were vno puncto, at vno halitu, and Rou­land Allen, and Doctor Hone, having their commission from the Archdeacon, in solidum, how can their iudgement be devided? Furthermore to say that Rou­land Allen doth excommunicate, by the authoritie of Doct. Hone, were to over­throwe the intendement of the article: Because by the scope of the article, it is plaine, that the Presbyter, to be associa­ted to the officiall, must onlie derive his authoritie from one, who hath taken ecclesiasticall orders. But those orders Doctour Hone never tooke, otherwise Rouland Allens presence, had bene vn­necessarie and superfluous. And there­fore if the excommunication be of any validitie, thē is discipline, by excommu­nication in the Church of England ex­ercised, partlie by one laie Elder (as they call him) and partly by one Ecclesiasti­call Elder; wherein againe, it is worthy the observation, for the matter we haue in hand; that Doctor Hone, a mere laie & temporall man, hath authoritie from [Page 392] the Archdeacon, to call, and associate vnto him, & to prescribe Roul. Allen a Presbiter, & an other mans hireling Cu­rate in Southwark, to excōmunicate, not only the Parochians, of an other Pastors charge, but also any other Pastor what­soever subiect to the Archdeacons iuris­diction. And hath not the Kings High­nesse then, as good right, as great a pri­viledge, and as high a prerogative, to command Maister Doctor Andros, or Maister Doctor King, and lay Elders, by a lawfull election to be associated vnto either of them to excommunicate ei­ther of their owne Parishioners, for pu­blike drunkennes, or other notorious sinnes, committed in their owne Parish? For if it bee lawfull, at the voice of a lay stranger, that an hireling and stipendary Curate, should chase an other mans sheepe out of his owne folde, how much more is it lawful, that a true sheepherde, should disciplinate his own sheepe, fee­ding and couchant within his owne pa­sture and within his owne fold?

Furthermore touching the admit­tance of governing Elders, or lay Elders (as they call them) vnto the Minister of [Page 393] everie congregation, according to the former patterne of one lay Elder, that the same is not, a matter so strange, for lay men to bee ioyned in this charge of ecclesiasticall government, as the oppo­sites Lay men ap­pointed by the Queenes iniuuctions, to execute some part of discipline. beare vs in hande to be: it shall not be amisse, to cal vnto their remēbrances, one of our late Soveraigne the Queenes iniuctions, wherby certeyne lay persons called overseers, were commanded, to be chosen by the ordinaries, in every Parish for the better retayning of the people in obedience, vnto divine service. In everie Parish (saith the Iniunction) three or foure discrete men, which tender Gods glorie, and his true religion, shall be ap­pointed, by the ordinaries, diligentlie to see, that all the parishioners duelie re­sort, vnto their Church, vpon all Sun­dayes, and holie dayes and there to con­tinue, the whole time, of the godlie ser­vice. And all such as shall be negligent, in resorting to the Church, having no great, or vrgent cause of absence, they shall streightlie, call vpon them, and after due admonition, if they amēd not, they shall denounce them to the ordina­rie. Thus far the iniuction. Which, that [Page 394] it is not meant of the Church War­dens, appeareth by the verie next article; for vnto them, as is assigned an other name, so also another Office. That side­men also, are not these kinde of over­seers, is playne, in that they be neither so manie in number, as are here required, neither chosen by the ordinaries; nei­ther yet do they admonish & denounce, according to this article. Wherefore be­cause it is meete, that the effect of this Iniunction, being religious, should bee put in due execution, it seemeth a thing verie reasonable, and much tending to the honour of the King, that his High­nes, vnder his letters patents would bee pleased, to appoint three, foure, or more discrete and faithfull persons in everie Parish, not onely to performe the effect of this article, but also generallie to oversee the life and maners of the peo­ple, that without great & vrgent causes they resorte not vnto Typling-houses, or houses of evill note, and suspected fame; and that vpon the Sabboths, they vse no Heathnish dauncing, about their disguised May-poles: And after due ad­monition if they amend not, to denoūce [Page 395] them to the Pastor of the place. For then might the Pastor be encouraged, to giue Book of the forme of ordeining Priestes. his faithfull diligence, as at the time of his ordination, hee solemlie promiseth vnto the Bishop, alwayes to Minister the Doctrine and Sacramentes, and Disci­pline of Christ, as the Lorde hath com­manded; by which words inserted in the booke, there is a plaine and open con­fession made by al estates in Parleament, that Christe hath not onely established Everie Mi­nister ought to minister y ^e discipline of Christ in his own cure, by consent of parleament. discipline, but a certaine forme of disci­pline, in his Church, and that the Pastor to whom the care, and charge is com­mitted to teach the people, ought to mi­nister the same discipline. For it had bene a verie absurd parte for the Parlea­ment, to appoint the Bishop, to receaue a promise from the Minister, to minister the discipline of Christ, if Christ had not instituted a Discipline; or that the same discipline, which he instituted, had not in their iudgements belonged vnto the Minister. And therefore this verie letter of the booke cōvinceth the whole answere made vnto the abstract, touch­ing this point to be verie erroneous, fri­volous and impertinent, to the point in [Page 396] question; For whereas in the abstract, it is alleaged, that the Bishop by vertue of The Mini­ster by pro­mise bindeth himselfe to Minister the discipline of Christ. the order and forme appointed, by acte of Parleament, bindeth the Minister, as­well to minister the discipline of Christ, within his cure, as the doctrine and Sa­cramentes of Christ, as the Lorde hath commaunded, &c. herevnto first he an­swereth that these clauses do not dispo­sitively, Pag. 55. Pag. 60. ordaine any thing for discipline, as though the lawe ment, by authoritie hereof, to establish, that the order in these thinges, by the Realme receaved, should be holden as agreeablie to the word of God, but must be taken enunciatively, to declare and affirme, that following the order by law established, they should doe agreeable to Gods will. But alas what repugnancie is there heard? for howe Regugnance in the aun­swere to the abstract. can the law declare and affirme, that the Ministers following the order by lawe established, shall doe agreeablie to Gods will, if the order in these thinges, by the Realm receaved, should not (by the mea­ning of the law) bee holden as agreeable to the word of God? What? doth the law meane, that a man can doe agreeably to Gods will, in any thing, whiche is not a­greeable [Page 397] to his word? or if the law haue established, an order in the discipline, which is not agreeable to Godes worde, shall the Ministers do agreeably to Gods will, if they follow the Lawe? For the meaning of the law is plaine, viz. that the Minister by vertue of his promise made to the Bishop, shall be no further bound to minister any Doctrine, Sacra­mentes or Discipline receaved by the Realme, vnlesse the Realme haue recea­ved the same, according to the cōmand­ment of God. For the Parleamēt having a religious consideration, that the Mini­ster of Christ, must not haue so much respect, what the lawe of the Realme, as what the law of God commādeth, care­fully provided for his indemnitie in this behalfe.

Besides, what a friuolous comment, hath hee made vpon the wordes of the A frivolous comment vppon the wordes of the boo [...]e of ordeining Priestes, &c. booke, when he sayth, that these wordes of the Bishopp, doe not dispositiuely or­deyne any thing for discipline? When as the question is not whether the Bb. words, but whether the lawe and booke dispose any thing for discipline? For the Bishop being but a servāt to the booke, [Page 398] and to the lawe, and one vnto whose fi­delitie the execution of the law & booke is committed, though he doe not by his wordes, dispose any thing of Discipline; yet by his demaunde, hee sheweth vnto the Minister, that the office of the Mini­stration of discipline, within his cure & charge, is committed vnto him, & that by his ordination, his person is fully in­abled, aswell to minister the Discipline, as to preach the doctrine of Christ. And herevpon also falleth to the ground, his other answere, as wholie impertinent to the point in questiō. For where he saith, that the Lawe meant not, by authoritie hereof, to establish that the order of these things, by the Realme receaved, should be holden as agreeable to the worde of God; this (I saye) seemeth wholie to bee impertinent to the purpose of the ab­stract. For there is no such thing insinu­ated, The answer to y ^e abstract wholie im­pertinent to the point in question. to be intended by the statute: onely the scope of the Authours drift, in that place seemeth to be this: viz. That eve­rie Minister, by vertue of his promise, en­ioyned by act of Parleament, to be made by him, and by the office of ministerie taken vpon him, at the time of his ordi­nation, [Page 399] hath bound him selfe, to mini­ster the doctrine, sacramentes and disci­pline of Christ, as the Lord hath com­maunded. And what then if the Lawe, The not dis­posing in perticulari­tie, all rites & ceremonies of discipline, doeth not hinder the exercise of discipline by the Minister. haue not authorized, disposed, or esta­blished in particularitie; the order of these thinges, or if the Scripture haue not deli­vered everie ceremonie, forme, or circum­stance, about these three things, shall not the Minister therefore, minister these, or any of these three things at all? And sup­pose, I pray you, that neither this, nor a­nie other law, had in particularitie, ap­pointed the ceremonie of the Crosse, the ceremonie of Godfathers, or any other ceremonie in Baptisme; or that the Law had not appoynted the ceremonie of kneeling, or any other ceremonie, at the celebration of the Lords Supper, should not the Minister therefore, minister nei­ther Baptisme, nor the Lords Supper, in the charge committed vnto him? yes, he should. And why? forsooth because he hath promised so to doe, and because the Lorde hath commaunded him so to doe. Besides, sithence everie Minister, by vertue of his promise, and force of this law, is bound to teach the doctrine of [Page 400] Christ, to the people of his charge, not­withstanding he be not tyed, by the law of the Realm, nor by the holy Scripture, to any rite, ceremonie, or circumstance, or to any exact forme, or particuler ma­ner in teaching, what reason can any mā pretend, that the not particularizing, of al rites, ceremonies, or circumstances, in the Scripture, or the not establishing, of any order, by the law of the Realm, touching discipline, should altogether hinder everie Minister, from the admi­nistration of al discipline in the church? For as touching the aunswere, that the Ministers may, and doe exercise not the Answere to the abstract. Pag. 59. least partes of Discipline, of declaring by doctrine, according to the worde of God, mens sinnes to be bound, and loo­sed, and the censure of rebuking and re­proving Pag. 55. openlie, and that the discipline Discipline of declaring by doctrine, is called disci­pline, erro­neouslie. which the Minister is to execute, reach­eth no further, then to reach his Parish, with all diligence to keepe, and observe so much of the Doctrine, Sacramentes and Discipline of Christ, as apperteineth vnto them; as touching this aunswere (I say) it is as erroneous, as the former were frivoulous and impe [...]tinent. For as con­solation [Page 401] and comfort, by way of exhor­tation, so reprofe, and sharpe rebuking, by way of dehortatiō, belong properlie, to that part of the Ministers function, which concerneth the binding and loo­sing of sinners by doctrine, and not by discipline, and is but an application of the doctrine to a wounded, or seared cō ­science. Hee therefore that leaveth no other Discipline, to be executed by the Pastor of the church, then of declaring by doctrine, mens sinnes to bee bound, or loosed, and by teaching his Parish, to obserue, doctrine, sacraments, and disci­pline, Discipline & doctrine confounded by the An­swerer. confoundeth the matters both of discipline and doctrine. Againe if not any other discipline, was ment to be at­tributed, to everie Minister then such as is declared by doctrine, thē these words, viz. (and the discipline of Christ) were superfluouslie, and idellie added by the Parleament. For then had it bene suffi­cient, for the Parleament, to haue enioy­ned the Bishopp, to demaund of the Mi­nister onely this and no more: viz. Whether will you giue all faithfull dili­gence, to Minister the Doctrine and Sa­craments of Christ? There is therefore [Page 402] some other kind of discipline of Christ, intendeth by the Parleament, to be attri­buted The Parlea­ment inten­deth some other disci­pline, then of declaring by doctrine. vnto euerie Minister, and where­with also the law of the Realm doth en­able euerie Minister, then is this maner of discipline of declaring by doctrine, & teaching the people. And this discipline also must needs be vnderstood, to be of the spirituall censures of the Church, because Christ neuer instituted any o­ther discipline. And therefore because our opposites agree with vs in a genera­litie that the doctrine, Sacraments, and Answere to the abstract. 55. 60. discipline of Christ, are to be Ministred as the Lord hath commaunded onlie, & none otherwise, and yet neuertheles doe dissent from vs touching the persons, by whom this discipline is to be ministred, because (say they) everie particuler ce­remonie, rite, or circumstance of exter­nall policie, are not set downe in scrip­ture, because of this their answere (I say) it is to be cōsidered; First, vnto what per­sons, the function of the ministration of the discipline of Christ, by the holy Scriptures is cōmitted. Secondlie, whe­ther the same persons with their functi­ons, be arbitrable, ceremonious, rituall, [Page 403] or circūstantiall to be altered, & chāged by authoritie of the Church, as thinges To what persons the discipline of Christ by y ^e scriptures is committed, & whether the persons bee arbitra­ble or no. indifferent, yea or no. To the first, see­ing to one and the selfe same person, the holie Scriptures attribute these two names, Bishop, and Pastor, thereby si­gnifying what are the two duties, which belong to the same one person; and see­ing also no one person by Gods word is called a Bishop or Pastour in regard of Phil 1. 1. his fellow brethren, the other Bishopps Tit. 9. 1. 5. & 7. or Pastours, but in regard of his owne flocke, which he overseeth; and seeing 1 Tim. 3. 1 [...] also in well ordered Churches, by the ordinance of God, certeyne men of ap­proved godlines (called according to the common name of the Hebrewes, by the common name of Elders, whom partly calleth governors) were ioyned as ecclesiasticall Magistrats, to the Bishop, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Pastor, or teaching Elder, by whose cō ­mon direction, & authoritie, ecclesiasti­call discipline was practised; seeing (I say) these things are so, we affirme that the persons, to whom the ministratiō of the discipline of Christ, rightlie belon­geth, are the persons onlie aboue speci­fied and none other. And further we say [Page 404] if any spirituall Discipline, or power, which directlie belongeth vnto the con­science, The Disci­pline of Christ pro­phaned, if the same be ministred by other per­sons, then y ^e holie scrip­tures doe appoint. be ministred in the church, by any other persons, thē by those persons only, that the same discipline is not to be called the discipline, but a mere pro­phanation of the Discipline of Christ. For as it is vnlawfull, for any person, to vsurpe any part, of the Bishopps or Pa­stors office, which consisteth in spiritual teaching the word and administring the sacraments; so is it also vnlawfull for any person to vsurpe any parte of a Bi­shopps, Pastors, or Elders office which consisteth in spirituall rule and gouern­ment. Whervpon it secondlie followeth, that the same persons, with their functi­ons, are not arbitrable, ceremoniall, ri­tuall, and circumstanciall, as things in­different, to be altered, by the authoritie of the church, but perpetuall, substan­ciall, essentiall, and as it were the verie mayne and fundamentall pillers, to vp­hold, & stay the house of God, from all spirituall sliding, and falling downe. And therefore from the execution of the discipline of Christ, we seclude the per­sons of all humane Archbishopps, hu­mane [Page 405] Bishoppes, Suffraganes, Archdea­cons, Chauncelors, Commissaries, Offi­cials, and all Rowland Allens, because their persons together with their fun­ctions, are arbitrable, ceremonious, ritu­all, traditionall, or circumstanciall, yea and removeable at the pleasure of the King and State.

Neither doth this disagree, from that A Bishopp, Pastor and Elder, and our Lorde B. diffu. which was erst sayd of a Bb. or Pastor, that they be all one, in respect of their function. For it is not sayd that an hu­mane Bishop, and Pastor, but that a Bb. and Pastor are all one. For a Bb. simplie so called, is not a Bishopp, and Pastor, in respect of his fellowe brethren, but only in regard of his flocke, which he ouer­seeth, feedeth, and ruleth. But a humane what a lord Bishopp is. Bishopp is hee, that is promoted, vnto this dignitie by man, and who by mans authoritie taketh vpon him superoritie, & preheminence ouer them which are equall vnto him, touching their functi­on, that intangleth himselfe with civill gouernment, and wordlie affaires, and whose Bishopplie office consisteth not so much, in the dispensation of Gods worde and Sacraments, as in Lordlie & [Page 406] Bishoplie apparell, Crossing with the signe of the crosse, confirmation of chil­dren, sole imposition of hands, sole ex­communication, sole enioyning of ar­ticles vpō the people and Clergie of his Diocesse, consecration of oratories, de­legation of his episcopall authoritie to his Suffragane Vicar generall, and prin­cipall officiall, and other such humane and Bishopplie functions. All which are after the customes, preceptes, and tradi­tions of men. And albeit D. O. by vertue of the Queenes congedelier, were cho­sen, by the Deane and Chapter of Lich­field, in episcopum, & Pastorem ecclesiae Lichfieldensis, yet is hee never intituled The Lorde Bishoppe of Lichfield is neuer hono­red with the title of be­ing Lorde Pastor with the dignitie of being the Lord Pa­stor, but onely with the honor, of being the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, so that one and the self same person being a Bishop, and a Pastor, may be a Lord Bishop over Pastours, but not a Pastor, over Pastors. Wherevpon it followeth, that the Pasto­rall Pastoral au­thoritie of a Lord Bb & of other Pa­stours, is e­quall. authoritie, which hee hath in com­mon, with his brethren, the other Pa­stors of his Diocesse, is of no superioritie or proheminence, aboue theirs; and that touching the function, both of his, [Page 407] and their Pastorall cure & charge, there is a paritie betwene him and them, by reason whereof, he can haue no power over them; because par in parem non ha­bet imperium. But why is it, that he can not be called, Pastor Pastorum ecclesiae Lichfieldensis, Lord Pastor of the Pastors of the Church of Lichfield, and yet may be called Dominus Episcopus Pastorum ecclesiae Lichfieldensis, Lord Bishoppe of the Pastors of the Church of Lichfield. Why? but only for that there is custome, tradition, and the lawe of man, for his episcopall iurisdiction, and for that his pastorall function (if hee haue any) be­longeth vnto him in common, with his brethren the other Pastors, iure divino. The Bishoppe then having these two se­verall Whether a lord Bishop minister the doctrine, sa­crament and discipline of Christ, by vertue of his lordlie epis­copal or pa­storall office and distinct offices imposed vpon his person, the one by divine, the other by humane lawe, the one humane and episcopall, the other without pompe, & pastorall; there ariseth from thence this question: by which of those two fun­ctions hee may lawfullie (I meane ac­cording to Gods lawe) minister the Do­ctrine, Sacramēts, & censures of Christ? If it be aunswered, that it is lawfull for [Page 408] him, by vertue of his Pastorall office, to minister the doctrine and Sacramentes; and by force of his humane Episcopall office, to minister the censures of Christ, then is not the answere fitted to the que­stion, the same being made, â bene con­iunctis, ad male divisa. For the censures of Christ, as well as the doctrine of Christ, being simplie of divine ordināce, it must followe (if his episcopall power be only of humane right, & pastoral po­wer, only of divine institution) that the censures may be ministred by authoritie derived only from mā, but the doctrine and sacraments, by power derived onlie from God. Which commixion of divine and humane right, in the execution of the ordinances of God, can no maner of wayes be sound, pure, and sincere, and therefore also can not be pleasing vnto God. For no more can the censures of Christ, to the pleasure of God, bee law­fullie administred, by the authoritie of any one whose function is of man, and not of God; then could the sacrifice of God, be offered by one, who was a priest of man, and not of God. Now that hu­mane episcopalitie, or Bishoppisme, in [Page 409] the Church of England, is authorized, and deduced from the power and law of Lordlie epis­copalitie au­thorized on­lie by the lawe of the Realme. man, viz. of the King, & Realme alone, is evident, as well by the donation & en­dowment of the auncient Bishoprickes founded by the Kingly prerogatives of the Kings of this Realme, as by the ere­ction and establishment of the new Bi­shoprickes of Chester, Gloucester, Bri­stoll, Peterborough, and Oxford, with their cathedrall Churches, Seas, Cities, meeres and boundes of those humane Bishoppes, for the exercise of their epi­scopall administration, according to an act of Parleamēt, authorizing the Kings Highnes, to make Bishoppes by his let­ters patentes. Nay further that humane episcopall iurisdiction within the meres Note that King Henry the eight by letters pa­tents made Bb. there­fore, &c. and boundes of every Diocesse within England is merelie of humane, and not of divine iustitution appeareth, by that power and authoritie which the Kinge hath in translating, & dissolving of Bi­shoprickes, in conserving episcopall iu­risdiction, 31. H. [...]. c. 9 sometimes to such persons, as be no Bishopps (as did William the Cō ­querour, when he gaue Episcopall pow­er to the Abbot of Battayle,) and lastlie, [Page 410] by the verie maner and forme of the no­mination, licēce of election, authoritie of investiture, confirmation, and conse­cration of Archbishoppes and Bishops, established by the more positive lawe of the Realme. But if it be aunswered, that 25. H. 8. c. 20. the Bishoppe, by his humane episcopall power, doth minister the doctrine, Sa­craments, and discipline of Christ, then is the case worse with him then it was before: because then, not onlie the Dis­cipline of Christ, but also the doctrine & Sacramentes of Christ, should be mi­nistred by that authoritie whiche is of humane institution. Besides, the answer should be vntrue, because the Bishoppe at the time of his cōsecration, doth not receyue anie authoritie to preache the worde, and minister the Sacraments; (for that authoritie was then commited vn­to him, when first he was ordeyned to be a presbyter): But the authorite which he receyueth at the time of his consecrati­on, is to correct, and punish such, as bee vnquiet, disobedient, and criminous within his Diocesse. Whereby once a­gaine is that confirmed which was erst said, viz. That episcopall power in En­glande [Page 411] is not of divine, but of humane institution. Especiallie for that, by the scriptures, it can not bee prooved, that there be two seuerall & distinct formes of ordinations; the one called consecra­tion, proper to a Lord Bishoppe, for the exercise of Discipline; the other called ordination, peculiar to a Pastor, or tea­ching Elder, for the ministration of the word and Sacraments. Wherevnto last­lie If the Lord Bishop, haue power to minister dis­cipline by diuine right, thē no more can he com­mit that his power, to an­other, thē he can commit the power which hee hath of prea­ching to an­other. may be added another maine reason, that Episcopall power in Englande, to minister the discipline, can not therfore be of divine institution, because, if it were of divine institution, the Bishoppe could no more surrogate the same his episcopall power to his Suffragane, to his Vicar generall, or Rouland Allen, to minister the censures of Christ in his owne name, then he can depute them or any of them, to minister the doctrine & Sacramentes in his own name. But how doth it appeare, that the Vicar generall, Rowland Allen, or any other Presbyter, did ever excommunicate by the power, or in the name of the Bishoppe? For the profe hereof we shall not need to search any other authenticall record, then the [Page 412] precept, and the practise before intrea­ted of. For it is not saide in the precept, That the Presbyter, being armed with authoritie from Christ, but it is sayde, that the Presbyter, being armed with au­thoritie, from the Bishoppe, or Archdea­con, shall denounce the sentence of ex­communication; the practise also of Doctor Hone, every way, confirmeth as much. For therein Doctor Hone doeth not chalēge to be an officer vnto Christ, but he sayeth, that he is the officiall of the venerable Archdeacō of Surrey; and that Maister Rowland Allen Presbyter, by vertu of his office, doth excommuni­cate, the parties who obeyed not his mandates, who made not their appea­rances before him, &c. If it be answered that Rowland Allen, though he be not an immediate officer from Christ, that yet nevertheles, he is a mediate officer, deputed to his office, by an immediate officer vnto Christ, vix. the Lord Bi­shoppe, or Archdeacon: then we replie, and say: First, that the Lord Bishoppe, & Archdeacon, bee neither immediate, or mediate officers, appointed by Christ, to be Ministers of his discipline. Secondlie, [Page 413] if they were immediate officers from Christ, that yet they haue no authoritie by the law of Christ, to transferre their right, or any part thereof, to an other person, or to depute an other person, in their name, or by their authoritie, to ex­communicate. As for these words, viz: In Dei nomine, amen: nos Iohānes Hone, or nos Roulandus Allen, &c. sometimes vsed in their scedule of excommunicati­on; it is but a prophaning of the holie name of God, whereby they make them selues guiltie, of the taking of the glori­ous name of God in vaine. And thus much touching both the question and answer, whether the discipline of Christ, may be ministred, by the Bishoppes hu­mane episcopall power, yea or no. But now on the other side (because no divine censure, can lawfullie be executed in the church, by that authoritie which is of humane institution) if it be aunswered, that the Bishop, by reason of his pasto­rall Whether y ^e L. Bishopp by pastorall authoritie, may excom­municate a Pastor. power (which hee is saide, to haue over all the Pastours and people of his Diocesse) may lawfullie not onlie mini­ster the worde and Sacraments, but also the Discipline of Christ, vnto them all; [Page 414] then it followeth, that by a Pastourall power, one Pastour, may be a Pastour of Pastors, which is against the Scriptures, and contrarie to the brotherly & fellow­like authoritie, which is common to all Pastours vnder the sunne, and betwene whom, touching their Pastourall fun­ctions, there is to this day, by the Scri­ptures, as litle superioritie, and as great a paritie, as ever there was betwene Apo­stles, and Apostles; betwene Prophets, and Prophets; or betwene Evangelistes, and Evāgelistes; and as at this day, there is betwene Bishops, & Bishops; betwene Archbishops, and Archbishops; or be­twene Patriarckes, and Patriarckes: yea and as is betweene Earles and Earles, Dukes and Dukes, Kinges and Kinges, Emperours & Emperours. For no grea­ter superioritie, or preheminence, hath any one Pastor, over the person or fun­ction of an other Pastour, touching the administratiō of any thing properly be­lōging Pastoures ouer small flockes, are as truely pa­stors as Pa­stors ouer great flocks. to either of their pastoral functi­ons, thē hath one Emperor, over the per­son or function of an other Emperor, or one King, over the person or functiō of an other King; or one Lord Bishop over [Page 415] the person or function of an other Lord Bishop, or one Archbishop, over the per­son or functiō of an other Archbishop, or then had one Apostle, over the person As great paritie be­twene Pa­stors & Pa­stors, as be­tween Apost­les & Apost­les. or function of an other Apostle. Nay then hath one eye over an other eye; one hand over an other hand, one arme over another arme, or one foot over another foote. And therefore if touching the functions which Pastors, either among them selues, haue in common one with the other, or which they haue over their flockes, there be no disparitie, but that the Pastors, to whom small flockes are committed, doe as reallie, and as truelie participate of the nature of true Pastors, as those great Pastours doe, vpon whose great shoulders, great burdens are impo­sed; it behoveth great Pastors, to prove vnto vs, by the holie Scriptures, that by the institution of their great pastorall functions, they haue their power so en­larged, as that thereby they may preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, and excommunicate: and that on the other side, the litle Pastours, haue their power by the institution of their petie pastorall offices, so streightned, as whereby they [Page 416] may onlie preach the Word, and admi­nister the Sacramentes, but not excom­municate: it behooveth (I say) great Pa­stors, to be able sufficiently to shew vnto vs these thinges out of the holy Scri­ptures: or els it seemeth to stande, with reason and equitie, deduced from the same Scriptures, that a Pastor over a few, should haue like power to teach, and to governe a few, as a great Pastor over ma­nie hath to instruct and to rule many. Marie, if they think, that only great Pa­stors be true Pastors, & that great powers spirituall, be only true powers spirituall; then let them also conclude, that onely great Knights be true Knights, that only great Dukes bee true Dukes, that onely great Kings be true Kings, and that only great principalities temporall, bee true principalities temporall. Which con­clusion Not onelie Kinges of great king­domes, but also Kinges of small kingdomes, bee true kings. if they shall iudge, to be conclu­sionles; because King Rehoboam had as large a patent, to feede, and to command two Tribes, as King Solomon his Father had to command, and to feede twelue; or as the Archbishop of Yorke may sup­pose him self to haue, over nine or tenne Counties, as the Archbishop of Canter­burie, [Page 417] cā haue over nine & thirtie or for­tie: thē me thinketh it a matter, very rea­sonablie of them to bee confessed, that all true Pastors, whether they bee great Pastors, or litle Pastors, may lawfullie ex­ercise, all maner of such true power spi­rituall, as vnto true spirituall Pastors by the holie scriptures doeth apperteyne. For if Bishops, being great Pastours, may therefore preach, & minister the Sacra­ments, because they be, as they say, true Pastors; thē also may litle Pastors, ther­fore excommunicate, because they bee, (as the scripture saith) true Bishoppes. Wherefore, if the L. Bishopp of London, by vertue of his Pastorall office, (as hee thinketh) which with his brethren the other Pastors of his Diocesse, he hath in commō deriveth vnto him, immediatlie from the word of God, may lawfullie excōmunicate: then the pastorall office, which Maister Doctor Androes hath ouer the people of his Parish of S ^t. Gyles without Creeplegate, and the pastorall function which Maister Doctor Whyte hath ouer the people of S ^t. Dunstones within Temple-barre, beeing as abso­lutelie, & as immediatlie, deduced vnto [Page 418] them, out of the same word; what profe can be made out of the worde, that the Bishoppe being not Lord Pastour of the Pastours of his Diocesse, may lawfullie by the worde excommunicate, all maner of offendors both Pastors and people, within his Diocesse; and yet neuertheles that neither Maister Doctor Androes, nor Maister Doctor Whyte, by the same worde may excommunicate, any one of their Parishioners at all? Nay further, what reason can there be afforded from the law of God, that Maister D. Abbot, Deane of Winchester, that Ma. Browne, Maister Barlowe, and diuers other pre­bendaries, in the church of Winchester, hauing certeyne parochiall, and pasto­rall churches, annexed to his, and their Deanrie, and Prebendes, and Maister D. Grey in his parish by their pastorall fun­ctions, should haue absolute authoritie (vnlesse it bee during the time of the L. Bishoppes trienniall visitation) to exer­cise the discipline of Christ, within their seuerall, and peculier churches; and yet notwithstanding, that neyther Maister Richman nor Mai. Burden, being both of them, graue, godlie, & learned Pastors [Page 419] should haue at any time, anie pastorall authoritie, to exercise any censure at all? And as it is in the church of Winchester, so is it in the church of Paules, in the church of Salisburie, & in well nigh all, if not in all the Cathedrall, & Collegiall Churches, thoroughout the Realme. The Deane, Prebendaries and Canons, hauing certayne parochiall Churches, exempted from the Bishopp within their exempt and peculier iurisdictions, by mere Pastorall authoritie (for episcopal authoritie, by the lawes of the Church haue they none) may exercise all maner of spirituall censures, and that aswell by their substitutes as by them selues. Nay which is more, in Cheshire, Lancashire, Rurall Deanes in Cheshire, &c. vse some part of epis­copall pow­er. Yorkeshire, Richmondshire, and other Northeren parts, there be manie whole Deanries, exempted from the Bishopps iurisdiction, wherein the Deanes and their substitutes, haue not onlie the pro­bate of Wills, and graunting of admi­nistrations, but also the cognisance of ecclesiasticall crimes, with power to vse the ecclesiasticall censures. Yea and this authoritie of the executiō of ecclesiasti­call censures, haue those Deanes, either [Page 420] long since by some papall priviledges Episcopall power to ex­cōmunicate graunted by papall pri­uiledges, or prescribed vse. obteyned, or els by long vse prescribed against the Bishopps. Whereby againe, it is clerelie convinced, that Episcopall excommunication vsed in the Church of England, is not of divine institution, but onlie by humane tradition. For were it of diuine right, then could the same Power to excommu­nicate, if it be of diuine right, may not be pre­scribed. no more bee prescribed, or by papall immunitie be possessed, thē could these Deanes prescribe power, or bee enfran­chised to preach the word or to admini­ster the Sacramentes.

These things haue we thus at large & more fullie intreated of, to the end that the Kings Highnes, and his Parleament, and all sortes of people, might well vn­derstand, howe it is not altogether, an vnvsual and vnaccustomed thing, in the Church of England, that private & in­feriour ministers (as they call them) in their owne right, and in their owne pa­rochiall parishes, without any authoritie from the Bishoppe, should exercise even the highest censure of the Church. And that in sundry places of the Realm there is no preeminence in the matter of the execution of the censures, attributed to [Page 421] a Bb. aboue a Minister. Nay, whiche is more, then is attributed to a Bb. aboue a No more preheminē ­ce given to a Bb then to a Minister, or to a lay man in some pla­ces for the vse of excō ­munication. lay man: yea then to such a lay man, who is authorized onlie, by a lay man to his office. Which is evident by the ecclesia­sticall iurisdiction and censures, exerci­sed a long time by lay men, in the pecu­liar iurisdictions of Newton, Gronbie, Anstic, Soke of Rothelie, Evington, and other parishes & hamlettes in the Coun­tie of Leycester. The officers of al which places, for their spirituall authoritie, having not had any other warrant, then such only as hath bin signed, sometimes vnder the hande and seale of the right Honorable the Earle of Huntingdon de­ceased; sometimes of the Honorable Sir Henrie Grey knight; sometimes of Hen­rie Skipwith Esquire, and sometimes of others.

For the avoyding therefore of sundrie intollerable inconveniences whiche hi­therto hath ensued for want of that au­thoritie, which the Law setled, doth en­able every Minister with, It is most ex­pedient, that all humane authoritie in the execution of spirituall censures, bee vtterlie taken away, and that the divine [Page 422] and Evangelicall censures of Christ, bee ministred in every Congregation, where learned and godly pastors, with discrete Elders may bee had, as from the minde of the Lord they were executed, in the Apostolicall and primitiue church.

I had almost forgotten to speake of one common and vsuall kinde of iuris­diction spirituall in the vse of the cen­sures of the church, by the Archb. which in cases of their prerogatiue, they haue prescribed against the Bb. over the pre­sbyters and people of euery Bishoppes Diocesse, and Archdeacons iurisdiction within their provinces: of one other cō ­mon and vsuall kinde of pretensed spi­rituall iurisdiction, and vse of the cen­sures, which the Archb. and sometimes the Deane and Chapiter, (sede Archie­piscopali, or sede Episcopali vacante) exercise: and lastly, of that spirituall kinde of iurisdiction & censures, so cal­led of the Church, whiche Suffraganes, and Archdeacons, haue and do vse.

As touching which supposed spiritu­all power, both of the Archbishopps & Archdeacons, because the same their power, doth only belong vnto thē iure [Page 423] consuetudinario & non scripto, by vn­written, and not by written lawe; I must conclude against the iurisdiction of the Archbishopps prerogatiue, and against the Archdeacons iurisdictiō in all cases, as out of S ^t. Cyprian, King Henry the eight concluded against the Pope. viz: That their authorities can not be from Christ. Because Christ saide, ego sum via, veritas, & vita. He neuer said, ego sum consuetudo.

Touching the iurisdiction of the Deane and Chapter, the papall lawe be­ing abrogated, how the same may lawe­fullie now bee vsed, otherwise then by sufferance and consent of the King, and Realme, I know not. But of all spirituall authoritie exercised at this day in the Church of England, the same semeth to draw most neare to the semblance of the gouernment practised by the Apostles and primitiue Church. And might bee approued in many points, if so bee the Deane and Chapter, being as it were a Senate of preaching Elders, did no more commit the execution of their ecclesia­sticall iurisdiction, to the wisedome of one Vicar general, or principall official, [Page 424] then they doe put over the leassing of their Landes, or dividētes of their rentes to the onlie discretion of one of their Baylifes, or Stewardes.

As for Bishoppes Suffraganes, in En­glande and in Wales, how many there may be, and what Cities and Townes, are to be taken and accepted, for their Seas, it is at large expressed in a statute, made for the nomination of Suffraganes. By which statute also wee are given to vn­derstand, that it remayneth onely in the disposition, and libertie of everie Arch­bishop & Bishop within this Realm, &c. to name and elect two honest and dis­crete spirituall persons, being learned, & of good conversation, and them to pre­sent vnto the Kinge by their writing vn­der their Seales, making humble request to giue to one such of the saide two per­sons, as shal please his Maiestie, such title, name, stile & dignitie of Bishop of such Seas specified in the said act, as the Kings Highnes shall think most cōvenient for the same, so it bee within the same Pro­vince, whereof the Bb. that doth name him is. Besides after such title, stile, and name given by the Kinge, it is saide that [Page 425] the King shall present, every such person by his letters patentes, vnder his great Seale, to the Archbishop of the same Pro­vince, wherein the Towne, whereof hee hath his title, name, stile and dignitie of Bishop; and that the Archbishop shall giue him all such consecrations, bene­dictions and ceremonies as to the degree and office of a Bishopps Suffragane shall be requisite. It is further enacted, & pro­vided that every person nominated, ele­cted, presented, and consecrated accor­ding to that acte, shall be taken, accep­ted, and reputed in all degrees & places, according to the stile, title, name & di­gnitie, that he shall be presented vnto, & haue such capacitie, power and authori­tie, honor preeminence & reputation, in as large & ample maner, in & cōcerning the executiō of such cōmission as by any of the saide Archb. or Bb. within their Diocesse shall be given to the saide Suf­fragane, as to Suffraganes of this Realm hertofore, hath bin vsed & accustomed. And that no Suffr. made & cōsecrated by vertue of this act, shall take or receiue a­ny maner of profits, of the places, & Seas wherof they shall be named, nor vse, haue [Page 426] or execute, any iurisdiction or Episco­pall power, or authoritie within their said Seas, &c. but only such profites, iu­risdiction & authoritie, as shall be licen­sed, and limited vnto them, to take, do, and execute, by any Archbishopp or Bb. within their Diocesse, to whom they shall be Suffraganes vnder their seales. And that no such Suffragane shall vse any iurisdiction ordinarie or Episcopall power, otherwise nor longer time, then shall be limited, by such commission to him giuen vpon peyne, &c.

From which Act, touching the vse, & exercise of Episcopall power, and cen­sures by the Suffragane, we may againe safely conclude, that the Episcopall po­wer, graunted by the Bishops, to be vsed by the Suffragane, is not of diuine right, and institution, but only from humane devise and ordinance. For the Suffragan could not exercise any power called spi­rituall or Episcopall, vnles by the Bb. he were nominated, by the King elected and presented, by the Archb. consecra­ted, and by commission vnder the Bb. seale authorized, in what maner, and for what time he should exercise the same. [Page 427] Custome then being not from heauen, but from the earth; and againe the Bb. commissiō limiting the Suffraganes de­legated power being of man, and not of God, it followeth necessarilie, that, that Episcopall power, which the Bishoppes vse and exercise in England, can not be diuine but humane. Because Episcopall authoritie which is diuine, being con­veyed from the Royall and Souerayne authoritie of our Sauiour Christ, the giuer of all power vnto euerie officer within his Church, can not be transfer­red, to any other person, by the same Bb. by the King, by the bodie of the state, or by custome. For the Kings person, and bodie of the state, not being made capa­ble by the holie scriptures, to vse and exercise that Episcopall power which is of diuine institutiō, can neuer transferre the same to others, whereof they be thē selues vncapable. And to defende that custome, or any municipall lawe, should transferre diuine Episcopal power from a divine Bishopp to any humane officer, is more erroneous.

And from hence if the now L. Bb. of London iudge his Episcopall power to [Page 428] belong vnto him by divine, and that by the same right, he haue power, aswell to ordeyne, depose, suspend and excommu­nicate presbyters, as to confirme boyes, girles, yong men & maydens,) there see­meth to bee good reason that the same Bb. should make it apparantly knowne vnto the King & Realm, by what power or commission descended from heaven, hee may delegate vnder his Seale, the same his divine authoritie, of ordinati­on, deposition, suspension, excommu­nication, and confirmation, vnto Do­ctour Sterne his now Suffragane of Col­chester.

For if from the holy Scriptures, hee can produce no warrant, for the making of a delegation of any part, of that Epis­copal power which he holdeth to be cō ­mitted vnto him frō our Savior Christ: then well may we conclude against the ordination, deposition, suspention, ex­communication, & confirmation made by the same his Suffragane, that the same his Suffraganes ordination, depo­sition, &c. is not divine. For how can an ordination, a deposition, &c. made [Page 429] by a Suffragane, be divine, when as the commission graunted by the Bishop, is meerlie humane?

Wherefore seeing the Bishop himself, hath plucked certeyne of his principall feathers from his own spirituall winges (if so be his owne winges may be spiri­tuall) and imped them with an vntwy­sted thread of humane policie, to the humane trayne of his Suffragane; and seeing also his Archbishoppes grace of Canterburie, in cases of his metropoli­ticall prerogatiue, the Archdeacons, London, Midlesex, Essex, Hertforde, the Deane of Paules, and certeyne pre­bendaries in Paules, the Deane of West­minster, the Maister of the Savoy, and divers other Persons, haue by Papall privileges, or by auncient custome pre­scribed almost all other partes of his Episcopall power; there seemeth good reason, that the Bishoppe should againe declare, whether the Churches with­in the saide Diocesse after the decease, or translation of his Lordshippe shall stande in neede of any Lordlie Suc­cessour, to sitt in the same Sea, for a­nie other profitable vse or purpose, then [Page 430] onely for wearing of a whyte rochet, walking with a pastorall staffe, keeping seuen yeares Sabboth, from preachinge in his parishe Church of Fulham, con­secrating of Chappels, hallowinge of Fontes, Christening (as they call it) of Belles, whyting of Walles, painting of Tombes, garnishing of Sepulchres, pre­serving of superstitious Monumentes in glasse Windowes, repayring and gylding rotten and outworne Crosses, confir­ming Leases of Benefices, with cure of soules, vpon small rentes, impropry­ing Churches, or such like. For if the great thinges of his Episcopall power, may bee transferred, eyther by expresse, or by secret consent, eyther by commis­sion or custome, and that as well to an inferiour, as to a superiour, as well to a Suffragane, a Deane, an Archdeacon, and a Prebendarie, as to an Archb. then it seemeth reasonable, that the smaler things, before spoken of, may well bee performed, without anie Lordly autho­ritie.

When I had thus finished, according to our line, that whiche I firste vnder­tooke, against the Admonitors preten­sed [Page 431] dangerous alterations, innovations, and inconveniences, & was also purpo­sed, to haue added that which (in myne opinion) seemeth to prove that, whiche the Admonitor by his opinion, denyeth; viz: that the externall goverment of the Church should alwayes, and in all pla­ces bee one, when (I saye) I had thus purposed, by reason of some other pre­sent, and for the time more necessarie occasion, I was drivē to alter my mind, and to shewe the same, in a place some­what more convenient.

And yet in the meane whyle, it shall not be amisse, but a thing verie necessa­rie, in this place, so to cleare the state of the question, betweene the Admonitor and mee, as the same beeing rightlie before hande vnderstoode, there might no preiudicate opinion bee conceaved against the trueth.

The Admonitor against the not ha­ving of one forme of externall policie in all ages and states of the Church of Christ, alleadgeth that in Denmarke, they haue Bishoppes, both in name and in office: that in Saxony they haue Arch­bishoppes, and Bishoppes in office, but [Page 432] not in name: that in Tigure, they haue no Senate of Elders; nor the discipline by excommunication, which they more mislike; that in Geneua, in Scotland, & in other places, they haue a gouernment not much vnlike that platforme which is desired to be amōg vs: that in Saxonie, & Basill they kneele at the Lordes Sup­per: all Tigure they sitt, & it is brought vnto thē, & that in other places they go and receyue it, for the more expedition, as they passe. And that he doubteth not but that the learned men, whom God sent, to instruct those churches in which the Gospell in those dayes was first re­ceyued, haue bin directed by the spirit of God, to reteyne this libertie, that in externall gouernment, and other out­ward orders, they might choose such, as they thought in wisedom, and godlines, to bee most convenient, for the state of their countrey and disposition of the people.

Vnto all which we answere briefelie; viz. that Bishoppes both in name and in office beeing of diuine institution, ought aswell to bee in the Church of England as of Denmark. that it is an [Page 433] errour (by their leaue) in the Church of Saxony, not to haue Archb. and Bb. in name, if so be they hold it lawful to haue Archb. and Bishops in office. For what should a necessarie officer doe, without a conuenient name? And touching the Church of Tigure, it is not materiall, what the same church doth thinke not tolerable, or doth more mislike, but what shee ought not to mislike, or what it ought not to think tollerable. And thē what a poore proofe is there here made (trowe we) for the confirmation of the corruptions in the Church of England, by producing for two witnesses, two er­roures in the Church of Tigure. For not to like a Senate of Elders, and more to mislike excommunication, is more and more to slide out of the right way.

And sithence we haue the whole chri­stian Kingdome of Scotland, the most famous, and renowmed Church of Ge­neua, and sundrie Churches, by his con­fession in other places, to be lights vnto vs, and to agree with vs, in a gouerment not much vnlike to that, which we de­sire: wee haue not only great cause, to reioyce in this our desires, but also to be [Page 434] much comforted and encouraged, by these examples, by all holie meanes, to labour the full accomplishment thereof. For by this testimony, & by these instan­ces giuen & produced by him selfe, the Admonitor hath quite and cleane wea­kened, and disabled, his owne generall position, opinion, and thoughts of the vnnecessaries, and inconvenientnes, of hauing the Apostolicall and primitiue gouernment, in the time of peace, vnder a Christian Magistrate.

For hath not the free Kingdome of Scotland, the free Citie of Geneva, and other Soueraigne and free Princes, Po­tentates and Powers, (not being vnder Tyrantes, and persecution) receaved the same, as being the best, the fittest, the convenientest, & most necessarie gouer­ment (yea even in the time of peace and vnder their christian Magistracie) for the state of their countrey, and disposition of their people?

And as touching rites & ceremonies, we affirme not, that every rite, ceremo­nie or circumstance to be vsed in the ex­ternall execution of church goverment, is preciselie sett down in the holy Scrip­tures, [Page 435] but touching the substance of go­verment, thus we say, and thus we hold: viz. that the Officers and Governours appointed by our Saviour Christ, to bee over the Churches in everie Countrey (observing the generall rules of decen­cie, comelines, and edification) haue li­bertie, with the consent of their Christi­an King, or other supreame Magistrate, to choose what rites & ceremonies, they in wisedome and godlines shall thinke most convenient. And therefore wee graunt that the officers of Christ, in the vse and dispensation of their functions, are no more exactlie tyed, by any direct commandement in the holy Scriptures, to vse at all times, and in all places, one only maner of rites & ceremonies, then were the Priests of the law, to vse all one maner of kniues, to kill their sacrifices, or the singers to sing all songes after one maner of tune, or vpon one kind of in­strument: or then are Kinges & Princes in all Countreys commanded, to vse all kind of circumstances, in the outward execution of civill iustice in their com­mon weales.

As then, as it was lawful for the Priests [Page 436] to haue kniues and trumpets of divers fashions; and for the Levites to haue their Musicall instrumentes of divers formes: Nay as sundrie Iustices of peace, in sundrie Shires of the Kingdome, are not bound to keepe their quarter sessi­ons, all in one day to begin, & to breake their sessions at one instant; to stande, to sit, & to walke, when soever they speake, to weare all one fashion, hates, cappes, cloakes, or gownes, and such like: so likewise, is it with the Bishops, Pastoures and Elders of the church.

In the ministration of Baptisme, there is no direct cōmandment, that the vessel to hold the water, for the childes Ba­ptisme, should be of stone, of pewter, of brasse, or of silver; whether the Minister should descend to the lower ende, or the childe ascend to the vpper end of the church: Whether the child should haue a great handfull, or a litle sponefull of water powred vpon his head. In the ce­lebration of the Lordes Supper, it is di­rectlie commaunded, that the people shal stand, sit, or passe: whether it should be celebrated every first or second Sab­both of the moneth; whether in the [Page 437] morning; at noone, or at night. In the ordination of Ministers, there is no iust proofe to bee made, that any certeyne number of Ministers, are to lay on their hands, that the day of ordination should be alwayes one: that the Minister should bee of such an age, or that the prayers should bee of this or of that lenght and forme of wordes. And therefore touch­ing these and such like thinges of indif­ferencie, we agree with the Admonitor and reverend Bb. that one forme of ex­ternall orders, rites & ceremonies is not of necessitie, to be in every Church, be­cause there is no such order witnessed by the holy Scriptures to bee of necessitie. But touching the ioynt, & severall fun­ctions of Bishops, Pastours, and Elders, that they, or any of them, should in any age or state of the church of Christ bee wanting, or that such offices as by war­rant of the Scripture are coupled toge­ther, should be severed, or that any other persons should be appointed, to execute any functions in the Church, then such persons only, as for their functiōs, haue warrant from the holy Scriptures, wee can not in any sorte therevnto agree. [Page 438] And why? forsooth because all, both of­fices, and officers in the Church, must only, and alonely, be derived from our Saviour Christ, as from the only foun­taine and bestower of all officers, & of­fices in the house of God. And therefore, albeit we should graunt, (as the Admo­nitor hath saide) that the outward order vsed in the primitiue Church, touching rites & ceremonies, by Bishops, Pastors and Elders, is neither necessarie, nor so convenient as it may be otherwise, in the time of peace, & vnder a Christian Ma­gistrate, yet we may not herevpō imply, as his negatiue implieth: viz. that Bi­shops, Pastors & Elders, or any of them, are neither necessary, nor so convenient officers, or governours, as other officers of mans invention might be. For which our opinion (by the helpe of God) wee shall assay (as before hath bene mencio­ned) in an other place, to lay down, out of the worde of God, some iust proofes, (according to the Admonitors request) that there ought to be in all ages and states of the Church, this outwarde or­der & forme of goverment: viz. that Bishoppes, Pastours and Elders, ought [Page 439] evermore to bee spirituall governours, and that evermore they, and none o­ther, ought to vse that essentiall kind of spirituall goverment, and none other which was practised by the Bishoppes, Pastours and Elders, in the Apostolicall and primitiue Church. Allwayes lea­ving the outward rites and ceremo­nies of their spirituall kind of goverment, to be indif­ferent, as erst hath bene said.