A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments, Tract · Part 3 · Argument 8

A Mild and Just Defense of Certain Arguments · Tract · Part 3 · Argument 8

p. 75THE 8 ARGVMENT.

The proceedings of the Biſhops & other Eccleſiaſticall Iudges, againſt the Miniſters in ſilencing and depriving of them, is againſt the law, Ergo.

This High Court of Parliament, being the chiefeſt Court of iuſtice in all this kingdome, ought to releeue them.

The marginall notes upon the 8 Argument.

The firſt 3 notes I paſſe by; as note-les.

G. Poweld Object againſt theſe, and you ſhall be anſwered:

How ſhall we be anſwered? With words, and raylings,Reply. as before, not otherwiſe. To the oth Ex Officio, and to the Canons afterward.

G. Powela Theſe men would bring in all by popular triall:

Nay rather,Reply. would not the Prelats be glad to hauehave all perſons and all cauſes ſubject to themſelues? But more to p. 76this afterward.

G. Powelb A ſenſles ſentence: How can a man in matters of eternall life, be caſt out of his freehold:

ReplyA ſimple cavill, from the miſplacing of a comma. The Notary might well hauehave perceived, that theſe wordes, (in matters of eternall life,) were to be joyned with the words goyng before, ambasſadors of Ieſus Chriſt, not with the words following, ſhould be caſt out of their freehold. This I ſay he might well hauehave perceived, becauſe there had been no ſpeech of our freehold of eternall life, but only of this life.

G. Powel.c The Eccleſiaſticall judge may proceed Ex officio: (d) directly againſt the ſtatute, 1 Elizab: cap: 2

Reply.Theſe two notes being in the margine contiguoe, and touching one another, I joyne together in my reply; the rather becauſe (d) the letter of the ſecond note, and the mention of the ſtatute in the end of the ſayd ſecond note omitted, they may both in better ſenſe and truth, be read thus togeather, Eccleſiaſticall Iudges may proceed ex officio, directly againſt the ſtatute. For touching the former note with (c) let the beſt Civilian ſhew (if he can) by what other law, the Eccleſiaſticall judge may proceed ex officio, then by the Canon law aboliſhed by ſtatute. The ſecond note with (d) ſhall be ſatisfied afterward.

The note with (e) of begging the queſtion, is now too ſtale.

G. Powelf As if God and his Sonne Chriſt Ieſus were not preſident of the religious aſſembly already: An unchriſtian ſuggeſtion:

ReplyWhen the Prophet exhorteth the Church, to open her dores for the King of glory to come in: pſal. 24, 7:9 Cant: 5:2:did he ſignifie that the Church had not before interteyned the King of glory? When Chriſt ſaith, Open unto me my ſiſter etc. doth he meāe that his ſiſter had him not at all before? Chriſt dayly knocketh p. 77by his word and Sacraments,Revel. 3.20Rev 3:20 at the heartes of all the faithfull to be let in. Are they therfore altogether without Chriſt? Allthough therfore Chriſt be already preſident in the Parliament, yet by the propounding of any good cauſe, he deſireth to be further interteyned amongſt them. This the author hath acknowledged, by calling thē often a Chriſtian aſſembly: by commending their Chriſtian zeale againſt the Papiſts etc. But this is the anſwerers ſophiſtry before noted,Sophiſtry: to reaſon from the wāt of a thing in part, to the want thereof altogether. Therefore this is an vnchriſtian and ſimple collection.

Further anſwer to the 8 Argument.

G. PowelI am conſtrayned to dance as the ſuppliants Pipe: They lead, and I followe.

Nay we hauehave piped unto you, and yee hauehave not danced. Reply.We hauehave mourned unto you, and yee hauehave not lamented. Mat, 11.19Neither to evident Argumentes out of holy ſcripture, will you ſubmit your human ordinances, or your ſelues: neither by any gentle and humble petitions, will yee Prelats come to any brotherly peace. Mildnes doth as much provoke you as bitternes. M. Nichols of Kent, writyng moſt mildly and humbly, was rewarded ſeverely, with ſuſpenſion, deprivation, degradation. Our moſt humble petition to the Convocation, at the firſt Sesſion of this Parliament, received a moſt rough anſwer. We ſeeke peace, and when we ſpeake thereof, ye are bent to warre. pſal. 120 7. Iob. 31:8.Job 31:8As though yee ſate in heavenly places, we hauehave been unto you more vile then the earth. I complaīe not thus of all the Prelats. I know that ſome are wiſer, milder, kinder, and more curteous thē other. As the bramble tooke more upon it, then the Oliue tree, Iudg. 8.15Judg 8:15the vine or the fig tree, ſo ſometyme it is among Prelats.

G. PowelHitherto they prayed your Honors but to ſpeake for them etc. Now they urge you to determyne, and actually to decree ſomething in their behalfe:

p. 78We neither prayed nor urged any thing to be doone, but with all humility and loyalty:G. Powel hoping that his moſt excellent Majeſty vponupon the ſight of the reaſons, why they had decreed or determined any thing (ſo farre as they might among themſelues) would likewiſe in his Princely and chriſtian regard, hauehave vouchafed his Royall aſſent to their ſuch decrees and determinations: which although it hauehave not pleaſed his Highnes yet to doe, yet we hope that heerafter upon further cōſideration, ſome other may find further grace with his Majeſtie in the like behalfe.

G. PowelTo the conſequence of the former Argument: The conſequence hath 2 parts, whereof the firſt is granted, but that the deprived and ſuſpended miniſters ought to be reſtored is denyed, becauſe they hauehave not juſtified their cauſe, and declared that they are vnjuſtly oppreſſed, nor can ever doe:

Reply.Touching the former anſwer, may it pleaſe the reader, firſt to remember, that all the authors ſpeech of the proceedings of the Biſhops againſt Miniſters ſuſpended etc: is only to be underſtood of ſuch Miniſters, as whom they ſuſpend and depriue, onelyonly for ſuch cauſes as are mentioned in the title of the Argumentes, not of other whom they ſuſpend or depriue for any juſt cauſe. Now to proceede, that ſuch Miniſters hauehave not yet in law (whereof the preſent queſtion is) juſtified there cauſe, and declared that they are unjuſtly oppreſſed, nor can ever doe, is not for want of matter of juſtification, or for want of the truth of unjuſt oppresſion (I meane only by the Prelats) but becauſe they hauehave not been admitted, to proſecute the iuſtice of the land, nor to call in queſtion the proceedings of their ordinaryes: who hauehave been hitherto both Agents and Iudges; both accuſers and advocats in their owne caſes againſt them. And eſpecially becauſe upon p. 79pretenſe of a Canon lately made, (repugnant to the lawes, ſtatutes; and cuſtomes of the Realme) they be not ſuffered by the Archbiſhops Iudge ad quem, to plead and to proſecute their appeales, and to declare their innocency according to the auncient laudable, and common uſage and iuſtice of the land: unto which grevance alſo many more exorbitant injuſtices (by the Prelats) heereafter mentioned may be added. Let the anſwerer therfore vnderſtand, that ſom Ordinaryes in their publike ſentēces,The Biſhop of Lincolne againſt the the Miniſters of Leiceſterſhire. hauehave moſt uniuſtly charged ſome Miniſters, with denyall of the oth to the Kings ſupremacy: which notwithſtanding, divers tymes before, they had willingly ſworne vntounto, and which at the very inſtance of pronouncyng the ſentence, they offred before their Ordinary to ſweare unto agayne. And not onelyonly thus leſingly, (to make the Perſons of the ſayd Miniſters more odious to our moſt Chriſtian King, his State, and all his people) in their publike ſentences of deprivation, have ſom Ordinaryes traduced the good name and eſtimation of the Miniſters, but alſo without any other ſpeciall crime worthy deprivation mētioned in their ſentences, hauehave they ſtuſſed their ſentences full, only with generall wordes of generall crimes, contrary to the right forme of judgment. For by right forme of judgment, the Ordinaryes ought not to hauehave impeached the Miniſters, becauſe of generall crymes, but they ought to hauehave ſayd, and put in certeyne, in what thinges, and in what manner the ſayd miniſters hauehave done any thing worthy puniſhment of deprivation.

An other grevance & unjuſt oppresſion (by the ſayd Prelats) of the ſayd ſilenced miniſters, is, that upon ſentence of deprivation and appeales of the Miniſters, the Ordinaryes hauehave given notice to the Patron of the voydance p. 80of the Church, and upon new preſentation of the Patron, hauehave not onelyonly inſtituted new clarkes; but alſo (to avoyd the poſſesſion of the Miniſter deprived and appealing) hauehave ſuggeſted and intimated by their certificatory writ, under their publike ſeale unto the King, into his Court of Chancery, that the poſſesſion of the church was kept per vim laicam, Old natura brevium fol 33. Que breife ne ſer grant, avant que leveſque de tiel lieu eit certifie en le Chā cerie per ſō breit de tiel reſiſtance.& withall hauehave prayed the Kings writ de la vi laica removenda. By vertue of which writ (upon their ſuggeſtion & intimation) granted, (for without their ſuggeſtion and intimation it would not be granted) the party appellant, before the appeale finiſhed, hath ben removed out of his poſſesſion by the Shiriffe of the Coū ty. Notwithſtanding in truth, the Church, parſonage or vicarage houſe, had within the ſame, no manner of vi laica at all: but was onelyonly quietly and peaceably poſſeſſed, by the late derived ſpirituall perſon, and his poore family.

And that this manner of a poſſesſion of a Church, by a ſpirituall perſon and his family, by the law of the Kingdome, is not to be holden vis laica, is playnly iuſtified, by a late judgment given by the Kings Iuſtices, touching the poſſesſion of the Church of Newton Valencoe in the Dioceſſe of Winton. For where as a ſpirituall perſon poſſeſſed of the ſame Church, by vertue of the Kings writ de vi laica removenda, was removed out of his poſſesſion, and another ſpirituall perſon put in poſſesſiō of the ſame church; the ſpirituall perſon diſpoſſeſſed, upon the matter heard and examined, before the Kings Iuſtices, that he was a mere ſpirituall perſon, and that his Church was poſſeſſed onelyonly by himſelfe, and his domeſtikes, was by an other of the Kings writs reſtored into, and poſſeſſed of the ſame Church; and which Church unto this day, he peaceably holdeth and injoyeth.

p. 81A 4 grevance of the ſilenced Miniſters, is that (ther beyng a Canon made in the laſt Synod, that no iudge ad quem ſhall grant any Inhibition to the judge a quo, Biſhop of Chicheſter & Salisburyunleſſe he firſt ſee the originall appeale) ſundry Ordinaryes upon appeales made before them, hauehave taken order with their Regiſters and Notaryes, not to deliver to the partyes appellant, any noate or copy of any act or ſentence, made or given before them. Where upon not onelyonly the party appellant is wronged, but the Notary alſo upon refuſall of grā ting to the party appellant (demaunding and tendring to the Notary his fee) a publike inſtrument of the publike Acts and Records of the Court, cannot but incurre the infamy of corruption and perjury: in as much as he beyng a publike Notary, is ſworne faithfully to execute the office of a publik Notary; the execution of part of which office, conſiſteth (he being requyred thereunto) in his teſtimony and delivery of the publike acts made in his preſence.

A fith injuſtice or rather nullity is, becauſe ſundry ſentences of deprivation hauehave been given a Iudicibus non ſuis, namely by ſuch Ordinaryes, whoſe power and juriſdiction Eccleſiaſticall at the time of giving their ſentēces, was ſuſpended, ſhut up and cloſed, by the Archbiſhop of Canterburyes Commisſion and his Archiepiſcopall viſitation.

A 6 grevance or rather a nullity is, becauſe the whole power and juriſdiction Eccleſiaſticall, touching cauſes criminall, without exception or reſervation of the examination and definition of the crimes of Miniſters, by ſundry Dioceſans under their ſeale at armes, before that tyme was committed in ſolidum for terme of life & yeares not expired unto their principall Commiſſaryes, Officialls, or vicars generall: wherupon it conſequently followeth, the p. 82ſame Dioceſans having no power by the Kinges Eccleſiaſticall lawes, to reſume at their pleaſure their ſayd Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, that the ſentences given by the ſayde Dioceſans, in theſe caſes are ſentences voyd and of none effect in the law, as being given a Iudicibus iurisdictione in ea parte carentibus.

A 7 grevance or rather nullity is, that ſentences hauehave been given nullo Iuris ordine ſervato: but omni iuris ordine ſpreto et neglecto.

An 8 injuſtice is, becauſe ſome acts and ſentences hauehave been made and given in ſome private chamber of ſome common Inne or Taverne, and not in publico et competente foro, in any publike or competent ſeate, of Eccleſiaſticall juſtice. As M. Vinall and M. Warren, in the Dioceſſe of Chicheſter were deprived, in a common Taverne, viz. at the ſigne of the Ounce and Ivy buſh in Greenſteed.

The 9 injuſtice is, becauſe ſome ſentences, given by ſome Eccleſiaſticall judges, for not uſe of rites and Ceremonyes, or not obſerving of the booke of Common prayer, hauehave not been given according to the tenor of and effect of the ſtatute of the firſt of our late Queene, vponupon inquiſition, information, or accuſation, but only upon proces ex mero officio. A thing if not directly, yet by conſequence repugnant to the ſayd ſtatute; and therefore unwarrantable by the ſayd ſtatute. And therefore it is to be noted, that this marginall note (the Eccleſiaſticall judge may proceed ex officio) in pag 37. and this parētheſis (which they may doe ex officio) inſerted in the body of the ſtatute pag 42. is but a begging of the queſtion.Certain Miniſters in the Dioces of Oxford & Lichfeld etc.

An other injuſtice againſt ſome Miniſters hath been cō mitted by ſome ordinaries, for that they hauehave deprived them for none other cauſe, then only for not ſubſcribing p. 83to the 3 articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon. And this wrong hath been openly in Parliament acknowledged, to be a wrong by the Archbiſhop himſelfe, and by the Iudges and advocats of his owne Courts.

Theſe and many ſuch like thinges being thus, may it not be truely ſayd, that the Miniſters pleaded for are unjuſtly oppreſſed? And being ſo oppreſſed and without releefe any other way, hauehave they not juſt cauſe to ſupplicat to the High Court of Parliament? And hath not the ſayd High Court great reaſon, yea is it not bound to finde remedy, and to releeue them?

The anſwer concernyng the perſon of him who is ſayd abundantly to hauehave proved the unlawfulnes of the proceedings againſt the deprived miniſters, that he is no iudge nor any good Civilian or common lawyer, what reaſon hauehave you to be ſo reſolut heerin? He may be a judge, a good Civilian, or cōmon lawyer for ought you knowe, though you ſeeme never ſo doubtles therof. But what is this anſwer to the poynt in queſtion? Seeing it mattereth not, what the perſon of the probator be, if his proofes be ſufficient? And yet how meane ſo ever you thinke him, or his learning to be (if he be the party whom I ayme at) I ſhall doe no wrong (as I ſuppoſe to the cheefeſt judge, and beſt approved Civilian, of the now Archbiſhop of Canterburyes courts, if (without flattering the party) I ſhall affirme that he was a ſtudent and an advocate, and a Iudge, yea, I may (as I thinke) ſay more, a reader of and a director in the practiſe of the civill law about 30 yeares paſſed, to ſōe that be now Doctors of the ſame law.

But to let the perſon and learnyng of the probator paſſe, I reſolutely and directly anſwer to the anſwerers 3. Queres (the ſame being partly fraught with equivocations, p. 84and partly childiſh and abſurd,) that the one ſorte can receaue no reſolute anſwer, before he hauehave reſolved his intrinſecall and mentall ſenſe and underſtanding, and that the other without queſtion, is a queſtion queſtionles. His firſt Quere then being this, namely, Quere. 1 whether the Church under Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats, hath any tribunall proper unto it ſelfe, for the decyding of controverſies, and puniſhing of ſuch perſons as ſhall refuſe the ordinances therof? Unto this Quere, when he ſhall diſtinguiſh and make his ſo many equivocations (conteyned in the Quere) preſpicuous and playne,Equivocations. to the underſtanding of every ſimple & playne meanyng man, I ſhall (God willing) make him a ſimple, playne, reſolute, & direct anſwer. In the meane time let him underſtand, firſt that we may juſtly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church: and namely, whether he meane the vniverſall Church, or a Nationall, a Provinciall, a Dioceſā, an Archidiaconall, a Decanall, a Capitular, or laſtly a Parochiall Church. For all men (as uſually and commonly we ſpeake) doe vnderſtand, that every of theſe Churches, hath her proper name, after which ſhe is ſo called: as namly the Church diſperſed throughout the world, is called the univerſall Church, the Church within England is commonly called the Nationall Church of England; the Church within the Province of Canterbury, the Provinciall Church of Canterbury, the Church of the Dioceſſe of London, the Dioceſan Church of London, etc. And laſtly the Church of great S. Ellens in London, the Parochiall Church of S. Ellens in London. And therefore I craue a reſolute and direct anſwer, of what onelyonly perſons you meane that the univerſall, this Nationall, Provinciall, Dioceſan, Archidiaconall, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochiall Church conſiſteth? Who onelyonly be the Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats, under whom every one of theſe p. 85Churches liveth? Whether the ſame chriſtian godly Magiſtrates may perſonally be preſent, giuegive their expreſſe conſents, and hauehave their deciſive voyces, to & in making all and every decrees of every of theſe Churches? What is the tribunall proper to it ſelfe, of every of theſe Churches? What onelyonly manner of controverſies, by every of theſe Churches may be decided? What onelyonly kind of ordinances, every of theſe Churches may decree? What only kind of ſubject, and with what onelyonly kind of puniſhment, and none other, every of theſe Churches may puniſh the refuſers of every their ordinances?

Our ſecond mayne ſcruple, touching this firſt Quere, ariſeth from theſe words (vnderunder Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats) For if by theſe words (under Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats) he underſtand that every of theſe Churches, livyng under the obeyſance of ſuch Magiſtrats, hath a tribunall proper unto it ſelfe, immediatly derived to the ſame by the holy law of God, wholly ſecluded from the Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats preſence (as was the Sanctuary divided from the Court) and wherinto the chriſtian godly Magiſtrats may no more at this day enter, or no more giuegive their conſents and deciſiue voyces, in making the ordinances therof, then it was lawfull in times paſt for the Kings of Iuda to enter into the holy place, and to burne incenſe at the Altar: then muſt we frame him one kinde of reply: but if he ſhall informe us, his mentall vnderſtanding to be thus, namely that the Chriſtian godly Magiſtrats, hauehave none other power, by law divine or human, but only to aſſemble every of the ſayd Churches, to ratifie the ordinances of every of the ſayd Churches, or hath onelyonly power to commaund the ſame ordinances to be put in execution under them, then unto this anſwer we muſt ſhape him p. 86an other manner of reply. Notwithſtanding, in the meāe tyme this he muſt underſtand generally, that in right (though not alwayes in poſſesſion & practiſe) the church beyng diſtinguiſhed from the common wealth, hath the ſame power under a Chriſtian, and under an Infidell Magiſtrat.

Quere. 2 G. Powel2 Quere. Whether ſo many judiciall acts of deprivation of Biſhops from their benefices ſince the conqueſt, to the time of Magna Charta, and ſince that to this age, were ever held to be contrary to the lawes of this Kingdome?

To dance after your Pipe, (I will not ſay, what a fooliſh and ridiculous queſtion,Reply. but) what an od tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, before the Pipe be ſtriken up? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and other lawes ſince made, be ſayd to be contrary to them? This is as much, as one ſhould aske, whether Adam not Circumciſing Cain and Abell, did contrary to the law given for Circumciſion, to Abraham many yeares after? Or whither Iſhmael perſecuted Iſaack, before Iſack was borne? Or whether ſtealing of horſes an hundred yeares paſt, were puniſhable with death, before any law made for death in that behalfe? One thing cannot be ſayd contrary to an other, that is not, neyther ever was extant in rerum natura. The Second part of this Quere, whether ſince the granting of Magna Charta unto this age, the judiciall acts of deprivation of Biſhops etc: were ever held to be contrary to the law of this kingdome, and Magna Charta, we ſhall anſwer (if God permit) more plentifully anone.

Quere. 3 G. Powel3 Quere. Whether any Iudge of this Realme, or any cheife officer lerned in the lawes, be of opinion, that ſuch ſentences of deprivation, as hauehave lately paſſed in due forme, in any Eccleſiaſticall Court, be contrary to any, much leſſe to many ſtatuts.

Reply.Though it were a ſufficient anſwer to bid him goe p. 87looke, and himſelfe to aske the opinion of every judge & learned officer, yet will I not altogether yeld him ſo ſhort and cutted an anſwer. And though it be a principle in Philoſophy, that forma dat eſſe rei, yet to the beyng of every thing there muſt be matter, to which the forme giveth being. And therefore in this caſe, beſides due forme, there muſt be alſo due matter, inſerted in due ſentences. Wherupon I craue a reſolute and direct anſwer, whether by thoſe words (paſſed in due forme) he meane paſſed for matter and forme, in due forme? Or whether he meane, paſſed without due matter in due forme onelyonly? For if he meane by paſſed, (for matter and forme,) in due forme, then is his queſtion (without queſtion) either a fooliſh queſtion, or no queſtion at all. For who would queſtion, whether any Iudge or learned officer, could doubt, that a ſentence paſſed for matter, and forme in due forme, were a ſentence contrary to any, much leſſe to many ſtatuts? As though there were any Statuts ſo ridiculous and abſurd? On the other ſide, if he meane by paſſed in due forme, only due forme without due matter, then we anſwer that the ſame ſentence may be unjuſt, for want of due matter, and yet be juſt by reaſon of due forme. And ſo on the other parte, we affirme, that a ſentence may be iuſt, by reaſon of due matter, and yet unjuſt by reaſon of an undue forme. How many ſentences therefore of deprivation ſoever, as hauehave been lately given without due and juſt matter, or without due and iuſt forme, we anſwer ſo many not to hauehave paſſed in due matter and forme, and ſo contrary to ſome lawes or ſtatuts. But were this queſtion wholly grā ted, what eaſe and advantage can the opinion of any iudg or learned officer yeeld to thoſe Iudiciall acts of deprivation (wherupon the controverſie is grounded) which are p. 88not paſſed in any due forme of any law, or Statute Eccleſiaſticall whatſoever?

Furthermore touching this queſtion, if the Prelats did intend that all their ſentēces ſhould be according to law, wherfore did they make a Canon againſt the ordinary proſecution of appeales? Yea, what needed ſuch a Canon? What benefite is there to any appellant by his appeale, from a juſt ſentence? Or what danger to the Iudge a quo by ſuch appeales? The whole danger is to the appellant himſelfe. For the ſentence beyng juſt, he ſhall be ſure to get nothing, neither the Iudge a quo to loſe any thing by the appeale.

G. Powel.VVho having but halfe an eye, doth not ſee, but that (by pleading Magna Charta cap. 29:) they would not onelyonly weaken, but alſo ſubvert and utterly overthrow all jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall?

Doth every one that deſireth limitation of Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction,Reply. and laboreth to reſtrayne it from all communion of forreyne lawes, ſeeke the ſubverſion therof? If alſo the lawes Eccleſiaſticall, be the Kings Eccleſiaſticall lawes, and the jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall, the Kings Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction, then is this place of Magna Charta, ſo farre from ſubverting the jurisdiction or law Eccleſiaſticall, as that by that place, the ſame law and jurisdiction is up held, and more throughly eſtabliſhed. That the law & jurisdiction Eccleſiaſtical ever hath been, and yet is accounted the Kings Eccleſiaſticall law and juridiction ſhall be ſhewed anone.

G. PowelThe ſentences and graue determinations whereof (that is of Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction) hauehave never yet in any age or Country, been ſubmitted to popular triall, by the judgment of Peeres etc:

ReplyAll ſent ces of Eccleſiaſticall Courts, are not ſo graue but that ſome are ſomtymes repealed by Higher courts, and ſometymes revoked by themſelues. Sometyme alſo p. 89they meddle with matters not belonging unto them, and therfore by ordinary courſe of Commmon law, they are prohibited to proceed. Finally in ſome caſe the Biſhop giveth not Inſtitution to a benefice, untill by a Iury of 12. men (whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy, and 6 of the Layity) the controverſie de iure patronatus be decided. Yea ſometyme the Biſhop having inſtituted a clarke, is forced by writ from the common law, to admit of another clark preſented by another Patrone, and ſo to diſplace him whom before he had inſtituted.

G. PowelThe place of Magna Charta, cannot be underſtood of Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction, or the practiſe thereof, eſpecially if we conſider the end why this law was made, and the tyme when:

The Prelats ſhould make ſure worke indeed,Reply. if they could make, that no lawes were againſt their power. Thē might they take upon them without controlment, what they would under coloure of Eccleſiaſticall iurisdiction: as indeed they doe now pretily beginne to doe.

G. PowelThe end was, that the Kings of this Realme, might not challenge an infinit and abſolute power, (as ſome Kings elſe where did, and yet doe) without judgment and lawfull proceedings, to take away any mans liberty, life, Country, goods, or lands.

Then belike the Kings Majeſtie is reſtrayned by Magna Charta, but the Prelacy is not.Reply. Is not this good ſtuffe? The King ſhall weare the Crowne, but the Prelats will beare the ſword. Whether now doe they that are falſely called Puritans, or the Prelats moſt encroch upon the Royall authoritye?

G. PowelIt was made at ſuch time, as the Kings thought Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction, no more in right then in fact, to belong to the Crowne. Therfore the words hauehave no relation to Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction.

This is utterly falſe:Reply yea the falſhood therof is evident by the teſtimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cooke, in the booke alleadged by the anſwerer. p. 90For he ſayth expreſely, that as in temporall cauſes, the King by the mouth of Iudges in his Courts of Iuſtice, doth iudge the ſame by the temporall lawes of England; lib. de jure regis Eccle. fol: 8ſo in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall etc. (the connuſance wherof doth not belong to the common lawes of England) the ſame are to be iudged and determyned, by Eccleſiaſticall Iudges, according to the Kings Eccleſiaſticall lawes, etc.

fol. 39And againe, obſerue good reader, (ſayth S. Edward Cooke) ſeeyng that the determination of hereſies etc. belongeth not to the Common law, how neceſſary it was for adminiſtration of Iuſtice, that his Maieſties progenitors Kings of this Realme, did by publike authority authorize Eccleſiaſticall Courts under thē, to determyne thoſe great and important cauſes, etc. by the Kings Eccleſiaſticall lawes. The jurisdiction therfore, Courts, and lawes Eccleſiaſticall, in the opinion of the Kings progenitors were thought & held to be their own Kingly lawes, Courts, and jurisdiction. The ſame is further proved by the ſayd S. Edward Cooke: fol. 9by the preſident of Renulphus, in diſcharging and exempting the Monaſtery and Abbot of Abinden, from the jurisdiction of the Biſhops and granting alſo to the ſaide Abbot Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction etc: by the preſident of William the firſt,fol 10.11: who made inpropriatiō of Churches with cure, to Eccleſiaſticall perſons etc. and by divers preſidents of other Kings ſince the conqueſt.

That which in this parte of the anſwer, is afterward added of the neceſſary reſtitution of the right of Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction, to the Crowne is alſo confuted by the ſame S. Edward Cooke, who plainely ſaith, that though there had been no ſuch law of reſtitution made, yet it was reſolved by all the Iudges, that the Kings and Queenes of Englād for the tyme being, by the auncient prerogatiue law of England, may make ſuch a Commiſion etc. And therfore by the auncient p. 91lawes of this Realme, this kingdome of England is and abſolute Empire, and Monarchy, conſiſting of one head, which is the King, and of a body politike, &c. Alſo that the Kingly head of this body politike is furniſhed with plenary power. &c. to render iuſtice and right, to every part and member of this body. Thus farre S. Edward Cooke. From all which it followeth, that the reſtitution of the auncient right, howſoever lawfully made (as being made by the whole body of the kingdome) was notwithſtāding not neceſſarily made, as though without it, the King or Queene, for the tyme being, could not hauehave uſed their auncient right.

That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 anſwer to the conſequence of this 8 Argument, doth not belong to the matter, becauſe it doth nothing juſtifie the proceedings of the Biſhops or other Eccleſiaſticall Iudges, in depriving of the Miniſters pleaded for, in ſuch manner and for ſuch cauſes, as for which they hauehave depriveded them. The queſtion is not whether jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall by the lawes of the land doth be long (under the King) unto the ordinaryes: nor whether the Ordinaryes in the exerciſe of the Kings jurisdiction Eccleſiiaſticall, and Conſiſtoriall trialls, ought to proceed by vertue of Peeres, etc: but whether ſome Ordinaryes, exerciſing the Kings Eccleſiaſticall jurisdiction, hauehave proceeded in their Eccleſiaſticall Conſiſtories, againſt ſome Miniſters, without authority of the Kings Eccleſiaſticall law: & therfore in that reſpect, contrary to Magna Charta, which requyreth nothing to be doone without the Kings law.

Further,De jure Regis Eccleſi. fol. 9 although we grant (as S. Edw. Cooke inſtructeth us) all lawes Eccleſiaſticall derived from other (which by and with a generall conſent are approved and allowed here) to be aptly and rightly called the Kings Eccleſiaſticall p. 92lawes of England: yet I deny that all lawes Eccleſiaſticall, derived by the Kings progenitors, either before or ſince the Conqueſt from others, are now in this age our Soveraigne Lord King Iames his Eccleſiaſticall lawes: and therefore howſoever many judiciall Acts of deprivation, of Biſhops & Preiſts, from their benefices &c. according to the Eccleſiaſticall law, which is called ius Pontificium, & which was derived, by the Kings Progenitors, from the Biſhops of Rome, either before, or ſince the Conqueſt, unto Magna Charta, and ſince that, to the 25 of King Henry the eyght, were never, all held, to be contrary, but were ever all held, to be agreable to the lawes of this kingdome: yet notwithſtanding, I affirme that all Iudiciall Acts and ſentences,25. Hen. 8 cap. 17 (how many ſoever, of deprivation of Miniſters, from their benefices) had made and given, by the Eccleſiaſticall Iudges, ſince the 25. of King Henry the 8. onelyonly according, or onelyonly by force, and vertue of the ſayd ius Pontificium, or Biſhop of Rome his law, (the ſentences given in the time of Queene Mary excepted) are, and ought to be holden, not to be had, made & given, by the lawes of this kingdome, or by the Kings Eccleſiaſticall law: And why? Even becauſe the whole ius Pontificium, or Biſhop of Romes law was altogether (excepting the tyme of Queene Mary) abrogated, adnulled, and made voyd, by an Act of Parlament; and conſequently is but a meere Alien, Forraine and ſtraunge law, and no municipall law of England, and therefore not the Kings Eccleſiaſticall law.

Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Iames, by this graunt of Magna Charta made by his progenitors, beyng obliged, to ſuffer no Free man of the Realme, to be taken or impriſoned, or diſſeiſſed of his Frrehold, or liberties, &c. Nor to paſſe upon him nor condemne him, but by p. 93lawfull judgment of his Peeres, or by the law of the land. We agayne aſſume from this ſtatute of the great Charter, that ſundry ſentences of deprivation of Miniſters, from their benefices, for cauſes before ſpecified, are unlawfull; becauſe ſuch Miniſters hauehave been condemned, and judgment hath been paſſed upon them, without lawfull judgment of their Peeres, or law Eccleſiaſticall of the land. For heere we muſt giuegive the anſwerer to witt, by theſe words, (or law of the land,) that all the Kings lawes, of what nature or quality ſoever, whether Eccleſiaſticall or temporall, and not only the lawes temporall, (as he inſinuateth) are included. As therefore no temporall Free man of the Realme, may be condemned, paſſed upon, or diſſeiſſed of his liberty, and freehold, &c. in a temporall cauſe, and in a temporall Court, without lawfull judgment of his Peeres, or temporall law of the land. Even ſo likewiſe, no Eccleſiaſticall perſon, (beyng a freeman of the Realme) may be condemned, paſſed upon, or diſſeiſſed of his liberty, or frehold, but by lawfull Eccleſiaſticall judgement, according to the law Eccleſiaſticall of the land. And heereupon we graunt, if the King hauehave any law Eccleſiaſticall of the lād, for the deprivation of a Miniſter, from his liberty and frehold, for not ſubſcription, perjurie, contempt of Canonical (ſo called obedience, omisſion of Rites, and Ceremonyes, not preciſe obſervation of the booke of Common prayer &c. Then we graunt, that the Ordinaryes (being the Kings Iudges Eccleſiaſticall) may rightly depriue a Miniſter from his benefice, for theſe offences.

And yet ſtill we deny, and ſhall be able to mainteyne, that ſundry ſentences of deprivation, made and given, by ſundry Ordinaries, againſt ſvndry Miniſters, be either unjuſt or unlawfull; or no ſentences at all, for the reaſons and p. 94cauſes before ſpecified.

It is therefore erroniouſly alleadged, that that which was done by jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall, when Magna Charta was granted, was not at that tyme taken to be done by the King, or by his authority, and that the lawes which Eccleſiaſticall Iudges practiſed, were not then held, to be the lawes of the land, or the Kings lawes. For the Kings progenitors, did both thinke and held, that jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall did in right belong unto their Crowe, and therefore in fact, by right of their crownes, did they both exerciſe, and commaund to be exerciſed, in their Kingly names, their Kingly right, authority and jurisdiction Eccleſiaſticall within their Realmes. For how could thoſe Kings, hauehave commaunded, and how could their ſubjectes hauehave obeyed, if the Kings themſelues, had thought, and held, that the Eceleſiaſticall courts, lawes or jurisdiction, were not in right, no more then in fact, at that tyme belonging unto the Crowne as the anſwerer, vaynly, and childiſhly fancyeth? Which fancy alſo ſeemeth ſufficiētly confuted by the very title of S. Edward Cooks booke, de iure regis Eccleſiaſtico. For how could the Kings before and after the Conqueſt unto Magna Charta have been juſtly intituled to Kingly right of Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, if the Kings had no Kingly Eccleſiaſticall right, or juriſdiction at all.

G. Powel.Breifely, the lawfullnes of they deprivation, of the refractary Miniſters. is a plaine caſe adjudged, in open Court, as appeareth in S. Edward Cookes Report part 5 in Cawdries caſe according to a Statute of I. Elizab. cap 2. &c.

It is a moſt playne and cleere caſe, that neither the caſe of Cawdrie, Reply.is the caſe of ſundry the late deprived Miniſters; nor that the caſe of ſundry the late deprived Miniſters, is the caſe of Cawdrie.

p. 95Cawdrie was deprived, not by his Ordinarie, but by the Queenes Eccleſiaſticall high Commisſioners; not for not ſubſcribing to the 3 Articles; not for the not uſe of rits and Ceremonyes; not, for the not exact,S. Edward Cook de jure regis eccl. Cawdries caſe fol. 3 and preciſe obſervation, of the booke of Common prayer: But as well, for that he had preached againſt, and depraved the ſaid book, as alſo for that he refuſed to celebrate divine ſervice, according to the ſayd booke.

Agayne, in his cauſe, it being found before the High Commisſioners, that he had uttered verba convitioſa and contumelioſa, convitious, and contumelious words,looke ſent againſt Caw. againſt the boke of Common prayer; the caſe was not, whither his fact were puniſhable by the Statute, (for of that no man then doubted;) but whether his depravation, and preaching againſt the booke of Common prayer, beyng the firſt offence committed by him againſt the Statute; he was puniſhable by tenor of the ſtatute, for the ſame his firſt offence, by depravatiō, yea or no? Laſtly Cawdries offence was puniſhable as well before the Queenes Iuſtices by impriſonment, and loſſe of one whole yeares profites, of his ſpirituall promotions, as by deprivation before his Ordinary. None of all which things, were within the cō paſſ, of ſundry the late deprived Miniſters. For non of thē ever preached againſt the booke, nor depraved the ſame. They never refuſed to obſerue the ſame booke, according to the proeme of the booke & tenor of the ſtatute. They were ſo farr from claymyng any immunitie, from being depraved, for their firſt offence, as that they ſtood and yet doe ſtand, upon their innocencyes, not to hauehave committed any offence at all, againſt the ſtatute puniſhable with deprivation, by the ſtatute they alleadge, that they were not puniſhable before the Kings Iuſtices by the ſtatute, p. 96for theſe facts which they were charged by their Ordinaries to hauehave committed againſt the ſtatute, and for which they were deprived. Laſtly, ſome of them were deprived not for any fact done, committed, or perpetrated: but for not promisſing heereafter, to obſerue the whole booke. And what an unconſiderate part therefore is it, to avowe the lawfulnes of the deprivation of all the late ſilenced Miniſters, to be a playne caſe adjudged in open Court; when neither their caſe, nor any like caſe to ſom of theirs, was ever yet brought or argued before the Kings Iuſtices in any of the Kings open courts at all.

Touching the ſtatut alleadged, 1. Elizabeth, it helpeth nowhitt at all the late deprivations of ſundry Miniſters, Firſt, becauſe ſuch Miniſters as hauehave been deprived onelyonly for not conformyng themſelues, to the uſe of the booke provided by the pariſhioners cannot truly be charged to hauehave refuſed the booke commaunded by the ſtatute. Becauſe the ſame booke was never provided for them. Secondly, the ſtatute puniſheth not every refuſer, but wilfull and obſtinate refuſers. They then that upon conſcience onelyonly of Gods word, doe refuſe to obſerue al things conteyned in the booke, cannot be iuſtly called obſtinate refuſers, till their groundes out of the word, be by the word removed. Thirdly, the ſtatute requyreth ſome Act, done, committed or perpretrated againſt the Statut: but ſome Miniſters hauehave been deprived only for not promiſing &c: as before was ſayd. Fourthly, the ſtatute appoynteth the Ordinaries to proceed by inquiſition, accuſation, or information: But many of us hauehave been deprived without any of theſe meanes, and onelyonly upon Proces, Ex officio mero. Heerby therfore appeareth, how unjuſtly, and directly contrary to the words of the ſtatute, you inſert p. 97this Parentheſis, (which they may doe Ex officio,) as if they might by vertue of this Statute proceed Ex officio, wheras the Statute expreſly requyres inquiſition, accuſation, or information. Is this good interpretation? If you doe ſo interprete the ſcripture directly contrary to the wordes of ſcripture, in the ſame place you make but mad interpretations.

Touching that which is objected againſt all hitherto ſpoken in the poynt of the law, of the opinion of the Iudges to be againſt the ſame, may it pleaſe the reader to remember the ſaying of an Honorable and moſt renowned Counſeller in that behalfe, viz. that in ſuch caſes and all other, men are not ſo much to reſpect what judges ſpeake ſtanding bare headed,2 chro: 19:6 as what they ſay ſittyng upon the judgment ſeate, repreſenting the Kings perſon (yea not executing the iudgment of man but of the Lord) when all men ſtand bare headed before them.

Concernyng the oth Ex officio, of the othe ex officiowe affirme that the law of the land is againſt the exerciſe of the ſame oath, by Ordinaries and other judges Eccleſiaſticall.

AThe Common law of this kingdome which is grounded upon the law of God, and of reaſon doth hate and abhorre it.

BFirſt in reſpect of the fraylty of man who for the ſafitie of his life, libertie, credit, and good name, will not ſpare to prophane even that which is moſt holy, and by committing ſinfull perjury hazard his ſoule. which the ſubtle ſerpēt wel knew in generall though he were deceaved in the perticuler, in that he ſayd unto God concerning Iobskinne for skinne, and whatſoever a man hath will he giuegive for himſelfe and for his life, but ſtretch out thy hand (ſaith Sathan) and touch his bones, and his fleeſh, and ſee if he will not then blaſpheme p. 98Cthee to thy face. Secondly in reſpect of the feeblenes of the judgment and ſentence, that ſhould be grounded upon the othe of ſuch a party, being even then at his convention, aforehand defamed, and of ſuſpected faith or credit.Bracton

DAgayne, it is againſt the common law which conſtātly holdeth that, iudicium eſt in qualibet actione trinus actus trium perſonarum Iudicis, actoris, et rei. Secundum quod large accipi poſſunt huiuſmodi perſonae, quod duce ſunt ad minus inter quas vertatur contentio et tertia perſona ad minus qui iudicet; alioquin non erit iudicium cum iſtae perſonae ſunt partes principales in iudicio, ſine quibus iudicium conſiſtere non poteſt.

EBrittonAnd the renowned Prince King Edward the firſt ſaith by the penn of the learned Iudg Britton, that no judgmēt may be of fewer, then three perſons, that is to ſay; a Iudge, a plantiefe, and a defendent, and in caſe (ſaith the King) that we be a party, we will that our Court ſhall be Iudge.

FThen if the party convented be conſtrained to accuſe himſelfe, he ſuſteineth two of the ſaid parties in judgmēt, viz. actoris et rei, which the law hateth, or elſe the Ordinary or Iudge ſuſteineth two of the ſayde partyes in judgment, that is both Iudge and Promoter, which the law doth alſo abhorre.

GTherfore true judgment cannot ſo conſiſt.

HIf it be objected that common bruite and fame may lawfully ſtand in ſteead of an accuſer, and put a perſon cō vented to purge himſelfe therof, and to deliver his knowledge alſo of others by oeth; I anſwer that fame is tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri, and ought to hauehave no credit untill it be preſented in courſe of law or proved, For the law is, that the Iudge himſelfe (if he would of his owne knowledge affirme the party to be in famous) is p. 99not to be received or beleeved. For that the law will, quod ſecundum acta et probata iuſticia miniſtretur.

IThat which is often objected, that private relation made unto the Iudge, is ſufficient to put the party convē ted to anſwer upon his oeth, is anſwered before; for that the parties in judgment muſt not be fayned perſons but ſuch as may ſtand upright in Court, and anſwer the party convented his damages and coſts if his proſecution be wrongfull, otherwiſe a man may be greatly wronged, his good name and fame unjuſtly brought into queſtion, put to great chardges without any recompence and malicious backbiting maintained, and all by coloure of this proceeding which the common law hateth.

KThat which is objected (that if this courſe ſhould not be taken by proceeding by oth Ex officio mero, vice would abound; for that accuſation is daungerous, and odious,) is eaſily anſwered. That the commō law ſeeth this alſo, and therefore hath ordeyned common enformers to proceed againſt ſuch as private perſons will not deale with by witneſſes and ſuch legall courſes, and allow them part of the penaltie for their labor, and yet alloweth the party wrōgfully accuſed his damages and coſts if the accuſation be wrongfull and injurious. In ſo much as if the enformer will not, or be not able to render it, he ſhall receaue corporall puniſhment for his offence, and for the redemption of the defendant credit and reputation.

The Statute law alſo is,9: H: 3: c: 29 that no fre man ſhalbe apprehended or impriſoned, or to be diſſeaſed of his free hold, or liberties, or free cuſtomes, or to be outlawed or exiled, or any wiſe diſtroyed, nor we ſhall paſſe upon him, nor deale with him, but by lawfull judgment of his peeres or by the law of the land, that is by preſentment, Indictmēt, p. 100witnes, verdict, voluntary confesſion, or proceſſ of utlary.

In ſo much as when the Popiſh Clergie would neverleſſe be tampering with this oath ex officio, (as their practiſe was to be medling for the advancment of Antichriſt in all States) there was a writt of prohibition awarded, as warrented formerly by the Common law; to be directed to the Sheriff commaunding him that he ſhall not permit etc: and thereupon an attachment againſt the Biſhop if he diſobey:

After this in the height of the Popes pride in the dayes of King Henrie the 4. (who was willing to pleaſe him being a King in facto, 2: H: 4: c: 15but not de iure,) this oath crept in, as a Canonicall ſanction, by the ſtatute of 2. H. 4.

But the iniquitie, injuſtice; and repugnancy thereof to the Common lawes & ſtatutes of the Realme appearing to the State,25 h. 8: c. 14 23: H: 8: c: 9 it was by K. H. 8. by the whole Parliament abrogated as injurious to the Crowne, and utterly againſt the common juſtice of the kingdome, and ſo it reſteth cō dempned to this day. So that no Ordinary can practiſe it by any power under the Crowne.

Then it followeth that the uſe therof muſt needs be by colour of the Canon law, which being in that poynt derogatory to the Crowne,25 h. 8. c. 19 repugnant to the law of this kingdome, and aboliſhed by Act of Parliament, it conſequently cannot be uſed, but by a forreine power and thē it is premunire.

wager of lawAnd to that which is alleaged by the Civilians, that the Common law alloweth it in that, which is termed the wager of law, or doeing of his law, it appeareth that they are therin utterly miſtaken, which may eaſily ariſe out of their ignorance therof.

Firſt the wager of law is voluntary for he that offereth it p. 101may be tried per patriam at his election; This is contrary viz. extorted and conſtreined.

2 The wager of law commeth from the certeine knowledge of the deponent, who beſt knoweth whither he ow the debt or not: This is contrary, moſt uncertaine, what ſhalbe demaunded or interrogated

3 Againe, the wager of law maketh an end of the ſtrife; but this is contrary viz: the beginning of ſtrife: for it is not finall, but frō thence the Iudge gathereth the ground wherupon to proceed againſt the party convented.

4 The wager of law is in caſe meere and onelyonly civill, for an honeſt man may be in debt; but this othe is miniſtred in caſe meere criminall, in which caſe the othe is ſo much the more odious to the Common law, by how much it is an apparant occaſion of perjury: which carnall men will rather fall into, then to ſubject themſelues to corporall puniſhment, or to lay open their owne turpitude or ſhāe?

Neither can this proceeding by othe ex officio be foūd in the Honorable Court of Starr chamber. For although the courts of Starr chamber and Chauncery proceed not by Iury, yet they obſerue the due forme of juſtice,Starr chamber: and enforce no man to anſwer, but where he hath a knowne accuſer and perfect underſtanding of the cauſe or crime objected, and therewithall is permitted to hauehave a copye of the bill of complaint or information, and allowed more over both time convenient and councell learned, well to conſider & adviſe of his oth & anſwer, and if his adverſaryes complaint, be either in ſufficient in forme, or ſuch as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine, the defendant upon demurrer without othe is diſmiſſed, and that with coſts. And admtit the accuſation be ſuch as is every way aunſwerable, yet if the interrogatoryes miniſtred be p. 102impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendant without offence to the Court, may refuſe to make anſwer to the ſame.

Therefore no ſimilitude or likenes between this oth uſed in theſe Honorable courts of Iuſtice & that conſtreyned oath ex mero officio Iudicis.

1 Since the former ſort be orderly taken in courts of juſtice, the other without all courſe of judgement.

2 The one where the plantiff and matter of complaint are manifeſt, the other where neither accuſer nor matter of accuſation doeth appeare, unleſſe the bare ſuſpicion of the Iudge, fame unproved, or private inſinuation, may be allowed for competent perſons in judgement, againſt whom the party defendāt is deprived of all legall exceptiōs, & is often, after great trouble diſmiſſed and (though innocent) yet dampnified and ſlaundered and without recompence, there being no complanant found, but the Iudge himſelfe.

3 The one made upon certaine knowledge and good adviſment, the other ſoddenly without all diſcretion uppon uncertaine demaunds.

4 The one wiſely reſtreined to certaine limits & boūds the other fooliſhly wandring at the doubtfull will of a ſly and ſubtill oppoſer.

5 Upon the one the deponent aunſwereth to the accuſation of his adverſarye, by the other he is compelled to be his owne accuſer and condemner.

6 The one requyreth an anſwer to matter in fact done either to the injury of ſome private perſon, or hurt of the publicke ſtate, the other conſtreineth revealing of words, deeds, and thoughts though never offenſiue to any.

That which is objected that the ſaide proceeding is p. 103warranted by the Canon law or Civill law, is anſwered many wayes; but breifely by the poſitiue law it ſelfe, that baniſheth all Canon Civill, or other law, or preheminence, or power whatſoever, which is contrary or repugnant to the common law of the land; But this proceeding by the partyes owne othe ex officio mero, is contrary and repugnant to the common law of the land. Ergo

Thus we ſee that this proceeding by oth ex officio was a meere ſtraunger in England,Concluſion: and how it arrived heerein Anno 2. H 4. but yet as a masker, diſguiſed, marching in the rowte of Cannonicall ſanctions & obſcured from the veiw of the State under that name; but after being diſcovered as an adder in the graſſ, was damned and expelled, by the Statute of 25. H. 8. as a traytor to the King and his lawes, and hath no lawfull or warrantable interteynment by the ſtatute of primo Elizab, For that there by no jurisdiction excerciſed by the Biſhop of Rome in this kingdome is annexed to the crowne, but that which was then lawfully vſed and excerciſed within this kingdome:

Then, for any Ordinary or Iudge Eccleſiaſticall to enterteine it and uſe it in their courts & proceedings; is a high miſpriſion againſt the King his Crowne and dignity, and puniſhable by the Statute of the 16. yeere of K. R. 2.

Now to paſſe from the oth ex officio, to the Canons, of the Canōsand yet not to deale with thoſe that are of indifferent ſorte, but with thoſe onelyonly, that are either contrary to Gods word, or repugnant to the lawes of the land, neither alſo to ſay all of theſe in this place, that might be ſayd, but only (for brevities ſake) to giuegive a taſt, and to poynt at ſome; may it pleaſe the Chriſtian reader, yea the anſwerer himſelfe, yea all our adverſaries in this cauſe (that are not too much blinded with mallice) to conſider, that all ſuch Canons p. 104generally as pronounce a man ipſo facto excommunicate, for ſaying thus or thus, againſt the Canons themſelues, againſt the Ceremonies, againſt the booke of Common prayer, and the ſtrict obſervation thereof, etc: cannot be juſtified in this behalfe by the word of God. For as (to prevent an objection that might be made from the commaundement for reading of them publikly in Churches) albeit the ſacreed ſcriptures be dayly publikely read and preached, yet many things are both wittingly and unwillingly ſpoken, and actually committed, againſt the ſayd ſacreed ſcriptures, for which notwithſtanding, ſuch perſons are not preſently to be held ipſo facto excommunicate: ſo certeinly (except the authoritie of the Church be greater then the authority of God, and the Canons of this laſt Synod more authenticall, then the holy ſcriptures given by inſpiration from God,) it muſt be acknowledged of theſe Canons, and all other conſtitutions of the Church whatſoever, that every word ſpoken, or act committed againſt thē (eſpecially unwittingly) is not ſo heavily to be puniſhed.

Agayne, wheras the ſayd Canons, doe forbid any man by ſpeech ſo offending, without publike revocation, of his ſayd (pretended) wicked error, to be reſtored: ſith the ſayd offence may be committed as well privatly, as publikely, and ſith the Canons ſpeake generally (whoſoever ſhall affirme etc,) without any exception of private affirmations; how can the ſayd Canons in this reſpect, be warranted by the word of God?1 Tim: 5.1 If all offences againſt Gods word, (at leaſt of man againſt man) be not publikely to be reprehē ded; much leſſe are all affirmations in diſgrace of any Eccleſiaſticall cōſtitutions of men, to be puniſhed with publike pennance.

Furthermore whereas divers of the ſayd Canons, doe p. 105forbid many offenders by ſuch affirmations, to be reſtored by any other meanes, then onelyonly by the Archbiſhop: ſith the ſayd offence may not onelyonly be unwitting & private, but alſo by a poore ignorant man, yea perhaps a lame impotent man, dwelling alſo it may be an hundred myles, or almoſt 200. myles from the Archbiſhop. What equity is there, that ſvch an offender, ſhould be debarred from all reſtoring by any other? And ſo, for want therof, be deprived (perhaps all his life) from all publike communion with the Church, and from all ſpirituall comfort for his ſoule therby? Is this the mercy that is better then ſacrifice? And wherby we doe repreſent our heavenly Father?

The 13. Canon commaundeth the celebration of holy dayes, as well as of the Lords day, and that as equally agreyng to Gods holy will and pleaſure. I deny not, but that as Gods word is to be preached at all tymes, in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, ſo it is alſo to be heard as oft as men hauehave opportunity: but yet that the holy dayes now commaunded to be celebrated, are as equally according to Gods holy will and pleaſure, as the Lords day (eſpecially ſo to be celebrated, as they are injoyned, with greater ſolemnities ſometimes then the Lords day it ſelfe,) this is contrary both to the 4 commaundement, and alſo to many other Scriptures,Gal: 4.10: Coloſſ. 2.16Col 2:16 which condemne ſuch obſervation of dayes, and tymes. The holy dayes alſo now commaunded to be kept, may be abrogated by the Magiſtrate, as wel as other, that were wont to be obſerved. But I hope, that although ſome are bold to ſay as much of the Lords day, yet our Prelats will not publikly allow of any ſuch raſh & impious opinion.

The 14. Canon commaunding all divine ſervice, preſcribed in the booke of common prayer to be read upon the dayes appoynted, without any diminiſhyng in regard of p. 106preaching or in any other reſpect; is agaynſt charity and conſequently agaynſt the word. For the weaknes of ſome mens body, at all tymes is ſuch, that they are not able to reade all and to preach. At ſometime alſo, the ſtrongeſt man, may hauehave ſuch an infirmity, that he may not be able to endure the performāce of both. In winter, many times the extremity of cold, will not permit the whole auditory, to continue ſo long at Church. Then (will ſome ſay,) let preaching by ſuch perſons as are ſo weake, or at ſuch times, be omitted. This indeed is that which many would hauehave. But this is to performe bare reading before preaching: ignorance before knowledge: and the ordinances of man, before the commaundements of God.

The 18 Canon for bowing at the mention of the name of Ieſus, is abſurd in that reſpect: becauſe the place whereon it ſeemeth to be grounded,philip. 2.10. is not literally ſo to be underſtood. Firſt for that it ſpeaketh of things not only in earth but alſo in heaven, and under the earth, in which places ther are no knees. 2. It ſpeaketh not onelyonly of men, but alſo of all other creatures. For it ſaith of all things. By the literall interpretation therefore, all creatures at the mention of the name of Ieſus, ſhould bend their knees. 3. By this interpretation, no man muſt ſit whilſt any thing is read, that hath that name, or elſe the muſt riſe at the mention thereof to bowe their knee. 4. It is ſuperſtition, to giuegive more reverence, to the name Ieſus then to the name Chriſt, God, Iehovah, or the Holy Ghoſt. 5. If the knee be ſo to be bowed, at the name of Ieſus, why not alſo at the name Saviour? For what doeth Ieſus ſignifie but Saviour? 6. The place ſpeaketh not of that which is due to the name, but of that which is due to the perſon of Ieſus. So the Canoniſts are deceaved, with that fallacy, which is a rebus ad voces. 7. It p. 107ſpeaketh of that which is due to him, as well in private, as in publike places: in our houſes, at our tables, in our beds: as we ſit, as we walke, as we ly: If then we ſit at table, or ly in our beds etc: we muſt not ſpeake of Ieſus, but we muſt ariſe to make a legge. Laſtly, this name Ieſus, is no more then Ioſhua, who therfore is called Ieſus Act. 7.45. It is alſo the name of Iozadak. Zech. 3.1: compared with Eccleſiaſticus 49.12: and Ezra 3.2: and of the Sonne of Syrach: and of one Iuſtus Coloſſ. 4.11. The common people therefore for want of preaching and by their owne negligence, being ſo ignorant, that they cannot well diſcerne the name Ieſus our Saviour from the ſame name of other, they may miſtake themſelues and bowe the knee, as well at the mē tion of other ſo named as of Ieſus our Lord and Saviour, and ſo ignorantly they ſhould commit blaſphemy. That which is ſaid for defence heerof by ſome, that we ſhould the rather bowe at this name, to teſtifie our hatred againſt Arrianiſme, is more dotage thē divinity: and therfore not worthy any anſwer. The Deitie of Chriſt is more manifeſt by other names, eſpecially by the name Emmanuell, then by the name Ieſus.

Touching the Canons for Coapes, Surplices, Croſſe, and other Conformitie, as alſo touching the preſent Hierarchie, and manner of ordaynyng Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Preiſts, Deacons, etc: and for Subſcription; it is too long in this place, to ſet downe perticular reaſons againſt them. Therfore I referr the reader to perticular treatiſes of thoſe things, both hertofore, and alſo lately written.

The 49. Canon, for no Miniſter to preach or expound any Scripture or matter of doctrine, without a ſpeciall licence in that behalfe; is a moſt lamentable contrariety to the word, which commaundeth every Miniſter, both to p. 108be apt to teach, and to teach indeede. And I would gladly know of ſuch Canon-makers, whither thoſe that they call by the name of Miniſters, be Miniſters of the word or no? If they be Miniſters of the word, ſhall they not hauehave power to expound and preach the word by vertue of the ſaid Miniſtery? Yea, doe not they themſelues, when they ordayne them Miniſters, bid them take power to preach the word? It is yet more lamentable in the ſayde Canon, that they commaund all Miniſters (not ſpecially licenſed, to preach or expound in their owne chardges) onelyonly to ſtudy to read plainely and aptly (without glozing or adding) the Homilies already ſet forth, or heerafter to be publiſhed etc. For doe not theſe words plainely import, that ſome Miniſters are not able to read without ſtudiyng for it, even after they be made Miniſters? Yea, doe not the words (onelyonly to ſtudy to read plainely and aptly the Homilies etc.) implye a precept againſt ſtudiyng to read the ſcriptures, which are harder then Homileis: eſpecially againſt ſtudiyng to preach heerafter? O miſerable condition then of ſuch people, as hauehave ſuch Miniſters as muſt goe to ſchoole to learne to read the Homilies, not the ſcriptures, yea and which muſt not ſtudy at all ever to Preach.

The 53. Canon againſt confuting of any publike doctrine (how hereticall or dangerous ſo ever) before the Bishop be made acquainted with the ſaid doctrine; is moſt prejudiciall to the ſalvation of the hearers of ſuch erroneous teaching. For the ſoules of men beyng by nature as capable of any errors, as their bodyes are of any infectious diſeaſe; and the Biſhop of the ſame Dioceſſe, ſometime perhaps dwelling or beynge an hundred myles from the Church, wherein ſuch errors were delivered; and the life of man being moſt uncertaine; and Biſhops themſelues p. 109being ſometime erroneous, and therefore not very haſtie to hauehave errors confuted: may not many a ſoule be infected with ſuch error, yea, and dye in them, before any remedy can be had againſt them?

This ſhall ſuffice for a taſt of the contrariety of divers Canons, to Gods word. If I ſhould perticularly runne over other, that hauehave like cōtrariety; this volume would much exceed, both my owne purpoſe, and alſo the likyng of all readers.

Before I proceed to the Canons repugnant to the lawes of the land; let me here interlace one reaſon in a word generally to proue, both the Canons and alſo the booke of Common prayer (now impoſed upon Miniſters,) not yet to be eſtabliſhed by law, and ſo conſequently all the proceedings of the Prelats againſt the ſaid Miniſters for not ſubſcribyng, obſerving the booke, conformity etc, to be with out law, and a gainſt law. This one reaſon, is from the late Bill of the Bishops preſented to the Parliament for the eſtabliſhing both of the booke of Common prayer, and alſo of their Canons. For if the ſaid booke and Canons were already good in law; what needed any new ſtatute to eſtabliſh them? If they ſay that abundans cautela non nocet, plentifull caution is not hurtfull, they muſt alſo remember, that they hauehave likewiſe learned, fruſtra fit per plura, quod fieri poteſt per pauciora: It is in vayne to doe that by many thinges, which may be done by fewe.

Now to the Canons repugnant to the law.

We decree and appoynt (ſaith the Synod) that no iudge, ad quem, shall admitt or allow any his or their appeales (ſpeaking as they call them of obſtinate and factious appellants) unleſſe he hauehave firſt ſeene the originall appeale. But the King (ſay I) is a iudge ad quem. Ergo, the King (ſaith this Synod) may p. 110not admitt or allow any appeale etc. The liberty, and franchiſe then of the Kings will, and grace, after this unwonted manner, (by a Synodall decree onelyonly) beyng thus blemiſhed, impeched, and reſtrayned; what dignity, preheminence, ſuperiority, or prerogatiue, hath the Kings grace, when the King himſelfe is chardged, not to grant any inhibition out of his Court of Chauncery, but conditionally and upon an unleſſe etc.

And if by this Canon, the Kings will and grace, receiue let, hinderance, and prejudice; what ſhould we thinke, but that this Canon alſo tendeth, to the weakenyng of the Kings arme and power? For how can his power be ſtrōg, and his arme able to help, when his grace is bound, and his will, unable to will?

And then agayne, if theſe two mayne pillars of his Majeſties prerogatiue Royall (namely his grace and his power) be thus ſhaken by this Canon, muſt it not neceſſarily follow, that the Lords and Commons in Parliament, are prejudiced therby? For the rights & prerogatiues, of the Kings Crowne, by the lawes of the Realme, be not inveſted, and appropried, unto the Kings perſon, onelyonly in regard of his Majeſties owne Royall eſtate; but alſo for the good condition, and preſervation of his body Politicke, which is the Common wealth. Which body alſo for the juſt, and neceſſary defence both of the head (which is the King) and of it ſelfe, hath ſuch a proper clayme, and intereſt, in, and to the grace, and power of the head, as the leſt jote of the power and grace of the head, may not be blemiſhed to the prejudice of the body, without conſent of the body. viz: of the Lords & Commons in Parliament, who are the very image, and true repreſentiue body of the Realme: yea and thus much in effect, hauehave the Kings p. 111progenitors, and the Aunceſtors of our Nobles, and Cō mons agreed upon in Parliament; when by their authority and conſent, it was forbidden, that any thing ſhould be attempted, which ſhould tend, to the blemiſhyng of the Kings prerogatiue, or to the prejudice of his Lords & Commons. And when alſo, by common conſent,Acts & Monuments 4: Ed. 3 pag 422. 424: it was enacted in effect, that neither King Iohn, nor any other King, could bring his Realme and people in thraledome, and ſubjection, but by conſent in Parliament.

Furthermore appeales beyng de iure naturali, and introduced into judgement ſeats, tam ob defenſionem et preſidiū innocentiae, quam ad deprimendam iniquitatem, et corrigendam imperitiam iudicis; as well for the defence and ſavegard of innocency, as for the depresſing of the iniquity, and correcting the unskilfulnes of a Iudge, as they hauehave been evermore allowed by the lawes, & cuſtōes of the Realme, ſo hauehave they been ſuffered, as freely to be proſecuted, as interpoſed. For otherwiſe, how ſhould either innocency be protected, or the injuſtice of a judge reformed, in caſe an appeale being interpoſed, might not be proſecuted, fruſtra (ſaith S. Edward Cooke) expectatur eventus, de jure Reg Eccleſ.cuius effectus nullus ſequitur.

And according unto this naturall equity, hath it been ſpecially provided by a Statute of the realme, that the Kings ſubjects, being greived, ſhould not only hauehave libertie, to make, but alſo, to take, hauehave, uſe, and proſecute all manner of appeales, after ſuch manner, forme, and condition, as is limited, for appeales, to be had, and proſecuted. And for lacke of Iuſtice many Courts of the Archbishops of this Realme, it is lawfull for the partie greived, to appeale to the Kinges Majeſtie in his Court of Chauncery. And upon every ſuch appeale, a Commisſion (ſaith the p. 112Statute) ſhalbe directed under the great Seale, to ſuch perſons, as ſhalbe named by the Kings Highnes, to heare and definitivly determine ſuch appeales, with the cauſes, and all circumſtances. It is therefore apparant, that this Canon, is contrary or repugnant to this Statute. For this Canon, and this ſtatute thus repugnantly providing, and working divers repugnant effects, the ſtatute ſimply, admitting the uſe and proſecution of all manner of appeales, the Canon not admittyng but conditionally the uſe and proſecution of ſome appeales; can not ſtand together.

Agayne, ſome inferiour Ordinaryes having libertie, to take the bridle in their owne teeth, & to lay the reynes looſe, on their owne neckes, may in tyme (beyng proudly pampred) wax wanton in their judgement ſeates; when they ſhall ſtand in no awe, of having, the nullitie or injquity of their proceſſ and ſentences, weyed in the ballance of any ſuperiour Iudge. By reaſon whereof, this Canon, can not but proue exceeding onerovs to the ſubject.

For let a man or woman, dwelling at Michaels Mount, be but once judicially, (though perhaps wrongfully) cited by the name of a factious or obſtinat perſon, & cōtemner of ceremonyes, and from ſuch wrongfull citations, let his, or her appeale, made to the Kings Majeſtie in his Court of Chauncery (if it be frō the Archbishop,) or unto the Archbishop (if it be from the Dioceſan) be never ſo juſt, & equal, thereis no remedy in this caſe, before his, or hirs appeale, be admitted or allowed, but the ſame man or woman (by the letter of this Canon) muſt perſonally appeare, in the Archbishops Conſiſtory, if the appeale be by the Archbishop, and if the appeale be to the King in the Kings Court of Chauncery, though the ſame ſhould be at Barwicke. Yea, and though the party appellant be never ſo poore, aged, p. 113weake, and impotent. Nay not only perſonall appearāce, but perſonall ſubſcription alſo, by this Canon is requyred, to the Kings Supremacie, to the Articles of Religion, to the booke of Homilies, to the booke of Common prayer, and to the booke of Conſecrating Biſhops, be the party appellant, never ſo ſimple a laborer, or never ſo ſilly a ſpīſter.

The 37. Canon diſauthoriſeth every Miniſter by what authority ſo ever he be admitted, to preach, or to read a Lecture in any place within the Realme, unleſſe he be licenced, either by the Archbiſhop, or by the Bishop of the Dioceſſ, or by one of the two Univerſities under their hands and ſeale. Let the King then under his broad ſeale, graunt licence to any of his Chapleines to preach within his owne chapple, this licenc by this Canon, is of no value; then the which what can be more derogatory, to the Soveraigne dignity of the King in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall?

Unto the mould of this Canon, agreeth the 47. Canon, (before mētiōed) which cōcludeth, that no Miniſter not licē ſed a Preacher, under the hand & ſeale of the Bishop of the Dioceſſ, or Archbishop of the Province, or under the ſeale of one of the Vniverſities, ſhall take upon him to expound, in his owne cure any ſcripture, or matter of doctrine, but ſhall onelyonly ſtudy to read playnely, and aptly, without gloſing or addyng, the Homilies already ſet forth, or heerafter to be published by lawfull authority. The King then by this Canon, may not licence, a Miniſter to preach or to expound any ſcripture, no not in his own cure, no though the miniſters Cure, be the Kings owne houſhold, or the houſhould of the Prince, or any other of the Kings children. Nay by theſe two Canons and the Canon of ſubſcription it is evident, that the Prelats intended, that every Scotish Miniſter havyng renounced the Hierachie, and embraced the ſingle p. 114forme of Goverment in Scotland, ſhould be barred from preaching at any time before the King in England, unleſſ he ſhould ſubſcribe to the Hierarchy of England. For with out a licence may none preach, and without ſubſcription may none be licenced.

And not onelyonly is this 47. Canon, derogatorie to the Kings prerogatiue, but it is alſo repugnant, to other the Kings lawes and ſtatuts. For whereby that ſtatute, made againſt Lolardy, and Hereſie,, it was enacted, that none ſhould preſume to Preach openly, or privily, without the licence of the Dioceſan, firſt requyred & obtayned, yet by the ſame Act, Curats in their owne Churches, and Parſons priviledged were excepted, and by the Provinciall Conſtitutions, confirmed and ratified by Parliament, it is provided thus: We eſtablish, that no ſecular, or regular, not authoriſed by written law, or protected by ſpeciall priviledg, to preach the word of God, may take upon him the preaching or exerciſe of the ſame word, within any Church, or without any Church, unleſſ firſt he preſent and ſubmit himſelfe, to the examination of the Dioceſan etc: But concernyng aperpetuall Curate, we underſtand ſuch a one, by law and right to be ſent to the place, and people of his Cure. And that we may underſtand whom the Canon meaneth, to be a perpetuall Curate the gloſſ ſheweth us, that a Bishop in his Dioceſſ, a Parſon and Vicar in his Parish, and every other Perſon intituled, to any benefice whereunto apper teyneth cure of ſoules, is to be underſtood to be a perpetuall Curate, and that he may preach in his owne Cure, without the Biſhops licence.

Moreover by the booke of ordering Biſhops, Miniſters, and Deacons, every one made a Miniſter, promiſeth that he will giuegive all faithfull diligence alwayes, to miniſter the doctrine etc: as the Lord hath commanded etc: ſo that he will p. 115teach the people committed to his cure and chardg, withall dilligence to keepe and obſerue the ſame. But how can a Miniſter inſtruct and teach the people committed to his chardge, according to his publicke vowe, if (as it is ſayd in this Canon) he ſhall not take upon him to expound in his owne Cure, any ſcripture or matter of doctrine at all, but ſhall onelyonly ſtudy to read plainely and aptly, (without gloſing or adding) the Homilies etc?

Laſtly, the wordes of the Biſhops inſtitution are theſe. Teque rectorem eiuſdem, ac de, et ineadem inſtituimus canonice, et inveſtimus, cum ſuis iuribus, et pertinentiis univerſis, curamque et regimen animarum prochianorum ibidem in Domino cō mittimus per-preſentes. And we (ſpeaking of a Clarke to be inſtituted into a benefice) Canonically inſtitute thee rector of the ſame Church, and of,Cure & goverment by law ought to go together in a miniſter and in the ſame doe inveſt thee, withall her rights & appertinances; and by theſe preſents, we in the Lord commit unto thee both the cure and goverment, of the ſoules of the Pariſhioners in that place. The Clearke then inſtituted into a benefice, by theſe wordes of the Biſhops inſtitution, by the booke of ordering of Biſhops, Miniſters, and Deacons, and by the Provinciall Conſtitutions, having not a private, but a publicke office, of cure and regiment of ſoules, committed unto him; how can it ſeeme reaſonable, that he ſhould be countermanded by reaſon of a Provinciall decree not cō firmed by Act of Parliament, not to excerciſe the ſame his publicke office, without a Biſhops licence? For what if the Biſhops refuſe to grant him a licence? Or what if the Biſhops and his officers ſee, for graunting, writing, & ſealyng his licence be greater then the poore Miniſter is able to disburſt, is it reaſon that his chardg by this meāes ſhould be left uninſtructed? Nay is it not, as if a Sergiant p. 116at law, called to the barr of the Common pleas, by the Kings writ, ſolemly created a Sergiant, and publickly admitted to the ſame barr, ſhould afterward be forbidden by the cheife Iuſtice of that Court, to pleade at that barr, without licence otteyned, under his hand and ſeale? Or is it not, as if a Doctor of Phiſicke, ſolemnely created in the Vniverſity, and publickly admited to practiſe artem medica, ſhould notwithſtanding, without a new faculty from the Doctor of the Chayre be inhibited, to miniſter any Pill, or Portion, to any pacient?

The 53. Canon, before alſo mentioned, viz. againſt publicke oppoſition between preachers, is not only repugnāt to the doctrine of(a)(a)levit 5.1 2 Tim. 4.2:2 Tim 4:2 holy Scripture, & cōtrary to the practis of the(b)(b)2. Chron. 18.7 Ierem. 27.9 & 28:7 Acts 13.10. Galat. 2:112 Chr 18:7Jer 27:9Jer 28:7Acts 13:10Gal 2:11 Prophets & Apoſtles, but alſo croſſeth the Miniſters vow ſolemly made at his ordination. Whoſe promiſe is that he wilbe ready, with all faithfull diligence, to baniſh, & driue away, all erroneous, and ſtrang doctrin contrary to Gods word, and to uſe both publicke, and private motions, and exhortations, as well to the ſicke as to the whole within his cure. But upon occaſion given, by any falſe Prophet, publickly broaching falſe doctrine, in a Miniſters chardg, how ſhall the Miniſter with all faithfull dilligence drive away the ſame falſe doctrine, and publickely teach the truth, if he may not teach, admoniſh, or exhort his people, without a licence firſt obtayned from the Biſhop of the Dioceſſ? For what if the Biſhop be upon an embaſſadg in Denmarke? Or what if the Bishop himſelf be of the ſame judgment with the falſe teacher?

The 91. Canon entituled Parish Clearks to be choſen by the Miniſters, is contrary and regugnant to the cuſtomes of the Realme, in many Pariſhes of the Realme. And in this regard, this Canon hath been blowen to peeces, at the barr p. 117of the Common Pleas, by the opinion of the whole bēch in Hylarie terme laſt: when upon a writt of prohibition, procured by certayne Pariſhioners, in the Countie of Hertford, the Iudges denyed a conſultation, to the Miniſter of the ſame Pariſh, who had convented the Pariſhioners, before the Eccleſiaſticall Iudg, for gaynſaying his election of the pariſh clearke; which by vertue of this Canon, he had declared in the Eccleſiaſticall Court, to belong unto himſelfe a lone.

The 77. Canon entituled, none to teach ſchole without licence, is repugnant to a ſtatute made the firſt Sesſion of this Parliament in divers poyntse. Firſt the ſtatute permitteth aſcholemaſter to teach, in any publicke free grāmer ſchole, without any licence of the Biſhop of the Dioceſſ; or Ordinary of the place: but this Canon commaundeth, that none teach publicke ſchole, but ſuch as ſhalbe licenſed by the one; or by the other. Secondly, the ſtatute permitteth any perſon, in any Noble mans or Noble womans; gentle mans or gētlewomās houſe, being not recuſants, to teach without any licence of etc: but this Canon, commaundeth that no man ſhal teach in privat houſe, but by licence etc. Thirdly, the ſtatute permitteth not any perſon to be aſcholemaſter by any other licence, thē by the Archbishop Biſhop, or guardian of the ſpiritualties. But this Canon permitteth a ſcholemaſter to teach, if he be allowed by an Ordinarie of the place a lone. Which many tymes, and in many places, is neither Archbishop, nor Biſhop, nor guardian of the ſpiritualties.

Laſtly, this Canon commaundeth, that none teach in publicke ſchole, or private houſe, unleſſ he firſt ſubſcribe, to the firſt and third articles, mencioned in the 36. Canon ſimply, and to the two firſt clauſes of the ſecond article, p. 118wheras the ſtatute requyreth no manner of ſubſcription at all.

All theſe things before written conſidered, we may ſafly affirme concernyng many of the ſaid late Canons, that they be not to be put in execution within the Realme, unleſſ they ſhall be confirmed by Act of Parliament: yea that we may alſo truely ſpeake this in generalitie: that eiall the Churcwardens and ſyde men throughout England ſworne to preſent all offences committed againſt the ſaid Canons, muſt be falſely perjured; or elſe that there is not one Miniſter which ſhall exerciſe his miniſteriall functiō, nor any one man, or woman, which ſhall uſually come to common prayer, and divine ſervice, but they muſt ſtand continually at the Ordinaries mercy, for one offence or other. For the thinges commaunded, or forbidden, beyng innumerable, and imposſible at all tymes to be kept, into what a ſervitude theſe Canons hauehave brought both Miniſters and people, and what an excesſiue chardg, is layd up on the purſe of every perſon be he bond or be he free, be he yong, or be he old, for citations, Excommunications, abſolutions, and dimisſions, licences, faculties, and diſpē ſations, Who havyng but halfe an eye ſeeth not? Nay, that many, in many places, hauehave already borne the Yoke, and felt the burden of theſe Canons, cannot be denyed. Agayne, howſoever at the petition of the Prelats, his Majeſtie hath been pleaſed generally to allow, ratifie and cō firme, the booke of Canons, under the broad ſeale of England; yet may no loyall and honeſt ſubject heereupon inferr, that his Majeſtie intended by the generall wordes of his confirmation, to authorize any perticular matter, deviſed and decreed, by the Synod, contrary to the holy ſcriptures, hurtfull to the rights, prerogatives, and dignities, of p. 119his Highnes Crowne; repugnant to any lawes, ſtatuts, or cuſtomes of the Realme, prejudiciall to his Lords & commons in Parliament, or onerous to his people. The contents then of ſondry the late Canons, in as much as the ſame be contrary to the holy ſcriptures, tend to the blemiſhing of the liberty and franchiſe of the Kings will, grace, & power, be cōtrariant, or regugnant, to the lawes, ſtatuts, and cuſtomes of the Realme, be prejudiciall to the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, without whoſe conſent, no new bindyng law, ought to be made, or be ſuch, as may become very onerous to the people; it is a playne caſe, that every of the Kings liege & faithfull ſubjects, ought to defend the Kings right, Honor and dignity againſt all ſuch Canons.

For heerby it ſeemeth that as all other the wiſeſt and beſt Princes that ever hauehave been, hauehave in ſome things at ſome tymes erred, ſo we without offence (I hope) may ſay, that the King alſo veritate tacita, or falſitate exreſſa, was unawares ſomewhat miſtaken in his graunt. In regard whereof, ſuch Canons, by the lawes, ſtatuts, and cuſtomes of his kingdome be meerely voyd, and of none effect to all conſtructions & purpoſes: whereupon alſo, that neceſſarily followeth, that the ſame can receive no beyng, by his, Majeſties confirmation, Quod omnino, non eſt, confirmari non poteſt.