The Nature and Use of Things Indifferent, Argument 8
IIX. ARGVMENT.
The Magiſtrate ought to execute iuſtice and iudgement, Supplicar.and to deliuer the oppreſſed.
Ergo, Much more ought the high Court of Parliament to do ſo, and to deliuer the refractarie Miniſters.
ANSVVERE.
To the Conſequence.
THe Conſequence hath two parts. 1. Anſwere.That the Honorable Court of Parliament is to execute iuſtice and iudgement; which I grant. 2. That they ought to deliuer and reſtore the refractarie Miniſters. That reſts to be proued ſtill: becauſe they hauehave not yet iuſtified their cauſe, and declared that they are vniuſtly oppreſſed, nor can euer do.
The Defender replieth. Reply.That the Ministers hauehave not yet in Law (whereof the preſent question is) iustified their cauſe, and declared that they are vniustly oppreſſed, nor can euer do, is not for want of matter of Iustification, or for want of the truth of vniust oppreſſion: but
I. Becauſe they hauehave not been admitted to appeale, Grieuances and Oppreſſion pretended by the …efractarie Miniſters.and to proſecute the Iustice of the Land, nor to call in queſtion the proceedings of their Ordinaries, vponupon a pretenſe of a Canon lately made,
II. Becauſe ſome Ordinaries in their Sentences, hauehave vniustly and leaſingly charged ſome Ministers, with the deniall of the Oath to the Kings ſupremacie: and ſtuffed their ſentences full of generall crimes, contrary to the right forme of Iudgement.
III. Becauſe vponupon notice giuen vntounto the Patron of the auoydance of the Church, they hauehave not only instituted new Clerkes, but alſo intimated, that the poſſeſſion of the Church was kept, per vim Laicam, whereby the partie appellant, hath been remoued out of his poſſeſſion.
IV. Becauſe ſundry Ordinaries vponupon appeales made before them, hauehave taken order with their Registers and Notaries, not to deliuer to the parties appellant, any note or copie, of any act or ſentence made or giuen before them.
V. Becauſe ſundry Sentences of depriuation hauehave been giuen, à Iudicibus non ſuis, namely by ſuch, whoſe iuriſdiction was ſuſpended and ſhut vp by the Archbiſhop of Canterburies Commiſſion, and his Archiepiſcopall Viſitation.
VI. Becauſe the whole power and iuriſdiction by ſundrie Dioceſans was committed in ſolidum for tearme of life, vntounto their principall Comiſſaries, Officials, or Vicars generall, which they could not reſume at their pleaſure.
VII. Becauſe Sentences hauehave been ginen, nullo iuris ordine ſeruato, but omni iuris ordine ſpreto & neglecto.
IIX. Becauſe ſome Sentences hauehave been giuen in ſome priuate Chamber of ſome common Inne or Tauerne, and not in publico & competente foro.
IX. Becauſe ſome Sentences hauehave been giuen, not vponupon inquiſition, information, or accuſation, according to the Statute, but only vponupon proceſſe, ex mero Officio.
X. Becauſe ſome Ministers hauehave been depriued only for not ſubſcribing to the three Articles mentioned in the 36. Canon.
Scriptures and Reaſons not ſucceeding to the Suppliants and Defenders wiſh, Reioyner. Of the lawfulnes of the proceedings againſt the refractarie Miniſters.nor ſorting to that effect they purpoſed; now they hauehave entered a more politique courſe, challenging the proceedings againſt the refractarie Miniſters, in the Eccleſiaſticall Courts, not to be iuſtifiable by Law, and pretending that they are dealt with, and grieuouſly oppreſſed (forſooth) contrary to Law, as if they did cary a principall and zealous care to hauehave all his Maieſties Lawes duly obſerued.
For my owne part, I go not about to defend the fact and proceedings of particular men in this caſe of Depriuation, becauſe I know not the circumſtances whereby they were induced ſo to determine; neither hauehave I the leaſure and meanes (at this inſtant) to enquire thereof: and I doubt not but the graue and wiſe Perſonages here traduced by the Defender, are able to anſwere for themſelues, and ſufficiently to iuſtify their proceedings againſt this Calumniator. Only I am (according to my poore abilitie) to maintaine the generall equitie of the proceedings, ordained and practiſed by the preſcript and determination of our Church and State, againſt theſe factious Miniſters. Wherefore I anſwere to theſe particular Grieuāces, or branches of ſuppoſed Oppreſſion.
To the 1. I. Factious Appellants, Anſw. to the 1. Grieuance, Of factious Appellants.are denied proſecution of their friuolous and vniuſt appeales, becauſe they are notorious perturbers of the peace of the Church: and the CANON made thereupon, ſeemeth to hauehave reference vntounto a locall Statute of the Vniuerſitie of OXFORD, whereby Nightwalkers, incontinent liuers, and ſuch as commit any corporall violence, to the diſturbance of the common quietnes of the Vniuerſitie, are tearmed perturbers and breakers of the publique peace, and therefore are not permitted to proſecute the ordinarie courſe of appeales granted to others in Ciuil and Eccleſiaſticall cauſes; with which kind of people, the refractarie and incorrigible Miniſters are iuſtly to be rancked, as men that are not by the Iudge ad quem permitted to make their appeales, nor hauehave the ordinary times and termes of proſecution allowed them. For as by the Statutes of the ſaid Vniuerſitie, the Iudices inhibitionum are the Proctors, who are to tye the hands, and to ſhut the mouthes of all Iudges from proceeding or annulling ſuch Sentences as are by them giuen, if they in their diſcretion ſhall thinke it fit, and by the Statutes are lawfull: So is the Archbiſhops Iudge ad quem, by the Decrees of the Conuocation, confirmed and ratified by the Kings auctoritie, prohibited, as the Proctors of the Vniuerſitie are, to giuegive paſſe to ſuch factious Appellants. The equity of which reſtraint is apparant by the reaſon thereof, inſerted in the preāble of the Canon (98.) cited by the Defender, Becauſe they who breake the Lawes, cannot in reaſon claime any benefit or protection by the ſame. II. Conformable hereunto, it is decreed both in the Ciuill and Canon Lawes: In the Ciuill Law it is ſaid. (ff. lib. 49. tit. 1. de Appellationibus, l. 16.) Constitutiones quae de recipiendis nec non appellationibus loquuntur, vt nihil noui fiat, locum non habent in eorum perſona quos damnatos ſtatim puniri publicè interest, vt ſunt inſignes latrones, vel ſeditionum concitatores, vel duces factionum. Stirrers vp of ſedition, and leaders of factions ought not to be permitted to appeale, but muſt be preſently puniſhed. (Vide Bartol. ad lib. 49. Digest. de appellat. l. 16. Constitutiones.) Alſo (Cod. lib. 7. tit. 65. Quorum appellationes non recipiuntur. l. 2.) the Emperours Constantius and Constans decree, that Confeſſus non auditur appellans: but the refractarie Miniſters do not only CONFESSE, that they are ſuch, but alſo wilfully PROFESSE that they will NEVER be conformable, and ſubmit themſelues vntounto the Kings Eccleſiaſticall Lawes and ordinances. Wherefore then ſhould they be permitted to appeale? Againe in the Canon Law it is decreed, Si vero publicus est & notorius (eorum exceſſus) appellationis obtentu non praetermittas, quin eos excommunicatos denuncies. (Decr. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 28. de appellationibus, cap. 13. Peruenit ad nos.) If the Appellants crime or exceſſe be publique and notorious, they are not permitted to appeale. (Vide Gloſſam in verſ. Notorius.) Moreouer Durandus ſaith, In delictis notorijs non admittitur appellatio, (Durand. Speculi lib. 2. part 3. §. In quibus autem caſibus. nu. 13.) and Maranta, Quartò principaliter limita, non procedere (appellationem) in factis notorijs, quia in illis non admittitur appellatio, (Rob. Maranta Speculi aurei part. 6. Verſic. Et quando appellatur. nu. 293.) Now eueryevery crime is NOTORIOVS by Confeſſion (Sext. Decr. lib. 2. tit. 15 de Appellat. cap. 3. Romana Eccleſia. §. Si autem. in Gloſſ. Verſ. Vel de quo.) Nec potest negari crimen per confeſſionem fore notorium. In like manner Panormitan writeth, Si verò Subditus commonitus à Praelato appellauerit, ſi eius exceſſus euidentiâ rei, vel ipſius confeſſione, vel alio modo legitimo fuerit manifestus appellations deferatur: cum appellationis remedium non fuerit institutum ad defenſionem iniquitatis, ſed ad praeſidium innocentiae, (Panormit. de appellat. cap. 61. Cum ſpeciali. §. Porrò.) Alſo Durandus, Appellatio non debet eſſe praeſidium iniquitatis, (Duran. Spec. lib. 2. part. 3. §. In quibus autem caſibus, nu. 13.) And Maranta, Septimò limita, non procedere (appellationem) in Latrone inſigni & fameſo, item in Seditioſo & auctore alicuius factionis: quia quicun que damnatur de huiuſmods criminibus, vel altero ipſorum, non appellat, nec ſuperſedetur executioni, (Marant. Spec. aures. part. 6. Verſic. Et quando appellatur. nu. 296.) The refractarie Miniſters are required to conforme themſelues, according to the order eſtabliſhed. They refuſe: and being proceeded againſt, they appeale. To what end? ad perſeuerandum in malicia, to continue ſtill in their ſingularitie and faction. Now who ſeeth not that ſuch appeales are vniuſt and vnlawfull; ſeeing the remedy of Appeales was not ordained to bee a cloake and defence for wickednes; and Appellatio frustratoria nunquam est admittenda, (Durand. Spec. lib. 2. part. 3. §. In quibus autem caſibus. nu. 33.) III. The proceeding againſt the Miniſters, is according to the expreſſe letter and meaning of the Kings Lawes and Statutes; and whither would they appeale from the King? Non appellatur à Principe, (Durand. Spec. lib. 2. part. 3. §. Videndum à quibus appellari poſſit. nu. 15.) IV. It is the common courſe of all Iuſtice, after any contempt, firſt to obey the cenſure of the Court, and then to plead to the vniuſt proceedings pretended: and therefore do the Archbiſhops Iudges require nothing, but what the Kings Eccleſiaſticall Lawes do preſcribe.
To the 2. There is not any man that will haſtely beleeue, Anſw. to the 2. Grieuance.that any Ordinarie did euer vniuſtly, and leaſingly charge any Miniſter with deniall of the Oath of Supremacie, as the Defender (perhaps) moſt leaſingly ſuggeſts, without particular inſtance of time or perſon. And touching the Sentences, they are euer conceiued in generall termes, with relation to the proceſſe, wherein are contained the particular crimes, In ſententia definitiua regulariter non requiritur expreſſio Cauſae, ſaith Caeſar Contardus, in l. Vnicam. Cod. Si de momentanea poſſ. fuerit appellatum. pag. 110. Vide ff. de appell. l. 2.
To the 3. Anſw. to the 3. Grieuance.The equitie of the proceedings, dependeth vponupon the reaſons alleadged in the Anſwere to the firſt Grieuance. Seeing the partie depriued is dead in Law, his appellation being void and of no effect, as is aforeſaid, the Ordinarie is bound to giuegive intimation, and notice vntounto the Patron of the auoydance of the Church, whereupon he inſtituteth a new Clerke, being preſented vntounto him, whom if any ſhall reſiſt, it is the ordinarie courſe of Law he ſhould be remoued, by the writ de vi laica remouenda: which writ the reuerend and ſage Iudges of the Common Law would neuer grant, except it were liable in ſuch a caſe. And if this courſe be to be held INIVRIOVS, then certainly, not the Eccleſiaſticall proceedings, but the Common Law is to be blamed, for both the Intimation, and the Writte de vilaica remouenda are Common Law,
To the 4. Anſw. to the 4. Grieuance.The fact is particular, if it be true. Neither are the Regiſters and Notaries vponupon their oath, to deliuer copies of the Acts made before them; but only to write the ſame truely, without falſification, corruption or forgerie: albeit the refuſall of deliuering copies, their fees being tendered them, is otherwiſe puniſhable by the Canon.
To the 5. Anſw. to the 5. Grieuance.I. The Ordinarie is the Archbiſhops Deputie, and exerciſeth Eccleſiaſticall Iuriſdiction, as from and vnderunder the Archbiſhop. II. The Archbiſhop his inhibition, during the time of his Viſitation, is in mouendis, non motis. III. If the Biſhop ſhould do any thing againſt the Archbiſhops inhibition, it followeth not, that therefore his act ſhould bee void in Law, but his contempt were puniſhable, &c.
To the 6. Anſw. to the 6. Grieuance.The Biſhops grant vntounto his Commiſſaries, Officials or Vicars generall, is no otherwiſe but ſaluis iuribus Epiſcopalibus: neither can the Biſhop ſo reſigne his iuriſdiction vntounto another, but that he may at his owne pleaſure aduocate any cauſe vntounto himſelfe. No Comiſarie or Officiall can depriue a man, for Eius est destituere, cuius est instituere.
To the 7. It is a flat vntruth, and a meere foreign.Anſw. to the 7. Grieuance. Anſw. to the 8. Grieuance.
To the 8. I. The queſtion is not of the nullitie of the act, but whether the Biſhop did obſerue decorum, for ſimplie the Ordinarie may ius dicere in any part of his iuriſdiction. II. The parties conſented to the place. III. The fact is particular.
To the 9. Proceſſe made ex mero Officio, Anſw. to the 9. Grieuance.is made by INQVISITION, according vntounto the letter and meaning of the Statute: for the Biſhop may lawfully inquire ex Officio. Lyndwood ſaith, Siue ſcandalum, ſiue periculum, ſiue ſuspicio grauis ſint contra aliquem, Praelatus ſuus potest procedere ad inquiſitionem, vel ſi non inueniat probationes indicet purgationem &c. Lynd. Constitut. Prouinc. lib. 5. cap. 1. §. Compellant. in Gloſſ.
To the 10. The fact, if it be true, is particular, Anſ. to the 10. Grieuance.and needeth no farther anſwere.
II.
In the meane time I would propound two or three Queſtions vntounto the Suppliants, Anſwere.wherein I would craue their reſolution and direct anſwere.
I. Quaere. 3. Quaeres propoſed to the refractarie Miniſters.Whether the Church vnderunder Chriſtian godly Magiſtrates, hath any Tribunal proper vntounto it ſelf, for deciding of Controuerſies, and puniſhing of ſuch perſons, as ſhall refuſe the ordinances thereof?
II. Quaere. Whether ſo many iudiciall Acts of depriuation of Biſhops, Prieſts, Miniſters, from their Benefices &c. ſince the Conqueſt to the time of Magna Charta, and ſithence that to this age, were euer held to be contrary to the Lawes of this Kingdome, and Magna Charta?
III. Quaere. Whether any Iudge of this Realme, or any chiefe officer learned in the Lawes, be of opinion, that ſuch Sentences of depriuatiō, as hauehave lately paſſed in due forme, in any Eccleſiaſticall Court, be contrarie to any, much leſſe to many Statutes?
At theſe 3. Quaeres, the Defender ſtandeth ſo aſtoniſhed and amazed, as if they were ſo many heads of Meduſa. And knowing not whither to wind & turne himſelf, leſt he might ſeeme to be altogether mute (as indeed he is for any thing he anſwereth to the purpoſe) he ſo inuolues himſelfe, in ſuch intricate Labyrinths of obſcuritie, that any man may eaſily perceiue, he laboureth of purpoſe to decline the queſtions, babling he knoweth not what, ſuſpecting eueryevery word, as if he feared a Scorpion vnderunder eueryevery ſtone. To the firſt Quaere he anſwereth.
VntoUnto this Quaere, Reply.when he ſhall distinguiſh, and make his ſo many Equiuocations (contained in the Quaere) perſpicuous, and plaine, to the vnderstanding of eueryevery ſimple and plaine meaning man, I ſhall (God willing) make him a ſimple, plaine, reſolute and direct anſwere. In the meane time, let him vnderstand, first that we iustly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church; and namely, whether he meaneth the Vniuerſall Church, or a Nationall, a Prouinciall, a Dioceſan, an Archidiaconall, a Decanall, a Capitular, or lastly a Parochiall Church. For all men (as we vſually and commonly we ſpeake) doe vnderstand, that eueryevery of theſe Churches, hath her proper name, after which ſhee is called: as namely the Church disperſed throughout the world, is called the Vniuerſall Church, the Church within England, is commonly called the Nationall Church of England; the Church within the Prouince of Canterburie, the Prouinciall Church of Canterburie, the Church of the Dioceſſe of London, the Dioceſan Church of London &c. And lastly the Church of great St. Ellens in London, the Parochiall Church of St. Ellens in London. And therefore I craue a reſolute and direct anſwere, of what only perſons you meane, that the Vniuerſall, this Nationall, Prouinciall, Dioceſan, Archidiaconall, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochiall Church conſisteth? Who only be the Christian godly Magistrates, vnderunder whom eueryevery one of theſe Churches liueth? Whether the ſame Christian godly Magiſtrates may perſonally be preſent, giuegive their expreſſe conſents, and hauehave their deciſiue voices, to and in making all and eueryevery decrees of eueryevery of theſe Churches? What is the Tribunall proper to it ſelfe, of eueryevery of theſe Churches? What only manner of Controuerſies, by eueryevery of theſe Churches may be decided? What only kind of circumstances, eueryevery of theſe Churches may decree? What only kind of ſubiect, and with what only kind of puniſhment, and none other, eueryevery of theſe Churches may puniſh the refuſers of eueryevery their ordinances?
Our ſecond maine ſcruple, touching this first Quaere, ariſeth from theſe words (vnderunder Chriſtian godly Magiſtrates.) For if by theſe words &c.
Vanitas loquax, ſaith St. Augustine; Reioynder.and the Defender ſo behaueth himſelfe in this kind, as if he were ſome foole in a play. But that he may pretend no farther excuſes, I anſwere, By the word CHVRCH, I meane eueryevery Church that hath power to make and ordaine Lawes, as namely the Vniuerſall Militant, in a generall Councell; a Nationall Church in a nationall Synode; and a Prouinciall Church in a prouincial Synode; the Dioceſan and Parochiall Churches hauehave only power to celebrate Synodes and meetings, for execution of the Decrees already made, not to ordaine new Lawes. What the Defender meaneth by Archiadiconall, Decanall and Capitular Churches, I know not, but would faine learne of him, it ſhould ſeeme he is ignorant, NW.that the Deane and Chapter, and the Archdeacon, are as it were the eyes and hands of the Biſhop in the gouernment of the Dioceſſe, for the better execution and practiſe of the ordinances and decrees of the Vniuerſall, Nationall, and Prouinciall Synods, and do not conſtitute any particular Churches different from the Dioceſan. By CHRISTIAN GODLY MAGISTRATES, I meane the King in a Monarchie, and others principall States in any other gouernment, who are the Keepers of both Tables. As touching that Queſtion, Whether the Magistrate may perſonally be preſent, giuegive his expreſſe conſent, and hauehave a deciſiue voice, to and in the making of all the Decrees of the Church; albeit it be impertinent for the ſatisfying of my Quaere, yet as I do not deny this, if the Magiſtrate be ſo pleaſed, ſo I craue the Defenders reſolution, and direct anſwere vntounto this ſame queſtion: for they of his faction are thought, ſo to commit the care of theſe things vntounto their Preſbyterie, vntounto whom they ſubalternate, yea ſubiect the Ciuill Gouernours, that they vtterly exclude the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and giuegive him no more power in Church matters, NW.then if he were an heathen or Infidell, as indeed the Defender ſeemeth not obſcurely to inſinuate in the later end of this very paragraph. Concerning the reſt of his interrogatories; The TRIBVNALL proper vntounto the Church, are the Councels and Synods of the ſame. The CONTROVERSIES there to be handled, are ſuch as be of Eccleſiaſticall cogniſance. The ORDINANCES there to be made, are ſuch as are declarations of the circumſtances neceſſarie, or profitable for keeping of the firſt table of the Decalogue. The SVBIECT, are ſuch as hauehave giuen their names to the Church, and vowed obedience. And the PVNISHMENT, is admonition, ſuſpention, ſequeſtration, excommunication, depriuation, or ſuch as the qualitie of the crime deſerueth, and is by Law in that caſe prouided. To the Defenders tautologie, concerning the ſuppoſed equiuocation in the words (VnderUnder Christian godly Magistrates) I hauehave anſwered already.
To the 2. Reply.Quaere, he anſwereth: To dance after your Pipe, (I will not ſay, what a fooliſh and ridiculous Question, but) what an odde tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, before the pipe be ſtriken vp? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and other Lawes ſince made, be ſaid to be contrary to them; This is as much, as one ſhould aske? Whether Adam, not Circumciſing Caine and Abel, did contrary to the Law giuen for Circumciſion to Abraham many yeeres after? Or whether Iſhmael perſecuted Iſaak, before Iſaak was borne? Or whether ſtealing of horſes an hundreth yeeres past, were puniſhable with death, before any Law made for death in that behalfe? One thing cannot be ſaid contrary to another, that is not, neither was extant in rerum natura.
Groſſe and palpable ſtupiditie! Reioynder.Where is the Defenders witte and reaſon? Are not the Words [Lawes of this Kingdome] in this ſecond Quaere, to be referred to ſuch acts of depriuation, as were made ſince the Conqueſt, to the time of Magna Charta? And the words [Magna Charta] to be referred to thoſe acts, that were made ſince the time of the great Charter, to this day? But this ſillie fellow, to couer his manifeſt tergiuerſation, will not vnderſtand plaine Engliſh!
To the 3. Quaere, he ſaith, Reply.Though it were a ſufficient anſwere to bid him go looke, and himſelfe to aske the opinion of eueryevery Iudge and learned Officer, yet will I not altogether yeeld him ſo ſhort and cutted an anſwere. And though it be a principle in Philoſophie, that Forma dat eſſe rei, yet to the being of eueryevery thing, there must be matter, to which the forme giueth being. And therefore in this caſe, beſides due forme, there must be alſo due matter, inſerted in due ſentences. Wherefore I craue a reſolute and direct anſwere, whether by thoſe words (paſſed in due forme) he meane paſſed for matter & forme, in due forme? Or whether he meane, paſſed without due matter in due forme only?
To omit the Defenders Philoſophie concerning Matter and Forme, and to vſe his owne words; Reioynder.I anſwere reſolutely and directly, that by the words [paſſed in due forme] I meane as the Defender ſaith, paſſed for matter and forme, in due forme: neither am I ignorant, that all the Iudges and learned Officers in the Law, do approue thoſe Sentences of depriuation, ſo giuen in the Eccleſiaſticall Courts, which cauſeth me the more to maruel at the impudencie and preſumption of the refractarie faction, that contradict all the Iudges, and traduce all ſuch Sentences, as vniuſt, vnlawfull, &c.
That which followeth, concerning the Statute of Magna Charta, and the lawfulnes of the Depriuation of the refractarie Miniſters for not conforming themſelues &c. requireth no farther anſwere; ſeeing the Defender himſelfe (pag. 93.) confeſſeth ſuch depriuation to be iuſt, and according to Law, Depriuation for non-conformitie granted lawfull by the Defender.ſaying: Hereupon WE GRANT, that if the King hauehave any Eccleſiasticall Law of the Land (which thing was neuer doubted by any man) for the DEPRIVATION of a Minister from his libertie and freehold, for not ſubſcription, periurie, contempt of Canonicall (ſo called) obedience, omiſſion of rites and ceremonies, not preciſe obſeruation of the booke of Common Prayer &c. then WE GRANT, that the Ordinaries (being the Kings Iudges Eccleſiasticall) MAY RIGHTLY DEPRIVE A MINISTER FROM HIS BENEFICE for theſe offences.
Yet I can but wonder at the giddines of the Defenders Spirit, where he ſeemeth expreſſely to deny what heere he confeſſeth. Notwithstanding (ſaith he) I affirme that all Iudiciall acts and Sentences (how many ſoeuer of depriuation of Ministers, from their Benefices) had, made and giuen, by the Eccleſiasticall Iudges, ſince the 25. of King Henry the 8. only according, or only by force, and vertue of the ſaid Ius Pontificium, or Biſhop of Rome his Law, (the Sentences giuen in the time of Queene Mary excepted) are, and ought to be holden, not to be had, made and giuen, by the Lawes of this Kingdome, or by the Kings Eccleſiasticall Law. And why? Euen becauſe the whole Ius Pontificium, or Biſhop of Romes Law was altogether (excepting the time of Queene Mary) abrogated, annulled, and made void, by an Act of Parliament; and conſequently is but a meere Alien, Forraine and Strange Law, and no municipall Law of England, and therefore not the Kings Eccleſiaſticall Law.
I anſwere, I. The Defender had been a good Anuocate for bloodie BONER and other Popiſh Prelats, that were depriued in the daies of that renowmed Prince, King EDVVARD the VI. and alſo in the beginning of the raigne of our late noble Queene: for all the Lawiers in England were not then able to eſpie, what now the Defender plainely ſeeth, except his eyes deceiue him. II. The Depriuation of the refractarie Miniſters, for non-conformitie is grounded, not vponupon the Canon Law, but vponupon the expreſſe words of the Statute (of 1. Eliz. cap. 2.) All and ſingular Archbiſhops and Biſhops &c. ſhall hauehave full power and auctoritie by vertue of this Act &c. to puniſh by admonition, excommunication, ſequeſtration, or DEPRIVATION, &c. III. It is not true that the Canon Law was eueryevery yet, How farre the CANON Law is abrogated.or is now altogether abrogated, annulled, and made void by Act of Parliament, and ſo conſequently it is not a meere Alien, Forraine and Strange Law, but is the Law of the Land, yea and the Kings Eccleſiaſticall Law: as is manifeſt by the very words of the Statute, which the Defender would hauehave pointed at, (25. H. 8. cap. 19. in fine.) Prouided alſo, that ſuch Canons, Conſtitutions, Ordinances and Synodals prouinciall, being already made, which be not contrariant, nor repugnant to the Lawes, Statutes and cuſtomes of this Realme, nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings prerogatiue Royall, SHALL NOVV STILL BE VSED AND EXECVTED, as they were afore the making of this Act. And in the 21. Chapter more plainely, (25. H. 8. cap. 21. non longè à princip.) Where this your Graces Realme recogniſing no Superiour vnderunder God, but only your Grace, hath bin & is free from all ſubiection to any mans Lawes, but only to ſuch as hauehave been deuiſed, made and ordained within this Realme, for the wealth of the ſame, NW.or To SVCH OTHER, as by ſufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the people of this your Realme, hauehave taken at their free libertie, by their owne conſent to be vſed amongſt them, and hauehave bound themſelues by long vſe and cuſtome, to the obſeruance of the ſame, not as to the ordinance of the Lawes of any forraine Prince, Potentate or Prelate, but as to the CVSTOMED AND ANCIENT LAVVES OF THIS REALME, NW.originally eſtabliſhed as LAVVES OF THE SAME, by the ſaid ſufferance, conſents and cuſtome, and none otherwiſe. It ſtandeth therefore with naturall equitie and good reaſon, that all and eueryevery ſuch Lawes humane, made within this Realme, or induced into this Realme by the ſaid ſufferance, conſents and cuſtome, your royall Maieſtie, &c. Thus farre the words of the Statute. Both which Acts being repealed by Queene Mary, were reuiued againe by Queene Elizabeth (1. Eliz. cap. 1. in princip.) and ſo ſtand in force at this day.
The Defenders long and tedious Digreſſions, touching the Oath ex Officio (a point learnedly hādled by M. Doctor Coſens, in his Apologie, whereunto I referre the Reader) and alſo concerning the Canons, it were to weariſome vntounto the Reader here to refute; Neither hauehave I ſuch leaſure to follow him in his idle and adle diſcourſes; but hauehave determined preciſely, to keepe my ſelfe within the bounds preſcribed by the Suppliants. Linquo coax ranis, &c.