Certaine considerations drawne from the canons of the last Sinod, and other the Kings ecclesiasticall and statue law ad informandum animum Domini Episcopi Wigornensis, seu alterius cuiusuis iudicis ecclesiastici, ne temere & inconsulto prosiliant ad depriuationem ministrorum Ecclesiæ: for not subscription, for the not exact vse of the order and forme of the booke of common prayer, heeretofore provided by the parishioners of any parish church, within the diocesse of Worcester, or for the not precise practise of the rites, ceremonies, & ornaments of the Church.

Considerations against subscription, to the booke of the forme and maner of ma∣king and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

WHat the reason or cause should be, that subscription vnto this booke of consecration & ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, hath bene of l••te yeares, so hotly and egerly pursued by the Lords of the Clergie, is a misterie, perhaps, not of many of the laytie well vnderstood. And how soever vnder co∣lour of the maintenance of obedience to the statute of the Realme, whereby this booke is confirmed, the same subscription may seeme to be pressed: nevertheles if the maine drift and reason of this pressure, were well boulted out, it is to be feared, that not only the vnlawful su∣premacie of an Archbishop is sought to be advāced above the lawfull supremacie of our Soverayne Lord King Iames; but also that the Sy∣nodals, Canons and Constitutions made by the Clergie, in their con∣vocation, are intended, if not, to be preferred above, yet at leastwise to be made equall to the common law and statutes of the Realme.

By the ancient lawes and customes of the Realme, one parcell of the Kings iurisdiction and imperiall Crowne, hath evermore consisted in graunting ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, vnto Archbishops, Bishops and other Prelats. For the maintenance of wich imperiall iurisdiction and power, against the vsurped supremacie of the Bishop of Rome, divers statutes, not introductorie of new law,* 1.1 but declaratorie of the old, in the time of King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and of our late most Noble Queene deceased, have bene made and enacted.

Yea and in a book entituled The Institution of a Christian man, com∣posed by Thomas Archbishop of Canterburie, Edward Archbishop of Yorke & all the Bishops,* 1.2 divers Archdeacons & Prelates of the Realme, that then were,* 1.3 dedicated also by them to King Henry the eight, it is confessed and acknowledged that the nomination & presentation of the Bishopricks, apperteyned vnto the kings of this Realme. And that it was and ••halbe lawfull to Kinges and Princes, and their Successors, with consent of their Parliaments, to revoke and call againe into their

owne handes, or otherwise to restreine all the power and iurisdiction which was given and assigned vnto Priests & Bishops, by the lycence, consent, sufferance and authoritie of the same Kings and Princes, and not by authoritie of God and his Gospell, whensoever they shall have grounds and causes so to doe, as shalbe necessarie, wholesome and ex∣pedient for the Realmes, the repressing of vice, & the increase of Chri∣stian faith and religion,

Ever since which time (vntill of late yeares, the late Archbishops of Canterbury, with the counsel of his colledge of Bishops, altered that his opinion, which some times in his answere made to the admonition to the Parliament, he held) it was generally and publickely maintained, that the state, power and iurisdiction of Provinciall and Diocesan Bi∣shops in England, stood not by any Divine right, but meerly and alto∣gether by humaine policie and ordinance alone. And that therefore, according to the first and best opinion and iudgment of the said Arch∣bishops, Bishops, &c. the same their iurisdiction might be taken away and altered at the will and pleasure of the kings of England, when soe∣ver they should have grounds and causes so to doe.

Mary since, when as the Discipline and governement provinciall, & diocesan ministred and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased, and his Suffraganes, was diversly handled, disputed and controverted, not to be agreeable, but repugnant to the holy Scriptures, & necessarie also for the repressing of vice, the increase of faith and Christian religion, to be changed; they herevpon iustly fearing, that the most vertuous & Christian Queene deceased, vpon sundry cōplaints made in open Par∣liament, against their many vniust greevances, would have reformed the same their maner of governement; they then presently vpon new advise and consulation taken, boldly and constantly avouched the same their governement, to have bene from the Apostles times, and a∣greeable to the holy scriptures;* 1.4 and therefore also perpetuall, and still to be vsed, & in no case to be altered, by any king, or Potentate what∣soever.

By meanes of which this their enclyning to the popish opinion, and holding their Iurisdictiō to bee de iure divino, & professedly maintey∣ning in the Homilie (wherevnto also subscription is vrged) that the King,* 1.5 and all the Nobilitie, ought to be subiect to excommunication, there is now at length growne such a mayne position, of having a per∣petuall Diocesan and Provinciall governement in the church, that ra∣ther

then their Hierarchie should stoope, they would cause the Kings Supremacie, which he hath over their said Iurisdiction, to fall downe to the ground; In so much as by their supposition, the King hath no authoritie, no not by his supreame power, to alter their sayd governe∣ment at all. And to this end and purpose (as it seemeth) in their late canons have they devised and decreed, this booke of ordination, to be subscribed vnto. Which subscription can not but quite and cleane o∣verthrow the Kings supremacie and auncient iurisdiction, in the most dangerous degree. For if their Provinciall and Diocesan orders and degrees of Ministerie, together with their iurisdiction, be to bee vsed, (as established and derived vnto them by the holy scriptures) how then can it be in the power and iurisdiction of the King, to graunt, or not to graunt the vse of Provinciall and Diocesan Bishopisme and iuris∣diction? Or how may the provinciall Bishops, with their Diocesan Suffraganes, be called the kings ecclesiasticall officers, if their iurisdi∣ctions be not derived vnto them from the king? For if they be called Gods Bishops, or Bishops of Gods making, how then may they anie more be called the kings Bishops, or Bishops of the kings presenting, nominating and confirming?

Nay, besides, who then can alter them? who can restreyne them? who can revoke or recall their power and iurisdiction? who can resist them? or what king of England may pluck his neck from vnder their yoke? Nay, how should the kings Supremacie (as by the ancient Lawes of the Realme it ought) remayne inviolable, when his Royall person, whole Nobilitie and Realme, is subiect and lyable to the cen∣sure of the canon Law, excommunication? Which law the Provinci∣all and Diocesan Bishops to this day, in right and by vertue of their Provinciall and Diocesan iurisdiction, and none otherwise, do stil vse, practise, and put in execution?

Besides,* 1.6 if Bishops Provinciall and Diocesan (as they be described in that book) be commanded in the Scriptures, and were in vse ever since the Apostles times, then ought they to be in the Church of England, though the King and his law never allowed, nor approved of them. But to hold this opinion, as it will vphold the Popes supremacie (be∣cause the generall reasons which vphold a Provinciall Bishop, will vp∣hold a Pope) so will it once againe, not only impeach the Kings supre∣macie, but also be repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realm. By which supremacie, lawes and customes only, the provinciall & dio∣cesan

Bishops have bene hitherto vpheld. For seing the lawes and cu∣stomes of the Realme, doe make the Kings nomination, presentation, and confirmation, the very essence and being of a Provinciall, & Dio∣cesan Bishop with vs, So that these offices ought to be held only, from the authoritie, gift and graunt of the King: how ought not the kings nomination, presentation, authoritie and gift, yea and the law it self, in this case wholy cease, if the order, degree, ministerie and iurisdiction of a provinciall and diocesan Bishop be founded in holy Scripture? Vn∣lesse we shall affirme, that, that was in the Apostles times, which was not, or that, that is to be found in holy Scripture, which is not? Name∣ly that there were in the Apostles times, and that there be in the holy Scriptures, no Bishops but provinciall and dioceasan Bishops to bee found? And that by the law of God and the Gospell, every King and Potentate, hath supreme power to suffer none but Provinciall & Dio∣san Bishops to be in the Churches.

So that by subscription to allow, that provinciall and Diocesan Bi∣shops, be Scripturely Bishops, and that their iurisdiction and power, is a Scripturely iurisdiction and power, is to deny that their iurisdiction and power, dependeth vpon the kings iurisdiction and power, or that by the kings gift and authoritie they be made Bishops.

But how doeth subscription (you will say) to the booke of ordinati∣on approve the orders and degrees of provinciall & diocesan Bishops, to be by Divine right, rather then by humane ordinance? How? Why thus: it is evident (saith the preface of that booke) to all men diligent∣ly reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have bene these orders of Ministers in Christes Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Yea and by the whole order of prayer, and of Scripture read, & vsed in the forme of consecrating of an Arch∣bishop or Bishop, it is apparant that the order of an Archbishop or Bishop, consecrated by that booke, is reputed & taken to be of Divine institution. And therfore seing the names of those orders of Ministers, must necessarily be taken and vnderstood of such orders of Ministers, as be sett forth and described in the body of that booke, it must needes be intended, that the Ministers by their subscription, should approve the orders of Ministers, mencioned in that booke, to be of Divine in∣stitution, and consequently, that provinciall and diocesan Ministers or Bishops, have not their essence and being from the nomination, gift & authoritie of the King.

Besides, if we should vnderstand by the word (Bishop) him that hath the Ministrie of the word and Sacraments, as the Pastor & teacher; and by the word (Priest) the Presbiter, that is the Governing elder; and by the word (Deacon) the provider for the poore, then for the Ministers to subscribe to the booke of ordination, would no way iustifie those officers or degrees of Ministers, which are described in that booke, but would indeed vtterly subvert and overthrow them. Because the orders and degrees of a provincial & diocesan Bishop, of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that booke, be of a farr differing nature from those or∣ders and degrees of Ministers, which are mencioned in the Scriptures: because they only agree in name, and not in nature.

Wherfore seeing there be other orders and degrees of Bishops then Provincial & Diocesan Bishops found in the holy Scriptures, & seeing also Kings and Princes being Vicarij Dei, be commanded to authorise all things for the trueth; and nothing against the trueth: it seemeth ne∣cessarie that his Maiestie should not only restrayne the Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops, from vrging subscription to this booke of ordina∣tion, (being so derogatory (in their sence and construction) to his su∣premacie as nothing can be more,) but also to keepe the Bishops them selves within the tether and compasse of the word of God. For if the word of God, doe approve amongst the Ministers of the Word and Sa∣craments, a primacie of order only, & denyeth vnto them any prima∣cie of iurisdiction and power in ecclesiasticall governement, (as the learned Protestants have proved against the Papists touching Peters supremacie) then will it follow that ours also ought to bee reduced to the same compasse, both for the Kings Maiesties safetie, and the Chur∣ches good. Least Princes giving them more then God alloweth them, they shoud them selves loose that right and authoritie, which they ought to reteyne in their owne Royall persons.

Now that it may not be obiected that we begge the question of Scripturely Bishops, not having any primacie of iurisdiction & power in ecclesiasticall government, (to let passe all particuler reasons of the Protestants against the Papists in this point) it shall suffice in this place to produce for witnesses six & forty Iurors, against whō no chalendge or exception can be taken; Namely the said Thomas Crammer, Arch∣bishop of Canterburie: Edward Archbishop of Yorke: Iohn Bishop of London: Cuthhert Dunèlmem Steven Winton: Robert Cariolen: Iohn Exon: Iohn Lincoln: Rowl and Coven & Lichfield: Thomas Elien: Ni∣cholas

Sarum: Iohn Banger: Edward Herefordien. Hugh Wigornen. Iohn Roffen. Richard Cicestren. William Norwicen. William Meneven. Robert Assaven. Robert Landaven. Richard Wolman, Archdeacon of Sudbur. William Knight Archdeacon of Richmond: Iohn Bell, Arch∣deacon of Gloster: Edmond Boner, Archdeacon of Lecester: William Skipp, Archdeacon of Dorset: Nicholas Heeth, Archdeacon of Staf∣ford Cuthbert Marshall, Archdeacon of Notingham: and Richard Cur∣ren, Archdeacon of Oxford: Together with William Cliff, Galfrid Downes; Robert Oking, Radulf Bradford, Richard Smith, Simon Ma∣thew, John Fryn, William Lukemaster, William May, Nicholas Wot∣ton, Richard Cox, Iohn Edmonds, Thomas Robertson, Iohn Baker, Tho∣mas Baret, Iohn Hase and Iohn Tyson, Sacrae Theologiae, iuris ecclesi∣astici, & civilis Professores.

All which Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons and Prelates, having with one voyce and accord shewed vnto King Henry the eight, that di∣vers good Fathers, Bishops of Rome, did greatly reprove and abhorre (as a thing cleane cōtrarie to the Gospell & the Decrees of the church) that any Bishop of Rome, or elswhere, should presume, vsurpe, or take vpon him the tytle and name of the vniversall Bishop, or of the head of all Priestes, or of the highest Priest, or any such like tytle; proceede further,* 1.7 and in the end conclude, and give vp their verdict thus. For confirmation whereof, it is out of all doubt, that there is no mencion made, neither in scripture, neither in the writings of any authenticall Doctour or Authour of the Church being within the tyme of the Apost∣les: That Christ did ever make, or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power, order, or iurisdiction betweene the Aposties them selves, or betweene the Bishops them selves; but that they were all aequall in power, order, authoritie and iurisdiction. And that there is now, and sith the tyme of the Apostles, any such diver••••tie or difference among the Bishops, it was devised by the ancient Fathers, &c. For the said Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men, and taking examples of the ould Testament, thought it expedient to make an order of degrees, to be among Bishops and spiritu∣all governours of the Church; and so ordeyned some to be Pa••riarkes, some to be Primates, some to be Metropolitanes, some to be Arch∣pishops, some to be Bishops, &c. Which differences the said holy Fathers thought necessarie to enact and establish, by their Decrees and constitu∣tions, not for that any such differences were prescribed and established

in the Gospell, or mencioned in any Canonicall writings of the Apostles, or testified by any ecclesiasticall Writer within the Apostles tyme. And thus farre their verdict.

But let vs graunt, that orders of Bishops, Priestes and Deacons bee conteyned in the holy scriptures, yet if those orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons which are established in the booke, be not the same or∣ders of Bishops, Priestes & Deacons, which are authorised by the scrip∣tures: then (through the aequivocation of these wordes; Orders of Bi∣shops, Priestes and Deacons) there being afalacie: how should this forme and maner of subscription be lawfull? viz. that the booke cō∣teyneth nothing contrarie to the word of God, & that it lawfully may be vsed? For only such orders of Bishops, Priestes and Deacons, ought to be acknowledged, subscribed vnto, & vsed, as by the holy scriptures are warranted. And therefore such as are conteyned in the booke, if so be they be divers frō those which are approved in the holy scriptures, how should they without sinne be subscribed vnto, and vsed? Vnlesse we shall affirme, that Ministers of the Gospell of God, may rightfully approove of such orders of Ministers, as the Lord and Law giver of the Gospell never allowed ne approoved.

And thus much have we spoken touching not subscription, touching the not exact vse of the order and forme of the booke of common prayer, and touchinge the not precise practise and wearing of the rites, ceremonies and ornaments of the church.

Wherein if we have spoken otherwise then as for our speaking wee have warrant from the Kings lawes, our earnest desire is that it may be shewed vnto vs wherein we haue erred. For if there be any thing whereof we be ignorant, we shalbe willing to be taught the same, and having learned it, to yeald to the practise thereof.

In the meane time, seing not to weare a Surplice in the ministration of Divine service, not to make a crosse in Baptisme, & not to subscribe, &c. in it selfe, is not a sinne against any commandement of God, nor a thing scandalous vnto the people: And seeing also the Parsons who re∣fuse to weare and vse the same, be in every respect men of good note, condition, fame, qualitie and behaviour, yea & such as against whom, no misdemeanor for doctrine or life, which might aggravate their of∣fence, can iustly be obiected, we may lawfully (as we thinke) conclude in their behalf, that de aequitate & misericordia iuris, they ought to be respected and tolerated, rather then for their refusall meerely standing

vpon their consciences (whether erroneous or not erroneous, it skil∣leth not) de rigore iuris, (if there be any such rigour) to be suspended, excommunicated or deprived, yea and in so generall and doubtfull a case of conscience, vpon so slender a ground of periury or contempt, vpon persons every way so peaceable & well qualified, and wherein no scandall hath ensued, we suppose it can not bee shewed among all the decrees and sentences recorded, among all the Popish canonists, that ever any Popish ordinaries, in any age have vsed the like iudiciall ri∣gour against any their Popish Priests.

It is to be noted, that the foraine canon Law, is none otherwise in any part of this Treatise intended to be the Kings Ecclesiasticall law, then only vpon a false supposition of the Archbishops and Bishops: Because the same law is yet vsed & practised in their Consistories, not∣withstanding it hath bene long since abolished by Act of Parliament.

God saue King

IAMES.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cooke de lure. regis eccle. fol. 8
• * 1.2

  fol. 53.
• * 1.3

  fol. 55.
• * 1.4

  Do. Sutclif. Doct. Bilson
• * 1.5

  2. part of the right vse of y^e Church
• * 1.6

  If Diocesan Bishops bee scripturely Bishops, thē may they stand with∣out y^• King. Dioceson Bi¦shops hither to vphelde only by the lawes of the Realme.
• * 1.7

  fol. 59. 60.