Episcopacy (as established by law in England) not prejudicial to regal power a treatise written in the time of the Long Parliament, by the special command of the late King / and now published by ... Robert Sanderson ...

THE III. SECTION

In Answer to the later Objection.

1. HAving thus cleared the O∣pinion held concerning E∣piscopacy in the Church of Eng∣land from the crime unjustly char∣ged upon it by the Adversaries, (but whereof in truth themselves are deeply guilty) in their former Objection: our next business will be the easier, to justifie it in the

Practise also from the like charge laid against it in the later Objec∣tion, by shewing that the Iurisdic∣tion exercised by the Bishops with∣in this Realm, (and namely in that particular which the Objectors urge with most vehemency, of acting so many things in their own names,) is no way derogatory to the Kings Majesties Power or Ho∣nour. Wherein it were enough for the satisfaction of every un∣derstanding man, without de∣scending to any farther particula∣rities, to shew the impertinency of the Objectors from these two ge∣neral Considerations.

II. First that the Bishops have exercised no Iurisdiction in foro externo within this Realm, but such as hath been granted unto them by the successive Kings of

England; neither have challeng∣ed any such Iurisdiction to belong unto them by any inherent right or title in their persons or Callings, but onely by emanation and de∣rivation from the Royal Authority. The very words of the Statute primo. Edw. 6. in the objection mentioned run thus, Seeing that all authority of jurisdiction Spi∣ritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream head—and so justly ac∣knowledged by the Clergy of the said Realms, and that all Courts Eccle∣siastical be kept by no other power or authority either forraign or within the Realms, but by the authority of his most Excellent Majesty &c. Now the regular exercise of a Derived power is so far from de∣stroying, or any way diminishing

that Original power from whence it is derived, as that it rather con∣firmeth and establisheth the same. Yea, the further such derived power is extended and enlarged in the exercise thereof, so as it be regular, (that is, so long as it containeth it self within the bounds of its grant, and exceed∣eth not the limits prefixed there∣unto by that Original power that granted it) the more it serveth to set forth the honour and greatness of that Original power; since the vertue of the efficient Cause is best known by the greatness of the effect: for propter quod unumquod∣que est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale. As the warmth of the room doth not lessen the heat of the fire upon the hearth, but is rather a signe of the greatness of that

heat: nor doth the abundance of sap in the branches cause any abatement in the root, but is rather an evident demonstration of the greater plenty there.

III. Secondly, that it is one of the greatest follies in the world, to endeavour in good earnest to maintain any thing by argument when we have the evidence of Sence or Experience to the contra∣ry. For what is it cum ratione insanire, if this be not? To deny fire to be hot, or water to be moist, or snow to be white; when our sences enform us they are such? Or to prove by argument that life may be perpetuated by the help of art and good dyet, or that infants are capable of faith or instruction by ordinary means; when Experience sheweth the con∣trary.

Now the Experience of a∣bove fourscore years, ever since the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign, doth make it most evi∣dent, that the exercise of Epis∣copal Iurisdiction by the Pro∣testant Bishops here, was so far from diminishing the power, or eclipsing the glory of the Crown, that the Kings and Queens of Eng∣land never enjoyed their Royal power in a fuller measure, or flourished with greater lustre, ho∣nour and prosperity, then when the Bishops (by their favour) en∣joyed the full liberty of their Courts, jurisdictions, honours and priviledges according to an∣cient grants of former Kings and the Lawes and Customes of Eng∣land. On the other side; in what condition of power and honour

(otherwise then in the hearts of his oppressed Subjects) our most pious and gracious Soveraign that now is hath stood, and at this present standeth, through the prevalency of the Smectymnuan Faction; ever since they had the opportunity and forehead from lopping off (as was at first pre∣tended) some luxuriant super∣fluities (as they at least imagined them to be) in the branches of Episcopal Jurisdiction (as High Commission, Oath ex officio, &c.) to proceed to take away Episcopacy it self Root and Branch: it were a happy thing for us, if the lamen∣table Experience of these late Times would suffer us to be igno∣rant. So as we now look upon that short Aphorisme so usual with his Majesties Royal Father [NO

BISHOP, NO KING] not as a sentence onely full of pre∣sent truth when it was uttered; but rather as a sad prophecy of future events, since come to pass. The miseries of these wasting divisi∣ons both in the Church and Com∣mon-wealth we cannot with any reason hope to see an end of, un∣til it shall please Almighty God in his infinite mercy to a sinful na∣tion, to restore them both (King and Bishops) to their Antient, Just and Rightful power: and in order thereunto graciously to hear the weak prayers of a small oppressed Party, (yet coming from loyal hearts, and going not out of feigned lips) beyond the loud crying Per∣juries, Sacriledges, and Oppressions of those that now exercise an Ar∣bitrary Soveraignty over their fel∣low

Subjects without either Iu∣stice or Mercy, together with the abominable hypocrisie and disloy∣alty that hath so long raigned in them and their adherents.

IV. Those two general Consi∣derations, although they might (as I said) suffice to take away the force of the Objection, without troubling our selves, or the Rea∣der with any farther answer thereunto: yet that the Objectors may not have the least occasion given them to quarrel the pro∣ceedings, as if we did purposely decline a just tryal, we shall come up a little closer, and examine more particularly every material point, in the order as they lye in the Objection aforesaid. And the Points are three.

1. That the manner used by

the Bishops, in sending out their Summons, &c. in their own names, is contrary to the form and order of other Courts.

2. That such forms of Process seem to have at first proceeded from the Usurped power of the Bishops of Rome, who laboured by all possible means to bring down the Regal Power, and set up their own.

3. That upon these very grounds the custome was altered by Act of Parliament, and a Statute made 1. Ewd. VI. (howsoever since repealed and discontinu∣ed,) that all Processes Ecclesia∣stical should be made in the Kings name, and not in the Bi∣shops.

V. As to the first point, true it is that the manner used by the

Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts, (viz. in issuing out Summons, Cita∣tions, Processes, giving Iudgments &c. in their own names, and not in the Kings,) is different from the manner used in the Kings Bench, Exchequer, Chancery, and sundry other Courts. But that difference neither doth of necessi∣ty import an independency of the Ecclesiastical Courts upon the King, nor did in all probability arise at the beginning from the opinion of any such independency; nor ought in reason to be construed as a dis∣acknowledgement of the Kings au∣thority and Supremacy Ecclesiasti∣cal. For

VI. First there is between such Courts as are the Kings own im∣mediate Courts, and such Courts as are not, a great difference in

this point. Of the former sort are especially the Kings Bench and Chancery: as also the Court of Common Pleas, Exchequer, Iustices of Goal-delivery &c. In the Kings Bench the Kings themselves in for∣mer times have often personally sate; whence it came to have the name of the Kings Bench; neither was it tyed to any particular place, but followed the Kings Person. At this day also all Writs returnable there run in this style, Coram nobis, and not (as in some other Courts) co∣ram Iustitiariis nostris or the like: and all judicial Records there are styled, and the Pleas there holden entred, Coram Rege, and not coram Iustitiariis Domini Regis. Ap∣peals also are made from inferiour Iudges in other Courts to the King in Chancery; because in the

construction of the Lawes the Kings Personal Power and Presence is supposed to be there: and there∣fore Sub-poena's granted out of that Court, and all matters of Record passed there run in the same style Coram Rege &c. Forasmuch as in the Iudges in these two Courts there is a more immediate re∣presentation of the Kings Personal power and presence, then in the Iudges of those other Courts of Common Pleas, Exchequer, &c. Which yet by reason of his imme∣diate virtual power and presence are the Kings immediate Courts too. In regard of which his im∣mediate virtual power, although the style of the Writs and Re∣cords there be not Coram nobis, Coram Rege, as in the former, but onely Coram Iustitiariis, Coram

Baronibus nostris, &c. yet inas∣much as the Iudges in those Courts are the Kings immediate sworn Mi∣nisters to execute justice, and to do equal right to all the Kings people in his name, therefore all Processes, Pleas, Acts and Iudge∣ments are made and done in those Courts, as well as in the two for∣mer, in the Kings name. But in such Courts as do not suppose any such immediate Representation or presence of the Kings either per∣sonal or virtual Power, as that thereby they may be holden and taken to be the Kings own immedi∣ate Courts, the case is far other∣wise. For neither are the Iudges in those Courts sworn the Kings Iudges, to administer Justice and do right to the Kings subjects in his name and stead: nor do they

take upon them the authority, to cite any person, or to give any sentence, or to do any act of Juris∣diction in the Kings name; having never been by him authorized so to do. Of this sort are amongst others (best known to them that are skilled in the Laws of this Realm) all Courts-Baron held by the Lord of a Manner, Customary Courts of Copyholders, &c and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant, by Charter to some Corpo∣ration, as to a City, Borough, or Vniversity; or els by long usage and prescription of time. In all which Courts, and if there be any other of like nature, Summons are issued out, and Iudgements given, and all other Acts and Proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief autho∣rity

in the said Courts, and not in the name of the King: So as the styles run thus, A. B. Major civi∣tatis Ebor. N. M. Cancellarius V∣niversitatis Oxon. and the like; and not Carolus Dei gratia, &c.

VII. Upon this ground it is that our Lawyers tell us out of Bracton, that in case of Bastar∣dy to be certified by the Bishop, no inferiour Court, as London, Yorke, Norwich, or any other In∣corporation can write to the Bishop to require him to certify: but any of the Kings Courts at Westminister (as Common Pleas, Kings Bench &c.) may write to him to certify in that case. The reason is, Because Nullus alius prae∣ter Regem potest Episcopo deman∣dare inquisitionem faciendam. Which maketh it plain that the Kings

immediate powe (either personal, or virtual) is by the Law supposed to be present in Courts of the one sort, not of the other: the one sort being his own immediate Courts, and the other not.

VIII. Now that the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein the Bishops exercise their Jurisdiction, are of the latter sort, I doubt not but our Law-books will afford plenty of arguments to prove it, beyond all possibility of contradiction or cavil. Which being little versed in those studies I leave for them to find out who have leisure to search the books, and do better understand the na∣ture, constitution, differences and bounds of the several Courts with∣in this Realm. One argument there is, very obvious to every under∣standing, (which because I shall

have fit occasion a little after to declare, I will not now any longer insist upon,) taken from the nature of the Iurisdiction of these Courts so far distant from the Iurisdiction appertaining to those other Courts, that these are notoriously separated and in Common and vulgar speach di∣stinguished from all other by the peculiar name and appellation of the Spiritual Courts. But another Argument, which those books have suggested, I am the more willing here to produce, for that it not only sufficiently proveth the matter now in hand, but is also very needful to be better known abroad in the world then it is, for the removing of a very unjust censure, which meerly for want of the knowledge of the

true cause, hath been laid upon the Bishops in one particular, to their great wrong and prejudice. It hath been much talked on, not only by the Common sort of people, but by some persons also of better rank and understanding, and im∣puted to the Bishops as an act of very high insolency, that in their Processes, Patents, Commissions, Licences, and other Instruments whereunto their Episcopal Seale is affixed, so oft as they have oc∣casion to mention themselves, the Style runneth ever more in the Plu∣ral number [Nos G. Cantuar-Ar∣chiepiscopus, Coram nobis, Salvo nobis—&c.] just as it doth in his Majesties Letters Patents and Commissions: thereby shewing themselves (say they) as if they were his Fellows and Equals. All

this great noise and clamour a∣gainst the pride of the Bishops upon this score, proceedeth (as I said) meerly from the ignorance of the true original cause and ground of that innocent and ancient usage; and therefore cannot signify much to any reasonable and considering man, when that ground is dis∣covered: which is this, viz. that every Bishop is in construction of our Laws a Corporation. For al∣though the Bishop of himselfe and in his private and personal capacity be but a single person as other men are, and accordingly in his letters concerning his own particular affairs, and in all other his actings upon his own occasions and as a private person writeth of himselfe in the singular number, as other pri∣vate men do; yet for as much as

in his publike and politick capacity, and as a Bishop in the Church of England, he standeth in the eye of the Law as a Corporation; the King not only alloweth him act∣ing in that capacity, to write of himselfe in the plural number, but in all writs directed to him as Bishop (as in Presentations, and the like) bespeaketh him in the plu∣ral number [Vestrae Diocesis, vobis praesentamus &c.] The Bishop then being a Corporation, and that by the Kings authority, as all other Corporations (whether Simple or Ag∣gregate, whether by Charter or Pre∣scription) are: it is meet he should hold his Courts, and proceed therein in the same manner and form (where there is no ap∣parent reason to the contrary) as other Corporations do. And there∣fore

as it would be a high pre∣sumption for the Chancellour and Scholars of one of the Universi∣ties, being a Corporation, to whom the King by his Charter hath granted a Court, or for the Major and Aldermen of a City for the same reason, to issue Writs or do other acts in their Courts in the Kings name, not having any authority from the King or his grant, or from the Laws and Customs of England so to do: so doubtless it would for the same reason be esteemed a presumption no less intolerable for the Bishops to use the Kings name in their processes and judicial acts, not having any sufficient legal war∣rant or authority for so doing.

IX. Which if it were duly considered, would induce any

reasonable man to beleive and confesse that this manner of pro∣ceeding in their own names used by the Bishops in their Courts, is so far from trenching upon the Regal power and authority, which is the crime charged upon it by the Objectors, that the contrary usage (unless it were enjoyned by some Law of the Land, as it was in the Raign of King Edward the Sixth) might far more justly be charged therewithal. For the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court, is not thereby to acknowledge the emanation of the power or jurisdiction of that Court from, or the subordination of that power unto, the Kings po∣wer or authority, as the Objectors seeme to suppose; but rather to shew the same Court to be one of

the Kings own immediate Courts, wherein the King himselfe is sup∣posed (in the construction of the Law) either by his personal or virtual power to be present. And the not using of the Kings name in other Courts, doth not infer, as if the Iudges of the said Courts did not act by the Kings authority, (for who can imagine that they who hold a Court by virtue of the Kings grant only, should pretend to act by any other then his au∣thority?) but only that they are no immediate representatives of the Kings person in such their juris∣diction, nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his name in the exercise or execu∣tion thereof.

X. Secondly, there is another observable difference in this

point, between the Kings Com∣mon-law-Courts, such as are most of those afore-mentioned, and those Courts that proceed accord∣ing to the way of the Civil Law. If the King appoint a Constable, or Earle-Marshal, or Admiral of England: for as much as all try∣als in the Marshals Court (com∣monly called the Court of Honour) and in the Admiralty are according to the Civil Law; all Processes therefore, Sentences, and Acts in those Courts go in the names of the Constable, Earle-Marshal, or Ad∣miral, and not in the Kings name. Which manner of proceeding constantly used in those Courts, sith no man hitherto hath been found to interpret, as any diminu∣tion at all or dis-acknowledge∣ment of the Kings Soveraignty over

the said Courts: it were not pos∣sible the same manner of procee∣ding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime, did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts. Especial∣ly considering that

XI. Thirdly, there is yet a more special and peculiar reason to be given in the behalf of the Bishops for not using the Kings name in their Processes, &c. in the Ecclesi∣astical Courts, then can be given for the Iudges of any other the above-mentioned Courts (either of the Common or Civil Laws) in the said respect; arising (as hath been already in part touch∣ed) from the different nature of

their several respective Iurisdicti∣ons. Which is, that the summons and other proceedings and acts in the Ecclesiastical Courts are for the most part in order to the Ecclesia∣stical censures and sentences of Ex∣communication, &c. The passing of which sentences and other of like kind, being a part of the po∣wer of the Keyes which our Lord Iesus Christ thought fit to leave in the hands of his Apostles and their Successors, and not in the hands of Lay-men; the Kings of England ne∣ver challenged to belong unto themselves: but left the exercise of that Power entirely to the Bi∣shops, as the lawful Successors of the Apostles, and inheritours of their Power. The regulating and ordering of that power in sundry circumstances concerning the out∣ward

exercise thereof in foro exter∣no, the godly Kings of England have thought to belong unto them as in the right of their Crown; and have accordingly made Laws concerning the same, even as they have done also concerning other matters appertaining to Religion and the worship of God. But the substance of that power, and the function thereof, as they saw it to be altogether improper to their office and calling: so they never pretended or laid claim thereun∣to. But on the contrary when by occasion of the title of Supream Head, &c. assumed by King Hen∣ry the Eighth, they were charged by the Papists for challenging to themselves such power and authori∣ty spiritual; they constantly and openly disavowed it to the whole

world, renouncing all claim to any such power or authority: As is ma∣nifest; not onely from the allow∣ed writings of many godly Bishops, eminent for their learning in their several respective times, in vindi∣cation of the Church of England from that calumny of the Papists; as Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Carleton, and others: but also by the Injunctions of Queen Eliza∣beth, and the admonition prefixed thereunto; by the 37^th. Art. of the Church of England required to be subscribed by all that take Orders in the Church, or Degrees in the U∣niversities; and by constant de∣clared judgement and practice of the two late Kings of blessed me∣mory, King Iames and King Charles the I^st. They who thus ex∣presly

disclaimed the medling with Spiritual Censures and the power of the keyes, cannot be rationally supposed to have thought their own presence (either personal or virtual) any way requisite in the Courts where such Censures were to be pronounced, and that po∣wer to be administred and exer∣cised: and therefore doubtless could not deem it fit or pro∣per, that in the juridical pro∣ceedings of such Courts their names should be used.

XII. The second point in the charge objected is, that this custome used by the Bishops in acting all things in the Ecclesiasti∣cal Courts in their own names grew at first from the exorbitant power of the Popes, who laboured what they could to advance their own

greatness by exempting the Clergy from all subjection to Temporal Princes, and setting up an Ecclesi∣astical power of Jurisdiction inde∣pendent upon the Secular: and that the Parliament had that sence of it in the Raign of King Edward the Sixth, as the words of the Sta∣tute made I. Edward VI. for the altering of the said Custome, do plainly intimate.

XIII. In which part of the Charge there is at the most but thus much of Truth. 1. That the Bishops of Rome did not omit with all sedulity to pursue the grand design of that See, which was to bring all Christian Princes into subjection to it self. 2. That all the labouring for the Exemption of the Clergy from the Secular Po∣wers, was in order to that design.

3. That the Bishops manner of u∣sing their own names in all acts of their Iurisdiction, (looked upon alone and by it self without any consideration of the true reasons thereof) doth carry, by so much the more, shew of serving the Pa∣pal Interest, then if they should do all in the King's Name, by how much the acknowledging the Kings Supremacy-Ecclesiastical is less apparent therein, then in the other. 4. That the want of such an express acknowledgement of the King's Supremacy, together with the jealousies the State had in those times over any thing that might seem to further or favour the usurped Power of the Pope in the least degree; might very pro∣bably in this particular (as well as it did in some other things) oc∣casion

such men as bear the grea∣test sway in managing the pub∣lick affairs in the beginning of that godly (but young) King's Raign, out of a just detestation of the Pa∣pacy to endeavour overhastily the abolishing of whatsoever was with any colour suggested unto them to savour of Popery, with∣out such due examination of the grounds of those Suggestions as was requisite in a matter of so great importance.

XIIII. This is all we can (per∣haps more then we need) yield unto in this point of the Charge. But then there are some other things which we cannot easily assent unto: as viz.

1. That this custome had un∣doubtedly its original and growth from the Popes usurped power.

Which as we think it impossible for them to prove; so it seemeth to us the less probable, because by comparing of this course used in the Ecclesiastical Courts with the practise of sundry other Courts, some of like, some of different nature thereunto, we have al∣ready shewed the true reasons and grounds of the difference between some Courts and othersome in this particular.

2. That it is a rag or relique of Antichristian tyranny. Which we believe to be altogether untrue. Not only for the reasons before specified, and for that the same is done in sundry other Courts, holden within this Realm without any note of Antichristianisme or Popery fastened thereupon: but also because it hath been constant∣ly

continued in this Kingdome (the short Raign of King Edward the Sixth only excepted) with the al∣lowance of all the Protestants Kings and Queens of this Realm ever since the Reformation. Who, although they be ever and anon taxed by the Puritane-faction (un∣justly and insolently enough) for want of a Through-Reformation, and leaving so much Popish trash un∣purged in the point of worship and Ceremonies: yet have not u∣sually been blamed by that party for being wanting to themselves in vindicating to the uttermost their Regal authority and Supre∣macy Ecclesiastical from the usurp∣ed power of the Bishops of Rome in any thing wherein they con∣ceived it to be many wise or de∣gree concerned. As also because

this manner of proceeding in the Courts Ecclesiastical hath been constantly and without scruple of Conscience or suspition of Popery used and practised by all our god∣ly and Orthodoxe Bishops; even those, who have been the most zealous maintainers of our Religion against the Papists, and such as have particularly written against the Antichristian tyranny of the Pope, or in defence of the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiasti∣cal; as Iewel, Bilson, Abbots, Buckridge, Carleton, and many others.

XV. But against all this that hath been said, how agreeable so∣ever it may seem to truth and rea∣son, may be opposed the judge∣ment of the whole Realm in Parliament (the Bishops themselves

also then sitting and voting as well as other the Lords and Com∣mons) in the first year of the Raign of King Edward the Sixth, who thought fit by their Act to alter the aforesaid form, and that upon the two aforesaid grounds, viz. that it was contrary to the form and order of the Common Law-Courts, and according to the form and manner used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome. Which being the last and weightiest point in the Charge, is the more consider∣able, in that besides its own strength, it giveth also farther strength and confirmation to the other two.

XVI. But for answer unto this argument drawn from the judge∣ment of the Parliament, as it is de∣clared

in the Statute of •• Edw. 6. I would demand of the Objectors, where they place the chief strength of the Argument: whether in the authority of the persons (viz. the great Assembly of State con∣vened in Parliament so judging; or in validity of those reasons, which led them so to judge. If in this later, their judgment can weigh no more, then the reasons do whereon it is built; the frailty whereof we have already examin∣ed and discovered. If in the Au∣thority of the Judges; we lay in the ballance against it the judg∣ment of the Kingdome in all the Parliaments after the decease of King Edward for above fourscore years together: the first whereof repeated that Statute; and none of those that followed (for ought ap∣peareth

to us) ever went about to revive it.

XVII. If it shall be said first, That the enacting of that Statute by King Edward was done in order to the farther abolishing of Pope∣ry, and the perfecting of the Re∣formation begun by his Father: I answer, that as it was a very pi∣ous care, and of singular example in so young a Prince, to intend and endeavour the reformation of Reli∣gion and the Church within his Realms (for which even at this day we have cause to acknowledge the good providence of Almighty God in raising him up to become so blessed an instrument of his glo∣ry and our good:) so on the other side we cannot doubt but that the business of Reformation under him was carried on with such mixture

of private ends and other human frailties and affections, as are usu∣ally incident into the enterprising of great affairs, especially such as cannot be effected without the assistance of many Instruments. All of which in likelyhood being not of one judgement and temper, but having their several inclinations, passions and interests with great difference; the product of their endeavours (whatsoever sincerity there were in the intentions of the first mover) must needs be such, as the constitution of the most pre∣valent instruments employed in the work would permit it to be. The very name of Reformation of Religion and manners, and of abu∣ses crept into the Church or Com∣mon-wealth, carrieth with it a great deal of outward glory and lustre,

filling the hearts of men with ex∣pectations of much happiness to en∣sue, and in that hope is evermore entertained with general applause, especially of the vulgar sort: be∣cause men look upon it as it were in the Idea, (that is to say, as it is fancied and devised in the mind and imagination) and abstracted∣ly from those impediments and in∣conveniences, which when they come ad practicandum and to put their thoughts in execution, they shall be sure to meet withal more or less, to render the performance short of the promise and expectati∣on.

XVIII. Now because Reforma∣tion is so much talked of in these evil dayes of ours, wherein thou∣sands of well-meaning people have been seduced into dangerous by-paths

by that specious Name: it will not be amiss, (though we may seem perhaps to digress a little for it) to prompt the Reader to some considerations, that may incline him rather to suspect a thing to be ill done, then to be confident that it is well done, if he have no other reason of that confi∣dence but this, that it is pretended to be done by way of Reformation.

XIX. It is considerable first, that Reformation is the usual vi∣zard, wherewith men of insati∣able avarice or ambition disguise their base unworthy intentions, that the ugliness thereof may not appear to vulgar eyes. Seldome hath any Sacrilegious or Seditious attempt appeared abroad in the world, and been countenanced either by the Great ones or the Ma∣ny;

which hath not been ushered in by this piece of Hypocrisie. Not to look further (backward or forward) for instances in both kindes, then to the Raign of that King wherein the Statute so much insisted upon was made; It can∣not be denied, but that during the Raign of that religious and god∣ly young King (without his know∣ledge as we verily hope and be∣lieve, or at most through the ma∣litious suggestions and cunning insinuations of some that were about him) such Sacriledges were acted, and that under the name & pretence of Reformation, as have cast a very foul blemish upon our very Religion, especially in the eyes of our Adversaries, who have ever shewed themselves forward enough to impute the faults of the

persons to the Profession. And un∣der the same pretence of Reforma∣tion were also masked all the blood∣shed, mischiefs and outrages com∣mitted by Kett and his seditious rabble in the same Kings Raign: insomuch as a great Oak whereat they appointed their usual meet∣ings, and whereon (by the just judgement of God) himself the ringleader of that rebellion was afterwards hanged, was by them called the Oak of Reformation. By what was done in those times, (ill enough indeed, yet modestly in comparison of what hath been done in ours) we may have a near guess what their meaning is, that are so eagerly set upon a Thorow-Reformation (as they call it) in the Church, in the Commonwealth, in the Vniversities: even to get

into their own hands and disposal all the Haces and Offices of power or profit in them all. I dare not say, (for truly of some I believe the contrary, and hope the same of many more) that all those that joyn in vote or act with those plan∣sible pretenders of Reformation, or wish well unto them in the simpli∣city of their hearts, are guilty of their abominable hypocrisie. But sure all experience sheweth, that in great Councels there are ever∣more some one or a few 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, active and cunning men that are able by the reputation of their wisdome and abilities of speech to carry all businesses in the vogue even as themselves have before∣hand closely contrived them: leading on the rest, as a bell-wea∣ther doth the whole flock, or as a

crafty fore-man of a Iury doth the whole dozen, which way soever they please; who follow tamely after (quâ itur, non quâ eundum) in an implicit belief, that that must needs be the right way, which they see such skilful guides to have taken before them.

XX. But say there were no such reserved secret sinister ends either in the chief Agents or their Ministers, but that a just Reformation were as really and sincerely intended by them all, as it is by some of them speciously pretended: yet is it con∣siderable Secondly, how very dif∣ficult a thing it is, in the business of Reformation to stay at the right point, and not to overdo, by rea∣son of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby we are very apt in decli∣ning one of the extreams to fall in∣to

the other, either in point of o∣pinion or practice. In detestation of the heresie of Nestorius, who distinguished the persons in Christ, because he knew there were two natures; Eutyches went so far as to confound the natures, because he knew there was but one person. And because the Papists by the multitude and pompousness of their Ceremonies had taken away much of the inward vigour of Gods publick worship, by drawing it too much outward; the Puritanes in opposition to them, and to re∣form that errour, by stripping it of all Ceremonies have left it so bare, that (besides the unseemli∣ness) it is well nigh starved for want of convenient clothing. It is in the distempers of the body po∣litick in this respect not much o∣therwise

then it is in those of the body natural. In an Ague, when the cold sit hath had his course, the body doth not thence return to a kindly natural warmth, but fall∣eth speedily into a burning preter∣natural heat, nothing less (if not rather more) afflictive then the former. And how osten have Physicians, (not the unlearned Empericks onely, but even those best renowned for their skill and judgement,) by tampering with a crazy body to master the predo∣minancy of some noxious humour therein, cast their patients ere they were aware under the tyran∣ny of another and contrary humour as perillous as the former: or for fear of leaving too much bad blood in the veins, have letten out too much of the vital spirits with∣all?

Onely the difference is, that in bodily diseases this course may be sometimes profitably experi∣mented, and with good success; not onely out of necessity, when there is no other way of cure left, (as they use to say, Desperate dis∣eases must have desperate remedies:) but also out of choice, and in a ra∣tional way; as Hippocrates advi∣seth in the case of some cold disea∣ses to cast the patient into a burn∣ing feaver, which he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And I remember to have read somewhere to that purpose such an Aphorisme as this, Vtile est in∣nasci sebrem in spasmo. But for the remedying of Moral or Politick di∣stempers, it is neither warranta∣ble nor safe to try such experi∣ments: Not warrantable; because we have no such rule given us in

the Word of God whereby to o∣perate: nor safe; because herein the Mean onely is commendable, all Extreams (whether in defect or excess) vitious. Now what defects or excesses there might be in the Reformation of Religion and the Church within these Realms during the Raigns of K. Henry the Eighth, King Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; it doth not become me, neither is it needful, to exa∣mine. But sure it is, they that had the managery of those affairs in their several respective times were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made of the same day with other men, subject to infirmities and passions, and to be byassed with partial affections, and those affections capable to be enflamed with zeal, cooled with de∣layes, enraged by opposition, and

allayed by seasonable applications. And therefore although we can∣not say for certain with what af∣fections those Reformers in the be∣ginning of King Edward's Raign were steered in the whole busi∣ness: yet it is very possible, and in this particular of the Statutes, (from the weakness of the reasons therein expressed) not improba∣ble, that the jealousies they had of the Papal power so lately eject∣ed might make them more abun∣dantly cautelous and sollicitous to secure themselves thereagainst, then need required. Verily the temper of those times and men, and the Reformation made about those times in other countreys considered; we have far greater cause to bless God that in their then▪ Reforma∣tion in very many things they did

not a great deal worse, then to blame them that in some few things they did not a little better, then they have done.

XXI. It is further conside∣rable Thirdly, that where a Re∣formation is truly intended, and the thing it self intended by that Reformation to be established is al∣so within a tolerable compass of Mediocrity; there may yet be such errour in the choice of the means to be used for the accomplishing of those intentions, as may vitiate the whole work, and render it blame-worthy. For although it be a truth so expresly affirmed by the Apostle, and so agreeable to the dictates of right reason [That we may not do any evil thing for any good end] as that I should scarce have believed it possible that any

man that pretended to be Christi∣an or but reasonable should hold the contrary, had I not been ad∣vertised by very credible persons that some men of eminent place and power did so, by distinguishing (but beside the book, and where the Law distinguisheth not) be∣tween a publick and a private good end: yet the eagerness of most men in the pursuance of such ends as they are fully bent upon, and their pride of spirit disdaining to be crossed in their purposes, and im∣patient of meeting with any oppo∣sition; putteth them many times upon the use of such means as seem for the present best conducing to the ends they have proposed to themselves, without any sufficient care to examine whether such means be lawful or not. For ei∣ther

they run on headlong and are resolved not to stick at any nice∣ties of conscience, but being inga∣ged in a design to go through with it per fas & nefas; measuring ho∣nesty by utility: or els they ga∣ther up any thin fig-leaves where they can meet with them to hide the deformity of their actions if it were possible even from their own eyes; and are willing their affe∣ctions should bribe and cheat their judgements with any weak reasons to pronounce that lawful to be done which they have a mind to do, the secret checks and murmu∣rings of their consciences to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence it is, that whereas men ought to conform all their wills and actions to the exact rule of Gods Word, they do so often in stead thereof

crooken the rule to make it com∣ply with their actions and desires: raising such doctrines and conclu∣sions from the sacred Texts of Scri∣pture by forced inferences, as will best serve to give countenance to whatsoever they fancie to be, or please to call Reformation; and to whatsoever means they should use for the effecting of such Reforma∣tion, though it were by popular tumults, civil war, despising Go∣vernours, breaking Oaths, open Rebellion, or any other act how unjust soever and full of disloyal∣ty. Which made Learned Zan∣chy, observing in his time how A∣nabaptists and all sorts of Secta∣ries, that attempted to bring in any new and unheard of alterati∣on in Religion into the Churches of Christ, by any means though

never so seditious and unlawful, did yet justifie all their enterpri∣ses by this, that they were done in order to a more perfect Refor∣mation, to cry out, Ego non intelli∣go istam Reformatorum mundi ••••e∣logiam. Whether this observation be so sitly applyable to those times of King Edwards Reforma∣tion, as the two former considera∣tions were, I know not: I am sure it sitteth but too well to these evil times of ours, wherein the pretence of a Thorow-Refor∣mation serveth as a foile to set off the blackest crimes that ever the Christian world was guilty of.

XXII. Lastly, say there should be nothing amiss in any of the pre∣misses, but that the intentions were sincere, the proceedings moderate, and the means lawful: yet since

no wit of man is at the present able to foresee all the inconvenien∣ces that may ensue upon any great and suddain change of such Lawes and Customes as have been long and generally observed, till time and experience discover them; it may very well (and not seldome doth) come to pass, that the Re∣formation intended for the reme∣dying of some one abuse, or the preventing of some present appa∣rant inconvenience, may open a gap to let in some other abuses or inconveniences, which (though yet undiscerned) may in time prove to be more and greater, then those that were sought to be remedyed. Physicians tell us that all sudden changes in the body are dangerous: and it is no otherwise in the Church and State. Which is the ground

of that Maxime, well approved of all wise men, if rightly under∣stood, Malum benè positum non mo∣vendum: and of that other, so famous in the Ancient Councels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let the old Cu∣stomes be observed. And therefore Aristotle gravely censureth that Law made by Hippodamus the Mi∣lesian Law-giver, That whosoever should devise any new Law for the common good should be rewarded by the State, as a Law indeed foolish and pernicious, how specious and plausible soever it seemed at the first appearance: because (saith he) it would but encourage busie & active spirits to be alwayes inno∣vating some thing or other in the State, which might finally tend to the subversion of all ancient Lawes and Customes, and conse∣quently

of the whole Government it self. Now that the Reformation in King Edwards dayes, as to this particular in that Statute concern∣ed, was subject at least to this frailty, we may very probably gather (a posteriori) from this; that after it was once repealed, they that had to do in the Reforma∣tion ever since, thought it sit ra∣ther to let it lye under that repeal, then to revive it.

XXIII. There can be no doubt, but that to an objection made from the force of a Statute, it is a suffi∣cient answer (if it be true) to say that the said Statute hath been re∣pealed and so continueth. Yet the adversaries of Episcopacy are so pertinaciously bent to hold their Conclusion in despite of all Premis∣ses, that they seem to be nothing

satisfied there withal, but dividing the answer, turn the former part of it (viz. that of the Repeal) to their own advantage. For say they, that Repeal being made by Queen Mary, who was a professed Papist, and a Persecuter of the Pro∣testant Religion, was certainly an Act of hers done in favour of Po∣pery; and so is a strong confirma∣tion, that the form of proceeding formerly used by the Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts, prohibi∣ted by the Statute of King Edward, but restored by that her Repeal, was a popish practice, and more be∣sitting Papists then Protestants to use.

XXIV. To return a full an∣swer hereunto; first it shall be willingly granted, that Queen Ma∣ry, being a zealous Papist, did cause

that Statute made in the first of her Brothers Raign to be repealed out of pure zeal to the Romish Religion, and in favour of the Pope and of his Iurisdiction. Both bee use she conceived (which was true) that her late Brother being a Protestant had by that Statute prohibited the Bishops to do sundry things in their own names, of purpose thereby to lessen the Popes authority within his Realms: as also because their using of the Kings name in their Processes and Acts carried with it (as we formerly granted) a more express and evident acknowledg∣ment of the Kings Supremacy Ec∣clesiastical, then the contrary cu∣stome doth.

XXV But then secondly, this being granted, it will by no means follow either first, that the repeal of

that Statute is not to be valued by any Protestant; or that secondly the custome of the Bishops prohibited by the Statute and restored by the Act of Repeal was Popish; or thirdly, that our former answer was unsuffi∣cient: not the first, because we are not to look upon the Statute and upon the Act of Repeal, as they were made, the one by a Protestant the other by a Papist (for that were to judge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and with respect of persons;) but to consi∣der whether the reasons whereup∣on the Statute was grounded were in veritate rei such, as that it ought not to have been repealed either by Papist or Protestant. Which rea∣sons how they have been valued, appeareth upon the post-fact in this; that a Papist Princess by the principles of her Religion could do

no less then repeal that Statute, and a Protestant Princess without pre∣judice to the principles of her Re∣ligion might continue that Repeal.

XXVI. Not the second: be∣cause that very Statute of I. Ed∣ward the Sixth, by which it is or∣dained that all Summons, Citations and other Processes Ecclesiastical be made in the name and with the style of the King, doth it self sufficient∣ly absolve the contrary custome formerly used by the Bishops act∣ing in their own names, from be∣ing either Popish or otherwise de∣rogatory to the Kings Supremacy. Inasmuch as by Proviso's in the said Statute the Bishops are still per∣mitted in some cases to use their own names without any mention at all to be made of the King: as namely the Archbishop of Canterbu∣ry

to grant Faculties and Dispen∣sations; and every other Bishop to make Collations, Presentations, Institutions and Inductions of Bene∣fices, Letters of Orders and Di∣missories &c. under their own names and seals, as by the words of the said Statute doth plainly appear. Which sure would not have been permitted in any case, had the thing it self been by them conceived to have been simply and de toto genere either Popish or prejudicial to the Regal Power.

XXVII. Not the Third: be∣cause they disjoynt our former answer, that they might make their advantage of the one piece of it severed from the other. For the strength of the answer (it be∣ing copulative) was not to lye in either part alone, but in both toge∣ther

taken joyntly; and indeed more principally in the later part which they slightly put off, then in the former whereat they take advantage. We do not say that the objecting of that Statute is of little moment against us, because it was repealed by Queen Mary (though that repeal alone is suffi∣cient to make it void and invalid as to all effects in Law:) but be∣cause being then repealed it was never after revived in the Raigns either of Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, or his Majesty that now is: which sheweth that the Act of Repeal (as to the point now in dispute) was by them approved of, and intended to continue in force. And it will thence follow further and most clearly, that in the judgement of all these wise

and religious Princes, there was a great difference between the Pa∣pal and the Episcopal Iurisdiction, as they had been either of them exercised within these Realms: and that the Papal was prejudici∣al to the Regal Power and Supre∣macy, but the Episcopal was not.

XXVIII. Neither doth that suffice which is put in by way of Reply hereunto, to alledge that the continuance of the old custome (after the repeal made) happened either through inadvertency of the State, or by reason of the great po∣wer some or other of the Bishops ever had with those Princes. For it cannot be doubted but that the State, having before them a Pre∣cedent of so late and fresh memory as the Statute of 1. Edw. 6. would at some time or other within the

space of fourscore years (espe∣cially there being no want in those dayes of enough greedy Great-ones and factious Disciplina∣rians to remind them of it) have taken a time to frame and pass a Bill for the reviving of that Statute: if they had deemed the custome, therein forbidden, Popish or dero∣gatory either to the Kings honour or power, or had not rather found sufficient reason to perswade them that the said Statute was inconveni∣ent, or at leastwise useless. And as for the Bishops, they that un∣derstand the condition of those first times well know that (under God and his good providence) they stood in a manner by the immedi∣ate and sole favour of Queen Eli∣zabeth. The Papists on the one side hated them above all other

sorts of men, because of their Re∣ligion, and their abilities above all other men to defend it. On the other side the Puritanes who envied their power, and some great ones about the Court, who having tasted the sweet of Sacriledge in the times of the two last Kings, thirsted after the remainder of their Revenues, complyed either with other, for their several respe∣ctive ends, against the Bishops. Which being so, it had been the foolishest thing in the world for the Bishops, to have used that po∣wer or interest they had with the Queen (upon whose favour or dis∣pleasure their whole livelyhood depended) for the procuring of her consent to any Act to be done in favour of them, that malice it self could with any colourable

construction interpret either to savour of Popery, or to trench up∣on the Royal Supremacy: That Queen having both by her suffe∣rings before, and actions after she came to the Crown, sufficiently witnessed to the world her averse∣ness from Popery: and being with∣all a Princess of a great Spirit, and particularly jealous in the point of Prerogative.

XXIX. Whence I think we may (with good reason) conclude, that the ancient custome of the Bi∣shops in making Summons, &c. in their own names, after it was by the Act of Repeal 1. Mar. restored, was continued by Queen Elizabeth and her successours ever since without interruption, or reviving of the Statute of King Edward: neither out of any inadvertency in

the State, nor through any impor∣tune or indirect labouring of the Bi∣shops, as by the Objectors is weakly presumed; but advisedly and up∣on important considerations, viz. that the devising of such a new way, as is set forth and appointed in the said Statute, was not only a needless thing, (and Laws should not be either made, or altered, but where it is needful so to do,) but subject also to manifest both in∣convenience, and Scandal.

XXX. That it was altogether needless to change the old Custome may appear by this, that all the imaginable necessity or utility of such a change could be onely this: To secure the King by using his Name in their Processes &c. (as a real acknowledgement that their Iu∣risdiction is derived from him and

no other.) that the Bishops had no intention in the exercise of their Episcopal power to usurp upon his Ecclesiastical Supremacy. Which Supremacy of the King, and Su∣periority of his Jurisdiction & Au∣thority over that which the Bi∣shops exercised, being already by so many other wayes and means sufficiently secured; it could argue nothing but an impertinent jealou∣sie, to endeavour to strengthen that security by an addition of so poor and inconsiderable regard.

XXXI. The Kings of England are secured against all danger that may accrue to their Regal power from Episcopal Iurisdiction as it hath been anciently and of later times exercised in this Realm: First by the extent of their Power over the persons, and livelihoods

of the Bishops, and over the whole State Ecclesiastical, as in the anci∣ent right of the Crown, which how great it was, may appear by these three particulars.

XXXII. First, the Collation and Donation of Bishopricks toge∣ther with the nomination of the per∣sons to be made Bishops, in case they did by their Writ of Conge d'eslier per∣mit the formality of E∣lection to others,* 1.1 did alwayes be∣long to the Kings of this Realm, both before and since the Conquest, as in right of their Crown. Our learned Lawyers assure us,* 1.2 that all the Bishop∣ricks of this Realm are of the Kings foundation: that they were originally donative, and not elective: and that the full right

of Investiture was in the King, who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi & annuli, by the delivery of a ring and a Crosi∣er-staff to the person by him ele∣cted and nominated for that office. The Popes indeed often assayed to make them elective, either by the Dean and Canons of the Ca∣thedral, or by the Monkes of some principal Abbey adjoyning: but the Kings still withstood it, and maintained their right as far as they could or durst. Insomuch as King Henry the First being earnest∣ly sollicited by the Pope to grant the election of Bishops to the Cler∣gy, constanter allegavit (saith the story) and verbis minacibus, he stoutly and with threats refused so to do, saying he would not for the loss of his Kingdome lose the

right of those Investitures. It is true that King Iohn, a Prince nei∣ther fortunate nor couragious, be∣ing overpowred by the Popes, did by Charter in the Seventeenth year of his Raign grant that the Bishop∣ricks of England should be eligi∣ble. But this notwithstanding in the Raign of King Edward the Third, it was in open Parliament declared and enacted, that to the King and his heirs did belong the collation of Archbishopricks, &c. and all other dignities that are of his Advowson; and that the elections granted by the Kings his progeni∣tors were under a certain form and condition, viz. that they should ask leave of the King to e∣lect, and that after the election made they should obtain the Kings consent thereunto; and not other∣wise.

XXXIII. Secondly, the King hath power, if he shall see cause, to suspend any Bishop from the ex∣ecution of his Office for so long time as he shall think good: yea, and to deprive him utterly of the dig∣nity and office of a Bishop, if he deserve it. Which power was de facto exercised both by Queen Ma∣ry and Queen Elizabeth in the be∣ginning of their several Raigns upon such Bishops as would not conform to their Religion.

XXXIV. Thirdly, the Kings of England have a great power over the Bishops in respect of their Temporalties, which they hold immediately of the King per Baro∣niam; and which every Bishop Elect is to sue out of the Kings hands (wherein they remained after the decease of the former Bishop du∣ring

the Vacancy,) and thence to take his only restitution into the same, making Oath and fealty to the King for the same upon his Consecration. Yea, and after such restitution of Temporalties and Con∣secration, the King hath power to seize the same again into his own hands, if he see just cause so to do. Which the Kings of England in former times did so frequently practice upon any light displea∣sure conceived against the Bishops; that it was presented as a grie∣vance by the Arch-bishop of Canter∣bury and the other Prelates by way of request to King Edw. 3. in Parliament,* 1.3 and thereupon a Statute was made the same Parliament, that thenceforth no Bishops Temporal∣ties should be seized by the King

without good cause. I finde ci∣ted by Sir Edward Coke out of the Parliament Rolls 18. H. 3. a Re∣cord, wherein the King straightly chargeth the Bishops not to inter∣meddle in any thing to the prejudice of his Crown; threatning them with seisure of their Temporalties if they should so do. The words are, Mandatum est omnibus Episco∣pis quae conventuri sunt apud Glou∣cestr' (the King having before summoned them by writ to a Par∣liament to be holden at Gloucester) firmiter inhibendo, quod sicut Baro∣nias suas quas de Rege tenent dili∣gunt, nullo modo praesumant concilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam pertinent, vel quae personam Regis vel Statum suum, vel Statum conci∣lii sui contingunt; scituri pro certo quod si fecerint, Rex inde capiet se

ad Baronias suas, &c. By which Record, together with other the premisses, it may appear, that the Kings by their Ancient right of Prerogative had sundry wayes po∣wer over the Bishops whereby to keep them in obedience, and to se∣cure their Supremacy from all peril of being prejudiced by the exer∣cise of Episcopal Iurisdiction.

XXXV. Yet in order to the utter abolishing of the Papal usurpations and of all pretended forraign power whatsoever in mat∣ters Ecclesiastical within these Realms, divers Statutes have been made in the Raign of King Henry the Eighth and since for the further declaring and confirming of the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastical. Wherein the acknowledgement of that Supremacy is either so expresly

contained, or so abundantly pro∣vided for; as that there can be no fear it should suffer for lack of fur∣ther acknowledgement to be made by the Bishops in the style of their Courts. Amongst other, First, by Statute made 25. H. 8. 19. up∣on the submission and petition of the Clergy it was enacted, that no Canons or Constitutions should be made by the Clergy in their Convo∣cation without the Kings licence first had in that behalfe, and his royal assent after: and likewise that no Canon &c. should be put in execution within the Realm that should be contrariant or re∣pugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal, or the Customes, Lawes, or Statutes of the Realm. Then Se∣condly, by the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. all such Ecclesiastical Iuris∣dictions,

Priviledges, Superiorities and Pre-eminences, as had been ex∣ercised or used, or might be lawful∣ly exercised or used by any Ecclesia∣stical power or authority was (decla∣red to be) for ever united and an∣nexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And Thirdly, it was also in the same Statute provided, that the Oath of Supremacy (wherein there is contained as full an ac∣knowledgement of the Kings Ec∣clesiastical Suprenacy as the wit of man can devise) should be taken by every Archbishop and Bishop &c. which hath been ever since duely and accordingly per∣formed.

XXXVI. Lastly from receiv∣ing any prejudice by the Bishops and their Iurisdiction, the Regal power is yet farther secured, by

the subordination of the Ecclesi∣astical Laws and Courts to the Common Law of England, and to the Kings own immediate Courts. For although the Ecclesiastical Laws be allowed by the Laws of this Realm, and the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts be by the way of the Civil and not of the Common Law: yet are those Laws and proceedings allowed with this limitation and conditi∣on, that nothing be done against the Common Law whereof the Kings prerogative is a principal part) nor against the Statutes and Customes of the Realm. And therefore the Law alloweth Ap∣peales to be made from the Eccle∣siastical Courts to the King in Chan∣cery: and in sundry cases, where a cause dependeth before a Spi∣ritual

Iudge, the Kings prohibiti∣on lyeth to remove it into one of his Temporal Courts.

XXXVII. Having so many several ties upon the Bishops to secure themselves and their Regal authority from all danger that might arise from the abuse of the Ecclesiastical Power and Iuris∣diction exercised by the Bishops in their Courts (by the ancient pre∣rogative of their Crown, by the provisions of so many Statutes and Oaths, by the remedy of the Common Law:) the Kings of Eng∣land had no cause to be so need∣lesly cautelous as to be afraid of a meere formality, the Style of a Court. Especially considering the importance of the two Reasons ex∣pressed in the Statute of King Ed∣ward, as the onely grounds of alter∣ing

that Style, not to be such as would countervaile the Incon∣venience and Scandal that might ensue thereupon.

XXXVIII. For whereas it was then thought convenient, to change the Style used in the Eccle∣siastical Courts, because it was contrary to the form used in the Common-Law-Courts within this Realm, (which is one of the Rea∣sons in the said Statute expressed:) it might very well upon further consideration be afterwards thought more convenient for the like reason to retain the accustom∣ed Style, because otherwise the forme of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be contrary to the form of other Civil-Law-Courts within the Realm (as the Admiralty, and Earle-Marshals Court,) and of o∣ther

Courts of the Kings grant made unto Corporations; with either of which, the Ecclesiastical Courts had a nearer affinity, then with the Kings Courts of Record, or other his own immediate Courts of Common Law. Nor doth there yet appear any va∣luable reason of difference, why Inconformity to the Common Law-Courts should be thought a suffi∣cient ground for the altering of the forms used in the Ecclesia∣stical Courts; and yet the like forms used in the Admiralty, in the Earle-Marshals Court, in Courts Baron, in Corporation-Courts &c. should (notwith∣standing the same inconformity) continue as they had been former∣ly accustomed without alteration.

XXXIX. If any shall alledge as some reason of such difference,

the other Reason given in the said Statute; viz. that the form and manner used by the Bishops was such as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome: besides that therein is no diffe∣rence at all, (for the like forms in those other aforesaid Courts were also in use in the same time;) there is further given thereby great occasion of Scandal to those of the Church of Rome. And that two wayes: First, as it is made a Reason at all; and Se∣condly, as it is applyed to the par∣ticular now in hand. First, where∣as the Papists unjustly charge the Protestant Churches with Schism for departing from their Communi∣on: it could not but be a great Scandal to them, to confirm them in that their uncharitable opini∣on

of us, if we should utterly condemn any thing as unlawful, or but even forbid the use of it as inexpedient, upon this onely grouud or consideration, that the same had been used in the times of Po∣pery, or that it had been abused by the Papists. And truly the Puri∣tanes have by this very means gi∣ven a wonderful Scandal and ad∣vantage to our Adversaries, which they ought to acknowledge and repent of: when transported with an indiscreet zeal they have cryed down sundry harmeless Ce∣remonies and customes as superstiti∣ous and Antichristian, onely for this that Papists use them. Where∣as godly and regular Protestants think it agreeable to Christian li∣berty, charity and prudence, that in appointing Ceremonies, retaining

ancient Customes, and the use of all other indifferent things such course be held, as that their moderation might be known to all men; and that it might appear to their very Adversaries, that wherein they did receed from them or any thing practised by them, they were not thereunto carried by a Spirit of contradiction, but either cast upon it by some necessity of the times, or induced for just reasons of expedi∣ency so to do.

XL. But then Secondly, as that Reason relateth to the present business in particular, the Scan∣dal thereby given is yet greater. For we are to know, that when King Henry the Eighth abolished the Papal Power, resuming in his own hand the ancient rights of the Crown, which the Bishops of Rome had unjustly usurped: he took

upon himselfe also that title which he then found used by the Bishops of Rome, but which none of his Progenitors the Kings of this Realm had ever used, of being the Supream head of the Church within his Dominions. This title continued during the Reign of his son King Edward the Sixth, by whom the Statute aforesaid was made, and is mentioned in that very Statute. Now albeit by that title or appellation was not intend∣ed any other thing, then that Supremacy Ecclesiastical which the Kings of this Land have, and of right ought to have, in the gover∣nance of their Realms over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasti∣cal as well as other, and which is in the Oath of Supremacy ackow∣ledged to belong unto them: yet the Papists took Scandal at the

novelty thereof, and glad of such an occasion made their advantage of it, to bring a reproach upon our Religion; as if the Protestants of England were of opinion, that all Spiritual Power did belong un∣to the King, and that the Bishops and Ministers of England had their whole power of Preaching, administring the Sacraments, Or∣daining, Excommunicating, &c. solely and originally from the King, as the members of the body live by the influence which the Head hath into them. Upon their clamours, that title of Su∣pream head and governour was taken into farther consideration in the beginning of Queen Eliza∣beths Raign. And although that style in the true meaning thereof was innocent and defensible enough: yet for the avoiding of Scandal

and Cavil, it was judged more ex∣pedient that the word Head should thenceforth be laid aside, and the style run only Supream Governour; as we see it is in the Oath of Supremacy and other∣where ever since, without men∣tioning the word Head; accord∣ing to the intimations given in the Queens Injunctions and elswhere in that behalfe. And it seemeth to me very probable, that for the same reason especially (besides those other reasons already given) it was thought fitter by Her then, and by her successours hitherto; that the Bishops in all their Eccle∣siastical Courts and proceedings should act in their own names as formerly they had done, then that the Statute of King Edward should be revived, for doing it in the Kings name. For the sending

out processes &c. in order to Ex∣communication and other Church-censures in the Kings name, would have served marvellously to give colour, (and consequently strength, in the apprehension at least of weaker judgements) to that ca∣lumny wherewith the Papists usu∣ally asperse our Religion, as if the Kings of England took them∣selves to be proper and compe∣tent Iudges of Censures meerly spiritual in their own persons, and the Prelates accordingly did ac∣knowledge them so to be.

Thus have I shewen to the sa∣tisfaction (I hope) of the inge∣nuous and unprejudiced Reader, that Episcopacy is no such dange∣rous creature either in the Opini∣on or Practice, as some would make the world believe it is: but that the Kings Crown may stand fast e∣nough

upon his head, and flourish in its full verdure, without pluck∣ing away or displacing the least flower in it, notwithstanding E∣piscopacy should be allowed to be of Divine Right in the highest sence, and the Bishops still permit∣ted to make their Processes in their own names and not in the Kings. By this time I doubt not, all that are not willfully blind (for who so blind, as he that will not see?) do see and understand by sad experience, that it had been far better both with King and Kingdome then now it is, or (without Gods extraordinary mercy) is like to be in haste: if the enemies of Episcopacy had meant no worse to the King and his Crown, then the Bishops and those that favoured them did.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See Stat. 25. H. 8. 20; 1. Edw. 6. 2.
• * 1.2

  Cok. 1. Instit. 2. Sect. 648.
• * 1.3

  Stat. for the Clergy 14. ••. 3. cap. 3.