answer is that the very obteyning receyving of such a licence is unlavvfull because it is a reall acknovvledgement that such a Byshop hath a lavvfull povver to grant it Which is neyther so nor so for 1. The asking receyving of leave or licence which are both one doeth not allways implie an acknowledgement of his lawful authoritie from whome it is sought If any man of violence shall usurpe a power to him self of permitting or hindering the lawful good offices that pertaine unto honest men so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell or teach any science or trade of life if an honest man whome these duties concerne should in that case take a licence from that usurper though hee were no better then a strong theif no reasonable man will say that in so doeing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful The rulers of Iewish synagoges had no lawfull power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministerie neyther would Paul ever acknowledge so much yet hee Barnabas accepted of such licence or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authoritie See an example act 13.15 Mr. R. him self hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochiall assemblie which leave must bee given by the parochiall minister churchwardens whose authoritie hee holdeth one with the Bishops If therfore leave or licence whether in word or writing that is all one may be lawfully taken from them without acknowledging any authoritie lawfull which is unlawfull why not from the Byshop 2. There is some authoritie in the Bishops derived from the king which may bee acknowledged lawfull Such is this of giving licence libertie civill authoritie for men to doe good The civill magistrat may doe it him self or appoint others to doe it 2 chro 17.7 The abuse of this authoritie doeth not make it unlawfull But Iohn Claydon sayth Mr. R. a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded vvhen he vvitnessed that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author for hee could neyther write nor read 2. Whosoever was the author the meaning was that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops the persons that usually obteyned their approbation licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome though those conditions beeing removed ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found For concerning the Byshops licence hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop Sir as touching your letters of licence or other Byshops vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach vvee knovv vvel that neyther yovv sir nor any other Byshop of this land vvill grant to us any such letters of licence but if vvee should oblige us to yovv to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes not to passe the bounds termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us And since in this matter your termes bee some too large some too strait vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit as yovv doe to friers such other preachers 3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimonie in such a sense as Mr. R. wil haue it understood in yet the generall consent of almost if not absolutely al the other martyrs beeing otherwise as is wel knowen to such as have read their stories this one of it self could work no great praejudice This for the answer directly applied unto the demand Vnto the comparative reason annexed that a man may ask leaue of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions he opposeth 2 things 1. A difference betwixt leave licence that to ask leaue is to desire one not to hinder him but to obteine a licence of the Byshop is to obteine publique authoritie of the publique officer according to the publique lavves of the church to exercise a publique ministerie 2. That the great Turk is a lavvfull civill magistrat vvith vvhose civill authoritie it is lavvfull to partake But so is not the Byshop a lavvfull ecclesiasticall officer vvith vvhose spirituall iurisdiction gods servants may communicate In all which ther is not one sound sentence For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave licence my meaning was that it was lawfull to obteine a licence of the Turk for to preach the gospell in his Dominions 2. Leave from one that is in authoritie so as he that hath it shal be hindered of none subject unto that authoritie is a licēce with authoritie So that the difference betwixt leave licence insinuated by him must consist onely in the great sound of the word publique so oftē repeated in vaine publique authoritie publique officer publique lavves publique ministerie Which how idle it is hath formerly been shewed 3. He that hath a Byshops licence orders too hath no such authoritie actuall conferred upon him therby but that hee may bee hindered many ways even by those that are subiect unto the Byshop from ever exercising that wherto he hath licence so that in this respect ther seemeth not so much as full perfect leave to bee conteyned in a Byshops licence 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrat it would trouble Mr. R. to prove 5. The Byshop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes which may lawfully bee communicated with 6. And lastly though all this were so as Mr. R. sayth that it were unlawfull for to seek or take such a licence of a Byshop yet it doeth not follow but it might be lawfull to communicat with him that hath taken it especially seeing it was lawful before and the man doeth hath all good that he did or had before onely with this difference that he doeth that with licence of the Byshop which he did before with his connivence So that this demand remaineth unanswered which was not made of the getting of licence but of communicating with him that had gotten one Which communion can be no more unlawfull then that which schollers haue with a schoolmaister who hath takē a Bishops licēce according as many are urged to doe from the same Bishop or that which subiects haue had with their lawfull king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that forme of admission which is called
spirituall usurpation like myrie clay The. 4. Argument is vaynly built upon a supposition which formerly was proved false viz that all the civil iurisdiction which prelats haue cōsisteth in their being privy councellers high commissioners or iustices of the peace This therfor needeth no further answer Onely let it be observed that Mr. R. in defending of the separation as well as I in opposing it doeth iustifie some part of the authoritie which Byshops exercise in England professing communion vvith it and submission unto it The onely quaestion is how much of their authoritie is such Let preiudiciall insinuations groundlesse imputations therfore be layd aside and that quaestion onely discussed The last argument is raised from a forme of words used by the-Byshops in that they proceed in the name of God not in the kings name as all civile proceedings doe Wherunto I answer 1. That a sound convincing argument cannot be brought from words of forme office If they should change their stile begin their actiōs in the king name I doubt whether Mr. R. would allow of that as any strong reason for their civill authoritie 2. Many actions are performed with the same words of forme as all wills or testaments c which yet are no spiritual but civil deedes So Henrie the fourth king of England began his clayme to the crowne In the name of God amen I Henrie of Lanc. c as it is in Mr. Foxe p. 474. Yet was not any other then a civil claime 3 I affirme thatit is an abuse against lawe that Byshops in their acts of iurisdiction doe not use the kings name and therfore howsoever that the formal words be wanting yet the thing it self is to bee understood viz as Sr Ed. Cooke hath written that howsoever the forme runneth in the Byshops name yet the authoritie is no other but the kings This I will shew by an instance most pregnant Byshop Farrar in king Edwards days being troubled vexed by evil Willershad amōgest other these 2 articles obiected agaynst him as deserving deprivation 1. that he appoynted his Chancelour by his letters of commission omitting the kings maiesties stile authoritie c. 5. Item he hath commonly made his collations iustitutions as he did his first commission in his ovvne name authoritie vvithout expressing the kings supremacie To the first the Byshops answer was that what formalities soever be wanting in his commission yet the kings maiesties stile authoritie was fully set forth in the same commission Neyther did the sayd chancelour offer to visit but in the kings name authoritie to the sayd Bishop committed To the fifth he sayth that the sayd defendāt made his collations institutions in his owne name not by his ovvne āuthoritie nor by any others fave onely the kings authoritie according as he hath declared in his first article expressing in them the kings supremacie with the Byshops owne name seale of office as he ought to doe according to the prouision of the kings statute in such a case See Mr. Foxe p. 1405.1406 In which one plea we haue the authoritie of statute the sentence of lawyers iudges with the confession practise of prelats themselves for the kings name authoritie to give life unto their proceedings Heere it must be observed that this accusation answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediatly on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherin it was enacted that the Byshop should make their proces vvritinges in the kings name and that theyr seales should be the kings armes Which act was but an appendix declaring adding forme to that statute of supremacie made in Henry 8 his dayes wherby ecclesiasticall iurisdiction was annexed to the crowne so as all Byshops were to fech it from thence Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queere Maries time and not since revived yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henrie 8. to be such as hath been sayd which statute is now in force Howsoever the Byshops haue undoubtedly the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therfore they were thē civil officers proceeding by the kings authoritie they are also now such viz of civil nature for their state deriving their iurisdiction frō the king though they proceed not in his name so formaly as in king Edwards days they did now in reason they should THus much for that obiection touching spiritual subiection Concerning which I found nothing further directly perteyning unto the purpose except one passage which I found p. 30. Where these words are they vvho thus disclaym in vvord the Byshops governement confesse themselves therin to be under no spirituall externall government at all so be lavvles persons inordinate vvalkers c. This because it sounded as a dangerous deepe charge ensuing upon that former defense which was made that good ministers are no branches of the prelacie nor necessarily dependent on them as spiritual officers I thought it needfull to give answer unto it My answer therfore did consist in these 3 branches 1. That ther was no such want of spirituall governement in the ministers which governe themselves well as could be a iust barrt against all communion with them seeing privat men living in the same want may well be communicated with 2 That they are subiect unto some spirituall governement And 3. That for that want of government which they are in they are no more lawlesse walkers or inordinate walkers then Mr. R. himself is whoe is not subiect to any other spirituall government then they are except he will say that the people governe him which he counteth to be a reproche Now let us hear what replie he maketh 1. He pleadeth that he did not infer this exception upon the former ground But let that passage of his book be wayed p. 29.30 And it will be found that against his allegation of the parochiall ministers being a branch of the prelacie this was one defense that they are not subiect to their government wherupon this inference followeth that then they are inordinate vvalkers lavvles persons Which is the very same order of inference that I observed 2. He sayth it vvas not alledged to prove communion unlavvfull vvith them but as a reproof c. But seeing the main reason was for unlawfulnesse of communion because of their branching out of prelacie and the allegation nothing but an establishing of that reason by removall of one principall defense supposed to be brought for it it must of necessitie tend unto the same ende of barring from all communion And in deed if it were not a slander it were none of the weakest arguments which he hath alledged 3. He affirmeth the 1. and 2. Ansvver to be beside the purpose because they speak onely of personall or civill or else a more generall kind of government then he intended vvhoe spake onely of outvvard guidance and
A SECOND MANVDVCTION For M r. ROBINSON Or a confirmation of the former in an ansvver to his manumission ANNO DOMINI M. D C. XV. A Second Manuduction For M r. ROBINSON Or a confirmation of the former in an ansvver to his manumission IT is not much to bee merveiled at if one assay praevaileth not with him for publick communion whoe was so hardly drawen unto privat by many long strivings Wee may rather hope that in time he wil bee brought to see reasō for that as wel as for this The successe beeing left unto God I thinck it a Christian part to stretch out a litle strengthen that hand which before was lent him for a manuduction First then must bee marked how farr M. R. is come already and then the points that hee stayeth at with the grounds of that his stay He granteth If a man remayning a member in some parish of England intending the ministerie competently qualified therto having approbation of godly learned men shall vvithout any further calling for a time performe the actions of prayer prophefijing by leave in a publick assembly there that it is lavvfull to communicate vvith him in that vvork And moreover that if the same man shall continue in that course for some yeares not having any further vvarant but the seal vvhich God setteth to his labour in the fruight of it the consent of those people vvhich repaire unto him for instruction it is lavvfull still to have communion vvith him All this he acknowledgeth though not in so plaine a māner as ingenuous dealing requireth in calling of it privat This grant of M. R. is of no small moment in the consequence of it For by vertue therof those of his minde may bee present at many sermons in England upon occasion not onely to the spiritual comfort aedification of their soules but also to the avoyding of much danger damage in their outward estate For of this kinde are a multitude of religious exercises ordinarilie performed by students in the colledges of both the universities whoe are wonte in their colledge chappels to make trial of their giftes though they be not ordeyned ministers not onely there but in such assemblies of the countrie as they haue oportunitie Some also haue been knowen to continue long even for 20 yeeres together in preaching by no other warrant then this as by name M. Flood of Northampton M. Marburie By the same reason it will follow also as by by wee shall see that communion may bee had in the like actions of those which have further authoritie for this communion is of publick nature a church action so for substance of one reason with the other That this doeth follow upon the former grant if so bee that such exercises of religion bee publick actions M. R. doeth well understand therfore to avoyd that which he is loth to acknowledge he denieth such actions to bee of publick nature To this purpose he insinuateth 2 reasons 1. Becaus a privat action may bee performed in a publick place as a publick may in a privat and 2 because no action is publick that is not performed by publick calling or authoritie The former of which I willingly grant and therfore made no such mention of the place as if it were of it self sufficient to make these exercises publick The second I doe flatly denie until I see that reason which as he sayth without any further proofe doeth of it self teach it For this purpose he willeth the reader to see Mr. Perkins in treatise of christian equity where nothing is to be found that perteyneth unto this purpose For there Mr. P. speaketh onely of such publick actiōs as are usually called actions of lavv wherin publick justice is quaestioned the mitigation wherof perteyneth unto that christian equitie which there is handled such as execution of penall statutes suing of bondes taking forfeitures fines are If he would know Mr. Perkins his judgement about this point let him see to the purpose his treatise of divine or religious worship the thing that now is in hand where he shall find this description church service is that vvhich is performed publickly in the congregation of the people of God But leaving his testimonie let us search a litle after that reason which Maister Robinson telleth us will teach us what actions are publick Publick is as much as peoplelick because that which is not restreined unto one or a few but extended as commune to a people eyther civill or ecclesiasticall that is peoplelick or publick Thus some actions doen first in privat and after extending to the knowledge of the people become therby publick scandals though the actors of them haue no publick calling or authoritie for doeing of them Much more are those actions to bee esteemed publick which are performed in a publick place extending to the praesent knowledge or use of the people so intēded whether they bee good or evil in which respect no mā cā denie the prophecies of Zedekiach other his fellowes 2 Crō 18. to have beē as publick as that of Michaia though hee onely not they had lawfull calling or authoritie for that action Those exercises of religion which are ordinarily used in the seperat assemblies called prophecijngs wherein prayers are offered up in the name of all the people the word interpreted unto all they are I think esteemed publick by them selves sure I am they are so however they bee esteemed yet the actors in those businesses have no special set calling or authoritie for that they doe In the time of VVickliffe when many that receyved light of truth from him did upon al occasions publish the same unto others eyther in churches or churchyards or else in markets faires such like open assemblies though they did it without licence of the ordinaries or other sufficient authoritie of that kinde yet they are sayd to preach publikely It is the phraze of king Richards letters against them as is to bee seene in M. foxe p. 406. Like phraze is used in like case by all that write or speake therof So that both by reason custome all good rule of speech it is manifest that these exercises of religion which M. R. granteth lawfull are publick actions and so that not onely privat but also publick communion is by his owne confession lawfull in the parish assemblies of England THus farr then wee haue Mr. R. consenting Now at the third demād hee maketh a stād but with such oppositiō as will not stand The demand was of the same mā whoe formerly did lawfully preach in a publick assemblie if hee should obteyne a licence from the L. Byshop of the diocesse without any unlawfull condition for to continue in that his course whether that leave or licence given doeth pollute the actions seeing a man may ask leave of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions His