deriving spirituall authority from them And because Popeish kings have given theyr power to the beast shall Christian kings therefore take the beasts power vnto them which they should surely do in makeing themselves the spring-heades from whence floweth the power of makeing ministers excommunicateing offenders which the Prelates vse in theyr Provinces Diocesses And albeit for want of the bookes I cannot exactly set down the judgment of the lawes in this case yet may I safely affirm that they no where derive from the kings civile authority the power of these spirituall administrations but do onely make the king the establisher vphoulder civily of this power The same ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which had been in vse in popery a great part of the popish Hierarchy was confirmed Eliz pri so continueth at this day in vayn men apply theyr industry arâ— in the washing of this blackmore Neyther yet doth it follow though the lawes of the land did esteem this Iurisdiction civile that therefore it were such indeed They may and do misesteem many things especially of this kynde They esteem the Crosse Surplice c. indifferent yea comely â—dificative ceremonyes are they therefore such or so esteemed by this authour So for those corrupt vsurpations abuses which he affirmeth to be mingled with the Byshops so seeming vnto him civile power do not the lawes of the land esteem even them also lawfull laudable ordinances orders The Arguments therefore from the lawes esteem to the nature of the thing is of no force Now that the prelates Iurisdiction in theyr Prov Dioc is not civile but ecclesiasticall a spiritual externall power appeareth playnly by these Reasons First where he makes it civile because it is coactive or bodily enforceing I conclude on the contrary that because it is not so coactive therefore it is not civile The furthest the Byshops can go as Byshops is to excommunicate a man or to pronounce him an heretique which done they may deliver him to the secular power or procure a civile coactive processe agaynst him from the L Chauncelour in certayn cases 2 dly Where he affirmeth that the king might perform the works of theyr jurisdiction by other civile officers there neyther can be stronger nor need be other Arguments to prove the contrary then the very consideration of the nature of those theyr workes which are for substance the makeing of ministers excommunicateing of offenders with theyr contraryes appâ—rtenances which to call civile workes what is it but to make a civile religion 3 dly Let theyr consecration to theyr byshopricks be looked into and there wil be found in them no word or sillable insinuateing any civile authority but onely that which is spirituall for the feeding of the flock doeing the work wherevnto the H Ghost hath called them such scriptures also being therevnto applyed as conteyn in them onely the callings offices workes of the ministers of the Church 4 ly Theyr civile authority whether that which is peculiar to some of them as to be of the pryvy councell or high commission or that which is more ordinary coÌ„mon to all as to be Iusticers of peace in the countryes where they live is but one the same conveyed by one and the same ioynt calling commission with that of other counsaylers commissioners Iusticers therefore is nothing at all to that iurisdiction by which they ordeyn ministers and excommunicate offenders which the foresayd civile magistrates neyther have nor can have power to practise though by theyr civile power they do and may civilely restreyn men vnder peyn of bodily punishmeÌ„t Ad vnto this also that the Byshops may do excercise all every part of theyr episcopall authority where they have not the least civile authority viz in the cittyes and corporations within theyr Provinces and Diocesses as for example the Bishop of Norwich in the city of Norwich where his civile authority is no more then myne Lastly whereas all civile proceedings are made in the name of the king they on the contrary side proceed In the name of God though too oft verifying the old saying In nomine Dei incipit omne malum And by these reasons that which I did not suspect that any would have denyed is confirmed to wit that the Prelates power in theyr Provinces and Diocesses is not civile but a kynde of externall spirituall power which I have also in my former book proved Antichristian as vsurpeing vppon Christes royal prerogatives subverting the order of true Christian government su allowing vp as with full mouth both the peoples liberty and Elders government wherewtih Christ the Lord hath invested the true Church He proceedeth But if this be so then sayth Mr Rob those ministers are vnder no spirituall government and so be lawlesse persons and inordinate walkers c. His answers are 1. that they so govern themselves as that no honest man hath cause to abhor from theyr communion 2 that they are subiect to civile government even in spirituall actions in the larger acception of the word to externall regiment merely spirituall 3. that they are no more lawles persons then I my self was when I had no elder ioyned with me or am now with myne one Elder since I exclude the people from all government In these answers he neyther dealeth with me nor the cause of the Lord as is meet For first I do not in my book inter this exception vppon the former ground as he sets it down for his advantage as will appear in the examination of the 3. answer 2. I do not alledg it to prove communion vnlawfull with them as he insinuates but to reprove that vppon theyr own plea theyr Church-state standing as such as wherein they neyther do nor can enioy the spirituall externall government of Christ in his Church so neyther have that conscience which is meet of the commaundements of Christ by his Apostles to give due honour to them who rule well to submit themselves to those who are over them in the Lord nor of theyr own frayltyes in what need they stand of the Lords ordinances of this in speciall for theyr guidance conservation in his wayes And though he passe by this reproof not myne but the H Ghostes turning it off another way yet let the godly Reader with good conscience remember that the disciples of Christ are to observ whatsoever he hath commaunded his Apostles withall that it was the Prophets comfort that he should not be confounded when he had respect to all Gods cammaundemeÌ„ts 3. In his 1. 2. answer he speakes not at all to the purpose in hand our question not being about the personall government which a man hath over himself nor about civile government though in spirituall actions nor about government at all in the larger acceptation of the word ut onely as it is taken
him not to hinder him For to obteyn licence of the Bishop is to obteyn publique authority of the publique officer and according to the publique lawes of the church to excercise a publique ministery 2. The great Turk is a lawfull civill Magistrate in his Dominions with whose civill authority it is lawfull to partake but so is not the Byshop a lawfull Ecclesiasticall officer in his Province or Diocesse with whose spirituall jurisdiction Gods servants may communicate And is this to lead men by the hand to take for graunted the mayn question in controversy to wit that the Bishops jurisdiction in their Provinces Diocesses is lawfull which I have also by sundry arguments proved vnlawfull antichristian Surely they who suffer themselves thus to be led must be as destitute of spirituall sight as was Saul of bodily when men led him by the hand to Damascut Theyr authority then being proved so confessed by this myne opposite els where antichristian so consequently one of the sinns of Babylon whether excercised by themselves or by others eyther Officials in the CoÌ„sistories or ministers in the Parochiall churches may not by Gods people be partaken with no not in actions though otherwise lawfull under the peyn of Babylons plagues And this answer also serveth to the 4 th demaund or Supposition of this persons takeing besydes his licence the form of admission called orders of the Diocesan And so that which I bring pag 15. Arg 2. of my book is here misapplyed I there speak of lawfull actions performed merely by the personall grace of fayth the Spirit in a godly man though of infirmity remayning in an estate standing otherwise culpable but here of actioÌ„s though in themselves lawfull yet performed immediately by vertue or vice rather of that very vnlawfull state standing Suppose after this that being desyred so chosen by some assembly wherein there are many fearing God apparently he taketh a Pastorall charge of them haveing the Bishops Patrons admission but cheifly professedly grounding his calling vpon the peoples choyse that he do nothing but the same he did before besydes the administration of the Sacraments to such as are in charity discretion to be esteemed worthy what hindreth from communion here Indeed if men may take liberty in disputeing first to suppose what themselves have a mynde vnto and after to suppose that others are also of the same mynde with them and yet have litle reason eyther for the one or other they may then easily conclude theyr purposes But .1 I deny that an assembly gathered consisting of many fearing God many which must also be supplied without the fear of God is a lawfull Church-assembly haveing a right in communion or common right to call enjoy a pastour his pastorall administrations 2. I deny that any doth or can truely take a pastorall charge in the parrish assemblyes It belongs to the pastours charge not onely to teach minister the sacraments but also that as a mayn parte or duety thereof to govern and rule the flock which no parochiall minister doth oâ— can take vpon him 3. The Church of England doth acknowledge no such calling as is cheifly grounded vpon the peoples choyce but onely that which is grounded vppon the Bishops ordination at the first and to the ministery at large and determinately eyther uppon the Bishops license or vppon the patrons presentation Bishops institution and Arch-deacons induction confirmed by the publique lawes of the same Church both ecclesiasticall civill According to which publique lawes and orders especially submission vnto them being publiquely professed and given as is by the minister here deciphered we are to judge of the publique ministery of the Church not according to the private intendiments and vnderhand professions of particular persons And let God all reasonable men judge between me myne opposite whether a man goeing to the publique governers of a Church desyreing of them a publique office or publique orders so receaving them according to the publique lawes of the same Church therewith authority to preach the word so preaching publiquely in the same Church whether I say such a man be not to be esteemed as called to that work by these governers so by coÌ„sequence whither al men pertakeing with him in that work of preaching for which he was so sent do nor partake therin withall what in them lyeth in the authority of the sender And for such a man except he have publiquely renounced his former calling to pretend in secret vnto his freinds whom he dare trust who he thinks will agayn trust beleeve him eyther that he preacheth not by that calling or by an other principally is but to put on a cloak of shame to walk in craftines more like in truth to a disguized familist then a minister of Iesus Christ. And if any ministery grounded as this man supposeth be to be found in any of the assemblyes I deny the â—ame to be the ministery of the Church of EnglaÌ„d about which our question is And howsoever men do build much vppon the peoples acceptance of and submission vnto theyr ministery yet is this a very sandy foundation wherevpon to build such a weight If they be not the lawfull ministers of those Churches before it is theyr syn to accept of them submit vnto them as such The peoples acceptance and submission are not causes but consequences of the ministers calling duetyes which they ow vnto them all theyr life long 4. The supposition is but an imagination that any parochiall minister doth administer the sacrameÌ„ts onely to such as are in charity discretion to be esteemed worthy He is by his parochiall cure shew me the man whose practise is not answerable to administer the sacrament of Baptism to all the infants born in the parrish though neyther parent can no not in the most enlarged if â—ot over-stretched charity be judged to be of the fayth so in the covenant of Abraham according to which covenant Baptism is to be administred Lastly I would know of this man so of others who would bring the presbiteriall government vpon the parrish assemblyes without a separation what should be done with such men of years in the parrish as are to be esteemed vncapeable of the L Supper It should seem as the common opinion is that such should be suspended so consequently remayning obstinate incorrigible excommunicated But by what law of God or reason of man do the Censures of the Church apperteyn vnto such as had never right to be of the Church nor were within Gods covenaÌ„t made onely with theyr faythfull theyr seed And since the Church is onely to iudg them which are within the same faln from theyr former holines at least externall how should not excommunication be greatly prophaned vpon such as never came vnder that
condition of eternall holines Suppose at length that he be deprived by that prelate which formerly admitted him for not conforming to humayne corruptiâ—ns his people for fear of 〈◊〉 forsake him if he I say now reiected by the prelate witnessing agaynst his corruptions shal without seeking any new licence fynde place to preach the gospell in occasionally els where why should any refuse to hear him First this his deprivation especially for well doeing or not doeing evill by the prelates spirituall jurisdiction shewes his spirituall bondage vnto the Anticristian Hâ—erarchy as doth also his forsakeing his flock when â—he wolfe thus cometh declare by the testimony of Christ himself of what Spirit he is And very fadeing is the colour which here he sets vpoÌ„ the ministers cessâ—ation from theyr ministery which is the peoples forsakeing them for fear of daâ—nger whereas the contrary is most true that the ministers did vniversally for fear of daunger forsake the people and that in sundry places where the people offered to suffer persequution with them at the magistrates handes But myne answer is that this man remayning by the prelates ordination a minister of the Church of Engl as he was before his institution or licence so preaching by that calling communion cannot be had with him therein without submission vnto vpholding of the Prelates Antichristian authority which in that work he exerciseth Suppose lastly that the sâ—me man doth besydes the good actions which God hath commaunded admit of some thing at mans commaund which is not lawfull yet houlding the fayth building faythfully in the mayn things of the Gospell and it may be repenting also of what he hath done at his admission is no communion lawfull with him in those very things which if they were done by another after the same manner were heavenly dutyes May not his fault be an humayn infirmity in an externall ordinance May not some faultes of his enterance be circumstantiall personall actions by which his calling is not abolished This Quaere is in effect comprehended in the former in whose answers it hath also been answered But for more full satisfaction I further ad that I may not partake in the sinns though of humâ—yn infirmity of persons otherwise goâ—ly whether those sinâ—s be in the work done or in the vnlawfull calling of the doer of which we here speak and not of any personall or circumstantiall action as is in vayn insinuated And he that breaks down the partition wall which an vnlawfull especially an antichristian calling sets vp in the Ch not making coÌ„science of partaking therwith in duetyes how heavenly soever in themselves makes way for all Babylonish confusion neyther is Israel now to be blamed for communicateing with Corah in the heavenly duety of burning inceâ—se to the Lord to whom onely a lawfull outward calling was wanting he so ministering by an Anti-mosaicall as do the men of whom we speak by an Anti-Christian calling And for the ministers repenting of what he hath done at his admission it may well be called as truely being a supposition but of an impossibility and contradiction He cannot repent of his sin which is his reâ—â—eaving authority from the Bishop to preach but he must forsake renounce the same authority as he receaved it which if 〈◊〉 indeed truth he ceaseth to be a minister of the Church of England And thus it appeareth how this Authour is so far from leading a good conscience by the hand aâ—â—e promiseth as that he doth not so much as poynt out with the finger any passible way into publique communion with the parrish assemblyes as they stand but rayther haveing framed a plot of ministery other devise in his study sends men by doubtfull suppositions to seek they know not what nor where It remaynes we now come to his removall of the barrs which I in my book set in the way the first whereof is that such a parrishional minister is a branch of the prelacy as receaving power from it by which it doth administer and therefore all communion with it to be avoyded by Gods people His answer is that in proper accurate speach the minister whom he formerly described is no branch of the prelacy nor doth receave his power of ministering froÌ„ any prelate The question is not whether the minister which he describeth or rather Supposeth be a branch of the prelacy so minister or no but whether the ministery of the parrish assemblyes being partes of the Diocesses and Provinces be such or no. He addeth that the power of right he that is his supposed minister had before ever he had to do with any prelate which power is from God by the Church but a power of externall legall abillity to do that which from God by the people he had formerly right to do this he may be sayd to receav from the prelate He looseth himself in the labyrinth of his own devise for even his supposed minister had to do with the prelate both for license to preach orders of ministery before this supposed right conveyed to him by the people as appears in his Quae 3. 4. 5 compared together 2. None of the parrish assemblyes have in theyr hands as Churches power of right to chuse theyr ministers nor are the Lords free people in that case but do on the contrary stand in subjection bondage spirituall to the prelate and patron by whose appoyntment they must receave them will they nil they Indeed some of them do by favour or mony get ius patronatus into theyr handes so do agree amongst themselves what person they will present vnto the Bishop for theyr Clark but this they do not as a Church neither will or may the Bishop so receave him from them or appoynt him over them but as a patron which right any one profane person may have enioy as well as they nor that such a person may be ordeyned a minister in of that Church accordeing to the order Apostolicall but that being before or first a minister at large of the Bishops makeing and ordeyning he may by the same episcopall authority in way of licence or institution conveyed be determined to that particular parrish according to the Popish order So that if there were any thing in the distinction between the power of right of freedom he hath the power of right or authority by the Byshop at the first in his ordination the legall ability or freedom afterwards by the patron prelate presenting appointing him to his place so the parrish as a Church onely receaves him so appoynted by others But the distinction is more subtile then sound iâ— not a distinction without a difference yet a division of things inseparable in this kynde No man hath externall spirituall power of right to minister the holy things of God but by a lawful calling no man haveing a lawful calling wants
external spiritual power of ability or freedom to minister them of this power we speak as being that which the Bishops as the spirituall governers of theyr Prov Dioc do confer I know a man may be restreyned by violâ—nce or other bodily impediment from the vse of this spirituall freedom but then he is restreyned from the vse of his power of right also Whosoever hath the one hath the other by the same act whosoever hath a lawfull calling hath both Of his great mistakeing vpon which notwithstanding he builds the weight of his answer both in this the former parte of the book which is that the Bishops Provinciall Diocesan authority administrations are civile derived from the king I shall speak hereafter He ads that it cannot stand with my plea that such a man preaching diligently professing that to be his mayn office should in this work be a branch of the prelacy dâ—â—t by his power receaved by him For. 1. this is not any parte of the prelates power as he is a prelate to preach the word Which he also would prove by an affirmation in my book which is though he weaken the evidence of the truth thereof in relateing it that the prelates office and order is founded vppon theyr usurpation of the rights and libertyes wherewith Christ the Lord in his word hath endowed his Church the Elders for theyr government and the people for theyr liberty for the calling of officers censureing of offenders Power therefore sayth he of preaching can be no parte of it First that which he admits in myne affirmation hath enough in it to overthrow his consequence For if it belong to the prelates to call ministers that in calling them they give them power authority though no absolute charge to preach according to the order of that Church then followeth it vndeniably that those ministers thus preaching do therein excercise the prelaâ—es power that it may be sayd of the ministers and Bishops as Christ sayd of his disciples himself that whosoever receaves them which are sent receaves them which send them In submitting vnto or withdrawing from him that is sent by the king in a work of his office men do submit vnto or withdraw from the king himself his authority so is it in all estates subordinations whether Ecclesiasticall or civile as every one that dimms it not in himself may see by the light of nature And if vnto this be added that as the whole nation is devided into two provinces vnder the two Arch-Bishops and the Provinces into â—â—ndry â—â—oâ—eses vnder the Bishops and they into theyr severall parrishes vnder the ministers thereof so the Arch-Bishops and Bishops do share out vnto the parrish preistes in theyr ordination other assignementes a parts of theyr charge to wit so much as concerns the ordinary service of the parrish as vnto theyr chancelours commissaryes and Arch-deccors on other parts for inferiour government reserveirg to themselves the Lordship ever both for the best advantage of theyr own honour and profit it will then evidently appear as that the part is a branch of the whole that the parochial ministery is a branch of the diâ—â—esâ—n provinciall pâ—â—lacy By which ministery we are not to vnderstand as doth myne opposite the work of preaching or any other work whatsoever but the office power exequuted vsed in these works For if we will exactly weigh things in a just ballance we must consider of these three distinct poynts in the ministery 1. The office 2. The power 3. The workes The office is the very state function conferred vpon a man by his calling from which office ariseth immediately power charge to minister and to perform the workes of that office in the performance of which workes the office is exequuted and power vsed And if preaching diligently faythfulâ—y were the pastours mayn office then should Apostles Prophets Evangelists have the same mayn office with pastours for they all do that work of diligent preaching one as we â—as an other besides that this work is lawfully performed by him that hath no office at all therefore cannot be the Pastours office mayn or mean 2ly It followeth not because the office of the prelates is founded vppon theyr vsurpation of the Churches rights in calling of officers consureing of â—fferdersâ— that therefore power of preaching is no parte of theyr office Men may by theyr office have power to do more then the very things vppon which theyr office is founded otherwise the parochiall ministery should be very slightily founded considering how many trifles and superstitions the ministers have not onely power but charge also to perform By this mans reasoning theyr office should be founded vppoÌ„ the wearing of a surplice makeing a crosse c. for these they have power to do yea not power to leav vndone by theyr office There are among men many lawfull offices or orders those lawfully founded and yet not so perfitly but that some evil actions are through humayn fraylty done in by them so on the contrary is the office of prelacy vnlawfull vnlawfully founded and yet not so absolutely but that the good work of preaching may be and is performed in and by it Which preaching being also an inferiour work of that office and order which is principally set vp for government and that wherwith the Bishops do litle trouble the Churches it maâ— well be excluded froÌ„ the foundation of theyr office though a work thereof as there are also many doctrines of Christian religion besydes those which are properly called the foundations thereof though a work good in it self yet in the extent of theyr power to preach when and where they list in theyr provinces and diocesses exorbitant and antichristian so a parte of theyr usurpation whether of the foundation or building it matters not a parte of which power they also share out vnto the ministers in theyr severall parrishes An other argument he bring vpoÌ„ an affirmatioÌ„ in my book p. 29 that preaching is no natural or necessary parte of the parochiall ministers office This myne assertion in the first place he reprocheth as an intemperate speach proceeding from an impotent sicknes of mynde which yet sayth he may be vsed agaynst my selfe If I were sick of any such impotency of mynde as he in his potency of mynde pronounceth I should surely fynde him a phisition of no value which brings no other medicine then a reproch to cure me withall Onely he insinuates a reason agaynst that I say which is that preaching the word is expresly mentioned in the ministers ordination And is it not also mentioned in the ordination of a Mas-preist of whose office notwithstanding it is no necessary or naturall parte yea is it not evident that one and the same ordination serves both for a Mas-preist parochiall minister being given by a popish Byshop and so