CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS drawn from the Canons of the last Synod, and other the Kings Ecclesiastical and statute law, ad informandum animum Domini Episcopi Wigornensis, seu alterius cuiusuis judicis ecclesiastici, ne temere & inconsulto prosiliant ad deprivationem Ministrorum Ecclesiae: for not subscription, for the not exact use of the order and form of the book of common prayer, heretofore provided by the Parishioners of any parish Church, within the Diocese of Worcester, or for the not precise practice of the rites, ceremonies, & ornaments of the Church.  Prov. 25. 2. The glory of God is to conceal a thing secret, but the King's honour is to search out a thing. Esai 51. 7. Hearken unto me ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my Law, fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their rebukes. 
Cod. de Episcopis & Cleric l. nul. li licere.  
Nec delatoris nomen suspicionemque formident, cum ●ides atque industria corum, tam laud, quam honestate, ac pariter pretate, non careat, cum veritatem in publicas aures, lucemque deduxerint.  
1605.   

To the Right Honourable Lords, the Lords of his majesties most honourable privy Counsel.  
MOST Noble Lords, may it please your good Lordships, to be put in remembrance how the holy Ghost calleth and entitleth the Princes of the earth by the name of Gods. By which so rare and admirable a style, so high & supereminent a title, men of your estate, condition & quality be taught, that as your names are, so should your persons be, Gods by name & calling, therefore every way such manner of persons, as the most high God, the God of Gods, hath commanded you to be.  
That is to say (as job sayeth) Deliverers of the poor and fatherless, 
Cap. 29.  when they cry, and there is none to help; eyes to the blind, & feet to the lame; diligent in searching out things you know not; breakers of the chaws of the Lions, and the pluckers of the pray out of their teeth. That so you being covered with justice, as with a rob, and with a crown, the blessing of them which are ready to perish, might come upon you, and the distressed being succoured, might have cause to praise you.  
And (most Honourable Lords) by so much the more have we presumed to tender unto your Lordship's favourable examination, these considerations, by how much the more your fame, praise and honour may be sounded, and resounded throughout all the Churches, when you shall be well pleased to become humble intercessors unto our most gracious and Christian Lord and King, for a more temperate, mild, and charitable course, by the Diocesans and other ordinaries, hereafter to be held against the Ministers; until they shall defend their late censures, penal proceedings and sentences, for omission of rites, ceremonies, ornaments, etc. to be in every due regard and circumstance answerable to the King's ecclesiastical Laws and Statutes.  
In the mean season, that more rigour and severity of law hath of late been used in some of their Consistories, than was meet, these considerations with their reasons drawn from the laws, statutes, and Canons, which themselves profess and practise (if rightly they were applied to their proceedings) may sufficiently witness. For by these grounds and reasons, if inquisition or information had been made, or taken, sentences of grace and absolution, rather than of disgrace and condemnation ought (in our judgement) to have ensued.  
If we should be demanded, what colour of law or reason they can pretend, for their form and manner of proceedings, we might rather have cause to wonder, then be able to yield any reasonable answer to such demand. And therefore as they be old enough, so good leave shall they have from us, to make answer for themselves.  
Only thus much we might be able, reasonably to defend, that a good government being lightsome, can not brook the darksomnes of that which is evil. And on the other side, that an evil government, being darksome, can not but fly the lightsomeness of that which is good. If the government then of the Church by Diocesans, & other ordinaries, had been lightsomeness, and not rather darksomnes, it could not have come so to pass, as it hath done, that the Moon, as it were abashed, and the Sun, as it were ashamed, should fly before the obscurity of most gross darkness: That lamps of pure oil, and candlesticks of fine gold, standing and burning day & night in the temple, should be removed and put out: and that in steed thereof, both wooden candlesticks, and lights of bulrushes, should be brought in, and set up.  
Nay, if we had not seen it with our eyes, & heard it with our ears, it would have seemed a wonder, altogether uncredible unto us, that not one (so far as we can learn) among 2. or 3. thousand Ministers (some whereof are notoriously known, to be ignorant & unlearned, some idle and none resident, some common bibbers & tavern haunters, some dicers and gamesters▪ some fighters and quarrelers, some wanton & adulterous, some simoniacal and usurious, some pompous and ambitious, some greedy and covetous, some swearers and swaggerers, and some profane and void of all honesty of life) should so much as once in two years, for any of these gross impieties, be publicly admonished, or marked with the least note of disgrace, for not conformity to the holy laws of God: And yet notwithstanding, that a third or fourth part of three or four hundred painful, discreet, learned, grave and godly ministers, within less than six months, should be suspended, deprived, or deposed some from their offices, and some from their benefices; not for commission of the least of the grossest of these sins, but only for omission of the least of the commandments and traditions of men. If we say we had not both heard and seen, and known these things, we could never have believed them to be true.  
Nay if we had not heard it, and known it, how incredible might it be, that sundry learned and godly Ministers, vowing, protesting, & offering to testify upon their corporal oaths, that they abstained from the use of ceremonies, for none other cause, but only for fear of offending God, wounding their own weak consciences, & scandalising their brethren, could not for all this, by the Diocesans be accepted, but commanded away and put to silence.  
Now alas (Most noble Lords) if such a course of justice, and such an hand of judgement, by your Lordships, or other the King's justices & Officers were held in the civil government of the common weal, what outcries would there be made in all the corners of the land, yea & with what swarms of disordered and riotous persons, would the King's Dominions, in short space, be oversflowen and pestered?  
It is true (my Lords) we confess, that non relatione criminum, sed innocentia rei purgantur. And therefore to excuse any Minister wherein he may justly be blamed, is far from our mind and purpose. For we grant that every one must bear his own burden, and that every man ought by his own innocency, to purge himself, be other men's offences never so great, or seem his own, in his own eyes, never so small.  
But we have therefore balanced the toleration of scandalous and unlearned ministers, with the molestation of learned and godly Ministers, to the end your Lordships understanding the number of sins and impieties every where daily abounding, by the multitude of the former, and the scarcity of godliness in every place to be seen, by the paucity of the later, your Lordships by your wisdoms might foresee, and by your authorities prevent that pestilent contagion of ignorance of Gods revealed will, which by this preposterous sufferance, of the one, & violent progress against the other, is ready to infect the whole Church, and by consequence, to lay waste the common weal, as a pray to the popish faction.  
For is there not by this me●nes a way prepared and made ready for the greatest part of the people, to revolt from the Gospel to popery? and so from their natural and Christian Lord and King to a foreign & antichristian Pope? For let the book of God be once sealed up from the people in English, as in time of popery it was sealed up, unto our fathers in Latin; and let the people by example of the wicked & scandalous life of Ministers be drawn along in their own natural corruption, who will not be ready to assist every jesuit & seminaries, when he shall preach popery, the very mistress and mother of all corruption & rebellion?  
The wearing of a whit Surplice, and the feigned making of an airy cross in Baptism, how little the popish faction, by the same willbe quieted and kept in awe, the late outrageous starting out in Wales, and their mad combynings in other places, may be a good caveat for your Lordships to consider: whether their drifts be not rather to enterprise a more public disturbance, then to continue themselves within the lists of that obedience whereunto they were constrained in the reign of our late Sovereign of blessed memory, Queen Elizabeth.  
Your Lordships therefore could not but perform a most acceptable service, first unto God, and his Church: secondly unto the King & his Realm, if your Lordships would be pleased to be petitioners unto his Majesty, that by his regal and Supreme power, there might be an healing of the former error, and uncharitableness of the Diocesans and other ordinaries. For it can not be denied but that by their manner of proceedings, they have sinned against God; in this, that they have aequaled, nay rather in some things preferred their own Canons & Decrees, before the commandment of God. And therefore it cannot be but that they have herein, as much as in them lay, provoked the wrath of God against the King and his whole Realm, if by the King's zeal, this their so gross a sin be not reform. My Lords, we are well advised what we speak herein before your Lordships, for we speak nothing but what we prove thus: 
Whosoever for not wearing a Surplice, or for not crossing in Baptism, suspendeth or depriveth a Preaching Minister, otherwise unreprovable for life and doctrine, and not suspendeth, nor depriveth, but tolerateth an unpreaching minister, scandalous in life, & ignorant of doctrine, the same person preferreth in this thing, the observation of his own Canon and Decree: before the commandment of God.  
But some Diocesans and ordinaries, for not wearing a surplice, & for not making a cross in Baptism, do suspend and deprive preaching Ministers, otherwise unreprovable for life and doctrine, and yet do neither suspend, nor deprive, but tolerate unpreaching ministers, scandalous in life, and ignorant of doctrine.  
Therefore some Diocesans and Ordinaries in this thing, prefer the observation of their own canons and decrees, before the commandment of God.   
We could heap argument upon argument, unanswerable to this purpose, but we should then pass the bounds of an epistle, and become over tedious unto your Lordships. Only therefore we most humbly beseech your Lordships in the behalf of the faithful Ministers of Christ, with patience to hear thus much▪ viz. that for their dissenting in matter of ceremony, from the Diocesans, they ought no more by the Diocesans to be traduced for factious sectaries, or seditious schismatics, than the Diocesans themselves ought to be traduced, for such manner persons, by their own dissenting from the Cardinals and Popes of Rome.  
For there being as little difference between a sect, and a schism, as there is between a bosom & a broom, & there being also as small odds between faction and sedition, as between an edifice and a building, it followeth, the Ministers dissenting from the Diocesans of England, or the same Diocesans dissenting from the Cardinals and Popes of Rome, if neither of them be seditious schismatics, that neither of them can be factious sectaries.  
When Paul was accused by Tertullus, that he was found a pestilent fellow, 
Act. 24.  and a mover of sedition among all the jews through all the world; the Apostle answered that they neither found him in the temple disputing with any man, neither making uproar among the people, neither in the Synagogues nor in the City. Art not thou (saith the chief Captain, 
Act. 21. 38  speaking to Paul) the Egyptian, who before these days raised a sedition, and led out into the wilderness, four thousand men that were murderers? By which places it appeareth, that a seditious or factious person, by the holy scriptures, is adjudged to be such a kind of person, as who boasting himself, raiseth, leadeth, or draweth away much people after him, and unto whom much people resort and obey: yea and by the civil law, 
Act. 5. 36. 37.  not every one that omitteth some duty commanded, but such a one as gathereth people together, or stirreth them to make a tumult, and shall draw himself and his followers, to some place of safety to defend himself and them against an evident commandment, 
Cod. de seditio li. 1.  and public discipline, only such a man, I say, by the civil law is to be punished, as a seditious & factious person. For these kind of men only are properly said, seorsum ire, & parts facere. Seditio then being quasi seorsum itio, and faction quasi partium factio, yea 
a Glos. lind. de heret. c. 2 verb. sectam  a sect also, being sic dicta, quia fit quasi sectio, vel divisio: and a 
b Glos lind. de Magis ca 1. verb. scismatum.  schism, being illicita divisio, per inobedientiam, ab unitate Ecclesiae facta, vel illicita di●cessio eorum, inter quos unitas esse debet: it followeth, that whosoever by inobedience, or tumultuously goeth not a part, or maketh not a part from the unity of the Church, but either in doing, or suffering, quietly submitteth himself to the laws, that he can neither be factious sectary, nor seditious schismatic.  
And indeed (my Lords) from hence is it, that the Diocesans and whole Clergy of England (ever since they made a separation from the unity of the Church of Rome) have falsely been named, and reputed sectaries & schismatics, as though they had without cause divided themselves from the unity of the true church of Christ. Whereas in truth, the Church of Rome by her Apostasy, having cut herself from the unity and universality of the doctrine and discipline of the true and mother church of jerusalem, is herself become the most notable and prime sectarist and schismatic of all the world. And of whose schisms our Diocesans, so far as they partake with her, can not be but guilty. Unless then the Diocesans can approve themselves, touching their use of ceremonies and Diocesan government, to stand in unity with the true & new jerusalem, in these days repaired & departed from the old schisms and sects of Rome; we assure ourselves that they shall never be able to prove those ministers which stand not in unity either of judgement, or practise with them, but be conscionably and so lawfully divided in these things, from them, for such division, to be sectaries or schismatics? For it must be an unlawful discession, by inobedience, from the unity of the first and mother church of jerusalem, and not a lawful departure, upon conscience, efrom the unity of the daughter●church of England, that maketh a sect or schism. For otherwise, ought not all other Churches stand in unity of ceremonies and government with the church of England? or unlawfully dividing themselves from the church of England, must they not become schismatics & sectaries? And how then are not almost all the christian and reformed churches in the world, not only almost, but altogether schismatics and heretics? For have they not divided themselves from all those rites, ceremonies and ornaments, yea & from that manner of Diocesan government, which are yet retained in the Church of England?  
My Lords, I confess that brevity and perspicuity are two commendable graces of the tongue and of the pen; & such as in all men's speeches and writings, are much to be affected. But yet how long or tedious soever already I have been, I most humbly beseech your Honourable Lordships, to licence me to pass on one step further, especially the matter being of such importance, as the same may not well be passed over with silence.  
It hath pleased Sir Edward Cook Knight, his Maixsesties attorney General, with all candour and charity, to confirm and satisfy by demonstrative profess, all such as were not instructed in these points following; First, that an ecclesiastical judge, may punish such Parsons, Vicars etc. as shall deprave, or not observe the book of common prayer, by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation, & other censures and process, in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the Queen's Ecclesiastical laws, though the act of primo Eliza had never insflicted any punishment for depraving, or not observing the same.  
Secondly, seeing the Authority of an Ecclesiastical judge, is to proceed, and to give sentence in ecclesiastical causes, according to the ecclesiastical law, that the judges of the common law ought to give faith & credit to their sentence, and to allow it to be done according to the ecclesiastical law, when the judge ecclesiastical hath given sentence in a case ecclesiastical, upon his proceedings, by force of that law. For (saith he) cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum.  
Now then, as these two points be plainly taught and demonstrated unto us, so also even by the same demonstrative reasons, it is clear, that there must be, first, a depraving, or not observing of the book: secondly, that every sentence given by an Ecclesiastical judge, in a case of depraving, or not observing of that book, must be given, according to the ecclesiastical law, and upon his proceedings by force of that law in like form, etc.  
From whence it followeth, that all sentences touching depravation or not observation of the book, be either void sentences by reason of nullity, or no good sentences by reason of iniquity and injustice, if by the judges Ecclesiastical, upon their proceedings, the same sentences have not been given by force and according to the same laws, in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the Kings. Ecclesiastical Laws; or if the facts charged upon the Ministers, by the judges ecclesiastical, by the letter & intendment of the law, be no depravations, or not observations of the same book. And therefore to the end all questions touching these two points, might hereafter utterly cease, and be quite buried, your Lordships could not perform a more acceptable service to the King, the Church, and Realm, then by an humble importuning his Majesty, to have it explained by parliament; both who (by the letter and true meaning of the Statute) be depravers or not observers of the book, and also what laws Ecclesiastical, may, and of right aught to be called, indeed and truth, the King's Ecclesiastical Laws. For unless aswell touching these points, as touching the former points of Sir Edward Cooks, it be thoroughly decided, what is the binding and assured law, how should the Ministers, or others, content and satisfy themselves with an undoubted truth?  
And that this manner of controversy about the invalidity of sentences, of deprivation, given by ecclesiastical judges, is not a controversy now first moved, but that the same hath been long since handled and discussed, is a matter yet remaining (I doubt not) upon public record. For whereas sentences were given in the time of King Edward the sixth, for the depriving of Steven Gardener, from the Bishopric of Wincester, Bonner from the Bishopric of London: Heath from the Bishopric of Worcester: Day from the Bishopric of Chester: Tunstall from the Bishopric of Durham: Vessay from the Bishopric of Exeter: wherein many grave and learned commissioners were employed: as the Archbishop Cranmer, Ridlie Bishop of London: Goodrick Bishop of Elie; Sir William Peter, and Sir Thomas Smith, the King's Secretaries: Sir james Hales, one of the judges of the Law: Master Gosnell, Master Goodrick, Master Lisley, Master Stamford, men notably learned in the common laws of this Realm Mai. Leveson, and Mai. Oliver, Doctors of the Civil Law, nevertheless the same sentences, were in the time of Queen Mary, revoked and disannulled without Perliament, within the space (as mine Author saith) of three days, by virtue of other Commissioners, for faults found in the processes, viz. that the former Commissioners had proceeded ex officio, without authority, contrary to the King's Ecclesiastical Law: sometimes quod juris ordo non fuerit servatus, etc. sometimes that the Interrogatories were ministered to diverse persons without knowledge of the defendants, etc. sometimes that some of the witnesses were examined privately without oath: sometimes that their exceptions and appellations, were not admitted, but their persons committed to prison, pendente appellatione, etc.  
And therefore (most honourable Lords) it is to be considered, if the like, or greater and more notorious defaults and enormities, be to be found in any sentence of deprivation, given ex officio, by a Diocesan governor at this day, whether the same sentence ought to be maintained as good and just, or rather whether the same ought not (as the King's law requireth) to be reversed and disannulled, as evil and erroneous?  
And thus I leave and commend unto your most honourable care, circumspection, and vigilancy, the hearkening and spying out, by all the possible ways and means in your highest wisdoms, you can best devise, how the good laws, statutes & Decrees of the Church & Realm, being duly executed, a learned, virtuous, painful, and godly ministery may be nursed and suffered to grow up. And how on the other side, an Idle, Ignorant, Scandalous, and godless ministery may (as worthily it deserveth) be cut down, and trodden under foot: The one by a perpetual Decree and ordinance of God, hath establishment from heaven, and therefore without sin & offence to God can not be neglected: the other springeth from below, and is much like to an evil herb, or weed, which if it be not speedily rooted up, but suffered to spread, will soon so overspread the gardens of God, with vice and impiety, as there will scarce be any room left, for virtue and piety, the one by use, and execution of the King's ecclesiastical laws, may easily be cherished: the other without abuse and contempt of the same law, can not in any sort be tolerated.  
It was said unto Shebna, the Steward of the house of King Hezekiah: What hast thou to do here? and what hast thou here, that thou shouldest hew thee out a sepulchre, as he that heweth out his sepulchre, in an high place, or graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?  
But, oh, you most noble Lords, are not as Shebna in the house of Hezekiah, 
Isa. 22. 11.  but you are unto King JAMES, and his house, as was Eliakim unto Hezekiah, and to the house of King David. As the key of the house of King David was laid upon the shoulders of Eliakim, so is the Key of the house of King james, laid upon your shoulders. If you shall open, no man shall shut; if you shall shut, no man shall open. Would your Lordships than be fastened as a nail, in a sure place, as Eliakim was? And would you desire to be the throne of the glory of your Fatbers houses, as Eliakim was to his? You must then he clothed with the garments, and strengthened with the girdle of Eliakim: yea and you must be Fathers, to the inhabitants of jerusalem, and of the City of God. Yea Shebna, though he were in man's judgement so fastened, as though he should never fall, yet must his face be covered, and he himself rolled and turned like a bale in a large land. Yea he must be driven from his station, destroyed out of his dwelling place, and bidden to depart. Nay the burden that was upon him, must be cut off, that the chariots of his glory, may be the shame of his father's house.  
These things, most honourable Lords, if you accomplish and bring to effect, you shall approve yourselves unto the great and mighty GOD, to be such little Gods under him, as you may not be ashamed at his glorious appearance, but may rejoice and be glad, that your worthy and divine acts, have been answerable to your divine and worthy names. And thus the God of power, and Majesty, confirm, strengthen, and 'stablish your hearts faithfully and courageously to do the work of God, and of his King.   

The Corrector to the Christian Reader.  
THis tempest (good Reader) having blown down so many poor Parson's houses, vncovered their Churches, and overthrown their Pulpits, hath wakened me to behold the harms and to consider the danger, least staying under the roof of a tottering building, I might, perhaps, be suddenly overwhelmed with the ruins. Hereupon I betook me to examine the foundations upon which this house so sore beaten doth stand: I found the groundworkes good and sure, even Christ and his Apostles with all the sacred word of God. The walls I perceyved well strengthened with buttresses of the fairest and firmest stone, that the Temple hath been repaired within these last times. I grew secure that howsoever the tiles did fly about our ears, yet the walls and the substance would abide: Notwithstanding I looked about me still for more props, no store being superfluous in such extreme peril, and, by God's good providence, I light upon this worthy Treatise, very learnedly written and with great judgement, whereby I received comfort and confirmation a fresh. In it I beheld how the vehemency of the storm forced things clean contrary to the current of our own laws; And from hence I conceyved this tempest would be blown over anon. For can his sacred Majesty, when he shall thoroughly understand how his statutes are abused, suffer his most loyal subjects to groan any longer under such heavy oppression? It cannot be, but together with his high Court of Parliament, he will at last take order that the ambition of none shallbe of greater force, than his regal decrees. I have thought good to impart unto thee this treasure, that thereby thou mayst learn what the Laws of the Land require in this case, and mayst labour by prayer and by what dutiful and lawful means thou canst to obtain remedy.  
Farewell.   

Certain considerations drawn from the Canons of the last Synod, and other the Kings Ecclesiastical & statute law, ad informandum animum Domini Episcopi Wigor●ensis seu alterius cuiusuis judicis ecclesiastici, ne temere, & inconsulto prosiliant ad deprivationem ministrorum ecclesiae: for not subscription, for the not exact use of the order and form of the book of common prayer, etc.  
FIrst by the letter of the statute 25. H. 8. cap. 19 it seemeth to be a plain case, that no constitutions, canons or decrees, by what name soever they be called, aught to be made, promulged, or put in execution within this Realm, unless the same be made by the whole clergy of the Realm, assembled by the kings writ in their convocations. For as by these words (the Clergy of the Realm) inserted in the submission & petition of the clergy, 
By whole Clergy we mean the Archb BB. & other learned of the clergy heretofore usually assembled in convocation by the King's writ.  the whole clergy of the Realm is understood, even so likewise, these words, (clergy of the Realm) being repeated in the body of the act, can not well be taken and understood, to be meant of part of the clergy, but of the whole body of the clergy of the Realm. For otherwise the body of the Act should not accord, and be answerable to the submission.  
The last Synod then, being (as appeareth by the title of the book of canons) but a provincial convocation, for the province of Canterbury, consisting only of the Bishop of London, precedent of the same convocation, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province, it followeth (the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of that Province, & so the whole Clergy of the Realm not being assembled with the Kings writ to this Synod, 
The articles of religion 1562. were agreed upon in convocation by the whole clergy of the Realm, vide 13. Eliz. ca, 12.  that the constitutions made in this Synod, have nor been made by the whole clergy of the Realm, according to the true intent and meaning of this statute, and consequently, that they ought not to have been promulged and executed at all, especially within the province of York. But to let this pass, and not simply and altogether to stand upon this point, being also ready, upon better reasons, to alter our opinion, be it for the time admitted and granted, that the canons, and constitutions of the last Synod, 
Par in paren non habet im perium, and therefore York not subject to Canterbury.  according to the true meaning of the statute, were lawfully made and promulged. Nevertheless, for so much as throughout all the Canons, there is not so much as mention once made of any sentence of deprivation, from an ecclesiastical benefice, for any crime whatsoever: from hence it seemeth evident, that the Synod never intended, that the pain of deprivation should follow upon refusal of subscription, or for the not use of any ornaments, rites or ceremonies, required and enjoined by those canons.  
Besides, for so much as the Synod by the 36. canon, & other canons mentioning the use of ornaments, rites and ceremonies, hath appointed and ordained some certain and special pains, yea and pains far less than deprivation, for the offences aforesaid: hereupon on also it forcibly ensueth, that deprivation for those offences, by the Synod, are clearly secluded. Poenalia sunt odiosa: odia sunt 
b sf. de li. & posthu. l. cum quidá.  restringenda; poenae igitur 
c ●f. de poen. l. interpretatione. de poe. dist. l. ●poenae. Lyud, de celeb. miss. c. ule. verb. animabu●, & Lind. de cōces●i. preb. ●●esurientis verb procurantes.  molliendae, potius quam exasperondae.  
And against, statutum poenale non est● extendendum ad casus non expresses, sed strictè debet intelligi sicut jacet in suis terminis. And therefore it is concluded that constitutio poenalis, licet detur omnimoda similitudo, & subsit ●adem ratio, non tamen trecipit extensionem, ad non expressa, quia talis extensio fierit per hommem non habentem potestatem condendi legem.  
The pain then by the Synod being appointed for not subscription to be no greater pain, than not to be suffered, to preach, to catechize, or to be a Lecturer, or Reader, etc. It followeth that the Synod adjudged, the pain of deprivation to be too great a pain for the offence of refusal, to subscribe, ex quantitate poenae, cognoscitur quam titas delicti: qu●a poena de●et esse 
d mag. char. cap. 14. Panor. in 〈◊〉, querenti de verb. siguif. nu. 5.  commensurabilis delicto. And therefore this offence being adjudged by the pain to be but small, the pain can not be extended to deprivation. Quia poena non debet excedere delictum, & beneficium non est auferendum alicui etiam a Papa, sine magna & manifest a caus●.  
Nay were it so that deprivation had been mentioned in the canon as a meet pain, 
e Panor, in c. multa de preb nu. 10. ca statut. de cle●. lib. 6.  to have been inflicted, for the offence of refusal, yet if upon any words of the canon, a doubt might have risen, whether deprivation should follow or no, in this case, cum simus in poenalibus, verba capi debent, in potior● significatu, ut evitemus poenam.  
Nay more if by the wo●ds of the canon, vere & propriè sumpta, it were without all controversy; that deprivation for refusal, might be inflicted, nevertheless this pain by the opinion of Baldus for this offence in some case, is not to be inflicted: Statuta poenalia semper intelliguntur (saith he) habere inse clausulam. si delicta dolo committantur. If refusal then should be made upon conscience, and consequently, not per dolum: The pain ceaseth, as a pain by common right, not comprised within the canon; yea & in this case, the pain ceaseth though the conscience be erroneous, contra legem conscientiae, non est obediendum superiori, etium 
g Panor c. inquisition. de sent. excom. nu. 3.  Papae: duplex enim est lex. quaedam privata seu conscientiae, quaedam publica: privata est potentior publica: hinc dicimus quod quae spiritu Dei aguntur, non sunt sub lege 
k Panor. in cad aures, de aeta. & cual ●.  publica. And therefore conscientia quanquam erronea, & scrupulosa sequenda est, 
Panor in c. per tuas ex three nu 3. & 4. desimo L. Bald. de nihi●urand. l vide.  si non potest de iure informari, & veniens contr● conscientiam suam, etiam scrupulosam, aedific at ad Gehennam, ●d est, committit peccatum mortale, quod punietur paena Gehennae: id est ignis aeterni. And another he saith, quod nemo debet gravare conscient●am suam, sed salutem animae suae, praeferre cuicunque officio. And an other concludeth, propter scandalum vitandum potest de iure omitti obedientia, 
Simon de Graph. de casibus conscientiae, pa. 359.  quod quidem procedit, ut non solum supersedendum sit obedientiae superioris, ad scandalum vitandum, cum ipse quod iniquum est praeceper●t, sed etiam cum aliquid just 'em praeceperit.  
Yea and Master Doctor Bilson, 
Exacting the oath 1. Part. 33.  though not in judiciali, yet in foro conscientiae, holdeth and teacheth in effect the very same in these words: we (saith he) grant, he that woundeth a weak conscience, sinneth against Christ: we may not for things indifferent, trouble the weak minds of our brethren.  
Nay by Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, 
The institution of a christian man dedicated to K. H. 8. fol. 57 58.  Edward Archbishop of York, & all other the Bishops, Prelates and Archdeacon's of the Realm, it was concluded and agreed in manner, form and effect following, viz. One Rule or canon is necessary to be considered, concerning the obedience which is required unto the rules & canons ordained by the Priests and Bishops. For as much as that part of the jurisdiction of Priests & Bishops which consisteth only in outward ceremonies, and such things as be themselves but mean and indifferent, surely there is no other obedience required in the same, but that men may lawfully omit, or do otherwise then is prescribed by the said laws, & commandments of the Priests and Bishops; So that they do it not in contempt or despite of the said power and jurisdiction. But have some good and reasonable cause so to do, and offend not, nor slander not their neighbours in their doing. For in these points, Christian men must study to preserve that liberty whereunto they be called and brought by Christ's blood and his doctrine. That is to say: Although men ought to repute and think that the observation of holidays, fastingdayes and other constitutions, be expedient and necessary for such ends and intentes as they be made for. And though men ought to repute and think that all the said ends and intentes be very good, expedient & necessary, aswell for a common order, etc. yet surely men may not esteem them but as things indifferent, & of no such necessity, but that men may upon causes reasonable, well omit & leave the same undone, so that it be not in case of contempt and slander. This rule and canon men must diligently learn.  
Yea: but did Ma. 
Answer.  Bilson speak that in the person of the Magistrate, or in the person of a brother? As for the rule and canon mentioned by the said Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and other Bishops and Prelates, it is to be understood of such ceremonies & ordinances, as the Priests and Bishops prescribe unto the people, and not of politic constitutions of the Church, given or confirmed by the Magistrate.  
Well: but if a Christian Magistrate (notwithstanding the dignity of his person) be a christian brother, 
Reply.  would not my Lord of W: (if he were demanded) answer, that a Christian Magistrates sword, is committed unto him rather for quieting, then for troubling: for healing, then for wounding of the weak consciences of his Christian subjects?  
For in that, that Princes and subjects, meeting in the communion of Saints, be therein brethren, how should the person of a Christian Magistrate (though in excellency h● f●rr surmount the persons of all his subjects,) alter the nature of a Christian truth, in a Christian community? And if it be a truth in christian community, that Christian brethren, ought not to trouble the weak minds of their Christian brethren, in things indifferent, doth not a christian Magistrate sin, if he obey not this truth? but to let this pass: where you demand, whether M. Bilson speak in the person of a Magistrate, or in the person of a brother: I refer it to the judgement of all men, whether in that place of his book, his words immediately going before, and following after, do not as directly touch the Magistrate's office, as by any possible means they may. For he in that place maintaining the Magistrates authority, touching his lawful requiring of an oath unto the supremacy, both for coacting and correcting such, as deny the lawfulness of the same: And for this purpose having cited the desperatenes of the Donatists, who slew themselves, rather than they would be forced to forego their fancies, in the end saith thus: How beit we grant that he with woundeth a weak conscience, sinneth against Christ. Whereupon also again follow these words, a little after; we may not for things indifferent, trouble the Weak minds of our brethren. A Christian Magistrate then, (for of a christian Magistrate he speaketh) sinneth against Christ, if he trouble the weak minds of his Christian brethren, or wound their weak consciences for things indifferent. And so this reply might suffice also, unto that exception made touching the rule and canon of the Archbishops and Bishops, before rehearsed, had not themselves in express terms, more fully cleared this point. For they make no manner difference or distinction, between the precepts and ordinances of Priests and Bishops, rightfully made by authority of their jurisdiction, whether they be confirmed, or not confirmed, by the people, or christian Magistrate: But they affirm directly the same precepts and ordinances being once received by the common consent of the people, 
Fol. 57  and authorized by the laws of Christian Princes, that no other obedience is required to them, but that men may lawfully omit, or do otherwise, then as is prescribed by the said Laws and commandments, of the Priests and Bishops, so that they do it not in contempt or despite of the said power and jurisdiction.  
Yea moreover (say they) although men ought to repute & think, that all the said ends and intents, be also very good, expedient & necessary, aswell for a common order and tranquillity, to be had among the people, as also for the better instruction & inducement of the people, unto the observation of these things, wherein consisteth indeed that spiritual justice, & that spiritual honour and service, which God requireth of us; yet surely men may not esteem them, bus as things indifferent; and of no such necessity, but that men may upon causes reasonable, well omit and leave the same undone, so that it be not in case of contempt & slander.  
And unto these cases, 
7.  (especially at this time, above all times) special regard is to be had, even by the Provincial or Ecclesiastical law itself; for seeing in every Diocese, there be not a few of the principal Pastors (alleging the holy Scriptures, for the ground of their upright consciences) that refuse not upon will, but upon conscience; not upon contempt or despite of the power of Bishops, 
Constit. o●. c. ecclesias: ne dig. tra● ad sir. & glossa ibid. verb ●●●ltitudinis.  but upon reasonable cause, and without offence or slandering of their neighbours, to subscribe and use the ceremonies, it is plain by the same ecclesiastical law, that they ought to be respected and tolerated: Propter multitudinem, utique seuerit●ti detrahitur: supersedendum ergo correctioni, ubi pacis perturbatio timetur. Item ut scandalum vitetur, lustos homines, aliquando simulare oportet, ob suam & aliorum salutem, ut scilicet graviora vitentur. Hoc ergo casu faciet quilibet Praelatus, pro salute hominum, quod justè potest; nec ultra existimet, se habere, quod faciat, ne ad instar imperiti medici, uno collirio, omnium oculos curare conetur.  
And unto this also agreeth, that which is alleged by Panormitane, 
8. Panor. in 1. de cler, ●grot.  in a case of the substraction of the fruits of an Ecclesiastical benefice, from a Clerk, who by reason of sickness and infirmity, is unable to discharge his cure. Quilibet clericus: (saith he) dicitur miles Dei, & militat in Ecclesia: And therefore he concludeth that Clerici non debent terreri, nec inhumaniter tractari, ne cum alij, example hui●smodi essent deterriti, inveniri forte non posset, qui vellet clericatui inseruire, & ecclesiae militare: hoc enim videtur turbare statum ecclesiasticum, nedum praesentem sed etiam suturum: And further (saith he) Potest adduei haec ratio multum notabilis in argumentum, quod clericus, non debet privari beneficio suo, since causa, etiam per Romanum pontificem, nam existent infirmitate, & sic impotentia seruiendi, cum non subtrahi debeat beneficiam, ne ex hoc turbetur status Ecclesiae, ergo multo fortius, ubi nulla subest causa rationabilis: But in the case of refusing to subscribe, or for the not using the rites, ceremonies and ornaments, for conscience, there is no reasonable cause of deprivation, therefore, etc.  
Furthermore if the canon had decreed, that a Minister refusing to subscribe, should be punished by ecclesiastical censure, in this case the pain of deprivation, ought not to be inflicted, because by this clause (Ecclesiastical censure) is understood interdiction, suspension a●d excommunication, which be poenae multum favorabiles, & in animarum remedium inductae; and doth not comprehend deposition, deprivation, or degradation, quia illae poenae sunt multum odiosae.  
Lastly, were it so that the Synod had indeed decreed, that a Minister for refusal to subscribe, should be deprived from his ecclesiastical benefice: & were it so likewise, that a Minister should indeed refuse, not upon conscience, but upon a self will, & dolo m●lo to subscribe, in this case I answer, that the Minister can not lawfully for this offence, by this provincial canon be deprived: The reason is this: Beneficia ecclesiastica secundum antiquam ordinationem sunt perpetus, 
〈◊〉 dist. faperversun, extra. de t. aegrot. 〈◊〉 totum. ●ag. chart. 〈◊〉. H. 8. c. 〈…〉 ●9.  & habent fundationem ● lure communi, which ancient ordinances, being agreeable to the common law of the Realm, & confirmed by the high Court of Parliament, can never be disannulled by the Synod: Quia non potest inferior disponere, nec contra ius common, nec contra legem superioris, maximè in praeindicium tertij.   

Considerations for the not exact and precise use, of the Book of common prayer, attained and gotten by the Parishioners of M. for the Minister to use in the same parish Church.  
IT is provided and enacted, 
●liza. c. 2 ●. 6.  that the books concerning the said services, shall at the costs & charges of the parishioners of every parish, be attained and gotten, etc. And that such parishes, where the said books shallbe attained and gotten, etc. shall within three wickes, after the books so attained and gotten, use the said service, and put the same in ure according to this act: from whence it seemeth to follow, (the Minister not being commanded to attain & get the said book) if the parishioners have not hitherto attained and gotten the said book, that the minister of the same parish, is not bound to use the said service, & put the same in ure, which is not attained & gotten for him, to be used & enured.  
That the parishioners of the said parish church, have not hitherto attained & gotten the said book, seemeth to be manifest upon these considerations:  
The Book which the Minister of the same Church is bound to use, should differ from the book of common prayer, authorized by act of Parliament, 5. and 6. Ed. 6. But in four points, that is to say: one of alteration, or addition of certain lessons, to be used on every sunday in the year, an alteration & correction of the form of the Litany, and two sentences only added, in the delivery of the Sacrament, to the communicants, and none other, or otherwise.  
But in the book attained and gotten by the said parishioners, ther● be more alterations, then are specified in the statute; The form of the Litany is not corrected and altered, and moreover there is some detraction from the very matter of the book, which detraction ought not to have been made, and which is contained in this prayer following:  From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord deliver us. 
And as touching the form of the Litany of K. Edw. book, whereas the same by the letter of the Act, seemeth by the Parliament, to have been altered & corrected (for the words stand thus, viz. altered & corrected, & not to be altered & corrected) yet now so it is, that the same form remaineth still in the parish book unaltered, & uncorrected. For the whole form, order, and disposition of prayers, which is in the Litany of the parish book is the same form, order & disposition of prayers which was in the Litany of K. Ed. book, Except unhappily we shall say, that the transposition and alteration of the prayer of Chrysostom (by the book of K. Edw. according to the nature of the letter of that prayer appointed to be read, last of all the prayers in the Litany) is an alteration and correction of the form of the Litany, when as notwithstanding the transposition and alteration of that prayer by the parish book, appointed not to be read last, but before sundry other prayers, is rather a plain corruption, and not a correction, of that part of the form of the Litany: For this transposition is as if an husbandman, should set his cart before his horse; or as an Orator should place his conclusion before his proheme.  
Again it can not probably or reasonably be gathered, that the Parliament mentioning an alteration & correction made of the form of the Litany, did intent by the words (form of the Litany altered & corrected) that part of the matter of the Litany was or should be altered & corrected. For the matter of that prayer was good, and without fault, & needed no alteration and correction at all, yea and had the Parliament detracted or intended, that that prayer should be detracted out of the Litany, and that by the detraction thereof, the form of the Litany had been altered and corrected, then would no doubt the Parliament have spoken properly and plainly in this case, like as the same did in the other two cases, in this or the like manner, viz. one prayer against the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, detracted: In like sort, I say, as it enacted, one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every sunday in the year, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacraments to the communicants: wherefore the Parliament, in the excellency of their judgement & sharpness of their wisdom, by th●se words (form altered and corrected) necessarily implying, that the form of the Litany of King Edward's book, was faulty and corrupt, it can not by any reasonable construction be gathered, that the Parliament by form of the Litany, did intend any part of the matter of the Litany, which was good and sincere. For if we speak properly, and not tropically, plainly, and not obscurely; judiciously, and not ridiculously; (as all Statutes and all wise Lawmakers speak or aught to speak) we can not say, that any part of the matter of a thing, is the form of a thing. For what a vanity were it to call the matter of a loaf, the form of a lose? The matter of an house, the form of an house? or the matter of a man, the form of a man? much more vainly than needs must w● speak, if we call the matter of a mast of a ship, the form of a ship; the matter of the clapper of a bell, the form of a bell; or the matter of the whit of an egg, the form of an egg. Wherefore it can not otherwise be intended by the Parliament, but that the faulty and corrupt form, order, and disposition of prayers contained in the Litany of King Edward's book, was, or at leastwise, should have been corrected and altered into an holy & sincere form, order, and disposition of prayers, and not to have continued still faulty and corrupted, as the same was in the beginning and first original thereof. Yea and that this indeed was the true meaning of the Parliament, is more fully confirmed unto us out of the doctrine of one of the Homilies, commanded publicly to be read in the churches: For common prayer (saith the Homily) is rehearsed and said by the public Minister, 
The second part of the right use of the Church.  in the name of the people & the whole multitude present, whereunto they giving their ready audience, should assent and say Amen. But in the Litany of the bo●ke attained and gotten by the Parishioners, the form of prayers is not framed after this manner. For in some part of the Litany the Minister only repeateth some thing, for the which the people pray, and so it cometh to pass, that the people only pray, and not the Minister: yea and so the Minister supplieth the place of the people, and the people the place of the minister. Again in some other parts of the Litany, the minister prayeth for one thing, and the people following, pray for another; By means whereof, the faulty and corrupt form, order and disposition of prayers in the Litany, disagreeable to the doctrine of the Homily, remaineth unaltered and uncorrected, contrary to the act of Parliament and doctrine of the church of England.  
Concerning addition and alteration specified in the act, there be diverse and sundry other alterations, and some additions also, in the parish book; differing from the book of King Edward, in well-nigh l. material points. And for the use of which points, if the King's judges and justices should as strictly and rigorously proceed, as the Bb. have done, and yet do, for the not use of the Su●plice & Cross, they might bring all the ministers of the church within danger of six months imprisonment, and of the loss of one years profit, of all their spiritual promotions to the King. For these words of the statute, that all and singular ministers, in any Cathedral or Parish church, etc. be bound to say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lords Supper, and administration of each of the Sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book so authorized by Parliament in the fifth & sixth years of the Reign of King Edward the sixth with one alteration, etc. and none other or otherwise: These words (I say) do as exactly and precisely bind all Ministers to use the book of King Edw. and none other or otherwise in all points (excepting the excepted) as they bind any Ministers to use the rites & ceremonies, mentioned in the said book: But how can any Minister use that order of service, and none other or otherwise, which is appointed in the book of fifth and sixth Edw. 6. (excepting the excepted) when as some other order of service (excepting the excepted) is concluded within the book, provided by the Parishioners? And for the use of which book, rather than for refusal of the vs● of which book, a minister is punishable by the statute. And to make the thing which we have in hand to be undeniable, & without cavil: namely, that the book provided by the Parishioners, is not that book, which is authorized by act of Parliament: it is to be noted (besides the alterations and additions specified in the statute) that there is one great and main alteration, between the two books, of sundry chapters, appointed to be read for the first lessons, at Matins, & Evensong, upon diverse festival days. Which alteration also, it is evident, that the same was made generally, and for the most part from the better, to the worse, namely from the canonical scriptures, to the Apocryphal writings: from whole chapters, to pieces of chapters, and that as it seemeth not without fraud and collusion to the Queen & Realm. The proof of which alteration is apparently scene by the several calendars, of both books. Unto which calendars, for the first & second lessons, (except the same be proper lessons) at morning and evening prayer the minister is referred. For in a Rubric before Te Deum, at morning prayer, it is said: There shall be read two lessons distinctly with a loud voice; the first of the old testament, the second of the new, like as they be appointed by the calendar, except there be proper lessons assigned for that day. And in the order for evening prayer it is thus said: Then a lesson of the old Testament as is appointed likewise in the calendar, except there be proper lessons appointed for that day. And after Magnificat: then a lesson of the new Testament; Now these first and second lessons, whether they be proper or not proper lessons, assigned by the parish book, that many of them do vary from th● first and second lessons, appointed by the book of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. is plainly to be seen, not only by the calendars of both books, but also by the order appointed for proper lessons: A pattern whereof at certain feast days followeth:  Calendar of King Edward's original printed book. Calendar of the Parishes printed book. Stevens day Morning prayer. 1. lesson Esa. 56 Morning prayer. 1. lesson. Pro. 28 Evening prayer. 1 lesson. Esa. 57 Evening prayer. 1. lesson. Eccle. 4. Saint john. Morning prayer. 1 lesson. Esa. 58 Morning prayer. 1 lesson. Eccle. 5. Evening prayer. 1 lesson. Esa. 59 Evening prayer. 1 lesson. Eccle. 6. Innocents'. Evening prayer. 1. lesson. Esa. 60 Evening prayer. 1 lesson. Wisd. 1● Upon the circumcision day both books agree saving that King Edwa. readeth the whole 10. chapter of Deuter. at evening prayer, and the Parish book but part: upon the epiphany, the chapters at morning and evening prayer, for first and second lesson by both books are the same. But the Genealogy of our Saviour Christ mentioned in the third of Luke, by the King's book is appointed to be read, whereas by the Calendar and one rubric in the parish book, the same is appointed not to be read.  
 King Edw. Calendar. The parish books Calendar. Convers. of Paul. Morning prayer. 1 lesson Goe 46 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 5 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Gen. 47 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 6 Purification of Mary. Morning prayer. 1 lesson Ex. 12 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 9 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Exo. 13 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 12 Mathias. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson Num. 33 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Wis. 19 Even. prayer. 1 lesson Num 34 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Ecclus. 1 Annunciat. of Mary. Morning prayer. 1 lesson Jos. 21 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Ecclus. 2 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Jos. 22 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Ecclus. 3  
Upon Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, upon the ascension day and Whitsunday King Edwa. book appointeth, no proper Chapters, for the first Lessons, but only proper chapters for the second lessons: and so referreth the Minister for the first lessons on those days, to the chapters which by the common Calendar are appointed to be read upon those days.  
Whereas the parish Book appointed proper chapters aswell for the first as second lessons upon all those days.  
Upon Monday and Tuesday in Whitsunday week by the K. book, there be no proper chap. appointed for the first or second lesson at morning or evening prayer: whereas the parish book appointed upon Monday part of Gene. 11. at morning prayer for the first lesson; and for the second lesson 1 corinth. 12. And for the first lesson at evening prayer, of the same day, part of the 11. of Numbers. Upon Tuesday in the same week, for the 1. lesson at morning prayer part of the 19 1. kings, and for the first lesson at evening prayer Deut. 30.  
 King Edwa. Calendar. The parish books Calendar. Mark. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson 2. K. 3 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson Ecclus. 4 Evening prayer. 1 lesson 2. K. 4 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Ecclus. 5 Philip and jacob. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson 2. K. 15 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson ecclus. 7 Evening prayer. 1 lesson 2. K. 16 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclus. 9 Barnaby. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson Hest. 3 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson ecclus. 10 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Hest. 4 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclus. 12  King Edw. Calendar The parish books Calendar. Peter. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson job. 31 Morning prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 15 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Job. 32 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 19 james. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson eccls 10 Morning prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 21 Evening prayer. 1 lesson eccle. 11 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 23 Bartholomew. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson ezek. 3 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 25 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ezek. 6 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 29 Matthew. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson micha. 7 Morning prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 35 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Nahu. 1 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 38 Michael. Morn prayer. 1 lesson Zecha. 7 Morning prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 39 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Zecha. 8 Evening prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 44 Luke. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson judu. 13 Morning prayer. 1 lesson ecclu. 51 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Jud. 14 Evening prayer. 1 lesson job. 1 Simon and jude. Morn prayer. 1 lesson Sapi. 17 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson job. 24. 25 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Sapi. 18 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Job. 42 All Saints. Morni. prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 3 Morn. prayer. 1 lesson part of Wis. 3 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Wisd. 5 Even. prayer. 1 lesson part of Wis. 5 Andrew. Morni. prayer. 1 lesson Esai. 5 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Pro. 20 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Esai. 6 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Pro. 21 Thomas. Morn. prayer. 1 lesson Esa. 48 Morning prayer. 1 lesson Pro. 23 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Esa. 49 Evening prayer. 1 lesson Pro. 24  Unto these alterations there is one main difference to be added and fit in this place to be observed, concerning certain days, wherein proper lessons are to be read. For by the book of King Edw. it is said proper Psalms & lessons for diverse feasts and days, but by the parish book, the title is after an other manner. viz. Lessons proper for holy days. From whence it followeth that all those days wherein proper lessons are to be read, are by that title accounted to be holy days: which is repugnant to a Rubric of the same book, entitled: These to be observed for holy days, and none other. Out of which Rubric (amongst a number of holy days there specified) six days be secluded from being holy days; for the which six days notwithstanding, proper lessons are appointed to be read, as upon holy days: and these six days be the days following: viz. the day of the conversion of Paul, Barnabes day, Wednesday and Thursday before Easter, Goodfriday, and Easter even. 
It seemeth therefore not to be so safe a matter, as men are borne in hand it is, for ministers absolutely to subscribe, that there is nothing in the whole book of common prayer, repugnant to the holy word of God, seeing there is so gross and palpable a repugnancy in the book itself. Consentiet null●, qui secum dissidet ipse. Unto which repugnancy also may be added an other repugnancy more absurd. For besides the alterations and additions before specified, and not comprised in the statute, there is a Rubric added, which not only repugneth the book of K. Edward, but also crosseth the calendar, aswell of the parish book itself, as of the book of K. Edward. By which Rubric also there is a detraction from the book of K. Edward, worse than the former of the Litany. Because this Rubric appointeth only part of the first chapter of Saint Matthew, and part of the third chapter of Saint Luke to be read, whensoever by the calendar or book, those chapters come to be read. Whereas the calendar of both books appointeth the whole first chapter of Saint Matthew, & the whole third chapter of Saint Luke to be read upon diverse days in the year. As for example, both books on the first Sunday after the nativity, appoint the whole first chapter of Saint Matthew to be read for the Gospel. Which whole chapter also is appointed by the calendars of both books, to be read for the second lesson of morning prayer on the second day of lanuary, the third of May, and the 31. of August. The like is to be observed by the calendars, for the reading of the whole third chapter of Saint Luke, for the second lesson at morning prayer, upon the 21. of February, the 19 of june, and the 17. of October.  
But these chapters are no part of the Book of common prayer, 
Objection.  and by the Preface before the second part of the Homilies, a Minister may for some chapters of the old Testament, read some chapters of the New, as to him shall seem to tend more to edification.  
By your leave, 
Answer.  this your exception seemeth to be but an homely, & frivoulous exception: For though the chapters be no part of the book of common prayer, yet be the chapters part of the matter of the common service of the church prescribed by the book: yea and the formal and orderly reading of such and such chapters, at such & such times, is part also of the order and form of saying the same service. Insomuch as neither Matins nor Evensong, in matter & form can be song or said, without the chapters be read. And as for the preface to the Homilies, that by the same the minister is at liberty to leave some chapters of the old, for some chapters of the new Testament, for first or second lesson, what doth that help the falsification of the parish book, when the same, in place of six and twenty, or thereabouts, of Canonical, hath appointed so many of Apocryphal chapters, upon feast days to be read? Or how can the Preface exempt a Minister from being punishable before the kings justices, if he shall follow some private preface, and break the King's public edict?  
But both books agree in many points, 
Objection.  and namely that the Minister in Baptism shall make a cross upon the child's forehead, & shall say: We sign thee with the sign of the cross, etc. And therefore how soever the books may differ in some more points than are mentioned in the Statute, yet clean to disavow the book of common prayer provided by the Parishioners, not to be the book of common prayer, which the Ministers in their daily ministration are bound to use, is but a cavil, and reproveth the whole state of Prelacy and of the Realm, who have received and used the same book, ever since the first year of our late Queen's Reign.  
King Henry the eight, 
Answer.  writing to the Emperor against the Pope, telleth him, that a free man ignorant of his freedom, doth not therefore become a bondman, because ignorantly he submitteth himself to servitude; No more (say we) is the State of the Realm, liable to reproof, when having committed the ordering of these affairs to the fidelity and circumspection of the Clergy, it hath been abused by the Clergy. Howsoever the State then of the Realm have received and used the book, attained and gotten by the Parishioners, it mattereth not to the point in question. For if the Clergy unwitting to the State, have caused or suffered a book to be printed and published, which hath but the show of a book, than (as it seemeth) hath the Clergy no law, but the show of a law to enforce the use of such a book, as the State hath not authorized. And therefore we may not for clearing the Clergies just reproof, confess an untruth, and still conceal a kind of injustice (unwitting to the State) executed by the Clergy, under a colour of justice, as if their injustice by colour of error, were maintainable by the State: For so contrary to all reason and good duty, (which we owe to the state and to the Church) we should not only interlace the innocency of the State, with the guiltiness of the Clergy, but also mingle the church's industry, with the Clergies ill husbandry. It is therefore no cavil, to oppose a just and true answer, to an untrue and unsound plea:  
For albeit the two books agree in many points, and specially in mentioning the making of a cross, etc. nevertheless the parish book, can not therefore any more truly be counted, that book which is authorized by act of Parliament, then can that coin be reckoned to be the King's coin, which hath in it, nine parts silver, and the tenth part copper, neither is it any more lawful for an ordinary, to press the use of a book, in itself corrupted, though in many points it agree with the original; than it is sufferable for the King's justices, to enforce the use of a coin in itself counterfeit, though in form and charactere, it be like the King's Image and superscription. Wherefore the mention made in the parish book of making of a cross, etc. not being a matter of power sufficient to warrant the parish book; but the book authorized by act of Parliament, being a matter of power to warrant the making of a cross, etc. we may justly avow the book of common prayer, attained and gotten by the parishioners, not to be that book, which the Ministers in their day he ministration of divine service, be bound to use, notwithstanding the making of a cross and signing the child in the forehead with a cross, be therein mentioned: If reply be made that this plea would but little ease or advantage the Ministers in case the right book should be reviewed, corrected and new printed, we then rejoin and aver. First, that the day is passed long since, before which time this work should have been refined, and that therefore it is now too late, without a new law, to review and amend the same.  
Secondly, that this plea will not only, but little ease and advantage the nullities, iniquities and injustices of sentences heretofore passed, by the ordinaries under colour of that book, but also much advantage the King and his state, if his Majesty might be pleased to do as King joash, king of judah, or as K. Henry the eighth, king of England did: king joash, in, or about the beginning of his reign (as it seemeth) having appointed the Priests to take all the silver of dedicated things brought to the house of the Lord, and therewith to repair the broken places of the house, wheresoever any decay was found, and the Priests until the three and twentieth year of his Reign, not having mended, that which was decayed, nor repaired the ruins of the Temple, the king (I say) because of the Priest's negligence, commanded the Priests to receive no more money, and took from them the ordering of the money, and committed the same to his Secretary, and to Ieho●ada the high Priest, who gave the money made ready, into the hands of them that undertook the work, and that had the oversight of the house of the Lord, of whom there was no reckoning taken, because they dealt faithfully.  
If the Priests then of our age, have not only not within three and twenty, but not within three and forty years published that book, which is mended and corrected by the Queen & her state, in the first year of her Reign; but also for the space of eight and forty years, have suffered a corrupted book, to be intruded into the place of a true book, we commend it to the wisdom of our Sovereign Lord king JAMES, (who is as an Angel of God to discern between things that differ) (there being no high Priest in our days like faithful as was jehoiada the high Priest in the days of king joash) whether his Majesty might not be pleased for the redress of this and other corruptions in the Ecclesiastical state, 
2▪ K. 12. 4. 5  to appoint as king Henry the eighth did, an other Cromwell, to be his majesties Vicegerent and Vicar general over the Clergy.  
Unto these differences and alterations between the two books, not mentioned in the statute may be annexed, both an addition of certain new prayers, and some alteration also of the form of the old prayers to be said after the end of the Litany. By addition in the parish book, there be set three several prayers, not any one of them mentioned in the King's book, viz. A prayer for our Bishops & Curates, beginning thus: Almighty and everlasting God, which only workest great marveilles, send down upon our Bishops and Curates, etc. Secondly, a prayer out of the 2. of Corint. 13. 13. viz. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. And thirdly, a prayer beginning thus: O God whose nature and property is ever to have mercy, etc.  
And whereas by the form of King Edward's book, the Litany should ever end with this collect following: viz. Almighty God, which hast given us grace at this time with one accord, etc. and so this collect should be after the prayers for rain, for fair weather, in the time of dearth, in the time of war, and in the time of any common plague, or sickness, as the time requireth. This collect (I say) by King Edw. book appointed to be said after all these prayers, is by the parish book set before all these. Yea and it is to be said also, before the prayer beginning: O God whose nature & property is ever to have mercy. By means whereof the very form and order of some prayers, appointed in the King's book, and by the statute commanded to be used, and none other, or otherwise is so transposed, and inverted, as that the minister observing the parish book, can not but break the order and form of common prayer, commanded to be used, and so can not but cast his body, & one whole years fruits of his benefice, upon the king's judges, and justices mercy.  
Moreover, besides these additions and alterations, in the end of the Litany of King Edw. book, there is one prayer inserted, which by the parish book is wholly left out, namely: O God merciful Father, which in the time of Heliseus, etc.  
Lastly, at the latter end of the communion, in the king's book there is one Rubric concerning kneeling at the communion, which Rubric is not in the parish book, & the same beginneth thus: Although no order, etc. There is also one Rubric among those Rubrics which are in the parish book not to be found in the kings book, beginning thus: And in Cathedral or Collegiate Churches, etc.  
Wherefore the parish book, in so many and material points, being thus grossly corrupted, and no one true original copy provided by the parishioners for the ministers to use, it seemeth to be a very lamentable and woeful case; that subscription to a feigned record should be thus straightly urged. And that so many learned, painful and godly Ministers for refusing to subscribe, or precisely to use an unauthentical schedule, should be grieved and molested.  
By what guile, or by whose cunning so foul a stratagem, to the deluding of the Queen, the Lords, and commons in Parliament assombled, was first wrought, we know not. Neither have we any reason to charge any of the Clergy now living, with so foul and gross an abuse. Because there is not one of the Clergy, to our knowledge, living, that in the beginning of our late Queen's reign, had aught to meddle in Church-government, or survey of printing books. But this we may speak, and not speak (as we think) untruly that some one guileful priest, or other, unwitting to the Queen and State, yea and it may be unwitting to the Clergy too, was suffered to shoufle, and to set the cards with the sleight of a false finger. For otherwise, it could not possibly have come to pass, that so many chapters of the Apocryphal writings, should be conveyed into the parish book, in steed of so many chapters of the true and authentical scriptures, appointed by K. Edw. book; especially the same chapters, in the parish book, (as it were of set purpose) being ordered to be read, when all the people are solemnly assembled, together upon festival days.  
Wherefore these differences between these books being apparently true, and the statute having decreed, that the minister shallbe bound to say, and use the Matins, Evensong, etc. in such order and form, as is mentioned in the same book of King Edward, with such alterations and additions, as be mentioned in the act, & none other, or otherwise, and the parishioners not having attained and gotten the said book, it is a matter that worthily and necessarily requireth the consideration and resolution of the King's learned judges and justices: Whether a Minister by the letter of the statute be bound exactly and precisely to use a book attained and gotten by the parishioners, the same book not being authorized by the letter of the statute? And if not, then whether the Minister by the letter of the statute, be to lose and forfeit to the King, one years profit of all his spiritual benefices and promotions, and his body to suffer imprisonment by the space of six months, if he shall refuse to use some part of a book not authorized. For it seemeth (as yet) to us absurd, that a Minister should be urged to use such a book, as for the use whereof, he hath no authority, or that he should be punished for refusing the use of such a book, as for the use whereof, he is by the law punishable.  
But be it granted, that the very book authorized, and none other is attained and gotten by the parishioners for the Minister to use; then is it again a matter carefully to be weighed, and for the full contentation of the minds of all persons to be resolved, by the judges, what manner of fact is to be holden and adjudged by the Letter of the Statute, to be a breach of the statute, and for the which fact, a Minister, before the King's justices, is punishable in manner and form expeessed in the Act.  
For the better resolution of which question, it shall not be amiss to repeat in this place the first clause of the body of this Statute. For in the clause of the repeal of the statute of Queen Mary, and reviving the book of king Edw. it is said; that the laid book shall stand and be in full force and effect, according to the tenor and effect of this Statute, the tenor and effect of this statute then, is to be noted, the words whereof are these:  
And further be it enacted by the Queen's Highness, 
Note that the Lords only, & not Lords spiritual and temporal, are mentioned: spiritual Lords therefore were not of this Parliament. For by diverse statutes when only Lords are mentioned, temporal Lords are included, and spiritual Lords excluded.  with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, that all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral or Parish church, etc. shall from, and after, etc. be bound to say and use the Matins, Even song, Celebration of the Lords supper, and administration of each of the Sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form, as is mentioned in the said book so authorized by Parliament, in the said fifth & sixth years of the reign of King Edward the sixth, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added, in the delivery of the Sacrament to the communicantes, and none other or otherwise.  
Out of which clause one special point for the better understanding of the whole tenor and effect of the statute is to be observed: Namely, that the Parliament hath wholly in this branch omitted, and not once mentioned the use of any rites, or ceremonies, in saying and using the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lords Supper, and administration of each of the Sacraments. So that unless such rites and ceremonies, as be mentioned in the book of K. Edw. the sixth, be respectively part of the order & form of saying & using Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lords Supper, and administration of each of the Sacraments, etc. it can not be denied, but that rites and ceremonies mentioned in that book, are secluded out, and not comprised within this branch; and therefore not commanded by this branch to be used.  
The 2. branch of the body of this statute followeth in these words:  
And that if any manner Parson, Vicare, or other what soever minister, that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the Sacraments, etc. refuse to use the said common prayers, or to minister the Sacraments, etc. as he should use to Minister the same, in such order and form, as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book, or shall wilfully standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form or manner of celebrating of the lords Supper, openly or privily, or Matins, Evensong, administration of the Sacraments, or other open prayers, then is mentioned and set forth in the said book, etc. or shall preach, declare, or speak any thing in the derogation or depraving of the said book, etc. & shallbe thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this Realm, etc. shall lose and forfeit to the Queen's Highness, etc. for his first offence, the profit of all his spiritual benefices and promotions, coming and arising in one whole year next after his conviction. And also, that the Parson so convicted, shall for the same offence suffer imprisonment for the space of six months, without bail or mainprize.  
Now by the letter of this branch, it can not be denied, but that four several kinds of offences mentioned in the same, by what soever minister, they shallbe committed, are every of them punishable alike, by one and the self same manner of pain, notwithstanding the offences seem to be of diverse natures. One consisting in the refusal of the use of common prayer; an other in the refusal of the administration of the Sacraments, in such order and form, as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book. A third upon a wilful and obstinate standing in the same, in using some other rite or ceremony, then is mentioned and set forth in the said book. And a fourth in speaking against, or depraving the book, or any part thereof.  
As for the which speaking against, or depraving the book, the letter of the Statute seemeth to be so plain, as that no manner scruple can be moved, what the mind & intendment of the Parliament was, about the speakers against, or depravers thereof.  
But touching the offence of a Ministers refusing to use the said common prayers, and of his refusing to minister the Sacraments in such order and form as they be mentioned, & set forth in the said book, and wilfully & obstinately standing in the same, of his using any other rite or ceremony, then is mentioned, etc. these Queres following, really and properly arise from the letter of the foresaid two former branches.  
For seeing there is no mention at all made of rites and ceremonies, in the former branch, and seeing also there is no punishment by the second branch, mentioned to be inflicted upon a Minister for the refusal of the use of rites and ceremonies, but only upon a wilful and obstinate standing in the same, for the use of other rites and ceremonies, then are mentioned and set forth in the said book, it seemeth doubtful and questionable.  

First Quaere.  
Whether a Minister conscionably refusing to use some of the rites and ceremonies mentioned and set forth in the said book, be punishable before the King's justices, in manner and form before expressed, unless wilfully & obstinately standing in the same, he shall use any other rite or ceremony, then is mentioned, etc.   

Second Quaere.  
If a Minister that is bound to minister the Sacrament of Batisme, do not refuse to minister the same Sacrament, in such order and form as is mentioned & set forth in the said book, but shall in very deed and truth minister the same Sacrament in such order and form, as is mentioned and set forth in the said book; whether the same Minister be punishable before the King's justices in manner and form before expressed, for not making a cross, or not signing the child in the forehead with a cross, after the sacrament of Baptism is fully and perfectly ministered? For so this sacrament be ministered in such order and form, and with such rites and ceremonies preceding baptism, as be mentioned in the said book, and none other rite or ceremony, with wilful obstinacy be used in the ministration of Baptism, it seemeth clear by the letter and sense of the Statute, that the Minister is not punishable, before the King's justices, by the pain of imprisonment, etc. for omission of the cross after baptism.  
For this fact (of not crossing after baptism) not being within the letter of the Statute, it is absurd to say that the same fact should be punishable by the law, when as the same fact is not within but without the compass, scope and letter of the law.  
That this omission of crossing, is an omission after the ministration of Baptism, and not an omission of the order & form mentioned to be in the ministration of Baptism, is made clear unto us, by the decree of all the Lords spiritual, and Clergy, by the King's confirmation, under the great seal of England, & by the opinion of some great Lawyers & judges, published in open seats of justice. For this hath been decreed, confirmed and published that the making of a cross, and signing the child in the forehead with a cross, is no part of the sacrament of Baptism; and that baptism is fully and perfectly ministered, without these rites and ceremonies.  
This case then of the omission of the cross after baptism, being most clear by such a cloud of witnesses, that the same is not an omission of that order and form appointed to be in the ministration of Baptism, it seemeth to be a thing most clear, that a minister by the letter of the Statute, is no more punishable before the King's justices, for omission of the Cross after Baptism, then is any person by the letter of the Statute of Queen Mary punishable by the King's justices, for maliciously or contemptuously molesting, letting, vexing, or troubling, or by any other unlawful ways or means disquieting, or misusing any Preacher, not in, but after his sermon, preaching or collation.   

Third Quaere.  
Whether a Minister that ought or should say common prayer in any parish Church, be punishable before the King's justices, in manner and form before expressed, if he shall not refuse to use all, but shall use some of the said common prayers, in such order and form, as they be mentioned, and set forth in the said book? For it is not said in this clause; if he refuse to use all, or any of the said prayers, but it is said, if the Minister that ought to sing or say common prayer mentioned in the same book, refuse to use the said common prayers, etc. If then he observe the order and form of the book, by saying some of the prayers, in that order and form as they be mentioned in the book, though he say not all and singular the prayers, it seemeth by the letter of the statute that he is not punishable, before the King's justices: Indeed if the book had appointed, but two prayers only, as it hath appointed but two Sacraments only, and the Minister in this case should have refused to say one prayer, and only have said the other prayer; in this case it seemeth to be without all controversy, that he should have violated the law, because the letter of the law saith, if he shall refuse to use the said common prayers, which word prayers being of the plural number, must contain two prayers at the least.   

Fourth Quaere.  
Whether a Minister that ought or should use the rites and ceremonies, mentioned in the said book of common prayer, be punishable before the King's justices, in manner & form before expressed, if he shall not refuse to use all but shall use some of the said rites and ceremonies, in such order & form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book? For it is not enacted, that the Minister shall use all and every the said rites & ceremonies, or if he shall refuse to use any of the said rites and ceremonies, but it is said, or shall wilfully and obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner, etc. By which Letter of the Statute, it seemeth that the Minister is none otherwise punishable before the King's justices, unless wilfully and obstinately standing in the same, he shall use some other rite, ceremony, order, form or manner of celebrating the Lords Supper, then is mentioned, etc.  
And upon this clause (as hath been heretofore generally conceived) certain inditements, exactly framed even by some justices of assizes sitting upon the bench, against certain Ministers, for the not observation of the book, before other of the Queen's justices have been traversed and avoided, as being in this point erroneous, and not agreeable to the intendment of the statute. Yea and it hath been the opinion of some great Lawyers, who have been since judges, that it is almost impossible to frame an indightement against a Minister, for the breach of the first part of the former clause of the statute, which is not traversable and avoidable.   

fifth Quaere.  
If a Minister bound to say common prayer in any parish church, shall not refuse to use, but indeed shall use the said common prayers, in such order and form as they be mentioned in the said book, whether he be punishable before the King's justices, in manner and form before expressed, if he refuse to say any part, chapter or section, of the said book, which part, chapter of section containeth no prayer. For howsoever the whole book be authorized, yet the pain seemeth in this case to have been inflicted, only for the omission of prayer, and not for the omission of every part, chapter or section of the book.  
Besides these questions and their reasons there be other reasons to induce us, to be of opinion that a Minister before the King's justices is not punishable in manner and form, above expressed, for his refusing to use all and every prayer, and prayers; rite, and rites; ceremony, and ceremonies; section, and sections, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book.  
In the preface to the book it is confessed, that nothing can almost so plainly be set forth, but that doubts may arise in the use and practising of the same, and therefore for the appeasing of all such diversi●ie, and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in the book, it is provided that the parties that so doubt, or diversely take any thing, shalresort to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to any thing, contained in the said book. And in the two last clauses of the preface, it is said, that all Priests and Deacons shall be bound to say daily the morning & evening prayer, either privately or openly, except they be let by preaching, studying of Divinity, or by some other urgent cause.  
And that the Curate that ministereth in any parish Church or Chapel, being at home, and not otherwise reasonably let, shall say the same in the parish Church or Chapel, where he ministereth. From which places of the preface, (being part of the book) it is plainly to be gathered, that the intent and meaning of the Parliament was not to have the Ministers to be punished before the King's justices, in manner and form before expressed, for refusing to use all, and singular the prayers, rites, ceremonies and sections, in such order & form as they be mentioned in the said book, if either upon the Ministers doubts rising in the use and practise of these things, the Bishop by his discretion did not take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; or if the Minister by preaching the word, studying of Divinity, or by some other urgent or reasonable cause, were let so to do.  
And if no Minister, in any of the cases before mentioned, be punishable, by the King's justices in manner and form above expressed, than it is manifest by the provisoes following, that the Archbishops and Bishops have no power and authority, by virtue of this act, to inquire and punish the default of any minister, in these cases, by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation.  
And this not only by the letter of the last proviso, ordained for corroboration of the Archbishops, bishops, and other Ordinaries power and authority, but also by the proviso next and immediately following that Proviso, is a matter most clear and undeniable.  
Provided always, and be it enasted, etc. That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops, etc. shall have full power and authority, by virtue of this Act, aswell to inquire in their Visitation, Synods, etc. to take accusations, and informations, of all and every the things above mentioned, done, committed or perpetrated, within the limits of their Jurisdictions, etc. And to punish the same by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation, etc.  
If then a Minister shall not do, commit, or perpetrate any of the things above mentioned, and so not be punishable by the King's justices, it followeth that the same minister is not punishable by the Ordinary.  
And this also by the next Proviso is more plain, by which it is enacted: That What soever person offending in the premises, shall for his offence first receyne punishment of the Orainarie, shall not for the same offence est 'zounds be convicted before the lustices; And likewise receyving for the said first offence punishment by the justices, he shall not for the same offence est 'zounds receyve punishment of the Ordinarle: No offence then punishable before the justices, no offence punishable by the Ordinary.  
From all which premises it seemeth that the Queen, the Lords and Commons, never intended to impose such an exact and precise observation of the book of common prayer upon the Ministers, as that in no place, nor at any time, they should omit the reading, saying, or using of a chapter, a prayer, a section, a rite or ceremony, upon pain of imprisonment, etc. before the Queen's justices, or upon pain of deprivation before the ordinary.  
And therefore the intent of the Parliament, not being so much to bind the Minister to such an exact and precise observation, as to seclude all orders and forms of prayers, ministration of Sacraments, use of rites and ceremonies, not mentioned and set forth in the said book, it seemeth very unreasonable, and much derogatory to the authority of that Parliament, that archbishops and Bishops, who were all secluded from that Parliament, should by their extentions, constructions, and interpretations (as it were) invert the plain meaning of the Parliament, and that, ea qua sunt destinata in unum sinem, should by them be converted to an other end.  
But now if the Archbishops and Bishops (at the abandoning of the Pope's power out of the Realm) have (as we confess they had) an ordinary jurisdiction by the statutes of the Realm, reserved to their Arch●episcopall and Episcopal seas, shall thereupon think, that lawfully by their ordinary jurisdiction only (without regard of any Authority granted unto them by the statute) they may proceed ex officio, to punish these defaults, than we pray their Lordships to resolve us, by what law, besides this statute, they may so proceed.  
First, this book before 5. and 6. of Edward the sixth, was never alive, and being once dead by the statute of Queen Mary, was but restored to life by the Queen's statute of Reviver. Before this statute them was revived, these offences were no offences, for where no law was, there could be no offence.  
Besides, we have some reason to conceive thus well of the Ordinaries, that they should be more prudent & discreet, then to justify their criminal process ex officio, by a plenary power, or a sovereign pleasure. And to say, that ex officio, by virtue of the popish canon Law they may lawfully proceed to suspension, excommunication, or deprivation of any Minister of the Gospel, for the not observation of the book of common prayer, we assure ourselves, that so to say, were to say amiss, yea and more than ever they will be able to prove.  
First, the whole form & order of common service, administration of Sacraments, use of rites and ceremonies, as they be mentioned and set forth in the book of common prayer, by all the grounds & rules of that popish law, is adjudged to be erroneous, schismatical and heretical. And therefore the refusing to use the same book, or any part thereof, is so far from being punishable by the same law, as by the same law, it is a matter worthy of high praise, and commendation for a Minister to refuse to use it.  
Again, what a vain part were it, for an ordinary to plead the popish canon law, for the validity of his proceeding ex officio, when as the whole body and every title, chapter and versicle of the same law, at the petition and submission of the Clergy hath long since been for ever anulled, made void and of no value, by an act of Parliament? In regard whereof, and in regard also, that every ordinaries process ex officio, may be aswell justifiable in respect of himself, as equal toward the King's subjects, it much every way importeth him, that his proceedings ex officio, be tempered hereafter with better mortar, and grounded upon a surer foundation, then be the maxims & principles of that law. Namely it behoveth that they be founded and established upon the Kings, either ecclesiastical or temporal laws and statutes, of which sort of the King's laws we may boldly and honestly say, that the Popish and foreign canon law is none: which saying also of ours we briefly prove thus:  
The Clergy of the Realm, aswell for their successors, as for themselves, having (like humble and obedient subjects to the King) promised in verbo sacerdotij, that they would, never from thence forth, presume to attempt, allege, claim or put in ure, or enact, promulge or execute any new canons, costitutions or ordinances, provincial or other, etc. It was enacted by authority of Parliament, according to the said submission and petition of the Clergy, that neither they, nor any of them from thence forth should presume to attempt, allege, claim or put in ure any constitutions or ordinances Provincial or Sinodalls, or any other canons. All canons then (by these words or any other canons) of what sort or degree soever, whether domestical and homebread or strangbread and foreign canons, before that time made, were once utterly forbidden to be attempted, alleged, claimed or put in ure, by which means they were once, concerning their practice and execution, with us anulled and made void, And therefore so many of them, as at that time were not, or since that time have not been revived and reauthorized, ought not to be attempted, alleged, claimed or put in ure at this day.  
It remaineth then to be discussed, what canons, constitutions, ordinances Provincial or synodal, or what other canons, were at that time, or have at any time sithence been recommanded, & re-established; unto which point from the whole scope & plain letter of the statute, we answer, that only such canons, constitutions and ordinances provincial or synodal, may be attempted, alleged, claimed and put in ure, as were made before that time, by the Clergy within the Realm, & were not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws, statutes and customs of the Realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative Royal. And that therefore all canons, decrees, decretal, sextes, clementines, extravagants and all other whatsoever constitutions and ordinances, Papal, being strangers and aliens from the common wealth of England, and not begotten by the Clergy within the Realm, are forbidden at this day to be attempted, alleged, claimed or put in ure: The reasons of which our answer drawn from the letter of the statute, be these:  
The Parliament having enacted, as before is mentioned, did nevertheless (according to an other branch of the petition of the Clergy) not only give to the King & 32. persons, by him to be nominated, etc. power and authority to view, search and examine the said constitutions and ordinances Provincial and synodal, before that time made by the Clergy of this Realm; but also enacted, that such of them, as the King's highness and the said 32. persons should deem & adjudge worthy to be continued and kept, should be from thence forth kept, obeyed and executed within this Realm; All canons then made before that time, without the realm, being secluded by the Parliament, from the view, search and examination of the King and 32. Persons, though he and they had deemed and adjudged the said canons to have been continued, kept, and obeyed: yet notwithstanding the same Canons ought not to have been kept, obeyed and executed. For only such canons, by the King and 32. Persons, aught to have been deemed & adjudged worthy to be continued & kept; for the continuance and keeping whereof, power & authority by Parliament was given to the King and 32. Persons. But such canons, constitutions and ordinances, Provincial or Sinodall only, and not Papal, were committed, etc. Therefore Papal being once disclaimed, and disauthorised by Parliament, and not again committed by Parliament, to view, search and examination, were never by intendment of Parliament, to be continued, kept and obeyed within this Realm. And this again most pregnantly is confirmed unto us by the last proviso of this act, the words whereof are these:  
Provided also that such canons, constitutions, ordinances, and Synodals Provincial being already made, which be not contrariant or repugnant to the laws, statutes and customs of the Realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative Royal, shall now still be used and executed as they were before the making of this act, till such time as they be viewed, searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said 32. persons, or the more part of them, according to the tenor and effect of this act:  
Now by what other words, then by these of this proviso, could the Parliament more fully and clearly have expressed their mind, that the same, by the tenor and effect of this proviso intended for ever wholly to seclude all Papal and foreign canons, from being used and executed within this Realm? For at the petition and submission of the clergy, the Parliament having first enacted, that neither they, nor any of them from thenceforth, should presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions o● ordinances Provincionall, or Synodalles, or any other Canons: And again, at the petition and submission of the Clergy, the same Parliament having committed to the view, search; examination and judgement of the King; and 32. persons, such Canons, constitutions, and ordinances, or the said Canons, constitutions, and ordinances provincial and synodal, which as thertofore had been made by the Clergy of this Realm: And lastly by this proviso, the same Parliament having enacted, that such Canons provincial, constitutions provincial, ordinances provincial, & Synodalls' Provincial (for the word Provincial by the whole tenor and effect of this Act, can not in this place but have reference to every of these words) shall still be used and executed, etc. till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered and determined by the said two & thirty persons, etc. Seeing these things (I say) be thus, First submitted, then afterwards committed, and lastly provided, and not one word, syllable, or lotter aiming at the continuance, use, keeping, or obedience of the popish canon law, it can not be averred by any, unless he be too too conceited, & opiniative, that the Canon law or any part thereof, made by the Pope without the Realm, may lawfully at this day be attempted, alleged, claimed, or put in ure within the Realm, by any judge Ecclesiastical what soever: yea and thus much also is confirmed by a statute 37. H. 8. c. 17.  
Howsoever therefore the Kings of England, deryving their Ecclesiastical Laws from others, 
Sir Edward Cook, de iure reg. eccle, fol. 9  being proved, approved and allowed hereby and with a general consent, are rightly and aptly called the King's Ecclesiastical laws of England in like manner as those laws which the Normans borrowed from England, were called the laws of Normandy, and as those laws which the Romans fetching from Athens, being allowed and approved by that state, were called Ius civil Romanorum, howsoever I say this be true, nevertheless hereupon it will not follow that those Ecclesiastical laws thus borrowed and derived from others, may then any more rightly and aptly be called the King's Ecclesiastical laws of England, when once by and with a general consent in Parliament, they have been disproved and disallowed; Yea and when also they have been utterly anulled, and commanded never to be put in execution within the Realm of England: From whence it seemeth to follow, that whatsoever subject shall take upon him, full and plenary power to deliver justice in any cause to any the kings subjects, or to punish any crime and offence within the King's Dominions by virtue of those laws, once by so absolute & high an authority disannulled, that the same person denieth the Parliament, to have full power to allow and disallow laws in all causes, to all the kings subjects, and consequently, that the high Court of Parliament, is not a complete Court for the whole and entire body of the Realm.  
Wherefore, albeit we grant (as the truth of the King's law is) unto the Archbishops, Bishops, & other Ordinaries, that lawfully they may proceed to inquire in their visitations and Synods, and else where, to take accusations and informations of all and every thing and things above mentioned, done, committed, and perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdictions and authority, and to punish the same by admonition, suspension, sequestration, or deptivation, though thus much had never been provided by the statute: nevertheless we desire to be resolved, whether any minister ought to be punished by these, or any other censures and process, before the ordinary, for any offence mentioned in this act, if for the same offence the same Minister, by virtue of this act, be not punishable before the King's justices? And therefore for example sake, put this case, viz. That a Minister for the not crossing of a child upon the forehead (after baptism is fully administered) be indited before some of the king's justices, and afterward upon a traverse before some other of the king's justices, the same Minister be found to have ministered the same sacrament of Baptism, in such order and form, as in the book is prescribed. Notwithstanding the omission of this ceremony, after baptism, and that upon such a traverse, the indightment, before the said second justices, be found to be unsufficient in law, and the Minister by the same justices be adjudged not to be in danger of the penalty of imprisonment, etc. because his such not crossing is no offence against the law, we demand (we say) in this case, whether the same Minister, by the Bishops of the Diocese, may be suspended, or deprived from his ministery, or from his benefice for the same his not crossing, yea or no.    

Considerations against the deprivation of a Minister, for the not use of a Surplice in divine service.  
IN the whole body of the statute, there is not one syllable or letter, from the which any semblance of reason can be deduced, that any Minister of the church, for refusing to use, or for the not using of any ornament appointed by the statute, or by the book to be in use, should be punished with the pain of deprivation. For what soever punishment a Minister, for the breach of the Statute, may sustain, by the king's justices, the same is only to be imposed for such offences, as are specified before the last proviso of the statute. Ornaments therefore of the church provided to be retained, and to be in use, being not contained in those premises, or things mentioned before the second proviso, concerning the Archbishops and Bishop's authority, and for refusing whereof, a Minister, by the premises is punishable, it followeth (there being no punishment for refusing the use of ornaments in the last proviso) that the not use of ornaments, is not punishable before the king's justices. And if there be no punishment appointed to be inflicted before the king's justices for the refusing to use any ornament, them much less is there any punishment to be inflicted for the refusal of the use of a Surplice. For the Surplice is so far from being commanded to be worn, as an ornament, in every service of the church, as the same is not so much as once particularly mentioned, either in the parish book, or in the statute.  
Nay by the general words, both of the statute and the book, the Surplice is wholly secluded from being appointed to be an ornament of itself, in some part of the service of the Church. For if with the same in some part of the service there be not a Cope provided to be worn, the Surplice may not be worn. For the better manifestation whereof, it is necessary that we set down the words of the Statute, of the parish book, and of the book of the second of K. Edw. the sixth: unto which book of king Edward, for the use of ornaments, the Ministers be referred, both by the parish book & statute of 1. Eliza. c. 2. the words of which statute are these:  
Provided always and be it enacted, That such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers shall be retained and be in use as was in the church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the 6. until other order shallbe therein taken by authority of the Queen's majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners, appointed and authorized under the great seal of England, for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm. Thus far the statute: the words of the parish book follow:  
It is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of the Communion and other times in his ministration shall use such ornaments in the Church, as were in use by authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edw. the sixth, according to the act of Parliament, in that case enacted and provided. The words of which book of the second of King Edward, are these:  
Upon the day and at the time appointed, for the ministration of the holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministery, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, A white Albe plain, with a vestiment or cope:  
Afterward it is said thus: Upon Wensdayes and Fridays the English Litany shallbe said or sung, etc. And though there he none to communicate with the Priest, yet those days (after the Let any ended) the Priest shall put upon him a plain Albe, or Surplice, with a Cope, and say all things at the Altar, etc.  
From all which places it is plain, First, that no Minister, at any time upon Wensdayes and Fridays, after the Litany ended, was bound simply to wear a surplice at the Altar, for it was in his choice, to put upon him a plain Albe or Surplice, with a Cope.  
Secondly, that no Priest upon the day and at the time appointed for the Ministration of the holy communion, might put upon him a Surplice, but only a white Albe plain, with a vestiment or Cope.  
Thirdly, that no Minister upon Wensdayes and Fridays, when he read the Litany, did wear, or was bound to wear an Albe, or Surplice and Cope. For it had been in vain and a thing ridiculous for the book to have willed the Minister, after the Litany ended, to put upon him those ornaments, if in the time of reading the Litany, he had had them upon his back.  
Fourthly, that no minister at or in any of the times & services aforesaid, is bound to put upon him a Surplice, unless therewithal he wear a Cope. For the use of ornaments ought to be according to the act of Parliament. And therefore where no Cope, there by the act no Surplice: where no Altar to go unto after the Litany ended, there no Surplice to be put on after the Litany: where a Communion with a white Albe plain, & a vestiment or Cope, there a communion without a Surplice.  
There is yet one other special observation before touched, though for an other purpose, worthy to be reiterated in this place against the use of the Surplice at the communion, reading the Litany, and saying prayers at the Altar. And that is this: Namely for that as well the Statute 1. Eliza. as the parish book hath revived and commanded the use of those ornaments, according to the Act of Parliament, 2. Edw. 6. which were repealed and forbidden by the book of the 5. and 6. of King Edward the sixth.  
It is to be noted, 
The order where morning & evening prayer, etc. fol. 1.  saith the book of 5. and 6. of King Edw. 6. That the Minister, at the time of the communion, and all other times, in his ministration shall use neither Albe, vestiment nor Cope, but being an Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a Rochet, and being a Priest or Deacon, he shall have and wear a Surplice only.  
And here it is to be noted (sayeth the parish book) that the Minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times, in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by Authority of Parliament in the 2. year of the reign of King Edw. the 6. according to the Act of Parliament in that case made and provided, which were as the book of K. Edw. saith, an Albe with a vestiment or Cope, at the communion, and an Albe or Surplice with a Cope, upon Wensdayes and Fridays after the Litany ended.  
But by the Provincial constitutions, 
Objection.  ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament, the parishioners are enjoined, at their costs and charges, to provide a Surplice, and in vain were this charge laid upon them, if so be the Minister were not bound by the law to wear it.  
It is true, 
Answer.  and can not be denied, that all parishioners are enjoined, and that every masspriest is bound by the Provincials, the one sort, to provide, the other to wear a Surplice, for and at the celebration of the Mass, and for and in the use of other popish services. The reason of the use of which Surplice, by the popish Glosers and Provincials, is yielded to be this; 
Lind de celebra. Missae c. l●●theamina  That the Priest must be clothed with white, to signify his innocency and purity, and also ob reverentiam & Salvatoris nostri & totius caelestis curiae, quam sacramento altaris consiciendo & confecto non est dubium interest.  
But how doth it follow, either from the provincall, or reason of the provincial, that a Minister of the Gospel is bound by the provincial to wear a Surplice at the ministration of the word and Sacraments of the Gospel, when the doctrine and service of the Gospel is contrary and repugnant to the service and doctrine of the Mass?  
And when by the statute the Provincial is not to be used and executed, but as it was used and executed before the making of the statute, which was Anno 25. of King Henry the eight, at what time the service of the Mass, called the Sacrament of the Altar, was only in request. A Minister therefore of the Gospel, by the Provincial is no more bound to wear a surplice, then by the Provincials & other laws of the Realm, he is bound to say a Mass: For the Provincial appointeth a surplice to be worn at the Mass and other idolatrous services, all which services and which Mass (as being blasphemous to the sacrifice of our Saviour Christ once made upon the cross, & repugnant to the holy worship of God) is abrogated by the laws of the Realm.  
Now than it were to be wished that all states were given to understand, by what equity, law or good conscience grounded upon the said statute, books or Provincials, sundry grave, learned and godly Pastors and other Ministers, for sundry years passed, have been deprived, suspended or excommunicated from their benefices, dignities, promotions and ministries, for not using the surplice?  
If the Archbishops, Bishops and other ordinaries, have heretofore proceeded lawfully in this case, by any other right than statute law, it were greatly to be wished, & a thing tending every way to their honour, credit and reputation, that the same their justice were made publicly known, to the end all manner persons and states; might rest themselves fully satisfied and well persuaded of the integrity of such their proceedings, as whereof they now stand in doubt.  
For our parts we acknowledge, that the Queen's Highness had authority by the statute with the advice of her Commissioners, etc. or Metropolitan, to take other order for ornaments. But we never yet understood, that any other order was taken accordingly: and especially in any such sort, as that the Archbishops, Bishops & other Ordinaries might warrant their sentences of deprivation to be lawful against the Ministers, which refuse to use the Surplice. By the Advertisements whereupon (as it seemeth) they did principally rely, and by authority whereof they did chiefly proceed, it is apparent that neither the letter, nor intendment of the statute (for the alteration of ornaments) was observed: And that therefore the commandment of wearing a Surplice in steed of a white Albe plain, by the advertissementes, was not duly made.  
For though by her highness letters it doth appear, that she was desirous, as the preface to the advertisements importeth, to have advise from the Metropolitan & commissioners, that she might take order; nevertheless that her Highness, by her authority, with their advice, did take order & alter the ornaments: this (I say) doth no where appear, no not by the advertisements themselves. Howsoever than the Metropolitan upon the Queen's mandative letters, that some orders might be taken, had conference and communication, and at the last, by assent, and consent of the ecclesiastical commissioners, did think such orders as were specified in the advertisements, meet and convenient to be used and followed: nevertheless, all this proveth not that these orders were taken by her majesties Authority. For the Metropolitan and Commissioners, might think, agree and subscribe, that the advertisementes were meet and convenient, and yet might these advertisements be never of any value, as whereunto her highness authority was never yielded.  
But be it granted that the Surplice by the Advertisements, 
The Bishop by his ordinary jurisdiction hath no authority to deprive a minister for not wearing a Surplice.  or other canons, hath been duly authorized, yet hereupon it can not be concluded, that an ordinary by his ordinary jurisdiction, hath power to deprive a Minister from his benefice for not using a Surplice. ubi non sertur in contra facientes aliqua poena, constitutio est imperfecta, & modicum prodesse poterit, quoad contra facientes, there being then no pain mentioned in the advertisementes to be imposed upon a Minister for the not use of a Surplice, how should a Minister for the not use of a Surplice, suffer the loss of his benefice, which is one of the greatest pains?  
Hereunto happily it willbe answered, 
ff. Si quis ius diceat non obte l 1. & l 2. si quis in iu● vocat.  that ubi certa poena statuta est, non debet judex ab ea recedere, ubi vero non est statuta, tunc est imponenda ad arbitrium judicantis. And further, that, respectu poenae infligendae proper contemptum judicis; non reperitur provisio regulariter, à lege facta, & ideo Judex potest arbitrio suo poenam imponere.  
Touching which answers it may briefly be replied, that the pain spoken of in the civil law, is generally understood of a pecuniary pain, to be assessed and applied to the silk; or more specially, it may be understood, that among many corporal pains, the judge arbitrarily may choose which shall seem to him most modicinable. Now, these kind of pains, it is manifest, that neither of them by the ordinary jurisdiction ecclesiastical, in the church of England, can be imposed for contempt.  
And as for that which to the same effect may be alleged, 
Foreign canon law abolished, 25.  out of the foreign canonists or foreign canon law, thus standeth the case: The whole plot & frame of the building of the canon law (as before hath been proved) is clean ruinated and wasted. 
H 8. c. 19  From whence it followeth, that all the posts, summers, walls, plates, rafters, and roof of that palace, 
A Bishop by the foreign canon law, hath no jurisdiction.  with all the iron, leaden and wooden implements, and utensilles thereof, be all likewise rotten and nought, else but dross & canker. And so from the Nullity thereof, it is to be inferred, that an ordinary can not defend or practise his ordinary jurisdiction by that law, against any of the King's subjects. For all strange and foreign law, is both a strange power, and a foreign traitor to the King's crown, and for that cause, can not be pleaded in any of the kings ecclesiastical courts, without being in danger of losing her head.  
Howsoever than this rule, 
An ordinary by the King's ecclesiastical law cannot impose an arbitrary pain for not wearing a Surplice.  in the romish consistories, by the Romish law, be true that an Ordinary for inobedience or contempt, may impose an arbitrary pain, where a statute or constitution hath appointed no pain: yet because this rule is an irregular enemy to the regiment of the king's Crown, it seemeth that the king's subject is wronged whensoever an ecclesiastical ordinary, for contempt, shall impose arbitrarily, any pain, for the which pain he hath not express warrant from the kings ecclesiastical law.  
Besides, if the Romish canon law, were the King's ecclesiastical law, yet doth not the former exception prove, that a Parson or Vicar, may be deprived from his benefice, by the ordinaries jurisdiction, for the not use of a surplice; only the said exception affordeth thus much: viz. that if an ordinary judicially and canonically (as they call it) according to the sanctions, not of the English, but of the Romish church, have admonished a Minister to wear a surplice, the exception (I say) affordeth in this case thus much, that his ordinary for contempt may impose an arbitrary pain, if so be neither by common right, nor by constitutive law, there be an ordinary pain imposed. But now so it is, that this case falleth not out to be within the compass of the pain of deprivation, for not wearing a surplice. For it is contempt only, and not the not wearing of a surplice, that arbitrarily may be punished in this case:  
Why then though an ordinary be not able by the King's Ecclesiastical laws, 
Objection.  to draw in a Minister's deprivation, principally and by the head, for not wearing a surplice, yet it seemeth that he may draw in the same consequently, & as it were by the tail; namely, by charging him with wilful perjury or obstinate contempt; for the which causes he may justly be deprived.  
Nay, 
Answer.  soft good Sir, your conclusion is without premises. For who ever granted that the Romish canon law was the King's ecclesiastical law? howsoever then, from part of mine answer made to the exception, of contempt, you might gather that by the Romish canon law, the deprivation of a Parson or Vicar, for contempt, may be drawn in by the tail, though not by the head; nevertheless we still deny that any Parsons or Vicars deprivation, directly or indirectly by the head, or by the tail, either for contempt or perjury, pretended to be committed for inobedience to canonical admonition, can justly be inflicted by the king's Ecclesiastical laws.  
First we affirm (as erst hath been said) that aswell the branch as the bud, the tail as the head of the Romish canon law is clean cut of from the body of the kings ecclesiastical law.  
Secondly, that the oath of canonical obedience, exacted by the ordinary from the Parson or Vicar, hath ever been exacted hitherto, only by virtue of the foreign canon law, and not so far (as we can learn) by any the kings ecclesiastical laws.  
And therefore perjury against a Parson or Vicar, for refusing to wear a surplice at his ordinaries command (by the king's ecclesiastical laws) can not be objected; For where there is no lawful oath taken, there no lawful punishment for the breach of the same oath can be inflicted, by means whereof, one half of the tail before spoken of, is disjointed.  
And as for the other half, viz. that for contempt of the ordinaries jurisdiction, a Parson or Vicar (having promised reverently to obey his Ordinary, and other chief Ministers unto whom the government and charge is committed over him; Following with a glad mind and will their godly admonition, and submitting themselves to their godly judgements) that a Parson or Vicar, I say, may lawfully for contempt be deprived from his benefice, if he refuse to put upon him a Surplice at his Ordinaries admonition, and upon his Ordinaries judgement, this might have some colour, if the Ordinaries admonition and judgement by the holy scriptures, could be proved to be a godly admonition, and a godly judgement: or if the former rule were a rule aswell drawn from the King's ecclesiastical law, as from the foreign canon law; or if there were no certain pain by the King's ecclesiastical law appointed for contempt: or that among diverse certain pains, deprivation were one. But seeing the same rule is none of the King's ecclesiastical rules, and that admonition, suspension and excommunication, & not deprivation by the King's ecclesiastical laws, be certain and ordinary pains, to be inflicted for contempt, it followeth by the King's ecclesiastical laws, that an Ordinary may not arbitrarily, at his pleasure, for such contempt, inflict the pain of deprivation.  
Nay, were it true that the Romish and foreign canon law, touching this point of punishment by deprivation for contempt, were in force within the Realm of England, yet we affirm, even by the same law, that a Parson or Vicar, for the not wearing of a Surplice, in divine worship, at his Ordinaries commandment, is no more by his Ordinary, to be deprived from his benefice, having a reasonable cause to refuse the wearing of a Surplice, then is a Bishop to be deprived by an Archbishop from his Bishopric, for not putting in execution some of his provincial Decrees; when as the same Bishop hath any reasonable impediment, not to execute the same decree. For this Rule, contemptus fit, ex ce ipso, quòd dum possunt hoc facere, illud tamen exequi contradicunt, is of no more efficacy ●gainst a Minister subject to a Bishop, than it is against a Bishop subject to an Archbishop. For as Episcopus est ordinarius omnium Presbyterorum suae Dioceseos, so is Archiepiscopus, ordinarius omnium Episcoporum suae provinciae. And therefore as it may be said, quod praecipitur Rectori, seu Vicario, ab Episcopo imperatur ei, & quod 
a Lind. de constitut. ec. quia incontinentiae. verb praecipimus.  imperatur necesse est fieri ab eo, & si non fiat, poenam habet; so likewise, ubi preceptum Archiepiscopi est factum Episcopo, ibi necesse est ut obediat. unde verbum 
b verb. praecipimus.  praecipimus, habet vim sententiae definitivae, aswell by an Archbishop against a Bishop, as by a Bishop against a Parson or Vicar.  
For as haec dictio praecipimus, used by a Bishop to a Parson or Vicar, importat aliquid de voluntate & authoritate Episcopi faciendum, vel non faciendum, so by the same word used by an Archbishop to a Bishob, tenetur Episcopus cui praecipitur, quòd praeceptum adimpleat, voluntate & authoritate Archiepiscopi. In like sort then, as a Bishop to save himself, both from contempt, & the penalty of contempt, may allege, and plead against an Archbishop, that he did not therefore obey and execute his metropolitans commandment, by reason of absence out of his Diocese, sickness or other reasonable impediment, even so every Parson and Vicar to avoid contempt, may plead for his innocency, against the admonition of a Bishop, that justam habet excusationem, quare illud non debeat, 
ex. de conc. praeb. c. quia etc. ult. de elect. Lind de casti. quia verb neglexerit. Lind. de sen ten. excom. verb. contempt. glos in verb contempse●it c. 1. de appell. li. 6.  vel non possit, vel nolit facere. Non enim potest dica sponte negligere, qui potestatem faciendi, quod incumbit non habet. Et negligens dicitur, qui desidiosus, vel inconsiderains est, ad ea quae agere debet, cum non subsit rationabile impedimentum & contemnere dicitur, qui sine causa, non facit quod preceptum est. Et contemnere videtur. Jdem esse quod aspernari, vel non curare, & hoc est verum quando non subest causa. Whereupon Linwood concluding, that propter inobedientiam possunt subditi corum benesicjs privari, quia graviter pecat; qui obedientiam infringot hoc verum est, saith he, si sponte, & sine causa hoc fiat. Let us then for examples sake only, suppose that the Bishop of Chichester, commanded by the Archbishop's grace of Canterbury, to proceed to the deprivation of M. N. Vicar of P. in the Diocese of Chichester, for his not comformity in wearing a surplice, should notwithstanding his commandment, spare the said Vicar his deprivation, and being convented before his Metropolitan to answer this contempt, should for his excuse allege that he had received letters of special grace, in behalf of the said Vicar from the King's Majesty, by which he was required to respite the said Vicar, and to assign him a longer day. Suppose this (I say) for example's sake to be true, I demand in this case, whether the King's letters directed to the Bishop, were not a reasonable impediment and just cause, to save the Bishop from the penalty of contempt, (which by the canon law, is the loss of his Bishopric) for the not execution of the Archbishop's provincial Mandate. If all the Advocates of the Archbishop's consistories, must needs grant that his highness letters were a just excuse to exempt the Bishop from the penalty of contempt, how much more justly and reasonably may those advocates conclude, that the same Vicar was to be excused from contempt, against the Bishop's admonition, when for his defence he alleged, and was ready by his oath to have avowed the testimony of his own conscience, rightly (as he was persuaded) grounded upon the holy commandment of the most high God, that he durst not for fear of wounding his own conscience, and displeasing God, to wear the surplice in any part of Divine worship? For if the request of an earthly king superior to an Archb. be a reasonable excuse, to save a BB. from contempt against an Archb. How much more ought the authority and precept of an heavenly king, be a just and reasonable impediment, to save a minister, from contempt against a Bishop's admonition?  
Unless then a Bishop will avow and be able out of holy writ, to justify that a Ministers conscience (especially a Minister's conscience, who walketh (as Zakarias did) in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without reproof, 
Luke 1.  can not be any just or reasonable excuse or impediment, why he ought not, or may not, or will not in Divine worship wear a surplice, being thereunto admonished by his ordinary, unless (I say) the Bishop out of holy writ be able fully to prove that such a Ministers conscience is no just or reasonable cause to stay him from wearing a surplice in Divine worship, in this case I say, that even by the Romish canon law itself, there can no contempt be charged upon such a Minister, for not obeying his ordinaries, first, second & third admonitions; the reasons whereof, even out of the same canon law have been alleged before in the first part of these considerations.  
But to leave the foreign canon law, and all the rules thereof, as being no branches of the Ecclesiastical laws of England, let it be granted that before the statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19 some canon or constitution synodal or Provincial, had been made, or since have been made, by the Clergy of the Realm, in their convocation assembled by the King's writ, that a Parson or Vicar, for perjury or contempt ecclesiastical, should be deprived of his benefice; nevertheless it seemeth that the same is a void canon, and a void constitution: Because it is contrary or repugnant to the laws and customs of the Realm: By which laws and customs no free man of the Realm, can be dispossessed, of his frank tenement, for contempt or perjury in any of the kings temporal Courts. All Parsons and Vicars then canonically instituted & inducted, being not subjects at this day to any foreign power, but being freemen of the Realm, in as large and ample manner as any Layickes, the Kings other subjects be, it seemeth that a Parson & Vicar (by the laws and customs of the Realm) being a Freehoulder, should for none other cause lose his Freehould, then for the which like cause, a Layicke may lose his.  
Yea and because no Layicke by the laws & customs of the Realm, may be put from his Freehould for contempt, no though the same contempt be committed against the king's Proclamation, or any decree made in his high Court of Chancery: by so much the more unreasonable it seemeth to be, that a Parson or Vicar for contempt against his ordinaries admonition, should be deprived from his benefice, by how much a contempt against the King's commandment, is more heinous than is a contempt against the ordinaries admonition.  
You mistake the cases, 
Answer.  & as it seemeth, you understand not the law. The Freehold of a layick, and the Freehold of an ecclesiastical person be not of one nature. The former belongeth unto him by a title invested in his person, but the latter appertaineth unto a Churchman, in the right of his Church: If then the Churchman be displaced from his Church, it followeth by a necessary consequence, that he must likewise be discharged from his freehold. For he, being in the eye of the law dead unto his Church, can no more enjoy the freehold which he held in the right of his Church, then can a dead Layick any longer hold a Franktenement, in right of his person. And for your better satisfaction herein, I would have you to consider, that the like course of justice is kept and ministered against certain officers in the common weal: which officers, so soon as for any just cause they shall be put from their offices, do withal and forthwith loose such their freeholdes, as jointly with their offices, and in regard of their offices they held.  
The Master of the Rolls and Warden of the Fleet, having their offices granted for term of life, though other of them by the same grant be seized of a freehold, the one of the house called the Rolls, the other of the house called the Fleet: nevertheless if the first be put from his Mastership, and the second from his Wardenship, neither can the one, nor the other, by the law and justice of the Realm, retain either of those houses, as his Freehold; For as the houses were jointly with their offices, & in respect of their offices granted. So their offices being once taken from them, they must withal by necessary consequence forego those their houses, which for the time they held as their freeholds.  
Well: if this be all that may gainsay our position, then be not our cases mistaken, neither yet have we so ignorantly urged & applied the law and free customs of the Realm, as you would bear us in hand. For though we grant, whatsoever you have excepted, to be true, yet can not the same be a bar against our pleading. 
Reply.  For we have hitherto pleaded no more in effect, but thus, viz. that a Parson or Vicar during his ministerial function, being in the eye of the law, no dead but a living person, and a free man of the Realm, ought no more, for a contempt unto his Ordinaries admonition, by any law of he Realm be dispossessed from the freehold, which in right of his function he enjoyeth, then can a Layicke for contempt unto the King's commandment, be disseised of his.  
And what if the Freeholdes of a Layick, & of an ecclesiastical person, be (as you say they be) diversely possessed, the one by right of church, the other by right of person, what doth this (I say) impugn our saying, that no Freeholder for contempt of the King's commandment may be punished with loss of his freehold, when the great Charter of England telleth us, that a freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the quantity of the fault. And for a great fault, after the manner thereof, saving to him his contenement or freehold. If then unto every freeman punishable by the law, though his fault be great, his Contenement or Freehold aught to be reserved; it seemeth much more reasonable to follow, that no Churchman, being a freeman of the Realm, may for contempt be punished, with loss of his Contenement or Freehold.  
And that you may consider (against our next conference) more deeply of this matter, let me put this case unto you viz. That a Churchman and a temporal person, both freemen of the Realm; for one and the self same contempt against the king, were punishable by the great Lords in the star chamber, or in any other Court, by other of the King's justices; would our laws & freecustomes of the Realm (think you) justify, that the spiritual person, enjoining still his spiritual function, might in this case be mulcted with the loss of his benefice, and yet the temporal person not to be punishable by the loss of his freehold?  
The examples produced by you, relieve no whit at all your case, nay rather they stand on our side, and make good our part. For how long soever the Master of the Rolls and Warden of the Fleet, do enjoy their offices, for so long time, by your own collection, they ought to enjoy their Freeholdes, annexed to their offices; yea and you assume in effect, that they may not lawfully for contempt, or any other cause, be disseised of their freeholds, so long as they be possessed of their offices.  
Now then, if from the identity of reason you would conclude, that a Parson or Vicar for contempt lawfully deposed from his ministerial function, should in like manner lawfully lose his freehold, annexed to his office, as the Master of the Rolls, and Warden of the Fleet, put from their offices, should lose theirs, we would not much have gainsaid your assertion. For we hold it unreasonable that a Parson or Vicar deposed from his ministerial function, should enjoy that freehold or maintenance which is provided for him that must succeed in his ministerial charge. But then your assertion would make nothing against us. For so you must prove that your officers for contempt only, may lawfully be put from their freeholds annexed to their offices, and yet notwithstanding remain the same officers still.  
And then indeed; from some parity or semblance of reason, you might have inferred, that a Parson or Vicar for contempt deprived of his free hold, annexed to his function, might notwithstanding such contempt, enjoy his ministerial function still. But to dispute after this sort, were idly to dispute, & not to dispute ad idem. For how doth this follow? The King's officer, if for contempt he be displaced from his office can not withal but be displaced from his freehold, which jointly with his office, and in regard of his office, he possessed.  
Therefore a Parson or Vicar for contempt, may lawfully be deprived from his benefice or freehold annexed to his ministerial function, and yet notwithstanding enjoy his ministerial function still. And this is the main point & general case (for the most part) of all the Ministers which at this day for contempt, stand deprived. For among all the sentences pronounced for contempt, there is scarce one to be found which deposeth a Parson or Vicar from his ministerial office, but only which depriveth him from his Church, Parsonadge, or Vicaradge. Whereby the unreasonableness of certain ordinaries, in their process of deprivations, become so much the more unreasonable, by how much more unreasonable it seemeth to be, that any public officer should lawfully be continued in his public office, and yet not be suffered to enjoy any public means, to maintain the same his office.  
And thus much have we replied unto your answer, made unto our plead, that by the laws and freecustomes of the Realm, a Parson or Vicar, being a freeman of the Realm, may not for contempt unto his ordinaries admonition, be deprived from his freehold, if so be you grant that he may enjoy his ministerial function still. As touching the laws of the church, it hath been already sufficiently demonstrated, that there is then no contempt at all committed against an admonition, when the party admonished can allege any just or reasonable cause of his not yielding to his admonisher. And if no contempt in such case be made, than no deprivation from a benefice, or deposition from the ministery, in such case ought to follow.   

Considerations against subscription, to the book of the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  
WHat the reason or cause should be, that subscription unto this book of consecration & ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, hath been of l●te years, so hotly and eagerly pursued by the Lords of the Clergy, is a mystery, perhaps, not of many of the laity well understood. And how soever under colour of the maintenance of obedience to the statute of the Realm, whereby this book is confirmed, the same subscription may seem to be pressed: nevertheless if the main drift and reason of this pressure, were well bolted out, it is to be feared, that not only the unlawful supremacy of an Archbishop is sought to be advanced above the lawful supremacy of our sovereign Lord King james; but also that the Synodals, Canons and Constitutions made by the Clergy, in their convocation, are intended, if not, to be preferred above, yet at leastwise to be made equal to the common law and statutes of the Realm.  
By the ancient laws and customs of the Realm, one parcel of the King's jurisdiction and imperial Crown, hath evermore consisted in granting ecclesiastical jurisdiction, unto Archbishops, Bishops and other Prelates. For the maintenance of which imperial jurisdiction and power, against the usurped supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, diverse statutes, not introductory of new law, 
Cook de lure. regis eccle. fol. 8  but declaratory of the old, in the time of King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and of our late most Noble Queen deceased, have been made and enacted.  
Yea and in a book entitled The Institution of a Christian man, composed by Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward Archbishop of York & all the Bishops, 
fol. 53.  diverse Archdeacon's & Prelate's of the Realm, that then were, 
fol. 55.  dedicated also by them to King Henry the eight, it is confessed and acknowledged that the nomination & presentation of the Bishoprics, appertained unto the kings of this Realm. And that it was and ●halbe lawful to Kings and Princes, and their Successors, with consent of their Parliaments, to revoke and call again into their own hands, or otherwise to restrain all the power and jurisdiction which was given and assigned unto Priests & Bishops, by the licence, consent, sufferance and authority of the same Kings and Princes, and not by authority of God and his Gospel, whensoever they shall have grounds and causes so to do, as shallbe necessary, wholesome and expedient for the Realms, the repressing of vice, & the increase of Christian faith and religion,  
Ever since which time (until of late years, the late Archbishops of Canterbury, with the counsel of his college of Bishops, altered that his opinion, which some times in his answer made to the admonition to the Parliament, he held) it was generally and publicly maintained, that the state, power and jurisdiction of Provincial and Diocesan Bishops in England, stood not by any Divine right, but merely and altogether by humane policy and ordinance alone. And that therefore, according to the first and best opinion and judgement of the said Archbishops, Bishops, etc. the same their jurisdiction might be taken away and altered at the will and pleasure of the kings of England, when soever they should have grounds and causes so to do.  
Mary since, when as the Discipline and government provincial, & diocesan ministered and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased, and his Suffragans, was diversely handled, disputed and controverted, not to be agreeable, but repugnant to the holy Scriptures, & necessary also for the repressing of vice, the increase of faith and Christian religion, to be changed; they hereupon justly fearing, that the most virtuous & Christian Queen deceased, upon sundry complaints made in open Parliament, against their many unjust grievances, would have reform the same their manner of government; they then presently upon new advice and consolation taken, boldly and constantly avouched the same their government, to have been from the Apostles times, and agreeable to the holy scriptures; 
Do. Sutclif. Doct. Bilson  and therefore also perpetual, and still to be used, & in no case to be altered, by any king, or Potentate whatsoever.  
By means of which this their inclining to the popish opinion, and holding their jurisdiction to be de iure divino, & professedly maintaining in the Homily (whereunto also subscription is urged) that the King, 
2. part of the right use of the Church  and all the Nobility, aught to be subject to excommunication, there is now at length grown such a main position, of having a perpetual Diocesan and Provincial government in the church, that rather than their Hierarchy should stoop, they would cause the King's Supremacy, which he hath over their said jurisdiction, to fall down to the ground; In so much as by their supposition, the King hath no authority, no not by his supreme power, to alter their said government at all. And to this end and purpose (as it seemeth) in their late canons have they devised and decreed, this book of ordination, to be subscribed unto. Which subscription can not but quite and clean overthrow the King's supremacy and ancient jurisdiction, in the most dangerous degree. For if their Provincial and Diocesan orders and degrees of ministery, together with their jurisdiction, be to be used, (as established and derived unto them by the holy scriptures) how then can it be in the power and jurisdiction of the King, to grant, or not to grant the use of Provincial and Diocesan Bishopisme and jurisdiction? Or how may the provincial Bishops, with their Diocesan Suffragans, be called the king's ecclesiastical officers, if their jurisdictions be not derived unto them from the king? For if they be called Gods Bishops, or Bishops of Gods making, how then may they any more be called the king's Bishops, or Bishops of the kings presenting, nominating and confirming?  
Nay, beside, who then can alter them? who can restrain them? who can revoke or recall their power and jurisdiction? who can resist them? or what king of England may pluck his neck from under their yoke? Nay, how should the king's Supremacy (as by the ancient Laws of the Realm it ought) remain inviolable, when his Royal person, whole Nobility and Realm, is subject and liable to the censure of the canon Law, excommunication? Which law the Provincial and Diocesan Bishops to this day, in right and by virtue of their Provincial and Diocesan jurisdiction, and none otherwise, do still use, practice, and put in execution?  
Besides, 
If Diocesan Bishops be scripturely Bishops, them may they stand without y ● King. Dioceson Bishops hither to upheld only by the laws of the Realm.  if Bishop's Provincial and Diocesan (as they be described in that book) be commanded in the Scriptures, and were in use ever since the Apostles times, then ought they to be in the Church of England, though the King and his law never allowed, nor approved of them. But to hold this opinion, as it will uphold the Pope's supremacy (because the general reasons which uphold a Provincial Bishop, will uphold a Pope) so will it once again, not only impeach the King's supremacy, but also be repugnant to the laws and customs of the Realm. By which supremacy, laws and customs only, the provincial & diocesan Bishops have been hitherto upheld. For seeing the laws and customs of the Realm, do make the King's nomination, presentation, and confirmation, the very essence and being of a Provincial, & Diocesan Bishop with us, So that these offices ought to be held only, from the authority, gift and grant of the King: how ought not the king's nomination, presentation, authority and gift, yea and the law itself, in this case wholly cease, if the order, degree, ministery and jurisdiction of a provincial and diocesan Bishop be founded in holy Scripture? Unless we shall affirm, that, that was in the Apostles times, which was not, or that, that is to be found in holy Scripture, which is not? Namely that there were in the Apostles times, and that there be in the holy Scriptures, no Bishops but provincial and dioceasan Bishops to be found? And that by the law of God and the Gospel, every King and Potentate, hath supreme power to suffer none but Provincial & Diosan Bishops to be in the Churches.  
So that by subscription to allow, that provincial and Diocesan Bishops, be Scripturely Bishops, and that their jurisdiction and power, is a Scripturely jurisdiction and power, is to deny that their jurisdiction and power, dependeth upon the king's jurisdiction and power, or that by the king's gift and authority they be made Bishops.  
But how doth subscription (you will say) to the book of ordination approve the orders and degrees of provincial & diocesan Bishops, to be by Divine right, rather than by human ordinance? How? Why thus: it is evident (saith the preface of that book) to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Yea and by the whole order of prayer, and of Scripture read, & used in the form of consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop, it is apparent that the order of an Archbishop or Bishop, consecrated by that book, is reputed & taken to be of Divine institution. And therefore seeing the names of those orders of Ministers, must necessarily be taken and understood of such orders of Ministers, as be set forth and described in the body of that book, it must needs be intended, that the Ministers by their subscription, should approve the orders of Ministers, mentioned in that book, to be of Divine institution, and consequently, that provincial and diocesan Ministers or Bishops, have not their essence and being from the nomination, gift & authority of the King.  
Besides, if we should understand by the word (Bishop) him that hath the Ministry of the word and Sacraments, as the Pastor & teacher; and by the word (Priest) the Presbyter, that is the Governing elder; and by the word (Deacon) the provider for the poor, then for the Ministers to subscribe to the book of ordination, would no way justify those officers or degrees of Ministers, which are described in that book, but would indeed utterly subvert and overthrow them. Because the orders and degrees of a provincial & diocesan Bishop, of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that book, be of a far differing nature from those orders and degrees of Ministers, which are mentioned in the Scriptures: because they only agree in name, and not in nature.  
Wherefore seeing there be other orders and degrees of Bishops then Provincial & Diocesan Bishops found in the holy Scriptures, & seeing also Kings and Princes being Vicarij Dei, be commanded to authorize all things for the truth; and nothing against the truth: it seemeth necessary that his Majesty should not only restrain the Provincial and Diocesan Bishops, from urging subscription to this book of ordination, (being so derogatory (in their sense and construction) to his supremacy as nothing can be more,) but also to keep the Bishops themselves within the tether and compass of the word of God. For if the word of God, do approve amongst the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, a primacy of order only, & denieth unto them any primacy of jurisdiction and power in ecclesiastical government, (as the learned Protestants have proved against the Papists touching Peter's supremacy) then will it follow that ours also ought to be reduced to the same compass, both for the King's majesties safety, and the Churches good. Lest Princes giving them more than God alloweth them, they should themselves lose that right and authority, which they ought to retain in their own Royal persons.  
Now that it may not be objected that we beg the question of Scripturely Bishops, not having any primacy of jurisdiction & power in ecclesiastical government, (to let pass all particular reasons of the Protestants against the Papists in this point) it shall suffice in this place to produce for witnesses six & forty jurors, against whom no challenge or exception can be taken; Namely the said Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury: Edward Archbishop of York: john Bishop of London: Cuthhert Dunèlmem Steven Winton: Robert Cariolen: john Exon: john Lincoln: roll and Coven & Lichfield: Thomas Elien: Nicholas Sarum: john Banger: Edward Herefordien. Hugh Wigornen. john Roffen. Richard Cicestren. William Norwicen. William Meneven. Robert Assaven. Robert Landaven. Richard Wolman, Archdeacon of Sudbur. William Knight Archdeacon of Richmond: john Bell, Archdeacon of Gloster: Edmond Boner, Archdeacon of Leicester: William Skipp, Archdeacon of Dorset: Nicholas Heeth, Archdeacon of Stafford Cuthbert Martial, Archdeacon of Nottingham: and Richard Curren, Archdeacon of Oxford: Together with William Cliff, Galfrid Downes; Robert Oking, Radulf Bradford, Richard Smith, Simon Matthew, John Fryn, William Lukemaster, William May, Nicholas Wotton, Richard Cox, john edmond's, Thomas Robertson, john Baker, Thomas Baret, john Hase and john Tyson, Sacrae Theologiae, juris ecclesiastici, & civilis Professores.  
All which Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's and Prelates, having with one voice and accord showed unto King Henry the eight, that diverse good Fathers, Bishops of Rome, did greatly reprove and abhor (as a thing clean contrary to the Gospel & the Decrees of the church) that any Bishop of Rome, or elsewhere, should presume, usurp, or take upon him the title and name of the universal Bishop, or of the head of all Priests, or of the highest Priest, or any such like title; proceed further, 
fol. 59 60.  and in the end conclude, and give up their verdict thus. For confirmation whereof, it is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, neither in scripture, neither in the writings of any authentical Doctor or Author of the Church being within the time of the Apostles: That Christ did ever make, or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of power, order, or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves, or between the Bishops themselves; but that they were all equal in power, order, authority and jurisdiction. And that there is now, and sith the time of the Apostles, any such diversity or difference among the Bishops, it was devised by the ancient Fathers, etc. For the said Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men, and taking examples of the old Testament, thought it expedient to make an order of degrees, to be among Bishops and spiritual governors of the Church; and so ordained some to be Patriarches, some to be Primates, some to be metropolitans, some to be Archpishops, some to be Bishops, etc. Which differences the said holy Fathers thought necessary to enact and establish, by their Decrees and constitutions, not for that any such differences were prescribed and established in the Gospel, or mentioned in any Canonical writings of the Apostles, or testified by any ecclesiastical Writer within the Apostles tyme. And thus far their verdict.  
But let us grant, that orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons be contained in the holy scriptures, yet if those orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons which are established in the book, be not the same orders of Bishops, Priests & Deacons, which are authorized by the scriptures: then (through the equivocation of these words; Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons) there being afalacie: how should this form and manner of subscription be lawful? viz. that the book containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, & that it lawfully may be used? For only such orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, aught to be acknowledged, subscribed unto, & used, as by the holy scriptures are warranted. And therefore such as are contained in the book, if so be they be diverse from those which are approved in the holy scriptures, how should they without sin be subscribed unto, and used? Unless we shall affirm, that Ministers of the Gospel of God, may rightfully approve of such orders of Ministers, as the Lord and Law giver of the Gospel never allowed ne approved.  
And thus much have we spoken touching not subscription, touching the not exact use of the order and form of the book of common prayer, and touching the not precise practice and wearing of the rites, ceremonies and ornaments of the church.  
Wherein if we have spoken otherwise then as for our speaking we have warrant from the King's laws, our earnest desire is that it may be showed unto us wherein we have erred. For if there be any thing whereof we be ignorant, we shallbe willing to be taught the same, and having learned it, to yield to the practice thereof.  
In the mean time, seeing not to wear a Surplice in the ministration of Divine service, not to make a cross in Baptism, & not to subscribe, etc. in itself, is not a sin against any commandment of God, nor a thing scandalous unto the people: And seeing also the Parsons who refuse to wear and use the same, be in every respect men of good note, condition, fame, quality and behaviour, yea & such as against whom, no misdemeanour for doctrine or life, which might aggravate their offence, can justly be objected, we may lawfully (as we think) conclude in their behalf, that de aequitate & misericordia juris, they ought to be respected and tolerated, rather than for their refusal merely standing upon their consciences (whether erroneous or not erroneous, it skilleth not) de rigore juris, (if there be any such rigour) to be suspended, excommunicated or deprived, yea and in so general and doubtful a case of conscience, upon so slender a ground of perjury or contempt, upon persons every way so peaceable & well qualified, and wherein no scandal hath ensued, we suppose it can not be showed among all the decrees and sentences recorded, among all the Popish canonists, that ever any Popish ordinaries, in any age have used the like judicial rigour against any their Popish Priests.  
It is to be noted, that the foreign canon Law, is none otherwise in any part of this Treatise intended to be the King's Ecclesiastical law, then only upon a false supposition of the Archbishops and Bishops: Because the same law is yet used & practised in their Consistories, notwithstanding it hath been long since abolished by Act of Parliament.  
God save King JAMES.   

Faults escaped in printing.  

In the Epistle.  
Fol. 2. pag. 1. lin. 12. say we, for (say we)  
Fol. 4 pag. 1. l. à fine. 9 efrom, for from.  
Folly 6. pag. 1. l. à fine 3. Wincester for Winchester.   

In the Book.  
Pag. 11. l. à fi. 11. appointed for appointeth.  
Pag 11. l à fi. 6. appointed for appoonteth.  
Pag. 12. the 8. line is superfluous.  
Pag. 19 l. 7. expcessed for expressed.  
Pag. 22 l à si 10 ad in marg. 1. Mar ses. 2. 6. 3.  
Pag. 24. l. 14. fifth for fifth.  
Pag. 24. l à fi. 11. decretal, for decretals.  
Pag. 35. l. 11 provincalls, for Provincials.  
Pag. 36. in fine, in marg. diceat for dicent.  
Pag. 37. in marg 25. is to be added to H. 8. etc.  
Pag. 39 l à fi. 10 preceptum for praeceptum. ibid. in mar. cc. for. c.  
Pag. 40. in mar. casti for cousti. & contempt. for contem.  
Pag. 42. l. vlt he for the.  
Pag. 43 l. 17. à si enjoining for enjoying.  
Pag. 46. l. 8. Ardbishops, for Archbishop.  
Pag. 47. in f. in mar. Dioceson for Diocesan.  
Pag. 48. l. 12. Dioocasan, for Diocesan.