Certain considerations wherein the Prelates do acknowledge that they stand by the mere mercy of the King and Parliament; not having any foundation in Scripture. And that the King and Parliament may dispose of them, at their pleasure.  
WHAT the reason or cause should be, that subscription unto this book of consecration and ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, hath been of late 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 howsoever 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 statues 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 & power, against the usurped supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, divers statutes, not introductory of a new law, 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, divers Archdeacon's & Prelate's of the Realm, that then were, 
Cook de jure regis eccle. fol. 8 fol. 53. fol, 55.  dedicated also by them to King Henry the eighth, it is confessed and acknowledged, that the nomination and presentation of the Bishoprickes, appertained unto the Kings of this Realm. And that it was and shall be 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 to Priests and 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 shall be necessary wholesome, and expedient for the Realms, the repressing of vice, and the increase of Christian faith and religion.  
Ever since which time (until of late years, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, with the counsel of his College of Bishops, altered that his opinion, which sometimes 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, &c, the same their jurisdiction might be taken away and altered at the will and pleasure of the Kings of England, whensoever they should have grounds and causes so to do.  
Now 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 the r many unjust greevances, would have reform the same their manner of government; they then presently upon new advice and consultation taken, 
D. Sutclif. D. Bilson.  boldly and constantly avouched the same their government, to have been from the Apostles times, and agreeable to the holy Scriptures; and therefore also perpetual, and still to be used, and 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 jure divino, & professedly maintaining in the Homily (whereunto also subscription is urged) that the King, and all the Nobility, aught to be subject to excommunication, there is now at length grown such a main position, 
2. part of the right use of the Church.  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: Insomuch 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 cannot 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 Ministry, 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, besides, who then can alter them? who can constrain 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, 
If Diocesan Bishops be Scripturely Bishops, them may they stan● without the King. Diocesan Bishops hitherto upheld only by the laws of the Realm.  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 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 and 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, ministry 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 it 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 Diocesan 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 and Diocesan 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 now 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 humane 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 and 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 order of Ministers, mentioned in that book, to be of Divine institution, and consequently, that provincial and diotesan Ministers, or Bishops, have not their essence and being from the nomination, gift and 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 and 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 and diocesan Bishop, of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that book, be of a fare 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 Majesty's 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 and forty jurors, against whom no challenge or exception can be taken; Namely, the said Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward Archbishop of York: john Bishop of London: Cuthbert Dun●lmen: Steven Winton: Robert Cariolen: Io. Exon: John Lincoln: Rowland Coven, and Lichfield: Thomas Elien: Nicholas Sarum: John Banger: Edward Herefordien: Hugh Wigornen. john Roffen. Richard Cicistrens. William Norwicen. William Meneven, Robert Assaven. Robert Landaven. Richard Wolman, Archdeacon of Sudbur. William Knight, Archdeacon of Richmond: John Bell, Archdeccon of Gloster: Edmond Boner, Archdeacon of Leicester: William Skipp, Archdeacon of Dorset: Nicholas Heath, Archdeacon of Stafford: Cuthbert Martial, Archdeac●n 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 shown unto King Henry the eight, that divers 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, and in the end conclude, and give up their verdicts thus. For confirmation whereof, 
Fol. 59.60  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 preeminence or 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 sigh 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 amongst 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 Archbishops, some to be Bishops, etc. Which differences the said holy Fathers thought necessary to enact and establish, by their Decrees and Constitutions, nor 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 time. And thus fare 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 Bishop's Priests & Deacons, which are authorised by the Scriptures: then (through the aequivocation of these words: Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons) there being a fallacy: how should this form and manner of subscription be lawful? viz. that the book containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it lawfully may be used. For only such orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, aught to be acknowledged, subscribed unto, and used, as by the holy Scriptures are warranted. And therefore such as are contained in the book, if so be they be divers 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 Lawgiver 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 shall be 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, it not a sin against any commandment of God nor a thing scandalous unto the people: and seeing also that Parsons who refuse to wear and use the same, be in every respect men of good note, condition, fame, quality and behaviour; yea, and 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 and contempt, upon persons every way so peaceable and well qualified, and wherein no scandal hath ensued, we suppose it cannot 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 and practised in their Consistory, notwithstanding it hath been long since abolished by Act of Parliament.