A19149:52
A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an…
A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an answer to his manumissionA second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an ansvver to his manumission
Amsterdam? : s.n., Anno Domini. M. DC. XV. 1615
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Here it must be observed, that this accusation & answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediately on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherein it was enacted, that the Bishop, should make their process & writings in the kings name, and that their seals should be the kings arms. Which act was but an appendix declaring & adding form ⟨p. 25⟩to that statute of supremacy made in Henry 8 his days, whereby ecclesiastical jurisdiction was annexed to the crown so as all Bishops were to fetch it from thence. Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queer Mary's time, and not since revived, yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henry 8. to be such as hath been said: which statute is now in force. Howsoever, the Bishops have (undoubtedly) the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therefore they were then civil officers, proceeding by the kings authority, they are also now such, viz: of civil nature for their state, deriving their jurisdiction from the king, though they proceed not in his name so formally as in king Edwards days they did, & now in reason they should.
Heere it must be observed, that this accusation & answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediatly on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherin it was enacted, that the Byshop, should make their proces & vvritinges in the kings name, and that theyr seales should be the kings armes. Which act was but an appendix declaring & adding forme ⟨p. 25⟩to that statute of supremacie made in Henry 8 his dayes, wherby ecclesiasticall iurisdiction was annexed to the crowne so as all Byshops were to fech it from thence. Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queere Maries time, and not since revived, yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henrie 8. to be such as hath been sayd: which statute is now in force. Howsoever, the Byshops haue (undoubtedly) the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therfore they were thē civil officers, proceeding by the kings authoritie, they are also now such, viz: of civil nature for their state, deriving their iurisdiction frō the king, though they proceed not in his name so formaly as in king Edwards days they did, & now in reason they should.