the infinit dishonour of our great God blessed for ever Truely besides the sparkles of Divinity and the Spirit of God illuminating in the Scriptures which writ them the excellency and goodnes of their object and matter the purity the perfection the Antiquity the universall consent and agreement of themâ— the majesty and simplicity of the languages and speech they are writ in the conviction that is in them of wicked rebellious consciences beating downe humbling the strongest Spirits the certayne event of things foretold in them the integrity of the Writers being farre from all fraud and guile setting downe their owne infirmities and the weaknesses of their families which human reason would never have done the preservation of these Holy Scriptures in all ages from the fury of the persecuters and out of the hands of those that studyed to destroy them the constancy of the Martyrs allwayes that beleeved kept them and the fearfull tragicall ends of such as were enimies of them These the Defendent sayth and many more reasons there are to prove the Scriptures to be the word of the ever living God by themselves without any Autoritie of Fathers But yet one reason moreâ— the Defendent thought fit to add before he returneth againe to the Holy Scriptures owne Autorityâ— which is sufficiently able to declare it to be the Word of God And that is this All things that are mens owne whether counsayles Lawes ordinances inventions Polityes or projects orders of government c. they are agreeable ever to the corrupt nature of man or els to carnall reason men commonly hugg their owne devices Now if the religion that is set downe in Holy Scriptures or the Scriptures themselves had ever been the fiction excogitation of mens braines as some prophane Atheisticall men thinke who suppose and say â—hat religion was by Policy invented to keep men in awe then the Defendent sayth that all men would willingly and without reluctation have embraced and received them and given them ever admittance and free entertaynment for the world ever loveth his owne Now it is notoriously knowne that no carnall men either love the Scâ—iptures or regard them nay it hath been allwayes the endeavor and the greatest plot and conspiracy of wicked and ungodly men and the adversaryes of the trueth either totally to extinguish them or to vilify their Autority as K. Iames of renowned memory in his Apology to all Christian Princes sufficiently declareth discovering therein the Popes double diligence in that busines So that were there no other reason but this alone it were of conviction enough to prove the Holy Scripture to be â—he Word of God because it so much opposeth impiety wickednes cruelty unrightuous dealing errors and darknes which carnall and sensuall men love moâ—e then light And whereas the Prelats with the Papists produce the Autority of the Fathers for the mayntayning of what they speake and in Court alledged that of Augustin Where he sayth that he would not have beleeved the Scripture if the Church had not told him it was the Scripture The Defendent for his part is sorry to see such a profane Sympathy between the Prelats Papists in these things who deale with true Christians as the Gibeoniâ—s dealt with the Israëlits in the 9. of Iudges who pretended they were Ambassadors tooke olds sacks upon their asses and old tattered bottles and clouted shooes and ragged clothes and pretended they came from a farre Country and so the Israëlits not taking counsell of the Lord were cosened and deluded by them Even so the Papists and Prelats under pretence of the ancienâ— Writers and with their old shooes and moldy bread of uncoth antiquiâ—y rob us of â—he trueth and take away from us â—he bread and staffe of life by which wee should safely and comfortably walke to Heaven and happines and under the pretence of the Fathers their Autority they abuse and deceive the simple But in this cause Augustin is not very usefull unto them for his Autority in this so waighâ—y a matâ—er is to rationall men of no great validity for the Defendent demands of any that hath but the grace of understanding that if Augustine would never have beleeved that there had been a God without the Church had told him so must his infideliâ—y make others Aâ—heists also this will not be thought good reason amongst the learnedâ— for then one mans imperfections should be a rule for multitudes to goe to hell unbelief should be a vertue And yet it is not altogether denyed but that the perswasion and report of men may be a motive to stirre up men many times to the hearing perusell of a thing which of it self doth not alwayes beget faith or but very little as dayly experience teacheth us but the thing it selfe seene or heard is that that workeâ—h and affecteth it and makes their faith so firme and stedfast that all though the same partyes should a thousand times after deny that to be so yet they to the death would persever in that their true believe As for example vve see in the people of Samaria that were by the womans perswasions brought ouâ— to see Christ and in some small measure beleeved in him from her relation that he was the Messiah yet when they had talked with him themselves they openly affirmed that then they beleeved not because the woman had told them but from more excellent reasons and grounds that they themselves had heard him And should the Samaritan woman a thousand times after that have denyed that he had been the Messiah they would never have been removed from their faith in Christ for all that The same may be sayd of Nathaniel in the first of Iohn to whom Philip saydâ— That he had found him of whom Moses spake in the Law and the Prophets Iesus of Nazarreth and Nathaniel sayd unto him Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth Philip sayd Come and see Iesus saw Nathaniel comming unto him and saith to him Behold an Israelit indeed in whom is no guile Nathaniel sayd unto him whence knowest thou mee Iesus answered and sayd unto him Before that Philip called thee when thou werâ— under the Fig tree I saw thee Nathaniel answereth saith unto him Rabbi thou art the son of God thou art the King of Israel And howsoewer Philip here was an occasion of bringing Nathaniel to Christ yet the sight of Christ and his Miracles were the things onely that begat true faith in him and such a faith as all the Philips in the world could never after have removed him from it againe And so was it with Augustine perhaps that being a learned infidell or little better a Manichee through the perswasions of learned Christiaâ—s he came to looke in the Word of God as all faith commeth by hearing but doth it therefore follow that that was onely the cause of his faith and perseverance in it or if the Church had not told him so
that the spring hath ever the precedency and is of greatest autority and without all controversy as it overthroweâ—h all reason so it is exceedingly impious against our great God the fountayne of all good and the giver of every good and perfect gift and they that shall speake so contumeliously as the â—iâ—â—â—ps doe of these Fountaynes of living waters â—he holy Scriptures as they did the Defendent wâ—ll euer mayntaine they are contemners and despisers of the holy Scriptures and in this opinion he will live and die Neiâ—her did they lesse offend in saying that the Scriptures could not be knowne from the Apocryâ—ha without the help and auâ—hority of the Fathers which poynt also the Defendent desireth this honorable Court to heare a little discussed it being a thing of so high nature concerning not onely the glory of God buâ— the good of every mans Soule the peace of the Church and the tranquillity of the whole Kingdom And therefore he humbly craveth favour that he may agitate it here a little for the furtheâ— Demonstration of the iustnes of his accusaâ—ion hee chargeth the Prelats with viz That they are disgracers and contemners of the holy Scriptures They say that the Scriptures can not be distinguished from the Apocrypha but by the Fathers which assertion is against sense and reason it self too impious for Prelats to speake Is not this an essentiall property of the Scriptures of the old Testament that they were written in the Hebrew tongue and that they did give witnes of Christ and received autority from him and that they were put into the hands keeping of the elect chosen people of God as a Treasury Now the Apocrypha had none of all this honour Neithâ—r did ever the Jews account of them as Scripture yea to this day they reject them Neither for these reasons onely are they distinguished from the Apocrypha but for many others the divinity purityâ— sublimity appeares in the Canonicall Scriptures the futility folly and falsity in the Apocrypha are too too manifest and is there any man so stupid blockish to thinke that this age wherein we live cannot distinguish or discerne gold from lead without the autority of the Fathers There is a vaster difference between the Apocrypha and the Canonicall Scriptures then is between gold and lead Every mans reason will tell him an apparent difference between brasse beanes But if any be desirous of autority to distinguish them will not Christs and the Apostles suffice The very Papists that have not abiured all honesty goodnesâ— do freely acknovvledge and confesse that those onely are Canonicall Scriptures which the Apostles did eiâ—her write or approve of But thâ—y did never approve of the Apocrypha The Canonicall Scriptures of the old Testament did in shâ—dows and figâ—res sett fâ—rth that which thâ— new Testament cleâ—rly speaks They did adâ—mâ—rate the new Testament expresseth in lively colours one anâ— the same thing They consent one with an other and yeild each other mutuall ayde and help Now the Apocrypha do neither foretell the new nor are by their autority and approbation illustrated and declared Christ commends Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes as books without all exception Luc. 24. and grounds his doctrine upon them but never honours nor graceth the Apocrypha with his Commendations or wiâ—nes How then can the Prelaâ—s without great conâ—umely unâ—o the sacred Scriptures say they cannot be distinguished and knowne from â—he Apocrypha but by the Fathers especially after the judgment of Christ himself is given and hath passed upon the Scriptures for the autorizing of them to be â—he word and will of God The Fathers as the learned acknowledge were for their times many of them worthy of honour but yet they vvere subject not to a fevv errors and often agreed not vvith themselves and are ever at variance vvith others and have been indeed the originall and cause of allmost all the coâ—troversies vvith vvhich the Churches are novv tormented And therefore to conclude this poynt the Defendent sayth that the Prelats are disgracers and contemners of holy Scripture vvhen against so much light of reason and Divine autority they say they cannot be distinguished and knovvne from the Apocrypha but by the Fathers Neither â—s the third Thesis Position freer from impudency and outrage against the Scriptures then the tvvo former In that they say the meaning of the Scripture could not be knovvne but by the Fathers For in this they doe as much as playnly affirme there is an other vvay to heaven then by â—he Scriptures vvhich if it be not a contemning and disgracing of holy Scripture then there never vvas any Nay if it be not blasphemy the Defendent knovveth not vvhat blasphemy isâ— and therefore all those that desire salvation and to goe to heaven must come to the Schoole of the Fathers and not to the Doctrine of the Scriptures And hovv then vvill the poore people doe to be saved that never knevv vvhat a Father vvas Nay hovv did all those goe to heaven that dyed before the Fathers For the Prelats say that the meaning of the Scripture cannot be knovvn vvithout the Fathers vvithout the knovvledge of the Scripture there is no salvation It is most manifest by these expressions of the Prelats that they vvith their untempered morter vvould put out the light of the Scripturesâ— make them not onely inferior to all mens vvritings but a very pack of Non-sense for vvheresoever thâ—re is any sense there can something be gathered out of it especially if it be so large a Booke And hovvsoever there bee many depths in Scripture there is also great perspicuity so that according to the ancient saying as an eliphant may svvimme a lamb may vvade thâ—re also But if it should be so as the Prelats say that without the autority and interpretation of the Fathers the meaning of them could not be knowne found out then the Dâ—fendent affirmeth they should be inferior to all other writings yea to every Letter and Epistle that men penn with understanding for they ever carry their owne sense and meaning along with them or to what end are they otherwise writ If the letter that discovered the gunpouder treason had not had a match and light of understanding in it that Popish plot had never been discoveredâ— till by its cruell flames it had declared it self and by the funerall of the vvhole Kingdome had been made knovvne and left those that survived and lived in perpetuall mourning If every Letter-vvriting and booke then that is penned vvith judgment carry its ovvne sense and meaning in it and the books for vvhich the Defendent is novv questioned and if all Proclamations Lettres and Edicts of Princes are easily to be understood and carry their ovvne interpretation vvith them so that none after their publication may pretend ignorance dare any man be so bold and audacious as to say that the Letters and Proclamations of the King of heaven and
the proceedings of the Prelats against himself and their dealings tovvards others of their brethren the theame of vvhich booke he the Defendent desireth the honorable Courtâ— to take a briefe relation of at this time that they may the better be informed of the falsitie of the information And first for the principall theame and matter of the booke it is the State of the questions in his Flagello Pontificis for vvhich he suffered vvith the summe of the Arguments he produced for the confirmation of the trueth The questioâ—s arising betvveen the Babylonian and the defendent concerning the autoritie of the Pope were these The first whether Christ did constitute Peter sole Monarch of the Catholick Church The second vvhether the Pope of Rome if hee bee a Bishop as hee is a Bishop hath Autoritie jurisdiction over Kings Emperors Thirdlie vvhether Popish Bishops be true Bishops or no and of the discussing of these questios the defendent saith his adversarie vvas the sole cause In the handling of the which the Defendenâ— fâ—rther affirmeth that he used all the caution that vvas possible as he supposed for man to use prefacing in his booke that being to dispute about the Autority of the Bishop of Rome he desired candidly to be understood of all menâ— for while he disputed of Episcopall autoritie he medled nor contended not against such Bishops as ackovvledge their autoritie jurisdiction from Kings and Emperors into vvhose hands the government of States Kingdomesâ— and Commonvvealths is by God committed For if the Popes themselves vvould acknovvledge their immense and unlimited autoritie from Kings and Emperors he the defendent there said if they commanded nothing contrarie to the vvill and Word of God that he for his part out of the reverence duty â— loyaltie to his Prince vvould obey it The Words in the Original are these Verum de Episcoporum autoritate locutus à bonis bene intelligi cupio Non enim litis litem moveo quatenus ab Imperatoribus Regibus Principibus Terre quorum interest salutem civium tueri potestatem â—us Imperium in socios totumque Dei gregem adepti sunt Nam si Romani Episcopi immâ—nsam illam nullis limitibus circumscriptam autoritatem indulgentia Principum acceptam ferrent voluntati Episcopali nihil voluntati divinae inimicum jubenti obtemperandum putem ob reverentiam Principi si volenti debitam c. So that the defendent having thus playnlie set downe his minde before knowing that all the jurisdiction that the Bishops in England now exercise over others is â—rom the King he thought himself not onely secure from danger but expected favâ—ur at least from the Bishops their helping hand especially when the opposing the Popes Autority in England is a thing that the King and State have ever so well allowed of And that this honorable Court may yet be fâ—rther informed of the speciall cause for which the Prelats are so displeased with the defendent it was for the truely and narrowlie disputing and discussing of the second question to wit whether the Pope of Rome if he be a Bishop as he is a Bishop have Autoritie jurisdiction not onelie over his fellow brethâ—en but over Kings and Emperors which the Defendent there denyed for many warrantable Arguments The summe of which he desireth here to relate unto this honorable Court for his just and necessarie defence justification For by the veâ—ie light of nature and unanswerable reason it is evident and manifest that where there is an equalitie and pariâ—ie amongst men there the one doth not exceed the other in power or Dominion Paris enim in Parem non esse imperium inter Naturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est Novv Divine constitution hath made Bishops and Presbyters or Elders a like and equall vvhich that it might the better appeare the Defendent propounded there tvvo things to be proved The first vvas That Bishops and Presbyters vvere by the Word of God one and the same Secondlie That Presbyters had equall Autoritie of Governmentâ— Ordination Excommunication vvith Bishops vvherein onely consists their preeminency Autoritie above their brethren vvhich things being proved it vvill necessarilie follovv That the Pope of Rome as he is Bishop doth no vvay exceed other Bishops and Presbyters they being in all things a like and equall unto him much lesse hath any Autoritie and povver over Kings and Emperours And for the proofe of the first position the vvords Presbyter Bishop do sufficientlie evince iâ— vvhich in holy Scripture though diverse in sound signifie one and the same thing as not to cite the vvords themselves vvhich would be large The Apostle Paul to Titus in the first chapter doth sufficientlie shew vvhere the words Bishop Presbyter are confounded And likevvise in the first Epistle of Peter and the fift Chapter there Presbyter and Bishop signifie one and the same thing And the Epistlâ— to the Philippians the first Chapter and the â—irst verse doâ—h apparentlie demonstrate itâ— and diverse other places might be produced dilucidating the same thing But the 20â— of the Acts puts all out of controversie where Presbyter and Bishop signifie one the same thingâ— for officeâ— honour and function so that the identity of their officeâ— is signifyed by those tvvo expressions Neither is there a confusion of their names with a difference still of their functions administrations as some vvould cavill for in these places vvhere Presbyters are called Bishops the disputation is not about the title but about the office signified and specified by the title For vvhen S. Paul exhorts the Presbyters to have an eye to their duty charge he useth this reason that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishopsâ— And the trueth of â—his is so evident that the Rhemists themselves as learned men as any Bishops in England and as able to mayntayne an error are forced ingenâ—ouslie to confesse it saying in expresse vvords in their Noâ—es upon the 28. vers of that Chapter That in the Apostles times there vvas no difference betvveen Presbyter and Bishopâ— so that for the first position it is not onely by the Word of God clearlie evident but by the very confession of the adversaries of the trueth granted as a thing without controversy Novv for proofe of the second position that Presbyters as vvell as the Bishop of Rome have the povver and right of Government Ordination and Excommunication by vvhich in these times Bishops onely exceed Presbyters the defendent vvill here brieflie demonstrat it referring those of this honorable Court that have a desire to search into the full trueth of it to his booke And for proofe that the Government vvas committed unto them and that they exercised the same it is most perspicuous out of the first of Timothie 5. vvhere the Apostle sayth The Presbyters that rule vvell are vvorthie of double honour especially those that labour in Word and Doctrine By this testimonie it is evident that they
of the Kingdome of Heaven by name are committed those are more vvorthy honorable then those thaâ— have not that Priviledge But for the Presbyters they have the Priviledge of the Keys granted unto them by name Ergo the Presbyters are more honorable then Bishops For the major no good Christian vvill or rationall man can deny it And for the minor he that readeth the last of Iames shall finde it manifestly enough confirmed and proved By all vvhich Arguments the Defendent did sufficiently beat dovvne the Bishop of Romes autority and by the very light of reason overthew it For if that every Presbyter be by the word of God as good a man as the Bishop of Rome if not better and vvithall if the Presbyters neither can nor may usurp autority over their fellovv brethren much lesse may they doe it over Kings and Emperors and by consequence and necessity of reson it follovveâ—h that the Bishop of Rome hath no cause to arrogate such autority to himselfe over the vvhole Church as he doth and therefore that his rule Government is a meere usurpation and an abominable tyranny over the vvhole Church of God and ought of all men to be defyed abominated and abhorred vvith all his complices as impious and blasphemous against Godâ—â—njuriouâ— to Kings Princes and nocent to all the faithfull members of Iesus Christ. The recapitulation of all the vvhâ—ch Arguments this Defendent thought fit to make knovvne to this honourable Court that their illustricityes might in every respect see his innocency vvho first exemted all Bishops that acknovvledge their autorityes from Kings and Emperors out of the number of those against vvhich he disputed and secondly never by name fought against any other but Romish Bishops and vviâ—h their ovvne arguments vvounded themâ— And therefore he could not but take it unkindly that when in this combat they should have helped him against the common enimie they defending him fell upon the poore Defendent to his perdition saying that he meant â—hem and that he vvas erronious and factious in his opinions Novv if the Defendent hath erred in the discussing of these truthes the Scripture that Word of Life hath brought him to it vvhich vvere blasphemie to thinke and therefore vvhen they adjudged his booke to be burnt they might as vvell have burnt thâ— Scripture also yea all antiquitie and the gravest and learnedest of auncient Fathers vvhose testimonies also hee hath made publick for the greater vindication of the truth against error and cruelty But that the integritie of the defendent may yet more clearlie appeare he most humbly entreateth this Illustrious Tribunall to heare hovv the busines vvas carried against him at his Araignment before the Prelats Barre at Lambeth and hovv submissively he demeaned himself there and hovv superciliously they carried themselves towards the Defendent on the contrary side When it came to his part to speake for himselfe the Advocat having formerly denied to plead his case any farther then about the vvitnesses testimonie vvhich he also did very jejunely beeing an Advocate of such excellent parts of learning and eloquence as he vvas and also at the Bar â—enouncing iâ— saying That the Defendent should plead himselfe which vvhen it vvas put upon him he then first related vnto the Assemblie the Theame of the booke vvhich vvas the mayntenance of the Kings prerogative royall Then he told them the occasion of his vvriting of it that he vvas provoked thereunto by a Pontifician vvho often had dared him into the list of disputeâ— which aâ— last he could not deny as he vvas a Christian and as he vvas a Subiect for by the Word of God he told them and by the Law of the Land and his speciall oath he vvas bound unto it vvhich Oath he also read at large in open Court the vvhich also all the Bishops of England and all the Iudges of the Kingdome had taken and vvere equally bound vvith him to observe Then before he entred into the combat vvith the adversarie he shevved vvhat caution he used that being to vvrite against the Bishop of Rome Italian Bishops it vvas onely as they arrogate their auâ—oritie over their Brethren and the Church of God yea over Kings and Emperors jure divino against such Bishops onely hee affirmed he did dispute read the vvords of exception formerly cited at the Barre as for such Bishops as acknovvledge their jurisdiction povver and autority from Kings and Emperors he sayd he haâ— no controversy against them as he there againe and againe declared himself in the number of vvhich he the Defendent sayd ours were for all the Bishops of England and in his Majst Dominions had and received or at leastvvise ought so to doe their autoritie jurisdiction over their brethren from him For proofe of vvhich he cited read publickly the Statuts and Acts of Parlament as follow First that of the first of Queene Elizabeth of famous memorie vvherein the Oath of Allegiance vvas ratifyed In the which Statute there are these words That all jurisdiction all Superiorities and all Privileges and Preminencies spirituall and temporall are annexed to the Imperiall Crovvne vvhich by Oath he being bound to mayntaynâ—â— could doe no lesse being provoked by an adversary of regal dignity He read also the Statute vvhich was inacted in the 37. of Henrry the eight vvhich is that Archb and Bish. and all other Ecclesiasticall persons have no other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but that vvhich they received and had by the King from the King and under his Royall Majest He read also the Statute made in the first of King Edward the sixt in these vvords That all jurisdiction and Autoriâ—ie Spirituall and Temporall is derived and doth come froÌ„ the Kings Majest as supreme Head in the Churches and Kingdomes of England and Ireland and that by the Clergy of both the Kingdomes it ought no otherwise to be held or esteemed of and that all Ecclesiasticall Courts vvithin the sayd Kingdomes ought to be held and kept by no other povver and autoritie eyther domesticall or forrain then that vvhich comes from his most excellent Majestie And that vvhosoever did not acknovvledge and venerate this autoritie that the same men are ipso facto in a praemunire under the Kings high displeasure and indignation as the vvords of the Statute run and the mouth of the lavv speaks and then vvith some reasonâ— also vvhich the Defendent produced besides the Word of God hee shevved That no Romish Bishops had autoritie over their fellovv brethren nor could jure divino challenge it much lesse over Kings and Emperors and therefore so long as the defendent had the Word of God the Lavves of the Kingdome and reason it self on his side he told them he thought himself reasonably secure from all danger in that place And then applying his speech unto the right honorable and noble Lord the Earle of Dorset then present the Defendent tolde his honour that he could not but vvonder that hee should stand
there at the Barr as a Delinquent for mayntayning the Religion established by publick Autority the honour of the King and the glory of his Majestie and that one Chouny a Sussex man a laick as vvell as himselfe should vvrite a Booke and set it forth by publicke autoritie mayntayning the Church of Rome to be a true Church and never to have had so much in her as the suspition of error in fundamentall poynts and that this booke should be dedicated to the Prelate of Canterbury patrionized by him vvhich Bookâ— the Defâ—ndent both read and exhibited in Court by vvhich notwithstandig the King himselfe and all his Subiects were made Schismaticks and hereticks to the infinit dishonour of God our Gratioâ—s King and King Iames of blessed memorie and our most holie profession and religion This as the defendent told the Lord of Dorset struck an amazement in him especially vvhen the author of it must be favoured and coâ—ntenanced by Canterburie and for the defending of the honour and dignitie of our Church and the honour of the King the Defendent should stand as an evill doer Novv vvhen the defendent vvas come thus farre and vvas then approaching more closely unto them all intending more fullie in the pleading of his cause to have set forth their unjust dealing they tolde him that he rayled and imperiouslie commanded him to hold his peace vvhich vvas the reason of his Apologeticus ad Praesules Anglicanos vvhere he tooke libertie to vvrite that and publish it to the vievv of all the vvorld vvhich he vvould have then spoke But after that they had silenced him they then fell a thundering against him everie one as he pleased all of them joyning in this one onely excepted that they censured him onely for his Booke and in their censure they unanimously agreed that the Defendent should pay the costs of suite a thousand pounds unto the King for a fine be debarred of his practice that his booke should be burnt and that the Defendent should lye in prison till recantation and in the meane time be delivered unto Satan And thus did the Sublime Court deale with the Defendent for doing his duty But here the Defendent craveth favour againe of the honorable Court that he may briefly letting the puny Iudges and their nonsenâ—e dye in silence say something of the Prelats haranges because they onely were the men that found themselves aggreeved aâ— his writing to say the trueth all the other are Officiers under them and are the Prelats hangbyes he meanes the Doctors to doe what they would have theÌ„ as hourely experience teacheâ—h all men And so much the more earnestly he desireth this liberty because it will make much for the demoÌ„stration of the justice of his accusation against the Prelats both in respect of the dishonor they have don unto God by it the dishonour of the King their Master King Iames of precious memory and the wrong done to himself in particular Now the first that entred this combat was Francis White Bishop of Ely who in the first place most blasphemously and with many contumelyes reproached the holy Scriptures making nothing of their divine Autority as all the standers by can witnes for he reviling the Defendent sayd That he had nothing in his booke but Scripture which was as he tearmed it the refuge of all Hereticks and Schismaticks openly averring withall That the Scripâ—ures could not be knowne to be the Word of God but by the Fathers and Saint Augustin would not have beleeved the Scriptures to be the Word of God had not the Church told him so Further he sayd That the Scripture could not be knowne distinguished from â—he Apocrypha but by the Faâ—hers nor the meaning of the Scripture found out but by the Fathers that all the Faâ—hers from all Antiquity which is most false as the defendent in a speciall booke hath sufficiently shewed made and proved a vast difference between Bishops and Presbyters and that there was ever a greater excellency and Autority in the Bishop then in Presbyters And this with an unanâ—mous coÌ„sent they all agreed in till a base fellow Calvin for so he tearmed that ever to be honoured Divine rose up in an obscure corner of the World viâ—lated and overtrew all order Autority in the Church and would allso have demolished the Autority of the Magistrates And then turning his speech to the Defendent unhumanly he called him Base fellow Brasen faced Fellow Base Dunce and sayd in the face of the Court That if he could not mayntayne his Episcopall Autority to be Iure Divino he would fling away his Rotchet And so concluding with those that had gone before him in his censure he sat downe in a very great fuâ—y and passion Afâ—er him came forth the Bishop of Yorke and in that numerous Assembly proclaymes That Iesus Christ made him a Bishop and the holy Ghost consecrated him and that he had not his Autority from the King for Bishops were before Kings and that Bishops held the Crownes of Kings upon their heads and so peremptorily averring that the Defendent ought to be knockt downe with club-Law for his ignorance assenting with the rest in their Censure he fell a sleep In the third place the Bishop of London advanced forwards speaking very loud and temerarious words against the Holy Scriptures saying That he had thought to have found some great Matters in the Defendents booke seeing him so confident and so peremptory but diligently reading of it he met with nothing in it but Scripture which as he sayd was the refuge of all Schismeticks Hereticks so according with his predecessors in their opinion and censure he concluded his part of speech But last of all came forth the Prelat of Canterbury who with a frontlesse boldnes avouched his Episcopall Autority preeminency over his breâ—hren to be onely from God very much blaming Calvin for his faâ—tious Spirit saying That their Ecclesiasticall Autority the power they exercised was from Christ Iesus and produced Timothy and Titus to proveâ— the same assertion and that Bishops were before Christian Kings and they held the Crownes of Kings upon their heads For no Bishop no King those that would have no Bishops sought to overthrow all Government in his censure he jumped in all things with the rest saving in the Fine which as he sayd hee thought too little and therefore ought of meere conscience as he told the other Iudges hee fined the Defendent a Thousand pounds more But he had one thing more to speake as he sayd concerning the Châ—rch of Rome and about that he resolved publickly there to declare himself in regard the Defendent had cast Chounyes book unto him in open Court and of the Synagogue of Rome he spake verie honorably affirming That shee was a true Church and that shee did not erre in fundamentall poynts and all this hee spake in that publick Sessions All which the Defendent hath