in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is
A CATALOGVE OF SVCH TESTIMONIES IN ALL AGES AS PLAINLY EVIDENCE BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS TO BE BOTH ONE EQUALL AND THE SAME IN IURISDICTION Office Dignity Order and degree by divine Law and institution and their disparity to be a meere humane ordinance long after the Apostles times And that the name of a Bishop is onely a Title of Ministration not Dominion of Labour not of Honour of Humility not of Prelacy of painfullnesse not of Lordlinesse with a Briefe Answer to the Objections out of Antiquity that seeme to the contrary Printed in the Yeere 1641. The EPISTLE to the READER Christian Reader THere is nothing more frâ—quent in the mouthes of our Lording Prelates and their Flatterers then to vaunt That their Hierarchie and Episcopall Sâ—periority over other Ministers is by divine Right and Institution and that all Antiquity from Christs till Calvins dayes and all learned men except a despicable small number of Factious Puritans as they term them suffragate to this Conclusion This was the more then thrasonicall bâ—ast of Dr. Laâ—d Arch-prelate of Canterbury and some others not onely at the Censure of Dr. Layton in the Star-chamber and Dr. Bastwicke in the High-Commission some few yeares past but likewise at the late Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Mr. Burton and Mr. Prynne in the Star-chamber Iune 14. 1637. where in his learned Speech since Printed by speciall command through his own underhand procurement he thus magisterially determines pag. 6 7. This I will say he might have done well to have proved it first but that his Ipse dixit only is now an Oâ—acle and abide by it That the calling of Bishops to wit Archbishops and Dâ—ocaesans superiour to and distinct from Presâ—yters else his Speech is not onely idle but impertinent is Iure divino though not all adjuncts to their callings he should have done well to have specifieâ— what adjuncts in particularâ— And I say further that from the Apostles times in all ages in all places the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops to wit Diocaesan Bishops like to our Prelates now which he will prove at Graecas Calendas And Lay-Elders never heard of till Calvins new-fangled devise at Geneva To disprove which fabulous assertion I have not only particularly encountred it in the Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus to which no Answere yet hath been returned by this Over-confident Boaster or his Champions though specially challenged to Answer it but likewise by way ef Supplement to that Treaâ—ise drawn up this ensuing Catalogue which I challenge his Arch-grace with his brother Prelates Doctors Proctors Parasites to encounter with as many contrary Authorities if they can â— wherby both learned and illiterate may with ease discern that both by divine Institution the suffrages of Fathers Councels forraigne and domestick writers of all sorts aswell Papists as Protestants and the resolution of the Church and State of England in Convocation and Parliament Bishops and Presbyters are but one and the samâ— in point of Office and Iurisdiction and that the Superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is a meer humane Institution long after the Apostles dayes introduced partly by custome partly by the Bishops owne insensible incroachmeâ—ts upon their fellow brethren but principally by the grants connivances or indowments of Christian Princes destitute of any divine foundation to support it I confesse in the * Councel of Trent it was much debated among the Popish Prelates and Divines there present Whether Bishops were by divine Ordination Superiour to Priests But the Councel being divided in opinion left the Controversie undetermined Those Bishops and Divines who held the affirmative produced nothing out of Scripture or solid Antiquity to justifie their opinions worthy answere but that Aerius was deemed an Heretick for affirming the contrary which I have â—ere disproved yeâ— * Michael of Medina who alleageth this of Aerius was so ingenious to confâ—sse that Hierome Austin and some others of the Fathers as Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostomus Theodoret Oecumenius did fall into Aërius heresie in this point it being no wonder that they did so because the matter was not cleare in all points This his boldnesse to say that Hierome and Austin did savour of Haeresie gave great scandall but hâ— insisted the more upon it The Doctors saith the History were equally divided into two opinions in this point And when this * Article was propounded in this Romish Councel That the Bishops are instituted by Christ and are Superiour to Priests de Iure divino The Legates with others answered that the Lutherans and Heretiques having affirmed that a Bishop and a Priest is the samâ— thing * putting no difference between a Bishop a Priest but by humane constitution and affirming that the Superiority of Bishops was first by custom and afterwards by Ecclesiasticall constitution for which they ciâ—e the Augustane Confession made by the German Churches it was fit to declare that a Bishop is Superiour but that it was not necessary to say quâ— jure nor by whom a Bishop is instituted From whence it appeares clearly That halfe or more of these Trent Fathers with all the Lutherans and Protestant Churches at that time were cleare of opinion That Prelates Episcopacy is not Iure divino and those who peruse that History and * Bâ—llarmine may at â—irst discerne that all our Prelates arguments and Authorities now produced to maintaine their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be divine are taken verbatim from these Popish Fathers of Trent who maintain their assertion and Bellarmine de Clericis the stoutest Champion for their cause Alas to what miserable Shifts are our Prelates driven when they must thus fly to Trent to Bellarmine for ayd to support their tottering Thrones And yet these will stand them in no stead all the Trent Prelates confessing with S. Hierom. * That in the first beginnings of Christianity the Churches were governed by a kind of Aristocracy by the common Councel of the Presbytery and that the Monarchicall government and Superiority of Bishops and Archbishops crept in by custome as the (a) History of the Councel of Trent relates at large where you may read the originall of their Courts and Iurisdictions with the steps and meanes of their exorbitant growth and encroachments upon the temporall Iurisdiction and Prerogative of Princes well worthy the greatest Statesmens consideration Besides Dionysius Cathusianus and Cardinal Contarenus in their Commentaries on Phil. 1.1 confesse that in Pauls time Bishops and Presbyters were both one and that either Order was conferred on the Presbyter That Presbyters are there meant by Bishops whence it is usually said That in the Primitive times Bishops were not distinguished from Priests Azorisus the Iesuite Moral part 2. l. 3. c. 16. confesseth that in the Apostles times every where those who were ordained Elders in Cities were Bishops Cardinal Cusanus De Concordia Cathol. l. 2. c. 13. writes the same in effâ—ct All Bishops and perchance also Presbyters are of equall power
although there be no Bishops in Fâ—ance Spaine or England Give me thereâ—oâ—e a mulâ—itude of Christians how great soever who want not a Bishop to ordaine Priests and I will boldly affirm that there is nâ— need that the governour of that society should be a Biâ—â—op Yea let us suppose the Ordinaâ—ion oâ— Priests and the Ministry of the Chuâ—ch not to be necessary in the Church and presently it followes that there is no need the universall Church should bee governed by Bishops who are superior to Priests That in the time of Persecution it is neither good nor convenient nor any solace or comfort to the Church to have a Bishop That thoâ—e who of Bishops are made Religious persons may be said in some sort to fly â—igher and not at all to descend That if the Catholickes of England should yeeld to this motion nameâ—y to receive the Bishop of Chalcedon as their pâ—oper Pastor and Bishâ—p they could by no meanes excuse themselvesâ— from being worthy of that reprehension which the Câ—rinthians received from Saint Paul namely that they rashly and indiscreetly put themselves into subjection that they should bestow their temporall goods so as they could exspect no reward from God as exercising humility Obedience Patâ—ence for which no crowne of Righteousnesse is prepared yea that they may by their blind receiving oâ— him though by the Popes owne Bull and authority expose themselves to manifest perill by falling into mortall sinne c. These Positions of theirs were publikely taught and maintained by many other Priests both in England and Ireland as appeares by the censure of the faculty of Paris and Nicholas Iâ— Maistre his Instauratio antiqui Principatus Episcoporum Parisijs 1633. Written upon this occasion in answer of these Treatises and some others Some of which Propositions though they were censured as Eronious by the faculty of the Divineâ— of Paris Anno 1631. through the power of the Bishop of Chalcedon as striking at the Popes Supremacy and the Bishops Hierarchie yet in all that censuâ—e I finde not one passage of Scripture produced to prove them contrary to the word of God and therfore that censure of theirs not much to be regardâ—â— THE FOVRTH SQVADRON THe 4th Squadron consists of Forraigne Protestant Churches and writers which I shall muster ranke in order according to their antiquities as neare as I may I shal begin with the VValdenses Taborites Albigenses Auâ—â—ites whose opinions and resolutions touching these particulars are registred at large by AEneas Sylvias histor Bohemiae c 35 by Renaerus contr Waldenses lib c 6. by Refutatio Waldensuim Bibl. PatruÌ„ Tom. 13 p. 383 by Thomas Waldensesâ— operum Tom. 1 l 3 Arti câ— 29 30 31 32 Tom 2. de Sacramento ordinis c. 117 118 Tom c 60 61 62 by Alphonsus de castro adversus hereses Tit Episcopus de Sacramento ordinis by Illiritus Catalogus Testium veritatis p 426 433 445 by Mr. Iohn Fox Acts and Monnments p 210 Albertus Pighius Hierarch Eccles. l 2 c 10 Gersomus Bucerus de Gubernatione Ecclesiae p 599â— 600 601. Marsilius Patavimus Anno 1320 seconds them in his Defensoris Paris pars 2 c. 15 16 17 18 19 20 and who Annâ— 1330 is backed by Michall Cezenas Henricus de Iota Nicholaus orem Ioannes de Ianduno Petrus de Corbaria Ioannes de Polaco Iohn of Castele â—rancis de Archatara and divers others of thaâ—age Witnesse Extravagant Ioannis 23 Antoninus quarta pars Summe Catalogus Testium veritatis p 512 524 525 529 Fox Acts and Monuments p 358 359 360. with others AEtates Ecelesiae written about that time c. 2 Registred in Catalogo Testium veritatis p 453 454â— Laurentius Valla The restorer of the Elegance of the Latine tongue succeed next in order Annotationes in Act. c. 15 c 20 in 1 Tim: 3 Tit. 1 Iohâ— Hus and Hierome of Prague two learned Godly Martyrs tread in their footsteps witnes AEneas Sylvius Historâ— Bohem c 35 Fox Acts and Monuments p 55â— 559 Gerson Bucerus de Gubernatiâ—nâ— Ecclesiae p. 602 603 After these successively ensued Ioannis Luâ—atwitz in Confessione â—aâ—oratrum contr. Rokeâ—zanum c 13 apud Lidij Waldeâ— siam p 53 Erasmus of Rotâ—â—rdam Annotaâ— paâ—â—pht in Act 1â— in 1 Tim: 3 4 Phil. 1 Tit 1 1 â—et 5 Scholia in â—pist â—ieronym 〈…〉 adversus aâ—â—â—ertâ—m 〈◊〉 Martin Luther in â—salm 2 â—â— 134 in Epist. ad Galâ—â—es 〈…〉 1 Artâ— 15 The Synod of â—eâ—icon Artic 6â— The Synod of Modisâ—aâ—ia Arâ—â—c 8 11 12 Gâ—rsâ—m Bucâ—râ—â—d 〈◊〉 Eâ—â—â—â—siae p 370 373 374 4â—â— 49â— 500 51â— 518.575 616 61â— 618 Câ—ristian the 3 King of Denmarke Anno 1537â— and the whole State of Denmaâ—â—e together with â—Gus◠〈◊〉 Cricus â—ing of Sweden about the same â—ime who sâ—ppressed banished and hanged up the Lordly Bishops of their Reâ—lms aâ— false Traitors and Rebels contrary to Chists insâ—itution and having no foundation in the word of God Clâ—â—traeâ—s Clâ—râ—n Saxon l 6. p. 49. lâ— 7 p 219 2â—â— lâ— 9. p 259 261 262 263 270 279 l 10 p 297 309 311 340 341 342 l 12 p. 358 359 l 13 p 388 l 14 p 407 421 l 15 pâ— 433 434. Philip Melanâ—â—hon Aâ—gam Responsâ— Pezel paâ—â— 7â—Comâ— in 1 Cor 4 Et disâ—utatio dâ— Politia Ecclesiasâ—ica dâ— coniâ—gâ—o Sacerdotum Oecolampaâ—ius in Rom 12 â—aldâ—iâ—us â—â—â—nglius in Amica sâ—a Parenaesi aâ— Communâ—m Helveâ—iorum â—mitatem operum Tom. 1. p 115 117 in Pâ—â—l 1.1 Tom. 3 pâ— 504. Opus Articulorâ—m Artic. 34â— 36 Francis Lambert his Summa Châ—iâ—â—ianiâ—atis Anno 1536. Prâ—sat Mr. Balliâ—ger in Act. 20 v 28 decad. 5. Ser 3 4 Brentius Apol. 〈◊〉 wettemb c 21. Pellicanâ—s in Mat. c. 16 18 in Act 16 20. Mustulus locâ—rum Com. locut de Ministris verbi Dâ—i p. 596.597 598. Mr. Iohn Calvin Instijâ— l 4 c 3 sect. 8 c 4 sect 2 in Phil 1 1 1 Tim. 3 8 Tiâ—â— 1 5.7 Antidotum Concilij Tridentinâ— Ses. 7 de Conformationâ— Martin Bâ—cer de vt usu Ministerij in Maâ—th 16 Araetius Problem Loâ—us de Oâ—siâ—ijs Eccles. â—â— Piâ—l 1 1 in 1 Timâ— 3 4â— Tit. 1 5 7. Mr. Ralph Gâ—â—lâ—her on Acts. 20. verse â—8 Phil. 1 1 1 Tim. 3. Tit 1.5.7 Mâ—rtin Chemâ—â—tius Examen â—onâ—ilij Tridâ—â—t pars 2 de Sacâ—amento 〈◊〉 223 224 Innocentius Gentiletus examâ—â—â—onâ—ilij Tridâ—nt Ibid Ioaâ—nis Maâ—oâ— Kinâ—sius Maâ—lorat on Phil. 1 1 1 Tim. â— Tiâ— 1 5 7 Acts 20 28. 1 Pet 5 1 2 〈…〉 2 â— 8 in 〈…〉 c 53 〈…〉 5 â— 14 Coâ—â—â— 3 câ— 3 〈…〉 ligâ— in 4 Pâ—aecept Defide c 25 sâ—ct 9 in Pâ—â—l 1 1 â—yperius in Tit 1 17 dâ— Mâ—thâ—do Tâ—â—ologiâ— l 3 Matthiâ—s Illâ—rieus Clavis Sâ—ripturae Tit Presbiter Catalogus Testiâ—m Veâ—itaâ—â—s p 426 433 445 512 524 525 529 553 554 488 528 c. 〈…〉 Basilius
3 Doctor Thomas Bilson after Bishop of VVinchester in his true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Oxon 159â— p 125 126. Iohn Bridges Bishop of Oxford his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. The Petition to Queen Elizabeth p 7 20 21 Discursus de Gubernatione Ecclesiastica Anno 1584 Thomaâ— VVheteâ—sall his discourse of the corruptions now in question London 1607 Doctor Richaâ—d Field of the Church l. 5 c 27 Master Richard Hooker his Ecclesiasticall Polity â—â— 5 sect 7. â— Tho Wilson his Christian Dictionary Title Bishop Doctor Henry Airay Sermon 2. on Phil 1 1 Doctor Thomas Tailor in his Commentary upon Titus 1 v 5 7 p 121 122 Mr: Robert Parker De Politia Ecclesiastica Christi Hiorarchia apposita 1614 a learned discourse Paul Bayne his answer to Bishop Downâ—ham his consecration Sermon Doctor William Ames in his Bellarminus enervatus Printed by License at Oxford Anno 1629. Tom 2 l 3 c 3 4â—Iamss Peregrin his Letters Patents of the Presbitery Anno 1632. Doctor Iohn Bastwicke his Flagollum Pontificis Episcoporum Laâ—ialum his Apologeticus with above 40 Anonymous Tâ—eatises that I have seene All these unamiously testifie that Bishops and Presbiters by Gods law and divine institution are all one equall and the same That the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is only of humane and canonicall institution long afteâ— the Apostles most of them coÌ„demning it as Anti-christian unlawfull Diabolical pernicious to Religion the Church of God the cause of all the tyranny schismes corruptions disorders errors abuses that now infest the Church or hinder the power the purity of Religion and progresse of the Gospell To these I might accumulate the Statute of 25 H. 8 c 19 20 21 26 H 8. c 1 27 Hâ— 8 c 15 31 H. 8 c 9.10 37 H 8 c 17 1 Ed. 6 c 21 2 Phil Marie c 8 1 Eliz c. 1 5 Eliz. c 1 8 Eliz. c. 1. The Patents of 31 H 8 pars 4. to enable Bishops to consecrate Churches Chappels and Church-yards with the Kings License first obtained of 36 H. 8 pars 13. to Robert Holgaâ—e Arch-Bishop of Yorke to enable and authorize him to keep a Metropolicall visitation the Patents for the creation of the Bishoâ—rickâ— of Oxford Glocester Bristol Peterâ—â—rougâ— and VVestminster An. 34 35 H â— the Patents of Miles Goverdake Bishop of Exeter Iohn Povet once Bishop of VVinchester and Iohn Story Bishop of Rochester 5 E. 6 pars Prima and of all the other Bishops made in his Raigne by vertue of the Statute of 1 E. 6 c 2. wiih all the High-Commission Patents grounded on 1 Eliz c. 1. all which expresly resolves That all manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction wherby Bishops are extinguished from and elivated above ordinary Ministers is wholy vested in and for ever inseperably united and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme that our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deaconsâ— and other â—cclesiâ—sticall Persons have no manner of jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but only by under and from the Kings Majesty that they ought to have the jurisdiction delegated and devided to theÌ„ by speciall Letters Patents and Commissions under the Kings great Seale to execute the same not in their owne names and right but only Nominâ— vice Authoritate nostris Regijs as King Edwards Patents run in the Kings owne name right and Authority as his Officers and subsâ—itutes making out all their Proces Citations Excommunications Commissions oâ— Administration Probate of wills and writs of Iurâ— Patronâ—â—us c in the Kings name only and under his Seale of Armes not their owne under paine of imprisonment and a premunire for the neglect and wilfull contempt whereof all our Bishops and their Officers have encurred severall Premunires to the forfiture of all their temporalities goods estates and liberties to his Majesty who may much enrich his Exchequer thereby All which Acts and Patents judicially condemne and overturn our Bishops pretended superiority over their fellow Brethren by a divine right the very claime whereof alone makes them all liable to a Premunire and meer perjur'd persons both to God and the King beeing directly contrary to the very oath of Supremacy prescribed by 1 Eliz c 1 which every Bishop oft times takes and every graduate and Clergie man whatsoever who must either abjure this pretended Ius Divinum with which they would support the Hierarchie or prove perjur'd disloyall Subjects to their Soveraigne Having thus presented you with this large Catalogue of Authorities proving the parity â—quality and identity of Bishops and Presbiters by divine right and institution I shall now challenge all our great swelling â—relates and their sâ—attereâ—s joyntly and severally â—sâ—ecially the two Arch-Bishops who have made so many throsonicall braggâ—s of the proofe of their divine Title in open Court befoâ—e thousands of people to produce a contrary Catalogue of Authâ—rities of thesâ— severall kinds evidenâ—ing theiâ— divine pretended right supeâ—ioâ—ity and jurisdiction over other Minisâ—eâ—s â—f they are able to do it and to give a satisfactory answer to this Treatise I shall suâ—sâ—ibâ— to their opinion and recant what I have written But if they cannot performe â—t as I am certaine they are altogether unable then let them retract their former vaine glorious vauntsâ— and abjure their pretended Ius Divinum by subscribing to that truth which they are unable to contradict and laying downe their Bishoprickes at least their Rochestsâ— as they have oft-times solemnly protested they would doe If they can or will doe neither they must give all the world leave to passe this censure on them That they have neither that learning truth or honesty in them as hitherto they would make the world beleeve they hadâ— And that they may have no starting hole to evade I shall in as few words as may be answer what ever they can Object for themselves out of any undoubted Aâ—tiquity which is but thisâ— That Acceâ—s was branâ—ed for an Hereticke by Epiphaâ—iâ—s and Auguâ—tine for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall one to the other by divine instiâ—ution This is all that either the (o) Papists or (p) our Prelates do or can alleage for their Hierarchie out of the Fathers or Antiquity and this in truth is a good as nothing For first this opinion of Aerius was never condemned as Hereticall by any Counsell or Father whatsoever but only by Epiphanius who alone is unsufficient to brand or make any man an Hereticke Saint Augustine indeed if the Booke be his cites this opinion of his out of Epiphanius in his Book de haeresibus c 53 yet he brands it not as an Heresie but stiles it Proprium Dogma in expresse termes to wit his proper assertion and his owne too taxing him only of Heresie forâ—siding with the Arrians in their branded heresie (q) Isiodor Hispalensis Gratian reciting the Heresie of Arrius makes no mention a all either of this as an Heresie or error