eternall life they testifie of mee And in the 3. of the Acts ver 22 23. S. Peter brings all men unto Christ to be taught by him not in somethings onely but that Prophet must be heard in all things and no other in Gods matters must be listened unto the words are these For Moses truely sayd unto the Fathers a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto mee him shall you heare in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you And it shal come te passe that every Soule which will not heare that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people And in the 12. of Iohn vers 48. our Saviour sayth He that rejecteth mee and receiveth not my Words hath one that judgeth him the Word that I have spake the same shall judge him in the last day And therefore doth it not stand with all good reason that we should guide square our lives and actions by that word and rule onely by which we shall at the last day be judged Paul in the 2. of the Rom. ver 16. sayth That the secrets of mens hearts shall at that day be judged according to his Gospell shall not all our doctrines yea and our whole Religion be squared and regulated by the same all good reason vvould dictate so They have Moses the Prophets sayth Abrahamâ— let them heare him saith he Luc. 16. ver 29. We have Christ and his Apostles we are onely to heare them in all things not the Faâ—hers not the traditions of the Elderâ— not the use customes of former ages if they dissent from the holy Scriptures and vvritten word of God For the great Doctor of his Church telleth the Saduces saying Yee erre not knovving the Scriptures Matth. 12. vers 24. indeed from the ignorance of the Scriptures commeth all error they that follovv the Scripture for their guide can never stray or straggle from the right vvay neither have they need to borrovv the candle of the Fathers to be directed by so long as the glorious Sun of the vvord shineth so clearly and it was the eternall praise and commendations of the more noble Bereans that they did dayly search the Scriptures vvhether the things the Apostles taught vvere so or no. Acts 17 ver 11. and Paul is greatly honored vvith this applause in the 26. of the Acts ver 22. that he taught no other things then those vvhich the Prophets and Moses did say should come te passe And so Christ taught his Apostles Luc. 24 that all things ought to be fullfilled concerning him vvhich vvere vvrit in Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes So that the Scriptures alone are the Foundation of all our religion and to say that the meaning of the Scriptures can not be knowne without the Fathers is an unsufferable wickednes done unto that holy booke and an infinite contempt and disgrace of it to say it hath need of the ayde of man to support it Christ vanquished the Devill by the Scriptures Matth. 4. drove away the Saduces Matth. 22 and S. Iames by the Scriptures put an end unto the great controversy of the Churches at Ierusalem set the Churches of the Gentiles free for ever from all Ceremonyes vvhatsoever but those God himselfe had appoynted Acts 15. and onely by the Scriptures did Paul resolve all questions So that according to Gods ovvne instruction and direction vvhich must ever be obeyed and listened unto the Scriptures onely soly must bee the Iudge Law square rule of all our religion vvords actions Not the Autority of the Fathers not the traditions of men not the practice custome of the ancient and the name of Antiquity For they that shall preferre these things before the Word of God or at least affirme that these Holy Oracles and Divine records cannot be understood vvithout the Fathers do not only blasphemously disgrace and contemne the Holy Scriptures but neglect the great Prophet vvhom vve ought to heare in all things so that listening unto the voice of men before the vvords of this great Prophet accusing the Scriptures of obscurity and saying they are the refuge of all Schismaticks and Hereticks is great impiety contumacy against God most injurious to the Holy Scriptures All which the Prelats being so highly guilty of the Defendent will never be a frayd to charge them with it that they are disgracers contemners of Holy Scripture withall that they are very ungratefull to the King their master invaders of his Prerogative Royall all which he shall make also evidently appeare to this honorable Court and how unworâ—hily yea prophanely they have abused not onely the King their now Soveraigne but his most excellent Father of pious memory And that they are invaders of his Prerogative it iâ— most certayne not onely by the Statuts Lawes of the Kingdome but by this very information For by the Lawes Statuts specified before with many others it is solemnly inacted That whatsoever Autority is here exercised under the King in his Dominions whether it be Spirituall or Temporall whether by Archbishops Bishops or any Ecclesiasticall men it is meerly in by and from the King and so ought to be acknowledged and that all jurisdictions superiorities all privileges and preeminencies spirituall and Ecclesiasticall are annexed unto the Imperiall Crowne so to be acknowledged And whosoever doth not acknowledge that all jurisdiction and Autoritie both Spirituall and Temporall is derived and doth flow immediatly from the Kings Majestâ— as supreme head under Christ in these Churches and in his Kingdomes as the Statutes declare at large is ipso facto in a praemunire and under his Majest high displeasure For it is the Prerogative of Princes and the priviledge that onely agrees to Kings and Potentates to be absolute in their Dominions and that all other jurisdictions superiorityes exercised by any other in their Kingdomes are derived from them and that of themselves they have none but as from the Kings So that it is arbitrary and in the Princes power to have or not to have such jurisdictions and preeminencies under them And that they may abdicat or annihilate them when they please And whosoever shall deny this or clayme any right of Government to themselves in Princes Dominions jure Divino are delinquents against their Kings and Masters and by our Lawes and Statutes they are proclaymed enimyes of the King and his Prerogative Royall that is true the mouth of the Law hath spake it And therefore the Defendents booke cannot be called a Libell without the Lawes first be proclamed such for the lawes say That all such persons as shall challenge any Autority unto themselves in his Majest Dominions but from the King are delinquents against his Majest and invaders of his prerogative Royall his Highnesses enimyes and so they are Now that the Prelats are such they sufficiently declared it in the censure of the Defendent For he reading
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
beene forced to recite because it makes very much for the justification of what hee writ in his Apology and that hee had good ground greatly to blame the Prelates aswell for these as for many other of their proceedings as afterwards this honorable Court shall well perceive And now that the Defendent may come to the things that he is charged with in the Information as to have accused the Bishops of in his Apology which by the informers is termed a Libell though it contayneth nothing but a true Narration of the passages of the High-Commission Court which he never spake nor writ against but onely against the abuses of the Iudges in it who have turned that Court which was of purpose appoynted by the State for the suppressing of Heresyâ— Popery and viceâ— to the beating downe of the Religion established by Autority and the promotion and advancement of superstition and the molestation and undoing of the Kings faithfullest Subjects and the deare servants of God as daylie experience teacheth us and the whole Kingdome can witnes In the writing of which booke he the Defendent thinketh himself so far from being a delinquent as he conceiveth he hath done good service to King Church and State having in it vindicated and mayntayned regall Autoritie against the tyranny of the Pope discovered also the Prelats lawlesse usurpations with their ungratitude to the King and cruelties againâ—â— their brethten mayntayned the hoâ—our likewise of the Lawes of the Land and the dignity of sacred Writ both which they slight and make nothing of and by innâ—merable testimonyes of learned men proved the assertion for which he is thus traduced and envyed to be neither novell nor hereticall but according to both the Divine Scriptures and all Antient trueth the vetustest Bishops and by the whole clergy of England in King Henry the eights dayâ—s as all the learned and ingenuous do well perceive and know both at home and abroad So that if â—he Informers with the Prelats will make this Booke a libell then let them make holy Scripture the Lawes of the Kingdome and all the antient recordâ— of learned Bishops libells also for the Defendent in â—hat haâ—h sayd nothing concerning the Preâ—bytery which is not agreeable to them all And for â—he matters in specâ—all he is charged wiâ—h in the information Viz. That he hath causlesly enveighed against the oath ex officio and other antient formes of proceedings in that Court and against the sacred Hierarchy orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons preferring a Presbyteâ—ian parity before it And â—â—at he hath falsly and scandalously defamed the witnesses produced against him falsly maliciously taxed the High Commission Court it self and the Iudges therein in generall and some of them particularly and peâ—sonally with cruelâ—y and injustice with want of wisdome and temperance and that they are perswaders of his Majest to bloudshed and are upholders of idolatry superstition Popery and Prophanesse and further most maliciously and falsly affirmeth that Canterbury London and Ely are disgracers and contemners of holy Scriptures and falsly traduceth them and the rest of the Bishops for traytors and invaders of his Majest Prerogative and that in the sayd booke there are contayned diverse other unlawfull and scandalous passages against the established government and seâ—led discipline of the Church of England the Bishops and Clergy and their proceedings which being many and of various naâ—ure is delivered into his Majestâ— Court of Starchamber To all which things that he is here charged with the Defendent will answer with what breviâ—yâ— and the best Method he can doubteth nothing but whatsoever he hath writ in his Apology against the Prelats their proceeding shall be made evidently appeare to this Court to be most true And to begin with the things layd to his charge in the last place that hee accuseth the Bishops to be disgracers and contemners of holy Scripture to be invaders of his Majest prerogative upholders of idolatry Poperie superstition and prophanesse All which is most true for so they are as he hath sufficientlie proved against them in that booke and doth here also add that they have greatly dishonoured the King their Master and King Iames his Father of perpetuall memoryâ— all which he will briefly declare and demonstrat to this noble Court And that they are contemners disgracers of holy Scripture what can be more manifest when they say that the Scriptures are the refuge of all Schismaticks and Hereticks as much as if they should say â—he good Lawes and Statuts of a Kingdome and the Kings Edicts and Proclamations are the cause of all disorder and wickednes withall what is it to be contemners and disgracers of the holy Scriptures if this be not to say That they can neither be knowen to bee the Word of God nor distinguished from the Apocrypha and Prophane Authors nor be understood and the meaning of them attayned unto for their obscurity but by the Fathers If this be not to contemne sacred writ then all Orâ—hodox writers both in ours all reformed Churches and King Iames himself have accused the Church of Rome most falsly whom they prove blasphemous against God and disgracers of the Holy Scriptures for the same assertions as all their learned wriâ—ings witnes wiâ—h innumerable Arguments in them for proofe of the same The Defendent desireth to know what it is to prophane and contemne holy Scripture of thâ—s be not to slight and vilyâ—â— the autority of it and to proferre humane authority before it which the Bishops did blasphemously saying that they couâ—d not be knowne to be the Word of God without the help of the Fathers when every page and leafe of those sacred monuments breath a divine Spirit and they are called the lively oracles Act. 7. vers 38. as if the Scripture had lost his ancient luster â—ife and Divinity by its antiquity were inferior to alâ— other things boâ—h Naturall and Artificiall When notwiâ—h standing there is such a Maiesty and Splendor in the Scripture as it dazleth the eyes of all those that looke into it with hiâ— transcendent and heavenly clarity and brightnes the eyes of whose minds the God of this world hath not blinded yea vnder the very law whâ—n there was a vayle before the eyes of men so that they could not so clearly see into them as now Christians may yet then such dignity and excellency was discerned in them that at the first reading of them men cryed out the voice of God and not of man tore their garments for very anguish and feare of the threats in them and never were so ungratious and impious to say How shall wee know these books to be the Word of God For the holy Scriptures had ever such an innate and Domesticall light beauty goodnes in them and caryed such testimony and witnes within themsâ—lves ever able to declare themselves Divine and holyâ— to be the very word of the everliving God that they needed
there had been no other meanes for him to have come to the knowledge of the Scripture this doth not necessarily follow But were it granted that had not the Church told Augustine which was the Scripture and Word of God that he had then never beleeved it to be the Word must â—his conclusion of necessity be gathered from thence That all men must be like Augustin in this or that the Autority of men is greater and above the Scripture all â—hese are poore lame consequences and not beseeming the worthy Faâ—hers of the Church in open Court to publish to the infinit dishonour of holy Scripture advancing human Autority above it which indeed is meere blasphemy against the Holy Word of God For would not every man accuse one of folly if an other being a stranger and never seeing the King and meeting him in a journey with all his Nobles richly clad as it beseemeth noble Peeres so to be for the honour of their Master and the Majesâ—y of his Court and in this company where there are so many brave personages and all so excellently apparrelledâ— and he not knowing vvhich vvas the King should aske some of his retinue or some Courâ—ier vvhich of those vvere the King Novv doth it follovv because at that time the man should not have knovvne the King vvithout this information from some of the attendantâ— that the King could no other way have beene knowne unto him or that Kings could be knowne no other wayes but by such informatioÌ„s No rational creatures wil so conclude at that time he in part beleeved from the Courtiers relation that it vvas the King But after that he seeth the King in his Court or upon his thâ—one vvith his crovvne upon his head and vvith all his State and Magnificence and his Nobles in their service vvith the reverence that is yeilded unto him then hee beleeveth no longer because the Servant told him that it vvas the King but because by his ovvne reason he is evinced of it knovving that such attendance such a guard â— so great pomp dignity and State belongeth to none but Kings And it vvould be thought not madnes only but treason to say if one had not told him that it was the King othervvise the King could not be knovvne or that he that told him vvas greater then the King or his Autority greater The same may be sayd of the Holy and ever bleâ—sed Word of God that it is a great madnes impiety to conclude That the Holy Scripture cannot be knovvne to be the Word of God vvithout the Autority of the Fathers or Church or that the Autority of either is greater then the Scriptures vvhich to affirme is vvithout doubt blasphemy in a High degree against Almighty God and his blessed revealed vvill able to provoke his indignation upon us because it is an error against the very light of Nature art and reason and the apparent Words of the Scripture vvhere the Word of God is called the immortall seed 1. Pet. chap. 1. v. 23. vvhich liveth abideth for ever Novv all seed by its invvard vertue sproutet into a blade is by it self and his ovvne fruits knovvn to be vvhat it is So is the Scripture of it self knovvne to be the Word of God and as Paul sayth in the 1. of â—he Cor. chap. 2. ver 4. the Word of God is in the Demonstration of the Spirit in povver and maketh the hearts of the beleevers burne vvith in them as it did to those that â—vent vvith Christ to Emmaus Luke the 2â— vers 32. and as the Apostle sayth in the first to the Thessalonians the 2. chap. vers 3. that they received the Word of God not as the vvord of man but as it is in the trueth the Word of God vvhich effectually vvorketh in those that beleeve and in the 4. of the Hebr. 12. Paul sayth that the Word of God is quick and povverfull sharper then a tvvo edged Svvord piercing even to the dividing asunder the soule and Spirit and of the raines and marrovv and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart So that by these testimonies and thousands more that might be produced it is sufficiently evident that the Scriptures of themselves are declaratory and by their ovvne native and inbred splendor doe conciliat Autority credit to themselves neither have they any need of 〈◊〉 from man or the Fathers Autority to prove them â—â—e Word of God For before there vvere any Fathers the Scriptures had their Autority and vvere knovvne to be Divine Neither did the Fathers or Church make them Authentick or the Word of God no more then a Piller maketh a proclamation to bee the Kings vvill and pleasure because it stands upon it but the Church or Fathers declared them so to bee neither doth or can the very Synagogue of Rome deny this How impious then and blasphemous are â—he Prelaâ—es that they dare thus vilify the holy Scriptures and make their autority nothing And can any man of judgment see any reason why one should beleeve the Fathers more then the Scriptures or why one should beleeve that these are the works of Augustin or Ambrose should doubt that this is the Gospell of Luke Iohn or that these are the Epistles of Paul Of these things the Defendent for his part can see no reason Neither can there any solid reason be yeelded why one should beleeve the Fathers more theÌ„ the Scriptures themselvesâ— when the Fathers are not to be câ—â—dâ—tedâ— but as they accord with Scripture as the very Popish Canons Papists themselves acknowledge for in the Canon law thus speakes the Pope Paâ—rum quantalibet doctrina sanctitate pollentium Scripta ex Canonâ—â—â—â— sacris consideranda nec cum credendi necessitate sed cum judicandi libertate legenda sunt Neither is Baronius his opinion other concerning the autority of the Fathersâ— as at large may be seen in his Annals an 34. § 213. and an 44. § 42. And for Bellarmine he is of the same mind in his 2 booke concerning Councels in the 12 chapter in these words Sacra Scripta Patrum non sunt regula nec habâ—nt autoritatem obligandi And when the very adversaries doe thus fully expresse themselves that whatsoever autority is in the Fathers books and writings it is onely as they harmonise and accord with the Scripture shall any man then thinke or suppose that there should yet be more autority in the writings of the Fathers or in the Decrees of Councels then there is in the holy Scriptures from whence as the Fountaine those streames doe issue very reason will confound the fatuity of this devillish doctrine for the streames brookes are never so pure nor good as the fountaine for it is ever the fountaine that gives authority of goodnes and the name of excellency to the little sucking rivers as all men knowâ— and they commend the waters ever from the fountaine they come so
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
had rule and government in their hands And that they had povver also of ordination and imposition of hands it is likevvise apparent out of the first Epistle of Paul to Timothy the first Chapter For the Apostle speaking to Timothy sayth Doe not neglect the gift that is in thee vvhich is given thee for prophesy by the imposition of the hands of the Presbyterie Here allso the Presbyters had the right of imposition of hands And that they had the povver of Excommunication and Absolution it is likevvise manifest from the 5. of the 1. of the Corinthians and the 2. Chapter of the 2. Epistle vvhere the Apostle gives them the povver of casting the incestrous person out and upon his repentance receiving of him in againe By all vvhich Autorities of sacred vvrit it is sufficiently cleare and evident That the Presbyters had the Autoritie and povver of government and rule in the Church vvith the facultie also and abilitie of ordination excommunication and all this by Divine institution and expresse vvords of holy Scripture hovvsoever this right and their due vvas through the fraud and deceit of the Bishop of Rome and Romish Bishops aftervvards taken avvay from the Presbyters Wherefore the Defendent concludedâ— That if there were any difference betweene Presbyters and the Bishop of Rome which hee denyed that then the Presbyters in dignitie and honour exceeded and that greatly the Bishop of Rome Romish Bishops for all these Privileges of governement ordâ—nation and excommunication are in formall vvords given unto the Presbyters and no vvhere granted unto the Bishops And for farther illustration and proofe of this the Defendent with many other Arguments proved That Presbyters were better men then the Bishop of Rome if there were any difference The summe of which hee desireâ—h this Honorable Court to take notice of â—hat they may more ponderously waâ—gh the businesse in hand and see the vanitie of the information And for the Arguments in briefe they are these They who are most obedient to the Preceptsâ— Commands and Prohibitions of Christ and doe most diligently obey the Apostles admonitions they are and so ought to bee esteemed more worthy and excellent then such as regard neither of both But the Presbyters are more obedient to the Commands of Christ and doe more diligently obey the Apostles admonitions then the Romish Bishops Therefore they are more worthy excellent For the major no man can deny that knovves loyall and obedient Subiects to their Prince and his Officiers just commands are to bee preferred before Rebels and them that regard neither of both Novv Christ and his Apostles have commanded That all Ministers should feed the Flock of Christ deligently in preaching of the vvord administration of the Sacraments and that they should not be Lords over his inheritance Both which precepts and prohibitions the Presbyters do more exactly observe then Romish Bishops for they neither preach themselves nor will let others and are Lords over Christs inheritance which the Lord Iesus and his Apostles have peâ—emptorily forbid Ergo the Presbiters are more worthie then Romish Bishops Againe That name which is and hath ever bene a name and title of Dignitie and Honour is to bee preferred before that which is a name of paine labour and sollicitude But the name of Presbyter or Senior is hath beene ever a name of Honour and dignitie and a title of mightie Emperors and Princes and the name of Bishop is a name and title of labour and travell Ergo the title and name of Presbyter is to be preferred before that of the Romish Bishops For the major none that are truly noble and learned can deny And for the minor to omit many other places it vvil evidently appeare to any that vvill looke upon the â—irst Epistle to Tim. and the 5. There the Apostle sayth The Presbyters that rule well are vvorthy of double honour So that it is apparent enough That honour and dignity is contayned in that name vvhich deserveth both reward reverenceâ— respect And in the same Epistle the Apostle sayth Rebuke not a Presbyter but honour him as a Fatherâ— and speaking of Bishops he sayth He that desireth the Office of a Bishop desireth a good worke Hee sayth indeed a good vvorke but a work notwithstandig full of care watchfullnes toyle and labour From all which it is ratifyed That the name and title of Presbyter is a name full of dignity honour and splendour and the title of Bishop a compellation or name full of labour anhelation solicitude and therefore to be preferred before the title of Bishop being farre more excellent Againe That name which whensoever it is ioyned with the name of Bishop hath alwayes the first place and precedencie that name is most excellâ—nt But the name of Presbyter when it is ioyned with the title of Bishop hath ever the precedencie Ergo it is to be preferred before it For the major the adversaries cannot deny it For they conclude and establish the precedency and preminency of Peter before the oâ—her Apostles because he is often first named And for the minor the vvord of God declares it illustriously as may be seene in the 20. of the Acts and the first of Titus and the fifâ—h chapter of the first of Peter In all vvhich places the names of Presbyâ—er and Bishop being ioyned together Presbyter is ever first named To all this Peter calls himselfe a Presbiter The same doth Saint Iohn as if all Ecclesiasticall dignity vvere placed in that name But there are many arguments yet remayning to prove the dignitie of Presbyters to bee above that of Bishops if there be any difference betvveen them For They to whom in the most difficult controversies of the Church and greatest dissentions the Primitive Christians had ever recourse and who the spirit of God did in a special maner assist and who made Decrees by which the Church of God to this day is to be regulated and governed and who the Apostles themselves made their sociats and companions in both Generall and Provinciall Counsels and the which had the next place unto the Apostles in their Assemblies they are more worthy and to be had in greater honour and veneration then the other Ministers of the Church which are neither by name nor place knowne in those holy meetings But the Presbyters are such and Therefore the Presbyters are more worthy and excellent then Bishops As for the major the adversaries cannot doubt of that vvhich bestovv dignity and honour upon their Bishops according to the place and degree they had in the first Councels And for the minor none can doubt of it vvho hath read the 15 of the Actsâ— and the twentyeth chapter of the same book But they that desire to be satisfied concerning this argument at large the Defendent desireth vvould read any of his booksâ— Lastly That the dignity of the Presbyters may yet appeare above â—he title of Bishops it is thus evident Those to whom the Keyes