foreseene the influence of works into Iustification falling from grace c. If what Scripture we answer the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions If what Baptisme a Baptisme of absolute Necessity unto salvation and yet insufficient unto salvation as not sealing grace to the taking away of sinne after Baptisme If what Eucharist an Eucharist that must be administred upon an Altar or a Table set Altar-wise rayled in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of Christ though Modum nesciunt as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God the place of the Residence of the Almighty and impresseth such a holinesse upon it as makes it not onely capable but worthy of Adoration If what Christ a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himselfe hath If what Heaven a heaven that hath a broad way leading thither and is receptive of Drunkards Swearers Adulterers c. such a heaven as we may say of it as the the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards Unto that heaven which some of the Prelaticall Church living and dying in their scandalous sinnes and hatefull enormities goe to let our soules never enter If what meanes of salvation we answer confession of sinnes to a Priest as the most absolute undoubted necessary infallible meanes of Salvation Farre be it from us to say with this Remonstrant we do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinall and practicall points of Religion and preach one and the same saving truths Nay we must rather say as that holy Martyr did We thank God we are none of you Nor doe we because of this dissension feare the censure of uncharitablenesse from any but uncharitable men But it is no unusuall thing with the Prelats and their party to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and wayes with uncharitablenesse and Schisme as the Papists do the Protestants and as the Protestants doe justly recriminate and charge that Schisme upon the Papists which they object to us So may we upon the Prelats And if Austin may be Judge the Prelats are more Schismaticks then we Quicunque saith he invident bonis ut quaerant occasiones excludendieos aut degradandi vel crimina sua sic defondâ—re parati sunt si objecta vel prodita fuerint ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare jam schismatici sunt Whosoever envie those that are good and seeke occasions to exclude and degrade them and are so ready to defend their faults that rather then they will leave them they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church and drive men into Conventicles and corners they are the Schismaticks And that all the world may take notice what just cause wee have to complaine of Episcopacie as it now stands wee humbly crave leave to propound these Quaeries Quaeries about Episcopacie VVHether it be tolerable in a Christian Church that Lord Bishops should be held to be Iure Divino And yet the Lords day by the same men to be but Iure Humano And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion Tables and Priests in stead of Ministers and yet not Iudaize when they will not suffer the Lords day to be called the Sabbath day for feare of Iudaizing Whereas the word Sabbath is a generall word signifying a day of rest which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath as to the Jewish Sabbath and was also used by the Ancients Russinus in Psal. 47. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian Whether that assertion No Bishop No King and no Ceremonie no Bishop be not very prejudiciall to Kingly Authoritie For it seemes to imply that the Civill power depends upon the Spirituall and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops Whether seeing it hath beene proved that Bishops as they are now asserted are a meere humane Ordinance it may not by the same Authoritie be abrogated by which it was first established especially considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State Whether the advancing of Episcopacie into Ius Divinum doth not make it a thing simply unlawfull to submit to that Government Because that many consciencious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacie have done it upon this ground as supposing that Authoritie did not make them matters of worship but of Order and Decencie c. And thus they satisfied their consciences in answering those Texts Colos. 2.20 21 22. Math. 15.9 But now since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance how shall wee be responsable to those Texts And is it not as it is now asserted become an Idoll and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to powder Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacie between Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum Because we finde some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum others by Ius Apostolicum But wee conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken is all one with Ius Divinum For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles written by them so as to be a perpetuall Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church as this Author saith pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum as well as Apostolicum But if by Ius Apostolicum they meane improperly as some doe such things which are not recorded in the writings of the Apostles but introduced the Apostles being living they cannot be rightly said to be jure Apostolico nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto Neither is Episcopacie as it imports a superioritie of power over a Presbyter no not in this sense jure Apostolico as hath beene already proved and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies if need did require We will only instance in Cassander a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion who in his Consultat Articul 14. hath this saying An Episcopatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticos ponendus sit inter Theologos Canonistas non convenit Convenit autem inter omnes in Apostolorum aetate Presbyterum Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse c. Whether the distinction of Beza betweene Episcopus Divinus Humanus Diabolicus be not worthy your Honours consideration By the Divine Bishop he meanes the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture which is one and the same with a Presbyter By the humane Bishop he meanes the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolicall Bishop he meanes a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his owne will and authority Which puts us in minde of the Painter that Limmed two pictures to the same proportion and figure The one hee reserved in secret the other he exposed to common view And as the phansie
hated the Bishop and this as the Historian calls it his usurped power This president of the Alexandrian Bishop the Bishop of Rome did soone follow Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function did degenerate into a secular Principalitie which purchased no lesse envie to him then that to the other And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point yet in a short time the Roman had outstripped the Alexandrian in that power till the Church degenerating more and more that Roman Priest advanced his power not onely above all the Bishops but all the Monarchs in the Christian Orbe Yet notwithstanding he that shall look into the Ancients shall finde first that the best of them held that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affaires Cyprian Epist. 66.1 Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari sacrificiis deservire precibus atque orationibus vacare debent Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi qui divinis rebus spiritualibus occupantur Secondly that they complained of them as of heavy burthens Aug. calles it Angaria yea Austin himselfe in his 81. Epistle Complaines that worldly businesse hindered his praying and so pressed him that vix respirare potuit and Gregory the great non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur praefat in Dial. Thirdly Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church de lapsis Sect. 4. Fourthly it was much cryed downe as unlawfull by the holy Fathers many Canons forbidding it and that under paine of being removed from their places Can. Apost Can. 6. Can. 81. hee that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Roman command or Administration of Military affaires or civill place as Zonaras there he should be deposed Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground medling with worldly affaires is to be laid asid by them Otherwise they are threatned to be liable to Ecclesiasticall censures Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16. We will ad this for a conclusion in this point it is observed by Athanasius Sulpitius Severus and other Ecclesiasticall Historians that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affaires which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperours Court and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby is notoriously knowne to any that have seene the Histories of their times And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times but how ever cleare it is that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two Two in election to their office Two in the discharge of their office Two in their Ordination Iurisdiction processes Censures Administrations and the difference betweene our Bishops and those of former times is greater then between the great Bishop of Rome and them SECT XIII BUt it seemes our Remonstrant soared above those times even as high as the Apostles dayes for so hee saith If our Bishops challenge any other spirituall power then was by Apostolike Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches let them be DISCLAIMED as VSVRPERS And the truth is so they deserve to be if they do but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters For Timothy it is cleare from the letter of the Text 2 Tim. 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the worke of an Evangelist if Timothy had beene but a Presbyter or Bishop Paul had here put him upon imployment Vltra Sphara Activitatis And to any man that will but understand and consider what the Office of an Evangelist was and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop it will bee manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and no Bishops for the title of Evangelist is taken but two wayes either for such as wrote the Gospell and so wee doe not affirme Timothy and Titus to bee Evangelists or else for such as taught the Gospell and those were of two sorts either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus and not Bishops as will appeare if wee consider what was the Difference betweene the Evangelists and Bishopsâ— Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuiâ—ion of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Acts 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appoyntment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require As appeares first in Timothy â— whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needlesse importunity if Timothy had had the Episcopall that is the Pastorall charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then hee might have laid as dreadfull a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth to Preach the Gospell But so far was Paul from setling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus that he rather continually sends him up and downe upon all Church services for we â—inde Acts. 17.14 That when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behinde him who afterwards comming to Paul to Athens Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica to confirme the Thessalonians in the faith as appeares 1 Thes. 3.1.2 from whence returning to Paul to Athens againe the Apostle Paul before hee left Athens and went to Corinth sent him Silas into Macedonia who returned to him againe to Corinth Act. 18.5 afterwards they travelled to Ephesus from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them from whence they divers other Brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 All which Brethren Paul calles as it is probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the messengers of the Churches 2 Cor. 8.23 And being thus accompanied with Timothy and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him of which Church had Timothy beene Bishop the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feede the flock of Christ would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And secondly the Apostle would not so have forgotten himselfe as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before their Bishops face Thirdly It is to be conceived the Apostles would have given them some directions how to carry themselves towards their Bishop but not a word of this though Timothy were then in
Pauls presence and in the presence of the Elders The cleare evidence of which text demonstrates that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus But it is rather evident that hee tooke him along with him in his journey to Hiâ—rusalem and so to Rome for wee finde that those Epistles Paul wrote while hee was a prisoner beare either in their inscription or some other passage of them the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. The Epistle to the Philippians Colossians Hebreâ—es Philemon which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture which those two learned professors the one at Heydelberge the other at Saulmur make of Saint Pauls Epistles doth declare So that it appeares that Timothy was no Bishop but a Minister an Evangelist a fellow labourer of the Apostles 1 Thess. 3.1 an Apostle a Messenger of the Church 2. Cor. 8.3 a Minister of God 1 Thess. 3.2 these titles the Holy Ghost gives him but never the title of a Bishop The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of Iohn and made him his companion in his journey through Antioch to Herusalem so we find Gal. 2.1 from thence returning to Antioch againe from thence hee passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having Preached the Gospell and planted Churches he left Titus there for a while to set in order things that remaine Yet it was but for a while he left him there for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many yeares after hee injoynes him to come to him to Nicopolis where he did intend to winter but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus where it seemes his Hyemall station was and from thence sends him before him to Corinth to enquire the state of the Corinthians His returne from thence Paul expects at Troas and because comming thither he found not his expectation there he was so grieved in his spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 that hee passed presently from thenâ—e into Macedonia where Titus met him and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tydings of the powerfull and gracious effects his first Epistle had among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7 5 6 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints sends Titus againe to the Corinthians to prepare them for the same service of Ministring to the necessities of the Saints 2 Cor. 8.6 And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians All these journeyes to and fro did Titus make at the designement of the Apostle even after hee was left in Creet Nor doe we finde that after his first removall from Creet he did ever returne thither Wee reade indeed 2 Tim. 4.10 hee was with Paul at Rome and from thence returned not to Creet but into Dalmatia All which doth more then probably shew it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Creet as a Bishop but onely to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church and to call him from thence and send him abroad to other Churches for their good as their necessities might require Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction betweene the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists and knowes wherein that Distinction lyes will not upon these premisses conclude that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops We grant it true and it is as true that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarks yet it doth not follow they were so Wee adde secondly that when the Fathers did call them so it was not in a proper but in an improper sense which we expresse in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds You may learne by the Fathers themselves saith hee that when they tearmed any Apostle a Bishop of thiâ— or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant it in a generall sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that roome in preaching the Gospell which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a severall flocke so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus that he saith of Peter But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops will this remonstrant undertake that all his party shall stand to his Conditions If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolique Authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the seaven Asian Churches let them be disclaimed as usurpers Will our Bishops indeed stand to this then actum est Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to ordaine alone to governe alone and doe not our Bishops challenge that power Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus to rebuke an Elder no but to entreate him as a Father and doe not our Bishops challenge to themselvesâ— and permit to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls power not only to rebuke an Elder but to rayle upon an Elder to reproach him with the most opprobrious tearmes of foole knave jack-sauce c. which our paper blushes to present to your Honours view Did ever Apostolique authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receave an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses and doe not our Bishops challenge power to proceed Ex officio and make Elders their owne Accusers Did ever Apostolique authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus to reject any after twice admonition but an Heretick and doe not our Bishops challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers for refusing the use of a Ceremony as if Non-conformity were Heresie So that either our Bishops must disclaime this remonstrance or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops or had not this power it may bee the Angells of the seven Asian Churches had and our Remonstrant is so subtile as to twist these two together that if one fayle the other may hold To which we answer first that Angell in those Epistles is put Collectively not Individually as appeares by the Epistle to Thyatira cap. 2. vers 24. where wee reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I say unto you in the plurall number not unto thee in the singular and unto the rest in Thyatira c. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the members of that Church By you is signified those to whom hee spake under the name of the Angell By
that there is a God is it not more certain that Christ is God and man is it not more certaine that Christ is the onely Saviour of the world Nothing more certaine must this then be an Article of our Creede the corner stone of our Religion must this be of necessity to Salvation Nothing more certaine O that men should not onely forget themselves but God also And in their zeale for their owne Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities of his any further wee will leave this displeasing service onely retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himselfe Surely could he looke with our eyes or any eyes that were not partiall he would see cause to bee throughly ashamed of these his grosse injurious miscarriages and should be forced to confesse that never good cause if cause be good had more reason to complaine of a sinfull prosecution SECT IV. VVE will now come with your Honours patience to weigh whether there be any more strength in his arguments then there is truth in his assertionâ— His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts In the â—irst he brings arguments for the supporting of it In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it His first argument for it is couched in these words Were this Ordinance merely humane or Ecclesiasticall if there could no more be said for it but that it is exceeding Ancient of more then 15 hundred yeeres c. The strength of which argument lies in this that they have beene in peaceable possession of this government fifteene hundred yeares and upwards and in this Island ever since the Gospell without contradiction In which words he speakes two things which deserve just censure First that the Hierarchicall Government hath continued for fifteene hundred yeares therefore should not now be altered which may well be called as Hierome in another Case ArgumentuÌ„ Galeatum an argument calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the world For thus the Iewes might have pleaded against Christ the Antiquity of more then so many hundred years and thus the Heathens did plead against the Christian Religion which Iustin Martyr in his Apology answers And by this Argument the Pope sits as fast rivetted in his chayre at Rome as ours in theirs whose plea for Antiquity runs parallell with theirs It is a good observation of Cyprian that Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris Christ is Truth and not Custome and Custome without Truth is a mouldy errour and as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without Truth is a Cypher without a Figure Yet had this Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity as he would beare the world in hand he hath hee might have found Learned Ancients affirming there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops but by Presbyters And when by Bishops he might further have seene more affinity betweene our Bishops and the Pope of Rome then betweene the Primitive Bishops and them And that as King Iames of famous memory said of the Religion of England that it differed no more from Rome than Rome did from what it was at first may as truly be said of Bishops that we differ no more from them then they doe from what Bishops were when first they were raised unto this eminency which difference we shall shew in our ensuing Discourse to be so great that as he said of Rome he did Romam in Roma quaerere he sought Rome in Rome so we Episcopatum in Episcopatu may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation he saith It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction which is his Second in this Argument How false this is we have declared already and we all know and himselfe cannot but know that there is no one thing since the reformation that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done witness the severall Bookes written in the Reignes of our severall Princes and the many Petitions exhibited to our severall Parliaments and the many speeches made therein against Episcopall Government many of which are yet extant As for that supply of Accessory strength which he begs to this Argument from the light of nature and the rules of iust policy which saith he teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things which long use and many Lawes have firmly established as Necessary and Beneficiall it is evident that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficiall may to succeeding Generations prove not Necessary but Noxious not Beneficiall but Burthensome And then the same light of nature and the same iust policy that did at the first command the establishment of them may and will perswade their abolishment if not either our Parliaments must never Repeale any of their former Acts which yet they have justly and wisely done or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature and the Rules of iust policy which to think were an impiety to be punished by the Iudge SECT V. THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopall government is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling which he derives from no lesse than an Apostolicall and in that right divine institution and assayes to prove it from the practice of the Apostles and as he saith the cleare practice of their Successors continued in Christs Church to this very day and to this Argument he so much confides that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart And determines if any continue yet unsatisfied it is in despight of reason and all evidence of History and because he wilfully shuts his eyes with a purpose not to see the light Bona verba By your favour Sir we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation there is one scruple yet remaining and if you would know upon what ground it is this because we finde in Scripture which by your own Confession is Originall Authority that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same though afterwards they came to be distinguished and in processe of time Episcopacy did swallow up all the honor and power of the Presbytery as Pharaohs lean Kine did the fat Their Identity is discernable first from the same names given unto both secondly from the same office designed unto both in Scripture As for the names are not the same names given unto both in sacred Writ Let the fifth sixth and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testifie in the fifth verse the Apostle shews that he left Titus in Creet to ordaine Elders in every City in the
inequality without any Rule over his brethren Ours claime an eminent Superiority and a power of Ordination and Iurisdiction unknowne to the Primitive times That this which hee supposeth hee heares us say is Scripture Truth we have shewed already c. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops and that eminent superioritie and power of Ordination and Iurisdiction which our Bishops claime was unknowne to Scripture and are now prepared by Gods assistance to prove it was unknowne to primitive times But how doth this Remonstrant meete with this Reply ALAS ALAS HOVV GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation It seemes the man Judged this Reply so poore as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pitty then of his paines to answer or rather knew there was more in this Reply then hee knew how to answer and therefore waves it with his Rethoricke And this we rather thinke because hee knowes but little in Antiquity that knowes not that there is so vast a difference betweene our Bishops and those that were not onely in the Apostles dayes whom wee have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 yeares after when there began to bee some discrimination that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Shippe Argo that was so often repaired as there was nothing left of the First Materialls yet stil it challenged the first Name Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars first in point of Election to their office secondly in point of Execution of their office thirdly in point of state-Imployment First having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church and from whom it first received its being not from God but from Consent and Custome of the Churches according to Ambrose Ierom Augustine c. Wee come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Prioritie in these times and to shew first how therein these Bishops did differ from ours for all their Elections were ordered by the privity consent and approbation of the people where the Bishops was to serve Were there no other Authours to make this good Cyprian alone would doe it among other places let his 68. Epistle witnesse where he saith plebs Maxime habet potestatem c. The people specially have power either of chusing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy for this is derived from Divine Authority that the Priests should bee chosen in the presence of the people before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their publike vote and Testimony This hee proves by the Testimonie of Sacred writ both Old and New Where wee observe first that the speciall power of Judging of the worthinesse or unworthinesse of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the People Secondly the speciall power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People Plebs maximé Habet potestatem c. Thirdly that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man but of an Affrican Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election as the inscription of the Epistle shewes The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence desire and vote of the Clergie or People is Condemned by Athanasius not onely as a breach of Canon but as a Transgression of Apostolicall prescript and that it did compell or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme Nor did onely Christian Bishops but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius tells them the ready way to lay asleepe the Tumults that did then disturbe the Church about the Election of a Bishop was si modo Episcopum fidelem integrum nacti fuerint quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum Iudicium fuerat nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo eorum qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset Gelas in Act. Concil Nicen. part 3. if they would get a faithfull and upright Bishop which saith he is in your power presently to doe and was long agoe if Eusebius with the ayd of his faction had not rushed in upon you and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election That which this sacred Emperour calls the right order of Election what is it but the Election by the people in whose power he saith it then was and long had beene to choose a Bishop and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen So the same Author tells us that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their severall seats for Arianisme by the Councell of Nice others were appointed in their roomes by the Clergy and people of each Diocesse To this Election in Nicomedia wee could if it were needfull in so cleare a Truth adde many the like Presidents of popular Elections which for brevities sake we passe over Not questioning but that which hath beene spoken is sufficient to informe the intelligent Reader that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo in point of Election SECT VIII A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to shew that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Tvvo is in the Execution of their Office and here there are three things wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light may see a Latitude of difference betweene ours and former Bishops First in that Sole Iurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves Secondly in the Delegation they make of the power of exercising this Iurisdiction unto others Thirdly in the way of the exercise of that power For the first of these Their sole Iurisdiction That our Bishops assume this to themselves it is knowne and felt and that this Sole Iurisdiction was a stranger a Monster to former times wee shall now prove and make cleare that the power of Ordination Admonition Excommunication Absolution was not in the hands of any sole man First for Ordination Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him who were these Colleagues but his Presbyters as he himselfe expounds it writing to Lucius in his owne name and the name of his Clergie and people Ego Collegae fraternitas omnis c. I and my Colleagues and my whole people send these Letters to you c. So that it is cleare in Cyprians time Presbyters had a hand in Ordination and Bishops did not Ordaine alone Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi MANVM
but this is but a blind wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader for wee challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergie-man that was Vicar to Ambrose or Chancellour to Augustine or any other of the Bishops of these times so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO SECT XI A Third branch wherein the difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of former times inpoint of Exercising their Jurisdiction is visible is the way or manner of exercising that power For brevities sake we will onely instance in their proceedings in Causes Criminall where let them tell us whether any good Antiquity can yeeld them one President for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO which hath been to their COURTS as Purgatory fire to the Popes Kitchin they have forgotten that old Maxime in the Civill Law Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum which as it is grounded upon naturall equity so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian Nimis grave est quod petitis c. It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves Vnderstand therefore that you ought to bring proofes of your intentions and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ethnicisme enable Heathen Princes yea Persecutors to see and enact thus much and shall not the glorious Sunne of the Gospell convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law that call themselves the Fathers of the Church If neither the light of Nature nor Gospell light can yet the Custome of the Church to which they so oft appeale may both convince them of this iniquitie and discover to all the world the contrarietie of their proceedings to the proceedings of former times in this particular For of Old both the Plaintiffe and Defendant were brought face to face before the parties in whose power it was to judge which way of proceeding Athanasius affirmes to be according to Scripture the Law of God And because those that condemned Macarius did not thus proceed he condemnes their Sentence as malicious and unjust Of old no Sentence passed against any man but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers after Complaint exhibited the first thing they applyed themselves to was to consider the person and qualitâ—e of the Accuser Concilâ— prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the Witnesses who were two at least Can. Apost Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such as might not be imagined to be partiall nor to beare enmity nor malice against the party accused Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti Of old None might be party witnesse and Iudge which Gratian proves at large Caus. 4. qu 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse Iudex testis We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Tryall without witnesses Si crimen ita publicum est ut meritò debeat appellari notorium If the crime be so publique that it may deservedly be called Notorious Which Law further determines what is notorious saâ—ing Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit aut evidentiâ Rei quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari We count that offence manifest which either by confession or by lawfull proofe comes to be knowne or by evidence of fact so as it can be hid by no tergiversations So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation upon examination and evidence produced and proved by such witnesses as against whom the dâ—fendant could lay in no just exception And not as now an accusation whispered against a man he knowes not by whom to which he must take his Oath to answer before he knowes what his accusation is Which Oath if he takes without further witnesse he is censured upon the witnesâ—e of his owne Oath If he takes it not he is sent presently to prison there to lie without Bayle or Mainprize till the insupportable miseries of his long durance compel him to take an Oath against Nature Scripture Conscience and the just Defence of his owne innocencie That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two in the point of executing their Judicatory power we need spend no more time to prove But come to the third thing in which the difference betweene ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced SECT XII ANd that is State Imployment or attendance upon Civill and Secular affaires c. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits which prohibition reacheth every Bishop to speake in Chrysostomes words as well as Timothy to whom it is directed Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet sed agere ea omnia detrectet Let no man that is a Bishop refuse to heare what the Apostle saith but to doe what the Apostle forbids We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often incumbred with secular businesse but these were put upon them sometimes by Emperours who sought the ruine of the Church as Iulian of whom Niceph lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere ministerio perversè fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes towards Christian Religion made them thus to honour Bishops thinking thereby to advance Religion as Constantine the Great enacted that such as were to be tryed before Civill Magisâ—rates might have leave to appeale ad Iudicium Episcoporum atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast Civill dignities upon them Tiberius granted a Questors dignitie unto a Bishop for his eloquence Chrysostome for his notable stoutnesse and freedome of speech was sent as the fittest man to Gainas with the Emperours command Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperour would sollicite them to present their grievances to the Emperour And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places as appeares by Cyrill who was the first Bishop in Alexandria who had civill dignities conferred upon him as Socrates relates it from whom Civill authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded Episcopatum majoricum fastu prophanorum Magistratuum more quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi ingressus est unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent He entred upon his Episcopacie with more pomp then his predecessors with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this that Orestes the Roman Governour seeing his power much weakned by the Bishops interposing in secular affaires
this angell if he had a superiority had any more then a superiority of order or of gifts and parts Where is it said that this angell was a superior degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters In which Epistle it is said that this angell had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven c. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular preheminence or majority of power to Peter more then to the other apostles But that though the promise was made to Peter yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest and given to all as well as one And that therefore it was spoken to one person and not to all that so Christ might fore signifie the unity of his Church as Cyprian Austin Hierome Optatus and others say So when Christ directs aâ— Epistle to one angell it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels but at most onely a presidency for order sake And that which is written to him is written to the rest as well as to him And therefore written to one not to exclude the rest but to denote the unity that ought to bee betweene the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flocke And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith as you may reade in his conference with Hart cap. 4. divis 3. ad finem For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the Iâ—â— Divinum of the Episcopall preheminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel 2.1 Angelo i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri ac per eum caeteros collegas totamque adeo Ecclesiam Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessariò oportuisse sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica cujus apex est Antichristana bestia certissima cum totius non Ecclesia modo sed etiam orbis pernicie nunc tandem declarat If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Asian Churches Let not this Remonstrant and his party cry out of wrong if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted oâ—t of the Church seeing it is his owne Option And yet we cannot coÌ„ceale one refuge more out of Scripture to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Pauls second Epistle to Timothy and of that to Titus where in the one Timothy is said to be the first bishop of Ephesus and in the other Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians to both which places wee answer That these two Postscripts and so all the rest are no part of Canonicall Scripture And therefore our former and ancienter English translations though they have these Postscripts yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text Although our Episcopall men of late in newer impressions have inlarged their Phylacteries in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text that the simple might beleeve they are Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serrarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them The first Epistle to Timothy is thus subscribed the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana Here we demand whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy was assured he should live to write a second which was written long after And if not How comes it to be subscribed thâ— first to Timothy which hath relation to a second Besides the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe It is added Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana But this Epithete is no where read in the Writers of those ages saith Beza Sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt So that by this place it is evident that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men for the most part vel indoctis saith Beza vel certe non satis attentis Either by a learned or negligent man The second Epistle is thus subscribed the second Epistle unto Timothy ordeined the first Bishop of the Church of the EphesiaÌ„s was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time Now these words Ordained the first Bishop is wanting saith Beza in quibusdam vetustis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ— editione apud Syrum interpretem If Saint Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certaine whether ever there should be a second Neither would it bee said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed Written to Titus ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians from Nicopolis of Macedonia Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Tit 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter He doth not say Here to winter but there Where note for the present hee was not there And besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second And also He is said to be Bishop not onely of a Diocesse but of all Creet Was there ever such a second Bishop Adde lastly that it is said Bishop of the Church of the Cretians Whereas it would bee said of the Churches of the Cretians For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul not Church Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes Here ends the Epistle to Titus and no more So the Syriack Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus By all this it appeares that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies then they have authority for their Episcopall dignity by these
Subscriptions there would be no more Subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England But some will say that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered and that is from the inequality that was betweene the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples To which we answer First that it cannot bee proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy either of Ordination or Jurisdiction Or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve But suppose it were yet we answer Secondly that a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of different kindes will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde No man will deny but that in Christs time there were Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and teachers and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors But it cannot bee proved that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle or one Evangelist over another And why then should one Presbyter be over another Hence it followeth that though we should grant a superiority betweene the twelve and the seventy yet this will not prove the question in hand Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kinde and the instance is of Officers of different kinds amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons And now let your Honours judge considering the premisses how farre this Episcopall government is from any Divine right or Apostolicall institution And how true that speech of Hierome is that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter is an Humane praesumption not a divine Ordinance But though Scripture failes them yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse yet so as he acknowledgeth here Ingagements to Princes onely for their accessory dignities titles and Maintenance not at all for their stations and functions wherein yet the author plainely acknowledgeth a difference betweene our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions For our parts we are so farre from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ that we beleeve that even by Gods owne Ordinance double Honour is due unto them And that by how much the Ministery of the Gospell is more honourable then that of the Law by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospell to bee carefull to provide that the Ministers of the Gospell might not onely live but maintaine Hospitalitie according to the Rule of the Gospell And that worthy Gentleman spake as an Oracle that said That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministery Yet wee are not ignorant that when the Ministery came to have Agros domos locationes vehicula equos latifundia as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit Matrem religion brought forth riches and the Daughter devoured the Mother and then there was a voyce of Angels heard from Heaven Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit this Day is poyson shed into the Church of Christ. And then it was that Ierome complained Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Then also was that Conjunction found true That when they had woodden Chalices they had golden Priests but when their Chalices were golden their Priests were wooden And though we doe not thinke there is any such incompossibility but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociablenesse yet it is very rare to finde History tells us that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not onely made them neglect their Ministery but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance which did so elevate their Spirits that they insulted over their brethren both Clergy and People and gave occasion to others to hate and abhorre the Christian Faith Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus who notwithstanding the meannesse and obscurity of his birth afterwards grew to that height of Insolâ—ncâ— and pride in all his carriage especially in that numerous traine that attended him in the streetes and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes that Fides nostra inviâ—â—ia odiâ— propter fostum superbiâ—m cordis illius facta fuerit obnexia the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride And as their ambition fed with the largenesse of their revenewes discovered it selfe in great attendance stately dwellings and all Lordly pompe so Hierom complaines of their pride in their stately seates qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti vix dignantur vidâ—re mortales alloqui conservos suos who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower will scarce deigne to looke upon poore mortalis or speake to their fellow servants Here we might bee large in multiplying severall testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiasticall persons that the largenesse of their revenues raysed them to but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat spumante equo superbus invebitur parvá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare erigit celsa Laquearia construit multa conclaviu sculpit postes pingit armaria vestem respuit gressiorem indumentum molle desiderat c. Which because the practise of our times hath already turned into English wee spare the labour to translate Onely suffer us being now to give a Vale to our remonstrants arguments to recollect some few things First whereas this remonstâ—ant saith If we doe not shew out of the true genuine writings of those holy men that lived in the Apostles dayes a cleare and received distinction of Bishopsâ— Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct subordinate callings with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them Let this claimed Hierarchie be for ever rooted out of the Church We beseech you let it be rememred how we have proved out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves that these are not three distinct callings Bishops are Presbyters being with them all one Name and Office and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution but Humane and that these Bishops in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters as our present Bishops differ from them Secondly Whereas this remonstant saith If our Bishops challenge any other power then was by Apostolike authority delegated to and required of Timothy and Titus and the Angells of the Asian Churches Let them bee disclaimed as usurpers Wee desire it may be remembred how wee have proved first that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops and secondly that our bishops challenge if not
and Judaicall Consultations with the Pope about things cleane and uncleane his proud demeanour toward the British Clergy appeares in his counsell called about no solid point of faith but celebration of Easter where having troubled threatned the Churches of Wales and afterwards of Scotland about Romish Ceremonies hee is said in fine to have beene the stirrer up of Ethelbert by meanes of the Northumbrian King to the slaughter of twelve hundred of those poore laborious Monks of Bangor His Successors busied in nothing but urging and instituting Ceremonies and maintaining precedency we passe over Till Dunstan the Sainted Prelate who of a frantick Necromancer and suspected fornicatour was shorne a Monk and afterwards made a Bishop His worthy deeds are noted by Speed to have beene the cheating King Edred of the treasure committed to his keeping the prohibiting of marriage to the encreasing of all filthinesse in the Clergie of those times as the long Oration of King Edgar in Stow well testifies In Edward the Confessors dayes Robert the Norman no sooner Archbishop of Canterbury but setting the King and Earle Godwine at variance for private revenge broached a civill warre till the Archbishop was banisht Now William the Conquerour had set up Lanfrank Bishop of Canterbury who to requite him spent his faithfull service to the Pope Gregorie in perswading the King to subject himselfe and his state to the Papacy as himselfe writes to the Pope Suasi sed non persuasi The treason of Anselm to Rufus was notorious who not content to withstand the King obstinately in money matters made suit to fetch his Pall or investiture of Archiepiscopacie from Rome which the King denying as flat against his regall Soveraigntie he went without his leaveâ— and for his Romish good service received great honour from the Pope by being seated at his right foot in a Synod with these words Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam Whence perhaps it is that the Sea of Canterbury hath affected a Patriarchy in our dayes This Anselm also condemned the married Clergie Henry the first reigning the same Anselm deprived those Prelats that had beene invested by the King and all the Kingdome is vext with one Prelat who the second time betakes himselfe to his old fortresse at Rome till the King was faine to yeeld Which done and the Archbishop returned spends the rest of his dayes in a long contention and unchristian jangling with York about Primacie Which ended not so but grew as hot betweene York and London as Dean to Canterbury striving for the upper seat at dinner till the King seeing their odious pride put them both out of dores To speak of Ralf and Thurstan the next Archbishops pursuing the same quarrell were tedious as it was no smal molestation to the King and Kingdome Thurstan refusing to stand to the Kings doome and wins the day or else the king must be accurs't by the Pope which further animates him to try the mastry with William next Archbishop of Canterbury and no man can end it but their Father the Pope for which they travel to Rome In the mean while marriage is sharply decreed against Speed 448. and the Legate Cremonensis the declamor against matrimony taken with a strumpet the same night In King Stephens Reigne the haughty Bishops of Canterbury and Winchester bandy about precedencie and to Rome to end the duell Theobald goes to Rome against the Kings will interdicts the Realme and the King forc't to suffer it till refusing to Crowne Eustace the Kings sonne because the Pope had so commanded he flies againe Beckets pride and outragious treasons are too manifest resigning the Kings gift of his Archbishoprick to receive it of the Pope requiring the Custody of Rochester Castle and the Tower of London as belonging to his Seignorie Protects murthering Priests from the temporall sword standing stifly for the liberties and dignities of Clerkes but little to chastise their vices which besides other crying sinnes were above a hundred murthers since Henry the seconds crowning till that time to maintaine which most of the Bishops conspire till terror of the King made them shrink but Becket obdures denies that the King of Englands Courts have authority to judge him And thus was this noble King disquieted by an insolent traytor in habit of a Bishop a great part of his Reigne the land in uproar many excommunicate and accursed France and England set to warre and the King himselfe curbed and controlled and lastly disciplin'd by the Bishops and Monks first with a bare foot penance that drew blood from his feet and lastly with fourescore lashes on his anointed body with rods In the same Kings time it was that the Archbishop of York striving to sit above Canterbury squatts him down on his lap whence with many a cuffe hee was throwne downe Next the pride of W. Longchamp Bishop of Elie was notorious who would ride with a thousand horse and of a Governour in the Kings absence became a Tyrant for which â—lying in womans apparell he was taken To this succeeds contention betweene Canterbury and York about carriage of their crosses and Rome appeal'd to the Bishop of Durham buyes an Earldome No sooner another King but Hubert another Archbishop to vex him and lest that were not enough made Chancellor of England And besides him Geffry of York who refusing to pay a Subsidy within his Precincts and therefore all his temporalities seaz'd excommunicates the Sheriffe beats the Kings Officers and interdicts his whole Province Hubert outbraves the King in Christmasse house-keeping hinders King Iohn by his Legantine power from recovering Normandy After him Stephen-Langton set up by the Pope in spight of the King who opposing such an affront falls under an interdict with his whole Land and at the suit of his Archbishop to the Pope is depos'd by Papall Sentence his Kingdome given to Philip the French King Langtons friend and lastly resignes and â—nfeâ—ds his Crowne to the Pope After this tragicall Stephen the fray which Boniface the next Archbishop but one had with the Canons of Saint Bartholmews is as pleasant the tearing of Hoods and Cowles the miring of Copes the flying about of wax Candles and Censors in the scuffle cannot be imagined without mirth as his oathes were lowd in this bickering so his curles were as vehement in the contention with the Bishop of Winchester for a slight occasion But now the Bishops had turned their contesting into base and servile fâ—atteries to advance themselves on the ruine of the Subjects For Peter de Rupibus Bishop of Winchester perswading the King to displace English Officers and substitute Poictivines and telling the Lords to their ces that there were no Peeres in England as in France but that the King might do what he would and by whom he would became a