This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
Vnto this obiection if I should aun∣swere nothing at all, but onely should * 1.1 deny, that any feare, or any other incon∣venience at all, pretended in this place, is to be feared to ensue, my simple nega∣tion were more to be tollerated, then his simple affirmation: for by the canon lawe, non inficienti, sed ponenti, incumbit
onus probandi. And yet because the Lord hath spoken vnto Iosua, & in him vnto * 1.2 vs all, that wee should not feare, nor bee discouraged to obserue, and to doe all, that is written in the law, for then (sayth the Lord) shalt thou make thy way pros∣perous, and then shalt thou haue good successe, therefore in the word of the Lord (I say) that none of all this feare, broyle, trouble, or turmoyle, is to bee feared at al. Nay that it is most assuredly, and without all doubt, to bee hoped, & looked for, that he would so blesse, the attempt of putting his order in executi∣on, as that the peoples approbation, and allowance of their Ministers, should bee a matter of all peace, quietnes, vnitie, concorde, good successe and prosperitie to the whole Church of God in Eng∣land.
For what an heathnish incredulitie, were it for vs to replie vpon the errone∣ous conceyte of a timorous, and suspi∣cious fancie, that feare, and I wot not what vnrulines, & vnquietnes shall fol∣low, when we (receyving the lawes of peace from the Prince of peace) haue his most stable trueth, that his peace shall
rest vpon vs, and that all feare and evill successe shall cease and vanish away. No busie headded body therefore, shall bee able to leade any man away, to disquiet either Church or common Wealth, (o∣therwise then as the Church in all ages by the malice of Satan and his instru∣mentes hath euermore bene disquieted) if once the holy law of the Gospell tou∣ching this point were obserued & put in vre. And if it be feared, that the choyce to be made by the people of God, and which is allowed vnto them, by the holy lawes of God would proue to be a mat∣ter of schisme, discord, and dissention; howe much more reason haue wee to feare, that the fire of schisme, discorde, and dissention, being blowen alreadie, should not break out, and flame among vs, if still one man alone, be suffered to thrust vpon the people of God, not tol∣lerable Ministers, accordinge to Gods heart, but intollerable ministers, accor∣ding to mans tradition. The Admonitor hath insinuated vnto vs often in this ad∣monition, that it is dāgerous to innovate. And so I say too, vnlesse there be evident * 1.3 vtilitie of innovation. For (saith the Em∣perour)
in rebus novis constituendis evi∣dens esse vtilitas debet, vt ab eo iure rece∣datur, quod diu aequum visum est. But is it not as perilous, yea sometimes much * 1.4 more perilous not to innovate? for proofe whereof, it shall suffice, to take witnes of our owne times & of our own experiences. It seemed equal a long time, and for many yeres, that the sacrifice of the Masse with all the pelfe and trumpe∣rie thereof, should not once be spoken against. But we all know, that the aban∣doning thereof, hath not yet brought any perilous subversion, vpō any nation, that purely and soundly in place therof, hath embraced the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper. It seemeth also to be equal for many ages past that the Bishop of Rome might haue supreame and ab∣solute power over all persons, states, and causes, not only in Rome, Italy, Spaigne, Germany, & other forraigne Kingdoms, but also in England and Scotland. But as yet to the view of al the world, it hath not proved perilous for the King, & Queen of England and Scotland, to establish new lawes, for the alteration of that an∣cient abuse. And why hath it not bene
dangerous so to do? Why? forsooth be∣cause there was evident vtilitie in doing of it. But how could an evident vtilitie appeare before it was done? How? For∣sooth because the holy law of God had warranted an alteration. For faith ha∣ving eyes to see the wisedom, the power, and the trueth of God in his word, dis∣cerned a far of that the institution of the Lords Supper, was long before the sa∣crifice of the masse. And therefore our Kings by abandoning popery out of the Realme, did not institute any new religi∣on, but onely they restored the old. Now then if the same holy lawe of God, doe condemne the choyce, and thrusting of a Pastour vpon the people by one man alone; and againe if the same lawe, doe impugne the primacie of one Pastour over all Pastours, as wel in a Diocesse, or Province, as in the whole West part of Christendome, what daunger can it be, not to disfrāchise the one, sithence with∣out any maner of danger, we haue abo∣lished the other? or what perill can it be, not to countenance the sonnes, sithence without peril we haue discountenanced the father? Especially seeing in this place
of the admonition we haue a playne cō∣fession, that the common maner of ele∣ction of Pastors, Elders and Deacons in the old Churches was made by the peo∣ple. For if the examples of schisme, dis∣cord * 1.5 & contention, did commonly ap∣peare in the olde churches, while that maner of election did continue, then by his owne mouth that maner of election was common, and did continue in the olde churches. Besides, this inconveni∣ence (saith he) caused Princes & Bishops so much to entermedle in this matter. From whence it necessarily againe fol∣loweth, that by the holy Scriptures, and law of God, Princes and Bishops, did not entermedle with that matter at all. For had it bin simply lawful for thē, to haue * 1.6 dealt in those causes by the worde of God, thē as well before schisme, discord, and dissention, as afterward, yea rather much more before then afterward. For then by their own right, might Princes and Bishops haue prevented all occasion of schisme, and contention, and haue so preserved the Church, that no tumult, or disorder, should once haue bin raysed or begun therein. Againe if by the lawe
of God, Princes & Bishops, had medled in these matters, and had not entermed∣led by humane devise, then lawfully by their authoritie alone, might they haue chosen Pastours, Elders and Deacons in the olde Churches: which thing in this place by necessarie inference he denieth. For schisme (saith he) caused thē to en∣termedle. So as by his confession, they were but entermedlers, and entercom∣moners, by reason of schisme, & not cō∣moners, and medlers by vertue of Gods word. And yet now a dayes our reverend Bishops in this case, are no more enter∣commoners, with Princes and with the people, they are no more entermedlers as in olde times they were; but they haue now so farre encroched vpon the prerogatiues of the Prince, and privi∣leges of the people, that neither Prince * 1.7 nor people, haue any commons in the election of Pastours, Elders & Deacons with them at all. Besides if schisme, and contention among the people were the reason, why Bishops first entermedled in the choise of Pastours, we now having no schisme nor contention about the choise of Pastours, by the people, and so
the cause ceasing, why should not the effect likewise cease? But this effect, is therefore still to be continued, because otherwise the cause would a new sprout out, and spring vp againe. Nay rather inasmuch, as for these many yeares, we haue had schisme, discord & dissention, because the Bishops wholy and altoge∣ther haue medled in the choise of Pa∣stours, and haue thrust vpon the people, whatsoever Pastours please not the peo∣ple, but pleased themselves, & haue not suffered the people to medle, no not so much as once to entermedle in these matters; in as much (I say) as these things be so: it seemeth most expediēt, requisite, & necessarie, for the appeasing, & paci∣fying of this discord, & the taking away of this schisme, to haue that maner of e∣lection, which was in the old Churches, restored to the people; and this wherein the Bishops haue entermedled, without authoritie from the worde, to be aboli∣shed: that so againe the cause of schisme and strife, which is now among vs cea∣sing, the effect might likewise cease.
After I had ended this tract, in this maner, touching this poynt, there came
into mine handes a booke intituled The perpetuall gouernment of Christes church written by Thomas Bilson, Warden of Winchester Colledge: in the fifteenth chapter of which booke is handled this question, viz: to whom the election of Bishoppes and Presbiters doth rightlie belong, and whether by Gods lawe the people must elect their Pastours or no. In whiche Chapter also the matter of schisme, strife, and contention is hand∣led. The finall scope and conclusion whereof, is as the proposition impor∣teth, two fold: First, cōcerning Bishops, then concerning Pastours.
The quarell taken against Bishoppes doth not so much touch (sayth he) the office, and functions of Bishoppes, as it doth the Princes prerogatiue. When you rather thinke the Prince may not name her Bishoppes without the consent and ele∣ction of the people, you impugne nor vs, but directlie call the Princes fact, and her lawes in question.As touching this poynt of the proposition, because the people by any lawe, or custome; never chalenged anie right, or interest in the choyse of the Kings Bishoppes, we haue
nothing to medle or to make about the choyse, of any of his Kinglie Bishoppes. * 1.8 Nay we confesse, as his Highnes proge∣nitours Kings of England, haue bin the Soveraigne Donours, Founders, Lords and Avowes of all the Bishoprickes in England without ayd of the people; that so likewise it is a right, and interest in∣vested into his Imperiall Crowne, that he onely, his heyres & successours, with∣out cōsent of the people, ought to haue the free nomination, appointment, col∣lation, investiture, and confirmation of all Bishoppes frō time to time to be pla∣ced in anie of those Bishoprickes; yea & we say further, that the King alone, hath not power onely to nominate, collate & confirme, but also to translate, yea and if it please him to depose all his Kingly Bi∣shoppes without anie cōsent of his peo∣ple at all. For (say we) eius est destruere, cuius est construere; eius est tollere, cuius est condere: Neither will we dislike, but rather content our selues, that our late Queenes Bishoppes (if they shall finde fauour in the Kings eyes) should be also the Kings Bishoppes, condicionallie they submit them selues to the lawes, & pre∣rogatiues
of the Kings Crowne, content themselues with the only name of King∣lie and Princelie Bishoppes, & not chal∣lenge anie more the titles of Godly and Christian Bishoppes, as though without iniurie to the law of God, and Gospell of our Savior Christ, they could not be dis∣possessed of their Lordlie Bishoprickes. And therefore our most humble prayer to the King is, that his Maiestie would be pleased, that such his Kingly Bishops may not henceforth overcrow, and iustle our Gods Bishoppes: nor haue any pri∣macie over Gods Bishoppes. And with∣all that the King him self would vouch∣safe, to hearken to the doctrine of such as are in deed Gods Bishoppes, rather thē to the Counsel of those who lately were the Queenes Bishoppes.
As touching the second part, viz. whe∣ther * 1.9 the people by Gods lawe, must elect their Pastours, or no; Maister Bilson by reasons, and profes brought for the first vse of it, rather confirmeth then impu∣gneth the same.
For (saith he) Well may the peoples interest stande vppon the groūds of reason and nature, and be de∣riued from the rules of Christian equi∣tie
and societie: That each Church and people stand free by Gods law, to admit, mainteyne, or obey no man, as their Pa∣stour without their likinge, vnlesse by law, custome, or consent, they haue re∣streyned them selues: That the people * 1.10 had as much right to choose their Pa∣stour, as the Clergie that had more skill to iudge: That the Apostles left electi∣ons indifferenthe to the people & Cler∣gie at Ierusalem: That the Apostles in the Actes, when they willed the Church at Ierusalem to chose the seuen, did not make anie remembrance or distinction of the seuentie Disciples from the rest: And lastlie, against the cursing, & figh∣sting of the late Bishoppes of Rome, till * 1.11 excluding both Prince and people, from yeelding his consent, or making their request, they had reduced the election wholie to the Clergie, he telleth them by their leaue, it was not so from the begin∣ning.From all which sayinges of Mai∣ster * 1.12 Bilson, I conclude thus:
Whatsoeuer is right, lawfull, and free by the lawe of God: whatsoeuer standeth vpon the groundes of reason and na∣ture:
whatsoeuer is deriued frō Chri∣stian equity and society: whatsoeuer is from the beginning, and was left by the Apostles to the Church at Ierusa∣lem, the same ought still to remayne, and must bee kept inviolable in the Church.
But the peoples interest to choose their Pastore, is right; is lawfull; is free by the lawe of God; standeth vppon the grounds of reason, and nature; is ae∣riued from Christian equity & socie∣ty; is from the beginning, and was left by the Apostles to the church at Ie∣rusalem:
Therefore the peoples interest to choose their Pastoure ought still to remayne, and must bee kept inuiolable in the Church.
The whole proposition and euery part thereof, together with the assumpt, and euery part thereof, is drawen from Mr Bilsons owne confession. Onely to the proposition hee hath annexed certeyne condicions or exceptions, viz. Vnlesse by law, custome, or consent, the people haue restreyned themselues, or transfer∣red, or altered their right, or els by their
default, or abuse, the canons, counsels, superior powers, princely, or publicke lawes, haue abridged, altered, or abro∣gated the same. Now then it remayneth to know, whether any consent, default, abuse, custome, canons, counsels, superi∣our powers, publike or Princely Edicts, may bee a good and sure warrant, to a∣bridge, transferr, or abrogate, the peo∣ples interest, from hauing to doe, in the choyse of their Pastours.
Our Sauiour Christ, whē he came in the flesh, he came to reforme the abuse crept in of the Law, and to improue the corruptions of doctrine taught by the Scribes, Pharisies, and Doctors of the lawe, but hee tooke not away any least title of the law, ne abolished any iote of true, & sound doctrine in the Church. The Gospell teacheth vs to order our iudgements aright, to bridle the vnruli∣nes of our affections, & to moderate our inordinate appetites. But yet, doth not the same commaund vs, to empty our soules of all iudgement, to bury our af∣fections in our bellies, and to become as dead as stones, without all sense, or ap∣petite. In like sort wee graunt, that cu∣stome,
consent, Canons, Coūcills, Supe∣riour powers, publick, & princely Laws, * 1.13 may reforme, reproue restreyne, direct, moderate, and bridle the disordered vn∣rulines, and contentious brawlinges of the people, in, and about their elections; yea and wee graunt further, that they may alter, abridge, or enlarge the forme and manner of elections. All this wee graunt: but that Christian Kings or any Superiour powers, may take this right into their owne handes (as hee sayeth) from the people; or that the people by anie lawe, custome, consent, canon, or coūcill, may transferre or abolite their right, freedome, and interest giuen and deduced vnto them, by these rules and by these groundes, I do not yet perceiue anie good groūd or reason for the same. For in so doing, howe should the holy wisedome and providence of God, who hath imprinted in our nature, these rules and these grounds, this equitie and this freedome, be so holily regarded, and so highly reverenced, as it ought to be. For hath he made vs free men, and can wee without contempt of this grace become bondmen? Hath he given vs leaue and
libertie to choose, & shall we with pro∣phane Esau, sett litle by this our birth∣right, and post our libertie vnto others, for lesse then a messe of wort pottage? And albeit in some cases, that may bee well saide, quod volenti non fit iniuria, and that quilibet potest recedere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suo iure; yet the cases must bee such, as a mans willingnes, and readines to forgoe his right, bee not tyed to him with so strong a bande, as is the bande of the groundes of reason and nature, of the rules of Christian equitie, & of the free∣dome of the lawe of God. It is free, I graunt, for a man to eate or not to eate, to drinke, or not to drink, but for a man not to eate at all, or not to drinke at all, and so with hunger and thirst to sterue him selfe, is not free: and in this case vo∣lenti sit iniuria. Euery man that hath a wife, that hath sonnes and daughters, that hath men-servantes, and mayd-ser∣vantes; as by the verie instinct of nature, and by rhe equitie of the lawe of Christ, he hath freedome to provide for them, so must hee carefullie vse this his free∣dome. And therefore he may not wholy and altogether put from him selfe, and
expose at haphazard, the provision, edu∣cation, instruction, dieting, appareling, and lodging of his wife, his sonnes, his daughters and his servaunts vnto stran∣gers: neither may Husbandes, Fathers, nor Maisters giue their consent, to the making of anie lawe, or the bringing in of anie custome, whereby their free∣domes, should be restreyned, adnihiled, or made voyde in this behalfe. For by thus violating the rules, and grounds, & by thus treading, as it were, vnder foote, the equitie of Christ, and the freedome they haue by the lawe of God: should they not most prophanelie, and impi∣ouslie despight God, and, as it were, over turne the whole order he hath set in na∣ture? And if the people may not cast off these rules, and these groundes, this e∣quitie, and this freedome in thinges ap∣perteyning to this frayle, bodily, transi∣torie, and earthlie life: howe much lesse may they, cast them off, or sett litle by them, in things apperteyning to the sal∣vation of their soules, and to a durable, spirituall, everlasting and heavenlie life?
But the peoples right to choose their * 1.14 Bishoppes, did never depende vpon the
expresse commaundement of God: nei∣ther can the people chalendge by Gods law, the right to chose their Bishoppes: I meane (saieth he) no such thinge is ex∣pressed, and conteyned in the Scriptures. What then? if it doe depend, or bee con∣teyned vnder the generall groundes, and rules of reason, nature, christian equitie, christian societie, principles of humane fellowshippes, the law of God, the pra∣ctise of the Apostles, and that which was from the beginning: Is it not sufficient? Though it bee not expressed in these termes, viz: That the people must chose, or that the people haue right to choose their Bishoppes? It is not expressed and conteyned in the scriptures, that everie man must choose his owne wife; or that everie woman must choose her own hus∣band. And yet by the doctrine expres∣sed, or conteyned in the scriptures, is it true that no man hath right either to choose an other mans wife, or to choose an other womans husband. And that e∣verie man hath right to chose his owne wife, and every woman right to choose her owne husbande. Againe, it is not ex∣pressed and conteyned in the scriptures,
that infantes must bee baptized: Nei∣ther is it expressed and conteyned in the scriptures that the Bishopp of Lichfield must haue but one wife. Yet because it is conteyned in the scriptures, that God in the beginning, brought but one woman vnto one man, and gaue to one woman but one husband. I assure my selfe it wil not be denied, but that the Bishops must and doth content him selfe with one wife, and that every Christian ought to bring their children to be Baptized. Be∣sides if Maister Bilson distinguish Bi∣shops in England from Pastors in Eng∣land, and Arch-Bishops in England, and Pastours in England, two severall orders and degrees of Ministers in the Church of England, then I graunt that it is nei∣ther expressed nor cōteyned in the Scri∣ptures that the people must choose their Bishops in England. And why? but be∣cause the Scriptures (having put no dif∣ference betwene Bishops and Pastours) knowe no such Bishops as wee haue in * 1.15 England. And therfore Bishops in Eng∣land, being Bishops only by the Kinges grace, and not by divine institution and ordination, as Pastours in Englande be,
hence is it, that the Kings of England, by their prerogatiue Royall, and not the people, by the rule of Scriptures, haue chosen their Bishops in England. And for this cause also was it, that Kinge Henry the eight, with advise of the Par∣leament, did reassume, the nomination, appointment, investiture, & cōfirmati∣on, of his Kingly Bishops from the Pope. As for the nomination of Pastoures, ha∣ving cure of soules in parishes (other∣wise * 1.16 then all patrones by right of patro∣nage, doe giue presentmentes) their choyse, institution, translation, or depri∣vation, the Kings of Enland by their re∣gall power, never yet hetherto tooke the same vpon them. And if the Kinges of England by any fact, or by any law, did never take away the right, interest, and freedome from the people, in choosing their Pastours; what right, other, then by vsurpation, can the Bishops haue, to impose, or thrust vpon the people Pa∣stours without their liking? But by cu∣stome and consent the people haue re∣streyned them selves. Herevnto (if it were not already sufficiently answered, that the people could not lawfully re∣streine
them selves) yet Maister Bilson him selfe answereth: That the late Bb. of * 1.17 Rome neuer left cursing & fighting, till they had excluded both Prince, and peo∣ple, and reduced the electiō wholy to the Clergie. By cursing, and fighting then haue the people bene overruled, and ex∣cluded, and not by custome or consent, haue they restreyned them selues. Yea & by vertue of this cursed fight onely, doe the Bishoppes of Englande at this day, exclude both Prince and people, from medling in the choyse of Pastoures. For by authoritie of the canon law, made by those late cursing and fighting Bishopps of Rome, the Bishoppes of Englād haue the sole ordination, and placinge of Pa∣stours over the people. And from hence also is it playne, that the peoples right, was not by their default, or abuse, relin∣quished, and forfeyted. For then then late Bishoppes of Rome, needed not to haue cursed, and fought for it. And now whe∣ther it bee not meete, that the Lord Bb. professing them selues to bee Christian Bishoppes, should still reteyne in their handes, and not restore vnto Christian people, the possession of their Christian
equitie, and freedome, extorted from them, by the cursings and fightinges of antichristian Bb. I leaue it to the con∣sideration of the reverende Bishoppes them selues.
Touching the mischieves and incon∣veniences of schisme, troubles, strifes, & contentions so often inculcated, and so much vrged, and excepted against the election of the people, there is no man able (as I thinke) to produce any one pregnant proofe, out of any auncient, or late Historie, that any Kinge or Sove∣raigne power, hath interposed any su∣preame authoritie, to appease any dis∣cord or dissentiō, ensuing or raised, vpō the bare choise, made of any meere Pa∣rochiall Pastour, by any faithfull and Christian people. The schismes, strifes, and factions, that were raysed in the old * 1.18 Churches, sprang out, and flowed onely from the heads, and fountaynes of those schismes, strifes & factions: and namely from proud, ambitious, and hereticall Bishops, and great Clergie maisters. For they being infected, and poysoned with the contagion of schisme, and heresie, & having sowred the mindes of their Dis∣ciples,
with the leaven of their hereticall doctrines, no merveile if the people be∣came followers of the evill maners of their teachers, and no merveile if they verified the proverbe, Like Maister, like Man; like Priest, like People. Eustatius Bishop of Antioch being a Sabellian he∣reticke, * 1.19 was deposed by the Counsell of Antioch: after whose deposition, a fiery flame of seditiō was kindled in Antioch: because one sort of the common people sought to translate Eusebius Pamphilus from Caesarea to Antioch; some other would bring againe Eustatius. Euse∣bius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, beeing both Arians, with their cōfederates, raised skirmishes * 1.20 and tumults against Athanasius. After the death of Alexander, Bishop op Con∣stantinople about the electiō of a Bishop, there was greater sturre then ever before time, and the Church was more gree∣vously turmoyled: The people were de∣vided into two parts: the one egerlie set with the heresie of Arius, claue to Ma∣cedonius; the other cleaved very cōstant∣lie * 1.21 to the decrees of the Nicene Coun∣sell, and choose Paulus to bee their Bi∣shop.
The cause of division among the Citizens of Emisa, about the election of Eusebius Emisenus, was, for that he was * 1.22 charged with the studie of the Mathe∣matickes, and accused of the heresie of Sabellius. After the death of Eusebius, when the people of Constantinople, had brought againe Paulus, to be their Bi∣shop, the Arians chose Macedonius. The authours and chiefe doers, in that sturre were certaine Arian Bishops, who before ayded Eusebius, that turned vp * 1.23 side down the whole state of the church. These and sundry such like sturres, dis∣cords, factions, & dissentions, are found to haue bin raised, & pursued by schis∣maticall, and heretical Bishops, their fa∣vourites & followers, in the olde Chur∣ches; but that these or the like mis∣chieves, and inconveniences can be pro∣ved, to haue fallen out, by the election of parochiall Pastours in the olde chur∣ches, we deny. And why then should not the interest, and freedome of faithfull, & Christian people, wrested from them by cursings and fightings, of faithlesse, and antichristian Popes, be restored to them againe? And the cause ceasing, why
should not the effect likewise cease? And therefore we humbly intreate the Lords Bishops, that against the grounds of rea∣son and nature; against Christian equi∣tie * 1.24 and society; against the right & free∣dome of the lawe of God; against the principles of humaine fellowshippes; against that which was in the begin∣ning; and against that which the Apo∣stles left in the Churches, by colour of lawes brought into the Church, by the cursings and fightings of the late Ro∣mane Bishops, they would not hence∣foorth, barre & seclude the Kings Chri∣stian and faithfull people, from giving their consents vnto their Pastours. Yea and we further beseech their Lordships, that as schollers vnto the Apostles, and as servants vnto the olde way, of reason, of nature, of the law of God, of the equi∣tie of Christ, and of humane societie, they would hereafter imbrace that way, which was from the beginning; which is the old way, and the best way, and not any lōger persist, in a cursed and quare∣ling way, which is the new way, and the worst way. But if the Lordes spirituall * 1.25 of their owne accord, shall not readily
voutchsafe to yeelde vnto vs this our right, at our intreaty: then for my part, I will briefly shew mine opinion, what were expedient, for the Lords and com∣mons, in open Parleament dutifully to pray, and to supplicate at the Kings Ma∣iestes hande. Namely:
At the humble petitions and suppli∣cations, of all his Lords temporall, and Commons in Parleament assembled, his Maiestie would be well pleased, to giue his Royall assent to an Act: to be intitu∣led: An Act, for the restitution of the auncient right, and freedome which the people of God in the old Churches had, and which the people in England ought to haue, in, to, or about the election of their Pastours, and abolishing all papall power repugnant to the same. For if (as it is plainlie confessed) the people of all Churches, haue right, and freedome by the law of God, by the equitie of Christ, by the grounds of reason, and nature, by the principles of humane fellowshipps, and by that which was from the begin∣ning, to elect their Pastours: and if also the same right, and freedome being left to the old churches, and especially to the
Church at Ierusalem by the Apostles, haue bene taken away by the cursings, and fightings of the late Bishoppes of Rome: then can not the people without violatiō of those lawes, rules, & groūds, by any Episcopall power, bee anie more excluded from their said right, and free∣dome; then could, or might the ancient iurisdiction of the Crowne of England, haue bene still vsurped by the Pope frō the Kings of Englande.
The obie∣ctiō of feare &c. answe∣red.
Doct. in c. 6 cui. depreb. Lib. 2.
M. de cōsti∣tu. prim. L. 2
Dangerous to innouate vnlesse there bee euident vtility of in∣novation.
Common manner of elections in ye olde chur∣ches was by the people.
Bb. medle not with e∣lection of Pastours by the holie Scriptures.
Bishops en∣croch vpon the right of prince and people.
The Kinge only hath power without the people to nomi∣nate his Kingly Bb.
Mai. Bilson confirmeth the peoples election of their Pa∣stour. Pag. 339.
360.
359.
339.
Canons and coūsells, &c. may bridle disordered electiōs, but not disannul elections of the people altogether.
Obiection, that the peo¦ples right did neuer depend vpō the expresse commande∣mēt of God
Bishopps in England are only Bishops by ye Kings grace, & not by diuine in¦stitution.
Pastors in parochiall Churches were neuer placed by the King; as Bb. are in their Bishop¦rickes.
The people lost their cō¦sent by cur∣sing & figh∣ting of the Popes.
Schismes & contentions spring from schismaticall and proud clergy mai∣sters.
Socr. lib. cap ••8.
Socr. lib. 2. cap. 2.
Socr. lib. 2 cap. 4.
Socr. lib. 2. cap. 6
Socr. lib. cap. 9.
A request to the reuerend Bishoppes.
A supplica∣tion to bee King by the Lords and commōs for the restituti∣on of their right in the choyse of their Pastors