The Diocesans Trial, Part 3
THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall, and the exercise of it, to any singular person, or to united multitude or Presbyters.
THough this question is so coincident with the former, that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed▪ yet for some new considerations which may be super-added, we will briefly handle it in the Method premised.
First, it is argued for the affirmative.
Argum. 1. Tha… which is committed to the Church, is committed to the principal member of the Church▪ But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church, Mat…. 18.17. Ergo. Either to the whole Church, or to a Church in the Church, or to …ome one eminent member in the Church. But it was not committed to be exercised by the whole Church, or to any Church in the Church. Ergo, to one who is in effect as the church, having all the authority of it. Secondly, if one person may be representatively a Church, when jurisdiction i… promised; then one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed. But one singular person, Peter signified the Church, when the promise of jurisdiction is made. Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia saith, that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church so in the bishop, … that they cannot be severed. Finally, as the kingdome of England may be put for the King in whom is all the power of the Kingdome: So the Church for the chiefe governour in whom is the power of it.
The second Argument.
Th…t which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted, that was not promised to them as their immediat right. But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted, Ergo, Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters. For then the Apostles would not have withhold it from these. But they did. For the Apostles kept it with themselves. As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest, whom Paul by his judge…ent was faine to excommunicate. And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate, And signifie them, as not having power within themselves to censure them. And so Paul alone excommunica…ed Hymen…us and Alexander.
The third Argument.
That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches, and their successours, that was not committed to Presbyteries, but singular persons. But in power of ordination and jurisdiction, he did so. For to Timothy in Ephesus, and to Titu… in Crete, he commended the power and exercise of it. Ergo.
The fourth Argument.
That order which was most fit for exercising power of jurisdiction, that Christ did ordaine. But the order of one chiefe governour is sitter for execution, then the order of a united multitude. Ergo.
The fifth Argument.
If all authority and power of exercise be in the Church originally, then the Pastors derive their power from the Church. But this is not true. Ergo, it was not committed to the Church. That authority which the Church never had, shee cannot convey. But the Pastorall authority of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken. Ergo, it cannot be derived from her. Againe Pastours should discharge their office in the name of the Church, did they receive their power from the Church.
The sixth Argument.
If the power of jurisdiction and execution be committed from Christ to the Church, then hath the Church supreame power. Then may a particular Church depose her bishop, the sheepe censure the shepheard, children their fathers, wh…ch is absurd.
On the other side it is argued,
Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many, and to be exercised by many, that never w…s committed by Christ to one, and the execution of a…y one. But Mat. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many▪ and that exercitative, so as by them being many, it is to be exercised. Ergo. Now this is plaine in the place. Where first m…rke, …hat Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particul…r Church t…ken in distinctly. For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to. Th…refore no univers…ll, or provinciall, or Diocesan Church g…thered in a C…uncell. Secondly, it is not any particular Ch…rch that he doth send …ll Christi…ns to, for …h… all Christ…ans in the world should come to one particular at Church, were it possible. He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Church where the brother offending and offended are members. And if they be not both of one church, the plaintife must make his denunt…ation to the Church where the defendant is, quia forum sequitur reum. Thirdly, as Christ doth speake it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly, so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation. For then Christ should give not some, but all the members of the Church to be governors of it. Fourthly, Christ▪ speaketh it of such a Church to whom wee may ordinarily and orderly complaine: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Fiftly, this Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinary, as all but Morelius, and such Democritall spirits doe affirme. And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church, doth shew that often the number of it is but small: For where two or three are gathered together in my name. Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people, are incomparably great. Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor, who is virtually as the whole Church▪ For first, the word Church doth ever signifie a company, and never is found to note out one person. Secondly, the Bishop may be the person offending or offended, and the Church to which he must bring the matter, must be other then himselfe. Thirdly, the gradation doth shew it. First, by thy selfe, Then shew a witnes or two. Then to the Church, as the sinne increaseth, the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured, increaseth also. If one say, though the Church signifie one governour, yet the gradation holdeth, for to tell it to …he governour in open Court, is more then to tell it to twenty. Wee grant that this is true, and were the word C…urch taken here to note some eminent governour, it might be brought in as a further degree, though one onelyonly were enforced. But how can Peter be complainaint, if Peter the Praesul onelyonly be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced. Fourthly, the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person, was not any one but many. Their rebuke upon which it is like he repented, was a rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2.6. Fiftly, if the church had been one, he would not have subjoyned: for what ye shall …ind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Sixtly, if the church did not note an assembly, how could he assure them from hence, that God would do what they agreed on, because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name. Unlesse the Church meant were an assembly, this argument could not be so correspondent. Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name, God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on. But where the Church is binding or loosing, there are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly, the chur…h in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually, but an assembly of Priests sitting together, as Judges in the causes of God. Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctly presuppose every particular Church: So he doth here onelyonly presuppose the joint authori…y, and joint execution of a representative Church, a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governours.
Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practice of the Churches. That power which is not in one, nor to bee exercised by one, but in many, and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corin…hians, that power with the exercise of it, was committed by Christ to many, not to one. But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many, and to be performed by many assembled. Ergo. The proposition is plaine. For Paul would not have called for, nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall, other then Christ had ordained. The assertion is denyed by some: but …t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumen…s. For first, Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast them forth. Now (as Ambrose saith on the place. Si au…em quis potestalem non h…b…, quim scit reum abjicere, aut probare non valet; immunis est. Secondly, Paul doth wish them assembled together, with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ, that they might deliver him up to Sathan. For hee doth not call on them to restraine him as already excommunicated, but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them. Thirdly, Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within, those who were called brethren, and lived otherwise. Fourthly, Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or mu…ct o… many, writing to them that they would not proceed, 2 Cor. 2 6. Lastly, Paul doth attrib…te power to them to forgive him, and to rece…ve him to the peace of the church. Which would not have been in them, had they not had the power to excommunicate. Such as h…ve no power to binde, have no power to loose. So it migh… be prov…d by the Church of the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 3.14. If any man wa…k in…rdinatly, note him, that others may refraine him Noting, being not a signification by letter, which doth wrest the word against all copies, and the current of all Greek interpreters: but judicially to note him, …hat all may avoid him; that is, excommunicate him. Finally, the churches of Asia, as it is plaine, had power of government within themselves.
Argum. 5. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the churches, nor Evangelists, but with concurrence of the churches and Presbyteries, that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour, but by many. But they did not ordaine, nor lay on hands alone, they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone, but with concurrence of the Presbyters of the church. Ergo, much lesse may any ordinary Minister doe it alone. Timothy received grace by the foreign of the Presbytery. For that Persons must be understood here is apparant by the like place; when it is said, by the laying on of my hands, foreign noteth a person, and so here a Presbytery. Secondly, … take foreign to signifie the order of Priesthood, is against all Lexicons, and the nature of the Greeke termination. Thirdly, Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter, as before we have proved. Fourthly, it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers …ake it, a company of bishops. For neither was that Canon of 3. bishops and the Metropolitan, or all the bishops in a Province, in the Apostles time, neither were the…e who are now called bishops, then called Presbyters, as they say, but Apostles, men that had received Apostolick grace, Angels, &c. Finally, it is very absurd to think of companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted; but he placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from bishops, which is the grant of our adversaries. Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence, besides testimonie of Scripture.
Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbytery with them. Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered, but because it was a thing to be determined by many; all who had received power of these keyes, doing it ex offici…, and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth. Yea the bishops called Primi Presbyteri, had no ordination at the first which the Prebytery did not give them. Whence have bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the b…shop of this Church? But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained Ministers. As Consuls and D…ctators are said to have created Consuls, because they called Senates, propounded and together with others did it. No otherwise doe Jesuits themselves understand it. Salmeron on the first of Titus, &c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts, that Presbyters h…d right of su…rage, not onelyonly in their owne Presbyteries, but in Provinciall Synods, and therefore in O…cumenicall Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their mindes went in the instructi…n of bishops received from their Churches. And A…hanasius yet a Deacon, is read to have beene at the Counsell of Nice, and to have had right of suffrage in it. Finally, the Presbyteries did a long time execute jointly all actions of Church government, as is before declared. Other arguments we shall touch in answer of the…e which have beene objected. Now to come to the conclusio…s, let this be first.
Conclus. 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singular persons, so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other. This I speake in regard of Apostles and Evangelists, whose power in many things could not have concurrance of particular Churches, which in the former question is sufficiently declared.
Conclus. 2. That ordinary power, and the execution therof was not committed to any singular governors, whereof there was to be one onelyonly in each Church. This is against the Jesuits, who make account (the most of them) that as all civill power of government is given to Kings to bee executed by them within their commonwealth, so Ecclesiasticall power (say they) is given to the Pope and to bishops in their particular Churches to be executed by them, and derived from them to the whole Church.
Conclus. 3. Ordinary power with the execution thereof, was not given to the community of the church, or to the whole multitude of the faithfull, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle, receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. This I set downe against the Divines of Constance; our prime Divines, as Luther and Melan…thon, and the Sorbonists, who doe maintaine it at this day. Yea, this seemeth to have beene Tertullians errour; for in his book…: de p…dicitia, he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power, but the church for her honor, did dispose it as we see. The proposition of a pollitick body, and naturall deceived them, while th…y will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body, not remembring that analogon is not in omnisimile, for then should it bee the same with the …n…loga…um. True it is, all civill power is in the body politicke, the collections of subjects, then in a King from them: And all the power of hearing, seeing, they are in the whole man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye. But the reason of this is, because these powers are naturall, and what ever is naturall, doth first agree to the community or totum, and afterward to a particular person and part, but all that is in this body, cannnot hold in Christs mysticall body. In a politick body power is first in the community, in the King from them, but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the church from him. But to whom should he first commit this power, but to his Queene. Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power, but a power of doing service to the church for Christ his sake. Therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons, and not to the whole community which are the Queene of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly: but to have persons who in regard of his relation should stand distinguished from her. Secondly, in natu…ll bodies, the power of seeing is first immediately in the man, from the man in the eye and particular members: In the mysticall body, the faith of a beleever is not first immediatly in all, then in the beleever, but first of all and immediatly in the person all beleever, for whose good it serv…th more properly th…n for the whole, every man being to live by his owne faith. The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel, so deri…ed to the Priest…s but immedia…ly from Christ feared in Aaron and his sonnes. O…ject. Yea they were given the church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis & totius. Answ. I but this is not enough, that power may be said to be immediatly received by the church as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others, as the power of seeing is not onelyonly given int…itu homin… as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye. But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the church. For as all are said not to have beene Apstoles, so not to h…ve beene Doctors. But if the power of ordinary teachi…g had been given to every beleever, all should have beene made Doctors, though not to continue so in exercising the power. Secondly, were the power in the church, the church should not onelyonly call them, but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe: then should the church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers. Besides, there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly, as women and children. This conclusion in my judgement Victoria, Soto & others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained.
Conclus. …. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it, to the Senat or Presbytery of the church. If any f…e in any office, the church hath not power of supplying that, but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant.
Conclus. 5. Lastly, though the community have not power given her, yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her, that all power is to bee executed in such manner, as standeth with respect to her excellency Hence it is, that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them. Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them, but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ, and therefore cannot bee otherwise: dealt wi…h without open dishonour in such things, which belong in common to the whole congregation.
Now to answer the arguments first propounded.
The Proposition of the first Syllogisme is denyed. That what was committed to the Chu…ch … committed to s…me principall member. And are deny the second part of the next. Syllogisme, proving this par… denyed. For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church. Which is so farre from absurdity, that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacr…d. Doe we not see in Parliament a representative Common-wealth within our Common-wealth, having the greatest authority? Not to mention that a Church within a Church should not be strange to them who imagine many Parishionall churches within one Diocesan church. To the proofes which prevent as it were an objection, shewing that the church, Mat. 18.17. may be put for one chiefe Governour.
The proposition is denyed. If that Peter one Governour, may be in type and figure the Church to wh…m the jurisdiction is premised, then the Church receiving and execucing it may be one. A most false Proposition whose contrary is true. The reason is, because the church typified by Peter is properly and really a church, not figuratively and improperly: for then Peter should have beene a figure or type, of a type or figurative church. The figure therefore and type being of the church which is properly taken, and the church properly and really taken, being a company assembled, hence it is that (Matth. 18.17.) the church cannot signifie one; for one is but figuratively and improperly a church. There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured. Nay hence an Argument may be retorted, proving that by that church whereof Peter was a figure, is not meant one chiefe Governour. Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall church and chiefe Governour. But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onelyonly the church. Matth. 18. Ergo, that church Matth. 18. is not a virtuall church, noting forth one chiefe Governour onelyonly. As for Cyprians speech, it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastour and people by mutuall love, which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out, but the other is forsaken also. Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocent the third, that the Bishop was counted the church; or this dreame of a virtuall church once imagined. The Clerkes of the church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus: That they would obey the Church of Placentia, and the Lord their Bishop. Where the Chapiter doth carry the name of the church from the Bishop. Yea, even in those times preposed, or set before him, when the Pope was lifted up above generall councels, then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall churches. As for a Kingdome I doubt not, but it may be put for a King figuratively: but the church typified by Peter, must needs be a church properly. And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth, in whom is all civill power whereby the whole Kingdome is administred.
To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Cori…th, who judicially, (absent) sentenced his excommunication, I have … or j…dged, leaving nothing to the Church, but ou… of their obedience to decline him, as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith, Fo… this … I have writt… to you, that I may proove whether you will in all things … obedient. What Argument… are these? He that judgeth one to be excommunicated, hee leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate. Thus I might reason, Act. 15.17. from Iames, foreign He who doth judicially sentence a thing hee leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to give sentence. The truth is, the Apostle might have judged him to be excommunicate; and an Evangelist, if present, might have judged him also to be excommunicate, and yet place left for the Churches judgement also. These are subordinate one to the other. Here it may be objected, that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence; then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles have, and the same man should bee excommunicate and not excommunicate. Ans. Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante, Without cause, it is true. But the Apostles sentence being just, shee is not free, in as much as shee cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her; when now it is especially shewed her, and by example shee is provoked. Yes, where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not (though none call on her) free not to excommunicate. Neverthelesse, though she is not free, so as she can lawfully not excommunicate, yet she is free, speaking of freedome absolutely and simply, and if she should not excommunicate him, hee should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate, by chiefe judgement, yet it should not be executed, by the sinister favour of a particular Church. As, say Sauls sentence had beene just, and the peoples favour had beene unjust, Ionathan had beene under condemnation, but execution had beene prevented by the peoples he…dstrong affection towards him. Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate. Ans. As though one may not exercise power of government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superior. Touching the place in the Thessaloni…ns, those that read, Note him by an Epistle, doe goe against the consent of all Greeke Interpreters▪ And the context doth shew, that it is a judiciary noting one, such as caused him to bee avoided by others, and tended to breed shame in him. As for Pauls excommunicating … and Alexa…der, It will not follow. That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone. Secondly, it is not like he did it alone: but a… he cast out the Corinthian, though the whole proceeding be not noted. Though Paul saith, I delivered them ▪ So he saith, grace was given Timothy by imposition of his … … Tim. 1.6. when yet the Presbytery joyned, 1 Tim. 4.14 Thirdly, it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church.
The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath beene sufficiently discussed.
To the fourth, That one is fitter for execution then many. To which we may adde, that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat, or Vice-chancellors in a University, having when they sit with others, no more power then the rest. Yet these have execution of many things committed to them. The assertion. viz. That many are lesse fit for execution, we deny. That order is fittest which God instituted. But he doth commit the keyes to the Church, to many, that they might exercise the authority of them; when that mean is most fit, which God will most blesse, and his blessing doth follow his owne order, this is the fittest. Secondly, in the Apostles times, and in the times after, almost foure hundred yeeres expired, Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed. Thirdly, this deprivation from the first order, one to execute for a Diocesan, one for a Provinciall, the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall, drew on a necessityof one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope. Fourthly, Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them. Regularly they who have the greater committed, have the lesser also. Fiftly, we see even in civill governments many parts by joynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular governour. Truely, that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestive is true: It is unlikely that God will be present, with one, inspiring him with his spirit, and not be present with many who are in his name, and with his warrant assembled. As for those comparisons they hold not in all: they hold in that which the Consull doth in calling the assembly, propounding things, &c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Senators, nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate.
To the fift argument, to the proposition by distinction: if they have all power both of ministeriall application, and instituting others out of vertue and authority, then Pastours derive. But this is denyed. She hath no power but of Ministery, and no plenitude but so farre as they in their owne persons can discharge. It presupposeth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not. But to let the proposition passe, because of some derivation, it is true. If she have but all power of Ministeriall application, then Bishops … f…om … But …hey doe not. We say they doe. And where… it i… … th… which the Church ne…er had she cannot conve… …, which the Church never had, she cannot virtually convey it▪ but she may a… ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving i…. Nothing can give that which it hath not, either formally or virtually, unlesse it give it as an instrument to one who hath it. A man not having a penny of his owne, may give a… hundred pounds if the King make him his Almoner. A Steward may give all offices in his masters house, as ministerially ex…cuting his masters pleasure. Thus the Church deriveth, as taking the person whom Christ describeth, and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church. This answereth to the last suggestion. For if the Church did virtually, and out of power make an officer, it is true, as we see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth. But if she doe it in Steward-like manner, ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house, then is not he so taken in to doe in his name, but in his masters name. As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office not in master Stewards name, but in his masters, who onelyonly out of power did confer it on him.
The last objection I answer. That the particular Church may depose their Bishop. What member soever in the Church is the offending person, may be complained of to the Church. The Church of Philippi, if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie, then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it. If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop, and so power of instituting him, then of destituting also. Instituere & destituere ejusdem es… …otestates. But he is given the onelyonly judge in Christs roome, and though they elect him, yet as you have said, and truely, they have not the power of th…t authority in them to which he is elected. No more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the Imperiall dignity. Answer. We say therefore, that as the Church hath onelyonly ministeriall power of application, that is, as they cannot out of power call a Pastour, but onelyonly call one whom Christ pointeth out, and to whom Christ out of power gi…eth the place of Pastour. So she cannot censure or depose, but onelyonly ministerially executing the censure of Christ, who will have such a one turned ou…, or otherwise censured. But the Bishop never was sole judge, though foreign he may be said so. Christ instituted … Presbytery, in which all had equall power of judgement. Cyprian Ep. 68. in the case of Bes…des and Martialis, doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy, so of refusing unworthy. He speaketh of an ordinary power, as by choosing is manifest, not extraordinary and in case of necessitie. And Mr. Field maintaineth, that L…erius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome. Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it, when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall, but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church. Unlesse they will say with some Schoolmen, Sot…, viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church: but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ, and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse, whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular. As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the generall Church, with whom in his calling the Church Oecumenicall hath nothing to doe.
To that which is objected touching Fathers, Pastors; the similitudes hold not in all things. Naturall parents are no wayes children, nor in state of subjection to their children: but spirituall fathers are so fathers, that in some respect they are children to the whole Church. So shepherds are no way sheepe, but ministers are in regard of the whole Church. Secondly, Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds, be they good or evill: but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves. Besides, are not civill Kings Parents and Pastors of their people? yet if they be not absolute Monarches, it was never esteemed as absurd, to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them. If their owne Churches have no power over them, it will be hard to shew wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches. But Lord Bishops must take state on them, and not subject themselves unto any triall, but by their Peeres onelyonly, which is by a Councell of Bishop….
FINIS.
End of the text · Paul Baynes, The Diocesans Trial (1621)