XLIV. 12. If any persons shall pretend to have the power of Governing the Churches and Inferior Pastors as their Bishops, ▪ who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or consent of the people or Inferior Pastors, and these Bishops shall by Laws or mandates forbid such Assembling, Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a duty, It is no Schism to disobey such Laws or mandates as such; Nor do such disobey their Pastors, they being truly no Bishops of theirs till they do consent (however in some cases the advantages of some imposed persons may make it an act of Prudence, and so a duty to consent, as is aforesaid,) It was no Schism for the people of Antioch, Alexandria, Caesarea, Constantinople &c▪ to refuse Ecclesiastical obedience to the ill Bishops set over them by the Emperor to whom they did not consent; But the Schism was theirs who complied with the imposed Usurpers. Here it must be noted, that Church history hath constrained all that understand it to confess (both Papists, Greeks, and Protestants, that the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters was in the power of the Bishops and the Election in the power of the people, not only ⟨p. 81⟩the first 300 years under heathen Emperors, but for many hundred years after under Christian Emperors and Princes. 2. That this was taken for their right given them by God. To cite more proofs, for this would expose us to the readers censure, as unnecessary tediousness: Many Papists largely prove it; As doth David Blondel beyond exception, de jure plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico, with more. 3. That yet we here plead not for the necessity of so much as the peoples election as it signifieth the first nomination of the person, but only for the necessity of consent, either explicitly or implicitly expressed. If the senior Pastors have the first nomination, or, if it be the Magistrate, or Patrons, as with us, we quarrel not against it, if the flock do but consent.
XLIV. 12. If any persons shall pretend to have the power of Governing the Churches and Inferior Pastors as their Bishops, ▪ who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or consent of the people or Inferior Pastors, and these Bishops shall by Lawes or mandates forbid such Assembling, Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a duty, It is no Schism to disobey such Laws or mandates as such; Nor do such disobey their Pastors, they being truly no Bishops of theirs till they do consent (however in some cases the advantages of some imposed persons may make it an act of Prudence, and so a duty to consent, as is aforesaid,) It was no Schism for the people of Antioch, Alexandria, Cesarea, Constantinople &c▪ to refuse Ecclesiastical obedience to the ill Bishops set over them by the Emperour to whom they did not consent; But the Schism was theirs who complied with the imposed Usurpers. Here it must be noted, that Church history hath constrained all that understand it to confess (both Papists, Greeks, and Protestants, that the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters was in the power of the Bishops and the Election in the power of the people, not only ⟨p. 81⟩the first 300 years under heathen Emperours, but for many hundred years after under Christian Emperours and Princes. 2. That this was taken for their right given them by God. To cite more proofs, for this would expose us to the readers censure, as unnecessary tediousness: Many Papists largely prove it; As doth David Blondel beyond exception, de jure plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico, with more. 3. That yet we here plead not for the necessity of so much as the peoples election as it signifieth the first nomination of the person, but only for the necessity of consent, either explicitly or implicitly exprest. If the senior Pastors have the first nomination, or, if it be the Magistrate, or Patrons, as with us, we quarrel not against it, if the flock do but consent.
