beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas cum illo nos suscepimus omnes i. which sheepe and which flocke not onely blessed Peter did then vndertake but both he hath vndertaken them with vs and all we haue vndertaken them with him And S. Austin Cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oues me as i. when it is saia to Peter it is said to al louest thou me Feed my sheepe I will conclude this point with a memorable saying of one of your owne friends Non me latet recentiores vt sua priuâ—legia expeditius propugnent obtendere dominum hac voce pasce oues meas vni soli Petro totam detulisse Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam quo â—am deinceps pro animi sui arbitrio quibuscunque vellet dispartiretur At sacrae scripturae oraculis omnium antiquoruâ—i doctorum monumentis nec non etiam praxi veteris Ecclesiae tam plane atque aperte confutantur vt mirum sit illos tam absurda comminisci audere i. I am not ignorant that late writers that they may defend their priuileges with greater expedition doe pretend that the Lord by these wordes Feed my sheepe did giue all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to Peter alone that he might afterward bestow it vpon whomsoeuer he would according to his owne discretion But they are confuted so plainely and so openly by the oracles of the holy Scripture by the monuments of all ancient learnedmen yea also by the very practise of the old Church that it is a marueile they dare imagine such absurd things PHIL. I will prooue it by the practise ORTH. BY the practise Nay the practise doth proue the contrary For as Christ did not erect any peculiar tribunall in a singular maner to Peter Neither said he Dic Petro tell it to Peter but he established a tribunall for the Church and said Dic Ecclesiae i. make thy complaints and tell thy grieuances to the Church so other Apostles did exercise the Iurisdiction belonging to this tribunall as well as Peter whether we consider them assembled in Synodes or seuerally by themselues PHIL. Not so for in the Synode holden at Ierusalem in the yeere 34. immediatly after the ascension of Christ S. Peter was president For his act in prescribing to the Apostles and the rest this election of Matthias and the maner thereof is so euident for his Supremacie that our aduersaries confesse that he was Antistes the chiefe of the whole Colleage and company ORTHOD. His proposing the matter argueth a primacie of place not of Iurisdiction or power For though he alone proposeth the matter yet he alone had not the appointment the text saith plainely they appointed two and of the two God himselfe made choice and elected Matthias as appeareth by these words they prayed saying thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen and when the lot fell vpon Matthias S. Peter gaue him no Iurisdiction neither did they expect till S. Peter sent him a Pall but he was presently counted among the Apostles therefore his authoritie was not from man or by man but from Iesus Christ. Moreouer that the Scripture ascribeth no more to him in elections then to the rest may appeare by the second Synod as Binius calleth it wherein the Deacons were chosen For who called the multitude together the text saith the twelue not S. Peter alone but the twelue and who chose them Not S. Peter but the multitude as the Scripture witnesseth The saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and the holy Ghost and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicholas a proselyte of Antiochia which they set before the Apostles and they prayed and laid their hands on them So it is euident that though the Apostles ordained them yet the whole multitude chose them PHIL. The election of Deacons was giuen to the people ex concessione Apostolorum by the grant of the Apostles as Luke himselfe doth testifie ORT. Then it seemeth there is great difference betweene the Apostles and the Pope for the Apostles did not challenge their owne right they did gratifie the people and grant it vnto them but the Pope will rake all vnto himselfe though hee rob Prince Priest and people Now whereas you say they did that by the grant of the Apostles it is true if by grant you meane the consent and counsel of the Apostles For they exhorted the multitude to looke out seuen men of honest report but if you meane that the whole right belonged so absolutely to the Apostles that they might totally haue excluded the people you must consider that in this case the consent of the people depended vpon the grounds of humane society For there was then speciall reason why the whole Church should haue interest in the choice of Deacons because the treasure of the whole Church was coÌ„mitted to their trust But admit it were absolutely by the grant of the Apostles yet marke what you say by the grant of the Apostles not of Peter alone but of the Apostles Thus it doth not appeare that Peter had any prerogatiue more then other Apostles no not so much as in the choice of a Deacon PHIL. That he had Iurisdiction more then they is manifest by the third Synod holden at Ierusalem in the yeere of Christ 51. where indeed S. Peter shewed himselfe for he spake first and last and S. Iames and all the rest yeelded to his sentence ORTHOD. Not one of all these points is true That S. Peter spake not first is cleare by these words When there had bene much disputation Peter rose vp and said c. That he spake not last appeareth also for the Text mentioneth no speach of his but one After him spake Paul and Barnabas after them S. Iames and the Councell concluded the matter according to the words of S. Iames yea according to a speciall point not mentioned by S. Peter Neither were the Actes of the Counsell set out in the name of S. Peter but a Synodall Epistle was sent in the names of them all Neither did S. Peter subscribe vnto it I Peter the Vicâ—r of Christ the Prince of the Apostles the visible head and ordinarie Pastour of the Church but he was only put in among the rest It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and vs. Where is now his super-eminent authoritie If euer hee should haue shewed it this was the time this was the place especially seeing he was present not by his Legate but in his owne person If now he had chalenged it his successours might for euer quietly haue enioyed it What did he meane thus to forget himselfe and to preiudice posteritie And as the Apostolicall Synods receiued not their authoritie from him so neither did the Apostles themselues seuerally considered As is euident in S. Paul
deliuering the incestuous Corinthian vnto Satan by which in the iudgement of Hilarie Hierome and Anselmus followed by Bellarmine Baronius and others both of your side and ours is meant Excommunication And though some doe take it for a miraculous operation whereby the offendours were committed for a time to Satan to be tormented bodily yet they doe not deny that the Corinthian was Excommunicated Let vs therefore see by what authoritie this was done I verely saith S. Paul as absent in body but present in spirit haue determined already as though I were present that hee that hath so done this deed in the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ you being gathered together and my Spirit with you with the power of the Lord Iesus Christ be deliuered vnto Satan c. He saith not the Spirit of S. Peter but my Spirit So your visible head had neither hand nor foote in this action S. Paul acknowledgeth neither subordination to him nor deriuation of authoritie from him And as he had Iurisdiction so had Timothy and Titus to receiue accusations to command them not to teach any other doctrine or if they did to stop their mouthes All which places are to be expounded of iudiciall proceeding in the Consistory and argue a Iurisdiction in Titus and Timothy which so farre as we can learne they receiued from S. Paul and not from S. Peter Wherefore we conclude that S. Peter was not the onely fountaine vnder Christ of Spirituall iurisdiction by Law diuine but the 12. Apostles were 12. fountaines all equally deriued from Christ Iesus the Fountaine of fountaines But if Peter had any such prerogatiue by Law diuine what is that to the Pope CHAP. III. Whether the Pope succeed S. Peter in all his right by Law diuine PHIL. THe Pope is the successour of S. Peter therefore what power soeuer belonged to S. Peter belongeth to the Pope ORTHOD. Was not S. Peter an Apostle can there be succession in the Apostleship PHIL. Doctour Stapleton teacheth that of the Apostleship there is no succession ORTH. Why then do the Popes so adorne themselues with Apostolicke titles his See apostolicke his Legat Apostolicke his pardon Apostolicke his seale Apostolicke his Bull Apostolicke and all Apostolicke yea his office is an Apostleship causes must be heard by his Apostleship weighty matters must be reserued to his Apostleship and Bishops must visite the thresholds of the Apostles vnlesse they be dispensed withall by the Apostles that is by the Pope Yea the Rhemists affirme That certes the roome and dignity of the Pope is a continuall Apostleship And of late the Pope had a title giuen of the first Euangelist and of the 13. Apostle as is related and approued by Baronius But we hope that God wil raise such Angels in our Church as he was in the Church of Ephesus of whom it is written That he had tried them who say they are apostles and are not and had found them liars But if the Pope doe not succeed S. Peter in the Apostleship how is he then his successour PHIL. Not in that he was an Apostle but in that hee was the ordinarie Pastour of the whole Church ORTHOD. If not as an Apostle then the Pope succeedeth him not in all his right But haue not other Apostles successours as well as Peter PHIL. No For their authoritie was extraordinary his ordinary whereupon it followeth That theirs was temporary and died with their persons his perpetuall and liueth with his successours ORTHOD. This you say oft but proue neuer For the clearing whereof we must consider that in the Apostles some things were extraordinary some things ordinary They had 4. extraordinary prerogatiues immediate vocation by Christ himselfe vnlimited Commission ouer all Nations infallible direction both in preaching and writing and power to worke Miracles All which were necessary for the first planting of Churches but were not conueyed to posteritie by succession Other things they had which were necessary for the Church in all future ages in which they had successours They had power to minister the word and Sacraments wherein euery Presbyter succeedeth them They ordained Ministers executed censures and other things belonging to the gouernment of the Church wherein euery Bishop succeedeth them So in the latter the rest haue successours as well as Peter In the former as the rest had no successours so neither had Peter PHIL. Yes the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the gouernment of the whole world ORTHO You dare not say that this power in Peter was extraordinary for then it could not go by succession if it were ordinarie in Peter why not in the rest seeing as hath beene proued Christ gaue as ample commission in as ample words to the rest as to Peter But if wee should faigne that Peter had such Monarchicall iurisdiction by what law shall the Pope succeed him in it PHIL. The succession of the Bishop of Rome into the Popedome of Peter is of Christs institution and therefore by Law diuine ORTHOD. Of Christs institution where or when if you alleadge these words feed my sheepe they were spoken onely to Peter yet so that the substance of the precept was not proper to him but common to all And if wee should imagine that Christ did institute a monarchy personally in Peter how commeth it to be locall This certainely cannot be Christs institution because he nameth no place PHIL. It was in Peters power neuer to haue chosen to himselfe any particular See but to haue continued as he did the first fiue yeeres And then after his death neither the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded but hee whom the Church had chosen ORTHOD. Then you make it locall by Peters choise and not by Law diuine and if it be local is it tied to the Bishop of Rome by Law diuine PHIL. Was not Saint Peter Bishop of Rome ORTHOD. So men say but can you proue it by Law diuine PHIL. Will you deny a History so famously recorded by Eusebius and other ancient authors ORTH. Not I but now you ground vpon humane history and not vpon Law diuine And as the histories say that he was Bishop of Rome so they say he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome PHIL. It was in his power to haue continued at Antioch and then without doubt the Bishop of Antioch had beene his successor but because he translated his chaire fixed it at Rome there died thence it comes to passe that the Bish. of Rome succeedeth him ORTH. If the succession depend vpon the fixing of Saint Peters chaire at Rome what shal be said of those Popes which kept at Auinion in France and neuer came at Rome Moreouer this is to build vpon the fact of Saint Peter and not vpon Law diuine PHIL. It is not improbable that the Lord did expresly commaund that Peter should so fix his seat
Councels and other authorities Pag. 161. CHAP. 6. Of the election of the Bishops of Rome vnder Christian Emperours before the diuision of the Empire Pag. 163. CHAP. 7. Of the Election of Popes from the Emperour Charles to Otho Pag. 175. CHAP. 8. Of the election of Popes from the time of the Emperour Otho to Henry the fourth Pag. 173. CHAP. 9. Of the election of the Bishops of Constantinople Pag. 178. CHAP. 10. Of the election of the Bishops of Spaine Pag. 179. CHAP. 11. Of the election of the Bishops of France Pag. 180. CHAP. 12. Of the election of the Bishops of England Pag. 182. CHAP. 13. How lamentable the state of England was when Bishopricks and benefices were giuen by the Popes prouisions Pag. 188. CHAP. 14. Whether it belongeth to the Pope to confirme all the Metropolitanes of the world and namely the Metropolitanes of England Pag. 199. ¶ The contents of the fifth Booke CHAP. 1. WHerein the second controuersie is proposed diuided into two questions the former about sacrifising the latter about absolution the state of the former is set downe and the Methode of proceeding Pag. 207. CHAP. 2. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec Pag. 208. CHAP. 3. Of their argument drawn frō the Paschal Lambe Pag. 216. CHAP. 4. Of their argument drawne from certaine places of the Prophets Pag. 218. CHAP. 5. Of their argumēt drawne frō the words of institutiō Pa. 222. CHAP. 6. Of their arguments drawne frō the actiōs of Christ. Pa. 234. CHAP. 7. Of their argument drawne from the practise of the Church in the Apostles time Pag. 239. CHAP. 8. Of their arguments drawne from the authority of the Fathers Pag. 241. CHAP. 9. Of the second question which concerneth the power of absolution Pag. 244. CHAP. 10. An answere to the arguments of Bellar. by which he goeth about to proue absolution to be iudicial not declaratory Pag. 249. CHAP. 11. Of the third controuersie concerning Deacons Pag. 259. CHAP. 12. Wherein is declared that though wee deriue our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests yet our calling is lawfull and theirs as it is vsed vnlawfull Pag. 260. THE FIRST BOOKE CONTEINING THE ENTRANCE AND DIVISION of the whole worke into three Controuersies with their seuerall Questions As also the handling of the first Question whether three Canonicall Bishops be absolutely necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop Framed in forme of a conference betweene PHILODOX a Seminary Priest And ORTHODOX a Minister of the Church of England CHAP. I. The entrance wherein is described the Proceeding of Popish Priests in winning of Proselytes by praising Rome the Romane Religion the Popes loue the English Seminaries As also by dispraising the Vniuersities Church Religion and Ministerie of England PHILODOX WHat My old friend Orthodox I salute you in the kindest maner and congratulate your comming into France the rather because I hope you are passing this way to Rome as sundry of your fellowes and friends haue done before you ORTHODOX To Rome Philodox Alas Quid Romaefaciam mentiri nescio What shall I doe at Rome I cannot lye I cannot aequiuocate PHILO It seemeth si◠that you are pleasantly disposed but in good earnest there are many inducements which in all reason should draw you to Rome For he that hath seene Rome hath seene all things and he that hath not seene Rome hath seene nothing It is the Queene and Lady of Cities the Store-house of Nature the admiration of Art the Epitome of the world wherein all Excellencies shine in their Orient colours and exquisite beautie In old time men did wonder at the Temple of Diana the Tombe of Mausolus the Colossus of the Sunne the Image of Iupiter Olympicus the Palace of Cyrus the walls of Babylon and the Pyramides of Egypt because these things in their seuerall ages were rare and singular and iustly had in precious account But who would now so esteeme them when he may see in one City so many spectacles which are able not onely to rauish the beholders with admiration but also to strike them with astonishment The Emperour Constantius when hee beheld the Rostra the Capitoll the Bathes the Amphitheatrum the Pantheon the Theater of Pompey his eyes were dazeled with miracle vpon miracle but when he came to the Market place of Traiane he stood cleane amazed at those huge and admirable Fabricks neither imitable by the hand nor vtterable by the tongue of man And though time which weareth all things hath now defaced them yet if new Rome be compared with old Rome wee may say with a learned man Non maior sed melioriam Roma non cultior sed sanctior That is Rome at this present is not bigger but better not more sumptuous but more sacred And we may adde that still it ouershineth all other Cities so farre as the golden Moone doeth the twinkling starres ORTHO Suppose that the buildings of Rome were as glorious at this day as they were in the dayes of Constantius yet what of all this Hormisd◠the Persian being then asked what he thought of Rome made answere That this onely pleased him that he had learned that men doe die euen at Rome also as in other places And surely though the walles of our Cities were of gold and the windowes of Saphire yet while we liue in this vale of vanitie we dwell but in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust God giue vs grace to seeke a City which hath a foundation whose maker and builder is God God graunt that when our earthly Tabernacle shal be dissolued we may haue an house not made with hands but eternall in the heauens PHIL. You say well sir and the right way to attaine thereunto is to be reconciled to the holy Church of Rome Without it there is no hope of saluation within it is a very Paradise of God and a sanctuary for all distressed soules wherefore if you take this course you shal be a thrice happy man and enioy the precious blessing of a quiet conscience ORTHO In deede a quiet conscience is a iewell of iewels the price of it is farre aboue the Pearle neither can it be valued with the wedge of fine gold But this is a flower which groweth not in the gardens of Rome no not in Beluidêre the Popes Paradise For there is no Religion in the world which can pacific the troubled conscience but that onely which teacheth the penitent spirit the remission of his sinnes and an infallible certaintie of his saluation by the merits of Iesus Christ apprehended by a true and liuely faith and sealed to the sanctified soule by the Spirit of grace But the present religion of the Church of Rome teacheth onely a morall coniecturall and fallible That is an vncertaine certaintie which must needs plunge the poore soule into a thousand perplexities Wherefore the present Romish religion is not a doctrine of comfort but of doubt and distrust so farre from quieting the troubled
immodestly then euer did any other heretickes And other reuerend diuines vse almost the same words Gregory de Valentia saith Certainely it is apparent that in the Catholicke Romane Church there are lawfull Ecclesiasticall Ministers as being rightly ordained of true Bishops but in the Synagogues of Sectaries it is euident that there are not lawfull Ministers for they are not ordained of lawfull Bishops and therefore it is manifest that they haue no Church seeing that a Church cannot want lawfull Ministers Likewise father Turrian saith That the Donatists and Luciferians had after a sort some fashion of a Church because they had Bishops though schismaticall and other Ministers whom Bishops ordained But the Protestants haue no forme or fashion of a Church at all because they haue no Ministers at all of the Church or word but meere Lay men Mattheus Lanoius hath proued that onely the Romane Church hath lawfull vocation And D. Tyreus hath written of the false calling of the new Ministers but these are sufficient And that this is the iudgement of holy Church may appeare by the practise for as you haue heard out of Rich. Bristow Your Ministers returning to vs are not admitted to minister vnlesse they take our Orders which sheweth that in the iudgement of the Church they are not lawfull Ministers but meerely Lay-men ORTHOD. Our Ministerie is agreeable to the blessed booke of God and therefore holy and I doubt not but when the chiefe Shepheard shall appeare those that haue instructed many vnto righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer But how proue you that our Ministers are no lawfull Ministers PHIL. CAn there be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling ORTHOD. It is impossible For no man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but hee that is called of God as was Aaron It is written of Iohn the Baptist There was a man sent from God The Apostles did not preach before they had this warrant Behold I send you And S. Paul saith How can they preach except they be sent And the Lord in the Prophet Ieremie reproueth such as ranne before they were sent Therefore though a man were wiser then Solomon and Daniel he must expect till the Lord send him he that teacheth without a calling how can he hope that Christ will be with him This is an order saith Beza appointed in the Church by the Sonne of God and obserued inuiolably by all true Prophets and Apostles That no man may teach in the Church vnlesse he be called PHIL. If there cannot be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling then I must demaund how the Ministers of England can iustifie their calling Might not a man say to euery one of you as Harding said to Iewell How say you sir you beare your selfe as though you were Bishop of Salisburie but how can you proue your vocation by what authoritie vsurpe you the Administration of Doctrine and Sacraments what can you alledge for the right and proofe of your Ministerie who hath called you who hath laied hands on you by what example hath he done it how and by whom are you consecrated who hath sent you who hath committed vnto you the Office you take vpon you be you a Priest or be you not if you be not how dare you vsurpe the name and Office of a Bishop if you be tell vs who gaue you Orders ORTHOD. You please your selues and beat the aire with a sound of idle and emptiâ— words but leaue your vaine flourishes and let vs heare what you can say against our calling PHIL. Then I demand whether you haue an inward or an outward calling ORTHOD. We haue both PHIL. An outward calling must either bee immediatly by the voyce of Christ as was the calling of the Apostles or mediatly by the Church ORTHOD. We are called of God by the Church For it is he which giueth Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints PHIL. All that are called of God by the Church deriue their authoritie by lawfull succession from Christ and his Apostles If you doe so then let it appeare shew vs your discent let vs see your pedegree If you cannot then what are you whence come you If you tell vs that God hath raised you in extraordinary maner you must pardon vs if we be slow in beleeuing such things there are many deceiuers gone out into the world and Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light In a word euery lawful calling is either ordinary or extraordinary if yours be ordinary let vs see your authoritie if extraordinary let vs see your miracles If one take vpon him extraordinary authoritie as an Ambassadour from a King he must produce his commission vnder the Kings seale If you will challenge the like from God then we require a miracle that is the Seale of the King of heauen But to vse the words of Doct. Stapleton In the hatching of the Protestants brood no ordinary vocation nor sending extraordinary appeareth so the ground and foundation being nought all which they haue builded vpon it falleth downe ORTHOD. The Ministers of England receiue imposition of hands in lawfull maner from lawfull Bishops indued with lawfull authoritie and therefore their calling is Ordinary PHIL. Your Bishops themselues whence haue they this authoritie ORTHOD. They receiued it from God by the hands of such Bishops as went before them PHIL. But your first reformers whence do they deriue their succession ORTHOD. Archbishop Cranmer and other heroicall spirits whom the Lord vsed as his instruments to reforme Religion in England had the very selfe-same Ordination and succession whereof you so glory and therefore if these argue that your calling is Ordinary you must confesse that theirs likewise was Ordinarie PHIL. We must not onely examine Cranmer and such others consecrated in King Henries time but them also which were in King Edwards and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths as Parker Grindall Sands Horne and the like which were Priests after the Romane rite but leaped out of the Church before they were Bishops ORTHOD. As the first Bishops consecrated in King Edwards time deriued their Spirituall power by succession from those that were in King Henries so the first that were aduanced vnder the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth receiued theirs from such as were formerly created partly in K. Henries dayes partly in King Edwards And the Bishops at this day vnder our gracious soueraigne King IAMES haue the like succession from their predecessours as may be iustified by Records in particular and is confessed in generall by â—udsemius who came into England in the yeere of our Lord 1608. to obserue the state of our Church and the Orders of our Vniuersities Concerning the state saith he of the Caluinian sect in England it so standeth that it may either indure long or be changed suddenly and in a trâ—ce in regard of the Catholicke order there in a
lesse then the keyes in the iudgement of the Schoolemen ORTHOD. You cry antiquitie antiquitie Fathers Fathers yet you forsake both antiquitie and Fathers and leane to the Schoolmen But what if the Schoolemen be against you Alexander of Hales saith that to bind and to loose is as much as to open and to shut Thomas maketh the power of binding and loosing the substance of the keyes And so doth Scotus But what if we should admit that the keyes contained more then the power of binding and loosing yet seeing this power includeth Iurisdiction as Bellarmine proueth by the Fathers and this was giuen by Christ to the rest of the Apostles therfore it followeth that they all had their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ. A point so cleare that not onely Bellar. but Franciscus de victoria Alphonsus de castro and Cardinall Caietan as Bellarmine recordeth acknowledge the same beside many others PHIL. IF all this were granted yet Peter shall be the fountaine of Iurisdiction because the rest receiued it onely as delegates Hee as the ordinarie pastour of the Church from whom and his successours all posteritie must deriue it ORTHOD. You coine distinctions of your owne braine whereof you haue no warrant in the Scripture For whose delegates shall they bee Not S. Peters 1. because I haue prooued that they receiued not any Iurisdiction from him 2. If they were S. Peters delegates why did S. Paul alwayes call himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ and neuer the Legaâ—â— latere of S. Peter 3. If they were S. Peters Delegates then all their Iurisdiction died with him So belike S. Iohn who outliued S. Peter lost his iurisdiction and was glad to light his candle againe from Linus and after his death from Cletus and after his from Clemens For he liued as S. Ierome witnesseth 68. yeeres after the Passion of Christ and consequently died in the yeere 101. which according to Baronius was the 9. yeere of Clemens If this be so then there was after the death of Christ while an Apostle liued a greater iurisdiction in the Church then the iurisdiction of an Apostle which cannot be because the Scripture saith that God hath set in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets c. and Bell. confesseth that the authoritie of the Apostles is Iurisdictio plenissima If S. Iohn had this then he was not Legat a latere to Linus nor Cletus nor Clemens neither so long as he liued could they be called the fountaine of all spirituall iurisdiction If you say they were Christs delegates it is true and so was Saint Peter therefore in this there is no difference But in what respect was he the ordinarie pastor of the Church As an Apostle then they should bee all ordinarie because they were all Apostles If in regard of any other authoritie what should that bee Was it greater theÌ„ the Apostleship or no if it were not how could it giue him iurisdiction ouer the Apostles and greater it cannot bee for the Apostleship is the greatest iurisdiction which Christ left vnto his Church as was proued both by the Scripture and your owne confession But when was he made an ordinarie pastor PHIL. When Christ said vnto him feed my sheepe ORTHO As Christ said to Peter feed my sheepe so hee said to them all goe teach all nations as my father sent me so send I you Doe not these comprehend as much as feede my sheepe PHIL. No. For Christ gaue commission to Peter to feed his sheep euen all his sheepe none excepted but the Apostles were his sheepe so the Apostles themselues were committed to S. Peter Therefore hee was the pastour of the Apostles and consequently the ordinarie pastour of the whole world ORTH. And Christ gaue commission to them all and among the rest to S. Andrew to preach the Gospel to euery creature euen to euery creature none excepted But S. Peter was a creature therefore S. Peter himselfe was committed to S. Andrew What thinke you was S. Andrew S. Peters pastour or the ordinarie pastour of the whole world PHIL. There is not the like reason For the wordes which you alleadge were spoken to them all The commission which I vrge was giuen particularly by name to S. Peter ORTHOD. These words feed my sheepe haue beene so much vexed that now for pitty you should let them alone but to answere you though our Sauiour when he said Feed my sheep directed his speech to Peter yet he did not therein giue any new office or speciall commission to Peter but willed him to looke to his charge alreadie receiued For Peter had bewrayed great want of loue in a threefold denyall of his master therefore Christ to kindle his loue did aske him three times Peter doest thou loue me Whereupon as hee had formerly denyed him thrice so now he protested his loue and confessed him thrice then Christ hauing as it were blowne the fire by a threefold question which began to kindle in Peter by a threefold confession did presently strike while the yron was hot vsing this exhortatioÌ„ Feed my lambs to make the more impression he redoubled the stroake saying Feed my sheepe Feede my sheepe As though he should say if thou loue me deny me no more in word nor deed but shew thy loue by keeping thy station and by feeding the flock which I haue purchased with my precious blood Feed them by doctrine Feed them by example thou shalt meet and encounter with many Beares and lyons yet forsake not thy function for feare but if thou loue me feed my flock As if a Pilot should say to his mariners here is like to be a great storme but if you loue me looke well to your tacklings or a Captaine to his souldiers here may be a hard battaile yet if you loue me be of a good courage or a husband being to goe a farre iourney and leauing at home his yong sonne the hope of his house with his wife which had sometimes shewed herselfe somewhat vnkind should say wife if thou loue me looke well to my child which is not to giue her any new commission or office but to put her in mind to discharge that office which God had formerly committed vnto her And what if Christ said to Peter Feed my sheepe shall he therefore bee the master shepheard and the rest of the Apostles his vnderlings shall hee bee a Bishop and they his Chaplaines Saint Paul denyeth this proclaiming himselfe in nothing inferiour to the chiefe Apostles The Church of Rome denyeth this I meane the ancient Church in the time of S. Cyprian in their Epistle to the Church of Carthage For hauing mentioned these words Feed my sheepe they adde Et caeteri discipuli similiter fecerunt i. the rest of the disciples performed this office of feeding the sheepe in the like manner that Peter did it So S. Ambrose quas oues quem gregem non solum tunc
though Christ saith S. Gregorie liuing immortally now dieth not yet hee dieth in this mysterie and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people That is saith the Glosse his death and Passion is represented And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences that that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And Bellarmine granteth that Thomas and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere that it is called an oblation because it is a representation of the oblation PHIL. Peter Lombard when he asketh the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing as though he had asked Whether that which the Priest doth be a killing of Christ and answereth most rightly that Christ was truely offered that is slaine but once and that now he is not properly offered that is slaine but only in a Sacrament and representation ORTHOD. First I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill Secondly neither will this shift serue his turne for if the Priest doe not so he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed as is before declared out of Bellarmine PHIL. THe Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse against all those which deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse And they haue reason for as the Apostles so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church were Masse-Priests For S. Ambrose testifieth That imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may bee bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords stead ORTHOD. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying Quid ergo nos nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed recordationem facientes mortis eius That is What therefore doe we doe we not offer dayly truely wee offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe Ipsum semper offerimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur That is Wee offer him alwayes or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice PHIL. S. Chrysostome saith In many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ euery where being full and perfect both here and there ORTHOD. S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place Wee offer him saith he or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice Where by the way you may see that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome PHIL. S. Augustine saith That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium sanctum sanctorum quod corpus eius est That is Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies which is his body was not yet instituted And elsewhere Quid gratius offerri aut suscipi posset quà m caro sacrificij nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri That is What can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the body of our Priest being made the flesh of our Sacrifice And Cyrill Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like ORTHOD. Then the answering of Austine will be the answering of all Now what his meaning was let himselfe declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a sacrament not onely at all the solemnities at Easter but euery day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ the sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith And elsewhere The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascâ—nded PHIL. YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church For the Nicen Councell in that Canon which Caluine and all other receiue saith plainely That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily is layde vpon the holy Table ORTHOD. The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world is layd vpon the holy Table not substantially but Sacramentally PHIL. But the Councell meaneth substantially for they say It is come by relation to the holy Councell that in certaine places and Cities the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliuered this That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it Where you may see that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ but they plainely describe a Priest by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power ORTHOD. Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel then those which were present and subscribed vnto it One whereof was Eusebius PHIL. Very true and hee telleth how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall Consecrations Who were these but Masse-priests and what were the vnbloody sacrifices but the sacrifice of the Masse for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily ORTHOD. Let Eusebius expound Eusebius Christ hauing offered himselfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in stead of a sacrifice Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice And this remembrance hee thus describeth VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table He calleth it not a sacrifice but a remembrance celebrated not by the substance of his Body and Blood but by the signes and that not vpon an Altar but vpon a Table and this he calleth an vnbloodie sacrifice as appeareth by his owne words And pleasing God well wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices and reasonable and acceptable to him So it is as cleere as the noone day that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice but expoundeth the
of Ministery vnto his stewards to open the doore of heauen indeed But how not by authority as God the Father nor by excellencie as God the Son but by a ministeriall forgiuenes of sins which is not to be restrained onely to the hearing of priuate confessions as though in that one point lay all the vertue and vse of the Keyes but consisteth in reuealing and applying the merits of Christ publikely and priuately to the soule and conscience and in assuring those that beleeue and repent of their eternall saluation Now whereas you say that a Key is not giuen to signifie or declare that the doore is open it is true Yet you may know that similitudes must not be extended to euery circumstance it is sufficient if there be a correspondencie in the maine point What though a Key cannot declare that the doore is open Yet it is the Ministers duety to declare that heauen is opened to all that beleeue and repent and this very declaring is an effectuall meanes of opening it indeed For as when Christ vnfolded the Scriptures the hearts of the two Disciples did burne within them so when the Ministers declare the glad tidings of the Gospel God kindleth faith and repentance in the hearts of his chosen and when they doe beleeue and repent then the Minister may safely pronounce the forgiuenesse of their sinnes by the Blood of Iesus Christ. Thus he is Gods effectuall instrument to accomplish it and his Herald to proclaime it PHIL. Keyes vse to be giuen to Magistrates to signifie that they haue power to locke and vnlocke the gates of the Citie ORTHOD. And Christ gaue the Keyes to his Ministers to signifie that they haue a Ministeriall power to locke and vnlock the kingdome of heauen PHIL. VVhen it is said of Christ he hath the Key of Dauid he openeth and no man shutteth he shutteth and no man openeth all men vnderstand by the Key a true power and properly so called by which Christ may absolue and binde by iudiciall authoritie and not signifie or declare who is bound or loosed Wherefore seeing Christ doth communicate his Keyes with the Apostles and their successours they also shall haue true power to bind and loose by iudiciall authoritie ORTHOD. First your owne men distinguish betweene the Key of excellencie and the Key of Ministerie Secondly euen those things which are most proper vnto Christ are ascribed to his Ministers as for example the saluation of mens soules For S. Paul saith to Timothy In doing this thou shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee In like maner they may be said to forgiue sinnes and open the Kingdome of heauen But this is spoken by a figure whereby that which belongeth to the principall agent is ascribed to the instrument And that no marueile seeing a man by turning from wickednes and doing that which is right is said to saue his owne soule PHIL. A second Argument may be collected from the Metaphor of binding and loosing which doth not signifie to declare that one is bound or loosed but to lay on or take off bonds and fetters indeed ORTHOD. This is in effect the same with the former therefore I referre you to the former answere PHIL. A third Argument may be drawne from this very place of S. Iohn For Christ expresly giueth them power not only to forgiue sinnes but also to retaine Retinere autem quid est nisi nolle remittere i. What is it to retaine but to be vnwilling to forgiue therefore remission is denied to them whom the Priest will not forgiue ORTHOD. True if the will of the Priest be guided by the rules of true Religion For he should be vnwilling to forgiue none but onely those that are vnbeleeuing and vnrepentant from absoluing of whom he should be so farre that it is his duety to denounce Gods wrath and iudgment against them if they continue obstinate PHIL. The Lord saith not Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they were forgiuen which he would haue said if by remission he had meant declaration but he saith They are forgiuen because Christ doeth ratifie the sentence which the Priest pronounceth in his Name ORTHOD. But the Priest must absolue no man sauing those whom God hath first absolued as you heard before and is plainely deliuered by Pope Gregorie Quos omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam visitat illos pastoris sententia absoluat Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidētis cum aeterni arbitrium sequitur iudicis i. Let the sentence of the Pastour absolue them whom Almighty God doth visit with the grace of compunction for then is the absolution of the Spirituall ruler a true absolution when hee followeth the will of the Eternall Iudge And againe Nos debemus per Pastoralem authoritatem soluere quos authorem nostrum cognoscimus per suscitantem gratiam viuificare i. Wee ought absolue those by our Pastorall authority whom we know that our Authour Christ Iesus hath reuiued with his quickening grace Otherwise his absolution is vaine For as the Legall Priest did not properly cleanse the Leper yet he is said to cleanse him because hee declared him cleane whom the Lord had cleansed so the Euangelicall Priest though hee doe not properly absolue from sinnes yet hee is said to absolue because he declareth him absolued whom the Lord hath absolued Wherefore the meaning of Christs words is this Whose sinnes you forgiue that is whose sinnes according to the rules of my Gospel you shal pronounce to be forgiuen they are forgiuen That is they are so certainly forgiuen that the sentence you pronounce in earth shall be ratified in Heauen as it is written Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heauen So here are three things First God the Father for Christs sake forgiueth sinnes Secondly the Minister declareth that God hath forgiuen them Thirdly this declaratory sentence is ratified in Heauen PHIL. A fourth Argument may be drawne from this word Quorum in this maner The Gospel is preached indefinitely to all men But it is not the will of God that this absolution should be giuen to all men but to certaine persons only whom the Priest iudgeth fit as appeareth by these words Quorum peccata c. Whose sinnes you forgiue c. ORTHOD. The Gospel is preached generally and indefinitely to all men Whosoeuer beleeueth and repenteth shall be saued yet so that in the generall is included this particular If thou beleeue and repent thou shall be saued Now a mans conscience sanctified by the Holy Ghost doth say I beleeue and repent Therefore to him the generall promise of the Gospel is made particular by particular application and to such onely making a sincere profession of their faith and repentance the Minister ought to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes PHIL. A fift Argument may be drawne from
it is granted to our Priests not to purge the leprosie of the body but the spots of the soule I doe not say to examine them being purged but altogether to purge them In this place to vse the words of Cardinall Bellarmine Saint Chrysostome doth so plainely condemne the opinion of our aduersaries that nothing at all can be answered for them ORTHOD. Doth the Priest altogether purge the spots of the soule then it seemeth when the penitent is presented before the Priest his soule is spotted but by vertue of the Priestes absolution the spots are presently washed away but I pray you tel me whom doth the Priest forgiue and absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued or him whom the Lord hath not absolued if the Priest absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued then hee doth not altogether purge the spot of the soule no nor properly purge them at all but onely declare that the Lord hath purged them If you say that the Priest absolueth him whom the Lord hath not absolued then hee shall bee forgiuen whom the Lord hath not forgiuen which is most absurd Againe doeth the Priest before hee pronounce absolution see any tokens of faith and repentance If hee see none then how dare he pronounce absolution and if hee see any then the party is already purged Whereby it appeareth that the absolution of the ministerie is onely declaratorie Therefore the speech of Chrysostome cannot bee taken properly but his meaning must bee this that the Priest seeing him brought by the ministery of the Gospell to faith and repentance and consequently purged certifieth his conscience that he is altogether purged and his sinnes washed away by the blood of Iesus Christ. PHIL. GRegorie Nazianzen saith that the law of Christ hath subiected temporall gouernours to his authoritie and throne and that his power is more ample and perfect then theirs ORTHOD. The Prince as supreame gouernour may by his royall authoritie establish true religion command both Priest and people to doe their dutie and punish those which doe otherwise by temporall punishments but the ministration of the Word Sacraments and the exercising of spirituall censures belong to the Bishop and as the prelate ought to bee subiect to the sword in the hand of the Prince so a vertuous Prince submitteth himselfe to the word of God in the mouth of the prelate But doth this prooue that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Ambrose proueth that Christ gaue to the Priests power to forgiue sinnes and it is plaine that he speaketh of true power and not of the ministerie of preaching both because the Nouatians did not denie that the Gospell might be preached to all men but they denied that the Priest might forgiue sinnes by authoritie and also because Saint Ambrose saith that Christ hath communicated to the Priests that power which he himselfe hath ORTHOD. The Nouatians did thinke that the Church had authoritie to bind but not to loose as may appeare by S. Ambrose in the same place And S. Cyprian being requested by Antonianus to vnfould the heresie of Nouatian sheweth that hee denied that such as were fallen should be admitted any more into the Church Baronius saith that he grew to such rashnesse as to deny that the remission of sinnes which is in the Apostles Creed was to be found in the Church Therfore as they denied that Priests might forgiue sinnes by authoritie so they denied that they might forgiue sinnes by way of declaration for they denied that there was any forgiuenesse of sinnes in the Church Wherefore Saint Ambrose in confuting the Nouatians hath no more confuted our opinion then hee hath confuted yours PHIL. SAint Ierom speaking of Priests saith Claues regni caelorum habentes quodam modo ante diem iudicij iudicant i. hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement S. Austin expounding these wordes I saw seates and them that sate vpon them and iudgement was giuen them saith thus Wee must not thinke that this is spoken of the last iudgement but the seates of prelates and prelates themselues by whom the Church is now gouerned are to be vnderstood neither can we better apply it to any iudgement giuen then to that of which it is said whatsoeuer you bind in earth shall be bound in heauen Whereupon the Apostle saith what is it to me to iudge of them that are without doe not you iudge of them that are within ORTHOD. According to Saint Ierom the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose as the Leuitical Priests did make the lepers cleane and vncleane Which in his iudgement was not properly but because they had the knowledge of leprous and not leprous and should discerne who was cleane and vncleane This is that which Saint Ierom meaneth when hee saith they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement which kind of iudgement wee acknowledge PHIL. In iudgement there are two things causae cognitio sententiae dictio the knowledge of the cause and the pronouncing of the sentence Haue you these two ORTHOD. Wee haue for first the partie maketh a profession of his faith and repentance vnto the Minister here is causae cognitio and then the Minister by the authoritie which Christ hath committed vnto him pronounceth forgiuenesse of his sinnes here is sententiae dictio This is the practise of the Church of England agreeable to the law of God and the ancient Fathers But if by causae cognitio you meane a particular enumeration of all their sinnes as a matter necessarie to saluation and by sententiae dictio vnderstand such a sentence as imposeth workes of penance satisfactorie to God when you can proue them out of the Scripture we will embrace them in the meane time wee knowe them not Hitherto of Saint Ierom. The same answere also may serue for the place of Saint Austin if he meane the same iudgement PHIL. POpe Innocent the first saith De pondere aestimando delictorum sacerdotis est iudicare c. 1. It is the office of the Priest to iudge what sinnes are to be esteemed heauiest ORTHOD. He must discerne the deepenesse of the wound before hee can apply the medicine But how doth this prooue the point in question to wit that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Gregorie saith principatum superni iudicij sortiuntur vt vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant quibusdam relaxent i. the Disciples obtaine a principalitie of iudgement from aboue that they may in Gods stead retaine the sinnes of some and release the sinnes of others ORTHOD. They are iudges to discerne sinne that so they may applie the medicine according to the qualitie of the offenders yea wee doe not deny but the Church may enioyne an outward penance for the further mortifying of sinne testifying their inward remorse and for the more ample satisfaction both of
of Abbots with a dispensation or else he is no Bishop and this argument he calleth insoluble ORTHO HOw this doth crosse and condradict it selfe in due place shall appeare in the meane time I would willingly know what is the receiued opinion of your Seminaries There is a certaine manuscript booke called Controuersiae huius temporis in Epitomen reductae made by Parsons the Iesuite out of the Dictates of Bellarmine and Maldonate and appointed to be written out by euery Student in your Colledge I pray you what saith that booke to this point PHIL. It agreeth with the former the words are these Primus Canon Apostolorum hoc idem declarat scilicet Episcopum non posse ordinari nisi a tribus Episcopis hinc sequitur ineuitabiliter Haereticos non habere vllos pastores seu Episcopos cum primi illorum Episcopi Caluinus Lutherus Zuinglius nunquam fuerunt ordinati ab alijs Episcopis That is The first Canon of the Apostles declareth this same thing to wit that a Bishop cannot be ordeined but of three Bishops hence it followeth vnauoydably that the Hereticks haue not any pastours or Bishops seeing that their first Bishops Caluin Luther Zuinglius had neuer beene ordained of other Bishops ORTHO HItherto we haue seene how you hold the state of the first question but doe your Iesuites and Seminaries vrge this against the Church of England PHIL. Yes for it is a maine point ORTHO Then your maine point is a vaine point but let vs heare them PHIL. Bellarmine speaking of the marriage of English Bishops saith Nullam excusationem habent nisi forte velint liberè confiteri quod verissimum est se veros Episcopos non esse neque aliquid de Episcopatu habere nisi quae sibi iniuste vsurpant nomen opes That is They haue no excuse vnlesse peraduenture they will freely confesse which is most true that they are no true Bishops neither haue any thing of the Episcopall function but what they vniustly vsurpe vnto themselues to wit the name and the riches If nothing else then not the Character not the Iurisdiction not the Order not the Office they haue nothing nothing at all except the name and the riches ORTHOD. The riches alas Is it not strange that a Cardinall swimming in streames of gold to the chinne should enuy the riches of the Bishops of England But be they rich or poore surely if the Pope might haue had his will before this time he would haue made them poore ynough In the daies of King Henry the eight when a view was taken it appeared that he had receiued out of England onely for Inuestitures of Bishops 4000. pounds by the yeere one yeere with another and that for 40. yeeres together But how dare Bellarmine thus accuse our Bishops as though they had nothing belonging to the Episcopall function What no learning none at all It is not long agoe since he put off his Cardinals robes disguising himselfe vnder the ill fauoured habit and vizard of Tortus when one of our Bishops whether learned or no let the world iudge did so vnmaske and display him that all Popish hearts haue cause to bleed to see the weakenesse of their chiefe Champion so plainely discouered And as our Bishops haue learning so let the Cardinall know that they are famous and eminent Preachers very labourious in the Vineyard of Christ and in this respect farre vnlike to his brethren the Cardinals For Iulius the second said that he could not with a good conscience make Frier Giles a Cardinall because then he should leaue his preaching and afterward Leo the tenth made him a Cardinall that he might hold his peace For commonly in the Church of Rome the great Bishops preach seldome the Cardinals seldomer and the Popes neuer But what is the ground of his accusation PHIL. Because they are not Canonically ordeined The same point is likewise vrged against them by Doctor Stapleton Whether went they into France Spaine or Germanie seeing that at home there was no number of such as might and would serue their turne No no as their Religion is contrary their ende is diuers their beginning hath bene vtterly different from the true Christian faith planted among vs so are their proceedings different and repugnant they haue not come in by the doore they haue stolne in like theeues without all Spirituall authoritie or gouernement This difference betweene the Protestants and our true Bishops the first Apostles importeth so much that it may not lightly be passed ouer for their authoritie being proued nought all their doings can be no better I say therefore by the verdict of holy Scripture and practise of the Primitiue Church these men are no Bishops Your pretended Bishops haue no such Ordination no such laying on of the hands of Bishops no authoritie to ordaine Priests and Ministers and therefore neither are you true Ministers neither they any Bishops at all ORTHOD. What reason haue you to say that our Bishops are not consecrated by three the Canon hath alwaies bene obserued in our Church neither can all the Papists in the world giue any one instance to the contrary since the time of Reformation PHIL. Doct. Sanders declareth That there was a time when you had neither three nor two Bishops and yet at the same time your new Superintendents inuaded the Ecclesiasticall Chaires and were glad to seeke their Confirmation from the Prince and Parliament after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office certaine yeeres without any Episcopall Consecration And therefore all the water in the Thames cannot cleare the Clergie of England from being vsurpers ORTHOD. But if this be false then all the water in the Tybur though it were turned into Holy-water cannot purge the Papists from being slanderers And how false it is shall hereafter be declared out of authenticall Records by which it shall appeare That the Queenes Letters patents of Commission concerning the Confirmation and Consecration of the very first Bishop made in her time were directed to 7. Bishops and also that the Consecration was accomplished by 4 Bishops whose names and titles shall be specified In the meane time this onely I say In lying and slandering many Papists haue had an admirable dexteritie but Sanders surmounted them all For as his booke of Schisme is truely called by a learned Bishop Sterquilinium mendactorum A dunghill of lies so it might be iustly termed Sterquilinium calumniarum A very dunghill of slanders Insomuch that for his noble facultie that way he deserueth no more to be called M. Doct. Sanders but M. Doct. Slanders PHIL. It is no slander but a trueth which shal be auouched to your faces for I wil proue al that I haue said in order My masters marke what I say If you can iustifie your Calling we will all come to your Church and be of your Religion ORTHOD. Remember your promise and proceed with your Argument PHIL. I will proceed and
constitutions proceeded from the Apostles then you must confesse that they are the fittest interpreters of the Canons of the Apostles PHIL. THe Canon will be cleerer if wee compare it with the Decretall Epistles ORTH. Those Decretals are out of date They haue long shrowded themselues vnder the vizard of reuerent antiquity but now they are vnmasked and appeere to bee counterfeit as is confessed by your owne men Yet I will not take you at this aduantage and therefore let vs heare them PHIL. Anacletus saith that Iames who was named the Iust and the brother of the Lord according to the flesh was ordained the first Archbishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles Peter the other Iames and Iohn giuing a forme to their successours that a Bishop should by no meanes bee consecrated by fewer then three Bishoppes all the rest giuing their consents Likewise Anicetus Wee know that the most blessed Iames called the Iust which also according to the flesh is called the brother of our LORD was ordained Bishoppe of Ierusalem by Peter Iames and Iohn the Apostles Now if so great a man was ordained of no lesse then three verilie it is apparant that they deliuered a forme or pattern◠the Lord so appointing that a Bishop ought to bee ordained of no fewer then three Bishops ORTHODOX Heere are two things to bee considered the ordination of Iames and the collection thereupon Concerning the ordination your Anacletus and Anicetus affirme that hee was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by three Apostles and the same is auouched by Eusebius Hierome and others But what is meant when it is said that the Apostles ordained him PHIL. What else but that they conferred vpon him the Episcopall power as our Bishops doe when they consecrate a Bishop ORTHOD. Then belike before this ordination Saint Iames had not the Episcopall power PHIL. Very true ORTHOD. Was not he an Apostle of Iesus Christ PHIL. Yes for they speake distinctly of Iames the brother of our Lord of whom Saint Paul saith None other of the Apostles saw I saue Iames the brother of our Lord so it is euident that hee was an Apostle ORTHOD. And was he not called to the office of an Apostle immediatly by Iesus Christ consequētly had he not from him al Apostolick authority PHIL. All Apostolick I grant but we speake of Episcopal ORTHOD. As though all Episcopall authority were not comprehended in the Apostolick For what commission can be more ample then this which Christ gaue ioyntly to all his Apostles As my Father sent mee so send I you and Saint Paul proclaimeth that hee was in nothing inferiour to the chiefe Apostles If in nothing then not in Episcopall power and authority This is agreeable to the iudgement of the best learned among you Bellarmine saith Obseruandum est in Apostolica authoritate contineri omnem Ecclesiasticam potestatem i. It is to be obserued that in the Apostolicke authoritie is contained all Ecclesiasticall power If all Ecclesiasticall then surely all Episcopall In another place he proueth the same by the authoritie of S. Cyrill grounding vpon the words of Christ before alleadged Likewise Franciscus de Victoria Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt receperunt immediatè a Christo i. The Apostles receiued immediatly from Christ all the power which they had Wherefore to say That Christ made Peter Bishop with his owne hands and that the rest deriued Episcopall power from Peter is a mere fancie Likewise to say that Peter Iohn and Iames did ordeine Iames Bishop that is conferre vpon him any Episcopall power is a mere dreame PHIL. Doe not the fathers commonly say That he was a Bishop ORTHO They say so And in so saying they say truely if they be rightly vnderstood For 1. The Scripture saith of Iudas His Bishopricke let an other man take That is his Apostleship If the Apostleship may be called a Bishoprick then an Apostle may be called a Bishop 2. The word Bishop signifieth an Ouerseer and may most aptly be applied to the Apostles which were the chiefe ouerseers of the Church of Christ. PHIL. Euery Apostle in that he is an Apostle may be called a Bishop in this generall sence But Iames being an Apostle was properly made a Bishop in the vsuall Ecclesiasticall sence ORTHOD. A Bishop in the Ecclesiasticall sence hath two properties For 1. hereceiueth his Episcopall power by imposition of hands 2. For the execution thereof hee is confined to a certaine place Neither of which can properly be applied to an Apostle For though the Apostles made their chiefe abode in great Cities and populous places as namely Iames at Ierusalem yet because their Commission extended to all Nations they could not be so tied to any one place as the Bishop was Which is well expressed by Epiphanius saying The Apostles went often to other countreis to preach the Gospel and the Citte of Rome might not be without a Bishop As though he should say The Apostles were to preach to all Nations but the Bishops duetie did confine him to his owne charge This is correspondent to the Scripture which calleth the Apostles The light of the world whereas the 7. Bishops of Asia are stiled The 7. Starres and Angels of the 7. Churches And though the Apostles while they stayed in those Cities did preach ordeine Ministers execute Censures and all other things which are now performed by the Bishops who succeed them in the gouernement of the Church in regard whereof the fathers call them the Bishops of those places yet their Episcopall power was not distinct from their Apostolicke but included in it as a branch thereof not deriued from any Ordination by the hands of man but giuen them immediatly by Iesus Christ. PHIL. If Iames receiued no Episcopall power by Ordination in what sence is it said That they ordained him ORTHOD. Your glosse of the Canon Law giueth 4. senses of that speach Either say that these 3. did Consecrate him onely with visible Vnction but he was before Annointed of the Lord after an innisible maner Or say they did not ordeine him but onely shewed a forme of ordaining vnto others Or say that they ordained him not to be a Bishop but an Archbishop Or say that they ordained that is Inthronised him to the administration of a certaine place for before he was a Bishop without a title Hitherto the Glosse And verily as the Prophets and teachers at Antioch imposed hands with fasting and prayer vpon Paul and Barnabas not to giue them any new Ecclesiasticall power for that is more then wee finde in the Scripture but as the Text saith To set them apart for the worke whereunto the Lord had called them So the Apostles might impose hands vpon Iames not to giue him any Episcopall power that fancie hath bene before confuted but by common consent to designe him to the gouernement of the Church of Ierusalem and to commend him and his
same Gildas a little after speaking against such Bishops as ordained Symoniacall persons saith Nicholaum in locum Stephani martyris statuunt they install Nicholas into the place of the Martyr Saint Steuen Doth this proue that the Martyr Saint Steuen was locally in England or that either the whole Church of Britaine or any particular place of deuotion was founded by him No more doth the other concerning Saint Peter PHIL. What then will you make to be the meaning of Gildas ORTHOD. Hee lamenteth to see those Churches which had beene gouerned by zealous men like to Saint Peter and Saint Steuen now to be defiled with vncleane persons like vnto Iudas and Nicholas the Deacon PHIL. Why should he rather name Peter then any other Apostle if Peter were not in England ORTHOD. The speech of Christ concerning the feeding of his flocke was directed in a speciall manner to Peter whence it commeth to passe that all to whom the care of feeding Christs flocke is committed are called Saint Peters successors Saint Chrysostome saith Why did Christ shed his blood truly that he might purchase those sheepe the charge where of the committed to Peter and Peters successours And this he saith to Saint Basil to incourage him in the Episcopall office Whereby it is euident that Chrysostome calleth all that feed Christes flocke Saint Peters successours In like manner they may bee saide to occupie Saint Peters seate not locally but in respect of their doctrine and holy conuersation And all such as by Simony inuade this holy function all that defile it with heresie or leaudenesse of life may bee saide to vsurpe the seate of Peter with vncleane feete Thus much for the place of Gildas PHIL. Alredus Rienuallus an English Abbot left written aboue 500. yeeres agone a certaine reuelation or apparition of Saint Peter to an holy man in the time of King Edward the confessour shewing him how hee had preached himselfe in England and consequently the particular care hee had of that Church and nation ORTHOD. This your fashion when you cannot proue a thing by sufficient testimonies you runne to dreames and reuelations not worth the answering And yet this doting dreame extendeth not so farre as Parsons dreameth For Alredus in that place relateth how in the time of King Edward the Confessour Saint Peter appeared vpon the night in a vision to a certaine recluse who had liued in a caue vnder the ground many yeeres and bad him tell the King that he had dispensed with his vowe concerning his going a pilgrimage and instead thereof had commaunded him by the Pope to builde a Monasterie which hee thus described Est mihi locus c. I haue quoth Saint Peter a place in the West part of London chosen by my selfe and deare vnto mee which sometimes I did dedicate with my owne handes renowne with my presence and illustrate with diuine miracles the name whereof is Thorneia This is all in effect which he saith and yet here is no mention of his preaching in England Therefore Parsons hath committed a notable falsification PHIL. Is it not said that he did dedicate it with his owne hands renown it with his presence and illustrate it with diuine miracles ORTHOD. That doth not proue the point in question For Alredus presently after declareth how in the dayes of Ethelbert King of Kent Sebertus King of the East Saxons built without the walls of London Westward a Monastery to S. Peter and withall addeth how the night before the dedication Saint Peter appeared in the habit of a Pilgrim to a certaine Fisherman vpon the Thames and being transported by him to Westminster went presently to the Church where there was suddenly a glorious light a multitude of Angels heauenly melodie with an vnspeakable fragrancy of sweet odours Now the solemnitie of the dedication being finished he returned to the Fisherman who at his command cast his net into the riuer and tooke a great draught of fishes which Saint Peter bad him take for his passage reseruing onely one of extraordinarie greatnesse to himselfe which hee sent for a token to Mellitus Bishop of London Here is his miracle his presence and his dedication of the Church with his owne hands but here is no preaching or if there were then he preached more then 500. yeeres after he was dead But why doe I dwell so long vpon so fond a fable Or what is this to the first Conuersion of England Wherefore I conclude that though S. Peter were a famous Fisher searched innumerable streames through the wide world and catched many thousand soules yet father Parsons hath not made it appeare by any sound authoritie that euer hee spred hisnet in the English Ocean PHIL. IF he did not conuert the nation in his owne person yet it was conuerted by such as he sent ORTHOD. If this blessed worke were performed by S. Paul or Simon of Canany then we may boldly say that the first conuerters were not sent by S. Peter For they were Apostles and had commission to teach all nations not from S. Peter but from Christ. Concerning S. Pauls comming Parsons produceth the authorities of Theodoret Sophronius and Venantius Fortunatus to which he addeth Arnaldus Mirmianus affirming that he passed into Britaine in the fourth yeere of Nero being the yere of our Lord 59. And verely that he was here is a point not without probability He was the Apostle of the Gentiles in labours abundant in perils often and that by Sea he was a Starre swiftly gliding from East to West a Herauld proclaiming the acceptable day of the Lord and a shrill trumpet sounding out the Name of Iesus Now though father Parsons say that for his being in Britaine there are not so many particular testimonies yet those which he hath brought are farre more pregnant then the former for the comming of S. Peter To passe ouer the rest what can be more plaine and direct then that of Venantius Transit Oceanum vel quà facit insula portum Quasque Britannus habet terras atque vltima Thule Saint Paul did passe the Seas where I le makes ships in harbour stand Arriuing on the Brittish Coast and cape of Thule land COncerning Simon Zelotes Nicephorus saith that hauing receiued the holy Ghost comming downe from heauen he passed through Egypt Cyrene Africke Mauritania and all Libya preaching the Gospel yea he did cary it to the Westerne Ocean and the Ilands of Britaine Dorotheus whom Parsons calleth a very ancient writer saith that he was crucified slaine and buried in Britaine In the Greeke Menologe it is said that going into Britaine when he had inlightned many with the word of the Gospel he was there crucified and buried Which authorities what weight soeuer they cary surely they ouer ballance all that Parsons hath produced for the comming of S. Peter Now from the Apostles let vs come to the Apostolicke men Aristobulus and Ioseph of Arimathea PHIL. OF
to himselfe out of all his people and he commanded them to be giuen for a gift vnto Aaron and his sonnes that is to the high Priest and his successours for it was his will that they whom hee himselfe had chosen to the ministerie of the Temple and holy things should bee subiect to the high Priest onely who represented the place of God on earth and by this he freed them from the iurisdiction of earthly Princes for Clergy men are the Ministers of God and offered to God by the whole people whereupon they are called Clerici as belonging to the inheritance of the Lord as Saint Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus Now surely secular Princes can haue no authoritie ouer those things which are offered and consecrated vnto God and made as it were proper vnto God himselfe which both the light of reason sheweth and God himselfe declareth not obscurely in holy Scripture when he saith in the last of Leuiticus Whatsoeuer shall be consecrated vnto the Lord it shall bee holy of holies vnto the Lord. ORTHOD. As houses and lands dedicated to God remained his proper and euerlasting possession so the tribe of Leui being once consecrated vnto God became for euer his peculiar inheritance But doth it therefore followe that they are all exempted from the iurisdiction of Princes the whole nation of the Iewes are called an holy nation and a kingdome of Priests all the males of Israel had the seale of the liuing God set vpon them in the Sacrament of circumcision yet not one of them were exempted from the power of their Prince It is true that by the lawe of God in matters concerning their office the Leuites were subordinate to the Priestes and the Priestes to the high Priest but both Priest high Priest were vnder the authoritie of the ciuill Magistrate Iehosaphat sent Priests Leuites to instruct the cities of Iudah and did he this without authoritie he sent Priestes and Leuites to be iudges and Delegates Amariah the high Priest to bee chiefe ouer them in the matters of the Lord did hee this also without authoritie when the house of God was defiled Hezechias called the Priestes and Leuites commanding them to sanctifie themselues and the house of the Lord and they did so according to the Kings commandement then hee commanded the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron to offer sacrifice vnto the Lord and they did so he appointed all the Leuites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals with Viols and with Harpes and the Leuites stood with the instruments of Dauid and the Priestes with Trumpets and Hezechias commaunded the Priestes to offer the burnt offering vpon the Altar and they did so then the King and the Princes commanded the Leuites to praise the Lord with the wordes of Dauid and Asaph the seer so they praised with ioy Then hee commanded the Priestes to offer the sacrifice of praise and they did so yea the King this holy King appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes which things hee did well and vprightly before the Lord his God therefore wee must not thinke he passed the bounds of his authoritie If Priest or high Priest were exempted from the iurisdiction of Kings why did Iosias commande Helkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order to fetch out of the Temple all the instruments prepared for Baal for the groue and for all the hoast of heauen which hee burned without Hierusalem in the fieldes of Kedron and caused the dust of them to bee carried vnto Bethel If Priestes were exempted why did hee bring all the Priestes of the high places out of the cities of Iudah and all such of them as were Ieroboams Priests of which the man of Iudah prophecied hee sacrificed vpon the Altars the rest which were of the line of Aaron but yet had offered in the high places hee brought backe from Hierusalem though they were not suffered to sacrifice vnto the Lord but were thrust out of their Priesthood to the meanest offices amongst the Leuites Now from Kings let vs come to Nehemias the Viceroy who relating how Eliashib the high Priest had made a great chamber in the house of the Lord for Tobias the Ammonite addeth immediately But all this time was not I in Ierusalem signifying that if hee had beene there hee would not haue suffered such abomination And when hee came hee cast out the vessels of Tobias and commanded the Priestes to cleanse them and bring againe the vessels of the Lord. When one of the nephewes of the high Prieste had married the daughter of Sanballat Nehemias chased him away With what face now can you say that Princes in the olde Testament had no authoritie ouer the Priestes If Kings had no authoritie then they should not haue enioyned appointed commaunded and punished but onely haue aduised admonished and exhorted them If Priestes had any such priuiledge it is strange that in all the storie of the olde Testament wee finde not one Priest once pleading his priuiledge If they submitted themselues when their conscience tolde them that they had offended yet why did they not plead their immunitie when they were iniuriously handled Zacharias the Priest was slaine at the commandement of the King and yet neuer mentioned any priuiledge When Saul slew Abimelech and aboue eightie Priestes which wore a linnen Ephod Abimelech declared his innocency and acknowledged the Kings iurisdiction ouer him by calling the King his Lord and himselfe the Kings seruant but spoke not a word of any priuiledge Therefore all the world may see that there was no such matter these are but fictions of idle braines wherefore we may truly conclude that the tribe of Leui was not exempted from secular iurisdiction but the King might conuent command reprooue and punish them and yet not transgresse the law of God PHIL. Who dare affirme that a prophane person hath any authoritie or iurisdiction ouer those things which haue deserued to bee called holy of holies that is most holy ORTHOD. Who but a prophane Iesuite durst bee so bold as to call the light of Israel the annointed of the Lord the Minister of God a prophane person The ancient sages of the Christian world did vse to speake of Princes with all reuerence not onely of those which professed the true faith but of others also The third Romane councell vnder Symmacus calleth Theodoricus who was knowen to bee an Arrian a holy Prince whereupon Binius writeth thus An Arrian king is named most holy and most godly not according to his merites but according to custome like as Valerian and Gratian Ethnicke Emperours were called most holy by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria as witnesseth Eusebius Which was done by the example of the Apostle Paul who called Felix being a wicked man but then in authoritie by the vsuall stile of most noble Hitherto
then to the Church of Rome And what office will she take more kindly then the discrediting of those whom she accounteth Heretickes therefore I doe not wonder that you put it in practise I feare nothing but that shortly it shall grow with you a point meritorious Well the Stripe of the rodde maketh markes in the flesh but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones But let them remember That the tongue which lyeth slayeth the soule And that all lyers shall haue their portion except they repent in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone PHIL. WHatsoeuer is to be thought of the place yet I will proue by the Lawes of England That neither he nor any of his associats were lawfull Bishops ORTHOD. By the lawes of England how proue you that PHIL. It was ordained by the Parliament in the daies of Henry the eight that no man should be acknowledged a Bishop vnlesse he were Consecrated by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane which law was reuiued by Queene Elizabeth and in full strength at the time of the Consecration of Mathew Parker but Mathew Parker was not so Consecrate and therefore by the lawes of England he was not to bee acknowledged for a Bishop For what Archbishop was either present at his Consecration or consenting vnto it Cardinall Poole then late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead and Parker elected into his place Nicholas Heath then last Archbishop of Yorke was deposed Indeed there was a certaine Irish Archbishop whō they had in bonds prison at London with whom they dealt very earnestly promising him both liberty and rewards if so be he would bee chiefe in the Consecration But hee good man would by no meanes be brought to lay holy hands vpon heretikes neither to be partaker of other mens sinnes Wherefore hauing neither Archbishop of their owne religion nor being able to procure any other the Consecration was performed without a Metropolitane cleane contrary to the lawes of England ORTHO What if both Sanders and you abuse the lawes of England in this point as indeed you doe For the words are these And if the person bee elected to the office dignity of an Archbishop according to the tenour of this act then after such election certifyed to the kings highnesse in forme aforesaid hee shal be reputed and taken Lord elect of the said office and dignity of Archbishop whereunto hee shal be so elected and after he hath made such oth and fealty onely to the kings Maiesty his heires and successours as shal be limited for the same the kings highnesse by his letters patents vnder the great seale shall signifie the said election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops or else to foure Bishops within this Realme or within any other the kings Dominions to be assigned by the kings highnesse his heires or successours requiring and commaunding the said Archbishop and Bishops with all speed and celerity to confirme the said election and to inuest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected vnto and to giue and vse to him such pall benedictions ceremonies and other things requisite for the same without suing procuring or obtayning any Bulls Briefes or any other things at the See of Rome or by authority thereof in any behalfe Where it is cleare that the King his heires and successours might by the statute send letters patents for Consecration of an Archbishop either to an Archbishop and two Bishops or else to foure Bishops therefore it might be performed without an Archbishop and yet not contrary to the lawes of England PHIL. ADmit this were true yet it auaileth you nothing for Math. Parker was Consecrated neither by three nor by two much lesse by foure though by your owne confession the law required foure ORTHOD. How know you that were you present at his Consecration or did you learne it of any that were present PHIL. I cannot say so but it is very likely because the Catholike Bishops being required to crowne Queene Elizabeth refused all except one ORTHO That one was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill but hee was none of the Consecrators of Archbishop Parker For he continued in your Popish religion refused the oth of the supremacy was therefore depriued PHIL. That was the common case of them all but one For one alone I must confesse was made to breake vnity of whom a right good and Catholike Bishop said to a Noble man wee had but one foole amongst vs and him you haue gotten vnto you little worthy of the name of a Bishop and Lord whose learning was small and honour thereby much stained And hee as it seemeth was the onely Bishop which you had therefore Math. Parker could not be Consecrated by three ORTHO Hee whom you meane was Anth. Kitchin Bishop of Landaffe who was in the commission but was none of the Consecratours therefore you shoot at randome and misse the marke PHIL. Whence then had you your Consecrators Surely you did not goe to the Churches of the Caluinistes and Lutherans if peraduenture they had any ORTHOD. We did not PHIL. Then you must bee glad to runne to your vsuall refuge that you had one from Greece Alas my masters you are narrowly driuen when you are forced to flie to such miserable shifts ORTHOD. This tale proceeded not from Eudaemon but from Cacodaemon the father of lies No Sir wee needed no Grecian though it pleaseth you to play the Cretian PHIL. If you had neither Bishops of your owne nor procured any either from the Catholike Church or from the reformed Churches or from the Greekish Church then it is true which Doctor Kellison reporteth out of Sanders That they made one another Bishops ORTHO Though Sanders in that booke hath almost as many lies as lines yet he hath not this loude lie it is the inuention of Kellison himselfe you promise demonstratiue reasons and when your argument comes to the issue where all your strength should lie you bring nothing but slender surmises flying reportes and detestable lies Doe these goe at Rome for demonstrations But I will answere you with euidence of truth which may be iustified by monuments of publike record QVeene Mary died in the yeere 1558 the 17. of Nouember and the selfe same day died Card nall Poole Archb. of Canterbury the very same day was Queene Elizabeth proclaimed The 15. of Ianuary next following was the day of Queene Elizabeths Coronation when Doctor Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill was so happy as to set the Diadem of the kingdome vpon her royal head Now the See of Canterbury continued voide till December following about which time the Deane and Chapter hauing receiued the congedelier elected maister Doctour Parker for their Archbishop Iuxta morem antiquum laudabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae praedictae ab antiquo vsitatam inconcusse obseruatam i. proceeding in this
both the outward court by excommunications absolutions dispensations calling generall councels c. and the court of conscience by forgiuing and retaining sinnes In a word in these keyes all Ecclesiasticall power was comprehended and giuen vnto Peter ORTHOD. The keyes were giuen to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter for the occasion of these words was a question of Christ proposed to al his Apostles whom say you that I am this question was answered by Peter Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Wherupon Saint Austin obserueth that Peter alone made answer for all the Apostles and his obseruation is according to the Scriptures which testifie that Peter before this time had answered in the name of them all VVe beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Now as Peter answered one for all so Christ said to Peter and in him to them all I will giue you the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen Thus the Fathers in terpret the place Austin Peter receiued the keyes together with them al Ierome they did all receiue the keyes Origen Christs promise of building his Church of giuing the keyes of binding and loosing made as to Peter only was common to all Hilarie They obtained the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Ambrose VVhat is said to Peter is said to the Apostles This consent of Fathers should ouer ballance your opinion by the Councell of Trent And here I might iustly returne Campians flourish vpon you Patres admiseris captus es excluseris nullus es If you admit the Fathers you are catched If you exclude them you are no body Indeed my Masters you make the world beleeue that you will be iudged by the Fathers but when it comes to the tryall you commonly forsake them the Fathers must be pretended for a fashion but the holy Father of Rome is the very needle and compasse whereby you saile PHIL. WE confesse that all receiued the keyes but Christ gaue them to Peter immediatly to the rest by Peter so all power both of order and iurisdiction proceedeth from Peter ORTHO Let Bellarmine himselfe iudge the cause betweene vs who proueth by foure arguments That the Apostles receiued their iurisdiction immediately from Christ. First by these words of Christ himselfe As my Father sent me so send I you which exposition he strengtheneth by the authorities of Chrysostom Theophylact Cyrill and Cyprian by the euidence whereof he affirmeth that the same thing was giuen to the Apostles by these words I send you which was promised to Peter by these words I will giue thee the keyes and afterward deliuered by these words Feed my sheepe and addeth Constat autem per illa tibi dabo claues per illud pasce oues intelligi iurisdictionē plenissimā etiam exteriorē i It is cleare that by these words I will giue thee the keyes and by this saying feede my sheep there is vnderstood a most full iurisdiction euen in the outward Court Secondly hee proueth it because Mathias was neither elected by the Apostles nor receiued any authority by them but beeing elected by God was presently accounted amongst the Apostles And verilie saith hee if all the Apostles had their iurisdiction from Peter that should haue beene manifested most of all in Matthias Thirdly he proueth it by Saint Paul who professeth that he had his iurisdiction from Christ and thence confirmeth his Apostleship for he saith Paul an Apostle not of men or by man but by Iesus Christ And that he might declare that he receiued no authoritie from Peter or any other Apostle he saith VVhen it pleased God which had separated me from my mothers womb called me by his grace to reueale his sonne in mee that I should preach him among the Gentiles immediatly I cōmunicated not with flesh and bloud Neither came I againe to Ierusalem to thē which were Apostles before mee but I went into Arabia and turned againe into Damascus Then after three yeeres I came againe to Ierusalem to visite Peter And againe To mee those that seemed to bee something conferred nothing Fourthly because the Apostles were made onely by Christ and yet had Iurisdiction as appeareth First by Paul excommunicating the Corinthian Secondly by the same Paul making Ecclesiasticall lawes Thirdly because the Apostolick dignitie is the highest dignitie in the Church Wherefore it is euident that the rest of the Apostles receiued not their Iurisdiction from Peter but from Christ. PHIL. CHrist promised the keyes to Peter onely therefore in this respect he must haue a preheminence aboue the rest ORTH. Whatsoeuer Christ promised that hee performed but he performed not the keyes to Peter with any preheminence aboue his fellows but alike to all therefore hee did not promise them to Peter by way of preheminence but to him with the rest PHIL. Did he not say I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. So they were promised to Peter in the singular number ORTHO Though these wordes bee of the singular number yet they were not spoken to Peter as he was Peter or a singular person but to Peter representing the person of the Church as the Fathers say according to the Scripture For when he said I will giue thee the keyes he added immediately by way of explication and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shall bee loosed in heauen Vpon which wordes Bellarmine saith thus The plaine sence of these wordes I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose is this that first there is promised an authoritie or a power signified by the keyes and then the actions or office is explained by these wordes to bind and to loose So that to loose and to open to shut and to bind is altogether the same But the Lord expressed the actions of the keyes by loosing and binding not by shutting and opening that we might vnderstand that all these speeches are metaphoricall and that heauen is then opened vnto men when they are loosed from their sinnes which hindered their entrance into heauen But the power of binding and loosing was giuen to all the Apostles by Christ in these wordes whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen PHIL. Cardinall Caietan thinketh that to open and to shut is of a larger extent then to bind and to loose ORTHOD. Bellarmine thinketh this more subtill then sound because there are no keyes in the Church sauing onely of Order and Iurisdiction both which are signified by the actions of binding and loosing as Caietan confesseth and Bellarmine proued before both by Fathers and Scripture PHIL. The power of binding and loosing is
time of the Emperour Iustinian vsed to pay for their ordination yet he added this clause vt non debeat ordinari qui electus fuerit nisi prius decretum generale introducatur in regiam vrbem secundum antiquam Consuetudinē vt cum eorum conscientia iussione debeat ordinatio prosperari i. that the party elected ought not to be ordained vnlesse first the generall decree of his election strenthned with the subscriptions of the electors were brought into the imperial city according to the ancient custome that so the ordination might prosperously proceed with the knowledge and commandement of the Emperours Wherefore if we imbrace this sence of the Canon we may iustly say Decretum hoc iuris veteris vel restitutio vel continuatio non concessio noui 1. this decree to speak properly is either a restoring or a continuing of an ancient right not a grant of a new and consequently this was no priuiledge proceeding frō the grace and bounty of the Pope but a voluntary and ingenuous confession of the Princes right But some do follow the other sense extending the decree euen to a sole and plenare power of electing at his owne pleasure without the Clergie and people For Duarenus saith thus In ancient time the Bishop of Rome vsed not to be ordained without the consent and authoritie of the Roman Emperour and all kings vsed in a maner the same power in the Churches of their owne kingdomes yet the right of Electing was not therfore taken away from the Clergie but afterward the right of the electing the Romane Bishops was of their owne accord altogether granted and permitted to the Emperours Charles and Otho And a little after a full power of electing at his owne pleasure was granted to Charles which seemeth more probable because Theodoricke de Niem sayth the Romane people granted to him and translated vpon him all their right and power and according to their example Pope Adrian with all the Clergie people and the whole sacred Synod granted to the Emperour Charles all their right and power of electing the Pope Howsoeuer this is certaine that the Pope and Councell did ascribe vnto him if not a sole and plenary yet at least a principall and preuailing power in electing the high Bishop If we imbrace the first then so farre as they confered vpon him their owne former right it may be called a gift or grant If the latter it was no gift nor grant but an acknowledgement of the ancient right and prerogatiue of the Empire PHIL. Charles in his Chapters appointeth that elections should be free ORTHOD. This may seeme to argue that Adrian and the Councel did yeeld vnto him a plenary power yet notwithstanding hee like a gracious Prince permitted that elections should be free as in former times But what if they were free must the Prince therefore bee excluded Before the diuision of the Empire the Romanes might freely elect whom they list and yet the elected could not be Consecrated till he were approued of the Emperour so Charles might grant freedome of elections and yet reserue to himselfe his royall assent PHIL. If hee had any such power why did not he and his successours put it in practise ORTHOD. To this I will answere first in generall and then descend to some particulars In generall it appeareth that they did by these words of Nauclerus Imperator volens vti consuetudine authoritate praedecessorum suorum petebat sibi seruari ea quae priuilegijs Carolo Magno successoribus in Imperto iam per 300 annos amplius concessa obseruata fuerunt ex quibus priuilegijs licitè per inuestituram annuli virgae Episcopatus Abbatias conferebant i. The Emperour Henr. desirous to vse the custome and authoritie of his predecessors required that those priuiledges should be reserued for him which were granted to Charles the Great and to his successours in the Empire and obserued now for 300. yeeres and more By which priuiledges it was lawfull for the Emperours to conferre Bishopricks and Abbacies by inuestiture of a ring and a staffe And Matthew Paris saith That the Emperour was desirous to vse the priuiledge of his predecessours which they hadenioyed 300. yeeres vnder 60. Popes Thus much in generall PHIL. Anastasius who wrote the liues of 12. Popes succeeding Adrian deliuereth onely that they were chosen by the people and Clergie but saith nothing of the Emperours ORTHOD. Yes by your leaue he saith somewhat But if hee were silent what then Are not other Authors sufficient to witnesse it The next Pope after Adrian and the onely Pope elected in the time of Charles was Leo the third who as Gillius saith so soone as he was Consecrated sent to Charles the Great the keyes of S. Peters Church with the banner of the Citie of Rome and admonished him to send certaine selected persons which might exact the Oath of obedience of the people Was not this a resignation both of the Citie and Church into the Emperours hands Was not this an ingenuous acknowledgement that he would not hold the possession of S. Peters Church that is of the Church of Rome without his Royall assent Which he vndoubtedly obtained For afterwards when a strong faction had deposed Leo hee fled into France to Charles Who sent him back to Rome and restored him againe with great honour AFter Charles reigned his sonne Lodowick in whose time Leo died and Steuen the 4. had the place who as Baronius sheweth out of Aimonius went in person to the Emperour within two moneths of his Consecration To what end Wee may collect that out of his decree in Gratian wherein hee complaineth that the Church of Rome at the death of the Popes suffered great violence because the new Popes were Consecrated without the knowledge of the Emperour neither were the Emperours Ambassadours present as both the Canons and custome required Whereupon he decreeth that the Consecration should be praesentibus Legatis Imperialibus i. The Emperours Ambassadors being present And withall forbiddeth all men to extort any new Oathes whereby the Church may bee scandalized and the Imperiall honour diminished Wherefore it is probable that his hasty going was to excuse the matter because as it seemeth he was Consecrated without the Emperours knowledge Which is yet more likely because the next Pope Paschall being created without Imperiall authoritie sent presently to the Emperour Lodowick to excuse the matter by laying the blame vpon the Clergie and people Whereto he answered That the Clergie and people must keepe the decrees of their ancestours and admonished them hereafter to take heed not to offend the Imperiall Maiestie PHIL. If Lodowick had any such authoritie therein surely he resigned it in his Constitution concerning his donation to the Church of Rome which is partly in Gratian but fully set downe by Baronius out of the Vatican Monuments the summe whereof is that it
Scripture vnto the ministring of almes vnto the Saints PHIL. THe sacrifice of the Masse may be strongly prooued out of the first to the Corinthians Flee from the seruing of idoles I speake as to wise men Your selues iudge what I say the chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord For being many wee are one bread one body all that participate of one bread Behold Israel according to the flesh they that eate the hostes are they not partakers of the Altar what then doe I say that that which is immolated vnto idoles is any thing or that the idol is any thing But the things that the heathen doe immolate to diuels they do immolate and not to God And I will not haue you become fellows of the diuels You cannot drinke the chalice of our Lord and the chalice of diuels you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord and of the Table of diuels Out of these words are gathered three arguments the first from the comparison of the Lords Table with the altar of the Gentiles where they offered to idoles and with the altar of the Iewes where they offered carnall sacrifice to the true God For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar now an altar is erected to sacrifice and there is no sacrifice without a Priest The like reason may be drawne from the comparison of the Eucharist with their sacrifice and from the partaking the one and the other ORTHOD. The point of the comparison consisteth in this that as those which receiue the Sacraments of Christians doe therein declare themselues to be partakers of the Christian religion so those which vse the sacrifices and ceremonies of Iewes or Gentiles doe thereby signifie that they are partakers of their religion and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to refraine from the tables and feasts of idoles least thereby they should haue fellowshipwith the diuels Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar PHIL. THe altar is plainely mentioned to the Hebrewes Wee haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle by which altar is meant Christs body in the Eucharist ORTHOD. The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist but of the suffering of Christ without the gate and of the sacrifice of praier and thanksgiuing therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well Istud altare c. that is This altar is either the Crosse of Christ on which Christ was offered for vs or else Christ himselfe in whom and by whom wee offer vp our prayers And this is the golden altar of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they haue not power to eate that is to receiue the fruit of Christs passion and to bee incorporated into him as to the head which serue the tabernacle of legall things for if ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing or they serue the tabernacle of the body which follow carnall delights for to such he profiteth nothing Hitherto Thomas whose authoritie with others perswadeth Bellarmine to dismisse this argument out of the field because saith he there are some Catholickes which vnderstand by the altar the Crosse or Christ himselfe I doe not vrge that place Thus haue you searched the Scriptures and cannot find your sacrifice much lesse can you find that it is properly propitiatory For that honour belongeth onely to the sacrifice of the Crosse. PHIL. Did not Iob who liued vnder the law of nature offer burnt offerings daily for his children Did not God himselfe commaund that the friends of Iob should sacrifice for their sinnes Are there not many sacrifices for sins appointed in Leuiticus Wherefore if the sacrifice of the Crosse did not hinder that these should be propitiatory why should it hinder our sacrifice from being propitiatorie ORTHOD. Though Iob and others did offer sacrifice vnder the law of nature yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature but by the direction of Gods spirit and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commaunded in the law and all of them were Types of Iesus Christ and are said to take away sinnes not properly but Typically for as the Apostle sayth It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinnes CHAP. VIII Of their argument drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers PHIL. THe meaning of the Scriptures was well knowen to the ancient Fathers who al with one voice acknowledge both Priest Altar oblation and sacrifice ORTHOD. They doe so but not such as you meane For the oblation sacrifice which they defend in the Eucharist is not properly propitiatory nor properly a sacrifice but only a commemoration and a representation of the soueraigne sacrifice PHIL. If the Fathers had meant so then there was no cause why they should speake otherwise of the Eucharist then of Baptisme But they neuer called Baptisme a sacrifice or said that to Baptise is to sacrifice Therefore it is a signe that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice they name it so properly ORTHO Doe the Fathers neuer call Baptisme a sacrifice Your learned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary saying Sedquaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato quia Baptismus repeti non potest Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt that is But you demaund what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore said that there remained no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated Truly because in Baptisme we die together with Christ by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Crosse is applied vnto vs to the full remission of sinne hence they call Baptisme metaphorically a sacrifice Here is a cleare confession that many Fathers call Baptisme a sacrifice and among these many S. Austin is one Quod holocaustum dominicae passionis eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur that is which burnt offering of the Lords passion euery one offereth for his owne sinnes at such time as hee is dedicated to GOD by faith in the Passion of Christ and beeing baptised is indued with the Name of faithfull Christians And no maruaile if the Fathers doe call it a Sacrifice seeing they call it the Passion of Christ. Wee are dipped in the Passion of Christ saith Tertullian Baptisme is Christs Passion saith Chrysostome meaning that it is the representation of it So concerning the Eucharist
not onely required to remission of sinnes the Preaching of the Gospell but also baptisme and penance As it is written Doe penance and be euery one of you baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes ORTHOD. When wee say that the Minister forgiueth sinnes by preaching wee doe not exclude the Sacraments but include them As when wee referre a pardon to the Kings letters patents wee doe not exclude the seale but meane the letters patents with the seale annexed For as the Apostle saith to vs is committed the ministerie of reconciliation Which is not a ministerie of the word onely but without all controuersie of the Sacraments also Therefore Christ in giuing vs authoritie to forgiue sinnes hath withall giuen vs authoritie to vse the meanes thereof that is the ministery of the word and Sacraments and because wee apply these meanes whereby God forgiueth sinnes therefore we are said to forgiue sinnes This is well expressed by Ferus one of your own Fryers saying Quamuis Dei propriuÌ„ opus sit remittere peccata dicuntur tamen etiam Apostoli remittere non simpliciter sed quia adhibent media per quae Deus remittit peccata haec autem media sunt verbum Dei Sacramenta i. although it be the proper worke of God to forgiue sinnes yet notwithstanding the Apostles are saide to forgiue sinnes not simply but because they vse the meanes by the which God doth forgiue sinnes and these meanes are the word of God and the Sacraments Moreouer it is a cleare case that to this remission there is required faith and repentance after which followeth ministeriall absolution by preaching and applying publickly and priuately the sweete promises of grace to the penitent beleeuer and sealing them by the Sacraments to the soule and conscience This absolution in the court of conscience is agreeable to the Scripture and is not onely practised in the Church of England by Sermons and Sacraments but also solemnly proclaimed in our liturgy and applied both publickly in open penance and priuately in the visitation of the sicke as also to particular penitents whose wounded consciences require the same PHIL. The Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse vpon such as wrest the words of Christ to the authoritie of preaching the Gospell ORTHOD. To apply them to preaching in such sence as hath beene declared is no wresting but the true meaning of the Scripture as you heard out of Saint Paul and therefore in cursing vs they curse Saint Paul wherefore I will say with the Prophet they doe curse but thou o Lord doest blesse But for your better satisfaction in this point you shal heare the iudgement of sundry principall men in your owne Church expounding this absolution in court of conscience as wee doe The maister of the sentences hauing long sifted this point to and fro at last groweth to this resolution In hac tanta varietate quid â—â—nendum hoc sanâ— c. In this great varietie what should we hold truely 〈◊〉 may say and thinke this That God onely forgiueth and retaineth sinnes and yet he hath giuen the power of binding and loosing vnto the Church but he bindeth and looâ—â—th one way the Church another For he forgiueth sin by himselfe alone who both cleanseth the soule from inward blot and looseth it from thâ— debt of eternall death but he hath not granted this vnto the Priest to whom notwithstanding he hath giuen potestatem soluendi ligandi i. Ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos i. the power of binding and loosing that is of declaring men to be bound or loosed Wherupon the Lord did first by himselfe restore health vnto the leper and then he sent him to the Priestes quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus i. by whose iudgement he might be declared to be cleansed so likewise when he had restored Lazarus to life againe he offered him to his Disciples that they might vnbind him And this he prooueth by a place of Ierome which he onely pointeth at but we will set it downe more largely In Leuitico c In the booke of Leuiticus we read of the lepers where they are commanded to shew themselues to the Priests and if they shall haue the leprosie that then they shall bee made vncleane by the Priestes not that the Priestes should make them lepers and vncleane but that they should haue the knowledge of the leprous and not leprous and that they may discerne who is cleane or vncleane Therefore as there the Priests doe make the lepers cleane or vncleane so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind and loose c. Hitherto Saint Ierome Now the master hauing said that in remitting or retaining sins the Euangelicall Priests haue that authoritie and office which in olde times the legall Priests had vnder the law in curing of lepers addeth these words Hi ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta indicant ostendunt i. therfore these doe forgiue sinnes or retaine them whiles they shew and declare that they are forgiuen or retained of God Hunc modum ligandi soluendi Hieron supra notauit i. this way of binding and loosing Ierom hath obserued aboue Thus farre the master who is followed verbatim by Petrus Parisius as is to be seene in Sixtus Senensis And Occam saith I answere according to the master that Priests bind and loose because they declare men to be bound or loosed Alexander Hales Nunquam sacerdos absolueret quenquam de quo non presumeret quod esset absolutus à deo i the Priest would neuer absolue any man of whom he did not presume that he were already absolued of God If the Priest absolue none but whom God hath first absolued theÌ„ what can his absolution be else but a certificate that the party is already absolued of God And againe Item Augustinus Hugo de sancto victore c. Moreouer Austin and Hugo de sancto victore say that in the raising of Lazarus was signified the raising againe of a sinner But Lazarus was raised of the Lord before he was deliuered to the Disciples to bee loosed ergo absolutio sacerdotis nihil valet antequam homo sit iustificatus per gratiam suscitatus a morte culpae 1. Therefore the absolution of the Priest is of no value before a man be iustified by grace raised from the death of sinne And this he proueth by strong reasons as followeth 1. It is a matter of equall power to baptize inwardly and to absolue from deadly sinne but it was not requisite that God should communicate to any man the power of baptizing inwardly least our hope should be reposed in man therfore by the same reason it was not fit that God should communicate to any man the power of absoluing from actuall sinne And againe Nulla fit remissio culpae nisi per gratiam sed gratiam dare est potentiae infinitae i. There