Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	according_a	common_a	prayer_n	2,718	5	6.1677	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

Priests why should you deny them to be Bishops PHIL. The Popes Commissioners Vnpriested them in Queene Maries time but would not Vnbishop them thereby acknowledging their Priestly function receiued in King Henries time but denying their Episcopall receiued in King Edwards as may appeare by the words of Doctor Brooke Bishop of Glocester the Popes subdelegate to Ridley at his degradation Wee must against our will●s proceed according to our Commission to disgrading taking from you the dignitie of Priesthood for we take you for no Bishop as Iohn Fox your owne historian recordeth ORTH. Was not hee and all the rest of them Consecrated by a sufficient number PHIL. Yes vndoubtedly for that law was alwaies obserued in King Edwards time as Doctor Sanders confesseth C●remontam autem solennem vnctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa adhiberi voluit quam postea profi●●●ns in p●●●● Edouardus Sextus sustulit proea Caluinicas aliquot deprecationes substituit ser●ata tamen semper priori de numero presen●●um Episcoporum qui ●anu● ordinando impo●erent lege that is It was his will speaking of King Henry the eight that the ceremony and solemne vnction should as yet be vsed in Episcopall consecration after the manner of the Church which King Edward profiting from better to worse did afterward take away and insteed thereof substitute certaine Caluinicall deprecations yet the former law concerning the number of Bishops which should impose hands vpon the ordained was alwaies obserued ORTHOD If you or any other dare deny it it may bee iustified by authenticall records Out of which behold a true abstract of the consecration of those renowned Martyrs Nich Ridley Cons 5. Septemb. 1547. 1. Ed 6. by Henry Lincoln Iohn Bedford Thom. Sidon Rob. Ferrar Cons 9. Septemb. 1549. 2. Ed 6. by Thom. Canterb Henry Lincoln Nich Roff. Iohn Hooper Cons. 8. Mart. 1550. by Thom. Canterb Nich London Iohn Roff. To which let vs adde those worthy confessours Iohn Poynet Iohn Scory and Miles Couerdale Iohn Poynet Cons. 29. Iune 1550. by Thom. Canterb. Nich London Arthur Bangor Iohn Scory and Miles Couerdale Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by Thom Canterb. Nich London Iohn Bedford NOw seeing the Consecrated were capable and the Consecrators a sufficient number why should not the Consecration bee effectuall For if Cranmer or any other lawfull Bishop by his Commission with sufficient assistants could make canonicall Bishops in the daies of K. Henry as you haue confessed what reason can you giue why the same Cranmer or the like Bishop with the like assistants should not make the like in the daies of K. Ed PHIL. Because the case was altered for in King Henries time Ordinations were made with ceremony and solemne vnction after the Ecclesiasticall manner which king Edward tooke cleane away and in place thereof appointed certaine Caluinicall deprecations as was before declared ORTHO Those which Sanders calleth Caluinicall deprecations are godly and religious prayers answerable to the Apostolicke practise For whereas the Scripture witnesseth that Matthias the Deacons and others receiued imposition of hands with prayers Salmeron the Iesuite expoundeth the places thus intelligendum est de precibus quibus à deo petebant vt efficeret illos bonos Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos potestatemque illis ad ca munera prestaret that is It is to be vnderstood of prayers whereby they desired of God that he would make them good Bishops Priests and Deacons and would giue them abilitie to performe those offices Such prayers are vsed in the Church of England As for example in the ordering of Priests ALmighty God giuer of all things which by thy holy spirit hast appointed diuers orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold these thy seruants now called to the office of Priesthood and replenish them so with the trueth of thy doctrine and innocency of life that both by word and good example they may faithfully serue thee in this office to the glory of thy Name and profit of thy congregation through the merits of our Sauiour Iesus Christ c. And in the Consecration of Bishops ALmighty God c. Grant we beseech thee to this thy seruant such grace that hee may euermore bee ready to spread abroad the Gospell and glad tidings of reconcilement to God and to vse the authoritie giuen vnto him not to destroy but to saue not to hurt but to helpe so that hee as a wise and a faithfull seruant giuing to thy family meate in due season may at the last bee receiued into ioy c. These and the like are the praiers which Sanders traduceth Wherefore we may with comfort applie to our selues the saying of Saint Peter If wee bee railed vpon for the name of Christ blessed are wee for the spirit of glory and of God resteth vpon vs which on your part is euill spoken of but on our part is glorified Thus that which you impute to them as a blemish is perfect beautie But what else doe you mislike in their ordinations PHIL. They did not obserue the Ecclesiasticall manner ORTHOD. In the third and fourth yeere of Edward the sixth there was an act made to abolish certaine superstitious bookes and among the rest the Ordinals About the same time was made another acte for the ordering of Ecclesiastiall Ministers the effect whereof was that such forme of consecrating Bishops Priestes and Deacons as by six Prelates and sixe other learned in Gods Law should bee agreed vpon and set out vnder the great Seale of England within a time limited should lawfully bee vsed and none other In the fift and sixt of his raigne was made another acte for the explaining and perfecting of the booke of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments which booke so explained was annexed to the acte or statute with a forme or manner of making and consecrating Archbishops Bishops Priestes and Deacons Which as at this day so then was not esteemed another distinct booke from the booke of common prayer but they were both ioyntly reputed as one booke and so established by acte of Parliament In the first of Queene Mary by the repealing of this acte the booke was disanulled but it was established againe in the first of Q. Elizabeth and confirmed in the eight of her reigne so that all the Ministers of England are ordered according to that booke concerning which I would knowe wherein it transgresseth the Ecclesiasticall manner Sanders saith that King Edward tooke away the Ceremony What Ceremony If hee vnderstand the Ceremony of imposition of hands he slandereth King Edward If hee meane their blessing ofrings and Crosiers the grauitie of that sacred action may well spare them as for the solemne vnction your selues confesse it to bee accidentall Other of your Ceremonies being partly superfluous partly superstitious the wisedome of our Church hath discreetly and religiously pared away establishing

declaring that euery thing requisite and materiall was done as precisely in her Maiesties time as euer before Thirdly they confirme againe the booke of Common prayer with the forme thereunto annexed enacting that all persons that then had beene or afterwards should be made ordered or Consecrated Archbishops Bishops Priests and Ministers of Gods holy word and Sacraments or Deacons after the forme and order herein prescribed were by authoritie thereof declared and enacted to be Archbishops Bishops Priests Ministers and Deacons rightly made ordered and Consecrated any Statute Law Canon or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding Whereby it is euident that the Parliament did not make them Bishops but being in very deed true Bishops by lawfull Consecration that honourable court did declare and enact them so to be But what say the Papists to all this When they cannot infringe their Consecration for a poore reuenge they call our Religion Parliament Religion and our Bishops Parliament Bishops PHIL. If you will needs haue your matters seeme to depend of your Parliament let vs not be blamed if we call it Parliament Relgion Parliament Gospel Parliament faith ORTHOD. It is a marueile that you said not a Parliament God and a Parliament Christ. Might not we say as well that in Q. Maries time you had a Parliament Masse and a Parliament Pope Was it lawfull for Q. Mary with her Parliament to subiect the kingdome to the Pope and his Canons and was it not lawfull for Q. Elizabeth with her Parliament to submit themselues to Christ and his Gospel Indeed you haue a spite against the Prince and Parliament because they expelled the Pope aduanced true Religion and defended the Preachers and Ministers thereof neither against the persons onely but against the very place wherein the Banner of Iesus Christ was so gloriously displayed A French Historian speaking of the bloody Massacre saith Wise men which were not addicted to the Protestants part seeking all maner of excuse for that fact did notwithstanding thinke that in all Antiquitie there could not be found an example of like crueltie But the English Powder-plot doeth so farre exceed the French Massacre that there is no degree of comparison this cannot be patternd or paraleld It was of such a transcendencie that all the diuels may seeme to haue holden a blacke conuocation in Hell and there to haue concluded such a sulphurious and Acheronticall deuice as was neuer heard of since the world began But the Lord of Heauen did so strangely reueale it as though the birds of the aire had caried the voyce and that which hath wings had declared the matter As for the chiefe instruments thereof the Rauens of the valleys did plucke out their eyes and the yong Eagles did eate them Wherefore if you will not beleeue vs disputing for Religion yet beleeue God himselfe with his owne right hand and with his holy arme defending our Prince and State our Church and Ministerie and that very House wherein the Standard of the Gospel was aduanced maugre the malice of all the diuels in hell All glory be to thee O Lord for this thy vnspeakeable mercie still protect and defend them that Israel may be glad and thy seruant Iacob reioyce PHIL. IF you can iustifie your Bishops produce their Consecrations make it appeare to the world when by whom and how they were Consecrated beginning with the first which was made in the Queenes time That is with Matthew Parker who did beare the name of the Archbishop of Canterburie ORTHOD. You learned this disdainefull speach of Nicholas Sanders who dedicated his rocke of the Church to that reuerend Archbishop in this vnreuerend maner To the right worshipfull Master Doct. Parker bearing the name of the Archbishop of Canterburie Wherein to let passe that right worshipfull and right scornefull title he doeth not stile him Archbishop but bearing the name of Archbishop As though our Bishops were Bishops onely in name But what can you say against him PHIL. I would faine learne of you the place where he was Consecrated I haue read that Maximus was consecrated in the house of a minstrell and it seemeth that Matthew Parker was Consecrated in a Tauerne For doct Kellison saith That hee heard it credibly reported that some of your new Superintendents were made Bishops at the Nags-head in Cheape A fit Church for such a Consecration and it is most likely that Matthew Parker was one of them because he was the first ORTHOD. This of the Nagge 's head doeth call to my remembrance Pope Iohn the 12. who ordained a Deacon in a stable amongst his horses A fit sanctuary for such a Saint Neither is it a tale or fable as yours is but a story Chronicled by Luitprandus who is and euer will be esteemed a learned Historian notwithstanding that Baronius goeth about to discredit him as hee doeth all other writers that make against him And Luitprandus groundeth himselfe not vpon flying reports as Kellison and you doe but vpon two witnesses the one a Bishop the other a Cardinall Iohn bishop of Narnium in Italy and Iohn Cardinall Deacon who did testifie in a Romane Councell in the presence of Otho the Emperour Se vidisse illum Diaconum ordinasse in equorum stabulo i. That they themselues did see him with their owne eyes ordaine a Deacon in a stable of horses But whereas you say that Kellison heard this credibly reported I must tell you that you are very forward in spreading false reports against the Protestants It is credibly reported at Rome that wee in England haue wrapped some Papists in beares skinnes and baited them with dogges That wee inclose dormise in basons and lay them to the sides of the Catholickes to eate out their bowels That wee binde them to mangers and feed them with hay like horses These are shining lies fit Carbuncles for the Popes Miter Neither doe they report them onely but Print them and paint them and publish them with the Popes priuiledge They need a priuiledge which tell such glorious lies This of the Nagge 's head though it goe currant at Rome and bee blazed for a trueth through the world by men of your rancke is cousine germaine to the former as appeareth by the Records of the Archbishopricke which declare that he was consecrated in Capella infra manerium suum de Lambhith That is in the Chappell within his manor of Lambhith Thus you see the falsehood of this fable which was deuised to no other purpose but onely to make our Ministery and Religion seeme odious to all men Is not this strange dealing for men that make such great ostentation of sinceritie and grauitie But for my owne part I doe not maruaile at it your proceedings are but answerable to your doctrines For you teach That an officious lye is but a veniall sin And againe That the Church of Rome is the holy mother Church Therefore to whom should kinde offices rather be performed

yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe cōmonly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were s●aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth

fol. 330. d Ibidem fol. 331. c Ibidem fol. 334. 2. f Sanders de Schis l. 3. pag. 297. l. 2. pag. 205. g Act. 1. 24. h Act. 6. 6. i Act. 13. 3. 14. 23. k Salm. in 2. Tim. 1. disp 2. l See the booke of making and cons●crating Bishops Priests and Deacons * Ibidem a 1. 〈◊〉 ● 14. b 3. 4. Edward ● 〈◊〉 10. c Ibidem ● 12. d 5. 6. Edward ● cap. 1. e The booke of common prayer and of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it c ca● 36. f 1. Mar●●●es 2. cap. 2. g 1. Eliz. c. 2. h 8. Eliz. c. 1. i Bell de Sacram in gen●re l. 1. cap. 24. k Kel reply to Doctour Sut●●f fol. 31 b. a Bel. de sacram ord c. 9. b Sal. t. 15. disp 2. in 2. Tim. 1. c Fab. Incarn Scrut Sacerd. pag. 120. d Manual c. 22. pag. 585. e Bell. quo supra ●0 Nota. f Sacrarum C●rem l. 1. sect 2. pontific p. 96. g Tum aspergit ipsum annulum aqua benedicta Pontificale pag. 105. * Ibid. p. 106. h Pontificale pag. 105. a 〈…〉 b 〈…〉 c Salm qu● su●●a d 〈…〉 e 〈…〉 f Bell de sacr ●●genere ca 26. 〈…〉 nega●●● 2 a Greg. Mart. d●s● c. ●5 ● 〈◊〉 b Ex Regist. Poli fol. 3. c Regist. Poli. fol. 10. d Ibid. fol. 12. a Sand. de schis lib. 3. p. 285. D●cent●● aureos which I translate 200. Nobles because as I take it he meaneth 100. markes according to the Statute 1. Eliz. cap. 2. though he faile in some points of it a 1 Cor. 11. 23 b Codex l. 1. tit 1. Cunctos c August Ep. 48. d August Ep. 50. Ep. 48. verbo agendum disputatione pugnandum f His exemplis a collegis meis mihi propositis cessi ibidem g Defence of Engl. Catholiques p. 15. 2 a Sand de Schis l. 3. pag. 272. b August contra Chresconium l. 3. c. 51. 3 c Sand. de Schis l. 3. p. 283. a Sand. quo supra b Sand. de schis l. 3. pag. 284. c Sand. abidem Pollinus l. 4. c. 5. p. 420. Eudemon Ioh. Parallel c. 5 p. 244. Nich. Baconum non haereticum modo aclaicum hominem sed c. vide infra d Prou. 22. 11. a Sozom. l. 4. cap. 5. b Breuic Coll. in prefatione c August epist. 178. d Apud Bin. t. 2 pag. 1. e Apud Bin. ● 3. pag. 7. f Conc. Eph. t. 2. c. 32 Bin. t. 3 pag. 732. g Ibidem h Ibidem i Eudemon I●l quo supra sed etiam Catholicorum capitale● hostem k Act. Mon. in the ende l Sand l. schis l. 3. pag. 284. 4 a Sand. quo supra b D●fence of Cath. p. 52. 5 c Apud Sand. de Schis lib. 3. pag. 317. d Pag. 286. e Defence of Cath. pag. 45. a Tort Torti pag. 147. b Ibidem c Ibidem d Pag. 103 dum initio Regni c. cited Tort. Torti pag. 149. a 1. King 2. 27. b Bell. resp ad Apolog. p. 157. c Pag 92. d Ibidem e 2. Chron. 22. 11. f Verse 10. g Verse 11. h Verse 12. i 2. Chron. 23. 2. a Bell. quo supra 2. b Luke 3. 2. c See Baron Anno 31. n. 9. 10. d Baron An. 31. n. 8. e De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9. f Hector Pintus in Ezech. c. 44. 3 a 2. Pet. 1. 20. 21. b Bell●de Rom. pont l. 2. c. 29. c Rom. ●3 3. 4. d Bell. quo supra e Ioh. 19. 24. f Mat. 26. 15. g Mat. 2. 17. h Ioh. 19. 28. 29. i In 3. Reg. c. 2. quaest 28. non pon●tur Vt denotando ca●sam sinalem sed Consecuti●um c. k 2. Kin. 9. 25 26. a 1. Chro. 22. 10. 2. Sam. 7. 12. 13. 4 b 1. King 1. 5. c Vers. 7. d Vers. 25. c Tortus f 1. King 1. 52. g 1. King 2. 17. h 1. King 2. 22. i Vers. 25. k 1. Kin 2. 29. l Vers. 30. m 1. King 2. 26. n Vers. 27. o Vers. 35. a Bell. de exemp cler c. 1. pag. 2●4 5 b Ver. 12 41. c Verse 9. d Bell. de exemp cler c. 2. pag. 272. e Exod. 19. 6. f 2. Chr. 17. 7. 8. g 2. Chr. 19. 8. h Vers. 11. i 2. Chr. 29. 4. 5. k Vers. ●5 l Vers. 21. m Vers. 25. n Vers. 30. o 2. Chr. 31. 2. p 2. Kings 18. ● c 2. King 23. 4 d Verse 8. e 1. King 13. 1. f 2. King 23. 20. g Ezech. 44. 13. h Nehemiah 13. 6. i Verse 8. 9. k Verse 28. l 2. Chr. 24. 21. m 1 Sam. 22. 18. n Verse 12. 15. o Bell. de exemp c. 2. p. 272. p Tom. 2. pag. ●85 a Anno 452. b 1. Kin. 4. 1. c De potestate Reg. cap. 19. 6. d De potestate Eccle. tom 12. tract 63. p. 428 e De Rom. pont l. 2. c. 25. f I● 4. sent d. 25. q. 2. g Consideratio P. ● Pauli h Carerius l. 2 c. 18. respondeo primo i Tost in 4. Reg. ● 12. q. 8. Ipse Rex ●ahebat potestatem super Sacerdoses poterat ●os occidere pro crimine sicut quoscunque laicos a fortiori priuare eos officijs dignitatib quantūcunque essent spirituales 7. a Epist. Episc. ad Leonem imper a●ud bin t. 2. p. 178. b Nouel const 6. iuxta sinem c Euagrius l 1. c. 12. ex Codice l. 1. tit 1. Saucimus d Theodor. l. 5. cap. 2. 2 a 〈…〉 153● p. 11● b 〈…〉 c 〈…〉 d 〈…〉 e Defence of English Cathol pag. 4● f Ant. Brit pag. 306. g 〈…〉 3. h See 〈◊〉 Apol. cap. 1. i 〈…〉 4. c. 42. So●r l. 1 c. 3● The●● l. 5. c. ● k 〈…〉 l. 1. l 〈…〉 2. a Leo Epist. 24. b Leo Epist. 43. c Mart. Imper. orat in Conc. Chalced. act 1. Bin. t. 2. p. 4. d Leo Epist. 59. 4. e Concilium octauum act 1. B●n t. 3. p. 880. f Tom. 4. ●art 11. edit Venet. Vide T●rturam T●rti p. 349. ●●n qu● 〈…〉 6 a Cont. M●g●●t 〈◊〉 pr●●●● B●●● 34. 402. a Bin. t. 3. pag. 631. b Council Em●rit●ex Garsia Loa●sa sect 23. Bin. to 2. p. 1183. c Gars in notis in Con● Emer d Tert. ad Scopul e Contra. Parmen l. 5. f Ad pop Antioch hom ● g Rom. 13. 1. 6 a Admonition annexed to the Queens m●un●tions b Art 37. c 〈◊〉 Cal●●●t●● l. 4. ● 10. d Pro. 8. 15. e Dan. 2. 37. a Rom. 13. 1. b De ciuit Dei l. 5. c. 21. c Esai 45. 2. 3. d Aust. ep 50. e Epist. 48. f 1. Tim. 2. 2. g Malach. ● 7. a Psal. 78. 70. b 2. Chron. ●9 11. c Calu●n Amos 7. 13. 7. d Bish. Bilson true diffrence e 1 Sam. 15. 17. a 2. Kings 11 4. b Scultingius Biblioth Catho t. 5. p. 106. c Reginales prelati Sand. de

send mee thither Marry quoth the King and to him will I send you So hee was sent with the Earle of Wiltshier Embassadour to the Pope who thrust out his glorious foote to bee kissed of them which they refusing the Earles spanniell running somewhat too familiarly did catch and bite him by the great toe Then the cause of their Embassage being declared the Earle deliuered Cranmers booke to the Pope and with all tolde him that hee had brought with him learned men out of England which were ready to defend by Scriptures Fathers and Councels whatsoeuer was contained in that booke against all that should contradict it The Pope promised sundry times a day of disputation but dallied out the matter as his Legates had done before in England so giuing them honourable entertainment hee made Cranmer his penitentiarie and dismissed them Then the rest returning Cranmer was sent by the kings appointment Embassadour into Germany to the Emperour where hee drewe many vnto his side and among the rest Cornelius Agrippa Moreouer the King did not onely consult with the most learned Diuines and Lawyers in the whole kingdome but also caused the question to bee publiquely disputed in the Vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge both which did vtterly condemne the marriage Neither did hee thus rest but sent Bishop Bonner to the Vniuersities of France and Italie which affirmed vnder their seales that the marriage was vnlawfull and that no man might dispense with it Where it is to be obserued that some of these Vniuersities professe that they tooke an oath euery man to deliuer and to study vpon the foresaide questions as should bee to the pleasure of God and according to conscience After these determinations were reade in open Parliament there were shewed aboue an hundred bookes drawne by Doctours of strange regions which all agreed the kings marriage to bee vnlawfull Now to proceed the King considering the Popes dealing forbad all suites to the Court of Rome by proclamation in September 1530. which Sanders calleth the first beginning of the manifest schisme About the same time Cardinall Wolsey was cast in a premunire and all the Bishops of England for maintaining the power Legatine of the Cardinall But the Bishops beeing called into the Kings Bench before the day of their appearance concluded an humble submission offered the King I 18000. pounds to pardon the premunire and withall gaue him the title of Supreme head of the Church of England Yea Archbishop Warham told him that it was his right to haue it before the Pope and that Gods word would beare it Which proceedings in England did so kindle and enflame the Popes choller that neither the bookes of learned men nor the determinations of Vniuersities nor the offering of disputation nor his owne former Bull and Decree could now hinder him from giuing a contrary publick definitiue sentence dated in his consistorie at Rome the twentie third of March Anno 1532. ABout this time dyed Archbishop Warham while Cranmer was Embassadour in Germany and vpon the vacancie of the Archbishopricke the King sent for him home with purpose to aduance him to that great dignitie but he pretended matters of great importance requiring his abode in Germany by which meanes he deferred his comming for halfe a yeeare And being come home and perceiuing that the place was reserued for him hee imployed his greatest friends to shift it off When the King did personally impart his intent vnto him hee disabled himselfe by all possible meanes vsing all perswasions to alter the Kings determination When he saw the Kings constant resolution he humbly crauing pardon of his grace franckly opened his conscience vnto him declaring that if hee accepted that office then hee must receiue it at the Popes hand which he neither would not could doe for that his highnesse was the onely supreme gouernour of this Church of England as well in causes ecclesiasticall as temporall that the donation of Bishoprickes belonged to the King and not to any forraine authoritie whatsoeuer All which proceedings doe not argue any ambitious or aspiring cogitations but rather an humble and lowly minde preferring the sinceritie of a good conscience before all glorious pompe and worldly dignities The King seeing the tendernesse of his conscience consulted with the learned in the law how hee might bestow the Bishopricke vpon him and yet not enforce him to any thing against his conscience In conclusion hee tooke the oath to the Pope but not after the manner of his predecessours as Sanders slanderously affirmeth For then hee should haue taken it simply and absolutely which hee did not but with a protestation expressing the condition and qualification Neither did hee make his protestation priuately in a corner and then take the oath in publicke as Sanders would make the world beleeue for if this could bee proued then had you reason to condemne him of fraud and periurie but it was not so He did not vse his protestation in any secret and concealed manner like to equiuocating Papists which take oaths in absolute words and yet delude them with mentall reseruations but he made it plainely and publickly first in the Chapter house secondly kneeling before the high Altar in the hearing both of the Bishops and people at his consecration Thirdly in the very same place and in the very same forme and tenour of wordes when by commission from the Pope they deliuered him the Pall. And the summe of the protestation was this that hee intended not to binde himselfe to anything which was contrary to the lawe of God or contrary to the king or common wealth of England or the Lawes and prerogatiues of the same nor to restraine his owne libertie to speake consult or consent in all and euery thing concerning the reformation of Christian religion the gouernment of the Church of England and the prerogatiue of the Crowne or the commodity of the Common wealth and euery where to execute and reforme such things which he should thinke fitte to be reformed in the Church of England and according to this interpretation and this sence and no otherwise he professed and protested that he would take the oath Now if you censure Cranmer because he qualified his oath with such a protestation what censure shal be giuen of your Popish Bishops before Cranmer which took two absolute othes to the King and to the Pope containing manifest contradiction as K. Henry himselfe declared causing thē both to be read in open Parliament And Cranmer hath made the point plaine both in his answere to B. Brookes and in his letters to Queene Marie Or if you censure Cranmer for swearing to the Pope with Qualification what censure will you giue of Heath Bonner Thurlby and the rest that in King Henries daies tooke absolutely the oath of Supremacie which euidently excludeth the Popes authoritie BVt to returne to K. Henry who seeing

you compasse sea and land to make one proselite and when hee is become one you make him two fould more the childe of Hell then yee your selues are But when he is reconciled what is then to be done PHIL. Though now hee bee a Catholicke when the Diuell is coniured out of him yet before he can be Priest hee must be cast wholy in a newe mould For as I told you we account your Ministers but meerly lay men without orders ORTHOD. The more to blame you and therein you degenerate from your forefathers as may appeare by the articles sent by Queene Mary to Bishop Bonner one whereof was this Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders considering they were not ordered in very deede the bishop of the Diocesse finding otherwise sufficiency and abilitie in these men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Heere you see that they did not ordaine them a new but onely supply that which they thought to be wanting and therefore they misliked not our orders in whole but in part PHIL. Yes they wholly misliked them as you may see by the words considering they were not ordered in very deed If they were not ordered in very deed then howsoeuer they pretended orders yet they had no orders at all but were meerely lay men and so are you For that which they call the new sort and fashion of orders was according to the booke established by King Edward which is vsed in England to this very day ORTHO Doth not a Bishop ordaine when he imposeth handes and saith Receiue the holy Ghost whose sinnes you forgiue c. PHIL. I answere that Priests are ordained when it is said vnto them take thou power to offer sacrifice but they are also ordained afterward when it is said vnto them Receiue the holy Ghost For by the former wordes they are ordained to the function of sacrificing by the latter to the function of absoluing by both ioyntly to the full and perfect order of Priesthood ORTHOD. But these words Receiue the holy Ghost were vsed in king Edwards time and are to this day in the Church of England in making of Ministers And therefore those that are promoted to orders after the new sort and fashion as you call it are ordered in very deed neither did the Penners of the article meane otherwise PHIL. Are not their words plaine that they were not ordered in very deed ORTHOD. They meant that they were not ordered fully and perfectly therfore aduised the Bishops to supply that which wanted Which they could not say with reason if they had thought them to be meerely lay men therefore they iudged them to bee Priests in part and yet part of the office to bee wanting which needed supply That which they had was the power receiued by these wordes Receiue the holy Ghost That which they supposed to be wanting was the power of sacrificing Therefore their meaning was not to reiterate that which they had but to supply that which was wanting in their cōceit euen as we on the contrary side cause such as come from Popery to vs to renounce the power of sacrificing which we hold sacrilegious but doe not reiterate those Euangelicall words wherin we agree And this you must needes grant vnlesse you will allow of reordination PHIL. Reordination God forbid No sir we will neuer allow of that For order imprinteth a Character and therefore can neuer be reiterated ORTHOD. But you granted before that a Priest is ordained when the Bishop saith vnto him Receiue the holy Ghost And therefore if the power of remitting sinnes giuen in these words were reiterated either in Queene Maries time or among you at this day in ordaining your proselytes then you cannot possibly defend your Church from Reordination If you abhorre Re-ordination then you must confesse that when any Minister reuolteth from vs to you yet in making him Priest you must not repeat those words Receiue the holy Ghost which proueth inuincibly that vnlesse you will be contrary vnto your selues you cannot esteeme vs to bee meerely lay men Or if you will needs aduance your owne orders and make a nullitie in ours and order our fugitiue Ministers accordingly then you must runne there is no remedy vpon the rocke of Reordination by repeating the words wherein we agree PHIL. Though we agree in the wordes yet we differ in the sense ORTHOD. That is no barre to Reordination for if a child bee Baptised in the true forme of words an Heretick shall Baptise the same child in the same wordes though in another sense yet all good Christians will iudge it to be Rebaptisation and there is the same reason of Reordination Therefore thus I reason When you Metamorphise an English Minister into a Popish Priest either you repeat the words Receiue the holy Ghost or you doe not if you doe repeat them then I haue made it manifest that you vse Reordination If you doe not then you iustifie not onely our practise but also our orders For you hold these words necessary in ordination to the conferring of one of the principall functions of Priesthood and therfore in not repeating them you acknowledge that they had receiued that function before in the Church of England consequently that the ministers of England are not lay men So your owne practise doth either condemne your selues or iustifie vs but our practise condemneth altogether the first part of your Priesthood that is your carnall sacrificing as simply abhominable and the latter part so farre as it is polluted with your popish constructions PHIL. If the first part of our Priesthood bee simply abhominable and the latter as it is vsed by vs bee polluted then Cranmer Ridley Parker Grindall and the rest of your Coronels had no other Priesthood but that which was partly abhominable and partly polluted ORTHO When God opened their eyes they did vtterly renounce your carnall sacrificing as derogating from the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ the other part that is the power of forgiuing sinnes which they receiued corruptly in the Church of Rome they practised purely in the Church of England renouncing the Pope and all Popish pollutions PHIL. But when the question is concerning the validity of orders wee must not so much respect the practise as the power receiued in ordination how Cranmer Parker and such like receiued both parts of their Priesthood in the Church of Rome And as the Church gaue them so they receiued them in that very sense which the Church of Rome holdeth at this day Wherefore seeing you condemned both parts as we vse them for nettles I cannot but maruell how you can be Roses ORTHOD. Let me aske you a question If one Baptize a Conuert in the Element of water according to the true forme of the Church yet so that both the Baptizer and the baptized haue

hostes hee ought to leaue his impieties in seducing the people and to serue God by teaching the trueth In that he is a Priest God hath armed him with a calling to deliuer his message for performance wherof he needeth no new calling but grace to vse that well which before he abused ORTHOD. Apply this to the present point and you may satisfie your selfe PHIL. To make the Prince Supreame Gouernour or head of the Church is vnnaturall for shall the sheepe feede the flocke or the sonne guide the Father ORTHO As the Priest is a father and shepheard in respect of the Prince so the Prince is a shepheard and father in respect of the Priest The Lord chose Dauid his seruant and tooke him from the sheepfolds euen from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in Iacob and his inheritance in Israel so hee fed them according to the simplicitie of his heart and guided them by the discretion of his hands And Ezechias called the Priests his sonnes If the Prince be their sheepheard then he must feede them if he be their father then hee must guide them this is naturall PHIL. THis stile of the Crowne was so distastfull to Caluin that he called it blasphemy and sacriledge ORTHOD. It is certaine that he did not differ from vs in iudgement But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner who expounded it as though the king had power vt statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit to establish at his pleasure whatsoeuer he would which Caluin exemplifieth in the words of Gardiner the king may forbid Priests to marry debar the people frō the Cup in the Lords Supper because forsooth potestas umma est penes regem the highest power is in the king This is that which Caluin calleth blasphemie and sacriledge and so will we But if Caluin had beene truely informed that nothing had beene meant by this title but to exclude the Pope and to acknowledge the kings lawfull authoritie ouer his owne subiects not in diuising new Articles of faith or coyning new formes of religion as Ieroboam did his calues but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded without all question Caluin had neuer misliked it In this sense and no other that title was giuen him Neither did the king take it otherwise for ought that we can learne PHIL. If the title were not blame worthy why was it altered ORTHOD. In the beginning of the Queenes raigne the nobles and sundry of the Clergy perceiuing that some out of ignorance and infirmitie were offended at the title of supreame head of the Church humbly intreated her maiestie that it might be expressed in some plainer termes whereto her clemency most graciously condiscended accepting the title of supreame gouernour being the same in substance with the former So this alteration was not made as thogh the other were blame worthy for the phrase is according to the Scripture which calleth the king head of the tribes of Israel And the sense thereof is agreeable to the true meaning both of Scripture and also of ancient Fathers Councels and practise both of the kings of Iudah and of Christian Emperours as hath beene declared where it was as lawfull for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalfe of the Prince against the Pope as it was for Iehoiada to exact an oath in behalfe of king Ioas against the vsurper Athalia which oath being holy and lawfull the refusall of it was disloyaltie and a iust cause of depriuation Hitherto of the Bishops deposed now let vs proceed to such as succeed them CHAP. IIII. Of the Consecration of the most reuerend father Archbishop Parker PHIL. YOur Bishops deriue their counterfeit authoritie not from lawfull Consecration or Catholicke inauguration but from the Queene and Parliaments For in England the king yea and the Queene may giue their letters patents to whom they will and they thencefoorth may beare themselues for Bishops and may begin to ordaine Ministers So wee may iustly say that among the Caluinists in England there raigned a woman Pope But such was the order of Christs Church which the Apostles founded Priests to be sent by Priests and not by the letters patents of kings or Queenes ORTHOD. These shamelesse Papists would make the world beleeue that our Bishops deriue not their Consecration from Bishops but from kings and Queenes which is an impudent slaunder For our kings doe that which belongeth to kings and our Bishops doe that which belongeth to Bishops In the vacancie of any Archbishopricke or Bishopricke the king granteth to the Deane and Chapter a licence vnder the great Seale as of old time hath beene accustomed to proceed to an election with a letter missiue containing the name of the person which they shall elect and chuse which being duly performed and signified to the King vnder the common seale of the electors the king giueth his royal assent and signifying and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bishops as the law requireth he giueth them commission and withall requireth and commaundeth them to confirme the said election and to inuest and Consecrat● the said person vsing all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same Whereupon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient forme in those cases vsed do cause all such as can obiect or take exception either in generall or particular either against the manner of the election or the person elected to be cited publikely and peremptorily to make their appearance When the validitie of the election and sufficiency of the person are by publike actes and due proceedings iudicially approued then followeth Consecration which is performed by a lawfull number of lawfull Bishops and that in such forme as is required by the ancient Canons PHIL. I Will prooue that your Bishops in the beginning of the Queenes reigne deriued not their authoritie from lawfull Consecration but from the Queene and Parliament For being destitute of all lawfull ordination when they were commonly said and prooued by the lawes of England to bee no Bishops they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power that they might receiue the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament by authoritie whereof it any thing were done amisse and not according to the prescript of the Law or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration it might be pardoned them and that after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office and Chaire certaine yeeres without any Episcopall Consecration Hence it was that they were called Parliament Bishops ORTHO The Parliament which you meane was in the eighth yeere of Queene Elizabeth wherein first they reproue the ouer much boldnesse of some which slandered the estate of the Clergy by calling into question whether their making and Consecrating were according to Law Secondly they touch such lawes as concerne the point