might descend by degrees to the lowest lincke euen to the last Bishop of England whence we might returne againe ascending and climbing vp to the Apostles themselues But now alas since the time of Schisme in stead of Golden linckes you haue added leaden so that there is a breach a rupture a plaine dissolution in the chaine You may well climbe vp a few steps by the leaden ladder but you must downe againe you haue no part nor portion in the Golden ladder of succession which leadeth vs vp to S. Peter and so to Christ himselfe For the Church of Rome and that onely hath Canonicall Bishops All other are but counterfeit ORTHOD. Iust For all the Popes geese are Swannes and other mens Swannes are geese PHIL. I Might bring the Church insulting against you as Tertullian did against the heretickes of his time Qui estis quando vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo Marcion iure syluam meam caedis qua licentia Valentine fontes meos transuertis Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus quorum fuit res Ego sum haeres Apostolorum sicut cauerunt testamento sicut fidei commiserunt sicut adiurauerunt ita teneo 1. Who are you when and whence came you what doe you in my ground seeing you are not mine O Luther by what authoritie doest thou cut downe my woods O Caluin By what licence doest thou turne away the course of my fountaines It is my possession I possesse it by prescription I was first in possession I haue strong Euidences from the true owners I am the heire of the Apostles as they appointed by testament as they committed it to trust as they bind men by adiuration that it should be enioyed so I enioy it ORTHO To answere all your demaunds in order We are the children of God and when it pleased him which causeth the light to spring out of darkenesse we did spring from your selues being still content to be yours so you would be Christs Otherwise know that the Vineyard is not yours but Christs wherein we haue cut downe nothing but your corruptions Neither haue we diuerted the fountaine though wee were forced to cut out a chanell to draine it to straine it to purge it from your pollutions that so wee might drinke the water of Life out of the wells of saluation Whatsoeuer you haue by lawfull possession by ancient and iust prescription by inheritance from the Apostles whereof you haue sound Record and euidence out of the Scripture All that is common to vs with you Whatsoeuer is controuersed betweene vs in any point of Religion therein we appeale to the written Will and Testament of Christ Let that be Iudge betweene vs and you PHIL. When the question was betweene the Iewes and the Samaritanes concerning the Temple whether the Lord in his Law allowed that at Ierusalem or that other in mount Garizin Andronicus produced the succession of the high Priests from Aaron Whereupon Ptolomeus King of Egypt gaue sentence for the Temple at Ierusalem What say you had he not reason ORTHO He had For the Lord gaue the Priesthood onely to Aaron and his sonnes so they only had title to the Priesthood who descended from Aaron by carnall generation But Aaron and his sonnes according to the Law of the Lord performed the Priests Office in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple at Ierusalem the place which the Lord had chosen Wherefore as they alone were the Priests of the Lord so that alone was the Temple of the Lord. PHIL. Very well Now to proceed We of the Church of Rome are built vpon S. Peter as it were vpon mount Sion you are built vpon Cranmer as it were vpon mount Garizin We haue a Church and Priesthood which deriue their originall from Christ you can goe no further then Cranmer Now if this matter were put to King Ptolomy or any other indifferent man would not he giue iudgement for vs against you ORTHOD. No Neither for your Priesthood nor for your Church Not for the first because the Priesthood which the Apostles conferred was only a power to minister the word and Sacraments which being conueied to posteritie successiuely by Ordination is found at this day in some fort in the Church of Rome in regard whereof you may be said to succeed the Apostles and Cranmer you and wee Cranmer and consequently we also in this succeed the Apostles as well as you But besides this which is the Ordinance of God you haue added another thing the imagination of your owne braine which you esteeme the principall function of Priesthood to wit a power to offer a Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead Now how is it possible that in this you should succeed the Apostles seeing as in due place shall be prooued they neither were such Priestes themselues nor euer by Ordination deliuered any such Priest-hood And as Ptolomy if hee liued in this age could not iustifie your Priestes so neither could hee nor any indifferent man iustifie your Church by vertue of this Argument drawne from outward succession For how slender it is may appeare by consideration of the Greek Church which Bellarmine denieth to be a Church pretending That they were conuicted in three full councels of Schisme and heresie yet Constantinople can fetch her pedegree from Saint Andrew the Apostle as witnesseth Nicephorus and bring it downeward euen to Ieremie who liued in this present age Likewise the Church of Alexandria chalengeth succession as well and as truely as the Romane Baronius recordeth an Ambassage from Gabriell their Patriach to Clemens the eight in the title whereof he calleth himselfe the 97. Patriarch successor of Saint Marke the Euangelist If you say that the line of Constantinople and Alexandria hath beene interrupted be it so And hath not the Romane beene so likewise Genebrard is of opinion that fifty Popes by the space of almost 150. yeeres were not Apostolicall but Apotacticall and Apostaticall Baronius lamenteth that false Popes were thrust by strumpets into the seat of Peter Platina saith it was grown to that passe that any factious fellow might inuade the seat of Peter I passe ouer your hereticall Popes your woman Pope and your Antipopes whereof you haue had some times two some times three at once so that one could not tell which was the true Pope but onely by the preuayling faction For he that wonne it in the field must weare the garland the weaker side must to the walles and ambitious wittes must bee set a worke by writing to maintaine the Popes quarrell Haue you not now great cause to bragge of this noble succession If you expound your selfe not of Local and personall but of such as appeareth in successiue Vocation Mission and Ordination then why doe you tell vs of Polydor Virgil or of Democharis or of the old monument found in a
once of minde to haue proceeded no further But after the funerall of his father some of his Councell alleadging reasons and producing the Popes dispensation so preuailed with him that the marriage proceeded and they had issue besides those that died in their infancie the Lady Marie This was misliked of many insomuch that when a motion was made of a marriage betweene the Duke of Orleance and the Lady Mary one of the Counsellours to the French King made a doubt whether shee were the king of Englands lawfull daughter because shee was begotten of his brothers wife which scruple was first mooued in the Court of Spaine and thence was spread to France and Flanders Moreouer Cardinall Woolsie aduised Longland Bishop of Lincolne the Kings Confessor to admonish him of it Which the Bishop modestlie refused as fitter to bee performed by himselfe So the Cardinall vndertooke the businesse to whom the King answered Take heed that you call not againe into question a thing which is alreadie iudged About three daies after Longland beeing brought by Wolsey vnto the King entreated his Maiestie That hee would permit the matter to bee considered and examined In the meane time the Cardinall did cast abroad rumors among the people concerning the blemish of the former marriage and how both the Germanes and French men misliked the same which hee is supposed to haue done not of conscience but of malice and subtilty because hauing missed the Popedome by the Emperours meanes hee would bee reuenged of the Queene which was the Emperours Aunt and withall hee is said to haue commended vnto King Henry The beautifull Ladie Margaret Sister to the French King hoping by the assistance of two such mightie Princes in time to aspire to the Popedome WHich proiect though God which scattereth the imaginatiōs of the proud disapointed him of his purpose was such that nothing could haue bin inuented either more profitable for the kingdome or more pernicious to himselfe the Pope and the Court of Rome For this scruple did kindle such a fire in the kings bosome that it vexed his very soule and conscience Whereupon the king being desirous to haue the matter decided to the vttermost so farre preuailed with Pope Clement the seuenth that hee appointed two Cardinals to heare the matter Wolsey Archbishop of Yorke Campeius who arriued the seuenth of October 1528. At this time there was great war between Charles the Emperor and Francis the French king about the kingdome of Naples wherein the Pope wished that the French might preuaile least the Emperour obtaining it should sit too close vpon his skirts Wherefore to weaken the Emperour he moued a league betweene the English and the French for procuring whereof hee did not onelie referre this matrimoniall cause to his said Legats but also of his owne meere motion no man requesting him gaue Campeius a secret Bull in his bosome dated the sixth of the kal of Ian. anno 1527. Wherein hee infringeth the former dispensation affirming that the king could not continue in such a matrimonie without sinne Whereupon he decreed that after the declaration of the nullitie of the former marriage and the kings absolution it should be lawfull for him to marry another This Bull hee forbad him to shew to any saue onely to the King and Cardinall Woolsey And though openly he commaunded him to handle the cause with all expedition yet secretlie hee willed him to protract the time promising that hee himselfe would watch a fit oportunitie to publish the Decree So the King and Queene were cited to appeare before them in May following at which time after some debating of the cause they protracted the sentence till the beginning of August notwithstanding the Kings earnest entreatie to haue a finall determination one way or other for the better quieting of his troubled conscience When August came the King expected an end but the crafty Cardinals considering that if they should iudge according to Gods law it would bee a great derogation from the Church of Rome deuised delayes so Campeius alleadged that hee was a member of the Court of Rome whose custome was to keepe a solemne vacation in the dogge daies and thereupon deferred iudgement till October following In the meane time the Pope seeing that King Henry could not bee drawne by hope of diuorce to take part with the French sent to Campeius Commanding him to burne the former Bull. And before the beginning of October Campeius was called home by the Popes letters The King beeing thus deluded sent to the Pope at Bononie requesting some end but hee would needs pause vpon the matter till he came to Rome ABout this time it pleased the diuine prouidence so to dispose that the King for his recreation went to Waltam twelue miles from London in the way imparted his griefe to Stephen Gardiner his Secretary and Doct. Fox his Almoner intreating them to bee carefull in so weighty a cause It fell out that they lodged in the house of one Master Cressy whither Cranmer also beeing tutor to two of Master Cressyes sonnes was come at that time with his pupils by reason of the plague then in Cambridge At supper they asked his iudgement concerning the Kings cause hee answered that nothing did more prolong the cause nor more torment the Kings conscience then the dilatory protractions and winding inuolutions in the Romane Court with which snares whosoeuer are once intangled doe hardly euer recouer themselues Wherefore hee thought good that leauing those Courtly trials and delayes wherewith the King was so tossed with such griefes of minde The opinions of Diuines both in our owne Vniuersities and in others should bee enquired concerning this cause which is determinable by the Lawe of God and not by the Law of man And if the Diuines shall agree and pronounce that the marriage is lawfull or vnlawfull by the Law of God let not the king seeke any more to the Court of Rome but cause sentence to bee giuen in his owne dominions according to the iudgement of the Diuines so being cheerefull in minde and free in conscience hee may liue a Princely life and worthy this common-wealth in lawfull matrimonie which is to be wished of all vs Christian subiects This answere pleased them exceedingly and they presently related it vnto the King to whom Doctor Fox made mention of Cranmer but Gardiner would haue challenged all the glory to themselues Then said the King Where is that Cranmer hee hath the sowe by the right eare If I had knowne this deuice but two yeeres before I might haue saued much charges and trouble so the King conferred with Cranmer and commanded him to set downe his minde in writing at the deliuery whereof the King asked him if hee would stand to iustifie that which hee had written before the Bishop of Rome Cranmer answered yea that I will doe by Gods grace if your Maiestie doe
exceedingly addicted to Baronius yet in this point hee forsakes him and maketh no mention of Conciliati PHIL. You must not thinke that they were consecrated againe but receiued the mysterie of blessing after the manner of their ancestours which the Authour named the Sacrament of blessing ORTHOD. By Sacrament of blessing is meant the Sacrament of order For the Bishop which pronounceth the wordes whereby the mysticall blessing or the spirituall power is giuen is saide in the fourth Councell of Carthage to powre out the blessing PHIL. But the meaneth onely those solemnities which were accustomed to be vsed in the reconciliation of a Schismaticke or Hereticke ORTH. So saith Baronius but I will proue the contrary For as you heard before it was decreed that all which Constantine did in Ecclesiasticall Sacraments and diuine worship should be reiterated excepting onely Baptisme and confirmation but what thinke you did not Pope Stephen and the Romaine Councell account holy orders an Ecclesiasticall Sacrament PHIL. Yes vndoubtedly ORTH. Then vndoubtedly they decreede that the holy orders should be reiterated which were giuen by Constantine And therfore if they were onely reconciled and not reordained then Pope Stephen did contrary to his own decree which is most absurde Wherefore it is a cleare case that Pope Stephen the fourth vsed reordination PHIL. If he did so then he was blame worthy For though Constantine were a Schismaticall Antipope though of a lay man hee was suddenly made Bishop and hudled vp his orders in all hast contrary to the Canons yet wee cannot deny but he receiued those orders and had power in respect of his Episcopall Character to deliuer them vnto others And seeing his Character was indeleble as wee haue proued therefore though he had not onely beene a Schismaticke but also an Hereticke excommunicated and degraded yet he could not haue lost his power of giuen orders ORTHOD. If you continue constant in this opinion then you must at your leasure bethinke yourselfe how it may be reconciled with your former allegations out of Pope Innocent Pope Iohn and Pope Nicolas in the meane time it is sufficient for vs to take that you grant PHIL. I tolde you it was a disputable point and seemed almost insoluble to Peter Lombard Yet now at last by much disputing the trueth is found out learned men are agreed vpon it and vnlesse I be deceiued the holy doctrine of the indeleble character deliuered in the Councels of Florence and Trent was the very needle to direct their course CHAP. X. Of the Bishops Consecrated in the time of King Henry the eighth after the abolishing of the Popes Iurisdiction ORTH. THen at last to gather into briefe heads that which hath beene discoursed at large you graunt that Archbishop Cranmer was a Canonicall Bishop PHIL. I grant it for the reasons before alleadged ORTHO And you make no doubt of any of the Bishops of England before Cranmer PHIL. None at all as you heard before ORTHOD. And you say that euery Canonicall Bishop hath an Episcopall Character PHIL. We say so ORTHOD. And that this Character is so indeleble that no schisme no sinne no heresie no censures of the Church no excommunication suspension interdiction degradation nothing nothing at all sauing onely death if death can dissolue it otherwise it is euerlasting PHIL. All this was proued out of the most famous Councels of Florence and Trent ORTH. And that euery Bishop by vertue of his Episcopall Character hath power to giue holy orders yea euen the order of a Bishop PHIL. Very true so he be assisted by a sufficient number of Bishops and impose hands vpon a capable person according to the forme of the Church ORTHOD. THen to proceed to the rest of the Bishops consecrated in King Henries daies in the time of the pretended schisme were not they capable of the Episcopall function PHIL. Though King Henry abolished the authoritie of the Pope yet the sacrifice of the Masse continued till the end of his reigne So we make no doubt but the Priesthood then in vse was a sacrificing Priesthood complete in all points and consequently capable of the Episcopal Character notwithstanding the crime of schisme and heresie ORTHOD. Then George Browne Archbishop of Dublin Edmond Bonner whom king Henry preferred to Hereford and thence to London Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Westminster and such like were all capable of the Episcopall office PHIL. There is no doubt of it ORTH. If these and such other as returned to the Pope in the dayes of Queene Mary why not William Barlow Rowland Lee Thomas Goodrich Iohn Hodgeskins For in King Henries dayes they were all alike all Masse Priestes and yet all opposite to the Popes Supremacy PHIL. There is one reason of all ORTHOD. If the Consecrated were capable what say you to the Consecrators were not they sufficient If they were not then what will become of Heath Bonner and Thurlby PHIL. They were sufficient ORTHOD. But were the Consecrations performed by a sufficient number of assistants PHIL. Yes verely ORTHOD. Then it seemeth that King Henry did not disanull the Canons of the Church which required that a Bishop should be Consecrated by three PHIL. No truely but rather established them by act of Parliament as Doctor Sanders acknowledgeth speaking of Henry the eight Cum ab Ecclesia sede Apostclica regnum suum diuisisset decreuit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas pontificias vel mandatum Apoâ—â—olicum de consecratione requireret sed regium tantum diploma vt adferret secundum quod a tribus Episcopis cum consensu Metropolitae ordinatus iubebatur lege conâ—itâ—orum facta ad imitationem antiquorum Canonum esse verus Episcopus nec alto modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci oportere That is Henry the eighth when he had diuided his kingdome from the Church and see Apostolicke decreed that no man elected Bishop should require the Popes Buls or mandate Apostolicke concerning his Consecration but that he should bring onely the kings letters patents according to which being ordained of three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane he was enacted to be a true Bishop by the law of Parliament made to the imitation of the ancient Canons and that no man otherwise Consecrated should be acknowledged for a Bishop ORTHOD Then it seemeth that all the Bishops in King Henries time were Consecrated by three PHIL. How could it be otherwise you haue heard out of Doctor Sanders that the Canons required three the act of Parliament required three and it appeareth by the act itselfe that if any Archbishop or Bishops did not within twentie dayes next after that the kings letters patents came to their hands Consecrate the person presented with all due circumstance they incurred the penaltie of a premunire therefore we may presume that the practise of those dayes was continually by three ORTHOD. SVrely it was then practised from time to time as may appeare by recorde whereof I will giue
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
Christian Princes that they should be nursing fathers of the Church therfore it must bee a part of their Princely care to prouide such nurses as shall feede it with the milke of the Gospel Thirdly in the new Testament Concerning the election of pastours we find neither precept nor any such example as can bee vrged for an euerlasting and vnchangeable rule And if wee look into the practise of the Church it will appeare that it hath bene disposed of in diuers ages in diuers maners according to diuers customes and positiue lawes of Princes growing out of the diuersitie of circumstances and occasions Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left it as a thing indifferent to the discretion of the Church whereof the Christian Prince is not onely a part but Supreame gouernour vnder Christ in which respect though hee were not Patron he hath a transcendent and supereminent power so that the Soueraigne direction and moderation of the matter belongeth vnto him Which was acknowledged to be the kings right euen in the time of Popery as may appeare by the practise for after the death of any incumbent of any Church with cure if the Patron presented not within sixe monethes the Bishop of that Diocesse might bestow it to the end the cure should not bee destitute of a pastour if he neglected the time appointed the Metropolitane of that Diocesse might aduāce one to that Church if he also should leaue the Church destitute by the space limitted vnto him then it belonged to the king and not to the Bishop of Rome to prouide a competent pastour for that Church Thus it is euident that though Churches had Patrons to prouide Pastours for them according to the kings Lawes and Bishops and Archbishops to see it sufficiently done yet in case of neglect the care of it was deuolued to the King as being Supreme gouernour euen in these cases within his own Dominiōs If you say that this was by the grant of the Pope the contrary is manifest because in the 25. of Edward the 3. in the noble statute of prouisours the Bishop of Rome is said to vsurpe the Seignories of such possessions and benefices Wherefore the Lawes of the land and the ancient custome of the Kingdome concurring with the generall practise of Princes receiued with the applause of the whole Christian world doe sufficiently proclaime the right of our Princes in this behalfe especially seeing as K William Rufus truly said The king of England hath all the liberties in his Kingdome which the Emperour challenged in the Empire Hitherto of the right of Princes as they are Princes Now of their right as they are Patrons IN Patronages we may consider two things The causes and the effects The causes originally inducing the Church of God to approoue them were three First because Princes and Lords of the soile out of their deuotion and charitable bounty gaue some of their owne ground for the situation of Churches and the habitation of Ministers resigning their owne right into the hands of the Bishop of the Diocesse and so dedicating it euerlastingly to the Lord. Secondly because vpon that ground they built Churches for holy meetings and dwelling places for the messengers of the Lord. Thirdly because they allowed maintenance both for the Church and the Minister as is expressed in this verse Patronum faciunt dos edificatio fundus The effects of Patronage are three Honos Onus and Vtilitas The first is Honos honour of nominating and presenting a fit Clerke the honour of precedency in sitting in his owne Church and in some places to great personages the honour of Procession For example to the Duke of Venice in the Church of S. Marke The second is Onus a burden for in being a Patron hee vndertaketh the Protection of that Church The third is Vtilitas profit for if he or his children fall into pouerty they must be releeued out of the reuenues of the same Church An example whereof happened in a noble citizen of Perusia These prerogatiues of Patrons were all anciently approoued both by Ciuill and Canon Law But to passe ouer the rest I will onely single out the prerogatiue of presenting In the 9. Councell of Toledo holden in the yeere 655. it was decreed as followeth As long as the founders of Churches remaine aliue they shall bee suffered to haue the chiefe care in those places and they shall offer fit Rectours vnto the Bishop to be ordained in the same Churches And if the Bishop while the Founder liueth shall despise them and presume to ordaine Rectours in the same place Let him know that his Ordination shall be voide and to his shame others shall be ordained whom the Founders shall chuse And before that in the yeere 541. Iustinian made this Constitution That if any man will build an house of prayer and hee or his heires will haue Clerkes to be promoted therein if they allow maintenance for those Clerkes and name such as are worthy let those which are named be ordained Now to apply this to our present purpose It is a cleare case that all the Bishopricks in England were founded by the Kings Ancestours And therefore the Aduousons of them all belong to the King And it is cleare by the Lawes of the land That our Kings haue had and ought to haue the custodie of the same in the Vacancy and the presentments and collations of those Prelacies as Lords and Aduowes of all the lands and possessions that belong either to Cathedrall Churches or Bishops Vpon all these premises this conclusion followeth that this right we speake of belongeth to our Princes as Patrons by Ciuil Canon and the common Lawes of the land To these two former respects we may adde a third drawne from this consideration that our Bishops by the fauour of Princes are Spiritual Lords and Barons in Parliament and therefore it were very hard if men of so great power and place should be obtruded vpon the Prince without his consent Hitherto of the lawfull right of Princes ANd as they haue the collation of Bishopricks most lawfully so they conferre them most fitly most freely and most safely Most fitly because they haue largest scope to choose best meanes to discerne greatest power to procure and assist such as are most eminent for learning and vertue Most freely because they are farther from suspition of corruption then either people or Prelate For to vse the words of a reuerend Bishop Howsoeuer ambitious heads and couetous hands may lincke together vnder colour of commendation to deceiue and abuse Princes eares yet reason and duetie bindeth mee and all others to thinke and say that Princes persons are of all others farthest from taking money for any such respects In meaner persons more iustly may corruption be feared then in Princes who of all others haue least need and so least cause to set Churches to sale Their abundance their magnificence their
OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND With their Succession Jurisdiction and other things incident to their calling AS ALSO OF THE ORDINATION of Priests and Deacons FIVE BOOKES Wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of BELLARMINE SANDERS BRISTOW HARDING ALLEN STAPLETON PARSONS KELLISON EVDEMON BECANVS 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 Hebr. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron ¶ IMPRINTED AT LONDON by ROBERT BARKER Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie Anno 1613. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD GEORGE LORD ARCHbishop of Canterburie his Grace Primate of all England and Metropolitane And one of his Maiesties most Honourable Priuie Counsell AS in the Romane triumphes the worthy Conquerour gloriously ascending vnto the Capitoll did shew his magnificence by giuing ample gifts vnto the people euen so most reuerend father our victorious Sauiour and noble Redeemer hauing conquered Hell Death Diuell and damnation Triumphantly ascending to the Capitoll of Heauen did shew his vnspeakeable bountie in giuing admirable and incommparable gifts vnto men That is some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and Teachers For what hath the Church of God of so precious account as the holy ministery of the Word and Sacraments whereby CHRIST IESVS with all his blessings is reuealed and applied to the soule and conscience It may well be resembled to the Riuers of Paradise which did water and fructifie the Garden of God to the Golden pipes whereby the two Oliue branches replenished the seuen Lampes in the golden Candlesticke to the Crowne which the woman in the Reuelation cloathed with the Sunne and hauing the Moone vnder her feete had vpon her head being richly beset not with stones but with Starres Which holy function flowing from CHRIST as from the fountaine to his blessed Apostles was by thē deriued to posterity But as the water which neere the spring is cleare and chrystalline in further passages may be polluted so in processe of time by the subtiltie of Satan the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments being the ordinance of God was mingled with sacrifising and other humane inuentions Yet such was the goodnesse of God that euen in the darknes of Poperie as Baptisme so the Ministeriall function notwithstanding the abominations cleauing thereunto was wonderfully preserued for the Church of Rome by Gods speciall prouidence in her Ordination of Priests reteined such Euangelicall words as in their true and natiue sense include a ghostly Ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes by the Ministery of Reconciliation consisting in the due administration of the Word and Sacraments So remission of sinnes is ascribed to the Minister as to Gods instrument in effecting it and Ambassadour in pronouncing it Wherefore in that they haue authority to forgiue sinnes they haue also authority to vse the meanes thereof that is the Word and Sacraments Thus the Church of Rome gaue power to her Priests to teach the truth although it did not reueale the truth vnto them Now when it pleased him which causeth the Light to shine out of darkenesse in the riches of his Mercie to remember his distressed Church those blessed instruments which hee first vsed in the Reformation were such as had receiued their Calling corruptly in the Church of Rome But when their eyes were opened they disclaimed the sacrifising abomination and other impurities which by the iniquitie of the time were incorporated into their calling Thus the pollution of Poperie by the Grace of God was drained and drawn away the Ministeriall function restored to the original beautie And here let vs admire and magnifie the Mercy of God who did not forget this remote Iland situate in a corner of the world but did most graciously shine vpon it with his Golden beames from the Sphere of Heauen For whereas in other Countreys the Bishops which should be starres and Angels of the Church did resist the Reformation and persecuted such as sought it It pleased God that in England among other Bishops Archbishop Cranmer the chiefest Prelate of the Kingdome was Gods chiefest instrument to restore the Gospel which afterward he sealed with his blood The euent whereof was That whereas other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessity to admit extraordinary fathers That is to receiue Ordination from Presbyters which are but inferior Ministers rather then to suffer the Fabrick of the Lord IESVS to be dissolued the Church of England had alwayes Bishops to conferre sacred Orders according to the ordinary and most warrantable custome of the Church of CHRIST And although in Queene Maries time fiue blessed Bishops were burned to ashes yet God reserued to himselfe a number which being then forced to take the wings of the Doue and fly beyond the Seas or to hide themselues in the clefts of the rocke when the tempest was ouerblowne the cloudes cleared and the Sunne of Righteousnes began to display himselfe in the happy raigne of Queene Elizabeth returned againe clapped their wings for ioy praised God preached the Gospel and with holy imposition of hands ordained Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of England These are the Ordinations which reprochfull Papists doe most traduce and slander as though they were no Ordinations at all but onely Nullities thence perswading their Proselytes That our present Ministers are no Ministers but meerely Lay-men and thereupon inferring that wee haue no Church no saluation In which point some Popish Recusants haue beene so confident that they haue professed That if we could iustifie our Calling they would come to our Churches and bee of our Religion The consideration whereof most Reuerend father gaue me occasion to made into this Controuersie being desirous next the assurance of mine owne saluation as I am a Christian to bee fully and clearely assured of my Calling as I am a Minister In prosecuting whereof I did euidently find That their chiefest Obiections are nothing but slanders confutable by Authenticall monuments of publique Record Whereupon I wished from the bottome of my heart That some learned man would haue vouchsafed for the glory of God and the good of the Church to scatter these Popish mistes and to set the Trueth in the cleare light A worke in my opinion very important First in respect of vs of the Ministerie and secondly in regard of the people committed to our charge For how chearefully and with what ioy of heart may we preach and they heare vs when the lawfulnesse of our Calling is made manifest to all men Thirdly If any haue formerly made scruple to enter our Orders out of ignorance how these odious and scandalous imputations blazed in Popish Bookes might bee truely answered and the point soundly cleared by Record it is verely to bee
confined and circumscribed with in his boundes and limits But the authority of the Bishop of Rome is like vnto the Ocean inuironing the earth or to the highest heauens incompassing all therefore in such cases wee must haue recourse to the Bishop of Rome ORTHOD. To whom had Frumentius recourse for the conuerting of India The Story whereof is this A Tyrian Philosopher arriuing in India was slaine by the Barbarians with all his company except two little children which were gone out of the shippe and were learning their lessons vnder a tree These children were brought vp by the King and aduanced by him one of them that is Adesius beeing made his Steward the other that is Frumentius his Secretary Afterward the King dying and leauing his sonne in his nonage the Queene intreated them both but especially Frumentius to assist her in the Gouernement of the kingdome While Frumentius was in this authority hee inquired among the Romane Merchants for Christians hee shewed them all fauour and countenance and admonished them to haue their assembles for praier and the seruice of God When the King came to age they deliuered him the kingdome and departed Adesius to Tyre Frumentius to Alexandria where hee went to Athanaesius and told him what was done intreating him to send some worthy Bishop to those multitudes of Christians and to those Churches which were built in that barbarous place Then Athanasius calling an assembly of Priests said Where shall we finde such a man in whom is the spirit of God to performe these things so hee made Frumentius Bp. sent him into India and the Lord blessed his labours signes and wonders were wrought by him and an infinite company of those barbarous people were conuetted to the faith This Story is recorded by Ruffinus who liued at the same time not out of the rumors of the people but by the relation of Adesius himselfe the companion of Frumentius who was afterward a Priest of Tyre And Socrates Theodoret and Sozomen doe all borrow the same from Ruffinus Thus Athanasius sent a Bishop to conuert India without consulting with the Bishop of Rome which verely he would haue done if hee had thought it necessary But the Pope then did challenge no such thing neither did that age ascribe it to him Wherefore the Kings sending to Eleutherius was not of necessity but because it stood most with his conueniencie PHIL. You are vnthankefull and vnwilling to acknowledge your obligation to Rome ORTHOD. We confesse a singular blessing from thence deriued vnto vs. For Eleâ—therâ—us sent Fugatius and Danatianus otherwise called Damianus by whom ioyning with Eluanus and Meduinus Christian Religion was aduanced Then King Lucius was baptised and many of his people Then the Druides were remoued and in their roomes christian Preachers placed Then the Temples which had beene founded to the honour of their many Gods were dedicated to the one and onely true God thus Idolatry was dispoiled of her pray and Dagon did fall downe before the Arke of Israel For the better vnderstanding whereof it must be obserued that the Romanes before this time had diuided Britaine into three Prouinces one of them was called Maxima Caesariensis the Metropolis wherof was Yorke Another Britannia prima the Metropolis wherof was London the third Britannia secunda the Metropolis wherof was Caerlegion Now in other cities they had their Flamines In these three noble Cities were the seates of the Arch flamines so there were 28. Flamines and three Archiflamines in stead of which so many Bishops Arch-bishops were appointed This is denied by Gultelmus Paruus but Lelandus confuteth him first by Asserius Meneuensis who was schoolemaster to King Alfred secondly by Geraldus in Dialogo Syluestri thirdly by Ptolomeus Lucensis who saith in the life of Eleutherius that the three Protoflamines of Britaine were conuerted into so many Archbishops Concerning their seates Lelandus addeth London of the Trinobantes and Yorke of the Brigantes did vndoubtedly shine with this dignitie therefore where is the third seate where but in Wales in which point though I hold my peace Trithemius is an euident witnesse Hitherto Lelandus Now although Britaine was after the Nicen Councell diuided into fiue Prouinces Valentia and Flauia Caesariensis being added to the former yet there were no new Archbishoprickes erected The reason whereof was because those two new Prouinces were taken out of the former and consequently could not haue Bishoprickes without the diminishing of the authoritie of the former in whose iurisdiction originally they were which was not sufferable because it was against the Canon of the Nicen Councell decreeing that in Antioch and in other Prouinces the dignities prerogatiues and authorities of Churches should be maintained PHIL. Were not all these Bishoprickes erected or at least confirmed by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome ORTHOD. When the King desired to receiue from him the Romane Lawes hee returned this answere That there were already in Britaine the olde and new Testament out of which by the Councell of his kingdome hee might take a Law to gouerne his people For he was the Vicar of Christ in his owne Kingdome And as hee did not interpose himselfe in matters temporall so neither doth it appeare that hee did in matters spirituall or ecclesiasticall Hee sent not one Preacher into Britaine before hee was entreated by the King Neither doe wee finde that hee assumed to himselfe any authoritie in erecting of Bishoprickes Neither did that age ascribe it vnto him as may appeare by the former example of Athanasius but it seemeth that the King being supreme Gouernour euen in religious causes within his owne Kingdome and assisted by learned Preachers established such gouernment and in such places as was most conuenient Yet make we no doubt but Eleutherius both gaue them instructions what hee thought fittest to be done if the Lord should blesse their labours and likewise approued it with ioy of heart when hee heard it was done not by vertue of any iurisdiction but out of a Christian deuotion Their diuersitie of ceremonies and their reiecting of Austin may induce vs to think that they had neuer beene vnder the Romane Patriarch And it is most likely that as the Churches of Cyprus had a gouernment within themselues exempt from the Iurisdiction of all others so the Churches of Britaine a little world without the world might bee gouerned by Primates of their owne and exempt from all forraine Iurisdiction PHIL. DId not the Bishop of Rome deliuer them from Arianisme and Pelagianisme ORTHO If it were so yet this would not argue any Papall Iurisdiction but onely Christian compassion But indeed it was not so We read in Bede that the land was infected with these heresies That Rome did recouer it we reade not He telleth how that at the request of the Britaines the French met in a Synod and sent Germanus and Lupus two reuerend Bishops by whose
the English there are none both which branches hee presupposeth as granted the French but when doeth any of them come ouer into England as though hee should say their comming is vncertaine so he concludeth that Austin must make Bishops alone without other Bishops Now from Austin we will proceede to his successours PHIL. They may all be presumed to bee Canonicall ORTH. Yet they came from such as were not canonicall Now from the Saxons wee will proceede to the Normans And here what say you to Lanfranck whom William the Conqueror made Archbishop in stead of Stigandus PHIL. There is no reason to doubt of him or any other till wee come to Cranmer CHAP. VI. Of the Consecration of the most Reuerend Father Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterburie ORTH. THen it remaineth that we consider the Consecration of that most reuerend Father and blessed Martyr Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury concerning whom I expect your iudgement PHIL. My iudgement is that he was a principall cause of all those lamentable alterations which happened in the daies of king Henry the eight and Edward the sixt ORTH. Doe you call them lamentable therein you resemble Enuy in the Poet which lamented because she saw nothing worthy of lamentation For those alterations which ye call lamentable were a gracious beginning of a thousand blessings both to the Church and Common wealth of England But speake directly to the point in question whether Cranmer were a Canonicall Bishoppe Why doe you not answere You are like to one which holdeth a Wolfe by the eares who neither knoweth how to hold him nor how to let him goe faine would you infringe the Consecration of Cranmer but alasâ—e you cannot PHIL. Father Becan directing his speach to the Bishops of England saith thus Legitimè consecrati non estis a quo enim an à rege at is consecrandi potestatem non habet An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi vel aliquo simile ne id quidem Nam Thomas Cranmerus qui sub Henrico 8. Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit non fuit consecratus ab vllo Episcopo sed a solo rege intrusus designatus igitur quotquot ab eo postea consecrati sunt non legitimè sed eâ— presumptione consecrati sunt 1. You are not lawfully consecrated for by whom were you whether by the King but he hath not power to consecrate Or by the Bishop of Canterbury or some like Neither that truly For Thomas Cranmer who vnder K. Henry the 8. obtained the Bishopricke of Canterburie was not consecrated by any Bishop but intruded and designed by the King alone therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him were not consecrated lawfully but by presumption ORTH. Or rather Becan playeth the part of a presumptuous Iesuite against the Lords annointed in saying that King Henry intruded Cranmer as also in glauncing at his most famous and religious successours as though they themselues had consecrated Bishops For what needed he to moue any such question if it were not to raise a mist and cast a cunning surmise to induce men to thinke that it was so But indeede it was not so for our soueraignes in the aduancing of Bishops do nothing but that which they may lawfully by their Princely right agreeable to the patterne of most religious Kings and Emperours and iustifiable both by the lawes of God and the land as in due place shall appeare And as hee wrongeth the Prince so doth hee traduce Archbishop Cranmer as though he were consecrated either by the King or by none at all and consequently the whole Clergie of England at this day deriuing their consecration from that renowned Martyr But if this accusation were true doe you not marke how it would make a cracke in your golden chaine of succession wherein you so reioyce and glory For if Cranmer were no Bishop then some approoued in Queene Maries time would prooue no Bishops as for example Anthony Kitchen Bishop of Landaff and Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Ely both which deriued their Consecration from Cranmer as may be iustified by records the latter whereof was highly commended by the Pope and made one of his Commissioners in the time of Queene Marie and imploied in the proceedings against that most Reuerend Archbishop If this cannot content the Iesuite I will referre him to Parsons his fellow Iesuite a man who neither loued Archbishop Cranmer nor any other of our Religion and yet clearely confesseth that he was a true Bishop BVt what mislike you in Cranmer was hee not in the order of Priesthood let the Pope be Iudge who in his Bull to Cranmer calleth him Magistrum in Theologia in Presbyteratus ordine constitutum i. Master or Doctor in Diuinitie setled in the order of Priesthood Or was he made Archbishop without the Popes authoritie The Pope himselfe affirmeth the contrary both to the King in these words ¶ Clemens Episcopus Henrico Anglorum Regi illustri De persona dilecti filij Thomae electi Cantuariensis c. De fratrum eorundem consilio Apostolica authoritate prouidimus ipsumque illi Ecclesiae Cantuariensi in Archiepiscopum praefecimus c. Bonon 1532. 9. Kal. Mart. Pontif. nostri 10. ¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the glorious King of the English We haue made Prouision by our Apostolicke authoritie by the Counsell of our said brethren of the person of our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury and we haue set him ouer the said Church of Canterbury to be their Archbishop And to Cranmer himselfe in these words ¶ Clemens Episcopus dilecto filio Thomae electo Cantuariensi Praefatae Ecclesiae Cantuariensi de eorundem fratrum consilio Apostolica authoritate prouidimus teque illi in Archiepiscopum praefecimus pastorem curam administrationem ipsius Ecclesiae tibi in spiritualibus temporalibus plenariè committendo ¶ Bon. Anno 1532. 9. Kal. Mart. That is Clement Bishop to our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury We haue prouided by our Apostolicke authoritie by the Counsell of the same brethren for the foresaid Church of Canterbury and haue set thee ouer it to be their Archbishop and pastour and fully committing vnto thee the charge and administration of the same Church in things spirituall and temporall Or did the Pope and his Cardinals accept the person of Cranmer vndeseruedly Let your holy Father speake for himselfe ¶ Clemens Episcopus Hâ—n Angl. Regi illustri De persona dilecti filij Thomae electi Cantuariensis nobis fratribus nostris ob suorum exigentiam meritorum acceptâ— c. That is ¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the most glorious King of England We haue made prouision of the person of our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury accepted of vs and our brethren according as his deserts required OR was he Consecrated without the Popes licence Behold the Bull for his Consecration ¶ Clemens Episc. dilecto filio Tho. Electo Cant. Tibi vt a quocunque
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
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 willâ—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 Câ—remontam autem solennem vnctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa adhiberi voluit quam postea profiâ—â—â—ns in pâ—â—â—â— Edouardus Sextus sustulit proea Caluinicas aliquot deprecationes substituit serâ—ata tamen semper priori de numero presenâ—â—um Episcoporum qui â—anuâ— ordinando impoâ—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
such a forme as is holy and acceptable in the sight of God But whereas you grant that the persons were capable and the consecrators Canonicall it behooueth you to discouer some essentiall defect in our forme or else you must of necessitie approoue our consecration PHIL. DOctour Kellison saith that in King Edwards time neither matter nor forme of ordination was vsed and so none were truely ordained much lesse had they commission to Preach Heresie and so could not send others to Preach whence it followeth that all the superintendents and Ministers are without calling and vocation ORTHOD. What meaneth Kellison by the matter of ordination PHIL. According to the doctrine of the Catholicke Church holy order is a Sacrament and euery Sacrament of the newe Law consisteth of things and wordes as the matter and the forme which are so certaine and determined of God that it is not lawfull to change them Now in ordination the matter is a sensible signe as for example imposition of hands which Bellarmine calleth the matter essentiall ORTHOD. Others of your owne men are of another opinion for Salmeron the Iesuite hauing proposed the question bringeth reasons for both sides but seemeth to incline to the contrary Fabius Incarnatus asketh this question how many things are of the substance of order and answereth that six But imposition of handes is none of the six Nauarrus speaking of imposition of handes saith Illa non est de substantia Sacramenti that is it is not of the substance of the Sacrament For which opinion hee alleadgeth Scotus But if imposition of handes bee the matter of ordination then Kellison is guiltie of lying and slandering when hee saith that in King Edwards dayes the matter of ordination was not vsed For Sanders himselfe though a shamelesse fellow yet confesseth that in the dayes of King Edward the former lawe concerning the number of Bishops which should impose handes vpon the ordained was alwayes obserued A point so cleare that it might bee iustified by many records but what neede wee goe to records seeing it is a plaine case that the very booke of ordination which was made and established in the dayes of King Edward commandeth imposition of hands wherefore if the essentiall matter bee imposition of hands then I must conclude out of your owne principles that in King Edwards dayes the essentiall matter was vsed PHIL. In the ordering of a Deacon there is not onely imposition of handes but also the reaching of the Gospels so in ordering of a Priest not onely imposition of handes but also the reaching of the instruments that is of the Patten and Challice and both these Ceremonies are essentiall as Bellarmine proueth Therefore why may we not say that in Episcopall Consecration not only imposition of hands but other ceremonies also belong to the essentiall matter ORTHOD. What other ceremonies I beseech you doe you meane the holy oyle wherewith the head of the consecrated is annointed with these wordes Let thy head bee annointed and consecrated with celestiall benediction or the ring which is blessed with prayer and holy water and put vpon his finger with these wordes Accipe annulum fidei signaculum Receiue the Ring the seale of faith or the Crosier deliuered in these wordes receiue the staffe of the Pastorall office If you meane these or the like and vrge them as essentiall you must giue vs leaue to reiect them because they are only human inuentions You told vs before out of Bellarmine that the matter of ordination is certaine and determined of God now where shall wee finde the determinations of God but in the booke of God we finde in holy Scripture imposition of hands and we imbrace it as Apostolicall as for your rings and Crosiers when you can demonstrate them out of the booke of God we will then accept them as the determinations of God in the meane time we cannot acknowledge them for the essentiall matter of ordination But now from the matter let vs come to the forme 4. PHI. IT is agreed vpon that the forme consisteth in the words which are vttered while the sensible signe is vsed and they are the very same whereby the spirituall power is giuen ORTHOD. I hope you will not say that these words receiue the ring or receiue the staffe concerne the essentiall forme tell vs therfore in what words the true forme coÌ„sisteth that so we may the better examine the speech of Kellison PHIL. The words may be diuers yet the sense the same and this diuersitie of words may seuerally signifie the substance of the Sacrament as for example the Easterne Church baptizeth in these words Let this seruant of Christ be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost The Latin Church in these words I baptize thee c. Here are two formes of words but each of them containeth the true and substantiall forme of baptisme So in ordination the Easterne Bishops instructed of their ancestours conferre the orders of a Bishop Priest and Deacon Per orationem deprecatoriam By the way of prayer whereas we after the manner of the Romane Church doe conferre them Per modum imperandi in the imperatiue moode by way of command and yet the spirituall power may be conueyed by both For Pope Innocent teacheth that the Scripture mentioneth onely imposition of hands and prayer as for other things vsed in ordination he saith they were inuented by the Church otherwise it had beene sufficient if the ordainer had said onely be thou a Priest or be thou a Deacon but seeing the Church hath inuented other formes they are to be obserued ORTHOD. By what words is the Episcopall power giuen in the Church of Rome PHIL. By these words receiue the holy Ghost because they are vsed when the Bishop imposeth hands And therfore as Priests in their ordination receiue the holy Ghost that is as Bellarmin expounds it out of Chrysostome and Cyrillâ—a ghostly power consisting in forgiuing and retaining of sinnes so a Bishop in his Consecration receiueth the holy Ghost that is A ghostly power consisting in the performance of those things which are reserued properly to Bishops amongst which the power of ordination is most eminent ORTHOD. If you call these words the forme of Consecration then you must acknowledge that not only the matter but also the right forme of Consecration was vsed in the dayes of King Edward for these words were then vsed while the Bishops imposed hands as appeareth by the booke and consequently you must confesse that Ridley Hooper and Ferrar were rightly ordained Bishops and moreouer that Kellison is a notorious slanderer 5. THus much of the second rancke Now come we to the third wherein we may place such if any such be found as were made both Priests and Bishops in the dayes of king Edward PHIL. We thinke that no man can possibly haue the order of a Bishop
you make a grieuous complaint that they were not onely deposed but also vsed with great indignitie both before their deposing and after Wherfore let vs first consider the circumstances and then come to the deposition it selfe PHIL. I say that a Grieuous penalty was inflicted vpon such as should after the feast of Saint Iohn Baptist 1559. say or heare Masse or procure any other Ecclesisticall office whatsoeuer after the old rite ORTHOD. You maske your noueltie vnder the vizard of antiquity and call that the old rite which was but yesterday but proceed PHIL. This penalty extended to such as should administer any Sacrament after the Roman manner ORT. Saint Paul saith That which I receiued of the Lord that deliuer I vnto you teaching vs that Sacraments must bee ministred in such manner as wee haue receiued of the Lord wee are not tied to the rite of Rome or any other City or Country but onely to the institution of Iesus Christ If Rome follow this wee will follow it with Rome if Rome forsake this then farewell Rome But what was the penalty PHIL. To wit That hee which offended against the law for the first time should pay two hundred crownes or be in bonds six monthes for the second foure hundred crownes or a yeere in bondes for the third hee should bee in perpetuall prison and forfeite all his goods ORTHOD. What hath that good Lady done which doth not become a most vertuous and gratious Prince hath shee made lawes to establish religion So did Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Hath shee inflicted a penalty vpon the infringers So did Constantine vpon the Donatists That their goods should bee confiscate so did Theodosius vpon the Donatists likewise Ten pound of gold to bee paide to the Emperours Exchequer And these lawes are highly commended by Saint Austin Indeed he was some times of opinion that they were to bee dealt withall onely by perswasions not by penalties but when his fellow Bishops laide before him so plaine examples of so many cities infected with Donatisme and all reclaimed by helpe of imperiall lawes hee changed his minde and yeelded vnto them Then hee perceiued that the Circumcellions which were like vnto mad men were brought into their right wittes againe and made good Catholikes by being bound as it were with the chaines of imperiall lawes then he perceiued that others beeing in a spirituall lethargie were awakened with the seuerity of Imperiall lawes then hee perceiued that the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. So did that gratious Lady Queene Elizabeth wherein how mildely and mercifully shee proceeded you may learne by looking backe to her sister Queene Mary who was not content to inflict a pecuniary mulct or a little imprisonment vpon those of the contrary religion but tied thē to stakes burned thē to ashes in flaming fire PHIL. As though a life lingting in disgrace were not worse then a present death For Foureteene noble and most worthy Bishops inferiour in vertue and learning to none in Europe were all deposed from their honours and high calling and most of them imprisoned and spitefully vsed in all respectes ORTHOD. FIrst let vs consider what they deserued and secondly how they were serued How well they deserued at the Queenes hands may appeare by their behauiour in three points concerning the Coronation Disputation and Excommunication First when the Queen was to bee crowned they all conspired together refusing to performe such solemnitie as by them of dutie was to bee performed at her Coronation Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill onely excepted PHIL. Had they not cause to refuse So soone as shee came to the crowne shee presently reuealed her minde in religion both by many other meanes and especially in that shee straightway silenced the Catholike Preachers and suffered the heretikes to returne into the kingdome from diuers places where they were in banishment Moreouer shee gaue charge to a certaine Bishop about to performe the holy rite before her and now standing at the Altar attyred in holy vestments that hee should not eleuate the Consecrated hoaste whereupon it came to passe that the Archbishoppe of Yorke whose office it was Cardinall Poole Archbishop of Canterbury beeing departed this transitory life to annoynt and Consecrate her to bee Queene denied his helpe and the rest of the Bishops likewise al sauing one and he almost the last among them ORTHO Your eleuation is referred to adoration which is Idolatrie therefore if shee forbad it as also the Preaching of errour and commanded the Preaching of truth shee did but her duty For as Saint Austin saith Princes may commaund that which is good and forbid that which is euill within their owne kingdomes not in ciuill affaires onely but in matters pertayning to diuine religion also But if it were so that the Queene therein had committed an errour if it were so that Popery were true religion yet shee was the lawfull Queene the Kingdome descended to her by right of inheritance the Nobles and commons according to their dutie acknowledged her for Queene she was proclaimed by order taken by the Lords and the Archb. of Yorke himselfe then Lord Chancelour of England what reason then had the Bishops to deny her that solemnity which was neuer denied to any of her noble progenitours If she had pulled the Miters from their heades for refusing to set the Diademe vpon her head had not this beene a iust reward for a due desert Hitherto of the first point that is the Coronation SEcondly it was the Queenes pleasure that there should be a solemne disputation betweene the Popish Bishops or some other Champions appointed by them on the one part and other learned diuines of our religion on the other part but the Bishops with one accord most obstinately refused the incounter PHIL. They had reason for as they then answered for themselues It was not fit that those things which for many ages had beene defined by so famous iudgements of Popes Councels and Fathers should now come againe into question and disputation ORTH. You tell vs of Popes Councels and Fathers but I heare no mention at all of the Scripture truly Philodox wee builde not our faith vpon Popes nor Councels nor Fathers but onely vpon the blessed and sacred word of God registred in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets but for the better vnderstanding of this word wee make honourable account of ancient Councels and Fathers yet so that wee put an infinite difference betweene them and the word of the liuing God For the word of God is infallible it can neither deceiue nor bee deceiued but the word of man is subiect to errour therefore wee must trie all things and holde that which is good and the touchstone of all is the word of God Neither are wee afraid of the Councels and Fathers you beare the world in hand that all make for you but vpon manifold and
Salomon may rightly be called Prophets PHIL. I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as a king but as a Prophet and executer of diuine iustice ORTHOD. As though the King as a King were not an executer of diuine iustice yes Philodox it is the King as King which beareth not the sword in vaine it is the king as king which is The minister of God and a râ—uenger of wrath to him that doth euill therefore the King as King is the executer of diuine iustice And so when you say not as a king but as an executer of diuine iustice you put those things asunder which the Lord hath put together againe when you say that hee did it As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iustice you put those things together which the Lord hath put a sunder for a Prophet as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord the executer of diuine iustice is not the mouth but the hand of the Lord the hand and the mouth must be distinguished PHIL. I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet For in the same place it is sayd that Salomon put out Abiathar that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo ORTHOD. Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause and the intents of the Agents The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame wouen from the top throughout said one to another Let vs not diuide it but cast lots for it whose it shal be that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which saith they parted my garments among them and on my coate did they cast lots doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent hereby to fulfill the Scripture Euen iust as much as Iudas had when hee sold his master for thirty peeces of siluer or Herod when hee slue the infants or the Iewes when they gaue him vineger to drinke They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture yet God so disposed that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled Likewise your owne Bishop Tostatus may teach you that in this place the particle vt doth not signifie the finall cause but the consecution But what if Salomon had done it to that very end and purpose that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet Iehu when he had slaine Iehoram said to Bidkar a Captaine Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite for I remember that when â— and thou rode together after Ahab his father the Lord laide this burthen vpon him surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of Naboth and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet PHIL. Either as a King or as a Prophet not as a King and therefore as a Prophet ORTHOD. NOt as a King why so the Lord had promised that Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne by Gods owne appointment yet for all this Adonias exalted himselfe and sayd I wil be king and Ioab and Abiathar helped him forward they said God saue King Adonias Whereupon all three were guilty of high treason against the king and all three were punished by the king PHIL. True by the king but not by kingly power ORTHO Yes by kingly power the king did it as a king And to beginne with Adonias the king granted him a conditionall pardon that If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man there should not a haire of him fall to the earth but if wickednesse were found in him hee should die and therefore when hee desired Abisha to wife the wisdome of the King reaching into the profoundnesse of the policie did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the kingdome So King Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada and hee smote him that hee died Who did this the spirit of God saith that King Salomon did it so it is ascribed to the King yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King for who could pardon treason but a King as a King Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors but he that beareth not the sword in vaine that is the King by the power and authoritie of a King Concerning Ioab it was tolde Salomon that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord and Benaiah sayd thus saith the King come out and hee sayd nay but I will die here and Benaiah brought the King word againe and the King said doe as hee hath said and smite him in all which there was nothing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King Now to come to Abiathar his offence against the King was the same and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest euen the king who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine that is the King as a King which may appeare further by that which hee said Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields in which words hee confineth him which is the action of a King And againe thou art worthy of death but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted In which wordes hee granteth life to one that had deserued death and who could doe this but a King So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vnto the Lord Where wee see death changed into depriuation All which doe argue the power of a King yea it is said that the King put Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King as hee was King and it followeth immediately in the same verse and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King as a King and why should you thinke otherwise PHIL. BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God from the power of secular Princes For in the third of Numbers God doth not once but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his owne and that he hath chosen them
Binius out of Baronius Thus much for the prophane title As for the thing it selfe The Scripture witnesseth that Salomon was King ouer all Israel if ouer all Israel then ouer the tribe of Leui and consequently euen ouer Abiathar the high Priest if he be their king why are not they his subiects If they be his subiects and he their Soueraigne how can they bee exempted from his Iurisdiction A point so cleare that sundry of your learned writers haue confessed it IOhannes Parisiensis saith that in the old Testament the Priests which annointed kings without all doubt were subiect vnto kings Your owne Iesuite Salmeron affirmeth that potestas spiritualis legis naturae vel Moisisminor erat Regia potestate in veteri testamento ideo etiam summi Sacerdotes regibus subdebantur that is the spirituall power of the Law of nature and of the law of Moses was lesser then the princely power in the old Testament therefore euen the high Priests were subiect vnto kings Yea Bellarmine himselfe saith Non mirum esset si in veteri Testamento summa potestas fuisset temporalis that is It were no maruell if in the olde Testament the chiefe power were the temporall Dominicus a Soto in veteri Testamento dubio procul Sacerdotes a principibus secularibus iudicati that is In the olde Testament without doubt the Priests were iudged by the secular princes Fryer Paule This doctrine that Ecclesiasticall persons vnlesse they be free by priuiledge and fauour should be subiect to secular Magistrates is demonstrated and confirmed by examples of the old Testament whereby it appeareth that all the kings did command iudge and punish Priests and that this was done not onely of bad kings or indifferent but of the most holy and religious Dauid Salomon Ezechias and Iosias Carerius in veteri Testamento Rex super Sacerdotes potestatem habebat eosque pro crimine occidere multo magis officijs dignitatibus spiritualibus eos priuare poterat that is In the old Testament the king had power ouer the Priests and might for their offences kill them much more depriue them of their offices and spirituall dignities Hitherto Carerius out of Tostatus PHIL. IF the kings of Israel had such authoritie doth it follow that Christian Princes must haue the like ORTHOD. What else You must consider that the new Testament doth yeeld vs no examples of Christian kings therefore when the question is concerning the power of kings in the Church of God wee must goe to the fountaine that is the old Testament where there was both a Church and kings in the Church religiously performing the office of kings and what Princely authoritie they exercised for which they are approoued by the spirit of God the same without all question belongeth in like maner to Christian Princes therefore what authoritie Salomon had ouer Abiathar the same haue Christian Princes by the law of God ouer their owne Clergie CHAP. III. Of the Oath of the Princes Supremacy for denying whereof the old Bishops were depriued PHIL. IS not the deposing of a Bishop a spirituall censure how then can it be performed by the secular powers ORTH. The secular powers doe noâ— depose a Bishop by degradation nor by vtterly debarring him from his Episcopall function but onely by excluding him from the exercise of Episcopallactes vpon their subiects and within their dominions And this godly Princes haue performed from time to time in the best and primatiue ages against the Arrians Nestotians and other heretickes as might be declared by many examples PHIL. Shall a Prince take that from them which he cannot giue them ORTH. Hee cannot giue them an intrinsecall power to minister the word and Sacraments which proceedeth from the key of order but he may giue them an extrinsecall power that is a libertie to execute their function within his dominions This he may doe by vertue of the scepter which God hath giuen him though he meddle not with the keyes which God hath giuen to the Church and as he may giue this libertie so he may take it away vpon iust cause as Salomon did when he deposed Abiathar PHIL. If we should admit that Queene Elizabeth had so much authority as king Salomon yet this would not iustifie her proceedings For it belongeth not to Parliaments or secular Princes to make lawes concerning the depositions of Bishops or to inflict any such punishments ORTHOD. Did not the Emperour Martian make a law that such Bishops as went about to infringe any of those things which were enacted by that holy and generall Councell of Chalcedon should be deposed Did not Iustinian make a constitution that if any Patriarch Metropolitane Bishop or Clerke should violate his decrees made for the preseruation of holy order and estate he should be excluded from the Priestly function Did not Theodosius the yonger likewise make a law that the Nestorian Bishops should be expelled and deposed PHIL. The lawes of these Emperours concerning the deposing of Bishops were not put in execution by laymen as Queene Elizabeths were but by Bishops ORTH. Gratian the Emperour made a lawe against the Arrians commanding them like wilde beastes to be driuen from the Churches and the places to be restored to good pastours the execution whereof he committed to Saporas the most famous captaine of that time If this were allowable in the Emperour Gratian then much more in Queene Elizabeth for he did it when there was plentie of good Bishops within his owne dominon Queene Elizabeth did it onely in case of necessitie Neither did she send a captaine to driue them away by violence as Gratian did but appointed honourable commissioners to tender the oath vnto them vpon the obstinate refusall whereof their places were voyd by vertue of the Statute PHIL. GRatian had for him the determination of Synods which had already coÌ„demned the Arrians therefore in this case it was lawfull for him both to make a Law and to commit the execution of it to Lay-men ORTHOD. So had Q. Elizabeth For a Synod of Bishops professing your owne Religion among whom was Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester gaue to K. Henry the title of Supreame head of the Church of England as may appeare by the Acts of the Synod it selfe About two yeeres after the same was renewed in another Synod and about two yeeres after that the two Vniuersities deliuered their iudgement That the Pope had no more to doe in England by the Law of God then any other Bishop The determination of Cambridge is already extant in print The like of Oxeford remaineth in Record wherein after long deliberation and much disputation with all diligence Zeale and conscience they make this profession Tandem in hanc sententiam vnanimiter omnes conuenimus ac concordâ—s fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum maiorem aliquam iurisdictionem non habere sibi à Dâ—o collatam in sacra Scriptura in
hoc regno Angliae quam alium quemuis externum Episcopum i. At the length we all agreed with one minde and one heart vpon this conclusion to wit That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater iurisdiction giuen him of God in holy Scripture ouer this kingdome of England then any other forraine Bishop And Bellarmine himselfe telleth vs out of Cheynie the Carthusian Monke that in the yeere 1535. there was a Parliament wherein it was Enacted That all should renounce the Pope and all other forraine powers and acknowledge the King to be head of the Church vpon their oath Thus it is manifest that the Bishops and Clergie did then both approue the Title and take the oath which Bishops were such as your selues commend to bee inferiour to none in Europe for vertue and learning And truely excepting their opinions in Religion wherein they were caried away with the streame of the time it cannot be denied but that generally they were very well learned Erasmus inuited into England by William Warham Archbishop of Canterbury when he had considered what difference there was betweene the Bishops of England and other Nations he published to the world in Print That onely England had learned Bishops Moreouer most of these learned Bishops did openly in the Pulpit at Pauls-Crosse defend the Kings Title and sundry of them by their published writings maintained the same The selfe-same oath was taken againe in the â—aigne of K. Edward PHIL. They changed their minds in the dayes of Q. Mary ORTHOD. Very true But their inconstancie cannot abolish the soliditie of their former confession and though they recalled their opinions yet they neuer answered their owne Arguments which remaine still in Print as a witnesse to the world that their former iudgement was grounded vpon Gods Veritie and that the Princes Title did stand with right and equitie PHIL. THese were Bishops and Synods of our owne nation onely but was there euer any learned man else-where that did approue this Title was there euer any King or Queene Christian or Heathen Catholicke or Hereticke in all the world beside before our age that did practise challenge or accept it ORTHOD. Looke into the godly Kings of Iuda Looke into the proceedings of Christian Emperours Constantine Gratian Theodosius and such like Looke into the Lawes of Charles and Lodowicke and you shall see that they practised as much as euer we ascribed to the Queene in this oath When the Councell of Ephesus by the packing of Dioscorus had allowed the cursed opinion of Eutyches and deposed Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople Pope Leo vpon this occasion wrote thus vnto the Emperour Theodosius Behold most Christian and reuerend Emperour I with the rest of my fellow Bishops make supplication vnto you That all things may stand in the same state in which they were before any of these Iudgements vntill a greater number of Bishops may be gathered out of the whole world Who made this supplication Pope Leo a holy and learned Pope To whom To the Emperour Theodosius For what That the Emperour would command not intreat but command So this is an action of Royall authoritie What should he command That all things might stand in their former state What things meaneth he The highest mysteries of Religion concerning the Natures and person of Christ. But what is it to stand in the former state That it might be lawfull for all men so to iudge and speake of these holy Mysteries as they did before the springing vp of the Eutychian Heresie for then they held the Trueth according to the Apostolicke faith And this he beseecheth the Emperour to command notwithstanding the contrary determination of the Councell of Ephesus The second Councell of Ephesus which apparantly subuerted the faith cannot rightly bee called a Councell which your Highnes for very loue to the Trueth will make voyd by your Decree to the contrary most glorious Emperour I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Maiestie by our Lord Iesus Christ the founder and guider of your Kingdome That in this Councell of Chalcedon which is presently to be kept you will not suffer the Faith to be called in question which our blessed Fathers preached being deliuered vnto them from the Apostles Neither permit such things as haue bene long since condemned by them to be freshly reuiued againe but that you will rather command That the Constitutions of the ancient Nicene Councell may stand in force the interpretation of Hereticks being remooued Here the Pope ascribeth to the Emperour power to ratifie and establish those Councels which are according to the Scripture and to disanull those whose determinations are contrary to the Scripture Yea he acknowledgeth that the Emperour hath authoritie to inhibite and restraine Generall Councels that they call not the Trueth of God in question Which the Emperour Martian practised entring the Councell of Chalcedon in his owne person and forbidding the Bishops to auouch any thing concerning the birth of our Sauiour otherwise then was contained in the Nicene Creed Moreouer when the Councell of Chalcedon was concluded Pope Leo wrote thus againe to the Emperour Because I must by all meanes obey your pietie and most Religious will I haue willingly giuen my consenting sentence to those Synodall Constitutions which concerning the confirmation of the Catholicke faith and condemnation of Hereticks pleased me very well The Emperour required the Pope to subscribe And he cheerefully did so Protesting that for his part he must by all meanes obey the Princes will in those cases Now tell me whether the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperour and the Emperour shew himselfe to be Supreame gouernour ouer all persons euen in causes Ecclesiasticall AS the Emperour Martian did practise this Supremacie so the Emperour Basill did challenge the Title when he said in the Councel of Constantinople That the gouernment of the vniuersall Ecclesiasticall Ship was committed vnto him by the Diuine prouidence PHIL. The words are thus in Surius In exordio Synodi ita locutus est Basilius Cum diuina benignissima prouidentia nobis gubernacula vniuersalis Nauis commisisset c. that is In the beginning of the Synod thus said Basilius the Emperor when the diuine and most benigne prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vniuersall ship c. Where by vniuersall ship is meant ciuill administration not Ecclesiasticall as Surius hath well obserued ORTHO Binius relating the acts of the councell telleth how the Emperours Epainagnosticum was read in the councell in these words Diuina clementique prouidentia gubernacula Ecclesiasticae nâ—uis vobis committente that is The diuine and gracius prouidence of God committing vnto you the gouernment of the Ecclesiasticall ship Where you see that he speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall ship PHIL. To whom was the gouernment of the ship committed Vobis to you that is to the Bishops what is this to the Emperour ORTH. Indeed
her raigne admonished all her louing subiects not to giue credit to such persons professing that she neither did nor would challenge any other authority then was challenged and vsed by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of ancient time due to the imperiall crowne of this realme that is vnder God to haue the soueraignty and rule ouer all manner persons borne within her realmes dominions and countries of what estate either ecclesiasticall or temporall soeuer they be so as no other forraigne power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them And that no other thing was is or should bee meant or intended by the same oath Which was also further declared man act of Parliament the fifth yeare of her raigne with relation to the former admonition and moreouer fully explained in the Articles of religion in these words We giue not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments which things the iniunctions lately set foorth by Queene Elizabeth doe most plainely testifie but onely that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwaies to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they bee ecclesiasticall or temporall and restraine with the ciuill sword the stubborne and euill doers This is the substance of the title due to the imperiall crowne of the Kingdome PHIL. If it be due to the imperiall crowne then it skilleth not whether the Prince be man woman or child nor of what religion For the Princely power was no lesse in Traiane then in Theodosius in K. Henry then in Q. Mary In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers then in Queene Elizabeth their protectour yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before hee was baptized then after And consequently the Emperour of the Turkes may bee called supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions ORTHOD. Here are two things to be considered First the princely power and authority Secondly the ability rightly to vse and exercise the same The princely power and authority is giuen immediatly froÌ„ God both vnto Christian Princes and also vnto Ethnickes which are guided only by the light law of nature and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man For this is true in all By me kings raigne And Daniell said to Nabuchodonosor O king thou art a king of kings for the God of Heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome power and strength and glory But the ability rightly to vse and exercise this authority by refering it to the true end that is the glory of God for all our riuers should run into that Ocean the eternall good of the subiects is communicated from the Lord aboue onely to such as know him in Christ Iesus and are guided by his grace The fountaine therefore of al power is God himselfe as the Apostle witnesseth saying there is no power but of God To which purpose it is well said of Saint Austin Qui dedit Mario ipse Caesari qui Augusto ipse Neroni qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suauissimis imperatoribus ipse Domitiano crudelissimo ne per singulos ire necesse sit qui Constantino Christiano ipse Apostatae Iuliano i. He that gaue it to Marâ—â—s gaue it to Caesar hee that gaue it to Augustus gaue it to Nero he that gaue it to Vespasian the Father or his sonne most sweete Emperours gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell And that I should not neede to recken vp the rest in particular hee that gaue it to Constantine the Christian gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata But though domination and power were in the law of nature yet the right vse of it is not from nature but from grace A Prince as a Prince be he good or bad Christian or Pagan in respect of his princely calling hath sufficient power and authoritie to gouerne his people according to the will of God And it is his dutie so to doe The Lord said vnto Cyrus I will goe before thee and make the crooked streight I will breake the brasen doores and burst the Iron barres And I will giue thee the treasures of darkenesse and the things hid in secret places that thou maiest know that I am the Lord. Vpon which wordes Saint Ierom noteth that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men not that they should abuse them but as for other reasons so for this that being inuited by his bountie they should bee conuerted from their sinnes So it is their dutie to serue God not onely as they are men but as they are Kings And Kings saith Saint Austin doe in this serue God as Kings when they doe those things to serue him which none but Kings can doe But what is that It may appeare by these wordes Seruiant reges terrae Christo etiam leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societes be peace and prosperitie yet the last end of all and most principally to bee respected is the glory of God and eternall happinesse For which purpose it is the dutie of all subiects to pray for their Prince though hee bee a Pagan that vnder him they may liue a godly and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honestie But though euery Prince in that hee is a Prince hath authoritie to serue God as a Prince yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace Authoritie is in a Pagan the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniuie had authoritie long before to proclaime a fast Nabuchodonosor had authoritie to commaund that all nations and languages should worship the God of Daniel but they put it not in execution till God touched their hearts and when they put it in execution it was not by any new authoritie but by vertue of their former Princely power heretofore abused but now vsed rightly by direction of Gods Spirit and assistance of his grace The truth of which answere that you may see in another glasse let vs a little remooue our speech from the Prince to the Priest I demande therefore if the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts PHIL. Yes verely as saith the Prophet Malachy ORTH. But he may be a false prophet an Idolater an Apostata he may turne Pagan or Atheist Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest in respect of his office ought so to be ORTH. But the Prophet speaking of the wicked Priest which seduceth the people saith not he ought to be but he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest as a Priest be he good or bad in respect of his priestly calling and authoritie is the messenger of the Lord of
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
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
in the election of Conon wherefore if the people gaue Suffrages by subscription in those times wee neede not doubt that they gaue Suffrages in the time of S. Cyprian neither was it by the Popes permission For S. Cyprian maketh no mention of the Pope but declareth that almost in all Prouinces after the death of a Bishop the Bishops next adioyning did meet about an election in the citie of the Bishop deceased and so the election was performed in their presence by the Suffrages of the whole fraternitie that is both of the Clergie and like wise also of the people Wherefore that which you say concerning the Pope is but a voluntary speech without any ground And surely seeing God hath set downe no certaine rule nor precept in holy Scripture but left it as a thing indifferent it was most fit that in those primatiue times the people should haue a Suffrage for by this meanes it came to passe that they did not only more quietly receiue diligently heare and heartily loue but also more willingly and bountifully maintaine their Bishop wherefore their Suffrage was grounded vpon right and reason PHIL. The Church of God hath had dolefull experience of the tumults which arise from popular elections Euagrius declareth what vprores were at Alexandria about Proterius when the people beate the souldiers into the Church and destroyed a number of them with fier yea they slew Proterius in the Temple vpon Easter day drew his body along the citie hewed it in most miserable manner burned that which was left and scattered his ashes in the wind And Amianus reporteth that at the election of Damasus the people slew in the Church in one day 137. persons so that the holy places did flow with streames of Christian blood These are the fruites of popular elections CHAP. V. An answere to certaine obiections against the election of Bishops by Christian kings and Emperours out of the Councells and other authorities ORTH. IF popular elections bee so dangerous vnto whom should their ancient right rather be translated then vnto the Prince who by the law of God is their Soueraigne to rule them and the Father both of Church and Common wealth to prouide for their good PHIL. The Councell of Paris saith that if any man by ouermuch rashnesse presume to inuade the height of this honour by the Princes commandement let him in no wise be receiued by the Bishops ORTHO The meaning of the Councell appeareth by the words going before let not a Bishop be intruded by the Princes commandement nor by any other meanes against the consent of the Metropolitane and the Bishops of the Prouince so this Councell maketh nothing against our kings of England who vse most orderly lawfull and Canonicall proceeding neuer intruding any against the consent of the Metropolitane and comprouincialls PHIL. In the yere 566. there was a Councell holden at Santonia in France where d Emerius was deposed from his Bishopricke because hee was intruded by King Clotharius ORTHO He was put in contrary to the Canons For he had the decree of the King that he should be consecrated without the aduise of the Metropolitane so this is no paralel for our Princes PHIL. By the second Nicen Councel All elections of Bishops Priests and Deacons made by the Magistrates are voide And the ground of their assertion is that Canon of the Apostles If any obtaine a Church by secular powers let him be deposed and all that communicate with him ORTHO That Canon is to be expounded of secular powers excluding the Clergie or inuading the Church by force and violence and so the Councell tooke it neither did they vrge it any otherwise as may appeare plainely by the very title of their Canon Electiones Episcoporum quae vi Principum procedunt infirmari debent i. the elections of Bishops which proceed by the violence of Princes ought to be infringed PHIL. But you cannot so delude the 22. Canon of the eighth generall Councell being the fourth at Constantinople which is most pregnant to this purpose For there it was decreed That no Lay. Prince or Potentate should interpose themselues in the Election or promotion of a Patriarch Metropolitane or any Bishop especially seeing it is not conuenient that they should haue any power in such things but rather bee silent till the Election bee finished by the Ecclesiasticall Colledge ORTHOD. The 22. Canon is a counterfeit not found in the Greeke copies And the true Canons of the same Councell grounding vpon the Canons of the Apostles and ancient Councels doe iustifie my former answere in these wordes If any Bishop shall receiue the Consecration of Episcopall dignitie by the fraud and tyrannie of Princes let him be deposed Wherefore the intention of the ancient Councels was not to exclude Princes but onely to remooue fraude and compulsion that all things might be done according to the Canons That Hildebrandicall doctrine was not yet knowne to the world PHIL. Athanasius asketh where there is any such Canon that a Bishop should be sent out of a Palace ORTHOD. Athanasius speaketh of the proceedings of Constantius who so farre contemned all Canons that hee would haue had his owne will to bee for a Canon And whereas in those dayes Bishops vsed to be chosen by the consent of the people and Clergie openly created in the Church and ordained if it were possible by all the Bishops of the Prouince at least by three with the consent of the Metropolitane Constantius in stead of the Church would haue it done in his Palace In place of the people there were present three of his Eunuches and for the Bishops of the Prouince three which Athanasius calleth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishops but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is spies Thus was one Felix created a Bishop This sending of Bishops out of a Palace was against all Canons this Athanasius misliked neither can any man of wisdome speake well of it But such proceedings as are vsed in the Church of England shall be iustified as agreeable both to the Councels and stories of antiquitie PHIL. Valentinian when the Bishops would haue had him to elect a Bishop of Millan said It is a greater matter then is conuenient for vs but you being indued with diuine grace and shining with the brightnesse thereof shall make the election ORTHOD. The Bishops did shew their duety to their Prince and the Prince shewed his elemencie to his Subiects But what is this to your purpose There is no doubt but a Prince may if it please him relinquish his right for a time and he or his successours may resume it againe when it seemeth good to their Princely wisedomes For that this was anciently acknowledged to be the right of Christian Princes will appeare if we consider the election of Bishops in the Imperiall Cities of Rome and Constantinople as also in the Kingdomes of France and Spaine CHAP. VI.
to the Emperours by 3. Popes with 3. Roman Councels practised commonly and anciently by all kings through the whole Christian world yeelded to his predecessours in the time of the Saxons vsed by his own father and brother and neuer denied in England before Anselmus began to broach the Hildebrandicall Doctrine PHIL. This cause was handled at Rome where the kings Proctour boldly affirmed that his master the king would not loose inuestitures for the losse of his kingdome to whom Pope Paschall answered if as thou saiest thy king will not indure to lose the donations of Churches for the losse of his kingdome knowe thou precisely I speake it before God that I would not suffer him to obtaine them without punishment for the redemption of my head Thus the cause was determined against the King ORTH. No maruell for the Pope was Iudge in his owne cause such a cause as was not a litle both for his pride and profit such a Pope as within 8. yeeres after periured himselfe in the like matter But notwithstanding the Popes determination the king disdaining to bee so deluded sent to Anselmus forbidding him to enter the land vnlesse he would obserue the customes of William the Conquerour and William Rufus so he was absent three yeeres PHIL. Yet at his returne he got a glorious victory for Edinerus writeth thus rex antecessorum suorum vsu relicto nec personas quae in regimen Ecclesiae sumebantur per se elegit nec eas per dationem virgae pastoralis Ecclesijs quibus praeficiebantur inuestiuit the king leauing the vse of his predecessours did neither himselfe elect such persons as were assumed to the gouernment of the Church nor inuested them to the Churches ouer which they were set by the deliuering of the pastorall staffe ORTHOD. Here is a cleare confession that inuestitures belonged to the king by the vse of his predecessours yet such was the violence and fury both of the Pope and the Archbishop that he thought good to redeeme his quiet by releasing of his ancient right PHIL. If he had any right he did yeeld it vp for Malmsbury saith Venit Rex sublimi trophaeo splendidus triumphali gloria Angliam inuectus inuestiturasque Ecclesiarum Anselmo in perpetuum in manum remisit The king came out of France glistering with a stately trophee entred England with triumphall glory and released the inuestitures of Churches to Anselmus into his hands for euer ORTHOD. True to Anselmus here was a finall and perpetuall end betweene them two neither did the king intermeddle any more in the matter while Anselmus liued but after his death Anno 1113. hee gaue the Archbishopricke to Rodolph Bishop of London and inuested him with a Ring and a Staffe and Anno 1123. he gaue the said Archbishopricke to William Corboll he gaue also the Bishopricke of Lincolne to Alexander the Bishopricke of Bath to Godfrid the Bishopricke of Worcester to Simon the Bishopricke of Cicester to Sifrid After the raigne of Henry the first though the Popes were still busie especially when the state was troubled or the king out of the Realme yet the succeeding Princes would not suffer themselues to bee robbed of this right and royaltie but from time to time put it in practise and maintained their prerogatiue King Edward the third told Pope Clement the fift That his progenitors and other noble and faithfull men had founded and indowed Churches and placed Ministers in them euer since the first planting of religion in the Realme of England and that the kings did of ancient time freely conferre Cathedrall Churches iure suo Regio by their Princely right so oft as they were vacant he doth not say by the Popes permission but by their princely right so the collation of Bishopricks is the ancient right of the kings of England Moreouer he told him that whereas now Deanes and Chapters elect this proceeded from the graunt of the kings at the request and instance of the Pope he doth not say from the graunt of the Pope but from the grant of the kings at the request of the Pope with which concordeth that famous act of Parliament made in the 25. of Edw. the third Our Soueraigne Lord the king and his heires shall haue and inioy for the time the collations to the Archbishoprickes and other dignities electiue which be of his aduowry such as his progenitors had before free election was granted Sith that the first elections were granted by the Kings progenitors vpon a certaine forme and condition as namely to demaund license of the King to chuse and after choice made to haue his royall assent And in the dayes of Richard the second statutum est saith Thomas Walsingam in eodem insuper Parliamento vt de caetero nullus transfreâ—aret ad obtinendum prouisiones in Ecclesijs vel Ecclesiam si quis contrarium faceret si posset apprehendi caperetur vt Regi rebellis incarceraretur A statute was made in the same Parliament that from henceforth none should passe the seas to obtaine prouisions in Churches or to obtaine any Church and if any should do contrary if he could be catched he should be apprehended as a rebell to the king and cast in prison The next yeere the same king set out a Proclamation that all such as were resident in the Court of Rome and had benefices in England should returne by the feast of S. Nicholas vnder paine of forfeiting all their benefices When the Pope heard all this thundering he sent a Nuncio with great complaints for answere wherof the king referred him to the Parliament following which would by no meanes consent that Rome-runners should get their benefices as in former time In the dayes of Henry the fift when the Pope by his bulles translated Richard of Lincolne to Yorke the Deane and Chapter standing vpon the lawes of the land refused to admit him as hereafter shall be declared Shall wee now say that the kings of England conferre spiritual promotions by the Popes indulgence let king Edward the first be witnesse let the Parliament in the raigne of Edward the third be witnesse let the like Parliament in the time of Richard the second be witnesse let the Deane and Chapter of Yorke be witnesse all which were of the Popish religion and yet referred this to the king and not to the Pope Hitherto that the kings of England vsed Inuestitures NOw I will prooue that they vsed them lawfully by a double right as Princes as Patrons As Princes for many reasons First if we looke into the old Testament we find that Salomon set Sadock in the roume of Abiathar by what authoritie Verely by the same by which he cast out Abiathar Which I haue already prooued to be done by the lawful and ordinary power of a Prince If this be a perpetuall patterne for all posteritie then the collation of spirituall dignities is the Princes right Secondly it was prophesied of
Vniuersall Patriarch was giuen and that by a Councell to Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople In what sence trow you You produced but two sences of it out of Bellarmine In the first which prophanely excludeth all other Bishops they did not giue it for then they should deny themselues to be Bishops contrary to their own subscriptions If in the latter then it was common to him with the Bishops of Rome and so cannot proue your Monarchicall iurisdiction PHIL. How proue you that this title was giuen him by a Councell ORTHOD. Binius saith How oft Iohn Bishop of Constantinople is named in the acts of the Councell of Constantinople vnder Hormisda so oft the title of Vniuersall Patriarch is found added vnto him PHIL. Binius in the same place ascribeth this to the imposture of the latter Grecians which he proueth because though two Popes Pelagius and Gregory condemned this title in the Bishop of Constantinople yet no man obiected against them the authoritie of this Councell which had beene very materiall because the greater part of it was approued by the Church of Rome Wherefore it is certaine that this was not originally in the Councell but foisted in afterward ORTHO But Pope Adrian the first in his Epistle to Tharasius recorded in the second Nicen Councell intitleth him a generall Patriarch PHIL. This seemeth also to be added by some Grecian which I rather thinke because the same Epistle translated by Anastasius hath no such title prefixed ORTHOD. As though Anastasius were not as likely to put it out as the Grecians to put it in But Iustinian in the Authentickes giueth Mennas the very selfe same title of Oecumenicall Patriarch PHIL. It must be affirmed that this also crept in vnlesse we say that he is called Vniuersall in respect of the Orientall Bishops and Priests ORTHOD. So Holoander taketh it when hee translateth it Vniuersi eius tractus Patriarchae i. to the Patriarch of all that circuit But are you now aduised Was he called Vniuersal and yet had not the iurisdictiō of the whole world but was onely an Orientall Patriarch then you must confesse that this title might be giuen to the B. of Rome and yet not imply that hee had iurisdiction ouer the whole world but ouer the whole West and so was the Occidentall Patriarch Wherefore the decree of Pope Pelagius requiring all Metropolitanes to send to Rome to professe their faith and receiue the Pall extendeth not to them of the East but onely to them of the West PHIL. Then you grant that hee was Patriarch of the West and that is sufficient to inferre my conclusion for the Westerne Patriarch must needes haue iurisdiction ouer the Metropolitanes of the West in which compasse is Brittany I need not here speake of the ancient diuision of the Prouinces nor of Saint Peter nor of Eleutherius It is famously knowne that Saint Austin was sent hither by the Bishop of Rome receiued a pall from him and apparently submitted himselfe to his iurisdiction so did his successours for almost a thousand yeeres together Wherfore seeing the Bishop of Rome was in lawfull possession you must tell vs vpon what reason you put him from it ORTHOD. By what title doth the Pope challenge his iurisdiction in England By the law of God you cannot iustifie it By reason of the first conuersion of the Island by Saint Peter You cannot make it manifest that euer he was here Will you fetch it from Eleutherius He onely sent at the kings request and challenged no such authority Wil you deriue it from Austin It was then made appeare by many reasons that the Brittans ought him no subiection And it is euident that he and his associates had first their assemblies in Saint Martins Church in Canterbury by the Kings permission afterward when the king himselfe was conuerted they receiued to vse the words of Bede more ample licence both to Preach through all his dominions and also to build and repaire Churches So you see all was receiued from the king It is true that Gregory sent a supply of Preachers and gaue his aduise for the erection of Bishopricks and sent palls hither yet there can bee no question but all this was done by the kings licence Afterward in succeeding ages when the Popes did play the wild boares in the Church in executing Church censures and giuing Church liuings the kings of England made lawes against them euen in the time of Popery For as it was defended by Cyprian and afterward also by the African councell vnder Celestinus that causes should bee ended where they begunne and not bee carried to tribunalls beyond the sea So it was decreed in England in the raigne of Henry the second as witnesseth Mathew Paris De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debet procedi ad Episcopum ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum si Archiepiscopus defuerit in iustitia exhibenda ad dominum regē perueniendū est postremò vt praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controuersia terminetur ita quod non debeat vltra procedi absque assenssu domini regis i. Cōcerning appeals if any shall spring they ought to proceed from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop if the Archb. shal be defectiue in doing iustice they must come at last to our Lord the king that by his cōmandement the controuersie may bee determined in the Archbishops Court so that there ought not to be any further proceedings without the assent of the Lord the king Thus it is cleare that the Pope could not take to himselfe the handling of causes without the kings license It might also be declared how little his cēsures were here respected vnlesse they receiued strength by the kings permission And whereas hee tooke vpon him to dispose of Church liuings hee was censured for it in the time of Edw. the 3 euen in the high Court of Parliament as an vsurper These points might bee much inlarged but this little touch is sufficient to shew that whatsoeuer iurisdiction hee had in England was by the courtesie of the King whatsoeuer hee tooke vpon him otherwise was by vsurpation Now his challenge by custome is repelled by custome For these sixe hundred yeeres last past hee affecting to bee that which he was not disdained to bee that which he was and aspyring to a Popedome neglected his Patriarchdome so that which he had gotten by vse he hath lost by disusing and by his owne fact hath extinguished his former title Secondly whereas Pope Pelagius required onely a profession of the faith according to the Scriptures and the holy ancient generall councels Pius the fourth hath framed vs a new forme of faith without which no man can bee saued consisting of traditions transubstantiations merits Images reliques and such rotten Romish ragges-which he hath clapt to the Nicen creed as it were a beggers patch to a golden garment And
your Popish Priests it cannot agree because they are many for if the Priests should be many then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priesthood therefore this vnitie is directly against you Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity PHIL. If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice or else the Priesthood should be idle but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting for it was but once offered therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament that is the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer and so our Priest-hood is proued ORTHOD. Proued how is it proued the scripture saith that Christ because he indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood he indureth for euer he euen he in his owne person and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice For Christ is a Priest for euer First in respect of his owne Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Secondly in respect of his intercession In respect of the Sacrifice which though it were but once offered yet it is an euerlasting Sacrifice because the vertue of it is euerlasting and continueth effectuall for euer for as he is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so hee is Iesus Christ yesterday to day and the same for euer neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs. PHIL. As hee is a Priest properly for euer so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person therefore he must offer it by another ORTH. Your owne Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception Now what if one should reason thus with you if he be a Priest he must offer a Sacrifice but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice therefore then he was no Priest Or thus till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice therefore all that while hee was no Priest what would you answere PHIL. I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time ORTHOD. If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession For his Priesthood hath two parts Redemption and Intercession It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercession and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn if any man sinne wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes Who is our aduocate euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiation for our sinnes hee is our aduocate and appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth who shall condemne vs It is Christ which is dead yea rather which is risen againe who is also at the right hand of God and maketh intercession for vs And seeing we haue a high Priest made higher then the heauens who euer liueth to make intercession for vs In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice Wherefore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec Which may yet appeare more fully because the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice but vnfouldeth it in these branches following First Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse therein being a type of Christ Iesus who is the Lord our righteousnesse Secondly Melchisedec was King of Salem that is king of peace So Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace for he is our peace which hath made of both one and hath broken the stop of the partition wall in abrogating through his flesh the hatred that is the lawe of commandements which standeth in ordinances for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe so making peace And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse and slay hatred thereby and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off and to them that were neere Thirdly Melchisedec was both King and Priest so was Christ Iesus Fourthly Melchisedec blessed Abraham and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham that is vpon all beleeuers For we ought all to say with the Apostle Blessed bee God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham and consequētly euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchisedec Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aaron Sixtly Melchisedec was without father without mother without kindred not simply but is said to be so in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly making no mention at all of father mother or kinred thereby representing Christ Iesus who as he was man had no father as he was God had no mother nor kinred Seuenthly Melchisedec had neither beginning of dayes nor end of life That is the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus who as hee is God is from euerlasting to euerlasting Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec plentifully and particularly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing which is an euident argument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine PHIL. The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concerning Melchisedec A high Priest according to the order of Melchisedec of whom we haue great speech and inexplicable to vtter because you are become weake to heare Among which no doubt say the Rhemists the mysterie of the Sacrament Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe ORTHOD. We doe not ground
Christs breathing For as in the second of the Acts hee gaue the Spirit in the forme of tongues Because then hee gaue them the gift of preaching so here he gaue it by breathing because hee gaue them the gift of forgiuing of sinnes not by preaching as you dreame but plainely by quenching and dissoluing them For as the winde doth quench the fire and scater the clouds so the absolution of the Priest doth scatter sinnes and maketh them to vanish according to which Metaphor we read in Esay I haue blotted out thy sinnes as a cloud ORTHOD. Christ did breath to signifie that this heauenly gift proceeded from himselfe and therefore our Bishops when they vtter these words doe not breath because they are not Authors of this spiritual power but only Gods delegates and assignes to giue men possession of his graces Moreouer Christ by breathing did signifie that none was fit for this heauenly function but such as he enabled with his spirit and also that this holy spirit should assist his ministers in the dispelling of sins Neither is the place of Esay for your purpose when the sky is darkned with clouds and mists the Lord sendeth a wind out of his treasure house whereby they are scattered the skie cleared and the golden beames of the sunne restored euen so when the poore soule and conscience is ouercast with clouds of sin and mists of sorrow God by his holy spirit concurring with his blessed word bringeth men to faith and repentance and so forgiueth their sins that he will neuer remember them any more But what is this to your Popish absolution PHIL. THe sixth argument is drawne from the authority of the Fathers and first of Chrysostome out of whose third booke of Priesthood our learned Cardinall produceth sixe places the first where it is said that God hath giuen such power to those that are in earth as it was not his will to giue either to Angels or Archangels for it was not said vnto them what soeuer you bind in earth shal bee bound in heauen but surely the Angels may declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen therfore in the iudgement of Chrysostome power is giuen vnto the Priest truely to bind and loose and not by way of declaration ORTHOD. Though the Angels being ministring spirits may when it pleaseth the Lord declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen aswel as the Angel said to Cornelius b Thy prayers thy almes are come vp into remembrance before God yet this is rare and extraordinary but the Priest doth it by his ordinary office in which regard Chrysostome hath reason to say that such power is giuen to Priests as is neither giuen to Angels nor Archangels PHIL. Chrysostome proceedeth and telleth how earthly Princes haue power To bind the body only but the Priests bond toucheth the soule and reacheth vnto heauen Now earthly Princes doe not declare who is bound or loosed but bind or loose their bodies indeed and therefore the Priests in binding and loosing of soules doe not declare who are bound or loosed but by authority in the roome of Christ doe bind or loose them indeed if the comparison of Chrysostome be of any value ORTHO He compareth them in respect of the obiects not in respect of the manner the obiect of the Princes bond is the body the obiect of the Priest is the soule but doth follow because the Prince doth bind or loose the body properly that therfore binding or loosing of the soule is attributed in the like propriety of speech vnto the Priest PHIL. Chrysostome vpon these words whose sins you retaine they are retained saith What power I pray you can be greater then this but it is no great matter to declare that sins are forgiuen to the beleeuers and retained to the vnbeleeuers For any man may perfourme it which can read the Gospell neither Priests onely but the layity also neither Catholikes onely but Heretikes also yea and the diuells themselues ORTHOD. It is no great matter to pronounce the words but the excellency of the Ministery consisteth in this that they doe it ex officio and that according to Gods owne ordinance therefore in the reuerend performance therof they may expect a comfortable blessing PHIL. Chrysostome saith The Father hath giuen al maner of power to his sonne and I see the same power in all variety giuen to them by the sonne but the Father did not giue to the sonne a bare ability to declare the Gospell but by authority to forgiue sinnes therefore the like is giuen to the Priests ORTHOD. The power which the Father gaue to Christ conteineth all power in heauen and in earth but I hope you will not say that Christ gaue all power in heauen and earth to his disciples therefore the words of Chrysostome need a gentle interpretation and must not bee taken litterally as they sound but for a rhetoricall amplification Againe the power to forgiue sins is giuen to Christ and to his Disciples but not in the same manner for God the Father forgiueth sinnes by not imputing them Christ God and Man meritoriously the Ministers onely Ministerially as you heard before PHIL. Chrysostome compareth a Priest not with the kings Herald which only declareth what is done but with one who hath power to east into prison and deliuer out of prison how could he more openly declare that the Priests power is truly iudiciall ORTH. The Herald only proclaimeth the kings pardon and is no instrument to effect it but the minister so proclaimeth saluation by Iesus Christ that he is Gods instrument to worke it so the ministeriall declaration is not a bare but an effectuall declaration that mens sinnes are forgiuen For first the Law must bee effectually preached to humble the soule then the Gospell must bee effectually applied to kindle true faith And as the Minister is Gods effectuall instrument in working so he is his Ambassadour effectually to minister comfort to the penitent soule Yet for all this he doth not forgiue sinnes properlie but onely ministerially The like is to bee said of his deliuering the soules of men out of prison For that it cannot bee meant properly may appeare by the other branch because the Minister doth not properly cast any man into the spirituall prison but the wicked being already imprisoned and â—ettered with the chaine of their owne sins and refusing the light of the Gospel when it shines vnto them the sweet mercies of God in Iesus Christ are said to bee bound by a Priest because hee retaineth that is pronounceth that they are tied and bound with the chaines of darkenesse and denounceth the iudgements of God against them so long as they remaine impenitent PHIL. Chrysostome makes an other comparison betweene the legall Priests and the Euangelicall for the Legall did purge the leprosie of the body or rather not purge it but examine those that were purged But