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
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
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
immodestly then euer did any other heretickes And other reuerend diuines vse almost the same words Gregory de Valentia saith Certainely it is apparent that in the Catholicke Romane Church there are lawfull Ecclesiasticall Ministers as being rightly ordained of true Bishops but in the Synagogues of Sectaries it is euident that there are not lawfull Ministers for they are not ordained of lawfull Bishops and therefore it is manifest that they haue no Church seeing that a Church cannot want lawfull Ministers Likewise father Turrian saith That the Donatists and Luciferians had after a sort some fashion of a Church because they had Bishops though schismaticall and other Ministers whom Bishops ordained But the Protestants haue no forme or fashion of a Church at all because they haue no Ministers at all of the Church or word but meere Lay men Mattheus Lanoius hath proued that onely the Romane Church hath lawfull vocation And D. Tyreus hath written of the false calling of the new Ministers but these are sufficient And that this is the iudgement of holy Church may appeare by the practise for as you haue heard out of Rich. Bristow Your Ministers returning to vs are not admitted to minister vnlesse they take our Orders which sheweth that in the iudgement of the Church they are not lawfull Ministers but meerely Lay-men ORTHOD. Our Ministerie is agreeable to the blessed booke of God and therefore holy and I doubt not but when the chiefe Shepheard shall appeare those that haue instructed many vnto righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer But how proue you that our Ministers are no lawfull Ministers PHIL. CAn there be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling ORTHOD. It is impossible For no man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but hee that is called of God as was Aaron It is written of Iohn the Baptist There was a man sent from God The Apostles did not preach before they had this warrant Behold I send you And S. Paul saith How can they preach except they be sent And the Lord in the Prophet Ieremie reproueth such as ranne before they were sent Therefore though a man were wiser then Solomon and Daniel he must expect till the Lord send him he that teacheth without a calling how can he hope that Christ will be with him This is an order saith Beza appointed in the Church by the Sonne of God and obserued inuiolably by all true Prophets and Apostles That no man may teach in the Church vnlesse he be called PHIL. If there cannot be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling then I must demaund how the Ministers of England can iustifie their calling Might not a man say to euery one of you as Harding said to Iewell How say you sir you beare your selfe as though you were Bishop of Salisburie but how can you proue your vocation by what authoritie vsurpe you the Administration of Doctrine and Sacraments what can you alledge for the right and proofe of your Ministerie who hath called you who hath laied hands on you by what example hath he done it how and by whom are you consecrated who hath sent you who hath committed vnto you the Office you take vpon you be you a Priest or be you not if you be not how dare you vsurpe the name and Office of a Bishop if you be tell vs who gaue you Orders ORTHOD. You please your selues and beat the aire with a sound of idle and emptiâ— words but leaue your vaine flourishes and let vs heare what you can say against our calling PHIL. Then I demand whether you haue an inward or an outward calling ORTHOD. We haue both PHIL. An outward calling must either bee immediatly by the voyce of Christ as was the calling of the Apostles or mediatly by the Church ORTHOD. We are called of God by the Church For it is he which giueth Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints PHIL. All that are called of God by the Church deriue their authoritie by lawfull succession from Christ and his Apostles If you doe so then let it appeare shew vs your discent let vs see your pedegree If you cannot then what are you whence come you If you tell vs that God hath raised you in extraordinary maner you must pardon vs if we be slow in beleeuing such things there are many deceiuers gone out into the world and Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light In a word euery lawful calling is either ordinary or extraordinary if yours be ordinary let vs see your authoritie if extraordinary let vs see your miracles If one take vpon him extraordinary authoritie as an Ambassadour from a King he must produce his commission vnder the Kings seale If you will challenge the like from God then we require a miracle that is the Seale of the King of heauen But to vse the words of Doct. Stapleton In the hatching of the Protestants brood no ordinary vocation nor sending extraordinary appeareth so the ground and foundation being nought all which they haue builded vpon it falleth downe ORTHOD. The Ministers of England receiue imposition of hands in lawfull maner from lawfull Bishops indued with lawfull authoritie and therefore their calling is Ordinary PHIL. Your Bishops themselues whence haue they this authoritie ORTHOD. They receiued it from God by the hands of such Bishops as went before them PHIL. But your first reformers whence do they deriue their succession ORTHOD. Archbishop Cranmer and other heroicall spirits whom the Lord vsed as his instruments to reforme Religion in England had the very selfe-same Ordination and succession whereof you so glory and therefore if these argue that your calling is Ordinary you must confesse that theirs likewise was Ordinarie PHIL. We must not onely examine Cranmer and such others consecrated in King Henries time but them also which were in King Edwards and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths as Parker Grindall Sands Horne and the like which were Priests after the Romane rite but leaped out of the Church before they were Bishops ORTHOD. As the first Bishops consecrated in King Edwards time deriued their Spirituall power by succession from those that were in King Henries so the first that were aduanced vnder the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth receiued theirs from such as were formerly created partly in K. Henries dayes partly in King Edwards And the Bishops at this day vnder our gracious soueraigne King IAMES haue the like succession from their predecessours as may be iustified by Records in particular and is confessed in generall by â—udsemius who came into England in the yeere of our Lord 1608. to obserue the state of our Church and the Orders of our Vniuersities Concerning the state saith he of the Caluinian sect in England it so standeth that it may either indure long or be changed suddenly and in a trâ—ce in regard of the Catholicke order there in a
Hitherto of the circumstances now we come to the deposition it selfe CHAP. II. The Deposition of the Bishops iustified by the example of Salomon deposing Abiathar PHIL. IN a lawfull Deposition there must be sufficient authority proceeding vpon a iust and sufficient cause Now let me aske you by what authoritie were the old Bishops deposed ORTHOD. And I might aske you by what authoritie Salomon deposed Abiathar PHIL. You are still telling vs of Salomon and Abiathar If a king depriued this high Priest an other high Priest that is Iehoiada depriued Queene Athalia both of her kingdome and life ORTHOD. Q. Athalia No Queene sir by your leaue Ioas the true heire of the kingdome was then aliue and he was the true King by right of inheritance therefore she was no Queene but a wicked vsurper Your Defence of Catholicks might teach you so much which calleth her A pretenced Queene and saith That she vsurped the kingdome Yet behold with what blindnesse and giddines they are stricken which traiterously oppose themselues against their Prince and countrey Cardinall Allen is not ashamed to bring the example of Iehoiada deposing Athalia that vsurping and pretenced Queene to proue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose lawfull Princes Neither did Iehoiada this as being high Priest but whatsoeuer he did in this case he might haue done it though he had not bene high Priest For Iehosheba his wife was daughter to king Iehoram and sister to king Ahazia who was father to Ioas and consequently she was aunt to King Ioas So Iehoiada her husband was of the next alliance that the yong King had Yea and when Athalia like a bloodie Tyger murthered the kings seed Iehosheba the wife of Iehoiada conueyed away her nephew Ioas out of the middest of the kings sonnes which were massacred and hid him and his nurse in a chamber and kept them close 6. yeeres in the House of the Lord. So Iehoiada by Gods prouidence was made Protector of the Kings person yea and when the time came wherein he thought fit to disclose him he first acquainted the Fathers of Israel and the Captaines and so proceeded with their consent Therefore what did hee herein but protect the person age innocencie and title of his Lord and Soueraigne whereto he was bound by the Law of Nature and Nations Therefore when you bring this to proue the Popes Supremacie you mistake the matter you cannot shew vs in Scripture where euer a Priest deposed a lawfull Prince The Kings of Israel were all of them idolaters and so were 14. of the Kings of Iuda yet not one Priest or Prophet did so much as euer offer to depose any one of them but we shew you in Scripture this plaine example where Salomon the Prince remoued Abiathar the lawfull Priest PHIL. IT is one thing to relate the actions of kings and another thing to approue the authoritie ORTHOD. Did the Spirit of God thinke you relate this onely as an Historian and not approue the action or dare you accuse Salomon as proceeding in this case without authoritie If Salomon had no authoritie to depose Abtathar then there must needs be a nullitie in the Deposition For how can any Iudiciall action be of validitie when there is no authoritie in the Agent If the Deposition were a nullitie then Abiathar still retained the true right title and interest to be high Priest But what could there be two high Priests at one time PHIL. Surely no for though S. Luke say that the word of the Lord came vnto Iohn when Annas and Caiaphas were high Priests yet we must not thinke that they were both high Priests in equall authoritie at once For the word Summus Sacerdos or princeps Sacerdotum is taken three wayes First whereas the Priests were diuided into 24. Orders the chiefe of each Order was called Princeps Sacerdotum The Prince of the Priests or high Priest Secondly there was a Colledge of 72. Seniours which was called Synedrin the first or chiefe whereof was also called The Prince of the Priests or high Priest Thirdly it is taken both most properly and most vsually for him that had the first and chiefest place of all to whom the other Princes of the Priests were subiect Now Baronius thinketh that S. Luke called Annas an high Priest because he was both the Prince and highest of his Order and also the Prince and highest of the Synedrin but Caiaphas in his iudgement was called high Priest because he was simply and absolutely highest of all in which sence there can be but one high Priest at once nor euer was Vnum tantummodo non duos simul ante post haec tempora summum Sacerdotem penes Iudaeos fuisse certum exploratumque habeatur That is It is certaine and a tried trueth that there was one onely high Priest among the Iewes not two at once both before and after these times speaking of the time of Annas and Caiaphas Hence Cardinall Bellarmine with other of our learned diuines doe commonly conclude that As there was but one visible gouernour in the Church of the old Testament so there should bee but one in the Church of the New ORTHOD. If there could be but one high Priest at one time and Abiathar notwithstanding that hee was put from the possession still retained the true right title and interest to be high Priest then Sadok was not a lawfull high Priest but an intruder vpon another mans right what say you to this PHIL. It were hard to call Sadok an intruder for Sadok idem est quod iustus reuera fuit Sadok nomine factis that is Sadok doth signifie iust and indeed he was iust both in name and deeds ORTHO If Sadok were no intruder but a lawfull high Priest then Abiathar ceased to bee high Priest for you say there could not bee two at once If Abiathar ceased to bee high Priest then the place was lawfully voide but how was it void Not by death for Abiathar was still aliue not by resignation or voluntary cessation for wee finde no such matter How then no other reason can with reason bee imagined but onely because hâ—e was deposed by Salomon If the place were iustly and lawfully voide by vertue of this deposition then it must needes bee a lawfull deposition and consequently it must bee done by lawfull authority For if the deposer had no authority then could not the deposition bee lawfull wherefore as you confesse that Sadok was lawfull high Priest so you must likewise confesse that Salomon in casting out Abiathar and placing Sadok had lawfull authority PHIL. WHat if he had was he not a Prophet as well as a King ORTHO All the bookes of the old Testament are called by the name of Prophecy because they prophecied of Iesus Christ therefore the pen men thereof which did speake as they were moued by the holy ghost amongst which was
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
at Rome that the Romane Bishop might absolutely succeed him ORT. This is your owne coniecture and not Law diuine PHIL. Pope Marcellus saith that Peter came to Rome iubente Domino the Lord so commaunding ORTH. This is your owne tradition and not Law diuine And as your succession so your monarchicall iurisdiction cannot be proued to be by Law diuine This was well knowne to the Fathers of the first generall councell who confined the Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria ascribing his patriarchical power vnto custome not to Law diuine This was likewise knowne to the Fathers of the second and fourth generall councels who ascribe the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome to the honour of the Imperiall City for so the Fathers of the fourth councell interpret the second and affirme it themselues Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbs illa imperaret iure patres priuilegia tribuere eadem consideratione moti 150. Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuêre rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio senatu honorata sit aequalibus cum antiquissima regina Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in Rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem The Fathers did rightly giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because the City then raigned and the 150. Bishops most earnest louers of God assembled in the second generall councell which was the first at Constantinople mouedâ—y the same consideration gaue equall priuileges to the most holy throne of new Rome rightly iudging that the City which was honoured both by the Empire and the Senate and enioyeth equall priuileges with Rome the most ancient Queene of Cities should bee extolled and magnified euen in things Ecclesiasticall no otherwise then Rome being the second in order after it Thus they hold the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to bee not Monarchicall because they giue equall priuileges to Constantinople but Patriarchicall which they referre not to the Institution of Christ nor to Peters fact nor to the succession in Peters chaire but to the honour of the Imperiall City in that it was Imperiall therefore as Binius confesseth they hold it to be by Law humane and not diuine PHIL. Baronius Bellarmine and Binius doe tell you that this Canon was not confirmed by Pope Leo. ORTHO Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum did testifie the contrarie openly in the councell in these words Sponte subscripsi quoniam hanc regulam sanctissimo Papae in vrbe Româ relegi praesentibus clericis Constantinopolitanis eamque suscepit i. I haue subscribed willingly because I read ouer euen this Canon to the most holy Pope in the City of Rome in the presence of the Clerkes of Constantinople and hee embraced it But let vs imagine that hee did not embrace it yet I referre this point to any indifferent iudge whether wee should rather beleeue sixe hundred Bishops and vpward speaking vprightly what they thinke and grounding their iudgement vpon the decrees of former generall councels then one man with a few flattering fauorites speaking partially in his owne cause PHIL. This Canon was not made by the councel but Anatolius with the Easterne Bishops made it secretly and by stealth after the Iudges and the Popes Legate were gone out of the Councell ORTHOD. The Church of Constantinople beeing desirous to propose this matter Entreated the Popes Legats to communicate with them in the handling of it who refused because the Pope had giuen charge to the contrary then they made relation of it to the Iudges who commaunded the holy councell then present to looke into it which they did accordingly therefore though it pleased the Iudges to depart yet the councell proceeded by authority from the Iudges And the Popes Legats might haue staied if it had pleased themselues Moreouer The Decrees were read at the next meeting openly in the councell before the iudges who ratified them by their sentence and all the councell cried and redoubled againe and againe that the sentence was iust PHIL. The Popes Legats interposed a contradiction affirming that the Apostolike See ought not to be debased ORTHOD. The Iudges notwithstanding would not relent but concluded the whole businesse thus Tota Synodus approbauit i. The whole Synod hath approuedit wherefore it was the iudgement of the whole Synod that the Popes iurisdiction is not by Law diuine CHAP. IIII. Of the Election of Bishops in the primitiue Church before there were any Christian Princes PHIL. IF wee consider the practise of the Christian world in primitiue antiquitie which was nearest to the fountaine and knew best the meaning of Law Diuine wee shall finde that they were either elected or at least confirmed by the Pope or by authoritie from the Pope either expresly or by his permission or conniuencie and so receiued their iurisdiction ORTHOD. To examine these points in order let vs begin with the election of Ministers concerning which we find three varieties in the new Testament The first by lots the second by voyces the third by the spirit of prophesie Matthias was chosen by lots the Deacons by voyces Timothy and others by the spirit of prophesie For as Chrysostome saith In those dayes the pastours were made by prophesie what is by prophecie by the holy Ghost as Saul was shewed by prophecie when hee lay hid among the stuffe as the holy Ghost said separate vnto me Paul and Barnabas so was Timothie chosen Theodoret thou hast not thy calling from men but thou receiuedst that order by diuine reuelation Oecumenius by reuelation of the spirit Timothy was chosen of Paul to bee a Disciple and ordained a Bishop This kind of election seemeth to bee vsuall in the Apostles times and to haue continued so long as the gift of prophecie and discerning of spirits remained Now of these three the first and third were by God himselfe the second by all the faithfull This is all wee finde in Scripture yet here is no precept but onely example Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left this point as a thing indifferent to bee ordered by the discretion of the Church so all things be done honestly and in order From the Scripture if wee come to the ages following they referred it to the Clergie and people PHIL. To the Clergy I grant by the conniuencie of the Pope but in the Councell of Laodicea elections of B. are forbidden to be made by the people ORTH. The Councell in that place nameth Priestes not Bishops and if vnder the name of Priestes you comprehend Bishops yet you must consider that it being onely prouinciall could not impose lawes to the whole Christian world That Bishops were chosen by popular elections after this Councell may appeare by the great Nicen Councell assembled as Baronius thinketh six yeeres after the Councell of
according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiasticall lawes Moreouer his noble successours what did they When the rebell Rodolph was slaine in the field they armed the sonnes against their owne father First Conrade the◠Henry who tooke his owne father prisoner and brought him to such misery that hee was glad to begge for victuals in a Church which he himselfe had founded promising to earne them by doing the dutie of a Clerke in seruing the quier which not obtaining he pined away and dyed for sorrow Was this according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiasticall lawes Neither did the Popes malice stay here their successour Pope Paschall the second caused him to be digged out of his graue and to lye vnburied by the space of fiue yeeres Was this according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiasticall lawes Yet after all these exploits so valiantly performed Pope Paschall was glad to restore againe the priuiledge of inuestitures to his sonne Henry being the fift King and the 4 Emperour of that name PHIL. This priuiledge may be called a prauiledge For the Emperour tooke him prisoner and constrained him to it by force and violence but when he was inlarged he cursed both the priuiledge and the Emperour in two Romane Councells the one holden in the yeere 1112. the other in the yeere 1116. ORTHO The Emperour inforced him not to any thing vnlawfull but to obserue the ancient Canons acording to the custome both of the Church and Empire this the Emperour might iustly require and the Pope might yeeld vnto with a good conscience so Paschal with sixeteene of his Bishops and Cardinals whose names Baronius setteth downe out of Petrus Diaconus bound themselues by a solemne oath sub anathemate to performe it Notwithstanding when he was once set at libertie the Pope played the Pope cursed the Emperour and reuoked his grant with open periurie PHIL. The Emperour himselfe had no great confidence in this grant and therefore he relinquished it to Calixtus the second ORTH. What should he do It was now commonly taught that Inuestitures belonged not to lay men It was imbraced as an article of faith that the Pope might depose Princes for denying whereof Vecilo Archbish. of Mentz was condemned for an Hereticke He saw his fathers example fresh bleeding before his eies he was in danger euery day to be turned out of his kingdome the Popes were continually flashing their excommunications in his face first Pope Paschall then Gelasius after him Calixtus So at last wearied and tired out hee was compelled to redeeme his peace and rather to loose Inuestitures then the Empire it selfe Thus the authoritie which was for many hundreds of yeeres practised by the Greeke Romane and Germaine Emperours ratified by Clement the 2. with a councel by Leo the 8. with a councel by Adrian the 1. with a councel and before them all by Pope Vigilius and before him by the approbation of those ancient and better times was now wrested and extorted from him by periury cursing and banning And as they excluded the Emperour reducing elections to the Clergie and people so afterward they excluded the people and brought them onely to the Clergie after that they excluded the Clergie and brought them onely to the Cardinalls Since which time they haue beene as monstrous Popes as euer were before namely Boniface the eighth who entred like a fox raigned like a lyon and dyed like a dogge Iohn the 23. who was called a diuell incarnate and Alexander the sixt who was worse then they both Of all the Schismes which were in the Church of Rome the 29. saith Onuphrius was the worst and the longest continuing 50. yeares sometimes two Popes sometimes three raigning at once which proceeded frō the ambition of the Cardinals the Emperor being excluded who should haue repressed them and if at last the Emperour Sigismund had not interposed his authoritie calling the Councell of Constance and putting downe 3. Popes by this time as a learned man saith your Church might haue had as many Popes at once as the scarlet coloured beast hath heads Hitherto of Rome CHAP. IX Of the Election of the Bishops of Constantinople WHen Nazianzen had refused the Bishopricke of Constantinople Theodosius the elder commaunded the Bishops to giue him in writing the names of such as they thought fit for the place reseruing to himselfe the power of Electing one out of all It fell out that there was at that time at Constantinople an ancient and reuerend old man Nectarius by name who being about to returne to Tarsus came to Diodorus the Bishop thereof to know whether he would haue any thing thither Diodorus on a sudden liking the behauiour of the man though a stranger vnto him shewed him to the Bishop of Antioch praying him to remember him in the catalogue of names The Bishop of Antioch smiled at the conceit of Diodorus because many men of eminent note were nominated for this Election yet for fashion sake to please Diodorus he put Nectarius in among the rest and placed him last The Emperour hauing read ouer the catalogue made a pause at the name of Nectarius and making a marke with his finger he read them ouer againe and chose Nectarius And when euery man inquired who this Nectarius was it appeared that he was not as yet baptized a thing which was vnknowne to the Emperour vnknowne to the Bishop of Antioch vnknowne to Diodorus Yet the Emperour hauing made his choice would not be remoued and the Councell then assembled pronounced him Bishop of Constantinople euen while he was yet in his Christening vesture After the death of Nectarius the Clergie and people chose Chrysostome the Emperour approued the Election and sent to fetch him from Antioch After the death of Sisinnius though many made sute for Philip and many for Proclus yet it was the Emperours pleasure because of some vain glorious persons to choose none of that Church but to send for a stranger Nestorius from Antioch After the death of Maximianus Theodosius the Emperour lest any tumult should be raised in the Church procured the Bishops then present to install Proclus in the Bishops seat euen while the corps of Maximianus was as yet aboue ground which Socrates commendeth in the Emperour as a point of wisdome PHIL. You should marke what followeth in Socrates to wit that Celestinus Bishop of Rome did consent to these proceedings ORTHOD. When Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople was deposed and Proclus in faire possibilitie to obtaine the place some stood vp alledging against him that it was not lawfull to be translated from one See to another whereupon Proclus was repelled and Maximianus chosen Wherefore after the death of Maximianus when Celestine heard that Proclus was installed he wrote to Cyrill and others signifying that translations of Bishops was lawful and not against the Canons So Celestine onely giueth his iudgement but assumeth no authoritie in the Election which was
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
yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe coÌ„monly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were sâ—aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth
vpon the silence of the Apostle onely but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world that Popery is the meer inuention of man shall wither in the root from whence it sprung For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out PHIL. Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist And wherein can it consist but in an oblation or sacrifice ORTHOD. First some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham Secondly those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and not a propitiatorie Thirdly if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice for those which hold so must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine by Melchisedec the first to God by way of Sacrifice the second to Abraham and the armie in the manner of a banquet the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse the second to the Eucharist Fourthly your Popish massing Sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist as in due place shall be declared Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice CHAP. III. Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe PHIL. THe Sacrifice of the Masse and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer is proued by an argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe And first it is cleare by the Scripture that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice For we read in Exodus Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe and immolate the Passeouer And againe You shall slay it it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer And in the 9. of Numbers Certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day And those men said vnto him we are defiled by a dead man Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord in the time therunto appointed And againe But the man that is cleane and is not in a iourney and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer the same person shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season And in the Gospel of S. Mark The first day of the Azyms when they sacrificed the Passeouer And S. Paul saith Our Passeouer Christ is immolated ORTHOD. Admit it were a Sacrifice what can you conclude PHIL. The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist Therefore if the Paschal Lambe were a Sacrifice the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure and the thing figured ORTHOD. As other ceremonies of the Law so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ. PHIL. The ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion as may appeare by foure circumstances First the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist but the passion was deferred vntill the day following ORTHOD. Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer therefore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passeouer But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion for what saith the Scripture Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world How doth he take away the sinnes of the world Is it not by his death and passion as it is written wee haue redemption through his blood euen the forgiuenes of our sinnes according to his rich grace And againe He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this that hee was slaine which was not in the Eucharist but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn who rendreth this reason why his legges were not broken because it is written there shall not a bone of him be broken PHIL. Secondly The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing ouer and the deliuerance of the people and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father by his passion and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan by the death of Christ. ORTHOD. If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ then one is not the body of the other but the substance of both is Christ. PHIL. Thirdly the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten and so is the Eucharist but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed ORTHOD. If the Lambe were properly offered then it was more truely a Type of Christ then of the Eucharist For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist onely Christ sayth doe this in remembrance of me Whereby we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten Christ himselfe saith Verely verely I say vnto you except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day For my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And a little before The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world PHIL. That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist ORTHO Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life some vnto destruction but
the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is is to euery one that is partaker therof vnto life and to none vnto destruction And so is the flesh here spoken of â— Christ crucified which is meat not for the body but for the soule to be eaten not with the teeth but with the heart by a liuely faith both in the Eucharist and without it PHIL. Fourthly the Paschall Lambe could not be eaten sauing onely of the circumcised and cleane and in Ierusalem so the Eucharist cannot bee receiued but onely of the baptised and cleane and in the Church sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum vt in cruce immolatum fide manducare i. But others also may and ought to eat Christ by faith as he is offered vpon the Crosse. ORTHOD. Can the vncleane eate Christ by faith This is contrary to the Scripture which teacheth That God by faith doeth purifie the heart Againe No vncleane thing shall enter the kingdome of Heauen but euery beleeuer shall haue life euerlasting therefore no sound beleeuer is to be reputed vncleane PHIL. Faith goeth before both Baptisme and Iustification therefore a man may haue faith before he be cleane ORTHOD. Faith goeth before iustification onely in the order of nature and not in the order of time but it may goe before Baptisme euen in order of time as the Eunuch beleeued before he was Baptized But wheresoeuer it is found or whensoeuer it purifieth the heart and maketh the party cleane Wherefore notwithstanding all these friuolous obiections it is most sure and certaine that the Paschall Lambe was most expresly a Type of Christs Passion PHIL. Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also ORTHOD. Because they were both representations of Christ therefore there is great similitude and correspondencie betweene them And because the Passeouer gaue place to the Eucharist therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist But what then Must it therefore follow that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist God commaunded not onely that the Paschall Lambe should be slaine and immolated but also that it should be eaten Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled vpon the Crosse where Christ our Passeouer was sacrificed for vs and not in the Eucharist The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spirituall eating of Christ both in the Sacrament and without CHAP. IIII. Of their Argument drawen from certaine places of the Prophets PHIL. I Wil proue it by other testimonies of the Old Testament And first by the Prophecie of that man of God that came to Eli I will stirre mee vp a faithfull Priest that shall doe according to my heart and according to my minde and hee shall walke before mine Anointed for euer ORTHOD. This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock in Samuel who succeeded Eli in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar who was of the race of Eli For Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest vnto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo PHIL. S. Austine answereth to this obiection that this Prophecie was fulfilled in Samuel or Sadock insomuch as they did cary the figure of Christian Priests And so the casting out of Eli was a figure of the casting out of the Aaronicall Priesthood and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priesthood Which he proueth because the Scripture when it saith that Eli was to bee cast out with his fathers speaketh plainely of Aaron For it nameth him who was appointed of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt ORTHOD. Suppose all this were granted what can you conclude if the Lord promised that he will raise himselfe vp a faithfull Priest and thereby signified a Christian Priest doeth it therefore follow that he speaketh of a Popish Priest PHIL. That the Lord meant a Priest properly may appeare by the Prophet Esay who prophecying of the time of the New Testament saith In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the middest of the land of Egypt And againe The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and doe Sacrifice and oblation And againe Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord and men shall say vnto you the Ministers of our God ORTHOD. These may be expounded by other places of the same Prophet They shall bring all your brethren for an offering vnto the Lord Where it is cleare that the Prophet speaketh of Spirituall offerings which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel As S. Paul doeth testifie That the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God being sanctified by the holy Chost Which conuersion of the Gentiles the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Leuiticall sacrifices All the sheepe of Kedar shall be gathered vnto thee the Rammes of Nebaioth shall serue thee they shall come vp to bee accepted vpon mine Altar and I will beautifie the house of my Glory Likewise the Prophet Dauid Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of Righteousnes euen the burnt offering and Oblation then shall they offer calues vpon thine Altar Where by calues he vnderstandeth the calues of the lips that is the sacrifice of Prayer and Thankesgiuing The burnt offering also is to be expounded in the like maner and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousnes And a little before he said The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit And as our Spirituall sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Leuitical so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Leuites I will take of them for Priests and Leuits saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly for then the word Leuite should likewise be taken properly but I hope you will not say that your Masse-priests are properly of the tribe of Leui. By these plaine places we may expound the former by you alleadged PHIL. NAy they are Priests properly in regard of an externall sacrifice properly so called which they offer properly as is euident by the Prophet Malachie From the rising vp of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shal be offered vp to my Name and a pure offering for my Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts ORTHOD. The Priests here spoken of are called the sonnes of Leui are your Masse-priests properly the sonnes of Leui PHIL. Of Leui No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion ORTHOD. Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion PHIL. Not so for here is mention of their offering which is called A pure offering ORTHOD. That is to be expounded of Spirituall offerings in the iudgement of the Fathers Irenaeus saith In
deliuering the incestuous Corinthian vnto Satan by which in the iudgement of Hilarie Hierome and Anselmus followed by Bellarmine Baronius and others both of your side and ours is meant Excommunication And though some doe take it for a miraculous operation whereby the offendours were committed for a time to Satan to be tormented bodily yet they doe not deny that the Corinthian was Excommunicated Let vs therefore see by what authoritie this was done I verely saith S. Paul as absent in body but present in spirit haue determined already as though I were present that hee that hath so done this deed in the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ you being gathered together and my Spirit with you with the power of the Lord Iesus Christ be deliuered vnto Satan c. He saith not the Spirit of S. Peter but my Spirit So your visible head had neither hand nor foote in this action S. Paul acknowledgeth neither subordination to him nor deriuation of authoritie from him And as he had Iurisdiction so had Timothy and Titus to receiue accusations to command them not to teach any other doctrine or if they did to stop their mouthes All which places are to be expounded of iudiciall proceeding in the Consistory and argue a Iurisdiction in Titus and Timothy which so farre as we can learne they receiued from S. Paul and not from S. Peter Wherefore we conclude that S. Peter was not the onely fountaine vnder Christ of Spirituall iurisdiction by Law diuine but the 12. Apostles were 12. fountaines all equally deriued from Christ Iesus the Fountaine of fountaines But if Peter had any such prerogatiue by Law diuine what is that to the Pope CHAP. III. Whether the Pope succeed S. Peter in all his right by Law diuine PHIL. THe Pope is the successour of S. Peter therefore what power soeuer belonged to S. Peter belongeth to the Pope ORTHOD. Was not S. Peter an Apostle can there be succession in the Apostleship PHIL. Doctour Stapleton teacheth that of the Apostleship there is no succession ORTH. Why then do the Popes so adorne themselues with Apostolicke titles his See apostolicke his Legat Apostolicke his pardon Apostolicke his seale Apostolicke his Bull Apostolicke and all Apostolicke yea his office is an Apostleship causes must be heard by his Apostleship weighty matters must be reserued to his Apostleship and Bishops must visite the thresholds of the Apostles vnlesse they be dispensed withall by the Apostles that is by the Pope Yea the Rhemists affirme That certes the roome and dignity of the Pope is a continuall Apostleship And of late the Pope had a title giuen of the first Euangelist and of the 13. Apostle as is related and approued by Baronius But we hope that God wil raise such Angels in our Church as he was in the Church of Ephesus of whom it is written That he had tried them who say they are apostles and are not and had found them liars But if the Pope doe not succeed S. Peter in the Apostleship how is he then his successour PHIL. Not in that he was an Apostle but in that hee was the ordinarie Pastour of the whole Church ORTHOD. If not as an Apostle then the Pope succeedeth him not in all his right But haue not other Apostles successours as well as Peter PHIL. No For their authoritie was extraordinary his ordinary whereupon it followeth That theirs was temporary and died with their persons his perpetuall and liueth with his successours ORTHOD. This you say oft but proue neuer For the clearing whereof we must consider that in the Apostles some things were extraordinary some things ordinary They had 4. extraordinary prerogatiues immediate vocation by Christ himselfe vnlimited Commission ouer all Nations infallible direction both in preaching and writing and power to worke Miracles All which were necessary for the first planting of Churches but were not conueyed to posteritie by succession Other things they had which were necessary for the Church in all future ages in which they had successours They had power to minister the word and Sacraments wherein euery Presbyter succeedeth them They ordained Ministers executed censures and other things belonging to the gouernment of the Church wherein euery Bishop succeedeth them So in the latter the rest haue successours as well as Peter In the former as the rest had no successours so neither had Peter PHIL. Yes the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the gouernment of the whole world ORTHO You dare not say that this power in Peter was extraordinary for then it could not go by succession if it were ordinarie in Peter why not in the rest seeing as hath beene proued Christ gaue as ample commission in as ample words to the rest as to Peter But if wee should faigne that Peter had such Monarchicall iurisdiction by what law shall the Pope succeed him in it PHIL. The succession of the Bishop of Rome into the Popedome of Peter is of Christs institution and therefore by Law diuine ORTHOD. Of Christs institution where or when if you alleadge these words feed my sheepe they were spoken onely to Peter yet so that the substance of the precept was not proper to him but common to all And if wee should imagine that Christ did institute a monarchy personally in Peter how commeth it to be locall This certainely cannot be Christs institution because he nameth no place PHIL. It was in Peters power neuer to haue chosen to himselfe any particular See but to haue continued as he did the first fiue yeeres And then after his death neither the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded but hee whom the Church had chosen ORTHOD. Then you make it locall by Peters choise and not by Law diuine and if it be local is it tied to the Bishop of Rome by Law diuine PHIL. Was not Saint Peter Bishop of Rome ORTHOD. So men say but can you proue it by Law diuine PHIL. Will you deny a History so famously recorded by Eusebius and other ancient authors ORTH. Not I but now you ground vpon humane history and not vpon Law diuine And as the histories say that he was Bishop of Rome so they say he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome PHIL. It was in his power to haue continued at Antioch and then without doubt the Bishop of Antioch had beene his successor but because he translated his chaire fixed it at Rome there died thence it comes to passe that the Bish. of Rome succeedeth him ORTH. If the succession depend vpon the fixing of Saint Peters chaire at Rome what shal be said of those Popes which kept at Auinion in France and neuer came at Rome Moreouer this is to build vpon the fact of Saint Peter and not vpon Law diuine PHIL. It is not improbable that the Lord did expresly commaund that Peter should so fix his seat
Aimonius alleadged both by Baronius and Binius Wherefore either hee was no monster or if hee were the Romanes must impute the blame of his election rather to themselues then to the Emperour PHIL. Whether hee were or no Doctour Genebrard declareth that there were fiftie monsters intruded by the tyrannie of the Germane Emperours ORTHOD. I will answere this in the wordes of a learned man Genebrard without all reuerence both of God and man doth raile lye and falsisie stories to deface the Emperours and crosse the Writers of the Centuries For hee saith that the Emperours did as wilde boares eate vp the vineyard of the Lord the stories say that they deliuered it from wild boares The stories say that the monsters of the Popes were chosen by the Romanes themselues hee saith that they came in by intrusion of the Emperours The stories say that the Emperours who hunted out those beastes were vertuous and lawfull Princes hee calleth them tyrants not onely them but also many good Emperours moe who medled with the Popes election Finally the stories say that the Emperours were allowed by Popes and councels to doe it hee saith they vsurped it by the right of Herod And yet himselfe recordeth and that in the same Chronicle too that Pope Adrian with a Councell Pope Leo with a Councell Pope Clemens with a Councell did grant it vnto Charles Otho and Henry the Emperours No Philodox it was not the Emperour but the Romanes which intruded the monsters as I haue alreadie shewed at large and you may further see by Benedict the ninth Syluester the third and Gregory the sixt which Platina calleth tria teterrima monstra i. three most vglie monsters and were all chosen by the Romanes Yea the Emperours were so farre from intruding that they did extrude them Otho Iohn the twelfth and Henry the second Gregory the sixth For the Emperour Henry went into Italy vpon purpose to prouide for the Church which Gregory vnderstanding met him and to winne his fauour offered him a crowne of golde But the Emperour put on iustice as a robe and a crowne It was dearer vnto him then a crowne of golde So he called a councell wherein Gregory being conuented and conuicted resigned the place as some say or rather was deposed as others affirme and one Swidiger a Germaine a man famous for honestie and learning named by the Emperour and approued by all was chosen in his place and called Clement the second by whom Henry being crowned Emperour caused the Romanes to sweare that they would not medle at all with Elections but by the Emperours commond For hee sawe that the world was come to that passe that euery factious fellow were hee neuer so base so hee were rich and potent might corrupt their voyces and obtaine the place by bribes And the new Pope with a Councell as Genebrard confesseth gaue the same to Henry which was giuen before to Otho PHIL. CLement the second was no true Pope in the iudgement of Genebrard ORTHOD. But he was a true Pope in the iudgements of Baronius and Binius for they both put him into the Catalogue Wherefore you must confesse that this authoritie was yeelded to the Emperour by a true Pope And as it was yeelded by him so it was practised by the Emperour For the next foure Popes Damasus the second Leo the ninth Victor the second and Stephen the ninth are called of Onuphrius most holy and good men well deseruing of the Church of God and he proueth by the Histories of that time that they were all created by the authoritie of the Emperour Which is most cleare in Leo the ninth For after the death of Damasus the Romanes sent to Henry to intreat him to send them a good Pope who presently offered them one Bauno a Bishop a good and well meaning man PHIL. This Embassage was sent from the Cardinals not that the Emperour should elect a Pope but that he should send one to be elected at Rome according to the custome by the Councell of the Cardinalls as Benno our aduersarie cannot deny And Leo Ostiensis witnesseth that he was chosen by the Romanes Therefore whereas some say that he was chosen by the Emperour you must vnderstand that hee was delected by the Emperour but elected by the Cardinals For Otto Frisingensis recordeth that as Leo passed through France in his Pontificall robes Hildebrand came and told him that it was vnlawfull for a Pope to enter violently per manum laicam by the helping hand of a lay Prince or as Platina saith that Henry had no power from God to create a Pope so he put of his purple and entred Rome as a priuate man Whereupon the Romane Clergie elected him the rather because by this his fact hee had translated all the authoritie of chusing the Pope from the Emperour to the Clergie ORTHO If he translated it from the Emperour then it was inuested in the Emperour as indeed it was euen by their owne iudgement for else why did they send vnto him yea both the Emperour and the Pope did so take it as appeareth because he put on his pontificall robes in the presence of the Emperour Otto Frisingensis did so take it when hee said that Leo was appointed to the seat of Peter authoritate regalis excellenciae i By the authoritie of the regall excellency Onuphrius did so take it in the words before alleadged Wherefore howsoeuer you distinguish betweene delecting and electing It is cleare that they sent to the Emperour as to one that had authoritie yea they had bound themselues by oath not to meddle with elections but at his command wherfore their election was either by his authority or they were al periured Which Imperiall authoritie continued till Gregory the seuenth for Platina saith that the Emperour and Gregorie were made friends eundemque in pontificatu confirmauit vt tum Imperatorūmos erat i. He confirmed him in the Popedome as then it was the custome of Emperours PHIL. Now are you come to a worthy man indeed a most couragious maintainer of the liberties of the Church who was not afraid to renew and defend the holy and Ecclesiasticall lawes namely the 22. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon For in a Councell holden in the yeere 1080 hee excluded all secular Potentates whatsoeuer from inuestitures reseruing the elections onely to the Clergie and people Wherein he was seconded by his noble successours Victor and Vrban ORTHO Ancient and holy lawes which are these Bellarmine nameth but one and that a counterfet contrary to the custome of the Church which was ancient and holy Indeed your couragious Champion did not onely exclude all secular Potentates from inuestitures but also in the same Councell he deposed his owne lord and soueraigne who confirmed him in the Popedome and gaue away the Empire to Rodolph a rebell promising forgiuenesse of sinnes to all that obeyed him Was this