constitutions proceeded from the Apostles then you must confesse that they are the fittest interpreters of the Canons of the Apostles PHIL. THe Canon will be cleerer if wee compare it with the Decretall Epistles ORTH. Those Decretals are out of date They haue long shrowded themselues vnder the vizard of reuerent antiquity but now they are vnmasked and appeere to bee counterfeit as is confessed by your owne men Yet I will not take you at this aduantage and therefore let vs heare them PHIL. Anacletus saith that Iames who was named the Iust and the brother of the Lord according to the flesh was ordained the first Archbishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles Peter the other Iames and Iohn giuing a forme to their successours that a Bishop should by no meanes bee consecrated by fewer then three Bishoppes all the rest giuing their consents Likewise Anicetus Wee know that the most blessed Iames called the Iust which also according to the flesh is called the brother of our LORD was ordained Bishoppe of Ierusalem by Peter Iames and Iohn the Apostles Now if so great a man was ordained of no lesse then three verilie it is apparant that they deliuered a forme or pattern◠the Lord so appointing that a Bishop ought to bee ordained of no fewer then three Bishops ORTHODOX Heere are two things to bee considered the ordination of Iames and the collection thereupon Concerning the ordination your Anacletus and Anicetus affirme that hee was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by three Apostles and the same is auouched by Eusebius Hierome and others But what is meant when it is said that the Apostles ordained him PHIL. What else but that they conferred vpon him the Episcopall power as our Bishops doe when they consecrate a Bishop ORTHOD. Then belike before this ordination Saint Iames had not the Episcopall power PHIL. Very true ORTHOD. Was not he an Apostle of Iesus Christ PHIL. Yes for they speake distinctly of Iames the brother of our Lord of whom Saint Paul saith None other of the Apostles saw I saue Iames the brother of our Lord so it is euident that hee was an Apostle ORTHOD. And was he not called to the office of an Apostle immediatly by Iesus Christ consequētly had he not from him al Apostolick authority PHIL. All Apostolick I grant but we speake of Episcopal ORTHOD. As though all Episcopall authority were not comprehended in the Apostolick For what commission can be more ample then this which Christ gaue ioyntly to all his Apostles As my Father sent mee so send I you and Saint Paul proclaimeth that hee was in nothing inferiour to the chiefe Apostles If in nothing then not in Episcopall power and authority This is agreeable to the iudgement of the best learned among you Bellarmine saith Obseruandum est in Apostolica authoritate contineri omnem Ecclesiasticam potestatem i. It is to be obserued that in the Apostolicke authoritie is contained all Ecclesiasticall power If all Ecclesiasticall then surely all Episcopall In another place he proueth the same by the authoritie of S. Cyrill grounding vpon the words of Christ before alleadged Likewise Franciscus de Victoria Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt receperunt immediatè a Christo i. The Apostles receiued immediatly from Christ all the power which they had Wherefore to say That Christ made Peter Bishop with his owne hands and that the rest deriued Episcopall power from Peter is a mere fancie Likewise to say that Peter Iohn and Iames did ordeine Iames Bishop that is conferre vpon him any Episcopall power is a mere dreame PHIL. Doe not the fathers commonly say That he was a Bishop ORTHO They say so And in so saying they say truely if they be rightly vnderstood For 1. The Scripture saith of Iudas His Bishopricke let an other man take That is his Apostleship If the Apostleship may be called a Bishoprick then an Apostle may be called a Bishop 2. The word Bishop signifieth an Ouerseer and may most aptly be applied to the Apostles which were the chiefe ouerseers of the Church of Christ. PHIL. Euery Apostle in that he is an Apostle may be called a Bishop in this generall sence But Iames being an Apostle was properly made a Bishop in the vsuall Ecclesiasticall sence ORTHOD. A Bishop in the Ecclesiasticall sence hath two properties For 1. hereceiueth his Episcopall power by imposition of hands 2. For the execution thereof hee is confined to a certaine place Neither of which can properly be applied to an Apostle For though the Apostles made their chiefe abode in great Cities and populous places as namely Iames at Ierusalem yet because their Commission extended to all Nations they could not be so tied to any one place as the Bishop was Which is well expressed by Epiphanius saying The Apostles went often to other countreis to preach the Gospel and the Citte of Rome might not be without a Bishop As though he should say The Apostles were to preach to all Nations but the Bishops duetie did confine him to his owne charge This is correspondent to the Scripture which calleth the Apostles The light of the world whereas the 7. Bishops of Asia are stiled The 7. Starres and Angels of the 7. Churches And though the Apostles while they stayed in those Cities did preach ordeine Ministers execute Censures and all other things which are now performed by the Bishops who succeed them in the gouernement of the Church in regard whereof the fathers call them the Bishops of those places yet their Episcopall power was not distinct from their Apostolicke but included in it as a branch thereof not deriued from any Ordination by the hands of man but giuen them immediatly by Iesus Christ. PHIL. If Iames receiued no Episcopall power by Ordination in what sence is it said That they ordained him ORTHOD. Your glosse of the Canon Law giueth 4. senses of that speach Either say that these 3. did Consecrate him onely with visible Vnction but he was before Annointed of the Lord after an innisible maner Or say they did not ordeine him but onely shewed a forme of ordaining vnto others Or say that they ordained him not to be a Bishop but an Archbishop Or say that they ordained that is Inthronised him to the administration of a certaine place for before he was a Bishop without a title Hitherto the Glosse And verily as the Prophets and teachers at Antioch imposed hands with fasting and prayer vpon Paul and Barnabas not to giue them any new Ecclesiasticall power for that is more then wee finde in the Scripture but as the Text saith To set them apart for the worke whereunto the Lord had called them So the Apostles might impose hands vpon Iames not to giue him any Episcopall power that fancie hath bene before confuted but by common consent to designe him to the gouernement of the Church of Ierusalem and to commend him and his
which hath not the right order of Priesthood but the Priesthood conferred in King Edwards time was no Priesthood because they wanted the authority to offer the blessed sacrifice of the Masse therefore those Priests were not capable of the Episcopall order ORTHO I answere first that seeing that King Edward rained but sixe yeeres and fiue moneths it is likely that most of them which were aduanced in his time to bee Bishops were before his time in the order of Priesthood Secondly if any be produced which were not yet it shal be iustified God willing when we come to the point that the order of Priesthood conferred in the dayes of King Edward Queene Elizabeth and King Iames is the true ministery of the Gospel and that your sacrificing Priesthood is sacrilegious and abominable In the meane time you must giue vs leaue to holde that the ministery of the Church of England is holy in the sight of God and iustifiable in the sight of man CHAP. XII Of the Bishops Consecrated in the dayes of Queene Marie THe lineall descent hath led vs to the Bishops in Queen Maries time concerning which shal I craue your iudgement PHIL. You know it already they were all Canonical ORTHOD. For the more distinct proceeding let vs diuide them into two ranckes the old Bishops and the new the old I cal such as being cōsecrated before her time were continued in her time the new which were Consecrated in her time PHIL. All which were allowed for Bishops in Queene Maries time whether old or new were Canonicall ORTHO The old Bishops were all made in the dayes of K. Henry the eighth and almost all in those very times which you brand with imputation of schisme and heresie when none could bee Consecrated vnlesse hee did sweare to the king against the Pope Wherefore seeing you iudged both Consecrators and Consecrated schismaticall and hereticall and yet esteeme them Canonicall your obiections of schisme and heresie must eternally bee silenced in the question of Canonicall Bishops For if these crimes can frustrate a Consecration then their Consecration was frustrate and they were no Bishops or if they were Bishops and Canonicall then all the Bishops in King Henries time were likewise Canonicall Moreouer some of them whom you so commend were Bishops in King Edwards time as for example Thomas Thurlby whom King Henrie promoted to be Bishop of Westminster was aduanced by King Edward to the Bishopricke of Norwich and afterward preferred by Queene Mary to the Bishopricke of Ely and moreouer to be one of her priuie Councell Yea some of them had the place of a Bishop in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth Namely Anthony Kitchin who in King Henries time was made Bishop of Landaff kept his dignities and place in the dayes of K. Edward continued the same all the reigne of Queene Mary and so till the day of his death which was in the fift yeere of Queene Elizabeth Wherefore in iustifying the old Bishops you iustifie al generally which were Consecrated in King Henries daies and some which continued in King Edwards and Queene Elizabeths But now from the old let vs come to the new PHIL. QVeene Mary aduanced Holiman bishop of Bristow Coates bishop of Chester Watson bishop of Lincolne Morris bishop of Rochester Morgan bishop of S. Dauis Brooke bishop of Glocester Glin bishop of Bangor Christophorson bishop of Chichester Dauid Poole bishop of Peterborow Cardinall Poole bishop of Canterbury and others ORTHOD. And these reuerend Prelats Bush bishop of Bristow Tailor bishop of Lincolne Scory bishop of Chichester Barlow bishop of Bathe and Wells Couerdale bishop of Exeter and Harly bishop of Hereford with sundry others were at that time forced to leaue their bishopricks For what cause partly for not yeelding to the Pope and Popish Religion partly because they were married which Greg. Martin calleth a polluting of holy Orders though S. Paul saith it is honourable among all men and the bed vndefiled But let vs see the Consecration of your new bishops PHIL. I will begin with that renowned Prelate Cardinall Poole whose Consecration followeth Anno 1555. Reginald Poole cons. Archb. Cant. 22. Mart. by Nichol Arch. Ebor. Thom. Eltens Edmund Lond. Rich. Wigorn. Ioh. Lincoln Mauric Roff. Thom. Asaph Anno 1557. Thom Watson Dauid Pole Cons. B. 15. Aug. by Nich. Ebor. Thom. Eli. Wil. Bangor Anno 1557. Ioh. Christophorson cons. B. 21. No. by Edmund Lond. Tho. Elien Mauric Roff. ORTHOD. All these deriue their Consecration from bishops which were made in the time of the pretended Schisme and some of them from Cranmer himselfe therefore you must either acknowledge all them and namely Cranmer for Canonicall or neither Cardinall Poole nor any of the rest made in Queene Maries time can be Canonicall THE THIRD BOOKE OF THE BISHOPS CONSEcrated in the Raigne of Q. Elizabeth and of our gracious Soueraigne King IAMES CHAP. I. Of the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth with an answere to certaine odious imputations concerning some Antecedents and Consequents of their Depositions PHIL. THe reuolution of times hath brought vs to the raigne of Queene Elizabeth euen to that blacke and dolefull day wherein all the Bishops of England all I say one onely excepted were deposed from their degrees and dignities For a great penaltie was inflicted vpon such as should after the Feast of S. Iohn Baptis◠1559. say or heare Masse or procure any other Ecclesiasticall Office whatsoeuer after the old rite or administer any Sacrament after the Romane maner to wit That hee which offended against that Law for the first time should pay 200 Nobles or be in bonds sixe Moneths for the second 400. Nobles or a yeere in bonds for the third he should be in perpetuall prison and forfeite all his goods By which meanes it came to passe That at the day prescribed the holy and diuine Offices ceased to be performed publikely through the whole Kingdome And because the Bishops would not consent to those impieties nor affirme vpon their Oathes that they beleeued in their consciences That the Queene onely was the Supreame gouernesse of the Church of England vnder Christ they were all saue one shortly after deposed from their Degree and dignitte and committed to certaine prisons and custodies whereupon they are all at this day dead with the long tediousnesse of their miseries The names of which most glorious Confessours I will set downe that the thing may be had in euerlasting remembrance First of all Nicholas Archbishop of Yorke and a little before that time Lord Chancellour of England then Edmund Bonner Bishop of London and Tunstall of Durham Iohn of Winton Thomas of Lincolne Thurlby of Ely Turberuill of Exeter Borne of Bath Pole of Peterborow Baine of Lichfield Cuthbert of Chester Oglethorp of Carlile and Thomas Goldwell of S. Asaph c. ORTH. Here are two things to be discussed The deposing of the old Bishops and aduancing of the new Concerning the first
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
Bishops but they are found in the Church of Rome and not in the Church of England PHIL. YOur Bishops are no Bishops because they are not ordained according to the Canons ORT. The ancient Canons are more reuerently regarded in the Church of England then in the Church of Rome For how well you haue obserued them in former ages let your owne Baronius testifie How foule saith hee was then the face of the holy Romane Church when most potent and withall most filthie harlots did beare all the sway at Rome at whose lust Sees were changed Bishops appointed and which is horrible to be heard and not to bee vttered whose louers the false Popes were thrust into the seate of Peter which were not to bee written in the Catalogue of the Romane Bishops but onely for the noting of the times for who may say they were lawfull Popes which were thus without right thrust in by such strumpets No where wee finde any mention of Clergie choosing or giuing consent afterward All Canons were put to silence the pontificall decrees were choked ancient traditions proscribed and the old customes sacredrite and former vse in choosing the high Bishop vtterly extinguished And for later times your owne learned friends also complaine as followeth Budeus The holie Canons and rules of Church discipline made in better times to guide the life of Clergie men are now become leaden rules such as Aristotle saith the rules of Lesbyan buildings were For as leaden and soft rules doe not direct the building with an equall tenour but are bowed to the building at the lust of the builders so are the Popes Canons made flexible as leade and waxe that now this great while the Decrees of our ancestours and the Popes Canons serue not to guide mens manners but that I may so say to make a banke and get mony Franciscus de Victoria Doct of the chaire at Salmantica in Spaine Wee see dailie so large or rather so dissolute dispensations proceede from the Court of Rome that the world cannot indure them Neither is it onely to the offence of the little ones but of the great ones also No man seeketh a dispensation but hee obtaineth it Yea at Rome there are which giue attendance to see if any bee willing to craue dispensation of all things established by law all that craue it haue it If you Philodox would see the particulars reade but Claudius Espencaeus a diuine of Paris vpon the Epistle to Titus and vnlesse your fore-head bee as hard as brasse it will make you blush I will conclude this point with the saying of Ruardus Tapperus Chancelour of Louaine In the Court of Rome all things are set at sale with dispensations contayning many things wherewith Christ himselfe is not able to dispence Behold this is your keeping of Canons in the Church of Rome But because you accuse the Church of England for breaking the Canons in making of Bishops I answere first that the consecration of our Bishops is most canonicall Secondly that if wee failed in this or that Canon yet euery transgression of an Ecclesiasticall Canon doth not make a nullitie in a consecration As for example It was prouided by the great Councell of Sardica that none should bee made Bishop vnlesse hee had passed the inferiour orders and staied a long time in them Notwithstanding Nectarius was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople being not only a lay-man but as yet vnbaptized and was presently made Bishop in the second generall Councell held at Constantinople Likewise Saint Ambrose Tarasius Nicephorus Eusebius of Caesarea Thalasius yea and some Popes also as for example Petrus Moronaeus were of lay men aduanced to the Episcopall office yet I know you dare not pronounce a nullitie in their Consecration Wherfore seeing it is a plaine case that euery breach of a Canon doth not annihilate a consecration you must tell vs what Canon you meane and wherein we breake it PHIL. I meane that Canon which requireth that a Bishop should bee consecrated by three Bishops which Canon the Councel of Trent calleth an Apostolicke tradition ORTHO HEre arise two questions the former whether three Bishops be required of necessitie to an Episcopall consecration the later whether the Bishops of England be consecrated by three Now that the state of the former may be the clearer giue me leaue to aske you a few things And first what say you to Amphilochius who was created Bishop not by men but by Angels vnlesse Nicephorus delude vs with fables PHIL. It seemeth to bee no fable but a true Story For Amphilochius was allowed for a lawfull Bishop but this was done as Cardinall Bellarmine saith by diuine dispensation extraordinary ORTH. What say you then to the blessed Apostles were they Bishops or no And if Bishops whether in that they were Apostles or by distinct consecration and if by distinct consecration by whom were they consecrated PHIL. Cardinall Turrecremata teacheth that Chirst himselfe made Peter a Bishoppe immediatelie and Peter ordained the rest first Iohn next Iames then others And Cardinall Bellarmine maketh it the two and twentith prerogatiue of Peter Quòd solus Petrus a Christo ordinatus Episcopus fuerit caeteri autem a Petro Episcopalem consecrationem acceperint i. That onely Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ and the rest receiued their Episcopall consecration from Peter ORTHOD. These conceites and fancies when they shal be weighed in the ballance wil be found too light In the meane time what say you to the consecration of Iohn and Iames were they sound and Canonical PHIL. They were sound no doubt but why should you aske if they were canonicall seeing the Canon was not then made You must vnderstand that there is one consideration to bee had of the Church when it is in the cradle and another when it is growne to ripe and florishing yeeres In the infancie of the Church when Christ ascending into glorie had consecrated Peter and made him the spring and fountaine of all Episcopall Order it was necessarie that the first should bee consecrated by Peter alone the next by two at the most and these consecrations were sound and sufficient but when Iames the brother of our Lord was ordained Bishoppe of Ierusalem by Peter Iohn and the other Iames they gaue a Forme or Patterne to their successours as Anacletus declareth that a Bishop should by no meanes bee consecrated by fewer then by three all the rest giuing their consent ORTHO Suppose a Church should suffer such desolation which the Lord forbid that a Canonicall number of Catholicke Bishops were not to be found what should then be done in this case of necessitie PHIL. Wee may learne that partly of the Councell of Sardica which permitteth a supply from the next prouince partly of Pope Gregory the seuenth who when the Churches of Africke were brought to so lowe an ebbe that they had
then to the Church of Rome And what office will she take more kindly then the discrediting of those whom she accounteth Heretickes therefore I doe not wonder that you put it in practise I feare nothing but that shortly it shall grow with you a point meritorious Well the Stripe of the rodde maketh markes in the flesh but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones But let them remember That the tongue which lyeth slayeth the soule And that all lyers shall haue their portion except they repent in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone PHIL. WHatsoeuer is to be thought of the place yet I will proue by the Lawes of England That neither he nor any of his associats were lawfull Bishops ORTHOD. By the lawes of England how proue you that PHIL. It was ordained by the Parliament in the daies of Henry the eight that no man should be acknowledged a Bishop vnlesse he were Consecrated by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane which law was reuiued by Queene Elizabeth and in full strength at the time of the Consecration of Mathew Parker but Mathew Parker was not so Consecrate and therefore by the lawes of England he was not to bee acknowledged for a Bishop For what Archbishop was either present at his Consecration or consenting vnto it Cardinall Poole then late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead and Parker elected into his place Nicholas Heath then last Archbishop of Yorke was deposed Indeed there was a certaine Irish Archbishop whō they had in bonds prison at London with whom they dealt very earnestly promising him both liberty and rewards if so be he would bee chiefe in the Consecration But hee good man would by no meanes be brought to lay holy hands vpon heretikes neither to be partaker of other mens sinnes Wherefore hauing neither Archbishop of their owne religion nor being able to procure any other the Consecration was performed without a Metropolitane cleane contrary to the lawes of England ORTHO What if both Sanders and you abuse the lawes of England in this point as indeed you doe For the words are these And if the person bee elected to the office dignity of an Archbishop according to the tenour of this act then after such election certifyed to the kings highnesse in forme aforesaid hee shal be reputed and taken Lord elect of the said office and dignity of Archbishop whereunto hee shal be so elected and after he hath made such oth and fealty onely to the kings Maiesty his heires and successours as shal be limited for the same the kings highnesse by his letters patents vnder the great seale shall signifie the said election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops or else to foure Bishops within this Realme or within any other the kings Dominions to be assigned by the kings highnesse his heires or successours requiring and commaunding the said Archbishop and Bishops with all speed and celerity to confirme the said election and to inuest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected vnto and to giue and vse to him such pall benedictions ceremonies and other things requisite for the same without suing procuring or obtayning any Bulls Briefes or any other things at the See of Rome or by authority thereof in any behalfe Where it is cleare that the King his heires and successours might by the statute send letters patents for Consecration of an Archbishop either to an Archbishop and two Bishops or else to foure Bishops therefore it might be performed without an Archbishop and yet not contrary to the lawes of England PHIL. ADmit this were true yet it auaileth you nothing for Math. Parker was Consecrated neither by three nor by two much lesse by foure though by your owne confession the law required foure ORTHOD. How know you that were you present at his Consecration or did you learne it of any that were present PHIL. I cannot say so but it is very likely because the Catholike Bishops being required to crowne Queene Elizabeth refused all except one ORTHO That one was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill but hee was none of the Consecrators of Archbishop Parker For he continued in your Popish religion refused the oth of the supremacy was therefore depriued PHIL. That was the common case of them all but one For one alone I must confesse was made to breake vnity of whom a right good and Catholike Bishop said to a Noble man wee had but one foole amongst vs and him you haue gotten vnto you little worthy of the name of a Bishop and Lord whose learning was small and honour thereby much stained And hee as it seemeth was the onely Bishop which you had therefore Math. Parker could not be Consecrated by three ORTHO Hee whom you meane was Anth. Kitchin Bishop of Landaffe who was in the commission but was none of the Consecratours therefore you shoot at randome and misse the marke PHIL. Whence then had you your Consecrators Surely you did not goe to the Churches of the Caluinistes and Lutherans if peraduenture they had any ORTHOD. We did not PHIL. Then you must bee glad to runne to your vsuall refuge that you had one from Greece Alas my masters you are narrowly driuen when you are forced to flie to such miserable shifts ORTHOD. This tale proceeded not from Eudaemon but from Cacodaemon the father of lies No Sir wee needed no Grecian though it pleaseth you to play the Cretian PHIL. If you had neither Bishops of your owne nor procured any either from the Catholike Church or from the reformed Churches or from the Greekish Church then it is true which Doctor Kellison reporteth out of Sanders That they made one another Bishops ORTHO Though Sanders in that booke hath almost as many lies as lines yet he hath not this loude lie it is the inuention of Kellison himselfe you promise demonstratiue reasons and when your argument comes to the issue where all your strength should lie you bring nothing but slender surmises flying reportes and detestable lies Doe these goe at Rome for demonstrations But I will answere you with euidence of truth which may be iustified by monuments of publike record QVeene Mary died in the yeere 1558 the 17. of Nouember and the selfe same day died Card nall Poole Archb. of Canterbury the very same day was Queene Elizabeth proclaimed The 15. of Ianuary next following was the day of Queene Elizabeths Coronation when Doctor Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill was so happy as to set the Diadem of the kingdome vpon her royal head Now the See of Canterbury continued voide till December following about which time the Deane and Chapter hauing receiued the congedelier elected maister Doctour Parker for their Archbishop Iuxta morem antiquum laudabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae praedictae ab antiquo vsitatam inconcusse obseruatam i. proceeding in this
Symonists These things said Aegidius Hispanus the Cardinall and others whose conscience did touch them gaue councell to the Pope that he should wincke and dissemble the matter lest some tumult should be raised vpon this occasion especially because it is wel knowne that once there shal a departure come The same Robert lying vpon his death-bed sighing said thus Christ came into the world to gaine soules therefore if any man be not afraid to destroy soules is not he worthily called Antichrist The Lord in 6. dayes made the whole world but he laboured more then 30 yeeres to repaire man Is not therefore this destroyer of soules worthy to be iudged an enemy of God and an Antichrist The Pope blusheth not impudently to disanull the priuiledges of former Popes his predecessors by this barre Non obstante which is not done without their preiudice and manifest iniurie for so he pulls downe that which so great and so many Saints haue builded Behold the contempt of Saints therefore the contemner shall iustly be contemned according to that of Esay Woe to thee which despisest shalt thou not be despised who will obserue his priuiledges The Pope answering doth thus defend his errour An equall hath no authority ouer an equall therefore a Pope cannot binde me being a Pope c. And againe Although many other Apostolicke men haue afflicted the Church yet hee hath compeld it to be in bondage more grieuously then others and hath multiplied inconueniences For the Caursini being manifest Vsurers which the holy Fathers and our doctors haue driuen out of France this Pope hath raised vp and protected in England and if any speake against them he is tired out with losses and labours Witnes Roger B. of London The world knoweth that Vsury is accounted detestable in both Testaments and is forbidden of God but now the Merchants of my L. the Pope do practise Vsury openly at London they contriue diuers grieuances against Ecclesiasticall and Religious persons forcing poore men to lye and to set their Seales to lying writings As for example I receiue so many marks by yeere for an 100. pound and am forced to make a writing and sealè it in which I confesse my selfe to haue receiued an 100. pound to be payed at the yeeres end And if peraduenture thou wouldest pay the Popes Vsurer the principall againe within a moneth or fewer dayes he will not receiue it vnlesse thou wilt pay the whole hundred pound Which condition is heauier then any which is required of the Iewes for whensoeuer thou shalt bring a Iew his principall he will take it kindly with so much gaine as is answerable to the time c. And againe We haue seene one of the Popes Letters wherein this clause was inserted That such as made their Testaments or caried the Crosse or yeelded ayde to the Holy-land should receiue so much pardon for their sinnes as they gaue money And wee know our lord the Pope wrote vnto the Abbot of S. Albans that he should prouide for a certaine man called Iohn de Camezana in a competent benefice and shortly prouision was made in a Church worth fortie marks by the yeere but he not content therewithall complained vnto the Pope who wrote to the same Abbot to prouide more bountifully for him and yet the Pope reserued the donation of the former benefice vnto him selfe And to passe ouer other things the Pope graunted for secular fauour that one may obtaine a Bishoprick and not bee a Bishop but an euerlasting elect which is as much to say as that he should receiue the milk and the wooll of the sheepe and yet not driue away the wolues Mathew Paris telleth how this Bishop Robert Grosthead hated all kind of Enormities to wit all kind of Couetousnesse al Vsury Symony and Rapine all kinde of Riot Lust Gluttony and Pride which so raigned in that Court that this iudgement was iustly giuen of it Eius auaritiae totus non sufficit orbis Eius Luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis And being at the point of death hee indeauored to prosecute how the Court of Rome hoping That mony would flow like the riuer Iordane into their mouth gaped wide that they might get vnto themselues the goods both of those that died intestate and also those that died testate how that they might do it the more licentiously they made the King their consort in the rapines neither shall the Church saith he be deliuered from this Egyptian bondage but in the edge of the bloudy sword but verily these things are light but shortly that is within three yeeres there shall come more grieuous In the end of this propheticall speech which hee could scarcely vtter for sighs teares and groanes bursting out his tongue faultred his breath failed and the organes of speech decaying imposed silence Mathew Paris concluding the yeere 1255. saith This yeere passed away to the Church of Rome and the papall Court if one doe respect the deuotion of the people most venemous for the deuotion which Prelates and people vsed to haue towards our mother the Church of Rome and to our Father and Pastour to wit our Lord the Pope gaue vp the ghost for although that Court had many times drawne bloud of Christs faithfull people yet it neuer wounded them all and euery one so deadly as this yeere and the yeere following Anno 1256. Rustandus the Popes Nuntio the kings proctor woud haue the Bishops to set their hands to a bill and confesse that they had receiued no smal sum of money of the Italian Merchants conuerted to the good of their Churches which all men knew to be manifestly false Whereupon they affirmed and not without reason that To die in this cause were a more manifest way of Martyrdome then it was in the case of Saint Thomas the Martyr The same yeere Certaine Abbeyes in England were bound ouer for the payment of two thousand ounces of gold to the Papes Merchants Anno 1259 Sewalus Archbishop of Yorke lying vpon his death bed lifting his hands and countenance to heauen with teares said thus Lord Iesus Christ of Iudges most iust thy infallible iudgement knoweth how manifouldly the Pope whom thou hast suffered to be set ouer thy Church to gouerne it hath wearied mine Innocency for this cause as God knoweth and the world is not ignorant that I would not admit to the gouernment of Churches which thou hast committed to mee though vnworthy such as were altogether vnmeete vnknowne Notwithstanding least the Popes sentence although in it selfe vniust should be made iust by my contempt I being intangled with such bands that is papall censures doe humbly desire to bee absolued But I appeale to the Pope himselfe before the high and incorruptible Iudge and heauen and earth shal be my witnesses how vniustly hee hath assaulted mee and how oft he did scandalize and prouoke me Thus in the bitternesse of his soule hee wrote vnto the Pope prouoked by
Vniuersall Patriarch was giuen and that by a Councell to Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople In what sence trow you You produced but two sences of it out of Bellarmine In the first which prophanely excludeth all other Bishops they did not giue it for then they should deny themselues to be Bishops contrary to their own subscriptions If in the latter then it was common to him with the Bishops of Rome and so cannot proue your Monarchicall iurisdiction PHIL. How proue you that this title was giuen him by a Councell ORTHOD. Binius saith How oft Iohn Bishop of Constantinople is named in the acts of the Councell of Constantinople vnder Hormisda so oft the title of Vniuersall Patriarch is found added vnto him PHIL. Binius in the same place ascribeth this to the imposture of the latter Grecians which he proueth because though two Popes Pelagius and Gregory condemned this title in the Bishop of Constantinople yet no man obiected against them the authoritie of this Councell which had beene very materiall because the greater part of it was approued by the Church of Rome Wherefore it is certaine that this was not originally in the Councell but foisted in afterward ORTHO But Pope Adrian the first in his Epistle to Tharasius recorded in the second Nicen Councell intitleth him a generall Patriarch PHIL. This seemeth also to be added by some Grecian which I rather thinke because the same Epistle translated by Anastasius hath no such title prefixed ORTHOD. As though Anastasius were not as likely to put it out as the Grecians to put it in But Iustinian in the Authentickes giueth Mennas the very selfe same title of Oecumenicall Patriarch PHIL. It must be affirmed that this also crept in vnlesse we say that he is called Vniuersall in respect of the Orientall Bishops and Priests ORTHOD. So Holoander taketh it when hee translateth it Vniuersi eius tractus Patriarchae i. to the Patriarch of all that circuit But are you now aduised Was he called Vniuersal and yet had not the iurisdictiō of the whole world but was onely an Orientall Patriarch then you must confesse that this title might be giuen to the B. of Rome and yet not imply that hee had iurisdiction ouer the whole world but ouer the whole West and so was the Occidentall Patriarch Wherefore the decree of Pope Pelagius requiring all Metropolitanes to send to Rome to professe their faith and receiue the Pall extendeth not to them of the East but onely to them of the West PHIL. Then you grant that hee was Patriarch of the West and that is sufficient to inferre my conclusion for the Westerne Patriarch must needes haue iurisdiction ouer the Metropolitanes of the West in which compasse is Brittany I need not here speake of the ancient diuision of the Prouinces nor of Saint Peter nor of Eleutherius It is famously knowne that Saint Austin was sent hither by the Bishop of Rome receiued a pall from him and apparently submitted himselfe to his iurisdiction so did his successours for almost a thousand yeeres together Wherfore seeing the Bishop of Rome was in lawfull possession you must tell vs vpon what reason you put him from it ORTHOD. By what title doth the Pope challenge his iurisdiction in England By the law of God you cannot iustifie it By reason of the first conuersion of the Island by Saint Peter You cannot make it manifest that euer he was here Will you fetch it from Eleutherius He onely sent at the kings request and challenged no such authority Wil you deriue it from Austin It was then made appeare by many reasons that the Brittans ought him no subiection And it is euident that he and his associates had first their assemblies in Saint Martins Church in Canterbury by the Kings permission afterward when the king himselfe was conuerted they receiued to vse the words of Bede more ample licence both to Preach through all his dominions and also to build and repaire Churches So you see all was receiued from the king It is true that Gregory sent a supply of Preachers and gaue his aduise for the erection of Bishopricks and sent palls hither yet there can bee no question but all this was done by the kings licence Afterward in succeeding ages when the Popes did play the wild boares in the Church in executing Church censures and giuing Church liuings the kings of England made lawes against them euen in the time of Popery For as it was defended by Cyprian and afterward also by the African councell vnder Celestinus that causes should bee ended where they begunne and not bee carried to tribunalls beyond the sea So it was decreed in England in the raigne of Henry the second as witnesseth Mathew Paris De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debet procedi ad Episcopum ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum si Archiepiscopus defuerit in iustitia exhibenda ad dominum regē perueniendū est postremò vt praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controuersia terminetur ita quod non debeat vltra procedi absque assenssu domini regis i. Cōcerning appeals if any shall spring they ought to proceed from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop if the Archb. shal be defectiue in doing iustice they must come at last to our Lord the king that by his cōmandement the controuersie may bee determined in the Archbishops Court so that there ought not to be any further proceedings without the assent of the Lord the king Thus it is cleare that the Pope could not take to himselfe the handling of causes without the kings license It might also be declared how little his cēsures were here respected vnlesse they receiued strength by the kings permission And whereas hee tooke vpon him to dispose of Church liuings hee was censured for it in the time of Edw. the 3 euen in the high Court of Parliament as an vsurper These points might bee much inlarged but this little touch is sufficient to shew that whatsoeuer iurisdiction hee had in England was by the courtesie of the King whatsoeuer hee tooke vpon him otherwise was by vsurpation Now his challenge by custome is repelled by custome For these sixe hundred yeeres last past hee affecting to bee that which he was not disdained to bee that which he was and aspyring to a Popedome neglected his Patriarchdome so that which he had gotten by vse he hath lost by disusing and by his owne fact hath extinguished his former title Secondly whereas Pope Pelagius required onely a profession of the faith according to the Scriptures and the holy ancient generall councels Pius the fourth hath framed vs a new forme of faith without which no man can bee saued consisting of traditions transubstantiations merits Images reliques and such rotten Romish ragges-which he hath clapt to the Nicen creed as it were a beggers patch to a golden garment And
Nicolas Heath whom Queene Mary made Archbishop of Yorke and after the death of Gardiner Lord Chancelour of England what shall become of Thurlby whom Queene Mary translated from Norwich to Ely For all these were consecrated at such time when in your iudgement both the consecrators and consecrated were stained with schisme and heresie Did all these receiue nothing because their consecrators had nothing to giue If they were no Bishops then what becomes of the Bishops in Queene Maries raigne whom these did consecrate if they all receiued nothing then you must confesse that the Priestes whom they ordained were no Priestes If they were no Priests then though they vsed the words of Consecration they could not Consecrate the hoast If this be true then al that worshipped the hoast which they did Consecrate were idolatours PHIL. Edmond Bonner and the rest of our Bishops and Priests were Reuerend and Canonicall whatsoeuer you esteeme of them ORTH. Can there be a Bishop without effectuall Consecration PHIL. It is impossible ORTHO And other Consecration they had none but that which wee haue mentioned for I hope they were not reordained in Queene Maries time PHIL. Reordained I doe not thinke so for as rebaptizations so reordinations were forbidden in the Councell of Capua And Gregory saith as he which is once baptized ought not to be baptized againe so hee which is once consecrated ought not to be Consecrated againe in the same order Therfore vndoubtedly they were not reordained but Cardinall Poole the Popes legate absolued them from Schisme and heresie so they were confirmed for lawful Bishops ORTHOD. You hold that it is impossible to be a Bishop without effectuall Consecration Therefore seeing they had no other Consecration but that mentioned and yet were Bishops it followeth that their Consecration was effectuall wherefore you are forced to confesse that if a schismatical and hereticall Bishop giue orders the orders are effectuall But least this conclusion should seeme to flowe rather from the affection you beare to your owne Bishops then from any force of reason especially your own allegations standing still to the contrary let vs reuiew the whole matter and proceed by degrees ballancing euery thing with aduice and iudgement And answere I pray you not out of priuate humour and passion but from the publicke and most authenticall recordes of your Church ANd first if a wicked priest as for example a drunkard fornicator or blasphemer baptize a childe I demaund whether the baptisme bee good or no PHIL. If it be performed in the true element of water with Euangelicall words that is In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost according to our Sauiour Christs holy institution it is sound and sufficient and neuer to be iterated as our learned Popes Councels and Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine doe testifie For the wickednesse of the Minister cannot pollute the puritie of the mysteries of God they are auaileable to his children though they be ministred by a Iudas For it is well said of our learned Cardinall that he which hath not forgiuenesse of sinnes formally may haue it Ministerially as he that hath not in his purse one halfepeny of his owne may notwithstanding cary many crownes to another from his lord and master ORTHO Very true for that which S. Paul saith of preaching may bee extended to other Ministeriall duties If I doe it willingly I haue a reward but if I doe it against my will notwithstanding the dispensation is committed vnto me As though he should say If I do it willingly that is cheerfully for conscience sake seeking onely the glory of God and the saluation of his people then there is a reward laid vp for me But if I shall performe it vnwillingly that is for feare couetousnesse vaine glory or any other carnall respect though to my selfe it be not profitable because I loose my reward yet it may be auailable to others because the dispensation is committed vnto me The foulnesse of an vnsanctified hand cannot staine the beautie of these glorious mysteries For as Gregory Nazianzen saith A seale of Iron may imprint the Princes image as well as a signet of gold And we know by experience that a garden may as well be watered with an earthen as with a siluer pipe But what if the Priest we speak of be a schismaticke and an hereticke PHIL. Though he be yet if hee baptize according to the institution of Christ the baptisme is effectuall and neuer to be repeated ORTHOD. You say well for in such a case though it be ministred by Hereticks and schismaticks yet it is not the baptisme of heretickes and schismatickes but of Iesus Christ. For it is he that baptiseth and neither is he that planteth any thing nor hee that watereth bâ—â— God which giueth the increase To which purpose it is excellently said of Ausâ—â—n To the baptisme which is Consecrated with Euangelicall words pertaineth not the errour of any man either of the giuer or of the receiuer whether he thinke otherwise then the heauenly doctrine teacheth of the Father or of the Sonne or of the holy Ghost Indeed it was decreed in the great counsell of Nice that the Pauliâ—nistae comming to the Catholicke Church should be rebaptized where by rebaptizing they meane the repeating of that action which was erroniously supposed to be true baptisme but in trueth was not because it wanted the true essentiall forme of words which the Councell iudged necessary to be supplied Therefore there is no repugnancie betweene them and the Affrican Councel which decreed vnder Pope Stephen that the Nouatians returning to the Catholicke Church should not be rebaptized because their former baptisme though giuen by heretickes was according to the true forme of the Church and therefore sufficient It is true that Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage defended rebaptization and he was the first of all mortall men which defended it wherein he was followed by Saint Cyprian and the Bishops of Africke but then they had not seene the point defined by any generall Councels and though they held an errour yet they did not iudge them heretickes which held the contrary neither did they rebaptize those whom the Catholickes had baptized nor make any rent in the Church but kept the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace yea Saint Austin saith some report that Cyprian recalled this errour S. Hierom affirmeth that the Bishops of Africk did the like moued by the authority of Stephen Bishop of Rome But after them came the Donatists stiffely maintaining and increasing this errour euen when the Church had determined the contrary and therefore were iustly iudged hereticks Yea they took vpoÌ„ them to rebaptize such as were baptised in the Catholicke Church which was a diabolicall presumption For which causes Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Of one and the same opinion wee iudge which may seeme strange the authors
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
25. Ianu. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich. Lond. Ioh. Roff. Anno 1596. Thomas Bilson Cons. 13. Ianu. by Ioh. Archb Cant. Rich. Lond. Will. Wint. Rich. Bangor ¶ Ely THe Bishops of Ely in the Queenes time Richard Coxe and Martine Heaton the Consecration of Bishop Coxe was handled before the other followeth Anno 1599. Martin Heaton Cons. 3. Febr. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich Lond. Will. Cou. and Lichf Anton. Cicest ¶ Salisbury THe Bishops of Salisbury were Iohn Iewel Edmund Gueast Iohn Peirs Iohn Goldwell and Henry Cotton Anno 1559. Iohn Iewel Cons. 21. Ianu. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Edmund London Rich. Ely Ioh. Bedford Anno 1559. Edmund Gueast Cons. 24. Mart. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Nich. Lincolne Ioh. Sarum Anno 1576. Iohn Peirs Cons. 15. April by Edm. Archb. Cant. Edw. London Rob. Winton Anno 1591. Iohn Coldwell Cons. 26. Decem. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Ioh. London Tho. Wint. Rich. Bristoll Ioh. Oxon. Anno 1598. Henry Cotton Cons. 12. Nouem by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich. London William Couent Ant. Cicest ¶ Norwich THe Bishops of Norwich were Thomas Parkhurst Edmund Freake Edmund Scambler William Redman and Iohn Iegon Of these Edmund Scamblers Consecration hath already beene declared the rest follow Anno 1560. Thomas Parkhurst Cons. 1. Sep. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Gilbert Bath and Wells William Exon. Anno 1571. Edmund Freake Cons. 9. Mart. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Robert Wint. Edm. Sarum Anno 1594. William Redman Cons. 12. Ianu. by Iohn Archb. Cant. Rich. London Iohn Roff. William Lincoln Anno 1602. Iohn Iegon Cons. 20. Febru by Iohn Archb. Cant. Rich. London Iohn Roff. Ant. Cicest ¶ Rochester THe Bishops of Rochester were Edmund Gueast Edm. Freake Iohn Pierce and Iohn Yong whereof the three first haue bene already handled the fourth followeth Anno 1577. Iohn Yong Cons. 16. Mart. by Edm. Archb. Cant. Iohn Lond. Ioh. Sarum CHAP. VII Of the Bishops in the Prouince of Canterburie consecrated since our gracious Soueraigne King Iames did come to the Crowne with a little touch concerning the Prouince of Yorke ANd that you may know that the same order in Consecration of Bishops is still retained vnder the raigne of our gracious Soueraigne King Iames behold these that follow Anno 1603. Ioh. Bridges Cons. B. of Oxon. 12. Febr. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich. Lond. Tob. Durham Ioh. Roff. Anthon. Cicest Anno 1604. Rich. Parry Cons. B. of Asaph 30. Dec. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Rich. Lond. Tob. Durham Mart. Eltens Anno 1604. Tho. Rauis Cons. B. of Glouc. 17. Mart. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Tob. Durham Anth. Cicest Anno 1605. Will. Barlow Cons. B. of Roch. 30. Iun. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Rich. London Anth. Cicest Thom. Glouc. Anno 1605. Lanc. Andrewes Cons. B. of Cic. 3. Nou. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Rich. Lond. Ioh. Norwich Thom. Glouc. Will. Roff. Anno 1607. Henr. Parry Cons. B. of Glouc. 12. Iul. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Thom. Lond. Will. Roff. Lancel Cicest An. 1608. Ia. Mountagu coÌ„s B. of Ba. Wels. 17. Ap. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Thom. Lond. Henr. Sarum Will. Roff. Lanc. Cicest Henr. Glouc. Anno 1608. Rich. Neile Cons. B. of Roch. 9. Octob. by Rich. Arch. Cant. Thom. Lond. Lanc. Cicest Ia. Bath Wells An. 1609. Geor. Abbot Con. B. of Cou. Lich. 3. Dec. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Lanc. Ely Rich. Roff. Samuel Harsnet Cons. B. of Cicest the same day by the same persons Anno 1611. Giles Thomson Cons. B. of Glou. 9. Iul. by Georg. Archb. Cant. Ioh. Oxon. Lanc. Eli. Ia. Bath Wells Rich. Cou. Lichf Iohn Buckridge Cons. B. of Roch. the same day by the same persons Anno 1611. Ioh. King Cons. B. of Lond. 8. Septemb. by Georg. Archb. Cant. Rich. Cou. Lichf Giles Glouc. Ioh. Roff. Anno 1612. Miles Smith Cons. B. of Glou. 20. Sept. by Georg. Cant. Ioh. Lond. Rich. Cou. Lich. Ioh. Roff. The like hath bene continually obserued in the Prouince of Yorke for a taste whereof I will giue you two examples The former in the Queenes time the later in the raigne of our gracious Soueraigne Anno 1598. Hen. Robinson Cons. B. of Carl. 23. Iul. by Rich. Lond. Ioh. Roff. Anth. Cic. Anno 1606. Will. Iames Cons. B. of Durham 6. Sept. by Tob. Ebor. Rich. Lond. Will. Roff. Lanc. Cic. THis which you haue seene may seeme sufficient Yet because I desire to giue ample contentment I haâ—â—â—et downâ— the successiue Ordination and Golden chaine of the most reuerend Father George now L. Archbishop of Canterbury the ioy of the Clergie and Gods great blessing vpoÌ„ this Church ascending lincke by lincke vnto the Bishops in the time of King Henry the 8. which our aduersaries acknowledge to be Canonicall Whereunto that all the Clergie of England may know in particular how to proue their succession I intend when God shall grant me opportunitie to view the Records of the other Prouince to annex the like Episcopal line of the other most reuerend Metropolitane Tobie L. Archbishop of Yorke CHAP. VIII The Episcopall line and succession of the most Reuerend Father in God George now Lord Archb. of Canterbury particularlie declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the daies of King Henry the eight which our Aduersaries acknowledge to bee Canonicall He was Consecrated 3. December 1609. By 1. R. Bancroft Cons. 8. May 1597 by Lancel Eli. Whose Consecrations were before described and may bee deduced in the like manner Richard Rosf Whose Consecrations were before described and may bee deduced in the like manner 2. Ioh. Whitg Cons. 21. Apr. 1577. by Iohn Young See the next page Anthony Rud. See the next page Richard Vaughan See the next page Anthony Watson See the next page 3. Ed. Grindal Cons. 21. Dec. 1559. by 4 Mat. Parker Cons. 17. Dec. 1559 by Wil. Barlow in the time of Henry 8. Ioh. Hodgskins in the time of Henry 8. 5 Miles Couerdale Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by Thomas Cranmer in the time of Henry 8. Iohn Hodgâ—kins in the time of Henry 8. 7 Nicholas Ridley Cons. 5. Sep. 1547. by Henry Lincolne in the time of Hen. 8. Iohn Bedford in the time of Hen. 8. Thomas Sidon in the time of Hen. 8. 6 Ioh Scory Cons. with Miles Couerdale vide 5. 8 Ioh. Hurly Cons. 26. May 1553. by Thomas Cranmer Christ. Sidon 9 Iohn Taylour Cons. 26. Iuly 1552. by Thomas Cranmer Iohn Scory vide 6. Nich. Ridley vide 7. William Barlow in the time of Henry the 8. Iohn Bedford in the time of Henry the 8. 10. Ioh. Elmer Cons. 24. Mar. 1577 by Edmund Grindall â—ide 3. 11 Edw. Sands Consecrated with Edmund Grindall vide 3. 12 Iohn Piers Cons. 15. Apr. 1576. by Robert Horne vide 13. 19 Ri. Câ—râ—else cons. 21. May 1570. by Mathew Parker vide 4. Robert Horne vide 13 20 Edm. Guest cons. 24. Mar. 1559 by Mathew Parker vide 4 Nicholas BullinghaÌ„ vid. 17 Iohn Iewell
him by not doing that which hee commaundeth and by hindring him from executing his will yet it is not lawfull to iudge him or punish him or depose him which belongeth to none but the superiour ORTHOD. And you must consider that it is one thing to punish by vertue of Iurisdiction ouer a partie and another thing to hinder the iniuries which the partie endeauoreth actuallie to inferre as the Venetian Doctours haue prooued out of Caietan Turrecremata and Bellarmine Now King Henry did challenge no iurisdiction but ouer his owne subiects and within his owne dominions yet it was fit that in his owne necessary defence hee should remoue papall iniuries by prouiding as it became a vertuous Prince for the quiet of his owne conscience and the good of his subiects Which blessings could neuer haue beene procured if the Pope had still enioyed his vsurped authority in England PHIL. You shall not perswade mee but that King Henry was guiltie both of Schisme and heresie Onuphrius saith that Paul the third did thinke him vnworthie to bee accounted in the number of Christians ob inauditum heresis crimen that is For such a crime of heresie as had not beene heard of ORTHOD. What meant the Pope thinke you when hee condemned him for heresie Sigonius recordeth that in a Councell at Mentz in the presence of the Emperor there was a disputation Vtrum Henricus Regio titulo a Gregorio spoliari potuisset that is VVhether Henry the Emperour might bee depriued of the title of a King by Pope Gregorie Wherein most of the Bishops assented to Geberardus defending the Popes authority So it came to passe that Vecilo Archbishop of Mentz beeing of the contrarie opinion was branded for heresie in an other councell wherein Otho Bishop of Ostia the Popes Legat was present And the same Sigonius saith that the Emperour Henry the fourth renouncing his Fathers heresie did imbrace the obedience of the Pope Not to performe obedience to the Pope was his Fathers heresie but his sonne was a gracious Catholicke for shewing obedience to the Pope though therein hee were an vngracious sonne against his owne father PHIL. Onuphrius saith That king Henry the eight followed Noua nefaria Lutheri dogmata the new and wicked opinions of Luther Bellarmine saith that in England in the reigne of Henry and afterwards in the reigne of Edward the whole kingdome did after a sort slide backe from the faith ORTHOD. That which you call Heresie and Apostacy is true religion and that which you honour with the name of true religion is full of Heresie and idolatry Many papall abuses were discouered in the daies of King Henry moe in the daies of King Edward so the Gospell was like to the light which shineth more and more to the perfect day the brightnesse whereof abolished both the Pope the Popish religion Afterward when Queene Mary had restored both the Lord stirred vp the spirit of Queene Elizabeth who with an inuincible courage reformed religion And that which shee happily begunne our gracious Soueraigne King Iames hath happily continued Neither can any man accuse them of Schisme vnlesse they will accuse the holy Apostle Saint Paul who When certaine were hardened and disobeyed speaking euill of the way of God before the multitude hee departed from them and separated the Disciples As the Apostle practised this in his owne person so hee gaue the like commaundement to others If any man teach otherwise and consenteth not to the wholesome words of our Lord Iesus Christ and to the Doctrine which is according to godlinesse c. From such separate thy selfe And the Lord crieth by his Prophet Goe not vp to Bethauen This Bethauen was Bethel but her idolatry made her Bethauen therefore goe not vp to Bethauen If Rome which was sometimes Bethel the house of God become Bethauen the house of vanitie then thou must not goe vp to Bethauen Goe out of Babylon my people goe out of Babylon if Rome which was some times a pure virgine become the whore of Babylon then go out of Babylon my people least you be partakers of her plagues Wherefore al Christian Kingdomes were bound to separate themselues from the erronious and idolatrous Church of Rome PHIL. Thus you say But I rather account of the iudgement of the Church of Rome which noteth both them and you for schismatickes and heretickes CHAP. IX Whether Schisme and Heresie annihilate a Consecration ORTHO WHether we or you be guiltie of those crimes God the righteous iudge will one day reueale In the meane time let vs admit though for al your brags you are neuer able to proue it that Cranmer vpon his reuolte from the Pope did presently become a schismatick and an hereticke Yet tell mee in good sooth Philodox doeth a Bishop falling into schisme and heresie cease to be a Bishop doth hee loose his power of giuing orders PHIL. It is a disputable point and I can tell you that great Clerkes seeme to bee of that opinion Pope Innocent saith that those which are Baptized of heretickes are receiued with their Baptisme but the ordained of heretickes are not receiued with their order And againe the ordained of Heretickes haue their head wounded And againe it is affirmed that hee which hath lost the honour cannot giue the honour and that hee which receiued receiued nothing because there was nothing in the giuer which hee could receiue Which he sealeth vp with this conclusion Aquiescimus verum est We yeeld and it is true Pope Iohn the twelfth caused those which were ordained of Leo 8. a schismaticall Pope to say Pater meus nihil habuit sibi nihil mihi dedit that is my father had nothing to himselfe and nothing he gaue to me Pope Nicolas the first saith No reason doth teach how Gregory who was Canonically and Synodically deposed and excommunicated can promote or blesse any man therefore Photius receiued nothing of Gregory but that which he had but he had nothing he therefore gaue nothing He which stoppeth his ears from hearing the law his prayer shal be abhominable if abhominable then not to be heard if not to be heard then vneffectuall if vneffectuall then verily it bringeth nothing to Photius Wherefore though Cranmer had a lawfull consecration yet it seemeth when hee fell into schisme and heresie hee lost his order and power of ordination Therefore the Bishops in King Edwards time consecrated by Cranmer receiued nothing because Cranmer had nothing to giue And the Bishops in Queene Elizabeths time consecrated by those whom Cranmer did consecrate receiued nothing because their consecrators had nothing to giue And those which now succeede them receiued nothing because their predecessours had nothing to giue ORTHO Take heed Philodox least while you goe about to put out our eyes you put out your owne For if your allegations be sound what shall become of Bonner Bishop of London what shall become of