Monastery which haue onely set downe the names of such as succeeded such persons in such places but haue not described their successiue ordination if you could shew vs this also yet it would not proue the Church of Rome to be a true Catholike Church For why should wee not thinke that Constantinople and Alexandria might haue this as well as Rome Moreouer your owne former example doth confute you For Manasses the high Priest of the Temple in mount Garizim was brother to Iaddi the high Priest in Ierusalem and had the like succession from Aaron yet the Samaritans were not a true but schismaticall Church in regard whereof their Temple was called Templum transgressorum Finally suppose that into the place of a Catholike and Canonicall Bishop deceased a capable and Catholike man were canonically chosen and consecrated yet it is very possible that hee may become an heretike as for example an Arrian and may draw his flocke after him Will you now say that this flocke so poysoned with Arrianisme are the true members of your Catholike Church Yet here is locall and personall succession yea euen the golden chaine of successiue ordination Therefore that assertion of Stapletons to with that wheresoeuer this succession is there is also a true Catholike Church cannot bee defended but Bellarmine saith farre more truely It is not necessarily gathered that the Church is alwaies where there is succession For besides this outward succession there must likewise bee the inward succession of doctrine to make a true Church Irenaeus describeth those which haue true succession from the Apostles to bee such as with the succession of the Episcopall office haue receiued the certaine grace of truth And this kind of succession hee calleth the principall succession so Gregory Nazianzen hauing said that Athanasius succeeded Saint Marke in godlinesse addeth that this succession in godlinesse is properly to be accounted succession For hee that holdeth the same Doctrine is also partaker of the same throne but he that is against the Doctrine must bee reputed an aduersary euen while hee sitteth in the throne for the latter hath the name of succession but the former hath the thing it selfe and the truth Therefore you must proue your succession in doctrine otherwise you must bee holden for aduersaries euen while you sit in the throne PHIL. Wee can proue it when occasion requireth In the meane time though we cannot conclude affirmatiuely that where successiue Ordination is there is a Church yet we may conclude negatiuely that that where it is not there is no Church ORTHO Had not Pope Pelagius this ordination you speake of PHIL. He had no doubt and so succeeded the blessed Apostles ORTHOD. But he was consecrated onely by two as I haue proued So Euagrius was a lawfull Bishop approued by the Pope and Church of Rome and consequently in your owne iudgement had succession from the Apostles Yet as hath beene declared he was consecrated onely by one therefore you must confesse that one may be a lawfull Bishop and haue succession from the Apostles although he were consecrated onely by one Yet mistake me not I speake not this as though any of our English Protestant Bishops since the time of reformation were so consecrated We are readie to iustifie that their Orders are not onely sufficient in the nature of the thing but also exact according to the strictnesse of the Canon PHIL. Or if they be not then as those which could not shew their pedegree from Aaron were put from the Priest-hood so you must be content to be serued in like manner ORTHODOX SEeing you accuse vs for breaking the golden chaine behold take it in your hand examine it from end to end looke vpon euery lincke let vs see those breaches those ruptures those dissolutions you speake of and let it appeare to the world whether you or wee haue broken the Canon And because you so bragge and blaze your owne Armes let vs first see how you can proue your glorious succession PHIL. We can name the Bishops which succeeded one another in their seuerall Sees euen till the time of Schisme ORTHOD. What is this to the purpose It is one thing to make a Catalogue of Bishops succeeding one another and another thing to plot out the whole chaine of their successiue ordination This is the thing you require at our hands can you performe it if not by your owne sentence you must bee put from your Priest-hood PHIL. We can if you will grant that vnto vs which is reason should bee graunted For you must vnderstand that our English Catholicke Bishops deriue their succession from the Saxons the Saxons from the French some of both from the Romane and the Romane from all Nations therefore an infinite number of Recordes must bee searched if wee will particularly deduce the successiue ordination of any one Bishop of later times Now although the Church in all ages hath beene carefull to record the Consecrations yet it is possible that some may bee omitted by negligence of Registers it is possible that some formerly recorded may bee perished by iniury of time it is possible that some yet remayning vpon record cannot by vs bee attained because they are in the hands of our enemies But what of all this seeing the law of the Church in all ages and kingdomes required three seeing the constant practise of the Christian world was continuallie by three therefore when wee reade of any Bishop generally reputed a Bishop performing the office of a Bishop by giuing holy orders subscribing to generall Councels executing without any checke or controulement the duties belonging to a Bishoppe wee may in all reason presume that he was made canonically by three if there be neither publike fame nor probable reason nor suspition to the contrary For wanton wittes must not bee suffered vpon their owne fancy to call reuerend antiquity into question Otherwise seeing none can bee a Bishop vnlesse hee bee first a Priest a peeuish man might denie them to bee Bishops vnlesse hee did see their letters of orders Againe seeing no man can bee a Priest except hee bee baptised a froward fellow might deny their Priesthood vnlesse it could bee produced by whom and where they were baptised No Sir wee may not admit of such dealing neither must wee bee put to prooue these things but when there is nothing to the contrary wee may presume them to bee done according to the lawes of the Church and the generall practise of all Christian nations ORTHODOX You speake reason Onely this I require at your hands that the same libertie which you assume to your selues you will according to equity allow to others and seeing you chalenge all the Bishops before Cranmer for your owne may it please you to let vs see the seuerall linckes of your golden chaine from the first conuersion vntill his time and we will extend them to this present day CHAP. II. Of the first Conuersion of this
will make vs beleeue That the Apostle speaketh of Lay-Elders but I pray you doe not trouble me with such phantasticall conceits vnknowne to Antiquitie ORTHOD. You need not feare For it is cleare that the Presbyterie here mentioned ordained Timothy by imposition of hands which no Lay-man may doe therefore doubtlesse they were no Lay-men But what in your iudgement is meant by Presbyterie PHIL. What else can Presbyterium signifie but a company or assembly of Presbyters ORTH. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doeth signifie not onely a company of Presbyters but also the Office and function of a Presbyter For example Eusebius saith That the Bishops of Caesarea and Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Imposed hands vpon him .i. vpon Origen for the Office of a Presbyter And againe The Bisop of Caesarea prayed him to expound the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is When as yet hee had not obtained Ordination of Priesthood And not long after he receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The Ordination of Priesthood And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is likewise vsed Socrates saith That Atticus placed Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is in the Order of Deaconship And hee was thought worthy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Office and Order of a Priest This signification is imbraced by Hierome Primâ—sius Anselmus expounding Presbyterium by Presbyteratus or Episcopatus That is the Office of a Priest or Bishop Likewise Lyra Presbyterium est dignitas vel Officium Presbyteri That is The Presbyterie mentioned by Saint Paul is the dignitie or office of a Priest Yea your owne Rhemistes confesse so much in that they transtate the word Presbyterium in this very place Priest-hood which doth not signifie a company of Priests but the office and order of a Priest If this bee true then your argument is shaken in peâ—ces For that may bee said to bee performed by the order or office of Priest-hood which is done by one Priest onely as well as though it were done by a thousand and this interpretation may seeme to bee countenanced by conference of Scripture because Paul though an Apostle yet according to the phrase of Scripture may bee Called a Presbyter for this word Presbyter in the New Testament taken for an Ecclesiasticall person doth signifie sometimes the Pastour of a particular flocke as when Paul willeth Titus to ordaine Presbyters in euery Citie sometimes it is taken more generally and extendeth euen to the Apostles themselues so Iohn calleth himselfe a Presbyter and Peter speaking to Presbyters calleth himselfe their fellow Presbyter Whence wee may conclude by analogie that Paul also may bee called a Presbyter Now it is certaine that Saint Paul imposed hands vpon Timothie For hee saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir vp the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands Wherefore seeing the word Presbyterie may signifie the office of a Presbyter and Saint Paul may bee called a Presbyter and it is euident that Timothie was ordained by the hands of Paul therefore it is possible that when the Scripture ascribeth his ordination to the Presbyterie it may bee meant that hee was made only by the hands of Paul which is the opinion of Dionysius Carthusianus who saith manuuÌ„ Presbyterij id est manuuÌ„ mearuÌ„ qui te ordinaui Episcopum Of the hands of the Presbytery that is of my hands which ordained thee a Bishop But suppose that Presbyterie in this place signifie a company or assembly of Bishops as Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius interpret it How many will you iudge to make an assembly PHIL. Suppose that three ORTH. If it be so then vpon Bellarmines imagination that an assembly of Bishops imposed hands together with the ordainer it will follow that Timothie was consecrated by foure therefore if you make this example a perpetuall patterne then all Bishops must be consecrated by foure which is against your selfe PHIL. It seemeth that two Bishops may be Called an assembly ORTHOD. Though it were so yet you cannot conclude for how proue you that there was an assembly besides the principall consecrator PHIL. Bellarmine hath proued it by the fathers alleadged ORTHO Bellarmine abuseth his Reader for to beginne with Chrysostome he saith Hee speaketh not of Presbyters in this place but of Bishops for Presbyters ordained him not a Bishop And Theophylact with imposition of hands of the Presbyterie that is of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop Likewise Occumenius by Presbyters hee meaneth Bishops for Presbyters were not to impose hands vpon a Bishop So these fathers by Presbyterie vnderstood Bishops the number they doe not define neither doe they affirme that there was an assembly besides the principall consecrator But concerning the number you shall heare the iudgement of your Angelicall Doctor who bringeth two readings of this place Presbyteri and Presbyterij and handling the first hee demaundeth Why it should bee said Presbyteri in the singular number seeing a Bishop should bee consecrated by three to this hee frameth two answers First because though many meete together yet one is principall the rest conssistants Secondly yet saith hee it may bee said that this Canon was not then made and that then there were but few Bishops which could not bee congregated So hee thinketh it probable that Timothy was not consecrated by three Whereto agreeth Cardinall de Turrecrematâ— Petrus dicitur solus consecrasse beatum Iohannem Euangelistam Paulus Timotheum Titum Dionysium i. Peter is said alone to haue consecrated blessed Iohn the Euangelist and Paul to haue consecrated Timothy Titus and Dionysius And Iohannes Maior Paulus non quasiuit duos pro ordinatione Titi Timothei i. Paul sought not other two Bishops for the Ordination of Titus and Timothy So farre is this place from prouing the necessity of three Bishops PHIL. I Wil prooue it by another place For there were in the Church which was at Antioch Prophets and Doctors among whom was Barnabas Simeon that was called Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch and Saul And as they were ministring to our Lord and fasting the holy Ghost said Separate me Saul and Barnabas vnto the worke whereto I haue called them Then they fasting and praying and imposing hands vpon them dismissed them Behold not onely Barnabas but also Saul that is Paul the Apostle was consecrated Bishop that by three Bishops Simeon Lucius and Manahen Though he were an Apostle not of men nor by men yet it was the will of God that hee should bee ordained Bishop by 3. Bishops that the discipline of the Church might be obserued ORTHO Neither were they Bishops neither did they make Paul and Barnabas Bishops PHIL. Father Turrian sheweth that by Doctors were meant Presbyters and by Prophets Bishops and also that Barnabas and Saul were Doctors or Presbyters the other three
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
the English there are none both which branches hee presupposeth as granted the French but when doeth any of them come ouer into England as though hee should say their comming is vncertaine so he concludeth that Austin must make Bishops alone without other Bishops Now from Austin we will proceede to his successours PHIL. They may all be presumed to bee Canonicall ORTH. Yet they came from such as were not canonicall Now from the Saxons wee will proceede to the Normans And here what say you to Lanfranck whom William the Conqueror made Archbishop in stead of Stigandus PHIL. There is no reason to doubt of him or any other till wee come to Cranmer CHAP. VI. Of the Consecration of the most Reuerend Father Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterburie ORTH. THen it remaineth that we consider the Consecration of that most reuerend Father and blessed Martyr Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury concerning whom I expect your iudgement PHIL. My iudgement is that he was a principall cause of all those lamentable alterations which happened in the daies of king Henry the eight and Edward the sixt ORTH. Doe you call them lamentable therein you resemble Enuy in the Poet which lamented because she saw nothing worthy of lamentation For those alterations which ye call lamentable were a gracious beginning of a thousand blessings both to the Church and Common wealth of England But speake directly to the point in question whether Cranmer were a Canonicall Bishoppe Why doe you not answere You are like to one which holdeth a Wolfe by the eares who neither knoweth how to hold him nor how to let him goe faine would you infringe the Consecration of Cranmer but alasâ—e you cannot PHIL. Father Becan directing his speach to the Bishops of England saith thus Legitimè consecrati non estis a quo enim an à rege at is consecrandi potestatem non habet An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi vel aliquo simile ne id quidem Nam Thomas Cranmerus qui sub Henrico 8. Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit non fuit consecratus ab vllo Episcopo sed a solo rege intrusus designatus igitur quotquot ab eo postea consecrati sunt non legitimè sed eâ— presumptione consecrati sunt 1. You are not lawfully consecrated for by whom were you whether by the King but he hath not power to consecrate Or by the Bishop of Canterbury or some like Neither that truly For Thomas Cranmer who vnder K. Henry the 8. obtained the Bishopricke of Canterburie was not consecrated by any Bishop but intruded and designed by the King alone therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him were not consecrated lawfully but by presumption ORTH. Or rather Becan playeth the part of a presumptuous Iesuite against the Lords annointed in saying that King Henry intruded Cranmer as also in glauncing at his most famous and religious successours as though they themselues had consecrated Bishops For what needed he to moue any such question if it were not to raise a mist and cast a cunning surmise to induce men to thinke that it was so But indeede it was not so for our soueraignes in the aduancing of Bishops do nothing but that which they may lawfully by their Princely right agreeable to the patterne of most religious Kings and Emperours and iustifiable both by the lawes of God and the land as in due place shall appeare And as hee wrongeth the Prince so doth hee traduce Archbishop Cranmer as though he were consecrated either by the King or by none at all and consequently the whole Clergie of England at this day deriuing their consecration from that renowned Martyr But if this accusation were true doe you not marke how it would make a cracke in your golden chaine of succession wherein you so reioyce and glory For if Cranmer were no Bishop then some approoued in Queene Maries time would prooue no Bishops as for example Anthony Kitchen Bishop of Landaff and Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Ely both which deriued their Consecration from Cranmer as may be iustified by records the latter whereof was highly commended by the Pope and made one of his Commissioners in the time of Queene Marie and imploied in the proceedings against that most Reuerend Archbishop If this cannot content the Iesuite I will referre him to Parsons his fellow Iesuite a man who neither loued Archbishop Cranmer nor any other of our Religion and yet clearely confesseth that he was a true Bishop BVt what mislike you in Cranmer was hee not in the order of Priesthood let the Pope be Iudge who in his Bull to Cranmer calleth him Magistrum in Theologia in Presbyteratus ordine constitutum i. Master or Doctor in Diuinitie setled in the order of Priesthood Or was he made Archbishop without the Popes authoritie The Pope himselfe affirmeth the contrary both to the King in these words ¶ Clemens Episcopus Henrico Anglorum Regi illustri De persona dilecti filij Thomae electi Cantuariensis c. De fratrum eorundem consilio Apostolica authoritate prouidimus ipsumque illi Ecclesiae Cantuariensi in Archiepiscopum praefecimus c. Bonon 1532. 9. Kal. Mart. Pontif. nostri 10. ¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the glorious King of the English We haue made Prouision by our Apostolicke authoritie by the Counsell of our said brethren of the person of our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury and we haue set him ouer the said Church of Canterbury to be their Archbishop And to Cranmer himselfe in these words ¶ Clemens Episcopus dilecto filio Thomae electo Cantuariensi Praefatae Ecclesiae Cantuariensi de eorundem fratrum consilio Apostolica authoritate prouidimus teque illi in Archiepiscopum praefecimus pastorem curam administrationem ipsius Ecclesiae tibi in spiritualibus temporalibus plenariè committendo ¶ Bon. Anno 1532. 9. Kal. Mart. That is Clement Bishop to our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury We haue prouided by our Apostolicke authoritie by the Counsell of the same brethren for the foresaid Church of Canterbury and haue set thee ouer it to be their Archbishop and pastour and fully committing vnto thee the charge and administration of the same Church in things spirituall and temporall Or did the Pope and his Cardinals accept the person of Cranmer vndeseruedly Let your holy Father speake for himselfe ¶ Clemens Episcopus Hâ—n Angl. Regi illustri De persona dilecti filij Thomae electi Cantuariensis nobis fratribus nostris ob suorum exigentiam meritorum acceptâ— c. That is ¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the most glorious King of England We haue made prouision of the person of our welbeloued sonne Thomas elect of Canterbury accepted of vs and our brethren according as his deserts required OR was he Consecrated without the Popes licence Behold the Bull for his Consecration ¶ Clemens Episc. dilecto filio Tho. Electo Cant. Tibi vt a quocunque
a taste beginning from Cranmer Anno 1533. Thom. Cran. Cons. Arch. of Cant. 30. Mart. by Iohn Lincoln Iohn Exon. Henry Assaph Anno 1534. Rowland Lee Cons. B. of Lichfield 19. April by Thom Cant. Iohn Lincolne Christ. Sidon Anno 1535. George Browne Cons. Arch. Dublin 19. Mart. by Thom. Cant. Iohn Roff. Nich Sarum Anno 1536. Rob. Warton cons. B. of Assaph 20. Iul. by Tho. Cant. Ioh. Bangor Will. Norwic. An. 1537. Rob. Holgate cons. B. of Landaff 25. Mart. by Ioh. Roffen Nich. Sarum Ioh. Bangor An. 1537. Henr. Holbeck cons. B. of Bristow 24. Mart. by Iohn Roff. Hug. Wigorn. Rob. Assaph An. 1538. Will. Finch cons. Suf. of Taunton 7. April by Iohn Roff. Robert Assaph Will. Colchest An. 1540. Tho. Thurlby cons. B. of Westm. 9. Decemb. by Edm. Lond. Nich. Roff. Ioh. Bedf. An. 1541. Ioh. Wakeman cons. B. of Gloucest 25. Sept. by Thom. Cant. Edm. Land Tho. Westmonast An. 1541. Arth. Buckley cons. B. of Bangor 19. Febr. by Ioh. Sarum Will. Meneuensis Ioh. Glocest. An. 1542. Paul Bush cons. B. of Bristow 25. Iun. by Nich. Roff. Thom. Westmon Ioh. Bedf. An. 1545. Ant. Kitchin cons. B. of Lan. 3. Mat. 37. H. 8. by Thom. Westm. Thom. Sidon Suffrag Salop. NOw from the Consecrators let vs proceed to the forme of Consecration and consider whether the ancient Canons which you approue and vrge were altered in King Henrtes time PHIL. It doth not appeare by the Statute that there was any alteration For it was enacted that the Consecration should be solemnized with all due circumstance And moreouer that the Consecrators should giue to the Consecrated all Benedictions Ceremonies and things requisite for the same And surely if there had bene any alteration in things essentiall Doct. Sanders speaking purposely of this very point would not haue concealed it But he saith plainely It was his will speaking of King H. 8 that the Ceremonie and solemne Vnction should as yet be vsed in Episcopall Consecration after the maner of the Church And againe more plainely Primo loco sancierunt vt cum Episcopi ac Presbyteri Anglicani ritu ferè Catholico excepta R. Pontificis obedientia quam omnes obnegabant ad illud vsque tempus ordinati fuissent in posterum alia omnino forma ab ipsis praescripta Ordinationes fierent authoritate à puero Rege adid accepta That is First they decreed speaking of K. Edwards time That whereas the Bishops and Priests of England had bene ordained euen vnto that time almost after the Catholicke rite excepting the obedience of the Bishop of Rome which they all dented hereafter Ordinations should be made altogether after an other forme by them prescribed by authoritie which they receiued to that purpose from the King being a childe But the Statute of Q. Mary putteth all out of doubt Enacting That all such diuine Seruice and Administration of Sacraments as were most commonly vsed in this Realme of England in the last yeere of King Henry the 8. should be vsed and frequented through the whole Realme of England and all other the Queenes dominions and no other in any other maner forme or degree Now the makers of this Statute were perswaded that holy Order was a Sacrament therefore holy Orders were ministred in Q. Maries time as they were in the last yeere of K. Henry But all good Catholicks will confesse that in Q. Maries time the true essentiall forme of Consecration was obserued Therefore I graunt that it was also vsed all the time of King Henry ORTHOD. If the persons were capable and consecrated by a sufficient number of Canonical consecrators according to the forme of your Church then you must needs iudge their Consecration effectuall and them Canonicall Bishops PHIL. Our Church in Q Maries time did so iudge of them for most of her old Bishops were made in Schismate Henriciano Yet they were allowed and the new euen Cardinall Poole among the rest did all deriue their Consecration from the old yet were they all approued by our holy Father the Bishop of Rome and by name B. Bonner and B. Thurlby to whom he giueth honorable testimony in his Commission for the proceeding against Cranmer ORTHOD. Then if we can deriue our Bishops from any three in King Henries reigne before the banishing of the Pope or after you must acknowledge them to be Canonicall PHIL. It seemeth so ORTHOD. Or else Bonner and his coequals must lie in the dust and all the Bishops made in Q. Maries time must eternally be cancelled out of the Catalogue of Bishops Hitherto of K. Henries time Proceed we now to the Bishops in K. Edwards dayes and consider whether those were Gold or lead CHAP. XI Of the Bishops Consecrated in the time of King Edward the sixt PHIL. THe Bishops in King Edwards time we take for no Bishops ORTHOD. No But you must there is no remedie And for the more perspicuitie let vs distinguish them into certaine ranckes The first of such as were made both Priests and Bishops in K. Henries time and were continued in King Edwards The second of such as were Priests in K. Henries time and made Bishops in K. Edwards To these you may adde a third of such if any such you find as were made both Priests and Bishops in the dayes of K. Edward The first you haue confessed already to be Canonicall therefore let vs come to the second in which are those blessed Saints and glorious Martyrs Ridley Hooper and Ferrar concerning whom first I demaund whether they were in the order of Priesthood or no PHIL. Yes father Parsons graunteth it saying Ridley studied at Cambridge and there was made Priest trauailed ouer the sea to Paris and returning againe became King Henties Chaplaine Likewise Iohn Hooper as may be seene by Fox his relation of him was a Priest in Oxford in the daies of King Henry the eight So Robert Ferrar Priest and Chaplaine to Cranmer in King Henries time Thus I confesse that they were Priests but I deny that they were Bishops for father Parsons speaking of the â—oxian Calendar and Saints of the month of Februarie in which number were Hooper and Ferrar saith Among Foxe his Saints there is neither eremâ—â—icall nor monasâ—icall life noâ— solitude either from the worlde or women nor any one so much as pretending the title of vâ—rginitie in any seâ—e nor any true Bishoppe indeed if their ordination bee examined For beside Cranmer other Bishops or Clergie men were there none of all the packe that was burned ORTHOD. What say you then to father â—atimer who was ordained in the same manner in all respects as Bonner was Though hee had now relinguished his Bishopricke yet still according to your owne principles hee was a true Bishoppe 〈◊〉 respect of the Episcopall character But to prosecute the present point what mislike you in Ridley Hooper and Ferrar you haue already confessed that they were
Priests why should you deny them to be Bishops PHIL. The Popes Commissioners Vnpriested them in Queene Maries time but would not Vnbishop them thereby acknowledging their Priestly function receiued in King Henries time but denying their Episcopall receiued in King Edwards as may appeare by the words of Doctor Brooke Bishop of Glocester the Popes subdelegate to Ridley at his degradation Wee must against our willâ—s proceed according to our Commission to disgrading taking from you the dignitie of Priesthood for we take you for no Bishop as Iohn Fox your owne historian recordeth ORTH. Was not hee and all the rest of them Consecrated by a sufficient number PHIL. Yes vndoubtedly for that law was alwaies obserued in King Edwards time as Doctor Sanders confesseth Câ—remontam autem solennem vnctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa adhiberi voluit quam postea profiâ—â—â—ns in pâ—â—â—â— Edouardus Sextus sustulit proea Caluinicas aliquot deprecationes substituit serâ—ata tamen semper priori de numero presenâ—â—um Episcoporum qui â—anuâ— ordinando impoâ—erent lege that is It was his will speaking of King Henry the eight that the ceremony and solemne vnction should as yet be vsed in Episcopall consecration after the manner of the Church which King Edward profiting from better to worse did afterward take away and insteed thereof substitute certaine Caluinicall deprecations yet the former law concerning the number of Bishops which should impose hands vpon the ordained was alwaies obserued ORTHOD If you or any other dare deny it it may bee iustified by authenticall records Out of which behold a true abstract of the consecration of those renowned Martyrs Nich Ridley Cons 5. Septemb. 1547. 1. Ed 6. by Henry Lincoln Iohn Bedford Thom. Sidon Rob. Ferrar Cons 9. Septemb. 1549. 2. Ed 6. by Thom. Canterb Henry Lincoln Nich Roff. Iohn Hooper Cons. 8. Mart. 1550. by Thom. Canterb Nich London Iohn Roff. To which let vs adde those worthy confessours Iohn Poynet Iohn Scory and Miles Couerdale Iohn Poynet Cons. 29. Iune 1550. by Thom. Canterb. Nich London Arthur Bangor Iohn Scory and Miles Couerdale Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by Thom Canterb. Nich London Iohn Bedford NOw seeing the Consecrated were capable and the Consecrators a sufficient number why should not the Consecration bee effectuall For if Cranmer or any other lawfull Bishop by his Commission with sufficient assistants could make canonicall Bishops in the daies of K. Henry as you haue confessed what reason can you giue why the same Cranmer or the like Bishop with the like assistants should not make the like in the daies of K. Ed PHIL. Because the case was altered for in King Henries time Ordinations were made with ceremony and solemne vnction after the Ecclesiasticall manner which king Edward tooke cleane away and in place thereof appointed certaine Caluinicall deprecations as was before declared ORTHO Those which Sanders calleth Caluinicall deprecations are godly and religious prayers answerable to the Apostolicke practise For whereas the Scripture witnesseth that Matthias the Deacons and others receiued imposition of hands with prayers Salmeron the Iesuite expoundeth the places thus intelligendum est de precibus quibus à deo petebant vt efficeret illos bonos Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos potestatemque illis ad ca munera prestaret that is It is to be vnderstood of prayers whereby they desired of God that he would make them good Bishops Priests and Deacons and would giue them abilitie to performe those offices Such prayers are vsed in the Church of England As for example in the ordering of Priests ALmighty God giuer of all things which by thy holy spirit hast appointed diuers orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold these thy seruants now called to the office of Priesthood and replenish them so with the trueth of thy doctrine and innocency of life that both by word and good example they may faithfully serue thee in this office to the glory of thy Name and profit of thy congregation through the merits of our Sauiour Iesus Christ c. And in the Consecration of Bishops ALmighty God c. Grant we beseech thee to this thy seruant such grace that hee may euermore bee ready to spread abroad the Gospell and glad tidings of reconcilement to God and to vse the authoritie giuen vnto him not to destroy but to saue not to hurt but to helpe so that hee as a wise and a faithfull seruant giuing to thy family meate in due season may at the last bee receiued into ioy c. These and the like are the praiers which Sanders traduceth Wherefore we may with comfort applie to our selues the saying of Saint Peter If wee bee railed vpon for the name of Christ blessed are wee for the spirit of glory and of God resteth vpon vs which on your part is euill spoken of but on our part is glorified Thus that which you impute to them as a blemish is perfect beautie But what else doe you mislike in their ordinations PHIL. They did not obserue the Ecclesiasticall manner ORTHOD. In the third and fourth yeere of Edward the sixth there was an act made to abolish certaine superstitious bookes and among the rest the Ordinals About the same time was made another acte for the ordering of Ecclesiastiall Ministers the effect whereof was that such forme of consecrating Bishops Priestes and Deacons as by six Prelates and sixe other learned in Gods Law should bee agreed vpon and set out vnder the great Seale of England within a time limited should lawfully bee vsed and none other In the fift and sixt of his raigne was made another acte for the explaining and perfecting of the booke of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments which booke so explained was annexed to the acte or statute with a forme or manner of making and consecrating Archbishops Bishops Priestes and Deacons Which as at this day so then was not esteemed another distinct booke from the booke of common prayer but they were both ioyntly reputed as one booke and so established by acte of Parliament In the first of Queene Mary by the repealing of this acte the booke was disanulled but it was established againe in the first of Q. Elizabeth and confirmed in the eight of her reigne so that all the Ministers of England are ordered according to that booke concerning which I would knowe wherein it transgresseth the Ecclesiasticall manner Sanders saith that King Edward tooke away the Ceremony What Ceremony If hee vnderstand the Ceremony of imposition of hands he slandereth King Edward If hee meane their blessing ofrings and Crosiers the grauitie of that sacred action may well spare them as for the solemne vnction your selues confesse it to bee accidentall Other of your Ceremonies being partly superfluous partly superstitious the wisedome of our Church hath discreetly and religiously pared away establishing
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
your Popish Priests it cannot agree because they are many for if the Priests should be many then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priesthood therefore this vnitie is directly against you Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity PHIL. If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice or else the Priesthood should be idle but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting for it was but once offered therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament that is the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer and so our Priest-hood is proued ORTHOD. Proued how is it proued the scripture saith that Christ because he indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood he indureth for euer he euen he in his owne person and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice For Christ is a Priest for euer First in respect of his owne Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Secondly in respect of his intercession In respect of the Sacrifice which though it were but once offered yet it is an euerlasting Sacrifice because the vertue of it is euerlasting and continueth effectuall for euer for as he is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so hee is Iesus Christ yesterday to day and the same for euer neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs. PHIL. As hee is a Priest properly for euer so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person therefore he must offer it by another ORTH. Your owne Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception Now what if one should reason thus with you if he be a Priest he must offer a Sacrifice but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice therefore then he was no Priest Or thus till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice therefore all that while hee was no Priest what would you answere PHIL. I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time ORTHOD. If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession For his Priesthood hath two parts Redemption and Intercession It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercession and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn if any man sinne wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes Who is our aduocate euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiation for our sinnes hee is our aduocate and appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth who shall condemne vs It is Christ which is dead yea rather which is risen againe who is also at the right hand of God and maketh intercession for vs And seeing we haue a high Priest made higher then the heauens who euer liueth to make intercession for vs In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice Wherefore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec Which may yet appeare more fully because the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice but vnfouldeth it in these branches following First Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse therein being a type of Christ Iesus who is the Lord our righteousnesse Secondly Melchisedec was King of Salem that is king of peace So Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace for he is our peace which hath made of both one and hath broken the stop of the partition wall in abrogating through his flesh the hatred that is the lawe of commandements which standeth in ordinances for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe so making peace And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse and slay hatred thereby and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off and to them that were neere Thirdly Melchisedec was both King and Priest so was Christ Iesus Fourthly Melchisedec blessed Abraham and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham that is vpon all beleeuers For we ought all to say with the Apostle Blessed bee God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham and consequētly euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchisedec Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aaron Sixtly Melchisedec was without father without mother without kindred not simply but is said to be so in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly making no mention at all of father mother or kinred thereby representing Christ Iesus who as he was man had no father as he was God had no mother nor kinred Seuenthly Melchisedec had neither beginning of dayes nor end of life That is the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus who as hee is God is from euerlasting to euerlasting Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec plentifully and particularly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing which is an euident argument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine PHIL. The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concerning Melchisedec A high Priest according to the order of Melchisedec of whom we haue great speech and inexplicable to vtter because you are become weake to heare Among which no doubt say the Rhemists the mysterie of the Sacrament Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe ORTHOD. We doe not ground
order of a Deacon is not essentiall to the order of Priesthood and therefore though wee had bene ordained per saltum yet you could not deny vs the true order of Priesthood But we are not ordained per saltum Our Church hath decreed that there may be euer some time of triall of their behauiour in the office of Deacons before they be admitted to the order of Priesthood And for the Ordination after due knowledge of the vertuous conuersation and examination of the sufficiencie of the person it is performed with religious praier by a Bishop vpon a Sunday or holy day in the face of the Church in these words Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon c. PHIL. The office of a Deacon is to assist the Priest in saying of Masse Do your Deacons so ORTHOD. That the Deacon should assist the Priest in the administration of holy things concerning his office is graunted on both sides but for your Popish massing and sacrifising we haue proued that it is a profaning of Christs ordinance and that it is neither lawfull for you to do it nor for the Deacons to assist you wherefore seeing wee haue already iustified both our Bishops which ordaine the office or function of our Presbyters or Priests wee conclude that as our Bishops and Presbyters so our Deacons also are lawfull in the Church of England Thus haue we examined your obiections against the ministery of the Church of England and find them to be meere cauilles Neither can you proue that our calling is in any thing contrarie to the Scripture or to the practise of reuerend antiquity but your sacrifising Priesthood appeareth not onely to bee the inuention of man but also sacrilegious and abominable in the sight of God Wherefore I beseech you repent of your sinnes renounce your Antichristian practise returne to your deare Country cease to bee Philodox and become an Orthodox CHAP. XII Wherein is declared that though wee deriue our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests yet our calling is lawfull and theirs vnlawfull PHIL. WEll I perceiue one thing that howsoeuer you speake against Popish Priests calling them sacrilegious and abominable yet when your owne calling is put to the trial you are glad to deriue it from such Bishops as were Popish Priests which you so disdainefully call sacrilegious and abominable ORTHOD. And I perceiue another thing that howsoeuer you exclaimed against Cranmer as a Schismaticke and burned him for an Heriticke yet when the glorious succession of your Bishops in Queene Maries time is put to the trial you are forced to deriue it from him whom you so scornefully call a Schismatike and an Hereticke But if our forefathers deriued their orders from such Bishops as were Popish Priests what inconuenience will follow PHIL. Then either confesse your calling to bee vnlawfull or accknowledge ours to be lawfull from whence you deriue it You cannot gather figges of thornes nor grapes of thistles neither is it possible for a rose to spring out of a nettle ORTHOD. But a garden of Roses may be ouergrowne with nettles For the Ministery planted by Christ was a sweete rose without any nettle and so it continued in the Church for certaine ages but when Antichrist began to reueale himselfe in the Temple of God as though hee were God the Romish Priesthood became a monstrous birth strangely compounded halfe rose halfe nettle the Church of England in the beginning of reformation did borrow from the Church of Rome the rose but left the nettle PHIL. What will you make of vs are we Ministers or lay men if we bee Ministers then so acknowledge vs. If wee be lay men then I pray you what was Cranmer who had no Cousecration but in our Church what were all the Bishops in Kings Edwards time which were Consecrated by Cranmer what was Mathew Parker Grindall Sands Horne which were all ordained Priests in our Church were they all lay men what are all the Ministers of England at this day which deriue their orders from the former are they all lay-men ORTHOD. Your Popish Priests are neither the true ministers of the Gospel nor merely lay-men For your ordination consisteth of two parts the former in these words take thou power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate masse for the quick and the dead which you account the principall function of Christian Priesthood but in truth it maketh you not the Ministers of Christ but of Antichrist the latter in these words receiue the holy ghost whose sins thou forgiuest they are forgiuen whose thou retainest they are retained in which Euangelicall words there is deliuered a ghostly ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes which according to the true meaning of Christ is performed by the ministery of reconciliation therefore whosoeuer hath receiued this power hath withall receiued the ministery of reconcilation consisting as was before declared in the due administration of the word and sacraments PHIL. If it be so then you must confesse that the Priesthood of the Church of Rome hath the ministeriall function because these words are vsed in our ordination ORTHOD. Though these words as they were spoken by Christ practised in the primitiue Church and are vsed at this day in the Church of England imply the substance of this holy function yet as you abuse them in the Church of Rome to maintaine Popish shrift the gold is couered with drosse and the sweet flower ouershadowed with noysome weeds Wherefore if we consider your Priesthood as it is a totum aggregatum consisting of sacrifising and absoluing it is vnlawfull and contrary to the Scripture If wee come to the parts thereof your massing and sacrifising is simply abominable the other part so farre as it relieth vpon the words of Christ taken in their true sense and meaning is holy and implieth a ministerial power which notwithstanding by your construction and practise is greatly depraued PHIL. I will proue our Priesthood to be lawfull by the practise of your owne Church which against you is as good as a thousand witnesses For when any of our Priests forsake the Catholike Church ioyne themselues with you you do not giue thē new orders but presently receiue thē into the bosome of your Church suffering them to execute the ministeriall function by vertue of those orders which they receiued in the Church of Rome ORTH. None can bee admitted with vs to execute the office of a minister before he subscribe to the articles of religion as may appeare by this act of Parliament That the Churches of the Queens Maiesties dominions may be serued with pastours of soūd religion be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament that euery person vnder the degree of a Bishop which doth or shal pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy word and Sacraments by reason of any other forme of institution Consecration or ordering then the forme set foorth by Parliament in the time
you compasse sea and land to make one proselite and when hee is become one you make him two fould more the childe of Hell then yee your selues are But when he is reconciled what is then to be done PHIL. Though now hee bee a Catholicke when the Diuell is coniured out of him yet before he can be Priest hee must be cast wholy in a newe mould For as I told you we account your Ministers but meerly lay men without orders ORTHOD. The more to blame you and therein you degenerate from your forefathers as may appeare by the articles sent by Queene Mary to Bishop Bonner one whereof was this Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders considering they were not ordered in very deede the bishop of the Diocesse finding otherwise sufficiency and abilitie in these men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Heere you see that they did not ordaine them a new but onely supply that which they thought to be wanting and therefore they misliked not our orders in whole but in part PHIL. Yes they wholly misliked them as you may see by the words considering they were not ordered in very deed If they were not ordered in very deed then howsoeuer they pretended orders yet they had no orders at all but were meerely lay men and so are you For that which they call the new sort and fashion of orders was according to the booke established by King Edward which is vsed in England to this very day ORTHO Doth not a Bishop ordaine when he imposeth handes and saith Receiue the holy Ghost whose sinnes you forgiue c. PHIL. I answere that Priests are ordained when it is said vnto them take thou power to offer sacrifice but they are also ordained afterward when it is said vnto them Receiue the holy Ghost For by the former wordes they are ordained to the function of sacrificing by the latter to the function of absoluing by both ioyntly to the full and perfect order of Priesthood ORTHOD. But these words Receiue the holy Ghost were vsed in king Edwards time and are to this day in the Church of England in making of Ministers And therefore those that are promoted to orders after the new sort and fashion as you call it are ordered in very deed neither did the Penners of the article meane otherwise PHIL. Are not their words plaine that they were not ordered in very deed ORTHOD. They meant that they were not ordered fully and perfectly therfore aduised the Bishops to supply that which wanted Which they could not say with reason if they had thought them to be meerely lay men therefore they iudged them to bee Priests in part and yet part of the office to bee wanting which needed supply That which they had was the power receiued by these wordes Receiue the holy Ghost That which they supposed to be wanting was the power of sacrificing Therefore their meaning was not to reiterate that which they had but to supply that which was wanting in their cōceit euen as we on the contrary side cause such as come from Popery to vs to renounce the power of sacrificing which we hold sacrilegious but doe not reiterate those Euangelicall words wherin we agree And this you must needes grant vnlesse you will allow of reordination PHIL. Reordination God forbid No sir we will neuer allow of that For order imprinteth a Character and therefore can neuer be reiterated ORTHOD. But you granted before that a Priest is ordained when the Bishop saith vnto him Receiue the holy Ghost And therefore if the power of remitting sinnes giuen in these words were reiterated either in Queene Maries time or among you at this day in ordaining your proselytes then you cannot possibly defend your Church from Reordination If you abhorre Re-ordination then you must confesse that when any Minister reuolteth from vs to you yet in making him Priest you must not repeat those words Receiue the holy Ghost which proueth inuincibly that vnlesse you will be contrary vnto your selues you cannot esteeme vs to bee meerely lay men Or if you will needs aduance your owne orders and make a nullitie in ours and order our fugitiue Ministers accordingly then you must runne there is no remedy vpon the rocke of Reordination by repeating the words wherein we agree PHIL. Though we agree in the wordes yet we differ in the sense ORTHOD. That is no barre to Reordination for if a child bee Baptised in the true forme of words an Heretick shall Baptise the same child in the same wordes though in another sense yet all good Christians will iudge it to be Rebaptisation and there is the same reason of Reordination Therefore thus I reason When you Metamorphise an English Minister into a Popish Priest either you repeat the words Receiue the holy Ghost or you doe not if you doe repeat them then I haue made it manifest that you vse Reordination If you doe not then you iustifie not onely our practise but also our orders For you hold these words necessary in ordination to the conferring of one of the principall functions of Priesthood and therfore in not repeating them you acknowledge that they had receiued that function before in the Church of England consequently that the ministers of England are not lay men So your owne practise doth either condemne your selues or iustifie vs but our practise condemneth altogether the first part of your Priesthood that is your carnall sacrificing as simply abhominable and the latter part so farre as it is polluted with your popish constructions PHIL. If the first part of our Priesthood bee simply abhominable and the latter as it is vsed by vs bee polluted then Cranmer Ridley Parker Grindall and the rest of your Coronels had no other Priesthood but that which was partly abhominable and partly polluted ORTHO When God opened their eyes they did vtterly renounce your carnall sacrificing as derogating from the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ the other part that is the power of forgiuing sinnes which they receiued corruptly in the Church of Rome they practised purely in the Church of England renouncing the Pope and all Popish pollutions PHIL. But when the question is concerning the validity of orders wee must not so much respect the practise as the power receiued in ordination how Cranmer Parker and such like receiued both parts of their Priesthood in the Church of Rome And as the Church gaue them so they receiued them in that very sense which the Church of Rome holdeth at this day Wherefore seeing you condemned both parts as we vse them for nettles I cannot but maruell how you can be Roses ORTHOD. Let me aske you a question If one Baptize a Conuert in the Element of water according to the true forme of the Church yet so that both the Baptizer and the baptized haue
such a forme as is holy and acceptable in the sight of God But whereas you grant that the persons were capable and the consecrators Canonicall it behooueth you to discouer some essentiall defect in our forme or else you must of necessitie approoue our consecration PHIL. DOctour Kellison saith that in King Edwards time neither matter nor forme of ordination was vsed and so none were truely ordained much lesse had they commission to Preach Heresie and so could not send others to Preach whence it followeth that all the superintendents and Ministers are without calling and vocation ORTHOD. What meaneth Kellison by the matter of ordination PHIL. According to the doctrine of the Catholicke Church holy order is a Sacrament and euery Sacrament of the newe Law consisteth of things and wordes as the matter and the forme which are so certaine and determined of God that it is not lawfull to change them Now in ordination the matter is a sensible signe as for example imposition of hands which Bellarmine calleth the matter essentiall ORTHOD. Others of your owne men are of another opinion for Salmeron the Iesuite hauing proposed the question bringeth reasons for both sides but seemeth to incline to the contrary Fabius Incarnatus asketh this question how many things are of the substance of order and answereth that six But imposition of handes is none of the six Nauarrus speaking of imposition of handes saith Illa non est de substantia Sacramenti that is it is not of the substance of the Sacrament For which opinion hee alleadgeth Scotus But if imposition of handes bee the matter of ordination then Kellison is guiltie of lying and slandering when hee saith that in King Edwards dayes the matter of ordination was not vsed For Sanders himselfe though a shamelesse fellow yet confesseth that in the dayes of King Edward the former lawe concerning the number of Bishops which should impose handes vpon the ordained was alwayes obserued A point so cleare that it might bee iustified by many records but what neede wee goe to records seeing it is a plaine case that the very booke of ordination which was made and established in the dayes of King Edward commandeth imposition of hands wherefore if the essentiall matter bee imposition of hands then I must conclude out of your owne principles that in King Edwards dayes the essentiall matter was vsed PHIL. In the ordering of a Deacon there is not onely imposition of handes but also the reaching of the Gospels so in ordering of a Priest not onely imposition of handes but also the reaching of the instruments that is of the Patten and Challice and both these Ceremonies are essentiall as Bellarmine proueth Therefore why may we not say that in Episcopall Consecration not only imposition of hands but other ceremonies also belong to the essentiall matter ORTHOD. What other ceremonies I beseech you doe you meane the holy oyle wherewith the head of the consecrated is annointed with these wordes Let thy head bee annointed and consecrated with celestiall benediction or the ring which is blessed with prayer and holy water and put vpon his finger with these wordes Accipe annulum fidei signaculum Receiue the Ring the seale of faith or the Crosier deliuered in these wordes receiue the staffe of the Pastorall office If you meane these or the like and vrge them as essentiall you must giue vs leaue to reiect them because they are only human inuentions You told vs before out of Bellarmine that the matter of ordination is certaine and determined of God now where shall wee finde the determinations of God but in the booke of God we finde in holy Scripture imposition of hands and we imbrace it as Apostolicall as for your rings and Crosiers when you can demonstrate them out of the booke of God we will then accept them as the determinations of God in the meane time we cannot acknowledge them for the essentiall matter of ordination But now from the matter let vs come to the forme 4. PHI. IT is agreed vpon that the forme consisteth in the words which are vttered while the sensible signe is vsed and they are the very same whereby the spirituall power is giuen ORTHOD. I hope you will not say that these words receiue the ring or receiue the staffe concerne the essentiall forme tell vs therfore in what words the true forme coÌ„sisteth that so we may the better examine the speech of Kellison PHIL. The words may be diuers yet the sense the same and this diuersitie of words may seuerally signifie the substance of the Sacrament as for example the Easterne Church baptizeth in these words Let this seruant of Christ be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost The Latin Church in these words I baptize thee c. Here are two formes of words but each of them containeth the true and substantiall forme of baptisme So in ordination the Easterne Bishops instructed of their ancestours conferre the orders of a Bishop Priest and Deacon Per orationem deprecatoriam By the way of prayer whereas we after the manner of the Romane Church doe conferre them Per modum imperandi in the imperatiue moode by way of command and yet the spirituall power may be conueyed by both For Pope Innocent teacheth that the Scripture mentioneth onely imposition of hands and prayer as for other things vsed in ordination he saith they were inuented by the Church otherwise it had beene sufficient if the ordainer had said onely be thou a Priest or be thou a Deacon but seeing the Church hath inuented other formes they are to be obserued ORTHOD. By what words is the Episcopall power giuen in the Church of Rome PHIL. By these words receiue the holy Ghost because they are vsed when the Bishop imposeth hands And therfore as Priests in their ordination receiue the holy Ghost that is as Bellarmin expounds it out of Chrysostome and Cyrillâ—a ghostly power consisting in forgiuing and retaining of sinnes so a Bishop in his Consecration receiueth the holy Ghost that is A ghostly power consisting in the performance of those things which are reserued properly to Bishops amongst which the power of ordination is most eminent ORTHOD. If you call these words the forme of Consecration then you must acknowledge that not only the matter but also the right forme of Consecration was vsed in the dayes of King Edward for these words were then vsed while the Bishops imposed hands as appeareth by the booke and consequently you must confesse that Ridley Hooper and Ferrar were rightly ordained Bishops and moreouer that Kellison is a notorious slanderer 5. THus much of the second rancke Now come we to the third wherein we may place such if any such be found as were made both Priests and Bishops in the dayes of king Edward PHIL. We thinke that no man can possibly haue the order of a Bishop