videtur c. It seemeth we may say seeing an Abbot gouerneth his Monastery by ordinary Iurisdiction and an Abbatesse is equall vnto him in freedome of administration that she hath ordinarie Iurisdiction as well as the Abbot Yea the same Stephen striueth to attibute vnto her the power of excommunication which is more then the Church of England ascribeth to Princes For it attributeth vnto them onelie that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwayes to godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himselfe that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed vnto their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiasticall or temporall and restraine with the ciuil sword the stubborne euill doers When the B hath vsed his spirituall censures he can proceed no further but as Iosias compelled all that were found in Israel to serue the Lord So may euery Prince by his royall authority compell all his subiects to do their duty and those which refuse to be reformed by the Church he may restraine with the ciuil sword inflicting tēporal punishments as the qualitity of the offence requireth When Paulus Samosatenus was excommunicate and deposed in the Councell of Antioch he did notwithstanding hold his Church and chaire by violence whereupon the Councell knowing that of themselues they could proceed no further were forced to seeke the aide of Aurelian the Emperour by whose commandement he was expelled PHIL. IF the Iurisdiction of the Prince and the Prelate be so different how then is the Prelates deriued from the Prince ORTHOD. Heere wee must consider the matters handled in the consistories of Bishops and the manner The matters originally and naturally belonging to those Courts are onely such as are originally and naturally Ecclesiasticall the manner to ratifie their iudgements is not properly vnder any corporall mulct but onely by spirituall censures as suspension excommunication and such like In both which respects the Iurisdiction of Bishops hath beene much inlarged by the fauour and indulgence of Christian Princes Concerning the matter Constantine the Great gaue libertie to Clerkes to decline the iudgement of ciuill Iudges and to bee iudged by their owne Bishops By occasion whereof many Ciuill Causes were brought to the cognisance of Ecclesiasticall Courts Hee made also a law to ratifie those iudgements As though they had beene pronounced by the Emperour himselfe Now all the Iurisdiction which Bishops haue in Ciuill Causes is meerely from the Prince Concerning the manner it seemeth sometimes expedient to annex coactiue power to the Episcopall office both for the honour of Prelacie and also to make their spirituall censures the more regarded which also without controuersie must bee acknowledged to proceede from the Prince For as the Lord hath compacted the light into the body of the Sunne that thence it might be communicated to Moone and Starres So hee hath put all ciuill and coactiue Iurisdiction into the person of the Prince from whom as from a glorious Sunne or fountaine all other inferiour lampes doe borrow their light But if wee speake of that Episcopall Iurisdiction which both in respect of matter and manner is meerely spirituall the immediate fountaine of it is God himselfe as our most learned and religious King with his royall Penne hath thus witnessed to the world That Bishops ought to bee in the Church I euer maintained it as an Apostolicke institution and so the ordinance of God contrary to the Puritanes and likewise to Bellarmine who denyeth that Bishops haue their Iurisdiction immediately from God If his Maiesties iudgement bee contrary to Bellarmines who holdeth the negatiue then his Princely wisedome embraceth the affirmatiue to wit that Bishops haue their Iurisdiction meerely spirituall immediately from God Notwithstanding for so much as they exercise the same in a Christian Common wealth at the holy direction and command and vnder the gracious protection of a religious King within the kings dominions vpon the Kings subiects according to the Canons and statutes established by the Kings authoritie wee may iustly call those Courts the Kings Ecclesiasticall Courts and the Archbishops and Bishops the kings Ecclesiasticall iudges Wherefore though this spirituall power in regard of it selfe be immediately from God yet in these respects it may rightly be said to be deriued from the king So it is a Christo tanquam ab authore conferente a Rege tanquam a iubente dirigente promouente protegente PHIL. If your Bishops haue their spirituall Iurisdiction immediately from God when doe they receiue it ORTHO When they are made Bishops that is in their Consecration For the partie to be Consecrated is presented to the Archbishop in these words Most reuerend Father in God wee present vnto you this godly and well learned man to be Consecrated Bishop Where the word Bishop is taken in the vsuall Ecclesiasticall sense for a Timothy or a Titus an Angel or gouernour of the Church And the Archbishop with other Bishops present imposeth hands saying f Take the holy Ghost that is such ghostly and spirituall power as is requisite to aduance a Presbyter to the office of a Bishop so here is giuen him whatsoeuer belongeth to the Episcopall office as the prayers going before the pronouncing of these words and following after doe declare wherein humble petition is made for Gods blessing and grace that hee may dulie execute the office of a Bishoppe faithfullie serue therein and minister Episcopall discipline PHIL. If it be giuen in Episcopall Consecration how then is it giuen immediatly from God ORTHOD. I will answere you if you will answere me a few questions And first I demaund whence is the power of Order PHIL. It is immediatly from God because it requireth a Character and grace which onely God can effect For though it be said to be giuen with Imposition of hands yet the meaning is not that either the Imposer or the Imposition of hands doeth giue it but God himselfe while hands are Imposed To which purpose it is excellently said of S. Ambrose O brother who giueth the Episcopall grace God or man Thou answerest without doubt God but yet God giueth it by man Man imposeth hands God giueth the grace The Priest imposeth an humble hand and God blesseth with a mightie hand ORTHOD. And whence commeth the grace of Baptisme PHIL. This also without question is immediatly from God ORTHOD. And whence commeth faith in the hearing of the Gospel PHIL. It is likewise immediatly from God ORTHOD. And doeth not God in all these vse the ministerie of man PHIL. There is no doubt of it ORTHOD. Then you see a thing may be giuen immediatly from God though in giuing it he vse the meanes and ministery of man for in such like speeches the word Immediatly is not so taken as excluding meanes but as distinguishing the action of God from the meanes When the children of Israel were stung of the fierie serpents God in healing them vsed the
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
Prophets or Bishops which aduanced Saul and Barnabas from the Presbyteral to the Episcopal office ORT. These are doting dreames not worth the answering For seeing the text faith only that there were in the Church which was at Antioch Prophets and Doctors among whom were Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manahen and Saul why should not we thinke Barnabas to be called a Prophet as well as Simeon Lucius and Manahen seeing hee is first named A point so cleere that it is confessed by Lorinus the Iesuite ascribing the titles of Prophets and Doctors as well to Saul and Barnabas as to the rest If these Prophets were Bishops as Turrian imagineth then it will follow that Barnabas was a Bishop before they laid hands vpon him And consequently that he was reordeined which is absurd Moreouer as it cannot bee proued that those three were Bishops so it is certaine that they did not ordaine Paul and Barnabas Bishops For Paul being an Apostle could not receiue any Episcopal grace from man as hath been declared Wherefore this imposition of hands was not to giue them any new power but as the text saith To set them apart for the worke wherevnto the Lord had called them which when they had fulfilled they sayled backe to Antioch whence they had beene commended to the grace of God It is not said they failed to Antioch where they were made Bishops or where they receiued Episcopall grace but whence they had beene commended with fasting and praier to the grace of God To which truth Suarez the Iesuite giueth testimonie affirming that this imposition of hands was onely precaâ—ory and denying that Saul or Barnabas were heere ordained either Priests or Bishops which seemeth also to bee the opinion of Aloysius de Leon and other late writers These are the onely examples which you produce out of the Scripture yet neither of them is pregnant for your purpose and if they were what then An example may not be vrged as an vnchangeable rule when the matter discouereth it selfe to be contingent and variable CHAP. VII That the presence of three Bishops is not required of absolute necessitie NOw that it is no substantiall point of absolute necessitie may be concluded out of your owne positions and practise For the declaration whereof first I demaund whether Episcopall consecration be a Sacrament or no PHIL. That Ordination is a Sacrament truely and properly is rightly defined by the Councel of Trent For there are three things onely required to a Sacrament as your selues confesse an externall signe a promise of grace and a commandement or diuine institution All which are found in ordination as our learned Cardinall hath proued out of the Scripture who hath also declared that those Scriptures whereby Catholickes doe prooue Ordination to bee a Sacrament are vnderstood of Episcopall Ordination Whereupon he affirmeth that if Episcopall Ordination bee not a Sacrament wee cannot proue euidently out of the Scriptures that Ordination is a Sacrament ORTHOD. If the word Sacrament bee taken somewhat largely for any externall signe instituted of God whereto is annexed a promise of grace then wee will grant with Saint Austine that Order may bee called a Sacrament but if it bee taken strictly for such a signe as is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith whereto is annexed a promise of the grace of Iustification and Remission of sinnes in which sense Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments then wee may not admit it for a Sacrament For in Baptisme and the Lords Supper the sauing grace of Iustification and Remission of sinnes is signified sealed and exhibited to the worthy receiuer but the grace giuen in Ordination is of another nature respecting not so much the good of the receiuer as of the flocke for which hee receiueth it For the Ministers of the Gospell are salt to season others candles to shine vnto others pipes and conduits to conueigh the water of life vnto others But did you not say that though three Bishops were ordinarily required to the Consecration of a Bishop yet the Pope might dispense with two of the three PHIL. I said so out of Cardinall Bellarmine and Binius ORTHOD. What authoritie hath the Pope to dispense in Sacraments PHIL. That may appeare by the Councell of Trent Moreouer the holy Synod declareth that this power hath alwayes beene in the Church that in the Dispensation of Sacraments it might appoint or change such things as it should iudge to bee most expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the reuerence of the Sacraments themselues according to the varietie of things times and places Salua illorum substantia so the substance of the Sacraments be preserued Whereby it appeareth that the Pope can dispense onely with circumstances and not with substance ORTHOD. Why then did the Church of Rome dispense with the Cuppe in the Communion Can you take away one halfe not diminishing the substance But to let this passe doe you not marke the conclusion which floweth from your premises If Episcopall Consecration bee a Sacrament and the Pope may not dispense with the Substance of a Sacrament and yet hee may dispense with two of the three Bishops required in a Consecration then it followeth that two of the three are not of the Substance of Consecration Secondly your owne present practise doeth proue the same For you professe that in your Church sometimes one Bishop alone assisted with two mitred Abbots doth performe it If this bee sufficient then three Bishops are not required of absolute necessitie Now let vs a little looke backe to former times and consider the iudgement of better ages I Will beginne with the fourth Councell of Carthage and the very place which you your selfe alleadged wherein are prescribed the offices to bee performed by the Bishops when one is to bee consecrated to wit how two should holde the Booke of the Gospels ouer his head one powre out the blessing that is pronounce the words whereby the spirituall power grace and blessing is giuen and all the rest touch his heade with their hands When one alone pronounceth the wordes thenone alone ordaineth For the wordes are confessed on all sides to bee the very essentiall forme of Ordination This is agreeable to the collection of your owne Cardinall Tenent librum c. Ergo videtur quod nihil agatur per illos Episcopos quod sit ad substantiam consecrationis pertinens Ergo eorum assistentia non pertinet ad substantiam consecrationis sed magis ad quandam solennitatem i. They hold the booke c. Therefore it seemeth that nothing is done by these two Bishops which is pertaining to the substance of Consecration Therefore their assistance doth not belong to the substance of the consecration but rather to a certaine solemnitie IN the yeere of our Lord 441. there was a Councell holden at Orenge in France where it was thus decreed Duo si presumpserint
Binius out of Baronius Thus much for the prophane title As for the thing it selfe The Scripture witnesseth that Salomon was King ouer all Israel if ouer all Israel then ouer the tribe of Leui and consequently euen ouer Abiathar the high Priest if he be their king why are not they his subiects If they be his subiects and he their Soueraigne how can they bee exempted from his Iurisdiction A point so cleare that sundry of your learned writers haue confessed it IOhannes Parisiensis saith that in the old Testament the Priests which annointed kings without all doubt were subiect vnto kings Your owne Iesuite Salmeron affirmeth that potestas spiritualis legis naturae vel Moisisminor erat Regia potestate in veteri testamento ideo etiam summi Sacerdotes regibus subdebantur that is the spirituall power of the Law of nature and of the law of Moses was lesser then the princely power in the old Testament therefore euen the high Priests were subiect vnto kings Yea Bellarmine himselfe saith Non mirum esset si in veteri Testamento summa potestas fuisset temporalis that is It were no maruell if in the olde Testament the chiefe power were the temporall Dominicus a Soto in veteri Testamento dubio procul Sacerdotes a principibus secularibus iudicati that is In the olde Testament without doubt the Priests were iudged by the secular princes Fryer Paule This doctrine that Ecclesiasticall persons vnlesse they be free by priuiledge and fauour should be subiect to secular Magistrates is demonstrated and confirmed by examples of the old Testament whereby it appeareth that all the kings did command iudge and punish Priests and that this was done not onely of bad kings or indifferent but of the most holy and religious Dauid Salomon Ezechias and Iosias Carerius in veteri Testamento Rex super Sacerdotes potestatem habebat eosque pro crimine occidere multo magis officijs dignitatibus spiritualibus eos priuare poterat that is In the old Testament the king had power ouer the Priests and might for their offences kill them much more depriue them of their offices and spirituall dignities Hitherto Carerius out of Tostatus PHIL. IF the kings of Israel had such authoritie doth it follow that Christian Princes must haue the like ORTHOD. What else You must consider that the new Testament doth yeeld vs no examples of Christian kings therefore when the question is concerning the power of kings in the Church of God wee must goe to the fountaine that is the old Testament where there was both a Church and kings in the Church religiously performing the office of kings and what Princely authoritie they exercised for which they are approoued by the spirit of God the same without all question belongeth in like maner to Christian Princes therefore what authoritie Salomon had ouer Abiathar the same haue Christian Princes by the law of God ouer their owne Clergie CHAP. III. Of the Oath of the Princes Supremacy for denying whereof the old Bishops were depriued PHIL. IS not the deposing of a Bishop a spirituall censure how then can it be performed by the secular powers ORTH. The secular powers doe noâ— depose a Bishop by degradation nor by vtterly debarring him from his Episcopall function but onely by excluding him from the exercise of Episcopallactes vpon their subiects and within their dominions And this godly Princes haue performed from time to time in the best and primatiue ages against the Arrians Nestotians and other heretickes as might be declared by many examples PHIL. Shall a Prince take that from them which he cannot giue them ORTH. Hee cannot giue them an intrinsecall power to minister the word and Sacraments which proceedeth from the key of order but he may giue them an extrinsecall power that is a libertie to execute their function within his dominions This he may doe by vertue of the scepter which God hath giuen him though he meddle not with the keyes which God hath giuen to the Church and as he may giue this libertie so he may take it away vpon iust cause as Salomon did when he deposed Abiathar PHIL. If we should admit that Queene Elizabeth had so much authority as king Salomon yet this would not iustifie her proceedings For it belongeth not to Parliaments or secular Princes to make lawes concerning the depositions of Bishops or to inflict any such punishments ORTHOD. Did not the Emperour Martian make a law that such Bishops as went about to infringe any of those things which were enacted by that holy and generall Councell of Chalcedon should be deposed Did not Iustinian make a constitution that if any Patriarch Metropolitane Bishop or Clerke should violate his decrees made for the preseruation of holy order and estate he should be excluded from the Priestly function Did not Theodosius the yonger likewise make a law that the Nestorian Bishops should be expelled and deposed PHIL. The lawes of these Emperours concerning the deposing of Bishops were not put in execution by laymen as Queene Elizabeths were but by Bishops ORTH. Gratian the Emperour made a lawe against the Arrians commanding them like wilde beastes to be driuen from the Churches and the places to be restored to good pastours the execution whereof he committed to Saporas the most famous captaine of that time If this were allowable in the Emperour Gratian then much more in Queene Elizabeth for he did it when there was plentie of good Bishops within his owne dominon Queene Elizabeth did it onely in case of necessitie Neither did she send a captaine to driue them away by violence as Gratian did but appointed honourable commissioners to tender the oath vnto them vpon the obstinate refusall whereof their places were voyd by vertue of the Statute PHIL. GRatian had for him the determination of Synods which had already coÌ„demned the Arrians therefore in this case it was lawfull for him both to make a Law and to commit the execution of it to Lay-men ORTHOD. So had Q. Elizabeth For a Synod of Bishops professing your owne Religion among whom was Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester gaue to K. Henry the title of Supreame head of the Church of England as may appeare by the Acts of the Synod it selfe About two yeeres after the same was renewed in another Synod and about two yeeres after that the two Vniuersities deliuered their iudgement That the Pope had no more to doe in England by the Law of God then any other Bishop The determination of Cambridge is already extant in print The like of Oxeford remaineth in Record wherein after long deliberation and much disputation with all diligence Zeale and conscience they make this profession Tandem in hanc sententiam vnanimiter omnes conuenimus ac concordâ—s fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum maiorem aliquam iurisdictionem non habere sibi à Dâ—o collatam in sacra Scriptura in
hostes hee ought to leaue his impieties in seducing the people and to serue God by teaching the trueth In that he is a Priest God hath armed him with a calling to deliuer his message for performance wherof he needeth no new calling but grace to vse that well which before he abused ORTHOD. Apply this to the present point and you may satisfie your selfe PHIL. To make the Prince Supreame Gouernour or head of the Church is vnnaturall for shall the sheepe feede the flocke or the sonne guide the Father ORTHO As the Priest is a father and shepheard in respect of the Prince so the Prince is a shepheard and father in respect of the Priest The Lord chose Dauid his seruant and tooke him from the sheepfolds euen from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in Iacob and his inheritance in Israel so hee fed them according to the simplicitie of his heart and guided them by the discretion of his hands And Ezechias called the Priests his sonnes If the Prince be their sheepheard then he must feede them if he be their father then hee must guide them this is naturall PHIL. THis stile of the Crowne was so distastfull to Caluin that he called it blasphemy and sacriledge ORTHOD. It is certaine that he did not differ from vs in iudgement But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner who expounded it as though the king had power vt statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit to establish at his pleasure whatsoeuer he would which Caluin exemplifieth in the words of Gardiner the king may forbid Priests to marry debar the people frō the Cup in the Lords Supper because forsooth potestas umma est penes regem the highest power is in the king This is that which Caluin calleth blasphemie and sacriledge and so will we But if Caluin had beene truely informed that nothing had beene meant by this title but to exclude the Pope and to acknowledge the kings lawfull authoritie ouer his owne subiects not in diuising new Articles of faith or coyning new formes of religion as Ieroboam did his calues but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded without all question Caluin had neuer misliked it In this sense and no other that title was giuen him Neither did the king take it otherwise for ought that we can learne PHIL. If the title were not blame worthy why was it altered ORTHOD. In the beginning of the Queenes raigne the nobles and sundry of the Clergy perceiuing that some out of ignorance and infirmitie were offended at the title of supreame head of the Church humbly intreated her maiestie that it might be expressed in some plainer termes whereto her clemency most graciously condiscended accepting the title of supreame gouernour being the same in substance with the former So this alteration was not made as thogh the other were blame worthy for the phrase is according to the Scripture which calleth the king head of the tribes of Israel And the sense thereof is agreeable to the true meaning both of Scripture and also of ancient Fathers Councels and practise both of the kings of Iudah and of Christian Emperours as hath beene declared where it was as lawfull for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalfe of the Prince against the Pope as it was for Iehoiada to exact an oath in behalfe of king Ioas against the vsurper Athalia which oath being holy and lawfull the refusall of it was disloyaltie and a iust cause of depriuation Hitherto of the Bishops deposed now let vs proceed to such as succeed them CHAP. IIII. Of the Consecration of the most reuerend father Archbishop Parker PHIL. YOur Bishops deriue their counterfeit authoritie not from lawfull Consecration or Catholicke inauguration but from the Queene and Parliaments For in England the king yea and the Queene may giue their letters patents to whom they will and they thencefoorth may beare themselues for Bishops and may begin to ordaine Ministers So wee may iustly say that among the Caluinists in England there raigned a woman Pope But such was the order of Christs Church which the Apostles founded Priests to be sent by Priests and not by the letters patents of kings or Queenes ORTHOD. These shamelesse Papists would make the world beleeue that our Bishops deriue not their Consecration from Bishops but from kings and Queenes which is an impudent slaunder For our kings doe that which belongeth to kings and our Bishops doe that which belongeth to Bishops In the vacancie of any Archbishopricke or Bishopricke the king granteth to the Deane and Chapter a licence vnder the great Seale as of old time hath beene accustomed to proceed to an election with a letter missiue containing the name of the person which they shall elect and chuse which being duly performed and signified to the King vnder the common seale of the electors the king giueth his royal assent and signifying and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bishops as the law requireth he giueth them commission and withall requireth and commaundeth them to confirme the said election and to inuest and Consecrat◠the said person vsing all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same Whereupon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient forme in those cases vsed do cause all such as can obiect or take exception either in generall or particular either against the manner of the election or the person elected to be cited publikely and peremptorily to make their appearance When the validitie of the election and sufficiency of the person are by publike actes and due proceedings iudicially approued then followeth Consecration which is performed by a lawfull number of lawfull Bishops and that in such forme as is required by the ancient Canons PHIL. I Will prooue that your Bishops in the beginning of the Queenes reigne deriued not their authoritie from lawfull Consecration but from the Queene and Parliament For being destitute of all lawfull ordination when they were commonly said and prooued by the lawes of England to bee no Bishops they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power that they might receiue the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament by authoritie whereof it any thing were done amisse and not according to the prescript of the Law or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration it might be pardoned them and that after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office and Chaire certaine yeeres without any Episcopall Consecration Hence it was that they were called Parliament Bishops ORTHO The Parliament which you meane was in the eighth yeere of Queene Elizabeth wherein first they reproue the ouer much boldnesse of some which slandered the estate of the Clergy by calling into question whether their making and Consecrating were according to Law Secondly they touch such lawes as concerne the point
deliuering the incestuous Corinthian vnto Satan by which in the iudgement of Hilarie Hierome and Anselmus followed by Bellarmine Baronius and others both of your side and ours is meant Excommunication And though some doe take it for a miraculous operation whereby the offendours were committed for a time to Satan to be tormented bodily yet they doe not deny that the Corinthian was Excommunicated Let vs therefore see by what authoritie this was done I verely saith S. Paul as absent in body but present in spirit haue determined already as though I were present that hee that hath so done this deed in the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ you being gathered together and my Spirit with you with the power of the Lord Iesus Christ be deliuered vnto Satan c. He saith not the Spirit of S. Peter but my Spirit So your visible head had neither hand nor foote in this action S. Paul acknowledgeth neither subordination to him nor deriuation of authoritie from him And as he had Iurisdiction so had Timothy and Titus to receiue accusations to command them not to teach any other doctrine or if they did to stop their mouthes All which places are to be expounded of iudiciall proceeding in the Consistory and argue a Iurisdiction in Titus and Timothy which so farre as we can learne they receiued from S. Paul and not from S. Peter Wherefore we conclude that S. Peter was not the onely fountaine vnder Christ of Spirituall iurisdiction by Law diuine but the 12. Apostles were 12. fountaines all equally deriued from Christ Iesus the Fountaine of fountaines But if Peter had any such prerogatiue by Law diuine what is that to the Pope CHAP. III. Whether the Pope succeed S. Peter in all his right by Law diuine PHIL. THe Pope is the successour of S. Peter therefore what power soeuer belonged to S. Peter belongeth to the Pope ORTHOD. Was not S. Peter an Apostle can there be succession in the Apostleship PHIL. Doctour Stapleton teacheth that of the Apostleship there is no succession ORTH. Why then do the Popes so adorne themselues with Apostolicke titles his See apostolicke his Legat Apostolicke his pardon Apostolicke his seale Apostolicke his Bull Apostolicke and all Apostolicke yea his office is an Apostleship causes must be heard by his Apostleship weighty matters must be reserued to his Apostleship and Bishops must visite the thresholds of the Apostles vnlesse they be dispensed withall by the Apostles that is by the Pope Yea the Rhemists affirme That certes the roome and dignity of the Pope is a continuall Apostleship And of late the Pope had a title giuen of the first Euangelist and of the 13. Apostle as is related and approued by Baronius But we hope that God wil raise such Angels in our Church as he was in the Church of Ephesus of whom it is written That he had tried them who say they are apostles and are not and had found them liars But if the Pope doe not succeed S. Peter in the Apostleship how is he then his successour PHIL. Not in that he was an Apostle but in that hee was the ordinarie Pastour of the whole Church ORTHOD. If not as an Apostle then the Pope succeedeth him not in all his right But haue not other Apostles successours as well as Peter PHIL. No For their authoritie was extraordinary his ordinary whereupon it followeth That theirs was temporary and died with their persons his perpetuall and liueth with his successours ORTHOD. This you say oft but proue neuer For the clearing whereof we must consider that in the Apostles some things were extraordinary some things ordinary They had 4. extraordinary prerogatiues immediate vocation by Christ himselfe vnlimited Commission ouer all Nations infallible direction both in preaching and writing and power to worke Miracles All which were necessary for the first planting of Churches but were not conueyed to posteritie by succession Other things they had which were necessary for the Church in all future ages in which they had successours They had power to minister the word and Sacraments wherein euery Presbyter succeedeth them They ordained Ministers executed censures and other things belonging to the gouernment of the Church wherein euery Bishop succeedeth them So in the latter the rest haue successours as well as Peter In the former as the rest had no successours so neither had Peter PHIL. Yes the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the gouernment of the whole world ORTHO You dare not say that this power in Peter was extraordinary for then it could not go by succession if it were ordinarie in Peter why not in the rest seeing as hath beene proued Christ gaue as ample commission in as ample words to the rest as to Peter But if wee should faigne that Peter had such Monarchicall iurisdiction by what law shall the Pope succeed him in it PHIL. The succession of the Bishop of Rome into the Popedome of Peter is of Christs institution and therefore by Law diuine ORTHOD. Of Christs institution where or when if you alleadge these words feed my sheepe they were spoken onely to Peter yet so that the substance of the precept was not proper to him but common to all And if wee should imagine that Christ did institute a monarchy personally in Peter how commeth it to be locall This certainely cannot be Christs institution because he nameth no place PHIL. It was in Peters power neuer to haue chosen to himselfe any particular See but to haue continued as he did the first fiue yeeres And then after his death neither the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded but hee whom the Church had chosen ORTHOD. Then you make it locall by Peters choise and not by Law diuine and if it be local is it tied to the Bishop of Rome by Law diuine PHIL. Was not Saint Peter Bishop of Rome ORTHOD. So men say but can you proue it by Law diuine PHIL. Will you deny a History so famously recorded by Eusebius and other ancient authors ORTH. Not I but now you ground vpon humane history and not vpon Law diuine And as the histories say that he was Bishop of Rome so they say he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome PHIL. It was in his power to haue continued at Antioch and then without doubt the Bishop of Antioch had beene his successor but because he translated his chaire fixed it at Rome there died thence it comes to passe that the Bish. of Rome succeedeth him ORTH. If the succession depend vpon the fixing of Saint Peters chaire at Rome what shal be said of those Popes which kept at Auinion in France and neuer came at Rome Moreouer this is to build vpon the fact of Saint Peter and not vpon Law diuine PHIL. It is not improbable that the Lord did expresly commaund that Peter should so fix his seat
time of the Emperour Iustinian vsed to pay for their ordination yet he added this clause vt non debeat ordinari qui electus fuerit nisi prius decretum generale introducatur in regiam vrbem secundum antiquam Consuetudinē vt cum eorum conscientia iussione debeat ordinatio prosperari i. that the party elected ought not to be ordained vnlesse first the generall decree of his election strenthned with the subscriptions of the electors were brought into the imperial city according to the ancient custome that so the ordination might prosperously proceed with the knowledge and commandement of the Emperours Wherefore if we imbrace this sence of the Canon we may iustly say Decretum hoc iuris veteris vel restitutio vel continuatio non concessio noui 1. this decree to speak properly is either a restoring or a continuing of an ancient right not a grant of a new and consequently this was no priuiledge proceeding frō the grace and bounty of the Pope but a voluntary and ingenuous confession of the Princes right But some do follow the other sense extending the decree euen to a sole and plenare power of electing at his owne pleasure without the Clergie and people For Duarenus saith thus In ancient time the Bishop of Rome vsed not to be ordained without the consent and authoritie of the Roman Emperour and all kings vsed in a maner the same power in the Churches of their owne kingdomes yet the right of Electing was not therfore taken away from the Clergie but afterward the right of the electing the Romane Bishops was of their owne accord altogether granted and permitted to the Emperours Charles and Otho And a little after a full power of electing at his owne pleasure was granted to Charles which seemeth more probable because Theodoricke de Niem sayth the Romane people granted to him and translated vpon him all their right and power and according to their example Pope Adrian with all the Clergie people and the whole sacred Synod granted to the Emperour Charles all their right and power of electing the Pope Howsoeuer this is certaine that the Pope and Councell did ascribe vnto him if not a sole and plenary yet at least a principall and preuailing power in electing the high Bishop If we imbrace the first then so farre as they confered vpon him their owne former right it may be called a gift or grant If the latter it was no gift nor grant but an acknowledgement of the ancient right and prerogatiue of the Empire PHIL. Charles in his Chapters appointeth that elections should be free ORTHOD. This may seeme to argue that Adrian and the Councel did yeeld vnto him a plenary power yet notwithstanding hee like a gracious Prince permitted that elections should be free as in former times But what if they were free must the Prince therefore bee excluded Before the diuision of the Empire the Romanes might freely elect whom they list and yet the elected could not be Consecrated till he were approued of the Emperour so Charles might grant freedome of elections and yet reserue to himselfe his royall assent PHIL. If hee had any such power why did not he and his successours put it in practise ORTHOD. To this I will answere first in generall and then descend to some particulars In generall it appeareth that they did by these words of Nauclerus Imperator volens vti consuetudine authoritate praedecessorum suorum petebat sibi seruari ea quae priuilegijs Carolo Magno successoribus in Imperto iam per 300 annos amplius concessa obseruata fuerunt ex quibus priuilegijs licitè per inuestituram annuli virgae Episcopatus Abbatias conferebant i. The Emperour Henr. desirous to vse the custome and authoritie of his predecessors required that those priuiledges should be reserued for him which were granted to Charles the Great and to his successours in the Empire and obserued now for 300. yeeres and more By which priuiledges it was lawfull for the Emperours to conferre Bishopricks and Abbacies by inuestiture of a ring and a staffe And Matthew Paris saith That the Emperour was desirous to vse the priuiledge of his predecessours which they hadenioyed 300. yeeres vnder 60. Popes Thus much in generall PHIL. Anastasius who wrote the liues of 12. Popes succeeding Adrian deliuereth onely that they were chosen by the people and Clergie but saith nothing of the Emperours ORTHOD. Yes by your leaue he saith somewhat But if hee were silent what then Are not other Authors sufficient to witnesse it The next Pope after Adrian and the onely Pope elected in the time of Charles was Leo the third who as Gillius saith so soone as he was Consecrated sent to Charles the Great the keyes of S. Peters Church with the banner of the Citie of Rome and admonished him to send certaine selected persons which might exact the Oath of obedience of the people Was not this a resignation both of the Citie and Church into the Emperours hands Was not this an ingenuous acknowledgement that he would not hold the possession of S. Peters Church that is of the Church of Rome without his Royall assent Which he vndoubtedly obtained For afterwards when a strong faction had deposed Leo hee fled into France to Charles Who sent him back to Rome and restored him againe with great honour AFter Charles reigned his sonne Lodowick in whose time Leo died and Steuen the 4. had the place who as Baronius sheweth out of Aimonius went in person to the Emperour within two moneths of his Consecration To what end Wee may collect that out of his decree in Gratian wherein hee complaineth that the Church of Rome at the death of the Popes suffered great violence because the new Popes were Consecrated without the knowledge of the Emperour neither were the Emperours Ambassadours present as both the Canons and custome required Whereupon he decreeth that the Consecration should be praesentibus Legatis Imperialibus i. The Emperours Ambassadors being present And withall forbiddeth all men to extort any new Oathes whereby the Church may bee scandalized and the Imperiall honour diminished Wherefore it is probable that his hasty going was to excuse the matter because as it seemeth he was Consecrated without the Emperours knowledge Which is yet more likely because the next Pope Paschall being created without Imperiall authoritie sent presently to the Emperour Lodowick to excuse the matter by laying the blame vpon the Clergie and people Whereto he answered That the Clergie and people must keepe the decrees of their ancestours and admonished them hereafter to take heed not to offend the Imperiall Maiestie PHIL. If Lodowick had any such authoritie therein surely he resigned it in his Constitution concerning his donation to the Church of Rome which is partly in Gratian but fully set downe by Baronius out of the Vatican Monuments the summe whereof is that it
OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND With their Succession Jurisdiction and other things incident to their calling AS ALSO OF THE ORDINATION of Priests and Deacons FIVE BOOKES Wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of BELLARMINE SANDERS BRISTOW HARDING ALLEN STAPLETON PARSONS KELLISON EVDEMON BECANVS And other Romanists And iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures Councels Fathers or approued examples of Primitiue Antiquitie ¶ By FRANCIS MASON Batchelour of Diuinitie and sometimes Fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford Hebr. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron ¶ IMPRINTED AT LONDON by ROBERT BARKER Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie Anno 1613. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD GEORGE LORD ARCHbishop of Canterburie his Grace Primate of all England and Metropolitane And one of his Maiesties most Honourable Priuie Counsell AS in the Romane triumphes the worthy Conquerour gloriously ascending vnto the Capitoll did shew his magnificence by giuing ample gifts vnto the people euen so most reuerend father our victorious Sauiour and noble Redeemer hauing conquered Hell Death Diuell and damnation Triumphantly ascending to the Capitoll of Heauen did shew his vnspeakeable bountie in giuing admirable and incommparable gifts vnto men That is some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and Teachers For what hath the Church of God of so precious account as the holy ministery of the Word and Sacraments whereby CHRIST IESVS with all his blessings is reuealed and applied to the soule and conscience It may well be resembled to the Riuers of Paradise which did water and fructifie the Garden of God to the Golden pipes whereby the two Oliue branches replenished the seuen Lampes in the golden Candlesticke to the Crowne which the woman in the Reuelation cloathed with the Sunne and hauing the Moone vnder her feete had vpon her head being richly beset not with stones but with Starres Which holy function flowing from CHRIST as from the fountaine to his blessed Apostles was by thē deriued to posterity But as the water which neere the spring is cleare and chrystalline in further passages may be polluted so in processe of time by the subtiltie of Satan the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments being the ordinance of God was mingled with sacrifising and other humane inuentions Yet such was the goodnesse of God that euen in the darknes of Poperie as Baptisme so the Ministeriall function notwithstanding the abominations cleauing thereunto was wonderfully preserued for the Church of Rome by Gods speciall prouidence in her Ordination of Priests reteined such Euangelicall words as in their true and natiue sense include a ghostly Ministeriall power to forgiue sinnes by the Ministery of Reconciliation consisting in the due administration of the Word and Sacraments So remission of sinnes is ascribed to the Minister as to Gods instrument in effecting it and Ambassadour in pronouncing it Wherefore in that they haue authority to forgiue sinnes they haue also authority to vse the meanes thereof that is the Word and Sacraments Thus the Church of Rome gaue power to her Priests to teach the truth although it did not reueale the truth vnto them Now when it pleased him which causeth the Light to shine out of darkenesse in the riches of his Mercie to remember his distressed Church those blessed instruments which hee first vsed in the Reformation were such as had receiued their Calling corruptly in the Church of Rome But when their eyes were opened they disclaimed the sacrifising abomination and other impurities which by the iniquitie of the time were incorporated into their calling Thus the pollution of Poperie by the Grace of God was drained and drawn away the Ministeriall function restored to the original beautie And here let vs admire and magnifie the Mercy of God who did not forget this remote Iland situate in a corner of the world but did most graciously shine vpon it with his Golden beames from the Sphere of Heauen For whereas in other Countreys the Bishops which should be starres and Angels of the Church did resist the Reformation and persecuted such as sought it It pleased God that in England among other Bishops Archbishop Cranmer the chiefest Prelate of the Kingdome was Gods chiefest instrument to restore the Gospel which afterward he sealed with his blood The euent whereof was That whereas other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessity to admit extraordinary fathers That is to receiue Ordination from Presbyters which are but inferior Ministers rather then to suffer the Fabrick of the Lord IESVS to be dissolued the Church of England had alwayes Bishops to conferre sacred Orders according to the ordinary and most warrantable custome of the Church of CHRIST And although in Queene Maries time fiue blessed Bishops were burned to ashes yet God reserued to himselfe a number which being then forced to take the wings of the Doue and fly beyond the Seas or to hide themselues in the clefts of the rocke when the tempest was ouerblowne the cloudes cleared and the Sunne of Righteousnes began to display himselfe in the happy raigne of Queene Elizabeth returned againe clapped their wings for ioy praised God preached the Gospel and with holy imposition of hands ordained Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of England These are the Ordinations which reprochfull Papists doe most traduce and slander as though they were no Ordinations at all but onely Nullities thence perswading their Proselytes That our present Ministers are no Ministers but meerely Lay-men and thereupon inferring that wee haue no Church no saluation In which point some Popish Recusants haue beene so confident that they haue professed That if we could iustifie our Calling they would come to our Churches and bee of our Religion The consideration whereof most Reuerend father gaue me occasion to made into this Controuersie being desirous next the assurance of mine owne saluation as I am a Christian to bee fully and clearely assured of my Calling as I am a Minister In prosecuting whereof I did euidently find That their chiefest Obiections are nothing but slanders confutable by Authenticall monuments of publique Record Whereupon I wished from the bottome of my heart That some learned man would haue vouchsafed for the glory of God and the good of the Church to scatter these Popish mistes and to set the Trueth in the cleare light A worke in my opinion very important First in respect of vs of the Ministerie and secondly in regard of the people committed to our charge For how chearefully and with what ioy of heart may we preach and they heare vs when the lawfulnesse of our Calling is made manifest to all men Thirdly If any haue formerly made scruple to enter our Orders out of ignorance how these odious and scandalous imputations blazed in Popish Bookes might bee truely answered and the point soundly cleared by Record it is verely to bee
Councels and other authorities Pag. 161. CHAP. 6. Of the election of the Bishops of Rome vnder Christian Emperours before the diuision of the Empire Pag. 163. CHAP. 7. Of the Election of Popes from the Emperour Charles to Otho Pag. 175. CHAP. 8. Of the election of Popes from the time of the Emperour Otho to Henry the fourth Pag. 173. CHAP. 9. Of the election of the Bishops of Constantinople Pag. 178. CHAP. 10. Of the election of the Bishops of Spaine Pag. 179. CHAP. 11. Of the election of the Bishops of France Pag. 180. CHAP. 12. Of the election of the Bishops of England Pag. 182. CHAP. 13. How lamentable the state of England was when Bishopricks and benefices were giuen by the Popes prouisions Pag. 188. CHAP. 14. Whether it belongeth to the Pope to confirme all the Metropolitanes of the world and namely the Metropolitanes of England Pag. 199. ¶ The contents of the fifth Booke CHAP. 1. WHerein the second controuersie is proposed diuided into two questions the former about sacrifising the latter about absolution the state of the former is set downe and the Methode of proceeding Pag. 207. CHAP. 2. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec Pag. 208. CHAP. 3. Of their argument drawn frō the Paschal Lambe Pag. 216. CHAP. 4. Of their argument drawne from certaine places of the Prophets Pag. 218. CHAP. 5. Of their argumēt drawne frō the words of institutiō Pa. 222. CHAP. 6. Of their arguments drawne frō the actiōs of Christ. Pa. 234. CHAP. 7. Of their argument drawne from the practise of the Church in the Apostles time Pag. 239. CHAP. 8. Of their arguments drawne from the authority of the Fathers Pag. 241. CHAP. 9. Of the second question which concerneth the power of absolution Pag. 244. CHAP. 10. An answere to the arguments of Bellar. by which he goeth about to proue absolution to be iudicial not declaratory Pag. 249. CHAP. 11. Of the third controuersie concerning Deacons Pag. 259. CHAP. 12. Wherein is declared that though wee deriue our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests yet our calling is lawfull and theirs as it is vsed vnlawfull Pag. 260. THE FIRST BOOKE CONTEINING THE ENTRANCE AND DIVISION of the whole worke into three Controuersies with their seuerall Questions As also the handling of the first Question whether three Canonicall Bishops be absolutely necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop Framed in forme of a conference betweene PHILODOX a Seminary Priest And ORTHODOX a Minister of the Church of England CHAP. I. The entrance wherein is described the Proceeding of Popish Priests in winning of Proselytes by praising Rome the Romane Religion the Popes loue the English Seminaries As also by dispraising the Vniuersities Church Religion and Ministerie of England PHILODOX WHat My old friend Orthodox I salute you in the kindest maner and congratulate your comming into France the rather because I hope you are passing this way to Rome as sundry of your fellowes and friends haue done before you ORTHODOX To Rome Philodox Alas Quid Romaefaciam mentiri nescio What shall I doe at Rome I cannot lye I cannot aequiuocate PHILO It seemeth si◠that you are pleasantly disposed but in good earnest there are many inducements which in all reason should draw you to Rome For he that hath seene Rome hath seene all things and he that hath not seene Rome hath seene nothing It is the Queene and Lady of Cities the Store-house of Nature the admiration of Art the Epitome of the world wherein all Excellencies shine in their Orient colours and exquisite beautie In old time men did wonder at the Temple of Diana the Tombe of Mausolus the Colossus of the Sunne the Image of Iupiter Olympicus the Palace of Cyrus the walls of Babylon and the Pyramides of Egypt because these things in their seuerall ages were rare and singular and iustly had in precious account But who would now so esteeme them when he may see in one City so many spectacles which are able not onely to rauish the beholders with admiration but also to strike them with astonishment The Emperour Constantius when hee beheld the Rostra the Capitoll the Bathes the Amphitheatrum the Pantheon the Theater of Pompey his eyes were dazeled with miracle vpon miracle but when he came to the Market place of Traiane he stood cleane amazed at those huge and admirable Fabricks neither imitable by the hand nor vtterable by the tongue of man And though time which weareth all things hath now defaced them yet if new Rome be compared with old Rome wee may say with a learned man Non maior sed melioriam Roma non cultior sed sanctior That is Rome at this present is not bigger but better not more sumptuous but more sacred And we may adde that still it ouershineth all other Cities so farre as the golden Moone doeth the twinkling starres ORTHO Suppose that the buildings of Rome were as glorious at this day as they were in the dayes of Constantius yet what of all this Hormisd◠the Persian being then asked what he thought of Rome made answere That this onely pleased him that he had learned that men doe die euen at Rome also as in other places And surely though the walles of our Cities were of gold and the windowes of Saphire yet while we liue in this vale of vanitie we dwell but in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust God giue vs grace to seeke a City which hath a foundation whose maker and builder is God God graunt that when our earthly Tabernacle shal be dissolued we may haue an house not made with hands but eternall in the heauens PHIL. You say well sir and the right way to attaine thereunto is to be reconciled to the holy Church of Rome Without it there is no hope of saluation within it is a very Paradise of God and a sanctuary for all distressed soules wherefore if you take this course you shal be a thrice happy man and enioy the precious blessing of a quiet conscience ORTHO In deede a quiet conscience is a iewell of iewels the price of it is farre aboue the Pearle neither can it be valued with the wedge of fine gold But this is a flower which groweth not in the gardens of Rome no not in Beluidêre the Popes Paradise For there is no Religion in the world which can pacific the troubled conscience but that onely which teacheth the penitent spirit the remission of his sinnes and an infallible certaintie of his saluation by the merits of Iesus Christ apprehended by a true and liuely faith and sealed to the sanctified soule by the Spirit of grace But the present religion of the Church of Rome teacheth onely a morall coniecturall and fallible That is an vncertaine certaintie which must needs plunge the poore soule into a thousand perplexities Wherefore the present Romish religion is not a doctrine of comfort but of doubt and distrust so farre from quieting the troubled
iust experience it prooueth otherwise As for the Popes if you meane the ancient Bishops of Rome wee regard them with reuerence and if their true writings were extant wee would willingly embrace them but as for your late Popes wee litle respect them Moreouer if your Bishops had for them the former definitions of Fathers and Councels they might more easily haue conuinced their aduersaries in disputation this should haue beene a spurre vnto them and not a bridle PHIL. As it was not fit to call the former definitions in question againe so much lesse was it fit that those things which ought to haue beene discussed in the Vniuersities by certaine order before the learned and iudicious should bee handled before the people which was vnskilfull and desirous of noueltie which vseth to define euery thing rather by outcryes then by arguments ORTHOD. As though this disputation had beene intended before the rude and barbarous multitude and not rather before the most honourable graue wise and iudicious in the whole Kingdome The trueth is that the Bishops doubted the cause they feared that they were not able to defend it by the Scriptures PHIL. They saide that against the contentious and such as would not rest in the iudgement of the Church little good could bee done by disputation And verily no maruell if they were loth to haue triall by disputation when the Iudge was Nicholas Bacon a layman an Hereticke altogether ignorant of Diuinitie the most reuerend Archbishop of Yorke assisting for fashion sake onely The day came which was the third of April there was infinite concourse vnequall lawes of disputation were prescribed of the Heretickes onely nothing was done with order and reason the time slipped away with declamations on both sides the prophane iudge moderateth all things as it pleaseth him all comes to nothing and so the Heretickes proceede in their madnesse ORTH. These are figures of rehetoricke wherewith you vse to embellish your speeches as it were with precious stones Whosoeuer will hold with the Pope is presently with you a good Catholicke and a very learned man but let him bee neuer so wise learned and iudicious if hee loue God his Prince and countrey better then the Pope hee shall bee reproached with ignorance and heresie as appeareth in that honourable personage Sir Nicholas Bacon Lord Keeper of the great Seale of England a man famous for wisdome pietie and the zeale of Gods glory But why doe you blemish him because hee had the fauour of a gracious Prince you might haue learned of Salomon Hee that loueth purenesse of heart for the grace of his lippes the King shall bee his friend can you blame him for that hee was designed by his Soueraigne to bee a moderatour at the disputation you should rather haue considered the Queenes great mildenesse and gracious proceeding in that shee vouchsafed to ioyne with him an assistant as Sanders confesseth one of your owne Religion a man of eminent note in Church and common wealth who stoode not for a cipher or for fashion sake but was armed with authoritie and had power to prouide that the Papistes should haue full libertie to speake their mindes before that great and honourable assembly How was it possible that the businesse should bee contriued with greater equalitie and indifferencie PHIL. Should a lay man iudge of Bishops and profound Diuines ORTH. Did not Basil Bishop of Ancyra and other Bishops dispute with Photinus before certaine noble men which the Emperour had appointed to bee Iudges did not Saint Austine dispute with the Donatists Marcellinus the tribune being Iudge did hee not dispute with Pascentius the Arrian Laurentius a secular man being Iudge And if it please you to looke into the volumes of Councels you shall finde that in the fourth generall Councell being the first at Chalcedon noble men of the Laity were appointed Iudges whose names are set downe in the beginning of the first action The like is to bee found in the sixt generall Councell being the third at Constantinople And in the third generall Councell being the first at Ephesus Theodosius and Valentintan appointed Candidianus an Earle to bee the Iudge PHIL. These were Iudges after a sort But how that may appeare by the wordes of the Emperour concerning Candidianus Ad Sacram vestram Synodum abire iussimus sed ea lege conditione vt cum quaestionibus controuersijs quae circafidei dogmata incidunt nihil quicquam commune habeat i. wee haue commanded him to goe vnto your sacred Synode but vpon this condition that hee haue nothing at all to doe with questions and controuersies of faith ORTHOD. Very true But first to remoue all such persons as might be troublesome to the sacred Synode Secondly not to suffer those which were of the Synode to depart before the consultation were ended Thirdly not to let them dispute any by-matters before the principall were fully discussed and concluded Fourthly to prouide that the disputation might be peaceable without tumult Fiftly to see that euery man might haue libertie without offence to propose what he thought good and to confute the contrary In like manner Sir Nicholas Bacon was appointed to these and the like offices and not to decide or determine any controuersie of faith PHIL. Hee was a capitall enemie of the Catholickes ORTHOD. All that was done or said at those meetings is extant to bee seene whereby it may appeare that all his proceedings about that businesse were most milde moderate honourable and Christian though the Bishops did shew themselues very obstinate PHIL. The Protestants would haue had them to dispute vpon such Articles proposed for questions as seemed to haue a greater shewe of proofe in the Scriptures for the Heretickes as of the Communion vnder both kindes of publique prayers to bee had in the vulgar tongue and such like ORTHOD. In the publique reformation of a Church the first thing to be considered is the due ordering of diuine seruice and Sacraments therefore the questions were chosen with singular discretion one concerning the prayers whether they should bee in the vulgar tongue another concerning the Lords Supper whether it should bee ministred in both kindes In both which points you had done great iniurie to the people of God But you say that the Protestants made choise of such questions as seemed to haue a greater shew of proofe in the Scripture and haue we thinke you but a seeming shew of proofe no sound substantial proofe indeed If the Bishops had bin of this opinion it should rather haue incouraged them to the incounter then haue caused them to flie the field Is the holy Scripture for vs in these questions onely if the disputation had beene about the worshipping of images inuocations of Saints iustification by faith and such like could not wee haue produced as pregnant proofes out of the Scriptures for these as for the former but now one may
Binius hath Vobis but it should be Nobis which may appeare first because the Emperor himself in the words shortly after following in Binius said Nos proratione datae nobis in Ecclesiasticis rebus potestatis non tacebimus that is We in regard of the power giuen vnto vs in Ecclesiasticall matters will not hold our peace Where it is cleare that the Emperor did think himselfe to haue power giuen him from God not only in matters ciuil but also in Ecclesiasticall Therefore when the Emperor said That the diuine prouidence had committed vnto him the gouernment of the vniuersall ship hee must needs be vnderstood as well of causes Ecclesiasticall as ciuill Which may yet appeare further by the Emperors words as they are in Surtus immediatly following in the same sentence Omne studium arripuimus ante publicas curas Ecclesiasticas dissoluere i. When the diuine prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vniuersall ship we vsed all diligence to dispatch Ecclesiasticall cares before the publike affaires of the Commonwealth So if Surius wil be iudged by his owne Edition and giue the Emperour leaue to expound himselfe then Ecclesiasticall affaires must be comprehended in the gouernment of the Vniuersall ship Wherfore though Surius would raze out the word Ecclesiasticall and Binius foist in Vobis instead of Nobis yet whether we compare either of them with himselfe or each of them with other it is euident that the Emperor Basil did challenge the gouernement of the vniuersal ship both Ecclesiastical and Ciuil and that in a generall Councell no man resisting him What doth this differ from Supreme gouernour as it is vsed in the Church of England AS Basill did challenge this gouernment no man resisting so sundry Synods haue giuen the like to Princes not refusing it There was a Councell holden at Mentz in Germany the yeere 814. In the time of the Emperour Charles the great and Pope Leo the third the Synodall acts whereof Binius professeth that he compared with a manuscript sent him out of the Emperours library at Vienna Now the Bishops assembled in this Synode begin thus In the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To the most glorious and most Christian Emperour Carolus Augustus gouernour of the true religion and defender of the holy Church of God c. And a little after We giue thanks to God the Father Almighty because hee hath granted vnto his holy Church a gouernor so godly c. And againe About all these points we greatly need your aide and sound doctrine which may both admonish vs continnally and instruct vs curteously so farre that such things which we haue briefly touched beneath in a few Chapters may receiue strength from your authority if so bee that your piety shall so iudge it worthy whatsoeuer is found in them worthy to be amended let your magnificent and imperiall dignity command to amend In the yeere 847. there was holden another Synode at Mentz in the time of Leo the fourth and Lotharius the Emperor where the Bishops begin in the like manner Domino Serenissimo Christianissimo regi Ludouico verae religionis strenuissimo rectori i. To our most gracious Lord and Christian king Lodowick the most puissant gouernor of true religion The like was ascribed to King Reccesuinthius in a Councell holden at Emerita in Portugale about the yeere 705. in these words Whose vigilance doth gouerne both secular things with greatest piety and Ecclesiasticall by his wisdome plentifully giuen him of God So they acknowledged him gouernor both in causes secular and Ecclesiastical This Councel of Emerita receiued much strength and authority from Pope Innocent the third in his Epistle to Peter Archb. of Compostella as witnesseth Garsias Thus you see that most famous Bishops assembled in Synods haue giuen vnto Princes such titles as are equiualent to the stâ—le annexed to the imperiall crowne of this kingdome To which we might adioyne the iudgement of other fathers Tertullian Colimus imperatorem vt hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem i. We reuerence the Emperour as a man next vnto God and inferiour onlie to God Optatus Super imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit imperatorem Aboue the Emperour is none but onely God who made the Emperour So Saint Chrysostome saith that the Emperor hath no peere vpon earth and calleth him the head and crowne of all men vpon earth If he be next vnto God and inferiour only to God If none be aboue him but God onlie If he haue no peere vpon earth as being the head and crowne of all men vpon earth then must hee needs bee the supreme gouernour vpon earth according to the iudgement of the fathers This is agreeable to the Scripture which testifieth that most godly kings commanded both Priests and high Priests euen in cases of religion as was before declared Neither is this authority taken away in the New Testament but continueth the very same As may appeare by Saint Paul who lifteth vp his voice like a trumpet proclayming Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers which words euery soule comprehend all persons both Ecclesiasticall and Temporal yea though they were Euangelists Prophets or Apostles as Saint Chrysostome doth truly expound them If euery soule be subiect to the higher powers then the Prince is superiour to all and consequently supreme within his owne dominions But why doe I stay so long vpon this point which hath beene of late so learnedly and plentifully handled that to say any more were but to cast water into the sea or to light a candle at noone day PHIL. HOw vnreasonable it is may appeare by the absurdities which follow thereupon for if the Prince be supreme gouernour in causes spiritual then he may command what religion he list and we must obey him ORTHOD. Not so for he is supreme gouernour in causes temporal yet he may not command a man to beare false witnesse or to condemne the innocent as Iesabell did or if he should we must rather obey God then man so in cases of religion Nabuchodonosor had no warrant to erect his image nor Ieroboam to set vp his golden calues For the king as king is supreme vnder God not against God to commaund for truth not against truth And if hee shall command vngodly things we may not performe obedience but submit our selues to his punishments with patience PHIL. Doe not you by this title ascribe as much to the King as wee doe to the Pope ORTHO Wee are farre from it For when some malicious persons did wrest the words of the oath of supremacy to a sinister sense notifying how by words of the same oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queenes of this realme possessours of the crowne may challenge authority and power of ministery of diuine seruice in the Church Queene Elizabeth in the first yeere of
her raigne admonished all her louing subiects not to giue credit to such persons professing that she neither did nor would challenge any other authority then was challenged and vsed by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of ancient time due to the imperiall crowne of this realme that is vnder God to haue the soueraignty and rule ouer all manner persons borne within her realmes dominions and countries of what estate either ecclesiasticall or temporall soeuer they be so as no other forraigne power shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them And that no other thing was is or should bee meant or intended by the same oath Which was also further declared man act of Parliament the fifth yeare of her raigne with relation to the former admonition and moreouer fully explained in the Articles of religion in these words We giue not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments which things the iniunctions lately set foorth by Queene Elizabeth doe most plainely testifie but onely that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwaies to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they bee ecclesiasticall or temporall and restraine with the ciuill sword the stubborne and euill doers This is the substance of the title due to the imperiall crowne of the Kingdome PHIL. If it be due to the imperiall crowne then it skilleth not whether the Prince be man woman or child nor of what religion For the Princely power was no lesse in Traiane then in Theodosius in K. Henry then in Q. Mary In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers then in Queene Elizabeth their protectour yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before hee was baptized then after And consequently the Emperour of the Turkes may bee called supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions ORTHOD. Here are two things to be considered First the princely power and authority Secondly the ability rightly to vse and exercise the same The princely power and authority is giuen immediatly froÌ„ God both vnto Christian Princes and also vnto Ethnickes which are guided only by the light law of nature and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man For this is true in all By me kings raigne And Daniell said to Nabuchodonosor O king thou art a king of kings for the God of Heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome power and strength and glory But the ability rightly to vse and exercise this authority by refering it to the true end that is the glory of God for all our riuers should run into that Ocean the eternall good of the subiects is communicated from the Lord aboue onely to such as know him in Christ Iesus and are guided by his grace The fountaine therefore of al power is God himselfe as the Apostle witnesseth saying there is no power but of God To which purpose it is well said of Saint Austin Qui dedit Mario ipse Caesari qui Augusto ipse Neroni qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suauissimis imperatoribus ipse Domitiano crudelissimo ne per singulos ire necesse sit qui Constantino Christiano ipse Apostatae Iuliano i. He that gaue it to Marâ—â—s gaue it to Caesar hee that gaue it to Augustus gaue it to Nero he that gaue it to Vespasian the Father or his sonne most sweete Emperours gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell And that I should not neede to recken vp the rest in particular hee that gaue it to Constantine the Christian gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata But though domination and power were in the law of nature yet the right vse of it is not from nature but from grace A Prince as a Prince be he good or bad Christian or Pagan in respect of his princely calling hath sufficient power and authoritie to gouerne his people according to the will of God And it is his dutie so to doe The Lord said vnto Cyrus I will goe before thee and make the crooked streight I will breake the brasen doores and burst the Iron barres And I will giue thee the treasures of darkenesse and the things hid in secret places that thou maiest know that I am the Lord. Vpon which wordes Saint Ierom noteth that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men not that they should abuse them but as for other reasons so for this that being inuited by his bountie they should bee conuerted from their sinnes So it is their dutie to serue God not onely as they are men but as they are Kings And Kings saith Saint Austin doe in this serue God as Kings when they doe those things to serue him which none but Kings can doe But what is that It may appeare by these wordes Seruiant reges terrae Christo etiam leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societes be peace and prosperitie yet the last end of all and most principally to bee respected is the glory of God and eternall happinesse For which purpose it is the dutie of all subiects to pray for their Prince though hee bee a Pagan that vnder him they may liue a godly and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honestie But though euery Prince in that hee is a Prince hath authoritie to serue God as a Prince yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace Authoritie is in a Pagan the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniuie had authoritie long before to proclaime a fast Nabuchodonosor had authoritie to commaund that all nations and languages should worship the God of Daniel but they put it not in execution till God touched their hearts and when they put it in execution it was not by any new authoritie but by vertue of their former Princely power heretofore abused but now vsed rightly by direction of Gods Spirit and assistance of his grace The truth of which answere that you may see in another glasse let vs a little remooue our speech from the Prince to the Priest I demande therefore if the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts PHIL. Yes verely as saith the Prophet Malachy ORTH. But he may be a false prophet an Idolater an Apostata he may turne Pagan or Atheist Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest in respect of his office ought so to be ORTH. But the Prophet speaking of the wicked Priest which seduceth the people saith not he ought to be but he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts PHIL. A Priest as a Priest be he good or bad in respect of his priestly calling and authoritie is the messenger of the Lord of
both the outward court by excommunications absolutions dispensations calling generall councels c. and the court of conscience by forgiuing and retaining sinnes In a word in these keyes all Ecclesiasticall power was comprehended and giuen vnto Peter ORTHOD. The keyes were giuen to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter for the occasion of these words was a question of Christ proposed to al his Apostles whom say you that I am this question was answered by Peter Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Wherupon Saint Austin obserueth that Peter alone made answer for all the Apostles and his obseruation is according to the Scriptures which testifie that Peter before this time had answered in the name of them all VVe beleeue and know that thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God Now as Peter answered one for all so Christ said to Peter and in him to them all I will giue you the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen Thus the Fathers in terpret the place Austin Peter receiued the keyes together with them al Ierome they did all receiue the keyes Origen Christs promise of building his Church of giuing the keyes of binding and loosing made as to Peter only was common to all Hilarie They obtained the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Ambrose VVhat is said to Peter is said to the Apostles This consent of Fathers should ouer ballance your opinion by the Councell of Trent And here I might iustly returne Campians flourish vpon you Patres admiseris captus es excluseris nullus es If you admit the Fathers you are catched If you exclude them you are no body Indeed my Masters you make the world beleeue that you will be iudged by the Fathers but when it comes to the tryall you commonly forsake them the Fathers must be pretended for a fashion but the holy Father of Rome is the very needle and compasse whereby you saile PHIL. WE confesse that all receiued the keyes but Christ gaue them to Peter immediatly to the rest by Peter so all power both of order and iurisdiction proceedeth from Peter ORTHO Let Bellarmine himselfe iudge the cause betweene vs who proueth by foure arguments That the Apostles receiued their iurisdiction immediately from Christ. First by these words of Christ himselfe As my Father sent me so send I you which exposition he strengtheneth by the authorities of Chrysostom Theophylact Cyrill and Cyprian by the euidence whereof he affirmeth that the same thing was giuen to the Apostles by these words I send you which was promised to Peter by these words I will giue thee the keyes and afterward deliuered by these words Feed my sheepe and addeth Constat autem per illa tibi dabo claues per illud pasce oues intelligi iurisdictionē plenissimā etiam exteriorē i It is cleare that by these words I will giue thee the keyes and by this saying feede my sheep there is vnderstood a most full iurisdiction euen in the outward Court Secondly hee proueth it because Mathias was neither elected by the Apostles nor receiued any authority by them but beeing elected by God was presently accounted amongst the Apostles And verilie saith hee if all the Apostles had their iurisdiction from Peter that should haue beene manifested most of all in Matthias Thirdly he proueth it by Saint Paul who professeth that he had his iurisdiction from Christ and thence confirmeth his Apostleship for he saith Paul an Apostle not of men or by man but by Iesus Christ And that he might declare that he receiued no authoritie from Peter or any other Apostle he saith VVhen it pleased God which had separated me from my mothers womb called me by his grace to reueale his sonne in mee that I should preach him among the Gentiles immediatly I cōmunicated not with flesh and bloud Neither came I againe to Ierusalem to thē which were Apostles before mee but I went into Arabia and turned againe into Damascus Then after three yeeres I came againe to Ierusalem to visite Peter And againe To mee those that seemed to bee something conferred nothing Fourthly because the Apostles were made onely by Christ and yet had Iurisdiction as appeareth First by Paul excommunicating the Corinthian Secondly by the same Paul making Ecclesiasticall lawes Thirdly because the Apostolick dignitie is the highest dignitie in the Church Wherefore it is euident that the rest of the Apostles receiued not their Iurisdiction from Peter but from Christ. PHIL. CHrist promised the keyes to Peter onely therefore in this respect he must haue a preheminence aboue the rest ORTH. Whatsoeuer Christ promised that hee performed but he performed not the keyes to Peter with any preheminence aboue his fellows but alike to all therefore hee did not promise them to Peter by way of preheminence but to him with the rest PHIL. Did he not say I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose c. So they were promised to Peter in the singular number ORTHO Though these wordes bee of the singular number yet they were not spoken to Peter as he was Peter or a singular person but to Peter representing the person of the Church as the Fathers say according to the Scripture For when he said I will giue thee the keyes he added immediately by way of explication and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shall bee loosed in heauen Vpon which wordes Bellarmine saith thus The plaine sence of these wordes I will giue thee the keyes and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose is this that first there is promised an authoritie or a power signified by the keyes and then the actions or office is explained by these wordes to bind and to loose So that to loose and to open to shut and to bind is altogether the same But the Lord expressed the actions of the keyes by loosing and binding not by shutting and opening that we might vnderstand that all these speeches are metaphoricall and that heauen is then opened vnto men when they are loosed from their sinnes which hindered their entrance into heauen But the power of binding and loosing was giuen to all the Apostles by Christ in these wordes whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen PHIL. Cardinall Caietan thinketh that to open and to shut is of a larger extent then to bind and to loose ORTHOD. Bellarmine thinketh this more subtill then sound because there are no keyes in the Church sauing onely of Order and Iurisdiction both which are signified by the actions of binding and loosing as Caietan confesseth and Bellarmine proued before both by Fathers and Scripture PHIL. The power of binding and loosing is
whole Ecclesiasticall order the 2. a desolation of their country the 3. the impouerishing of the kingdome by wasting their treasure the 4. the ruine and subuersion of Churches The consideration of which things so preuailed with the King that Pope Pius was disapointed of his purpose PHIL. That which Pius could not performe in the daies of Lewis videlicet that the pragmaticall Sanction should be taken cleane away was afterward effected by Leo the 10. in the reigne of King Francis the first therefore in the councell of Lateran the pragmaticall Sanction was abrogated by a publique Decree ORTH. King Francis to vse the words of Duarenus made choice rather to serue the stage and the time with his owne profit as hee himselfe confesseth and remit somewhat of the publique right then to striue so oft with the Popes about this Helena especially seeing he perceiued that some danger from them did hang ouer his head Yet for al this the Sanction cannot be said to bee cleane taken away For the vniuersity of Paris did interpose an appeale to the next general councell which appeale stood with iustice equity for 3. reasons first because the fact of the king was not voluntary but by compulsion Secondly because the Parisians whom it must concerned were neither called nor heard Thirdly because there is no reason that the councell of Lateran and constitution of Leo should derogate from the authority of the councel of Basil. And if we should suppose that it did not onelie derogate from it but also abrogate it yet the verie constitution of Pope Leo yeeldeth to the King the power of nomination in these wordes VVhen a Cathedrall or Metropoliticall Church is vacant let not the Bishoppe bee chosen by the Colledge of Canons but let the King within sixe monethes offer and nominate a graue and fit man to the Pope Thus it is euident that the French Kings retained their right and authoritie in making of Bishoppes euer since their first embracing of the Christian faith And had they this by the indulgence of the Pope Let the Councell of Basill be witnesse let Charles the seuenth bee witnesse let the Court of Paris bee witnesse yea let King Francis himselfe who confessed that when hee went against the sanction hee remitted of the publique right be witnesse And thus much for France CHAP. XII Of the Election of the Bishops of England PHILOD COncerning England King Henry the first did pretend to challenge Inuestitures as vsed by his father and brother before him whereof yet notwithstanding wee finde no expresse proofe or example in any of our histories that they vsed them much lesse that they were lawfully granted vnto them ORTHOD. I will prooue both that they vsed them and that they vsed them lawfully That his brother William Rufus vsed them may appeare by William of Malmesbury who declareth that the King being sicke made mention of the Archbishopricke of Canterbury which was then voide and willed the Bishops to consider of it who answered that whom the King should thinke worthy they all would accept willingly Itaille cubito se attollens hunc ait sanctum virum Anselmum eligo ingenti subsecuto fragore fauentium so he raising himselfe vp vpon his elbowe saide I elect this holy man Anselmus whereupon followed a great applause Now that Bishoprickes in those dayes were giuen by deliuering of a ring and a staffe may appeare by Rafe Bishop of the South Saxons who being threatened by the same King baculum protendit annulum exuit vt si vellet acciperet held out his Crosier put off his ring that the King might take them if hee would intending thereby to resigne his Bishoprick That William the Conquerour vsed the like authoritie is also manifest by the same authour saying Nondum ille efflauerat cum a Gulielmo Rege Lanfrancus Cadomensis Abbas ad Archiepiscopatum electus est Stigandus had not yet breathed out his Ghost when Lanfranck Abbot of Saint Steuens in Cane was elected by King William the Conquerour to the Archbishoprick The like may be shewed before the Conquest where by the way let me tell you that wee stand not so much vpon the ring and the staffe as vpon the thing it selfe that is the Princes power and authoritie for which I will produce some examples as it were a few clusters of a great vintage beginning with Edward the Confessour of whom Malmsbury faith Rex Robertum quem ex Monacho Gemiticensi Londoniae fecerat Episcopum Archiepiscopum creauit the King Edward the Confessour created Robert Archbishop whom before of a Monke he had made Bishop of London And before that King Alfred made Asserio Bishop of Shierburne and Denewulfus Bishop of Winchester and more then two hundred yeeres before that Edelwalke King of the South Saxons promoted Wilfrid to an Episcopall See Thus it is euident that as in other Kingdomes so in England Inuestitures were anciently practised by Princes Wherefore King Henrie the first might haue challenged them not onely as vsed by his father and brother but also as the ancient custome of the Kingdome in the time of the Saxons Wherein onely this was the difference that in ancient time Princes vsed them without contradiction but now the Popes perceiuing that if Princes should haue the bestowing of them after the olde custome it would abate that power to which they themselues aspired beganne to spurne excommunicating both the giuers and takers This was done in the fifth and seuenth Romane Councels vnder Gregory the seuenth but Pope Vrban went further decreeing that not onely the giuers and takers but also all such as consecrated any man so promoted should bee excommunicate At this Councell Anselmus was present by whose aduise and perswasion the decree was made Whereupon when after the death of William Rufus King Henry the first not knowing of this decree much lesse imagining that it was concluded by the meanes of Anselmus had called him home hee well rewarded the kindnesse of so gracious a Prince for first hee would not bee induced to doe his homage to his Lord and Soueraigne was not this a good subiect did hee not well deserue to be canonized for a Saint then he refused to consecrate those whom the King did inuest to Bishoprickes by a staffe and a ring so the King commanded Gerard Archbishop of Yorke to performe that office as Malmsbury Matthew Paris and Roger Houeden doe testifie PHIL. But what followeth in the same authours William Gifford Elect of Winchester refused to receiue Consecration from him and was therefore by the king banished the land Rinelmus Elect of Hereford resigned his Bishopricke into the kings hands being troubled in conscience because hee receiued inuestiture from a lay Prince by occasion of which broiles the rest to whom the king had giuen inuestitures remained vnconsecrated ORTHOD. Whose fault was that not the kings who required no more then was confirmed
to the Emperours by 3. Popes with 3. Roman Councels practised commonly and anciently by all kings through the whole Christian world yeelded to his predecessours in the time of the Saxons vsed by his own father and brother and neuer denied in England before Anselmus began to broach the Hildebrandicall Doctrine PHIL. This cause was handled at Rome where the kings Proctour boldly affirmed that his master the king would not loose inuestitures for the losse of his kingdome to whom Pope Paschall answered if as thou saiest thy king will not indure to lose the donations of Churches for the losse of his kingdome knowe thou precisely I speake it before God that I would not suffer him to obtaine them without punishment for the redemption of my head Thus the cause was determined against the King ORTH. No maruell for the Pope was Iudge in his owne cause such a cause as was not a litle both for his pride and profit such a Pope as within 8. yeeres after periured himselfe in the like matter But notwithstanding the Popes determination the king disdaining to bee so deluded sent to Anselmus forbidding him to enter the land vnlesse he would obserue the customes of William the Conquerour and William Rufus so he was absent three yeeres PHIL. Yet at his returne he got a glorious victory for Edinerus writeth thus rex antecessorum suorum vsu relicto nec personas quae in regimen Ecclesiae sumebantur per se elegit nec eas per dationem virgae pastoralis Ecclesijs quibus praeficiebantur inuestiuit the king leauing the vse of his predecessours did neither himselfe elect such persons as were assumed to the gouernment of the Church nor inuested them to the Churches ouer which they were set by the deliuering of the pastorall staffe ORTHOD. Here is a cleare confession that inuestitures belonged to the king by the vse of his predecessours yet such was the violence and fury both of the Pope and the Archbishop that he thought good to redeeme his quiet by releasing of his ancient right PHIL. If he had any right he did yeeld it vp for Malmsbury saith Venit Rex sublimi trophaeo splendidus triumphali gloria Angliam inuectus inuestiturasque Ecclesiarum Anselmo in perpetuum in manum remisit The king came out of France glistering with a stately trophee entred England with triumphall glory and released the inuestitures of Churches to Anselmus into his hands for euer ORTHOD. True to Anselmus here was a finall and perpetuall end betweene them two neither did the king intermeddle any more in the matter while Anselmus liued but after his death Anno 1113. hee gaue the Archbishopricke to Rodolph Bishop of London and inuested him with a Ring and a Staffe and Anno 1123. he gaue the said Archbishopricke to William Corboll he gaue also the Bishopricke of Lincolne to Alexander the Bishopricke of Bath to Godfrid the Bishopricke of Worcester to Simon the Bishopricke of Cicester to Sifrid After the raigne of Henry the first though the Popes were still busie especially when the state was troubled or the king out of the Realme yet the succeeding Princes would not suffer themselues to bee robbed of this right and royaltie but from time to time put it in practise and maintained their prerogatiue King Edward the third told Pope Clement the fift That his progenitors and other noble and faithfull men had founded and indowed Churches and placed Ministers in them euer since the first planting of religion in the Realme of England and that the kings did of ancient time freely conferre Cathedrall Churches iure suo Regio by their Princely right so oft as they were vacant he doth not say by the Popes permission but by their princely right so the collation of Bishopricks is the ancient right of the kings of England Moreouer he told him that whereas now Deanes and Chapters elect this proceeded from the graunt of the kings at the request and instance of the Pope he doth not say from the graunt of the Pope but from the grant of the kings at the request of the Pope with which concordeth that famous act of Parliament made in the 25. of Edw. the third Our Soueraigne Lord the king and his heires shall haue and inioy for the time the collations to the Archbishoprickes and other dignities electiue which be of his aduowry such as his progenitors had before free election was granted Sith that the first elections were granted by the Kings progenitors vpon a certaine forme and condition as namely to demaund license of the King to chuse and after choice made to haue his royall assent And in the dayes of Richard the second statutum est saith Thomas Walsingam in eodem insuper Parliamento vt de caetero nullus transfreâ—aret ad obtinendum prouisiones in Ecclesijs vel Ecclesiam si quis contrarium faceret si posset apprehendi caperetur vt Regi rebellis incarceraretur A statute was made in the same Parliament that from henceforth none should passe the seas to obtaine prouisions in Churches or to obtaine any Church and if any should do contrary if he could be catched he should be apprehended as a rebell to the king and cast in prison The next yeere the same king set out a Proclamation that all such as were resident in the Court of Rome and had benefices in England should returne by the feast of S. Nicholas vnder paine of forfeiting all their benefices When the Pope heard all this thundering he sent a Nuncio with great complaints for answere wherof the king referred him to the Parliament following which would by no meanes consent that Rome-runners should get their benefices as in former time In the dayes of Henry the fift when the Pope by his bulles translated Richard of Lincolne to Yorke the Deane and Chapter standing vpon the lawes of the land refused to admit him as hereafter shall be declared Shall wee now say that the kings of England conferre spiritual promotions by the Popes indulgence let king Edward the first be witnesse let the Parliament in the raigne of Edward the third be witnesse let the like Parliament in the time of Richard the second be witnesse let the Deane and Chapter of Yorke be witnesse all which were of the Popish religion and yet referred this to the king and not to the Pope Hitherto that the kings of England vsed Inuestitures NOw I will prooue that they vsed them lawfully by a double right as Princes as Patrons As Princes for many reasons First if we looke into the old Testament we find that Salomon set Sadock in the roume of Abiathar by what authoritie Verely by the same by which he cast out Abiathar Which I haue already prooued to be done by the lawful and ordinary power of a Prince If this be a perpetuall patterne for all posteritie then the collation of spirituall dignities is the Princes right Secondly it was prophesied of
conscience are suerties for the freedome of their choice These are the sayings of the learned Bishop among which he interlaced a memorable example of Guntchrannus King of France who when one offered him money for a Bishoprick returned this answere It is not our Princely maner to sell Bishopricks for money neither is it your part to get them with rewards lest wee be infamed for silthy gaine and you compared to Simon Magus A fit Embleame for a Prince and worthy to be written in letters of Gold Most safely for how dangerous a thing it is to commit such matters to popular Elections the Primitiue Church had lamentable experience What vprores also followed the Elections by the Clergie alone let the longest Schisme that euer was in the Church of Rome testifie And for the Popes prouisions whereby hee hath incroached vpon the Princes right they haue bene such as haue giuen both Kings Nobles Clergie and people iust cause of lamentation But since the nomination rested in the Princes hands all tumults and grieuances Gods Name be blessed are vtterly extinguished Now I will adde a word or two of their singular moderation in this behalfe In ancient time our Kings had the collation before free Election was granted as was declared out of the Statute of Edward the 3. whereby it is manifest that they had then in themselues a plenarie power And though this were not without presidents of former ages yet as Charles the Great granted freedome of Elections vnto the Church so haue our Princes established the like by the Lawes of the land according to which they proceed most mildly and graciously doing all things agreeably to the patterne of famous Princes and laudable Canons of ancient Councels With vs the King hath the nomination of Bishops and so had good Theodosius as was plainely to bee seene in the aduancing of Nectarius With vs the Deane and Chapter make the election of their Bishop and so did the Presbyters of Alexandria in Saint Ieroms time which custome had continued there euer since the time of Saint Marke the Euangelist With vs the Deane and Chapter elect him whom the king hath nominated So the Clergie of Constantinople with the whole generall Councell there assembled did thinke it their duetie solemnely to elect Nectarius whom the Emperour had nominated With vs the electours signifie their election to the king humbly crauing his royall assent so the Romane Clergie 1000. yeeres agoe did vse to signifie their election to the Emperour that he might ratifie it by his Imperiall authority And because the ancient Canons giue the power of confirmation to the Metropolitane therefore our King granteth him a commission to confirme the election according to the Canon Finally with vs none can bee consecrated before the king giue commission by his letters pattents neither might the Bishops of Rome in ancient time till the Emperour gaue license and that as Onuphrius saith by his letters pattents Where yet I will confesse there was a difference because the Popes gaue money vnto the Emperour but our Bishops giue none vnto the King Thus much of elections CHAP. XIII How lamentable the State of England was when Bishopricks and Benefices were giuen by the Popes prouisions PHIL. WEE referre all men to the pondering of this one point specially amongst many concerning the nominations and elections of Bishops Abbats and other Prelats whether the world went not as well when such things passed by Canonicall election or the Popes prouision as it hath don since or euer hereafter is like to doe ORTHOD. Concerning the Popes prouisions this is most certaine that howsoeuer the Church of God was prouided for hee prouided for himselfe and licked his owne fingers For the demonstration whereof I will beginne with king Canutus who about the yeere of grace 1031. Returning from Rome wrote thus to the Archbishops Bishops and States of the Realme Conquestus sum iterum coram domino papa mihi valde displicere dixi quod mei Archiepiscopi in tantum angariebantur immensitate pecuniarum quae ab eis expetâ—bantur dum pro pallio accipiâ—ndo secundum morem sedem Apostolicam expeterent decretumque ne id deinceps fiat that is I complained againe before the Lord the Pope and told him that it displeased me much that my Archbishops were so much vexed with huge sums of money which were demaunded of them while for receiuing the palle they went according to custome to the See Apostolike and it was decreed that it should be so no more Here by the way you must vnderstand that a Palle is a little â—yppet three fingers broad made of the wool of two white Lambs which are offered vpoÌ„ the Altar of Saint Agnes while Agnus dei is sung in the solemn Masse and laied all night vpon the bodies of Peter and Paul vnder the great Altar from whence receiuing this vertue to containe the fulnesse of all pontificall power it becommeth the Ensigne of a Patriarch or Archbishop Which glorious ensigne who will weare Must fetch it farre and buy it deare In the daies of Henry the first when Anselmus was at Rome he made supplication to Pope Paschall the second for certaine Bishops and Abbats deposed whereupon saith Mathew Paris The most gentle See which vseth to bee wanting to none so they bring either white or red did mercifullie recall the said Bishops and Abbats and sent them with ioy to their owne Sees In the daies of Richard the first Hugh Bishop of Durham who of an old Bishop was become a young Earle hauing made a voluntary vow to goe to Ierusalem procured a dispensation from the Pope for which hee paied an infinit summe of money In the daies of the same king William Bishop of Ely was made Legat by a gentle Pope vpon the gentle consideration of a thousand pounds In the daies of king Iohn Pope Innocent the third went about to swallow all England and Ireland at a morsell For Hubertus Archbishop of Canterbury being dead the Monkes elected first Reinold their subprior and afterward at the kings request Iohn Gray Bishop of Norwich by means of which double election the Pope tooke occasion to disanull both charging the Canterb. Monkes then at Rome vnder paine of a curse to chuse Steuen Langton a Cardinal which they did and brought him vnto the Altar with a Te deum The king proclamed those Monkes traytors the rest that lurked at Canterb hee prescribed and banished he forbad Steuen Langton to come into England and confiscated the goods and lands both of the Archbishoprik of the Church of Canterb whereupon the Pope authorised certaine Bishops to interdict the kingdome excommunicated the king set out a sentence declaratory to depriue him and committed the execution of it to Philip the French king By which papall meanes bereaft of the loue of his people abandoned of his nobles hated of his Clergie forsaken of his friends behold hee
though Christ saith S. Gregorie liuing immortally now dieth not yet hee dieth in this mysterie and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people That is saith the Glosse his death and Passion is represented And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences that that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And Bellarmine granteth that Thomas and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere that it is called an oblation because it is a representation of the oblation PHIL. Peter Lombard when he asketh the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing as though he had asked Whether that which the Priest doth be a killing of Christ and answereth most rightly that Christ was truely offered that is slaine but once and that now he is not properly offered that is slaine but only in a Sacrament and representation ORTHOD. First I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill Secondly neither will this shift serue his turne for if the Priest doe not so he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed as is before declared out of Bellarmine PHIL. THe Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse against all those which deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse And they haue reason for as the Apostles so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church were Masse-Priests For S. Ambrose testifieth That imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may bee bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords stead ORTHOD. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying Quid ergo nos nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed recordationem facientes mortis eius That is What therefore doe we doe we not offer dayly truely wee offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe Ipsum semper offerimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur That is Wee offer him alwayes or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice PHIL. S. Chrysostome saith In many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ euery where being full and perfect both here and there ORTHOD. S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place Wee offer him saith he or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice Where by the way you may see that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome PHIL. S. Augustine saith That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium sanctum sanctorum quod corpus eius est That is Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies which is his body was not yet instituted And elsewhere Quid gratius offerri aut suscipi posset quà m caro sacrificij nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri That is What can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the body of our Priest being made the flesh of our Sacrifice And Cyrill Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like ORTHOD. Then the answering of Austine will be the answering of all Now what his meaning was let himselfe declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a sacrament not onely at all the solemnities at Easter but euery day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ the sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith And elsewhere The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascâ—nded PHIL. YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church For the Nicen Councell in that Canon which Caluine and all other receiue saith plainely That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily is layde vpon the holy Table ORTHOD. The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world is layd vpon the holy Table not substantially but Sacramentally PHIL. But the Councell meaneth substantially for they say It is come by relation to the holy Councell that in certaine places and Cities the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliuered this That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it Where you may see that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ but they plainely describe a Priest by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power ORTHOD. Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel then those which were present and subscribed vnto it One whereof was Eusebius PHIL. Very true and hee telleth how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall Consecrations Who were these but Masse-priests and what were the vnbloody sacrifices but the sacrifice of the Masse for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily ORTHOD. Let Eusebius expound Eusebius Christ hauing offered himselfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in stead of a sacrifice Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice And this remembrance hee thus describeth VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table He calleth it not a sacrifice but a remembrance celebrated not by the substance of his Body and Blood but by the signes and that not vpon an Altar but vpon a Table and this he calleth an vnbloodie sacrifice as appeareth by his owne words And pleasing God well wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices and reasonable and acceptable to him So it is as cleere as the noone day that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice but expoundeth the
is no remission of sinne properly except onely by grace but to giue grace proceedeth from an infinite power whereof man is not capable and therefore no man can forgiue sins properly And if you be not yet perswaded how generally this is receiued I will let you see it by the words of Suarez the Iesuite Fuit grauium doctorum opinio per â—anc potestatem non posse remitti peccatorum culpas sed solum declarari remissas remitti paenas in hoc vltimo est quaedam diuer sitas Nam quidam dixerunt hanc potestatem solùm esse ad â—â—â—â—ttendam paenam temporalem alij vero ad aeternam i. It was the opinion of graue Doctours that by this power the sinners offences are not remitted but onely declared to be remitted and that the punishments are remitted and in this last point there is some diuersitie for some said that this power is onely for the remission of temporall punishment others for eternall And he saith that the former opinion is maintained by the master Altisiodorensis Alex. de Hales Bonauenture Gabriel Maior Thomas de Argent Occam Abulensis and others MOreouer Bonauenture writing of the miracles which were done by the intercession of Saint Francis after his death telleth of a certaine woman which when she was ready to be put into the graue was by vertue of his prayers restored from death to life to that end shee might reueale in confession a certaine sinne which she neuer had confessed before Which Bellarmine relateth as an argument to prooue that auricular confession is approued by God himselfe If you beleeue this lying Legend that the woman was shriuen after her death then you may like wise beleeue that the Priest absolued her For by what reason could he denie her absolution if God raised her by miracle to make confession Now I would demaund whether this woman dyed in the state of damnation or saluation if in state of damnation then the priest could neither iustifie her nor declare her to be iustified because they which die in their sinnes shall perish in their sinnes but if she dyed in the state of saluation and yet was raised by miracle to confesse some sinne for the clearing of others or for some other reason we know not then the Priest did not properly forgiue her sinnes but onely pronounce that they were forgiuen I will close vp this point with a memorable saying of Ferus vpon these wordes Whose sinnes you forgiue c. Non quod homo propriè remittit peccatum sed quod ostendat ac certificet a deo remissum neque enim aliud est absolutio quam ab homine accipis quam si dicat En fi lt certifico te tibi remissa esse peccata annuncio tibi te habere propitium deum quaecunque Christus in Baptismo Euangelio nobis promisit tibi nunc per me annunciat promittit i. Not that man doth properly forgiue sinne but that he sheweth and certifieth that it is forgiuen of God for the absolution which thou receiuest from man is nothing else then if hee should say Behold my son I certifie thee that thy sins are forgiuen I declare vnto thee that thou hast God fauourable and what thing soeuer Christ hath promised vs in baptisme and in the Gospel he now declareth and promiseth to thee by me WHerefore seing we haue in our ordination these words receiue the holy Ghost and take them in the true sence according to the Scripture the consciences of our aduersaries bearing vs witnesse we conclude that the Church of England hath such an absolution as Christ hath left vnto his spouse consisting in the publike and priuate vse of the word and Sacraments CHAP. X. An answere to the arguments of Bellarmine by which he goeth about to prooue absolution to be iudiciall and not declaratory PHIL. THat Christ gaue vnto his Church a true iudiciall power to absolue with authority and consequently that Priests are not onely as heraulds to proclaime and declare but also as iudges in the Court of conscience truely and really to forgiue sinnes Cardinall Bellarmine hath proued by seuen arguments fiue wherof are collected out of the Scripture the sixt is drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers and the seuenth from reason all which I will prosecute in order The first is collected from the Metaphor of the keyes of which it is said I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen For a key vseth not to be made or giuen to signifie that the doore is open or shut but to open and shut it indeed Now that which was promised by the keyes was performed in that place of Iohn and therefore here he gaue them power not onely to declare vnto men that their sinnes are forgiuen but also to forgiue them indeed ORTHOD. As Adam for his sinne was shut out of Paradise so all his posterity proceeding from him by carnall generation considered in their naturall corruption are shut and locked out of heauen into which no vncleane thing can enter For as the Prophet saith Your iniquities haue made a separation betweene you and your God Neither is there any hope of saluation vnlesse the kingdome of heauen bee vnlocked againe But what is the key to open this locke There is a threefold key the first of authoritie the second of excellency and the third of Ministery The key of authoritie belongeth onely to God For seeing euery sinne is a transgression of Diuine law he only hath soueraigne authoritie to remit it against whom it is committed and when he doth remit it then he setteth open the gates of heauen The key of excellency belongeth onely to Christ God and man who by his most soueraigne sacrifice hath made satis faction to God the Father purchased an eternall redemption for vs and meritoriously opened the kingdome of heauen to all beleeuers The key of Ministery was giuen to the Apostles aud their successours to whom was committed the Ministery of reconciliation Which is well expressed by S. Ambrose saying Homines in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent non ius alicuius potestatis exercent neque enim in suo sed in patris filij spiritus sanctinomine peccata dimittunt isti rogant diuinitas donat humanum enim obsequium sed munificentia supernae est potestatis i. Men doe performe a seruice or Ministery for the forgiuenesse of sinnes but they doe not exercise the authoritie of any power for they doe not forgiue sins in their owne name but in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost They make request the dietie bestoweth the gift An office or seruice is performed by man but the bountiful gift is from supernal power This supernall power is the key of authoritie this humane office is the key of Ministery For as a key is made and giuen to open the doore indeed So God gaue the key
of Ministery vnto his stewards to open the doore of heauen indeed But how not by authority as God the Father nor by excellencie as God the Son but by a ministeriall forgiuenes of sins which is not to be restrained onely to the hearing of priuate confessions as though in that one point lay all the vertue and vse of the Keyes but consisteth in reuealing and applying the merits of Christ publikely and priuately to the soule and conscience and in assuring those that beleeue and repent of their eternall saluation Now whereas you say that a Key is not giuen to signifie or declare that the doore is open it is true Yet you may know that similitudes must not be extended to euery circumstance it is sufficient if there be a correspondencie in the maine point What though a Key cannot declare that the doore is open Yet it is the Ministers duety to declare that heauen is opened to all that beleeue and repent and this very declaring is an effectuall meanes of opening it indeed For as when Christ vnfolded the Scriptures the hearts of the two Disciples did burne within them so when the Ministers declare the glad tidings of the Gospel God kindleth faith and repentance in the hearts of his chosen and when they doe beleeue and repent then the Minister may safely pronounce the forgiuenesse of their sinnes by the Blood of Iesus Christ. Thus he is Gods effectuall instrument to accomplish it and his Herald to proclaime it PHIL. Keyes vse to be giuen to Magistrates to signifie that they haue power to locke and vnlocke the gates of the Citie ORTHOD. And Christ gaue the Keyes to his Ministers to signifie that they haue a Ministeriall power to locke and vnlock the kingdome of heauen PHIL. VVhen it is said of Christ he hath the Key of Dauid he openeth and no man shutteth he shutteth and no man openeth all men vnderstand by the Key a true power and properly so called by which Christ may absolue and binde by iudiciall authoritie and not signifie or declare who is bound or loosed Wherefore seeing Christ doth communicate his Keyes with the Apostles and their successours they also shall haue true power to bind and loose by iudiciall authoritie ORTHOD. First your owne men distinguish betweene the Key of excellencie and the Key of Ministerie Secondly euen those things which are most proper vnto Christ are ascribed to his Ministers as for example the saluation of mens soules For S. Paul saith to Timothy In doing this thou shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee In like maner they may be said to forgiue sinnes and open the Kingdome of heauen But this is spoken by a figure whereby that which belongeth to the principall agent is ascribed to the instrument And that no marueile seeing a man by turning from wickednes and doing that which is right is said to saue his owne soule PHIL. A second Argument may be collected from the Metaphor of binding and loosing which doth not signifie to declare that one is bound or loosed but to lay on or take off bonds and fetters indeed ORTHOD. This is in effect the same with the former therefore I referre you to the former answere PHIL. A third Argument may be drawne from this very place of S. Iohn For Christ expresly giueth them power not only to forgiue sinnes but also to retaine Retinere autem quid est nisi nolle remittere i. What is it to retaine but to be vnwilling to forgiue therefore remission is denied to them whom the Priest will not forgiue ORTHOD. True if the will of the Priest be guided by the rules of true Religion For he should be vnwilling to forgiue none but onely those that are vnbeleeuing and vnrepentant from absoluing of whom he should be so farre that it is his duety to denounce Gods wrath and iudgment against them if they continue obstinate PHIL. The Lord saith not Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they were forgiuen which he would haue said if by remission he had meant declaration but he saith They are forgiuen because Christ doeth ratifie the sentence which the Priest pronounceth in his Name ORTHOD. But the Priest must absolue no man sauing those whom God hath first absolued as you heard before and is plainely deliuered by Pope Gregorie Quos omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam visitat illos pastoris sententia absoluat Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidētis cum aeterni arbitrium sequitur iudicis i. Let the sentence of the Pastour absolue them whom Almighty God doth visit with the grace of compunction for then is the absolution of the Spirituall ruler a true absolution when hee followeth the will of the Eternall Iudge And againe Nos debemus per Pastoralem authoritatem soluere quos authorem nostrum cognoscimus per suscitantem gratiam viuificare i. Wee ought absolue those by our Pastorall authority whom we know that our Authour Christ Iesus hath reuiued with his quickening grace Otherwise his absolution is vaine For as the Legall Priest did not properly cleanse the Leper yet he is said to cleanse him because hee declared him cleane whom the Lord had cleansed so the Euangelicall Priest though hee doe not properly absolue from sinnes yet hee is said to absolue because he declareth him absolued whom the Lord hath absolued Wherefore the meaning of Christs words is this Whose sinnes you forgiue that is whose sinnes according to the rules of my Gospel you shal pronounce to be forgiuen they are forgiuen That is they are so certainly forgiuen that the sentence you pronounce in earth shall be ratified in Heauen as it is written Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heauen So here are three things First God the Father for Christs sake forgiueth sinnes Secondly the Minister declareth that God hath forgiuen them Thirdly this declaratory sentence is ratified in Heauen PHIL. A fourth Argument may be drawne from this word Quorum in this maner The Gospel is preached indefinitely to all men But it is not the will of God that this absolution should be giuen to all men but to certaine persons only whom the Priest iudgeth fit as appeareth by these words Quorum peccata c. Whose sinnes you forgiue c. ORTHOD. The Gospel is preached generally and indefinitely to all men Whosoeuer beleeueth and repenteth shall be saued yet so that in the generall is included this particular If thou beleeue and repent thou shall be saued Now a mans conscience sanctified by the Holy Ghost doth say I beleeue and repent Therefore to him the generall promise of the Gospel is made particular by particular application and to such onely making a sincere profession of their faith and repentance the Minister ought to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes PHIL. A fift Argument may be drawne from
Christs breathing For as in the second of the Acts hee gaue the Spirit in the forme of tongues Because then hee gaue them the gift of preaching so here he gaue it by breathing because hee gaue them the gift of forgiuing of sinnes not by preaching as you dreame but plainely by quenching and dissoluing them For as the winde doth quench the fire and scater the clouds so the absolution of the Priest doth scatter sinnes and maketh them to vanish according to which Metaphor we read in Esay I haue blotted out thy sinnes as a cloud ORTHOD. Christ did breath to signifie that this heauenly gift proceeded from himselfe and therefore our Bishops when they vtter these words doe not breath because they are not Authors of this spiritual power but only Gods delegates and assignes to giue men possession of his graces Moreouer Christ by breathing did signifie that none was fit for this heauenly function but such as he enabled with his spirit and also that this holy spirit should assist his ministers in the dispelling of sins Neither is the place of Esay for your purpose when the sky is darkned with clouds and mists the Lord sendeth a wind out of his treasure house whereby they are scattered the skie cleared and the golden beames of the sunne restored euen so when the poore soule and conscience is ouercast with clouds of sin and mists of sorrow God by his holy spirit concurring with his blessed word bringeth men to faith and repentance and so forgiueth their sins that he will neuer remember them any more But what is this to your Popish absolution PHIL. THe sixth argument is drawne from the authority of the Fathers and first of Chrysostome out of whose third booke of Priesthood our learned Cardinall produceth sixe places the first where it is said that God hath giuen such power to those that are in earth as it was not his will to giue either to Angels or Archangels for it was not said vnto them what soeuer you bind in earth shal bee bound in heauen but surely the Angels may declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen therfore in the iudgement of Chrysostome power is giuen vnto the Priest truely to bind and loose and not by way of declaration ORTHOD. Though the Angels being ministring spirits may when it pleaseth the Lord declare vnto men that if they beleeue their sins are forgiuen aswel as the Angel said to Cornelius b Thy prayers thy almes are come vp into remembrance before God yet this is rare and extraordinary but the Priest doth it by his ordinary office in which regard Chrysostome hath reason to say that such power is giuen to Priests as is neither giuen to Angels nor Archangels PHIL. Chrysostome proceedeth and telleth how earthly Princes haue power To bind the body only but the Priests bond toucheth the soule and reacheth vnto heauen Now earthly Princes doe not declare who is bound or loosed but bind or loose their bodies indeed and therefore the Priests in binding and loosing of soules doe not declare who are bound or loosed but by authority in the roome of Christ doe bind or loose them indeed if the comparison of Chrysostome be of any value ORTHO He compareth them in respect of the obiects not in respect of the manner the obiect of the Princes bond is the body the obiect of the Priest is the soule but doth follow because the Prince doth bind or loose the body properly that therfore binding or loosing of the soule is attributed in the like propriety of speech vnto the Priest PHIL. Chrysostome vpon these words whose sins you retaine they are retained saith What power I pray you can be greater then this but it is no great matter to declare that sins are forgiuen to the beleeuers and retained to the vnbeleeuers For any man may perfourme it which can read the Gospell neither Priests onely but the layity also neither Catholikes onely but Heretikes also yea and the diuells themselues ORTHOD. It is no great matter to pronounce the words but the excellency of the Ministery consisteth in this that they doe it ex officio and that according to Gods owne ordinance therefore in the reuerend performance therof they may expect a comfortable blessing PHIL. Chrysostome saith The Father hath giuen al maner of power to his sonne and I see the same power in all variety giuen to them by the sonne but the Father did not giue to the sonne a bare ability to declare the Gospell but by authority to forgiue sinnes therefore the like is giuen to the Priests ORTHOD. The power which the Father gaue to Christ conteineth all power in heauen and in earth but I hope you will not say that Christ gaue all power in heauen and earth to his disciples therefore the words of Chrysostome need a gentle interpretation and must not bee taken litterally as they sound but for a rhetoricall amplification Againe the power to forgiue sins is giuen to Christ and to his Disciples but not in the same manner for God the Father forgiueth sinnes by not imputing them Christ God and Man meritoriously the Ministers onely Ministerially as you heard before PHIL. Chrysostome compareth a Priest not with the kings Herald which only declareth what is done but with one who hath power to east into prison and deliuer out of prison how could he more openly declare that the Priests power is truly iudiciall ORTH. The Herald only proclaimeth the kings pardon and is no instrument to effect it but the minister so proclaimeth saluation by Iesus Christ that he is Gods instrument to worke it so the ministeriall declaration is not a bare but an effectuall declaration that mens sinnes are forgiuen For first the Law must bee effectually preached to humble the soule then the Gospell must bee effectually applied to kindle true faith And as the Minister is Gods effectuall instrument in working so he is his Ambassadour effectually to minister comfort to the penitent soule Yet for all this he doth not forgiue sinnes properlie but onely ministerially The like is to bee said of his deliuering the soules of men out of prison For that it cannot bee meant properly may appeare by the other branch because the Minister doth not properly cast any man into the spirituall prison but the wicked being already imprisoned and â—ettered with the chaine of their owne sins and refusing the light of the Gospel when it shines vnto them the sweet mercies of God in Iesus Christ are said to bee bound by a Priest because hee retaineth that is pronounceth that they are tied and bound with the chaines of darkenesse and denounceth the iudgements of God against them so long as they remaine impenitent PHIL. Chrysostome makes an other comparison betweene the legall Priests and the Euangelicall for the Legall did purge the leprosie of the body or rather not purge it but examine those that were purged But
it is granted to our Priests not to purge the leprosie of the body but the spots of the soule I doe not say to examine them being purged but altogether to purge them In this place to vse the words of Cardinall Bellarmine Saint Chrysostome doth so plainely condemne the opinion of our aduersaries that nothing at all can be answered for them ORTHOD. Doth the Priest altogether purge the spots of the soule then it seemeth when the penitent is presented before the Priest his soule is spotted but by vertue of the Priestes absolution the spots are presently washed away but I pray you tel me whom doth the Priest forgiue and absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued or him whom the Lord hath not absolued if the Priest absolue him whom the Lord hath absolued then hee doth not altogether purge the spot of the soule no nor properly purge them at all but onely declare that the Lord hath purged them If you say that the Priest absolueth him whom the Lord hath not absolued then hee shall bee forgiuen whom the Lord hath not forgiuen which is most absurd Againe doeth the Priest before hee pronounce absolution see any tokens of faith and repentance If hee see none then how dare he pronounce absolution and if hee see any then the party is already purged Whereby it appeareth that the absolution of the ministerie is onely declaratorie Therefore the speech of Chrysostome cannot bee taken properly but his meaning must bee this that the Priest seeing him brought by the ministery of the Gospell to faith and repentance and consequently purged certifieth his conscience that he is altogether purged and his sinnes washed away by the blood of Iesus Christ. PHIL. GRegorie Nazianzen saith that the law of Christ hath subiected temporall gouernours to his authoritie and throne and that his power is more ample and perfect then theirs ORTHOD. The Prince as supreame gouernour may by his royall authoritie establish true religion command both Priest and people to doe their dutie and punish those which doe otherwise by temporall punishments but the ministration of the Word Sacraments and the exercising of spirituall censures belong to the Bishop and as the prelate ought to bee subiect to the sword in the hand of the Prince so a vertuous Prince submitteth himselfe to the word of God in the mouth of the prelate But doth this prooue that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Ambrose proueth that Christ gaue to the Priests power to forgiue sinnes and it is plaine that he speaketh of true power and not of the ministerie of preaching both because the Nouatians did not denie that the Gospell might be preached to all men but they denied that the Priest might forgiue sinnes by authoritie and also because Saint Ambrose saith that Christ hath communicated to the Priests that power which he himselfe hath ORTHOD. The Nouatians did thinke that the Church had authoritie to bind but not to loose as may appeare by S. Ambrose in the same place And S. Cyprian being requested by Antonianus to vnfould the heresie of Nouatian sheweth that hee denied that such as were fallen should be admitted any more into the Church Baronius saith that he grew to such rashnesse as to deny that the remission of sinnes which is in the Apostles Creed was to be found in the Church Therfore as they denied that Priests might forgiue sinnes by authoritie so they denied that they might forgiue sinnes by way of declaration for they denied that there was any forgiuenesse of sinnes in the Church Wherefore Saint Ambrose in confuting the Nouatians hath no more confuted our opinion then hee hath confuted yours PHIL. SAint Ierom speaking of Priests saith Claues regni caelorum habentes quodam modo ante diem iudicij iudicant i. hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement S. Austin expounding these wordes I saw seates and them that sate vpon them and iudgement was giuen them saith thus Wee must not thinke that this is spoken of the last iudgement but the seates of prelates and prelates themselues by whom the Church is now gouerned are to be vnderstood neither can we better apply it to any iudgement giuen then to that of which it is said whatsoeuer you bind in earth shall be bound in heauen Whereupon the Apostle saith what is it to me to iudge of them that are without doe not you iudge of them that are within ORTHOD. According to Saint Ierom the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose as the Leuitical Priests did make the lepers cleane and vncleane Which in his iudgement was not properly but because they had the knowledge of leprous and not leprous and should discerne who was cleane and vncleane This is that which Saint Ierom meaneth when hee saith they iudge after a sort before the day of iudgement which kind of iudgement wee acknowledge PHIL. In iudgement there are two things causae cognitio sententiae dictio the knowledge of the cause and the pronouncing of the sentence Haue you these two ORTHOD. Wee haue for first the partie maketh a profession of his faith and repentance vnto the Minister here is causae cognitio and then the Minister by the authoritie which Christ hath committed vnto him pronounceth forgiuenesse of his sinnes here is sententiae dictio This is the practise of the Church of England agreeable to the law of God and the ancient Fathers But if by causae cognitio you meane a particular enumeration of all their sinnes as a matter necessarie to saluation and by sententiae dictio vnderstand such a sentence as imposeth workes of penance satisfactorie to God when you can proue them out of the Scripture we will embrace them in the meane time wee knowe them not Hitherto of Saint Ierom. The same answere also may serue for the place of Saint Austin if he meane the same iudgement PHIL. POpe Innocent the first saith De pondere aestimando delictorum sacerdotis est iudicare c. 1. It is the office of the Priest to iudge what sinnes are to be esteemed heauiest ORTHOD. He must discerne the deepenesse of the wound before hee can apply the medicine But how doth this prooue the point in question to wit that the Priest forgiueth sinnes properly PHIL. SAint Gregorie saith principatum superni iudicij sortiuntur vt vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant quibusdam relaxent i. the Disciples obtaine a principalitie of iudgement from aboue that they may in Gods stead retaine the sinnes of some and release the sinnes of others ORTHOD. They are iudges to discerne sinne that so they may applie the medicine according to the qualitie of the offenders yea wee doe not deny but the Church may enioyne an outward penance for the further mortifying of sinne testifying their inward remorse and for the more ample satisfaction both of