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 Those Decretals are out of date They haue long shrowded themselues vnder the vizard of reuerent antiquity but now they are vnmasked and appeere to bee counterfeit as is confessed by your owne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
some pernicious errour as for example If they deny the Godhead of the Sonne or of the holy Ghost shall this hinder the validitie of the Baptisme PHIL. No for you must consider that there is a visible Priest and an inuisible It is required to the substance of Baptisme that the visible Priest apply water to the baptized In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost If he faile in any of these points the Baptisme is frustrate And therefore it was decreed in the great Councell of Nice that the Paulianists should be rebaptized where they take the word rebaptised improperly meaning that the former was not performed in the true wordes and therefore was in deed no Baptisme But if it were duely performed in water with such words as Christ hath appointed their priuate opinions and misconstruction cannot hinder the validitie of the Baptisme Satis ostendimus saith S. Austin ad Baptismum qui verbis Euangelicis consecratur non pertinere cuiusquam vel dantis vel accipientis errorem siue de Patre siue de Filio siue de Spiritu sancto aliter sentiat quam coelesiis doctrina insinuat i. We haue sufficiently declared that to the Baptisme which is consecrated with Euangelicall words pertaineth not the errour of any man either of the giuer or of the receiuer whether he thinke otherwise then the heauenly doctrine teacheth of the Father or of the Sonne or of the holy Ghost For whosoeuer be the Minister Christ the inuisible Priest is the principall Baptizer and therefore if the right Element and forme of words be vsed we regard not the erronious sense of the seruant but the true sense of the Lord and Master ORTHOD. So I say to you there is a visible Bishop and an inuisible if the visible shall impose hands vpon a capable person vsing those Euangelicall words which Christ hath sanctified his owne priuate opinions cannot hinder the validitie of the Ordination for so that right and sufficient words be vsed we will not respect the erronious construction of the seruant but the true sense and meaning of the Lord and Master Therefore though Cranmer and Parker were ordained in the rite of the Church of Rome though both the ordainers gaue the power and the ordained receiued it in the erronious sense of the Church of Rome yet neither the error of the ordainers nor of the ordained pertaineth to the Ordination As Christ is the chiefe Baptizer so he is the chiefe Ordainer for hee giueth Pastours and teachers for the consummation of the Saints Wherefore when God vouchsafed to take away the scales of ignorance from the eyes of his blessed instruments which he vsed in the reformation of Religion it was their duetie not to follow the erronious sense of the visible Bishop but the true meaning of the inuisible Bishop who was the authour of these holy and admirable words Receiue the holy Ghost c. In which words of Christ that was accomplished which was promised by the keyes which keyes the Fathers call the knowledge of the Scripture the interpretation of the Law the word of God And Pope Adrian the key of ministery so whosoeuer is ordained by these words receiueth the keyes and may open the kingdome of heauen by the Word and Sacraments Wherfore seeing these words were retained in the Ordination of Priests euen in the darkenesse of Poperie it followeth that the Church of Rome had power by these words rightly vnderstood according to the Scripture to minister the word and Sacraments But that which in it selfe was lawfull to them was made vnlawfull by adding the abhomination of sacrifising and by wresting the words of Christ to their Popish shrift Thus though the Church of Rome gaue her Priests authority to preach the truth yet she did not reueale the truth vnto them but plunged them in ignorance and errors Therefore whereas those words of Christ in themselues a Rose by corruption of time were ouergrowne with nettles those heroicall spirits which reformed religion did weede away the Romane nettles and so there remained onely the sweet Rose of Iesus Christ. Thus it came to passe that that which was practised in the Church of Rome vnlawfully as beeing polluted with wicked humane inuentions was by the goodnesse of God purged and restored to the orient colour and natiue purity To conclude in the primitiue Church the ministeriall power was receiued purely and deliuered purely In the beginning of Popery it was receiued purely and deliuered corruptly During the sway of Popery it was receiued corruptly and deliuered corruptly In the beginning of the reformation it was receiued corruptly and deliuered purely Now in the sun shine of the Gospell it is receiued purely and deliuered purely Thus it appeareth that although we receiued our Orders from such as were Popish Priests yet our calling is lawfull which was to be declared Now the Lord of his mercy so blesse his owne ordinance that we may vse this holy function to his glory and the winning of many thousand soules Amen LAVS DEO ¶ AN APPENDIX WHen this worke had almost passed the Presse there came to my hands certaine scandalous Bookes made by our Popish aduersaries reproching the Consecrations of some Bishops of blessed memory Who in their life time powred out such precious ointment as still filleth the Church with the sweetnes of the odour Among which Iewels Bishop Iewell is first produced who like another Shammah stood in the middest of the field and defended it and slew the Philistims so the Lord gaue great victory In regard wherof they being filled with malice and enuie and not beeing able with dint of Argument to encounter him and the rest of his fellow Souldiers those worthies of Dauid which fought the Lords battels haue sought by all meanes to disgrace their Calling disgorging their poison against them without any respect of conscience or truth in these opprobrious and scurrilous words Of M. Iewels being Bishop we haue not so much certaintie yea we haue no certaintie at all For who I pray you made him who gaue him his Iurisdiction who imposed hands vpon him what Orders had they what Bishops were they 136. True it is that both he Sands Scory Horne Grindall and others if I mistake not their names in the beginning of the Reigne of Queene Elizabeth met at the Horse-head in Cheape side a fit signe for such a Sacrament and being disappointed of the Catholicke Bishop of Landaffe who should there haue bene to Consecrate them they vsed the like art that the Lollards once did in another matter who being desirous to eate flesh on Good-Friday and yet fearing the penalties of the Lawes in such cases appointed tooke a Pigge and diuâ—ng him vnder the water said Downe Pigge and vp Pike And then after constantly auouched that they had eaten no flesh but fish So I say these graue Prelates assembled as afore said seeing the Bishop whom they expected
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
ordinare Episcopum in nostris Prouincijs c. If two presume to ordaine a Bishop in our Prouinces it pleaseth vs to decree concerning those presumptuous persons that if it shall any where happen that two Bishops shall make a Bishop against his will the authors being condemned he which suffred violence shal be substituted in the Church of one of them if his life be answerable and that another neuerthelesse be ordeined in the place of the other being cast out If two shall make a Bishop with his consent then he also shall be condemned to the end that those things which were instituted by antiquitie may be obserued more warily Here are two Cases for the ordained was either vnwilling or willing If vnwilling he enioyed the Bishopprick because he was not consenting to the breach of the Canon If he were willing then he also was condemned put from the Bishopprick which was not for want of receiuing the Episcopall power for if two Bishops could confer it to one against his wil vndoubtedly they could giue it to one that was willing But the first is confessed by the Councell in that they allow him and giue him a Bishoppricke where he may exercise his Episcopall function therefore the latter was not then doubted of But though both had receiued alike power in their ordination yet the innocent was allowed the offender reiected for discipline sake PHIL. This Canon is chaffe ORTH. If Gratian meane this then hee hath fouly mangled it but that you may know that this is no chaffe you shall heare your owne famour Baronius Nobilus quidem c. Truely this is to be called a most noble Synod being adorned with a garland of most famous Prelates And againe Florebant quidem c. Truely the said Prouinces of France if any other coasts of the Christian world did flourish at this time with Bishops both most holy and most learned by whose painfull vigilancie the Ecclesiasticall Lawes remained in their strength And againe Tot igitur c. Therefore so many most famous Prelates made the Councel of Orenge famous and glorious in all things although it consisted of a small assemblie of Bishops And least a man should wonder at this rare commendation he rendreth his reason Porro vt tot insignes c. Moreouer that there should be found in the same Prouinces so many men notable for learning and godlinesse the cause may seeme to be the most famous Monasterie of Iusula Lerinensis the land next adioyning being a Seminary of most holy Bishops Which he further extolleth by the verses of Sydonius Apollinarius To Baronius we will adioyne Binius who vseth to gather stickes vnder Baronius his hedge Haec Synodus Clarissimorum c. This was a most noble Synod beautified with a crowne of most noble Prelates In it fifteene Bishops of the Prouince of Lyons Marbona meeting after their maner made 29 Canons concerning the lawes and discipline of the Church Wherefore by the iudgement of this most noble Synod it is apparant that he may be a Bishop which is Consecrated onely by two and therefore three are not required of absolute necessity Hitherto of the Councels Now let vs consider examples of antiquitie DIoscorus Patriarch of Alexandria was consecrated onely by two and yet was acknowledged to haue sufficient Episcopall power The former point is testified by the Bishops of Pontus in a Synodall Epistle Ordinationem suam adamnatis Episcopis hoc duobus accepit i. He receiued his ordination of Bishops condemned and that onely of two The latter may appeare by the Councell of Chalcedon in the Acts whereof he is vsually styled The most Reuerend Bishop of Alexandria yea that title is giuen him by Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum his accuser by the Emperour Theodosius and by the Councell it selfe in a Synodall Epistle And as they acknowledge him for a Bishop so they allow of Anatolius whom he did consecrate as may appeare by the words of Tharasius vttered in the seuenth generall Councell Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said what say you of Anatolius was he not a Prince of the fourth Synod Yet he was created Bishop by Dioscorus and that Eutyches being present therefore let vs also receiue the ordained of Hereticks in like maner as Anatolius was receiued Yea he was approued and receiued into Communion by Pope Leo the first approued in these words Leo Episcopus Anatolio Episcopo receiued into Communion in these words in qua Communionis integritate societatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur i. in which soundnesse of Communion we embrace the fellowship of your loue Now seeing Anatolius was acknowledged for a Bishop by a Pope and two generall Councels you must needes confesse that Dioscorus who ordained him was likewise a Bishop although hee were not consecrated by three NOw let vs crosse the Mediterranean Sea and passe from Alexandria to Rome And here what thinke you of Pelagius the first was not hee a true and lawfull Bishop PHIL. He is commended by Pope Adrian and generally put into the Catalogue ORTHO But Pope Pelagius was not consecrated by three as appeareth by Anastasius whose wordes are registred both by Baronius and Binius Et dum non essent Episcopi qui cum ordinarent inuenti sunt duo Episcopi Iohannes de perusio Bonus de ferentino Andreas presbyter de Ostia eum ordinauerunt Episcopum Vpon which place Binius saith When Pelagius had approued the fift Synod he so greatly offended all the Westerne Bishops that he could not find sufficient Prelates of which he might be ordained according to the Apostolicall constitution and so it was necessary that at the Command of Pelagius a Priest of Ostia which had neuer happened before should performe the office in stead of a Bishop Heere is a cleare confession that a Bishop of Rome in case of necessitie was consecrated only by two Bishops and a Priest And yet it appeareth by the same place of Anastasius that he ordained in his time 26. Priests and 49. Bishops Now if three Bishops be required of absolute necessitie then there was a nullity in his Consecration and consequently in all the Consecrations deriued from him and so there will follow a world of nullities in the Church of Rome or if there be no nullitie in his Consecration then you cannot conclude a nullitie for the want of three HItherto of three Now I will proue that two are not required of absolute necessitie For Euagrius Patriarch of Antioch was ordained by Paulinus alone and yet was allowed for a lawfull Bishop PHIL. I doubt of both branches how proue you the first ORTHOD. Paulinus alone saith Theodoret transgressing many Lawes had created him For the Canons doe not permit one to chuse his successour they command that all the Bishops of the Prouince should be assembled they forbid any man to be created vnlesse three
same reason of this and the former ORTHOD. There is so For as Christ is the chiefe Baptizer so hee is the chiefe Ordainer It is hee that giueth d Pastours and teachers vnto the Church therefore the personall iniquitie of the seruant cannot disanull the gracious gift of the master For who conferred Priesthood among the Iewes After the consecration of Aaron and his sonnes which was performed by the hands of Moses and was extraordinary there is no doubt but the honour of it belonged ordinarily to the high Priest But did not Aaron make a golden calfe Did not Eli see his sonnes runne into a slander and stayed them not Yet so long as they liued they did execute the Pontificall office neither were their Ordinations called in question no not the Ordinations of Annas and Caiaphas But is there the same reason here also of Hereticks and schismatiks PHIL. Card. Bell saith Quis ignorat Catholicorum Baptizatos ab Haereticis verè esse Baptizatos similiter Ordinatos verè esse Ordinatos quādo Ordinator Haereticus verè Episcopus fuerat adhuc erat saltem quantum ad Characterem i. Which of the Catholicks is ignorant that the Baptized of Hereticks are truely Baptized and those that are likewise Ordained of Hereticks are truely Ordained when the Hereticall Ordainer had bene truly a Bishop and was still at least in respect of the Character ORTHOD. S. Basill affirmeth That of all the Arch heretickes of the whole world whereof many were then very famous none euer durst reordaine the Ordained except one Eustathius Ancyrogalata whose wicked crime the Councel of Gangren declareth In the 2. Councel at Nice the Monks said According to sixe holy and generall Councels we receiue those that returne from Heresie vnlesse there be some intolerable cause Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said And all we also being instructed of our holy fathers doe so define And againe Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said What say you of Anatolius was not he President of the fourth Synode yet he was Created of that wicked Dioscorus Therefore let vs also receiue the Ordained of Hereticks as Anatolius was receiued And againe Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said Truely very many which were Presidents in the sixt Synod were created of Sergius Pyrrhus Paul and Peter teachers of the Heresie of the Monothelites Yea these likewise diuided the Constantinopolitan Sees among the Clergie From Peter their last teacher vnto the sixth Synode there came betweene no fewer then fifteene yeeres in which space were Thomas Iohn and Constantine ordained of heretikes who notwithstanding were not for this cause reiected The heresie lasted about fiftie yeeres yet the fathers in the sixth Synod condemned onely the forenamed foure whereby it is euident that heresie in their iudgement doth not take away the power of giuing orders which you confesse and must needes because one of your owne Popes was ordained by heretikes if Felix the second were a Pope PHIL. In the time of Gregory the thirteenth the Roman Martyrologe was set out at Rome where there was a great controuersie among learned men concerning Felix whether his name were to bee spunged out and Baronius with many other were of that opinion but it fell out as it were by a diuine miracle the very day before Saint Felix his day that some digging for treasure found a chest wherein was this inscription The body of Felix Pope and Martyre which condemned Constantius so Baronius yeelded to Felix as it were pleading his owne cause especially seeing Pope Gregory himselfe was of that iudgement Therefore we confesse that Felix was a lawfull Pope although his entrance is much to be misliked For according to the common sentence of the Fathers hee was intruded by the Arians and ordained of them therefore at the first while Liberius suffered persecution for the Catholicke Faith hee was a Schismaticall Anti-pope but as Binius saith from such time as hee aduanced the banner of faith by excommunicating Constantius Vrsacius Valens and other Arians and Liberius for his manifest Communion with Hereticks was plainely accounted banished from the Communion of Catholikes omnium Catholicorum iudicio quanquam antea schismaticus fuisset legitimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Pontifex haebericaepit that is Although before he had beene a schismatick yet then he began to bee accounted the lawfull Bishop of the Catholick Church by the iudgement of all Catholickes ORTHOD. Then you confesse that Felix which was ordained of Arians was notwithstanding a lawfull Bishop yea and a lawfull Pope by the iudgement of all Catholicks for if you should say otherwise what would become of those fiue Deacons 21. Priests 19. Bishops which hee ordained If heretikes haue no power to ordaine then Felix was no Bishop and consequently according to your owne positions al ordinations deriued from him were mere nullities PHIL. You heard before out of the councels of Florence and Trent that the Character is indeleble whereupon it followeth that neither schisme nor heresie nor any censure of the Church can take it away wherefore seeing the Episcopall character whether it be a diuerse from the Presbyterall or the same more extended is an absolute perfect and independent power of conferring the Sacraments of Confirmation and Order therefore a Bishop may not onely without any further dispensation confirme and order but hee cannot bee hindered by any superiour power but that hee may trulie confer these Sacraments if it please himselfe as our learned Cardinall affirmeth which is also the common opinion of the schoolemen Heretiks saith Dominicus a Soto whosoeuer they be euen such as are cut off although they were not formerly promoted lawfully by the Church but by heretikes doe verily conferre the Sacrament of order although they bee forbidden by the Church and therefore while they doe conferre it they sinne mortally Gabriel Biel although a Bishop being an heretike and Apostata degraded cut off or publikely excommunicated bee depriued of all iurisdiction by the law it selfe neither can he absolue any man from his sinnes yet hee may actually ordaine any man capable of the order being willing yea though he be not subiect to his iurisdiction notwithstanding that the Church doth iustly prohibit him And Capreolus Bishops although they bee heretikes schismatickes and degraded may confer orders This is agreeable to the Decree of Pope Anastasius concerning those whom Acasius ordained after his condemnation to wit That no harme at al should befal them By al this it appeareth that the orders thus ministred are effectuall ORTHO But doth not degradation depriue a man of the degree PHIL. Non est dubitandum saith Petrus a Soto per haeresim vel excommunicationem siue etiam degradationem non amittipotestatem quae sacramento collata est siue characterem vt dicunt baptismi confirmationis ordinis quanquam vsus illius amittatur that is It is not to bee doubted that the power
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
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
you compasse sea and land to make one proselite and when hee is become one you make him two fould more the childe of Hell then yee your selues are But when he is reconciled what is then to be done PHIL. Though now hee bee a Catholicke when the Diuell is coniured out of him yet before he can be Priest hee must be cast wholy in a newe mould For as I told you we account your Ministers but meerly lay men without orders ORTHOD. The more to blame you and therein you degenerate from your forefathers as may appeare by the articles sent by Queene Mary to Bishop Bonner one whereof was this Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders considering they were not ordered in very deede the bishop of the Diocesse finding otherwise sufficiency and abilitie in these men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Heere you see that they did not ordaine them a new but onely supply that which they thought to be wanting and therefore they misliked not our orders in whole but in part PHIL. Yes they wholly misliked them as you may see by the words considering they were not ordered in very deed If they were not ordered in very deed then howsoeuer they pretended orders yet they had no orders at all but were meerely lay men and so are you For that which they call the new sort and fashion of orders was according to the booke established by King Edward which is vsed in England to this very day ORTHO Doth not a Bishop ordaine when he imposeth handes and saith Receiue the holy Ghost whose sinnes you forgiue c. PHIL. I answere that Priests are ordained when it is said vnto them take thou power to offer sacrifice but they are also ordained afterward when it is said vnto them Receiue the holy Ghost For by the former wordes they are ordained to the function of sacrificing by the latter to the function of absoluing by both ioyntly to the full and perfect order of Priesthood ORTHOD. But these words Receiue the holy Ghost were vsed in king Edwards time and are to this day in the Church of England in making of Ministers And therefore those that are promoted to orders after the new sort and fashion as you call it are ordered in very deed neither did the Penners of the article meane otherwise PHIL. Are not their words plaine that they were not ordered in very deed ORTHOD. They meant that they were not ordered fully and perfectly therfore aduised the Bishops to supply that which wanted Which they could not say with reason if they had thought them to be meerely lay men therefore they iudged them to bee Priests in part and yet part of the office to bee wanting which needed supply That which they had was the power receiued by these wordes Receiue the holy Ghost That which they supposed to be wanting was the power of sacrificing Therefore their meaning was not to reiterate that which they had but to supply that which was wanting in their cōceit euen as we on the contrary side cause such as come from Popery to vs to renounce the power of sacrificing which we hold sacrilegious but doe not reiterate those Euangelicall words wherin we agree And this you must needes grant vnlesse you will allow of reordination PHIL. Reordination God forbid No sir we will neuer allow of that For order imprinteth a Character and therefore can neuer be reiterated ORTHOD. But you granted before that a Priest is ordained when the Bishop saith vnto him Receiue the holy Ghost And therefore if the power of remitting sinnes giuen in these words were reiterated either in Queene Maries time or among you at this day in ordaining your proselytes then you cannot possibly defend your Church from Reordination If you abhorre Re-ordination then you must confesse that when any Minister reuolteth from vs to you yet in making him Priest you must not repeat those words Receiue the holy Ghost which proueth inuincibly that vnlesse you will be contrary vnto your selues you cannot esteeme vs to bee meerely lay men Or if you will needs aduance your owne orders and make a nullitie in ours and order our fugitiue Ministers accordingly then you must runne there is no remedy vpon the rocke of Reordination by repeating the words wherein we agree PHIL. Though we agree in the wordes yet we differ in the sense ORTHOD. That is no barre to Reordination for if a child bee Baptised in the true forme of words an Heretick shall Baptise the same child in the same wordes though in another sense yet all good Christians will iudge it to be Rebaptisation and there is the same reason of Reordination Therefore thus I reason When you Metamorphise an English Minister into a Popish Priest either you repeat the words Receiue the holy Ghost or you doe not if you doe repeat them then I haue made it manifest that you vse Reordination If you doe not then you iustifie not onely our practise but also our orders For you hold these words necessary in ordination to the conferring of one of the principall functions of Priesthood and therfore in not repeating them you acknowledge that they had receiued that function before in the Church of England consequently that the ministers of England are not lay men So your owne practise doth either condemne your selues or iustifie vs but our practise condemneth altogether the first part of your Priesthood that is your carnall sacrificing as simply abhominable and the latter part so farre as it is polluted with your popish constructions PHIL. If the first part of our Priesthood bee simply abhominable and the latter as it is vsed by vs bee polluted then Cranmer Ridley Parker Grindall and the rest of your Coronels had no other Priesthood but that which was partly abhominable and partly polluted ORTHO When God opened their eyes they did vtterly renounce your carnall sacrificing as derogating from the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ the other part that is the power of forgiuing sinnes which they receiued corruptly in the Church of Rome they practised purely in the Church of England renouncing the Pope and all Popish pollutions PHIL. But when the question is concerning the validity of orders wee must not so much respect the practise as the power receiued in ordination how Cranmer Parker and such like receiued both parts of their Priesthood in the Church of Rome And as the Church gaue them so they receiued them in that very sense which the Church of Rome holdeth at this day Wherefore seeing you condemned both parts as we vse them for nettles I cannot but maruell how you can be Roses ORTHOD. Let me aske you a question If one Baptize a Conuert in the Element of water according to the true forme of the Church yet so that both the Baptizer and the baptized haue