prosecute an vnanswerable Argument Euery true Bishop must of necessitie be Consecrated by 3. Bishops at the least But the Bishops of England are not so therefore the Bishops of England are no true Bishops ORTHOD. The Bishops of England are so as in due place shall appeare And if in case of necessity they were not so What then The presence of 3. is required onely to the well-being not simply to the being It is no essentiall part of Episcopall Consecration but an accidentall ornament a comely complement of singular conueniencie no substantiall point of absolute necessitie CHAP. IIII. Wherein the Popish Arguments drawen from the Canons of the Apostles and the Decretall Epistles are proposed vrged and answered PHIL. I Will prooue the contrary by sundry arguments and first by the Canons of the Apostles which were collected and set out by Clemens Saint Peters scholar ORTH. If those Canons were made by the Apostles then the Church of Rome is much to blame for the 84. Canon alloweth the 3. Booke of Maccabecs as also 2. Epistles of Clemens and his eight bookes of constitutions for Canonicall Scripture which the Church of Rome reiecteth againe it omitteth the Sonne of Sidrach Wisdome and diuers others which your Church imbraceth for Canonicall PHIL. It seemeth probable saith Bellarmine that this Canon was not set out by Clemens yea it is Apocryphus and Surreptitius as is affirmed by Binius ORTH. What say you then to the 65. Canon which forbiddeth to fast vpon the Saturday excepting one onely that is as Binius declareth the Paschall Saturday PHIL. I say with Baronius it is counterfeite ORTH. But what say you to Pope Gelasius who in a councell at Rome of 70. Bishops saith Liber Canonum Apostolorum Apocryphus the booke of the Canon of the Apostles is Apocryphall And in what sence he called it Apocryphall is expounded by Bellarmine Eos libros vocat Apocryphos qui sunt aediti ab auctoribus haereticis vel certè suspectis Gelasius calleth those bookes Apocryphall which were set out by such authors as were either hereticall or at least suspected PHIL. Gelasius did not call the booke Apocryphall as though all the Canons therein conteined were Apocryphall but as Bellarmine thinketh Propter aliquos vel corruptos vel additos ab haeretâ—cis that is in respect of some which were either corrupted or added by heretikes of which stampe were those two which you alleadged But the first 50. conteining nothing but Apostolike and Orthodoxe doctrine approued of auncient Popes Councels and Fathers Velut authentici recipiuntur are receiued as authenticall saith Binius ORTH. Pope Zephirine allowed 70. or at least 60. for there are diuerse readings how doth this agree PHIL. Well ynough for Pope Zephirine speaketh not of Canons but of Sentences and you must know that those 60 or 70. sentences are all conteined in the 50. Canons as Binius affirmeth out of Father Turrian ORTHOD. Bellarmine expoundeth these sentences to bee so many Canons in these words Zephirine the fifteenth from Peter deliuereth in his first Epistle that there were onely 70. Canons of the Apostles PHIL. Pope Leo alloweth onely fifty Apostolorum Canones numerant patres inter Apochrypha exceptis 50. Capitulis The fathers doe recken the Canons of the Apostles amongst Apocryphall writings excepting fifty Chapters by which he meaneth fifty Canons ORTHO Then to passe ouer the fifth Canon forbidding a Bishop or Priest to cast off his wife vnder pretence of religion as also the one and thirtith inhibiting all other Bishops to restore a Priest or Deacon excommunicated by his owne Bishop What can you possibly say to the ninth which excommunicateth all those which beeing present at the communion doe not communicate concerning which Binius is forced to confesse Totum hoc decretum non diuine sed humano iure constitutum iam contraria consuetudine est abrogatum that is This whole Decree beeing made not by law Diuine but humane is now abrogated by a contrary custome and alleadgeth for him Bellarmine Zuarez and Turrian which is a notable acknowledgement that such a Canon as you account Apostolicall and Authenticall may not withstanding bee abrogated But not to stand vpon these and the like exceptions let vs heare what the Canons say concerning the consecration of Bishops PHIL. THe words are these Let a Bishop bee ordained of two or three Bishops ORTHO Doth the Canon require two or three Then ordination by two is canonicall as well as by three PHIL. Not so for the Canon meaneth that there should be two or three assistants besides the Metropolitane as is declared by Cardinall Bellarmine and father Turrian ORTHOD. The Canon saith not two or three assistants but two or three Bishops Neither hath it this clause besides the Metropolitane but pronounceth simply let a Bishop bee ordained by two or three Bishops Wherfore the Canon is satisfied with the presence of two or three Bishops This is the iudgement of your owne Pamelius who saith that conseration or imposition of hands was per Episcopos qui conuenerant quos vt minimum duos esse oportebat i. By the Bishops which were assembled which should bee two at the least Where note that hee doth not say the Bishops assistant but the Bishops assembled should bee two at the least This also was the iudgement of Cardinall de Turrecremata who vrgeth this very Canon against your position and prooueth by it that three are not necessary Neither is the presence of two required of absolute necessity if you will beleeue the Apostolike constitutions of Clemens a booke which for my owne part I would not once name but onely that your chiefe champions doe so commonly alleage it Wherefore as Saint Paul cited a Poet against the Athenians so let mee cite this booke against you which so highly esteeme it I Simon of Chanany appoint by how many Bishops a Bishop ought to be ordained to wit by two or three Bishops but if any shall be ordained by one Bishop let both the ordained and the Ordainer bee deposed but if necessity shall compell to be ordained by one because many cannot bee present for persecution or some other cause let the Decree of the commission of many Bishops be produced If this authority bee of credit then you are confuted for it alloweth consecration by one in case of necessity PHIL. But that one must haue the commission of many ORTHOD. The commission is onely for concord sake and to auoide Schisme for the absent cannot impose hands nor giue the power therefore they doe not ordaine though they consent to the ordination which is performed by him onely that is present Now if in any case a Bishop may bee ordained by one and yet bee a true Bishop then the presence of moe is a matter of conueniency and not of absolute necessity And if you thinke that these
lesse then the keyes in the iudgement of the Schoolemen ORTHOD. You cry antiquitie antiquitie Fathers Fathers yet you forsake both antiquitie and Fathers and leane to the Schoolmen But what if the Schoolemen be against you Alexander of Hales saith that to bind and to loose is as much as to open and to shut Thomas maketh the power of binding and loosing the substance of the keyes And so doth Scotus But what if we should admit that the keyes contained more then the power of binding and loosing yet seeing this power includeth Iurisdiction as Bellarmine proueth by the Fathers and this was giuen by Christ to the rest of the Apostles therfore it followeth that they all had their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ. A point so cleare that not onely Bellar. but Franciscus de victoria Alphonsus de castro and Cardinall Caietan as Bellarmine recordeth acknowledge the same beside many others PHIL. IF all this were granted yet Peter shall be the fountaine of Iurisdiction because the rest receiued it onely as delegates Hee as the ordinarie pastour of the Church from whom and his successours all posteritie must deriue it ORTHOD. You coine distinctions of your owne braine whereof you haue no warrant in the Scripture For whose delegates shall they bee Not S. Peters 1. because I haue prooued that they receiued not any Iurisdiction from him 2. If they were S. Peters delegates why did S. Paul alwayes call himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ and neuer the Legaâ—â— latere of S. Peter 3. If they were S. Peters Delegates then all their Iurisdiction died with him So belike S. Iohn who outliued S. Peter lost his iurisdiction and was glad to light his candle againe from Linus and after his death from Cletus and after his from Clemens For he liued as S. Ierome witnesseth 68. yeeres after the Passion of Christ and consequently died in the yeere 101. which according to Baronius was the 9. yeere of Clemens If this be so then there was after the death of Christ while an Apostle liued a greater iurisdiction in the Church then the iurisdiction of an Apostle which cannot be because the Scripture saith that God hath set in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets c. and Bell. confesseth that the authoritie of the Apostles is Iurisdictio plenissima If S. Iohn had this then he was not Legat a latere to Linus nor Cletus nor Clemens neither so long as he liued could they be called the fountaine of all spirituall iurisdiction If you say they were Christs delegates it is true and so was Saint Peter therefore in this there is no difference But in what respect was he the ordinarie pastor of the Church As an Apostle then they should bee all ordinarie because they were all Apostles If in regard of any other authoritie what should that bee Was it greater theÌ„ the Apostleship or no if it were not how could it giue him iurisdiction ouer the Apostles and greater it cannot bee for the Apostleship is the greatest iurisdiction which Christ left vnto his Church as was proued both by the Scripture and your owne confession But when was he made an ordinarie pastor PHIL. When Christ said vnto him feed my sheepe ORTHO As Christ said to Peter feed my sheepe so hee said to them all goe teach all nations as my father sent me so send I you Doe not these comprehend as much as feede my sheepe PHIL. No. For Christ gaue commission to Peter to feed his sheep euen all his sheepe none excepted but the Apostles were his sheepe so the Apostles themselues were committed to S. Peter Therefore hee was the pastour of the Apostles and consequently the ordinarie pastour of the whole world ORTH. And Christ gaue commission to them all and among the rest to S. Andrew to preach the Gospel to euery creature euen to euery creature none excepted But S. Peter was a creature therefore S. Peter himselfe was committed to S. Andrew What thinke you was S. Andrew S. Peters pastour or the ordinarie pastour of the whole world PHIL. There is not the like reason For the wordes which you alleadge were spoken to them all The commission which I vrge was giuen particularly by name to S. Peter ORTHOD. These words feed my sheepe haue beene so much vexed that now for pitty you should let them alone but to answere you though our Sauiour when he said Feed my sheep directed his speech to Peter yet he did not therein giue any new office or speciall commission to Peter but willed him to looke to his charge alreadie receiued For Peter had bewrayed great want of loue in a threefold denyall of his master therefore Christ to kindle his loue did aske him three times Peter doest thou loue me Whereupon as hee had formerly denyed him thrice so now he protested his loue and confessed him thrice then Christ hauing as it were blowne the fire by a threefold question which began to kindle in Peter by a threefold confession did presently strike while the yron was hot vsing this exhortatioÌ„ Feed my lambs to make the more impression he redoubled the stroake saying Feed my sheepe Feede my sheepe As though he should say if thou loue me deny me no more in word nor deed but shew thy loue by keeping thy station and by feeding the flock which I haue purchased with my precious blood Feed them by doctrine Feed them by example thou shalt meet and encounter with many Beares and lyons yet forsake not thy function for feare but if thou loue me feed my flock As if a Pilot should say to his mariners here is like to be a great storme but if you loue me looke well to your tacklings or a Captaine to his souldiers here may be a hard battaile yet if you loue me be of a good courage or a husband being to goe a farre iourney and leauing at home his yong sonne the hope of his house with his wife which had sometimes shewed herselfe somewhat vnkind should say wife if thou loue me looke well to my child which is not to giue her any new commission or office but to put her in mind to discharge that office which God had formerly committed vnto her And what if Christ said to Peter Feed my sheepe shall he therefore bee the master shepheard and the rest of the Apostles his vnderlings shall hee bee a Bishop and they his Chaplaines Saint Paul denyeth this proclaiming himselfe in nothing inferiour to the chiefe Apostles The Church of Rome denyeth this I meane the ancient Church in the time of S. Cyprian in their Epistle to the Church of Carthage For hauing mentioned these words Feed my sheepe they adde Et caeteri discipuli similiter fecerunt i. the rest of the disciples performed this office of feeding the sheepe in the like manner that Peter did it So S. Ambrose quas oues quem gregem non solum tunc
hoped That all such shall receiue singular comfort when they see our Calling iustified not onely in it selfe as the true Ministerie of the Gospel but also in regard of the deriuation to vs by such Bishops and in such maner as is most correspondent to the sacred Scripture and the practise of Primitiue Antiquitie And if any vpon this surmise bee fallen away to our aduersaries who knoweth what effect God may worke in them when they shall plainely perceiue how they haue bene deluded with Popish stratagemes Or who can tell whether this may bee a gracious meanes to stay others from yeelding to the inticements of subtill serpents Finally the defence of innocencie in a matter of so high a nature must needes reioyce the hearts of the godly when Popish polititians shall bee forced to hide their faces for shame and confusion These motiues induced mee to wish that some great Master in our Israel would haue vndertaken this eminent Argument which now the Diuine prouidence so disposing is befallen vnto me One of the children of the Prophets Which my labours concerning the Ordination of the Pastours of England to whom should I rather present then to your Grace whom God by the meanes of a most prudent and Religious Soueraigne hath to the singular comfort of all that sincerely loue the Gospel aduanced to bee the chiefe Pastour and chiefe Ordainer in the Church of England Especially seeing I proceeded in this Argument with your graces fatherly direction and incouragement Now the Lord so direct and sanctifie your endeuours That as the Rod of Aaron did bud and blossome and bring foorth ripe Almonds so the Church and Ministerie of England by the meanes of your Grace as of Gods blessed instrument may prosper flourish and bring foorth fruits of Righteousnesse to the glory of God and the comfort of all true Christian hearts Your Graces in all humble duetie at command FRANCIS MASON THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKES FOLLOWING THE first booke containeth the entrance and diuision 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 The second is of the Consecrations of the Bishops of England from the first planting of Christianitie till the last yeere of Queene Marie The third is of the Bishops consecrated in the Reigne of Queene Elizabeth and of our Gracious soueraigne King Iames. The fourth intreateth of Episcopall Iurisdiction The fift is of the second and third controuersie concerning Priests and Deacons ¶ The particular Contents of the first Booke CHAP. 1. THe entrance wherein is described the proceeding of the 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 Ministery of England Pag. 1. CHAP. 2. Wherein is declared in generall how the Papists traduce our Ministers as meerely Lay-men And in particular what they mislike in our Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Whereupon the generall controuersie concerning the Ministery is diuided into three particular controuersies The first of Bishops The second of Presbyters The third of Deacons Pag. 8. CHAP. 3. Wherein they descend to the first branch concerning Episcopall Consecration whereupon arise two Questions The former whether three Bishops be required of absolute necessitie to the Consecration of a new Bishop the state whereof is explained out of Popish writers Pag. 14. CHAP. 4. Wherein the Popish Arguments drawne from the Canons of the Apostles and the decretall Epistles are proposed vrged and answered Pag. 21. CHAP. 5. Wherein their Argument drawne from the Councels is propounded vrged and answered Pag. 26. CHAP. 6. Wherein their Arguments pretended to be drawne from the Scripture are answered Pag. 30. CHAP. 7. That the presence of three Bishops is not required of absolute necessitie Pag. 34. ¶ The Contents of the second Booke CHAP. 1. WHerein they descend to the second Question whether the Consecrations of the Bishops of England be Canonicall Pag. 39. CHAP. 2. Of the first conuersion of this Land in the time of the Apostles Pag. 44. CHAP. 3. Of the second conuersion as some call it or rather of a new supply of Preachers and a further propagation of the Gospel in the time of K. Lucius and Pope Eleutherius Pag. 51. CHAP. 4. Of Austine the first Bishop of Canterbury sent hither by Pope Gregorie Pag. 56. CHAP. 5. Of the Bishops from Austin to Cranmer Pag. 61. CHAP. 6. Of the Consecration of the most reuerend father Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterburie Pag. 64. CHAP. 7. Of the abolishing of Papall Iurisdictions by K. H. 8. which the Papists iniuriously brand with imputation of Schisme Pag. 67. CHAP. 8. Whether to renounce the Pope be schisme heresie Pa. 74. CHAP. 9. Whether schisme heresie annihilate a Cōsecration Pa. 78. CHAP. 10. Of the Bishops Consecrated in the time of King Henry the eight after the abolishing of the Popes Iurisdiction Pag. 88. CHAP. 11. Of the Bishops Consecrated in the time of King Edward the sixt Pag. 91. CHAP. 12. Of the B. Cōsecrated in the dayes of Q. Mary Pag. 97. ¶ The Contents of the third Booke CHAP. 1. OF the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth with an answere to certaine odious imputations concerning some antecedents and consequents of their depositions Pag. 99. CHAP. 2. The deposition of the Bishops iustified by the example of Salomon deposing Abiathar Pag. 106. CHAP. 3. Of the oath of the Princes Supremacy for denying whereof the old Bishops were depriued Pag. 113. CHAP. 4. Of the Consecration of the most reuerend Father Archbishop Parker Pag. 121. CHAP. 5. Of the rest of the Bishops Consecrated in the second and third yeere of Queene Elizabeth Pag. 132. CHAP. 6. A briefe view of all the Bishops of some of the principall Sees during the whole raigne of Queene Elizabeth Pag. 135. CHAP. 7. Of the Bishops in the Prouince of Canterbury Consecrated since our gracious Soueraigne K. Iames did come to the Crowne with a little touch concerning the Prouince of Yorke Pag. 138. CHAP. 8. The Episcopall line of the most reuerend Father in God George Lord Archbishop of Canterbury particularly declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the dayes of King Henry the eight which our aduersaries acknowledge to be Canonicall Pag. 140. ¶ The Contents of the fourth Booke CHAP. 1. WHence the Bishops of England receiue their Iurisdiction Pag. 143. CHAP. 2. Whether S. Peter were the onely fountaine vnder Christ of all spirituall Iurisdiction Pag. 147. CHAP. 3. Whether the Pope succeede Saint Peter in all his right by Law Diuine Pag. 155. CHAP. 4. Of the election of Bishops in the Primitiue Church before there were any Christian Princes Pag. 158. CHAP. 5. An answere to certaine obiections against the election of Bishops by Christian Kings and Emperours out of the
of Abbots with a dispensation or else he is no Bishop and this argument he calleth insoluble ORTHO HOw this doth crosse and condradict it selfe in due place shall appeare in the meane time I would willingly know what is the receiued opinion of your Seminaries There is a certaine manuscript booke called Controuersiae huius temporis in Epitomen reductae made by Parsons the Iesuite out of the Dictates of Bellarmine and Maldonate and appointed to be written out by euery Student in your Colledge I pray you what saith that booke to this point PHIL. It agreeth with the former the words are these Primus Canon Apostolorum hoc idem declarat scilicet Episcopum non posse ordinari nisi a tribus Episcopis hinc sequitur ineuitabiliter Haereticos non habere vllos pastores seu Episcopos cum primi illorum Episcopi Caluinus Lutherus Zuinglius nunquam fuerunt ordinati ab alijs Episcopis That is The first Canon of the Apostles declareth this same thing to wit that a Bishop cannot be ordeined but of three Bishops hence it followeth vnauoydably that the Hereticks haue not any pastours or Bishops seeing that their first Bishops Caluin Luther Zuinglius had neuer beene ordained of other Bishops ORTHO HItherto we haue seene how you hold the state of the first question but doe your Iesuites and Seminaries vrge this against the Church of England PHIL. Yes for it is a maine point ORTHO Then your maine point is a vaine point but let vs heare them PHIL. Bellarmine speaking of the marriage of English Bishops saith Nullam excusationem habent nisi forte velint liberè confiteri quod verissimum est se veros Episcopos non esse neque aliquid de Episcopatu habere nisi quae sibi iniuste vsurpant nomen opes That is They haue no excuse vnlesse peraduenture they will freely confesse which is most true that they are no true Bishops neither haue any thing of the Episcopall function but what they vniustly vsurpe vnto themselues to wit the name and the riches If nothing else then not the Character not the Iurisdiction not the Order not the Office they haue nothing nothing at all except the name and the riches ORTHOD. The riches alas Is it not strange that a Cardinall swimming in streames of gold to the chinne should enuy the riches of the Bishops of England But be they rich or poore surely if the Pope might haue had his will before this time he would haue made them poore ynough In the daies of King Henry the eight when a view was taken it appeared that he had receiued out of England onely for Inuestitures of Bishops 4000. pounds by the yeere one yeere with another and that for 40. yeeres together But how dare Bellarmine thus accuse our Bishops as though they had nothing belonging to the Episcopall function What no learning none at all It is not long agoe since he put off his Cardinals robes disguising himselfe vnder the ill fauoured habit and vizard of Tortus when one of our Bishops whether learned or no let the world iudge did so vnmaske and display him that all Popish hearts haue cause to bleed to see the weakenesse of their chiefe Champion so plainely discouered And as our Bishops haue learning so let the Cardinall know that they are famous and eminent Preachers very labourious in the Vineyard of Christ and in this respect farre vnlike to his brethren the Cardinals For Iulius the second said that he could not with a good conscience make Frier Giles a Cardinall because then he should leaue his preaching and afterward Leo the tenth made him a Cardinall that he might hold his peace For commonly in the Church of Rome the great Bishops preach seldome the Cardinals seldomer and the Popes neuer But what is the ground of his accusation PHIL. Because they are not Canonically ordeined The same point is likewise vrged against them by Doctor Stapleton Whether went they into France Spaine or Germanie seeing that at home there was no number of such as might and would serue their turne No no as their Religion is contrary their ende is diuers their beginning hath bene vtterly different from the true Christian faith planted among vs so are their proceedings different and repugnant they haue not come in by the doore they haue stolne in like theeues without all Spirituall authoritie or gouernement This difference betweene the Protestants and our true Bishops the first Apostles importeth so much that it may not lightly be passed ouer for their authoritie being proued nought all their doings can be no better I say therefore by the verdict of holy Scripture and practise of the Primitiue Church these men are no Bishops Your pretended Bishops haue no such Ordination no such laying on of the hands of Bishops no authoritie to ordaine Priests and Ministers and therefore neither are you true Ministers neither they any Bishops at all ORTHOD. What reason haue you to say that our Bishops are not consecrated by three the Canon hath alwaies bene obserued in our Church neither can all the Papists in the world giue any one instance to the contrary since the time of Reformation PHIL. Doct. Sanders declareth That there was a time when you had neither three nor two Bishops and yet at the same time your new Superintendents inuaded the Ecclesiasticall Chaires and were glad to seeke their Confirmation from the Prince and Parliament after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office certaine yeeres without any Episcopall Consecration And therefore all the water in the Thames cannot cleare the Clergie of England from being vsurpers ORTHOD. But if this be false then all the water in the Tybur though it were turned into Holy-water cannot purge the Papists from being slanderers And how false it is shall hereafter be declared out of authenticall Records by which it shall appeare That the Queenes Letters patents of Commission concerning the Confirmation and Consecration of the very first Bishop made in her time were directed to 7. Bishops and also that the Consecration was accomplished by 4 Bishops whose names and titles shall be specified In the meane time this onely I say In lying and slandering many Papists haue had an admirable dexteritie but Sanders surmounted them all For as his booke of Schisme is truely called by a learned Bishop Sterquilinium mendactorum A dunghill of lies so it might be iustly termed Sterquilinium calumniarum A very dunghill of slanders Insomuch that for his noble facultie that way he deserueth no more to be called M. Doct. Sanders but M. Doct. Slanders PHIL. It is no slander but a trueth which shal be auouched to your faces for I wil proue al that I haue said in order My masters marke what I say If you can iustifie your Calling we will all come to your Church and be of your Religion ORTHOD. Remember your promise and proceed with your Argument PHIL. I will proceed and
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
will make vs beleeue That the Apostle speaketh of Lay-Elders but I pray you doe not trouble me with such phantasticall conceits vnknowne to Antiquitie ORTHOD. You need not feare For it is cleare that the Presbyterie here mentioned ordained Timothy by imposition of hands which no Lay-man may doe therefore doubtlesse they were no Lay-men But what in your iudgement is meant by Presbyterie PHIL. What else can Presbyterium signifie but a company or assembly of Presbyters ORTH. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doeth signifie not onely a company of Presbyters but also the Office and function of a Presbyter For example Eusebius saith That the Bishops of Caesarea and Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Imposed hands vpon him .i. vpon Origen for the Office of a Presbyter And againe The Bisop of Caesarea prayed him to expound the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is When as yet hee had not obtained Ordination of Priesthood And not long after he receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The Ordination of Priesthood And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is likewise vsed Socrates saith That Atticus placed Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is in the Order of Deaconship And hee was thought worthy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Office and Order of a Priest This signification is imbraced by Hierome Primâ—sius Anselmus expounding Presbyterium by Presbyteratus or Episcopatus That is the Office of a Priest or Bishop Likewise Lyra Presbyterium est dignitas vel Officium Presbyteri That is The Presbyterie mentioned by Saint Paul is the dignitie or office of a Priest Yea your owne Rhemistes confesse so much in that they transtate the word Presbyterium in this very place Priest-hood which doth not signifie a company of Priests but the office and order of a Priest If this bee true then your argument is shaken in peâ—ces For that may bee said to bee performed by the order or office of Priest-hood which is done by one Priest onely as well as though it were done by a thousand and this interpretation may seeme to bee countenanced by conference of Scripture because Paul though an Apostle yet according to the phrase of Scripture may bee Called a Presbyter for this word Presbyter in the New Testament taken for an Ecclesiasticall person doth signifie sometimes the Pastour of a particular flocke as when Paul willeth Titus to ordaine Presbyters in euery Citie sometimes it is taken more generally and extendeth euen to the Apostles themselues so Iohn calleth himselfe a Presbyter and Peter speaking to Presbyters calleth himselfe their fellow Presbyter Whence wee may conclude by analogie that Paul also may bee called a Presbyter Now it is certaine that Saint Paul imposed hands vpon Timothie For hee saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir vp the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands Wherefore seeing the word Presbyterie may signifie the office of a Presbyter and Saint Paul may bee called a Presbyter and it is euident that Timothie was ordained by the hands of Paul therefore it is possible that when the Scripture ascribeth his ordination to the Presbyterie it may bee meant that hee was made only by the hands of Paul which is the opinion of Dionysius Carthusianus who saith manuuÌ„ Presbyterij id est manuuÌ„ mearuÌ„ qui te ordinaui Episcopum Of the hands of the Presbytery that is of my hands which ordained thee a Bishop But suppose that Presbyterie in this place signifie a company or assembly of Bishops as Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius interpret it How many will you iudge to make an assembly PHIL. Suppose that three ORTH. If it be so then vpon Bellarmines imagination that an assembly of Bishops imposed hands together with the ordainer it will follow that Timothie was consecrated by foure therefore if you make this example a perpetuall patterne then all Bishops must be consecrated by foure which is against your selfe PHIL. It seemeth that two Bishops may be Called an assembly ORTHOD. Though it were so yet you cannot conclude for how proue you that there was an assembly besides the principall consecrator PHIL. Bellarmine hath proued it by the fathers alleadged ORTHO Bellarmine abuseth his Reader for to beginne with Chrysostome he saith Hee speaketh not of Presbyters in this place but of Bishops for Presbyters ordained him not a Bishop And Theophylact with imposition of hands of the Presbyterie that is of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop Likewise Occumenius by Presbyters hee meaneth Bishops for Presbyters were not to impose hands vpon a Bishop So these fathers by Presbyterie vnderstood Bishops the number they doe not define neither doe they affirme that there was an assembly besides the principall consecrator But concerning the number you shall heare the iudgement of your Angelicall Doctor who bringeth two readings of this place Presbyteri and Presbyterij and handling the first hee demaundeth Why it should bee said Presbyteri in the singular number seeing a Bishop should bee consecrated by three to this hee frameth two answers First because though many meete together yet one is principall the rest conssistants Secondly yet saith hee it may bee said that this Canon was not then made and that then there were but few Bishops which could not bee congregated So hee thinketh it probable that Timothy was not consecrated by three Whereto agreeth Cardinall de Turrecrematâ— Petrus dicitur solus consecrasse beatum Iohannem Euangelistam Paulus Timotheum Titum Dionysium i. Peter is said alone to haue consecrated blessed Iohn the Euangelist and Paul to haue consecrated Timothy Titus and Dionysius And Iohannes Maior Paulus non quasiuit duos pro ordinatione Titi Timothei i. Paul sought not other two Bishops for the Ordination of Titus and Timothy So farre is this place from prouing the necessity of three Bishops PHIL. I Wil prooue it by another place For there were in the Church which was at Antioch Prophets and Doctors among whom was Barnabas Simeon that was called Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch and Saul And as they were ministring to our Lord and fasting the holy Ghost said Separate me Saul and Barnabas vnto the worke whereto I haue called them Then they fasting and praying and imposing hands vpon them dismissed them Behold not onely Barnabas but also Saul that is Paul the Apostle was consecrated Bishop that by three Bishops Simeon Lucius and Manahen Though he were an Apostle not of men nor by men yet it was the will of God that hee should bee ordained Bishop by 3. Bishops that the discipline of the Church might be obserued ORTHO Neither were they Bishops neither did they make Paul and Barnabas Bishops PHIL. Father Turrian sheweth that by Doctors were meant Presbyters and by Prophets Bishops and also that Barnabas and Saul were Doctors or Presbyters the other three
might descend by degrees to the lowest lincke euen to the last Bishop of England whence we might returne againe ascending and climbing vp to the Apostles themselues But now alas since the time of Schisme in stead of Golden linckes you haue added leaden so that there is a breach a rupture a plaine dissolution in the chaine You may well climbe vp a few steps by the leaden ladder but you must downe againe you haue no part nor portion in the Golden ladder of succession which leadeth vs vp to S. Peter and so to Christ himselfe For the Church of Rome and that onely hath Canonicall Bishops All other are but counterfeit ORTHOD. Iust For all the Popes geese are Swannes and other mens Swannes are geese PHIL. I Might bring the Church insulting against you as Tertullian did against the heretickes of his time Qui estis quando vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo Marcion iure syluam meam caedis qua licentia Valentine fontes meos transuertis Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus quorum fuit res Ego sum haeres Apostolorum sicut cauerunt testamento sicut fidei commiserunt sicut adiurauerunt ita teneo 1. Who are you when and whence came you what doe you in my ground seeing you are not mine O Luther by what authoritie doest thou cut downe my woods O Caluin By what licence doest thou turne away the course of my fountaines It is my possession I possesse it by prescription I was first in possession I haue strong Euidences from the true owners I am the heire of the Apostles as they appointed by testament as they committed it to trust as they bind men by adiuration that it should be enioyed so I enioy it ORTHO To answere all your demaunds in order We are the children of God and when it pleased him which causeth the light to spring out of darkenesse we did spring from your selues being still content to be yours so you would be Christs Otherwise know that the Vineyard is not yours but Christs wherein we haue cut downe nothing but your corruptions Neither haue we diuerted the fountaine though wee were forced to cut out a chanell to draine it to straine it to purge it from your pollutions that so wee might drinke the water of Life out of the wells of saluation Whatsoeuer you haue by lawfull possession by ancient and iust prescription by inheritance from the Apostles whereof you haue sound Record and euidence out of the Scripture All that is common to vs with you Whatsoeuer is controuersed betweene vs in any point of Religion therein we appeale to the written Will and Testament of Christ Let that be Iudge betweene vs and you PHIL. When the question was betweene the Iewes and the Samaritanes concerning the Temple whether the Lord in his Law allowed that at Ierusalem or that other in mount Garizin Andronicus produced the succession of the high Priests from Aaron Whereupon Ptolomeus King of Egypt gaue sentence for the Temple at Ierusalem What say you had he not reason ORTHO He had For the Lord gaue the Priesthood onely to Aaron and his sonnes so they only had title to the Priesthood who descended from Aaron by carnall generation But Aaron and his sonnes according to the Law of the Lord performed the Priests Office in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple at Ierusalem the place which the Lord had chosen Wherefore as they alone were the Priests of the Lord so that alone was the Temple of the Lord. PHIL. Very well Now to proceed We of the Church of Rome are built vpon S. Peter as it were vpon mount Sion you are built vpon Cranmer as it were vpon mount Garizin We haue a Church and Priesthood which deriue their originall from Christ you can goe no further then Cranmer Now if this matter were put to King Ptolomy or any other indifferent man would not he giue iudgement for vs against you ORTHOD. No Neither for your Priesthood nor for your Church Not for the first because the Priesthood which the Apostles conferred was only a power to minister the word and Sacraments which being conueied to posteritie successiuely by Ordination is found at this day in some fort in the Church of Rome in regard whereof you may be said to succeed the Apostles and Cranmer you and wee Cranmer and consequently we also in this succeed the Apostles as well as you But besides this which is the Ordinance of God you haue added another thing the imagination of your owne braine which you esteeme the principall function of Priesthood to wit a power to offer a Propitiatorie Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead Now how is it possible that in this you should succeed the Apostles seeing as in due place shall be prooued they neither were such Priestes themselues nor euer by Ordination deliuered any such Priest-hood And as Ptolomy if hee liued in this age could not iustifie your Priestes so neither could hee nor any indifferent man iustifie your Church by vertue of this Argument drawne from outward succession For how slender it is may appeare by consideration of the Greek Church which Bellarmine denieth to be a Church pretending That they were conuicted in three full councels of Schisme and heresie yet Constantinople can fetch her pedegree from Saint Andrew the Apostle as witnesseth Nicephorus and bring it downeward euen to Ieremie who liued in this present age Likewise the Church of Alexandria chalengeth succession as well and as truely as the Romane Baronius recordeth an Ambassage from Gabriell their Patriach to Clemens the eight in the title whereof he calleth himselfe the 97. Patriarch successor of Saint Marke the Euangelist If you say that the line of Constantinople and Alexandria hath beene interrupted be it so And hath not the Romane beene so likewise Genebrard is of opinion that fifty Popes by the space of almost 150. yeeres were not Apostolicall but Apotacticall and Apostaticall Baronius lamenteth that false Popes were thrust by strumpets into the seat of Peter Platina saith it was grown to that passe that any factious fellow might inuade the seat of Peter I passe ouer your hereticall Popes your woman Pope and your Antipopes whereof you haue had some times two some times three at once so that one could not tell which was the true Pope but onely by the preuayling faction For he that wonne it in the field must weare the garland the weaker side must to the walles and ambitious wittes must bee set a worke by writing to maintaine the Popes quarrell Haue you not now great cause to bragge of this noble succession If you expound your selfe not of Local and personall but of such as appeareth in successiue Vocation Mission and Ordination then why doe you tell vs of Polydor Virgil or of Democharis or of the old monument found in a
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
beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas cum illo nos suscepimus omnes i. which sheepe and which flocke not onely blessed Peter did then vndertake but both he hath vndertaken them with vs and all we haue vndertaken them with him And S. Austin Cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oues me as i. when it is saia to Peter it is said to al louest thou me Feed my sheepe I will conclude this point with a memorable saying of one of your owne friends Non me latet recentiores vt sua priuâ—legia expeditius propugnent obtendere dominum hac voce pasce oues meas vni soli Petro totam detulisse Iurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam quo â—am deinceps pro animi sui arbitrio quibuscunque vellet dispartiretur At sacrae scripturae oraculis omnium antiquoruâ—i doctorum monumentis nec non etiam praxi veteris Ecclesiae tam plane atque aperte confutantur vt mirum sit illos tam absurda comminisci audere i. I am not ignorant that late writers that they may defend their priuileges with greater expedition doe pretend that the Lord by these wordes Feed my sheepe did giue all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to Peter alone that he might afterward bestow it vpon whomsoeuer he would according to his owne discretion But they are confuted so plainely and so openly by the oracles of the holy Scripture by the monuments of all ancient learnedmen yea also by the very practise of the old Church that it is a marueile they dare imagine such absurd things PHIL. I will prooue it by the practise ORTH. BY the practise Nay the practise doth proue the contrary For as Christ did not erect any peculiar tribunall in a singular maner to Peter Neither said he Dic Petro tell it to Peter but he established a tribunall for the Church and said Dic Ecclesiae i. make thy complaints and tell thy grieuances to the Church so other Apostles did exercise the Iurisdiction belonging to this tribunall as well as Peter whether we consider them assembled in Synodes or seuerally by themselues PHIL. Not so for in the Synode holden at Ierusalem in the yeere 34. immediatly after the ascension of Christ S. Peter was president For his act in prescribing to the Apostles and the rest this election of Matthias and the maner thereof is so euident for his Supremacie that our aduersaries confesse that he was Antistes the chiefe of the whole Colleage and company ORTHOD. His proposing the matter argueth a primacie of place not of Iurisdiction or power For though he alone proposeth the matter yet he alone had not the appointment the text saith plainely they appointed two and of the two God himselfe made choice and elected Matthias as appeareth by these words they prayed saying thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen and when the lot fell vpon Matthias S. Peter gaue him no Iurisdiction neither did they expect till S. Peter sent him a Pall but he was presently counted among the Apostles therefore his authoritie was not from man or by man but from Iesus Christ. Moreouer that the Scripture ascribeth no more to him in elections then to the rest may appeare by the second Synod as Binius calleth it wherein the Deacons were chosen For who called the multitude together the text saith the twelue not S. Peter alone but the twelue and who chose them Not S. Peter but the multitude as the Scripture witnesseth The saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and the holy Ghost and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicholas a proselyte of Antiochia which they set before the Apostles and they prayed and laid their hands on them So it is euident that though the Apostles ordained them yet the whole multitude chose them PHIL. The election of Deacons was giuen to the people ex concessione Apostolorum by the grant of the Apostles as Luke himselfe doth testifie ORT. Then it seemeth there is great difference betweene the Apostles and the Pope for the Apostles did not challenge their owne right they did gratifie the people and grant it vnto them but the Pope will rake all vnto himselfe though hee rob Prince Priest and people Now whereas you say they did that by the grant of the Apostles it is true if by grant you meane the consent and counsel of the Apostles For they exhorted the multitude to looke out seuen men of honest report but if you meane that the whole right belonged so absolutely to the Apostles that they might totally haue excluded the people you must consider that in this case the consent of the people depended vpon the grounds of humane society For there was then speciall reason why the whole Church should haue interest in the choice of Deacons because the treasure of the whole Church was coÌ„mitted to their trust But admit it were absolutely by the grant of the Apostles yet marke what you say by the grant of the Apostles not of Peter alone but of the Apostles Thus it doth not appeare that Peter had any prerogatiue more then other Apostles no not so much as in the choice of a Deacon PHIL. That he had Iurisdiction more then they is manifest by the third Synod holden at Ierusalem in the yeere of Christ 51. where indeed S. Peter shewed himselfe for he spake first and last and S. Iames and all the rest yeelded to his sentence ORTHOD. Not one of all these points is true That S. Peter spake not first is cleare by these words When there had bene much disputation Peter rose vp and said c. That he spake not last appeareth also for the Text mentioneth no speach of his but one After him spake Paul and Barnabas after them S. Iames and the Councell concluded the matter according to the words of S. Iames yea according to a speciall point not mentioned by S. Peter Neither were the Actes of the Counsell set out in the name of S. Peter but a Synodall Epistle was sent in the names of them all Neither did S. Peter subscribe vnto it I Peter the Vicâ—r of Christ the Prince of the Apostles the visible head and ordinarie Pastour of the Church but he was only put in among the rest It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and vs. Where is now his super-eminent authoritie If euer hee should haue shewed it this was the time this was the place especially seeing he was present not by his Legate but in his owne person If now he had chalenged it his successours might for euer quietly haue enioyed it What did he meane thus to forget himselfe and to preiudice posteritie And as the Apostolicall Synods receiued not their authoritie from him so neither did the Apostles themselues seuerally considered As is euident in S. Paul
at Rome that the Romane Bishop might absolutely succeed him ORT. This is your owne coniecture and not Law diuine PHIL. Pope Marcellus saith that Peter came to Rome iubente Domino the Lord so commaunding ORTH. This is your owne tradition and not Law diuine And as your succession so your monarchicall iurisdiction cannot be proued to be by Law diuine This was well knowne to the Fathers of the first generall councell who confined the Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria ascribing his patriarchical power vnto custome not to Law diuine This was likewise knowne to the Fathers of the second and fourth generall councels who ascribe the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome to the honour of the Imperiall City for so the Fathers of the fourth councell interpret the second and affirme it themselues Antiquae Romae throno quòd vrbs illa imperaret iure patres priuilegia tribuere eadem consideratione moti 150. Dei amantissimi Episcopi sanctissimo nouae Romae throno aequalia priuilegia tribuêre rectè iudicantes vrbem quae imperio senatu honorata sit aequalibus cum antiquissima regina Roma priuilegijs fruatur etiam in Rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem The Fathers did rightly giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because the City then raigned and the 150. Bishops most earnest louers of God assembled in the second generall councell which was the first at Constantinople mouedâ—y the same consideration gaue equall priuileges to the most holy throne of new Rome rightly iudging that the City which was honoured both by the Empire and the Senate and enioyeth equall priuileges with Rome the most ancient Queene of Cities should bee extolled and magnified euen in things Ecclesiasticall no otherwise then Rome being the second in order after it Thus they hold the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to bee not Monarchicall because they giue equall priuileges to Constantinople but Patriarchicall which they referre not to the Institution of Christ nor to Peters fact nor to the succession in Peters chaire but to the honour of the Imperiall City in that it was Imperiall therefore as Binius confesseth they hold it to be by Law humane and not diuine PHIL. Baronius Bellarmine and Binius doe tell you that this Canon was not confirmed by Pope Leo. ORTHO Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum did testifie the contrarie openly in the councell in these words Sponte subscripsi quoniam hanc regulam sanctissimo Papae in vrbe Româ relegi praesentibus clericis Constantinopolitanis eamque suscepit i. I haue subscribed willingly because I read ouer euen this Canon to the most holy Pope in the City of Rome in the presence of the Clerkes of Constantinople and hee embraced it But let vs imagine that hee did not embrace it yet I referre this point to any indifferent iudge whether wee should rather beleeue sixe hundred Bishops and vpward speaking vprightly what they thinke and grounding their iudgement vpon the decrees of former generall councels then one man with a few flattering fauorites speaking partially in his owne cause PHIL. This Canon was not made by the councel but Anatolius with the Easterne Bishops made it secretly and by stealth after the Iudges and the Popes Legate were gone out of the Councell ORTHOD. The Church of Constantinople beeing desirous to propose this matter Entreated the Popes Legats to communicate with them in the handling of it who refused because the Pope had giuen charge to the contrary then they made relation of it to the Iudges who commaunded the holy councell then present to looke into it which they did accordingly therefore though it pleased the Iudges to depart yet the councell proceeded by authority from the Iudges And the Popes Legats might haue staied if it had pleased themselues Moreouer The Decrees were read at the next meeting openly in the councell before the iudges who ratified them by their sentence and all the councell cried and redoubled againe and againe that the sentence was iust PHIL. The Popes Legats interposed a contradiction affirming that the Apostolike See ought not to be debased ORTHOD. The Iudges notwithstanding would not relent but concluded the whole businesse thus Tota Synodus approbauit i. The whole Synod hath approuedit wherefore it was the iudgement of the whole Synod that the Popes iurisdiction is not by Law diuine CHAP. IIII. Of the Election of Bishops in the primitiue Church before there were any Christian Princes PHIL. IF wee consider the practise of the Christian world in primitiue antiquitie which was nearest to the fountaine and knew best the meaning of Law Diuine wee shall finde that they were either elected or at least confirmed by the Pope or by authoritie from the Pope either expresly or by his permission or conniuencie and so receiued their iurisdiction ORTHOD. To examine these points in order let vs begin with the election of Ministers concerning which we find three varieties in the new Testament The first by lots the second by voyces the third by the spirit of prophesie Matthias was chosen by lots the Deacons by voyces Timothy and others by the spirit of prophesie For as Chrysostome saith In those dayes the pastours were made by prophesie what is by prophecie by the holy Ghost as Saul was shewed by prophecie when hee lay hid among the stuffe as the holy Ghost said separate vnto me Paul and Barnabas so was Timothie chosen Theodoret thou hast not thy calling from men but thou receiuedst that order by diuine reuelation Oecumenius by reuelation of the spirit Timothy was chosen of Paul to bee a Disciple and ordained a Bishop This kind of election seemeth to bee vsuall in the Apostles times and to haue continued so long as the gift of prophecie and discerning of spirits remained Now of these three the first and third were by God himselfe the second by all the faithfull This is all wee finde in Scripture yet here is no precept but onely example Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left this point as a thing indifferent to bee ordered by the discretion of the Church so all things be done honestly and in order From the Scripture if wee come to the ages following they referred it to the Clergie and people PHIL. To the Clergy I grant by the conniuencie of the Pope but in the Councell of Laodicea elections of B. are forbidden to be made by the people ORTH. The Councell in that place nameth Priestes not Bishops and if vnder the name of Priestes you comprehend Bishops yet you must consider that it being onely prouinciall could not impose lawes to the whole Christian world That Bishops were chosen by popular elections after this Councell may appeare by the great Nicen Councell assembled as Baronius thinketh six yeeres after the Councell of
Hales Archdeacon of Lincolne dying intestate left to secular men many thousand markes with great store of Plate and that Almarick Archdeacon of Bedford died also very rich and that Iohn Archd. of Northamton dyed worth fiue thousand markes besides thirty pieces of plate and infinite Iewels Hereupon he made a strange decree not without note of manifest couetousnesse to be proclaimed in England that if from thenceforth any Clerke should die intestate his goods should be turned to the vse of the lord the Pope the execution of which mandate he committed to the preaching Fryers and Minorites but the king hearing of it detesting the couetousnesse of the Romane Court forbade it as preiudiciall to him and his Realme The same yeere the Pope sent to the Bishops of England for a tallage of sixe thousand marke The Bishop of Norwich the Popes prowler in this behalfe wrote to the Abbot of S. Albans for 80. marke the king forbad him to pay and charged the Bishop of Norwich and other Bishops not to proceed in that exaction as they desired to keepe their Baronies holden of the King Thus the Church of England was miserably torne and ground betweene the King and the Pope as betweene two milstones moouing contrary wayes Yet the same yeere the courage of the king relented and he suffered the Church to be spoiled of the sixe thousand marke Then the Pope more bolde then euer before gaue in charge to all the prelates of England that all beneficed men if they were residents should pay the Pope the third part if non residents halfe of their goods but the king forbad the payment and the Clergie rendred many reasons why it was vnreasonable Anno 1247. There was holden a Parliament at London wherin were lamentable complaints of the Popes extortion and it was concluded that letters should be sent to the Pope in the name of the whole kingdome which was dâ—ne and they obtained only this that when the Pope was to make prouision here for his Nephewes or Cardinalls he should aske the king leaue The same yeere there came two English Friers Minorites with the Popes Bulls and got great summes of money they demaunded of the Diocesse of Lincolne 6000. marke the same yeere there was a Parliament and the Clergie granted to the Pope 11000. markes The same yeere the grieuances were much increased for the Prelates were suspended from Collation of Benefices till the greedines of the Romanes were satisfied Anno 1252. the Bishop of Lincolne caused a true account to be made of the reuenues of strangers in England and it was found to be more then 70000. markes Anno 1253. Robert Bishop of Lincolne sent to the Pope this Epistle following Let your wisdome know that I obey the Apostolicke Mandates with a filiall affection deuoutly and reuerently And being zealous of my Fathers honour I am contrary and opposite to those things which are contrary to the Mandates Apostolicke For I am bound to both by the Mandate of God Apostolicke Mandates neither are or can be other then the doctrines of the Apostles and of our Lord Iesus Christ the Master and Lord of the Apostles For the Lord Iesus Christ saith He that is not with me is against me But the diuine Holinesse of the Apostolicke See neither is or can be against him Therefore the tenour of the aforesaid Letter is not consonant to Apostolicke Holines but a thing much dissonant and disagreeing First because from this Addition Non obstante annexed to this and such like Letters which are dispersed farre and wide and not induced with any necessitie of the Law of Nature which is to be obserued there flowes a whole deluge of inconstancie boldnesse malepertnesse immodestie lying deceiuing distrusting and all vices thereupon insuing where of the number is infinite shaking and disturbing the puritie of Christian Religion and the tranquillitie of humane societie Moreouer after the sin of Lucifer which shall also be the sinne of Antichrist the child of perdition whom the Lord shall destroy with the breath of his mouth There is not nor cannot be any other kinde of sinne so aduerse and contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles and Euangelists and to our Lord Iesus Christ so hatefull so detestable and so abominable as to kill and destroy soules by defrauding them of the Office and Ministerie of the Pastorall charge Which sinnes they are knowne by most euident testimonies of holy Scripture to commit which being placed in the power of Pastorall charge doe get the wages of the Pastorall Office and Ministerie arising of the milke and wooll of the sheepe of Christ which ought to be quickened and saued and do not minister such things as are due vnto them For the very not administration of Pastorall Offices is by the testimony of Scripture the killing and destruction of the sheepe And to passe ouer the rest because it is somewhat long I will onely adde his conclusion And briefly recounting I say the Holinesse of the See Apostolicke can onely doe such things as tend to edification and not to destruction For this is the fulnesse of power to be able to doe all things to edification But these things which they call Prouisions are not for edification but for most manifest destruction Therefore the blessed See Apostolicke cannot accept of them because flesh and blood which shall not possesse the Kingdome of Heauen hath reuealed them and not the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ which is in Heauen When this Letter came to the audience of the Pope he being not able to containe himselfe said Who is this dotish surd absurd oldman that with such rash presumption iudgeth our acts By S. Peter and S. Paul if my goodnature did not stay me I should hurle him into such a coÌ„fusion that he should be the fable of the world an astonishment an example a wonderment Is not the King of England our vassall or to say more our slaue who is able at our becke to imprison him and to make him a slaue to shame and reproch But the Cardinals said vnto him Our good L. it were not expedient that we should decree any hard matter against the Bishop for that we may confesse the trueth those things which he saith are true we cannot condemne him he is a Catholicke yea and a most holy man more Religious then we and more holy then we more excellent and of a more excellent life so that he is supposed among all the Prelates of the world not to haue his better nor his equall The whole Clergie of France and England knoweth so much The trueth of such an Epistle which peraduenture is already knowne to many will be able to moue many against vs for he is counted a great Pilosopher perfitly learned in Greeke and Latin a zealous louer of righteousnes a reader in schooles of Diuinitie a preacher among the people a louer of chastitie a persecuter of
Vniuersall Patriarch was giuen and that by a Councell to Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople In what sence trow you You produced but two sences of it out of Bellarmine In the first which prophanely excludeth all other Bishops they did not giue it for then they should deny themselues to be Bishops contrary to their own subscriptions If in the latter then it was common to him with the Bishops of Rome and so cannot proue your Monarchicall iurisdiction PHIL. How proue you that this title was giuen him by a Councell ORTHOD. Binius saith How oft Iohn Bishop of Constantinople is named in the acts of the Councell of Constantinople vnder Hormisda so oft the title of Vniuersall Patriarch is found added vnto him PHIL. Binius in the same place ascribeth this to the imposture of the latter Grecians which he proueth because though two Popes Pelagius and Gregory condemned this title in the Bishop of Constantinople yet no man obiected against them the authoritie of this Councell which had beene very materiall because the greater part of it was approued by the Church of Rome Wherefore it is certaine that this was not originally in the Councell but foisted in afterward ORTHO But Pope Adrian the first in his Epistle to Tharasius recorded in the second Nicen Councell intitleth him a generall Patriarch PHIL. This seemeth also to be added by some Grecian which I rather thinke because the same Epistle translated by Anastasius hath no such title prefixed ORTHOD. As though Anastasius were not as likely to put it out as the Grecians to put it in But Iustinian in the Authentickes giueth Mennas the very selfe same title of Oecumenicall Patriarch PHIL. It must be affirmed that this also crept in vnlesse we say that he is called Vniuersall in respect of the Orientall Bishops and Priests ORTHOD. So Holoander taketh it when hee translateth it Vniuersi eius tractus Patriarchae i. to the Patriarch of all that circuit But are you now aduised Was he called Vniuersal and yet had not the iurisdictiō of the whole world but was onely an Orientall Patriarch then you must confesse that this title might be giuen to the B. of Rome and yet not imply that hee had iurisdiction ouer the whole world but ouer the whole West and so was the Occidentall Patriarch Wherefore the decree of Pope Pelagius requiring all Metropolitanes to send to Rome to professe their faith and receiue the Pall extendeth not to them of the East but onely to them of the West PHIL. Then you grant that hee was Patriarch of the West and that is sufficient to inferre my conclusion for the Westerne Patriarch must needes haue iurisdiction ouer the Metropolitanes of the West in which compasse is Brittany I need not here speake of the ancient diuision of the Prouinces nor of Saint Peter nor of Eleutherius It is famously knowne that Saint Austin was sent hither by the Bishop of Rome receiued a pall from him and apparently submitted himselfe to his iurisdiction so did his successours for almost a thousand yeeres together Wherfore seeing the Bishop of Rome was in lawfull possession you must tell vs vpon what reason you put him from it ORTHOD. By what title doth the Pope challenge his iurisdiction in England By the law of God you cannot iustifie it By reason of the first conuersion of the Island by Saint Peter You cannot make it manifest that euer he was here Will you fetch it from Eleutherius He onely sent at the kings request and challenged no such authority Wil you deriue it from Austin It was then made appeare by many reasons that the Brittans ought him no subiection And it is euident that he and his associates had first their assemblies in Saint Martins Church in Canterbury by the Kings permission afterward when the king himselfe was conuerted they receiued to vse the words of Bede more ample licence both to Preach through all his dominions and also to build and repaire Churches So you see all was receiued from the king It is true that Gregory sent a supply of Preachers and gaue his aduise for the erection of Bishopricks and sent palls hither yet there can bee no question but all this was done by the kings licence Afterward in succeeding ages when the Popes did play the wild boares in the Church in executing Church censures and giuing Church liuings the kings of England made lawes against them euen in the time of Popery For as it was defended by Cyprian and afterward also by the African councell vnder Celestinus that causes should bee ended where they begunne and not bee carried to tribunalls beyond the sea So it was decreed in England in the raigne of Henry the second as witnesseth Mathew Paris De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debet procedi ad Episcopum ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum si Archiepiscopus defuerit in iustitia exhibenda ad dominum regē perueniendū est postremò vt praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controuersia terminetur ita quod non debeat vltra procedi absque assenssu domini regis i. Cōcerning appeals if any shall spring they ought to proceed from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop if the Archb. shal be defectiue in doing iustice they must come at last to our Lord the king that by his cōmandement the controuersie may bee determined in the Archbishops Court so that there ought not to be any further proceedings without the assent of the Lord the king Thus it is cleare that the Pope could not take to himselfe the handling of causes without the kings license It might also be declared how little his cēsures were here respected vnlesse they receiued strength by the kings permission And whereas hee tooke vpon him to dispose of Church liuings hee was censured for it in the time of Edw. the 3 euen in the high Court of Parliament as an vsurper These points might bee much inlarged but this little touch is sufficient to shew that whatsoeuer iurisdiction hee had in England was by the courtesie of the King whatsoeuer hee tooke vpon him otherwise was by vsurpation Now his challenge by custome is repelled by custome For these sixe hundred yeeres last past hee affecting to bee that which he was not disdained to bee that which he was and aspyring to a Popedome neglected his Patriarchdome so that which he had gotten by vse he hath lost by disusing and by his owne fact hath extinguished his former title Secondly whereas Pope Pelagius required onely a profession of the faith according to the Scriptures and the holy ancient generall councels Pius the fourth hath framed vs a new forme of faith without which no man can bee saued consisting of traditions transubstantiations merits Images reliques and such rotten Romish ragges-which he hath clapt to the Nicen creed as it were a beggers patch to a golden garment And
Scripture vnto the ministring of almes vnto the Saints PHIL. THe sacrifice of the Masse may be strongly prooued out of the first to the Corinthians Flee from the seruing of idoles I speake as to wise men Your selues iudge what I say the chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord For being many wee are one bread one body all that participate of one bread Behold Israel according to the flesh they that eate the hostes are they not partakers of the Altar what then doe I say that that which is immolated vnto idoles is any thing or that the idol is any thing But the things that the heathen doe immolate to diuels they do immolate and not to God And I will not haue you become fellows of the diuels You cannot drinke the chalice of our Lord and the chalice of diuels you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord and of the Table of diuels Out of these words are gathered three arguments the first from the comparison of the Lords Table with the altar of the Gentiles where they offered to idoles and with the altar of the Iewes where they offered carnall sacrifice to the true God For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar now an altar is erected to sacrifice and there is no sacrifice without a Priest The like reason may be drawne from the comparison of the Eucharist with their sacrifice and from the partaking the one and the other ORTHOD. The point of the comparison consisteth in this that as those which receiue the Sacraments of Christians doe therein declare themselues to be partakers of the Christian religion so those which vse the sacrifices and ceremonies of Iewes or Gentiles doe thereby signifie that they are partakers of their religion and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to refraine from the tables and feasts of idoles least thereby they should haue fellowshipwith the diuels Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar PHIL. THe altar is plainely mentioned to the Hebrewes Wee haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle by which altar is meant Christs body in the Eucharist ORTHOD. The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist but of the suffering of Christ without the gate and of the sacrifice of praier and thanksgiuing therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well Istud altare c. that is This altar is either the Crosse of Christ on which Christ was offered for vs or else Christ himselfe in whom and by whom wee offer vp our prayers And this is the golden altar of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they haue not power to eate that is to receiue the fruit of Christs passion and to bee incorporated into him as to the head which serue the tabernacle of legall things for if ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing or they serue the tabernacle of the body which follow carnall delights for to such he profiteth nothing Hitherto Thomas whose authoritie with others perswadeth Bellarmine to dismisse this argument out of the field because saith he there are some Catholickes which vnderstand by the altar the Crosse or Christ himselfe I doe not vrge that place Thus haue you searched the Scriptures and cannot find your sacrifice much lesse can you find that it is properly propitiatory For that honour belongeth onely to the sacrifice of the Crosse. PHIL. Did not Iob who liued vnder the law of nature offer burnt offerings daily for his children Did not God himselfe commaund that the friends of Iob should sacrifice for their sinnes Are there not many sacrifices for sins appointed in Leuiticus Wherefore if the sacrifice of the Crosse did not hinder that these should be propitiatory why should it hinder our sacrifice from being propitiatorie ORTHOD. Though Iob and others did offer sacrifice vnder the law of nature yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature but by the direction of Gods spirit and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commaunded in the law and all of them were Types of Iesus Christ and are said to take away sinnes not properly but Typically for as the Apostle sayth It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinnes CHAP. VIII Of their argument drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers PHIL. THe meaning of the Scriptures was well knowen to the ancient Fathers who al with one voice acknowledge both Priest Altar oblation and sacrifice ORTHOD. They doe so but not such as you meane For the oblation sacrifice which they defend in the Eucharist is not properly propitiatory nor properly a sacrifice but only a commemoration and a representation of the soueraigne sacrifice PHIL. If the Fathers had meant so then there was no cause why they should speake otherwise of the Eucharist then of Baptisme But they neuer called Baptisme a sacrifice or said that to Baptise is to sacrifice Therefore it is a signe that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice they name it so properly ORTHO Doe the Fathers neuer call Baptisme a sacrifice Your learned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary saying Sedquaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato quia Baptismus repeti non potest Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt that is But you demaund what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore said that there remained no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated Truly because in Baptisme we die together with Christ by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Crosse is applied vnto vs to the full remission of sinne hence they call Baptisme metaphorically a sacrifice Here is a cleare confession that many Fathers call Baptisme a sacrifice and among these many S. Austin is one Quod holocaustum dominicae passionis eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur that is which burnt offering of the Lords passion euery one offereth for his owne sinnes at such time as hee is dedicated to GOD by faith in the Passion of Christ and beeing baptised is indued with the Name of faithfull Christians And no maruaile if the Fathers doe call it a Sacrifice seeing they call it the Passion of Christ. Wee are dipped in the Passion of Christ saith Tertullian Baptisme is Christs Passion saith Chrysostome meaning that it is the representation of it So concerning the Eucharist
to himselfe out of all his people and he commanded them to be giuen for a gift vnto Aaron and his sonnes that is to the high Priest and his successours for it was his will that they whom hee himselfe had chosen to the ministerie of the Temple and holy things should bee subiect to the high Priest onely who represented the place of God on earth and by this he freed them from the iurisdiction of earthly Princes for Clergy men are the Ministers of God and offered to God by the whole people whereupon they are called Clerici as belonging to the inheritance of the Lord as Saint Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus Now surely secular Princes can haue no authoritie ouer those things which are offered and consecrated vnto God and made as it were proper vnto God himselfe which both the light of reason sheweth and God himselfe declareth not obscurely in holy Scripture when he saith in the last of Leuiticus Whatsoeuer shall be consecrated vnto the Lord it shall bee holy of holies vnto the Lord. ORTHOD. As houses and lands dedicated to God remained his proper and euerlasting possession so the tribe of Leui being once consecrated vnto God became for euer his peculiar inheritance But doth it therefore followe that they are all exempted from the iurisdiction of Princes the whole nation of the Iewes are called an holy nation and a kingdome of Priests all the males of Israel had the seale of the liuing God set vpon them in the Sacrament of circumcision yet not one of them were exempted from the power of their Prince It is true that by the lawe of God in matters concerning their office the Leuites were subordinate to the Priestes and the Priestes to the high Priest but both Priest high Priest were vnder the authoritie of the ciuill Magistrate Iehosaphat sent Priests Leuites to instruct the cities of Iudah and did he this without authoritie he sent Priestes and Leuites to be iudges and Delegates Amariah the high Priest to bee chiefe ouer them in the matters of the Lord did hee this also without authoritie when the house of God was defiled Hezechias called the Priestes and Leuites commanding them to sanctifie themselues and the house of the Lord and they did so according to the Kings commandement then hee commanded the Priestes the sonnes of Aaron to offer sacrifice vnto the Lord and they did so he appointed all the Leuites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals with Viols and with Harpes and the Leuites stood with the instruments of Dauid and the Priestes with Trumpets and Hezechias commaunded the Priestes to offer the burnt offering vpon the Altar and they did so then the King and the Princes commanded the Leuites to praise the Lord with the wordes of Dauid and Asaph the seer so they praised with ioy Then hee commanded the Priestes to offer the sacrifice of praise and they did so yea the King this holy King appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes which things hee did well and vprightly before the Lord his God therefore wee must not thinke he passed the bounds of his authoritie If Priest or high Priest were exempted from the iurisdiction of Kings why did Iosias commande Helkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order to fetch out of the Temple all the instruments prepared for Baal for the groue and for all the hoast of heauen which hee burned without Hierusalem in the fieldes of Kedron and caused the dust of them to bee carried vnto Bethel If Priestes were exempted why did hee bring all the Priestes of the high places out of the cities of Iudah and all such of them as were Ieroboams Priests of which the man of Iudah prophecied hee sacrificed vpon the Altars the rest which were of the line of Aaron but yet had offered in the high places hee brought backe from Hierusalem though they were not suffered to sacrifice vnto the Lord but were thrust out of their Priesthood to the meanest offices amongst the Leuites Now from Kings let vs come to Nehemias the Viceroy who relating how Eliashib the high Priest had made a great chamber in the house of the Lord for Tobias the Ammonite addeth immediately But all this time was not I in Ierusalem signifying that if hee had beene there hee would not haue suffered such abomination And when hee came hee cast out the vessels of Tobias and commanded the Priestes to cleanse them and bring againe the vessels of the Lord. When one of the nephewes of the high Prieste had married the daughter of Sanballat Nehemias chased him away With what face now can you say that Princes in the olde Testament had no authoritie ouer the Priestes If Kings had no authoritie then they should not haue enioyned appointed commaunded and punished but onely haue aduised admonished and exhorted them If Priestes had any such priuiledge it is strange that in all the storie of the olde Testament wee finde not one Priest once pleading his priuiledge If they submitted themselues when their conscience tolde them that they had offended yet why did they not plead their immunitie when they were iniuriously handled Zacharias the Priest was slaine at the commandement of the King and yet neuer mentioned any priuiledge When Saul slew Abimelech and aboue eightie Priestes which wore a linnen Ephod Abimelech declared his innocency and acknowledged the Kings iurisdiction ouer him by calling the King his Lord and himselfe the Kings seruant but spoke not a word of any priuiledge Therefore all the world may see that there was no such matter these are but fictions of idle braines wherefore we may truly conclude that the tribe of Leui was not exempted from secular iurisdiction but the King might conuent command reprooue and punish them and yet not transgresse the law of God PHIL. Who dare affirme that a prophane person hath any authoritie or iurisdiction ouer those things which haue deserued to bee called holy of holies that is most holy ORTHOD. Who but a prophane Iesuite durst bee so bold as to call the light of Israel the annointed of the Lord the Minister of God a prophane person The ancient sages of the Christian world did vse to speake of Princes with all reuerence not onely of those which professed the true faith but of others also The third Romane councell vnder Symmacus calleth Theodoricus who was knowen to bee an Arrian a holy Prince whereupon Binius writeth thus An Arrian king is named most holy and most godly not according to his merites but according to custome like as Valerian and Gratian Ethnicke Emperours were called most holy by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria as witnesseth Eusebius Which was done by the example of the Apostle Paul who called Felix being a wicked man but then in authoritie by the vsuall stile of most noble Hitherto
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