CHAP. I.

WHat, My old friend Orthodox! I salute you in the kindest maner, and congratulate your comming into France, the rather because I hope you are passing this way to Rome, as sundry of your fellowes and friends haue done before you.

To Rome, Philodox? Alas, Quid Romaefaciam? mentiri nescio. What shall I doe at Rome? I cannot lye, I cannot aequiuocate.

It seemeth si [...], that you are pleasantly disposed; but in good ear­nest there are many inducements, which in all reason should draw you to Rome. For he that hath seene Rome, hath seene all things, and he that hath not seene Rome, hath seene nothing. It is the Queene and Lady of Cities, the Store-house of Nature, the admiration of Art, the Epitome of the world; wherein all Excellencies shine in their Orient colours, and exquisite beautie. In old time men did wonder at the Temple of Diana, the Tombe of Mausolus, the Colossus of the Sunne, the Image of Iupiter Olympicus, the Palace of Cyrus, the walls [Page 2] of Babylon, and the Pyramides of Egypt, because these things in their seuerall ages were rare and singular, and iustly had in precious account. But who would now so esteeme them, when he may see in one City so many spectacles which are able, not onely to rauish the beholders with admiration, but also to strike them with astonishment? The Emperour A [...]i [...] Marcellinus lib. 16. Constantius when hee beheld the Rostra, the Capitoll, the Bathes, the Amphitheatrum, the Pantheon, the Theater of Pompey, his eyes were dazeled with miracle vpon miracle; but when he came to the Market place of Traiane, he stood cleane amazed at those huge and ad­mirable Fabricks, neither imitable by the hand, nor vtterable by the tongue of man. And though time which weareth all things hath now defaced them, yet if new Rome be compared with old Rome, wee may say with a learned man, Lipsiu [...] de mag [...]it. Rom. in praefas. ad le­ct [...]r. Non maior sed melioriam Roma, non cultior sed sanctior; That is, Rome at this present, is not bigger but better, not more sumptuous, but more sacred. And we may adde, that still it ouershineth all other Cities, so farre as the gol­den Moone doeth the twinkling starres.

Suppose that the buildings of Rome were as glorious at this day, as they were in the dayes of Constantius, yet what of all this? Ammian [...] Marcellinus ibidem. Hormisd [...] the Persian, being then asked what he thought of Rome, made answere, That this onely pleased him, that he had learned, that men doe die, euen at Rome also, as in other places. And surely though the walles of our Cities were of gold, and the windowes of Saphire, yet while we liue in this vale of vanitie, we dwell but in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust. God giue vs grace to seeke a City which hath a foundation, whose maker and builder is God: God graunt that when our earthly Tabernacle shalbe dissolued, we may haue an house not made with hands, but eternall in the heauens.

You say well sir, and the right way to attaine thereunto, is to be reconciled to the holy Church of Rome; Without it, there is no hope of sal­uation; within it, is a very Paradise of God, and a sanctuary for all distressed soules: wherefore if you take this course, you shalbe a thrice happy man, and enioy the precious blessing of a quiet conscience.

In deede a quiet conscience is a iewell of iewels, the price of it is farre aboue the Pearle, neither can it be valued with the wedge of fine gold. But this is a flower which groweth not in the gardens of Rome, no not in Bel­uidêre the Popes Paradise. For there is no Religion in the world which can pacific the troubled conscience, but that onely which teacheth the penitent spirit the remission of his sinnes, and an infallible certaintie of his saluation, by the merits of Iesus Christ apprehended by a true and liuely faith, and sealed to the sanctified soule by the Spirit of grace. But the present religion of the Church of Rome, teacheth onely a Bell. de [...]ustif. li. 3. cap. 2. & 3. morall, coniecturall and fallible, That is, an vncertaine certaintie, which must needs plunge the poore soule into a thousand perplexities. Wherefore the present Romish religion is not a do­ctrine of comfort, but of doubt and distrust, so farre from quieting the trou­bled conscience, that it is a continual tormenting to the soule and conscience.

Howsoeuer you conceiue of our Religion, you must giue mee leaue to tell you, that it was deriued from God the Father, reuealed by Iesus Christ, inspired by the Spirit, planted by the Apostles, watered with the blood of Martyrs, and confirmed by miracles, being reuerend for antiquitie, [Page 3] honourable for vniuersalitie, certaine for succession, amiable for order, and admirable for vnitie.

You brag of the Casket, but the Iewels are gone. For the faith of Rome was sometimes renowned through the world, and commen­ded by the voice of the Apostle himselfe. But since those dayes, Rome hath suffered many and great alterations. For as in respect of her Ciuill estate, she hath bene powred from vessell to vessell, lost her language, left her seuen mountaines to plant her selfe in campo Martio, changed her face and her fa­shion, and is so intombed in her owne ruines, that Lipsiu [...] de mag. Rom. l. 3. c. 11. Iustus Lipsu [...]s one of her louers, cannot so much as trace the ancient tract of her walles: euen so in re­spect of her state Ecclesiasticall, one might now seeke old Rome in new Rome, and not finde it She hath matched traditions with the written Word, there­in iniurious to the Wisdome of God: she hath mingled mans merits with the Merits of Christ, therein iniurious to the Grace of God: She hath communi­cated diuine worship to stockes and stones, therein iniurious to the glory of God. Thus the garden is ouer-growne with weedes, and the daughter of Ston is become the whore of Babylon. Yet fo [...] all this she vanteth herselfe, as though she were a Virgine, because she was sometimes a Virgin. She pain­teth herselfe with counterfeit colours of Antiquitie, Vniuersalitie, Succes­sion, Vnitie and the like, which are nothing else, but a little Vernish that will vanish away.

I hope you speake all this, onely for disputation sake. But how­soeuer, for your better resolution, I wish you would take betweene your hands the glasse of Experience. You haue already had a triall of your Eng­lish Vniuersities: may it please you now to take a taste of our English Semina­ries; where (I dare warrant you) you shall receiue ample satisfaction of all your doubts. And because I loue you, I will vndertake that you shalbe boun­tifully intertained in the English Colledge at Rome, and euery vvay respe­cted according to your vvorth. But ô how our holy Father wil imbrace you with the armes of compassion, and receiue you as the Doue into the Arke! Such is his imcomparable loue to our English Nation.

How well the Popes haue loued our Nation, may appeare by Pope Apud Mat. Paris. [...]. 683. verè [...]ortus no­ster deliciarui [...] est Anglia. Innocent the fourth, who called England his garden of delights. And who would not loue such a garden? Hee called it also a Well Verè pute [...] inexha [...]st [...] est. neuer drawne dry; And doth not such a Well deserue to be wel loued? Now the fruit of his ten­der affection towards it was witnessed by these his owne words, Ibidem. Vbi multa a­bundant, multa extorqueri possunt, Where many things abound, many things may be extorted. The Poets feigne, that the riuer Arethusa being swallowed vp in the ground, runneth through the Sea, and riseth againe in Sicilie: but without all feigning, from England as from a Well did spring golden Riuers, which being suddenly swallowed vp, did runne through the Sea, and rise againe at Rome in the Popes Exchequer; And vvho so readeth the Chronicles of our Kingdome vvritten by Matthew Paris, and Thomas Walsingham, shall find that the Popes loued our Siluer and our Gold. This vvas their loue to the Eng­lish Nation.

You make mountaines of molehilles: for the Popes receipts out of England vvere but as a Hardings confut. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 23. Gnat to an Elephant; and such as his Holines little [Page 4] regarded, but onely as tokens of loue to holy Mother Church.

Bishop Praefa [...]. in Gard. de vera [...]d. Bonner may teach you, That the Popes yeerely p [...]ay out of England did almost equall the reuenues of the Crowne. And ve­rily if this had not bene preuented, though England had bene an Ocean, it would haue bene drawne drie. Such Elephants you swallow, and yet you count them gnats.

You mistake the matter; Hee loueth not your siluer, but your soules: for since he reaped one penie out of England, he hath imployed ma­ny thousand crownes in founding and maintaining two English Colledges. So pure is his loue to the English Nation.

Your English Seminaries were founded (if the turning of an Hospitall into a Colledge may be called founding) by Gregory the thirteenth. But to what end sent he those souldiers (mentioned by H [...]sp [...] & Ital [...] milit [...] qu [...] Pontifici [...] ­rum nom in sib [...] ind [...]derunt clau [...]bus pro insignibus [...]si in Hiberniam appellunt. Ge­neb. Chron. l. 4. Genebrard and Campana del hist. de mond. vol. 2. l. 1. anno 1580. Cam­pana) into Ireland? Was it not to assist the Rebels against their Mun [...]t [...]o­nem erigunt contra Anglos. Genebrard. quo supra. soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth? So pure was his loue to the English Nation.

The loue of his Holinesse is most plainly demonstrated in those noble foundations, where Card. Allen. Apol c. 5. wee haue more disputations, lessons, conferences, exami­nations, repetitions, instructions, catechisings, resolutions of cases both of conscience and controuersie, methods and maners, to proceed to the conuersion of the deceiued, and such like exercises in our two Colledges, then are in your two Vniuersities, contai­ning about thirtie goodly Colledges. As for the Masters and Professours of our Col­ledges, specially the Romane Readers, we may be bold to say, they be in all kind the most choise and cunning men of Christendome. Now for that part of education which ap­pertaineth to Christian life and maners, our chiefe indeuour is to breed in our Schollers deuotion, which is done by diuers spirituall exercises, and dayly examinations of their consciences, often receiuing the blessed Sacrament, much praying, continuall hea­ring, and meditation of holy things. So by these meanes a number of the best wittes of England, are here trained vp, most happy in regard of their rare education.

What reason you haue to compare your two Colledges with our two Vniuersities, let wise men iudge. You vaunt of your varietie of exercises, God giue vs grace to glory in the simplicitie of his Trueth, with the testimonie of a good conscience. As for the exercises of our Vniuersi­ties, you might know (if malice did not blinde you) that they are famous throughout the Christian world and that these Campes of Christ haue from time to time trained vp Souldiers, able to encounter the proudest Philistines. Neither doubt we but they shall alwayes haue a Dauid to cut off the head of Golias with his owne sword. Which wee rather hope, because of that Trea­surie of Learning and Languages lately erected, I meane that renowned Li­brary, the honour of Oxford, the Iewell of England, the admiration of stran­gers, and the Phaenix of the world. O noble Bodley, many Benefactours haue done worthily euen in this kind, but thou surmountest them all. Blessed is the stocke which brought foorth such a branch, and blessed is the branch which yeelds so pleasant fruit. Deuonshire was the mother, Merton Colledge the nurse to this most gracious plant: happie mother, happie nurse, happy plant. Prosper O Lord, O prosper thou his handy worke; Let it be as an Armorie for defence of thy Church: and as a Quiuer full of arrowes to shoote at thy enemies; Let it flourish and continue for euer, to the aduancing of thy Go­spel, [Page 5] and to the vtter ouerthrow of Antichrist. But to come to the Romish Readers which you so commend, what are they like, or to whom shall I com­pare them? They are like to Italian Mountebanckes, who will price an oile at sixe hundred Crownes, which is not worth sixe pence. Whatsoeuer they bring must be admired for rare and excellent, as though it were found in the Phoenix nest. By these glosing meanes partly guilded ouer with golden pro­mises, and partly working vpon male-contented humors, (for you delight to fish in troubled waters) you haue preuailed with many, and applaud them as the best wits of England. So long as they stay with vs you account them but Leaden-wits: if once they set a foot within your Seminaries, they are presently Metamorphised and become Golden. But let your Orders be exquisite, your Readers skilful, your Students wittie and painfull, I would gladly know what is the end of all this rare education.

You might haue learned that of Nauar. con­sil. l. 3. de re­gularibus. Cons. 1. Nauarrus, who declareth that in the English Colledge at Rome, there is a statute or constitution, That whosoeuer will enter into it, is bound to sweare, that after so many yeeres, he shall goe into England for defence of the Catholicke faith, and shall preach it there publickly, and priuately. Loe the end of their education is the Catholicke faith, which they learne not onely for their owne information, but for the instruction of England; So all is referred to the ghostly good of our deare countrey.

But what doe you meane by the Catholicke faith? Bellar­mine, who was appointed by Gregorie the thirteenth, to reade the Controuer­sies of faith, in the Bellar. de verbo Dei in praef ad lect. Romane Colledges of the English and the Germanes, and for his seruice to the Church and Court of Rome, was aduanced to the dignitie of a Cardinall, vseth these words; Bellar. in re­spons. ad apol. pro iuram. fidel▪ pag. 7. De fide Catholica, id est, de Primatu sedis A­postolicae, quem in Scripturis sanctis apertissimè f [...]ndatum, Catholici omnes vt fidei Orthodoxae dogma certissimum habent; Of the Catholicke faith, that is, of the Prima­cie of the See Apostolicke, which being most euidently grounded vpon the holy Scrip­tures, all Catholickes account as a most certaine receiued opinion, or doctrine of the Or­thodoxe faith. And againe, speaking of the branches of the Oath of Allegiance, he saith, That they containe Ibidem. pag. 32. abnegationem fidei Catholicae de Primatu Ecclesia­stico Romani Pontificis, The deniall of the Catholicke faith, concerning the Ecclesiasti­call Primacie of the Bishop of Rome. And againe, Si Ibidem pag. 69. rem totam apud te diligenter cogitare volueris, videbis profecto non esse rem paruam, quae ob iuramentum istud in discrimen adducitur, sed vnum ex praecipuis fidei nostrae capitibus ac religionis Catho­licae fundamentis; That is, if you will diligently consider this whole matter in your mind, truly you shall see, That it is no small thing which by reason of this Oath is brought into danger, but one of the principall heads of our faith, and foundations of Catholicke Religion. This he indeuoureth to proue, because Pope Gregorie calleth him­selfe Caput fidei, the head of faith; Whence he inferreth this conclusion, Ita (que) sancto Gregorio teste, cum de Primatu fidei Apostolicae, vel turbando, vel minuendo, vel tollendo satagitur, de ipso capite fidei amputando, ac de totius corporis omniumqué membrorum statu dissipando satagitur; Therefore as S. Gregory witnesseth, when men goe about, either to trouble, diminish or take away the Primacie of the See Apostolicke, they goe about to cut off the very head of faith, and to dissolue the state of the whole bo­dy, and of all the members. So he is not content to make his new head equall to other heads, but he will haue it to be Ipsum fidei caput, The very head it selfe; sin­gularly [Page 6] and supereminently mounted aboue all other heads. Thus the Popes Supremacie is become the Supreme article of your Catholicke faith. But how farre extendeth this Supremacie? The same Romane Reader teacheth, That if Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 7. ergo tria. a Prince, of a sheepe or a ramme become a wolfe, That is, of a Christian become an he­retick, the Pastour of the Church may driue him away by Excommunication, and with­all command the people that they doe not follow him, and therefore may depriue him of his dominion ouer his Subiects. Yea, hee teacheth that the Pope may Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 6. quantum. change Kingdomes, take them from one, and giue them to another, as the chiefe Spirituall Prince, if it be necessary for the saluation of soules. But when shall it be holden ne­cessary? That may appeare by the dealing of Sententia de­claratoria cont. Eliz. apud Sand. de schis. l. 3. pag. 315. Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth: for when that vertuous Princesse had banished the Pope, and Po­pish abominations, and planted the Gospel of Iesus Christ, continuing constant in the profession thereof, her Religion he iudged heresie, her constancie he cal­led obstinacie, and thereupon pronounced her depriued of her Crowne and digni­tie, dissolued the sacred bond of Allegiance, and cursed all that should obey her. Which proceedings he called Arma iustitiae, the weapons of Iustice, preten­ding he was constrained thereunto Adarma Iu­stitiae, contra eam de necessi­tate conuersi. ibidem. of necessitie. Wherefore if a Prince shall banish Idolatrie and superstition, and continue zealous in the reformation of Religion, it shalbe iudged a iust, sufficient, and necessary cause of depriuation. Thus you make a shew of Learning and Religion, but traine vp your schol­lers to treason and rebellion. Is this the preaching of the Catholicke faith? Is this the ghostly good of your Countrey? Is this the Popes incomparable loue? And as hee hath small loue to England, so notwithstanding his faire pretences, he beareth not very much to you: for the Pope being an old poli­titian, may be well resembled to the Mariner, which looketh one way, and roweth another; He sendeth you ample gifts, but he sendeth them vpon a hooke, and while you catch at the bait, you swallow the hooke. And as the Fisher baiteth with little fishes to catch the greater, so the Pope being a cun­ning Fisher, vseth you but for a bait to catch England, and there to restore his Golden Supremacie, which may be called Golden, because it brought vnto him mountaines of Siluer and Gold. But that you may the better perceiue the dangerous state wherein you stand, giue me leaue to vse a plaine, but a fit comparison; An Ape seeing a Chesnut in the fire, and not knowing how to get it, spied a Spaniel by the fire side, and suddenly catched his foote to rake out the chesnut. Here you may see your owne faces in a homely glasse. The Golden Supremacie is the Chesnut, perils and dangers are the fire, the Pope loath to burne his owne fingers, vseth you but as the Spaniels foote to scrape for the Chesnut; little regardeth hee how you be scorched, so hee bee in hope to obtaine his desire. But though many of you haue burned both your handes and your hearts, yet hitherto (God be thanked) he hath missed the Chesnut.

NOw I plainely perceiue, That you are deepely ingaged in 5. the schisme and heresie of England. O England, England, thou wast sometimes a most famous and flourishing Church, thy faith and Religion shining like a Diamond of true lustre, thy zeale and deuotion bur­ning like the flaming fire, the sparkling Starres in the firmament were not so glorious: but now, alas, since Caluinisme came in, thou hast lost thy lu­stre, [Page 7] thy glory is eclipsed, there remaineth no sparkle of thy ancient loue, no faith, no Religion, no Church.

You tread in the steps of your fo [...]efathers, and helpe to fill vp the measure of their iniquitie. For it hath bene alwayes their custome to lay odious imputations vpon our Religion, that by this stratageme they might win Proselytes vnto their owne. Brist. de­mand. 48. Rich. Bristow affirmed that our Religion is pro­ued by experience to be indeed no Religion. Apol. c. 1. Cardinall Allen, speaking of our Sa­craments, Seruice and Sermons, calleth them things which assuredly procure damnation. Caluino-tur­cis. l. 1. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 11. & passim. William Reinolds hath blazed to the world, that our Religion is worse then the Turkish. The bookes of Sanders and Parsons haue bene as full of slanders, as a serpent is of poison. To passe ouer Harding, Stapleton and others, the latter brood is as venemous as the former. One example for all may be that lewd Libeller which exclaimeth, That the Certaine Articles or forcible rea­sons. Artic. 1. Protestants haue no faith, no hope, no charitie, no repentance, no Iustification, no Church, no Altar, no sacrifice, no Priest, no Religion, no Christ. What shall we say to these intemperate spirits? If they speake of malice, then I say with Michael the Archangel, Epist. Iud. v. 9. The Lord re­buke them: but if they speake of ignorance (as I hope they do) then I say with the holy Martyr S. Stephen, Acts 7. 60. Lord, lay not this sinne to their charge; Or with our blessed Sauiour, Luke 23. 34. Father, forgiue them, they wote not what they do. For that faith and Religion which is agreeable to the Scripture is true, holy, ancient, Catho­licke and Apostolicke: But the faith and Religion publickly professed at this day in England is in euery Article and branch thereof, agreeable to the Scrip­ture: therefore it is in euery Article and branch thereof, true, holy, ancient, Catholicke, and Apostolicke. Moreouer, where the Gospel is truely prea­ched, and the holy Sacraments rightly administred, there is a true Christian visible Church: but both these dueties are religiously performed in England: what reason haue you then to say, that we haue no Church?

BEcause you haue no Ministerie: for there cannot be a Church 6. without Pastors and bishops, as Cypr. l. 4▪ Epist. 9. S. Cyprian teacheth, who de­fineth the Church to be a people vnited to a Bishop. And Iere. cont. Lu­ciferia [...]o [...]. S Hierome, when he saith, That it is no Church which hath not Priests. This doeth appeare euidently by S. Paul, who declareth that Christ Ephes. 4. 11. 12. gaue Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints, the worke of the Ministerie, and the edification of the body of Christ, vntill we meet all in the vnitie of faith into a perfect man, and the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ. In which place as our learned Bel. de Ectles. militante l. 3. c. 13. praeterea. & l. 4. c. 8. sed vt vi [...]. Cardinall hath obserued, the Apostle teacheth, That there shall be Pastours in the Church till the day of Iudgement, for then we shall meet the Lord in the vnitie of faith. Behold, saith father Hess. quaest. 2. de Eccle. p. 51. Hessius, till the number of the Elect bee accomplished in the end of the world, the Church shall alwayes haue Pastors and teachers. Neither doeth Vide Bellar. de eccles. milit. l. 4. c. 8. Luther deny this, but rather put it among the Notes of the Church; And Cal Inst. l. 4. c. 3. sec. 4. se­qu [...]ntur pasto­res & doctores quib [...] carere nunquam po­test ecclesia. Caluin af­firmeth, That the Church can neuer want Pastors and teachers. From this plaine approued principle, thus I dispute; Where there is no true Ministerie, there is no true Church: but among the Protestants in England there is no true Ministerie: therefore among them there is no true Church.

CHAP. II.

WHat mislike you in our Ministerie?

Not one thing or two, but the whole frame of it absolutely and altogether: for to deale plainly, your Ministers are no Ministers, but meerely Lay men; Neither is this my priuate opinion, but the generall iudgement of our learned diuines which affirme the same. As for ex­ample; Brist. Mo­tiue 21. Ri. Bristow. Consider what Church that is, whose Ministers are but very Lay men, vnsent, vncalled, vnconsecrated, and therefore executing their pretended Office without benefit or spirituall comfort of any man, yea to the certaine and great damnation of themselues and others, vnfit and vnworthy (by this onely that they bee called to that fond function) of any seruice in the Church of God; holding therefore amongst vs, when they repent and come againe, no other place, but the place of Lay­men: in no case admitted, no nor looking to minister in any Office, vnlesse they take our Orders, which before they had not. Hard. con­fut. of the A­pol. part. 2. c. 5. M Harding. In this your new Church, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, or any inferior Order you haue none. Sand. de schism. l. 3. pag. 299. D. Sanders. The new Clergie in England is composed, partly of our Apostataes, partly of meerely Lay-men. Houl [...]t. briefe discour. reason 7. M. Houlet. That either all, or the most part of the Ministers of England be meerely Lay men, and no Priests, and consequently haue no authoritie in these things, it is euident. Annotat. Rom. 10. 15. Cardinall Allen, with our learned diuines at Rhemes; All your new Euangelists, which haue intruded themselues into Church and Pulpit, be euery one from the highest to the lowest false prophets, running and vsurping, being neuer law­fully called. Stap princ. doct. l. 1 [...]. c. 6. D. Stapleton; They being sent of no man, nor hauing Ordination, haue inuaded the Ecclesiastical Chaires. Kellison reply to Doct. Sutl. pag. 31. D. Kellison; Forasmuch as the inferior Ministers are made by those Bishops, and are children of those fathers, they also are no true Priests, hauing neither Order, nor Iurisdiction. Caluino-tur. l 4. c. 15. pag. 975. William Reinolds; There is no feeder of sheepe or oxen in all Turkie, which doeth not vndertake the gouernment of his flocke, or droue vpon better reason, and greater right, order and authoritie, then these your magnificent Apostles and Euangelists can shew, for this their Propheticall and Apo­stolicall, and most diuine and most high Office of gouerning soules, reforming Churches, teaching heauenly Trueth, and declaring the minde and will of God to men. And fi­nally the Catholicke Priests in their Suppli [...]. Anno 1604. supplication to King Iames; Neither is any of your Protestant Ministers comming to our Catholicke fraternity, reputed other then meerely Lay-men without Orders. Thus you see how we all agree in this point. Neither is this the opinion of vs English Exiles onely, but other Ca­tholicke doctors are of the same minde. The Hereticks of our age (saith Bell. de eccl. milit. l. 4. c. [...]. Bel­larmine) haue neither Ordination, nor succession, and therefore they vsurpe vnto themselues the name and Office of a Bishop more immodestly, then euer did any other heretickes. And other Posna [...]en. se [...]assert de Christi in terris eccles. Thes. 60. reuerend diuines vse almost the same words: Greg. de Va­ [...]en. tom. 4. disp. 9. q. 3. punct. 2. Gre­gory de Valentia saith, Certainely it is apparent, that in the Catholicke Romane Church there are lawfull Ecclesiasticall Ministers, as being rightly ordained of true [Page 9] Bishops, but in the Synagogues of Sectaries it is euident that there are not lawfull Mi­nisters, for they are not ordained of lawfull Bishops: and therefore it is manifest that they haue no Church, seeing that a Church cannot want lawfull Ministers. Like­wise father Tur. de i [...]re ordinand. l. 2. c 3. Turrian saith, That the Donatists and Luciferians had after a sort some fashion of a Church, because they had Bishops, though schismaticall, and other Mi­nisters whom Bishops ordained: But the Protestants haue no forme or fashion of a Church at all, because they haue no Ministers at all of the Church or word, but meere Lay men. Lanoius ci­ted by Schul­tingius, bib. cathol. t. 4. pag. 33. Mattheus Lanoius hath proued, that onely the Romane Church hath lawfull vocation. And Apud Schul­ting [...]bid [...]. D. Tyreus hath written of the false calling of the new Ministers, but these are sufficient. And that this is the iudgement of holy Church may appeare by the practise: for as you haue heard out of Rich. Bri­stow▪ Your Ministers returning to vs, are not admitted to minister, vnlesse they take our Orders, which sheweth, that in the iudgement of the Church, they are not lawfull Ministers, but meerely Lay-men.

Our Ministerie is agreeable to the blessed booke of God, and therefore holy: and I doubt not but when the chiefe Shepheard shall ap­peare, those that haue instructed many vnto righteousnesse, shall shine as the starres for euer and euer. But how proue you that our Ministers are no law­full Ministers?

CAn there be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling? 2.

It is impossible; Hebr. 5. 4. For no man taketh this honour vnto himselfe, but hee that is called of God, as was Aaron. It is written of Iohn the Baptist, Iohn 1. 6. There was a man sent from God. The Apostles did not preach before they had this warrant, Matth. 10. 16. Behold I send you. And S. Paul saith, Rom. 10. 15. How can they preach except they be sent? And the Lord in the Prophet Iere. 23. 25. Ieremie, reproueth such as ranne before they were sent. Therefore though a man were wiser then Solomon and Daniel, he must expect till the Lord send him: he that teacheth without a calling, how can he hope that Christ will be with him? This is an order (saith Bez. Epist. 5. Beza) appointed in the Church by the Sonne of God, and obserued inuiolably by all true Prophets and Apostles, That no man may teach in the Church vnlesse he be called.

If there cannot be a lawfull Minister without a lawfull calling, then I must demaund how the Ministers of England can iustifie their calling; Might not a man say to euery one of you, as Hard. con­fut. of the A­pol. part. 2. c. 5. Harding said to Iewell? How say you sir? you beare your selfe as though you were Bishop of Salisburie, but how can you proue your vocation? by what authoritie vsurpe you the Administration of Doctrine and Sacraments? what can you alledge for the right and proofe of your Ministerie? who hath called you? who hath laied hands on you? by what example hath he done it? how and by whom are you consecrated? who hath sent you? who hath committed vnto you the Office you take vpon you? be you a Priest, or be you not? if you be not, how dare you vsurpe the name and Office of a Bishop? if you be, tell vs who gaue you Orders?

You please your selues, and beat the aire with a sound of idle and empti [...] words, but leaue your vaine flourishes, and let vs heare what you can say against our calling.

Then I demand whether you haue an inward or an outward calling?

We haue both.

An outward calling must either bee immediatly by the voyce of Christ, as was the calling of the Apostles, or mediatly by the Church.

[Page 10]

We are called of God by the Church: For it is Ephes. 4. 11. 1 [...]. he which gi­ueth Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints.

All that are called of God by the Church, deriue their authoritie by lawfull succession from Christ and his Apostles. If you doe so, then let it appeare, shew vs your discent, let vs see your pedegree. If you cannot, then what are you? whence come you? If you tell vs that God hath raised you in extraordinary maner, you must pardon vs if we be slow in beleeuing such things; there are many deceiuers gone out into the world, and Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light. In a word, euery lawful calling is either ordinary or extraordinary: if yours be ordinary, let vs see your autho­ritie: if extraordinary, let vs see your miracles. If one take vpon him extraor­dinary authoritie, as an Ambassadour from a King, he must produce his com­mission vnder the Kings seale. If you will challenge the like from God, then we require a miracle, that is the Seale of the King of heauen. But (to vse the words of Stap. [...]r­tr [...]ss. p. 2. c. 3. fol. 102. Doct. Stapleton,) In the hatching of the Protestants brood, no ordinary vo­cation, nor sending extraordinary appeareth: so the ground and foundation being nought, all which they haue builded vpon it falleth downe.

The Ministers of England receiue imposition of hands in lawfull maner, from lawfull Bishops, indued with lawfull authoritie; and therefore their calling is Ordinary.

Your Bishops themselues, whence haue they this authoritie?

They receiued it from God, by the hands of such Bishops as went before them.

But your first reformers, whence do they deriue their succession?

Archbishop Cranmer, and other heroicall spirits, whom the Lord vsed as his instruments to reforme Religion in England, had the very selfe-same Ordination and succession whereof you so glory; and therefore if these argue that your calling is Ordinary, you must confesse that theirs like­wise was Ordinarie.

We must not onely examine Cranmer, and such others consecra­ted in King Henries time, but them also which were in King Edwards, and in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths, as Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horne, and the like, which were Priests after the Romane rite, but leaped out of the Church before they were Bishops.

As the first Bishops consecrated in King Edwards time, deri­ued their Spirituall power by succession from those that were in King Hen­ries: so the first that were aduanced vnder the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth, re­ceiued theirs from such as were formerly created, partly in K. Henries dayes, partly in King Edwards; And the Bishops at this day vnder our gracious so­ueraigne King IAMES, haue the like succession from their predecessours, as may be iustified by Records in particular, and is confessed in generall by Exempla ha­bemus in An­glia quàm [...]in­ri [...]a, v [...] Par­keri, Grindalli, Sa [...]d [...]s [...], Hor [...], & aliorum qui secundum ri­tum Catholi­cum [...] Pres­byteri ordinati, &c. Brist. an­t [...]h. motiu. t. 2. p. 266. [...]ud­semius, who came into England in the yeere of our Lord 1608. to obserue the state of our Church, and the Orders of our Vniuersities. [...]udsemius de desper Cal. causa. c. 11. p. 108. Concerning the state (saith he) of the Caluinian sect in England, it so standeth, that it may either indure long, or be changed suddenly, and in a tr [...]ce, Propter Ca­tholicum ibi­dem in perpetua Episcoporum [...]uorum seri [...], legit [...]maque pa­siorum succes­sione, ab Eccle­si [...] accepta Or­dinem. in regard of the Catholicke order there, in a perpetuall line of their Bishops, and the lawfull succession of Pastors receiued from the Church: for the honor whereof we vse to call the English Caluinists by a milder terme, [Page 11] not hereticks, but schismaticks. Behold, he confesseth we haue the Catholick order, a perpetuall line of Bishops, & a lawfull succession of Pastors, & that deriued from the Church. But withal I would haue you to know, that though we receiued it frō the Church of Rome, yet with a double difference. For first Cr [...]nmer and the rest receiued their Orders from Popish Bishops in a Popish manner, that is, defiled with many Popish pollutions; but when it pleased God to open their eyes, they pared away the pollutions, and retayning onely that which was good, deliuered it vnto posteritie. So we succeed you in your Orders not simply, but so far as they are agreeable to the Scripture: for the man of [...]in did [...]it in the Temple of God, and Antichrist had vsurped the chaire of Christ; so that now in the Church of Rome, good things and bad things were mingled together: therefore in that which you receiued from Christ, wee willinglie succeed you: in that which you haue from Antichrist, we renounce and dis­claime you. Secondly Cranmer and the rest receiued from you a shell of succession without the kernell of Doctrine. For though your Church did giue men power to preach the truth, yet being bewitched with Antichrist, in many things it did not reueale the truth, but when God by the Scriptures re­uealed it vnto them, they both preached it themselues and commended it to posterity. Neither was this to leape out of the Church, but out of the corrup­tions in the Church, euen as the wheate kernel when it is clensed, leapeth not out of the barne, but out of the chaffe. Moreouer though our Doctrine may seeme to you extraordinarie, because it differeth from the Doctrine of the pre­sent Church of Rome, yet as our calling and function, so our Doctrine is the same which the spirit of God hath deliuered in holy Scripture, to be ordinary in the Church, till the end of the world, and therefore you haue no reason to re­quire any Miracles at our hands.

These points shalbe further skanned I warrant you. In the meane time, As E [...] [...] ­tur. l 4. [...]. 13. pag. 928. Tigellius in H [...]r. l. 1. sat. 3. Horace had nothing certaine and setled in all the course of his life, but was alwaies distracted into contrary affections: In respect of his pace, some times he ran most swiftly as though hee had fled from his enemie; some times hee mooued so slowly as though hee had carried the sacrifices of Iuno: In respect of his traine, he had many times two hundred attending him, againe, sometimes he had onely two: And in his speech, now he imitated Kings and Tetrarches, and spake nothing but all bigge words; an other time hee would stoope to very meane matters; So that no­thing was more vnlike and vnequall in the course of life, then this poore wretch was to himselfe: euen so your D [...]ctors some times they creepe vpon the ground, by and by they catch at the clouds and starres. Now they refuse all miracles and [...]nock at such at require them, on a suddaine they challenge to themselues all the miracles since the be­ginning of the world.

And herein they doe nothing, but what may stand with rea­son. For if you speake of our doctrine, we professe and are readie to prooue, that wee teach the same doctrine for substance, which Moses and the Pro­phets, Christ and his Apostles both taught and confirmed by Miracles: And in this sence all the Miracles of Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles are ours, because they are so many seales and confirmations of that Doctrine which we teach. But if the question bee concerning our per­sons, then wee confesse that wee can worke no miracles, wee take no such [Page 12] matter vpon vs; neither is it necessarie because both our calling and doctrine are Ordinary.

I will proue that you haue no lawfull ordinarie calling in the 3. Church of England. And first you challenge to your selues no other ministers, but either Bishops or Priests or Deacons, for other inferiour or­ders you haue none. But neither your Bishops, nor your Priestes, nor your Deacons, haue any lawfull ordinary calling. For first to the ordinarie calling of a Bishop, ordination or consecration is requisite by precedent Bishops ha­uing episcopal power of order and iurisdiction; but your Bishops are descen­ded from such progenitours as had neither of these; no Episcopall power of Order, because either they had no consecration at all, or at least such as is not able to abide the touchstone; no Episcopall iurisdiction, because they are neither elected nor confirmed by our holy Father the successour of Peter, to whom onely Christ gaue the Keyes, and in them the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power. Therefore your Bishops are no Bishops, and consequently all ordi­nations deriued from them are mere nullities.

SEcondly your ordination of Priestes is most intollerable: for according 4. to holy Church this sacred action consisteth of two parts answerable to the two principal functions of Priesthood: the former is garnished with these seemely ceremonies. First of all the Bishop with all the Priestes present Catechis. Triden de Or­din. sacram. lay­eth his hands vpon the head of the person to be ordained: then he inuesteth him in a sacred Ibidem. stoale, so fitted and fashioned that it maketh a Crosse vpon his brest: after this he anointeth his hands with Ibidem. Sacr. cerem. l. 1. s. 2. holy oile; and lastly he deliuereth him the Chalice with wine, and the Paten with the hoast, saying: Pontif. De ordinac. presby­teri. p. 66. Catechis. ibid. Sacr. cer. ibid. Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, Missas (que) celebraretam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini: that is, take thou power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. This is the first part of the ordination, which graceth him with the principall function of Priest­hood, whereby he is made Catechis. ibi. interpres & mediator dei & hominum. That is, an Interpreter and mediator of God and man: Yea, Bonner in crat. ad synod. Londmen. higher then a King, happier then an Angell, creator of his Creator. This is that which maketh the holy Priest­hood to be honoured, because no King nor Emperor, no Angel nor Archan­gel is able to do as we doe; that is, with pronouncing of a few words to make the body of Christ, flesh, blood, and bone, as it was borne of the Virgin Mary. Moreouer after Masse the Bishop Pontif. ibid. pag. 73. imposeth hands, saying. Accipe spiritu [...] sanctum, quorum peccata remiseris remituntur cis, & quorum retinueris retenta sunt, that is, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes thou forgiuest, they are forgiuen them, and whose thou retainest, they are retained. This is the second part, wherein hee receiueth the second function of Priesthood, that is, the power of absolution. Such are the rites of holy Church, wherein you are notoriously defectiue. To passe ouer with silence your contempt of the sacred ceremonies, of Crossing and anoin­ting, which are but accidentall, you want the very essentiall and substantiall parts of Priesthood. For your Church giueth no authoritie to offer the so­ueraigne sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ; and though you haue a kind of absolution, yet to small purpose. For you neither vse auricular con­fession, nor sufficient inioyning of pennance, nor satisfaction for sinne, but haue turned the true iudiciall absolution into a declaratory.

[Page 13]LAst of all your Deacons are no Deacons, not onely because your Bi­shops 5 haue no authoritie to ordaine, but also because they are defe­ctiue in the maine point of their function: for though the Bishops say, The forme of consecra­ting Bishops, Priestes and Deacons. Take thou authoritie to execute the office of a Deacon, yet he meaneth nothing lesse: for the chiefe office of a Deacon is to Diaconorum erat sacerdoti sacrificanti as­sistere, &c. Bell. de cler. c. 13. assist the Priest in saying of Masse, which you scorne and contemne. By this it appeareth that you haue not one Bi­shop, one Priest, one Deacon in all the Church of England, that hath a law­full ordinarie vocation: therefore your pretended Ministers are meerely lay men. All these things with euery branch thereof shall bee iustified to your fa­ces, from point to point, if you or any of your Rabbines dare incounter vs in a Fateor me­scholasacademi­cat cupidè re­quirere. Camp. rat. 2. scholasticall combat, either priuately or rather publickly, in the face of an Vniuersitie, or rather solemnly in In curiam verbo principis inniri Conuo­labimus. Cam­pian. rat. 4. Court, in the Princes presence. This is the thing that we desire.

THe world is well enough acquainted with your boasting bookes, and vaine glorious vaunts. Wee haue heard the bragges of Bristow, and of Parsons the great Polypragmon: but especially wee 6 cannot forget Campian, the glorious Iesuite, who comming into England to display the Popes Banner, like a worthie Champion cast out his gantlet and braued both our Vniuersities. But the successe of this proude popish chal­lenger, may call to your minde the saying of the King of Israel to Benhadad King of Syria; 1. King. 20. 11. Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse, boast as hee that putteth it off. You exclaime against our ministery, as though wee had neither Bishops, Presbyters, nor Deacons: whereupon it followeth that the whole controuer­sie about our ministerie consisteth of three particular controuersies; the first concerning Bishops, the second concerning Presbyters, and the third con­cerning Deacc [...]s. Againe in our Bishops you disanul both their consecration and iurisdiction: Wherefore the first particular controuersie is diuided into two branches, the former of Episcopal consecration, the latter of iurisdiction, concerning which for mine owne part I doe not professe my selfe a champi­on to accept your challenge, our Church (God be thanked) is farre better fur­nished, and our two famous Vniuersities, are like to the Canticl. 4. 4. Tower of Dauid built for defence, a thousand shieldes hang therein, and all the Targets of the strong men. Yet I must needes confesse, that my soule is grieued to heare the hoast of Israel, the armie of the liuing God reuiled. Wherfore in regard of my dutie to God, and the Church, I will not keepe silence. Yet one thing I admonish you, if you meane to dispute with reproach and disdaine, the garland is yours; I will yeeld you the bucklers before we beginne, but if you desire in singlenes of heart to find and follow the trueth, if to this ende you will compare reason with reason, and argument with argument, in meekenes and mildnes of spirit, if you hold the trueth of God in that precious account, that you will suffer it to ouer-ballance all popular applause and worldly respectes, then I am con­tent to bee partaker with you in the search thereof. The Lord giue vs wise­dome and grace to knowe his will, and to doe that which is acceptable in his sight. If it please you to embrace these conditions, then propose and prose­cute your arguments in order.

I will begin, and proue that your Bishops are no Bishops.

CHAP. III.

WHerein are they defectiue? Are they bare titularie Bishops without any Sees? or are they Bishops without the Bishoply office and function? The first you cannot affirme, because wee consecrate none but such as are assigned to the administrati­on of a certaine place, according to the Canon of the Councell of Act. 15. Can. 6. Bin. t. 2. p. 129 Chalcedon. But whether you haue offended in this or no, wit­nesse your owne famous Panor. de officio ord. c. quoniam. n. 4. Panormitane. Nota quod multi sunt Episcopi sine ad­ministratione Episcopatuum, vt sunt illi qui vulgariter Nullatenenses appellantur. i. Note that there are many Bishops without the administration of Bishoprickes, as are they which are commonly called Bishops of Vtopia. These pretend great titles, and please themselues in that sweet humor, which is nothing else but a vaine dreame and meere mockery. They are like vnto the Thrasylaus. mad man, which when any Athenaeus dipnos. l. 12 shippes arriued at Athens, cried out, al is mine, and tooke an Inuentory of their goods, yet was he neuer one penny the richer. Of this frantike crue were Gentilletus in examine. Olaus Magnus, and blind Robert, Archbishops in conceite, the one sti­led Vpsalensis, the other Armachanus, both sent to the Slcid. com. l. 17 Councell of Trent to fill vp the number. So Bish. Godwin. in Catal. Robert King the last Abbot of Osney was entituled Episcopus Roanensis, whose episcopall See was supposed to bee in the Prouince of the Archbishoprike of Athens, but hee was glad to bee translated from thence to Oxford. Ibidem Thomas Merkes Bishop of Carlile was remooued by the Pope from his owne bishopricke which yeelded him conuenient mainte­nance, to the imaginarie bishopricke of Samos in Greece, whereof he knew hee should neuer receiue one penny of profit: but as Ibidem. one hath well obserued, Hee was so happie as neither to take benefit of the guift of his enemie, nor to bee hurt by the masked malice of his counterfeit friend. Anthonie Beck Bishop of Durham was aduanced by the Pope to be Lelandus in Com. in cygn. cant. Anto­nius Beccus hic fuit Episco­pus Dunelm. regnante Ed. 1. electus est in patriarcham Hieros [...]lymi­tanum anno. 1305 Patriarch of Ierusalem: but if hee had reaped no better maintenance from the Bishoprick of Durham, then from Ierusalem, for all his glorious title he might haue starued. For the Pope (as Iewel. def. part. 5. c. 6. dist. 10 B. Iewel hath told you) beeing forsaken of the foure principall Patriarches of the world, appointeth out foure of his ordinary Chaplaines (or other Prelates whom it pleaseth him) and giueth them the names of foure Patriarches, the first for Constantinople, the second for Alexandria, the third for Antioch, the fourth for Ierusalem: and thus hauing these foure at command, in this pleasant fancie hee ruleth and gouerneth the whole world. In such a solemne bra­uery the great Cham of Tartary at this day, after he hath dined himselfe, soun­deth out a trumpet, and giueth all the Emperours and Kings of the world leaue to goe to dinner; in which imagination and iollitie he continueth his claime to the possession of the world. So the Pope maketh painted Patri­arches, filling their ambitious heads with emptie titles like to great bladders blowne full of wind. Such Vtopian Bishops may iustly be called no Bishops; but [Page 15] they are found in the Church of Rome, and not in the Church of England.

YOur Bishops are no Bishops, because they are not ordained 2 according to the Cited after­ward. Canons.

The ancient Canons are more reuerently regarded in the Church of England, then in the Church of Rome. For how well you haue obserued them in former ages, let your owne Bar. anno 912. n. 8. Baronius testifie. How foule (saith hee) was then the face of the holy Romane Church, when most potent and withall most filthie harlots did beare all the sway at Rome? at whose lust Sees were changed, Bishops appointed, and (which is horrible to be heard and not to bee vtte­red) whose louers the false Popes, were thrust into the seate of Peter, which were not to bee written in the Catalogue of the Romane Bishops, but onely for the noting of the times: for who may say, they were lawfull Popes which were thus without right thrust in by such strumpets? No where wee finde any mention of Clergie choosing, or giuing consent afterward; All Canons were put to silence; the pontificall decrees were choked, ancient traditions proscribed, and the old customes, sacredrite, and former vse in choosing the high Bishop vtterly extinguished. And for la­ter times, your owne learned friends also complaine as followeth: Bud. de asse. l. 5. Bude­us: The holie Canons and rules of Church discipline made in better times to guide the life of Clergie men, are now become leaden rules, such as Aristotle saith the rules of Lesbyan buildings were. For as leaden and soft rules doe not direct the building with an equall tenour, but are bowed to the building at the lust of the buil­ders: so are the Popes Canons made flexible as leade and waxe, that now this great while the Decrees of our ancestours, and the Popes Canons, serue not to guide mens manners, but ( that I may so say) to make a banke and get mony. Vict. rel. 4. de potest pap. prop. 6. p. 139. Franciscus de Victoria, Doct: of the chaire at Salmantica in Spaine. Wee see dailie so large or rather so dissolute dispensations proceede from the Court of Rome, that the world cannot indure them. Neither is it onely to the offence of the little ones, but of the great ones also. Nullus quaeris dispensatio­nem quin obti­peat. pag. 148 No man seeketh a dispensation but hee obtaineth it: Yea at Rome there are which giue As may bee collected. pag. 149. attendance to see if any bee willing to craue dispen­sation of all things established by law: Omnes qui petunt afferunt dispensationes. ibid. all that craue it haue it. If you Philodox would see the particulars, reade but Espen. in Tit. c. 1. digr. 2. Claudius Espencaeus a diuine of Paris vpon the Epistle to Titus, and vnlesse your fore-head bee as hard as brasse it will make you blush. I will conclude this point with the saying of Tapp. Orat. 10. anno 1552 Ru­ardus Tapperus Chancelour of Louaine. In the Court of Rome all things are set at sale, with dispensations contayning many things wherewith Christ him­selfe is not able to dispence. Behold, this is your keeping of Canons in the Church of Rome. But because you accuse the Church of England for breaking the Canons in making of Bishops; I answere first, that the conse­cration of our Bishops is most canonicall: Secondly, that if wee failed in this or that Canon, yet euery transgression of an Ecclesiasticall Canon doth not make a nullitie in a consecration: As for example, It was prouided by the great Conc. Sard. can. 10. Bin. t. 1. p. 437. Councell of Sardica that none should bee made Bishop, vnlesse hee had passed the inferiour orders, and staied a long time in them. Notwithstanding Soz. l. 7. [...]. 8 Nectarius was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, being not only a lay-man; but as yet vnbaptized: and was presently made Bishop in the second ge­nerall Conc. Const. in [...]p. synod. Bin. t. 1. p. 529 Councell held at Constantinople. Likewise Saint Socr. l. 4. c. 25 Ambrose, Zacharias in Con. 8. Bin t. 3. pag. 887. Tarasi­us, Nicephorus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Thalasius; yea and some Marcel. Corc. l. 1. sect. 2 sacr. Ceremon. Popes also as for [Page 16] example Petrus Moronaeus, were of lay men aduanced to the Episcopall office, yet I know you dare not pronounce a nullitie in their Consecration. Wher­fore seeing it is a plaine case, that euery breach of a Canon doth not annihi­late a consecration, you must tell vs what Canon you meane and wherein we breake it.

I meane that Canon which requireth that a Bishop should bee consecrated by three Bishops: which Canon the Catechis. Trid. de ordinis sacra­mento: Episcopi ex Apostolorū traditione qu [...] perpetuo in Ecclesia custo­dita est, atribu [...] Episcopic con­secrantur. Councel of Trent cal­leth an Apostolicke tradition.

HEre arise two questions; the former, whether three Bishops 3. be required of necessitie to an Episcopall consecration; the later, whether the Bishops of England be consecrated by three. Now that the state of the former may be the clearer, giue me leaue to aske you a few things. And first, what say you to Amphilochius, who was created Bishop not by men but by Angels, vnlesse Lib. 11. c. 20 Nicephorus delude vs with fables?

It seemeth to bee no fable, but a true Story. For Amphilochius was allowed for a lawfull Bishop, but this was done (as Cardinall Bell. de sa­cram. in gen. l. 1. c. 24. Bel­larmine saith) by diuine dispensation extraordinary.

What say you then to the blessed Apostles? were they Bishops or no? And if Bishops, whether in that they were Apostles, or by distinct consecration? and if by distinct consecration, by whom were they con­secrated?

Cardinall Ioh. de Tur. summ. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 32. Turrecremata teacheth, that Chirst himselfe made Peter a Bishoppe immediatelie, and Peter ordained the rest, first Iohn, next Iames, then others. And Cardinall Bell. de R. Pont. l. 1. c. 23. Bellarmine maketh it the two and twentith prerogatiue of Peter, Quòd solus Petrus a Christo ordinatus Episcopus fue­rit, caeteri autem a Petro Episcopalem consecrationem acceperint, i. That onely Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the rest receiued their Episcopall consecration from Peter.

These conceites and fancies when they shalbe weighed in the ballance, wilbe found too light. In the meane time, what say you to the consecration of Iohn and Iames, were they sound and Canonical?

They were sound no doubt, but why should you aske if they were canonicall, seeing the Canon was not then made? You must vnder­stand, that there is one consideration to bee had of the Church when it is in the cradle, and another, when it is growne to ripe and florishing yeeres. In the infancie of the Church, when Christ ascending into glorie had consecrated Peter, and made him the spring and fountaine of all Epis­copall Order, it was necessarie that the first should bee consecrated by Peter alone, the next by two at the most, and these consecrations were sound and sufficient: but when Iames the brother of our Lord was or­dained Bishoppe of Ierusalem by Peter, Iohn and the other Iames, they gaue a Forme or Patterne to their successours, as Anacl. ep. 2. c. 1. apud Bin. tom. 1. p. 101. Anacletus declareth that a Bishop should by no meanes bee consecrated by fewer then by three, all the rest giuing their consent.

Suppose a Church should suffer such desolation (which the Lord forbid) that a Canonicall number of Catholicke Bishops were not to be found, what should then be done in this case of necessitie?

[Page 17]

Wee may learne that, partly of the Councell of Conc. Sar. c. 5. Bin. tom. 1. p. 435. Sardica, which permitteth a supply from the next prouince: partly of Pope Greg. 7. epist. 19. apud Bin. [...]. 3. p. 1210. Gregory the seuenth, who when the Churches of Africke were brought to so lowe an ebbe, that they had onely two Bishops, would not suffer those two to conse­crate a third, but willed them to proceede to an election, and send the party elected to Rome to be consecrated by three.

The presence of three, when they may conueniently be had, we greatly commend, yet not as a commandement of God, but as a constitution of the Church, to be imbraced of congruity, and not of necessitie.

YEs of necessity, and that both necessitate precepti, by the necessity 4. of a command, which we are bound to obey, because as Epist. ad Gal­liae Episc. Bin. tom. 1. p. 126. Ani­cetus saith, instituente domino sieri iubetur, it is commanded to be done the Lord so ap­pointing: and also necessitate medij, as a necessary meanes; necessary I say, not only ad bene esse, to the well performance of the consecration, but also, ad esse, to the very being of it, so that without it there is a nullity. For first of all this is the ge­nerall iugdement of the Iurists, as appeareth by those words of Cardinall Ioh. Turr. in Grat. decr. tom. 1. p. 492. Turrecremata, Iuristae quasi omnes sunt huius opinionis quod requiratur ternarius numerus Episcoporum, ita vt si quis a paucioribus consecretur, dicatur nihil agi; that is, almost all the Iurists are of this opinion, that the number of three Bishops is so requi­red, that if one be consecrated by fewer, it may be said that nothing is done. Which iudgement of the Iurists preuaileth with most eminent Canonists, as appea­reth by the words following in the Cardinall: Vnde Hugo & Archidiaconus di­cunt, vt Papa solus cum vno Episcopo non posset consecrare hac forma durante, that is, whereupon Hugo and the Archdeacon say that the Pope alone with one Bishop cannot consecrate, so long as this forme endureth. The words of the Archdeacon are these, Archid. sup. deret. part. 1. dist. 66. Porro. p. 88. est ergo de forma & substantia sacramenti quod ibi sint tres Episcopi, & si or­dinetur a minus, non est Episcopus, quia deest substantia siue forma qu [...] exigitur in col­latione illius ordinis, that is, therefore it is of the forme and substance of the Sacrament that there be three Bishops, and if one be ordained of lesse he is no Bishop: because the substance or forme required in the Collation of that Order is wanting. Moreouer whereas in the second Conc. Arelat. 2. [...]a. 5. Bin. tom. 1. p. 537. Counsell at Arles it is saide, that a Metropolitan should not presume to ordaine a Bishop without three of his prouinciall Bi­shops: which the Canon Decr. Greg. l. [...]. tit. 6. c. 7. nec Epis. Law aleadgeth three or two, that is, three with the Metropolitan, or two besides him; the glosse vpon the word (three), saith thus, quod dicit (tribus) est de substantia consecrationis alias non esset consecratꝰ [...]iessent pauciores, that is, Whereas the Councell saith, (three) it is of the substance of the con­secration, otherwise he should not be consecrated if there were fewer.

IS this the Iudgement of your Iesuites?

Father Turrian speaking of the Metropolitan 5. and two Bishops assistant, saith, Tur. pro can. apost. l. 1. c. 22. fol. 7 [...]. Hi sunt tres prorsus necessarij, these are three al­together necessary: and Tur. de. eccle. & ordinat. minist. l. 1. c. 11. elsewhere he produceth this saying of Dama. Epist. 5. apud. Bin. tom. 1. p. 502. Damasus, Quod Episcopi non sint qui minus quam a tribus ordinati sunt Episcopis, omnibus pa­tet, quoniam prohibitum est a sanctis patribus vt qui ab vno vela duobus ordinati sunt Episcopis ne (que) nominentur Episcopi: si nomen non habent qualiter officium habebunt? that is, it is manifest to all men that they are no Bishops, which are ordeined of lesse then three Bishops: Because the holy Fathers forbid that such as are ordained of one or two Bishops, should not so much as be called Bishops: if they haue not the name, how should they haue the office? and he inferreth this conclusion in the words of Da­masus: [Page 18] Quare quicquid inter Episcopos aut de rebus solummodo adeos pertinentibus egerint; necesse est vt irritum fiat, quia quod non habent, dare non possunt: that is, Wherefore whatsoeuer they shall doe among Bishops, or concerning things belonging onely to Bishops, it must needs be void, because they cannot giue that to another which they haue not themselues. Whereupon he accounteth your Bishops no Bi­shops, your Ministers no Ministers, your ordinations, no ordinations. Turr. in Epist nun [...] at. pre­fix. lib. de eccle. & ord. Nec enim schismaticae ordinationes sunt, sed nullae penitus, ac potius meré laicae; For the ordi­nations (of the Protestants) are not Schismaticall ordinations, but no ordinations at all, and mere laick.

What saith Bellarmine to this matter? for he was the noble and renowned Iesuite, though now he hath changed his habit for a red hat.

He saith, Bell. de e [...]l lib. 4. ca [...]. 8 nota quart [...]. Nostri temporis haeretici neutrum habent, id est, nec ordina­tionem, nec successionem, & propterea longé inuerecundiús quam vlli vnquam haereti­ci sibi nomen & munus Episcopi vsurpant: i. the Heretickes of our time haue nei­ther, that is, neither ordination nor succession, and therefore they vsurpe vnto them­selues the name and office of a Bishop farre more immodestly then euer did any other Heretickes; the ground of which assertion (as may appeare both by the an­tecedents and consequents) is because they are not consecrated by three.

Doth hee not allow a consecration by fewer in case of ne­cessitie?

It cannot be doubted (saith he) Ibid. quan­tum ad. but ordinarily three Bishops are requi­red to the ordination of a new Bishop: vnlesse peraduenture by dispensation with one Bishop ordaining, there be present two mitred Abbots which may supply the place of Bi­shops, as it vseth sometimes to be done, ob Episcoporum raritatem, for the scarcitie of Bi­shops. Hetherto Bellarmine to which Bin. in can. apost. tom. 1. p. 14. Binius addeth, aliamue iustam causam, or for any other iust cause.

By whose dispensation must this be?

Ibidem. Binius saith per summi Pontificis dispensationem, by the Popes dis­pensation.

If there bee neither three nor two nor any Abbots assisting, nor yet the Popes dispensation, what is then the iudgement of Bellarmine?

You shal heare himselfe speake: Be [...] que. from which an insoluble argument is taken in this manner. A Church cannot be without Bishops, as we haue declared: a­mong the Lutherans there are no Bishops, for they haue no ordination, nor succession from the Apostles: therefore among them there is no Church, And verely that neither Luther who was accounted Bishop of Wittenberge, nor Zuinglius, who was reputed Bishop of Tigur, nor Oecolampadius, who in the very Epitaph vpon his graue is called the first Bishop of Basill, nor Caluin, who was called the first Bishop of Geneua, nor any other of them were ordeined of three Bishops, nor of one by dispensation with the assistance of Abbots is a thing notoriously knowen; neither do they deny it. Therefore these are no Bishops, at least in the iudgement of the Fathers of the Nicen and Carthaginian Coun­cell, yea in the iudgement of the Apostles themselues, who haue decreed that a Bishop ought to be ordained by three Bishops. Thus Bellarmine is clearely of opinion that a Bishop must either be ordained of three, or haue assistance of Abbots with a dispensation, or else he is no Bishop, and this argument he calleth insoluble.

HOw this doth crosse and condradict it selfe in due place 6. shall appeare: in the meane time I would willingly [Page 19] 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?

It agreeth with the former, the words are these; Epit. controu. part. 1. Cont. 4. q. 2. 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.

HItherto we haue seene how you hold the state of the first 7. question, but doe your Iesuites and Seminaries vrge this against the Church of England?

Yes for it is a maine point.

Then your maine point is a vaine point, but let vs heare them.

Bellarmine speaking of the marriage of English Bishops, saith, Bellar. apol. pro resp. ad. lib. Iacob. R. cap. 7. pag. 119. 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.

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, Antiq. Brit. pag. 326. 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 Ricard. Pa­caeus lib. de fruct qui ex doctr na perci­p [...]tur. Cited by Doct. Rai­nold. Conf. c. 7. s. 6. 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 Pacaeus ibid. Leo the tenth made him a Cardinall, that he might hold his peace. For commonly in the Church of Rome the great Bishops [Page 20] preach seldome, the Cardinals seldomer, and the Popes neuer. But what is the ground of his accusation?

Because they are not Canonically ordeined. The same point is likewise vrged against them by Doctor Stap. Fort. part. 2. c. 7. f. 141. 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.

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.

Sand. de schis. l. 3. p. 297. 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.

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 [...]. Lib. 3. c. 4. 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, Tort. Torti. p. 363. 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.

It is no slander, but a trueth, which shalbe auouched to your fa­ces; for I wil proue al that I haue said in order. My masters, marke what I say; The Pa­pists prisoners in Framling­ham castle in the late Q. time. If you can iustifie your Calling, we will all come to your Church, and be of your Religion.

Remember your promise, and proceed with your Argument.

I will proceed and 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.

[Page 21]

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.

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.

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.

It seemeth probable (saith De verbo dei l. 1. c. 20. Bellarmine) that this Canon was not set out by Clemens; yea, it is Apocryphus and Surreptitius as is affirmed by Bin. in notis in Canon. [...]post. tom. 1. p 15. Binius.

What say you then to the 65. Canon which forbiddeth to fast vpon the Saturday, excepting one onely, (that is as Page 17. Binius declareth) the Pa­schall Saturday.

I say with Bar. Anno. 102. [...]. 15. Baronius, it is counterfeite.

But what say you to Pope Distinct. 15. sanct. Romana. 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: De verbo Dom. l. 1. c. 20. 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.

Gelasius did not call the booke Apocryphall, as though all the Canons therein conteined were Apocryphall, but as Ibidem. Bellarmine thinketh, Propter aliquos vel corruptos, vel additos ab haeret [...]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 Quo supra. pag. 14. Binius.

Pope Zeph. epistol [...] 1. apud Bin. tom. 1. p. 134. Zephirine allowed 70. or at least 60. (for there are diuerse readings) how doth this agree?

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 Ibidem. pag. 14 & 134. Binius affirmeth out of Father Tur pro can. apost. l. 1. c. 20. Turrian.

Quo supra. 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.

[Page 22]

Pope Dist. 16. Clem. 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 50. Canoni­bus siue capitu­ [...]s. Bin. t. 1. p. 14 Canons.

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 Bin. in hun [...] canonem. 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.

THe words are these. Let Canon apost. primus. a Bishop bee ordained of two or three Bi­shops. 2

Doth the Canon require two or three? Then ordination by two is canonicall, as well as by three.

Not so, for the Canon meaneth that there should be two or three assistants, besides the Metropolitane, as is declared by Cardinall Bell. de eccl. l. 4. c. 8. Bellarmine and father Turrian de. eccles. & ordi. l. 1. c. 4. Turrian.

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 Pamel [...]n Cypr. Epist. 68. 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 Io [...]. de Turre­crem. in Grati­anum. c. 1. pag. 493. 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 3 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 See Master Iames of cor­ruptions. pag. 2. & 3. commonly alleage it. Wherefore as Saint Act. 17. 28 Paul cited a Poet against the Athenians; so let mee cite this booke against you which so highly esteeme it. Apostolick. Constit. l. 8. cap. 27. 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.

[Page 23]

But that one must haue the commission of many.

The commission is onely for concord sake and to auoide Schisme, for the Ecclesi [...] vs [...] satis ostendit neque absoluti­nem neque or­dinationem vel a muto, vel ab absente conferri posse Bel. de sacr. matr. l. 1. c. 8. ad ea. 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 constitutions proceeded from the Apostles, then you must confesse that they are the fittest interpreters of the Canons of the Apostles.

THe Canon will be cleerer if wee compare it with the Decre­tall Epistles. 4

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 Cusanius Bellar, & Con­tius alleadged by Doctour Reinoldes conf. c. 8. Diuis. 3. owne men. Yet I will not take you at this aduantage, and therefore let vs heare them.

Anacl. Epist. 2. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 101. & dist. 66. Porro. 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 Epist. ad Galliae Episco. apud Bin. t. 1. p. 126 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.

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 Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1 Eusebius, Hier. de viris illustribus in Iacobo. Hierome and others. But what is meant when it is said that the Apostles ordained him?

What else but that they conferred vpon him the Episcopall pow­er, as our Bishops doe when they consecrate a Bishop?

Then belike, before this ordination, Saint Iames had not the Episcopall power.

Very true.

Was not he an Apostle of Iesus Christ?

Yes: for they speake distinctly of Iames the brother of our Lord, of whom Saint Gal. 1. 19. 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.

And was he not called to the office of an Apostle immediatly by Iesus Christ? & consequētly had he not from him al Apostolick authority?

All Apostolick I grant: but we speake of Episcopal.

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 Io. 20. 21 my Father sent mee, so send I you: and Saint 2. Cor. 12. 12. Paul proclaimeth that hee was in nothing inferiour to the chiefe Apostles. If in nothing; then not in Episcopall power and authority. [Page 24] This is agreeable to the iudgement of the best learned among you. Bellar­mine saith, Bell. de sacr. bapt. & confir. l. 2. c. 12. 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 De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 23. place he proueth the same by the authoritie of S. Cyrill, grounding vpon the words of Christ before alleadged. Likewise Kelectione 2. Quest. 2. Conc. 3. 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.

Doe not the fathers commonly say, That he was a Bishop?

They say so, And in so saying, they say truely if they be right­ly vnderstood. For 1. The Scripture saith of Iudas, Acts. 1. 20. 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.

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.

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 Haeres. 27. 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, Matt. 5. 14. The light of the world; whereas the 7. Bishops of Asia are stiled, The 7. Reue. 1. 20. 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.

If Iames receiued no Episcopall power by Ordination, in what sence is it said, That they ordained him?

Your glosse of the Canon Law giueth 4. senses of that speach, Gloss [...]n dist. 67. Reliqui. 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, [Page 25] 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 Acts. 13. 2▪ 3. 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 labours to the grace of God: which imposi­tion of hands the ancient writers terme Ordination, vsing the word largely, and improperly. But if we should imagine that he was properly ordained, what can be collected thereupon?

THat this should be a paterne to all posteritie, as appeareth 5 by the authorities before alleadged, and consequently, that a Bishop should not be ordained by fewer then three.

There may be a faire patterne, and yet posteritie may some­times want meanes to imitate that patterne. When the number may be had, we greatly commend it; when it cannot, then both this, and all other Eccle­siasticall Constitutions must yeeld to necessitie.

The contrary is manifest by the words of Epist. 2. An [...]cletus, A Petro, Iacobo & Iohanne Apostolis est ordinatus, successoribus dantibus formam eorum, vt non minus quam à tribus Episcopis reliquisque omnibus assensum praebentibus vllate­nus ordinetur Episcopus. Wherefore a Bishop must not be ordained Vllatenus, by any meanes, or in any respect by fewer then three, and consequently not in case of necessitie. Is not this to make the number of three, a substantiall point of Episcopall Ordination?

The same word in effect is vsed about the Consecration of an Archbishop, Distinct. 66. Archiepiscopus. Archiepiscopus ab omnibus suae Prouinciae Episcopis ordinetur, hoc autem nullatenus liceat immutare; That is, Let an Archbishop be ordained of all the Bishops of his Prouince; and let it by no meanes be lawfull to change this Where this word Nullatenus doeth not proue, that the consent of all is substantiall, as is confessed by Cardinall Turrecr. in Grat. decret. t. 1. pag. 493. Turrecremata.

You must marke what followeth; Sin aliter praesumptum fuerit, viri­bus carere non dubium est, quia irrita erit secus acta ordinatio. i. If the action shalbe otherwise done through presumption, there is no doubt but it wanteth vali­ditie: because the Ordination otherwise performed, shalbe voyd.

It shalbe void; but how? Quoad officij executionem, saith the Distinct. 66. Archiep. Glosse; i. According to the execution of the Office. Whereupon Apud Tur. ibidem. Hugo, saith, Episcopus tamen erit, licet ab omnibus non consecretur, sed repelletur ab Officio Episcopali nisi dispensetur cum illo. i. Yet he shalbe a Bishop, although he be not Consecrated of all, but he shalbe repelled (for his presumption) from the E­piscopal Office, vnlesse he be dispensed withall. Wherefore in the iudgment of Hugo, the Ordination is not void in respect of the power, but the Church may make it void, in respect of the execution: and yet vpon his repentance he may be admitted to the execution, not by a new ordination, but by dispensa­tion, [Page 26] which proueth that the transgression was not substantial, but accidental.

Epist. 5. apud Bin. t. [...]. p. 502. Damasus saith, It is apparant to all men that they are no Bishops, which are ordained of fewer then three, because it is forbidden by the holy Fathers, that they which are ordained of one or two Bishops, should not so much as be named Bishops: If they haue not the name, how shall they haue the office? Wherefore whatsoeuer they shall doe amongst Bishops, Necesse est vt irritum fiat: i. It must needes bee voide, Quia quod non habent dare non possunt: i. because they cannot giue that which they haue not.

Your owne Turr. Cr. quo supra. Cardinall shall answere you; Wheresoeuer (saith hee) it can bee found that an ordination is voide and of no validitie, because it is performed by fewer then by three, it is to be vnderstood, Non quantum ad veritatem Sacramenti, sed quantum ad executionem officij▪ i. Not in respect of the trueth of the Sacrament, but in respect of the execution of the office. And truely there is no rea­son that he should inioy an honorable office in the Church, which presump­tuously breaketh the Lawes of the Church. Therefore the Church may iust­ly repell them from execution; but cannot take away their power which they haue in themselues, and haue power to imprint in others. Yet while they haue it without the Churches approbation, they cannot giue it with the Churches approbation: and while they stand in opposition, the Church e­steemeth the orders they giue as no orders, yet are they true orders in the na­ture of the thing, but the Church restraineth the execution of them, as though they were none, for order and discipline sake. Yet as you heard be­fore euen in case of presumption, the Church may dispense vpon due consi­deration, and consequently receiue into her bosome, such as were ordained in Schisme, and let them inioy both their orders and honours. But when the defect springeth neither from schisme, nor heresie, from presumption, nor singularitie, but onely from vrgent necessitie, there being no voluntary viola­tion, necessitie it selfe is a sufficient dispensation. And this must be the mea­ning of Damasus, or else [...]f you vrge from his words an absolute nullity, you wil make him condradict both the positions and practise of your owne Church, as Chap. 7. hereafter shalbe declared.

CHAP. V.

THE contrary may be proued by the Councels, and I hope as in all other Controuersies betweene vs and you, so in this you shall be presently confounded by them. I will beginne with that first famous generall C [...]nc. Nic. 1. Can. 4. Councell of Nice.

Indeed a vaine Campian rat. 4. Iesuite cryeth: Concilia generalia mea sunt: pri­mum, vltimum media, that is, All generall Councells are mine, the first, the last, and the middle. For tryall whereof let vs take a little viewe of this Nicen Coun­cell, wherein you so glory: and first concerning that very Canon which you produce against vs, as though we did transgresse it, we may iustly say, that the Church of England hath as well obserued it, as euer did any Church vpon [Page 27] the face of the earth: But the Church of Rome doth indeed transgresse it, In which sometimes one Bishop alone doth consecrate a Bishop, two Abbots supplying the place of the other two Bishops, as Bell. de eccl. milit. l. 4. c. 8. Bellarmine confesseth. Secondly, according to the Nicen Canons, the power to confirme Bishops, belongeth to the Canon. 4. Metropolitan of the prouince, without whose approbation whosoeuer is ordeined a Bishop, the Nicen Fathers account for no Bishop▪ but the Church of Rome alloweth him whom the Pope alloweth, though he be not allowed by his Metropolitan, and disalloweth him whom the Pope disalloweth, though he be lawfully al­lowed by his Metropolitan. Thirdly, the Nicen Canon 5. Canons forbidde that any Bishop should absolue them, which are excommunicate by another Bishop. But the Pope will open and shut, bind and loose at his pleasure. Fourthly the Nicen Canons appoint that old Canon 6. customes should bee kept, and namely that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue the preheminence in Egypt, Lybya and Pentapolis, because such also is the custome of the Bishop of Rome: and likewise that in Antioch, and other Prouinces the Churches should inioy their dignities and prerogatiues. Which words in all reason import, that euery Metropolitan should haue preheminence with­in his own Prouince, according to the custome of Rome, which custome they commend and propose for a patterne: But the Bishop of Rome careth neither for Canons nor Customes which make against him. He is not content to bee Bishop in his owne Diocesse, and Metropolitan ouer Bishops in his owne Pro­uince, and Patriarch ouer his owne Metropolitans: but he would stretch out the pawes of his Supremacie ouer the Christian world. Fiftly the Nicen Ca­nons would haue no Priest made without Canon 9. examination, and such as are rashly or­dained they doe not allow: But the Bishop of Rome maketh Ordines au­tem etiam ma­iores, etiam presbyteratum posse conferri infantibus non­dum vsum ra­tionis habenti­bus est Commu­nis doctrin [...] Theologorum, & Canonista­rum. Toll. de instr. sac. l. 1. c. 61. n. 3. boy Priests and boy Bishops, and boy Cardinals. For proofe of these ex­amples, See Doct. Reinolds Apol. Thes. 26. with whose fountaine in this place I haue watred my garden. Ferdinandus Medices a Florentine was made a Cardinall by Sixtus Quintus, when he was not ful thirteene yeres old: and Iohannes Medices which was afterwards Pope Leo the tenth, was Cardinall be­fore he was fourteene yeeres complet, yet he was an Archbishop fiue yeeres before he was Cardinall. And least you should imagine that this fauour was afforded only to Florentines, Odettus Castilioneus was Cardinall at eleuen yeere old, yet he was elected Bishop before he was Cardinall. Alphonsus sonne to Immanuel King of Portugall was Cardinall at seuen yeeres old; and yet he was Bishop be­fore he was Cardinall. These are the men, whose office is, to chuse the Pope, to assist him with their Counsell, and to sit with him as Iudges of the whole world. And that which is more wonderfull, if we may beleeue Glaber Rodul­phus, a Monke of your owne, which liued at the same time; Benedict the ninth was made Pope at twelue yeeres olde: Was not this a fitte man to be Father of the Church, Moderator of generall Councels, Decider of all Controuer­sies, Expounder of all Scriptures, the onely Oracle vpon the face of the earth, and Iudge Paramount of the Christian World? Sixtly the Nicen Canon 18. Canons doe not suffer a Deacon so much as to sit amongst Priests, but as the Priest was in place, inferiour to the Bishop, so the Deacon to the Priest. Now though it were granted to be true which De cler. c. 16. Bellarmine affirmeth, that vnder Syluester there was seuen Cardinal Deacons in Rome, yet the Nicen Councel maketh no excep­tion at all of Cardinals. But be he Cardinal or not Cardinall, the Deacon is inferior to the Priest, and the Priest to the Bishop; but the Bishop of Rome hath aduanced his Cardinals, euen such as are neither Bishops nor Priests. [Page 28] First aboue Bishops, then aboue Archbishops, last of all aboue Patriarches. Seuenthly, the Nicen Can. 17. Canons forbid any Bishop to ordaine in his Church a Clerke belonging to another Bishop, without the consent of the Bishop to whom he belongeth. But the Bishop of Rome ordaineth, whomsoeuer, wheresoeuer, whensoeuer; not expecting the consent of any man. Last of all the Nicen Can. 18. Canons forbid all Clerkes to follow filthy lucre: Wherein how his holines excelleth, is plainely platted out by Claudius In Tit. c. 1. Espencaeus, a Diuine of your owne, out of a shamelesse booke openly sold in Rome, called the Taxe of the Chamber, or Chauncery Apostolicke, wherein a man may learne before hand, at what price to be dispensed withall, for any villany he shall commit, be it adultery, symony, periurie, incest, or worse then incest. Wherefore Philodox, if paper could blush, I am perswaded the leaues of that booke would be as red as scarlet. So at Rome nothing is forbidden, but to come without money; if a man bring money, it will procure a dispensation for any thing: A wedge of gold findeth g [...]ace wheresoeuer it goeth, and a Key of gold can open Saint Peters locke. For all things are weighed at Rome in a ballance of golde, as though pouerty were the onely irregularitie, and no sinne in the world were greater then to want money, so well doth the Church of Rome obserue the Nicen Canons. But let vs heare the words of the Canon.

A Conc. Nicen. 1. can. 4. Bishop must be ordained if it be possible of all the Bishops in his pro­uince, 2. if this be hard to performe either by occasion of vrgent necessi­tie, or for the length of the iourney, yet surely three ought to bee congregated into one place, so that they haue the consent of the absent, & solet thē make an ordination. Like­wise the fourth C. 2. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 553. Councell of Carthage; when a Bishop is ordained, let two Bishops lay the Booke of the Gospels, and hold it ouer his head and necke, and one Bishop powring the blessing vpon him, let all other Bishops that are present, touch his head with their handes. Likewise the second Cap. 5. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 537. Councell of Arles. Let no Bishop presume to or­daine a Bishop without permission of the Metropolitane, nor any Bishop being a Me­tropolitance without three Bishops of the same Prouince, so that others of the same Pro­uince be admonished by Epistles, that they may signifie by their answere, that they haue consented. So the sixt Cap. 4. Bin. t. 1. p. 617. Councell of Carthage: A Bishop must be ordained of all the Bishops which are within the Prouince, but if this bee hard either for vrgent necessi­tie, or for the length of the iourney, yet by all meanes three meeting together, there may bee imposition of handes, the absent Bishoppes consenting thereto by writing. So the second Councell at Cap. 2. Bin. t. 2. p. 669. Brachar; It is meete that Bishops should bee appointed, especially by the whole Councell: but if this shalbe hard in respect of necessitie, or for the length of the iourney, let three of them bee gathered together, and let the sub­scriptions of all both present and absent bee taken, and so afterward let the ordina­tion be performed. Thus you see the Councels, and namely the Nicen requi­reth the presence of three. For first it should bee performed by all the Bishops of the Prouince, but if that cannot be by reason of vrgent necessitie, yet surely three must bee congregated: so they make it not a thing indif­ferent, but a matter of necessitie, and in any case require three.

WHat if three present proceede to a consecration not 3 expecting at all the consent of the absent?

Their consent seemeth to bee onely of congruitie, and not of necessitie.

[Page 29]

But the Nicen Canon not content with three present, requireth also the consent of the absent in the same strictnesse of wordes, Yet surely let three be congregated into one place, so that they haue also the consent of the absent, and so let them make an ordination. Wherefore if you expound the one branch as a point of cōgru [...]ty, why do you vrge the other as of absolute necessitie? Againe these Councels were holden, Florente Ecclesia, when the world was furnished with plentie of godly Bishops, but you vrge them against a Church lately e­clipsed and newly recouered from darkenesse, the world round about being drowned in superstition and Idolatry. These answeres might bee sufficient; but for your better satisfaction, let vs search the sence of your authorities, by comparing them one with another. The first was a Canon ascribed to the Apostles, which being made when Bishops were scant, requireth two or three. The second drawne from the decrees of Popes, supposed to be made when the number was somewhat increased, requireth three at the least, and the consent of the rest. So the Nicen Canon being made when the Church flourished, as also the second at Arles, the sixt at Carthage, and the second at Brachar, besides three present requireth the consent of the absent: but the fourth Councell of Carthage contenteth it selfe with the present, and maketh no mention at all of the absent, wherein it agreeth with the Canon ascribed to the Apostles. Whence commeth this variety? surely the very consideration of time and persons may teach vs, that they thought it a thing in it selfe indif­ferent to be disposed by the discretion of the Church in sundry maners, as sun­dry occasions and occurrences did leade them. This exposition runneth gent­ly, and all things doe sweetely agree; but if wee followe your rigorous in­terpretation, then your witnesses crosse and discredit one another. For your Anacletus requireth three at the least, so doe the Councels alledged; but doe they require them of simple necessitie? if it be so, then hee is no Bishop which is ordained by fewer then by three. But the Canons of the Apostles al­low him for a Bishop which is Consecrated by two. Againe, the Nicen Fa­thers, and others by you alledged, require the consent of the absent, which is not required by the fourth Councell of Carthage, nor by the Canon ascribed to the Apostles. By this it appeareth that reuerend antiquitie did iudge these things to bee onely matters of conueniencie, and not of simple and absolute necessitie. And being of this nature, they are subiect to alteration in case of necessity. Neither is this to despise the Commandements of the Church, but to yeeld to the countermand of the great tyrant necessitie. And this is confes­sed by your owne Writers, concerning all ecclesiasticall constitutions: Pope Gel. epist. 9▪ Bin. t. 2. p. 243. Gelasius saith, Priscis pro sui reuerentia manentibus constitutis, quae vbi nulla vel re­rum vel temporum perurget necessitas, regulariter conuenit custodire▪ that is, The ancient customes still remaining in force for the reuerence due vnto them; it is conuenient regularly to obserue, where no necessitie either of things or times doth greatly vrge to the contrary. And Pope Apud. Bern. dep [...]ae [...]. & dispen. c. 4. Leo: vbi necessitas non est, nullo modo sanctorum patrum instituta violentur, that is, The decrees of holy Fathers, let them by no meanes be broken, where there is no necessitie. And againe: Cited by Iohn. 8. epist. 8. Bin. t. 3. part. 2. p. 977. omittendum esse & inculpabile iudicandum, quod intulit necessitas: that which necessitie occasioned to be omitted, is to bee omitted, and to be iudged blamelesse. And Pope Felix Ibid. apud. Bin. saith. Aliter tractandam necessitatis rationem, aliter voluntatis. That a respect of neces­sitie [Page 30] is otherwise to bee handled then a respect of a voluntary minde. Andr. degen. Conciliorum authoritate▪ p. 115. 116. Andradius affirmeth, That humane lawes made vpon best councell and aduise, are varied by the varietie of times, and may be inuerted and changed by the necessities of men, and so are dispensable: whence it commeth so to passe that De lib. arb. c. 6. Saint Austin calleth humane lawes temporall, because although they bee iust, yet they may iustly bee changed ac­cording to the times. I will conclude this point with the saying of t. 2. p. 243. in marg. Binius, Pro temporum necessitate rigor Canonum relaxatur, that is, the rigour of the Canons, is released according to the necessitie of the times.

CHAP. VI.

THen to leaue the Canons, I will prooue it by Scripture.

By Scripture, why? did you not say it was a tradition?

I saide so.

And do not you define a tradition to bee the word of God vnwritten, & scripture to be the word of God writtē?

Be it so, what then?

Then if it be Scripture, it is no tradition: if it be tradition, it is no Scripture. For it is not possible to be the word of God both written and not written.

Though it bee a tradition and therefore not expresly written in Scripture▪ yet it may be collected out of the Scripture.

You change your selfe like a Cameleon into all colours, but this will not holde. For Bel. de ver­bo Dei. l. 4. c. 4. Bellarmine buildeth vp Babylon by pulling downe the stones of Sion, he goeth about to proue the necessitie of traditions by the in­sufficiencie of Scripture: and indeauours to proue the Scripture insufficient, because there are many things in his opinion simply necessary to bee knowne and beleeued, which cannot possibly bee Nullo modo probari possunt exs [...]ripturu Quo modo ex Scriptura colli­gam hoc euang. (Marci) non esse supposititi­um? quo supra. Sexto. collected or concluded out of the Scripture. Whereby it is cleare that he calleth their traditions vnwritten, be­cause they are not at all in the written word, neither directly nor by conse­quence. But where doe you find it in Scripture?

SAint Paul saith to Timothy, 1. Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the grace, that is in thee, 2. which Was giuen thee, by prophecy, per impositionem manuum Pres­byterij: that is, by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery.

This is the onely place which Bel de eccl. l. 4. c. 8. quantum ad. Bellarmine produceth, and yet I thinke his conscience tolde him it is not very pregnant for his purpose: for whereas his custome is to place Scriptures in the front of the battell, and hu­mane authorities after; here hee placeth the Canons and Decretals in the front, and the Scripture followeth after. But let vs heare you dispute from this place.

Thus I dispute. Timothy was consecrated Bishop by imposition of hands of the Presbytery: But this Presbytery was an assembly of Presby­ters: Therefore Timothy was consecrated by an assembly of Presbyters: Now those Presbyters were not inferiour Priestes, but Bishops, as appeareth by In hunc locū. Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius: therefore Timothy was consecrated [Page 31] by an assembly of Bishops. But an assembly of Bishops must needes be three at the least. Therefore Timothy was consecrated Bishop by three Bishops at the least. Now this consecration of Timothy should bee a necessary and perpe­tuall patterne inuiolable, and vnchangeable to all posterities. Therefore all Bishops must of necessitie be consecrated, by three Bishops at the least, which was to be proued.

S. Paul in this place, exhorteth Timothy to be diligent in his Calling by three Arguments: First, because in his Ordination he had recei­ued Grace; that is, Not onely the gracious gift, that he should be Pastour of the Church of Ephesus, but also the graces of the Spirit to furnish him for the execution of that holy Calling. Secondly, because he was designed and pointed out to this Sacred function, by the Spirit of Prophecie. Thirdly, be­cause he was ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Presbyterie. What this Presbyterie was, I will not take vpon mee to decide and deter­mine; It shall be sufficient so farre to discouer the weakenesse of your Argu­ment, that it may appeare, that you cannot hence conclude your purpose by any sound consequence. For what thinke you did S. Paul meane by Pres­byterie, when hee exhorted Timothy not to neglect the Grace which was in him by the imposition of the hands of the Presbyterie?

O then I know where you are; You 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.

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?

What else can Presbyterium signifie, but a company or assembly of Presbyters?

[...], Doeth signifie not onely a company of Presbyters, but also the Office and function of a Presbyter. For example, For these authorities concerning the Greeke word, see B. Bilson: perp. gouernment. c. 7. p. 77 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 In hunc locum. Hierome, Prim [...]sius, Anselmus, expounding Presbyterium, by Presbyteratus, or Episcopatus, That is, the Office of a Priest or Bishop. Likewise Lyra, Lyra in hunc locum. 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 pe [...]ces. For that may bee said to bee performed by the order or office of Priest-hood, which is done [Page 32] 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 Titu. 1. 5. ordaine Presbyters in euery Citie; sometimes it is taken more generally and extendeth euen to the Apo­stles themselues: so Iohn calleth himselfe a 2. Ioh. v. 1. & 3. Ioh. v. 1. Presbyter, and Peter speaking to Presbyters calleth himselfe 1. Pet. 5. 1. 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, 2. Tim. 1. 6. 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, manuū Presbyterij, id est, manuū mearū 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?

Suppose that three.

If it be so, then vpon Bell. de Eccl. l. 4. c. 8. nomine Presbyterij in­telligit caetum Episcoporum, qui simul cum ordinante im­ponebant ma­nus super caput ordinandi. 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.

It seemeth that two Bishops may be Called an assembly.

Though it were so, yet you cannot conclude; for how proue you, that there was an assembly besides the principall consecrator?

Bellarmine hath proued it by the fathers alleadged.

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 Aquin, in 1. ad. Tim. c. 4. lec. 3 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 [Page 33] thinketh it probable, that Timothy was not consecrated by three. Whereto agreeth Cardinall Ioh. de Tur­recr. in Gratia­n [...]m. [...]. 1. p. 493. de Turrecremat [...], 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 In 4. sent. dist. 27. q. 3. 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.

I Wil prooue it by another place. For Act. 13. 1. there were in the Church 5 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.

Neither were they Bishops, neither did they make Paul and Bar­nabas Bishops.

Father Turrian Turr. de eccl. & ordi. l. 2. p. 302. sheweth, that by Doctors were meant Presbyters, and by Prophets Bishops, and also that Barnabas and Saul were Doctors, or Presbyters, the other three Prophets or Bishops, which aduanced Saul and Barnabas from the Presbyteral, to the Episcopal office.

These are doting dreames not worth the answering. For seeing the text faith only, that there were in the Church which was at Antioch Prophets and Doctors, among whom were Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manahen and Saul, why should not we thinke Barnabas to be called a Prophet as well as Simeon, Lucius and Manahen, seeing hee is first named? A point so cleere that it is con­fessed by Ior. in Act. 13. v. 1. Lorinus the Iesuite, ascribing the titles of Prophets and Doctors as well to Saul and Barnabas, as to the rest. If these Prophets were Bishops as Tur­rian imagineth, then it will follow that Barnabas was a Bishop before they laid hands vpon him. And consequently, that he was reordeined, which is ab­surd. Moreouer as it cannot bee proued, that those three were Bishops, so it is certaine that they did not ordaine Paul and Barnabas Bishops. For Paul be­ing an Apostle could not receiue any Episcopal grace from man, as hath been declared. Wherefore this imposition of hands was not to giue them any new power, but as the text saith, To set Vers. 2. them apart for the worke, wherevnto the Lord had called them, which when they had fulfilled, they sayled backe to Antioch, whence they had beene Act. 14. 26. commended to the grace of God. It is not said they failed to Antioch, where they were made Bishops, or where they receiued Episco­pall grace, but whence they had beene commended (with fasting and praier) to the grace of God. To which truth Tom. 3. part. 3. disp. 34 Suarez the Iesuite giueth testimonie affirming that this imposition of hands was onely preca [...]ory, and denying that Saul or Barnabas were heere ordained, either Priests or Bishops, which seemeth also to bee the opinion of Apud L [...]ri­num quo supra. Aloysius de Leon, and other late writers. [Page 34] These are the onely examples which you produce out of the Scripture, yet neither of them is pregnant for your purpose, and if they were, what then? An example may not be vrged as an vnchangeable rule when the mat­ter discouereth it selfe to be contingent and variable.

CHAP. VII.

NOw, that it is no substantiall point of absolute necessitie may be concluded out of your owne positions and practise. For the declaration whereof, first I demaund, whether Episcopall consecration be a Sacrament or no?

That Ordination is a Sacrament truely and proper­ly, is rightly defined by the Councel of Sess. 22. can. 3. Trent. For there are three things onely required to a Sacrament, as your selues confesse, an externall signe, a promise of grace, and a commandement, or diuine institution: All which are found in ordination as our learned Bel. de sacr. ord. c. 2. Cardinall hath proued out of the Scripture; Ibidem. c. 5. who hath also declared, that those Scriptures whereby Catholickes doe prooue Ordination to bee a Sacrament are vnderstood of Episcopall Ordination. Whereupon he affirmeth, that if Episcopall Ordination bee not a Sacrament, wee cannot proue euidently out of the Scriptures, that Ordination is a Sacrament.

If the word Sacrament bee taken somewhat largely, for a­ny externall signe instituted of God; whereto is annexed a promise of grace, then wee will grant with Saint Contra. epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 13. Austine, that Order may bee cal­led a Sacrament: but if it bee taken strictly for such a signe as is Rom. 4. 11. a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, whereto is annexed a promise of the grace of Iusti­fication and Remission of sinnes: in which sense Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, then wee may not admit it for a Sacrament. For in Baptisme and the Lords Supper, the sauing grace of Iustification and Act. 2. 38. Re­mission of sinnes is signified, sealed, and exhibited, to the worthy receiuer; but the grace giuen in Ordination is of another nature, respecting not so much the good of the receiuer as of the flocke, for which hee receiueth it. For the Ministers of the Gospell are salt to season others, candles to shine vnto others, pipes and conduits to conueigh the water of life vnto others. But did you not say, that though three Bishops were ordinarily required to the Consecration of a Bishop, yet the Pope might dispense with two of the three?

I said so out of Cardinall Bellarmine and Binius.

What authoritie hath the Pope to dispense in Sacraments?

That may appeare by the Councell of Sess. 21. c. 2. Trent. Moreouer, the holy Synod declareth, that this power hath alwayes beene in the Church, that in the Dispensation of Sacraments it might appoint or change such things as it should iudge to bee most expedient for the profit of the receiuers, or the reuerence of the Sacraments themselues, according to the varietie of things, times, and places, Salua illorum substantia, so the substance of the Sacraments be preserued. Whereby it appeareth that the Pope can dispense onely with circumstances and not with substance.

[Page 35]

Why then did the Church of Rome dispense with the Sess. 21. Can. 2. Cuppe in the Communion? Can you take away one halfe not diminishing the substance? But to let this passe, doe you not marke the conclusi­on which floweth from your premises? If Episcopall Consecration bee a Sacrament, and the Pope may not dispense with the Substance of a Sacra­ment, and yet hee may dispense with two of the three Bishops required in a Consecration; then it followeth, that two of the three are not of the Sub­stance of Consecration. Secondly, your owne present practise doeth proue the same. For you professe that in your Church sometimes, one Bell. de eccles. milit. l. 4. c. 8. quantum ad. Bishop alone assisted with two mitred Abbots doth performe it. If this bee sufficient, then three Bishops are not required of absolute necessitie. Now let vs a little looke backe to former times, and consider the iudgement of better ages.

I Will beginne with the fourth Conc. Carth. 4. c. 2. Bin. t. 1. pag. 553. Councell of Carthage, and the very 2 place which you your selfe alleadged, wherein are prescribed the offi­ces to bee performed by the Bishops, when one is to bee consecrated, to wit, how two should holde the Booke of the Gospels ouer his head, one powre out the blessing, (that is, pronounce the words, whereby the spiri­tuall power, grace, and blessing is giuen,) and all the rest touch his heade with their hands. When one alone pronounceth the wordes, thenone alone ordaineth. For the wordes are confessed on all sides, to bee the very essen­tiall forme of Ordination. This is agreeable to the collection of your owne Turrec. in Gratian. p. 493. Cardinall, Tenent librum, &c. Ergo videtur quod nihil agatur per illos Episcopos quod sit ad substantiam consecrationis pertinens. Ergo eorum assistentia non pertinet ad substantiam consecrationis, sed magis ad quandam solennitatem. i. They hold the booke, &c. Therefore it seemeth that nothing is done by these two Bishops which is pertaining to the substance of Consecration. Therefore their assistance doth not be­long to the substance of the consecration, but rather to a certaine solemnitie.

IN the yeere of our Lord 441. there was a Councell holden at Orenge in 3 France where it was thus Conc. Auraus. c. 21. Bin. t. 1 pag. 1010. decreed. Duo si presumpserint ordinare Episco­pum in nostris Prouincijs, &c. If two presume to ordaine a Bishop in our Prouinces, it pleaseth vs (to decree) concerning those presumptuous persons, that if it shall any where happen that two Bishops shall make a Bishop against his will, the authors being condemned, he which suffred violence, shalbe substituted in the Church of one of them, if his life be answerable; and that another neuerthelesse be ordeined in the place of the o­ther being cast out: If two shall make a Bishop with his consent, then he also shall be con­demned, to the end that those things which were instituted by antiquitie, may be obser­ued more warily▪ Here are two Cases: for the ordained was either vnwilling or willing: If vnwilling, he enioyed the Bishopprick, because he was not consen­ting to the breach of the Canon: If he were willing, then he also was condem­ned, & put from the Bishopprick, which was not for want of receiuing the E­piscopall power; for if two Bishops could confer it to one against his wil, vn­doubtedly they could giue it to one that was willing. But the first is confes­sed by the Councell, in that they allow him, and giue him a Bishoppricke, where he may exercise his Episcopall function, therefore the latter was not then doubted of. But though both had receiued alike power in their ordinati­on, yet the innocent was allowed, & the offender reiected for discipline sake.

This Canon is Dist. 64. de abiectione. chaffe.

[Page 36]

If Gratian meane this, then hee hath fouly mangled it, but that you may know that this is no chaffe, you shall heare your owne famour Bar an. 441. num. 3. Ba­ronius. Nobilus quidem, &c. Truely this is to be called a most noble Synod, being ador­ned with a garland of most famous Prelates. And againe, Ibidem. Florebant quidem, &c. Truely the said Prouinces of France, if any other coasts of the Christian world did flou­rish at this time with Bishops, both most holy and most learned, by whose painfull vigi­lancie, the Ecclesiasticall Lawes remained in their strength. And againe, Tot igitur, &c. Ibid. an. 441. num. 15. Therefore so many most famous Prelates made the Councel of Orenge famous and glorious in all things, although it consisted of a small assemblie of Bishops. And least a man should wonder at this rare commendation, he rendreth his reason, Ibidem. Porro vt tot insignes, &c. Moreouer, that there should be found in the same Prouinces so many men notable for learning, and godlinesse, the cause may seeme to be the most fa­mous Monasterie of Iusula Lerinensis the land next adioyning, being a Seminary of most holy Bishops. Which he further extolleth, by the verses of Sydonius A­pollinarius. To Baronius we will adioyne Binius, who vseth to gather stickes vnder Baronius his hedge. Haec Bin. in not. in Conc. Araus▪ [...]. 1. p. 1011. Synodus Clarissimorum, &c. This was a most no­ble Synod beautified with a crowne of most noble Prelates. In it fifteene Bishops of the Prouince of Lyons, & Marbona meeting after their maner made 29 Canons concerning the lawes and discipline of the Church. Wherefore by the iudgement of this most noble Synod, it is apparant, that he may be a Bishop which is Consecrated onely by two, and therefore three are not required of absolute necessity. Hi­therto of the Councels; Now let vs consider examples of antiquitie.

DIoscorus Patriarch of Alexandria was consecrated onely by two, and 4. yet was acknowledged to haue sufficient Episcopall power. The for­mer point is testified by the Bishops of Pontus in a Synodall I [...] Epist [...]l­lust▪ persona­rum pro Conc. Chalced. apud Bin t. 2. p. 1 [...]3. Epistle. Ordina­tionem suam adamnatis Episcopis & hoc duobus accepit: i. He receiued his ordinati­on of Bishops condemned, and that (onely) of two. The latter may appeare by the Councell of Chalcedon in the Vid. Bin. t. 2. pag. 1. Acts whereof he is vsually styled, The most Re­uerend Bishop of Alexandria; yea that title is giuen him by Epist. [...]us. ad Imper. apud Bin t. 2. p. 5. Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum his accuser: by the Epist im [...]erat. ad D [...]s [...]. Bin. tom. 2. p. 7. Emperour Theodosius, and by the Ibid. p. 72. Councell it selfe, in a Synodall Epistle. And as they acknowledge him for a Bishop, so they allow of Anatolius whom he did consecrate, as may appeare by the words of Tharasius, vttered in the seuenth generall Tharas. in Con [...] N [...]. 2. apud Bin. t. 3. pag. 307. Councell. Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said, what say you of Anatolius? was he not a Prince of the fourth Synod? Yet he was created Bishop by Dioscorus, and that Eutyches being pre­sent; therefore let vs also receiue the ordained of Hereticks, in like maner as Anatolius was receiued. Yea he was approued and receiued into Communion by Pope Leo the first; approued in these words; Leo Leo Epist. 40. Episcopus Anatolio Episcopo: re­ceiued into Communion in these words; in qua (Communionis integritate) so­cietatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur: i. in which soundnesse of Communion we em­brace the fellowship of your loue. Now seeing Anatolius was acknowledged, for a Bishop by a Pope, and two generall Councels: you must needes confesse that Dioscorus, who ordained him, was likewise a Bishop, although hee were not consecrated by three.

NOw let vs crosse the Mediterranean Sea, and passe from Alexandria to 5. Rome. And here, what thinke you of Pelagius the first? was not hee a true and lawfull Bishop?

[Page 37]

He is commended by Pope Hadr. in ep. ad Carol. mag. de imagin. san­ctissimi eius successores domi­nus Pelagius & dominus Iohan, vide Bin in not. in vit. Pelag. 1. t. 2. pag. 626. Adrian and generally put into the Catalogue.

But Pope Pelagius was not consecrated by three, as appeareth by In vit. Pela­gij 1. Anastasius, whose wordes are registred both by Bin. t. 2. pag 626. Baronius and Bar [...]an. 555▪ num. 10. Binius. Et dum non essent Episcopi qui cum ordinarent, inuenti sunt duo Episcopi, Iohannes de pe­rusio & Bonus de ferentino & Andreas presbyter de Ostia, & eum ordinauerunt Epis­copum. Vpon which place Bin. t. 2. pag. 627. ex Bar. anno 556. [...]. 1. Binius saith, When Pelagius had approued the fift Sy­nod, he so greatly offended all the Westerne Bishops, that he could not find sufficient Pre­lates of which he might be ordained according to the Apostolicall constitution; and so it was necessary that at the Command of Pelagius, a Priest of Ostia (which had neuer happened before) should performe the office in stead of a Bishop. Heere is a cleare confession, that a Bishop of Rome in case of necessitie, was consecrated only by two Bishops and a Priest. And yet it appeareth by the same place of Ana­stasius, that he ordained in his time 26. Priests, and 49. Bishops. Now if three Bishops be required of absolute necessitie, then there was a nullity in his Consecration, and consequently in all the Consecrations deriued from him, and so there will follow a world of nullities in the Church of Rome: or if there be no nullitie in his Consecration, then you cannot conclude a nullitie for the want of three.

HItherto of three, Now I will proue that two are not required of abso­lute 6. necessitie. For Euagrius Patriarch of Antioch, was ordained by Paulinus alone, and yet was allowed for a lawfull Bishop.

I doubt of both branches; how proue you the first?

Paulinus alone saith, Theod. l. 5. cap. 23. Theodoret transgressing many Lawes had created him. For the Canons doe not permit one to chuse his successour; they command that all the Bishops of the Prouince should be assembled: they forbid any man to be crea­ted vnlesse three be present, but they not willing to take knowledge of any of these things, admitted the Communion of Euagrius and exasperated the eares of the Empe­rour against Flauianus.

I will answere with Bar. an. 389. [...]. 64. Baronius: Those things which Theodoret saith concerning the Ordination of Euagrius performed during the life of Paulinus, are alto­gether repugnant to those things which are spoken by Socrates, and Sozomen affirming that the auditors of Paulinus did not attempt to substitute Euagrius into his place, till after the death of Paulinus.

It is a shameful course of Baronius, to reiect in Histories, what­soeuer doth not fit his fancie. In this present point he pretendeth repugnan­cie where there is none at all. For Theodoret speaketh of ordination: Soc. l. 5. c. 15. Socrates and Soz. l. 7. c. 15. Sozomen, of installation.

How proue you the other Branch, that Euagrius was allowed for a lawfull Bishop?

Anno 389. [...]. 64. Baronius saith, Pro Euagrio Syricius Theodosium interpellauit. Syricius the Pope did solicite Theodosius the Emperour in the behalfe of Euagrius. And Bin. in not. in Con. Capuan. t. 1. p. 536. Binius; Pontifex, &c. The Pope, and with him almost all the Bishops of the West, be­ing against Flauianus, as before they stood for Paulinus, so now they tooke part with E­uagrius, and animated the Emperour against Flauianus. Moreouer Innocent the first granted the Communion of the Roman Church to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, vpon this condition amongst others, that he should receiue [Page 38] those that were ordained of Euagrius the successour of Paulinus with their orders, and honours, as is likewise confessed by Bin. in not. in 17. Epist. Innoc. 1. t. 1. p. 579. Binius. Here is a plaine example of a Bishop ordained by one Bishop alone, and yet allowed both by the Bishops of the West, and by two Popes. Hitherto the examples of three Pa­triarches.

NOw let vs consider our neighbours of France, concerning whom Io­hannes 7. Ioh. Maior in 4. sent. dist. 29. quest. 3. inter opera. Gers. Pa­ris. 1606. p. 681 Maior, a Doctour of Paris, saith, Rusticus & Eleutherius qui cum beato Dionysio ad Gallias venerunt non erant Episcopi, sed Galliae Episcopos solus Dionysius ordinauit. Rusticus and Eleutherus which came into France with S. Denys were no Bishops, but Denys alone ordained the Bishops of France.

FInally, I will adde some testimonies of your owne writers, Iohannes 8. Maior; Quo supra. Dico esse constitutionem humana [...], quod Episcopus ordinetur a tribus: [...]. I say that it is a humane constitution, that a Bishop should be ordained of three. Pet. de pal [...]de potestate. Petrus de palude: In Ecclesia vnus Episcopus sufficit ad alium Consecrandum: nec est nisi propter solennitatem ab Ecclesia inuentum, vt tres concurrant: i. In the Church one Bishop is sufficient to Consecrate another: and it is nothing else but for the solemnitie of the matter, that the Church hath deuised that three Bishops should meete together. Cardinall In Gratian pag. 492. Turrecremata is plentifull in this point, and proueth it by foure­teene Arguments.

Yet other Doctours, as you haue heard, are of another opinion.

CHAP. I.

SVppose I should admit, that three Bishops were euerlastingly, and vnchangeably requi­red to the Consecration of a new Bishop, and that of such absolute necessitie, that the defect should make a nullitie: what would this ad­uantage you, or disaduantage vs?

Very much: For then it would follow, that your Bishops are no Bishops.

Why so? There is not a Bishop in England at this day li­uing, which was not Consecrated by three. Our booke of Consecrating may informe you, That in the Church of England, two Bishops doe alwayes present the person to be Consecrated, and the Archbishop or some other Bi­shop appointed by his Commission, pronounceth the Blessing, as principall Consecratour. Is not this Canonicall?

No, because your Requiritur vt qui sit Epis­copus, Ordine­tur à tribus E­piscopis: qui & ipsi s [...]rt ab alij▪ Ordinati, & illi ab alijs don [...] ad Apostolo [...] veniatur. Id clarè habetur. Can. 1. Apost Bell. de Eccl. l. 4. cap. 8. Consecrating Bishops are not themselues Ca­nonicall. For to a Canonicall Bishop it is required, That he haue three such Bi­shops for his Consecrators, as were euery one of them Consecrated by three: And againe each of them by three; And so by continuall succession, till we come to the Apostles. For as Doct. Stapl. princ. doct. l. 13. [...]. 6. Stapleton saith, Christi Ecclesia illa sola est quae suos Pastores & Episcopos perpetua successione potest ostendere. i. That onely is Christs Church which can shew her Pastors and Bishops in a perpetuall succession. And Ibidem. againe, Vbicunque talis per­petu [...] successio, non in eisdem locis sed in eadem legitima, & successiua vocatione, mis­sione, & Ordinatione ostendi potest, ibi sit vera Christi Ecclesia Catholica, id est Eccle­siae Catholicae pars & membrum. i. Wheresoeuer such a perpetuall succession of Pastors can be shewed, not in the same places, but in the same lawfull and successiue vocation, mission, and Ordination, there is a true Catholicke Church; That is, A part and member [Page 40] of the Catholicke Church. Stapl. fort. par. 2. c. 1. f. 95. Now, If you can shew any succession of Bishops in England, or elsewhere, you can shew it no otherwise, then could the Donatists, of whom Optatus thus writeth, Missus est Victor, &c. Victor was sent of the Donatists to Rome, There was a sonne without a father, a seruant without a ruler, a scholler without a master, a successour without a predecessour. Igitur quia Claudianus, &c. i. Therefore because Claudian seemeth to succeed to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor; If now we should aske Victor in whose place hee sate, and to whom hee succeeded; Hee could not shew any other Chaire or See, but the See and Chaire of pestilence. Thus I say, That as Victor among the Donatists, so Luther among the Protestants of Wittenberge, so Zuinglius among the Sacramentaries of Zurich, so Caluin among those of Geneua, so Bernard Rotman a­mong the Anabaptists, so M. Iewell, Grindall and Horne, and such other false Bishops among vs, haue risen and started vp suddenly without fathers, without predecessours, without masters, in any right and lineall succession; Or if they haue any, let them search their Records, turne their Registers, produce their Euidences, vnfold their Monuments of Antiquitie, and witnesse to the world their Canonicall succession; which they neither doe, nor can doe. But we can shew you Bi­shops of Rome euen from S. Peter, to our holy father Paulus Quintus, who now liueth. De sacrif. Miss. l. 2. c. 6. Antonius Democharis hath described the Bishops of France, or rather of all the Prouinces of the Christian world. Stap. princ. doct. l. 13. c. 7. Doct. Stapleton wrote with his owne hand, a Catologue found in a Monasterie, containing the Bi­shops of all the Westerne Church. Histories, Registers, publique Tables, the very Temples and most ancient Monuments of Ecclesiastical Colledges, are euident Arguments of our succession. Yea we haue a Catalogue in Poly­dor Virgil, of all the Bishops of our Nation for almost a thousand yeeres. Then was the Church of England like a Golden chaine, whose Sacred linckes had such a mutuall connexion and dependencie, that from the blessed Apostles, we 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.

Iust; For all the Popes geese are Swannes: and other mens Swannes are geese.

I Might bring the Church insulting against you, as Tertullian did 2 against the heretickes of his time; Tert. de praes. c [...]p. 37. 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 [Page 41] 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.

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.

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, Ex Ioseph. antiquit. l. 13. c. 5. 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?

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.

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?

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 [Page 42] 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 Bell. de Eccl. l. 4. c. 8. quòd au­tem apud Grae­cos non sit Ec­clesia proba­mus. 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 Niceph. l. 8. c. 6. Nicephorus, and bring it downeward, euen to Ie­remie, who Gen. Chron. l. 4. liued in this present age. Likewise the Church of Alexandria cha­lengeth succession, as well and as truely as the Romane. Legat. Eccl. Alexand. apud Bar. an­nal. tom. 6. in fine. 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? Legat. Eccl. Alexand. apud Bar. an­nal. tom. 6. in fine. Gene­brard is of opinion, that fifty Popes by the space of almost 150. yeeres were not Apostolicall, but Apotacticall and Apostaticall. Gen. Chron. l. 4. Baronius lamenteth that false Popes were thrust by strumpets into the seat of Peter. Platina Bar. anno 912. n. 8. saith, it was grown to that passe that any factious fellow might inuade the seat of Peter. I passe o­uer g Plat. in V [...]a Clementis 2. 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 Monastery, which haue onely set downe the names of such as succeeded such persons, in such places, but haue not described their successiue ordination? & if you could shew vs this also, yet it would not proue the Church of Rome to be a true Catholike Church. For why should wee not thinke that Constantinople, and Alexandria might haue this as well as Rome? Moreouer your owne former example doth con­fute you. For Sigon. de rep. heb. l. 2. c. 6 Manasses the high Priest of the Temple in mount Garizim was brother to Iaddi the high Priest in Ierusalem, and had the like succession from Aaron, yet the Samaritans were not a true, but schismaticall Church, in regard whereof their Temple was called Ibid. Templum transgressorum. Final­ly suppose that into the place of a Catholike and Canonicall Bishop decea­sed, a capable and Catholike man, were canonically chosen and consecrated; yet it is very possible, that hee may become an heretike, as for example an Arrian, and may draw his flocke after him. Will you now say that this flocke so poysoned with Arrianisme, are the true members of your Catholike Church? Yet here is locall and personall succession, yea euen the golden chaine of successiue ordination. Therefore that assertion of Stapletons, to with, that wheresoeuer this succession is, there is also a true Catholike Church, can­not bee defended; but Bel. de eccl. l. 4. c. 8. Bellarmine saith farre more truely: It is not necessarily gathered that the Church is alwaies where there is succession. For besides this out­ward [Page 43] succession, there must likewise bee the inward succession of doctrine to make a true Church. Lib. 4. 6. 43 Irenaeus describeth those which haue true succession from the Apostles, to bee such as with the succession of the Episcopall office haue re­ceiued the certaine grace of truth. And this kind of succession hee calleth the principall succession; so Gregory Naz. Orat. 21. Nazianzen hauing said, that Athanasius suc­ceeded Saint Marke in godlinesse, addeth that this succession in godlinesse is proper­ly to be accounted succession: For hee that holdeth the same Doctrine is also partaker of the same throne, but he that is against the Doctrine, must bee reputed an aduersary, euen while hee sitteth in the throne, for the latter hath the name of succession, but the former hath the thing it selfe and the truth. Therefore you must proue your succession in doctrine, otherwise you must bee holden for aduersaries euen while you sit in the throne.

Wee can proue it when occasion requireth. In the meane time though we cannot conclude affirmatiuely, that where successiue Ordination is, there is a Church, yet we may conclude negatiuely, that that where it is not, there is no Church.

Had not Pope Pelagius this ordination you speake of?

He had no doubt, and so succeeded the blessed Apostles.

But he was consecrated onely by two as I haue Lib. 1. c. 7. proued. So Euagrius was a lawfull Bishop approued by the Pope and Church of Rome, and consequently in your owne iudgement had succession from the Apo­stles. Yet as hath beene declared, he was consecrated onely by one, there­fore you must confesse that one may be a lawfull Bishop, and haue succession from the Apostles, although he were consecrated onely by one. Yet mistake me not, I speake not this as though any of our English Protestant Bishops since the time of reformation were so consecrated: We are readie to iustifie that their Orders are not onely sufficient in the nature of the thing, but also exact according to the strictnesse of the Canon.

Or if they be not, then as those which could not shew their pede­gree from Aaron, Nehe. 7. 64 were put from the Priest-hood; so you must be content to be serued in like manner.

SEeing you accuse vs for breaking the golden chaine, 3 behold, take it in your hand, examine it from end to end, looke vpon euery lincke, let vs see those breaches, those ruptures, those dissolutions you speake of, and let it appeare to the world, whether you or wee haue broken the Canon. And because you so bragge and blaze your owne Armes, let vs first see how you can proue your glorious suc­cession?

We can name the Bishops which succeeded one another in their seuerall Sees, euen till the time of Schisme.

What is this to the purpose? It is one thing to make a Ca­talogue of Bishops succeeding one another; and another thing to plot out the whole chaine of their successiue ordination. This is the thing you require at our hands, can you performe it? if not, by your owne sen­tence you must bee put from your Priest-hood.

We can, if you will grant that vnto vs which is reason should bee graunted. For you must vnderstand that our English Catholicke [Page 44] Bishops deriue their succession from the Saxons, the Saxons from the French, some of both from the Romane, and the Romane from all Na­tions; therefore an infinite number of Recordes must bee searched, if wee will particularly deduce the successiue ordination of any one Bishop of later times. Now although the Church in all ages hath beene carefull to record the Consecrations, yet it is possible that some may bee omit­ted by negligence of Registers, it is possible that some formerly recorded may bee perished by iniury of time, it is possible that some yet remay­ning vpon record, cannot by vs bee attained because they are in the hands of our enemies. But what of all this? seeing the law of the Church in all ages and kingdomes required three, seeing the constant practise of the Christian world, was continuallie by three, therefore when wee reade of any Bishop generally reputed a Bishop, performing the office of a Bishop, by giuing holy orders, subscribing to generall Councels, executing with­out any checke or controulement the duties belonging to a Bishoppe, wee may in all reason presume that he was made canonically by three; if there be neither publike fame, nor probable reason nor suspition to the contrary. For wanton wittes must not bee suffered vpon their owne fancy to call reuerend antiquity into question. Otherwise seeing none can bee a Bishop vn­lesse hee bee first a Priest, a peeuish man might denie them to bee Bishops vnlesse hee did see their letters of orders. Againe seeing no man can bee a Priest except hee bee baptised, a froward fellow might deny their Priest­hood, vnlesse it could bee produced, by whom and where they were bap­tised. No Sir, wee may not admit of such dealing, neither must wee bee put to prooue these things, but when there is nothing to the con­trary, wee may presume them to bee done according to the lawes of the Church, and the generall practise of all Christian nations.

You speake reason: Onely this I require at your hands, that the same libertie which you assume to your selues, you will according to equity allow to others, and seeing you chalenge all the Bishops before Cranmer for your owne, may it please you to let vs see the seuerall linckes of your golden chaine, from the first conuersion vntill his time, and we will extend them to this present day.

CHAP. II.

OVr Countrie of great Brittaine hath beene three times conuerted to Christianitie by three Bishops of Rome. First, by Saint Peter. Secondly, by Eleutherius. Thirdlie, by Pope Gregory. Saint Pe­ter, came hither in person, Eleutherius and Gregorie by their Legates.

The first conuersion may bee considered in generall or in particular, In generall it is most cleare, that our countrey receiued very an­ciently the Christian faith. Theod. de cu­randis grecorū affec. l. 9. Theodoret saith: Neither the Aethiopians which [Page 45] border vpon the Egyptian Thebes, nor many other nations of the Ismaelites, not the Lazi, not the Sammi, not the Auasgi, not many other barbarians hauing yeelded themselues to the dominion of the Romans, doe vse in their trafficke any of the Roman Lawes; but these our fishermen and Publicans, and this our tent maker haue brought the Euangelicall law vpon all nations: neither haue they induced the Romans onely, and those which liue vnder the Roman Empire, but the Scythians, Sauromatae, also the Indians, Persians, Seres, Hyrcans, Britans, Cymmery, Germans; and to speake in one word, all kinde of men, and all nations to receiue the lawes of Christ crucified; not vsing any armour, not an infinite number of chosen souldiours, not the violence of Persian crueltie, but the perswasion of wordes, setting before them the commoditie of the Lawes which they preached; Thus farre Theodoret. And before him Saint Hier. epist. ad Euagrium 85. Hierome; France, and the Brittaines, and Affricke, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all Barbarous nations adore one Christ, and obserue one rule of trueth. And before him Saint Chrys. in sermone de pen tecoste. Chrysostome: Whithersoeuer thou shalt goe, to the Indians, to the Moores, to the Brittaines, to the Spaniards, yea to the furthest end of the world, thou shalt finde, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, &c. And before Chrysostome, Ath. Epist. Synod. apud Theodor. l. [...]. cap. 3. Athanasius: To which Fathers of the Nicen Councell, all Churches euery where haue giuen their consent in Spaine, Britaine, France, &c. And before Athanasius Tert. aduer­sus Iudaeos c. 7. Tertullian: the places of the Britanes, whereunto the Ro­mans could not haue accesse, are subiect vnto Christ. And before Tertullian, Orig. Hom. 4. in Ezech. Ori­gen; When did the land of Britaine consent to the Religion of one God, before the comming of Christ? when did the land of the Moores? when did the whole world at once? but now the whole earth prayeth to the Lord of Israel with ioy, because of the Churches which are in the vtmost cost of the world. To these agreeth that which Polyd. Hist. Ang. l. 2. Polydor Virgil bringeth out of Gyldas the most ancient Writer of our nation; That Britaine receiued the faith, ab initio orti Euangelij, from the first springing of the Gospell. So at the very dawning of the day to them that were in darkenesse, and in the shadowe of death, the euerlasting light ap­peared, and the Sunne of righteousnesse did shine vpon them. The barren wildernesse of Britaine, became a fruitfull garden, and was graciously wate­red with the dew of heauen. Thus it was in part fulfilled which was fore­told by the Psalmist; Psal. 2. 8. I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the vttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

HItherto in generall; Now in particular, who were the first golden 2 pipes and Conduits to conueigh the water of life vnto them is not so certaine.

Some thinke it to be Saint Peter, some Saint Paul, some Simon Ze­lotes, some Aristobulus, some Ioseph of Arimathea. But the best opinion is, that it was Saint Peter, which father Pars. 3. con­uers. p. 1. c. 1. n. 20. Parsons hath prooued by sundry authorities. First, by Simeon Apud Suri­um, Die 23. lunij. p. 862. Metaphrastes.

This authoritie deserueth small credit, as you may learne of Anno 44. n. 38. Baronius in these speeches: If any credit bee to bee giuen to Me­taphrastes. And againe, In Ibid. n. 54. many other things by him set downe, it is certaine that he erreth.

This (matter) Pars. [...]bid. seemeth to bee somewhat confirmed by that which Innocentius Epist. ad Decentium. the first Bishop of Rome hath left written aboue a thousand and two hundred yeeres agoe, saying, That the first Churches of Italy, France, Spaine, A­frica, [Page 46] Sicilia, and the Ilands that lye betwixt them, were founded by Saint Peter, or his schollers, or successors.

Parsons proposeth this very faintly; not daring to say it is, but it seemeth to bee: neither seemeth to bee confirmed, but seemeth to bee somewhat confirmed; and yet this somewhat is neuer a whit: for Inno­cent saith not that these Churches were all founded by Saint Peter, but by Saint Peter or his schollers and successors. Neither doth it appeare that hee speaketh of Britaine, either expresly or by consequence, for though it bee an Iland, yet it lyeth neither betweene Italy and France, nor Italy and Spaine, nor I­taly and Africk, nor betweene France and Spaine, nor France and Africk, nor betweene Spaine & Africk, neither is it neere to Sicily. What then is the mea­ning of Innocent? hauing named on the one side of the Mediterranean sea Italy, France and Spaine: and on the other side Africk; hee addeth Sicily and the Ilands that lye betweene them: as though hee should haue saide, Sicily and the other Ilands in the Mediterranean sea; howsoeuer, the scitu­ation will not suffer vs to vnderstand it of Britaine.

Pars. ibidem Gulielmus Eyseng. cent. 1. part. 7. dist. 8. Eysengrenius in his first Centurie or hundred yeeres, doth write also, that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by Saint Peter vnder Nero.

Eysengrenius a man liuing in our owne age, (for he wrote Anno. [...]566.) cannot bee of great authoritie, especially in a matter of antiquitie, and yet hee is of lesse, because hee leaneth on such rotten reedes as Metaphra­stes, saying; Metaphrastes affirmeth that many Churches were built by Peter, the standard bearer of the Apostles, through Britaine.

To Pars. ibidem. this founding of Churches in England by Saint Peter, it may bee thought that Gild. Epist. 2. de excid. & conq. Brit. Gildas had relation, when expostulating with the Britaine Priestes of his time for their wickednesse (for which the wrath of God brought in the En­glish Saxons vpon them) hee obiecteth among other things; Quod sedem Petri aposto­li inuerecundis pedibus vsurpassent: That they had vsurped the seate of Saint Peter with vnshame fast feete: meaning thereby, either the whole Church of Britanie first founded by him, or some particular place of deuotion, or Church which hee had erected.

Neither is Parsons peremptory in this point. For he saith not, it is to be thought, but it may be thought; wherefore in his owne iudgement it is not a consequence of necessitie, but a collection of probabilitie; and to any indifferent man it will not appeare so much as probable, if hee ponder the place of Gildas: Sedem Petri Apostoli inuerecundis pedibus vsurpantes, sed me­rito capiditatis in Iudae traditoris pestilentem Cathedram decidentes: they occupy the seate of Peter with vnshame fast feete, but by the desert of their couetousnesse, they fall into the pestilent chaire of the traitour Iudas. If the chaire of Iudas doe not ar­gue that Iudas was in England, why should the seate of Peter argue that Peter was in England? And the same Gildas a little after speaking against such Bi­shops as ordained Symoniacall persons, saith; Nicholaum in locum Stephani martyris statuunt; they install Nicholas into the place of the Martyr Saint Steuen: Doth this proue that the Martyr Saint Steuen was locally in England, or that either the whole Church of Britaine or any particular place of deuotion was founded by him? No more doth the other, concerning Saint Peter.

[Page 47]

What then will you make to be the meaning of Gildas?

Hee lamenteth to see those Churches which had beene go­uerned by zealous men like to Saint Peter, and Saint Steuen, now to be defiled with vncleane persons like vnto Iudas and Nicholas the Deacon.

Why should he rather name Peter, then any other Apostle, if Pe­ter were not in England?

The speech of Christ concerning the feeding of his flocke was directed in a speciall manner to Peter, whence it commeth to passe, that all to whom the care of feeding Christs flocke is committed, are called Saint Peters successors. Saint Chrys. de sacerd. l. 2. Chrysostome saith; Why did Christ shed his blood? truly that he might purchase those sheepe, the charge where of the committed to Peter, and Pe­ters successours; And this he saith to Saint Basil, to incourage him in the Episco­pall office. Whereby it is euident that Chrysostome calleth all that feed Christes flocke, Saint Peters successours. In like manner they may bee saide to occupie Saint Peters seate, not locally, but in respect of their doctrine and holy con­uersation. And all such as by Simony inuade this holy function; all that de­file it with heresie or leaudenesse of life, may bee saide to vsurpe the seate of Pe­ter with vncleane feete. Thus much for the place of Gildas.

Pars. ibid. Alredus Apud. Suri­um. 5. Ian. pag. 131. Rienuallus an English Abbot, left written aboue 500. yeeres agone, a certaine reuelation or apparition of Saint Peter to an holy man in the time of King Edward the confessour, shewing him how hee had preached himselfe in England, and consequently, the particular care hee had of that Church and nation.

This your fashion, when you cannot proue a thing by suf­ficient testimonies, you runne to dreames and reuelations not worth the an­swering. And yet this doting dreame extendeth not so farre as Parsons drea­meth. For Alredus in that place relateth how in the time of King Edward the Confessour, Saint Peter appeared vpon the night in a vision, to a certaine recluse who had liued in a caue vnder the ground many yeeres, and bad him tell the King that he had dispensed with his vowe, concerning his go­ing a pilgrimage, and instead thereof had commaunded him by the Pope to builde a Monasterie, which hee thus described; Est mihi locus, &c. I haue (quoth Saint Peter) a place in the West part of London chosen by my selfe, and deare vnto mee, which sometimes I did dedicate with my owne handes, renowne with my presence, and illustrate with diuine miracles, the name whereof is Westminster. Thorneia. This is all in effect which he saith, and yet here is no mention of his preaching in England; Therefore Parsons hath committed a notable falsification.

Is it not said that he did dedicate it with his owne hands, renown it with his presence, and illustrate it with diuine miracles?

That doth not proue the point in question. For Alredus pre­sently after declareth, how in the dayes of Ethelbert King of Kent, Sebertus King of the East Saxons built without the walls of London Westward, a Monastery to S. Peter, and withall addeth, how the night before the dedica­tion, Saint Peter appeared in the habit of a Pilgrim, to a certaine Fisherman vpon the Thames, and being transported by him to Westminster, went pre­sently to the Church, where there was suddenly a glorious light, a multitude of Angels, heauenly melodie, with an vnspeakable fragrancy of sweet odours. Now the solemnitie of the dedication being finished, he returned to the Fisherman, [Page 48] who at his command, cast his net into the riuer, and tooke a great draught of fishes, which Saint Peter bad him take for his passage, reseruing onely one of extraordinarie greatnesse to himselfe, which hee sent for a token to Mellitus Bishop of London. Here is his miracle, his presence, and his dedication of the Church, with his owne hands; but here is no preaching; or if there were, then he preached more then 500. yeeres after he was dead. But why doe I dwell so long vpon so fond a fable? Or what is this to the first Conuer­sion of England? Wherefore I conclude, that though S. Peter were a famous Fisher, searched innumerable streames through the wide world, and cat­ched many thousand soules; yet father Parsons hath not made it appeare by any sound authoritie that euer hee spred hisnet in the English Ocean.

IF he did not conuert the nation in his owne person; yet it was conuerted by such as he sent.

If this blessed worke were performed by S. Paul or Simon of 3 Canany, then we may boldly say, that the first conuerters were not sent by S. Peter. For they were Apostles, and had commission to teach all nations, not from S. Peter, but from Christ. Concerning S. Pauls comming, Parsons con­ [...]ers. [...] ▪ 1. n. 22. Parsons produ­ceth the authorities of Theodoret, Sophronius, and Venantius Fortunatus, to which he addeth Arnaldus Mirmianus, affirming that he passed into Britaine, in the fourth yeere of Nero, being the yere of our Lord 59. And verely that he was here, is a point not without probability. He was the Apostle of the Gentiles, in labours abundant, in perils often, and that by Sea▪ he was a Starre swiftly gliding from East to West, a Herauld proclaiming the acceptable day of the Lord: and a shrill trumpet sounding out the Name of Iesus. Now though father Parsons say, that for his being in Britaine, there are not so many parti­cular testimonies, yet those which he hath brought are farre more pregnant then the former, for the comming of S. Peter. To passe ouer the rest, what can be more plaine and direct, then that of Venant. l. 3. de vita sanct. Mart. in fine. Venantius?

COncerning Simon Zelotes, Nicep. l. 2. ca. 40. Nicephorus saith, that hauing receiued the ho­ly 4 Ghost comming downe from heauen, he passed through Egypt, Cyrene, A­fricke, Mauritania, and all Libya preaching the Gospel, yea he did cary it to the We­sterne Ocean and the Ilands of Britaine. Dor. in Synop: Dorotheus (whom Pars. quo sup. n. 23. Parsons calleth a very ancient writer,) saith that he was crucified, slaine, and buried in Britaine. In the Greeke Menolog. Maij. 10. Menologe it is said, that going into Britaine, when he had inlightned many with the word of the Gospel, he was there crucified and buried. Which autho­rities what weight soeuer they cary, surely they ouer ballance all that Parsons hath produced for the comming of S. Peter. Now from the Apostles let vs come to the Apostolicke men, Aristobulus and Ioseph of Arimathea.

[Page 49]

OF Pars. quo supra 24. Aristobulus, S. Peters scholler, doe testifie in like maner the 5. foresaid authours, Mirmianus, Dorotheus, Baronius, out of the Greeke Martyrologe, that he was sent by S. Peter into Britaine, and there made a Bishoppe.

What you or your fellowes say, is not greatly materiall, but how falsely you report of Doreth. in Syn. Dorotheus may appeare by these his words: Ari­stobulus, euen he which is mentioned by the Apostle, to the Romanes, was made Bi­shop of Britaine: this is all which he saith; if he say so much, for there are di­uers readings. But howsoeuer, there is not one word of S. Peter; yet Parsons brings him to auouch that Aristobulus was sent by S. Peter. And whereas Par­sons calleth him S. Peters scholler, he is not so described by Dorotheus, but ra­ther as S. Pauls. Therfore if he were Bishop of Britaine, it is farre more likely that he was sent by S. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, then by S. Peter. Let vs now proceed to Ioseph of Arimathea.

OF Pars. ibid. 25 Ioseph of Arimathea▪ his comming into France, and his sending thence into Great Britaine, either by S. Philip, ( as some say) who preached then in Gaule, or ( as others hold) by S. Peter himselfe, as he passed that way to and from Britaine, and how he obtained a place to exercise an Eremiticall life, for him and his ten companions in the Iland called A [...]allonia, where Glanstenbury after was builded, albeit I find no very certaine, or ancient writer to affirme it, yet be­cause our latter Historiographers, for two hundred yeeres past or more, doe hold it to haue come downe by tradition, ( and namely Iohannes Capgrauius, a learned man of the order of S. Dominicke, and others after him,) I doe not meane to dispute the matter here, but rather to admire and praise the heauenly prouidence of God, &c.

The words of Iohn Cap. in Sanc. Brit. catalog. Capgraue are thus; Ioseph cum silio, &c. i. Ioseph with his sonne Ioseph, and other ten companions, tra [...]eiling through Britaine vnder the raigne of King Aruiragus, preached the faith of Christ boldly, in the yeere of our Lords incarnation 63. And againe, They came into France to Philip the Apostle, and of him were sent into Britaine; And againe, The King granted vnto them a cer­taine Iland inuironed with woods, bushes and fennes, called of the inhabitants, Jnis Ditrin, i. the Iland of glasse. Which relation seemeth very probable. There is extant an Epistle (if it be not counterfeit) alledged by I. el. in assert. Arthuri [...]. f. 20. b. Lelandus and other Antiquaries, and ascribed to S. Patrick, wherein it is thus written; Ostenderunt mihi, &c. i. The brethren which I found at Glastenbury, shewed vnto me the writings of Fugatius and Damianus, in which it was contained, That 12. disciples of Philip and Iacob, had built the old Church, and that three Pagan Kings gaue to the said 12▪ so many possessions of lands. King Antiq. Erit. p. 3. in marg. Henry the second in the Charter of Glasten­bury, affirmeth, That the Church thereof was founded by the Disciples of our Lord. William of Apud. Cam­denum in So­merset shire. Malmesbury, in his booke of Glastenbury Abbey, saith, That the olde Church was built by Ioseph. Yea, The Camd. Ibid ancient Monuments of the said Abbey doe testifie the same; And also that Ioseph was sent thither by S. Philip out of France. This is that Ioseph which made Mat. 27. 60. Ioh. 19. 41, 42 Sepulchre in his Garden, That in the middest of his pleasures, he might thinke of mortalitie; He buried the blessed body of Christ, and afterward became a Preacher of the Resurrection. In Glastenbury he powred out his precious Ointment, and all Britaine was filled with the sweetnesse of the odour. Now whether he were the first Preacher in Britaine▪ I cannot define; but if hee were, then the first Conuerter came [Page 50] from Arimathea, and not from Rome, being sent by S. Philip, and not by S. Peter.

That the Gospel came first to Glastenbury from Rome, may thus be proued; Pars. 3. con [...]. p. 1. [...] [...]. n. 2. King Inas aboue 900. yeeres past, when he layd the foundation of Gla­stenbury Abbey, in memory of S. Ioseph and his fellowes, that had liued a solitary life there, caused these Verses to be written in the Church.

Be glad England, for that Rome sendeth health to thee, and Apostolicall brightnesse doeth lighten Glastenburie; Which could not well be spoken, if the comming of these Saints and first inhabiters there, had not had some relation to Rome, and to the Apo­stles that sent them.

If Inas layed the foundation of Glastenbury Abbey in me­morie of S. Ioseph, who liued there, then we haue a noble Monument of Iosephs being in England. But that euer he was at Rome, or sent hither by any Bi­shop of Rome, is more then we can find, or you can proue. William of Apud Camd. quo supra. Malmes­bury declareth, That when the ancient Church built by Ioseph, was vtterly de­cayed, there was another built by Deui Bishop of S. Dauids; Which also in time growing ruinous, was repaired by 12. men comming out of the North: but K. Inas pulled it downe, and reared a stately one to Christ, Peter, and Paul. In this certaine Verses are written; The first 12. whereof, are a continuall commendation of Peter and Paul, by way of comparison; then follow those two which you haue cited, in which he willeth England to reioyce. And why? because Rome sendeth her health: But how? the next verse declareth, Because the Apostolicke brightnesse doeth lighten Glastenbury. Where if the Poet speake of the brightnes of doctrine (as you seeme to take it) then it is not necessary to re­ferre it to the first inhabitants; it may haue relation to the doctrine not long before preached by Austin: For I know you will call his doctrine Apo­stolicke. Yet it seemeth, that the Poet meaneth not the brightnesse of do­ctrine, but of patronage and protection: imagining according to the corrupt opi­nion of those times, that the Saints by whose names the Churches were cal­led▪ were Patrons and Protectors of the said Churches. For in the words following, Peter and Paul, are called two Bulwarks and towers of faith. And K. Inas (who dedicated the Church vnto them,) is said to haue giuen these Bul­warks, as euerlasting gifts to his people. By which what can be meant, but that those Apostles were now by his Dedication, become their Bulwarks and towers of protection? So the Apostolicke brightnesse, (that is their glorious Patronage and protection,) is said to shine most radiantly ouer Glastenbury; And health is said to be sent from Rome, because they ascribe their safety to those A­postles, which were the founders of the Church of Rome: which doeth in no case argue that Christianitie was first brought hither from Rome.

NOw, what will you say, if the Britaines were Christians before the Ro­manes? 7. For who was the first founder of the Church of Rome? you pro­claime euery where that Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. [...]. 2. S. Peter. But when came S. Peter thither? Baronius saith, in the yeere 44▪ being the second of the Emperour Claudius. Now let vs consider when our Iland first receiued the sweete influence of the Gospel. [Page 51] And here for our direction, we will follow the conduct of a starre, I meane of Gildas, who for antiquitie, is the most ancient Historian of our Nation; For his wisdome was surnamed Sapiens: and for his deuotion and eloquence, may well be termed, The zealous and Golden mouthed Gildas. This Gild. de [...]cid. &▪ conq. Brit. Gildas de­clareth, how these frozen Ilands, farre remote from the visible Sunne, receiued the glittering beames of Christ Iesus the inuisible Sunne, in the time of Tiberius Caesar. Which point is the more remarkable, because he professeth in the same place, That hee pronounceth it vpon sure grounds, and certaine S [...]imus. knowledge. Now Baron. an. 39. n. 1. Tiberius died in the yeere of Christ 39. according to Baronius. Whereupon it followeth, That Britaine receiued the Gospel fiue yeeres at least before either Paul or Peter came to Rome. By which it is manifest, that the first conuerters of our Nation did not come from Rome.

Pars. [...]. 1. c. 2. n. 2. and p. 1. c. 1. n. 26. If they did not come from Rome, yet preached they the Romane faith; of which S. Paul had written to the Romanes themselues, before the going of S. Ioseph in­to Britaine: Rom. 1. 8. Fides vestra annuntiatur in vniuerso mundo, i Your faith is preached and diuulged throughout the whole world; Signifying that the Christian faith plan­ted in Rome by S. Peter, was deriued already for a platforme into all other parts of the world round about.

Whosoeuer they were, or whence▪soeuer, blessed be the Name of God, who vouchsafed euen in the morning of the Gospel, gratious­ly to remember vs, and to display vnto vs the riches of his mercie in Christ Ie­sus. Now, whereas you say they preached the Romane faith, Bee it so, The Ro­mane, yet not yours, but the very same which is professed this day in the Church of England: Let the present doctrine of Rome bee made conforma­ble to that which Saint Paul deliuered to the Romanes, and wee will embrace with you the Roman faith. Hitherto of the first conuersion; Now let vs come to the second.

CHAP. III.

NOw Pars. 3. con [...]. p. 1. c. 4. n. 1. do follow two other more famous and publike conuersions of the said Island vnder two renowned Popes of Rome, and by their speciall industry, which are acknowledged, and registred by the whole Christian world, and do so much presse the spleene, and moue the gall of our Rome-biters, as they leaue no corner of their wits vnsisted, to discredit or reiect the same. The former of them was vnder Pope Eleutherius and King Lucius.

This is not to be called a conuersion of the Island, but rather a new supply of Preachers and further propagation of the Gospell. For Iohn In Sanct. cat. Capgraue, (who is commended by Conuers p. 1. cap. 1. n. 25. Parsons for a learned man) relateth that Eluanus (who was brought vp at Glastenbury) had dispersed through the wide fields of Britaine, those first seeds of the Gospell sowen by Ioseph. It is also re­corded in your Apud Bar [...] ­ [...]um anno 183. [...]. 4▪ Martyrologe which vsed to bee read in your Churches, that [Page 52] Lucius neuer carried himselfe as an enemy to Christian religion, but shewed himselfe fauourable in respect of their miracles, and integrity of life, and that he had imbraced the Christian religion sooner, if hee had not seene Christians reproched by the Pagans, as infamous persons, and despitefully handled by the Romans that were in authority. But afterward vnderstanding by the Emperours Ambassadours, that some Senatours were become Christians, and amongst other Pertinax and Trebellius▪ yea and that Marcus Aurelius the Emperour hauing gotten a victory by the praiers of the Chri­stians had vsed them kindly: hee sent an Ambassage to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome by Eluanus and Meduinus Brittans, intreating Eleutherius by them, that hee would open a passage by himselfe and his Ministers for the fostering and cherishing of Christian religion in Brittaine. Iohn Que supra. Capgraue reporteth, that Eleutherius made Eluanus Bishop of Brittaine, and Meduinus a Doctour, to preach the faith of Christ through the whole Island. Which sheweth that when they were sent Ambassadours to Eleutherius, they were no nouices, but profound Diuines and practised teachers in the schoole of Christ, as they are tearmed, by one of your owne [...] [...]itus [...] [...]. l. 5. [...] d [...]i­narum r [...]r [...]m per [...]to. Historians Thus it appeareth, that there were learned Prea­chers, who had sowen the seed of the Gospell through the whole Island, and Christians famous for miracles, euen at the time of Eleutherius his sending.

PEraduenture some priuate Christians, but neither the King nor 2 any induced by the Kings authority. For it is manifest by Saint Be [...] [...] [...]st. l. 1. c. 4 Bede, that the King wrote to Eleutherius, desiring that by his commande­ment he might bee made a Christian; whereby it is plaine that as yet hee was not made a Christian.

In that he wrote this Epistle to this purpose, you may see the mo­tion proceeded from his owne brest, and not from Eleutherius: he was already made a Christian by the baptisme of the spirit, and therefore was desirous to be made a Christian by the baptisme of water. Hee had already entred him­selfe into the schoole of Christ, and sought meanes that his whole kingdome might follow after. Which argueth that his soule was sanctified and seaso­ned with grace. [...]o [...]ticus [...] Brit: [...]s [...]. l. 4. [...] [...], ex Gal [...]. M [...]n [...] ▪ l. 4. c. [...]9. 20 Serenauerant enim eius mentem sanctorum miracula; the mira­cles of the Saints had cleared his minde.

VVHat moued the King to send to Rome, when there were 3 Bishops in France and other places nearer then Rome?

First, the Church of Rome beeing in the Imperiall City plan­ted by two so great Apostles, Peter and Paul, and flourishing with store of excellent men, was most famous and likely to furnish them. Secondly, the Romans before this time had spred their golden Eagle ouer a great part of the Island. The Emperor Hadrian as [...] Hadrian [...]. Aelius Spartianus reporteth, had made a wall fourescore miles long; Antoninus Pius, as Iulius [...] [...]: Capitolinus declareth, had made another to diuide the Romans from the Brittans; and all that liued within this wall were tributary to the Romans; of which number King Lu­cius is said to bee, whose father was brought vp at Rome, intertained friend­ship with the Romans, and p [...]ide them [...] tribute. In which respects, as also for the great intercourse betweene Rome and Brittaine, King Lucius had oportuni­tie to send, and might conceiue great hope to preuaile. Thirdly, it is not vnl [...]elie, that the Ambassadours which informed him how some of the [Page 53] Senators were become Christians, might bee themselues Christians, and perswaders of him, both to become a Christian, and to send to Rome for Preachers.

You haue omitted the principall reason, for seeing there was not at that time any face or fashion of a Church in Brittaine, to whom should hee seeke for planting of religion, and erecting of Bishoprickes, but onelie to the Bishop of Rome, the fountaine and fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall au­thoritie? A particular Bishop hath iurisdiction onelie ouer his owne D [...]oces, an Arch-bishop onelie ouer his owne Prouince, a Patriarch is likewise confined and circumscribed with in his boundes and limits. But the authority of the Bishop of Rome is like vnto the Ocean inuironing the earth, or to the highest heauens incompassing all; therefore in such cases wee must haue recourse to the Bishop of Rome.

To whom had Frumentius recourse for the conuerting of In­dia? The Story whereof is this. A Tyrian Philosopher arriuing in India, was slaine by the Barbarians, with all his company, except two little children which were gone out of the shippe and were learning their lessons vnder a tree. These children were brought vp by the King and aduanced by him: one of them, that is Adesius, beeing made his Steward, the other, that is Fru­mentius, his Secretary. Afterward the King dying, and leauing his sonne in his nonage, the Queene intreated them both, but especially Frumentius, to as­sist her in the Gouernement of the kingdome. While Frumentius was in this authority hee inquired among the Romane Merchants for Christians, hee shewed them all fauour and countenance; and admonished them to haue their assembles for praier and the seruice of God. When the King came to age, they deliuered him the kingdome and departed: Adesius to Tyre, Fru­mentius to Alexandria: where hee went to Athanaesius, and told him what was done, intreating him to send some worthy Bishop to those multitudes of Christians, and to those Churches which were built in that barbarous place. Then Athanasius calling an assembly of Priests, said, Where shall we finde such a man in whom is the spirit of God to performe these things? so hee made Frumentius Bp. & sent him into India, and the Lord blessed his labours, signes and won­ders were wrought by him, and an infinite company of those barbarous people were conuetted to the faith. This Story is recorded by Ruff Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 9. Ruffinus (who liued at the same time) not out of the rumors of the people, but by the relation of Adesius himselfe (the companion of Frumentius) who was after­ward a Priest of Tyre: And Soc. l. 1. c. 15 Socrates, Theod. l▪ [...]. c. 23. Theodoret, and Soz l. 2. c. 23. Sozomen doe all bor­row the same from Ruffinus. Thus Athanasius sent a Bishop to conuert India without consulting with the Bishop of Rome, which verely he would haue done if hee had thought it necessary. But the Pope then did challenge no such thing, neither did that age ascribe it to him. Wherefore the Kings send­ing to Eleutherius was not of necessity, but because it stood most with his conueniencie.

You are vnthankefull and vnwilling to acknowledge your obli­gation to Rome.

We confesse a singular blessing from thence deriued vnto vs. For Ele [...]ther [...]us sent Fugatius and Danatianus, otherwise called Damianus, [Page 54] by whom ioyning with Eluanus and Meduinus, Christian Religion was ad­uanced. Then King Lucius was baptised, and many of his people. Then the Druides were remoued, and in their roomes, christian Preachers placed. Then the Temples which had beene founded to the honour of their many Gods, were dedica­ted to the one and onely true God: thus Idolatry was dispoiled of her pray, and Dagon did fall downe before the Arke of Israel. For the better vnderstanding whereof, it must be obserued, that the Romanes before this time had diuided Britaine into three [...]titia pro­ [...]n [...] Occid. Prouinces, one of them was called Maxima Caesariensis, the Metropolis wherof was Yorke; Another Britannia prima, the Metropolis wher­of, was London: the third Britannia secunda, the Metropolis wherof was Caerle­gion. Now in other cities they had their Flamines: In Will. Rede de vit. pontificum in Eleuth. p. 3. in. [...]. these three noble Cities were the seates of the Arch flamines, so there were 28. Flamines, and three Archi­flamines in stead of which so many Bishops & Arch-bishops were appointed. This is denied by Gultelmus Paruus, but Lelaud▪ in assertione Ar­t [...]ur [...] ▪ f. 36. a. Lelandus confuteth him; first by Asserius Me­neuensis, who was schoolemaster to King Alfred; secondly by Geraldus in Dia­logo Syluestri; thirdly, by Ptolomeus Lucensis, who saith in the life of Eleutherius, that the three Protoflamines of Britaine, were conuerted into so many Arch­bishops. Concerning their seates Lelandus addeth: London of the Trinobantes, and Yorke of the Brigantes, did vndoubtedly shine with this dignitie; therefore where is the third seate? where but in Wales? in which point though I hold my peace, Tri­themius is an euident witnesse. Hitherto Lelandus. Now although Britaine was after the Nicen Councell diuided into fiue Notitia pro­ [...]n [...]. Occid. p 117. Prouinces, Valentia and Flauia Cae­sariensis being added to the former: yet there were no new Archbishoprickes erected. The reason whereof was, because those two new Prouinces were ta­ken out of the former: and consequently, could not haue Bishoprickes with­out the diminishing of the authoritie of the former, in whose iurisdiction o­riginally they were, which was not sufferable, because it was against the Can. 6. Canon of the Nicen Councell, decreeing, that in Antioch and in other Pro­uinces, the dignities, prerogatiues, and authorities of Churches should be maintained.

Were not all these Bishoprickes erected, or at least confirmed by the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome?

When the King desired to receiue from him the Romane Lawes, hee returned this answere, That there Epist. Eleut. ad Lucium. vi­de Ant [...]q. Brit. p. 5. were already in Britaine, the olde and new Testament, out of which by the Councell of his kingdome, hee might take a Law to gouerne his people. For he was the Vicar of Christ in his owne Kingdome. And as hee did not interpose himselfe in matters temporall; so neither doth it ap­peare, that hee did in matters spirituall, or ecclesiasticall. Hee sent not one Preacher into Britaine, before hee was entreated by the King. Neither doe wee finde that hee assumed to himselfe any authoritie in erecting of Bishop­rickes. Neither did that age ascribe it vnto him, as may appeare by the former example of Athanasius: but it seemeth that the King being supreme Gouer­nour, euen in religious causes, within his owne Kingdome, and assisted by learned Preachers, established such gouernment, and in such places as was most conuenient. Yet make we no doubt, but Eleutherius both gaue them in­structions what hee thought fittest to be done, if the Lord should blesse their labours: and likewise approued it with ioy of heart, when hee heard it was done: not by vertue of any iurisdiction, but out of a Christian deuotion. [Page 55] Their diuersitie of ceremonies, and their reiecting of Austin may induce vs to think, that they had neuer beene vnder the Romane Patriarch. And it is most likely that as the Churches of Con. Ephes. t. 1 c. 4. Bi [...]. t. 1. pag. 768. Cyprus had a gouernment within themselues exempt from the Iurisdiction of all others, so the Churches of Britaine, (a little world without the world) might bee gouerned by Primates of their owne, and exempt from all forraine Iurisdiction.

DId not the Bishop of Rome deliuer them from Alle [...] apol. cap. 2. Arianisme 4. and Pelagianisme?

If it were so, yet this would not argue any Papall Iurisdicti­on, but onely Christian compassion; But indeed it was not so. We read in Bede l. 1. c. 8. & 10. Bede, that the land was infected with these heresies. That Rome did recouer it we reade not. He telleth how that at the request of the Britaines, the French met in a L [...]b. 1. c. 17. Synod and sent Germanus and Lupus, two reuerend Bishops, by whose industrie the Heretickes were confounded, and the faith of the Britaines strengthened. When the disease did breake out againe▪ Idem. c. 20. Germanus went a­gaine and cured the malady: So we were not recouered by such as came from Rome, but by our neighbours of France, teaching the same faith that was here from the beginning?

That was the Roman faith, euen the same which we professe at this day. For Pars. 3. con [...] ▪ p. 1. c. 9. s. 6. that which S. Austin brought, and that which the Britaines had before, must needs be one, and the selfe same in all materiall and substantiall points. And that is the same that came from Eleutherius, which being first planted by the Apo­stles, continued from King Ethelbert to King Henry the eight.

That there was the same vnder the Apostles, and vnder Eleu­therius we grant, neither will we depart further from you, then you depart from Eleutherius. But if the faith of Austin, and the old Britaines were the same in all materiall and substantiall points; Then the obseruation of Easter, after the Roman rite, is no substantiall point. Againe, if the faith of the Britaines and Apostles were all one, then the Popes Supremacy was no Article of the Apostles faith; for vndoubtedly, it was none of the Britaines faith. Thus neither the conuersiō of the Iland, nor the planting of the Bishoppricks nor the supplanting of Heretickes, nor the replanting of the faith can bee re­ferred to the Bishop of Rome. Now time requireth that we speake a word or two of the Bishops themselues; What say you therefore, were they Ca­nonicall?

WHat else? For were they not approoued through the 5. Christian world?

There is no doubt of it. At the Councell of Ariminum, in the yeere 359▪ were three Bishops of Britaine, as witnesseth Hist. sacr. lib. 2. Sulpitius S [...]uerus. At the great Councell of Sardica, in the yeere 347. were present also some Bri­taine Bishops, as witnesseth Apol. 2. Athanasius. At the Counsell of Arles in France, in the yeere 314. Restitutus Bishop of London was present and Apud Bin. t. 1. pag. 265. subscribed But if the Britaine Bishops were Canonicall, then by your assertion they had successiue ordination by three. Whence had they three? you will not grant that there was any Bishop in the land, when Lucius sent to Eleutherius. Of the two that were sent to Rome, he made only one, that is Eluanus a Capgra [...]. in sanct. Catal. Bishop: from Rome there came two, Fugatius, and Damianus, but we cannot learne that ei­ther [Page 56] of them was a Bishop: neither doe we read of any comming at that time from France, or any other place to assist him: therefore it is probable that all the British Bishops did originally spring from Eluanus alone, though after­ward when the number increased they might obserue the Canon.

If they had their beginning from him alone, yet it toucheth not vs, because the English Catholicke Bishops deriue not their succession from the Britaines, but from the Saxons.

Though it touch not your persons, it toucheth your positi­ons: But seeing you discend from the Saxons, we will dismisse the Britaines, and come to the Saxons.

CHAP. IIII.

NOw are we come to holy Pope Gregory, whom (to vse a Bedal 2. c. 1. [...]ct [...] [...] [...] & [...] Apostolum. the words of S. Bede) we may well, and also must call our Apostle, for although he were not an Apostle to others, yet he was vnto vs; 1. Cor. 9. 2. the scale and token of his Apostleship, wee are in our Lord.

If Gregory had beene truely an Apostle, he should not sit still at home, and send another; but goe himselfe. For Christ saith not, sit still and send, but Mat. 28. 19. goe and teach. Wherfore an Apostle is so called, not because hee sendeth another, but because he himselfe is sent.

Though Gregory being Pope sent another, yet before hee was Pope, he should haue beene sent himselfe. For being Archdeacon of Rome, Beda qu [...] supra in sine cap. passing through the Market place, he espied certaine beautifull boyes, and demaun­ded out of what Countrey they came, answere was made that they came out of the Ile of Britaine, where the inhabiters, were all of that beauty. Then asked he whether the people of the land were Christians, and it was answered that they were Paynims Then sighing from the bottome of his heart, Alas quoth he, that the author of darke­nesse should possesse men of such shining beauty; and so gracious a countenance, should in­wardly beare so foule a soule; then he inquired the name of the people, and it was an­swered that they were called Angles or English. It is wel, saith he, for both they haue an Angelicall face, and it is fit that such should be fellow heires with the Angels in heauen. But what saith he, is the name of the Prouince? It was answered, the people of that Prouince were called (Deiri) It is well saith he, they may be called Deiri, that is, de ira eruti, deliuered from the Ire of God: then he demaunded what was the name of the King: it was answered Elle, then saith he an Alleluia must be sung in those parts to the praise of God. He went to the Pope, besought him to send some Prea­chers to conuert Britaine, and offered his seruice: but the Romans being vn­willing, he could not be suffered. So one after, he himselfe being Pope, sent S. Austin, and so the worke was accomplished, but if for all this S. Gregory may not be called our Apostle, because he was not sent, Yet I hope you will giue vs leaue to honour S. Austin, with that title because he was sent.

He was sent I grant, but not as an Apostle, that is, immediate­ly by Christ, neither did hee lay the foundation of the Church, but built vpon another mans foundation; for there were in Britaine at his arriuall seauen Bishops and an [Page 57] Archbishop professing and teaching the Christian faith, and aboue 2000. Monkes in the Monastery of Bangor.

They were Britaines, but Saint Austin laid the foundation in the other parts of the Iland.

Not so; for the Scots receiued the Gospell euen Baron. an. 431. n. 4. before the preaching of Bed. l. 1. c. 13. Palladius. The Picts which were more Bed. l. 3. c. 4. Southren receiued it afterward, by Ninianus a Britaine borne. The rest of them inhabiting the high Northren mountaines and craggie cliffes, were conuerted by Ibidem. Columba an Irish man.

Yet Austine conuerted the Angles or English.

The Angles possessed the Kingdomes of Northumberland and Mercia. Bed. l. 3. c. 5. & 6. Northumberland was conuerted in the dayes of King Oswald by the ministery of Aidan a Scot: And Bed. l. 3. c. 21. Mercia vnder King Penda, who being desirous to marry the King of Northumberlands daughter, could not enioy her but vpon this condition, that he and his people should become Christians. By which occasion hee first attained to the heauenly trueth, wherein hee was ex­ceedingly delighted aboue all earthly ioy. So he was brought to Christ by meanes of his blessed bride, & baptized by Finanus, one of Aidans successours.

The people which were procured to come out of Germanie to as­sist the wearied Britaines against the Scots and Picts, were generally called by the name of English or Saxons, but in particular, were of three nations, En­glish, Saxons, and Iutes. Now to passe ouer the rest, the Iutes (which florished in the kingdome of Kent) first receiued the water of life from Austin, from whom also the golden streames were deriued vnto the Saxons.

We acknowledge to Gods glory, that he and his conuer­ted thousands; yet dare we not say, that they laid the first foundation in Kent. For in Canterbury the regall citie, euen when Austin arriued, there was a Christian Bed. l. 1 [...]. 25. & 26. Church built in the time of the Romanes, dedic [...]ed to the memorie of Saint Martin, whither Berta the Queene (descended from the blood royall of France) with Lethardus a Bishoppe her Chaplaine vsually resorted to diuine seruice. So it is most likely, that Lethardus the french man had laid some stones in the foundation before the comming of Austin. Therefore if he that first layeth the foundation of Religion in a kingdome bee called an Apo­stle, then Austin was not the Apostle of Kent, but rather Lethardus. Not­withstanding, for as much as Lethardus gathered but a few clusters, and the maine vintage was reserued for Austin, let vs inlarge the signification of the word Apostle, and extend it to Austin, and moreouer (though improperly) to Gregory and Eleutherius, and I wish your Romanists would imitate these Apo­stles. Eleutherius did not obtrude any vpon the kingdome, but onely sent Bed. l. 1. c. 4. at the Kings request; Austine comming from Gregorie, did not steale in secretly, but stayed in the Iland of Bed. l. 1. c. 25. Tennet till such time as hee knewe the Kings will and pleasure, neither offered hee to Preach in Kent before the King gaue him and his fellowes licence. They came not in disguised, they lurked not in corners, they brought no Bulles in their bosomes to discharge subiects, or depose Princes; But their proceedings towards the Prince, were Christian, honest, and orderly They came to plant the faith of Christ, you come to sup­plant it: They to preach obedience, you to teach rebellion: Their Gospell [Page 58] was a Gospel of peace; You arme the subiect against his Soueraigne: They conuerted people; You peruert them: They sought to build the Church; You seeke the ruine of Church and common wealth. And I heartily wish you which are the Popes Emissaries, to consider euen vpon your beds, what great difference there is betweene you and Austin.

I marueile to heare you so commend S. Austin, and to propose him for a patterne. It is the custome of your men to detract from him, and to blemish his credit.

Concerning patternes, we are taught by S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 1. Follow me as I doe follow Christ. That which is good in Austin wee embrace and commend, wishing to be decked with those garlands; but that which is otherwise, let it wither in the roote from whence it sprang. His desire to conuert the Pagans, and his duetifull respect to the Prince, deserue to be written in letters of gold; but his superfluitie of Ceremonies might well haue bene spared: He was too forward to display the Popes banner, and his behauiour towards the Bri­taines, was full of pride and disdaine.

I Thought for all your faire speeches, you would come to this at last; but you doe not well to reproch so great a Saint, by whom your Countrey receiued so great a blessing.

It is no reproch but a trueth, let Beda lib. 2. cap. 2. Bede be witnes, who decla­reth, that a Synod being appointed, the Britaine Bishops came to a certaine holy Anchoret, and asked his counsell, Whether they should leaue their Traditions at the preaching of Austin; Who answered, If he be a man of God, follow him They said, how may we try this? He answered, The Lord saith, Take vp my yoke vpon you, and learne of mee, for I am meeke and humble of heart: Therefore if Austin bee meeke and humble in heart, it is credible, that both hee himselfe beareth the yoke of Christ, and offereth it to be borne of others; But if he be churlish and proud, it is certaine that he is not of God, neither are wee to regard his words. Then they enquired of him againe, how they might know whether he was proud, or no. Pr [...]cure (saith the Anchoret,) That he with his company may come first into the Synod; And if when you approch neere, hee ariseth vnto you, then you knowing him to bee the seruant of Christ, heare him obediently; But if he despise you, nor will vouchsafe to rise at your presence, which are moe in number, let him likewise be despised of you. And truely as this Anchoret bad them, so did they. For it happened, that when they came thither, Austin was already there, and sate in his Chaire; Which when they saw, straightway waxing wroth, they noted him of pride: and therefore indeuoured to ouer­thwart and gaine say, whatsoeuer he proposed His Oration was thus; Although in many other points ye doe contrary to our custome, or rather contrary to the custome of the Vniuersall Church of Christ: Yet notwithstanding, if you will in these three things obey me, That is, In celebrating Easter in due time, In accomplishing the Ministerie of Baptisme, (by which wee are borne againe to God) according to the maner of the holy Romane, and Apostolicke Church, And last of all, in preaching with vs to this English Nation the word of our Lord; All your other Ceremonies, fashions and customes, though they be contrary to ours, yet wee will willingly suffer, and bee content to beare with them. But they answered, That they would doe none of the things requested, nei­ther would accompt him for their Archbishop; Saying with themselues: Nay, if hee would not so much as rise to vs, truely, the more we should now subiect our selues to him, [Page 59] the more would he hereafter despise vs, and set vs at nought.

Ex Baron. anno 604. n. 58. Truely they came to Austin, as the Pharises came to Christ, that they might tempt him with that signe.

Doe you thinke they meant to intangle him? Then belike as by his not rising they tooke occasion to reiect him, so though he had risen, they would haue found some cuasion, and not haue yeelded vnto him. But is not this an vncharitable iudgement? Hee called a Synod of the neerest and greatest Prouince? they came vnto it, but withall wished, that the matter might be debated in a greater Synod. That also was agreed vpon, and they appeared; But before the appearance, they asked aduise of him, who was thought most godly and wise. The aduise was this in effect, If hee behaue himselfe humbly, accept of him; If hee shew himselfe disdainfull, reiect him. Now, what reason is there to thinke, but as they followed his counsell in re­iecting him, because the euent did shew him proud, so they would haue ac­cepted of him, if in the euent they had found him courteous!

Bar. ibidem. The false prophet gaue a false signe.

The signe which he gaue, and they made vse of, was by the proud and disdainfull gesture of the body, to discouer the pride and disdaine of the heart. How was this a false signe? Vndoubtedly to deny strangers a common courtesie, is a token of arrogancie; And a proud looke doeth argue a proud heart, according to the saying, Ecclus. 19. 27. A man may be knowen by his looke.

Ex Baron. quo supra. It is the iudgement of S. Iohn the Apostle, That we must vouchsafe such men as are diuided from the Catholicke Church, no honour or office of courtesie, in these words, 2. Iohn. 10. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receiue him not into house, neither say vnto him, (God saue you.)

How can you apply this to the British-Bishops, who confes­sed, (as Bed. l. 2. c. 2. Bede relateth) That they vnderstood that to be the true way of righteousnes, which Austin had preached? Yea Conuers. part. 1. c. 9. s. 6. Parsons the Iesuite affirmeth, That the faith which S. Austin brought, and that which the Britaines had before, must needs bee one, and the selfe same in all materiall and substantiall points.

Ex Baron. an. 604. n. 65. They were all Schismaticks, and guiltie of departing from the Church of Rome.

How could they depart from it, seeing they were neuer lincked to it by any bond of obedience? For when should Rome haue any such iurisdiction ouer Britaine? At the first planting of Religion? You can­not proue it. In the dayes of Eleutherius, it doeth not appeare that euer he chalenged any such thing. And euen their maner of Baptizing, obseruing Easter, and other Ecclesiasticall institutions, contrary to the customes of the Church of Rome, make more then probable proofe, that Britaine was not vn­der the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore, though we cannot excuse the Britaines, for refusing to ioyne with him in the conuersion of the Saxons, yet wee must needs say, they had iust reason to refuse to put their necks vnder his yoke. And surely if Austin had not had a proud spirit, hee would onely haue requested their helping hand for the Lords worke, and not c Greg. in resp. ad inter. Aug. inter 9. apud Bed. lib. 1. cap. 27. haue sought dominion ouer them for himselfe, and for his lord the Pope. Yet the pride of his spirit, and his aspiring cogitations may further appeare; in that he demaunded of Gregorie, ⁱ How he should deale with the Bishops of Britaine [Page 60] and France, thereby affecting not only to haue iurisdiction ouer the Britaines, but ouer the French also. Which Gregory well ynough perceiuing, answe­red, We gaue thee no authoritie ouer the Bishops of France: for that of ancient time of my predecessours, the Bishop of Arles receiued his Pall, whom we must not bereaue of his authoritie. Thus much of his pride.

NOw whether he were the cause of the massacre following, I will not 3 define. You shall heare the opinion of Antiq: Brit. p. 48. Amandus Xierixensis, a Frier Minorite; When the Brittans (saith hee) were Catholiks, the Saxons were Gentiles, for the conuersion of whom blessed Gregory sent Austin and Mellitus, which conuerted the Saxons, but when Austin would haue brought the Bishops and Ab­bots of the Brittans by Apostolicke authority, that they should receiue him as Legate, and preach with him to the English, discord was mooued for their disobedience to Saint Austin, and so warre was raised betweene the Kings of the Brittans, and of the Saxons, which, now beeing conuerted would haue subdued the Brittans to Austin. Bede Fertur mini­tan [...] praedixisse. Bed. l. 2. c. 2. himselfe testifieth how Austin threatfully prophesied, that if they would not take peace, and bee at concord with their brethren, they should receiue warre from their enemies; and if they would not preach to the Englishmen the way of life, they should suffer at their hand, and by their power, the vengcance of death. Now be­cause the euent did answere to the speech, it is called a prophesie. For what fol­lowed? Edilbert King of Kent, moued Edelfride King of Northumberland to ioyne with him against the Brittans, and there was made a bloudy massacre, the narration whereof is thus set downe by Galf. Mone­mut. l. [...] c. 12 Galfridus Monemutensis. In a part of the Brittans, Christianity yet flourished, the which beginning in the daies of Eleutherius, neuer failed among them. When Austin came, hee found seuen Bi­shopricks, and an Archbishopricke supplied with very godly Gouerners, and Abbies a great number, in which the flocke of Christ was kept in good order. Besides other Ci­ties, in the Citie of Bangor, there was a most noble Church of 21. hundred monks, all liuing with the labour of their hands. Their Abbot was named Dinooch, a man marueilously well learned, who by diuerse arguments made it appeare, when Au­stin required the Bishops to bee subiect vnto him, that they ought him no subiecti­on. Edilbert therefore the King of Kent, as soone as hee saw them refuse to yeeld o­bedience to Austin, and despise his preaching, stirred vp Edelfride, and other Princes of the Saxons to gather a great army, and goe to Bangor, to destroy Dinooch and his Clergie; Who taking the City commaunded the swords of his men to bee tur­ned first vpon the monkes; so twelue hundred of them the same day decked with mar­tyrdome entred the kingdome of Heauen. If they were martyrs, what were they that made them Martyrs? If the Saxons were persecutors, and did persecute them, to that end that they might make them subiect to Austn, what then is to bee thought of Austin? It had beene the dutie of Austin, (saith Vide antiq: Brit. p. 9. Lelandus) to haue admonished the Saxons that perfidious nation, that if they would admit Christianity sincerely, they should restore to the iust Lords and possessours, the Empire of Brittaine, which contrarie to the oath of warfare, they had oc­cupied by tyranny. If Austin sought, by any sinister meanes, to enlarge his owne iurisdiction, hee was farre vnlike to Palladius, Bishop of Scot­land, who ( as Hist. Ang. l. 3. Polydor witnesseth) besought Constantine their king with ma­ny prayers, that hee would not assist with armes, the idolatrous nation of the Saxons a­gainst the Christian Brittans.

[Page 61]

Saint Bed. l. 2. c. 2 Bede saith that Saint Austin, long before that time was taken out of this life to the kingdome of Heauen.

That is not Saint Bedes, but some false finger hath foysted it in. For a learned Supposititiū est nec in libris Bedae Saxonicis habetur. Ant Brit. p. 48. antiquary skilfull in the Saxon language affirmeth, that it is not found in the Saxon copie. Hitherto of circumstances incident to his per­son. Now at last, let vs come to his ordination, and I hope you will confesse him to be a canonicall Bishop.

HEe was most canonicall. For (as Doctor Stapl. pr. doc. l. 13. c. 6. & a successore Rom. pont. missus est, & ab. Episcopis Galliae. ordina­tus. Stapleton declareth 4 out of Saint Bede) hee was sent from the Bishop of Rome, the suc­cessor of Peter, and consecrated by the Bishops of France.

Pope Greg. l. 7. Ep. 30. indic. 1. Gregory saith, hee was consecrated by the Bishops of Germany.

That is the fault of the copie, for it should not bee Germaniarum, but Galliarum, as Anno 597. n. 17. Baronius thinketh

When did the French Bishops ordaine him?

After he had bin a while in Brittaine, and had conuerted Ex Bed. l. 1. c. 26. & 27. diuers.

Baronius Quo supra. is perswaded by a place of Gregory, that it was be­fore the conuersion of the English, but by whom was hee ordained?

Saint Bed. l. 2. c. 27. Bede saith, that it was performed by Aetherius Archbishop of Arles.

Baronius Bar. quo su­pra. saith that Aetherius was Bishop of Lyons not of Arles, and that Virgilius was then Bishop of Arles. But seeing you fetch his succession from the French, I must request you to call to remembrance that which was said before, Lib. 1. c. vltimo. s. 7. concerning the ordination of the first French Bi­shops, to wit, that they all were ordained by Dionysius alone, and consequent­ly, that they were not canonicall. And therefore if you turne the edge of your argument against Austin, as you doe against the present Bishops of England, you must conclude a nullity in his consecration, and in all your Po­pish Bishops deriued from him. Thus you haue made ship wrack in the very hauē. Now from Austin, let vs proceed to those whom Austin did consecrate.

CHAP. V.

THere can bee no doubt, but as Austin himselfe, so all that were consecrated by him, were consecrated by three.

Yes, if you consider the question of Au­stin, and the answere of Gregory. The question propo­sed was this: If Bed. l. 1. c. 27. Greg. Epist. l 12. ind. 7. Epist. 31. the Bishops are so farre apart one from the other, that they cannot conueniently assemble together, whether one may bee ordained a Bishop without the presence of other Bishops? Gregory answereth, In the Church of England in which thou Greg. either did not know or did not re­member that Lethardus the Queenes Chaplaine was a Bishop. as Bede calleth him. l. 1. c. 25. onely art as yet a Bishop, thou canst ordaine none, but without other Bishops. For when come there any Bishops out of France which might assist thee in ordeyning Bi­shops? We will therefore that thou ordaine Bishops, but so that they may not bee farre one from an other, that there be no such necessity but that they may hereafter come together to the creation of other. The Curats also, whose presence may do good, should [Page 62] easily come together, when then by the helpe of God the Bishops shall bee so made, that they shall not be farre asunder, one from the other, there shall bee no Bishops created without three or foure Bishops assembled together, &c.

This place hath diuers readings, both in Gregorie and Bede, what edition doe you follow?

Euen that which you will confesse of all other to bee most excellent. For what edition of Bede was that which Stapleton translated?

Doctor Stapleton being a man of such learning, wisedome, and zeale, and purposing to benefite his country in singular manner by turning the story of Saint Bede into English, without question did vse all possible di­ligence to get varietie of copies, both printed and manuscript, and compa­ring all together, made choice of the best.

Then haue I followed the best edition of Bede, for I haue not departed one letter from the translation of Stapleton; yet you see your owne approued edition which Stapleton made choise of, conuinceth, that Pope Gregory willed Austin at first to make bishops alone, though hee would haue none created afterward without three or foure.

Doe you thinke that there came no Bishops out of France to assist?

No such thing can bee collected out of Bede; neither is it probable: for in the very next Bed. l. 1. cap. 28. Chapter, Gregory writeth to the Bishop of Arles, to giue kinde entertainement to Austin, if hee should come vnto him, But of any Bishops to bee sent into England, there is not a word. And in the Chapter following, Gregory writeth to Austin, sendeth him a Pall, and willeth him to ordaine twelue Bishops, But of French Bishops to assist him, he saith no­thing at all. And in the second booke and third Chapter it is declared, how that in the yeere of the incarnation of our Lord 604. Austin Archbishop of Britane consecrated two Bishops, Mellitus Bishop of London, and Iustus Bishop of Rochester, but of any French Bishops assisting him there is no mention. And for the Brittish Bishops that they should helpe him, it is not once to be imagined, because they stood at vtter defiance with him. Therefore if wee consult with Stapletons Be­de, and embrace that copy for best which hee followed, it will appeare that Austin proceeded to Episcopall consecration, and yeelding to necessitie, made the first Bishop, that is Mellitus, alone, and the next that is Iustus, by the assi­stance of Mellitus onely, and when there was a canonicall number, then they obserued the number of three at the least.

Surely in diuerse copies it is otherwise then you haue allead­ged: as for example, in the Parisian edition of Gregory, Anno 1586. It is thus, Et quidem etiam in Anglorum ecclesia in qua adhuc solus tu Episcopus inueniris, ordi­nare Episcopum non aliter nisi cum Episcopis potes. i. Truly euen in the Church of the English, wherein thou onely art found as yet to bee a Bishop, thou canst not ordaine Bi­shops otherwise then with other Bishops. And because Austin was the onely Bi­shop then in England, therefore in the next sentence he telleth him, whence hee shall haue Bishops; Nam quando de Gallijs Episcopi veniunt, illi in ordinatione Episcopi testes tibi assistant. i. For when the Bishops come out of France, let them assist thee in the ordination of a Bishop.

For the clearing of this point we must consider both these sen­tences with their dependencie and connexion. In the former there are two [Page 63] readings, cum Episcopis, and sine Episcopis. The latter was followed by Do­ctour Stapleton, and is the true reading. For vnderstanding that in Oxford some were appointed for the collation of the printed copies of Gregorie, with the manuscripts, I enquired how this place was read in the manuscripts, and answere was made that these Interrogata were not in the written co­pies, but inserted as it seemeth into the workes of Gregory out of Bede. Then I enquired after the manuscripts of Bede, and saw diuerse, all consenting in this reading sine Episcopis, with which concordeth a most worthy copie of vene­rable antiquitie at Eton Colledge, which the learned and iudicious Sir Henry Sauil did shew vnto me. With the manuscripts agreeth your own last edition of the workes of Bede printed at Collen in the yeere 1612. As also the Epistles of Gregory both in the Romane edition, as they are in the Coun­cels set out by Surius and Binius: yea these Interrogata are produced by Iohn Ioh. Capgra­uius Catal. sanct. in sancto Augustino f. 3. It is in the library of Corp. Chri. Coll. in Ox­ford. Capgraue who readeth precisely in the same manner. Wherefore it is as cleare as the noone day, that the true reading is sine Episcopis, as Stapleton tran­slateth: and thus much of the first sentence. In the second wee must consider, both the reading and the pointing, concerning the varietie of reading (to passe ouer de gallis and de gallijs, veniunt and venient, which are of small mo­ment, and doe not alter the sense.) The Parisian and Romane editi­ons, read ( illi) which is erronious, for the true treading is qui, to bee iustified by Capgraue, the manuscripts before alleadged, and Doctour Stapleton. Now the wordes being thus cleared, must needes bee read with an interrogation, (otherwise there will bee no sence) and the latter sentence rendreth a reason of the former in this manner. Thou must needs make Bishops alone, for who should assist thee? the Britaines? they stand in opposition, and are not once to be thought vpon: the English? there are none: both which branches hee presupposeth as granted: the French? but when doeth any of them come o­uer into England: as though hee should say, their comming is vncertaine, so he concludeth, that Austin must make Bishops alone without other Bishops. Now from Austin we will proceede to his successours

They may all be presumed to bee Canonicall.

Yet they came from such as were not canonicall. Now from the Saxons wee will proceede to the Normans. And here, what say you to Malmsb de gest. Pontific. Anglor. lib. 1. pag. 205. Lanfranck, whom William the Conqueror made Archbishop in stead of Stigandus?

There is no reason to doubt of him or any other till wee come to Cranmer.

CHAP. VI.

THen it remaineth that we consider the Consecration of that most reuerend Father and blessed Martyr, Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, concer­ning whom, I expect your iudgement.

My iudgement is, that he was a principall [Page 64] cause of all those lamentable alterations, which happened in the daies of king Henry the eight, and Edward the sixt.

Doe you call them lamentable? therein you resemble Enuy in the [...]. [...]ta­ [...] ▪ [...] ▪ [...]. Poet which lamented because she saw nothing worthy of lamentation. For those alterations which ye call lamentable, were a gracious beginning of a thousand blessings both to the Church and Common wealth of England. But speake directly to the point in question, whether Cranmer were a Cano­nicall Bishoppe. Why doe you not answere? You are like to one which holdeth a Wolfe by the eares, who neither knoweth how to hold him, nor how to let him goe; faine would you infringe the Consecration of Cranmer, but alas [...]e you cannot.

Father [...]. Co [...]r [...]. A [...]g. c c. 4. q. [...]. [...]. 6. Becan directing his speach to the Bishops of England saith thus; Legitimè consecrati non estis, a quo enim? an à rege? at is consecrandi po­testatem non habet: An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi vel aliquo simile? ne id quidem. Nam Thomas Cranmerus qui sub Henrico 8. Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit, non fuit consecratus ab vllo Episcopo, sed a solo rege intrusus & designatus; igitur quotquot ab eo postea consecrati sunt, non legitimè, sed e [...] presumptione consecrati sunt. 1. You are not lawfully consecrated: for by whom were you? whether by the King? but he hath not power to consecrate: Or by the Bishop of Canterbury or some like? Neither that truly. For▪ Thomas Cranmer who vnder K. Henry the 8. obtained the Bishop­ricke of Canterburie was not consecrated by any Bishop, but intruded and designed by the King alone; therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him, were not consecrated lawfully, but by presumption.

Or rather Becan playeth the part of a presumptuous Iesuite against the Lords annointed, in saying that King Henry intruded Cranmer, as also in glauncing at his most famous and religious successours, as though they them­selues had consecrated Bishops. For what needed he to moue any such que­stion, if it were not to raise a mist, and cast a cunning surmise to induce men to thinke that it was so? But indeede it was not so: for our soueraignes in the aduancing of Bishops do nothing but that which they may lawfully by their Princely right, agreeable to the patterne of most religious Kings and Empe­rours, and iustifiable both by the lawes of God and the land, as in due place shall appeare. And as hee wrongeth the Prince, so doth hee traduce Archbi­shop Cranmer, as though he were consecrated either by the King, or by none at all, and consequently the whole Clergie of England at this day, deriuing their consecration from that renowned Martyr. But if this accusation were true, doe you not marke how it would make a cracke in your golden chaine, of succession, wherein you so reioyce and glory? For if Cranmer were no Bishop, then some approoued in Queene Maries time would prooue no Bishops, as for example, Anthony Kitchen, Bishop of Landaff, and Thomas Thurlby, Bishop of Ely, both which Ex Regist. Cranm. deriued their Consecration from Cran­mer, as may be iustified by records; the latter whereof was highly commen­ded by the Pope and made one of his [...] of Com­missi [...]n▪ [...] Acts & [...]. in the life [...] Cranmer. Commissioners in the time of Queene Marie, and imploied in the proceedings against that most Reuerend Arch­bishop. If this cannot content the Iesuite, I will referre him to Parsons; conuers. part. [...]. p. 3 [...]0. Parsons his fellow Iesuite, a man who neither loued Archbishop Cranmer nor any other of our Religion, and yet clearely confesseth that he was a true Bishop.

[Page 65]BVt what mislike you in Cranmer? was hee not in the order of Priest­hood? 2 let the Pope be Iudge, who in his Bull to Cranmer calleth him, Regist. Cran. fol. 2▪ b. Magistrum in Theologia, in Presbyteratus ordine constitutum. i. Master or Doctor in Diuinitie setled in the order of Priesthood. Or was he made Archbishop with­out the Popes authoritie? The Pope himselfe affirmeth the contrary, both to the King in these words.

And to Cranmer himselfe in these words.

Or, did the Pope and his Cardinals accept the person of Cranmer vndeser­uedly? Let your holy Father speake for himselfe.

OR, was he Consecrated without the Popes licence? Behold the Bull for 3 his Consecration,

[Page 66]

Or, was he entangled with any Ecclesiasticall censures which might perad­uenture be imagined to hinder his Consecration? That is more then we find; or if he were, behold his absolution.

Or was he not Consecrate by so many, and such Bishops as the Popes Bull prescribed? The time, place and persons are extant in Record, against which you can take no exception. The briefe extract whereof I will communicate vnto you, for your better satisfaction.

OR was it not performed with wonted Ceremonies, according to the 4 vsuall forme of your Church? But those continued all the dayes of K. Henry the 8. euen when the Pope was banished, as Sanders confesseth.

Or, did he want the Pall, which (if we may beleeue you) containeth the [Page 67] name of an Archbishop, with the fulnesse of Bcclesiasticall power? But this was sent him from your holy father.

Kellisons reply to D. Sutiisse. I deny not that Cranmer was truely ordained, because Catholicke Bishops consecrated him, and so I confesse that hee liued and died a true Bishop, but peraduen­ture he was neuer any lawfull Archbishop of Canterburie.

Why so? hee was Canonically chosen by the Church of Canterburie, with the consent of the King, and the Popes approbation, appearing both by his Bulls and the Pall which hee sent him: hee was Canonically consecrated by his Comprouincials, with the Popes consent, who stiled him, Thomam Cranmerum olim Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem: i. Thomas Cranmer sometimes Archbishop of Canterburie, both in his Bull of Commission to the Bishops of London and Ely, authorising them to proceed against him; And likewise in his Regist. Card▪ Poli pag. 2. Bull of prouision for Cardinall Poole. Nei­ther did he onely giue him the title of an Archbishop, but he tooke order al­so for his Degradation, which was openly performed by the Commissioners▪ Concerning which it is famously knowen, That whereas they did onely Act. and Mon. in the life of Ridley pag. 1604. Vnpriest Ridley, Hooper, and Farrer, as taking them for no Bishops, they did Vnbishop Cranmer, taking from him both his Episcopall and Archiepiscopall robes. In the doing whereof, Cranmer said vnto them, Act. and Monum. in the life of Cranmer. Which of you hath a Pall, to take away my Pall? To whom they answered, That they did it by the Popes Commission. Wherefore you must of force confesse, without all peraduenture, That he was not onely Bishop, but also truely Archbishop of Canterburie.

Let all this be granted, yet I must needs adde, that his procee­dings were Schismaticall, and opened a way for the great Schisme of Hen­ry the eight.

CHAP. VII.

FOrasmuch as it is the custome of Papists to brand the raigne of King Henry the eight, with the odious name of Schisme, let me a little dispell those clouds and mists wherewith they darken the glorie of that Heroicall Prince. When the time was come that it pleased the Al­mightie to deliuer England from the vsurped authoritie of the Bishop of [Page 68] Rome: the beginning of it did grow from a detestable dispensation. For whereas Prince Arthur, elder sonne to Henry the 7. had Kal. Dec. 1501. Sand. de schis. l. 1. p. 2. Hollinsh. vol. 3. p. 789. married the La­dy Katherine daughter to Ferdinando King of Spaine, it pleased God that the said Prince Arthur shortly after Hollinsh. p. 790. Ant. Brit. p. 307. Sand. qu [...] supra. deceased without issue, so his yonger brother Henry Duke of Yorke was proclaimed Prince of Wales. Now Ferdinando King of Spaine, being disappointed of his former hope, and still desirous to make his daughter Queene of England, after long suite with great cost and charges in the life time, and with the consent, of Henry the 7. obtained a Q. Kat. in her answere to the K. messengers. Ant. Brit. p. 318. dispensation, that she being wi [...]e to the one brother, might law­fully be married to the other. This matter was referred first to Pope Sand. de schis. lib. 1▪ p. 2. A­lexander the sixt, then to Ibidem. Pius the third, both which died before it could be accomplished. After them succeeded Iulius the second the noble warriour, who brake through al difficulties, & couragiously granted the Sand. [...]. 1. p. 3. nupti [...]s [...], veniam potest a [...] fe [...]. dispensation, ( Hall. fol. 2. [...]n. 1. Hen. 8. contrary to the opinion of all the Cardinals of Rome, being Diuines.) By vertue whereof, Prince Henry being yet of tender yeeres was Sand. de schis. [...]. 1. pag. 4. contra­cted to his brothers wife. While the marriage was expected, it pleased God, that in Spaine, Sand. de schis. ibidem. Elizabeth mother to the Lady Katherine, and in England, Henry the seuenth departed this life, so the kingdome descended to Henry the eight, who was Ibid. quanquàm sem [...] d [...]sset se [...] nuptijs Kath. ab­stenturum. once of minde to haue proceeded no further. But, after the Cum H. R. 7. mor­tuo, & West [...]n. se­pulio Regnum A [...]g­iure h [...]reditario H. 8. [...] R. [...]bu [...]ni [...]et, egerunt cum eo quidam vt D. Kath. Arthuri fratris su [...] re [...]ctam viduam in vxorem du [...]ret. Ant. Brit. p. 307. funerall of his father, some of his Councell alleadging reasons, and producing the Popes dispensation, so preuailed with him, that the Katherinam in vxorem, tertio nonas Iunij pa [...]m acce­pit. Sand. [...]bid m. marriage proceeded, and they had issue (besides those that died in their infancie) the Lady Ma­rie. This was misliked of many, insomuch that when a motion was made of a marriage betweene the Duke of Orleance, and the Lady Mary, one of the King Henry the 8 in his Ora­tion to the Pre­lates and Nobles, Ant. Brit. p. 317. Hollinsh. p. 907. Coun­sellours to the French King, made a doubt, whether shee were the king of Eng­lands lawfull daughter, because shee was begotten of his brothers wife; which scruple was first mooued in the Hall. fol. 201. Court of Spaine, and thence was spread, to France and Flanders. Moreouer Cardinall Woolsie aduised Longland Bi­shop of Lincolne the Kings Confessor, to admonish him of it. Which the Bishop modestlie refused, as Sand. de Schis [...]. 1. p. 9. fitter to bee performed by himselfe. So the Cardinall vndertooke the businesse; to whom the King answered Anti-Sand p. 13 Take heed that you call not againe into question, a thing which is alreadie iudged. A­bout three daies after, Longland beeing brought by Wolsey vnto the King, entreated his Maiestie, That hee would permit the matter to bee considered and examined. In the meane time, the Cardinall did cast abroad rumors among the people, concerning the blemish of the former marriage, and how both the Germanes and French men misliked the same; which hee is supposed to haue done not of conscience, but of Q. Kath. answer to the Kings message. malice and subtilty, because hauing missed the Popedome by the Emperours meanes, hee would bee reuenged of the Queene, which was the Emperours Aunt, and withall hee is said to haue commended vnto King Henry, The beau­tifull Ladie Sand. ibid. p. 9. Margaret, Sister to the French King; hoping by the assi­stance of two such mightie Princes, in time to aspire to the Popedome.

WHich proiect, (though God which scattereth the imaginatiōs of the 2 proud disapointed him of his purpose) was such, that nothing could haue bin inuented, either more profitable for the kingdome, or more pernici­ous to himselfe, the Pope, and the Court of Rome. For this scruple did kin­dle [Page 69] such a fire in the kings bosome, that it vexed his very soule and con­science. Whereupon the king being desirous to haue the matter decided to the vttermost, so farre preuailed with Pope Clement the seuenth, that hee appointed two Cardinals to heare the matter: Wolsey Archbishop of Yorke, & Hollinsh. p. 906. Campeius who arriued the seuenth of October 1528. At this time there was great war between Charles Antisand. p. 15. the Emperor, and Francis the French king, about the kingdome of Naples, wherein the Pope wished that the French might pre­uaile, least the Emperour obtaining it should sit too close vpon his skirts. Wherefore to weaken the Emperour, he moued a league betweene the Eng­lish and the French; for procuring whereof hee did not onelie referre this matrimoniall cause to his said Legats but also of his owne meere motion no man requesting him, gaue Campeius a secret Bull The coppie whereof is in Antisand: p. 200. in his bosome, dated the sixth of the kal: of Ian. anno 1527. Wherein hee infringeth the former dispensation, affirming, that the king could not continue in such a matrimonie without sinne. Whereupon he decreed, that after the declaration of the nullitie of the former marriage and the kings absolution, it should be lawfull for him to marry another. This Bull hee forbad him to shew to any saue onely to the King and Cardi­nall Woolsey. And though Antis. p. 15. openly he commaunded him to handle the cause with all expedition, yet secretlie hee willed him to protract the time, promising that hee himselfe would watch a fit oportunitie to publish the Decree. So the King and Queene were cited to appeare before them in May following, at which time after some debating of the cause, they protracted the sentence till the begin­ning of August, notwithstanding the Kings earnest entreatie, to haue a fi­nall determination one way or other, for the better quieting of his trou­bled conscience. When August came, the King expected an end, but the crafty Cardinals considering, that if they should iudge according to Gods law, it would bee a great derogation from the Church of Rome, deuised delayes; so Campeius alleadged, that hee was a member of the Court of Rome, whose custome was to keepe a solemne vacation in the dogge daies, and thereupon deferred iudgement till October following. In the meane time the Pope seeing that King Henry could not bee drawne by hope of diuorce, to take part with the French, sent to Campeius, Antisande­rus p. 17. Commanding him to burne the former Bull. And before the beginning of October Campeius was called home by the Popes letters. The King beeing thus deluded sent to the Pope at Bononie, requesting some end, but hee would needs pause vpon the matter till he came to Rome.

ABout this time it pleased the diuine prouidence so to dispose, that 3 the King Antiq. Brit. p. 321. 322. for his recreation, went to Waltam, twelue miles from London, & in the way imparted his griefe to Stephen Gardiner his Secretary, and Doct. Fox his Almoner intreating them to bee carefull in so weighty a cause. It fell out, that they lodged in the house of one Master Cressy, whither Cranmer also (beeing tutor to two of Master Cressyes sonnes) was come at that time with his pupils, by reason of the plague then in Cambridge. At supper they asked his iudgement concerning the Kings cause, hee Ibidem. answe­red, that nothing did more prolong the cause, nor more torment the Kings conscience, then the dilatory protractions, and winding inuolutions in the Romane Court, with which snares whosoeuer are once intangled, doe hardly euer recouer themselues. [Page 70] Wherefore hee thought good, that leauing those Courtly trials and delayes wherewith the King was so tossed with such griefes of minde. The opinions of Diuines both in our owne Vniuersities and in others should bee enquired concerning this cause which is determinable by the Lawe of God, and not by the Law of man. And if the Diuines shall agree and pronounce that the marriage is lawfull or vnlawfull by the Law of God, let not the king seeke any more to the Court of Rome, but cause sentence to bee giuen in his owne dominions, according to the iudgement of the Diuines, so being cheerefull in minde, and free in conscience, hee may liue a Princely life, and worthy this common-wealth in lawfull matrimonie, which is to be wished of all vs Christian subiects. This answere pleased them exceedingly, and they presently related it vnto the King, to whom Doctor Fox made mention of Cranmer, but Gardi­ner would haue challenged all the glory to themselues. Then said the Act. & Mon. King, Where is that Cranmer, hee hath the sowe by the right eare. If I had knowne this deuice but two yeeres before, I might haue saued much charges and trouble; so the King conferred with Cranmer, and commanded him to set downe his minde in writing; at the deliuery whereof the King asked him if hee would stand to iustifie that which hee had written before the Bishop of Rome: Cranmer answered, yea that I will doe by Gods grace, if your Maiestie doe send mee thither. Marry (quoth the King) and to him will I send you. So hee was sent with the Earle of Wiltshier Embassadour to the Pope; who Antiq. Brit. pag 322. Act. & Mon. quo supra. thrust out his glorious foote to bee kissed of them, which (they refusing) the Earles spanniell running somewhat too familiarly, did catch and bite him by the great toe: Then the cause of their Embassage being declared, the Earle deliuered Antiq. Brit. 323. Cranmers booke to the Pope, and with all tolde him that hee had brought with him learned men out of England, which were ready to defend by Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels, whatsoeuer was contai­ned in that booke against all that should contradict it. The Pope promised sundry times a day of disputation, but dallied out the matter, as his Legates had done before in England, so giuing them honourable entertainment, hee made Cranmer his Ant. ibid. penitentiarie, and dismissed them. Then the rest returning, Cran­mer was sent by the kings appointment, Embassadour into Germany to the Empe­rour, where hee drewe many vnto his side, and among the rest Ibidem. Cornelius Agrip­pa. Moreouer the King did not onely consult with the most learned Diuines, and Lawyers in the whole kingdome, but also caused the question to bee publiquely disputed in the Vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge, both which did vtterly condemne the marriage. Neither did hee thus rest, but sent Bishop Holins. in Hen. 8. [...]. 923. Bonner to the The deter­minations of them are in Antisand [...] fine. Vniuersities of France and Italie, which affir­med vnder their seales that the marriage was vnlawfull, and that no man might dispense with it. Where it is to be obserued, that some of these Vniuer­sities professe that they tooke an Holinsh. p. 924. oath euery man to deliuer and to study vp­on the foresaide questions as should bee to the pleasure of God, and accor­ding to conscience. After these determinations were reade in open Parlia­ment Hall. an. 22. H. 8. fol. 199. there were shewed aboue an hundred bookes drawne by Doctours of strange regions, which all agreed the kings marriage to bee vnlawfull. Now to proceed, the King considering the Popes dealing, forbad all suites to the Court of Rome by The copie whereof is in Hollinshead. proclamation in September 1530. which In H. 8 p. 914 Sand. de schis. l. 1 p. 58. Sanders calleth the first beginning of the manifest schisme. About the same time Cardinall Wolsey was cast in a Antiq. Brit. pag. 325. Hal s [...]. 184 & 194. in H. 8. premunire, and all the Bishops of England for maintaining the [Page 71] power Legatine of the Cardinall. But the Bishops beeing called into the Kings Bench, before the day of their appearance concluded an humble sub­mission, offered the King I 18000. pounds to pardon the premunire, and withall gaue him the title of Supreme Lib. M. S. sacrae synodi 11. febr. 1530. pag. 125. Hall. fol. 195. in H. 8 head of the Church of England. Yea, Archbishop Cranmer apud. Foxum Act. & Mon. an. 1610. pag. 1702. Warham told him, that it was his right to haue it before the Pope, and that Gods word would beare it. Which proceedings in England, did so kindle and enflame the Popes choller, that neither the bookes of learned men, nor the determinations of Vniuersities, nor the offering of disputation, nor his owne former Bull and Decree could now hinder him from giuing a contrary publick definitiue The Copie whereof is in Anti-Sand. in fine. sentence, dated in his consistorie at Rome the twentie third of March, Anno 1532.

ABout this time dyed Archbishop Warham while Cranmer was Embassa­dour in Germany, and vpon the vacancie of the Archbishopricke, the King sent for him home, with purpose to aduance him to that great dignitie: but he pretended matters of great importance requiring his abode in Ger­many, by which meanes he deferred his comming for halfe a yeeare. And be­ing come home, and perceiuing that the place was reserued for him, hee im­ployed his greatest friends to shift it off. When the King did personally im­part his intent vnto him, hee disabled himselfe by all possible meanes, vsing all perswasions to alter the Kings determination. When he saw the Kings constant resolution, he humbly crauing pardon of his grace, franckly opened his conscience vnto him, declaring that if hee accepted that office, then hee must receiue it at the Popes hand; which he neither would not could doe, for that his highnesse was the onely supreme gouernour of this Church of Eng­land, as well in causes ecclesiasticall as temporall, & that the donation of Bi­shoprickes belonged to the King, and not to any forraine authoritie what­soeuer. All which proceedings doe not argue any ambitious or aspiring co­gitations, but rather an humble and lowly minde: preferring the sinceritie of a good conscience before all glorious pompe, and worldly dignities. The King seeing the tendernesse of his conscience, consulted with the learned in the law, how hee might bestow the Bishopricke vpon him, and yet not en­force him to any thing against his conscience. In conclusion, hee tooke the oath to the Pope, but not after the manner of his predecessours, as De Sch▪ l. 1. pag. 58. Sanders slanderously affirmeth. For then hee should haue taken it simply and absolute­ly, which hee did not, but with a protestation, expressing the condition and qualification. Neither did hee make his protestation priuately in a corner, and then take the oath in publicke, as Sanders would make the world beleeue, (for if this could bee proued, then had you reason to condemne him of fraud and periurie,) but it was not so. He did not vse his protestation in any se­cret and concealed manner like to equiuocating Papists, which take oaths in absolute words, and yet delude them with mentall reseruations: but he made it plainely and publickly, first in the Chapter house; secondly kneeling before the high Altar in the hearing both of the Bishops and people at his consecra­tion: Thirdly, in the very same place, and in the very same forme and tenour of wordes, when by commission from the Pope, they deliuered him the Pall. And the summe of the protestation was this, that hee Ex Reg. Cranm. fol. 4. b. intended not to binde himselfe to anything which was contrary to the lawe of God, or contrary [Page 72] to the king or common wealth of England, or the Lawes and prerogatiues of the same, nor to restraine his owne libertie to speake, consult, or consent, in all and euery thing, concerning the reformation of Christian religion, the gouernment of the Church of England, and the prerogatiue of the Crowne, or the commodity of the Common wealth. and euery where to execute and reforme such things, which he should thinke fitte to be reformed in the Church of England, and according to this interpretation, and this sence and no otherwise, he professed and protested, that he would take the oath. Now if you censure Cranmer, because he qualified his oath with such a protestati­on, what censure shalbe giuen of your Popish Bishops before Cranmer, which took two (absolute) othes, to the King, and to the Ant. Brit. in Hen. Den [...]o. p. 302. Pope, containing manifest contradiction as K. Ha [...]in Hen. 8. f. 206. Act. & Monum. vol. 2. p. 961. col. 1. Henry himselfe declared, causing thē both to be read in o­pen Parliament? And Cranmer hath made the point plaine, both in his answere Ibid. p. 1701. to B. Brookes, and in his Ibid. p. 1714. letters to Queene Marie. Or if you censure Cranmer for swearing to the Pope with Qualification, what censure will you giue of Heath, Bonner, Thurlby and the rest, that in King Henries daies, tooke absolute­ly the oath of Supremacie, which euidently excludeth the Popes authoritie?

BVt to returne to K. Henry, who seeing his former mariage condemned 6. by such a world of witnesses, so grounding their iudgements vpon the blessed word of God, as was sufficient to settle any mans conscience, procee­ded the 14. of Nouember in the 24. yeere of his reigne, to Hal [...]n H. 8. fol. 217. marrie the Lady Anne Bullen, who the seuenth of September following, Hal [...]n Hen. 8. f. 209. Hol­linsh. in Hen. 8. pag. 929. brought forth the La­die ELIZABETH, the Ioy of England, the Starre of Europe, and the Phoe­nix of the world, a Glasse of Gods prouidence, and the Mirrour of his mer­cie. When the Royall infant was yet in her mothers wombe, Pope Clement the seuenth, the Pontu [...] Heuterus Del­fin [...] de libera hominis nati­uitate. base borne sonne of Iulianus Medices the Florentine, fauouring the Lady Katharine Dowager sought by all meanes to dissolue the lawfull ma­riage of Queene Anne, and to make her issue vncapable of the crowne. For which purpose, being inraged like a Dragon, hee disgorged his poyson, and spit fiery flames against the Bulla Clem. 7. [...]pud. Sand. deschis. l. 1. pag. 81. king, the Queene, the Realme, & the blessed babe before she was borne. But death closed vp his eyes with darkenesse, while the yong Lady beganne to behold the light of heauen, arysing like a luckie starre in the middest of a storme, shining to the Church of God with tokens of ioy and deliuerance; but to the Pope and his adherents like a blazing or fatall Co­met, portending the ouerthrow of Antichrist. Which in part came to passe about a yeere after that the yong Lady was borne. For whereas the Bishop of Rome like the daw in Aesop, had decked and adorned himselfe with the faire feathers of other birds, and ietted vp and downe with pride and disdaine, tyrannizing ouer all the foules that flie in the midle of heauen: King Henry the eight, the Eagle of England, plucked his owne feather out of the Popes wing, and 3. Nouem. 1534. being 26 Hen. 8. Holl. in Hen. 8. pag. pag. 938. resumed to himselfe the rich plume of the Princes su­premacy, that is, the lawful authoritie which God had giuen him. Then The con­tents of his Bull are in Sand. de schi [...]. [...]. 1. p. 109. Paul the third flashed out his excomunications like lightnings, and interdicted the kingdome, hoping thereby to reduce it to his obedience, or at least to disa­ble the yong Lady for the succession of the crowne. Yet after a while the angrie old man withered away, but the yong Lady did grow vp like the lilly, and flourished like the Rose plant of Prouince. Now though for extirpa­ting the Popes iurisdiction, this renowned King had the honour before and aboue all Christian Princes; yet the glorie of abolishing Popish religion, was [Page 73] by diuine prouidence reserued to his blessed children, Edward and Elizabeth: They pulled vp superstition by the very roots, whereas their father (for God reuealed his truth by degrees) did onely hew at a few branches. Hitherto of the Popes expulsion.

NOw for as much as Archbishop Cranmer was a principall meanes 7 thereof, the Papists did hate him worse then a scorpion, heaping vpon him whatsoeuer wit sharpened with malice could possibly deuise. Hee resorted sometimes to the Dolphin in Cambridge, where hee placed his wife, the mistresse of the house being her cousin: therupon they blazed abroad that he was an Act. & Mon. in the life of Cran. p. 1088. Hostler, and vnlearned. He kept his wife secret, for feare of the law: they reported that she was caried vp and downe in a Pars. 3. Conu. part. 3. cap. 7. num. 27. Chest, and that at Graues end, the wrong end of the Chest was set vpward. And surely King Henry did foresee, that one day, if they might preuaile, they would haue his blood and burne him at a stake. Therefore, whereas hee gaue the three Cranes the ancient armes of his house, the King caused him to change them into three Ant. Brit. p. 341. Pelicanes, presaging that he should feed the flock of Christ, with his deerest blood, and dye a Martyr; which came to passe, in the dayes of Queene Mary, when they disgorged all their poisoned malice vpon him. They Act. & Mon. in the life of Cranmer. disrobed him of his Episcopall ornaments, and put him into a lay mans gowne; they cited him to appeare at Rome within eightie dayes, and put him to death before twentie of them were expired. They caused Alphonso the Spa­nish Fryer, to draw him to a recantation by sweet promises of life, yet they had a setled purpose to put him to death. They had no intention by Alphonso to do him good, but sought a colour by his recantation to iustifie themselues; so they clapped their hands, and reioyced at his fall. But as hee sinned and denyed his Master with Peter, so God gaue him grace to repent with Peter. And as he lamented all his sinnes, so especially he bewailed his subscribing to Popery with his vnworthy right hand. Wherefore when he came to the fire for a godly reuenge, hee thrust it like another Scaeuola into the flame, and did not so much as draw backe his arme till it was wholly consumed: thus lifting vp his eyes to heauen, in the middest of the furious flames, hee said, Lord Iesus Ant. Brit. pag. 343. receiue my spirit, and so gaue vp the Ghost. When his bodie and the wood were consumed to ashes, behold his heart was found whole, and perfect, as hauing escaped the force of the fire; concerning which, these verses were written by a learned man.

CHAP. VIII.

WEll, though you and your crew commend Cranmer, yet I will proue in spite of all Hereticks, that when he reuolted from the Pope, both he and all his con­sorts, became notorious Schismaticks.

Then you will proue in spite of all Hereticks, that Stephen Gardener was a Schismaticke, Edmund Bonner a schismatick, Cutbert Tunstall a schismaticke, Nicholas Heath a schismaticke, Iohn Stokesly a schismaticke; and in a word, that all the Bishops of your Catholicke Church which were in England, after the banishing of the Pope, till the end of the raigne of King Henry, by the space of 12. yeeres, were notorious schismatickes. For they all reuolted from the Pope, Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester onely excepted, who was Hall in H. 8. 206. then lately made Cardinall, but lost his head before his Hat came ouer. What? will you proue that there were so many schismaticks at once in your Catholicke Church?

They were not then of the Catholicke Church: for that worthy Bishop of Winchester, In a Ser­mon at Pauls Cros [...]e. Stephen Gardener affirmed, That when K Henry did first take vpon him to be head of the Church, it was then no Church at all. And Doct. Sanders saith, Sand. de schis. l. 2. pag. 209. That Bishops were made in Schismate Henriciano, extra, vel potiùs, contra Ecclesiam, 1. in the schisme of Henry the 8. without the Church, or ra­ther against it.

Pope De cons. dist. 1. Eccles. Nicholas defineth the Catholicke Church to be a con­gregation of Catholicks.

When they renounced the Pope, they were no Catholicks.

They were Masse-priests, and professed that faith which you call Catholicke. Why then should you deny them the name of Catholicks?

Because they did not professe it vnder the Bishop of Rome: from whose communion whosoeuer renteth himselfe, is a schismaticke.

Heresie and schisme (saith Secunda se­cundae q. 39. a [...]. 1. ad tertiam. Thomas Aquinas,) are distinguished according to those things whereto each of them is opposed properly and directly. Now, Heresie is opposed properly vnto faith, but Schisme is opposed properly to the vnitie of Ecclesiasticall loue. Which is agreeable to In Epist. ad Titum. c. 3. S. Hierome, saying, Betweene Schisme and Heresie, this I take to be the difference, That Heresie hath alwayes a peruerse opinion, but Schisme maketh a separation from the Church. Out of which words, saith Nauar. Manuale. c. 27. p. 878. Nauarrus, We may gather, That Schisme taken generally, is a sinne whereby one separateth himselfe from due vnitie: but taken specially, it is a sin where­by he is separated from the vnitie of the Church. But what is this to the Pope?

Sculting. Var [...]arum lect. tom. 4. p. 22. Schismaticks are therefore no members of the Church, because they are diuided and rent from the visible head, That is, the Pope. For Bell. de Ecc [...]. mil. l. 3. c. 5. respon. no man can be vnder Christ, and communicate with the Church Coelestiall, who is not vnder the Pope, and doeth not communicate with the Church Militant. Which doth plainely appeare by the decree of Pope Boniface, Extrau. com. l. 1. de Maior. vnam sanctam. Porro subesse Romano Pōtifici, omni humanae crea­turae declaramus, dic [...]mus, definimus & pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salu­tis; That is, Furthermore we declare, say, define and pronounce, That to be vnder the Bishop of Rome, is to euery humane creature, altogether of the necessitie of saluation.

[Page 75]

What say you then to Athanasius, who was persecuted for the Catholicke faith, Pope Liberius consenting and subscribing to the Syno­dal sentence, whereby he was excluded from the communion of the Church; as witnesseth Bin. tom. 1. p. 474 [...]n not is in Concil. Sir­miense. Binius; saying, To the wicked profession whereof (that is, of the Sir­mian Councell) he, (that is Liberius) subscribed by violence and feare. And againe, Liberius Bishop of Rome prouoked by violence and threates, as At [...]. [...]n E­pist. ad Solitar. Athanasius, Hilarius ad Const. Hilarie, and Hier. in Chron. Hierome doe testifie, subscribed to this first forme of faith, (of the Sirmian Coun­cell) condemned Athanasius, communicated with the Arrians, and signifying the same by letters written to Valens and others, hee intreated to be freed from exile, and to be restored to his See; Yea, Liberius himselfe in his Epistle to the Easterne Churches, confesseth so much, saying, Liberius E­pist 7. Bin. tom. 1. p. 465. So soone as I knew, when it pleased God, that you had iustly condemned him, (that is Athanasius,) I presently yeelded my consent to your iudgement, and gaue Letters to be caried to the Emperour Constantius, by our brother Fortunatianus of his name, That is, concerning the condemning of him: there­fore Athanasius being remoued; concerning whom the Decrees of you all, are to be re­ceiued of me with the See Apostolicke; I say that I haue peace and vnitie with all you, with all the Easterne Bishops, or through all Prouinces. This Epistle is extant in the Vatican Library, and acknowledged for true and proper by Ibidem. Binius, who thereupon taketh vp a lamentation, That Liberius the Romane Samson deceiued by enuie and vaine glory, as it were by Dalila, was conquered and lost his golden locks. Thus it appeareth, that this renowned Patriarch, this stout Champion of Iesus Christ, this pillar of the Church, this hammer of Hereticks was diuided from the communion of the Pope, and yet hee was not separated from the blessed communion of Iesus Christ: For when the whole world was a­gainst him, he against the whole world defended the cause of Christ, and the Lord gaue him victory. Shall now this glorious Athanasius be reputed a Schismaticke? I hope you wil not dare to say so. If he be not, then one may be separated from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, and yet bee no Schismaticke.

Schisme, as Cardinall Toll. in­struct. sac [...]rd. l. 1 c. 19. s. 12. Tollet defineth it, is a rebellious separation from the head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ, which possibly cannot agree to Athanasius.

Do not you thinke that this was rebellious? The Emperour Const. apud Theod. l. 2. cap. 16. Constantius affirmed, that the whole world had iudged, that Athanasius should be separated from the communion of the Church: which was done in the Councell at Millan, and also at Smirnium, the Pope himselfe subscribing thereun [...]o. Yet Athanasius stood out stiffely, he did not relent, but chose rather to remaine ex­communicate, then to submit and conforme himselfe to your holy father the Pope. Now what say you? will you accuse him or excuse him? Accuse him you cannot; because if he should haue yeelded, he had rebelled against God, and denied the Diuinitie of Christ: And if you excuse him, then you are for­ced to confesse, That not euery separation from the Bishop of Rome is a Schisme, but such onely as separateth from the Church of God, and from Christ. Hitherto of Schisme in generall.

NOw in particular; The separation of King Henry was so farre from 2 Schisme, that I will proue it lawfull by Bellarmine himselfe, who saith, De Rom. [...]ont. l. 2. c. 29. respon­deo negando. As it is lawfull to resist the Pope inuading the body, so it is lawfull to resist him inua­ding [Page 76] the soules, or troubling the commonwealth, and much more if hee goe about to destroy the Church: So there are foure cases wherein Bellarmine holdeth it law­ful to resist the Pope. Wherefore, if King Henries case were any of these foure, his resistance was lawfull. To passe ouer the first, and the last, it shalbe suffi­cient if we ponder the other two, touching the inuading of the soule, and the troubling of the Commonwealth. While the King was yet in his nonage, hee was dispensed with all by the Pope, against the eternall Commande­ment of God, to marry his brothers wife: and afterward being informed of the vnlawfullnesse thereof, hee intreated the Pope either to iustifie his dispen­sation by the word of God, or to dissolue the marriage; yet hee would doe neither, but left him long in anguish of minde and perplexitie of conscience: and at last gaue finall sentence to binde him to liue in a marriage, condem­ned by his owne Cardinals, his owne vniuersities, yea and by his owne former Bull, wherein hee had pronounced, That the King could not continue in it without sin. Let any indifferent man iudge whether this were not to in­uade the soules of men? Now let vs see, whether hee did trouble the Com­monwealth. By meanes of this dispensation the mindes of men were greatly distracted, some holding with the Pope, others embracing the iudge­ments of learned men through the famous vniuersities of Christendome. Thus the whole world stood in suspence, and the inheritance, and succession of the Crowne was commonly called in question both by subiects and stran­gers: Was not this euidently & notoriously to trouble the Commonwealth? So according to Bellarmines positions, it was lawfull for K. Henry, and his sub­iects to resist the Pope, and therefore this resistance was not schismaticall.

You must consider the manner of resistance set downe by Bel­larmine: Licet Quo supra. inquam ei resistere, non faciendo quod iubet, & impediendo ne exequa­tur voluntatem suam: non tamen licet eum iudicare, vel punire, vel deponere, quod non est nisi superioris: that is, It is lawfull I say to resist him, by not doing that which hee commaundeth, and by hindring him from executing his will: yet it is not law­full to iudge him, or punish him, or depose him, which belongeth to none but the superiour.

And you must consider that it is one thing to punish by vertue of Iurisdiction ouer a partie: and another thing to hinder the iniuries which the par­tie endeauoreth, actuallie to inferre, as the Venetian Contr [...]uers. me [...]or. p. 230. Doctours haue prooued out of Caietan, Turrecremata, and Bellarmine. Now King Henry did challenge no iurisdiction, but ouer his owne subiects, and within his owne dominions, yet it was fit that in his owne necessary defence, hee should remoue papall iniuries, by prouiding as it became a vertuous Prince, for the quiet of his owne conscience, and the good of his subiects. Which blessings could ne­uer haue beene procured, if the Pope had still enioyed his vsurped authority in England.

You shall not perswade mee, but that King Henry was guiltie both of Schisme and heresie. Onuph. in Paulo 3. Onuphrius saith that Paul the third, did thinke him vnworthie to bee accounted in the number of Christians, ob inauditum heresis crimen, that is, For such a crime of heresie as had not beene heard of.

What meant the Pope thinke you, when hee condemned him for heresie? Sigonius recordeth, that in a Councell at Mentz, in the pre­sence [Page 77] of the Emperor, there was a disputation, Sig. de regn [...] Ital. l. 9. an. 1085. Vtrum Henricus Regio titu­lo a Gregorio spoliari potuisset, that is, VVhether Henry the Emperour might bee depriued of the title of a King by Pope Gregorie: Wherein most of the Bishops assented to Geberardus defending the Popes authority. So it came to passe that Vecilo Archbishop of Mentz, beeing of the contrarie opinion, was bran­ded for heresie in an other councell, wherein Otho Bishop of Ostia the Popes Legat was present. And the same Sigon ibid. an. 1105. Sigonius saith, that the Emperour Hen­ry the fourth, renouncing his Fathers heresie, did imbrace the obedience of the Pope. Not to performe obedience to the Pope, was his Fathers here­sie; but his sonne was a gracious Catholicke, for shewing obedience to the Pope, though therein hee were an vngracious sonne against his owne father.

Onuphrius Onuph. in Clement 7. saith, That king Henry the eight followed, Noua & ne­faria Lutheri dogmata, the new and wicked opinions of Luther. Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 5. c. 7. Bellarmine saith, that in England, in the reigne of Henry, and afterwards in the reigne of Edward, the whole kingdome did after a sort slide backe from the faith.

That which you call Heresie and Apostacy is true religion, and that which you honour with the name of true religion, is full of Here­sie and idolatry. Many papall abuses were discouered in the daies of King Henry, moe in the daies of King Edward, so the Gospell was like to the light which shineth more and more, to the perfect day; the brightnesse where­of abolished both the Pope & the Popish religion. Afterward when Queene Mary had restored both, the Lord stirred vp the spirit of Queene Elizabeth, who with an inuincible courage reformed religion. And that which shee happily begunne our gracious Soueraigne King Iames hath happily continu­ed. Neither can any man accuse them of Schisme, vnlesse they will accuse the holy Apostle Saint Paul, who Act. 19. 9 When certaine were hardened and disobeyed, speaking euill of the way of God before the multitude, hee departed from them and se­parated the Disciples. As the Apostle practised this in his owne person, so hee gaue the like commaundement to others. 1. Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. If any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholesome words of our Lord Iesus Christ, and to the Doctrine which is according to godlinesse &c. From such separate thy selfe. And the Lord crieth by his Prophet, Hose. 4. 15 Goe not vp to Bethauen. This Bethauen was Bethel, but her idolatry made her Bethauen, therefore goe not vp to Bethauen. If Rome which was sometimes Bethel, the house of God, become Bethauen, the house of vanitie: then thou must not goe vp to Bethauen. Reuel. 18. 4▪ Goe out of Babylon my people, goe out of Babylon: if Rome which was some times a pure virgine become the whore of Babylon, then go out of Babylon my people, least you be partakers of her plagues. Wherefore al Christian Kingdomes were bound to separate themselues from the erronious and idolatrous Church of Rome.

Thus you say, But I rather account of the iudgement of the Church of Rome which noteth both them and you for schismatickes and heretickes.

CHAP. IX.

WHether we or you be guiltie of those crimes, God the righteous iudge will one day reueale. In the meane time let vs admit (though for al your brags you are neuer able to proue it) that Cranmer vpon his reuolte from the Pope did presently become a schismatick, and an hereticke: Yet tell mee in good sooth ( Philodox) doeth a Bishop falling into schisme and heresie cease to be a Bishop? doth hee loose his power of giuing orders?

It is a disputable point, and I can tell you that great Clerkes seeme to bee of that opinion. Pope Vide Bellar. de sacram. ord. c. 3. igitur. Innocent saith, that those which are Bap­tized of heretickes, are receiued with their Baptisme, but the ordained of heretickes are not receiued with their order. And againe, the Innocent. 1. ep. 22. c. 3. Bin. t. 1. p. 581. ordained of Heretickes haue their head wounded. And againe, it Ibidem. is affirmed, that hee which hath lost the honour, can­not giue the honour: and that hee which receiued, receiued nothing, because there was nothing in the giuer which hee could receiue. Which he sealeth vp with this con­clusion, Aquiescimus & verum est; We yeeld, and it is true. Pope Iohn the twelfth caused those which were ordained of Leo 8. a schismaticall Pope, to say: Concil. Rom. sub. Ioh. 12. apud. Bin t. [...]. part. 2. p. [...]066. Pater meus nihil habuit sibi, nihil mihi dedit: that is, my father had nothing to himselfe, and nothing he gaue to me. Pope Nicolas the first saith: Nicol. 1. ep. 9. [...]in. t. 3. pag. 699. No reason doth teach how Gregory who was Canonically and Synodically deposed and excommuni­cated, can promote or blesse any man, therefore Photius receiued nothing of Gregory but that which he had, but he had nothing, he therefore gaue nothing He which stop­peth his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shalbe abhominable; if abhominable, then not to be heard; if not to be heard, then vneffectuall, if vneffectuall, then verily it brin­geth nothing to Photius. Wherefore though Cranmer had a lawfull consecra­tion, yet it seemeth, when hee fell into schisme and heresie, hee lost his order, and power of ordination. Therefore the Bishops in King Edwards time con­secrated by Cranmer receiued nothing, because Cranmer had nothing to giue. And the Bishops in Queene Elizabeths time, consecrated by those whom Cran­mer did consecrate, receiued nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to giue. And those which now succeede them, receiued nothing, because their predecessours had nothing to giue.

Take heed ( Philodox) least while you goe about to put out our eyes, you put out your owne. For if your allegations be sound, what shall be­come of Bonner Bishop of London? what shall become of Nicolas Heath, whom Queene Mary made Archbishop of Yorke, and after the death of Gar­diner, Lord Chancelour of England? what shall become of Thurlby, whom Queene Mary translated from Norwich to Ely? For all these were consecra­ted at such time, when in your iudgement both the consecrators and conse­crated were stained with schisme and heresie. Did all these receiue nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to giue? If they were no Bishops, then what becomes of the Bishops in Queene Maries raigne, whom these did con­secrate? if they all receiued nothing, then you must confesse that the Priestes whom they ordained were no Priestes: If they were no Priests, then though [Page 79] they vsed the words of Consecration, they could not Consecrate▪ the hoast: If this be true, then al that worshipped the hoast which they did Consecrate, were idolatours.

Edmond Bonner, and the rest of our Bishops and Priests were Re­uerend and Canonicall, whatsoeuer you esteeme of them.

Can there be a Bishop without effectuall Consecration?

It is impossible.

And other Consecration they had none, but that which wee haue mentioned: for I hope they were not reordained in Queene Maries time.

Reordained? I doe not thinke so, for as rebaptizations, so reor­dinations were forbidden in the Councell of Bar. anno. 389 num 74. Capua. And Greg 1. Epi. l. 2. indict. 10. Ep. 32. Gregory saith as he which is once baptized, ought not to be baptized againe, so hee which is once conse­crated, ought not to be Consecrated againe in the same order. Therfore vndoubtedly they were not reordained: but Cardinall Poole, the Popes legate, absolued them from Schisme, and heresie, so they were confirmed for lawful Bishops. c Episcopos omnes qui sen­tentia religionis erant Catho [...]ici, in priori schis­mate factos confirmauit. Sand de schis. l. 2. c. 260.

You hold that it is impossible to be a Bishop without effe­ctuall Consecration. Therefore seeing they had no other Consecration, but that mentioned, and yet were Bishops, it followeth that their Consecration was effectuall: wherefore you are forced to confesse, that if a schismatical and hereticall Bishop giue orders, the orders are effectuall. But least this conclu­sion should seeme to flowe rather from the affection you beare to your owne Bishops, then from any force of reason, especially your own allegations stan­ding still to the contrary; let vs reuiew the whole matter, and proceed by de­grees, ballancing euery thing with aduice and iudgement: And answere I pray you, not out of priuate humour, and passion, but from the publicke and most authenticall recordes of your Church.

ANd first, if a wicked priest, as for example, a drunkard, fornicator, or 2 blasphemer, baptize a childe, I demaund whether the baptisme bee good or no?

If it be performed in the true element of water, with Euangeli­call words, that is, In the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, according to our Sauiour Christs holy institution, it is sound and suffi­cient, and neuer to be iterated, as our learned Popes, Councels, and Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bell. d [...]sacr. in gen. l. 1. c. 26. Bellarmine doe testifie. For the wickednesse of the Minister, cannot pollute the puritie of the mysteries of God: they are auaile­able to his children, though they be ministred by a Iudas. For it is well said of our learned Ibid. Respon­deo ad mino­rem. Cardinall that he which hath not forgiuenesse of sinnes formally, may haue it Ministerially: as he that hath not in his purse, one halfepeny of his owne, may notwithstanding cary many crownes to another, from his lord and master.

Very true, for that which S. Paul saith of preaching, may bee extended to other Ministeriall duties. If 1. Cor. 9. 17 I doe it willingly, I haue a reward: but if I doe it against my will; notwithstanding, the dispensation is committed vnto me. As though he should say, If I do it willingly, that is cheerfully for conscience sake, seeking onely the glory of God, and the saluation of his people, then there is a reward laid vp for me: But if I shall performe it vnwillingly, that is, [Page 80] for feare, couetousnesse, vaine glory, or any other carnall respect, though to my selfe it be not profitable, because I loose my reward, yet it may be auailable to others, because the dispensation is committed vnto me. The foulnesse of an vn­sanctified hand, cannot staine the beautie of these glorious mysteries. For as Orat. 40. Gregory Nazianzen saith, A seale of Iron may imprint the Princes image as well as a signet of gold. And we know by experience, that a garden may as well be watered with an earthen, as with a siluer pipe. But what if the Priest we speak of, be a schismaticke and an hereticke?

Though he be, yet if hee baptize according to the institution of Christ, the baptisme is effectuall, and neuer to be repeated.

You say well, for in such a case, though it be ministred by Hereticks, and schismaticks, yet it is not the baptisme of heretickes and schis­matickes, but of Iesus Christ. For it is Ioh. 1. 33. he that baptiseth and 1. Cor. 3. 7. neither is he that planteth any thing, nor hee that watereth, b [...] God which giueth the increase. To which purpose it is excellently said of Aus [...]n, De bap. cont Donat. l. 4. cap. 15. To the baptisme which is Conse­crated with Euangelicall words, pertaineth not the errour of any man, either of the gi­uer, or of the receiuer, whether he thinke otherwise then the heauenly doctrine tea­cheth of the Father, or of the Sonne, or of the holy Ghost. Indeed it was decreed in the great counsell of Nice, that the Can. 19. Pauli [...]nistae comming to the Catholicke Church, should be rebaptized: where, by rebaptizing they meane the repea­ting of that action, which was erroniously supposed to be true baptisme, but in trueth was not, because it wanted the true essentiall forme of words, which the Councell iudged necessary to be supplied. Therefore there is no repug­nancie betweene them and the Affrican Councel, which decreed vnder Pope Stephen, that the Vide Binium in notis in con. Nic. Can. 19. Nouatians returning to the Catholicke Church, should not be rebap­tized, because their former baptisme (though giuen by heretickes) was accor­ding to the true forme of the Church, and therefore sufficient. It is true that Vincentius Lyri [...]ensis in commo [...]it. ca. 9. Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage, defended rebaptization, and he was the first of all mortall men which defended it: wherein he was followed by Saint Cyp. t. 2. & concil. Carthag. ibid. Cyprian, and the Bishops of Africke, but then they had not seene the point defined by any generall Councels, and though they held an errour, yet they did not iudge them heretickes which held the contrary, neither did they re­baptize those whom the Catholickes had baptized, nor make any rent in the Church, but kept the vnity of the spirit, in the bond of peace: yea Saint Epi. 48. Austin saith some report that Cyprian recalled this errour: & S. In dial. con. Luci [...]. Hierom affirmeth that the Bishops of Africk did the like, moued by the authority of Stephen Bishop of Rome. But after them came the Donatists stiffely maintaining and increasing this errour, euen when the Church had determined the contrary, and there­fore were iustly iudged hereticks. Yea, they took vpō them to Aug. de vni­co bapt. c. 13. rebaptize such as were baptised in the Catholicke Church, which was a diabolicall presump­tion. For which causes Vincent. Ly­rinen. cap. 1 [...]. Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, Of one and the same opinion wee iudge (which may seeme strange) the authors Catholicke, and the followers hereticall. We acquit the Masters, and condemne the Schollers: they are heires of hea­uen which haue written those bookes, the defendours whereof are troden downe to the pit of hell. But now the Church hath long agoe with one voice condem­ned this Heresie▪ When Aug. con. E­pist. Parm. [...]. 1. c. 4. Praetextatus and Felicianus hauing baptised sundry in schisme returned to vnitie, the Church did not rebaptise them whom they [Page 81] had baptised, but kept them in that baptisme which they had in Schisme. For according to Saint Aug. de bap. cont. Donat. l. 5. c. 7. Austin, some doe minister baptismum legitimum, and that legitimè: some neither legitimè, nor yet legitimum: some legitimum, but not legitimè. Such as performe it in the true element and forme of wordes, be­ing themselues in the bosome and vnitie of the Church, doe minister both legitimum and legitimè: such as faile in the institution, and are themselues in Schisme or Heresie, doe neither minister legitimè, nor yet legitimum: such as doe obserue the substance of institution, being themselues in Schisme or Heresie doe minister legitimum, but not legitimè; And those which receiue it from them haue a lawfull baptisme, but not lawfully. For it is one thing to haue a lawfull thing vnlawfully, and another thing not to haue it at all. The Sacraments of the Church may be found without the Church, as the riuers of Paradise are found without Paradise. Heretickes and Schismatickes may haue rem columbae, though they themselues be extra columbam.

The trueth of this Doctrine is so plaine, that no common Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 4 c. 10. Catholick is ignorant of it.

Then to proceede, what if the Priest wee speake of, were in­terdicted, suspended, excommunicated, degraded?

Yet if hee obserue in all points of substance, the institution of Christ, it is effectuall and neuer to bee repeated. This is vndoubtedly the iudgement of our Church; And therefore in Queene Maries time, though the land had beene interdicted, and vnder the Popes curse for Schisme and Heresie, by the space of twentie yeeres, wee did not rebaptise them who were then baptised, but haue kept them with vs in their former baptisme.

COncerning baptisme we agree; Now to come to the eucharist: 3 shall the vngodly life or wicked opinion of the Minister make his ministration of it vneffectuall to the people of God?

In no case, so he obserue the ordinance of Christ.

You answere rightly: For 1. Sam. 2. 12. the sonnes of Eli were wicked men, and procured Gods heauie wrath against themselues, yet there is no doubt, but the God of all Grace did accept of those Sacrifices, which his faithfull children with an honest heart presented according to the Law of the Lord, to be offered euen by their hands, so long as they inioyed the Office of Priest­hood. Our Mat. 5. & 15. & 23. Sauiour in the Gospel, reproued the Scribes and Pharisees for their false and superstitious doctrine, which was so commonly receiued, and so anciently continued, that there can be no question, but many of the Priests were infected with it: Yet Christ commanded the Matth. 8. 4. Leper to shew himselfe to the Priest. Yea, he himselfe frequented the Feasts, wherein Sacrifices were of­fered by those Priests. But to goe forward; Can the Eucharist be ministred by a Priest whom the Pope hath excommunicated, and degraded?

Bel. de Rom. pont l. 4. c. 24. at contra. Though all Priests haue the power of Order vnder the Pope, yet for as much as they haue it not immediatly from the Pope, but from God, therefore the Pope cannot so take it away, but that if they will they may vse it. For a Priest, though the Pope should Excōmunicate▪ suspend, interdict & degrade him, yet if he will himselfe, he shall truely Consecrate. For euery Priest hath an indeleble Vide apud. Bel de sacram. in Genere. l. 2. c. 19. & desa­cr. Confirmae. 12. sed instant. Character, which is a certaine spirituall and supernaturall power, imprinted in the soule of man in Baptisme, Confir­mation, [Page 82] and holy Orders; whereby the Baptized, Confirmed and Ordered, are inabled to giue, or receiue, the Offices of certaine Sacraments. The Cha­racter of Confirmation, being not greatly to our present purpose, may bee passed ouer. The Character of Baptisme is a passiue power, whereby the Bap­tized is made [...]it to receiue other Sacraments, whereof without Baptisme he were vn­capable. The Character of Order, is an actiue power to minister the Sacra­ments vnto other. Now, in holy Orders it must be obserued, That the Priest­ly Character doeth differ from the Episcopall. For the Episcopall is either an other, or the same extended: so that it conteineth the Priestly, and some­what else. A Priest in respect of his Priestly Character, is first of all the pub­licke and ordinary Minister of Baptisme: For a Lay-man may not Baptise publickely, but onely priuately; Neither priuately in the presence of the Priest or Deacon, but onely in their absence. Neither alwayes in their ab­sence; but onely in case of necessitie; for then a Lay-man, be he Iew or infi­del, may Baptize, so hee intend to doe that, which the Catholicke Church doeth, in that kinde of Administration. A Deacon may Baptise, not onely priuately but publickely, so it be at the appointment of the Bishop or Priest. But a Priest may suo iure Baptize, ex Officio, euen in the presence of a Bishop; as is declared by In Catechis. Trident. Pius Quintus, and the Councell of Trent, who qualifie the con­trary opinion, and reduce it to a tollerable sence. Secondly, a Priest by ver­tue of his Priestly Character, may consecrate the Hoaste, which no Lay-man, King, nor Emperour, no Angel, nor Archangel, can performe: because they want this Character. Indeed a Deacon may helpe to minister the Eucharist, but he cannot Consecrate, no not by dispensation; If he should take it vpon him, he should effect nothing. But euery Priest receiueth in his Ordination, a Character, not from man, but from the Eternall God, which in respect of the Eucharist, is absolute, perfect and independent. Bell de sacr. in Gen. l. 2. [...]. 19. Wheresoeuer it is, there God is present, ex pacto, and cōcurreth to the producing of supernaturall effects, which he doeth not, where this Character is wanting. Now the holy Councels of D [...]cret. Eu­ [...]. 4. in C [...]nc. Flor. B [...]. t. 4. p. 49 [...]. Flo­rence and S [...]. 23. c. 4. B [...]. t. 4. p. 847. Trent do teach vs, That this Character is indeleble: death onely, if death, can dissolue it, otherwise it is euerlasting.

If by indeleble Character bee meant onely a gracious gift neuer to be reirerated, then we may safely confesse, that in Baptisme, and holy Orders, there is imprinted an indeleble Character. For a man rightly Baptized, becomming a Turke or a Iew, and afterward returning to the faith, and Church of Christ, is in no case to be rebaptized: the vertue of his former Baptisme is not spunged out, but still remaineth auaileable. Likewise when a Priest lawfully ordained, becoming a schismaticke, or hereticke is iustly cen­sured for his crimes, and afterward is reclaimed; if the Church shall need his labours, and hold it conuenient that he execute the Ministeriall function, hee may in no case be reordained, but may performe it by vertue of his Orders formerly receiued. Hitherto of a Priest.

NOw to transferre our speech to a Bishop; Shall his iniquitie hinder him 4. from giuing Orders?

No verily: for there is the same reason of this, and the former.

There is so: For as Christ is the chiefe Baptizer, so hee is the c Ephes. 4. 11. chiefe Ordainer. It is hee that giueth ^d Pastours, and teachers, vnto the [Page 83] Church; therefore the personall iniquitie of the seruant, cannot disanull the gracious gift of the master. For who conferred Priesthood among the Iewes? After the consecration of Aaron and his sonnes, which was performed by the hands of Exod. 29. leuit 8. Moses, and was extraordinary, there is no doubt but the honour of it belonged ordinarily to the high Priest. But did not Aaron make a Exod. 32. 4. golden calfe? Did not Eli 1. Sam. 3. 13. see his sonnes runne into a slander, and stayed them not? Yet so long as they liued, they did execute the Pontificall office, neither were their Ordinations called in question; no not the Ordinations of Annas and Caiaphas. But is there the same reason here also of Hereticks and schismatiks?

Card. Bell saith; De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. Respondeo fal­cissimum esse. Quis ignorat Catholicorum, Baptizatos ab Haereticis verè esse Baptizatos, & similiter Ordinatos, verè esse Ordinatos, quādo Ordinator Haere­ticus verè Episcopus fuerat, & adhuc erat, saltem quantum ad Characterem? i. Which of the Catholicks is ignorant, that the Baptized of Hereticks, are truely Baptized, and those that are likewise Ordained (of Hereticks) are truely Ordained, when the Hereti­call Ordainer had bene truly a Bishop, and was still, at least in respect of the Character?

Apud Nice­tam in vita Ignatij. Bin. t. 3. p. 869. S. Basill affirmeth, That of all the Arch heretickes of the whole world, whereof many were then very famous, none euer durst reor­daine the Ordained, except one Eustathius Ancyrogalata, whose wicked crime the Councel of Gangren declareth. In the Act. 1. Bin. t. 3. part. 1. p. 306. 2. Councel at Nice the Monks said, According to sixe holy and generall Councels, we receiue those that returne from Here­sie, vnlesse there be some intolerable cause. Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said, And all we also being instructed of our holy fathers doe so define. And againe, Pag. 307. Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said, What say you of Anatolius? was not he Pre­sident of the fourth Synode? yet he was Created of that wicked Dioscorus. There­fore let vs also receiue the Ordained of Hereticks, as Anatolius was receiued. And a­gaine, Tharasius, the most blessed Patriarch said, Pag. 308. Truely very many which were Pre­sidents in the sixt Synod, were created of Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, teachers of the Heresie of the Monothelites; Yea, these likewise diuided the Constantinopolitan Sees among the Clergie. From Peter their last teacher, vnto the sixth Synode, there came betweene no fewer then fifteene yeeres, in which space were Thomas, Iohn, and Constantine, ordained of heretikes, who notwithstanding were not for this cause reiected. The heresie lasted about fiftie yeeres, yet the fathers in the sixth Synod condemned onely the forenamed foure: whereby it is euident, that heresie in their iudgement doth not take away the power of giuing orders, which you confesse, and must needes, because one of your owne Popes was ordained by heretikes: if Felix the second were a Pope.

In Ex Baron. anno 357. n. 63. the time of Gregory the thirteenth, the Roman Martyrologe was set out at Rome, where there was a great controuersie among learned men concerning Felix, whether his name were to bee spunged out: and Baronius with many other were of that opinion: but it fell out as it were by a diuine miracle, the very day before Saint Felix his day, that some digging for treasure found a chest, wherein was this in­scription; The body of Felix, Pope and Martyre, which condemned Constantius: so Baronius yeelded to Felix, as it were pleading his owne cause: especially seeing Pope Gregory himselfe, was of that iudgement. Therefore we confesse that Felix was a lawfull Pope, although his entrance is much to be misliked. For Bin. in notis in vitam Feli­cis. 2. t. 1. p. 490. according to the common sentence of the Fathers, hee was intruded by the A­rians, and ordained of them: therefore at the first, while Liberius suffered persecu­tion [Page 84] for the Catholicke Faith, hee was a Schismaticall Anti-pope, but as Ibidem. Bini­us saith, from such time as hee aduanced the banner of faith, by excommunicating Constantius, Vrsacius, Valens and other Arians, and Liberius for his manifest Commu­nion with Hereticks, was plainely accounted banished from the Communion of Catho­likes, omnium Catholicorum iudicio, quanquam antea schismaticus fuisset, legitimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Pontifex haebericaepit, that is, Although before he had beene a schis­matick yet then he began to bee accounted the lawfull Bishop of the Catholick Church by the iudgement of all Catholickes.

Then you confesse that Felix which was ordained of Arians, was notwithstanding a lawfull Bishop, yea and a lawfull Pope by the iudge­ment of all Catholicks; for if you should say otherwise, what would become of those fiue Deacons, 21. Priests 19. Vita Faelicis apud Bin. quo supra. Bishops, which hee ordained? If heretikes haue no power to ordaine, then Felix was no Bishop, and consequently ac­cording to your owne positions, al ordinations deriued from him, were mere nullities.

You heard before out of the councels of Florence and Trent, that the Character is indeleble; whereupon it followeth, that neither schisme nor heresie, nor any censure of the Church can take it away: wherefore seeing the Episcopall character, whether it be a diuerse from the Presbyterall, or the same more extended, is an absolute, perfect and independent power of con­ferring the Sacraments of Confirmation and Order: therefore a Bishop may not onely without any further dispensation, confirme and order, but hee cannot bee hindered by any superiour power, but that hee may trulie confer these Sacraments if it please himselfe, as our learned De Confir. c. 12. Cardinall affirmeth: which is also the common opinion of the schoolemen. Heretiks (saith Dom. [...]oto. in 4. s [...]nt. d. 25. Dominicus a Soto,) whosoeuer they be, euen such as are cut off, although they were not formerly promoted lawfully by the Church, but by heretikes, doe verily conferre the Sacrament of order, although they bee forbidden by the Church: and therefore while they doe conferre it they sinne mortally. Gabriel Biel: Bi [...]l. in 4. sent. d [...]st. 25. q. 1▪ con. 4. although a Bishop being an heretike, and Apostata, degraded, cut off, or publikely excommunicated, bee depriued of all iurisdiction by the law it selfe, neither can he absolue any man from his sinnes: yet hee may actually ordaine any man capable of the order, being willing, yea though he be not subiect to his iurisdiction, notwithstan­ding that the Church doth iustly prohibit him. And Capreolus: Cap. in. 4. sen▪ d. 25. q. 1. art. [...]. in ma [...]gi [...]e. Bishops although they bee heretikes, schismatickes, and degraded, may confer orders. This is agreeable to the Decree of Anastasius Bibl. apud Bin. [...]. 3. pag. 832. Pope Anastasius, concerning those whom Acasius ordained after his condemnation, to wit, [...]nis attige­r [...]t. That no harme at al should befal them. By al this it appeareth that the orders thus ministred are effectuall.

But doth not degradation depriue a man of the degree?

Non est dubitandum (saith Petrus a Soto) per haeresim vel excommuni­cationem, siue etiam degradationem, non amittipotestatem, quae sacramento collata est, siue characterem (vt dicunt) baptismi, confirmationis, & ordinis: quanquam vsus illi­us amittatur▪ that is, It is not to bee doubted, that the power which is conferred by the Sacrament or the character (as they call it) of baptisme, confirmation, and order, is not los [...] by heresie, excommunication, or degradation, although the vse of it bee lost. With whom agreeth Greg. de Val. tom. [...]. disp. 9. [...]. 1. certum est or­din [...]tiones bu­ [...]usmodi mini­strorum sic [...]sse immutabi [...]s, vt qui semel in aliquem eius­modi ordmem ecclesiacticum cooptatus sit, nequea [...] omnino [...]ccepti ordinis potestate [...]riu [...]ri a [...]t fieri laicus et si possit vsus interdici. Gregory de Valentia. So degradation taketh not away the character and power, but only the vse, and that only so far, as if hee vse it, this vse is sinfull, yet doth not cease to be effectuall.

[Page 85]

THen Pope Stephen was much to blame, who Ex Sigeberto in Chron. an. 902 & 903. vnordained them whom his predecessor Formosus had ordained, and he also gaue out a commandement, that they should al be In vita Seph. 7. Bin. t. 3. p. 1047. Consecrated and ordained a new. Yea hee tooke vp his carkasse out of the graue, brought it vnto iudgement before a councell of Bishops, spoiled it of the papall robes, cloathed it in a lay-man gowne, endited it, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off those fingers which were principally vsed in consecration, and cast it into the streame of Tyber.

Ex Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 12. Formosus a Cardinall and Bishop of Portua beeing degraded by Iohn the eight, went out of the city and swore that hee would neuer returne, either to the city or to his bishoprike. Soone after, Iohn the eight died, and Baron. cal­leth him Ma­rinus, an. 883. 1 Martin the second, absoluing Formosus from his rashoth, restored him to his dignities. Not long after; Martin died, and Formosus beeing made Pope, ordained diuers. After him commeth Stephen, who either not knowing or not beleeuing that Formosus was absolued, caused them whom he had ordai­ned to bee re▪ordained. But his fact as Bellarmine confesseth, displeased all men, and three Popes following, Romanus, Theodorus, and Iohn the ninth, disanulled the sentence of Stephen, iudging Formosus a lawfull Pope, and his ordinations sound.

Pope Sergius succeeding them, reuersed their sentence, con­demning Formosus and pronouncing all holy orders by him conferred to be voide and frustrate.

I confesse with Ex Bell. d [...] Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 12. respondeo. Bellarmine, that Pope Stephen and Sergius erred, In quaestione facti non iuris; By euill example not by false doctrine. For Sigon. de reg. Ital. l. 6▪ an. 896 Sigonius saith, Omnia Formosi pontificatus acta rescidit, atque in primis eos qui initiati ab eo fuerant exautorauit, that is, Pope Stephen disanulled all the actions done during the Popedome of Formosus, and especially he casseered those which he had ordained. And Luitp. l. 6. c. 8 Luitprandus, cunctos quos ipse ordinauerat gradu depositos iterum ordinauit, that is, When he had deposed al which Formosus had ordained, here-ordained them. Thus the fact is apparent; but here is no decree.

Sig. [...]n. 902. Sigebert saith: Ordinationes eius irritas esse decernit, that is, Hee decreeth his ordinations to bee voide. And Martinus Mart. Pol. in Steph. Polonus saith: Omnes ordinationes eius irritas debere esse decernit, that is, Hee decreeth that all his ordi­nations ought to be voide. And Bell. idid. publice in con­cilio Episcopo­rum decernit, Formosum nun­quam legiti­mum pontificem fuisse. &c. Bellarmine himselfe, though hee runne coun­ter in the point, yet confesseth, that Stephen decreed publikelie in a Councell of Bishops, that Formosus was neuer a lawfull Pope, and consequently that all his acts were voide.

It were no preiudice Ex Bin. in vita Steph. 7. t. 3 p. 2. [...]. 1047. to the See Apostolicke, if wee should grant that an intruder not lawfully chosen, but a false Pope thrust in, might decree an error.

As though Stephen, and Sergius were not true Popes. For though they were most wicked men, and came in by intrusion, yet that hind­reth not. An. 897. n. 1. Baronius declareth, that Some which got the place by tyrannie did af­terward get the consent of the Clergie, which thought good rather to tolerate them, then to suffer the Church to bee rent with Schisme, And hee addeth, that hee is constrained of necessitie to say so, because the whole Catholicke Church did ho­nour them as lawfull Popes, obeyed them, acknowledged them for the Vicars of Christ, [Page 86] and successours of Peter, and frequented them with that reuerence which became a true Pope, which had not beene done vnlesse there had beene certaine assurance of their lawfull election afterward made: Hitherto Baronius: all which hee speaketh by occasion of this Stephen whom (notwithstanding his intrusion) hee pla­ceth in the rancke of true Popes, and so doth Tom. [...]. p. 1047. Binius likewise. The like ho­nour Bar. Ann [...] 909. is also afforded to Sergius, who sent the Pall to the Archbishops of Colen and Hamborowe, and exempted the Church of Breme from the iu­risdiction of Colen, as An. 908. [...]. 4. Baronius witnesseth. And so it appeareth that hee was acknowledged for Pope, and quietly enioyed the place. Therefore if we be so fauourable to him as Baronius is to Stephen, we may iudge that though he entred by intrusion, yet he might bee confirmed for the peace of the Church by a newe election.

Whatsoeuer wee iudge of Stephen or Sergius, concerning the Popedome, wee confesse that they erred, touching ordinations. For though Formosus had neuer beene Pope, yet hee was Bishop of Portua, and though hee had beene an Hereticke or Schismaticke, though iustly degraded, yet his Episcopall character remained, and his ordinations were effectuall; therefore they dealt iniuriously with him, and his innocencie was sufficiently cleared by miracle. For when his bodie, being found by certaine fishermen in the streame of Tibur, was brought into Saint Peters Church, the very Baron. anno 897. n. 3. ex Luitprando l. 1. c. 8. Images did reuerence vnto it.

Then Pope Stephen, and Pope Sergius erred, or at least your I­mages were deceiued.

How oft shall I tell you? wee confesse that they erred: what will you haue more?

And so erred Pope Stephen 4. who reordained those Bishops which Constantine the Antipope had ordained, and that according to a de­cree of a Roman Councell as appeareth by these wordes of Anastasius allead­ged by An. 769. [...]. 6. Baronius: In eodem concilio statutum est, vt omnia, quae idem Constantinus in ecclesiasticis sacramentis ac diuino cultu egit, iterari debuissent, praeter sacrum Bap­tisma ac sanctum Chrisma: that is, It was decreed in the saide Councell, that all things which the saide Constantine did in Ecclesiasticall Sacraments and diuine wor­ship ought to be reiterated, beside holy Baptisme & holy Chrisme. That the Pope him­selfe did actually reordaine them, may appeare by these wordes: In vita Ste­phani 4. apud Bin. t. 3. [...]art. 1. pag. 238. Huiusmodi promulgatis sententijs, illicò Episcopi illi, qui ab eodē Constantino ordinati sunt, reuer­tentes iuxta ciusdem Pontificis sententiā in pristino honoris gradu electi denuò a Clero, & plebe, cum solito decreto ad sedem Apostolicam properātes ab eodem sanctissimo Papa Consecrati sunt. That is, After the promulgation of such sentences, presently those Bishops which were ordained of the same Constantine, returning according to the sen­tence of the same Pope, being chosen againe, in the same degree of honour by the Clergy and people, making hast with the accustomed decree to the See Apostolicke, were Conse­crated of the same most holy Pope.

That place hath diuerse readings. For some reade not Consecrati sunt, but Conciliati sunt: as you may see in Baronius.

Indeede Baronius putteth Conciliati in the margent, because he would haue it so, but hee putteth Consecrati in the text, because in Anastasius a Bin. t. 3. [...]. [...]. p. 238. hee found it so. And g Binius, though he be exceedingly addicted to Baronius, [Page 87] yet in this point hee forsakes him, and maketh no mention of Conciliati.

You must not thinke that they were consecrated againe, but Bar. quo supra. re­ceiued the mysterie of blessing after the manner of their ancestours, which the Authour named the Sacrament of blessing.

By Sacrament of blessing, is meant the Sacrament of order. For the Bishop which pronounceth the wordes whereby the mysticall bles­sing, or the spirituall power is giuen, is saide in the fourth Councell of Conc. Cart. 4. c. 2. Bin. tom. 1. pag. 553. Car­thage to powre out the blessing.

But the meaneth onely, Bar. quo su­pra. those solemnities which were accustomed to be vsed in the reconciliation of a Schismaticke or Hereticke.

So saith Baronius, but I will proue the contrary. For as you heard before, it was decreed that all which Constantine did in Ecclesiasticall Sacraments and diuine worship should be reiterated, excepting onely Baptis­me and confirmation; but what thinke you, did not Pope Stephen and the Ro­maine Councell, account holy orders an Ecclesiasticall Sacrament?

Yes vndoubtedly.

Then vndoubtedly they decreede that the holy orders should be reiterated, which were giuen by Constantine. And therfore if they were one­ly reconciled, and not reordained, then Pope Stephen did contrary to his own decree; which is most absurde. Wherefore it is a cleare case that Pope Stephen the fourth vsed reordination.

If he did so, then he was blame worthy. For though Constantine were a Schismaticall Antipope, though of a lay man, hee was suddenly made Bishop, and hudled vp his orders in all hast contrary to the Canons: yet wee cannot deny, but he receiued those orders, and had power in respect of his E­piscopall Character to deliuer them vnto others. And seeing his Character was indeleble as wee haue proued, therefore though he had not onely beene a Schismaticke, but also an Hereticke excommunicated and degraded, yet he could not haue lost his power of giuen orders.

If you continue constant in this opinion, then you must at your leasure bethinke yourselfe, how it may be reconciled with your former allegations out of Pope Innocent, Pope Iohn, and Pope Nicolas: in the meane time it is sufficient for vs to take that you grant.

I tolde you, it was a disputable point, and seemed almost in­soluble to Peter Lombard. Yet now at last by much disputing the trueth is found out, learned men are agreed vpon it, and vnlesse I be deceiued, the holy doctrine of the indeleble character deliuered in the Councels of Flo­rence and Trent, was the very needle to direct their course.

CHAP. X.

THen at last to gather into briefe heads, that which hath beene discoursed at large, you graunt that Archbishop Cranmer was a Canonicall Bishop.

I grant it, for the reasons before al­leadged.

And you make no doubt of any of the Bishops of England, before Cranmer.

None at all, as you heard before.

And you say, that euery Canonicall Bishop hath an Episco­pall Character.

We say so.

And that this Character is so indeleble, that no schisme, no sinne, no heresie, no censures of the Church, no excommunication, suspensi­on, interdiction, degradation, nothing, nothing at all sauing onely death, if death, can dissolue it, otherwise it is euerlasting.

All this was proued out of the most famous Councels of Flo­rence and Trent.

And that euery Bishop by vertue of his Episcopall Character, hath power to giue holy orders, yea euen the order of a Bishop.

Very true, so he be assisted by a sufficient number of Bishops, and impose hands vpon a capable person, according to the forme of the Church.

THen to proceed to the rest of the Bishops, consecrated in King Henries daies, in the time of the pretended schisme: were not they capable of the Episcopall function?

Though King Henry abolished the authoritie of the Pope, yet the sacrifice of the Masse continued till the end of his reigne; So we make no doubt, but the Priesthood then in vse, was a sacrificing Priesthood, complete in all points, and consequently capable of the Episcopal Character, notwith­standing the crime of schisme, and heresie.

Then George Browne, Archbishop of Dublin, Edmond Bon­ner, whom king Henry preferred to Hereford, and thence to London, Thomas Thurlby, Bishop of Westminster, and such like were all capable of the Episco­pall office.

There is no doubt of it.

If these, and such other as returned to the Pope in the dayes of Queene Mary; why not William Barlow, Rowland Lee, Thomas Goodrich, Iohn Hodgeskins? For in King Henries dayes, they were all alike, all Masse Priestes, and yet all opposite to the Popes Supremacy.

There is one reason of all.

If the Consecrated were capable, what say you to the Con­secrators? were not they sufficient? If they were not, then what will be­come of Heath, Bonner, and Thurlby?

[Page 89]

They were sufficient.

But were the Consecrations performed by a sufficient num­ber of assistants?

Yes verely.

Then it seemeth that King Henry did not disanull the Ca­nons of the Church, which required that a Bishop should be Consecrated by three.

No truely; but rather established them by act of Parliament as Doctor Sanders acknowledgeth, speaking of Henry the eight. Sand. de schi. l. 3. p. 296. Cum ab Ecclesia & sede Apostclica regnum suum diuisisset, decreuit ne quisquam electus in Episco­pum bullas pontificias, vel mandatum Apo [...]olicum de consecratione requireret, sed re­gium tantum diploma vt adferret, secundum quod a tribus Episcopis, cum consensu Metropolitae ordinatus iubebatur lege con [...]it [...]orum, facta ad imitationem antiquo­rum Canonum esse verus Episcopus, nec alto modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci opor­tere. That is, Henry the eighth, when he had diuided his kingdome, from the Church and see Apostolicke, decreed that no man elected Bishop should require the Popes Buls, or mandate Apostolicke, concerning his Consecration, but that he should bring onely the kings letters patents according to which being ordained of three Bishops, with the con­sent of the Metropolitane, he was enacted to be a true Bishop by the law of Parliament made to the imitation of the ancient Canons, and that no man otherwise Consecra­ted should be acknowledged for a Bishop.

Then it seemeth that all the Bishops in King Henries time were Consecrated by three.

How could it be otherwise? you haue heard out of Doctor San­ders, that the Canons required three, the act of Parliament required three, and it appeareth by the 25. Hen. 8. cap. 20. act itselfe, that if any Archbishop or Bishops, did not with­in twentie dayes next after that the kings letters patents came to their hands, Conse­crate the person presented with all due circumstance, they incurred the penaltie of a premunire: therefore we may presume that the practise of those dayes was continually by three.

SVrely it was then practised from time to time, as may appeare by recorde, whereof I will giue a taste, beginning from Cranmer.

• Anno 1533. Thom.
  Ex Regist. Cran. fol. 5.
  Cran. Cons. Arch. of Cant. 30. Mart. by
  • Iohn Lincoln.
  • Iohn Exon.
  • Henry Assaph.
• Anno 1534. Rowland
  Ibid. fol. 156
  Lee Cons. B. of Lichfield. 19. April. by
  • Thom Cant.
  • Iohn Lincolne.
  • Christ. Sidon.
• Anno 1535. George Browne Cons. Arch. Dublin 19. Mart. by
  • Thom. Cant.
    e Ibid. fol. 186.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Nich▪ Sarum.
• [Page 90]Anno 1536. Rob.
  Ibid. fol. 197.
  Warton cons. B. of Assaph. 20. Iul. by
  • Tho. Cant.
  • Ioh. Bangor.
  • Will. Norwic.
• An. 1537. Rob.
  Ibid. fol. 200.
  Holgate cons. B. of Landaff. 25. Mart. by
  • Ioh. Roffen.
  • Nich. Sarum.
  • Ioh. Bangor.
• An. 1537. Henr.
  Ibid. fol. 215.
  Holbeck cons. B. of Bristow. 24. Mart. by
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Hug. Wigorn.
  • Rob. Assaph.
• An. 1538. Will.
  Ibid. fol. 214.
  Finch cons. Suf. of Taunton. 7. April. by
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Robert. Assaph.
  • Will. Colchest.
• An. 1540. Tho.
  Ibid. fol. 261.
  Thurlby cons. B. of Westm. 9. Decemb. by
  • Edm. Lond.
  • Nich. Roff.
  • Ioh. Bedf.
• An. 1541. Ioh.
  Ibid. fol. 271.
  Wakeman cons. B. of Gloucest. 25. Sept. by
  • Thom. Cant.
  • Edm. Land.
  • Tho. Westmonast.
• An. 1541. Arth.
  Ibid. fol. 278.
  Buckley cons. B. of Bangor. 19. Febr. by
  • Ioh. Sarum.
  • Will. Meneuensis.
  • Ioh. Glocest.
• An. 1542. Paul.
  Ibid. fol. 285.
  Bush cons. B. of Bristow. 25. Iun. by
  • Nich. Roff.
  • Thom. Westmon.
  • Ioh. Bedf.
• An. 1545. Ant.
  Fol. 310.
  Kitchin cons. B. of Lan. 3. Mat. 37. H. 8. by
  • Thom. Westm.
  • Thom. Sidon.
  • Suffrag. Salop.

NOw from the Consecrators, let vs proceed to the forme of Consecra­tion, 3 and consider whether the ancient Canons, which you approue and vrge, were altered in King Henrtes time.

It doth not appeare by the Statute, that there was any alteration: For it was 25. Hen. 8. c. 20. enacted, that the Consecration should be solemnized with all due circumstance. And moreouer, that the Consecrators should giue to the Consecrated, all Benedictions, Ceremonies and things requisite for the same. And surely if there had bene any alteration in things essentiall, Doct. Sand. de schis. l. [...]. p. 297. Sanders speaking purpose­ly of this very point, would not haue concealed it. But he saith plainely, It was his will, (speaking of King H. 8) that the Ceremonie and solemne Vnction, should as yet be vsed in Episcopall Consecration, after the maner of the Church. And againe more plainely, Sand de schis. lib. 2. p. 205. Primo loco sancierunt, vt cum Episcopi, ac Presbyteri Anglicani, ritu ferè Catholico (excepta R. Pontificis obedientia quam omnes obnegabant) ad illud vsque tempus ordinati fuissent, in posterum alia omnino forma ab ipsis praescripta, Or­dinationes fierent authoritate à puero Rege, adid accepta. That is, First they decreed, (speaking of K. Edwards time) That whereas the Bishops and Priests of England, had bene ordained euen vnto that time, almost after the Catholicke rite, (excepting [Page 91] the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, which they all dented) hereafter Ordinations should be made altogether after an other forme, by them prescribed, by authoritie which they receiued to that purpose from the King being a childe. But the 1. Mariae sess. 2. cap. 2. Statute of Q. Mary putteth all out of doubt, Enacting, That all such diuine Seruice and Ad­ministration of Sacraments, as were most commonly vsed in this Realme of England in the last yeere of King Henry the 8. should be vsed and frequented through the whole Realme of England, and all other the Queenes dominions, and no other, in any other maner, forme or degree. Now the makers of this Statute were perswaded, that holy Order was a Sacrament: therefore holy Orders were ministred in Q. Maries time, as they were in the last yeere of K. Henry. But all good Ca­tholicks will confesse, that in Q. Maries time, the true essentiall forme of Con­secration was obserued: Therefore I graunt, that it was also vsed all the time of King Henry.

If the persons were capable, and consecrated by a sufficient number of Canonical consecrators, according to the forme of your Church, then you must▪ needs iudge their Consecration effectuall, and them Cano­nicall Bishops.

Our Church in Q Maries time, did so iudge of them: for most of her old Bishops were made Sand. de Schis. l. 2. pag. 209. in Schismate Henriciano; Yet they were allowed; and the new (euen Cardinall Poole among the rest) did all deriue their Conse­cration from the old: yet were they all approued by our holy Father the Bi­shop of Rome; and by name B. Bonner, and B. Thurlby, to whom he giueth honorable testimony, in his Commission, for the proceeding against Cranmer.

Then, if we can deriue our Bishops from any three in King Henries reigne, before the banishing of the Pope or after, you must acknow­ledge them to be Canonicall.

It seemeth so.

Or else Bonner and his coequals must lie in the dust, and all the Bishops made in Q. Maries time, must eternally be cancelled out of the Catalogue of Bishops. Hitherto of K. Henries time; Proceed we now to the Bishops in K. Edwards dayes, and consider whether those were Gold or lead.

CHAP. XI.

THe Bishops in King Edwards time we take for no Bishops.

No▪ But you must, there is no re­medie And for the more perspicuitie, let vs distin­guish them into certaine ranckes. The first of such as were made both Priests and Bishops in K. Hen­ries time, and were continued in King Edwards The second of such as were Priests in K. Henries time, and made Bishops in K. Edwards; To these you may adde a third, of such, (if any such you find) as were made both Priests and Bi­shops in the dayes of K. Edward The first you haue confessed already to be Canonicall; therefore let vs come to the second, in which are those blessed Saints and glorious Martyrs, Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrar, concerning [Page 92] whom first I demaund, whether they were in the order of Priesthood or no?

Yes, father Parsons graunteth it, saying, Par [...]. [...]. Con [...]r [...]. part. 3. cap. 14. pag. 20 [...]. Ridley studied at Cam­bridge, and there was made Priest, trauailed ouer the sea to Paris, and returning a­gaine, became King Henties Chaplaine. Likewise Iohn Hooper ( as may be seene by b P [...]. [...]uo su­pra [...]. 6. [...]. 3 [...]5. Fox his relation of him) was a Priest in Oxford in the daies of King Henry the eight, So Robert ▪ Ferrar Priest and Chaplaine to Cranmer in King Henries time; c P [...]r [...] ▪ quo su [...]ra p. 336. Thus I confesse, that they were Priests, but I deny that they were Bishops, for father Parsons speaking of the [...]oxian Calendar, and Saints of the month of Februarie, in which number were Hooper and Ferrar, saith, ▪ Among Foxe his d Quo supra. p. 340. Saints, there is neither erem [...]icall nor monas [...]icall life, no [...] solitude either from the worlde or women, nor any one so much as pretending the title of v [...]rginitie in any se [...]e, nor any true Bishoppe indeed; if their ordination bee examined. For beside Cranmer, other Bishops or Clergie men were there none, of all the packe that was burned.

What say you then to father [...]atimer, who was ordained in the same manner, in all respects as Bonner was? Though hee had now relinguished his Bishopricke, yet still according to your owne principles, hee was a true Bishoppe [...] respect of the Episcopall character But to prosecute the present point▪ what mislike you in Ridley▪ Hooper and Ferrar? you haue already confessed, that they were Priests, why should you deny them to be Bishops?

The Popes Commissioners Vnpriested them in Queene Maries time but would not Vnbishop them, thereby acknowledging their Priestly fun­ction, receiued in King Henries time, but denying their Episcopall, receiued in King Edwards: as may appeare by the words of Doctor Brooke Bishop of Glocester the Popes subdelegate, to Ridley at his degradation. Wee must a­gainst our will [...]s proceed according to our Commission to disgrading, taking from you the dignitie of Priesthood, for we take you for no Bishop, as Iohn A [...] and Monup 1604. Fox your owne historian recordeth.

Was not hee and all the rest of them Consecrated by a suffici­ent number?

Yes vndoubtedly; for that law was alwaies obserued in King Edwards time, as Doctor Sanders confesseth: [...] de [...] [...]. 3. pag. [...]97. C [...]remontam autem & solennem vnctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa adhiberi voluit, quam postea profi [...]ns in p [...] Edouardus Sextus sustulit, & proea Caluinicas aliquot depre­cationes substituit; ser [...]ata tamen semper priori de numero presen [...]um Episcoporum qui [...]anu [...] ordinando impo [...]erent, lege: that is, It was his will (speaking of King Hen­ry the eight) that the ceremony and solemne vnction should as yet be vsed in Episcopall consecration▪ after the manner of the Church: which King Edward profiting from better to worse, did afterward take away, and insteed thereof substitute certaine Caluinicall deprecations; yet the former law concerning the number of Bishops which should impose hands vpon the ordained, was alwaies obserued.

If you or any other dare deny it, it may bee iustified by au­thenticall records▪ Out of which behold a true abstract of the consecration of those renowned Martyrs.

• [Page 93]Nich:
  Ex Registro Cranm f. 321.
  Ridley Cons: 5. Septemb. 1547. 1. Ed: 6. by
  • Henry Lincoln.
  • Iohn Bedford.
  • Thom. Sidon.
• Rob.
  Ibidem fol. 327.
  Ferrar Cons: 9. Septemb. 1549. 2. Ed: 6. by
  • Thom. Canterb:
  • Henry Lincoln.
  • Nich: Roff.
• Iohn
  Ibidem fol. 330.
  Hooper Cons. 8. Mart. 1550. by
  • Thom. Canterb:
  • Nich: London.
  • Iohn Roff.

To which, let vs adde those worthy confessours, Iohn Poynet, Iohn Scory, and

• Miles Couerdale.
• Iohn
  Ibidem fol. 331.
  Poynet Cons. 29. Iune 1550. by
  • Thom. Canterb.
  • Nich: London.
  • Arthur Bangor.
• Iohn
  Ibidem fol. 334.
  Scory, and Miles Couerdale. Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by
  • Thom: Canterb.
  • Nich: London.
  • Iohn Bedford.

NOw seeing the Consecrated were capable, and the Consecrators a 2. sufficient number, why should not the Consecration bee effectuall? For if Cranmer or any other lawfull Bishop, by his Commission with suffici­ent assistants could make canonicall Bishops in the daies of K. Henry, as you haue confessed: what reason can you giue, why the same Cranmer, or the like Bishop, with the like assistants should not make the like in the daies of K. Ed?

Because the case was altered: for in King Henries time, Ordinati­ons were made with Sanders de Schis. l. 3. pag. 297. & l. 2. pag. 205. ceremony and solemne vnction, after the Ecclesiasticall manner, which king Edward tooke cleane away, and in place thereof appointed certaine Cal­uinicall deprecations, as was before declared.

Those which Sanders calleth Caluinicall deprecations, are god­ly, and religious prayers, answerable to the Apostolicke practise. For where­as the Scripture witnesseth, that Act. 1. 24. Matthias, the Act. 6. 6. Deacons, and Act. 13. 3. & 14. 23. others, recei­ued imposition of hands with prayers; Salmeron the Iesuite expoundeth the places thus: Salm. in 2. Tim. 1. disp. 2. intelligendum est de precibus quibus à deo petebant, vt efficeret illos bo­nos Episcopos, Presbyteros, & Diaconos, potestatem (que) illis ad ca munera prestaret: that is, It is to be vnderstood, of prayers whereby they desired of God, that he would make them good Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and would giue them abilitie to performe those offices. Such prayers are vsed in the Church of England. As for example in the ordering of Priests.

‘ALmighty God giuer of all things, which by thy holy spirit, hast appointed l See the booke of ma­king and con­s [...]crating Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons. diuers orders of Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold these thy seruants, now called to the office of Priesthood, and replenish them so with the trueth of thy doctrine, and innocency of life, that both by word and good ex­ample, they may faithfully serue thee in this office to the glory of thy Name, and profit of thy congregation, through the merits of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, &c.’

And in the Consecration of Bishops.

‘ [Page 94]ALmighty Ibidem. God, &c. Grant we beseech thee to this thy seruant, such grace, that hee may euermore bee ready to spread abroad the Gospell, and glad tidings of reconcilement to God, and to vse the authoritie giuen vnto him, not to destroy, but to saue; not to hurt, but to helpe: so that hee as a wise and a faithfull seruant, giuing to thy family meate in due season, may at the last bee receiued into ioy, &c.’

These and the like are the praiers which Sanders traduceth. Wherefore we may with comfort applie to our selues the saying of Saint Peter; 1. [...]. [...] ▪ 14. If wee bee railed vpon for the name of Christ, blessed are wee, for the spirit of glory and of God, resteth vpon vs, which on your part is euill spoken of, but on our part is glorified. Thus, that which you impute to them as a blemish, is perfect beautie. But what else doe you mislike in their ordinations?

They did not obserue the Ecclesiasticall manner.

In the third and fourth yeere of Edward the sixth, there was an 3. & 4. Ed­ward [...]. [...]. 10. act made to abolish certaine superstitious bookes, and among the rest, the Ordinals. About the same time was made another Ibidem [...]. 12. acte, for the ordering of Ec­clesiastiall Ministers, the effect whereof was, that such forme of consecrating Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons, as by six Prelates, and sixe other learned in Gods Law should bee agreed vpon, and set out vnder the great Seale of England within a time limited, should lawfully bee vsed and none other. In the fift and sixt of his raigne was made another 5. & 6. Ed­ward [...]. cap. 1. acte for the explaining and perfecting of the booke of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments, which booke so explained, was annexed to the acte or statute, with a forme or manner of making and consecra­ting Archbishops, Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons. Which as at this The booke of common prayer and of ordering Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons containeth in it, &c▪ ca [...]. 36. day, so then, was not esteemed another distinct booke, from the booke of common prayer; but they were both ioyntly reputed as one booke, and so established by acte of Parliament. In the first of Queene Mary, by the 1. Mar [...] [...]es. 2. cap. 2. repealing of this acte, the booke was disanulled; but it was 1. Eliz. c. 2. established againe in the first of Q. Elizabeth; and 8. Eliz. c. 1. confirmed in the eight of her reigne; so that all the Mini­sters of England are ordered according to that booke: concerning which I would knowe wherein it transgresseth the Ecclesiasticall manner. Sanders saith, that King Edward tooke away the Ceremony. What Ceremony? If hee vnderstand the Ceremony of imposition of hands, he slandereth King Edward: If hee meane their blessing ofrings and Crosiers; the grauitie of that sacred action may well spare them: as for the solemne vnction, your selues confesse it to bee Bell▪ de Sa­cram in gen [...]re l. 1. cap. 24. accidentall. Other of your Ceremonies being partly superfluous, partly superstitious: the wisedome of our Church hath discreetly and religi­ously pared away, establishing such a forme as is holy and acceptable in the sight of God. But whereas you grant that the persons were capable, and the consecrators Canonicall, it behooueth you to discouer some essen­tiall defect in our forme, or else you must of necessitie approoue our con­secration.

DOctour Kel. reply to Doctour Sut­ [...]f. fol. 31▪ b. Kellison saith, that in King Edwards time, neither matter nor forme of ordination was vsed, and so none were truely ordained, much lesse had they commission to Preach Heresie, and so could not send others to Preach: whence it followeth, that all the superintendents and Ministers are without calling and vocation.

[Page 95]

What meaneth Kellison by the matter of ordination?

According to the doctrine of the Catholicke Church holy order is a Sacrament, and euery Sacrament of the newe Law consisteth of things and wordes, as the matter and the forme, which are so certaine and determi­ned of God, that it is not lawfull to change them. Now in ordination the mat­ter is a sensible signe: as for example, imposition of hands, which Bel. de sa­cram. ord. c. 9. Bellarmine calleth the matter essentiall.

Others of your owne men are of another opinion: for Sal. t. 15. disp. 2. in 2. Tim. 1. Sal­meron the Iesuite hauing proposed the question, bringeth reasons for both sides, but seemeth to incline to the contrary. Fab. Incarn. Scrut. Sacerd. pag. 120. Fabius Incarnatus asketh this question, how many things are of the substance of order, and answereth that six. But imposition of handes is none of the six. Manual. c. 22. pag. 585. Nauarrus speaking of imposition of handes, saith: Illa non est de substantia Sacramenti, that is: it is not of the substance of the Sacrament. For which opinion hee allead­geth Scotus. But if imposition of handes bee the matter of ordination, then Kellison is guiltie of lying and slandering, when hee saith that in King Edwards dayes, the matter of ordination was not vsed. For Sanders him­selfe, though a shamelesse fellow, yet confesseth that in the dayes of King Edward, the former lawe, concerning the number of Bishops which should im­pose handes vpon the ordained was alwayes obserued. A point so cleare, that it might bee iustified by many records: but what neede wee goe to records, seeing it is a plaine case, that the very booke of ordination which was made and established in the dayes of King Edward, commandeth impo­sition of hands? wherefore if the essentiall matter bee imposition of hands, then I must conclude out of your owne principles, that in King Edwards dayes the essentiall matter was vsed.

In the ordering of a Deacon, there is not onely imposition of handes, but also the reaching of the Gospels: so in ordering of a Priest, not onely imposition of handes, but also the reaching of the instruments, that is, of the Patten and Challice: and both these Ceremonies are essen­tiall, as Bell. quo su­pra. [...]0. Nota. Bellarmine proueth. Therefore why may we not say, that in Epis­copall Consecration, not only imposition of hands, but other ceremonies al­so belong to the essentiall matter?

What other ceremonies I beseech you? doe you meane the holy oyle, wherewith the head of the consecrated is annointed with these wordes: Sacrarum C [...]rem. l. 1. sect. 2. pontific. p. 96. Let thy head bee annointed and consecrated with celestiall be­nediction? or the ring which is blessed with prayer and holy Tum aspergit ipsum annulum aqua benedicta. Pontificale▪ pag. 105. water, and put vpon his finger with these wordes: Ibid. p. 106. Accipe annulum, fidei signaculum: Receiue the Ring, the seale of faith? or the Crosier, deliuered in these wordes: Pontificale pag. 105. re­ceiue the staffe of the Pastorall office? If you meane these or the like, and vrge them as essentiall, you must giue vs leaue to reiect them, because they are only human inuentions▪ You told vs before out of Bellarmine, that the matter of ordination is certaine and determined of God; now where shall wee finde the determinations of God, but in the booke of God? we finde in holy Scripture imposition of hands, and we imbrace it as Apostolicall; as for your rings and Crosiers, when you can demonstrate them out of the booke of God, we will then accept them as the determinations of God: in the meane time, we can­not [Page 96] acknowledge them for the essentiall matter of ordination. But now from the matter, let vs come to the forme.

IT is agreed vpon, [...] that the forme consisteth in the words which are vtte­red, while the sensible signe is vsed, and they are the very same, where­by the spirituall power is giuen.

I hope you will not say, that these words: receiue the ring, or re­ceiue the staffe, concerne the essentiall forme, tell vs therfore in what words the true forme cōsisteth, that so we may the better examine the speech of Kellison.

The words may be diuers, yet the sense the same, and this diuer­sitie of words may seuerally signifie the substance of the Sacrament: as for example, the Easterne [...] Church baptizeth in these words, Let this seruant of Christ, be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. The Latin Church in these words: I baptize thee, &c. Here are two formes of words, but each of them containeth the true, and substantiall forme of baptisme. So in ordina­tion, the Easterne Bishops instructed of their ancestours conferre the orders of a Bishop Priest, and Deacon, Per Salm qu [...] su [...]a. orationem deprecatoriam, By the way of prayer: where­as we after the manner of the Romane Church, doe conferre them, Per modum imperandi, in the imperatiue moode, by way of command: and yet the spirituall power, may be conueyed by both. For Pope [...] Innocent teacheth, that the Scripture mentioneth onely imposition of hands and prayer; as for other things vsed in ordination, he saith they were inuented by the Church: other­wise it had beene sufficient, if the ordainer had said onely, be thou a Priest, or be thou a Deacon; but seeing the Church hath inuented other formes, they are to be ob­serued.

By what words is the Episcopall power giuen in the Church of Rome?

By these words, receiue the holy Ghost, because they are [...] vsed when the Bishop imposeth hands. And therfore as Priests in their ordination, receiue the holy Ghost, that is, (as Bell▪ de sacr. [...]genere. ca 26. [...] ne­ga [...]. Bellarmin expounds it out of Chrysostome and Cyrill [...]a ghostly power consisting in forgiuing and retaining of sinnes; so a Bishop in his Consecration receiueth the holy Ghost, that is, A ghostly power consi­sting in the performance of those things which are reserued properly to Bi­shops, amongst which the power of ordination is most eminent.

If you call these words the forme of Consecration, then you must acknowledge that not only the matter, but also the right forme of Con­secration, was vsed in the dayes of King Edward, (for these words were then vsed while the Bishops imposed hands, as appeareth by the booke:) and con­sequently you must confesse that Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrar, were rightly ordai­ned Bishops, and moreouer, that Kellison is a notorious slanderer.

5. THus much of the second rancke. Now come we to the third, where­in we may place such (if any such be found) as were made both Priests and Bishops, in the dayes of king Edward.

We thinke that no man can possibly haue the order of a Bishop which hath not the right order of Priesthood, but the Priesthood conferred in King Edwards time was no Priesthood, because they wanted the authority to offer the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, therefore those Priests were not ca­pable of the Episcopall order.

[Page 97]

I answere first that seeing that King Edward rained but sixe yeeres and fiue moneths, it is likely that most of them which were aduanced in his time to bee Bishops, were before his time in the order of Priesthood. Secondly, if any be produced which were not, yet it shalbe iustified (God wil­ling) when we come to the point, that the order of Priesthood conferred in the dayes of King Edward, Queene Elizabeth, and King Iames is the true mi­nistery of the Gospel, and that your sacrificing Priesthood is sacrilegious, and abominable. In the meane time, you must giue vs leaue to holde that the ministery of the Church of England, is holy in the sight of God, and iustifia­ble in the sight of man.

CHAP. XII.

THe lineall descent hath led vs to the Bishops in Queen Ma­ries time, concerning which, shal I craue your iudgement?

You know it already, they were all Canonical.

For the more distinct proceeding, let vs diuide them into two ranckes, the old Bishops, and the new: the old, I cal such as being cōsecrated before her time, were continued in her time; the new, which were Consecrated in her time.

All which were allowed for Bishops in Queene Maries time, whether old or new, were Canonicall.

The old Bishops were all made in the dayes of K. Henry the eighth, and almost all in those very times, which you brand with imputation of schisme and heresie: when none could bee Consecrated, vnlesse hee did sweare to the king against the Pope. Wherefore seeing you iudged both Consecrators, and Consecrated schismaticall, and hereticall, and yet esteeme them Canonicall, your obiections of schisme and heresie, must eternally bee silenced in the question of Canonicall Bishops. For if these crimes can frustrate a Consecration, then their Consecration was frustrate, and they were no Bishops, or if they were Bishops and Canonicall, then all the Bishops in King Henries time, were likewise Canonicall. Moreouer, some of them whom you so commend▪ were Bishops in King Edwards time, as for example. Thomas Thurlby, whom King Henrie promoted to be Bishop of Westminster, was aduanced by King Edward to the Bishopricke of Norwich, and after­ward preferred by Queene Mary to the Bishopricke of Ely, and moreouer to be one of her priuie Councell. Yea some of them had the place of a Bishop in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth; Namely Anthony Kitchin, who in King Henries time was made Bishop of Landaff, kept his dignities and place in the dayes of K. Edward, continued the same all the reigne of Queene Mary, and so till the day of his death, which was in the fift yeere of Queene Elizabeth. Wherefore in iustifying the old Bishops, you iustifie al generally which were Consecrated in King Henries daies, and some which continued in King Ed­wards and Queene Elizabeths: But now from the old, let vs come to the new.

QVeene Mary aduanced Holiman bishop of Bristow, Coates bishop of 2 Chester, Watson bishop of Lincolne, Morris bishop of Rochester, Morgan bishop of S. Dauis, Brooke bishop of Glocester, Glin bishop of Bangor, [Page 98] Christophorson bishop of Chichester, Dauid Poole bishop of Peterborow, Car­dinall Poole bishop of Canterbury, and others.

And these reuerend Prelats, Bush bishop of Bristow, Tailor bishop of Lincolne▪ Scory bishop of Chichester, Barlow bishop of Bathe and Wells, Couerdale bishop of Exeter, and Harly bishop of Hereford, with sundry others, were at that time forced to leaue their bishopricks; For what cause? partly, for not yeelding to the Pope, and Popish Religion; partly, because they were married, which Greg. Mart. d [...]s [...]. c. [...]5. [...]. [...]. Greg. Martin calleth a polluting of holy Orders, though S. Paul saith▪ it is honourable among all men, and the bed vndefiled. But let vs see the Consecration of your new bishops.

I will begin with that renowned Prelate Cardinall Poole, whose Consecration followeth.

• Anno 1555. Reginald
  Ex Regist. Poli fol. 3.
  Poole cons. Archb. Cant. 22. Mart. by
  • Nichol Arch. Ebor.
  • Thom. Eltens.
  • Edmund. Lond.
  • Rich. Wigorn.
  • Ioh. Lincoln.
  • Mauric. Roff.
  • Thom. Asaph.
• Anno 1557.
  • Thom▪
    Regist. Poli. fol. 10.
    Watson.
  • Dauid
    Ibid. fol. 12.
    Pole.
  Cons. B. 15. Aug. by
  • Nich. Ebor.
  • Thom. Eli.
  • Wil. Bangor.
• Anno 1557. Ioh. ▪Christophorson. cons. B. 21. No. by
  • Edmund Lond.
  • Tho. Elien.
  • Mauric. Roff.

All these deriue their Consecration from bishops, which were made in the time of the pretended Schisme, and some of them from Cranmer himselfe: therefore you must either acknowledge all them, and namely Cranmer for Canonicall or neither Cardinall Poole, nor any of the rest made in Queene Maries time, can be Canonicall.

CHAP. I.

THe reuolution of times hath brought vs to the raigne of Queene Elizabeth, euen to that blacke and dolefull day, wherein all the Bishops of Eng­land, all, I say, one onely excepted, were deposed from their degrees and dignities: Sand. de schis. lib. 3. p. 285. D [...]cent [...] au­reos, which I translate 200. Nobles, be­cause as I take it, he meaneth 100. markes, according to the Statute, 1. Eliz. cap. 2. though he faile in some points of it. For, a great penaltie was inflicted vpon such as should after the Feast of S. Iohn Baptis [...] 1559. say or heare Masse, or procure any other Ecclesiasticall Office whatsoeuer, after the old rite, or administer any Sacrament after the Romane maner, to wit, That hee which offended against that Law, for the first time should pay 200 Nobles, or be in bonds sixe Moneths: for the second 400. Nobles, or a yeere in bonds: for the third, he should be in perpetuall pri­son, and forfeite all his goods; By which meanes it came to passe, That at the day pre­scribed, the holy and diuine Offices ceased to be performed publikely through the whole Kingdome. And because the Bishops would not consent to those impieties, nor af­firme vpon their Oathes, that they beleeued in their consciences, That the Queene onely was the Supreame gouernesse of the Church of England, vnder Christ, they were all, saue one, shortly after deposed from their Degree and dignitte, and committed to certaine prisons, and custodies, whereupon they are all at this day dead, with the long tediousnesse of their miseries; The names of which most glorious Confessours, I will set downe, that the thing may be had in euerlasting remembrance. First of all Nicho­las Archbishop of Yorke, and a little before that time, Lord Chancellour of England, then Edmund Bonner Bishop of London, and Tunstall of Durham, Iohn of Win­ton, Thomas of Lincolne, Thurlby of Ely, Turberuill of Exeter, Borne of Bath, Pole of Peterborow, Baine of Lichfield, Cuthbert of Chester, Oglethorp of Carlile, and Thomas Goldwell of S. Asaph, &c.

Here are two things to be discussed; The deposing of the old Bi­shops, and aduancing of the new. Concerning the first, you make a grieuous [Page 100] complaint that they were not onely deposed, but also vsed with great indigni­tie, both before their deposing and after. Wherfore let vs first consider the cir­cumstances, and then come to the deposition it selfe.

I say that a Grieuous penalty was inflicted vpon such as should after the feast of Saint Iohn Baptist 1559. say or heare Masse, or procure any other Ecclesi­sticall office whatsoeuer after the old rite.

You maske your noueltie vnder the vizard of antiquity, and call that the old rite, which was but yesterday; but proceed.

This penalty extended to such as should administer any Sacra­ment, after the Roman manner.

Saint Paul saith; 1 Cor. 11. 23 That which I receiued of the Lord, that deliuer I vnto you; teaching vs that Sacraments must bee ministred in such manner, as wee haue receiued of the Lord: wee are not tied to the rite of Rome, or any o­ther City or Country, but onely to the institution of Iesus Christ: If Rome fol­low this, wee will follow it with Rome; if Rome forsake this, then farewell Rome: But what was the penalty?

To wit, That hee which offended against the law, for the first time should pay two hundred crownes, or be in bonds six monthes; for the second, foure hund­red crownes, or a yeere in bondes; for the third, hee should bee in perpetuall prison, and forfeite all his goods.

What hath that good Lady done, which doth not become a most vertuous and gratious Prince? hath shee made lawes to establish reli­gion? So did Codex l. 1. tit. 1. Cunctos. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius. Hath shee inflicted a penalty vpon the infringers? So did August, Ep. 48. Constantine vpon the Donatists, That their goods should bee confiscate: so did August. Ep. 50. Theodosius vpon the Donatists likewise, Ten pound of gold, to bee paide to the Emperours Exchequer. And these lawes are highly commended by Saint Austin. Indeed he was some times of opinion, that they were to bee dealt withall, onely by Ep. 48. verbo agendum, dispu­tatione pug­nandum. perswasions, not by penalties; but when his fellow Bishops laide before him so plaine exam­ples of so many cities, infected with Donatisme, and all reclaimed by helpe of imperiall lawes, hee His exemplis a collegis meis mihi propositis cessi. ibidem. changed his minde, and yeelded vnto them. Then hee perceiued, that the Circumcellions, which were like vnto mad men, were brought into their right wittes againe and made good Catholikes, by being bound as it were with the chaines of imperiall lawes: then he perceiued that others beeing in a spirituall lethargie, were awakened with the seuerity of Imperiall lawes: then hee perceiued, that the Kings of the earth serue Christ, euen by making lawes for Christ. So did that gratious Lady Queene Eliza­beth; wherein how mildely and mercifully shee proceeded, you may learne by looking backe to her sister Queene Mary, who was not con­tent to inflict a pecuniary mulct, or a little imprisonment vpon those of the contrary religion, but tied thē to stakes, & burned thē to ashes in flaming fire.

As though a life lingting in disgrace were not worse then a pre­sent death: For Defence of Engl. Catho­liques. p. 15. Foureteene noble and most worthy Bishops, inferiour in vertue, and learning to none in Europe, were all deposed from their honours, and high cal­ling, and most of them imprisoned, and spitefully vsed in all respectes.

FIrst, let vs consider what they deserued, and secondly 2 how they were serued. How well they deserued at the [Page 101] Queenes hands may appeare by their behauiour in three points, concerning the Coronation, Disputation and Excommunication. First when the Queen was to bee crowned, they all conspired together, refusing to performe such solemnitie, as by them of dutie was to bee performed at her Coronation: Owen Oglethorp, Bishop of Carlill onely excepted.

Had they not cause to refuse? Sand: de Schis. l. 3. pag. 272. So soone as shee came to the crowne, shee presently reuealed her minde in religion, both by many other meanes, and especi­ally in that shee straightway silenced the Catholike Preachers: and suffered the he­retikes to returne into the kingdome from diuers places, where they were in banish­ment: Moreouer shee gaue charge to a certaine Bishop about to performe the holy rite before her, and now standing at the Altar attyred in holy vestments, that hee should not eleuate the Consecrated hoaste: whereupon it came to passe, that the Arch­bishoppe of Yorke, whose office it was (Cardinall Poole Archbishop of Canterbu­ry beeing departed this transitory life) to annoynt and Consecrate her to bee Queene, denied his helpe, and the rest of the Bishops likewise, al sauing one, and he almost the last among them.

Your eleuation is referred to adoration, which is Idolatrie; therefore if shee forbad it, as also the Preaching of errour, and commanded the Preaching of truth, shee did but her duty: For as Saint August: contra Chres­conium l. 3. c. 51. Austin saith: Princes may commaund that which is good, and forbid that which is euill within their owne kingdomes, not in ciuill affaires onely, but in matters pertayning to diuine religion also. But if it were so that the Queene therein had commit­ted an errour, if it were so that Popery were true religion; yet shee was the lawfull Queene, the Kingdome descended to her by right of inheri­tance; the Nobles and commons according to their dutie acknowledged her for Queene, she was proclaimed, by order taken by the Lords and the Archb. of Yorke himselfe, then Lord Chancelour of England; what rea­son then had the Bishops to deny her that solemnity, which was neuer deni­ed to any of her noble progenitours? If she had pulled the Miters from their heades, for refusing to set the Diademe vpon her head, had not this beene a iust reward for a due desert? Hitherto of the first point, that is, the Coronation.

SEcondly, it was the Queenes pleasure, that there should be a solemne 3 disputation betweene the Popish Bishops, or some other Champions appointed by them on the one part, and other learned diuines of our religi­on, on the other part; but the Bishops with one accord most obstinately re­fused the incounter.

They had reason: for (as they then answered for themselues) It Sand. de Schis. l. 3. p. 283. was not fit that those things which for many ages had beene defined by so famous iudgements of Popes, Councels and Fathers, should now come againe into question and disputation.

You tell vs of Popes, Councels, and Fathers, but I heare no mention at all of the Scripture: truly Philodox, wee builde not our faith vpon Popes nor Councels, nor Fathers, but onely vpon the blessed and sa­cred word of God, registred in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. but for the better vnderstanding of this word, wee make honourable ac­count of ancient Councels and Fathers, yet so that wee put an infinite dif­ference [Page 102] betweene them and the word of the liuing God. For the word of God is infallible; it can neither deceiue, nor bee deceiued; but the word of man is subiect to errour: therefore wee must trie all things, and holde that which is good, and the touchstone of all is the word of God. Neither are wee afraid of the Councels and Fathers: you beare the world in hand that all make for you, but vpon manifold and iust experience it prooueth otherwise. As for the Popes, if you meane the ancient Bishops of Rome, wee regard them with reuerence, and if their true writings were extant, wee would wil­lingly embrace them: but as for your late Popes, wee litle respect them. Moreouer, if your Bishops had for them the former definitions of Fathers and Councels, they might more easily haue conuinced their aduersaries in disputation; this should haue beene a spurre vnto them, and not a bridle.

As it was not fit to call the former definitions in question a­gaine, so Sand. quo supra. much lesse was it fit, that those things which ought to haue beene dis­cussed in the Vniuersities by certaine order before the learned and iudicious, should bee handled before the people which was vnskilfull, and desirous of noueltie, which vseth to define euery thing rather by outcryes, then by arguments.

As though this disputation had beene intended before the rude and barbarous multitude, and not rather before the most ho­nourable, graue, wise and iudicious in the whole Kingdome. The trueth is, that the Bishops doubted the cause, they feared that they were not able to defend it by the Scriptures.

Sand. de schis. l. 3. pag. 284. They saide that against the contentious, and such as would not rest in the iudgement of the Church, little good could bee done by disputation. And veri­ly no maruell if they were loth to haue triall by disputation, when the Iudge Sand. abidem Pollinus l. 4. c. 5. p. 420. Eu­demon Ioh. Pa­rallel. c. 5 p. 244. Nich. Ba­conum non hae­reticum modo aclaicum homi­nem, sed, &c. vide infra. was Nicholas Bacon, a layman, an Hereticke, altogether ignorant of Diuinitie: the most reuerend Archbishop of Yorke assisting for fashion sake onely. The day came, which was the third of April, there was infinite concourse, vnequall lawes of disputation were prescribed of the Heretickes onely; nothing was done with order and reason, the time slipped away with declamations on both sides, the prophane iudge moderateth all things as it pleaseth him, all comes to nothing, and so the Heretickes proceede in their madnesse.

These are figures of rehetoricke, wherewith you vse to embel­lish your speeches, as it were with precious stones. Whosoeuer will hold with the Pope, is presently with you a good Catholicke and a very learned man; but let him bee neuer so wise, learned, and iudicious, if hee loue God, his Prince and countrey better then the Pope, hee shall bee reproached with ignorance and heresie; as appeareth in that honourable personage Sir Nicho­las Bacon, Lord Keeper of the great Seale of England, a man famous for wis­dome pietie, and the zeale of Gods glory. But why doe you blemish him? be­cause hee had the fauour of a gracious Prince? you might haue learned of Prou. 22. 11. Salomon: Hee that loueth purenesse of heart, for the grace of his lippes the King shall bee his friend? can you blame him, for that hee was designed by his Soueraigne, to bee a moderatour at the disputation? you should rather haue considered the Queenes great mildenesse, and gracious proceeding, in that shee vouchsafed to ioyne with him an assistant (as Sanders confesseth) one of your owne Religion, a man of eminent note in Church and common wealth, [Page 103] who stoode not for a cipher, or for fashion sake, but was armed with autho­ritie, and had power to prouide that the Papistes should haue full libertie to speake their mindes before that great and honourable assembly. How was it possible that the businesse should bee contriued with greater equalitie and indifferencie?

Should a lay man iudge of Bishops, and profound Diuines?

Did not Sozom. l. 4. cap. 5. Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, and other Bishops dispute with Photinus before certaine noble men, which the Emperour had appointed to bee Iudges? did not Saint Breuic. Coll. in prefatione. Austine dispute with the Donatists, Marcellinus the tri­bune being Iudge? did hee not dispute with August. epist. 178. Pascentius the Arrian, Laurentius a secular man being Iudge? And if it please you to looke into the volumes of Councels, you shall finde, that in the fourth generall Councell, being the first at Chalcedon, noble men of the Apud. Bin. t. 2 pag. 1. Laity were appointed Iudges, whose names are set downe in the beginning of the first action. The like is to bee found in the sixt generall Councell being the third at Apud. Bin. [...]. 3. pag. 7. Constantinople. And in the third generall Councell, being the first at Ephesus, Theodosius and Valentintan appointed Conc. Eph. t. 2. c. 32 Bin. t. 3 pag. 732. Candidianus an Earle to bee the Iudge.

These were Iudges after a sort: But how? that may appeare by the wordes of the Emperour concerning Candidianus: Ibidem. Ad Sacram vestram Synodum abire iussimus; sed ea lege & conditione vt cum quaestionibus & controuer­sijs quae circafidei dogmata incidunt, nihil quicquam commune habeat: i. wee haue commanded him to goe vnto your sacred Synode; but vpon this condition that hee haue nothing at all to doe with questions and controuersies of faith.

Very true: Ibidem. But, first to remoue all such persons as might be troublesome to the sacred Synode. Secondly, not to suffer those which were of the Synode to depart before the consultation were ended Thirdly, not to let them dispute any by-matters, before the principall were fully discussed and concluded. Fourthly, to prouide that the disputation might be peaceable without tumult. Fiftly, to see that euery man might haue libertie without offence, to propose what he thought good, and to confute the contrary. In like manner Sir Nicholas Bacon was appointed to these and the like offices; and not to decide or determine any controuersie of faith.

Hee was a capitall Eudemon I [...]l. quo supra. sed etiam Ca­tholicorum ca­pitale [...] hostem. enemie of the Catholickes.

All that was done or said at those meetings, is extant to bee Act. & Mon. in the ende. seene: whereby it may appeare, that all his proceedings about that businesse, were most milde, moderate, honourable, and Christian; though the Bishops did shew themselues very obstinate.

Sand▪ l. schis. l. 3. pag. 284. The Protestants would haue had them to dispute vpon such Articles proposed for questions, as seemed to haue a greater shewe of proofe in the Scriptures for the Heretickes; as of the Communion vnder both kindes, of publique prayers to bee had in the vulgar tongue, and such like.

In the publique reformation of a Church, the first thing to be considered, is the due ordering of diuine seruice, and Sacraments: therefore the questions were chosen with singular discretion; one concerning the pray­ers, whether they should bee in the vulgar tongue, another concerning the Lords Supper, whether it should bee ministred in both kindes. In both which points you had done great iniurie to the people of God. But you say [Page 104] that the Protestants made choise of such questions as seemed to haue a grea­ter shew of proofe in the Scripture: and haue we, thinke you, but a seeming shew of proofe, & no sound substantial proofe indeed? If the Bishops had bin of this opinion, it should rather haue incouraged them to the incounter, then haue caused them to flie the field. Is the holy Scripture for vs in these questi­ons onely? if the disputation had beene about the worshipping of images, in­uocations of Saints, iustification by faith, and such like, could not wee haue produced as pregnant proofes out of the Scriptures for these, as for the for­mer? but now one may lay his finger vpon your pulse, and easily discerne the trembling of your heart. For this speech which you haue borrowed from Sanders, doth intimate vnto vs, that the Bishops refused to dispute, because they were not able to maintaine their opinions by the Scriptures.

ANd as their behauiour was vndutiful in these two former respects, con­cerning 4 the Queenes Coronation, and the disputation; So thirdly it was most disloyall, in that many of them went about to excommunicate the Queene, as is testified both by Sand. quo supra. Sanders, and D [...]fence of Cath. p. 52. Allen, who commended their wicked intention, as a point of magnanimitie, affirming that therein they did stout­ly, and worthily as could be wished. Now let any indifferent man iudge what these men merited at her highnesse hands, and yet haue I said nothing of their re­fusall of the oath of Supremacy, which point is referred to the proper place. Hitherto we haue considered how they deserued, now let vs see how they were serued.

THat is set downe by Pius Quintus, in his sentence declaratory a­gainst 5 Queene Elizabeth, in these words: Apud Sand. de Schis. lib. 3. pag. 317. Catholicos Antistites & Ecclesiarum rectores in vincula coniecit, vbi multi diuturno languore & tristitia con­fecti, extremum vitae diem misere finierunt: That is, She laid in chaines the Catho­licke Bishops and gouernours of Churches, where many of them wasted with long lan­guishment, and sorrow, ended their life miserably.

Thirteene of these Bishops are named by Pag. 286. Sanders, to which we may adde Pates of Worcester, so the whole number is fourteene, as Car­dinall Defence of Cath. pag. 45. Allen hath it. Now of these fourteene, foure were of the Prouince of Yorke, and 10. of Cant. In the Prouince of Yorke, to begin with N. Heath Archb. of that see, he being L. Chauncelour of Eng. made open declaration in Parliament, of Q. Maries death, and the vndoubted title of the Lady Eliza­beth: Whereupon▪ she was presently proclaimed Queene. For which loyalty he was honorably regarded, neuer cōmitted to prison or custody, but permit­ted to liue at his owne liberty, (vpon some lands which he had purchased) in quietnes and ease, and last of all dying full of yeeres, was suffered to bequeath his substance by will & testament. From Yorke, let vs go to Durham, the Bi­shop wherof Cut. Tonstal, after his depriuation, kept at Lambeth, with Mat­thew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, where he liued, (so long as he liued) with comfort, and being 85. yeeres old, yeelded to nature, and was honoura­bly buried. The third was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill, who as he had shewed himselfe more dutiful then the rest, in the Coronation of the Queene: so there is no doubt but he was accordingly respected: who being neither in prison nor custody, shortly after paid his debt to nature, and dyed of an apo­plexy. The last of these foure was Cutbert Scot, Bishop of Chester, who slip­ped [Page 105] away beyond the seas, where he liued in voluntary banishment. From the Prouince of Yorke, let vs come to the Prouince of Canterbury: where we find that Iohn white Bishop of Winchester, saluted the prison, though not for any of the reasons alleadged by Sanders, but for an vndutifull Sermon▪ yet afterward he was set at liberty, and died out of prison. Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Ely, hauing indured a time of imprisonment, neither very sharpe nor very long, was permitted to liue in the Archbishoppes house, where till the day of his death, (that is, for tenne yeeres) hee was intreated so kindly, that he is supposed to haue taken more pleasure in this time of his restraint, then euer he did before, in the middest and fullest streame of his highest honours. Gilbert Borne Bishop of Bath was committed to the cu­stody of Master Carew, his olde acquaintance, Deane of Exeter. Iames Turberuill Bishop of Exeter enioyed a priuate life a long time, liuing and dying in liberty. Dauid Pole, Bishop of Peterborrow, being alwayes vsed with courtesie, and vsing his liberty, dyed in his owne house in a ripe age. Neither doe I finde that Bayne Bishop of Lichfield, was in durance, who dyed soone after of the stone. Richard Pates Bishop of Worcester, and Thomas Goldwell of Saint Asaph, departed the kingdome, not by constraint of law, but of their owne accord. The Bishop of Lincolne Thomas Watson, a churlish and froward man, liued after his depriuation 24. yeeres, first at more libertie in the houses of the Bishoppes of Ely and Rochester, but after­ward when your Emissaries from Rome, did trouble the Church, he was kept somewhat more streightly in the Ile of Ely. The last of all is Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, who in Queene Maries time was the princi­pall Butcher, and therefore so odious to the people, that as our learned Tort Torti▪ pag. 147. Bishop hath of late truely deliuered, It was not safe for him to goe abroad, least the people should haue stoned him to death: and he indeed liued, and dyed in pri­son, but where, if you had seene him (to vse the wordes of our Reuerend Ibidem. Bishop) You would not haue sayd, that he had beene pined, or starued with hun­ger, hee liued daintily, there were Gardens and Orchards, if it pleased him to walke: Finally this prison was nothing like a prison, but onely that (therein) he was confined. Thus it appeareth, that of the 14. some were neuer confined at all; Others confined onely to the custody of their friends, but neuer saluted the prison: others saluted it, but were soone released; and those which stayed longest in prison, yet were not layed in fetters, as impious Pius Quintus hath blazed to the world. All these 14. did liue euen till the glasse of Nature was fully runne and expired, and some of them were intertained at the Tables of Bi­shops, Ibidem. Gratis sine sumptu, copiosè sine defectu, in o [...]io sine molestia omni: That is, Freely without cost or charges plentifully without want, in ease without all trouble or molestation. If you will not beleeue me, yet beleeue your owne fellow and friend, our mortall enemie Pag. 103 dum initio Regni &c. cited Tort. Torti. pag. 149. Philopater the Iesuite, who vseth these words vnto the Queene, While in the beginning of your raigne you dealt more mildly with the Catholickes, while as yet you vrged no man with very great violence, while as yet you pressed none very much, either to the partaking of your Sect, or to the deniall of the an­cient faith: truely all things seemed to goe with a more calme course, neither were there heard any great complaints, neither was there seene any great dissention, or repug­nancie, &c. Thus malice it selfe, conquered with euidence of trueth, beareth [Page 106] witnesse that those beginnings were more milde and calme; none greatly then vrged or pressed, so that in those dayes were not heard any great com­plaints. Thus we see euen by the iudgement of your Iesuit, what great cause you had to complaine in such pitifull maner: if your little finger do but ake, you must be moaned, but if you make our very hearts to ake, it is nothing: your mole-hils of miseries must be made mountaines, and our mountaines must be accounted for mole-hilles. Hitherto of the circumstances, now we come to the deposition it selfe.

CHAP. II.

IN a lawfull Deposition, there must be sufficient au­thority, proceeding vpon a iust, and sufficient cause. Now let me aske you, by what authoritie were the old Bishops deposed?

And I might aske you, by what au­thoritie 1. King. 2. 27. Salomon deposed Abiathar?

You are still telling vs of Salomon and Abiathar, If a king depriued this high Priest, Bell. resp. ad Apolog. p. 157. an other high Priest (that is Iehoiada) depriued Queene Athalia both of her kingdome and life.

Q. Athalia? No Queene sir, by your leaue: Ioas the true heire of the kingdome was then aliue, and he was the true King by right of inheri­tance: therefore she was no Queene▪ but a wicked vsurper; Your Pag 92. Defence of Catholicks might teach you so much, which calleth her, A pretenced Queene, and saith, That she vsurped the kingdome. Yet behold with what blindnesse and giddines they are stricken, which traiterously oppose themselues against their Prince and countrey. Cardinall Ibidem. Allen is not ashamed to bring the ex­ample of Iehoiada deposing Athalia, that vsurping and pretenced Queene, to proue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose, lawfull Princes. Neither did Iehoiada this, as being high Priest, but whatsoeuer he did in this case, he might haue done it, though he had not bene high Priest: For Iehosheba his wife was 2. Chron. 22. 11. daughter to king Iehoram, and sister to king Ahazia, who was father to Ioas, and consequently she was aunt to King Ioas; So Iehoiada her husband, was of the next alliance that the yong King had: Yea, and when Athalia like a bloo­die Tyger Verse 10. murthered the kings seed, Iehosheba the wife of Iehoiada, conueyed a­way her nephew Ioas out of the middest of the kings sonnes, which were massacred, Verse 11. and hid him and his nurse in a chamber, and kept them close Verse 12. 6. yeeres in the House of the Lord. So Iehoiada by Gods prouidence, was made Protector of the Kings person: yea, and when the time came wherein he thought fit to disclose him, he first acquainted the 2. Chron. 23. 2. Fathers of Israel, and the Captaines, and so proceeded with their consent: Therefore what did hee herein, but protect the person, age, innocencie, and title of his Lord and Soueraigne▪ whereto he was bound by the Law▪ of Nature, and Nations? Therefore when you bring this to proue the Popes Supremacie, you mistake the matter: you cannot shew vs in Scripture, where euer a Priest deposed a lawfull Prince. The Kings of Is­rael [Page 107] were all of them idolaters, and so were 14. of the Kings of Iuda, yet not one Priest or Prophet did so much as euer offer to depose any one of them; but we shew you in Scripture this plaine example, where Salomon the Prince, remoued Abiathar the lawfull Priest.

IT Bell. quo su­pra. is one thing to relate the actions of kings, and another thing to approue 2. the authoritie.

Did the Spirit of God, thinke you, relate this onely as an Historian, and not approue the action? or dare you accuse Salomon, as pro­ceeding in this case without authoritie? If Salomon had no authoritie to de­pose Abtathar, then there must needs be a nullitie in the Deposition. For how can any Iudiciall action be of validitie, when there is no authoritie in the A­gent? If the Deposition were a nullitie, then Abiathar still retained the true right, title and interest to be high Priest. But what? could there be two high Priests at one time?

Surely no; for though Luke 3. 2. S. Luke say, that the word of the Lord came vnto Iohn, when Annas and Caiaphas were high Priests, yet we must not thinke that they were both high Priests in equall authoritie at once; For the word See Baron. Anno 31. n. 9. 10. Summus Sacerdos, or princeps Sacerdotum, is taken three wayes▪ First, whereas the Priests were diuided into 24. Orders, the chiefe of each Order was called Princeps Sacerdotum, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest; Secondly, there was a Colledge of 72. Seniours, which was called Synedrin, the first or chiefe whereof was also called, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest. Thirdly, it is taken, both most properly, and most vsually, for him that had the first and chiefest place of all, to whom the other Princes of the Priests were subiect. Now Baronius thinketh that S. Luke called Annas an high Priest, because he was both the Prince and highest of his Order, and also the Prince and highest of the Synedrin, but Caiaphas in his iudgement was called high Priest, because he was simply and absolutely highest of all: in which sence there can be but one high Priest at once, nor euer was; Baron. An. 31. n. 8. Vnum tantummodo non duos simul, & ante, & post haec tempora summum Sacerdotem penes Iudaeos fuisse, certum explora­tum (que) habeatur: That is, It is certaine and a tried trueth, that there was one onely high Priest among the Iewes, not two at once, both before and after these times, spea­king of the time of Annas and Caiaphas. Hence Cardinall De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9. Bellarmine, with o­ther of our learned diuines doe commonly conclude, that, As there was but one visible gouernour in the Church of the old Testament, so there should bee but one in the Church of the New.

If there could be but one high Priest at one time, and Abia­thar (notwithstanding that hee was put from the possession) still retained the true right, title, and interest to be high Priest, then Sadok was not a lawfull high Priest, but an intruder vpon another mans right: what say you to this?

It were hard to call Sadok an intruder; for Hector Pin­tus, in Ezech. c. 44. Sadok idem est quod iu­stus, & reuera fuit Sadok nomine & factis, that is, Sadok doth signifie iust, and in­deed he was iust both in name and deeds.

If Sadok were no intruder, but a lawfull high Priest, then Abia­thar ceased to bee high Priest, for you say there could not bee two at once. If Abiathar ceased to bee high Priest, then the place was lawfully voide: but how was it void? Not by death, for Abiathar was still aliue; not by resignati­on [Page 108] or voluntary cessation, for wee finde no such matter. How then? no o­ther reason can with reason bee imagined, but onely because h [...]e was depo­sed by Salomon; If the place were iustly and lawfully voide, by vertue of this deposition, then it must needes bee a lawfull deposition, and consequently it must bee done by lawfull authority. For if the deposer had no authority, then could not the deposition bee lawfull; wherefore as you confesse that Sadok was lawfull high Priest, so you must likewise confesse, that Salomon in casting out Abiathar, and placing Sadok had lawfull authority.

WHat if he had? was he not a Prophet as well as a King? 3

All the bookes of the old Testament are called by the name of 2. Pet. 1. 20. 21. Prophecy, because they prophecied of Iesus Christ; therefore the pen men thereof, which did speake as they were moued by the holy ghost (amongst which was Salomon) may rightly be called Prophets.

Bell [...]de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 29. I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar, not as a king but as a Prophet, and executer of diuine iustice.

As though the King as a King were not an executer of di­uine iustice: yes Philodox, it is the Rom. [...]3. 3. 4. King, as King, which beareth not the sword in vaine: it is the king, as king, which is, The minister of God, and a r [...]uenger of wrath to him that doth euill; therefore the King, as King, is the executer of diuine iustice; And so when you say, not as a king, but as an executer of di­uine iustice, you put those things asunder, which the Lord hath put together; againe, when you say that hee did it, As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iu­stice, you put those things together, which the Lord hath put a sunder: for a Prophet, as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord, the executer of diuine iu­stice is not the mouth, but the hand of the Lord; the hand and the mouth must be distinguished.

I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet, Bell. quo supra. For in the same place it is sayd, that Salomon put out Abiathar, that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord, which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo.

Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause, and the intents of the Agents? The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame, wouen from the top throughout, said one to an­other, Ioh. 19. 24. Let vs not diuide it, but cast lots for it, whose it shalbe, that the Scripture might bee fulfilled, which saith, they parted my garments among them, and on my coate did they cast lots; doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent here­by to fulfill the Scripture? Euen iust as much as Iudas had, when hee sold his master for Mat. 26. 15. thirty peeces of siluer: or Mat. 2. 17. Herod, when hee slue the infants: or the Iewes when they Ioh. 19. 28. 29. gaue him vineger to drinke. They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture, yet God so disposed, that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled. Likewise your owne Bishop In 3. Reg. c. 2. quaest. 28. non pon [...]tur (Vt) denotando ca [...] ­sam sinalem sed Consecuti [...]um. &c. Tostatus may teach you, that in this place the particle, vt, doth not signifie the finall cause, but the consecu­tion. But what if Salomon had done it to that very end, and purpose, that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled? would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet? 2. Kin. 9. 25 26. Iehu, when he had slaine Iehoram, said to Bidkar a Captaine, Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite; for I remember that when [...] and thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord laide this burthen vpon him; surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of [Page 109] Naboth, and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord; and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord, now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord: The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie, but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled: yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet: so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet.

Either as a King, or as a Prophet; not as a King, and there­fore as a Prophet.

NOt as a King? why so? the Lord had 1. Chro. 22. 10. 2. Sam. 7. 12. 13. promised that 4 Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father, so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne, by Gods owne appointment: yet for all this 1. King. 1. 5. Adonias exalted himselfe, and sayd I wilbe king: and Ioab, and Abiathar Vers. 7. helped him forward, they said, Vers. 25. God saue King Adonias: Whereup­on all three were guilty of high treason against the king, and all three were punished by the king.

True, by the king, but Tortus. not by kingly power.

Yes, by kingly power: the king did it as a king. And to be­ginne with Adonias, the king granted him a conditionall pardon, that 1. King. 1. 52. If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man, there should not a haire of him fall to the earth: but if wickednesse were found in him, hee should die: and therefore when hee de­sired 1. King. 2. 17. Abisha to wife, the wisdome of the King reaching into the profound­nesse of the policie, did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the 1. King. 2. 22. king­dome: So King Vers. 25. Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada, and hee smote him that hee died. Who did this? the spirit of God saith, that King Salomon did it: so it is ascribed to the King: yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King: for who could pardon treason, but a King, as a King? Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors, but he that beareth not the sword in vaine, that is, the King by the power, and authoritie of a King? Concerning Ioab 1. Kin▪ 2. 29. it was tolde Salomon, that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord, and Vers. 30. Benaiah sayd, thus saith the King, come out, and hee sayd nay, but I will die here, and Benaiah brought the King word againe, and the King said, doe as hee hath said, and smite him: in all which there was no­thing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King. Now to come to Abiathar; his offence against the King was the same, and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king: 1. King. 2. 26. Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest: euen the king, who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine; that is, the King, as a King: which may appeare further by that which hee said, Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields, in which words hee confineth him, which is the action of a King. And againe, thou art worthy of death, but I will not this day kill thee, be­cause thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father: and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted. In which wordes hee granteth life, to one that had deserued death: and who could doe this, but a King? Vers. 27. So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vn­to the Lord: Where wee see death changed into depriuation. All which doe argue the power of a King: yea it is said, Vers. 35. that the King put Benaiah the sonne [Page 110] of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast; which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King, as hee was King: and it followeth immediately in the same verse; and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar. Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King, as a King: and why should you thinke otherwise?

BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God, from the power of secular Princes: Bell. de ex­emp. cler. c. 1. pag. 2 [...]4. For in the third 5 of Numbers God doth not once, but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his Ver. 12, 41. owne, and that he hath chosen them to himselfe out of all his people, and he comman­ded them to be Verse 9. 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; Bell. de ex­emp. cler. c. 2. pag. 272. 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.

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, Exod. 19. 6. 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 2. Chr. 17. 7. 8. Iehosaphat sent Priests & Leuites to instruct the cities of Iudah, and did he this without authoritie? he sent 2. Chr. 19. 8. Priestes and Leuites to be iudges and Delegates, & Vers. 11. 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, 2. Chr. 29. 4. 5. Hezechias called the Priestes and Leuites, commanding them to sanctifie themselues, and the house of the Lord; and they did so, Vers. [...]5. according to the Kings commandement: then hee Vers. 21. commanded the Priestes the sonnes of Aa­ron to offer sacrifice vnto the Lord, and they did so: he Vers. 25. 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 Vers. 30. 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) 2. Chr. 31. 2. appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes; which things hee did well and 2. Kings 18. [...] ▪ vprightly [Page 111] 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 2. King. 23. 4▪ 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 Verse 8. 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 1. King. 13. 1. man of Iudah prophecied, hee 2. King. 23. 20. 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 Ezech. 44. 13. 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; Nehemiah 13. 6. 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 Verse 8. 9. 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 Verse 28. 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? 2. Chr. 24. 21. Zacharias the Priest was slaine, at the commande­ment of the King, and yet neuer mentioned any priuiledge: When 1▪ Sam. 22. 18. 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 Verse 12. 15. 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.

Bell. de ex­emp. c. 2. p. 272. 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?

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 Tom. 2. pag. [...]85. Binius [Page 112] 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 Anno 452. Baronius. Thus much for the prophane title. As for the thing it selfe. The Scripture witnesseth, that Salomon was King ouer 1. Kin. 4. 1. 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 De potestate Reg. cap. 19. Parisiensis saith, that in the old Testament, the Priests which annoin­ted 6. kings, without all doubt were subiect vnto kings. Your owne Iesuite De potestate Eccle. tom. 12. tract▪ 63. p. 428 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 De Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 25. 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 I [...] 4. sent. d. 25. q. 2. 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 Consideratio P. [...]. Pauli. 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 l. 2 c. 18. respondeo primo. 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 Tost. in 4. Reg. [...]. 12. q. 8. Ipse (Rex) [...]a­hebat potesta­tem super Sa­cerdoses & po­terat [...]os occi­dere pro crimine sicut quoscun (que) laicos, & a for­tiori priuare eos officijs & digni­tatib▪ quantū ­cunque essent spirituales. Tostatus.

IF the kings of Israel had such authoritie, doth it follow that 7. Christian Princes must haue the like?

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.

IS not the deposing of a Bishop, a spirituall cen­sure? how then can it be performed by the secular powers?

The secular powers doe no [...] 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.

Shall a Prince take that from them, which he cannot giue them?

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.

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.

Did not the Emperour Epist. Episc. ad Leonem im­per. a [...]ud bin. t. 2. p. 178. 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 Nouel const. 6. iuxta sinem. 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 Euagrius l 1. c. 12. ex Codice l. 1. tit. 1. Sau­cimus. Theodosius the yonger, likewise make a law that the Nestorian Bishops should be expelled and deposed?

The lawes of these Emperours concerning the deposing of Bi­shops, were not put in execution by laymen, as Queene Elizabeths were, but by Bishops.

Theodor. l. 5. cap. 2. 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.

GRatian had for him the determination of Synods, which had al­ready 2 cōdemned the Arrians, therefore in this case it was lawfull for [Page 114] him both to make a Law, and to commit the execution of it to Lay-men.

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 [...] 153 [...]. p. 11 [...]. 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 concor­d [...]s fuimus; viz. Romanum Episcopum maiorem aliquam iurisdictionem non habere sibi à D [...]o collatam in sacra Scriptura, in hoc regno Angliae, quam alium quemuis exter­num Episcopum, i. At the length we all agreed with one minde and one heart, vpon this conclusion: to wit, That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater iurisdiction giuen him of God in holy Scripture, ouer this kingdome of England, then any other forraine Bishop. And [...]. Bellarmine himselfe telleth vs out of Cheynie the Carthusian Monke, that in the yeere 1535. there was a Parliament, wherein it was En­acted, That all should renounce the Pope, and all other forraine powers, and acknow­ledge the King to be head of the Church, vpon their oath. Thus it is manifest, that the Bishops and Clergie did then both approue the Title and take the oath: which Bishops were such as your selues commend Defence of English Ca­thol. pag. 4 [...]. to bee inferiour to none in Europe for vertue and learning. And truely excepting their opinions in Reli­gion, wherein they were caried away with the streame of the time, it cannot be denied, but that generally they were very well learned. Erasmus inuited in­to England by William Warham Archbishop of Canterbury, when he had considered what difference there was betweene the Bishops of England, and other Nations, he published to the world in Print, That Ant. Brit pag. 306. onely England had learned Bishops. Moreouer, most of these learned Bishops, did openly in the Pulpit at Pauls-Crosse defend the Kings Title, and [...]. sundry of them by their published writings maintained the same. The selfe-same oath was taken a­gaine in the [...]aigne of K. Edward.

They changed their minds in the dayes of Q. Mary.

Very true; But their inconstancie cannot abolish the solidi­tie of their former confession: and though they recalled their opinions, yet they neuer answered their owne Arguments which remaine still in Print, as a witnesse to the world, that their former iudgement was grounded vpon Gods Veritie, and that the Princes Title did stand with right and equitie.

THese were Bishops and Synods of our owne nation onely; but 3. was there euer any learned man else-where, that did approue this Title▪ was there euer any King, or Queene, Christian or Heathen, Catholicke or He­reticke in all the See [...]. Apol. cap. 1. world beside, before our age, that did practise, challenge, or accept it?

Looke into the godly Kings of Iuda; Looke into the pro­ceedings of Christian Emperours, [...] 4. c. 42. So [...]r. l. 1 c. 3 [...]. The [...]. l. 5. c. [...]. Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, and such like; Looke into the Lawes of [...]. l. 1. Charles and [...]. 2. Lodowicke; and you shall see, that they practised as much, as euer we ascribed to the Queene in this oath. When the Councell of Ephesus by the packing of Dioscorus, had allowed the [Page 115] cursed opinion of Eutyches, and deposed Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople, Pope Leo vpon this occasion wrote thus vnto the Emperour Theodosius; Leo Epist. 24. Be­hold, most Christian and reuerend Emperour, I, with the rest of my fellow Bishops, make supplication vnto you, That all things may stand in the same state, in which they were before any of these Iudgements, vntill a greater number of Bishops may be gathe­red out of the whole world. Who made this supplication? Pope Leo, a holy and learned Pope. To whom? To the Emperour Theodosius. For what? That the Emperour would command; not intreat, but command: So this is an action of Royall authoritie. What should he command? That all things might stand in their former state. What things meaneth he? The highest mysteries of Religion, concerning the Natures and person of Christ. But what is it to stand in the former state? That it might be lawfull for all men, so to iudge and speake of these holy Mysteries, as they did before the springing vp of the Eutychian Heresie: for then they held the Trueth, according to the Aposto­licke faith. And this he beseecheth the Emperour to command, notwith­standing the contrary determination of the Councell of Ephesus. Leo Epist. 43. The second Councell of Ephesus, which apparantly subuerted the faith, cannot rightly bee called a Councell, which your Highnes for very loue to the Trueth, will make voyd by your De­cree to the contrary, most glorious Emperour. I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Maiestie by our Lord Iesus Christ, the founder and guider of your Kingdome, That in this Councell (of Chalcedon) which is presently to be kept, you will not suffer the Faith to be called in question, which our blessed Fathers preached, being deliuered vnto them from the Apostles; Neither permit such things as haue bene long since con­demned by them, to be freshly reuiued againe, but that you will rather command, That the Constitutions of the ancient Nicene Councell may stand in force, the interpreta­tion of Hereticks being remooued. Here the Pope ascribeth to the Emperour power to ratifie and establish those Councels, which are according to the Scripture, and to disanull those whose determinations are contrary to the Scripture; Yea, he acknowledgeth, that the Emperour hath authoritie to inhibite and restraine Generall Councels, that they call not the Trueth of God in question. Which the Emperour Martian practised, entring the Councell of Chalcedon in his owne person, and Mart. Imper. orat. in Conc. Chalced. act. 1. Bin. t. 2. p. 4. forbidding the Bishops to a­uouch any thing concerning the birth of our Sauiour, otherwise then was contained in the Nicene Creed. Moreouer, when the Councell of Chalcedon was conclu­ded, Pope Leo Epist. 59. Leo wrote thus againe to the Emperour; Because I must by all meanes obey your pietie and most Religious will, I haue willingly giuen my consenting sentence to those Synodall Constitutions, which concerning the confirmation of the Catholicke faith, and condemnation of Hereticks, pleased me very well. The Emperour requi­red the Pope to subscribe; And he cheerefully did so, Protesting that for his part, he must by all meanes obey the Princes will in those cases. Now tell me whe­ther the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperour, and the Emperour shew himselfe to be Supreame gouernour ouer all persons, euen in causes Ecclesiasticall?

AS the Emperour Martian did practise this Supremacie, so the Emperour 4. Concilium octauum act. 1. B [...]n. t. 3. p. 880. Basill did challenge the Title▪ when he said in the Councel of Constan­tinople, That the gouernment of the vniuersall Ecclesiasticall Ship, was committed vnto him by the Diuine prouidence.

The words are thus in Surius, Tom. 4. [...]art. 11. edit. Venet. Vide T [...]rturam T [...]rti. p. 349. In exordio Synodi ita locutus est Basi­lius: [Page 116] Cum diuina, & benignissima prouidentia nobis gubernacula vniuersalis Nauis commisisset &c. that is, In the beginning of the Synod thus said Basilius the Emperor: when the diuine and most benigne prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vniuersall ship &c. Where, by vniuersall ship, is meant ciuill administrati­on, not Ecclesiasticall; as Surius hath well obserued.

[...]n. qu [...] [...]. Binius relating the acts of the councell, telleth how the Em­perours Epainagnosticum was read in the councell in these words: Diuina cle­menti (que) prouidentia gubernacula Ecclesiasticae n [...]uis vobis committente, that is, The diuine and gracius prouidence of God, committing vnto you the gouernment of the Ec­clesiasticall ship. Where you see that he speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall ship.

To whom was the gouernment of the ship committed? Vobis, to you: that is, to the Bishops: what is this to the Emperour?

Indeed, Binius hath Vobis; but it should be Nobis, which may ap­peare, first, because the Emperor himself in the words shortly after following in Binius, said, Nos proratione datae nobis in Ecclesiasticis rebus potestatis, non tacebi­mus, that is, We in regard of the power giuen vnto vs in Ecclesiasticall matters will not hold our peace. Where it is cleare that the Emperor did think himselfe to haue power giuen him from God, not only in matters ciuil, but also in Ecclesiasti­call. Therefore when the Emperor said, That the diuine prouidence had commit­ted vnto him the gouernment of the vniuersall ship, hee must needs be vnderstood as well of causes Ecclesiasticall as ciuill. Which may yet appeare further by the Emperors words, as they are in Surtus immediatly following in the same sentence; Omne studium arripuimus & ante publicas curas Ecclesiasticas dissoluere, i. When the diuine prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vni­uersall ship, we vsed all diligence to dispatch Ecclesiasticall cares, before the publike af­faires of the Commonwealth. So if Surius wilbe iudged by his owne Edition, and giue the Emperour leaue to expound himselfe; then Ecclesiasticall af­faires must be comprehended in the gouernment of the Vniuersall ship. Wher­fore though Surius would raze out the word Ecclesiasticall, and Binius foist in Vobis instead of Nobis, yet whether we compare either of them with himselfe, or each of them with other, it is euident that the Emperor Basil, did challenge the gouernement of the vniuersal ship, both Ecclesiastical and Ciuil, and that in a ge­nerall Councell, no man resisting him. What doth this differ from Supreme gouernour as it is vsed in the Church of England?

AS Basill did challenge this gouernment, no man resisting; so sundry Sy­nods 6 haue giuen the like to Princes not refusing it. There was a Coun­cell holden at Cont. M [...] ­g [...]t [...] pr [...] ▪ B [...] ▪ 34. 402. Mentz in Germany, the yeere 814. In the time of the Em­perour Charles the great, and Pope Leo the third, the Synodall acts whereof Binius professeth that he compared with a manuscript sent him out of the Emperours library at Vienna. Now the Bishops assembled in this Synode, be­gin thus. In the Name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. To the most glorious and most Christian Emperour Carolus Augustus, gouernour of the true re­ligion, and defender of the holy Church of God, &c. And a little after, We giue thanks to God the Father Almighty, because hee hath granted vnto his holy Church a gouernor so godly &c. And againe, About all these points we greatly need your aide and sound doctrine, which may both admonish vs continnally, and instruct vs curteously so farre, that such things which we haue briefly touched beneath in a few Chapters, may receiue [Page 117] strength from your authority: if so bee that your piety shall so iudge it worthy, whatsoe­uer is found in them worthy to be amended, let your magnificent and imperiall dignity command to amend.

In the yeere 847. there was holden another Synode at Mentz, in the time of Leo the fourth, and Lotharius the Emperor, where the Bishops begin in the like manner. Bin. t. 3. pag. 631. Domino Serenissimo & Christianissimo regi Ludouico verae religio­nis strenuissimo rectori, i. To our most gracious Lord and Christian king Lodowick, the most puissant gouernor of true religion. The like was ascribed to King Reccesu­inthius in a Councell holden at Council. Em [...] ­rit [...]ex Garsia Loa [...]sa. sect. 23. Bin. to. 2. p. 1183. Emerita in Portugale about the yeere 705. in these words: Whose vigilance doth gouerne both secular things with greatest piety, and Ecclesiasticall by his wisdome plentifully giuen him of God. So they acknow­ledged him gouernor both in causes secular and Ecclesiastical. This Coun­cel of Emerita receiued much strength and authority from Pope Innocent the third, in his Epistle to Peter Archb. of Compostella, as witnesseth Gars. in no­tis in Con [...]. Emer. Garsias. Thus you see that most famous Bishops assembled in Synods haue giuen vn­to Princes, such titles as are equiualent to the st [...]le annexed to the imperiall crowne of this kingdome. To which we might adioyne the iudgement of o­ther fathers; Tert. ad Scopul. Tertullian; Colimus imperatorem vt hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. i. We reuerence the Emperour as a man next vnto God, and infe­riour onlie to God. Contra. Par­men. l. 5. Optatus; Super imperatorem non est, nisi solus Deus qui fecit im­peratorem. Aboue the Emperour is none but onely God who made the Emperour. So Saint Ad pop. Antioch. hom. [...] Chrysostome saith, that the Emperor hath no peere vpon earth, and calleth him the head and crowne of all men vpon earth. If he be next vnto God, and infe­riour only to God; If none be aboue him but God onlie; If he haue no peere vpon earth, as being the head and crowne of all men vpon earth; then must hee needs bee the supreme gouernour vpon earth, according to the iudge­ment of the fathers. This is agreeable to the Scripture, which testifieth, that most godly kings commanded both Priests and high Priests, euen in cases of religion as was before declared. Neither is this authority taken away in the New Testament, but continueth the very same; As may appeare by Saint Paul, who lifteth vp his voice like a trumpet, proclayming, Rom. 13. 1. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, which words euery soule comprehend all persons, both Ecclesiasticall and Temporal, yea though they were Euangelists, Pro­phets or Apostles, as Saint Chrysostome doth truly expound them. If euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, then the Prince is superiour to all, and consequently supreme within his owne dominions. But why doe I stay so long vpon this point, which hath beene of late so learnedly and plentifully handled, that to say any more were but to cast water into the sea, or to light a candle at noone day?

HOw vnreasonable it is, may appeare by the absurdities which fol­low 6 thereupon, for if the Prince be supreme gouernour in causes spiritual, then he may command what religion he list, and we must obey him.

Not so; for he is supreme gouernour in causes temporal, yet he may not command a man to beare false witnesse, or to condemne the in­nocent as Iesabell did; or if he should, we must rather obey God then man; so in cases of religion Nabuchodonosor had no warrant to erect his image, nor Ieroboam, to set vp his golden calues. For the king, as king, is supreme vnder [Page 118] God, not against God, to commaund for truth, not against truth; And if hee shall command vngodly things, we may not performe obedience, but submit our selues to his punishments with patience.

Doe not you by this title ascribe as much to the King as wee doe to the Pope?

Wee are farre from it, For when some malicious persons did wrest the words of the oath of supremacy to a sinister sense, notifying how by words of the same oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queenes of this realme, possessours of the crowne, may challenge authority and power of ministery of diuine seruice in the Church; Queene Elizabeth in the first yeere of her raigne, Admoniti­on annexed to the Queens m [...]un [...]tions. admonished all her louing subiects not to giue credit to such persons; professing that she neither did, nor would challenge any other authority, then was challenged and vsed by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of anci­ent time, due to the imperiall crowne of this realme, that is, vnder God to haue the so­ueraignty and rule ouer all manner persons borne within her realmes, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiasticall or temporall soeuer they be, so as no other forraigne power, shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them. And that no other thing was, is, or should bee meant, or intended by the same oath. Which was also further declared man act of Parliament, the fifth yeare of her raigne, with relation to the former admonition, and moreouer fully explained in the Ar­ticles of Art. 37. religion in these words. We giue not to our Princes the ministring ei­ther of Gods word, or of the Sacraments, which things the iniunctions lately set foorth by Queene Elizabeth, doe most plainely testifie, but onely that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwaies to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they bee ecclesiasticall or temporall, and restraine with the ciuill sword the stubborne and euill doers. This is the substance of the title due to the imperiall crowne of the Kingdome.

If it be due to the imperiall crowne, then it skilleth not whether the Prince be man, woman, or child, nor of what religion. For the Princely power was no lesse in [...] Cal [...] ­t [...]. l. 4. [...]. 10. Traiane, then in Theodosius, in K. Henry, then in Q. Mary; In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers, then in Queene Elizabeth their protectour; yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before hee was baptized, then after. And consequently, the Emperour of the Turkes may bee called supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions.

Here are two things to be considered. First the princely power and authority; Secondly the ability rightly to vse and exercise the same. The princely power and authority is giuen immediatly frō God, both vnto Chri­stian Princes, and also vnto Ethnickes which are guided only by the light & law of nature, and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man. For this is true in all; Pro. 8. 15. By me kings raigne; And Dan. 2. 37. Daniell said to Nabuchodonosor, O king thou art a king of kings, for the God of Heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome, & power, and strength, and glory. But the ability rightly to vse and exercise this authority, by refering it to the true end, that is, the glory of God (for all our riuers should run into that Ocean) & the eternall good of the subiects, is com­municated from the Lord aboue, onely to such as know him in Christ Iesus, and are guided by his grace. The fountaine therefore of al power is God him­selfe; [Page 119] as the Apostle witnesseth saying, Rom. 13. 1. there is no power but of God. To which purpose it is well said of Saint De ciuit. Dei l. 5. c. 21. Austin. Qui dedit Mario, ipse & Caesari; qui Au­gusto, ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suauissimis imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo: & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Chri­stiano, ipse Apostatae Iuliano. i. He that gaue it to Mar [...]s, gaue it to Caesar, hee that gaue it to Augustus, gaue it to Nero, he that gaue it to Vespasian the Father, or his sonne, most sweete Emperours, gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell. And that I should not neede to recken vp the rest in particular; hee that gaue it to Constantine the Christian, gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata. But though domination and power were in the law of nature, yet the right vse of it is not from nature but from grace. A Prince, as a Prince, be he good or bad, Christian or Pa­gan, in respect of his princely calling hath sufficient power and authoritie to gouerne his people according to the will of God. And it is his dutie so to doe. Esai. 45. 2. 3. The Lord said vnto Cyrus, I will goe before thee and make the crooked streight; I will breake the brasen doores, and burst the Iron barres. And I will giue thee the treasures of darkenesse, and the things hid in secret places, that thou maiest know that I am the Lord. Vpon which wordes Saint Ierom noteth, that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men, not that they should abuse them, but as for other rea­sons, so for this, that being inuited by his bountie, they should bee conuerted from their sinnes. So it is their dutie to serue God, not onely as they are men, but as they are Kings. And Kings (saith Saint Aust. ep. 50. Austin) doe in this serue God as Kings, when they doe those things to serue him which none but Kings can doe. But what is that? It may appeare by these wordes; Epist. 48. Seruiant reges terrae Christo, eti­am leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societes be peace and prosperitie, yet the last end of all, and most principally to bee respected is the glory of God, and eternall happinesse. For which purpose it is the dutie of all subiects to pray for their Prince, though hee bee a Pagan, that 1. Tim. 2. 2. vnder him they may liue a godly and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and honestie▪ But though euery Prince, in that hee is a Prince, hath authoritie to serue God as a Prince, yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace. Authoritie is in a Pagan; the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniuie had authoritie long before, to proclaime a fast; Nabuchodonosor had authoritie to commaund, that all nations and languages should worship the God of Da­niel: but they put it not in execution till God touched their hearts: and when they put it in execution, it was not by any new authoritie, but by vertue of their former Princely power heretofore abused, but now vsed rightly by di­rection of Gods Spirit, and assistance of his grace. The truth of which an­swere that you may see in another glasse, let vs a little remooue our speech from the Prince to the Priest: I demande therefore, if the Priestes, the sonnes of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts?

Yes verely as saith the Prophet Malach. [...] 7. Malachy.

But he may be a false prophet, an Idolater, an Apostata, he may turne Pagan or Atheist. Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts?

A Priest in respect of his office ought so to be.

But the Prophet speaking of the wicked Priest which seduceth the people, saith not, he ought to be, but he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

[Page 120]

A Priest as a Priest, be he good or bad, in respect of his priestly calling and authoritie, is the messenger of the Lord of hostes; hee ought to leaue his impieties in seducing the people, and to serue God, by teaching the trueth. In that he is a Priest, God hath armed him with a calling, to deliuer his message, for performance wherof, he needeth no new calling, but grace to vse that well, which before he abused.

Apply this to the present point, and you may satisfie your selfe.

To make the Prince Supreame Gouernour, or head of the Church, is vnnaturall, for shall the sheepe feede the flocke, or the sonne guide the Father?

As the Priest is a father and shepheard, in respect of the Prince, so the Prince is a shepheard and father, in respect of the Priest. The Lord chose Psal. 78. 70. Dauid his seruant, and tooke him from the sheepfolds, euen from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in Iacob, and his inheritance in Israel, so hee fed them according to the simplicitie of his heart, and guided them by the discreti­on of his hands. And 2. Chron. [...]9. 11. Ezechias called the Priests his sonnes; If the Prince be their sheepheard, then he must feede them, if he be their father, then hee must guide them, this is naturall.

THis stile of the Crowne was so distastfull to Calu [...]n A­mos. 7. 13. Caluin, that he called 7. it blasphemy and sacriledge.

It is certaine that he did not differ from vs in iudgement. But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner, who expounded it as though the king had power vt statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit, to establish at his pleasure, whatsoeuer he would, which Caluin exemplifieth in the words of Gardi­ner, the king may forbid Priests to marry, & debar the people frō the Cup in the Lords Supper, because forsooth potestas (umma est penes regem; the highest power is in the king. This is that which Caluin calleth blasphemie and sacri­ledge, and so will we. But if Caluin had beene truely informed that nothing had beene meant by this title, but to exclude the Pope, and to acknowledge the kings lawfull authoritie ouer his owne subiects, not in diuising new Arti­cles of faith, or coyning new formes of religion, as Ieroboam did his calues, but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded; with­out all question Caluin had neuer misliked it. In this sense, and no other, that title was giuen him. Neither did the king take it otherwise, for ought that we can learne.

If the title were not blame worthy; why was it altered?

In the beginning of the Queenes raigne, the nobles and sundry of the Clergy, perceiuing that some out of ignorance, and infirmitie, were offended at the title of Bish. Bilson true diffrence. supreame head of the Church, humbly intrea­ted her maiestie, that it might be expressed in some plainer termes; whereto her clemency most graciously condiscended, accepting the title of supreame go­uernour, being the same in substance with the former. So this alteration was not made as thogh the other were blame worthy: for the phrase is accor­ding to the 1▪ Sam. 15. 17. Scripture, which calleth the king head of the tribes of Israel; And the sense thereof is agreeable to the true meaning, both of Scripture and also of ancient Fathers, Councels, and practise, both of the kings of Iudah, and of [Page 121] Christian Emperours; as hath beene declared, where it was as lawfull for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalfe of the Prince against the Pope, as it was for Iehoiada, to exact an 2. Kings 11 4. oath in behalfe of king Ioas, against the vsurper Athalia; which oath being holy and lawfull, the refusall of it was disloyaltie and a iust cause of depriuation. Hitherto of the Bishops deposed, now let vs proceed to such as succeed them.

CHAP. IIII.

YOur Bishops Scultingius Biblioth. Catho. t. 5. p. 106. deriue their counterfeit authoritie, not from lawfull Consecration, or Catholicke inauguration, but from the Reginales prelati▪ Sand. de schis. l. 3. p. 297. Queene and Ibidem. p. 298. Parliaments. For in Brist. Anti. mot. [...]om. 2. p. 264. England the king yea, and the Queene, may giue their letters pa­tents to whom they will, and they thencefoorth may beare themselues for Bishops, and may begin to ordaine Mini­sters: So wee may iustly say that among the Caluinists in England, there rai­gned a Iohn Brier­ly Cath. apol. see Doct. Mort. appeale. p. 633. woman Pope. But Brist. mot. 21. such was the order of Christs Church, which the Apostles founded, Priests to be sent by Priests, and not by the letters patents of kings or Queenes.

These shamelesse Papists would make the world beleeue that our Bishops deriue not their Consecration from Bishops, but from kings and Queenes, which is an impudent slaunder For our kings doe that which belongeth to kings, and our Bishops doe that which belongeth to Bishops. In the vacancie of any Archbishopricke, or Bishopricke, the Ann. 25. H. 8. ca. 20. king granteth to the Deane and Chapter a licence vnder the great Seale, as of old time hath beene ac­customed, to proceed to an election, with a letter missiue, containing the name of the person which they shall elect and chuse, which being duly performed and signified to the King, vnder the common seale of the electors, the king giueth his royal assent; and signifying, and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bi­shops, as the law requireth he giueth them commission, and withall requireth and commaundeth them to confirme the said election, and to inuest, and Consecrat [...] the said person, vsing all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same. Where­upon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient forme, in those cases vsed, do Ex regist. Cant. passim in citatione con­tra oppositores. cause all such as can obiect, or take exception, either in generall, or particular, either against the manner of the election, or the person elected, to be cited publikely and peremptorily, to make their ap­pearance. When the validitie of the election, and sufficiency of the person are by publike actes, and due proceedings iudicially approued, then fol­loweth Consecration, which is performed by a lawfull number of lawfull Bi­shops, and that in such forme as is required by the ancient Canons.

I Will prooue that your Bishops, in the beginning of the Queenes 2. reigne, deriued not their authoritie from lawfull Consecration, but from the Queene and Parliament. For Sand. de schl. l. 3. p. 298. Pol­linu▪ l. 4. c. 6. p. 434. being destitute of all lawfull ordination when they were commonly said, and prooued by the lawes of England to bee no Bishops, they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power, that they might re­ceiue the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament, by authoritie whereof, it any thing were done amisse, and not according to the prescript of the Law, or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them, and that after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office and Chaire certaine yeeres, [Page 122] without Absque vlla Episcopall con­secratione. any Episcopall Consecration. Hence it was, that they were called Parli­ament Bishops.

The Anno 8. Eli­z [...]. c. 1. Parliament which you meane, was in the eighth yeere of Queene Elizabeth, wherein first they reproue the ouer much boldnesse of some which slandered the estate of the Clergy, by calling into question, whether their making and Consecrating, were according to Law. Secondly, they touch such lawes as concerne the point, declaring that euery thing requisite and materiall, was done as precisely in her Maiesties time, as euer before. Thirdly, they confirme againe the booke of Common prayer, with the forme thereunto annexed, enacting that all persons that then had beene, or afterwards should be made, ordered, or Consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, of Gods holy word and Sacraments, or Dea­cons, after the forme and order herein prescribed, were by authoritie thereof declared and enacted to be, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers, and Deacons, rightly made, ordered, and Consecrated: any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary not­withstanding. Whereby it is euident that the Parliament did not make them Bishops, but being in very deed true Bishops, by lawfull Consecration, that ho­nourable court did declare and enact them so to be. But what say the Papists to all this? When they cannot infringe their Consecration, for a poore re­uenge they call our Religion Parliament Religion, and our Bishops Parlia­ment Bishops.

Hard. conf. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2. If you will needs haue your matters seeme to depend of your Parlia­ment, let vs not be blamed if we call it Parliament Relgion, Parliament Gospel, Par­liament faith.

It is a marueile that you said not a Parliament God, and a Parliament Christ. Might not we say as well, that in Q. Maries time, you had a Parliament Masse, and a Parliament Pope? Was it lawfull for Q. Mary with her Parliament, to subiect the kingdome to the Pope and his Canons; and was it not lawfull for Q. Elizabeth with her Parliament, to submit them­selues to Christ and his Gospel? Indeed you haue a spite against the Prince and Parliament, because they expelled the Pope, aduanced true Religion, and defended the Preachers and Ministers thereof: neither against the persons onely, but against the very place wherein the Banner of Iesus Christ was so gloriously displayed. A French Historian speaking of the bloody Massacre, saith, Thuanu [...] hist. l. 54. anno 2572. oppend. Wise men which were not addicted to the Protestants part, seeking all maner of excuse for that fact, did notwithstanding thinke, that in all Antiquitie there could not be found an example of like crueltie. But the English Powder-plot, doeth so farre exceed the French Massacre, that there is no degree of comparison; this cannot be patternd, or paraleld. It was of such a transcendencie, that all the diuels may seeme to haue holden a blacke conuocation in Hell, and there to haue concluded such a sulphurious and Acheronticall deuice, as was neuer heard of since the world began. But the Lord of Heauen did so strangely re­ueale it, as though the birds of the aire had caried the voyce, and that which hath wings, had declared the matter. As for the chiefe instruments thereof, the Rauens of the valleys did plucke out their eyes, and the yong Eagles did eate them. Wherefore, if you will not beleeue vs disputing for Religion, yet beleeue God himselfe, with his owne right hand, and with his holy arme de­fending our Prince and State, our Church and Ministerie, and that very [Page 123] House, wherein the Standard of the Gospel was aduanced, maugre the malice of all the diuels in hell. All glory be to thee, O Lord, for this thy vnspeakeable mercie; still protect and defend them, that Israel may be glad, and thy ser­uant Iacob reioyce.

IF you can iustifie your Bishops, produce their Consecrations, make it appeare to the world, when, by whom, and how they were Consecrated, beginning with the first which was made in the Queenes time, That is, with Matthew Parker, who did beare the name of the Archbishop of Canterburie.

You learned this disdainefull speach of Sand. Rock of the church, Lo [...]anij 1567. Nicholas Sanders, who dedicated his rocke of the Church to that reuerend Archbishop, in this vnreuerend maner; To the right worshipfull Master Doct. Parker bearing the name of the Archbishop of Canterburie. Wherein (to let passe that right wor­shipfull, and right scornefull title) he doeth not stile him Archbishop; but bearing the name of Archbishop: As though our Bishops were Bishops one­ly in name. But what can you say against him?

I would faine learne of you the place where he was Consecra­ted. I haue read that Maximus was consecrated in the house of a Greg. presb. in vit. Greg. Naz. minstrell, and it seemeth that Matthew Parker was Consecrated in a Tauerne. For doct. Reply to D. Sutl. p. 31. Kellison saith, That hee heard it credibly reported, that some of your new Superin­tendents, were made Bishops at the Nags-head in Cheape. A fit Church for such a Con­secration: and it is most likely, that Matthew Parker was one of them, because he was the first.

This of the Nagges head, doeth call to my remembrance Pope Iohn the 12. who ordained a Deacon in a stable amongst his horses. A fit san­ctuary for such a Saint. Neither is it a tale or fable, as yours is, but a story Chronicled by Lib▪ 6. Luitprandus, who is, and euer will be esteemed a learned Hi­storian: notwithstanding that Anno 963. Baronius goeth about to discredit him, as hee doeth all other writers that make against him. And Luitprandus groundeth himselfe not vpon flying reports, as Kellison and you doe, but vpon two wit­nesses, the one a Bishop, the other a Cardinall, Iohn bishop of Narnium in Italy, and Iohn Cardinall Deacon, who did testifie in a Romane Councell, in the presence of Otho the Emperour, Se vidisse illum Diaconum ordinasse in equo­rum stabulo, i. That they themselues did see him with their owne eyes, ordaine a Deacon in a stable of horses. But whereas you say, that Kellison heard this credibly reported, I must tell you, that you are very forward in spreading false reports against the Protestants. It is credibly reported at Rome, that wee in England haue Tortura Tor­ti. p. 152. wrapped some Papists in beares skinnes, and baited them with dogges; That wee in­close dormise in basons, and lay them to the sides of the Catholickes to eate out their bowels; That wee binde them to mangers, and feed them with hay like horses. These are shining lies, fit Carbuncles for the Popes Miter. Neither doe they report them onely, but Print them, and paint them, and publish them with the Popes Eccles. Angl. trophen. Anno 1584. cum pri­uil. Greg. 13. priuiledge. They need a priuiledge which tell such glorious lies. This of the Nagges head, though it goe currant at Rome, and bee blazed for a trueth through the world by men of your rancke, is cousine—germaine to the former, as appeareth by the Reg. Park. tom. 1. fol. 9. Records of the Archbishopricke, which declare, that he was consecrated in Capella infra ma­nerium [Page 124] suum de Lambhith, That is, in the Chappell within his manor of Lambhith. Thus you see the falsehood of this fable, which was deuised to no other pur­pose, but onely to make our Ministery and Religion seeme odious to all men. Is not this strange dealing, for men that make such great ostentation of sin­ceritie and grauitie? But for my owne part I doe not maruaile at it, your pro­ceedings are but answerable to your doctrines. For you teach, That an offici­ous lye is but a Bell. de amiss. grat. l. 3. c. 8. veniall sin. And againe, That the Church of Rome is the holy mother Church: Therefore to whom should kinde offices rather be performed, then to the Church of Rome? And what office will she take more kindly, then the discrediting of those whom she accounteth Heretickes? therefore I doe not wonder that you put it in practise, I feare nothing, but that shortly it shall grow with you a point meritorious. Well, the Eccl [...]s. 28. 17 Stripe of the rodde maketh markes in the flesh, but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones: But let them re­member, That the Wisd. [...]. 11. tongue which lyeth, slayeth the soule; And that all Reuel. 21▪ 8. lyers shall haue their portion (except they repent) in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.

WHatsoeuer is to be thought of the place, yet I will proue by 5 the Lawes of England, That neither he, nor any of his as­sociats were lawfull Bishops.

By the lawes of England? how proue you that?

It was Ex Sandero de schism. l. 3. p. 297. Hier. Poll. l. 4. c. 6. p. 434. ordained by the Parliament in the daies of Henry the eight, that no man should be acknowledged a Bishop, vnlesse he were Consecrated by three Bi­shops with the consent of the Metropolitane; which law was reuiued by Queene Elisab. in in­tegrum restituit ac renouauit. Sand▪ ibid. Eli­zabeth, and in full strength at the time of the Consecration of Mathew Par­ker: but Mathew Parker was not so Consecrate, and therefore by the lawes of England he was not to bee acknowledged for a Bishop. For what Archbi­shop was either present at his Consecration, or consenting vnto it? Cardi­nall Poole then late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead, and Parker elected into his place. Nicholas Heath then last Archbishop of Yorke was deposed. In­deed there was a certaine Ibidem. Irish Archbishop, whō they had in bonds & prison at Lon­don, with whom they dealt very earnestly, promising him both liberty and rewards, if so be he would bee chiefe in the Consecration. But hee (good man) would by no meanes be brought to lay holy hands vpon heretikes, neither to be partaker of other mens sinnes. Wherefore hauing neither Archbishop of their owne religion, nor being a­ble to procure any other, the Consecration was performed without a Me­tropolitane, cleane contrary to the lawes of England.

What if both Sanders and you abuse the lawes of England in this point? as indeed you doe: For the words are these. An. 25. Henry 8. c. 20. And if the person bee elected to the office & dignity of an Archbishop, according to the tenour of this act, then after such election certifyed to the kings highnesse in forme aforesaid, hee shalbe repu­ted and taken Lord elect of the said office and dignity of Archbishop, whereunto hee shalbe so elected, and after he hath made such oth and fealty, onely to the kings Maiesty his heires and successours as shalbe limited for the same, the kings highnesse by his let­ters patents vnder the great seale, shall signifie the said election to one Archbishop, and two other Bishops, or else to foure Bishops within this Realme, or within any other the kings Dominions, to be assigned by the kings highnesse, his heires or successours, re­quiring and commaunding the said Archbishop and Bishops, with all speed and celerity [Page 125] to confirme the said election, and to inuest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected vnto, and to giue and vse to him such pall, be­nedictions, ceremonies and other things requisite for the same, without suing, procu­ring, or obtayning any Bulls, Briefes, or any other things at the See of Rome, or by autho­rity thereof in any behalfe. Where it is cleare that the King his heires and suc­cessours might by the statute send letters patents for Consecration of an Archbishop, either to an Archbishop and two Bishops, or else to foure Bi­shops, therefore it might be performed without an Archbishop, and yet not contrary to the lawes of England.

ADmit this were true, yet it auaileth you nothing; for Math. 5 Parker was Consecrated neither by Sand. de Sch. l. 3. p. 297. nec inter se, aut tres du [...]sue E­piscopos habe­rent. three, nor by two, much lesse by foure, though by your owne confession the law required foure.

How know you that? were you present at his Consecration? or did you learne it of any that were present?

I cannot say so, but it is very likely, because the Catholike Bishops being required to crowne Queene Elizabeth, refused, all except one.

That one was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill; but hee was none of the Consecrators of Archbishop Parker. For he continued in your Popish religion, refused the oth of the supremacy, & was therefore depriued.

That was the common case of them all but one; Hard. Con­sut. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2. For one alone I must confesse was made to breake vnity, of whom a right good and Catholike Bishop said to a Noble man, wee had but one foole amongst vs, and him you haue gotten vnto you, little worthy of the name of a Bishop and Lord, whose learning was small, and honour thereby much stained. And hee as it seemeth was the onely Bishop which you had; therefore Math. Parker could not be Consecrated by three.

Hee whom you meane was Anth. Who only remained in his See, and agreed to the religion. Witnesse the author of the life of the 70. Archbishop. Kitchin Bishop of Lan­daffe, who was in the commission, but was none of the Consecratours; there­fore you shoot at randome and misse the marke.

Whence then had you your Consecrators? Surely you did not goe Sand. quo supra. to the Churches of the Caluinistes, and Lutherans, if peraduenture they had any.

We did not.

Then you must bee glad to runne to your vsuall refuge, that you had one from Eudaemon Ioh. Cydoniu [...] parall. c. 5. accerser [...] vobis nescio cuius or­dinatorise Grae­cia auxilium soliti [...]itis. Greece. Alas my masters, you are narrowly driuen, when you are forced to flie to such miserable shifts.

This tale proceeded not from Eudaemon, but from Cacodaemon, the father of lies. No Sir, wee needed no Grecian, though it pleaseth you to play the Cretian.

If you had neither Bishops of your owne, nor procured any, either from the Catholike Church, or from the reformed Churches, or from the Greekish Church, then it is true which Doctor Reply to D. Sutl. f. 31. Kellison reporteth out of San­ders, That they made one another Bishops.

Though Sanders in that booke hath almost as many lies as lines, yet he hath not this loude lie; it is the inuention of Kellison himselfe, you pro­mise demonstratiue reasons, and when your argument comes to the is­sue, where all your strength should lie, you bring nothing but slender surmises, flying reportes, and detestable lies: Doe these goe at Rome for demonstrations? But I will answere you with euidence of truth which [Page 126] may be iustified by monuments of publike record.

QVeene Mary died in the yeere 1558 the 17. of Nouember: and the 6. selfe same day died Card nall Poole Archb. of Canterbury, & the very same day was Queene Elizabeth proclaimed. The 15. of Ianuary next fol­lowing was the day of Queene Elizabeths Coronation, when Doctor Ogle­thorp Bishop of Carlill was so happy as to set the Diadem of the kingdome vpon her royal head. Now the See of Canterbury continued voide till De­cember following, about which time the Deane and Chapter hauing recei­ued the congedelier, elected maister Doctour Parker for their Archbishop. Ex Regist. M. Parker. Iuxta morem antiquum & laudabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae praedictae ab antiquo vsitatam & inconcusse obseruatam; i. proceeding in this election according to the ancient manner▪ and the laudable custome of the foresaid Church, aunci­ently vsed, and inuiolably obserued. After which election orderly performed and signified according to the law, it pleased her highnesse to send her letters pattents of Commission for his confirmation and consecration to seuen Bi­shops, (six whereof were lately returned from exile;) whose names, with so much of the commission as concerneth this present purpose, I will here set downe for your better satisfaction.

Litter [...] pa­tent▪ regiae [...]x Regist. Park. fol. 3. b. And the same re­cord is to be found in the Chauncery. Elizabeth Dei gratia, &c. Reuerendis in Christo patribus.

• Anth. Landauensi.
• Will. Barlow quondam Bath. Episcopo nunc Cicestren­si electo.
• Ioh. Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Herefor­densi electo.
• Miloni Couerdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo.
• Ioh. Suffraganeo Bedford.
• Ioh. Suffraganeo The [...]ford.
• Ioh. Bale Ossorensi Episcopo.

— Quatenus vos aut ad minus 4. vestrum eundem Math. Parkerum in Archi­episcopum, & pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis & Metropoliticae Christi Cantuar: prae­dictae sicut praefertur, electum, electionem (que) praedictam confirmare & eundem Ma­gistrum Math. Parker in Arch: & Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare, caeteraque omnia & singula peragere, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt pastorali efficio, iux­ta formam statutorum in ca parte editorum & prouisorum velitis cum effectu, &c. Da [...]. 6 Decem. Anno 2. Elizab▪ that is: That you or at the least foure of you would effectually confirme the said Matth▪ Parker elected to bee Archbishop and Pastour of the Cathedrall and Metropoliticall Church of Christ at Canterbury aforesaid, as is before mentioned, and that you would effectually confirme the saide election, and con­secrate the saide Matthew Parker, Archbishop and Pastour of the said Church, and performe all and euery thing which belongs to your Pastorall office in this respect, ac­cording to the forme of the statutes set out and prouided in this behalfe. Behold how both the commission and statute concurre with the Canons.

BVt was the consecration accordingly performed? 7

You neede not doubt of it. For first, the Bishops to whom the letters patents were directed, had reason to set their handes cheerefully to so good a worke, so much tending to the aduancing of the true Religion which they all imbraced, and for which all of them except one, had [Page 127] beene in exile. Secondly, how durst they doe otherwise, seeing it was en­acted by a statute made in the 25. yeare of King Cap. 20. Henry 8. and still in force, that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the Kings dominions after any such election, nomination▪ or presentation signified vnto them by the Kings letters patents, should refuse and not confirme, inuest, and consecrate with all due circumstance within twen­tie dayes after that the Kings letters patents of such signification or presentation should come to their hands, then hee or they, so offending, should runne in the dangers; paines and penalties of the statute of prouision and premunire made in the twentie fiue yeare of the raigne of king Edward the third, and in the sixteenth of king Richard the second.

This is some probabilitie: but yet for all this, seeing maister D. Sanders saith, that you had neither three nor two Bishops, and maister D. Kellison saith you could finde none, I will not beleeue the contrary vnlesse you produce the consecration it selfe.

Then to take away all scruple, I will faithfully deliuer vnto you out of Authenticall records, both the day when he was consecrated, and the persons by whom.

Anno 1559. Ex Registro Matth. Park. [...]om. 1. f. 2. & 10. Matt. Park. Cant. Cons. 17. Decem. by

• William Barlow.
• Iohn Scorie.
• Miles Couerdale.
• Iohn Hodgeskins.

IF all this were granted, yet it were nothing vnlesse you could 8 iustifie the consecration of his consecratours, therefore you must tell me when they were made Bishops?

Two of them in the raigne of king Henry 8. and two in the dayes of king Edward the sixt. In the raigne of K. Henry, B. Barlow and the Suf­fragan of Bedford. Bishop Barlow was a man of singular note, who, (to vse the wordes of Descript [...]ri­bus Angl. Cent. 9. 41. Bale) ab erudito ingenio famam accepit: that is hee had great fame and renowne for a learned wit. In regard whereof he was aduanced to be Prior of Registrum Cranm. f. 181. b Bisham and from thence elected to the Bishoprick of Saint Ibid. f. 179. Asaph, which election was confirmed 23. Febr▪ 1535. and soone after it pleased the King to preferre him to the Bishopricke of Saint Ibid. f. 205. Dauids, where hee continued all the dayes of King Henry duely discharging all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, euen Episcopall consecration, as I haue Li [...] ▪ 2. c. 10. in the cōsecrati­on of Arthur Buckly. already declared out of au­thenticall records. He was also translated by King Edward to the Bishoprick of Bath and Wels, and by Queene Elizabeth promoted to Chichester. And as he was generally acknowledged and obeyed as a Bishop in his owne nati­on, so Bucanan relating how King Henry sent him Embassadour into Scot­land, doth giue him his iust Anglus misit in Scotiā San­ct [...] Dau [...]is siue Meneuensem Episcopum Episcopall title. Now you told vs Lib. 2. c. 10. before out of Sanders, that in King Henries time, none might bee acknowledged for a Bishop vn­lesse hee were consecrated by three, with the consent of the Metropolitane. Where­fore seeing Barlow was so famously and notoriously acknowledged not onely in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and King Edward, but also in the dayes of King Henry▪ it is a cleare case that hee was so consecrated. The same is to be said of the Suffragan of Bedford.

What tell you mee of Suffraganes? you know how Epist. 3. Bin. t. 1. pag. 502. Damasus speaketh against those titulary Bishops, called Chorepiscopi.

[Page 128]

There are two sorts of Chorepiscopi, the first had no Episco­pall Consecration, who are reproued and that iustly, for they were onely Priests, and not Bishops, and of these Damasus speaketh in the iudgement of De Cleric. c. 17. Bellarmine. The second had Episcopall Consecration, and these though they had no citie, nor diocesse of their owne, but onely some countrey towne for their See, yet in regard of their Consecration, they were true Bishops, as De s [...]cr [...]onf. l. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine confesseth: Respondeo, Suffraganeos esse veros Episcopos, quia & ordi­nationem habent, & Iurisdictionem, licet careant possessione propriae Ecclesia: that is, I answere that Suffraganes are true Bishops, because they haue both ordination and Iurisdiction, although they are not possessed of a Church of their owne. And of this latter sort are the Suffraganes of England, established by act of Parliament, in these wordes. Be it 26. H. 8. c. 14. therefore enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the townes of Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Douer, Gilsord, Southampton, Taun­ton, Shaftesbury, Molton, Marleborrow, Bedford, Leicester, Glocester, Shrewsbury, Bristow, Penreth, Bridgwater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hul, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and the townes of Pereth, and Barwicke, S. Germans in Cornewall, and the Ile of Wight, shall bee taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffraganes, to bee made in this Realme, and in Wales. And the Bishops of such Sees shall bee called Suffraganes of this Realme. And for their consecration, prouided alwayes that the Bishop that shall nominate the Suffragane to the kings highnesse, or the Suffragane himselfe, that shallbe nominated, shall prouide two B. or Suffrag. to Consecrate him with the Archbishop.

Was Iohn Hodgeskins accordingly Consecrated?

He was Consecrated by three as appeareth.

• Iohn
  Ex registro Cran. f. 204.
  Hodgskins Suffrag. Bedf. Cons. 9. Dec. 29. Hen. 8. by
  • Iohn Lond.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Rob. Asaph.

But the Statute produced requireth two Bishops, with an Arch­bishop▪ where is that Archbishop?

Your institutions of the Canon Law recognized at Rome by the Popes Mandat, may tell you, that an Archbishop may Lanc. inst. l. 1. de consec. alicui Coepiscopo­rum vices suas demandare, commit his roume to any other of his fellow Bishops. And this you must hold, for otherwise ye can no wayes defend the Consecrations of your chiefe Bishops, namely Bonner, Heath, & Thurlby, whom Archbishop Cranmer did not Consecrate in his owne person, but by Regist. Cran. f. 259. & 261. others, to whom hee gaue commission. To conclude this point, your principall Bishops in Queene Maries time descended from this same Ioh. Bedford. For Tho. Thurlby, who was one of the Consecrators of Cardinall Regist. Car. Pol [...] f. 3. a. Poole, was Consecrated by Ioh. Regist. Cran. f. 261. Bedf. The other two were Consecrated in King Edwards time, both in one day as hath beene Libr. 2. c. 11. before declared. And these also were very learned men; Co­uerdale helped Tindall, in the translation of the Bible: his fame and renowme caused the Act. ad Mon. where the co­py of the let­ters are to bee scene. King of Denmarke, to write earnestly vnto Queene Marie, that she would send him vnto him, which she did. And how learned a man, Bi­shop Scory was, may appeare by this, that when the disputation was appoin­ted with the Popish Bishops, he was the Acts and Mon. in fine. first and principall man named on the Protestants side, with whom the aduersaries durst not encounter. And thus much of their Consecrations.

[Page 129]

ADmit they were truly Consecrated, and were Bishops of their 10 seuerall Sees, yet they fled away and so dispossessed them­selues, and therefore could not Consecrate him by vertue of their former Episcopall titles.

By what power doth a Bishop Consecrate a Bishop?

By vertue of his Episcopall Bell. de [...]ap. & Cons l. 2. c. 12. Character.

But you told vs that the Character is indeleble: therefore they could not loose the power of Consecrating by loosing their Bishopriks. Againe if a Bishop flying in the time of persecution doth cease to be a Bishop and loose his title, then famous Athanasius did cease to bee a Bishop, and lost his title, for it is plaine that he fled from Alexandria. Athanas. in Epist. ad Orthodoxos. I did saith he withdraw my selfe by stealth, frrom the people beeing mindfull of the word of my Sauiour, Matth. 10. 23. if they persecute you in one City, flie into another. But Athanasius for all this did not cease to be Bishop of Alexandria. For although the Arrian faction preuayling▪ the Councell of Tyre Concilium vero Tyrium, eum indicta causa condem. nat, abdicat E­piscopatu. [...]oz. l. 2. c. 24. deposed him, yea and the Councel of Antioch, in the presence and with the consent of the Cogitur Con­cilium Antio­chiae presente imperatore Con­stantio. Socr. lib. 2. c. 5 [...] Emperour, did institute Decernunt vt Gregorius Ecclesiae Alex­andrinae anti­stes constituatur Soz. l. 3. c. 5. vid. Bar Anno 341 num. 1. Gregory in his place, yet the councel of Epist. Sardic. Concilij ad Episc. Africa­nos Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 207. Paris. 1608 Sardica pronounced Athanasius (as also Mar­cellus Asclepas and other Catholike exiled Bishops) to be pure and innocent: and deny that Gregory the Vsurper, of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza, (which had entered like Qui in eo­rum Ecclesias [...]uporum instar ingressi sunt. ibidem. Binius [...]om. 1. p. 446. Woolues vpon the Churches of these men) should be cal­led Bishops. So the Councel iudged the Churches to belong to the Catholicke Bishops, euen at such time as they were exiled, and the Arrians in possession: and accordingly they See Baron▪ Anno. 347. deposed Gregory with such like, & restored Athanasius, and the rest with honour. Which act they signified in a Synodall Epistle, to the Church of Alexandria, in this manner. Athanas. Apol. 2. Bin. t. 1. p. 444. We would haue you to know that Gregory, being made Bishop vnlawfully, by heretickes, and brought by them into your citie is deposed from his Bishopricke by the whole Synode, although in very deed hee was neuer Bishop, therfore farewell, and receiue your Bishop Athanasius. Thus you see that though Athanasius fled away in time of persecution, though he were deposed by a Councel, and another chosen in his place, by another Councell, with the consent of the Emperour; yet for all this▪ he is iudged to be the true Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory neuer to haue beene the Bishop thereof. The like is to be said of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and others, who were persecuted for the Catho­licke Faith, as well as Athanasius. Wherefore if you wil conforme your iudge­ment to the Councell of Sardica, you must confesse that such as in King Ed­wards time were lawfully possessed of Bishoprickes (though in Queene Ma­ries time being persecuted in one citie, they fled into another) did still retaine the titles of true Bishops, and that those which inuaded their Churches, were intruders and vsurpers. Thus it appeareth, that as Athanasius, and the rest returning from exile, might ordaine and doe, all such things as belonged to their Episcopall Office, euen so Bishop Barlow, Bishop Couerdale, and the rest returning from exile, might likewise ordaine, and iustifie their proceedings in their Episcopall function.

There is not the same reason: for Athanasius and the rest were restored by a Councell, yours were not, but onely by the Prince.

Athanasius was restored sundry times, sometimes with a [Page 130] Councell, sometimes without. When the Councell of Tyre deposed him, the Emperour Constantine the Great called them to Euseb. de vi­tae Constant. lib. 4. cap. 42. Socr. l. 1. c. 22. account for their iudge­ment: But when hee heard him accused by Catholicke Bishops, which for­merly had bene his owne friends, (whom the Arrians had now suborned a­gainst him) for threatning to hinder the carriage of corne from Alexandria to Constantinople, hee Socr. lib. 1. cap. 23. exiled him into France; From whence after the death of Constantine the father, he was restored to Alexandria by the Letters of Constantine the sonne, with the Licet inuito animo ferret, [...]ulit tamen. Baron. anno 338. n. 3. permission of his brother Constantius, and that according to the prescript of their father, as appeareth by these wordes of Athanasius: Athanasius apol. 2. Blessed Constantine the yonger, being mindfull of the prescripts of his father, while hee restored mee to my Countrey, wrote an Epistle in these wordes. And so he setteth downe Constantines Epistle to the Church of Alexandria. Concerning which you shall heare your owne An [...] 338. [...]. 1. Baronius, Constantinus Au­gustus Athanasium quem viuente patre exceperat Treueris, regio diplomate, datis ad Alexandrinos litteris, in suam Ecclesiam summo cum honore restituit, i. Constantine the Emperour restored Athanasius (whom he had intertained at Treuers while his fa­ther was aliue) by his Letters Patents to the people of Alexandria, with very great honour. Thus you see that though hee was deposed by a Councell, and ex­iled by a Prince, yet hee was restored onely by the Princes Letters without a Counsell.

The Councell of Antioch Soz. l. 3. c. 5. obiected a Conc. An­tioch. 1. Can. 12. Bin. tom. 1. p. 423. Canon against him▪ to wit, That he which is deposed by a Councell, cannot be restored but by a Councell of a greater number: And therefore seeing hee was deposed by the Councell of Tyre, and restored, neither by a Councell of a greater number, nor by any Councell at all, but onely by the letters of the Emperour, they deposed him, and put another in his place.

First, it is Vide Bin. in notis in Conc. Antioch. confessed, that this Councell of Antioch, was a wicked Arrian Councell: Secondly, Lib. 6. c. 16. Socrates declareth, that this very Ca­non was vrged against S. Chrysostome, who reiected it as being made by the Ar­rians, of set purpose against Athanasius: Thirdly, if wee should admit this Ca­non, yet it maketh nothing against the Consecratours of Archbishop Parker: for they were not deposed by any Councell, and therefore needed no Coun­cell to restore them; but as Athanasius and other Bishops being forced to flee in the time of Sozom. l. 5. cap. 14. Iulian, returned againe in the dayes of Iouian, Greg. Naz. orat. de laud. Athan. Qui cum omnes alios Episcopos, tum eum (nempe Athanasium) ante omnes, qui omnibus virtute ante­cellebat, & citra dubitationem vllam pietatis causa bello vexatus fuerat, ab exilio re­uocat, i. Who recalled from exile, as all other Bishops, so especially Athanasius, who in vertue excelled all men, and without doubt was vexed and troubled (onely) for his pietie and Religion: So these reuerend Bishops being forced to flee in the time of Q. Mary, onely for their pietie and Religion, returned againe in the dayes of Q. Elizabeth, who as she recalled all godly Christians and Preachers from exile, so especially those that excelled in learning and vertue. Hitherto of the Consecratours.

NOw for the Consecrated, he was a man against whom you can take no 11. exception: for you must needs acknowledge that he was capable of the Episcopall Office, because Antih [...]ret. motiu. p. 266. Bristow confesseth, that he was a Priest secun­dum Catholicum ritum, i. according to the Catholick rite, Which is most true; [Page 131] He was Chaplaine to the Lady Anne Bullein, and afterward to K. Henry the 8. who greatly preferred him, and he was thought by Q. Elizabeth the fittest man to be aduanced to the See of Canterburie. He was very learned (as may ap­peare by his writings famously knowen to the world,) and a great louer of learning, and Religion: For he founded a See B. Good­win. in catalogo. Grammer Schoole at Rochdale in Lancashire; Vnto Corpus Christi Colledge in Cambridge (where hee was brought vp) he procured 13. Schollerships, built the inward Library, and two faire chambers in the same. He gaue to the Library of that Colledge a great number of Bookes, some printed, other written, very rare, and much to be esteemed for their value and Antiquitie. He gaue also to the Vniuersitie 50▪ written books of great value, and 50 printed. He gaue to the same Colledge, land for the maintenance of two Fellowes, aboue the ordinary number. He tooke order for the preaching of 6. Sermons yerely, in 5. seuerall Churches in Norfolke. To Trinitie Hall he gaue a Schollers place, and bookes likewise. And otherwise bestowed much money vnto charitable vses Lastly, hee is commended by a great Camd. in Brit. Antiquary, for being singularly studious of Antiqui­ties; by whose care and industrie, many excellent Monuments both in the Latin and Saxon tongue were preserued, which otherwise had perished in the darknesse of Obliuion. But from the persons we will proceed to the mat­ter and forme of the Consecration.

I Kel reply to D. Sutl. p. 31. Haue heard credibly reported, That your new Superintendents, were 12. made Bishops with no other ceremony, then with the laying of the English Bible vpon their heads.

Yes, they were all made with imposition of hands, which is the only ceremony of Ordination which the Scripture mentioneth; And De Sacram. Ordinis. c. 9. Bel­larmine thinketh it to be the matter essentiall. And for the other Ceremonies which are but the inuention of man, you cannot inforce them vpon vs, fur­ther then the wisdome of our Church doeth hold it conuenient. But con­cerning Archb. Parker, Ex vita Matthei Par­ker. this was his singular felicitie, That being the 70. Archbishop after Austin, yet of all that number he was the onely man, and the first of all which re­ceiued Consecration without the Popes Bulls, and superfluous Aaronicall Ornaments, as gloues, rings, Sandals, slippers, Miter, Pall, and such like trifles: making a happy be­ginning (more rightly, and more agreeable to the simplicitie and puritie of the Gospel) with Prayer, inuocation of the holy Ghost, imposition of hands, and Religious promises, in Attire correspondent to the grauitie and authoritie of an Archbishop, with a Sermon made by a learned and godly Diuine, concerning the Office, charge and faithfulnesse, of a Pastour to his flocke, and the loue, obedience, and reuerence of the flocke to the Pa­stour; And after Sermon, with receiuing the holy Communion in a great assembly of most graue men. And last of all, with the common and feruent prayers of them all, that the Office imposed vpon him, might redound to the glory of God, the saluation of his flocke, and the ioyfull testimonie of his owne conscience.

WHat forme of wordes did they vse, to giue the Episcopall 13. power, with the imposition of hands?

The very same which was vsed in King Edwards daies, and is vsed still in the Church of England▪ yea the very same words, which by the great prouidence of God are still retained in your owne Church. And this may appeare by the act of his Consecration, remayning in record.

[Page 132] Ex regist. Mat. Park. fol. 10. Cicestrensis, Heref: Suffraganeus Bedford & Milo Couerdale manibus Archiepiscopo imposit is dixerunt anglice. viz. Take the holie Ghost &c.

Thus haue wee examined the place, the persons, the matter, the forme of his Consecration, and finde nothing but agreeable to the lawes of the Land, the Canons of the Church, and the practise of reuerend antiquitie: wherein how circumspectly the Queene proceeded, may further appeare by this that her letters patents were sent to diuerse learned professours of the law, that they might freelie giue their iudgment, and all of them ioynthe confessed, that both the Queenes Maiesty might lawfully authorize the persons to the effect specified, and the said persons also might lawfully exercise the act of confirming and Consecrating in the same to them committed: whose names subscribed with their owne hands remaine in Ex reg. Mat. Park. record as followeth.

• William May.
• Robert Weston.
• Edward Leedes.
• Henry Haruie.
• Thomas Yale.
• Nicolas Bullingham.

Hitherto of Archbishop Parker, now let vs heare your exceptions against the rest.

CHAP. V.

IF his or their Consecrations were sound, why did the Queene in her letters patents directed for the con­secrating of them, vse diuerse generall words and senten­ces, whereby she dispensed with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection or disability that could or might bee obiected in any wise against the same, as may appeare by an act 8. Eliz. c. 1. of Parliament, referring vs to the said letters patents, remayning of record?

She might entertaine some reason in her royall brest, which you and I, and such shallow heads are not able to conceiue: But if I might pre­sume to giue my coniecture, I suppose shee did it, ad maiorem cautelam. For there wanted not malicious Papists, which would prie into the state of the Clergy, and obserue the least imperfection that could be: Whereupon to preuent their slanders and to stoppe the mouthes of malice, that gracious Queene was not onely carefull that Euery thing requisite and materiall should be made and done as precisely as euer before, but also to the end that all men might be satisfied, that all doubt, scruple, and ambiguitie might be taken away, and that there should not the least spot of suspition cleaue vnto her Clergie, it pleased her Maiestie if peraduenture quicke sighted malice could finde any quirk or quiditie against them by colour of any Canon or Statute, graciously to dispense with it; Which doth not argue any vnsoundnesse in their con­secrations, but the godlie care and prouidence of a religious Prince.

[Page 133]

You vse to finde fault with the Popes dispensations, and will you your selues in an act of Parliament affirme that the Queene dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfection, or dissabilitie, and that in a matter of ho­lie Orders?

The Pope taketh vpon him to dispense against the law of God, (as for example, That a brother may marrie his brothers wife;) So did not Queene Elizabeth, but onelie with trespasses against her owne lawes, not in essentiall points of ordination, but onelie in accidentall; not in sub­stance but in circumstance. Neither did she giue them leaue to make any vo­luntarie violatiō of the law, but only dispensed with such omission as Temporis ra­tione & rerum necessitate id postulante. necessity it selfe should require, as may appeare by the said letters patents. And it pleased the Almighty so to dispose that al things were performed in most exquisite man­ner; yet the Papists, (such was their hatred against the Clergie) did blaze abroad the contrarie: Whereupon the high Court of Parliament assem­bled in the eight yeere of that famous Queene, hauing deepelie considered and pondered all things, pronounced, that their speeches were Slanderous not grounded vpon any iust matter, or cause. For Gods name bee blessed, all things were done honestlie, and in order, euen from her first comming to the crowne.

ANd verily as Iosua Ios. 24. 10. protested, I & my house wil serue the Lord: so Queen 2 Elizabeth resolued with her owne heart, I and my kingdomes will serue the Lord. Therefore as 2. King. 23. 3. Iosias assembled the ancients of Iuda and Ie­rusalem to make a Couenant with their God: so Queene Elizabeth assembled her high Court of Parliament for the same purpose. But as when Nehemias went about reformation, the Neh. 13. 28 Priests and Neh. 6. 12 Prophets which should haue bin the principall helpers, were principal hinderers; so it came to passe in that Parliament, that whereas the Prince, and Barons, and the Commons were great instruments of Gods glorie; the Popish Bishops sought by all meanes the glory of their holie father the Pope. Notwithstanding God in his mercy gaue a blessing, so that the truth preuailed. And as 2. Kin. 11. 4. Iehoiada required an oth in behalfe of King Ioas; so the Parliament did in behalfe of Queene Eliza­beth. And as 2. Kin. 2. 35 Abiathar was iustlie depriued for refusing Salomon and ioy­ning with Adonia: euen so were the Popish Bishops for refusing the oth of the Queenes supremacie, which contained nothing else, but the Princes lawfull title. And as Abiathar beeing displaced, Sadok was aduanced: so those vndutifull Bishoppes, beeing remooued, godlie Pastours were pre­ferred.

THe Bishops depriued, were in number fourteene, in whose Sees, 3 who succeeded may appeare by this table, wherein is set downe first, the Prouince of Canterbury, and then of Yorke.

[Page 134]

• Anno 1559. Edm.
  Regist. Park. r. 1. fol. 18.
  Grindall Cons. 21. Dec. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1560. Robert
  Ibid. fol. 88.
  Horne cons. 16. Feb. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Tho. Meneu.
  • Edm. London.
  • Tho. Cou. & Lich.
• Anno 1559. Rich.
  Ibid. fol. 22.
  Coxe cons. 21. Decem. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1559. Nich.
  Ibid. fol. 54.
  Bullinghā cons. 21. Ian. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Rich. Eliens.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1559. Tho.
  Ibid. fol. 69.
  Bentham cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Nich. Lincoln.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• Anno 1559. Gilb.
  Ibid. fol▪ 74.
  Barckly cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Nich. Lincoln.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• Anno 1560. Will.
  Ibid. fol▪ 80.
  Ally cons. 14. Iuly. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Gilbard Bath
  • and Wells.
• [Page 135] Anno 1559. Edwin
  Ibid. fol. 39.
  Sandes cons. 21. Decem. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1560. Edm.
  Ibid. fol. 92.
  Scambler cons. 16. Febru. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Tho. Meneuens.
  • Edm. London.
  • Tho. Cou. & Lichfield.
• Anno 1559. Rich.
  Ibid. fol. 5 [...].
  Dauis cons. 21. Ianu. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Rich. Eliens.
  • Ioh. Bedford.

Of the Cons. of the Bishops of the Prouince of Yorke.

Thomas Young was translated to Yorke from Saint Dauids, whose Conse­cration was as followeth.

Anno 1559. Thomas Young cons. 21. Ianuary by

• Math. Archb. Cant.
• Edm. London.
• Rich. Eliens.
• Ioh. Bedford.

The like is to be iudged of the rest which I haue not set downe, because as yet I haue not seene the records of Yorke.

CHAP. VI.

TO the intent that all men may knowe the godly 1 care of the Church of England in obseruing the ancient Canons, I will set downe all the Bishops of some of the principall Sees which were conse­crated from the first enterance of Queene Eliza­beth, till the ende of her Raigne.

Canterbury.

THe Archbishops of Canterbury in the Queenes time were Math. Par­ker, 2 Edmund Grindal, and Iohn Whitgift, the consecration of the two for­mer you haue heard already, the third remaineth to be declared.

Anno 1 [...]77. Ioh. Regist. Grin­dal. Whitgift cons. 21. April. by

• Edm. Archb. Cant.
• Ioh. London.
• Rob. Winton.
• Rich. Cicester.

London.

THe Bishops of London in the Queenes time, were Edmund Grindall, 3 Edwin Sandes, Iohn Elmer, Richard Fletcher, and Richard Bancroft. The Consecration of the two first were before expressed, the rest as followeth.

• [Page 136]Anno 1576. Ioh.
  Ibidem.
  Elmer Cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Edw. Archb. Ebor.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1589. Rich.
  Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
  Fletcher Cons. 14. Dec. by
  • Ioh. Archb Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Ioh. Roff.
  • Ioh. Glou.
• Anno 1597. Rich.
  Ibidem.
  Bancroft Cons. 8. May by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh Roff.
  • Anton Meneu.
  • Rich Bangor.
  • Anton. Cicest.

¶ Winchester.

THe Bishops of Winchester, in the Queenes time, were Robert Horne, 4. Iohn Watson, Thomas Cooper, William Wickham, William Day, and Thomas Bilson; the Consecration of Bishop Horne was before handled, the rest were as followeth.

• Anno 1580. Ioh.
  Regist. Grin­dal.
  Watson Cons. 18. Septem. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1570. Thomas
  Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.
  Cooper Cons. 24. Febr. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Robert Wint.
  • Nich. Wigorn.
• Anno 1584. Will.
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
  Wickham Cons. 6. Decem. by
  • Iohn Archb: Cant.
  • Edm. Wigorn.
  • Ioh. Exon.
  • Mauricius Meneu.
• Anno 1595. William
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.
  Day Cons. 25. Ianu. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1596. Thomas
  Ibidem.
  Bilson Cons. 13. Ianu. by
  • Ioh. Archb Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Will. Wint.
  • Rich. Bangor.

¶ Ely.

THe Bishops of Ely in the Queenes time, Richard Coxe, and Martine 5. Heaton, the Consecration of Bishop Coxe was handled before, the o­ther followeth.

Anno 1599. Martin Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3. Heaton Cons. 3. Febr. by

• Ioh. Archb. Cant.
• Rich Lond.
• Will. Cou. and Lichf.
• Anton. Cicest.

[Page 137]

¶ Salisbury.

THe Bishops of Salisbury, were Iohn Iewel, Edmund Gueast, Iohn Peirs, 6 Iohn Goldwell, and Henry Cotton.

• Anno 1559. Iohn
  Ex Regist. Park. fol. 46.
  Iewel Cons. 21. Ianu. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Edmund London.
  • Rich. Ely.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1559. Edmund
  Ibid. fol. 64.
  Gueast Cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Nich. Lincolne.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• Anno 1576. Iohn
  Ex Reg. Grindall.
  Peirs Cons. 15. April. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Edw. London.
  • Rob. Winton.
• Anno 1591. Iohn
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
  Coldwell Cons. 26. Decem. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Tho. Wint.
  • Rich. Bristoll.
  • Ioh. Oxon.
• Anno 1598. Henry
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.
  Cotton. Cons. 12. Nouem. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • William Couent.
  • Ant. Cicest.

¶ Norwich.

THe Bishops of Norwich, were Thomas Parkhurst, Edmund Freake, Ed­mund 7 Scambler, William Redman, and Iohn Iegon: Of these, Edmund Scam­blers Consecration hath already beene declared; the rest follow.

• Anno 1560. Thomas
  Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.
  Parkhurst Cons. 1. Sep. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Gilbert Bath and Wells.
  • William Exon.
• Anno 1571. Edmund
  Ibid.
  Freake Cons. 9. Mart. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Robert Wint.
  • Edm. Sarum.
• Anno 1594. William
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.
  Redman Cons. 12. Ianu. by
  • Iohn Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • William Lincoln.
• Anno 1602. Iohn
  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.
  Iegon Cons. 20. Febru. by
  • Iohn Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Ant. Cicest.

[Page 138]

¶ Rochester.

THe Bishops of Rochester were Edmund Gueast, Edm. Freake, Iohn Pierce, and Iohn Yong, whereof the three first haue bene already handled, the fourth followeth.

Anno 1577. Ex reg. Grindall. Iohn Yong Cons. 16. Mart. by

• Edm. Archb. Cant.
• Iohn Lond.
• Ioh. Sarum.

CHAP. VII.

ANd that you may know that the same order in Consecration of Bishops is still retained vnder the raigne of our gracious Soue­raigne King Iames, behold these that follow.

• Anno 1603.
  These Re­corde follow­ing were ta­ken out of the originall in­struments.
  Ioh. Bridges Cons. B. of Oxon. 12. Febr. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Ioh. Roff.
  • Anthon. Cicest.
• Anno 1604. Rich. Parry Cons. B. of Asaph. 30. Dec. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Mart. Eltens.
• Anno 1604. Tho. Rauis Cons. B. of Glouc. 17. Mart. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Anth. Cicest.
• Anno 1605. Will. Barlow Cons. B. of Roch. 30. Iun. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Anth. Cicest.
  • Thom. Glouc.
• Anno 1605. Lanc. Andrewes Cons. B. of Cic. 3. Nou. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Ioh. Norwich.
  • Thom. Glouc.
  • Will. Roff.
• Anno 1607. Henr. Parry Cons. B. of Glouc. 12. Iul. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Will. Roff.
  • Lancel. Cicest.
• An. 1608. Ia. Mountagu. cōs. B. of Ba. & Wels. 17. Ap. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Henr. Sarum.
  • Will. Roff.
  • Lanc. Cicest.
  • Henr. Glouc.
• [Page 139]Anno 1608. Rich. Neile Cons. B. of Roch. 9. Octob. by
  • Rich. Arch. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Lanc. Cicest.
  • Ia. Bath & Wells.
• An. 1609. Geor. Abbot. Con. B. of Cou. & Lich. 3. Dec. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Lanc. Ely.
  • Rich. Roff.
• Samuel Harsnet Cons. B. of Cicest. the same day, by the same persons.
• Anno 1611. Giles Thomson Cons. B. of Glou. 9. Iul. by
  • Georg. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. Oxon.
  • Lanc. Eli.
  • Ia. Bath. & Wells.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lichf.
• Iohn Buckridge Cons. B. of Roch. the same day, by the same persons.
• Anno 1611. Ioh. King. Cons. B. of Lond. 8. Septemb. by
  • Georg. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lichf.
  • Giles Glouc.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1612. Miles Smith Cons. B. of Glou. 20. Sept. by
  • Georg. Cant.
  • Ioh. Lond.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lich.
  • Ioh. Roff.

The like hath bene continually obserued in the Prouince of Yorke; for a taste whereof, I will giue you two examples: The former in the Queenes time, the later in the raigne of our gracious Soueraigne.

• Anno 1598. [ Hen. Robinson. Cons. B. of Carl. 23. Iul.] by
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Ioh. Roff.
  • Anth. Cic.
• Anno 1606. [ Will. Iames Cons. B. of Durham. 6. Sept.] by
  • Tob. Ebor.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Will. Roff.
  • Lanc. Cic.

THis which you haue seene may seeme sufficient; Yet because I desire to giue ample contentment▪ I ha [...] [...]et down [...] the successiue Ordination, and Golden chaine of the most reuerend Father George, now L. Archbishop of Canterbury, (the ioy of the Clergie, and Gods great blessing vpō this Church) ascending lincke by lincke vnto the Bishops in the time of King Henry the 8. which our aduersaries acknowledge to be Canonicall. Whereunto, (that all the Clergie of England may know in particular, how to proue their succes­sion,) I intend, when God shall grant me opportunitie to view the Records of the other Prouince, to annex the like Episcopal line of the other most reue­rend Metropolitane, Tobie, L. Archbishop of Yorke.

CHAP. VIII.

He was Consecrated 3. December. 1609. By

• 1. R. Bancroft Cons. 8. May 1597 by
• Lancel. Eli. Whose Consecrations were before described, and may bee deduced in the like manner.
• Richard Rosf. Whose Consecrations were before described, and may bee deduced in the like manner.
  • 2. Ioh. Whitg. Cons. 21. Apr. 1577. by
    • Iohn Young. See the next page.
    • Anthony Rud. See the next page.
    • Richard Vaughan. See the next page.
    • Anthony Watson. See the next page.
    • 3. Ed. Grindal Cons. 21. Dec. 1559. by
      • 4 Mat. Parker Cons. 17. Dec. 1559 by
        • Wil. Barlow. in the time of Henry 8.
        • Ioh. Hodgskins. in the time of Henry 8.
        • 5 Miles Couerdale Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by
          • Thomas Cranmer. in the time of Henry 8.
          • Iohn Hodg [...]kins. in the time of Henry 8.
          • 7 Nicholas Ridley, Cons. 5. Sep. 1547. by
            • Henry Lincolne. in the time of Hen. 8.
            • Iohn Bedford. in the time of Hen. 8.
            • Thomas Sidon. in the time of Hen. 8.
        • 6 Ioh▪ Scory, Cons. with Miles Couerdale vide 5.
      • 8 Ioh. Hurly Cons. 26. May 1553. by
        • Thomas Cranmer.
        • Christ. Sidon.
        • 9 Iohn Taylour Cons. 26. Iuly 1552. by
          • Thomas Cranmer.
          • Iohn Scory▪ vide 6.
          • Nich. Ridley, vide 7.
      • William Barlow. in the time of Henry the 8.
      • Iohn Bedford. in the time of Henry the 8.
    • 10. Ioh. Elmer Cons. 24. Mar. 1577 by
      • Edmund Grindall, [...]ide 3.
      • 11 Edw. Sands, Consecrated with Edmund Grindall. vide 3.
      • 12 Iohn Piers Cons. 15. Apr. 1576. by
      • Robert Horne vide 13.
      • 19 Ri. C [...]r [...]else cons. 21. May 1570. by
        • Mathew Parker vide 4.
        • Robert Horne. vide 13
        • 20 Edm. Guest cons. 24. Mar. 1559 by
          • Mathew Parker vide 4
          • Nicholas Bullinghā vid. 17
          • Iohn Iewell vide 18
      • Edmund Grindall. vide 3.
      • Edwin Sands. vide 11.
      • 13 Rob. Horne cons. 16. Feb. 1560. by
        • Mathew Parker. vide 4.
        • Edmund Grindall. v. 3.
        • 14 Tho. Young Cons. 21. Ian. 1559. by
          • Math. Parker vide 4.
          • Edmund Grindall. v. 3.
          • Ioh. Hodgskins, in the time of H. 8.
          • 15 Rich. Cox, with Edm. Grindall. v. 3.
        • 16 [...] [...] cons. 24. Mar. 1559. by
          • Mathew Parker vide 4
          • 17 N. Bullinghā cons. 21 Ian. 1559 by
            • Mathew Parker v. 4
            • Edm. Grindall v. 3
            • Richard Cox vide 15
            • Iohn Hodgskins.
          • 18 Ioh. Iewell cons. 21 Ian. 1559 by
            • Mat. Parker v. 4
            • Edm. Grindal v. 3
            • Richard Cox v. 15
            • Io. Hodgskins.
  • [Page 141]21 Iohn Young Consecrated 16. Mar. 1577. by
    • Edmund Grindall vide 3
    • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
    • Iohn Iewell. vide 18
  • 22 Ant: Rud, Consecrated 9. Iun. 1594. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Iohn Young. vide 21
    • 23 Richard Fletcher Cons: 14. Dec: 1589. by
      • Iohn VVhitgift. vide 2
      • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
      • Iohn Young. vide 21
      • 24 Iohn Bullingham. Cons: 5. Sep: 1581. by
        • Edmund Grindall. vide 3
        • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
        • Iohn Young. vide 21
  • 25 Richard Vaughan, Cons: 25. Ianuary 1595. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Richard Fletcher. vide 23
    • Iohn Young. vide 21
  • 26 Anthony Watson, Cons: 15. August 1596. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Iohn▪ Young. vide 21.
    • Richard Vaughan. vide 25
    • 27 Thomas Bilson, conse: 13. Iune 1596. by
      • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
      • Richard Fletcher. vide 3
      • 28 William Day, consecrated 25. Ia­nuary 1595. by
        • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
        • Richard Fletcher. vide 23
        • Iohn Young. vide 21

These are domesticall testimonies of your owne; neither doe I know whether they be true.

The records alleadged, are of such high credit and reputation, that they cannot possibly be infringed. As for the maine point whereupon all the rest dependeth, that is, the Consecration of Archbishop Parker, as it was solemnly performed in a great assembly, so it was published in print in his owne time, when all things were in fresh memorie. And though some of his spitefull and bitter enemies did then scornefully coment vpon his life, yet the trueth of this fact they neuer called in question.

Surely ( Orthodox) I cannot but maruell▪ if your extracts be true, how the contrary opinion was so commonly receiued in the English Col­ledges at Rome and Rhemes.

[Page 142]

Truely ( Philodox) that which a man wisheth, hee is willing to beleeue, & the mind sophisticate with malice is ready vpon euery light occa­sion to imagine the worst, yea and somtimes to blaze that for certaine which hath neither shew nor shadow of truth. Yet these vaine surmises you receiue for oracles, and deliuer one to another by the holy hand of tradition, wherein you glory as in an vnanswerable argument. So did your fellowes at Fram­lingham: so did Hart in the conference with Doctour Rainolds: but when hee had heard his answere, iustifying our Bishops by authentical records, Doct. Rei­nolds in his letter to M. Thomas Barker of Monck So­ham in Suf­folke, the ori­ginall wherof is in my hāds, and the same Doctour of godly memo­ry did some­times relate the same vn­to myselfe. he would needes haue that whole point left out of the conference, saying he would not presse him with it, and confessed, hee thought that no such thing could haue beene shewed, and that himselfe had beene borne in hand otherwise. Now ( Philodox) as he was delu­ded, so are you: but as he receiued satisfaction, so I hope will you.