yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe coÌ„monly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were sâ—aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth
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 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 froÌ„ the Church of Rome yet with a double difference For first Crâ—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 â—in did â—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 PHIL. These points shal be further skanned I warrant you In the meane time As Tigellius in 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 Dâ—ctors some times they creepe vpon the ground by and by they catch at the clouds and starres Now they refuse all miracles and â—nock at such at require them on a suddaine they challenge to themselues all the miracles since the beginning of the world ORTHOD. 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 matter vpon vs neither is it necessarie because both our calling and doctrine are Ordinary PHIL. I will proue that you haue no lawfull ordinarie calling in the 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 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 layeth his hands vpon the head of the person to be ordained then he inuesteth him in a sacred stoale so fitted and fashioned that it maketh a Crosse vpon his brest after this he anointeth his hands with holy oile and lastly he deliuereth him the Chalice with wine and the Paten with the hoast saying Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo Missasque 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 interpres mediator dei hominum That is an Interpreter and mediator of God and man Yea 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 imposeth hands saying Accipe spirituâ—â— 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 LAst of all your Deacons are no Deacons not onely because your Bishops haue no authoritie to ordaine but also because they are defectiue in the maine point of their function for though the Bishops say Take thou authoritie to execute the office of a Deacon yet he meaneth nothing lesse for the chiefe office of a Deacon is to 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 scholasticall combat either priuately or rather publickly in the face of an Vniuersitie or rather solemnly in Court in the Princes presence This is the thing that we desire ORTHOD. 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 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 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 Deaccâ—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 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 PHIL. I will begin and proue that your Bishops are no Bishops CHAP. III. Wherein they descend to the first branch concerning Episcopall consecration wherevpon arise two questions the former whether three Bishops hee required of absolute necessity to the consecration of a new Bishop the state whereof is explaned out of Popish writers ORTHODOX 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 Chalcedon But whether you haue offended in this or no witnesse your owne famous 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 mad man which when any 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 Olaus Magnus and blind Robert Archbishops in conceite the one stiled Vpsalensis the other Armachanus both sent to the Councell of Trent to fill vp the number So 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 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 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 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 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 they are found in the Church of Rome and not in the Church of England PHIL. YOur Bishops are no Bishops because they are not ordained according to the Canons ORT. 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 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 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 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 No man seeketh a dispensation but hee obtaineth it Yea at Rome there are which giue attendance to see if any bee willing to craue dispensation of all things established by law all that craue it haue it If you Philodox would see the particulars reade but 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 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 Councell of Sardica that none should bee made Bishop vnlesse hee had passed the inferiour orders and staied a long time in them Notwithstanding 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 Councell held at Constantinople Likewise Saint Ambrose Tarasius Nicephorus Eusebius of Caesarea Thalasius yea and some Popes also as for 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 PHIL. I meane that Canon which requireth that a Bishop should bee consecrated by three Bishops which Canon the Councel of Trent calleth an Apostolicke tradition ORTHO HEre arise two questions the former whether three Bishops 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 Nicephorus delude vs with fables PHIL. It seemeth to bee no fable but a true Story For Amphilochius was allowed for a lawfull Bishop but this was done as Cardinall Bellarmine saith by diuine dispensation extraordinary ORTH. 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 PHIL. Cardinall Turrecremata teacheth that Chirst himselfe made Peter a Bishoppe immediatelie and Peter ordained the rest first Iohn next Iames then others And Cardinall 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 ORTHOD. These conceites and fancies when they shal be weighed in the ballance wil be found too light In the meane time what say you to the consecration of Iohn and Iames were they sound and Canonical PHIL. 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 Anacletus declareth that a Bishop should by no meanes bee consecrated by fewer then by three all the rest giuing their consent ORTHO 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 PHIL. Wee may learne that partly of the Councell of Sardica which permitteth a supply from the next prouince partly of Pope Gregory the seuenth who when the Churches of Africke were brought to so lowe an ebbe that they had
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 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 PHIL. Edmond Bonner and the rest of our Bishops and Priests were Reuerend and Canonicall whatsoeuer you esteeme of them ORTH. Can there be a Bishop without effectuall Consecration PHIL. It is impossible ORTHO And other Consecration they had none but that which wee haue mentioned for I hope they were not reordained in Queene Maries time PHIL. Reordained I doe not thinke so for as rebaptizations so reordinations were forbidden in the Councell of Capua And 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 ORTHOD. 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 blasphemer baptize a childe I demaund whether the baptisme bee good or no PHIL. 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 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 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 ORTHO Very true for that which S. Paul saith of preaching may bee extended to other Ministeriall duties If 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 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 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 PHIL. Though he be yet if hee baptize according to the institution of Christ the baptisme is effectuall and neuer to be repeated ORTHOD. 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 he that baptiseth and neither is he that planteth any thing nor hee that watereth bâ—â— God which giueth the increase To which purpose it is excellently said of Ausâ—â—n 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 Pauliâ—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 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 Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage defended rebaptization and he was the first of all mortall men which defended it wherein he was followed by Saint 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 Austin saith some report that Cyprian recalled this errour S. 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 vpoÌ„ them to rebaptize such as were baptised in the Catholicke Church which was a diabolicall presumption For which causes Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Of one and the same opinion wee iudge which may seeme strange the authors
a taste beginning from Cranmer Anno 1533. Thom. Cran. Cons. Arch. of Cant. 30. Mart. by Iohn Lincoln Iohn Exon. Henry Assaph Anno 1534. Rowland Lee Cons. B. of Lichfield 19. April by Thom Cant. Iohn Lincolne Christ. Sidon Anno 1535. George Browne Cons. Arch. Dublin 19. Mart. by Thom. Cant. Iohn Roff. Nich Sarum Anno 1536. Rob. Warton cons. B. of Assaph 20. Iul. by Tho. Cant. Ioh. Bangor Will. Norwic. An. 1537. Rob. Holgate cons. B. of Landaff 25. Mart. by Ioh. Roffen Nich. Sarum Ioh. Bangor An. 1537. Henr. Holbeck cons. B. of Bristow 24. Mart. by Iohn Roff. Hug. Wigorn. Rob. Assaph An. 1538. Will. Finch cons. Suf. of Taunton 7. April by Iohn Roff. Robert Assaph Will. Colchest An. 1540. Tho. Thurlby cons. B. of Westm. 9. Decemb. by Edm. Lond. Nich. Roff. Ioh. Bedf. An. 1541. Ioh. Wakeman cons. B. of Gloucest 25. Sept. by Thom. Cant. Edm. Land Tho. Westmonast An. 1541. Arth. Buckley cons. B. of Bangor 19. Febr. by Ioh. Sarum Will. Meneuensis Ioh. Glocest. An. 1542. Paul Bush cons. B. of Bristow 25. Iun. by Nich. Roff. Thom. Westmon Ioh. Bedf. An. 1545. Ant. Kitchin cons. B. of Lan. 3. Mat. 37. H. 8. by Thom. Westm. Thom. Sidon Suffrag Salop. NOw from the Consecrators let vs proceed to the forme of Consecration and consider whether the ancient Canons which you approue and vrge were altered in King Henrtes time PHIL. It doth not appeare by the Statute that there was any alteration For it was enacted that the Consecration should be solemnized with all due circumstance And moreouer that the Consecrators should giue to the Consecrated all Benedictions Ceremonies and things requisite for the same And surely if there had bene any alteration in things essentiall Doct. Sanders speaking purposely of this very point would not haue concealed it But he saith plainely It was his will speaking of King H. 8 that the Ceremonie and solemne Vnction should as yet be vsed in Episcopall Consecration after the maner of the Church And againe more plainely Primo loco sancierunt vt cum Episcopi ac Presbyteri Anglicani ritu ferè Catholico excepta R. Pontificis obedientia quam omnes obnegabant ad illud vsque tempus ordinati fuissent in posterum alia omnino forma ab ipsis praescripta Ordinationes fierent authoritate à puero Rege adid accepta That is First they decreed speaking of K. Edwards time That whereas the Bishops and Priests of England had bene ordained euen vnto that time almost after the Catholicke rite excepting the obedience of the Bishop of Rome which they all dented hereafter Ordinations should be made altogether after an other forme by them prescribed by authoritie which they receiued to that purpose from the King being a childe But the Statute of Q. Mary putteth all out of doubt Enacting That all such diuine Seruice and Administration of Sacraments as were most commonly vsed in this Realme of England in the last yeere of King Henry the 8. should be vsed and frequented through the whole Realme of England and all other the Queenes dominions and no other in any other maner forme or degree Now the makers of this Statute were perswaded that holy Order was a Sacrament therefore holy Orders were ministred in Q. Maries time as they were in the last yeere of K. Henry But all good Catholicks will confesse that in Q. Maries time the true essentiall forme of Consecration was obserued Therefore I graunt that it was also vsed all the time of King Henry ORTHOD. If the persons were capable and consecrated by a sufficient number of Canonical consecrators according to the forme of your Church then you must needs iudge their Consecration effectuall and them Canonicall Bishops PHIL. Our Church in Q Maries time did so iudge of them for most of her old Bishops were made in Schismate Henriciano Yet they were allowed and the new euen Cardinall Poole among the rest did all deriue their Consecration from the old yet were they all approued by our holy Father the Bishop of Rome and by name B. Bonner and B. Thurlby to whom he giueth honorable testimony in his Commission for the proceeding against Cranmer ORTHOD. Then if we can deriue our Bishops from any three in King Henries reigne before the banishing of the Pope or after you must acknowledge them to be Canonicall PHIL. It seemeth so ORTHOD. Or else Bonner and his coequals must lie in the dust and all the Bishops made in Q. Maries time must eternally be cancelled out of the Catalogue of Bishops Hitherto of K. Henries time Proceed we now to the Bishops in K. Edwards dayes and consider whether those were Gold or lead CHAP. XI Of the Bishops Consecrated in the time of King Edward the sixt PHIL. THe Bishops in King Edwards time we take for no Bishops ORTHOD. No But you must there is no remedie And for the more perspicuitie let vs distinguish them into certaine ranckes The first of such as were made both Priests and Bishops in K. Henries time and were continued in King Edwards The second of such as were Priests in K. Henries time and made Bishops in K. Edwards To these you may adde a third of such if any such you find as were made both Priests and Bishops in the dayes of K. Edward The first you haue confessed already to be Canonicall therefore let vs come to the second in which are those blessed Saints and glorious Martyrs Ridley Hooper and Ferrar concerning whom first I demaund whether they were in the order of Priesthood or no PHIL. Yes father Parsons graunteth it saying Ridley studied at Cambridge and there was made Priest trauailed ouer the sea to Paris and returning againe became King Henties Chaplaine Likewise Iohn Hooper as may be seene by Fox his relation of him was a Priest in Oxford in the daies of King Henry the eight So Robert Ferrar Priest and Chaplaine to Cranmer in King Henries time Thus I confesse that they were Priests but I deny that they were Bishops for father Parsons speaking of the â—oxian Calendar and Saints of the month of Februarie in which number were Hooper and Ferrar saith Among Foxe his Saints there is neither eremâ—â—icall nor monasâ—icall life noâ— solitude either from the worlde or women nor any one so much as pretending the title of vâ—rginitie in any seâ—e nor any true Bishoppe indeed if their ordination bee examined For beside Cranmer other Bishops or Clergie men were there none of all the packe that was burned ORTHOD. What say you then to father â—atimer who was ordained in the same manner in all respects as Bonner was Though hee had now relinguished his Bishopricke yet still according to your owne principles hee was a true Bishoppe 〈◊〉 respect of the Episcopall character But to prosecute the present point what mislike you in Ridley Hooper and Ferrar you haue already confessed that they were
which hath not the right order of Priesthood but the Priesthood conferred in King Edwards time was no Priesthood because they wanted the authority to offer the blessed sacrifice of the Masse therefore those Priests were not capable of the Episcopall order ORTHO I answere first that seeing that King Edward rained but sixe yeeres and fiue moneths it is likely that most of them which were aduanced in his time to bee Bishops were before his time in the order of Priesthood Secondly if any be produced which were not yet it shal be iustified God willing when we come to the point that the order of Priesthood conferred in the dayes of King Edward Queene Elizabeth and King Iames is the true ministery of the Gospel and that your sacrificing Priesthood is sacrilegious and abominable In the meane time you must giue vs leaue to holde that the ministery of the Church of England is holy in the sight of God and iustifiable in the sight of man CHAP. XII Of the Bishops Consecrated in the dayes of Queene Marie THe lineall descent hath led vs to the Bishops in Queen Maries time concerning which shal I craue your iudgement PHIL. You know it already they were all Canonical ORTHOD. For the more distinct proceeding let vs diuide them into two ranckes the old Bishops and the new the old I cal such as being cōsecrated before her time were continued in her time the new which were Consecrated in her time PHIL. All which were allowed for Bishops in Queene Maries time whether old or new were Canonicall ORTHO The old Bishops were all made in the dayes of K. Henry the eighth and almost all in those very times which you brand with imputation of schisme and heresie when none could bee Consecrated vnlesse hee did sweare to the king against the Pope Wherefore seeing you iudged both Consecrators and Consecrated schismaticall and hereticall and yet esteeme them Canonicall your obiections of schisme and heresie must eternally bee silenced in the question of Canonicall Bishops For if these crimes can frustrate a Consecration then their Consecration was frustrate and they were no Bishops or if they were Bishops and Canonicall then all the Bishops in King Henries time were likewise Canonicall Moreouer some of them whom you so commend were Bishops in King Edwards time as for example Thomas Thurlby whom King Henrie promoted to be Bishop of Westminster was aduanced by King Edward to the Bishopricke of Norwich and afterward preferred by Queene Mary to the Bishopricke of Ely and moreouer to be one of her priuie Councell Yea some of them had the place of a Bishop in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth Namely Anthony Kitchin who in King Henries time was made Bishop of Landaff kept his dignities and place in the dayes of K. Edward continued the same all the reigne of Queene Mary and so till the day of his death which was in the fift yeere of Queene Elizabeth Wherefore in iustifying the old Bishops you iustifie al generally which were Consecrated in King Henries daies and some which continued in King Edwards and Queene Elizabeths But now from the old let vs come to the new PHIL. QVeene Mary aduanced Holiman bishop of Bristow Coates bishop of Chester Watson bishop of Lincolne Morris bishop of Rochester Morgan bishop of S. Dauis Brooke bishop of Glocester Glin bishop of Bangor Christophorson bishop of Chichester Dauid Poole bishop of Peterborow Cardinall Poole bishop of Canterbury and others ORTHOD. And these reuerend Prelats Bush bishop of Bristow Tailor bishop of Lincolne Scory bishop of Chichester Barlow bishop of Bathe and Wells Couerdale bishop of Exeter and Harly bishop of Hereford with sundry others were at that time forced to leaue their bishopricks For what cause partly for not yeelding to the Pope and Popish Religion partly because they were married which Greg. Martin calleth a polluting of holy Orders though S. Paul saith it is honourable among all men and the bed vndefiled But let vs see the Consecration of your new bishops PHIL. I will begin with that renowned Prelate Cardinall Poole whose Consecration followeth Anno 1555. Reginald Poole cons. Archb. Cant. 22. Mart. by Nichol Arch. Ebor. Thom. Eltens Edmund Lond. Rich. Wigorn. Ioh. Lincoln Mauric Roff. Thom. Asaph Anno 1557. Thom Watson Dauid Pole Cons. B. 15. Aug. by Nich. Ebor. Thom. Eli. Wil. Bangor Anno 1557. Ioh. Christophorson cons. B. 21. No. by Edmund Lond. Tho. Elien Mauric Roff. ORTHOD. All these deriue their Consecration from bishops which were made in the time of the pretended Schisme and some of them from Cranmer himselfe therefore you must either acknowledge all them and namely Cranmer for Canonicall or neither Cardinall Poole nor any of the rest made in Queene Maries time can be Canonicall THE THIRD BOOKE OF THE BISHOPS CONSEcrated in the Raigne of Q. Elizabeth and of our gracious Soueraigne King IAMES CHAP. I. Of the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth with an answere to certaine odious imputations concerning some Antecedents and Consequents of their Depositions PHIL. THe reuolution of times hath brought vs to the raigne of Queene Elizabeth euen to that blacke and dolefull day wherein all the Bishops of England all I say one onely excepted were deposed from their degrees and dignities For a great penaltie was inflicted vpon such as should after the Feast of S. Iohn Baptis◠1559. say or heare Masse or procure any other Ecclesiasticall Office whatsoeuer after the old rite or administer any Sacrament after the Romane maner to wit That hee which offended against that Law for the first time should pay 200 Nobles or be in bonds sixe Moneths for the second 400. Nobles or a yeere in bonds for the third he should be in perpetuall prison and forfeite all his goods By which meanes it came to passe That at the day prescribed the holy and diuine Offices ceased to be performed publikely through the whole Kingdome And because the Bishops would not consent to those impieties nor affirme vpon their Oathes that they beleeued in their consciences That the Queene onely was the Supreame gouernesse of the Church of England vnder Christ they were all saue one shortly after deposed from their Degree and dignitte and committed to certaine prisons and custodies whereupon they are all at this day dead with the long tediousnesse of their miseries The names of which most glorious Confessours I will set downe that the thing may be had in euerlasting remembrance First of all Nicholas Archbishop of Yorke and a little before that time Lord Chancellour of England then Edmund Bonner Bishop of London and Tunstall of Durham Iohn of Winton Thomas of Lincolne Thurlby of Ely Turberuill of Exeter Borne of Bath Pole of Peterborow Baine of Lichfield Cuthbert of Chester Oglethorp of Carlile and Thomas Goldwell of S. Asaph c. ORTH. Here are two things to be discussed The deposing of the old Bishops and aduancing of the new Concerning the first
hostes hee ought to leaue his impieties in seducing the people and to serue God by teaching the trueth In that he is a Priest God hath armed him with a calling to deliuer his message for performance wherof he needeth no new calling but grace to vse that well which before he abused ORTHOD. Apply this to the present point and you may satisfie your selfe PHIL. To make the Prince Supreame Gouernour or head of the Church is vnnaturall for shall the sheepe feede the flocke or the sonne guide the Father ORTHO As the Priest is a father and shepheard in respect of the Prince so the Prince is a shepheard and father in respect of the Priest The Lord chose Dauid his seruant and tooke him from the sheepfolds euen from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in Iacob and his inheritance in Israel so hee fed them according to the simplicitie of his heart and guided them by the discretion of his hands And Ezechias called the Priests his sonnes If the Prince be their sheepheard then he must feede them if he be their father then hee must guide them this is naturall PHIL. THis stile of the Crowne was so distastfull to Caluin that he called it blasphemy and sacriledge ORTHOD. It is certaine that he did not differ from vs in iudgement But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner who expounded it as though the king had power vt statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit to establish at his pleasure whatsoeuer he would which Caluin exemplifieth in the words of Gardiner the king may forbid Priests to marry debar the people frō the Cup in the Lords Supper because forsooth potestas umma est penes regem the highest power is in the king This is that which Caluin calleth blasphemie and sacriledge and so will we But if Caluin had beene truely informed that nothing had beene meant by this title but to exclude the Pope and to acknowledge the kings lawfull authoritie ouer his owne subiects not in diuising new Articles of faith or coyning new formes of religion as Ieroboam did his calues but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded without all question Caluin had neuer misliked it In this sense and no other that title was giuen him Neither did the king take it otherwise for ought that we can learne PHIL. If the title were not blame worthy why was it altered ORTHOD. In the beginning of the Queenes raigne the nobles and sundry of the Clergy perceiuing that some out of ignorance and infirmitie were offended at the title of supreame head of the Church humbly intreated her maiestie that it might be expressed in some plainer termes whereto her clemency most graciously condiscended accepting the title of supreame gouernour being the same in substance with the former So this alteration was not made as thogh the other were blame worthy for the phrase is according to the Scripture which calleth the king head of the tribes of Israel And the sense thereof is agreeable to the true meaning both of Scripture and also of ancient Fathers Councels and practise both of the kings of Iudah and of Christian Emperours as hath beene declared where it was as lawfull for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalfe of the Prince against the Pope as it was for Iehoiada to exact an oath in behalfe of king Ioas against the vsurper Athalia which oath being holy and lawfull the refusall of it was disloyaltie and a iust cause of depriuation Hitherto of the Bishops deposed now let vs proceed to such as succeed them CHAP. IIII. Of the Consecration of the most reuerend father Archbishop Parker PHIL. YOur Bishops deriue their counterfeit authoritie not from lawfull Consecration or Catholicke inauguration but from the Queene and Parliaments For in England the king yea and the Queene may giue their letters patents to whom they will and they thencefoorth may beare themselues for Bishops and may begin to ordaine Ministers So wee may iustly say that among the Caluinists in England there raigned a woman Pope But such was the order of Christs Church which the Apostles founded Priests to be sent by Priests and not by the letters patents of kings or Queenes ORTHOD. These shamelesse Papists would make the world beleeue that our Bishops deriue not their Consecration from Bishops but from kings and Queenes which is an impudent slaunder For our kings doe that which belongeth to kings and our Bishops doe that which belongeth to Bishops In the vacancie of any Archbishopricke or Bishopricke the king granteth to the Deane and Chapter a licence vnder the great Seale as of old time hath beene accustomed to proceed to an election with a letter missiue containing the name of the person which they shall elect and chuse which being duly performed and signified to the King vnder the common seale of the electors the king giueth his royal assent and signifying and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bishops as the law requireth he giueth them commission and withall requireth and commaundeth them to confirme the said election and to inuest and Consecrat◠the said person vsing all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same Whereupon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient forme in those cases vsed do cause all such as can obiect or take exception either in generall or particular either against the manner of the election or the person elected to be cited publikely and peremptorily to make their appearance When the validitie of the election and sufficiency of the person are by publike actes and due proceedings iudicially approued then followeth Consecration which is performed by a lawfull number of lawfull Bishops and that in such forme as is required by the ancient Canons PHIL. I Will prooue that your Bishops in the beginning of the Queenes reigne deriued not their authoritie from lawfull Consecration but from the Queene and Parliament For being destitute of all lawfull ordination when they were commonly said and prooued by the lawes of England to bee no Bishops they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power that they might receiue the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament by authoritie whereof it any thing were done amisse and not according to the prescript of the Law or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration it might be pardoned them and that after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office and Chaire certaine yeeres without any Episcopall Consecration Hence it was that they were called Parliament Bishops ORTHO The Parliament which you meane was in the eighth yeere of Queene Elizabeth wherein first they reproue the ouer much boldnesse of some which slandered the estate of the Clergy by calling into question whether their making and Consecrating were according to Law Secondly they touch such lawes as concerne the point
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 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 Theâ—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 electionemque 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. Daâ— 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 PHIL. BVt was the consecration accordingly performed ORTH. 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 beene in exile Secondly how durst they doe otherwise seeing it was enacted by a statute made in the 25. yeare of King 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 PHIL. 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 ORTHOD. 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. Matt. Park Cant. Cons. 17. Decem. by William Barlow Iohn Scorie Miles Couerdale Iohn Hodgeskins PHIL. IF all this were granted yet it were nothing vnlesse you could iustifie the consecration of his consecratours therefore you must tell me when they were made Bishops ORTHOD. 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 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 Bisham and from thence elected to the Bishoprick of Saint Asaph which election was confirmed 23. Febr 1535. and soone after it pleased the King to preferre him to the Bishopricke of Saint 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 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 Episcopall title Now you told vs 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 PHIL. What tell you mee of Suffraganes you know how Damasus speaketh against those titulary Bishops called Chorepiscopi ORTHOD. 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 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 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 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 I le 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
25. Ianu. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich. Lond. Ioh. Roff. Anno 1596. Thomas 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 Heaton the Consecration of Bishop Coxe was handled before the other followeth Anno 1599. Martin Heaton Cons. 3. Febr. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Rich Lond. Will. Cou. and Lichf Anton. Cicest ¶ Salisbury THe Bishops of Salisbury were Iohn Iewel Edmund Gueast Iohn Peirs Iohn Goldwell and Henry Cotton Anno 1559. Iohn Iewel Cons. 21. Ianu. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Edmund London Rich. Ely Ioh. Bedford Anno 1559. Edmund Gueast Cons. 24. Mart. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Nich. Lincolne Ioh. Sarum Anno 1576. Iohn Peirs Cons. 15. April by Edm. Archb. Cant. Edw. London Rob. Winton Anno 1591. Iohn Coldwell Cons. 26. Decem. by Ioh. Archb. Cant. Ioh. London Tho. Wint. Rich. Bristoll Ioh. Oxon. Anno 1598. Henry 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 Scambler William Redman and Iohn Iegon Of these Edmund Scamblers Consecration hath already beene declared the rest follow Anno 1560. Thomas Parkhurst Cons. 1. Sep. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Gilbert Bath and Wells William Exon. Anno 1571. Edmund Freake Cons. 9. Mart. by Matth. Archb. Cant. Robert Wint. Edm. Sarum Anno 1594. William Redman Cons. 12. Ianu. by Iohn Archb. Cant. Rich. London Iohn Roff. William Lincoln Anno 1602. Iohn Iegon Cons. 20. Febru by Iohn Archb. Cant. Rich. London Iohn Roff. Ant. Cicest ¶ 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. Iohn Yong Cons. 16. Mart. by Edm. Archb. Cant. Iohn Lond. Ioh. Sarum CHAP. VII Of the Bishops in the Prouince of Canterburie consecrated since our gracious Soueraigne King Iames did come to the Crowne with a little touch concerning the Prouince of Yorke 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. 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 coÌ„s B. of Ba. Wels. 17. Ap. by Rich. Archb. Cant. Thom. Lond. Henr. Sarum Will. Roff. Lanc. Cicest Henr. Glouc. 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 haâ—â—â—et downâ— 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 vpoÌ„ 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 The Episcopall line and succession of the most Reuerend Father in God George now Lord Archb. of Canterbury particularlie declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the daies of King Henry the eight which our Aduersaries acknowledge to bee Canonicall 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 Hodgâ—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 â—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. Câ—râ—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 BullinghaÌ„ vid. 17 Iohn Iewell