OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: With their Succession, Jurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: AS ALSO OF THE ORDINATION of Priests and Deacons. FIVE BOOKS: Wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of BELLARMINE, SANDERS, BRISTOL, HARDING, ALLEN, STAPLETON, PARSONS, KELLISON, EUDEMON, BECANUS, And other Romanists: And justified to contain nothing contrary to the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or approved examples of Primitive Antiquity.  
¶ By FRANCIS MASON, Bachelor of Divinity, and sometimes Fellow of Merton College in Oxeford.  Hebr. 5. 4. 
No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.  
¶ IMPRINTED AT LONDON by ROBERT BARKER, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. Anno 1613.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, GEORGE, LORD ARCHbishop of Canterbury his Grace, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan: And one of his majesties most Honourable Privy Counsel.  
AS in the Roman triumphs, the worthy Conqueror gloriously ascending unto the Capitol, did show his magnificence by giving ample gifts unto the people: even so (most reverend father) our victorious Saviour and noble Redeemer, having conquered Hell, Death, Devil and damnation, Triumphantly ascending to the Capitol of Heaven, did show his unspeakable bounty in giving admirable and incommparable gifts unto men, 
Ephes. 4. 8. 11.  That is, some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers. For what hath the Church of God of so precious account, as the holy ministry of the Word and Sacraments, whereby CHRIST JESUS with all his blessings is revealed and applied to the soul and conscience? It may well be resembled to the Rivers of Paradise, which did water and fructify the Garden 
Gen. 2. 10.  of God: to the Golden pipes, whereby the two Olive branches replenished 
Zach. 4. 2, 3.  the seven Lamps in the golden Candlestick: to the Crown (which the woman in the Revelation clothed with the Sun, and having the Moon under her 
Revel. 12. 1.  feet, had upon her head) being richly beset, not with stones, but with Stars.  
Which holy function flowing from CHRIST, as from the fountain to his blessed Apostles, was by them derived to posterity. But as the water which near the spring is clear and crystalline, in further passages may be polluted: so in process of time, (by the subtlety of Satan) the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments being the ordinance of God was mingled with sacrificing and other human inventions. Yet such was the goodness of God, that even in the darkness of Popery▪ as Baptism, so the Ministerial function (notwithstanding the abominations cleaving thereunto) was wonderfully preserved; for the Church of Rome, by God's special providence, in her Ordination of Priests, retained such evangelical words, as in their true and native sense, include a 
2. Cor. 5. 18. 19  ghostly Ministerial power to forgive sins, by the Ministry of Reconciliation, consisting in the due administration of the Word and Sacraments. So remission of sins is ascribed to the Minister, as to God's instrument in effecting it, and Ambassador in pronouncing it. Wherefore in that they have authority to forgive sins, they have also authority to use the means thereof, that is the Word and Sacraments. Thus the Church of Rome gave power to her Priests to teach the truth, although it did not reveal the truth unto them.  
Now when it pleased him, which causeth the Light to shine out of darkness, in the riches of his Mercy, to remember his distressed Church, those blessed instruments which he first used in the Reformation, were such as had received their Calling corruptly in the Church of Rome: But when their eyes were opened, they disclaimed the sacrificing abomination, and other impurities, which by the iniquity of the time were incorporated into their calling. Thus the pollution of Popery (by the Grace of God) was drained and drawn away▪ & the Ministerial function restored to the original beauty.  
And here let us admire and magnify the Mercy of God, who did not forget this remote Island situate in a corner of the world, but did most graciously shine upon it with his Golden beams from the Sphere of Heaven▪ For whereas in other countries the Bishops which should be stars and Angels of the Church, did resist the Reformation, and persecuted such as sought it; It pleased God that in England, among other Bishops, Archbishop Cranmer, the chiefest Prelate of the Kingdom, was God's chiefest instrument to restore the Gospel, which afterward he sealed with his blood; The event whereof was, That whereas other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessity to admit extraordinary fathers, That is, to receive Ordination from Presbyters, which are but inferior Ministers, rather than to suffer the Fabric of the Lord JESUS to be dissolved: the Church of England had always Bishops to confer sacred Orders, according to the ordinary and most warrantable custom of the Church of CHRIST. And although in Queen Mary's time, five blessed Bishops were burned to ashes, yet God reserved to himself a number, which being then forced to take the wings of the Dove, and fly beyond the Seas, or to hide themselves in the clefts of the rock; when the tempest was overblown, the clouds cleared, and the Sun of Righteousness began to display himself in the happy reign of Queen Elizabeth, returned again, clapped their wings for joy, praised God, preached the Gospel, and with holy imposition of hands, ordained Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of England.  
These are the Ordinations which reproachful Papists do most traduce and slander, as though they were no Ordinations at all, but only Nullities; thence persuading their Proselytes, That our present Ministers are no Ministers, but merely Lay-men, and thereupon inferring that we have no Church, no salvation. In which point some Popish Recusants have been so confident, that they have professed, That if we could justify our Calling, they would come to our Churches, and be of our Religion. The consideration whereof (most Reverend father) gave me occasion to made into this Controversy, being desirous, next the assurance of mine own salvation, as I am a Christian, to be fully and clearly assured of my Calling, as I am a Minister. In prosecuting whereof, I did evidently find, That their chiefest Objections are nothing but slanders, confutable by Authentical monuments of public Record. Whereupon I wished, from the bottom of my heart, That some learned man would have vouchsafed for the glory of God, and the good of the Church, to scatter these Popish mists, and to set the Truth in the clear light.  
A work in my opinion very important; First in respect of us of the ministery; and secondly in regard of the people committed to our charge. For how cheerfully, and with what joy of heart may we preach▪ and they hear us, when the lawfulness of our Calling is made manifest to all men? Thirdly, If any have formerly made scruple to enter our Orders, out of ignorance, how these odious and scandalous imputations blazed in Popish Books might be truly answered, and the point sound cleared by Record, it is verily to be hoped, That all such shall receive singular comfort, when they see our Calling justified not only in itself, as the true ministery of the Gospel, but also in regard of the derivation to us by such Bishops, and in such manner as is most correspondent to the sacred Scripture, and the practice of Primitive Antiquity. And if any upon this surmise be fallen away to our adversaries, who knoweth what effect God may work in them, when they shall plainly perceive how they have been deluded with Popish stratagems? Or who can tell whether this may be a gracious means to stay others from yielding to the enticements of subtle serpents? Finally, the defence of innocency in a matter of so high a nature, must needs rejoice the hearts of the godly, when Popish politicians shall be forced to hide their faces for shame, and confusion. These motives induced me to wish, that some great Master in our Israel would have undertaken this eminent Argument, which now (the Divine providence so disposing) is befallen unto me, One of the children of the Prophets.  
Which my labours concerning the Ordination of the Pastors of England, to whom should I rather present, then to your Grace, whom God (by the means of a most prudent and Religious Sovereign,) hath to the singular comfort of all that sincerely love the Gospel, advanced to be the chief Pastor, and chief Ordainer in the Church of England? Especially, seeing I proceeded in this Argument with your graces fatherly direction, and encouragement. Now the Lord so direct and sanctify your endeavours, That as the Rod of Aaron did bud and blossom, and bring forth ripe Almonds: so 
Num. 17. 8.  the Church and ministery of England by the means of your Grace, as of God's blessed instrument, may prosper, flourish and bring forth fruits of Righteousness to the glory of God, and the comfort of all true Christian hearts.  
Your Graces in all humble duty at command FRANCIS MASON.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS FOLLOWING.  
THE first book containeth the entrance and division of the whole work into three controversies, with their several Questions: as also the handling of the first Question, whether three Canonical Bishops be absolutely necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop.  
The second is of the Consecrations of the Bishops of England, from the first planting of Christianity, till the last year of Queen Marie.  
The third is of the Bishops consecrated in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and of our Gracious sovereign King james.  
The fourth entreateth of Episcopal jurisdiction.  
The fifth is of the second and third controversy, concerning Priests and Deacons.  

¶ The particular Contents of the first Book.  

CHAP. 1. THe entrance, wherein is described the proceeding of the Popish Priests in winning of Proselytes, by praising Rome, the Roman Religion, the Pope's love, the English Seminaries; As also by dispraising the Universities, Church, Religion, and Ministry of England. Pag. 1.  
CHAP. 2. Wherein is declared in general how the Papists traduce our Ministers, as merely Lay-men. And in particular, what they mislike in our Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons: Whereupon the general controversy concerning the Ministry, is divided into three particular controversies, The first of Bishops, The second of Presbyters, The third of Deacons. Pag. 8.  
CHAP. 3. Wherein they descend to the first branch concerning Episcopal Consecration, whereupon arise two Questions: The former, whether three Bishops be required of absolute necessity, to the Consecration of a new Bishop; the state whereof is explained out of Popish writers. Pag. 14.  
CHAP. 4. Wherein the Popish Arguments drawn from the Canons of the Apostles, and the decretal Epistles, are proposed, urged, and answered. Pag. 21.  
CHAP. 5. Wherein their Argument drawn from the Counsels, is propounded, urged and answered. Pag. 26.  
CHAP. 6. Wherein their Arguments, pretended to be drawn from the Scripture, are answered. Pag. 30.  
CHAP. 7. That the presence of three Bishops is not required of absolute necessity. Pag. 34.    

¶ The Contents of the second Book.  

CHAP. 1. WHerein they descend to the second Question, whether the Consecrations of the Bishops of England be Canonical. Pag. 39  
CHAP. 2. Of the first conversion of this Land in the time of the Apostles. Pag. 44.  
CHAP. 3. Of the second conversion (as some call it) or rather of a new supply of Preachers, and a further propagation of the Gospel in the time of K. Lucius, and Pope Eleutherius. Pag. 51.  
CHAP. 4. Of Austin the first Bishop of Canterbury, sent hither by Pope Gregory. Pag. 56.  
CHAP. 5. Of the Bishops from Austin to Cranmer. Pag. 61.  
CHAP. 6. Of the Consecration of the most reverend father Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury. Pag. 64.  
CHAP. 7. Of the abolishing of Papal jurisdictions by K. H. 8. which the Papists injuriously brand with imputation of Schism. Pag. 67.  
CHAP. 8. Whether to renounce the Pope, be schism & heresy. Pa. 74.  
CHAP. 9 Whether schism & heresy, annihilate a Consecration. Pa. 78.  
CHAP. 10. Of the Bishop's Consecrated in the time of King Henry the eight, after the abolishing of the Pope's jurisdiction. Pag. 88  
CHAP. 11. Of the Bishop's Consecrated in the time of King Edward the sixth. Pag. 91.  
CHAP. 12. Of the B. Consecrated in the days of Q. Mary. Pag. 97.    

¶ The Contents of the third Book.  

CHAP. 1. OF the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, with an answer to certain odious imputations concerning some antecedents and consequents of their depositions. Pag. 99  
CHAP. 2. The deposition of the Bishops justified by the example of Solomon deposing Abiathar. Pag. 106.  
CHAP. 3. Of the oath of the Prince's Supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were deprived. Pag. 113.  
CHAP. 4. Of the Consecration of the most reverend Father Archbishop Parker. Pag. 121.  
CHAP. 5. Of the rest of the Bishop's Consecrated in the second and third year of Queen Elizabeth. Pag. 132.  
CHAP. 6. A brief view of all the Bishops of some of the principal Sees during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth. Pag. 135.  
CHAP. 7. Of the Bishops in the Province of Canterbury, Consecrated since our gracious Sovereign K. james did come to the Crown: with a little touch concerning the Province of York. Pag. 138.  
CHAP. 8. The Episcopal line of the most reverend Father in God, George, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, particularly declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the days of King Henry the eight, which our adversaries acknowledge to be Canonical. Pag. 140.    

¶ The Contents of the fourth Book.  

CHAP. 1. WHence the Bishops of England receive their jurisdiction. Pag. 143.  
CHAP. 2. Whether S. Peter were the only fountain under Christ, of all spiritual jurisdiction. Pag. 147.  
CHAP. 3. Whether the Pope succeed Saint Peter in all his right by Law Divine. Pag. 155.  
CHAP. 4. Of the election of Bishops in the Primitive Church, before there were any Christian Princes. Pag. 158.  
CHAP. 5. An answer to certain objections against the election of Bishops by Christian Kings and Emperors out of the Counsels and other authorities. Pag. 161.  
CHAP. 6. Of the election of the Bishops of Rome, under Christian Emperors, before the division of the Empire. Pag. 163.  
CHAP. 7. Of the Election of Popes, from the Emperor Charles to Otho. Pag. 175.  
CHAP. 8. Of the election of Popes from the time of the Emperor Otho to Henry the fourth. Pag. 173.  
CHAP. 9 Of the election of the Bishops of Constantinople. Pag. 178.  
CHAP. 10. Of the election of the Bishops of Spain. Pag. 179.  
CHAP. 11. Of the election of the Bishops of France. Pag. 180.  
CHAP. 12. Of the election of the Bishops of England. Pag. 182.  
CHAP. 13. How lamentable the state of England was, when Bishoprics and benefices were given by the Pope's provisions. Pag. 188.  
CHAP. 14. Whether it belongeth to the Pope, to confirm all the metropolitans of the world, and namely the metropolitans of England. Pag. 199.    

¶ The contents of the fifth Book.  

CHAP. 1. WHerein the second controversy is proposed, divided into two questions, the former about sacrificing, the latter about absolution; the state of the former is set down and the Method of proceeding. Pag. 207.  
CHAP. 2. Of their argument drawn from Melchisedec. Pag. 208.  
CHAP. 3. Of their argument drawn from the Paschal Lamb. Pag. 216.  
CHAP. 4. Of their argument drawn from certain places of the Prophets. Pag. 218.  
CHAP. 5. Of their argument drawn from the words of institution. Pa. 222.  
CHAP. 6. Of their arguments drawn from the actions of Christ. Pa. 234.  
CHAP. 7. Of their argument drawn from the practice of the Church in the Apostles time. Pag. 239.  
CHAP. 8. Of their arguments drawn from the authority of the Fathers. Pag. 241.  
CHAP. 9 Of the second question which concerneth the power of absolution. Pag. 244.  
CHAP. 10. An answer to the arguments of Bellar. by which he goeth about to prove absolution to be judicial, & not declaratory. Pag. 249.  
CHAP. 11. Of the third controversy concerning Deacons. Pag. 259.  
CHAP. 12. Wherein is declared that though we derive our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, yet our calling is lawful, and theirs, as it is used, unlawful. Pag. 260.     

THE FIRST BOOK CONTAINING THE ENTRANCE, AND DIVISION of the whole work into three Controversies, with their several Questions; As also the handling of the first Question, whether three Canonical Bishops be absolutely necessary to the Consecration of a Bishop.  
Framed in form of a conference between PHILODOX a Seminary Priest, And ORTHODOX a Minister of the Church of England.  

CHAP. I.  
The entrance, wherein is described the Proceeding of Popish Priests, in winning of Proselytes; by praising Rome, the Roman Religion, the Pope's love, the English Seminaries: As also by dispraising the Universities, Church, Religion, and ministery of England.  PHILODOX. 
WHat, My old friend Orthodox! I salute you in the kindest manner, and congratulate your coming into France, the rather because I hope you are passing this way to Rome, as sundry of your fellows and friends have done before you.  ORTHODOX. 
To Rome, Philodox? Alas, Quid Romaefaciam? mentiri nescio. What shall I do at Rome? I cannot lie, I cannot aequiuocate.  PHILO. 
It seemeth si●, that you are pleasantly disposed; but in good earnest there are many inducements, which in all reason should draw you to Rome. For he that hath seen Rome, hath seen all things, and he that hath not seen Rome, hath seen nothing. It is the Queen and Lady of Cities, the Storehouse of Nature, the admiration of Art, the Epitome of the world; wherein all Excellencies shine in their Orient colours, and exquisite beauty. In old time men did wonder at the Temple of Diana, the Tomb of Mausolus, the Colossus of the Sun, the Image of jupiter Olympicus, the Palace of Cyrus, the walls of Babylon, and the Pyramids of Egypt, because these things in their several ages were rare and singular, and justly had in precious account. But who would now so esteem them, when he may see in one City so many spectacles which are able, not only to ravish the beholders with admiration, but also to strike them with astonishment? The Emperor 
a A●●●i●●●● Marcellinus lib. 16.  Constantius when he beheld the Rostra, the Capitol, the Baths, the Amphitheatrum, the Pantheon, the Theatre of Pompey, his eyes were dazzled with miracle upon miracle; but when he came to the Market place of trajan, he stood clean amazed at those huge and admirable Fabrics, neither imitable by the hand, nor utterable 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, we may say with a learned man, 
b Lipsiu● de mag●it. Rom. in praefas. ad lector.  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 add, that still it overshineth all other Cities, so far as the golden Moon doth the twinkling stars.  ORTHO. 
Suppose that the buildings of Rome were as glorious at this day, as they were in the days of Constantius, yet what of all this? 
Ammian●● Marcellinus ibidem.  Hormisd● the Persian, being then asked what he thought of Rome, made answer, That this only pleased him, that he had learned, that men do die, even at Rome also, as in other places. And surely though the walls of our Cities were of gold, and the windows of sapphire, yet while we live in this vale of vanity, we dwell but in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust. God give us grace to seek a City which hath a foundation, whose maker and builder is God: God grant that when our earthly Tabernacle shallbe dissolved, we may have an house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens.  PHIL. 
You say well sir, and the right way to attain thereunto, is to be reconciled to the holy Church of Rome; Without it, there is no hope of salvation; within it, is a very Paradise of God, and a sanctuary for all distressed souls: wherefore if you take this course, you shallbe a thrice happy man, and enjoy the precious blessing of a quiet conscience.  ORTHO. 
In deed a quiet conscience is a jewel of jewels, the price of it is far above the Pearl, 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 only which teacheth the penitent spirit the remission of his sins, and an infallible certainty of his salvation, by the merits of jesus Christ apprehended by a true and lively faith, and sealed to the sanctified soul by the Spirit of grace. But the present religion of the Church of Rome, teacheth only a 
d Bell. de ●ustif. li. 3. cap. 2. & 3.  moral, conjectural and fallible, That is, an uncertain certainty, which must needs plunge the poor soul into a thousand perplexities. Wherefore the present Romish religion is not a doctrine of comfort, but of doubt and distrust, so far from quieting the troubled conscience, that it is a continual tormenting to the soul and conscience.  PHIL. 
Howsoever you conceive of our Religion, you must give me leave to tell you, that it was derived from God the Father, revealed by jesus Christ, inspired by the Spirit, planted by the Apostles, watered with the blood of Martyrs, and confirmed by miracles, being reverend for antiquity, honourable for universality, certain for succession, amiable for order, and admirable for unity.  ORTHOD. 
You brag of the Casket, but the jewels are gone. For the faith of Rome was sometimes renowned through the world, and commended by the voice of the Apostle himself. But since those days, Rome hath suffered many and great alterations. For as in respect of her Civil estate, she hath been powered from vessel to vessel, lost her language, left her seven mountains to plant herself in campo Martio, changed her face and her fashion, and is so entombed in her own ruins, that 
a Lipsiu● de mag. Rom. l. 3. c. 11.  justus Lipsu●s one of her lovers, cannot so much as trace the ancient tract of her walls: even so in respect of her state Ecclesiastical, one might now seek old Rome in new Rome, and not find it She hath matched traditions with the written Word, therein injurious to the Wisdom of God: she hath mingled man's merits with the Merits of Christ, therein injurious to the Grace of God: She hath communicated divine worship to stocks and stones, therein injurious to the glory of God. Thus the garden is overgrown with weeds, and the daughter of Ston is become the whore of Babylon. Yet fo● all this she vaunteth herself, as though she were a Virgin, because she was sometimes a Virgin. She painteth herself with counterfeit colours of Antiquity, Universality, Succession, Unity and the like, which are nothing else, but a little Varnish that will vanish away.  PHIL. 
I hope you speak all this, only for disputation sake. But howsoever, for your better resolution, I wish you would take between your hands the glass of Experience. You have already had a trial of your English Universities: may it please you now to take a taste of our English Seminaries; where (I dare warrant you) you shall receive ample satisfaction of all your doubts. And because I love you, I will undertake that you shallbe bountifully entertained in the English College at Rome, and every way respected according to your worth. But o how our holy Father will embrace you with the arms of compassion, and receive you as the Dove into the Ark! Such is his incomparable love to our English Nation.  ORTHOD. 
How well the Popes have loved our Nation, may appear by Pope 
b Apud Mat. Paris. ●. 683. verè ●ortus noster deliciarui● est Anglia.  Innocent the fourth, who called England his garden of delights. And who would not love such a garden? He called it also a Well 
c Verè pute●● inexhausted est.  never drawn dry; And doth not such a Well deserve to be well loved? Now the fruit of his tender affection towards it was witnessed by these his own words, 
d Ibidem.  Vbi multa abundant, multa extorqueri possunt, Where many things abound, many things may be extorted. The Poets feign, that the river Arethusa being swallowed up in the ground, runneth through the Sea, and riseth again in Sicily: but without all feigning, from England as from a Well did spring golden Rivers, which being suddenly swallowed up, did run through the Sea, and rise again at Rome in the Pope's Exchequer; And who so readeth the Chronicles of our Kingdom written by Matthew Paris, and Thomas Walsingham, shall find that the Popes loved our Silver and our Gold. This was their love to the English Nation.  PHIL. 
You make mountains of molehilles: for the Pope's receipts out of England were but as a 
Hardings' confut. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 23.  Gnat to an Elephant; and such as his Holiness little regarded, but only as tokens of love to holy Mother Church.  ORTHOD. 
Bishop 
a Praefa●. in Gard. de vera ●●●d.  Bonner may teach you, That the Pope's yearly p●ay out of England did almost equal the revenues of the Crown. And verily if this had not been prevented, though England had been an Ocean, it would have been drawn dry. Such Elephants you swallow, and yet you count them gnats.  PHIL. 
You mistake the matter; He loveth not your silver, but your souls: for since he reaped one penny out of England, he hath employed many thousand crowns in founding and maintaining two English Colleges. So pure is his love to the English Nation.  ORTHOD. 
Your English Seminaries were founded (if the turning of an Hospital into a College may be called founding) by Gregory the thirteenth. But to what end sent he those soldiers (mentioned by 
b 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 
c Campana deal hist. de mond. vol. 2. l. 1. anno 1580.  Campana) into Ireland? Was it not to assist the Rebels against their 
d Mun●t●onem erigunt contra Anglos. Genebrard. quo supra.  sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth? So pure was his love to the English Nation.  PHIL. 
The love of his Holiness is most plainly demonstrated in those noble foundations, where 
e Card. Allen. Apol c. 5.  we have more disputations, lessons, conferences, examinations, repetitions, instructions, catechisings, resolutions of cases both of conscience and controversy, methods and manners, to proceed to the conversion of the deceived, and such like exercises in our two Colleges, then are in your two Universities, containing about thirty goodly Colleges. As for the Masters and Professors of our Colleges, specially the Roman Readers, we may be bold to say, they be in all kind the most choice and cunning men of Christendom. Now for that part of education which appertaineth to Christian life and manners, our chief endeavour is to breed in our scholars devotion, which is done by divers spiritual exercises, and daily examinations of their consciences, often receiving the blessed Sacrament, much praying, continual hearing, and meditation of holy things. So by these means a number of the best wits of England, are here trained up, most happy in regard of their rare education.  ORTHOD. 
What reason you have to compare your two Colleges with our two Universities, let wise men judge. You vaunt of your variety of exercises, God give us grace to glory in the simplicity of his Truth, with the testimony of a good conscience. As for the exercises of our Universities, you might know (if malice did not blind you) that they are famous throughout the Christian world and that these Camps of Christ have from time to time trained up Soldiers, able to encounter the proudest Philistines. Neither doubt we but they shall always have a David to cut off the head of Goliath with his own sword. Which we rather hope, because of that Treasury of Learning and Languages lately erected, I mean that renowned Library, the honour of Oxford, the jewel of England, the admiration of strangers, and the Phoenix of the world. O noble Bodley, many Benefactors have done worthily even in this kind, but thou surmountest them all. Blessed is the stock which brought forth such a branch, and blessed is the branch which yields so pleasant fruit. Devonshire was the mother, Merton College the nurse to this most gracious plant: happy mother, happy nurse, happy plant. Prosper O Lord, O prosper thou his handy work; Let it be as an armory for defence of thy Church: and as a Quiver full of arrows to shoot at thy enemies; Let it flourish and continue for ever, to the advancing of thy Gospel, and to the utter overthrow 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 Mountebanks, who will price an oil at six hundred Crowns, which is not worth six pence. Whatsoever they bring must be admired for rare and excellent, as though it were found in the Phoenix nest. By these glozing means partly guilded over with golden promises, and partly working upon malcontented humours, (for you delight to fish in troubled waters) you have prevailed with many, and applaud them as the best wits of England. So long as they stay with us 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 witty and painful, I would gladly know what is the end of all this rare education.  PHIL. 
You might have learned that of 
a Navar. consil. l. 3. de regularibus. Cons. 1.  Navarrus, who declareth that in the English College at Rome, there is a statute or constitution, That whosoever will enter into it, is bound to swear, that after so many years, he shall go into England for defence of the Catholic faith, and shall preach it there publicly, and privately. Lo the end of their education is the Catholic faith, which they learn not only for their own information, but for the instruction of England; So all is referred to the ghostly good of our dear country.  ORTHOD. 
But what do you mean by the Catholic faith? Bellarmine, who was appointed by Gregory the thirteenth, to read the Controversies of faith, in the 
b Bellar. de verbo Dei in praef ad lect.  Roman Colleges of the English and the Germans, and for his service to the Church and Court of Rome, was advanced to the dignity of a Cardinal, useth these words; 
c Bellar. in respon ad apol. pro iuram. fidel▪ pag. 7.  De fide Catholica, id est, de Primatu sedis Apostolicae, quem in Scriptures sanctis apertissimè f●ndatum, Catholici omnes ut fidei Orthodoxae dogma certissimum habent; Of the Catholic faith, that is, of the Primacy of the See Apostolic, which being most evidently grounded upon the holy Scriptures, all Catholics account as a most certain received opinion, or doctrine of the Orthodox faith. And again, speaking of the branches of the Oath of Allegiance, he saith, That they contain 
d Ibidem. pag. 32.  abnegationem fidei Catholicae de Primatu Ecclesiastico Romani Pontificis, The denial of the Catholic faith, concerning the Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. And again, Si 
e Ibidem pag. 69.  rem totam apud te diligenter cogitare volveris, videbis profecto non esse rem paruam, quae ob juramentum istud in discrimen adducitur, sed unum 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 principal heads of our faith, and foundations of Catholic Religion. This he endeavoureth to prove, because Pope Gregory calleth himself Caput fidei, the head of faith; Whence he inferreth this conclusion, Itaque 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 go about, either to trouble, diminish or take away the Primacy of the See Apostolic, they go about to cut off the very head of faith, and to dissolve the state of the whole body, and of all the members. So he is not content to make his new head equal to other heads, but he will have it to be Ipsum fidei caput, The very head itself; singularly and supereminently mounted above all other heads. Thus the Pope's Supremacy is become the Supreme article of your Catholic faith. But how far extendeth this Supremacy? The same Roman Reader teacheth, That if 
a Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 7. ergo tria.  a Prince, of a sheep or a ram become a wolf, That is, of a Christian become an heretic, the Pastor of the Church may drive him away by Excommunication, and withal command the people that they do not follow him, and therefore may deprive him of his dominion over his Subjects. Yea, he teacheth that the Pope may 
b Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 6. quantum.  change Kingdoms, take them from one, and give them to another, as the chief Spiritual Prince, if it be necessary for the salvation of souls. But when shall it be holden necessary? That may appear by the dealing of 
c Sententia declaratoria cont. Eliz. apud Sand. de schiss. l. 3. pag. 315.  Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth: for when that virtuous Princess had banished the Pope, and Popish abominations, and planted the Gospel of jesus Christ, continuing constant in the profession thereof, her Religion he judged heresy, her constancy he called obstinacy, and thereupon pronounced her deprived of her Crown and dignity, dissolved the sacred bond of Allegiance, and cursed all that should obey her. Which proceedings he called Arma justitiae, the weapons of justice, pretending he was constrained thereunto 
d Adarma justitiae, contra eam de necessitate conversi. ibidem.  of necessity. Wherefore if a Prince shall banish Idolatry and superstition, and continue zealous in the reformation of Religion, it shallbe judged a just, sufficient, and necessary cause of deprivation. Thus you make a show of Learning and Religion, but train up your scholars to treason and rebellion. Is this the preaching of the Catholic faith? Is this the ghostly good of your Country? Is this the Pope's incomparable love? And as he hath small love to England, so notwithstanding his fair pretences, he beareth not very much to you: for the Pope being an old politician, may be well resembled to the Mariner, which looketh one way, and roweth another; He sendeth you ample gifts, but he sendeth them upon a hook, and while you catch at the bait, you swallow the hook. And as the Fisher baiteth with little fishes to catch the greater, so the Pope being a cunning Fisher, useth you but for a bait to catch England, and there to restore his Golden Supremacy, which may be called Golden, because it brought unto him mountains of Silver and Gold. But that you may the better perceive the dangerous state wherein you stand, give me leave to use a plain, but a fit comparison; An Ape seeing a Chestnut in the fire, and not knowing how to get it, spied a Spaniel by the fire side, and suddenly catched his foot to rake out the chestnut. Here you may see your own faces in a homely glass. The Golden Supremacy is the Chestnut, perils and dangers are the fire, the Pope loath to burn his own fingers, useth you but as the Spaniel's foot to scrape for the Chestnut; little regardeth he how you be scorched, so he be in hope to obtain his desire. But though many of you have burned both your hands and your hearts, yet hitherto (God be thanked) he hath miss the Chestnut.  PHIL. 
NOw I plainly perceive, That you are deeply engaged in 
5.  the schism and heresy 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 zeal and devotion burning like the flaming fire, the sparkling Stars in the firmament were not so glorious: but now, alas, since Caluinisme came in, thou hast lost thy lustre, thy glory is eclipsed, there remaineth no sparkle of thy ancient love, no faith, no Religion, no Church.  ORTHOD. 
You tread in the steps of your forefather's, and help to fill up the measure of their iniquity. For it hath been always their custom to lay odious imputations upon our Religion, that by this stratagem they might win Proselytes unto their own. 
a Brist. demand. 48.  Rich. Bristol affirmed that our Religion is proved by experience to be indeed no Religion. 
b Apol. c. 1.  Cardinal Allen, speaking of our Sacraments, Service and Sermons, calleth them things which assuredly procure damnation. 
c Caluinoturcis. l. 1. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 11. & passim.  William Reinolds hath blazed to the world, that our Religion is worse than the Turkish. The books of Sanders and Parsons have been as full of slanders, as a serpent is of poison. To pass over Harding, Stapleton and others, the latter brood is as venomous as the former. One example for all may be that lewd Libeler which exclaimeth, That the 
d Certain Articles or forcible reasons. Artic. 1.  Protestants have no faith, no hope, no charity, no repentance, no justification, no Church, no Altar, no sacrifice, no Priest, no Religion, no Christ. What shall we say to these intemperate spirits? If they speak of malice, than I say with Michael the Archangel, 
e Epist. jud. v. 9  The Lord rebuke them: but if they speak of ignorance (as I hope they do) than I say with the holy Martyr S. Stephen, 
f Acts 7. 60.  Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; Or with our blessed Saviour, 
g Luke 23. 34.  Father, forgive them, they wot not what they do. For that faith and Religion which is agreeable to the Scripture is true, holy, ancient, Catholic and Apostolic: But the faith and Religion publicly professed at this day in England is in every Article and branch thereof, agreeable to the Scripture: therefore it is in every Article and branch thereof, true, holy, ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic. Moreover, where the Gospel is truly preached, and the holy Sacraments rightly administered, there is a true Christian visible Church: but both these duties are religiously performed in England: what reason have you then to say, that we have no Church?  PHIL. 
BEcause you have no ministery: for there cannot be a Church 
6.  without Pastors and bishops, as 
h Cypr. l. 4▪ Epist. 9  S. Cyprian teacheth, who defineth the Church to be a people united to a Bishop. And 
i jere. cont. Luciferia●o●.  S Hierome, when he saith, That it is no Church which hath not Priests. This doth appear evidently by S. Paul, who declareth that Christ 
k Ephes. 4. 11. 12.  gave Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints, the work of the ministery, and the edification of the body of Christ, until we meet all in the unity of faith into a perfect man, and the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. In which place as our learned 
l Bel. de Ectles. militant l. 3. c. 13. praeterea. & l. 4. c. 8. sed ut vi●.  Cardinal hath observed, the Apostle teacheth, That there shall be Pastors in the Church till the day of judgement, for than we shall meet the Lord in the unity of faith. Behold, saith father 
m Hess. quaest. 2. de Eccle. p. 51.  Hessius, till the number of the Elect be accomplished in the end of the world, the Church shall always have Pastors and teachers. Neither doth 
n Vide Bellar. de eccles. milit. l. 4. c. 8.  Luther deny this, but rather put it among the Notes of the Church; And 
o Cal Inst. l. 4. c. 3. sec. 4. sequ●ntur pastors & doctores quibble career nunquam potest ecclesia.  Calvin affirmeth, That the Church can never want Pastors and teachers. From this plain approved principle, thus I dispute; Where there is no true ministery, there is no true Church: but among the Protestants in England there is no true ministery: therefore among them there is no true Church.   

CHAP. II.  
Wherein is declared in general, how the Papists traduce our Ministers as merely Lay-men: And in particular what they mislike in our Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons: Whereupon the general controversy concerning the ministery is divided into three particular controversies, The first of Bishops, the second of Presbyters, The third of Deacons.  ORTHODOX. 
WHat mislike you in our ministery?  PHIL. 
Not one thing or two, but the whole frame of it absolutely and altogether: for to deal plainly, your Ministers are no Ministers, but merely Lay men; Neither is this my private opinion, but the general judgement of our learned divines which affirm the same. As for example; 
a Brist. Motive 21.  Ri. Bristol. Consider what Church that is, whose Ministers are but very Lay men, unsent, uncalled, vnconsecrated, and therefore executing their pretended Office without benefit or spiritual comfort of any man, yea to the certain and great damnation of themselves and others, unfit and unworthy (by this only that they be called to that fond function) of any service in the Church of God; holding therefore amongst us, when they repent and come again, no other place, but the place of Lay-men: in no case admitted, no nor looking to minister in any Office, unless they take our Orders, which before they had not. 
b 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 have none. 
c Sand. de schism. l. 3. pag. 299.  D. Sanders. The new Clergy in England is composed, partly of our Apostates, partly of merely Lay-men. 
d Houl●t. brief discour. reason 7.  M. Houlet. That either all, or the most part of the Ministers of England be merely Lay men, and no Priests, and consequently have no authority in these things, it is evident. 
e Annotat. Rom. 10. 15.  Cardinal Allen, with our learned divines at Rheims; All your new Evangelists, which have intruded themselves into Church and Pulpit, be every one from the highest to the lowest false prophets, running and usurping, being never lawfully called. 
f Stap princ. doct. l. 1●. c. 6.  D. Stapleton; They being sent of no man, nor having Ordination, have invaded the Ecclesiastical Chairs. 
g 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, having neither Order, nor jurisdiction. 
h Caluino-tur. l 4. c. 15. pag. 975.  William Reinolds; There is no feeder of sheep or oxen in all Turkey, which doth not undertake the government of his flock, or drove upon better reason, and greater right, order and authority, than these your magnificent Apostles and Evangelists can show, for this their Prophetical and Apostolical, and most divine and most high Office of governing souls, reforming Churches, teaching heavenly Truth, and declaring the mind and will of God to men. And finally the Catholic Priests in their 
i Supply. Anno 1604.  supplication to King james; Neither is any of your Protestant Ministers coming to our Catholic fraternity, reputed other then merely Lay-men without Orders. Thus you see how we all agree in this point. Neither is this the opinion of us English Exiles only, but other Catholic doctors are of the same mind. The Heretics of our age (saith 
k Bell. de eccls milit. l. 4. c. ●.  Bellarmine) have neither Ordination, nor succession, and therefore they usurp unto themselves the name and Office of a Bishop more immodestly, then ever did any other heretics. And other 
l Posna●en. se●assert de Christi in terris eccles. Thes. 60.  reverend divines use almost the same words: 
m Greg. de Va●en. tom. 4. disp. 9 q. 3. punct. 2.  Gregory de Valentia saith, Certainly it is apparent, that in the Catholic Roman Church there are lawful Ecclesiastical Ministers, as being rightly ordained of true Bishops, but in the Synagogues of Sectaries it is evident that there are not lawful Ministers, for they are not ordained of lawful Bishops: and therefore it is manifest that they have no Church, seeing that a Church cannot want lawful Ministers. Likewise father 
a 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 schismatical, and other Ministers whom Bishop's ordained: But the Protestants have no form or fashion of a Church at all, because they have no Ministers at all of the Church or word, but mere Lay men. 
b Lanoius cited by Schultingius, bib. cathol. t. 4. pag. 33.  Mattheus Lanoius hath proved, that only the Roman Church hath lawful vocation. And 
c Apud Schulting●bid●●.  D. Tyreus hath written of the false calling of the new Ministers, but these are sufficient. And that this is the judgement of holy Church may appear by the practice: for as you have heard out of Rich. Bristol▪ Your Ministers returning to us, are not admitted to minister, unless they take our Orders, which showeth, that in the judgement of the Church, they are not lawful Ministers, but merely Lay-men.  ORTHOD. 
Our ministery is agreeable to the blessed book of God, and therefore holy: and I doubt not but when the chief Shepherd shall appear, those that have instructed many unto righteousness, shall shine as the stars for ever and ever. But how prove you that our Ministers are no lawful Ministers?  PHIL. 
CAn there be a lawful Minister without a lawful calling? 
2.   ORTHOD. 
It is impossible; 
d Hebr. 5. 4.  For no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. It is written of john the Baptist, 
e john 1. 6.  There was a man sent from God. The Apostles did not preach before they had this warrant, 
f Matth. 10. 16.  Behold I send you. And S. Paul saith, 
g Rom. 10. 15.  How can they preach except they be sent? And the Lord in the Prophet 
h jere. 23. 25.  jeremy, reproveth such as ran before they were sent. Therefore though a man were wiser than 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 
i Bez. Epist. 5.  Beza) appointed in the Church by the Son of God, and observed inviolably by all true Prophets and Apostles, That no man may teach in the Church unless he be called.  PHIL. 
If there cannot be a lawful Minister without a lawful calling, than I must demand how the Ministers of England can justify their calling; Might not a man say to every one of you, as 
k Hard. confut. of the Apol. part. 2. c. 5.  Harding said to jewel? How say you sir? you bear yourself as though you were Bishop of Salisbury, but how can you prove your vocation? by what authority usurp you the Administration of Doctrine and Sacraments? what can you allege for the right and proof of your ministery? who hath called you? who hath laid hands on you? by what example hath he done it? how and by whom are you consecrated? who hath sent you? who hath committed unto you the Office you take upon you? be you a Priest, or be you not? if you be not, how dare you usurp the name and Office of a Bishop? if you be, tell us who gave you Orders?  ORTHOD. 
You please yourselves, and beat the air with a sound of idle and empty words, but leave your vain flourishes, and let us hear what you can say against our calling.  PHIL. 
Then I demand whether you have an inward or an outward calling?  ORTHOD. 
We have both.  PHIL. 
An outward calling must either be immediately by the voice of Christ, as was the calling of the Apostles, or mediately by the Church.  ORTHOD. 
We are called of God by the Church: For it is 
a Ephes. 4. 11. 1●.  he which giveth Pastors and teachers for the consummation of the Saints.  PHIL. 
All that are called of God by the Church, derive their authority by lawful succession from Christ and his Apostles. If you do so, then let it appear, show us your descent, let us see your pedigree. If you cannot, then what are you? whence come you? If you tell us that God hath raised you in extraordinary manner, you must pardon us if we be slow in believing such things; there are many deceivers gone out into the world, and Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light. In a word, every lawful calling is either ordinary or extraordinary: if yours be ordinary, let us see your authority: if extraordinary, let us see your miracles. If one take upon him extraordinary authority, as an Ambassador from a King, he must produce his commission under the King's seal. If you will challenge the like from God, than we require a miracle, that is the Seal of the King of heaven. But (to use the words of 
b 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 have builded upon it falleth down.  ORTHOD. 
The Ministers of England receive imposition of hands in lawful manner, from lawful Bishops, endued with lawful authority; and therefore their calling is Ordinary.  PHIL. 
Your Bishops themselves, whence have they this authority?  ORTHOD. 
They received it from God, by the hands of such Bishops as went before them.  PHIL. 
But your first reformers, whence do they derive their succession?  ORTHOD. 
Archbishop Cranmer, and other heroical spirits, whom the Lord used as his instruments to reform Religion in England, had the very self-same Ordination and succession whereof you so glory; and therefore if these argue that your calling is Ordinary, you must confess that theirs likewise was Ordinary.  PHIL. 
We must not only examine Cranmer, and such others consecrated in King Henry's time, but them also which were in King Edward's, and in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's, as Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horn, and the like, which were Priests after the Roman rite, but leapt out of the Church before they were Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
As the first Bishops consecrated in King Edward's time, derived their Spiritual power by succession from those that were in King Henry's: so the first that were advanced under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, received theirs from such as were formerly created, partly in K. Henry's days, partly in King Edward's; And the Bishops at this day under our gracious sovereign King JAMES, have the like succession from their predecessors, as may be justified by Records in particular, and is confessed in general by 
c Exempla habemus in Anglia quam ●inri●a, v● Parkeri, Grindalli, Sa●d●s●●, Hor●●, & aliorum qui secundum ritum Catholicum 〈…〉 Presbyteri ordinati, etc. Brist. ant●h. motiu. t. 2. p. 266.  ●udsemius, who came into England in the year of our Lord 1608. to observe the state of our Church, and the Orders of our Universities. 
d ●udsemius de desper Cal. causa. c. 11. p. 108.  Concerning the state (saith he) of the Calvinian sect in England, it so standeth, that it may either endure long, or be changed suddenly, and in a tr●ce, 
e Propter Catholicum ibidem in perpetua Episcoporum ●uorum seri●, legit●maque pasiorum successione, ab Ecclesi● accepta Ordinem.  in regard of the Catholic order there, in a perpetual line of their Bishops, and the lawful succession of Pastors received from the Church: for the honour whereof we use to call the English Caluinists by a milder term, not heretics, but schismatics. Behold, he confesseth we have the Catholic order, a perpetual line of Bishops, & a lawful succession of Pastors, & that derived from the Church. But withal I would have you to know, that though we received it from the Church of Rome, yet with a double difference. For first Cr●nmer and the rest received 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 retaining only that which was good, delivered it unto posterity. 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 usurped the chair of Christ; so that now in the Church of Rome, good things and bad things were mingled together: therefore in that which you received from Christ, we willingly succeed you: in that which you have from Antichrist, we renounce and disclaim you. Secondly Cranmer and the rest received from you a shell of succession without the kernel of Doctrine. For though your Church did give men power to preach the truth, yet being bewitched with Antichrist, in many things it did not reveal the truth, but when God by the Scriptures revealed it unto them, they both preached it themselves and commended it to posterity. Neither was this to leap out of the Church, but out of the corruptions in the Church, even as the wheat kernel when it is cleansed, leapeth not out of the barn, but out of the chaff. Moreover though our Doctrine may seem to you extraordinary, 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 delivered in holy Scripture, to be ordinary in the Church, till the end of the world, and therefore you have no reason to require any Miracles at our hands.  PHIL. 
These points shallbe further scanned I warrant you. In the mean time, As 
a E● 〈◊〉 tur. l 4. ●. 13. pag. 928.  Tigellius in 
b H●r. l. 1. sat. 3.  Horace had nothing certain and settled in all the course of his life, but was always distracted into contrary affections: In respect of his pace, some times he ran most swiftly as though he had fled from his enemy; some times he moved so slowly as though he had carried the sacrifices of juno: In respect of his train, he had many times two hundred attending him, again, sometimes he had only two: And in his speech, now he imitated Kings and tetrarchs, and spoke nothing but all big words; an other time he would stoop to very mean matters; So that nothing was more unlike and unequal in the course of life, than this poor wretch was to himself: even so your D●ctors some times they creep upon the ground, by and by they catch at the clouds and stars. Now they refuse all miracles and ●nock at such at require them, on a sudden they challenge to themselves all the miracles since the beginning of the world.  ORTHOD. 
And herein they do nothing, but what may stand with reason. For if you speak of our doctrine, we profess and are ready to prove, that we teach the same doctrine for substance, which Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles both taught and confirmed by Miracles: And in this sense all the Miracles of Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles are ours, because they are so many seals and confirmations of that Doctrine which we teach. But if the question be concerning our persons, than we confess that we can work no miracles, we take no such matter upon us; neither is it necessary because both our calling and doctrine are Ordinary.  PHIL. 
I will prove that you have no lawful ordinary calling in the 
3.  Church of England. And first you challenge to yourselves no other ministers, but either Bishops or Priests or Deacons, for other inferior orders you have none. But neither your Bishops, nor your Priests, nor your Deacons, have any lawful ordinary calling. For first to the ordinary calling of a Bishop, ordination or consecration is requisite by precedent Bishops having episcopal power of order and jurisdiction; but your Bishops are descended from such progenitors as had neither of these; no Episcopal power of Order, because either they had no consecration at all, or at least such as is not able to abide the touchstone; no Episcopal jurisdiction, because they are neither elected nor confirmed by our holy Father the successor of Peter, to whom only Christ gave the Keys, and in them the fullness of all Ecclesiastical power. Therefore your Bishops are no Bishops, and consequently all ordinations derived from them are mere nullities.  
SEcondly your ordination of Priests is most intolerable: 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 seemly ceremonies. First of all the Bishop with all the priests present 
a Catechis. Triden de Ordin. sacram.  layeth his hands upon the head of the person to be ordained: then he investeth him in a sacred 
b Ibidem.  stole, so fitted and fashioned that it maketh a Cross upon his breast: after this he anointeth his hands with 
c Ibidem. Sacr. cerem. l. 1. s. 2.  holy oil; and lastly he delivereth him the Chalice with wine, and the Paten with the host, saying: 
d Pontif. De ordinac. presbyteri. p. 66. Catechis. ibid. Sacr. cer. ibid.  Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, Missasque celebraretam pro vivis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini: that is, take thou power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well for the quick as for the dead in the name of the Lord. This is the first part of the ordination, which graceth him with the principal function of Priesthood, whereby he is made 
e Catechis. ibi.  interpres & mediator dei & hominum. That is, an Interpreter and mediator of God and man: Yea, 
f Bonner in crat. ad synod. Londmen.  higher than a King, happier than an Angel, 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 do; 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. Moreover after Mass the Bishop 
g Pontif. ibid. pag. 73.  imposeth hands, saying. Accipe spiritu●● sanctum, quorum peccata remiseris remituntur cis, & quorum retinueris retenta sunt, that is, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou forgivest, they are forgiven them, and whose thou retainest, they are retained. This is the second part, wherein he receiveth the second function of Priesthood, that is, the power of absolution. Such are the rites of holy Church, wherein you are notoriously defective. To pass over with silence your contempt of the sacred ceremonies, of Crossing and anointing, which are but accidental, you want the very essential and substantial parts of Priesthood. For your Church giveth no authority to offer the sovereign sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ; and though you have a kind of absolution, yet to small purpose. For you neither use auricular confession, nor sufficient enjoining of penance, nor satisfaction for sin, but have turned the true judicial absolution into a declaratory.  
LAst of all your Deacons are no Deacons, not only because your Bishops 
5  have no authority to ordain, but also because they are defective in the main point of their function: for though the Bishops say, 
a The form of consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon, yet he meaneth nothing less: for the chief office of a Deacon is to 
b Diaconorum erat sacerdoti sacrificanti assistere, etc. Bell. de cler. c. 13.  assist the Priest in saying of Mass, which you scorn and contemn. By this it appeareth that you have not one Bishop, one Priest, one Deacon in all the Church of England, that hath a lawful ordinary vocation: therefore your pretended Ministers are merely lay men. All these things with every branch thereof shall be justified to your faces, from point to point, if you or any of your Rabbins dare encounter us in a 
c Fateor mescholasacademicat cupidè requirere. Camp. rat. 2.  scholastical combat, either privately or rather publicly, in the face of an University, or rather solemnly in 
d In curiam verbo principis inniri Conuolabimus. Campian. rat. 4.  Court, in the Prince's presence. This is the thing that we desire.  ORTHOD. 
THe world is well enough acquainted with your boasting books, and vain glorious vaunts. We have heard the brags of Bristol, and of Parsons the great Polypragmon: but especially we 
6  cannot forget Campian, the glorious jesuit, who coming into England to display the Pope's Banner, like a worthy Champion cast out his gauntlet and braved both our Universities. But the success of this proud popish challenger, may call to your mind the saying of the King of Israel to Benhadad King of Syria; 
e 1. King. 20. 11.  Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast as he that putteth it off. You exclaim against our ministry, as though we had neither Bishops, Presbyters, nor Deacons: whereupon it followeth that the whole controversy about our ministery consisteth of three particular controversies; the first concerning Bishops, the second concerning Presbyters, and the third concerning Deacc●s. Again in our Bishops you disannul both their consecration and jurisdiction: Wherefore the first particular controversy is divided into two branches, the former of Episcopal consecration, the latter of jurisdiction, concerning which for mine own part I do not profess myself a champion to accept your challenge, our Church (God be thanked) is far better furnished, and our two famous Universities, are like to the 
f Canticl. 4. 4.  Tower of David built for defence, a thousand shields hang therein, and all the Targets of the strong men. Yet I must needs confess, that my soul is grieved to hear the host of Israel, the army of the living God reviled. Wherefore in regard of my duty to God, and the Church, I will not keep silence. Yet one thing I admonish you, if you mean to dispute with reproach and disdain, the garland is yours; I will yield you the bucklers before we begin, but if you desire in singleness of heart to find and follow the truth, if to this end you will compare reason with reason, and argument with argument, in meekness and mildness of spirit, if you hold the truth of God in that precious account, that you will suffer it to overbalance all popular applause and worldly respects, than I am content to be partaker with you in the search thereof. The Lord give us wisdom and grace to know his will, and to do 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 prove that your Bishops are no Bishops.   

CHAP. III.  
Wherein they descend to the first branch concerning Episcopal consecration, whereupon arise two questions; the former, whether three Bishops he required of absolute necessity to the consecration of a new Bishop, the state whereof is explained out of Popish writers.  ORTHODOX. 
WHerein are they defective? Are they bore titulary Bishops without any Sees? or are they Bishops without the Bishoply office and function? The first you cannot affirm, because we consecreate none but such as are assigned to the administration of a certain place, according to the Canon of the Council of 
a Act. 15. Can. 6. Bin. t. 2. p. 129  Chalcedon. But whether you have offended in this or no, witness your own famous 
b Panor. de officio ord. quoniam. n. 4.  Panormitane. Nota quod multi sunt Episcopi sine administratione Episcopatuum, ut sunt illi qui vulgariter Nullatenenses appellantur. i. Note that there are many Bishops without the administration of bishoprics, as are they which are commonly called Bishops of Utopia. These pretend great titles, and please themselves in that sweet humour, which is nothing else but a vain dream and mere mockery. They are like unto the 
c Thrasylaus.  mad man, which when any 
d Athenaeus dipnos. l. 12  ships arrived at Athens, cried out, all is mine, and took an Inventory of their goods, yet was he never one penny the richer. Of this frantic crew were 
e Gentilletus in examine.  Olaus Magnus, and blind Robert, Archbishops in conceit, the one styled Vpsalensis, the other Armachanus, both sent to the 
f Slcid. come. l. 17  Council of Trent to fill up the number. So 
g Bish. Godwin. in Catal.  Robert King the last Abbot of Osney was entitled Episcopus Roanensis, whose episcopal See was supposed to be in the Province of the archbishopric of Athens, but he was glad to be translated from thence to Oxford. 
h Ibidem  Thomas Merkes Bishop of Carlisle was removed by the Pope from his own bishopric which yielded him convenient maintenance, to the imaginary bishopric of Samos in Greece, whereof he knew he should never receive one penny of profit: but as 
i Ibidem.  one hath well observed, He was so happy as neither to take benefit of the gift of his enemy, nor to be hurt by the masked malice of his counterfeit friend. Anthony Beck Bishop of Durham was advanced by the Pope to be 
k Lelandus in Com. in cygn. cant. Antonius Beccus hic fuit Episcopus Dunelm. regnant Ed. 1. electus est in patriarcham Hieros●lymitanum anno. 1305  Patriarch of jerusalem: but if he had reaped no better maintenance from the Bishopric of Durham, then from jerusalem, for all his glorious title he might have starved. For the Pope (as 
l jewel. def. part. 5. c. 6. dist. 10  B. jewel hath told you) being forsaken of the four principal patriarchs of the world, appointeth out four of his ordinary Chaplains (or other Prelates whom it pleaseth him) and giveth them the names of four patriarchs, the first for Constantinople, the second for Alexandria, the third for Antioch, the fourth for jerusalem: and thus having these four at command, in this pleasant fancy he ruleth and governeth the whole world. In such a solemn bravery the great Cham of Tartary at this day, after he hath dined himself, soundeth out a trumpet, and giveth all the Emperors and Kings of the world leave to go to dinner; in which imagination and jollity he continueth his claim to the possession of the world. So the Pope maketh painted patriarchs, filling their ambitious heads with empty titles like to great bladders blown full of wind. Such Utopian Bishops may justly 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 
2  according to the 
a Cited afterward.  Canons.  ORT. 
The ancient Canons are more reverently regarded in the Church of England, then in the Church of Rome. For how well you have observed them in former ages, let your own 
b Bar. anno 912. n. 8.  Baronius testify. How foul (saith he) was then the face of the holy Roman Church, when most potent and withal most filthy harlots did bear all the sway at Rome? at whose lust Sees were changed, Bishops appointed, and (which is horrible to be heard and not to be uttered) whose lovers the false Popes, were thrust into the seat of Peter, which were not to be written in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops, but only for the noting of the times: for who may say, they were lawful Popes which were thus without right thrust in by such strumpets? No where we find any mention of Clergy choosing, or giving consent afterward; All Canons were put to silence; the pontifical decrees were choked, ancient traditions proscribed, and the old customs, sacredrite, and former use in choosing the high Bishop utterly extinguished. And for later times, your own learned friends also complain as followeth: 
c Bud. the ass. l. 5.  Budeus: The holy Canons and rules of Church discipline made in better times to guide the life of Clergy men, are now become leaden rules, such as Aristotle saith the rules of Lesbyan buildings were. For as leaden and soft rules do not direct the building with an equal tenor, but are bowed to the building at the lust of the builders: so are the Pope's Canons made flexible as lead and wax, that now this great while the Decrees of our ancestors, and the Pope's Canons, serve not to guide men's manners, but (that I may so say) to make a bank and get money. 
d Vict. rel. 4. de potest pap. prop. 6. p. 139.  Franciscus de Victoria, Doct: of the chair at Salmantica in Spain. We see daily so large or rather so dissolute dispensations proceed from the Court of Rome, that the world cannot endure them. Neither is it only to the offence of the little ones, but of the great ones also. 
e Nullus quaeris dispensationem quin obtipeat. pag. 148  No man seeketh a dispensation but he obtaineth it: Yea at Rome there are which give 
f As may be collected. pag. 149.  attendance to see if any be willing to crave dispensation of all things established by law: 
g Omnes qui petunt afferunt dispensationes. ibid.  all that crave it have it. If you Philodox would see the particulars, read but 
h Espen. in Tit. c. 1. digr. 2.  Claudius Espencaeus a divine of Paris upon the Epistle to Titus, and unless your forehead be as hard as brass it will make you blush. I will conclude this point with the saying of 
i Tapp. Orat. 10. anno 1552  Ruardus Tapperus Chancellor of Louvain. In the Court of Rome all things are set at sale, with dispensations containing many things wherewith Christ himself is not able to dispense. 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 answer first, that the consecration of our Bishops is most canonical: Secondly, that if we failed in this or that Canon, yet every transgression of an Ecclesiastical Canon doth not make a nullity in a consecration: As for example, It was provided by the great 
k Conc. Sard. can. 10. Bin. t. 1. p. 437.  Council of Sardica that none should be made Bishop, unless he had passed the inferior orders, and stayed a long time in them. Notwithstanding 
l Soz. l. 7. ●. 8  Nectarius was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, being not only a lay-man; but as yet unbaptized: and was presently made Bishop in the second general 
m Conc. Const. in ●p. synod. Bin. t. 1. p. 529  Council held at Constantinople. Likewise Saint 
n Socr. l. 4. c. 25  Ambrose, 
o Zacharias in Con. 8. Been t. 3. pag. 887.  Tarasius, Nicephorus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Thalasius; yea and some 
p Marcel. Corc. l. 1. sect. 2 sacr. Ceremon.  Popes also as for example Petrus Moronaeus, were of lay men advanced to the Episcopal office, yet I know you dare not pronounce a nullity in their Consecration. Wherefore seeing it is a plain case, that every breach of a Canon doth not annihilate a consecration, you must tell us what Canon you mean and wherein we break it.  PHIL. 
I mean that Canon which requireth that a Bishop should be consecrated by three Bishops: which Canon the 
* Catechis. Trid. de ordinis sacramento: Episcopi ex Apostolorun traditione qu● perpetuo in Ecclesia custodita est, atribu● Episcopic consecrantur.  Council of Trent calleth an Apostolic tradition.  ORTHO. 
HEre arise two questions; the former, whether three Bishops 
3.  be required of necessity to an Episcopal consecration; the later, whether the Bishops of England be consecrated by three. Now that the state of the former may be the clearer, give me leave to ask you a few things. And first, what say you to Amphilochius, who was created Bishop not by men but by Angels, unless 
a Lib. 11. c. 20  Nicephorus delude us with fables?  PHIL. 
It seemeth to be no fable, but a true Story. For Amphilochius was allowed for a lawful Bishop, but this was done (as Cardinal 
b Bell. de sacram. in gen. l. 1. c. 24.  Bellarmine saith) by divine 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. 
Cardinal 
c joh. de Tur. sum. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 32.  Turrecremata teacheth, that christ himself made Peter a Bishop immediately, and Peter ordained the rest, first john, next james, than others. And Cardinal 
d Bell. de R. Pont. l. 1. c. 23.  Bellarmine maketh it the two and twentieth prerogative of Peter, Quòd solus Petrus a Christo ordinatus Episcopus fuerit, caeteri autem a Petro Episcopalem consecrationem acceperint, i. That only Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the rest received their Episcopal consecration from Peter.  ORTHOD. 
These conceits and fancies when they shallbe weighed in the balance, willbe found too light. In the mean time, what say you to the consecration of john and james, were they sound and Canonical?  PHIL. 
They were sound no doubt, but why should you ask if they were canonical, seeing the Canon was not then made? You must understand, that there is one consideration to be had of the Church when it is in the cradle, and another, when it is grown to ripe and flourishing years. In the infancy of the Church, when Christ ascending into glory had consecrated Peter, and made him the spring and fountain of all Episcopal Order, it was necessary that the first should be consecrated by Peter alone, the next by two at the most, and these consecrations were sound and sufficient: but when james the brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by Peter, john and the other james, they gave a Form or Pattern to their successors, as 
e Anacl. ep. 2. c. 1. apud Bin. tom. 1. p. 101.  Anacletus declareth that a Bishop should by no means be consecrated by fewer then by three, all the rest giving their consent.  ORTHO. 
Suppose a Church should suffer such desolation (which the Lord forbid) that a Canonical number of Catholic Bishops were not to be found, what should then be done in this case of necessity?  PHIL. 
We may learn that, partly of the Council of 
a Conc. Sar. c. 5. Bin. tom. 1. p. 435.  Sardica, which permitteth a supply from the next province: partly of Pope 
b Greg. 7. epist. 19 apud Bin. ●. 3. p. 1210.  Gregory the seventh, who when the Churches of Africa were brought to so low an ebb, that they had only two Bishops, would not suffer those two to consecrate a third, but willed them to proceed to an election, and send the party elected to Rome to be consecrated by three.  ORTHO. 
The presence of three, when they may conveniently be had, we greatly commend, yet not as a commandment of God, but as a constitution of the Church, to be embraced of congruity, and not of necessity.  PHIL. 
YEs of necessity, and that both necessitate precepti, by the necessity 
4.  of a command, which we are bound to obey, because as 
c 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 means; necessary I say, not only add been 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 general judgment of the jurists, as appeareth by those words of Cardinal 
d joh. Turr. in Grat. decr. tom. 1. p. 492.  Turrecremata, juristae quasi omnes sunt huius opinionis quod requiratur ternarius numerus Episcoporum, ita ut si quis a paucioribus consecretur, dicatur nihil agi; that is, almost all the jurists 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 judgement of the jurists prevaileth with most eminent Canonists, as appeareth by the words following in the Cardinal: unde Hugo & Archidiaconus dicunt, ut Papa solus cum uno Episcopo non posset consecrare hac forma durant, that is, whereupon Hugo and the Archdeacon say that the Pope alone with one Bishop cannot consecrate, so long as this form endureth. The words of the Archdeacon are these, 
e 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 sive forma qu● exigitur in collatione illius ordinis, that is, therefore it is of the form and substance of the Sacrament that there be three Bishops, and if one be ordained of less he is no Bishop: because the substance or form required in the Collation of that Order is wanting. Moreover whereas in the second 
f Conc. Arelat. 2. ●a. 5. Bin. tom. 1. p. 537.  Counsel at Arles it is said, that a Metropolitan should not presume to ordain a Bishop without three of his provincial Bishops: which the Canon 
g 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 gloss upon the word (three), saith thus, quod dicit (tribus) est de substantia consecrationis alias non esset consecratus ●iessent pauciores, that is, Whereas the Council saith, (three) it is of the substance of the consecration, otherwise he should not be consecrated if there were fewer.  ORTHO. 
IS this the judgement of your Jesuits?  PHIL. 
Father Turrian speaking of the Metropolitan 
5.  and two Bishop's assistant, saith, 
h Tur. pro can. apost. l. 1. c. 22. fol. 7●.  Hi sunt tres prorsus necessarij, these are three altogether necessary: and 
i Tur. de. eccle. & ordinat. minist. l. 1. c. 11.  elsewhere he produceth this saying of 
k 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 ut qui ab uno vela duobus ordinati sunt Episcopis neque nominentur Episcopi: si nomen non habent qualiter officium habebunt? that is, it is manifest to all men that they are no Bishops, which are ordained of less than 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 have not the name, how should they have the office? and he inferreth this conclusion in the words of Damasus: Quare quicquid inter Episcopos aut de rebus solummodo adeos pertinentibus egerint; necesse est ut irritum fiat, quia quod non habent, dare non possunt: that is, Wherefore whatsoever they shall do among Bishops, or concerning things belonging only to Bishops, it must needs be void, because they cannot give that to another which they have not themselves. Whereupon he accounteth your Bishops no Bishops, your Ministers no Ministers, your ordinations, no ordinations. 
a 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 Schismatical ordinations, but no ordinations at all, and mere laic.  ORTHO. 
What saith Bellarmine to this matter? for he was the noble and renowned jesuit, though now he hath changed his habit for a red hat.  PHIL. 
He saith, 
b Bell. de e 〈…〉 l lib. 4. ca●. 8 nota quart●.  Nostri temporis haeretici neutrum habent, id est, nec ordinationem, nec successionem, & propterea longé inverecundiús quam ulli unquam haeretici sibi nomen & munus Episcopi usurpant: i. the Heretics of our time have neither, that is, neither ordination nor succession, and therefore they usurp unto themselves the name and office of a Bishop far more immodestly than ever did any other Heretics; the ground of which assertion (as may appear both by the antecedents and consequents) is because they are not consecrated by three.  ORTHO. 
Doth he not allow a consecration by fewer in case of necessity?  PHIL. 
It cannot be doubted (saith he) 
c Ibid. quantum ad.  but ordinarily three Bishops are required to the ordination of a new Bishop: unless peradventure by dispensation with one Bishop ordaining, there be present two mitred Abbots which may supply the place of Bishops, as it useth sometimes to be done, ob Episcoporum raritatem, for the scarcity of Bishops. Hitherto Bellarmine to which 
d Bin. in can. apost. tom. 1. p. 14.  Binius addeth, aliamue iustam causam, or for any other just cause.  ORTHO. 
By whose dispensation must this be?  PHILLIP, 

e Ibidem.  Binius saith per summi Pontificis dispensationem, by the Pope's dispensation.  ORTHO. 
If there be neither three nor two nor any Abbot's assisting, nor yet the Pope's dispensation, what is then the judgement of Bellarmine?  PHIL. 
You shall hear himself speak: 
f Be 〈…〉 que.  from which an insoluble argument is taken in this manner. A Church cannot be without Bishops, as we have declared: among the Lutherans there are no Bishops, for they have no ordination, nor succession from the Apostles: therefore among them there is no Church, And verily that neither Luther who was accounted Bishop of Wittenberg, nor Zuinglius, who was reputed Bishop of Tigur, nor Oecolampadius, who in the very Epitaph upon his grave is called the first Bishop of Basill, nor Calvin, who was called the first Bishop of Geneva, nor any other of them were ordained of three Bishops, nor of one by dispensation with the assistance of Abbots is a thing notoriously known; neither do they deny it. Therefore these are no Bishops, at least in the judgement of the Fathers of the Nicen and Carthaginian Council, yea in the judgement of the Apostles themselves, who have decreed that a Bishop ought to be ordained by three Bishops. Thus Bellarmine is clearly of opinion that a Bishop must either be ordained of three, or have assistance of Abbots with a dispensation, or else he is no Bishop, and this argument he calleth insoluble.  ORTHO. 
HOw this doth cross and condradict itself in due place 
6.  shall appear: in the mean time I would willingly know what is the received opinion of your Seminaries. There is a certain manuscript book called Controversiae huius temporis in Epitomen reductae, made by Parsons the jesuit out of the Dictates of Bellarmine and Maldonate, and appointed to be written out by every Student in your College; I pray you what saith that book to this point?  PHIL. 
It agreeth with the former, the words are these; 
a 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 inevitabiliter Haereticos non habere ullos pastores seu Episcopos, cum primi illorum Episcopi, Calvinus, Lutherus, Zuinglius nunquam fuerunt ordinati ab aliis Episcopis. That is, The first Canon of the Apostles declareth this same thing, to wit, that a Bishop cannot be ordained but of three Bishops, hence it followeth avoidable▪ that the Heretics have not any pastors or Bishops, seeing that their first Bishops Calvin, Luther, Zuinglius had never been ordained of other Bishops.  ORTHO. 
HItherto we have seen how you hold the state of the first 
7.  question, but do your Jesuits and Seminaries urge this against the Church of England?  PHIL. 
Yes for it is a main point.  ORTHO. 
Then your main point is a vain point, but let us hear them.  PHIL. 
Bellarmine speaking of the marriage of English Bishops, saith, 
b Bellar. apol. pro resp. ad. lib. jacob. 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 injust usurpant, nomen & opes; That is, They have no excuse, unless peradventure they will freely confess (which is most true) that they are no true Bishops, neither have any thing of the Episcopal function, but what they unjustly usurp unto themselves, to wit, the name, and the riches. If nothing else, than not the Character, not the jurisdiction, not the Order, not the Office, they have nothing, nothing at all, except the name and the riches.  ORTHOD. 
The riches? alas, Is it not strange that a Cardinal swimming in streams of gold to the chin, should envy the riches of the Bishops of England? But be they rich or poor, surely if the Pope might have had his will, before this time he would have made them poor enough. In the days of King Henry the eight when a view was taken, it appeared that he had received out of England only for investitures of Bishops, 
c Antiq. Brit. pag. 326.  4000 pounds by the year, one year with another, and that for 40. years together. But how dare Bellarmine thus accuse our Bishops, as though they had nothing belonging to the Episcopal function? What? no learning? none at all? It is not long ago since he put off his Cardinal's robes, disguising himself under the ill favoured habit and vizard of Tortus, when one of our Bishops, (whether learned or no, let the world judge) did so unmask and display him, that all Popish hearts have cause to bleed, to see the weakness of their chief Champion so plainly discovered. And as our Bishops have learning, so let the Cardinal know, that they are famous and eminent Preachers, very laborious in the Vineyard of Christ, and in this respect far unlike to his brethren the Cardinals. For 
d Ricard. Pacaeus lib. de fruct qui ex doctr na percip●tur. Cited by Doct. Rainold. Conf. c. 7. s. 6.  julius the second said, that he could not with a good conscience make Friar Giles a Cardinal, because than he should leave his preaching: and afterward 
e Pacaeus ibid.  Leo the tenth made him a Cardinal, that he might hold his peace. For commonly in the Church of Rome the great Bishops preach seldom, the Cardinal's seldomer, and the Popes never. But what is the ground of his accusation?  PHIL. 
Because they are not Canonically ordained. The same point is likewise urged against them by Doctor 
a Stap. Fort. part. 2. c. 7. f. 141.  Stapleton; Whether went they into France, Spain or Germany, seeing that at home there was no number of such as might and would serve their turn? No, no, as their Religion is contrary, their end is divers, their beginning hath been utterly different from the true Christian faith planted among us, so are their proceedings different and repugnant; they have not come in by the door, they have stolen in like thieves without all Spiritual authority or government. This difference between the Protestants and our true Bishops the first Apostles, importeth so much, that it may not lightly be passed over: for their authority being proved nought, all their doings can be no better; I say therefore by the verdict of holy Scripture, and practise of the Primitive Church, these men are no Bishops; Your pretended Bishops have no such Ordination, no such laying on of the hands of Bishops, no authority to ordain Priests and Ministers, and therefore neither are you true Ministers, neither they any Bishops at all.  ORTHOD. 
What reason have you to say, that our Bishops are not consecrated by three? the Canon hath always been observed in our Church, neither can all the Papists in the world give any one instance to the contrary since the time of Reformation.  PHIL. 

b Sand. de schiss. 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 invaded the Ecclesiastical Chairs, and were glad to seek their Confirmation from the Prince and Parliament, after they had enjoyed the Episcopal Office certain years, without any Episcopal Consecration: And therefore all the water in the Thames, cannot clear the Clergy of England from being usurpers.  ORTHOD. 
But if this be false, than 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 
c ●. Lib. 3. c. 4.  hereafter be declared out of authentical Records, by which it shall appear, That the Queen's 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 mean time this only I say; In lying and slandering, many Papists have had an admirable dexterity, but Sanders surmounted them all. For as his book of Schism is truly called by a learned Bishop, 
d Tort. Torti. p. 363.  Sterquilinium mendactorum, A dunghill of lies; so it might be justly termed Sterquilinium calumniarum, A very dunghill of slanders, Insomuch that for his noble faculty that way, he deserveth no more to be called M. Doct. Sanders, but M. Doct. Slanders.  PHIL. 
It is no slander, but a truth, which shallbe avouched to your faces; for I will prove all that I have said in order. My masters, mark what I say; 
e The Papists prisoners in Framlingham castle in the late Q. time.  If you can justify your Calling, we will all come to your Church, and be of your Religion.  ORTHOD. 
Remember your promise, and proceed with your Argument.  PHIL. 
I will proceed and prosecute an unanswerable Argument. Every true Bishop must of necessity be Consecrated by 3. Bishops at the least; But the Bishops of England are not so: therefore the Bishops of England are no true Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
The Bishops of England are so, as in due place shall appear; And if in case of necessity they were not so, What then? The presence of 3. is required only to the well-being, not simply to the being. It is no essential part of Episcopal Consecration, but an accidental ornament, a comely complement of singular conveniency, no substantial point of absolute necessity.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Wherein the Popish Arguments drawn from the Canons of the Apostles, and the Decretal Epistles, are proposed, urged and answered.  PHIL. 
I Will prove the contrary by sundry arguments, and first by the Canons of the Apostles, which were collected and set out by Clemens Saint Peter's scholar.  ORTH. 
If those Canons were made by the Apostles, than the Church of Rome is much to blame, for the 84. Canon alloweth the 3. Book of Maccabecs, as also 2. Epistles of Clemens, and his eight books of constitutions, for Canonical Scripture, which the Church of Rome rejecteth: again, it omitteth the Son of Sidrach, Wisdom, and divers others which your Church embraceth for Canonical.  PHIL. 
It seemeth probable (saith 
a 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 
b Bin. in notis in Canon. apost. tom. 1. p 15.  Binius.  ORTH. 
What say you then to the 65. Canon which forbiddeth to fast upon the Saturday, excepting one only, (that is as 
c Page 17.  Binius declareth) the Paschall Saturday.  PHIL. 
I say with 
d Bar. Anno. 102. ●. 15.  Baronius, it is counterfeit.  ORTH. 
But what say you to Pope 
e Distinct. 15. sanct. Romana.  Gelasius, who in a council at Rome of 70. Bishops, saith, Liber Canonum Apostolorum Apocryphus, the book of the Canon of the Apostles is Apocryphal. And in what sense he called it Apocryphal, is expounded by Bellarmine: 
f De verbo Dom. l. 1. c. 20.  Eos libros vocat Apocryphos qui sunt aediti ab auctoribus haereticis vel certè suspectis: Gelasius calleth those books Apocryphal, which were set out by such authors as were either heretical, or at least suspected.  PHIL. 
Gelasius did not call the book Apocryphal, as though all the Canons therein contained were Apocryphal, but as 
g 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 heretics: of which stamp were those two which you alleged. But the first 50. containing nothing but Apostolic and Orthodox doctrine approved of ancient Popes, Counsels and Fathers, Velut authentici recipiuntur, are received as authentical, saith 
h Quo supra. pag. 14.  Binius.  ORTH. 
Pope 
i Zeph. epistole 1. apud Bin. tom. 1. p. 134.  Zephirine allowed 70. or at least 60. (for there are diverse readings) how doth this agree?  PHIL. 
Well enough: for Pope Zephirine speaketh not of Canons, but of Sentences: and you must know that those 60 or 70. sentences are all contained in the 50. Canons, as 
k Ibidem. pag. 14 & 134.  Binius affirmeth out of Father 
l Tur pro can. apost. l. 1. c. 20.  Turrian.  ORTHOD. 

m Quo supra.  Bellarmine expoundeth these sentences to be so many Canons in these words; Zephirine the fifteenth from Peter delivereth in his first Epistle that there were only 70. Canons of the Apostles.  PHIL. 
Pope 
a Dist. 16. Clem.  Leo alloweth only fifty: Apostolorum Canones numerant patres inter Apochrypha exceptis 50. Capitulis: The fathers do reckon the Canons of the Apostles amongst Apocryphal writings, excepting fifty Chapters, by which he meaneth fifty 
b 50. Canonibus sive capitu●●s. Bin. t. 1. p. 14  Canons.  ORTHO. 
Then to pass over the fifth Canon, forbidding a Bishop or Priest to cast off his wife under pretence of religion: as also the one and thirtieth, inhibiting all other Bishops to restore a Priest or Deacon, excommunicated by his own Bishop: What can you possibly say to the ninth, which excommunicateth all those which being present at the communion do not communicate? concerning which 
c Bin. in hun● canonem.  Binius is forced to confess: Totum hoc decretum non divine sed humano iure constitutum, iam contraria consuetudine est abrogatum, that is, This whole Decree being made not by law Divine, but human▪ is now abrogated by a contrary custom: and allegeth for him Bellarmine, Zuarez, and Turrian: which is a notable acknowledgement, that such a Canon as you account Apostolical and Authentical may not withstanding be abrogated. But not to stand upon these and the like exceptions, let us hear what the Canons say concerning the consecration of Bishops.  PHIL. 
THe words are these. Let 
d Canon apost. primus.  a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishops. 
2   ORTHO. 
Doth the Canon require two or three? Then ordination by two is canonical, as well as by three.  PHIL. 
Not so, for the Canon meaneth that there should be two or three assistants, besides the Metropolitan, as is declared by Cardinal 
e Bell. de eccls l. 4. c. 8.  Bellarmine and father 
f Turrian de. eccles. & ordi. l. 1. c. 4.  Turrian.  ORTHOD. 
The Canon saith not two or three assistants, but two or three Bishops. Neither hath it this clause besides the Metropolitan, but pronounceth simply, let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops. Wherefore the Canon is satisfied with the presence of two or three Bishops. This is the judgement of your own 
g Pamel●n Cypr. Epist. 68  Pamelius, who saith that conseration or imposition of hands was per Episcopos, qui convenerant, quos ut minimum duos esse oportebat. i. By the Bishops which were assembled, which should be two at the least. Where note that he doth not say the Bishop's assistant, but the Bishops assembled, should be two at the least. This also was the judgement of Cardinal de 
h Io●. de Turrecrem. in Gratianum. c. 1. pag. 493.  Turrecremata, who urgeth this very Canon against your position, and proveth by it that three are not necessary.  
Neither is the presence of two required of absolute necessity, if you 
3  will believe the Apostolic constitutions of Clemens: a book which for my own part I would not once name, but only that your chief champions do so 
i See Master james of corruptions. pag. 2. & 3.  commonly allege it. Wherefore as Saint 
k Act. 17. 28  Paul cited a Poet against the Athenians; so let me cite this book against you which so highly esteem it. 
l Apostolic. 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 be deposed, but if necessity shall compel to be ordained by one because many cannot be present, for persecution, or some other cause, let the Decree of the commission of many Bishops be produced. If this authority be of credit, than you are confuted, for it alloweth consecration by one in case of necessity.  PHIL. 
But that one must have the commission of many.  ORTHOD. 
The commission is only for concord sake and to avoid Schism, for the 
a Ecclesi● vs● satis ostendit neque absolutinem neque ordinationem vel a muto, vel ab absent conferri posse Bel. de sacr. matr. l. 1. c. 8. ad ea.  absent cannot impose hands, nor give the power; therefore they do not ordain, though they consent to the ordination which is performed by him only that is present. Now if in any case a Bishop may be ordained by one and yet be a true Bishop, than the presence of more is a matter of conveniency and not of absolute necessity. And if you think that these constitutions proceeded from the Apostles, than you must confess that they are the fittest interpreters of the Canons of the Apostles.  PHIL. 
THe Canon will be clearer if we compare it with the Decretal Epistles. 
4   ORTH. 
Those Decretals are out of date. They have long shrouded themselves under the vizard of reverent antiquity, but now they are unmasked and appear to be counterfeit, as is confessed by your 
b Cusanius Bellar, & Contius alleged by Doctor Reinoldes conf. c. 8. Diuis. 3.  own men. Yet I will not take you at this advantage, and therefore let us hear them.  PHIL. 

c Anacl. Epist. 2. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 101. & dist. 66. Porro.  Anacletus saith that james who was named the Just, and the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, was ordained the first Archbishop of jerusalem by the Apostles, Peter, the other james, and john, giving a form to their successors that a Bishop should by no means be consecrated by fewer than three Bishops, all the rest giving their consents. Likewise 
d Epist. ad Galliae Episco. apud Bin. t. 1. p. 126  Anicetus; We know that the most blessed james called the Just, which also according to the flesh, is called the brother of our LORD, was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by Peter, james and john, the Apostles. Now if so great a man was ordained of no less than three; verily it is apparent that they delivered a form or patterns, the Lord so appointing, that a Bishop ought to be ordained of no fewer than three Bishops.  ORTHODOX. 
here are two things to be considered, the ordination of james, and the collection thereupon. Concerning the ordination, your Anacletus and Anicetus affirm, that he was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by three Apostles, and the same is avouched by 
e Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1  Eusebius, 
f Hier. de viris illustribus in jacobo.  Hierome and others. But what is meant when it is said that the Apostles ordained him?  PHIL. 
What else but that they conferred upon him the Episcopal power, as our Bishops do when they consecreate a Bishop?  ORTHOD. 
Then belike, before this ordination, Saint james had not the Episcopal power.  PHIL. 
Very true.  ORTHOD. 
Was not he an Apostle of jesus Christ?  PHIL. 
Yes: for they speak distinctly of james the brother of our Lord, of whom Saint 
g Gal. 1. 19  Paul saith, None other of the Apostles saw I save james, the brother of our Lord: so it is evident that he was an Apostle.  ORTHOD. 
And was he not called to the office of an Apostle immediately by jesus Christ? & consequently had he not from him all Apostolic authority?  PHIL. 
All Apostolic I grant: but we speak of Episcopal.  ORTHOD. 
As though all Episcopal authority were not comprehended in the Apostolic. For what commission can be more ample than this which Christ gave jointly to all his Apostles? As 
h Io. 20. 21  my Father sent me, so send I you: and Saint 
i 2. Cor. 12. 12.  Paul proclaimeth that he was in nothing inferior to the chief Apostles. If in nothing; than not in Episcopal power and authority. This is agreeable to the judgement of the best learned among you. Bellarmine saith, 
a Bell. de sacr. bapt. & confir. l. 2. c. 12.  Obseruandum est in Apostolica authoritate contineri omnem Ecclesiasticam potestatem, i. It is to be observed that in the Apostolic authority, is contained all Ecclesiastical power. If all Ecclesiastical, then surely all Episcopal. In another 
b De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 23.  place he proveth the same by the authority of S. Cyrill, grounding upon the words of Christ before alleged. Likewise 
c Kelectione 2. Quest. 2. Conc. 3.  Franciscus de Victoria, Omnem potestatem quam Apostoli habuerunt receperunt immediatè a Christo, i. The Apostles received immediately from Christ, all the power which they had. Wherefore to say, That Christ made Peter Bishop with his own hands, and that the rest derived Episcopal power from Peter, is a mere fancy. Likewise to say, that Peter, john and james, did ordain james Bishop, that is, confer upon him any Episcopal power, is a mere dream.  PHIL. 
Do not the fathers commonly say, That he was a Bishop?  ORTHO. 
They say so, And in so saying, they say truly if they be rightly understood. For 1. The Scripture saith of judas, 
d Acts. 1. 20.  His Bishopric let an other man take, That is, his Apostleship. If the Apostleship may be called a Bishopric, than an Apostle may be called a Bishop. 2. The word Bishop signifieth an Overseer, and may most aptly be applied to the Apostles, which were the chief overseers of the Church of Christ.  PHIL. 
Every Apostle, in that he is an Apostle, may be called a Bishop in this general sense; But james being an Apostle, was properly made a Bishop in the usual Ecclesiastical sense.  ORTHOD. 
A Bishop in the Ecclesiastical sense hath two properties; For 1. hereceiveth his Episcopal power by imposition of hands. 2. For the execution thereof he is confined to a certain place. Neither of which can properly be applied to an Apostle. For though the Apostles made their chief abode in great Cities and populous places, as namely james at jerusalem, 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 
e Haeres. 27.  Epiphanius, saying, The Apostles went often to other countries to preach the Gospel, and the city of Rome might not be without a Bishop. As though he should say, The Apostles were to preach to all Nations: but the Bishop's duty did confine him to his own charge▪ This is correspondent to the Scripture, which calleth the Apostles, 
f Matt. 5. 14.  The light of the world; whereas the 7. Bishops of Asia are styled, The 7. 
g reve. 1. 20.  Stars and Angels of the 7. Churches. And though the Apostles while they stayed in those Cities did preach, ordain Ministers, execute Censures, and all other things which are now performed by the Bishops, who succeed them in the government of the Church, (in regard whereof the fathers call them the Bishops of those places,) yet their Episcopal power was not distinct from their Apostolic, but included in it as a branch thereof: not derived from any Ordination by the hands of man, but given them immediately by jesus Christ.  PHIL. 
If james received no Episcopal power by Ordination, in what sense is it said, That they ordained him?  ORTHOD. 
Your gloss of the Canon Law giveth 4. senses of that speech, 
h Gloss●n dist. 67. Reliqui.  Either say, that these 3. did Consecrate him only with visible Unction, but he was before Anointed of the Lord after an innisible manner: Or say, they did not ordain him, but only showed a form of ordaining unto others: Or say that they ordained him not to be a Bishop, but an Archbishop: Or say that they ordained, that is enthronized him to the administration of a certain place; for before he was a Bishop without a title. Hitherto the Gloss. And verily as the Prophets and teachers at Antioch, imposed hands, with fasting and prayer upon 
a Acts. 13. 2▪ 3.  Paul and Barnabas, not to give them any new Ecclesiastical power; for that is more than we find in the Scripture: but as the Text saith, To set them apart for the work whereunto the Lord had called them; So the Apostles might impose hands upon james, not to give him any Episcopal power, (that fancy hath been before confuted,) but by common consent, to design him to the government of the Church of jerusalem, and to commend him and his labours to the grace of God: which imposition of hands the ancient writers term Ordination, using the word largely, and improperly. But if we should imagine that he was properly ordained, what can be collected thereupon?  PHIL. 
THat this should be a pattern to all posterity, as appeareth 
5  by the authorities before alleged, and consequently, that a Bishop should not be ordained by fewer than three.  ORTHOD. 
There may be a fair pattern, and yet posterity may sometimes want means to imitate that pattern. When the number may be had, we greatly commend it; when it cannot, then both this, and all other Ecclesiastical Constitutions must yield to necessity.  PHIL. 
The contrary is manifest by the words of 
b Epist. 2.  An●cletus, A Petro, jacobo & johann Apostolis est ordinatus, successoribus dantibus formam eorum, ut non minus quam à tribus Episcopis reliquisque omnibus assensum praebentibus ullatenus ordinetur Episcopus. Wherefore a Bishop must not be ordained Vllatenus, by any means, or in any respect by fewer than three, and consequently not in case of necessity. Is not this to make the number of three, a substantial point of Episcopal Ordination?  ORTHOD. 
The same word in effect is used about the Consecration of an Archbishop, 
c Distinct. 66. Archiepiscopus.  Archiepiscopus ab omnibus suae Provinciae Episcopis ordinetur, hoc autem nullatenus liceat immutare; That is, Let an Archbishop be ordained of all the Bishops of his Province; and let it by no means be lawful to change this Where this word Nullatenus doth not prove, that the consent of all is substantial, as is confessed by Cardinal 
d Turrecr. in Grat. decret. t. 1. pag. 493.  Turrecremata.  PHIL. 
You must mark what followeth; Sin aliter praesumptum fuerit, viribus carere non dubium est, quia irrita erit secus acta ordinatio. i. If the action shallbe otherwise done through presumption, there is no doubt but it wanteth validity: because the Ordination otherwise performed, shallbe void.  ORTHOD. 
It shallbe void; but how? Quoad officij executionem, saith the 
e Distinct. 66. Archiep.  Gloss; i. According to the execution of the Office. Whereupon 
f 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 shallbe a Bishop, although he be not Consecrated of all, but he shallbe repelled (for his presumption) from the Episcopal Office, unless he be dispensed withal. Wherefore in the judgement 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 upon his repentance he may be admitted to the execution, not by a new ordination, but by dispensation, which proveth that the transgression was not substantial, but accidental.  PHIL. 

a Epist. 5. apud Bin. t. ●. p. 502.  Damasus saith, It is apparent to all men that they are no Bishops, which are ordained of fewer than 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 have not the name, how shall they have the office? Wherefore whatsoever they shall do amongst Bishops, Necesse est ut irritum fiat: i. It must needs be void, Quia quod non habent dare non possunt: i. because they cannot give that which they have not.  ORTHO. 
Your own 
b Turr. Cr. quo supra.  Cardinal shall answer you; Wheresoever (saith he) it can be found that an ordination is void and of no validity, because it is performed by fewer then by three, it is to be understood, Non quantum ad veritatem Sacramenti, sed quantum ad executionem officij▪ i. Not in respect of the truth of the Sacrament, but in respect of the execution of the office. And truly there is no reason that he should enjoy an honourable office in the Church, which presumptuously breaketh the Laws of the Church. Therefore the Church may justly repel them from execution; but cannot take away their power which they have in themselves, and have power to imprint in others. Yet while they have it without the Church's approbation, they cannot give it with the Church's approbation: and while they stand in opposition, the Church esteemeth the orders they give 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 even in case of presumption, the Church may dispense upon due consideration, and consequently receive into her bosom, such as were ordained in Schism, and let them enjoy both their orders and honours. But when the defect springeth neither from schism, nor heresy, from presumption, nor singularity, but only from urgent necessity, there being no voluntary violation, necessity itself is a sufficient dispensation. And this must be the meaning of Damasus, or else ●f you urge from his words an absolute nullity, you will make him condradict both the positions and practice of your own Church, as 
c Chap. 7.  hereafter shallbe declared.   

CHAP. V.  
Wherein their Argument drawn from the Counsels, is propounded, urged and answered.  PHIL. 
THE contrary may be proved by the Counsels, and I hope as in all other Controversies between us and you, so in this you shall be presently confounded by them. I will begin with that first famous general 
d C●nc. Nic. 1. Can. 4.  Council of Nice.  ORTHO. 
Indeed a vain 
e Campian rat. 4.  jesuit crieth: Concilia generalia mea sunt: primum, ultimum media, that is, All general councils are mine, the first, the last, and the middle. For trial whereof let us take a little view of this Nicen Council, wherein you so glory: and first concerning that very Canon which you produce against us, as though we did transgress it, we may justly say, that the Church of England hath as well observed it, as ever did any Church upon the face of the earth: But the Church of Rome doth indeed transgress it, In which sometimes one Bishop alone doth consecrate a Bishop, two Abbots supplying the place of the other two Bishops, as 
a Bell. de eccls milit. l. 4. c. 8.  Bellarmine confesseth. Secondly, according to the Nicen Canons, the power to confirm Bishops, belongeth to the 
b Canon. 4.  Metropolitan of the province, without whose approbation whosoever is ordained a Bishop, the Nicen Father's 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 
c Canon 5.  Canons forbid that any Bishop should absolve 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 
d Canon 6.  customs should be kept, and namely that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the pre-eminence in Egypt, Lybya and Pentapolis, because such also is the custom of the Bishop of Rome: and likewise that in Antioch, and other Provinces the Churches should enjoy their dignities and prerogatives. Which words in all reason import, that every Metropolitan should have pre-eminence within his own Province, according to the custom of Rome, which custom they commend and propose for a pattern: But the Bishop of Rome careth neither for Canons nor Customs which make against him. He is not content to be Bishop in his own Diocese, and Metropolitan over Bishops in his own Province, and Patriarch over his own Metropolitans: but he would stretch out the paws of his Supremacy over the Christian world. Fiftly the Nicen Canons would have no Priest made without 
e Canon 9  examination, and such as are rashly ordained they do not allow: But the Bishop of Rome maketh 
f Ordines autem etiam maiores, etiam presbyteratum posse conferri infantibus nondum usum 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. 
g For proof of these examples, See Doct. Reinolds Apol. Thes. 26. with whose fountain in this place I have watered my garden.  Ferdinandus Medici's a Florentine was made a Cardinal by Sixtus Quintus, when he was not full thirteen years old: and johannes Medici's which was afterwards Pope Leo the tenth, was Cardinal before he was fourteen years complete, yet he was an Archbishop five years before he was Cardinal. And lest you should imagine that this favour was afforded only to Florentines, Odettus Castilioneus was Cardinal at eleven year old, yet he was elected Bishop before he was Cardinal. Alphonsus' son to Immanuel King of Portugal was Cardinal at seven years old; and yet he was Bishop before he was Cardinal. These are the men, whose office is, to choose the Pope, to assist him with their Counsel, and to sit with him as judges of the whole world. And that which is more wonderful, if we may believe Glaber Rodulphus, a Monk of your own, which lived at the same time; Benedict the ninth was made Pope at twelve years old: Was not this a fit man to be Father of the Church, Moderator of general Counsels, Decider of all Controversies, Expounder of all Scriptures, the only Oracle upon the face of the earth, and judge Paramount of the Christian World? Sixtly the Nicen 
h Canon 18.  Canons do not suffer a Deacon so much as to sit amongst Priests, but as the Priest was in place, inferior to the Bishop, so the Deacon to the Priest. Now though it were granted to be true which 
i De cler. c. 16.  Bellarmine affirmeth, that under Sylvester there was seven Cardinal Deacons in Rome, yet the Nicen Council maketh no exception at all of Cardinals. But be he Cardinal or not Cardinal, the Deacon is inferior to the Priest, and the Priest to the Bishop; but the Bishop of Rome hath advanced his Cardinals, even such as are neither Bishops nor Priests. First above Bishops, then above Archbishops, last of all above patriarchs. Seventhly, the Nicen 
a Can. 17.  Canons forbid any Bishop to ordain in his Church a Clerk belonging to another Bishop, without the consent of the Bishop to whom he belongeth. But the Bishop of Rome ordaineth, whomsoever, wheresoever, whensoever; not expecting the consent of any man. Last of all the Nicen 
b Can. 18.  Canons forbid all Clerks to follow filthy lucre: Wherein how his holiness excelleth, is plainly plaited out by Claudius 
c In Tit. c. 1.  Espencaeus, a Divine of your own, out of a shameless book openly sold in Rome, called the Tax of the Chamber, or Chancery Apostolic, wherein a man may learn before hand, at what price to be dispensed withal, for any villainy he shall commit, be it adultery, simony, perjury, incest, or worse than incest. Wherefore Philodox, if paper could blush, I am persuaded the leaves of that book 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 wheresoever it goeth, and a Key of gold can open Saint Peter's lock. For all things are weighed at Rome in a balance of gold, as though poverty were the only irregularity, and no sin in the world were greater than to want money, so well doth the Church of Rome observe the Nicen Canons. But let us hear the words of the Canon.  PHIL. 
A 
d Conc. Nicen. 1. can. 4.  Bishop must be ordained if it be possible of all the Bishops in his province, 
2.  if this be hard to perform either by occasion of urgent necessity, or for the length of the journey, yet surely three aught to be congregated into one place, so that they have the consent of the absent, & solet them make an ordination. Likewise the fourth 
e C. 2. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 553.  Council of Carthage; when a Bishop is ordained, let two Bishops lay the Book of the Gospels, and hold it over his head and neck, and one Bishop pouring the blessing upon him, let all other Bishops that are present, touch his head with their hands. Likewise the second 
f Cap. 5. apud. Bin. t. 1. p. 537.  Council of Arles. Let no Bishop presume to ordain a Bishop without permission of the Metropolitan, nor any Bishop being a Metropolitance without three Bishops of the same Province, so that others of the same Province be admonished by Epistles, that they may signify by their answer, that they have consented. So the sixth 
g Cap. 4. Bin. t. 1. p. 617.  Council of Carthage: A Bishop must be ordained of all the Bishops which are within the Province, but if this be hard either for urgent necessity, or for the length of the journey, yet by all means three meeting together, there may be imposition of hands, the absent Bishops consenting thereto by writing. So the second Council at 
h Cap. 2. Bin. t. 2. p. 669.  Brachar; It is meet that Bishops should be appointed, especially by the whole Council: but if this shallbe heard in respect of necessity, or for the length of the journey, let three of them be gathered together, and let the subscriptions of all both present and absent be taken, and so afterward let the ordination be performed. Thus you see the Counsels, and namely the Nicen requireth the presence of three. For first it should be performed by all the Bishops of the Province, but if that cannot be by reason of urgent necessity, yet surely three must be congregated: so they make it not a thing indifferent, but a matter of necessity, and in any case require three.  ORTHOD. 
WHat if three present proceed to a consecration not 
3  expecting at all the consent of the absent?  PHIL. 
Their consent seemeth to be only of congruity, and not of necessity.  ORTH. 
But the Nicen Canon not content with three present, requireth also the consent of the absent in the same strictness of words, Yet surely let three be congregated into one place, so that they have also the consent of the absent, and so let them make an ordination. Wherefore if you expound the one branch as a point of congruity, why do you urge the other as of absolute necessity? Again these Counsels were holden, Florente Ecclesia, when the world was furnished with plenty of godly Bishops, but you urge them against a Church lately eclipsed and newly recovered from darkness, the world round about being drowned in superstition and Idolatry. These answers might be sufficient; but for your better satisfaction, let us search the sense 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 drawn 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 sixth at Carthage, and the second at Brachar, besides three present requireth the consent of the absent: but the fourth Council of Carthage contenteth itself with the present, and maketh no mention at all of the absent, wherein it agreeth with the Canon ascribed to the Apostles. Whence cometh this variety? surely the very consideration of time and persons may teach us, that they thought it a thing in itself indifferent to be disposed by the discretion of the Church in sundry manners, as sundry occasions and occurrences did lead them. This exposition runneth gently, and all things do sweetly agree; but if we follow your rigorous interpretation, than your witnesses cross and discredit one another. For your Anacletus requireth three at the least, so do the Counsels alleged; but do they require them of simple necessity? if it be so, than he 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. Again, the Nicen Fathers, and others by you alleged, require the consent of the absent, which is not required by the fourth Council of Carthage, nor by the Canon ascribed to the Apostles. By this it appeareth that reverend antiquity did judge these things to be only matters of conveniency, and not of simple and absolute necessity. And being of this nature, they are subject to alteration in case of necessity. Neither is this to despise the Commandments of the Church, but to yield to the countermand of the great tyrant necessity. And this is confessed by your own Writers, concerning all ecclesiastical constitutions: Pope 
a Gel. epist. 9▪ Bin. t. 2. p. 243.  Gelasius saith, Priscis pro sui reverentia manentibus constitutis, quae ubi nulla vel rerum vel temporum perurget necessitas, regulariter convenit custodire▪ that is, The ancient customs still remaining in force for the reverence due unto them; it is convenient regularly to observe, where no necessity either of things or times doth greatly urge to the contrary. And Pope 
b Apud. Bern. dep●ae●. & dispen. c. 4.  Leo: ubi necessitas non est, nullo modo sanctorum patrum instituta violentur, that is, The decrees of holy Fathers, let them by no means be broken, where there is no necessity. And again: 
c Cited by john. 8. epist. 8. Bin. t. 3. part. 2. p. 977.  omittendum esse & inculpabile judicandum, quod intulit necessitas: that which necessity occasioned to be omitted, is to be omitted, and to be judged blameless. And Pope Felix 
d Ibid. apud. Bin.  saith. Aliter tractandam necessitatis rationem, aliter voluntatis. That a respect of necessity is otherwise to be handled then a respect of a voluntary mind. 
a Andr. degen. Conciliorum authoritate▪ p. 115. 116.  Andradius affirmeth, That human laws made upon best council and advise, are varied by the variety of times, and may be inverted and changed by the necessities of men, and so are dispensable: whence it cometh so to pass that 
* De lib. arb. c. 6.  Saint Austin calleth human laws temporal, because although they be just, yet they may justly be changed according to the times. I will conclude this point with the saying of 
b t. 2. p. 243. in marg.  Binius, Pro temporum necessitate rigour Canonum relaxatur, that is, the rigour of the Canons, is released according to the necessity of the times.   

CHAP. VI  
Wherein their arguments pretended to be drawn from the Scriptures are answered.  PHIL. 
THen to leave the Canons, I will prove it by Scripture.  ORTH. 
By Scripture, why? did you not say it was a tradition?  PHIL. 
I said so.  ORTH. 
And do not you define a tradition to be the word of God unwritten, & scripture to be the word of God written?  PHIL. 
Be it so, what then?  ORTH. 
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.  PHIL. 
Though it be a tradition and therefore not expressly written in Scripture▪ yet it may be collected out of the Scripture.  ORTH. 
You change yourself like a Chameleon into all colours, but this will not hold. For 
c Bel. de verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 4.  Bellarmine buildeth up Babylon by pulling down the stones of Zion, he goeth about to prove the necessity of traditions by the insufficiency of Scripture: and endeavours to prove the Scripture insufficient, because there are many things in his opinion simply necessary to be known and believed, which cannot possibly be 
d Nullo modo probari possunt exs●ripturu Quo modo ex Scriptura colligam hoc evang. (Marci) non esse supposititium? quo supra. Sexto.  collected or concluded out of the Scripture. Whereby it is clear that he calleth their traditions unwritten, because they are not at all in the written word, neither directly nor by consequence. But where do you find it in Scripture?  PHIL. 
SAint Paul saith to Timothy, 
e 1. Tim. 4. 14.  Neglect not the grace, that is in thee, 
2.  which Was given thee, by prophecy, per impositionem manuum Presbyterij: that is, by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery.  ORTHO. 
This is the only place which 
f Bel de eccls l. 4. c. 8. quantum ad.  Bellarmine produceth, and yet I think his conscience told him it is not very pregnant for his purpose: for whereas his custom is to place Scriptures in the front of the battle, and human authorities after; here he placeth the Canons and Decretals in the front, and the Scripture followeth after. But let us hear you dispute from this place.  PHIL. 
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 inferior Priests, but Bishops, as appear by 
g In hunc locum.  Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius: therefore Timothy was consecrated by an assembly of Bishops. But an assembly of Bishops must needs be three at the least. Therefore Timothy was consecrated Bishop by three Bishops at the least. Now this consecration of Timothy should be a necessary and perpetual pattern inviolable, and unchangeable to all posterities. Therefore all Bishops must of necessity be consecrated, by three Bishops at the least, which was to be proved.  ORTHOD. 
S. Paul in this place, exhorteth Timothy to be diligent in his Calling by three Arguments: First, because in his Ordination he had received Grace; that is, Not only the gracious gift, that he should be Pastor 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 Prophecy. Thirdly, because he was ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. What this Presbytery was, I will not take upon me to decide and determine; It shall be sufficient so far to discover the weakness of your Argument, that it may appear, that you cannot hence conclude your purpose by any sound consequence. For what think you did S. Paul mean by Presbytery, when he exhorted Timothy not to neglect the Grace which was in him by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery?  PHIL. 
O than I know where you are; You will make us believe, That the Apostle speaketh of Lay-Elders: but I pray you do not trouble me with such fantastical conceits, unknown to Antiquity.  ORTHOD. 
You need not fear. For it is clear that the Presbytery here mentioned, ordained Timothy, by imposition of hands, which no Lay-man may do: therefore doubtless they were no Lay-men. But what in your judgement is meant by Presbytery?  PHIL. 
What else can Presbyterium signify, but a company or assembly of Presbyters?  ORTH. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doth signify not only a company of Presbyters, but also the Office and function of a Presbyter. For example, 
a For these authorities concerning the Greek word, see B. Bilson: perp. government. c. 7. p. 77  Eusebius saith, That the Bishops of Caesarea and jerusalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, Imposed hands upon him, (i. upon Origen) for the Office of a Presbyter. And again▪ The Bisop of Caesarea prayed him to expound the Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, When as yet he had not obtained Ordination of Priesthood. And not long after he received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, The Ordination of Priesthood. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is likewise used. Socrates saith, That Atticus placed Proclus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, in the Order of Deaconship. And he was thought worthy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, the Office and Order of a Priest. This signification is embraced by 
b In hunc locum.  Hierome, Prim●sius, Anselmus, expounding Presbyterium, by Presbyteratus, or Episcopatus, That is, the Office of a Priest or Bishop. Likewise Lyra, 
c Lyra in hunc locum.  Presbyterium est dignitas vel Officium Presbyteri, That is, The Presbytery (mentioned by Saint Paul) is the dignity or office of a Priest. Yea, your own Rhemistes confess so much, in that they transtate the word Presbyterium in this very place (Priesthood) which doth not signify a company of Priests, but the office and order of a Priest. If this be true, than your argument is shaken in pe●ces. For that may be said to be performed by the order or office of Priesthood, which is done by one Priest only as well as though it were done by a thousand, and this interpretation may seem to be countenanced by conference of Scripture, because Paul though an Apostle, yet according to the phrase of Scripture may be Called a Presbyter: for this word Presbyter in the New Testament taken for an Ecclesiastical person, doth signify sometimes the Pastor of a particular flock, as when Paul willeth Titus to 
a Titu. 1. 5.  ordain Presbyters in every City; sometimes it is taken more generally and extendeth even to the Apostles themselves: so john calleth himself a 
b 2. joh. v. 1. & 3. joh. v. 1.  Presbyter, and Peter speaking to Presbyters calleth himself 
c 1. Pet. 5. 1.  their fellow Presbyter: Whence we may conclude by analogy, that Paul also may be called a Presbyter. Now it is certain that Saint Paul imposed hands upon Timothy. For he saith, 
d 2. Tim. 1. 6.  I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. Wherefore seeing the word Presbytery may signify the office of a Presbyter, and Saint Paul may be called a Presbyter, and it is evident that Timothy was ordained by the hands of Paul; therefore it is possible, that when the Scripture ascribeth his ordination to the Presbytery, it may be meant that he was made only by the hands of Paul, which is the opinion of Dionysius Carthusianus, who saith, manuum Presbyterij, id est, manuum mearum qui te ordinavi Episcopum. Of the hands of the Presbytery, that is, of my hands which ordained thee a Bishop. But suppose that Presbytery in this place signify a company or assembly of Bishops, as Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius interpret it; How many will you judge to make an assembly?  PHIL. 
Suppose that three.  ORTH. 
If it be so, then upon 
e Bell. de Eccl. l. 4. c. 8. nomine Presbyterij intelligit caetum Episcoporum, qui simul cum ordinante imponebant manus super caput ordinandi.  Bellarmine's imagination, that an assembly of Bishops imposed hands together with the ordainer, it will follow, that Timothy was consecrated by four: therefore if you make this example a perpetual pattern, than all Bishops must be consecrated by four, which is against yourself.  PHIL. 
It seemeth that two Bishops may be Called an assembly.  ORTHOD. 
Though it were so, yet you cannot conclude; for how prove you, that there was an assembly besides the principal consecrator?  PHIL. 
Bellarmine hath proved it by the fathers alleged.  ORTHO. 
Bellarmine abuseth his Reader: for to begin with Chrysostome, he saith, He 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 Presbytery, that is of Bishops; for Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop. Likewise Occumenius, by Presbyters he meaneth Bishops, for Presbyters were not to impose hands upon a Bishop. So these fathers by Presbytery, understood Bishops; the number they do not define, neither do they affirm that there was an assembly besides the principal consecrator. But concerning the number you shall hear the judgement of your Angelical Doctor, who bringeth two readings of this place. Presbyteri and Presbyterij, and handling the first, he demandeth, Why 
f Aquin, in 1. ad. Tim. c. 4. lec. 3  it should be said, Presbyteri in the singular number, seeing a Bishop should be consecrated by three: to this he frameth two answers. First because, though many meet together, yet one is principal, the rest conssistants. Secondly yet (saith he) it may be said, that this Canon was not then made, and that then there were but few Bishops, which could not be congregated. So he thinketh it probable, that Timothy was not consecrated by three. Whereto agreeth Cardinal 
a joh. de Turrecr. in Gratian●m. ●. 1. p. 493.  de Turrecremat●, Petrus dicitur solus consecrasse beatum johannem Euangelistam, Paulus, Timotheum, Titum & Dionysium. i. Peter is said alone to have consecrated blessed john the Evangelist, and Paul to have consecrated Timothy, Titus and Dionysius. And 
b In 4. sent. dist. 27. q. 3.  johannes Mayor, Paulus non quasivit duos pro ordinatione Titi & Timothei. i. Paul sought not other two Bishops for the Ordination of Titus and Timothy. So far is this place from proving the necessity of three Bishops.  PHIL. 
I Will prove it by another place. For 
c 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 ministering to our Lord and fasting, the holy Ghost said, Separate me Saul and Barnabas unto the work whereto I have called them. Then they fasting and praying, and imposing hands upon them dismissed them. Behold, not only 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 he should be ordained Bishop by 3. Bishops, that the discipline of the Church might be observed.  ORTHO. 
Neither were they Bishops, neither did they make Paul and Barnabas Bishops.  PHIL. 
Father Turrian 
d Turr. de eccls & ordi. l. 2. p. 302.  showeth, that by Doctors were meant Presbyters, and by Prophet's Bishops, and also that Barnabas and Saul were Doctors, or Presbyters, the other three Prophets or Bishops, which advanced Saul and Barnabas from the Presbyteral, to the Episcopal office.  ORT. 
These are doting dreams 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 think Barnabas to be called a Prophet as well as Simeon, Lucius and Manahen, seeing he is first named? A point so clear that it is confessed by 
e jor. in Act. 13. v. 1.  Lorinus the jesuit, 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, than it will follow that Barnabas was a Bishop before they laid hands upon him. And consequently, that he was reordeined, which is absurd. Moreover as it cannot be proved, that those three were Bishops, so it is certain that they did not ordain Paul and Barnabas Bishops. For Paul being an Apostle could not receive any Episcopal grace from man, as hath been declared. Wherefore this imposition of hands was not to give them any new power, but as the text saith, To set 
f Vers. 2.  them apart for the work, whereunto the Lord had called them, which when they had fulfilled, they sailed back to Antioch, whence they had been 
g 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 received Episcopal grace, but whence they had been commended (with fasting and prayer) to the grace of God. To which truth 
h Tom. 3. part. 3. disp. 34  Suarez the jesuit giveth testimony affirming that this imposition of hands was only precatory, and denying that Saul or Barnabas were here ordained, either Priests or Bishops, which seemeth also to be the opinion of 
i Apud L●rinum quo supra.  Aloysius de Leon, and other late writers. These are the only 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 urged as an unchangeable rule when the matter discovereth itself to be contingent and variable.   

CHAP. VII.  
That the presence of three Bishops is not required of absolute necessity.  
NOw, that it is no substantial point of absolute necessity may be concluded out of your own positions and practice. For the declaration whereof, first I demand, whether Episcopal consecration be a Sacrament or no?  PHIL. 
That Ordination is a Sacrament truly and properly, is rightly defined by the Council of 
a Sess. 22. can. 3.  Trent. For there are three things only required to a Sacrament, as yourselves confess, an external sign, a promise of grace, and a commandment, or divine institution: All which are found in ordination as our learned 
b Bel. de sacr. ord. 2.  Cardinal hath proved out of the Scripture; 
c Ibidem. c. 5.  who hath also declared, that those Scriptures whereby Catholics do prove Ordination to be a Sacrament are understood of Episcopal Ordination. Whereupon he affirmeth, that if Episcopal Ordination be not a Sacrament, we cannot prove evidently out of the Scriptures, that Ordination is a Sacrament.  ORTHOD. 
If the word Sacrament be taken somewhat largely, for any external sign instituted of God; whereto is annexed a promise of grace, than we will grant with Saint 
d Contra. epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 13.  Austin, that Order may be called a Sacrament: but if it be taken strictly for such a sign as is 
e Rom. 4. 11.  a seal of the righteousness of faith, whereto is annexed a promise of the grace of justification and Remission of sins: in which sense Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, than we may not admit it for a Sacrament. For in Baptism and the Lords Supper, the saving grace of justification and 
f Act. 2. 38.  Remission of sins is signified, sealed, and exhibited, to the worthy receiver; but the grace given in Ordination is of another nature, respecting not so much the good of the receiver as of the flock, for which he receiveth it. For the Ministers of the Gospel are salt to season others, candles to shine unto others, pipes and conduits to convey the water of life unto others. But did you not say, that though three Bishops were ordinarily required to the Consecration of a Bishop, yet the Pope might dispense with two of the three?  PHIL. 
I said so out of Cardinal Bellarmine and Binius.  ORTHOD. 
What authority hath the Pope to dispense in Sacraments?  PHIL. 
That may appear by the Council of 
g Sess. 21. c. 2.  Trent. Moreover, the holy Synod declareth, that this power hath always been in the Church, that in the Dispensation of Sacraments it might appoint or change such things as it should judge to be most expedient for the profit of the receivers, or the reverence of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of things, times, and places, salva illorum substantia, so the substance of the Sacraments be preserved. Whereby it appeareth that the Pope can dispense only with circumstances and not with substance.  ORTHOD. 
Why then did the Church of Rome dispense with the 
a Sess. 21. Can. 2.  Cup in the Communion? Can you take away one half not diminishing the substance? But to let this pass, do you not mark the conclusion which floweth from your premises? If Episcopal Consecration be a Sacrament, and the Pope may not dispense with the Substance of a Sacrament, and yet he may dispense with two of the three Bishops required in a Consecration; than it followeth, that two of the three are not of the Substance of Consecration. Secondly, your own present practice doth prove the same. For you profess that in your Church sometimes, one 
* Bell. de eccles. milit. l. 4. c. 8. quantum ad.  Bishop alone assisted with two mitred Abbots doth perform it. If this be sufficient, then three Bishops are not required of absolute necessity. Now let us a little look back to former times, and consider the judgement of better ages.  
I Will begin with the fourth 
b Conc. Carth. 4. c. 2. Bin. t. 1. pag. 553.  Council of Carthage, and the very 
2  place which you yourself alleged, wherein are prescribed the offices to be performed by the Bishops, when one is to be consecrated, to wit, how two should hold the Book of the Gospels over his head, one power out the blessing, (that is, pronounce the words, whereby the spiritual power, grace, and blessing is given,) and all the rest touch his head with their hands. When one alone pronounceth the words, thenone alone ordaineth. For the words are confessed on all sides, to be the very essential form of Ordination. This is agreeable to the collection of your own 
c Turrec. in Gratian. p. 493.  Cardinal, Tenent librum, etc. 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 book, etc. 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 certain solemnity.  
IN the year of our Lord 441. there was a Council holden at Orange in 
3  France where it was thus 
d Conc. Auraus. c. 21. Bin. t. 1 pag. 1010.  decreed. Duo si presumpserint ordinare Episcopum in nostris Provincijs, etc. If two presume to ordain a Bishop in our Provinces, it pleaseth us (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 suffered violence, shallbe substituted in the Church of one of them, if his life be answerable; and that another nevertheless be ordained in the place of the other being cast out: If two shall make a Bishop with his consent, than he also shall be condemned, to the end that those things which were instituted by antiquity, may be observed more warily▪ Here are two Cases: for the ordained was either unwilling or willing: If unwilling, he enjoyed the Bishopric, because he was not consenting to the breach of the Canon: If he were willing, than he also was condemned, & put from the Bishopric, which was not for want of receiving the Episcopal power; for if two Bishops could confer it to one against his will, undoubtedly they could give it to one that was willing. But the first is confessed by the Council, in that they allow him, and give him a Bishopric, where he may exercise his Episcopal function, therefore the latter was not then doubted of. But though both had received alike power in their ordination, yet the innocent was allowed, & the offender rejected for discipline sake.  PHIL. 
This Canon is 
e Dist. 64. de abiectione.  chaff.  ORTH. 
If Gratian mean this, than he hath foully mangled it, but that you may know that this is no chaff, you shall hear your own famous 
a Bar an. 441. num. 3.  Baronius. Nobilus quidem, etc. Truly this is to be called a most noble Synod, being adorned with a garland of most famous Prelates. And again, 
b Ibidem.  Florebant quidem, etc. Truly the said Provinces 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 painful vigilancy, the Ecclesiastical Laws remained in their strength. And again, Tot igitur, etc. 
c Ibid. an. 441. num. 15.  Therefore so many most famous Prelates made the Council of Orange famous and glorious in all things, although it consisted of a small assembly of Bishops. And lest a man should wonder at this rare commendation, he rendereth his reason, 
d Ibidem.  Porro ut tot insignes, etc. Moreover, that there should be found in the same Provinces so many men notable for learning, and godliness, the cause may seem to be the most famous Monastery of jusula Lerinensis the land next adjoining, being a Seminary of most holy Bishops. Which he further extolleth, by the verses of Sydonius Apollinarius. To Baronius we will adjoin Binius, who useth to gather sticks under Baronius his hedge. Haec 
e Bin. in not. in Conc. Araus▪ ●. 1. p. 1011.  Synodus Clarissimorum, etc. This was a most noble Synod beautified with a crown of most noble Prelates. In it fifteen Bishops of the Province of Lions, & Marbona meeting after their manner made 29 Canons concerning the laws and discipline of the Church. Wherefore by the judgement of this most noble Synod, it is apparent, that he may be a Bishop which is Consecrated only by two, and therefore three are not required of absolute necessity. Hitherto of the Counsels; Now let us consider examples of antiquity.  
DIoscorus Patriarch of Alexandria was consecrated only by two, and 
4.  yet was acknowledged to have sufficient Episcopal power. The former point is testified by the Bishops of Pontus in a synodal 
f I● Epist ●llust▪ personarum pro Conc. Chalced. apud Been t. 2. p. 1●3.  Epistle. Ordinationem suam adamnatis Episcopis & hoc duobus accepit: i. He received his ordination of Bishops condemned, and that (only) of two. The latter may appear by the Council of Chalcedon in the 
g Vid. Bin. t. 2. pag. 1.  Acts whereof he is usually styled, The most Reverend Bishop of Alexandria; yea that title is given him by 
h Epist. ●us. ad Imper. apud Been t. 2. p. 5.  Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum his accuser: by the 
i Epist im●erat. ad D●●s●. Bin. tom. 2. p. 7.  Emperor Theodosius, and by the 
k Ibid. p. 72.  Council itself, in a synodal Epistle. And as they acknowledge him for a Bishop, so they allow of Anatolius whom he did consecrate, as may appear by the words of Tharasius, uttered in the seventh general 
l Tharas. in Con● N●●. 2. apud Bin. t. 3. pag. 307.  Council. 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 us also receive the ordained of Heretics, in like manner as Anatolius was received. Yea he was approved and received into Communion by Pope Leo the first; approved in these words; Leo 
m Leo Epist. 40.  Episcopus Anatolio Episcopo: received into Communion in these words; in qua (Communionis integritate) societatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur: i. in which soundness of Communion we embrace the fellowship of your love. Now seeing Anatolius was acknowledged, for a Bishop by a Pope, and two general Counsels: you must needs confess that Dioscorus, who ordained him, was likewise a Bishop, although he were not consecrated by three.  
NOw let us cross the Mediterranean Sea, and pass from Alexandria to 
5.  Rome. And here, what think you of Pelagius the first? was not he a true and lawful Bishop?  PHIL. 
He is commended by Pope 
a Hadr. in ep. ad Carol. mag. de imagine. sanctissimi eius successores dominus Pelagius & dominus johan, vide Been in not. in vit. Pelag. 1. t. 2. pag. 626.  Adrian and generally put into the Catalogue.  ORTHO. 
But Pope Pelagius was not consecrated by three, as appeareth by 
b In vit. Pelagij 1.  Anastasius, whose words are registered both by 
c Bin. t. 2. pag 626.  Baronius and 
d Bar●an. 555▪ num. 10.  Binius. Et dum non essent Episcopi qui cum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Episcopi, johannes de perusio & Bonus de ferentino & Andreas presbyter de Ostia, & eum ordinaverunt Episcopum. Upon which place 
e Bin. t. 2. pag. 627. ex Bar. anno 556. ●. 1.  Binius saith, When Pelagius had approved the fifth Synod, he so greatly offended all the Western Bishops, that he could not find sufficient Prelates of which he might be ordained according to the Apostolical constitution; and so it was necessary that at the Command of Pelagius, a Priest of Ostia (which had never happened before) should perform the office in stead of a Bishop. here is a clear confession, that a Bishop of Rome in case of necessity, 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 necessity, than there was a nullity in his Consecration, and consequently in all the Consecrations derived from him, and so there will follow a world of nullities in the Church of Rome: or if there be no nullity in his Consecration, than you cannot conclude a nullity for the want of three.  
HItherto of three, Now I will prove that two are not required of absolute 
6.  necessity. For Euagrius Patriarch of Antioch, was ordained by Paulinus alone, and yet was allowed for a lawful Bishop.  PHIL. 
I doubt of both branches; how prove you the first?  ORTHOD. 
Paulinus alone saith, 
f Theod. l. 5. cap. 23.  Theodoret transgressing many Laws had created him. For the Canons do not permit one to choose his successor; they command that all the Bishops of the Province should be assembled: they forbid any man to be created unless three be present, but they not willing to take knowledge of any of these things, admitted the Communion of Euagrius and exasperated the ears of the Emperor against Flavianus.  PHIL. 
I will answer with 
g 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.  ORTHO. 
It is a shameful course of Baronius, to reject in Histories, whatsoever doth not fit his fancy. In this present point he pretendeth repugnancy where there is none at all. For Theodoret speaketh of ordination: 
h Soc. l. 5. c. 15.  Socrates and 
i Soz. l. 7. c. 15.  Sozomen, of installation.  PHIL. 
How prove you the other Branch, that Euagrius was allowed for a lawful Bishop?  ORTHO. 

k Anno 389. ●. 64.  Baronius saith, Pro Euagrio Syricius Theodosium interpellavit. Syricius the Pope did solicit Theodosius the Emperor in the behalf of Euagrius. And 
l Bin. in not. in Con. Capuan. t. 1. p. 536.  Binius; Pontifex, etc. The Pope, and with him almost all the Bishops of the West, being against Flavianus, as before they stood for Paulinus, so now they took part with Euagrius, and animated the Emperor against Flavianus. Moreover Innocent the first granted the Communion of the Roman Church to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, upon this condition amongst others, that he should receive those that were ordained of Euagrius the successor of Paulinus with their orders, and honours, as is likewise confessed by 
a Bin. in not. in 17. Epist. Innoc. 1. t. 1. p. 579.  Binius. Here is a plain 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 patriarchs.  
NOw let us consider our neighbours of France, concerning whom johannes 
7.  
b joh. Mayor in 4. sent. dist. 29. quest. 3. inter opera. Gers. Paris. 1606. p. 681  Mayor, a Doctor of Paris, saith, Rusticus & Eleutherius qui cum beato Dionysio ad Gallias venerunt non erant Episcopi, sed Galliae Episcopos solus Dionysius ordinavit. Rusticus and Eleutherus which came into France with S. Denys were no Bishops, but Denys alone ordained the Bishops of France.  
FInally, I will add some testimonies of your own writers, johannes 
8.  Maior; 
c Quo supra.  Dico esse constitutionem humana●, quod Episcopus ordinetur a tribus: ●. I say that it is a human constitution, that a Bishop should be ordained of three. 
d Pet. de pal●de potestate.  Petrus de palude: In Ecclesia unus Episcopus sufficit ad alium Consecrandum: nec est nisi propter solennitatem ab Ecclesia inventum, ut tres concurrant: i. In the Church one Bishop is sufficient to Consecrate another: and it is nothing else but for the solemnity of the matter, that the Church hath devised that three Bishops should meet together. Cardinal 
e In Gratian pag. 492.  Turrecremata is plentiful in this point, and proveth it by fourteen Arguments.  PHIL. 
Yet other Doctors, as you have heard, are of another opinion.    

THE SECOND BOOK WHEREIN THE CONSEcrations of the Bishops of England, from the first planting of Christianity, till the last year of Queen Mary, are examined.  

CHAP. I.  
Wherein they descend to the second Question, whether the Consecrations of the Bishops of England be Canonical.  ORTH. 
SVppose I should admit, that three Bishops were everlastingly, and unchangeably required to the Consecration of a new Bishop, and that of such absolute necessity, that the defect should make a nullity: what would this advantage you, or disadvantage us?  PHIL. 
Very much: For than it would follow, that your Bishops are no Bishops.  ORTHO. 
Why so? There is not a Bishop in England at this day living, which was not Consecrated by three. Our book of Consecrating may inform you, That in the Church of England, two Bishops do always present the person to be Consecrated, and the Archbishop or some other Bishop appointed by his Commission, pronounceth the Blessing, as principal Consecratour. Is not this Canonical?  PHIL. 
No, because your 
a Requiritur ut qui sit Episcopus, Ordinetur à tribus Episcopis: qui & ipsi s●rt ab alij▪ Ordinati, & illi ab aliis don●● ad Apostolo● veniatur. Id clarè habetur. Can. 1. Apost Bell. de Eccl. l. 4. cap. 8.  Consecrating Bishops are not themselves Canonical. For to a Canonical Bishop it is required, That he have three such Bishops for his Consecrators, as were every one of them Consecrated by three: And again each of them by three; And so by continual succession, till we come to the Apostles. For as Doct. 
b Stapl. princ. doct. l. 13. ●. 6.  Stapleton saith, Christi Ecclesia illa sola est quae suos pastors & Episcopos perpetua successione potest ostendere. i. That only is Christ's Church which can show her Pastors and Bishops in a perpetual succession. And 
c Ibidem.  again, Vbicunque talis perpetu● successio, non in eisdem locis sed in eadem legitima, & successiva vocatione, missione, & Ordinatione ostendi potest, ibi sit vera Christi Ecclesia Catholica, id est Ecclesiae Catholicae pars & membrum. i. Wheresoever such a perpetual succession of Pastors can be showed, not in the same places, but in the same lawful and successive vocation, mission, and Ordination, there is a true Catholic Church; That is, A part and member of the Catholic Church. 
* Stapl. fort. par. 2. c. 1. f. 95.  Now, If you can show any succession of Bishops in England, or elsewhere, you can show it no otherwise, then could the Donatists, of whom Optatus thus writeth, Missus est Victor, etc. Victor was sent of the Donatists to Rome, There was a son without a father, a servant without a ruler, a scholar without a master, a successor without a predecessor. Igitur quia Claudianus, etc. 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 ask Victor in whose place he sat, and to whom he succeeded; He could not show any other Chair or See, but the See and Chair of pestilence. Thus I say, That as Victor among the Donatists, so Luther among the Protestants of Wittenberg, so Zuinglius among the Sacramentaries of Zurich, so Calvin among those of Geneva, so Bernard Rotman among the Anabaptists, so M. jewel, Grindall and Horn, and such other false Bishops among us, have risen and started up suddenly without fathers, without predecessors, without masters, in any right and lineal succession; Or if they have any, let them search their Records, turn their Registers, produce their Evidences, unfold their Monuments of Antiquity, and witness to the world their Canonical succession; which they neither do, nor can do. But we can show you Bishops of Rome even from S. Peter, to our holy father Paulus Quintus, who now liveth. 
a De sacrif. Miss. l. 2. c. 6.  Antonius Democharis hath described the Bishops of France, or rather of all the Provinces of the Christian world. 
b Stap. princ. doct. l. 13. c. 7.  Doct. Stapleton wrote with his own hand, a Catalogue found in a Monastery, containing the Bishops of all the Western Church. Histories, Registers, public Tables, the very Temples and most ancient Monuments of Ecclesiastical Colleges, are evident Arguments of our succession. Yea we have a Catalogue in Polydore Virgil, of all the Bishops of our Nation for almost a thousand years. Then was the Church of England like a Golden chain, whose Sacred links had such a mutual connexion and dependency, that from the blessed Apostles, we might descend by degrees to the lowest link, even to the last Bishop of England; whence we might return again, ascending and climbing up to the Apostles themselves. But now, alas, since the time of Schism, in stead of Golden links, you have added leaden: so that there is a breach, a rupture, a plain dissolution in the chain. You may well climb up a few steps by the leaden ladder, but you must down again; you have no part nor portion in the Golden ladder of succession, which leadeth us up to S. Peter, and so to Christ himself. For the Church of Rome, and that only hath Canonical Bishops; All other are but counterfeit.  ORTHOD. 
Just; For all the Pope's geese are Swans: and other men's Swans are geese.  PHIL. 
I Might bring the Church insulting against you, as Tertullian did 
2  against the heretics of his time; 
c Tert. de praes. c●p. 37.  Qui estis? quando & unde 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 caverunt testamento, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adiuraverunt, ita teneo. 1. Who are you? when and whence came you? what do you in my ground, seeing you are not mine? O Luther, by what authority dost thou cut down my woods? O Calvin, By what licence dost thou turn away the course of my fountains?— It is my possession, I possess it by prescription, I was first in possession, I have strong Evidences from the true owners. I am the heir of the Apostles, as they appointed by testament, as they committed it to trust, as they bind men by adjuration that it should be enjoyed, so I enjoy it.  ORTHO. 
To answer all your demands in order; We are the children of God, and when it pleased him, which causeth the light to spring out of darkness, we did spring from yourselves; being still content to be yours, so you would be Christ's. Otherwise know, that the Vineyard is not yours, but Christ's; wherein we have cut down nothing but your corruptions. Neither have we diverted the fountain, though we were forced to cut out a channel to drain it, to strain it, to purge it from your pollutions, that so we might drink the water of Life, out of the wells of salvation. Whatsoever you have by lawful possession, by ancient and just prescription, by inheritance from the Apostles, whereof you have sound Record and evidence out of the Scripture, All that is common to us with you. Whatsoever is controversed between us in any point of Religion, therein we appeal to the written Will and Testament of Christ; Let that be judge between us and you.  PHIL. 
When the question was between the jews and the Samaritans concerning the Temple, whether the Lord in his Law allowed that at jerusalem, or that other in mount Garizin, 
a Ex joseph. antiquit. l. 13. c. 5.  Andronicus produced the succession of the high Priests from Aaron; Whereupon Ptolomeus King of Egypt gave sentence for the Temple at jerusalem. What say you, had he not reason?  ORTHO. 
He had: For the Lord gave the Priesthood only to Aaron and his sons; so they only had title to the Priesthood, who descended from Aaron by carnal generation. But Aaron and his sons according to the Law of the Lord, performed the Priest's Office in the Tabernacle, and afterward in the Temple at jerusalem, the place which the Lord had chosen. Wherefore as they alone were the Priests of the Lord: so that alone was the Temple of the Lord.  PHIL. 
Very well. Now to proceed▪ We of the Church of Rome are built upon S. Peter, as it were upon mount Zion, you are built upon Cranmer, as it were upon mount Garizin. We have a Church and Priesthood, which derive their original from Christ; you can go no further than Cranmer: Now if this matter were put to King Ptolemy, or any other indifferent man, would not he give judgement for us against you?  ORTHOD. 
No, Neither for your Priesthood, nor for your Church; Not for the first, because the Priesthood which the Apostles conferred, was only a power to minister the word and Sacraments, which being conveyed to posterity successively 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 we Cranmer, and consequently we also in this succeed the Apostles as well as you. But besides this, which is the Ordinance of God, you have added another thing, the imagination of your own brain, which you esteem the principal function of Priesthood, to wit, a power to offer a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Now, how is it possible that in this you should succeed the Apostles, seeing (as in due place shall be proved) they neither were such Priests themselves, nor ever by Ordination delivered any such Priesthood? And as Ptolemy if he lived in this age, could not justify your Priests; so neither could he nor any indifferent man justify your Church by virtue of this Argument drawn from outward succession. For how slender it is, may appear by consideration of the Greek Church, which 
a 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 convicted in three full counsels of Schism and heresy; yet Constantinople can fetch her pedigree from Saint Andrew the Apostle, as witnesseth 
b Niceph. l. 8. c. 6.  Nicephorus, and bring it downward, even to jeremy, who 
c Gen. Chron. l. 4.  lived in this present age. Likewise the Church of Alexandria challengeth succession, as well and as truly as the Roman. 
d Legat. Eccl. Alexand. apud Bar. annal. tom. 6. in fine.  Baronius recordeth an embassage from Gabriel their patriarch, to Clemens the eight, in the title whereof he calleth himself, the 97. Patriarch successor of Saint Mark the Evangelist. If you say that the line of Constantinople and Alexandria hath been interrupted, be it so: And hath not the Roman been so likewise? 
d Legat. Eccl. Alexand. apud Bar. annal. tom. 6. in fine.  Genebrard is of opinion, that fifty Popes by the space of almost 150. years were not Apostolical, but apotactical and Apostatical. 
e Gen. Chron. l. 4.  Baronius lamenteth that false Popes were thrust by strumpets into the seat of Peter. Platina 
f Bar. anno 912. n. 8.  saith, it was grown to that pass that any factious fellow might invade the seat of Peter. I pass over 
g Plat. in V●a Clementis 2.  your heretical Popes, your woman Pope, and your Antipopes, whereof you have had some times two, some times three at once, so that one could not tell which was the true Pope, but only by the prevailing faction. For he that won it in the field must wear the garland, the weaker side must to the walls; and ambitious wits must be set a work by writing to maintain the Pope's quarrel. Have you not now great cause to brag of this noble succession? If you expound yourself not of Local, and personal, but of such as appeareth in successive Vocation, Mission and Ordination, then why do you tell us of Polydore Virgil, or of Democharis, or of the old monument found in a Monastery, which have only set down the names of such as succeeded such persons, in such places, but have not described their successive ordination? & if you could show us this also, yet it would not prove the Church of Rome to be a true Catholic Church. For why should we not think that Constantinople, and Alexandria might have this as well as Rome? Moreover your own former example doth confute you. For 
h Sigon. de rep. heb. l. 2. c. 6  Manasses the high Priest of the Temple in mount Garizim was brother to jaddi the high Priest in jerusalem, and had the like succession from Aaron, yet the Samaritans were not a true, but schismatical Church, in regard whereof their Temple was called 
i Ibid.  Templum transgressorum. Finally suppose that into the place of a Catholic and Canonical Bishop deceased, a capable and Catholic man, were canonically chosen and consecrated; yet it is very possible, that he may become an heretic, as for example an Arrian, and may draw his flock after him. Will you now say that this flock so poisoned with arianism, are the true members of your Catholic Church? Yet here is local and personal succession, yea even the golden chain of successive ordination. Therefore that assertion of Stapletons', to with, that wheresoever this succession is, there is also a true Catholic Church, cannot be defended; but 
k Bel. de eccls l. 4. c. 8.  Bellarmine saith far more truly: It is not necessarily gathered that the Church is always where there is succession. For besides this outward succession, there must likewise be the inward succession of doctrine to make a true Church. 
a Lib. 4. 6. 43  Irenaeus describeth those which have true succession from the Apostles, to be such as with the succession of the Episcopal office have received the certain grace of truth. And this kind of succession he calleth the principal succession; so Gregory 
b Naz. Orat. 21.  Nazianzen having said, that Athanasius succeeded Saint Mark in godliness, addeth that this succession in godliness is properly to be accounted succession: For he that holdeth the same Doctrine is also partaker of the same throne, but he that is against the Doctrine, must be reputed an adversary, even while he sitteth in the throne, for the latter hath the name of succession, but the former hath the thing itself and the truth. Therefore you must prove your succession in doctrine, otherwise you must be holden for adversaries even while you sit in the throne.  PHIL. 
We can prove it when occasion requireth. In the mean time though we cannot conclude affirmatively, that where successive Ordination is, there is a Church, yet we may conclude negatively, that that where it is not, there is no Church.  ORTHO. 
Had not Pope Pelagius this ordination you speak of?  PHIL. 
He had no doubt, and so succeeded the blessed Apostles.  ORTHOD. 
But he was consecrated only by two as I have 
c Lib. 1. c. 7.  proved. So Euagrius was a lawful Bishop approved by the Pope and Church of Rome, and consequently in your own judgement had succession from the Apostles. Yet as hath been declared, he was consecrated only by one, therefore you must confess that one may be a lawful Bishop, and have succession from the Apostles, although he were consecrated only by one. Yet mistake me not, I speak not this as though any of our English Protestant Bishops since the time of reformation were so consecrated: We are ready to justify that their Orders are not only sufficient in the nature of the thing, but also exact according to the strictness of the Canon.  PHIL. 
Or if they be not, then as those which could not show their pedigree from Aaron, 
d Nehe. 7. 64  were put from the Priesthood; so you must be content to be served in like manner.  ORTHODOX. 
SEeing you accuse us for breaking the golden chain, 
3  behold, take it in your hand, examine it from end to end, look upon every link, let us see those breaches, those ruptures, those dissolutions you speak of, and let it appear to the world, whether you or we have broken the Canon. And because you so brag and blaze your own Arms, let us first see how you can prove your glorious succession?  PHIL. 
We can name the Bishops which succeeded one another in their several Sees, even till the time of Schism.  ORTHOD. 
What is this to the purpose? It is one thing to make a Catalogue of Bishop's succeeding one another; and another thing to plot out the whole chain of their successive ordination. This is the thing you require at our hands, can you perform it? if not, by your own sentence you must be put from your Priesthood.  PHIL. 
We can, if you will grant that unto us which is reason should be granted. For you must understand that our English Catholic Bishops derive their succession from the Saxons, the Saxons from the French, some of both from the Roman, and the Roman from all Nations; therefore an infinite number of Records must be searched, if we will particularly deduce the successive ordination of any one Bishop of later times. Now although the Church in all ages hath been careful to record the Consecrations, yet it is possible that some may be omitted by negligence of Registers, it is possible that some formerly recorded may be perished by injury of time, it is possible that some yet remaining upon record, cannot by us be 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 kingdoms required three, seeing the constant practice of the Christian world, was continually by three, therefore when we read of any Bishop generally reputed a Bishop, performing the office of a Bishop, by giving holy orders, subscribing to general Counsels, executing without any check or controlment the duties belonging to a Bishop, we may in all reason presume that he was made canonically by three; if there be neither public fame, nor probable reason nor suspicion to the contrary. For wanton wits must not be suffered upon their own fancy to call reverend antiquity into question. Otherwise seeing none can be a Bishop unless he be first a Priest, a peevish man might deny them to be Bishops unless he did see their letters of orders. Again seeing no man can be a Priest except he be baptized, a froward fellow might deny their Priesthood, unless it could be produced, by whom and where they were baptized. No Sir, we may not admit of such dealing, neither must we be put to prove these things, but when there is nothing to the contrary, we may presume them to be done according to the laws of the Church, and the general practice of all Christian nations.  ORTHODOX. 
You speak reason: Only this I require at your hands, that the same liberty which you assume to yourselves, you will according to equity allow to others, and seeing you challenge all the Bishops before Cranmer for your own, may it please you to let us see the several links of your golden chain, from the first conversion until his time, and we will extend them to this present day.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the first Conversion of this Land in the time of the Apostles.  PHIL. 
Our Country of great Britain hath been three times converted to Christianity by three Bishops of Rome. First, by Saint Peter. Secondly, by Eleutherius. thirdly, by Pope Gregory. Saint Peter, came hither in person, Eleutherius and Gregory by their Legates.  ORTHOD. 
The first conversion may be considered in general or in particular, In general it is most clear, that our country received very anciently the Christian faith. 
a Theod. de curandis grecorum affec. l. 9  Theodoret saith: Neither the Aethiopians which border upon the Egyptian Thebes, nor many other nations of the Ismaelites, not the Lazi, not the Sammi, not the Auasgi, not many other barbarians having yielded themselves to the dominion of the Romans, do use in their traffic any of the Roman Laws; but these our fishermen and Publicans, and this our tent maker have brought the evangelical law upon all nations: neither have they induced the Romans only, and those which live under the Roman Empire, but the Scythians, Sauromatae, also the Indians, Persians, Seres, Hyrcans, Britan's, Cymmery, Germans; and to speak in one word, all kind of men, and all nations to receive the laws of Christ crucified; not using any armour, not an infinite number of chosen soldiers, not the violence of Persian cruelty, but the persuasion of words, setting before them the commodity of the Laws which they preached; Thus far Theodoret. And before him Saint 
a Hier. epist. ad Euagrium 85.  Hierome; France, and the Britons, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all Barbarous nations adore one Christ, and observe one rule of truth. And before him Saint 
b Chrys. in sermone de pen tecoste.  Chrysostome: Whithersoever thou shalt go, to the Indians, to the Moors, to the Britons, to the Spaniards, yea to the furthest end of the world, thou shalt find, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, etc. And before Chrysostome, 
c Ath. Epist. Synod. apud Theodor. l. ●. cap. 3.  Athanasius: To which Fathers of the Nicen Council, all Churches every where have given their consent in Spain, Britain, France, etc. And before Athanasius 
d Tert. adversus judaeos c. 7.  Tertullian: the places of the Britanes, whereunto the Romans could not have access, are subject unto Christ. And before Tertullian, 
e Orig. Hom. 4. in Ezech.  Origen; When did the land of Britain consent to the Religion of one God, before the coming of Christ? when did the land of the Moors? when did the whole world at once? but now the whole earth prayeth to the Lord of Israel with joy, because of the Churches which are in the utmost cost of the world. To these agreeth that which 
f Polyd. Hist. Ang. l. 2.  Polydore Virgil bringeth out of Gyldas the most ancient Writer of our nation; That Britain received the faith, ab initio orti evangelii, from the first springing of the Gospel. So at the very dawning of the day to them that were in darkness, and in the shadow of death, the everlasting light appeared, and the Sun of righteousness did shine upon them. The barren wilderness of Britain, became a fruitful garden, and was graciously watered with the dew of heaven. Thus it was in part fulfilled which was foretold by the Psalmist; 
* Psal. 2. 8.  I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.  
HItherto in general; Now in particular, who were the first golden 
2  pipes and Conduits to convey the water of life unto them is not so certain.  PHIL. 
Some think it to be Saint Peter, some Saint Paul, some Simon Zelotes, some Aristobulus, some joseph of Arimathea. But the best opinion is, that it was Saint Peter, which father 
g Pars. 3. conuers. p. 1. c. 1. n. 20.  Parsons hath proved by sundry authorities. First, by Simeon 
h Apud Surium, Die 23. lunij. p. 862.  Metaphrastes.  ORTHODOX. 
This authority deserveth small credit, as you may learn of 
i Anno 44. n. 38.  Baronius in these speeches: If any credit be to be given to Metaphrastes. And again, In 
k Ibid. n. 54.  many other things by him set down, it is certain that he erreth.  PHIL. 
This (matter) 
l Pars. abide.  seemeth to be somewhat confirmed by that which Innocentius 
m Epist. ad Decentium.  the first Bishop of Rome hath left written above a thousand and two hundred years ago, saying, That the first Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicilia, and the islands that lie betwixt them, were founded by Saint Peter, or his scholars, or successors.  ORTHOD. 
Parson's proposeth this very faintly; not daring to say it is, but it seemeth to be: neither seemeth to be confirmed, but seemeth to be somewhat confirmed; and yet this somewhat is never a whit: for Innocent saith not that these Churches were all founded by Saint Peter, but by Saint Peter or his scholars and successors. Neither doth it appear that he speaketh of Britain, either expressly or by consequence, for though it be an Island, yet it lieth neither between Italy and France, nor Italy and Spain, nor Italy and afric, nor between France and Spain, nor France and afric, nor between Spain & afric, neither is it near to Sicily. What then is the meaning of Innocent? having named on the one side of the Mediterranean sea Italy, France and Spain: and on the other side afric; he addeth Sicily and the islands that lie between them: as though he should have said, Sicily and the other islands in the Mediterranean sea; howsoever, the situation will not suffer us to understand it of Britain.  PHIL. 

a Pars. ibidem  Gulielmus 
b Eyseng. cent. 1. part. 7. dist. 8.  Eysengrenius in his first century or hundred years, doth write also, that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by Saint Peter under Nero.  ORTH. 
Eysengrenius a man living in our own age, (for he wrote Anno. ●566.) cannot be of great authority, especially in a matter of antiquity, and yet he is of less, because he leaneth on such rotten reeds as Metaphrastes, saying; Metaphrastes affirmeth that many Churches were built by Peter, the standard bearer of the Apostles, through Britain.  PHIL. 
To 
c Pars. ibidem.  this founding of Churches in England by Saint Peter, it may be thought that 
d Gild. Epist. 2. de excid. & conq. Brit.  Gildas had relation, when expostulating with the Britain Priests of his time for their wickedness (for which the wrath of God brought in the English Saxons upon them) he objecteth among other things; Quod sedem Petri apostoli inverecundis pedibus usurpassent: That they had usurped the seat of Saint Peter with unshame fast feet: meaning thereby, either the whole Church of Brittany first founded by him, or some particular place of devotion, or Church which he had erected.  ORTH. 
Neither is Parson's peremptory in this point. For he saith not, it is to be thought, but it may be thought; wherefore in his own judgement it is not a consequence of necessity, but a collection of probability; and to any indifferent man it will not appear so much as probable, if he ponder the place of Gildas: Sedem Petri Apostoli inverecundis pedibus usurpantes, sed merito capiditatis in judae traditoris pestilentem Cathedram decidentes: they occupy the seat of Peter with unshame fast feet, but by the desert of their covetousness, they fall into the pestilent chair of the traitor judas. If the chair of judas do not argue that judas was in England, why should the seat of Peter argue that Peter was in England? And the same Gildas a little after speaking against such Bishops as ordained simoniacal persons, saith; Nicholaum in locum Stephani martyris statuunt; they install Nicholas into the place of the Martyr Saint Steven: Doth this prove that the Martyr Saint Steven was locally in England, or that either the whole Church of Britain or any particular place of devotion was founded by him? No more doth the other, concerning Saint Peter.  PHIL. 
What then will you make to be the meaning of Gildas?  ORTHOD. 
He lamenteth to see those Churches which had been governed by zealous men like to Saint Peter, and Saint Steven, now to be defiled with unclean persons like unto judas and Nicholas the Deacon.  PHIL. 
Why should he rather name Peter, than any other Apostle, if Peter were not in England?  ORTHOD. 
The speech of Christ concerning the feeding of his flock was directed in a special manner to Peter, whence it cometh to pass, that all to whom the care of feeding Christ's flock is committed, are called Saint Peter's successors. Saint 
a Chrys. de sacerd. l. 2.  Chrysostome saith; Why did Christ shed his blood? truly that he might purchase those sheep, the charge where of the committed to Peter, and Peter's successors; And this he saith to Saint Basil, to encourage him in the Episcopal office. Whereby it is evident that Chrysostome calleth all that feed Christ's flock, Saint Peter's successors. In like manner they may be said to occupy Saint Peter's seat, not locally, but in respect of their doctrine and holy conversation. And all such as by Simony invade this holy function; all that defile it with heresy or lewdness of life, may be said to usurp the seat of Peter with unclean feet. Thus much for the place of Gildas.  PHIL. 

b Pars. ibid.  Alredus 
c Apud. Surium. 5. jan. pag. 131.  Rienuallus an English Abbot, left written above 500 years agone, a certain revelation or apparition of Saint Peter to an holy man in the time of King Edward the confessor, showing him how he had preached himself in England, and consequently, the particular care he had of that Church and nation.  ORTHOD. 
This your fashion, when you cannot prove a thing by sufficient testimonies, you run to dreams and revelations not worth the answering. And yet this doting dream extendeth not so far as Parsons dreameth. For Alredus in that place relateth how in the time of King Edward the Confessor, Saint Peter appeared upon the night in a vision, to a certain recluse who had lived in a cave under the ground many years, and bade him tell the King that he had dispensed with his vow, concerning his going a pilgrimage, and instead thereof had commanded him by the Pope to build a Monastery, which he thus described; Est mihi locus, etc. I have (quoth Saint Peter) a place in the West part of London chosen by myself, and dear unto me, which sometimes I did dedicated with my own hands, renown with my presence, and illustrate with divine 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.  PHIL. 
Is it not said that he did dedicate it with his own hands, renown it with his presence, and illustrate it with divine miracles?  ORTHOD. 
That doth not prove the point in question. For Alredus presently after declareth, how in the days of Ethelbert King of Kent, Sebertus King of the East Saxons built without the walls of London Westward, a Monastery to S. Peter, and withal addeth, how the night before the dedication, Saint Peter appeared in the habit of a Pilgrim, to a certain Fisherman upon 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, heavenly melody, with an unspeakable fragrancy of sweet odours. Now the solemnity of the dedication being finished, he returned to the Fisherman, who at his command, cast his net into the river, and took a great draft of fishes, which Saint Peter bade him take for his passage, reserving only one of extraordinary greatness to himself, which he sent for a token to Mellitus Bishop of London. Here is his miracle, his presence, and his dedication of the Church, with his own hands; but here is no preaching; or if there were, than he preached more than 500 years after he was dead. But why do I dwell so long upon so fond a fable? Or what is this to the first Conversion of England? Wherefore I conclude, that though S. Peter were a famous Fisher, searched innumerable streams through the wide world, and catched many thousand souls; yet father Parsons hath not made it appear by any sound authority that ever he spread hisnet in the English Ocean.  PHIL. 
IF he did not convert the nation in his own person; yet it was converted by such as he sent.  ORTHOD. 
If this blessed work were performed by S. Paul or Simon of 
3  Canany, than we may boldly say, that the first converters 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. Paul's coming, 
a Parson's 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 Britain, in the fourth year of Nero, being the year of our Lord 59 And verily 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 Star swiftly gliding from East to West, a Herald proclaiming the acceptable day of the Lord: and a shrill trumpet sounding out the Name of jesus. Now though father Parsons say, that for his being in Britain, there are not so many particular testimonies, yet those which he hath brought are far more pregnant than the former, for the coming of S. Peter. To pass over the rest, what can be more plain and direct, then that of 
b Venant. l. 3. de vita sanct. Mart. in fine.  Venantius?  

Transit & Oceanum, vel quà facit insula portum,  
Quasque Britannus habet terras, atque ultima Thule.   

Saint Paul did pass the Seas, where I'll makes ships in harbour stand,  
Arriving on the British Coast, and cape of Thule land.   
COncerning Simon Zelotes, 
c Nicep. l. 2. ca 40.  Nicephorus saith, that having received the holy 
4  Ghost coming down from heaven, he passed through Egypt, Cyrene, Africa, Mauritania, and all Libya preaching the Gospel, yea he did carry it to the Western Ocean and the islands of Britain. 
d Dor. in Synop:  Dorotheus (whom 
e Pars. quo sup. n. 23.  Parsons calleth a very ancient writer,) saith that he was crucified, slain, and buried in Britain. In the Greek 
f Menolog. Maij. 10.  Menologe it is said, that going into Britain, when he had enlightened many with the word of the Gospel, he was there crucified and buried. Which authorities what weight soever they carry, surely they over balance all that Parsons hath produced for the coming of S. Peter. Now from the Apostles let us come to the Apostolic men, Aristobulus and joseph of Arimathea.  PHIL. 
OF 
a Pars. quo supra 24.  Aristobulus, S. Peter's scholar, do testify in like manner the 
5.  foresaid authors, Mirmianus, Dorotheus, Baronius, out of the Greek martyrologue, that he was sent by S. Peter into Britain, and there made a Bishop.  ORTHO. 
What you or your fellows say, is not greatly material, but how falsely you report of 
b Doreth. in Syn.  Dorotheus may appear by these his words: Aristobulus, even he which is mentioned by the Apostle, to the Romans, was made Bishop of Britain: this is all which he saith; if he say so much, for there are divers readings. But howsoever, there is not one word of S. Peter; yet Parsons brings him to avouch that Aristobulus was sent by S. Peter. And whereas Parsons calleth him S. Peter's scholar, he is not so described by Dorotheus, but rather as S. Paul's. Therefore if he were Bishop of Britain, it is far more likely that he was sent by S. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, then by S. Peter. Let us now proceed to joseph of Arimathea.  PHIL. 
OF 
c Pars. ibid. 25  joseph of Arimathea▪ his coming into France, and his sending thence into Great Britain, either by S. Philip, (as some say) who preached then in Gaul, or (as others hold) by S. Peter himself, as he passed that way to and from Britain, and how he obtained a place to exercise an Eremitical life, for him and his ten companions in the Island called A●allonia, where Glanstenbury after was builded, albeit I find no very certain, or ancient writer to affirm it, yet because our latter Historiographers, for two hundred years past or more, do hold it to have come down by tradition, (and namely johannes Capgravius, a learned man of the order of S. Dominicke, and others after him,) I do not mean to dispute the matter here, but rather to admire and praise the heavenly providence of God, etc.  ORTHOD. 
The words of john 
d Cap. in Sanc. Brit. catalogue.  Capgrave are thus; joseph cum silio, etc. i. joseph with his son joseph, and other ten companions, travelling through Britain under the reign of King Arviragus, preached the faith of Christ boldly, in the year of our Lord's incarnation 63. And again, They came into France to Philip the Apostle, and of him were sent into Britain; And again, The King granted unto them a certain Island environed with woods, bushes and fens, called of the inhabitants, Jnis Ditrin, i. the Island of glass. Which relation seemeth very probable. There is extant an Epistle (if it be not counterfeit) alleged by 
e I. el. in assert. Arthuri●. f. 20. b.  Lelandus and other Antiquaries, and ascribed to S. Patrick, wherein it is thus written; Ostenderunt mihi, etc. i. The brethren which I found at Glastenbury, showed unto me the writings of Fugatius and Damianus, in which it was contained, That 12. disciples of Philip and jacob, had built the old Church, and that three Pagan Kings gave to the said 12▪ so many possessions of lands. King 
f 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 
g Apud. Camdenum in Somerset shire.  Malmesbury, in his book of Glastenbury Abbey, saith, That the old Church was built by joseph. Yea, The 
h Camd. Ibid  ancient Monuments of the said Abbey do testify the same; And also that joseph was sent thither by S. Philip out of France. This is that joseph which made 
i Mat. 27. 60. joh. 19 41, 42  Sepulchre in his Garden, That in the midst of his pleasures, he might think of mortality; He buried the blessed body of Christ, and afterward became a Preacher of the Resurrection. In Glastenbury he powered out his precious Ointment, and all Britain was filled with the sweetness of the odour. Now whether he were the first Preacher in Britain▪ I cannot define; but if he were, than the first Converter came from Arimathea, and not from Rome, being sent by S. Philip, and not by S. Peter.  PHIL. 
That the Gospel came first to Glastenbury from Rome, may thus be proved; 
a Pars. 3. con●. p. 1. ●●. n. 2.  King Inas above 900. years past, when he laid the foundation of Glastenbury Abbey, in memory of S. joseph and his fellows, that had lived a solitary life there, caused these Verses to be written in the Church.  
Anglia plaude lubens, mittittibi Roma salutem;  
Fulgor Apostolicus Glasconiam irradiat.  
Be glad England, for that Rome sendeth health to thee, and Apostolical brightness doth lighten Glastenburie; Which could not well be spoken, if the coming of these Saints and first inhabiters there, had not had some relation to Rome, and to the Apostles that sent them.  ORTHOD. 
If Inas laid the foundation of Glastenbury Abbey in memory of S. joseph, who lived there, than we have a noble Monument of Joseph's being in England. But that ever he was at Rome, or sent hither by any Bishop of Rome, is more than we can find, or you can prove. William of 
b Apud Camd. quo supra.  Malmesbury declareth, That when the ancient Church built by joseph, was utterly decayed, there was another built by Devi Bishop of S. David's; Which also in time growing ruinous, was repaired by 12. men coming out of the North: but K. Inas pulled it down, and reared a stately one to Christ, Peter, and Paul. In this certain Verses are written; The first 12. whereof, are a continual commendation of Peter and Paul, by way of comparison; then follow those two which you have cited, in which he willeth England to rejoice. And why? because Rome sendeth her health: But how? the next verse declareth, Because the Apostolic brightness doth lighten Glastenbury. Where if the Poet speak of the brightness of doctrine (as you seem to take it) than it is not necessary to refer it to the first inhabitants; it may have relation to the doctrine not long before preached by Austin: For I know you will call his doctrine Apostolic. Yet it seemeth, that the Poet meaneth not the brightness 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 unto them,) is said to have given these Bulwarks, as everlasting 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 Apostolic brightness, (that is their glorious Patronage and protection,) is said to shine most radiantly over 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 doth in no case argue that Christianity was first brought hither from Rome.  
NOw, what will you say, if the Britaines were Christians before the Romans? 
7.  For who was the first founder of the Church of Rome? you proclaim every where that 
c Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. ●. 2.  S. Peter. But when came S. Peter thither? Baronius saith, in the year 44▪ being the second of the Emperor Claudius. Now let us consider when our Island first received the sweet influence of the Gospel. And here for our direction, we will follow the conduct of a star, I mean of Gildas, who for antiquity, is the most ancient Historian of our Nation; For his wisdom was surnamed Sapiens: and for his devotion and eloquence, may well be termed, The zealous and Golden mouthed Gildas. This 
a Gild. de ●●cid. &▪ conq. Brit.  Gildas declareth, how these frozen islands, far remote from the visible Sun, received the glittering beams of Christ jesus the invisible Sun, in the time of Tiberius Caesar. Which point is the more remarkable, because he professeth in the same place, That he pronounceth it upon sure grounds, and certain 
b S●imus.  knowledge. Now 
c Baron. an. 39 n. 1.  Tiberius died in the year of Christ 39 according to Baronius. Whereupon it followeth, That Britain received the Gospel five years at least before either Paul or Peter came to Rome. By which it is manifest, that the first converters of our Nation did not come from Rome.  PHIL. 

d Pars. ●. 1. c. 2. n. 2. and p. 1. c. 1. n. 26.  If they did not come from Rome, yet preached they the Roman faith; of which S. Paul had written to the Romans themselves, before the going of S. joseph into Britain: 
e Rom. 1. 8.  Fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo, i Your faith is preached and divulged throughout the whole world; Signifying that the Christian faith planted in Rome by S. Peter, was derived already for a platform into all other parts of the world round about.  ORTHOD. 
Whosoever they were, or whence▪ soever, blessed be the Name of God, who vouchsafed even in the morning of the Gospel, graciously to remember us, and to display unto us the riches of his mercy in Christ jesus. Now, whereas you say they preached the Roman faith, Be it so, The Roman, yet not yours, but the very same which is professed this day in the Church of England: Let the present doctrine of Rome be made conformable to that which Saint Paul delivered to the Romans, and we will embrace with you the Roman faith. Hitherto of the first conversion; Now let us come to the second.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the second Conversion, (as some call it) or rather of a new supply of Preachers, and a further propagation of the Gospel in the time of King Lucius, and Pope Eleutherius.  PHIL. 
NOw 
f Pars. 3. con●. p. 1. c. 4. n. 1.  do follow two other more famous and public conversions of the said Island under two renowned Popes of Rome, and by their special industry, which are acknowledged, and registered by the whole Christian world, and do so much press the spleen, and move the gall of our Rome-biters, as they leave no corner of their wits unsisted, to discredit or reject the same. The former of them was under Pope Eleutherius and King Lucius.  ORTHO. 
This is not to be called a conversion of the Island, but rather a new supply of Preachers and further propagation of the Gospel. For john 
g In Sanct. cat.  Capgrave, (who is commended by 
h Conuers p. 1. cap. 1. n. 25.  Parsons for a learned man) relateth that Eluanus (who was brought up at Glastenbury) had dispersed through the wide fields of Britain, those first seeds of the Gospel sown by joseph. It is also recorded in your 
i Apud Bar●●um anno 183. ●. 4.  martyrologue which used to be read in your Churches, that Lucius never carried himself as an enemy to Christian religion, but showed himself favourable in respect of their miracles, and integrity of life, and that he had embraced the Christian religion sooner, if he had not seen Christians reproached by the Pagans, as infamous persons, and despitefully handled by the Romans that were in authority. But afterward understanding by the emperors Ambassadors, that some Senators were become Christians, and amongst other Pertinax and Trebellius▪ yea and that Marcus Aurelius the Emperor having gotten a victory by the prayers of the Christians had used them kindly: he sent an embassage to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome by Eluanus and Meduinus Britain's, entreating Eleutherius by them, that he would open a passage by himself and his Ministers for the fostering and cherishing of Christian religion in Britain. john 
a Que supra.  Capgrave reporteth, that Eleutherius made Eluanus Bishop of Britain, and Meduinus a Doctor, to preach the faith of Christ through the whole Island. Which showeth that when they were sent Ambassadors to Eleutherius, they were no novices, but profound Divines and practised teachers in the school of Christ, as they are termed, by one of your own 
b 〈◊〉 ●itus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 5. 〈◊〉 d●●inarum r●r●m per●to.  Historians Thus it appeareth, that there were learned Preachers, who had sown the seed of the Gospel through the whole Island, and Christians famous for miracles, even at the time of Eleutherius his sending.  PHIL. 
Peradventure some private Christians, but neither the King nor 
2  any induced by the King's authority. For it is manifest by Saint 
c Be●● 〈◊〉 ●●st. l. 1. c. 4  Bede, that the King wrote to Eleutherius, desiring that by his commandment he might be made a Christian; whereby it is plain that as yet he was not made a Christian.  ORTH. 
In that he wrote this Epistle to this purpose, you may see the motion proceeded from his own breast, and not from Eleutherius: he was already made a Christian by the baptism of the spirit, and therefore was desirous to be made a Christian by the baptism of water. He had already entered himself into the school of Christ, and sought means that his whole kingdom might follow after. Which argueth that his soul was sanctified and seasoned with grace. 
d ●o●ticus 〈◊〉 Brit: ●●s●. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ex Gal●. M●n●●▪ l. 4. c. ●9. 20  Serenaverant enim eius mentem sanctorum miracula; the miracles of the Saints had cleared his mind.  PHIL. 
WHat moved the King to send to Rome, when there were 
3  Bishops in France and other places nearer than Rome?  ORTHO. 
First, the Church of Rome being in the Imperial 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 spread their golden Eagle over a great part of the Island. The Emperor Hadrian as 
e 〈◊〉 Hadrian ●.  Aelius Spartianus reporteth, had made a wall fourscore miles long; Antoninus Pius, as julius 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  Capitolinus declareth, had made another to divide the Romans from the Britain's; and all that lived within this wall were tributary to the Romans; of which number King Lucius is said to be, whose father was brought up at Rome, entertained friendship with the Romans, and p●ide them 
g 〈…〉  tribute. In which respects, as also for the great intercourse between Rome and Britain, King Lucius had opportunity to send, and might conceive great hope to prevail. Thirdly, it is not vnl●●elie, that the Ambassadors which informed him how some of the Senators were become Christians, might be themselves Christians, and persuaders of him, both to become a Christian, and to send to Rome for Preachers.  PHIL. 
You have omitted the principal reason, for seeing there was not at that time any face or fashion of a Church in Britain, to whom should he seek for planting of religion, and erecting of bishoprics, but only to the Bishop of Rome, the fountain and fullness of all Ecclesiastical authority? A particular Bishop hath jurisdiction only over his own Diocese, an Archbishop only over his own Province, a Patriarch is likewise confined and circumscribed with in his bounds and limits. But the authority of the Bishop of Rome is like unto the Ocean environing the earth, or to the highest heavens encompassing all; therefore in such cases we must have recourse to the Bishop of Rome.  ORTHOD. 
To whom had Frumentius recourse for the converting of India? The Story whereof is this. A Tyrian Philosopher arriving in India, was slain by the Barbarians, with all his company, except two little children which were gone out of the ship and were learning their lessons under a tree. These children were brought up by the King and advanced by him: one of them, that is Adesius, being made his Steward, the other, that is Frumentius, his Secretary. Afterward the King dying, and leaving his son in his nonage, the Queen entreated them both, but especially Frumentius, to assist her in the Government of the kingdom. While Frumentius was in this authority he inquired among the Roman Merchants for Christians, he showed them all favour and countenance; and admonished them to have their assembles for prayer and the service of God. When the King came to age, they delivered him the kingdom and departed: Adesius to tire, Frumentius to Alexandria: where he went to Athanaesius, and told him what was done, entreating 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 find such a man in whom is the spirit of God to perform these things? so he made Frumentius Bp. & sent him into India, and the Lord blessed his labours, signs and wonders were wrought by him, and an infinite company of those barbarous people were convetted to the faith. This Story is recorded by 
a Ruff Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 9  Ruffinus (who lived at the same time) not out of the rumours of the people, but by the relation of Adesius himself (the companion of Frumentius) who was afterward a Priest of tire: And 
b Soc. l. 1. c. 15  Socrates, 
c Theod. l▪ ●. c. 23.  Theodoret, and 
d Soz l. 2. c. 23.  Sozomen do all borrow the same from Ruffinus. Thus Athanasius sent a Bishop to convert India without consulting with the Bishop of Rome, which verily he would have done if he 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 conveniency.  PHIL. 
You are unthankful and unwilling to acknowledge your obligation to Rome.  ORTHOD. 
We confess a singular blessing from thence derived unto us. For Ele●ther●us sent Fugatius and Danatianus, otherwise called Damianus, by whom joining with Eluanus and Meduinus, Christian Religion was advanced. Then King Lucius was baptized, and many of his people. Then the Druids were removed, and in their rooms, christian Preachers placed. Then the Temples which had been founded to the honour of their many Gods, were dedicated to the one and only true God: thus Idolatry was despoiled of her prey, and Dagon did fall down before the Ark of Israel. For the better understanding whereof, it must be observed, that the Romans before this time had divided Britain into three 
* ●●titia pro●●n● Occid.  Provinces, one of them was called Maxima Caesariensis, the Metropolis whereof was York; Another Britannia prima, the Metropolis whereof, was London: the third Britannia secunda, the Metropolis whereof was Caerlegion. Now in other cities they had their Flamines: In 
a Will. Reed de vit. pontificum in Eleuth. p. 3. in. ●.  these three noble Cities were the seats of the Arch flamines, so there were 28. Flamines, and three Archiflamines in stead of which so many Bishops & Archbishops were appointed. This is denied by Gultelmus parvus, but 
b Lelaud▪ in assertione Art●ur●▪ f. 36. a.  Lelandus confuteth him; first by Asserius Menevensis, who was schoolmaster 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 Britain, were converted into so many Archbishops. Concerning their seats Lelandus addeth: London of the Trinobantes, and York of the brigants, did undoubtedly shine with this dignity; therefore where is the third seat? where but in Wales? in which point though I hold my peace, Trithemius is an evident witness. Hitherto Lelandus. Now although Britain was after the Nicen Council divided into five 
c Notitia pro●●n●. Occid. p 117.  Provinces, Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis being added to the former: yet there were no new Archbishoprickes erected. The reason whereof was, because those two new Provinces were taken out of the former: and consequently, could not have bishoprics without the diminishing of the authority of the former, in whose jurisdiction originally they were, which was not sufferable, because it was against the 
d Can. 6.  Canon of the Nicen Council, decreeing, that in Antioch and in other Provinces, the dignities, prerogatives, and authorities of Churches should be maintained.  PHIL. 
Were not all these bishoprics erected, or at least confirmed by the authority of the Bishop of Rome?  ORTHOD. 
When the King desired to receive from him the Roman Laws, he returned this answer, That there 
e Epist. Eleut. ad Lucium. vide Ant●q. Brit. p. 5.  were already in Britain, the old and new Testament, out of which by the Council of his kingdom, he might take a Law to govern his people. For he was the Vicar of Christ in his own Kingdom. And as he did not interpose himself in matters temporal; so neither doth it appear, that he did in matters spiritual, or ecclesiastical. He sent not one Preacher into Britain, before he was entreated by the King. Neither do we find that he assumed to himself any authority in erecting of bishoprics. Neither did that age ascribe it unto him, as may appear by the former example of Athanasius: but it seemeth that the King being supreme Governor, even in religious causes, within his own Kingdom, and assisted by learned Preachers, established such government, and in such places as was most convenient. Yet make we no doubt, but Eleutherius both gave them instructions what he thought fittest to be done, if the Lord should bless their labours: and likewise approved it with joy of heart, when he heard it was done: not by virtue of any jurisdiction, but out of a Christian devotion. Their diversity of ceremonies, and their rejecting of Austin may induce us to think, that they had never been under the Roman Patriarch. And it is most likely that as the Churches of 
a Con. Ephes. t. 1 c. 4. Bi●. t. 1. pag. 768.  Cyprus had a government within themselves exempt from the jurisdiction of all others, so the Churches of Britain, (a little world without the world) might be governed by Primates of their own, and exempt from all foreign jurisdiction.  PHIL. 
DId not the Bishop of Rome deliver them from 
b Alle● apol. cap. 2.  Arianisme 
4.  and Pelagianisme?  ORTHO. 
If it were so, yet this would not argue any Papal jurisdiction, but only Christian compassion; But indeed it was not so. We read in 
c Bede l. 1. c. 8. & 10.  Bede, that the land was infected with these heresies. That Rome did recover it we read not. He telleth how that at the request of the Britain's, the French met in a 
d L●b. 1. c. 17.  Synod and sent Germanus and Lupus, two reverend Bishops, by whose industry the Heretics were confounded, and the faith of the Britaines strengthened. When the disease did break out again▪ 
e Idem. c. 20.  Germanus went again and cured the malady: So we were not recovered by such as came from Rome, but by our neighbours of France, teaching the same faith that was here from the beginning?  PHIL. 
That was the Roman faith, even the same which we profess at this day. For 
f Pars. 3. con●●▪ p. 1. c. 9 s. 6.  that which S. Austin brought, and that which the Britain's had before, must needs be one, and the self same in all material and substantial 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.  ORTHOD. 
That there was the same under the Apostles, and under Eleutherius we grant, neither will we depart further from you, than you depart from Eleutherius. But if the faith of Austin, and the old Britain's were the same in all material and substantial points; Then the observation of Easter, after the Roman rite, is no substantial point. Again, if the faith of the Britain's and Apostles were all one, than the Pope's Supremacy was no Article of the Apostles faith; for undoubtedly, it was none of the Britain's faith. Thus neither the conversion of the Island, nor the planting of the Bishoprics nor the supplanting of Heretics, nor the replanting of the faith can be referred to the Bishop of Rome. Now time requireth that we speak a word or two of the Bishops themselves; What say you therefore, were they Canonical?  PHIL. 
WHat else? For were they not approved through the 
5.  Christian world?  ORTHO. 
There is no doubt of it. At the Council of Ariminum, in the year 359▪ were three Bishops of Britain, as witnesseth 
g Hist. sacr. lib. 2.  Sulpitius S●uerus. At the great Council of Sardica, in the year 347. were present also some Britain Bishops, as witnesseth 
h Apol. 2.  Athanasius. At the Counsel of Arles in France, in the year 314. Restitutus Bishop of London was present and 
i Apud Bin. t. 1. pag. 265.  subscribed But if the Britain Bishops were Canonical, then by your assertion they had successive 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 
k Capgra●. in sanct. Catal.  Bishop: from Rome there came two, Fugatius, and Damianus, but we cannot learn that either of them was a Bishop: neither do we read of any coming 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 observe the Canon.  PHIL. 
If they had their beginning from him alone, yet it toucheth not us, because the English Catholic Bishops derive not their succession from the Britain's, but from the Saxons.  ORTHOD. 
Though it touch not your persons, it toucheth your positions: But seeing you descend from the Saxons, we will dismiss the Britain's, and come to the Saxons.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of Austin the first Archbishop of Canterbury, sent hither by Pope Gregory.  PHIL. 
NOw are we come to holy Pope Gregory, whom (to use 
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 unto us; 
b 1. Cor. 9 2.  the scale and token of his Apostleship, we are in our Lord.  ORTHOD. 
If Gregory had been truly an Apostle, he should not sit still at home, and send another; but go himself. For Christ saith not, sit still and send, but 
c Mat. 28. 19  go and teach. Wherefore an Apostle is so called, not because he sendeth another, but because he himself is sent.  PHIL. 
Though Gregory being Pope sent another, yet before he was Pope, he should have been sent himself. For being Archdeacon of Rome, 
d Beda qu● supra in sine cap.  passing through the Market place, he espied certain beautiful boys, and demanded out of what Country they came, answer was made that they came out of the I'll of Britain, 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 bottom of his heart, Alas quoth he, that the author of darkness should possess men of such shining beauty; and so gracious a countenance, should inwardly bear so foul a soul; then he inquired the name of the people, and it was answered that they were called Angles or English. It is well, saith he, for both they have an Angelical face, and it is fit that such should be fellow heirs with the Angels in heaven. But what saith he, is the name of the Province? It was answered, the people of that Province were called (Deiri) It is well saith he, they may be called Deiri, that is, de ira eruti, delivered from the Ire of God: then he demanded 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 convert Britain, and offered his service: but the Romans being unwilling, he could not be suffered. So one after, he himself being Pope, sent S. Austin, and so the work 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 give us leave to honour S. Austin, with that title because he was sent.  ORTHOD. 
He was sent I grant, but not as an Apostle, that is, immediately by Christ, neither did he lay the foundation of the Church, but built upon another man's foundation; for there were in Britain at his arrival seven Bishops and an Archbishop professing and teaching the Christian faith, and above 2000 Monks in the Monastery of Bangor.  PHIL. 
They were Britain's, but Saint Austin laid the foundation in the other parts of the Island.  ORTHOD. 
Not so; for the Scots received the Gospel even 
* Baron. an. 431. n. 4.  before the preaching of 
a Bed. l. 1. c. 13.  Palladius. The Picts which were more 
b Bed. l. 3. c. 4.  Southrens received it afterward, by Ninianus a Britain borne. The rest of them inhabiting the high Northern mountains and craggy cliffs, were converted by 
c Ibidem.  Columba an Irish man.  PHIL. 
Yet Austin converted the Angles or English.  ORTHOD. 
The Angles possessed the Kingdoms of Northumberland and Mercia. 
d Bed. l. 3. c. 5. & 6.  Northumberland was converted in the days of King Oswald by the ministry of Aidan a Scot: And 
e Bed. l. 3. c. 21.  Mercia under King Penda, who being desirous to marry the King of Northumberlands daughter, could not enjoy her but upon this condition, that he and his people should become Christians. By which occasion he first attained to the heavenly truth, wherein he was exceedingly delighted above all earthly joy. So he was brought to Christ by means of his blessed bride, & baptised by Finanus, one of Aidans' successors.  PHIL. 
The people which were procured to come out of Germany to assist the wearied Britain's 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 jutes. Now to pass over the rest, the jutes (which flourished in the kingdom of Kent) first received the water of life from Austin, from whom also the golden streams were derived unto the Saxons.  ORTHOD. 
We acknowledge to God's glory, that he and his converted thousands; yet dare we not say, that they laid the first foundation in Kent. For in Canterbury the regal city, even when Austin arrived, there was a Christian 
f Bed. l. 1 ●. 25. & 26.  Church built in the time of the Romans, dedic●ed to the memory of Saint Martin, whither Berta the Queen (descended from the blood royal of France) with Lethardus a Bishop her Chaplain usually resorted to divine service. So it is most likely, that Lethardus the french man had laid some stones in the foundation before the coming of Austin. Therefore if he that first layeth the foundation of Religion in a kingdom be called an Apostle, than Austin was not the Apostle of Kent, but rather Lethardus. Notwithstanding, for as much as Lethardus gathered but a few clusters, and the main vintage was reserved for Austin, let us enlarge the signification of the word Apostle, and extend it to Austin, and moreover (though improperly) to Gregory and Eleutherius, and I wish your Romanists would imitate these Apostles. Eleutherius did not obtrude any upon the kingdom, but only sent 
g Bed. l. 1. c. 4.  at the King's request; Austin coming from Gregory, did not steal in secretly, but stayed in the Island of 
h Bed. l. 1. c. 25.  Tennet till such time as he knew the Kings will and pleasure, neither offered he to Preach in Kent before the King gave him and his fellows licence. They came not in disguised, they lurked not in corners, they brought no Bulls in their bosoms to discharge subjects, 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 Gospel was a Gospel of peace; You arm the subject against his Sovereign: They converted people; You pervert them: They sought to build the Church; You seek the ruin of Church and common wealth. And I heartily wish you which are the Pope's Emissaries, to consider even upon your beds, what great difference there is between you and Austin.  PHIL. 
I marvel to hear you so commend S. Austin, and to propose him for a pattern. It is the custom of your men to detract from him, and to blemish his credit.  ORTHO. 
Concerning patterns, we are taught by S. Paul, 
a 1. Cor. 11. 1.  Follow me as I do follow Christ. That which is good in Austin we embrace and commend, wishing to be decked with those garlands; but that which is otherwise, let it wither in the root from whence it sprang. His desire to convert the Pagans, and his dutiful respect to the Prince, deserve to be written in letters of gold; but his superfluity of Ceremonies might well have been spared: He was too forward to display the Pope's banner, and his behaviour towards the Britain's, was full of pride and disdain.  PHIL. 
I Thought for all your fair speeches, you would come to this at last; but you do not well to reproach so great a Saint, by whom your Country received so great a blessing.  ORTHO. 
It is no reproach but a truth, let 
b Beda lib. 2. cap. 2.  Bede be witness, who declareth, that a Synod being appointed, the Britain Bishops came to a certain holy Anchoret, and asked his counsel, Whether they should leave 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 up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart: Therefore if Austin be meek and humble in heart, it is credible, that both he himself beareth the yoke of Christ, and offereth it to be borne of others; But if he be churlish and proud, it is certain that he is not of God, neither are we to regard his words. Then they inquired of him again, 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 approach near, he ariseth unto you, than you knowing him to be the servant of Christ, hear him obediently; But if he despise you, nor will vouchsafe to rise at your presence, which are more in number, let him likewise be despised of you. And truly as this Anchoret bade them, so did they. For it happened, that when they came thither, Austin was already there, and sat in his Chair; Which when they saw, straightway waxing wroth, they noted him of pride: and therefore endeavoured to overthwart and gain say, whatsoever he proposed His Oration was thus; Although in many other points ye do contrary to our custom, or rather contrary to the custom of the Universal 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 ministery of Baptism, (by which we are borne again to God) according to the manner of the holy Roman, and Apostolic Church, And last of all, in preaching with us to this English Nation the word of our Lord; All your other Ceremonies, fashions and customs, though they be contrary to ours, yet we will willingly suffer, and be content to bear with them. But they answered, That they would do none of the things requested, neither would account him for their Archbishop; Saying with themselves: Nay, if he would not so much as rise to us, truly, the more we should now subject ourselves to him, the more would he hereafter despise us, and set us at nought.  PHIL. 

a Ex Baron. anno 604. n. 58.  Truly they came to Austin, as the pharisees came to Christ, that they might tempt him with that sign.  ORTHOD. 
Do you think they meant to entangle him? Then belike as by his not rising they took occasion to reject him, so though he had risen, they would have found some cuasion, and not have yielded unto him. But is not this an uncharitable judgement? He called a Synod of the nearest and greatest Province? they came unto it, but withal wished, that the matter might be debated in a greater Synod. That also was agreed upon, and they appeared; But before the appearance, they asked advise of him, who was thought most godly and wise. The advise was this in effect, If he behave himself humbly, accept of him; If he show himself disdainful, reject him. Now, what reason is there to think, but as they followed his counsel in rejecting him, because the event did show him proud, so they would have accepted of him, if in the event they had found him courteous!  PHIL. 

b Bar. ibidem.  The false prophet gave a false sign.  ORTHOD. 
The sign which he gave, and they made use of, was by the proud and disdainful gesture of the body, to discover the pride and disdain of the heart. How was this a false sign? Undoubtedly to deny strangers a common courtesy, is a token of arrogancy; And a proud look doth argue a proud heart, according to the saying, 
c Ecclus. 19 27.  A man may be known by his look.  PHIL. 

d Ex Baron. quo supra.  It is the judgement of S. john the Apostle, That we must vouchsafe such men as are divided from the Catholic Church, no honour or office of courtesy, in these words, 
e 2. john. 10.  If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into house, neither say unto him, (God save you.)  ORTHO. 
How can you apply this to the British-Bishops, who confessed, (as 
f Bed. l. 2. c. 2.  Bede relateth) That they understood that to be the true way of righteousness, which Austin had preached? Yea 
g Conuers. part. 1. c. 9 s. 6.  Parsons the jesuit affirmeth, That the faith which S. Austin brought, and that which the Britain's had before, must needs be one, and the self same in all material and substantial points.  PHIL. 

h Ex Baron. an. 604. n. 65.  They were all Schismatics, and guilty of departing from the Church of Rome.  ORTHOD. 
How could they depart from it, seeing they were never linked to it by any bond of obedience? For when should Rome have any such jurisdiction over Britain? At the first planting of Religion? You cannot prove it. In the days of Eleutherius, it doth not appear that ever he challenged any such thing. And even their manner of Baptizing, observing Easter, and other Ecclesiastical institutions, contrary to the customs of the Church of Rome, make more than probable proof, that Britain was not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore, though we cannot excuse the Britain's, for refusing to join with him in the conversion of the Saxons, yet we must needs say, they had just reason to refuse to put their necks under his yoke. And surely if Austin had not had a proud spirit, he would only have requested their helping hand for the Lords work, and not 
c Greg. in resp. ad inter. Aug. inter 9 apud Bed. lib. 1. cap. 27.  have sought dominion over them for himself, and for his lord the Pope. Yet the pride of his spirit, and his aspiring cogitations may further appear; in that he demanded of Gregory, How he should deal with the Bishops of Britain and France, thereby affecting not only to have jurisdiction over the Britain's, but over the French also. Which Gregory well enough perceiving, answered, We gave thee no authority over the Bishops of France: for that of ancient time of my predecessors, the Bishop of Arles received his Pall, whom we must not bereave of his authority. Thus much of his pride.  
NOw whether he were the cause of the massacre following, I will not 
3  define. You shall hear the opinion of 
a Antiq: Brit. p. 48.  Amandus Xierixensis, a Friar Minorite; When the Britain's (saith he) were catholics, the Saxons were Gentiles, for the conversion of whom blessed Gregory sent Austin and Mellitus, which converted the Saxons, but when Austin would have brought the Bishops and Abbots of the Britain's by Apostolic authority, that they should receive him as Legate, and preach with him to the English, discord was moved for their disobedience to Saint Austin, and so war was raised between the Kings of the Britain's, and of the Saxons, which, now being converted would have subdued the Britain's to Austin. Bede 
b Fertur minitan● praedixisse. Bed. l. 2. c. 2.  himself testifieth how Austin threatfully prophesied, that if they would not take peace, and be at concord with their brethren, they should receive war 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 event did answer to the speech, it is called a prophesy. For what followed? Edilbert King of Kent, moved Edelfride King of Northumberland to join with him against the Britain's, and there was made a bloody massacre, the narration whereof is thus set down by 
c Galf. Monemut. l. ● c. 12  Galfridus Monemutensis. In a part of the Britain's, Christianity yet flourished, the which beginning in the days of Eleutherius, never failed among them. When Austin came, he found seven Bishoprics, and an archbishopric supplied with very godly Governors, and Abbeys a great number, in which the flock of Christ was kept in good order. Besides other Cities, in the City of Bangor, there was a most noble Church of 21. hundred monks, all living with the labour of their hands. Their Abbot was named Dinooch, a man marvelously well learned, who by diverse arguments made it appear, when Austin required the Bishops to be subject unto him, that they ought him no subjection. Edilbert therefore the King of Kent, as soon as he saw them refuse to yield obedience to Austin, and despise his preaching, stirred up Edelfride, and other Princes of the Saxons to gather a great army, and go to Bangor, to destroy Dinooch and his Clergy; Who taking the City commanded the swords of his men to be turned first upon the monks; so twelve hundred of them the same day decked with martyrdom entered the kingdom of Heaven. 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 subject to Austn, what then is to be thought of Austin? It had been the duty of Austin, (saith 
d Vide antiq: Brit. p. 9  Lelandus) to have admonished the Saxons that perfidious nation, that if they would admit Christianity sincerely, they should restore to the just Lords and possessors, the Empire of Britain, which contrary to the oath of warfare, they had occupied by tyranny. If Austin sought, by any sinister means, to enlarge his own jurisdiction, he was far unlike to Palladius, Bishop of Scotland, who (as 
e Hist. Ang. l. 3.  Polydore witnesseth) besought Constantine their king with many prayers, that he would not assist with arms, the idolatrous nation of the Saxons against the Christian Britain's.  PHIL. 
Saint 
a Bed. l. 2. c. 2  Bede saith that Saint Austin, long before that time was taken out of this life to the kingdom of Heaven.  ORT. 
That is not Saint Bedes, but some false finger hath foisted it in. For a learned 
b Supposititium est nec in libris Bedae Saxonicis habetur. Antony's Brit. p. 48.  antiquary skilful in the Saxon language affirmeth, that it is not found in the Saxon copy. Hitherto of circumstances incident to his person. Now at last, let us come to his ordination, and I hope you will confess him to be a canonical Bishop.  PHIL. 
He was most canonical. For (as Doctor 
c Stapl. pr. doc. l. 13. c. 6. & a successore Rom. pont. missus est, & ab. Episcopis Galliae. ordinatus.  Stapleton declareth 
4  out of Saint Bede) he was sent from the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, and consecrated by the Bishops of France.  ORTHOD. 
Pope 
d Greg. l. 7. Ep. 30. indic. 1.  Gregory saith, he was consecrated by the Bishops of Germany.  PHIL. 
That is the fault of the copy, for it should not be Germaniarum, but Galliarum, as 
e Anno 597. n. 17.  Baronius thinketh  ORT. 
When did the French Bishops ordain him?  PHIL. 
After he had been a while in Britain, and had converted 
f Ex Bed. l. 1. c. 26. & 27.  divers.  ORTHO. 
Baronius 
g Quo supra.  is persuaded by a place of Gregory, that it was before the conversion of the English, but by whom was he ordained?  PHIL. 
Saint 
h Bed. l. 2. c. 27.  Bede saith, that it was performed by Aetherius Archbishop of Arles.  ORTHOD. 
Baronius 
i Bar. quo supra.  saith that Aetherius was Bishop of Lions 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, 
k Lib. 1. c. ultimo. 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 canonical. And therefore if you turn the edge of your argument against Austin, as you do against the present Bishops of England, you must conclude a nullity in his consecration, and in all your Popish Bishops derived from him. Thus you have made ship wrack in the very haven. Now from Austin, let us proceed to those whom Austin did consecrate.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the Bishops from Austin to Cranmer.  PHIL. 
THere can be no doubt, but as Austin himself, so all that were consecrated by him, were consecrated by three.  ORTH. 
Yes, if you consider the question of Austin, and the answer of Gregory. The question proposed was this: If 
a Bed. l. 1. c. 27. Greg. Epist. l 12. ind. 7. Epist. 31.  the Bishops are so far apart one from the other, that they cannot conveniently assemble together, whether one may be ordained a Bishop without the presence of other Bishops? Gregory answereth, In the Church of England in which thou 
b Greg. either did not know or did not remember that Lethardus the Queens Chaplain was a Bishop. as Bede calleth him. l. 1. c. 25.  only art as yet a Bishop, thou canst ordain none, but without other Bishops. For when come there any Bishops out of France which might assist thee in ordaining Bishops? We will therefore that thou ordain Bishops, but so that they may not be far one from an other, that there be no such necessity but that they may hereafter come together to the creation of other. The Curates also, whose presence may do good, should easily come together, when then by the help of God the Bishops shall be so made, that they shall not be far asunder, one from the other, there shall be no Bishops created without three or four Bishops assembled together, etc.  PHIL. 
This place hath divers readings, both in Gregory and Bede, what edition do you follow?  ORTHOD. 
Even that which you will confess of all other to be most excellent. For what edition of Bede was that which Stapleton translated?  PHIL. 
Doctor Stapleton being a man of such learning, wisdom, and zeal, and purposing to benefit his country in singular manner by turning the story of Saint Bede into English, without question did use all possible diligence to get variety of copies, both printed and manuscript, and comparing all together, made choice of the best.  ORTHOD. 
Then have I followed the best edition of Bede, for I have not departed one letter from the translation of Stapleton; yet you see your own approved edition which Stapleton made choice of, convinceth, that Pope Gregory willed Austin at first to make bishops alone, though he would have none created afterward without three or four.  PHIL. 
Do you think that there came no Bishops out of France to assist?  ORTHOD. 
No such thing can be collected out of Bede; neither is it probable: for in the very next 
a Bed. l. 1. cap. 28.  Chapter, Gregory writeth to the Bishop of Arles, to give kind entertainment to Austin, if he should come unto him, But of any Bishops to be 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 ordain twelve Bishops, But of French Bishops to assist him, he saith nothing at all. And in the second book and third Chapter it is declared, how that in the year of the incarnation of our Lord 604. Austin Archbishop of Britain consecrated two Bishops, Mellitus Bishop of London, and justus Bishop of Rochester, but of any French Bishops assisting him there is no mention. And for the British Bishops that they should help him, it is not once to be imagined, because they stood at utter defiance with him. Therefore if we consult with Stapletons' Bede, and embrace that copy for best which he followed, it will appear that Austin proceeded to Episcopal consecration, and yielding to necessity, made the first Bishop, that is Mellitus, alone, and the next that is justus, by the assistance of Mellitus only, and when there was a canonical number, than they observed the number of three at the least.  PHIL. 
Surely in diverse copies it is otherwise then you have alleged: 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 inveniris, ordinare Episcopum non aliter nisi cum Episcopis potes. i. Truly even in the Church of the English, wherein thou only art found as yet to be a Bishop, thou canst not ordain Bishops otherwise then with other Bishops. And because Austin was the only Bishop then in England, therefore in the next sentence he telleth him, whence he shall have 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.  ORTH. 
For the clearing of this point we must consider both these sentences with their dependency and connexion. In the former there are two readings, cum Episcopis, and sine Episcopis. The latter was followed by Doctor Stapleton, and is the true reading. For understanding that in Oxford some were appointed for the collation of the printed copies of Gregory, with the manuscripts, I inquired how this place was read in the manuscripts, and answer was made that these Interrogata were not in the written copies, but inserted as it seemeth into the works of Gregory out of Bede. Then I inquired after the manuscripts of Bede, and saw diverse, all consenting in this reading sine Episcopis, with which concordeth a most worthy copy of venerable antiquity at Eton College, which the learned and judicious Sir Henry Savil did show unto me. With the manuscripts agreeth your own last edition of the works of Bede printed at Collen in the year 1612. As also the Epistles of Gregory both in the Roman edition, as they are in the Counsels set out by Surius and Binius: yea these Interrogata are produced by john 
a joh. Capgravius Catal. sanct. in sancto Augustino f. 3. It is in the library of Corp. Chri. Coll. in Oxford.  Capgrave who readeth precisely in the same manner. Wherefore it is as clear as the noon day, that the true reading is sine Episcopis, as Stapleton translateth: and thus much of the first sentence. In the second we must consider, both the reading and the pointing, concerning the variety of reading (to pass over de gallis and de gallijs, veniunt and venient, which are of small moment, and do not alter the sense.) The Parisian and Roman editions, read (illi) which is erroneous, for the true treading is qui, to be justified by Capgrave, the manuscripts before alleged, and Doctor Stapleton. Now the words being thus cleared, must needs be read with an interrogation, (otherwise there will be no sense) and the latter sentence rendereth a reason of the former in this manner. Thou must needs make Bishops alone, for who should assist thee? the Britain's? they stand in opposition, and are not once to be thought upon: the English? there are none: both which branches he presupposeth as granted: the French? but when doth any of them come over into England: as though he should say, their coming is uncertain, so he concludeth, that Austin must make Bishops alone without other Bishops. Now from Austin we will proceed to his successors  PHIL. 
They may all be presumed to be Canonical.  ORTH. 
Yet they came from such as were not canonical. Now from the Saxons we will proceed to the Normans. And here, what say you to 
b Malmsb de gest. Pontific. Anglor. lib. 1. pag. 205.  Lanfranck, whom William the Conqueror made Archbishop in stead of Stigandus?  PHIL. 
There is no reason to doubt of him or any other till we come to Cranmer.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Consecration of the most Reverend Father Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.  ORTH. 
THen it remaineth that we consider the Consecration of that most reverend Father and blessed Martyr, Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning whom, I expect your judgement.  PHIL. 
My judgement is, that he was a principal cause of all those lamentable alterations, which happened in the days of king Henry the eight, and Edward the sixth.  ORTH. 
Do you call them lamentable? therein you resemble Envy in the 
a ●●●●. ●●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 speak directly to the point in question, whether Cranmer were a Canonical Bishop. Why do you not answer? You are like to one which holdeth a Wolf by the ears, who neither knoweth how to hold him, nor how to let him go; fain would you infringe the Consecration of Cranmer, but alas●e you cannot.  PHIL. 
Father 
b ●●●. Co●r●●. A●g. c c. 4. q. ●. 〈◊〉. 6.  Becan directing his speech 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 ullo Episcopo, said 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 under K. Henry the 8. obtained the Bishopric of Canterbury 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.  ORTH. 
Or rather Becan playeth the part of a presumptuous jesuit against the Lords anointed, in saying that King Henry intruded Cranmer, as also in glancing at his most famous and religious successors, as though they themselves had consecrated Bishops. For what needed he to move any such question, if it were not to raise a mist, and cast a cunning surmise to induce men to think that it was so? But indeed it was not so: for our sovereigns in the advancing of Bishops do nothing but that which they may lawfully by their Princely right, agreeable to the pattern of most religious Kings and Emperors, and justifiable both by the laws of God and the land, as in due place shall appear. And as he wrongeth the Prince, so doth he traduce Archbishop Cranmer, as though he were consecrated either by the King, or by none at all, and consequently the whole Clergy of England at this day, deriving their consecration from that renowned Martyr. But if this accusation were true, do you not mark how it would make a crack in your golden chain, of succession, wherein you so rejoice and glory? For if Cranmer were no Bishop, than some approved in Queen Mary's time would prove no Bishops, as for example, Anthony Kitchen, Bishop of Landaff, and Thomas Thurlby, Bishop of Ely, both which 
c Ex Regist. Cranm.  derived their Consecration from Cranmer, as may be justified by records; the latter whereof was highly commended by the Pope and made one of his 
d 〈◊〉 of Commission▪ 〈◊〉 Acts & 〈◊〉. in the life 〈◊〉 Cranmer.  Commissioners in the time of Queen Marie, and employed in the proceedings against that most Reverend Archbishop. If this cannot content the jesuit, I will refer him to 
e Parsons; conuers. part. ●. p. 3●0.  Parsons his fellow jesuit, a man who neither loved Archbishop Cranmer nor any other of our Religion, and yet clearly confesseth that he was a true Bishop.  
But what mislike you in Cranmer? was he not in the order of Priesthood? 
2  let the Pope be judge, who in his Bull to Cranmer calleth him, 
a Regist. Cran. fol. 2▪ b.  Magistrum in Theologia, in Presbyteratus ordine constitutum. i. Master or Doctor in Divinity settled in the order of Priesthood. Or was he made Archbishop without the Pope's authority? The Pope himself affirmeth the contrary, both to the King in these words.  ¶ 
b Ibid. fol. 1. a.  Clemens Episcopus Henrico Anglorum Regi illustri. 
De persona dilecti filii Thomae electi Cantuariensis, etc. De fratrum eorundem consilio Apostolica authoritate providimus, ipsumque (illi Ecclesiae Cantuariensi) in Archiepiscopum praefecimus, etc. Bonon. 1532. 9 Kal. Mart. Pontif. nostri. 10.  
¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the glorious King of the English.  
We have made Provision by our Apostolic authority by the Counsel of our said brethren of the person of our well-beloved son, Thomas elect of Canterbury, and we have set him over the said Church of Canterbury, to be their Archbishop.  
And to Cranmer himself in these words.  ¶ 
c Ibid. fol. 2. b.  Clemens Episcopus dilecto filio Thomae electo Cantuariensi. 
Praefatae Ecclesiae (Cantuariensi) de eorundem fratrum consilio Apostolica authoritate providimus, teque illi in Archiepiscopum praefecimus & pastorem, & curam & administrationem ipsius Ecclesiae tibi in spiritualibus & temporalibus plenariè committendo.  
¶ Bon. Anno 1532. 9 Kal. Mart. That is, Clement Bishop to our well-beloved son Thomas elect of Canterbury.  
We have provided by our Apostolic authority by the Counsel of the same brethren for the foresaid Church of Canterbury, and have set thee over it to be their Archbishop and pastor, and fully committing unto thee, the charge and administration of the same Church in things spiritual and temporal.  
Or, did the Pope and his Cardinals accept the person of Cranmer undeservedly? Let your holy Father speak for himself.  ¶ Clemens Episcopus H●n Angl. Regi illustri. 

d Ibid. fol. 1. a.  De persona dilecti filii Thomae electi Cantuariensis, nobis & fratribus nostris ob suorum exigentiam meritorum accepts, etc. That is,  
¶ Clement Bishop to Henry the most glorious King of England.  
(We have made provision) of the person of our well-beloved son, Thomas elect of Canterbury accepted of us and our brethren, according as his deserts required.  
OR, was he Consecrated without the Pope's licence? Behold the Bull for 
3  his Consecration,  ¶ Clemens Episc. dilecto filio Tho. Electo Cant. 

a Ibid. fol. 1. b.  Tibi, ut a quocunque malueris Catholico Antistite, gratiam & Communionem Apostolicae sedis habente, accitis, & in hoc sibi assistentibus duobus vel tribus Episcopis, similem gratiam & Communionem habentibus, munus Consecrationis recipere valeas, etc. Concedimus facultatem.  
Dat. Bonon, 1532. Pontificatus nostri decimo. That is,  
¶ Clement Bishop to our well-beloved son Thomas elect of Canterbury.  
We grant licence to thee, that thou mayest receive the gift of Consecration, of whatsoever Catholic Prelate thou wilt, so he enjoy the favour and Communion of the Apostolic See, two or three Bishops enjoying the like favour and communion, being sent for and assisting him in this business.  
Or, was he entangled with any Ecclesiastical censures which might peradventure be imagined to hinder his Consecration? That is more than we find; or if he were, behold his absolution.  ¶ Clem dil. fill. Thom. Cran. Archidiac. de Tanuton in Ecclesia Wellensi. Magistro in Theol. salutem. 

b Ibid. fol. 2. a.  Te a quibusuis excommunicationis, suspensionis, & interdicti, alijsque, Ecclesiasticis sententijs, censuris, & poenis, a iure vel ab homine, quavis occasione vel causa latis, si quibus quomodolibet innodatus existis etc. tenore praesentium absoluimus, etc.  
Dat▪ Bonon. 1532. 9 Mart. That is,  
¶ Clement to our well-beloved son Thomas Cranmer, Archdeacon of Tanuton, in the Church of Wells, Master (or Doctor) in Divinity. Salutation.  
We absolve thee by the Tenor of these presents, from whatsoever sentences of excommunication, suspension, and interdiction, and other Ecclesiastical sentences, censures and punishments, inflected by the Law, or by man, upon any occasion or cause, if by any means thou be entangled with any.  
Or was he not Consecrate by so many, and such Bishops as the Pope's Bull prescribed? The time, place and persons are extant in Record, against which you can take no exception. The brief extract whereof I will communicate unto you, for your better satisfaction.  
c Ibid. fol. 5. ●.  Tho. Cran. consecrated, 30. of March 1533. 24. H. 8. by 

john Lincoln.  
john Exon.  
Henry Assaph.   
OR was it not performed with wont Ceremonies, according to the 
4  usual form of your Church? But those continued all the days of K. Henry the 8. even when the Pope was banished, as Sanders confesseth.  confesseth Sand. de schiss. p. 297. 
Ceremoniam autem & solennem unctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa (Episcopali) adhibere voluit. That is,  
It was the will and pleasure of King Henry the eight, That the Ceremony and solemn unction should be used after the manner of the Church, in that (Episcopal) consecration.  
Or, did he want the Pall, which (if we may believe you) containeth the name of an Archbishop, with the fullness of Bcclesiasticall power? But this was sent him from your holy father.  ¶ Clem Episc. dilecto filio Tho. Electo Cantuar. 

a Ibid. fol. 3. b.  Pallium ipsum de corpore beati Petri sumptum per venerabiles fratres nostros Archiep. Ebor. & Episcop. Londin. Tibi assignandum per praefatum nuntium tuum duximus destinandum, ut ijdem Archiepiscopus, & Episcopus, vel eorum alter, illud tibi, postquam munus consecrationis acceperis, assignent, etc. Dat. Bonon 1532. 5. Non. Mart. That is,  
We thought good that it should be appointed by your foresaid messenger, That the Pall itself taken from the body of blessed Peter should be assigned unto you by your venerable brethren the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London, that the said Archbishop and Bishop, or either of them, may assign it unto you after you have received the gift of Consecration.  PHIL. 

b Kellisons' reply to D. Sutiisse.  I deny not that Cranmer was truly ordained, because Catholic Bishops consecrated him, and so I confess that he lived and died a true Bishop, but peradventure he was never any lawful Archbishop of Canterbury.  ORTHOD. 
Why so? he was Canonically chosen by the Church of Canterbury, with the consent of the King, and the Pope's approbation, appearing both by his Bulls and the Pall which he sent him: he was Canonically consecrated by his Comprovincials, with the Pope's consent, who styled him, Thomam Cranmerum olim Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem: i. Thomas Cranmer sometimes Archbishop of Canterbury, both in his Bull of Commission to the Bishops of London and Ely, authorizing them to proceed against him; And likewise in his 
c Regist. Card▪ Poli pag. 2.  Bull of provision for Cardinal Poole. Neither did he only give him the title of an Archbishop, but he took order also for his Degradation, which was openly performed by the Commissioners▪ Concerning which it is famously known, That whereas they did only 
d 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 Episcopal and archiepiscopal robes. In the doing whereof, Cranmer said unto them, 
e 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 Pope's Commission. Wherefore you must of force confess, without all peradventure, That he was not only Bishop, but also truly Archbishop of Canterbury.  PHIL. 
Let all this be granted, yet I must needs add, that his proceedings were Schismatical, and opened a way for the great Schism of Henry the eight.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the abolishing of Papal jurisdictions by King Henry the eight, which the Papists injuriously brand with imputation of Schism.  ORTH. 
FOrasmuch as it is the custom of Papists to brand the reign of King Henry the eight, with the odious name of Schism, let me a little dispel those clouds and mists wherewith they darken the glory of that Heroical Prince. When the time was come that it pleased the Almighty to deliver England from the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome: the beginning of it did grow from a detestable dispensation. For whereas Prince Arthur, elder son to Henry the 7. had 
a Kal. Dec. 1501. Sand. de schiss. l. 1. p. 2. holinsh. vol. 3. p. 789.  married the Lady Katherine daughter to Ferdinando King of Spain, it pleased God that the said Prince Arthur shortly after 
b holinsh. p. 790. Ant. Brit. p. 307. Sand. qu● supra.  deceased without issue, so his younger brother Henry Duke of York was proclaimed Prince of Wales. Now Ferdinando King of Spain, being disappointed of his former hope, and still desirous to make his daughter Queen of England, after long suit with great cost and charges in the life time, and with the consent, of Henry the 7. obtained a 
c Q. Kat. in her answer 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 
d Sand. de schiss. lib. 1▪ p. 2.  Alexander the sixth, then to 
e Ibidem.  Pius the third, both which died before it could be accomplished. After them succeeded julius the second the noble warrior, who broke through all difficulties, & courageously granted the 
f 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 Divines.) By virtue whereof, Prince Henry being yet of tender years was 
g Sand. de schiss. ●. 1. pag. 4.  contracted to his brother's wife. While the marriage was expected, it pleased God, that in Spain, 
h Sand. de schiss. ibidem.  Elizabeth mother to the Lady Katherine, and in England, Henry the seventh departed this life, so the kingdom descended to Henry the eight, who was 
i Ibid. quanquàm sem● d●●●sset se ● nuptijs Kath. abstenturum.  once of mind to have proceeded no further. But, after the 
k Cum H. R. 7. mortuo, & West●n. sepulio Regnum A●giure h●reditario H. 8. 〈◊〉 R. ●bu●ni●et, egerunt cum eo quidam ut D. Kath. Arthuri fratris su● re●●ctam viduam in uxorem du●●ret. Ant. Brit. p. 307.  funeral of his father, some of his Council alleging reasons, and producing the Pope's dispensation, so prevailed with him, that the 
l Katherinam in uxorem, tertio nonas Junii pa●●m accepit. Sand. abide m.  marriage proceeded, and they had issue (besides those that died in their infancy) the Lady Marie. This was misliked of many, insomuch that when a motion was made of a marriage between the Duke of Orleans, and the Lady Mary, one of the 
m King Henry the 8 in his Oration to the Prelates and Nobles, Ant. Brit. p. 317. holinsh. p. 907.  counsellors to the French King, made a doubt, whether she were the king of England's lawful daughter, because she was begotten of his brother's wife; which scruple was first moved in the 
* Hall. fol. 201.  Court of Spain, and thence was spread, to France and Flanders. Moreover Cardinal Woolsie advised Longland Bishop of Lincoln the King's Confessor, to admonish him of it. Which the Bishop modestly refused, as 
n Sand. de Schis●. 1. p. 9  fitter to be performed by himself. So the Cardinal undertook the business; to whom the King answered 
o Antisand p. 13  Take heed that you call not again into question, a thing which is already judged. About three days after, Longland being brought by Wolsey unto the King, entreated his Majesty, That he would permit the matter to be considered and examined. In the mean time, the Cardinal did cast abroad rumours among the people, concerning the blemish of the former marriage, and how both the Germans and French men misliked the same; which he is supposed to have done not of conscience, but of 
p Q. Kath. answer to the King's message.  malice and subtlety, because having miss the Popedom by the emperors means, he would be revenged of the Queen, which was the emperors Aunt, and withal he is said to have commended unto King Henry, The beautiful Lady 
q Sand. ibid. p. 9  Margaret, Sister to the French King; hoping by the assistance of two such mighty Princes, in time to aspire to the Popedom.  
WHich project, (though God which scattereth the imaginations of the 
2  proud disappointed him of his purpose) was such, that nothing could have been invented, either more profitable for the kingdom, or more pernicious to himself, the Pope, and the Court of Rome. For this scruple did kindle such a fire in the king's bosom, that it vexed his very soul and conscience. Whereupon the king being desirous to have the matter decided to the uttermost, so far prevailed with Pope Clement the seventh, that he appointed two Cardinals to hear the matter: Wolsey Archbishop of York, & 
a holinsh. p. 906.  Campeius who arrived the seventh of October 1528. At this time there was great war between Charles 
b Antisand. p. 15.  the Emperor, and Francis the French king, about the kingdom of Naples, wherein the Pope wished that the French might prevail, lest the Emperor obtaining it should sit too close upon his skirts. Wherefore to weaken the Emperor, he moved a league between the English and the French; for procuring whereof he did not only refer this matrimonial cause to his said Legates but also of his own mere motion no man requesting him, gave Campeius a secret Bull 
c The copy whereof is in Antisand: p. 200.  in his bosom, dated the sixth of the kal: of jan. anno 1527. Wherein he infringeth the former dispensation, affirming, that the king could not continue in such a matrimony without sin. Whereupon he decreed, that after the declaration of the nullity of the former marriage and the king's absolution, it should be lawful for him to marry another. This Bull he forbade him to show to any save only to the King and Cardinal Woolsey. And though 
* Antis. p. 15.  openly he commanded him to handle the cause with all expedition, yet secretly he willed him to protract the time, promising that he himself would watch a fit opportunity to publish the Decree. So the King and Queen were cited to appear 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 King's earnest entreaty, to have a final 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 judge according to God's law, it would be a great derogation from the Church of Rome, devised delays; so Campeius alleged, that he was a member of the Court of Rome, whose custom was to keep a solemn vacation in the dog days, and thereupon deferred judgement till October following. In the mean time the Pope seeing that King Henry could not be drawn by hope of divorce, to take part with the French, sent to Campeius, 
d Antisanderus p. 17.  Commanding him to burn the former Bull. And before the beginning of October Campeius was called home by the Pope's letters. The King being thus deluded sent to the Pope at Bononie, requesting some end, but he would needs pause upon the matter till he came to Rome.  
ABout this time it pleased the divine providence so to dispose, that 
3  the King 
e Antiq. Brit. p. 321. 322.  for his recreation, went to Waltam, twelve miles from London, & in the way imparted his grief to Stephen Gardiner his Secretary, and Doct. Fox his Almoner entreating them to be careful in so weighty a cause. It fell out, that they lodged in the house of one Master Cressy, whither Cranmer also (being tutor to two of Master Cressyes' sons) was come at that time with his pupils, by reason of the plague then in Cambridge. At supper they asked his judgement concerning the King's cause, he 
f Ibidem.  answered, that nothing did more prolong the cause, nor more torment the King's conscience, than the dilatory protractions, and winding involutions in the Roman Court, with which snares whosoever are once entangled, do hardly ever recover themselves. Wherefore he thought good, that leaving those Courtly trials and delays wherewith the King was so tossed with such griefs of mind. The opinions of Divines both in our own Universities and in others should be inquired concerning this cause which is determinable by the Law of God, and not by the Law of man. And if the Divines shall agree and pronounce that the marriage is lawful or unlawful by the Law of God, let not the king seek any more to the Court of Rome, but cause sentence to be given in his own dominions, according to the judgement of the Divines, so being cheerful in mind, and free in conscience, he may live a Princely life, and worthy this commonwealth in lawful matrimony, which is to be wished of all us Christian subjects. This answer pleased them exceedingly, and they presently related it unto the King, to whom Doctor Fox made mention of Cranmer, but Gardiner would have challenged all the glory to themselves. Then said the 
a Act. & Mon.  King, Where is that Cranmer, he hath the sow by the right ear. If I had known this device but two years before, I might have saved much charges and trouble; so the King conferred with Cranmer, and commanded him to set down his mind in writing; at the delivery whereof the King asked him if he would stand to justify that which he had written before the Bishop of Rome: Cranmer answered, yea that I will do by God's grace, if your Majesty do send me thither. Marry (quoth the King) and to him will I send you. So he was sent with the Earl of Wiltshier Ambassador to the Pope; who 
b Antiq. Brit. pag 322. Act. & Mon. quo supra.  thrust out his glorious foot to be kissed of them, which (they refusing) the Earl's spaniel running somewhat too familiarly, did catch and bite him by the great toe: Then the cause of their Embassage being declared, the Earl delivered 
c Antiq. Brit. 323.  Cranmers' book to the Pope, and with all told him that he had brought with him learned men out of England, which were ready to defend by Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels, whatsoever was contained in that book 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 giving them honourable entertainment, he made Cranmer his 
* Ant. ibid.  penitentiary, and dismissed them. Then the rest returning, Cranmer was sent by the king's appointment, Ambassador into Germany to the Emperor, where he drew many unto his side, and among the rest 
d Ibidem.  Cornelius Agrippa. Moreover the King did not only consult with the most learned Divines, and Lawyers in the whole kingdom, but also caused the question to be publicly disputed in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, both which did utterly condemn the marriage. Neither did he thus rest, but sent Bishop 
e Holins'. in Hen. 8. ●. 923.  Bonner to the 
f The determinations of them are in Antisand●● fine.  Universities of France and Italy, which affirmed under their seals that the marriage was unlawful, and that no man might dispense with it. Where it is to be observed, that some of these Universities profess that they took an 
g Holinsh. p. 924.  oath every man to deliver and to study upon the foresaid questions as should be to the pleasure of God, and according to conscience. After these determinations were read in open Parliament 
h Hall. an. 22. H. 8. fol. 199.  there were showed above an hundred books drawn by Doctors of strange regions, which all agreed the king's marriage to be unlawful. Now to proceed, the King considering the Pope's dealing, forbade all suits to the Court of Rome by 
i The copy whereof is in Hollinshead.  proclamation in September 1530. which 
k In H. 8 p. 914 Sand. de schiss. l. 1 p. 58.  Sanders calleth the first beginning of the manifest schism. About the same time Cardinal Wolsey was cast in a 
l Antiq. Brit. pag. 325. Hal s●●. 184 & 194. in H. 8.  praemunire, and all the Bishops of England for maintaining the power Legatine of the Cardinal. But the Bishops being called into the King's Bench, before the day of their appearance concluded an humble submission, offered the King I 18000. pounds to pardon the praemunire, and withal gave him the title of Supreme 
a Lib. M. S. sacrae synodi 11. febr. 1530. pag. 125. Hall. fol. 195. in H. 8  head of the Church of England. Yea, Archbishop 
b Cranmer apud. Foxum Act. & Mon. an. 1610. pag. 1702.  Warham told him, that it was his right to have it before the Pope, and that God's word would bear it. Which proceedings in England, did so kindle and inflame the Pope's choler, that neither the books of learned men, nor the determinations of Universities, nor the offering of disputation, nor his own former Bull and Decree could now hinder him from giving a contrary public definitive 
c The Copy whereof is in Antisand. in fine.  sentence, dated in his consistory at Rome the twenty third of March, Anno 1532.  
ABout this time died Archbishop Warham while Cranmer was Ambassador in Germany, and upon the vacancy of the archbishopric, the King sent for him home, with purpose to advance him to that great dignity: but he pretended matters of great importance requiring his abode in Germany, by which means he deferred his coming for half a yeeare. And being come home, and perceiving that the place was reserved for him, he employed his greatest friends to shift it off. When the King did personally impart his intent unto him, he disabled himself by all possible means, using all persuasions to alter the King's determination. When he saw the King's constant resolution, he humbly craving pardon of his grace, frankly opened his conscience unto him, declaring that if he accepted that office, than he must receive it at the Pope's hand; which he neither would not could do, for that his highness was the only supreme governor of this Church of England, as well in causes ecclesiastical as temporal, & that the donation of bishoprics belonged to the King, and not to any foreign authority whatsoever. All which proceedings do not argue any ambitious or aspiring cogitations, but rather an humble and lowly mind: preferring the sincerity of a good conscience before all glorious pomp, and worldly dignities. The King seeing the tenderness of his conscience, consulted with the learned in the law, how he might bestow the Bishopric upon him, and yet not enforce him to any thing against his conscience. In conclusion, he took the oath to the Pope, but not after the manner of his predecessors, as 
d De Sch▪ l. 1. pag. 58.  Sanders slanderously affirmeth. For than he should have taken it simply and absolutely, which he did not, but with a protestation, expressing the condition and qualification. Neither did he make his protestation privately in a corner, and then take the oath in public, as Sanders would make the world believe, (for if this could be proved, then had you reason to condemn him of fraud and perjury,) but it was not so. He did not use his protestation in any secret and concealed manner like to equivocating Papists, which take oaths in absolute words, and yet delude them with mental reservations: but he made it plainly and publicly, 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 form and tenor of words, when by commission from the Pope, they delivered him the Pall. And the sum of the protestation was this, that he 
e Ex Reg. Cranm. fol. 4. b.  intended not to bind himself to anything which was contrary to the law of God, or contrary to the king or common wealth of England, or the Laws and prerogatives of the same, nor to restrain his own liberty to speak, consult, or consent, in all and every thing, concerning the reformation of Christian religion, the government of the Church of England, and the prerogative of the Crown, or the commodity of the Common wealth. and every where to execute and reform such things, which he should think fit to be reform in the Church of England, and according to this interpretation, and this sense 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 shallbe given of your Popish Bishops before Cranmer, which took two (absolute) oaths, to the King, and to the 
a Ant. Brit. in Hen. Den●o. p. 302.  Pope, containing manifest contradiction as K. 
b Ha●in Hen. 8. f. 206. Act. & Monum. vol. 2. p. 961. col. 1.  Henry himself declared, causing them both to be read in open Parliament? And Cranmer hath made the point plain, both in his answer 
c Ibid. p. 1701.  to B. Brookes, and in his 
d Ibid. p. 1714.  letters to Queen Marie. Or if you censure Cranmer for swearing to the Pope with Qualification, what censure will you give of Heath, Bonner, Thurlby and the rest, that in King Henry's days, took absolutely the oath of Supremacy, which evidently excludeth the Pope's authority?  
But to return to K. Henry, who seeing his former marriage condemned 
6.  by such a world of witnesses, so grounding their judgements upon the blessed word of God, as was sufficient to settle any man's conscience, proceeded the 14. of November in the 24. year of his reign, to 
f Hal●n H. 8. fol. 217.  marry the Lady Anne Bullen, who the seventh of September following, 
e Hal●n Hen. 8. f. 209. holinsh. in Hen. 8. pag. 929.  brought forth the Lady ELIZABETH, the joy of England, the Star of Europe, and the Phoenix of the world, a Glass of God's providence, and the Mirror of his mercy. When the Royal infant was yet in her mother's womb, Pope Clement the seventh, the 
g Pontu● Heuterus Delfin● de libera hominis nativitate.  base borne son of julianus Medici's the Florentine, favouring the Lady Katherine Dowager sought by all means to dissolve the lawful marriage of Queen Anne, and to make her issue uncapable of the crown. For which purpose, being enraged like a Dragon, he disgorged his poison, and spit fiery flames against the 
h Bulla Clem. 7. ●pud. Sand. deschiss. l. 1. pag. 81.  king, the Queen, the Realm, & the blessed babe before she was borne. But death closed up his eyes with darkness, while the young Lady began to behold the light of heaven, arising like a lucky star in the midst of a storm, shining to the Church of God with tokens of joy and deliverance; but to the Pope and his adherents like a blazing or fatal Comet, portending the overthrow of Antichrist. Which in part came to pass about a year after that the young Lady was borne. For whereas the Bishop of Rome like the daw in Aesop, had decked and adorned himself with the fair feathers of other birds, and jetted up and down with pride and disdain, tyrannising over all the fowls that fly in the middle of heaven: King Henry the eight, the Eagle of England, plucked his own feather out of the Pope's wing, and 
i 3. Novem. 1534. being 26 Hen. 8. Holl. in Hen. 8. pag. pag. 938.  resumed to himself the rich plume of the Prince's supremacy, that is, the lawful authority which God had given him. Then 
k The contents of his Bull are in Sand. de schi●. ●. 1. p. 109.  Paul the third flashed out his excommunications like lightnings, and interdicted the kingdom, hoping thereby to reduce it to his obedience, or at least to disable the young Lady for the succession of the crown. Yet after a while the angry old man withered away, but the young Lady did grow up like the lily, and flourished like the Rose plant of Province. Now though for extirpating the Pope's jurisdiction, this renowned King had the honour before and above all Christian Princes; yet the glory of abolishing Popish religion, was by divine providence reserved to his blessed children, Edward and Elizabeth: They pulled up superstition by the very roots, whereas their father (for God revealed his truth by degrees) did only hew at a few branches. Hitherto of the Pope's expulsion.  
NOw for as much as Archbishop Cranmer was a principal means 
7  thereof, the Papists did hate him worse than a scorpion, heaping upon him whatsoever wit sharpened with malice could possibly devise. He resorted sometimes to the Dolphin in Cambridge, where he placed his wife, the mistress of the house being her cousin: thereupon they blazed abroad that he was an 
a Act. & Mon. in the life of Cran. p. 1088.  Ostler, and unlearned. He kept his wife secret, for fear of the law: they reported that she was carried up and down in a 
b Pars. 3. Conu. part. 3. cap. 7. num. 27.  Chest, and that at graves end, the wrong end of the Chest was set upward. And surely King Henry did foresee, that one day, if they might prevail, they would have his blood and burn him at a stake. Therefore, whereas he gave the three Cranes the ancient arms of his house, the King caused him to change them into three 
c Ant. Brit. p. 341.  Pelicans, presaging that he should feed the flock of Christ, with his dearest blood, and die a Martyr; which came to pass, in the days of Queen Mary, when they disgorged all their poisoned malice upon him. They 
d Act. & Mon. in the life of Cranmer.  disrobed him of his Episcopal ornaments, and put him into a lay man's gown; they cited him to appear at Rome within eighty days, and put him to death before twenty of them were expired. They caused Alphonso the Spanish Friar, to draw him to a recantation by sweet promises of life, yet they had a settled purpose to put him to death. They had no intention by Alphonso to do him good, but sought a colour by his recantation to justify themselves; so they clapped their hands, and rejoiced at his fall. But as he sinned and denied his Master with Peter, so God gave him grace to repent with Peter. And as he lamented all his sins, so especially he bewailed his subscribing to Popery with his unworthy right hand. Wherefore when he came to the fire for a godly revenge, he thrust it like another Scaevola into the flame, and did not so much as draw back his arm till it was wholly consumed: thus lifting up his eyes to heaven, in the midst of the furious flames, he said, Lord jesus 
e Ant. Brit. pag. 343.  receive my spirit, and so gave up the Ghost. When his body and the wood were consumed to ashes, behold his heart was found whole, and perfect, as having escaped the force of the fire; concerning which, these verses were written by a learned man.  

Ecce invicta fides cor inviolabile servat,  
Nec medijs flammis corda perire sinit.   

Cranmer amid the fiery flames,  
thy heart unscorcht was found:  
For why, behold undaunted faith  
preserved it safe and sound.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Whether to renounce the Pope be Schism and Heresy.  PHIL. 
WEll, though you and your crew commend Cranmer, yet I will prove in spite of all Heretics, that when he revolted from the Pope, both he and all his consorts, became notorious Schismatics.  ORTHOD. 
Then you will prove in spite of all Heretics, that Stephen Gardener was a Schismatic, Edmund Bonner a schismatic, Cuthbert Tunstall a schismatic, Nicholas Heath a schismatic, john Stokesly a schismatic; and in a word, that all the Bishops of your Catholic Church which were in England, after the banishing of the Pope, till the end of the reign of King Henry, by the space of 12. years, were notorious schismatics. For they all revolted from the Pope, john Fisher Bishop of Rochester only excepted, who was 
a Hall in H. 8. 206.  then lately made Cardinal, but lost his head before his Hat came over. What? will you prove that there were so many schismatics at once in your Catholic Church?  PHIL. 
They were not then of the Catholic Church: for that worthy Bishop of Winchester, 
b In a Sermon at Paul's Cros●e.  Stephen Gardener affirmed, That when K Henry did first take upon him to be head of the Church, it was then no Church at all. And Doct. Sanders saith, 
c Sand. de schiss. l. 2. pag. 209.  That Bishops were made in Schismate Henriciano, extra, vel potius, contra Ecclesiam, 1. in the schism of Henry the 8. without the Church, or rather against it.  ORTHOD. 
Pope 
d De cons. dist. 1. Eccles.  Nicholas defineth the Catholic Church to be a congregation of Catholics.  PHIL. 
When they renounced the Pope, they were no Catholics.  ORTHOD. 
They were mass-priests, and professed that faith which you call Catholic. Why then should you deny them the name of Catholics?  PHIL. 
Because they did not profess it under the Bishop of Rome: from whose communion whosoever renteth himself, is a schismatic.  ORTHOD. 
Heresy and schism (saith 
e 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, Heresy is opposed properly unto faith, but Schism is opposed properly to the unity of Ecclesiastical love. Which is agreeable to 
f In Epist. ad Titum. c. 3.  S. Hierome, saying, Between Schism and Heresy, this I take to be the difference, That Heresy hath always a perverse opinion, but Schism maketh a separation from the Church. Out of which words, saith 
g Navar. Manuale. c. 27. p. 878.  Navarrus, We may gather, That Schism taken generally, is a sin whereby one separateth himself from due unity: but taken specially, it is a sin whereby he is separated from the unity of the Church. But what is this to the Pope?  PHIL. 

h Sculting. Var●arum lect. tom. 4. p. 22.  Schismatics are therefore no members of the Church, because they are divided and rend from the visible head, That is, the Pope. For 
i Bell. de Ecc●. mil. l. 3. c. 5. respon.  no man can be under Christ, and communicate with the Church Celestial, who is not under the Pope, and doth not communicate with the Church Militant. Which doth plainly appear by the decree of Pope Boniface, 
k Extrau. come. l. 1. de Maior. unam sanctam.  Porro subesse Romano Pontifici, 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 under the Bishop of Rome, is to every human creature, altogether of the necessity of salvation.  ORTHOD. 
What say you then to Athanasius, who was persecuted for the Catholic faith, Pope Liberius consenting and subscribing to the Synodal sentence, whereby he was excluded from the communion of the Church; as witnesseth 
a Bin. tom. 1. p. 474 ●n not is in Concil. Sirmiense.  Binius; saying, To the wicked profession whereof (that is, of the Sirmian Council) he, (that is Liberius) subscribed by violence and fear. And again, Liberius Bishop of Rome provoked by violence and threats, as 
b At●. ●n Epist. ad Solitar.  Athanasius, 
c Hilarius ad Const.  Hilary, and 
d Hier. in Chron.  Hierome do testify, subscribed to this first form of faith, (of the Sirmian Council) condemned Athanasius, communicated with the Arrians, and signifying the same by letters written to Valens and others, he entreated to be freed from exile, and to be restored to his See; Yea, Liberius himself in his Epistle to the Eastern Churches, confesseth so much, saying, 
e Liberius Epist 7. Bin. tom. 1. p. 465.  So soon as I knew, when it pleased God, that you had justly condemned him, (that is Athanasius,) I presently yielded my consent to your judgement, and gave Letters to be carried to the Emperor Constantius, by our brother Fortunatianus of his name, That is, concerning the condemning of him: therefore Athanasius being removed; concerning whom the Decrees of you all, are to be received of me with the See Apostolic; I say that I have peace and unity with all you, with all the Eastern Bishops, or through all Provinces. This Epistle is extant in the Vatican Library, and acknowledged for true and proper by 
f Ibidem.  Binius, who thereupon taketh up a lamentation, That Liberius the Roman Samson deceived by envy and vain glory, as it were by Dalila, was conquered and lost his golden locks. Thus it appeareth, that this renowned Patriarch, this stout Champion of jesus Christ, this pillar of the Church, this hammer of Heretics was divided from the communion of the Pope, and yet he was not separated from the blessed communion of jesus Christ: For when the whole world was against him, he against the whole world defended the cause of Christ, and the Lord gave him victory. Shall now this glorious Athanasius be reputed a Schismatic? I hope you will not dare to say so. If he be not, than one may be separated from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, and yet be no Schismatic.  PHIL. 
Schism, as Cardinal 
g 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.  ORTHOD. 
Do not you think that this was rebellious? The Emperor 
h Const. apud Theod. l. 2. cap. 16.  Constantius affirmed, that the whole world had judged, that Athanasius should be separated from the communion of the Church: which was done in the Council at Milan, and also at Smirnium, the Pope himself subscribing thereunto. Yet Athanasius stood out stiffly, he did not relent, but chose rather to remain excommunicate, then to submit and conform himself 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 have yielded, he had rebelled against God, and denied the Divinity of Christ: And if you excuse him, than you are forced to confess, That not every separation from the Bishop of Rome is a Schism, but such only as separateth from the Church of God, and from Christ. Hitherto of Schism in general.  
NOw in particular; The separation of King Henry was so far from 
2  Schism, that I will prove it lawful by Bellarmine himself, who saith, 
i De Rom. ●ont. l. 2. c. 29. respondeo negando.  As it is lawful to resist the Pope invading the body, so it is lawful to resist him invading the souls, or troubling the commonwealth, and much more if he go about to destroy the Church: So there are four cases wherein Bellarmine holdeth it lawful to resist the Pope. Wherefore, if King Henry's case were any of these four, his resistance was lawful. To pass over the first, and the last, it shallbe sufficient if we ponder the other two, touching the invading of the soul, and the troubling of the Commonwealth. While the King was yet in his nonage, he was dispensed with all by the Pope, against the eternal Commandment of God, to marry his brother's wife: and afterward being informed of the unlawfullnesse thereof, he entreated the Pope either to justify his dispensation by the word of God, or to dissolve the marriage; yet he would do neither, but left him long in anguish of mind and perplexity of conscience: and at last gave final sentence to bind him to live in a marriage, condemned by his own Cardinals, his own universities, yea and by his own former Bull, wherein he had pronounced, That the King could not continue in it without sin. Let any indifferent man judge whether this were not to invade the souls of men? Now let us see, whether he did trouble the Commonwealth. By means of this dispensation the minds of men were greatly distracted, some holding with the Pope, others embracing the judgements of learned men through the famous universities of Christendom. Thus the whole world stood in suspense, and the inheritance, and succession of the Crown was commonly called in question both by subjects and strangers: Was not this evidently & notoriously to trouble the Commonwealth? So according to Bellarmine's positions, it was lawful for K. Henry, and his subjects to resist the Pope, and therefore this resistance was not schismatical.  PHIL. 
You must consider the manner of resistance set down by Bellarmine: Licet 
a Quo supra.  inquam ei resistere, non faciendo quod jubet, & impediendo ne exequatur voluntatem suam: non tamen licet eum judicare, vel punire, vel deponere, quod non est nisi superioris: that is, It is lawful I say to resist him, by not doing that which he commandeth, and by hindering him from executing his will: yet it is not lawful to judge him, or punish him, or depose him, which belongeth to none but the superior.  ORTHOD. 
And you must consider that it is one thing to punish by virtue of jurisdiction over a party: and another thing to hinder the injuries which the party endeavoureth, actually to infer, as the Venetian 
b Contrivers. me●or. p. 230.  Doctors have proved out of Caietan, Turrecremata, and Bellarmine. Now King Henry did challenge no jurisdiction, but over his own subjects, and within his own dominions, yet it was fit that in his own necessary defence, he should remove papal injuries, by providing as it became a virtuous Prince, for the quiet of his own conscience, and the good of his subjects. Which blessings could never have been procured, if the Pope had still enjoyed his usurped authority in England.  PHIL. 
You shall not persuade me, but that King Henry was guilty both of Schism and heresy. 
c Onuph. in Paulo 3.  Onuphrius saith that Paul the third, did think him unworthy to be accounted in the number of Christians, ob inauditum heresis crimen, that is, For such a crime of heresy as had not been heard of.  ORTHOD. 
What meant the Pope think you, when he condemned him for heresy? Sigonius recordeth, that in a Council at Mentz, in the presence of the Emperor, there was a disputation, 
a Sig. de regne Ital. l. 9 an. 1085.  Vtrum Henricus Regio titulo a Gregorio spoliari potuisset, that is, Whether Henry the Emperor might be deprived of the title of a King by Pope Gregory: Wherein most of the Bishops assented to Geberardus defending the Pope's authority. So it came to pass that Vecilo Archbishop of Mentz, being of the contrary opinion, was branded for heresy in an other council, wherein Otho Bishop of Ostia the Pope's Legate was present. And the same 
b Sigon ibid. an. 1105.  Sigonius saith, that the Emperor Henry the fourth, renouncing his Father's heresy, did embrace the obedience of the Pope. Not to perform obedience to the Pope, was his Father's heresy; but his son was a gracious Catholic, for showing obedience to the Pope, though therein he were an ungracious son against his own father.  PHIL. 
Onuphrius 
c Onuph. in Clement 7.  saith, That king Henry the eight followed, Nova & nefaria Lutheri dogmata, the new and wicked opinions of Luther. 
d Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 5. c. 7.  Bellarmine saith, that in England, in the reign of Henry, and afterwards in the reign of Edward, the whole kingdom did after a sort slide back from the faith.  ORTHOD. 
That which you call Heresy and Apostasy is true religion, and that which you honour with the name of true religion, is full of Heresy and idolatry. Many papal abuses were discovered in the days of King Henry, more in the days of King Edward, so the Gospel was like to the light which shineth more and more, to the perfect day; the brightness whereof abolished both the Pope & the Popish religion. Afterward when Queen Mary had restored both, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Queen Elizabeth, who with an invincible courage reform religion. And that which she happily begun our gracious Sovereign King james hath happily continued. Neither can any man accuse them of Schism, unless they will accuse the holy Apostle Saint Paul, who 
e Act. 19 9  When certain were hardened and disobeyed, speaking evil of the way of God before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the Disciples. As the Apostle practised this in his own person, so he gave the like commandment to others. 
f 1. Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5.  If any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholesome words of our Lord jesus Christ, and to the Doctrine which is according to godliness etc. From such separate thyself. And the Lord crieth by his Prophet, 
g Hose. 4. 15  Go not up to Bethaven. This Bethaven was Bethel, but her idolatry made her Bethaven, therefore go not up to Bethaven. If Rome which was sometimes Bethel, the house of God, become Bethaven, the house of vanity: then thou must not go up to Bethaven. 
h Revel. 18. 4.  Go out of Babylon my people, go out of Babylon: if Rome which was some times a pure virgin become the whore of Babylon, then go out of Babylon my people, lest you be partakers of her plagues. Wherefore all Christian Kingdoms were bound to separate themselves from the erroneous and idolatrous Church of Rome.  PHIL. 
Thus you say, But I rather account of the judgement of the Church of Rome which noteth both them and you for schismatics and heretics.   

CHAP. IX.  
Whether Schism and Heresy annihilate a Consecration.  ORTHO. 
WHether we or you be guilty of those crimes, God the righteous judge will one day reveal. In the mean time let us admit (though for all your brags you are never able to prove it) that Cranmer upon his revolt from the Pope did presently become a schismatic, and an heretic: Yet tell me in good sooth (Philodox) doth a Bishop falling into schism and heresy cease to be a Bishop? doth he lose his power of giving orders?  PHIL. 
It is a disputable point, and I can tell you that great Clerks seem to be of that opinion. Pope 
a Vide Bellar. de sacram. ord. 3. igitur.  Innocent saith, that those which are baptized of heretics, are received with their Baptism, but the ordained of heretics are not received with their order. And again, the 
b Innocent. 1. ep. 22. c. 3. Bin. t. 1. p. 581.  ordained of Heretics have their head wounded. And again, it 
c Ibidem.  is affirmed, that he which hath lost the honour, cannot give the honour: and that he which received, received nothing, because there was nothing in the giver which he could receive. Which he sealeth up with this conclusion, Aquiescimus & verum est; We yield, and it is true. Pope john the twelfth caused those which were ordained of Leo 8. a schismatical Pope, to say: 
d Concil. Rom. sub. joh. 12. apud. Been t. ●. part. 2. p. ●066.  Pater meus nihil habuit sibi, nihil mihi dedit: that is, my father had nothing to himself, and nothing he gave to me. Pope Nicolas the first saith: 
e 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 bless any man, therefore Photius received nothing of Gregory but that which he had, but he had nothing, he therefore gave nothing He which stoppeth his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shallbe abominable; if abominable, than not to be heard; if not to be heard, then uneffectual, if uneffectual, then verily it bringeth nothing to Photius. Wherefore though Cranmer had a lawful consecration, yet it seemeth, when he fell into schism and heresy, he lost his order, and power of ordination. Therefore the Bishops in King Edward's time consecrated by Cranmer received nothing, because Cranmer had nothing to give. And the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time, consecrated by those whom Cranmer did consecrate, received nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to give. And those which now succeed them, received nothing, because their predecessors had nothing to give.  ORTHO. 
Take heed (Philodox) lest while you go about to put out our eyes, you put out your own. For if your allegations be sound, what shall become of Bonner Bishop of London? what shall become of Nicolas Heath, whom Queen Mary made Archbishop of York, and after the death of Gardiner, Lord Chancellor of England? what shall become of Thurlby, whom Queen Mary translated from Norwich to Ely? For all these were consecrated at such time, when in your judgement both the consecrators and consecrated were stained with schism and heresy. Did all these receive nothing, because their consecrators had nothing to give? If they were no Bishops, than what becomes of the Bishops in Queen Mary's reign, whom these did consecrate? if they all received nothing, than you must confess that the Priests whom they ordained were no Priests: If they were no Priests, then though they used the words of Consecration, they could not Consecrate▪ the host: If this be true, than all that worshipped the host which they did Consecrate, were idolaters.  PHIL. 
Edmond Bonner, and the rest of our Bishops and Priests were Reverend and Canonical, whatsoever you esteem of them.  ORTH. 
Can there be a Bishop without effectual Consecration?  PHIL. 
It is impossible.  ORTHO. 
And other Consecration they had none, but that which we have mentioned: for I hope they were not reordained in Queen Mary's time.  PHIL. 
Reordained? I do not think so, for as rebaptizations, so reordinations were forbidden in the Council of 
a Bar. anno. 389 num 74.  Capua. And 
b Greg 1. Epi. l. 2. indict. 10. Ep. 32.  Gregory saith as he which is once baptised, ought not to be baptised again, so he which is once consecrated, ought not to be Consecrated again in the same order. Therefore undoubtedly they were not reordained: but Cardinal Poole, the Pope's legate, absolved them from Schism, and heresy, so they were confirmed for lawful Bishops. 
c Episcopos omnes qui sententia religionis erant Catho●ici, in priori schismate factos confirmavit. Sand de schiss. l. 2. c. 260.   ORTHOD. 
You hold that it is impossible to be a Bishop without effectual Consecration. Therefore seeing they had no other Consecration, but that mentioned, and yet were Bishops, it followeth that their Consecration was effectual: wherefore you are forced to confess, that if a schismatical and heretical Bishop give orders, the orders are effectual. But least this conclusion should seem to flow rather from the affection you bear to your own Bishops, then from any force of reason, especially your own allegations standing still to the contrary; let us review the whole matter, and proceed by degrees, balancing every thing with advice and judgement: And answer I pray you, not out of private humour, and passion, but from the public and most authentical records of your Church.  
ANd first, if a wicked priest, as for example, a drunkard, fornicator, or 
2  blasphemer, baptise a child, I demand whether the baptism be good or no?  PHIL. 
If it be performed in the true element of water, with evangelical words, that is, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, according to our Saviour Christ's holy institution, it is sound and sufficient, and never to be iterated, as our learned Popes, Counsels, and Fathers alleged by Cardinal 
d Bell. d●sacr. in gen. l. 1. c. 26.  Bellarmine do testify. For the wickedness of the Minister, cannot pollute the purity of the mysteries of God: they are available to his children, though they be ministered by a judas. For it is well said of our learned 
e Ibid. Respondeo ad minorem.  Cardinal that he which hath not forgiveness of sins formally, may have it Ministerially: as he that hath not in his purse, one halfpenny of his own, may notwithstanding carry many crowns to another, from his lord and master.  ORTHO. 
Very true, for that which S. Paul saith of preaching, may be extended to other Ministerial duties. If 
f 1. Cor. 9 17  I do it willingly, I have a reward: but if I do it against my will; notwithstanding, the dispensation is committed unto me. As though he should say, If I do it willingly, that is cheerfully for conscience sake, seeking only the glory of God, and the salvation of his people, than there is a reward laid up for me: But if I shall perform it unwillingly, that is, for fear, covetousness, vain glory, or any other carnal respect, though to myself it be not profitable, because I lose my reward, yet it may be available to others, because the dispensation is committed unto me. The foulness of an unsanctified hand, cannot stain the beauty of these glorious mysteries. For as 
a Orat. 40.  Gregory Nazianzen saith, A seal of Iron may imprint the Prince's 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 silver pipe. But what if the Priest we speak of, be a schismatic and an heretic?  PHIL. 
Though he be, yet if he baptise according to the institution of Christ, the baptism is effectual, and never to be repeated.  ORTHOD. 
You say well, for in such a case, though it be ministered by Heretics, and schismatics, yet it is not the baptism of heretics and schismatics, but of jesus Christ. For it is 
b joh. 1. 33.  he that baptizeth and 
c 1. Cor. 3. 7.  neither is he that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, b●● God which giveth the increase. To which purpose it is excellently said of Aus●●n, 
d De bap. cont Donat. l. 4. cap. 15.  To the baptism which is Consecrated with evangelical words, pertaineth not the error of any man, either of the giver, or of the receiver, whether he think otherwise then the heavenly doctrine teacheth of the Father, or of the Son, or of the holy Ghost. Indeed it was decreed in the great counsel of Nice, that the 
e Can. 19  Pauli●nistae coming to the Catholic Church, should be rebaptized: where, by rebaptizing they mean the repeating of that action, which was erroneously supposed to be true baptism, but in truth was not, because it wanted the true essential form of words, which the Council judged necessary to be supplied. Therefore there is no repugnancy between them and the African Council, which decreed under Pope Stephen, that the 
f Vide Binium in notis in con. Nic. Can. 19  Novatians returning to the Catholic Church, should not be rebaptized, because their former baptism (though given by heretics) was according to the true form of the Church, and therefore sufficient. It is true that 
g Vincentius Lyri●ensis in commo●it. ca 9  Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage, defended rebaptisation, and he was the first of all mortal men which defended it: wherein he was followed by Saint 
h Cyp. t. 2. & council. Carthag. ibid.  Cyprian, and the Bishops of Africa, but then they had not seen the point defined by any general Counsels, and though they held an error, yet they did not judge them heretics which held the contrary, neither did they rebaptize those whom the Catholics had baptised, nor make any rent in the Church, but kept the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace: yea Saint 
i Epi. 48.  Austin saith some report that Cyprian recalled this error: & S. 
k In dial. con. Luci●.  Hierom affirmeth that the Bishops of afric did the like, moved by the authority of Stephen Bishop of Rome. But after them came the Donatists stiffly maintaining and increasing this error, even when the Church had determined the contrary, and therefore were justly judged heretics. Yea, they took upon them to 
l Aug. de unico bapt. c. 13.  rebaptize such as were baptized in the Catholic Church, which was a diabolical presumption. For which causes 
m Vincent. Lyrinen. cap. 1●.  Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, Of one and the same opinion we judge (which may seem strange) the authors Catholic, and the followers heretical. We acquit the Masters, and condemn the Scholars: they are heirs of heaven which have written those books, the defenders whereof are trodden down to the pit of hell. But now the Church hath long ago with one voice condemned this Heresy▪ When 
n Aug. con. Epist. Parm. ●. 1. c. 4.  Praetextatus and Felicianus having baptized sundry in schism returned to unity, the Church did not rebaptise them whom they had baptized, but kept them in that baptism which they had in Schism. For according to Saint 
a Aug. de bap. cont. Donat. l. 5. c. 7.  Austin, some do minister baptismum legitimum, and that legitimè: some neither legitimè, nor yet legitimum: some legitimum, but not legitimè. Such as perform it in the true element and form of words, being themselves in the bosom and unity of the Church, do minister both legitimum and legitimè: such as fail in the institution, and are themselves in Schism or Heresy, do neither minister legitimè, nor yet legitimum: such as do observe the substance of institution, being themselves in Schism or Heresy do minister legitimum, but not legitimè; And those which receive it from them have a lawful baptism, but not lawfully. For it is one thing to have a lawful thing unlawfully, and another thing not to have it at all. The Sacraments of the Church may be found without the Church, as the rivers of Paradise are found without Paradise. Heretics and schismatics may have rem columbae, though they themselves be extra columbam.  PHIL. 
The truth of this Doctrine is so plain, that no common 
b Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 4 c. 10.  Catholic is ignorant of it.  ORTH. 
Then to proceed, what if the Priest we speak of, were interdicted, suspended, excommunicated, degraded?  PHIL. 
Yet if he observe in all points of substance, the institution of Christ, it is effectual and never to be repeated. This is undoubtedly the judgement of our Church; And therefore in Queen Mary's time, though the land had been interdicted, and under the Pope's curse for Schism and Heresy, by the space of twenty years, we did not rebaptise them who were then baptized, but have kept them with us in their former baptism.  ORTH. 
COncerning baptism we agree; Now to come to the eucharist: 
3  shall the ungodly life or wicked opinion of the Minister make his ministration of it uneffectual to the people of God?  PHIL. 
In no case, so he observe the ordinance of Christ.  ORTHOD. 
You answer rightly: For 
c 1. Sam. 2. 12.  the sons of Eli were wicked men, and procured Gods heavy wrath against themselves, yet there is no doubt, but the God of all Grace did accept of those Sacrifices, which his faithful children with an honest heart presented according to the Law of the Lord, to be offered even by their hands, so long as they enjoyed the Office of Priesthood. Our 
d Mat. 5. & 15. & 23.  Saviour in the Gospel, reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for their false and superstitious doctrine, which was so commonly received, and so anciently continued, that there can be no question, but many of the Priests were infected with it: Yet Christ commanded the 
e Matth. 8. 4.  Leper to show himself to the Priest. Yea, he himself frequented the Feasts, wherein Sacrifices were offered by those Priests. But to go forward; Can the Eucharist be ministered by a Priest whom the Pope hath excommunicated, and degraded?  PHIL. 

f Bel. de Rom. pont l. 4. c. 24. at contra.  Though all Priests have the power of Order under the Pope, yet for as much as they have it not immediately from the Pope, but from God, therefore the Pope cannot so take it away, but that if they will they may use it. For a Priest, though the Pope should Excommunicate▪ suspend, interdict & degrade him, yet if he will himself, he shall truly Consecrate. For every Priest hath an indelible 
g Vide apud. Bel de sacram. in Genere. l. 2. c. 19 & desacr. Confirmae. 12. sed instant.  Character, which is a certain spiritual and supernatural power, imprinted in the soul of man in Baptism, Confirmation, and holy Orders; whereby the Baptized, Confirmed and Ordered, are enabled to give, or receive, the Offices of certain Sacraments. The Character of Confirmation, being not greatly to our present purpose, may be passed over. The Character of Baptism is a passive power, whereby the Baptized is made ●it to receive other Sacraments, whereof without Baptism he were uncapable. The Character of Order, is an active power to minister the Sacraments unto other. Now, in holy Orders it must be observed, That the Priestly Character doth differ from the Episcopal. For the Episcopal is either an other, or the same extended: so that it containeth the Priestly, and somewhat else. A Priest in respect of his Priestly Character, is first of all the public and ordinary Minister of Baptism: For a Lay-man may not baptize publicly, but only privately; Neither privately in the presence of the Priest or Deacon, but only in their absence. Neither always in their absence; but only in case of necessity; for then a Lay-man, be he jew or infidel, may Baptize, so he intent to do that, which the Catholic Church doth, in that kind of Administration. A Deacon may baptize, not only privately but publicly, so it be at the appointment of the Bishop or Priest. But a Priest may suo iure Baptize, ex Officio, even in the presence of a Bishop; as is declared by 
a In Catechis. Trident.  Pius Quintus, and the Council of Trent, who qualify the contrary opinion, and reduce it to a tolerable sense. Secondly, a Priest by virtue of his Priestly Character, may consecrate the Host, which no Lay-man, King, nor Emperor, no Angel, nor Archangel, can perform: because they want this Character. Indeed a Deacon may help to minister the Eucharist, but he cannot Consecrate, no not by dispensation; If he should take it upon him, he should effect nothing. But every Priest receiveth in his Ordination, a Character, not from man, but from the Eternal God, which in respect of the Eucharist, is absolute, perfect and independent. 
b Bell de sacr. in Gen. l. 2. ●. 19  Wheresoever it is, there God is present, ex pacto, and concurreth to the producing of supernatural effects, which he doth not, where this Character is wanting. Now the holy Counsels of 
c D●cret. Eu●●●. 4. in C●nc. Flor. B●●. t. 4. p. 49●.  Florence and 
d S●●●. 23. c. 4. B●●. t. 4. p. 847.  Trent do teach us, That this Character is indelible: death only, if death, can dissolve it, otherwise it is everlasting.  ORTHOD. 
If by indelible Character be meant only a gracious gift never to be reirerated, than we may safely confess, that in Baptism, and holy Orders, there is imprinted an indelible Character. For a man rightly baptized, becoming a Turk or a jew, and afterward returning to the faith, and Church of Christ, is in no case to be rebaptized: the virtue of his former Baptism is not sponged out, but still remaineth available. Likewise when a Priest lawfully ordained, becoming a schismatic, or heretic is justly censured for his crimes, and afterward is reclaimed; if the Church shall need his labours, and hold it convenient that he execute the Ministerial function, he may in no case be reordained, but may perform it by virtue of his Orders formerly received. Hitherto of a Priest.  
NOw to transfer our speech to a Bishop; Shall his iniquity hinder him 
4.  from giving Orders?  PHIL. 
No verily: for there is the same reason of this, and the former.  ORTHOD. 
There is so: For as Christ is the chief Baptizer, so he is the 
c Ephes. 4. 11.  chief Ordainer. It is he that giveth ᵈ Pastors, and teachers, unto the Church; therefore the personal iniquity of the servant, cannot disannul the gracious gift of the master. For who conferred Priesthood among the jews? After the consecration of Aaron and his sons, which was performed by the hands of 
a Exod. 29. levit 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 
b Exod. 32. 4.  golden calf? Did not Eli 
c 1. Sam. 3. 13.  see his sons run into a slander, and stayed them not? Yet so long as they lived, they did execute the Pontifical 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 Heretics and schismatics?  PHIL. 
Card. Bell saith; 
d De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. Respondeo falcissimum esse.  Quis ignorat Catholicorum, Baptizatos ab Haereticis verè esse Baptizatos, & similiter Ordinatos, verè esse Ordinatos, quando Ordinator Haereticus verè Episcopus fuerat, & adhuc erat, saltem quantum ad Characterem? i. Which of the Catholics is ignorant, that the Baptized of Heretics, are truly baptized, and those that are likewise Ordained (of Heretics) are truly Ordained, when the Heretical Ordainer had been truly a Bishop, and was still, at least in respect of the Character?  ORTHOD. 

e Apud Nicetam in vita Ignatij. Bin. t. 3. p. 869.  S. Basill affirmeth, That of all the Arch heretics of the whole world, whereof many were then very famous, none ever durst reordaine the Ordained, except one Eustathius Ancyrogalata, whose wicked crime the Council of Gangrene declareth. In the 
f Act. 1. Bin. t. 3. part. 1. p. 306.  2. Council at Nice the Monks said, According to six holy and general Counsels, we receive those that return from Heresy, unless there be some intolerable cause. Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said, And all we also being instructed of our holy fathers do so define. And again, 
g Pag. 307.  Tharasius the most blessed Patriarch said, What say you of Anatolius? was not he Precedent of the fourth Synod? yet he was Created of that wicked Dioscorus. Therefore let us also receive the Ordained of Heretics, as Anatolius was received. And again, Tharasius, the most blessed Patriarch said, 
h Pag. 308.  Truly very many which were Precedents in the sixth Synod, were created of Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, teachers of the Heresy of the Monothelites; Yea, these likewise divided the Constantinopolitan Sees among the Clergy. From Peter their last teacher, unto the sixth Synod, there came between no fewer than fifteen years, in which space were Thomas, john, and Constantine, ordained of heretics, who notwithstanding were not for this cause rejected. The heresy lasted about fifty years, yet the fathers in the sixth Synod condemned only the forenamed four: whereby it is evident, that heresy in their judgement doth not take away the power of giving orders, which you confess, and must needs, because one of your own Popes was ordained by heretics: if Felix the second were a Pope.  PHIL. 
In 
i Ex Baron. anno 357. n. 63.  the time of Gregory the thirteenth, the Roman martyrologue was set out at Rome, where there was a great controversy among learned men concerning Felix, whether his name were to be sponged out: and Baronius with many other were of that opinion: but it fell out as it were by a divine 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 Martyr, which condemned Constantius: so Baronius yielded to Felix, as it were pleading his own cause: especially seeing Pope Gregory himself, was of that judgement. Therefore we confess that Felix was a lawful Pope, although his entrance is much to be misliked. For 
k Bin. in notis in vitam Felicis. 2. t. 1. p. 490.  according to the common sentence of the Fathers, he was intruded by the Arians, and ordained of them: therefore at the first, while Liberius suffered persecution for the Catholic Faith, he was a Schismatical Antipope, but as 
a Ibidem.  Binius saith, from such time as he advanced the banner of faith, by excommunicating Constantius, Vrsacius, Valens and other Arians, and Liberius for his manifest Communion with Heretics, was plainly accounted banished from the Communion of Catholics, omnium Catholicorum judicio, quanquam antea schismaticus fuisset, legitimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Pontifex haebericaepit, that is, Although before he had been a schismatic yet then he began to be accounted the lawful Bishop of the Catholic Church by the judgement of all Catholics.  ORTHOD. 
Then you confess that Felix which was ordained of Arians, was notwithstanding a lawful Bishop, yea and a lawful Pope by the judgement of all Catholics; for if you should say otherwise, what would become of those five Deacons, 21. Priests 19 
b Vita Faelicis apud Bin. quo supra.  Bishops, which he ordained? If heretics have no power to ordain, than Felix was no Bishop, and consequently according to your own positions, all ordinations derived from him, were mere nullities.  PHIL. 
You heard before out of the counsels of Florence and Trent, that the Character is indelible; whereupon it followeth, that neither schism nor heresy, nor any censure of the Church can take it away: wherefore seeing the Episcopal character, whether it be a diverse from the presbyteral, 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 only without any further dispensation, confirm and order, but he cannot be hindered by any superior power, but that he may truly confer these Sacraments if it please himself, as our learned 
c De Confir. c. 12.  Cardinal affirmeth: which is also the common opinion of the schoolmen. Heretics (saith 
d Dom. ●oto. in 4. s●nt. d. 25.  Dominicus a Soto,) whosoever they be, even such as are cut off, although they were not formerly promoted lawfully by the Church, but by heretics, do verily confer the Sacrament of order, although they be forbidden by the Church: and therefore while they do confer it they sin mortally. Gabriel Biel: 
e Bi●l. in 4. sent. d●st. 25. q. 1▪ con. 4.  although a Bishop being an heretic, and Apostata, degraded, cut off, or publicly excommunicated, be deprived of all jurisdiction by the law itself, neither can he absolve any man from his sins: yet he may actually ordain any man capable of the order, being willing, yea though he be not subject to his jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the Church doth justly prohibit him. And Capreolus: 
f Cap. in. 4. sen▪ d. 25. q. 1. art. ●. in ma●gi●e.  Bishops although they be heretics, schismatics, and degraded, may confer orders. This is agreeable to the Decree of 
g Anastasius Bibl. apud Bin. ●. 3. pag. 832.  Pope Anastasius, concerning those whom Acasius ordained after his condemnation, to wit, 
h 〈…〉 nis attiger●t.  That no harm at all should befall them. By all this it appeareth that the orders thus ministered are effectual.  ORTHO. 
But doth not degradation deprive a man of the degree?  PHIL. 
Non est dubitandum (saith Petrus a Soto) per haeresim vel excommunicationem, sive etiam degradationem, non amittipotestatem, quae sacramento collata est, sive characterem (ut dicunt) baptismi, confirmationis, & ordinis: quanquam usus illius amittatur▪ that is, It is not to be doubted, that the power which is conferred by the Sacrament or the character (as they call it) of baptism, confirmation, and order, is not los● by heresy, excommunication, or degradation, although the use of it be lost. With whom agreeth 
i Greg. de Val. tom. ●. disp. 9 ●. 1. certum est ordin●tiones bu●usmodi ministrorum sic ●sse immutabi●●s, ut qui semel in aliquem eiusmodi ordmem ecclesiacticum cooptatus sit, nequea● omnino ●ccepti ordinis potestate ●riu●ri a●t fieri laicus et si possit usus interdici.  Gregory de Valentia. So degradation taketh not away the character and power, but only the use, and that only so far, as if he use it, this use is sinful, yet doth not cease to be effectual.  ORTHO. 
THen Pope Stephen was much to blame, who 
a Ex Sigeberto in Chron. an. 902 & 903.  unordained them whom his predecessor Formosus had ordained, and he also gave out a commandment, that they should all be 
* In vita Seph. 7. Bin. t. 3. p. 1047.  Consecrated and ordained a new. Yea he took up his carcase out of the grave, brought it unto judgement before a council of Bishops, spoilt it of the papal robes, clothed it in a lay-man gown, indited it, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off those fingers which were principally used in consecration, and cast it into the stream of Tiber.  PHIL. 

b Ex Bel. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 12.  Formosus a Cardinal and Bishop of Portua being degraded by john the eight, went out of the city and swore that he would never return, either to the city or to his bishopric. Soon after, john the eight died, and 
c Baron. calleth him Marinus, an. 883. 1  Martin the second, absolving Formosus from his rashoth, restored him to his dignities. Not long after; Martin died, and Formosus being made Pope, ordained divers. After him cometh Stephen, who either not knowing or not believing that Formosus was absolved, caused them whom he had ordained to be reordained. But his fact as Bellarmine confesseth, displeased all men, and three Popes following, Romanus, Theodorus, and john the ninth, disannulled the sentence of Stephen, judging Formosus a lawful Pope, and his ordinations sound.  ORTHO. 
Pope Sergius succeeding them, reversed their sentence, condemning Formosus and pronouncing all holy orders by him conferred to be void and frustrate.  PHIL. 
I confess with 
d Ex Bell. d● Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 12. respondeo.  Bellarmine, that Pope Stephen and Sergius erred, In quaestione facti non juris; By evil 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 exautoravit, that is, Pope Stephen disannulled all the actions done during the Popedom of Formosus, and especially he casseered those which he had ordained. And 
c Luitp. l. 6. c. 8  Luitprandus, cunctos quos ipse ordinaverat gradu depositos iterum ordinavit, that is, When he had deposed all which Formosus had ordained, here-ordained them. Thus the fact is apparent; but here is no decree.  ORTHO. 

f Sig. ●n. 902.  Sigebert saith: Ordinationes eius irritas esse decernit, that is, He decreeth his ordinations to be void. And Martinus 
g Mart. Pol. in Steph.  Polonus saith: Omnes ordinationes eius irritas debere esse decernit, that is, He decreeth that all his ordinations ought to be void. And 
h Bell. idid. publice in concilio Episcoporum decernit, Formosum nunquam legitimum pontificem fuisse. etc.  Bellarmine himself, though he run counter in the point, yet confesseth, that Stephen decreed publicly in a Council of Bishops, that Formosus was never a lawful Pope, and consequently that all his acts were void.  PHIL. 
It were no prejudice 
* Ex Bin. in vita Steph. 7. t. 3 p. 2. ●. 1047.  to the See Apostolic, if we should grant that an intruder not lawfully chosen, but a false Pope thrust in, might decree an error.  ORTHOD. 
As though Stephen, and Sergius were not true Popes. For though they were most wicked men, and came in by intrusion, yet that hindereth not. 
i An. 897. n. 1.  Baronius declareth, that Some which got the place by tyranny did afterward get the consent of the Clergy, which thought good rather to tolerate them, then to suffer the Church to be rend with Schism, And he addeth, that he is constrained of necessity to say so, because the whole Catholic Church did honour them as lawful Popes, obeyed them, acknowledged them for the Vicars of Christ, and successors of Peter, and frequented them with that reverence which became a true Pope, which had not been done unless there had been certain assurance of their lawful election afterward made: Hitherto Baronius: all which he speaketh by occasion of this Stephen whom (notwithstanding his intrusion) he placeth in the rank of true Popes, and so doth 
a Tom. ●. p. 1047.  Binius likewise. The like honour 
b 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 jurisdiction of Colen, as 
c An. 908. ●. 4.  Baronius witnesseth. And so it appeareth that he was acknowledged for Pope, and quietly enjoyed the place. Therefore if we be so favourable to him as Baronius is to Stephen, we may judge that though he entered by intrusion, yet he might be confirmed for the peace of the Church by a new election.  PHIL. 
Whatsoever we judge of Stephen or Sergius, concerning the Popedom, we confess that they erred, touching ordinations. For though Formosus had never been Pope, yet he was Bishop of Portua, and though he had been an Heretic or Schismatic, though justly degraded, yet his Episcopal character remained, and his ordinations were effectual; therefore they dealt injuriously with him, and his innocency was sufficiently cleared by miracle. For when his body, being found by certain fishermen in the stream of Tibur, was brought into Saint Peter's Church, the very 
d Baron. anno 897. n. 3. ex Luitprando l. 1. c. 8.  Images did reverence unto it.  ORTH. 
Then Pope Stephen, and Pope Sergius erred, or at least your Images were deceived.  PHIL. 
How oft shall I tell you? we confess that they erred: what will you have more?  ORTH. 
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 Council as appeareth by these words of Anastasius alleged by 
e An. 769. ●. 6.  Baronius: In eodem concilio statutum est, ut omnia, quae idem Constantinus in ecclesiasticis sacramentis ac divino cultu egit, iterari debuissent, praeter sacrum Baptisma ac sanctum Chrisma: that is, It was decreed in the said Council, that all things which the said Constantine did in Ecclesiastical Sacraments and divine worship ought to be reiterated, beside holy Baptism & holy Chrism. That the Pope himself did actually reordaine them, may appear by these words: 
f In vita Stephani 4. apud Bin. t. 3. ●art. 1. pag. 238.  Huiusmodi promulgatis sententijs, illicò Episcopi illi, qui ab eodem Constantino ordinati sunt, revertentes juxta ciusdem Pontificis sententiam in pristino honoris gradu electi denuò a Clero, & plebe, cum solito decreto ad sedem Apostolicam properantes 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 again, in the same degree of honour by the Clergy and people, making haste with the accustomed decree to the See Apostolic, were Consecrated of the same most holy Pope.  PHIL. 
That place hath diverse readings. For some read not Consecrati sunt, but Conciliati sunt: as you may see in Baronius.  ORTHO. 
Indeed Baronius putteth Conciliati in the margin, because he would have it so, but he putteth Consecrati in the text, because in Anastasius 
a Bin. t. 3. ●. ●. p. 238.  he found it so. And g Binius, though he be exceedingly addicted to Baronius, yet in this point he forsakes him, and maketh no mention of Conciliati.  PHIL. 
You must not think that they were consecrated again, but 
a Bar. quo supra.  received the mystery of blessing after the manner of their ancestors, which the Author named the Sacrament of blessing.  ORTHOD. 
By Sacrament of blessing, is meant the Sacrament of order. For the Bishop which pronounceth the words whereby the mystical blessing, or the spiritual power is given, is said in the fourth Council of 
b Conc. Cart. 4. c. 2. Bin. tom. 1. pag. 553.  Carthage to power out the blessing.  PHIL. 
But the meaneth only, 
c Bar. quo supra.  those solemnities which were accustomed to be used in the reconciliation of a Schismatic or Heretic.  ORTH. 
So saith Baronius, but I will prove the contrary. For as you heard before, it was decreed that all which Constantine did in Ecclesiastical Sacraments and divine worship should be reiterated, excepting only Baptism and confirmation; but what think you, did not Pope Stephen and the Roman Council, account holy orders an Ecclesiastical Sacrament?  PHIL. 
Yes undoubtedly.  ORTH. 
Then undoubtedly they decreed that the holy orders should be reiterated, which were given by Constantine. And therefore if they were only reconciled, and not reordained, than Pope Stephen did contrary to his own decree; which is most absurd. Wherefore it is a clear case that Pope Stephen the fourth used reordination.  PHIL. 
If he did so, than he was blame worthy. For though Constantine were a Schismatical Antipope, though of a lay man, he was suddenly made Bishop, and huddled up his orders in all hast contrary to the Canons: yet we cannot deny, but he received those orders, and had power in respect of his Episcopal Character to deliver them unto others. And seeing his Character was indelible as we have proved, therefore though he had not only been a Schismatic, but also an Heretic excommunicated and degraded, yet he could not have lost his power of given orders.  ORTHOD. 
If you continue constant in this opinion, than you must at your leisure bethink yourself, how it may be reconciled with your former allegations out of Pope Innocent, Pope john, and Pope Nicolas: in the mean time it is sufficient for us to take that you grant.  PHIL. 
I told you, it was a disputable point, and seemed almost insoluble to Peter Lombard. Yet now at last by much disputing the truth is found out, learned men are agreed upon it, and unless I be deceived, the holy doctrine of the indelible character delivered in the Counsels of Florence and Trent, was the very needle to direct their course.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Bishop's Consecrated in the time of King Henry the eighth, after the abolishing of the Pope's jurisdiction.  ORTH. 
THen at last to gather into brief heads, that which hath been discoursed at large, you grant that Archbishop Cranmer was a Canonical Bishop.  PHIL. 
I grant it, for the reasons before alleged.  ORTHO. 
And you make no doubt of any of the Bishops of England, before Cranmer.  PHIL. 
None at all, as you heard before.  ORTHOD. 
And you say, that every Canonical Bishop hath an Episcopal Character.  PHIL. 
We say so.  ORTHOD. 
And that this Character is so indelible, that no schism, no sin, no heresy, no censures of the Church, no excommunication, suspension, interdiction, degradation, nothing, nothing at all saving only death, if death, can dissolve it, otherwise it is everlasting.  PHIL. 
All this was proved out of the most famous Counsels of Florence and Trent.  ORTH. 
And that every Bishop by virtue of his Episcopal Character, hath power to give holy orders, yea even the order of a Bishop.  PHIL. 
Very true, so he be assisted by a sufficient number of Bishops, and impose hands upon a capable person, according to the form of the Church.  ORTHOD. 
THen to proceed to the rest of the Bishops, consecrated in King Henry's days, in the time of the pretended schism: were not they capable of the Episcopal function?  PHIL. 
Though King Henry abolished the authority of the Pope, yet the sacrifice of the Mass continued till the end of his reign; So we make no doubt, but the Priesthood then in use, was a sacrificing Priesthood, complete in all points, and consequently capable of the Episcopal Character, notwithstanding the crime of schism, and heresy.  ORTHOD. 
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 Episcopal office.  PHIL. 
There is no doubt of it.  ORTH. 
If these, and such other as returned to the Pope in the days of Queen Mary; why not William Barlow, Rowland Lee, Thomas Goodrig, john Hodgeskins? For in King Henry's days, they were all alike, all Mass Priests, and yet all opposite to the Pope's Supremacy.  PHIL. 
There is one reason of all.  ORTHOD. 
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?  PHIL. 
They were sufficient.  ORTHOD. 
But were the Consecrations performed by a sufficient number of assistants?  PHIL. 
Yes verily.  ORTHOD. 
Then it seemeth that King Henry did not disannul the Canons of the Church, which required that a Bishop should be Consecrated by three.  PHIL. 
No truly; but rather established them by act of Parliament as Doctor Sanders acknowledgeth, speaking of Henry the eight. 
a Sand. de schi. l. 3. p. 296.  Cum ab Ecclesia & sede Apostclica regnum suum divisisset, decrevit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas pontificias, vel mandatum Apo●●olicum de consecratione requireret, sed regium tantum diploma ut 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 divided his kingdom, from the Church and see Apostolic, decreed that no man elected Bishop should require the Pope's Bulls, or mandate Apostolic, concerning his Consecration, but that he should bring only the king's letters patents according to which being ordained of three Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, 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.  ORTHOD 
Then it seemeth that all the Bishops in King Henry's time were Consecrated by three.  PHIL. 
How could it be otherwise? you have heard out of Doctor Sanders, that the Canons required three, the act of Parliament required three, and it appeareth by the 
b 25. Hen. 8. cap. 20.  act itself, that if any Archbishop or Bishops, did not within twenty days next after that the king's letters patents came to their hands, Consecrate the person presented with all due circumstance, they incurred the penalty of a praemunire: therefore we may presume that the practice of those days was continually by three.  ORTHOD. 
surely it was then practised from time to time, as may appear by record, whereof I will give a taste, beginning from Cranmer.  


Anno 1533. Thom. 
c Ex Regist. Cran. fol. 5.  Cran. Cons. Arch. of Cant. 30. Mart. by 

john Lincoln.  
john Exon.  
Henry Assaph.    
Anno 1534. Rowland 
d Ibid. fol. 156  Lee Cons. B. of Lichfield. 19 April. by 

Thom Cant.  
john Lincoln.  
Christ. Sidon.    
Anno 1535. George Browne Cons. Arch. Dublin 19 Mart. by 

Thom. Cant. 
e Ibid. fol. 186.   
john Roff.  
Nich▪ Sarum.    
Anno 1536. Rob. 
a Ibid. fol. 197.  Warton cons. B. of Assaph. 20. jul. by 

Tho. Cant.  
joh. Bangor.  
Will. Norwic.    
An. 1537. Rob. 
b Ibid. fol. 200.  Holgate cons. B. of Landaff. 25. Mart. by 

joh. Roffen.  
Nich. Sarum.  
joh. Bangor.    
An. 1537. Henr. 
c Ibid. fol. 215.  Holbeck cons. B. of Bristol. 24. Mart. by 

john Roff.  
Hug. Wigorn.  
Rob. Assaph.    
An. 1538. Will. 
d Ibid. fol. 214.  Finch cons. Suf. of Taunton. 7. April. by 

john Roff.  
Robert. Assaph.  
Will. Colchest.    
An. 1540 Tho. 
e Ibid. fol. 261.  Thurlby cons. B. of Westm. 9 Decemb. by 

Edm. Lond.  
Nich. Roff.  
joh. Bedf.    
An. 1541. joh. 
f Ibid. fol. 271.  Wakeman cons. B. of Gloucest. 25. Sept. by 

Thom. Cant.  
Edm. Land.  
Tho. Westmonast.    
An. 1541. Arth. 
g Ibid. fol. 278.  Buckley cons. B. of Bangor. 19 Febr. by 

joh. Sarum.  
Will. Menevensis.  
joh. Glocest.    
An. 1542. Paul. 
h Ibid. fol. 285.  Bush cons. B. of Bristol. 25. jun. by 

Nich. Roff.  
Thom. Westmon.  
joh. Bedf.    
An. 1545. Ant. 
i Fol. 310.  Kitchen cons. B. of Lan. 3. Mat. 37. H. 8. by 

Thom. Westm.  
Thom. Sidon.  
Suffrag. Salop.      
NOw from the Consecrators, let us proceed to the form of Consecration, 
3  and consider whether the ancient Canons, which you approve and urge, were altered in King Henrtes time.  PHIL. 
It doth not appear by the Statute, that there was any alteration: For it was 
k 25. Hen. 8. c. 20.  enacted, that the Consecration should be solemnized with all due circumstance. And moreover, that the Consecrators should give to the Consecrated, all Benedictions, Ceremonies and things requisite for the same. And surely if there had been any alteration in things essential, Doct. 
l Sand. de schiss. l. ●. p. 297.  Sanders speaking purposely of this very point, would not have concealed it. But he saith plainly, It was his will, (speaking of King H. 8) that the Ceremony and solemn Unction, should as yet be used in Episcopal Consecration, after the manner of the Church. And again more plainly, 
m Sand de schiss. lib. 2. p. 205.  Primo loco sancierunt, ut cum Episcopi, ac Presbyteri Anglicani, ritu ferè Catholico (excepta R. Pontificis obedientia quam omnes obnegabant) ad illud usque 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. Edward's time) That whereas the Bishops and Priests of England, had been ordained even unto that time, almost after the Catholic rite, (excepting the obedience of the Bishop of Rome, which they all dented) hereafter Ordinations should be made altogether after an other form, by them prescribed, by authority which they received to that purpose from the King being a child. But the 
a 1. Mariae sess. 2. cap. 2.  Statute of Q. Mary putteth all out of doubt, Enacting, That all such divine Service and Administration of Sacraments, as were most commonly used in this Realm of England in the last year of King Henry the 8. should be used and frequented through the whole Realm of England, and all other the Queen's dominions, and no other, in any other manner, form or degree. Now the makers of this Statute were persuaded, that holy Order was a Sacrament: therefore holy Orders were ministered in Q. Mary's time, as they were in the last year of K. Henry. But all good Catholics will confess, that in Q. Mary's time, the true essential form of Consecration was observed: Therefore I grant, that it was also used all the time of King Henry.  ORTHOD. 
If the persons were capable, and consecrated by a sufficient number of Canonical consecrators, according to the form of your Church, than you must▪ needs judge their Consecration effectual, and them Canonical Bishops.  PHIL. 
Our Church in Q Mary's time, did so judge of them: for most of her old Bishops were made 
b Sand. de Schis. l. 2. pag. 209.  in Schismate Henriciano; Yet they were allowed; and the new (even Cardinal Poole among the rest) did all derive their Consecration from the old: yet were they all approved by our holy Father the Bishop of Rome; and by name B. Bonner, and B. Thurlby, to whom he giveth honourable testimony, in his Commission, for the proceeding against Cranmer.  ORTHOD. 
Then, if we can derive our Bishops from any three in King Henry's reign, before the banishing of the Pope or after, you must acknowledge them to be Canonical.  PHIL. 
It seemeth so.  ORTHOD. 
Or else Bonner and his coequals must lie in the dust, and all the Bishops made in Q. Mary's time, must eternally be canceled out of the Catalogue of Bishops. Hitherto of K. Henry's time; Proceed we now to the Bishops in K. Edward's days, and consider whether those were Gold or lead.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Bishop's Consecrated in the time of King Edward the sixth.  PHIL. 
THe Bishops in King Edward's time we take for no Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
No▪ But you must, there is no remedy And for the more perspicuity, let us distinguish them into certain ranks. The first of such as were made both Priests and Bishops in K. Henry's time, and were continued in King Edward's The second of such as were Priests in K. Henry's time, and made Bishops in K. Edward's; To these you may add a third, of such, (if any such you find) as were made both Priests and Bishops in the days of K. Edward The first you have confessed already to be Canonical; therefore let us come to the second, in which are those blessed Saints and glorious Martyrs, Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrar, concerning whom first I demand, whether they were in the order of Priesthood or no?  PHIL. 
Yes, father Parsons granteth it, saying, 
a Par●. ●. Con●●r●. part. 3. cap. 14. pag. 20●.  Ridley studied at Cambridge, and there was made Priest, travailed over the sea to Paris, and returning again, became King Henties Chaplain. Likewise john Hooper (as may be seen by 
b P●●●. ●uo supra ●. 6. ●. 3●5.  Fox his relation of him) was a Priest in Oxford in the days of King Henry the eight, So Robert▪ Ferrar Priest and Chaplain to Cranmer in King Henry's time; 
c P●r●▪ quo su●ra p. 336.  Thus I confess, that they were Priests, but I deny that they were Bishops, for father Parsons speaking of the foxian Calendar, and Saints of the month of February, in which number were Hooper and Ferrar, saith,▪ Among Fox his 
d Quo supra. p. 340.  Saints, there is neither eremitical nor monastical life, no● solitude either from the world or women, nor any one so much as pretending the title of v●rginitie in any se●e, nor any true Bishop indeed; if their ordination be examined. For beside Cranmer, other Bishops or Clergy men were there none, of all the pack that was burned.  ORTHOD. 
What say you then to father latimer, who was ordained in the same manner, in all respects as Bonner was? Though he had now relinguished his Bishopric, yet still according to your own principles, he was a true Bishop 〈◊〉 respect of the Episcopal character But to prosecute the present point▪ what mislike you in Ridley▪ Hooper and Ferrar? you have already confessed, that they were Priests, why should you deny them to be Bishops?  PHIL. 
The Pope's Commissioners Vnpriested them in Queen Mary's time but would not Vnbishop them, thereby acknowledging their Priestly function, received in King Henry's time, but denying their Episcopal, received in King Edward's: as may appear by the words of Doctor Brooke Bishop of Gloucester the Pope's subdelegate, to Ridley at his degradation. We must against our will●s proceed according to our Commission to disgrading, taking from you the dignity of Priesthood, for we take you for no Bishop, as john 
A●●● and Monup 1604.  Fox your own historian recordeth.  ORTH. 
Was not he and all the rest of them Consecrated by a sufficient number?  PHIL. 
Yes undoubtedly; for that law was always observed in King Edward's time, as Doctor Sanders confesseth: 
f 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 ●. 3. pag. ●97.  C●remontam autem & solennem unctionem more Ecclesiastico adhuc in consecratione illa adhiberi voluit, quam postea profi●●●ns in p●●●● Edovardus 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 solemn unction should as yet be used in Episcopal consecration▪ after the manner of the Church: which King Edward profiting from better to worse, did afterward take away, and instead thereof substitute certain Caluinicall deprecations; yet the former law concerning the number of Bishops which should impose hands upon the ordained, was always observed.  ORTHOD 
If you or any other dare deny it, it may be justified by authentical records▪ Out of which behold a true abstract of the consecration of those renowned Martyrs.  


Nich: 
a Ex Registro Cranm f. 321.  Ridley Cons: 5. Septemb. 1547. 1. Ed: 6. by 

Henry Lincoln.  
john Bedford.  
Thom. Sidon.    
Rob. 
b Ibidem fol. 327.  Ferrar Cons: 9 Septemb. 1549. 2. Ed: 6. by 

Thom. Canterb:  
Henry Lincoln.  
Nich: Roff.    
john 
c Ibidem fol. 330.  Hooper Cons. 8. Mart. 1550. by 

Thom. Canterb:  
Nich: London.  
john Roff.      
To which, let us add those worthy confessors, john Poynet, john Scory, and  


Miles Coverdale.  
john 
d Ibidem fol. 331.  Poynet Cons. 29. june 1550. by 

Thom. Canterb.  
Nich: London.  
Arthur Bangor.    
john 
c Ibidem fol. 334.  Scory, and Miles Coverdale. Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by 

Thom: Canterb.  
Nich: London.  
john Bedford.      
NOw seeing the Consecrated were capable, and the Consecrators a 
2.  sufficient number, why should not the Consecration be effectual? For if Cranmer or any other lawful Bishop, by his Commission with sufficient assistants could make canonical Bishops in the days of K. Henry, as you have confessed: what reason can you give, why the same Cranmer, or the like Bishop, with the like assistants should not make the like in the days of K. Ed?  PHIL. 
Because the case was altered: for in King Henry's time, Ordinations were made with 
f Sanders de Schis. l. 3. pag. 297. & l. 2. pag. 205.  ceremony and solemn unction, after the Ecclesiastical manner, which king Edward took clean away, and in place thereof appointed certain Caluinicall deprecations, as was before declared.  ORTHO. 
Those which Sanders calleth Caluinicall deprecations, are godly, and religious prayers, answerable to the Apostolic practice. For whereas the Scripture witnesseth, that 
g Act. 1. 24.  Mathias, the 
h Act. 6. 6.  Deacons, and 
i Act. 13. 3. & 14. 23.  others, received imposition of hands with prayers; Salmeron the jesuit expoundeth the places thus: 
k Salm. in 2. Tim. 1. disp. 2.  intelligendum est de precibus quibus à deo petebant, ut efficeret illos bonos Episcopos, Presbyteros, & Diaconos, potestatemque illis ad ca munera prestaret: that is, It is to be understood, of prayers whereby they desired of God, that he would make them good Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and would give them ability to perform those offices. Such prayers are used in the Church of England. As for example in the ordering of Priests.  ALmighty God giver of all things, which by thy holy spirit, hast appointed 
l See the book of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  divers orders of Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold these thy servants, now called to the office of Priesthood, and replenish them so with the truth of thy doctrine, and innocency of life, that both by word and good example, they may faithfully serve thee in this office to the glory of thy Name, and profit of thy congregation, through the merits of our Saviour jesus Christ, etc. 
And in the Consecration of Bishops.  ALmighty 
* Ibidem.  God, etc. Grant we beseech thee to this thy servant, such grace, that he may evermore be ready to spread abroad the Gospel, and glad tidings of reconcilement to God, and to use the authority given unto him, not to destroy, but to save; not to hurt, but to help: so that he as a wise and a faithful servant, giving to thy family meat in due season, may at the last be received into joy, etc. 
These and the like are the prayers which Sanders traduceth. Wherefore we may with comfort apply to ourselves the saying of Saint Peter; 
a 1. 〈◊〉. ●▪ 14.  If we be railed upon for the name of Christ, blessed are we, for the spirit of glory and of God, resteth upon us, which on your part is evil spoken of, but on our part is glorified. Thus, that which you impute to them as a blemish, is perfect beauty. But what else do you mislike in their ordinations?  PHIL. 
They did not observe the Ecclesiastical manner.  ORTHOD. 
In the third and fourth year of Edward the sixth, there was an 
b 3. & 4. Edward ●. 〈◊〉. 10.  act made to abolish certain superstitious books, and among the rest, the Ordinals. About the same time was made another 
c Ibidem ●. 12.  act, for the ordering of ecclesiastial Ministers, the effect whereof was, that such form of consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as by six Prelates, and six other learned in God's Law should be agreed upon, and set out under the great Seal of England within a time limited, should lawfully be used and none other. In the fifth and sixth of his reign was made another 
d 5. & 6. Edward ●. cap. 1.  act for the explaining and perfecting of the book of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments, which book so explained, was annexed to the act or statute, with a form or manner of making and consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which as at this 
e The book of common prayer and of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons containeth in it, etc.▪ ca●. 36.  day, so then, was not esteemed another distinct book, from the book of common prayer; but they were both jointly reputed as one book, and so established by act of Parliament. In the first of Queen Mary, by the 
f 1. Mar●●●es. 2. cap. 2.  repealing of this act, the book was disannulled; but it was 
g 1. Eliz. c. 2.  established again in the first of Q. Elizabeth; and 
h 8. Eliz. c. 1.  confirmed in the eight of her reign; so that all the Ministers of England are ordered according to that book: concerning which I would know wherein it transgresseth the Ecclesiastical manner. Sanders saith, that King Edward took away the Ceremony. What Ceremony? If he understand the Ceremony of imposition of hands, he slandereth King Edward: If he mean their blessing ofrings and Crosiers; the gravity of that sacred action may well spare them: as for the solemn unction, yourselves confess it to be 
i Bell▪ de Sacram in gen●re l. 1. cap. 24.  accidental. Other of your Ceremonies being partly superfluous, partly superstitious: the wisdom of our Church hath discreetly and religiously pared away, establishing such a form as is holy and acceptable in the sight of God. But whereas you grant that the persons were capable, and the consecrators Canonical, it behoveth you to discover some essential defect in our form, or else you must of necessity approve our consecration.  PHIL. 
Doctor 
k Kel. reply to Doctor Sut●●f. fol. 31▪ b.  Kellison saith, that in King Edward's time, neither matter nor form of ordination was used, and so none were truly ordained, much less had they commission to Preach Heresy, and so could not send others to Preach: whence it followeth, that all the superintendents and Ministers are without calling and vocation.  ORTHOD. 
What meaneth Kellison by the matter of ordination?  PHIL. 
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church holy order is a Sacrament, and every Sacrament of the new Law consisteth of things and words, as the matter and the form, which are so certain and determined of God, that it is not lawful to change them. Now in ordination the matter is a sensible sign: as for example, imposition of hands, which 
a Bel. de sacram. ord. 9  Bellarmine calleth the matter essential.  ORTHOD. 
Others of your own men are of another opinion: for 
b Sal. t. 15. disp. 2. in 2. Tim. 1.  Salmeron the jesuit having proposed the question, bringeth reasons for both sides, but seemeth to incline to the contrary. 
c 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 hands is none of the six. 
d Manual. c. 22. pag. 585.  Navarrus speaking of imposition of hands, saith: Illa non est de substantia Sacramenti, that is: it is not of the substance of the Sacrament. For which opinion he allegeth Scotus. But if imposition of hands be the matter of ordination, than Kellison is guilty of lying and slandering, when he saith that in King Edward's days, the matter of ordination was not used. For Sanders himself, though a shameless fellow, yet confesseth that in the days of King Edward, the former law, concerning the number of Bishops which should impose hands upon the ordained was always observed. A point so clear, that it might be justified by many records: but what need we go to records, seeing it is a plain case, that the very book of ordination which was made and established in the days of King Edward, commandeth imposition of hands? wherefore if the essential matter be imposition of hands, than I must conclude out of your own principles, that in King Edward's days the essential matter was used.  PHIL. 
In the ordering of a Deacon, there is not only imposition of hands, but also the reaching of the Gospels: so in ordering of a Priest, not only imposition of hands, but also the reaching of the instruments, that is, of the Patten and Chalice: and both these Ceremonies are essential, as 
e Bell. quo supra. ●0. Nota.  Bellarmine proveth. Therefore why may we not say, that in Episcopal Consecration, not only imposition of hands, but other ceremonies also belong to the essential matter?  ORTHOD. 
What other ceremonies I beseech you? do you mean the holy oil, wherewith the head of the consecrated is anointed with these words: 
f Sacrarum C●rem. l. 1. sect. 2. pontific. p. 96.  Let thy head be anointed and consecrated with celestial benediction? or the ring which is blessed with prayer and holy 
g Tum aspergit ipsum annulum aqua benedicta. Pontificale▪ pag. 105.  water, and put upon his finger with these words: 
* Ibid. p. 106.  Accipe annulum, fidei signaculum: Receive the Ring, the seal of faith? or the Crosier, delivered in these words: 
h Pontificale pag. 105.  receive the staff of the Pastoral office? If you mean these or the like, and urge them as essential, you must give us leave to reject them, because they are only human inventions▪ You told us before out of Bellarmine, that the matter of ordination is certain and determined of God; now where shall we find the determinations of God, but in the book of God? we find in holy Scripture imposition of hands, and we embrace it as Apostolical; as for your rings and Crosiers, when you can demonstrate them out of the book of God, we will then accept them as the determinations of God: in the mean time, we cannot acknowledge them for the essential matter of ordination. But now from the matter, let us come to the form.  4. PHI. 
IT is agreed upon, 
a 〈…〉  that the form consisteth in the words which are uttered, while the sensible sign is used, and they are the very same, whereby the spiritual power is given.  ORTHOD. 
I hope you will not say, that these words: receive the ring, or receive the staff, concern the essential form, tell us therefore in what words the true form consists, that so we may the better examine the speech of Kellison.  PHIL. 
The words may be divers, yet the sense the same, and this diversity of words may severally signify the substance of the Sacrament: as for example, the Eastern 
b 〈…〉  Church baptizeth in these words, Let this servant of Christ, be baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The Latin Church in these words: I baptise thee, etc. Here are two forms of words, but each of them containeth the true, and substantial form of baptism. So in ordination, the Eastern Bishops instructed of their ancestors confer the orders of a Bishop Priest, and Deacon, Per 
c Salm qu● su●●a.  orationem deprecatoriam, By the way of prayer: whereas we after the manner of the Roman Church, do confer them, Per modum imperandi, in the imperative mood, by way of command: and yet the spiritual power, may be conveyed by both. For Pope 
d 〈…〉  Innocent teacheth, that the Scripture mentioneth only imposition of hands and prayer; as for other things used in ordination, he saith they were invented by the Church: otherwise it had been sufficient, if the ordainer had said only, be thou a Priest, or be thou a Deacon; but seeing the Church hath invented other forms, they are to be observed.  ORTHOD. 
By what words is the Episcopal power given in the Church of Rome?  PHIL. 
By these words, receive the holy Ghost, because they are 
e 〈…〉  used when the Bishop imposeth hands. And therefore as Priests in their ordination, receive the holy Ghost, that is, (as 
f Bell▪ de sacr. ●●genere. ca 26. 〈…〉 nega●●●.  Bellarmin expounds it out of Chrysostome and Cyrill●a ghostly power consisting in forgiving and retaining of sins; so a Bishop in his Consecration receiveth the holy Ghost, that is, A ghostly power consisting in the performance of those things which are reserved properly to Bishops, amongst which the power of ordination is most eminent.  ORTHOD. 
If you call these words the form of Consecration, than you must acknowledge that not only the matter, but also the right form of Consecration, was used in the days of King Edward, (for these words were then used while the Bishops imposed hands, as appear by the book:) and consequently you must confess that Ridley, Hooper, and Ferrar, were rightly ordained Bishops, and moreover, that Kellison is a notorious slanderer.  
5. THus much of the second rank. 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 days of king Edward.  PHIL. 
We think that no man can possibly have the order of a Bishop which hath not the right order of Priesthood, but the Priesthood conferred in King Edward's time was no Priesthood, because they wanted the authority to offer the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, therefore those Priests were not capable of the Episcopal order.  ORTHO. 
I answer first that seeing that King Edward reigned but six years and five months, it is likely that most of them which were advanced in his time to be Bishops, were before his time in the order of Priesthood. Secondly, if any be produced which were not, yet it shallbe justified (God willing) when we come to the point, that the order of Priesthood conferred in the days of King Edward, Queen Elizabeth, and King james is the true ministry of the Gospel, and that your sacrificing Priesthood is sacrilegious, and abominable. In the mean time, you must give us leave to hold that the ministry of the Church of England, is holy in the sight of God, and justifiable in the sight of man.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Bishop's Consecrated in the days of Queen Marie.  
THe lineal descent hath led us to the Bishops in Queen Mary's time, concerning which, shall I crave your judgement?  PHIL. 
You know it already, they were all Canonical.  ORTHOD. 
For the more distinct proceeding, let us divide them into two ranks, the old Bishops, and the new: the old, I call such as being consecrated before her time, were continued in her time; the new, which were Consecrated in her time.  PHIL. 
All which were allowed for Bishops in Queen Mary's time, whether old or new, were Canonical.  ORTHO. 
The old Bishops were all made in the days of K. Henry the eighth, and almost all in those very times, which you brand with imputation of schism and heresy: when none could be Consecrated, unless he did swear to the king against the Pope. Wherefore seeing you judged both Consecrators, and Consecrated schismatical, and heretical, and yet esteem them Canonical, your objections of schism and heresy, must eternally be silenced in the question of Canonical Bishops. For if these crimes can frustrate a Consecration, than their Consecration was frustrate, and they were no Bishops, or if they were Bishops and Canonical, than all the Bishops in King Henry's time, were likewise Canonical. Moreover, some of them whom you so commend▪ were Bishops in King Edward's time, as for example. Thomas Thurlby, whom King Henry promoted to be Bishop of Westminster, was advanced by King Edward to the Bishopric of Norwich, and afterward preferred by Queen Mary to the Bishopric of Ely, and moreover to be one of her privy Council. Yea some of them had the place of a Bishop in the days of Queen Elizabeth; Namely Anthony Kitchen, who in King Henry's time was made Bishop of Landaff, kept his dignities and place in the days of K. Edward, continued the same all the reign of Queen Mary, and so till the day of his death, which was in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth. Wherefore in justifying the old Bishops, you justify all generally which were Consecrated in King Henry's days, and some which continued in King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's: But now from the old, let us come to the new.  PHIL. 
Queen Mary advanced Holiman bishop of Bristol, Coates bishop of 
2  Chester, Watson bishop of Lincoln, Morris bishop of Rochester, Morgan bishop of S. davis, Brook bishop of Gloucester, Glin bishop of Bangor, Christophorson bishop of Chichester, David Poole bishop of Peterborow, Cardinal Poole bishop of Canterbury, and others.  ORTHOD. 
And these reverend Prelates, Bush bishop of Bristol, Tailor bishop of Lincoln▪ Scory bishop of Chichester, Barlow bishop of bath and Wells, Coverdale bishop of Exeter, and Hearty bishop of Hereford, with sundry others, were at that time forced to leave their bishoprics; For what cause? partly, for not yielding to the Pope, and Popish Religion; partly, because they were married, which 
a 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 undefiled. But let us see the Consecration of your new bishops.  PHIL. 
I will begin with that renowned Prelate Cardinal Poole, whose Consecration followeth.  


Anno 1555. Reginald 
b Ex Regist. Poli fol. 3.  Poole cons. Archb. Cant. 22. Mart. by 

Nichol Arch. Ebor.  
Thom. Eltens.  
Edmund. Lond.  
Rich. Wigorn.  
joh. Lincoln.  
Mauric. Roff.  
Thom. Asaph.    
Anno 1557. 

Thom▪ 
c Regist. Poli. fol. 10.  Watson.  
David 
d Ibid. fol. 12.  Pole.   Cons. B. 15. Aug. by 

Nich. Ebor.  
Thom. Eli.  
Wil Bangor.    
Anno 1557. joh.▪ Christophorson. cons. B. 21. No. by 

Edmund Lond.  
Tho. Elien.  
Mauric. Roff.      ORTHOD. 
All these derive their Consecration from bishops, which were made in the time of the pretended Schism, and some of them from Cranmer himself: therefore you must either acknowledge all them, and namely Cranmer for Canonical or neither Cardinal Poole, nor any of the rest made in Queen Mary's time, can be Canonical.    

THE THIRD BOOK▪ OF THE BISHOP'S CONSEcrated in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth, and of our gracious Sovereign King JAMES.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, with an answer to certain odious imputations concerning some Antecedents, and Consequents of their Depositions.  PHIL. 
THe revolution of times hath brought us to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, even to that black and doleful day, wherein all the Bishops of England, all, I say, one only excepted, were deposed from their degrees and dignities: 
a Sand. de schiss. lib. 3. p. 285. D●cent●● aureos, which I translate 200. Nobles, because as I take it, he meaneth 100 marks, according to the Statute, 1. Eliz. cap. 2. though he fail in some points of it.  For, a great penalty was inflicted upon such as should after the Feast of S. john Baptis● 1559. say or hear Mass, or procure any other Ecclesiastical Office whatsoever, after the old rite, or administer any Sacrament after the Roman manner, to wit, That he which offended against that Law, for the first time should pay 200 Nobles, or be in bonds six Months: for the second 400. Nobles, or a year in bonds: for the third, he should be in perpetual prison, and forfeit all his goods; By which means it came to pass, That at the day prescribed, the holy and divine Offices ceased to be performed publicly through the whole Kingdom. And because the Bishops would not consent to those impieties, nor affirm upon their Oaths, that they believed in their consciences, That the Queen only was the Supreme governess of the Church of England, under Christ, they were all, save one, shortly after deposed from their Degree and dignitte, and committed to certain prisons, and custodies, whereupon they are all at this day dead, with the long tediousness of their miseries; The names of which most glorious Confessors, I will set down, that the thing may be had in everlasting remembrance. First of all Nicholas Archbishop of York, and a little before that time, Lord Chancellor of England, than Edmund Bonner Bishop of London, and Tunstall of Durham, john of Winton, Thomas of Lincoln, Thurlby of Ely, Turberuill of Exeter, Borne of Bath, Pole of Peterborow, Baine of Lichfield, Cuthbert of Chester, Oglethorp of Carlisle, and Thomas Goldwell of S. Asaph, etc.  ORTH. 
Here are two things to be discussed; The deposing of the old Bishops, and advancing of the new. Concerning the first, you make a grievous complaint that they were not only deposed, but also used with great indignity, both before their deposing and after. Wherefore let us first consider the circumstances, and then come to the deposition itself.  PHIL. 
I say that a Grievous penalty was inflicted upon such as should after the feast of Saint john Baptist 1559. say or hear Mass, or procure any other Ecclesisticall office whatsoever after the old rite.  ORTHOD. 
You mask your novelty under the vizard of antiquity, and call that the old rite, which was but yesterday; but proceed.  PHIL. 
This penalty extended to such as should administer any Sacrament, after the Roman manner.  ORT. 
Saint Paul saith; 
a 1 Cor. 11. 23  That which I received of the Lord, that deliver I unto you; teaching us that Sacraments must be ministered in such manner, as we have received of the Lord: we are not tied to the rite of Rome, or any other City or Country, but only to the institution of jesus Christ: If Rome follow this, we will follow it with Rome; if Rome forsake this, then farewell Rome: But what was the penalty?  PHIL. 
To wit, That he which offended against the law, for the first time should pay two hundred crowns, or be in bonds six months; for the second, four hundred crowns, or a year in bonds; for the third, he should be in perpetual prison, and forfeit all his goods.  ORTHOD. 
What hath that good Lady done, which doth not become a most virtuous and gracious Prince? hath she made laws to establish religion? So did 
b Codex l. 1. tit. 1. Cunctos.  Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius. Hath she inflicted a penalty upon the infringers? So did 
c August, Ep. 48.  Constantine upon the Donatists, That their goods should be confiscate: so did 
d August. Ep. 50.  Theodosius upon the Donatists likewise, Ten pound of gold, to be paid to the emperors Exchequer. And these laws are highly commended by Saint Austin. Indeed he was some times of opinion, that they were to be dealt withal, only by 
Ep. 48. verbo agendum, disputatione pugnandum.  persuasions, not by penalties; but when his fellow Bishops laid before him so plain examples of so many cities, infected with Donatisme, and all reclaimed by help of imperial laws, he 
f His exemplis a collegis meis mihi propositis cessi. ibidem.  changed his mind, and yielded unto them. Then he perceived, that the Circumcellions, which were like unto mad men, were brought into their right wits again and made good Catholics, by being bound as it were with the chains of imperial laws: then he perceived that others being in a spiritual lethargy, were awakened with the severity of Imperial laws: then he perceived, that the Kings of the earth serve Christ, even by making laws for Christ. So did that gracious Lady Queen Elizabeth; wherein how mildly and mercifully she proceeded, you may learn by looking back to her sister Queen Mary, who was not content to inflict a pecuniary mulct, or a little imprisonment upon those of the contrary religion, but tied them to stakes, & burned them to ashes in flaming fire.  PHIL. 
As though a life lingting in disgrace were not worse than a present death: For 
g Defence of Engl. Catholics. p. 15.  Fourteen noble and most worthy Bishops, inferior in virtue, and learning to none in Europe, were all deposed from their honours, and high calling, and most of them imprisoned, and spitefully used in all respects.  ORTHOD. 
FIrst, let us consider what they deserved, and secondly 
2  how they were served. How well they deserved at the Queen's hands may appear by their behaviour in three points, concerning the Coronation, Disputation and Excommunication. First when the Queen was to be crowned, they all conspired together, refusing to perform such solemnity, as by them of duty was to be performed at her Coronation: Owen Oglethorp, Bishop of carlil only excepted.  PHIL. 
Had they not cause to refuse? 
a Sand: de Schis. l. 3. pag. 272.  So soon as she came to the crown, she presently revealed her mind in religion, both by many other means, and especially in that she straightway silenced the Catholic Preachers: and suffered the heretics to return into the kingdom from divers places, where they were in banishment: Moreover she gave charge to a certain Bishop about to perform the holy rite before her, and now standing at the Altar attired in holy vestments, that he should not elevate the Consecrated host: whereupon it came to pass, that the Archbishop of York, whose office it was (Cardinal Poole Archbishop of Canterbury being departed this transitory life) to anoint and Consecrate her to be Queen, denied his help, and the rest of the Bishops likewise, all saving one, and he almost the last among them.  ORTHO. 
Your elevation is referred to adoration, which is Idolatry; therefore if she forbade it, as also the Preaching of error, and commanded the Preaching of truth, she did but her duty: For as Saint 
b August: contra Chresconium l. 3. c. 51.  Austin saith: Princes may command that which is good, and forbid that which is evil within their own kingdoms, not in civil affairs only, but in matters pertaining to divine religion also. But if it were so that the Queen therein had committed an error, if it were so that Popery were true religion; yet she was the lawful Queen, the Kingdom descended to her by right of inheritance; the Nobles and commons according to their duty acknowledged her for Queen, she was proclaimed, by order taken by the Lords and the Archb. of York himself, than Lord Chancellor of England; what reason then had the Bishops to deny her that solemnity, which was never denied to any of her noble progenitors? If she had pulled the Mitres from their heads, for refusing to set the Diadem upon her head, had not this been a just reward for a due desert? Hitherto of the first point, that is, the Coronation.  
SEcondly, it was the Queen's pleasure, that there should be a solemn 
3  disputation between the Popish Bishops, or some other Champions appointed by them on the one part, and other learned divines of our religion, on the other part; but the Bishops with one accord most obstinately refused the encounter.  PHIL. 
They had reason: for (as they then answered for themselves) It 
c Sand. de Schis. l. 3. p. 283.  was not fit that those things which for many ages had been defined by so famous judgements of Popes, Counsels and Fathers, should now come again into question and disputation.  ORTH. 
You tell us of Popes, Counsels, and Fathers, but I hear no mention at all of the Scripture: truly Philodox, we build not our faith upon Popes nor Counsels, nor Fathers, but only upon the blessed and sacred word of God, registered in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. but for the better understanding of this word, we make honourable account of ancient Counsels and Fathers, yet so that we put an infinite difference between them and the word of the living God. For the word of God is infallible; it can neither deceive, nor be deceived; but the word of man is subject to error: therefore we must try all things, and hold that which is good, and the touchstone of all is the word of God. Neither are we afraid of the Counsels and Fathers: you bear the world in hand that all make for you, but upon manifold and just experience it proveth otherwise. As for the Popes, if you mean the ancient Bishops of Rome, we regard them with reverence, and if their true writings were extant, we would willingly embrace them: but as for your late Popes, we little respect them. Moreover, if your Bishops had for them the former definitions of Fathers and Counsels, they might more easily have convinced their adversaries in disputation; this should have been a spur unto them, and not a bridle.  PHIL. 
As it was not fit to call the former definitions in question again, so 
a Sand. quo supra.  much less was it fit, that those things which ought to have been discussed in the Universities by certain order before the learned and judicious, should be handled before the people which was unskilful, and desirous of novelty, which useth to define every thing rather by outcries, then by arguments.  ORTHOD. 
As though this disputation had been intended before the rude and barbarous multitude, and not rather before the most honourable, grave, wise and judicious in the whole Kingdom. The truth is, that the Bishops doubted the cause, they feared that they were not able to defend it by the Scriptures.  PHIL. 

b Sand. de schiss. l. 3. pag. 284.  They said that against the contentious, and such as would not rest in the judgement of the Church, little good could be done by disputation. And verily no marvel if they were loath to have trial by disputation, when the judge 
c Sand. abidem Pollinus l. 4. c. 5. p. 420. Eudemon joh. Parallel. c. 5 p. 244. Nich. Baconum non haereticum modo aclaicum hominem, sed, etc. vide infra.  was Nicholas Bacon, a lay-man, an Heretic, altogether ignorant of Divinity: the most reverend Archbishop of York assisting for fashion sake only. The day came, which was the third of April, there was infinite concourse, unequal laws of disputation were prescribed of the Heretics only; nothing was done with order and reason, the time slipped away with declamations on both sides, the profane judge moderateth all things as it pleaseth him, all comes to nothing, and so the Heretics proceed in their madness.  ORTH. 
These are figures of rehetoricke, wherewith you use to embellish your speeches, as it were with precious stones. Whosoever will hold with the Pope, is presently with you a good Catholic and a very learned man; but let him be never so wise, learned, and judicious, if he love God, his Prince and country better than the Pope, he shall be reproached with ignorance and heresy; as appeareth in that honourable parsonage Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the great Seal of England, a man famous for wisdom piety, and the zeal of God's glory. But why do you blemish him? because he had the favour of a gracious Prince? you might have learned of 
d Prou. 22. 11.  Solomon: He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the King shall be his friend? can you blame him, for that he was designed by his Sovereign, to be a moderator at the disputation? you should rather have considered the Queen's great mildness, and gracious proceeding, in that she vouchsafed to join with him an assistant (as Sanders confesseth) one of your own Religion, a man of eminent note in Church and common wealth, who stood not for a cipher, or for fashion sake, but was armed with authority, and had power to provide that the Papists should have full liberty to speak their minds before that great and honourable assembly. How was it possible that the business should be contrived with greater equality and indifferency?  PHIL. 
Should a lay man judge of Bishops, and profound Divines?  ORTH. 
Did not 
a Sozom. l. 4. cap. 5.  Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, and other Bishop's dispute with Photinus before certain noble men, which the Emperor had appointed to be judges? did not Saint 
b Brevic. Coll. in prefatione.  Austin dispute with the Donatists, Marcellinus the tribune being judge? did he not dispute with 
c August. epist. 178.  Pascentius the Arrian, Laurentius a secular man being judge? And if it please you to look into the volumes of Counsels, you shall find, that in the fourth general Council, being the first at Chalcedon, noble men of the 
d Apud. Bin. t. 2 pag. 1.  Laity were appointed judges, whose names are set down in the beginning of the first action. The like is to be found in the sixth general Council being the third at 
e Apud. Bin. ●. 3. pag. 7.  Constantinople. And in the third general Council, being the first at Ephesus, Theodosius and Valentintan appointed 
f Conc. Eph. t. 2. c. 32 Bin. t. 3 pag. 732.  Candidianus an Earl to be the judge.  PHIL. 
These were judges after a sort: But how? that may appear by the words of the Emperor concerning Candidianus: 
g Ibidem.  Ad Sacram vestram Synodum abire iussimus; sed ea lege & conditione ut cum quaestionibus & controversijs quae circafidei dogmata incidunt, nihil quicquam commune habeat: i. we have commanded him to go unto your sacred Synod; but upon this condition that he have nothing at all to do with questions and controversies of faith.  ORTHOD. 
Very true: 
h Ibidem.  But, first to remove all such persons as might be troublesome to the sacred Synod. Secondly, not to suffer those which were of the Synod to depart before the consultation were ended Thirdly, not to let them dispute any by-matters, before the principal were fully discussed and concluded. Fourthly, to provide that the disputation might be peaceable without tumult. Fiftly, to see that every man might have liberty 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 controversy of faith.  PHIL. 
He was a capital 
i Eudemon I●l. quo supra. sed etiam Catholicorum capitale● hostem.  enemy of the Catholics.  ORTHOD. 
All that was done or said at those meetings, is extant to be 
k Act. & Mon. in the end.  seen: whereby it may appear, that all his proceedings about that business, were most mild, moderate, honourable, and Christian; though the Bishops did show themselves very obstinate.  PHIL. 

l Sand▪ l. schiss. l. 3. pag. 284.  The Protestants would have had them to dispute upon such Articles proposed for questions, as seemed to have a greater show of proof in the Scriptures for the Heretics; as of the Communion under both kinds, of public prayers to be had in the vulgar tongue, and such like.  ORTHOD. 
In the public reformation of a Church, the first thing to be considered, is the due ordering of divine service, and Sacraments: therefore the questions were chosen with singular discretion; one concerning the prayers, whether they should be in the vulgar tongue, another concerning the Lords Supper, whether it should be ministered in both kinds. In both which points you had done great injury to the people of God. But you say that the Protestants made choice of such questions as seemed to have a greater show of proof in the Scripture: and have we, think you, but a seeming show of proof, & no sound substantial proof indeed? If the Bishops had been of this opinion, it should rather have encouraged them to the encounter, then have caused them to fly the field. Is the holy Scripture for us in these questions only? if the disputation had been about the worshipping of images, invocations of Saints, justification by faith, and such like, could not we have produced as pregnant proofs out of the Scriptures for these, as for the former? but now one may lay his finger upon your pulse, and easily discern the trembling of your heart. For this speech which you have borrowed from Sanders, doth intimate unto us, that the Bishops refused to dispute, because they were not able to maintain their opinions by the Scriptures.  
ANd as their behaviour was undutiful in these two former respects, concerning 
4  the Queen's Coronation, and the disputation; So thirdly it was most disloyal, in that many of them went about to excommunicate the Queen, as is testified both by 
a Sand. quo supra.  Sanders, and 
b Defence of Cath. p. 52.  Allen, who commended their wicked intention, as a point of magnanimity, affirming that therein they did stoutly, and worthily as could be wished. Now let any indifferent man judge what these men merited at her highness hands, and yet have I said nothing of their refusal of the oath of Supremacy, which point is referred to the proper place. Hitherto we have considered how they deserved, now let us see how they were served.  PHIL. 
THat is set down by Pius Quintus, in his sentence declaratory against 
5  Queen Elizabeth, in these words: 
c Apud Sand. de Schis. lib. 3. pag. 317.  Catholicos Antistites & Ecclesiarum rectores in vincula coniecit, ubi multi diuturno languore & tristitia confecti, extremum vitae diem misere finierunt: That is, She laid in chains the Catholic Bishops and governors of Churches, where many of them wasted with long languishment, and sorrow, ended their life miserably.  ORTHOD. 
Thirteen of these Bishops are named by 
d Pag. 286.  Sanders, to which we may add Pates of Worcester, so the whole number is fourteen, as Cardinal 
e Defence of Cath. pag. 45.  Allen hath it. Now of these fourteen, four were of the Province of York, and 10. of Cant. In the Province of York, to begin with N. Heath Archb. of that see, he being L. chancellor of Eng. made open declaration in Parliament, of Q. Mary's death, and the undoubted title of the Lady Elizabeth: Whereupon▪ she was presently proclaimed Queen. For which loyalty he was honourably regarded, never committed to prison or custody, but permitted to live at his own liberty, (upon some lands which he had purchased) in quietness and ease, and last of all dying full of years, was suffered to bequeath his substance by will & testament. From York, let us go to Durham, the Bishop whereof Cut. Tonstal, after his deprivation, kept at Lambeth, with Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, where he lived, (so long as he lived) with comfort, and being 85. years old, yielded to nature, and was honourably buried. The third was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of carlil, who as he had showed himself more dutiful than the rest, in the Coronation of the Queen: 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 died of an apoplexy. The last of these four was Cuthbert Scot, Bishop of Chester, who slipped away beyond the seas, where he lived in voluntary banishment. From the Province of York, let us come to the Province of Canterbury: where we find that john white Bishop of Winchester, saluted the prison, though not for any of the reasons alleged by Sanders, but for an undutiful Sermon▪ yet afterward he was set at liberty, and died out of prison. Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Ely, having endured a time of imprisonment, neither very sharp nor very long, was permitted to live in the archbishops house, where till the day of his death, (that is, for ten years) he was entreated so kindly, that he is supposed to have taken more pleasure in this time of his restraint, than ever he did before, in the midst and fullest stream of his highest honours. Gilbert Borne Bishop of Bath was committed to the custody of Master Carew, his old acquaintance, Deane of Exeter. james Turberuill Bishop of Exeter enjoyed a private life a long time, living and dying in liberty. David Pole, Bishop of Peterborrow, being always used with courtesy, and using his liberty, died in his own house in a ripe age. Neither do I find that Bayne Bishop of Lichfield, was in durance, who died soon after of the stone. Richard Pates Bishop of Worcester, and Thomas Goldwell of Saint Asaph, departed the kingdom, not by constraint of law, but of their own accord. The Bishop of Lincoln Thomas Watson, a churlish and froward man, lived after his deprivation 24. years, first at more liberty in the houses of the Bishops of Ely and Rochester, but afterward when your Emissaries from Rome, did trouble the Church, he was kept somewhat more straightly in the I'll of Ely. The last of all is Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, who in Queen Mary's time was the principal Butcher, and therefore so odious to the people, that as our learned 
a Tort Torti▪ pag. 147.  Bishop hath of late truly delivered, It was not safe for him to go abroad, lest the people should have stoned him to death: and he indeed lived, and died in prison, but where, if you had seen him (to use the words of our Reverend 
b Ibidem.  Bishop) You would not have said, that he had been pined, or starved with hunger, he lived daintily, there were Gardens and Orchards, if it pleased him to walk: Finally this prison was nothing like a prison, but only that (therein) he was confined. Thus it appeareth, that of the 14. some were never confined at all; Others confined only to the custody of their friends, but never saluted the prison: others saluted it, but were soon released; and those which stayed longest in prison, yet were not laid in fetters, as impious Pius Quintus hath blazed to the world. All these 14. did live even till the glass of Nature was fully run and expired, and some of them were entertained at the Tables of Bishops, 
c 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 believe me, yet believe your own fellow and friend, our mortal enemy 
d Pag. 103 dum initio Regni etc. cited Tort. Torti. pag. 149.  Philopater the jesuit, who useth these words unto the Queen, While in the beginning of your reign you dealt more mildly with the Catholics, while as yet you urged no man with very great violence, while as yet you pressed none very much, either to the partaking of your Sect, or to the denial of the ancient faith: truly all things seemed to go with a more calm course, neither were there heard any great complaints, neither was there seen any great dissension, or repugnancy, etc. Thus malice itself, conquered with evidence of truth, beareth witness that those beginnings were more mild and calm; none greatly then urged or pressed, so that in those days were not heard any great complaints. Thus we see even by the judgement of your jesuit, what great cause you had to complain in such pitiful manner: if your little finger do but ache, you must be moaned, but if you make our very hearts to ache, it is nothing: your molehills of miseries must be made mountains, and our mountains must be accounted for molehilles. Hitherto of the circumstances, now we come to the deposition itself.   

CHAP. II.  
The Deposition of the Bishops, justified by the example of Solomon deposing Abiathar.  PHIL. 
IN a lawful Deposition, there must be sufficient authority, proceeding upon a just, and sufficient cause. Now let me ask you, by what authority were the old Bishops deposed?  ORTHOD. 
And I might ask you, by what authority 
a 1. King. 2. 27.  Solomon deposed Abiathar?  PHIL. 
You are still telling us of Solomon and Abiathar, If a king deprived this high Priest, 
b Bell. resp. ad Apolog. p. 157.  an other high Priest (that is jehoiada) deprived Queen Athalia both of her kingdom and life.  ORTHOD. 
Q. Athalia? No Queen sir, by your leave: joas the true heir of the kingdom was then alive, and he was the true King by right of inheritance: therefore she was no Queen▪ but a wicked usurper; Your 
c Pag 92.  Defence of Catholics might teach you so much, which calleth her, A pretenced Queen, and saith, That she usurped the kingdom. Yet behold with what blindness and giddiness they are stricken, which traitorously oppose themselves against their Prince and country. Cardinal 
d Ibidem.  Allen is not ashamed to bring the example of jehoiada deposing Athalia, that usurping and pretenced Queen, to prove that the Pope hath authority to depose, lawful Princes. Neither did jehoiada this, as being high Priest, but whatsoever he did in this case, he might have done it, though he had not been high Priest: For jehosheba his wife was 
e 2. Chron. 22. 11.  daughter to king jehoram, and sister to king Ahazia, who was father to joas, and consequently she was aunt to King joas; So jehoiada her husband, was of the next alliance that the young King had: Yea, and when Athalia like a bloody Tiger 
f Verse 10.  murdered the king's seed, jehosheba the wife of jehoiada, conveyed away her nephew joas out of the midst of the king's sons, which were massacred, 
g Verse 11.  and hid him and his nurse in a chamber, and kept them close 
h Verse 12.  6. years in the House of the Lord. So jehoiada by God's providence, was made Protector of the King's person: yea, and when the time came wherein he thought fit to disclose him, he first acquainted the 
i 2. Chron. 23. 2.  Fathers of Israel, and the Captains, and so proceeded with their consent: Therefore what did he herein, but protect the person, age, innocency, and title of his Lord and Sovereign▪ whereto he was bound by the Law▪ of Nature, and Nations? Therefore when you bring this to prove the Pope's Supremacy, you mistake the matter: you cannot show us in Scripture, where ever a Priest deposed a lawful Prince. The Kings of Israel were all of them idolaters, and so were 14. of the Kings of juda, yet not one Priest or Prophet did so much as ever offer to depose any one of them; but we show you in Scripture this plain example, where Solomon the Prince, removed Abiathar the lawful Priest.  PHIL. 
IT 
a Bell. quo supra.  is one thing to relate the actions of kings, and another thing to approve 
2.  the authority.  ORTHOD. 
Did the Spirit of God, think you, relate this only as an Historian, and not approve the action? or dare you accuse Solomon, as proceeding in this case without authority? If Solomon had no authority to depose Abtathar, than there must needs be a nullity in the Deposition. For how can any judicial action be of validity, when there is no authority in the Agent? If the Deposition were a nullity, than Abiathar still retained the true right, title and interest to be high Priest. But what? could there be two high Priests at one time?  PHIL. 
Surely no; for though 
b Luke 3. 2.  S. Luke say, that the word of the Lord came unto john, when Annas and Caiaphas were high Priests, yet we must not think that they were both high Priests in equal authority at once; For the word 
c See Baron. Anno 31. n. 9 10.  Summus Sacerdos, or princeps Sacerdotum, is taken three ways▪ First, whereas the Priests were divided into 24. Orders, the chief of each Order was called Princeps Sacerdotum, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest; Secondly, there was a College of 72. Seniors, which was called Synedrin, the first or chief whereof was also called, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest. Thirdly, it is taken, both most properly, and most usually, for him that had the first and chiefest place of all, to whom the other Princes of the Priests were subject. 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 judgement was called high Priest, because he was simply and absolutely highest of all: in which sense there can be but one high Priest at once, nor ever was; 
d Baron. An. 31. n. 8.  unum tantummodo non duos simul, & ante, & post haec tempora summum Sacerdotem penes judaeos fuisse, certum exploratumque habeatur: That is, It is certain and a tried truth, that there was one only high Priest among the jews, not two at once, both before and after these times, speaking of the time of Annas and Caiaphas. Hence Cardinal 
e De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9  Bellarmine, with other of our learned divines do commonly conclude, that, As there was but one visible governor in the Church of the old Testament, so there should be but one in the Church of the New.  ORTHOD. 
If there could be but one high Priest at one time, and Abiathar (notwithstanding that he was put from the possession) still retained the true right, title, and interest to be high Priest, than Sadok was not a lawful high Priest, but an intruder upon another man's right: what say you to this?  PHIL. 
It were hard to call Sadok an intruder; for 
f Hector Pintus, in Ezech. c. 44.  Sadok idem est quod justus, & revera fuit Sadok nomine & factis, that is, Sadok doth signify just, and indeed he was just both in name and deeds.  ORTHO. 
If Sadok were no intruder, but a lawful high Priest, than Abiathar ceased to be high Priest, for you say there could not be two at once. If Abiathar ceased to be high Priest, than the place was lawfully void: but how was it void? Not by death, for Abiathar was still alive; not by resignation or voluntary cessation, for we find no such matter. How then? no other reason can with reason be imagined, but only because h●e was deposed by Solomon; If the place were justly and lawfully void, by virtue of this deposition, than it must needs be a lawful deposition, and consequently it must be done by lawful authority. For if the deposer had no authority, then could not the deposition be lawful; wherefore as you confess that Sadok was lawful high Priest, so you must likewise confess, that Solomon in casting out Abiathar, and placing Sadok had lawful authority.  PHIL. 
WHat if he had? was he not a Prophet as well as a King? 
3   ORTHO. 
All the books of the old Testament are called by the name of 
a 2. Pet. 1. 20. 21.  Prophecy, because they prophesied of jesus Christ; therefore the pen men thereof, which did speak as they were moved by the holy ghost (amongst which was Solomon) may rightly be called Prophets.  PHIL. 

b Bell●de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 29.  I say that Solomon deposed Abiathar, not as a king but as a Prophet, and executer of divine justice.  ORTHOD. 
As though the King as a King were not an executer of divine justice: yes Philodox, it is the 
c Rom. ●3. 3. 4.  King, as King, which beareth not the sword in vain: it is the king, as king, which is, The minister of God, and a revenger of wrath to him that doth evil; therefore the King, as King, is the executer of divine justice; And so when you say, not as a king, but as an executer of divine justice, you put those things asunder, which the Lord hath put together; again, when you say that he did it, As a Prophet and an executer of divine justice, 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 divine justice is not the mouth, but the hand of the Lord; the hand and the mouth must be distinguished.  PHIL. 
I will prove that Solomon did it as a Prophet, 
d Bell. quo supra.  For in the same place it is said, that Solomon put out Abiathar, that he might fulfil the words of the Lord, which he spoke against the house of Eli in Shilo.  ORTHOD. 
Do you think that such like speeches import the final cause, and the intents of the Agents? The soldiers seeing the coat of Christ to be without seam, woven from the top throughout, said one to another, 
e joh. 19 24.  Let us not divide it, but cast lots for it, whose it shallbe, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, they parted my garments among them, and on my coat did they cast lots; do you imagine that the soldiers had any intent hereby to fulfil the Scripture? Even just as much as judas had, when he sold his master for 
f Mat. 26. 15.  thirty pieces of silver: or 
g Mat. 2. 17.  Herod, when he slew the infants: or the jews when they 
h joh. 19 28. 29.  gave him vinegar to drink. They had no purpose in so doing to fulfil the Scripture, yet God so disposed, that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled. Likewise your own Bishop 
i In 3. Reg. c. 2. quaest. 28. non pon●tur (Vt) denotando ca●sam sinalem sed Consecuti●um. etc.  Tostatus may teach you, that in this place the particle, ut, doth not signify the final cause, but the consecution. But what if Solomon 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 prove that he did it as a Prophet? 
k 2. Kin. 9 25 26.  jehu, when he had slain jehoram, said to Bidkar a Captain, Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the jezrelite; for I remember that when ● and thou road together after Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden upon him; surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons said 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 only a fulfilling of the prophesy, but it was also commanded to be done even directly to that end that the prophesy might be fulfilled: yet I think you will not say that jehu was a Prophet: so far are you from proving that Solomon did it as a Prophet.  PHIL. 
Either as a King, or as a Prophet; not as a King, and therefore as a Prophet.  ORTHOD. 
NOt as a King? why so? the Lord had 
a 1. Chro. 22. 10. 2. Sam. 7. 12. 13.  promised that 
4  Solomon should sit upon the Throne of David his father, so Solomon was heir apparent to the crown, by Gods own appointment: yet for all this 
b 1. King. 1. 5.  Adonias exalted himself, and said I willbe king: and joab, and Abiathar 
c Vers. 7.  helped him forward, they said, 
d Vers. 25.  God save King Adonias: Whereupon all three were guilty of high treason against the king, and all three were punished by the king.  PHIL. 
True, by the king, but 
c Tortus.  not by kingly power.  ORTHO. 
Yes, by kingly power: the king did it as a king. And to begin with Adonias, the king granted him a conditional pardon, that 
f 1. King. 1. 52.  If he showed himself a worthy man, there should not a hair of him fall to the earth: but if wickedness were found in him, he should die: and therefore when he desired 
g 1. King. 2. 17.  Abisha to wife, the wisdom of the King reaching into the profoundness of the policy, did interpret it as a means of aspiring to the 
h 1. King. 2. 22.  kingdom: So King 
i Vers. 25.  Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of jehoiada, and he smote him that he died. Who did this? the spirit of God saith, that King Solomon did it: so it is ascribed to the King: yea it is clear 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 justice against malefactors, but he that beareth not the sword in vain, that is, the King by the power, and authority of a King? Concerning joab 
k 1. Kin▪ 2. 29.  it was told Solomon, that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord, and 
l Vers. 30.  Benaiah said, thus saith the King, come out, and he said nay, but I will die here, and Benaiah brought the King word again, and the King said, do as he hath said, and smite him: in all which there was nothing but the execution of justice 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 tenor of words unto the king: 
m 1. King. 2. 26.  Then the King said unto Abiathar the Priest: even the king, who in the former verse commanded Adonias to be slain; that is, the King, as a King: which may appear further by that which he said, Go to Anathoth to thy own fields, in which words he confineth him, which is the action of a King. And again, thou art worthy of death, but I will not this day kill thee, because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father: and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath been afflicted. In which words he granteth life, to one that had deserved death: and who could do this, but a King? 
n Vers. 27.  So Solomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest unto the Lord: Where we see death changed into deprivation. All which do argue the power of a King: yea it is said, 
o Vers. 35.  that the King put Benaiah the son of jehoiada in the room of joab over the host; which undoubtedly belonged unto the King, as he was King: and it followeth immediately in the same verse; and the King set Sadok the Priest in the room of Abiathar. Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King, as a King: and why should you think otherwise?  PHIL. 
BEcause in the old Testament the Levites were free by the law of God, from the power of secular Princes: 
a Bell. de exemp. cler. c. 1. pag. 2●4.  For in the third 
5  of Numbers God doth not once, but often repeat that the Levites are properly his 
b Ver. 12, 41.  own, and that he hath chosen them to himself out of all his people, and he commanded them to be 
c Verse 9  given for a gift unto Aaron and his sons, that is to the high Priest and his successors: for it was his will that they whom he himself had chosen to the ministery of the Temple and holy things, should be subject to the high Priest only, who represented the place of God on earth; and by this he freed them from the jurisdiction of earthly Princes; 
d 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 have no authority over those things which are offered, and consecrated unto God, and made as it were proper unto God himself, which both the light of reason showeth, and God himself declareth not obscurely in holy Scripture, when he saith in the last of Leviticus, Whatsoever shall be consecrated unto the Lord, it shall be holy of holies unto the Lord.  ORTHOD. 
As houses, and lands dedicated to God, remained his proper and everlasting possession; so the tribe of Levi being once consecrated unto God, became for ever his peculiar inheritance. But doth it therefore follow, that they are all exempted from the jurisdiction of Princes? the whole nation of the jews are called, 
e Exod. 19 6.  an holy nation, and a kingdom of Priests; all the males of Israel had the seal of the living God set upon 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 law of God in matters concerning their office, the Levites were subordinate to the Priests, and the Priests to the high Priest; but both Priest, & high Priest were under the authority of the civil Magistrate 
f 2. Chr. 17. 7. 8.  jehosaphat sent Priests & Levites to instruct the cities of judah, and did he this without authority? he sent 
g 2. Chr. 19 8.  Priests and Levites to be judges and Delegates, & 
h Vers. 11.  Amariah the high Priest to be chief over them in the matters of the Lord; did he this also without authority? when the house of God was defiled, 
i 2. Chr. 29. 4. 5.  Hezechias called the Priests and Levites, commanding them to sanctify themselves, and the house of the Lord; and they did so, 
k Vers. ●5.  according to the King's commandment: then he 
l Vers. 21.  commanded the Priests the sons of Aaron to offer sacrifice unto the Lord, and they did so: he 
m Vers. 25.  appointed all the Levites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals, with Viols, and with haps, and the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the Priests with Trumpets; and Hezechias commanded the Priests to offer the burnt offering upon the Altar, and they did so: then the 
n Vers. 30.  King and the Princes commanded the Levites to praise the Lord with the words of David, and Asaph the seer; so they praised with joy: Then he commanded the Priests to offer the sacrifice of praise, and they did so: yea the King (this holy King) 
o 2. Chr. 31. 2.  appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites by their turns; which things he did well and 
p 2. Kings 18. ●.  uprightly before the Lord his God: therefore we must not think he passed the bounds of his authority. If Priest, or high Priest were exempted from the jurisdiction of Kings; why did 
c 2. King. 23. 4.  josias command 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 grove, and for all the host of heaven, which he burned without Jerusalem, in the fields of Kedron, and caused the dust of them to be carried unto Bethel? If Priests were exempted, why did he 
d Verse 8.  bring all the Priests of the high places out of the cities of judah, and all such of them as were jeroboams Priests, of which the 
e 1. King. 13. 1.  man of judah prophesied, he 
f 2. King. 23. 20.  sacrificed upon the Altars; the rest which were of the line of Aaron, but yet had offered in the high places, he brought back from Jerusalem, though they were not 
g Ezech. 44. 13.  suffered to sacrifice unto the Lord, but were thrust out of their Priesthood, to the meanest offices amongst the Levites. Now from Kings, let us 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; 
h Nehemiah 13. 6.  But all this time was not I in jerusalem: signifying that if he had been there, he would not have suffered such abomination: And when he came, he 
i Verse 8. 9  cast out the vessels of Tobias, and commanded the Priests to cleanse them, and bring again the vessels of the Lord. When one of the nephews of the high Priest had married the daughter of Sanballat; Nehemias 
k Verse 28.  chased him away: With what face now can you say that Princes in the old Testament had no authority over the Priests? If Kings had no authority, than they should not have enjoined, appointed, commanded, and punished; but only have advised, admonished, and exhorted them. If Priests had any such privilege, it is strange, that in all the story of the old Testament, we find not one Priest, once pleading his privilege. If they submitted themselves when their conscience told them that they had offended, yet why did they not plead their immunity, when they were injuriously handled? 
l 2. Chr. 24. 21.  Zacharias the Priest was slain, at the commandment of the King, and yet never mentioned any privilege: When 
m 1▪ Sam. 22. 18.  Saul slew Abimelech, and above eighty Priests which wore a linen Ephod, Abimelech declared his innocency, and acknowledged the King's jurisdiction over him, by calling the King his Lord, and himself the King's 
n Verse 12. 15.  servant, but spoke not a word of any privilege. Therefore all the world may see that there was no such matter, these are but fictions of idle brains; wherefore we may truly conclude, that the tribe of Levi was not exempted from secular jurisdiction, but the King might convent, command, reprove, and punish them, and yet not transgress the law of God.  PHIL. 

o Bell. de exemp. c. 2. p. 272.  Who dare affirm, that a profane person hath any authority or jurisdiction, over those things which have deserved to be called holy of holies, that is most holy?  ORTHOD. 
Who but a profane jesuit durst be so bold as to call the light of Israel, the anointed of the Lord, the Minister of God, a profane person? The ancient sages of the Christian world did use to speak of Princes with all reverence, not only of those which professed the true faith: but of others also. The third Roman council under Symmacus, calleth Theodoricus (who was known to be an Arrian) a holy Prince; whereupon 
p Tom. 2. pag. ●85.  Binius writeth thus; An Arrian king is named most holy, and most godly, not according to his merits, but according to custom, like as Valerian and Gratian, Ethnic Emperors, 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 authority) by the usual style of, most noble. Hitherto Binius out of 
a Anno 452.  Baronius. Thus much for the profane title. As for the thing itself. The Scripture witnesseth, that Solomon was King over 
b 1. Kin. 4. 1.  all Israel; if over all Israel, then over the tribe of Levi, and consequently even over Abiathar the high Priest: if he be their king, why are not they his subjects? If they be his subjects, and he their Sovereign, how can they be exempted from his jurisdiction? A point so clear, that sundry of your learned writers have confessed it.  
Johannes 
c De potestate Reg. cap. 19  Parisiensis saith, that in the old Testament, the Priests which anointed 
6.  kings, without all doubt were subject unto kings. Your own jesuit 
d 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 spiritual power of the Law of nature, and of the law of Moses, was lesser than the princely power in the old Testament, therefore even the high Priests were subject unto kings. Yea 
e De Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 25.  Bellarmine himself saith, Non mirum esset si in veteri Testamento summa potestas fuisset temporalis, that is, It were no marvel if in the old Testament the chief power were the temporal. Dominicus a 
f I● 4. sent. d. 25. q. 2.  Soto: in veteri Testamento dubio procul, Sacerdotes a principibus secularibus iudicati: that is, In the old Testament without doubt, the Priests were judged by the secular princes. Friar 
g Consideratio P. ●. Pauli.  Paul: This doctrine, that Ecclesiastical persons, unless they be free by privilege, and favour, should be subject to secular Magistrates, is demonstrated and confirmed by examples of the old Testament, whereby it appeareth that all the kings did command, judge, and punish Priests, and that this was done not only of bad kings, or indifferent, but of the most holy and religious, David, Solomon, Ezechias, and josias. 
h 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 privare poterat: that is, In the old Testament, the king had power over the Priests, and might for their offences kill them, much more deprive them of their offices and spiritual dignities: Hitherto Carerius, out of 
i Tost. in 4. Reg. ●. 12. q. 8. Ipse (Rex) ●ahebat potestatem super Sacerdoses & poterat ●os occidere pro crimine sicut quoscunque laicos, & a fortiori privare eos officijs & dignitatib▪ quantumcunque essent spirituales.  Tostatus.  PHIL. 
IF the kings of Israel had such authority, doth it follow that 
7.  Christian Princes must have the like?  ORTHOD. 
What else? You must consider that the new Testament doth yield us no examples of Christian kings, therefore when the question is concerning the power of kings in the Church of God, we must go to the fountain, 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 authority they exercised, for which they are approved by the spirit of God, the same without all question, belongeth in like manner to Christian Princes: therefore what authority Solomon had over Abiathar, the same have Christian Princes, by the law of God, over their own Clergy.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Oath of the Prince's Supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were deprived.  PHIL. 
IS not the deposing of a Bishop, a spiritual censure? how then can it be performed by the secular powers?  ORTH. 
The secular powers do no● depose a Bishop by degradation, nor by utterly debarring him from his Episcopal function: but only by excluding him from the exercise of Episcopallactes upon their subjects, and within their dominions. And this godly Princes have performed from time to time, in the best and primitive ages, against the Arrians, Nestotians, and other heretics, as might be declared by many examples.  PHIL. 
Shall a Prince take that from them, which he cannot give them?  ORTH. 
He cannot give them an intrinsical power to minister the word and Sacraments which proceedeth from the key of order; but he may give them an extrinsical power, that is, a liberty to execute their function within his dominions. This he may do by virtue of the sceptre, which God hath given him, though he meddle not with the keys which God hath given to the Church; and as he may give this liberty, so he may take it away upon just cause, as Solomon did when he deposed Abiathar.  PHIL. 
If we should admit that Queen Elizabeth had so much authority as king Solomon, yet this would not justify her proceedings. For it belongeth not to Parliaments, or secular Princes to make laws concerning the depositions of Bishops, or to inflict any such punishments.  ORTHOD. 
Did not the Emperor 
a Epist. Episc. ad Leonem imper. abud been. 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 general Council of Chalcedon, should be deposed? Did not 
b Novel const. 6. juxta sinem.  justinian make a constitution, that if any Patriarch, Metropolitan, Bishop, or Clerk, should violate his decrees made for the preservation of holy order, and estate, he should be excluded from the Priestly function? Did not 
c Euagrius l 1. c. 12. ex Codice l. 1. tit. 1. Saucimus.  Theodosius the younger, likewise make a law that the Nestorian Bishops should be expelled and deposed?  PHIL. 
The laws of these Emperors concerning the deposing of Bishops, were not put in execution by lay-men, as Queen Elizabeth's were, but by Bishops.  ORTH. 

d Theodor. l. 5. cap. 2.  Gratian the Emperor made a law against the Arrians, commanding them like wild beasts, to be driven from the Churches, and the places to be restored to good pastors: the execution whereof, he committed to Saporas, the most famous captain of that time. If this were allowable in the Emperor Gratian, then much more in Queen Elizabeth: for he did it when there was plenty of good Bishops, within his own dominon; Queen Elizabeth did it only in case of necessity: Neither did she send a captain to drive them away by violence, as Gratian did, but appointed honourable commissioners to tender the oath unto them; upon the obstinate refusal whereof, their places were void, by virtue of the Statute.  PHIL. 
GRatian had for him the determination of Synods, which had already 
2  condemned the Arrians, therefore in this case it was lawful for him both to make a Law, and to commit the execution of it to Lay-men.  ORTHOD. 
So had Q. Elizabeth. For a Synod of Bishops, professing your own Religion, (among whom was john Fisher Bishop of Rochester) gave to K. Henry the title of Supreme head of the Church of England, as may appear by the Acts of the 
a 〈…〉 153●. p. 11●.  Synod itself. About two years after, the same was renewed in another Synod, and about two years after that, the two Universities delivered their judgement, That the Pope had no more to do in England, by the Law of God, than any other Bishop. The determination of Cambridge is already 
b 〈…〉.  extant in print. The like of Oxeford remaineth in 
c 〈…〉.  Record; wherein after long deliberation, and much disputation with all diligence, Zeal and conscience, they make this profession; Tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concord●s fuimus; viz. Romanum Episcopum maiorem aliquam jurisdictionem 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 mind and one heart, upon this conclusion: to wit, That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater jurisdiction given him of God in holy Scripture, over this kingdom of England, than any other foreign Bishop. And 
d 〈…〉.  Bellarmine himself telleth us out of Cheynie the Carthusian Monk, that in the year 1535. there was a Parliament, wherein it was Enacted, That all should renounce the Pope, and all other foreign powers, and acknowledge the King to be head of the Church, upon their oath. Thus it is manifest, that the Bishops and Clergy did then both approve the Title and take the oath: which Bishops were such as yourselves commend 
e Defence of English Cathol. pag. 4●.  to be inferior to none in Europe for virtue and learning. And truly excepting their opinions in Religion, wherein they were carried away with the stream of the time, it cannot be denied, but that generally they were very well learned. Erasmus invited into England by William Warham Archbishop of Canterbury, when he had considered what difference there was between the Bishops of England, and other Nations, he published to the world in Print, That 
f Ant. Brit pag. 306.  only England had learned Bishops. Moreover, most of these learned Bishops, did openly in the Pulpit at Pauls-Crosse defend the King's Title, and 
g 〈…〉.  sundry of them by their published writings maintained the same. The self-same oath was taken again in the ●aigne of K. Edward.  PHIL. 
They changed their minds in the days of Q. Mary.  ORTHOD. 
Very true; But their inconstancy cannot abolish the solidity of their former confession: and though they recalled their opinions, yet they never answered their own Arguments which remain still in Print, as a witness to the world, that their former judgement was grounded upon God's Verity, and that the Prince's Title did stand with right and equity.  PHIL. 
THese were Bishops and Synods of our own nation only; but 
3.  was there ever any learned man elsewhere, that did approve this Title▪ was there ever any King, or Queen, Christian or Heathen, Catholic or Heretic in all the 
h See 〈◊〉. Apol. cap. 1.  world beside, before our age, that did practise, challenge, or accept it?  ORTHOD. 
Look into the godly Kings of juda; Look into the proceedings of Christian Emperors, 
i 〈…〉 4. c. 42. So●r. l. 1 c. 3●. The●●. l. 5. c. ●.  Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, and such like; Look into the Laws of 
k 〈…〉. l. 1.  Charles and 
l 〈…〉. 2.  Lodowick; and you shall see, that they practised as much, as ever we ascribed to the Queen in this oath. When the Council of Ephesus by the packing of Dioscorus, had allowed the cursed opinion of Eutyches, and deposed Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, Pope Leo upon this occasion wrote thus unto the Emperor Theodosius; 
a Leo Epist. 24.  Behold, most Christian and reverend Emperor, I, with the rest of my fellow Bishops, make supplication unto you, That all things may stand in the same state, in which they were before any of these judgements, until 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 Emperor Theodosius. For what? That the Emperor would command; not entreat, but command: So this is an action of Royal authority. 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 lawful for all men, so to judge and speak of these holy Mysteries, as they did before the springing up of the Eutychian Heresy: for than they held the Truth, according to the Apostolic faith. And this he beseecheth the Emperor to command, notwithstanding the contrary determination of the Council of Ephesus. 
b Leo Epist. 43.  The second Council of Ephesus, which apparently subverted the faith, cannot rightly be called a Council, which your Highness for very love to the Truth, will make void by your Decree to the contrary, most glorious Emperor. I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Majesty by our Lord jesus Christ, the founder and guider of your Kingdom, That in this Council (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 delivered unto them from the Apostles; Neither permit such things as have been long since condemned by them, to be freshly revived again, but that you will rather command, That the Constitutions of the ancient Nicene Council may stand in force, the interpretation of Heretics being removed. Here the Pope ascribeth to the Emperor power to ratify and establish those Counsels, which are according to the Scripture, and to disannul those whose determinations are contrary to the Scripture; Yea, he acknowledgeth, that the Emperor hath authority to inhibit and restrain General Counsels, that they call not the Truth of God in question. Which the Emperor Martian practised, entering the Council of Chalcedon in his own person, and 
c Mart. Imper. orat. in Conc. Chalced. act. 1. Bin. t. 2. p. 4.  forbidding the Bishops to avouch any thing concerning the birth of our Saviour, otherwise then was contained in the Nicene Creed. Moreover, when the Council of Chalcedon was concluded, Pope 
d Leo Epist. 59  Leo wrote thus again to the Emperor; Because I must by all means obey your piety and most Religious will, I have willingly given my consenting sentence to those synodal Constitutions, which concerning the confirmation of the Catholic faith, and condemnation of Heretics, pleased me very well. The Emperor required the Pope to subscribe; And he cheerfully did so, Protesting that for his part, he must by all means obey the Princes will in those cases. Now tell me whether the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperor, and the Emperor show himself to be Supreme governor over all persons, even in causes Ecclesiastical?  
AS the Emperor Martian did practise this Supremacy, so the Emperor 
4.  
e Concilium octawm act. 1. B●n. t. 3. p. 880.  Basill did challenge the Title▪ when he said in the Council of Constantinople, That the government of the universal Ecclesiastical Ship, was committed unto him by the Divine providence.  PHIL. 
The words are thus in Surius, 
f Tom. 4. ●art. 11. edit. Venet. Vide T●rturam T●rti. p. 349.  In exordio Synodi ita locutus est Basilius: Cum divina, & benignissima providentia nobis gubernacula universalis Navis commisisset etc. that is, In the beginning of the Synod thus said Basilius the Emperor: when the divine and most benign providence had committed unto us the government of the universal ship etc. Where, by universal ship, is meant civil administration, not Ecclesiastical; as Surius hath well observed.  ORTHO. 

●●n. qu● 〈…〉.  Binius relating the acts of the council, telleth how the Emperors Epainagnosticum was read in the council in these words: Divina clementique providentia gubernacula Ecclesiasticae n●uis vobis committente, that is, The divine and gracius providence of God, committing unto you the government of the Ecclesiastical ship. Where you see that he speaketh of the Ecclesiastical ship.  PHIL. 
To whom was the government of the ship committed? Vobis, to you: that is, to the Bishops: what is this to the Emperor?  ORTH. 
Indeed, Binius hath Vobis; but it should be Nobis, which may appear, 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 given unto us in Ecclesiastical matters will not hold our peace. Where it is clear that the Emperor did think himself to have power given him from God, not only in matters civil, but also in Ecclesiastical. Therefore when the Emperor said, That the divine providence had committed unto him the government of the universal ship, he must needs be understood as well of causes Ecclesiastical as civil. Which may yet appear further by the Emperor's words, as they are in Surtus immediately following in the same sentence; Omne studium arripuimus & ante publicas curas Ecclesiasticas dissoluere, i. When the divine providence had committed unto us the government of the universal ship, we used all diligence to dispatch Ecclesiastical cares, before the public affairs of the Commonwealth. So if Surius willbe judged by his own Edition, and give the Emperor leave to expound himself; then Ecclesiastical affairs must be comprehended in the government of the Universal ship. Wherefore though Surius would raze out the word Ecclesiastical, and Binius foist in Vobis instead of Nobis, yet whether we compare either of them with himself, or each of them with other, it is evident that the Emperor Basil, did challenge the government of the universal ship, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, and that in a general Council, no man resisting him. What doth this differ from Supreme governor as it is used in the Church of England?  
AS Basill did challenge this government, no man resisting; so sundry Synods 
6  have given the like to Princes not refusing it. There was a Council holden at 
a Cont. M●g●●t 〈◊〉 pr●●●●▪ B●●●▪ 34. 402.  Mentz in Germany, the year 814. In the time of the Emperor Charles the great, and Pope Leo the third, the synodal acts whereof Binius professeth that he compared with a manuscript sent him out of the emperors library at Vienna. Now the Bishops assembled in this Synod, begin thus. In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. To the most glorious and most Christian Emperor Carolus Augustus, governor of the true religion, and defender of the holy Church of God, etc. And a little after, We give thanks to God the Father Almighty, because he hath granted unto his holy Church a governor so godly etc. And again, About all these points we greatly need your aid and sound doctrine, which may both admonish us continnally, and instruct us courteously so far, that such things which we have briefly touched beneath in a few Chapters, may receive strength from your authority: if so be that your piety shall so judge it worthy, whatsoever is found in them worthy to be amended, let your magnificent and imperial dignity command to amend.  
In the year 847. there was holden another Synod at Mentz, in the time of Leo the fourth, and Lotharius the Emperor, where the Bishops begin in the like manner. 
a Bin. t. 3. pag. 631.  Domino Serenissimo & Christianissimo regi Ludovico verae religionis strenuissimo rectori, i. To our most gracious Lord and Christian king Lodowick, the most puissant governor of true religion. The like was ascribed to King Reccesuinthius in a Council holden at 
b Council. Em●rit●ex Garsia Loa●sa. sect. 23. Bin. to. 2. p. 1183.  Emerita in Portugal about the year 705. in these words: Whose vigilance doth govern both secular things with greatest piety, and Ecclesiastical by his wisdom plentifully given him of God. So they acknowledged him governor both in causes secular and Ecclesiastical. This Council of Emerita received much strength and authority from Pope Innocent the third, in his Epistle to Peter Archb. of Compostella, as witnesseth 
c Gars. in notis in Con●. Emer.  Garsias. Thus you see that most famous Bishops assembled in Synods have given unto Princes, such titles as are equivalent to the st●le annexed to the imperial crown of this kingdom. To which we might adjoin the judgement of other fathers; 
d Tert. ad Scopul.  Tertullian; Colimus imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. i. We reverence the Emperor as a man next unto God, and inferior only to God. 
e Contra. Parmen. l. 5.  Optatus; Super imperatorem non est, nisi solus Deus qui fecit imperatorem. Above the Emperor is none but only God who made the Emperor. So Saint 
f Ad pop. Antioch. hom. ●  Chrysostome saith, that the Emperor hath no peer upon earth, and calleth him the head and crown of all men upon earth. If he be next unto God, and inferior only to God; If none be above him but God only; If he have no peer upon earth, as being the head and crown of all men upon earth; then must he needs be the supreme governor upon earth, according to the judgement of the fathers. This is agreeable to the Scripture, which testifieth, that most godly kings commanded both Priests and high Priests, even 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 appear by Saint Paul, who lifteth up his voice like a trumpet, proclaiming, 
g Rom. 13. 1.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, which words every soul comprehend all persons, both Ecclesiastical and Temporal, yea though they were Evangelists, Prophets or Apostles, as Saint Chrysostome doth truly expound them. If every soul be subject to the higher powers, than the Prince is superior to all, and consequently supreme within his own dominions. But why do I stay so long upon this point, which hath been 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 noon day?  PHIL. 
HOw unreasonable it is, may appear by the absurdities which follow 
6  thereupon, for if the Prince be supreme governor in causes spiritual, than he may command what religion he list, and we must obey him.  ORTHOD. 
Not so; for he is supreme governor in causes temporal, yet he may not command a man to bear false witness, or to condemn the innocent as jesabel 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 jeroboam, to set up his golden calves. For the king, as king, is supreme under God, not against God, to command for truth, not against truth; And if he shall command ungodly things, we may not perform obedience, but submit ourselves to his punishments with patience.  PHIL. 
Do not you by this title ascribe as much to the King as we do to the Pope?  ORTHO. 
We are far 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 Queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine service in the Church; Queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, 
a Admonition annexed to the Queen's m●un●tions.  admonished all her loving subjects not to give credit to such persons; professing that she neither did, nor would challenge any other authority, than was challenged and used by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of ancient time, due to the imperial crown of this realm, that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner persons borne within her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign power, shall or aught to have any superiority over them. And that no other thing was, is, or should be meant, or intended by the same oath. Which was also further declared man act of Parliament, the fifth year of her reign, with relation to the former admonition, and moreover fully explained in the Articles of 
b Art. 37.  religion in these words. We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's word, or of the Sacraments, which things the injunctions lately set forth by Queen Elizabeth, do most plainly testify, but only that prerogative which we see to have been given always 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 be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers. This is the substance of the title due to the imperial crown of the Kingdom.  PHIL. 
If it be due to the imperial crown, than it skilleth not whether the Prince be man, woman, or child, nor of what religion. For the Princely power was no less in 
c 〈◊〉 Cal●●●t●●. l. 4. ●. 10.  Trajan, then in Theodosius, in K. Henry, then in Q. Mary; In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospelers, then in Queen Elizabeth their protector; yea it was no less in King Lucius before he was baptised, then after. And consequently, the Emperor of the Turks may be called supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical within his own dominions.  ORTHOD. 
Here are two things to be considered. First the princely power and authority; Secondly the ability rightly to use and exercise the same. The princely power and authority is given immediately from God, both unto Christian Princes, and also unto Ethnics 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; 
d Pro. 8. 15.  By me kings reign; And 
e Dan. 2. 37.  Daniel said to Nabuchodonosor, O king thou art a king of kings, for the God of Heaven hath given unto thee a kingdom, & power, and strength, and glory. But the ability rightly to use and exercise this authority, by referring it to the true end, that is, the glory of God (for all our rivers should run into that Ocean) & the eternal good of the subjects, is communicated from the Lord above, only to such as know him in Christ jesus, and are guided by his grace. The fountain therefore of all power is God himself; as the Apostle witnesseth saying, 
a Rom. 13. 1.  there is no power but of God. To which purpose it is well said of Saint 
b De civit. Dei l. 5. c. 21.  Austin. Qui dedit Mario, ipse & Caesari; qui Augusto, ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suavissimis imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo: & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse Apostatae juliano. i. He that gave it to Mar●●s, gave it to Caesar, he that gave it to Augustus, gave it to Nero, he that gave it to Vespasian the Father, or his son, most sweet Emperors, gave it also to Domitian the most cruel. And that I should not need to reckon up the rest in particular; he that gave it to Constantine the Christian, gave it also to julian the Apostata. But though domination and power were in the law of nature, yet the right use 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 authority to govern his people according to the will of God. And it is his duty so to do. 
c Esai. 45. 2. 3.  The Lord said unto Cyrus, I will go before thee and make the crooked straight; I will break the brazen doors, and burst the Iron bars. And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and the things hid in secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord. Upon which words Saint jerom noteth, that God giveth kingdoms unto wicked men, not that they should abuse them, but as for other reasons, so for this, that being invited by his bounty, they should be converted from their sins. So it is their duty to serve God, not only as they are men, but as they are Kings. And Kings (saith Saint 
d Aust. ep. 50.  Austin) do in this serve God as Kings, when they do those things to serve him which none but Kings can do. But what is that? It may appear by these words; 
e Epist. 48.  Seruiant reges terrae Christo, etiam leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serve Christ even by making laws for Christ. For though the immediate end of human societes be peace and prosperity, yet the last end of all, and most principally to be respected is the glory of God, and eternal happiness. For which purpose it is the duty of all subjects to pray for their Prince, though he be a Pagan, that 
f 1. Tim. 2. 2.  under him they may live a godly and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty▪ But though every Prince, in that he is a Prince, hath authority to serve God as a Prince, yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace. Authority is in a Pagan; the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniveh had authority long before, to proclaim a fast; Nabuchodonosor had authority to command, 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 authority, but by virtue of their former Princely power heretofore abused, but now used rightly by direction of God's Spirit, and assistance of his grace. The truth of which answer that you may see in another glass, let us a little remove our speech from the Prince to the Priest: I demand therefore, if the Priests, the sons of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts?  PHIL. 
Yes verily as saith the Prophet 
g Malach. ● 7.  Malachy.  ORTH. 
But he may be a false prophet, an Idolater, an Apostata, he may turn Pagan or Atheist. Is such a Priest the messenger of the Lord of hosts?  PHIL. 
A Priest in respect of his office ought so to be.  ORTH. 
But the Prophet speaking of the wicked Priest which seduceth the people, saith not, he ought to be, but he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.  PHIL. 
A Priest as a Priest, be he good or bad, in respect of his priestly calling and authority, is the messenger of the Lord of hosts; he ought to leave his impieties in seducing the people, and to serve God, by teaching the truth. In that he is a Priest, God hath armed him with a calling, to deliver his message, for performance whereof, he needeth no new calling, but grace to use that well, which before he abused.  ORTHOD. 
Apply this to the present point, and you may satisfy yourself.  PHIL. 
To make the Prince Supreme Governor, or head of the Church, is unnatural, for shall the sheep feed the flock, or the son guide the Father?  ORTHO. 
As the Priest is a father and shepherd, in respect of the Prince, so the Prince is a shepherd and father, in respect of the Priest. The Lord chose 
a Psal. 78. 70.  David his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds, even from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in jacob, and his inheritance in Israel, so he fed them according to the simplicity of his heart, and guided them by the discretion of his hands. And 
b 2. Chron. ●9. 11.  Ezechias called the Priests his sons; If the Prince be their shepherd, than he must feed them, if he be their father, than he must guide them, this is natural.  PHIL. 
THis style of the Crown was so distasteful to 
c Calu●n Amos. 7. 13.  Calvin, that he called 
7.  it blasphemy and sacrilege.  ORTHOD. 
It is certain that he did not differ from us in judgement. But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner, who expounded it as though the king had power ut statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid volverit, to establish at his pleasure, whatsoever he would, which Calvin exemplifieth in the words of Gardiner, the king may forbid Priests to marry, & debar the people from the Cup in the Lord's Supper, because forsooth potestas (umma est penes regem; the highest power is in the king. This is that which Calvin calleth blasphemy and sacrilege, and so will we. But if Calvin had been truly informed that nothing had been meant by this title, but to exclude the Pope, and to acknowledge the kings lawful authority over his own subjects, not in devising new Articles of faith, or coining new forms of religion, as jeroboam did his calves, but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded; without all question Calvin had never misliked it. In this sense, and no other, that title was given him. Neither did the king take it otherwise, for aught that we can learn.  PHIL. 
If the title were not blame worthy; why was it altered?  ORTHOD. 
In the beginning of the Queen's reign, the nobles and sundry of the Clergy, perceiving that some out of ignorance, and infirmity, were offended at the title of 
d Bish. Bilson true difference.  supreme head of the Church, humbly entreated her majesty, that it might be expressed in some plainer terms; whereto her clemency most graciously condescended, accepting the title of supreme governor, being the same in substance with the former. So this alteration was not made as though the other were blame worthy: for the phrase is according to the 
e 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, Counsels, and practise, both of the kings of judah, and of Christian Emperors; as hath been declared, where it was as lawful for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalf of the Prince against the Pope, as it was for jehoiada, to exact an 
a 2. Kings 11 4.  oath in behalf of king joas, against the usurper Athalia; which oath being holy and lawful, the refusal of it was disloyalty and a just cause of deprivation. Hitherto of the Bishops deposed, now let us proceed to such as succeed them.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of the Consecration of the most reverend father, Archbishop Parker.  PHIL. 
YOur Bishops 
b Scultingius Biblioth. Catho. t. 5. p. 106.  derive their counterfeit authority, not from lawful Consecration, or Catholic inauguration, but from the 
c Reginales prelati▪ Sand. de schiss. l. 3. p. 297.  Queen and 
d Ibidem. p. 298.  Parliaments. For in 
e Brist. Anti. mot. ●om. 2. p. 264.  England the king yea, and the Queen, may give their letters patents to whom they will, and they thenceforth may bear themselves for Bishops, and may begin to ordain Ministers: So we may justly say that among the Caluinists in England, there reigned a 
f john Brierly Cath. apol. see Doct. Mort. appeal. p. 633.  woman Pope. But 
g Brist. mot. 21.  such was the order of Christ's Church, which the Apostles founded, Priests to be sent by Priests, and not by the letters patents of kings or Queens.  ORTHOD. 
These shameless Papists would make the world believe that our Bishops derive not their Consecration from Bishops, but from kings and Queens, which is an impudent slander For our kings do that which belongeth to kings, and our Bishops do that which belongeth to Bishops. In the vacancy of any archbishopric, or Bishopric, the 
h Ann. 25. H. 8. ca 20.  king granteth to the Dean and Chapter a licence under the great Seal, as of old time hath been accustomed, to proceed to an election, with a letter missive, containing the name of the person which they shall elect and choose, which being duly performed and signified to the King, under the common seal of the electors, the king giveth his royal assent; and signifying, and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bishops, as the law requireth he giveth them commission, and withal requireth and commandeth them to confirm the said election, and to invest, and Consecrated the said person, using all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same. Whereupon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient form, in those cases used, do 
i Ex regist. Cant. passim in citatione contra oppositores.  cause all such as can object, or take exception, either in general, or particular, either against the manner of the election, or the person elected, to be cited publicly and peremptorily, to make their appearance. When the validity of the election, and sufficiency of the person are by public acts, and due proceedings judicially approved, then followeth Consecration, which is performed by a lawful number of lawful Bishops, and that in such form as is required by the ancient Canons.  PHIL. 
I Will prove that your Bishops, in the beginning of the Queen's 
2.  reign, derived not their authority from lawful Consecration, but from the Queen and Parliament. For 
k Sand. de schl. l. 3. p. 298. Pollinu▪ l. 4. c. 6. p. 434.  being destitute of all lawful ordination when they were commonly said, and proved by the laws of England to be no Bishops, they were constrained to crave the assistance of the secular power, that they might receive the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament, by authority whereof, it any thing were done amiss, and not according to the prescript of the Law, or omitted and left undone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them, and that after they had enjoyed the Episcopal Office and Chair certain years, without 
a Absque ulla episcopal consecratione.  any Episcopal Consecration. Hence it was, that they were called Parliament Bishops.  ORTHO. 
The 
b Anno 8. Eliz●●. c. 1.  Parliament which you mean, was in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth, wherein first they reprove the over much boldness 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 laws as concern the point, declaring that every thing requisite and material, was done as precisely in her majesties time, as ever before. Thirdly, they confirm again the book of Common prayer, with the form thereunto annexed, enacting that all persons that then had been, or afterwards should be made, ordered, or Consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, of God's holy word and Sacraments, or Deacons, after the form and order herein prescribed, were by authority 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 evident that the Parliament did not make them Bishops, but being in very deed true Bishops, by lawful 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 poor revenge they call our Religion Parliament Religion, and our Bishop's Parliament Bishops.  PHIL. 

c Hard. conf. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2.  If you will needs have your matters seem to depend of your Parliament, let us not be blamed if we call it Parliament Relgion, Parliament Gospel, Parliament faith.  ORTHOD. 
It is a marvel that you said not a Parliament God, and a Parliament Christ. Might not we say as well, that in Q. Mary's time, you had a Parliament Mass, and a Parliament Pope? Was it lawful for Q. Mary with her Parliament, to subject the kingdom to the Pope and his Canons; and was it not lawful for Q. Elizabeth with her Parliament, to submit themselves to Christ and his Gospel? Indeed you have a spite against the Prince and Parliament, because they expelled the Pope, advanced true Religion, and defended the Preachers and Ministers thereof: neither against the persons only, but against the very place wherein the Banner of jesus Christ was so gloriously displayed. A French Historian speaking of the bloody Massacre, saith, 
d Thuanu● hist. l. 54. anno 2572. oppend.  Wise men which were not addicted to the Protestants part, seeking all manner of excuse for that fact, did notwithstanding think, that in all Antiquity there could not be found an example of like cruelty. But the English Powder-plot, doth so far exceed the French Massacre, that there is no degree of comparison; this cannot be patternd, or paralleled. It was of such a transcendency, that all the devils may seem to have holden a black convocation in Hell, and there to have concluded such a sulphureous and Acheronticall device, as was never heard of since the world began. But the Lord of Heaven did so strangely reveal it, as though the birds of the air had carried the voice, and that which hath wings, had declared the matter. As for the chief instruments thereof, the Ravens of the valleys did pluck out their eyes, and the young Eagles did eat them. Wherefore, if you will not believe us disputing for Religion, yet believe God himself, with his own right hand, and with his holy arm defending our Prince and State, our Church and ministery, and that very House, wherein the Standard of the Gospel was advanced, maugre the malice of all the devils in hell. All glory be to thee, O Lord, for this thy unspeakable mercy; still protect and defend them, that Israel may be glad, and thy servant jacob rejoice.  PHIL. 
IF you can justify your Bishops, produce their Consecrations, make it appear to the world, when, by whom, and how they were Consecrated, beginning with the first which was made in the Queen's time, That is, with Matthew Parker, who did bear the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  ORTHOD. 
You learned this disdainful speech of 
a Sand. Rock of the church, Lo●anij 1567.  Nicholas Sanders, who dedicated his rock of the Church to that reverend Archbishop, in this unreverend manner; To the right worshipful Master Doct. Parker bearing the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Wherein (to let pass that right worshipful, and right scornful title) he doth not style him Archbishop; but bearing the name of Archbishop: As though our Bishops were Bishops only in name. But what can you say against him?  PHIL. 
I would fain learn of you the place where he was Consecrated. I have read that Maximus was consecrated in the house of a 
b Greg. presb. in vit. Greg. Naz.  minstrel, and it seemeth that Matthew Parker was Consecrated in a Tavern. For doct. 
c Reply to D. Sutl. p. 31.  Kellison saith, That he heard it credibly reported, that some of your new Superintendents, were made Bishops at the Nagshead in Cheap. A fit Church for such a Consecration: and it is most likely, that Matthew Parker was one of them, because he was the first.  ORTHOD. 
This of the Nagges head, doth call to my remembrance Pope john 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 
d Lib▪ 6.  Luitprandus, who is, and ever will be esteemed a learned Historian: notwithstanding that 
e Anno 963.  Baronius goeth about to discredit him, as he doth all other writers that make against him. And Luitprandus groundeth himself not upon flying reports, as Kellison and you do, but upon two witnesses, the one a Bishop, the other a Cardinal, john bishop of Narnium in Italy, and john Cardinal Deacon, who did testify in a Roman Council, in the presence of Otho the Emperor, Se vidisse illum Diaconum ordinasse in equorum stabulo, i. That they themselves did see him with their own eyes, ordain 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 we in England have 
f Tortura Torti. p. 152.  wrapped some Papists in bears skins, and baited them with dogs; That we enclose dormice in basins, and lay them to the sides of the Catholics to eat out their bowels; That we bind them to mangers, and feed them with hay like horses. These are shining lies, fit Carbuncles for the Pope's Mitre. Neither do they report them only, but Print them, and paint them, and publish them with the Pope's 
g Eccles. Angl. trophen. Anno 1584. cum priuil. Greg. 13.  privilege. They need a privilege which tell such glorious lies. This of the Nagges head, though it go currant at Rome, and be blazed for a truth through the world by men of your rank, is cousin— germane to the former, as appeareth by the 
h Reg. Park. tom. 1. fol. 9  Records of the archbishopric, which declare, that he was consecrated in Capella infra manerium suum de Lambhith, That is, in the Chapel within his manor of Lambhith. Thus you see the falsehood of this fable, which was devised to no other purpose, but only to make our Ministry and Religion seem odious to all men. Is not this strange dealing, for men that make such great ostentation of sincerity and gravity? But for my own part I do not marvel at it, your proceedings are but answerable to your doctrines. For you teach, That an officious lie is but a 
a Bell. de amiss. great. l. 3. c. 8.  venial sin. And again, That the Church of Rome is the holy mother Church: Therefore to whom should kind offices rather be performed, then to the Church of Rome? And what office will she take more kindly, than the discrediting of those whom she accounteth Heretics? therefore I do not wonder that you put it in practice, I fear nothing, but that shortly it shall grow with you a point meritorious. Well, the 
b Eccl●s. 28. 17  Stripe of the rod maketh marks in the flesh, but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones: But let them remember, That the 
c Wisd. ●. 11.  tongue which lieth, slayeth the soul; And that all 
d Revel. 21▪ 8.  liars shall have their portion (except they repent) in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.  PHIL. 
Whatsoever is to be thought of the place, yet I will prove by 
5  the Laws of England, That neither he, nor any of his associates were lawful Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
By the laws of England? how prove you that?  PHIL. 
It was 
e Ex Sandero de schism. l. 3. p. 297. Hier. Poll. l. 4. c. 6. p. 434.  ordained by the Parliament in the days of Henry the eight, that no man should be acknowledged a Bishop, unless he were Consecrated by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan; which law was revived by Queen 
f Elisab. in integrum restituit ac renovauit. Sand▪ ibid.  Elizabeth, and in full strength at the time of the Consecration of Matthew Parker: but Matthew Parker was not so Consecrate, and therefore by the laws of England he was not to be acknowledged for a Bishop. For what Archbishop was either present at his Consecration, or consenting unto it? Cardinal Poole then late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead, and Parker elected into his place. Nicholas Heath than last Archbishop of York was deposed. Indeed there was a certain 
g Ibidem.  Irish Archbishop, whom they had in bonds & prison at London, with whom they dealt very earnestly, promising him both liberty and rewards, if so be he would be chief in the Consecration. But he (good man) would by no means be brought to lay holy hands upon heretics, neither to be partaker of other men's sins. Wherefore having neither Archbishop of their own religion, nor being able to procure any other, the Consecration was performed without a Metropolitan, clean contrary to the laws of England.  ORTHO. 
What if both Sanders and you abuse the laws of England in this point? as indeed you do: For the words are these. 
h An. 25. Henry 8. c. 20.  And if the person be elected to the office & dignity of an Archbishop, according to the tenor of this act, then after such election certified to the king's highness in form aforesaid, he shallbe reputed and taken Lord elect of the said office and dignity of Archbishop, whereunto he shallbe so elected, and after he hath made such oath and fealty, only to the king's Majesty his heirs and successors as shallbe limited for the same, the king's highness by his letters patents under the great seal, shall signify the said election to one Archbishop, and two other Bishops, or else to four Bishops within this Realm, or within any other the king's Dominions, to be assigned by the king's highness, his heirs or successors, requiring and commanding the said Archbishop and Bishops, with all speed and celerity to confirm the said election, and to invest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected unto, and to give and use to him such pall, benedictions, ceremonies and other things requisite for the same, without suing, procuring, or obtaining any Bulls, Briefs, or any other things at the See of Rome, or by authority thereof in any behalf. Where it is clear that the King his heirs and successors might by the statute send letters patents for Consecration of an Archbishop, either to an Archbishop and two Bishops, or else to four Bishops, therefore it might be performed without an Archbishop, and yet not contrary to the laws of England.  PHIL. 
ADmit this were true, yet it availeth you nothing; for Math. 
5  Parker was Consecrated neither by 
a Sand. de Sch. l. 3. p. 297. nec inter se, aut tres du●sue Episcopos haberent.  three, nor by two, much less by four, though by your own confession the law required four.  ORTHOD. 
How know you that? were you present at his Consecration? or did you learn it of any that were present?  PHIL. 
I cannot say so, but it is very likely, because the Catholic Bishops being required to crown Queen Elizabeth, refused, all except one.  ORTHO. 
That one was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of carlil; but he was none of the Consecrators of Archbishop Parker. For he continued in your Popish religion, refused the oath of the supremacy, & was therefore deprived.  PHIL. 
That was the common case of them all but one; 
b Hard. Consut. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2.  For one alone I must confess was made to break unity, of whom a right good and Catholic Bishop said to a Noble man, we had but one fool amongst us, and him you have gotten unto you, little worthy of the name of a Bishop and Lord, whose learning was small, and honour thereby much stained. And he as it seemeth was the only Bishop which you had; therefore Math. Parker could not be Consecrated by three.  ORTHO. 
He whom you mean was Anth. 
c Who only remained in his See, and agreed to the religion. Witness the author of the life of the 70. Archbishop.  Kitchen Bishop of Landaffe, who was in the commission, but was none of the Consecratours; therefore you shoot at random and miss the mark.  PHIL. 
Whence then had you your Consecrators? Surely you did not go 
d Sand. quo supra.  to the Churches of the calvinists, and Lutherans, if peradventure they had any.  ORTHOD. 
We did not.  PHIL. 
Then you must be glad to run to your usual refuge, that you had one from 
e Eudaemon joh. Cydoniu● parall. c. 5. accerser● vobis nescio cuius ordinatorise Graecia auxilium soliti ●itis.  Greece. Alas my masters, you are narrowly driven, when you are forced to fly to such miserable shifts.  ORTHOD. 
This tale proceeded not from Eudaemon, but from Cacodaemon, the father of lies. No Sir, we needed no Grecian, though it pleaseth you to play the Cretian.  PHIL. 
If you had neither Bishops of your own, nor procured any, either from the Catholic Church, or from the reformed Churches, or from the Greekish Church, than it is true which Doctor 
f Reply to D. Sutl. f. 31.  Kellison reporteth out of Sanders, That they made one another Bishops.  ORTHO. 
Though Sanders in that book hath almost as many lies as lines, yet he hath not this loud lie; it is the invention of Kellison himself, you promise demonstrative reasons, and when your argument comes to the issue, where all your strength should lie, you bring nothing but slender surmises, flying reports, and detestable lies: Do these go at Rome for demonstrations? But I will answer you with evidence of truth which may be justified by monuments of public record.  
Queen Mary died in the year 1558 the 17. of November: and the 
6.  self same day died cardinal Poole Archb. of Canterbury, & the very same day was Queen Elizabeth proclaimed. The 15. of january next following was the day of Queen Elizabeth's Coronation, when Doctor Oglethorp Bishop of carlil was so happy as to set the Diadem of the kingdom upon her royal head. Now the See of Canterbury continued void till December following, about which time the Dean and Chapter having received the congedelier, elected master Doctor Parker for their Archbishop. 
a Ex Regist. M. Parker.  juxta morem antiquum & laudabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae praedictae ab antiquo usitatam & inconcusse obseruatam; i. proceeding in this election according to the ancient manner▪ and the laudable custom of the foresaid Church, anciently used, and inviolably observed. After which election orderly performed and signified according to the law, it pleased her highness to send her letters patents of Commission for his confirmation and consecration to seven 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 down for your better satisfaction.  

b Litter● patent▪ regiae ●x Regist. Park. fol. 3. b. And the same record is to be found in the Chancery.  Elizabeth Dei gratia, etc. Reverendis in Christo patribus. 

Anth. Landavensi.  
Will. Barlow quondam Bath. Episcopo nunc Cicestrensi electo.  
joh. Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Herefordensi electo.  
Miloni Coverdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo.  
joh. Suffraganeo Bedford.  
joh. Suffraganeo The●ford.  
joh. 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 part incumbunt pastorali efficio, juxta formam statutorum in ca part editorum & provisorum velitis cum effectu, etc. Da●. 6 Decem. Anno 2. Elizab▪ that is: That you or at the least four of you would effectually confirm the said Matth▪ Parker elected to be Archbishop and Pastor of the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ at Canterbury aforesaid, as is before mentioned, and that you would effectually confirm the said election, and consecrate the said Matthew Parker, Archbishop and Pastor of the said Church, and perform all and every thing which belongs to your Pastoral office in this respect, according to the form of the statutes set out and provided in this behalf. Behold how both the commission and statute concur with the Canons.  PHIL. 
But was the consecration accordingly performed? 
7   ORTH. 
You need not doubt of it. For first, the Bishops to whom the letters patents were directed, had reason to set their hands cheerfully to so good a work, so much tending to the advancing of the true Religion which they all embraced, and for which all of them except one, had been in exile. Secondly, how dared they do otherwise, seeing it was enacted by a statute made in the 25. year of King 
a Cap. 20.  Henry 8. and still in force, that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the King's dominions after any such election, nomination▪ or presentation signified unto them by the King's letters patents, should refuse and not confirm, invest, and consecrate with all due circumstance within twenty days after that the King's letters patents of such signification or presentation should come to their hands, than he or they, so offending, should run in the dangers; pains and penalties of the statute of provision and praemunire made in the twenty five year of the reign of king Edward the third, and in the sixteenth of king Richard the second.  PHIL. 
This is some probability: but yet for all this, seeing master D. Sanders saith, that you had neither three nor two Bishops, and master D. Kellison saith you could find none, I will not believe the contrary unless you produce the consecration itself.  ORTHOD. 
Then to take away all scruple, I will faithfully deliver unto you out of Authentical records, both the day when he was consecrated, and the persons by whom.  
Anno 1559. 
b Ex Registro Matth. Park. ●om. 1. f. 2. & 10.  Matt. Park. Cant. Cons. 17. Decem. by 

William Barlow.  
john Scorie.  
Miles Coverdale.  
john Hodgeskins.    PHIL. 
IF all this were granted, yet it were nothing unless you could 
8  justify the consecration of his consecratours, therefore you must tell me when they were made Bishops?  ORTHOD. 
Two of them in the reign of king Henry 8. and two in the days of king Edward the sixth. In the reign of K. Henry, B. Barlow and the Suffragan of Bedford. Bishop Barlow was a man of singular note, who, (to use the words of 
c Descript●ribus Angl. Cent. 9 41.  Bale) ab erudito ingenio famam accepit: that is he had great fame and renown for a learned wit. In regard whereof he was advanced to be Prior of 
d Registrum Cranm. f. 181. b  Bisham and from thence elected to the Bishopric of Saint 
e Ibid. f. 179.  Asaph, which election was confirmed 23. Febr▪ 1535. and soon after it pleased the King to prefer him to the Bishopric of Saint 
f Ibid. f. 205.  David's, where he continued all the days of King Henry duly discharging all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, even Episcopal consecration, as I have 
g Li●▪ 2. c. 10. in the consecration of Arthur Buckly.  already declared out of authentical records. He was also translated by King Edward to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, and by Queen Elizabeth promoted to Chichester. And as he was generally acknowledged and obeyed as a Bishop in his own nation, so Bucanan relating how King Henry sent him Ambassador into Scotland, doth give him his just 
h Anglus misit in Scotian Sanct● Dau●●is sive Menevensem Episcopum  Episcopal title. Now you told us 
i Lib. 2. c. 10.  before out of Sanders, that in King Henry's time, none might be acknowledged for a Bishop unless he were consecrated by three, with the consent of the Metropolitan. Wherefore seeing Barlow was so famously and notoriously acknowledged not only in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and King Edward, but also in the days of King Henry▪ it is a clear case that he was so consecrated. The same is to be said of the Suffragan of Bedford.  PHIL. 
What tell you me of Suffragans? you know how 
k Epist. 3. Bin. t. 1. pag. 502.  Damasus speaketh against those titulary Bishops, called Chorepiscopi.  ORTHOD. 
There are two sorts of Chorepiscopi, the first had no Episcopal Consecration, who are reproved and that justly, for they were only Priests, and not Bishops, and of these Damasus speaketh in the judgement of 
a De Cleric. c. 17.  Bellarmine. The second had Episcopal Consecration, and these though they had no city, nor diocese of their own, but only some country town for their See, yet in regard of their Consecration, they were true Bishops, as 
b De s●cr●onf. l. 2. cap. 12.  Bellarmine confesseth: Respondeo, Suffraganeos esse veros Episcopos, quia & ordinationem habent, & jurisdictionem, licet careant possessione propriae Ecclesia: that is, I answer that Suffragans are true Bishops, because they have both ordination and jurisdiction, although they are not possessed of a Church of their own. And of this latter sort are the Suffragans of England, established by act of Parliament, in these words. Be it 
c 26. H. 8. c. 14.  therefore enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the towns of Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Gilsord, Southampton, Taunton, Shaftesbury, Molton, Marleborrow, Bedford, Leicester, Gloucester, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Penreth, Bridgwater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hul, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and the towns of Pereth, and Berwick, S. Germane in Cornwall, and the I'll of Wight, shall be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishop's Suffragans, to be made in this Realm, and in Wales. And the Bishops of such Sees shall be called Suffragans of this Realm. And for their consecration, provided always that the Bishop that shall nominate the Suffragan to the king's highness, or the Suffragan himself, that shallbe nominated, shall provide two B. or Suffrag. to Consecrate him with the Archbishop.  PHIL. 
Was john Hodgeskins accordingly Consecrated?  ORTH. 
He was Consecrated by three as appeareth.  


john 
d Ex registro Cran. f. 204.  Hodgskins Suffrag. Bedf. Cons. 9 Dec. 29. Hen. 8. by 

john Lond.  
john Roff.  
Rob. Asaph.      PHIL. 
But the Statute produced requireth two Bishops, with an Archbishop▪ where is that Archbishop?  ORTHO. 
Your institutions of the Canon Law recognised at Rome by the Pope's Mandate, may tell you, that an Archbishop may 
e Lanc. inst. l. 1. de consec.  alicui Coepiscoporum vices suas demandare, commit his room to any other of his fellow Bishops. And this you must hold, for otherwise ye can no ways defend the Consecrations of your chief Bishops, namely Bonner, Heath, & Thurlby, whom Archbishop Cranmer did not Consecrate in his own person, but by 
f Regist. Cran. f. 259. & 261.  others, to whom he gave commission. To conclude this point, your principal Bishops in Queen Mary's time descended from this same joh. Bedford. For Tho. Thurlby, who was one of the Consecrators of Cardinal 
g Regist. Car. Pol● f. 3. a.  Poole, was Consecrated by joh. 
h Regist. Cran. f. 261.  Bedf. The other two were Consecrated in King Edward's time, both in one day as hath been 
i Libr. 2. c. 11.  before declared. And these also were very learned men; Coverdale helped tindal, in the translation of the Bible: his fame and renown caused the 
k Act. ad Mon. where the copy of the letters are to be scene.  King of Denmark, to write earnestly unto Queen Marie, that she would send him unto him, which she did. And how learned a man, Bishop Scory was, may appear by this, that when the disputation was appointed with the Popish Bishops, he was the 
l Acts and Mon. in fine.  first and principal man named on the Protestants side, with whom the adversaries durst not encounter. And thus much of their Consecrations.  PHIL. 
ADmit they were truly Consecrated, and were Bishops of their 
10  several Sees, yet they fled away and so dispossessed themselves, and therefore could not Consecrate him by virtue of their former Episcopal titles.  ORTHOD. 
By what power doth a Bishop Consecrate a Bishop?  PHIL. 
By virtue of his Episcopal 
a Bell. delap. & Cons l. 2. c. 12.  Character.  ORTHO. 
But you told us that the Character is indelible: therefore they could not lose the power of Consecrating by losing their Bishopriks'. Again if a Bishop flying in the time of persecution doth cease to be a Bishop and lose his title, then famous Athanasius did cease to be a Bishop, and lost his title, for it is plain that he fled from Alexandria. 
b Athanas. in Epist. ad Orthodoxos.  I did saith he withdraw myself by stealth, from the people being mindful of the word of my Saviour, 
c Matth. 10. 23.  if they persecute you in one City, fly into another. But Athanasius for all this did not cease to be Bishop of Alexandria. For although the Arrian faction prevailing▪ the Council of tire 
d Concilium vero Tyrium, eum indicta causa condemn. not, abdicat Episcopatu. ●oz. l. 2. c. 24.  deposed him, yea and the Council of Antioch, in the presence and with the consent of the 
e Cogitur Concilium Antiochiae present imperatore Constantio. Socr. lib. 2. c. 5●  Emperor, did institute 
f Decernunt ut Gregorius Ecclesiae Alexandrinae antistes constituatur Soz. l. 3. c. 5. vid. Bar Anno 341 num. 1.  Gregory in his place, yet the council of 
g Epist. Sardic. Concilij ad Episc. Africanos Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 207. Paris. 1608  Sardica pronounced Athanasius (as also Marcellus Asclepas and other Catholic exiled Bishops) to be pure and innocent: and deny that Gregory the Usurper, of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza, (which had entered like 
h Qui in eorum Ecclesias ●uporum instar ingressi sunt. ibidem. Binius ●om. 1. p. 446.  Wolves upon the Churches of these men) should be called Bishops. So the Council judged the Churches to belong to the Catholic Bishops, even at such time as they were exiled, and the Arrians in possession: and accordingly they 
i See Baron▪ Anno. 347.  deposed Gregory with such like, & restored Athanasius, and the rest with honour. Which act they signified in a synodal Epistle, to the Church of Alexandria, in this manner. 
k Athanas. Apol. 2. Bin. t. 1. p. 444.  We would have you to know that Gregory, being made Bishop unlawfully, by heretics, and brought by them into your city is deposed from his Bishopric by the whole Synod, although in very deed he was never Bishop, therefore farewell, and receive your Bishop Athanasius. Thus you see that though Athanasius fled away in time of persecution, though he were deposed by a Council, and another chosen in his place, by another Council, with the consent of the Emperor; yet for all this▪ he is judged to be the true Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory never to have been 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 Catholic Faith, as well as Athanasius. Wherefore if you will conform your judgement to the Council of Sardica, you must confess that such as in King Edward's time were lawfully possessed of bishoprics (though in Queen Mary's time being persecuted in one city, they fled into another) did still retain the titles of true Bishops, and that those which invaded their Churches, were intruders and usurpers. Thus it appeareth, that as Athanasius, and the rest returning from exile, might ordain and do, all such things as belonged to their Episcopal Office, even so Bishop Barlow, Bishop Coverdale, and the rest returning from exile, might likewise ordain, and justify their proceedings in their Episcopal function.  PHIL. 
There is not the same reason: for Athanasius and the rest were restored by a Council, yours were not, but only by the Prince.  ORTHOD. 
Athanasius was restored sundry times, sometimes with a Council, sometimes without. When the Council of tire deposed him, the Emperor Constantine the Great called them to 
a Euseb. de vitae Constant. lib. 4. cap. 42. Socr. l. 1. c. 22.  account for their judgement: But when he heard him accused by Catholic Bishops, which formerly had been his own friends, (whom the Arrians had now suborned against him) for threatening to hinder the carriage of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople, he 
b 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 son, with the 
c Licet invito animo ferret, ●ulit tamen. Baron. anno 338. n. 3.  permission of his brother Constantius, and that according to the prescript of their father, as appear by these words of Athanasius: 
d Athanasius apol. 2.  Blessed Constantine the younger, being mindful of the prescripts of his father, while he restored me to my Country, wrote an Epistle in these words. And so he setteth down Constantine's Epistle to the Church of Alexandria. Concerning which you shall hear your own 
e An●● 338. ●. 1.  Baronius, Constantinus Augustus Athanasium quem vivente patre exceperat Treveris, regio diplomate, datis ad Alexandrinos litteris, in suam Ecclesiam summo cum honore restituit, i. Constantine the Emperor restored Athanasius (whom he had entertained at Trevers while his father was alive) by his Letters Patents to the people of Alexandria, with very great honour. Thus you see that though he was deposed by a Council, and exiled by a Prince, yet he was restored only by the Prince's Letters without a Counsel.  PHIL. 
The Council of Antioch 
f Soz. l. 3. c. 5.  objected a 
g Conc. Antioch. 1. Can. 12. Bin. tom. 1. p. 423.  Canon against him▪ to wit, That he which is deposed by a Council, cannot be restored but by a Council of a greater number: And therefore seeing he was deposed by the Council of tire, and restored, neither by a Council of a greater number, nor by any Council at all, but only by the letters of the Emperor, they deposed him, and put another in his place.  ORTHOD. 
First, it is 
h Vide Bin. in notis in Conc. Antioch.  confessed, that this Council of Antioch, was a wicked Arrian Council: Secondly, 
i Lib. 6. c. 16.  Socrates declareth, that this very Canon was urged against S. Chrysostome, who rejected it as being made by the Arrians, of set purpose against Athanasius: Thirdly, if we should admit this Canon, yet it maketh nothing against the Consecratours of Archbishop Parker: for they were not deposed by any Council, and therefore needed no Council to restore them; but as Athanasius and other Bishops being forced to flee in the time of 
k Sozom. l. 5. cap. 14.  julian, returned again in the days of jovian, 
l Greg. Naz. orat. de laud. Athan.  Qui cum omnes alios Episcopos, tum eum (nempe Athanasium) ante omnes, qui omnibus virtute antecellebat, & citra dubitationem ullam pietatis causa bello vexatus fuerat, ab exilio revocat, i. Who recalled from exile, as all other Bishops, so especially Athanasius, who in virtue excelled all men, and without doubt was vexed and troubled (only) for his piety and Religion: So these reverend Bishops being forced to flee in the time of Q. Marry, only for their piety and Religion, returned again in the days of Q. Elizabeth, who as she recalled all godly Christians and Preachers from exile, so especially those that excelled in learning and virtue. 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 Episcopal Office, because 
m Antih●ret. motiu. p. 266.  Bristol confesseth, that he was a Priest secundum Catholicum ritum, i. according to the Catholic rite, Which is most true; He was Chaplain 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 advanced to the See of Canterbury. He was very learned (as may appear by his writings famously known to the world,) and a great lover of learning, and Religion: For he founded a 
a See B. Goodwin. in catalogo.  Grammar School at Rochdale in Lancashire; Unto Corpus Christi College in Cambridge (where he was brought up) he procured 13. Scholarships, built the inward Library, and two fair chambers in the same. He gave to the Library of that College a great number of Books, some printed, other written, very rare, and much to be esteemed for their value and Antiquity. He gave also to the University 50▪ written books of great value, and 50 printed. He gave to the same College, land for the maintenance of two Fellows, above the ordinary number. He took order for the preaching of 6. Sermons yearly, in 5. several Churches in Norfolk. To Trinity Hall he gave a scholars place, and books likewise. And otherwise bestowed much money unto charitable uses Lastly, he is commended by a great 
b Camd. in Brit.  Antiquary, for being singularly studious of Antiquities; by whose care and industry, many excellent Monuments both in the Latin and Saxon tongue were preserved, which otherwise had perished in the darkness of Oblivion. But from the persons we will proceed to the matter and form of the Consecration.  PHIL. 
I 
c Kel reply to D. Sutl. p. 31.  Have heard credibly reported, That your new Superintendents, were 
12.  made Bishops with no other ceremony, then with the laying of the English Bible upon their heads.  ORTHOD. 
Yes, they were all made with imposition of hands, which is the only ceremony of Ordination which the Scripture mentioneth; And 
d De Sacram. Ordinis. c. 9  Bellarmine thinketh it to be the matter essential. And for the other Ceremonies which are but the invention of man, you cannot enforce them upon us, further than the wisdom of our Church doth hold it convenient. But concerning Archb. Parker, 
e Ex vita Matthei Parker.  this was his singular felicity, That being the 70. Archbishop after Austin, yet of all that number he was the only man, and the first of all which received Consecration without the Pope's Bulls, and superfluous aaronical Ornaments, as gloves, rings, Sandals, slippers, Mitre, Pall, and such like trifles: making a happy beginning (more rightly, and more agreeable to the simplicity and purity of the Gospel) with Prayer, invocation of the holy Ghost, imposition of hands, and Religious promises, in Attire correspondent to the gravity and authority of an Archbishop, with a Sermon made by a learned and godly Divine, concerning the Office, charge and faithfulness, of a Pastor to his flock, and the love, obedience, and reverence of the flock to the Pastor; And after Sermon, with receiving the holy Communion in a great assembly of most grave men. And last of all, with the common and fervent prayers of them all, that the Office imposed upon him, might redound to the glory of God, the salvation of his flock, and the joyful testimony of his own conscience.  PHIL. 
WHat form of words did they use, to give the Episcopal 
13.  power, with the imposition of hands?  ORTHOD. 
The very same which was used in King Edward's days, and is used still in the Church of England▪ yea the very same words, which by the great providence of God are still retained in your own Church. And this may appear by the act of his Consecration, remaining in record.  

a Ex regist. Mat. Park. fol. 10.  Cicestrensis, Heref: Suffraganeus Bedford & Milo Coverdale manibus Archiepiscopo imposit is dixerunt anglice. viz. Take the holy Ghost etc.  
Thus have we examined the place, the persons, the matter, the form of his Consecration, and find nothing but agreeable to the laws of the Land, the Canons of the Church, and the practice of reverend antiquity: wherein how circumspectly the Queen proceeded, may further appear by this that her letters patents were sent to diverse learned professors of the law, that they might freely give their judgement, and all of them jointhe confessed, that both the Queen's Majesty 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 own hands remain in 
b Ex reg. Mat. Park.  record as followeth.  


William May.  
Robert Weston.  
Edward Leedes.  
Henry Harvey.  
Thomas Yale.  
Nicolas Bullingham.    
Hitherto of Archbishop Parker, now let us hear your exceptions against the rest.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the rest of the Bishop's Consecrated in the second and third year of Queen Elizabeth.  PHIL. 
IF his or their Consecrations were sound, why did the Queen in her letters patents directed for the consecrating of them, use diverse general words and sentences, whereby she dispensed with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection or disability that could or might be objected in any wise against the same, as may appear by an act 
a 8. Eliz. c. 1.  of Parliament, referring us to the said letters patents, remaining of record?  ORT. 
She might entertain some reason in her royal breast, which you and I, and such shallow heads are not able to conceive: But if I might presume to give my conjecture, I suppose she did it, ad maiorem cautelam. For there wanted not malicious Papists, which would pry into the state of the Clergy, and observe the least imperfection that could be: Whereupon to prevent their slanders and to stop the mouths of malice, that gracious Queen was not only careful that Every thing requisite and material should be made and done as precisely as ever before, but also to the end that all men might be satisfied, that all doubt, scruple, and ambiguity might be taken away, and that there should not the least spot of suspicion cleave unto her Clergy, it pleased her Majesty if peradventure quick sighted malice could find any quirk or quiditie against them by colour of any Canon or Statute, graciously to dispense with it; Which doth not argue any unsoundness in their consecrations, but the godly care and providence of a religious Prince.  PHIL. 
You use to find fault with the Pope's dispensations, and will you yourselves in an act of Parliament affirm that the Queen dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfection, or dissabilitie, and that in a matter of holy Orders?  ORTHOD. 
The Pope taketh upon him to dispense against the law of God, (as for example, That a brother may marry his brother's wife;) So did not Queen Elizabeth, but only with trespasses against her own laws, not in essential points of ordination, but only in accidental; not in substance but in circumstance. Neither did she give them leave to make any voluntary violation of the law, but only dispensed with such omission as 
a Temporis ratione & rerum necessitate id postulante.  necessity itself should require, as may appear by the said letters patents. And it pleased the Almighty so to dispose that all things were performed in most exquisite manner; yet the Papists, (such was their hatred against the Clergy) did blaze abroad the contrary: Whereupon the high Court of Parliament assembled in the eight year of that famous Queen, having deeply considered and pondered all things, pronounced, that their speeches were Slanderous not grounded upon any just matter, or cause. For God's name be blessed, all things were done honestly, and in order, even from her first coming to the crown.  
ANd verily as josua 
b jos. 24. 10.  protested, I & my house will serve the Lord: so Queen 
2  Elizabeth resolved with her own heart, I and my kingdoms will serve the Lord. Therefore as 
c 2. King. 23. 3.  josias assembled the ancients of juda and jerusalem to make a Covenant with their God: so Queen Elizabeth assembled her high Court of Parliament for the same purpose. But as when Nehemias went about reformation, the 
d Neh. 13. 28  Priests and 
e Neh. 6. 12  Prophets which should have been the principal helpers, were principal hinderers; so it came to pass in that Parliament, that whereas the Prince, and Barons, and the Commons were great instruments of God's glory; the Popish Bishops sought by all means the glory of their holy father the Pope. Notwithstanding God in his mercy gave a blessing, so that the truth prevailed. And as 
f 2. Kin. 11. 4.  jehoiada required an oath in behalf of King joas; so the Parliament did in behalf of Queen Elizabeth. And as 
g 2. Kin. 2. 35  Abiathar was justly deprived for refusing Solomon and joining with Adonia: even so were the Popish Bishops for refusing the oath of the Queen's supremacy, which contained nothing else, but the Princes lawful title. And as Abiathar being displaced, Sadok was advanced: so those undutiful Bishops, being removed, godly Pastors were preferred.  
THe Bishops deprived, were in number fourteen, in whose Sees, 
3  who succeeded may appear by this table, wherein is set down first, the Province of Canterbury, and then of York.  
  Sees. Displaced. Placed. province Cant. London. Bonner. Grindall. Winchester. White. Horn. Ely. Thurlby. Cox. Lincoln. Watson. Bullingham. Cou. & Lichfeild Bane. Bentham. Bath and Wels. Bourne. Barckly. Exon. Turberuill. Ally. Worcester. Pates. Sands. Peterburrow. Poole. Scambler. Asaph. Gouldwell. davis. York. York. Heath. Young. Durham. Tunstall. Pilkinton. carlil. Oglethorp. Best. Chester. Scot Downham.  


¶ The Consecration of the B. of the Province of Cant.  
Anno 1559. Edm. 
a Regist. Park. r. 1. fol. 18.  Grindall Cons. 21. Dec. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Will. Cicester.  
joh. Hereford.  
joh. Bedford.    
Anno 1560. Robert 
b Ibid. fol. 88  Horn cons. 16. Feb. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Tho. Meneu.  
Edm. London.  
Tho. Cou. & Lich.    
Anno 1559. Rich. 
c Ibid. fol. 22.  Cox cons. 21. Decem. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Will. Cicester.  
joh. Hereford.  
joh. Bedford.    
Anno 1559. Nich. 
d Ibid. fol. 54.  Bullinghan cons. 21. jan. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Edm. London.  
Rich. Eliens.  
joh. Bedford.    
Anno 1559. Tho. 
e Ibid. fol. 69.  Bentham cons. 24. Mart. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Nich. Lincoln.  
joh. Sarum.    
Anno 1559. Gilb. 
f Ibid. fol▪ 74.  Barckly cons. 24. Mart. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Nich. Lincoln.  
joh. Sarum.    
Anno 1560. Will. 
g Ibid. fol▪ 80.  Ally cons. 14. july. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Edm. London.  
Gilbard Bath  
and Wells.    
Anno 1559. Edwin 
a Ibid. fol. 39  Sands cons. 21. Decem. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Will. Cicester.  
joh. Hereford.  
joh. Bedford.    
Anno 1560. Edm. 
b Ibid. fol. 92.  Scambler cons. 16. Febru. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Tho. Menevens.  
Edm. London.  
Tho. Cou. & Lichfield.    
Anno 1559. Rich. 
c Ibid. fol. 5●.  davis cons. 21. janu. by 

Math. Archbishop Cant.  
Edm. London.  
Rich. Eliens.  
joh. Bedford.      
Of the Cons. of the Bishops of the Province of York.  
Thomas Young was translated to York from Saint David's, whose Consecration was as followeth.  
Anno 1559. Thomas Young cons. 21. january by 

Math. Archb. Cant.  
Edm. London.  
Rich. Eliens.  
joh. Bedford.    
The like is to be judged of the rest which I have not set down, because as yet I have not seen the records of York.   

CHAP. VI  
A brief view of all the Bishops of some of the principal Sees, during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth.  ORTH. 
TO the intent that all men may know the godly 
1  care of the Church of England in observing the ancient Canons, I will set down all the Bishops of some of the principal Sees which were consecrated from the first entrance of Queen Elizabeth, till the end of her Reign.  
Canterbury.  
THe Archbishops of Canterbury in the Queen's time were Math. Parker, 
2  Edmund Grindal, and john Whitgift, the consecration of the two former you have heard already, the third remaineth to be declared.  
Anno 1●77. joh. 
d Regist. Grindal.  Whitgift cons. 21. April. by 

Edm. Archb. Cant.  
joh. London.  
Rob. Winton.  
Rich. Cicester.    
London.  
THe Bishops of London in the Queen's time, were Edmund Grindall, 
3  Edwin Sands, john Elmer, Richard Fletcher, and Richard Bancroft. The Consecration of the two first were before expressed, the rest as followeth.  


Anno 1576. joh. 
a Ibidem.  Elmer Cons. 24. Mart. by 

Edm. Archb. Cant.  
Edw. Archb. Ebor.  
joh. Roff.    
Anno 1589. Rich. 
b Regist. Whitg. t. 1.  Fletcher Cons. 14. Dec. by 

joh. Archb Cant.  
joh. London.  
joh. Roff.  
joh. Glou.    
Anno 1597. Rich. 
c Ibidem.  Bancroft Cons. 8. May by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
Ioh Roff.  
Anton Meneu.  
Rich Bangor.  
Anton. Cicest.      
¶ Winchester.  
THe Bishops of Winchester, in the Queen's time, were Robert Horn, 
4.  john Watson, Thomas Cooper, William Wickham, William Day, and Thomas Bilson; the Consecration of Bishop Horn was before handled, the rest were as followeth.  


Anno 1580. joh. 
d Regist. Grindal.  Watson Cons. 18. Septem. by 

Edm. Archb. Cant.  
joh. London.  
joh. Roff.    
Anno 1570. Thomas 
e Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.  Cooper Cons. 24. Febr. by 

Matth. Archb. Cant.  
Robert Wint.  
Nich. Wigorn.    
Anno 1584. Will. 
f Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.  Wickham Cons. 6. Decem. by 

john Archb: Cant.  
Edm. Wigorn.  
joh. Exon.  
Mauricius Meneu.    
Anno 1595. William 
g Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.  Day Cons. 25. janu. by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. Lond.  
joh. Roff.    
Anno 1596. Thomas 
h Ibidem.  Bilson Cons. 13. janu. by 

joh. Archb Cant.  
Rich. Lond.  
Will. Wint.  
Rich. Bangor.      
¶ Ely.  
THe Bishops of Ely in the Queen's time, Richard Cox, and Martin 
5.  Heaton, the Consecration of Bishop Cox was handled before, the other followeth.  
Anno 1599 Martin 
i Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.  Heaton Cons. 3. Febr. by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
Rich Lond.  
Will. Cou. and Lichf.  
Anton. Cicest.    
¶ Salisbury.  
THe Bishops of Salisbury, were john jewel, Edmund Guest, john Peirs, 
6  john Goldwell, and Henry Cotton.  


Anno 1559. john 
a Ex Regist. Park. fol. 46.  jewel Cons. 21. janu. by 

Matth. Archb. Cant.  
Edmund London.  
Rich. Ely.  
joh. Bedford.    
Anno 1559. Edmund 
b Ibid. fol. 64.  Guest Cons. 24. Mart. by 

Matth. Archb. Cant.  
Nich. Lincoln.  
joh. Sarum.    
Anno 1576. john 
c Ex Reg. Grindall.  Peirs Cons. 15. April. by 

Edm. Archb. Cant.  
Edw. London.  
Rob. Winton.    
Anno 1591. john 
d Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.  Coldwell Cons. 26. Decem. by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
joh. London.  
Tho. Wint.  
Rich. Bristol.  
joh. Oxon.    
Anno 1598. Henry 
e Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.  Cotton. Cons. 12. Novem. by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. London.  
William Covent.  
Ant. Cicest.      
¶ Norwich.  
THe Bishops of Norwich, were Thomas Parkhurst, Edmund Freak, Edmund 
7  Scambler, William Redman, and john jegon: Of these, Edmund Scamblers Consecration hath already been declared; the rest follow.  


Anno 1560. Thomas 
f Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.  Parkhurst Cons. 1. Sep. by 

Matth. Archb. Cant.  
Gilbert Bath and Wells.  
William Exon.    
Anno 1571. Edmund 
g Ibid.  Freak Cons. 9 Mart. by 

Matth. Archb. Cant.  
Robert Wint.  
Edm. Sarum.    
Anno 1594. William 
h Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.  Redman Cons. 12. janu. by 

john Archb. Cant.  
Rich. London.  
john Roff.  
William Lincoln.    
Anno 1602. john 
i Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.  jegon Cons. 20. Febru. by 

john Archb. Cant.  
Rich. London.  
john Roff.  
Ant. Cicest.      
¶ Rochester.  
THe Bishops of Rochester were Edmund Guest, Edm. Freak, john Pierce, and john Young, whereof the three first have been already handled, the fourth followeth.  
Anno 1577. 
a Ex reg. Grindall.  john Young Cons. 16. Mart. by 

Edm. Archb. Cant.  
john Lond.  
joh. Sarum.     

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Bishops in the Province of Canterbury, consecrated since our gracious Sovereign King james did come to the Crown: with a little touch concerning the Province of York.  
ANd that you may know that the same order in Consecration of Bishops is still retained under the reign of our gracious Sovereign King james, behold these that follow.  


Anno 1603. 
b These Record following were taken out of the original instruments.  joh. Bridges Cons. B. of Oxon. 12. Febr. by 

joh. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. Lond.  
Tob. Durham.  
joh. 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. Ravis Cons. B. of Glouc. 17. Mart. by 

Rich. Archb. Cant.  
Tob. Durham.  
Anth. Cicest.    
Anno 1605. Will. Barlow Cons. B. of Roch. 30. jun. by 

Rich. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. London.  
Anth. Cicest.  
Thom. Glouc.    
Anno 1605. Lanc. Andrew's Cons. B. of Cic. 3. Nou. by 

Rich. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. Lond.  
joh. Norwich.  
Thom. Glouc.  
Will. Roff.    
Anno 1607. Henr. Parry Cons. B. of Glouc. 12. jul. by 

Rich. Archb. Cant.  
Thom. Lond.  
Will. Roff.  
Lancel. Cicest.    
An. 1608. ja. Mountagu. cons. 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.  
ja. 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 jul. by 

Georg. Archb. Cant.  
joh. Oxon.  
Lanc. Eli.  
ja. Bath. & Wells.  
Rich. Cou. & Lichf.    
john Buckridge Cons. B. of Roch. the same day, by the same persons.  
Anno 1611. joh. King. Cons. B. of Lond. 8. Septemb. by 

Georg. Archb. Cant.  
Rich. Cou. & Lichf.  
Giles Glouc.  
joh. Roff.    
Anno 1612. Miles Smith Cons. B. of Glou. 20. Sept. by 

Georg. Cant.  
joh. Lond.  
Rich. Cou. & Lich.  
joh. Roff.      
The like hath been continually observed in the Province of York; for a taste whereof, I will give you two examples: The former in the Queen's time, the later in the reign of our gracious Sovereign.  


Anno 1598. [Hen. Robinson. Cons. B. of Carl. 23. jul.] by 

Rich. Lond.  
joh. Roff.  
Anth. Cic.    
Anno 1606. [Will. james Cons. B. of Durham. 6. Sept.] by 

Tob. Ebor.  
Rich. Lond.  
Will. Roff.  
Lanc. Cic.      
THis which you have seen may seem sufficient; Yet because I desire to give ample contentment▪ I ha●●●et down the successive Ordination, and Golden chain of the most reverend Father George, now L. Archbishop of Canterbury, (the joy of the Clergy, and Gods great blessing upon this Church) ascending link by link unto the Bishops in the time of King Henry the 8. which our adversaries acknowledge to be Canonical. Whereunto, (that all the Clergy of England may know in particular, how to prove their succession,) I intent, when God shall grant me opportunity to view the Records of the other Province, to annex the like Episcopal line of the other most reverend Metropolitan, Toby, L. Archbishop of York.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The Episcopal line and succession of the most Reverend Father in God, George now Lord Archb. of Canterbury, particularly declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the days of King Henry the eight, which our Adversaries acknowledge to be Canonical.  
He was Consecrated 3. December. 1609. By 

1. R. Bancroft Cons. 8. May 1597 by  
Lancel. Eli. Whose Consecrations were before described, and may be deduced in the like manner.  
Richard Rosf. Whose Consecrations were before described, and may be deduced in the like manner. 

2. joh. Whitg. Cons. 21. Apr. 1577. by 

john 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.  
joh. Hodgskins. in the time of Henry 8.  
5 Miles Coverdale Cons. 30. Aug. 1551. by 

Thomas Cranmer. in the time of Henry 8.  
john Hodg●kins. in the time of Henry 8.  
7 Nicholas Ridley, Cons. 5. Sep. 1547. by 

Henry Lincoln. in the time of Hen. 8.  
john Bedford. in the time of Hen. 8.  
Thomas Sidon. in the time of Hen. 8.      
6 Ioh.▪ Scory, Cons. with Miles Coverdale vide 5.    
8 joh. Hurly Cons. 26. May 1553. by 

Thomas Cranmer.  
Christ. Sidon.  
9 john Taylour Cons. 26. july 1552. by 

Thomas Cranmer.  
john Scory▪ vide 6.  
Nich. Ridley, vide 7.      
William Barlow. in the time of Henry the 8.  
john Bedford. in the time of Henry the 8.    
10. joh. Elmer Cons. 24. Mar. 1577 by 

Edmund Grindall, ●ide 3.  
11 Edw. Sands, Consecrated with Edmund Grindall. vide 3.  
12 john Piers Cons. 15. Apr. 1576. by  
Robert Horn vide 13.  
19 Ri. C●r●else cons. 21. May 1570. by 

Matthew Parker vide 4.  
Robert Horn. vide 13  
20 Edm. Guest cons. 24. Mar. 1559 by 

Matthew Parker vide 4  
Nicholas Bullinghan vid. 17  
john jewel vide 18       

Edmund Grindall. vide 3.  
Edwin Sands. vide 11.  
13 Rob. Horn cons. 16. Feb. 1560. by 

Matthew Parker. vide 4.  
Edmund Grindall. v. 3.  
14 Tho. Young Cons. 21. jan. 1559. by 

Math. Parker vide 4.  
Edmund Grindall. v. 3.  
joh. Hodgskins, in the time of H. 8.  
15 Rich. Cox, with Edm. Grindall. v. 3.    
16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cons. 24. Mar. 1559. by 

Matthew Parker vide 4  
17 N. Bullinghan cons. 21 jan. 1559 by 

Matthew Parker v. 4  
Edm. Grindall v. 3  
Richard Cox vide 15  
john Hodgskins.    
18 joh. jewel cons. 21 jan. 1559 by 

Mat. Parker v. 4  
Edm. Grindal v. 3  
Richard Cox v. 15  
Io. Hodgskins.            
21 john Young Consecrated 16. Mar. 1577. by 

Edmund Grindall vide 3  
john Elmer. vide 10  
john jewel. vide 18    
22 Ant: Rud, Consecrated 9 jun. 1594. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
john Young. vide 21  
23 Richard Fletcher Cons: 14. Dec: 1589. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
john Elmer. vide 10  
john Young. vide 21  
24 john Bullingham. Cons: 5. Sep: 1581. by 

Edmund Grindall. vide 3  
john Elmer. vide 10  
john Young. vide 21        
25 Richard Vaughan, Cons: 25. january 1595. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
Richard Fletcher. vide 23  
john Young. vide 21    
26 Anthony Watson, Cons: 15. August 1596. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
john▪ Young. vide 21.  
Richard Vaughan. vide 25  
27 Thomas Bilson, conse: 13. june 1596. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
Richard Fletcher. vide 3  
28 William Day, consecrated 25. january 1595. by 

john Whitgift. vide 2  
Richard Fletcher. vide 23  
john Young. vide 21            PHIL. 
These are domestical testimonies of your own; neither do I know whether they be true.  ORTH. 
The records alleged, are of such high credit and reputation, that they cannot possibly be infringed. As for the main 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 own time, when all things were in fresh memory. And though some of his spiteful and bitter enemies did then scornfully comment upon his life, yet the truth of this fact they never called in question.  PHIL. 
Surely (Orthodox) I cannot but marvel▪ if your extracts be true, how the contrary opinion was so commonly received in the English Colleges at Rome and Rheims.  ORTH. 
Truly (Philodox) that which a man wisheth, he is willing to believe, & the mind sophisticate with malice is ready upon every light occasion to imagine the worst, yea and sometimes to blaze that for certain which hath neither show nor shadow of truth. Yet these vain surmises you receive for oracles, and deliver one to another by the holy hand of tradition, wherein you glory as in an unanswerable argument. So did your fellows at Framlingham: so did Hart in the conference with Doctor Rainolds: but when he had heard his answer, justifying our Bishops by authentical records, 
a Doct. Reinolds in his letter to M. Thomas Barker of Monck Soham in Suffolk, the original whereof is in my hands, and the same Doctor of godly memory did sometimes relate the same unto myself.  he would needs have that whole point left out of the conference, saying he would not press him with it, and confessed, he thought that no such thing could have been showed, and that himself had been borne in hand otherwise. Now (Philodox) as he was deluded, so are you: but as he received satisfaction, so I hope will you.    

THE FOURTH BOOK. WHEREIN IS ENTREATED of Episcopal jurisdiction.  

CHAP. I.  
Whence the Bishops of England receive their jurisdiction.  PHIL. 
THough it were granted that the Bishops of England have Canonical Consecration, yet it will not follow that they are perfect and complete Bishops For, whence have they their jurisdiction?  ORTH. 
Partly from Christ, and partly from the Prince.  PHIL. 
From the Prince? how can this be? Is Episcopal jurisdiction of the same nature with the Princely?  ORTHOD. 
Between the Regal and Episcopal there are many differences; but it shall be sufficient for our present purpose to observe these two: first the Episcopal jurisdiction is only spiritual, or Ecclesiastical: but the Regal is both Ecclesiastical and temporal. Secondly, the King doth govern Ecclesiastical affairs, not Ecclesiastically but regally, that is, with a sovereign authority outwardly coercitive with temporal punishments: The Bishop handleth Ecclesiastical matters in Ecclesiastical manner. For he is enabled by himself, and ex officio ordinario, not only to minister the word and Sacraments, but also to perform other holy and eminent actions: as for example, to ordain Ministers, and to inflict spiritual censures upon the offenders, namely the sentence of excommunication, and again, to absolve and restore them to the Communion of Saints: Which sacred offices 
a Nos Principi censurae potestatem non ●acimus Tort. Tor. pag. 151.  our Church ascribeth not unto the person of the Prince, neither did our Kings or Queens ever practise them. For regal jurisdiction consisteth not in a ministerial power, nor personal performance of such things, but in an outward supreme commanding authority, as was 
b Lib. 3. c. 3.  before declared out of the admonition annexed to the Queen's injunctions, an act of Parliament, and the Articles of Religion: Wherefore as it was not lawful for the Kings of judah to take upon them the Priestly office, to 
c 2. Chron. 26. 18.  burn incense, or offer sacrifice, and yet they might command the Priests even in these things to do their duty as it was proved 
a Lib. 3. c. 2.  before by many examples; so it belongeth not to the Prince to minister the word and Sacraments, to ordain, or excommunicate: yet being supreme governor over all persons, and in all causes within his own dominions, he may make laws, and command that these things be done by such persons, and in such manner as is agreeable to the blessed will of God. 
b Novel▪ Const. 123.  justinian made a law that no Bishops nor Priests should separate any man from the holy Communion before the cause were declared, for which the holy Canons command him so to do; enacting therewithal that if any were otherwise excommunicated, he should be absolved by a greater Priest, and restored to the Communion of Saints. When Maximus Bishop of Salonae, had incurred Ecclesiastical censures, Pope Gregory the Great did release them, 
c Greg. Epist. l. 5. c. 25.  secundum iussiones serenissimi Domini imperatoris: i according to the Commandments of his most gracious lord the emperor. Which commanding authority as Pope Greg. did acknowledge in the Prince; so some of your own men ascribe it even to an Abbot or an Abbatesse. 
d S●●p. de Alu. tract. ●e potest. Episcoporum, Abbat.. etc. c. 3. n. 13.  Tabiena & Armilla scribunt, etc. i. Tabiena and Armilla write after Panormitane, Astensis, and others, that an Abbatesse may command such Priests as are subject unto her, to excommunicate her rebellious & obstinate Nuns, or absolve the same, so that the Priests shall be bound to obey her. Which kind of spiritual jurisdiction you give to a woman not only delegated but ordinary, according to the common opinion of the Canonists: 
e Ibid. c. 2. n. 3.  Canonistae volunt, etc. i. The Canonists are of this mind, that the dignity of Prelacy and excellency of office, may give to Ecclesiastical women spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which they may enjoy, not only by right delegated and committed unto them, but also by ordinary. 
f Ibid. c. 2. n. 7.  Stephanus de Aluin inclineth to the same opinion. Dicendum videtur, etc. It seemeth we may say, seeing an Abbot governeth his Monastery by ordinary jurisdiction, and an Abbatesse is equal unto him in freedom of administration, that she hath ordinary jurisdiction as well as the Abbot. Yea the same 
g Vid. Tort. T●r. p. 151.  Stephen striveth to attibute unto her, the power of excommunication, which is more than the Church of England ascribeth to Princes. For it attributeth unto them 
h Ar●●●. 37.  only that prerogative which we see to have been given always to godly Princes, in the holy Scripture by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees, committed unto their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn & evil doers. When the B hath used his spiritual censures, he can proceed no further: but as josias 
i 2. Chron. 34. 33.  compelled all that were found in Israel to serve the Lord: So may every Prince by his royal authority compel all his subjects to do their duty, and those which refuse to be reform by the Church, he may restrain with the civil sword, inflicting temporal punishments, as the qualitity of the offence requireth. When Paulus Samosatenus was excommunicate and deposed, in the Council of Antioch, he did notwithstanding hold his Church, and chair by violence; whereupon the Council knowing that of themselves, they could proceed no further, were forced to seek the aid of Aurelian the Emperor, by whose commandment he was 
k Euseb. Hist. Eccle. l. 7. c. 24. ●.  expelled.  PHIL. 
IF the jurisdiction of the Prince and the Prelate be so different; how then is the Prelates derived from the Prince?  ORTHOD. 
here we must consider the matters handled in the consistories of Bishops, and the manner. The matters originally, and naturally belonging to those Courts, are only such as are originally and naturally Ecclesiastical: the manner to ratify their judgements, is not properly under any corporal mulct, but only by spiritual censures, as suspension excommunication and such like. In both which respects, the jurisdiction of Bishops hath been much enlarged by the favour and indulgence of Christian Princes. Concerning the matter; Constantine the Great, gave liberty to Clerks to 
a Nice●●. l. 2. c. 4●  decline the judgement of civil judges and to be judged by their own Bishops; By occasion whereof many Civil Causes, were brought to the cognisance of Ecclesiastical Courts. He made also a law to ratify those judgements, 
b 〈…〉. 9  As though they had been pronounced by the Emperor himself. Now all the jurisdiction which Bishops have in Civil Causes is merely from the Prince. Concerning the manner, it seemeth sometimes expedient to annex coactive power to the Episcopal office, both for the honour of Prelacy, and also to make their spiritual censures the more regarded, which also without controversy, must be acknowledged to proceed from the Prince. For as the Lord hath compacted the light into the body of the Sun, that thence it might be communicated to Moon and Stars: So he hath put all civil and coactive jurisdiction, into the person of the Prince, from whom as from a glorious Sun or fountain, all other inferior lamps do borrow their light. But if we speak of that Episcopal jurisdiction, which both in respect of matter and manner, is merely spiritual; the immediate fountain of it is God himself; as our most learned and religious King, with his royal Pen, hath thus witnessed to the world. 
c Prae●●●●●. pag. 44.  That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I ever maintained it as an Apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God, contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denieth that Bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God. If his majesties judgement be contrary to Bellarmine's who holdeth the negative, than his Princely wisdom embraceth the affirmative, to wit, that Bishops have their jurisdiction (merely spiritual) immediately from God. Notwithstanding, for so much as they exercise the same in a Christian Common wealth, at the holy direction and command, and under the gracious protection of a religious King, within the king's dominions, upon the King's subjects, according to the Canons and statutes, established by the King's authority, we may justly call those Courts the King's Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Archbishops, and Bishops the kings Ecclesiastical judges. Wherefore, though this spiritual power in regard of itself be immediately from God, yet in these respects it may rightly be said to be derived from the king. So it is a Christo tanquam ab authore conferente: a Rege tanquam a iubente, dirigente, promovente, & protegente.  PHIL. 
If your Bishops have their spiritual jurisdiction immediately from God, when do they receive it?  ORTHO. 
When they are 
d Qu● & unde 〈◊〉▪ sunt▪ jurisdictionem habent. Episc. 〈…〉. i●●esp. ad 〈…〉 c. 8.  made Bishops; that is, in their Consecration. For the party to be Consecrated is presented to the Archbishop in these words. 
e The form of Consecrating Bishops.  Most reverend Father in God, we present unto you this godly and well learned man, to be Consecrated Bishop Where, the word Bishop is taken in the usual Ecclesiastical sense, for a Timothy, or a Titus, an Angel or governor of the Church: And the Archbishop with other Bishop's present imposeth hands saying, Take the holy Ghost, that is, such ghostly and spiritual power as is requisite to advance a Presbyter to the office of a Bishop; so here is given him whatsoever belongeth to the Episcopal office, as the prayers going before the pronouncing of these words, and following after do declare, wherein humble petition is made, for God's blessing and grace, that he may duly execute the office of a Bishop, faithfully serve therein, and minister Episcopal discipline.  PHIL. 
If it be given in Episcopal Consecration; how then is it given immediately from God?  ORTHOD. 
I will answer you, if you will answer me a few questions. And first I demand, whence is the power of Order?  PHIL. 
It is 
a Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2●.  immediately from God, because it requireth a Character and grace, which only God can effect. For though it be said to be given with 
b 1. Tim. 4. 14.  Imposition of hands, yet the meaning is not that either the Imposer, or the Imposition of hands doth give it, but God himself, while hands are Imposed. To which purpose it is excellently said of 
c Ambr. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 5.  S. Ambrose, O brother, who giveth the Episcopal grace? God or man? Thou answerest without doubt, God; but yet God giveth it by man. Man imposeth hands, God giveth the grace; The Priest imposeth an humble hand, and God blesseth with a mighty hand.  ORTHOD. 
And whence cometh the grace of Baptism?  PHIL. 
This also without question, is immediately from God.  ORTHOD. 
And whence cometh faith in the hearing of the Gospel?  PHIL. 
It is likewise immediately from God.  ORTHOD. 
And doth not God in all these use the ministery of man?  PHIL. 
There is no doubt of it.  ORTHOD. 
Then you see a thing may be given immediately from God, though in giving it, he use the means and ministry of man: for in such like speeches the word Immediately is not so taken as excluding means, but as distinguishing the action of God, from the means. When the children of Israel were stung of the fiery 
d Num. 21. 9  serpents, God in healing them used the means of the brazen serpent; yet the virtue of healing proceeded not from the brazen serpent, but immediately from himself; 
e Wisd. 16. 7.  For ●e that turned towards it was not healed by the thing that he saw, but by thee, O Sautour of all. Even so, though God in giving this Spiritual power, use the ministery of man; yet the power itself is immediately from God. For whereas 
f 1. Cor. 12. 28.  S. Paul among the gifts of God to the Church, nameth governments; And S. Peter saith, 
g 1. Pet. 4. 11.  If any man minister, let him do it, as of the ability which God ministereth; Your jesuit Salmeron, though striving to derive it from the Pope as it is actual; yet considering it in itself, being convicted with the evidence of truth, saith thus, 
h Salm. tom. 12. Tracta●. 67. pag. 473.  Ministrationes quoque Domino ascribuntur, sicut & gubernationes à Paulo, quia quicquid est supernaturale in ministerio & gubernation, Deus per se fecit: id autem ad quod creatura potest concurrere, sinit eam agere, etsi ipse praecipuè id operetur. Gratia igitur gratis data administrandi, & gubernandi, à Deo est immediatè, i Ministrations are ascribed to the Lord by S. Paul, as also governments, because whatsoever is supernatural in minister●● and government, God hath wrought that by himself; but he suffereth the creature to work that, unto which it can concur, although himself in that be the 〈…〉 palls agent. Therefore the freely given grace of administering and governing, is 
〈…〉  〈…〉 tly from God. And again, ● Si s●matur, pro gratia gratis data gubernandi vel administrandi jurisdictionem, ut sumunt Petrus & Paulus, procul dubio donumest quod ab homine procedere non potest, i. If (jurisdiction or government) be taken for the freely given grace of governing or administering jurisdiction, as Peter and Paul take it; without doubt it is a gift which cannot proceed from man. Wherefore, when S. Paul willeth Timothy, 
a 2. Tim. 1. 6.  To stir up the grace which is given him, it is to be expounded not only of the grace of Order, but of all Episcopal grace. And S. Ambrose, when he saith, God giveth the grace, doth undoubtedly mean all Episcopal grace. For who can give any grace to the Pastors of the Church, but only the God of all grace, which giveth Pastors to the Church, and appointeth them to be rulers over his family? To Salmeron we may add Henr. Gandavensis, affirming that Bishops have their power, both of Order and jurisdiction, immediately from Christ; As also Gottifredus de Fontibus, and johannes de Poliaco, all alleged by Salmeron; Whose opinions he controlleth without reason, seeing before in effect he affirmed the same. I will conclude this point with the University of Paris, which ratified this position with a 
b Decretum sacrae facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis. Anno 1429. Proposit. 6.  Decree, and caused one johannes Sarazim a Friar, to recant the contrary.  PHIL. 
If jurisdiction be given in Consecration, than it should be equal in all Bishops.  ORTHOD. 
The power itself is equal in all, though the determination of the power, which is from the Church, be unequal. When a Bishop is translated to another See, he doth not lose his former habitual power, no more than the Sun doth lose his light when he passeth to the other Hemisphere. When a Bishop of a smaller Circuit is advanced to a greater, he getteth not a greater power, but a larger subject whereupon he may exercise his power. And when a Bishop is deposed, he is not absolutely deprived of his power, but the matter is taken away, upon which his power should work. This is confessed by 
c Franc. Varg. de Episc. iurisd. p. 126.  Vargas, to be the opinion of Alphonsus and others; If it happen that a Bishop for any crime be deprived of his Bishopric, than he shall be deprived of his subjects upon whom he ought to exercise his power of jurisdiction, but he shall not be deprived of the power of jurisdiction itself, received in his Consecration.   

CHAP. II.  
Whether S. Peter were the only fountain under Christ of all Spiritual jurisdiction.  PHIL. 
THe 
d Catholic divine, answer to the fifth part of Reports. p. 172.  giving of jurisdiction must only proceed from him that is the fountain of all Spiritual jurisdiction under Christ, which is the Bishop of Rome, or some Metropolitan or Bishop under him, that hath authority and commission from him. For the Church of God is like unto a City, which hath one only fountain, from whence there issue divers great floods, which are branched out again into sundry goodly streams, whence the water is conveyed by pipes and conduits to serve the whole City. This fountain is the Bishop of Rome, the great floods are the patriarchs, Archbishops and metropolitans: the streams are the rest of the Bishops: the pipes and conduits are all those which derive their jurisdiction from the Bishops. Now the Church of England was sometimes flourishing like the Paradise of God, but since it was cut off from the lively spring (alas for woo) it is like to a barren and forsaken wilderness.  ORTHOD. 
The Church of England, God be thanked, is in such a case, that all her friends have cause to rejoice, and all her enemies to gnash their teeth. And as for the fountain you speak of, it is not a well of living water made by the King of heaven, but a puddle or pit of poison▪ digged by the Prince of darkness. The Bishop of Rome, we grant, hath of ancient time been reverently regarded, and had, though not a general jurisdiction, yet a large extent; yea he had precedency of dignity and place, before all other Bishops: but this was only by law human, because he was the Bishop of the Imperial City; but now he is like a furious flood which overfloweth the banks, he will be no more confined with bounds and limits, he challengeth a generality of jurisdiction over the Christian world, and that by law divine.  PHIL. 
I Will prove, That he is the fountain of all spiritual jurisdiction by law 
2  divine: for Saint Peter was so, and the Pope succeeded him in this right.  ORTHOD. 
There is more required to infer this conclusion, than all the Seminaries, & Jesuits in the world are able to perform: but first, how prove you that Peter was invested in this right by law divine?  PHIL. 
The Scripture is full of testimonies declaring both his lawful authority, and his due execution thereof: his authority might appear by many arguments, but I will make choice of two, which prove the point in question most directly; the promise of the keys, & the commission of feeding the sheep. To begin with the first: Christ said to Peter, 
a Mat. 16. 19  I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; Christ gave him not one key only but 2. the key of knowledge & the key of power: by the key of knowledge he was able to open all Scriptures, & controversies of religion: The key of power is of order, or of jurisdiction: by the key of order, he was able to ordain Bishops and Pastors of the Church, and again to lock them out of the ministry by deposing, & degrading as occasion required: by the key of jurisdiction, he might open and shut both the outward court by excommunications, absolutions, dispensations, calling general counsels etc. and the court of conscience by forgiving and retaining sins. In a word, in these keys all Ecclesiastical power was comprehended, and given unto Peter.  ORTHOD. 
The keys were given to the rest of the Apostles, as well as to Peter; for the occasion of these words was a question of Christ proposed to all his Apostles, 
b Mat. 1●. 1●  whom say you that I am? this question, was answered by Peter, 
c 〈…〉. 16  Thou art Christ the son of the living God. 
d Aug. 〈◊〉 13. de 〈…〉.  Whereupon Saint Austin observeth that Peter alone made answer for all the Apostles; and his observation is according to the Scriptures, which testify that Peter before this time had answered in the name of them all 
e joh. 6. 69  We believe and know that thou art Christ the son of the living God. Now as Peter answered, one for all, so Christ said to Peter, and in him to them all, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. Thus the Fathers in terpret the place: Austin: 
f Aug. in joh. t●. 118. illud ●nus pro omnibus 〈…〉 omnibus 〈…〉.  Peter received the keys together with them all: 
g 〈…〉. l. ●. c. 1●. 〈…〉 regne caelorum 〈◊〉.  Jerome, they did all receive the keys: Origen, 
a In Mat. tract. 1.  Christ's promise of building his Church, of giving the keys, of binding and losing, made as to Peter only, was common to all. Hilary, 
b Detrinitate. l. 6.  They obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Ambrose, What is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles. This consent of Fathers should over balance 
c Amb. in Psalm. 38. 〈◊〉 finem. quod Petro dicitur Aposto●●s dicitur.  your opinion by the Council of 
d Sess. 4.  Trent: And here I might justly return Campians flourish upon you: 
e Camp: rat. 5.  Patres admiseris, captus es; excluseris, nullus, es: If you admit the Fathers, you are catched. If you exclude them, you are no body. Indeed my Masters, you make the world believe, that you will be judged by the Fathers, but when it comes to the trial, you commonly forsake them, the Fathers must be pretended for a fashion, but the holy Father of Rome is the very needle and compass whereby you sail.  PHIL. 
WE confess that all received the keys, but Christ gave 
3  them to Peter immediately, to the rest by Peter, so all power both of order and jurisdiction proceedeth from Peter.  ORTHO. 
Let 
f De Roman. ●ont. l. 4. cap. 23.  Bellarmine himself judge the cause between us, who proveth by four arguments, That the Apostles received their jurisdiction immediately from Christ. First by these words of Christ himself, As my Father sent me, so send I you, which exposition he strengtheneth by the authorities of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyrill and Cyprian, by the evidence whereof he affirmeth▪ that the same thing was given to the Apostles by these words, I send you, which was promised to Peter by these words, I will give thee the keys, and afterward delivered by these words, Feed my sheep: and addeth, Constat autem per illa (tibi dabo claves) & per illud (pasce oves) intelligi jurisdictionem plenissimam etiam exteriorem, i It is clear that by these words (I will give thee the keys) and by this saying (feed my sheep) there is understood a most full jurisdiction even in the outward Court. Secondly, he proveth it, because Mathias was neither elected by the Apostles, nor received any authority by them, but being elected by God was presently accounted amongst the Apostles; And verily (saith he) if all the Apostles had their jurisdiction from Peter, that should have been manifested most of all in Mathias. Thirdly, he proveth it by Saint Paul, who professeth that he had his jurisdiction from Christ, and thence confirmeth his Apostleship, for he saith, 
g Gal. 1. 1.  Paul an Apostle not of men, or by man, but by jesus Christ: And that he might declare, that he received no authority from Peter, or any other Apostle, he saith, 
h Gal. 1. 15.  When it pleased God (which had separated me from my mother's womb, & called me by his grace) to reveal his son in me that I should preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I communicated not with flesh and blood: Neither came I again to jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and turned again into Damascus. Then after three years I came again to jerusalem to visit Peter. And again▪ 
* Gal. 2. 6  To me those that seemed to be something, conferred nothing. Fourthly, because the Apostles were made only by Christ, and yet had jurisdiction as appeareth, First by Paul excommunicating the Corinthian: Secondly by the same Paul making Ecclesiastical laws: Thirdly because the Apostolic dignity is 
i Prime & suprem dignitas in Ecclesia. Bell. quo supra Quarto.  the highest dignity in the Church. Wherefore it is evident that the rest of the Apostles received not their jurisdiction from Peter, but from Christ.  PHIL. 
CHrist promised the keys to Peter only: therefore in this respect he must have a pre-eminence above the rest. 
4   ORTH. 
Whatsoever Christ promised, that he performed; but he performed not the keys to Peter with any pre-eminence above his fellows, but alike to all: therefore he did not promise them to Peter by way of pre-eminence, but to him with the rest.  PHIL. 
Did he not say, I will give thee the keys, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose? etc. So they were promised to Peter in the singular number.  ORTHO. 
Though these words be of the singular number, yet they were not spoken to Peter, as he was Peter, or a singular person, but to Peter representing the person of the Church, as the 
a Vid. Tort. Tort. p. 62.  Fathers say according to the Scripture. For when he said, I will give thee the keys, he added immediately by way of explication, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven. Upon which words 
b De R●m. Pont. l. 1. c. 12. v●r●●.  Bellarmine saith thus, The plain sense of these words, I will give thee the keys, and whatsoever thou shalt lose, is this, that first there is promised an authority or a power signified by the keys, and then the actions or office is explained by these words, to bind and to loose. So that to lose, and to open: to shut, and to bind: is altogether the same. But the Lord expressed the actions of the keys by losing and binding, not by shutting and opening, that we might understand that all these speeches are metaphorical, and that heaven is then opened unto men when they are loosed from their sins, which hindered their entrance into heaven. But the power of binding and losing was given to all the Apostles, by Christ in these words, 
c Mat. 18. 18.  whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  PHIL. 

d Tho. Ca●●tan●●● in tract. de inst. & auct. Rome po●●. c. 5.  Cardinal Caietan thinketh, that to open and to shut is of a larger extent, then to bind and to loose.  ORTHOD. 
Bellarmine thinketh this more subtle than sound, because there are no keys in the Church saving only of Order and jurisdiction, both which are signified by the actions of binding and losing, as 
e Quo supra.  Caietan confesseth, and Bellarmine proved before, both by Fathers and Scripture.  PHIL. 
The power of binding and losing, is less than the keys in the judgement of the Schoolmen.  ORTHOD. 
You cry antiquity, antiquity, Fathers, Fathers: yet you forsake both antiquity and Fathers, and lean to the Schoolmen. But what if the Schoolmen be against you? Alexander of Hales saith, 
f Sum. theol. part. 4. quaes●. 2. membro. 2. & 5.  that to bind and to loose, is as much as to open and to shut. 
g In magist. sent. l. 4. distinct. 18. quaest. 1. art. 1.  Thomas maketh the power of binding and losing the substance of the keys. And so doth Scotus. But what if we should admit that the keys contained more than the power of binding and losing? yet seeing this power includeth jurisdiction as 
h Bell de Rom. po●t. l. 1. c. 12. Et quanquam.  Bellarmine proveth by the Fathers, and this was given by Christ to the rest of the Apostles, therefore it followeth that they all had their jurisdiction immediately from Christ. A point so clear, that not only 
i De Rom. pont. l. 1. c. 22. Prima  Bellar. but Franciscus de victoria, Alphonsus de castro, and Cardinal Caietan as Bellarmine recordeth, acknowledge the same, beside many others▪  PHIL. 
IF all this were granted, yet Peter shall be the fountain of jurisdiction: because the rest received it only as delegates; He as the 
5  ordinary pastor of the Church, from whom and his successors, all posterity must derive it.  ORTHOD. 
You coin distinctions of your own brain, whereof you have no warrant in the Scripture. For whose delegates shall they be? Not S. Peter, 1. because I have proved that they received not any jurisdiction from him; 2. If they were S. Peter's delegates, why did S. Paul always call himself an Apostle of jesus Christ, and never the Lega●● latere of S. Peter? 3. If they were S. Peter's Delegates, than all their jurisdiction died with him. So belike S. john who outlived S. Peter, lost his jurisdiction, and was glad to light his candle again from Linus, and after his death from Cletus, and after his, from Clemens. For he lived as 
a In Catal. scriptorum in johann.  S. Jerome witnesseth, 68 years after the Passion of Christ, and consequently died in the year 101. which according to 
b Anno 101. num. 2.  Baronius, was the 9 year of Clemens. If this be so, then there was after the death of Christ while an Apostle lived, a greater jurisdiction in the Church, than the jurisdiction of an Apostle, which cannot be, because the Scripture saith, that 
c 1. Cor. 12. 28.  God hath set in his Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, etc. and Bell. confesseth that the authority of the Apostles is 
d De Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 23. Addit.  jurisdictio plenissima. If S. john had this, than he was not Legat a latere to Linus, nor Cletus, nor Clemens, neither so long as he lived could they be called the fountain of all spiritual jurisdiction. If you say, they were Christ's delegates, it is true, and so was Saint Peter, therefore in this there is no difference. But in what respect was he the ordinary pastor of the Church? As an Apostle? then they should be all ordinary, because they were all Apostles. If in regard of any other authority, what should that be? Was it greater than the Apostleship or no? if it were not, how could it give him jurisdiction over the Apostles? and greater it cannot be, for the Apostleship is the greatest jurisdiction which Christ left unto his Church, as was proved both by the Scripture and your own confession. But when was he made an ordinary pastor?  PHIL. 
When Christ said unto him, 
e joh. 21. 15. 16.  feed my sheep.  ORTHO. 
As Christ said to Peter, feed my sheep; so he said to them all 
f Mat. 28. 19  go teach all nations, 
g joh. 20. 21.  as my father sent me, so send I you. Do not these comprehend as much, as, feed my sheep?  PHIL. 
No. For Christ gave commission to Peter to feed his sheep, even all his sheep, none excepted: but the Apostles were his sheep, so the Apostles themselves were committed to S. Peter. Therefore he was the pastor of the Apostles, and consequently the ordinary pastor of the whole world.  ORTH. 
And Christ gave commission to them all, and among the rest, to S. Andrew to 
h Mark 16. 15.  preach the Gospel to every creature, even to every creature none excepted. But S. Peter was a creature, therefore S. Peter himself was committed to S. Andrew. What think you, was S. Andrew S. Peter's pastor, or the ordinary pastor of the whole world?  PHIL. 
There is not the like reason. For the words which you allege were spoken to them all. The commission which I urge was given particularly by name to S. Peter.  ORTHOD. 
These words feed my sheep, have been so much vexed that now for pity you should let them alone: but to answer you, though our Saviour, when he said, Feed my sheep directed his speech to Peter, yet he did not therein give any new office, or special commission to Peter, but willed him to look to his charge already received. For Peter had bewrayed great want of love in a threefold denial of his master, therefore Christ to kindle his love did ask him three times, Peter dost thou love me? Whereupon as he had formerly denied him thrice, so now he protested his love, and confessed him thrice; then Christ having as it were blown the fire by a threefold question, which began to kindle in Peter by a threefold confession, did presently strike while the iron was hot, using this exhortation, Feed my lambs, & to make the more impression, he redoubled the stroke, saying, Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep; As though he should say, if thou love me, deny me no more in word nor deed; but show thy love by keeping thy station, and by feeding the flock which I have purchased with my precious blood. Feed them by doctrine, Feed them by example: thou shalt meet and encounter with many Bears, and lions, yet forsake not thy function for fear, but if thou love me, feed my flock. As if a Pilot should say to his mariners, here is like to be a great storm, but if you love me, look well to your tackle: or a Captain to his soldiers, here may be a hard battle, yet if you love me be of a good courage: or a husband being to go a far journey, and leaving at home his young son, the hope of his house,, with his wife, which had sometimes showed herself somewhat unkind, should say, wife if thou love me, look well to my child; which is not to give her any new commission or office, but to put her in mind to discharge that office which God had formerly committed unto her. And what if Christ said to Peter, Feed my sheep? shall he therefore be the master shepherd, and the rest of the Apostles his underlings? shall he be a Bishop, and they his Chaplains? Saint 
a 2. Cor. 12. 11.  Paul denieth this, proclaiming himself in nothing inferior to the chief Apostles. The 
b Apud C●p. Ep. 3.  Church of Rome denieth this (I mean the ancient Church in the time of S. Cyprian) in their Epistle to the Church of Carthage. For having mentioned these words, Feed my sheep, they add, Et caeteri discipuli similiter fecerunt: i. the rest of the disciples performed this office of feeding the sheep in the like manner that Peter did it. So S. 
c Amb. de dig. sacer. c. 2.  Ambrose: quas oves & quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus, sed & nobiscum eas, & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes i. which sheep, and which flock not only blessed Peter did then undertake, but both he hath undertaken them with us, and all we have undertaken them with him. And S. 
d De agone Christ. c. 30.  Austin: Cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur, amas me? pasce oves me as. i. when it is saia to Peter, it is said to all lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. I will conclude this point with a memorable saying of one of your own friends. 
e De Eccle. & polit. potc. p. 6. 7.  Non me latet recentiores, ut sua priu●legia expeditius propugnent, obtendere dominum hac voce, pasce oves meas, uni & soli Petro, totam detulisse jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, quo ●am deinceps pro animi sui arbitrio, quibuscunque vellet dispartiretur. At sacrae scripturae oraculis, omnium antiquoru●i doctorum monumentis, nec non etiam praxi veteris Ecclesiae, tam plane atque apart confutantur, ut mirum sit illos tam absurda comminisci audere i. I am not ignorant that late writers, that they may defend their privileges, with greater expedition, do pretend that the Lord, by these words, Feed my sheep, did give all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Peter alone that he might afterward bestow it upon whomsoever he would, according to his own discretion; But they are confuted so plainly and so openly, by the oracles of the holy Scripture, by the monuments of all ancient learnedmen, yea also by the very practice of the old Church, that it is a marvel they dare imagine such absurd things.  PHIL. 
I will prove it by the practice.  ORTH. 
BY the practice? Nay, the practice doth prove the contrary. For 
6.  as Christ did not erect any peculiar tribunal, in a singular manner to Peter, Neither said he, Dic Petro, tell it to Peter, but he established a tribunal for the Church, and said, 
a Mat. 18. 17.  Dic Ecclesiae. i. make thy complaints, and tell thy grievances to the Church: so other Apostles did exercise the jurisdiction, belonging to this tribunal, as well as Peter; whether we consider them assembled in Synods, or severally by themselves.  PHIL. 
Not so, for in the Synod holden at jerusalem in the year 34. immediately after the ascension of Christ, S. Peter was precedent. For his 
b Rhemists' acts ●. 15.  act in prescribing to the Apostles and the rest, this election of Mathias and the manner thereof is so evident for his Supremacy, that our adversaries confess that he was Antistes the chief of the whole Colleague, and company.  ORTHOD. 
His proposing the matter, argueth a primacy of place, not of jurisdiction or power. For though he alone proposeth the matter, yet he alone had not the appointment▪ the text saith plainly, they 
c Vers. 23.  appointed two, and of the two God himself made choice, and elected Mathias, as appeareth by these words, they 
d Vers. 24.  prayed saying, thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen: and when the lot fell upon Mathias, S. Peter gave him no jurisdiction, neither did they expect, till S. Peter sent him a Pall, but he was presently 
e Vers. 2. 6  counted among the Apostles; therefore his authority was not from man, or by man, but from jesus Christ. Moreover, that the Scripture ascribeth no more to him in elections then to the rest, may appear by the second Synod (as Binius calleth it) wherein the Deacons were chosen. For who called the multitude together? the text saith, the 
f Act. 62.  twelve, not S. Peter alone, but the twelve: and who chose them? Not S. Peter, but the multitude, as the Scripture witnesseth: 
g Vers. 5.  The saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and the holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas', and Nicholas a proselyte of Antiochia: which they set before the Apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. So it is evident, that though the Apostles ordained them, yet the whole multitude chose them.  PHIL. 
The 
h Ex Bell de cler. c. 7. Respondeo. ●.  election of Deacons was given to the people, ex concessione Apostolorum, by the grant of the Apostles, as Luke himself doth testify.  ORT. 
Then it seemeth there is great difference between the Apostles and the Pope, for the Apostles did not challenge their own right, they did gratify the people and grant it unto them: but the Pope will rake all unto himself though he rob Prince, Priest, and people. Now whereas you say they did that by the grant of the Apostles, it is true, if by grant you mean the consent and counsel of the Apostles; 
i Acts 6. 3.  For they exhorted the multitude to look out seven men of honest report: but if you mean that the whole right belonged so absolutely to the Apostles, that they might totally have excluded the people; you must consider, that in this case the consent of the people depended upon the grounds of human society. For there was then special reason, why the whole Church should have interest, in the choice of Deacons, because the treasure of the whole Church was committed to their trust. But admit it were absolutely by the grant of the Apostles: yet mark what you say, by the grant of the Apostles; not of Peter alone, but of the Apostles. Thus it doth not appear that Peter had any prerogative more than other Apostles, no not so much as in the choice of a Deacon.  PHIL. 
That he had jurisdiction more than they, is manifest by the third Synod holden at jerusalem in the year of Christ 51. where indeed S. Peter showed himself: for 
* Vide Stapl. princ. doctr. l. 6. cap. 13  he spoke first and last, and S. james and all the rest yielded to his sentence.  ORTHOD. 
Not one of all these points is true. That, S. Peter spoke not first, is clear by these words, 
a Acts. 157.  When there had been much disputation, Peter rose up and said, etc. That he spoke not last, appeareth also: for the Text mentioneth no speech of his, but one; After him spoke 
b Verse 12.  Paul and Barnabas: after them 
c Verse 13.  S. james: and the Council concluded the matter according to the words of 
d Verse 20.  S. james: yea according to a special point not mentioned by S. Peter. Neither were the Acts of the Counsel set out in the name of S. Peter, but a synodal Epistle was sent in the names of them all; Neither did S. Peter subscribe unto it, I Peter the Vicar of Christ, the Prince of the Apostles, the visible head and ordinary Pastor of the Church; but he was only put in among the rest, 
Verse 28.  It seemeth good to the holy Ghost, and us. Where is now his supereminent authority? If ever he should have showed it, this was the time, this was the place, especially seeing he was present, not by his Legate, but in his own person. If now he had challenged it, his successors might for ever quietly have enjoyed it. What did he mean thus to forget himself, and to prejudice posterity? And as the Apostolical Synods received not their authority from him, so neither did the Apostles themselves, severally considered. As is evident in S. Paul delivering the incestuous Corinthian unto Satan, by which (in the judgement of 
f Hil. in Psal. 118.  Hilary, 
g Hier. Ep●. 1.  Hierome and 
h Anselm. in 1. Cor. 5.  Anselmus, followed by 
i Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. ● 16.  Bellarmine, 
k B●r. anno 57 ●. 10▪ ●.  Baronius and others, both of your side and ours) is meant Excommunication. And though some do take it for a miraculous operation, whereby the offenders were committed for a time to Satan to be tormented bodily; yet they do not deny that the Corinthian was Excommunicated. Let us therefore see by what authority this was done. I 
l ●. Cor. 5. 3.  verily, (saith S. Paul,) as absent in body, but present in spirit, have determined already, as though I were present, that he that hath so done this deed, in the Name of our Lord jesus Christ, you being gathered together and my Spirit with you, with the power of the Lord jesus Christ be delivered unto Satan, etc. He saith not, the Spirit of S. Peter, but my Spirit. So your visible head, had neither hand nor foot in this action. S. Paul acknowledgeth neither subordination to him, nor derivation of authority from him. And as he had jurisdiction, so had Timothy and Titus, to 
m 1. Tim. 5. 19  receive accusations, 
n 1. Tim. 1. 3.  to command them not to teach any other doctrine; or if they did, 
o Tit. 1. 11.  to stop their mouths. All which places are to be expounded of judicial proceeding in the Consistory, and argue a jurisdiction in Titus and Timothy, which (so far as we can learn) they received from S. Paul, and not from S. Peter. Wherefore we conclude, that S. Peter was not the only fountain under Christ of Spiritual jurisdiction by Law divine, but the 12. Apostles were 12. fountains, all equally derived from Christ jesus the Fountain of fountains. But if Peter had any such prerogative by Law divine; what is that to the Pope?   

CHAP. III.  
Whether the Pope succeed S. Peter, in all his right by Law divine.  PHIL. 
THe Pope is the successor of S. Peter, therefore what power soever belonged to S. Peter, belongeth to the Pope.  ORTHOD. 
Was not S. Peter an Apostle? can there be succession in the Apostleship?  PHIL. 
Doctor 
a Princ. doctr. l. 6. cap. 7.  Stapleton teacheth, that of the Apostleship there is no succession.  ORTH. 
Why then do the Popes so adorn themselves with Apostolic 
b See Doct. Rainold. conf. c. 6. sect 4.  titles? his See apostolic, his Legate Apostolic, his pardon Apostolic, his seal Apostolic, his Bull Apostolic, and all Apostolic: yea, his office is an Apostleship, causes must be heard by his Apostleship, weighty matters must be reserved to his Apostleship, and Bishops must visit the thresholds of the Apostles, unless they be dispensed withal by the Apostles, that is, by the Pope. Yea the Rhemists affirm, That, 
c Rhem. in Ephes. 4. 11.  certes the room and dignity of the Pope, is a continual Apostleship. And of 
d By Gabriel, who called himself Patriarch of Alexandria.  late the Pope had a title given of the first Evangelist, and of the 13. Apostle, as is related and approved by 
e Bar. in Corollario de legatione Eccl. Alexander. in fine tomis 6. n. 6.  Baronius. But we hope that God will raise such Angels in our Church, as he was in the Church of Ephesus, of whom it is written, That 
f Revel. 2. 2.  he had tried them, who say they are apostles and are not, and had found them liars. But if the Pope do not succeed S. Peter in the Apostleship, how is he then his successor?  PHIL. 

g Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. Respondeo. Stapl. quo sup●.  Not in that he was an Apostle, but in that he was the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church.  ORTHOD. 
If not as an Apostle, than the Pope succeed him not in all his right. But have not other Apostles successors, as well as Peter?  PHIL. 
No, For their authority was 
h Ibidem.  extraordinary, his ordinary: whereupon it followeth, That theirs was temporary, and died with their persons; his perpetual, and liveth with his successors.  ORTHOD. 
This you say oft, but prove never. For the clearing whereof we must consider, that in the Apostles, some things were extraordinary, some things ordinary. They had 4. extraordinary prerogatives, immediate vocation by Christ himself, unlimited Commission over all Nations, infallible direction both in preaching and writing, and power to work Miracles; All which were necessary for the first planting of Churches, but were not conveyed to posterity by succession. Other things they had which were necessary for the Church in all future ages, in which they had successors. They had power to minister the word and Sacraments, wherein every Presbyter succeed them. They ordained Ministers, executed censures, and other things belonging to the government of the Church; wherein every Bishop succeed them. So in the latter, the rest have successors as well as Peter: In the former as the rest had no successors, so neither had Peter.  PHIL. 
Yes, the Bishop of Rome succeed him in the government of the whole world.  ORTHO. 
You dare not say, that this power in Peter was extraordinary, for than it could not go by succession; & if it were ordinary in Peter, why not in the rest, seeing as hath been proved, Christ gave as ample commission in as ample words to the rest as to Peter? But if we should feign, that Peter had such Monarchical jurisdiction, by what law shall the Pope succeed him in it?  PHIL. 
The 
* 〈…〉.  succession of the Bishop of Rome into the Popedom of Peter, is of Christ's institution, and therefore by Law divine.  ORTHOD. 
Of Christ's institution? where, or when? if you allege these words, feed my sheep, they were spoken only to Peter, yet so that the substance of the precept was not proper to him, but common to all. And if we should imagine that Christ did institute a monarchy personally in Peter, how cometh it to be local? This certainly cannot be Christ's institution, because he nameth no place.  PHIL. 
It 
a 〈…〉  was in Peter's power never to have chosen to himself any particular See, but to have continued as he did the first five years: And then after his death neither the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded, but he whom the Church had chosen.  ORTHOD. 
Then you make it local by Peter's choice, and not by Law divine: and if it be local; is it tied to the Bishop of Rome by Law divine?  PHIL. 
Was not Saint Peter Bishop of Rome?  ORTHOD. 
So men say, but can you prove it by Law divine?  PHIL. 
Will you deny a History so famously recorded by Eusebius and other ancient authors?  ORTH. 
Not I, but now you ground upon human history, and not upon Law divine. And as the histories say, that he was Bishop of Rome, so they say, he was Bishop of Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome.  PHIL. 
It 
b Bell●bid.  was in his power to have continued at Antioch, and then without doubt the Bishop of Antioch had been his successor; but because he translated his chair, fixed it at Rome & there died, thence it comes to pass that the Bish. of Rome succeed him.  ORTH. 
If the succession depend upon the fixing of Saint Peter's chair at Rome; what shallbe said of those Popes which kept at Avignon in France, and never came at Rome? Moreover this is to build upon the fact of Saint Peter and not upon Law divine.  PHIL. 
It is not improbable, that the Lord did expressly command, that Peter 
c ●ibid. & qu●nui.  should so fix his seat at Rome, that the Roman Bishop might absolutely succeed him.  ORT. 
This is your own conjecture and not Law divine.  PHIL. 

d B●●●●bid.  Pope Marcellus saith that Peter came to Rome, iubente Domino, the Lord so commanding.  ORTH. 
This is your own tradition, and not Law divine. And as your succession, so your monarchical jurisdiction cannot be proved to be by Law divine. This was well known to the Fathers of the first general council, who confined the Bishop of Rome, as well as the Bishop of Alexandria, ascribing his patriarchical power unto 
e 〈…〉.  custom, & not to Law divine. This was likewise known to the Fathers of the 
f 〈…〉.  second and fourth general counsels, who ascribe the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome, to the honour of the Imperial City: for so the Fathers of the fourth council interpret the second, and affirm it themselves. Antiquae Romae throno, quòd urbs illa imperaret, iure patres privilegia tribuere; & eadem consideratione moti 150. Dei amantissimi Episcopi, sanctissimo novae Romae throno aequalia privilegia tribuêre, rectè iudicantes, urbem quae & imperio & senatu honorata sit, & aequalibus, cum antiquissima regina Roma, privilegijs fruatur, etiam in Rebus Ecclesiasticis, non secus ac illam extolli ac magnifieri, secundam post illam existentem. The Fathers did rightly give privileges to the throne of old Rome because the City then reigned, and the 150. Bishop's most earnest lovers of God (assembled in the second general council, which was the first at Constantinople) moued●y the same consideration gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome, rightly judging, that the City which was honoured both by the Empire, and the Senate and enjoyeth equal privileges with Rome, the most ancient Queen of Cities, should be extolled and magnified even in things Ecclesiastical, no otherwise than Rome, being the second in order after it. Thus they hold the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be not Monarchical (because they give equal privileges to Constantinople) but patriarchical; which they refer not to the Institution of Christ, nor to Peter's fact, nor to the succession in Peter's chair, but to the honour of the Imperial City, in that it was Imperial, therefore as 
a In not▪ in Conc.▪ Chalc. ●. 2. p. 180  Binius confesseth, they hold it to be by Law human and not divine.  PHIL. 

b An. 450. 〈◊〉 451.  Baronius 
c De Rom. cont. l. 2. c. 22  Bellarmine and 
d Bin. quo supra.  Binius do tell you that this Canon was not confirmed by Pope Leo.  ORTHO. 

e Conc. Chal. act. 16. Been▪ t▪ 2. p. 136.  Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum did testify the contrary openly in the council in these words. Sponte subscripsi, quoniam & hanc regulam sanctissimo Papae in urbe Româ relegi, praesentibus clericis Constantinopolitaniss, eamque suscepit. i. I have subscribed willingly, because I read over even this Canon to the most holy Pope in the City of Rome, in the presence of the Clerks of Constantinople, and he embraced it. But let us imagine that he did not embrace it, yet I refer this point to any indifferent judge, whether we should rather believe six hundred Bishops and upward, speaking uprightly what they think, and grounding their judgement upon the decrees of former general counsels, than one man with a few flattering favourites, speaking partially in his own cause.  PHIL. 
This Canon was not made by the council, but 
f Bin. ibid.  Anatolius with the Eastern Bishops, made it secretly, and by stealth, after the judges, and the Pope's Legate were gone out of the Council.  ORTHOD. 
The Church of Constantinople being desirous to propose this matter 
g Conc. Chal. act. 16. Bin. t. 2. p. 134  Entreated the Pope's Legates to communicate with them in the handling of it, who refused because the Pope had given charge to the contrary: then they made relation of it to the judges, who commanded the holy council then present to look into it, which they did accordingly: therefore though it pleased the judges to depart, yet the council proceeded by authority from the judges: And the Pope's Legates might have stayed if it had pleased themselves. Moreover, The Decrees 
h Ibid.  were read at the next meeting openly in the council before the judges, who 
i Ibid. p. 137  ratified them by their sentence, and all the council cried and redoubled again and again that the sentence was just.  PHIL. 
The Pope's 
k Ibid.  Legates interposed a contradiction, affirming that the Apostolic See ought not to be debased.  ORTHOD. 
The judges notwithstanding would not relent, but concluded the whole business thus: 
l Ibid.  Tota Synodus approbavit. i. The whole Synod hath approvedit: wherefore it was the judgement of the whole Synod that the Pope's jurisdiction is not by Law divine.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of the Election of Bishops in the primitive Church, before there were any Christian Princes.  PHIL. 
IF we consider the practice of the Christian world in primitive antiquity, which was nearest to the fountain, and knew best the meaning of Law Divine, we shall find that they were either elected, or at least confirmed by the Pope, or by authority from the Pope, either expressly, or by his permission or connivency, and so received their jurisdiction.  ORTHOD. 
To examine these points in order, let us begin with the election of Ministers, concerning which, we find three varieties in the new Testament. The first by lots: the second by voices: the third by the spirit of prophesy. 
a Act. 1. 26.  Mathias was chosen by lots; the 
b Act. 6. 5.  Deacons by voices; 
c 1. Tim. 1. 18. & 4. 14.  Timothy and others by the spirit of prophesy. For as 
d Chr●in 1. ad Tim. c. 1. Hom. 5.  Chrysostome saith; In those days the pastors were made by prophesy: what is, by prophecy? by the holy Ghost; as Saul was showed by prophecy, when he lay hid among the stuff: as the holy Ghost said, separate unto me Paul and Barnabas, so was Timothy chosen. 
e Theod. in. 1. ad Tim. c. 1.  Theodoret; thou hast not thy calling from men, but thou receivedst that order by divine revelation. 
f Oec. in 1. ad Tim. cap. 1.  Oecumenius; by revelation of the spirit, Timothy was chosen of Paul to be a Disciple, and ordained a Bishop. This kind of election seemeth to be usual in the Apostles times, and to have continued so long as the gift of prophecy and discerning of spirits remained. Now of these three, the first and third were by God himself; the second by all the faithful. This is all we find in Scripture; yet here is no precept, but only example. Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left this point as a thing indifferent to be ordered by the discretion of the Church, so all things be done honestly and in order. From the Scripture, if we come to the ages following, they referred it to the Clergy and people.  PHIL. 
To the Clergy I grant by the connivency of the Pope, but in the Council of 
g Conc. La●d. cap. 13. Bin. ●. 1. pag. 289.  Laodicea elections of B. are forbidden to be made by the people.  ORTH. 
The Council in that place nameth Priests, not Bishops; and if under the name of Priests you comprehend Bishops, yet you must consider that it being only provincial, could not impose laws to the whole Christian world. That Bishops were chosen by popular elections after this Council, may appear by the great Nicen Council (assembled as Baronius thinketh six years after the Council of Laodicea) in their synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, and to the beloved brethren of Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis. 
h Apud. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9  If peradventure any prelate of the Church do fall asleep, let it be lawful for such as have been received into the Communion of the Church a little before, to succeed into the place of him that is dead, if so be that they shall seem to be worthy, and if the people shall choose them, yet so notwithstanding that the voice, and as it were the seal of the Bishop of the Catholic Church of Alexandria be added thereunto. And that they enjoyed the same liberty before the Nicen Council is clear by Saint Cyprian, saying, 
i Cypr. epist. 63. sect. 4.  The people obeying the Lords commandments, and fearing God, aught to separate themselves from a sinful ruler, and not to intermingle themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest, seeing they especially have power either to elect worthy Priests, or to reject unworthy.  PHIL. 
I answer with 
a Pam in eande epist. Cypr. quia ipsius erat, crimina seu merita detegere.  Pamelius, that the people are said to have power to elect or reject, because they gave testimony of the conversation of the parties. A thing so notoriously known, that the Emperor Alexander Severus (as 
b Lam●. in Severo.  Lampridius reporteth) when he would send any rulers to the provinces, or make governors, proposed their names, exhorting the people that if they could object any crime, they should make just proof; and used to say, that it were a shame not to do that in the rulers of the Provinces, which Christians did in proclaiming their Priests, that were to be ordained.  ORTHOD. 
Was their testimony only required, and not their consent? why then saith Leo, 
c Leo primus epist. 89.  Teneatur subscriptio clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ac ordinis consensus & plebis, that is, let the subscription of the Clergy be obtained, the testimony of the honourable, and consent of order and people.  PHIL. 
It 
d Turrian de iure ordinandi. l. 2. c. 1. p. 131. in margina.  is one thing if the consent of the people be required in ordination, 
2  and another if their proper suffrages.  ORTHOD. 
But Saint Cyprian calleth it a just and lawful ordination which hath been examined, 
e Cypr. epist. 68 sect. 4.  Omnium suffragio, by the suffrage or voice of all, that is both of Clergy and people; which he exemplifieth in the ordination of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, in these words, 
f Epist. 52. sect. 4.  Cornelius was made Bishop by the judgement of God, and his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the Clergy, by the suffrage of the people which was then present, and by the College of ancient Priests and good men. Yea the suffrages of the people are a thing so clearly set down in antiquity, that Pamelius himself cannot deny them, 
g Pam▪ in epist. Cypr. 68  we deny not (saith he) the old rite of electing Bishops, by which they are wont to be chosen, the people being present, yea rather by the voices of the people: for that it was observed in afric, is evident by the election of Eradius the successor of S. Austin, Concerning which there is extant his 110. Epistle: In Grecce in the age of Chrysostome, as appeareth by his third book of Priesthood: In Spain by this place of Cyprian, and Isidor in his book of offices: In France by the epistle of Celestinus: At Rome, by those things which were spoken before upon the epistle to Antonianus: yea every where else by the 87. epistle of Leo; and that this custom continued until Gregory the first (appear) by his epistle, yea even unto the times of the emperors Charles and Lodowick, as it is manifest enough out of the first book of their chapters; and the same Pamelius in another place saith, the manner of choosing the Bishop of Rome was often changed; first Saint Peter chose his successors Linus, Cletus, and Clemens: then Anacletus and the rest unto the second Schism between Damasus and Vrsicinus were created by the suffrages of the Clergy & the people: behold how Pamelius who a little before interpreted the people's elections in Cyprian, as though they elected only by way of testimony (a cold and a hungry interpretation,) is now forced to confess (o the evidence of truth) that they elected by way of suffrage: yea, and that the Roman Bishops from Anacletus to Damasus, (that is, from the year 103. to the year 307.) were so elected. Wherefore it is most true which is affirmed by our learned 
h Epist. Elien. resp. ad apo. Bel. c. 13. pag 313.  Bishop. Presentia plebis apud Cyprianum includit testimonium de vita, nec excludit suffragium de persona. i. The presence of the people in Cyprian includeth a testimony of their life; and excludeth not a suffrage of their person.  PHIL. 
There are two kinds of Suffrages: the former of 
a Turr. quo supra. p. 136.  petition, consent, or testimony, the latter of power or authority: the former belongs to the people, the latter doth not.  ORTHO. 
If one make petition, give consent, or testimony, is this to give a voice, or Suffrage? surely this is a deluding distinction.  PHIL. 
It is said of Lucius, who was intruded into the place of Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria: 
b Theodoret l. 4. c. 22.  Not an assembly of Orthodox Bishops, not the Suffrages of true Clergy men, nor the desire of the people made him Bishop, as it is commanded in the Ecclesiastical sanctions: where you see that Suffrages are ascribed to Clergy men, and only desire or petition to the people.  ORTHOD. 
In a Roman Council holden under Sylvester, it is said, that a Priest may be ordained Bishop, 
c Conc. Roman. apud. Bin●. 1 p. 299.  S● vota populi & Cleri concurrerint, if the desires of the people and Clergy concur; where you see that desires or requests, are ascribed to the Clergy, as well as to the people. Moreover, you heard out of Cyprian, that Cornelius Bishop of Rome, was chosen by the testimony of the Clergy, and the Suffrages of the people.  PHIL. 
The Clergy gave Suffrages of power and authority: so did not the people; for the Bishops were not bound to admit whomsoever the people required.  ORTHOD. 
Neither were the people compelled to receive whomsoever the Bishops elected. Pope Leo commandeth, 
d Leo primus Epist. 84. c. 5.  ut nullus invitis & non petenti●us ordinetur, that no B. be ordained to the people against their wills, and not requiring it.  PHIL. 
PAmelius saith, 
e Pam. in Ep. Cyp. 68  It is evident that the Suffrages only were granted to 
3.  the people, and not the election which useth to be by subscription.  ORTHOD. 
In the days of 
f Greg. Ep. l. 2 ind 10. Ep. 19 & 26. &. 27. ind. ●1. Ep. 22. & 26.  Gregory the great, when a Bishopric was void, he used to admonish the Clergy and people of that city, to agree in the election; which being done, there was made a 
g Cum solennitate decreti omnium subscription ●bus roborate. l. 2. ind. 10. Ep. 26. & 27.  solemn decree, strengthened with subscriptions of all, and sent to the Consecrators▪ where we must observe these words, the subscriptions of all, not of the Clergy alone, but of all, that is, of all the electors, both Clergy and people; wherefore the people did then choose with the Clergy, even by Suffrages of subscription.  PHIL. 
True, but this was by the Pope's permission.  ORTH. 
What permission had S. Aust. from the Pope, in electing Eradius, his successor, when he 
h Hoc ad ultimum rog● ut gestis ist●s dignemini su s●ribere qui potestis Aug. Ep 1●9.  desired the people, so many as could, to subscribe, and the people cried fiat, fiat, 25. times? or the people & Roman army which subscribed in the election of 
i A●astas. ●n vit. Con●nis.  Conon? wherefore if the people gave Suffrages by subscription in those times, we need not doubt that they gave Suffrages in the time of S. Cyprian; neither was it by the Pope's permission. For S. 
k Epist. 68  Cyprian maketh no mention of the Pope, but declareth that almost in all Provinces after the death of a Bishop, the Bishop's next adjoining did meet about an election, in the city of the Bishop deceased, and so the election was performed in their presence, by the Suffrages of the whole fraternity; that is, both of the Clergy and like wise also of the people. Wherefore that which you say concerning the Pope, is but a voluntary speech, without any ground. And surely seeing God hath set down no certain rule nor precept in holy Scripture, but left it as a thing indifferent, it was most fit that in those primitive times, the people should have a Suffrage, for by this means it came to pass, that they did not only more quietly receive, diligently hear, and heartily love, but also more willingly and bountifully maintain their Bishop, wherefore their Suffrage was grounded upon right and reason.  PHIL. 
The Church of God hath had doleful experience of the tumults which arise from popular elections: 
a evag. l. 2. c. 5. 7. 8.  Euagrius declareth what uproars were at Alexandria, about Proterius, when the people beat the soldiers into the Church, and destroyed a number of them with fire, yea they slew Proterius in the Temple upon Easter day, drew his body along the city, hewed it in most miserable manner, burned that which was left and scattered his ashes in the wind. And 
b Amian. Marcell. l. 27.  Amianus reporteth, that at the election of Damasus, the people slew in the Church in one day, 137. persons, so that the holy places did flow with streams of Christian blood. These are the fruits of popular elections.   

CHAP. V.  
An answer to certain objections against the election of Bishops by Christian kings and Emperors, out of the councils and other authorities.  ORTH. 
IF popular elections be so dangerous, unto whom should their ancient right rather be translated then unto the Prince, who by the law of God is their Sovereign to rule them, and the Father both of Church and Common wealth, to provide for their good?  PHIL. 
The Council of 
c Concil. Paris. 3. secundum Bin. t. 2. p. 639.  Paris saith, that if any man by overmuch rashness presume to invade the height of this honour by the Prince's commandment, let him in no wise be received by the Bishops.  ORTHO. 
The meaning of the Council appeareth by the words going before; let not a Bishop be intruded by the Prince's commandment, nor by any other means against the consent of the Metropolitan, and the Bishops of the Province: so this Council maketh nothing against our kings of England who use most orderly lawful and Canonical proceeding, never intruding any against the consent of the Metropolitan and comprovincialls.  PHIL. 
In the year 566. there was a Council holden at Santonia in France where ᵈ Emerius was deposed from his Bishopric, because he was intruded by King 
h Conc. Santon●ns envied Bin. t. 2 p. 646.  Clotharius.  ORTHO. 
He was put in contrary to the Canons. For he 
e Greg. Turon. l. 4. c. 26.  had the decree of the King that he should be consecrated without the advise of the Metropolitan, so this is no parallel for our Princes.  PHIL. 
By the second 
f Conc. Nicen ●▪ Can. 3. B●n. t. 3. p. 393.  Nicen Council, All elections of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,▪ made by the Magistrates are void: And the ground of their assertion is that 
g Can. Apost 31.  Canon of the Apostles, If any obtain a Church, by secular powers, let him be deposed, and all that communicate with him.  ORTHO. 
That Canon is to be expounded of secular powers excluding the Clergy, or invading the Church by force, and violence, and so the Council took it, neither did they urge it any otherwise, as may appear plainly by the very title of their Canon. 
h Apud Bin. quo supra.  Electiones Episcoporum quae vi Principum procedunt infirmari debent. i. the elections of Bishops which proceed by the violence of Princes, aught to be infringed.  PHIL. 
But you cannot so delude the 22. Canon of the eighth general Council, being the fourth at Constantinople, which is most pregnant to this purpose. For there it was decreed, That 
a Apud. Bin. ●. 3. pag. 857.  no Lay. Prince or Potentate should interpose themselves in the Election, or promotion of a Patriarch, Metropolitan, or any Bishop, especially seeing it is not convenient that they should have any power in such things, but rather be silent, till the Election be finished by the Ecclesiastical College.  ORTHOD. 
The 22. Canon is a counterfeit, not found in the 
b Vide Episcopum Eliensem in resp. ad Apol. B●ll cap. 6. pag. 141.  Greek copies; And the true Canons of the same Council, grounding upon the Canons of the Apostles and ancient Counsels, do justify my former answer in these words, 
c Conc. 8. Can. 12. Bin. t. 3. p. 856.  If any Bishop shall receive the Consecration of Episcopal dignity by the fraud and tyranny of Princes, let him be deposed. Wherefore, the intention of the ancient Counsels was not to exclude Princes, but only to remove fraud and compulsion, that all things might be done according to the Canons. That Hildebrandicall doctrine was not yet known to the world.  PHIL. 

d Athan. ●▪ p●st. ad sol●tariam vitam agentes.  Athanasius asketh where there is any such Canon that a Bishop should be sent out of a Palace.  ORTHOD. 
Athanasius speaketh of the proceedings of Constantius, who so far contemned all Canons, that he would have had his own will to be for a Canon. And whereas in those days Bishops used to be chosen by the consent of the people and Clergy, openly created in the Church, and ordained, if it were possible, by all the Bishops of the Province, at least by three, with the consent of the Metropolitan; Constantius in stead of the Church, would have it done in his Palace; In place of the people, there were present three of his eunuchs, and for the Bishops of the Province, three, which Athanasius calleth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Bishops, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, spies; Thus was one Felix created a Bishop. This sending of Bishops out of a Palace, was against all Canons: this Athanasius misliked, neither can any man of wisdom speak well of it. But such proceedings as are used in the Church of England, shall be justified as agreeable both to the Counsels, and stories of antiquity.  PHIL. 
Valentinian, when the Bishops would have had him to elect a Bishop of Milan, said, 
e Theod. l. 4. cap. 6.  It is a greater matter than is convenient for us, but you being endued with divine grace, and shining with the brightness thereof, shall make the election.  ORTHOD. 
The Bishops did show their duty to their Prince, and the Prince showed his clemency to his Subjects. But what is this to your purpose? There is no doubt, but a Prince may, if it please him, relinquish his right for a time, and he or his successors may resume it again, when it seemeth good to their Princely wisdoms. For that this was anciently acknowledged to be the right of Christian Princes, will appear, if we consider the election of Bishops in the Imperial Cities of Rome, and Constantinople, as also in the Kingdoms of France and Spain.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Election of the Bishops of Rome under Christian Emperors, before the division of the Empire.  PHIL. 
THe 
a Pam●lius in Cypr. Epist. 52.  authority of Emperors began to be interposed in the election of Damasus, and first of all verily only in Schism to pacify uproars, and so the matter was composed by Valentintan between Damasus and Vrsicinus; By Honorius, between Boniface and Eulalius; And by King Theodoricke, between Symmachus and Laurentius. Afterward Emperors intermeddled even when there was no Schism, to prevent, lest peradventure there should be uproars. Yea, and the matter came by little and little to that pass, that Bishops elected, durst not receive Consecration without their assent.  ORTHOD. 
The first Christian Emperor was Constantine the Great, converted according to the calculation of Baronius, in the year of Christ 312. the second year of Pope Melchtades, and the 7. year of his sitting in the Imperial Throne. In his time succeeded three Bishops of Rome, Silvester, Marcus and julius; whose elections, Constantine dwelling far of, permitted to be performed as in ancient manner, by the Suffrages of the Clergy and people. Yet what authority he thought himself to have in such matters, may appear by these his words to Athanasius, 
b Socrat. l. 1. cap. 20.  If I shall understand that any man which is desirous to be partaker of the Church, shallbe hindered or excluded by thee, I will presently send one, who by my commandment shall cast thee out, and give thy place to another. After julius succeeded Liberius, Anno 352, Constantius being sole Emperor, who though he intermeddled not with this Election in the West, yet he interposed himself before that time in the East. For when the people had slain Hermogenes the Captain in defence of Proclus, he came himself in person to Constantinople, and cast Proclus out of the Church, yet he deferred (saith 
c Socrat l. 2. cap. ●0.  Socrates) to pronounce Macedonius Bishop, because he was wonderfully incensed against him, as for other reasons, so because he was chosen without his advice and counsel; notwithstanding, he gave him licence to execute his function in that Church only, wherein he was chosen; but afterward understanding that Paulus was placed again, he sent one Philip to cast out Paulus, and to place Macedonius. Thus you see how both Constantine and Constantius, interposed their authority before the time of Damasus. And had not Valentinian done the like, 
d Ammian. Marcel. l. 27.  Damasus could hardly have obtained the Popedom, because the contrary faction was so strong.  
AFter Damasus, who continued under five Emperors, Valentinian, Valens, 
2.  Gratian, Valentinian the younger, and Theodosius, succeeded Siricius, in the year of Christ 385. being the tenth year of Valentinian, and the seventh of Theodosius, whose election was 
e memoratus Episcopus ipse permaneat. Bar. Anno 385 n. 6.  confirmed by the Emperor Valentinian, as may appear by his Epistle to Pinianus, extant in the Vatican, and published by Baronius.  PHIL. 
This was extraordinary by reason of Schism: but it was no ordinary matter till the days of justinian. For then, as 
f Onuph. in Plat. in Pelag. 2.  Onuphrius saith, After the Goths were driven out of Italy, (which happened in the year 553.) there grew a custom by the authority of Pope Vigilius, to wit, That so soon as the Pope was dead▪ a new election should presently be made after the ancient manner, by the Clergy, the Senate, and people of Rome, but the elected might not be Consecrated, before the Emperor of Constantinople confirmed the election, and gave licence to the Pope elected, that he might be ordained and Consecrated. Now if this grew by the authority of the Pope, it doth not argue any right originally in the Emperor, but only derived from the Pope.  ORTHO. 
A constitution was made at that time, That the new elected Pope should not only crave licence of the Emperor to be ordained, but also pay him a certain sum of money; which was done to this end, as 
a Ibid.  Onuphrius witnesseth, That the Emperor might be assured of the behaviour and conditions of the new Popes, lest any turbulent spirit or enemy to the Emperor being ordained, the City of Rome and the country of Italy might revolt from the Eastern Empire: for now the authority of the Pope began to be great, by reason that the Emperor lived far off at Constantinople. But though this paying of money begun in the time of Vigilius, yet the authority of the Emperor in elections was before his time, as witnesseth Platina in the life of Silverius the Predecessor of Vigilius. Silverius (saith he) borne in Campania having for his father Hormisda a Bishop, was created Pope by the commandment of Theodohatus; cum antea non regum sed imperatorum authoritas interueniret, whereas before that time the authority not of Kings but of Emperors was interposed. So he speaketh of it as a known ordinary and usual matter. Yea and justinian took it so heinously to be robbed of this right, that as 
b 〈…〉.  Platina declareth, this was one of the causes why he sent Belisarius with an army into Italy. Moreover as it was the custom of the Emperor before Vigilius, so it remained long after.  PHIL. 
Indeed this 
c So Bell. calls 〈◊〉. 〈…〉. ad. ●b. 〈◊〉▪ ●. 6  Tyranny continued till the days of Benedict the second, at which time 
d 〈◊〉 in Ben. 2. 〈◊〉. in Ben. 2  Constantine 
e 〈…〉.  moved with the holiness of the man sent a Sanction, that from thenceforth whomsoever the Clergy people and Roman army should choose, him they should all presently believe to be the true Vicar of Christ, not expecting the authority either of the Emperor or of the Exarch of Italy.  ORTHOD. 
This is your fashion: 
* 〈…〉:  If the Emperor do any thing against the Pope, it is mere tyranny, if the Pope do any thing against the Emperor, it is clear liberty. But you confess that this custom prevailed from Vigilius to Benedict the second, in which space were 21. Popes of thereabout all created by Imperial authority, except Pelagius the second, of whom Platina reporteth it as a strange accident▪ that he was made Pope 
f 〈…〉. 2. And before him▪ A●asi● 〈◊〉.  iniussu Principis, without the emperors command: whereof he rendereth this reason, That they could not send any man because the City was besieged; and withal he affirmeth, That whatsoever the Clergy than had done, were nothing, if the Emperor should not approve it; wherefore Gregory the Deacon was sent to Constantinople to pacify the Emperor. Afterward when Gregory himself was chosen Pope, He 
g 〈◊〉 in Greg. 1.  sent letters to the Emperor Mauritius, earnestly entreating him to make void the election of the Clergy and people; but his letters being intercepted by the Governor of the City, were torn in pieces, & other written to entreat the Emperor to confirm him. Moreover Platina having said that Se●erinus was confirmed in the Popedom by Isaatius the Exarch, giveth this reason▪ 
h Plate▪ in 〈◊〉.  For then the election of the Clergy and people was counted vain, unless the Emperors or their Exarehes had confirmed them. And this you grant continued till Benedict the 2. but did it then cease? Constantine did not absolutely refer it to the Clergy & people, but joined with them the Roman army, which being for the guard of the Empire, was at the emperors command. And his son justinian the younger, who presently succeeded (for Constantine died the same year that he sent the sanction) 
a Bin. in notis in vitam Cononis. tom. 3. p. 132.  Mandavit ut non crearetur pontifex, sine consensu Exarchi; commanded that the Pope should not be made without the consent of the Exarch: which mandate was put in practise the year following, in the election of Conon: For Anastasius declareth that when the Clergy people and Roman army had subscribed, 
b Anast. in vita Conon. Bin. quo supra.  Missos pariter una cum Clericis & ex populo ad excellentissimum Theodorum Exarchum direxerunt, that is, They directed some of the people joined with the Clergy as Messengers to the most excellent Theodorus the E●arch▪ for what purpose may appear by Platina, 
c Plat. in vita Conon.  Omnes ad quos pertinebat eum confirmabant; idem fecit Theodorus Exarchus; all to whom it belonged confirmed him; the same did Theodorus the Exarch. Hitherto of the Greek Emperors.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the election of Popes from the Emperor Charles to Otho.  
WHen the Emperor Leo the third, opposed himself against the worshipping of Images, Pope Gregory the second did 
d Sigonius de regno Italiae. l. 3. an. 726  not only excommunicate him, but also ᵃ forbade the Italians to yield him either tribute or obedience; whereupon it came to pass that a great part of Italy revolting, Rome and the Roman Duke▪ doom did fall to the Pope, the rest to the King of the Lombard's. Afterward when there arose variance between the Pope and the Lombard, so that the Lombard besieged the City; the siege was raised by the means of Charles Martell, who then had the administration of the Kingdom of France; After whose death his son 
e Idem an. 750.  Pipin being made King of France, by means of Pope Zechary (one good turn requiring another) did not only defend the Pope against the Lombard, but also having conquered Ravenna and the territories thereof, 
f Idem anno. 754. & 755. Pipinus Exarchatum pentapolimque iterum S. Petro & successorib. eius in perpetuum possidenda Concessit.  he gave all the possessions of the Exarch, and also Pentapolis, as a patrimony to Saint Peter, which gift his son Charles having fully conquered the Lombard, and subdued Italy) confirmed and enlarged. This was Charles the Great, King of France by inheritance, of Italy by conquest, who was called the Emperor of the Romans, that he might be distinguished from the Greek. Now as before this time the Greek Emperor had power in elections, so after this time the Emperor of the Romans. For Pope 
g Distinct. 63. Adrianus.  Adrian with a whole Synod delivered to Charles, the right and power of choosing the Pope, and disposing the Sea Apostolic, and granted to him the honour to be Patricius: and defined, that Bishops through all Provinces should take investitures from him, and that a Bishop should be consecrated by none, unless he were first invested by the Emperor.  2. PHIL. 
THat which you bring of the grant of Adrian to Charles, is a 
h Mendacium esse commentum et imposturam quis non videt? Bin. t. 3. p. 252.  lie, a fiction, an imposture.  ORTHOD. 
It may be proved by a world of 
i See Master Carlton of jurisdiction. c. 7. pag. 138.  witnesses, worthy and famous men which have set the truth in the clear light and made it shine as the noon day.  PHIL. 
It is a tale devised by Sigebert in favour of Henry the fourth a schismatical Emperor which challenged investitures; and though many writers have recorded it, yet they were all deceived by Sigebert, he was the first author, and from him they have sucked it as Cardinal 
* Anno 774. num. 10.  Baronius hath learnedly declared.  ORTHOD. 
If they all sucked it from Sigebert, than it seemeth they thought him an honest man, that they durst publish a matter of so great importance, only relying upon his credit; and if so many have for diverse hundred years had so good an opinion of him, why should Baronius seek to blemish his name, and brand him with reproach? But what if Sigebert were not the author of it? what if it were recorded by Historians before Sigebert was borne? even by the Pope's own friends; even by Anastasius the keeper of the Pope's Library; Baronius his elder brother?  PHIL. 
It is not; for Anastasius is extant, and there is no such matter.  ORTH. 
There it was, but it melted away as it passed through the fire of purgatory.  PHIL. 
Why? do you think that Anastasius hath been purged?  ORTHOD. 
There is no doubt of it; it behoved you to look about, Ne quid Romana curia detrimenti caperei; i. lest the Roman Court should suffer any loss.  PHIL. 
These are uncharitable conjectures, unless you can prove that Anastasius wrote it.  ORTHOD. 
That is proved out of Platina as clear as the noon day; who saith: 
a Plat. in Pas●. 1.  That the keeper of the Library writeth that Lodowick gave to Paschal free power of choosing Bishops; when as before that time the Emperor was asked about that matter: Which power the same author reporteth to have been granted to Charles by Pope Adrian. Hear you this? Platina telleth us that the grant of Pope Adrian to Charles was reported by the keeper of the Library, that is by Anastasius, for he was the famous keeper of the Library, who wrote the lives of the Popes until Nicholas the first as 
b Onuph. in Plat. in joh. ●●t. & in Nichol. 1.  Onuphrius thinketh, or as 
c Bar. Anno 885. n. 7.  Baronius judgeth until Steven the sixth. Thus it appeareth, that it was in Anastasius, though now it be not. And here let us admire the wisdom of God who discloseth the works of darkness, and revealeth what is done even in your privy chambers. For Baronius remembering none who recorded this before Sigebert, but Anastasius, might flatter himself, that if he could father it upon Sigebert he should do well enough; for those worthy writers and noble historians which have from time to time delivered this story by the space of 340. years, he cutteth them all off at one blow, as being all deceived by Sigebert. Sigebert himself he discrediteth, as writing partially in favour of Henry the fourth, a schismatical Emperor. And as for Anastasius, the popish physicians gave him a purgation to cleanse him from such noisome humours. But mark the mischief of it, they did not remember that Platina in Pope Paschal had blazed to the world, that Anastasius wrote it; for if they had, you may be sure they would have put a gag in his mouth. But now Platina hath played the blab, Sigebert is found an honest man, and popish packing and juggling is come to light. Blessed be God which taketh the crafty in their own wile, and maketh their wisdom folly. But that every bird may be adorned with his own feathers, I confess that the honour of this discovery (next unto God) belongs to master Carlton, who like a good Northern bloodhound, after he had once got the sent, did follow the footing till he had found out the thief. Baronius hath been thought in the search of antiquities to have the eye of an Eagle, and the strength of a Lion; his Annals have been accounted a treasure-house of antiquity: but upon better view, he is found to have been the Pope's parasite, & his book little better than a fox's burrow. This wily fox hath been unkenelled by D. 
a Doct. Rain. apologia thesium, s●ct. 43.  Rainolds about Pope Honorius; by master Alexander 
b Dialogue of Pope joan.  Cook about Pope joan, and now by master George Carlton about Pope Adrian. johan. 
c Defence. joh. Mars. p. 354.  Marsilius saith, that there is a book to come forth shortly entitled the errors of Baronius, wherein are set down in particular twenty errors, which he committed in denying the story of Pope john the twelft; and I have heard of some others which have taken great pains to the like purpose: God bless their labours, that they may dispel those foggy mists of falsifications, that the truth may shine as the Sun in his strength. Hitherto of Anastasius, and yet for your fuller satisfaction, I will refer you to 2. more, the one is Walthram who wrote before Sigebert, the other Eutropius Longobardus, who was 200. years before them both, as of late hath been declared by a learned 
d Episc. Eliensis in resp. ad apol. Bellar. c. 6. pag. 140.  Bishop. Now let the world judge who it is which useth lying, feigning and imposture, whether Sigebert, or Bellarmine, Binius and Baronius.  PHIL. 
BAronius is amongst the historians, as the Moon amongst the 
3  Stars, and I doubt not but whatsoever he saith, he buildeth upon a sure foundation, which is evident in this point of Pope Adrian, because 
e Ex Bar. an. 774. n. 11. & 12 Bin. in noti● in vitam Adr. 1. tom. 3. p. 252. Bell. in apolog. & resp. ad libr. jacob. R●g. cap. 6. pag. 76.  Eginhardus who went not from the side of Charles, and wrote his life most exactly, maketh no mention of it, neither do the French Annals.  ORTHOD. 
Their silence doth not prejudice the relation of others, for in a matter of story, the affirmation of one is to be preferred before the silence of many: Neither are the French stories silent in it, as may appear by 
f Frosard in Charlemagne. fol. 80.  Frosard, who collecting the actions of Charles out of the ancient French writers hath the same story.  PHIL. 

g Ex Bell. quo supra p. 76. & 77.  How can it be that Adrian gave any such privilege to Charles the Emperor, seeing Charles was not Emperor in the days of Adrian? for Adrian died Anno 795. and Charles was not Emperor till the year 800.  ORTHOD. 
The title of Emperor and solemnity of imperial coronation was not added till the time of Pope Leo, yet he conquered Italy in the year 774. 
h Sigonius de regno Italiae. l. 3. anno 774.  which was 21. years before the death of Adrian. Wherefore seeing the Romans did then acknowledge him for their Prince, why should they not attribute that authority to him in elections which belonged to their Prince?  PHIL. 
Where was this grant made unto him?  ORTHOD. 
At Rome in the Lateran.  PHIL. 
It is impossible, for he was but four times at Rome, and it could not be at any of 
i Bar. & Bin. ubi supra.  those times.  ORTH. 
How oft he was at Rome before or after skilleth not; this is sufficient for our purpose, that he went from the siege of Papia to keep his Easter at Rome with Pope Adrian: which done he went back to the siege, where Desiderius King of the Lombard's yielded himself unto him: so returning to Rome, he appointed the Synod: wherein, if you will not believe Sigebert, you may believe Gratian, set cut by Pope Gregory, or Theodoricus de Niem.  PHIL. 
If he did come from Papia to Rome, yet he did not there hold a Council: For whence should he so suddenly have so many 
a Ex Bar▪ quo supra.  Bishops, and Abbots?  ORTHOD. 
Anastasius saith, that Charles went from thence to Rome 
a Anas● in vita Adriani. 1. Been ●om. 3. pag A 1.  Abstollens secum diversos Episcopos & Abbates, carrying with him divers Bishops and Abbots: which may argue that he intended a Council, and made preparation for it. And here I marvel why the Clerks of the Roman sponge, which razed out the grant of Adrian to Charles, did leave this of the Bishops and Abbots unspunged? for why should he carry with him those Bishops and Abbots, but to hold a Council? Thus th●se good fellows have conveyed the grant out of Anastasius, they have stolen away the fairest Swan that did swim in the stream, but they have let fall some of the feathers, by which it appeareth, that there was the Swan.  PHIL. 
To what end should Charles call a Council in Italy?  ORTHOD. 

c Theod. de Niem. de in vest. see M. Carleton of ●urisd▪ c. 7.  Theodoricke de Niem saith, This Synod was celebrated by 153. Bishops and Abbots, by all the regions and orders of the city, and by the whole Clergy of the Church of Rome, Exquirentibus usus, leges, & mores eiusdem Ecclesiae & imperij. i. searching out the customs, laws, and manners of the same Church and Empire. Why I pray you, should Charles so employ them, but only that the privileges of the Empire might be confirmed unto him?  PHIL. 
What were these privileges?  ORTHOD. 
The Romans had received great kindness, not only from Charles, but also from his father, and grandfather. For first of all when the Lombard's besieged the city of Rome, his grandfather, Charles Martell, was the means of raising the siege: Afterward when the Lombard's having won Ravenna, did seek to have Rome also, and the Roman Dukedom, his father Pipin recovering Ravenna, did bestow it with the territories thereof, upon Saint Peter and his successors: which Charles, after his conquest of Italy, did establish and amplify. He never entered the city with violence, but expelled those which offered them violence. He never advanced his banner against them, but when they were vexed by the Lombard's, and not being able to defend themselves, implored his aid, he drove the Lombard's out of Italy, and protected them. Finally, he never was an enemy to Rome, but always a friend; for which great benefits, the Romans to show themselves thankful, did yield unto him Princely prerogatives, both in Church and Common wealth. Concerning the Common wealth, 
d Dist. 63. Adrianus.  Pope Adrian, as the mouth of the whole Synod, Citizens and Nobles assembled, Patriciatus dignitatem et consesserat. i. did grant unto him, the honour, to be the Father of the Common wealth that is, the 
e See junius an▪ mad. ad libros Bell. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6  Prince, Patron, and Protector of the Romans. Concerning the Church; Pope Adrian with the whole Synod, tradiderunt Carolo ius & potestatem eligendi Pontificem & ordinandi sedem Apostolicam. 1. delivered unto him: he right and power of electing the Pope, and of disposing the See Apostolic. I pass over the other part of the decree concerning investitures of other Bishops, because as yet we speak only of the Bishops of Rome.  PHIL. 
If the Pope delivered this power, as you say, or 
f Dist. 63. in Synodo.  granted it as some say, or 
a Sigeb●n Chron. an. 1111.  gave it, as Sigebert saith, to Charles, than it followeth that he had it not of his own right, but only by the gift and grant of the Pope.  ORTHOD. 
The power of electing the Pope, may be ascribed unto Charles in a double sense; either that he might do it with the Clergy, and people, or without them: if in the first sense, than the meaning of the Canon, is not to debar the Clergy and people from elections, but to decree that though they may lawfully make an election, yet their election is not sufficient, and available, unless the Emperor do perfect and accomplish it with his royal assent. If this be the meaning, than whatsoever is here delivered to Charles, was before his time anciently acknowledged to belong to the Emperors, as I have already declared. And yet for your further satisfaction, you may see in the 
b Dist. 63. Agatho.  Canon law, that though the Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus, by his Divalis or sacred Epistle, released to Pope Agatho the some of money, which the Bishops of Rome ever since the time of the Emperor justinian, used to pay for their ordination; yet he added this clause, ut non debeat ordinari qui electus fuerit, nisi prius decretum generale introducatur in regiam urbem secundum antiquam Consuetudinem, ut cum eorum conscientia & iussione debeat ordinatio prosperari. i. that the party elected ought not to be ordained, unless, first, the general decree of his election, (strenthned with the subscriptions of the electors) were brought into the imperial city, according to the ancient custom, that so the ordination might prosperously proceed with the knowledge and commandment of the Emperors. Wherefore if we embrace this sense of the Canon, we may justly say, 
c Episcopus Eliensis in Resad apol. Bell. c. 6 p. 140.  Decretum hoc juris veteris, vel restitutio, vel continuatio; non concessio novi. 1. this decree (to speak properly) is either a restoring, or a continuing of an ancient right, not a grant of a new; and consequently this was no privilege, proceeding from the grace and bounty of the Pope, but a voluntary and ingenuous confession of the Princes right. But some do follow the other sense, extending the decree, even to a sole and plenare power of electing at his own pleasure, without the Clergy and people. For 
d Duaren. de sa●●. Eccle. Ministerij. ●. 3. c. 1  Duarenus saith thus. In ancient time the Bishop of Rome used not to be ordained without the consent and authority of the Roman Emperor: and all kings used in a manner the same power in the Churches of their own kingdoms: yet the right of Electing was not therefore taken away from the Clergy, but afterward the right of the electing the Roman Bishops was of their own accord, altogether granted and permitted to the Emperors, Charles and Otho. And a little after, a full power of electing at his own pleasure was granted to Charles, which seemeth more probable, because 
e Deiur. & pr●●. imperij cited by the Bishop of Ely. quo supra. p. 145  Theodoricke de Niem saith, the Roman people granted to him, and translated upon him all their right and power: and according to their example, Pope Adrian with all the Clergy people, and the whole sacred Synod, granted to the Emperor Charles, all their right and power of electing the Pope. Howsoever, this is certain that the Pope and Council did ascribe unto him, if not a sole and plenary, yet at least a principal and prevailing power in electing the high Bishop. If we embrace the first; then so far as they conferred upon him their own former right, it may be called a gift or grant: If the latter, it was no gift nor grant, but an acknowledgement of the ancient right and prerogative of the Empire.  PHIL. 

f Bell. in ap. pro Resp. ad. l. jacobi Regis c. 6. p. 78.  Charles in his 
g Carolus in Capt. l. 1. c. 84.  Chapters appointeth that elections should be free.  ORTHOD. 
This may seem to argue that Adrian and the Council did yield unto him a plenary power, yet notwithstanding he like a gracious Prince permitted, that elections should be free as in former times. But what if they were free? must the Prince therefore be excluded? Before the division of the Empire, the Romans might freely elect whom they list, and yet the elected could not be Consecrated till he were approved of the Emperor: so Charles might grant freedom of elections, and yet reserve to himself his royal assent.  PHIL. 
If he had any such power, why did not he and his successors put it in practice?  ORTHOD. 
To this I will answer, first in general, and then descend to some particulars. In general it appeareth that they did, by these words of 
a Naucl. generat. 38.  Nauclerus; Imperator volens uti consuetudine & authoritate praedecessorum suorum, petebat sibi servari ea quae privilegijs Carolo Magno, & successoribus in Imperto iam per 300 annos, & amplius concessa & obseruata fuerunt, ex quibus privilegijs licitè per investituram annuli & virgae, Episcopatus & Abbatias conferebant, i. The Emperor Henr. desirous to use the custom and authority of his predecessors, required that those privileges should be reserved for him, which were granted to Charles the Great, and to his successors in the Empire, and observed now for 300. years and more; By which privileges it was lawful for the Emperors to confer Bishoprics and Abbacies, by investiture of a ring and a staff. And 
b Mat. Paris in Hen. 1. p. 62.  Matthew Paris saith, That the Emperor was desirous to use the privilege of his predecessors, which they hadenjoyed 300. years under 60. Popes. Thus much in general.  PHIL. 

c Ex Bell. in apol pag. 77.  Anastasius who wrote the lives of 12. Pope's succeeding Adrian, delivereth only that they were chosen by the people and Clergy, but saith nothing of the Emperors.  ORTHOD. 
Yes by your leave, he saith somewhat; But if he were silent, what then? Are not other Author's sufficient to witness it? The next Pope after Adrian, and the only Pope elected in the time of Charles was Leo the third, who (as 
d Gill●n annal. vide junium anim. in Bell de transt. Imperij. l. 1. c. 1. n. 12.  Gillius saith) so soon as he was Consecrated, sent to Charles the Great the keys of S. Peter's Church, with the banner of the City of Rome, and admonished him to send certain selected persons, which might exact the Oath of obedience of the people. Was not this a resignation both of the City and Church into the emperors hands? Was not this an ingenuous acknowledgement that he would not hold the possession of S. Peter's Church, that is, of the Church of Rome without his Royal assent? Which he undoubtedly obtained. For afterwards when a strong faction had deposed Leo, he fled into France to Charles, Who sent him back to Rome, and 
c Author a●n●l. de gest. Caroli. anno 796. cited by jun. ibid.  restored him again with great honour.  
AFter Charles, reigned his son Lodowick, in whose time Leo died, and 
4  Steven the 4. had the place, who (as 
f Baron. anno 816. n. 101.  Baronius showeth out of Aimonius) went in person to the Emperor, within two months of his Consecration. To what end? We may collect that out of his decree in 
g Dist. 63. quia sa●cta.  Gratian, wherein he complaineth, that the Church of Rome at the death of the Popes suffered great violence, because the new Popes were Consecrated without the knowledge of the Emperor; neither were the emperors Ambassadors present, as both the Canons and custom required. Whereupon he decreeth, that the Consecration should be praesentibus Legatis Imperialibus, i. The emperors Ambassadors being present. And withal forbiddeth all men to extort any new Oaths, whereby the Church may be scandalised, and the Imperial honour diminished. Wherefore it is probable, that his hasty going was to excuse the matter, because, as it seemeth, he was Consecrated without the emperors knowledge. Which is yet more likely, because the next Pope 
a Plat. in Pasc. 1.  Paschall, being created without Imperial authority, sent presently to the Emperor Lodowick, to excuse the matter, by laying the blame upon the Clergy and people; Whereto he answered, That the Clergy and people must keep the decrees of their ancestors, and admonished them hereafter to take heed not to offend the Imperial Majesty.  PHIL. 
If Lodowick had any such authority therein, surely he resigned it in his Constitution concerning his donation to the Church of Rome, which is partly in 
b Dist. 63. Ego Ludou●cus.  Gratian, but fully set down by 
c Baron. anno 817. n. 10.  Baronius out of the Vatican Monuments; the sum whereof is, that it shall be lawful for the Romans to elect and Consecrate their Pope, and that nothing should be required at the hands of the new Pope, but only to send Ambassadors to the Emperor, to signify his promotion, and to make love and peace between them.  ORTHOD. 
Indeed 
d Plat. in pasc. 1.  Platina saith, That the keeper of the Library, (meaning Anastasius) writeth, that Lodowick gave free power of Electing Bishops to Pope Paschal, whereas before this time the Emperors were consulted withal about the matter. If the Emperor gave it, than the Emperor had it; And if Anastasius say so, than he saith something of the Emperors.  
Moreover, if Lodowick did resign it, surely his son Lotharius did resume 
5  it. In whose time three Popes were created, Sergius the 2. Leo the 4 and Benedict the 3, all by Imperial authority. To begin with the first; 
e Sigebert. anno 844.  Sigebert showeth, how Lotharius sent his son Lodowick to Rome, to confirm the Election of Sergius.  PHIL. 

f Ado sub anno 841.  Ado Vionensis saith, He sent him that he might have the name or title of Emperor, and that Sergius being already Pope, did set the Crown upon his head; so he was saluted Emperor and Augustus, with the general applause of all the people, by which you may confute the impudency of Sigebert the Schismatic, as 
g Bar. anno 844. n. 5.  Cardinal Baronius hath notably done.  ORTHOD. 
How doth this confute it? These things are not contrary, but may stand well together. The Emperor sent Lodowick to confirm the Pope; the Pope being confirmed, did Crown Lodowick. So notably doth Baronius confute Sigebert. The next was Leo, at whose Election as the Romans were not a little glad, so 
h Anast. in Leone 4.  Anastasius himself saith, they began again not to be a little sad, because they durst not consecrate him that should be Pope, without the Imperial authority.  PHIL. 
When 
h Anast. in Leone 4.  Lotharius and Lodowick did challenge to themselves the Confirmation 
i Ex Bar. anno 847. n. 10.  of the Pope elected, or what other right soever in his Election or Consecration, Pope Leo resisted, and so far prevailed, that they themselves consented it should not be done, but according to the prescript of the Canons; His decree is yet 
k Dist. 63. Inter.  extant in these words; Leo 4. to Lotharius, and Lodowick Emperors, It is decreed and confirmed betwixt us and you, in manner of a Covenant, that the Election and Consecration of him that shallbe Bishop of Rome, aught to be done no otherwise then justly and Canonically.  ORTHOD. 
justly and Canonically? I hope you will say, that S. Gregory was Elected and Consecrated justly and Canonically: yet he was confirmed by the Emperor. Wherefore this Covenant did not disannul the Imperial authority. Which is most clear in the next Pope, Benedict the 3, after whose Election made by the joint consent of the Clergy and people; Clerus & cuncti proceres (saith 
a Anast. in Benedict 3.  Anastasius) decretum componentes proprijs manibus roboravere, & ut consuetudo prisca exposcit invictissimis Lothario & Ludovico destinavere Augustis, i. The Clergy & all the Nobles, making a decree (concerning their election) they strengthened it by subscribing with their own hands, and as the ancient custom requireth, they did appoint to send it to the most unconquerable Emperors Lotharius and Lodowick. And Platina showeth how the emperors Ambassadors were sent to Rome, to confirm the Election. After Benedict, succeeded 
b A Nichol. 1. tentatum potius quam in choatum. Plat. in Adr. 3.  Nicholas the first, who went about to infringe the emperors authority, but could not. After him came Adrian the second, At whose election the emperors 
c Ex Pla●. in Adr. 2.  Ambassadors were in the City, but could not have access to interpose the emperors authority; whereat they were in great indigantion.  PHIL. 
They were so, 
* Ex Bell. acol. c. 6. p. 77.  but answer was made that it was done upon this consideration, as writeth 
d I● Adriano. 2.  William the library keeper, who succeeded Anastasius, Lest a custom should grow of expecting the Ambassadors of Princes in the election of Popes, which answer being received, the Ambassadors were fully calmed and quieted.  ORTH. 
This were to cast oil into the fire; to kindle not to quench their anger, therefore it hath no probability. Far more likely is the reason related by 
e Plat. in Adriano. 2.  Platina, That satisfaction was given by telling them that in such a tumult they could not rule the people. So the Ambassadors went and saluted the Pope, perceiving plainly that the people and Clergy began to challenge the whole authority in elections unto themselves, not expecting the emperors consent. Yet the Emperor showed his authority, in that so soon as he heard of the election, He wrote an 
f In vita Adr●ani. 2. per Gelid. ut O●●●h. & Bell. putant scripta: ●ei ●b Anast. ut B●r.  Epistle commending the Romans for their worthy choice. Whereupon 
g Bin. ●. 3. pag. 8 19  Binius noteth in the margin, Imperator approbat electionem factam. i. The Emperor approveth the election being made. And the Canon of Adrian the first did stand vnrepealed till the time of Adrian the third, who made a Decree, That the 
h Plat. in Adr. 3.  authority of the Emperor should not be expected in the creation of the Bishop of Rome.  6. PHIL. 
THe Church which had endured a long bondage under the Emperors was then set ●t liberty, and enjoyed the same till the time of Otho the Emperor, the year 963.  ORTHOD. 
Liberty do you call call it, or rather licentiousness, which hath filled the Commonwealth with tumults, the Church with monsters, & the world with iniquity? For this is the time when as 
i Bar an. 912. n. ●.  Baronius complaineth, Most filthy harlots did bear all the sway at Rome. This is the time when strumpets did thrust their lovers into the seat of Peter. This is the time when 
k Bar. ibidem.  all Canons were put to silence, the pontifical decrees choked, ancient traditions proscribed, the old custom, sacredrites, and former use of choosing the high Bishop utterly extinguished. In this time was Formosus chosen, who had been 
l Bell. de rom. pont l. 4. c. 12  degraded by a Pope, and got the Popedom by 
m ●●de Plat. ●n St. ph. 6.  perjury: In this time was Steven, 
n Ibidem  who took up the body of Formosus out of the grave, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off the fingers, and cast them into Tiber, repealing his Decrees and Acts, and causing those whom he ordained to be 
o See l. 2. c. 9 s●ct. 11  re-ordained. In this time was 
p Plat. in ●orum vitis.  Romanus, Theodorus, and john the tenth, who disannulled the acts of Stephen, and justified Formosus. In this time was 
q Plat. in S●rg. ●  Sergius, who repealed their acts, maintained Steven, condemned Formosus and cast his body into Tiber. This was that monster Sergius whom 
r Bar anno 908. num. 2. 〈◊〉 rosissimu● on. mum.  Baronius calleth a villain of all villains, affirming that he had a bad ingress, a worse progress, and the worst egress. And yet Pope john the 12. exceeded him in all monstrous villainy, He 
a Luitprand. l. 6. c. 6.  polluted his own Father's concubine, and made his palace a stews; he put out the eyes of his godfather; gelded one of his Cardinals; played at dice, invocating jupiter and Venus, and drunk a health to the devil. This was the monster of all monsters, of whom Cardinal 
b Sum. de eccls l. 2. c. 103.  Turrecremata, following Luitprandus saith, Because his life was detestable & marvelous offensive to Christian people, therefore Christ himself gave out the sentence of condemnation against him. For while he was abusing a certain man's wife the devil stroke him suddenly, and so he died without repentance. Lo these were the fruits of excluding Emperors, perjury, cruelty, abominable lust, and all manner of villainy.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the election of Popes from the time of the Emperor Otho to Henry. 4.  
WHen the race of Charles failing the Western Empire, was translated to Otho, the Romans ashamed to see such a snake in the seat of Peter, earnestly 
a Luitprand. l. 6.  Entreated the Emperor to provide for the Church, by removing the monster. Whereupon john the 12. was deposed, and Leo the 8 made Pope in his place.  PHIL. 
Leo was no Pope, but a schismatical Antipope.  ORTHOD. 

b Ex Luit. p. ibid.  He was chosen in a great Roman council, by the voice of all, in the presence, and with consent of the Emperor. He is acknowledged for a lawful Pope, and put into the Catalogue of Popes, by an infinite number of writers, as 
c Bin. t. 3. p. 1065.  Binius confesseth; And therefore you must give me leave so to call and account him. Now to proceed, This Pope 
d Dist. 63. in Synodo.  Leo in a Synod with the whole Clergy and people of Rome decreed, that from hence forth no man of what dignity or religion soever should have any power to elect either Patricius or Bishop of the high See Apostolic, or to ordain any other Bishop without the consent of the Emperor.  PHIL. 
This Canon is counterfeit which may appear, because, Leo is here said to propose unto himself, The example of Adrian, who granted investitures to Charles, whereas the name of 
e Bar. an. 774. n. 15.  Inuerstitures was not in use in the time of Charles.  ORTHOD. 
Baronius, from whom you borrow this argument, should have done well to have cast the nativity of investitures, that so we might have known under what constellation they had been borne. Is it enough for him to say they were after Charles, & not to prove it? I need not here dispute whether they came from the Lumbards' or no: the testimony of the Canon law is sufficient to overbalance the bare conjecture of Baronius.  PHIL. 
It 
f Bar. ibid.  is said in the Canon, That this grant was made to Otho, in the Church of our Saviour. Now what author maketh mention of any such council wherein any such grant was made to Otho?  ORT. 

g Luit. l. 6.  Luitprandus maketh mention of this council, at which he was present; 
h Dist. 63. in Synod.  and Gratian hath recorded, and enroled this very Canon: what would you more? we cite the Popes own Canon out of the Pope's Canon-law, notoriously known to all the Canonists, the pillars of Popery, acknowledged by 
i Gen. l. 4. s●culo▪ 10.  Genebrard a most partial parasite, and related by 
k Sigon. de regn●●●al. l. 8. an. 1046.  Sigon●us the Popes own chronicler. The noble men of Rome (saith he) to advance their own private power, corrupted them to whom the Pope's election belonged▪ & thereby filled the Church (almost 200 years together) with grievous seditions, & scandalous evils and disorders. These were, the Marquis Albert & Alberike his son a Consul, the Earls of Thusculum, and they who were of their kin, or by their means had grown to wealth. Who, either bribing the people and Clergy with money, or spoiling them of the ancient liberty of the Election by whatsoever other means, preferred at their lust their kinsmen, or friends, men commonly nothing like to the former Popes in holiness and good order. For the repressing of whose outrage, Pope Leo the eight revived the law which had been made by Adrian the first, and repealed by the third: that no Pope elected, should undertake the Popedom without the emperors consent. Which law being taken away, the state of the Church was put again in great danger through the private lusts of the same factions. Thus he acknowledgeth that Leo was a Pope, that Pope Leo revived this Canon, and likewise that this Canon was profitable to repress sin, and that the abrogation of it had brought the Church into great danger. But though this Canon were so good, made by the approbation of the Romans which 
a 〈◊〉. l. 6. ●ap. 6.  had sworn before unto Otho, that they would never choose a Pope without the consent of him and his son, yet they went about presently to pluck their necks out of the collar, Otho was no sooner departed than they 
b P●at. in Io●. 13.  put out Leo, and restored john, after whom (dying within a few days) they put in 
c Plat. ●n Leon●. 8.  Benedict, whom the Emperor, coming with fire and sword, compelled them to deliver up unto him, and to admit of Leo.  
AFter the death of Leo the 
d Bar. a●. 965. nu. 4. e● autore a●ud. Regmonen.  Romans sent Ambassadors into Saxony to the 
2  Emperor to know his pleasure, at whose return john the thirteenth was chosen, whom, after a while the Romans banished. When the Emperor heard this, he came to Rome, 
e Bar. an. 966. nu. 2. ex au●l. ad Anast. Plat. in joh. 14.  Banished the consuls, hanged the tribunes, and caused Peter the governor of the city, being the cause of all these broils to be stripped and whipped, and carried through the streets upon a horse with his face backward. Thus Otho put a bit in their mouths, and kept the bridle in his hand, while he lived: but after his decease the former faction prevailed. For Boniface the seventh, who 
f Plat. in B●nis. 7.  came in by villainy, robbed his Church, and being cast out by violence recovered it again by money got with sacrilege, was chosen by the Romans, of whom 
g Bar. in. 985. num. 1.  Baronius saith, that he was a most cruel murderer of two Popes; and had not one hair of a Roman Bishop, deserving to be reckoned among most famous thieves and ransakers of their country in which he went beyond Sylla and Catiline.  
Yet after this, the Emperors had again a hand in the election. For 
h Plat. in Gr●g. ●.  Otho the third advanced his cozen Gregory the fifth, whom Crescentius a rich Roman expelled and put another in his place; which when the Emperor heard, he came to Rome with a great army, he caused the Antipope to be 
i Gla●er ●●dolph l. 1●. 4. vide Bar. anno 996. num. ●.  apprehended commanded his hands and ears to be cut off, and his eyes to be pulled out. Then he besieged Crescentius, and hanged him up aloft in the sight of the city. Thus Gregory was restored unto his place.  PHIL. 
PRoceed unto the next Pope Sylvester the second, was not he 
3  also chosen by the Emperor? you tell us of monsters; but if we may believe 
k Plat. ●n 〈◊〉. 2.  Platina, this was a monster of monsters. For he is said to have been a Nicromancer, and for the Popedom to have sold his soul to the devil, such were the elections of the Emperors.  ORTHOD. 
If he were a conjuror, than I beseech you make a stand a while, look back, and take a view of your golden succession, wherein are so many monsters, villains and rakehells. But what if he were not? 
a Bar. an. 999. num. 3.  Baronius thinketh that this is a slander arising from his sudden promotion, and believed among the ignorant, because he was an excellent Astronomer. 
b Onuphr. annot an● lat. in sylvest 2.  Onuphrius wondereth that Platina and some others were so negligent and credulous, as not only to suffer without reproof such imputations to be laid upon the best and most learned men, by the writers of those times, but also to follow their ignorance. Thus in stead of a conjuror, he is become a most holy and learned man. But whatsoever he was, if the Emperor did choose him, it was at the request of the people, as may appear by 
c A●m●n l. 5. c. 45. Bar. anuo 999 n. 2. Been in 〈◊〉. Sylu●st.  Aimonius alleged both by Baronius and Binius. Wherefore either he was no monster, or if he were, the Romans must impute the blame of his election rather to themselves then to the Emperor.  PHIL. 
Whether he were or no, Doctor 
d Gen. l. 4 secul. 10.  Genebrard declareth, that there were fifty monsters intruded by the tyranny of the German Emperors.  ORTHOD. 
I will answer this in the words of a learned man. 
e Doct. Rain. cons. c. 7. sect. 5.  Genebrard without all reverence both of God and man, doth rail, lie and falsify stories to deface the Emperors, and cross the Writers of the Centuries. For he saith that the Emperors did, as wild boars, eat up the vineyard of the Lord: the stories say that they delivered it from wild boars. The stories say that the monsters of the Popes were chosen by the Romans themselves: he saith that they came in by intrusion of the Emperors. The stories say, that the Emperors who hunted out those beasts were virtuous and lawful Princes: he calleth them tyrants: not only them, but also many good emperors more, who meddled with the Pope's election. Finally, the stories say that the Emperors were allowed by Popes and counsels to do it: he saith they usurped it by the right of Herod. And yet himself recordeth, and that in the same Chronicle too, that Pope Adrian with a Council, Pope Leo with a Council, Pope Clemens with a Council, did grant it unto Charles, Otho, and Henry the Emperors. No Philodox, it was not the Emperor, but the Romans which intruded the monsters; as I have already showed at large, and you may further see by Benedict the ninth, Sylvester the third, and Gregory the sixth, which 
f Plat. in Or●g. 6.  Platina calleth, tria teterrima monstra, i three most ugly monsters, and were all chosen by the Romans. Yea the Emperors were so far from intruding, that they did extrude them; Otho, john the twelfth; and Henry the second, Gregory the sixth. For the Emperor Henry went into Italy upon purpose to provide for the Church: which Gregory understanding, met him, and to win his favour offered him a 
g Otho Prising Chr. l. 6. c. 32.  crown of gold. But the Emperor put on justice as a rob and a crown; It was dearer unto him then a crown of gold. So he called a council, wherein Gregory being convented and convicted, resigned the place as some say, or rather was 
h Vule Episc. E●iens. in resp. ad apol. c. 6. pag. 44.  deposed as others affirm: and one Swidiger a German, a man famous for honesty and learning, named by the Emperor, and approved by all, was chosen in his place, and called Clement the second; by whom Henry being crowned Emperor, caused the Romans to 
i Plat. in Clem. 2.  swear that they would not meddle at all with Elections, but by the Emperors commond. For he saw that the world was come to that pass that every factious fellow, were he never so base, so he were rich and potent might corrupt their voices, and obtain the place by bribes. And the new Pope with a Council as 
a Gen. l. 4▪ sec. 10.  Genebrard confesseth, gave the same to Henry, which was given before to Otho.  PHIL. 
CLement the second, was no true Pope, in the judgement of 
4.  Genebrard.  ORTHOD. 
But he was a true Pope in the judgements of 
b Bar. Anno 1047. n. 1.  Baronius and 
c Bin. t. 3. p. 1094.  Binius, for they both put him into the Catalogue. Wherefore you must confess, that this authority was yielded to the Emperor by a true Pope: And as it was yielded by him, so it was practised by the Emperor. For the next four Popes, Damasus the second, Leo the ninth, Victor the second, and Stephen the ninth, are called of 
d Onuph. in Plat. in Clem. 2.  Onuphrius most holy and good men, well deserving of the Church of God; and he proveth by the Histories of that time, that they were all created by the authority of the Emperor; Which is most clear in Leo the ninth. For after the death of Damasus, the Romans sent to Henry, to entreat him to send them a 
e Plat. in Leone. 9  good Pope, who presently offered them one Bauno, a Bishop a good and well meaning man.  PHIL. 
This 
f Ex Bar. An. 1049. n. 1.  Embassage was sent from the Cardinals, not that the Emperor should elect a Pope, but that he should send one to be elected at Rome, according to the custom▪ by the Council of the Cardinals, as Benno our adversary cannot deny. And 
g Leo Ost. l. 2 cap. 82.  Leo Ostiensis, witnesseth that he was chosen by the Romans. Therefore whereas some say, that he was chosen by the Emperor, you must understand that he was delected by the Emperor, but elected by the Cardinals For 
h Otto Fris. see Baron quo supra.  Otto Frisingensis recordeth that as Leo passed through France in his Pontifical robes, Hildebrand came and told him that it was unlawful for a Pope to enter violently, per manum laicam, by the helping hand of a lay Prince, or as 
i Plat. in Leon. 9  Platina saith, that Henry had no power from God to create a Pope, so he put of his purple, and entered Rome, as a private man; Whereupon the Roman Clergy elected him the rather, because by this his fact he had translated all the authority of choosing the Pope from the Emperor to the Clergy.  ORTHO. 
If he translated it from the Emperor, than it was invested in the Emperor as indeed it was even by their own judgement, for else, why did they send unto him? yea both the Emperor, and the Pope did so take it. as appeareth, because he put on his pontifical robes, in the presence of the Emperor. 
k Otto Fris. Chron. l. 6. ●. 33.  Otto Frisingensis did so take it when he said that Leo was appointed to the seat of Peter, authoritate regalis excellenciae. i By the authority of the regal excellency. Onuphrius did so take it, in the words before alleged. Wherefore howsoever you distinguish between delecting and electing, It is clear that they sent to the Emperor, as to one that had authority; yea, 
l Plat. in C●●. 2.  they had bound themselves by oath, not to meddle with elections, but at his command: wherefore their election was either by his authority, or they were all perjured. Which Imperial authority continued till Gregory the seventh, for 
m Plat. in Greg. 7.  Platina saith, that the Emperor and Gregory were made friends, eundemque in pontificatu confirmavit, ut tum Imperatorummos erat. i. He confirmed him in the Popedom, as than it was the custom of Emperors.  PHIL. 
Now are you come to a worthy man indeed, 
n Ex Bell. in Apol. c. 6. ●. 88  a most courageous 
5  maintainer of the liberties of the Church, who was not afraid to renew and defend the holy and Ecclesiastical laws, namely the 22. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. For in a 
o Con. Rom. 7. sub Greg. ●. B●n. t. 3. p. 1287.  Council holden in the year 1080, he excluded all secular Potentates whatsoever from investitures, reserving the elections only to the Clergy and people. Wherein he was seconded, by his noble successors Victor and Vrban.  ORTHO. 
Ancient, and holy laws? which are these? Bellarmine nameth but one, and that a counterfeit; contrary to the custom of the Church, which was ancient and holy. Indeed your courageous Champion, did not only exclude all secular Potentates from investitures, but also in the same Council, he deposed his own lord and sovereign, who confirmed him in the Popedom, and gave away the Empire to Rodolph a rebel, promising forgiveness of sins, to all that obeyed him. Was this according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiastical laws? Moreover his noble successors what did they? When the rebel Rodolph was slain in the field, they armed the 
a Vide Sig de regno Ital. l. 9 Anno 1093.  sons against their own father: First, Conrade, the● Henry, who took his own father prisoner, and brought him to such misery, that he was glad to beg for victuals in a Church which he himself had founded, promising to earn them by doing the duty of a Clerk in serving the quire; which not obtaining, he pined away and died for sorrow: Was this according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiastical laws? Neither did the Pope's malice stay here: their successor Pope Paschall the second, caused him to be 
b Vide Tort. Torti. pag. 240.  digged out of his grave, and to lie unburied by the space of five years. Was this according to the ancient and holy Ecclesiastical laws? Yet after all these exploits, so valiantly performed, Pope Paschall was glad to restore again the 
c Ex actis vitae Pasch. 2. apud Bar. Anno 1111. n. 18.  privilege of investitures to his son Henry, being the fifth King, and the 4 Emperor of that name.  PHIL. 
This privilege may be called a praviledge. For the Emperor took him prisoner, and constrained him to it by force, and violence, but when he was enlarged, he cursed both the privilege and the Emperor, in two Roman 
d Bar. t. 3. p. 1309. & 1314.  councils, the one holden in the year 1112. the other in the year 1116.  ORTHO. 
The Emperor enforced him not to any thing unlawful, but to observe the ancient Canons according to the custom both of the Church and Empire; this the Emperor might justly require, and the Pope might yield unto with a good conscience; so Paschal with sixteen of his Bishops and Cardinals (whose names 
e Bar. Anno 1111. n. 19  Baronius setteth down out of Petrus Diaconus) bond themselves by a solemn oath, sub anathemate, to perform it. Notwithstanding, when he was once set at liberty, the Pope played the Pope, cursed the Emperor, and revoked his grant with open perjury.  PHIL. 
The Emperor himself had no great confidence in this grant, and therefore he relinquished it, to Calixtus the second.  ORTH. 
What should he do? It was now commonly taught, that investitures belonged not to lay men; It was embraced as an article of faith, that the Pope might depose Princes: for denying whereof, 
f Sigonius de Reg. Ital. l. 9 Anno 1085.  Vecilo Archbish. of Mentz was condemned for an Heretic. He saw his father's example▪ fresh bleeding before his eyes, he was in danger, every day to be turned out of his kingdom, the Popes were continually flashing their excommunications in his face, first Pope Paschall, than Gelasius, after him Calixtus. So at last wearied and tired out he was 
g Calixt. Papa excommunicationis ●ulmin● Henricum 5. coegit, ●tomne iu● investiendi Episcopos, Ecclesiae res●●tueret, atque ita hoc Pontifice author's tanden pax optatissima ●ō●osita fuit. B●n. in vita Calixt. 2.  compelled to redeem his peace, and rather to lose investitures then the Empire itself. Thus the authority which was for many hundreds of years practised by the Greek, Roman, and German Emperors, ratified by Clement the 2. with a council, by Leo the 8. with a council, by Adrian the 1. with a council, and before them all by Pope Vigilius, and before him by the approbation of those ancient and better times, was now wrested and extorted from him by perjury, cursing, and banning. And as they excluded the Emperor, reducing elections to the Clergy and people, so afterward they excluded the people, and brought them only to the Clergy; after that, they excluded the Clergy, and brought them only to the Cardinals; Since which time, they have been as monstrous Popes as ever were before, namely 
a Walsing. Histor. Angl. in Edovard 1. pag. 89.  Boniface the eighth. who entered like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog. john the 23. who was called a devil incarnate, and Alexander the sixth, who was worse than they both. 
b Onuph. in Chron.  Of all the Schisms which were in the Church of Rome, the 29. (saith Onuphrius) was the worst and the longest, continuing 50. years. sometimes two Popes, sometimes three reigning at once, which proceeded from the ambition of the Cardinals, the Emperor being excluded who should have repressed them; and if at last the Emperor Sigismond had not interposed his authority, calling the Council of Constance, and putting down 3. Popes, by this time as a learned 
c Doct. Rain. Confer c. 7. sect. 5.  man saith) your Church might have had as many Popes at once, as the scarlet coloured beast hath heads. Hitherto of Rome.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Election of the Bishops of Constantinople.  
WHen Nazianzen had refused the Bishopric of Constantinople, 
d Ex Sozom. l. 7. cap. 8.  Theodosius the elder commanded the Bishops to give him in writing, the names of such as they thought fit for the place; reserving to himself the power of Electing one out of all. It fell out that there was at that time at Constantinople, an ancient and reverend old man, Nectarius by name, who being about to return to Tarsus, came to Diodorus the Bishop thereof, to know whether he would have any thing thither: Diodorus on a sudden liking the behaviour of the man, though a stranger unto him, showed him to the Bishop of Antioch, praying him to remember him in the catalogue of names. The Bishop of Antioch smiled at the conceit of Diodorus, because many men of eminent note, were nominated for this Election; yet for fashion sake to please Diodorus, he put Nectarius in among the rest, and placed him last. The Emperor having read over the catalogue, made a pause at the name of Nectarius, and making a mark with his finger, he read them over again, and chose Nectarius. And when every man inquired who this Nectarius was, it appeared that he was not as yet baptised; a thing which was unknown to the Emperor, unknown to the Bishop of Antioch & unknown to Diodorus; Yet the Emperor having made his choice, would not be removed, and the Council then assembled, pronounced him Bishop of Constantinople, even while he was yet in his Christening vesture. After the death of Nectarius, the Clergy and people chose Chrysostome; the Emperor 
e Sozom. l. 8. cap. 2.  approved the Election, and sent to fetch him from Antioch. After the death of Sisinnius, though many made suit for Philip, and many for Proclus, yet it was the 
f Socrat. l. 7. c. 29.  emperors pleasure, because of some vain glorious persons to choose none of that Church, but to send for a stranger, (Nestorius) from Antioch. After the death of Maximianus, Theodosius the Emperor, lest any tumult should be raised in the Church, procured the Bishops then present, to install Proclus in the Bishop's seat, even while the corpse of Maximianus was as yet above ground; which 
a Socrat. l. 7 cap 39  Socrates commendeth in the Emperor as a point of wisdom.  PHIL. 
You should mark what followeth in Socrates, to wit, that Celestinus Bishop of Rome did consent to these proceedings.  ORTHOD. 
When Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople was deposed, and Proclus in fair possibility to obtain the place, some stood up 
b Socrat l. 7. ● 34.  alleging against him, that it was not lawful to be translated from one See to another; whereupon Proclus was repelled, and Maximianus chosen. Wherefore after the death of Maximianus, when Celestine heard that Proclus was installed, he wrote to Cyrill and others, signifying that translations of Bishops was lawful, and not against the Canons. So Celestine only giveth his judgement, but assumeth no authority in the Election, which was already performed by Imperial authority. Thus you see the practice of the Emperors in the Church of Constantinople, no man contradicting them; and the very last of these examples was above 300. years before the grant of Adrian, yea above 100 years before Vigilius. Now from the Imperial Cities, let us come to the kingdom of Spain.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Election of the Bishops of Spain.  
IN the 16. Council at 
c Concil. Tol 16. Bin. t. 3. p. 157.  Toledo it was concluded, That if a Bishop did not set his helping hand to the extirpation of Idolatry, he should be deposed: Alio ibidem Principali Electione constituto, Another being appointed there by the Prince's Election. This Council was holden in the year 693. fourscore years before investitures were granted to the Emperor Charles, by Pope Adrian. And before that, it was decreed in the 12. Council of 
d Conc. Tol. 12. de●r. 6. B●n. ●. 3. p. 104.  Toledo, as followeth; It hath pleased all the Bishops of Spain and Galicia, That saving the privilege of every Province, it shall henceforth be lawful for the Bishops of Toledo, to set up such Prelates in the Sees of their predecessors, and to choose such successors for Bishops departed, as the Princely power shall Elect and find worthy by the judgement of the foresaid Bishops of Toledo. This Council was holden in the year 681. almost an 100 years before Pope Adrian. And yet the Kings of Spain had authority to Elect before this Council; which may appear by these words of 
e Bar. anno 631. ●. 60.  Baronius, We must not be ignorant of this point, that the Kings of the Goths in Spain, did challenge to themselves the nomination of such Bishops as were to be made, which nomination of them (made by the King) was referred to a Council, that they might judge of the quality of the person, whether he were worthy of a Bishopric. These things are evident by the Monuments of ancient writers; Now because much time passed before they could be dispatched, by reason whereof the Sees were long vacant, therefore the Council made the decree. Thus it is evident that the authority of the Council, was translated to the Archbishop; but the King's authority was the same as before, and had so been from the time of the Goths.  PHIL. 
Indeed 
d joh. Garsias inn●●● in Conc. Tol. 12.  in the time of the Goths it was in the Kings, and so hath continued in the Kings of Spain to this present age, by the indulgence of the Popes.  ORTHOD. 
The ancient Kings of the Goths were Arrians, and enemies to Christ; did they elect Bishops by indulgence of Popes?  PHIL. 
They did it by tyranny; will you take a pattern from Arrians, and Tyrants?  ORTHOD. 
The Arrians of Spain were 
e Baron anno 889. n 12. Bin. t. 2. p. 706.  converted in the year 589. and professed the faith in the third Council of Toledo; Yet the Orthodox Kings continued their authority in Elections. Shall we say that they took a pattern from Tyrants and Arrians? Neither did the Arrian Kings offend in that they elected Bishops, but in that they elected Arrian Bishops. Neither is an Orthodox Prince bound to relinquish his own right, because it hath been abused by heretical Princes. For the right of Princes is most ancient, derived neither from Pope nor Arrian, but from the pattern of 
f 1. King. 2. 35.  Solomon, who chose Sadok high Priest, above 1000 years before either Arrian or Papist was borne. Hitherto of Spain.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Election of the Bishops of France.  
IN France the Kings had the choice of Bishops almost 300. years before the Empire came to their hands. For their first Christian King Clodoveus (converted in the year 499) 
a Greg. Turon. l. 10. c. 31.  elected Dinifius Bishop of Turone. After him succeeded Childibertus, who made his brethren Clodomer, Theodorick, and Clotharius partakers of his Kingdom, all which used the same authority; for by the commandment 
b Ibidem. l. 3. cap. 17.  of Clodomer, Omasius was made Bishop of Turone after Dinifius; by the 
c Greg: Turon. l. 3. c. 2.  commandment of Theodorick, Quintianus was made Bishop of Aruerne; by the commandment 
d Idem. l. 4. c. 15.  of Clotharius, Cato was appointed to be Bishop of Turone, which when he refused, and afterward would have had it, the King repelled him. After the death of Clotharius reigned his son Cheribert, who 
e Idem. l. 4. c. 18.  made Pascentius Bishop of Poitiers. But why should I reckon up any more? There is a world of examples recorded by Gregorius Turonensis, & collected from him by one of our learned 
f Bishop Bilson perpetual government. cap. 15.  Bishops, all which were above a thousand years ago. Afterward when the French Kings became Roman Emperors, Pope Adrian decreed, and defined that they should have not only investitures but also the disposing of the Roman See, as hath been declared. And although Lodowick the son of Charles be said to have renounced the right of choosing the Bishop of Rome; yet as the 
g Paris curiae de●eus: pro libertate eccls Gal. sect. 43.  Court of Paris affirmeth, He always retained investitures. Neither had the Kings of France of ancient time authority in Bishoprics only, but in benefices also; Si 
h Duarenus de sacr eccls numsi. l. 3. c. 11.  ad priscorum institutorum normam (saith Duarenus) omnia exigere velimus, nullum est in Gallia beneficium, nullum Ecclesiae ministerium quod absque regis consensu cuiquam deferri possit: if we will examine all things according to the rule of ancient constitutions, there is in France no benefice, no ministry of any Church which can be conferred upon any man without the consent of the King. Notwithstanding it came to pass in process of time, that the Pope by his provisions, reservations, and expectative graces made lamentable desolation in the Church of God: for redress whereof, when the council of Basill had published most worthy 
a Conc. Basil. S. 31. decret. de collationibu● beneficiorum. Bin. t. 4. p. 72  decrees, Pope Eugenius went about to disannul them. Wherhfore 
b Duarenu● de sacr: eccls minist: l. 5. c. 11.  Charles the 7. king of France at the supplication of the council, and by the advice of his own Bishops assembled in Synod, undertook to protect them, to which purpose he set out that noble constitution, called the pragmatical sanction, which was received with such an applause of all good men, that the like was never heard of in the kingdom of France. This pragmatical sanction was fitly called by a great 
c Apud Duarenum quo supra.  learned man, the Palladium of France; for as the image of Pallas was said to fall down from heaven among the Trojans; so this sanction seemed to be sent from heaven by divine providence among the Frenchmen: And as Apollo did prophesy that the removing of the Palladium would be the destruction of Troy; so wise men presaged that the taking away of this Sanction would portend great calamity to the Church of France. Yet for all this the Popes would never be quiet till they had, if not wholly vanquished, yet wonderfully weakened it, especially Pius the 2. who was one of the Bishops in the council of Basil, but now being Pope, he is become another man; neither wanted there some which to please the Pope, opposed themselves against it; whose subtleties and Sophisms are answered by that famous Canonist Archbishop Panormitan, who was himself also one of the Bishops in the council of Basil. Yea the court of 
d Paris: curiae defence: pro libertate eccls Gal. sect. 18.  Paris offered a book to Lodowick the eleventh, wherein they declared, how by the abrogation of the Sanction four mischiefs would follow: the first, A confusion of the whole Ecclesiastical order: the 2. a desolation of their country: the 3. the impoverishing of the kingdom, by wasting their treasure: the 4. the ruin and subversion of Churches. The consideration of which things so prevailed with the King, that Pope Pius was disappointed of his purpose.  PHIL. 

e Apoll. Bell▪ pro resp. ad librum jacobi Regis. c. 6. p. 88  That which Pius could not perform in the days of Lewis (videlicet, that the pragmatical Sanction should be taken clean away) was afterward effected by Leo the 10. in the reign of King Francis the first; therefore in the council of Lateran the pragmatical Sanction was abrogated by a public Decree.  ORTH. 

f Duarenus quo supra.  King Francis (to use the words of Duarenus) made choice rather to serve the stage and the time with his own profit, as he himself confesseth, and remit somewhat of the public right, then to strive so oft with the Popes about this Helena, especially seeing he perceived that some danger from them did hang over his head. Yet for all this the Sanction cannot be said to be clean taken away; For the university of 
g Decret. eccls Gal. p. 1249. vide Episcopum Eliens. in resp. ad Apol. Bell. p. 148.  Paris did interpose an appeal to the next general council, which appeal stood with justice & equity for 3. reasons; first because the fact of the king was not voluntary but by compulsion: Secondly, because the Parisians whom it must concerned were neither called nor heard. Thirdly, because there is no reason that the council of Lateran and constitution of Leo, should derogate from the authority of the council of Basil. And if we should suppose, that it did not only derogate from it but also abrogate it, yet the very constitution of Pope Leo yieldeth to the King the power of nomination, in these words: 
h Duarenus quo supra. c. 12  When a Cathedral or Metropolitical Church is vacant, let not the Bishop be chosen by the College of Canons, but let the King within six months offer and nominate a grave and fit man to the Pope. Thus it is evident that the French Kings retained their right and authority in making of Bishops ever since their first embracing of the Christian faith. And had they this by the indulgence of the Pope? Let the Council of Basill be witness, let Charles the seventh be witness, let the Court of Paris be witness, yea let King Francis himself (who confessed that when he went against the sanction, he remitted of the public right) be witness. And thus much for France.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Election of the Bishops of England.  PHILOD. 
COncerning England 
* Answer to the 5 part of reports c. 8. pag. 184.  King Henry the first did pretend to challenge investitures as used by his father and brother before him, whereof yet notwithstanding we find no express proof or example in any of our histories that they used them, much less that they were lawfully granted unto them.  ORTHOD. 
I will prove both that they used them, and that they used them lawfully; That his brother William Rufus used them, may appear by William of Malmesbury, who declareth that the King being sick, made mention of the archbishopric of Canterbury (which was then void) and willed the Bishops to consider of it, who answered that whom the King should think worthy, they all would accept willingly, 
a Malms. de gestis pont. Angl. l. 1. pag. 205.  Itaille cubito se attollens, hunc (ait) sanctum virum Anselmum eligo, ingenti subsecuto fragore faventium; so he raising himself up upon his elbow, said, I elect this holy man Anselmus, whereupon followed a great applause. Now that bishoprics in those days were given by delivering of a ring and a staff may appear by Rafe Bishop of the South Saxons, who being threatened by the same King, 
b Malms. l. 2. pag. 257.  baculum protendit, annulum exuit, ut si vellet acciperet; held out his Crosier, put off his ring, that the King might take them if he would, intending thereby to resign his Bishopric. That William the Conqueror used the like authority is also manifest by the same author, saying, 
c Ibidem l. 1● pag. 205.  Nondum ille efflaverat, cum a Gulielmo Rege Lanfrancus Cadomensis Abbas ad Archiepiscopatum electus est; Stigandus had not yet breathed out his Ghost when Lanfranck Abbot of Saint Steuens in Cane was elected by King William the Conqueror to the Archbishopric. The like may be showed before the Conquest; where, by the way let me tell you, that we stand not so much upon the ring and the staff, as upon the thing itself, that is the Prince's power and authority, for which I will produce some examples as it were a few clusters of a great vintage, beginning with Edward the Confessor, of whom Malmsbury faith, 
d Lib. 1. p. 204  Rex Robertum, quem ex Monacho Gemiticensi Londoniae fecerat Episcopum, Archiepiscopum creavit, the King (Edward the Confessor) created Robert Archbishop, whom before of a Monk he had made Bishop of London. And before that, King Alfred made 
e Malms. de gest. regum Angl. l. 2. p. 45.  Asserio, Bishop of Shierburne: and 
f Malms. digest. pont. Angl. l. 2. p. 242.  Denewulfus, Bishop of Winchester; and more than two hundred years before that, Edelwalke King of the South Saxons promoted 
g Malms. quo supra pag. 257.  Wilfrid to an Episcopal See. Thus it is evident that as in other Kingdoms, so in England investitures were anciently practised by Princes. Wherefore King Henry the first might have challenged them, not only as used by his father and brother, but also as the ancient custom of the Kingdom in the time of the Saxons. Wherein only this was the difference, that in ancient time Princes used them without contradiction, but now the Pope's perceiving that if Princes should have the bestowing of them after the old custom, it would abate that power to which they themselves aspired, began to spurn, excommunicating both the givers and takers. This was done in the fifth and seventh Roman Counsels under Gregory the seventh: but Pope 
a Mat. Paris pag. 18.  Vrban went further, decreeing that not only the givers and takers, but also all such as consecrated any man so promoted should be excommunicate. At this Council Anselmus was present, by whose 
b Anselm. consilio. ibidem.  advise and persuasion the decree was made. Whereupon when after the death of William Rufus, King Henry the first, (not knowing of this decree, much less imagining that it was concluded by the means of Anselmus) had called him home, he well rewarded the kindness of so gracious a Prince; for first he would not be induced to do his 
c Malms. digest. pont. Angl. l. 1. pag. 225.  homage to his Lord and Sovereign (was not this a good subject? did he not well deserve to be canonised for a Saint?) than he refused to consecrate those whom the King did invest to bishoprics by a staff and a ring: so the King commanded Gerard Archbishop of York to perform that office, as 
d Malms. quo supra l. 2. p. 226.  Malmsbury, Matthew 
e Mat. Paris pag. 56.  Paris, and Roger 
f Houed. in H. 1. pag. 470.  Hoveden do testify.  PHIL. 
But what followeth in the same authors? William Gifford Elect of Winchester refused to receive Consecration from him, and was therefore by the king banished the land. Rinelmus Elect of Hereford resigned his Bishopric into the king's hands being troubled in conscience because he received investiture from a lay Prince; by occasion of which broils, the rest to whom the king had given investitures remained unconsecrated.  ORTHOD. 
Whose fault was that? not the kings, who required no more than was confirmed to the Emperors by 3. Popes with 3. Roman Counsels, practised commonly and anciently by all kings through the whole Christian world, yielded to his predecessors in the time of the Saxons, used by his own father and brother, and never denied in England before Anselmus began to broach the Hildebrandicall Doctrine.  PHIL. 
This cause was handled at Rome, where the 
g Mat. Paris pag. 56.  king's Proctor boldly affirmed, that his master the king would not lose investitures for the loss of his kingdom: to whom Pope Paschall answered: if as thou sayest thy king will not endure to lose the donations of Churches for the loss of his kingdom, know thou precisely, I speak it before God, that I would not suffer him to obtain them without punishment for the redemption of my head. Thus the cause was determined against the King.  ORTH. 
No marvel; for the Pope was judge in his own cause; such a cause as was not a little both for his pride and profit: such a Pope as within 8. years after perjured himself in the like matter. But notwithstanding the Pope's determination, the king disdaining to be so deluded, sent to Anselmus 
h Mat Par. pag. 57  forbidding him to enter the land, unless he would observe the customs of William the Conqueror, and William Rufus: so he was absent three years.  PHIL. 
Yet at his return he got a glorious victory, for Edinerus writeth thus 
i Edin. abud. Bell. in apol. pro resp. ad librum Regis c. 6. p. 91.  rex antecessorum suorum usu relicto, nec personas quae in regimen Ecclesiae sumebantur per se elegit, nec eas per dationem virgae pastoralis Ecclesijs quibus praeficiebantur investivit; the king leaving the use of his predecessors, did neither himself elect such persons as were assumed to the government of the Church, nor invested them to the Churches over which they were set, by the delivering of the pastoral staff.  ORTHOD. 
Here is a clear confession that investitures belonged to the king, by the use of his predecessors: yet such was the violence and fury, both of the Pope, and the Archbishop, that he thought good to redeem his quiet, by releasing of his ancient right.  PHIL. 
If he had any right, he did yield it up; for Malmsbury saith; 
a Malms de gest. Pont. Angle. l. 1. p. 227.  Venit Rex sublimi trophaeo splendidus, & triumphali gloria Angliam invectus, investiturasque Ecclesiarum Anselmo in perpetuum in manum remisit; The king came (out of France) glistering with a stately trophy, entered England with triumphal glory, and released the investitures of Churches to Anselmus, into his hands for ever.  ORTHOD. 
True, to Anselmus: here was a final and perpetual end, between them two, neither did the king intermeddle any more in the matter, while Anselmus lived: but after his death, Anno 1113. he gave the archbishopric to 
b Mat. Paris p. 62.  Rodolph Bishop of London, and invested him with a Ring and a Staff: and Anno 1123. he gave the said archbishopric to William 
c Huntingdon. l. 7. p. 382.  Corboll, he gave also the Bishopric of Lincoln to Alexander, the Bishopric of Bath to Godfrid, the Bishopric of Worcester to Simon, the Bishopric of Cicester to Sifrid After the reign of Henry the first, though the Popes were still busy, especially when the state was troubled, or the king out of the Realm, yet the succeeding Princes would not suffer themselves to be robbed of this right, and royalty, but from time to time put it in practice and maintained their prerogative. King Edward the third, told Pope Clement the fifth, 
d W●ls. in Ed● 3. p. 161.  That his progenitors and other noble and faithful men had founded and endowed Churches, and placed Ministers in them, ever since the first planting of religion in the Realm of England, and that the kings did of ancient time, freely confer Cathedral Churches, iure suo Regio, by their Princely right, so oft as they were vacant; he doth not say, by the Pope's permission, but by their princely right, so the collation of Bishoprics, is the ancient right of the kings of England. Moreover he told him that whereas now Deans and Chapters elect, this proceeded from the grant of the kings, at the request and instance of the Pope; he doth not say, from the grant of the Pope, but from the grant of the kings, at the request of the Pope; with which concordeth that famous act of Parliament, made in the 25. of Edw. the third; Our Sovereign Lord the king and his heirs, shall have and enjoy for the time the collations to the Archbishoprickes, and other dignities elective, which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had, before free election was granted: Sith that the first elections were granted by the King's progenitors, upon a certain form and condition, as namely to demand licence of the King to choose, and after choice made, to have his royal assent. And in the days of Richard the second, statutum est (saith Thomas 
e Wals. in Rich. 2. p. 343.  Walsingam) in eodem insuper Parliamento, ut de caetero nullus transfre●aret ad obtinendum provisiones in Ecclesijs, vel Ecclesiam, & si quis contrarium faceret, si posset apprehendi caperetur, ut Regi rebellis, & incarceraretur: A statute was made in the same Parliament, that from henceforth none should pass the seas to obtain provisions in Churches, or to obtain any Church, and if any should do contrary, if he could be catched, he should be apprehended as a rebel to the king, and cast in prison. The next year, the same king set out a 
f Idem pag. 344.  Proclamation, that all such as were resident in the Court of Rome, and had benefices in England, should return by the feast of S. Nicholas, under pain of forfeiting all their benefices. When the Pope heard all this thundering, he sent a Nuncio with great complaints; for answer whereof the king referred him to the Parliament following, which would by no means consent that Rome-runners, should get their benefices as in former time. In the days of Henry the fifth, when the Pope by his bulls, translated Richard of Lincoln to York, the Dean and Chapter standing upon the laws of the land, refused to admit him, as hereafter shall be declared. Shall we now say that the kings of England confer spiritual promotions by the Pope's indulgence? let king Edward the first be witness: let the Parliament in the reign of Edward the third be witness: let the like Parliament in the time of Richard the second, be witness: let the Dean and Chapter of York be witness: all which were of the Popish religion, and yet referred this to the king, and not to the Pope. Hitherto, that the kings of England used investitures.  
NOw I will prove that they used them lawfully by a double right, as 
2  Princes, & as Patrons. As Princes, for many reasons: First, if we look into the old Testament, we find that Solomon set Sadock in the room of Abiathar: by what authority? Verily by the same by which he cast out Abiathar. Which I have already proved to be done by the lawful and ordinary power of a Prince. If this be a perpetual pattern for all posterity, than the collation of spiritual dignities, is the Princes right. Secondly, it was prophesied of Christian Princes, that they should be 
a Isa. 49. 23  nursing fathers of the Church; therefore it must be a part of their Princely care to provide such nurses as shall feed it with the milk of the Gospel. Thirdly, in the new Testament, Concerning the election of pastors, we find neither precept, nor any such example as can be urged, for an everlasting and unchangeable rule. And if we look into the practice of the Church, it will appear that it hath been disposed of in divers ages, in divers manners, according to divers customs, and positive laws of Princes, growing out of the diversity of circumstances and occasions. Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left it as a thing indifferent to the discretion of the Church: whereof the Christian Prince is not only a part, but Supreme governor under Christ; in which respect though he were not Patron, he hath a transcendent and supereminent power, so that the Sovereign direction and moderation of the matter belongeth unto him. Which was acknowledged to be the king's right, even in the time of Popery, as may appear by the practice: for after the death of any incumbent of any Church with cure, if the Patron presented not within six months, the Bishop of that Diocese might bestow it, to the end the cure should not be destitute of a pastor: if he neglected the time appointed, the Metropolitan of that Diocese might advance one to that Church; & if he also should leave the Church destitute, by the space limited unto him, than it belonged to the king and not to the Bishop of Rome to provide a competent pastor for that Church. Thus it is evident that though Churches had Patrons to provide Pastors for them according to the king's Laws; and Bishops and Archbishops to see it sufficiently done, yet in case of neglect, the care of it was devolved to the King, as being Supreme governor even in these cases within his own Dominions. If you say that this was by the grant of the Pope, the contrary is manifest, because in the 25. of Edward the 3. in the noble statute of provisours, the Bishop of Rome is said to usurp the Seignories of such possessions and benefices. Wherefore the Laws of the land, and the ancient custom of the Kingdom concurring with the general practice of Princes, received with the applause of the whole Christian world, do sufficiently proclaim the right of our Princes in this behalf; especially seeing as K William Rufus truly said, 
a Mat. Par. p. 17.  The king of England hath all the liberties in his Kingdom, which the Emperor challenged in the Empire. Hitherto of the right of Princes, as they are Princes. Now of their right as they are Patrons.  
IN Patronages, we may consider two things, The causes and the effects, 
3.  The causes originally inducing the Church of God to approve them, were three. First, because Princes and Lords of the soil, out of their devotion and charitable bounty, gave some of their own ground for the situation of Churches, and the habitation of Ministers, resigning their own right into the hands of the Bishop of the Diocese, and so dedicating it everlastingly to the Lord. Secondly, because upon that ground they built Churches for holy meetings, and dwelling places for the messengers of the Lord. Thirdly, because they allowed maintenance, both for the Church and the Minister, as is expressed in this verse:  
b Glossa in. 16. q. ●▪ Pi● mentis.  Patronum faciunt, does, edificatio, fundus.  
The effects of Patronage are three, 
c Glossa ibid.  Honos, Onus, and Vtilitas; The first is Honos, honour of nominating and presenting a fit Clerk; the honour of precedency in sitting in his own Church; and in some places, to great personages, the honour of Procession; For example, to the 
d Lancel Instit. jur. Canon. l. 1. pag. 204.  Duke of Venice in the Church of S. Mark. The second is Onus, a burden; for in being a Patron, he undertaketh the Protection of that Church. The third is, Vtilitas, profit; for if he or his children fall into poverty, they must be relieved out of the revenues of the same Church; An example whereof happened in a noble citizen of 
e Lancel. ibid.  Perusia. These prerogatives of Patrons, were all anciently approved both by Civil and Canon Law. But to pass over the rest, I will only single out the prerogative of presenting. In the 9 
f Conc. Tol. 9 c. 2. Bin. t. 2. p. 1163.  Council of Toledo holden in the year 655. it was decreed as followeth, As long as the founders of Churches remain alive, they shall be suffered to have the chief care in those places, and they shall offer fit rectors unto the Bishop to be ordained in the same Churches; And if the Bishop while the Founder liveth, shall despise them, and presume to ordain rectors in the same place, Let him know that his Ordination shall be void, and to his shame others shall be ordained, whom the Founders shall choose. And before that, in the year 541. justinian made this Constitution, That 
g No●el. const. ●23.  if any man will build an house of prayer, and he or his heirs will have Clerks to be promoted therein, if they allow maintenance for those Clerks, and name such as are worthy, let those which are named be ordained. Now to apply this to our present purpose; It is a clear case, that all the Bishoprics in England were founded by the King's Ancestors; And therefore the Aduousons of them all belong to the King. And it is clear by the Laws of the land, That 
h See B. Bilson, perpet. government. c. 15. p. 264.  our Kings have had, and aught to have the custody of the same in the Vacancy, and the presentments and collations of those Prelacies as Lords, and Aduowes of all the lands and possessions, that belong either to Cathedral Churches, or Bishops. Upon all these premises, this conclusion followeth, that this right we speak of belongeth to our Princes, as Patrons, by Civil, Canon, and the common Laws of the land. To these two former respects, we may add a third, drawn from this consideration, that our Bishops by the favour of Princes, are Spiritual Lords and Barons in Parliament, and therefore it were very hard if men of so great power and place, should be 
a Vide Epis. Eliens. in resp. ad Apol. Bel. c. 6. p. 151.  obtruded upon the Prince without his consent. Hitherto of the lawful right of Princes.  
ANd as they have the collation of Bishoprics most lawfully, so they confer them most fitly, most freely, and most safely. Most fitly, because 
4.  they have largest scope to choose, best means to discern, greatest power to procure and assist such as are most eminent for learning and virtue. Most freely, because they are farther from suspicion of corruption, than either people, or Prelate. For to use the words of a reverend 
b Bishop Bilson perpet. government. c. 18. p. 350.  Bishop, Howsoever ambitious heads, and covetous hands, may link together under colour of commendation to deceive and abuse Princes ears, yet reason and duty bindeth me and all others, to think and say, that Prince's persons are of all others farthest from taking money for any such respects. In meaner persons more justly may corruption be feared, then in Princes, who of all others have lest need, and so lest cause to set Churches to sale. Their abundance, their magnificence, their conscience, are sureties for the freedom of their choice. These are the sayings of the learned Bishop; among which he interlaced a memorable example of Guntchrannus King of France, who, when one offered him money for a Bishopric, returned this answer; It is not our Princely manner to sell Bishoprics for money, neither is it your part to get them with rewards, lest we be infamed for filthy gain, and you compared to Simon Magus. A fit Emblem for a Prince, and worthy to be written in letters of Gold. Most safely; for how dangerous a thing it is to commit such matters to popular Elections, the Primitive Church had lamentable experience. What uproars also followed the Elections by the Clergy alone, let the longest Schism that ever was in the Church of Rome testify. And for the Pope's provisions whereby he hath encroached upon the Prince's right, they have been such as have given both Kings, Nobles, Clergy and people, just cause of lamentation. But since the nomination rested in the Prince's hands, all tumults and grievances (Gods Name be blessed) are utterly extinguished. Now I will add a word or two, of their singular moderation in this behalf. In ancient time our Kings had the collation before free Election was granted, as was declared out of the Statute of Edward the 3. whereby it is manifest that they had then in themselves a plenary power. And though this were not without precedents of former ages; yet as Charles the Great granted freedom of Elections unto the Church, so have our Princes established the like by the Laws of the land, according to which they proceed most mildly and graciously, doing all things agreeably to the pattern of famous Princes, and laudable Canons of ancient Counsels. With us the King hath the nomination of Bishops, and so had good 
c Sozom. l. 7. cap. 8.  Theodosius as was plainly to be seen in the advancing of Nectarius. With us the Dean and Chapter make the election of their Bishop: and so did the 
d Hierom. ad evag. Epist. 85.  Presbyters of Alexandria, in Saint jeroms time, which custom had continued there ever since the time of Saint Mark the Evangelist. With us the Dean and Chapter elect him, whom the king hath nominated: So the 
e Sozom. ibid.  Clergy of Constantinople, with the whole general Council there assembled, did think it their duty solemnly to elect Nectarius whom the Emperor had nominated. With us the electors signify their election to the king, humbly craving his royal assent: so the Roman 
f Ex Onuphr. annot. in Plate in Pel. 2.  Clergy 1000 years ago did use to signify their election to the Emperor, that he might ratify it by his Imperial authority. And because the ancient Canons give the power of confirmation to the 
a Conc. Nic. 1. C●n. 4.  Metropolitan, therefore our King granteth him a commission, to confirm the election according to the Canon. Finally, with us none can be consecrated before the king give commission by his letters patents; neither might the Bishops of Rome in ancient time, till the Emperor gave licence, and that (as 
b Onuphr. an●ot in Plat: in Pelag. 2.  Onuphrius saith) by his letters patents. Where yet I will confess, there was a difference, because the Popes gave 
c Onuphr. ibidem.  money unto the Emperor, but our Bishops give none unto the King. Thus much of elections.   

CHAP. XIII.  
How lamentable the State of England was when Bishoprics and Benefices were given by the Pope's provisions.  PHIL. 
WE 
a Defence of Catholick●. pag. 156.  refer all men to the pondering of this one point specially, amongst many, concerning the nominations and elections of Bishops, abbots, and other Prelates, whether the world went not as well, when such things passed by Canonical election, or the Pope's provision, as it hath done since, or ever hereafter is like to do.  ORTHOD. 
Concerning the Pope's provisions, this is most certain that howsoever the Church of God was provided for, he provided for himself and licked his own fingers. For the demonstration whereof, I will begin with king Canutus, who about the year of grace 1031. Returning from Rome wrote thus to the Archbishops, Bishops, and States of the Realm. 
b Ingulphus in histor. sive descript. o●●. pag. 7●3. Malm●b de gestis ●●g. Angl. l. 2. pag▪ 74.  Conquestus sum iterum coram domino papa, & mihi valde displicere dixi quod mei Archiepiscopi in tantum angariebantur, immensitate pecuniarum quae ab eis expet●bantur, dum pro pallio accipi●ndo secundum morem, sedem Apostolicam expeterent, decretumque, ne id deinceps fiat, that is, I complained again before the Lord the Pope and told him, that it displeased me much that my Archbishops were so much vexed with huge sums of money, which were demanded of them, while for receiving the pall they went according to custom, to the See Apostolic, and it was decreed that it should be so no more. Here by the way you must understand, that a pall is a little 
c Mart. C●r●●rens. sacr. cerem. l. 1. fol. 112.  tippet three fingers broad, made of the wool of two white Lambs, which are offered upon the Altar of Saint Agnes, while Agnus dei is sung in the solemn Mass, and laid all night upon the bodies of Peter and Paul, under the great Altar, from whence receiving this virtue to contain the fullness of all pontifical power, it becometh the Ensign of a Patriarch or Archbishop.  

Which glorious ensign who will wear,  
Must fetch it far and buy it dear.   
In the days of Henry the first, when Anselmus was at Rome, he made supplication to Pope Paschall the second, for certain Bishops and abbots deposed whereupon saith 
d Math. Par●●. p. 56. in Henri●●. 1.  Matthew Paris, The most gentle See, which useth to be wanting to none, (so they bring either white or red) did mercifully recall the said Bishops and abbots and sent them with joy to their own Sees.  
In the days of Richard the first, Hugh Bishop of Durham, who of an old Bishop was become a young Earl having made a voluntary vow to go to jerusalem, procured a dispensation from the Pope for which he paid 
a Mat. Paris. p. 149.  an infinite sum of money.  
In the days of the same king, William Bishop of Ely, was made Legate by a gentle Pope, upon the gentle consideration of 
b Mat. Paris. p. 155.  a thousand pounds.  
In the days of king john, Pope Innocent the third went about to swallow all England and Ireland at a morsel. For 
c Antiq. Brit. in Steph. Langton. p 154. ex Mat. Par. p. 213 & alij●.  Hubertus Archbishop of Canterbury being dead, the Monks elected first Reinold their subprior, and afterward at the king's request, john Grace Bishop of Norwich, by means of which double election, the Pope took occasion to disannul both; charging the Canterb. Monks then at Rome under pain of a curse, to choose Steven Langton a Cardinal, which they did, and brought him unto the Altar, with a Te deum. The king proclaimed those Monks traitors, the rest that lurked at Canterb: he prescribed and banished; he forbade Steven Langton to come into England, and confiscated the goods and lands, both of the Archbishoprik & of the Church of Canterb: whereupon the Pope authorised certain Bishops to interdict the kingdom, excommunicated the king, set out a sentence declaratory to deprive him, and committed the execution of it to Philip the French king By which papal means bereft of the love of his people, abandoned of his nobles, hated of his Clergy, forsaken of his friends, behold he hoped for some comfort at the Pope's hand, but finding none, he was forced so much as in him lay to resign his kingdoms to Pope Innocent (such is the innocency of Popes) and to farm them again at a 1000 marks by the year. Thus the 
d Vide Tort. Torti. p. 215.  Pope had caught a pretty morsel, but it was too hot for him; & therefore he was glad presently to disgorge it.  
In the time of the said king, came into England one 
e Antiq. Brit▪ p. 155. M. Paris calls him ferentinus. p. 206.  johannes Florentinus the Pope's Legate, having but 3. men and 3. horses, whereof one was lame, who gathered great heaps of money, hoisted up sail and bad England adieu. Likewise 
f An●. Brit. p. 158.  Pandulphus when he came to make a bargain with the king for his master the Pope, provided and carried away with him 8000. pounds.  
About the same time the Pope called a 
* Antiq. Brit. ibid. ex Mat. Par. hist. min.  general council at Rome, where the Bishops being weary with doing of nothing, desired leave to depart, which they could not obtain without a great sum of money, that they were forced to borrow of the Roman Merchants, and pay to the Pope.  
In the reign of Henry 3. The 
g Mat. Paris p. 358.  Pope sent a bull that no English man should be preferred till provision were made for ●. Romans for each of them 100 pounds by the year; neither did he express their names but described them in a confused manner, The son of Bumphred & of such & such, that if any of them should die he might foist another into the place. At this time the Romans were possessed of so many benefices, & withal were so insolent that the whole body of the nobles & commons joining together did style themselves in the subscriptions of their letters, 
* Ibidem.  The whole company of them which had rather die then be confounded of the Romans.  
In the reign of the same King, The Roman Helluo 
h Mat. Paris. p. 316. an. 1226  sent a Nuntio called Otto into England with letters unto the king signifying, What a great scandal and reproach was brought upon the Church of Rome, because no man could dispatch his affairs in that Court without great sums of money, and the cause which constrained them unto this, was their poverty, therefore he desired that the English men like natural Children would relieve the poverty of their Mother, and the means thereof, which he with the Council of his Brethren, the Cardinals had devised was this, that every Cathedral Church in England should bestow upon him two Prebends, the one of them to be given by the Bishop, the other by the Chapter: And likewise that every Abbey should bestow upon him so much as belonged to the maintenance of two Monks, one portion whereof to be given by the Abbot, and the other by the Covent. But the English men deluded him of his purpose, for the 
a Antiq. Brit. pag. 160.  king went out of the Council, and the Bishops departed to their own home without the leave of the Legate, and the rest that remained, said they could do nothing in the absence of them whom it most concerned.  
The like suit was commenced in France by another of the Pope's Legates to whom the Proctor of the Archbishop of Lions answered. 
b Antiq. Brit▪ pag. 161.  That it was not possible that this grant should fill the gulf of the Roman covetousness, because plenty of riches did always make the Romans mad. And the council of France did thus answer the Legate; Let the zeal of the whole Church and of the holy Roman See move you: because if there should be a general oppression of all men, it might be feared, lest there should hover over our heads a general departure, which God forbid.  
In the year 1231. there was set out 
c Mat. Paris pag. 358.  a prohibition that none which farmed any benefice of any Roman, should from henceforth pay them any Rent.  
Anno 1232. a sort of armed men, with their faces covered, set upon the barns of a certain Roman; and sold out the corn to the country, and gave much of it to the poor. For which the Bishop of London, with other ten Bishops did strike the authors with an anathema. Notwithstanding, the same year the barns of the Romans almost through all England were robbed, the author whereof, was one Sir Robert 
d Ibid. p 362.  Twinge a Yorkeshier Knight, who had been defeated of the bestowing of his Benefiee by the Pope's provision.  
In the year 1234. the Pope sent his 
e Ibid. p 386.  nuntios into England, with power legatine, which by preaching, begging, commanding, threatening, and excommunicating, got infinite sums of money under colour of the holy Land: neither was it known in what gulf that money was drowned.  
In the year 1237. base and 
f Ibid. p. 42●.  unlearned persons, came daily armed with the Pope's Bulls. If any resisted, they would procure he should be excommunicated: so it came to pass, that where noble and dainty Clergy men, Guardians and Patrons of Churches did use with their riches to honour the country round about them, to entertain passengers, to refresh the poor, these base persons void of good manners, and full of subtlety, Proctors and Farmers of the Romans, scraping whatsoever was precious and profitable in the land, sent it into far countries to their Lords living delicately of Christ's patrimony, and proud with other men's goods. Therefore a man might see, sorrow of heart water the eyelids of holy men, complaints break out, and groans multiplied, many saying with bloody sighs, It is better for us to die, then to see the miseries of our country, and of holy men. Woe to England, which once was the Prince of Provinces, the lady of nations, the glass of the Church, a pattern of Religion, but now is become under tribute.  
In the year 1239. Sir Robert 
g Ibid. p. 495.  Twinge the Yorkeshier Knight before mentioned, (a Roman being thrust by a Pope's Bull of provision into a benefice whereof he was Patron) went to Rome and made a grievous complaint unto the Pope, so that the Pope revoked his Bull of provision.  
By the said Sir Robert Twinge the ʰ Nobles and Barons of England wrote unto 
* Quo supra.  the Pope, complaining that they were robbed of their presentations of their Ecclesiastical livings, which their noble progenitors had enjoined from the first planting of Christianity, and were in danger to lose their patronages, affirming that though the Pope had taken order by his Apostolical letters, that after the decease of any Italian or Roman promoted by the Pope's provision, it should be lawful for them to present a fit Clerk: yet they did daily see the contrary put in practice, which they called a common plague.  
Anno 1240. 
a Pag. 506.  Otho the Pope's Legate, required a procuration of four Marks: and where one Church did not suffice to the pa●ment, two should join together to one procuration.  
The same year the Pope extorted the 
b Pag. 507.  fifth part of the goods of all strangers beneficed in England, and the same was demanded of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and the rest of the Clergy: but the Bishops answered, they could not undergo so unsupportable a burden, which concerned the whole Church, without diligent deliberation of a synod. But the Archbishop afterward did grant unto it.  
The same year Pope Gregory 
c Pag 314.  the ninth, sent a mandate to the Bishops of Canterbury, Lincoln and Sarum, that they should provide for three hundred Romans in benefices next vacant, and that they should give no benefices till those were provided for.  
Anno 1241. Pope Gregory sent to the Covent of Burge an Apostolic mandate with 
d Pag. 536.  armed prayers that they should confer upon the Pope the revenue of some Church worth 100 marks by the year, and if it were 200. it should please him the better, and that they should farm it of the Pope paying him his 100 marks, and take to themselves the overplus. The Abbot signified the matter to the King, who detesting the covetousness of the Roman Court, did strictly forbid it, lest so foul a fact should pollute the air.  
The same year two Italians 
e Pag. 547.  Petrus Rubeus, and Petrus de Supino, keeping the Pope's authentical mandate of exacting procurations, extorted much money: and Rubeus taking upon him as the Pope's Legate, gave himself this title, Magister Petrus Rubeus Domino Papae familiaris, & consanguineus, Master Peter Rubeus the familiar friend and cousin of the Lord the Pope: Supinus extorted in Ireland 
f Pag. 555.  1500. marks, Rubeus much more out of England, and hearing that the Pope was sick unto death, they fled away privily with the money, but were taken by the 
g Ibidem.  Emperor.  
Anno 1244 Innocent the fourth, the new Pope sent 
h Pag. 594.  Martin a new prouler into England armed with the Pope's authentical instrument, and power to suspend and excommunicate all that gain said him. He disdaining trifles would have no benefice under thirty Marks by the year: He exacted goodly Palfreys very imperiously, and suspended the Abbot of Malmesbury, and the Prior of Marton, for denying him, and when a rich Prebend of Salisbury belonging to the Chanter was vacant, he presently laid violent hands upon it, and by the commandment of the Pope conferred it upon a child the Pope's nephew. Yea, Matthew Paris saith, 
i Pag. 603.  Romana curia, rubore deposito, tempore novi Papae nostri Innocentij quarti, non desinebat per provisiones quotidianas redditus impudenter extorquere. that is; The Roman Court without all blushing, in the time of our new Pope Innocent the fourth ceased not impudently to extort revenues by daily provisions. Whereupon the king writ to the Pope, but little good came of it. For Martin the Legate required at least of the Prelates 
a Pag. 622.  10000 marks; but they did not grant it. Then he used unheard of extortions of money, and revenues, to be bestowed of the kinsmen of his lord the Pope, for he was supposed to have bulls with blanks to serve for all purposes. Moreover, he would send to such an Abbot, or such a Prior, for goodly 
b Pag. 626.  Palfreys, and presents for the furnishing of his table, and provision for his robes; and when he had them, he would send them back again, and send for other, and for better, pretending that the former were not sufficient; and suspended all from the Collations of benefices of thirty marks and upward, till he was satisfied. Whereupon saith Matthew Paris: 
c Ibidem.  Miseri Anglici acerbiorem quam olim subierunt filii Israel, se doluerunt in Aegypto Britannica tolerare servitutem: that is, The miserable English men, lamented that they suffered a bondage in the British Egypt, more cruel, than the children of Israel did in times past.  
Anno 1245. The Nobles and Canons, sent a 
d Pag. 646.  supplication, which was red openly before Pope Innocent, in the Council at Lions: wherein they complained, that an infinite number of Italians, had benefices in England, which knew not their flock, but only received the fruits, and carried them out of the Realm, and that the yearly rents of Italians in England, amounted to 
e Ibid. 647.  threescore thousand marks & upward, which was more than the revenues of the Crown: and that after the Creation of Innocentius, they hoped for relief, but were now unmeasurably oppressed by Martin the Legate, who entered the land without the king's licence; with greater power than ever did Legate, and did exceed excessively. Some benefices now void he gave to Italians, who dying (the Patrons not knowing) he thrusteth other Italians into their places: others he assigneth before hand to Italians, others he reserveth to the See Apostolic, wresting from religious persons immoderate pensions, excommunicating and suspending those that contradict him.  
Anno 1246. Pope 
f Pag. 674. 675.  Innocent, sent privileges from the Council at Lions that if Englishmen would be studious, especially the sons of Noble men, he would dispense with them honourably, for plurality of benefices, Promising that Martin the, Clerk of his Exchequer, should provide but for twelve more: and that then it should be lawful for Patrons to present fit persons: and that no Italian should immediately succeed an Italian. This the Pope promised, but performed nothing, insomuch that the king did show in open Parliament articles of 
g Pag. 677. 678. 679.  grievances, as in other points, so even in these which the Pope had promised: for Italians still succeeded Italians; the Pope's factor provided for more than twelve: neither were the Patrons permitted to present. Whereupon letters of grievances were sent unto the Pope, first from the Bishops, secondly from the Abbots, thirdly from the Nobles, with the whole Clergy and people, fourthly, from the King himself; the copies of all which are in Matthew Paris: and still there came to the king, complaints upon complaints, of injuries received from the Court of Rome. Yea and there came fresh letters from the Pope, that the English Clergy should find him 
h Pag. 680.  soldiers, with horse and armour, some five, some ten, some fifteen, and pay them their wages for one whole year.  
The same year the Pope espying certain 
i Pag. 683.  aurifrisia, beautiful to be hold among the Ecclesiastical ornaments, of some English men, being then at Rome, asked where they were made: they answered in England. Then the Pope said, 
a Quo supra.  Vere hortus noster deliciarum est Anglia: veré puteus inexhaustus est, & ubi multa abundant multa possunt extorqueri. that is, England is truly our garden of delights: it is truly a Well never drawn dry: where many things abound, many things may be wrested from them. So the Pope enticed with the concupiscence of his eyes, sent to almost all the Abbots of the Cistercian order in England, to send him some of them, as though they should have cost them no money: which disliked not the Londoners, who made and sold them at their own pleasures. Whereupon many detested the open covetousness of the Church of Rome. Yet this same 
b Pag. 684.  year by the industry of the kinngs Proctors in the Court of Rome, it was brought to pass, that whereas before the Pope made his provisions indefinitely, of Ecclesiastical livings, to the use of Italians, Now by the grace of God, the tempest was so calmed, that if henceforth, the Pope would provide for his Nephews, or Cardinals, He or his Cardinals should entreat the King that it would please him to provide for such.  
About the same time the Pope hearing, that Robert de 
c Pag 685.  Hales, Archdeacon of Lincoln, dying intestate, left to secular men, many thousand marks, with great store of Plate; and that Almarick Archdeacon of Bedford, died also very rich; and that john Archd. of Northampton, died worth five thousand marks, besides thirty pieces of plate and infinite jewels: Hereupon he made a strange decree, not without note of manifest covetousness, to be proclaimed in England, that if from thenceforth any Clerk should die intestate, his goods should be turned to the use of the lord the Pope: the execution of which mandate he committed to the preaching Friars and Minorites, but the king hearing of it, detesting the covetousness of the Roman Court, forbade it as prejudicial to him and his Realm.  
The same year, the Pope sent to the Bishops of England, for a tallage of six 
d Pag. 686.  thousand mark: The Bishop of Norwich, the Pope's prowler in this behalf, wrote to the Abbot of S. Alban for 80. mark: the king 
e Ibidem.  forbade him to pay, and charged the Bishop of Norwich, and other Bishops, not to proceed in that exaction, as they desired to keep their Baronies holden of the King. Thus the Church of England, was miserably torn and ground between the King and the Pope, as between two 
f Pag. 687.  millstones moving contrary ways. Yet the same year, the courage of the king relented, and he suffered the Church to be spoiled of the six thousand mark. Then the Pope more 
g Pag. 694.  bold than ever before, gave in charge to all the prelate's of England, that all beneficed men, if they were residents, should pay the Pope the third part, if non residents, half of their goods; but the king forbade the payment, and the Clergy rendered many reasons why it was unreasonable.  
Anno 1247. There was holden a 
h Pag. 698▪ 699.  Parliament at London, wherein were lamentable complaints of the Pope's extortion, and it was concluded, that letters should be sent to the Pope, in the name of the whole kingdom: which was d●ne, and they obtained only this, that when the Pope was to make provision here for his Nephews or Cardinals, he should ask the king leave.  
The same year there came two 
i Pag. 700.  English Friars Minorites, with the Pope's Bulls, and got great sums of money: they demanded of the Diocese of Lincoln 6000. mark: the same year there was a Parliament, and the Clergy granted to the Pope 
k Pag. 707.  11000. marks.  
The same year the 
a Pag. 729.  grievances were much increased: for the Prelates were suspended from Collation of Benefices, till the greediness of the Romans were satisfied.  
Anno 1252. the Bishop of Lincoln caused a true account to be made of the revenues of strangers in England, and it was found to be more than 
b Pag. 832.  70000. marks.  
Anno 1253. Robert Bishop of Lincoln sent to the Pope this 
c Pag. 843.  Epistle following, Let your wisdom know, that I obey the Apostolic Mandates, with a filial affection, devoutly and reverently; And being zealous of my Father's honour, I am contrary and opposite to those things which are contrary to the Mandates Apostolic. For I am bound to both by the Mandate of God. Apostolic Mandates neither are, or can be other than the doctrines of the Apostles, and of our Lord jesus Christ, the Master and Lord of the Apostles: For the Lord jesus Christ saith, He that is not with me, is against me; But the divine Holiness of the Apostolic See, neither is or can be against him. Therefore the tenor of the aforesaid Letter is not consonant to Apostolic Holiness, but a thing much dissonant and disagreeing. First, because from this Addition Non obstante, annexed to this and such like Letters which are dispersed far and wide, and not induced with any necessity of the Law of Nature, which is to be observed, there flows a whole deluge of inconstancy, boldness, malapertness, immodesty, lying, deceiving, distrusting, and all vices thereupon ensuing: where of the number is infinite, shaking and disturbing the purity of Christian Religion, and the tranquillity of human society. Moreover, after the sin of Lucifer, which shall also be the sin of Antichrist, the child of perdition, whom the Lord shall destroy with the breath of his mouth, There is not, nor cannot be any other kind of sin, so adverse and contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles and Evangelists, and to our Lord jesus Christ, so hateful, so detestable, and so abominable, as to kill and destroy souls, by defrauding them of the Office and ministery of the Pastoral charge. Which sins they are known by most evident testimonies of holy Scripture to commit, which being placed in the power of Pastoral charge, do get the wages of the Pastoral Office and ministery, arising of the milk and wool of the sheep of Christ, which ought to be quickened and saved, and do not minister such things as are due unto them. For the very not administration of Pastoral Offices, is by the testimony of Scripture, the kill and destruction of the sheep. And to pass over the rest, because it is somewhat long, I will only add his conclusion. And briefly recounting, I say, the Holiness of the See Apostolic, can only do such things as tend to edification, and not to destruction. For this is the fullness of power, to be able to do all things to edification But these things which they call Provisions, are not for edification, but for most manifest destruction. Therefore the blessed See Apostolic cannot accept of them, because flesh and blood (which shall not possess the Kingdom of Heaven) hath revealed them, and not the Father of our Lord jesus Christ which is in Heaven. When this Letter came to the audience of the Pope, he being not able to contain himself, said, 
d Pag. 844.  Who is this dotish, furred, absurd oldman, that with such rash presumption judgeth our acts? By S. Peter, and S. Paul, if my goodnature did not stay me, I should hurl him into such a confusion, that he should be the fable of the world▪ an astonishment, an example, a wonderment. Is not the King of England our 
* O Antichristian pride, and impudency.  vassal, or to say more, our slave, who is able at our beck to imprison him, and to make him a slave to shame and reproach? But the Cardinals said unto him, 
e Ibidem.  Our good L. it were not expedient that we should decree any hard matter against the Bishop; for that we may confess the truth) those things which he saith are true, we cannot condemn him, he is a Catholic, yea and a most holy man, more Religious than we, and more holy than we, more excellent, and of a more excellent life; so that he is supposed among all the Prelates of the world, not to have his better, nor his equal. The whole Clergy of France and England knoweth so much. The truth of such an Epistle which peradventure is already known to many, will be able to move many against us: for he is counted a great Pilosopher, perfectly learned in Greek and Latin, a zealous lover of righteousness, a reader in schools of Divinity, a preacher among the people, a lover of chastity, a persecuter of Symonists. These things said Aegidius Hispanus the Cardinal: and others whose conscience did touch them, gave council to the Pope, that he should wink and dissemble the matter, lest some tumult should be raised upon this occasion, especially because it is well known, that once there shall a departure come. The same Robert lying upon his deathbed, sighing, said thus, 
a Pag. 847.  Christ came into the world to gain souls: therefore if any man be not afraid to destroy souls, is not he worthily called Antichrist? The Lord in 6. days made the whole world, but he laboured more than 30 years to repair man; Is not therefore this destroyer of souls, worthy to be judged an enemy of God, and an Antichrist? The Pope blusheth not impudently to disannul the privileges of former Popes his predecessors, by this bar Non obstante, which is not done without their prejudice and manifest injury: for so he pulls down that, which so great and so many Saints have builded. Behold the contempt of Saints: therefore the contemner shall justly be contemned, according to that of Esay, Woe to thee which despisest, shalt thou not be despised? who will observe his privileges? The Pope answering, doth thus defend his error: An equal hath no authority over an equal: therefore a Pope cannot bind me being a Pope, etc. And again, Although many other Apostolic men have afflicted the Church, yet he hath compelled it to be in bondage more grievously than others, and hath multiplied inconveniences. For the Caursini being manifest Usurers, which the holy Fathers and our doctors have driven out of France, this Pope hath raised up and protected in England, and if any speak against them, he is tired out with losses and labours; Witness Roger B. of London. The world knoweth, that Usury is accounted detestable in both Testaments, and is forbidden of God; but now the Merchants of my L. the Pope, do practise Usury openly at London, they contrive divers grievances against Ecclesiastical and Religious persons, forcing poor men to lie, and to set their Seals to lying writings. As for example, I receive so many marks by year for an 100 pound, and am forced to make a writing, and sealè it, in which I confess myself to have received an 100 pound to be paid at the years end. And if peradventure thou wouldst pay the Pope's Usurer the principal again within a month or fewer days, he will not receive it, unless thou wilt pay the whole hundred pound. Which condition is heavier than any which is required of the jews: for whensoever thou shalt bring a jew his principal, he will take it kindly, with so much gain, as is answerable to the time, etc. And again, We have seen one of the Pope's Letters, wherein this clause was inserted, That such as made their Testaments, or carried the Cross, or yielded aid to the Holy-land, should receive so much pardon for their sins, as they gave money. And we know our lord the Pope, wrote unto the Abbot of S. Alban, that he should provide for a certain man called john de Camezana, in a competent benefice, and shortly provision was made in a Church worth forty marks by the year: but he not content therewithal complained unto the Pope, who wrote to the same Abbot to provide more bountifully for him, and yet the Pope reserved the donation of the former benefice unto himself. And to pass over other things, the Pope granted for secular favour, that one may obtain a Bishopric, and not be a Bishop but an everlasting elect, which is as much to say as that he should receive the milk and the wool of the sheep, and yet not drive away the wolves. Matthew 
a Pag. 848.  Paris telleth how this Bishop Robert Grosthead hated all kind of Enormities to wit, all kind of Covetousness, all Usury, Simony, and Rapine, all kind of Riot, Lust, Gluttony and Pride, which so reigned in that Court, that this judgement was justly given of it:  

Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis,  
Eius Luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis.   
And (being at the point of death) he endeavoured to 
b Ibid●m.  prosecute how the Court of Rome hoping, That money would flow like the river jordane into their mouth, gaped wide, that they might get unto themselves the goods, both of those that died intestate and also those that died testate, & how that they might do it the more licentiously they made the King their consort in the rapines, neither shall the Church, saith he be delivered from this Egyptian bondage but in the edge of the bloody sword: but verily these things are light, but shortly, that is within three years, there shall come more grievous. In the end of this prophetical speech, which he could scarcely utter for sighs, tears, and groans bursting out, his tongue faltered, his breath failed, and the organs of speech decaying, imposed silence.  
Matthew Paris, concluding the year 1255. saith; This 
c Pag. 889.  year passed away to the Church of Rome, and the papal Court, if one do respect the devotion of the people, most venomous: for the devotion which Prelates and people used to have towards our mother the Church of Rome, and to our Father and Pastor, to wit, our Lord the Pope, gave up the ghost: for although that Court had many times drawn blood of Christ's faithful people, yet it never wounded them all and every one so deadly as this year and the year following.  
Anno 1256. Rustandus 
d Pag. 891.  the Popes Nuntio, the king's proctor: would have the Bishops to set their hands to a bill, and confess that they had received no small sum of money of the Italian Merchants, converted to the good of their Churches, which all men knew to be manifestly false. Whereupon they affirmed, and not without reason that To die in this cause were a more manifest way of Martyrdom, than it was in the case of Saint Thomas the Martyr.  
The same 
e Pag. 904.  year, Certain Abbeys in England were bound over for the payment of two thousand ounces of gold to the Papes Merchants.  
Anno 1259 Sewalus Archbishop of York, lying upon his death bed, lifting his hands and countenance to heaven with tears, said thus: Lord 
f Tag. 939.  jesus Christ, of judges most just, thy infallible judgement knoweth, how manifouldly the Pope, whom thou hast suffered to be set over thy Church to govern it, hath wearied mine Innocency, for this cause as God knoweth, and the world is not ignorant, that I would not admit to the government of Churches (which thou hast committed to me though unworthy) such as were altogether unmeet & unknown. Notwithstanding, lest the Pope's sentence although in itself unjust, should be made just by my contempt, I being entangled with such bands (that is papal censures) do humbly desire to be absolved But I appeal to the Pope himself before the high and incorruptible judge, and heaven and earth shallbe my witnesses how unjustly he hath assaulted me, and how oft he did scandalise and provoke me. Thus in the bitterness of his soul he wrote unto the Pope, provoked by the example of Robert of Lincoln, humbly entreating him, that he would mitigate the usual tyrranies by following the humility of his holy Predecessors, and used these words 
a Ibidem.  Dixit dominus Petro, Pasce oves meas, non tonde, non excoria, non eviscera, vel devorando consume, that is, The Lord said to Peter, feed my sheep, he said not unfleese them, nor slay them, nor unbowel them, nor consume them by devouring. But the Pope scorned these admonitions that were so holy.  
In the year 1260. the 
b Guiliel. Rishanger in continuation Mat. Paris p. 959.  Barons sent four Knights to the Pope, To complain of Aimer elect of Winchester and his Brethren, of their murders, rapines, injuries, and oppressions; and with all commanded such as farmed their Churches of the Romans to pay them no rent, so the Land was quiet by the space of three years.  
Anno. 1316. Lewis 
c Antiq. Brit. pag. 240.  Beaumond a French man, at the instance of the kings of England and France, obtained of the Pope the Bishopric of Durham, he was so unlearned that he could not read the Bulls and instruments of his Consecration: but coming to the word Metropoliticae, after he had stood long puffing and blowing, and could not hit upon it, he said soit pour dit, i. Let it stand for spoken:— and an other time coming to this dangerous word enigmate, he said to the by standers in French, P●r 
d Ibidem.  Saint Lowies il n'est pas courtoys qui ceste parolleyci escrit, that is, By Saint Lewis, he was not a courteous man that wrote this word here, but though he had small Latin, yet he brought the Pope the more gold, for he entered bond to pay him more than he was able to discharge in fourteen years.  
Anno. 1343. Pope Clement the 6. having made 12. Cardinals, Made 
e Walsingam in Edw. 3. pag. 161.  Provisions in England for two of them, of so many benefices next vacant as should amount to two thousand marks yearly: whereupon the king wrote thus to the Pope. 
f Ibidem.  We doubt not but it is come to public knowledge, after what manner from the beginning of the Church, when it had the first birth in our Kingdom of England, the ancient stock of famous memory of our progenitors Kings of England, and of the nobles and faithful people of the said kingdom, for the exercise of divine worship built Churches and endowed them with ample possessions, and fenced them with privileges, placing in them fit ministers which happily set forward Catholic faith, in languages & people subject unto them, by whose care & diligence the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, was then very fertile in beauty and fruit: But (which is to be lamented) the plants of that vineyard are degenerated into wildshrubs, and the bears of the wood root it out, & wild beasts devour it, while by impositions and provisions of the See Apostolic which grow more grievous than they were accustomed, the hands of unworthy persons, & especially of strangers seize upon the Lord's inheritance, contrary to the godly will, & ordination of the donors, & the dignities thereof, & fat benefices are conferred upon persons, born out of the Land, many times suspected unto us, which are not resident upon the same benefices, & know not the faces of the sheep committed unto them, nor understood their language, but neglecting the cure of souls, like hirelings seek only temporal gain, & by this means the worship of Christ is diminished, the cure of souls neglected, hospitality is withdrawn, the rights of Churches are lost, the houses of Clerks are ruinated, the devotion of the people is lessened, Clerks of the kingdom, men of great learning and honest conversation, which might well perform the charge and government, and were fit men for our affairs, and public Counsels, forsake their study because hope of fit preferment was taken away, hitherto the king's letter. But the Pope took this in great dudgeon, and called the king's dealing, 
a Ibid. p. 163.  rebellion.  
Anno 1345. The king directly contrary to the tenor of his former letters, and the desires of his nobles, wrote to the Pope that his Secretary Thomas 
b Walsing▪ in Hypodig. Neusi. pag. 516.  Hatfield might be made Bishop of Durham, against whom, when some of the Cardinals took exceptions for his insufficiency, the Pope answered, 
c Ibidem.  si rex hac vice supplicasset pro asino, obtinuisset; that is, If the King at this time had made request for his ass, he should have obtained it.  
Anno 1364. being the thirty eight of Edward the third, there was held a Parliament wherein was made the 
d Antiq. Brit. pag. 247.  statutes of provisoes and praemunire, by which the power of the Court of Rome in England being bridled, did never prevail afterward with such licentiousness and impunity.  
Anno 1367. Upon a view taken it was found that some had above 
e Antiq. Brit. pag. 249  twenty Churches and dignities by the authority of the Pope, and that they were further privileged to hold so many more as they could get without measure or number.  
Anno 1399. The Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Arundel entreated the King in the name of the Clergy, that he would take away by his regal authority, the papal 
f Ibid. p. 273.  provisions, whereby it was come to pass, that learned men studying in Universities, seeing the rewards given to unworthy and ambitious fellows, seeking them at Rome, did forsake their studies: So ignorance expelled learning.  
About the year 1419. Pope 
g Antiq. Brit. pag. 278.  Martin the fifth, bestowed in England 13. bishoprics by translations and provisions in the space of two years, while Henry the fifth was in the war.  
Anno 1420. The same Pope translated Richard of Lincoln to York, but the 
h Ibid. p. 279.  Dean and Chapter, standing upon the laws enacted against papal provisions, resisted till the Pope was constrained by new Bulls to bring the said Richard back again to Lincoln, by which example of the Yorkshire men, the papal authority in providing bishoprics (against which, neither the Laws of the kingdom, nor the King's Proclamations, nor the threatenings of the Nobles and Commons prevailed:) was broken and weakened.  
Anno 1424. Henry 
i Ibid. p. 284.  Chichly Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal, was made the Pope's Legate, but the Kings (Attorney) appealed from him and the Pope to the next general Council: then the Archbishop made a protestation that he would not exercise it without the King's licence.  
Anno 1497. Pope Alexander sent john de 
k Ibid. p. 300  Eagles into England with large commission but it seemeth that there was nothing to be gotten, and therefore he sent his Notary Robert Castilensis with new mandates, who required of every Curate an English noble.  
About the year 1499. The Pope translated Thomas 
l Godwin▪ in the Cat of Bishops.  Merkes from the Bishopric of carlil to the imaginary Bishopric of Samos in Greece.  
Anno 1500. Pope Alexander kept a year of 
m Antiq. Brit. pag. 302.  jubilee, promising remission of sins to all that went to Rome, or redeemed their journey with money, and at the same time to make them more liberal he gave out, that there should be a great expedition against the Turks, and that the Pope would go thither in person as the General of the field. The Pope's Proctor in England for this purpose was Gasper a Spaniard, who in few months got great sums of money which so soon as the courageous Captain Pope Alexander had received, he let the wars alone, and followed his pleasures. This year of jubilee was indeed to England a year of jubilee, for it brought to Englishmen so often vexed, an end of Papal exactions and robberies. Yet there remained a tribute of smoke for him that had fed them so long with smoke.  
In the year 1532. inquisition was made of Papal expilations, and it was found that in the four years last passed, the Roman Court had received for investitures of Bishops, 
a Ibid. p. 326.  160000. pounds.  
In the year 1533. the Pope had of Cranmer for his Bulls concerning his Consecration and his Pall, 
b Ibid. p. 327.  900. ducats, and the same year his usurped authority was banished out of England. Thus have I set before you some part of the fruits of Papal provisions, now I refer it to any indifferent man to ponder how well the world went.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
Whether it belongeth to the Pope to confirm all the metropolitans of the world, and namely the metropolitans of England.  PHIL. 
THree things concur in making of a Bishop by Divine and Canon Law, to wit, Election, Confirmation and Consecration. Now howsoever Bishops were elected; the confirmation must proceed from the Bishop of Rome, or some Metropolitan under him, which hath commission from him, or else they can have no jurisdiction.  ORTHOD. 
The confirmation of Bishops was a godly constitution, for the avoiding of Schism, concerning which the Fathers of the famous 
c Conc. Nic. Can. 4. Bin. tom 1. pag. 366.  Nicen Council have ordained, that through all Provinces it shall belong to the Metropolitan; they say not to the Pope, but to the Metropolitan; but all the Bishops of England are confirmed by their metropolitans: And that by most lawful and orderly proceeding. For when the Dean and Chapter by licence from the King have made the election, certified it under their common seal, and thereunto have obtained the royal assent, the Metropolitan with other Bishops by commission from the King, proceedeth to confirm it according to the Canons, sending out a public and peremptory citation to summon all personally to appear, which can object any thing either against the party elected, or the form of election. And when after due examination, and judicial process, they are both found consonant to the ancient Canons, he confirmeth the election; Thus it is clear that all the Bishops of England have Canonical confirmation: and withal that the Pope in challenging this unto himself, transgresseth the Canon, and usurpeth the right of the Metropolitan.  PHIL. 
Your metropolitans have no such power because they are not confirmed themselves by the Bishop of Rome.  ORTHO. 
They are not I grant, neither is it necessary. For what confirmation had 
d Ruf. Eccles. Hist. l. 1. cap. 9  Frumentius from him, whom Athanasius sent to be Bishop in India? What confirmation had Flavianus from him, against whom three Bishops of Rome opposed themselves; yet he kept his Chair many years, and all the Bishops of the East 
a Theod. l. 5. c. 23.  communicated with him. What confirmation had the Bishops of 
b Conc. Eph. 1. Bin. c. 1. p. 768.  Cyprus from him, which were not under the jurisdiction of any Patriarch, but governed by a Synod of their own?  PHIL. 
THat all the Bishops in the world, should derive their confirmation 
2  from him, may appear by this, that the patriarchs themselves were not exempted, but did show their faith unto him, and were confirmed by him: as for example, 
c De Nectario etiam ab universo concilio electo, a Damaso tamen confirmando. Stap. prin. doct. l. 4. c. 20.  Nectarius, Patriarch of Constantinople though chosen by a whole Council, yet was he to be confirmed by Damasus, as appeareth by 
d Soz l. 7. c. 8.  Sozomen and 
e Theod. l. 5. ●. 9  Theodoret.  ORTHOD. 
The Bishop's o● the second Council of Constantinople, being summoned to the Council of Rome by the letters of Theodosius the Emperor, wrote to Damasus, Ambrose, and the rest of the Bishops assembled at Rome, to excuse their not coming, in respect of the state of their Churches which had so lately been pestered with Heresies, and stood still in such terms that the Bishops could not leave them without extreme danger. Yet they thought good to send three Bishops in the name of the rest; and withal they make relation both of their doctrine & discipline. Concerning their doctrine, they declare their faith of the Unity, Trinity, and natures of Christ. Concerning discipline, they declare that they choose their Bishops & patriarchs according to the Canons of the Nicen Council: and so speak of the election of Nectarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, and Cyrill Patriarch of jerusalem. Concerning Nectarius, whose example you urge, they say, that he being a most reverend, and zealous man, was chosen in their general Council, in the presence of the Emperor with the general applause of all, both Clergy and people. And this they write not to Damasus alone, as though it were in his power, to make or to mar the election: (they were far from any such cogitation) but to him with the rest to rejoice him and the rest, by relating their consent in faith and love. So they desire not Damasus only, but Ambrose and all the rest, to rejoice with them, and to give their cheerful assent, that the Christian faith being agreed upon, and love confirmed among them, they might keep the Church from schisms and dissensions. Thus though they name Damasus first, and give him pre-eminence of place; yet they give no more pre-eminence of power to the Bishop of Rome, then to the Bishop of Millen.  PHIL. 
What say you then to 
f Leo Ep. 68  Proterius Patriarch of Alexandria? to 
g Bar. Anno. 633. n. 9  Sophronius Patriarch of jerusalem? To 
h Leo Ep. 40.  Anatolius, 
i Bar. Anno 811. n. 18. ex Theophane.  Nicephorus, and 
k Anast in vit. Eugen●● primi.  Peter, patriarchs of Constantinople? Did not every one of them send to the Pope his synodal letters, wherein they declared their faith and consent with the Church of Rome, before he confirmed or allowed them for lawful patriarchs? Doth not this prove the singular and sovereign power of the Pope, in confirming the other patriarchs?  ORTHOD. 
As the Patriarch of Rome, did not allow the other patriarchs for lawful, till they had signified by letters, their soundness in faith: so the other patriarchs, did not acknowledge the Patriarch of Rome, till they were likewise informed of his faith. And therefore the patriarchs of Rome, did use to send the like synodal letters to the other patriarchs, as may appear by 
l Greg. l. 1. Ep. 24.  Gregory, who wrote to john Patriarch of Constantinople, john Patriarch of jerusalem, Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, Gregory and Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch, and this was done (saith 
a joh. Diac. in vit. Greg. l. 2. cap. 3.  Diaconus) according to the ancient custom of his predecessors Doth not this prove the singular and sovereign power of the other patriarchs, in confirming the Patriarch of Rome? And as the Roman Patriarch, sent his Synodical letters to the rest, and the rest to him; so the rest did likewise send one to another. As for example, Tharasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and jerusalem, using these words. 
b In Conc. Nic. 2. act. 3. Bin. t. 3. p. 3●8. Bar. anno. 78●. n. 5.  For as much as a certain observation, or rather an Apostolical tradition hath long prevailed in the Churches, that those which had newly been taken into the degree of some eminent Priesthood, should declare their faith to them which had obtained the like degree of eminent Priesthood long time before them; Therefore it seemeth good to me both to submit myself unto you, and to declare manifestly before you, the confession of my faith. Wherefore this practice doth not mount one Patriarch above the rest, but rather level all of them in an equality; and consequently the Bishop of Rome had no more power over the metropolitans of other patriarchs, than other patriarchs over his.  PHIL. 
The contrary is evident by the decree of Pope Pelagius, 
* Distinct. 100 Quoniam.  Placuit ut quisque Metropolitanus, etc. It is my pleasure that every Metropolitan which shall not send within three months of his Consecration, to show his faith, and receive the Pall, shall be deprived of his place and dignitte. Wherefore all Metropolitans are bound to perform this office to the Bishop of Rome: even all in the whole world. For he that saith every one, excepteth none.  ORTHO. 
Pelagius meaneth every one within his own jurisdiction.  PHIL. 
But all the world was his jurisdiction.  ORTHOD. 
Then belike the Pope was acknowledged Universal Patriarch in the days of Pelagius.  PHIL. 
Yea, and before Pelagius, that title was offered to Pope Leo, by the Council of Chalcedon, as S. 
c Lib. 4. indict. 13. Ep. 32. 38.  Gregory witnesseth.  ORTHOD. 
The whole Council is extant, and we find no such matter.  PHIL. 
In the third 
d Bin. t. 3. p. 68 69. 70.  action, there are three Epistles of three sundry Grecians, all which begin thus. To the most holy and blessed Leo, the universal Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome.  ORTHOD. 
You might have said 
e Been Ibid▪ & pag. 75.  four. But what if a few poor suitors, hungry Grecians, put a flattering title in their supplications? doth this prove, that it was offered by a Council? one of them was a Priest, two were Deacons, and one a lay man, not one of them was a Bishop, nor yet in your own judgement had a voice in the Council  PHIL. 

f Conc. Chal. 3. Bin. t. 2. p. 80  Paschasinus the Pope's legate in his subscription calleth Leo, the Pope of the universal Church.  ORTHOD. 
If that title were aequivalent to this (which may be doubted) yet it was only given by the Pope's parasite, and not by the Council.  PHIL. 
It was given 
g Bin. ibid. in not a marginal.  audiente & probante universali Synodo. i. The general Council hearing and approving it.  ORTHOD. 
This I hear you say, but I would hear you prove it.  PHIL. 

h Ex Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 31. tert●um.  Although the Council decreed nothing concerning that matter, yet it is evident enough that the giving of the title to the Bishop of Rome was not displeasing to the Council, seeing no man reprehended it.  ORTHO. 
They did not reprehend it, but did they therefore commend it? In the Council of 
a Conc. Later. sub Leone decimo. s. 10. Bin. t. 4. pag. 624.  Lateran, in the presence of the Pope, an Archbishop in a Sermon speaking of a Pope, said, He had power above all power, in heaven and in earth. What say you? Did the Pope and Council approve this blasphemy? for they did not reprove it. If their silence was no argument of approbation, than neither was the silence of the Council of Chalcedon. Yea it is most certain that they neither did use it, nor approve it. In the sixteenth Action they write a synodal Epistle to Pope Leo, at which time, if ever, it was fit that they should adorn him with this title, which notwithstanding they used not, but styled him 
b Apud Bin. t. 2. pag. 139.  the most holy, and most blessed Archbishop of the Romans. Neither could they approve it in that sense which you give it, unless they should cross and contradict themselves. For you intent by that title to advance him above other patriarchs: whereas the Council of Chalcedon giveth no greater 
c Conc. Chal. act. 15. can. 28. apud Bin. t. 2. pag. 133.  privileges to the Church of Rome, then to the Church of Constantinople. And as the Council did never give the title, so Pope Leo did never use it.  PHIL. 
Yes, in his 
d Leo Epist. 54.  Epistle to the Emperor Martian against Anatolius, in the very inscription of the Epistle, he useth the title of Universal.  ORTH. 
He useth it thus, Leo episc. Romanae & universalis ecclesiae, i. Leo B. of the Roman & universal Church, so he applieth it not to himself, but to the church.  PHIL. 
If he be Bishop of the universal church, than he is an universal Bishop.  ORTHOD. 
That doth not follow: for the 
e Apud Theodoret. l. 2. c. 8.  Council of Sardica, in their synodal Epistle to all Bishops, calleth them Bishops and Colleagues of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is not Catholic the same with Universal? and yet their meaning was not to call them universal Bishops, neither was it the meaning of Pope Leo to call himself so, if we believe Pope 
f Greg. Epist. l. 4. ep. 38.  Gregory, affirming, that never any of his predecessors, did use so profane a title.  PHIL. 

g Ex Baron. an. 451. n. 151.  It is to be understood, that not any of the Roman Bishops did use the title of ecumenical, of a solemn custom, and continually in all their subscriptions, yet some of them sometimes used it.  ORTHOD. 
Then some of them sometimes used a profane title.  PHIL. 
Universal 
h Ex Bell. de Rom. Pont▪ l. 2. c. 31. Responde●.  Bishop may be taken two ways; First for him, which is the only Bishop of the whole world, excluding all other, in which sense 
i Greg. l. 7. Epist. 69.  S. Gregory saith, If one be an Universal Bishop, it remaineth that you are no Bishops. Secondly, for him that hath a general care of he whole Church, yet so, that other Bishops retain their place and dignity. In the first sense S. Gregory calleth it profane: In the second, it belongeth to the Bishop of Rome.  ORTHOD. 
Concerning the first, 
k Greg. Epist. l. 4. ep. 38.  Gregory having said, that the name of Universality was offered by the Council, addeth immediately, That never any of his predecessors did use so profane a title. So it is clear, that he calleth that very title, profane, which as he saith, was offered by the Council; Which justifieth my former answer. For unless you will accuse the Council of profaneness, you must needs say, that Gregory speaketh improperly, ascribing that to the Council, which was only done by the Pope's Legate, and a few supplicants in the Council. Moreover, if this profane title exclude all other from being Bishops, than the Council (consisting of 630. Bishops,) in giving this title, should exclude themselves from being Bishops: which is absurd, seeing in their subscriptions they entitled themselves Bishops. Concerning the second, If he be an universal Bishop which hath care of the whole Church, then S. Paul was Universal Bishop as well as S. Peter: 
a 2. Cor. 11. 28.  for he had care of all the Churches. Then Athanasius was an Universal Bishop: for 
b Basil. ad Athanas. Ep. 52.  S. Basill saith, He carried the care of all Churches.  PHIL. 
Peradventure he meaneth, that he carried the care of all within the Patriarchdome of Alexandria.  ORTHOD. 
Nor of them only, but of others also: For S. Basill saith, 
c Epist. 48.  The whole state of the Church of Antioch dependeth upon thee. So though his jurisdiction was confined within the Patriarchdome of Alexandria, yet he carried a tender care over the whole Church of Christ. Wherefore in this sense the title of Universal Bishop, belongeth as well to the Patriarch of Alexandria, as to the Patriarch of Rome. Moreover, the very title of Universal Patriarch was given, and that by a Council, to john Patriarch of Constantinople. In what sense trow you? You produced but two senses of it out of Bellarmine. In the first, which profanely excludeth all other Bishops they did not give it, for than they should deny themselves to be Bishops, contrary to their own subscriptions. If in the latter, than it was common to him with the Bishops of Rome; and so cannot prove your Monarchical jurisdiction.  PHIL. 
How prove you that this title was given him by a Council?  ORTHOD. 

d Bin. in notis in Concil. Constantinop. sub Menna. tom. 2. pag. 471.  Binius saith, How oft john Bishop of Constantinople is named in the acts of the Council of Constantinople under Hormisda: so oft the title of Universal Patriarch is found added unto him.  PHIL. 
Binius in the same place ascribeth this to the imposture of the latter Grecians; which he proveth, because, though two Popes, Pelagius and Gregory condemned this title in the Bishop of Constantinople; yet no man objected against them the authority of this Council, which had been very material, because the greater part of it was approved by the Church of Rome. Wherefore it is certain that this was not originally in the Council, but foisted in afterward.  ORTHO. 
But Pope Adrian the first in his Epistle to Tharasius, recorded in the second 
e Conc. Nic. 2. act. 2. Bin. t. 3. pag. 312.  Nicen Council, entitleth him a general Patriarch.  PHIL. 

f Binius quo supra.  This seemeth also to be added by some Grecian, which I rather think, because the same Epistle translated by Anastasius, hath no such title prefixed.  ORTHOD. 
As though Anastasius were not as likely to put it out, as the Grecians to put it in. But 
g Constit. 42. in titulo.  justinian in the Authentics, giveth Mennas' the very self same title of Ecumenical Patriarch.  PHIL. 

h Bin. ibidem.  It must be affirmed that this also crept in, unless we say that he is called Universal, in respect of the Oriental Bishops and Priests.  ORTHOD. 
So Holoander taketh it, when he translateth it, universi eius tractus Patriarchae, i. to the Patriarch of all that circuit. But are you now advised? Was he called Universal, and yet had not the jurisdiction of the whole world, but was only an Oriental Patriarch? then you must confess, that this title might be given to the B. of Rome, and yet not imply that he had jurisdiction over the whole world, but over the whole West, and so was the Occidental Patriarch. Wherefore the decree of Pope Pelagius, requiring all metropolitans to send to Rome to profess their faith, and receive the Pall, extendeth not to them of the East, but only to them of the West.  PHIL. 
Then you grant that he was Patriarch of the West, and that is sufficient to infer my conclusion, for the Western Patriarch must needs have jurisdiction over the metropolitans of the West, in which compass is Britain. I need not here speak of the ancient division of the Provinces, nor of Saint Peter, nor of Eleutherius: It is famously known that Saint Austin was sent hither by the Bishop of Rome, received a pall from him, and apparently submitted himself to his jurisdiction; so did his successors for almost a thousand years together. Wherefore seeing the Bishop of Rome was in lawful possession, you must tell us upon what reason you put him from it.  ORTHOD. 
By what title doth the Pope challenge his jurisdiction in England? By the law of God? you 
a See above. cap. 2. & 3.  cannot justify it. By reason of the first conversion of the Island by Saint Peter? You 
b See lib. 2. c. 2  cannot make it manifest, that ever he was here. Will you fetch it from Eleutherius? He only sent 
c Bede. l. 1. c. 4.  at the king's request, and challenged no such authority. Will you derive it from Austin? 
d Galfrid. Mon. l. 11. c. 12.  It was then made appear by many reasons that the Britain's ought him no subjection. And it is evident, that he and his associates had first their assemblies in Saint Martin's Church in Canterbury, by the King's permission: afterward, when the king himself was converted, they received (to use the words of 
e Bede. l. 1. c. 26  Bede) more ample licence both to Preach through all his dominions, and also to build and repair Churches. So you see all was received from the king. It is true that Gregory sent a supply of Preachers, and gave his advise for the erection of Bishoprics, and sent palls hither; yet there can be no question, but all this was done by the king's licence. Afterward in succeeding ages, when the Popes did play the wild boars in the Church, in executing Church censures, and giving Church livings, the kings of England made laws against them, even in the time of Popery. For as it was defended by 
f Epist. 55.  Cyprian, and afterward also by the 
g Epist. ad Celestinum. cap 105.  African council, under Celestinus, that causes should be ended where they begun, and not be carried to tribunals beyond the sea: So it was decreed in England, in the reign of 
h Mat. Paris in H. 2. Anno 1164.  Henry the second, as witnesseth Matthew Paris. De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debet procedi ad Episcopum, ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum, & si Archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum regem perueniendū est postremò, ut praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debeat ultra procedi absque assenssu domini regis, i. Concerning appeals, if any shall spring, they ought to proceed from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, & if the Archb. shallbe defective in doing justice, they must come at last to our Lord the king, that by his commandment the controversy may be determined in the Archbishop's Court, so that there ought not to be any further proceedings without the assent of the Lord the king. Thus it is clear that the Pope could not take to himself the handling of causes without the king's licence. It might also be declared how little his censures were here respected, unless they received strength by the king's permission. And whereas he took upon him to dispose of Church livings, he was censured for it in the time of Edw. the 3 even in the high Court of Parliament as 
i 25. Ed. 3. statute of Provisours.  an usurper. These points might be much enlarged, but this little touch is sufficient to show that whatsoever jurisdiction he had in England, was by the courtesy of the King: whatsoever he took upon him otherwise, was by usurpation. Now his challenge by custom is repelled by custom. For, these six hundred years last passed, he affecting to be that which he was not, disdained to be that which he was, and aspiring to a Popedom neglected his Patriarchdome: so that which he had gotten by use he hath lost by disusing, and by his own fact hath extinguished his former title. Secondly, whereas Pope Pelagius required only a profession of the faith according to the Scriptures and the holy ancient general counsels, 
a Onuphrius in vita Pij. 4.  Pius the fourth hath framed us a new form of faith, without which no man can be saved, consisting of traditions, transubstantiations, merits, Images, relics, and such rotten Romish ragges-which he hath clapped to the Nicen creed, as it were a beggars patch to a golden garment. And this forsooth is the 
b Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo saluus esse potest etc. ibid.  Catholic faith, the profession whereof is now required to be made of all 
c Hanc fidei formulam quam Episcopi designati profiterentur instituit. ibid.  Bishops. Thirdly, the Popes of latter times will have metropolitans sworn to their obedience; yea and Pius 
d Veram obedientiam spondeo ac iuro.  the fourth did cunningly convey this oath into his new coined creed; but we find no such thing exacted in the time of Pelagius.  PHIL. 
There is yet extant an Epistle of a Bishop, which took the oath to Saint Gregory, who lived not long after Pelagius. 
e Greg. l. 10. Ep. 30.  unde iurans dico per Deum omnipotentem & per haec quatuor evangelia quae in manibus teneo, & per salutem gentium, atque illustrium dominorum nostrorum remp. gubernantium, me in unitate, sicut dixi, Ecclesiae Catholicae, & communione Rome pontificis semper & sine dubio permanere. i. Whereupon I affirm, swearing by God Almighty, and by the 4. Gospels which I hold in my hands, and by the salvation of the Gentiles, & of our glorious Lords which govern the commonwealth, that I will remain always, and without doubt, as I have said, in the unity of the Catholic Church, & in the communion of the Bishop of Rome.  ORTHOD. 
You intent to prove that metropolitans should swear to the Pope before their confirmation, or receiving of the pall; the example you bring concerns no such matter: For first he was only a Bishop, not a Metropolitan. Secondly, this oath was voluntary, not exacted. Thirdly, it was not upon a confirmation or receiving of a pall, but upon an abjuration of his heresy. Neither doth it appear, that this oath was in the time of Gregory, though some have gone about to ascribe it to the time of Pope Pelagius, wherein behold, and you shall see the cunning of Popish proctor's. For whereas 
f Distinct. 100 quoniam.  Pelagius reproved some metropolitans, because they did delay, fidem suam exponere, and thereupon made this decree that those which did not send within three months, ad fidem suam exponendam, should be deprived: 
g Defence: in Molineum pro pontiff: max. p. 20.  Remundus Rufus, a Popish Lawyer of Paris writing for the honour of the Pope, doth change these words, ad exponendam fidem, i. To make profession of their faith into dandae fidei causa. i. To make a faithful promise or oath; so the profession of the faith of jesus Christ was by a strange Metamorphosis transformed into an oath of the Pope's supremacy. Now lest the Spanish Lawyers should come short of the French, in showing their zeal for their Lord the Pope, 
h Resp. de Episc: iurisd. & Pont. autorit. propos. 5. p. 151  Franciscus Vargas king Philip's Councillor, and Ambassador to Pope Pius the fourth, affirmeth that Pelagius declared the Pope's supremacy by this decree, in that he would have all metropolitans sworn unto him. Mark what he saith sworn unto him, whether deceived by Rufus, or purposing to make an officious lie for his holy Father's advantage, I cannot tell. Howsoever, this oath cannot be referred to Pope Pelagius, but rather to Pope Paschall the second, who would have forced Archbishop Panormitane to take it, and upon his refusal set out the decret all Epistle, recorded by Gregory the ninth, in the 
i De election● cap. 4. significasti.  Canon-law, the title whereof is this: Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Pallium non tradet, nisi Prius Praestet fidelitatis & obedientiae juramentum. 1. The Apostolical See shall not deliver the Pall to an Archbishop Elect, before he perform the oath of Allegiance and obedience.  PHIL. 
Though Pope Paschall made this decree, yet it followeth not that he was the author of the oath: it might be more ancient though he renewed it.  ORTHOD. 
It appeareth by the Contents of the Decree, that he was the author. For first he declareth that Panormitane had signified unto him, that Kings and Nobles were stricken with admiration, that the Pall should be offered under the condition of an oath, and the same Pope did write in the same words upon the like occasion to an Archbishop of 
a Bar. an. 1102. num. 8. ex co●●ce Vaticano.  Polonia, who had signified unto him the like admiration of the King and Nobles of Polonia. This denial of the Archbishops, & admiration of Princes & states doth argue a novelty. 2. Whereas some did object that it was not decreed in the counsels, he rejecteth all Counsels with scorn & disdain. 
b Bar. Ibidem nu. 10. extr. de elect. significasti.  Aiunt in Concilijs statutum non inveniri, quasi Romanae Ecclesiaelegē conctlia ulla prefixerint, cum omnia concilia per Romanae Ecclesiae auctoritatem & facta sint, & robur acceperint, & in eorum Statutis Romani Pontificis patenter excipiatur auctoritas. i. They say that it was not found decreed in Counsels, as though any Counsels could prefix a law to the Church of Rome, seeing all Counsels are both made and receive strength by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the authority of the Bishop of Rome is manifestly excepted in their constitutions. Thus he doth not refer the oath to former Popes and Counsels but relieth only upon his own authority. So it seemeth that this weed did spring 1100. years after Christ. Neither did they stay in metropolitans, but Innocent the third in the Council 
c Conc. Later. 4. cap. 5. Bin. t. 3 pag. 1452.  of Lateran imposed the like oath of allegiance and obedience upon the four patriarchs. Yea 
d Extra de iure iurando. Ego.  all Bishops are bound by solemn oath to promise obedience and faith to Saint Peter, the Church of Rome, and their Lord the Pope; and to put to their helping hand (which is an essential point of their obedience) to 
e Papatum Romanae Ecclesiae & regulas sanctorum patrum adiutor ero ad defendendum & retinen ●um sal●o ordine meo contra omnes homines.  defend and maintain the Papacy; By which policy it came to pass that the sovereign was defeated of his subject, & the bramble did mount aloft above the cedars of Libanus. So he which was first admitted among us of courtesy, & continued by custom▪ that is by right human, began now to challenge of duty, and by law divine: And not content with the honour of a Patriarch, he took upon him to domineer through the Christian world, as Pope Parramount, flashing out his excommunications like lightning, interdicting kingdoms, trampling Princes and Emperors under his feet; yea and dispensing with vows▪ oaths and the everlasting Commandments of God himself. Is not this to sit in the Temple of God as though he were God? Wherefore by all right, reason, equity and law of God and man, he was to be banished. I will conclude this point with the saying of a reverend Bishop. 
f Bishop Bilson, The true difference part. 2.  As for his Patriarchship, by God's law he hath none; In this realm for 600. years after Christ he had none: for the last six hundred, as looking to greater matters, he would have none: above or against the sword which God hath ordained, he can have none: to the subversion of the faith and oppression of his brethren, in reason, right and equity he should have none. you must seek further for subjection to his tribunal, this landoweth him none.    

THE FIFTH BOOK. OF THE SECOND AND third controversy, concerning Priests and Deacons.  

CHAP. I.  
Wherein the second controversy is proposed, divided into two questions, the former about Sacrificing, the latter about Absolution: the state of the former is set down, and the method of proceeding.  PHIL. 
Whatsoever you have as yet said, is nothing, because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is 
a Ex Bel. de sacr. ord. 5.  essentially required, which is not to be found in the Church of England. For there are two principal functions of Priesthood; the first is the power of Sacrificing, the second of Absolution; but you have neither, as I will prove in order: to begin with the first, it is given in holy Church by these words. 
b Pontificale in ordinat. Presbyteri.  Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo, missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini. that is, Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass as well for the quick as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you use neither these words, nor any aequivalent in your ordination of Priests, as may appear by the Book: therefore you want the principal function of Priesthood.  ORTHOD. 
If you mean no more by Priest, than the holy Ghost doth by 
c T●t. 1. 5.  Presbyter, that is, a Minister of the new Testament, than we profess and are ready to prove that we are Priests, as we are called in the book of common prayers, and the form of ordering, because we receive in our ordination 
d The form of ordering of Priests.  authority to Preach the word of God, and to minister his holy Sacraments. Secondly, by Priests you mean Sacrificing Priests, and would expound yourselves of spiritual Sacrifices, then as this name belongeth to all Christians, so it may be applied by an excellency to the Ministers of the Gospel. Thirdly, although in this name you have a relation to bodily Sacrifices, yet even so we may be called Priests, by way of allusion. For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Levi, yet the ancient fathers do commonly call them Levites, alluding to their office because they come in place of Levites: so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers, because they succeed the sons of Aaron, and come in place of Levites: so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers, because they succeed the sons of Aaron, and come in place of sacrificers. Fourthly, for as much as we have authority 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 
a Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 2. his ●rgo.  external 
2.  oblation made only to God by a lawful Minister, whereby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mystical rite, for the acknowledgement of human infirmity, and for the profession of the Divine Majesty.  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 
b Articles of religion▪ 1562 art. 31.  offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original, and actual, and there is no other satisfaction for sin, but that alone, and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quick and the dead, as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.  PHIL. 
But the Council of Trent teacheth, that in the mass there is offered to 
c Concil. ●rid. sess. 22. Canone 1.  God a true and proper Sacrifice 
d Ibid. Can. 3.  propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead, and curseth all those that think otherwise.  ORTHOD. 
HOw do you prove, that the Sacrificing Priesthood, which offereth as you say, the very body and blood of 
3.  Christ, is the true Ministry of the Gospel?  PHIL. 
That Ministry which was typed in the old Testament, foretold by the Prophets, instituted by Christ, and practised by the Apostles, is the true Ministry of the Gospel. But our sacrificing Priesthood, which offereth the very body and blood of Christ, is such; therefore it is the true Ministry of the Gospel. The proposition of itself, is plain & evident: the parts of the assumption, shall be proved in order.  ORTHOD. 
Then first let us hear where your Priesthood was typed.   

CHAP. II.  
Of their argument drawn from Melchisedec.  PHIL. 
THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec, was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper, with his own hands, & shall offer by the hands of the Priests, until the end of the world. For the understanding whereof, we must consider, that Melchisedec, was a type of Christ in a more excellent manner than Aaron, insomuch that Christ is called a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron. For between these two Priesthoods, there are two differences, 
e 〈◊〉 Missa ●. ●. c. ●. Porro.  the first consisteth in the external form of the Sacrifice; For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloody and represented the death of Christ, under the form of living things, that were s●aine: The sacrifice of Melchisedec was unbloody, and did figure the body and blood of Christ under the form of Bread and Wine. From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument. If Melchisedec did offer an unbloody sacrifice under the form of Bread and Wine, then seeing Christ is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, he also must offer an unbloody Sacrifice, under the forms and shapes of Bread and Wine: but the Sacrifice of the Cross, was bloody: therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Cross: and what can this be, but the Sacrifice of the Supper? But he commanded his Apostles, and in them us, to do as he did, saying, 
a Luke. 22. 19  do this in remembrance of me: therefore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an unbloody manner, in the forms of Bread and Wine, & consequently the Ministers of the Gospel, are Sacrificers by Christ's own institution.  ORTH. 
We grant first, that Melchisedec was a type of Christ, because the Scripture saith, 
b Heb. 7. 3.  he was likened to the son 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 sworn it: 
c Psal. 110 4.  The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec: but we deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine, for a Sacrifice to God; we deny that Christ ever offered any such, or ever gave any such commission to his Apostles. Therefore this is so far from proving your pretended Priesthood, that it will quite overthrow it.  PHIL. 
THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine, is plain 
2  in 
d Gen. 14. 18.  Genesis.  ORTHOD. 
In Genesis? Why? there is no such thing: the words are these. And Melchisedec king of Salem, brought forth Bread and Wine, and he was a Priest of the most high God; Where your own vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens, he brought forth Bread and Wine, and not he offered it.  PHIL. 
True he brought it forth: but the end why he brought it forth was to Sacrifice unto God.  ORTHOD. 
That is more than you can gather out of the text. 
e Antiq l. 1. cap 11.  josephus saith, that he gave entertainment to the Soldiers of Abraham, 
f Tertul. con. jud. 14.  Tertullian saith, that he offered Bread and Wine to Abraham, returning from the battle. Saint 
g Am●. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3.  Ambrose saith likewise, that Melchisedec did offer it unto Abraham. Your own 
h And de vulg: lat. Edit. l. 4. Defence. p. 636.  Andradius saith▪ Ego cum illis sentiam, qui lassos Abrahae milites, & diuturna pugna fractos, Melchisedecum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt. That is, I will be of their opinion, which say that Melchisedec refreshed with Bread and Wine, the Soldiers of Abraham, being weary and tired with a long battle. And Cardinal 
i In Genes▪ c. 14.  Caietan: Nihil scribitur hic de Sacrificio seu oblatione, sed de prolatione seu extractione, quam josephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores, that is, here is nothing (spoken) of the oblation or Sacrifice, but of the prolation and bringing it out, which josephus saith, was done to refresh the Conquerors.  PHIL. 
These things are subordinate, and may stand together, for first, he offered the Bread and Wine to God for a Sacrifice, And then, invited Abraham and his army: so this was not Civil but a Sacred banquet.  ORTHO. 
How prove you that?  PHIL. 
Abraham said to the King of Sodom; 
k Gen. 14. 22  I have lift up my hand unto the Lord the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take of all that is thine, so much as a thread or shoe latchet, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abraham rich, save only that which the young men have eaten, & the parts of the men which went with me, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, let them take their parts. Now to use the words of Cardinal Bellarmine, 
a Bell. de Missa ●. ●. c. 6.  Quid opus erat pane & vino iis qui spolijs abundabant & paulo ante comederant & biberant? that is, What need had they of bread and wine which did abound with spoils, and had eaten and drunken a little before?  ORTHOD. 
That Paulo aunt is a trick of a jesuit, to make the Reader imagine that they had new dined, which is more than can be proved out of the Text. For when Abraham who dwelled in the plain of 
b Gene. 14. 13.  Mamre heard that Lot was taken prisoner, he pursued the 4. Kings to 
c Verse 14.  Dan, about 124. English miles: then he and his servants divided themselves, and pursued them unto 
d Verse 15.  Hobah about 80. miles, where he recovered the substance, and took the spoils; Thence he returned to 
e Verse 17.  Sodom, about 180. miles, where Melchisedec met him. Wherefore, for aught that doth appear by the Text, the young men's eating of the spoils, might have been sundry days before Melchisedec met them. But if they had new dined, did Melchisedec know so much? Or if he did, do you know how long he stayed with them, or what store of victuals they had remaining? And if there had remained great plenty, yet, may not a King give entertainment to such as are otherwise provided of victuals? Surely, this is a speech that doth little become a Cardinal: if Bellarmine be of this opinion, his Cardinalship keepeth but a miserable house, and affordeth but slender hospitality. Hitherto we have seen how weakly you have disproved the civil banquet; Now let us see how strongly you can prove the Sacred.  PHIL. 
THat this bread and wine were brought out for sacrifice, may appear 
3.  by the Text, which saith, Melchisedec Rex Salem proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei altissimi, etc. That is, 
f Verse 18.  Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and wine: for he was a Priest of the most high God. Why did he bring forth bread and wine? because he was a Priest of the most high God▪ Now the proper office of a Priest is to sacrifice; therefore the very connexion doth teach us, that he brought forth bread and wine to sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
As it was the office of the Priest to sacrifice, so it was his office to bless: as may appear in the sixth of Numbers, 
g Verse 23.  Speak unto Araon, and to his sons, saying, Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, etc. Therefore the Spirit of God having said, that Melchisedec was a Priest of the most High God, addeth immediately, that he blessed him.  PHIL. 
The conjunction (for) doth evidently show the dependence. He brought forth bread and wine, (for) he was a Priest of the most High God: therefore this bringing it forth, was a Priestly action, which must needs import, that it was referred to sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
The Vulgar Translation which you follow, is erroneous: for according to the Hebrew it is not, Erat enim Sacerdos: for he was a Priest; but & erat Sacerdos: and he was a Priest, as Arias 
h In 〈◊〉 inter. line▪ ●ribus.  Montanus translateth it; and 
i Bell. de Missa. l. 1. c. 6.  Bellarmine confesseth. So the clauses are not joined together with a conjunction causal, but with a copulative: therefore your argument drawn from the causal vanisheth away.  PHIL. 
The copulative conjunction is much used for a causal: as in the Prophet 
a Esay 64. 2.  Esay, where it is according to the Hebrew, Behold thou art angry, and we have sinned; which yourselves translate, Behold thou art angry, for we have sinned. The like is to be said of the Greek particle, answering to the Hebrew; As for example, in the words of the Angel, it is according to the Greek, 
b Luke 1. 42.  Blessed art thou among women, and the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Upon which place, 
c In annotat. in vers. suam.  Beza proveth very well, that the copulative is put for a causal: and yourselves translate it accordingly, Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Likewise in this present place, the copulative must be expounded by the causal: as may appear even by the Hebrew, which yourselves so advance and magnify. 
d Bel. quo supr.  For after these words, And he was a Priest of the most High God. There is an accent called Soph pasuk, to signify that the period is ended. Therefore though we should read, And he was a Priest of the most High God: yet because there is a full point, the very words thus pointed according to the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin, would proclaim, that he brought forth bread and wine, as a Priest to sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
In the division of the Chapters into verses, there was respect had, not only of Musical harmony, but also of some equality or indifferency in the length of the Verses. So it cometh to pass▪ that sometimes a long sentence extendeth itself, and is 
e Buxtorf. thesaur gram. l. 2. c. 23.  continued in divers verses, before the sense be perfectly concluded. Wherefore though every Verse have his Soph pasuk, yet every Verse is not a full period. As for example, In the 23. of Genesis, after the 17. Verse, there is the same point and accent, which is here; and yet in your own vulgar Bibles, set out by Sixtus 5. and Clemens octaws, there is but a comma: and that no marvel, seeing sometimes there is only a comma between Chapter and Chapter, As for example, Between the 21. and 22. of the Acts, both in the Greek and in the Latin. Now for this present place of Genesis, In Pagnins' translation set out by Vatablus, as also in 
f Gloss. litter. in Genes.  Delrio, yea in the authentical Edition of Sixtus quintus, and Clemens octaws, the Soph pasuk you urge, is expressed only by a comma, and in some of the Vulgar, there is not so much as a comma. Wherefore this doth rather argue a relation to that which followeth, then to that which went before, and consequently, these words, He was a Priest of the most High God, cannot be referred to the bringing forth of the bread and wine, but rather to the blessing. And that it is so, may appear by the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Type of Melchisedec is unfolded: and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing, but only of blessing▪ But if we should suppose, that it were to be translated by the causal, (for) and that these words, For he was a Priest of the most High God, had relation to that which went before, concerning the bringing out of bread and wine, what should you gain by it?  PHIL. 
The very point in question. For the latter part shall yield a reason of the former. Did Melchisedec bring forth bread and wine to Abraham? What moved him so to do? The reason is rendered, because he was a Priest of the most High God; Therefore this was a Priestly action.  ORTHOD. 
He gave entertainment to Abraham, and was thereunto moved by consideration of his own Office, even because he was not only a professor of the true Religion, but also a Priest: for as it becometh all that embrace Religion, to love one another, and rejoice at their good; so this duty especially belongeth to the Priest. And your learned jesuit 
a And▪ desens▪ de vulg. Edit. p. 637. Colon. 1580.  Andradius hence observeth the great link of Religion, saying, Who would not wonder that a man tied by no links of acquaintance with Abraham, but to those whom Abraham conquered▪ tied by the link of neighbourhood, and peradventure of alliance also, (for I hold it very probable, that Melchisedec was a Canaanite) should prosecute Abraham with presents, and other kind offices, and for the victory gotten over his own country men, should congratulate Abraham, not without procuring to himself great envy from his neighbours? but seeing there are no links to be compared with the links of religion (Moses) saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God: that all men might understand that he was coupled with greater links of love with Abraham, who excelled for singular commendation of Piety and religion, then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country: therefore there is no necessity, to say, that he sacrificed bread and wine, for the text even read and pointed as you would have it, may in the judgement of some of your learned Divines, admit an excellent sense without any sacrifice.  
But let us imagine that he did sacrifice bread and wine, what is this to 
5  the purpose?  PHIL. 
Yes, it proveth our Priest hood directly and strongly. For must not the truth answer to the Type?  ORTHOD. 
You make the type consist in this, that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine; but stay a little; did Christ sacrifice bread and wine? where find you that?  PHIL. 
A Type consisteth in representation; and representation dependeth rather upon the outward accidents, than the inward substance, therefore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents: that is, in the forms of bread & wine: and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himself in the forms of bread and wine.  ORTH. 
Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance? or was it the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine? if you say the first, than our communion doth better answer to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Mass: and consequently our ministry doth better resemble his then your Priesthood: but if you say that he offered the very body and blood of Christ in the forms of bread and wine; that would fit your turn well, for then Melchisedec should be a Mass Priest; but it is so absurd that you dare not avouch it. For then the very body and blood of Christ should have been actually and substantially existent, before it was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Thus say what you can, you are quite overthrown.  PHIL. 
If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, then surely he offered an unbloody sacrifice; and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must needs have the essential properties of that Order; therefore Christ offered also an unbloody sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
Or rather thus, seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, he must have all the essential properties belonging to that Order: but his sacrifice was bloody and not unbloody, for, With his own 
a Heb. 9 12.  blood hath he entered into the most Holy, and hath purchased an eternal redemption for us: therefore to offer an unbloody sacrifice, is no essential property of the Order of Melchisedec: wherefore if he did so, it followeth not that Christ should do so.  PHIL. 
It was both bloody and unbloody, bloody upon the Cross, unbloody in the Eucharist.  ORTHOD. 
Do you not teach that Christ offered his own body, and blood in the Eucharist? if he sacrificed his own blood, how can that sacrifice be unbloody?  PHIL. 
His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an unbloody manner; that is, in the form of bread and wine.  ORTHO. 
The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered, and that with 
b Heb. 10. 14  once offering he hath Consecrated for ever them that are sanctified: and this offering is called the blood of the 
c Colos. 1. 20  Cross, not the blood of the Eucharist, but the blood of the Crosse.  PHIL. 
Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist?  ORTHOD. 
Christ saith, 
d Luk. 22. 19  Do this in remembrance of me; therefore in the Eucharist there is a memorial of Christ, even of his body and blood, which were sacrificed for us upon the Cross once for all, as hath been already proved. Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed upon the Cross, properly and substantially: in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery, by way of commemoration an representation, as shall appear more amply, when we come to the point.  PHIL. 
ANother difference between Aaron and Melchisedec, is thus set 
6  down by 
e Bell▪ quo supra.  Bellarmine: Estetian alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Melchisedechi & Aaronis, quòd illud fuit unius tantum hominis qui non successit alteri, & cui non successit alter: istud autem fuit multorum, qui per mortem sibi invicem succedebant, i. There is an other difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec, and of Aaron; that the former was only of one man who succeeded not an other, and to whom no man succeeded, but the latter was of many men which succeeded one another by death, where we may observe two properties of the Priesthood of Melchisedec, unity and eternity.  ORTH. 
The first property belongeth most aptly to Christ, who alone hath offered himself a sweet smelling sacrifice to God for us; but to your Popish Priests it cannot agree; because they are many: for if the Priests should be many, than this unity of the Priest could not be a property of the Priesthood: therefore this unity is directly against you: Now let us see what you can conclude from the eternity.  PHIL. 
If Christ have an everlasting Priesthood, than he must have an everlasting sacrifice: for every Priest must have a sacrifice, or else the Priesthood should be idle: but the sacrifice of the Cross was not everlasting, for it was but once offered, therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament, that is, the sacrifice of the Mass wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for ever, and so our Priesthood is proved.  ORTHOD. 
Proved? how is it proved? the scripture saith that Christ, because he 
a Heb. 7. 24.  endureth for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood: he endureth for ever; he even he, in his own person: and therefore hath no need of you to continue his Sacrifice. For Christ is a Priest for ever. First in respect of his own Sacrifice upon the Crosse. Secondly, in respect of his intercession. In respect of the Sacrifice, which though it were but once offered, yet it is an everlasting Sacrifice, because the virtue of it is everlasting, and continueth effectual for ever, for as he is the 
b Revel. 13. 8.  lamb slain from the beginning of the world, so he is jesus Christ 
c Heb. 13. 8.  yesterday, to day, and the same for ever; 
d Heb. 9 12.  neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood entered he once into the holy place, and hath obtained an eternal redemption for us.  PHIL. 
As he is a Priest properly for ever, so he must for ever offer a Sacrifice; But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his own person: therefore he must offer it by another.  ORTH. 
Your own 
e Anglor. in Heb. 5. 6.  Rhemists affirm that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception. Now what if one should reason thus with you? if he be a Priest, he must offer a Sacrifice: but in the Virgin's womb he offered no Sacrifice, therefore than he was no Priest. Or thus; till he was thirty three years old he offered no Sacrifice, therefore all that while he was no Priest, what would you answer?  PHIL. 
I would say that Christ was truly then a Priest, in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time.  ORTHOD. 
If he were a Priest in the womb of the Virgin, in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come; why may he not be called a Priest till the end of the world, in respect of the same Sacrifice already offered? and as he is a Priest for ever in respect of his Sacrifice, so he is a Priest for ever in regard of his intercession. For his Priesthood hath two parts, Redemption, and Intercession. It behoved our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood, secondly to apply his precious merits unto us by his intercession, and both these are set down by Saint john: if any man sin, 
f 1. joh. 2. 1. 2.  we have an advocate with the Father jesus Christ the just, and he is the Propitiation for our sins. Who is our advocate? even he that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiation for our sins, he is our advocate, and 
g Heb. 9 24.  appeareth in heaven to make intercession for us. 
h Rom. 8. 33.  Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that justifieth, who shall condemn us? It is Christ which is dead, yea rather which is risen again, who is also at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us, And seeing we have a 
i Heb. 7. 26.  high Priest made higher than the heavens, who ever liveth to make intercession for us, In this respect he may well be said to be a Priest for ever, and needeth not your massmongers to continue his Sacrifice. Wherefore it is evident that your sacrificing priesthood cannot be grounded upon the type of Melchisedec. Which may yet appear more fully, because the Apostle to the 
k Chap. 7.  Hebrews speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word concerning his Sacrifice, but vnfouldeth it in these branches following. First, Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousness, therein being a type of Christ jesus, who is 
l jerem. 23. 6.  the Lord our righteousness. Secondly, Melchisedec was King of Salem, that is, king of peace: So 
m Isa 9 6.  Christ jesus is the Prince of peace: 
n Ephes. 2. 14.  for he is our peace which hath made of both one, and hath broken the stop of the partition wall, in abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the law of commandments which standeth in ordinances, for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by his Cross, and slay hatred thereby, and came and Preached peace to you which were a far off, and to them that were near. Thirdly, Melchisedec was both King and Priest: so was Christ jesus. Fourthly, Melchisedec blessed Abraham: and the blessing of God cometh through Christ jesus upon all the sons of Abraham, that is upon all believers. For we ought all to say with the Apostle, 
a Ephes. 1. 3.  Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, which hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly things in Christ. Fifthly, Melchisedec received tithes of Abraham, and consequently, even Levi being as yet in the loins of Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec; Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec, was far more excellent than the Priesthood of Aaron. Sixtly, Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without kindred, not simply, but is said to be so, in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in suddenly, making no mention at all of father, mother, or kindred, thereby representing Christ jesus, who as he was man, had no father; as he was God had no mother nor kindred. Seventhly, Melchisedec had neither beginning of days, nor end of life: That is, the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other, that therein he might be a representation of the eternity of Christ jesus, who as he is God, is from everlasting to everlasting. Thus the Scripture unfoldeth the type of Melchisedec, plentifully and particularly, and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing, which is an evident argument that it is a mere devise and imagination of man's brain.  PHIL. 
The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it. For he renders a reason why he was enforced to omit divers deep points concerning Melchisedec. A high Priest, according to the order of Melchisedec, 
b Heb. 5. 11.  of whom we have great speech, and inexplicable to utter: because you are become weak to hear? 
c Anglor. in Heb. 5. 11.  Among which no doubt (say the Rhemists) the mystery of the Sacrament, & Sacrifice of the Altar called Mass was a principal and pertinent matter; And indeed it was not reasonable to talk much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christ's death, when they thought not right of Christ's death itself.  ORTHOD. 
We do not ground upon the silence of the Apostle only, but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets. There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an unbloody Sacrifice in the forms of Bread and Wine, and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming unto the world, that Popery is the mere invention of man, & shall wither in the root from whence it sprung. For every plant which our heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out.  PHIL. 
Do not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist? And wherein can it consist, but in an oblation or sacrifice?  ORTHOD. 
First, some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham. Secondly, those which say it was offered unto God as a Sacrifice▪ may mean an Eucharistical Sacrifice, and not a propitiatory. Thirdly, if any of the Fathers say that he offered a propitiatory Sacrifice, yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist, that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatory Sacrifice: for those which hold so, must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine, by Melchisedec: the first to God, by way of Sacrifice: the second to Abraham, and the army in the manner of a banquet: the first might have relation to Christ upon the Cross: the second to the Eucharist. Fourthly, your Popish massing Sacrifice, presupposeth transubstantiation, which is contrary to Christ's institution of the Eucharist, as in due place shall be declared: Wherefore those fathers which understand the Eucharist, according to Christ's institution, cannot refer the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice.   

CHAP. III.  
Of their argument drawn from the Paschall Lamb.  PHIL. 
THe Sacrifice of the Mass, and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer, is proved by an argument drawn from the Paschall Lamb. And first it is clear by the Scripture, that the Paschal Lamb was a Sacrifice. For we read in 
a Exod 12. 21.  Exodus. Take you for every of your houshoulds a lamb, and immolate the Passeover. And again, 
b Exod. 12. 27.  You shall slay it, it is the Victim or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover. And in the 9 of Numbers, 
c Num. 9 6.  Certain men were defiled by a dead man, that they might not keep the Passeover the same day, and they came before Moses, and before Aaron the same day. And those men said unto him, we are defiled by a dead man: Wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an offering unto the Lord, in the time thereunto appointed? And again, 
d Ibid. ●. 13.  But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and is negligent to keep the Passeover, the same person shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season. And in the Gospel of S. Mark. 
e Mar. 14. 12  The first day of the Azyms, when they sacrificed the Passeover. And S. Paul saith, 
f 1. Cor. 5. 7.  Our Passeover Christ is immolated.  ORTHOD. 
Admit it were a Sacrifice, what can you conclude?  PHIL. 

g Ex Bell. de miss. l. 1. cap. 7.  The celebration of the Paschall Lamb was an express figure of the celebration of the Eucharist: Therefore if the Paschal Lamb, were a Sacrifice, the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice; that there may be a correspondency between the figure, and the thing figured.  ORTHOD. 
As other ceremonies of the Law, so the Paschall Lamb was most evidently and expressly a figure of Christ, and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ.  PHIL. 
The 
h Ibidem.  ceremony of the Paschal Lamb, was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist, then of the passion, as may appear by four circumstances. First, the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the month at even, and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist: but the passion was deferred until the day following.  ORTHOD. 
Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passover, therefore the wisdom of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passover. But this doth not prove that the Passeover was more principally a figure of the Eucharist, then of the passion: for what saith the Scripture? 
i joh. ●. ●9.  Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. How doth he take away the sins of the world? Is it not by his death and passion, as it is written, 
k Ephe. 1. 7.  we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins, according to his rich grace: And again, 
a Reu. 13. 8.  He is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this, that he was slain, which was not in the Eucharist, but upon the Crosse. Which is most evidently set down by the Evangelist Saint john, who rendereth this reason, 
b joh. 19 36.  why his legs were not broken, because it is written, there shall not a bone of him be broken.  PHIL. 
Secondly, 
c Bell. ibid. deinde.  The Lamb was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing over, and the deliverance of the people: and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father, by his passion, and of our deliverance from the power of Satan, by the death of Christ.  ORTHOD. 
If both be memorials of our deliverance by Christ, than one is not the body of the other, but the substance of both is Christ.  PHIL. 
Thirdly, 
d Ex Bell. ibid.  the Lamb was offered that it might be eaten, and so is the Eucharist: but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten, neither was there any then which ate him after he was so Sacrificed.  ORTHOD. 
If the Lamb were properly offered, than it was more truly a Type of Christ, then of the Eucharist. For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered upon the Cross, but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist: only Christ saith, 
e Luc. 22. 19  do this in remembrance of me. Whereby we learn that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memorial of Christ's oblation. Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten: Christ himself saith, 
f john 6. 53.  Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you▪ Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. And a little before, 
g john 6. 51.  The bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  PHIL. 
That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist.  ORTHO. 

h In joh. tract. 26.  Saint Austin showeth the contrary in these words. De mensa dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit. i. Some receive the sacrament from the Lords Table unto life, some unto destruction, but the thing itself whose sacrament it is, is to every one that is partaker thereof unto life, and to none unto destruction. And so is the flesh here spoken of. ●. Christ crucified, which is meat not for the body, but for the soul, to be eaten, not with the teeth, but with the heart, by a lively faith both in the Eucharist, and without it.  PHIL. 

i Ex Bell. ibid.  Fourthly, the Paschall Lamb could not be eaten, saving only of the circumcised and clean, and in jerusalem: so the Eucharist cannot be received, but only of the baptized, and clean, and in the Church: sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum ut in cruse immolatum fide manducare. i. But others also may and aught to eat Christ by faith, as he is offered upon the Crosse.  ORTHOD. 
Can the unclean eat Christ by faith? This is contrary to the Scripture, which teacheth, 
k Act. 15. 9  That God by faith doth purify the heart. Again, No unclean thing shall enter the kingdom of Heaven: but every believer shall have life everlasting; therefore no sound believer is to be reputed unclean.  PHIL. 

a Ex Bell. ibid. illud autem.  Faith goeth before both Baptism and justification; therefore a man may have faith before he be clean.  ORTHOD. 
Faith goeth before justification, only in the order of nature, and not in the order of time: but it may go before Baptism even in order of time, as the Eunuch believed before he was baptized. But wheresoever it is found, or whensoever, it purifieth the heart, and maketh the party clean. Wherefore notwithstanding all these frivolous objections, it is most sure and certain, that the Paschall Lamb was most expressly a Type of Christ's Passion.  PHIL. 
Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also?  ORTHOD. 
Because they were both representations of Christ, therefore there is great similitude and correspondency between them. And because the Passeover gave place to the Eucharist, therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ, yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist. But what then? Must it therefore follow, that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist? God commanded not only that the Paschall Lamb should be slain and immolated, but also that it should be eaten. Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled upon the Cross, where Christ our 
b 2. Cor. 5. 7.  Passeover was sacrificed for us, and not in the Eucharist; The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spiritual eating of Christ, both in the Sacrament and without.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of their Argument, drawn from certain places of the Prophets.  PHIL. 
I Will prove it by other testimonies of the Old Testament; And first by the Prophecy of that man of God that came to Eli, 
c 1. Sam. 2. 35.  I will stir me up a faithful Priest that shall do according to my heart, and according to my mind, and he shall walk before mine Anointed for ever.  ORTHOD. 
This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock: in Samuel who succeeded Eli; in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar, who was of the race of Eli: For 
d 1 King. 2. 27.  Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spoke against the house of Eli in Shilo.  PHIL. 

e Ex Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 9 De civitate Dei. l. 17. c. 3.  S. Austin answereth to this objection, that this Prophecy was fulfilled in Samuel or Sadock, insomuch as they did carry the figure of Christian Priests. And so the casting out of Eli, was a figure of the casting out of the aaronical Priesthood: and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc, was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priesthood; Which he proveth, because the Scripture when it saith, that Eli was to be cast out with his fathers, speaketh plainly of Aaron. For it nameth him, who was appointed of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt.  ORTHOD. 
Suppose all this were granted: what can you conclude? if the Lord promised, that he will raise himself up a faithful Priest, and thereby signified a Christian Priest, doth it therefore follow, that he speaketh of a Popish Priest?  PHIL. 
That the Lord meant a Priest properly, may appear by the Prophet Esay, who prophesying of the time of the New Testament, saith, 
a Esay 19 19  In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the midst of the land of Egypt. And again, 
b Verse 21.  The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and do Sacrifice and oblation. And again, 
c Esay 61. 6.  Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord, and men shall say unto you, the Ministers of our God.  ORTHOD. 
These may be expounded by other places of the same Prophet, 
d Esay 66. 20.  They shall bring all your brethren, for an offering unto the Lord Where it is clear, that the Prophet speaketh of Spiritual offerings, which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel, As S. Paul 
e Rom. 15. 16.  doth testify, That the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God, being sanctified by the holy Chost. Which conversion of the Gentiles, the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Levitical sacrifices, 
f Esay 60. 7.  All the sheep of Kedar shall be gathered unto thee: the Rams of Nebaioth shall serve thee: they shall come up to be accepted upon mine Altar: and I will beautify the house of my Glory. Likewise the Prophet David; 
g Psal. 51. 19  Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of Righteousness, even the burnt offering and Oblation: then shall they offer calves upon thine Altar. Where by calves, he understandeth the calves of the lips; that is, the sacrifice of Prayer, and Thanksgiving. The burnt offering also is to be expounded in the like manner, and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousness. And a little before he said, 
h Verse 17.  The sacrifices of God, are a contrite spirit. And as our Spiritual sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Levitical: so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Levites, 
i Esay 66. 21.  I will take of them for Priests and levites, saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly, for then the word Levite should likewise be taken properly; but I hope you will not say that your mass-priests are properly of the tribe of Levi. By these plain places we may expound the former by you alleged.  PHIL. 
NAy, they are Priests properly in regard of an external sacrifice 
2  properly so called, which they offer properly, as is evident by the Prophet Malachi, 
k Mala. 1. 11.  From the rising up of the Sun, to the going down of the same, my Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shallbe offered up to my Name, and a pure offering, for my Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts.  ORTHOD. 
The Priests here spoken of, are called the sons of Levi: are your mass-priests properly the sons of Levi?  PHIL. 
Of Levi? No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion.  ORTHOD. 
Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion.  PHIL. 
Not so: for here is mention of their offering, which is called A pure offering.  ORTHOD. 
That is to be expounded of Spiritual offerings in the judgement of the Fathers. 
l Iren. advers. haeres. l. 4. c. 33.  Irenaeus saith, In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem joannes in Apocalypsi, orationes esse ait sanctorum; That is, In every place incense is offered to my Name, and a pure sacrifice. But john in the Apocalyps saith, Incense is the prayers of Saints. And 
m August. contr. advers. Leg. & Proph. l. 1. c. 20.  Austen speaking of this very place of Malachy saith, Incensum quòd graecè Thymiama sicut exponit johannes in Apocalypsi Orationes sunt sanctorum, that is, Incense which in Greek is Thymiama, as john expoundeth it in the Apocalyps, is the prayers of the Saints. So 
a H●er in Mal. cap. 1.  Jerome saith, Thymiama, hoc est sanctorum orationes; Incense, that is the prayers of the Saints. 
b Demonst. evang. l. 1. p. 14. Lutetiae. per. R. Step. 1548.  Eusebius calleth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incense of prayers. Yea 
c Mal. 3. 3.  Malachy himself saith: the Lord shall purify the sons of Levi as gold and silver, that they may offer an offering to the Lord in righteousness.  PHIL. 
The words, sacrifice, oblation, and such like, when they are taken spiritually, are always restrained with some addition: as the sacrifice of prayer, of thanksgiving etc. But here the Prophet saith only a pure offering without any addition, or limitation. Now 
* Alan. de Euch. sacrif. l. 2. c. 5.  the word so taken by itself without any restraining terms, is always in the Scripture taken properly for the act of outward sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
That rule is not generally true, for the Prophet Esay 
d Esay 66. 20  saith, They shall bring of their brethren for an offering to the Lord o●t of all Nations: where he useth the very same word that Malachi here useth, and yet it is not meant that the Gentiles shallbe offered carnally but spiritually.  PHIL. 

e Alan. ibid.  This sacrifice of which the Prophet speaketh, is one: but the spiritual sacrifices are so many as are the good works of Christianity.  ORTHO. 
Though the word used by the Prophet, be of the singular number, yet by that offering many offerings may be signified, as when it is said 
f Heb. 10. 8.  Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not have.  PHIL. 

g Ex Alano, quo supra.  Spiritual sacrifices are common to us with the jews, but the Prophet speaketh of an oblation not common, but proper to the Gentiles, and the new law.  ORTHOD. 
They might every where pray and praise God, as well as we, but this was not a discharge of their duty, unless to these spiritual sacrifices, they annexed Carnal; to be offered at the time and place appointed; so their spiritual sacrifices were mixed, but ours are merely spiritual, and these are proper to the Gospel.  PHIL. 
The 
h Alanus quo supra.  offering spoken of by Malachi, doth succeed the offerings of the jews, and is offered in their place: but prayer, fasting and the works of charity succeed no sacrifices, but are joined with all kinds and sorts of sacrifices.  ORTHO. 
Though the spiritual sacrifices of the jews, and of the Christians were all one in substance; yet they differed in manner, because (as I said) theirs were mixedly, ours merely spiritual; and the merely succeed the mixed.  PHIL. 
Our 
i Alanus quo supra.  good works, how beautiful soever they seem, are stained and unclean, especially in the judgement of heretics, but this prophetical oblation is clean of itself, and so clean in respect of other sacrifices, that it cannot be polluted by us, nor by any Priests, how wicked soever they are.  ORTHOD. 
Are all our spiritual offerings unclean? then all our good works are unperfect: and if they be unperfect, they cannot justify, they are not meritorious, nor satisfactory.  PHIL. 
And if they be clean, as they must be, if they be the pure offering mentioned in Malachi, then may they justify, then are they meritorious and satisfactory.  ORTHO. 
Not so, for they are clean but unperfectly; they are clean because they proceed from the Crystalline fountain of the spirit of grace; they are unperfect, because they are wrought by the will of man, which is regenerate only in part, and so the pure Water gathereth mud, because it runneth through a muddy channel.  PHIL. 
If they be muddy, how can they be called the pure offering in Malachi?  ORTHOD. 
Because the denomination is of the worthier part, and the graces of God in his children are like unto the 
a Pro. 4. 18.  light which shineth more & more unto the perfect day: & though the flesh rebelleth against the spirit, yet at length the spirit shall have the victory, and the flesh shallbe abolished. In the mean time though our good works be stained with the flesh, yet God looketh not upon them as an angry judge, but as a loving Father crowning his own graces in us, and pardoning our offences. Now because they are imperfect, they cannot justify, merit, nor satisfy, yet because they are Gods graces, they are the pure offering in Malachi.  PHIL. 
Christ himself may seem to expound the Prophet Malachi, as we do, and withal to prophesy of the sacrifice of the mass in these words to the woman of Samaria, 
b joh. 4. 23.  The hour cometh, and now it is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and verity, for the Father also seeketh such to adore him. 
c Bel. de miss. l. 1. c. 11.  For in this place by adoration is not meant every adoration, but solemn and public, which is by sacrifice properly so called, which may be proved because the Samaritan speaketh of adoration tied to a certain place; 
d joh. 4. 20.  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship, which cannot be meant but only of adoration by sacrifice, and therefore if Christ answer the point, he must likewise speak of adoration by sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
Christ answered her question directly, when he said 
e Vers. 22.  You adore that you know not, we adore that we know, for salvation is of the jews, thereby teaching, that the jews which sacrificed at jerusalem, did according to knowledge, grounded upon the word of God: but the Samaritans which sacrificed in mount Garizim, had not the true knowledge of God: and when he had thus answered her question, concerning adoration by external sacrifice, he took occasion to declare the adoration which should be in the New Testament, not by external sacrifices, but in spirit and truth: as though he should say the place of solemn worship was jerusalem, the manner, by sacrifice; but now approacheth the time of the New Testament, wherein true worshippers, that is, all true Christians shall worship God, both privately and publicly, not only at jerusalem, but every where, not by external sacrifices, which were corporal and Typical, as in the time of the Law, but in spirit and truth, every where lifting up holy and pure hands unto the Lord of heaven. So this place affords small comfort, either for the Mass or the Massmonger.   

CHAP. V  
Of their argument drawn from the words of the institution of the Eucharist.  PHIL. 
THE words of institution yield invincible proof, that Christ at his last Supper sacrificed his very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, to God the Father, and commanded his Apostles and their successors to do the same unto the end of the world.  ORTHO. 
First you must prove that the very body and blood of Christ were under the forms of bread and wine, or else you will come short of your sacrifice.  PHIL. 
That is plain by the words of Christ: This is my body; This is my blood. For he spoke of those things which he had in his hands, and he calleth them his body & blood, but to outward appearance there was only bread and wine: therefore seeing the words of our Saviour must needs be true, it followeth, that the very body and blood of Christ were under the appearance of bread and wine.  ORTHOD. 
The words of our Saviour are most true, in that sense wherein he meant them: But it was his will that they should be taken Sacramentally, and not Substantially; which will appear if Scripture be expounded by Scripture, and Sacraments by Sacraments. To begin with Circumcision, the Lord said: 
a Genes. 17. 10  This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: let every man child be circumcised: hoc est foedus meum, this thing is my Covenant: what thing? that every man child be circumcised: therefore Circumcision is called the Covenant. But is it the covenant properly? it is impossible; therefore it is improperly and figuratively: for so God himself expounds it. 
b Vers. 11.  You shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and it shallbe a sign of the Covenant between me and you. Therefore Circumcision is called the Covenant, because it is a sign of the Covenant. But is it a bare and naked sign? not so, for the Apostle saith, 
c Rom. 4. 11.  he received the sign of Circumcision as the seal of righteousness of the faith which he had when he was yet uncircumcised: so circumcision was not only a sign to signify, but also a seal to confirm unto him the righteousness of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, and imputed to all that believe. Neither was this seal only promissory, but also exhibitory, delivering unto them Christ jesus with all his blessings. From Circumcision let us come to the Passeover: 
d Exod. 12. 11.  You shall eat it in haste, for it is the Lords Passeover. what shall they eat? was it not a Lamb? there a Lamb is the Lords Passeover. But why is it so called? The Lord himself expoundeth it, saying, 
e Vers. 13.  the blood shall be a token for you: so the Lamb is called a Passeover, because it was a token, that is, a sign and a seal of the Lords passing over them. From the ordinary Sacraments of the Old Testament, let us come to the extraordinary. Saint Paul speaking of the Rock, saith, 
f 1. Cor. 10. ●  and this Rock was Christ; 
g Petra Christus ●n signo▪ tract. in john. 26.  which Saint Austin expoundeth truly and learnedly: not in substance but in signification. From the Sacraments of the Old Testament, let us come to the new. In the 6. to the Romans it is said, 
a Rom. 6. 4.  we are buried with him by baptism into his death: upon which Saint 
b Aug. ep. 23.  Austin saith: the Apostle saith not we signify the burial, but he saith flatly we are buried together with him: so he called the Sacrament of so great a thing, no otherwise then by the name of the thing itself. To which agreeth your own jesuit; 
c Tollet. in Rom. c. 6.  Baptizati una cum Christo sepeliuntur, idest, Christi sepulturam representant. That is, those that are baptised are buried together with Christ, that is, they represent the burial of Christ From Baptism let us come to the Lords Supper, which consisteth of two courses; the Bread representing his Body, and the Wine representing his Blood, the former may be expounded by the latter. For Christ calleth 
d Luk. 20. 22.  This Cup The new Testament, because it is a sign and seal of the new Testament. Therefore when it is said this is my Body, and this is my Blood: the words must likewise be taken, figuratively; and sacramentally; as though it were said: this Bread and this Wine, is a sign and a seal of my Body and Blood. Yea these very words, this is my Body, may be expounded by the like words, signifying the same thing: 
e 1. Cor. 10. 16.  the Bread that we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? which word Communion must of necessity be taken figuratively, and sacramentally, for a sign and seal of this Communion. The Apostles were well acquainted with this figure and used it themselves before the institution of the Sacrament; for they said unto jesus, 
f Mat. 26. 17.  where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passeover? by Passeover meaning the Paschall Lamb, which was a sign and memorial of the Passeover. Thus the whole course of Scripture proclaimeth, that these words this is my body, must not be expounded Substantially, but Sacramentally. So the meaning is: this is my body, that is, this Bread is a Sign, Seal, and Sacrament of my Body.  PHIL. 
When it is said, hoc est Corpus meum; this is my body, the 
g Bel. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 10.  opinion of Catholics is, that the word (this) doth not demonstrate the Bread.  ORTHOD. 
Why then saith the 
h Mark 14. 12.  Scripture, jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it and gave it to them▪ saying, take, eat, this is my Body. First, he took; what took he? he took Bread, material Bread, such as was upon the Table. After he had taken, he blessed; what did he bless? be blessed that which he took; but that was material Bread, therefore he blessed the material Bread. After he had blessed, he broke and gave; what did he break and give? the same which he had blessed, therefore as he blessed the material Bread, so he broke and gave the material Bread; when he gave he said, take and eat: what should they take and eat but that which he gave? therefore seeing he gave material Bread, he commanded them likewise to take and to eat the material Bread. When he had said take and eat, he added immediately, this is my Body. This? what this? this that he had taken, this that he had blessed, this that he had broken? this that he gave them, this that he commanded them to take and eat. This, and nothing but this, he calleth his Body. But this was material Bread, as hath been proved, and therefore when he said this is my Body, the pronoun (this) did demonstrate the material Bread.  2. PHIL. 
HE 
i Respondes, dominum accepisse ac benedix●sse panem, sed dedisse panem, non vulgar●m, ut acceperat, sed benedictum, & benedictione mutatum. Bel. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11.  took bread, & blessed bread, but after the blessing, it was changed.  ORTHOD. 
As the Paschall Lamb was changed, when of a common Lamb, it was made a Type of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world: or as the water of Baptism is changed, when of common water, it is made a holy representation of the blood of Christ: So the Bread and Wine are changed in the Lord's Supper, that is, in use, not in substance, for before they be brought to the Lords Table, they are common Bread and common Wine, for the feeding of the body, but when they are sanctified according to Christ's institution, than the God of heaven setteth another stamp upon them, and maketh them a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: yet as the lamb still remained a lamb in substance: as the water even in the action of Baptizing, still remaineth water in substance: so the Bread and Wine still retain their former substance, even after the blessing. For Christ did break the Bread after he had blessed it, yet still it was Bread, as the Apostle witnesseth, saying, the 
a 1. Cor. 10. 16.  Bread that we break. Yea the Communicants do eat it after it is broken, and still it is Bread, even in the mouths of the Communicants, For S. Paul saith, 
b 1. Cor. 11. 28.  Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread. Neither is it called Bread, because it was bread, but because it is Bread, not in name only, but in nature and properties. For after Consecration it nourisheth the body as before, it is subject to fall upon the ground, to be eaten of Mice, to be devoured of Beasts, to be burned in the fire, to be turned to ashes, and to suffer putrefaction: which cannot be affirmed of the body of Christ, because 
c Psal. 16. 10. Act. 2. 27.  that holy one shall not see corruption: so the wine after Consecration, doth not only nourish and comfort the heart, but if the Priest drink too much of it, it will intoxicate his brain, yea and if it be kept too long, it will be turned to vinegar, and putrefy. All which things do argue, that the elements do still retain the true nature and substance of Bread and Wine, and are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, in corporal manner by virtue of the blessing. But that we may understand this the better, I pray you, tell me what is meant by the blessing.  PHIL. 
THe blessing is the same with Consecration, and was performed 
4  in these words, this is my Body.  ORTHOD. 
The Scripture expounds blessing by thanksgiving. For Saint 
d Mat. 26. 26.  Matthew, Saint 
e Luk. 22. 19  Luke and Saint 
f 1. Cor. 11. 24.  Paul say, that when Christ had given thanks he broke the bread, Saint 
g Mar. 14. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Mark saith, that when he had blessed, he broke it. So Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul, say that when Christ had given thanks, he gave the Cup, and mention not the blessing of it: Yet Saint 
h 1. Cor. 10. 16.  Paul elsewhere calleth it the Cup of blessing. Likewise whereas Saint 
i Luk. 12. 16.  Luke saith, that Christ took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looked up to heaven, and blessed them: Saint 
k joh. 6. 11.  john saith, that jesus took the bread, and gave thanks; whereby it is evident, that the holy Ghost useth the word blessing, and thanksgiving indifferently. But withal we must observe that under the word thanksgiving, is comprehended prayer. As when the 
l 1. Tim. 4. 5.  Apostle teacheth us to receive the creature with thanksgiving, he renders this reason, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Where it is plain that thanksgiving in the former place, comprehendeth prayer, and the word Prayer used in the latter place, comprehendeth thanksgiving: as though the Apostle should have said; we on our part must receive the creature with prayer and thanksgiving, because it is sanctified as on God's part, by his word and ordinance, so on our part, by prayer and thanksgiving. Secondly, we must observe that the creature may be sanctified to a double use: That is, either corporal or spiritual, and to both by prayer, and thanksgiving. Thirdly, that the sanctifying of a creature is in the Scripture called blessing, as when it is said, the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Now our Lord jesus intending to institute a Sacrament, took the bread and gave thanks, not only for the bread, but especially for the redemption of the Church, and prayed that these elements of Bread and Wine, might be everlastingly sanctified to Sacramental use, thus the Bread and Wine were blessed. And whereas you with 
a Bell. de Sacr. Euchar. l. 4. c. 13  Bellarmine and others say, that this blessing was performed by these words, this is my Body, it cannot be; For the blessing was finished, before those words were uttered. Saint Mark saith, that 
b Mark. 14. 22.  when he had blessed the Bread, he broke it, by which it is evident that the blessing was accomplished before the bread was broken, & it is manifest that he broke it before he gave it, therefore the blessing was finished before the Bread was given. But he gave it, saying, take eat, this is my body, therefore the blessing was finished before he said, this is my body. Now how is it possible that he should bless by those words seeing the blessing was fully ended before those words were begun? Wherefore Cardinal 
* In Mat. c. 26  Caietan doth rightly call it, benedictionem laudis, non Consecrationis. i. the blessing of praise, and not of Consecration. But if we should imagine, that he blessed by saying, this is my body, would not this imagination invert the order of the actions of Christ?  PHIL. 
THere are many Hysterologies in holy Scripture, and therefore 
5  no marvel if there be one here. Now the words and actions of Christ, reduced to their natural Method, are thus to be ordered. 
c Durantus de rit. Eccle. Cath. l. 2. c. 38. n. 19  He took the Bread and when he had blessed, saying, this is my body, he broke it and gave it saying, take and eat.  ORTHOD. 
Aquinas saith, that these words were uttered 
d Aquin. in Ep. 1. ad cor. c. 11. Lect. 5.  none consequenter sed concomitanter: meaning that he blessed by these words, this is my body, yet so, that the words were in pronouncing all the while that he broke and gave the Bread. But this vanisheth of itself, because, as hath been proved out of the text, the blessing was finished, before the words were begun. Cardinal 
e Bessar. de Euchar.  Bessarion ordereth them thus: he took the bread, and when he had blessed, saying, take eat, this is my body, he broke it and gave it. But this may also be confuted by the same reason: and moreover it containeth an absurdity; for so he should bid them take it before he gave it. And thirdly, if he blessed, saying, take eat, this is my body, then take and eat, are words of blessing as well as this is my body. Now you with Durantus' order them thus: he took the bread, and when he had blessed, saying, this is my body: he broke it, and gave it, and said, take and eat: but this is also confuted by the same argument drawn from the blessing. Secondly, the word (saying) which is but once in the Text, by ordering them thus, is used twice. Thirdly, the words, Take, eat, which Christ used first, are put last. Fourthly, whereas Christ spoke all in one continual sentence, the sentence is dismembered, and torn into two. These inconveniences, your own Doctors Sotus and Caietanus did see, and avoid. For as your learned 
a Christof. Archiep. Caesariensis de cap. fontium in varijs tra●l.  Archbishop affirmeth, in his Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus, Hi tenent eundem fuisse ordinem rerum, & narrationis evangelicae; That is, They hold that the actions of Christ were done in the same order, wherein they are reported by the Evangelists. But let us feign that the words and actions are to be ordered, as you would have them: yet notwithstanding, by the word hoc, must needs be meant the Bread: for if he took the bread and blessed it, saying, Thus is my body, what can be meant by the pronoun thus, but only this bread?  PHIL. 
THe pronoun this, cannot demonstrate the Bread: 
b Bell. de sacram. Euchre. l. 1. c. 10.  for Bread is 
6  the Masculine gender, both in Greek and Latin. But the Pronoune, this, is the Neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and hoc in Latin. Which agreeth in Gender with the word body, which both in Greek and Latin, is the Neuter gender.  ORTHOD. 
Indeed if you take it adiectively, it cannot concord, and therefore it is not so to be taken, but substantively, and might be Englished, This thing is my body.  PHIL. 
If you take it so, you make an absurd Proposition: For a 
c Bell. ibid.  thing that is seen and openly known, cannot be termed this thing, unless that thing be of the Neuter gender: for no man when he demonstrateth his brother, will say, this thing is my brother, or demonstrating the Image of Caesar, will say, This thing is Caesar: therefore neither could it be rightly said of the Bread, which the disciples did see, This thing is my body. The reason is, because the subiectum of the Proposition should be better known then the praedicatum, therefore when the subiectum is known to the hearers in particular, it ought not to be uttered by a name that is general, but then only it ought to be uttered by a name that is general, when it is not known, but only in general. As for example; Certain men see a thing afar of, but yet they discern not what it is, whether a tree, a stone, or a man, but I see that it is a man; Wherefore I will say to the rest, that thing is a man, and not he is a man; But if they see him to be a man, yet do not discern who it is, Peter or Paul, or some other, I will not say, that thing is Peter, because they know it already to be a man; But I will say he is Peter. Therefore seeing the disciples did see the Bread, and were not ignorant that it was Bread, it had been a most absurd speech, if of that Bread the Lord had said, This thing is my body, when he should have said, This Bread is my body: therefore it cannot be that the word hoc, should demonstrate the Bread as the subject of the Proposition.  ORTHO. 
A thing that is seen and openly known, may be expressed by a pronoun of the Neuter gender, without absurdity, although the thing itself be not of the Neuter gender. As for example; When the Lord brought the woman unto the man, he said, 
d Gene. 2. 22.  Hoc nunc est os ex ossibus meis, i. Now this is bone of my bones. For what think you is meant by hoc?  PHIL. 
By hoc undoubtedly is meant the woman; and it is as much as though he should say (to use the words of 
e Comment. in Gene. l. 4.  Pererius,) Domine Deus, quae prius ad me adduxisti animalia, non erant mihi similia; haec autem mulier quam nunc ad me adduxisti, est planè similis mei; That is, O Lord God, The beasts which before thou broughtest unto me, were not like unto me; but this woman which thou hast brought unto me, is very like unto me.  ORTHOD. 
If hoc in the words of Adam, may and must be taken for haec mulier, without any absurdity, Why may not the same hoc in the words of Christ be taken for hic panis, without any absurdity? For in such cases we must not so much respect the subtleties of Logic, as the use of Grammar.  PHIL. 
I 
a Bell. quo supra.  Add a most strong Argument out of the Scripture: for if when it is said, 
7.  This is my body, the pronoun this, demonstrate the Bread; Then when it is said, this is my blood, the pronoun this, should demonstrate the Wine. But 
b Luke 22. 20.  S. Luke denieth that, when he saith, This is the Chalice, the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you; Where these words (which is shed) are not joined in construction with these words (in my Blood,) but with these (this Chalice,) as it appeareth out of the Greek: therefore S. Luke saith, that the Chalice was shed for us. Now the vessel or Wine was not shed for us, but the true blood: therefore the Chalice signifieth not a Chalice of Wine, but a Chalice of Blood.  ORTHOD. 
This Argument, for all the imagined strength, is but a rotten reed, whereupon if you lean, you will lie in the ditch, and the truncheon of it will run into your hands. For the better demonstration whereof, let me first ask you when, and how the bread is changed into the Body, and the wine into the Blood?  PHIL. 
The Council of Trent saith, 
c Sess. 13. c. 1. Bin. ●. 4 p. 824.  First of all the holy Synod teacheth, and professeth openly, That in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine, our Lord jesus Christ very God and man, is contained under the forms of these sensible things, truly, really, and substantially. By which we learn, that the change is made after the words of Consecration.  ORTHOD. 
Is it made successively, or in an instant?  PHIL. 

d Bell. de Eucharist. l. 3. c. 24.  Cardinal Bellarmine saith, That it is, In ultimo instantiterminativo illius prolationis, i. In the last instant which closeth up the pronunciation of the words.  ORTHOD. 
If it be in the last instant, than it is not before the last syllable; and therefore all the while the Priest is saying, Hoc est corpus me- there is no change, till he come to the end of- 'em. And so long as there is no change, it remaineth bread in substance, and consequently according to your own doctrine at the pronouncing of hoc, there is bread in substance, and not the Body of Christ. Wherefore the pronoun this, must of necessity demonstrate bread, and not the Body of Christ; So when it is said, This is my blood, the pronoun this, doth demonstrate the wine, and not the blood of Christ.  PHIL. 
That which was shed for us, was the true Blood of Christ, but this Chalice is said to be shed for us, as may appear by the Greek in that place of Luke; therefore this Chalice, (that is, that which is contained in the Chalice) was the true blood of Christ. Now, where S. Luke saith, This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood, S. Matthew, and S. Mark have, This is my Blood, understanding by the pronoun this, the same thing that S. Luke doth by this Chalice; but he meant, as I declared, not a Chalice of Wine, but of Blood: therefore the pronoun this, doth not demonstrate the Wine, but the Blood.  ORTHOD. 
The foundation of your Argument is, that this Chalice in S. Luke is said to be shed for us; but this I deny.  PHIL. 
It appeareth by the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it is to be construed, that the Chalice was shed.  ORTHOD. 
It pleaseth the spirit of God in the Greek Testament, sometimes to depart from that phrase and Analogy of speech, which is usual in other Greek Authors, either to express some hebraism, or for some other reason best known to his heavenly wisdom: therefore though a participle with an article praepositive, should regularly be governed of somewhat going before of the same case number and gender: yet there are sundry examples in Scripture where it is otherwise, the Article supplying the place of a relative: as for example, 
a Revel. 1. 4. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where according to the ordinary Greek, it should be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: ab ente, but it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where the Article praepositive: standeth for a relative, as though he should say in Latin Ab eo qui est: likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be according to the usual Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which concordeth not with any thing going before, but the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standeth for a relative as though it were said in Latin, ab eo qui venturus, the like is to be said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which it is evident, that the spirit of God departeth from the Analogy of the Greek tongue, and useth sometimes the Article for a relative, and so it may be used in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and may be translated thus, in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effusus est. Therefore though in another Author which tied himself to the usual Greek, it were requisite to refer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ yet in the New Testament there is no such necessity. Wherefore seeing according to the speech of the holy Ghost, the words stand indifferently to be referred to both constructions, let us now consider the thing itself, that so we may find the true construction of the words. The holy Ghost in these words of Saint Luke declareth, what Christ said when he delivered the cup: the same thing is expressed both in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark, and both of them use the same participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and refer it clearly and emdently to blood, both in the Greek and your vulgar Latin, and not unto the Cup. Whereby we are taught that though in Saint Luke the construction stand indifferently between the blood and the cup, yet by conference of Scripture, it is restrained unto the blood, and not unto the cup: so the sense of the place is, this cup, (that is the wine in this cup) is the New Testament, that is (a sign and seal of the New Testament) in my blood, which blood is shed for you. And that it must needs be meant of the cup of wine, may appear by Saint Matthew, saying, And when he had taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it them saying, Drink ye all of this. For by your own confession before the words of Consecration it was wine, but Christ said this before the words of Consecration, and therefore he spoke of wine: but he addeth immediately, for this (which I give you to drink) is my blood: therefore he calleth the wine his blood; so the pronoun (this) demonstrateth the wine. For how can it be otherwise? You confess that it was wine, till the words of Consecration were ended: but when he said (this) the words were not ended: and therefore then, according to your own principles it was wine, which is agreeable to the Fathers. 
b Tertul. l. 4. cont. Marcionem. p. 879.  Tertullian: why (saith he) doth Christ call Bread his body? 
c De ●nctione Chris. 7. if it be Cyprians as some of our adver ●ries urge 〈◊〉.  Cyprian: Our Lord at his table gave Bread and Wine with his own hands, on the Cross he yielded his body to the soldiers hands to be wounded, that his Apostles might teach Nations, how Bread and Wine was his flesh and blood. 
d Huius conditioins quae est secu●●lum not, acc●piens panem suum corpus confitebatur. l. 5. c. 57  Irenaeus: the Lord taking bread of this quality and condition, which is usual among us, confessed it to be his body? 
a Epist. 150. ad Hibid. q. x.  Hierome: Let us hear that the bread which the Lord broke, and gave to his Disciples is the Lords body, himself saying, Take eat, this is my body: 
b In 1. cor. c. 11.  Athanasius: What is the bread? the body of Christ. 
c Cyril▪ Hieros. Catechis. myst. 4. initio quum igitur Christus ipsesic affirmet, atque dicat de pane, hoc est corpus meum etc.  Cyrill: Christ thus avoucheth and saith of the bread, this is my body: 
d Dial. 1.  Theodoret: In the very giving of the mysteries he calleth bread his body. All these Testimonies and sundry others from time to time have been set before you by learned Divines sufficient to persuade any reasonable man, that when Christ said, this is my body, this is my blood, the pronoun (this) did demonstrate the bread and the wine: and for mine own part I see no reason, why you should deny it, for your Church teacheth a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine, into the body and blood of Christ. Now if the pronoun (this) do not demonstrate the bread and the wine, than there is no bread and wine signified in the words of Christ, and if Christ speak not in those words of bread and wine, than it is impossible to prove out of these words any transubstantiation of the bread and wine, and so you have made shipwreck upon this rock.  
NOw if the pronoun (this) do not demonstrate the bread, what else 
8  shall it demonstrate? The 
e Gloss●. in dist. 2. de Consecrat. Timorem▪ dico quod per hane dictionem (hoc) nihil demonstratur: nam ipsa material●ter ponitur.  Gloss of the Canon law saith, The word (hoc) is taken materially and signifieth nothing. How say you? have you not spun a Fair thread, so to toss and tumble the words of Christ, that you have brought all to nothing? if you will say that it must needs signify some thing, then let us consider what this some thing shallbe. 
f In Marco Anton. cited by Bishop jewel. repl. art. 24.  Stephen Gardiner did make it a kind of individuum vagum, as though he should say somewhat it is, but I know not what, but this cannot stand; because the pronoun (hoc) being a demonstrative must of necessity demonstrate some certain and sensible thing: what shallbe this be? 
g In 4. sent. distinct. 13.  Occam saith, Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi: the pronoun (this) is referred to the body of Christ, but than it is an identical proposition, signifying that the body of Christ is the body of Christ, which were an idle speech and to no purpose. Yet it would clean overthrow your transubstantiation. Therefore others think that by (hoc) should be meant, Hoc ens, as Scotus, or haec substantia, as 
h Pronomen (hoc) nondemonstrat panem neque corpus Christi sed hanc substantiam. Ca●etan. in cap. 26. Math.  Caietan; well, what can this ens, or this substantia, be, but only the Bread, and therefore why should they thus walk in Mists and Clouds, and not rather clearly confess the truth? But 
i De forma verb▪ requisita. c. 4. cited by Bishop jewel. reply. art. 24.  johannes de Burgo will make all cock sure: for he saith, Hoc sub hac specie praesens vel de propinquo futurum est corpus meum: that is, That which is present under this show, or shortly shallbe, is my body. He durst not say simply (that which is present) for then he must either say the Bread, or the Body, but if he said Bread he should have said as we say which had been dangerous, and to expound it of the body, had been against his own conscience, because the words of Consecration were not yet finished. Therefore being in a quandary; what to say, he thought he would speak safely, though thereby he showed himself but slenderly resolved. Behold what it is for men to leave the written word, and to wander in the wilderness of their own imaginations. But I hope you have hammered this point better, and therefore I pray you let us hear your judgement.  PHIL. 
THe opinion of Catholics is that (Hoc) doth not demonstrate 
9  the bread, but the thing contained under the forms of Bread, which although it were formerly Bread, tamen tunc iam erat Christi Corpus, (as 
a De sacram. ●●ch. l. 1. c. 10.  Bellarmine saith) that is, notwithstanding even then it was the body of Christ.  ORTHOD. 
What meaneth Bellarmine by tunc iam?  PHIL. 
His meaning may appear by that which he saith of the Wine, by occasion of these words, Bibite ex hoc omnes: Drink you all of this. For that clause (of this) doth not 
b Cap. 11.  (saith he) signify of this Wine, but of that which is contained in the Cup under the forms of Wine, which verily although it was Wine before Consecration, yet the words of Consecration being ended, it was not Wine but Blood: so though there were bread before Consecration, yet tunc iam, then presently, it was the Body of Christ.  ORTHOD. 
If there were not the Body and Blood till after Consecration, than he must confess out of his principles, that the pronoun this doth distinctly demonstrate the Bread and Wine. Therefore he spoke against his own conscience before when he denied it. But why should you so dally and go about to delude us with doubtful terms? why do you stagger and stammer in this manner? you say it is not Bread, but that which is contained under the forms of Bread: as though that which is contained under the forms of Bread, were not the substance of Bread. For it must of necessity either be the substance of Bread, or the substance of Christ's Body, as witnesseth your own Archbishop. 
c Arch. Caesari●ns. tract. par. disp. de necess. correct Theol. s●holast. l. 1. f. 17. B.  Cum scriptura duarum tantum substantiarum quae demonstrari hic queant, meminerit, viz. panis & Corporis, nescio cur fingant tertiam aliquam, quae nec panis sit nec Corpus, quae tamen per pronomen demonstretur, in quo magnam Scripturae vim faciunt, infarcientes illi ex suo cerebro tertiam istam rem cuius nullam habet mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio falsa esset: si autem nullam tertiam rem ponere se dicunt, quae sit alia a Christi Corpore, cur tot verba effutiunt ad docendum quod Corpus non demonstretur? cur nudam nobis rem non proponunt? cur tot illam verborum involucris contegunt? in Dei verbo duarum tantum Substantiarum mentio habetur, & revera nulla substantia fuit in Christi manibus post acceptum panem, praeter panem & Corpus, quae per pronomen demonstrari possit, & tamen solam illam substantiam singularem demonstrabat, quae erat in suis manibus sub speciebus panis. Tertiam ergo quaerere a pane & Corpore discretam, vanissimus labor est & absurditate plenus. i. When the Scripture maketh mention only of two substances which can here be demonstrated, that is of the Bread and the body, I know not why they should feign any third, which is neither Bread nor Body, and yet is demonstrated by the pronoun; Wherein they offer great violence to the Scripture, stuffing into it out of their own brain this third thing whereof they have no mention, which being granted, the proposition should be false. But if they say they put no third thing which is diverse from the Body of Christ, why do they spend so many words to teach that the Body is not demonstrated? Why do they not propose to us the naked matter? why do they hide it with so many folds of words? In the word of God there is only mention of two Substances, and verily there was no substance in Christ's hands beside Bread and his Body which can possibly be demonstrated by the pronoun, and yet he did demonstrate only that singular substance which was in his hands under the forms of Bread: therefore to seek a third distinct from the Bread and the Body is a labour most vain and full of absurdity. For what shall this third thing be? you say it is 
a Bel. de sacram. euchar. c. 10.  that which is contained under the shapes of Bread and Wine, but what is that? your own 
b Quo supra.  Archbishop saith, quic quid dixerint, semper eo cogendi sunt ut dicant an Corpus an panis ostendatur in singulari, quia pronomen vice nominis proprij positum pro solo singulari sumipossit, That is, what soever they shall say, they are still to be urged to this issue that they tell us whether the Body or Bread be demonstrated in particular, because a pronoun put in place of a proper noun, must needs be taken for a particular or singular. One of these two it must needs be, unless you will speak vainly and absurdly. Now the Body of Christ it cannot be, for than it should be there before Consecration, and without Consecration; and consequently it should be the Body of Christ, before it were the body; and there should be blood in the Chalice before Consecration, & without Consecration; and consequently it should be blood before it were blood, and blood without blood: which are intolerable absurdities. Thus you have forsaken the fountain of living water, & digged unto yourselves broken ceasterns which will hold no water. You have left the Scripture and the Fathers, you wander in the wilderness of your own conceits, and lose yourselves in the labyrinth of your own imaginations. How much better were it to confess the truth with the Scripture and the Fathers, and give the glory to God? your own Cardinal 
c Petrus de Aliaco in 4. s. q. 6. art. 2.  Petrus de Aliaco did see even in the darkness of Popery, that the Bread remained after Consecration; Patet quod iste modus est possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati biblicae, imo est facilior ad intelligendum & rationabilior. i. It is apparent that this manner is possible, neither is it repugnant to reason, nor to the authority of the Bible, yea it is more easy to understand, and more reasonable. Now the Bread in substance cannot be the Body of Christ in substance, but in signification. And consequently, the proposition cannot be understood substantially, but sacramentally.  PHIL. 
Christ did not say, this signifieth my Body, or this is a Sacrament of my Body, or this is my Body sacramentally, but he said absolutely, this is my Body.  ORTHOD. 
He spoke the words of wisdom, and that in the most excellent manner, for which manner of speech two reasons may be rendered. The first because he was desirous to speak most emphatically: when we see a child like unto his father, we use to say this child hath his father's face, and yet we mean only that he is very like unto his father, yet we say not he is like unto his father, but he hath his father's face, to express a most wonderful similitude in a most emphatical manner. So if one should have seen the image of Alexander made by Phidias, he might have said this is Alexander himself, not meaning that his words should be taken properly, but to express the similitude most emphatically. Even so our Lord jesus willing to express in how lively manner the Bread and Wine do represent his Body and Blood, doth not say that they signify his Body and Blood, or that they are signs and Sacraments of his Body and Blood, but speaking most significantly he saith this (Bread) is my Body, this (Wine) is my Blood. Another reason is because our sweet Saviour would seal all his comfortable blessings unto the soul of the worthy receiver, as if a King bestowing a Castle upon one of his subjects, and reaching unto him the sealed writing containing the grant, should say unto him, behold here, take what I give thee, it is such a Castle. For though he might have said, this writing doth signify the gift of such a Castle, yet it is more significant and more comfortable to say, it is such a Castle. For so the king doth cheer up his heart, and by that writing doth put him into actual possession of the Castle. Even so our Lord jesus, though he might have said, this is a sacrament of my body, yet to give us more cordial comfort, he saith, this is my body, assuring us thereby, that in giving us that Bread, he giveth us himself, and putteth us in actual possession of his graces and blessings, purchased unto us by his body and blood.  PHIL. 
Suppose we should grant that the pronoun (this) did signify the bread, what could you conclude?  ORTHOD. 

a De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.  Bellarmine may teach you, who declareth out of the writings of Luther, that the words of the Evangelist, this is my body, according to Luther, do carry this sense, this bread is my body. Which sentence, saith Bellarmine, must either be taken tropically, that the bread may be the body of Christ, by way of signification, or it is plainly absurd and impossible. For it cannot be, that bread should be the body of Christ (properly:) wherefore the scholars of Luther, had rather run back to a trope, then admit a manifest absurdity. Here is a clear confession that if by (this) be meant this bread, than the proposition must needs be taken tropically, that is, as we take it, or otherwise, it is absurd and impossible. But it were blasphemy to say that Christ spoke absurdities, and impossibilities, therefore if the pronoun (this) do demonstrate the bread, the proposition must needs carry that sense which we make of it, and then the Protestants have gotten the victory by the confession of your most learned Cardinal. For great is the truth and prevaileth. So your carnal presence, and consequently both your sacrifice and Priesthood do fall to the ground.  
ANd if for disputations sake we should feign, (though indeed it be a 
11.  mere fiction) that the body of Christ were corporally and carnally in the Sacrament, yet for all this, you are never able to prove your Sacrifice, upon which your Priesthood dependeth, because the Scripture acknowledgeth no other, then that upon the Crosse. For 
b Heb. 9 12.  neither by the blood of goats, and calves, but by his own blood, (which the Scripture elsewhere calleth the 
c Col. 1. 20.  blood of the Cross) entered he in once into the holy place and obtained eternal redemption for us. 
d Ver. 9 24.  He is entered into the very heaven, to appear now in the sight of God for us, Not that he should offer himself often as the high Priest entered into the holy place, every year with other blood, (for then must he have often suffered since the foundation of the world) but now in the end of the world, he hath appeared once, to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. 
e Ver. 27. 28.  And as it is appointed unto men that they shall once die, and after that cometh the judgement, so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. 
f Heb. 10. 12.  This man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God, and from henceforth tarrieth till his enemies be made his footstool. For with one offering hath he Consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. If Christ have shed, offered, and sacrificed his blood not often but once, and that upon the Cross, then can it not be really shed, offered, and sacrificed in the Eucharist. If by one oblation, he hath obtained an eternal redemption, put away sin, and Consecrated for ever those that are sanctified; then your sacrificing of him is vain and unprofitable, contrary to the Scripture, and injurious to the all-sufficient sacrifice of jesus Christ.  PHIL. 
He was sacrificed once, and not often, in that manner as he was upon the Cross; yet he was sacrificed in the Eucharist also, as I will prove both by the words of Christ, and by his actions. First, by his words, for he said, this is my body which is given for you: or as it is in Saint Paul, which is broken for you: And again, this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you. 
a Ex Bell. l. 1. de Missa. c. 12. preter illa.  Is shed, is broken is given, not to you, but to God for you. Do not these words argue a real, actual, and proper sacrifice?  ORTHOD. 
They argue a sacrifice to God, not in the Supper, but on the Crosse.  PHIL. 
You must consider that it is not said, which shall be given, shall be broken, shall be shed, but which is given, is broken, is shed, which argues that the place is not to be expounded of the sacrifice of the Cross, that was to come, but of a sacrifice in the Eucharist, which was present.  ORTHOD. 
The present tense, is used for the future, funditur for fundetur: for proof whereof, I will produce two witnesses, which with you are most authentical, the vulgar translation, and the Canon of the Mass, in both which it is not funditur, is shed, but fundetur shall be shed. Whereby you may learn 
b Missale Romanum.  that the present tense used in the Greek, is to be expounded by the future used in the Latin, and consequently it is to be understood of the sacrifice of the Cross, which was to come.  PHIL. 

c Bell. quo supra.  Both are true, and neither of the readings ought to be denied, and especially that of the present tense, because the Evangelists and S. Paul, did write in the present tense.  ORTHOD. 
Ex ore tuo serve nequam: Is funditur in the present tense, less to be denied, because the Evangelists, and S. Paul did write in the present tense? is it so indeed, albeit the Canon of the Mass, and your vulgar translation which may not be rejected under any pretence, have fundetur in the future tense? then it seemeth that the blessed originals are to be preferred before a translation, whatsoever the Counsel of Trent have said to the contrary. O the force of truth, which breaketh out like lightning, and shineth in darkness, though the darkness comprehendeth it not! but this by the way. Now for the present point, though the vulgar hath not expressed the letter of the text, yet it hath well expressed the sense. For Cardinal 
d Caietan 1. Cor. 11.  Caietan confesseth that the Evangelists did use the present tense, in saying the blood is shed: and S. Paul in saying, the body is broken, and signified the future shedding and breaking upon the Cross: and the jesuit 
e Salmeron in 1. Cor. 11. disp. 19 p. 154.  Salmeron saith, Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae, ut ea dicantur fieri de praesenti, quae confestim esse aut mox fieri debent: that is, it is not to be denied, that it is the manner of the Scripture, that those things should be said to be presently done, which ought to be immediately, or to be done by and by. Yea Cardinal 
f Caiet. ibid.  Caietan goeth further, and saith, Tempus effus●onis & fractionis erat tum presence, quoniam inchoatum erat tempus passionis: that is, the time of shedding and breaking was then present, because the time of his Passion was begun. Thus you see that this shedding and breaking which the Spirit of God expressed in the present tense, may aptly be expounded of the sacrifice of the Cross, and that according to the custom of the Scripture, even in the judgement of your own men. Therefore you cannot hence conclude any sacrifice in the Eucharist.  PHIL. 
YEs, it may be proved by the words of Christ, as they are related by 
12.  S. Paul, This is my body which is broken for you. For seeing the Evangelists do say, (Given for you,) meaning to God as a sacrifice: therefore this breaking also must be expounded of a sacrifice. Now, breaking agreeth not to the Body of Christ, but only as it is in the form of bread: therefore S. Paul speaketh of Christ, as he was sacrificed in the Eucharist under the form of bread.  ORTHOD. 
The word breaking may properly be applied to Christ upon the Crosse. For the Prophet Esay speaking of the Passion, saith, 
a Esay 53. 5.  He was broken for our iniquity. And again, 
b Verse 1●.  The Lord would break him, and make him subject to infirmities; And though it be most true, that there was not a bone of him broken, yet when he was nailed upon the Cross, his skin, his flesh, his sinews, his veins were properly broken. Therefore this doth not evince any sacrifice in the Eucharist, but only upon the Crosse.   

CHAP. VI  
Of their Argument drawn from the Actions of Christ.  PHIL. 
IT shall be evinced by the Actions of Christ.  ORTHOD. 
By which of his Actions?  PHIL. 
By his Consecrating and eating.  ORTHOD. 
Indeed 
c De Miss● 1. c. 27. Secun●● 〈◊〉.  Bellarmine having anatomised your Mass, and searched every joint and vein of it to find your sacrifice, pronounceth peremptorily, That if the sacrifice consist not in Consecrating and consuming, than Christ did not sacrifice at all. Let us therefore ponder these two points, beginning with Consecration.  PHIL. 

d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 8.  The Consecration of the Eucharist belongeth to the essence of a sacrifice, as Bellarmine hath proved by five Arguments.  ORTHOD. 
He hath produced certain idle Arguments, in reading whereof one may seek Bellarmine in Bellarmine, and not find him. But let us hear them.  PHIL. 
First, 
e 〈◊〉 ex 〈◊〉▪ ●. ●.  The sacrifice of the Mass is offered in the person of Christ: But the Priest performeth nothing so evidently in the person of Christ, as Consecration, in which he saith, This is my Body: Therefore the sacrifice consisteth in Consecration, as in an essential part thereof.  ORTHOD. 
By what authority do you offer this Sacrifice? we have weighed Christ's words, and can find no such warrant. Therefore look you to it, lest you be found sacrilegious usurpers of Christ's Office. And what if the Priest Consecrate in the person of Christ? This doth not argue a sacrifice, much less that the Consecration is any essential part of a sacrifice. And if it be, than it must either be the matter, or form: The matter it cannot be; because it is not a thing 
f ●●de Bell. de Missed. ●. c. 2. 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉.  permanent, but a transient action. And 
g 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. c. 27. 〈◊〉.  Bellarmine himself, when he went disguised in the habit of Tortus, affirmed, That the words of Consecration do not concur formally, but efficiently to the oblation.  PHIL. 
Secondly, There is no other action of Christ, which can be called a sacrifice, either before or after Consecration: therefore it must needs consist in these two proposed.  ORTHOD. 
Yes, his Oblation upon the Cross was a proper Propitiatory sacrifice: but in the Eucharist there is no such sacrifice at all.  PHIL. 
Thirdly, 
a Ibid. tertio.  If the Apostles in the beginning added nothing to the words of Consecration, but the Lords Prayer, than it must needs be they did sacrifice by Consecrating: for the Lord's Prayer cannot be called a sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
You presume there was a sacrifice, Which is to beg the question.  PHIL. 
Fourthly, 
b Ibid quarto.  The representation of the sacrifice of the Cross, consisteth in Consecration, as S. Thomas teacheth, but the Real and representative should be both together.  ORTHOD. 
And why so? The representative was in the Sacrament, the Real upon the Crosse. In the first institution the representative was before the Real: In all other celebrations of it, the Real is before the representative. Neither can you conclude that there is a Real sacrifice properly in the Sacrament, because there is a representative.  PHIL. 
Fifthly, 
c Bell. ibid. 5.  This is the judgement▪ of the Fathers. 
d Lib. 4. c. 32.  Irenaeus saith, that Christ did then teach the Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church throughout all the world doth use, when he saith, This is my body. 
e In serm. de caena Dom.  Cyprian, When the bread is blessed with the words of Consecration, than the Eucharist is made both a medicine, and a burnt offering. 
f Homil. de prodit. ●ude.  Chrysostome, The words of the Lord, This is my Body, give strength to the Sacrifice, until the end of the world. 
g Lib. 4. dial. c. 58.  Gregory saith, That in the very hour of the immolation at the voice of the Priest, the Quires of Angels are present, the Heavens are opened, high and low are soyned together of visible and invisible things is made one; He teacheth evidently, that the Immolation is perfected by the Consecration.  ORTHOD. 
One place of your master of the Sentences, shall expound them all. 
h Lib. 4. dist. 12 g.  Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: & an Christus quotidie immoletur, aut semel tantum immolatus sit. Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur, vocari sacrificium & oblationem: quia memoria est & representatio veri Sacrificij, & sanct●e immolationis factae in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in Cruse est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso: quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. That is, There is a question, whether that which the Priest doth, be properly called a sacrifice or an immolation; And whether Christ be daily offered, or were offered only once. To this may be briefly said, That that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation made upon the altar of the Crosse. And Christ died once upon the Cross, and there was offered in himself, and he is daily offered in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is a memorial made of that which was done once.  PHIL. 
Only a memorial? Nay I will prove that there is truly 
2.  and properly a sacrifice, for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and real sacrifice consists. First, of 
i Ibid de miss. l. 1. c. 27. his igitur.  common it must be made holy. Secondly, being made holy, it must be 
k Ibid. secund● in consecratione.  offered to God. Thirdly, That which is 
l Ibid. 3. per consecrationent.  offered, must be ordained to a true real and external mutation and destruction.  ORTHOD. 
Then let us consider whether these three things be found in the Eucharist, and first it is evident, that Bread and Wine of common are made holy, even the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally: but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice, then earthly elements are offered for the redemption of the Church, which once to imagine were horrible impiety.  PHIL. 

a Bel. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. respondeo.  That which of common is so made holy, that it remaineth, (and that only) without doubt is properly sacrificed; but the substance of the Bread and Wine do not remain, and therefore they are not the sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
That they do remain, hath been already proved, and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy, that it remaineth, than a piece of bread shallbe the sacrifice for the sins of the world. But if we should feign that the substance of the elements were taken away, and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally under the forms of Bread and Wine, yet you could not prove your sacrifice, for where do you find the second point, that is, oblation?  PHIL. 

b Ibid. secundo.  Deo offertur, dum in altari dei collocatur. Nam victimam in altari ponere, est reipsa illam deo offer; & quia vi consecrationis fit, ut corpus Christi & sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altar, mediant manu Sacerdotis, ideo verbis consecrationis vera & solennis oblatio celebratur; that is, It is offered to God, while it is placed upon the Altar of God. For to lay the sacrifice upon the Altar, is in very deed to offer it unto God; and because it cometh to pass by the force of Consecration, that the body and blood of Christ begin to be really upon the Altar, by the means of the Priest's hand, therefore a true and solemn oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration.  ORTHOD. 
First, if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ, begin to be really upon the Altar, than it is by means of the Priest's tongue, and not of the Priest's hand. Secondly, it is one thing to lay the sacrifice upon the Altar, and an other thing really to offer it, as may appear by the words of the Scripture, 
c Gen. 2●. 9  And when they came to the place which God had showed him, Abraham builded an Altar there, and couched the wood, and bound Izhak his son, and laid him on the Altar upon the wood: Here the sacrifice was really laid upon the Altar, but it cannot be said that he was really sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering, but only in Abraham's intention, and God's acceptation. Thirdly, if the sacrifice be the body and blood, then seeing by your own doctrine the body and blood are not upon the Altar, till the words of Consecration be finished, it followeth, that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished, and consequently there is no oblation of the sacrifice begun before the Consecration be finished. Now if the oblation begin after the Consecration is ended, then is it not celebrated by the words of Consecration, unless you will say that an oblation may be celebrated before it be, and that a thing is ended before it begin. But let us feign, that the body and blood of Christ, were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration, yet you cannot thence conclude a sacrifice. For you required a third condition in a sacrifice, that is, the destruction of the thing sacrificed.  PHIL. 

d De Missa▪ l. 1. c▪ 27. Tertio.  The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true, real, and external mutation and destruction, which is necessary to the being of a Sacrifice. 
a De Miss. l. 1. c. 2. 8.  For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice, be plainly destroyed, (that is) So changed that it ceaseth to be that which it was before.  ORTHOD. 
How were the sacrifices to be destroyed?  PHIL. 

b De Missa. l▪ 1. c. 2.  If they be living things, by killing; if without life, and solid, as meal, salt and frankincense, they were to be destroyed by burning; if liquid as blood, wine and water, they were to be destroyed by effusion or pouring out.  ORTHOD. 
Then it will follow from your own positions, that if Christ be alive in the Eucharist, either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him, or else he killeth him before he sacrifice him, and consequently either there are no sacrificing Priests in the New Testament, except Christ only, or if there be any, they are all murderers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist, and yet not alive, how can this be? Is not Christ in the Eucharist now, as he was at the first institution? When Christ said, this is my body, his body was then alive, and now also is living in Heaven.  PHIL. 

c De sacra. Euchar. l. 3. c. 5.  The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Council of 
d Ses. 13. Can. 1  Trent, that not only the Body and blood, but also the soul and divinity, yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist, but it is certain, that the soul and divinity, are not in the Eucharist, by virtue of the Consecration, but only by natural concomitance, because where the one is, there the other must needs be united with it.  ORTHOD. 
If the soul be united with it, than it is alive, and then it is either no Sacrifice, or else the former absurdities follow; and if the body should be without life in the Eucharist, then according to your positions seeing it is a thing solid, it cannot be a Sacrifice, unless it be plainly destroyed by burning; if it be capable of burning or destroying, it is not corporally the body of Christ, 
* Psal. 16. 10.  For the holy one shall not see corruption, and if it be not destroyed, than you confess that it is no Sacrifice: so every way you are entangled. But seeing you hold this to be a Sacrifice, and that every Sacrifice must be consumed, therefore you must tell us how this is consumed.  PHIL. 
It is consumed and destroyed by eating.  ORTHOD. 
The people do eat it as well as the Priests, shall they also be sacrificers?  PHIL. 

c De Missa. l. 1 c. 27. prop. 7.  As it is performed by the people, it is no part of the Sacrifice, but as it is performed by the Priest, it is an essential part.  ORTHOD. 
Do your Priests eat Christ properly, or improperly? if improperly, then how is the sacrifice consumed? For if it be consumed only by eating, and you do not eat it but improperly, than it is not consumed but only improperly; and seeing you hold this consuming to be of the essence of the sacrifice, therefore there is no sacrifice but improperly, and consequently you are no Priests but improperly.  PHILO. 

f Bellar. de sacra. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 7.  The body of Christ is eaten properly and truly, even with the mouth in the Eucharist: for to the essence of eating attrition is not necessary, but it is sufficient, If it be taken and conveyed from the mouth to the stomach by human and natural instruments, that is the tongue and the palate.  ORTHOD. 
If your Priests eat Christ properly with their body, then are you not men, but monsters of mankind. For is not this to make the Priest a Cyclops, or a Cannibal, or rather worse than a Cannibal? for a Cannibal devours the flesh only of a mere man, but this is to devour and consume the flesh and blood of the Son of God.  PHIL. 
The Cannibals do it in bloody manner, so do not we.  ORTHOD. 
But 
a Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.  Saint Austin thinketh that to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ properly, is a wicked deed, and therefore concludeth that when Christ willeth us to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, the words must be taken figuratively, and not properly: whereby it is evident that he condemneth all eating of Christ properly, whether it be in a bloody manner, or an unbloody. But to proceed, how can the body of Christ be consumed with eating? if it cannot, then by your confession there is no Sacrifice.  PHIL. 

b Ex Bellar▪ de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Tertio. Per.  We must consider in the body of Christ a double being, a natural, and a sacramental. When it is eaten, it looseth not the natural, but the sacramental.  ORTHOD. 
The destruction required in a sacrifice must be real, for it must cease really to be that which it was; as for example the lambs which were daily offered, first they were slain, and so ceased formally to be lambs; then the flesh was burned, so it ceased materially to be flesh; and when any part of the sacrifice was eaten, and by eating turned into the substance of man, than it ceased to be that flesh, which it was before. Now if in the Eucharist the body of Christ be not really consumed, then according to your positions it is not really sacrified; and yet for mine own part I do not see, but that it followeth according to your principles, that the very natural essence and being of Christ is properly destroyed: which is horrible blasphemy.  PHIL. 
How can you conclude any such things from our principles?  ORTHOD. 
You teach that the very natural body and blood of Christ, and that only is contained under the forms of Bread and Wine: but I will prove invincibly, out of your principles, that the thing which is contained under the forms of Bread and Wine is substantially destroyed, and loseth the natural essence that it had before▪ But first let me ask you a question; Do not the consecrated elements nourish after Consecration?  PHIL. 

c Add● v●timo, quod etiam spo●●●s sacraments ●utr●rent, si in magna copia sumerentur. Bell. de sacram. euchar. l 3. c. 23. ed secundam.  Nourish? yes.  ORTHO. 
If you doubt of it, it may be proved by experience, for there is no question but the Priest or any man else may live a long time, though he have no other sustenance but such Bread and Wine. And therefore it is certain that it nourisheth. But nourishment is, when the substance of the meat is changed into the substance of the nourished; & therefore if the consecrated elements do nourish, they must needs have a substance which must be changed into the substance of the nourished. What substance is this? Bread you say it is not; for that is vanished by Consecration. And therefore it can be nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ; whereupon it will follow, that the natural Body and Blood of Christ are substantially changed into the substance of the nourished, be it man, bird, or beast, which is out ragious blasphemy. And if it be so changed, than it hath lost the natural being and essence which it had before, and consequently the Body and Blood of Christ is substantially consumed and destroyed. If you be ashamed of this, then be ashamed of the fountain from whence it floweth.  PHIL. 
It is not the Body and Blood of Christ that nourisheth, but the 
a Sicut enim divino miraculo ma●ent sine subiecto, it a etiam nutriunt, ut Theologi docent Bell. ibid.  species.  ORTH. 
The species are accidents: can accidents nourish? then a substance shall be made of accidents, and then we shall have a world of absurdities.  PHIL. 
They nourish by divine miracle.  ORTHOD. 
When ye have nothing to answer, than ye fly to miracles. So if the Priest drink too much of the wine, he shall be drunk by a miracle, & if the mouse find the way into the box, it shall grow fat by a miracle, Surely this is a miraculous answer. For are not all miracles immediately from God? therefore if your answer be true, God should provide miracles for fatting of mice, and concur with a miracle to make the Priest drunk. If these things be absurd, than your carnal presence, your sacrifice and your Priesthood are all absurd.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of their argument drawn from the practice of the Church in the time of the Apostles.  PHIL. 
THE practice of the Church doth show the contrary, for it is said, 
b Acts 13. 2.  as they were ministering to our Lord, and fasting, the holy Ghost, etc. In which place 
c Anglor. in hunc locum.  for ministering, we might have translated sacrificing, for so the Greek doth signify; and so Erasmus translated. Yea we might have translated, saying Mass, for so they did: and the Greek Fathers hereof had the name Liturgy, which Erasmus translateth Mass, saying, Missa Chrysostomi.  ORTH. 
This ministering will not prove your Massing. For the Greek word is applied to the 
d Hebr. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Angels which I hope you will not call Mass Priests. It is likewise applied to the civil 
e Rom. 13. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  magistrate, and shall their ministering also be Massing? and though Erasmus translate it sacrificing, yet there is no necessity to expound it of your Massing sacrifice. Neither doth the word Mass infer any such thing, for it is not from an Hebrew or Chaldee original, as 
f Bar. an. 34. n. 59  Baronius would have it, that thereupon he might ground an oblation; but it is derived from the latin as 
g Bin. t. 3. p. 1. pag. 110. latinum non he●raeum est, ut neoterici studiose excogitant.  Binius proveth, calling the defenders of the contrary opinion, Novellistes'; and 
h Bell. de Mis. l. 1 c. 1. sed. non.  Bellarmine confesseth that the word Missa is not mentioned of the Grecians, which use in stead thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he interpreteth munus seu ministerium publicum: a public office or ministry. So the meaning of the place is that they were publicly performing their ministerial function, which is plainly set down by Saint 
i Chrys. in Act. homil. 27.  Chrysostome: what is ministering? preaching.  PHIL. 
This cannot be, for the text saith, they did minister to the Lord, but you cannot say they preached to the Lord, or ministered Sacraments to the Lord.  ORTHOD. 
Very true. But in performing these things to the Church, they did minister to the Lord, because they did them to the honour of God.  PHIL. 
This word when it is applied to sacred things, and put absolutely, is every where taken for the ministry of Sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
The contrary may appear, because the same word put absolutely without any addition, is applied in holy 
* 2. Cor. 9 12  Scripture unto the ministering of alms unto the Saints.  PHIL. 
THe sacrifice of the Mass, may be strongly proved out of 
3  the first to the Corinthians: 
a 1. Cor. 10. 14.  Flee from the serving of idols, I speak as to wise men. Yourselves judge what I say, the chalice of benediction, which we do bless, is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? For being many, we are one bread, one body, all that participate of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: they that eat the hosts, are they not partakers of the Altar? what then? do I say that that which is immolated unto idols, is any thing? or that the idol is any thing? But the things that the heathen do immolate, to devils they do immolate, and not to God. And I will not have you become fellows of the devils. You cannot drink the chalice of our Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord, and of the Table of devils. 
b Ex Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 14. ex his verbis.  Out of these words, are gathered three arguments, the first from the comparison of the Lords Table, with the altar of the Gentiles, where they offered to idols, and with the altar of the jews, where they offered carnal sacrifice to the true God. For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar; now an altar is erected to sacrifice, and there is no sacrifice without a Priest. The like reason may be drawn from the comparison of the Eucharist, with their sacrifice, and from the partaking the one and the other.  ORTHOD. 
The point of the comparison consisteth in this, that as those which receive the Sacraments of Christians, do therein declare themselves to be partakers of the Christian religion: so those which use the sacrifices and ceremonies of jews or Gentiles, do thereby signify that they are partakers of their religion; and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to refrain from the tables and feasts of idols, lest thereby they should have fellowshipwith the devils. Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar.  PHIL. 
THe altar is plainly mentioned to the Hebrews, 
c Heb. 13. 10.  We have an altar: 
4  whereof they have not power to eat which serve the tabernacle, by which altar is meant Christ's body in the Eucharist.  ORTHOD. 
The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist, but of the suffering of Christ without the gate: and of the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving: therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well: 
d Thom. in Epist. ad hebraeos. c. 13. ●ect. 2.  Istud altar, etc. that is, This altar is either the Cross of Christ, on which Christ was offered for us, or else Christ himself in whom and by whom, we offer up our prayers. And this is the golden altar, of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they have not power to eat, that is, to receive the fruit of Christ's passion, and to be incorporated into him as to the head, which serve the tabernacle of legal things, for 
e Gal. 5. 2.  if ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing: or they serve the tabernacle of the body, which follow carnal delights, for to such he profiteth nothing. Hitherto Thomas, whose authority with others persuadeth 
f De Missa. ●. 1. c. 14. ex ●●s.  Bellarmine to dismiss this argument out of the field, because saith he, there are some Catholics which understand by the altar, the Cross or Christ himself: I do not urge that place. Thus have you searched the Scriptures, and cannot find your sacrifice, much less can you find that it is properly propitiatory. For that honour belongeth only to the sacrifice of the Crosse.  PHIL. 
Did not 
a job 1. 5.  job who lived under the law of nature, offer burnt offerings. daily for his children? Did not God himself 
b job 42. 8.  command that the friends of job should sacrifice for their sins? Are there not many sacrifices for sins appointed in Leviticus? Wherefore, if the sacrifice of the Cross did not hinder that these should be propitiatory, why should it hinder our sacrifice from being propitiatory?  ORTHOD. 
Though job and others did offer sacrifice under the law of nature, yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature, but by the direction of God's spirit; and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commanded in the law: and all of them were Types of jesus Christ, and are said to take away sins; not properly but Typically: for as the Apostle saith, 
c Heb. 10. 4.  It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of their argument drawn from the authority of the Fathers.  PHIL. 
THe meaning of the Scriptures was well known to the ancient Fathers, who all with one voice acknowledge both Priest, Altar, oblation, and sacrifice.  ORTHOD. 
They do so, but not such as you mean. For the oblation & sacrifice which they defend in the Eucharist, is not properly propitiatory, nor properly a sacrifice, but only a commemoration, and a representation of the sovereign sacrifice.  PHIL. 

d Ex Bell. de Missa. l. 1. c. 15. hic igitur.  If the Fathers had meant so, then there was no cause why they should speak otherwise of the Eucharist, then of Baptism. But they never called Baptism a sacrifice, or said, that to baptize, is to sacrifice. Therefore, it is a sign that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice, they name it so properly.  ORTHO. 
Do the Fathers never call Baptism a sacrifice? Your learned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary, saying: 
e Canus loc. Theol. l. 12. sol. 424. b.  Sedquaeris, quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum hostiam appellaverint, ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato, quia Baptismus repeti non potest. Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur, & per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis, ad plenam peccati remissionem, hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt: that is, But you demand what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Baptism a sacrifice, and therefore said, that there remained no sacrifice for sin, because Baptism cannot be repeated▪ Truly because in Baptism we die together with Christ, & by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Cross is applied unto us, to the full remission of sin, hence they call Baptism metaphorically a sacrifice. Here is a clear confession that many Fathers call Baptism a sacrifice, and among these many, S. Austin is one, 
f Aust. in exposit. Epist. ad Rom. p. 365. Paris. 1586.  Quod (holocaustum dominicae passionis) eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur & Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur, that is, which burned offering of the Lords passion, every one offereth for his own sins at such time as he is dedicated (to GOD) by faith in the Passion of Christ, and being baptized is endued with the Name of faithful Christians. And no marvel if the Fathers do call it a Sacrifice, seeing they call it the Passion of Christ. We are dipped in the Passion of Christ, saith 
a Pass●o D●m. 〈…〉 Baptism.  Tertullian. Baptism is Christ's Passion, saith 
b Chr 〈…〉. 16.  Chrysostome; meaning that it is the representation of it. So concerning the Eucharist, though Christ (saith 
c In hom. Pas●hal. apud Grat. de●●●s●l●st. 2. quid ●it ●ang.  S. Gregory) living immortally, now dieth not, yet he dieth in this mystery, and his flesh suffereth for the salvation of the people; That is, saith the 
d Gloss. ●●●d.  Gloss, his death and Passion is represented. And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences, that, that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made upon the Altar of the Crosse. And 
e Be●●de M●●sa. 〈…〉.  Bellarmine granteth, that Thomas, and other Schoolmen do commonly answer, that it is called an oblation, because it is a representation of the oblation.  PHIL. 

f Be●●●. ibid. 〈…〉.  Peter Lombard, when he asketh the question, whether that which the Priest doth, be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation, taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing, as though he had asked, Whether that which the Priest doth, be a kill of Christ: and answereth most rightly, that Christ was truly offered, that is, slain, but once, and that now he is not properly offered, that is, slain, but only in a Sacrament and representation.  ORTHOD. 
First, I refer it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answer of Bellarmine be not a mere shift and cavil. Secondly, neither will this shift serve his turn: for if the Priest do not so, he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him: because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed, as is before declared out of Bellarmine.  PHIL. 
THe Council of 
g S●●●. 22. 〈…〉. 4●. 844  Trent, pronounceth a curse against all those which 
2.  deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Mass; And they have reason: for as the Apostles, so all the Fathers of the Primitive Church, were mass-priests. For 
h Am●r●●●. ●im. c 4.  S. Ambrose testifieth, That imposition of hands, is certain mystical words, whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed, receiving authority, his conscience bearing him witness, that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lord's stead.  ORTHOD. 
S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himself, saying, 
i Am 〈…〉.  Quid ergo nos? nun per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed recordationem facientes mortis eius; That is, What therefore do we? do we not offer daily? truly we offer, but so, that we make a remembrance of his death▪ And again, 
k Ibid●●.  Ipsum semper offerimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur; That is, We offer him always, or rather, we work a remembrance of his sacrifice.  PHIL. 
S. Chrysostome saith, 
l In E●●st. ad H●b. Hom●l. 17.  In many places there is offered not many Christ's, but one Christ, every where being full and perfect, both here and there.  ORTHOD. 
S. Chrysostome expoundeth himself in the same place, We offer him, (saith he) or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, We work a remembrance of the sacrifice. Where, by the way you may see, that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome.  PHIL. 
S. Augustine saith, That Christ commanded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses, 
m A 〈…〉.  Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium, sanctum sanctorum, quod corpus eius est; That is, Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies, which is his body, was not yet instituted. And elsewhere, 
a Lib. 4. de Trinit. c. 14.  Quid gratius offerri, aut suscipi posset, quam caro sacrificij nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri; That is, What can be offered or accepted more gratefully, than the body of our Priest, being made the flesh of our Sacrifice? And Cyrill, Leo, Fulgentius, and other Fathers have commonly the like.  ORTHOD. 
Then the answering of Austin, will be the answering of all. Now what his meaning was, let himself declare. 
b Epist. 23.  Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himself? And yet he is offered in a sacrament, not only at all the solemnities at Easter, but every day to the people; Neither doth he lie, that being asked, doth answer that he is offered: For if sacraments have not a certain resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And for this resemblance, they take the names commonly of the things themselves: therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of the Body of Christ, is the Body of Christ, the sacrament of the Blood of Christ, is the Blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith. And elsewhere, 
c Contra Faust. lib. 20. c. 21.  The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed in truth and in deed when he suffered, is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended.  PHIL. 
YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church, For, 
d Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. ●5.  the 
3.  Nicen Council in that Canon, which Caluine and all other receive, saith plainly, That the Lamb of God offered unbloodily, is laid upon the holy Table.  ORTHOD. 
The Lamb Christ jesus which was offered upon the Cross for the sins of the world, is laid upon the holy Table, not substantially, but Sacramentally.  PHIL. 
But the Council meaneth substantially: for they say, 
e Can. 14. Bin. t. 1. c. 1. p. 308.  It is come (by relation) to the holy Council, that in certain places and Cities, the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests. Neither the Canon nor the custom hath delivered this, That those which have not the power to offer sacrifice, should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it. Where you may see, that they do not only call it the body of Christ, but they plainly describe a Priest, by having a power and authority to offer it; and distinguish him from the Deacons which have no such power.  ORTHOD. 
Who can better tell the meaning of the Council, than those which were present, and subscribed unto it? One whereof was Eusebius.  PHIL. 
Very true, and he telleth, how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at jerusalem, 
f De vita Constant. l. 4. c. 45.  some did pacify the divine Majesty with unbloody sacrifices, and mystical Consecrations. Who were these but mass-priests? and what were the unbloody sacrifices, but the sacrifice of the Mass? for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered unbloodily.  ORTHOD. 
Let Eusebius expound Eusebius: 
g Demonst. evang. l. 1. p. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Christ having offered himself for a sovereign sacrifice unto his Father, ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof unto God, in stead of a sacrifice. Is not this a plain demonstration that in the judgement of Eusebius, there is not in the Lord's Supper a sacrifice properly so called, but only a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice? And this remembrance he thus describeth; 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 27.  Which remembrance we celebrate by the signs of his Body and Blood upon his Table. He calleth it not a sacrifice, but a remembrance, celebrated, not by the substance of his Body and Blood, but by the signs, and that not upon an Altar, but upon a Table; and this he calleth an unbloody sacrifice, as appeareth by his own words; And pleasing God well, we offer unbloody sacrifices, and reasonable and acceptable to him. So it is as clear as the noon day, that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice, but expoundeth the matter of the Sacrament in all respects, as we do, and he being a part of the Nicen council, and one that helped to make the Canons and subscribed unto them, must needs be holden for a sufficient and faithful interpreter of his own, and their meaning. So in him we have 318. Bishops, the most reverent sages and Senate of the Christian world after the Apostles days, all denying your sacrifice, & maintaining a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice. Wherefore when they describe a Priest by offering of sacrifice, they do not mean a sacrifice in substance, but in signification and representation. Neither can it be proved that ever any of the ancient Fathers thought otherwise, nor that any one of them was a Mass Priest, as may further appear by 
a jewel. reply. art. 1. Bi●so true difference. part. 4. Reinold. conf●c. 8. dives. 4. Morton. appeal. l. 2. c. 7.  our learned divines, which have handled this point, to whom I refer you. Wherefore seeing your sacrificing neither can be proved by the scriptures, nor by the Fathers rightly understood, but is contrary to both: we detest it to the bottom of hell, as a most blasphemous abomination, derogating from the sovereign, and all sufficient sacrifice offered once for all by that one Priest, which with one oblation entered the holy place, and hath purchased an eternal redemption for us. Hitherto of the first function of Popish Priesthood: Now let us come to the second.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the second question which concerneth the power of absolution.  PHIL. 
THe second function of Priesthood, is the power of absolution which God hath given neither to King nor Emperor, to Angel nor Archangel, but only to the Priest: and in this also 
a Rhem in joh. 20. vers. 13.  you are defective in the Church of England.  ORT. 
What absolution do you mean, and in what manner is it given?  PHIL. 
There is an absolution in the Consistory, and an absolution in the Court of Conscience; the former is from excommunication, and other spiritual censures: the latter (which we mean) is from sin, and is given in Priestly ordination, even by the words of Christ himself. For 
b Pontif. in ordinat. Pr●sb. Catechism. Rom. de ord..  the Bishop imposeth hands, saying, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain they are retained. etc.  ORTHOD. 
The very same words are used in the Church of England as may appear by the book: 
c The form of ordering of Priests.  The Bishop with the Priests present shall lay there hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders: The receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop saying, Receive the holy ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained, and therefore if the power of absolution be given by these words, than it is given and received in the Church of England.  PHIL. 
Not so, for though you have the words, yet you have not the true sense of the words: and therefore neither do your Bishops give it, nor you receive it.  ORTHOD. 
Then let us without all partiality, examine the true sense & meaning of them. For as much therefore as our Saviour did represent a real donation both by breathing, and saying, receive; without all controversy somewhat was really given, & actually received; but what was that? undoubtedly the holy Ghost; for he said, receive the holy Ghost. But what is meant by the holy Ghost? It cannot be denied, that they received the presence of the spirit for their direction, support and assistance, and the Lord hath promised the same spirit to all faithful ministers, when he said, 
a Mat. 28. 20.  Behold I am with you (that is with you and your successors) until the end of the world. To this purpose it is well spoken of Leo, 
b Leo Serm. ● in An●●●ers. di●. A.  Qui mihioneris est author, ipse fiet administrationis adiutor. that is, He that is author of my burden, will be the helper in my administration: and again, 
c Ibid.  Dabit virtutem qui contulit dignitatem, i. He that gave me the dignity, will give me strength to perform it. But seeing it is evident, that in the book of God, the holy Ghost doth many times signify the gifts of the holy Ghost, to point out the fountain and wellspring of those heavenly graces; the interpretation of Saint 
d Hieronym. E●. 150 ●d Hedibiam. q. 9  Jerome may seem most consonant to reason, who by the holy Ghost understandeth in this place, a grace of the holy Ghost, in these words, acceperunt spiritus sancti gratiam, that is, they received a grace of the holy Ghost. It remaineth therefore that we consider what grace that was. It was not the grace of adoption or regeneration, because they had received that already, as appeared by the fruits thereof 
e joh. 6. 69.  We believe & know that thou art the Christ, the son of the living God: nor the grace of miracles, because they received not that till afterward, 
f Luk. 24. 49.  Behold I will send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry in the city of jerusalem until you be induced with power from above, which promise was fulfilled in the fiery tongues; it seemeth therefore to be some ordinary grace which should continue with them, & their successors in the Church for ever, as is confessed on both sides: what can this be but that which Christ himself doth mention in the words following, as it were of set purpose to take away all ambiguous construction, whose sins you remit they are remitted etc. And this is expressed likewise by S. 
g Quo supra.  Jerome, who calleth it gratiam qua peccata remitterent. i. a grace whereby they might forgive sins. This is also the judgement of S. 
h Chris. in joh. homil. 85.  Chrysostome, saying, a man should not err, if he should say that they then received a certain power and spiritual grace, not that they should raise again the dead, or work miracles, but that they might forgive sins. To these we may join Saint 
i Ambr. d● paenit. l. 1. ● 2.  Ambrose, who saith, He that hath received the holy Ghost, hath received power both to lose sin and to bind it: and a little after, Munus spiritus sancti est officium Sacerdotis, that is, the gift of the holy Ghost is the Priest's office. Wherefore by (holy Ghost) is meant a ghostly ministerial grace or power to forgive sins.  PHIL. 
Thus far we agree as may appear by our learned writers: Cardinal 
k Bell. de sacra. in gen. l. 1. c. 26. respondeo.  Bellarmine, 
l Michael. de palacio in joh. c 20.  Palacius and others, but all the question is in what manner the Minister forgiveth sins.  ORTHOD. 
Saint Paul saith, 
m 2. Cor. 5. 10.  All things are of God, which hath reconciled us unto himself by jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the Ministry of reconciliation. For God was in Christ and reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their sins unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Whereby it appeareth that God reconcileth the world properly, by not imputing their sins, the Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospel, ministerially as Ambassadors of Christ, to whom is committed the word and ministry of reconciliation. For what other thing is our forgiveness of sins than a reconciling of men to God? but we reconcile men to God by preaching and declaring the word of the Gospel, therefore by preaching and declaring the word of the Gospel we forgive sins.  PHIL. 

a 〈…〉.  There is not only required to remission of sins the Preaching of the Gospel but also baptism and penance. As it is written, 
b 〈…〉.  Do penance and be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ for the remission of sins.  ORTHOD. 
When we say that the Minister forgiveth sins by preaching, we do not exclude the Sacraments but include them. As when we refer a pardon to the King's letters patents, we do not exclude the seal, but mean the letters patents with the seal annexed. For (as the Apostle saith) to us is committed the ministery of reconciliation. Which is not a ministery of the word only but without all controversy of the Sacraments also. Therefore Christ in giving us authority to forgive sins, hath withal given us authority to use the means thereof, that is, the ministry of the word and Sacraments, and because we apply these means whereby God forgiveth sins, therefore we are said to forgive sins. This is well expressed by Ferus one of your own Friars saying, 
c 〈…〉  Quamuis Dei proprium opus sit remittere peccata, dicuntur tamen etiam Apostoli remittere, non simpliciter, sed quia adhibent media per quae Deus remittit peccata: haec autem media sunt, verbum Dei & Sacramenta. i. although it be the proper work of God to forgive sins, yet notwithstanding the Apostles are said to forgive sins, not simply but because they use the means by the which God doth forgive sins and these means are the word of God and the Sacraments. Moreover it is a clear case that to this remission there is required faith and repentance, after which followeth ministerial absolution, by preaching and applying publicly and privately the sweet promises of grace to the penitent believer, and sealing them by the Sacraments to the soul and conscience. This absolution in the court of conscience is agreeable to the Scripture, and is not only practised in the Church of England by Sermons and Sacraments, but also solemnly proclaimed in our liturgy, and applied both publicly in open penance, and privately in the visitation of the sick, as also to particular penitents, whose wounded consciences require the same.  PHIL. 
The Council of 
d 〈…〉.  Trent pronounceth a curse upon such as wrest the words of Christ to the authority of preaching the Gospel.  ORTHOD. 
To apply them to preaching in such sense as hath been declared is no wresting, but the true meaning of the Scripture, as you heard out of Saint Paul, and therefore in cursing us, they curse Saint Paul: wherefore I will say with the Prophet, 
e 〈…〉  they do curse, but thou (o Lord dost bless. But for your better satisfaction in this point, you shall hear the judgement of sundry principal men in your own Church expounding this absolution in court of conscience as we do. The 
f 〈…〉.  master of the sentences having long sifted this point to and fro, at last groweth to this resolution: In hac tanta varietate quid ●●nendum? hoc san●, etc. In this great variety what should we hold? truly 〈◊〉 may say and think this; That God only forgiveth and retaineth sins, and yet he hath given the power of binding and losing unto the Church: but he bindeth and looks one way, & the Church another. For he forgiveth sin by himself alone, who both cleanseth the soul from inward blot, and looseth it from th● debt of eternal death, but he hath not granted this unto the Priest, to whom notwithstanding he hath given potestatem soluendi & ligandi. i. Ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos. i. the power of binding and losing, that is of declaring men to be bound or loosed. Whereupon the Lord did first by himself restore health unto the leper, and then he sent him to the Priests, quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus. i. by whose judgement he might be declared to be cleansed: so likewise when he had restored Lazarus to life again, he offered him to his Disciples that they might unbind him. And this he proveth by a place of 
a Hiero●. ● Mat. ●. 16.  Jerome which he only pointeth at, but we will set it down more largely. In Levitico, etc. In the book of Leviticus we read of the lepers where they are commanded to show themselves to the Priests, and if they shall have the leprosy, that then they shall be made unclean by the Priests: not that the Priests should make them lepers and unclean, but that they should have the knowledge of the leprous, and not leprous: and that they may discern who is clean, or unclean. Therefore as there the Priests do make the lepers clean or unclean: so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind and loose, etc. Hitherto Saint 
b Quo supra.  Jerome. Now the master having said that in remitting or retaining sins, the evangelical Priests have that authority and office, which in old times the legal Priests had under the law, in curing of lepers, addeth these words; Hi ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta indicant & ostendunt i. therefore these do forgive sins, or retain them whiles they show and declare that they are forgiven or retained of God. Hunc modum ligandi & soluendi Hieron. supra notavit. i. this way of binding and losing jerom hath observed above. Thus far the master: who is followed verbatim by Petrus Parisius, as is to be seen in Sixtus 
c Sixt. Senensis bibl. ●. l 6. 〈◊〉 71. Petrus  Senensis. And 
* 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 4. s. q. 8 & 9 〈◊〉 1. arg. ●coti.  Occam saith, I answer according to the master, that Priests bind and loose, because they declare men to be bound or loosed. Alexander Hales. 
d Alex. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part. 4. q. 21. m●●b. ●. ●. 339  Nunquam sacerdos absolueret quenquam de quo non presumeret quod esset absolutus à deo. i the Priest would never absolve any man of whom he did not presume that he were already absolved of God. If the Priest absolve none but whom God hath first absolved, then what can his absolution be else but a certificate that the party is already absolved of God? And again, Item Augustinus & Hugo de sancto victore, etc. Moreover Austin and Hugo de sancto victore say, that in the raising of Lazarus was signified the raising again of a sinner. But Lazarus was raised of the Lord before he was delivered to the Disciples to be loosed, ergo absolutio sacerdotis nihil valet antequam homo sit justificatus per gratiam & suscitatus a morte culpae. 1. Therefore the absolution of the Priest is of no value before a man be justified by grace, & raised from the death of sin. And this he proveth by strong reasons, as followeth, 1. It is a matter of equal power to baptise inwardly, and to absolve from deadly sin: but it was not requisite that God should communicate to any man) the power of baptizing inwardly, lest our hope should be reposed in man: therefore by the same reason it was not fit that God should communicate (to any man) the power of absolving from actual sin. And again, Nulla fit remissio culpae nisi per gratiam, sed gratiam dare est potentiae infinitae. i. There is no remission of sin (properly except only by grace: but to give grace proceedeth from an infinite power (whereof man is not capable) and therefore no man can forgive sins properly. And if you be not yet persuaded, how generally this is received I will let you see it by the words of Suarez the jesuit. 
e 〈…〉 ●. disp. 16. ●. 2.  Fuit gravium doctorum opinio per ●anc potestatem non posse remitti peccatorum culpas, sed solum declarari remissas, & remitti paenas: & in hoc ultimo est quaedam diuer sitas. Nam quidam dixerunt hanc potestatem solùm esse ad ●●●●ttendam paenam temporalem, alij vero ad aeternam. i. It was the opinion of grave Doctors, that by this power the sinners offences are not remitted, but only declared to be remitted, and that the punishments are remitted; and in this last point there is some diversity, for some said that this power is only for the remission of temporal punishment, others for eternal. And he saith, that the former opinion is maintained by the master, Altisiodorensis, Alex. de Hales, Bonaventure, Gabriel, Maior, Thomas de Argent. Occam, Abulensis, and others.  
Moreover, 
a Bon●●●. de vita B. Franc.  Bonaventure writing of the miracles which were done 
5.  by the intercession of Saint Francis after his death, telleth of a certain woman, which when she was ready to be put into the grave, was by virtue of his prayers restored from death to life, to that end she might reveal in confession a certain sin which she never had confessed before. Which 
b Bell. de pae●it. l. 3 c. 12. idem. auctor.  Bellarmine relateth as an argument to prove that auricular confession is approved by God himself. If you believe this lying Legend, that the woman was shriven after her death, than you may like wise believe that the Priest absolved her. For by what reason could he deny her absolution, if God raised her by miracle to make confession? Now I would demand whether this woman died in the state of damnation or salvation: if in state of damnation, than the priest could neither justify her, nor declare her to be justified; because they which die in their sins, shall perish in their sins: but if she died in the state of salvation, and yet was raised by miracle to confess some sin for the clearing of others, or for some other reason we know not, than the Priest did not properly forgive her sins, but only pronounce that they were forgiven. I will close up this point, with a memorable saying of 
c Fetus in Mat. c. 9 Editio Mogunt. 1559.  Ferus, upon these words, Whose sins you forgive, etc. Non quod homo propriè remittit peccatum sed quod ostendat ac certificet a deo remissum: neque enim aliud est absolutio quam ab homine accipis, quam si dicat, En filled certifico te tibi remissa esse peccata; annuncio tibi te habere propitium deum, & quaecunque Christus in Baptismo & evangelio nobis promisit tibi nunc per me annunciat & promittit. i. Not that man doth properly forgive sin, but that he showeth and certifieth that it is forgiven of God: for the absolution which thou receivest from man, is nothing else, then if he should say, Behold my son, I certify thee that thy sins are forgiven, I declare unto thee that thou hast God favourable, and what thing soever Christ hath promised us in baptism, and in the Gospel, he now declareth and promiseth to thee by me.  
WHerefore seeing we have in our ordination these words, receive the 
6.  holy Ghost, and take them in the true sense according to the Scripture, the consciences of our adversaries bearing us witness; we conclude that the Church of England hath such an absolution, as Christ hath left unto his spouse, consisting in the public and private use of the word and Sacraments.   

CHAP. X.  
An answer to the arguments of Bellarmine, by which he goeth about to prove absolution to be judicial and not declaratory.  PHIL. 
THat Christ gave unto his Church a true judicial power, to absolve with authority, and consequently, that Priests are not only as heralds to proclaim and declare, but also as judges in the Court of conscience, truly and really to forgive sins, Cardinal 
a Bell. de paenit. l. 3. c. 2.  Bellarmine hath proved by seven arguments; five whereof are collected out of the Scripture, the sixth is drawn from the authority of the Fathers, and the seventh from reason, all which I will prosecute in order. The first is 
b Ibid. primum igitur.  collected from the Metaphor of the keys; of which it is said, 
* Mat. 16. 19  I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven For a key useth not to be made or given, to signify that the door is open or shut, but to open and shut it indeed. Now that which was promised by the keys, was performed in that place of john, and therefore here he gave them power, not only to declare unto men that their sins are forgiven, but also to forgive them indeed.  ORTHOD. 
As Adam for his sin was shut out of Paradise, so all his posterity, proceeding from him by carnal generation, considered in their natural corruption, are shut and locked out of heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter. For as the Prophet saith, 
c Esai. 59 2.  Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God. Neither is there any hope of salvation, unless the kingdom of heaven be unlocked again. But what is the key to open this lock? There is a threefold key; the first of authority, the second of excellency, and the third of Ministry. The key of authority belongeth only to God. For seeing every sin is a transgression of Divine law, he only hath sovereign authority to remit it, against whom it is committed, and when he doth remit it, than he setteth open the gates of heaven. The key of excellency belongeth only to Christ, God and man, who by his most sovereign sacrifice hath made satis faction to God the Father, purchased an eternal redemption for us, and meritoriously opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. The key of Ministry was given to the Apostles, and their successors, to whom was committed the Ministry of reconciliation: Which is well expressed by S. 
d Amb. de spi●. sanct. l. 3. c. 19  Ambrose, saying, Homines in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non ius alicuius potestatis exercent, neque enim in suo, sed in patris & filii & spiritus sanctinomine peccata dimittunt: isti rogant, divinitas donat, humanum enim obsequium, sed munificentia supernae est potestatis i Men do perform a service or Ministry, for the forgiveness of sins, but they do not exercise the authority of any power for they do not forgive sins in their own name, but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. They make request, the deity bestoweth the gift: An office or service is performed by man, but the bountiful gift is from supernal power. This supernal power is the key of authority: this human office, is the key of Ministry. For as a key is made and given to open the door indeed: So God gave the key of Ministry unto his stewards to open the door of heaven indeed. But how? not by authority as God the Father, nor by excellency, as God the Son, but by a ministerial forgiveness of sins, which is not to be restrained only to the hearing of private confessions, as though in that one point lay all the virtue and use of the Keys, but consisteth in revealing and applying the merits of Christ, publicly and privately to the soul and conscience, and in assuring those that believe and repent of their eternal salvation. Now whereas you say, that a Key is not given to signify or declare that the door is open; it is true. Yet you may know that similitudes must not be extended to every circumstance; it is sufficient if there be a correspondency in the main point. What though a Key cannot declare that the door is open? Yet it is the Ministers duty to declare, that heaven is opened to all that believe and repent; and this very declaring is an effectual means of opening it indeed. For as when Christ unfolded the Scriptures, the 
a Luke 24. 32.  hearts of the two Disciples did burn within them: so when the Ministers declare the glad tidings of the Gospel, God kindleth faith and repentance in the hearts of his chosen; and when they do believe and repent, than the Minister may safely pronounce the forgiveness of their sins, by the Blood of jesus Christ. Thus he is God's effectual instrument to accomplish it, and his Herald to proclaim it.  PHIL. 

b Bell. quo supra.  Keys use to be given to Magistrates, to signify that they have power to lock and unlock the gates of the City.  ORTHOD. 
And Christ gave the Keys to his Ministers, to signify that they have a Ministerial power to lock and unlock the kingdom of heaven.  PHIL. 

c Bell. Ibidem.  When it is said of Christ, he hath the Key of David, he openeth and no man shutteth, he shutteth and no man openeth; all men understand by the Key a true power, and properly so called, by which Christ may absolve and bind by judicial authority, and not signify or declare who is bound or loosed. Wherefore seeing Christ doth communicate his Keys with the Apostles and their successors, they also shall have true power to bind and loose by judicial authority.  ORTHOD. 
First, your 
d Fab. Incar●. serut. sacerdot. pag. 76.  own men distinguish between the Key of excellency, and the Key of ministery. Secondly, even those things which are most proper unto Christ, are ascribed to his Ministers; as for example the salvation of men's souls. For S. Paul saith to Timothy, 
e 1. Tim. 4. 16.  In doing this, thou shalt save both thyself, and them that hear thee. In like manner they may be said to forgive sins, and open the Kingdom of heaven. But this is spoken by a figure, whereby that which belongeth to the principal agent, is ascribed to the instrument. And that no marvel, seeing a man by turning from wickedness, and doing that which is right, is said to 
f Ezech. 18. 27.  save his own soul.  PHIL. 

g Bell. de paenit. lib. 3. c. 2.  A second Argument may be collected from the Metaphor of binding and losing, which doth not signify to declare that one is bound or loosed, but to lay on or take off bonds and fetters indeed.  ORTHOD. 
This is in effect the same with the former: therefore I refer you to the former answer.  PHIL. 

h Ibidem.  A third Argument may be drawn from this very place of S. john: For Christ expressly giveth them power not only to forgive sins, but also to retain; Retinere autem quid est nisi nolle remittere? i. What is it to retain, but to be unwilling to forgive? therefore remission is denied to them, whom the Priest will not forgive.  ORTHOD. 
True, if the will of the Priest be guided by the rules of true Religion. For he should be unwilling to forgive none, but only those that are unbelieving, and unrepentant; from absolving of whom he should be so far, that it is his duty to denounce God's wrath and judgement against them if they continue obstinate.  PHIL. 

a Ibidem.  The Lord saith not, Whose sins you shall forgive they were forgiven, which he would have said, if by remission he had meant declaration: but he saith, They are forgiven, because Christ doth ratify the sentence, which the Priest pronounceth in his Name.  ORTHOD. 
But the Priest must absolve no man, saving those whom God hath first absolved, as you heard before, and is plainly delivered by Pope Gregory, 
b Greg. Hom. 26. in evang.  Quos omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam visitat, illos pastoris sententia absoluat. Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidentis, cum aeterni arbitrium sequitur judicis: i. Let the sentence of the Pastor absolve them whom Almighty God doth visit with the grace of compunction; for than is the absolution of the Spiritual ruler a true absolution, when he followeth the will of the Eternal judge. And again, 
c Ibidem.  Nos debemus per Pastoralem authoritatem solvere, quos authorem nostrum cognoscimus per suscitantem gratiam vivificare, i. We ought absolve those by our Pastoral authority, whom we know that our Author Christ jesus hath revived with his quickening grace. Otherwise his absolution is vain. For as the Legal Priest did not properly cleanse the Leper, yet he is said to 
d Leuit. 14. 11.  cleanse him, because he declared him clean whom the Lord had cleansed: so the evangelical Priest, though he do not properly absolve from sins, yet he is said to absolve, because he declareth him absolved, whom the Lord hath absolved. Wherefore the meaning of Christ's words is this, Whose sins you forgive, that is, whose sins, according to the rules of my Gospel you shall pronounce to be forgiven, they are forgiven; That is, they are so certainly forgiven, that the sentence you pronounce in earth, shall be ratified in Heaven, as it is written, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. So here are three things: First, God the Father for Christ's sake forgiveth sins: Secondly the Minister declareth that God hath forgiven them: Thirdly, this declaratory sentence is ratified in Heaven.  PHIL. 

e Bell ibidem. Qua●t●.  A fourth Argument may be drawn from this word Quorum, in this manner; The Gospel is preached indefinitely to all men, But it is not the will of God that this absolution should be given to all men, but to certain persons only, whom the Priest judgeth fit: as appeareth by these words, Quorum peccata, etc. Whose sins you forgive, etc.  ORTHOD. 
The Gospel is preached generally and indefinitely, to all men, Whosoever believeth and repenteth shall be saved; yet so, that in the general is included this particular, If thou believe and repent, thou shall be saved. Now a man's conscience sanctified by the Holy Ghost, doth say, I believe and repent: Therefore to him the general promise of the Gospel is made particular, by particular application, and to such only making a sincere profession of their faith and repentance, the Minister ought to pronounce forgiveness of sins.  PHIL. 

f Ibidem. Quinto.  A fifth Argument may be drawn from Christ's breathing: For as in the second of the Acts, he gave the Spirit in the form of tongues, Because than he gave them the gift of preaching, so here he gave it by breathing, because he gave them the gift of forgiving of sins, not by preaching as you dream, but plainly by quenching and dissolving them. For as the wind doth quench the fire, and scatter the clouds: so the absolution of the Priest doth scatter sins, and maketh them to vanish: according to which Metaphor we read in Esay, 
a Esay 44. 22.  I have blotted out thy sins as a cloud.  ORTHOD. 
Christ did breath, to signify, that this heavenly gift proceeded from himself, and therefore our Bishops when they utter these words do not breath, because they are not Authors of this spiritual power, but only God's delegates and assigns to give men possession of his graces. Moreover Christ by breathing did signify, that none was fit for this heavenly function but such as he enabled with his spirit, and also that this holy spirit should assist his ministers in the dispelling of sins. Neither is the place of Esay for your purpose: when the sky is darkened with clouds and mists, the Lord sendeth a wind out of his treasure house, whereby they are scattered, the sky cleared, and the golden beams of the sun restored: even so, when the poor soul and conscience is overcast with clouds of sin, and mists of sorrow, God by his holy spirit concurring with his blessed word, bringeth men to faith and repentance, and so forgiveth their sins, that he will never remember them any more. But what is this to your Popish absolution?  PHIL. 
THe 
b Bellarm. Ibide●▪ 〈◊〉.  sixth argument is drawn from the authority of the Fathers, 
6  and first of Chrysostome, out of whose third book of Priesthood, our learned Cardinal produceth six places, the first, where it is said that God hath given such power to those that are in earth, as it was not his will to give either to Angels or Archangels, for it was not said unto them, what soever you bind in earth shall be bound in heaven: but surely the Angels may declare unto men, that if they believe, their sins are forgiven: therefore in the judgement of Chrysostome, power is given unto the Priest, truly to bind and loose and not by way of declaration.  ORTHOD. 

c Act 10. 4.  Though the Angels being ministering spirits, may when it pleaseth the Lord declare unto men, that if they believe their sins are forgiven; aswell as the Angel said to Cornelius Thy prayers & thy alms are come up into remembrance before God: yet this is rare and extraordinary; but the Priest doth it by his ordinary office: in which regard Chrysostome hath reason to say, that such power is given to Priests, as is neither given to Angels nor Archangels.  PHIL. 

d Bell. Ibidem. pergit.  Chrysostome proceedeth, and telleth how earthly Princes have power, To bind the body only, but the Priest's bond toucheth the soul, and reacheth unto heaven. Now earthly Princes do not declare who is bound or loosed, but bind or lose their bodies indeed, and therefore the Priests in binding and losing of souls do not declare who are bound or loosed, but by authority in the room of Christ do bind or lose them indeed; if the comparison of Chrysostome be of any value.  ORTHO. 
He compareth them in respect of the objects, not in respect of the manner: the object of the Prince's bond is the body, the object of the Priest, is the soul: but doth follow because the Prince doth bind or lose the body properly, that therefore binding or losing of the soul is attributed in the like propriety of speech unto the Priest?  PHIL. 

e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chrysostome upon these words whose sins you retain they are retained, saith, What power I pray you can be greater than this? but it is no great matter to declare that sins are forgiven to the believers, and retained to the unbelievers. For any man may perform it which can read the Gospel, neither Priests only but the laity also, neither Catholics only but Heretics also, yea and the devils themselves.  ORTHOD. 
It is no great matter to pronounce the words, but the excellency of the Ministry consisteth in this, that they do it ex officio, and that according to Gods own ordinance, therefore in the reverend performance thereof they may expect a comfortable blessing.  PHIL. 

a Ibidem pergit Pater.  Chrysostome saith, The Father hath given all manner of power to his son, and I see the same power in all variety given to them by the son, but the Father did not give to the son a bare ability to declare the Gospel, but by authority to forgive sins, therefore the like is given to the Priests?  ORTHOD. 
The power which the Father gave to Christ containeth all power in heaven and in earth, but I hope you will not say that Christ gave all power in heaven and earth to his disciples, therefore the words of Chrysostome need a gentle interpretation, and must not be taken literally as they sound, but for a rhetorical amplification. Again, the power to forgive sins is given to Christ, and to his Disciples, but not in the same manner, for God the Father forgiveth sins, by not imputing them, Christ, God and Man meritoriously, the Ministers only Ministerially as you heard before.  PHIL. 

b Ibidem pergit Chrys.  Chrysostome compareth a Priest not with the king's Herald, which only declareth what is done, but with one who hath power to east into prison, and deliver out of prison: how could he more openly declare that the Priest's power is truly judicial?  ORTH. 
The Herald only proclaimeth the king's pardon, and is no instrument to effect it; but the minister so proclaimeth salvation by jesus Christ that he is God's instrument to work it, so the ministerial declaration is not a bare, but an effectual declaration that men's sins are forgiven. For first the Law must be effectually preached, to humble the soul, than the Gospel must be effectually applied to kindle true faith. And as the Minister is God's effectual instrument in working: so he is his Ambassador effectually to minister comfort to the penitent soul. Yet for all this he doth not forgive sins properly, but only ministerially. The like is to be said of his delivering the souls of men out of prison. For that it cannot be meant properly may appear by the other branch, because the Minister doth not properly cast any man into the spiritual prison, but the wicked being already imprisoned and ●ettered with the chain of their own sins, and refusing the light of the Gospel when it shines unto them & the sweet mercies of God in jesus Christ are said to be bound by a Priest, because he retaineth, that is, pronounceth that they are tied and bound with the chains of darkness, and denounceth the judgements of God against them so long as they remain impenitent.  PHIL. 

c Ibidem Addit v●tim●.  Chrysostome makes an other comparison between the legal Priests and the evangelical; for the Legal did purge the leprosy of the body, or rather not purge it, but examine those that were purged: But it is granted to our Priests not to purge the leprosy of the body, but the spots of the soul, I do not say to examine them being purged, but altogether to purge them. In this place to use the words of Cardinal Bellarmine, Saint Chrysostome doth so plainly condemn the opinion of our adversaries, that nothing at all can be answered for them.  ORTHOD. 
Doth the Priest altogether purge the spots of the soul? then it seemeth when the penitent is presented before the Priest, his soul is spotted, but by virtue of the priests absolution the spots are presently washed away; but I pray you tell me, whom doth the Priest forgive and absolve? him whom the Lord hath absolved? or him whom the Lord hath not absolved? if the Priest absolve him whom the Lord hath absolved, than he doth not altogether purge the spot of the soul, no nor properly purge them at all, but only declare that the Lord hath purged them. If you say that the Priest absolveth him whom the Lord hath not absolved, than he shall be forgiven, whom the Lord hath not forgiven: which is most absurd. Again, doth the Priest before he pronounce absolution see any tokens of faith and repentance: If he see none, then how dare he pronounce absolution? and if he see any then the party is already purged. Whereby it appeareth that the absolution of the ministery is only declaratory. Therefore the speech of Chrysostome cannot be taken properly, but his meaning must be this, that the Priest seeing him brought by the ministry of the Gospel to faith and repentance, and consequently purged, certifieth his conscience, that he is altogether purged, and his sins washed away by the blood of jesus Christ.  PHIL. 

a Bel. abide. Sed a●●liamus.  GRegorie 
b Naz. In ora●●●● ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perc●ls●s  Nazianzen saith that the law of Christ hath subjecteth 
7  temporal governors to his authority and throne, and that his power is more ample and perfect than theirs.  ORTHOD. 
The Prince as supreme governor may by his royal authority establish true religion, command both Priest and people to do their duty, and punish those which do otherwise by temporal punishments: but the ministration of the Word & Sacraments, and the exercising of spiritual censures belong to the Bishop: and as the prelate ought to be subject to the sword in the hand of the Prince, so a virtuous Prince submitteth himself to the word of God in the mouth of the prelate. But doth this prove that the Priest forgiveth sins properly?  PHIL. 

c Bel. Ibidem Sanct▪ Ambr.  SAint Ambrose proveth 
d Ambr. l. 1. 〈◊〉 pen. cap. 2.  that Christ gave to the Priests, power to forgive 
8  sins; and it is plain that he speaketh of true power and not of the ministery of preaching, both because the Novatians did not deny that the Gospel might be preached to all men, but they denied that the Priest might forgive sins by authority: and also because Saint 
e Ambr. ●. 7.  Ambrose saith, that Christ hath communicated to the Priests that power which he himself hath.  ORTHOD. 
The Novatians did think that the Church had authority to bind, but not to lose, as may appear by S. Ambrose in the same place. And S. 
f Cyp. 〈◊〉. 52.  Cyprian being requested by Antonianus to unfold the heresy of Novatian showeth, that he denied that such as were fallen should be admitted any more into the Church. 
g Baron. anno 254. n. 107.  Baronius saith, that he grew to such rashness as to deny that the remission of sins (which is in the Apostles Creed) was to be found in the Church. Therefore as they denied that Priests might forgive sins by authority: so they denied that they might forgive sins by way of declaration, for they denied that there was any forgiveness of sins in the Church. Wherefore Saint Ambrose in confuting the Novatians, hath no more confuted our opinion, than he hath confuted yours.  PHIL. 

a Bel. ibid. S. Hieron.  SAint jerom speaking of Priests saith, 
b Ep. ad Heliodorum.  Claves regni caelorum habentes, 
9  quodam modo ante diem judicij judicant. i. having the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, they judge after a sort before the day of judgement. S. 
c August. de C●uit. Dei lib. 20. c. 9  Austin expounding these words, I saw seats, and them that sat upon them, and judgement was given them, saith thus. We must not think that this is spoken of the last judgement, but the seats of prelate's, and prelate's themselves, by whom the Church is now governed are to be understood, neither can we better apply it to any judgement given, then to that of which it is said, whatsoever you bind in earth, shall be bound in heaven. Whereupon the Apostle saith, what is it to me to judge of them that are without? do not you judge of them that are within?  ORTHOD. 
According to Saint jerom the Bishop or Priest doth bind or lose as the Levitical Priests did make the lepers clean and unclean. Which in his judgement was not properly, but because they had the knowledge of leprous, and not leprous: and should discern who was clean and unclean. This is that which Saint jerom meaneth, when he saith they judge after a sort before the day of judgement: which kind of judgement we acknowledge.  PHIL. 
In judgement there are two things, causae cognitio, & sententiae dictio: the knowledge of the cause, and the pronouncing of the sentence. Have you these two?  ORTHOD. 
We have: for first the party maketh a profession of his faith and repentance unto the Minister; here is causae cognitio: and then the Minister by the authority which Christ hath committed unto him, pronounceth forgiveness of his sins; here is sententiae dictio. This is the practice of the Church of England agreeable to the law of God, and the ancient Fathers. But if by causae cognitio, you mean a particular enumeration of all their sins, as a matter necessary to salvation, and by sententiae dictio, understand such a sentence as imposeth works of penance satisfactory to God; when you can prove them out of the Scripture we will embrace them▪ in the mean time we know them not. Hitherto of Saint jerom. The same answer also may serve for the place of Saint Austin, if he mean the same judgement.  PHIL. 
POpe 
d Bel▪ abidem S. Innocent.  Innocent the first saith, 
e Innoc. 1 ●n Epist. 1. ad Decentium. c. 7.  De pondere aestimando delictorum, sacerdotis 
10  est judicare, etc. 1. It is the office of the Priest to judge what sins are to be esteemed heaviest.  ORTHOD. 
He must discern the deepness of the wound before he can apply the medicine. But how doth this prove the point in question, to wit, that the Priest forgiveth sins properly?  PHIL. 
SAint 
f Bel. ibid. S. Gregory.  Gregory saith, 
g Hom. 26. in evangelia.  principatum superni judicij sortiuntur, ut vice 
11  Dei quibusdam peccata retineant, quibusdam relaxent. i. the Disciples obtain a principality of judgement from above, that they may in God's stead retain the sins of some, and release the sins of others.  ORTHOD. 
They are judges to discern sin, that so they may apply the medicine according to the quality of the offenders; yea we do not deny but the Church may enjoin an outward penance for the further mortifying of sin, testifying their inward remorse, and for the more ample satisfaction both of the parties offended, and the whole Church of God; and after the performance of all these things, there may follow a ministerial absolution pronounced by the Ambassadors of God, but this is only declaratory, as may appear by Gregory himself in the same homily, in the places before alleged.  PHIL. 
THe 
a Bellar●inus Ib●dem. Sep●i●o.  seventh argument is drawn from reasons: and first, if 
12.  the Priest absolve not as a judge but only by way of declaration, than no man should perish for want of a Priest to reconcile him, because if he believe, his sins are already forgiven although there be none to declare it. But 
b August. Ep. 180. ad Ho●ra●um.  Austin writeth plainly that some desiring to be reconciled, and therefore believing in Christ do perish everlastingly, because they die before they could be absolved by a Priest. An non cogitamus, etc. i. Do we not consider when men are come to the extremity of such dangers, and have no means to fly from them, what a running together there useth to be in the Church of both sexes of all ages, some earnestly desiring Baptism, others reconciliation, others the action of penance itself, all desiring comfort, and the making and delivering of the Sacraments; where if Ministers be wanting, how great destruction doth follow them which depart out of this world, either not regenerate or bound? And moreover how great mourning there is of their faithful friends, which shall not have them with them, in the rest of life eternal? And Leo writeth the like to Theodorus. Out of which places we understand that sacramental reconciliation hath power to justify, and is not only a declaration of justification already received or hereafter to be received.  ORTHOD. 
Austin doth not say, that some desiring to be reconciled and therefore believing in Christ, do perish everlastingly. For he knew very well that this is contrary to the Scripture, which saith, 
* joh. 3. 15.  He that believeth shall never perish, but have life everlasting. Therefore it is most certain that the true believer cannot perish for want of a Priest. If you ground upon these words, some desiring Baptism, others reconciliation, they are not referred to the parties themselves which were in danger of death being as yet unbaptised & unreconciled, but to their friends, which flocked together in respect of their danger: therefore it doth not appear that Austin speaketh of such as desired reconciliation; but rather the contrary, for ligati are such as stand bound with the chains of their sins. You will say, how do they perish for want of a Priest? I answer that if one were present which by commission from Christ might display the riches of God's mercy unto them, who can tell whether their hearts might be opened to believe and repent unto salvation, and so their chains might be loosed? but when there is none present, that can minister a word of comfort unto them, they being known to be notorious sinners may be thought to perish for want of a Priest, not for want of a Popish but for want of a preaching Priest. Which may yet appear more plainly by the other branch of the unbaptised. For these words (desiring Baptism) must be either referred to the parties or to their friends. If the parties desire Baptism, than they do not perish for want of Baptism, for the Baptism of the spirit doth supply the want of the Baptism of water. 
c Bell. de sacr. bapt. cap. 6. At sint.  Bellarmine himself saith, Sine dubio credendum est veram conversionem supplere baptismum aquae, cum non ex contemptu sed ex necessitate sine baptismo aquae aliqui decedunt. i. We must believe without doubt that true conversion doth supply the Baptism of water, when as any depart this life, without the Baptism of water, not of contempt, but by reason of necessity. And this he proveth first by the Prophet 
d Eze. 18.  Ezekiel, saying, If the wicked repent him of his sins, I will remember his iniquity no more. Secondly, by S. 
a Amb. in oratione de obit● Valentiniani.  Ambrose, who saith of Valentinian the Emperor. Quem eram regeneraturus amisi, sed ille gratiam quam speraverat non amisit. i. I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate (by Baptism) but he hath not lost the grace which he hoped for. Moreover by 
b Aug. l. 4. de Bap. c. 22.  Austin, 
c Bern. Epistola 77.  Bernard, Pope 
d Cap. Apostolicam, de presb. non Bapt.  Innocent the third, yea by the Council of 
e Sessione. 6. c. 4.  Trent, which expoundeth the necessity of baptism to be inre, or in voto. i. either in act or in desire. And 
f Lorin. jes. Comm. in act. 2.  Lorinus the jesuit doth likewise prove out of S. 
g Aug. Quest. super Leu. l. 3. que. 84.  Austin, that the invisible sanctification is to some both present and profitable without the visible Sacraments. Wherefore, if the parties desire Baptism, they cannot perish for want of a Priest. And if you refer this desire of baptism not to the parties, but to their friends, than you must likewise refer the desire of reconciliation; & so you confirm my former speech, & confute your own; thus much for answer to your first reason, let us hear the second.  PHIL. 

h Bell. ibidem Deinde.  Secondly, if the Priest did forgive sins only by declaration, than it is vain and ridiculous, to absolve those that are deaf, and void of senses. But in the old Church, not only the deaf, but such also as by reason of sickness were beside themselves, were sometimes reconciled as appears by 
i Aug. l. 1. de adulter. Coniug. ●●lt.  Austin, 
k Leo in Epistola ad Theoderum.  Leo, the fourth Council of 
l Can. 76.  Carthage, and the Council of 
m Can. 12.  Orange.  ORTHOD. 
They reconciled not all, that were deaf and dumb, and bereft of senses, but only those that either before by their words and deeds, or then presently by their signs did testify their repentance, as may appear by the places alleged. For Austin saith, Si desperati & intra se penitentes iacuerint, nec pro se respondere potuerint, baptizandos puto. i. If they shall lie without all hope of recovering their bodily health, having repentance within themselves, and not able to answer for themselves, in my opinion they ought to be baptized. And a little after, Quae autem baptismatis, eadem reconciliationis est causa: i. that cause which moveth us to confer baptism, may move us to give reconciliation. And Leo saith, if by any force of sickness they shallbe so oppressed, that they are not able to signify in the presence of the Priest, that thing which a little before they desired, the testimonies of the faithful, which are about them, should be profitable unto them, that they may obtain the benefit both of penitence and of reconciliation. And the 4. Council of Carthage saith, He that desireth penitence in his sickness, if by chance (while the Priest cometh unto him) he shall become dumb, or fall into a frenzy, let those which heard him give testimony, and let him receive penitence. And the Council of Orange saith, he which is suddenly dumb, may be baptized and receive penitence, if he have testimony of others, that he was formerly willing, or do manifest his present will by his signs. Now to reconcile men in these cases, is neither vain nor ridiculous, although it be done only by way of declaration. For if they understand what is done, it bringeth unto them a singular comfort: if they be passed sense, yet if God shall restore them, when they hear what was done it will rejoice them: and if they do not recover, yet it shall bring this benefit to all that shall hear it, that God's messenger upon due examination, hath pronounced that they died in faith and repentance.  PHIL. 

n Ex bell. ibidem. Yertio.  If absolution be only declaratory, than this declaration is either absolute or conditional. If it be absolute, than it is either rash or superfluous. For if the Priest know not whether the party hath faith and repentance, and yet pronounce absolutely that his sins are forgiven, than he cannot be excused from rashness: and if he know it in some sort, yet because the party knoweth it better than he, his declaration shall be superfluous. And if the declaration be only conditional, than it cannot comfort the conscience; and consequently it is to no end, and therefore both rash and superfluous.  ORTHOD. 
The declaration is conditional. For though upon due and special consideration, we may say privately and particularly to this or that man; i pronounce that thy sins are forgiven thee: yet this is always to be understood with a secret condition; and the condition is this, If thou believe and repent: Neither may we pronounce it otherwise, then upon a charitable persuasion proceeding upon probable grounds, that this condition is fulfilled.  PHIL. 
But how can it comfort the conscience, seeing the condition is uncertain?  ORTHOD. 
It is certain to the conscience of the party himself?  PHIL. 
What need is there then of the Ministers absolution?  ORTHOD. 
Yes, for the party knowing in his own soul that he made a sincere confession, is comforted by the messenger of the Lord of Hosts, declaring ex officio, the sweet promises of the Gospel, according to Christ's appointment.  PHIL. 

a Bellar. ibid. Quarto.  If it be only declaratory, than it may be performed by a Lay-man, by a woman, a child, an infidel, yea by the devil himself, yea by a Parrot if he be taught to speak, as well as by a Priest.  ORTHOD. 
Who taught this Parrot thus to speak, let wise men judge. But to the point; A man may be said to pronounce and declare remission of sins two ways. First, by a narrative and historical rehearsal out of the general duty of charity; and so may every Christian. Secondly, by a Ministerial power given by a special commission from God, adorned and established with a special promise, and so may every lawful Minister. The commission is given us in our Ordination, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven. The promise was made in these words, Behold, I am with you until the end of the world. Both are expressed in these words of 
b job 33. 23.  job, If there be an Angel with him, (that is with the man whose soul draweth near unto the grave) or an interpreter, one of a thousand to declare unto man his righteousness, then will he have mercy upon him, and will say deliver him that he go not down into the pit, for I have received a reconciliation. Here are two persons to be considered. First, a man lying at the point of death, distressed and groaning under the burden of his sins; Secondly, the man of God appointed to comfort those that mourn in Zion. The latter is described four ways: by his Titles, Office, Commission, and Gods promise unto him. His Titles are an Angel or interpreter: his Office, to declare unto man his righteousness; that is, the righteousness of jesus Christ imputed to all believers, according to the covenant of grace: his Commission, Deliver him that he go not down into the pit: The promise, Then will God have mercy upon him, and say, I have received a reconciliation. Such Titles, such Office, by such special Commission and promise, are not given to any Lay man in the Book of God. Wherefore, though they are bound by their general calling, to edify and comfort one another, yet this belongeth to the Minister in a special manner. Neither is there any doubt but God will give a special blessing to his own Ordinance. Thus have we examined all Bellarmine's arguments, and find them to be nothing else but smoke: He hath sown the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Hitherto of Absolution, as it belongeth to the Minister. Now the parts of penance which you require in the penitent, as Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction, may be passed over, because we speak of the Priest, and not of the penitent. Yet give me leave to tell you, that Auricular confession, as it is used in the Church of Rome, is a policy to dive into the secrets of men, not so much to apply salves unto their sores, or to yield true comfort to the wounded conscience, as to work for your own advantage, and to turn all things to your own pleasure and profit. If you say, that this may be the fault of some particular men, and not of the Church: yet to urge it as you do, as a thing 
a Conc. Trid. sess. 4. Can. 7.  necessary to salvation by Law divine, is the fault of your Church. Surely this doctrine was not known to 
b Confess. lib. 10. c. 3.  S. Austin, when he said, Quid mihi cum hominibus ut audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos? i. What have I to do with men that they should hear my Confessions, as though they should heal all my diseases? Nor to 
c Chrysost. in Psalm. 50. Hom. 2.  Chrysostome, who saith, Art thou ashamed to confess thy sins? rehearse them daily in thy prayers: for I do not say that thou shouldest disclose them to thy fellow servant, who may mock thee, but to God who healeth them. And as for your Popish Satisfaction it is a most blasphemous derogation from the all sufficient Satisfaction of our Saviour jesus Christ. For you do not mean thereby a satisfaction to the party offended, nor Canonical satisfaction to the Congregation for the taking away of public scandal, (both which we willingly embrace) but you teach that after the Priest hath forgiven the penitent his sins, there still remaineth the very same 
d Poena illa quae luenda restat, post culpae remissionem, est illa ipsa poena sensus, quam in g●henna pati debuisset peccator, remota solum aeternitate. Bell▪ de poenit. l. 4. c. 1. Quod si.  punishment which the sinner should have suffered in hell fire, excepting only eternity; for which you enjoin him to make satisfaction to God by works of Popish penance. Moreover, you teach works of supererogation, and that 
e Bellar. de indulg l. 1. c. 2. propos. 4.  many holy men have suffered more for God and righteousness sake, than the guilt of their temporal punishments, to which they were subject by reason of their sins required; and that this superfluity remaineth as a treasure in the Church, to be dispensed by the Prelates in their indulgences, especially by the Pope in the year of jubilee: which shameless practice, what is it else, but a devise to get money? Thus you have turned repentance into a Sacrament of penance, and penance into Mines of silver and gold. Hitherto of our Presbyters. Now let us come to the Deacons.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the third controversy concerning Deacons.  PHIL. 
THere are no Deacons in the Church of England, and therefore you cannot be lawful Presbyters.  ORTHOD. 

f Bellar. de sacram. Ord. c. 5. Presbyteratus non includit essentialiter Diaconatum.  Bellarmine confesseth, that the order of a Deacon, is not essential to the order of Priesthood: and therefore though we had been ordained per saltum, yet you could not deny us the true order of Priesthood. But we are not ordained per saltum; Our Church hath decreed, that there 
g Constitutions and Canons Eccl●s. Anno 1603. Canon. 32.  may be ever some time of trial of their behaviour in the office of Deacons, before they be admitted to the order of Priesthood. And for the Ordination, after due knowledge of the virtuous conversation and examination of the sufficiency of the person, it is performed with religious prayer by a 
a The form of making Bishops etc. in the preface.  Bishop, upon a Sunday or holy day in the face of the Church, in these words, 
b In the ordering of Deacons.  Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon etc.  PHIL. 
The 
c Ex Bell. de cleric. c 13.  office of a Deacon is, to assist the Priest in saying of Mass. Do your Deacons so?  ORTHOD. 
That the Deacon should assist the Priest in the administration of holy things concerning his office, is granted on both sides; but for your Popish massing and sacrificing, we have proved, that it is a profaning of Christ's ordinance, and that it is neither lawful for you to do it, nor for the Deacons to assist you: wherefore seeing we have already justified both our Bishops which ordain, & the office or function of our Presbyters or Priests, we conclude, that as our Bishops and Presbyters, so our Deacons also are lawful in the Church of England. Thus have we examined your objections against the ministry of the Church of England, and find them to be mere cavilles. Neither can you prove that our calling is in any thing, contrary to the Scripture, or to the practice of reverend antiquity, but your sacrificing Priesthood appeareth not only to be the invention of man, but also sacrilegious, and abominable in the sight of God. Wherefore I beseech you repent of your sins, renounce your Antichristian practice, return to your dear Country, cease to be Philodox, and become an Orthodox.   

CHAP. XII.  
Wherein is declared that though we derive our calling from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, yet our calling is lawful, and theirs unlawful.  PHIL. 
WEll, I perceive one thing that howsoever you speak against Popish Priests, calling them sacrilegious and abominable, yet when your own calling is put to the trial, you are glad to derive it from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, which you so disdainfully call sacrilegious and abominable.  ORTHOD. 
And I perceive another thing, that howsoever you exclaimed against Cranmer as a Schismatic, and burned him for an Heretic: yet when the glorious succession of your Bishops in Queen Mary's time, is put to the trial, you are forced to derive it from him whom you so scornfully call a Schismatic and an Heretic. But if our forefathers derived their orders from such Bishops as were Popish Priests, what inconvenience will follow?  PHIL. 
Then either confess your calling to be unlawful, or accknowledge ours to be lawful, from whence you derive it: You cannot gather figs of thorns, nor grapes of thistles, neither is it possible for a rose to spring out of a nettle.  ORTHOD. 
But a garden of Roses may be overgrown with nettles. For the Ministry planted by Christ, was a sweet rose without any nettle; and so it continued in the Church for certain ages: but when Antichrist began to reveal himself in the Temple of God as though he were God, the Romish Priesthood became a monstrous birth, strangely compounded, half rose, half nettle: the Church of England in the beginning of reformation did borrow from the Church of Rome the rose, but left the nettle.  PHIL. 
What will you make of us? are we Ministers or lay men? if we be Ministers, than so acknowledge us. If we be lay men, than I pray you what was Cranmer, who had no Cousecration but in our Church? what were all the Bishops in King's Edward's time which were Consecrated by Cranmer? what was Matthew Parker, Grindall, Sands, Horn, which were all ordained 
a Exempla habemus in Anglia quam pluri●●, ut Parkeri, Grindalli, Sandesij Horni & aliorum qui secundum Catholicum ri●um olim Presbyteri ordinati essent. Brist. Antih. motiu. ●. 2. pag. 266.  Priests in our Church? were they all lay men? what are all the Ministers of England at this day, which derive their orders from the former? are they all laymen?  ORTHOD. 
Your Popish Priests are neither the true ministers of the Gospel, nor merely laymen. For your ordination consisteth of two parts; the former in these words, take thou power to offer sacrifice, and to celebrate mass for the quick and the dead, which you account the principal function of Christian Priesthood, but in truth it maketh you not the Ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist: the latter in these words, receive the holy ghost, whose sins thou forgivest, they are forgiven, & whose thou retainest, they are retained, in which evangelical words, there is delivered a ghostly ministerial power to forgive sins, which according to the true meaning of Christ is performed by the ministry of reconciliation, therefore whosoever hath received this power, hath withal received the ministry of reconciliation, consisting as was before declared in the due administration of the word and sacraments.  PHIL. 
If it be so, than you must confess that the Priesthood of the Church of Rome hath the ministerial function, because these words are used in our ordination.  ORTHOD. 
Though these words as they were spoken by Christ, practised in the primitive Church, and are used at this day in the Church of England, imply the substance of this holy function, yet as you abuse them in the Church of Rome, to maintain Popish shrift, the gold is covered with dross, and the sweet flower overshadowed with noisome weeds. Wherefore if we consider your Priesthood, as it is a totum aggregatum, consisting of sacrificing and absolving, it is unlawful and contrary to the Scripture: If we come to the parts thereof, your massing and sacrificing is simply abominable: the other part so far as it relieth upon the words of Christ, taken in their true sense and meaning, is holy, and implieth a ministerial power, which notwithstanding, by your construction and practice is greatly depraved.  PHIL. 
I will prove our Priesthood to be lawful by the 
b Urged by Brist. Mot. 21. and by Christ. a sacro Bo●co de invest. Christi Eccles. ●. ●.  practice of your own Church, which against you is as good as a thousand witnesses. For when any of our Priests forsake the Catholic Church, & join themselves with you, you do not give them new orders, but presently receive them into the bosom of your Church, suffering them to execute the ministerial function, by virtue of those orders which they received in the Church of Rome.  ORTH. 
None can be admitted with us to execute the office of a minister, before he subscribe to the articles of religion, as may appear by this act of Parliament. 
a 13. Elis. ●. 12.  That the Churches of the Queen's majesties dominions may be served with pastors of sound religion, be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that every person under the degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy word and Sacraments, by reason of any other form of institution, Consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament, in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth, or now used in the reign of our most gracious sovereign Lady, before the feast of the Nativity of Christ next following shall in the presence of the Bishop or Guardian of the spiritualties of some one Diocese where he hath or shall have Ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments comprised in a Book imprinted, entitled Articles, etc. Among which Articles this is one, 
b Artic. 31.  The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual: and there is no other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits. By this you may plainly perceive, that no popish Priest can possibly be admitted in the Church of England, unless he utterly disclaim and renounce the first function of your Priesthood, which consisteth in Massing and Sacrificing, and the latter also so far as it is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. But whatsoever is in it from God, and according to the true sense of the Scripture, as for example, the power of forgiving sins by the ministry of reconciliation that we embrace and acknowledge. It is a Rose which is found in the Romish wilderness, but the plants thereof were derived from the garden of God: It is a river which runneth in Egypt, but the fountain and spring of it is in Paradise: it is a beam which is seen in Babylon, but the original of it is from the sphere of heaven. Wherefore when your priests return to us. Our Church paring away their pollutions, suffereth them to execute their ministerial function, according to the true meaning of Christ's words.  
THe like moderation is used in other reformed Churches, as witnesseth 
2.  Prince 
c Greg. princ. An●. f. 66. B.  Anhalt. Hac utimur moderatione ut ad parochialia munera evocatos, si verbum posthac purè docere & Sacramenta juxta Christi institutionem administrare se velle permittant, recipiamus: horumque contenti vocatione & muneris demandati commissione ordinationem & manus impositionem non iteremus. i. We use this moderation, that we receive such as are called to the charge of particular Parishes, if they promise that they will henceforth teach the word purely, and administer the Sacraments according to the institution of Christ: and we being content with their calling, and commission of their function already committed unto them, do not reiterate their ordination and imposition of hands. This is agreeable to the judgement of the learned Authors of the Articuli Smalcaldici; si 
d Artic. Smalcald. part. 3. Artic. 10.  Episcopi suo officio recte fungerentur & curam Ecclesiae & evangelii gererent, posset illis nomine charitatis & tranquillitatis, non ex necessitate permitti, ut nos & nostros concionatores ordinarent & confirmarent, hac tamen conditione ut seponerentur omnes laruae, prestigiae, deliramenta & spectra pompae Ethnicae. i. If the Bishops would rightly perform their office, and carry a care of the Church and Gospel, it might be permitted unto them in regard of love and peace, though not of necessity, that they should ordain and confirm us and our Preachers, yet upon this condition that all vizards, deceits, all dotages and shows of heathenish pomp should be set aside. This and the rest of the Articles were subscribed unto by Martin Luther, justus jonas, Philip Melancthon, urbanus Regius, Osiander, Brentius, and many more. To these we may join the judgement of Calvin, 
a Epist. 37 3.  ubi sese ipsi offerunt ad munus illud deinceps praestandum, non mole illis ab Ecclesia conceditur quod ab ipsis ante minus legitimè usurpatum erat. Duo sunt in illo statu summa vitia, unum quod non recta ratione instituti sunt ●d munus Ecclesiasticum, alterum quod de illo grad● seize deiecerunt dum nihil eius praesti●erunt quod ad rem pertineret. Sed illud non facit quo minus agnoscantur pro ministris ordinariis, ubi sese Ecclesiae coniungere paratos ostendunt: atque ita de novo confirmentur demum ad corrigendum praecedentem defectum. When such as have been popish Priests do offer themselves from henceforth to perform the ministerial function, that which before was usurped of them unlawfully, is now not amiss granted unto them by the Church. For there are two great faults in that state; one that they are not rightly instituted to the Ecclesiastical office: another that they have deprived themselves from that degeee by doing nothing belonging to the matter. But this doth not hinder that they may be acknowledged for ordinary ministers when they show themselves ready to join themselves to the Church, & so may be confirmed again a new, to correct their former default. And 
b Ibidem.  again, Constat non posse haberi pro Christianis pastoribus▪ nisi prius abrenuncient sacerdotio papali ad quod provecti erant ut Christum sacrificarent, quodest blasphemiae genus omnibus modis detestandum. Praeterea etiam requiritur ut apart profiteāturse abstinere omnino velle ab omnibus illis superstitionibus & faeditatibus, quae simplicitati evangelii repugnant. i. It is evident that they cannot be esteemed for Christian pastors, unless first they renounce the Popish Priesthood to which they were promoted that they might sacrifice Christ which is a kind of blasphemy by all means to be detested. Moreover there is required, that they make an open profession, that they will altogether refrain from all those superstitions and impurities which are repugnant to the simplicity of the Gospel.  PHIL. 
But one of your Ministers cannot so easily be metamorphised 
3  into a Catholic Priest; first the devil must be conjured out of him in this manner. 
c Pontif. in ord. reconci●iand. Apost. Schis. vel Haereticum. p. 649.  Exorcizo te immunde spiritus, etc. I conjure thee, thou foul spirit by God the Father almighty, and by jesus Christ his Son, and by the holy Spirit, that thou depart out of this servant of God, whom God and our Lord vouchsafeth to deliver, from errors and from thy deceits, and to call back to the Catholic and Apostolic holy Mother Church. Thou cursed and damned spirit, he commandeth thee, who having suffered, and being dead and buried for the salvation of men, hath conquered thee and all thy forces, and rising again is ascended into heaven whence he will come to judge both the quick and the dead, and the world by fire. This is the form of the Church in reconciling all Apostates, Heretics & Schismatics.  ORTHOD. 
Who so duly considereth your positions and practices, may very well think that you are more likely to conjure the devil into a man, than out of him. Woe to you Seminaries and Jesuits, Hypocrites, you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is become one, you make him two fold more the child of Hell, than ye yourselves are. But when he is reconciled what is then to be done.  PHIL. 
Though now he be a Catholic when the Devil is conjured out of him, yet before he can be Priest, he must be cast wholly in a new mould. For as I told you we account your Ministers but merely lay men without orders.  ORTHOD. 
The more to blame you; and therein you degenerate from your forefathers, as may appear by the articles sent by Queen Mary to Bishop Bonner, one whereof was this.  
a Act● an● Monuments. vol. 2. p. 1295.  Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders: considering they were not ordered in very deed: the bishop of the Diocese, finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in these men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion, admit them to minister. 
here you see that they did not ordain them a new, but only supply that which they thought to be wanting, and therefore they misliked not our orders in whole but in part.  PHIL. 
Yes they wholly misliked them, as you may see by the words: considering they were not ordered in very deed. If they were not ordered in very deed, then howsoever they pretended orders, yet they had no orders at all, but were merely lay men, and so are you. For that which they call the new sort and fashion of orders, was according to the book established by King Edward, which is used in England to this very day.  ORTHO. 
Doth not a Bishop ordain when he imposeth hands, and saith, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins you forgive, etc.  PHIL. 

b Bell. de Sacram. ord. 1. c. 9 ad tertiam respondeo.  I answer that Priests are ordained when it is said unto them, take thou power to offer sacrifice, but they are also ordained afterward, when it is said unto them, Receive the holy Ghost. For by the former words they are ordained to the function of sacrificing, by the latter to the function of absolving, by both jointly to the full and perfect order of Priesthood.  ORTHOD. 
But these words; Receive the holy Ghost, were used in king Edward's time, and are to this day in the Church of England, in making of Ministers. And therefore those that are promoted to orders after the new sort and fashion as you call it, are ordered in very deed, neither did the Penners of the article mean otherwise.  PHIL. 
Are not their words plain that they were not ordered in very deed?  ORTHOD. 
They meant that they were not ordered fully and perfectly, & therefore advised the Bishops to supply that which wanted, Which they could not say with reason, if they had thought them to be merely lay men; therefore they judged them to be Priests in part, and yet part of the office to be wanting, which needed supply. That which they had, was the power received by these words, Receive the holy Ghost. That which they supposed to be wanting, was the power of sacrificing. Therefore their meaning was not to reiterate that which they had, but to supply that which was wanting in their conceit, even as we on the contrary side cause such as come from Popery to us to renounce the power of sacrificing which we hold sacrilegious, but do not reiterate those evangelical words, wherein we agree. And this you must needs grant unless you will allow of reordination.  PHIL. 
Reordination? God forbid. No sir we will never allow of that. For order imprinteth a Character, and therefore can never be reiterated.  ORTHOD. 
But you granted before that a Priest is ordained when the Bishop saith unto him, Receive the holy Ghost. And therefore if the power of remitting sins given in these words, were reiterated either in Queen Mary's time, or among you at this day in ordaining your proselytes, than you cannot possibly defend your Church from Reordination. If you abhor reordination, than you must confess that when any Minister revolteth from us to you, yet in making him Priest you must not repeat those words, Receive the holy Ghost, which proveth invincibly, that unless you will be contrary unto yourselves, you cannot esteem us to be merely lay men. Or if you will needs advance your own orders, and make a nullity in ours, and order our fugitive Ministers accordingly, than you must run (there is no remedy) upon the rock of Reordination by repeating the words wherein we agree.  PHIL. 
Though we agree in the words, yet we differ in the sense.  ORTHOD. 
That is no bar to Reordination; for if a child be baptized in the true form of words, & an Heretic shall baptize the same child in the same words, though in another sense, yet all good Christians will judge it to be Rebaptisation; and there is the same reason of Reordination. Therefore thus I reason. When you Metamorphize an English Minister, into a Popish Priest, either you repeat the words, Receive the holy Ghost, or you do not: if you do repeat them, than I have made it manifest, that you use Reordination. If you do not, than you justify not only our practice, but also our orders. For you hold these words necessary in ordination, to the conferring of one of the principal functions of Priesthood, and therefore in not repeating them you acknowledge that they had received that function before, in the Church of England, & consequently that the ministers of England are not lay men. So your own practice, doth either condemn yourselves, or justify us, but our practice condemneth altogether the first part of your Priesthood, that is, your carnal sacrificing as simply abominable: and the latter part so far as it is polluted with your popish constructions.  PHIL. 
If the first part of our Priesthood be simply abominable, and the latter as it is used by us be polluted, than Cranmer, Ridley, Parker, Grindall, and the rest of your Colonels, had no other Priesthood, but that which was partly abominable and partly polluted.  ORTHO. 
When God opened their eyes, they did utterly renounce your carnal sacrificing, as derogating from the all-sufficient sacrifice of jesus Christ; the other part, that is, the power of forgiving sins which they received corruptly in the Church of Rome, they practised purely in the Church of England, renouncing the Pope and all Popish pollutions.  PHIL. 
But when the question is concerning the validity of orders, we must not so much respect the practice as the power received in ordination, how Cranmer, Parker, and such like received both parts of their Priesthood in the Church of Rome. And as the Church gave them so they received them, in that very sense which the Church of Rome holdeth at this day. Wherefore seeing you condemned both parts, as we use them for nettles, I cannot but marvel how you can be Roses.  ORTHOD. 
Let me ask you a question; If one Baptize a Convert in the Element of water, according to the true form of the Church, yet so, that both the Baptizer and the baptised have some pernicious error: as for example, If they deny the Godhead of the Son, or of the holy Ghost, shall this hinder the validity of the Baptism?  PHIL. 
No: for you must consider that there is a visible Priest, and an invisible. It is required to the substance of Baptism, that the visible Priest apply water to the baptised, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. If he fail in any of these points, the Baptism is frustrate. And therefore it was decreed in the great Council of 
a Can. 19  Nice, that the Paulianists should be rebaptized; where they take the word rebaptized improperly, meaning that the former was not performed in the true words, and therefore was in deed no Baptism. But if it were duly performed in water with such words as Christ hath appointed, their private opinions and misconstruction, cannot hinder the validity of the Baptism. Satis ostendimus (saith 
b Aug. de Baptismo Contra D●natistas. l. 4. cap. 15.  S. Austin) ad Baptismum qui verbis Euangelicis consecratur, non pertinere cuiusquam vel dantis, vel accipientis errorem sive de Patre, sive de Filio, sive de Spiritu sancto, aliter sentiat quam coelesiis doctrina insinuat. i. We have sufficiently declared, that to the Baptism which is consecrated with evangelical words, pertaineth not the error of any man, either of the giver, or of the receiver, whether he think otherwise, than the heavenly doctrine teacheth of the Father, or of the Son, or of the holy Ghost. For whosoever be the Minister, Christ the invisible Priest is the principal Baptizer, and therefore if the right Element and form of words be used, we regard not the erroneous sense of the servant, but the true sense of the Lord and Master.  ORTHOD. 
So I say to you, there is a visible Bishop, and an invisible; if the visible shall impose hands upon a capable person, using those evangelical words which Christ hath sanctified, his own private opinions cannot hinder the validity of the Ordination: for so that right and sufficient words be used, we will not respect the erroneous construction of the servant, but the true sense and meaning of the Lord and Master. Therefore though Cranmer and Parker were ordained in the rite of the Church of Rome, though both the ordainers gave the power, and the ordained received it in the erroneous sense of the Church of Rome; yet neither the error of the ordainers, nor of the ordained, pertaineth to the Ordination. As Christ is the chief Baptizer, so he is the chief Ordainer: for 
c Ephes. 4. 11. 12.  he giveth Pastors and teachers, for the consummation of the Saints. Wherefore, when God vouchsafed to take away the scales of ignorance from the eyes of his blessed instruments which he used in the reformation of Religion, it was their duty not to follow the erroneous sense of the visible Bishop, but the true meaning of the invisible Bishop, who was the author of these holy and admirable words, Receive the holy Ghost, etc. In which words of Christ, that was accomplished, which was promised by the keys, which keys the 
d See Bishop jewel def. par. 2. c. 7. di●. 1.  Fathers call the knowledge of the Scripture, the interpretation of the Law, the word of God: And Pope 
e In 4. sent. s●e Tortura Torti. p. 62.  Adrian, the key of ministry: so whosoever is ordained by these words, receiveth the keys, and may open the kingdom of heaven, by the Word and Sacraments. Wherefore seeing these words were retained in the Ordination of Priests, even in the darkness of Popery, it followeth that the Church of Rome had power by these words, rightly understood according to the Scripture, to minister the word and Sacraments. But that which in itself was lawful, to them was made unlawful, by adding the abomination of sacrificing, and by wresting the words of Christ to their Popish shrift. Thus though the Church of Rome gave her Priest's authority to preach the truth, yet she did not reveal the truth unto them but plunged them in ignorance and errors. Therefore whereas those words of Christ (in themselves a Rose) by corruption of time were overgrown with nettles, those heroical spirits which reformed religion, did weed away the Roman nettles, and so there remained only the sweet Rose of jesus Christ. Thus it came to pass that that which was practised in the Church of Rome unlawfully, as being polluted with wicked human inventions, was by the goodness of God purged and restored to the orient colour, and native purity. To conclude, in the primitive Church, the ministerial power was received purely, and delivered purely; In the beginning of Popery, it was received purely, and delivered corruptly: During the sway of Popery it was received corruptly and delivered corruptly: In the beginning of the reformation it was received corruptly, and delivered purely: Now in the sun shine of the Gospel, it is received purely and delivered purely. Thus it appeareth that although we received our Orders from such as were Popish Priests, yet our calling is lawful, which was to be declared. Now the Lord of his mercy so bless his own ordinance, that we may use this holy function to his glory, and the winning of many thousand souls. Amen.  
LAUS DEO.    

¶ AN APPENDIX.  
WHen this work had almost passed the Press, there came to my hands certain scandalous Books made by our Popish adversaries, reproaching the Consecrations of some Bishops of blessed memory; Who in their life time powered out such precious ointment, as still filleth the Church with the sweetness of the odour. Among which jewels, Bishop jewel is first produced, who like another Shammah stood in the midst of the field, and 
2. Sam. 23. 12.  defended it, and slew the Philistims: so the Lord gave great victory: In regard whereof, they being filled with malice and envy, and not being able with dint of Argument, to encounter him and the rest of his fellow Soldiers, those worthies of David which fought the Lords battles, have sought by all means to disgrace their Calling, disgorging their poison against them without any respect of conscience or truth, in these opprobrious and scurrilous words.  

a A Preface to a Book called, A discussion. numb. 135.  Of M. jewels being Bishop, we have not so much certainty, yea we have no certainty at all. For who I pray you, made him? who gave him his jurisdiction? who imposed hands upon him? what Orders had they? what Bishops were they?  
136. True it is that both he, Sands, Scory, Horn, Grindall, and others (if I 
b Christ. a Sacrabosco de invest. Christi Eccles. c. 3. He should say. c. 4  mistake not their names) in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, met at the Horsehead in Cheap side, (a fit sign for such a Sacrament,) and being disappointed of the Catholic Bishop of Landaffe, who should there have been to Consecrate them, they used the like art that the 
a Sir Thomas Moor.  Lollards once did in another matter, who being desirous to eat flesh on Good-Friday, and yet fearing the penalties of the Laws, in such cases appointed, took a Pig, and diving him under the water said, Down Pig, and up Pike: And then after, constantly avouched that they had eaten no flesh but fish: So I say these grave Prelates assembled as afore said, seeing the Bishop whom they expected came not to consecrate them, they dealt with Scory of Hereford to do it, who when they were all on their knees, caused him who kneeled down john jewel, to rise up Bishop of Salisbury: And him that was Robert Horn before, to rise up Bishop of Winchester: and so forth with all the rest. Which Horsehead Ordering was after confirmed Synodically by Parliament, wherein they were acknowledged for true Bishops: And it was further Enacted, That none should make any doubt, or call in question that Ordination.  
137. This was the first ordering of Master jewel, and the rest as I have been informed by one that heard it from Master Neale reader of the Hebrew Lecture in Oxford, who was there present, and an eye witness of what was done and passed▪ etc.  
Now the place of Sacrobosco which he c●teth in the Margin is this, 
b Sacro●●●●. quo supra. cap. 4.  Principio regni Elizabeth aecreandi erant Episcopi sectarij: Candidate convenerunt Londini in quodam Hospitio plateae Anglicè dictae▪ heapside, ad ensign capitis Manni, & una ordines collaturus L●ndauensis Episcopus, homo senex & simplex; quod ut intellexit Bon●rus tunc decanus Episcoporun in Anglia, misit è turri Londinensi (ubi religionis causa detinebatur) capellanum suum, qui Landavensi proposita excommunicationis paena prohiberet novos candidatos ordinare: ea autem denuntiatione territus Landavensis, p●d●m retulit, multiplicique tergiversatione usus sacril●gam vitavit ordinationem. Hîc furere Candidati; Landavensem contemnere, nova quaerere consilia; quid plura? Scoreus Monachus (post Herefordensis Pseudo-Episcopus) caeteris; excaeteris quidam Scoreo manus imponunt, fiuntque sine Patre filii, & Pater a Filijs procreatur, res saeculis omnibus inaudita. Quod D. Thomas Neale Hebraicus Oxoniae lector qui interfuit, antiquis confessoribus, illi mihi narrarunt, & fidem astruit quod in comitijs postea sancitum fuit, ut pro legitimis Episcopis haberentur Parlamentarij isti.  
These imputations I found first in general, cunningly cast forth by Kellison, who said, 
c 〈◊〉 ●. Reply pag. 31.  He heard credibly reported that some of our new superintendents were made Bishops at the Nagges-head in Cheap. Whereupon, because I would deal candidè with my adversary, and propose his objection with most probability, I brought it against the first Bishop, consecrated in the Queen's time, that is, Archbishop Parker, and cleared him from this reproach. For can any man of reason imagine, that they would go to consecrate one another in a Tavern, and so incur the danger of the Law, after that they had according to their hearts desire an Archbishop of their own religion, quietly possessed of his Church and Chair? But now the Author of the Preface affirmeth in particular, that jewel, Sands, Horn and Grindal were there, then, and in that manner Consecrated by Scory, and Scory by some of them, saith Sacroboscus.  
To answer briefly (for the glass is almost run,) First, it is a silly surmise that Bishop Scory should be Consecrated by them, seeing he was 
* See above pag. 93.  Consecrated by Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops in the time of King Edward. Secondly▪ those reverend Prelates, 
d See pag. 134.  Grindall, and 
e See pag. 135.  Sands, were both Consecrated upon one day by Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by three other Bishops, as you have heard out of the Records. To which I add moreover, upon a review of the same Records, that the place of their Consecration was, the Chapel at Lambehith: the time, the Sabbath day in the forenoon after Morning prayer: the manner, with imposition of hands, and such form of words and Prayers as are used in the Church. For the better performance whereof; there was a Sermon Preached by Master Alexander No well, than the Archbishop's Chaplain, upon this Text; 
a Acts 20. 28  Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock whereof the holy Ghost hath made you overseers; And a Communion reverently ministered by the Archbishop. Thirdly, Bishop jewel was 
* See p. 137.  Consecrated the 21. of january following, by Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund London, Richard Ely and john Bedford, in the foresaid Chapel at Lambehith upon the Sabbath in the forenoon, with Common prayers, Communion, and a Sermon, preached by Master Andrew Peirson, the Archbishop's Chaplain, upon this Text, 
b Math. 5. 16.  Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven. Lastly, Bishop 
c Pag. 134.  Horn, was Consecrated the year following by Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bishop of Saint David's, Edmund Bishop of London, and Thomas Bishop of Cou●ntry and Lichfield, as was before related. The place of his Consecration was likewise the Chapel at Lambehith: the time, the Sabbath day in the forenoon: and the manner in all respects as the former. Thus all things were most orderly and reverently performed. Now let the world judge, what is to be thought of these men, which dare so confidently blaze such untruths, and are not ashamed to produce an eye witness for that which was never seen by the eye of man. As for their down Pig, and up Pike, and such other of the same stamp, I may say with the Prophet, 
d Esay 57 4.  On whomhave you jested, upon whom have you gaped and thrust out the tongue? And I advise you to remember the saying of Solomon, 
e Eccles. 7. 8.  As the noise or crackling of the thorns under the pot: so is the laughter of a fool: As also that of David, 
f Psal. 1. 1.  Blessed is the man that hath not sit in the seat of the scornful. I will conclude this point with this saying of Solomon, 
g Pro. 12. 22.  The lying lips are an abomination to the Lord; but they that deal truly are his delight.   

¶ A note of the Editions of some Books cited by page.  

ACTS and Monu. Lond. 1610.  
Antiquit. Britt. Hannou. 1605.  
Antisand. Cantabr. 1593.  
Anglicar rerum Scriptor. Francof. 1601.  
Bellarm. apol. & resp. Colon. 1610.  
Binius. Colon. 1606.  
Brist. Motiu. Antih. Atrebat. 1608.  
aliens. Episc. Resp. adapol. Bell. Lond. 1610.  
Georg. Princ. Anhalt. Wittenb. 1570.  
holinsh. Lond. 1587.  
joh. de Turrecrem. in G●at. decr. Venet. 1578.  
Kellison Reply. 1608.  
Lelandus. Lond. 1545.  
Matth. Paris. Tigur. 1589.  
Navar. Manual Mogunt. 1603.  
Pars. 3. Conuers. 1603.  
Pollinus. Romae. 1594.  
Pontificale. Romae. 1595.  
Sand. de Schism. Ingolst. 1587.  
Tortura Torti. Lond. 1609.  
Turr. de Eccles. Colon. 1674.  
Vargas de Episc. Iurisd. Romae. 1563.  
Walfingham. Francof. 1603.    

GEntle Readers, the most material mistake which I have observed, are these; some whereof notwithstanding are amended in most Copies; for other which escaped me, I crave your courteous pardons.  — Hanc veniam petimúsque, damúsque vicissim. 

ERRATA.  
Page. 57 line. 12. Northumb. Read Part of Northumb.  
Pag. 119. line 2. Marco. Read Mario.  
Ibid. line 5. Mark. Read Marius.  
Ibid. line 10. from the law. Read in the Law.  
Pag. 126. line 33. stattorum. Read statutorum.  
Pag. 135. line 36. Anno 1677. Read Anno 1577.  
Pag. 178. line 1. Clement. 5. Read Clement 2.  
P. 213. l. 23 ni the Eucharistim properly Read in the Eucharist improperly.  
Pag. 238. line 40. subance. Read substance.  


In the Margin.  
Pag. 38. lit. b. dist. 25. Read dist. 14.  
Pag. 60. lit. c. lib 4. Read lib. 11.  
Pag. 69. lit. e. for 822. Read 322.  
Pag. 263. lit. a. 333. Read 373.