Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.

THE THIRD BOOKE▪ OF THE BISHOPS CONSE∣crated in the Raigne of Q. Elizabeth, and of our gracious Soueraigne King IAMES. (Book 3)

CHAP. I.

Of the Bishops deposed in the beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth, with an answere to certaine odious imputations concerning some Antece∣dents, and Consequents of their Depositions.

PHIL.

THe reuolution of times hath brought vs to the raigne of Queene Elizabeth, euen to that blacke and dolefull day, wherein all the Bishops of Eng∣land, all, I say, one onely excepted, were deposed from their degrees and dignities: a 1.1 For, a great penaltie was inflicted vpon such as should after the Feast of S. Iohn Baptis•• 1559. say or heare Masse, or procure any other Ecclesiasticall Office whatsoeuer, after the old rite, or administer any Sacrament after the Romane maner, to wit, That hee which offended against that Law, for the first time should pay 200 Nobles, or be in bonds sixe Moneths: for the second 400. Nobles, or a yeere in bonds: for the third, he should be in perpetuall pri∣son, and forfeite all his goods; By which meanes it came to passe, That at the day pre∣scribed, the holy and diuine Offices ceased to be performed publikely through the whole Kingdome. And because the Bishops would not consent to those impieties, nor af∣firme vpon their Oathes, that they beleeued in their consciences, That the Queene onely was the Supreame gouernesse of the Church of England, vnder Christ, they were all, saue one, shortly after deposed from their Degree and dignitte, and committed to certaine prisons, and custodies, whereupon they are all at this day dead, with the long tediousnesse of their miseries; The names of which most glorious Confessours, I will set downe, that the thing may be had in euerlasting remembrance. First of all Nicho∣las Archbishop of Yorke, and a little before that time, Lord Chancellour of England, then Edmund Bonner Bishop of London, and Tunstall of Durham, Iohn of Win∣ton, Thomas of Lincolne, Thurlby of Ely, Turberuill of Exeter, Borne of Bath, Pole of Peterborow, Baine of Lichfield, Cuthbert of Chester, Oglethorp of Carlile, and Thomas Goldwell of S. Asaph, &c.

ORTH.

Here are two things to be discussed; The deposing of the old Bi∣shops, and aduancing of the new. Concerning the first, you make a grieuous

complaint that they were not onely deposed, but also vsed with great indigni∣tie, both before their deposing and after. Wherfore let vs first consider the cir∣cumstances, and then come to the deposition it selfe.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

You maske your noueltie vnder 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 Sacra∣ment, after the Roman manner.

ORT.

Saint Paul saith; a 1.2 That which I receiued of the Lord, that deliuer I vnto you; teaching vs that Sacraments must bee ministred in such manner, as wee haue receiued of the Lord: wee are not tied to the rite of Rome, or any o∣ther City or Country, but onely to the institution of Iesus Christ: If Rome fol∣low this, wee will follow it with Rome; if Rome forsake this, then farewell Rome: But what was the penalty?

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

What hath that good Lady done, which doth not become a most vertuous and gratious Prince? hath shee made lawes to establish reli∣gion? So did b 1.3 Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius. Hath shee inflicted a penalty vpon the infringers? So did c 1.4 Constantine vpon the Donatists, That their goods should bee confiscate: so did d 1.5 Theodosius vpon the Donatists likewise, Ten pound of gold, to bee paide to the Emperours Exchequer. And these lawes are highly commended by Saint Austin. Indeed he was some times of opinion, that they were to bee dealt withall, onely by * 1.6 perswasions, not by penalties; but when his fellow Bishops laide before him so plaine exam∣ples of so many cities, infected with Donatisme, and all reclaimed by helpe of imperiall lawes, hee f 1.7 changed his minde, and yeelded vnto them. Then hee perceiued, that the Circumcellions, which were like vnto mad men, were brought into their right wittes againe and made good Catholikes, by being bound as it were with the chaines of imperiall lawes: then he perceiued that others beeing in a spirituall lethargie, were awakened with the seuerity of Imperiall lawes: then hee perceiued, that the Kings of the earth serue Christ, euen by making lawes for Christ. So did that gratious Lady Queene Eliza∣beth; wherein how mildely and mercifully shee proceeded, you may learne by looking backe to her sister Queene Mary, who was not con∣tent to inflict a pecuniary mulct, or a little imprisonment vpon those of the contrary religion, but tied thē to stakes, & burned thē to ashes in flaming fire.

PHIL.

As though a life lingting in disgrace were not worse then a pre∣sent death: For g 1.8 Foureteene noble and most worthy Bishops, inferiour in vertue, and learning to none in Europe, were all deposed from their honours, and high cal∣ling, and most of them imprisoned, and spitefully vsed in all respectes.

ORTHOD.

FIrst, let vs consider what they deserued, and secondly* 1.9 how they were serued. How well they deserued at the

Queenes hands may appeare by their behauiour in three points, concerning the Coronation, Disputation and Excommunication. First when the Queen was to bee crowned, they all conspired together, refusing to performe such solemnitie, as by them of dutie was to bee performed at her Coronation: Owen Oglethorp, Bishop of Carlill onely excepted.

PHIL.

Had they not cause to refuse? a 1.10 So soone as shee came to the crowne, shee presently reuealed her minde in religion, both by many other meanes, and especi∣ally in that shee straightway silenced the Catholike Preachers: and suffered the he∣retikes to returne into the kingdome from diuers places, where they were in banish∣ment: Moreouer shee gaue charge to a certaine Bishop about to performe the holy rite before her, and now standing at the Altar attyred in holy vestments, that hee should not eleuate the Consecrated hoaste: whereupon it came to passe, that the Arch∣bishoppe of Yorke, whose office it was (Cardinall Poole Archbishop of Canterbu∣ry beeing departed this transitory life) to annoynt and Consecrate her to bee Queene, denied his helpe, and the rest of the Bishops likewise, al sauing one, and he almost the last among them.

ORTHO.

Your eleuation is referred to adoration, which is Idolatrie; therefore if shee forbad it, as also the Preaching of errour, and commanded the Preaching of truth, shee did but her duty: For as Saint b 1.11 Austin saith: Princes may commaund that which is good, and forbid that which is euill within their owne kingdomes, not in ciuill affaires onely, but in matters pertayning to diuine religion also. But if it were so that the Queene therein had commit∣ted an errour, if it were so that Popery were true religion; yet shee was the lawfull Queene, the Kingdome descended to her by right of inheri∣tance; the Nobles and commons according to their dutie acknowledged her for Queene, she was proclaimed, by order taken by the Lords and the Archb. of Yorke himselfe, then Lord Chancelour of England; what rea∣son then had the Bishops to deny her that solemnity, which was neuer deni∣ed to any of her noble progenitours? If she had pulled the Miters from their heades, for refusing to set the Diademe vpon her head, had not this beene a iust reward for a due desert? Hitherto of the first point, that is, the Coronation.

SEcondly, it was the Queenes pleasure, that there should be a solemne* 1.12 disputation betweene the Popish Bishops, or some other Champions appointed by them on the one part, and other learned diuines of our religi∣on, on the other part; but the Bishops with one accord most obstinately re∣fused the incounter.

PHIL.

They had reason: for (as they then answered for themselues) It c 1.13 was not fit that those things which for many ages had beene defined by so famous iudgements of Popes, Councels and Fathers, should now come againe into question and disputation.

ORTH.

You tell vs of Popes, Councels, and Fathers, but I heare no mention at all of the Scripture: truly Philodox, wee builde not our faith vpon Popes nor Councels, nor Fathers, but onely vpon the blessed and sa∣cred word of God, registred in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. but for the better vnderstanding of this word, wee make honourable ac∣count of ancient Councels and Fathers, yet so that wee put an infinite dif∣ference

betweene them and the word of the liuing God. For the word of God is infallible; it can neither deceiue, nor bee deceiued; but the word of man is subiect to errour: therefore wee must trie all things, and holde that which is good, and the touchstone of all is the word of God. Neither are wee afraid of the Councels and Fathers: you beare the world in hand that all make for you, but vpon manifold and iust experience it prooueth otherwise. As for the Popes, if you meane the ancient Bishops of Rome, wee regard them with reuerence, and if their true writings were extant, wee would wil∣lingly embrace them: but as for your late Popes, wee litle respect them. Moreouer, if your Bishops had for them the former definitions of Fathers and Councels, they might more easily haue conuinced their aduersaries in disputation; this should haue beene a spurre vnto them, and not a bridle.

PHIL.

As it was not fit to call the former definitions in question a∣gaine, so a 1.14 much lesse was it fit, that those things which ought to haue beene dis∣cussed in the Vniuersities by certaine order before the learned and iudicious, should bee handled before the people which was vnskilfull, and desirous of noueltie, which vseth to define euery thing rather by outcryes, then by arguments.

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

b 1.15 They saide that against the contentious, and such as would not rest in the iudgement of the Church, little good could bee done by disputation. And veri∣ly no maruell if they were loth to haue triall by disputation, when the Iudge c 1.16 was Nicholas Bacon, a layman, an Hereticke, altogether ignorant of Diuinitie: the most reuerend Archbishop of Yorke assisting for fashion sake onely. The day came, which was the third of April, there was infinite concourse, vnequall lawes of disputation were prescribed of the Heretickes onely; nothing was done with order and reason, the time slipped away with declamations on both sides, the prophane iudge moderateth all things as it pleaseth him, all comes to nothing, and so the Heretickes proceede in their madnesse.

ORTH.

These are figures of rehetoricke, wherewith you vse to embel∣lish your speeches, as it were with precious stones. Whosoeuer will hold with the Pope, is presently with you a good Catholicke and a very learned man; but let him bee neuer so wise, learned, and iudicious, if hee loue God, his Prince and countrey better then the Pope, hee shall bee reproached with ignorance and heresie; as appeareth in that honourable personage Sir Nicho∣las Bacon, Lord Keeper of the great Seale of England, a man famous for wis∣dome pietie, and the zeale of Gods glory. But why doe you blemish him? be∣cause hee had the fauour of a gracious Prince? you might haue learned of d 1.17 Salomon: Hee that loueth purenesse of heart, for the grace of his lippes the King shall bee his friend? can you blame him, for that hee was designed by his Soueraigne, to bee a moderatour at the disputation? you should rather haue considered the Queenes great mildenesse, and gracious proceeding, in that shee vouchsafed to ioyne with him an assistant (as Sanders confesseth) one of your owne Religion, a man of eminent note in Church and common wealth,

who stoode not for a cipher, or for fashion sake, but was armed with autho∣ritie, and had power to prouide that the Papistes should haue full libertie to speake their mindes before that great and honourable assembly. How was it possible that the businesse should bee contriued with greater equalitie and indifferencie?

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

Did not a 1.18 Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, and other Bishops dispute with Photinus before certaine noble men, which the Emperour had appointed to bee Iudges? did not Saint b 1.19 Austine dispute with the Donatists, Marcellinus the tri∣bune being Iudge? did hee not dispute with c 1.20 Pascentius the Arrian, Laurentius a secular man being Iudge? And if it please you to looke into the volumes of Councels, you shall finde, that in the fourth generall Councell, being the first at Chalcedon, noble men of the d 1.21 Laity were appointed Iudges, whose names are set downe in the beginning of the first action. The like is to bee found in the sixt generall Councell being the third at e 1.22 Constantinople. And in the third generall Councell, being the first at Ephesus, Theodosius and Valentintan appointed f 1.23 Candidianus an Earle to bee the Iudge.

PHIL.

These were Iudges after a sort: But how? that may appeare by the wordes of the Emperour concerning Candidianus: g 1.24 Ad Sacram vestram Synodum abire iussimus; sed ea lege & conditione vt cum quaestionibus & controuer∣sijs quae circafidei dogmata incidunt, nihil quicquam commune habeat: i. wee haue commanded him to goe vnto your sacred Synode; but vpon this condition that hee haue nothing at all to doe with questions and controuersies of faith.

ORTHOD.

Very true: h 1.25 But, first to remoue all such persons as might be troublesome to the sacred Synode. Secondly, not to suffer those which were of the Synode to depart before the consultation were ended Thirdly, not to let them dispute any by-matters, before the principall were fully discussed and concluded. Fourthly, to prouide that the disputation might be peaceable without tumult. Fiftly, to see that euery man might haue libertie without offence, to propose what he thought good, and to confute the contrary. In like manner Sir Nicholas Bacon was appointed to these and the like offices; and not to decide or determine any controuersie of faith.

PHIL.

Hee was a capitall i 1.26 enemie of the Catholickes.

ORTHOD.

All that was done or said at those meetings, is extant to bee k 1.27 seene: whereby it may appeare, that all his proceedings about that businesse, were most milde, moderate, honourable, and Christian; though the Bishops did shew themselues very obstinate.

PHIL.

l 1.28 The Protestants would haue had them to dispute vpon such Articles proposed for questions, as seemed to haue a greater shewe of proofe in the Scriptures for the Heretickes; as of the Communion vnder both kindes, of publique prayers to bee had in the vulgar tongue, and such like.

ORTHOD.

In the publique reformation of a Church, the first thing to be considered, is the due ordering of diuine seruice, and Sacraments: therefore the questions were chosen with singular discretion; one concerning the pray∣ers, whether they should bee in the vulgar tongue, another concerning the Lords Supper, whether it should bee ministred in both kindes. In both which points you had done great iniurie to the people of God. But you say

that the Protestants made choise of such questions as seemed to haue a grea∣ter shew of proofe in the Scripture: and haue we, thinke you, but a seeming shew of proofe, & no sound substantial proofe indeed? If the Bishops had bin of this opinion, it should rather haue incouraged them to the incounter, then haue caused them to flie the field. Is the holy Scripture for vs in these questi∣ons onely? if the disputation had beene about the worshipping of images, in∣uocations of Saints, iustification by faith, and such like, could not wee haue produced as pregnant proofes out of the Scriptures for these, as for the for∣mer? but now one may lay his finger vpon your pulse, and easily discerne the trembling of your heart. For this speech which you haue borrowed from Sanders, doth intimate vnto vs, that the Bishops refused to dispute, because they were not able to maintaine their opinions by the Scriptures.

ANd as their behauiour was vndutiful in these two former respects, con∣cerning* 1.29 the Queenes Coronation, and the disputation; So thirdly it was most disloyall, in that many of them went about to excommunicate the Queene, as is testified both by a 1.30 Sanders, and b 1.31 Allen, who commended their wicked intention, as a point of magnanimitie, affirming that therein they did stout∣ly, and worthily as could be wished. Now let any indifferent man iudge what these men merited at her highnesse hands, and yet haue I said nothing of their re∣fusall of the oath of Supremacy, which point is referred to the proper place. Hitherto we haue considered how they deserued, now let vs see how they were serued.

PHIL.

THat is set downe by Pius Quintus, in his sentence declaratory a∣gainst* 1.32 Queene Elizabeth, in these words: c 1.33 Catholicos Antistites & Ecclesiarum rectores in vincula coniecit, vbi multi diuturno languore & tristitia con∣fecti, extremum vitae diem misere finierunt: That is, She laid in chaines the Catho∣licke Bishops and gouernours of Churches, where many of them wasted with long lan∣guishment, and sorrow, ended their life miserably.

ORTHOD.

Thirteene of these Bishops are named by d 1.34 Sanders, to which we may adde Pates of Worcester, so the whole number is fourteene, as Car∣dinall e 1.35 Allen hath it. Now of these fourteene, foure were of the Prouince of Yorke, and 10. of Cant. In the Prouince of Yorke, to begin with N. Heath Archb. of that see, he being L. Chauncelour of Eng. made open declaration in Parliament, of Q. Maries death, and the vndoubted title of the Lady Eliza∣beth: Whereupon▪ she was presently proclaimed Queene. For which loyalty he was honorably regarded, neuer cōmitted to prison or custody, but permit∣ted to liue at his owne liberty, (vpon some lands which he had purchased) in quietnes and ease, and last of all dying full of yeeres, was suffered to bequeath his substance by will & testament. From Yorke, let vs go to Durham, the Bi∣shop wherof Cut. Tonstal, after his depriuation, kept at Lambeth, with Mat∣thew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, where he liued, (so long as he liued) with comfort, and being 85. yeeres old, yeelded to nature, and was honoura∣bly buried. The third was Owen Oglethorp Bishop of Carlill, who as he had shewed himselfe more dutiful then the rest, in the Coronation of the Queene: so there is no doubt but he was accordingly respected: who being neither in prison nor custody, shortly after paid his debt to nature, and dyed of an apo∣plexy. The last of these foure was Cutbert Scot, Bishop of Chester, who slip∣ped

away beyond the seas, where he liued in voluntary banishment. From the Prouince of Yorke, let vs come to the Prouince of Canterbury: where we find that Iohn white Bishop of Winchester, saluted the prison, though not for any of the reasons alleadged by Sanders, but for an vndutifull Sermon▪ yet afterward he was set at liberty, and died out of prison. Thomas Thurlby Bishop of Ely, hauing indured a time of imprisonment, neither very sharpe nor very long, was permitted to liue in the Archbishoppes house, where till the day of his death, (that is, for tenne yeeres) hee was intreated so kindly, that he is supposed to haue taken more pleasure in this time of his restraint, then euer he did before, in the middest and fullest streame of his highest honours. Gilbert Borne Bishop of Bath was committed to the cu∣stody of Master Carew, his olde acquaintance, Deane of Exeter. Iames Turberuill Bishop of Exeter enioyed a priuate life a long time, liuing and dying in liberty. Dauid Pole, Bishop of Peterborrow, being alwayes vsed with courtesie, and vsing his liberty, dyed in his owne house in a ripe age. Neither doe I finde that Bayne Bishop of Lichfield, was in durance, who dyed soone after of the stone. Richard Pates Bishop of Worcester, and Thomas Goldwell of Saint Asaph, departed the kingdome, not by constraint of law, but of their owne accord. The Bishop of Lincolne Thomas Watson, a churlish and froward man, liued after his depriuation 24. yeeres, first at more libertie in the houses of the Bishoppes of Ely and Rochester, but after∣ward when your Emissaries from Rome, did trouble the Church, he was kept somewhat more streightly in the Ile of Ely. The last of all is Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, who in Queene Maries time was the princi∣pall Butcher, and therefore so odious to the people, that as our learned a 1.36 Bishop hath of late truely deliuered, It was not safe for him to goe abroad, least the people should haue stoned him to death: and he indeed liued, and dyed in pri∣son, but where, if you had seene him (to vse the wordes of our Reuerend b 1.37 Bishop) You would not haue sayd, that he had beene pined, or starued with hun∣ger, hee liued daintily, there were Gardens and Orchards, if it pleased him to walke: Finally this prison was nothing like a prison, but onely that (therein) he was confined. Thus it appeareth, that of the 14. some were neuer confined at all; Others confined onely to the custody of their friends, but neuer saluted the prison: others saluted it, but were soone released; and those which stayed longest in prison, yet were not layed in fetters, as impious Pius Quintus hath blazed to the world. All these 14. did liue euen till the glasse of Nature was fully runne and expired, and some of them were intertained at the Tables of Bi∣shops, c 1.38 Gratis sine sumptu, copiosè sine defectu, in o••io sine molestia omni: That is, Freely without cost or charges plentifully without want, in ease without all trouble or molestation. If you will not beleeue me, yet beleeue your owne fellow and friend, our mortall enemie d 1.39 Philopater the Iesuite, who vseth these words vnto the Queene, While in the beginning of your raigne you dealt more mildly with the Catholickes, while as yet you vrged no man with very great violence, while as yet you pressed none very much, either to the partaking of your Sect, or to the deniall of the an∣cient faith: truely all things seemed to goe with a more calme course, neither were there heard any great complaints, neither was there seene any great dissention, or repug∣nancie, &c. Thus malice it selfe, conquered with euidence of trueth, beareth

witnesse that those beginnings were more milde and calme; none greatly then vrged or pressed, so that in those dayes were not heard any great com∣plaints. Thus we see euen by the iudgement of your Iesuit, what great cause you had to complaine in such pitifull maner: if your little finger do but ake, you must be moaned, but if you make our very hearts to ake, it is nothing: your mole-hils of miseries must be made mountaines, and our mountaines must be accounted for mole-hilles. Hitherto of the circumstances, now we come to the deposition it selfe.

CHAP. II.

The Deposition of the Bishops, iustified by the example of Salomon deposing Abiathar.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

And I might aske you, by what au∣thoritie a 1.40 Salomon deposed Abiathar?

PHIL.

You are still telling vs of Salomon and Abiathar, If a king depriued this high Priest, b 1.41 an other high Priest (that is Iehoiada) depriued Queene Athalia both of her kingdome and life.

ORTHOD.

Q. Athalia? No Queene sir, by your leaue: Ioas the true heire of the kingdome was then aliue, and he was the true King by right of inheri∣tance: therefore she was no Queene▪ but a wicked vsurper; Your c 1.42 Defence of Catholicks might teach you so much, which calleth her, A pretenced Queene, and saith, That she vsurped the kingdome. Yet behold with what blindnesse and giddines they are stricken, which traiterously oppose themselues against their Prince and countrey. Cardinall d 1.43 Allen is not ashamed to bring the ex∣ample of Iehoiada deposing Athalia, that vsurping and pretenced Queene, to proue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose, lawfull Princes. Neither did Iehoiada this, as being high Priest, but whatsoeuer he did in this case, he might haue done it, though he had not bene high Priest: For Iehosheba his wife was e 1.44 daughter to king Iehoram, and sister to king Ahazia, who was father to Ioas, and consequently she was aunt to King Ioas; So Iehoiada her husband, was of the next alliance that the yong King had: Yea, and when Athalia like a bloo∣die Tyger f 1.45 murthered the kings seed, Iehosheba the wife of Iehoiada, conueyed a∣way her nephew Ioas out of the middest of the kings sonnes, which were massacred, g 1.46 and hid him and his nurse in a chamber, and kept them close h 1.47 6. yeeres in the House of the Lord. So Iehoiada by Gods prouidence, was made Protector of the Kings person: yea, and when the time came wherein he thought fit to disclose him, he first acquainted the i 1.48 Fathers of Israel, and the Captaines, and so proceeded with their consent: Therefore what did hee herein, but protect the person, age, innocencie, and title of his Lord and Soueraigne▪ whereto he was bound by the Law▪ of Nature, and Nations? Therefore when you bring this to proue the Popes Supremacie, you mistake the matter: you cannot shew vs in Scripture, where euer a Priest deposed a lawfull Prince. The Kings of Is∣rael

were all of them idolaters, and so were 14. of the Kings of Iuda, yet not one Priest or Prophet did so much as euer offer to depose any one of them; but we shew you in Scripture this plaine example, where Salomon the Prince, remoued Abiathar the lawfull Priest.

PHIL.

IT a 1.49 is one thing to relate the actions of kings, and another thing to approue* 1.50 the authoritie.

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

Surely no; for though b 1.51 S. Luke say, that the word of the Lord came vnto Iohn, when Annas and Caiaphas were high Priests, yet we must not thinke that they were both high Priests in equall authoritie at once; For the word c 1.52 Summus Sacerdos, or princeps Sacerdotum, is taken three wayes▪ First, whereas the Priests were diuided into 24. Orders, the chiefe of each Order was called Princeps Sacerdotum, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest; Secondly, there was a Colledge of 72. Seniours, which was called Synedrin, the first or chiefe whereof was also called, The Prince of the Priests, or high Priest. Thirdly, it is taken, both most properly, and most vsually, for him that had the first and chiefest place of all, to whom the other Princes of the Priests were subiect. Now Baronius thinketh that S. Luke called Annas an high Priest, because he was both the Prince and highest of his Order, and also the Prince and highest of the Synedrin, but Caiaphas in his iudgement was called high Priest, because he was simply and absolutely highest of all: in which sence there can be but one high Priest at once, nor euer was; d 1.53 Vnum tantummodo non duos simul, & ante, & post haec tempora summum Sacerdotem penes Iudaeos fuisse, certum explora∣tum{que} habeatur: That is, It is certaine and a tried trueth, that there was one onely high Priest among the Iewes, not two at once, both before and after these times, spea∣king of the time of Annas and Caiaphas. Hence Cardinall e 1.54 Bellarmine, with o∣ther of our learned diuines doe commonly conclude, that, As there was but one visible gouernour in the Church of the old Testament, so there should bee but one in the Church of the New.

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

It were hard to call Sadok an intruder; for f 1.55 Sadok idem est quod iu∣stus, & reuera fuit Sadok nomine & factis, that is, Sadok doth signifie iust, and in∣deed he was iust both in name and deeds.

ORTHO.

If Sadok were no intruder, but a lawfull high Priest, then Abia∣thar ceased to bee high Priest, for you say there could not bee two at once. If Abiathar ceased to bee high Priest, then the place was lawfully voide: but how was it void? Not by death, for Abiathar was still aliue; not by resignati∣on

or voluntary cessation, for wee finde no such matter. How then? no o∣ther reason can with reason bee imagined, but onely because h••e was depo∣sed by Salomon; If the place were iustly and lawfully voide, by vertue of this deposition, then it must needes bee a lawfull deposition, and consequently it must bee done by lawfull authority. For if the deposer had no authority, then could not the deposition bee lawfull; wherefore as you confesse that Sadok was lawfull high Priest, so you must likewise confesse, that Salomon in casting out Abiathar, and placing Sadok had lawfull authority.

PHIL.

WHat if he had? was he not a Prophet as well as a King?* 1.56

ORTHO.

All the bookes of the old Testament are called by the name of a 1.57 Prophecy, because they prophecied of Iesus Christ; therefore the pen men thereof, which did speake as they were moued by the holy ghost (amongst which was Salomon) may rightly be called Prophets.

PHIL.

b 1.58 I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar, not as a king but as a Prophet, and executer of diuine iustice.

ORTHOD.

As though the King as a King were not an executer of di∣uine iustice: yes Philodox, it is the c 1.59 King, as King, which beareth not the sword in vaine: it is the king, as king, which is, The minister of God, and a r••uenger of wrath to him that doth euill; therefore the King, as King, is the executer of diuine iustice; And so when you say, not as a king, but as an executer of di∣uine iustice, you put those things asunder, which the Lord hath put together; againe, when you say that hee did it, As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iu∣stice, you put those things together, which the Lord hath put a sunder: for a Prophet, as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord, the executer of diuine iu∣stice is not the mouth, but the hand of the Lord; the hand and the mouth must be distinguished.

PHIL.

I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet,d 1.60 For in the same place it is sayd, that Salomon put out Abiathar, that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord, which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo.

ORTHOD.

Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause, and the intents of the Agents? The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame, wouen from the top throughout, said one to an∣other, e 1.61 Let vs not diuide it, but cast lots for it, whose it shalbe, that the Scripture might bee fulfilled, which saith, they parted my garments among them, and on my coate did they cast lots; doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent here∣by to fulfill the Scripture? Euen iust as much as Iudas had, when hee sold his master for f 1.62 thirty peeces of siluer: or g 1.63 Herod, when hee slue the infants: or the Iewes when they h 1.64 gaue him vineger to drinke. They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture, yet God so disposed, that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled. Likewise your owne Bishop i 1.65 Tostatus may teach you, that in this place the particle, vt, doth not signifie the finall cause, but the consecu∣tion. But what if Salomon had done it to that very end, and purpose, that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled? would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet? k 1.66 Iehu, when he had slaine Iehoram, said to Bidkar a Captaine, Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite; for I remember that when •• and thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord laide this burthen vpon him; surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of

Naboth, and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord; and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord, now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord: The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie, but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled: yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet: so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet.

PHIL.

Either as a King, or as a Prophet; not as a King, and there∣fore as a Prophet.

ORTHOD.

NOt as a King? why so? the Lord had a 1.67 promised that* 1.68 Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father, so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne, by Gods owne appointment: yet for all this b 1.69 Adonias exalted himselfe, and sayd I wilbe king: and Ioab, and Abiathar c 1.70 helped him forward, they said, d 1.71 God saue King Adonias: Whereup∣on 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 1.72 not by kingly power.

ORTHO.

Yes, by kingly power: the king did it as a king. And to be∣ginne with Adonias, the king granted him a conditionall pardon, that f 1.73 If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man, there should not a haire of him fall to the earth: but if wickednesse were found in him, hee should die: and therefore when hee de∣sired g 1.74 Abisha to wife, the wisdome of the King reaching into the profound∣nesse of the policie, did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the h 1.75 king∣dome: So King i 1.76 Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada, and hee smote him that hee died. Who did this? the spirit of God saith, that King Salomon did it: so it is ascribed to the King: yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King: for who could pardon treason, but a King, as a King? Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors, but he that beareth not the sword in vaine, that is, the King by the power, and authoritie of a King? Concerning Ioab k 1.77 it was tolde Salomon, that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord, and l 1.78 Benaiah sayd, thus saith the King, come out, and hee sayd nay, but I will die here, and Benaiah brought the King word againe, and the King said, doe as hee hath said, and smite him: in all which there was no∣thing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King. Now to come to Abiathar; his offence against the King was the same, and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king: m 1.79 Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest: euen the king, who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine; that is, the King, as a King: which may appeare further by that which hee said, Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields, in which words hee confineth him, which is the action of a King. And againe, thou art worthy of death, but I will not this day kill thee, be∣cause thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father: and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted. In which wordes hee granteth life, to one that had deserued death: and who could doe this, but a King? n 1.80 So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vn∣to the Lord: Where wee see death changed into depriuation. All which doe argue the power of a King: yea it is said, o 1.81 that the King put Benaiah the sonne

of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast; which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King, as hee was King: and it followeth immediately in the same verse; and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar. Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King, as a King: and why should you thinke otherwise?

PHIL.

BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God, from the power of secular Princes: a 1.82 For in the third* 1.83 of Numbers God doth not once, but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his b 1.84 owne, and that he hath chosen them to himselfe out of all his people, and he comman∣ded them to be c 1.85 giuen for a gift vnto Aaron and his sonnes, that is to the high Priest and his successours: for it was his will that they whom hee himselfe had chosen to the ministerie of the Temple and holy things, should bee subiect to the high Priest onely, who represented the place of God on earth; and by this he freed them from the iurisdi∣ction of earthly Princes; d 1.86 for Clergy men are the Ministers of God, and offered to God by the whole people, whereupon they are called Clerici, as belonging to the inheritance of the Lord, as Saint Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus: Now surely secular Princes can haue no authoritie ouer those things which are offered, and conse∣crated vnto God, and made as it were proper vnto God himselfe, which both the light of reason sheweth, and God himselfe declareth not obscurely in holy Scripture, when he saith in the last of Leuiticus, Whatsoeuer shall be consecrated vnto the Lord, it shall bee holy of holies vnto the Lord.

ORTHOD.

As houses, and lands dedicated to God, remained his pro∣per and euerlasting possession; so the tribe of Leui being once consecrated vnto God, became for euer his peculiar inheritance. But doth it therefore followe, that they are all exempted from the iurisdiction of Princes? the whole nation of the Iewes are called, e 1.87 an holy nation, and a kingdome of Priests; all the males of Israel had the seale of the liuing God set vpon them in the Sa∣crament of circumcision; yet not one of them were exempted from the po∣wer of their Prince. It is true that by the lawe of God in matters concerning their office, the Leuites were subordinate to the Priestes, and the Priestes to the high Priest; but both Priest, & high Priest were vnder the authoritie of the ciuill Magistrate f 1.88 Iehosaphat sent Priests & Leuites to instruct the cities of Iudah, and did he this without authoritie? he sent g 1.89 Priestes and Leuites to be iudges and Delegates, & h 1.90 Amariah the high Priest to bee chiefe ouer them in the matters of the Lord; did hee this also without authoritie? when the house of God was defiled, i 1.91 Hezechias called the Priestes and Leuites, commanding them to sanctifie themselues, and the house of the Lord; and they did so, k 1.92 according to the Kings commandement: then hee l 1.93 commanded the Priestes the sonnes of Aa∣ron to offer sacrifice vnto the Lord, and they did so: he m 1.94 appointed all the Leuites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals, with Viols, and with Harpes, and the Leuites stood with the instruments of Dauid, and the Priestes with Trumpets; and He∣zechias commaunded the Priestes to offer the burnt offering vpon the Altar, and they did so: then the n 1.95 King and the Princes commanded the Leuites to praise the Lord with the wordes of Dauid, and Asaph the seer; so they prai∣sed with ioy: Then hee commanded the Priestes to offer the sacrifice of praise, and they did so: yea the King (this holy King) o 1.96 appointed the courses of the Priestes and Leuites by their turnes; which things hee did well and p 1.97 vprightly

before the Lord his God: therefore wee must not thinke he passed the bounds of his authoritie. If Priest, or high Priest were exempted from the iurisdicti∣on of Kings; why did c 1.98 Iosias commande Helkiah the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, to fetch out of the Temple all the instruments prepared for Baal, for the groue, and for all the hoast of heauen, which hee burned without Hierusalem, in the fieldes of Kedron, and caused the dust of them to bee carried vnto Bethel? If Priestes were exempted, why did hee d 1.99 bring all the Priestes of the high pla∣ces out of the cities of Iudah, and all such of them as were Ieroboams Priests, of which the e 1.100 man of Iudah prophecied, hee f 1.101 sacrificed vpon the Altars; the rest which were of the line of Aaron, but yet had offered in the high places, hee brought backe from Hierusalem, though they were not g 1.102 suffered to sacrifice vnto the Lord, but were thrust out of their Priesthood, to the meanest of∣fices amongst the Leuites. Now from Kings, let vs come to Nehemias the Viceroy, who relating how Eliashib the high Priest had made a great chamber in the house of the Lord for Tobias the Ammonite; addeth imme∣diately; h 1.103 But all this time was not I in Ierusalem: signifying that if hee had beene there, hee would not haue suffered such abomination: And when hee came, hee i 1.104 cast out the vessels of Tobias, and commanded the Priestes to cleanse them, and bring againe the vessels of the Lord. When one of the ne∣phewes of the high Prieste had married the daughter of Sanballat; Nehe∣mias k 1.105 chased him away: With what face now can you say that Princes in the olde Testament had no authoritie ouer the Priestes? If Kings had no au∣thoritie, then they should not haue enioyned, appointed, commaun∣ded, and punished; but onely haue aduised, admonished, and exhorted them. If Priestes had any such priuiledge, it is strange, that in all the storie of the olde Testament, wee finde not one Priest, once pleading his priui∣ledge. If they submitted themselues when their conscience tolde them that they had offended, yet why did they not plead their immunitie, when they were iniuriously handled? l 1.106 Zacharias the Priest was slaine, at the commande∣ment of the King, and yet neuer mentioned any priuiledge: When m 1.107 Saul slew Abimelech, and aboue eightie Priestes which wore a linnen Ephod, Abimelech declared his innocency, and acknowledged the Kings iurisdiction ouer him, by calling the King his Lord, and himselfe the Kings n 1.108 seruant, but spoke not a word of any priuiledge. Therefore all the world may see that there was no such matter, these are but fictions of idle braines; wherefore we may tru∣ly conclude, that the tribe of Leui was not exempted from secular iurisdicti∣on, but the King might conuent, command, reprooue, and punish them, and yet not transgresse the law of God.

PHIL.

o 1.109 Who dare affirme, that a prophane person hath any authoritie or iu∣risdiction, ouer those things which haue deserued to bee called holy of holies, that is most holy?

ORTHOD.

Who but a prophane Iesuite durst bee so bold as to call the light of Israel, the annointed of the Lord, the Minister of God, a prophane per∣son? The ancient sages of the Christian world did vse to speake of Princes with all reuerence, not onely of those which professed the true faith: but of others also. The third Romane councell vnder Symmacus, calleth Theodoricus (who was knowen to bee an Arrian) a holy Prince; whereupon p 1.110 Binius

writeth thus; An Arrian king is named most holy, and most godly, not according to his merites, but according to custome, like as Valerian and Gratian, Ethnicke Empe∣rours, were called most holy, by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, as witnesseth Euse∣bius: Which was done by the example of the Apostle Paul, who called Felix (be∣ing a wicked man, but then in authoritie) by the vsuall stile of, most noble. Hitherto Binius out of a 1.111 Baronius. Thus much for the prophane title. As for the thing it selfe. The Scripture witnesseth, that Salomon was King ouer b 1.112 all Israel; if o∣uer all Israel, then ouer the tribe of Leui, and consequently euen ouer Abia∣thar the high Priest: if he be their king, why are not they his subiects? If they be his subiects, and he their Soueraigne, how can they bee exempted from his Iurisdiction? A point so cleare, that sundry of your learned writers haue con∣fessed it.

IOhannes c 1.113 Parisiensis saith, that in the old Testament, the Priests which annoin∣ted* 1.114 kings, without all doubt were subiect vnto kings. Your owne Iesuite d 1.115 Sal∣meron affirmeth, that potestas spiritualis legis naturae vel Moisisminor erat Regia po∣testate in veteri testamento, & ideo etiam summi Sacerdotes regibus subdebantur: that is, the spirituall power of the Law of nature, and of the law of Moses, was lesser then the princely power in the old Testament, therefore euen the high Priests were sub∣iect vnto kings. Yea e 1.116 Bellarmine himselfe saith, Non mirum esset si in veteri Te∣stamento summa potestas fuisset temporalis, that is, It were no maruell if in the olde Testament the chiefe power were the temporall. Dominicus a f 1.117 Soto: in veteri Testa∣mento dubio procul, Sacerdotes a principibus secularibus iudicati: that is, In the olde Testament without doubt, the Priests were iudged by the secular princes. Fryer g 1.118 Paule: This doctrine, that Ecclesiasticall persons, vnlesse they be free by priuiledge, and fauour, should be subiect to secular Magistrates, is demonstrated and confirmed by ex∣amples of the old Testament, whereby it appeareth that all the kings did command, iudge, and punish Priests, and that this was done not onely of bad kings, or indifferent, but of the most holy and religious, Dauid, Salomon, Ezechias, and Iosias. h 1.119 Carerius in veteri Testamento Rex super Sacerdotes potestatem habebat, eosque pro crimine oc∣cidere, multo magis officijs & dignitatibus spiritualibus eos priuare poterat: that is, In the old Testament, the king had power ouer the Priests, and might for their offences kill them, much more depriue them of their offices and spirituall dignities: Hitherto Ca∣rerius, out of i 1.120 Tostatus.

PHIL.

IF the kings of Israel had such authoritie, doth it follow that* 1.121 Christian Princes must haue the like?

ORTHOD.

What else? You must consider that the new Testament doth yeeld vs no examples of Christian kings, therefore when the question is concerning the power of kings in the Church of God, wee must goe to the fountaine, that is, the old Testament, where there was both a Church, and kings in the Church, religiously performing the office of kings: and what Princely authoritie they exercised, for which they are approoued by the spi∣rit of God, the same without all question, belongeth in like maner to Christi∣an Princes: therefore what authoritie Salomon had ouer Abiathar, the same haue Christian Princes, by the law of God, ouer their owne Clergie.

CHAP. III.

Of the Oath of the Princes Supremacy, for denying whereof the old Bishops were depriued.

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

The secular powers doe no•• depose a Bishop by degradation, nor by vtterly debarring him from his Episcopall function: but onely by ex∣cluding him from the exercise of Episcopallactes vpon their subiects, and within their dominions. And this godly Princes haue performed from time to time, in the best and primatiue ages, against the Arrians, Nestotians, and other heretickes, as might be declared by many examples.

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

Hee cannot giue them an intrinsecall power to minister the word and Sacraments which proceedeth from the key of order; but he may giue them an extrinsecall power, that is, a libertie to execute their function within his dominions. This he may doe by vertue of the scepter, which God hath giuen him, though he meddle not with the keyes which God hath giuen to the Church; and as he may giue this libertie, so he may take it away vpon iust cause, as Salomon did when he deposed Abiathar.

PHIL.

If we should admit that Queene Elizabeth had so much authori∣ty as king Salomon, yet this would not iustifie her proceedings. For it belong∣eth not to Parliaments, or secular Princes to make lawes concerning the de∣positions of Bishops, or to inflict any such punishments.

ORTHOD.

Did not the Emperour a 1.122 Martian, make a law, that such Bi∣shops as went about to infringe any of those things, which were enacted by that holy and generall Councell of Chalcedon, should be deposed? Did not b 1.123 Iustinian make a constitution, that if any Patriarch, Metropolitane, Bishop, or Clerke, should violate his decrees made for the preseruation of holy order, and estate, he should be excluded from the Priestly function? Did not c 1.124 Theodosius the yonger, likewise make a law that the Nestorian Bishops should be expelled and deposed?

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

d 1.125 Gratian the Emperour made a lawe against the Arrians, com∣manding them like wilde beastes, to be driuen from the Churches, and the places to be restored to good pastours: the execution whereof, he committed to Saporas, the most famous captaine of that time. If this were allowable in the Emperour Gratian, then much more in Queene Elizabeth: for he did it when there was plentie of good Bishops, within his owne dominon; Queene Elizabeth did it onely in case of necessitie: Neither did she send a captaine to driue them away by vio∣lence, as Gratian did, but appointed honourable commissioners to tender the oath vnto them; vpon the obstinate refusall whereof, their places were voyd, by vertue of the Statute.

PHIL.

GRatian had for him the determination of Synods, which had al∣ready* 1.126 cōdemned the Arrians, therefore in this case it was lawfull for

him both to make a Law, and to commit the execution of it to Lay-men.

ORTHOD.

So had Q. Elizabeth. For a Synod of Bishops, professing your owne Religion, (among whom was Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester) gaue to K. Henry the title of Supreame head of the Church of England, as may appeare by the Acts of the a 1.127 Synod it selfe. About two yeeres after, the same was renewed in another Synod, and about two yeeres after that, the two Vniuersities deli∣uered their iudgement, That the Pope had no more to doe in England, by the Law of God, then any other Bishop. The determination of Cambridge is already b 1.128 ex∣tant in print. The like of Oxeford remaineth in c 1.129 Record; wherein after long deliberation, and much disputation with all diligence, Zeale and conscience, they make this profession; Tandem in hanc sententiam vnanimiter omnes conuenimus ac concor∣d••s fuimus; viz. Romanum Episcopum maiorem aliquam iurisdictionem non habere sibi à D••o collatam in sacra Scriptura, in hoc regno Angliae, quam alium quemuis exter∣num Episcopum, i. At the length we all agreed with one minde and one heart, vpon this conclusion: to wit, That the Bishop of Rome hath not any greater iurisdiction giuen him of God in holy Scripture, ouer this kingdome of England, then any other forraine Bishop. And d 1.130 Bellarmine himselfe telleth vs out of Cheynie the Carthusian Monke, that in the yeere 1535. there was a Parliament, wherein it was En∣acted, That all should renounce the Pope, and all other forraine powers, and acknow∣ledge the King to be head of the Church, vpon their oath. Thus it is manifest, that the Bishops and Clergie did then both approue the Title and take the oath: which Bishops were such as your selues commend e 1.131 to bee inferiour to none in Europe for vertue and learning. And truely excepting their opinions in Reli∣gion, wherein they were caried away with the streame of the time, it cannot be denied, but that generally they were very well learned. Erasmus inuited in∣to England by William Warham Archbishop of Canterbury, when he had considered what difference there was betweene the Bishops of England, and other Nations, he published to the world in Print, That f 1.132 onely England had learned Bishops. Moreouer, most of these learned Bishops, did openly in the Pulpit at Pauls-Crosse defend the Kings Title, and g 1.133 sundry of them by their published writings maintained the same. The selfe-same oath was taken a∣gaine in the ••aigne of K. Edward.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

THese were Bishops and Synods of our owne nation onely; but* 1.134 was there euer any learned man else-where, that did approue this Title▪ was there euer any King, or Queene, Christian or Heathen, Catholicke or He∣reticke in all the h 1.135 world beside, before our age, that did practise, challenge, or accept it?

ORTHOD.

Looke into the godly Kings of Iuda; Looke into the pro∣ceedings of Christian Emperours, i 1.136 Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius, and such like; Looke into the Lawes of k 1.137 Charles and l 1.138 Lodowicke; and you shall see, that they practised as much, as euer we ascribed to the Queene in this oath. When the Councell of Ephesus by the packing of Dioscorus, had allowed the

cursed opinion of Eutyches, and deposed Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople, Pope Leo vpon this occasion wrote thus vnto the Emperour Theodosius; a 1.139 Be∣hold, most Christian and reuerend Emperour, I, with the rest of my fellow Bishops, make supplication vnto you, That all things may stand in the same state, in which they were before any of these Iudgements, vntill a greater number of Bishops may be gathe∣red out of the whole world. Who made this supplication? Pope Leo, a holy and learned Pope. To whom? To the Emperour Theodosius. For what? That the Emperour would command; not intreat, but command: So this is an action of Royall authoritie. What should he command? That all things might stand in their former state. What things meaneth he? The highest mysteries of Religion, concerning the Natures and person of Christ. But what is it to stand in the former state? That it might be lawfull for all men, so to iudge and speake of these holy Mysteries, as they did before the springing vp of the Eutychian Heresie: for then they held the Trueth, according to the Aposto∣licke faith. And this he beseecheth the Emperour to command, notwith∣standing the contrary determination of the Councell of Ephesus. b 1.140 The second Councell of Ephesus, which apparantly subuerted the faith, cannot rightly bee called a Councell, which your Highnes for very loue to the Trueth, will make voyd by your De∣cree to the contrary, most glorious Emperour. I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Maiestie by our Lord Iesus Christ, the founder and guider of your Kingdome, That in this Councell (of Chalcedon) which is presently to be kept, you will not suffer the Faith to be called in question, which our blessed Fathers preached, being deliuered vnto them from the Apostles; Neither permit such things as haue bene long since con∣demned by them, to be freshly reuiued againe, but that you will rather command, That the Constitutions of the ancient Nicene Councell may stand in force, the interpreta∣tion of Hereticks being remooued. Here the Pope ascribeth to the Emperour power to ratifie and establish those Councels, which are according to the Scripture, and to disanull those whose determinations are contrary to the Scripture; Yea, he acknowledgeth, that the Emperour hath authoritie to inhibite and restraine Generall Councels, that they call not the Trueth of God in question. Which the Emperour Martian practised, entring the Councell of Chalcedon in his owne person, and c 1.141 forbidding the Bishops to a∣uouch any thing concerning the birth of our Sauiour, otherwise then was contained in the Nicene Creed. Moreouer, when the Councell of Chalcedon was conclu∣ded, Pope d 1.142 Leo wrote thus againe to the Emperour; Because I must by all meanes obey your pietie and most Religious will, I haue willingly giuen my consenting sentence to those Synodall Constitutions, which concerning the confirmation of the Catholicke faith, and condemnation of Hereticks, pleased me very well. The Emperour requi∣red the Pope to subscribe; And he cheerefully did so, Protesting that for his part, he must by all meanes obey the Princes will in those cases. Now tell me whe∣ther the Pope did not acknowledge the Emperour, and the Emperour shew himselfe to be Supreame gouernour ouer all persons, euen in causes Ecclesiasticall?

AS the Emperour Martian did practise this Supremacie, so the Emperour* 1.143 e 1.144 Basill did challenge the Title▪ when he said in the Councel of Constan∣tinople, That the gouernment of the vniuersall Ecclesiasticall Ship, was committed vnto him by the Diuine prouidence.

PHIL.

The words are thus in Surius, f 1.145 In exordio Synodi ita locutus est Basi∣lius:

Cum diuina, & benignissima prouidentia nobis gubernacula vniuersalis Nauis commisisset &c. that is, In the beginning of the Synod thus said Basilius the Emperor: when the diuine and most benigne prouidence had committed vnto vs the gouernment of the vniuersall ship &c. Where, by vniuersall ship, is meant ciuill administrati∣on, not Ecclesiasticall; as Surius hath well obserued.

ORTHO.

* 1.146 Binius relating the acts of the councell, telleth how the Em∣perours Epainagnosticum was read in the councell in these words: Diuina cle∣menti{que} prouidentia gubernacula Ecclesiasticae n••uis vobis committente, that is, The diuine and gracius prouidence of God, committing vnto you the gouernment of the Ec∣clesiasticall ship. Where you see that he speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall ship.

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

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

AS Basill did challenge this gouernment, no man resisting; so sundry Sy∣nods* 1.147 haue giuen the like to Princes not refusing it. There was a Coun∣cell holden at a 1.148 Mentz in Germany, the yeere 814. In the time of the Em∣perour Charles the great, and Pope Leo the third, the Synodall acts whereof Binius professeth that he compared with a manuscript sent him out of the Emperours library at Vienna. Now the Bishops assembled in this Synode, be∣gin thus. In the Name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. To the most glorious and most Christian Emperour Carolus Augustus, gouernour of the true re∣ligion, and defender of the holy Church of God, &c. And a little after, We giue thanks to God the Father Almighty, because hee hath granted vnto his holy Church a gouernor so godly &c. And againe, About all these points we greatly need your aide and sound doctrine, which may both admonish vs continnally, and instruct vs curteously so farre, that such things which we haue briefly touched beneath in a few Chapters, may receiue

strength from your authority: if so bee that your piety shall so iudge it worthy, whatsoe∣uer is found in them worthy to be amended, let your magnificent and imperiall dignity command to amend.

In the yeere 847. there was holden another Synode at Mentz, in the time of Leo the fourth, and Lotharius the Emperor, where the Bishops begin in the like manner. a 1.149 Domino Serenissimo & Christianissimo regi Ludouico verae religio∣nis strenuissimo rectori, i. To our most gracious Lord and Christian king Lodowick, the most puissant gouernor of true religion. The like was ascribed to King Reccesu∣inthius in a Councell holden at b 1.150 Emerita in Portugale about the yeere 705. in these words: Whose vigilance doth gouerne both secular things with greatest piety, and Ecclesiasticall by his wisdome plentifully giuen him of God. So they acknow∣ledged him gouernor both in causes secular and Ecclesiastical. This Coun∣cel of Emerita receiued much strength and authority from Pope Innocent the third, in his Epistle to Peter Archb. of Compostella, as witnessethc 1.151 Garsias. Thus you see that most famous Bishops assembled in Synods haue giuen vn∣to Princes, such titles as are equiualent to the st••le annexed to the imperiall crowne of this kingdome. To which we might adioyne the iudgement of o∣ther fathers; d 1.152 Tertullian; Colimus imperatorem vt hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. i. We reuerence the Emperour as a man next vnto God, and infe∣riour onlie to God. e 1.153 Optatus; Super imperatorem non est, nisi solus Deus qui fecit im∣peratorem. Aboue the Emperour is none but onely God who made the Emperour. So Saint f 1.154 Chrysostome saith, that the Emperor hath no peere vpon earth, and calleth him the head and crowne of all men vpon earth. If he be next vnto God, and infe∣riour only to God; If none be aboue him but God onlie; If he haue no peere vpon earth, as being the head and crowne of all men vpon earth; then must hee needs bee the supreme gouernour vpon earth, according to the iudge∣ment of the fathers. This is agreeable to the Scripture, which testifieth, that most godly kings commanded both Priests and high Priests, euen in cases of religion as was before declared. Neither is this authority taken away in the New Testament, but continueth the very same; As may appeare by Saint Paul, who lifteth vp his voice like a trumpet, proclayming, g 1.155 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, which words euery soule comprehend all persons, both Ecclesiasticall and Temporal, yea though they were Euangelists, Pro∣phets or Apostles, as Saint Chrysostome doth truly expound them. If euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, then the Prince is superiour to all, and consequently supreme within his owne dominions. But why doe I stay so long vpon this point, which hath beene of late so learnedly and plentifully handled, that to say any more were but to cast water into the sea, or to light a candle at noone day?

PHIL.

HOw vnreasonable it is, may appeare by the absurdities which fol∣low* 1.156 thereupon, for if the Prince be supreme gouernour in causes spiritual, then he may command what religion he list, and we must obey him.

ORTHOD.

Not so; for he is supreme gouernour in causes temporal, yet he may not command a man to beare false witnesse, or to condemne the in∣nocent as Iesabell did; or if he should, we must rather obey God then man; so in cases of religion Nabuchodonosor had no warrant to erect his image, nor Ieroboam, to set vp his golden calues. For the king, as king, is supreme vnder

God, not against God, to commaund for truth, not against truth; And if hee shall command vngodly things, we may not performe obedience, but submit our selues to his punishments with patience.

PHIL.

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

ORTHO.

Wee are farre from it, For when some malicious persons did wrest the words of the oath of supremacy to a sinister sense, notifying how by words of the same oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queenes of this realme, possessours of the crowne, may challenge authority and power of ministery of diuine seruice in the Church; Queene Elizabeth in the first yeere of her raigne, a 1.157 admonished all her louing subiects not to giue credit to such persons; professing that she neither did, nor would challenge any other authority, then was challenged and vsed by king Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. and was of anci∣ent time, due to the imperiall crowne of this realme, that is, vnder God to haue the so∣ueraignty and rule ouer all manner persons borne within her realmes, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiasticall or temporall soeuer they be, so as no other forraigne power, shall or ought to haue any superiority ouer them. And that no other thing was, is, or should bee meant, or intended by the same oath. Which was also further declared man act of Parliament, the fifth yeare of her raigne, with relation to the former admonition, and moreouer fully explained in the Ar∣ticles of b 1.158 religion in these words. We giue not to our Princes the ministring ei∣ther of Gods word, or of the Sacraments, which things the iniunctions lately set foorth by Queene Elizabeth, doe most plainely testifie, but onely that prerogatiue which wee see to haue beene giuen alwaies to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they bee ecclesiasticall or temporall, and restraine with the ciuill sword the stubborne and euill doers. This is the substance of the title due to the imperiall crowne of the Kingdome.

PHIL.

If it be due to the imperiall crowne, then it skilleth not whether the Prince be man, woman, or child, nor of what religion. For the Princely power was no lesse in c 1.159 Traiane, then in Theodosius, in K. Henry, then in Q. Mary; In Q. Mary the enemy of the new Gospellers, then in Queene Elizabeth their protectour; yea it was no lesse in King Lucius before hee was baptized, then after. And consequently, the Emperour of the Turkes may bee called supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall within his owne dominions.

ORTHOD.

Here are two things to be considered. First the princely power and authority; Secondly the ability rightly to vse and exercise the same. The princely power and authority is giuen immediatly frō God, both vnto Chri∣stian Princes, and also vnto Ethnickes which are guided only by the light & law of nature, and by constitutions thence deduced by the wit of man. For this is true in all; d 1.160 By me kings raigne; And e 1.161 Daniell said to Nabuchodonosor, O king thou art a king of kings, for the God of Heauen hath giuen vnto thee a kingdome, & power, and strength, and glory. But the ability rightly to vse and exercise this authority, by refering it to the true end, that is, the glory of God (for all our riuers should run into that Ocean) & the eternall good of the subiects, is com∣municated from the Lord aboue, onely to such as know him in Christ Iesus, and are guided by his grace. The fountaine therefore of al power is God him∣selfe;

as the Apostle witnesseth saying, a 1.162 there is no power but of God. To which purpose it is well said of Saint b 1.163 Austin. Qui dedit Mario, ipse & Caesari; qui Au∣gusto, ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasiano vel patri vel filio suauissimis imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo: & ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Chri∣stiano, ipse Apostatae Iuliano. i. He that gaue it to Mar••••s, gaue it to Caesar, hee that gaue it to Augustus, gaue it to Nero, he that gaue it to Vespasian the Father, or his sonne, most sweete Emperours, gaue it also to Domitian the most cruell. And that I should not neede to recken vp the rest in particular; hee that gaue it to Constantine the Christian, gaue it also to Iulian the Apostata. But though domination and power were in the law of nature, yet the right vse of it is not from nature but from grace. A Prince, as a Prince, be he good or bad, Christian or Pa∣gan, in respect of his princely calling hath sufficient power and authoritie to gouerne his people according to the will of God. And it is his dutie so to doe. c 1.164 The Lord said vnto Cyrus, I will goe before thee and make the crooked streight; I will breake the brasen doores, and burst the Iron barres. And I will giue thee the treasures of darkenesse, and the things hid in secret places, that thou maiest know that I am the Lord. Vpon which wordes Saint Ierom noteth, that God giueth kingdomes vnto wicked men, not that they should abuse them, but as for other rea∣sons, so for this, that being inuited by his bountie, they should bee conuerted from their sinnes. So it is their dutie to serue God, not onely as they are men, but as they are Kings. And Kings (saith Saint d 1.165 Austin) doe in this serue God as Kings, when they doe those things to serue him which none but Kings can doe. But what is that? It may appeare by these wordes; e 1.166 Seruiant reges terrae Christo, eti∣am leges ferendo pro Christo. i. Let the Kings of the earth serue Christ euen by making lawes for Christ. For though the immediate end of humane societes be peace and prosperitie, yet the last end of all, and most principally to bee respected is the glory of God, and eternall happinesse. For which purpose it is the dutie of all subiects to pray for their Prince, though hee bee a Pagan, that f 1.167 vnder him they may liue a godly and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and honestie▪ But though euery Prince, in that hee is a Prince, hath authoritie to serue God as a Prince, yet for the due execution thereof there is required grace. Authoritie is in a Pagan; the due execution requireth a Christian. The King of Niniuie had authoritie long before, to proclaime a fast; Nabuchodonosor had authoritie to commaund, that all nations and languages should worship the God of Da∣niel: but they put it not in execution till God touched their hearts: and when they put it in execution, it was not by any new authoritie, but by vertue of their former Princely power heretofore abused, but now vsed rightly by di∣rection of Gods Spirit, and assistance of his grace. The truth of which an∣swere that you may see in another glasse, let vs a little remooue our speech from the Prince to the Priest: I demande therefore, if the Priestes, the sonnes of Aaron were not the messengers of the Lord of hosts?

PHIL.

Yes verely as saith the Prophet g 1.168 Malachy.

ORTH.

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

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

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

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

ORTHO.

As the Priest is a father and shepheard, in respect of the Prince, so the Prince is a shepheard and father, in respect of the Priest. The Lord chose a 1.169 Dauid his seruant, and tooke him from the sheepfolds, euen from behind the ewes with young brought he him to feed his people in Iacob, and his inheritance in Israel, so hee fed them according to the simplicitie of his heart, and guided them by the discreti∣on of his hands. And b 1.170 Ezechias called the Priests his sonnes; If the Prince be their sheepheard, then he must feede them, if he be their father, then hee must guide them, this is naturall.

PHIL.

THis stile of the Crowne was so distastfull to c 1.171 Caluin, that he called* 1.172 it blasphemy and sacriledge.

ORTHOD.

It is certaine that he did not differ from vs in iudgement. But he was wrong informed by Steph. Gardiner, who expounded it as though the king had power vt statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit, to establish at his pleasure, whatsoeuer he would, which Caluin exemplifieth in the words of Gardi∣ner, the king may forbid Priests to marry, & debar the people frō the Cup in the Lords Supper, because forsooth potestas (umma est penes regem; the highest power is in the king. This is that which Caluin calleth blasphemie and sacri∣ledge, and so will we. But if Caluin had beene truely informed that nothing had beene meant by this title, but to exclude the Pope, and to acknowledge the kings lawfull authoritie ouer his owne subiects, not in diuising new Arti∣cles of faith, or coyning new formes of religion, as Ieroboam did his calues, but in maintaining that faith and religion which God had commanded; with∣out all question Caluin had neuer misliked it. In this sense, and no other, that title was giuen him. Neither did the king take it otherwise, for ought that we can learne.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

In the beginning of the Queenes raigne, the nobles and sundry of the Clergy, perceiuing that some out of ignorance, and infirmitie, were offended at the title of d 1.173 supreame head of the Church, humbly intrea∣ted her maiestie, that it might be expressed in some plainer termes; whereto her clemency most graciously condiscended, accepting the title of supreame go∣uernour, being the same in substance with the former. So this alteration was not made as thogh the other were blame worthy: for the phrase is accor∣ding to the e 1.174 Scripture, which calleth the king head of the tribes of Israel; And the sense thereof is agreeable to the true meaning, both of Scripture and also of ancient Fathers, Councels, and practise, both of the kings of Iudah, and of

Christian Emperours; as hath beene declared, where it was as lawfull for the Parliament to exact an oath in behalfe of the Prince against the Pope, as it was for Iehoiada, to exact an a 1.175 oath in behalfe of king Ioas, against the vsurper Athalia; which oath being holy and lawfull, the refusall of it was disloyaltie and a iust cause of depriuation. Hitherto of the Bishops deposed, now let vs proceed to such as succeed them.

CHAP. IIII.

Of the Consecration of the most reuerend father, Archbishop Parker.

PHIL.

YOur Bishops b 1.176 deriue their counterfeit authoritie, not from lawfull Consecration, or Catholicke inauguration, but from the c 1.177 Queene and d 1.178 Parliaments. For in e 1.179 England the king yea, and the Queene, may giue their letters pa∣tents to whom they will, and they thencefoorth may beare themselues for Bishops, and may begin to ordaine Mini∣sters: So wee may iustly say that among the Caluinists in England, there rai∣gned a f 1.180 woman Pope. But g 1.181 such was the order of Christs Church, which the Apostles founded, Priests to be sent by Priests, and not by the letters patents of kings or Queenes.

ORTHOD.

These shamelesse Papists would make the world beleeue that our Bishops deriue not their Consecration from Bishops, but from kings and Queenes, which is an impudent slaunder For our kings doe that which belongeth to kings, and our Bishops doe that which belongeth to Bishops. In the vacancie of any Archbishopricke, or Bishopricke, the h 1.182 king granteth to the Deane and Chapter a licence vnder the great Seale, as of old time hath beene ac∣customed, to proceed to an election, with a letter missiue, containing the name of the person which they shall elect and chuse, which being duly performed and signified to the King, vnder the common seale of the electors, the king giueth his royal assent; and signifying, and presenting the person elected to the Archbishop and Bi∣shops, as the law requireth he giueth them commission, and withall requireth and commaundeth them to confirme the said election, and to inuest, and Consecrat•• the said person, vsing all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same. Where∣upon the Archbishop and Bishops proceeding according to the ancient forme, in those cases vsed, do i 1.183 cause all such as can obiect, or take exception, either in generall, or particular, either against the manner of the election, or the person elected, to be cited publikely and peremptorily, to make their ap∣pearance. When the validitie of the election, and sufficiency of the person are by publike actes, and due proceedings iudicially approued, then fol∣loweth Consecration, which is performed by a lawfull number of lawfull Bi∣shops, and that in such forme as is required by the ancient Canons.

PHIL.

I Will prooue that your Bishops, in the beginning of the Queenes* 1.184 reigne, deriued not their authoritie from lawfull Consecration, but from the Queene and Parliament. For k 1.185 being destitute of all lawfull ordination when they were commonly said, and prooued by the lawes of England to bee no Bishops, they were constrained to craue the assistance of the secular power, that they might re∣ceiue the Confirmation of the lay Magistrate in the next Parliament, by authoritie whereof, it any thing were done amisse, and not according to the prescript of the Law, or omitted and left vndone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them, and that after they had enioyed the Episcopall Office and Chaire certaine yeeres,

without a 1.186 any Episcopall Consecration. Hence it was, that they were called Parli∣ament Bishops.

ORTHO.

The b 1.187 Parliament which you meane, was in the eighth yeere of Queene Elizabeth, wherein first they reproue the ouer much boldnesse of some which slandered the estate of the Clergy, by calling into question, whether their making and Consecrating, were according to Law. Secondly, they touch such lawes as concerne the point, declaring that euery thing requisite and materiall, was done as precisely in her Maiesties time, as euer before. Thirdly, they confirme againe the booke of Common prayer, with the forme thereunto annexed, enacting that all persons that then had beene, or afterwards should be made, ordered, or Consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, of Gods holy word and Sacraments, or Dea∣cons, after the forme and order herein prescribed, were by authoritie thereof declared and enacted to be, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers, and Deacons, rightly made, ordered, and Consecrated: any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary not∣withstanding. Whereby it is euident that the Parliament did not make them Bishops, but being in very deed true Bishops, by lawfull Consecration, that ho∣nourable court did declare and enact them so to be. But what say the Papists to all this? When they cannot infringe their Consecration, for a poore re∣uenge they call our Religion Parliament Religion, and our Bishops Parlia∣ment Bishops.

PHIL.

c 1.188 If you will needs haue your matters seeme to depend of your Parlia∣ment, let vs not be blamed if we call it Parliament Relgion, Parliament Gospel, Par∣liament faith.

ORTHOD.

It is a marueile that you said not a Parliament God, and a Parliament Christ. Might not we say as well, that in Q. Maries time, you had a Parliament Masse, and a Parliament Pope? Was it lawfull for Q. Mary with her Parliament, to subiect the kingdome to the Pope and his Canons; and was it not lawfull for Q. Elizabeth with her Parliament, to submit them∣selues to Christ and his Gospel? Indeed you haue a spite against the Prince and Parliament, because they expelled the Pope, aduanced true Religion, and defended the Preachers and Ministers thereof: neither against the persons onely, but against the very place wherein the Banner of Iesus Christ was so gloriously displayed. A French Historian speaking of the bloody Massacre, saith, d 1.189 Wise men which were not addicted to the Protestants part, seeking all maner of excuse for that fact, did notwithstanding thinke, that in all Antiquitie there could not be found an example of like crueltie. But the English Powder-plot, doeth so farre exceed the French Massacre, that there is no degree of comparison; this cannot be patternd, or paraleld. It was of such a transcendencie, that all the diuels may seeme to haue holden a blacke conuocation in Hell, and there to haue concluded such a sulphurious and Acheronticall deuice, as was neuer heard of since the world began. But the Lord of Heauen did so strangely re∣ueale it, as though the birds of the aire had caried the voyce, and that which hath wings, had declared the matter. As for the chiefe instruments thereof, the Rauens of the valleys did plucke out their eyes, and the yong Eagles did eate them. Wherefore, if you will not beleeue vs disputing for Religion, yet beleeue God himselfe, with his owne right hand, and with his holy arme de∣fending our Prince and State, our Church and Ministerie, and that very

House, wherein the Standard of the Gospel was aduanced, maugre the malice of all the diuels in hell. All glory be to thee, O Lord, for this thy vnspeakeable mercie; still protect and defend them, that Israel may be glad, and thy ser∣uant Iacob reioyce.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

You learned this disdainefull speach of a 1.190 Nicholas Sanders, who dedicated his rocke of the Church to that reuerend Archbishop, in this vnreuerend maner; To the right worshipfull Master Doct. Parker bearing the name of the Archbishop of Canterburie. Wherein (to let passe that right wor∣shipfull, and right scornefull title) he doeth not stile him Archbishop; but bearing the name of Archbishop: As though our Bishops were Bishops one∣ly in name. But what can you say against him?

PHIL.

I would faine learne of you the place where he was Consecra∣ted. I haue read that Maximus was consecrated in the house of a b 1.191 minstrell, and it seemeth that Matthew Parker was Consecrated in a Tauerne. For doct. c 1.192 Kellison saith, That hee heard it credibly reported, that some of your new Superin∣tendents, were made Bishops at the Nags-head in Cheape. A fit Church for such a Con∣secration: and it is most likely, that Matthew Parker was one of them, because he was the first.

ORTHOD.

This of the Nagges head, doeth call to my remembrance Pope Iohn the 12. who ordained a Deacon in a stable amongst his horses. A fit san∣ctuary for such a Saint. Neither is it a tale or fable, as yours is, but a story Chronicled by d 1.193 Luitprandus, who is, and euer will be esteemed a learned Hi∣storian: notwithstanding that e 1.194 Baronius goeth about to discredit him, as hee doeth all other writers that make against him. And Luitprandus groundeth himselfe not vpon flying reports, as Kellison and you doe, but vpon two wit∣nesses, the one a Bishop, the other a Cardinall, Iohn bishop of Narnium in Italy, and Iohn Cardinall Deacon, who did testifie in a Romane Councell, in the presence of Otho the Emperour, Se vidisse illum Diaconum ordinasse in equo∣rum stabulo, i. That they themselues did see him with their owne eyes, ordaine a Deacon in a stable of horses. But whereas you say, that Kellison heard this credibly reported, I must tell you, that you are very forward in spreading false reports against the Protestants. It is credibly reported at Rome, that wee in England haue f 1.195 wrapped some Papists in beares skinnes, and baited them with dogges; That wee in∣close dormise in basons, and lay them to the sides of the Catholickes to eate out their bowels; That wee binde them to mangers, and feed them with hay like horses. These are shining lies, fit Carbuncles for the Popes Miter. Neither doe they report them onely, but Print them, and paint them, and publish them with the Popes g 1.196 priuiledge. They need a priuiledge which tell such glorious lies. This of the Nagges head, though it goe currant at Rome, and bee blazed for a trueth through the world by men of your rancke, is cousine—germaine to the former, as appeareth by the h 1.197 Records of the Archbishopricke, which declare, that he was consecrated in Capella infra ma∣nerium

suum de Lambhith, That is, in the Chappell within his manor of Lambhith. Thus you see the falsehood of this fable, which was deuised to no other pur∣pose, but onely to make our Ministery and Religion seeme odious to all men. Is not this strange dealing, for men that make such great ostentation of sin∣ceritie and grauitie? But for my owne part I doe not maruaile at it, your pro∣ceedings are but answerable to your doctrines. For you teach, That an offici∣ous lye is but a a 1.198 veniall sin. And againe, That the Church of Rome is the holy mother Church: Therefore to whom should kinde offices rather be performed, then to the Church of Rome? And what office will she take more kindly, then the discrediting of those whom she accounteth Heretickes? therefore I doe not wonder that you put it in practise, I feare nothing, but that shortly it shall grow with you a point meritorious. Well, the b 1.199 Stripe of the rodde maketh markes in the flesh, but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones: But let them re∣member, That the c 1.200 tongue which lyeth, slayeth the soule; And that all d 1.201 lyers shall haue their portion (except they repent) in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.

PHIL.

WHatsoeuer is to be thought of the place, yet I will proue by* 1.202 the Lawes of England, That neither he, nor any of his as∣sociats were lawfull Bishops.

ORTHOD.

By the lawes of England? how proue you that?

PHIL.

It was e 1.203 ordained by the Parliament in the daies of Henry the eight, that no man should be acknowledged a Bishop, vnlesse he were Consecrated by three Bi∣shops with the consent of the Metropolitane; which law was reuiued by Queene f 1.204 Eli∣zabeth, and in full strength at the time of the Consecration of Mathew Par∣ker: but Mathew Parker was not so Consecrate, and therefore by the lawes of England he was not to bee acknowledged for a Bishop. For what Archbi∣shop was either present at his Consecration, or consenting vnto it? Cardi∣nall Poole then late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead, and Parker elected into his place. Nicholas Heath then last Archbishop of Yorke was deposed. In∣deed there was a certaine g 1.205 Irish Archbishop, whō they had in bonds & prison at Lon∣don, with whom they dealt very earnestly, promising him both liberty and rewards, if so be he would bee chiefe in the Consecration. But hee (good man) would by no meanes be brought to lay holy hands vpon heretikes, neither to be partaker of other mens sinnes. Wherefore hauing neither Archbishop of their owne religion, nor being a∣ble to procure any other, the Consecration was performed without a Me∣tropolitane, cleane contrary to the lawes of England.

ORTHO.

What if both Sanders and you abuse the lawes of England in this point? as indeed you doe: For the words are these. h 1.206 And if the person bee elected to the office & dignity of an Archbishop, according to the tenour of this act, then after such election certifyed to the kings highnesse in forme aforesaid, hee shalbe repu∣ted and taken Lord elect of the said office and dignity of Archbishop, whereunto hee shalbe so elected, and after he hath made such oth and fealty, onely to the kings Maiesty his heires and successours as shalbe limited for the same, the kings highnesse by his let∣ters patents vnder the great seale, shall signifie the said election to one Archbishop, and two other Bishops, or else to foure Bishops within this Realme, or within any other the kings Dominions, to be assigned by the kings highnesse, his heires or successours, re∣quiring and commaunding the said Archbishop and Bishops, with all speed and celerity

to confirme the said election, and to inuest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected vnto, and to giue and vse to him such pall, be∣nedictions, ceremonies and other things requisite for the same, without suing, procu∣ring, or obtayning any Bulls, Briefes, or any other things at the See of Rome, or by autho∣rity thereof in any behalfe. Where it is cleare that the King his heires and suc∣cessours might by the statute send letters patents for Consecration of an Archbishop, either to an Archbishop and two Bishops, or else to foure Bi∣shops, therefore it might be performed without an Archbishop, and yet not contrary to the lawes of England.

PHIL.

ADmit this were true, yet it auaileth you nothing; for Math.* 1.207 Parker was Consecrated neither by a 1.208 three, nor by two, much lesse by foure, though by your owne confession the law required foure.

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

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

ORTHO.

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

PHIL.

That was the common case of them all but one; b 1.209 For one alone I must confesse was made to breake vnity, of whom a right good and Catholike Bishop said to a Noble man, wee had but one foole amongst vs, and him you haue gotten vnto you, little worthy of the name of a Bishop and Lord, whose learning was small, and honour thereby much stained. And hee as it seemeth was the onely Bishop which you had; therefore Math. Parker could not be Consecrated by three.

ORTHO.

Hee whom you meane was Anth. c 1.210 Kitchin Bishop of Lan∣daffe, who was in the commission, but was none of the Consecratours; there∣fore you shoot at randome and misse the marke.

PHIL.

Whence then had you your Consecrators? Surely you did not goe d 1.211 to the Churches of the Caluinistes, and Lutherans, if peraduenture they had any.

ORTHOD.

We did not.

PHIL.

Then you must bee glad to runne to your vsuall refuge, that you had one from e 1.212 Greece. Alas my masters, you are narrowly driuen, when you are forced to flie to such miserable shifts.

ORTHOD.

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

PHIL.

If you had neither Bishops of your owne, nor procured any, either from the Catholike Church, or from the reformed Churches, or from the Greekish Church, then it is true which Doctor f 1.213 Kellison reporteth out of San∣ders, That they made one another Bishops.

ORTHO.

Though Sanders in that booke hath almost as many lies as lines, yet he hath not this loude lie; it is the inuention of Kellison himselfe, you pro∣mise demonstratiue reasons, and when your argument comes to the is∣sue, where all your strength should lie, you bring nothing but slender surmises, flying reportes, and detestable lies: Doe these goe at Rome for demonstrations? But I will answere you with euidence of truth which

may be iustified by monuments of publike record.

QVeene Mary died in the yeere 1558 the 17. of Nouember: and the* 1.214 selfe same day died Card nall Poole Archb. of Canterbury, & the very same day was Queene Elizabeth proclaimed. The 15. of Ianuary next fol∣lowing was the day of Queene Elizabeths Coronation, when Doctor Ogle∣thorp Bishop of Carlill was so happy as to set the Diadem of the kingdome vpon her royal head. Now the See of Canterbury continued voide till De∣cember following, about which time the Deane and Chapter hauing recei∣ued the congedelier, elected maister Doctour Parker for their Archbishop. a 1.215 Iuxta morem antiquum & laudabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae praedictae ab antiquo vsitatam & inconcusse obseruatam; i. proceeding in this election according to the ancient manner▪ and the laudable custome of the foresaid Church, aunci∣ently vsed, and inuiolably obserued. After which election orderly performed and signified according to the law, it pleased her highnesse to send her letters pattents of Commission for his confirmation and consecration to seuen Bi∣shops, (six whereof were lately returned from exile;) whose names, with so much of the commission as concerneth this present purpose, I will here set downe for your better satisfaction.

b 1.216 Elizabeth Dei gratia, &c. Reuerendis in Christo patribus.

• Anth. Landauensi.
• Will. Barlow quondam Bath. Episcopo nunc Cicestren∣si electo.
• Ioh. Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Herefor∣densi electo.
• Miloni Couerdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo.
• Ioh. Suffraganeo Bedford.
• Ioh. Suffraganeo The••ford.
• Ioh. Bale Ossorensi Episcopo.

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

PHIL.

BVt was the consecration accordingly performed?* 1.217

ORTH.

You neede not doubt of it. For first, the Bishops to whom the letters patents were directed, had reason to set their handes cheerefully to so good a worke, so much tending to the aduancing of the true Religion which they all imbraced, and for which all of them except one, had

beene in exile. Secondly, how durst they doe otherwise, seeing it was en∣acted by a statute made in the 25. yeare of King a 1.218 Henry 8. and still in force, that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the Kings dominions after any such election, nomination▪ or presentation signified vnto them by the Kings letters patents, should refuse and not confirme, inuest, and consecrate with all due circumstance within twen∣tie dayes after that the Kings letters patents of such signification or presentation should come to their hands, then hee or they, so offending, should runne in the dangers; paines and penalties of the statute of prouision and premunire made in the twentie fiue yeare of the raigne of king Edward the third, and in the sixteenth of king Richard the second.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

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

Anno 1559. b 1.219 Matt. Park. Cant. Cons. 17. Decem. by

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

PHIL.

IF all this were granted, yet it were nothing vnlesse you could* 1.220 iustifie the consecration of his consecratours, therefore you must tell me when they were made Bishops?

ORTHOD.

Two of them in the raigne of king Henry 8. and two in the dayes of king Edward the sixt. In the raigne of K. Henry, B. Barlow and the Suf∣fragan of Bedford. Bishop Barlow was a man of singular note, who, (to vse the wordes of c 1.221 Bale) ab erudito ingenio famam accepit: that is hee had great fame and renowne for a learned wit. In regard whereof he was aduanced to be Prior of d 1.222 Bisham and from thence elected to the Bishoprick of Saint e 1.223 Asaph, which election was confirmed 23. Febr▪ 1535. and soone after it pleased the King to preferre him to the Bishopricke of Saint f 1.224 Dauids, where hee continued all the dayes of King Henry duely discharging all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, euen Episcopall consecration, as I haue g 1.225 already declared out of au∣thenticall records. He was also translated by King Edward to the Bishoprick of Bath and Wels, and by Queene Elizabeth promoted to Chichester. And as he was generally acknowledged and obeyed as a Bishop in his owne nati∣on, so Bucanan relating how King Henry sent him Embassadour into Scot∣land, doth giue him his iust h 1.226 Episcopall title. Now you told vs i 1.227 before out of Sanders, that in King Henries time, none might bee acknowledged for a Bishop vn∣lesse hee were consecrated by three, with the consent of the Metropolitane. Where∣fore seeing Barlow was so famously and notoriously acknowledged not onely in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and King Edward, but also in the dayes of King Henry▪ it is a cleare case that hee was so consecrated. The same is to be said of the Suffragan of Bedford.

PHIL.

What tell you mee of Suffraganes? you know how k 1.228 Damasus speaketh against those titulary Bishops, called Chorepiscopi.

ORTHOD.

There are two sorts of Chorepiscopi, the first had no Episco∣pall Consecration, who are reproued and that iustly, for they were onely Priests, and not Bishops, and of these Damasus speaketh in the iudgement of a 1.229 Bellarmine. The second had Episcopall Consecration, and these though they had no citie, nor diocesse of their owne, but onely some countrey towne for their See, yet in regard of their Consecration, they were true Bishops, as b 1.230 Bellarmine confesseth: Respondeo, Suffraganeos esse veros Episcopos, quia & ordi∣nationem habent, & Iurisdictionem, licet careant possessione propriae Ecclesia: that is, I answere that Suffraganes are true Bishops, because they haue both ordination and Iurisdiction, although they are not possessed of a Church of their owne. And of this latter sort are the Suffraganes of England, established by act of Parliament, in these wordes. Be it c 1.231 therefore enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the townes of Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Douer, Gilsord, Southampton, Taun∣ton, Shaftesbury, Molton, Marleborrow, Bedford, Leicester, Glocester, Shrewsbury, Bristow, Penreth, Bridgwater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hul, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and the townes of Pereth, and Barwicke, S. Germans in Cornewall, and the Ile of Wight, shall bee taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffraganes, to bee made in this Realme, and in Wales. And the Bishops of such Sees shall bee called Suffraganes of this Realme. And for their consecration, prouided alwayes that the Bishop that shall nominate the Suffragane to the kings highnesse, or the Suffragane himselfe, that shallbe nominated, shall prouide two B. or Suffrag. to Consecrate him with the Archbishop.

PHIL.

Was Iohn Hodgeskins accordingly Consecrated?

ORTH.

He was Consecrated by three as appeareth.

• ...Iohn d 1.232 Hodgskins Suffrag. Bedf. Cons. 9. Dec. 29. Hen. 8. by
  • Iohn Lond.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Rob. Asaph.

PHIL.

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

ORTHO.

Your institutions of the Canon Law recognized at Rome by the Popes Mandat, may tell you, that an Archbishop may e 1.233 alicui Coepiscopo∣rum vices suas demandare, commit his roume to any other of his fellow Bishops. And this you must hold, for otherwise ye can no wayes defend the Consecrations of your chiefe Bishops, namely Bonner, Heath, & Thurlby, whom Archbishop Cranmer did not Consecrate in his owne person, but by f 1.234 others, to whom hee gaue commission. To conclude this point, your principall Bishops in Queene Maries time descended from this same Ioh. Bedford. For Tho. Thurlby, who was one of the Consecrators of Cardinall g 1.235 Poole, was Consecrated by Ioh. h 1.236 Bedf. The other two were Consecrated in King Edwards time, both in one day as hath beene i 1.237 before declared. And these also were very learned men; Co∣uerdale helped Tindall, in the translation of the Bible: his fame and renowme caused the k 1.238 King of Denmarke, to write earnestly vnto Queene Marie, that she would send him vnto him, which she did. And how learned a man, Bi∣shop Scory was, may appeare by this, that when the disputation was appoin∣ted with the Popish Bishops, he was the l 1.239 first and principall man named on the Protestants side, with whom the aduersaries durst not encounter. And thus much of their Consecrations.

PHIL.

ADmit they were truly Consecrated, and were Bishops of their* 1.240 seuerall Sees, yet they fled away and so dispossessed them∣selues, and therefore could not Consecrate him by vertue of their former Episcopall titles.

ORTHOD.

By what power doth a Bishop Consecrate a Bishop?

PHIL.

By vertue of his Episcopall a 1.241 Character.

ORTHO.

But you told vs that the Character is indeleble: therefore they could not loose the power of Consecrating by loosing their Bishopriks. Againe if a Bishop flying in the time of persecution doth cease to be a Bishop and loose his title, then famous Athanasius did cease to bee a Bishop, and lost his title, for it is plaine that he fled from Alexandria. b 1.242 I did saith he withdraw my selfe by stealth, frrom the people beeing mindfull of the word of my Sauiour, c 1.243 if they persecute you in one City, flie into another. But Athanasius for all this did not cease to be Bishop of Alexandria. For although the Arrian faction preuayling▪ the Councell of Tyre d 1.244 deposed him, yea and the Councel of Antioch, in the presence and with the consent of the e 1.245 Emperour, did institute f 1.246 Gregory in his place, yet the councel of g 1.247 Sardica pronounced Athanasius (as also Mar∣cellus Asclepas and other Catholike exiled Bishops) to be pure and innocent: and deny that Gregory the Vsurper, of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza, (which had entered like h 1.248 Woolues vpon the Churches of these men) should be cal∣led Bishops. So the Councel iudged the Churches to belong to the Catholicke Bishops, euen at such time as they were exiled, and the Arrians in possession: and accordingly they i 1.249 deposed Gregory with such like, & restored Athanasius, and the rest with honour. Which act they signified in a Synodall Epistle, to the Church of Alexandria, in this manner. k 1.250 We would haue you to know that Gregory, being made Bishop vnlawfully, by heretickes, and brought by them into your citie is deposed from his Bishopricke by the whole Synode, although in very deed hee was neuer Bishop, therfore farewell, and receiue your Bishop Athanasius. Thus you see that though Athanasius fled away in time of persecution, though he were deposed by a Councel, and another chosen in his place, by another Councell, with the consent of the Emperour; yet for all this▪ he is iudged to be the true Bishop of Alexandria, and Gregory neuer to haue beene the Bishop thereof. The like is to be said of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and others, who were persecuted for the Catho∣licke Faith, as well as Athanasius. Wherefore if you wil conforme your iudge∣ment to the Councell of Sardica, you must confesse that such as in King Ed∣wards time were lawfully possessed of Bishoprickes (though in Queene Ma∣ries time being persecuted in one citie, they fled into another) did still retaine the titles of true Bishops, and that those which inuaded their Churches, were intruders and vsurpers. Thus it appeareth, that as Athanasius, and the rest returning from exile, might ordaine and doe, all such things as belonged to their Episcopall Office, euen so Bishop Barlow, Bishop Couerdale, and the rest returning from exile, might likewise ordaine, and iustifie their proceedings in their Episcopall function.

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

Athanasius was restored sundry times, sometimes with a

Councell, sometimes without. When the Councell of Tyre deposed him, the Emperour Constantine the Great called them to a 1.251 account for their iudge∣ment: But when hee heard him accused by Catholicke Bishops, which for∣merly had bene his owne friends, (whom the Arrians had now suborned a∣gainst him) for threatning to hinder the carriage of corne from Alexandria to Constantinople, hee b 1.252 exiled him into France; From whence after the death of Constantine the father, he was restored to Alexandria by the Letters of Constantine the sonne, with the c 1.253 permission of his brother Constantius, and that according to the prescript of their father, as appeareth by these wordes of Athanasius: d 1.254 Blessed Constantine the yonger, being mindfull of the prescripts of his father, while hee restored mee to my Countrey, wrote an Epistle in these wordes. And so he setteth downe Constantines Epistle to the Church of Alexandria. Concerning which you shall heare your owne e 1.255 Baronius, Constantinus Au∣gustus Athanasium quem viuente patre exceperat Treueris, regio diplomate, datis ad Alexandrinos litteris, in suam Ecclesiam summo cum honore restituit, i. Constantine the Emperour restored Athanasius (whom he had intertained at Treuers while his fa∣ther was aliue) by his Letters Patents to the people of Alexandria, with very great honour. Thus you see that though hee was deposed by a Councell, and ex∣iled by a Prince, yet hee was restored onely by the Princes Letters without a Counsell.

PHIL.

The Councell of Antioch f 1.256 obiected a g 1.257 Canon against him▪ to wit, That he which is deposed by a Councell, cannot be restored but by a Councell of a greater number: And therefore seeing hee was deposed by the Councell of Tyre, and restored, neither by a Councell of a greater number, nor by any Councell at all, but onely by the letters of the Emperour, they deposed him, and put another in his place.

ORTHOD.

First, it is h 1.258 confessed, that this Councell of Antioch, was a wicked Arrian Councell: Secondly, i 1.259 Socrates declareth, that this very Ca∣non was vrged against S. Chrysostome, who reiected it as being made by the Ar∣rians, of set purpose against Athanasius: Thirdly, if wee should admit this Ca∣non, yet it maketh nothing against the Consecratours of Archbishop Parker: for they were not deposed by any Councell, and therefore needed no Coun∣cell to restore them; but as Athanasius and other Bishops being forced to flee in the time of k 1.260 Iulian, returned againe in the dayes of Iouian, l 1.261 Qui cum omnes alios Episcopos, tum eum (nempe Athanasium) ante omnes, qui omnibus virtute ante∣cellebat, & citra dubitationem vllam pietatis causa bello vexatus fuerat, ab exilio re∣uocat, i. Who recalled from exile, as all other Bishops, so especially Athanasius, who in vertue excelled all men, and without doubt was vexed and troubled (onely) for his pietie and Religion: So these reuerend Bishops being forced to flee in the time of Q. Mary, onely for their pietie and Religion, returned againe in the dayes of Q. Elizabeth, who as she recalled all godly Christians and Preachers from exile, so especially those that excelled in learning and vertue. Hitherto of the Consecratours.

NOw for the Consecrated, he was a man against whom you can take no* 1.262 exception: for you must needs acknowledge that he was capable of the Episcopall Office, because m 1.263 Bristow confesseth, that he was a Priest secun∣dum Catholicum ritum, i. according to the Catholick rite, Which is most true;

He was Chaplaine to the Lady Anne Bullein, and afterward to K. Henry the 8. who greatly preferred him, and he was thought by Q. Elizabeth the fittest man to be aduanced to the See of Canterburie. He was very learned (as may ap∣peare by his writings famously knowen to the world,) and a great louer of learning, and Religion: For he founded a a 1.264 Grammer Schoole at Rochdale in Lancashire; Vnto Corpus Christi Colledge in Cambridge (where hee was brought vp) he procured 13. Schollerships, built the inward Library, and two faire chambers in the same. He gaue to the Library of that Colledge a great number of Bookes, some printed, other written, very rare, and much to be esteemed for their value and Antiquitie. He gaue also to the Vniuersitie 50▪ written books of great value, and 50 printed. He gaue to the same Colledge, land for the maintenance of two Fellowes, aboue the ordinary number. He tooke order for the preaching of 6. Sermons yerely, in 5. seuerall Churches in Norfolke. To Trinitie Hall he gaue a Schollers place, and bookes likewise. And otherwise bestowed much money vnto charitable vses Lastly, hee is commended by a great b 1.265 Antiquary, for being singularly studious of Antiqui∣ties; by whose care and industrie, many excellent Monuments both in the Latin and Saxon tongue were preserued, which otherwise had perished in the darknesse of Obliuion. But from the persons we will proceed to the mat∣ter and forme of the Consecration.

PHIL.

I c 1.266 Haue heard credibly reported, That your new Superintendents, were* 1.267 made Bishops with no other ceremony, then with the laying of the English Bible vpon 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 1.268 Bel∣larmine thinketh it to be the matter essentiall. And for the other Ceremonies which are but the inuention of man, you cannot inforce them vpon vs, fur∣ther then the wisdome of our Church doeth hold it conuenient. But con∣cerning Archb. Parker, e 1.269 this was his singular felicitie, That being the 70. Archbishop after Austin, yet of all that number he was the onely man, and the first of all which re∣ceiued Consecration without the Popes Bulls, and superfluous Aaronicall Ornaments, as gloues, rings, Sandals, slippers, Miter, Pall, and such like trifles: making a happy be∣ginning (more rightly, and more agreeable to the simplicitie and puritie of the Gospel) with Prayer, inuocation of the holy Ghost, imposition of hands, and Religious promises, in Attire correspondent to the grauitie and authoritie of an Archbishop, with a Sermon made by a learned and godly Diuine, concerning the Office, charge and faithfulnesse, of a Pastour to his flocke, and the loue, obedience, and reuerence of the flocke to the Pa∣stour; And after Sermon, with receiuing the holy Communion in a great assembly of most graue men. And last of all, with the common and feruent prayers of them all, that the Office imposed vpon him, might redound to the glory of God, the saluation of his flocke, and the ioyfull testimonie of his owne conscience.

PHIL.

WHat forme of wordes did they vse, to giue the Episcopall* 1.270 power, with the imposition of hands?

ORTHOD.

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

a 1.271 Cicestrensis, Heref: Suffraganeus Bedford & Milo Couerdale manibus Archiepiscopo imposit is dixerunt anglice. viz. Take the holie Ghost &c.

Thus haue wee examined the place, the persons, the matter, the forme of his Consecration, and finde nothing but agreeable to the lawes of the Land, the Canons of the Church, and the practise of reuerend antiquitie: wherein how circumspectly the Queene proceeded, may further appeare by this that her letters patents were sent to diuerse learned professours of the law, that they might freelie giue their iudgment, and all of them ioynthe confessed, that both the Queenes Maiesty might lawfully authorize the persons to the effect specified, and the said persons also might lawfully exercise the act of confirming and Consecrating in the same to them committed: whose names subscribed with their owne hands remaine in b 1.272 record as followeth.

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

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

CHAP. V.

Of the rest of the Bishops Consecrated in the second and third yeere of Queene Elizabeth.

PHIL.

IF his or their Consecrations were sound, why did the Queene in her letters patents directed for the con∣secrating of them, vse diuerse generall words and senten∣ces, whereby she dispensed with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection or disability that could or might bee obiected in any wise against the same, as may appeare by an act a 1.273 of Parliament, referring vs to the said letters patents, remayning of record?

ORT.

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

PHIL.

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

ORTHOD.

The Pope taketh vpon him to dispense against the law of God, (as for example, That a brother may marrie his brothers wife;) So did not Queene Elizabeth, but onelie with trespasses against her owne lawes, not in essentiall points of ordination, but onelie in accidentall; not in sub∣stance but in circumstance. Neither did she giue them leaue to make any vo∣luntarie violatiō of the law, but only dispensed with such omission as a 1.274 necessity it selfe should require, as may appeare by the said letters patents. And it pleased the Almighty so to dispose that al things were performed in most exquisite man∣ner; yet the Papists, (such was their hatred against the Clergie) did blaze abroad the contrarie: Whereupon the high Court of Parliament assem∣bled in the eight yeere of that famous Queene, hauing deepelie considered and pondered all things, pronounced, that their speeches were Slanderous not grounded vpon any iust matter, or cause. For Gods name bee blessed, all things were done honestlie, and in order, euen from her first comming to the crowne.

ANd verily as Iosua b 1.275 protested, I & my house wil serue the Lord: so Queen* 1.276 Elizabeth resolued with her owne heart, I and my kingdomes will serue the Lord. Therefore as c 1.277 Iosias assembled the ancients of Iuda and Ie∣rusalem to make a Couenant with their God: so Queene Elizabeth assembled her high Court of Parliament for the same purpose. But as when Nehemias went about reformation, the d 1.278 Priests and e 1.279 Prophets which should haue bin the principall helpers, were principal hinderers; so it came to passe in that Parliament, that whereas the Prince, and Barons, and the Commons were great instruments of Gods glorie; the Popish Bishops sought by all meanes the glory of their holie father the Pope. Notwithstanding God in his mercy gaue a blessing, so that the truth preuailed. And as f 1.280 Iehoiada required an oth in behalfe of King Ioas; so the Parliament did in behalfe of Queene Eliza∣beth. And as g 1.281 Abiathar was iustlie depriued for refusing Salomon and ioy∣ning with Adonia: euen so were the Popish Bishops for refusing the oth of the Queenes supremacie, which contained nothing else, but the Princes lawfull title. And as Abiathar beeing displaced, Sadok was aduanced: so those vndutifull Bishoppes, beeing remooued, godlie Pastours were pre∣ferred.

THe Bishops depriued, were in number fourteene, in whose Sees,* 1.282 who succeeded may appeare by this table, wherein is set downe first, the Prouince of Canterbury, and then of Yorke.

		Sees.	Displaced.	Placed.
prouince	Cant.	London.	Bonner.	Grindall.
Winchester.	White.	Horne.
Ely.	Thurlby.	Coxe.
Lincoln.	Watson.	Bullingham.
Cou. & Lichfeild	Bane.	Bentham.
Bath and Wels.	Bourne.	Barckly.
Exon.	Turberuill.	Ally.
Worcester.	Pates.	Sandes.
Peterburrow.	Poole.	Scambler.
Asaph.	Gouldwell.	Dauis.
Yorke.	Yorke.	Heath.	Young.
Durham.	Tunstall.	Pilkinton.
Carlill.	Oglethorp.	Best.
Chester.	Scot.	Downham.

¶ The Consecration of the B. of the Prouince of Cant.

• ...Anno 1559. Edm. a 1.283 Grindall Cons. 21. Dec. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• ...Anno 1560. Robert b 1.284 Horne cons. 16. Feb. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Tho. Meneu.
  • Edm. London.
  • Tho. Cou. & Lich.
• ...Anno 1559. Rich. c 1.285 Coxe cons. 21. Decem. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• ...Anno 1559. Nich. d 1.286 Bullinghā cons. 21. Ian. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Rich. Eliens.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• ...Anno 1559. Tho. e 1.287 Bentham cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Nich. Lincoln.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• ...Anno 1559. Gilb. f 1.288 Barckly cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Nich. Lincoln.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• ...Anno 1560. Will. g 1.289 Ally cons. 14. Iuly. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Gilbard Bath
  • and Wells.
• ...

• ...Anno 1559. Edwin a 1.290 Sandes cons. 21. Decem. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Will. Cicester.
  • Ioh. Hereford.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• ...Anno 1560. Edm. b 1.291 Scambler cons. 16. Febru. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Tho. Meneuens.
  • Edm. London.
  • Tho. Cou. & Lichfield.
• ...Anno 1559. Rich. c 1.292 Dauis cons. 21. Ianu. by
  • Math. Archbishop Cant.
  • Edm. London.
  • Rich. Eliens.
  • Ioh. Bedford.

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

Thomas Young was translated to Yorke from Saint Dauids, whose Conse∣cration was as followeth.

Anno 1559. Thomas Young cons. 21. Ianuary by

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

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

CHAP. VI.

A briefe view of all the Bishops of some of the principall Sees, during the whole raigne of Queene Elizabeth.

ORTH.

TO the intent that all men may knowe the godly* 1.293 care of the Church of England in obseruing the ancient Canons, I will set downe all the Bishops of some of the principall Sees which were conse∣crated from the first enterance of Queene Eliza∣beth, till the ende of her Raigne.

Canterbury.

THe Archbishops of Canterbury in the Queenes time were Math. Par∣ker,* 1.294 Edmund Grindal, and Iohn Whitgift, the consecration of the two for∣mer you haue heard already, the third remaineth to be declared.

Anno 1••77. Ioh. d 1.295 Whitgift cons. 21. April. by

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

London.

THe Bishops of London in the Queenes time, were Edmund Grindall,* 1.296 Edwin Sandes, Iohn Elmer, Richard Fletcher, and Richard Bancroft. The Consecration of the two first were before expressed, the rest as followeth.

• ...

• Anno 1576. Ioh. a 1.297 Elmer Cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Edw. Archb. Ebor.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1589. Rich. b 1.298 Fletcher Cons. 14. Dec. by
  • Ioh. Archb Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Ioh. Roff.
  • Ioh. Glou.
• Anno 1597. Rich. c 1.299 Bancroft Cons. 8. May by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh Roff.
  • Anton Meneu.
  • Rich Bangor.
  • Anton. Cicest.

¶ Winchester.

THe Bishops of Winchester, in the Queenes time, were Robert Horne,* 1.300 Iohn Watson, Thomas Cooper, William Wickham, William Day, and Thomas Bilson; the Consecration of Bishop Horne was before handled, the rest were as followeth.

• Anno 1580. Ioh. d 1.301 Watson Cons. 18. Septem. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1570. Thomas e 1.302 Cooper Cons. 24. Febr. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Robert Wint.
  • Nich. Wigorn.
• Anno 1584. Will. f 1.303 Wickham Cons. 6. Decem. by
  • Iohn Archb: Cant.
  • Edm. Wigorn.
  • Ioh. Exon.
  • Mauricius Meneu.
• Anno 1595. William g 1.304 Day Cons. 25. Ianu. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1596. Thomas h 1.305 Bilson Cons. 13. Ianu. by
  • Ioh. Archb Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Will. Wint.
  • Rich. Bangor.

¶ Ely.

THe Bishops of Ely in the Queenes time, Richard Coxe, and Martine* 1.306 Heaton, the Consecration of Bishop Coxe was handled before, the o∣ther followeth.

Anno 1599. Martin i 1.307 Heaton Cons. 3. Febr. by

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

¶ Salisbury.

THe Bishops of Salisbury, were Iohn Iewel, Edmund Gueast, Iohn Peirs,* 1.308 Iohn Goldwell, and Henry Cotton.

• Anno 1559. Iohn a 1.309 Iewel Cons. 21. Ianu. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Edmund London.
  • Rich. Ely.
  • Ioh. Bedford.
• Anno 1559. Edmund b 1.310 Gueast Cons. 24. Mart. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Nich. Lincolne.
  • Ioh. Sarum.
• Anno 1576. Iohn c 1.311 Peirs Cons. 15. April. by
  • Edm. Archb. Cant.
  • Edw. London.
  • Rob. Winton.
• Anno 1591. Iohn d 1.312 Coldwell Cons. 26. Decem. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. London.
  • Tho. Wint.
  • Rich. Bristoll.
  • Ioh. Oxon.
• Anno 1598. Henry e 1.313 Cotton. Cons. 12. Nouem. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • William Couent.
  • Ant. Cicest.

¶ Norwich.

THe Bishops of Norwich, were Thomas Parkhurst, Edmund Freake, Ed∣mund* 1.314 Scambler, William Redman, and Iohn Iegon: Of these, Edmund Scam∣blers Consecration hath already beene declared; the rest follow.

• Anno 1560. Thomas f 1.315 Parkhurst Cons. 1. Sep. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Gilbert Bath and Wells.
  • William Exon.
• Anno 1571. Edmund g 1.316 Freake Cons. 9. Mart. by
  • Matth. Archb. Cant.
  • Robert Wint.
  • Edm. Sarum.
• Anno 1594. William h 1.317 Redman Cons. 12. Ianu. by
  • Iohn Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • William Lincoln.
• Anno 1602. Iohn i 1.318 Iegon Cons. 20. Febru. by
  • Iohn Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Iohn Roff.
  • Ant. Cicest.

¶ Rochester.

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

Anno 1577. a 1.319 Iohn Yong Cons. 16. Mart. by

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

CHAP. VII.

Of the Bishops in the Prouince of Canterburie, consecrated since our gracious Soue∣raigne King Iames did come to the Crowne: with a little touch concerning the Prouince of Yorke.

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

• Anno 1603. b 1.320 Ioh. Bridges Cons. B. of Oxon. 12. Febr. by
  • Ioh. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Ioh. Roff.
  • Anthon. Cicest.
• Anno 1604. Rich. Parry Cons. B. of Asaph. 30. Dec. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Mart. Eltens.
• Anno 1604. Tho. Rauis Cons. B. of Glouc. 17. Mart. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Tob. Durham.
  • Anth. Cicest.
• Anno 1605. Will. Barlow Cons. B. of Roch. 30. Iun. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. London.
  • Anth. Cicest.
  • Thom. Glouc.
• Anno 1605. Lanc. Andrewes Cons. B. of Cic. 3. Nou. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Lond.
  • Ioh. Norwich.
  • Thom. Glouc.
  • Will. Roff.
• Anno 1607. Henr. Parry Cons. B. of Glouc. 12. Iul. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Will. Roff.
  • Lancel. Cicest.
• An. 1608. Ia. Mountagu. cōs. B. of Ba. & Wels. 17. Ap. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Henr. Sarum.
  • Will. Roff.
  • Lanc. Cicest.
  • Henr. Glouc.
• ...

• Anno 1608. Rich. Neile Cons. B. of Roch. 9. Octob. by
  • Rich. Arch. Cant.
  • Thom. Lond.
  • Lanc. Cicest.
  • Ia. Bath & Wells.
• An. 1609. Geor. Abbot. Con. B. of Cou. & Lich. 3. Dec. by
  • Rich. Archb. Cant.
  • Lanc. Ely.
  • Rich. Roff.
• Samuel Harsnet Cons. B. of Cicest. the same day, by the same persons.
• Anno 1611. Giles Thomson Cons. B. of Glou. 9. Iul. by
  • Georg. Archb. Cant.
  • Ioh. Oxon.
  • Lanc. Eli.
  • Ia. Bath. & Wells.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lichf.
• Iohn Buckridge Cons. B. of Roch. the same day, by the same persons.
• Anno 1611. Ioh. King. Cons. B. of Lond. 8. Septemb. by
  • Georg. Archb. Cant.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lichf.
  • Giles Glouc.
  • Ioh. Roff.
• Anno 1612. Miles Smith Cons. B. of Glou. 20. Sept. by
  • Georg. Cant.
  • Ioh. Lond.
  • Rich. Cou. & Lich.
  • Ioh. Roff.

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

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

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

CHAP. VIII.

The Episcopall line and succession of the most Reuerend Father in God, George now Lord Archb. of Canterbury, particularlie declaring how he is Canonically descended from such Bishops as were Consecrated in the daies of King Henry the eight, which our Aduersaries acknowledge to bee Canonicall.

He was Consecrated 3. December. 1609. By

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

• ...
  • 21 Iohn Young Consecrated 16. Mar. 1577. by
    • Edmund Grindall vide 3
    • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
    • Iohn Iewell. vide 18
  • 22 Ant: Rud, Consecrated 9. Iun. 1594. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Iohn Young. vide 21
    • 23 Richard Fletcher Cons: 14. Dec: 1589. by
      • Iohn VVhitgift. vide 2
      • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
      • Iohn Young. vide 21
      • 24 Iohn Bullingham. Cons: 5. Sep: 1581. by
        • Edmund Grindall. vide 3
        • Iohn Elmer. vide 10
        • Iohn Young. vide 21
  • 25 Richard Vaughan, Cons: 25. Ianuary 1595. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Richard Fletcher. vide 23
    • Iohn Young. vide 21
  • 26 Anthony Watson, Cons: 15. August 1596. by
    • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
    • Iohn▪ Young. vide 21.
    • Richard Vaughan. vide 25
    • 27 Thomas Bilson, conse: 13. Iune 1596. by
      • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
      • Richard Fletcher. vide 3
      • 28 William Day, consecrated 25. Ia∣nuary 1595. by
        • Iohn Whitgift. vide 2
        • Richard Fletcher. vide 23
        • Iohn Young. vide 21

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

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

PHIL.

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

ORTH.

Truely (Philodox) that which a man wisheth, hee is willing to beleeue, & the mind sophisticate with malice is ready vpon euery light occa∣sion to imagine the worst, yea and somtimes to blaze that for certaine which hath neither shew nor shadow of truth. Yet these vaine surmises you receiue for oracles, and deliuer one to another by the holy hand of tradition, wherein you glory as in an vnanswerable argument. So did your fellowes at Fram∣lingham: so did Hart in the conference with Doctour Rainolds: but when hee had heard his answere, iustifying our Bishops by authentical records, a 1.321 he would needes haue that whole point left out of the conference, saying he would not presse him with it, and confessed, hee thought that no such thing could haue beene shewed, and that himselfe had beene borne in hand otherwise. Now (Philodox) as he was delu∣ded, so are you: but as he receiued satisfaction, so I hope will you.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Sand. de schis. lib. 3. p. 285. D••cent•••• au∣reos, which I translate 200. Nobles, be∣cause as I take it, he meaneth 100. markes, according to the Statute, 1. Eliz. cap. 2. though he faile in some points of it.
• a 1.2

  1 Cor. 11. 23
• b 1.3

  Codex l. 1. tit. 1. Cunctos.
• c 1.4

  August, Ep. 48.
• d 1.5

  August. Ep. 50.
• * 1.6

  Ep. 48. verbo agendum, dispu∣tatione pug∣nandum.
• f 1.7

  His exemplis a collegis meis mihi propositis cessi. ibidem.
• g 1.8

  Defence of Engl. Catho∣liques. p. 15.
• * 1.9

  2
• a 1.10

  Sand: de Schis. l. 3. pag. 272.
• b 1.11

  August: contra Chres∣conium l. 3. c. 51.
• * 1.12

  3
• c 1.13

  Sand. de Schis. l. 3. p. 283.
• a 1.14

  Sand. quo supra.
• b 1.15

  Sand. de schis. l. 3. pag. 284.
• c 1.16

  Sand. abidem Pollinus l. 4. c. 5. p. 420. Eu∣demon Ioh. Pa∣rallel. c. 5 p. 244. Nich. Ba∣conum non hae∣reticum modo aclaicum homi∣nem, sed, &c. vide infra.
• d 1.17

  Prou. 22. 11.
• a 1.18

  Sozom. l. 4. cap. 5.
• b 1.19

  Breuic. Coll. in prefatione.
• c 1.20

  August. epist. 178.
• d 1.21

  Apud. Bin. t. 2 pag. 1.
• e 1.22

  Apud. Bin. ••. 3. pag. 7.
• f 1.23

  Conc. Eph. t. 2. c. 32 Bin. t. 3 pag. 732.
• g 1.24

  Ibidem.
• h 1.25

  Ibidem.
• i 1.26

  Eudemon I••l. quo supra. sed etiam Ca∣tholicorum ca∣pitale•• hostem.
• k 1.27

  Act. & Mon. in the ende.
• l 1.28

  Sand▪ l. schis. l. 3. pag. 284.
• * 1.29

  4
• a 1.30

  Sand. quo supra.
• b 1.31

  D••fence of Cath. p. 52.
• * 1.32

  5
• c 1.33

  Apud Sand. de Schis. lib. 3. pag. 317.
• d 1.34

  Pag. 286.
• e 1.35

  Defence of Cath. pag. 45.
• a 1.36

  Tort Torti▪ pag. 147.
• b 1.37

  Ibidem.
• c 1.38

  Ibidem.
• d 1.39

  Pag. 103 dum initio Regni &c. cited Tort. Torti. pag. 149.
• a 1.40

  1. King. 2. 27.
• b 1.41

  Bell. resp. ad Apolog. p. 157.
• c 1.42

  Pag 92.
• d 1.43

  Ibidem.
• e 1.44

  2. Chron. 22. 11.
• f 1.45

  Verse 10.
• g 1.46

  Verse 11.
• h 1.47

  Verse 12.
• i 1.48

  2. Chron. 23. 2.
• a 1.49

  Bell. quo su∣pra.
• * 1.50

  2.
• b 1.51

  Luke 3. 2.
• c 1.52

  See Baron. Anno 31. n. 9. 10.
• d 1.53

  Baron. An. 31. n. 8.
• e 1.54

  De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9.
• f 1.55

  Hector Pin∣tus, in Ezech. c. 44.
• * 1.56

  3
• a 1.57

  2. Pet. 1. 20. 21.
• b 1.58

  Bell••de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 29.
• c 1.59

  Rom. ••3. 3. 4.
• d 1.60

  Bell. quo supra.
• e 1.61

  Ioh. 19. 24.
• f 1.62

  Mat. 26. 15.
• g 1.63

  Mat. 2. 17.
• h 1.64

  Ioh. 19. 28. 29.
• i 1.65

  In 3. Reg. c. 2. quaest. 28. non pon••tur (Vt) denotando ca••∣sam sinalem sed Consecuti••um. &c.
• k 1.66

  2. Kin. 9. 25 26.
• a 1.67

  1. Chro. 22. 10. 2. Sam. 7. 12. 13.
• * 1.68

  4
• b 1.69

  1. King. 1. 5.
• c 1.70

  Vers. 7.
• d 1.71

  Vers. 25.
• c 1.72

  Tortus.
• f 1.73

  1. King. 1. 52.
• g 1.74

  1. King. 2. 17.
• h 1.75

  1. King. 2. 22.
• i 1.76

  Vers. 25.
• k 1.77

  1. Kin▪ 2. 29.
• l 1.78

  Vers. 30.
• m 1.79

  1. King. 2. 26.
• n 1.80

  Vers. 27.
• o 1.81

  Vers. 35.
• a 1.82

  Bell. de ex∣emp. cler. c. 1. pag. 2••4.
• * 1.83

  5
• b 1.84

  Ver. 12, 41.
• c 1.85

  Verse 9.
• d 1.86

  Bell. de ex∣emp. cler. c. 2. pag. 272.
• e 1.87

  Exod. 19. 6.
• f 1.88

  2. Chr. 17. 7. 8.
• g 1.89

  2. Chr. 19. 8.
• h 1.90

  Vers. 11.
• i 1.91

  2. Chr. 29. 4. 5.
• k 1.92

  Vers. ••5.
• l 1.93

  Vers. 21.
• m 1.94

  Vers. 25.
• n 1.95

  Vers. 30.
• o 1.96

  2. Chr. 31. 2.
• p 1.97

  2. Kings 18. ••▪
• c 1.98

  2. King. 23. 4▪
• d 1.99

  Verse 8.
• e 1.100

  1. King. 13. 1.
• f 1.101

  2. King. 23. 20.
• g 1.102

  Ezech. 44. 13.
• h 1.103

  Nehemiah 13. 6.
• i 1.104

  Verse 8. 9.
• k 1.105

  Verse 28.
• l 1.106

  2. Chr. 24. 21.
• m 1.107

  1▪ Sam. 22. 18.
• n 1.108

  Verse 12. 15.
• o 1.109

  Bell. de ex∣emp. c. 2. p. 272.
• p 1.110

  Tom. 2. pag. ••85.
• a 1.111

  Anno 452.
• b 1.112

  1. Kin. 4. 1.
• c 1.113

  De potestate Reg. cap. 19.
• * 1.114

  6.
• d 1.115

  De potestate Eccle. tom. 12. tract▪ 63. p. 428
• e 1.116

  De Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 25.
• f 1.117

  I•• 4. sent. d. 25. q. 2.
• g 1.118

  Consideratio P. ••. Pauli.
• h 1.119

  Carerius l. 2 c. 18. respondeo primo.
• i 1.120

  Tost. in 4. Reg. ••. 12. q. 8. Ipse (Rex) ••a∣hebat potesta∣tem super Sa∣cerdoses & po∣terat ••os occi∣dere pro crimine sicut quoscun{que} laicos, & a for∣tiori priuare eos officijs & digni∣tatib▪ quantū∣cunque essent spirituales.
• * 1.121

  7.
• a 1.122

  Epist. Episc. ad Leonem im∣per. a••ud bin. t. 2. p. 178.
• b 1.123

  Nouel const. 6. iuxta sinem.
• c 1.124

  Euagrius l 1. c. 12. ex Codice l. 1. tit. 1. Sau∣cimus.
• d 1.125

  Theodor. l. 5. cap. 2.
• * 1.126

  2
• a 1.127

  〈…〉〈…〉 153••. p. 11••.
• b 1.128

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• c 1.129

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• d 1.130

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• e 1.131

  Defence of English Ca∣thol. pag. 4••.
• f 1.132

  Ant. Brit pag. 306.
• g 1.133

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.134

  3.
• h 1.135

  See 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Apol. cap. 1.
• i 1.136

  〈…〉〈…〉 4. c. 42. So••r. l. 1 c. 3••. The••••. l. 5. c. ••.
• k 1.137

  〈…〉〈…〉. l. 1.
• l 1.138

  〈…〉〈…〉. 2.
• a 1.139

  Leo Epist. 24.
• b 1.140

  Leo Epist. 43.
• c 1.141

  Mart. Imper. orat. in Conc. Chalced. act. 1. Bin. t. 2. p. 4.
• d 1.142

  Leo Epist. 59.
• * 1.143

  4.
• e 1.144

  Concilium octauum act. 1. B••n. t. 3. p. 880.
• f 1.145

  Tom. 4. ••art. 11. edit. Venet. Vide T••rturam T••rti. p. 349.
• * 1.146

  ••••n. qu•• 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.147

  6
• a 1.148

  Cont. M••∣g••••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pr••••••••▪ B••••••▪ 34. 402.
• a 1.149

  Bin. t. 3. pag. 631.
• b 1.150

  Council. Em••∣rit••ex Garsia Loa••sa. sect. 23. Bin. to. 2. p. 1183.
• c 1.151

  Gars. in no∣tis in Con••. Emer.
• d 1.152

  Tert. ad Scopul.
• e 1.153

  Contra. Par∣men. l. 5.
• f 1.154

  Ad pop. Antioch. hom. ••
• g 1.155

  Rom. 13. 1.
• * 1.156

  6
• a 1.157

  Admoniti∣on annexed to the Queens m••un••tions.
• b 1.158

  Art. 37.
• c 1.159

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cal••••••∣t••••. l. 4. ••. 10.
• d 1.160

  Pro. 8. 15.
• e 1.161

  Dan. 2. 37.
• a 1.162

  Rom. 13. 1.
• b 1.163

  De ciuit. Dei l. 5. c. 21.
• c 1.164

  Esai. 45. 2. 3.
• d 1.165

  Aust. ep. 50.
• e 1.166

  Epist. 48.
• f 1.167

  1. Tim. 2. 2.
• g 1.168

  Malach. •• 7.
• a 1.169

  Psal. 78. 70.
• b 1.170

  2. Chron. ••9. 11.
• c 1.171

  Calu••n A∣mos. 7. 13.
• * 1.172

  7.
• d 1.173

  Bish. Bilson true diffrence.
• e 1.174

  1▪ Sam. 15. 17.
• a 1.175

  2. Kings 11 4.
• b 1.176

  Scultingius Biblioth. Catho. t. 5. p. 106.
• c 1.177

  Reginales prelati▪ Sand. de schis. l. 3. p. 297.
• d 1.178

  Ibidem. p. 298.
• e 1.179

  Brist. Anti. mot. ••om. 2. p. 264.
• f 1.180

  Iohn Brier∣ly Cath. apol. see Doct. Mort. appeale. p. 633.
• g 1.181

  Brist. mot. 21.
• h 1.182

  Ann. 25. H. 8. ca. 20.
• i 1.183

  Ex regist. Cant. passim in citatione con∣tra oppositores.
• * 1.184

  2.
• k 1.185

  Sand. de schl. l. 3. p. 298. Pol∣linu▪ l. 4. c. 6. p. 434.
• a 1.186

  Absque vlla Episcopall con∣secratione.
• b 1.187

  Anno 8. Eli∣z••••. c. 1.
• c 1.188

  Hard. conf. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2.
• d 1.189

  Thuanu•• hist. l. 54. anno 2572. oppend.
• a 1.190

  Sand. Rock of the church, Lo••anij 1567.
• b 1.191

  Greg. presb. in vit. Greg. Naz.
• c 1.192

  Reply to D. Sutl. p. 31.
• d 1.193

  Lib▪ 6.
• e 1.194

  Anno 963.
• f 1.195

  Tortura Tor∣ti. p. 152.
• g 1.196

  Eccles. Angl. trophen. Anno 1584. cum pri∣uil. Greg. 13.
• h 1.197

  Reg. Park. tom. 1. fol. 9.
• a 1.198

  Bell. de amiss. grat. l. 3. c. 8.
• b 1.199

  Eccl••s. 28. 17
• c 1.200

  Wisd. ••. 11.
• d 1.201

  Reuel. 21▪ 8.
• * 1.202

  5
• e 1.203

  Ex Sandero de schism. l. 3. p. 297. Hier. Poll. l. 4. c. 6. p. 434.
• f 1.204

  Elisab. in in∣tegrum restituit ac renouauit. Sand▪ ibid.
• g 1.205

  Ibidem.
• h 1.206

  An. 25. Henry 8. c. 20.
• * 1.207

  5
• a 1.208

  Sand. de Sch. l. 3. p. 297. nec inter se, aut tres du••sue E∣piscopos habe∣rent.
• b 1.209

  Hard. Con∣sut. of the Apol. part. 6. c. 2.
• c 1.210

  Who only remained in his See, and agreed to the religion. Witnesse the author of the life of the 70. Archbishop.
• d 1.211

  Sand. quo supra.
• e 1.212

  Eudaemon Ioh. Cydoniu•• parall. c. 5. accerser•• vobis nescio cuius or∣dinatorise Grae∣cia auxilium soliti ••itis.
• f 1.213

  Reply to D. Sutl. f. 31.
• * 1.214

  6.
• a 1.215

  Ex Regist. M. Parker.
• b 1.216

  Litter•• pa∣tent▪ regiae ••x Regist. Park. fol. 3. b. And the same re∣cord is to be found in the Chauncery.
• * 1.217

  7
• a 1.218

  Cap. 20.
• b 1.219

  Ex Registro Matth. Park. ••om. 1. f. 2. & 10.
• * 1.220

  8
• c 1.221

  Descript••ri∣bus Angl. Cent. 9. 41.
• d 1.222

  Registrum Cranm. f. 181. b
• e 1.223

  Ibid. f. 179.
• f 1.224

  Ibid. f. 205.
• g 1.225

  Li••▪ 2. c. 10. in the cōsecrati∣on of Arthur Buckly.
• h 1.226

  Anglus misit in Scotiā San∣ct•• Dau••••is siue Meneuensem Episcopum
• i 1.227

  Lib. 2. c. 10.
• k 1.228

  Epist. 3. Bin. t. 1. pag. 502.
• a 1.229

  De Cleric. c. 17.
• b 1.230

  De s••cr••onf. l. 2. cap. 12.
• c 1.231

  26. H. 8. c. 14.
• d 1.232

  Ex registro Cran. f. 204.
• e 1.233

  Lanc. inst. l. 1. de consec.
• f 1.234

  Regist. Cran. f. 259. & 261.
• g 1.235

  Regist. Car. Pol•• f. 3. a.
• h 1.236

  Regist. Cran. f. 261.
• i 1.237

  Libr. 2. c. 11.
• k 1.238

  Act. ad Mon. where the co∣py of the let∣ters are to bee scene.
• l 1.239

  Acts and Mon. in fine.
• * 1.240

  10
• a 1.241

  Bell. de••ap. & Cons l. 2. c. 12.
• b 1.242

  Athanas. in Epist. ad Orthodoxos.
• c 1.243

  Matth. 10. 23.
• d 1.244

  Concilium vero Tyrium, eum indicta causa condem. nat, abdicat E∣piscopatu. ••oz. l. 2. c. 24.
• e 1.245

  Cogitur Con∣cilium Antio∣chiae presente imperatore Con∣stantio. Socr. lib. 2. c. 5••
• f 1.246

  Decernunt vt Gregorius Ecclesiae Alex∣andrinae anti∣stes constituatur Soz. l. 3. c. 5. vid. Bar Anno 341 num. 1.
• g 1.247

  Epist. Sardic. Concilij ad Episc. Africa∣nos Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 207. Paris. 1608
• h 1.248

  Qui in eo∣rum Ecclesias ••uporum instar ingressi sunt. ibidem. Binius ••om. 1. p. 446.
• i 1.249

  See Baron▪ Anno. 347.
• k 1.250

  Athanas. Apol. 2. Bin. t. 1. p. 444.
• a 1.251

  Euseb. de vi∣tae Constant. lib. 4. cap. 42. Socr. l. 1. c. 22.
• b 1.252

  Socr. lib. 1. cap. 23.
• c 1.253

  Licet inuito animo ferret, ••ulit tamen. Baron. anno 338. n. 3.
• d 1.254

  Athanasius apol. 2.
• e 1.255

  An•••• 338. ••. 1.
• f 1.256

  Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
• g 1.257

  Conc. An∣tioch. 1. Can. 12. Bin. tom. 1. p. 423.
• h 1.258

  Vide Bin. in notis in Conc. Antioch.
• i 1.259

  Lib. 6. c. 16.
• k 1.260

  Sozom. l. 5. cap. 14.
• l 1.261

  Greg. Naz. orat. de laud. Athan.
• * 1.262

  11.
• m 1.263

  Antih••ret. motiu. p. 266.
• a 1.264

  See B. Good∣win. in catalogo.
• b 1.265

  Camd. in Brit.
• c 1.266

  Kel reply to D. Sutl. p. 31.
• * 1.267

  12.
• d 1.268

  De Sacram. Ordinis. c. 9.
• e 1.269

  Ex vita Matthei Par∣ker.
• * 1.270

  13.
• a 1.271

  Ex regist. Mat. Park. fol. 10.
• b 1.272

  Ex reg. Mat. Park.
• a 1.273

  8. Eliz. c. 1.
• a 1.274

  Temporis ra∣tione & rerum necessitate id postulante.
• b 1.275

  Ios. 24. 10.
• * 1.276

  2
• c 1.277

  2. King. 23. 3.
• d 1.278

  Neh. 13. 28
• e 1.279

  Neh. 6. 12
• f 1.280

  2. Kin. 11. 4.
• g 1.281

  2. Kin. 2. 35
• * 1.282

  3
• a 1.283

  Regist. Park. r. 1. fol. 18.
• b 1.284

  Ibid. fol. 88.
• c 1.285

  Ibid. fol. 22.
• d 1.286

  Ibid. fol. 54.
• e 1.287

  Ibid. fol. 69.
• f 1.288

  Ibid. fol▪ 74.
• g 1.289

  Ibid. fol▪ 80.
• a 1.290

  Ibid. fol. 39.
• b 1.291

  Ibid. fol. 92.
• c 1.292

  Ibid. fol. 5••.
• * 1.293

  1
• * 1.294

  2
• d 1.295

  Regist. Grin∣dal.
• * 1.296

  3
• a 1.297

  Ibidem.
• b 1.298

  Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
• c 1.299

  Ibidem.
• * 1.300

  4.
• d 1.301

  Regist. Grin∣dal.
• e 1.302

  Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.
• f 1.303

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
• g 1.304

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.
• h 1.305

  Ibidem.
• * 1.306

  5.
• i 1.307

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.
• * 1.308

  6
• a 1.309

  Ex Regist. Park. fol. 46.
• b 1.310

  Ibid. fol. 64.
• c 1.311

  Ex Reg. Grindall.
• d 1.312

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 1.
• e 1.313

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.
• * 1.314

  7
• f 1.315

  Ex Regist. Park. t. 1.
• g 1.316

  Ibid.
• h 1.317

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 2.
• i 1.318

  Ex Regist. Whitg. t. 3.
• a 1.319

  Ex reg. Grindall.
• b 1.320

  These Re∣corde follow∣ing were ta∣ken out of the originall in∣struments.
• a 1.321

  Doct. Rei∣nolds in his letter to M. Thomas Barker of Monck So∣ham in Suf∣folke, the ori∣ginall wherof is in my hāds, and the same Doctour of godly memo∣ry did some∣times relate the same vn∣to myselfe.