Chap. 5. the. 9. Diuision.
And as for the offices wherein there is any laboure or trauayle, those they haue turned vnto the other ministers, as for example in tunes past (*) 1.1 it was not lawfull for him that was then an* 1.2 elder, to preach or minister the sacraments in the presence of the Byshop, bycause the Byshop him∣selfe should do it, and now those which they call elders, may preach and minister the sacraments by the Byshops good licence, although he be present.
There is no iust cause of complaint for most of the Byshops in that behalfe. For I thinke the time hath not bin, wherein there were moe preaching Byshops, than are at this day, in this Church. But do you thinke that a minister may not preach or minister the sacraments in the presence of the Byshop? Or do you so well allow of* 1.3 that Councell and canon quoted in your margent? It was the second councell called Hispalense concilium, it was not generall, but prouinciall, celebrated Anno. Dom. 659. the contents of the canon by you alledged are these. That a Priest may not cōsecrate alters, but only the Byshop: that a Priest and Chorepiscopi may not consecrate virgines, erect altars,* 1.4 blesse and anoynt them, hallow churches, make holy oyle, and such like, but only the By∣shop. Likewise that no priest may baptise, say Masse▪ teach the people, or blesse them in the presence of the Byshop. Surely this is a worthy Councel, and a notable canon, especi∣ally for you to alledge, that haue so depraued other worthy writers for some imper∣fections founde in them.
But what doth it make for your purpose? They might both preach and minister* 1.5 the sacraments in the presence of the Byshop, if he willed them, and so is the canon. This law was made for the encreasing of the Byshops pompe and dignitie: for no man might presume to speake or do any thing in their presence, without their leaue and licence: so were they estéemed thē, and such authoritie had they. But if our By∣shops should clayme the like, you would say that it were an vntollerable arrogancie and pride.
I would to God all those that be deluded by you, would consider your allegations, and the grounds of your proofes. Surely I woulde be loth to alledge any Councell of that time to proue any thing in controuersie. Much more loth would I be to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so corrupt a canon: but lothest of all to alledge that, which should be so flat against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cause, & proue the cleane cōtrary to that, which I affirme, as this doth in your 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
And here I haue one thing to tell you, yt diuers of those things, wherin you 〈◊〉〈◊〉* 1.6 make this difference betwixt our Byshops and those of the primitiue church, if t〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ey were true, yet wer they no saults in the office, but in the men: as for example, thys which you here set downe. Will you make a differēce in the offices of our Byshops and those of olde time, bycause some of them do not preach? This compareth the mē togither, not the offices, except you proue that it is forbidden or vnlawfull for one of our Byshops to preach. There are other such like, which I omitte.