A DISCOVERY OF A notable Fraude and Deceit committed by R. B. a Seminarie Priest, upon Two of the Articles of the Church of England.
SECT. I.
Num. 1 THis Romish Adversary R. B. raises his Engines for undermining of our Church upon these two severall Articles of ours, to wit, the Three and twentieth Articles, and the sixe and thirtieth Article following.
Article 23. R. B. pa. 206. It is not lawfull for any man to take upon him the office of publike preaching in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same; and those wee ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this worke by men, who have publike authority given them in the Congregation to call, and send Ministors in the Lords Vineyard.
Article. 36. R. B. pa 346. The booke of Consecration of Archbishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of K. Edward the sixt, and confirmed the same time by authority of Parliament, doth containe all things necessary to such Consecration and ordering, neither had it any thing that of it selfe is superstitious or ungodly, and therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to [Page 2]the Rites of that Booke, since the second yeare of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or shall be hereafter consecrated or Ordered according to the same Rites, we decree all such to be rightly and lawfully consecrated, and ordered.
Upon these Two Articles, are Three such Engines devised by R. B. for overthrow of the Foundation of the visible and outward Entity of our Church of England in point of Consecration and Ordination, (here delivered in his owne words) as are novell, and consequently unconfuted; The particulars whereof, are as followeth.
R. B. OBIECTION. I.
Num. 2 Note: Pag. 209. 210. This new Protestant Queene Elizabeth (her Raigne beginning here in the yeare 1558. and 1559. in her first Parliament) never had any knowne, publike, allowed square, Rule, forme, maner, order or fashion whatsoever, for any to have publicke authority to call, make, send, or set forth any pretended Minister untill the yeare 1562. when their Religion was foure yeares old, and these Articles were made, and in them the Booke of King Edward the sixt about ten or eleven yeares old, when he set it forth by Parliament, was first called from Death, wherewith it perished in the first yeare of Queene, Mary: It hath beene pretended—that Mathew Parker was made a Bishop—on the seventeenth day of December; But (alas) they had then no forme or Order to doe such a businesse—untill foure yeares after this pretended admittance, alleaged to have beene the seventeenth of December 1559. Pag. 346. Here I have proved demonstratively, that they neither have any lawfull Iurisdiction or Ordination among them: But to doe a worke of Supererogation, in this so much concerning the standing or overthrow of our Frotestants whole Religion, quite overthrowne by this one dispute, if they have no rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated Bishops, Priests or Deacons; I thus further demonstrate.
Pag 347. First then, if the Decree of this (later) Article (as they terme it) were to be accepted and received for a just and law, full Decree, yet the first—Protestant—Bishops, Priests and [Page 3] Deacons in Queene Elizabeths time, (from which all that now be in England, or have beene since then,) cannot be said to be rightly, orderly and lawfully consecrated by this very Article it selfe: For that supposed Booke of King Edward the sixt being abrogated and taken away by Queene Maries Lawes, and not afterwards revived by the Protestant—Lawes of Queene Elizabeth, untill in those Articles, in the yeare of Christ 1562. (as their date is) Queene Elizabeth beginning her Raigne the 17 of November 1558, all their first pretended Bishops, Priests and Deacons, must needs be unrightly, unorderly and unlawfully made, though by that Booke of King Edward, because there was no Protestant right order or Law to make or admit any into such places by that Booke not approved or allowed by any Protestant—right, order or Law all that time.
P. H. ANSWER.
Num. 4 This objection (more then once repeated) is nothing but a litigious and impertinent quarrell for want of matter: For posito, That Archbishop Parker wanted in his consecration some Punctilioes of outward Order for me or fashion according to the prescript tenor of our Lawes or Rules, or that there was not any law, or publike Rule of our Common-meale prescribing an outward for me of Consecration then in [...]cre, yet such want or Fayler did not nor could vitiate, destroy, or annibilate his Consecration, celebrated in a sufficient Church manner, in esse and substance good and valide, in regard regall Lawes and Ecclesiasticall Canons are but circumstantiall and ad bene [...]sse, fitting and directing (quatenùs ad nos) the Ceremony and outward forme thereof, which Order and forme, if it hap at any time upon just or reasonable occasion, not to be pursued, the same is not destructive to such Consecration to make it invalide or fruitlesse.
But of all others this objection becomes not R. B. nor any Romanist: First because the Coneil. Parisi. 3 bin. Tom. 2. pag. 207. col. 2. nu 8 B. Synod 7. Act. 8. can. 3. Bin Tom. 3 part. 1. sect 1 pag. 701. E. F. Synod. 8. cap. 22. Bin. Tom. 3 part 1 Scot. 2 p. 647. col 1. A. & pag. 676 col a C. D. Concil. [...]ar. sub Gre Pop. 7. Bin. Tom 3 sas. 2. pa. 4 [...]7 col. 1. F. baron Tom. 12 Ann. 1103. paragr. 8. pag. 33. Ft Ann. 111 [...]. para 29.30.34. Et Ann. 1106. par. 33. pag. 55. Et Ann. 1108. par. 25 pag 67. Et Ann. 1119. paragr. 10. pag. 143. Et [...]nno. 1139. parag. 5. pag. 89. nu. 25. Et. 1169. par. [...] 29. pag. 623. Pontificians do exclude all civill and municipall Lawes of Princes and Republikes from Intermedling with those Ecclesiasticall Affaires: wherein your Romish rote is like the bold Optat afrie. milevit. lb. 3. pag. 64. August. contr. liter. Pet. lb. 2.1. Protest of the Donatists against [Page 4] Insperiall authority in Church businesse: ‘Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia?’ What have Emperours, Kings and Princes to dowith Ecclesiasticall affaires? whereas seeing Kingsare both tosua 24.23. ad 28 & 34.31.22 33. Isay 47.23. S. August. contr. Cresc. li. 3.c.51. pag. 272. A. B. & contr. Gaudent. lib. 2.c.11. col. 341. A. B. & Epist. 50. col. 207. ad 203. Custodes utriusque Tabulae & Nutritii Ecclesiae Keepers, of both Tables, and Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers of the Christian Church, it belongs unto, and is a Duty of Regality, to constitute and ordeine lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, and the Regiment of the Church, and per potestatem coactivam, by power coactive to enforce the due execution of the duties of Religion, and to cause punishments to be inflicted on the Delinquents, to succour the oppressed, and to cherish the good, both among Priests and Laikes, as well in Church as Common-weale: But indeed the immediate Actes of the Episcopall, Priestly and ministeriall office, as Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, and the Actuall consecration of Bishops and ordination, of Priests, Ministers and Deacons, belongs properly to the Pastorall charge.
Numb. 5 Secondly, because the Romish Church is guilty of violation both of Canons, and it's owne Pontificall, being content to derive succession from many incanonicall and irregular Consecrations: For contrary to the tenor of the first generall Concil. Nice. I. can. 4. Bin. Tom 1. pag. 297. col. 1. B. Epistdehan. pap. 3. Bin. Tom. 2. part. 2. pag. 205. col. 2. D. Councell of Nice, and their owne Iurists and Archidiac. super Dec part. I. dist. 66 pog. 88. Bellarm. Tom. 2. de mil. Eccles. lib. 4 cap. 8. p 189. B. Quantum. Cardin. Turtecr. in Gratian. Tom. 1. part. 1. dist. 66. Porro pag. 88. Doctors, determining, that Consecration of a Bishop ought to be by Three Bishops at the least, the Romish Church hath not onely consecrated some Bishops by Bellar. Tom. 2. Not. Eccles. li 4. cap. 8 col 189. B.C. one onely Bishop and two mitred Abots, but hath permitted Boy Iohan. Reynolds Apol. Thes. 26. pag. 292. cites many authorities for these Boyish heads.—Priests, Boy—Bishops, Boy—Cardinals: and Boy—Pope too. And where, by the sixt Councell of Concil Calced. gen. 4. Act. 15. can. 6. Bin. Tom. 2. par [...] pag. 327 col. 2. C. Calcedon each Bishop ought to be designed to some particular Diccesse, your Panormit. de offic. ordinar. cap Quoniam nu. 4. Panormitan sayes, ‘Multi sunt Episcopi sine administratione Episcopatuum, ut sunt illi qui vulgariter Nullatenenses appellantur, There are many Bishops without administration of a Bishopricke, and they are those who are commonly called Nullatenenses,’ Meere Titulary Bishops without profit or substance; Such was Olaus Sleidon. Commom. lib 17 pag. 248. a. Magnus, stiled Vpsalensis, & Rokertus Venantius, stiled Armachanus, who (being Bishops in conceit) [Page 5]were sent to the Councell of Trent to fill up the number, and to make voyces: And such (I say) was your Doctor Smith your late Bishop of Chalcedon, commorant therefore here in England, and now or late in France; Such Ʋtopian No— Bishops have passed for currant in your Church of Rome, Where all Regularities, Formalities, Canons, and Legalities have suffered most shamefull violation, as testifies your owne Baronius, Baron. Tom. 10 Anne 912, na. 8 col, 685. speaking of the State of your Church in ages long since past: ‘Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae? quam foedissima? Cum Romae dominarentur potentissimae aequé ac sordidissimae meretrices? quatum arbitrio mutarentur Sedes, darentur Episcopi, Et (quod auditu horrendum, & intandum est) intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum Amasii Pseudopontifices, qui non sunt (nisiad consignanda tantrum tempora) in Catalogo Romanorum Pontificum scripti; Quis enim a Scortis hujusmodi intrusos sine lege legitimos dicere possit Romanos fuisse Pontifices? Nusquam Cleri eligentis, vel postea consentientis aliqua mentio: Canones omnes pressi silentio, Decreta Pontificum suffocata, proscriptae antiquae Traditiones veteresque in eligendo Summo Pontifice consuetudines, sacrique Ritus, & pristinus usus prorsits extincti: What then was the Face of the holy Romane Church? how filthy? seeing most potent and filthy whores did governe and Rule at Rome, at whose pleasure Sees were changed, Bishops appointed, and (which is horrid to be heard and hainous) their Lovers false—Popes were thrust into Peters—Seate, who are not (unlesse onely for designing the times) written in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome: For who can say that these who were put in by such Strumpets without Law, were lawfull Bishops of Rome? No mention is made of the Clergie electing or afterwards consenting; All Canons were silenced, Pontificall Decrces choaked, antient Traditions proscribed, and the old Customes and holy Rites and antient usage in electing the High Bishop, utterly extinct.’ Was not this a very bad time, thinke you? Budaeus de asset lib. 5. sol. 199. What was the latter age better? your-Budeus will tell you, ‘Sacrosanctos Canones melioribus annis factos, ut iis velut Regulis vita Clericorum [Page 6]dirigeretur, & velut Patrum praescriptis posteri formarentur; jam in amusses plumbeas'evasisse (quis non videt?) quales olim fuisse Canones Lesbiae structurae tradit Aristoteles: Nam ut Canones plumbei & molles non structuram operum tenore aequabili dirigunt, sed exstructorum commodo & libidine stexiles structurae accommodantur: Sic Canones Pontificil excusu Ecclesiae antistitum flexibiles plumbei & cerei facti sunt, ut jam diu instituta Majorum, & Sanctiones Pontificiae non moribus regendis [...]sui esse, sed (propemo [...]ùm dixeram) argentariae factitandae authoritatem accommodare videantur; the holy Canons made in better Ages, that thereby as by Rules, the life of the Clergie should be directed, and posierity be formed as by Praescripts of the Fathers, are now turned into leaden Rules (who see's not?) such as Aristotle says the Lesbian Ru'es-for building were in times past: For now as leaden and soft Rules doe not direct the structure with an equall tenor; but are accommodated and bended unto the building at the will of the Builders: So the Pope's Canons are by practice of the Prelates of the Church made flexible as lead and wax, as that now along time our ancestours Decrees, and Popes Canons serve not for guiding our maners, but (as I may say) seeme to be imployed for Money—Bankes.’ And also let your Iesuite Franciscus de victoria Doctor of the Chaire at Sa [...]mani [...]e, Franc. de Victor. Rel 4. de potest. Papae propos 6, pag. 39. & 48. in Spaine, tell you his knowledge herein, ‘Videmus quotidie a Roman â Curiâ tam largas, imo omnino dissolutas Dispensationes prosect is, ur Orbis ferre non posset, nec solum in scandalum pusillorum, sed Majorum; and also he sayes, Nullus quaerit Dispensationem quin obtineat: we see such large, yea such dissolute Dispensations to come daily from the Count of Rome, as the world cannot beare it, not only in scandall and offence of little ones; but of the Great-ones also—no man seekes a dispensation out he obtaineat:’ Ra ward Topp. oral. 10. Anno 1552. pag. 199. & 200. This is further consirmed by your Ruardus Tappesus Chancellor of Lovame, ‘Abusus Romanae Curiae inexcusabiles agnosci oportere, totum Ecclesrae corpus contaminatum lapsu disciplinae, venalia esse omnia per monstrosas provisions, regressus, & retrogressus, [Page 7]per commendationes Abbatiarum, & Episcopat num, per Dispensations super Pluralitate Beneficiorum, & super aliis plurimis, super quibus nec Christus ipse dispensare posset. The abuses of the Court of Rome we must acknowledge to be inexcusable, the whole Body of the Church is contaminated by the decay of Discipline, all things are sold by mastrens provisions, R. turnes out-goings, by besi [...]ing Abbathies and Bishopricks by Dispon sations in plurality of Benefices, and on many other things wherwith Christ himselfe cannot distense:’
Now seeing your Romane Church (not withstanding she hath Canons and Rules enough.) hath neverthelesse departed fouly therefrom, doe's it not ill become R. B. (a child of that Church) to cast dirt most causelessely on the beautifull face of our purer Church. (yea I say) so pure and perfect as no Church this day can parallel her for Doctrine and Discipline, so conformable to the Primitive Church) and unjustly to traduce Her for supposed want of legall Forme of Consecration at the time of Doctors Parkers Consecration?
Num. 6 And if it be true, that there was then No legall outward Forme or fashion prescribed for Episcopall Consecration, then was not Doctor Parkers Consecration any Transgression of our Lawes, and so the lesse peccant or offensive: But indeed, neither Peccant, nor offensive at all either to God, or Man; Not to God, in regard it was performed in Apostolicall manner by Imposition of hands, by apt words of the Gospell, accipe Spiritum Sanctum (which is essentiall) done by men having power from God to Consecrate, and with all essentiall Requisits whatsoever, and with fit Circumstances, as holy Prayer, learned Sermon, and holy Communion, as indeed nothing is therein urged by R. B. to the contrary: Not to man, being done by the consent, approbation and command of Royall power signified by Letters Patents, under the great Seale of England, after orderly & due election; Wherby the Tenor of the former of the Decrecs of our Church cited by R. B. before mentioned, (even before those nine and thirty Artieles of our Church were established) was accomplished; So as he did not assume on himselfe that Office, but was thereunto called by lawfull Authority: And as for the latter of our Decrees [Page 8]before mentioned, cited by R.B. (whereby it is ordained, that those who be consecrated according to the Tenor of King Edwards Booke, are thereby adjudged to be lawsully consecrated) if it were true (as R. B. affirmes it) that King Edwards Book of Consecration was dead at the very time of Archbishop Parkers consecration, or if he were not consecrated in all particulars according to the Tenor and prescript of that Booke, yet it does not follow that his Consecration must be utterly void and invalid, as R. B. resolutely affirmes it, pretending that the Standing or overthrow of our Protestants whole religion depends thereon; R B. pag. 346. 3. 7. for if so, it would go very far for overthrow of the antient Church, or at least it would receive a deadly wound thereby: For notwithstanding the Councell of Sardica ordained:— ‘Episcopus—non prius ordinaretur, nisi et ante Lectoris munere et officio Diaconi et Presbyteri fuerit perfunctus, Concil Sardicenscap. 3 Bn. [...]om 1. pag 434. col. 2. F. et ita per singulos gradus (sidignus fuerit) ascendat in Culmen Episcopatus; potest enim per has promotiones (quae habent utiq. prolixum tempus) probari quâ fide sit, quâve modestiâ, et gravitate, et verecundiâ A bishop may not be ordained unlesse he hath first performed the duty of a Reader, and the office of a Deacon, and Presoyter, and so through each degree (if he shall be found worthy) let him ascend the height of Episcopacy; for by these promotions (which verily require long time), He may be tryed of what faith, modesty, gravity, and reverence he is:’ yet neverthelesse Eusebius Baron Tom. 2. Anmo. 260. paragr 29. col. 580. Deacon of Alexandria was immediately made Bishop of Laodicea, and Zozom. Hist. eccl lib. 4. cap. 8. Bin. Tom. 1 part. 1. sect. pag. 521. and Tom 3. part. 2. sect. 2. pag. 423. co. 2. E. Concil. Constanti. Ep. vel. hist. cons. B n. Tom. 1. pag. 521. Nectarius, a neophyte and unbaptized, Catechumene was elected Patriarch of Constantinople Bin Tom. 3 par. 2. sect. 2. pag. 4 [...]4. col. 1. A. B. and presently made Bishop in the second generall Counsell, held at Constantinople: Baron To. 4. Anno 375 paragr. 21.22.23. col. 395. 396.And St. Ambrose of a consul was baptized and Consecrated Bishop of Millaine. (d) And Eusebius a Magistrate, was baptized and made Archbishop of Cesarea. Baron Tom. 4. An. 362. para. 50 pag. 29. And also Saint Tharasius being a lay-man, was consecrated a Bishop: And Marcell. correct. Sacr. Cerl 1. sect. 2 fol. 13. in like sort Petrus Moronaeus, of a layman was made Pope of Rome. And (I beleeve) nether R. B. nor any well advised Romanist will, or dare say, their Consecrations were void:much lesse can R. B. irritate or make void [Page 9]the Consecration of Arch-bishop Parker if it were true, that King Edwards Booke of Consecration was indeed atterly dead at the time of his Consecration, Socrat. bist. eccles. lib 4 cap. 25. pag. 282. E. because our Decree concerning that Book (before ricited) does not ordaine that if any Consecration be Celebrated, not in all and every Punctilio of that Book, that such Consecration is judged, deemed, and decreed, to be utterly void and of none effect; No, that Article is utterly Silent therein, it onely affirmatively sayes that such as are Consecrated according to the tenor of that Booke, are deemed and decreed to be rightly & lawfully Consecrated: so as the Conclusion inferred by R. B. cannot be supported by the premisses: try it syllogistically, and it will be most manifest.
Whosoever is Consecrated Bishop according to the rites of King Edwards Booke of Consecration, is rightly & lawfully Consecrated, so sayes our Article;
But Doctor Parker was not Consecrated according to the tenor of King Edwords Book of Consecration, so sayes R. B. in regard it was then dead, and not m [...]rerum natura, as he alledgeth; ergo—
Doctor Parker was not rightly & lawfully Consecrated; so is the Conclusion of R B. which is a false syllogisme, being in no figure nor mood, nor any way consonane to the rules of dialectical argumentation, if the little skill I have in that Learning does not misguide me very much: For it were necessary for maintenance of this Conclusion of R. B. (That Doctor Parker was not rightly and lawfully Consecrated, and thereby our whole R [...]ligion overthrowne) that our Decree should have bin of this Tenor, (viz) Such as are Consecrated Bishops in an other manner than is prescribed by K. Edwards Booke of Consecration, we decree him to be unrightly and unlawfully Consecrated; & thereon R. B. mighthave had some colour, or matter to inferre his Conclusion, with this manner of argument;
Num. 7 Whensoever is consecrated Bishop in any other manner. forme, or fashion, thou is prescribed by King Edwards Booke of Consecration, be is not rightly orderly or lawfully comsecrated;
But Doctor Parker was consecrated in an other mammer, sorme, and fashion, than is preseribed by King Edwards Book of consecration; Ergo, Doctor Parker was not rightly, orderly, or lawfully, consecrated.
And yet this would not directly maintaine this Pontifician's Conclusion, unlesse it went more directly thus, Whosoever [Page 10]is consecrated Bishop in other manner, than according to King Edwards Booke, his Consecration is irruat; and voyd.
But Doctor Parker was consecrated in other manner than is prescribed by King Edwards booke, Ergo Doctor Parkers Consecration is irruate and voyd: But this matter being already most learnedly handled, and most soundly cleered by such Heroes of our Church, as I am unworthy to hold the candle unto, I have been too long on this point, because the thing undertaken by me here, is not to consider how well and sufficiently R. B. hath disputed, but how truely hee hath spoken, in the matters by him brought into question; wherin the issue is whether King Edwards Booke of Consecration (being put to Death by Queene Maries lawes) was never revived to life, till the making of our Nine and thirtie Articles in Anno 1562, in the fourth yeare of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth?
Num. 8 For the better discovery of the truth wherof, I thinke it meet, here to set downe the substance of the severall Acts of Parliament concerning the matter; viz. ‘Statute 2. & 3. Edw. 6. cap. 1. The Kings Majestie hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and certaine of the most learned and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of this Real me to — draw and make one convenient and meet order, rite, and fashion, of common and open Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, to be had and used in England and Wales; The which—with one uniforme agreement is of them concluded—in a Booke intituled The Booke of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies, after the use of the Church of England; wherefore it—be—ordained and enacted that—all—Ministers—shall—be bounden to say, and use the Mattens, Evensong, Celebration of the Lords Supper, and all their Common and open Prayer, in such Order and Forme, as is mentioned in the same Booke, and none other, nor otherwise.’
Numb. 9 By this Stature there was onely the Forme of Common Prayer, Adminisiration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and [Page 11]Ceremonies established; But the Forme of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordination of Priests and Deacons was not thereby settled or established: And therefore afterwards there was made The Statute of 5. and 6. of King Edward the fixt, Cap. 1.
‘The Kings most excellent Majestie hath caused the aforesaid Order of Common Service (intituled, The Booke of Common Prayer) to be faithfully and godly perus [...]d, explained and made fully perfect, and—hath Adjoyned it to this present Statute, adding also a Forme and manner of making and Consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; to be of like force, authority and value, as the same like aforesaid Booke (intituled, The Booke of Common Prayer) was before, and to be accepted, received, used & esteemed in like sort and manner— as by the said Act—of the second yeare of the Kings Majesties raigne was ordained—for uniformity of Service and administration of the Sacraments—; And the aforesaid Act to stand in full force—to and for the establishing the Booke of Common Prayer now explained and hereunto annexed: And also the said Forme of making Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons hereunto annexe, is it was for the former Book: And—Bee it further enacted that if any person shall wittingly or wilfully heare or be present at any other— form of Common Prayer, Administration of Sacraments, making of Ministers,’ and—other Rites then are mentioned— in the said Booke—shall suffer, &c.—Hereby (as is manifest) the forme both of Common Prayer & Celebration of the S [...]am [...]n [...]s, and also Ordination and Consecration of Bishops Priests and Deacons, was made One intire Booke or volume: And afterwards Queene Marie ha [...]ing attained the Crowne, did (as R. B. sayes) make an Act of Repeale in ‘Anno primo regni sui cap. 2. Thus: It is enacted and established, that one—Act—of Parliament—in 2. Edward. 6. intituled an Act for the uniformity of Service and Administration of the Sacraments throughout the Realme, and also one other Act made 5. Edward. 6. entituled [Page 12]An Act for the uniformity of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments—shall be from henceforth utterly Repealed,—and of none effect.—’
This being that Act of Parliament, which R. R. sayes, killed King Edwards Booke of Consecration, it is to be observed, that this Act of Repeale doe's expressely neither mention any thing in particular, nor in precise words repeale any Law made for preseribing the sorme of Consecration, &c.— But it doe's repeale and mention onely the foresaid Lawes, intituled, Acts for the uniformity of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments; which particular is not here urged to gainesay it, but that thereby The authority for that manner of Consecration and Ordination was repealed and annihilated, but it is here offered for removall of a weake objection, which peradventure may be made upon the Statute of Revier (hereafter mentioned) made in the very beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth.
Num. 10 But such was the high wisedome of Royall Queene Elizabeth (of ever most famous memory) as that (notwithstanding the confident affirmation of R. B.) there was not in her raigne (for preventing of all scruples doubts and quarels) any Consecration, Begun 22. Ianu. 1558. 1. Eliz. & ended 8. May following 1559. till Queene Maries Law therein was repealed, and made vtterly voyd by Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. thus, ‘Wheras at the death of our late Soveraign Lord King Edward the sixt, there remained one uniforme Order of Common Service and Prayer and administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England, authorized by Act of Parliament holden in the sift and sixt yeares of our said late Soveraigne King Edward the sixt, intituled an Act for the uniformioy of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, the which was repealed and taken away by Act of Parliament in the first yeare of the raigne of our late Soveraigne Lady Queene Mary, to the great decay of the honour of God and discomfort to the Professors of the Truth of Christs—Religion—Be it enacted by Authority of this present Parliament, that the Estatute of Repeale and every thing therein conteined, onely concerning [Page 13]the said Booke, and the Service, Administration of the Sacraments, rites, and Ceremonies cont eyned or appointed in or by the said Booke, shall be void and of none effect, from and after the Feast of the Nativity of Saint Iohn Baptist next comming: And that the said Booke with the Order of Service, Administration of the Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies, with the Alterations and Additions therein added and appointed by this Statute shall stand and be from and after the said Feast of the Nativity of Saint Iohn Baptist in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this Statute, any thing in the foresaid Estature of Repeale to the contrary not withstanding:’ Now by this Acte of Parliament the aforesaid Acte of Queene Mary being repealed as concerning this very Booke which comprised in it as well the Consecration of Bishorps and Ordination of Priests and Deacons, as the Celebration of Divine Servic: and administration of the Sacraments; And from and after Mid-Summer then following, in Anno 1559. The same Booke being in all things become againe in full vigour and force, then afterwards was Doctor Parker (our first Protestant Bishop, which was made in Queene Elizabeths Raigne) elected, and consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury (for ought by R.B. urged to the contrary) rightly, orderly & lawfully according to publike knowne and allowed Square, rule, forme, order & fashion: which Booke and all Consecrations ab initio regni Elizabethae Reginae, were againe Confirmed by Acte of Parliament 8. Elizab. cap. 1. not for any need of it, but to satisfie some causelesse scrupulofities; If it be objected, That in this last Act there is no expresse mention of Consecration, then it is answered (as before touched,) That Queene Maries Lawe made no expresse mention of Consecration neither: But to make it Sans doubt, by this Law is Queene Maries Law made utterly voyd, Whereby King Edwards Lawes therein became in force, And more-over, by this Law of Queene Elizabeth that Booke (which is but one Totum) is recontinued and set in it's full strength and vertue: Hereby it appeares what little regard R. B. had either to the force of truth, or to his owne Reputation and credit, by affirming with bold considence, that [Page 14]this Booke was first called from Death to life, by the nine and thirty Articles only, and that the Church of England had not for the space of foure yeares any publicke allowed forme of consecration of Bishops or Ordination of Priests and Deacons.
SECT. II.
R.B. OBIECTION. II.
Num. 11 Pag. 343. AGaine the first Protestant Censecration or admittance of any to be a Bishop by that Booke or Order in Queene Elizabeths Raigne, was on the 17 day of December in her second yeare (as they pretend from the Register of Marthew Parker) But their owne both private and publike Authorities prove, Godwyn Catal of bishop Durbam 58. Cath. Tunsto'l Stow hist Queen. Fliz. an. 1. Injun. Eli. Reginae. Injunct. 8.28.40.51.53. R.B. pag. 348. 1. that both Matthew Parker (their first pretended Archbishop) and others were received and allowed for Arch-Bishops, and Bishops about 6 moneths before their first pretended Consecration on the 17 of December;—For Parker Barlow, Scory, and Grindall, were allowed and received for Bishops in the moneth of August before in publike S [...]emniti [...]s:—None can say; these were onely Bishops Elect, and not perfectly allowed or admitted for the true Bishops; For by the Statute of Hen. 8. Anno 25. revived by Queene Elizabeth in her first Parliament Anno 1. cap. 1. it is ordained that Consecration must be within twenty dayes of Election.
P. H. ANSWER.
Numb. 12 It is readily yeelded unto, that Doctor Parker not our first Protestant Arch-bishop, seeing (Arch-bishop Cranmer was his Predecessor, but our first in Queene Elizabeths time) was allowed Arch-bishop of Canterbury five or sixe moneths before the 17 of December 1559, which is the time ascribed for his Consecration; And also Barlow; Scory, and Grindall were allowed, and acknowledged Bishops before; But what use you would make of it I know not, unlesse it be to the end, that the Reg [...]ster which Records the Consecration of Archbishop Parker on the 17 of December 1559. should be thereby conceived to be fictitious and untrue, such (I thinke) is your meaning, because you elsewhere call that Register (a new-borne Register) [Page 15]which is contraryed by the outhenticke Register of Canterbury, R. B. pag. 209. whereby it so appeares to be a true and faithfull Register as nothing needs to be said for it: But be your meaning there in what it will, I had upon the first reading of the former part of this Objection, this ready! Answer That Doctor Parker might be Bishop elect all that time. But R. B. well foreseeing the readines of that kind of Answer, did immediatly take that help from me (as he thought) by trumping in my way his Statute of Consecration within twenty dayes after election, so as it cannot (as he sayes) be alleadged that He stood Bishop onely elect for the space of five or six moneths together: But shall R. B. be so gently used, As to say, He in mistaken? If I should so deale with him, I shall (in good sooth) be mistaken then too. For I cannot conceive that an old Student can be so mistaken in such a matter as ordinary Schoole-boyes may easily know by meere reading, without helpe of Tutor or Expositor; I pray God it was not wilfully done, contra dictamen conscientia suae, against his owne particular knowledge per bypocrism.
Here are the words of the Statute.
Num. 13 Statut.25. Hen. 8.cap.20. ‘Be it enacted that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the Kings Dominions after Election—shall be signified unto them by the Kings Letters Patents, shall refuse and doe not confirme, invest and consecrate with all due circumstance —such person as shall be elected-and to them signified—within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters of such signification—shall come to their hands —That then—every Archbishop, Bishop and other persons so offending—shall runne into the dangers, paines, and penalties of the Estatute of provision & Praemunire.’ It it not most evidently obvious to every Reader, that This, Act doth not ordaine that Consecration shall be within Twentie dayes next after Election, but within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters signifying such Election, shall come to those who are by his Majestie appointed to be Consecrators of the New-Bishop? And the very troth is, Register Parker. Lib. 1. fol. 2. a.b. & fol. 3. a & fol. 9. b. That Matthew Parker was elected to be Archbishop of Canterbury on the first day of August 1559. But the Queenes Letters Patents [Page 16]signifying his Election were dated not before the sixt of December following, and bee was confirmed the ninth, and Consecrated the seventeenth of December aforesaid: So as his consecration was celebrated within the time limited by the Law, And on the 21 of the same December was Edmond Grindall consecrated Bishop of London, and from the time of their Elections, they stood all the while Lord Bishop elect: And Barlow and Scory were Bishops consecrated long before Q Elizabeth came to the Crowne, as in Answer to the subsequent objection shall evidently appeare: But in the meane time, let it be observed, that where he sayes in this place, that Barlow and Scory were allowed Bishops in August 1559; R.B. pag. 210. 211. Vide hic infra. Object. 3. Hee elsewhere sayes, the said Barlow and Scory were not allowed for Bishops till the 20 of December following, And is not that a direct contradiction? But what cares bee or the Iesuited partie for contradictions or false-hoods, so as beliefe be gained from the simply credulous?
SECT. III.
R. B. OBJECTION III.
Numb. 14 Page 350. NEither was there any One of the pretended Consecratours of Matthew Parker (from whom all the rest doe claime Ordination,) Franc. Mason, booke of Consecrat. lib. 3 ca. 4. pag. 127. a true and lawfull Bishop by Protestant proceedings: These they name unto us, William Barlow, Iohn Scory, Mikes Coverdale, Iohn Hodikins; By these was Matthew Parker consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury the seventeenth of December in the yeare 1559. Two of these fower (namely) Coverdale and Hodskins were never allowed for Bishops inall Queene Elizabeths time, as the pretended Register, the printed Antiquitates Britamicae, Godwyn, Mason, and others of them confesse, confessing also, That the other Two were but Bishops elect, Barlow elect Bishop of Chichester, Scory elect of Heresord; But all men grant both Catholikes and Protestants, that Men onely elect Bishops, not consecratedor admitted, cannot consecrate Bishops, much lesse an Archbishop Metropolitan.
R.B. pag. 210. [...], antepenult. And William Barlow, and Iohn Scory were not allowed by [Page 17]these Protestants for Bishops or such men, untill Matthew Parker was (as they pretend by their Register) consecrated; Antiquitat, Britan. pag. 39. Editio Hano v. Anno 1604 by them William Barlow, stiled before Doctor of Divinity, or a Priest Regular,—And Iohn Scory then stiled onely Bachelour of Divinity and Priest Regular,—were first allowed for Bishops, or such men, the 20 of December 1559, even three dayes after Matthew Parker's pretended He meanes (surely) consecration. Ordination by them.
P. H. ANSWER.
Num. 15 The two former objections were purposely framed for the undermining of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker and all his Successors, as done without any Protestant—Order, rule, forme, or fashion, which is (as you see) vindicated to be regular and formall, according to Protestant-publike right, square, forme, and Order, notwithstanding any thing urged by R. B. to the contrary: Now the last Objection tends to the destraction of all Episcopall abilities in the Consecration of Archbishop Parker; First R.B. sayes, That two of them were never allowed for Bishops in Queene Elizabeths Raigne: And secondly the other two were but Bishops elect, and consequently uncapable to Consecrate any other; unto both which I returne this Answer.
Num. 16 1 First, as the two, supposed not to be allowed by Queene Elizabeth (to wit) Coverdale and Hodskins, Hee sayes not, that they were not Bishops de facto, but not allowed to be Bishops, what strength is there in that Proposition? Examine it thus, and you shall find nothing in it.
Whosoever (though once Consecrated for Bishops) were not by Protestants in Queene Elizabeths raigne allowed for Bishops, did become in such sort no Bishops, as that their Episcopall Acts were ipso facto, meere Nullities, and of no validity.
But Coverdale and Hod kins (though both once consecrated Bishops) were not allowed for Bishops by Protestants in Queene Elizaboths raigne.
Ergo the Episcopall Acts of Coverdale & Hodskins, (though once consecrated Bishops) were ipso facto me [...]re Nullities and of no validity.
If R.B. or his vindicatour will grant the Major, then I know what will become of the Romish Church in England, and of all Episcopall and Sacerdotall Acts by Romish Bishops and Priests in Consecrations, Ordinations, Marriages, Sacrifices, absolutions, &c. even to be here in England meere nullities: Againe I perceive R. B. did faint in his Assertion, not adventuring to say, that Coverdale and Hodskins were either no Bishops at that time de factor, Num. 17 Concil Trid. Sess. 23. can. 4. Bin. Tom 4. part. 2. pag. 328. Col. 1. [...]. or were disallowed to exercise Episcopacy, which for to doe, he ought to maintaine that they were never at all consecrated to be Eishops; and if he allow them to be once consecrated Bishops, then hee ought to produce some Act or Sentence for unbishoping of them, or for discharge of their exercise of Episcopacy, which he doe's not goe about to doe; But (I say) it was neither the one, not the other, but it proceeded from themselves whatsoever was wanting therein, they beingin truth long before consecrated lawfull Bishop, neither they themselves nor the State of the Realme holding or judging them to be no Bishops here quoad officium, or passing any Sentence against exercise of it, but they did not exercise of themselves at that time Episcopacy here quoad Beneficium.
But posito, these two had beene excommunicate, deprived, deposed, or degraded, had they not neverthelesse by your owne Doctrine continued Bishops, quoad characterem, & quoad officium, (as well as Priests) having such a Character by Consecration and ordination imprinted as is indelible? your Councell of Trent determines it for you; ‘Siquis dixerit per sacram Ordinationem non imprimi Characterem, vel cum (qui Sacerdos semel fuit) Laicum rursùs fieri posse, Anathema sit; if any one shall say that a Character is not imprinted by holy Orders, or that He which once was a Priest can be made Lay againe, let him be accursed:’ And such also is the Character of Episcopacy, as according to the Romish Doctrine, ‘neither by Schisme, heresie, excommunication, suspension, deposition or degradation, it can be obliterated, as your Greg àc Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp 9. qu. 2. punct 1. pa. 894. Secundus effectus.— Gregory de Valentia, Biel. in 4. sent. dist. 25. qu. 1. fol. 31. col. 1. C. Gabriel Biel, Dam. Soto. in 4 sent. dist. 25. qu. 1. pag. 58 col. 2. contra hunc.— Dominicus à Soto, Capreol lib. 4. sent. dist. 25. qu. 1. art. 3. pag. 272. col. 1. in margine. Capreohis say.’ And also your great Bellar. Tom. 3. De effectu Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 19, 20, 21.22. pag. 46, 47, 48 Et de Sacra confirmat. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 92. col. 1. C. Cardinall Bellarmine sayes, ‘Observandum est Characterem Episcopalem esse [Page 19]absolutam perfectam & independentem potestatem conferendi Sacramenta Confirmationis & Ordinis, ideo non solum posse Episcopum sine aliâ Dispensatione confirmare, & Ordinare; sed etiam non potest impediri ab ullâ superiori potestate, quin re verâ Sacramenta ista conferat, si velit, licet pecc [...]t, si id faciat prohibente Summo Pontifice: It is to be observed, that the Episcopall Character is an absolute persect and independant Power to conferre the Sacraments of confirmation and Orders, therefore a Bishop may (without any Dispensation) constitute, & ordaine; and not onely He cannot be hindred by any superiour power, but also hee may conferre those Sacraments, if hee will, though he offend if he doe it, Petrus de Palude in 4, Sentent. d. 25. p. 1. art, 1. the high Bishop prohibiting it:’ And likewise your Petrus de Palnde sayes. ‘Si non omnis Episcopus potest Ordines conferre, hoc esset, vel propter Demeritum'vitae, quia esset malus; vel propter defectum Fidei, quia Haereticus; vel propter Sententiam Ecclesiae, quia esset excommunicatus, vel suspensus, vel alias praecisus; vel propter Depositionem ab Ordine, vel quia esset Degradatus, sed nihil istorum impedit, quin omnis Episcopus possit veros Ordines conferre: if every Bishop cannot conferre Orders, it would be either by reason of Demerit of life, because he is wicked; or by defect of faith, because be is an Hereticke, or else by reason of the Sentence of the Church, because he is excommunicated, or suspended, or otherwise cut off; or because hee is deposed from Orders, or because he is degraded; but none of these doe hinder, but that every Bishop may conferre true orders.’ So as if Coverdale and Hodskins had beene deposed in Queene Elizabeths time, yet might they consecrate an other: And if you say, Fieri non debet it ought not to be done, then I say, Factum valet, & dissolvi non potest, being done it availeth, and cannot be undone: But here the Consecration of Archbishop Parker by Imposition of their hands was so farre from doing ought therein in Contempt of or against Authority, as that it was done by Regall Assent and Command comprised in the Queenes Letters Patents directed to them and others to Consecrate Doctor Parker to be Archbishop of Conterbury: The [Page 20] ‘Letters Patents are thus: Elizabetha Dei gratiâ, &c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus—Miloni Cover dale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo, Iohanni Suffraganeo Bedd &c. Elizabeth by the Grace of God,&c.—To the Reverend Fathers —Miles Coverdale late Bishop of Exeter, Iohn Suffragan of Bedford, &c.’ whereby it is manifest they were allowed, and also imployed as consecrate Bishops in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne.
Num. 18 But posito, they had not beene allowed Bishops, yet if Deposition or Degradation cannot obliterate the Character of Episcopacy, but it is still in force, quatenus ad officium, as concerning the office, notwithstanding the benefits, profits, and all that pertaines ad exeroitium jurisdictionis, as concerning the exercise of jurisdiction be taken away, how little hurt can not-allowance, or disallowance doe? But if I may speake my mind freely, I conceive that when R. B. said, that Coverdale and Hodskins were not allowed for Bishops, in all. Queene Elizabeths time, he did intend, that his Vulgar Reader should beleeve, that they were never Consecrated Bishops at all; For I cannot easily be perswaded, but that this old Student did well know, that Coverdsle and Hodskins had beene long before Consecrated Bishops, and still continued Bishops de jure; For the Records declare it plaincly, that Hodskins was 9. Masonus de Minister. Aug. lib. 8.cap.30.pag.372.lat. impr anno 1638. Regist.Cran.sol.261. Decembris 29. Hen. 8. Anno Domini. 1537. Consecrated, and so continued till his death; from whom the principall Bishops in Queene Maries raigne descended: By him was Consecrated, Thomas Thurlby, who was one of the Consecrators of your Cardinall Poole, Arehbishop of Canterbury: and as for Coverdale, he was 30. August. 1551. An.2.Edw. 6. Regist. Polisol. 3. Consecrated Bishop of Exeter, who being displaced and imprisoned by Queene Mary, was at the desire of the King of Denmarke, Godwin lat Exeter 32.pag 413. sent to his Majesty by the same Queene; And returning backe in the beginning of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth, he being aged, cared not to returne to his Bishopricke, but retired to a private life, not allowing himselfe Episcopacy, quoad Beneficium, et jurisdictionem, yet he still continued true and perfect Bishop, de jure, quoad esse, et Titulum; which two, Coverdale and Hodskins did joyne with [Page 21]the other two, Barlow and Scory, in the Episcopall Act of Consecrating of Doctor, Parker, to be Archbishop of Canterbury.
2 Num. 19 And now in the second place, it remaines that Barlow and Scory, be righted concerning their Episcopacy, whom R. B. pretends, were but elect Bishops, not Consecrated nor admitted, as by our owne Authors is supposed to be confessed: If this allegation were true, nothing (I thinke) were to be said on their behalfe: But it is so apparantly false, as that it makes me admire the little regard this R. B. had, to his reputation and credit amongst men (If there were no divine doome or judgement for Lyars) in adventuring to put in Print, what he could not, but knew to be directly contrary to what he divulged to the world: For the very same Record and authority of ours, that enformed him, that these two then stood elect Bishops, the one of Chichester, and the other of Hereford, doth also tell him that they were late Bishops, the one of Bath and Wells, and the other of Chichester: For the Queenes Letters, Patents, to them and others directed, signifying the election of Doctor Parker, to be Archbishop of Canterbury, requiring them to Consecrate him accordingly, ‘hath these very words (viz) Will'mo Barlow quondam, Bath and Wells Episcopo, Rigist. Parker Libr.1.fol.3.b.Reman in Recor. Cur. Cancellar. nunc Cicestrensi Electo; Iohanni Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo, nunc Herefor densi electo.’ To William Barlow late Bishop of Bath and Wells, now elect of Chichester, John Scory, late Bishop of Chichester, now elect of Hereford &c. Godwin. Catal. Chichester 39.et pag. 474. Audaxi inscitia. By which any one having his eyes in his head, might as easily se: quondam Episcopo late Bishop, as read nunc electo, now Bishop elect: But who is more blind than he that will not see? and as for Barlow, he was so farre from standing then meerely Bishop elect without Consecration or admittance, as that he had beene Consecrated about foure and twenty yeares, before he layd hands on Archbishop Parker; Regist. Cran. fol. 179. Godwin. Catal. Asaph. pag. 552. et St. Davia's 78. et Bath & Wells, 45. et Chichester, 41. For he being advanced to be Prior of Bisham was thence translated to be Bishop of Asaph, wherein he was confirmed the 25. of February, 1535. Anno 27. Hen. 8. and in April 1536. it pleased King Henry to preferre him to the Bishopricke of Saint Davids, where he continued till by King Edward the sixt, he was in Anno 1549. [Page 22] Regist. Park. lib. 1. fol. 39. b. Translated to the Bishopricke of Bath and Wells; And in the beginning of Queene Maries raigne, he was forced to leave his Country, Bishopricke and all, living in exile in Germanie, till he was restored by Queene Elizabeth; And at the time of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker, by the favour of Queene Elizabeth, he stood elect of Chichester, wherein he was 20 December, 1559. confirmed; And as for Scory, he was above eight yeares Consecrated Bishop ere he imposed hands on Archbishop Parker: Regist. Cranm. fol. a. Godwin. Catal. Chichester 39 pag. 474. For he was 30. Augusti 1551. Anno 5. Edw. 6. Consecrated Bishop of Rochester, and shortly afterwards translated to Chichester; And being displaced by Queene Mary, Regist. Parker 1. lib. 1. fol 23. a. he was advanced by Queene Elizabeth; And ‘at the time of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, he stood elect of Hereford: And the booke of Antiquitates Britannicoe making a Series of the Bishops of that time, distributes it into eight Columnes (viz) 1. Academiae, 2. Diocesis: 3. Nomen: Antiquitates Britan pag. 39. 4. Gradus: 5. Ordo: 6. Patriae: 7 Aetas: 8. Consecratio et confirmatio: And it declares Barlow to be by degree (Doctor in Divinity) and by order (a Priest regular) and Scory to be by degree (Batchelor of Divinity) and by order (a Priest regular)’ And it doth expresse them both to be confirmed on the 20 of December, 1559. but it does not declare them to be Consecrated that day, nor the nomination of them by their degrees & orders does intimate them to be then no-Bishops, as R B. enforces it: for they were long before Consecrated Bishops as before is declared; But they having forsaken their Bishopricks in Queene Maries raigne for persecution, remained beyond Seas, till the Crowne fell on Queene Elizabeth, and then being returned home, they were elected to be Bishops, the one of Chichester, the other of Hereford; and three dayes after, Archbishop Parkers Consecration, they were confirmed in those several Seas, as aforesaid. Wherefore upon these particulars let R. B. recollect himselfe, with consideration how he can make it good, that Barlow and Scory either de-facto were (or else confessed to be) at the Consecration of Bishop Parker no more but Bishops elect, not Consecrated, nor admitted, and then ingenuously in the name of God confesse his Error, professing [Page 23]that (as Protestants and Papists acknowledge) Bishops elect being formerly Consecrated may rightly Consecrate others, before they be confirmed in their new Seas.
Num 20 And now upon the whole matter; Forasmuch as it is most cleerely evident, modo retrogrado ire, reckoning backeward, that Coverdale, Hodskins, Barlow, and Scory, were all Consecrated Bishops long before, and so continued at the time of their Consecrating of Archbishop Parker; And forasmuch as Archbishop Parker was Consecrated according to the law within twenty dayes after the date of the Queenes Letters Patents, signifying his election (though he was elected five moneths before) And forasmuch also as the Protestant order, rule, forme, square, and fashion for a Episcopall Consecration, according to King Edwards booke was then in full vigour, vertue, and force, it must undeniably follows, that Archbishop Parker and all our first Bishops in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne, and all other our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, ever since were and are (notwithstanding the allegations of R. B.) rightly, orderly, and lawfully made, Consecrated, and ordained, according to publike, knowne, and allowed square, rule, forme, manner, order, and fashion. And it is most manifest that what R. B. hath said against it upon the grounds before mentioned, are vaine and frivolous: (And me thinkes) it's strange that in so few Leaves of that book of R. B. there should be so many untruthes, every of those particulars being so many severall False-hoods, manifestly contrary to it's Title: The judgments of the Apostles and first age, more consonant rather unto the Iudgement of Apostates and worst age: A shame to the Author (an old Student in Divinity) more agreeable to the old Serpent, or at best, more fit for ignorant boyes; and most unworthy to be a Present for our sacred Queene Royall Mary: But indeed what can be expected of those, whose Religion holds Lying and Equivocation, to be piae Fraudes, Godly deceits in the learned Clergie, & ignorance to be Mater devotionis, the Mother of Devotion, for the Illiterate Laiety.
For mine owne part this parcell of the Booke being found to be so faulty, it causes me justly to mistrust the rest [Page 24]of it, and to hold it not worthy of so much Expence of time, as to read any more of it, leaving it to your Index expurgatorius for due Correction; or else to our Purgatory fire in Smithfield, Fer utter destruction.
The like Martyrdome deserves another lying Brat, begotten by as false a Parent (not so learned and wise a fellow) as R. B. put abroad into the world, about ten yeeres agoe: For, Sir Humpb Lind Via tuta pag. 154. 155. whereas Sir Humphrey Lynd said, that although the Doctours of antient Church did rest in Two Sacraments (Baptisme and the Lords-Supper) as generally, Necessary to salvation, yet they called many Rites and Ordinances by the name of Sacraments, as— ‘The signe of the Crosse, Exorcisme, holy-Bread given to Catechumeni [...]s [Novices in the Faith]’ One Master Iohn Heigham (a Papist) taking on him to answer that Booke, 10. Heigham via vere tuta pag. 425. 426. does most unconscio ably turne the word [NOVICES] into [NOVICES] and so very untruly pretending that Sir Humphrey Lind had thereby yeelded, that the Signe of the Cresse, Exorcisme, holy-bread, holy-water and the like, are (No vices in the Faith) endeavours most absurdly to make Sir Humphrey dispute against himselfe, and the Church of England: And by that silly devise, this Heigham takes occasion to slide from the point, without any answer at all to it, Hi sunt Fratres in Malo: Falshood incorporates it selfe in Fraternity, against sacred Truth (walking here desolate a while) Sed magna est veritas, et in die suo pravalebit, divine and holy Truth will in her season become Victorious and Tryumphant, with Gloria in excelsis, hurling blacke and ugly Error and False-kood, headlong into the Bottomeles Pit, the dark and noysome Cave of that wicked monster Abaddon, the Father of Lyes:
Amen, Amen.