sembled. These protests were presented by bishop Bonner to the Pope, in person, who was then residing at Marseilles. In the first transports of his rage he intended to burl the long-dreaded thunders of the Vatican at the contumacious heads of Henry and the archbishop. More prudent counsels however prevailed, and the Pope contented himself with simply revoking the sentence.

The marriage of Henry with Anne Boleyne was publicly solemnized on the 12th of April, 1533, and which was confirmed by the primate by a judicial sentence, on the 28th of May. On Whitsunday Anne was solemnly crowned Queen of England, with great pomp and ceremonial, and soon afterwards an act of parliament declared her marriage firm and good, and her issue lawful. Parliament also abolished the Pope's usurped power in England, and formally rejected his supremacy. This auspicious event was chiefly accomplished by the arguments of Archbishop Cranmer, who maintained and proved, both by the Word of God, and the consent of the primitive church, that this usurped power of the Pope is a "mere tyranny, and directly against the law of God."

"The character of Cranmer is eminently remarkable among the active reformers of that memorable age. Its most remarkable feature seems to consist in seriousness and sobriety, in patient and unprejudiced enquiry, and in firmness of resolution, whenever full conviction followed such enquiry. He was more remarkable for his learning than his genius. Other reformers were rash, precipitate, and dogmatical. His progress was always gradual, and in just proportion to the light which he acquired. He was willing to stop short at a point which future enquiry might prove inadequate, rather than risk the truth by going a single step beyond what his information warranted. The abolition of the Pope's supremacy was a great and decisive step, and he took it resolutely on grounds which directly led to all the rest, on the evidence of Scripture, and of primitive antiquity."

(To be continued.)

CONSECRATION OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER.'

PHILALETTES. Your bishops "derive their counterfeit authority, not from lawful consecration, or catholic inauguration, but from the queen and parliament; for in England the king, yea, and queen, may give their letters-patent to whom they will, and they thenceforth may bear themselves for bishops, and may begin to ordain ministers;" so that we may justly say, "that among the Calvinists in England there reigned a woman pope. But such was the order of

1 From Francis Mason, on the Consecration of the Bishops in the Church of England, lib. iii. ch. 4, p. 121.

2 When we can point to the well-authenticated story of Pope Joan, this assertion appears extremely audacious.-ED.

VOL. I.

D

Christ's church, which the apostles founded, priests to be sent by priests, and not by letters-patent of kings or queens."

ORTHODOX. These shameless Papists would make the world believe that our bishops derive not their consecration from bishops, but from kings, which is an impudent slander, for our kings do that which belongeth to kings, and our bishops that which belongeth to bishops.

In the vacancy of any bishopric, "the king granteth to the dean and chapter a licence under the great seal, as of old times hath been accustomed to proceed to an election, with a letter missive, containing the name of the person which they shall elect and choose," which being duly performed and signified to the king, under the common seal of the electors, the king giveth his royal assent; and signifying and presenting the person elected to the archbishop and bishops, as the law requireth, "he giveth them commission, and withal requireth and commandeth them to confirm the said election, and to invest and consecrate the said person, using all ceremonies and other things requisite for the same." Whereupon the archbishops and bishops, proceeding according to the ancient form in those cases used,' do cause all such as can object or take exception, either in general or particular, either against the manner of the election or the person elected, to be cited publicly and peremptorily, to make their appearance. When the validity of the election and sufficiency of the person are by public acts and due proceedings judicially approved, then followeth consecration, which is performed by a lawful number of lawful bishops, and that in such form as is required by the ancient

canons.

PHIL. I will prove that your bishops, in the beginning of the queen's reign, derived not their authority from lawful consecration, but from the queen and parliament; for being destitute of all lawful ordination when they were commonly said, and proved by the laws of England to be no bishops, they were constrained to crave the assistance of the secular power, that they might receive the confirmation of the lay magistrate in the next parliament, by virtue whereof if any thing were done amiss and not according to the prescript of the law, or omitted or left undone in the former inauguration, it might be pardoned them; and that after they had enjoyed the episcopal office and chair certain years, without any episcopal3 consecration, hence it was that they were called parliament bishops.

ORTH. The parliament which you mean was in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth, wherein first they reprove "the over-much boldness of some which slandered the estate of the clergy, by calling into question whether their making and consecrating were according to law. Secondly, they touch such laws as concern the point, declaring that every thing requisite and material was done as precisely in her majesty's time as ever before." Thirdly, they confirm again the book of common prayer, with the form thereunto annexed, enacting that all persons that then had been, or afterwards should be made,

1 Ex regist. Cant. passim in citatione contra opposit.

2 Sand. de Schi., lib. iii. p. 298; Pollonius, lib. iv. c. 6, p. 434.

3

Absque ulla Episcopali consecratione.

4 Anno 8 Eliz. c. 1.

ordered or consecrated archbishops, bishops, priests and ministers of God's holy word and sacraments, or deacons after the form and order herein prescribed, were by authority thereof declared and enacted to be archbishops, bishops, priests, ministers, and deacons rightly made, ordered, and consecrated, any statute, law, canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding; whereby it is evident that the parliament did not make them bishops, but being in very deed true bishops, by lawful consecration, that honourable court did declare and enact them so to be. But what say the Papists to all this? When they cannot infringe their consecration, for a poor revenge they call our religion parliament religion, and parliament bishops.

PHIL. If you will needs have your matters seem to depend on your parliament, let us not be blamed if we call it parliament religion, parliament gospel, parliament faith.'

ORTH. It is a marvel that you said not a parliament God, and a parliament Christ. Might we not say as well that in queen Mary's time you had a parliament mass and a parliament pope? Was it lawful for queen Mary with her parliament to subject the kingdom to the pope and his canons? And was it not lawful for queen Elizabeth with her parliament to submit themselves to Christ and his gospel? Indeed you have a spite against the prince and parliament, because they expelled the pope, advanced true religion, and defended the preachers and ministers thereof; neither against the persons only, but against the very place wherein the banner of Jesus Christ was so gloriously displayed. A French historian, speaking of the bloody massacre, saith, "Wise men who were not addicted to the Protestant's part, seeking all manner of excuse for that fact, did, notwithstanding, think that in all antiquity there could not be found an example of like cruelty." But the English gunpowder-plot does so far exceed the French massacre that there is no degree of comparison; this cannot be patterned or paralleled. It was of such a transcendency that all the devils may seem to have holden a black convocation in hell, and there to have concluded such a sulphurous and Acherontical device as was never heard of since the world began. But the Lord in heaven did so strangely reveal it, as though the birds of the air had carried the voice, and that which hath wings had declared the matter. As for the chief instruments thereof, the ravens of the valleys did pluck out their eyes, and the young eagles did eat them; wherefore if you will not believe us disputing for religion, yet believe God himself, with his own right hand and with his holy arm defending our prince and state, our church and ministry, and that very house wherein the standard of the Gospel was advanced, maugre the malice of all the devils in hell. All glory be to thee, O God, for this thy unspeakable mercy; still protect and defend them, that Israel may be glad, and thy servant Jacob rejoice.

PHIL. If you can justify your bishops, produce their consecrations, make it appear to the world when, by whom, and how they were

consecrated, beginning with the first which was made in the queen's time, that is, with Matthew Parker, who bear the name of Archbishop of Canterbury.

ORTH. You learned that disdainful language of Nicolas Sanders,' who dedicated his Rock of the Church to that reverend archbishop in this reverend manner: "To the right worshipful Master Doctor Parker, bearing the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury." Wherein (to let pass that right worshipful and right scornful title), he doth not style him archbishop, but bearing the name of archbishop, as if our bishops were bishops only in name. But what can you say

against him?

3

PHIL. I would fain learn of you where he was consecrated. I have read that Maximus was consecrated in the house of a minister, and it seemeth that M. Parker was consecrated in a tavern. For Dr. Kellison saith, "that he heard it credibly reported that some of your new superintendents were made bishops at the Nag's Head' in Cheape, a fit church for such a consecration ;" and it is most likely M. Parker was one of them, for he was the first.

6

ORTH. This of the Nag's Head doth call to my remembrance Pope John XII.," who ordained a deacon in a stable amongst his horses," a fit sanctuary for such a saint. Neither is it a tale or fable, as yours is, but a story chronicled by Luitprandus," who is and ever will be esteemed a learned historian, notwithstanding that Baronius goeth about to discredit him, as he doeth all other writers that make against himself. Luitprandus groundeth himself not upon flying reports, as Kellison and you do, but upon two witnesses, the one a bishop, the other a cardinal, John, Bishop of Narnium in Italy, and John, Cardinal Deacon, who did testify in a Roman council, in the presence of Otho the Emperor, "Se vidisse illum Diaconum ordinasse in equorum stabulo;" that is, " that they themselves did see him with their own eyes ordain a deacon in a stable of horses." But whereas you say, "Kellison heard this credibly reported," I must tell you that you are very forward in spreading false reports against the Protestants. It is credibly reported at Rome, that we in England "have wrapped some Papists in bear-skins, and baited them with dogs; that we inclose dormice in basons, and lay them to the sides of Catholics to eat out their bowels;" that we bind them to mangers, and feed them with hay, like horses. These are shining lies, fit carbuncles for the Pope's mitre. Neither do they report them only, but print them, and publish them with the Pope's privilege. They need a privilege who tell such glorious lies. This of the Nag's Head, though it go current at Rome, and be blazed for a truth through the world by men of your rank, is cousin-germain to the

1 Sanders' Rock of the Church, Louanij. 1565. 2 Greg. Presb. in vit. Greg. Naz.

3

Reply to Dr. Sutl., p. 31.

4 The fable of the Nag's Head has been often refuted, but especially by Bishop Elrington. After repeating it ad nauseum, the Papists themselves have now given it up as a malicious lie of the first magnitude.-ED.

5 Lib. vi.

7 Tortura Torti, p. 152.

6 Anno 963.

8 Eccles. Angl. trophia. Anno 1584, cum privileg. Greg. XIII.

former, as appeareth by the records' of the archbishopric, which declare that he was consecrated" in capella infra manerium suum de Lambhith," that is, "in the chapel within the manor of Lambeth.” Thus you see the falsehood of this fable, which was devised to no other purpose but only to make our ministry and religion seem odious to all men. Is not this strange dealing for men that make such great ostentation of sincerity and gravity? But for my own part I do not marvel at it, your proceedings are but answerable to your doctrines; for you teach2" that an officious lie is but a VENIAL sin." And again, that "the Church of Rome is holy mother church," therefore, should kind offices rather be performed than to the Church of Rome? And what office will she take more kindly than the discrediting of those whom she accounteth heretics? Therefore I do not wonder that you put it in practice, I fear nothing but that shortly it shall grow a point meritorious. Well, "the stripe of the rod maketh marks in the flesh, but the stripe of the tongue breaketh the bones." But let them remember that "the tongue which lieth slayeth the soul," and that "all liars shall have their portion" (except they repent)" in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." PHIL. Whatsoever is to be thought of the place, yet I will prove by the laws of England that neither he nor any of his associates were lawful bishops.

ORTH. By the laws of England how prove you that?

PHIL. "It was ordained by the parliament in the days of Henry VIII. that no man should be acknowledged a bishop unless he were consecrated by three bishops, with the consent of the metropolitan, which law was renewed by Queen Elizabeth," and was in full strength at the time of the consecration of M. Parker. But M. Parker was not so consecrated, and therefore by the laws of England he was not to be acknowledged a bishop. For what archbishop was either present at his consecration, or consenting unto it? Cardinal Pole, then late Archbishop of Canterbury, was just dead, and Parker elected into his place. Nicolas Heath, then last Archbishop of York, was deposed. Indeed there was "a certain Irish archbishop,8 whom they had in bonds and prison at London, with whom they dealt very earnestly, promising him both liberty and rewards if so be he would be chief in the consecration. But he (good man) would by no means be brought to lay holy hands upon heretics, neither to be partaker of other men's sins." Wherefore, having neither archbishop of their own religion, nor being able to procure any other, the consecration was performed without any metropolitan, clean contrary to the laws of England.

66

ORTH. What if both you and Sanders abuse the laws of England in this point, as indeed you do, for the words are these: And if the person be elected to the office and dignity of an archbishop according to the tenor of this act, then, after such election certified

1 Reg. Park. tom. i. folio 9.

2 Bell. de Amiss. Grat. lib. iii. ch. 8.

3 Eccles. xxviii. 17.

4 Wisd. i. 11.

5 Revel. ii. 1—8.

6 Ex Sandero de Schism, lib. iii. p. 297; Poll. lib. iv. ch. 6, p. 434. 7 Eliz. in integrum restituit ac renuavit Sand. ibid.

9 Anno 25 Henry VIII. ch. 20.

8 Ibid.