power under which it was before and so it was with the Church of England Reforming And all this a National Church may so much the rather do when the Universal stands so divided and distracted as it hath for these latter Ages that a free General Councel cannot be expected as was insinuated Sect. 4. of the former book 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgment in General Councels free and unquestionable doth not every National Church by name this of England ow submission of Judgment to them I answer as for matters of Faith and Worship there is no need that any National Church should dissent from any definition concerning that matter made or declared by any of the undoubted General Councels of the Church such as have not been justly excepted against and let any Romanist shew that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgment of such Councels either in matters of Faith or Worship 25. In Canons of Discipline Prudentiall Motives considerable As for Matters of Practice and Discipline under which I named Priests single life because they clamor against us as receding therein from the Catholick Church I may say generally of such points that the Church in them went upon prudential Motives and Reasons with respect to conveniences and inconveniences in those Times considerable and therefore we find it sometimes letting loose the Reins of Discipline sometimes drawing them streiter according to the Exigency of Times or condition of Persons As in those that enjoyn Priests single life Neither could they that made those Canons intend to bind the Church for ever which in after-Ages might have like cause upon experience of inconveniences to loosen that which they held stricter as we finde in the point of Penances and also in this very point of Single life if we look into the practise of it in several Ages and Countreys Nor was it necessary that this Remission or relaxation should alwayes expect the like Autority of Councels to decree it but it might be lawfully done by any National Church within it self upon long experience of the inconveniences and that especially when a free General Councel cannot be expected 26. As to this point of Priests single life I shall have occasion to speak more below against Champny cap. 6. here only I will hint these particulars I. It was conformable to the former Reason that Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope acknowledged often As at first they saw cause to forbid Priests Marriage so now there was greater cause to leave it free to them again Plat. in Pio. 2. II. The sixt General Councel in Trullo held in the seventh Century was the first General Councel that forbad Bishops to have or retein their Wives Can. 12. Where they excuse themselves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles which forbad Bishops to put them away by a pretence conformable stil to the former reason viz. because stricter Discipline was fitter for their times then it was for the beginnings of Christianity III. That General Councel doth permit Priests and Deacons to keep their Wives decreeing those to be deposed that cause them to forsake their Wives after ordination Can. 13. where the Councel expresly by name sets a black note upon the Roman Church for doing so and Can. 55. censures that Church again for their custom of Fasting on Saturdayes For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Councel as not General or Lawful yet the more reasonable among them admit of it and so we leave them to answer for their dissenting from a General Councel upon a double score as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons 27 But what tell we them of answering it to any Councel VVhat submission the Church of Rome exacts that will have the whole Catholick Church bound to submit to the decrees of their Church Let us see then what Submission the Church of Rome requires of all within her Communion and indeed of all Christians under pain of Damnation We may deliver it in general thus In all that she defines she requires or exacts rather absolute Submission of belief and judgment but then we say she cannot make good the ground on which she requires it viz. Infallible guidance In other things not Defined she requires submission of silence which she imposes on both parties as the heat of the controversie between them seems to require And this Submission we acknowledg due to Autority in every Church not only to the Autority of the chief Pastors in that Church but also of the Supreme Civil power this imposing of silence being not a Definitive sentence for determination of Doctrine but a suspending sentence for ceasing of the debate and providing for publick peace 28. In all things defined What strict submission of belief the Church of Rome requires to all her Definitions we may see by the Oath set out by Pius 4. to be taken by every Bishop wherein after the recital of the whole Romish Faith as it is patched up with the Tridentine Articles follows that very clause which we find in the Athanasian Creed subjoyned to the Catholick Faith there expressed Haec est fides Catholica extra quam this is the Catholick Faith without which none can be saved So that they which joyn themselves to that Church stand bound to believe all which that Church at present doth or shall hereafter propose to be believed Let them place the judgment of that Church where they will in the Pope or Councel 29. And absolute Submission Card. Bel. who according to the Divinity professed at Rome and more generally obtaining in that Church reduces all to the judgment of the Pope is very strict in exacting this submission of belief In his fourth book de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Popes Infallibility and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare sed simpliciter obâ—dirâ— It is not for Subjects or Inferiours to doubt of this matter viz. Whether the Pope can or doth erre but simply to obey And to shew the strength of this obligation the inconvenience that would fall upon the Church if the Pope be subject to erre in defining or commanding any thing to the Church he lets not to express it thus Si papa erraret praecipiendo c. If the Pope should erre in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vitia esse bona Virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare that Vice was good Vertue evill unlesse it would sin against conscience To mollifie the harshnesse of this he inserts presently in rebus dubiis as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubtfull Matters which as it is not all they say so is it to little purpose for if he please to judg the most apparent thing to be doubtful as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the people
could have that defect supplyed Not other Reformed Churches for they can less prove themselves to be Churches or to have Lawful Vocation of Pastors then the Church of England can Not the Grecian Russian or Ethiopic Churches for they also are in Schism and Heresie and our English Reformers pretend not to receive their calling from them or to have it supplyed by them therefore they can no wayes have their defect supplyed or recover the Lawful use of Ordination So he p. 337. c. Thus having argued against our Vocation upon our supposal of Heresie in those we acknowledge our Ordainers and boasted of it as an indissoluble Argument pag. 335. he is now fain to take away the supposal it self by affirming them to be the only lawful Pastors and that none else in all the Christian world could give lawful Ordination or make a supply of what was wanting The issue indeed of this point of Heresie either charged by us upon them that gave Orders or by them on us who received them which wil be his Argument below comes to this Whether the Church of Rome be the only Church in whose Communion the Unity of the Church is confined and Ordination to be had and therefore we and all other out of it are in Schism and Heresie and can have no lawful Ordination To this hold after all the Velitation and light skirmishing upon our supposals it was necessary he should retire himself 17. Now the strength of this Hold stands but upon their unreasonable phansying of the whole Church as of one society in subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Pastor General or Vicar of Christ by which they judge of Heresie and Schism and admit none as returning from it but by actual reconciliation and submission to the Bishop of Rome as in Queen Maries time What he sayes of our not pretending to receive our calling from other Churches Reconciliation of Schismaticks and Hereticks or to have the defect of our Ordinations supplyed by them is true but to no purpose for the supposed defect in the Romish Ordination which we received doth as above said cease upon our leaving off or quitting that which is supposed to cause that defect in the Romish Church Nor was it needful either for the supplying of any such defect or for the stating us in the Union of the Catholic Church that we being a National Church and independing on any forrein Jurisdiction should upon our disagreement with Rome be bound to apply our selves to other Churches by actual reconciliation or full agreement in what they held or practised Of which in 16. Sect. of former book For privat men indeed and particular companies of men returning from Heresie or Schism actual reconciliation to the Church of which they were Members or from which they departed is necessary but not so for a National and independing Church Such actual reconciliation when it hath been performed was but of the Solemnity of the business and may be to good purpose done when the whole body of the Catholic Church stands entire in a condition fit to receive it but the soul of Unity with the Church is in the deposing of Heresie and professing the true Faith and consequently Communion with all others that do it not perhaps with a ful agreement in all things with us yet with a charitable compliance in not condemning us therefore as no Church 18. What he saith of the Roman Church as the only true Church to the concluding of all other Churches under Schism and Heresie is only said and not proved being but the product of the forementioned Phansie that the whole Church of Christ is one society bound together in subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head and general Pastor and therefore Hereticks and Schismaticks cannot be restored but by reconciliation to him This he urges more properly though to as little purpose below cap. 11. where he strives to fasten Heresie upon us because divided from that Church and not yet reconciled to it telling us the Ancient Councels of Nice Sardica and others did so esteem and conclude of Heretical Bishops of the Arrians Donatists and Novatians as no Bishops till received and reconciled to the Church It will be sufficient in this place to say I. That this comes not home to their purpose for those Councels did not appoint reconciliation to Rome and for some time of the Arrian Heresie reconciliation to that Church could not be good when as Liberius the ejected Bishop had subscribed to that Heresie for the recovering of his See and Faelix that possessed it was advanced by compliance with the Arrian faction which then prevailed every where II. Although such actual and solemn reconciliation of a National Church with the Bishops thereof to the body of the Catholic Church was fit to be performed whilest that body stood stil conspicuously in good proportion as it did in the beginning of the Arian Heresie yet when once that Heresie had overborn all and almost all Bishops with their flocks turned Arrian in so much that Constantius the Emperour told Liberius as the Romanists do usually reproach us that the whole world was against Athanasius and Liberius as yet Catholic answered for their paucity Time was when three only stood for the true Worship of God against the King Dan. 3. as appears in 1. Tom. Concil when I say it was thus with the Church how could such actual and solemn reconciliation of any Arian Bishops or Nation returning from Heresie be wel made enough it was for such to depose their Heresie and profess communion with all Christians wheresoever that held the true faith So was it enough for our Bishops and this Nation to forsake the Heresie and profess communion with all other Churches not guilty of the Romish errour and not imposing the belief or practice of that we differ in as the condition of their Communion And thus far in answer to his Inferences from our charging Antichristianisme or Heresie upon the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of the third prejudice from our Iudgment of their Orders that they are sacrilegious and do not give an indelible Character 1. HIs next Argument is drawn from our Doctrine or Judgment touching their Orders which we hold Sacrilegious abhominable unlawful and therefore cannot be lawful in us who confess we received Orders from them This is the Title and Work of his 10. Chapter and here he begins his contest with M. Mason whom he chiefly undertakes through the remainder of his book to refute Touching the Argument we must note by the way that the charge of Sacrilege and abhomination laid upon their Ordinations by Protestants How Protestants cal their Orders Sacrilegious doth immediatly concern their Order of Priests by reason of the Sacrificing power given them but the argument thereupon proceeds also against their Bishops who were such Priests and from whom being such we derived our Orders and Cranmer and others were made by them such Priests before they were
and define against it then are all in the Church bound to believe so or sin against Conscience 30. And indeed it necessarily follows upon their ground and reason of believing all things viz. the Papal Infallibility Now considering what Popes have been and may be how readily may all of that perswasion be brought under the Wo denounced by the Prophet Isa 5.20 against those that call Good Evill Light Darkness Truth Errour Vertue Vice Thus have the people been put off with half-Communion contrary to our Saviours institution and made to believe it is not so thus brought to bow down to graven Images and to Worship them contrary to the express words of Gods command and yet bound to believe it is not so thus have they been raised here into Rebellions and Treasons against their Natural Prince upon Pope Pius 5. his Bulls and thereupon to believe Rebellion was good service to God and his Church thus Princes themselves have been brought to incestuous Marriages and to believe them not sinful upon the Popes dispensation as our Hen. 8. many yeers believed till upon better examination he saw how vain and ungrounded the Judgment and Sentence of the Pope was 31. Not all agreed about the chief ground of their belief But they are not all agreed about this ground of Belief Papal infallibility for though it be publickly professed and maintained in their Schools especially where the Jesuits are in the Chaire and none within the Popes reach dare openly gainsay it yet is it not every where believed within the Romish Communion A fair pretence it carries to advance the work of that Church or Court of Rome rather and the Romish Emissaries make good advantage of it when they have to deal with the unwary and more simple sort of Christians but when it falls under conscionable examination what submission of belief it gains from those of that Communion we may see by these examples Clement the 7. was resolute in his sentence for the incestuous marriage of Henry the 8. yet both Universities of this Land with many abroad some of Italy it self declared against it Pope Paul 5. was as peremptory in his definitive sentence against the Venetians yet was resisted by that whole State and their Subjects and in the end forced to recall it And many now living can remember what difference there was among the Romish Catholikes here upon the same Popes Breves sent out against the Oath of Allegiance some urging obedience to them some refusing and shewing their Reasons for their dissenting which may be seen drawn up in a book set out by Mr. William Howard one of the Romish Communion and do speak the reasonableness of what is said by us for the judgment of discretion allowed to private persons or Inferiours 32. When there comes shame upon any Papal sentence as in the former examples they have excuses from the condition of the Matter defined or the concernment of it to the Church or the intention of the Pope in defining it with a distinction of in and out of his Chair to play fast and loose by for they can shift him into it or out of it according to the event and success of his definitive Judgment But those examples will not admit of such exceptions for though in Hypothesi they were in and about particular Actions and Persons yet in Thesi they were of general concernment as may be easily made to appear and whether the Pope was in his chair or no when he sent forth such definitive sentence I know not but me thinks in business of such concernment to the Church and Christian people it should have beseemed him to give his judgment not car elesly as a private Doctor but as the Pastor General of the Church and it had been worth his pains to go up to his chair for infallible determination and if he did it not then when so much cause so much time to do it when shall any man ever know certainly that the Pope defined or spake such or such a thing in his chair that there may be sure ground for belief and obedience 33. Bel. in the place above cited Difference about Papal Infallibility treating of the Popes Infallibility sets down severall opinions about it of which this is one That the Pope may be an Heretick and teach Heresie This opinion he will not say is fully Heretical because they are tolerated in the Church that hold it but Haeresi proxima at next door to Heresie Yet as neer as it is to Heresie it is the sentence generally of the Popish Church in France and other places too and see their agreement This may not be taught at Rome nor the contrary of it at Paris Now albeit this Party hath unanswerable reasons and arguments for rejecting the Infallibility of the Papal judgment and setting up a General Councel above him which would be good out of the mouth of a Protestant Yet they also when they have to deal with Protestants tell of the Infallible guidance of the Roman Church of the Pope as Vicar of Christ and the visible Head of his Church and boast of their Church as built upon the Rock in all which they thwart themselves for what privilege of Infallibility or other can the Roman Church pretend to above other but by S. Peter and then must it be derived by his supposed successors the Bishops of that Church or how can they affirm the Pope to be Head and deny him the Supremacy or say a Councel is above him or how apply that promise of the Rock to their Church but by allowing S. Peter and so his successors to be that Rock and consequently to give the stability and infallibility to their Church if that place prove any to be in it This Party indeed will say they make the Pope but a Ministerial Head to the Church Which how it reconciles the premises or saves all they pretend to by the Pope I see not but surely it sets them at a wide difference with their fellow Catholicks who are of a contrary perswasion Let them agree it among themselves yet note we their disagreement in points of such high concernment as touch the very ground-work of their Faith and consequently their uncertainty where to state the infallibility and thereupon their unreasonableness in exacting upon that pretence of infallible guidance absolute submission of belief to all things defined and propounded by that Church and lastly their vanity in thinking to satisfie us with saying They all agree in yeilding submission to all that is defined by General Councels and that the Differences we object to them about Pope and Councel are not defined 34. For first they must not here put us off with Submission of Silence or external peaceable subjection which requires not that infallible guidance the Church of Rome boasts of but an Autoritative judgment or unappealeable Autority which we quarrel not if well stated as will appear presently but they must speak that
it Heretical for renouncing the Doctrine and Communion of that Church by which it received Christianity and joyning it self to that which could not prove it self Christian i.e. to have received Baptism any where but by those whom it had forsaken 16. But if the proving of our Christianity be meant of proving the Truth of it as that the Faith we profess and the Baptism we received is Catholic and truly Christian or that the Ordination which our Pastors have is good and Apostolical then we deny the Assumption for Cranmer and the English Church were able to prove all this by other and better means that the Lineal that is Champny's word succession of that Church which they had forsaken viz. by the written Word of God and the Uniform consent of Antiquity Lineal or local succession is but an empty conveiance of Christianity without truth of Doctrine assured by Gods Word for were Lineal succession the only or a good argument to prove a Man or Nation truly Christian then the Arrian or other Hereticks whose Bishops were not intruders but of Catholicks turned Hereticks might have passed for good Christians and true Catholicks 17. The former charges retorted After these Arguments by which he would fasten Heresie upon our Arch-Bishop Cranmer and the other first Reformers he adds a vain boast let the Adversary retort all or any of these Arguments upon the Ordainers of Cranmer viz. those of the Romish Church and I will confess them Hereticks But it is clear that as all his Arguments as directed against Cranmer are too weak to prove what he would have so they return more forcibly upon themselves For their charge of irregularity upon Marriage we retort their irregularity by Concubinage and for that of Digamy we appeal to them whether they suffer not a Priest or Bishop to have one or mo Concubines rather then to be married once or twice For Cranmers recantation or condemning the Protestant Doctrine we retort the example of Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribing to Arrianism and it is strange that Champny should not remember that the Ordainers of Bishop Cranmer subscribed and swore the condemnation and ejection of Papal Autority and if some of them lived to repent it in Qu. Maries dayes so did Cranmer revoke his condemnation of the Protestant doctrine and sealed it with his Bloud For his Argument from the Autority condemning our Doctrine it was retorted upon them when we answered it For that of our going out from that Church it was shewn how it concerns them who keeping the same Place and Seat yet going out of the Doctrine of the Ancient Church are thereby concluded Heretical The last also falls back upon themselves who have nothing to prove their New Faith wherein they differ from other Churches but Lineal Succession from those first Catholic Roman Bishops from whom they have departed only keeping the same Place and Seat which they held Having concluded as he thinks by the former Arguments that Cranmer and the rest were in Heresie and Schism and therefore could not receive or lawfully use the power of Ordination he then excludes them from receiving all supply of that defect for saith he that must be by reconciliation to the Church confirmation by it as we see in the practice of the Ancient Church restoring Bishops that returned from Heresie But Granmer cannot shew any such reconciliation which indeed saith he was impossible there being no other Church in the World to which he could be reconciled but only that which he had forsaken viz. the Roman so he Answ This is nothing else but what he said above in his ninth cap. endeavouring to reduce our English Bishops to his impossibility of having the defect of their Ordination supplied which he said they were under by being ordeined by those we account Hereticks viz. Romish Bishops and the Answer to it was given * Cap. 4. Num. 16 17 18. above The summ of it was this That Cranmer if he contracted that Defect by being Ordained of Hereticks then he recovered the due use of his Orders by deposing the Heresie of his Ordainers That Cranmer was not alone but with him a whole National Church and that the actual and solemn reconciliation of such a Church with the Bishops of it to the whole body of the Catholic Church was fitting and of good use and example when the Catholic Church remained in such entire body and condition as was fit to receive such reconciliation But when it is otherwise with the state of the Catholic Church as it was when Arrians prevailed and now in the distracted condition of the whole Church such reconciliation is as not well feizable so not so necessary for a National Church Only it is necessary such a Church depose the Errors or Heresie it had contracted and profess Communion with all that do hold the Catholic Faith undefiled in such a measure as is needful not imposing any different doctrine they hold as condition of Communion with them CHAP. VII Of Bishops ordained under King Edward and the essential defect pretended to be in the form of their ordination and of presumption against it HIs 12. Chapter proceeds against those Bishops that were ordained in K. Edwards daies whom he charges not only with the same Heresie he did Bishop Cranmer as true indeed of the one as the other but with a special and that an essential defect in their Ordination what is that The Form of their Ordination by which they were consecrated was new and invented by certain Commissioners appointed by the King and therefore the Ordination was altogether nul and invalid We grant the Form was altered and different from that which before was used in the Roman Church but not new or changed as to that which concerned the substance of the Order 1. The Form of Ordination altered under K. Edward how For the work of those Commissioners was not to devise and invent a direct new Form but to purge it from Popish corruptions casting out what appeared to be either needless or superstitious additions and reteining what imported the substance of the Order or adding withal something to express more fully the purpose of the Order then collated according to the institution of it declared in the Word of God To such a work fitting Commissioners were appointed for number Twelve for quality Six Prelates and Six other learned in Gods Law as we find them in the Statute of 3.4 Edward 6. c. 12. It is too light that Champny laies hold on the word devise in their Commission and bids the Reader mark it as if they had power or went about to devise or invent a new Form on their own heads their work being to devise and consult what Romish additionals might be cut off what depravations purged out that so we might have a pure and just Form expressing more simply the substance and purpose and collation of the Order given 2. Mr. Mason having set down the Form together with
if they make application of this to the Eucharist it will but amount to this at the most that He who was Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech should likewise take of Gods creatures as Ireneus speaks Bread and Wine and consecrate them into the Sacrament of his body and blood to be offered up in Sacrifice unto God and to be communicated as spiritual refection to them that come to receive it And so the Eucharist whether considered as first celebrated by our Saviour or as after by us is the representation and shewing of that Sacrifice 1 Cor. 11.26 and the participation or Communion of it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. That this was prefigured in Melchisedechs Bread and Wine as offered to God and brought forth to Abraham is all that by any force of reason can be driven out of the expressions of the Fathers And for that other place of Malachi Of Malachi his pure offering applied thereto of Incense and a pure offering divers Fathers give us the immediat and direct sense Tertullian saith It is Oratio simplex de conscientiâ purâ unfeined prayer from a pure Conscience lib. 4. contra Marcionem cap. 1. Eusebius in his first book de demonstr Evangel cap. 6. makes it the same with that worship our Saviour speaks of S. John 4.23 in spiritu veritate puròque obsequio a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth and with pure obedience Hierom also tels us it is here foretold that the prayers of the Saints were to be offered to God not in one place or province but every where Now the usuall exception of Romanists which Champny also pleads here is that such prayer and spiritual Offerings were required under the Law and therefore some Other external Offering and divers from all that was before must be meant by the Prophet But this Exception hath no force for sure our Saviour spoke pertinently when he opposed the Worship in spirit and Truth S. John 4.23 to the Jewish manner of Worshiping notwithstanding that it was required of the Jews to Worship in Spirit and Truth For there is a double difference of this Christian Worship from that under the Law One in the Manner of performance of it among the Gentiles purely without mixture of external Sacrifices or Legal performances in respect to which Saint Paul calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12.1 and Eusebius lib. 1. de Demonstr Evang. gives us this reason why Malachi calls it sacrificium mundum a pure offering because the Gentiles were to offer to the high God non per cruores not with the blood of Beasts as under the Law but per pias actiones by holy spiritual Acts and Duties Another difference was in the place The whole Worship and offerings of the Gentiles were to be performed to God in every place Our Saviour tells us it was not to be bound either to Jerusalem or to Samaria S. John 4.22 and Saint Paul tells us of lifting up pure hands in every place 2 Tim. 2. and Eusebius in the place forecited shewing how the Religion of the Patriarchs before the Law agreed with the Christians makes this one Instance because they did in omni loco adorare Worship in all places and then proves it by this place of Malchi that the Christians should do so As for the Fathers that applyed this pure Offering to the Eucharist they might well do it upon the former account the Eucharist having his name from the Sacrifice of praise and being that great and solemn performance wherein the pure Offering of Prayer and Praise and the devoting of our selves to Gods service is specially made But it will be said the Fathers apply this Pure Offering of Malachi to the Eucharist in respect of the body and blood of Christ there offered up It is true that some of them so express it and it is no more then what they often say without relation to that place of Malachi according to their usual manner of speech but far from the Romish sense or purpose as it remains to shew in the next place 7. The meaning of the Fathers speaking of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist Thirdly However the Fathers used for the most part to speak of this Mystery of the Eucharist Mystically and obscurely under the properties of the things signified rather then of the external Symbols and therefore seeming to imply a real Conversion of Transubstantiation of the Symbols into the Body and blood of Christ and a real Sacrifice or Offering up of that Body and blood again in the Eucharist yet do they sometimes punctually and positively express their meaning by the Memorial Representation and shewing in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross and this they learnt from Saint Paul who tells us 1 Cor. 11.26 to do this is to remember and to shew the Lords death And for their mystical and figurative manner of speech they had his his example too Gal. 3.1 Crucified amongst you Was Christ really and properly crucified amongst the Galatians No but by description setting forth or representation of his Death and Passion often made among them in the Word and Sacraments Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers I shall instance only in three of them First in Chrysostome who of all the Fathers speaks most high and Hyperbolically in this matter of the Eucharist and the place shall be that which Champny here cites as advantagious to his cause Homil. 17. in Hebr. he puts these questions Do we not offer daily Offerimus quidem saith he sed mortem ejus in memoriam revocamus we offer but it is by making a remembrance of his death Again because we offer often quomodo una est non multae how is his death or offering up but one and not many Hoc est saith he figura illius what we do is the figure of that And because he is offered in many places Multine sunt Christi are there many Christs No hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum What we do is done in remembrance of what was then done by him Lastly We offer not aliam Hostiam another Sacrifice but Eandem semper facimus vel potiùs hostiae seu sacrificii recordationem facimus we offer alwaies the same that Christ did or rather mark this correcting of himself we make a remembrance of his oblation or Sacrifice He would be accounted a Lutheran or Heretick in the Church of Rome that should so answer to these questions Next S. Augustine Ep. 23. solves the like question Christ saith he was once immolatus in semetipso offered up or sacrificed in himself but is he not also daily in the Sacrament Non Mentitur qui interrogatus respondet immolari he should not lye that being asked that question should answer He is offered up and what is his reason quia Similitudinem because of that neer similitude which Sacraments have of those things of which they
by our Saviour and his Apostles must affirm that going out from the Communion of a Church determined to such a place or succession is not always a going out of the Church for that Church may happily usurp a Jurisdiction and require an unlawful subjection and pervert the Doctrine of Faith and that a Church continuing the same for place and succession may yet go out from it self i. e. from what it was anciently by taking to it self a new unwarrantable power of Jurisdiction and forsaking the Doctrine it anciently professed 12. For a Church to go out of it self and return to it self needs not seem any strange thing or phrase it is what we see in every Penitent Sinner and read of that unthrifty Son S. Luk. 15.17 that he came to himself he was gone out of himself before But to clear it in regard of the Church by instances When the Arrians possessed all the Bishops Sees and ruled the whole Church as to the more Visible state of it the true Catholicks driven into corners and so few or so little seen that the Emperour Constantius thought he had cause to say the whole Christian World was against Athanasius What could be judged of Heresie Schism then according to this Argument without taking in the Doctrine of Faith For first Champny will not say that they which were Baptised in the Communion of the Arrian Church were bound to continue in it nor will he judg them Hereticks or Schismaticks for going out of it If he say they could shew the Arrian Church gone out of a more Antient it is very true but they could not shew this by local succession but by forsaking of antient Doctrine For the same Bishops for the most part which before was Catholic did with their flocks turn Arrian and so the place and persons were the same only the Doctrine or Faith was changed by reason of which they might truly be said to go out of the more Antient Church not by change of place and persons in regard of which the face and visible Communion of the Arrian Churches was stil the same but of Christian Faith and Doctrine It was elegantly said of Nazianzen Orat. 21. in the case of Athanasius that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeing both in Seat and Doctrine with the Catholic Bishops that went before him but not so with the Arrian Bishops who though no intruders as those that of Catholicks turn'd Arrian held the same Seats with those that sat before them but not the same Doctrine 13. Of our going out of the Church of Rome This premised it is easie to answer I. That although we received Baptism and Christianity at first from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the Great which we thankfully acknowledg yet are we not therefore bound to receive or continue in the accrewing errors of that Church and although Cranmer and those of his time were Baptized in the Communion of that Church yet not bound therefore to continue in it as neither were they whom the Arrians Eutychians or Monothelites converted and Baptized bound to continue in those prevailing Heresies when once brought to a knowledg of them II. That our going out from the Church of Rome was a going out in regard of the Papal Jurisdiction from under a yoke and Tyranny which that Church had usurped over this Nation greater and heavier then any of the former Hereticks laid upon Christian people over whom they prevailed in regard of the Doctrine it was a going out of that Church no otherwise then we went out of our selves i.e. out of our errors in which we were before a going out of that Church so far as it had gone out from it self what antiently it was by Errors and Superstition in the Belief and Worship which it required of all within her Communion 14. And thus Cranmer shewed that the Church of Rome was so gone out when for three dayes together he boldly and learnedly argued before the whole Parliament against the six Articles to the admiration but grief of his Adversaries shewing plainly how the Church of Rome in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Priests Marriage Image-Worship was departed or gone out of it self Which also as to the main point of Papal Jurisdiction or Supremacie Gardiner Tunstal Stokesly and the most learned of that party did demonstrate by Scripture Fathers Councels Reasons Here is all the difference that when the Arrian or Eutychian Heresie prevailed it was more clear and notorious because it was a change of Doctrine by one singular Heresie whereas the Romish change of Doctrine was not by one or so immediat to the foundation or at once comming in but by many errors creeping in successively and by degrees also the continuance of the other Heresies in their prevailing condition was not so long but Men could remember it had been otherwise whereas the Errors of the Church of Rome have had the happiness or unluckiness rather in these Western parts to continue longer and to be upheld and propagated with more Policy and force though complained of and professed against more or less in all Ages since they became Notorious But this continuance of Time is only the Pharisees Dictum Antiquis it was said by them of old S. Mat. 25. No prescription against Truth that was before the Error or against our Saviours caution Non sic ab initio it was not so from the beginning 15. He adds a fourth Argument He that joyns himself to that Society which cannot shew it self Christian but by the Tradition and Succession of that Church which he hath forsaken and Opposed is an Heretick But Cranmer joyned himself to that Society or Congregation which cannot shew it self to be Christian but by c. Answer How we may prove our Christianity by the Romish Church how not For a Man or Nation to prove their Christianity by another Church for example the Roman may be taken in several respects either because such a Man or Nation were converted to the Christian faith or received Baptism or Ordination in and by that Church In all these respects we grant the Assumption that Cranmer the first Reformed English could not prove they received the Christian Faith or Baptism or Ordination in any other Church then the Roman but we say the Proposition is false and doth not make them Hereticks in forsaking a Church wherein they have received these or joyning themselves to those that have had them from thence also For instance If of two Gottish Nations which the Arrians by their Bishop Vlfilas and others converted from Heathenisme to Christianity and Baptized them and ordained them Pastors but infected with their Heresie one of them renouncing the Heresie and forsaking the Communion of them that they were made Christians by the other Nation also should see and forsake the Error and joyn with the former were then the Argument good against this latter Nation to prove