no Churches or not to belong to the Church of Christ because of that want or defect in the Vocation or Ordination of their Pastors 17. Those companies indeed of Christians who believed in India upon the preaching of Frumentius belonged to the Church of Christ before they received Pastors from the Bishop of Alexandria and that multitude which believed in Samaria upon the preaching of Philip and were baptized by him were indeed of the Church and a Church of Christ though not completed til Peter and John went down with due Autority to set all in order there Accordingly we may account of those Reformed Churches which have not their Pastors sent and ordained as from the beginning as of Congregations not regularly formed as Churches not completed not indeed without Pastors altogether as those of India and Samaria at the first were but having such as they can viz. such as have if we wil speak properly the Vocation on Election of their respective Churches which is one thing in the calling of Pastors but not due Ordination which is the main thing in impowering them to the exercise of the office and so are Pastors by a moral designation to the Office rather then any real or due consecration which only is by those hands that have received the power of sending or Ordaining Pastors from the Apostles 18. It must be granted that the Vocation of such Pastors is deficient and their Ordination irregular and that not only by the Ecclesiastical Canons in that behalf but also by Apostolical Order and practice Yet because they hold the Faith which is the chief point in the constitution of the Church and have not wilfully departed from that Apostolical Order and way of the Church by the breach of Charity in condemning and rejecting it but do approve of it where it may be had we cannot say that irregularity or deficiency infers a plain Nullity in their Pastors and Churches as Champny will have it but stands in a condition of receiving a supply or completion and is in the mean time so far excusable as the want or not having of that Supply is of Necessity and not of Choice 19. But Champny will admit of no excuse either of irregularity confessed in the calling so their Pastors or of Necessity pleaded as the cause enforcing it But proceeds to prove such a nullity in their Ordinations that it concludes them to have no Pastors at all and no Church This argument he pursues chiefly against Doctor Field Distinction of the power of Bishops and Presbyters as to Ordination who in the 3. book of the Church cap. 39. had endeavoured in behalf of the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops to shew that their Ordinations though not regular according to the way of the Church yet were not simply invalid and that by the Doctrine of the best Schoolmen who held the Office of a Bishop to be not a distinct Order or to imprint a distinct Character from that of the Priestly function which also they proved by this instance A Bishop Ordained per saltum i. e. who was not first made Presbyter cannot either consecrate the Sacrament or Ordain others but a Priest or Presbyter ordained per saltum may execute the office of the Deacon by reason that the Superior Order conteins in it self the Inferior whence Doctor Field would have it concluded That Bishop and Presbyter differ not in Order or in the very power of Order but in eminency and dignity of an Office to which Ordination and other performances as Confirmation public absolution c. are reserved also that when the antient Church declared Ordination by Presbyters to be void and null it is to be understood according to the rigour of the Canons not that all such Ordinations were simply null ex naturâ rei and in themselves or not to be born with in any Case 20. See we now what Champny replies to all this and then consider what may be reasonably allowed and said as to this point His answer is to this purpose That those Schoolmen if they hold not Episcopacy to be a distinct Order yet say it is a distinct power if not a different Character yet a new Extension of the former Sacerdotal Character and that the Argument from Ordination per saltum doth not disprove the latter way Lastly that such Presbyterian Ordinations were in the judgment of the Ancient Church Null ex naturâ rei and not by the Ecclesiastical Canons only for that judgment or sentence of the Church was not a Constitutive decree for then the beginning of it would appear in the Canons of the Ancient Councels but only Declarative of what was so in it self from the beginning of the Church This he in his 7. Chap. 21. Here something is doubtful and questionable something clear and apparent That Bishops had a power or faculty to do something which Presbyters could not namely to ordain is clear in Schoolmen and Fathers but whether that power make the Episcopal function a distinct Order from the Priestly or imprint a different sacramental character we leave it to the Schoolmen to dispute Also we grant that Bishops receive and exercise that power as Champny saith truly not by a Moral designation only as Judges and Officers in a State do for the time of their office or as those among the Presbyters seem to do who are assigned to ordain others but by Real consecration or sacred devoting them to that office or work of ordaining and sending others Which consecration though it imprint not a Sacramental Character on the Soul as the Romanists express it yet it gives to the Person so ordained devoted such a faculty or habitude to that action or work as cannot be taken from him the reason of which we shall enquire below where occasion is given to speak more of that which the Romanists call Character indelible in this point of Holy Orders Furthermore whether this office of Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function Two wayes of conceiving the power of Ordination in Bishops Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function which is one way of conceiving it or a faculty of exercising that power supposed to be radicated or founded in the Priestly Order and diffused with it by restraining it to certain persons consecrated for that performance it may be questioned Doctor Field seeme plainly to conceive it this latter way and so do the Schoolmen alleged by him and Champny's expression of their sense by extention of the Sacerdotal Character if it have any sense speaks as much viz. the dilating of that which was before in the Sacerdotal Order radically by extending that Radical power unto a proxima potentia or immediat faculty in certain persons consecrated to the exercise of it and keeping it restrained in all others of that Order who are not so consecrated and devoted to that great work of Ordaining and sending others Lastly whether we conceive of it as
a power wholly superadded or as the restraint of a power diffused it is clear that the exercise of that power the performance of Ordination was setled upon certain and speciall persons who were properly Bishops and Chief Pastors by Apostolical appointment and practice Of which there are so clear footsteps in Scripture suchapparent Monuments and Records in Antiquity that it is no less then a wonder any Learned Judicious Man should think it could be otherwise or conceive as the Presbyterians generally that this Order was afterwards set in the Church as an humane though prudent invention to avoid Schism and preserve Unity and not withall conceive it reasonable to think the Apostles did foresee that Reason and provide against it when as we hear Saint Paul complaining of it 1 Cor. 1. and Saint Hierom refers that Order of setting Bishops over Presbyters to that very cause pointing out that very time when some said I am of Paul I of Cephas 22. If therefor Doctor Field when he answered that Ordinations without Bishops were void according to the rigor of the ancient Canons did mean that such Ordinations offended only against Ecclesiastical Constitutions we grant that Champny duly proves it otherwise and do acknowledg them transgressions not only of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution and Practice but we are not therefore bound to yeild an utter nullity of them in all cases ex naturâ rei as he contends unless he can clearly demonstrat this faculty or office of ordaining to stand in a distinct power wholly superadded and not in the extension of the Priestly Order or limiting of the exercise of that power conceiv'd to be radically diffus'd with it Thus indeed Doctor Field as I said seems to conceive it and thereupon to deny such Ordination to be Null in themselves ex naturâ rei yet withal to hold as may be gathered out of his 5. book cap. 27. that this Order or limiting of the Power in the exercise of it to certain special persons was by Apostolical appointment 23. And no question the antient Church had respect to that Apostolical constitution when she pronounced such Ordinations without Bishops to be void and Null as repugnant to that constitution not defining whether they were void ex naturâ rei but declaring she had good cause to account them void and not to admit any to officiate that did so wilfully transgress against Apostolical order and practice and could have there being Bishops then at hand in every Nation where Christian Faith was professed no pretence of necessity or of loosing the band by which the Apostles had restrained the exercise of that power to certain persons thereunto consecrated And if any Presbyter should have heretofore presumed to ordain within the Church of England their Ordinations had deserved to be accounted of no otherwise then as void And so within every Church completed and regularly formed according to Apostolical Order ought they to be accounted 24. Now that I may draw to a Conclusion and freely speak what I think of the two forementioned wayes of conceiving the Ordaining power to be estated by the Apostles upon special and select men properly called Bishops or chief Pastors I suppose the first way which conceives it superadded as a distinct power to their Priestly function to be the clearer for securing the Episcopal function and distinguishing it from the other but the second way which conceives that power radically diffused and communicated in the very order of the Priestly function and restrained to such select persons in the exercise of it the faculty or immediate power whereof they received by consecration I suppose to be more easie and expedient for a peaceable accord of the difference in hand and yet safe enough for Episcopal Ordination 25. The first way conceives the Apostles who had the whole power given them by Christ both the extraordinary Apostolical power and that which was ordinary and to continue in the Church did communicate this power severally That which belonged to the office of Deacons to persons chosen for that purpose That which belonged to the Ministery of reconciliation to all Pastors or Presbyters So likewise That power of sending and ordaining others to these Offices was communicated entirely unto special persons appointed and consecrated to that work This as I said is more clear in the distinguishing of the several Functions of holy Order But the second way which estates the power or faculty of Ordaining upon special persons by restraining the exercise of it to them seems as above said to be more fair and easie for the making up this business of the Reformed Churches which have Ordination without Bishops and yet to afford safety enough to Episcopal function and Ordination For it first supposes that to be established and secured by Apostolical Order which none can transgress wilfully without Sacrilege and consequently it acknowledges such Ordinations without Bishops to be irregular and deficient in regard of Apostolical order and constitution and that they ought to receive a supply completion and confirmation by the imposing of Bishops hands before the persons so Ordained can be admitted to officiat in a Church completed and regularly formed Lastly by this way whatsoever is spoken by S. Hierom in appearance favourable to the Presbyterian pretence may be cleared and reconciled to Truth and by it may be answered also whatever is brought by Champny or others to prove such Ordinations utterly or ex naturâ rei null and void in all cases 26. I will not trouble the Reader to hear any long Scholastick contest with Champny in the business only I shal shew by one instance how well he hath acquitted himself in the defense of his assertion against the former argument of a Bishop ordained per saltum and therefore not having power to ordain others or consecrate the Sacrament because he wants the Priestly Order That which he replies to it returns more forcibly upon himself A Bishop per saltum cannot ordain and why Sicut ex eo c. Even as saith he because the Priestly function is exercised both about the Mystical body of Christ in absolving and binding and also about the Natural body of Christ in consecrating of it it doth not therefore follow there is a diverse Order but a diverse power of the same Order So the power of Ordaining though it make not a distinct Order from that of the Priestly Function yet is it a distinct power of Order To this purpose he cap. 7. pag. 183 184. But this comes not home to Ordination per saltum where it is supposed that the power of Ordaining is not given at all because the Priestly Order is wanting This also returns more forcibly upon him by applying it thus according to his reasoning Even as the Powers of absolving and consecrating are distinct yet both conteined within one Order of the Priestly function so may the power of Ordaining though distinct from the other be formally and immediately conteined
CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS Of present Concernment TOUCHING THIS REFORMED Church of ENGLAND WITH A particular Examination of AN CHAMPNY Doctor of the Sorbon his exceptions against the Lawful Calling and Ordination of the Protestant Bishops and Pastors of this Church By H FERNE D.D. LONDON Printed by J.G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1653. THE PREFACE HOw the several points handled in this Treatise concern this Reformed Church will be declared below when first we have taken notice of the causeless Aspersions and Reproaches which the Romanists cease not to cast upon is and against which these Considerations are purposely intended and opposed They think they have now a fitter oportunity by reason of the confusions of these Times to deal that way by Reproaches then as formerly by Arguments And it is no new thing for the enemies of Gods Truth to scoff at the afflicted condition of the professors of it The Ammonite is challenged for it Ezek. 25.3 Thou saidst Aha against my Sanctuary when it was profaned and so is Tyrus Ezek. 26.2 Thou saidst against Jerusalem Aha she is broken and laid wast I shall be replenished and so the Romanists looking now upon our disturbances say with those in the Psal 35.21 Aha we have seen it with our eyes and so would we have it Endeavouring by mocks and scoffs against the English Church to prevaile with ungrounded Protestants and all unwary ones that will be jeered out of their Religion One of their Pamphlets set out by a late Romish Convert the Reader must give me leave by the way to instance in for it gives us proof and example of what I said both wayes It shewes us a giddy unwary Protestant foolishly carryed away by the reproachful allegations of our Adversaries and having been a while among them presently instructed in this their way of scoffing at that Church and Religion he had forsaken Some of his wit he spends in a few Cursory animadversions as he calls them upon my former Treatise Those I let pass as inconsiderable and not fit to trouble the Reader with But the designe of his book was against that Learned and Solid piece of the University of Oxford set out by Act of Convocation 1647. against admitting of the Covenant He tells us there He is W. R. sometimes of Exeter Colledge but now a Convert of Rome and is not ashamed to profess that we may know his weaknes he had his impulsive cause of conjunction with Rome from that Act of the University pleading Tradition and the necessity of it as for Episcopacy so for other chief points of Faith But alas poor man he did not understand either what those Learned men said or what our Church allowes in the point of Tradition For however he pretend to Wit in reproving our Reformation and Religion yet in arguing when be ventures on it he behaves himself as a manforsaken of his Reason By his Titles prefixed to his book one may read what strein he meant to follow hold throughout his whole discourse for being not content to have at first entitled it An Examination of the Oxford Act he gives it two scoffing Titles more The Obit of Praelatick Protestancie and again The last dying words of Episcopacy faintly delivered in the Convocation at Oxford So he of the Modest and Sober Defence of those Learned Men against the then prevailing force And so might any Heathen Julian or Prophyry have derived the Apologies of the Ancients in the behalf of Christianity then under persecution and might have called them The last dying Words of Christian Religion So might the Arrians have termed the Defenses which Athanasius and others made The last dying Words of the Catholick cause and because Saint Hierom expresseth it dolefully with a Miratus ingemuit Orbis the whole Christian world wondred and sighed to see her selfe made Arrian Such a Reasoner as this might conclude the true Christian Faith was then groaning her last Now albeit there is nothing in this Pamphlet considerable either against our Church or against Episcopacy reteined in it yet did it give me occasion of further thoughts concerning them both and in order to the lawful Calling and Ordination of our Protestant Bishops to examine what Champny who professedly wrote against them hath alleged In the next place that I may give the Reader a better account of what was intended in the former and now pursued in this following Treatise He may please to take notice how the Romanists charge us with Schism in departing from their Communion upon our Reformation and reproach us with the Confusions of these Times as wrought under the like pretence of Reformation and defensible by the like principles upon which we stood in the work of our Reforming and to which we must hold in the defense of it To demonstrate the falshood of both Either that We who are now of a divided Communion from Rome are therefore guilty of Schism or that They who made the rupture in the Scottish first and then in the English Church can say justly for themselves against the former Doctrine and Government of those Churches what we can for our selves against the Church of Rome it was part of the work and purpose of the former book And it was demonstrable upon these grounds 1. There was a necessity of Reformation and we had just Cause for it by reason of the over-grown Papall power and the intolerable abuses in Doctrine and Worship 2. It was Warrantably done not only for the Cause of it but also for the Autority by which it was done whether we consider the Vote of the Clergy and the Iudgment of a Nationall Synod or the assent and command of the supreme and Sovereign power In which regard we see the Vanity of all that the Romanists allege from the Ancients concluding Schism Affirmatively or Negatively by Communion with the Church of Rome for however that Argument might be good when that Church stood right and held the Catholick Faith undefiled yet was it no more then they might and did conclude by Communion with other famous Churches confessedly Catholick No such conclusion can now be made upon holding or not holding Communion with the Romish Church since it gave such Cause of Reformation as abovesaid We see also the Vanity of their Reproaches that we leave every man to his privat Iudgment and Reason that we open a gap to all Sectaries to work confusion when they get force in any Church For however we leave men the use of their Reason and Iudgment in order to their own believing yet in order to Reformation we require not only just cause in regard of intolerable Error or Superstition but also due Autority for the carrying it on in the way of the Church These particulars were spoken to more or less in the first part of the former book Now for the further clearing of this point of the English Reformation and defending it so against the reproaches of Papists that no Sectaries
may pretend to the like defense I thought it not amiss to treat upon these three points chiefly First The Submission of Iudgment and the external peaceable subjection due to a Church For unless that be yeelded in due measure there will be no preserving of peace and Unity no keeping out of Error and unless that be required in due measure not absolutely and Tyrannically exacted there will be no Reformation of Errors when they have prevailed The first we contend for and I have endeavoured to set the bounds of it as near as I can in the first Chapter The other viz. absolute submission the Church of Rome so far challenges that she makes her self thereby incorrigible And hence it is we finde her so liberal of Anathema's in all her Definitions however inconsiderable or remote from Truth the matter of them be The first General Councels had to do with Heresies touching the Foundation and might well pronounce Anathema to them that believed or taught otherwise then they defined in those Fundamentals but it had been well if after-Councels had been more sparing in their Definitions and more mercifull in their Anathema's For although they conceived this to be the way to binde up all professors of Christianity in a streiter bond of Peace and Unity yet it seems to have wrought to the contrary upon a double reason because it was notorious that after-Councels did sometimes out of faction or ignorance define against the Truth and were notwithstanding as peremptory in their Decrees and Anathema's also because it is to be desired rather then expected that Christians should be all of one mind and a due liberty of d ssenting in points wherein salvâ pietate charitate good men may differ makes for preserving of Peace and Unity rather then a peremptory binding them under Anathema to think and speak the same thing The Church of Rome hath thought this good wisdome in some few points as the Conception of the blessed Virgin the Popes power in Temporals c. in which she allower dissent of judgments and belief being content to hold such an external Peace and Unity as is possible It may be said that the Anathema's of the Church of Rome in her Trent Councel are pronounced upon the dixerit against him that shall say to the contrary and we acknowlege that he who shall pertinaciously turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the faith yet makes a breach of charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself but to fasten the Anathema to a bare dixerit as the Church of Rome doth which will not suffer her Definitions to be spoken against how modestly soever is too presumptuous yea somtimes to fix it upon the senserit the thinking or believing otherwise as the Councel of Trent hath done though very rarely is yet more presumptuous and Tyrannical In the last Canon de peccato Origin having defined Concupiscence in the Regenerato not to have the Nature of Sin it adds Si quis contrà senserit Anathema sit If any think or believe the contrary let him be accursed And this is agreeable to that absolute submission of belief which the Church of Rome requires to her Definitions where he is accounted no Cotholick that doth not entirely hold what she hath decreed to be held and beleived as there will be occasion to shew in the first Chapter of due Submission Secondly The next General point will be the warrantableness of the Reformation begun at first by a National Synod under Henr. the Eight carryed on justifiably under Edward the Sixth and perfected under Qu Elizabeth especially in the Synod 62. Where the whole body of Uniform Doctrine was determined drawn up and published in 39. Articles The power also of Regal Supremacy will be considerable as to this work of Reformation for the causing carrying on and establishing thereof Thirdly There is one thing more which mainly concerns a Church The Lawful Ordination of Pastors by Bishops according to the perpetual way of the Church in which respect our Reformation was more regular then in those Churches that are without Bishops This defense the Reformers to these times do not pretend to nay have called themselves off from it by casting out Bishops when they had them in the Churches of all the three Kingdoms The Apostolical institution of Bishops hath been sufficiently cleared by many in special by Doctor Hammond in his learned Dissertations against Blondel and the Presbyterian claim Our work here is against the Romanists who admitting such Institution of them deny plainly that we have such Bishops so ordained for being not able here to reproach us as usually they do by saying Sectaries may plead the like for their pretended Reformations they seek by all means they can to undermine this Church by overthrowing the Ordination of our Bishops and consequently the lawful calling of our Pastors Sanders Stapleton Kellison Harding Fitz-Simons and others laboured much in this work before Master Mason set out his book in defense of our Protestant Bishops and their Ordination Since that Ant Champny Englishman and Doctor of the Sorbon undertook the business against all Reformed Churches in a book of 19. Chapters The first eight he spends against the Calling of Ministers in these Reformed Churches which have not Bishops the rest against the Calling or Ordination of our Bishops taking in Mason all along and with great confidence triumphing over him at every turne Certainly he hath said as much in the Argument as can be said how firmely we shall see upon examination And although it hath carryed me beyond my intended measure yet I determined to follow him by trespassing upon the Readers Patience who I hope will consider the concernment of this point the having of lawfull Bishops in opposition both to the Romanists usually reproaching us you have no Priests no Bishops no Church and also to the Presbyterians inconsideratly rejecting them and presumptuously undertaking to Ordain without them He that holds it not a point of concernment let him tel me how he likes the confused Estate of this Church since the violence done unto Bishops or how he can satisfie the Papists objecting the want of due calling where Bishops are not Nay how he can answer the whole Catholic Church which never knew any other Government then by Bishops as chief Pastors in every Church Having spoken the intent of this Treatise I must before I leave him desire the Reader to remember one thing in the former the Error of the Millenary belief and Infant-Communion often instanced there and to take notice that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church Universally and in all the Members of it may Err and be infected with Error in
points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith for that of the Millenary as it was not Universal so not of such moment and that of the Infant-Communion though more Universal and of longer continuance was but a tolerable Mistake The Church of Rome indeed in her Councel of Trent hath pronounced Anathema to them that shall say such communicating of Infants is Necessary which the ancient Church of Rome under Innocent the first did no question say and accordingly practise Therefore the instances of those Errors were not as I said directed against the whole Church but onely made use of against the Church of Rome and the Errors there prevailing which they will not acknowledge can take hold on that Church First to shew that the use of Private judgment which they scoff at is necessary in discovering and for reforming of Errors prevailing these two instanced in being so discovered and thereupon left off Secondly to shew that the Church of Rome did Err in this of Infant Communion Saint Augustin telling us directly L. 1. Cont. Julian c. 1. Definivit Innocentius Nisi manducaverint Innocentius defined unless they Infants eat the flesh c. Nay saith Saint Augustine Definivit Dominus the Lord himself defined it when he said Except ye eat and drink the ye have no life in you S. Joh. 6.35 Whereby it is plain that the practise of Iufant Communion being raised from that place Except ye eat S. John 6. was held needful and so it was held and practised in the Church of Rome however the Trent Councel condemning this Error slubbers it over saying it was practised quibusdam in locis in some places as if not in the Roman Church and that the Ancients doing so held no necessity of it Thirdly to shew that no point of Faith or Worship wherein they and we differ did so generally prevail in the Church and with so little contradiction made to it as those Errors did for some Ages It is true that Justin Martyr in his Dial. cum Tryiph insinuates that many piously affected did not entertain the Millenary belief yet he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all who were in all points Orthodox or of right Judgment held it and I said no more pag. 58. of the former book Also of all that wrote for 300. yeers even down to Lactantius inclusively most of them avouch it not one of them as I can finde contradicting or writing against it Whereas we can say to the Errors prevailing in the Roman Church that there were alwayes many piously affected who entertained them not and that they are upon Record and their contradiction to those prevailing Errors more apparent then was any made to the Millenary for the first 300. yeers or to Infant-Communion for moe Ages This is clear by the many Authors yet extant which albeit partial for the most part in the cause of the Church of Rome yet tell us of the opposition made to the prevailing conceit of a transubstantiating of the Elements in the Eucharist from Bertram down to Berengarius and after him how many opposed that and other Errors prevailing in the Church of Rome to the time of the Albigenses and fromt hence downward to the last Age. All this I say is upon Record in many Writers of former times Lastly to shew by the prevailing of those two Errors of the Millennium and Infant-Communion without any contradiction recorded how Cardinal Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what was Catholick according to antiquity were vaine and inconsistent with truth of which Sect. 31. of the sormer book To these purposes was use made of those two prevailing Errors against the Church of Rome Henry Ferne. Contents of the Chapters Chap. I. OF Submission of Judgment and external peaceable Subjection due to the Church National or Vniversal from the respective Members thereof pag. 1. Chap. II. Of the Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward perfected under Queen Elizabeth and of the Warrantableness thereof pag. 62. Chap. III. Of the lawful calling of our English Protestant Bishops against Doctor Champny Sorbonist and of the first Prejudice from other reformed Churches that have not Ordination by Bishops pag. 89. Chap. IV. Of the second Prejudice against the Ordination from the Protestant Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist and the Church of Rome Heretical pag. 131. Chap. V. Of the third Prejudice from the Protestant Opinion of the Romish Orders that they are Sacrilegious and do not give an indelible Character pag. 156. Chap. VI. Of Archhishop Cranmers Ordination and the pretended defects of it Bigamy and Heresie pag. 177. Chap. VII Of Bishops Ordained in King Edwards time and the essentiall Defect pretended to be in the Form of their Ordination and of other presumptions against it pag. 210. Chap. VIII Of Archbishop Parkers Ordination and the pretended Defects of it from the New Form and the Incapacity of his Ordainers pag. 246. Chap. IX Of the other Bishops Ordained in the begining of Queen Elizabeths reigne and pretence of special defect in it by reason of Intrusion Where also of the Deprivation of the former Bishops and of the Oath of Supremacy as the chief cause of it pag. 264. Chap. X. The Exception against our Bishops that they were not Priests Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministery committed to us men and of the Romish Presumption in assuming more pag. 319. Errata PAg. 15. l. 6. for that is r. there is p. 35. l. 25. for Natures r. Natural p. 37. l. 2. for producit r. perducit p. 68. l. 10. for speak r. spake p. 111. l. 9. for fo r. of p. 126. l. 24. for perplexity r. prolixity p. 143. l. 25. of given dele of p. 144. l. 21. laid r. is laid p. 146. l. 16. asserted r. are asserted p. 147. l. 14. for an r. and. p. 191. l. 20. for wrought r. wrote p. 195. l. ult applyed r. is applyed p. 200. l. 1. for was r. were p. 203. l. 16. for Mat. 15. r. Mat. 5. p. 205. l. 23. for that r. then by p. 208. l. 27. for his r. this p. 216. l. 27. for impertirently r. impertinent p. 239. l. 11. for letten r. let p. 251. l. 20. for should r. would and l. ult for is r. as is p. 256. l. 1. for admit r. omit p. 264. l. 2. for autority r. austerity p. 266. l. 12. for perished r. persisted p. 274 l. 11. for alteration r. altercation p 302. l. 19. for Subject r. Submit p. 325. l. 2. for his r. it Additionals PAge 62. l. ult After King Edward add That several Bishops were committed into several Prisons pag. 237. line 26. after 7. Chapter add Now to the former part of the charge I answer that by the clause any Statute Law or Canon notwithstanding No Law Divine is dispensed with nor yet any Canon of the whole Church for Champny acknowledged above in his second proposition Nu. 5. that the Matter and Form of Ordination is not expressed
convocated managing the business and concluding what was to be done in it and the soveraign Prince with Parliament confirming and giving public establishment to that which was so concluded and agreed upon by them Seeing also Champny doth largely insist upon this point of the Supremacy in his 15 16. Cha. upon occasion of deprivation of Popish Bishops for refusing the Oath of Supremacy under Q. Elizabeth we will defer farther prosecution of this point til we meet with him below CAP. III. Of the lawful calling of our English Protestant Bishops against Doctor Champny a Sorbonist and of the first prejudice from other Reformed Churches that have not Bishops 1. THis Writer having spent 8. Chap. of his book against the Vocation of Ministers in the Reformed Churches which want Bishops advanceth in the 9. against our English Protestant Bishops and labours what he can more indeed then all his fellows beside to make their Vocation or Ordination unlawful To that end Defects in Ordination how arising he layes this as the ground-work on which his whole discourse must proceed That Ordination which gives lawful calling to the Pastors of the Church must be valid and right in respect of the Ordainer of the Ordained and of the Ordination it self or Form of it and that a defect in any of these renders the Ordination and so the calling of the Party Ordained unlawful cap. 9. pag. 308. We admit the consideration of those three respects as proper and pertinent to the business in hand and do grant that there may be such a defect in any of them as wil render the ordination either Unlawful for the use or plainly Void or Nul for the substance of it 2. Our English Bishops receiving Ordination from the Romish He begins to examine the calling and ordination of our Bishops and Priests according to the first respect of their Ordainers viz. those of the Church of Rome For from thence the English Church received her Bishops and Pastors together with the Christian Faith in the time of Gregory the first this we acknowledge of the English though the Brittains had the Christian faith and their Bishops before and hath continued that ordination and calling of Bishops with uninterrupted succession down from those first Christian Bishops to Cranmer and our first reformed Bishops The Romish Ordainers he as he must needs allows of and approves the Orders given by them as good and lawful but would make our plea from thence void by our own judgment and according to the Protestant doctrine concerning them and the Orders received from them The summ of his Reasonings is briefly this 1. From the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches which renounce Ordination by Bishops especially from Rome pleading their vocation upon other grounds and therefore either they or we can have no lawful Pastors no Church 2. From the judgment and doctrine generally of all English Protestants by whom the Pope is held to be Antichrist or Antichristian therefore we must acknowledg we received our Ordination and calling if from Rome from the Ministers of Antichrist by whom also they of the Church of Rome are accounted Heretikes therefore we can have no lawful calling from such by whom also the Orders there given are accounted Antichristian abominable Sacrilegious and therefore cannot be lawfully received by us Lastly by whom the Sacramental Character is exploded and therefore no power of Order can be received by us All this he wil have follow upon Protestant doctrine to defeat us of our plea from Romish Ordainers This is the summ of his Reasonings in the 9. and 10. Chapt. We shall examine them in order as briefly as we can 3. The seeming prejudice from other Reformed Churches First for the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches He urges That they renounce our plea of having Ordination by Bishops and of receiving any orders from the Church of Rome esteeming them Antichristian and pleading extraordinary Vocation from whence he concludes against them that they have no lawful Pastors therefore no Church and consequently against us that we are bound by our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from Rome to renounce the fellowship of those Churches which hitherto we accounted of as Sisters and to stand alone divided from all other Churches as we are from the Roman and to hold the Church of England the only true Church thereby confining the Catholic Church within the bounds of that Kingdom which considering the Number of Puritans Brownists Anabaptists all which defie these Ordinations and that plea wil be too too narrow To this purpose he cap. 9. pag. 315 316. c. 4. Now although the different condition of some Reformed Churches doth not immediatly concern us who have retained the regular way of Ordination by Bishops yet because the Romanists make it a matter of reproach to us and some in these Times who covenanted the extirpation of Episcopal Government sought a defence in it for such Schismatical attempts we wil answer to the former charge and try what may be duly concluded upon the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches First therefore we may say in general However it stands with the Reformed Churches which want Ordination by Bishops and whatever be concluded on them by Champny and others as to the point of having lawful Pastors or being Churches yet his last inference of our restraining the Catholic Church within such narrow compass as this Kingdom is altogether inconsequent for we do not exclude the Roman Church out of the bounds of the Catholic Church neither doth it follow upon our division or want of externall Communion between us that either it or we should be wholly severed from the Catholic Much less do we exclude the Greek and Eastern Churches who have their Ordination and Succession of Pastors from the Apostles as well as the Romish Church Yea and we may add here We cannot exclude those Reformed which want the regular way of Ordination from belonging to the Catholic Church 5. All Reformed Churches not without Ordination by Bishops But 2. All Reformed Churches i.e. such as have purged themselves of Romish Error and Superstition besides the English are not without Government and Ordination by Bishops Those Churches which are the Remains of the ancient reformed Bohemians and are now in and about Poland or those parts do stil retain Bishops as appears by their Book set out 1626. containing the substance of their Doctrine the manner of their Government Synods c. Neither are Denmark and Sweden without their Bishops and therefore Champny's other inference That in this plea of Ordination by Bishops and that derived from the Romish Church we of England stand alone is also false 6. Now 3. The judgment of other Reformed Churches of our Bishops As for reformed Churches in a stricter sense such as those of France Geneva Germany which Champny names c. 9. what their judgment was of our Bishops and Ordination by them
though derived to us from the Church of Rome appears sufficiently by Bucer Peter Martyr and other Protestants being here in England and assisting our Bishops in the work of Reformation also by the Letters of the chief and best Learned in those Churches Calvin Zanchy c. to our Bishops and to others concerning them whose Testimonies collected by the Bishop of Durham were published in these Times and opposed to our Covenanters and all other Sectaries that attempted the extirpation of Episcopacy as Antichristian 7. As for the sayings which Champny gives us out of Luther Calvin Mornaeus to whom he adds Fulk and Whitaker rejecting and condemning the Romish Ordinations as Antichristian corrupt and unlawful he might remember that elsewhere he tels us of their pleading by them their alledging that Luther Bucer Oecolampad c. were ordained in the Church of Rome c. 4. and 9. and he could not but know that Fulk and Whitaker allowed of Bishops here and were ordained by them But hence he concludes them all to be taken in a contrary tale and put to a miserable shift For ask them saith he Whence came ye who sent you they will tell us they came from the same stock and originall as the Pastors of the Catholic Roman Church did for their first Doctors Luther Bucer Zuinglius were by them ordained Priests ask them again how can they account that to be a lawfull calling which is derived from the Ministers of Antichrist they will not stick to defy those Orders and Ordinations and presently flie to an extraordinary vocation So he c. 9. p. 323. 324. And yet this seeming contradiction is very reconcilable For when they reject the Ordinations received from Romish Bishops as corrupt and Antichristian they do it not simply as if they were Null or none at all but in regard of the additionall abuses especially that great and sacrilegious depravation of giving such a sacrificing power and placing the Priestly function chiefly in it Therefore so far as the Romish Ordinations pretend to give that power with other superadded abuses they are justly condemned and rejected but in as much as they retain withall the words of the Evangelicall commisson Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c which give the power of the Ministery of reconciliation in the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments of the Gospel they are valid and good and not to be reiterated where they are given 8. By this power of Order received in the Roman Church Luther Zuinglius Oecolamp and others had lawfull calling to preach the Word yea to preach against the very Errors of that Church which considering the condition of that Church and the Errors of it they might do and for any thing I know they did lawfully without transgressing the bounds and limits of submission due to a Church which I endevoured to fix at the beginning of this Treatise 9. Plea of â—extraordinary Vocation Now what is spoken by some of extraordinary Vocation as that implyes a renouncing of Orders received from Rome must not be taken as the generall plea or judgment of those Churches for we heard them pleading Orders received in the Roman Church and Luther wrote very well as Champny cites him chap. 8. against Munster and others that pretended to extraordinary Vocation bidding them prove it by Signs and Miracles Again that extraordinary calling which some in the Reformed Churches have alleged sounds not any new office they pretend to be call'd to but that of Pastors and Teachers and according to the end it was instituted for nor other way of comming to that office but by external vocation from men but it implies some difference from or failing in the ordinary and usual way of ordaining to that office viz. by Bishops for which they plead their case and concernment was extraordinary which rests upon them to demonstrate 10. Hitherto of their judgment in the point from whence we infer that the present Reformed Churches if they follow the judgment of the first Reformers and of the most sober and learned men that have been in them since must allow of our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from the Church of Rome and Champny must acknowledg an agreement so far between us Now for their Practise not conformable to that Judgment as we cannot approve of it so are we ready to excuse their failing so far as the necessity they plead will bear leaving it to the Romanists desperatly to cut off Nations and People from the Church for failings and wants in such things as do not immediatly touch the very life and being of a Church or of the Members of it 11. Two things in the constitution and continuance of the Church To this purpose there are two things considerable in the constitution and continuance of the Church both necessary though not equally 1. The Doctrine of Faith and Life the due profession of which makes a man a Member of the Visible Catholic Church and the true belief and practise of which makes him a lively Member of the true Symbolical Catholic Church that which we believe in the Creed that which is the true mystical body of Christ 2. The order of Ministery and Government in the Church for bringing of Men to that due profession of Doctrine and so on to be true lively Members of the body of Christ and for holding them in the Unity of faith To this end Pastors and Teachers in whom that Ministery and Government rests are given by our Saviour Eph. 4.11 12 13. 12. Concerning these two things are clear First that although Apostles Prophets Evangelists there mentioned and taken in a stricter sense were only then given and for those Times yet Pastors and Teachers were given to continue to the worlds end The purpose for which he gave them expressed Eph. 4.1 doth imply so much and so doth his Commission given to them As my Father sent me so I send you S. Jo. 20. by vertue whereof they were to send others and so doth his promise given them imply as much I am with you to the end of the world S. Math. 28. Secondly That this giving or sending of Pastors was to be continued by such as our Saviour appointed and his Apostles after him I send you saith he and accordingly they committed this power of sending or ordaining Pastors unto the hands of special men such as Timothy Titus Sylvanus Sosthenes Clemens Epaphroditus c. Whom we find either written to by the Apostle or joyned with him in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches or honourably mentiond for special labour and care in the affairs of the Church whom Antiquity also witnesseth to have been chief Pastors or Bishops in governing the Churches planted by the Apostles Such also and no other could be the Angels of the Asian Churches written to by S. John or by our Saviour rather 12. The concernment and necessity of 〈◊〉 But as it is clear that the having
of Pastors duly sent and lawfully ordained doth highly concern the Church so is it most clear that the first concernment of the Doctrine of faith and life is the chief and simply necessary to all the Members of the Church and that the latter Order of Ministry and Government by Pastors and Teachers is to serve unto it The Apostle shews us this by two similitudes he uses to set out the Constitution of the Church One Eph. 4. of a Body fitly joyned together c. That which joyns the body of the Church to Christ the head and knits one joynt or part to another is Faith mentioned ver 13. and Love or charity ver 16. and He gave Apostles Pastors Teachers for the perfecting and edifying of this body ver 12 13. and that not carried away with every wind of doctrine ver 14. The other similitude is of a Building 1. Cor. 3. The Foundation is Christ that which joyns us to it is Faith and knits us as stones to one another is Charity the builders are Pastors and Teachers who lay us upon the Foundation by bringing us to the Faith Ministers by whom ye believed ver 9. So then Faith and Charity joyn men formally intrinsecally to Christ the Head and Foundation Pastors and Teachers serve to that end and do that work ministerially and extrinsecally The first is the chief and the doctrine that contains it necessarily concerns all the Members of that body in particular as to their being such concerns them I say simply and indispensably as to the holding of the the Foundation or Doctrines immediatly fundamental and also necessarily as to the consectary doctrines according to the revelation or means they have of knowing them but the latter viz. the having of Pastors so sent and ordained serves unto the former yet so as the Order left and established in the Church for the perfecting of it is strictly to be observed where it can possibly be had and kept for wilful omission or rejection of it is not only a great sin and Sacrilege committed against the commandement and appointment of Christ and his Apostles but also such a breach of charity in them who are guilty of it that it renders them Schismatical and so far disjoyned from the body of Christ which is his Church as they stand guilty of it 14. Of Churches without due Ordination of Pastors by Bishops And now to come to some issue by application to the Churches in question I. Where the first viz. the doctrine of faith and life is truly and sufficiently professed and held we cannot think that a bare Want there or unavoidable defect and irregularity in the second viz. the Order of sending or Ordaining Pastors doth exclude such professed Christians from belonging to the Church Which unavoidable and necessary defect may arise either because they cannot have Ordination from Bishops abroad or because the soveraign Power being adverse will not suffer them either to have Bishops among them or to receive ordinations from forrein Bishops that would give them II. We must look at those who are in such a condition without Pastors regularly ordained as at Churches defective and not compleatly framed but in a capacity or expectation of receiving their completion when that necessity which enforces the defect is removed and so continuing as wel as they may rather then to give up that Truth and purity of Christian Doctrine they have attained to 15. VVhether of choice or of necessity Let me here add what Doctor Moulin Son of Peter Moulin saith in behalf of the French Churches and I add it chiefly for their sakes that gave him the occasion they were the Soottish and English Presbyterians who at the beginning of these Troubles rejected Bishops and Ordination by them and sought to justifie themselves by the example of the French Churches He therefore shews them in his book then set out what judgment and desire the best in those Churches have expressed concerning Bishops and that their not having them was not of choice but necessity which he endeavours to demonstrat by several reasons drawn from the consideration of that Kingdome and of their condition under the Soveraign Power there And to shew if they might have their choice they would willingly have Bishops he tells us that the Bishop of Troyes having abjured Popery began to preach the pure Word of God and sent for the Elders of the Reformed Church to know whether they would confirm and acknowledg him for their Bishop which they all with one consent did submitting themselves to his obedience And then adds There is none I dare say of all the Churches of France but would do as much in the like case None but would obey Bishops if Bishops would reform and obey God Till God extend so much mercy upon that Kingdome the poor Churches will stay for the leisure of the Bishops viz. which now possess the Sees and are not Reformed keeping themselves in an estate fit for Obedience Or as he had said before The Church of France being under the Cross and without Bishops is a body prepared for Obedience whensoever the Popish Bishops shall reform in the 25. and 26. pag. of his book But for those that reject Bishops when they may have them he shews how they fall under the severe censures of Zanchy and Calvin Testor me coram Deo saith Zanchy I protest before God and in my Conscience that I hold them no better then Schismaticks that account or make it a part of Reformation of the Church to have no Bishops c. Yea they are worthy saith Calvin of any execration that will not submit themselves unto that Hierarchy that submitteth it self unto the Lord These censures he cites in his 13. pag. out of their Tracts De Reform Eccles for both wrote of that Argument 16. Now to Champny's Argument A true Church is not without true Pastors for as Cyprian saith Ecclesia est populus Pastori conjunctus and again Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesia But those Reformed Churches have not true Pastors lawfully called but only pretended Elders which are made by those that have no power to ordain or send others therefore they are no Churches Moulin would answer and first grant with Calvin That the World may be as wel without the Sun as the Church without true Pastors l. 4. Inst c. 3. And farther take the word True Pastors that there be no ambiguity in it for such as are called lawfully after the originall and ordinary way of the Church viz. for Bishops and those that are ordained by Bishops He wil grant the proposition true of the whole Church which is never without such and also true of particular Churches completed perfected and regularly formed Such Churches he acknowledgeth the French are not but in a state imperfect yet capable of a regular completion and as it were expecting of it And therefore wil deny that they are concluded by the former argument to be
within the Priestly function and this is more then is required more then is true but thus much at least he must by his own reasoning allow that it may be radically founded in that Order and for want of that foundation it may be that a Bishop ordained per saltum cannot ordain others 27. Again The reason saith he why a Bishop so ordained cannot Ordain or Consecrate is not quia Episcopatus non sit distincta potestas à sacerdotio sed quia essentialiter illud praesupponit ut potestas absolvendi necessariò praesupponit potestatem consecrandi not because Episcopacy is not a distinct power from the Priesthood but because that doth essentially pre-suppose this which is very neer to the founding of the power of Ordination in the Priestly Order even as the power of absolving doth necessarily praesuppose the power of consecrating So he ibid. pag. 184. Now albeit this latter assertion be false as being grounded upon their placing the whole perfection of the Priestly Order so Champny there in the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ when as the power of Absolving is as immediat to that Order or Function as the power of Consecrating can be yea the Ministery of reconciliation doth express the whole power of that function in Scripture 2 Cor. 5.18 to which this phansie of Romish Sacrificing is a stranger Albeit I say that instance speaks what is false yet stil it returns in the application more forcibly upon him if we reason thus As the power of Absolution necessarily supposes the power of consecrating which he laies down for a Truth and yet are conteined in the same Order of the Priestly Function so for any thing that he sayes may the power of Ordaining which necessarily essentially presupposes as he sayes the power of Consecrating be conteined also with it in the Priestly Order though not formally and immediatly as the power of Absolution is for that is stil more then is required or can be maintained yet radically founded in it and diffused with it 28. The true reason as I conceive why Ordination of a Bishop per saltum doth not give him power to consecrate the Sacrament or to absolve or to ordain others to those Offices is because the Power of the Keyes which includes all those Powers and Offices is received in the Priestly Function which made me say it is the more peaceable way and may probably be defended that the power of Ordaining is diffused with the Priestly Office or founded in it and is in it not immediatly and formally as a power ready for Act and exercise as the power of Absolving and Ministring Sacraments is in it to which the Priest hath particular and express Ordination but radically and as in primâ potentiâ the remote power so as the faculty of exercising it or the proxima potentia of it is given to special men by Consecration to the work and that by Apostolical constitution And in this sense the extension of the Sacerdotal Character which Champny allows may stand Now that first and radical power can never be lawfully reduced to Act or exercise in them that have not lawful consecration to it but by extreme necessity through the utter failing of them that have which whether it be possible I leave it to Champny to dispute 29. As for the necessity which those Reformed Churches have pleaded in excuse of this irregularity in their Ordinations I shall not now enquire into it Only I wish heartily that they which have chief rule in those Churches did not think themselves so far engaged to continue where they are but that they would entertain a stronger apprehension of the necessary concernment of that Order which was left in the Church by the Apostles and continued alwayes and in all places where the Christian faith was received till the last Age. 30. As for those false Inferences which either Papist or Sectarie hath made from the different condition of those Churches to the seeming prejudice of the English Church it was my work to discover them and now I shal give the Reader a brief of what hath been said against them in recompence of the trouble he hath been hitherto put to by a tedious perplexity I. That we Protestants of the English Church stand not alone in this point of Ordination by Bishops received at first from Rome Other Churches severed from the Romish Communion have reteined Bishops and Ordination by them and that derived from Rome and those Reformed Churches that have not yet approve it in us and have acknowledged their own deficiency joyning with us in judgment but differing in practice for which necessity is alleged II. We must not for that deficiency quit all fellowship with them or disclaim them as no Churches because of Consanguinit as Doctrine as Tertul. phrases it the Kindred and alliance of Doctrine which is between us for the bond or agreement in Faith and Charity binds the body of Christ together Eph. 4.16 and that is the main in the constitution of the Church And although the other point of Order as it concerns the sending and ordaining of those that should teach and publish that Doctrine and build up the body of the Church ought most carefully to be observed according to Apostolical practice which fixed that office upon special Select Persons called Bishops yet because it is not so clear whether it was fixed to their Persons as a superadded power or as the faculty of exercising that power which being conteined in the power of the Keyes might with them be radically received in their Priestly Order we cannot pronounce absolute Nullity upon their Ordinations especially the case standing with them as they plead And because it doth not appear that a bare want or Deficiency in the appointed Order of the Church should forfeit their belonging to the Church where the main viz. the Doctrine of Faith and Life is preserved and the other of Order not wilfully perverted to a breach of Charity with those Churches that have preserved it therefore we cannot judg them to be no Churches or Congregations of Christians but we look upon them as Churches not completed or regularly formed and excuse their defects so far as they are enforced on them by necessity and conclude them bound to seek their Completion and a supply of their defects from those that have Bishops and hold the ancient Apostolike way of the Church Lastly seeing their judgment concerning Bishops and Ordination by them where it may be had is such and their excuse of the want of it pleaded by necessity their example can in no wise be alleged in defence of those who of late have rejected Bishops and Ordination by them nay ejected them when they had them We bless God that we had the happy means of a regular Reformation the more they have to answer for that disturbed our established Order but as for those Churches which approve of that Order where it is and want it by necessity rather
then choice we leave it to Champny and other Romanists to conclude desperatly upon them and all that are not in their way enclosing the whole Church within their Communion and judg of Christians not so much by their Union to Christ by the bands of faith and charity Eph. 4.13.16 as to his pretended Vicar by subjection to him for so they conceive of the Church of Christ as of a Society joyned together under one Pastor the Pope or Bishop of Rome and do accordingly define it and acknowledg the Members of it making themselves thereby Papists rather then Christians and cutting off from the Church not only for defects in ritu Apostolico the Order left by our Saviour and his Apostles which is the charge they have against the Reformed Churches that are without Bishops but also for failing ritu Romano the not observing in this point of Ordination the additional Rites and Papal Inventions used there which is the charge they have against us and for which they conclude we have no Bishops nor lawful Pastors as will appear below CHAP. IV. Of the second Prejudice From the Protestants Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist and the Church of Rome Heretical 1. NOw proceed we to his second Argument against our pleading of Ordination derived from the Church of Rome It is grounded upon the Judgment of our own Writers and amongst them some Bishops that hold the Pope is Antichrist and therefore that we fall by our own sentence and doctrine For how can the Ministers of Christ saith he receive due and lawful Ordination from the Ministers of Antichrist Or how can we think that Christ should leave the power of Ordaining Pastors for the feeding of his Church which he bought with his precious bloud and for the dispensing of his holy Word and Sacraments in the hand of his sworn Enemy c. 9. p. 320. c. To this Argument I answer the more willingly because I see how Presbyterians generally with those of other Sects suffer themselves by such inconsequencies and mistakes to be abused into many inconveniencies to the great disturbance of the Church Here are two points to be spoken to 1. The Judgment of the Popes being Antichrist 2. The Inference against our Ordinations 2. Of the opinion of the Pope being Antichrist To the first That there is much Antichristian doctrine taught in the Church of Rome invented broached maintained by the Popes and others that have been and are chief in that Church is most evident to any man that hath any reasonable insight into Christianity and that they which hold and maintein such doctrine are and may be called Antichrists is not to be denyed for so there are many Antichrists as St. John tels us of his time But that the Pope is the Antichrist is no point of our faith none of the Articles of our Religion Prophecies indeed are matter of Faith and ought to be believed that they shall be fulfilled before they come to pass and that they are fulfilled when the Scripture assures us they are but when it leaves us to gather the event by signs delivered in Prophetick expressions and more general terms such as is the description of Antichrists comming then to say such a prophecie is now fulfilled or such a State or Person is that Antichrist is not the act of Faith but the work of Reason making a Conclusion or Inference upon application of the signs and marks describing him in the prophecy to such or such a Person or State 3. VVhich admits several senses Now as King James in his Praemonition to Christian Princes falling upon this point by occasion of Heresie laid to his charge by those of Rome and the Oath of Allegiance declared by Pope Paul to be against the Catholic Faith pursues it indeed eagerly and with a long discourse not as an Article of his Faith but as a Problematical perswasion to shew he could better and with more appearance of Truth prove the Pope to be Antichrist then the Pope could prove him to be Heretick or himself to have such superiority over Kings So we must take that Assertion of our Writers de Papâ Antichristo comparatively not only in regard of our selves whom they call and hold to be Heretikes to say Antichristianism agrees more properly to them then Heresie to us but also in regard of all other Persons or States that have fallen under the suspition of being Antichrist to say Of all that yet appeared in the World the signs and marks of Antichrist agree most plainly to the Pope and Popedome I cannot but say I am much inclined to think as learned Zanchy seems to do in his Tract de fine Seculi that whatever is done already in the working of the Mystery of Iniquity the Antichrist will be revealed in that Seat and sit in that Papal Chair 4. Many Antichrists in a large and more remiss sense there have been and will go before the appearing of that great One and a great appearance of such there hath been in the Popedome already Bernard and many other that lived within the Communion of the Roman Church discovered the appearance of Antichrist in the Papal Court and spoke it Indeed the Spirit of Antichrist which Saint John saith did work in the Hereticks of his time 1. Ep. c. 4. v. 3. who by Tertul. are called Praecursores illius Antichristi Spiritus the forerunners of that great Antichrist advers Marc. l. 5. c. 16. that Spirit I say of Antichrist hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Romish Church not only by reason of Heretical and Antichristian doctrine there taught especially that Principle of mis-belief Papal Infallibility the ground of their faith or believing then which no one can better fit the turn of Antichrist or be a readier way to Apostacy from Christ but also by reason of exorbitant power there challenged and usurped first over all Bishops in the Church of Christ for which by Saint Gregories warrant we may stile the Pope the forerunner of Antichrist then over Kings and all that are called Gods 5. Now in the second place The seeming prejudice consider the Inference made from this Champny as we insinuated above draws it ad impossibile or to this Absurdity Therefore Christ left his Church in the hand of his sworn Enemy giving him the power of Ordaining or providing Pastors for his Church and tels us The Reformed Churches do therefore abhor the Orders and reject all things else that come from Rome Answ First supposing the Popes to be such Antichrists or Antichristian Rulers it was but part of the Christian Church that they ruled in and why should it seem so strange to any that Christ should leave part of his Church under Antichristian Tyranny when it is foretold plainly that Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God or why should it seem so strange and impossible to Champny that Christ should suffer his sworn Enemy to sit as chief Pastor in the Roman
Chair Many Monsters of Men have sat as Popes in the Rom. Chair when as it is certain in History that many Popes have sate there who have been as vile Monsters and as great Enemies to Christ and all godliness as we need suppose those Antichrists to be which we say are to be found in that Seat if any where yet in the World Such Popes as Champny himself must needs acknowledg to have been not so much Christs Vicars as the Devils Chaplans preferred by him advanced to that Chair by all Divellish means Murders Whoredoms Sorceries and by the like Arts and Divellish Practises holding it and ruling in it as Platina and other of their own Historians testifie Genebrard who is not forward to acknowledg such disparagements to that Seat yet complains of almost 50. Popes together in the 9. and 10. Centuries calling them Apostaticos potiùs quà m Apostolicos and saying they came not in by the door Baronius who alwayes employed the utmost of his skil to excuse is here forced to confess the Papal impieties and to lament the condition of the Church under such Heads particularly Joh. 12. and some other Popes notoriously abhominable about the 10. Century 6. Bell. in his Praephatique Oration to his books de Pontif. Rom. could not pass this by in filence or deny it but sets a good countenance on it and by the fineness of a Jesuit Wit which it seems Baronius Genebrard Champny had not learnt within their Societies turns all to the advantage of that Seat as testifying the Sanctity and perpetuity of it notwithstanding the iniquity of them that sate in it Nihil est quod Haeretici c. It is to no purpose for the Hereticks to take so much pains in searching out the Vices of Popes for we confess they were not few But Tantùm abest c. This is so far from diminishing the glory of this Seat that it is thereby exceedingly amplified for thereby we may perceive it consisteth by the special providence of God What Bell. speaks of the Seat i.e. the Papal Autority and power had he spoken it of the Church of God oppressed under that usurped power it had been a very sober rational and Christian-like acknowledgment of Gods special providence which did preserve a Church under such confusion and iniquity of Antichristian Rulers 7. This doth not invalidate Ordination And as in regard of the preservation of a Church so in respect of the continuance of Ordination in particular Champny must give us leave to say with much more Reason Tantùm abest c. It is so far from seeming impossible or absurd that Christ should permit the power of Ordaining Pastors to the hand of his Enemy that it makes more for the glory of his Power and special providence over his Church that notwithstanding such Wolves that entred He preserved his sheep notwithstanding such Antichristian Rulers He continued and propagated a saving Truth by transmitting down his Word and Scriptures and a succession of Teachers and Pastors by Ordination stil continued Yea his special providence farther in as much as by that Word of Truth transmitted and received from them that had the chief Rule many have discovered their Errors and Tyranny and cast them of and by Ordination derived and received by their hands have a lawful succession of Pastors to declare that Truth and to continue the Church so purged and Reformed without running stil to them for Ordination or confirmation in the Pastoral charge 8. Let us heare what S. Augustine saith appliable to this point in his 165. Ep. Etiamsi quisquam Traditor subrepsisset although some Traitor had crept into that Chair he means the Roman and after-Ages have seen many Judasses or Traitors in it as above said nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae innocentibus Christianis quibus providens Deus c. He should nothing hurt the Church or innocent Christians for whom our Lord hath provided saying of Evil Prelats What they say do ye Mat. 23. as if he had said be their Persons what they wil it doth not prejudice the work of their Function or Ministry no more then it did in those to whom our Saviour there relates viz. the Scribes and Pharisees professed enemies to Christ yet in Moses chair and to be heard and obeyed The Leper also is sent to the Priests because they were in place though generally Enemies to Christ Yea the Ministerial Acts of Judas himself who was Traditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Traitor and a Devil were good and valid when he was sent as were other Disciples abroad to perform them If then the Iniquity of Rulers or Pastors do not prejudice the Church in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments which are of nearer concernment to the Salvation of Christians much less doth it in the transmitting of Orders 9. Lastly VVe first derived Ordination from Rome before any suspition of Antichrist there We begin the succession of our English Bishops derived from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the first when as no such Traitor or Antichristian Ruler had crept into that seat and the power of Ordination then received hath ever since continued without interruption among us And although after some Ages we see that many Popes proved Monsters and enemies to Christ from whose Tyranny this Land and Church were not free yet find we many of our Bishops not willingly bearing but complaining under that Yoke as Grosthead and others And as for those that Ordained Cranmer and Latimer they had ejured the supposed Antichrist and cast out the Papal Autority So that whatever Protestants judg now of the Pope it cannot prejudice the Ordination either of our first English Bishops by Gregory the Great who mainly resisted the beginnings of Papal Antichristianisme in John of Constantinople or of our first Reformed Bishops Cranmer Latimer or others for the Pope was then ejected and the Ordainers of those Bishops sworn against him and so not to be accounted Ministers of the supposed Antichrist To conclude considering what was said above of the ministerial acts of Judas and others that were in place and office the charge of Antichristianisme taken in any sense strictly or remisly cannot prejudice our judgment of the now Romish Ordinations which we allow to be valid still as to the substance of the Order appointed and setled in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles And I wish the pretended Reformers of these later Times had not been so strong in their Zeal against the Church of Rome and so weak in their reasoning as out of fear of such seeming prejudices to decline and reject not only Ordination thence derived but even many Truths there professed and from that Church received 10. The seeming prejudice from our charging them with Heresie His next Argument is from the charge of Heresie laid by Protestants upon those of the Romish Church from which he concludes our plea of receiving Ordination by them must fall
as Enemies to the Kings state and not to return under pain of High-Treason so the Sentence ran In like manner they were not long after driven out of the Territories of the Venetian Republic and never since received in To conclude It is not Religion nor the Function nor any ministerial Act belonging to it that is punished in Romish Priests but Treason and Seditious Practises to which Religion Sacraments Ministery of Reconciliation and all that is reputed Holy are made to serve and all this to advance and secure the Papal Usurpation And thus much in answer to Champny's reasonings against our condemning their Orders and yet pleading by them also against our condemning them in one part and admitting them in another 10. Of the indelible Character There remains one Argument more against our pleading Ordinations from them and that is drawn from our Doctrine about the Indelible character which seeing we deny we consequently must hold we receive no Order from them no power to ordaine it being not possible saith he to conceive how a Heretic declared in whom the designation of the Church ceaseth and all lawful use of Order stil hath the power the Act if done is valid but only by reason of the Indelible character remaining in him This Argument he doth not insist on but hints it several times cap. 9. and elsewhere and in courtesie passes it over suffering us to help our selves by the Catholic Doctrine as he saith of the Character when we are put to shew how those of the Church of Rome being faln into Heresie could give us Orders or why the Antient Church received Bishops returning from Heresie and restored them without Ordination To this purpose he 11. Orders not to be reiterated But we can answer them We need not the help of their Doctrine touching the indelible Character of which as they phansy it they can give no solid reason yea we can help them with a better reason why the power of Ordination remains notwithstanding Heresie or other irregularity Their Character as they phansie it to be a Sacramental effect and real quality imprinted upon the soul we have cause to deny but we grant as was above insinuated there remaines in the person such a disposition or habitude to the End or Office he is ordained to which is not by Heresie or Schism so lost or broken off but that stil he hath a power to the work or Ministerial Acts of that office And this if any will call a Character or mark remaining he may Only it is not a Sacramental effect properly a or real quality impressed on the soul as they will have it but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or habitude consisting in respect and relation as Dur. in 4. Distin 4. seems plainly to acknowledg 12. Now if we put them to give a reason of their indelible Character either in Baptisme or Orders they use very poor shifts catching at the word Seal and Sealing where-ever they meet with it as 2 Cor. 1.22 Eph. 1.13 and 4.30 which is most plainly meant of the graces of the spirit and as we see the impertinency so the unreasonableness of it They hold the graces of the spirit which are real infused qualities and do seal indeed may be blotted out or lost yet the supposed Character they would prove by them is indelible Again they set it out rather then prove it by the indelible mark that Circumcision left upon the Person receiving it but here are many impertinencies for Circumcision was a mark in the flesh only and imprinted none upon the soul as the Romanists must hold of the Sacraments of the Old Testament but this mark of theirs is only in the soul and only marks a man out in respect of Gods knowledg who only can look into the Soul Besides that of Circumcision was not indelible but by Art they could recover the praeputium as we read some Apostate Jews did to which device the Apostle relates and gives us the word for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him not become uncircumcised 1 Cor. 7.18 Lastly Women had not that mark in the flesh yet as they were born to God Ezek. 16.20 so they remained his notwithstanding the Idolatry in which their Parents lived and brought them up in and this not by reason of any such Character or stamp set upon them but because of the Covenant of God into which that people were entred and caused a relation that could not wholly be broken off 13. Wel we may help them from hence with a reason of that which so remains of Baptism that it need not be reiterated and that is the entring of Covenant with God a Covenant indeed of Salt as that which is so called 2 Chron. 12. upon which such a relation ariseth as cannot be quite lost as appears by the forenamed place of Ezek. where God speaks to the Idolatrous Israelites the Sons and Daughters thou bearest to me Also we know what is consecrate to holy use may not be alienated Now Baptism is a consecrating a devoting of the party to God and so is Ordination too That according to the general profession and service of a Christian This according to the special vocation or calling of a Minister of the Gospel and in both he that puts his hand to the plough i. e. admitted to be a Disciple generally or specially taken must not look back We may see then a reason why the power received in Ordination remains not because of the designation or deputation of the Church which ceaseth in Hereticks actually broken off from the Unity of the Church and so doth the lawful use of that power so long as they continue in Heresie for the Church intends not to make use or allow of the ministry of such but by vertue of their consecration to God and his service and that in such an office as by our Saviours institution may not be cast off by him that is once admitted into it Thus far in answer to Champneys several Arguments against our Ordinations or the Lawful calling of our Pastors or Bishops in regard of supposed Defects in the Ordainers viz. those of the Church of Rome according to our Doctrine and judgment of them and the Orders given by them Now proceed to his other general Heads Defects in the Ordained or in the Form of Ordination CHAP. VI. Of Archbishop Cranmers Ordination and the pretended defects of it Bigamie and Heresie DOcter Champny examining the Ordination of the Reformed Bishops begins with the Archbishop and Metropolitan Cranmer and it is the work of his 11. Chapter With the Form of his Ordination he quarrels not it being done ritu Romano though with some protestation interposed on Cranmers part but he charges him with these Personal irregularities or Defects Bigamie Heresie Schism So that however by vertue of his Ordination he received the substance and power of the Order yet by reason of those defects in his person he did not receive the Lawful
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
Commissioners But this reward he had of his many misdemeanors that he was confined to perpetual imprisonment whereas his fellow Bishops that denyed the Oath as well as he enjoyed their Liberty or els a pleasing and free Confinement to some Friends house 14. The former presumption he enforces from the statute of Parliament the year following which provided indemnity for all that had refused the Oath tender'd by Archbishop or Bishop till that time Anno 8. Eli. cap. 1. Which saith he evidently proves Boners plea to be good that they were not Bishops indeed and that the Parliament so judged of them This is still the fallacy à non causâ for the cause or reason of this was not because the Parliament of which the Bishops themselves were a good part doubted of their lawful Ordination for how could that be after so many years practice of it as had run in King Edwards and this Queens reigne but because they had respect to the doubtings which others had of it For considering the condition of the Kingdom some years before turned from Popery they had reason to think and so they had found it by the reproaches of some and the surmises of others as they plainly signifie in that Statute that many were not satisfied concerning the Canonical and lawful Ordination of our Bishops and Priests measuring it by the way of the Romish Church and as they had seen it performed in Queen Maries dayes or thinking it not provided for by the Law of this Land since Queen Maries repeal and therefore the Parliament in respect to such as offended upon such scruple decreed Indempnity for the seven years past notwithstanding that such were punishable by the Statute of the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth for refusing the Oath so tender'd And this is a Demonstration of the great equity of our Protestant Reformers which Champny is loath to allow them in this decree judging of them it seems by the Romish severity against all offenders 15. A Statute of Parliament and Queens Dispensation Next he urges this Statute of Parliament 8. Eliz. I. as purposely made to make good the Form of Ordination and the Queens letters patents given out to dispense with all Defects in that Ordination of the first Bishops made in her dayes This Mason had objected to himself out of Sanders and answered to this purpose That the Parliament made them not Bishops or their Ordination good but they being Bishops indeed by Lawful Ordination that Honourable Court declared them so to be Also that the Queens Letters for their consecration concerned not any defects in Essentials but in Accidentals such as might be charged on their Ordination by pretence of any Statute or Canon Champney in replying to this tortures that Statute to force it to speak a Constituting rather then a declaring of them Bishops a making of their Ordination by the new Form valid rather then a pronouncing of it to be so Whereas it is most plain that the end of that Statute was only to declare so much against the slanders and reproaches that some cast upon their Ordination and to provide against them for the future and to that very purpose the preamble to that Statute runs and then follows And to the intent that every Man that is willing to know the Truth may understand plainly that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just Matter or Cause It is thought fit to touch such Authorities as do allow and approve the making and consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops and then is repeated what was ordained in 25. Hen. 8. touching the Election of Bishops and in 5. of Edw. 6. touching the book of Common-Prayer with the Order and Form of Consecration annexed to it Lastly in 1 Eliz. c. 2. touching the Authorizing of that book again after Queen Maries Repeal Then it followes in that Statute Wherefore for the plain Declaration of all the premises to the intent the same may be better known to all her Majesties Subjects whereby such evil speech as heretofore hath been used against the High State of Prelacy may hereafter cease Be it declared and enacted c. Can any thing be more clearly spoken And this the very place also which Champney cites out of Cambden doth plainly speak In hos Ordinum conventu saith he declaratum est unanimi consensu legitimam esse Consecrationem In that Parliament was unanimously declared that their consecration was Lawful And why so declared because Nonnulli calumniando in quaestionem vocarunt and after Pontificii illis tanquam pseudo-Episcopis obtrectarunt The Papists reproached them as no Bishops 16. Nay but the peremptory decree of that Parliament which no Law humane or divine for it saies any Statute Law Canon notwithstanding can hinder sounds more then a declaration such a singular Autority or power of an English Parliament greater then that of the whole Church was necessary not to declare but make that Ordination good So he p. 443. and then p. 444. Are they not truly called Parliament Bishops for take away this Statute of Q. Elizab. and that other of K. Edward which first authorized the New invented Form of their Ordination and I do not see whence or from what institution Mason can derive their Ordinations or by what Autority Divine or humane he can possibly prove them good and lawful So he To answer this latter charge first It stands upon a false supposal that they invented and made a New Form which they did not as to any thing that concerned the substance of Ordination See above Num 1 2 3 4. of this 7. Chap. this business in Queen Maries daies when King Edward's Statutes were repealed and Canon there also mentioned relates to the Popes Canon Law which not long before was wholly in force and was still reteined with limitation from the supposed binding of which arose as it seems the scruples doubtings which many had in those daies of the Validity of our Ordinations And to this cause must be referred the reason of the clause of dispensation in the Queens Letters not implying any essential defect which she knew was not in her or the Parliaments power to supply but such as might accrew by some point or nicety of Canon Law not expresly and in particular provided against 17. The Queens Dispensation But such a ful dispensation saith he had been needless had there been no defects of moment indeed For no prudent Prince wil spend his Autority in dispensing aforehand with imaginary and possible defects Such it seems was the importunity of Popish slanderers that the Queen in prudence thought best to take away the occasion by taking away the ground on which any suspition might be vaised viz. the supposed force of any such pretended Canon that might be thought to concern their Consecration Thus Champny trifles again and again with his furmises and seeming probabilities of real and essential defect in the Ordination of our Bishops I
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
National Synod to warrant King Edwards Reformation I have many things to say I. What I speak of the English Reformation that it was not done without the judgment of a National Synod did chiefly relate to the Synod under King Henry which as I said began the Reformation and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it In the first was the main Annoyance and cause of Corruption in the Church removed by casting out the usurped Papal Jurisdiction with some dependances of it but in the latter Synod the whole work carried on under King Edw according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign was compleated shewing it self in an Uniform body of Doctrine voted and published in the 39. Articles of this Church 6. II. Title of Supreme Head For the work done in King Edwards time if any thing did run out of Square through the swelling Title of Supreme Head stretched a little perchance by some beyond his Line the thanks are first due to Those whom they of the Popish party account theirs I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denyed to the Pope for none could have written better against that usurped Papal Supremacie then Bishop Gardiner Tonstal and others but in that which they attributed to the King And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction did relate to the Vote and Acknowledgment of the Clergie Seeing that all Autority of Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness as Supreme Head and so acknowledged by the Clergie of this Realm Be it therefore Enacted c. 1 EDW 6. c. 2. that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and expressions we may see whom they followed 7. VVhether abused in this business of Reformation Now considering what was already granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw 6. by the Bishops and Clergie of this Nation considering also the King although of admirable piety and understanding beyond his years yet being under age and so under Protection it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-persons who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influence upon the Affairs of the Time And however the Kings Autority under pretence of that Title and Jurisdiction as it seems was abused in disposing of Church-means and diverting them to private gain yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation as to the point of Gods Worship and Religion it self but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time the business of Religion was fairly carryed on and that is the third thing I have to say That the Reformation under King Edward to the abolishing of Image-Worship the restoring of the Liturgie in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds with that which followed thereupon the abolishing of Romish Massings for herein was the main of K. Edwards Reformation was warrantably advanced and carryed on For the clearing of which as to the Authority that did it I have these things to say 8. First Synodical Vote how necessary in this bufiness Reformation of Gods Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determining Church-Affairs where there is not just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times in which they are to assemble To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councels which he spoke not absolutely but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Councels held in those times Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pastors of the Church as to this point of Reformation is directive either in or out of Synod and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction is by their meeting and consulting in Synod therefore the Prince whose power or office is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties what is evidenced to Him hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod But he is not simply and always bound to take his direction thus by any Law of God or Man for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and learned men of the Church to be the Law of Christ such as were the forementioned points of Reformation apparently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it The change of Religion for the worse is stil charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Testament and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings which shews this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah who were more forward in the Reformation of Gods Worship then the Priests do warrant the forward piety of our yong Josiah K. Edward And this is also approved by that which many Christian Emperors and Kings have to their great praise done in the business of Religion without or before the calling of a Councel though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bishops and learned Men. Of this point more below when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things Neither can we say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Prudence alwaies to receive his direction from a Vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear as above said but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edwards reign or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say but this I have farther to say 9. Injunctions sent out at first by the King Secondly In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the publick exercise of Religion or Worship and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine or Uniformity in points of Religion In order to the latter a Body of Doctrine I find there was a Synod held under King Edward The Acts of it I have not seen but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae Where in the Act of the second day as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related a dispute arises about a Catechism published in the name of the Synod
under King Edward the Popish party renouncing it and on the Protestant part John Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester maintaining it to be Synodical because compiled by Autority and Commission from the Synod for saith he this House granted Autority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and concludes that the Catechisme and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod since they had saith he our Synodal Autority unto them committed Now as all Catechisms do so this did contein the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod and therefore rejected by the Popish party 10. This Synod as I suppose was not held till the fift of King Edward But the Injunctions that went out in the first year were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Worship which was necessarily to be provided for in present and went no farther then those evident points above mentioned Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Autority for having suddenly dissolved the Convocation by her peremptory Mandate to Bishop Boner for that purpose in December She sent out the March following Injunctions not upon any Vote of the former Convocation touching Papal Supremacy Sacraments Priests-Marriage c. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments 1. Mariae If it be said as usually they reply that she did but restore what was before established in the Church so we may say by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Worship of God accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church in a known tongue with Communion in both kindes without Image-worship all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them 11. Those Injunctions sent out by advice of Bishops and were generally received of all the Bishops Thirdly They were sent out by the Kings Autority upon the advise of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land and generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses Both these things are avouched expresly in the charge given in against Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments to shew that he was the only Bishop that did not so readily conform as the rest did This also appears by the Letters of the Archbishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London to whom he sent the said Injunctions and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster who then was Thirlby twice promoted in King Edwards dayes to other Bishops for the execution of the same Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts. 12. And so the Vniformimity of Publick prayer If we looke on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King we find in the first Chapter a Law for the Vniformity of Public prayer and Administration of the Sacraments expressing thus much That for the drawing up such an Order and Form the King appointed the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops and other learned men of this Realm there 's the fitness of the Persons for the Work having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures and to the Vsages in the Primitive Church there 's the fitness of the rule they went by The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost and with one Vniform agreement is by them concluded Wherefore the Lords Spiritual note that and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled considering the godly travel of the King and the Lord Protector in gathering the said Archbishop and Bishops and Learned men together the godly Prayers Orders and Rites in the said Book and the considerations of altering those things that be altered and reteining those things which be reteined in the said book and also the honour of God and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same do give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same and humbly pray it may be enacted c. What could be more sweetly begun by the King carried on by the Bishops received by all the Estates then this work was Now if there wanted a formal Synodical Vote yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it the general reception of the thing done yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was commanded but did actually in Parliament give their consent there we find them all sitting and if all did not consent which is more then any can say yet the major part by far did undoubtedly for they continued as I observed above Num. 4. in their places unmolested all King Edwards dayes Neither can it make any real difference as to the justness of a Reformation whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy or Pastors of the Church be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign Autority It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived but as I insinuated before their number was inconsiderable to the other and their deprivation was not till the end of the Kings third year at soonest which shews their compliance at first 13. Councel of Trents Rule for Reformation Now after all this it will be worth our observing what the Councel of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation in the Decree de celebrat Missae Sess 6. sub Pio 4. did confess and thought fit to redress Multa jam sive temporum vitio sive hominum incuriâ improbitate irrepsisse aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate many things say they either through the iniquity of the Times or the carelesness and wickedness of Men have crept in far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice and what were those things quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit which covetousness or superstition hath brought in Then they give order for redress That the ordinary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere take them clean away This was well spoken had they done it throughly Now what they thought fit to be done and did it but slightly was done fully in the Protestant Reformation and particularly in that under King Edward for the shameful nundination of Masses which Covetousness had brought in was clean taken away by taking away the manner and Trade of Romish Massings and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament the many abuses which Superstition had brought in were removed by restoring the public Liturgy in a known Tongue the celebration of the Communion in both
kinds and by taking clean away the Worship of Images And all this was done by the advice and travel of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church under a Pious King What exception then can there be It may perchance be said that in the close of that Decree this power of reforming is allowed to the Bishops of the place ut Delegatis sedis Apostolicae as to the Delegates of the Apostolic See Yea there is stil the mischief and hinderance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church Deus non erit Deus c. God shall not be God except man please as Tertul. said in his Apol. and Truth shall not be Truth except the Pope please nor God Worshipped after his own Will unless the Pope will too 14. The warrantableness of K. Edwards Reformation To conclude Lay now the Premisses together and see the Warrantableness of the Reformation under King Edward both for the Thing done and the Autority by which it was done The Thing done was for the general what the Councel of Trent thought fit to be done the removing of some things which were crept in by the corruption of the Times by the carelesness and iniquity of Men Things which Covetousness and Superstition the two Breeders of all Popish abuses had brought in Things for the particular so evident by Scripture and usage of Primative Church the warrantable Rule of Reformation which they went by as above noted in the statute of Parliament Num. 12. that nothing can be more So for the Autority by which this was done It was begun by a good and gracious King upon the advice and direction of sundry learned and discreet Bishops was carried on and managed by divers Bishops and other learned Men of this Realm as was also said in the forementioned Statute and generally received by all the Estates of the Land and accordingly confirmed and Established by King and Parliament Such was the Condition and Warrant of that Reformation which as no Romanist can justly reprove Sectaries cannot pretend to the like so no Sectaries can pretend to the like whether we consider the evidence of the Things or Abuses reformed according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity or the Autority by which that Reformation was begun carried on and managed and lastly confirmed and established Of all which there is a great failing in the pretended Reformations of Sectaries yea in that which the Presbyterians undertook who of all other pretend most to regularity and Order 15. Reformation under Q Eliz. We are at last come down to Queen Elizabeths reign under whom we said the Reformation was perfected And here we are to enquire too of the Imprisoning of Bishops and look after a National Synod We acknowledge that divers Bishops were Imprisoned and which is more deprived too and justly both as will appeare hereafter upon consideration of their offence Here we must first note that there was no design in the Imprisoning or depriving them to make way for the holding of a Synod nor any necessity was there of it in order to that end for if we reckon that on the one part there were six Bishops remaining to whom the Queens Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed and many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Maries death which being supplied there was no fear that the Popish Bishops who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or quitting the Land should make the Major part had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote 16. Her Injunctions As for the Injunctions sent out before it came to a Synod they were the same for substance with those of King Edward upon the Evidence and Warrant as we heard above Yet such was her tender care that all Persons doubtful should have satisfaction and be brought to some good and charitable agreement as in her Declaration set down in Stow that for this very purpose before any thing of Religion should be established by Parliament she appointed a Conference to be held publickly at Westminster between learned Persons of both sides as more amply will be shewn below against Champny cap. 9. Again those Injunctions were but provisional Orders as I may call them for the present exercise of Religion the whole Doctrine being after concluded and drawn up in a just and Lawful Synod 17. A Synod A Lawful National Synod it was in and by which whatever belongs to the Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion was defined drawn up and published in 39. Articles The great difference twixt this Synod and the Presbyterian Assembly however the reproaching Romanists rank them together wil appear upon these considerations Presbyterians cannot pretend to the like I. They that took upon them to exclude or remove our Bishops had not power either to call a Synod or to deprive a Bishop and that is the first irregularity viz. Usurpation of Power II. The cause pretended for the removing of our Bishops was not any offence against their Duty as Subjects or against their Office as Bishops but meerly for their very Office because they were Bishops and that was purely Schismatical III. The Persons taken in to make up their Assembly did not pretend to succeed our Bishops so removed in their Power and Office and so it was a Synod clean out of the way of the Church sitting and concluding by a power taken to themselves and therefore also plainly Schismatical Every one of these irregularities nulls the lawfulness of an Ecclesiastical Synod But none of these can be charged upon us for the Popish Bishops that remained obstinate were removed by due Autority upon just cause viz. their offence against the duty of Subjects and of their own Office as will appear below where their deprivation shall be examined against Champny c. 9. Lastly the places void either by deprivation of these or death of others were supplyed by Bishops lawfully ordained as is also maintained against Champny who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edwards dayes and the rest of the Clergy of the Land made up a due and Lawful Ecclesiastical Synod 18. Of Regal Supremacy in order to Reformation and Church affairs Having thus far spoken of the care and travel of our Kings and Queen in this work of reforming Religion and Gods Worship within this Land it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supremacy or of the power which by vertue of their Supremacy Princes have and to shew how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs it may be so bounded that it intrench not upon or infringe the power and office of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church But seeing we found the Power and Office of the one and the other severed and distinct throughout the Reformations spoken of in this Chapter for we found Bishops advising counselling and the Prince commanding appointing convocating them to the work then again Bishops with other learned Men so appointed and
by our own judgment for Orders cannot lawfully be received from Hereticks c. 9. 326. c. 11. That we may more fairly proceed in the clearing of this difficulty we must premise that we admit the distinction here between Legitimum and Legitimè between Lawful or valid Orders and Orders Lawfully given or received the first implyes the power of given which Romanists acknowledg to remain in Hereticks and Schismaticks the other speaks the due and lawful use of that power which is denyed to be in those that are in Heresie or Schisme The reason is because Hereticks and Schismaticks being actually divided from the Unity of the Church must needs lose the lawful use of that power and all other Ecclesiastical ministration but not the power it self which follows a Character that is indelible as the Romanists express it We admit though not a Sacramental character stampt upon the Soul of the Ordained as they wil have it yet such a disposition or power cleaving to his person for the doing of that he is ordained to that it is not lost by Heresie or Schism nor to be reiterated upon the return or restoring of that Person 12. This premised we have two points to speak to First how the charge of Heresies laid on those of the Church of Rome then how the lawful use of Orders may be supplyed by the restoring of the Person though at first they were not lawfully given and so by both these we shall have a double answer to the Argument above For the first we must note that Heresie is considered in regard of the Matter VVhat sort of Heresie takes away lawful use of Ordination or of the Declaration of the Church and this according to the Apostles speech to Tit. c. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick is so first before he be rejected or declared so Heresies also much differ in regard of the Matter by which some may be so immediatly fundamental as the Heresie of the Arrians and some other that it doth ipso facto before any sentence or declaration of the Church cut off or divide the Person so Heretical from the Union of the true Catholic Church because it divides him from the Foundation from being actual Member of the Visible Church upon the Notoriety of such Heresie so contrary to the Foundation and also long since declared against by the Ancient Church in the four first General Councels and therefore the lawful exercise of that power he had to administer Sacraments or Orders in the Church ceases upon such discovery or as I may say Self-condemnation We need not stand here to dispute when or how soon it ceases upon such Heresie for we do not charge such Heresie upon those of Rome i.e. Heresie immediatly Fundamental or those main Heresies declared against by the first General Councels but then we must say that many of their New Articles of Belief and Practise are in themselves Heretical and as much or more then were many Tenets of former Hereticks declared against by the Ancient Church whether we consider the matter and concernment of those Romish Articles or the Obstinacy and Tyranny with which they asserted and imposed so that if there could be a full General Councel of the whole Catholic Church they would undoubtedly be declared many of them Heretical 13. From whence it follows that Heresie thus lying upon them might give us just cause to renounce their Errors and quit their Communion so far as it was necessitated by renouncing their Errors though not just cause to condemn or renounce the Orders given by them or received from them This may give answer to all the Places alleged by Doctor Champny in his ninth cap. pag. 335 336. out of the Fathers against Orders given by Hereticks for they concern either Hereticks in fundamentals or such as were declared so and actually separated from the Unity of the Church 14. It is to be noted farther that when our first reformed Bishops were ordained by them the grand Heresie and mother of their other Errors as to the obstinate an heretical defending of them I mean the Papal Power and Autority was abjured and therefore their Ordainers however yet in Romish Errors could not be properly heretical or peremptorily engaged to defend the same as afterward they were especially since the Councel of Trent hath made them Errors established and sworn to But after that we went not to them for Orders yet do acknowledg they have Ordination still substantially valid and therefore we do not re-ordain Priests that return from them to us because the substance or Evangelical institution is by those words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c. reteined still in the Roman Ordination though clogged and depressed by additional corruptions but cause them to renounce those additionals and other Romish Errors So then the summ of our first answer is We do account them to be in Heresie and deeper then when we received Ordination from them yet so as not actually and wholly cut off from the Catholic Church either by the nature of the Heresie it self casting off from the foundation or by declaration of the Catholic Church casting them out of the Unity of it and therefore it doth not follow upon our accounting them Hereticks that we could not lawfully receive Orders from them 15. A supply of defect in Ordination through Heresie Our second answer is from the supply of any defect in our Ordination received from them that supposing them Hereticks in such a condition as made them forfeit their Union which the Catholic Church and consequently the due and lawful use of the power of Ordaining yet doth it not follow that we cannot have it but on the contrary that we recover it by leaving them in that which hindred the due and lawful use of it in them And so the Romanists answer for the Bishops which they own and yet were ordained by Cranmer in the time of the Schism as they call it saying they recovered the lawful use by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Maries time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome So if upon our charging them with Heresie we must suppose they could not lawfully ordain nor we lawfully receive Orders from them then must it conformably be supposed that we having deposed their Heresie and left their Communion and by no other Heresie forfeiting our Union with the Catholic Church do recover the due and lawful use of Orders and may lawfully administer them to others and now do it in the Unity of the Church 16. Champny did foresee this might be answered by us and therefore seeks to cut us off from this plea by replying That defect of lawful Ordination and Vocation which was in Cranmer by supposed Heresie in his Ordainers could not be supplyed but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof but besides the Church of Rome there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors by reconciliation to which he
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
Ordained Bishops Mason had framed the like Argument by way of Objection to himself and given this Answer That their Order consisted of two parts The one expressed in these words Take thee power to offer sacrifice The other in these And in what respect allow them Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest c. The first part which stands in offering up Chrift gain is altogether abhominable The second which is in the Ministry of reconciliation is good for the substance though depraved by the Abuse of Auricular Confession To this purpose he 2. Champny replyes I. By cavilling at his making the Order to have two parts and runs into a needless disputation to shew that the Order being simple and like the Soul standing in indivisibili hath not Parts but several Powers from one character in the Soul But seeing he will be so subtil he should remember how he allowed above an Extension of the Character which now he telsus stands in indivisibili Well let him enjoy his Philosophical notions and Sholastick terms and let him call the different offices of Sacrificing and Absolving not Parts but Powers this we say still that the first power they give to their Priests of offering again really and properly the body and blood of Christ is Sacrilegious without any warrant from Scripture nay against it plainly and exceedingly derogatory to the Sacrifice of the Cross and therefore abominable unlawful altogether The other power of reconciliation or ministring the Word and Sacraments they give for the substance of it according to the Evangelical institution but deal not so sincerely in it as they should 3. II. He replies The Protestants though they hold Order no Sacrament Form of Ordination certain how yet must grant that a certain form is required to every Order and that such a depravation as they charge the Romish Ordination with must needs so change the Form as to make all void and null and so by their own doctrine they received no Order at all from the Romish Church This he endeavours to make good by the Form of Baptism which if depraved and changed as to say I Baptize thee in the name of the Father who is greater then the Son or the like the Baptism is null Answ It is true that unto lawful Ordination though not a Sacrament properly a lawful and certain form is required such as may express the institution of the Order and the function and power of it with application to the person receiving it Now if it be so changed and depraved that it doth not in a sufficient manner express so much it renders the Ordination invalid but if the Form be preserved as to the substance of it and only other Additions made to it by way of aggregation they however unlawful do not void what is given according to the right form reteined as in Baptism where the due Element and Form are reteined though there be additionals of marking the child with fire too as the Ethiopian Christians are said to do or of Salt Spitle and other trumperies with forms of words belonging to them as in the Church of Rome the Baptism notwithstanding is valid and good So in this of Orders that which we call abominable and unlawful is an addition of mans invention yet seeing the words of Christ are reteined receive the holy Ghost and whose sins ye remit c. in which the lawful and certain form of conveying the power of the Ministry of reconciliation is conteined we say the Ordination is so far valid and good and may stand without the corrupt additionals wherewith it is clogged in the Romish Church yea doth stand the clearer being freed from them as it is in the Church of England And therefore we do not re-ordain those Priests that come from them but cause them to renounce the corrupt additionals confirm what was validly received in their Ordination We may say in this point as Aug. answered Potil concerning Baptism administred by the Donatists Non vestrum est quod destruere metuimus sed Christi quod Sacrilegis per se Sanctum est nam venientes à vobis recipere non possumus nisi quod vestrum est destruamus We fear to destroy the Baptism given by you not as yours but as it is Christs which is holy even among them that are Sacrilegious for we could not else receive those that come from you except we destroyed that which is yours Contra lit Petil. lib. 2. So of Romish Orders we destroy what is theirs not what is Christs in them for that is yet holy and good notwithstanding their Sacrilegious additions and when we receive any that come from them it is necessary we destroy and cause them to renounce what is theirs but admit what they have reteined of Christs institution 4. Romish Priests fuffering here and for what III. He replies as to that part of their Ordination which we admit of viz. that which includes the ministry of reconciliation That we confess it to be of Christs institution and yet make their Priests guilty of Treason and execute them for exercising of it So is it decreed 23. Eliz. ◠to reconcile to the Church of Rome c. cap. 10.355 Answ It is not for that very work of the ministry as it is a reconciling of Penitents to God no more then for Baptizing which is another work of the ministry of reconciliation which if a Romish Priest do he is not therefore obnoxious to the Law But because one of these is abused to Treasonable attempts and made very fit for it by their kind of practising Sacramental confession the other is not neither can be so abused being admmistred to Infants therefore it comes to pass that the former is forbidden to be practised within this Land not directly but so far as it is a reconcileing to the Bishop or Church of Rome So the Statute expresses it and what that reconciliation means our State before it made that Statute had learnt experimentally viz. the instilling of many Treasonable Principles into the Party reconciled and moving them upon all occasions to answerable practises by vertue of the Obligation that was upon them by their reconciliation to the Pope 5. All this is most plain in the Story of those Times wherein we may see the beginning and progress of the boldness of Romish Priests in their Treasonable Practises and accordingly the first rise and advance of the severity of Laws made against them Til the thirteenth year of the Queen there was no Law that touched them in this point of their Priestly function They did baptize and absolve and both unpunished because it was supposed they did only exercise their function in absolving people from their sins not in absolving Subjects from obedience to their Soveraign But after Pius Quintus sent out his Bulls of Excommunication against the Queen pronouncing her deprived of all rule and dignity and her Subjects absolved from the Oath of their
Subjection and from all manner of Obedience So the Sentence ran and the Romish Priests began to stickle work busily thereupon then was it high time for the Queen State to look to themselves and therefore An. 13. made it Treason to disperse such Bulls and to reconcile or be reconciled upon them 6. Reconciling to the Bishop of Rome But we must note here 1. This reconciling there forbidden was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function but upon the Autority and by vertue of such Bulls which is plain by the words of the Statute If any person shall by colour of such Bull or Instrument or Autority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person c. and therefore they are called Bulls of absolution and reconciliation in that Statute 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation which we acknowledg to pertein to the Prieftly function by our Saviours institution that the very intent and purpose of it was formally Treason which also is plain by the same Statute in these words The effect whereof viz. of those Bulls and Instruments from Rome hath been and is to absolve and reconcile all those that wil be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to yeild and subject themselves to the usurped Autority of the Bishop of Rome Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God Had the Apostles preached such Gospel or practised such Reconciliation admitting none into the Christian Church but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their Kingdoms or to be cast out of them The Romish Priests then are justly ejected punished whose absolving of Penitents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due obedience whose reconciling men to God or his Church a cloak for their Reconciling to a forrein jurisdiction of Papal usurped Autority and what that brings after it who knows not If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it Seditions stirring up the People which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of Act. 24.12 and throughout his Epistles thence Insurrections Rebellions and because these suceeded not secret attempts upon the life of the Prince by Pystoes Poysonings and what not Therefore came out after ten years more the Statute which Champny cites out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute An. 12. Whereas sithence the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen divers evil affected persons have practised by other means then by Bulls or Instruments Written or Printed to withdraw her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience to obey the said usurped Autority of Rome For Reformation whereof be it enacted That all persons who shall pretend to have power or by any means shall put in practice though by pretence of Priestly function to absolve perswade or withdraw any of her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience or shall to that intent that 's noted stil in the drift of Romish practises and the ground of the Laws provision against them withdraw them from the Religion established to the Romish Religion 7. The frequent seditious practises of Romish Priests The Law looks at the consequents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church for they that made it were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it and by experience found what had been the practises following upon them and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion or expose it to Infamy let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it if upon their Priestly Function which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it let them blame themselves who have abused that Evangelical power to cloak and advance such hellish attempts If to the disparagement of privat Confession thanks to them that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons confessed 8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous as to confess and complain of the Seditious practises which those of the Society advanced and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests in their book set out in the latter end of the Queens Reign thus pag. 10. Amongst many things that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hardly of us all this is one that the pretended Brethren of that Society Jesuites and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State c. and afterward entring upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practises which he together with the rest of his society set on foot they thus write pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly in a seditious book set out by him against the cruelty of her Highness Lawes which we wish had been more mild but he never mentions that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traiterous courses against her Crown and Life Againe pag. 57. If these things viz. their endeavours to advance the Infanta's Title to this Crown should come to the knowledg of the State who will blame the same if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome be not wel entertained here Thus they truly and ingenuously of the practises of Romish Emissaries and of the justness of the Laws against them 9. I wil not say nor do I think that all their Priests which suffer here were Politicians or acquainted with all the devices of their Superiors I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such and do suppose there are some who in the simplicity of their hearts and out of meer Conscience of Religion do labour the propagation of it whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practises It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other that the punishment which the Law adjudges all Priests to that are found within the Land might only fall upon them who are indeed guilty of such practises which being so frequently found in their predecessors and the State being not able to distinguish between them who are all Missionaries of Rome caused those Lawes to be made for the security of Prince and State And if they that come into the Land without any treasonable intent do suffer for it they must thank their Fellows as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason Doctor Champny one would think should not be a stranger in France by the wisdome of which State the whole Order of the Jesuites was upon this score banished 1594. as Corrupters of Youth troublers of the public quiet and
use or exercise of that power nor could he lawfully Ordain others This is the summe of what he saith Of Bigamie or Digamie 1. We begin with that of Bigamie of which M. Mason took no notice in his defence of Bishop Cranmers Ordination and Doctor Champny only proves he was twice marryed which is not denyed but brings nothing to prove that such Bigamie or Digamie rather infers such an irregularitie as deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power of Ordaining To this charge it may be said I. That the Bigamy which the Apostle speaks of in his Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 and implicitly forbids when he saith Let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife was a superinduction of a Second Wife upon the former either kept still or put away a Polygamy both ways either direct by cohabitation with two Wives or that which followed upon unjust Divorce and was indeed the having of two Wives at once a licentious Custome frequent among Jews and Gentiles Now such a person that had done so before his Conversion to Christianity or after was justly debarred by the Apostle from Holy Orders but of this Cranmer was not guilty As for that Digamy which is the taking of a second Wife after the first being dead or the taking of a Widow to wife at first we acknowledg it forbidden by some Canons of the Church that for the most part the former place of the Apostle was by the Ancients applyed to this Digamy for no marvel if being earnest in the commendation of single life they should so readily receive the Apostles words in that sense which most answered to their purpose But some of the Ancients better considering it do acknowledg the meaning of the Apostle to be according to the former interpretation amongst whom are reckoned Justin Martyr Chrysostome and Theodoret. Yea that parallel place 1 Tim. 5.9 of a Widow having been the Wife of one Man doth most reasonably receive the like interpretation notwithstanding that the Romanists cry out of it as a thing unheard of that a Woman should have two Husbands at once which is true of two by cohabitation not by desertion for so it was often seen that the Woman either forsaking her Husband or forsaken of him married another the first being yet alive Such a Widow the Apostle rejects as one of ill fame and thus Theodoret and Theophylact are known to interpret the Apostle of a Widow that hath been coupled but to one Husband at once Lastly it is wel known how Tertullian after he was Montanist reproached the Catholicks with their twice marryed Bishops in his book de Monogam cap. 12. Quot apud vos praesident Digami How many that have been twice marryed preside among you Yet doth that practice tell us the Apostles words were not taken to be against Digamy but that which is properly Bigamy He that would see more of this phrase the Husband of one Wife and the Wife of one Husband he may please to look the places in Fulkes Rhemish Testament where the meaning is debated and Antiquity consulted 2. II. Therefore we may say That Digamy forbidden by Eccles Canon and found in Cranmer doth not make a Bishop so far irregular as to spoil him of the lawful use of his Order This rests upon the consideration of the purpose and binding force of such Canons And here it need not much trouble us in our proceeding that we meet with this Canon against Digamy among those which bear the name of the Apostles Whatever may be thought of some of them this seems plainly crept into that number if we consider the liberty of those firster Ages in this point of Marriage from after-Times and so of no other Autority then are after-Ecclesiastical Canons But let that be what it will for the present the Church of Rome stands bound to answer to the Autority of them as wel as we and hath transgressed against them especially the sixt Canon in a matter forbidden not only by these Canons but by the Law of God and the Judgment of the Apostle indeed and that is the putting away of Wife or forcing a Man to put her away in pretence of Religion or holy Orders As for Canons Ecclesiastical they deserve to have their due respect and obedience answerable to the Autority by which made Provincial National General and according to the Matter in which and the Purpose to which they are decreed The Canons which concern Digamy Marriage Single life Penance and the like are for Discipline and of such we may say 3. VVhat is said to the Canons forbidding it First Though they forbid men so or so qualified to be admitted into the Clergy or command them to be deposed if after admittance and receiving of Orders they transgress yet doth not such transgression ipso facto take away lawful use till the Canon hath his effect by actual deposing of such a person This is plain by transgressions of higher nature Heresie it self doth not take away the Lawful use of Order till it be notorious and the person so declared by the Church Concubinage also and Simony not only against the Canon but Gods Law too which they cannot say of Marriage do not ipso facto make such an irregularity for if all the Ordinations made by such Bishops were unlawful it would make a wide gap in the succession of their Romish Bishops and calling of their Priests who have received their several Orders from Concubinaries and Fornicators and Simoniacks all deposable by the Ecclesiastical Canons If they say which is all they can say that it was not notorious in those Ordainers this approves what I said that the transgression of such Canons against Marriage and Digamy cannot ipso facto take away lawful use of the power of Order and I can say as much for Bishop Cranmer who marryed in Germany the Kinswoman of Osiander before he was made Bishop and it was not known here all the time of Hen. 8. in which he ordained many Bishops But again we say the Whoredoms Incests Simony of many of the Popes Bishops Cardinals were notorious to the age they lived in and stand upon Record still so notorious and visible in the ninth and tenth Ages that Baronius cryes out Quae facies Ecclesiae Rom. Those abhominable misdemeanours were openly known and apparent in the face of the Church then and not only then but after too especially in Alexander the sixt most abhominably notorious They had need to look home and make up their own breaches before they charge us with such defects or irregularities as Marriage which is Honourable in all Men. 4. Secondly we must tell them the same Canons which forbid Marriage or Digamy forbid also Concubinage under the like punishment or irregularity and though there be a wide difference between Fornication and Marriage yet we appeal to them whether these be equally dealt with in the Church of Rome whether the like severity be used against the Concubinary
as against the Married Man Marriage in their Priests or Bishops causeth deprivation indispensably but if a Priest that is accused of having a wife plead she is his Concubine i. e. his Whore doth he not escape deposing by it it was the plea of the Priest of Placentia as P. Moulin tells it for a known story in his book of Purgatory And seeing in most Ages since Marriage was restrained we meet with sad complaints of the frequent incontinency of their Clergy let them tell us how many in so many Ages have been deposed or made irregular for it If we look into the constitutions of Otho the Popes Legat in England which are as severe against Concubines as any they have yet see much difference in the proceeding against the Concubinary and the Married Clergy The constitution against the Married runs Si clam vel palam Matrimonium contraxerint omnino sunt amovendi if contracted Marriage secretly or openly they are by all means to be removed that 's peremptory and though the Marriage be secretly carried but the Constitution against the Concubinary si publicè Concubinas detinent if they keep Concubines publickly they are to be admonisht and after a Month to put them away or els to be suspended And in the comment or gloss upon it ob simplicem Fornicationem de Canonicâ benignitate Clericus non debet deponi licèt secùs fortè de Canonis rigore for simple Fornication a Clergy-man is not deposeable through the Courteste but Rigor of the Canons Thus have they extended the Courtesie of the Canons to Concubinage and Fornication but reserved the Rigor of them for Marriage As for Penances which their Canons adjudge Concubinaries to who knows not how easily that may be satisfied and in extremity it is no other censure then a Lay-man incurs upon the like offence doth not imply or carry with it Deposition or such an irregularity as they charge upon Marriage or Digamy Nor will it boot to say as they will be ready to reply that if the Married Clergy put away their Wives they are not deposed and accordingly it is required of Concubinaries that they put away their Concubines for as Marriage and Fornication stand not upon equal terms in themselves the first being an indissoluble Conjunction so neither are they with equal severity entertained by the Romanists as appears by their practice hinted in the premisses 5. Lastly we can answer to those Canons in behalf of Marriage or Digamy what they cannot say in regard of Concubinage or Harloâ—ry that in respect of the first those Canons were only disciplinary as was said above grounded on prudential motives that seemed reasonable in those times and therefore in time might through the exigencie of contrary experience cease to binde which cannot be said of them as they forbid and censure Harlotry And accordingly we find that however those prudential motives of the restraint of Marriage for the advancement of Discipline and stricter attendance upon the holy Function seemed reasonable to Them that made the Canons yet did they not to all or most in the Church which was to receive them for if we look to the reception of the Catholic Church which is very considerable in the approbation of such Canons we meet with a general dislike of them and reluctancy against them So that where they did obtain they were rather forcibly imposed then willingly received as is apparent in the passages of History which concerns the Western Church in which those Canons were violently prosecuted After-ages still found less cause to receive or continue them where received and now long experience of many and great inconveniences and mischiefs by the exacting of them perswades and enforces the restoring of the Clergy to that liberty of Marriage which is left them by the Law of God yea to the use of that Remedy which is prescribed them by that Law when need requires it If we look into the History of this Church and Kingdom we find that before the times of Lanfrank and Anselm the Clergy were free and enjoyed the liberty of Marriage but when they were compelled by those hot Italians to forgo that freedome what success had it but the begetting of a licentious uncleanness even unto Sodomy which in few years grew so notorious that the same Anselm who by Synod in London had severely forbidden Marriage and caused those that had wives to put them away was forced to call another Synod before he dyed for the repressing of that filthy uncleanness as it is observed in story 6. The Councels therefore that made those Canons anciently be they General or National could not in reason intend to bind the Church for all Ages at least could not in justice do it when experience found those Canons served not to the end for which they were intended but occasioned far more mischiefs and inconveniences and that this is no pretended plea which is not fit to be made against Ecclesiastical Canons the complaint and sad trial of many Ages doth sufficiently prove To conclude seeing those of the Roman Church think they have reason to be favourable to Concubinage and connive at it and plead such excuse for it as we finde in the Glosses of their Canon Law Such Canons are not exacted quia onerosi sunt because they are burthensome and quia corpora hodie fragiliora sunt because our bodies now more frail and as the Gloss upon the forementioned Constitution of Otho which it seems appeared too quick in putting the Concubinary to give satisfaction saith quod nimis esset rigorosum attentâ fragilitate nostri Temporis it is too rigorous considering the frailty of our times If they I say can think it reasonable thus to plead against the Rigor of the Canons in behalf of Harlotry how much more have we cause to plead for the necessity of using that Remedy of Honest Marriage which God hath allowed and prescribed 7. Of Heresie charged upon Cranmer and the Reformers We now proceed to the next Defect wherewith he charges our Archbishop Cranmer and concludes him not lawfully ordained or to have received the Lawful use of his Order and that is Heresie and Schisme Master Mason in reference to the breach with Rome in Hen. 8 his dayes spent one chapter upon the proof of this Truth That to renounce the Pope is not Schisme or Heresie All this is neglected by Champny who sets himself to prove that Heresie deprives a Bishop of the lawfull use of his power because the lawfull use of it requires union with the Catholic Church which is but what he insisted upon in his 9. Chap. as we heard above and yeilded it to him But now for the application of it to Crunmer 8. His first Argument to prove him Heretick is from his own recantation and renouncing the Protestant Doctrine as Heretical But this Champny stands not much upon knowing it was not the confession of Cranmers Faith but of his Frailty and that recantation made
in expectance of life he recanted and repented of in the sight of Death That hand that wrought it first felt was consumed in the flames which yet could not seize upon his heart which consented not to it Therefore being dead he yet spake God himself by that miracle which had sufficient attestation bearing witness to him and to the Faith wherein he dyed giving the Lie to all the reproaches wherewith Champny in this 11. Chap. and other Romanists upon all occasions load the memory of that learned humble sober and godly Bishop known so to be unto all that knew him living 9. Protestant Doctrine not condemned by a lawful Councel His second Argument drawn into form stands thus That Doctrine which was condemned as Heretical by due Autority and due form of judgment is Heretical but the Doctrine which Cranmer after his departure from Rome professed was so That it was so condemned by due Autority he thus endeavours to prove That which was condemned by the same Autority and judgment by which the Arrian and other Heresies were in the General Councels of the Church is condemned by due Autority But the Protestant Doctrine which Cranmer and the rest embraced was so condemned viz. by the Councell of Trent against which saith he nothing can be objected by the Protestants which might not as well been said against the Nicene Nothing be said by them for their doctrine condemned at Trent which might not as well by the Arrians for their Heresie condemned at Nice Thus he cap. 11. pag. 384 385. Answ to the Prosyllogisme If by due Autority and form of Judgment be meant not only lawful Autority but Autority also lawfully and duly used that is that in such Councels the judgment be passed or given by those that have Autority and do use it accordingly giving their Judgment according to the rule of Gods Word which is the Chief Autority in such Judgments then we grant that whatever is so condemned of Heresie to be Heretical but deny the Protestant Doctrine to be ever so condemned And therefore we say the Assumption or second proposition in the second Syllogisme is false For the Protestant Doctrine was not condemned at all in Trent Councel when Cranmer forsook the Romish error which was before any Councel held at Trent Nor yet so condemned there when that Councel was held as the Arrian Heresie was in the Nicene Councel 19. Councel of Trent not such as the Nicene What can we find alike in these two either for the Autority or due use of it Were they assembled at Trent by the same Autority Imperial as at Nice Had they which were assembled in both these Councels the same or like Autority Were all the Patriarchs or chief Bishops of the Catholic Church at Trent as they were at Nice Was the number of Bishops at Nice made up of Titulars and Popes Pensioners as at Trent Or did they proceed by the same Autority and due form of Judgment Did they set the Holy Scriptures in the midst before them to judg by at Trent as they did at Nice Did they not set up unwritten Traditions in equal Autority with Scriptures and are not most of their Decrees grounded only upon such Tradition Did they at Nice receive their Determinations from the Popes Consistory as at Trent by weekly Curriers Did they at Nice threaten and drive away any of their Bishops for speaking his judgment freely as they did at Trent This and much more we can say against that Councel wherefore it should not have the like Autority with that of Nice or any lawful General Councel but stand in the same rank with the second of Ephesus with that of Syrmium and the like factious Heretical Councels So that we may justly retort his argument thus That Doctrine which was condemned by no better Autority then was the Catholic Doctrine in the Syrmian Councel by the Arrians or in the second of Ephesus by the Eutychians cannot be therefore Heretical but the Protestant Doctrine was condemned by no better Autority in Trent for what can they object against those factious Councels but may as well against that of Trent Or what can they say for their Doctrine I mean the main points of direct Popery but those Hereticks might for theirs Saying that the Romish Doctrines are not so immediatly against the Foundation and may plead a longer continuance then the other could which yet is no prescription against Truth that was before them Lastly by Champnyes Argument so far as it applyed to the Church of Rome may be concluded that our Saviour and his Doctrine was as rightly condemned as Judas of Galile or any false Prophet that went before him for he was condemned by the same Autority of the great Councel or Consistory by which that Judas and other false Prophets were before condemned Let Champny or any other Romanist answer this which must be by requiring as above said not only the same Autority but also the lawful use of it according to the Rule they are to judg by and he may have an answer to the like Argument proceeding in behalf of the Church of Romes Sentence and Judgment against Protestants and Protestant Doctrine 11. His third Argument runs thus He that forsakes or goes out of that Church in which he received Baptisme and knowingly opposes it is an Heretick unless he can shew that Church to have gone out of a more ancient Church for to go out of the Church is the Character set upon all Hereticks by S. John 1. Ep. 2.19 But Cranmer and the rest that followed him went out of the Church in which they were Baptized and cannot shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient one Answer Going out of a Church how makes Heretick Seeing the force of this Argument rests upon the truth or falsehood of that proposition which affirms us gone out of the Roman and not able to shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient We must note that the going out from a Church takes in the consideration of Jurisdiction which that Church hath over the other and of Doctrine or Faith which one Church professethin Cōmunion with another Now the Romanists phansying the Catholic Church as one society under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome and measuring the continuance and identity of that Church by local succession rather then the Doctrine of faith do accordingly judg of communion with it or opposition to it of going out from or staying in it and easily conclude but fallaciously of Heresie and Schism Whereas we conceiving of the Church as of one Society in subjection to Christ and not withall to any one pretended Vicat General and measuring the Union and Communion of it by that of Christian Faith and Doctrine rather then of Local succession and yeilding our subjection to the lawful Pastors of the Church succeeding one the other but with subordination to the Doctrine of Faith once delivered
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
Archbishop Parkers Ordination where his first exception is against the Form as new and so acknowledged by Mason saying that Matthew Parker had the happiness to be the first of so many Bishops since Austin that received consecration without Popes Bull Pall c. p. 478. 479. But this because it belonged to the form of Ordination I referred it thither and answered to it above in the former Chapter 1. Presumptions against the Ordainers Next he excepts against the Ordainers that they were not such as was pretended And here we must again trouble the Patience of the Reader with the importunity of their presumptions and conjectures alleged against public Records which though it little serve to the end they intended the disproving of the Ordination of our Bishops yet will it make to this good purpose the proving of the restless importunity of these Men in their calumniando fortiter ut aliquid adhaereat their custome in raising and nourishing any manner of Reports to discredit their Adversary That I may not be thought to slander them in so weighty a business hear what they say The Popish Art of belying Evident Truth that knew it very wel Those secular Priests of whom above Chap. 5.8 in their book there mentioned complain much of this unconscionable dealing in the Jesuites and their followers acknowledging the Queens Majesty had very just cause to think more hardly of them all for it The pretended brethren say they of that Society and such as follow their steps do in their Writings so calumniat the Actions and Doings of the State be they never so judicially and publickly proceeded in never so apparently proved true and known of many to be most certain and after of Father Parsons that he was a great Master in this Art I find also Jo Copley sometime Priest among them but returning to the Church of England in King James his time to acknowledg this to be usual among their Priests and that it was one Motive to him of forsaking them This he spoke upon occasion of lying reports raised by their Priests and spread among their Proselytes to make them believe the whole carriage of that fearful plot was but a Trick of State Of Gunpowder Treason to make the Catholicks odious Lastly John Goe Master of Arts returning from them upon the downfal of the Black Friers in acknowledgment as he saith in his Preface of Gods mercy by which he escaped with life discovers the several and close practices damnable dissimulations and Artifices of their Priests about London naming the persons and place to ensnare and delude unwary Protestants or hold on their credulous disciples and this is one Their confident denying or misreporting and discrediting of evident Truth At the end of his book he gives in a Catalogue of neer 200. Priests in and about London their Names and the Characters and Lodgings of most of them in which Number this Doctor Champny was one and then trading for Rome Now let us see how well he plaies this part against the evident Truth of public Records So passionately that he will not abate us the fond story of the Naggs head in Cheapside but strives all he can to make it probable as we shall see presently 2. His first conjecture or presumption against Matthew Parkers Ordination is because according to Masons Records saith he the Ordainers here are set down with their bare Names whereas in all other consecrations the Ordainers are named with the Titles of their Bishopricks Now what reason can there be of this difference but that his Ordainers were not indeed Bishops consecrated but Elect only But Champny might have seen them set down in the Queens Letters Patents with the Titles of those Bishops Seâ—s they before held and also of those they now were elected to and the Registers of those Sees shew their enstalment as Godwin hath set them down His second Consecration of Bishop Barlo That Barlo one of the Ordainers was never as it appears consecrated himself for Mason could not give us the Record of his Consecration as of the rest Answer Mason though he found not his Consecration yet he found him a Consecrator of Arthur Buckley Bishop of Bangor in King Hen. 8. his time which evidently shews he was himself consecrated or could not els been admitted to assist in that Action Champny excepts that is alike as if a man should thus reason Such a man hath a woman and children therefore he is a Lawful Husband and Father That is not alike but thus Such a man in all public Actions Deeds Instruments was by Law permitted to do towards that Woman and those Children unquestionably as a Lawful Husband and Father she accordingly enjoying her Dowry and they their inheritance so demised by him therefore he was a Lawful Husband and Father so it follows evidently that Barlo being without question admitted to that public Action was a Lawful consecrated Bishop Whereas Champnies Negative Argument against him runs thus weakly according to the former instance such a Mans Marriage cannot be found in the Register of the Parish Church therefore he is no Lawful Husband But Godwin a diligent searcher of the Registers of Bishops finds him consecrated Bishop of Asaph Feb. 22. 1535. and the next year translated to S. Davids where he sate ten years in King Henry's reign besides the time of King Edward Now what reason can be imaginable why he should continue Bishop doing all the Offices and duties of a Bishop so long without consecration or that he should be suffered so to do Furthermore that he may say something rather then nothing he observes pag. 494. that Landaff who was consecrated some years after Barlo is pretended to be set before him in the Queens Letters Patent for the Consecration of Mat. Parker and why saith he but that Landaff was consecrated indeed and Barlo only Elect Also at the solemnizing of the Funerals of Henry the second of France related by Stow he finds Parker Barlo Scory assisting as Bishops and Parker in the first place who then was but Elect which ought not to have been so if the other two had been Bishops consecrated They are goodly doubts fit for a Doctor of the Sorbon to dispute but to solve them if they fall not in pieces of themselves we leave to Heralds or the Master of the Ceremonies to do it at their Leasure 3. The shameless story of the Nags-head Tavern And now we are come to that shameless tale which hath more of impudency in it then the former Instances had of weakness That our first Bishops in the Queens time were made at the Naggs-head Tavern in Cheapside That Scory alone Landaff failing Ordained Parker Grindal c. and after this manner They kneeled down before him and he laying the Bible upon their heads severally said Receive the power of Preaching Gods Word sincerely and so they all rose up Bishops pag. 497. and this he saith he received from Father
definition of any General Councel that they are most clearly according to the judgment of the Ancient Church Or look we at the End or purpose of the dispute which with us was public satisfaction to all persons doubting and to bring about a good and charitable agreement and this upon the command of the Prince the desire and expectation of the whole Kingdom but no such good purpose intent or expectation in the dispute or alteration unto which Saint Ambrose was provoked 8. His other Example relates to their not Crowning of the Queen Euphemius saith he Patriarch of Constantinople refused to acknowledg Anastasius for Emperour but repell'd him as an Heretick till he promised to admit the Councel of Chalcedon Here again is another fundamental point and the Declaration of an undoubted General Councel which notwithstanding could not give Euphemius warrant to do any more then express his judgment of the unworthiness of the Emperour But what is this to their refusal of Crowning the Queen whose right they had acknowledged whose faith they could not question as contrary to any approved Councel For what are the Novel Articles of Romish faith to the Fundamental Christian Faith declared in the Ancient Councels And yet must Princes by the judgment it seems of Romanists not have their Crowns if they will not first admit that faith or else lose them if after by due Reformation they cast it off Thus far of the offence of those Bishops as to the business of Crowning and Conference of which offence the Queen might well be a competent judg it being so apparant for the fact and against so known a duty 9. Their refusal of the Oath of Supremacy Now to the other offence charged on them the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy the chief cause of their deprivation Upon this Doctor Champny spends his 15. and 16. chap. and that he may prove that Deprivation unjust states the question thus Whether Queen Elizabeth with her Councel or Parliament could deprive those Bishops because they refused to swear that she was the Supreme Head of the Church of England pag. 536. and thereupon makes his Argument thus That Judgment is unjust which is given by an incompetent Judg. Now to prove the Queen and Parliament were not competent Judges he supposes it as clear that this was a Cause ad fidem Religionem directe pertinentem directly perteining to Faith and Religion and then assumes that neither the Queen nor any Lay-persons could be competent Judges of Bishops in such a Cause This he largely pursues by places of Scripture which shew that Bishops and Pastors are set in the Church to teach all others of what degree and rank soever in matters of Faith and Religion and therefore cannot be judged by them in such matters Luke 16.16 He that heareth you heareth me and Heb. 13.17 Obey those that have the rule over you and submit and the like Also by the Testimony of Emperours Constantine Valentinian Theodosius professing the judgment of such matters did not belong to them Also of Bishops Athanasius Hosius Ambrose plainly telling other Emperors as much Yea calls King James himself to witness citing out of his Declaration against Card. Perrouns Oration these words It is true that Emperours did not bear themselves as Supreme Judges in matters of Faith and Doctrine Lastly adds the testimony of Calvin Kemnitius and the Centurists against that title of Supreme Head Then in his 16. Chapter undertakes to answer what Master Mason had brought for Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things and Causes 10. The Title of Supreme Head of the Church But to his whole Argument in his 15. Chapter we may return this general answer There are thus many failings in it I. The question wrong stated for those Bishops were not put to swear the Q. was Supreme Head of the Church of England there are no such words in the Oath of Supremacy but that the Q. was Supreme Governor of the Realm of England and all other her Majesties Dominions in spiritual and ecclesiastical things and Causes For upon notice of offence taken at the title of Supreme Head of the Church which her Father and Brother had used the Queen was graciously pleased to wave it and put it as above said Supreme Governour of the Realm c. But Champny wittingly reteins the former Title as obnoxious to more reproach and Envy II. His Argument touches not the whole cause or the main part of it which concerned the renouncing of forrein Jurisdiction III. The cause rightly stated is not a matter directly perteining to faith and religion as he takes for granted IV. Albeit such a Judgment of matters perteining to Faith and Religion as those Emperors denyed doth not indeed belong unto them or any Lay-Persons yet may Kings and Emperors have such a judgment as is necessary for the due exercising their supreme power in and about matters and causes of Faith and Religion 11. Two things considerable in the Oath and accordingly two mistakeâ— That all this may the better appear We must observe there are two things considerable in the Oath of Supremacy What is attributed to the Sovereign Prince and then what is denyed to the Pope or any forrein Potentate and accordingly there is commonly a double mistake which the Adversaries and reproachers of this Oath this Docter Champny in particular do run upon The First is the overlooking of the main thing aimed at in this Oath which is not so much the affirming or attributing a Supremacy to the Prince as the denying and renouncing of the Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction and the excluding it out of this Land For it is security which the Prince seeks here and that stands not so much in receiving acknowledgments of Titles and bare assertions from Subjects as in their renouncing of all adverse power and promising not to obey it In special that known usurped power of the Bishop of Rome mentioned and branded as unsufferable in all the Statutes that concern the Supremacy of the Crown and so indeed it deserved to be both for the intolerable burdens and exactions it laid upon the Subjects of this Land and for the dangerous positions and Doctrines it draws after it to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince his Crown and dignity as The exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons which in effect makes them none or but half Subjects The deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdoms upon Excommunication which makes them no Kings or but at the Popes pleasure and according to the same Doctrine the Oath of Allegeance is pronounced by Pope Paul V. in his first Breve to contein many things flat contrary to the Catholic Faith and to the salvation of Souls and therefore by no means to be taken by any of his Catholicks And have not Princes good cause to look to themselves upon this point of Supremacy to the excluding of such forrein Jurisdiction so dangerous so injurious 12. Now that Security from this
all other of judicial process the Regal Supremacy or Jurisdiction is more apparent It was therefore declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. That in the Kings Highness there was full power to render justice and finall Determination in all Debates Contentions c. and upon this ground were made many and sundry Lawes before Hen. 8. in the time of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. and of other Kings for the entire and sure conservation of the prerogatives and preeminencies of the Imperial Crown of this Realm and of the Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the same to keep it from the annoyance of the See of Rome ibid. Accordingly King James in his Premonition to Christian Princes against the Usurped power of the Pope gives us many examples of former Kings punishing Clergy-men for citing others to Rome in Ecclesiastical causes Yea we have stories of Ecclesiastical causes wherein the Bishops of Rome have been Parties judged and determined by Emperors and Kings In that great contention twixt Symmachus and Laurence about the Place which made the fourth Schism in the Roman Church King Theodorick who then ruled in Italy took the cause into his own cognizance and judged it for Symmachus Afterward in that contention twixt John of Constantinople and Gregory the first of Rome about the Title of Universal Bishop Gregory himself refers the cause to the Emperour as appears in his Epistle to Mauritius to put end to it by repressing the ambition of John and nothing more known in History then the Elections of the Bishops of Rome frequently ordered judged and determined by the Emperours 18. Furthermore all that Judicial process of the Outward Court with which Bishops were enabled for the better and more powerful exercise of their spiritual Censures was derived from the Supremacy of the Regal power and to this sense was it said All Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness Edw. 6. cap. 2. that is All external Jurisdiction or Coactive which indeed is properly Jurisdiction when there is not only a power and ability to declare what is Law and just but force also to procure execution and therefore in that very Statute and as an acknowledgment of all such Jurisdiction derived from the King All process Ecclesiastical is ordained to go forth in the Kings Name and the Teste in the Bishops name also the Kings Arms to be graven upon the Seal of the Bishops Office 19. In things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine But in Things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine or correction of Error and Heresie the bounds of this Supremacy of Princes are not so apparent Yet may they be so set as the power and judgment we yeild to Princes in and about such Things do not entrench upon but fortifie the Power and Office of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church For we acknowledg the Power and Office of Bishops to be both Directive in defining and declaring what the Lawes of Christ be for Doctrine Discipline of which things they are the immediat proper and ordinary Judges and also Coercive in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinatly gainsay and that as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for spiritual binding and loosing will reach VVhat also proper to Bishops Pastors of the Church This power is Coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church but not coactive or forcing for all such Jurisdiction together with all judicial process of the outward Court is as I said derived to them for the more forcible effect of their spiritual censures from the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign Priner His Powea we acknowledg to be Imperative in commanding by Laws the public establishment of that which is evidenced to him by the Pastors of the Church to be the Law of Christ and also Coactive in restreining and correcting by temporal pains those that are disobedient yea in punishing and correcting Ecclesiastical persons for not doing their known duty according to their forementioned Office To this purpose it is declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. that it belongs to Spiritual Prelats Pastors and Curats to Minister do or cause to be done all Sacraments Sacramentals and divine services to the people that for their Office but if for any censure from Rome or any such cause they refuse to Minister as before they are liable to Fine and Imprisonment during the Kings pleasure that for his Supremacy over all Estates to rule them and cause them to do their duty and punish them when there is cause for not doing it 20. If we consider the Defining of Matters of Doctrine we said the Pastors of the Church are the proper and ordinary judges there though called to the work by the Prince and accountable to him how they do it and therefore the judging of Heresie is restrained to the Declaration of the first General Councels for Heresies past and for such as shall arise to the Assent of the Clergy in their â—onvocation 1. Eliz. 1. The defining of Doctrine demonstration of Truth and the Evidencing of it is the Office and work of the Pastors of the Church but the Autority which at first commands them to the work and after gives public establishment to it when so done and evidenced is of the Sovereign Prince Which establishment is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State and our Religion is Parliamentary but to our secure and free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as the Pastors of the Church are 1 Cor. 3.9 but Ministers of God for good or evill Rom. 13.4 i.e. for reward or punishment according to our doing or not doing duty and therefore they bear the Sword Iurisdiction of Princes is extrinsic Wherefore their jurisdiction is wholly Extrinsick as is their Sword not intrinsick or spiritual as is the power of the Keys or the Sword of the Spirit in the hand of Ecclesiastical Governors or Pastors Princes have not the conduct of Souls but government of men as making a Visible Society to be kept in order for Gods service and glory and for the good of the whole Community 21. But Princes and Sovereign Powers are not meer Executioners as the Romanists would have them of the Determinations and Decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion what ever they define and propound for such For the Power of the Sovereign is not Ministerial but Autoritative commanding and calling together the Clergy to the work of Religion or Reformation which command it is their duty to execute by meeting and doing the work so as it may by the demonstration of Truth be evidenced to the Sovereign power and receive again the Autority of the same power for public establishment Princes
have their judgment about Matters of Doctrine defined And in order to the due using of that supream and Sovereign Power we must allow him that he go not blindly to work Judgment in receiving of the evidence not only a private Judgment of discretion which we must allow every man in order to his own believing but also a publick Judgment answerable to the publick care and office he bears Yet is it not that immediat and ordinary Judgment of Matters of Religion which belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that secundary Judgment as I may call it which is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Lawes that which is evidenced to him upon the Judgment and advise of the Pastors of the Church This Judgment in matters of Religion in order to public establishment the Sovereign ought to have upon a double reason I. In respect of his duty to God whose Lawes and worship He is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Juda were II. In respect of his own and his peoples security to judg that nothing be concluded or broached prejudicial thereunto under pretence of Religion and Ecclesiastical Autority as many points of Popery are Now for this reason of the Princes concernment I suppose the Clergy under Hen. 8. saw there was cause they should bind themselves as they did in their convocation by promise in verbo sacerdotis Not to Enact or promulge or execute any New Canons or Constitutions without the Kings Assent But if it be asked What if the Sovereign be wilful in following his own judgment rather then the evidence of Truth given in by the Pastors of the Church That will not concern our belief or Religion but the free and safe profession and exercise of it For the establishment of Princes is not as I said in order to our believing but our free and public exercise of Religion we must attend to the evidence of Truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and yeild obedience to the establishment or Law of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing accordingly 22. Princes truly said to reform Errors by their Supremacie By all this which I have said to rectifie the mistaken sense of this Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things it may appear how the Sovereign Prince may have and use his Supreme Power and his Judgment in and about such things without invading that spiritual power and that immediat and ordinary judgment which belongs to the Pastors of the Church how also he may be said truly to Reform and Correct Errors Heresies c. without taking to himself the office of those Pastors For when he doth it by them commanding them to the work and taking account of them he doth it truly and doth it by a Supremacy of power So did Hezekiah and Josiah truly reform all the errors and abuses about Gods Worship when they called and commanded the Priests to that work of purging the Temple and Ministring again in it according to the right way of Gods service Justinian in his Epistle to the 5. Councel reckons up what his predecessors had done for the preservation of the true Faith Semper studium fuit c. it was alwaies their care and endeavour Exortas haereses amputare to cut off Heresie as it sprung up How or by whom per Congregationem by gathering together Religious Bishops and causing them to preach the right faith Then having instanced in those Emperors that called the 4. General Councels he concludes Nos sequentes Volentes We following their examples and willing the right Faith be preached do c. Nothing is more obvious in Antiquity then the care and pains which good Emperors and Kings have used in employing their Sovereign power and Autority for repressing and reforming Errors and Heresies One of Justinians predecessors was Theodosius the second who did repress the Heresie of Eutyches then prevailing and newly advanced by the factious Councel of Ephesus and how did he do it by nulling or forbidding the decrees of that Councel to be received and to do this he was advised and entreated by Leo Bishop of Rome and other Bishops But of this example more largely below when we shall examine Champneys answer to it to whom it is now high time to return 23. His Arguments above insinuated are easily solved by what is already said to rectifie the mistakes about the Oath of Supremacie His Testimonies from the acknowledgments of Emperors and sayings of Bishops telling them their duty as he borrows them from Tortus or Bellarmine so he might have seen particular answers to the chiefest of them in the Bishops Tortura But these and the places of Scripture which he brought and King James his saying and the Testimonies of other Protestants which he alledged do all fall to the ground as impertinent and of no force through those failings I noted at the beginning and were made more apparent by what is said since that they touch not the main part of the Oath of Supremacie and cause of the deprivation of the Popish Bishops viz. their refusing to renounce the forrein jurisdidiction and Supremacie of the Papal usurped power also that those Arguments and Testimonies proceed onely against the mistaken sense of the other part of the Oath viz. of that Supremacie which is attributed to the Sovereign Prince and are easily satisfied by distinguishing the spiritual power of Bishops and Pastors from the Sovereign power of Princes in and about Ecclesiastical matters which powers though they have the same objects sometimes yet their manner of proceeding about them is different so by distinguishing the immediate and ordinary cognizance or judgment of matters of Religion which belongs to the Pastors of the Church defining and proposing them in order to our believing from that secundary judgment of the Sovereign Power in order to publick Establishment and free exercise of what we beleeve and receive upon the former evidence The judgment requisite to make the demonstration of truth out of Gods Word and to give out the Evidence belongs to the Ecclesiastick Pastors but the judgment requisite in receiving the Evidence is needful in all especially and upon a publick concernment in Princes that they may discern that nothing is propounded prejudicial to their just Rights or hurtful to their Subjects Also that they may be satisfied what is propounded as Faith and Worship to be according to the Law of Christ before they use or apply their Autority to the publick establishment of it This Judgment of the Prince I called Secundarie not to the prejudice of his Supremacie but to the acknowledgment of the immediat and ordinary judgment in matters of Religion belonging to the Pastors of the Church Secundary in the consideration
accordingly saith he this good Emperour did praescriptum Leonis secutus following the praescript of Leo. pag. 565. Now he makes the good Bishop speak and take upon him like one of the later Popes Well this agrees not with the humble supplication made to the Emperour but what saith he to the thing supplicated for that the Emperour would make void that Councel by a Decree to the contrary I cannot find any thing in Champney that answers to it but that Leo desired a suspension of the Decree and Judgment of the former Councel Which though short of that which is desired is enough to establish that Autority which we desire to vindicate to Kings and Emperours in matters of the Church without wronging or invading the Office of the Pastors of the Church for both the Emperour and they had their parts in this Action Champny in stead of giving us a good account of the former point thinks to cross us with another passage of the story Flavianus saith he the deposed Bishop appeals from the unjust sentence not to the Emperor but the Bishop of Rome and delivers his appellation to his Legats which was an acknowledgment of his being supreme Judg pag. 561. But this cannot be concluded in Champnys sense of Supreem Judg for it sounds nothing but the primacy of Order among the Patriarchs Flavianus delivered his appellation to the Popes Legats because they were present the Emperour was not because in order the Bishop of Rome was the first and because he knew that Leo was truly favourable to his cause and would commend it to the Emperour which he did and did it so as appealing himself to the next general Councel which the Emperour should gahter as we heard in his supplication to Theodosius Neither had the Bishops of Rome though chief Patriarchs the only or chief presidence in all the General Councels but according as the Emperour saw fit as appears by the acts of those Councels But to conclude In replication to that common answer of Romanists that Kings and Emperours in commanding about Church affaires did but follow the determinations of foregoing Councels Mason had told them that Queen Elizabeth for this power and Supremacy had the determination of a Synod under Hen. 8. by unanimous assent acknowledging it To this Champny replies What Authority had that Synod where the Bishops were compelled by fear to consent to that which they after voluntarily revoked under Queen Mary Or what Autority could a Snyod of the Bishops of one Kingdome have against the consent of the whole world p. 549. 550. But this of the consent of the whole world is only a brag and it is yet to be proved that the late usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was ever known to the Antient Church or ever received since through all the Christian world As for compulsion and defect of freedom which he notes for the nulling of the Autorty of a Synod we acknowledg the Doctrine good and say he gives us a just way of exception to the Councel of Trent and all or most of the Romish Councels that have been held under that usurped Papal Supremacy since Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh his time But we deny the application of it to the Synods under Hen. 8. See above cap. 2. Num. 3. concerning this allegation of fear and compulsion where there was cause to think the evidence of Truth compelled them considering what the most learned amongst them did voluntarily write against the Papal Usurpation And I cannot but here acknowledg the Providence of God so disposing of this business that the Papal supremacy or usurped Jurisdiction should be voted out of this Land first by the Popish party as I may call them and that they which had twice been sworn against the admitting of it again into this Land as many of the deprived Bishops had been under King Henry and King Edward and then voluntarily broken their double Oath under Queen Mary should be deposed under Queen Elizabeth for that very cause of asserting the Papal Supremacy CHAP. X. The Exception against our Bishops that they were not Priests Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministry committed to us men and of the Romish Presumption in assuming more HIs last exception against the Calling of our Bishops ever since the beginning of the queens time is because they were not Veri Sacerdotes truly made Priests Which saith he is such an Essential defect that it renders their Episcopal Ordination altogether invalid cap. 17. We grant it of Veri Presbyteri those that are not truly made Presbyters first cannot be true and complete Bishops But for his Veri Sacerdotes we say as there are no such Priests under the Gospel so is there no need that Bishops should first be made such for Priests in the Romish sense are such as in their Ordination receive a power of Sacrificing for the quick and the dead i. e. a real offering up again the Son of God to his Father And because we presume not to take this power therefore they usually reproach us that we have no Priests none that can consecrate or make the Lords body none that can absolve or reconcile Penitents As for our selves Our warrant for our Gospel Ministery we have sufficient warrant and Commission for the power we take and use in the Gospel-Ministry To Teach and Baptize S. Mat. 28. to Binde and to Loose S. Mat. 18. or to Remit and retain Sins S. John 20. and he hath given or committed to us saith Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.18 the Ministry of reconciliation which stands in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments VVhat the Romanists pretend for their Priest-hood Now if we ask them to shew their Commission for that power of Sacrificing they cannot direct us to any express Word of God but lead us about to seek it in the figurative and hyperbolical expressons of the Fathers from which they would force these two Propositions That there is such a real and external Sacrifice under the Gospel and That our Saviour Christ did really and truly offer himself up to his Father in his last Supper from whence they conclude If there be such a Sacrifice then are there Sacrificers and Priests If Christ offered up himself in his last Supper then so it is still for he bad Do this S. Luk. 22.19 I do not meane to follow Champny here step by step for the runs into the controversie of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass heaping up the sayings of the Fathers usually alleged by their Writers and as often answered and cleared by ours I shall not examine those savings particularly but stay upon some Generals which may in brief shew the meaning of that manner of speech the fathers commonly used in and about the celebration of the Eucharist The high presumption of the Romanists in taking to themselves such a power of Sacraficing and Their Vanity in reproaching us for not assuming it 3. VVhether Christ offered himself up in the Iast
or killing of Christ For as this is plainly impertinent to Lombards resolution of the question so is it to that which Bellarmine and all of them do and must grant that in a real Sacrifice there must be a real destruction or consumption of the thing Sacrificed and they are as hard put to it to shew this destruction or consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ as to shew his Occision for at last it comes to this with them that the Species of Bread and Wine under which they will have his body and bloud to be are destroyed and not his body indeed A fair reckoning This place of Lambard was cited by Mason and Champny perceiving as it seems the weakness of Bellarmines answer doth wisely take no notice of it altogether omitting to speak any thing to it But to my apprehension it is very considerable 1. Because it was the purpose and work of the Master of the Sentences to gather a body of Theologie or Resolutions to all Theological Doubts out of the Sentences of the Fathers and to this Quare of a Real Sacrifice he could draw out of them no other resolution then what we have heard 2. Because it is a clear evidence how this present Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching a real Sacrifice was not formed or believed so long after the age of those Fathers they so much boast of The summ of all is this The Fathers usually expressed the Celebration or work of the Eucharist by the Words of Sacrifice or offering up the Body of Christ for themselves and others because there was a Representing of the real Sacrifice of the Cross and a Presenting as we may say of it again to God for the impetration or obtaining of the benefits thereof for themselves and for all those they remembred in the Celebration of the Eucharist 9. Fourthly Of prayer and Offering for the Dead It is true that the Ancient Fathers speak of offering this Sacrifice for the dead but far from the Popish sense according to which Romish Priests in their Ordination are said to receive Power to offer Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead For that offering for the Dead which the Ancients speak of in the Celebration of the Eucharist had the same extent purpose and meaning that their prayers there for the dead had and these anciently were made for those whom they judged to be in bliss Apostles Martyrs Confessors Holy Bishops c. and the purposes of the Church in remembring those in her publick prayers were many as we find in the Ancient Writers especially Epiphanius Haer. 75. I may reduce them to these heads First They were Acknowledgments of the honor and preheminence of Christ above all men that all they stood in need of mercy and that he only was not to be prayed for but to be prayed to note all Invocation of Saints stood excluded then by these prayers for the Dead of the happy estate of those they prayed for that they lived with God Of their own hope that they trusted to attain to the same state of bliss Secondly they were Thanksgivings for their sleeping in the Lord. Thirdly Petitions for that which was yet behind for their consummation that which Saint Paul calls the Redemption of the body Rom. 8.23 the Crown of Righteousness to be given in the last day 2 Tim. 4.8 the Mercy which he prayes Onesiphorus may finde in that day 2. Tim. 1.18 The Arcient Prayer which is yet reteined in the Canon of the Mass sounds to this purpose Remember O Lord the Soules of thy Servants which rest in the sleep of Peace This prayer indeed seems to be framed with respect to that opinion which anciently was very common in the Church that the Souls of just men were not admitted into the sight and presence of God till the Resurrection but kept in Receptacles of Rest Peace and Light of blessed comfort and refreshment yet it tells us that which they prayed for them was in regard of all the mercy and glory that was behind And it is plain by the Writers of those times that this remembring of the Dead thus in the Celebration of the Eucharist which was the representation of Christs Sacrifice was that which the Ancients cald Offering for them or as in Saint Augustines time Offering the Sacrifice of the Altar or the Sacrifice of our Saviour for them i.e. an acknowledging of and thanksgiving for their sleeping pro dormitione as Saint Cypr. and others in the Lord and their saving by the merits of his death and an Impetration by his Sacrifice then represented of all that mercy redemption and glory which was yet behind Thus Saint Augustine in his Confessions speaks of Offering for his Mother Monica whom he doubted not to be in bliss i. e. remembring her upon the like respects The Romanists have applyed all prayers and Offering for the Dead to the Souls in Purgatory Romish misapplication of all to the Souls in Purgatory Bellarmine tells us the Mass may be said in honour of Saints and with invocation of them lib. 2. de Mis cap. 8. so contrary doth the Church of Rome now run to Antiquity which offered for and prayed for the Saints and both in the honor of Christ and his Sacrifice Now the Offering of their Mass and the prayers for the dead are made for the souls in purgatory and in regard of them only it is that the Romish Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice for the Dead And accordingly they are bound to apply the aforementioned prayer Remember O Lord c. to the Souls in Purgatory but so untowardly that Bellarmine answering for the Canon of the Mass could not with all his wit come off any better then thus They rest saith he from the works of sin though not from Torment So then to lie in Torment is to rest in the sleep of peace 10. Indeed in the fourth Century they began to inquire what benefit of the prayers and oblations of the Church might redound to them which were not in requie in rest and sleepe of peace but in aerumnâ in trouble and grief after this life The second Quaere ad Dulcitium is to that purpose where Saint Augustine saith that Paulinus had also consulted him about it Now to this Quaere they spoke their private opinions such as their compassion to the dead suggested Saint Augustine delivers his in that place ad Dulcitium in his Enchirid c. 109. and in his book de curâ pro Mortuis Which book was also occasioned by a like quaere put to him by Paulinus out of like curiosity Private conceits about a Purging fire Whether it was any help to the dead to have their bodies buried neer the Memories or Tombs of Martyrs Then also was enquiry made after some kinde of purging fire to help such as held the Foundation dying in the profession of Christian Faith but whose lives were not answerable as we may see by Saint Augustine Lib. de fide