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
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
agreement of theirs in yeilding Submission of belief and then it will not serve their turns to tell us when we charge them with disagreement in the grounds of their belief that they all agree in yeilding Submission c. For seeing Infallible judgment is the ground with them of that submission of belief and they cannot agree how that infallibility accrews or where it is to be stated in Councel Pope or partly in both the reasons of the one part being sufficient to destroy the other it must needs appear how much they disagree in and about the very ground-work of their belief They would think it strange to hear us say We and they do not disagree in the grounds of our belief because we both agree in these Generals That all Divine Revelation is to be believed yea All that is revealed in Scripture ought to be believed for if we enquire farther into the Means of conveying Divine Revelation we cannot admit Tradition in so careless and uncertain a sense as they do or if look into the Meaning of Scripture we cannot allow of their pretended Infallible Judg or Interpreter and they stick not to call us Hereticks for our disagreement with them So for their Principle in which they boast of their Universall agreement Submission to all that is defined if we enquire into the reason and ground of it Infallible Judgment in their definitions we find wide differences and contrary perswasions among them and Bell. could find in his heart to make them Hereticks that are against stating the Infallibility in the Pope and therefore call'd their Perswasion Haeresi Proxima next door to Heresie as we heard above and mark his reason there why it is not propriè haeretica fully and properly so Nam adhuc ab Ecclesiâ tolerantur They are still tolerated of the Church that hold it A reason why he might not speak as he thought He thought it Heresie no question but might not call it so for saving the Union of their Church Union and Agreement among Christians is to be sought for by all fair means and to be held upon all just grounds and in order to it Submission unto Autority is necessary and Toleration again from Autority may be sometime and in some things needful But the Church of Rome boasting of her Unity and the means she hath for it Infallible Judgment in her Definitions and thereupon requiring not only external or peaceable subjection but submission of belief may be ashamed for preserving of her Unity to tolerat such different perswasions or Doctrines so neer unto Heresie And this also shews the Vanity of what they farther say that the points they differ in as whether a Pope be above a Councel whether Infallible c. are not defined and therefore general submission of belief or uniform agreement is not required Why then say we is that Doctrine tolerated amongst them that is proxima Haeresi so neer to Heresie as we heard above Why is not that defined and stated which is the ground of believing all other things that are defined The reason is plain The Pope knows well enough if those points were defined one way they would not be generally believed and that it is better to have them instilled in privat into the minds of Men by his trusty Emissaries then to have them publickly defined and more for his advantage to have men brought to a perswasion of them in favoar of his power then to hazard the peremptory belief of them either way Other means there are the chains of force and policy to hold all together and I doubt not but many are kept from revolting whose Learning and Conscience shews them a more excellent way then that of the Romish Church 35. Some there are as I hear Of unappealable Autority of the more moderat sort of Romanists which will not now seem to contend for an Infallible Judgment in their Church but to be content with an unappealable Autority This may be good Doctrine at Paris but not at Rome and we may farther say that such Autority or Autoritative Judgment being rightly stated for it must be placed some where as it hurts not us so doth it not help them For 1. they forsake the ground-work or formall reason of their belief which is the Autority and Testimony of their Church and it must be either Infallible or not that thing into which their Faith can beresolved for albeit such an anappealable Autority may in some sort provide for External peace yet can it not certainly and finally stay belief 2. There may the same Objections be made against it which they usually reproach us with for want of that pretended Infallibility viz. That men are so left to their own reason That there is not without it sufficient means for Peace and Unity of which Sect. 8 9 10 11 13 14. of the former book for although when we dissent from that unappealable Autority in matter of Belief and Opinion we be not happily bound to discover it at least to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church as above said Yet if the error be in commanding somthing for Religious Worship as adoration of Sacrament or Images that must needs discover and shew it self in outward practise the unappealable Autority cannot secure the external Submission or compliance In Civil affairs indeed Vnappealable Autority may absolutely require externall Submission because by submitting to the wrong Judgment or Sentence of such Autority the things we recede from for peace sake are but Temporals and in our own power to dispose of but it is not so in the Matters of the Soul and Conscience in the poims of Belief and Worship in which we must have the Evidence of that which is confessedly Infallible to stay upon 36. But what if men will be perverse as we have seen in these dayes to pretend error superstition in Worship where there is none Who shall judge VVho shall judge They that so oft put this question to us cannot well resolve it themselves for who shall judge say we to them Pope or Councel they cannot agree it where the Infallibility rests and if either or both of them must judg shall their judgment be taken for Infallible Neither are they here resolved some contending for Infallible some content with Vnappealable Autority As for us we answer Unanimously The Church shall judg be it National or Universal and take order with such persons by the Church here we mean the Guides and Governours that have public Judgment and Autority in every National Church or in the Catholic assembled in a General Councel and by Judging we mean their defining or demonstrating the Truth according to the Infallible Rule of Gods Word and their Sentencing of Persons refractory to due punishment So the Church shall judg either to the convincing and satisfying or to the censuring and punishing of such Persons who are to answer unto God also for their disobedience For the Church or Public Autority
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
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
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
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
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
18. The gates of Hel shall not prevail S. Mat. 16. The spirit of Truth shall guide you into all Truth S. Joh. 16. and the like cannot be drawn to concern Councels but by many consequences and not at all to concern them in such an Infallible guidance as the Romanists would have 7. The assistance promised to them that meet in Christs Name Now to know the Importance of this place the promise and condition must be considered The promise of Christs being in the midst of them is made as we see to two or three even to the meanest Ecclesiastical meeting or Synod and therefore cannot assure that infallible guidance which among the Romanists is applied only to General Councels or to the Pope with his Consistory What then It must needs imply such assistance as is needful and sufficient Such as we acknowledg there can be no danger for any in the Church in submitting to her Definitions when and where such assistance is given 8. But for that we must look to the Condition required to be gathered together in the name of Christ viz. With due Autority from him and with mindes answerable to the end and purpose of their meeting that is with mindes free from worldly intents and designs and from all factious engagements seeking unfeinedly the glory of God and the propagation of the true Catholick faith and therefore setting before them the only Infallible Rule of Faith and Truth Gods Word attending to it with due heed and submission and with prayer for that is express in the Text to ask for assistance To such so gathered in the name of Christ the promise wil be made good and the issue wil be a declaration of the Truth in all matters of Belief and Worship 9. Now for our Submission The submission answerable were it certain they so met together in Christs name as it is certain the promise wil be made good to them if so met together no more would remain for us to do but to submit to their Definitions without any fear of danger or farther inquiry whether they be answerable to that Infallible Rule But we must needs say III. It is not certain that they which meet in Councels are so gathered together Sometimes it is certain and notorious that they are not as in the second Councel of Ephesius a packed faction prevailed to the advancing of the Entychian Heresy and in the Romish Councels for these later Ages the Papall power and faction hath managed and over-ruled all so apparently in their glorious Councel of Trent that it was often and openly complained of while the Councel was sitting and the decrees of that Councel not received in France for about 40. years after it was concluded Can we say such Councels are gathered in the Name of Christ or that the promise can belong to such and the Infallible assistance of Gods Spirit which the Romanists pretend can be given to such a company of Men so gathered together so overswayed with factious interests or to a Pope be he what he wil be for person so he be Pope For such to say Visum est Spiritui sancto nobi It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us what wants it of blasphemous arrogancy and what wants it of Simon Magus his sin to think the Holy Ghost can be bought with Money or bound to a Pope that hath bought his Chair and enters Simoniacally or to a company of Men whose Votes in Councel are purchased with Gold or golden hopes of preferment as it fared with a great part of them that met at Trent being either Titulars Popes Pensioners or bound to him upon like worldly concernments 10. But at the best where there is not evident cause of exception yet can there not be certainty that they which meet in Councel are so gathered in the Name of Christ with such minds purposes and endeavours as above required Now the Issue of the promise depends upon performance of the Condition of which performance though we may have a great presumption in regard of their learning and judgment and their high concernment as being answerable for mens souls besides the care and respect that God hath towards his Church yet can we not have such a certainty as simply and absolutely to ground submission of judgment and belief upon it and therefore we receive their Definitions concerning Faith and Worship not finally or chiefly upon the presumption we have of their performance or conformity to the condition of the promise but upon the evidence of that conformity which their Definitions have to the Infallible Rule It was the care of S. Paul and of the true Apostles and so it should be of all the Pastors of the Church by the demonstration of the Truth to commend themselves to every Mans Conscience that they have not handled the word of God deceitfully 2 Cor. 4.2 Upon this evidence or demonstration of Truth the Four first general Councels have been so generally submitted to so readily received by all good Christians 11. Submission and belief Conditionall and praevious or absolute and Final But fourthly lest that which is said of the Evidence and demonstration of Truth from Gods Word in order to assent or Faith be mistaken to a slighting of publick Autority and submission due to it because it may be also said and truly that such evidence made out of Gods Word by any man whatsoever requires and obtains such Assent we must know there is an Assent and belief properly due to the proposals of the Church or Doctrine of the Pastors and Teachers in it and that by vertue of their Office and Commission which they have to teach and rule others and that under so great a concernment as the giving account for their souls Only this Assent or belief is not at first absolute but conditional not final but previous and preparatory and so remains in the learner as a preparation till that Evidence or Demonstration come and advance it into a Divine Assent and final resolution grounded upon the revelation of Gods Word Or else it is Cashired upon the like Evidence to the contrary for we ought to submit and obey them til upon such Evidence we can say It is more right to hearken unto God then unto them Act. 4. and good reason seeing our submission to them stands upon their Autority and Commission which they have to teach and guide us therefore we must have a greater Autority against them from Gods word and seeing our judgment is not to be compared with theirs whose profession is the study or interpretation of Gods Word and whose lips preserve knowledge therefore we must have such Evidence of that greater Authority on our side that is apparent to any that can use his reason before we deny our submission to them But some may say if we cannot yeild submission of judgment and belief yet ought we to submit so far as not to publish it not to oppose
hath determined Indeed in matters of Discipline and Ceremony though in themselves of small concernment great opposition hath often been made to the judgment and determination of Autority of which I shal speak a litle below under the conformity of Practice in such matters and in the mean let us see what Cautions may be given in case of Privat Judgment justly dissenting from the Publike 14. Of concealing a dissent of Judgment in peaceable subjection If therfore it come to that as possibly it may yet for preserving of due submission take care 1. That our dissenting be not upon any comparing or equalling our privat judgment to the publique and autoritative judgment of the Church for this wil be absolutely against that conditional preparatory belief or assent with which we are to receive all her determinations but upon the evidence of a greater Autority on our side viz. the demonstration of Truth from Gods Word or primitive consent of the Catholique Church either of which is of more Autority then the present Governours of the Church 2. That the dissenting of privat judgment be only in order to a mans own believing and delivering of his own soul for which he is to give account not to any inconsiderate publishing of it to others for the light of Reason though it may not be put out yet may and often ought to be concealed and a mans privat judgment silenced in submission to the publique 3. If he publish or make known his dissenting it ought to be by modest proposal to his Superiours not by clamours against the Church to a disturbance of the peace of it much less by force or tumult as the manner of Sectaries hath usually been for if he cannot internally acquiesce in the judgment of the Church yet ought he to submit as far as possible externally and to suffer for it if need be 15. Whether in al Matters or Cases But here a question may be made about these matters in which we were said to have evidence of Scripture and Primitive consent if a Church should so far err as to judg contrary to these as for the error of Monothelites or Eutychians or for the worshiping of Images or any Creature with Religious worship must a man submit with silence in such a case I answer The Ministers of the Word being by that Church according to Gods Ordinance called to publish the Gospel and Counsels of God for salvation ought to propose their contrary judgment and belief to their Superiors so erring if they reform it is wel if not the other ought to declare these Counsels of God for in this case they have greater Autority as was said on their side and may say to the Governours of the Visible Church as the Apostles did to the great Councel Whether it be more right to hearken to you or to God c. Acts 4. And to this case I refer that other erroneous principle of belief the mother of Error and Apostacie that al the Members of the Church are bound to receive for Catholike Faith and Christian Worship all that the Church whereof they are Members proposes to them for such herein we had and all that are stil of the Roman Communion have cause to complain of that Church and to declare dissent of judgment from it which not only imposes Purgatory Transubstantiation and such novel errors for Articles of the Catholike faith and commands Image-worship as lawful and pleasing to God but also holds all the Members thereof bound to that former principle of mis-belief in a blind receiving all for faith and worship that shal be so proposed to them 16. The submiitting of Doctrine and Writings to the censure of the Church And this which hath been said will also speak the meaning of that submission which we profess to yeild when we usually say and not without cause We submit our Judgment Doctrine or Writings to the censure of the Church for 1. this is not a resignation of judgment in regard of believing but a submission in regard of the publishing it a putting it to the permission of the Church whether such Doctrine or Writings shall stand published or be silenced 2. And this not in all things simply for no Man can submit his Judgment and Doctrine to any Company of Men when he believeth and teacheth the prime Articles of Catholick Faith into which all Christians are baptized or the immediat consequences of them which are evident to all that can use Reason and Judgment or the express commands of God concerning Religious Worship but it is in things more questionable not plainly determined in Scripture and though deducible from some confessed Article or express Command yet by divers Consequences As in the first kind the Church hath power to silence and censure any that teach contrary to such Articles or Commandments but cannot forbid to teach them So in the second she hath power to silence any that teach contrary to her declared Judgment in them For it cannot be denyed that the Church hath power to over-rule and restrain the exercise of any mans Ministry in order to the common peace and safety she being answerable for others as wel as for him whom she restrains in publishing his private judgment or belief to others 17. Submission of Practise or Conformity in doing Thus much of Submission of Judgment in matters of Belief or Practice either in conforming to the Judgment and determination of the Church therein declared or in a fair and peaceable dissenting Now come we to Submission of Practice in a conformity of doing what the Church does and practises The Judgment we have of Matters either of belief or practice need not happily discover it self may for peace sake be silenced but in matters of practice determined by the Church and commanded to be done by us our conformity both in Judgment and Practice must needs then appear It was wel and peaceably said of Jo Frith a yong Man but Learned and Moderate in his Reply to Sir Thomas Moor concerning Transubstantiation Let it not saith he be Worshiped and think what you will for then is the Peril past Difference of judgment may be in a Church without disturbance In matter of worship but difference of practice because apparent endangers the peace of it And let me here add Notwithstanding the difference of judgment in the Protestant Churches de modo presentiae yet may they wel communicate together in the Sacrament because neither of them allow or practice that Adoration directed to the Sacramental Symbols which the Church of Rome practises and requires of all her Communicants or Spectators rather Now for Submission or Conformity in matters of practice we must remember such matters were of different sorts and concernments Worship Adoration Discipline Order Ceremony and then we have a double Caution 1. According to the indifferencie of the matter or the greater but evident concernment of it either to yeeld conformity for Peace sake
power under which it was before and so it was with the Church of England Reforming And all this a National Church may so much the rather do when the Universal stands so divided and distracted as it hath for these latter Ages that a free General Councel cannot be expected as was insinuated Sect. 4. of the former book 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgment in General Councels free and unquestionable doth not every National Church by name this of England ow submission of Judgment to them I answer as for matters of Faith and Worship there is no need that any National Church should dissent from any definition concerning that matter made or declared by any of the undoubted General Councels of the Church such as have not been justly excepted against and let any Romanist shew that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgment of such Councels either in matters of Faith or Worship 25. In Canons of Discipline Prudentiall Motives considerable As for Matters of Practice and Discipline under which I named Priests single life because they clamor against us as receding therein from the Catholick Church I may say generally of such points that the Church in them went upon prudential Motives and Reasons with respect to conveniences and inconveniences in those Times considerable and therefore we find it sometimes letting loose the Reins of Discipline sometimes drawing them streiter according to the Exigency of Times or condition of Persons As in those that enjoyn Priests single life Neither could they that made those Canons intend to bind the Church for ever which in after-Ages might have like cause upon experience of inconveniences to loosen that which they held stricter as we finde in the point of Penances and also in this very point of Single life if we look into the practise of it in several Ages and Countreys Nor was it necessary that this Remission or relaxation should alwayes expect the like Autority of Councels to decree it but it might be lawfully done by any National Church within it self upon long experience of the inconveniences and that especially when a free General Councel cannot be expected 26. As to this point of Priests single life I shall have occasion to speak more below against Champny cap. 6. here only I will hint these particulars I. It was conformable to the former Reason that Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope acknowledged often As at first they saw cause to forbid Priests Marriage so now there was greater cause to leave it free to them again Plat. in Pio. 2. II. The sixt General Councel in Trullo held in the seventh Century was the first General Councel that forbad Bishops to have or retein their Wives Can. 12. Where they excuse themselves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles which forbad Bishops to put them away by a pretence conformable stil to the former reason viz. because stricter Discipline was fitter for their times then it was for the beginnings of Christianity III. That General Councel doth permit Priests and Deacons to keep their Wives decreeing those to be deposed that cause them to forsake their Wives after ordination Can. 13. where the Councel expresly by name sets a black note upon the Roman Church for doing so and Can. 55. censures that Church again for their custom of Fasting on Saturdayes For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Councel as not General or Lawful yet the more reasonable among them admit of it and so we leave them to answer for their dissenting from a General Councel upon a double score as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons 27 But what tell we them of answering it to any Councel VVhat submission the Church of Rome exacts that will have the whole Catholick Church bound to submit to the decrees of their Church Let us see then what Submission the Church of Rome requires of all within her Communion and indeed of all Christians under pain of Damnation We may deliver it in general thus In all that she defines she requires or exacts rather absolute Submission of belief and judgment but then we say she cannot make good the ground on which she requires it viz. Infallible guidance In other things not Defined she requires submission of silence which she imposes on both parties as the heat of the controversie between them seems to require And this Submission we acknowledg due to Autority in every Church not only to the Autority of the chief Pastors in that Church but also of the Supreme Civil power this imposing of silence being not a Definitive sentence for determination of Doctrine but a suspending sentence for ceasing of the debate and providing for publick peace 28. In all things defined What strict submission of belief the Church of Rome requires to all her Definitions we may see by the Oath set out by Pius 4. to be taken by every Bishop wherein after the recital of the whole Romish Faith as it is patched up with the Tridentine Articles follows that very clause which we find in the Athanasian Creed subjoyned to the Catholick Faith there expressed Haec est fides Catholica extra quam this is the Catholick Faith without which none can be saved So that they which joyn themselves to that Church stand bound to believe all which that Church at present doth or shall hereafter propose to be believed Let them place the judgment of that Church where they will in the Pope or Councel 29. And absolute Submission Card. Bel. who according to the Divinity professed at Rome and more generally obtaining in that Church reduces all to the judgment of the Pope is very strict in exacting this submission of belief In his fourth book de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Popes Infallibility and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare sed simpliciter obâ—dirâ— It is not for Subjects or Inferiours to doubt of this matter viz. Whether the Pope can or doth erre but simply to obey And to shew the strength of this obligation the inconvenience that would fall upon the Church if the Pope be subject to erre in defining or commanding any thing to the Church he lets not to express it thus Si papa erraret praecipiendo c. If the Pope should erre in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vitia esse bona Virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare that Vice was good Vertue evill unlesse it would sin against conscience To mollifie the harshnesse of this he inserts presently in rebus dubiis as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubtfull Matters which as it is not all they say so is it to little purpose for if he please to judg the most apparent thing to be doubtful as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the people
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Prayers used challenges them to shew what they can except against it Vnless saith he it be because we reteined not your Oil Pall Staff c. which we account as humane inventions and not to belong to the substance or Essence of Ordination unless you can shew us them by the Word of God Champny answering the challenge first gives him a note in the Margent Scipsum jugulat He cuts his own throat and then tels us why because saith he Mason requires Scripture for these and all other things of us and yet cannot shew us their Forms in Scripture for where hath he in Scripture the words of their Ordering of Deacons Take thee power of executing the Office of a Deacon in the Church of God and so recites something of the Forms of the other two Orders p. 40â— c. Answ Our requiring of them Scripture for their whole Form doth not give us but them only the wound for they that make Order a Sacrament of the New Testament are bound to shew both the Matter and Form of their Sacrament in the writing of that Testament As for us it is enough to prove our Forms by Scripture to be answerable to the institution and purpose of the Order conferred either reteining the very Form of words delivered in Scripture as Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or applying from thence what may fitly express the intention and purpose of the Office and the designation of the Person Ordeined to it as in the ordering of a Bishop after Accipe Spiritum Sanctum is added out of Saint Paul Remember to stir up the grace which is in thee by imposition c. 3. We grant VVhat was of the substance of Ordination is reteined there is a certain Ceremony to be used according to the constant practise of the Apostles Imposition of hands and that a certain Form is to be used not certain for Words and Syllables it being not necessary to have it in all places and all times so certainly the same but for substance and meaning that in the conferring of Orders such Words be used as do aptly express the Institution purpose and intention of the Office and the designation of the person to it and such prayers withall as do expresly concern that sacred action in the imploring of help and grace And thus we maintain our Forms of Ordination to be conformable to Scripture and the Antient Church Neither hath Champny shewed nor can it be shewn that any thing is said or done in the whole action of our Ordinations not allowable by Scripture and purer Antiquity All that he can except is that we cannot shew our Words and Forms wholly set down in Scripture or punctually so used by Antiquity which as we heard we are not bound to shew or that we have left off their Unction and other Ceremonies which what Antiquity soever some of them may pretend to we say belong not to the substance of Ordination and therefore we stand not bound to use them for making our Orders valid but are at liberty for other good reasons to omit them as also many other things which being anciently well and conveniently used were after abused by Popish innovation And let them shew us if they can either that the Ceremonies they have clogged Baptism with were used by the Antient Church or that they now use all those which the Antient Church did Or let them say if they dare that either their Baptism is invalid because it hath not those Ceremonies the Antient Church used or that our Baptism is invalid because freed from many of the Romish Ceremonies Till then we may take leave to use the like freedom in refusing their Ceremonies in and about Ordination they being not of the essence and substance of it 4. Vncertainty of Romish Doctrine about Matter and Form of Sacraments and Ordination But Champny attempts to prove our Ordinations essentially deficient by wanting what is used in theirs and why because the whole Matter and Form of Ordination doth not saith he consist in the Imposition of hands and the Words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is all that we use This is the Brief of his 13. Chap. But foreseeing that he must acknowledg their own Authors agree not among themselves about the Matter and Form wherein their Sacrament of Order doth consist essentially he therefore first seeks to clear his way by laying down two Propositions First That the determinate Matter and Form of the Sacraments is not fully expressed in Scripture So pag. 412. Which how false it is of Baptisme and the Eucharist who sees not yet he instances in both In Baptisme saith he the Form of the Western Church is I Baptize thee in the name but of the Eastern Church thus Let the Servant of the Lord be Baptized in the name how impertinently this is who sees not for that difference toucheth not that part of the Form which concerns the Essence of the Sacrament viz. Baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which as it is fully expressed in Scripture so reteined in both Churches So saith he about the Form required in the Eucharist several questions have and may be moved What then if men will be either obstinatly perverse to question what is most plain in the Institution as the Romanists are in giving Bread only for the whole Matter of that Sacrament it makes not his proposition true Or what if some use several Words for the Form in delivering that Sacrament so they amount to no greater difference then the several expressions of it in the several Evangelists This is my blood of the New Testament Mat. 26. and This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Luk. 22. they touch not that which concerns the essence of the Sacrament 5. His second Proposition The Determinat Matter and Form of some Sacraments for example of Order is not so clearly delivered in Councels or the Monuments and Writings of the Fathers but that divers Opinions may arise about them and be defended with probability This whether true or false doth not greatly concern us But see we how he will make it concern us His Inference from it is this Therefore we must trust the Tradition of the Church he meanes the present Church of Rome for the whole Matter and Form and because we know not certainly in or by which Words or Actions the Sacrament is essentially perfected therefore we must not omit any of those words things or actions which the Church uses and in the whole comprehension of which their Authors all agree the whole Matter and Form of that Sacrament to consist pag. 413 414. But first This doth not prove that our Ordinations are certainly null and invalid as he pretended because we omit some things and Words which they use for they are not agreed whether it essentially consists in those we use or in those we omit but only concludes we cannot in their judgment be certain
Baptism and Order are of like consideration and therefore I would require a Reason why they pronounce not our Baptism null because not after their manner as well as our Orders A man would think that Champny in both these reasonings did imply we had not true Baptism but durst not say it positively for that had directly contradicted the practice of their Church which doth not re-baptize those that are baptized after our Form yea the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church which required no more to the Essentiall Form then what is expresly in Scripture Baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore did not re-baptize Hereticks that used the Form It is enough for us notwithstanding any thing that Champny hath said to Baptize as our Saviour appointed and to Ordein as we find the Apostles whom he sent as his Father had sent him to have done and taught though not altogether Ritu Romano as the Church of Rome doth and teaches most imperiously 10. But we must here take leave to look back to that he said above of Parker being not ordeined as Augustin the first Arch-Bishop was which if taken with the occasion of it may at first sight appear a seeming prejudice The occasion of it was from Mr. Masons saying That Mat. Parker the 79. Arch-Bishop after Austin had the happiness to be the first of that Number that was consecrated without the Popes Bul Pall and other superfluous accoutrements Hence Champny to the seeming disparagement of our Reformation infers Therefore his Ordination and so theirs that followed him cannot be derived from the Apostles if not the same that Austin delivered together with the Christian Faith to this Nation above a thousand years ago and as well saith he they may cast off Baptism which the same Austin delivered c. p. 479 480. But we may answer That the Popes Bul and Pall and other superfluities which Mason reflected on were of later date then Austins time for long it was after that ere the Popes Bulls and wild Beasts roared within this Land viz. after Gregory the 7. for then began the contention with Princes about investiture of Bishops from which time those Bulls also began to rage and did very much trouble this Land in that one particular of appointing the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in which regard we may well say with Mr. Mason it was a happiness to Mathew Parker to be the first that was consecrated without the Popes Bull not implying that all from Austin were so invested by the Pope but of all in that number who were consecrated after that usurped Papal investiture began he was the first that was clearly without it 11. As for that which Austin delivered either Baptism or Ordination we retein fully for substance and do thankfully acknowledg the benefit indeed some Ceremonies as in that Age the Church of Rome began to abound in them which he brought in and delivered in both we happily omit to use not because he delivered or used them but because the Church of Rome hath since abused them as above said This shews the vanity of Champny's inference that our Baptism and Ordination is not good or derived from the Apostles because not after the same form and manner peradventure according to some additional Ceremonies that Austin delivered to this Nation together with the Christian Faith Yea by vertue of that Ordination received which he delivered to us we can better prove our Ordination Apostolical then they can theirs for the Succession of Lawful Romish Bishops was much broken by unlawful intrusion of many Popes about the 9. and 10. Ages and after as appeared above when we spoke of Papal Antichristianism whereas our succession of Bishops being by Gregory the first derived to us from the Apostles before that unlawful usurpation and intrusion of many of their Popes together hath been continued among us without interruption 12. Presumptions from stories against the Ordination of our Bishops And now Champny goes on in his 13 Chap. to invalidate their Ordination by seeming probabilities or presumptions of the Nullity of it which the Romanists have sought all corners for and examined all passages of Stories Statutes clauses of Letters Patents which may concern the making or consecrating of our Bishops and this he calls his demonstration a posteriori beginning at pag. 428. Let us fee what weight there is in such not Demonstrations but Presumptions I should abuse the Reader too much to repeat and answer them all blowing therefore away the lightest I shall speak to those that may seem to carry any shew of probability And first he will prove it such is the strength of his presumption by the Judgment of Protestants themselves Ridley saith he at the stake humbly begged the Queen would be pleased to confirm the Leases he had letten as Bishop of London therefore he held himself not Lawful Bishop True it was his humble supplication to the Lord Williams of Thame that he would be a means to the Queen to do it and this was a Demonstration of his charity and conscionable respect to the Tenants not of his thinking himself not lawful Bishop he knew what they thought and judged of him not only that no Bishop but also no Bishop of London because of Boner then living and thereupon would be ready to quarrel at those Leases demised by him And so the Words which Champny cites out of Brook his reports do not contein the Sentence of judgment in this case but the plea that was pretended against such Leases because the Bishops that let them were not Ordained 13. His next Demonstration Boners plea. or Presumption is drawn from a story of Boner the ejected Bishop of London who for refusing the Oath of Supremacy tendred to him by Horn Bishop of Winchester was cited into the Kings Bench and answered that he refused the Oath because he that tender'd it had no power to do it being no Bishop The Judges thereupon consulted whether they should admit Boner to traverse it and concluded he ought to have leave to do it and to be acquitted the Court if he could prove Horn to be no Bishop then This out of Dier But saith he Boner was never after call'd to plead it whence he concludes they judged Horn to be indeed no Bishop Answer This is no Demonstration of the invalidity of his Ordination but of the Moderation and justice of those Judges that conteined themselves within the compass of their own profession not undertaking to determin whether the Form of Ordination was good or no and of their equity in allowing Boner the liberty of his plea how false soever his allegation was in it selfe and it was an argument of their prudence or of the Queens wisdome that held it more convenient to silence such a Bedlam Actor then suffer him to come upon the Stage who had more then once in King Edwards time so irreverently behaved himself with clamors and reproaches before the Kings
Bluet and Bluet from Master Neale and Master Neale from I know not whom nor he neither Only he tells us that one Master Constable received it from Stow himself who acknowledged so much in private but durst not publish it Be it on Master Constables account whether he wrongs Stow or no We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Proselytes withall But setting aside the public Records that shew the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained this story betrayes it self many wayes First in that it pretends Scory alone to have Ordained them for as Master Mason here noted who can imagine that the other three Barlo Coverdale and Hodskinson who desired the advancement of the cause should decline the Action especially when the Penalty was a Premunire according to the 25. of Hen. 8. cap. 20. or that Parker an Archbishop Elect would have been Ordained by one when the other three were in the Queens Letters for his Consecration as well as Scory and as willing and at hand Secondly that they should make choice of such a place a Tavern for so sacred an Action which would shew them to be Madmen and fitter for Bedlam then Bishopricks when as Churches and Chappels were open to them as Mason noted Champny pretends they knew Landaff would not be brought to their Churches Very like when he notwithstanding continued in the Church of England all his life time after and held his Bishoprick to his death but if he scrupled to come into our Churches why should they think he would meet them at a Tavern or why make choice of a Tavern rather then some other privat though common place The question then is whether Landaff was so good a fellow to approve of a meeting there or whether Champney was in Wine when he wrote this or the Reader will be such a Fool as to believe it As for Parker Grindal and the other who are thus defamed their lives and manner of Conversation before and after did sufficiently recommend them to all men for persons Learned Grave Sober Temperat Lastly let me observe how this story betrays it self in the strange Form of their Ordination and must either conclude those grave Personages to be Madmen again that having the Form of Ordination used in King Edwards dayes and commanded by the Law would or durst use any other especially so ridiculous one as is here reported or els condemn the raisers of this report of sensless impudency and the believers of it of notorious folly 4. But we are yet again call'd back to answer a Negative argument from John Stow who hath omitted to speak any thing of the consecration of this Archbishop And why should that be so strange Because Stow doth not usually admit any memorable thing done at London and all Chroniclers use to be very diligent in Recording all Innovations in States and this Stow was punctual in describing the reception consecration and enstalment of Card. Pool which yet was but after the wonted manner it is then very strange he should say nothing of the Consecrating of this new Archbishop after the New Fashion not seen in England before and the more strange this because Stow is known to have born great respect to Mat. Parker There must needs be other cause of such wilful silence besides forgetfulness to this purpose he pag. 503 c. As for Card. Pools reception and consecration Stow doth not fuse describere describe it at large as Champny sayes but only mentions it as done and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shewn at the entrance or entertainment of Princes I marvel he did not enlarge himself in relating the manner how this great Cardinal such a special person comming upon such a special errand with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdome to the Chu of Rome was received consecrated and enstalled which no question was set off with all the holy Pageantry of the Romish pomp Whereas the Consecration of Protestant Bishops being now more simply and homely though more Apostolical with few but innocent Ceremonies did not afford matter so much for a Chronicle as a Register One thing more was special in the Cardinals entrance which Stow notes The same day saith he that Docter Cranmer his predecessour was burnt the Cardinal sang his first Mass A good beginning One was burning the other singing But what if Stow professed so much respect to Archbishop Parker was this the only kindness he could do his friend to tell the Kingdom what it knew that he was Archbishop That respect and honour he bore the Archbishop if he had meant to shew it would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal vertues and endowments which seeing he hath not once mentioned why should we marvell at his silence in the other And could there be done any thing at London more memorable and of more concernment in the way of the Church or a greater innovation in Champney's judgment then the first Synod held in the Queens reign where Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion drawn up in 39. Articles was concluded and published yet is it not once mentioned by Stow. It is the business of State not of the Church which affords work for this and other Chroniclers 5. The Consecration of Bishop Scory and Coverdale Next he endeavours to prove that Scory and Coverdale two other Ordainers of Parker were not consecrated themselves either after the old Roman or new English way and thinks he convinces it evidently thus The Ordinals saith he or old way of consecration were abolished by the Parliament of 2. and 3. of King Edward The new Form established by the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of the same King but the two former Ordainers were consecrated according to Masons records Aug. 30. 1551. that is five months before the new Form was set out and therefore by no Form in force even according to the Laws of this Realm So he pag. 510. This argument at the first appearance seems pressing and Champny doth not a litle set by it By what Form From hence saith he inevitably it is concluded that those two were never consecrated indeed and therefore not Parker as is pretended whereupon he concludes Masonum protervum inverecundum that Mason was obstinately shameless in avouching Parkers due consecration pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a meer mistake either through his inadvertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes or his wilfull concealment of what he did see The case stands thus It is true that the Ordinals are named with other superstitious books and with them abolished in the Parliament of 2. and 3. of Edward 6. and true also that the form of Ordination after agreed on was confirmed in the Parliament of the 5. and 6.
offenders against the Queens Majesty and their own Office 3. Their refusing to Crown the Queen For if it be the Office of the Bishops of this Land to crown the undoubted Prince what do they deserve who having acknowledged Her Right in Parliament declared by the mouth of the Archbishop of York then Chancellour and at Her coming to London been all of them except Boner graciously received by Her and admitted to kiss her hand do after upon pretence of Religion refuse to set the Crown upon Her head Again when it was Her desire and purpose to have the exercise of Religion setled as it was in King Edwards dayes and might have done it upon the same Evidence and Warrant of which above cap. 2. yet she caused a Conference between the best learned on both sides to be held at Westminster A Conference appointed the Parliament then sitting for the satisfying of persons doubtful and for the knowledg of the Truth in matters of difference that so there might be some good and charitable agreement These are the words of the Queens Declaration Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament for the better satisfying their judgments in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon as it is there also specified 4. The Popish Partie thought it at first reasonable and by the Arch-bishop of York gave their answer that they were ready to render an account of their faith and did accordingly choose some Bishops with other Doctors to be Actors in the Conference Their obstinat perversness and agreed to the Orders set down for the more quiet and effectual managing of the business But the very first day it appeared they meant not to stand to the Order first agreed on which was to give in writing to the other party what reasons and proofs they had for each point whereof being fairly admonished by the Lord Keeper who was appointed Moderator of the Action not to judg of the Controversie but to see to the orderly proceeding and by other Lords they promised to give in the next day what was said by Doctor Cole in their behalf and what they had farther to say but that day being come they would neither one way nor other neither by writing nor speech declare what they had to say but only returned them this answer The Catholic Faith is not to be call'd in question And this was the issue of that Conference the passages of which are punctually set down in Stow. 5. Now if it be the Office of Bishops to teach all things commanded by Christ as we find Champny arguing for them out of S. Mat. 28.20 against the Regal Supremacy in his 6. chap. and to shew us that he hath commanded them If a Bishop must be by Saint Pauls Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach which implies not only Ability of which other Bishops who ordain him must judg but also Readiness to teach of which the Queen and whole Parliament who in vain expected it from them might very well judg what then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready nay obstinately refused to do it when their Soveraign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready and desirous to hear For the satisfying of their judgments and consciences and for the bringing about some good and charitable agreement What can we I say conclude of them but that they highly offended against the Queen and whole Kingdome and against the duty of their own Office being also self-condemned in wilful receding from the Orders they had agreed to as most reasonable The Protestant party were ready to say with Saint Paul we commend our selves to every mans conscience by the manifestation of the Truth 2. Cor. 4.7 But the Popish party did in effect say with the proud Pharisees This people know not the Law are cursed S. Jo. 7.49 and so leave them in their ignorance 6. Add to this their obstinate opposition to all reforming of Worship and Religion from such evidenced Errors and corruptions as Image-Worship Prayers in an unknown tongue Communion under one kind If any of the Preists had withstood the reforming and purging of the Temple undertaken by Hezekiah and Josiah and not consented to the restoring of the due worship of God or to serve in the Temple according to that Form of Worship had it been just to continue them in the Priests Office or to remove them And was there any reason that the Queen according to the power given Her of God undertaking the reformation of Religion and Worship should continue those as Pastors in the Church which refused to teach or give a reason of their Doctrine or to accord to any reformation of the known abuses in Gods Worship or to serve in the Church according to the form of Worship duly established 7. Now lest any should think the like might be answered by those that some years ago cast out our Bishops as opposers of their Reformation I must still remember the Reader they cannot make the like defence for their pretended Reformation whether we consider the Abuses to be Reformed or the Autority by which in neither of these was their attempt answerable to that just Reformation that cast out Popery and some of the Popish Bishops as above seen c. 2. To these two particulars of their not Crowning the Queen and nor holding the Conference Champny in his 15. Chap. pag. 534. replies 1. That neither of these was objected to them and therefore no cause of their deprivation But this is more then he can affirm and altogether improbable considering their presumptuous disobedience and I find in Stow that upon their abrupt breaking up the Conference White and Watson the two Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were immediatly sent to the Tower for their extraordinary peremptoriness and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queens Councel save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster who only shewed himself reasonable and very willing to have the Conference go orderly and peaceably on and therefore had his Liberty Neither is the question here what was objected to them but what they deserved The objecting of their refusal of the Oath was enough for their deprivation by the Statute newly Enacted yet their presumptuous demeanour in the other particulars was no small aggravation of their offence and might be too of the Queens just displeasure against them 2. Champny allegeth two examples the One in relation to the Conference the Other to the Crowning the first is of Saint Ambrose that refused to dispute with the Arrians But this is far wide from the business in hand whether we look at the Subject Matter of the dispute which with Saint Ambrose was a chief fundamental point the Deity of our Saviour Christ and newly declared in a General Councel with us the Subject of the Conference were certain points which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the
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
of Direction which it supposes to be received from the Pastors of the Church not Secundary in consideration of Autority which commands them first to the work requires an account of it and confirms publicly what is evidenced by them to be according to Christs law 24. We should now see what he answers to Masons instances of Emperours and Kings dealing in Ecclesiastical matters but first examine we a reasoning of his in the latter part of his 16. Chapter which he falls upon by occasion of an objection that Mason had made to himself and improves so far in his own conceit that he challenges any Protestant to return him an answer which notwithstanding may well be answered out of that which hath been said already Out of the Objection which Mason had made Supremacie makes not the Princes will the Rule of our Faith he frames his first reasoning thus If Princes be Supreme in spirituall things then are their Subjects bound to obey their command in all matters of Faith and Religion for as S. Paul saith every soul must be subject to the higher or Supreme Powers and bound to obey in all things in which they are supreme who sees not the absurdity that would follow But it is easie to answer by distinguishing active and passive obedience for should we make them as supreme in Ecclesiastical things which we do not as they are and as Champny will acknowledg them to be in civil matters we could no more be bound to obey them in all their commands about matters of Religion then we are in all their commands in and about Civil things but in these if they should command a Subject to bear false witness that Subject is not bound to obey actively but to subject passively 25. Much to this purpose had Master Mason solved the like Objection and Champny goes on to improve his Reasoning and replyes So to answer is altogether impertinent because the Protestants cannot give any certain Rule whereby Subjects may know whether the Prince in rebus Controversis in controverted points of Religion command according to Truth or no. For example The King of England forbids the Mass c. The King of France commands it How shall the Subjects of either know whether of the two commands for the Truth and how could the Protestants know that Hen. 8. commanded against Truth when he enjoyned the Six Articles If they say as usually his Commands are according to Truth that are conformable to the holy Seriptures they stil stick in the same dirt as not able to give any certain Rule whereby to know which Commands are conformable to Scripture Answer Rule of our Faith◠All this proceeds upon the former mistake of that Supremacy which we attribute to the Sovereign Prince in matters of Faith and Religion as if we gave him what properly belongs to the Pastors of the Church Whereas in asserting his Supremacy we suppose it their office to evidence what is Truth and what is conformable to Scripture and that in Order both to our and his believing And the Means of it But more particularly We acknowledg a certain Rule more certain then the Papists can or will do and that is Scripture Now if still we be asked for a Rule whereby to know what is conformable to Scripture We say that having a certain Rule as before there remains no more to do but to have evidence of it and for that we have not so much a Rule as Means The same that the Church alwayes had the Doctrine of foregoing Ages and of our present Teachers The same that the Jews had the Teaching and direction of those that sat in Moses Chair S. Mat. 23. those whose Lips were to preserve knowledg and at whose Mouth they were to seek the Law Mal. c. 7. The same that our Saviour left in his Church for that purpose Pastors and Teachers that we should not be carried about with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 3.4 The same that Champny the Romanists pretend to contend for in this business These we say are not the Rule but the Means or Ministers by which we believe Cor. 3.9 according to the demonstration of Truth commending themselves to every mans Conscience 2 Cor. 4.2 26. Now seeing our Saviour bids them do what those which sate in Moses Chair said unto them S. Mat. 23. and it is certain they did not teach infallibly or truly in all things for which Stella and Maldonate on the Gospel and Espensaeus once a Docter of the Sorbon on Mal. 2.7 give us this limitation Eatenuus audiendi quatenus legem Mosis docent They were so far to be heard and obeyed as they taught what indeed was the Law of Moses I would ask of Champny what Rule then had men to know whether the Scribes and Pharisees taught that or their own Traditions but the evidence they made of the thing taught out of the Law He must answer according to the Romish way The Doctrine of the Church was their Rule But then the forementioned Authors should have said quatenus docent secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae so far forth as they teach according to the Doctrine of the Church and not have limited the matter as we Protestants do quatenus legem Mosis docent so far forth as they teach according to the Law of Moses Also those teachers Scribes Pharisees could say they taught according to the Doctrine then obteining in the Church yea and could say Dictum Antiquis it was so said by them of old S. Mat. 5. as well as any Romanist can yet our Saviour did not admit that Rule but refuted their corrupt Doctrines by Evidencing the true meaning of the Law S. Mat. 5. 27. VVhat certain Rule the Romanists can pretend to Again Champny tells us not what certain Rule they have but it must be such as I insinuated the Judgment or Doctrine of their Church Now seeing their Church must speak her Judgment by her Pastors and supremely by Pope or Councel We ask in which they place this certain Rule He and his fellow Sorbonists are for a general Councel which they set above the Pope with power to judg and depose him we leave them to answer this to the Jesuites and other more devoted Creatures of the Pope but let him answer us how he and his Sorbonists can attribute that to a Councel and yet with the Jesuites make the Pope Supreme Head of the Church as he often insinuates in this discourse which should imply the Supreme judgment in him according to Champney's arguing against that Title here attributed to the Kings of this Realm Let them place their supposed certain Rule where they please we finde those of the Romish Communion following the evidence they had of Truth against the Popes judgment or any pretended Hildebrandine Doctrine or determination of their Church The Venetians stood out resolutely against the Interdict of Pope Paul 5. maintaining their right in that cause though Ecclesiastical which was a branch
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