the main purpose of the Reformation was to cut off the superstitious innovations of the Romish Church and stiâ—k to the Christian simplicity and gravity of the Primitive Apostolic Church This will appear evidently by comparing the present form of Ordination used in the Church of England with the most qualified of ancient formularies established in the fourth Council of Carthage celebrated by 214. Fathers whereof St. Augustine was one in the year 398. Honorius and Arcadius being Emperours of which Council Baronius gives this honorable Character Extitit hujusmodi Carthaginense Concilium veluti Ecclesiasticae promtuarium disciplinae non quidem recens inventae sedantiquioribus * Baron An. 393. n. 68. usu receptae atque ad pristinam consuetudinem revocatae This Council of Carthage was as it were a treasure of Ecclesiastic Discipline not newly invented but used by the ancient and restored to the former custom He adds that this Council was taken as a pattern by the other Churches both Eastern and Western I have perused carefully this Council and conferred it with our form of ordination set down in the Book of Common Praiers as also with the form of Ordination used in the Roman Church as contained in their latter Poâ—tifical published by Autority of Pope Clement the 8. printed at Rome in the year 1595. Clement complains of many errors crept into the former Pontificals and purposes to mend them in this latter according to the rule of ancient integrity for which purpose it seems no better rule could be taken then the foresaid Council of Carthage for the reasons aforesaid of Baronius Now if we shew that our form of Ordination is more agreeable to that of the Council of Carthage then the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical we shall prove that we stand for the most warrantable antiquity and consequently for right in this point I will not dispute now about those called inferiour Orders in the Roman Church both because none will pretend them to be essential to Church Discipline and the duties appropriated to them are performed in both Churches sometimes by persons constituted in no order and sometimes by those in sacred Orders I will therefore only treat of the three sacred orders proposed by Suarez out of Optatus Milevitanus as necessary to the constitution of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to wit Bishops Priests and Deacons And beginning with Deacons the said Council in the fourth chapter hath only these words Diaconus cum ordinatur solus Episcopus qui eum benedicit manum super caput illius ponat quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur When a Deacon is ordained only the Bishop who blesseth or ordaineth him is to lay his hand on his Head because he is not ordained to Priesthood but to ministery Here we have three things declared the Minister the matter the order the Minister is only the Bishop the matter or the exteriour sign is the imposition of hands the form is not described in particular but is included in the word benedicit for to bless here is nothing else but to pronounce the words by which the power of this order is conferred to the Person ordained all which is exactly performed in the Ordinationof Deacons by the Church of England as we have seen in the Chapter precedent Now touching the Ordination of Priests the Council decrees thus Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput illius tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manus Episcopi super Caput illius teneant When a Priest is ordained the Bishop blessing him and laying his hand on his Head the Priests present are likewise to lay their hands on his Head together with the Bishops hands Of this decree likewise the Church of England is as observant as the Roman is negligent for in their present Pontifical above mentioned of Clement the Eighth I see no mention made of what the Council decrees that the Priests present should lay their hands together with the Bishops hands upon the Head of him that is to be Priested and their practice goes accordingly But in lieu of this ceremony decreed by the Council of Carthage I find many others substituted in the foresaid Pontifical of which the Council makes no mention such as those about the amict albe girdle maniple stole cope candles crosses oil and the like And which is more remarkable the Council makes no mention of that great and chief ceremony used in the Roman Church and appointed in the aforesaid Ponâ—ifical and wherein some of their Authors will have the very essence of Priestly ordination to consist as we have seen above out of Bellarmin that the Bishop is to deliver to the person to be Priested after having anointed his hands with holy Oil the Chalice with wine and water and the Patin over it with the hoast or wafer saying Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam per defunctis Receive power to offer sacrifice unto God and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead If this ceremony were so essential or the power of sacrificing were so inherent to Priestly ordination as the present Church of Rome will have it to be certainly that grave and venerable Council of Carthage would not have passed it over with so deep a silence when it descended to particularize the duties and performances of inferiour Ministers not so necessary as those of Priests as may be seen in the ensuing Chapters of that Council from the fifth chapter forward Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops the aforesaid Council of Carthage has these words Episcopus cum ordinatur duo Episcopi ponant teneant Evangeliorum Codicem super Caput cervicem ejus uno super eum fundente benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis Caput ejus tangant When a Bishop is ordained let two Bishops put and hold the Book of the Gospels over his head and neck and one blessing him let all the other Bishops that are there present touch his Head with their hands Here three things are required the giving or placeing of the Book the imposition of hands and the blessing to be given whereof the placeing of the Book is no essential part as * Vasquez in 3. p. disp 240. w. 63. Vasquez declares and so both Churches deviate somthing from the form mentioned for if we are to believe Vasquez and the Pontifical he quotes the Book of the Gospel is put upon the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated not by the Bishops consecrating but by one of the Chaplains and he relates out of Pope Clement that anciently it was performed by the Deacons who are no Ministers of this Order Neither do I find by Mr. Mason that the Pontifical he saw do's contradict what Vasquez saies yet I find it otherwise in the Roman Pontifical forementioned of Clement the Eighth to be seen
posterity with false records And on the other side the Romish party is found guilty by uncessant experiences of aspersing without measure or regard of truth the protestant cause and all defenders of it Whereof the story of Ordination at the Nags-head confidently revived of late by one of a great calling and confuted to his shame and confusion by the Lord Primate Bramhall may be a conspicuous evidence To which I could add not a few more of my own experience and certain knowledg They got a great Person to relate in Dublin that I was struck Dumb at making of my Declaration in the Church of Cashel and that I fell suddainly Dead soon after going in the Street A miracle I suppose is put by this time into the annual letters of Rome and Indies to terrify others from following my Example An other Person of like quality was emploied to testifie that after my foresaid Declaration made at Cashel an extraordinary concourse of People being present at it I went to a Noble-Mans House where my habitation was formerly and said Mass in it whereas I was not out of the Arch-Bishops company from that day until I came to Dublin with a considerable number of Men and Arms to guard me And after some Months constant retirement in the Colledg of Dublin without ever lying out of it or going abroad but seldom to the Castle and few houses of the chief Prelates and Nobility an Irish Papist told confidently to one of my Lord Chancellors Gentlemen who related it to me after that he saw me few daies before saying Mass at Kilkullen Bridg where I was not in some years before that time after my public Sermon of Recantation at Dublin and the Gentleman asking how that could possibly be so I being in their sight and company and never out of Dublin all that time he took a Book into his hand and swore by it that what he said was true At this very instant it hapned that I should come out of Christ-Church from Praiers in company of an other Gentleman of the Colledg and my Lord Chancellors Gentleman seeing me asked of the swearer whether he did know me if he saw me he answered yea and asking whether I was of those two that went by he said no. But being told I was one of them he confessed that he never saw me before So punctual as this are their reports of us If they were but seldom we might take them for mistakes but seeing them so frequent and continual we have too much ground for suspecting a set purpose of imposing upon us especially their most creditable Doctors teaching them that t is lawful to raise false testimonies in defence of their credit that their opposers may not be believed The authors of this godly Doctrine confessors and Preachers to Emperours and Princes you may see quoted by John Caramuel Titular Bishop of Misia in Theologia fundamentali fundamento 55. n. 1589. This being so it appears how little credit is due to their testimonies against our cause and persons I premise secondly that by sacred orders a character indelible is given to the person ordained whether Bishop Priest or Deacon that is to say a spiritual sign or ability to certain functions uncapable of being taken away by humane power or accident So t is defined in the Council of Trent sess 7. can 9. Si quis dixerit in tribus sacramentis Baptismo sc Confirmatione Ordine non imprimi characterem in anima hoc est signum quoddam spirituale indelibile unde ea iterari non possunt anathema esto If any shall say that in these three Sacraments Baptism Confirmation and Order a character is not left in the Soul viz. a spiritual and undelible sign which is the cause they may not be repeted let him be anathema It is not my present business to dispute with the Council upon what account it calls Confirmation and Order Sacraments but to note that by it is defined that sacred orders do leave a character indelible and that they ought not to be reiterated upon the same person The same Doctrine is delivered again in the 23. sess 3. can of the same Council adding that who was once a Priest can never be made a Layman And in the eighth Council of Toledo cap. 7. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius the 4th in decre de unione Hence follows saies Bellarmine that no superiour power can hinder a Bishop from confirming and ordaining if he pleases to do it And Peter Sotus saies that doubtless no Heresie excommunication or even degradation takes away the power of Orders tho the use of them may be unlawful so as tho a Heretic excommunicated or degraded person sin in giving Orders or administring Sacraments yet the actions are valid for where such a character is saies Bellarmine God in force of a Covenant doth concur to produce a supernatural effect to wit to give an other Character even Episcopal * Bellarmine de confir cap. 12. * Peter Soto lect 5. de inst Sacer. lin 5 fol. 279. edit diling an 1560. * Ubicunque est talis character Deus ex pacto concurrit ad effectum supernaturalem producendum Bellar. de Sacramentorum effectu lib. 2. c. 19. These two premises supposed for examining the matters of fact which is the ground and foundation of this work we are to rely upon the public authentic Records of the Church of England faithfully produced by Mr. Francis Mason and truly examined at the request of Mr. Fitz Herbert who seeing a mortal wound given to the Romish calumnies against the lawful ordination of English Clergy by this narrative of Mr. Mason desired that those Records related by Mr. Mason should be shown to some learned persons of the Romish communion which was accordingly don by the most Reverend Father in God George Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who having read this challenge in Fitz. Herberts Book called to him Mr. Collington then reputed Archipresbyter Mr. Laithwait and Mr. Faircloath Jesuits and Mr. Leagume a secular Priest All these being brought before the Arch-Bishop the 12. of May 1614. in presence of the Right Reverend Bishops of London Dunelm Ely Bath and Wells Lincolne and Rochester the said Records were given to them to see feel read and turn and having considered all exactly they declared that no exception could be taken against that Book in their opinion and the Arch-Bishop desiring them to signify so much by letters to Fitz Herbert they promised to do it as Mr. Champney relates the story And the same Records are at this day and alwaies to be seen if men will not be satisfied otherwise then by eye-sight Fitz Herbert Append. n. 13. The Records produced by Mr. Mason being thus justified we will take our measures by them to cleer this point First our adversaries allow us that the Bishops ruling in England at the beginning of Henry the Eighth his Reign were lawful Bishops and legally ordained according to
in the Library of Dublin University where it is ordered that the Bishop consecrating together with the Bishops assisting to help him do place the Book over the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated without saying any word one of the Chaplains of the Bishop elect kneeling behind him and holding the Book until it be given to his hands and then the Bishop consecrating and the other Bishops assisting him do touch with both their hands the head of the Bishop elect saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Receive the Holy Ghost And in supposition that the mode of placeing the Book is not essential to this Ordination certainly the form prescribed by the Church of England in this particular is very decent and apposite to the purpose of this action the Arch-Bishop or other Bishop consecrating delivering the Bible to the Bishop consecrated saying give heed unto reading exhortation and Doctrine with other wholesome admonitions touching his pastoral duty Now touching the essential parts of this ordination which do consist in the imposition of hands as matter and the benediction or words pronounced by the Bishop consecrating as form the Church of England is exact in observing the form prescrib'd by the foresaid Council of Carthage since it orders that all the Bishops present should lay their hands upon the Bishop elect and only the Arch-Bishop or Bishop consecrating should bless or pronounce the words of the form saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Châ—st Here the Roman Pontifical deviates from the foresaid form prescribed by the Council of Carthage ordering that both the Bishop consecrating and the Bishops assisting should pronounce the words of the form saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum By this we see how exact the Church of England is in observing all the essential and necessary parts and ceremonies prescrib'd by that renowned Council of Carthage for the ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons As for other ceremonies not essential the Council of Trent it self declares that even in the administration of Sacraments whereof they will have Orders to be a part they may be altered by the Church as the condition of matters times and places may require Neither is this to be understood of the Church Universal congregated in a general Council only but also of each particular Church whence proceeded the great variety of Rites in things indifferent amongst the ancient and even modern Christians of several places and orders approved by that grave sentence of a Lib. 1. Epist 41. Gregory the Great in una fide nihil ossicit Sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa And as the Roman Church upon this account introduces new rites why may not that of England abolish others especially such as are found to be superstitious for which the b Distinct 63. Quia Canon law giveth this warrant Docemur exemplo Ezechiae frangentis serpontem aeneum quae in superstitionem vertuntur illa sine tarditate aliqua cum magna autoritate à posteris destrui posse We are taught by example of Hezechias that such things as turn to superstition may be without delay and with autority extirpated in after ages As a good husband cuts off not only rotten but superfluous branches that may suck away the sap from the main tree so any Church that is free and independent such as this of England is may cut off superstitious and superfluous rites and ceremonies which by their multiplicity may distract both the Ministers and Congregation and take their attention from the main object of their devotion And certainly who ever considers the vast number of ceremonies used now by the Roman Church and prescribed in their Pontifical will find it a task not easie for even a good capacity to comprehend and practice them all and very hard to think of elevating the mind withall to praier or meditation CHAP. VIII How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination wherein they differ and how absur'd the pretention of Romanists is that our difference herein with them should annul our orders AS the Church of England did not think convenient to follow that of Rome in all their superfluous ceremonies especially such of them as are noxious and opposite to the sincerity of Christian discipline so it do's not grudg to go along and conform with them in what they retain of ancient integrity In many things we agree with them First that only Bishops are to give Orders Secondly that none be promoted to Orders without the title of a benefice or sufficient patrimony which is far more exactly observed in the English then in the Romish Church Thirdly that the persons to be Ordained be examined as to behaviour and ability Fourthly that certain times and daies are appointed for Ordination Fifthly that the persons to be ordained ought to appear in the Church Sixthly that they receive their Orders on their knees Seventhly that they receive the Communion All this is commonly observ'd in both Churches but more exactly and indispensibly in the English as to Orders in general Now as to particular Orders we agree in the following points as to Deacons First that the Arch-Deacon presents them to the Bishop Secondly that the Bishop enquires of the Arch-Deacon whether he knows them to be worthy of that Order Thirdly that the Bishop admonishes the Congregation that if any person has any thing to say against them he should declare it Fourthly that the Bishop instructs them in the duty they are to perform Fifthly that litanies are said and the Bishop exhorts the Congregation to pray for the Persons to be ordained that they may be fit Ministers in that sacred Order Sixthy that the Bishop gives them the Book of the Gospels and power to read them in the Church of God Seventhly that one of the Deacons newly ordained should read the Gospel Herein we agree But we differ from the Roman Church First where they add to the litanies the invocation of Saints and Angels Secondly where power is given to the Deacons to read the Gospels for the dead Thirdly that what is not expresly delivered by the Roman formulary is more clearly expressed by the English As for example the Order of Deacons in the former is given by these words Receive the Holy Ghost for power to resist the Devil and his temtations in the Name of the Lord which being too general and common to all Christians is made more proper and apposite to the function of Deacons by these other words used in the English ordinal Receive autority to exercise the work of a Deacon in the Church of God committed to thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Fourthly that we redâ—ce the tedious variety of vestments and ceremonies used in the Roman Church to
as were most commonly used in this Realm of England in the last Year of King Henry 8. should be used and frequented through the whole Realm of England and all other the Queens Dominions and no other in any other manner form or degree The makers of this statute were of opinion that Holy order was a Sacrament and therefore was administred in Queen Mary's time as in King Henry's They will not pretend that any form essential was omitted in Queen Mary's time and consequently must say the same of Orders given in King Henry's reign What Bishops when and by whom they were consecrated during King Henry the 8. his time Mr. Mason relates out of the public Records as Thomas Cranmer in the Year 1533. as above mentioned next after Rowland Lee Conse B. of Lichfield 14. of Apr. 1534. by Thom. Canterb. John Lincoln Christ Sidon George Brown Con. Arch-Bish of Dub. 19. Mar. 1535. by Thom. Canterb. John Roffens Nichol. Sarum And so of the rest until the year 1545. every one being consecrated by three Bishops and with the usual ceremonies and the great penalty of premunire being denounced by Act of * 2 5. Henr. 8. c. 20. Parliament against any Bishop consecrating or consecrated otherwise CHAP. VI. The ordination of Bishops Priests and Dâ—acons in King Edward the Sixth his time and after proved to be legal and valid THe greatest opposition is against the ordination of our Clergy since the Reformation of the ordinal a Vasquez to 3. in 3. p. disp 240. c. 5. or ceremonies of ordination in time of King Edward the sixth of which Kellison speaks thus in King Edwards time neither matter nor form of ordination was used and so none were truly ordained Against this rash and slanderous censure of Kellison I will produce the testimony of Vasquez and Bellarmine men of greater credit and knowledg touching the matter and form of ordination Vasqu declares the matter of Episcopal ordination to be only the imposition of hands and the form those words receive the â—oly Ghost which are said by three Bishops together relates Major and Armilla for the same opinion proving it first out of Scripture 1 Timot. IV. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Out of which place b Kellis reply to Dr. Sutlif fol 31. Vasquez thus argues solidly unde sequitur manifeste eam mannum impositionem esse materiam ac proinde verba quae simul cum eâ proferuntur esse formam Nam gratia Sacramentalis in ipsa applicatione materiae formae per ipsam confertur Whence followeth manifestly that such imposition of hands is the matter and consequently the words pronounced with it the form for Sacramental grace is conferred in the very application of the matter and form and by it Then he proceeds to prove by testimonies of Fathers that three Bishops ought to concur in the Ordination of a Bishop that what is not performed by all three belongs not to the essential matter or forme But in all the Roman Pontifical saies he no other ceremony is appointed to be performed by three Bishops but only the imposition of hands therefore that alone must be the matter and consequently only the words pronounced with it the form of Episcopal Ordination That three Bishops are necessary for ordaining a Bishop which was a foundation laid by him for the former argument he proves first by the the testimony of Pope Anacletus * Anaclet in Epist 2 decretali c 2. Anicetus Damas. alnapod Valgoez 243. c. 6. an 63. affirming that the first Arch-Bishop of Jerusalem James called the just Brother of the Lord according to the flesh was ordained by Peter James and John Apostles giving therein a rule to successors that a Bishop should not be ordained by less then three Bishops Anacletus adds that he learned so much from St. Peter by whom he was himself Priested Secondly Pope Anicetus delivers the same adding it was so practiced instituente Domino by the institution of Christ Thirdly he alledges the first Council of Nice with several other Councils and Fathers to the same purpose If you oppose that the foresaid words Receïve the Holy Ghost are too general for a form to ordain a Bishop he answers that being pronounced by three Bishops laying their hands upon the Person ordained they specify the degree of a Bishop since thereby they signifie that they receive him to their own proper order and degree the conjunction of three Bishops laying their hands upon the person ordained being only proper to the ordaining of a Bishop as he proves Disp 243. c. 6. Thus much a Vasquez Disp 246. n. 60. Vasquez touching the matter and form of Episcopal ordination b Pellar de Sacra in Gen. lib. 1. c. 18. Bellarmine contributes not little to the proof of this verity tho with less coherence to another Doctrine he supposes as I will declare after For speaking of Sacraments in general he saies that all Sacraments of the new Law are composed of visible things as matter and of words as form And c Idem de Sacra ordinis c. 9. coming to speak of Holy Order which he supposes to be a Sacrament he saies that there is no mention in Scripture of any visible sign that may be a matter of it but only the imposition of hands Whence it follows that holy Order being of Divine institution and declared in Scripture as he proves well the essential constitutes of it must be likewise in Scripture And therefore no other visible sign or matter proportionable for it being in Scripture it followeth that only the imposition of hands must be the matter of it How well this agrees with what Bellarmine in the same place supposes but proves not that in the Ordination of a Priest not only the imposition of hands but also the delivering of the chalice and patin belong to the essential matter let him consider He quotes Dominic Soto and others saying that the delivering the chalice with Wine and the patin with Bread is the only matter and the words pronounced by the Bishop delivering them is the form of Ordination of the Priest the words are these accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium take power of offering a Sacrifice Bellarmine proves efficaciously that the imposition of hands is a matter essential to Ordination but supposes without exhibiting any proof of it that the delivering of the chalice and patin is also a part essential of the matter saying against Sotus that not only the delivering of the Instruments but also the imposition of hands is a matter essential in the ordination This I say seems not to agree well with what he said before that in Scripture no mention was made of any Symbol that could be taken for a matter of Ordination but only the imposition of hands And truly the proof he alledges out of Sotus or others
Papam de parte mea salutate Apostolica praecepta humiliter audite sed superfluas adinventiones regno meo adinferre nolite salute the Pope from him hear his precepts but bring no superfluous devices or innovations into his kingdom True it is That several of our Godly Kings did permit appeals should be made to Rome in matters wherein our own Bishops could not agree and directions to be sought from thence as from a flourishing and learned Church not as a superior Judicature And when the Roman Bishops did pretend to any such superiority our Kings did protest against it So Henry the fifth having demanded of Martin the fourth some particulars to which his Embassadors not finding him ready to assent they b Arthur Duc. in vita Henrici Chichly p. 56. 57. told him That they had orders to protest before him that the King would use his own right in those particulars as things which he demanded not out of necessity but for the honour respect he was willing to shew to that Sea that they should make a public protestation thereof before the whole Colledg of Cardinals And to this purpose are sundry examples remaining on c Rot. parliam 17 Edward 3. n. 59. 25. Edw. 3. oct purif n. 13. 7. Hen. 4. n. 114. 13. Hen. 6. n. 38. record where the King at the Petition of the Commons for redress of some things amiss belonging to Ecclesiastic cognizance first chuses to write to the Pope but on his delay or failing to give satisfaction doth either himself by statute redress the inconveniency or command the Archbishop to see it don For certain it is by the course of all our Chronicles and histories that our Kings together with the convocation of their Bishops and Clergy had in themselves absolute and entire power of governing and reforming the Church of this kingdom without any dependency uppon any forreign authority It was never doubted neither could it be denied upon any warrantable ground that they had within their own dominions the same power which Constantine had in the Empire and that our Bishops had the same which St. Peter had in the Church For which since the Erection of Canterbury into an Archbishoprick the Bishops of that Sea were held * Malms de Pontif. lib. 1. in Ansel fol. 127.15 Quasi alterius orbis Papae as Vrban the Second styled them and did exercise vices Apostolicas in Anglia that is they used the same power within this Island which the a Eadmer p. 27. Pope did in other parts And in our writers the Archbishop of Canterbury is frequently called Princeps Episcoporum Angliae b ib. p. 107. 33. Pontifex summus c Gervas Boro ber col 1663. 54. Patriacha King Edgar asserted this power to be in himself and in his Clergy in his memorable speech made to them d Apud Ailred col 361.16 Ego Constantini vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus I bear in my hand the sword of Constantin and you that of Peter And therefore as the affairs of most concerns in the Church had their dependance on the Emperor and the holy men of those times did not doubt to continue to him the style of Pontifex maximus as e Tom. 3. an 312. n. 106. Baronius notes sine ulla christianitatis labe So f Regularis Concordia c. Not. Seldeni ad Eadmerum p. 146. 16. King Edgar was solicito is of the Church of his Kingdom veluti domini sedulus Agricola pastorum pastor And wrote himself the Vicar of Christ and by his g Concil Spelm. Ã p. 444. aâ— p. 476. laws and Canons he made known that he did not assume those titles in vain King h Leg. Edw. Confes c. 17. p. 142. Rex quia vicartus summi Regis est ad hocest constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum domâ—ni sâ—per omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injurtis defendat Edward the Confessor a canonized Saint did declare the same and practised accordingly The King saies he being vicar of the supream King his duty is to govern and defend the earthly Kingdom and the people of the Lord from injuries and over all to reverence govern and defend his Church The same was declared and practised by i Leg. Inae in pras p. 1. Ina whom Baronius styles a most pious King by k Leg. fol. 11. p. 109. Canutus acknowledged for a most bountiful benefactour of Churches and of the servants of God Erga Ecclesias atque Dei servos benignissimus largitor as l Epist 97. fol. 93. Canut c Furbertus Carnotensis relates of him and several other godly Kings of England whose several laws touching Ecclesiastic affaires you may see related by Jorvalens c. 2. col 761. c. 5. col 830. c. 23. col 921. as also the laws of Emperors to the same purpose in the books of m Codex Theodos de seriis de nuptiis c. de sâ—de Catholica de Episcopis Ecclesiis clericis de monachis de haereticit de Apost de Religione de Episcopali judicio cod Jast l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5. passim in co Theodosius and Justinian The Emperors did employ their Bishops and Divines in resolving upon wholsome decrees touching Church affaires and these decrees they espoused themselves for Laws so as the transgressors of them should be subject to penalties This same course our Kings have taken as well in former ages as in this latter of the Reformation of our Church Henry the Eighth haveing those occasions of discontent with Pope Clement the Seventh which as too much known I omit to relate and being urged by the States of the Kingdom to execute at last what long time was desired and often attemted in England viz. to throw off the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over this Kingdom to proceed with due legality and consideration in so weighty a matter he wrote to the Universities and great Monasteries and Churches of the Kingdom in the year 1534. and the eighteenth of May of the same year to the University of Oxford requiring them like men of vertue and profound Literature diligently to intreat examine and discuss a certain question viz. An Romanus Episcopus habeat majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem sibi collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alius quivis Externus Episcopus Whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater jurisdiction given to him in holy Scripture over this Kingdom of England then any other foreign Bishop and to return their opinion in writing under their common Seal according to the meer and sincere truth of the same To which after mature deliberation and examination they returned answer That he hath no such jurisdiction in this land The words of the University of Oxford returning their answer to the King upon this subject the 27. of June of the aforesaid 1534.
which name of either he pleaseth to term it to put us to silence as to further debates as truly he had need accordingly he appears ill furnished to enter into them We will now proceed to see how ill armed he is to encounter upon the particular points I proposed for motive of my discontent with the Roman Church CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defense of the Popes Supremacy declared to be vain Their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians whether in Spiritual or Temporal proved to be unjust and tyrannical OUR Adversary will have us take for an Article of Faith the Supreme power of the Pope over all Christians in Spiritual affairs Whether he hath the like supreme power over Princes in temporal concerns he leaves to our discretion to believe what we please the case being disputable And indeed it is a courtesy in Mr. I. S. to permit us this liberty even touching temporal affairs and beyond commission from the Court of Rome as may appear by what we are to say in this Chapter But what he allows him of Supremacy in Spiritual government over all other Bishops and over all Christians is certainly more then his right more then Christ gave him and more then S. Peter had whose Successor the Pope pretends to be He will never find any mention in History Ecclesiastic of any claim S. Peter should pretend to have of power over S. James in Jerusalem S. Andrew in Achaia over Thomas in the Indies or over any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces no dependance of them upon him None of those more worthy first Bishops of Rome for five hundred years did ever pretend to any such Supremacy if we are to believe one of the best of them St. Gregory the Great in his many Epistles written against the Ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople pretending to such a calling of Universal Bishop Neither did he therein act for himself as he do's formally protest to obviate the malice of those who would cast that aspersion upon his proceeding herein a Gregorius lib. 4. Regist Ep. 36. In damnando generalitatis nomine saies he nostrum specialiter aliquid non amamus Neither indeed could the reasons he alledges against the Ambition of John of Constantinople consist with a pretention to such a Prerogative in favor of his own See namely b Jactantiam sumsit ita ut Universa sibi tentet adscribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare cum fortasse in errore perit qui Universalis diâ—â—tur nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur ibid. that it is to rob Christ of his priviledg of being Head of the Universal Church that if the whole Church were subject to and depending upon one man he falling into Heresie all the Church would fall with him How foul an Aspersion Papists do cast upon this good Pope Gregory the Great saying he would claim to himself the calling he reprehended in John of Constantinople may appear by these words of his foresaid Epistle 36. written to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria and to Athanasius Bishop of Antioch saying a Vnt per Sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolica cui Deo disponente deservio hec Universitatis nomen oblatum est Sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit quia videlicet si unus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen ceteris derogatur Sed absit absit hoc à Christiani mente id sibi velle quempiam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur The name of Universal Bishop was by the holy Council of Chalcedon offered only to the Bishop of the See Apostolic in which by Gods providence I do serve but none of my Predecessors did consent to use this profane calling For if one Patriarch or Bishop be called Universal the name of a Bishop is taken from the rest But far be this far be it from the mind of a Christian that any should assume to himself any thing which may seem to diminish in the least the honor of his brethren How can this consist with saying that Gregory did claim to himâ—elf that calling which he reprehended in John of Constantinople since he declares that his Predecessors did refuse that calling and alledges reasons which prove that none ought to admit it The same St. Gregory is the first Author I find to have accused of Anti-Christianism the pretention of the Pope to Supremacy over all Christians in the person of the foresaid John Patriarch of Constantinople of whose ambitious pretention to the like Supremacy he writes thus to the Empress Constantina b Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur quia illum videlicet imitatur qui spretis in sociali gaudio Angelorum legionibus ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere dicens c. Lib. 4. Ep. 34. And what may we understand by this kind of pride but that the time of Anti-Christ is near since he imitates him who despising the social joy of Angels did endevor to rise up to the top of singularity saying I will ascend into Heaven I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North I will ascend above the height of the Clouds I will be like the most high This singularity of the Bishops of Rome in despising a fair and brotherly society with other Bishops and pretending a Supremacy over all and an Equality with God in several of his priviledges gave occasion to such as in after Ages called them Anti-christs Certainly this Ambition of being head of the Universal Church a priviledg granted in Scripture only to Christ the boldness of preferring his own laws to the Laws of Christ whereof we gave several instances have great affinity with the qualities of Anti-christ described in Scripture And St. Gregory his prediction that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a calamity to the Church is found to be too true All the Combustions and dismal Contentions that afflicted this Kingdom for a whole Age did proceed from the Popes pretention to Supremacy It is not the intrinsic quality of speculative doctrines of Faith controverted it is not the alterations of Ceremonies or Language in divine Service did minister fuel to this fatal fire all these things would be easily agreed upon if we did allow but Supremacy to the Pope or he did quit his pretention to it Of this we have certainty by what Sir Roger Twisden affirms out of warrantable Histories and Relations that Pope Paulus IV. finding his fierceness could not avail with Queen Elizabeth offered a Tortura torti pag. 148. to let things stand as they were
1. opusc tract 8. q. 4. says the foresaid testimonies are without doubt to be understood of a remission to be given by way of Sacraments not of the remission of pains in the other life as the Pope doth practice in the giving of Indulgences and finally gives for the only reason the Authority of the Church and of Pope Leo then governing which he tells us must suffice tho no other reason should appear by these remarkable words Absque hasitatione aliquâ etiamsi nulla adesset ratio fatendum est dicti Thesauri dispensationem non solùm per Sacramenta quoad merita Christi sed aliter quam per Sacramenta qnoad merita Christi Sanctorum commissam esse Praelatis Ecclesiae praecipuè Papae hoc tanto magis fatendum est quanto per Leonem decimum determinatum est We are to believe without staggering tho no reason appear for it that the dispensing of the Treasure of the Church not only by way of Sacraments as to the merits of Christ but otherwise then by Sacraments as to the merits of Christs and the Saints is committed to the Prelates of the Church and especially to the Pope And this is so much the more to be confessed because it is so determined by Leo X. A very special reason to convince Luther and the rest of the World that do not believe the Pope to be Infallible Suarez tom 4. in 3. partem disp 49. sect 1. delivers his opinion of the foresaid Testimonies of Scripture to be insufficient to prove the doctrine of Indulgences Of that of Joh. 20. he says the same that Cajetan above mentioned Of the other touching the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18.18 he says the literal sense of those words to be the power of binding by Laws and Censures and of absolving from Censures and dispensing in Laws And finally in the number 17. of the same Section he concludes there is no place in the Gospel whence the giving of this power may be concluded if it be not Joh. 21.16 where our Savior said to S. Peter feed my Sheep in which words Suarez doth pretend the power Universal and Supremacy over all the Church to have bin given to S. Peter and under that Universalïty the power of Indulgences to have bin given to him But as S. Peter did never receive such an Universal power over the Church as the Bishops of Rome do now usurp so did he never pretend it nor ever troubled Thomas in India or Andrew in Achaia or James in Jerusalem or any other of his Fellow-Apostles and Bishops in their respective Provinces about a power over them or a dependance of them upon him all and eaâ—h one of them complying faithfully with their Ministry without incroaching one upon the other nor staining the repute of Christian holiness with the profane spirit of Ambition which in Rome did grow to the confusion and distraction of Christendom But tho such a Supremacy would have bin granted to the Pope and to the succeeding Bishops of Rome farr must Suarez go for a consequence of the doctrine of Indulgences to be inferred from such a grant If the power of dispensing those immense Treasures of the merits of Christ and all Saints was given to S. Peter in those words of our Savior commending to him the feeding of his Sheep how came he and the other succeeding Bishops of Rome for so many Ages to neglect the use of this power to the benefit of Souls and great advantage of the Roman Church as now is practised Suarez did easily perceive the weakness of his argument from this testimony and so betook himself in the second Section following to the common refuge of the use and autority of the Church That there is such a use says he is not denied we see it that it is not an abuse but a lawful use is proved first by the authority of the Council of Trent last Session where is added that this use hath bin approved by the autority of sacred Councils for which purpose are wont to be related the Council of Nice Can. 11. of Carthage 4.75 of Neooaesarea ch 3. of Laodicea Can 1.2 but in these Councils says Suarez we only find that it was lawful for Bishops to remit some of the public Penitences enjoined by Canons for divers crimes but that such a remission should be extended to a pardon of penalties due in the Tribunal of God may not be inferred from those Councils Another main argument for the Antiquity of Indulgences they fetâ—h out of 2. Cor. 2.10 where S. Paul remits a part of the penalty due to an incestuous Person whom he had formerly punished saving To whom you forgave any thing I forgive also for if I forgive anâ— thing to whom I forgave it for your sakes forgave I it in the pâ—rson of Christ From these latter words in the person of Christ they pretend to infer that the practice of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church had its beginning from Christ and that S. Paul did practise it in the occalion now mentioned by autority received from Christ This Argument Suarez proposes in the above mentioned second Section num 3. but from the following fourth Number to the 11. he doth most vigorously prove the inefficaciousness of that argument That the remission given by S. Paul to that incestuous man did only relate to an exterior penalty due by course or Canon of Ecclesiastical Government not to penalties of the other life depending from Divine Justice that the words in the person of Christ only proves it to be an act of Jurisdiction or power received from Christ which may be sufficiently verified by a remission of an exterior temporal penalty due by the common course of Ecclesiastical human power and finally concludes that there is no warrantable history or testimony extant by which it may be convinced that the practise of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church was known before the times of Gregory the great of whom he says is reported that he gave a Plenaâ—y Indulgence tho even of this says Suarez I find no written History but a public report in Rome and other places And finally what Suarez says with resolution is only that this practise is now in use in the Church so as they are reputed heretics who reprehend such a custome and it is impossible that the Universal Church should err herein for it were says he an intolerable moral error in practise If the Universal Church indeed did practise now and always from the beginning and in all places this custom according to the rules of Apostolic lawful Tradition delivered by Lyrinensis and S. Augustin l. 4. de Baptismo cap. 24. we would look upon this argument as of force But Suarez himself doth acknowledg and confess that this practise is neither so ancient nor Universal And therefore it may not be taken for Apostolic tradition but ranked among the modern Institutions of the present Romish Church to stand or fall