no Churches or not to belong to the Church of Christ because of that want or defect in the Vocation or Ordination of their Pastors 17. Those companies indeed of Christians who believed in India upon the preaching of Frumentius belonged to the Church of Christ before they received Pastors from the Bishop of Alexandria and that multitude which believed in Samaria upon the preaching of Philip and were baptized by him were indeed of the Church and a Church of Christ though not completed til Peter and John went down with due Autority to set all in order there Accordingly we may account of those Reformed Churches which have not their Pastors sent and ordained as from the beginning as of Congregations not regularly formed as Churches not completed not indeed without Pastors altogether as those of India and Samaria at the first were but having such as they can viz. such as have if we wil speak properly the Vocation on Election of their respective Churches which is one thing in the calling of Pastors but not due Ordination which is the main thing in impowering them to the exercise of the office and so are Pastors by a moral designation to the Office rather then any real or due consecration which only is by those hands that have received the power of sending or Ordaining Pastors from the Apostles 18. It must be granted that the Vocation of such Pastors is deficient and their Ordination irregular and that not only by the Ecclesiastical Canons in that behalf but also by Apostolical Order and practice Yet because they hold the Faith which is the chief point in the constitution of the Church and have not wilfully departed from that Apostolical Order and way of the Church by the breach of Charity in condemning and rejecting it but do approve of it where it may be had we cannot say that irregularity or deficiency infers a plain Nullity in their Pastors and Churches as Champny will have it but stands in a condition of receiving a supply or completion and is in the mean time so far excusable as the want or not having of that Supply is of Necessity and not of Choice 19. But Champny will admit of no excuse either of irregularity confessed in the calling so their Pastors or of Necessity pleaded as the cause enforcing it But proceeds to prove such a nullity in their Ordinations that it concludes them to have no Pastors at all and no Church This argument he pursues chiefly against Doctor Field Distinction of the power of Bishops and Presbyters as to Ordination who in the 3. book of the Church cap. 39. had endeavoured in behalf of the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops to shew that their Ordinations though not regular according to the way of the Church yet were not simply invalid and that by the Doctrine of the best Schoolmen who held the Office of a Bishop to be not a distinct Order or to imprint a distinct Character from that of the Priestly function which also they proved by this instance A Bishop Ordained per saltum i. e. who was not first made Presbyter cannot either consecrate the Sacrament or Ordain others but a Priest or Presbyter ordained per saltum may execute the office of the Deacon by reason that the Superior Order conteins in it self the Inferior whence Doctor Field would have it concluded That Bishop and Presbyter differ not in Order or in the very power of Order but in eminency and dignity of an Office to which Ordination and other performances as Confirmation public absolution c. are reserved also that when the antient Church declared Ordination by Presbyters to be void and null it is to be understood according to the rigour of the Canons not that all such Ordinations were simply null ex naturâ rei and in themselves or not to be born with in any Case 20. See we now what Champny replies to all this and then consider what may be reasonably allowed and said as to this point His answer is to this purpose That those Schoolmen if they hold not Episcopacy to be a distinct Order yet say it is a distinct power if not a different Character yet a new Extension of the former Sacerdotal Character and that the Argument from Ordination per saltum doth not disprove the latter way Lastly that such Presbyterian Ordinations were in the judgment of the Ancient Church Null ex naturâ rei and not by the Ecclesiastical Canons only for that judgment or sentence of the Church was not a Constitutive decree for then the beginning of it would appear in the Canons of the Ancient Councels but only Declarative of what was so in it self from the beginning of the Church This he in his 7. Chap. 21. Here something is doubtful and questionable something clear and apparent That Bishops had a power or faculty to do something which Presbyters could not namely to ordain is clear in Schoolmen and Fathers but whether that power make the Episcopal function a distinct Order from the Priestly or imprint a different sacramental character we leave it to the Schoolmen to dispute Also we grant that Bishops receive and exercise that power as Champny saith truly not by a Moral designation only as Judges and Officers in a State do for the time of their office or as those among the Presbyters seem to do who are assigned to ordain others but by Real consecration or sacred devoting them to that office or work of ordaining and sending others Which consecration though it imprint not a Sacramental Character on the Soul as the Romanists express it yet it gives to the Person so ordained devoted such a faculty or habitude to that action or work as cannot be taken from him the reason of which we shall enquire below where occasion is given to speak more of that which the Romanists call Character indelible in this point of Holy Orders Furthermore whether this office of Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function Two wayes of conceiving the power of Ordination in Bishops Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function which is one way of conceiving it or a faculty of exercising that power supposed to be radicated or founded in the Priestly Order and diffused with it by restraining it to certain persons consecrated for that performance it may be questioned Doctor Field seeme plainly to conceive it this latter way and so do the Schoolmen alleged by him and Champny's expression of their sense by extention of the Sacerdotal Character if it have any sense speaks as much viz. the dilating of that which was before in the Sacerdotal Order radically by extending that Radical power unto a proxima potentia or immediat faculty in certain persons consecrated to the exercise of it and keeping it restrained in all others of that Order who are not so consecrated and devoted to that great work of Ordaining and sending others Lastly whether we conceive of it as
a power wholly superadded or as the restraint of a power diffused it is clear that the exercise of that power the performance of Ordination was setled upon certain and speciall persons who were properly Bishops and Chief Pastors by Apostolical appointment and practice Of which there are so clear footsteps in Scripture suchapparent Monuments and Records in Antiquity that it is no less then a wonder any Learned Judicious Man should think it could be otherwise or conceive as the Presbyterians generally that this Order was afterwards set in the Church as an humane though prudent invention to avoid Schism and preserve Unity and not withall conceive it reasonable to think the Apostles did foresee that Reason and provide against it when as we hear Saint Paul complaining of it 1 Cor. 1. and Saint Hierom refers that Order of setting Bishops over Presbyters to that very cause pointing out that very time when some said I am of Paul I of Cephas 22. If therefor Doctor Field when he answered that Ordinations without Bishops were void according to the rigor of the ancient Canons did mean that such Ordinations offended only against Ecclesiastical Constitutions we grant that Champny duly proves it otherwise and do acknowledg them transgressions not only of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution and Practice but we are not therefore bound to yeild an utter nullity of them in all cases ex naturâ rei as he contends unless he can clearly demonstrat this faculty or office of ordaining to stand in a distinct power wholly superadded and not in the extension of the Priestly Order or limiting of the exercise of that power conceiv'd to be radically diffus'd with it Thus indeed Doctor Field as I said seems to conceive it and thereupon to deny such Ordination to be Null in themselves ex naturâ rei yet withal to hold as may be gathered out of his 5. book cap. 27. that this Order or limiting of the Power in the exercise of it to certain special persons was by Apostolical appointment 23. And no question the antient Church had respect to that Apostolical constitution when she pronounced such Ordinations without Bishops to be void and Null as repugnant to that constitution not defining whether they were void ex naturâ rei but declaring she had good cause to account them void and not to admit any to officiate that did so wilfully transgress against Apostolical order and practice and could have there being Bishops then at hand in every Nation where Christian Faith was professed no pretence of necessity or of loosing the band by which the Apostles had restrained the exercise of that power to certain persons thereunto consecrated And if any Presbyter should have heretofore presumed to ordain within the Church of England their Ordinations had deserved to be accounted of no otherwise then as void And so within every Church completed and regularly formed according to Apostolical Order ought they to be accounted 24. Now that I may draw to a Conclusion and freely speak what I think of the two forementioned wayes of conceiving the Ordaining power to be estated by the Apostles upon special and select men properly called Bishops or chief Pastors I suppose the first way which conceives it superadded as a distinct power to their Priestly function to be the clearer for securing the Episcopal function and distinguishing it from the other but the second way which conceives that power radically diffused and communicated in the very order of the Priestly function and restrained to such select persons in the exercise of it the faculty or immediate power whereof they received by consecration I suppose to be more easie and expedient for a peaceable accord of the difference in hand and yet safe enough for Episcopal Ordination 25. The first way conceives the Apostles who had the whole power given them by Christ both the extraordinary Apostolical power and that which was ordinary and to continue in the Church did communicate this power severally That which belonged to the office of Deacons to persons chosen for that purpose That which belonged to the Ministery of reconciliation to all Pastors or Presbyters So likewise That power of sending and ordaining others to these Offices was communicated entirely unto special persons appointed and consecrated to that work This as I said is more clear in the distinguishing of the several Functions of holy Order But the second way which estates the power or faculty of Ordaining upon special persons by restraining the exercise of it to them seems as above said to be more fair and easie for the making up this business of the Reformed Churches which have Ordination without Bishops and yet to afford safety enough to Episcopal function and Ordination For it first supposes that to be established and secured by Apostolical Order which none can transgress wilfully without Sacrilege and consequently it acknowledges such Ordinations without Bishops to be irregular and deficient in regard of Apostolical order and constitution and that they ought to receive a supply completion and confirmation by the imposing of Bishops hands before the persons so Ordained can be admitted to officiat in a Church completed and regularly formed Lastly by this way whatsoever is spoken by S. Hierom in appearance favourable to the Presbyterian pretence may be cleared and reconciled to Truth and by it may be answered also whatever is brought by Champny or others to prove such Ordinations utterly or ex naturâ rei null and void in all cases 26. I will not trouble the Reader to hear any long Scholastick contest with Champny in the business only I shal shew by one instance how well he hath acquitted himself in the defense of his assertion against the former argument of a Bishop ordained per saltum and therefore not having power to ordain others or consecrate the Sacrament because he wants the Priestly Order That which he replies to it returns more forcibly upon himself A Bishop per saltum cannot ordain and why Sicut ex eo c. Even as saith he because the Priestly function is exercised both about the Mystical body of Christ in absolving and binding and also about the Natural body of Christ in consecrating of it it doth not therefore follow there is a diverse Order but a diverse power of the same Order So the power of Ordaining though it make not a distinct Order from that of the Priestly Function yet is it a distinct power of Order To this purpose he cap. 7. pag. 183 184. But this comes not home to Ordination per saltum where it is supposed that the power of Ordaining is not given at all because the Priestly Order is wanting This also returns more forcibly upon him by applying it thus according to his reasoning Even as the Powers of absolving and consecrating are distinct yet both conteined within one Order of the Priestly function so may the power of Ordaining though distinct from the other be formally and immediately conteined
of Pastors duly sent and lawfully ordained doth highly concern the Church so is it most clear that the first concernment of the Doctrine of faith and life is the chief and simply necessary to all the Members of the Church and that the latter Order of Ministry and Government by Pastors and Teachers is to serve unto it The Apostle shews us this by two similitudes he uses to set out the Constitution of the Church One Eph. 4. of a Body fitly joyned together c. That which joyns the body of the Church to Christ the head and knits one joynt or part to another is Faith mentioned ver 13. and Love or charity ver 16. and He gave Apostles Pastors Teachers for the perfecting and edifying of this body ver 12 13. and that not carried away with every wind of doctrine ver 14. The other similitude is of a Building 1. Cor. 3. The Foundation is Christ that which joyns us to it is Faith and knits us as stones to one another is Charity the builders are Pastors and Teachers who lay us upon the Foundation by bringing us to the Faith Ministers by whom ye believed ver 9. So then Faith and Charity joyn men formally intrinsecally to Christ the Head and Foundation Pastors and Teachers serve to that end and do that work ministerially and extrinsecally The first is the chief and the doctrine that contains it necessarily concerns all the Members of that body in particular as to their being such concerns them I say simply and indispensably as to the holding of the the Foundation or Doctrines immediatly fundamental and also necessarily as to the consectary doctrines according to the revelation or means they have of knowing them but the latter viz. the having of Pastors so sent and ordained serves unto the former yet so as the Order left and established in the Church for the perfecting of it is strictly to be observed where it can possibly be had and kept for wilful omission or rejection of it is not only a great sin and Sacrilege committed against the commandement and appointment of Christ and his Apostles but also such a breach of charity in them who are guilty of it that it renders them Schismatical and so far disjoyned from the body of Christ which is his Church as they stand guilty of it 14. Of Churches without due Ordination of Pastors by Bishops And now to come to some issue by application to the Churches in question I. Where the first viz. the doctrine of faith and life is truly and sufficiently professed and held we cannot think that a bare Want there or unavoidable defect and irregularity in the second viz. the Order of sending or Ordaining Pastors doth exclude such professed Christians from belonging to the Church Which unavoidable and necessary defect may arise either because they cannot have Ordination from Bishops abroad or because the soveraign Power being adverse will not suffer them either to have Bishops among them or to receive ordinations from forrein Bishops that would give them II. We must look at those who are in such a condition without Pastors regularly ordained as at Churches defective and not compleatly framed but in a capacity or expectation of receiving their completion when that necessity which enforces the defect is removed and so continuing as wel as they may rather then to give up that Truth and purity of Christian Doctrine they have attained to 15. VVhether of choice or of necessity Let me here add what Doctor Moulin Son of Peter Moulin saith in behalf of the French Churches and I add it chiefly for their sakes that gave him the occasion they were the Soottish and English Presbyterians who at the beginning of these Troubles rejected Bishops and Ordination by them and sought to justifie themselves by the example of the French Churches He therefore shews them in his book then set out what judgment and desire the best in those Churches have expressed concerning Bishops and that their not having them was not of choice but necessity which he endeavours to demonstrat by several reasons drawn from the consideration of that Kingdome and of their condition under the Soveraign Power there And to shew if they might have their choice they would willingly have Bishops he tells us that the Bishop of Troyes having abjured Popery began to preach the pure Word of God and sent for the Elders of the Reformed Church to know whether they would confirm and acknowledg him for their Bishop which they all with one consent did submitting themselves to his obedience And then adds There is none I dare say of all the Churches of France but would do as much in the like case None but would obey Bishops if Bishops would reform and obey God Till God extend so much mercy upon that Kingdome the poor Churches will stay for the leisure of the Bishops viz. which now possess the Sees and are not Reformed keeping themselves in an estate fit for Obedience Or as he had said before The Church of France being under the Cross and without Bishops is a body prepared for Obedience whensoever the Popish Bishops shall reform in the 25. and 26. pag. of his book But for those that reject Bishops when they may have them he shews how they fall under the severe censures of Zanchy and Calvin Testor me coram Deo saith Zanchy I protest before God and in my Conscience that I hold them no better then Schismaticks that account or make it a part of Reformation of the Church to have no Bishops c. Yea they are worthy saith Calvin of any execration that will not submit themselves unto that Hierarchy that submitteth it self unto the Lord These censures he cites in his 13. pag. out of their Tracts De Reform Eccles for both wrote of that Argument 16. Now to Champny's Argument A true Church is not without true Pastors for as Cyprian saith Ecclesia est populus Pastori conjunctus and again Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesia But those Reformed Churches have not true Pastors lawfully called but only pretended Elders which are made by those that have no power to ordain or send others therefore they are no Churches Moulin would answer and first grant with Calvin That the World may be as wel without the Sun as the Church without true Pastors l. 4. Inst c. 3. And farther take the word True Pastors that there be no ambiguity in it for such as are called lawfully after the originall and ordinary way of the Church viz. for Bishops and those that are ordained by Bishops He wil grant the proposition true of the whole Church which is never without such and also true of particular Churches completed perfected and regularly formed Such Churches he acknowledgeth the French are not but in a state imperfect yet capable of a regular completion and as it were expecting of it And therefore wil deny that they are concluded by the former argument to be
within the Priestly function and this is more then is required more then is true but thus much at least he must by his own reasoning allow that it may be radically founded in that Order and for want of that foundation it may be that a Bishop ordained per saltum cannot ordain others 27. Again The reason saith he why a Bishop so ordained cannot Ordain or Consecrate is not quia Episcopatus non sit distincta potestas à sacerdotio sed quia essentialiter illud praesupponit ut potestas absolvendi necessariò praesupponit potestatem consecrandi not because Episcopacy is not a distinct power from the Priesthood but because that doth essentially pre-suppose this which is very neer to the founding of the power of Ordination in the Priestly Order even as the power of absolving doth necessarily praesuppose the power of consecrating So he ibid. pag. 184. Now albeit this latter assertion be false as being grounded upon their placing the whole perfection of the Priestly Order so Champny there in the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ when as the power of Absolving is as immediat to that Order or Function as the power of Consecrating can be yea the Ministery of reconciliation doth express the whole power of that function in Scripture 2 Cor. 5.18 to which this phansie of Romish Sacrificing is a stranger Albeit I say that instance speaks what is false yet stil it returns in the application more forcibly upon him if we reason thus As the power of Absolution necessarily supposes the power of consecrating which he laies down for a Truth and yet are conteined in the same Order of the Priestly Function so for any thing that he sayes may the power of Ordaining which necessarily essentially presupposes as he sayes the power of Consecrating be conteined also with it in the Priestly Order though not formally and immediatly as the power of Absolution is for that is stil more then is required or can be maintained yet radically founded in it and diffused with it 28. The true reason as I conceive why Ordination of a Bishop per saltum doth not give him power to consecrate the Sacrament or to absolve or to ordain others to those Offices is because the Power of the Keyes which includes all those Powers and Offices is received in the Priestly Function which made me say it is the more peaceable way and may probably be defended that the power of Ordaining is diffused with the Priestly Office or founded in it and is in it not immediatly and formally as a power ready for Act and exercise as the power of Absolving and Ministring Sacraments is in it to which the Priest hath particular and express Ordination but radically and as in primâ potentiâ the remote power so as the faculty of exercising it or the proxima potentia of it is given to special men by Consecration to the work and that by Apostolical constitution And in this sense the extension of the Sacerdotal Character which Champny allows may stand Now that first and radical power can never be lawfully reduced to Act or exercise in them that have not lawful consecration to it but by extreme necessity through the utter failing of them that have which whether it be possible I leave it to Champny to dispute 29. As for the necessity which those Reformed Churches have pleaded in excuse of this irregularity in their Ordinations I shall not now enquire into it Only I wish heartily that they which have chief rule in those Churches did not think themselves so far engaged to continue where they are but that they would entertain a stronger apprehension of the necessary concernment of that Order which was left in the Church by the Apostles and continued alwayes and in all places where the Christian faith was received till the last Age. 30. As for those false Inferences which either Papist or Sectarie hath made from the different condition of those Churches to the seeming prejudice of the English Church it was my work to discover them and now I shal give the Reader a brief of what hath been said against them in recompence of the trouble he hath been hitherto put to by a tedious perplexity I. That we Protestants of the English Church stand not alone in this point of Ordination by Bishops received at first from Rome Other Churches severed from the Romish Communion have reteined Bishops and Ordination by them and that derived from Rome and those Reformed Churches that have not yet approve it in us and have acknowledged their own deficiency joyning with us in judgment but differing in practice for which necessity is alleged II. We must not for that deficiency quit all fellowship with them or disclaim them as no Churches because of Consanguinit as Doctrine as Tertul. phrases it the Kindred and alliance of Doctrine which is between us for the bond or agreement in Faith and Charity binds the body of Christ together Eph. 4.16 and that is the main in the constitution of the Church And although the other point of Order as it concerns the sending and ordaining of those that should teach and publish that Doctrine and build up the body of the Church ought most carefully to be observed according to Apostolical practice which fixed that office upon special Select Persons called Bishops yet because it is not so clear whether it was fixed to their Persons as a superadded power or as the faculty of exercising that power which being conteined in the power of the Keyes might with them be radically received in their Priestly Order we cannot pronounce absolute Nullity upon their Ordinations especially the case standing with them as they plead And because it doth not appear that a bare want or Deficiency in the appointed Order of the Church should forfeit their belonging to the Church where the main viz. the Doctrine of Faith and Life is preserved and the other of Order not wilfully perverted to a breach of Charity with those Churches that have preserved it therefore we cannot judg them to be no Churches or Congregations of Christians but we look upon them as Churches not completed or regularly formed and excuse their defects so far as they are enforced on them by necessity and conclude them bound to seek their Completion and a supply of their defects from those that have Bishops and hold the ancient Apostolike way of the Church Lastly seeing their judgment concerning Bishops and Ordination by them where it may be had is such and their excuse of the want of it pleaded by necessity their example can in no wise be alleged in defence of those who of late have rejected Bishops and Ordination by them nay ejected them when they had them We bless God that we had the happy means of a regular Reformation the more they have to answer for that disturbed our established Order but as for those Churches which approve of that Order where it is and want it by necessity rather
oper where cap. 1. and 15. he confutes them who conceived by mistake of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 3.15 that those which dyed professed of the Christian saith might be purged from all their evill works by some fire and so come to salvation merito fundamenti by reason of the foundation held also in his Enchirid cap. 109. and in 1. quest ad Dulcitium and in his 20. and 21. books de Civ Dei Now though they differed in their conceits about this fire whether it was immediatly after death or at last day commonly cald Ignis conflagrationis and about the Persons to be purged and helped by it yet all of them seem to conceive it to be a fire of Passage only for souls to go through to their appointed receptacles not a fire of Durance for souls to lie in as in a receptacle till the day of judgment as the Romanists believe it All that Augustine concludes upon it is nothing but uncertainty Tale aliquid some such thing may be after this life and quaeri potest it may be put to the question non est incredibile it is not incredible and forsitan verum est perchance it may be true so he of it in the forementioned places We see by this how from the curiosity of some of the Ancients enquiring after relief and help for those Dead whose state was of more uncertain condition Romish superstition hath taken her rise and how from the private opinions and uncertain conceits of some of the Ancients length of Time and strength of Romish presumption hath framed Articles of Faith this of Purgatory for one in respect to which and relief of the Souls tormented therein their Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice even the body and blood of our Saviour 11. Now to conclude By all that hath been said it appears how groundless unwarrantable and presumptuous this power is which the Romish Priests pretend to and how that power which our Priests or Presbyters receive in ordination and use in celebrating the Eucharist is warranted by the express Word and doth the whole work of the Sacrament sufficiently according to all purposes that our Saviour intended it for when he said do this and according to the true and proper meaning of the Fathers speaking usually of a Sacrifice in it And this is so much more considerable because the Romanists place the highest and chiefest act of Worship Evangelicall in this Sacrifice of the Mass and account the chief power and perfection of Evangelicall Priesthood or ministration totam vel maximam perfectionem sacri Ordinis saith Champny pag. 184. to be in this reall Sacrificing or offering up the body and blood of Christ And therfore it is most strange that in all the Evangelicall Writings there should be no Precept for such a Worship no institution of such a Sacrifice no commission for using such a power and that seeing the Apostle had often just occasion to speak of such a Sacrifice and Priesthood in his Epistle to the Hebrews nay had all the reason that could be to have acquainted them with it had there been any such whereas we shew express commands for that way of Worship we retein which with the Romanists is nothing in comparison of their Mass We shew direct commission for that power we use of Preaching Binding Loosing consecrating and celebrating the Sacraments which they account but dependent and subservient to the power of making the body of Christ and offering it up As for their pretence by our Saviours command Do this we found them thereby engaged to affirm that Christ offered himself up to his Father for the sins of the world in the Sacrament flat contrary to the tenour of the Gospel which yeilds that only to the Cross and expresly contrary to Saint Paul who affirmes he offered himself but once for sin Heb. cap. 7. and cap. 9. see above Num. 3. And when they have perswaded themselves of this untruth that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist how can they assure themselves that do this warrants them to do all they suppose he did i.e. to offer him up as he did himself It is enough for us men to do this as a Sacramentall action blessing distributing eating drinking and by adding to it in remembrance of me he plainly shews he meant no real Sacrifical action by offering him up again but the Sacramental only by representing and remembring his once offering up himself to death and so the Apostle tells us Do this imports 1 Cor. 11. How great presumption is this for Mortal man to take upon him thus to offer up the Son of God Bell lib. 3. Bellarm. vain exception to excuse the Romish presumption de Pontif. Ro. c 19. writing of Antichrist and answering to this as a piece of Antichristianisme charged upon the Church of Rome dare not simply affirme that the Priest offers up Christ but that Christ offers up himself per manus Sacerdotis by the hands of the Priest Whether Bellarmine mend or marre his business here its hard to say This we know that Christ our High-Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7.25 and 9.24 is in Heaven at Gods right hand executing his eternal Priesthood by interceding for us and in that representing still what he hath done and suffered for us And we know we have warrant and his appointment to do the like Sacramentally here below i.e. in the celebration of the Eucharist to remember his Death and Passion and to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of We know also that as He gives His Ministers Commission and Autority to do this so he assists them here below by his power and grace But that Christ should daily here below offer himself up personally for this Bellarmine must affirm in his qualifying of the Romis◠presumption by the hands of the Priest is inconsistent with that once offering of himself on the Cross and with the present performance of his Priesthood in Heaven where he is ever to intercede for us Heb. 7.25 and to appeare in the sight of God for us Heb. 9.24 This also would turn our Saviours command Do this in remembrance of me by which the Romanists pretend to take thus much upon them into a promise I will do this in remembrance of my self by your hands A meaning of our Saviours words which the Apostle knew not whē he told the Corinthians what it was to do this so oft as ye eat and drink this 1 Cor. 11. Yea the Priest saith directly in order of their Mass Suscipe Pater hanc Hostiam quam ego indignus servus tuus offero tibi Receive O Father this Sacrifice which I thine unworthy servant do offer up unto thee They that composed this prayer knew not that Christ as the Cardinal contrives it offered up himself there by the hands of the Priest or rather knew not that Christ was there
Chair Many Monsters of Men have sat as Popes in the Rom. Chair when as it is certain in History that many Popes have sate there who have been as vile Monsters and as great Enemies to Christ and all godliness as we need suppose those Antichrists to be which we say are to be found in that Seat if any where yet in the World Such Popes as Champny himself must needs acknowledg to have been not so much Christs Vicars as the Devils Chaplans preferred by him advanced to that Chair by all Divellish means Murders Whoredoms Sorceries and by the like Arts and Divellish Practises holding it and ruling in it as Platina and other of their own Historians testifie Genebrard who is not forward to acknowledg such disparagements to that Seat yet complains of almost 50. Popes together in the 9. and 10. Centuries calling them Apostaticos potiùs quà m Apostolicos and saying they came not in by the door Baronius who alwayes employed the utmost of his skil to excuse is here forced to confess the Papal impieties and to lament the condition of the Church under such Heads particularly Joh. 12. and some other Popes notoriously abhominable about the 10. Century 6. Bell. in his Praephatique Oration to his books de Pontif. Rom. could not pass this by in filence or deny it but sets a good countenance on it and by the fineness of a Jesuit Wit which it seems Baronius Genebrard Champny had not learnt within their Societies turns all to the advantage of that Seat as testifying the Sanctity and perpetuity of it notwithstanding the iniquity of them that sate in it Nihil est quod Haeretici c. It is to no purpose for the Hereticks to take so much pains in searching out the Vices of Popes for we confess they were not few But Tantùm abest c. This is so far from diminishing the glory of this Seat that it is thereby exceedingly amplified for thereby we may perceive it consisteth by the special providence of God What Bell. speaks of the Seat i.e. the Papal Autority and power had he spoken it of the Church of God oppressed under that usurped power it had been a very sober rational and Christian-like acknowledgment of Gods special providence which did preserve a Church under such confusion and iniquity of Antichristian Rulers 7. This doth not invalidate Ordination And as in regard of the preservation of a Church so in respect of the continuance of Ordination in particular Champny must give us leave to say with much more Reason Tantùm abest c. It is so far from seeming impossible or absurd that Christ should permit the power of Ordaining Pastors to the hand of his Enemy that it makes more for the glory of his Power and special providence over his Church that notwithstanding such Wolves that entred He preserved his sheep notwithstanding such Antichristian Rulers He continued and propagated a saving Truth by transmitting down his Word and Scriptures and a succession of Teachers and Pastors by Ordination stil continued Yea his special providence farther in as much as by that Word of Truth transmitted and received from them that had the chief Rule many have discovered their Errors and Tyranny and cast them of and by Ordination derived and received by their hands have a lawful succession of Pastors to declare that Truth and to continue the Church so purged and Reformed without running stil to them for Ordination or confirmation in the Pastoral charge 8. Let us heare what S. Augustine saith appliable to this point in his 165. Ep. Etiamsi quisquam Traditor subrepsisset although some Traitor had crept into that Chair he means the Roman and after-Ages have seen many Judasses or Traitors in it as above said nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae innocentibus Christianis quibus providens Deus c. He should nothing hurt the Church or innocent Christians for whom our Lord hath provided saying of Evil Prelats What they say do ye Mat. 23. as if he had said be their Persons what they wil it doth not prejudice the work of their Function or Ministry no more then it did in those to whom our Saviour there relates viz. the Scribes and Pharisees professed enemies to Christ yet in Moses chair and to be heard and obeyed The Leper also is sent to the Priests because they were in place though generally Enemies to Christ Yea the Ministerial Acts of Judas himself who was Traditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Traitor and a Devil were good and valid when he was sent as were other Disciples abroad to perform them If then the Iniquity of Rulers or Pastors do not prejudice the Church in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments which are of nearer concernment to the Salvation of Christians much less doth it in the transmitting of Orders 9. Lastly VVe first derived Ordination from Rome before any suspition of Antichrist there We begin the succession of our English Bishops derived from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the first when as no such Traitor or Antichristian Ruler had crept into that seat and the power of Ordination then received hath ever since continued without interruption among us And although after some Ages we see that many Popes proved Monsters and enemies to Christ from whose Tyranny this Land and Church were not free yet find we many of our Bishops not willingly bearing but complaining under that Yoke as Grosthead and others And as for those that Ordained Cranmer and Latimer they had ejured the supposed Antichrist and cast out the Papal Autority So that whatever Protestants judg now of the Pope it cannot prejudice the Ordination either of our first English Bishops by Gregory the Great who mainly resisted the beginnings of Papal Antichristianisme in John of Constantinople or of our first Reformed Bishops Cranmer Latimer or others for the Pope was then ejected and the Ordainers of those Bishops sworn against him and so not to be accounted Ministers of the supposed Antichrist To conclude considering what was said above of the ministerial acts of Judas and others that were in place and office the charge of Antichristianisme taken in any sense strictly or remisly cannot prejudice our judgment of the now Romish Ordinations which we allow to be valid still as to the substance of the Order appointed and setled in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles And I wish the pretended Reformers of these later Times had not been so strong in their Zeal against the Church of Rome and so weak in their reasoning as out of fear of such seeming prejudices to decline and reject not only Ordination thence derived but even many Truths there professed and from that Church received 10. The seeming prejudice from our charging them with Heresie His next Argument is from the charge of Heresie laid by Protestants upon those of the Romish Church from which he concludes our plea of receiving Ordination by them must fall
by our own judgment for Orders cannot lawfully be received from Hereticks c. 9. 326. c. 11. That we may more fairly proceed in the clearing of this difficulty we must premise that we admit the distinction here between Legitimum and Legitimè between Lawful or valid Orders and Orders Lawfully given or received the first implyes the power of given which Romanists acknowledg to remain in Hereticks and Schismaticks the other speaks the due and lawful use of that power which is denyed to be in those that are in Heresie or Schisme The reason is because Hereticks and Schismaticks being actually divided from the Unity of the Church must needs lose the lawful use of that power and all other Ecclesiastical ministration but not the power it self which follows a Character that is indelible as the Romanists express it We admit though not a Sacramental character stampt upon the Soul of the Ordained as they wil have it yet such a disposition or power cleaving to his person for the doing of that he is ordained to that it is not lost by Heresie or Schism nor to be reiterated upon the return or restoring of that Person 12. This premised we have two points to speak to First how the charge of Heresies laid on those of the Church of Rome then how the lawful use of Orders may be supplyed by the restoring of the Person though at first they were not lawfully given and so by both these we shall have a double answer to the Argument above For the first we must note that Heresie is considered in regard of the Matter VVhat sort of Heresie takes away lawful use of Ordination or of the Declaration of the Church and this according to the Apostles speech to Tit. c. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick is so first before he be rejected or declared so Heresies also much differ in regard of the Matter by which some may be so immediatly fundamental as the Heresie of the Arrians and some other that it doth ipso facto before any sentence or declaration of the Church cut off or divide the Person so Heretical from the Union of the true Catholic Church because it divides him from the Foundation from being actual Member of the Visible Church upon the Notoriety of such Heresie so contrary to the Foundation and also long since declared against by the Ancient Church in the four first General Councels and therefore the lawful exercise of that power he had to administer Sacraments or Orders in the Church ceases upon such discovery or as I may say Self-condemnation We need not stand here to dispute when or how soon it ceases upon such Heresie for we do not charge such Heresie upon those of Rome i.e. Heresie immediatly Fundamental or those main Heresies declared against by the first General Councels but then we must say that many of their New Articles of Belief and Practise are in themselves Heretical and as much or more then were many Tenets of former Hereticks declared against by the Ancient Church whether we consider the matter and concernment of those Romish Articles or the Obstinacy and Tyranny with which they asserted and imposed so that if there could be a full General Councel of the whole Catholic Church they would undoubtedly be declared many of them Heretical 13. From whence it follows that Heresie thus lying upon them might give us just cause to renounce their Errors and quit their Communion so far as it was necessitated by renouncing their Errors though not just cause to condemn or renounce the Orders given by them or received from them This may give answer to all the Places alleged by Doctor Champny in his ninth cap. pag. 335 336. out of the Fathers against Orders given by Hereticks for they concern either Hereticks in fundamentals or such as were declared so and actually separated from the Unity of the Church 14. It is to be noted farther that when our first reformed Bishops were ordained by them the grand Heresie and mother of their other Errors as to the obstinate an heretical defending of them I mean the Papal Power and Autority was abjured and therefore their Ordainers however yet in Romish Errors could not be properly heretical or peremptorily engaged to defend the same as afterward they were especially since the Councel of Trent hath made them Errors established and sworn to But after that we went not to them for Orders yet do acknowledg they have Ordination still substantially valid and therefore we do not re-ordain Priests that return from them to us because the substance or Evangelical institution is by those words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c. reteined still in the Roman Ordination though clogged and depressed by additional corruptions but cause them to renounce those additionals and other Romish Errors So then the summ of our first answer is We do account them to be in Heresie and deeper then when we received Ordination from them yet so as not actually and wholly cut off from the Catholic Church either by the nature of the Heresie it self casting off from the foundation or by declaration of the Catholic Church casting them out of the Unity of it and therefore it doth not follow upon our accounting them Hereticks that we could not lawfully receive Orders from them 15. A supply of defect in Ordination through Heresie Our second answer is from the supply of any defect in our Ordination received from them that supposing them Hereticks in such a condition as made them forfeit their Union which the Catholic Church and consequently the due and lawful use of the power of Ordaining yet doth it not follow that we cannot have it but on the contrary that we recover it by leaving them in that which hindred the due and lawful use of it in them And so the Romanists answer for the Bishops which they own and yet were ordained by Cranmer in the time of the Schism as they call it saying they recovered the lawful use by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Maries time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome So if upon our charging them with Heresie we must suppose they could not lawfully ordain nor we lawfully receive Orders from them then must it conformably be supposed that we having deposed their Heresie and left their Communion and by no other Heresie forfeiting our Union with the Catholic Church do recover the due and lawful use of Orders and may lawfully administer them to others and now do it in the Unity of the Church 16. Champny did foresee this might be answered by us and therefore seeks to cut us off from this plea by replying That defect of lawful Ordination and Vocation which was in Cranmer by supposed Heresie in his Ordainers could not be supplyed but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof but besides the Church of Rome there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors by reconciliation to which he
Ordained Bishops Mason had framed the like Argument by way of Objection to himself and given this Answer That their Order consisted of two parts The one expressed in these words Take thee power to offer sacrifice The other in these And in what respect allow them Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest c. The first part which stands in offering up Chrift gain is altogether abhominable The second which is in the Ministry of reconciliation is good for the substance though depraved by the Abuse of Auricular Confession To this purpose he 2. Champny replyes I. By cavilling at his making the Order to have two parts and runs into a needless disputation to shew that the Order being simple and like the Soul standing in indivisibili hath not Parts but several Powers from one character in the Soul But seeing he will be so subtil he should remember how he allowed above an Extension of the Character which now he telsus stands in indivisibili Well let him enjoy his Philosophical notions and Sholastick terms and let him call the different offices of Sacrificing and Absolving not Parts but Powers this we say still that the first power they give to their Priests of offering again really and properly the body and blood of Christ is Sacrilegious without any warrant from Scripture nay against it plainly and exceedingly derogatory to the Sacrifice of the Cross and therefore abominable unlawful altogether The other power of reconciliation or ministring the Word and Sacraments they give for the substance of it according to the Evangelical institution but deal not so sincerely in it as they should 3. II. He replies The Protestants though they hold Order no Sacrament Form of Ordination certain how yet must grant that a certain form is required to every Order and that such a depravation as they charge the Romish Ordination with must needs so change the Form as to make all void and null and so by their own doctrine they received no Order at all from the Romish Church This he endeavours to make good by the Form of Baptism which if depraved and changed as to say I Baptize thee in the name of the Father who is greater then the Son or the like the Baptism is null Answ It is true that unto lawful Ordination though not a Sacrament properly a lawful and certain form is required such as may express the institution of the Order and the function and power of it with application to the person receiving it Now if it be so changed and depraved that it doth not in a sufficient manner express so much it renders the Ordination invalid but if the Form be preserved as to the substance of it and only other Additions made to it by way of aggregation they however unlawful do not void what is given according to the right form reteined as in Baptism where the due Element and Form are reteined though there be additionals of marking the child with fire too as the Ethiopian Christians are said to do or of Salt Spitle and other trumperies with forms of words belonging to them as in the Church of Rome the Baptism notwithstanding is valid and good So in this of Orders that which we call abominable and unlawful is an addition of mans invention yet seeing the words of Christ are reteined receive the holy Ghost and whose sins ye remit c. in which the lawful and certain form of conveying the power of the Ministry of reconciliation is conteined we say the Ordination is so far valid and good and may stand without the corrupt additionals wherewith it is clogged in the Romish Church yea doth stand the clearer being freed from them as it is in the Church of England And therefore we do not re-ordain those Priests that come from them but cause them to renounce the corrupt additionals confirm what was validly received in their Ordination We may say in this point as Aug. answered Potil concerning Baptism administred by the Donatists Non vestrum est quod destruere metuimus sed Christi quod Sacrilegis per se Sanctum est nam venientes à vobis recipere non possumus nisi quod vestrum est destruamus We fear to destroy the Baptism given by you not as yours but as it is Christs which is holy even among them that are Sacrilegious for we could not else receive those that come from you except we destroyed that which is yours Contra lit Petil. lib. 2. So of Romish Orders we destroy what is theirs not what is Christs in them for that is yet holy and good notwithstanding their Sacrilegious additions and when we receive any that come from them it is necessary we destroy and cause them to renounce what is theirs but admit what they have reteined of Christs institution 4. Romish Priests fuffering here and for what III. He replies as to that part of their Ordination which we admit of viz. that which includes the ministry of reconciliation That we confess it to be of Christs institution and yet make their Priests guilty of Treason and execute them for exercising of it So is it decreed 23. Eliz. ◠to reconcile to the Church of Rome c. cap. 10.355 Answ It is not for that very work of the ministry as it is a reconciling of Penitents to God no more then for Baptizing which is another work of the ministry of reconciliation which if a Romish Priest do he is not therefore obnoxious to the Law But because one of these is abused to Treasonable attempts and made very fit for it by their kind of practising Sacramental confession the other is not neither can be so abused being admmistred to Infants therefore it comes to pass that the former is forbidden to be practised within this Land not directly but so far as it is a reconcileing to the Bishop or Church of Rome So the Statute expresses it and what that reconciliation means our State before it made that Statute had learnt experimentally viz. the instilling of many Treasonable Principles into the Party reconciled and moving them upon all occasions to answerable practises by vertue of the Obligation that was upon them by their reconciliation to the Pope 5. All this is most plain in the Story of those Times wherein we may see the beginning and progress of the boldness of Romish Priests in their Treasonable Practises and accordingly the first rise and advance of the severity of Laws made against them Til the thirteenth year of the Queen there was no Law that touched them in this point of their Priestly function They did baptize and absolve and both unpunished because it was supposed they did only exercise their function in absolving people from their sins not in absolving Subjects from obedience to their Soveraign But after Pius Quintus sent out his Bulls of Excommunication against the Queen pronouncing her deprived of all rule and dignity and her Subjects absolved from the Oath of their
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
Archbishop Parkers Ordination where his first exception is against the Form as new and so acknowledged by Mason saying that Matthew Parker had the happiness to be the first of so many Bishops since Austin that received consecration without Popes Bull Pall c. p. 478. 479. But this because it belonged to the form of Ordination I referred it thither and answered to it above in the former Chapter 1. Presumptions against the Ordainers Next he excepts against the Ordainers that they were not such as was pretended And here we must again trouble the Patience of the Reader with the importunity of their presumptions and conjectures alleged against public Records which though it little serve to the end they intended the disproving of the Ordination of our Bishops yet will it make to this good purpose the proving of the restless importunity of these Men in their calumniando fortiter ut aliquid adhaereat their custome in raising and nourishing any manner of Reports to discredit their Adversary That I may not be thought to slander them in so weighty a business hear what they say The Popish Art of belying Evident Truth that knew it very wel Those secular Priests of whom above Chap. 5.8 in their book there mentioned complain much of this unconscionable dealing in the Jesuites and their followers acknowledging the Queens Majesty had very just cause to think more hardly of them all for it The pretended brethren say they of that Society and such as follow their steps do in their Writings so calumniat the Actions and Doings of the State be they never so judicially and publickly proceeded in never so apparently proved true and known of many to be most certain and after of Father Parsons that he was a great Master in this Art I find also Jo Copley sometime Priest among them but returning to the Church of England in King James his time to acknowledg this to be usual among their Priests and that it was one Motive to him of forsaking them This he spoke upon occasion of lying reports raised by their Priests and spread among their Proselytes to make them believe the whole carriage of that fearful plot was but a Trick of State Of Gunpowder Treason to make the Catholicks odious Lastly John Goe Master of Arts returning from them upon the downfal of the Black Friers in acknowledgment as he saith in his Preface of Gods mercy by which he escaped with life discovers the several and close practices damnable dissimulations and Artifices of their Priests about London naming the persons and place to ensnare and delude unwary Protestants or hold on their credulous disciples and this is one Their confident denying or misreporting and discrediting of evident Truth At the end of his book he gives in a Catalogue of neer 200. Priests in and about London their Names and the Characters and Lodgings of most of them in which Number this Doctor Champny was one and then trading for Rome Now let us see how well he plaies this part against the evident Truth of public Records So passionately that he will not abate us the fond story of the Naggs head in Cheapside but strives all he can to make it probable as we shall see presently 2. His first conjecture or presumption against Matthew Parkers Ordination is because according to Masons Records saith he the Ordainers here are set down with their bare Names whereas in all other consecrations the Ordainers are named with the Titles of their Bishopricks Now what reason can there be of this difference but that his Ordainers were not indeed Bishops consecrated but Elect only But Champny might have seen them set down in the Queens Letters Patents with the Titles of those Bishops Seâ—s they before held and also of those they now were elected to and the Registers of those Sees shew their enstalment as Godwin hath set them down His second Consecration of Bishop Barlo That Barlo one of the Ordainers was never as it appears consecrated himself for Mason could not give us the Record of his Consecration as of the rest Answer Mason though he found not his Consecration yet he found him a Consecrator of Arthur Buckley Bishop of Bangor in King Hen. 8. his time which evidently shews he was himself consecrated or could not els been admitted to assist in that Action Champny excepts that is alike as if a man should thus reason Such a man hath a woman and children therefore he is a Lawful Husband and Father That is not alike but thus Such a man in all public Actions Deeds Instruments was by Law permitted to do towards that Woman and those Children unquestionably as a Lawful Husband and Father she accordingly enjoying her Dowry and they their inheritance so demised by him therefore he was a Lawful Husband and Father so it follows evidently that Barlo being without question admitted to that public Action was a Lawful consecrated Bishop Whereas Champnies Negative Argument against him runs thus weakly according to the former instance such a Mans Marriage cannot be found in the Register of the Parish Church therefore he is no Lawful Husband But Godwin a diligent searcher of the Registers of Bishops finds him consecrated Bishop of Asaph Feb. 22. 1535. and the next year translated to S. Davids where he sate ten years in King Henry's reign besides the time of King Edward Now what reason can be imaginable why he should continue Bishop doing all the Offices and duties of a Bishop so long without consecration or that he should be suffered so to do Furthermore that he may say something rather then nothing he observes pag. 494. that Landaff who was consecrated some years after Barlo is pretended to be set before him in the Queens Letters Patent for the Consecration of Mat. Parker and why saith he but that Landaff was consecrated indeed and Barlo only Elect Also at the solemnizing of the Funerals of Henry the second of France related by Stow he finds Parker Barlo Scory assisting as Bishops and Parker in the first place who then was but Elect which ought not to have been so if the other two had been Bishops consecrated They are goodly doubts fit for a Doctor of the Sorbon to dispute but to solve them if they fall not in pieces of themselves we leave to Heralds or the Master of the Ceremonies to do it at their Leasure 3. The shameless story of the Nags-head Tavern And now we are come to that shameless tale which hath more of impudency in it then the former Instances had of weakness That our first Bishops in the Queens time were made at the Naggs-head Tavern in Cheapside That Scory alone Landaff failing Ordained Parker Grindal c. and after this manner They kneeled down before him and he laying the Bible upon their heads severally said Receive the power of Preaching Gods Word sincerely and so they all rose up Bishops pag. 497. and this he saith he received from Father