CHAP. I.
Of submission of judgement, and externall peaceable subjection due to the Church, Nationall or Universall, from the respective Members thereof.

WHat relation this point hath to the peace and unity of a Church, in preserving it from Er­ror, and to the Refor­mation of a Church when Error hath prevailed upon it, was insinuated in the Preface: and in those respects there was occasion in the former Treatise, Of the Division of English and Romish Churches upon the Refor­mation, Sect. 9, 10, 13. to touch up­on it.

1. There, Limits of submissi­on f [...]om the Au­tority to which, and matter in which. however a possibility of just dissenting from the publick could [Page 2]not be denyed, a due Submission, with all peaceable external subjection, was required: and so it was a Limited, not Absolute submission which we re­quired: the limits of it arising from the condition and concernment of the Autority to which, and of the Mat­ter in which this Submission is to be yeilded. The Autority is publick, and (though not Infallible, yet) gui­ding others by an Infallible rule, and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly, as being answerable for their souls. The condition of the Matter also was observed to be di­verse, according to the difference of Belief and Practice, and in each kind to be of more or lesse concernment, according to the Nature of the things propounded to us, to be be­lieved or practised by us. The ge­nerall result was, that we ought to yeild all the Submission of Judg­ment, and peaceable subjection, which such Autority may require, and all that the condition of the mat­ter will admit of. Thus much was insinuated in the former book.

2. Now to make a supply to that, Difficulty in fixing those Li­mits. which was briefly couched there, and to discover more particularly the hounds and limits of this Submission, which to fixe precisely is no easie matter. For this Submission must be carryed even between God and Men, such Men as God himself hath set over us in his Church, and com­manded us to hear and obey them: Yet such as possibly may entrench upon his right, in taking to them­selves a dominion over our Faith, and if we follow them in a blind obedi­ence and resignation of judgment wholly, we are sure to transgresse in giving to them, what is due to God; So also must this Submission be carryed even between Man and Man, by declining the Romish excess of arrogating too much to the publick Autority, and avoiding the other extreme of giving too much Liberty to Private Judgment, into which Anabaptists and other Secta­ries run, and thereby make void the Autority and Office of the Pastors of the Church.

3. Therefore that we may better [Page 4]discover the bounds of due Submissi­on, we must take aim, as abovesaid, from the consideration.

First, Generall considera­tions of the Auto­rity, and the Mat­ter. of the Autority to which the submission is yeilded: That we finde seated in the Church Nationall, or Universall, and justly requiring sub­mission from the respective Mem­bers. The Church we hear speaking her judgment by the Bishops and Pa­stors of it, either in or out of Councel; and whether it do speak either way secured from possibility of Error, will be considerable in the yeelding of our Submission to it. Secondly, of the Matter or things, in which this Submission is yeilded: These we finde as was said to be of severall sorts. Some are onely in Opinion or belief, which being inward need not happily discover it self: Some are in Practice, as Worship, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies; which being outward must needs appear. Now in reference to both Autority and Matter, we shall have occasion to consider the Extent of Submissi­on, from Judgment and belief (which begin within) to external [Page 5]compliance and conformity of Pra­ctise; and accordingly, in the Manner of performance, this submission ei­ther stayes our judgment and belief within, when it dissents, or discovers it without, but so as not to a distur­bance of peace.

4. Judgment and Reason is that Light, which he that lighteth every one that comes into the World, Joh. 1.9. puts into the minde of Man, in order to his yeilding assent and belief to that which is propounded; This light, as it shines inwardly to the aforesaid purpose, may not be put out, by ab­solute submission, or resignation of judgment to Man, or any company of Men; but as it is a light to shine outward for direction of others, so it may be concealed. For though a Man doth not acquiesce inwardly to that which is propounded, yet may he be silent in some cases, and for­bear to publish his judgment to o­thers. These things being premised, come we to some conclusions touch­ing this submission.

5. From the consideration of Au­tority, to which submission is due, we may say,

I. Pastors of the Church singly ta­ken have a publik Authority. Seeing the Church speaks her Judgment by the Pastors and teach­ers in it, every such Pastor is a Pub­lick Person, and by his Office and Commission for teaching, guiding, & ruling others, hath, in regard of all them, Autority & publick Judgment, to which there is a submission due. They sit in Moses chair— and He, that despiseth you, despiseth me, saith our Saviour. Submit and obey, saith S. Paul, Heb. 13.17. All which is spo­ken of the Pastors and Teachers of the Church, not as joyned in Coun­cel, but severally taken, and so teaching what the Church has learnt of Christ, and what it declares and commands agreeable to the voice of the great Pastor, speaking in the Word. This Conclusion is against Anabaptists and Sectaries, that make void the Office and Authority of the Pastors of the Church; and against all others, that, acknowledging the Office, do too much weaken the Au­tority, receiving what they teach and declare, with little or no other re­spect, then if the same were spoken to them by any other Men. They of the [Page 7] Romish Church, as they are not be­hind hand in giving Autority to their Priests or Pastors, so do they acknow­ledg it not secured from error; and the submission due to it not to be absolute but limited. We need not therefore quarrel with them here. Al the business wil be, to conclude upon that submission, which is due to the Pastors of the Church joyned or met in Councel, to give out the Judgment of the Church.

6. II. Pastors or Bishops met in Councel. Therefore we cannot but say, If they that meet either in a Pro­vincial or National (much more in a General) Councel, be gathered toge­ther in the Name of Christ, they have the promise of his presence among them, which is by the assistance of his Spirit, S. Mat. 18.20. This is the onely place, as it seems to me, which deli­vers a promise immediately appliable to Councels, though not to them only; other places so much beaten upon by the Romanists; I am with you to the end—S. Mat. 28. Tel the Church—S. Mat. 18. The gates of Hel shall not prevail—S. Mat. 16. The spi­rit of Truth shall guide you into all [Page 8]Truth. S. Joh. 16. and the like, cannot be drawn to concern Councels, but by many consequences; and not at all to concern them in such an Infallible guidance as the Romanists would have.

7. The assi­stance promised to them that meet in Christs Name. Now to know the Importance of this place, the promise and condi­tion must be considered. The promise of Christs being in the midst of them, is made as we see, to two or three, even to the meanest Ecclesiastical meeting or Synod, and therefore cannot as­sure that infallible guidance, which among the Romanists is applied only to General Councels, or to the Pope with his Consistory. What then? It must needs imply such assistance as is needful and sufficient: Such, as we acknowledg there can be no danger for any in the Church, in submitting to her Definitions, when and where such assistance is given.

8. But for that we must look to the Condition required: to be gathered together in the name of Christ; viz. With due Autority from him, and with mindes answerable to the end and purpose of their meeting, that is, [Page 9]with mindes free from worldly in­tents and designs, and from all fa­ctious engagements, seeking unfein­edly the glory of God, and the pro­pagation of the true Catholick faith; and therefore setting before them the only Infallible Rule of Faith and Truth, Gods Word, attending to it with due heed and submission, and with prayer (for that is express in the Text, to ask) for assistance. To such, so gathered in the name of Christ, the promise wil be made good, and the issue wil be a declaration of the Truth in all matters of Belief and Worship.

9. Now for our Submission; The sub­mission answer­able. were it certain they so met together in Christs name, as it is certain the pro­mise wil be made good to them, if so met together, no more would remain for us to do, but to submit to their Definitions without any fear of dan­ger, or farther inquiry, whether they be answerable to that Infallible Rule. But we must needs say

III. It is not certain, that they which meet in Councels are so ga­thered together; Sometimes it is [Page 10]certain and notorious, that they are not; as, in the second Councel of Ephesius, a packed faction prevailed to the advancing of the Entychian Heresy; and in the Romish Councels for these later Ages, the Papall pow­er and faction hath managed and o­ver-ruled all: so apparently in their glorious Councel of Trent, that it was often and openly complained of, while the Councel was sitting, and the decrees of that Councel not re­ceived in France for about 40. years after it was concluded. Can we say such Councels are gathered in the Name of Christ? or that the pro­mise can belong to such, and the In­fallible assistance of Gods Spirit (which the Romanists pretend) can be given to such a company of Men, so gathered together, so overswayed with factious interests? or to a Pope, be he what he wil be for person, so he be Pope? For such to say Visum est Spiritui sancto, & nobi—It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, what wants it of blasphemous arro­gancy? and what wants it of Simon Magus his sin, to think the Holy [Page 11]Ghost can be bought with Money? or bound to a Pope that hath bought his Chair and enters Simoniacally? or to a company of Men, whose Votes in Councel are purchased with Gold, or golden hopes of preferment, as it fared with a great part of them that met at Trent, being either Titu­lars, Popes Pensioners, or bound to him upon like worldly concern­ments?

10. But at the best, where there is not evident cause of exception, yet can there not be certainty, that they which meet in Councel, are so ga­thered in the Name of Christ, with such minds, purposes and endeavours, as above required. Now the Issue of the promise depends upon perfor­mance of the Condition: of which performance though we may have a great presumption, in regard of their learning and judgment, and their high concernment, as being answerable for mens souls, (besides the care and respect that God hath towards his Church) yet can we not have such a certainty, as simply and absolutely to ground submission of [Page 12]judgment and belief upon it; and therefore we receive their Definiti­ons concerning Faith, and Worship, not finally or chiefly upon the pre­sumption we have of their perfor­mance, or conformity to the condi­tion of the promise, but upon the evidence of that conformity, which their Definitions have to the Infalli­ble Rule. It was the care of S. Paul and of the true Apostles (and so it should be of all the Pastors of the Church) by the demonstration of the Truth, to commend themselves to every Mans Conscience, that they have not handled the word of God deceitfully, 2 Cor. 4.2. Upon this evidence or demonstration of Truth, the Four first general Councels have been so generally submitted to, so readily re­ceived by all good Christians.

11. Submissi­on and be­lief Con­ditionall, and prae­vious, or absolute and Final. But fourthly, lest that which is said of the Evidence and demonstra­tion of Truth from Gods Word, in order to assent or Faith, be mistaken to a slighting of publick Autority and submission due to it, because it may be also said (and truly) that such evidence made out of Gods Word [Page 13]by any man whatsoever, requires and obtains such Assent: we must know, there is an Assent and belief properly due to the proposals of the Church, or Doctrine of the Pastors and Tea­chers in it, and that by vertue of their Office and Commission which they have to teach and rule others, and that under so great a concern­ment, as the giving account for their souls: Only this Assent or belief is not at first absolute but conditional, not final but previous and preparato­ry, and so remains in the learner as a preparation, till that Evidence or Demonstration come and advance it into a Divine Assent, and final reso­lution, grounded upon the revelation of Gods Word: Or else it is Cashired upon the like Evidence to the con­trary; for we ought to submit and obey them, til upon such Evidence we can say, It is more right to hearken unto God, then unto them. Act. 4. and good reason, seeing our submission to them stands upon their Autority and Commission which they have to teach and guide us, therefore we must have a greater Autority against [Page 14]them from Gods word, and seeing our judgment is not to be compared with theirs, whose profession is the study or interpretation of Gods Word, and whose lips preserve know­ledge, therefore we must have such Evidence of that greater Authority on our side; that is apparent to any that can use his reason, before we deny our submission to them. But some may say, if we cannot yeild sub­mission of judgment and belief, yet ought we to submit so far as not to publish it, not to oppose Authority: It is true, submission, as above was insinuated, extends it self so far even to a suffering for our judgment and belief, and such submission is due to the Pastors and Governors of the Church, by vertue of their publick Autority; but the consideration of submission in the several extent of it much depends upon the several con­dition of the Maiter, in which we submit unto Autority, of which pre­sently; here we are upon the sub­mission of judgment due unto Auto­rity, as to the unward belief; which submission we affirm to be not ab­solute [Page 15]but limited, and may conclude it upon the Apostles warrant, who, in one place, gives us the precept of it, and the reason of it, Obey, Sub­mit; Why! they have the rule over you; that is, their Commission and Autority for teaching and guiding you; and they watch for your souls, and must give account, (Heb. 13.17.) there's the high concernment. But this Obedience and submission can­not be absolute, unless they alone were concerned to give account for our souls: if we must also, then are we also concerned to watch over our own souls, to see and judg what we do; and therefore the Apostle, as he tels us in this place, they have the rule over us, so in another place adds the limitation, Not as having dominion over your faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. and Not as Lords over Gods heritage, saith S. Peter 1.5.3. how then? as Ministers by whom ye believe, 1 Cor. 3.9. as helpers of your joy. 2 Cor. 1.24. Ministers, Help­ers, Guides they are in the way of Salvation; but as it is one thing for a Man to follow a Guide, til he see ap­parent danger, another thing to be [Page 16]led by him blindfold: So is it one thing to follow our spiritual Guides with a conditional belief, or reser­vation to Gods-Word, yea and to follow them to a mistrust of our own judgment, or knowledge we have of the way; another thing to resign up judgment and belief to them, and put out that light of reason which God hath put in us, in order to our receiving direction for the way of Salvation. The first we allow and require, the other let the Church of Rome exact, and gain where she can. Thus far from the considera­tion of Autority to which Submis­sion is due: We may receive more particular directions for the extent and manner of performing this Submission, if we now add the Con­sideration of the Matter or things, in which Submission is yeilded.

12. Several conditions of the matter in which. The matters or things where­in the Church declares her judgment, and requires Submission, are of di­vers condition (as was above insinu­ated;) some are matters of Opinion or belief only; and these, as they are of different condition from matters of [Page 17] Practise, and outward exercise, so are they to be distinguished one from the other in the Declarations of the Church: for it is considera­ble in our yeilding of Submission, to know what things are Credenda or matters of belief, strictly taken for Catholick Faith, such as the prime Articles, Christ God and Man, and the like, or their immediat and appa­rent consequences, Two wills in Christ, Natures distinct and uncon­founded: and what things again are Credibilia; Credible Truths or Mat­ters of Opinion, or belief largely ta­ken. Also it is considerable, What the Church hath declared as Articles of Faith, and what she hath shewed her judgement in, as Credible Truths, but not imposing them as Articles of Catholick Faith: for in case she should mistake in these, the danger in conforming our judgment to hers is the less; as if a Church upon mi­stake should (as many of the Anci­ents thought) judg it Credible, That the souls of just men are not admitted in­to the glorious presence of God, til the Re­surrection, or that there may be some [Page 18]kind of purgatory after this life, tur­ning S. Augustines Non incredibile, into a Credibile, but not imposing it as an Article of Faith, as the Church of Rome hath boldly done. So likewise Matters of Practice are of divers forts, and of greater or less concern­ment. Some of Worship and Adora­tion, some of Discipline, Rites, Cerc­mony: Under matters of Discipline, the observing of set Times for Fast­ing, works and performances of publick Penance, single life of Priests and the like, are considerable in the Canons or Declarations of the Church concerning them. In matters of Belief or Opinion, our subjection to a publick judgment stands in a conformity of our judgment and be­lief to the publick, and in the pub­lishing or not publishing of our judgment. In Matters of practice, our Submission stands in the confor­mity of judgment, if we judge of Worship and other matters deter­mined, as the Church judges, or in the outward exercise, if we do in these things as the Church does and practises.

13. Having premised thus much, Submissi­on of Judgment answera­ble. come we now to more particular directions for the extent or manner of performing Submission to the judgment of the Church, when she hath declared it in Matters of Belief or Practise. As for the Submission of Private judgment to the publick. 1. To all the determinations of the Church we ow Submission by assent and belief conditional, and prepara­tory at the least, which being given with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word, does both acknow­ledg the Autority of our Pastors and Teachers, and withall reserve unto God his due. 2. In matters of Faith and Religious Worship, we cannot submit to any company of Men, by resignation of our judgment and be­lief, or standing bound to receive for Faith and Worship, all that they shal define and impose for such; for such resignation gives to Man, what is due to God, and stands excluded by the condition (as above shewn) of the Autority, which is not Infalli­ble, and also by the condition of the Matter, (Faith and Worship) of [Page 20]high concernment to our own Souls, and to be accounted for by our selves, who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from Gods Word, upon which we may finally and securely stay our judgments and belief in such matters. 3. In other Matters of Opinion and Credibility, or of Discipline and Rites, which the Church determins and proposes for such, as there is more cause for ready conformity of judgment, so is there more securi­ty, or less danger in it; for such Mat­ters are either not determined by Scripture in particular, or not de­terminable but by several consequen­ces. Only this conformity is yeilded stil with a reservation for any suffi­cient evidence or demonstration of Truth to the contrary: else, til that come, our conformity remains se­cure; for here's the difference of conforming in the former points of Catholique faith or worship, and these later of Opinion, Discipline, Rites; that, when the former are proposed to our belief and practice, [Page 21]we rest not secure til we have de­monstation or evidence that they are so; but in the other we submit with security, til we have evidence that they are not so, as Autority hath de­termined. Indeed in matters of Discipline, and Ceremony (though in themselves of small concernment) great opposition hath often been made to the judgment and determi­nation of Autority: of which I shal speak a litle below under the confor­mity of Practice in such matters; and, in the mean, let us see what Cau­tions may be given in case of Privat Judgment justly dissenting from the Publike.

14. Of con­cealing a dissent of Judgment in peacea­ble subje­ction. If therfore it come to that (as possibly it may) yet for preserving of due submission, take care, 1. That our dissenting be not upon any com­paring, or equalling our privat judg­ment to the publique, and autorita­tive judgment of the Church (for this wil be absolutely against that condi­tional & preparatory belief or assent with which we are to receive all her determinations) but upon the evi­dence of a greater Autority on our [Page 22]side, viz. the demonstration of Truth from Gods Word, or primitive con­sent of the Catholique Church; ei­ther of which is of more Autority then the present Governours of the Church. 2. That the dissenting of privat judgment be only in order to a mans own believing and delivering of his own soul, for which he is to give account, not to any inconsider­ate publishing of it to others; for, the light of Reason, though it may not be put out, yet may, and often ought to be concealed, and a mans privat judgment silenced in submis­sion to the publique. 3. If he publish or make known his dissenting, it ought to be by modest proposal to his Superiours, not by clamours against the Church, to a disturbance of the peace of it: much less by force or tumult, as the manner of Secta­ries hath usually been; for if he cannot internally acquiesce in the judgment of the Church, yet ought he to submit, as far as possible, ex­ternally, and to suffer for it, if need be.

15. Whether in al Mat­ters or Cases? But here a question may be [Page 23]made about these matters, in which we were said to have evidence of Scripture, and Primitive consent; if a Church should so far err as to judg contrary to these, as for the error of Monothelites or Eutychians, or for the worshiping of Images, or any Creature with Religious worship, must a man submit with silence in such a case? I answer; The Mini­sters of the Word, being by that Church according to Gods Ordi­nance called to publish the Gospel and Counsels of God for salvation, ought to propose their contrary judgment and belief to their Superi­ors so erring; if they reform, it is wel; if not, the other ought to de­clare these Counsels of God; for in this case they have greater Autority (as was said) on their side, and may say to the Governours of the Visible Church, as the Apostles did to the great Councel, Whether it be more right to hearken to you or to God, &c. Acts 4. And to this case I refer that other erroneous principle of belief (the mother of Error and Apostacie) that al the Members of the Church [Page 24]are bound to receive for Catholike Faith and Christian Worship all that the Church whereof they are Mem­bers proposes to them for such; herein we had, and all that are stil of the Roman Communion, have cause to complain of that Church, and to declare dissent of judgment from it, which not only imposes Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and such novel errors for Articles of the Catholike faith, and commands Image-worship as lawful and pleasing to God; but also holds all the Members thereof bound to that former principle of mis-belief, in a blind receiving all for faith and worship, that shal be so proposed to them.

16. The sub­miitting of Doctrine and Wri­tings to the censure of the Church. And this which hath been said will also speak the meaning of that submission, which we profess to yeild, when we usually say (and not with­out cause) We submit our Judg­ment, Doctrine, or Writings to the censure of the Church: for 1. this is not a resignation of judgment in re­gard of believing, but a submission in regard of the publishing it, a putting it to the permission of the Church, [Page 25]whether such Doctrine, or Writings shall stand published or be silenced. 2. And this not in all things simply; for no Man can submit his Judgment and Doctrine to any Company of Men, when he believeth and teacheth the prime Articles of Catholick Faith, into which all Christians are baptized, or the immediat conse­quences of them, which are evident to all that can use Reason and Judg­ment, or the express commands of God concerning Religious Worship; but it is in things more questionable, not plainly determined in Scripture, and though deducible from some confessed Article, or express Com­mand, yet by divers Consequences. As in the first kind, the Church hath power to silence and censure any, that teach contrary to such Articles, or Commandments, but cannot for­bid to teach them. So in the second she hath power to silence any, that teach contrary to her declared Judg­ment in them. For it cannot be de­nyed that the Church hath power to over-rule and restrain the exercise of any mans Ministry, in order to the [Page 26]common peace and safety, she being answerable for others, as wel as for him, whom she restrains in publish­ing his private judgment or belief to others.

17. Submissi­on of Pra­ctise, or Confor­mity in do­ing. Thus much of Submission of Judgment in matters of Belief or Pra­ctice, either in conforming to the Judgment and determination of the Church therein declared, or in a fair and peaceable dissenting. Now come we to Submission of Practice, in a conformity of doing what the Church does and practises. The Judgment we have of Matters, either of belief or practice, need not hap­pily discover it self, may for peace sake be silenced; but in matters of practice determined by the Church, and commanded to be done by us, our conformity both in Judgment, and Practice, must needs then appear. It was wel and peaceably said of Jo: Frith (a yong Man, but Learned and Moderate) in his Reply to Sir Thomas Moor, concerning Tran­substantiation: Let it not (saith he) be Worshiped, and think what you will, for then is the Peril past. Difference [Page 27]of judgment may be in a Church with­out disturbance; In matter of wor­ship. but difference of practice, because apparent, endangers the peace of it. And let me here add, Notwithstanding the difference of judgment in the Protestant Churches de modo presentiae, yet may they wel communicate together in the Sacra­ment, because neither of them allow or practice that Adoration directed to the Sacramental Symbols, which the Church of Rome practises and requires of all her Communicants, or Spectators rather. Now for Submis­sion or Conformity in matters of practice, we must remember such matters were of different sorts and concernments, (Worship, Adoration, Discipline, Order, Ceremony) and then we have a double Caution, 1. Accor­ding to the indifferencie of the mat­ter, or the greater, but evident con­cernment of it, either to yeeld con­formity for Peace sake, or forbear for Conscience sake. 2. That such for­bearance of any practice be an Act of simple and bare Omission with­out clamour and contempt of Autority, without tumult or resist­ance, [Page 28]with a readines to suffer rather; then is there peaceable subjection, when private judgment keeps within these bounds. For such conscionable forbearance of many practices in the Church of Rome, (of high concern­ment and very evident) they have good cause, that are within her Com­munion; Such practice is the exer­cise of Religious Worship, many wayes applyed in that Church to the Creature; such also are some su­perstitious Rites and Ceremonies, having a kind of Sacramental ver­tue, and real holiness affixed to them.

18. In Matters of Cere­mony or Discipline. But as for Rites and Ceremo­nies, in themselves indifferent, and by the Church enjoyned only with respect to Order and Discipline, there is no cause of inconformity, or forbearance; yet in these hath there been great opposition from privat Judgments, that could not keep with­in their bounds, and those places of Rom. 14. He that doubteth is dam­ned, if he eat. and, what is not of Faith, is sin, have been abused to maintain a dissenting from the Judg­ment [Page 29]of the Church, and a forbea­rance of the Practice. We say there­fore, those places are misapplyed to matters determined by publick Au­tority: against which it is not doubt­ing or want of Faith ( i.e. perswasi­on of the Lawfulness or indifferency of the thing so determined) that can take place, or bear out disobedience, but evident demonstration of the thing out of Gods Word to the contrary; and the Reason is plain, the command of Gods Word for Obedience and Submission to them that are over us is evident, and there­fore against them we must have evi­dence from Gods Word, to shew they are mistaken in their Judgment or determination of that particular. Now when a Church professes the thing determined by her to be indif­ferent in it self, or of a middle Na­ture, neither commanded by God nor forbidden, and that she neither affixes any Sacramental or Spiritual vertue or hollness to it, nor enjoyns it as Worship, but only out of respect to Order and Discipline: no man can have any evident demonstration, [Page 30]but only a doubting or mixt perswa­sion of the unlawfulness of such a thing; and although a Man of doubt­ing of a thing, in it self indifferent, but not determined, or enjoyned by Authority, may by reason of his doubting have cause to forbeare it: yet not in this case of the supposed determination and injunction of Au­tority; for he that will then urge [He that doubteth is damned] must remember, that he that disobeyeth is damned too: that former place of doubting, having many exceptions, of which this predetermination of Autority is one, but this disobeying of Autority hath only one, viz. when there is sufficient evidence of L. vine Autority against the thing determined by humane, and so it becomes an Obeying of God rather then Man.

19. Of Priests Celebacie, enjoyned by the Church, and how. But it may be expected, be­cause I referred the injunction of Priests single life to matter of Disci­pline, that I should speak particu­larly to the conformity of Judgment and Practice to it. I referr'd it to Discipline, because antiently enjoyn­ed [Page 31]not in a disparagement to Marri­age, which the Apostle concludes Honourable in all men, but in Order to their better discharge of their Duty and Priestlie or Ministerial function; and I do not now dispute the difference of that antient injun­ction from the now Roman exaction of single life, nor question with what fulness of Autority it was enjoyned, or how far, or how long binding, (which I shall have more fit occasion to touch a little Num. 25.26. below, and more largly against Champny in the sixth Chapter) but only speak to the point of Submission and conformity to such judgment, or determination of the Church, supposing it fully con­cluded, and binding. Therefore I cannot but say, while it was so bind­ing, every Clergy-man had cause to Judge, the Governors of the Church saw reason to enjoyn it, & was bound to endeavour conformity in Pra­ctice, i.e. to use such means by Tem­perance, Fasting, Prayer, as conduce to preserve that continency of Single life; but if, after due use, he found himself not answerable to that state, [Page 32]but in the condition to which S. Paul prescribes the use of that remedy which God had ordained, ( Marri­age against Burning) he was bound notwithstanding the Church-Ordi­nance, to take to it; and this as it hath direct Warrant from Gods Word, so is it not a direct opposition to the Church Ordinance, which was but conditional, as in the prohi­bition of Marriage to Fellows of Colleges, under the pain of loss of their Fellowships. Only in this point of Priests Marriage, the condition is of greater concernment, the loss of Clergy, or quitting the Ministerial function, which if happened to him, that hath dealt conscionably (as above) in the business, the Church must answer for it.

20. Thus have I endeavoured as neer as I can, to discover and fixe the bounds of Submission of Privat Judgment and Practice, according to the several condition of the mat­ter, wherein it is shewn, and ac­cording to the divers extent and manner of performing or shewing it; either to a direct conformity and [Page 33]compliance with the publick, or if dissenting, yet to a yeilding of all possible, peaceable Subjection, and that, if need be, to a suffering under Autority. If Privat Judgment keep it self within the former bounds of Submission, there can be no harm to the Church.

21. I should now speak the respect, Passages out of 8. Augustine touching Autority and Rea­son. which every National or particular Church ought to bear to the Univer­sal, in this point of Submission; but be­fore we go farther, it wil be worth our pains to take a short view of some passages of S. Aug. (appliable to the business in hand) concerning Autority and Reason. (I calld them, Autority, and Evidence, or demonstration of Truth) in his Books, de verâ Relig. and de Ʋtil tate credend. It is his purpose there, to shew how Autority goes before Reason, in our believing or receiving the Christian Faith, which by the Romanists is sometimes misapplyed to the purpose of that Church, requiring belief to rest upon her Autority. We may therefore take notice, that the writing of those books was occasioned by [Page 34]the Manichees, who reproached the Catholiques, for requiring belief of their Scholars or Auditors, before they shewed them reason; and boasted, Se terribili Autoritate sepa­ratâ, &c. that laying aside all superci­lious Autority, they would by simple and plain reason bring Men to God. cap. 1. de util. cred. Had this Romish Infal­lible Autority (which exacts belief simply and finally) been then pre­tended to in the Church, they might well have call'd it terrible Autority, and S. Augustine could not but have spoken to it. Whereas it is his only work in both books to shew that Men are first moved by Autority to a belief of things, before they see the Reason of the things themselves. Now the belief upon this Autority is but previous and preparatory (as I call'd it) in order to that which S. Augus­tine calls Reason, or evident know­ledg of the truth. For he tels us this Autority ( viz. of the Church pro­posing the Catholick Faith) stands upon Miracles, confirming that Faith, and Multitude of believers that have embraced it; and this in­deed [Page 35]is the first motive to induce a Man to seek, and believe he may have the true Faith and Religion in such a Church, such a company of Relievers. Again, he pleads for belief due to the Autority of Pastors and Teachers of the Church, whom he cals Antistites Dei, whom God hath set in his Church as Governours and Teachers, cap. 10. de Ʋtil Cred. and this is but according to the Rule, common to the teaching of other Sciences: Opor­tet discentem credere, He that is taught must give credit to him that teacher him. Lastly, we find him every where speaking the end of that Autority and teaching in the Church; it is praecolere, procurare animum or ido­neum facere percipiendae veritati, to mould and fit the mind for perceiving and embracing the Truth, and prepa­rare illuminaturo Deo, to prepare it for the enlightning of Gods Spirit; which he calls sometimes the punging of the mind, ( viz. from Natures ignorance, self-conceit, love of Worldly plea­sures) that it may be fit to behold the clear Truth; and this is it which he calls Reason, and gives it the chiefest [Page 36]Authority, Summa est ipsius veritatis jam cognitae & perspicuae Autoritas. (cap. 14. de verâ Relig.) this was calld Evidence above, or Demonstration of Truth: and cap. 25. of the same book, Purgatioris animae rationi quae ad veritatem pervenit, nullo modo pre­ponitur humana Autoritas. Humane Autority must give way to Reason, and Evident truth, which a Soul puri­fied by Faith knows and believes▪ Thus much in reference to that which had been spoken above of prepara­tory, conditional belief due to, and beginning from Autority, but finally resting in the Evidence and Demon­stration of Truth: Like as the belief of the Samaritans given first to the Testimony of the Woman that had been with Christ, brought them out unto him, but stayed at last upon A [...] ­divimus ipsi, we have heard him our selves, S. John 4.42.

22. Pride makes men pass the bounds of peaceable subjection. Now in reference to that which was spoken of Submission of privat Judgment, keeping within bounds of peaceable subjection, hear what S. Augustine subjoyns immedi­ately upon the former words, cap. 25. [Page 37] de Verâ Rel. ad hanc nulla humana su­Perbia producit, To this (viz. the rea­son and belief of a purified minde) pride brings no man; quae si non esset nec Haeretici, nec Schismatici essent, but for this Pride and self-conceit (the cause why privat Judgments do not keep within bounds) there would be no He­reticks or Schismaticks; for it comes not to this but when nimiâ levitate (as he speaks sometimes) through too much lightness of judgment they are driven tanquam palea vento Superbiae, as chaff by the puff of their own pride from the Lords floor, or Visible Church.

23. Vnjust ex­communi­cation and want of the Com­munion of the Church upon it. But what if Privat Men for a peaceable dissenting in judgment or practice from the Visible Church, (of which they were Members) in points of high concernment, for Belief or Worship, be censured and driven from the communion of it? They are not for all that, driven from the Communion of the Catholick Church, but their condition is not unlike the case of those good men which S. Augustine speaks of, cap. 6. de verâ Rel. Divine Providence (saith [Page 38]he) suffers sometimes Viros bonos per turbulentas sed tiones carnalium homi­num expelli de Congregatione Christi­anâ, Good men to be cast out of the Com­munion of the Visible Church, through the turbulent Seditions of carnal Men; How such, if private men, must behave them­selves. declaring also, how they ought to behave themselves in that condition, patiently, constantly, by charity to those to whose Violence they gave way, and perseverance in the Faith of the Catholike Church, sine Conventiculorum segregratione, (without making Conventicles apart) & testimonio suo juvantes eam fidem, quam in Ecclesiâ—(and by their wit­ness and profession helping that Faith, which they know is still taught in the Church.) These, saith he, thus serving God in secret (Pater viaens in occulto coronat) their Father which sees in se­cret, crowns and rewards. Observe, he speaks here of privat Men, and so do we hitherto; but he supposes them cast out of the Church, in which the Catholick Faith is truly professed, with due Christian Wor­ship, and therefore saith, Examples of such expelled good men are rare: [Page 39]Whereas we supose such to be cast out from the Visible Communion, upon the cause of Faith and Wor­ship, and those turbulent persons to be the chief Rulers casting them out upon that account; and therefore with more advantage may conclude, it is well with such in the sight of God that sees in secret. Indeed the condition of the Catholick Church being such as it was in S. Augustine his dayes, it could not but be rare to find such examples; but if he had seen these latter Ages, and the corruption of Faith and Worship upheld by pride and Tyranny of the chief Ru­lers (especially within the Communi­on of the Romish Church) he might have seen examples great store, of good men and pious, for peaceable dissenting or desiring Reformation, cast out and persecuted.

24. Now in the last place, Submissi­on of Na­tional Churches to the Vni­versal. of the respect which National Churches have and ought to have to the Uni­versal, as to this point of submission, we need not say much. 1. Several National Churches being parts (as it were) and Members making one [Page 40]whole Church called the Catholic, in some proportion ought to bear like respect to the Definitions and pra­ctises of the Catholick Church, as In­ferior or privat persons to the par­ticular National Church, of which they are Members: in some pro­portion, (I say, as also it was said, Sect. 9. of the former book) but with advantage to a National Church in this point of Judgment, above what is allowed proportionable to privat persons; for they have only Judg­ment of discretion in order to their own believing, whereas a National Church hath publick Judgment, both in receiving the Decrees of the Universall Church, or in making some her self, and in proposing them to others, whom she is to guide and answer for: and so can make publick reformation, when there is cause for it, and constitute a Visible Church in depending, in point of Govern­ment, of any other Visible Church, or rather can continue a Visible Church, as it was before, but with this difference from what it was be­fore, that now it stands reformed, [Page 41]or purged from many errors, and freed from the Tyranny of forrein power, under which it was before; and so it was with the Church of England Reforming. And all this a National Church may so much the rather do, when the Universal stands so divided and distracted (as it hath for these latter Ages) that a free General Councel cannot be expect­ed: as was insinuated, Sect. 4. of the former book. 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgment in General Councels, free and unquestionable, doth not every National Church (by name this of England) ow submission of Judgment to them? I answer, as for matters of Faith and Worship, there is no need that any National Church should dissent from any definition (concerning that matter) made or declared by any of the undoubted General Councels of the Church, such as have not been justly excepted against; and let any Romanist shew that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgment of such Councels, either in matters of Faith or Worship.

25. In Canons of Disci­pline Pru­dentiall Motives considera­ble. As for Matters of Practice and Discipline, (under which I na­med Priests single life, because they clamor against us as receding therein from the Catholick Church) I may say generally of such points that the Church in them went upon pruden­tial Motives and Reasons, with re­spect to conveniences and inconve­niences in those Times considerable: and therefore we find it sometimes letting loose the Reins of Discipline, sometimes drawing them streiter ac­cording to the Exigency of Times, or condition of Persons. As in those that en­joyn Priests sin­gle life. Neither could they that made those Canons, intend to bind the Church for ever, which in after-Ages might have like cause upon experience of inconveniences to loosen that, which they held strict­er: as we finde in the point of Penances, and also in this very point of Single life, if we look into the pra­ctise of it in several Ages and Coun­treys. Nor was it necessary, that this Remission or relaxation should alwayes expect the like Autority of Councels, to decree it, but it might be lawfully done by any National [Page 43]Church within it self upon long expe­rience of the inconveniences; and that especially, when a free General Councel cannot be expected.

26. As to this point of Priests single life, I shall have occasion to speak more below against Champny, cap. 6. here only I will hint these par­ticulars. I. It was conformable to the former Reason; that Aeneas Syl­vius (afterwards Pope) acknowledg­ed often, As at first they saw cause to forbid Priests Marriage, so now there was greater cause to leave it free to them again. Plat. in Pio. 2. II. The sixt General Councel in Trullo, held in the seventh Century, was the first General Councel that forbad Bi­shops to have or retein their Wives. Can. 12. Where they excuse them­selves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles (which forbad Bi­shops to put them away) by a pre­tence conformable stil to the former reason, viz. because stricter Disci­pline was fitter for their times, then it was for the beginnings of Christia­nity. III. That General Councel doth permit Priests and Deacons to keep [Page 44]their Wives, decreeing those to be de­posed, that cause them to forsake their Wives after ordination. Can. 13. where the Councel expresly & by name sets a black note upon the Roman Church for doing so: and Can. 55. censures that Church again for their custom of Fasting on Saturdayes. For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Coun­cel as not General or Lawful, yet the more reasonable among them admit of it; and so we leave them to an­swer for their dissenting from a General Councel upon a double score, as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons.

27 But what tell we them of an­swering it to any Councel, VVhat submission the Church of Rome exacts. that will have the whole Catholick Church bound to submit to the decrees of their Church? Let us see then what Submission the Church of Rome re­quires of all within her Communion, and indeed of all Christians under pain of Damnation. We may deli­ver it in general, thus: In all that she defines, she requires, or exacts rather, absolute Submission of belief [Page 45]and judgment; but then we say, she cannot make good the ground on which she requires it, viz. Infallible guidance. In other things not De­fined she requires submission of si­lence, which she imposes on both parties, as the heat of the controver­sie between them seems to require. And this Submission we acknowledg due to Autority in every Church, not only to the Autority of the chief Pa­stors in that Church, but also of the Supreme Civil power: this imposing of silence, being not a Definitive sentence for determination of Do­ctrine, but a suspending sentence for ceasing of the debate, and providing for publick peace.

28. In all things defined. What strict submission of be­lief the Church of Rome requires to all her Definitions, we may see by the Oath, set out by Pius 4. to be taken by every Bishop, wherein, after the recital of the whole Romish Faith, as it is patched up with the Tridentine Articles, follows that very clause which we find in the Athanasian Creed subjoyned to the Catholick Faith there expressed, Haec est fides Ca­tholica, [Page 46]extra quam—this is the Ca­tholick Faith, without which none can be saved. So that they which joyn themselves to that Church stand bound to believe all, which that Church at present doth, or shall hereafter propose to be believed: Let them place the judgment of that Church where they will, in the Pope or Councel.

29. And abso­lute Sub­mission. Card. Bel. who according to the Divinity professed at Rome, and more generally obtaining in that Church, reduces all to the judgment of the Pope, is very strict in exacting this submission of belief. In his fourth book, de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Popes Infallibility, and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare, sed simpliciter ob [...] ­dir [...]— It is not for Subjects or Inferi­ours to doubt of this matter (viz. Whe­ther the Pope can or doth erre) but simply to obey. And to shew the strength of this obligation, & the in­convenience that would fall upon the Church, if the Pope be subject to erre in defining or commanding any thing to the Church, he lets not to [Page 47]express it thus. Si papa erraret prae­cipiendo, &c. If the Pope should erre, in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue, the Church were bound to be­lieve, Vitia esse bona, & Virtutes ma­las, nisi vellet contra conscientiam pec­care, that Vice was good, Vertue evill, unlesse it would sin against conscience. To mollifie the harshnesse of this he inserts presently (in rebus dubiis) as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubt­full Matters; which as it is not all they say, so is it to little pur­pose: for if he please to judg the most apparent thing to be doubtful (as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the peo­ple) and define against it, then are all in the Church bound to believe so, or sin against Conscience.

30. And indeed it necessarily fol­lows upon their ground and reason of believing all things, viz. the Pa­pal Infallibility. Now considering, what Popes have been, and may be, how readily may all of that perswa­sion be brought under the Wo de­nounced by the Prophet, Isa. 5.20. [Page 48]against those that call Good Evill, Light Darkness, Truth Errour, Vertue Vice. Thus have the people been put off with half-Communion, con­trary to our Saviours institution, and made to believe it is not so: thus brought to bow down to graven I­mages and to Worship them, con­trary to the express words of Gods command, and yet bound to believe it is not so: thus have they been raised here into Rebellions and Trea­sons against their Natural Prince, upon Pope Pius 5. his Bulls, and thereupon to believe Rebellion was good service to God and his Church: thus Princes themselves have been brought to incestuous Marriages, and to believe them not sinful upon the Popes dispensation: as our Hen. 8. many yeers believed, till, upon better examination, he saw how vain and ungrounded the Judgment and Sen­tence of the Pope was.

31. Not all agreed about the chief ground of their belief. But they are not all agreed a­bout this ground of Belief, (Papal infallibility) for though it be pub­lickly professed, and maintained in their Schools, especially where the [Page 49]Jesuits are in the Chaire, and none within the Popes reach dare openly gainsay it; yet is it not every where believed within the Romish Commu­nion. A fair pretence it carries to advance the work of that Church, or Court of Rome rather, and the Romish Emissaries make good ad­vantage of it, when they have to deal with the unwary, and more simple sort of Christians; but when it falls under conscionable examination, what submission of belief it gains from those of that Communion, we may see by these examples. Clement the 7. was resolute in his sentence for the incestuous marriage of Henry the 8. yet both Universities of this Land, with many abroad, some of Italy it self, declared against it. Pope Paul 5. was as peremptory in his definitive sentence against the Venetians, yet was resisted by that whole State and their Subjects, and in the end forced to recall it. And many now living can remember, what difference there was among the Romish Catholikes here, upon the same Popes Breves sent out against the Oath of Allegi­ance; [Page 50]some urging obedience to them, some refusing, and shewing their Reasons for their dissenting; which may be seen drawn up in a book set out by Mr. William Howard, one of the Romish Communion, and do speak the reasonableness of what is said by us, for the judgment of dis­cretion allowed to private persons, or Inferiours.

32. When there comes shame upon any Papal sentence, as in the former examples, they have excuses from the condition of the Matter de­fined, or the concernment of it to the Church, or the intention of the Pope in defining it, with a distinction of in and out of his Chair, to play fast and loose by; for they can shift him into it, or out of it, according to the event and success of his definitive Judgment. But those examples will not admit of such exceptions, for though in Hypothesi they were in and about particular Actions and Persons, yet in Thesi they were of general concernment as may be ea­sily made to appear; and whether the Pope was in his chair or no, when [Page 51]he sent forth such definitive sentence, I know not; but me thinks, in business of such concernment to the Church and Christian people, it should have beseemed him to give his judgment not car elesly as a private Doctor, but as the Pastor, General of the Church, and it had been worth his pains to go up to his chair for infalli­ble determination; and if he did it not then, when so much cause, so much time to do it, when shall any man ever know certainly that the Pope defined or spake such or such a thing in his chair, that there may be sure ground for belief and obedience?

33. Bel. in the place above cited, Difference about Pa­pal Infallibility. treating of the Popes Infallibility sets down severall opinions about it, of which this is one: That the Pope may be an Heretick and teach Here­sie; This opinion he will not say is fully Heretical, because they are tole­rated in the Church that hold it, but Haeresi proxima, at next door to He­resie: Yet as neer as it is to Heresie, it is the sentence generally of the Popish Church in France, and other places too: and see their agreement. [Page 52]This may not be taught at Rome, nor the contrary of it at Paris. Now al­beit this Party hath unanswerable reasons and arguments for rejecting the Infallibility of the Papal judg­ment, and setting up a General Councel above him, which would be good out of the mouth of a Prote­stant: Yet they also when they have to deal with Protestants, tell of the Infallible guidance of the Roman Church, of the Pope as Vicar of Christ, and the visible Head of his Church, and boast of their Church as built upon the Rock; in all which they thwart themselves; for what privilege (of Infallibility or o­ther) can the Roman Church pre­tend to above other, but by S. Peter, and then must it be derived by his supposed successors the Bishops of that Church? or how can they affirm the Pope to be Head, and deny him the Supremacy, or say a Councel is above him? or how apply that promise of the Rock to their Church, but by allowing S. Peter, and so his successors to be that Rock, and conse­quently to give the stability and in­fallibility [Page 53]to their Church, if that place prove any to be in it? This Party indeed will say, they make the Pope but a Ministerial Head to the Church. Which how it reconciles the premises, or saves all they pretend to by the Pope, I see not; but surely it sets them at a wide difference with their fellow Catholicks who are of a contrary perswasion. Let them agree it among themselves: yet note we their disagreement in points of such high concernment, as touch the very ground-work of their Faith; and consequently their uncertainty where to state the infallibility: and there­upon their unreasonableness in exact­ing (upon that pretence of infallible guidance) absolute submission of be­lief to all things defined and pro­pounded by that Church: and lastly, their vanity in thinking to satisfie us with saying, They all agree in yeild­ing submission to all, that is defined by General Councels; and that the Differences we object to them a­bout Pope and Councel are not defined.

34. For first, they must not here [Page 54]put us off with Submission of Silence or external peaceable subjection (which requires not that infallible guidance the Church of Rome boasts of, but an Autoritative judgment, or unappealeable Autority, which we quarrel not, if well stated, as will appear presently) but they must speak that agreement of theirs in yeilding Submission of belief, and then it will not serve their turns to tell us, when we charge them with disagreement in the grounds of their belief, that they all agree in yeilding Submission, &c. For seeing Infalli­ble judgment is the ground with them of that submission of belief, and they cannot agree how that in­fallibility accrews, or where it is to be stated in Councel, Pope, or partly in both (the reasons of the one part being sufficient to destroy the other) it must needs appear how much they disagree in and about the very ground-work of their belief. They would think it strange to hear us say, We and they do not disagree in the grounds of our belief, because we both agree in these Generals, That [Page 55]all Divine Revelation is to be belie­ved, yea, All that is revealed in Scrip­ture ought to be believed; for if we enquire farther into the Means of conveying Divine Revelation, we cannot admit Tradition in so care­less and uncertain a sense, as they do: or if look into the Meaning of Scrip­ture, we cannot allow of their pre­tended Infallible Judg or Interpreter; and they stick not to call us Hereticks for our disagreement with them. So for their Principle in which they boast of their Universall agreement, (Submission to all that is defined) if we enquire into the reason and ground of it (Infallible Judgment in their definitions) we find wide diffe­rences and contrary perswasions a­mong them; and Bell. could find in his heart to make them Hereticks, that are against stating the Infallibili­ty in the Pope, and therefore call'd their Perswasion Haeresi Proxima, next door to Heresie, as we heard a­bove: and mark his reason there why it is not propriè haeretica, fully and properly so, Nam adhuc ab Ecclesiâ tolerantur—They are still [Page 56]tolerated of the Church, that hold it: A reason why he might not speak as he thought; He thought it He­resie no question, but might not call it so, for saving the Union of their Church. Union and Agreement a­mong Christians is to be sought for by all fair means, and to be held up­on all just grounds: and in order to it, Submission unto Autority is ne­cessary, and Toleration again from Autority may be sometime and in some things needful; But the Church of Rome boasting of her Unity, and the means she hath for it (Infallible Judgment in her Definitions) and thereupon requiring not only exter­nal or peaceable subjection, but sub­mission of belief, may be ashamed for preserving of her Unity to tolerat such different perswasions or Do­ctrines, so neer unto Heresie. And this also shews the Vanity of what they farther say, that the points they differ in (as whether a Pope be above a Councel, whether Infallible, &c.) are not defined, and therefore gene­ral submission of belief, or uniform agreement is not required: Why [Page 57]then say we, is that Doctrine tolera­ted amongst them, that is proxima Haeresi, so neer to Heresie, as we heard above? Why is not that de­fined and stated, which is the ground of believing all other things that are defined? The reason is plain; The Pope knows well enough if those points were defined one way, they would not be generally believed, and that it is better to have them in­stilled in privat into the minds of Men by his trusty Emissaries, then to have them publickly defined, and more for his advantage to have men brought to a perswasion of them in favoar of his power, then to hazard the peremptory belief of them either way. Other means there are, the chains of force and policy to hold all together, and I doubt not, but many are kept from revolting, whose Learning and Conscience shews them a more excellent way, then that of the Romish Church.

35. Some there are, as I hear, Of unap­pealable Autority. of the more moderat sort of Roma­nists, which will not now seem to contend for an Infallible Judgment [Page 58]in their Church, but to be content with an unappealable Autority. This may be good Doctrine at Paris, but not at Rome; and we may farther say, that such Autority or Autori­tative Judgment, being rightly stated (for it must be placed some where) as it hurts not us, so doth it not help them.

For 1. they forsake the ground­work or formall reason of their be­lief, which is the Autority and Te­stimony of their Church; and it must be either Infallible, or not that thing into which their Faith can be­resolved; for albeit such an anap­pealable Autority may in some sort provide for External peace, yet can it not certainly and finally stay belief. 2. There may the same Objections be made against it, which they usu­ally reproach us with for want of that pretended Infallibility: viz. That men are so left to their own reason, That there is not without it sufficient means for Peace and Uni­ty; (of which Sect. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. of the former book) for although when we dissent from that unappeal­able [Page 59]Autority, in matter of Belief and Opinion, we be not happily bound to discover it, at least to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church as above said: Yet if the error be in commanding somthing for Religious Worship (as adoration of Sacrament or Images) that must needs discover and shew it self in outward practise, the unappealable Autority cannot secure the exter­nal Submission or compliance. In Civil affairs indeed Ʋnappealable Autority may absolutely require ex­ternall Submission, because by sub­mitting to the wrong Judgment or Sentence of such Autority, the things we recede from for peace sake, are but Temporals, and in our own power to dispose of; but it is not so in the Matters of the Soul and Conscience, in the poims of Belief and Worship, in which we must have the Evidence of that, which is con­fessedly Infallible, to stay up­on.

36. But what if men will be perverse (as we have seen in these dayes) to pretend error & superstition in Wor­ship, [Page 60]where there is none? Who shall judge? VVho shall judge? They that so oft put this question to us, cannot well re­solve it themselves; for who shall judge, say we to them? Pope or Councel? they cannot agree it where the Infallibility rests; and if either or both of them must judg, shall their judgment be taken for In­fallible? Neither are they here re­solved, some contending for Infalli­ble, some content with Ʋnappealable Autority. As for us, we answer Unanimously: The Church shall judg (be it National or Universal) and take order with such persons; by the Church here we mean the Guides and Governours that have public Judgment and Autority in e­very National Church, or in the Catholic assembled in a General Councel; and by Judging, we mean their defining or demonstrating the Truth, according to the Infallible Rule of Gods Word, and their Sen­tencing of Persons refractory, to due punishment. So the Church shall judg, either to the convincing and satisfying, or to the censuring and [Page 61]punishing of such Persons: who are to answer unto God also for their disobedience. For the Church or Public Autority, as it hath the ad­vantage of Judgment above all In­feriour or privat persons, so of Power too, to proceed according to that Judgment against the obstinate. No other means of restraint had the An­cient Church, as was insinuated, Sect. 13. of the former book.

To conclude. This Ʋnappealable and not Infallible Autority, as it can­not consist with the main Principle of Romish belief, so may it well e­nough stand with any thing asserted by us: and were it stated aright (not in the Pope, but in every National Church immediately, and in a Ge­neral Councel finally) I suppose, there needed not be any matter of difference about it. And hitherto of Submission of Judgment and Pra­ctise to the Definitions and Consti­tutions of a Church.

CHAP. II.
Of Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward, perfected under Queen Elizabeth, and the warrantableness of it.

THat the English Reformation was not regular and warrant­able, but carried against the consent of the Bishops of this Land, is the usual reproach of the Romanists. It was infinuated in the 4. Section of the former book, That the Refor­mation was begun under Hen. and perfected under Q. Elizabeth, not without a just National Synod; and that in the Reformation under Hen. 8. there was no displacing of Bishops, but all was passed by general con­sent. That late Romish Convert, as he pretends himself to be, that wrote the reproachful Pamphlet, Entituled, The Obit of Prelatic Protestancie, took no­tice of what I had said, and returns the reproach double upon us, saying: All the Bishops of this Nation were [Page 63]excluded and imprisoned when the Doctors party first decreed the breach —so that they had no more a Na­tional Synod, then Those, that could congregate when they pleased, as ma­ny of their own party, and style it a Synod, as the Presbyterians did. So he. pag. 136.

We will consider then, how the Reformation was begun, carried on and perfected; which will appear to be so done as the Romanist can have no just cause to reprove, nor the Presbyterian or any Sectaries to pre­tend to the like.

1. Reforma­tion begun under Hen. 8. The First Reformation began under Hen. 8. in the ejection of Papal jurisdiction with some super­stitious abuses. And here I must first say, and desire the Reader to take notice, that to this first & main point of Reformation, the ejecting of that forrein Jurisdiction, there needed no vote of National Synod, or consent of Bishops: the King himself being a sufficient and competent Judg in that cause of Vindicating his own Rights, upon which that Papal juris­diction was a plain Usurpation. And [Page 64]therefore the like had been often done by Kings of this Realm, before Hen. Not with­out the Vote of a National Synod. 8. putting their Subjects under Premunire, that did acknowledg such an usurped power, or had recourse to Rome in any cause or matter of Jurisdiction. But Secondly, we can say, and that most truly, that it was carryed with the general consent of the Bishops of this Land in ful Synod, decreeing not a breach, but the casting off and renouncing of Papal supre­macy, upon which the first breach followed; and so Saunders calls it Schisma Henricianum, King Henries Schisme.

2. Now if Romanists will say; Those Bishops and the rest of the Clergy assembled in that Synod were of their party, because most of the Romish Doctrine was still reteined; then let them say, that their Party first made the Breach, and cease to lay any imputation upon us for it, or for doing the like upon greater cause under Queen Elizabeth: however, their Party or Ours, they must con­fess the first-breach was then made, and the Reformation then begun, [Page 65]and that by full consent of the Bi­shops of this Nation, in full Sy­nod.

3. If again they say, as usually it is said by them of the Romish par­ty, That Synod was not free, the Bishops and the rest being compelled by fear, to vote that, which they after repented of and retracted un­der Queen Mary. To say nothing of the liberty of Papal Councels, where none can speak freely, without note of Heresie or danger of Inqui­sition; it is apparent, they voted the like again three years after, and it is strange that the Passion of Fear should continue so long, or that so many learned men should not in 16. years more see their error and re­tract it, till there came a Queen that discovered her self to be of another mind. But if they were compelled through fear so to Vote, what com­pelled them so to write, and to make good by such forcible Arguments what they had Voted, as the most learned of them did? what compel­led them, I say, but the Evidence of Truth? and if they voluntarily re­tracted [Page 66]what they Voted in Synod, why did they not as voluntarily an­swer their own Arguments? They are yet to be seen, and will remain as a clear Evidence of the warrant­ableness of that Synodicall Vote, up­on which the first Breach followed.

4. Reforma­tion under K Edward. Proceed we now to King Ed­wards Time, under whom the Re­formation was carried on, and the Breach continued. And here, if we make enquiry, how it stood with the Bishops of this Land, we find the two Archbishops, Bishops at Liberty. Cranmer and Holdgate, together with Thirlby and divers other Bishops made in King Henries time, continuing in their places unmolested all King Edwards reign; As for those few, who at last were removed (viz. Boner, Gardiner, Heath. Day, Vessey) None of them were impri­soned till the third year of the King, except Gardiner and Boner, who for some Misdemeanors felt a short re­straint, from which upon Submissi­on being released, they enjoyed their Bishopricks, till the end of the Kings third year. Neither can I find that [Page 67]any of them, during that time, was excluded from sitting in Parliament, there being indeed no cause for it; for They had all taken the Oath of Supremacy, to the renouncing of Papal power and Jurisdiction, the form of which Oath is set down in Fox his Acts and Monuments. They did also generally receive those few injunctions, sent out for Reformati­on, as we shall hear presently. I find in the first and second Parlia­ments in King Edwards Time, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and enacting: and John Stow gives us a Copy of Stephen Gardiners let­ter sent out of the Tower, (in the third year of the King, for then he was imprisoned) to the Lords of the Councel; Sitting in Parlia­ment. wherein he sues for his Liberty, that he might do his duty in Parliament then sitting, being a Member of the same. This plainly shews, the only hinderance of his sitting there, was want of Liberty, and that he only of all the Bishops was kept from thence. That which Master Fox saith in the beginning of his story of King Edward, that seve­ral [Page 68]prisons, is spoken by Anticipati­on, as other things also there insinu­ated, that were after done through­out the following course of the Kings reign.

5. National Synod. If now it be asked, where is the judgment of a National Synod to warrant. King Edwards Reforma­tion? I have many things to say. I. What I speak of the English Re­formation, that it was not done without the judgment of a National Synod, did chiefly relate to the Synod under King Henry, which, as I said, began the Reformation, and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it. In the first was the main Annoyance, and cause of Cor­ruption in the Church, removed by casting out the usurped Papal Juris­diction, with some dependances of it; but in the latter Synod, the whole work (carried on under King Edw: according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign) was compleat­ed, shewing it self in an Uniform body of Doctrine, voted and pub­lished in the 39. Articles of this Church.

6. II. Title of Supreme Head. For the work done in King Edwards time, if any thing did run out of Square, through the swelling Title of Supreme Head, stretched a little, perchance, by some beyond his Line, the thanks are first due to Those, whom they of the Popish party account theirs: I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work, not in that part which they denyed to the Pope, (for none could have written better against that usur­ped Papal Supremacie then Bishop Gardiner, Tonstal and others) but in that which they attributed to the King. And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, did re­late to the Vote and Acknowledg­ment of the Clergie, [Seeing that all Autority of Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness, as Supreme Head, and so acknowledged by the Clergie of this Realm: Be it there­fore Enacted, &c. 1 EDW: 6. c. 2.] that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and ex­pressions, [Page 70]we may see whom they fol­lowed.

7. VVhether abused in this busi­ness of Reforma­tion. Now considering what was al­ready granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw: 6. by the Bishops and Clergie of this Nation; considering also, the King (although of admirable piety and understand­ing beyond his years, yet) being under age, and so under Protection, it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-persons, who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influ­ence upon the Affairs of the Time. And however the Kings Autority, under pretence of that Title and Ju­risdiction, as it seems, was abused in disposing of Church-means, and diverting them to private gain, yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation, as to the point of Gods Worship and Religion it self; but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it, that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time, the busi­ness of Religion was fairly carryed on; and that is the third thing I have to say, That the Reformation [Page 71]under King Edward (to the abolish­ing of Image-Worship, the restoring of the Liturgie in a known Tongue, and Communion in both kinds, with that which followed thereupon, the abolishing of Romish Massings; for herein was the main of K. Edwards Reformation) was warrantably ad­vanced, and carryed on. For the clearing of which, as to the Au­thority that did it, I have these things to say.

8. First, Synodical Vote how necessary in this bu­finess. Reformation of Gods Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote. Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determi­ning Church-Affairs, where there is not just and apparent cause of fear­ing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated, and the times in which they are to assemble. To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen, That he saw no good end of Councels, which he spoke not absolutely, but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected, by reason of the prevailing faction of the [Page 72] Arrians, who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Councels held in those times. Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pa­stors of the Church, as to this point of Reformation, is directive, either in or out of Synod, and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction, is by their meet­ing and consulting in Synod, there­fore the Prince, whose power or of­fice is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties, what is evidenced to Him, hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod. But he is not simply and always bound, to take his direction thus, by any Law of God or Man; for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions, whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops, and lear­ned men of the Church, to be the Law of Christ (such as were the foremen­tioned points of Reformation, appa­rently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity) shall he not per­form his known duty, till the Vote of [Page 73]a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it? The change of Re­ligion for the worse is stil charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Te­stament, and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings: which shews this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince, and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah, who were more forward in the Re­formation of Gods Worship then the Priests, do warrant the forward piety of our yong Josiah, K. Edward. And this is also approved by that, which many Christian Emperors, and Kings have, to their great praise, done in the business of Religion, without or before the calling of a Councel, though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bi­shops, and learned Men. Of this point more below, when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things.

Neither can we say, the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Pru­dence alwaies to receive his directi­on from a Vote in Synod, especially when there is just cause of fear, as [Page 74]above said; but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests, to which the most of them, that should meet, are apparently obnoxious. And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edwards reign, or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say; but this I have farther to say—

9. Injuncti­ons sent out at first by the King. Secondly, In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the publick exercise of Re­ligion or Worship, and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine, or Uni­formity in points of Religion. In or­der to the latter (a Body of Do­ctrine) I find there was a Synod held under King Edward. The Acts of it I have not seen, but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals: for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae. Where in the Act of the second day (as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related) a dispute arises about a Catechism pub­lished [Page 75]in the name of the Synod un­der King Edward: the Popish par­ty renouncing it, and on the Prote­stant part John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, maintaining it to be Synodical, because compiled by Au­tority and Commission from the Sy­nod; for, saith he, this House grant­ed Autority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws, unto certain per­sons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty—and concludes, that the Catechisme and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod, since they had, saith he, our Synodal Autority unto them committed. Now as all Catechisms do, so this did con­tein the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation, which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod, and therefore rejected by the Popish party.

10. This Synod, as I suppose, was not held till the fift of King Edward. But the Injunctions, that went out in the first year, were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Wor­ship, (which was necessarily to be provided for in present) and went [Page 76]no farther then those evident points above mentioned. Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Autority; for, having suddenly dissolved the Con­vocation by her peremptory Man­date to Bishop Boner for that pur­pose, in December, She sent out, the March following, Injunctions (not upon any Vote of the former Con­vocation) touching Papal Supre­macy, Sacraments, Priests-Marri­age, &c. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments, 1. Mariae. If it be said, as usually they reply, that she did but restore what was before established in the Church; so we may say, by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Wor­ship of God, accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church, in a known tongue, with Communion in both kindes, without Image-worship,—all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church. And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them;

11. Those Injuncti­ons sent out by advice of Bishops, and were generally received of all the Bishops. Thirdly, They were sent out [Page 77]by the Kings Autority, upon the ad­vise of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land; and ge­nerally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Dio­cesses. Both these things are avouch­ed expresly in the charge given in a­gainst Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, (extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments) to shew that he was the only Bishop, that did not so rea­dily conform as the rest did. This also appears by the Letters of the Arch­bishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London, to whom he sent the said In­junctions, and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster (who then was Thirlby, twice promoted in King Edwards dayes) to other Bi­shops, for the execution of the same. Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts.

12. And so the Vniformi­mity of Publick prayer. If we looke on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King, we find in the first Chapter, a Law for the Ʋni­formity of Public prayer, and Admi­nistration of the Sacraments expres­sing thus much, That for the draw­ing [Page 78]up such an Order and Form, the King appointed the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops, and o­ther learned men of this Realm (there's the fitness of the Persons for the Work) having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures, and to the Ʋsages in the Primitive Church (there's the fitness of the rule they went by) The which at this time, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and with one Ʋniform agreement, is by them concluded. Wherefore the Lords Spiritual (note that) and Temporal, and the Com­mons in this present Parliament assembled, considering the godly tra­vel of the King and the Lord Pro­tector, in gathering the said Arch­bishop and Bishops and Learned men together, the godly Prayers, Orders, and Rites in the said Book, and the considerations of altering those things that be altered, and reteining those things which be reteined in the said book, and also the honour of God, and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same: do [Page 79]give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same, and humbly pray it may be enacted, &c. What could be more sweetly begun by the King, carried on by the Bishops, received by all the Estates, then this work was? Now if there wanted a formal Syno­dical Vote, yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it, the general reception of the thing done; yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was com­manded, but did actually in Parlia­ment give their consent; there we find them all sitting, and if all did not consent (which is more then any can say) yet the major part by far did undoubtedly, for they continued, as I observed above ( Num. 4.) in their places unmolested all King Edwards dayes. Neither can it make any real difference, as to the justness of a Re­formation, whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod, and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established: or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince, moved by advice of faith­ful Bishops, and so proceeding to [Page 80]the whole body of the Clergy, or Pastors of the Church, be by them generally received and put in pra­ctice, according to the command of the Sovereign Autority. It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived: but, as I insinuated before, their number was inconsiderable to the other, and their deprivation was not till the end of the Kings third year at soonest, which shews their compliance at first.

13. Councel of Trents Rule for Reforma­tion. Now after all this it will be worth our observing, what the Councel of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation, (in the Decree de celebrat. Missae. Sess. 6. sub Pio 4.) did confess, and thought fit to redress. Multa jam sive tem­porum vitio, sive hominum incuriâ & improbitate irrepsisse, aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate—many things (say they) either through the iniquity of the Times, or the carelesness and wickedness of Men have crept in, far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice: and what were those things? quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit, which covetousness or super­stition [Page 81]hath brought in. Then they give order for redress, That the ordi­nary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere, take them clean away. This was well spoken, had they done it throughly.

Now what they thought fit to be done, and did it but slightly, was done fully in the Protestant Refor­mation, and particularly in that un­der King Edward; for the shameful nundination of Masses, which Co­vetousness had brought in, was clean taken away, by taking away the man­ner and Trade of Romish Massings, and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament: & the many abuses, which Superstition had brought in, were removed by restoring the pub­lic Liturgy in a known Tongue, & the celebration of the Communion in both kinds, and by taking clean away the Worship of Images; And all this was done by the advice and travel of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church, under a Pious King. What exception then can there be? It may perchance be said, that, in the close of that Decree, this power of refor­ming [Page 82]is allowed to the Bishops of the place, ut Delegatis sedis Apo­stolicae, as to the Delegates of the A­postolic See: Yea, there is stil the mischief, and hinderance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church. Deus non erit Deus, &c. God shall not be God except man please, as Tertul. said in his Apol. and Truth shall not be Truth except the Pope please, nor God Worship­ped after his own Will, unless the Pope will too.

14. The war­rantable­ness of K. Edwards Reforma­tion. To conclude. Lay now the Premisses together, and see the War­rantableness of the Reformation un­der King Edward, both for the Thing done, and the Autority by which it was done. The Thing done was for the general what the Coun­cel of Trent thought fit to be done; the removing of some things, which were crept in by the corruption of the Times, by the carelesness and iniquity of Men; Things, which Covetous­ness and Superstition (the two Bree­ders of all Popish abuses) had brought in: Things for the particular so evi­dent by Scripture, and usage of Pri­mative [Page 83]Church (the warrantable Rule of Reformation, which they went by as above noted in the statute of Parliament, Num. 12.) that no­thing can be more. So for the Au­tority, by which this was done. It was begun by a good and gracious King, upon the advice and direction of sundry learned and discreet Bi­shops; was carried on and managed by divers Bishops and other learned Men of this Realm (as was also said in the forementioned Statute) and generally received by all the Estates of the Land, and accordingly con­firmed and Established by King and Parliament. Such was the Condition and Warrant of that Reformation, which as no Romanist can justly re­prove, Sectaries cannot pretend to the like. so no Sectaries can pretend to the like, whether we consider the evidence of the Things or Abuses reformed, according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity, or the Au­tority by which that Reformation was begun, carried on, and managed, and lastly confirmed and established; Of all which there is a great failing in the pretended Reformations of [Page 84]Sectaries; yea in that which the Presbyterians undertook, who of all other pretend most to regularity, and Order.

15. Reforma­tion under Q Eliz. We are at last come down to Queen Elizabeths reign; under whom we said the Reformation was perfected. And here we are to en­quire too of the Imprisoning of Bi­shops, and look after a National Synod. We acknowledge that di­vers Bishops were Imprisoned, and, which is more, deprived too, and justly both, as will appeare hereafter upon consideration of their offence. Here we must first note, that there was no design in the Imprisoning or depriv­ing them, to make way for the hold­ing of a Synod, nor any necessity was there of it in order to that end; for if we reckon that on the one part there were six Bishops remaining (to whom the Queens Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed) and many Bishop­ricks actually void at Queen Maries death, which being supplied, there was no fear that the Popish Bishops (who were very suddenly reduced to [Page 85]Nine, by death or quitting the Land) should make the Major part, had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote.

16. Her In­junctions. As for the Injunctions sent out before it came to a Synod, they were the same for substance with those of King Edward upon the Evi­dence and Warrant, as we heard a­bove. Yet such was her tender care that all Persons doubtful should have satisfaction, and be brought to some good and charitable agreement (as in her Declaration, set down in Stow) that for this very purpose, before any thing of Religion should be esta­blished by Parliament, she appoint­ed a Conference to be held publickly at Westminster, between learned Per­sons of both sides: as more amply will be shewn below, against Champ­ny, cap. 9.) Again, those Injuncti­ons were but provisional Orders (as I may call them) for the present exercise of Religion: the whole Do­ctrine being after concluded and drawn up in a just and Lawful Sy­nod.

17. A Synod, A Lawful National Synod it [Page 86]was, in and by which, whatever be­longs to the Uniformity of Do­ctrine and Religion was defined, drawn up and published in 39. Arti­cles. The great difference twixt this Synod and the Presbyterian Assembly (however the reproaching Roma­nists rank them together) wil appear upon these considerations. Presbyte­rians can­not pre­tend to the like. I. They that took upon them to exclude or remove our Bishops, had not power either to call a Synod, or to deprive a Bishop, and that is the first irregularity, viz. Usurpation of Power. II. The cause pretended for the removing of our Bishops was not any offence against their Duty, as Subjects, or against their Office, as Bishops; but meerly for their ve­ry Office, because they were Bishops; and that was purely Schismatical. III. The Persons taken in to make up their Assembly, did not pretend to succeed our Bishops so removed, in their Power and Office; and so it was a Synod clean out of the way of the Church, sitting and concluding by a power taken to themselves, and therefore also plainly Schismatical. [Page 87]Every one of these irregularities nulls the lawfulness of an Ecclesiastical Synod. But none of these can be charged upon us; for the Popish Bishops, that remained obstinate, were removed by due Autority, up­on just cause, viz. their offence a­gainst the duty of Subjects, and of their own Office, (as will appear below, where their deprivation shall be examined, against Champny, c. 9.) Lastly, the places void either by de­privation of these, or death of others, were supplyed by Bishops lawfully ordained, as is also maintained against Champny) who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edwards dayes, and the rest of the Clergy of the Land, made up a due and Lawful Ecclesiastical Sy­nod.

18. Of Regal Supremacy in order to Reforma­tion, and Church affairs. Having thus far spoken of the care and travel of our Kings, and Queen in this work of reforming Religion and Gods Worship within this Land, it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supre­macy, or of the power, which by ver­tue of their Supremacy Princes have: [Page 88]and to shew how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs, it may be so bounded that it intrench not upon, or infringe the power and office of the Bishops and chief Pa­stors of the Church. But seeing we found the Power and Office of the one, and the other severed and di­stinct throughout the Reformations spoken of in this Chapter (for we found Bishops advising, counselling, and the Prince commanding, appoint­ing, convocating them to the work: then again Bishops with other learn­ed Men, (so appointed and convo­cated) managing the business, and concluding what was to be done in it, and the soveraign Prince, with Parliament, confirming and giving public establishment to that which was so concluded, and agreed upon by them;) Seeing also Champny doth largely insist upon this point of the Supremacy (in his 15, 16. Cha.) upon occasion of deprivation of Popish Bishops for refusing the Oath of Su­premacy under Q. Elizabeth; we will defer farther prosecution of this point, til we meet with him below.

CAP. III.
Of the lawful calling of our Eng­lish Protestant Bishops, against Doctor Champny a Sorbonist; and of the first prejudice from other Reformed Churches, that have not Bishops.

1. THis Writer having spent 8. Chap. of his book, against the Vocation of Ministers in the Refor­med Churches which want Bishops, advanceth in the 9. against our English Protestant Bishops, and labours what he can (more indeed then all his fel­lows beside) to make their Vocation or Ordination unlawful. To that end, Defects in Ordinati­on how a­rising. he layes this as the ground-work on which his whole discourse must pro­ceed. That Ordination, which gives lawful calling to the Pastors of the Church, must be valid and right, in respect of the Ordainer, of the Or­dained, and of the Ordination it self, or Form of it: and that a defect in any of these renders the Ordina­tion, and so the calling of the Party [Page 90]Ordained unlawful, cap. 9. pag. 308.

We admit the consideration of those three respects as proper and pertinent to the business in hand: and do grant that there may be such a defect in any of them, as wil ren­der the ordination either Unlaw­ful for the use, or plainly Void or Nul for the substance of it.

2. Our Eng­lish Bishops receiving Ordinati­on from the Ro­mish. He begins to examine the calling and ordination of our Bishops and Priests according to the first respect of their Ordainers, viz. those of the Church of Rome. For from thence the English Church received her Bishops and Pastors to­gether with the Christian Faith in the time of Gregory the first (this we acknowledge of the English, though the Brittains had the Christian faith and their Bishops before) and hath continued that ordination and cal­ling of Bishops with uninterrupted succession down from those first Christian Bishops to Cranmer, and our first reformed Bishops.

The Romish Ordainers he (as he must needs) allows of and approves the Orders given by them, as good [Page 91]and lawful, but would make our plea from thence void, by our own judgment, and according to the Protestant doctrine concerning them and the Orders received from them. The summ of his Reasonings is brief­ly this, 1. From the judgment and practice of other Reformed Chur­ches, which renounce Ordination by Bishops, especially from Rome, plea­ding their vocation upon other grounds; and therefore either they or we can have no lawful Pastors, no Church. 2. From the judgment and doctrine generally of all English Protestants; by whom the Pope is held to be Antichrist, or Antichristi­an: therefore we must acknowledg we received our Ordination and cal­ling (if from Rome) from the Mini­sters of Antichrist; by whom also they of the Church of Rome are ac­counted Heretikes; therefore we can have no lawful calling from such; by whom also the Orders there given are accounted Antichristian, abominable, Sacrilegious, and there­fore cannot be lawfully received by us; Lastly, by whom the Sacramen­tal [Page 92]Character is exploded, and there­fore no power of Order can be recei­ved by us. All this he wil have fol­low upon Protestant doctrine, to de­feat us of our plea from Romish Or­dainers. This is the summ of his Rea­sonings in the 9. and 10. Chapt. We shall examine them in order as brief­ly as we can.

3. The seem­ing prejudice from other Re­formed Churches. First for the judgment and pra­ctice of other Reformed Churches. He urges, That they renounce our plea of having Ordination by Bi­shops, and of receiving any orders from the Church of Rome, esteeming them Antichristian, and pleading ex­traordinary Vocation; from whence he concludes against them, that they have no lawful Pastors, therefore no Church: and consequently against us, that we are bound by our plea of Ordinations by Bishops, and those derived from Rome, to renounce the fellowship of those Churches, which hitherto we accounted of as Sisters; and to stand alone, divided from all other Churches, as we are from the Roman; and to hold the Church of England the only true Church, there­by [Page 93]confining the Catholic Church within the bounds of that Kingdom, which (considering the Number of Puritans, Brownists, Anabaptists, all which defie these Ordinations, and that plea) wil be too too narrow. To this purpose he, cap. 9. pag. 315, 316. &c.

4. Now although the different condition of some Reformed Chur­ches doth not immediatly concern us, who have retained the regular way of Ordination by Bishops, yet because the Romanists make it a mat­ter of reproach to us, and some in these Times (who covenanted the extirpation of Episcopal Govern­ment) sought a defence in it for such Schismatical attempts; we wil an­swer to the former charge, and try what may be duly concluded upon the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches.

First therefore we may say in ge­neral; However it stands with the Reformed Churches, which want Ordination by Bishops, and what­ever be concluded on them by Champny and others, as to the point [Page 94]of having lawful Pastors, or being Churches; yet his last inference of our restraining the Catholic Church within such narrow compass as this Kingdom, is altogether inconsequent; for we do not exclude the Roman Church out of the bounds of the Catholic Church, neither doth it fol­low upon our division, or want of externall Communion between us, that either it or we should be wholly severed from the Catholic. Much less do we exclude the Greek and Eastern Churches, who have their Ordination and Succession of Pastors from the Apostles, as well as the Ro­mish Church. Yea and we may add here; We cannot exclude those Reformed, which want the regular way of Ordination, from belonging to the Catholic Church.

5. All Refor­med Chur­ches not without Ordinati­on by Bishops. But 2. All Reformed Churches ( i.e. such as have purged themselves of Romish Error and Superstition) besides the English, are not without Government and Ordination by Bi­shops. Those Churches, which are the Remains of the ancient reformed Bohemians, and are now in and a­bout [Page 95] Poland or those parts, do stil retain Bishops; as appears by their Book set out 1626. containing the substance of their Doctrine, the man­ner of their Government, Synods, &c. Neither are Denmark, and Swe­den without their Bishops; and there­fore Champny's other inference, That in this plea of Ordination by Bishops, and that derived from the Romish Church, we of England stand alone, is also false.

6. Now 3. The judgment of other Reformed Churches of our Bishops. As for reformed Chur­ches in a stricter sense, such as those of France, Geneva, Germany, which Champny names c. 9. what their judgment was of our Bishops and Ordination by them (though derived to us from the Church of Rome) ap­pears sufficiently by Bucer, Peter Martyr, and other Protestants being here in England, and assisting our Bishops in the work of Reformation; also by the Letters of the chief and best Learned in those Churches, Cal­vin, Zanchy, &c. to our Bishops, and to others concerning them; whose Testimonies, collected by the Bishop of Durham, were published [Page 96]in these Times, and opposed to our Covenanters, and all other Sectaries that attempted the extirpation of Episcopacy as Antichristian.

7. As for the sayings which Champny gives us out of Luther, Cal­vin, Mornaeus— to whom he adds Fulk and Whitaker, rejecting and condemning the Romish Ordinations, as Antichristian, corrupt and unlaw­ful; he might remember, that else­where he tels us of their pleading by them, their alledging, that Luther, Bucer. Oecolampad, &c. were ordain­ed in the Church of Rome, c. 4. and 9. and he could not but know, that Fulk, and Whitaker allowed of Bishops here, and were ordained by them.

But hence he concludes them all to be taken in a contrary tale, and put to a miserable shift; For ask them, saith he, Whence came ye? who sent you? they will tell us they came from the same stock and originall as the Pastors of the Catholic (Roman) Church did; for their first Doctors, Luther, Bucer, Zuinglius, were by them ordained Priests; ask them a­gain, [Page 97]how can they account that to be a lawfull calling, which is derived from the Ministers of Antichrist? they will not stick to defy those Orders and Ordinations, and presently flie to an extraordinary vocation. So he c. 9. p. 323. 324. And yet this seeming contradiction is very reconcilable. For when they reject the Ordinati­ons received from Romish Bishops as corrupt and Antichristian, they do it not simply, as if they were Null or none at all; but in regard of the ad­ditionall abuses, especially that great and sacrilegious depravation of giving such a sacrificing power, and placing the Priestly function chiefly in it. Therefore so far as the Romish Ordinations pretend to give that power (with other superadded abu­ses) they are justly condemned and rejected: but in as much as they re­tain withall the words of the Evan­gelicall commisson, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, &c (which give the power of the Ministery of reconciliation, in the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments of the Gospel) they are valid and good, and [Page 98]not to be reiterated where they are given.

8. By this power of Order received in the Roman Church, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolamp. and others had lawfull calling to preach the Word; yea, to preach against the very Er­rors of that Church; which (consi­dering the condition of that Church and the Errors of it) they might do (and for any thing I know, they did) lawfully, without transgressing the bounds and limits of submission due to a Church, which I ende­voured to fix at the beginning of this Treatise.

9. Plea of [...]ex­traordina­ry Voca­tion. Now what is spoken by some of extraordinary Vocation, as that im­plyes a renouncing of Orders recei­ved from Rome, must not be taken as the generall plea or judgment of those Churches, for we heard them pleading Orders received in the Ro­man Church, and Luther wrote very well (as Champny cites him, chap. 8.) against Munster and others that pretended to extraordinary Voca­tion, bidding them prove it by Signs and Miracles. Again, that [Page 99]extraordinary calling, which some in the Reformed Churches have alleged, sounds not any new office, they pretend to be call'd to, but that of Pastors and Teachers, and according to the end it was insti­tuted for; nor other way of comming to that office, but by external voca­tion from men: but it implies some difference from or failing in the or­dinary and usual way of ordaining to that office, ( viz. by Bishops) for which they plead their case and con­cernment was extraordinary, which rests upon them to demonstrate.

10. Hitherto of their judgment in the point; from whence we infer, that the present Reformed Churches, if they follow the judgment of the first Reformers, and of the most so­ber and learned men that have been in them, since must allow of our plea of Ordinations by Bishops, and those derived from the Church of Rome; and Champny must acknowledg an agreement so far between us. Now for their Practise not conformable to that Judgment, as we cannot ap­prove of it, so are we ready to ex­cuse [Page 100]their failing so far, as the neces­sity, they plead, will bear: leaving it to the Romanists desperatly to cut off Nations and People from the Church for failings and wants in such things, as do not immediatly touch the very life and being of a Church, or of the Members of it.

11. Two things in the consti­tution and continu­ance of the Church. To this purpose there are two things considerable in the constituti­on and continuance of the Church, both necessary, though not equally. 1. The Doctrine of Faith and Life, the due profession of which makes a man a Member of the Visible Catho­lic Church, and the true belief and practise of which makes him a lively Member of the true Symbolical Ca­tholic Church, that which we believe in the Creed, that which is the true mystical body of Christ. 2. The or­der of Ministery and Government in the Church, for bringing of Men to that due profession of Doctrine, and so on to be true & lively Members of the body of Christ, and for holding them in the Unity of faith. To this end Pastors and Teachers (in whom [Page 101]that Ministery and Government rests) are given by our Saviour, Eph. 4.11, 12, 13.

12. Concerning these, two things are clear. First, that although Apo­stles, Prophets, Evangelists there mentioned, and taken in a stricter sense, were only then given and for those Times, yet Pastors and Tea­chers were given, to continue to the worlds end. The purpose for which he gave them, expressed Eph. 4.1. doth imply so much, and so doth his Commission given to them, As my Father sent me, so I send you, S. Jo. 20. by vertue whereof they were to send others; and so doth his promise gi­ven them imply as much, I am with you to the end of the world. S. Math. 28. Secondly, That this giving or sending. of Pastors, was to be continued by such as our Saviour appointed, and his Apostles after him; I send you, saith he: and accordingly they com­mitted this power, of sending or or­daining Pastors, unto the hands of special men, such as Timothy, Titus, Sylvanus, Sosthenes, Clemens, Epa­phroditus, &c. Whom we find either [Page 102]written to by the Apostle, or joyn­ed with him in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches, or honou­rably mentiond for special labour and care in the affairs of the Church; whom Antiquity also witnesseth to have been chief Pastors or Bishops in governing the Churches planted by the Apostles. Such also and no other could be the Angels of the Asian Churches written to by S. John, or by our Saviour rather.

12. The con­cernment and neces­sity of [...] But as it is clear, that the having of Pastors duly sent and lawfully or­dained doth highly concern the Church; so is it most clear that the first concernment (of the Doctrine of faith and life) is the chief and simply necessary to all the Members of the Church; and that the latter (Order of Ministry and Government by Pastors and Teachers) is to serve un­to it. The Apostle shews us this by two similitudes he uses to set out the Constitution of the Church. One Eph. 4. of a Body fitly joyned together, &c. That which joyns the body of the Church to Christ the head, and knits one joynt or part to another, is Faith, [Page 103]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 [Page 104]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. [Page 105]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 [Page 106]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 [Page 107]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 [Page 108]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 [Page 109]the former argument, to be no Chur­ches, or not to belong to the Church of Christ, because of that want or de­fect in the Vocation or Ordination of their Pastors.

17. Those companies indeed of Christians, who believed in India up­on the preaching of Frumentius, be­longed to the Church of Christ, be­fore they received Pastors from the Bishop of Alexandria: and that multitude which believed in Samaria upon the preaching of Philip, and were baptized by him, were indeed of the Church, and a Church of Christ, though not completed, til Peter and John went down with due Autority, to set all in order there. Accordingly we may account of those Reformed Churches (which have not their Pastors sent and or­dained as from the beginning) as of Congregations not regularly form­ed, as Churches not completed: not indeed without Pastors altoge­ther, as those of India and Samaria at the first were, but having such as they can, viz. such as have (if we wil speak properly) the Vocation on [Page 110] 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 [Page 111]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 [Page 112]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, [Page 113]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, [Page 114]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 [Page 115]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. [Page 116]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 [Page 117]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 [Page 118]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 [Page 119]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 [Page 120]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 [Page 121]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 [Page 122]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 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, [Page 124]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, [Page 125]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 [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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, [Page 128]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 [Page 129]concerning Bishops and Ordi­nation by them, where it may be had, is such, and their excuse of the want of it pleaded by necessity, their ex­ample can in no wise be alleged in defence of those, who of late have rejected Bishops and Ordination by them, nay ejected them, when they had them. We bless God, that we had the happy means of a regular Reformation; the more they have to answer for, that disturbed our esta­blished Order; but as for those Churches which approve of that Or­der where it is, and want it by neces­sity, rather then choice, we leave it to Champny and other Romanists to conclude desperatly upon them, and all that are not in their way, enclo­sing the whole Church within their Communion; and judg of Christi­ans not so much by their Union to Christ by the bands of faith and cha­rity, Eph. 4.13.16. as to his preten­ded Vicar by subjection to him; for so they conceive of the Church of Christ as of a Society joyned toge­ther under one Pastor, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, and do accordingly [Page 130]define it, and acknowledg the Mem­bers of it, making themselves thereby Papists rather then Christians, and cutting off from the Church, not on­ly for defects in ritu Apostolico the Order left by our Saviour and his Apostles (which is the charge they have against the Reformed Churches that are without Bishops) but also for failing ritu Romano, the not ob­serving in this point of Ordination, the additional Rites and Papal In­ventions used there; which is the charge they have against us, and for which they conclude we have no Bi­shops nor lawful Pastors: as will ap­pear below.

CHAP. IV.
Of the second Prejudice, From the Protestants Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist, and the Church of Rome Heretical.

1. NOw proceed we to his second Argument, against our plea­ding of Ordination derived from the Church of Rome. It is grounded up­on the Judgment of our own Wri­ters, and amongst them some Bishops, that hold the Pope is Antichrist, and therefore that we fall by our own sentence and doctrine; For how can the Ministers of Christ, saith he, re­ceive due and lawful Ordination from the Ministers of Antichrist? Or how can we think, that Christ should leave the power of Ordaining Pastors for the feeding of his Church, which he bought with his precious bloud, and for the dispensing of his holy Word and Sacraments, in the hand of his sworn Enemy? c. 9. p. 320. &c.

To this Argument I answer the more willingly, because I see how [Page 132]Presbyterians generally, with those of other Sects, suffer themselves by such inconsequencies and mistakes to be abused into many inconveniencies, to the great disturbance of the Church. Here are two points to be spoken to. 1. The Judgment of the Popes being Antichrist. 2. The In­ference against our Ordinations.

2. Of the opinion of the Pope being Antichrist. To the first, That there is much Antichristian doctrine taught in the Church of Rome, invented, broached, maintained by the Popes and others, that have been, and are chief in that Church, is most evident to any man that hath any reasonable insight in­to Christianity: and that they which hold and maintein such doctrine are, and may be called Antichrists, is not to be denyed, for so there are many Antichrists, as St. John tels us of his time. But that the Pope is the An­tichrist, is no point of our faith, none of the Articles of our Religion. Pro­phecies indeed are matter of Faith, and ought to be believed, that they shall be fulfilled, before they come to pass, and that they are fulfilled when the Scripture assures us they [Page 133]are; but when it leaves us to gather the event, by signs delivered in Pro­phetick expressions, and more gene­ral terms, such as is the description of Antichrists comming; then to say such a prophecie is now fulfilled, or such a State or Person is that Anti­christ, is not the act of Faith, but the work of Reason, making a Conclusi­on or Inference, upon application of the signs and marks, describing him in the prophecy, to such or such a Person or State.

3. VVhich admits several senses. Now as King James in his Prae­monition to Christian Princes falling upon this point (by occasion of Here­sie laid to his charge by those of Rome, and the Oath of Allegiance declared by Pope Paul to be against the Catholic Faith) pursues it indeed eagerly, and with a long discourse, not as an Article of his Faith, but as a Problematical perswasion, to shew he could better and with more ap­pearance of Truth prove the Pope to be Antichrist, then the Pope could prove him to be Heretick, or himself to have such superiority over Kings. So we must take that Assertion of our [Page 134]Writers (de Papâ Antichristo) com­paratively, not only in regard of our selves, whom they call and hold to be Heretikes, to say Antichristianism agrees more properly to them, then Heresie to us: but also in regard of all other Persons or States, that have fallen under the suspition of being Antichrist, to say, Of all that yet ap­peared in the World, the signs and marks of Antichrist agree most plainly to the Pope and Popedome. I cannot but say I am much inclined to think, as learned Zanchy seems to do in his Tract de fine Seculi, that, whatever is done already in the working of the Mystery of Iniquity, the Antichrist will be revealed in that Seat, and sit in that Papal Chair.

4. Many Antichrists, in a large and more remiss sense, there have been, and will go before the appea­ring of that great One; and a great ap­pearance of such there hath been in the Popedome already. Bernard and many other that lived within the Communion of the Roman Church, discovered the appearance [Page 135]of Antichrist in the Papal Court and spoke it. Indeed the Spirit of Anti­christ, which Saint John saith, did work in the Hereticks of his time, (1. Ep. c. 4. v. 3.) who by Tertul. are called Praecursores illius Antichri­sti Spiritus, the forerunners of that great Antichrist, advers. Marc. l. 5. c. 16. that Spirit, I say, of Antichrist, hath long wrought in the chief Ru­lers of the Romish Church; not only by reason of Heretical and Antichri­stian doctrine there taught, (especi­ally that Principle of mis-belief, Pa­pal Infallibility, the ground of their faith or believing, then which no one can better fit the turn of Antichrist, or be a readier way to Apostacy from Christ) but also by reason of exorbitant power there challenged and usurped, first over all Bishops in the Church of Christ (for which by Saint Gregories warrant we may stile the Pope the forerunner of Anti­christ) then, over Kings and all that are called Gods.

5. Now in the second place, The seeming prejudice. consi­der the Inference made from this. Champny, as we insinuated above, [Page 136]draws it ad impossibile, or to this Absurdity: Therefore Christ left his Church in the hand of his sworn Enemy, giving him the power of Or­daining, or providing Pastors for his Church— and tels us, The Refor­med Churches do therefore abhor the Orders, and reject all things else, that come from Rome.

Answ. First supposing the Popes to be such Antichrists or Antichri­stian Rulers, it was but part of the Christian Church, that they ruled in; and why should it seem so strange to any, that Christ should leave part of his Church under Anti­christian Tyranny, when it is fore­told plainly, that Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God? or why should it seem so strange and impos­sible to Champny, that Christ should suffer his sworn Enemy to sit as chief Pastor in the Roman Chair, Many Monsters of Men have sat as Popes in the Rom. Chair. when as it is certain in History that many Popes have sate there, who have been as vile Monsters, and as great Ene­mies to Christ, and all godliness, as we need suppose those Antichrists to be, which we say are to be found in [Page 137]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 quàm 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 [Page 138]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 [Page 140]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 [Page 141]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 [Page 142] 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 [Page 143]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 [Page 144]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 [Page 145]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 [Page 146]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 [Page 148]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 [Page 149]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 [Page 150]seeks to cut us off from this plea, by replying: That defect of lawful Ordi­nation and Vocation, which was in Cranmer by supposed Heresie in his Ordainers, could not be supplyed, but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof; but, besides the Church of Rome, there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors, by recon­ciliation to which, he could have that defect supplyed: Not other Reformed Churches, for they can less prove themselves to be Churches, or to have Lawful Vocation of Pastors, then the Church of England can: Not the Grecian, Russian, or Ethiopic Church­es, for they also are in Schism and Heresie, and our English Reformers pretend not to receive their calling from them, or to have it supplyed by them; therefore they can no wayes have their defect supplyed or recover the Lawful use of Ordination. So he, p. 337. &c.

Thus having argued against our Vocation, upon our supposal of He­resie in those we acknowledge our Ordainers, and boasted of it as an indissoluble Argument, pag. 335. he [Page 151]is now fain to take away the sup­posal it self, by affirming them to be the only lawful Pastors, and that none else in all the Christian world could give lawful Ordination, or make a supply of what was wanting. The issue indeed of this point of He­resie, either charged by us upon them, that gave Orders, or by them on us who received them, (which wil be his Argument below) comes to this, Whether the Church of Rome be the only Church, in whose Com­munion the Unity of the Church is confined, and Ordination to be had, and therefore we and all other out of it, are in Schism and Heresie, and can have no lawful Ordination? To this hold, after all the Velitation and light skirmishing upon our sup­posals, it was necessary he should re­tire himself.

17. Now the strength of this Hold stands but upon their unreasonable phansying of the whole Church, as of one society in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as Pastor General, or Vicar of Christ, by which they judge of Heresie and Schism, and [Page 152]admit none, as returning from it, but by actual reconciliation and submission to the Bishop of Rome, as in Queen Maries time. What he sayes of our not pretending to re­ceive our calling from other Church­es, Reconcili­ation of Schisma­ticks and Hereticks. or to have the defect of our Or­dinations supplyed by them, is true, but to no purpose; for the supposed defect in the Romish Ordination (which we received) doth, as above said, cease upon our leaving off or quitting that, which is supposed to cause that defect in the Romish Church. Nor was it needful, either for the supplying of any such defect, or for the stating us in the Union of the Catholic Church, that we, being a National Church and independing on any forrein Jurisdiction, should upon our disagreement with Rome be bound to apply our selves to o­ther Churches by actual reconcilia­tion, or full agreement in what they held or practised. Of which in 16. Sect. of former book.

For privat men indeed and parti­cular companies of men returning from Heresie or Schism, actual re­conciliation [Page 153]to the Church of which they were Members, or from which they departed is necessary: but not so for a National and independing Church. Such actual reconciliation, when it hath been performed, was but of the Solemnity of the business, and may be to good purpose done, when the whole body of the Catho­lic Church stands entire in a condi­tion fit to receive it, but the soul of Unity with the Church, is in the de­posing of Heresie, and professing the true Faith, and consequently Com­munion with all others that do it, not perhaps with a ful agreement in all things with us, yet with a charitable compliance, in not condemning us therefore, as no Church.

18. What he saith of the Roman Church, as the only true Church, to the concluding of all other Churches under Schism and Heresie, is only said, and not proved; being but the product of the forementioned Phan­sie, that the whole Church of Christ is one society bound together in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as Head and general Pastor, and [Page 154]therefore Hereticks and Schismaticks cannot be restored but by reconcilia­tion to him. This he urges more properly (though to as little purpose) below, cap. 11. where he strives to fasten Heresie upon us, because di­vided from that Church, and not yet reconciled to it: telling us, the An­cient Councels of Nice, Sardica, and others did so esteem and conclude of Heretical Bishops of the Arrians, Donatists and Novatians, as no Bi­shops till received, and reconciled to the Church. It will be sufficient in this place to say, I. That this comes not home to their purpose: for those Councels did not appoint reconciliation to Rome, and for some time of the Arrian Heresie, recon­ciliation to that Church could not be good; when as Liberius the ejected Bishop had subscribed to that Here­sie for the recovering of his See, and Faelix that possessed it, was advanced by compliance with the Arrian fa­ction, which then prevailed every where. II. Although such actual and solemn reconciliation of a Na­tional Church, with the Bishops [Page 155]thereof, to the body of the Catholic Church, was fit to be performed, whilest that body stood stil conspicu­ously in good proportion, as it did in the beginning of the Arian Here­sie, yet when once that Heresie had overborn all, and almost all Bishops with their flocks turned Arrian, in so much that Constantius the Empe­rour told Liberius, (as the Romanists do usually reproach us) that the whole world was against Athanasius, and Liberius, as yet Catholic, an­swered for their paucity. Time was when three only stood for the true Wor­ship of God against the King. Dan. 3. (as appears in 1. Tom. Concil.) when, I say, it was thus with the Church, how could such actual and solemn reconciliation of any Arian Bishops, or Nation, returning from Heresie, be wel made? enough it was for such to depose their Heresie, and profess communion with all Christians wheresoever that held the true faith. So was it enough for our Bishops and this Nation to for­sake the Heresie, and profess com­munion with all other Churches not [Page 156]guilty of the Romish errour, and not imposing the belief or practice of that we differ in, as the condition of their Communion. And thus far in answer to his Inferences from our charging Antichristianisme or Heresie upon the Church of Rome.

CHAP. V.
Of the third prejudice, from our Iudgment of their Orders, that they are sacrilegious—and do not give an indelible Chara­cter.

1. HIs next Argument is drawn from our Doctrine or Judg­ment touching their Orders, which we hold Sacrilegious, abhominable, unlawful, and therefore cannot be lawful in us, who confess we received Orders from them. This is the Ti­tle and Work of his 10. Chapter: and here he begins his contest with M. Mason, whom he chiefly under­takes, through the remainder of his [Page 157]book, to refute. Touching the Ar­gument we must note by the way, that the charge of Sacrilege and ab­homination laid upon their Ordina­tions by Protestants, How Pro­testants cal their Or­ders Sacri­legious. doth immedi­atly concern their Order of Priests, by reason of the Sacrificing power given them, but the argument there­upon proceeds also against their Bi­shops, who were such Priests, and from whom, being such, we derived our Orders, and Cranmer and others were made by them such Priests, be­fore they were Ordained Bishops.

Mason had framed the like Argu­ment by way of Objection to himself, and given this Answer, That their Order consisted of two parts; The one expressed in these words, Take thee power to offer sacrifice — The other in these, And in what re­spect allow them. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou remittest, &c. The first part, which stands in offe­ring up Chrift gain, is altogether abhominable; The second, which is in the Ministry of reconciliation, is good for the substance, though de­praved by the Abuse of Auri­cular Confession. To this purpose he.

2. Champny replyes. I. By cavilling at his making the Order to have two parts, and runs into a needless dis­putation, to shew that the Order being simple and like the Soul stan­ding in indivisibili, hath not Parts but several Powers from one character in the Soul. But seeing he will be so subtil, he should remember, how he allowed above, an Extension of the Character, which, now he telsus, stands in indivisibili: Well, let him enjoy his Philosophical notions and Shola­stick terms, and let him call the diffe­rent offices of Sacrificing and Ab­solving, not Parts but Powers: this we say still, that the first power they give to their Priests of offering a­gain (really and properly) the body and blood of Christ, is Sacrilegious, without any warrant from Scripture; nay against it plainly, and exceeding­ly derogatory to the Sacrifice of the Cross, and therefore abominable, unlawful altogether: The other power of reconciliation, or mini­string the Word and Sacraments, they give for the substance of it ac­cording to the Evangelical instituti­on; [Page 159]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 [Page 160]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 [Page 161]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 [Page 162]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, [Page 163]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 [Page 164]her deprived of all rule and dignity, and her Subjects absolved from the Oath of their Subjection, and from all manner of Obedience; (So the Sentence ran) and the Romish Priests began to stickle & work busily there­upon: then was it high time for the Queen & State to look to themselves, and therefore An. 13. made it Trea­son to disperse such Bulls, and to re­concile or be reconciled upon them.

6. Reconci­ling to the Bishop of Rome. But we must note here, 1. This re­conciling there forbidden, was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function, but upon the Autority and by vertue of such Bulls, which is plain by the words of the Statute; If any person shall by colour of such Bull, or Instrument, or Autority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person, &c. and there­fore they are called Bulls of absolu­tion and reconciliation in that Statute. 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation, which we acknowledg to pertein to the Prieftly function by our Saviours institution, that the very intent. and purpose of it was formally Trea­son; [Page 165]which also is plain by the same Statute in these words, The effect whereof (viz. of those Bulls and In­struments from Rome) hath been, and is, to absolve and reconcile all those, that wil be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady, the Queen, and to yeild and subject themselves to the usurped Autority of the Bishop of Rome. Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God? Had the Apostles preached such Gospel, or practised such Re­conciliation, admitting none into the Christian Church, but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes, unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion, had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their King­doms, or to be cast out of them? The Romish Priests then are justly ejected, punished, whose absolving of Peni­tents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due o­bedience; whose reconciling men to God or his Church, a cloak for their Reconciling to a forrein jurisdiction of Papal usurped Autority; and [Page 166]what that brings after it, who knows not? If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it; Seditions, stirring up the Peo­ple (which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of, Act. 24.12. and throughout his Epi­stles) thence Insurrections, Rebellions, and, because these suceeded not, se­cret attempts upon the life of the Prince, by Pystoes, Poysonings, and what not? Therefore came out, af­ter ten years more, the Statute which Champny cites out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute, An. 12. Whereas, sithence the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen—divers evil affected persons have practised by other means, then by Bulls or In­struments Written or Printed, to withdraw her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience, to obey the said usurped Autority of Rome: For Reformation whereof, be it enacted; That all persons, who shall pretend to have power, or by any means shall put in practice (though by pretence of Priestly function) [Page 167] to absolve, perswade or withdraw, any of her Majesties Subjects, from their Natural Obedience, or shall to that intent (that's noted stil in the drift of Romish practises, and the ground of the Laws provision against them) withdraw them from the Reli­gion established, to the Romish Reli­gion—

7. The fre­quent sedi­tious pra­ctises of Romish Priests. The Law looks at the conse­quents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church, for they, that made it, were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it, and by experience found what had been the practises following upon them: and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them. Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion, or expose it to Infamy, let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it: if upon their Priest­ly Function (which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it) let them blame themselves, who have abused that Evangelical power, to cloak and advance such hellish at­tempts: If to the disparagement of privat Confession, thanks to them, [Page 168]that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs, by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons con­fessed.

8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous, as to confess and complain of the Seditious practises, which those of the Society advanced, and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests, in their book set out in the latter end of the Queens Reign; thus pag. 10. Amongst many things, that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hard­ly of us all, this is one, that the pre­tended Brethren of that Society (Je­suites) and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State, &c. and afterward entring upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practises, which he, together with the rest of his society, set on foot, they thus write, pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly (in a seditious book set out by him) against the cruelty of her Highness Lawes, which we wish had been more mild; but he never menti­ons, [Page 169]that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traiterous courses against her Crown and Life. Againe, pag. 57. If these things (viz. their endeavours to advance the In­fanta's Title to this Crown) should come to the knowledg of the State, who will blame the same, if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome, be not wel entertained here? Thus they, truly and ingenuously, of the practises of Romish Emissaries, and of the justness of the Laws against them.

9. I wil not say, nor do I think, that all their Priests, which suffer here, were Politicians, or acquainted with all the devices of their Superi­ors; I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such, and do sup­pose there are some, who in the sim­plicity of their hearts, and out of meer Conscience of Religion, do la­bour the propagation of it, whilst o­thers more directly are guilty of Se­ditious and Treasonable Practises. It is my wish there could be a distin­ction made between the one and the other, that the punishment [Page 170](which the Law adjudges all Priests to, that are found within the Land) might only fall upon them, who are indeed guilty of such practises, which being so frequently found in their predecessors (and the State being not able to distinguish between them, who are all Missionaries of Rome) caused those Lawes to be made for the security of Prince and State. And if they that come into the Land, without any treasonable intent, do suffer for it, they must thank their Fellows, (as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits) whose rest­less attempts forced the State to for­bid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason. Doctor Champny, one would think, should not be a stranger in France, by the wisdome of which State, the whole Order of the Jesuites was upon this score banished, 1594. as Corrupters of Youth, troublers of the public quiet, and as 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 [Page 171]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 [Page 172]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 [Page 173]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, where­ever 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 [Page 174]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 [Page 175]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 [Page 176]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 use or exercise of that power, nor could he lawfully Ordain others. This is the summe of what he saith. Of Biga­mie, or Digamie.

1. We begin with that of Bigamie: [Page 178]of which M. Mason took no notice in his defence of Bishop Cranmers Ordination; and Doctor Champny only proves he was twice marryed, which is not denyed; but brings no­thing to prove, that such Bigamie, or Digamie rather, infers such an ir­regularitie, as deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power of Or­daining. To this charge it may be said, I. That the Bigamy which the Apostle speaks of in his Canon, 1 Tim. 3.2. and implicitly forbids, when he saith, Let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife, was a superin­duction of a Second Wife upon the former, either kept still or put away; a Polygamy both ways, either direct by cohabitation with two Wives, or that which followed upon unjust Di­vorce, and was indeed the having of two Wives at once, a licentious Custome frequent among Jews and Gentiles. Now such a person that had done so, before his Conversion to Christianity or after, was justly debarred by the Apostle from Holy Orders, but of this Cranmer was not guilty. As for that Digamy, which [Page 179]is the taking of a second Wife after the first being dead; or the taking of a Widow to wife at first, we acknow­ledg it forbidden by some Canons of the Church, & that for the most part the former place of the Apostle was by the Ancients applyed to this Diga­my; for no marvel if being earnest in the commendation of single life, they should so readily receive the Apo­stles words in that sense which most answered to their purpose. But some of the Ancients better conside­ring it, do acknowledg the meaning of the Apostle to be according to the former interpretation: amongst whom are reckoned Justin Martyr, Chrysostome, and Theodoret. Yea that parallel place, 1 Tim. 5.9. of a Widow, having been the Wife of one Man, doth most reasonably receive the like interpretation: notwith­standing that the Romanists cry out of it as a thing unheard of, that a Woman should have two Husbands at once; which is true of two by co­habitation, not by desertion; for so it was often seen that the Woman either forsaking her Husband or for­saken [Page 180]of him, married another, the first being yet alive. Such a Widow the Apostle rejects as one of ill fame; and thus Theodoret, and Theophylact are known to interpret the Apostle of a Widow that hath been coupled but to one Husband at once. Lastly, it is wel known how Tertullian after he was Montanist reproached the Catholicks with their twice marryed Bishops, in his book de Monogam. cap. 12. Quot apud vos praesident Di­gami? How many that have been twice marryed preside among you? Yet doth that practice tell us, the Apostles words were not taken to be against Digamy, but that which is properly Bigamy. He that would see more of this phrase ( the Husband of one Wife, and the Wife of one Hus­band) he may please to look the places in Fulkes Rhemish Testament, where the meaning is debated, and Antiquity consulted.

2. II. Therefore we may say, That Digamy forbidden by Eccles. Canon, and found in Cranmer, doth not make a Bishop so far irregular, as to spoil him of the lawful use of his Or­der. [Page 181]This rests upon the considera­tion of the purpose and binding force of such Canons. And here it need not much trouble us in our proceed­ing that we meet with this Canon a­gainst Digamy among those which bear the name of the Apostles. What­ever may be thought of some of them, this seems plainly crept into that number (if we consider the liberty of those firster Ages in this point of Marriage) from after-Times, and so of no other Autority, then are after-Ecclesiastical Canons. But let that be what it will for the present, the Church of Rome stands bound to an­swer to the Autority of them, as wel as we, and hath transgressed against them, especially the sixt Canon, in a matter forbidden not only by these Canons, but by the Law of God, and the Judgment of the Apostle indeed: and that is the putting away of Wife, or forcing a Man to put her away, in pretence of Religion, or holy Orders. As for Canons Eccle­siastical, they deserve to have their due respect and obedience, answer­able to the Autority by which made, [Page 182]Provincial, National, General; and according to the Matter in which, and the Purpose to which they are decreed. The Canons which con­cern Digamy, Marriage, Single life, Penance and the like, are for Discipline, and of such we may say,

3. VVhat is said to the Ca­nons for­bidding it. First, Though they forbid men so or so qualified to be admitted into the Clergy, or command them to be deposed, if after admittance and re­ceiving of Orders, they transgress, yet doth not such transgression, ipso facto, take away lawful use, till the Canon hath his effect by actual de­posing of such a person. This is plain by transgressions of higher na­ture; Heresie it self doth not take a­way the Lawful use of Order, till it be notorious, and the person so de­clared by the Church. Concubinage also and Simony, (not only against the Canon but Gods Law too, which they cannot say of Marriage) do not ipso facto make such an irregularity: for if all the Ordinations made by such Bishops were unlawful, it would make a wide gap in the succession [Page 183]of their Romish Bishops, and calling of their Priests, who have received their several Orders from Concubina­ries, and Fornicators, and Simoni­acks, all deposable by the Ecclesia­stical Canons. If they say (which is all they can say) that it was not no­torious in those Ordainers: this ap­proves what I said, that the trans­gression of such Canons against Mar­riage and Digamy, cannot ipso facto take away lawful use of the power of Order; and I can say as much for Bishop Cranmer, who marryed in Germany the Kinswoman of Osian­der, before he was made Bishop, and it was not known here all the time of Hen. 8. in which he ordained many Bishops. But again we say the Whoredoms, Incests, Simony of ma­ny of the Popes, Bishops, Cardinals, were notorious to the age they lived in, and stand upon Record still,—so notorious and visible in the ninth and tenth Ages, that Baronius cryes out, Quae facies Ecclesiae Rom.? Those abhominable misdemeanours were openly known, and apparent in the face of the Church then: and not [Page 184]only then, but after too, especially in Alexander the sixt most abhomi­nably notorious. They had need to look home and make up their own breaches, before they charge us with such defects or irregularities, as Marriage, which is Honourable in all Men.

4. Secondly, we must tell them, the same Canons which forbid Mar­riage or Digamy, forbid also Con­cubinage under the like punishment or irregularity; and though there be a wide difference between Forni­cation and Marriage, yet we appeal to them, whether these be equally dealt with in the Church of Rome? whether the like severity be used a­gainst the Concubinary, as against the Married Man? Marriage in their Priests or Bishops causeth depriva­tion indispensably, but if a Priest that is accused of having a wife, plead she is his Concubine, i. e. his Whore, doth he not escape deposing by it? it was the plea of the Priest of Pla­centia, as P. Moulin tells it for a known story in his book of Purgato­ry. And seeing in most Ages, since [Page 185]Marriage was restrained, we meet with sad complaints of the frequent incontinency of their Clergy, let them tell us how many in so many Ages have been deposed, or made ir­regular for it? If we look into the constitutions of Otho the Popes Le­gat in England, which are as severe against Concubines as any they have, yet see much difference in the pro­ceeding against the Concubinary and the Married Clergy, The constituti­on against the Married runs, Si clam vel palam Matrimonium contraxe­rint, omnino sunt amovendi, if con­tracted Marriage secretly or openly, they are by all means to be removed, that's peremptory, and though the Marriage be secretly carried; but the Constitution against the Concu­binary, si publicè Concubinas detinent, if they keep Concubines publickly, they are to be admonisht, and after a Month to put them away, or els to be suspended—And in the com­ment or gloss upon it, ob simplicem Fornicationem de Canonicâ benigni­tate Clericus non debet deponi, licèt secùs fortè de Canonis rigore; for sim­ple [Page 186]Fornication a Clergy-man is not deposeable through the Courteste, but Rigor of the Canons. Thus have they extended the Courtesie of the Canons to Concubinage and Fornication, but reserved the Rigor of them for Marriage. As for Penances, which their Canons adjudge Concubinaries to, who knows not how easily that may be satisfied, and in extremity it is no other censure then a Lay-man incurs upon the like offence, doth not imply or carry with it Deposi­tion, or such an irregularity, as they charge upon Marriage or Digamy. Nor will it boot to say (as they will be ready to reply) that if the Mar­ried Clergy put away their Wives, they are not deposed, and accor­dingly it is required of Concubina­ries that they put away their Con­cubines; for as Marriage and For­nication stand not upon equal terms in themselves, the first being an in­dissoluble Conjunction, so neither are they with equal severity enter­tained by the Romanists, as appears by their practice, hinted in the pre­misses.

5. Lastly, we can answer to those Canons in behalf of Marriage or Di­gamy, what they cannot say in re­gard of Concubinage or Harlo [...]ry: that in respect of the first, those Ca­nons were only disciplinary, as was said above, grounded on prudential motives, that seemed reasonable in those times, and therefore in time might, through the exigencie of con­trary experience, cease to binde: which cannot be said of them, as they forbid and censure Harlotry. And accordingly we find, that how­ever those prudential motives of the restraint of Marriage for the ad­vancement of Discipline and stricter attendance upon the holy Function, seemed reasonable to Them that made the Canons, yet did they not to all or most in the Church, which was to receive them: for if we look to the reception of the Catholic Church (which is very considerable in the approbation of such Canons) we meet with a general dislike of them, and reluctancy against them: So that where they did obtain, they were rather forcibly imposed, then [Page 188]willingly received; as is apparent in the passages of History, which con­cerns the Western Church, in which those Canons were violently prose­cuted. After-ages still found less cause to receive, or continue them, where received: and now long ex­perience of many and great inconve­niences and mischiefs by the exacting of them, perswades and enforces the restoring of the Clergy to that liber­ty of Marriage, which is left them by the Law of God, yea to the use of that Remedy, which is prescribed them by that Law, when need re­quires it.

If we look into the History of this Church and Kingdom, we find that before the times of Lanfrank and Anselm, the Clergy were free, and enjoyed the liberty of Marriage; but when they were compelled by those hot Italians to forgo that freedome, what success had it, but the begetting of a licentious unclean­ness, even unto Sodomy? which in few years grew so notorious, that the same Anselm who by Synod in London had severely forbidden Mar­riage, [Page 189]and caused those that had wives to put them away, was forced to call another Synod, before he dyed, for the repressing of that filthy uncleanness, as it is observed in story.

6. The Councels therefore, that made those Canons anciently (be they General or National) could not in reason intend to bind the Church for all Ages, at least could not in justice do it: when experi­ence found those Canons served not to the end, for which they were in­tended, but occasioned far more mis­chiefs and inconveniences; and that this is no pretended plea (which is not fit to be made against Ecclesia­stical Canons) the complaint and sad trial of many Ages doth sufficiently prove. To conclude, seeing those of the Roman Church, think they have reason to be favourable to Concubinage, and connive at it, and plead such excuse for it, as we finde in the Glosses of their Canon Law, — Such Canons are not ex­acted, quia onerosi sunt, because they are burthensome, and quia corpora [Page 190]hodie fragiliora sunt, because our bo­dies now more frail, and as the Gloss upon the forementioned Constituti­on of Otho (which it seems appeared too quick in putting the Concubi­nary to give satisfaction) saith, quod nimis esset rigorosum attentâ fragili­tate nostri Temporis, it is too rigorous considering the frailty of our times; If they, I say, can think it reasonable thus to plead against the Rigor of the Canons in behalf of Harlotry, how much more have we cause to plead for the necessity of using that Remedy of Honest Marriage, which God hath allowed and pre­scribed?

7. Of Here­sie charged upon Cranmer and the Reformers. We now proceed to the next Defect wherewith he charges our Archbishop Cranmer, and concludes him not lawfully ordained, or to have received the Lawful use of his Order; and that is Heresie and Schisme. Master Mason, in refe­rence to the breach with Rome in Hen. 8: his dayes, spent one chapter upon the proof of this Truth, That to renounce the Pope is not Schisme or Heresie: All this is neglected by [Page 191] Champny, who sets himself to prove, that Heresie deprives a Bishop of the lawfull use of his power, because the lawfull use of it requires union with the Catholic Church; which is but what he insisted upon in his 9. Chap. as we heard above, and yeilded it to him. But now for the application of it to Crunmer.

8. His first Argument to prove him Heretick, is from his own recan­tation, and renouncing the Prote­stant Doctrine as Heretical; But this Champny stands not much upon, knowing it was not the con­fession of Cranmers Faith, but of his Frailty; and that recantation made in expectance of life, he recanted and repented of in the sight of Death; That hand, that wrought it, first felt & was consumed in the flames, which yet could not seize upon his heart which consented not to it. Therefore being dead he yet spake, God himself by that miracle (which had sufficient attestation) bearing witness to him, and to the Faith wherein he dyed: & giving the Lie to all the reproaches, wherewith Champny in this 11. Chap. [Page 192]and other Romanists upon all occa­sions load the memory of that learn­ed, humble sober, and godly Bishop, known so to be unto all, that knew him living.

9. Protestant Doctrine not con­demned by a lawful Councel. His second Argument drawn into form stands thus. That Doctrine which was condemned as Heretical by due Autority, and due form of judg­ment is Heretical; but the Doctrine which Cranmer after his departure from Rome professed, was so—That it was so condemned by due Autori­ty, he thus endeavours to prove. That which was condemned by the same Autority and judgment, by which the Arrian and other Heresies were in the General Councels of the Church is condemned by due Autority: But the Protestant Doctrine, which Cranmer and the rest embraced, was so condemned, viz. by the Councell of Trent; against which (saith he) no­thing can be objected by the Prote­stants, which might not as well been said against the Nicene; Nothing be said by them for their doctrine con­demned at Trent, which might not as well by the Arrians, for their Heresie [Page 193]condemned at Nice. Thus he, cap. 11. pag. 384, 385.

Answ. to the Prosyllogisme; If by due Autority and form of Judgment, be meant not only lawful Autority, but Autority also lawfully and duly used, (that is, that in such Councels the judgment be passed or given by those that have Autority, and do use it accordingly, giving their Judgment, according to the rule of Gods Word, which is the Chief Autority in such Judgments) then we grant, that whatever is so condemned of Heresie to be Heretical, but deny the Pro­testant Doctrine to be ever so con­demned. And therefore we say, the Assumption or second proposition in the second Syllogisme is false, For the Protestant Doctrine was not condemned at all in Trent Councel, when Cranmer forsook the Romish error, which was before any Coun­cel held at Trent: Nor yet so con­demned there (when that Councel was held) as the Arrian Heresie was in the Nicene Councel.

19. Councel of Trent not such as the Ni­cene. What can we find alike in these two, either for the Autority, [Page 194]or due use of it? Were they assem­bled at Trent by the same Autority Imperial, as at Nice? Had they which were assembled in both these Councels, the same or like Autority? Were all the Patriarchs or chief Bi­shops of the Catholic Church at Trent, as they were at Nice? Was the number of Bishops at Nice, made up of Titulars and Popes Pensioners, as at Trent? Or did they proceed by the same Autority and due form of Judgment? Did they set the Holy Scriptures in the midst before them to judg by at Trent, as they did at Nice? Did they not set up unwritten Traditions in equal Autority with Scriptures, and are not most of their Decrees grounded only upon such Tradition? Did they at Nice receive their Determinations from the Popes Consistory, as at Trent by weekly Curriers? Did they at Nice threa­ten and drive away any of their Bi­shops for speaking his judgment freely, as they did at Trent?

This and much more we can say against that Councel, wherefore it should not have the like Autority [Page 195]with that of Nice or any lawful General Councel: but stand in the same rank with the second of Ephe­sus, with that of Syrmium, and the like factious Heretical Councels. So that we may justly retort his argu­ment thus: That Doctrine which was condemned by no better Auto­rity, then was the Catholic Doctrine in the Syrmian Councel by the Ar­rians, or in the second of Ephesus by the Eutychians, cannot be therefore Heretical; but the Protestant Do­ctrine was condemned by no better Autority in Trent—for what can they object against those factious Councels, but may as well against that of Trent? Or what can they say for their Doctrine (I mean the main points of direct Popery) but those Hereticks might for theirs? Saying, that the Romish Doctrines are not so immediatly against the Foun­dation, and may plead a longer con­tinuance, then the other could; which yet is no prescription against Truth, that was before them.

Lastly, by Champnyes Argument, so far as it applyed to the Church of [Page 196] Rome, may be concluded, that our Saviour and his Doctrine was as rightly condemned, as Judas of Ga­lile or any false Prophet, that went before him; for he was condemned by the same Autority of the great Councel or Consistory, by which that Judas and other false Prophets were before condemned. Let Champ­ny or any other Romanist answer this (which must be by requiring (as above said) not only the same Auto­rity, but also the lawful use of it, according to the Rule they are to judg by) and he may have an an­swer to the like Argument, proceed­ing in behalf of the Church of Romes Sentence and Judgment against Protestants, and Protestant Do­ctrine.

11. His third Argument runs thus. He that forsakes or goes out of that Church, in which he received Bap­tisme, and knowingly opposes it, is an Heretick, unless he can shew that Church to have gone out of a more ancient Church; for to go out of the Church is the Character set upon all Hereticks by S. John, 1. Ep. 2.19. [Page 197] But Cranmer and the rest that fol­lowed him, went out of the Church, in which they were Baptized, and cannot shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient one—

Answer, Going out of a Church how makes He­retick. Seeing the force of this Argument rests upon the truth, or falsehood of that proposition, which affirms us gone out of the Roman, and not able to shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient. We must note, that the going out from a Church takes in the conside­ration of Jurisdiction which that Church hath over the other; and of Doctrine or Faith, which one Church professethin Cōmunion with another. Now the Romanists phansying the Ca­tholic Church as one society under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome, and measuring the continuance and iden­tity of that Church by local successi­on rather then the Doctrine of faith, do accordingly judg of communion with it or opposition to it, of going out from or staying in it: and easily conclude, but fallaciously, of Heresie and Schism. Whereas we conceiving of the Church as of one Society in [Page 198]subjection to Christ, and not withall to any one pretended Vicat Gene­ral, and measuring the Union and Communion of it by that of Chri­stian Faith and Doctrine, rather then of Local succession, and yeilding our subjection to the lawful Pastors of the Church (succeeding one the o­ther) but with subordination to the Doctrine of Faith once delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles, must affirm, that going out from the Communion of a Church determined to such a place or succession, is not always a going out of the Church (for that Church may happily usurp a Jurisdiction, and require an unlaw­ful subjection, and pervert the Do­ctrine of Faith) and that a Church continuing the same for place and succession, may yet go out from it self, i. e. from what it was anciently, by taking to it self a new unwar­rantable power of Jurisdiction, and forsaking the Doctrine it anciently professed.

12. For a Church to go out of it self, and return to it self, needs not seem any strange thing or phrase: [Page 199]it is what we see in every Penitent Sinner, and read of that unthrifty Son, S. Luk. 15.17. that he came to himself; he was gone out of himself before. But to clear it in regard of the Church by instances. When the Arrians possessed all the Bishops Sees, and ruled the whole Church, as to the more Visible state of it, the true Catholicks driven into corners, and so few or so little seen, that the Emperour Constantius thought he had cause to say the whole Christian World was against Athanasius: What could be judged of Heresie & Schism then, according to this Ar­gument, without taking in the Do­ctrine of Faith? For first, Champny will not say, that they which were Baptised in the Communion of the Arrian Church were bound to continue in it; nor will he judg them Hereticks or Schismaticks for going out of it. If he say, they could shew the Arrian Church gone out of a more Antient: it is very true, but they could not shew this by local suc­cession, but by forsaking of antient Doctrine. For the same Bishops for [Page 200]the most part, which before was Ca­tholic, did with their flocks turn Arrian, and so the place and persons were the same, only the Doctrine or Faith was changed; by reason of which, they might truly be said to go out of the more Antient Church, not by change of place and persons, (in regard of which the face and vi­sible Communion of the Arrian Churches was stil the same) but of Christian Faith and Doctrine. It was elegantly said of Nazianzen, Orat. 21. in the case of Athanasius, that he was [...] and [...], agree­ing both in Seat and Doctrine with the Catholic Bishops that went be­fore him; but not so with the Arrian Bishops who (though no intruders, as those that of Catholicks turn'd Arrian) held the same Seats with those that sat before them, but not the same Doctrine.

13. Of our going out of the Church of Rome. This premised, it is easie to answer, I. That although we re­ceived Baptism and Christianity at first, from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the Great, (which we thankfully acknowledg) yet are [Page 201]we not therefore bound to receive or continue in the accrewing errors of that Church: and although Cran­mer and those of his time were Bap­tized in the Communion of that Church, yet not bound therefore to continue in it; as neither were they, whom the Arrians, Eutychians, or Monothelites, converted and Bap­tized, bound to continue in those prevailing Heresies, when once brought to a knowledg of them. II. That our going out from the Church of Rome was a going out (in regard of the Papal Jurisdiction) from under a yoke and Tyranny, which that Church had usurped over this Nation, greater and heavier, then any of the former Hereticks laid up­on Christian people, over whom they prevailed: & in regard of the Doctrine, it was a going out of that Church, no otherwise then we went out of our selves, i.e. out of our errors in which we were before: a going out of that Church, so far as it had gone out from it self, what antiently it was, by Errors and Superstition in the Belief, and Worship, which [Page 202]it required of all within her Commu­nion.

14. And thus Cranmer shewed, that the Church of Rome was so gone out, when for three dayes together he boldly and learnedly argued be­fore the whole Parliament against the six Articles: to the admiration, but grief of his Adversaries; shew­ing plainly how the Church of Rome, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiati­on, Half Communion, Priests Mar­riage, Image-Worship, was departed or gone out of it self. Which also, as to the main point of Papal Juris­diction or Supremacie, Gardiner, Tun­stal, Stokesly, and the most learned of that party, did demonstrate by Scripture, Fathers, Councels, Rea­sons. Here is all the difference, that when the Arrian or Eutychian Here­sie prevailed, it was more clear and notorious, because it was a change of Doctrine by one singular Heresie; whereas the Romish change of Do­ctrine, was not by one, or so imme­diat to the foundation, or at once comming in, but by many errors creeping in successively and by de­grees; [Page 203]also the continuance of the other Heresies in their prevailing condition, was not so long, but Men could remember it had been other­wise: whereas the Errors of the Church of Rome, have had the hap­piness (or unluckiness rather) in these Western parts, to continue longer, and, to be upheld and propagated with more Policy and force, though complained of and professed against more or less in all Ages since they became Notorious. But this conti­nuance of Time is only the Pharisees Dictum Antiquis, it was said by them of old, (S. Mat. 25.) No prescrip­tion against Truth that was before the Error, or against our Saviours caution, Non sic ab initio, it was not so from the beginning.

15. He adds a fourth Argument. He that joyns himself to that Society, which cannot shew it self Christian, but by the Tradition and Succession of that Church which he hath forsaken and Opposed, is an Heretick. But Cranmer joyned himself to that Soci­ety or Congregation, which cannot shew it self to be Christian, but by—&c. [Page 204]Answer, How we may prove our Chri­stianity by the Ro­mish Church, how not. For a Man or Nation to prove their Christianity by another Church (for example the Roman) may be taken in several respects: either because such a Man or Nation were converted to the Christian faith, or received Baptism, or Ordi­nation in and by that Church: In all these respects we grant the Assump­tion, that Cranmer & the first Refor­med English could not prove they re­ceived the Christian Faith, or Baptism, or Ordination in any other Church then the Roman: but we say the Pro­position is false, and doth not make them Hereticks in forsaking a Church wherein they have received these, or joyning themselves to those that have had them from thence also. For instance: If of two Gottish Na­tions (which the Arrians by their Bishop Ʋlfilas and others converted from Heathenisme to Christianity, and Baptized them, and ordained them Pastors, but infected with their Heresie) one of them renouncing the Heresie, and forsaking the Com­munion of them that they were made Christians by, the other Nati­on [Page 205]also should see and forsake the Error and joyn with the former: were then the Argument good a­gainst this latter Nation to prove it Heretical, for renouncing the Do­ctrine and Communion of that Church by which it received Christi­anity, and joyning it self to that, which could not prove it self Christi­an, ( i.e. to have received Baptism any where) but by those whom it had forsaken?

16. But if the proving of our Chri­stianity, be meant of proving the Truth of it, as that the Faith we pro­fess, and the Baptism we received is Catholic, and truly Christian; or that the Ordination which our Pastors have is good and Apostolical; then we deny the Assumption, for Cran­mer and the English Church were able to prove all this by other, and better means, that the Lineal (that is Champny's word) succession of that Church which they had forsa­ken, viz. by the written Word of God, and the Uniform consent of Antiquity. Lineal or local successi­on is but an empty conveiance of [Page 206]Christianity without truth of Do­ctrine assured by Gods Word; for were Lineal succession the only or a good argument to prove a Man or Nation truly Christian, then the Ar­rian or other Hereticks, whose Bi­shops were not intruders but of Ca­tholicks turned Hereticks, might have passed for good Christians and true Catholicks.

17. The for­mer char­ges retor­ted. After these Arguments by which he would fasten Heresie upon our Arch-Bishop Cranmer and the other first Reformers, he adds a vain boast, let the Adversary retort all or any of these Arguments upon the Ordainers of Cranmer (viz. those of the Romish Church) and I will con­fess them Hereticks. But it is clear, that as all his Arguments as directed against Cranmer are too weak to prove what he would have, so they return more forcibly upon them­selves. For their charge of irregula­rity upon Marriage we retort their irregularity by Concubinage, and for that of Digamy we appeal to them whether they suffer not a Priest or Bishop to have one or mo Concu­bines [Page 207]rather then to be married once or twice. For Cranmers recantati­on or condemning the Protestant Doctrine, we retort the example of Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribing to Arrianism: and it is strange that Champny should not remember that the Ordainers of Bishop Cranmer subscribed and swore the condemna­tion and ejection of Papal Autority: and if some of them lived to repent it in Qu. Maries dayes, so did Cran­mer revoke his condemnation of the Protestant doctrine, and sealed it with his Bloud. For his Argument from the Autority condemning our Doctrine, it was retorted upon them when we answered it: For that of our going out from that Church, it was shewn how it concerns them, who keeping the same Place and Seat, yet going out of the Doctrine of the Ancient Church are thereby concluded Heretical. The last also falls back upon themselves, who have nothing to prove their New Faith (wherein they differ from other Churches) but Lineal Succession from those first Catholic Roman Bi­shops, [Page 208]from whom they have depar­ted, only keeping the same Place and Seat which they held.

Having concluded, as he thinks, by the former Arguments that Cran­mer and the rest were in Heresie and Schism, and therefore could not re­ceive or lawfully use the power of Ordination: he then excludes them from receiving all supply of that defect; for, saith he, that must be by reconciliation to the Church, & confirmation by it, as we see in the practice of the Ancient Church, re­storing Bishops that returned from Heresie. But Granmer cannot shew any such reconciliation— which indeed (saith he) was impossible; there being no other Church in the World to which he could be re­conciled, but only that which he had forsaken, viz. the Roman, so he.

Answ. This is nothing else but what he said above in his ninth cap. endeavouring to reduce our English Bishops to his impossibility of having the defect of their Ordination sup­plied, which he said they were under [Page 209]by being ordeined by those we ac­count Hereticks, viz. Romish Bishops: and the Answer to it was given Cap. 4. Num. 16, 17, 18. above. The summ of it was this, That Cranmer if he contracted that Defect by being Ordained of Hereticks, then he recovered the due use of his Or­ders by deposing the Heresie of his Ordainers: That Cranmer was not alone but with him a whole National Church; and that the actual and solemn reconciliation of such a Church with the Bishops of it, to the whole body of the Catholic Church was fitting, and of good use and example, when the Catholic Church remained in such entire body and condition, as was fit to receive such reconciliation. But when it is other­wise with the state of the Catholic Church, as it was when Arrians pre­vailed, and now in the distracted condition of the whole Church such reconciliation is, as not well feizable, so not so necessary for a National Church. Only it is necessary such a Church depose the Errors or Heresie it had contracted, and profess Com­munion with all that do hold the Ca­tholic [Page 210]Faith undefiled, in such a mea­sure as is needful, not imposing any different doctrine they hold, as condition of Communion with them.

CHAP. VII.
Of Bishops ordained under King Edward, and the essential de­fect pretended to be in the form of their ordination, and of pre­sumption against it.

HIs 12. Chapter proceeds against those Bishops that were ordai­ned in K. Edwards daies: whom he charges not only with the same He­resie, he did Bishop Cranmer, (as true indeed of the one, as the other) but with a special, and that an essen­tial defect in their Ordination; what is that? The Form of their Ordina­tion, by which they were consecra­ted, was new, and invented by cer­tain Commissioners appointed by the King: and therefore the Ordinati­on [Page 211]was altogether nul and invalid. We grant the Form was altered, and different from that, which before was used in the Roman Church; but not new or changed, as to that which concerned the substance of the Or­der.

1. The Form of Ordina­tion alter­ed under K. Edward, how. For the work of those Com­missioners was not to devise and in­vent a direct new Form, but to purge it from Popish corruptions, casting out what appeared to be either need­less or superstitious additions, and reteining what imported the sub­stance of the Order, or adding withal something to express more fully the purpose of the Order then collated, according to the institution of it, de­clared in the Word of God. To such a work fitting Commissioners were appointed, for number Twelve, for quality, Six Prelates; and Six other learned in Gods Law: as we find them in the Statute of 3.4. Edward 6. c. 12. It is too light, that Champny laies hold on the word devise in their Commission, and bids the Reader mark it, as if they had power or went about to devise or invent a new [Page 212] Form on their own heads: their work being to devise and consult, what Romish additionals might be cut off, what depravations purged out, that so we might have a pure and just Form expressing more simply the substance, and purpose, and collation of the Order given.

2. Mr. Mason having set down the Form, together with the Prayers used, challenges them to shew what they can except against it: Ʋnless (saith he) it be, because we reteined not your Oil, Pall, Staff, &c. which we account as humane inventions, and not to belong to the substance or Es­sence of Ordination, unless you can shew us them by the Word of God.— Champny answering the challenge, first gives him a note in the Margent, Scipsum jugulat, He cuts his own throat; and then tels us why: because (saith he) Mason requires Scripture for these and all other things of us, and yet cannot shew us their Forms in Scripture; for where hath he in Scripture the words of their Or­dering of Deacons, Take thee power of executing the Office of a Deacon in [Page 213]the Church of God, and so recites something of the Forms of the other two Orders. p. 40 [...]. &c.

Answ. Our requiring of them Scripture for their whole Form, doth not give us, but them only the wound; for they that make Order a Sacra­ment of the New Testament are bound to shew both the Matter and Form of their Sacrament in the writing of that Testa­ment. As for us, it is enough to prove our Forms by Scripture, to be answerable to the institution and purpose of the Order conferred: either reteining the very Form of words delivered in Scripture, as, Re­ceive the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye re­mit,— or applying from thence what may fitly express the intention and purpose of the Office, and the de­signation of the Person Ordeined to it; as in the ordering of a Bishop, after Accipe Spiritum Sanctum—is added out of Saint Paul, Remember to stir up the grace which is in thee by imposition, &c.

3. We grant, VVhat was of the substance of Ordina­tion, is reteined. there is a certain Ceremony to be used (according to [Page 214]the constant practise of the Apostles) Imposition of hands, and that a cer­tain Form is to be used; not certain for Words and Syllables (it being not necessary to have it, in all places and all times, so certainly the same) but for substance and meaning; that, in the conferring of Orders, such Words be used as do aptly express the Institution, purpose and intenti­on of the Office, and the designation of the person to it, and such prayers withall, as do expresly concern that sacred action, in the imploring of help and grace. And thus we main­tain our Forms of Ordination to be conformable to Scripture, and the Antient Church; Neither hath Champny shewed, nor can it be shewn, that any thing is said or done in the whole action of our Ordinations, not allowable by Scrip­ture and purer Antiquity. All that he can except is, that we cannot shew our Words and Forms wholly set down in Scripture, or punctually so used by Antiquity, (which as we heard, we are not bound to shew, or that we have left off their Un­ction [Page 215]and other Ceremonies, which (what Antiquity soever some of them may pretend to) we say belong not to the substance of Ordination, and therefore we stand not bound to use them for making our Orders va­lid; but are at liberty, for other good reasons to omit them, as also many other things, which being an­ciently well and conveniently used, were after abused by Popish innova­tion. And let them shew us if they can, either that the Ceremonies they have clogged Baptism with, were used by the Antient Church, or that they now use all those which the An­tient Church did: Or let them say, if they dare, that either their Baptism is invalid because it hath not those Ceremonies the Antient Church used, or that our Baptism is invalid, because freed from many of the Ro­mish Ceremonies; Till then, we may take leave to use the like freedom in refusing their Ceremonies in and about Ordination, they being not of the essence and substance of it.

4. Vncertain­ty of Ro­mish Doctrine about Matter and Form of Sacra­ments and Ordinati­on. But Champny attempts to prove our Ordinations essentially deficient, [Page 216]by wanting what is used in theirs; and why? because the whole Matter and Form of Ordination doth not, saith he, consist in the Imposition of hands, and the Words, Receive the Holy Ghost, &c. which is all that we use. This is the Brief of his 13. Chap. But foreseeing, that he must acknow­ledg their own Authors agree not among themselves about the Matter and Form wherein their Sacrament of Order doth consist essentially, he therefore first seeks to clear his way by laying down two Proposi­tions.

First, That the determinate Mat­ter and Form of the Sacraments, is not fully expressed in Scripture. So pag. 412. Which how false it is of Baptisme and the Eucharist, who sees not? yet he instances in both; In Baptisme, saith he, the Form of the Western Church is, I Baptize thee in the name—but of the Eastern Church thus, Let the Servant of the Lord be Baptized in the name—how impertinently this is, who sees not? for, that difference toucheth not that part of the Form, which concerns [Page 217]the Essence of the Sacrament, viz. Baptized in the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, which as it is fully expressed in Scripture, so reteined in both Churches. So, saith he, about the Form required in the Eucharist, several questions have and may be moved. What then, if men will be either obstinatly perverse to question what is most plain in the Institution, as the Romanists are in giving Bread only for the whole Matter of that Sacrament? it makes not his proposition true. Or what if some use several Words for the Form in delivering that Sacrament, so they amount to no greater diffe­rence then the several expressions of it in the several Evangelists? ( This is my blood of the New Testament, Mat. 26. and, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, Luk. 22.) they touch not that which concerns the essence of the Sacrament.

5. His second Proposition. The Determinat Matter and Form of some Sacraments (for example, of Order) is not so clearly delivered in Councels, or the Monuments and Writings of [Page 218]the Fathers, but that divers Opinions may arise about them, and be defend­ed with probability. This whether true or false doth not greatly con­cern us. But see we, how he will make it concern us. His Inference from it is this: Therefore we must trust the Tradition of the Church (he meanes the present Church of Rome) for the whole Matter and Form; and because we know not cer­tainly in or by which Words or Acti­ons the Sacrament is essentially per­fected, therefore we must not omit any of those words, things, or actions, which the Church uses, and in the whole comprehension of which, their Authors all agree the whole Matter and Form of that Sacrament to con­sist, pag. 413, 414.

But first, This doth not prove, that our Ordinations are certainly null and invalid, (as he pretended) be­cause we omit some things and Words which they use, (for they are not agreed, whether it essentially consists in those we use, or in those we omit) but only concludes, we cannot (in their judgment) be cer­tain [Page 219]that our Ordinations are ful and perfect; For having acknowledged, that Vasques with others hold the immediat Matter of Ordination to be Imposition of Hands, and the Form to be in those Words, Receive the Holy Ghost (which is to confess the Substance or Essence, and so the Validity of Ordination to consist in that which we retein and use) he makes but a Scholastick dispute of it, the issue whereof is, that Vasques his opinion can but amount to a proba­bility, and therefore we are not cer­tainly but probably ordained, pag. 423. &c. Let it be so in his opinion, (which yet comes short of a certainly Null) it is enough for us that we certainly know, that our way of Or­dination is according to, and war­rantable by Scripture, and can give reason (as a little below) why we omit many things that they use.

6. Secondly, Seeing the Inference he made, and the resolution he gave concerning their compounded Ordi­nations, comes but to a juncta juvant, such as the advice of a friend to use [Page 220]all the ingredients of a Recipe not being able to tell, which giveth force to the Medicine: we may spare surely some of their Mixtures, when we have better directions to tell us they are superfluous, and noxious to the pur­pose they are used for. But we would advise them to follow this resolution or advise in using the whole Matter of the undoubted Sacrament of the Eucharist: Scrupulous in Cere­monials, careles and presumptu­ous in sub­stantials. and not think it enough to consecrate it in Bread and Wine, but also to distribute it (which is the purpose of the Sacrament) in both kinds to the Communicants. Dare they say of this Sacrament it is not certain, that our Saviour did appoint it in the determinate Matter of Bread and Wine? If they durst, yet were it wisdome, according to Champny's former resolution and ad­vise in point of Ordinations, not to omit either part, which our Saviour hath appointed, and the Ancient Church constantly administred to the People.

7. Of their Vnction in Ordinati­on. Now for our omission of their Ʋnction (which is the main of those Ceremonies we use not) we say, they [Page 221]cannot prove it Apostolical, or that it was used in Ordination by the Greek Church. But admit it was used anciently in the Western Church, we say it was but a tolerable or con­venient Rite or Ceremony, as were many other anciently used, but not now seen in the Roman Church. And reason there was, wherefore we should not continue some ancient Ceremonies after the infection of Popish corruptions: as in this par­ticular; They had made Order a Sacrament, and annexed to this ce­remony of Unction a Sacramental vertue. We dare not be so bold; and, certainly, the Church ought to be very wary and sparing in Ceremo­nies to be used in and about any Sa­crament.

In Sacraments we are to look at that which is signified, or conferred; Of signi­ficant Ce­remonies. Grace, which is the sole act of God, is the thing conferred, and also signified; but there is and may be also a signification of the Duty of Man, who receives the Sacrament. Now Ceremonies added, do either signifie the Duty of man receiving, [Page 222]and these are the most innocent, and to this sort may refer the signe of the Cross in Baptism; which was used not to give any vertue any way, but to signifie the duty of the baptized (not to be ashamed of Christ crucified, but manfully to fight under his ban­ner) and to mind him of it. A se­cond sort are such, as signifie Gods act in the Sacrament, his imparting of Grace; and to this purpose, it is like they that first used Chrism in Baptism and so in Ordination meant it, to signifie (not confer) that Cha­risma Spiritus, of which the Fathers often: This sort comes very neer to intrenching upon Gods instituti­on who appoints his Sacramental Symbols to signifie his grace, as also to confer it; Lastly therefore, when Ceremonies are added by man, not only to signifie, but with a kind of Sacramental vertue to confer or de­rive the grace or work of God up­on us, it is high presumption. And to this sort perteins the Romish Uncti­on, which makes the most of them so earnestly contend to have it the very Matter of their Sacrament of [Page 223]Order, and made us in the Reforma­tion of Popish abuses, to leave it off: and we reteined the sign of the Cross in Baptism, though abused in some measure by Popish Superstition, be­cause the native importance of it is the innocent and useful signification (as I said) of duty in the party bapti­sed: the like whereof cannot be said of Ʋnction.

8. No invali­dity in our Ordinati­on by omitting some of their Ce­remonies. And for the Validity of our Or­dinations, notwithstanding the omis­sion of divers of their Ceremonies and Rites, which burden rather then strengthen the work, I would know of Champny, whether our Baptism be not good and valid notwithstan­ding our omission of their Chrism there too? There are but two things can be said; either that our Baptism is not valid and good, which I sup­pose he dare not say: or that there is not the like reason of Baptism and Ordination, which he cannot say, as to this point; For though he may put a difference between them in re­gard of validity that depends upon the Minister, who in Ordination is precisely determined, yet in regard [Page 224]of Validity by reason of Matter and Form (which is the present consi­deration) he must say that Baptism and Order are both alike; for to him as One is a Sacrament, so is the Other, and from the One he some­times argues to prove the like in the Other; as from the Form of Baptism, to the Form of Ordination, as we saw above, in his 10. chap. and may below in his 14. pag. 480. which, be­cause it makes for better clearing this business of the Form of Ordination, we will here insert.

9. There he thus argues. Quem­admodum si aliâ formâ & ritu, &c. Even as if Parker (for there he dis­putes against his Ordination from the Form of it) had been baptized after any other form or manner then Augustine delivered, he had not re­ceived true Baptism: so neither true Ordination, being ordeined by ano­ther Form, then Austin was ordeined and did ordein by.— And pag. 483. he thus again argues against our An­swering, that we retein in our Form of Ordination what is essential, and according to Scripture, Si nihil aliud [Page 225]ad essentiam, &c. If nothing else per­tein to the Essence of Baptism or Holy Order, but what is expressed in Scri­pture, then the Form both of Baptism and Ordination used in the Church of England is to be rejected, because no where expressed in Scripture. How false this (no where expressed in Scri­pture) is of the Form of Baptism I noted above, under his first proposi­tion; and how the Form of Ordina­tion is in Scripture either expresly conteined, or deducible and approve­able by it, was also there declared. But by both these reasonings it ap­peares, that to him Baptism and Or­der are of like consideration, and therefore I would require a Reason, why they pronounce not our Baptism null, because not after their manner, as well as our Orders. A man would think that Champny in both these reasonings did imply we had not true Baptism, but durst not say it positively; for that had directly contradicted the practice of their Church, which doth not re-baptize those, that are baptized after our Form; yea, the doctrine and pra­ctice [Page 226]of the Catholic Church, which required no more to the Essentiall Form, then what is expresly in Scri­pture, Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and therefore did not re-baptize Here­ticks that used the Form. It is e­nough for us (notwithstanding any thing that Champny hath said) to Baptize as our Saviour appointed, and to Ordein, as we find the Apo­stles (whom he sent, as his Father had sent him) to have done and taught, though not altogether Ritu Romano, as the Church of Rome doth, and teaches most imperiously.

10. But we must here take leave to look back to that he said above of Parker being not ordeined as Au­gustin (the first Arch-Bishop) was, which, if taken with the occasion of it, may at first sight appear a seeming prejudice. The occasion of it was from Mr. Masons saying, That Mat. Parker, the 79. Arch-Bishop after Austin, had the happiness to be the first of that Number, that was conse­crated without the Popes Bul, Pall, and other superfluous accoutrements. Hence [Page 227] Champny to the seeming disparage­ment of our Reformation infers, Therefore his Ordination (and so theirs that followed him) cannot be derived from the Apostles if not the same, that Austin delivered together with the Christian Faith to this Na­tion, above a thousand years ago— and as well, saith he, they may cast off Baptism, which the same Austin delivered, &c. p. 479, 480.

But we may answer, That the Popes Bul, and Pall, and other super­fluities which Mason reflected on, were of later date, then Austins time; for long it was after that, ere the Popes Bulls and wild Beasts roa­red within this Land, viz. after Gre­gory the 7. for then began the con­tention with Princes about investi­ture of Bishops; from which time those Bulls also began to rage, and did very much trouble this Land in that one particular of appointing the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury: in which regard we may well say with Mr. Mason, it was a happiness to Mathew Parker to be the first that was consecrated without the Popes [Page 228]Bull, not implying that all from Au­stin were so invested by the Pope, but of all in that number, who were consecrated after that usurped Pa­pal investiture began, he was the first that was clearly without it.

11. As for that which Austin de­livered, (either Baptism or Ordina­tion) we retein fully for substance, and do thankfully acknowledg the benefit; indeed some Ceremonies (as in that Age the Church of Rome began to abound in them) which he brought in and delivered in both, we happily omit to use, not because he delivered or used them, but because the Church of Rome hath since abu­sed them, as above said. This shews the vanity of Champny's inference, that our Baptism and Ordination is not good, or derived from the Apo­stles, because not after the same form and manner (peradventure accor­ding to some additional Ceremonies) that Austin delivered to this Nation together with the Christian Faith. Yea by vertue of that Ordination received, which he delivered to us, we can better prove our Ordination [Page 229]Apostolical, then they can theirs; for the Succession of Lawful Romish Bishops was much broken by un­lawful intrusion of many Popes a­bout the 9. and 10. Ages, and after (as appeared above, when we spoke of Papal Antichristianism) whereas our succession of Bishops being by Gregory the first derived to us from the Apostles, (before that unlawful usurpation, and intrusion of many of their Popes together) hath been continued among us without inter­ruption.

12. Presump­tions from stories a­gainst the Ordinati­on of our Bishops. And now Champny goes on in his 13, Chap. to invalidate their Ordination by seeming probabilities, or presumptions of the Nullity of it, which the Romanists have sought all corners for, and examined all passa­ges of Stories, Statutes, clauses of Letters Patents, which may concern the making or consecrating of our Bishops: and this he calls his demon­stration a posteriori, beginning at pag. 428.—Let us fee what weight there is in such not Demonstrations, but Presumptions. I should abuse the Reader too much to repeat and [Page 230]answer them all; blowing therefore away the lightest, I shall speak to those, that may seem to carry any shew of probability.

And first, he will prove it, such is the strength of his presumption, by the Judgment of Protestants them­selves. Ridley, saith he, at the stake humbly begged, the Queen would be pleased to confirm the Leases, he had letten as Bishop of London, therefore he held himself not Lawful Bishop. True: it was his humble supplication to the Lord Williams of Thame, that he would be a means to the Queen to do it; and this was a Demonstra­tion of his charity, and conscionable respect to the Tenants, not of his thinking himself not lawful Bishop; he knew what they thought and judged of him, not only that no Bi­shop, but also no Bishop of London because of Boner then living, and thereupon would be ready to quarrel at those Leases demised by him. And so the Words which Champny cites out of Brook his reports, do not con­tein the Sentence of judgment in this case, but the plea that was pretend­ed [Page 231]against such Leases, because the Bishops that let them, were not Or­dained.

13. His next Demonstration, Boners plea. or Presumption is drawn from a story of Boner the ejected Bishop of Lon­don, who for refusing the Oath of Supremacy tendred to him by Horn Bishop of Winchester, was cited into the Kings Bench, and answered, that he refused the Oath, because he that tender'd it, had no power to do it, being no Bishop. The Judges there­upon consulted, whether they should admit Boner to traverse it, and con­cluded, he ought to have leave to do it, and to be acquitted the Court, if he could prove Horn to be no Bi­shop then. This out of Dier; But, saith he, Boner was never after call'd to plead it; whence he concludes they judged Horn to be indeed no Bishop. Answer, This is no Demon­stration of the invalidity of his Ordi­nation, but of the Moderation and justice of those Judges, that contein­ed themselves within the compass of their own profession, not underta­king to determin whether the Form [Page 232]of Ordination was good or no; and of their equity in allowing Boner the liberty of his plea, how false soever his allegation was in it selfe: and it was an argument of their prudence, or of the Queens wisdome, that held it more convenient to silence such a Bedlam Actor, then suffer him to come upon the Stage, who had more then once in King Edwards time so irreverently behaved himself with clamors and reproaches before the Kings Commissioners. But this re­ward he had of his many misdemea­nors, that he was confined to perpe­tual imprisonment, whereas his fel­low Bishops, that denyed the Oath, as well as he, enjoyed their Liberty, or els a pleasing and free Confine­ment to some Friends house.

14. The former presumption he enforces from the statute of Parli­ament the year following, which provided indemnity for all that had refused the Oath tender'd by Arch­bishop or Bishop till that time, Anno 8. Eli. cap. 1. Which, saith he, evidently proves Boners plea to be good, that they were not Bishops indeed and that [Page 233]the Parliament so judged of them. This is still the fallacy, à non causâ; for the cause or reason of this was not because the Parliament, of which the Bishops themselves were a good part, doubted of their lawful Ordination (for how could that be after so ma­ny years practice of it, as had run in King Edwards and this Queens reigne?) but because they had re­spect to the doubtings, which others had of it. For considering the condition of the Kingdom, some years before turned from Popery, they had reason to think (and so they had found it by the reproaches of some, and the surmises of others, as they plainly signifie in that Sta­tute) that many were not satisfied concerning the Canonical and law­ful Ordination of our Bishops and Priests, measuring it by the way of the Romish Church, and as they had seen it performed in Queen Maries dayes: or thinking it not provided for by the Law of this Land since Queen Maries repeal; and there­fore the Parliament in respect to such as offended upon such scruple, decreed [Page 234]Indempnity for the seven years past, notwithstanding that such were pu­nishable by the Statute of the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth for re­fusing the Oath so tender'd. And this is a Demonstration of the great equity of our Protestant Reformers, which Champny is loath to allow them in this decree, judging of them, it seems, by the Romish severity a­gainst all offenders.

15. A Statute of Parlia­ment, and Queens Dispensa­tion. Next he urges this Statute of Parliament, 8. Eliz. I. as purposely made to make good the Form of Or­dination, and the Queens letters pa­tents given out to dispense with all Defects in that Ordination of the first Bishops made in her dayes. This Mason had objected to himself out of Sanders, and answered to this purpose; That the Parliament made them not Bishops, or their Ordinati­on good, but they being Bishops in­deed by Lawful Ordination, that Honourable Court declared them so to be. Also that the Queens Letters for their consecration concerned not any defects in Essentials, but in Accidentals, such as might be charged [Page 235]on their Ordination by pretence of any Statute or Canon. Champney, in replying to this, tortures that Statute, to force it to speak a Constituting ra­ther then a declaring of them Bishops; a making of their Ordination by the new Form valid, rather then a pro­nouncing of it to be so; Whereas it is most plain, that the end of that Statute was only to declare so much, against the slanders and reproach­es, that some cast upon their Ordi­nation, and to provide against them for the future: and to that very pur­pose the preamble to that Statute runs; and then follows, And to the intent that every Man, that is willing to know the Truth, may understand plainly, that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just Matter or Cause, It is thought fit to touch such Authorities as do allow and approve the making and conse­crating of the same Archbishops, and Bishops: and then is repeated, what was ordained in 25. Hen. 8. touching the Election of Bishops, and in 5. of Edw. 6. touching the book of Com­mon-Prayer, with the Order and [Page 236]Form of Consecration annexed to it; Lastly in 1 Eliz. c. 2. touching the Authorizing of that book again, af­ter Queen Maries Repeal. Then it followes in that Statute, Wherefore, for the plain Declaration of all the premises, to the intent the same may be better known to all her Majesties Subjects, whereby such evil speech, as heretofore hath been used against the High State of Prelacy, may hereafter cease; Be it declared and enacted; &c. Can any thing be more clearly spo­ken? And this the very place also, which Champney cites out of Camb­den, doth plainly speak, In hos Ordi­num conventu (saith he) declaratum est unanimi consensu, legitimam esse Consecrationem—In that Parlia­ment was unanimously declared, that their consecration was Lawful. And why so declared? because Nonnulli calumniando in quaestionem voca­runt—and after, Pontificii illis tanquam pseudo-Episcopis obtrecta­runt. The Papists reproached them as no Bishops.

16. Nay but the peremptory decree of that Parliament, which no Law hu­mane [Page 237]or divine (for it saies, any Sta­tute Law, Canon, notwithstanding) can hinder, sounds more then a decla­ration; such a singular Autority or power of an English Parliament, greater then that of the whole Church, was necessary, not to declare, but make that Ordination good. So he, p. 443. and then p. 444. Are they not truly called Parliament Bishops? for take away this Statute of Q. Elizab. and that other of K. Edward, which first authorized the New invented Form of their Ordination, and I do not see, whence or from what instituti­on Mason can derive their Ordinati­ons; or by what Autority, Divine or humane, he can possibly prove them good and lawful. So he. To answer this latter charge first; It stands up­on a false supposal that they inven­ted and made a New Form, which they did not, as to any thing that concerned the substance of Ordina­tion; See above Num 1, 2, 3, 4. of this 7. Chap. this business in Queen Maries daies, when King Edward's Statutes were repealed; and Canon there also mentioned, relates to the [Page 238]Popes Canon Law, which not long before was wholly in force, and was still reteined with limitation: from the supposed binding of which, arose, as it seems, the scruples & doubtings, which many had in those daies of the Validity of our Ordinations; And to this cause must be referred the reason of the clause of dispensation in the Queens Letters: not implying any essential defect, which she knew was not in her, or the Parliaments power to supply, but such as might accrew by some point or nicety of Canon Law not expresly and in par­ticular provided against.

17. The Queens Dispensa­tion. But such a ful dispensation (saith he) had been needless, had there been no defects of moment indeed; For no prudent Prince wil spend his Auto­rity in dispensing aforehand with ima­ginary and possible defects.— Such it seems was the importunity of Popish slanderers, that the Queen in pru­dence thought best to take away the occasion, by taking away the ground on which any suspition might be vai­sed, viz. the supposed force of any such pretended Canon, that might [Page 239]be thought to concern their Conse­cration. Thus Champny trifles again and again with his furmises and seeming probabilities of real and essential defect in the Ordination of our Bishops; I will not trouble the ingenuous Reader any farther with them. Only one thing I must take notice of, which he speaks positively, That the Queen had no power to di­spense in rebus Ecclesiasticis, and after sets it on thus: She had no more power to dispense in such things, then her Subjects had to dispense with her Laws, pag. 451.455. And there he requires One approved example for 1500. years, to justifie such a power. Though we extend not this power to all Ecclesiastical things or Canons, yet say we truly that a Soveraign Prince hath power to dispense in and about Ecclesiastical things: yea, hath power to forbid the Popes Law to be received or obeyed within his Dominions. If Champny, as he shews himself in the next Chap. to be well acquainted with Tortus or Bellarm. so had looked into the Answer to Tortus, he might have seen examples [Page 240]brought there by B. Andrews of Coun­cels submitting their decrees to the Emperors Autority, that he would be pleased, ea corrigere, supplere, perficere; to correct or supply them. Now what power the Emp. had in Orbe Romano, that every Soveraign Prince hath in his own Dominions. But Champny, me thinks, should not be such a stran­ger in France as not to hear, or so forgetful, as not to remember, how many years the King kept out the decrees of the Trent Councel; and when the Clergy by the mouth of the Archbishop of Tours petitio­ned the King 1598. to admit them, they did it with restriction and mo­dification of them. to the privileges and Laws of the Land; and what did that want of a dispensation? It need not therefore seem strange that the Qu. should use her power in dispen­sing against any Papal Canon, that (however hitherto obteining) should any way contrary the Laws establi­shed concerning Ordinations.

18. Presumpti­on against the racords weak. One Argument more he adds upon the strength of presumption, not only against the Validity of the [Page 241]Form of Ordination, but against the Truth of the Tables or Records, that witness the Ordination of our Bishops. This presumption he raises chiefly upon Bishop Jewels silence in answering of Harding, when he put him to it, to make good his Or­dination. Of this from pag. 457. to the end of his 13. Chap. Harding in his first reply had told the Bishop, that he was neither Bishop nor Priest, & put divers interrogatories to him concerning his Ordination. The Bishop briefly answered his imperti­nent Adversary as he saw fitting; Harding replyes again with the like or greater importunity; and because the Bishop did not enter here a di­spute with him and satisfie all his que­stions in particular, and withall pro­duce the Records; therefore Champ­ny, according to his wonted presump­tion concludes the Ordination of our Bishops could not be maintained, and the Records were justly suspect­ed, for who could better defend the lawfulness of their Ordination, or better know those Records (if any such had been) then Jewel, who [Page 242]was one of those pretended Bishops? To this purpose he.

There is a time when, as the wise man tells us, some men are not to be answered in their folly. Half of M. Hardings importunity came to this, why Jewel being no Priest med­led in Holy things? and how could he be a Priest that could not offer Sacrifice? This the Bishop well knew to be fully answered, in disproving their Sacrifice of the Mass; which he largely and solidly did: and conse­quently evinced that we may be Priests in the Gospel sense, without taking to our selves such a power, and that they are no Priests indeed, but Sacrilegious Impostors in assu­ming to themselves such a power. The rest of M. Hardings importunity que­stioned his being Bishop; and because he enters not a dispute about the Form by which he was consecrated, why should Champny conclude he could not defend it, when as Harding said not so much against it, as Champny himself hath done to invalidate it? and what that was we heard above, and found it too [Page 243]weak to disprove this our Assertion, That the form we reteined doth contein all that essentially belongs to Ordina­tion, and that which we cast out, was either superfluous addition, or super­stitious abuse. Lastly, as for pro­ducing the Records to justifie his consecration, he knew it was to lit­tle purpose, having to deal with Ma­ster Harding, who had often in this Reply call'd him a Forger and Fal­sary, and would certainly have accounted him so in producing the Records.

19. But he tells us farther; Not only Master Harding, but many other English Catholicks, objected to those pretended Bishops, the defect of Law­ful calling and Ordination, and yet were not the Records produced by any of them, nor by any other in their be­half, till Mason now after 50. years gave us a view of them; So he, p. 47 [...]. Naming their Catholic Writers, that objected this, Bristo, Sanders, Sta­pleton, Rainolds—The objections of those Writers, and generally of those Times, chiefly touched the Form of Ordination; to the answer­ing [Page 244]of which, the producing of the Records had not been proper. But Champny, as he brought Rainolds objecting, so he might have met with Rainolds answering as to that point, if he had thought fit to take notice of that which Mason in the conclusion of his third book relates, from Doctor Rainolds himself, who told him, that in his conference with Hart, he satisfied him concerning our Bishops by Authentick Records, in so much that Hart would needs have that whole point (viz. touching the Ordi­nation of our Bishops) left out of the Conference, confessing he thought no such thing could be shown, and that he had been born in hand otherwise. Born in hand by such Objectors as these, whom Champny named. Now had the Romanists that Candor and Conscience, which Hart shew­ed (who indeed seemed to be one of the most ingenuous of that Society, as appears by many passages of the Conference) they would also receive satisfaction, and not thus contend to make good such foolish re­ports, by opposing such far-fetcht [Page 245]surmises and presumptions against publick Records. Champny also, might have taken notice, how in that very Statute of 8. Eliz. which he so narrowly sifted, there are Records spoken of, that declare the due con­secration of the Bishops made in her Time. Every thing requisite and material for that purpose (viz. the Elections, Confirmations, and Con­secrations of Bishops) hath been done as precisely and with as much care and diligence, as ever before her Majesties time, (i. e. since the time the Papal Autority was cast out) as the Records of her Majesties Father, and Bro­thers time, and also of her own time will plainly testifie and declare. These are the Words of that Statute, and do expresly, as we see, witness there were Public Acts, which did shew the Elections and Consecrations of the Bishops made from the beginning of the Queens reign, as of those Bi­shops, which were made before.

CHAP. VIII.
Of Archbishop Parkers Ordina­tion, and of the pretended de­fects from the New Form, and the incapacity of his Ordai­ners.

IN his 14. Chapter, he begins with 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 [Page 247]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 [Page 248]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 [Page 249]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 Se [...]s [Page 250]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 [Page 251]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 [Page 252]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 Nags­head 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 [Page 253]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 Bluet, and Bluet from Ma­ster Neale, and Master Neale from I know not whom, nor he neither: Only he tells us that one Master Con­stable received it from Stow him­self, who acknowledged so much in private, but durst not publish it. Be it on Master Constables account, whether he wrongs Stow or no; We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Prose­lytes withall.

But setting aside the public Re­cords that shew the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained: this story betrayes it self many wayes; First, in that it pretends Scory alone to have Ordained them, for as Ma­ster Mason here noted, who can imagine that the other three, Barlo, Coverdale, and Hodskinson, who desired the advancement of the [Page 254]cause, should decline the Action, e­specially when the Penalty was a Premunire according to the 25. of Hen. 8. cap. 20. or that Parker an Archbishop Elect would have been Ordained by one, when the other three were in the Queens Letters for his Consecration, as well as Scory, and as willing, and at hand? Second­ly, that they should make choice of such a place, a Tavern for so sacred an Action, which would shew them to be Madmen, and fitter for Bedlam, then Bishopricks, when as Churches and Chappels were open to them, as Mason noted Champny pretends, they knew Landaff would not be brought to their Churches; Very like, when he notwithstanding con­tinued in the Church of England, all his life time after, and held his Bi­shoprick to his death: but if he scrupled to come into our Churches, why should they think he would meet them at a Tavern? or why make choice of a Tavern rather then some other privat, though common place? The question then is, whe­ther Landaff was so good a fellow to [Page 255]approve of a meeting there? or whether Champney was in Wine, when he wrote this? or the Reader will be such a Fool as to believe it? As for Parker, Grindal, and the o­ther, who are thus defamed, their lives and manner of Conversation before and after, did sufficiently re­commend them to all men, for per­sons Learned, Grave, Sober, Tem­perat. Lastly, let me observe, how this story betrays it self in the strange Form of their Ordination, and must either conclude those grave Persona­ges to be Madmen again, that having the Form of Ordination used in King Edwards dayes, and commanded by the Law, would or durst use any o­ther, especially so ridiculous one, as is here reported: or els condemn the raisers of this report, of sensless impudency, and the believers of it, of notorious folly.

4. But we are yet again call'd back to answer a Negative argument from John Stow, who hath omitted to speak any thing of the consecration of this Archbishop. And why should that be so strange? Because Stow [Page 256]doth not usually admit any memorable thing done at London, and all Chro­niclers use to be very diligent in Recor­ding all Innovations in States—and this Stow was punctual in describing the reception, consecration and enstal­ment of Card. Pool, which yet was but after the wonted manner; it is then very strange he should say nothing of the Consecrating of this new Arch­bishop after the New Fashion; not seen in England before; and the more strange this, because Stow is known to have born great respect to Mat. Parker. There must needs be other cause of such wilful silence, besides forgetful­ness, to this purpose he, pag. 503, &c. As for Card. Pools reception, and consecration, Stow doth not fuse describere, describe it at large, as Champny sayes, but only mentions it as done; and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shewn at the entrance or entertain­ment of Princes, I marvel he did not enlarge himself in relating the man­ner how this great Cardinal (such a special person, comming upon such a [Page 257]special errand, with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdome to the Chu. of Rome) was received, consecrated and enstalled, which no question was set off with all the holy Pageantry of the Romish pomp. Whereas the Consecration of Protestant Bishops, being now more simply and homely (though more Apostolical) with few, but innocent Ceremonies, did not afford matter so much for a Chronicle, as a Regi­ster. One thing more was special in the Cardinals entrance, which Stow notes: The same day (saith he) that Docter Cranmer (his predecessour) was burnt, the Cardinal sang his first Mass. A good beginning! One was burning, the other singing.

But what if Stow professed so much respect to Archbishop Parker? was this the only kindness he could do his friend, to tell the Kingdom what it knew, that he was Archbishop? That respect and honour he bore the Archbishop, if he had meant to shew it, would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal vertues and endowments, which see­ing [Page 258]he hath not once mentioned, why should we marvell at his silence in the other? And could there be done any thing at London, more me­morable, and of more concernment in the way of the Church, (or a grea­ter innovation in Champney's judg­ment) then the first Synod held in the Queens reign, where Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion drawn up in 39. Articles, was concluded and published; yet is it not once mention­ed by Stow. It is the business of State, not of the Church, which affords work for this and other Chroni­clers.

5. The Con­secration of Bishop Scory and Coverdale. Next he endeavours to prove that Scory and Coverdale two other Ordainers of Parker, were not con­secrated themselves, either after the old Roman or new English way, and thinks he convinces it evidently, thus. The Ordinals (saith he) or old way of consecration, were abolished by the Parliament, of 2. and 3. of King Edward; The new Form, esta­blished by the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of the same King; but the two former Ordainers were consecrated [Page 259]according to Masons records, Aug. 30. 1551. that is, five months before the new Form was set out, and there­fore by no Form in force, even ac­cording to the Laws of this Realm. So he, pag. 510. This argument at the first appearance seems pressing, and Champny doth not a litle set by it, By what Form. From hence (saith he) inevitably it is concluded, that those two were never consecrated indeed, and therefore not Parker, as is pretended; whereupon he concludes Masonum protervum & inverecundum, that Mason was obsti­nately shameless in avouching Parkers due consecration, pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a meer mistake, either through his in­advertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes, or his wil­full concealment of what he did see. The case stands thus. It is true that the Ordinals are named with other superstitious books, and with them abolished in the Parliament of 2. and 3. of Edward 6. and true also, that the form of Ordination, after agreed on was confirmed in the Parliament [Page 260]of the 5. and 6. of Edward 6. but here is the mistake. That form was not then first published, or then re­ceived the first Autority, but was in force before, by vertue of a provi­sionall Ordinance, of the former Parliament which abolished the old Ordinals. For look into the 12. Chap. of that Parliament and see it there ordained, that 12 Commissio­ners, six Prelats and six other lear­ned in Gods Law, should be chosen by the King to draw up such a Form, and that to be set out under the Great-Seale before April next following; and that it should be used and no other. So that from that time it was in force, and accordingly was used in the consecration of the foremen­tioned Bishops, ( Scory and Coverdal) Aug. 30. which followed that April, and went before the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of Edward. In which Parliament, that Form was again confirmed, by adjoyning it to the book of Ʋniformity of Divine Ser­vice or publick Prayer, under the like provisions, exceptions, penalties, and with the same clauses, as that book [Page 261] Of Ʋniformity of publick Prayer, was Provided for in the 2. of Edw. 6. This was the purpose of that Parlia­ment, as by the express words of the Statute appears; not to give the first force to Autority of that Form which it received by the Act (as I said) of the former Parliament, as soon as it was set forth under the Great-Seal) but to secure it by like provisions and penalties, as the book of public prayer was, to which they annexed it. This is the issue of Champneys confidence, who, out of the strength thereof, often over­shoots his Mark.

6. The Records publikly shewn to Romish Priests. When he had thus far proceed­ed, and with great assurance discre­dited Parkers Consecration, and the public Records, he meets with a true story that dasheth all; and that is the satisfaction given to 4. Romish Priests by Archbishop Abbot in this busi­ness. But Champny must set a good face and encounter it boldly. He tells us, as he was writing this (of the Consecration of Mat: Parker) there comes to his hand Bishop God­wins book de praesul. Angl. of the [Page 262] English Bishops; Where, in the life of Matthew Parker, that story is set down; The particulars of it stand thus; Upon occasion of Thomas Fitzherberts speech, who seeing Masons Tables of our Bishops, gave out, he would thank that man, that could certainly inform him, there were such Records indeed: Where­fore Archbishop Abbot taking to him 4. Bishops, London, Ely, Lincoln, Rochester (who then were King, An­drews, Neil, and Buckridge) sent for 4. Priests out of Prison, whose names are set down in Godwin, and caus'd the Records to be produced, shew­ing them the consecration of Arch­bishop Parker, suffering them to look farther, and as long as was con­venient for the purpose, they were sent for, and wishing them to write what they saw to Fitzherbert; which they also did.

Champny would not take notice (as I observed above) of that satisfa­ction, which Doctor Reinolds had given Hart the Jesuite, touching these Records, and related by Mason upon his own knowledg; but this [Page 263]other was so home, that he could neither overlook it, nor deny it. Only he saith, they had a sleight view of such a book, but not permitted to peruse it as it was requisite, and when those Priests by letter to the Archbi­shop, begged leave to have a farther sight of it, they could not obtein it, pag, 527. If saying, or unsaying can blemish so public an Action, there will never want some among the Romish Priests to do it confidently. But is it likely, that so many Prelats, Persons of great severity and gravity, should in so solemn an action, play boyes play with their Adversaries, to give them a sight of the Records, and then presently withdraw them? to put the book into their hands, and then presently snatch it from them? Or that such Prelats should meet to act a part in countenancing forged Records? To say nothing of the se­vere gravity of all those Bishops, Bishop Andrewes of all men living was least, fit to do it, who I dare say, would have cast off his Bishoprick, rather then held it by such a preten­ded warrant, and so will all those [Page 264]think and say, that either know the autority of that learned man, or read his Epistles to Molinaeus touch­ing the Episcopal Order. And thus much, if not too much to the trouble of the Reader, in refutation of Doctor Champney's presumptions against the due ordination of Arch-Bishop Parker and the truth of the publick Records.

CHAP. IX.
Of the other Bishops ordained in the beginning of the Queens reign; and the pretence of spe­cial defect by reason of Intru­sion. Where, of the Deprivation of the former Bishops, and the Oath of Supremacy as a cause of it.

HIs 15. and 16. Chap. proceed a­gainst the rest of the Bishops in the beginning of the Queens reign, whom he charges with a special [Page 265]defect or failance, the want of law­ful succession, in regard, of their places and Sees not void: and there­fore, entring by intrusion and usur­pation, could not be Lawful Pastors or Bishops.

1. The Charge of Intrusion. This charge concerns not all the Bishops made then, for there were many Sees actually void, but only those that enter'd upon the e­jection, or deprivation of some Po­pish Bishops, fourteen in number; and of them some were dead, some voluntarily had quitted the Land, be­fore the Queen caused others to be placed in their Sees. Now the force of this charge, so far as it concerns our Bishops, rests upon this proof, that the Deprivation of the other was unjust and unlawful. This is that which Doctor Champny endeavours to make good, by returning some answer to the crimes laid against them, and by making some proof that the Queen was no competent Judg in such a businesse. Begin we then, with the consideration of that, which was laid to the charge of the Popish Bishops; whereby it may [Page 266]appear that they were deservedly de­prived, and that the Queen had power to do what she did there­in.

2. The causes of depri­ving the Popish Bishops. I find those deprived Bishops charged with 3. things, which make them offenders against the Crown, and against their own Office. First, their refusing the Oath of Suprema­cy; Second, their joynt refusing to crown the Queen, in which they all perished save one; Thirdly, their unreasonable perverseness in not standing to any Order, which was agreed on, in the Conference or pub­lick disputation holden at Westmin­ster, for evidencing of the truth to the whole Kingdome; and therein their obstinat opposition to the Re­formation of Gods Worship and Religion. Our Chronicles generally refer the cause of their deprivation, to the refusal of the Oath, and that is chiefly insisted on, by M. Mason, lib. 3, and by Docter Champny in answer to him; but I find not, that they were imprisoned, much less de­prived till after they had declared their obstinacy in all three particu­lars, [Page 267]and must conclude, the two lat­ter did add much to the cause of their deprivation, and render'd them high offenders against the Queens Maje­sty, and their own Office.

3. Their re­fusing to Crown the Queen. For if it be the Office of the Bishops of this Land to crown the undoubted Prince, what do they de­serve, who having acknowledged Her Right in Parliament, declared by the mouth of the Archbishop of York then Chancellour, and at Her coming to London, been all of them (except Boner) graciously received by Her, and admitted to kiss her hand, do after upon pretence of Re­ligion refuse to set the Crown upon Her head? Again, when it was Her desire and purpose to have the exer­cise of Religion setled, as it was in King Edwards dayes, and might have done it upon the same Evidence and Warrant (of which above, cap. 2.) yet she caused a Conference between the best learned on both sides to be held at Westminster, A Confe­rence ap­pointed. the Parliament then sitting, for the satisfying of per­sons doubtful, and for the knowledg of the Truth in matters of difference, [Page 268]that so there might be some good and charitable agreement: These are the words of the Queens Declaration: Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament; for the better satisfy­ing their judgments in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon: as it is there also specified.

4. The Popish Partie thought it at first reasonable, and by the Arch-bishop of York gave their an­swer, that they were ready to render an account of their faith, and did ac­cordingly choose some Bishops with other Doctors to be Actors in the Conference, Their obstinat pervers­ness. and agreed to the Or­ders set down for the more quiet and effectual managing of the busi­ness. But the very first day it ap­peared, they meant not to stand to the Order first agreed on, (which was to give in writing to the other party what reasons and proofs they had for each point) whereof being fairly admonished by the Lord Keep­er (who was appointed Moderator of the Action, not to judg of the Controversie, but to see to the or­derly [Page 269]proceeding) and by other Lords, they promised to give in the next day what was said by Doctor Cole in their behalf, and what they had farther to say: but that day be­ing come, they would neither one way nor other, neither by writing nor speech declare what they had to say, but only returned them this an­swer, The Catholic Faith is not to be call'd in question. And this was the is­sue of that Conference; the passages of which are punctually set down in Stow.

5. Now if it be the Office of Bi­shops to teach all things commanded by Christ, (as we find Champny arguing for them, out of S. Mat. 28.20. against the Regal Supremacy, in his 6. chap.) and to shew us, that he hath com­manded them: If a Bishop must be by Saint Pauls Canon (1 Tim. 3.2.) [...] apt to teach, which im­plies not only Ability, of which o­ther Bishops, who ordain him, must judg, but also Readiness to teach, of which the Queen and whole Parlia­ment who in vain expected it from them might very well judg: what [Page 270]then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready, nay ob­stinately refused to do it, when their Soveraign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready, and desirous to hear, For the satisfying of their judgments and consciences, and for the bringing about some good and charitable agreement? What can we (I say) conclude of them, but that they highly offended against the Queen and whole Kingdome, and a­gainst the duty of their own Office, being also self-condemned in wilful receding from the Orders they had agreed to as most reasonable? The Protestant party were ready to say with Saint Paul, we commend our selves to every mans conscience by the manifestation of the Truth, 2. Cor. 4.7. But the Popish party did in effect say with the proud Pharisees, This people know not the Law, are cursed, S. Jo. 7.49. and so leave them in their ignorance.

6. Add to this their obstinate op­position to all reforming of Worship and Religion, from such evidenced Errors and corruptions, as Image-Worship, [Page 271]Prayers in an unknown tongue, Communion under one kind. If any of the Preists had withstood the reforming and purging of the Temple undertaken by Hezekiah and Josiah, and not consented to the re­storing of the due worship of God, or to serve in the Temple according to that Form of Worship, had it been just to continue them in the Priests Office, or to remove them? And was there any reason that the Queen, ac­cording to the power given Her of God, undertaking the reformation of Religion and Worship, should continue those as Pastors in the Church, which refused to teach or give a reason of their Doctrine, or to accord to any reformation of the known abuses in Gods Worship, or to serve in the Church according to the form of Worship duly establi­shed?

7. Now lest any should think, the like might be answered by those that some years ago cast out our Bishops as opposers of their Re­formation, I must still remember the Reader, they cannot make the like [Page 272]defence for their pretended Reforma­tion; whether we consider the Abu­ses to be Reformed, or the Autority by which; in neither of these was their attempt answerable to that just Reformation that cast out Popery, and some of the Popish Bishops; as above seen, c. 2.

To these two particulars of their not Crowning the Queen and nor hol­ding the Conference, Champny in his 15. Chap. pag. 534. replies, 1. That neither of these was objected to them, and therefore no cause of their deprivation. But this is more then he can affirm, and altogether impro­bable, considering their presumptu­ous disobedience: and I find in Stow, that upon their abrupt breaking up the Conference, White, and Watson, the two Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, were immediatly sent to the Tower for their extraordinary pe­remptoriness, and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queens Councel, save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster, who only shewed himself reasonable, and very willing to have the Conference go [Page 273]orderly and peaceably on: and therefore had his Liberty. Neither is the question here what was obje­cted to them, but what they deser­ved. The objecting of their refusal of the Oath was enough for their deprivation by the Statute newly Enacted: yet their presumptuous demeanour in the other particulars was no small aggravation of their offence, and might be too of the Queens just displeasure against them 2. Champny allegeth two examples, the One in relation to the Conference, the Other to the Crowning; the first is of Saint Ambrose, that refused to dispute with the Arrians. But this is far wide from the business in hand; whether we look at the Subject Matter of the dispute, which with Saint Ambrose was a chief funda­mental point, the Deity of our Savi­our Christ, and newly declared in a General Councel: with us the Sub­ject of the Conference were certain points; which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the de­finition of any General Councel, that they are most clearly according [Page 274]to the judgment of the Ancient Church. Or look we at the End or purpose of the dispute, which with us was public satisfaction to all persons doubting, and to bring about a good and charitable agreement; and this upon the command of the Prince, the desire and expectation of the whole Kingdom; but no such good purpose, intent, or expecta­tion, in the dispute or alteration un­to which Saint Ambrose was provo­ked.

8. His other Example relates to their not Crowning of the Queen; Euphemius (saith he) Patriarch of Constantinople, refused to acknow­ledg Anastasius for Emperour, but repell'd him as an Heretick, till he promised to admit the Councel of Chalcedon. Here again is another fundamental point, and the Declara­tion of an undoubted General Coun­cel: which notwithstanding could not give Euphemius warrant to do any more then: express his judg­ment of the unworthiness of the Em­perour. But what is this to their re­fusal of Crowning the Queen, whose [Page 275]right they had acknowledged, whose faith they could not question, as con­trary to any approved Councel? For what are the Novel Articles of Romish faith to the Funda­mental Christian Faith declared in the Ancient Councels? And yet must Princes, by the judgment (it seems) of Romanists, not have their Crowns, if they will not first admit that faith; or else lose them, if after by due Reformation they cast it off. Thus far of the offence of those Bishops, as to the business of Crown­ing and Conference, of which offence the Queen might well be a compe­tent judg, it being so apparant for the fact, and against so known a duty.

9. Their refusal of the Oath of Supre­macy. Now to the other offence char­ged on them, the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy, the chief cause of their deprivation. Upon this Doctor Champny spends his 15. and 16. chap. and, that he may prove that Depriva­tion unjust, states the question thus, Whether Queen Elizabeth with her Councel or Parliament could deprive those. Bishops, because they refused to [Page 276]swear, that she was the Supreme Head of the Church of England, pag. 536. and thereupon makes his Argument thus. That Judgment is unjust, which is given by an incompetent Judg.— Now to prove the Queen and Parlia­ment were not competent Judges, he supposes it as clear, that this was a Cause ad fidem & Religionem directe pertinentem, directly perteining to Faith and Religion— and then as­sumes, that neither the Queen nor any Lay-persons could be competent Judges of Bishops in such a Cause.— This he largely pursues, by places of Scripture which shew that Bishops and Pastors are set in the Church to teach all others (of what degree and rank soever) in matters of Faith and Religion, and therefore cannot be judged by them in such matters. Luke 16.16. He that heareth you, hea­reth me, and Heb. 13.17. Obey those that have the rule over you and sub­mit—and the like. Also by the Te­stimony of Emperours, Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, professing the judgment of such matters did not belong to them. Also of Bishops, [Page 277] Athanasius, Hosius, Ambrose, plain­ly telling other Emperors, as much. Yea calls King James himself to wit­ness, citing out of his Declaration a­gainst Card. Perrouns Oration, these words: It is true that Emperours did not bear themselves, as Supreme Judges in matters of Faith and Do­ctrine. Lastly, adds the testimony of Calvin, Kemnitius and the Cen­turists, against that title of Supreme Head. Then in his 16. Chapter un­dertakes to answer what Master Mason had brought for Regal Su­premacy in Ecclesiastical things and Causes.

10. The Title of Supreme Head of the Church. But to his whole Argument in his 15. Chapter, we may return this general answer. There are thus many failings in it. I. The question wrong stated; for those Bishops were not put to swear the Q. was Supreme Head of the Church of England; there are no such words in the Oath of Su­premacy, but, that the Q. was Supreme Governor of the Realm of England and all other her Majesties Dominions in spiritual and ecclesiastical things and Causes—For upon notice of offence [Page 278]taken at the title of Supreme Head of the Church, which her Father and Brother had used, the Queen was graciously pleased to wave it, and put it, as above said, Supreme Gover­nour of the Realm, &c. But Champny wittingly reteins the former Title, as obnoxious to more reproach and Envy. II. His Argument touches not the whole cause, or the main part of it, which concerned the renoun­cing of forrein Jurisdiction. III. The cause rightly stated is not a mat­ter directly perteining to faith and reli­gion, as he takes for granted. IV. Albeit such a Judgment of mat­ters perteining to Faith and Religion, as those Emperors denyed, doth not indeed belong unto them or any Lay-Persons, yet may Kings and Empe­rors have such a judgment, as is ne­cessary for the due exercising their supreme power in and about matters and causes of Faith and Religion.

11. Two things con­siderable in the Oath, and accor­dingly two mistake [...]. That all this may the better appear, We must observe there are two things considerable in the Oath of Supremacy: What is attributed to the Sovereign Prince, and then [Page 279]what is denyed to the Pope or any forrein Potentate; and accordingly there is commonly a double mistake which the Adversaries and reproach­ers of this Oath, (this Docter Champ­ny in particular) do run upon. The First is the overlooking of the main thing aimed at in this Oath, which is not so much the affirming or attri­buting a Supremacy to the Prince, as the denying and renouncing of the Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction, and the excluding it out of this Land. For it is security which the Prince seeks here, and that stands not so much in receiving acknowledgments of Titles, and bare assertions from Subjects, as in their renouncing of all adverse power, and promising not to obey it: In special, that known usurped power of the Bishop of Rome, mentioned and branded as un­sufferable in all the Statutes that concern the Supremacy of the Crown; and so indeed it deserved to be, both for the intolerable bur­dens and exactions it laid upon the Subjects of this Land, and for the dangerous positions and Doctrines [Page 280]it draws after it, to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince, his Crown and dignity; as, The exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons, which in effect makes them none or but half Sub­jects, The deposing of Kings, and disposing of their Kingdoms upon Ex­communication, which makes them no Kings, or but at the Popes plea­sure: and according to the same Do­ctrine, the Oath of Allegeance is pro­nounced by Pope Paul V. in his first Breve, to contein many things flat contrary to the Catholic Faith, and to the salvation of Souls, and therefore by no means to be taken by any of his Catholicks. And have not Princes good cause to look to themselves upon this point of Supremacy, to the excluding of such forrein Juris­diction, so dangerous, so injuri­ous?

12. Now that Security from this usurped power and jurisdiction is chiefly sought and aimed at in this Oath, appears by the Oaths which all the Bishops under King Henr. 8. and King Edw: 6. made, in which the first main thing is their renouncing [Page 281]of the Papal Jurisdiction, and their swearing never to admit it again within this Land: and by the Sta­tutes under. Queen Eliz. inforcing this Oath; in which the end is ex­pressed, wherefore the Oath is re­quired, and former Acts concerning the Supremacy revived. For repres­sing the said usurped power. 1. Eliz: 1. For preservation of the Queens High­ness, and dignity of this imperial Crown, and for avoiding such Hurts, Perils, dishonours, and inconveniences, as have befaln to the Queens Noble Progenitors, the Kings and Queens of this Realm, and to the whole estate thereof, by meanes of the Jurisdiction and power of the See of Rome, unjustly claimed and usurped within this Land. 5. Eliz. 1.

13. Papal Su­premacy no cause or point of Faith. This therefore being the main point of the Oath, as that wherein the Prince is mainly concerned, it tels us, how their offence arises, and what they deserve, that by denying this Oath refuse to renounce such forrein Jurisdiction: and how the Kings and Queens of this Realm, if they could well understand their [Page 282]own power and right, and properly judge of it, might also understand and judg of what was so contrary to it, and be competent judges in this cause, of all those that offended a­gainst such their known right and power. Therefore Champny bending all his forces against the Title of Su­premacy attributed to the Queen, Princes are competent Iudges in the cause. and nothing against the renouncing of Pa­pal jurisdiction, hath not (by this mi­stake) once touched the main point of the Oath, or of their offence who were deprived: which if he had con­sidered, he would not have taken it for granted, as he doth, that this cause directly pertained to Faith and Religion. Neither can he or any Ro­manist ever prove, that Princes are bound to receive for points of faith, what ever Popish Bishops or Priests, according to their own and the Popes Interests, shall tell them, are Points of Faith, (however prejudi­cial to their Crowns and Dignities) such as is the Papal Jurisdiction, with all the branches of Hildebrandine do­ctrine depending thereupon.

14. All those sayings of Emperors [Page 283]and Bishops cited before by Champ­ny, were well and piously spoken, and may well stand with that know­ledg, judgment, or Supremacy which we attribute to the Prince in and about matters of Faith and Religion, as we shall see presently; but as to this Papal Supremacy and Jurisdicti­on, which we renounce, they speak nothing that may confirm it. For had there risen up a Bishop in the dayes of those Pious and Moderat Emperors, and made such an Orati­on, as Card Perroun did before all the Estates of France (which King James declared against, and refuted) for the Papal Supremacy; or told those Emperors, that it belonged not to them to convocate Synods, and command Bishops to assemble, or to confirm their Decrees, but all this and much more belonged to the Bi­shop of Rome to do, to whom their Crowns in order to Spiritual things were subject, and Bishops exempt from their Judicature: those Emperors would have told such Bishops ano­ther tale, and not suffered such spi­ritual persons under pretence of [Page 284]preaching Heaven, to win upon them in the Earth (as the Pope hath done for divers Ages upon Christian Princes) or under shew of teaching the Faith to disoblige their Subjects from their fidelity, as Pope Paul V. did by his Breve against the Oath of Allegiance.

15. Second mistake, is of what we attri­bute to the Prince. The second mistake is in that, which by this Oath of Supremacy is attributed to the Prince, as if, by this Supreme power in Spirituall and Ec­clesiasticall things, He were made Su­preme Judg of Faith, & decider of all controversies thereunto belonging, and might ordain what he thought fit in matters of Religion. This mi­staken sense of the Kings Supremacy was first broached in Germany by the cunning of Stephen Gardiner, who being there among the Prote­stants, and chalenged by them for the Six Articles, to decline the Odium of them from himself upon the Regal Supremacy, told them the King might Ordain so, and what he thought fit being Supreme Head of the Church. Calvin speaks of this, upon Amos 7. as Bishop Bilson in his [Page 285]book of Subjection hath noted: and it is clear, that all, which he or Kem­nitius or others, cited above by Champny, spoke against that Title of Supreme Head, they spoke it a­gainst that mistaken sense.

16. Expressi­ons of the Suprema­cy attri­buted at first very large. But that we may better under­stand what is indeed attributed to the Soveraign Prince, look we first to the Statutes, which declare this Su­premacy; where we finde the ex­pressions very large and general. Seeing all Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness, as Supreme Head, and so acknowledged by the Clergy of this Realm—1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. Also Jurisdiction for Visi­tation of the Ecclesiastical State, and Persons, and for Reformation and correction of the same, and of all man­ner of errors, Heresies, Schismes, —1. Eliz. 1. Now see what hath been declared for the explaining and bounding this Supremacy. The Queen upon knowledge of offence taken at the Title of Supreme Head of the Church, waved it, Explication of the former Attributions. as was said above, and declared in Her Admo­nition annexed to her Injunctions, [Page 286]that nothing else was challenged by that Supremacy, but to have a So­veraignty and Rule, under God, over all Persons born within her Realms of what Estate soever, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, so as no other forrein power shall or ought to have Superiori­ty over them: and that nothing else was, is, or shall be intended by the Oath. So Article 37. of our Church, is thus declared, We give to our Princes that Prerogative which we see in Scripture alwayes given to all godly Princes by God himself, to rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain with the Sword all stubborn and evil doers. So then we see by these Declarations, what is meant by this Supremacy: viz. a Soveraignty over all persons & estates (though Eccle­siastical) to rule them, &c. If it be said the Supremacy is not only over all Persons, but also in all Causes and Things Ecclesiastical, we bound this latter by the former, saying, that Kings have and necessarily must have a Supreme power in and about Cau­ses [Page 287]and things Ecclesiastical, so far as is necessary to the ruling all Persons of what estate soever, moving and commanding them to act according to their several stations and offices for the service of God and his Church, keeping them to their known duty, and, as occasion may require, pu­nishing them for transgressing a­gainst it.

17. In Causes Ecclesiastical, In causes Ecclesia­stical. which are of suit and instance, and all o­ther of judicial process, the Regal Supremacy or Jurisdiction is more apparent. It was therefore declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. That in the Kings Highness there was full power to ren­der justice and finall Determination in all Debates, Contentions, &c. and upon this ground were made many and sundry Lawes before Hen. 8. in the time of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. and of other Kings for the entire and sure conservation of the prerogatives and preeminencies of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and of the Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the same; to keep it from the annoyance of the See of Rome. ibid. [Page 288]Accordingly King James, in his Pre­monition to Christian Princes against the Usurped power of the Pope, gives us many examples of former Kings punishing Clergy-men for citing o­thers to Rome, in Ecclesiastical cau­ses; Yea we have stories of Eccle­siastical causes wherein the Bishops of Rome have been Parties, judged and determined by Emperors and Kings. In that great contention twixt Symmachus and Laurence a­bout the Place (which made the fourth Schism in the Roman Church) King Theodorick, who then ruled in Italy, took the cause into his own cognizance, and judged it for Symma­chus. Afterward, in that contention twixt John of Constantinople and Gre­gory the first of Rome, about the Ti­tle of Universal Bishop, Gregory himself refers the cause to the Empe­rour (as appears in his Epistle to Mauritius,) to put end to it, by re­pressing the ambition of John, and nothing more known in History then the Elections of the Bishops of Rome, frequently ordered, judged and de­termined by the Emperours.

18. Furthermore all that Judicial process of the Outward Court, with which Bishops were enabled for the better and more powerful exercise of their spiritual Censures, was de­rived from the Supremacy of the Regal power; and to this sense was it said, All Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness, — Edw. 6. cap. 2. that is, All ex­ternal Jurisdiction, or Coactive, which indeed is properly Jurisdicti­on, when there is not only a power and ability to declare what is Law and just, but force also to procure execution: and therefore in that very Statute, and as an acknowledg­ment of all such Jurisdiction derived from the King, All process Eccle­siastical is ordained to go forth in the Kings Name, and the Teste in the Bishops name: also the Kings Arms to be graven upon the Seal of the Bi­shops Office.

19. In things Ecclesiasti­cal pertain­ing to Doctrine. But in Things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine, or correction of Error and Heresie, the bounds of this Supremacy of Princes are not so apparent: Yet may they be so set, [Page 290]as the power and judgment we yeild to Princes in and about such Things, do not entrench upon, but fortifie the Power and Office of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church. For we acknowledg the Power and Office of Bishops to be both Directive, in defi­ning and declaring what the Lawes of Christ be for Doctrine & Discipline, of which things they are the immedi­at, proper and ordinary Judges: and also Coercive, in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinatly gainsay, and that as far as the power of the Keys, put into their hands by Christ, for spiritual binding and loosing, will reach. VVhat also proper to Bishops & Pastors of the Church. This power is Coercive or binding, upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church, but not co­active or forcing; for all such Juris­diction, together with all judicial process of the outward Court, is, as I said, derived to them for the more forcible effect of their spiritual cen­sures, from the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign Priner. His Powea we acknowledg to be Imperative, in commanding by Laws the public [Page 291]establishment of that which is evi­denced to him by the Pastors of the Church to be the Law of Christ, and also Coactive in restreining and correcting by temporal pains those that are disobedient, yea in punish­ing and correcting Ecclesiastical per­sons for not doing their known duty, according to their foremen­tioned Office. To this purpose it is declared, 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. that it belongs to Spiritual Prelats, Pastors, and Curats, to Minister, do, or cause to be done all Sacraments, Sa­cramentals, and divine services to the people (that for their Office) but if for any censure from Rome, or any such cause, they refuse to Minister as before, they are liable to Fine and Imprisonment during the Kings plea­sure: that for his Supremacy over all Estates to rule them, and cause them to do their duty, and punish them, when there is cause, for not doing it.

20. If we consider the Defining of Matters of Doctrine, we said the Pa­stors of the Church are the proper and ordinary judges there, though [Page 292]called to the work by the Prince, and accountable to him how they do it: and therefore the judging of Heresie is restrained to the Declaration of the first General Councels, for Heresies past: and for such as shall arise, to the Assent of the Clergy in their [...]onvo­cation. 1. Eliz. 1. The defining of Doctrine, demonstration of Truth, and the Evidencing of it, is the Of­fice and work of the Pastors of the Church, but the Autority which at first commands them to the work, and after gives public establishment to it, when so done and evidenced, is of the Sovereign Prince: Which establishment is not in order to our believing, (as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us, in saying our belief follows the State, and our Re­ligion is Parliamentary) but to our secure and free profession and exer­cise of Religion. For Kings and Princes are not Ministers, by whom we believe, as the Pastors of the Church are. 1 Cor. 3.9. but Mini­sters of God for good or evill, Rom. 13.4. i.e. for reward or punishment accor­ding to our doing or not doing duty: [Page 293]and therefore they bear the Sword; Iurisdicti­on of Princes is extrinsic: Wherefore their jurisdiction is whol­ly Extrinsick, as is their Sword, not intrinsick or spiritual as is the power of the Keys, or the Sword of the Spirit in the hand of Ecclesiasti­cal Governors or Pastors. Princes have not the conduct of Souls, but government of men, as making a Vi­sible Society to be kept in order for Gods service and glory, and for the good of the whole Commu­nity.

21. But Princes and Sovereign Powers are not meer Executioners (as the Romanists would have them) of the Determinations and Decrees of the Church Pastors: nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion, what ever they define and propound for such. For the Power of the Sovereign is not Ministerial, but Autoritative, commanding and calling together the Clergy to the work of Religion or Reformation, which command it is their duty to execute, by meeting and doing the work so, as it may by the demon­stration [Page 294]of Truth be evidenced to the Sovereign power, and receive again the Autority of the same power for public establishment. Princes have their judgment about Mat­ters of Doctrine defined. And in order to the due using of that supream and Sovereign Power, we must allow him (that he go not blindly to work) Judgment in receiving of the evi­dence: not only a private Judg­ment of discretion, which we must al­low every man, in order to his own believing, but also a publick Judg­ment, answerable to the publick care and office he bears; Yet is it not that immediat and ordinary Judgment of Matters of Religion, which belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church, in order to our believing, but that secundary Judgment (as I may call it) which is necessary in the Sovereign, for his establishing by Lawes, that which is evidenced to him upon the Judgment and advise of the Pastors of the Church. This Judgment in matters of Religion in order to public establishment, the Sovereign ought to have upon a double reason: I. In respect of his duty to God, whose Lawes and [Page 295]worship He is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions, and is accountable for it, if he do it amiss, as the Kings of Israel and Juda were. II. In respect of his own and his peoples security, to judg that nothing be concluded or broached prejudicial thereunto, un­der pretence of Religion and Eccle­siastical Autority, as many points of Popery are. Now for this reason of the Princes concernment, I sup­pose the Clergy under Hen. 8. saw there was cause, they should bind themselves, as they did in their con­vocation, by promise, in verbo sa­cerdotis, Not to Enact or pro­mulge or execute any New Ca­nons or Constitutions without the Kings Assent.

But if it be asked, What if the Sovereign be wilful in following his own judgment, rather then the evi­dence of Truth given in by the Pa­stors of the Church? That will not concern our belief or Religion, but the free and safe profession and ex­ercise of it. For the establishment of Princes is not as I said, in order to [Page 296]our believing, but our free and pub­lic exercise of Religion; we must at­tend to the evidence of Truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church, who have commission to do it in order to our believing; and yeild obedience to the establish­ment or Law of the Sovereign, ei­ther by doing and conforming thereunto, or by suffering for not doing accordingly.

22. Princes truly said to reform Errors by their Su­premacie. By all this, which I have said to rectifie the mistaken sense of this Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things, it may appear how the Sovereign Prince may have and use his Supreme Power, and his Judgment, in and about such things, without invading that spiritual power, and that immediat and ordinary judgment, which be­longs to the Pastors of the Church; how also he may be said truly to Reform and Correct Errors, Heresies, &c. without taking to himself the office of those Pastors; For when he doth it by them, commanding them to the work, and taking account of them, he doth it truly, and doth it by a Supremacy of power. So did He­zekiah [Page 297]and Josiah truly reform all the errors and abuses about Gods Worship, when they called and com­manded the Priests to that work of purging the Temple and Ministring a­gain in it, according to the right way of Gods service. Justinian in his Epistle to the 5. Councel, reckons up what his predecessors had done for the preservation of the true Faith. Semper studium fuit, &c. it was al­waies their care and endeavour, Ex­ortas haereses amputare—to cut off Heresie as it sprung up. How? or by whom? per Congregationem—by gathering together Religious Bishops —and causing them to preach the right faith. Then having instanced in those Emperors that called the 4. General Councels, he concludes, Nos sequentes—& Volentes—We following their examples, and willing the right Faith be preached, do, &c. Nothing is more obvious in Anti­quity then the care and pains, which good Emperors and Kings have used in employing their Sovereign power and Autority, for repressing and re­forming Errors and Heresies. One of [Page 298] Justinians predecessors was Theodo­sius the second, who did repress the Heresie of Eutyches then prevailing, and newly advanced by the factious Councel of Ephesus; and how did he do it? by nulling or forbidding the decrees of that Councel to be re­ceived,—and to do this, he was advised and entreated by Leo Bishop of Rome and other Bishops. But of this example more largely below, when we shall examine Champneys answer to it; to whom it is now high time to return.

23. His Arguments, above insinu­ated, are easily solved by what is al­ready said, to rectifie the mistakes about the Oath of Supremacie. His Testimonies from the acknowledg­ments of Emperors, and sayings of Bishops, telling them their duty, as he borrows them from Tortus or Bellarmine, so he might have seen particular answers to the chiefest of them in the Bishops Tortura; But these, and the places of Scripture which he brought, and King James his saying, and the Testimonies of other Protestants, which he alledged, [Page 299]do all fall to the ground, as imperti­nent and of no force, through those failings I noted at the beginning, and were made more apparent by what is said since, that they touch not the main part of the Oath of Suprema­cie, and cause of the deprivation of the Popish Bishops, viz. their refu­sing to renounce the forrein jurisdi­diction and Supremacie of the Papal usurped power; also that those Ar­guments and Testimonies proceed onely against the mistaken sense of the other part of the Oath, viz. of that Supremacie which is attributed to the Sovereign Prince: and are ea­sily satisfied by distinguishing the spi­ritual power of Bishops and Pastors from the Sovereign power of Princes in and about Ecclesiastical matters; which powers though they have the same objects sometimes, yet their manner of proceeding about them is different; so by distinguishing the im­mediate and ordinary cognizance or judgment of matters of Religion, which belongs to the Pastors of the Church, defining and proposing them in order to our believing, from that [Page 300]secundary judgment of the Sovereign Power in order to publick Establish­ment, and free exercise of what we beleeve and receive upon the former evidence.

The judgment requisite to make the demonstration of truth out of Gods Word, and to give out the Evi­dence, belongs to the Ecclesiastick Pastors; but the judgment requisite in receiving the Evidence is needful in all: especially and upon a publick concernment in Princes, that they may discern that nothing is propoun­ded prejudicial to their just Rights, or hurtful to their Subjects. Also that they may be satisfied, what is pro­pounded as Faith and Worship to be according to the Law of Christ be­fore they use or apply their Autority to the publick establishment of it. This Judgment of the Prince I called Secundarie, not to the prejudice of his Supremacie, but to the acknow­ledgment of the immediat and ordi­nary judgment in matters of Religion belonging to the Pastors of the Church. Secundary in the considera­tion of Direction, which it supposes to [Page 301]be received from the Pastors of the Church, not Secundary in considera­tion of Autority, which commands them first to the work, requires an account of it, and confirms publicly what is evidenced by them to be ac­cording to Christs law.

24. We should now see what he answers to Masons instances of Em­perours and Kings dealing in Ecclesi­astical matters; but first examine we a reasoning of his in the latter part of his 16. Chapter, which he falls up­on by occasion of an objection, that Mason had made to himself, and improves so far, in his own conceit, that he challenges any Protestant to return him an answer: which not­withstanding may well be answered out of that which hath been said al­ready.

Out of the Objection, which Mason had made, Suprema­cie makes not the Princes will the Rule of our Faith. he frames his first reasoning thus. If Princes be Su­preme in spirituall things, then are their Subjects bound to obey their command in all matters of Faith and Religion: for as S. Paul saith, every soul must be subject to the higher [Page 302] (or Supreme) Powers; and bound to obey in all things in which they are supreme—who sees not the absurdity that would follow? But it is easie to answer, by distinguishing active and passive obedience—for should we make them as supreme in Ecclesiasti­cal things (which we do not) as they are (and as Champny will acknow­ledg them to be) in civil matters, we could no more be bound to obey them in all their commands about matters of Religion, then we are in all their commands in and about Civil things; but in these if they should command a Subject to bear false witness, that Subject is not bound to obey actively, but to sub­ject passively.

25. Much to this purpose had Ma­ster Mason solved the like Objection: and Champny goes on to improve his Reasoning, and replyes; So to an­swer is altogether impertinent, because the Protestants cannot give any cer­tain Rule, whereby Subjects may know whether the Prince, in rebus Contro­versis, in controverted points of Religi­on, command, according to Truth or no. [Page 303]For example, The King of England forbids the Mass, &c. The King of France commands it. How shall the Subjects of either know, whether of the two commands for the Truth? and how could the Protestants know, that Hen. 8. commanded against Truth, when he enjoyned the Six Articles? If they say, as usually, his Commands are according to Truth, that are con­formable to the holy Seriptures, they stil stick in the same dirt, as not able to give any certain Rule, whereby to know, which Commands are confor­mable to Scripture. Answer; Rule of our Faith [...] All this proceeds upon the former mi­stake of that Supremacy which we attribute to the Sovereign Prince in matters of Faith and Religion, as if we gave him what properly be­longs to the Pastors of the Church: Whereas in asserting his Supremacy, we suppose it their office to evidence what is Truth, and what is confor­mable to Scripture: and that in Or­der both to our and his believing. And the Means of it. But more particularly; We acknowledg a certain Rule, more certain then the Papists can or will do, and that is [Page 304]Scripture; Now if still we be asked for a Rule, whereby to know what is con­formable to Scripture: We say that having a certain Rule, as before, there remains no more to do, but to have evidence of it; and for that we have (not so much a Rule, as) Means: The same that the Church alwayes had, the Doctrine of fore­going Ages, and of our present Teachers. The same that the Jews had, the Teaching and direction of those that sat in Moses Chair: S. Mat. 23. those whose Lips were to preserve knowledg, and at whose Mouth they were to seek the Law. Mal. c. 7. The same, that our Saviour left in his Church for that purpose, Pastors and Teachers, that we should not be carried about with every wind of Doctrine, Eph. 3.4. The same, that Champny & the Romanists pretend to contend for in this business. These we say are not the Rule, but the Means, or Ministers by which we believe, Cor. 3.9. ac­cording to the demonstration of Truth, commending themselves to every mans Conscience. 2 Cor. 4.2.

26. Now seeing our Saviour bids [Page 305]them do what those which sate in Moses Chair said unto them. S. Mat. 23. and it is certain they did not teach infalli­bly or truly in all things, for which Stella, and Maldonate on the Go­spel, and Espensaeus once a Docter of the Sorbon, on Mal. 2.7. give us this limitation, Eatenuus audiendi, quatenus legem Mosis docent, They were so far to be heard and obeyed, as they taught what indeed was the Law of Moses: I would ask of Champny, what Rule then had men to know whether the Scribes and Pharisees taught that, or their own Traditi­ons, but the evidence they made of the thing taught, out of the Law? He must answer according to the Romish way, The Doctrine of the Church was their Rule; But then the forementioned Authors should have said, quatenus docent secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae, so far forth, as they teach according to the Doctrine of the Church, and not have limited the matter, as we Protestants do, quatenus legem Mosis docent, so far forth as they teach according to the Law of Moses: Also those teachers [Page 306] (Scribes & Pharisees) could say, they taught according to the Doctrine then obteining in the Church, yea and could say, Dictum Antiquis, it was so said by them of old, S. Mat. 5. as well as any Romanist can; yet our Saviour did not admit that Rule, but refuted their corrupt Doctrines by Evidencing the true meaning of the Law, S. Mat. 5.

27. VVhat certain Rule the Romanists can pre­tend to. Again, Champny tells us not what certain Rule they have, but it must be such as I insinuated, the Judgment or Doctrine of their Church. Now seeing their Church must speak her Judgment by her Pa­stors, and supremely by Pope or Councel, We ask in which they place this certain Rule? He and his fellow Sorbonists are for a general Councel which they set above the Pope, with power to judg and depose him; we leave them to answer this to the Jesuites and other more de­voted Creatures of the Pope; but let him answer us how he and his Sorbo­nists can attribute that to a Councel, and yet with the Jesuites make the Pope Supreme Head of the Church (as he often insinuates in this dis­course) [Page 307]which should imply the Supreme judgment in him, according to Champney's arguing against that Title here attributed to the Kings of this Realm. Let them place their supposed certain Rule, where they please, we finde those of the Romish Communion following the evidence they had of Truth against the Popes judgment or any pretended Hilde­brandine Doctrine or determination of their Church. The Venetians stood out resolutely against the Interdict of Pope Paul 5. maintaining their right in that cause, (though Ecclesiastical) which was a branch of the Suprema­cy belonging to Sovereign Princes and States; And what Rule had they to go by, in disobeying the Pope, or their Subjects in obeying them, but the Evidence of the Truth of the thing manifested to them by learned men, Bishops and Pastors among them? So when the same Pope by his several Breves forbad the taking of the Oath of Allegiance, as contra­ry to the Catholic faith, and many Priests notwithstanding, with most of the Romish Catholicks in this Land [Page 308]held it Lawful, and accordingly took it; What Rule had they to go by in obeying their Prince against the Pope, but the evidence of the thing or duty, they naturally owed to their Sovereign? which evidence, with all the reasons of it, is drawn up by Master William Howard, an English Catholic (as he stiles himself) and published, An. 1634.

28. Now for a general Councel, when it can be had indeed, we grant it to be the greatest and highest means of direction, which Kings, or any other can have in matters of Re­ligion; but still the limitation afore mentioned, Quatonus docent, &c. takes hold of the Pastors of the Church gathered in Councel, it be­ing possible the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly inte­rests (as above in the first Chapter, n. 9.) and so give Kings and Em­perours, upon evidence of things un­duly carried, cause to use their Su­preme power, not for the confirming but forbidding of the Decrees, as we shall presently see done by Theodo­sius against the second Councel of [Page 309] Ephesus; and as Champny could not but know the Kings of France did against the Conventicle of Trent (so Hen. call'd it) forbidding the De­crees of it to be received for the space of 40. years; For Anno 1598. we finde the Clergy assembled at Paris (as the French History relates) and the Archbishop of Tours, in their name petitioning the King ( Hen. 4.) to reform several disorders in the Church, and that he would be plea­sed, the Councel of Trent might be received and published in France, with certain qualifications. This was not at that time granted: the King answering them in brief to this pur­pose; that by the help of God he would settle the Church, admonish­ing them in the mean time to look to their duty, and he would study his. In all this we have an evident de­monstration of Regal Supremacy, and that allowed by the French Clergy; and this done upon no other Rule, then the evidence of the thing, that packing and faction, which was apparent in that Councel. There may be then Exceptions against the [Page 310]Romanists certain Rule. And much was spoken tending to this pupose, above cap. 1. Of Submission due to the Church.

29. How Em­perours shewed their Su­premacy in matters of the Church and of Religion. In the last place let us see what is answered to Master Masons Instances of godly Emperours ma­king Lawes, and taking Order in matters of Religion, and of the Church. To these Champny an­swers in his 16. Chapter. First, None of them ever excluded the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome out of their Realms, as this Oath doth. pag. 557. True, that none of them denyed him his Patriarchal Primacy known and bounded by the first general Coun­cels, neither would it have been de­nyed him in this Realm, could he have conteined himself within the due bounds thereof; but such a Papal Jurisdiction, as was usurped by the Bishop of Rome for some Ages past, those good Emperors never knew, never would have endured. If he can shew us they admitted such Jurisdiction, or that the General Councels acknowledged it, we will also acknowledg the Popish Bi­shops [Page 311]were unjustly deprived as to that point.

Secondly, Those Emperors by their Laws did but confirm, and in their doings about Church-affairs, did but follow the Canons and judgment of former Councels. This is the summe of his second answer. And this is true of many of them: but derogats nothing from their Supremacy; for it only implyes Direction received, which we acknowledg Kings and Emperours ought in Ecclesiastical matters to receive from the Pastors of the Church, in or out of Coun­cel: It doth not infringe the Auto­rity which they have both in com­manding the Pastors of the Church to meet in Councel, in taking an ac­count of what is done, and how; and lastly in confirming their decrees and Canons; as was before insinuat­ed.

30. Again, That answer is not true of all the Laws and Actions of pious and good Emperors in and a­bout matters of Religion or the Church, as may appear by that which is cited by Mr. Mason, by [Page 312]Bishop Bilson, in his book of true sub­jection, by Bishop Andrews against Tortus, and by other Writers. To instance in one, which being urged by Mason, Champny thought him­self concerned to labour in the sol­ving it. The second Councel of Ephe­sus had, by the prevalency of a stir­ring faction in it, passed judgment for deposing the good Bishop Flavi­anus, and advanced the Eutychian Error. Hereupon Leo Bishop of Rome, with other Bishops, humbly supplicated the Emperour Theodosi­us, that all things might stand in the same condition in which they were before any of those judgments, till a greater number of Bishops could be gathered out of the whole World, Ep. 43. and in another Epistle, he thus bespeaks the Emperor, The se­cond Councel of Ephesus, which can­not be called a Councel (because held to the subversion of the Faith,) You most glorious Emperour, aliud statu­endo cassabis, will make void or null by a contrary Decree, for the love you bear the Truth, &c. In all this, Three things are evident, I. That a [Page 313]King or Emperour may and ought (as he tenders the Truth of God) re­form or extirpate an Error or Heresie prevailing, when it is made manifest to him by the information and advice of godly Bishops, as here by Leo Bi­shop of Rome, and other his fellow-Bishops, who as he said joyned with him in the supplication, although there be no foregoing Synodical judgment against the same Error, as there had not yet been against the Eutychian Heresie. II. That He may Null and make void the Judg­ment or Decree ( i. e. forbid it to be received) of a Synod when manifest­ed to him, that it was carryed by faction to the subversion of the Faith; as this of Ephesus was; upon which reason the Kings of France, as was said, refused to receive the De­crees of Trent: III. That the Em­perour might and ought to call a greater number of Bishops together for the confirmation of the Truth, and so the Councel of Calcedon was gathered by the Emperour Martia­nus.

Now see we how Champny bestirs [Page 314]himself to get through the passages of this story. Leo saith, he, did Pa­ternè hortari, fatherly exhort the Em­peror to defend the Truth, as every good Prince should—pag. 568. This (though short of an humble suppli­cation made to the Emperour) is fair, and we desire no more, then that it be granted, Princes may and should do so much within their Realms, as the Emperour is here supplicated or exhorted to do. And accordingly (saith he) this good Em­perour did, praescriptum Leonis se­cutus, following the praescript of Leo. pag. 565. Now he makes the good Bishop speak and take upon him like one of the later Popes. Well this agrees not with the humble supplica­tion made to the Emperour; but what saith he to the thing supplicated for, that the Emperour would make void that Councel by a Decree to the contrary? I cannot find any thing in Champney that answers to it, but that Leo desired a suspension of the Decree and Judgment of the former Councel —Which, (though short of that which is desired) is enough to e­stablish [Page 315]that Autority which we desire to vindicate to Kings and Em­perours in matters of the Church, without wronging or invading the Office of the Pastors of the Church: for both the Emperour and they had their parts in this Action. Champny in stead of giving us a good account of the former point, thinks to cross us with another passage of the story: Flavianus, saith he, the deposed Bi­shop, appeals from the unjust sentence, not to the Emperor but the Bishop of Rome, and delivers his appellation to his Legats, which was an acknow­ledgment of his being supreme Judg, pag. 561. But this cannot be con­cluded in Champnys sense of Su­preem Judg, for it sounds nothing but the primacy of Order among the Patriarchs. Flavianus delivered his appellation to the Popes Legats, be­cause they were present, the Em­perour was not, because in order the Bishop of Rome was the first, and because he knew that Leo was truly favourable to his cause, and would commend it to the Empe­rour; which he did, and did it so, [Page 316]as appealing himself to the next general Councel, which the Empe­rour should gahter; as we heard in his supplication to Theodosius. Nei­ther had the Bishops of Rome, though chief Patriarchs, the only or chief presidence in all the Gene­ral Councels, but according as the Emperour saw fit, as appears by the acts of those Councels.

But to conclude. In replication to that common answer of Romanists, that Kings and Emperours in com­manding about Church affaires did but follow the determinations of foregoing Councels, Mason had told them, that Queen Elizabeth, for this power and Supremacy had the determination of a Synod un­der Hen. 8. by unanimous assent acknowledging it. To this Champ­ny replies, What Authority had that Synod, where the Bishops were compelled by fear to consent to that, which they after voluntarily revoked under Queen Mary? Or what Au­tority could a Snyod of the Bishops of one Kingdome have against the con­sent of the whole world— p. 549. 550. [Page 317]But this of the consent of the whole world is only a brag, and it is yet to be proved that the late usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was ever known to the Antient Church, or ever received since, through all the Christian world. As for compulsion and defect of freedom, which he notes for the nulling of the Autorty of a Synod, we ac­knowledg the Doctrine good, and say he gives us a just way of ex­ception to the Councel of Trent, and all or most of the Romish Coun­cels that have been held under that usurped Papal Supremacy since Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh his time. But we deny the appli­cation of it to the Synods under Hen. 8. See above, cap. 2. Num. 3. concerning this allegation of fear and compulsion, where there was cause to think, the evidence of Truth compelled them, consi­dering what the most learned a­mongst them did voluntarily write against the Papal Usurpation. And I cannot but here acknowledg the Providence of God, so disposing [Page 318]of this business, that the Papal su­premacy or usurped Jurisdiction should be voted out of this Land, first by the Popish party, as I may call them, and that they which had twice been sworn against the admit­ting of it again into this Land, as many of the deprived Bishops had been under King Henry and King Edward, and then voluntarily broken their double Oath under Queen Mary, should be deposed under Queen Elizabeth, for that very cause of asserting the Papal Supremacy.

CHAP. X.
The Exception against our Bi­shops, that they were not Priests. Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministry committed to us men, and of the Romish Pre­sumption in assuming more.

HIs last exception against the Calling of our Bishops, ever since the beginning of the queens time, is, because they were not Veri Sacerdotes, truly made Priests: Which, saith he, is such an Es­sential defect, that it renders their Episcopal Ordination altogether invalid. cap. 17. We grant it of Veri Presbyteri; those that are not truly made Presbyters first, cannot be true and complete Bishops. But for his Veri Sacerdotes, we say, as there are no such Priests under the Gospel, so is there no need, that Bishops should first be made such; for Priests in the Romish sense are such as in their Ordination re­ceive [Page 320]a power of Sacrificing for the quick and the dead, i. e. a real offering up again the Son of God to his Father. And because we presume not to take this power, therefore they usually reproach us, that we have no Priests, none that can consecrate or make the Lords body, none that can absolve or re­concile Penitents.

As for our selves, Our war­rant for our Gospel Ministery. we have suffici­ent warrant and Commission for the power we take and use in the Gospel-Ministry. To Teach and Baptize, S. Mat. 28. to Binde, and to Loose, S. Mat. 18. or, to Remit and retain Sins, S. John 20. and, he hath given or committed to us, (saith Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.18.) the Mi­nistry of reconciliation, which stands in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments. VVhat the Romanists pretend for their Priest-hood. Now if we ask them, to shew their Commission for that power of Sacrificing, they cannot direct us to any express Word of God, but lead us about, to seek it in the figurative and hy­perbolical expressons of the Fa­thers; from which they would [Page 321]force these two Propositions, That there is such a real and external Sacrifice under the Gospel; and, That our Saviour Christ did really and truly offer himself up to his Father in his last Supper; from whence they conclude, If there be such a Sacrifice, then are there Sacrificers and Priests? If Christ offered up himself in his last Sup­per, then so it is still, for he bad Do this, S. Luk. 22.19. I do not meane to follow Champny here step by step, for the runs into the controversie of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, heaping up the sayings of the Fathers, usually alleged by their Writers, and as often answered and cleared by ours. I shall not examine those savings particularly, but stay upon some Generals, which may in brief shew the meaning of that manner of speech, the fathers commonly used in and about the celebration of the Eucharist: The high presump­tion of the Romanists in taking to themselves such a power of Sacra­ficing; and Their Vanity in re­proaching [Page 322]us, for not assuming it.

3. VVhether Christ offered himself up in the Iast Sup­per. First, It is true that some Fathers seem to say, Christ offered himself up in his Last Supper; but it is evident they meant it not really and properly (for how could it be so, where there was no real effusion of his blood, no real occision or death) but mystically, or as Saint Augustine sometimes expresseth it, significante mysterio, in a Mystery or Sacrament, signi­fying or representing his Sa ifice or Offering on the Cross presently to follow: that Sacramentum Do­minici Saerificii, Sacrament of the Lords Sacrifice, as Saint Cyprian calls it, Ep. 63. ad Cacil. The Sa­crament then, at his Last Supper, shewing the Lords death, that should be, or the Sacrifice that should be offered on the Cross: and the Sacrament now shewing the Lords death that was, and the Sacrifice that was Offered. All the wit the Romanists have, cannot make the Offering up of himself in the Last Supper (as they phansy [Page 323]it) and after upon the Cross, to consist upon any reasonable terms; for as they may not say, there were two several Offerings up of the Son of God, so they cannot make them really the same. The Apostle tells us often in his Epistle to the Hebrews, cap. 7. cap. 9. cap. 10. He offered once to take away Sin: and the Romanists dare not say he of­fered himself twice for the sins of the World; Yet saying that he offered himself really in the Sup­per, and on the Cross, (where the Time and Place was several, and the Manner of Offering, as to the very nature of a real external Sa­crifice, quite diverse: for it was with­out bloodshed and death in the Supper, but with both on the Cross) they must needs say, He twice Of­fered himself; and all the cunning they have, cannot make once and twice here to be really the same, or to consist upon any terms free from contradiction. Relation of the Eucharist, to this Sa­crifice of the Cross. 5.

4. Champny endevouring to clear the relation, which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, hath to that of the [Page 324]Cross, is forced to make a wide difference between them, and in­deed to come to that, which we allow in the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, without placing such a Sacrifice in it as they vainly con­tend for. The Sacrifice of the Cross (saith he, pag. 704.) is absolute and independent, which hath his effect, ex propriâ suâ efficaciâ, valore & virtute, from his own Efficacy, Va­lue and Vertue: but the sacrifice of Eucharist, is respectivum depen­dens & applicativum, relative to that Sacrifice on the Cross, de­pending on it, and borrowing totam­suam propitiandi Vim à Sacrificio crucis, all the propitiatory force it hath, from that on the Cross; Lastly, it is applicative of the Sacrifice of the Cross, applicando nob is crucis merita & Valorem, it applyes, saith he, unto us the me­rits of that Sacrifice. Again, for the dependencie of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist upon that of the Cross, he acknowledges there, in effectu suo non minù quam [...]lim Judeorum sacrifisia ab eo dependere, [Page 325]that it depends no less upon it, as to his effect and force, then the Judaical Sacrifices did. And pag. 707. he makes the effect of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in and by the vertue of the Sacrifice of the Cross, to be as the Working of the Second Cause, by the co­operation of the First. And en­deavouring to shew how the pro­pitiatory vertue, attributed to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, doth not derogat from the sufficiency of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, he cannot do it, but by making the one medium applicationis, a means appointed to apply the o­ther unto us; and this he proves by the Acts of Faith and Repen­tance, which besides the Sacrifice of the Cross are required in us, to make it effectuall to us: and by Baptisme Ordained of God to apply his blood to us; and neither of these derogatory to the suffi­ciency of the propitiatory Sacri­fice of the Cross. Thus he, pag. 714.723.7 [...]6.

5. Now in all this we may ob­serve [Page 326]what a wide difference is made between the Sacrifice in the Eu­charist, and on the Cross, and there­upon how impossible it is to make them one and the same; also how sensless it is, to affirm this of Christ offering himself up in the Eucha­rist, whether we consider the depen­dency acknowledged, to say Christs offering himself up in the Eucharist had not efficacy of it self but de­pendently of an other offering up of himself: or whether we consi­der the application spoken of, to say that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist, to apply the merit of his Cross unto us; But to let pass these and many more Absurdities w ^ch follow upon their saying, Christ offe­red himself up in the Last Supper, we may farther observe, how the Ro­manists, after all their contending for a real, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, are fain to make it but applicative, and that is it which we ascribe to the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament appointed for this end & purpose, that by it the Sacrifice of the Cross may be applyed to us. [Page 327]The greater is their presumption, that have taken off this applicative vertue from the Eucharist, as a Sa­crament appointed of God to that end, and ascribe it to the Eucharist under the notion of a Sacrifice of their own devising; have drawn off the people from seeking it in the Eucharist, of which they are made partakers, to expect it from the Mass, which is performed by the Priest alone. Romish vain pre­tence from Do this. So finely do they plead for this their Sacrifice by our Saviours bidding us Do this, and so plainly practice against it; for whereas our Saviour saying, Do this, commands the whole Acti­on of the Sacrament, viz. Conse­cration and participation, that which belongs to the Priest to do, to bless, consecrate, distribute, and that which belongs to Priest and people to do, to take, eate, and drink, as the Apostle plainly shews, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26. the Romanists will not do this accordingly, but in the Eucharist suffer not the peo­ple to drink of the Cup, denying them therein the application of [Page 328]Christs blood shed on the Cross; and in the Sacrifice of their Mass, they restrain, [ do this] to that only which the Priest doth, as in their daily private Masses.

6. Of the Fa­thers pla­cing a a­crifice in the Eucha­rish. Secondly. It is true, that the Fathers often speak of the Eucharist as of a Sacrifice, and that they say Melchisedech's Bread and Wine pre­figured it, and that they often ap­ply the words of Malachy, cap. 1.11. a pure offering to it: and a great noyse is made by the Roma­nists of the sayings of Fathers up­on these places, and all to no pur­pose. For what if some Fathers thought, Melchisedech sacrificed not in Beasts as the Aaronical Priests did, Of Mel­chisedechs Bread and VVine applied thereunto. but in Bread and Wine, and out of that Bread and Wine, so presanctified and offered before to God, he refreshed Abraham and his company? and what if they make application of this to the Eu­charist? it will but amount to this at the most: that He, who was Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech, should likewise take of Gods creatures, (as Ireneus [Page 329]speaks) Bread and Wine, and con­secrate them into the Sacrament of his body and blood, to be offered up in Sacrifice unto God, and to be communicated, as spiri­tual refection, to them that come to receive it. And so the Eucha­rist (whether considered as first ce­lebrated by our Saviour, or as af­ter by us) is the representation and shewing of that Sacrifice, 1 Cor. 11.26. and the participati­on or Communion of it, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. That this was prefigured in Melchisedechs Bread and Wine, as offered to God, and brought forth to Abraham, is all that by any force of reason can be driven out of the expressions of the Fathers.

And for that other place of Ma­lachi, Of Malachi his pure offering applied thereto. of Incense and a pure offe­ring divers Fathers give us the immediat and direct sense: Ter­tullian saith, It is Oratio simplex de conscientiâ purâ, unfeined pray­er from a pure Conscience, lib. 4. contra Marcionem, cap. 1. Eusebius in his first book de demonstr. E­vangel. cap. 6. makes it the same [Page 330]with that worship, our Saviour speaks of, S. John 4.23. in spiritu & veritate, puròque obsequio, a Wor­shipping of God in Spirit and in Truth, and with pure obedience. Hierom also tels us it is here fore­told that the prayers of the Saints were to be offered to God, not in one place or province, but every where. Now the usuall exception of Ro­manists (which Champny also pleads here) is, that such prayer, and spiritual Offerings were required under the Law, and therefore some Other external Offering, and di­vers from all that was before, must be meant by the Prophet. But this Exception hath no force for sure our Saviour spoke pertinently, when he opposed the Worship in spirit and Truth, (S. John 4.23.) to the Jewish manner of Worshiping, notwith­standing that it was required of the Jews to Worship in Spirit and Truth. For there is a double dif­ference of this Christian Worship from that under the Law; One in the Manner of performance of it among the Gentiles, purely with­out [Page 331]mixture of external Sacrifices, or Legal performances, in respect to which Saint Paul calls it [...], reasonable service, Rom. 12.1. and Eusebius, lib. 1. de Demonstr. Evang. gives us this reason, why Malachi calls it, sacrificium mun­dum, a pure offering; because, the Gentiles were to offer to the high God, non per cruores, not with the blood of Beasts as under the Law, but per pias actiones by holy spiri­tual Acts and Duties: Another dif­ference was in the place; The whole Worship and offerings of the Gen­tiles were to be performed to God in every place: Our Saviour tells us it was not to be bound either to Jerusalem, or to Samaria, S. John 4.22. and Saint Paul tells us of lift­ing up pure hands in every place, 2 Tim. 2. and Eusebius in the place forecited, shewing how the Reli­gion of the Patriarchs before the Law agreed with the Christians, makes this one Instance, because they did in omni loco adorare, Worship in all places, and then proves it by this place of Malchi, [Page 332]that the Christians should do so. As for the Fathers that applyed this pure Offering to the Eucharist, they might well do it upon the former account: the Eucharist ha­ving his name, from the Sacrifice of praise, and being that great and solemn performance, wherein the pure Offering of Prayer and Praise, and the devoting of our selves to Gods service is specially made. But it will be said, the Fathers apply this Pure Offering of Ma­lachi to the Eucharist, in respect of the body and blood of Christ there offered up: It is true, that some of them so express it, and it is no more, then what they often say, without relation to that place of Malachi, according to their usual manner of speech: but far from the Romish sense or purpose; as it remains to shew in the next place.

7. The meaning of the Fa­thers speaking of a Sa­crifice in the Eucha­rist. Thirdly. However the Fathers used for the most part to speak of this Mystery of the Eucharist Mystically and obscurely, under the properties of the things signified, [Page 333]rather then of the external Sym­bols, and therefore seeming to im­ply a real Conversion of Transub­stantiation of the Symbols into the Body and blood of Christ, and a real Sacrifice, or Offering up of that Body and blood again in the Eucharist, yet do they sometimes punctually, and positively express their meaning by the Memorial, Representation, and shewing in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross; and this they learnt from Saint Paul, who tells us, 1 Cor. 11.26. to do this is to re­member, and to shew the Lords death. And for their mystical and figurative manner of speech they had his his example too, Gal. 3.1. Crucified amongst you; Was Christ really and properly crucified a­mongst the Galatians? No, but by description, setting forth, or representation of his Death and Passion often made among them in the Word and Sacraments. Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers, I shall instance only in three of [Page 334]them. First, in Chrysostome, who of all the Fathers speaks most high and Hyperbolically in this matter of the Eucharist; and the place shall be that which Champ­ny here cites, as advantagious to his cause; Homil. 17. in Hebr. he puts these questions: Do we not offer daily? Offerimus quidem, (saith he) sed mortem ejus in memoriam revocamus, we offer, but it is by making a remembrance of his death. Again, because we offer often, quomodo una est & non multae? how is his death or offering up but one and not many? Hoc est, saith he, figura illius, what we do is the figure of that. And because, he is offered in many places, Mul­tine sunt Christi? are there many Christs? No, hoc fit in recordati­onem ejus quod tunc factum: What we do, is done in remembrance of what was then done by him. Lastly, We offer not aliam Hostiam, another Sacrifice, but Eandem sem­per facimus, vel potiùs hostiae, seu sacrificii recordationem facimus, we offer alwaies the same that Christ [Page 335]did, or rather (mark this correct­ing of himself) we make a re­membrance of his oblation or Sa­crifice. He would be accounted a Lutheran or Heretick in the Church of Rome that should so answer to these questions. Next, S. Augustine, Ep. 23. solves the like question. Christ (saith he) was once immolatus in semetipso, offered up or sacrificed in himself, but is he not also daily in the Sacrament? Non Mentitur qui interrogatus re­spondet, immolari: he should not lye, that being asked that question, should answer, He is offered up: and what is his reason? quia Si­militudinem, because of that neer similitude, which Sacraments have of those things, of which they are Sacraments. But Champny and the Romanists do lye, when they say, Immolatur, He is offered up in their sense ( i. e. really, properly) and when they say, the Priest hath power so to offer him up. But we do not lye, if we say (as the Fathers did) Christ is offered in the Eucharist, or that the Eucha­rist [Page 336]is his Death and Passion, or that the Bread and Wine is his Body and Blood, or that he is truly present in the Sacrament. Yea in such attributions of the thing signified to the Sacrament, Questions made by Sacramen­tal attribu­tions to be answered affirma­tively, rather then nega­tively. we ought to answer affirmatively; and that because of the similitude and neer union between the Sacra­ment and the thing signified; but especially because of the effect to which God hath ordained the Sa­crament, that it should be so really to us, in the true application of the Sacrifices of the Cross to us, in our real Communion and par­ticipation of his body and blood, in our real conjunction unto Christ. Many other places there are of the same Father to the like purpose, as lib. 20. contra Faustum, cap. 21. speaking of the respect which the Sacrifice before, and the Eucha­rist after, had to the Sacrifice of the Cross, in those saith he, pro­mittebatur, it was promised: in his Passion the flesh and blood of Christs Sacrifice per ipsam verita­tem reddebatur; was truly and really [Page 337]exhibited; but after his ascension per sacramentune memoriae celebra­tur, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance: And as he is cited by Gratian, de Consecr. Dist. 2. Vo­catur immolatio—that offering that is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Sacrifice, the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not that it is so in truth and very deed, but in a mystery signifying and representing it. Lastly, let Eu­sebius speak, who in his first book de Demonstr. Evang. cap. 10. accu­rately sets down and clears this whole business of the Eucharist; There he shews why Christians do not offer Beasts in Sacrifice as the Patriarchs did before the Law: because all such are taken away in Christs Sacrifice, which they did prefigure; also, because Christians have Spirituall Sacrifices now to offer unto God, but foretold in the Psalms, and the Prophets; and thereupon he tels us the relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice on the Cross; Christ saith he, [Page 338] offered a wonderful Sacrifice, for our Salvation to his Father, and instituted ( [...]) the memory thereof to be offered by us to God, for or in stead of a Sacri­fice. Again, Hujus Sacrificii me­moriam in mensâ per Symbola cor­poris & sanguinis ipsius—The remembrance of this his Sacrifice at the Holy Table by the Symbols of his body and blood we have received according to the institu­tion of the New Testament, and thereupon Incruentas & rationales Victimas, we offer to God unblou­dy and reasonable Sacrifices by the most eminent High Priest; (whereas the Romanists will have us offer up the High Priest him­self.) And what are those un­bloody Sacrifices, The un­bloody Evangeli­cal Sacrifi­ces. which we offer up at the Lords Table, as he calls it, or at the Altar, as the Fathers commonly speak? He there num­bers them punctually, Sacrifica­mus, memoriam magni illius Sacri­ficii celebrantes, &c. We Sacrifice by celebrating the Memory of that great Sacrifice on the Cross; by [Page 339]giving thanks to God for our Re­demption; by offering up holy prayers and Religious Hymns; Lastly, by dedicating our selves wholly to him in Word, body and Soule. So that Ancient and learn­ed Father.

8. Vain ex­ception or Reply of the Roma­nists. All that the Romanists have to reply unto the Evidence of these and other Fathers, speaking pro­perly of that respect and relation the Eucharist hath to the Sacri­fice on the Cross, comes to this; that the placing of a remem­brance or representation of the Sa­crifice of the Cross in the Eucha­rist, doth not hinder it to be a true and proper Sacrifice also: no more, saith Champny, pag. 699. then the respect, which the Sacri­fices of the Law had to Christs Sacrifice hindered them to be true and real Sacrifices. But all this is very impertinent; for if the Fa­thers had barely said, there was a remembrance in the Eucharist of Christs Sacrifice, it had not excluded a real Sacrifice; but when in explai­ning themselves (why they call the [Page 340]Eucharist a Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and why they say Christ is there offered up,) they give it for the reason of their so speaking, because that Sacrifice once offered by our Saviour is there re­membred, shewn, and represented, it is most plain they did not think that which is done in the Eucha­rist to be a real Sacrificing of Christ. Their Instance also of the Legal Sacrifices is as impertinent, for they were real Sacrifices in regard of the Beasts really slain, and of­fered: Now if the Romanists will have the Bread and Wine (which represent the Body and Blood which was really offered) to be the real Sacrifice in the Eucharist, then indeed the remembrance or representation of Christs Sacrifice there doth not hinder but there may be also an external oblation (and so many Fathers accounted the Bread and Wine to be, as they were brought and offered to that Holy use and service) But the Romanists will not say the Bread and Wine is the Sacrifice, they contend for, [Page 341]but that it is the very Body and Blood which is offered up; Which Body and Blood being the same, that was offered up upon the Cross, their Real Sacrifice cannot have help by their instance of the Le­gal Sacrifices of the Bodies and blood of Beasts, but stands exclu­ded by the Fathers, saying, Christ is offered up in the Eucharist by a Mysticall signification, by a re­membrance, by representation, as a­bove said. It is very remarkable what Peter Lombard saith to this purpose. The Question he puts is the same we have in hand, and his Resolution the same we give to it; Si quod gerit Sacerdos, &c. Whether that, which the Priest doth be properly called a Sacrifice or offering up? and whether Christ is daily offered up, or was but once? To the first he an­swers, It is called a Sacrifice, quia memoria est & representatio veri Sacrificii in arâ crucis—be­cause it is the remembrance and representation of that true Sacri­fice on the Cross; To the second, [Page 342]Christ once died on the Cross, ibi­que immolatus est in Semetipso, and there was offered up in himself, or offered up himself indeed, but he is daily offered up in the Sacrament, quia in Sacramento fit recordatio il­lins quod factum est Semel, because in the Sacrament, there is made a re­membrance of that, which was done once upon the Cross. Bellarmines answer here is a miserable shift; That the Master of the Sentences by this doth not deny a real Sa­crifice in the Sacrament, Another vain ex­ception, but a real Occision or killing of Christ. For as this is plainly impertinent to Lombards resolution of the question, so is it to that which Bellarmine and all of them do and must grant, that in a real Sacrifice there must be a real destruction or consump­tion of the thing Sacrificed: and they are as hard put to it, to shew this destruction or consump­tion of the Body and Blood of Christ, as to shew his Occision; for at last it comes to this with them, that the Species of Bread and Wine under which they will have [Page 343]his body and bloud to be, are destroyed, and not his body indeed. A fair reckoning. This place of Lambard was cited by Mason, and Champny perceiving, as it seems, the weakness of Bellarmines answer, doth wisely take no notice of it, altoge­ther omitting to speak any thing to it. But to my apprehension it is very considerable, 1. Because it was the purpose and work of the Master of the Sentences to gather a body of Theologie, or Resolutions to all Theological Doubts, out of the Sentences of the Fathers: and to this Quare of a Real Sacrifice, he could draw out of them no other re­solution then what we have heard. 2. Because it is a clear evidence, how this present Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching a real Sacrifice, was not formed or believed so long after the age of those Fathers, they so much boast of. The summ of all is this. The Fathers usually expressed the Celebration or work of the Eu­charist by the Words of Sacrifice, or offering up the Body of Christ for themselves and others, because [Page 344]there was a Representing of the real Sacrifice of the Cross, and a Pre­senting (as we may say) of it again to God for the impetration or ob­taining of the benefits thereof for themselves, and for all those, they remembred in the Celebration of the Eucharist.

9. Fourthly, Of prayer and Offe­ring for the Dead. It is true, that the Ancient Fathers speak of offering this Sacrifice for the dead, but far from the Popish sense, according to which, Romish Priests in their Ordination are said to receive Power to offer Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead: For that offering for the Dead, which the Ancients speak of, in the Celebration of the Eucharist, had the same extent, purpose and meaning, that their prayers there for the dead had; and these anci­ently were made for those, whom they judged to be in bliss; Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Holy Bishops, &c. and the purposes of the Church, in remembring those in her publick prayers, were many: as we find in the Ancient Writers, especially Epiphanius, Haer. 75. I may reduce [Page 345]them to these heads. First, They were Acknowledgments of the ho­nor and preheminence of Christ a­bove all men, that all they stood in need of mercy, and that he only was not to be prayed for, but to be prayed to; (note all Invocation of Saints stood excluded then by these prayers for the Dead) of the happy estate of those they prayed for, that they lived with God; Of their own hope, that they trusted to attain to the same state of bliss. Secondly, they were Thanksgivings for their sleeping in the Lord. Thirdly, Pe­titions for that which was yet behind, for their consummation: that which Saint Paul calls the Redemption of the body, Rom. 8.23. the Crown of Righ­teousness to be given in the last day, 2 Tim. 4.8. the Mercy, which he prayes Onesiphorus may finde in that day, 2. Tim. 1.18. The Arcient Prayer, which is yet reteined in the Canon of the Mass, sounds to this purpose; Remember O Lord, the Soules of thy Servants, which rest in the sleep of Peace,—This prayer in­deed seems to be framed with respect [Page 346]to that opinion, which anciently was very common in the Church, that the Souls of just men were not admitted into the sight and presence of God till the Resurrection, but kept in Receptacles of Rest, Peace and Light, of blessed comfort and refreshment: yet it tells us, that which they prayed for them, was in regard of all the mercy and glory that was behind; And it is plain by the Writers of those times, that this remembring of the Dead, thus in the Celebration of the Eucharist (which was the representation of Christs Sacrifice) was that which the Ancients cald Offering for them, or as in Saint Augustines time, Of­fering the Sacrifice of the Altar, or the Sacrifice of our Saviour for them, i.e. an acknowledging of, and thanks­giving for their sleeping ( pro dormi­tione, as Saint Cypr. and others) in the Lord, and their saving by the merits of his death: and an Impetra­tion (by his Sacrifice then represent­ed) of all that mercy, redemption and glory which was yet behind. Thus Saint Augustine in his Confessi­ons [Page 347]speaks of Offering for his Mo­ther Monica, (whom he doubted not to be in bliss) i. e. remembring her upon the like respects.

The Romanists have applyed all prayers and Offering for the Dead to the Souls in Purgatory: Romish misapplica­tion of all to the Souls in Purgato­ry. Bellar­mine tells us, the Mass may be said in honour of Saints, and with invoca­tion of them, lib. 2. de Mis. cap. 8. so contrary doth the Church of Rome now run to Antiquity, which offered for and prayed for the Saints, and both in the honor of Christ and his Sacrifice—Now the Offering of their Mass, and the prayers for the dead are made for the souls in pur­gatory: and in regard of them only it is, that the Romish Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice for the Dead. And accordingly they are bound to apply the aforementioned prayer, ( Remember O Lord, &c.) to the Souls in Purgatory: but so unto­wardly, that Bellarmine, answering for the Canon of the Mass, could not with all his wit come off any better then thus; They rest (saith he) from the works of sin, though not from [Page 348]Torment. So then to lie in Tor­ment, is to rest in the sleep of peace.

10. Indeed in the fourth Century, they began to inquire, what bene­fit of the prayers and oblations of the Church might redound to them, which were not in requie, in rest and sleepe of peace, but in aerumnâ, in trouble and grief after this life. The second Quaere ad Dulcitium, is to that purpose; where Saint Augustine saith, that Paulinus had also con­sulted him about it. Now to this Quaere, they spoke their private opi­nions, such as their compassion to the dead suggested: Saint Augustine delivers his in that place, ad Dulci­tium; in his Enchirid c. 109. and in his book de curâ pro Mortuis—Which book was also occasioned by a like quaere put to him by Paulinus out of like curiosity: Private conceits about a Purging fire. Whether it was any help to the dead, to have their bodies buried neer the Memories or Tombs of Martyrs? Then also was enquiry made after some kinde of purging fire to help such as held the Foun­dation, dying in the profession of [Page 349]Christian Faith, but whose lives were not answerable: as we may see by Saint Augustine, Lib. de fide & 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, [Page 350]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 [Page 351]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 [Page 352]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 [Page 353]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 [Page 354]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 [Page 355] 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 really of­fered; but by the ( Hanc Hostiam, this Sacrifice) meant as the ancient Fa­thers did, as shewn above. Further­more it is considerable, that to main­tain this presumptuously assumed po­wer the Romanists have nothing but words and Figurative speeches, used by the Fathers in this mystery, which as was noted above, N. 7. cannot bear the real and proper Sacrificing asser­ted [Page 356]by the Church of Rome. Lastly, it is considerable, when they are pressed to the point to shew how this offer­ing in the Eucharist and on the Cross can consist, & how his daily Offering up in their Mass (which they make propitiatory) can stand without de­rogation to his propitiatory Sacrifice on the Cross, they are fain to make the one absolute, the other but rela­tive and depending wholly on the o­ther, and to acknowledg this their re­al and propitiatory Sacrifice to be but a means of applying the benefit, and that Sacrifice on the Cross. And this comes home to that we say of the Sacrament, for God hath appointed the Sacraments to that purpose, of the applying the benefit of Christs passi­on and Sacrifice, and to that purpose we use them as is noted above, N. 4.5.

All this considered, We see how needless, unwarrantable & presump­tuous a thing this their Sacrifice of the Mass, and that such also is the power of Sacrificing given to their Priests, & how vainly they reproach us for not assuming, & as vainly que­stion the lawful calling of our Bi­shops.