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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Vtil 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 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
agreement of theirs in yeilding Submission of belief and then it will not serve their turns to tell us when we charge them with disagreement in the grounds of their belief that they all agree in yeilding Submission c. For seeing Infallible judgment is the ground with them of that submission of belief and they cannot agree how that infallibility accrews or where it is to be stated in Councel Pope or partly in both the reasons of the one part being sufficient to destroy the other it must needs appear how much they disagree in and about the very ground-work of their belief They would think it strange to hear us say We and they do not disagree in the grounds of our belief because we both agree in these Generals That all Divine Revelation is to be believed yea All that is revealed in Scripture ought to be believed for if we enquire farther into the Means of conveying Divine Revelation we cannot admit Tradition in so careless and uncertain a sense as they do or if look into the Meaning of Scripture we cannot allow of their pretended Infallible Judg or Interpreter and they stick not to call us Hereticks for our disagreement with them So for their Principle in which they boast of their Universall agreement Submission to all that is defined if we enquire into the reason and ground of it Infallible Judgment in their definitions we find wide differences and contrary perswasions among them and Bell. could find in his heart to make them Hereticks that are against stating the Infallibility in the Pope and therefore call'd their Perswasion Haeresi Proxima next door to Heresie as we heard above and mark his reason there why it is not propriè haeretica fully and properly so Nam adhuc ab Ecclesiâ tolerantur They are still tolerated of the Church that hold it A reason why he might not speak as he thought He thought it Heresie no question but might not call it so for saving the Union of their Church Union and Agreement among Christians is to be sought for by all fair means and to be held upon all just grounds and in order to it Submission unto Autority is necessary and Toleration again from Autority may be sometime and in some things needful But the Church of Rome boasting of her Unity and the means she hath for it Infallible Judgment in her Definitions and thereupon requiring not only external or peaceable subjection but submission of belief may be ashamed for preserving of her Unity to tolerat such different perswasions or Doctrines so neer unto Heresie And this also shews the Vanity of what they farther say that the points they differ in as whether a Pope be above a Councel whether Infallible c. are not defined and therefore general submission of belief or uniform agreement is not required Why then say we is that Doctrine tolerated amongst them that is proxima Haeresi so neer to Heresie as we heard above Why is not that defined and stated which is the ground of believing all other things that are defined The reason is plain The Pope knows well enough if those points were defined one way they would not be generally believed and that it is better to have them instilled in privat into the minds of Men by his trusty Emissaries then to have them publickly defined and more for his advantage to have men brought to a perswasion of them in favoar of his power then to hazard the peremptory belief of them either way Other means there are the chains of force and policy to hold all together and I doubt not but many are kept from revolting whose Learning and Conscience shews them a more excellent way then that of the Romish Church 35. Some there are as I hear Of unappealable Autority of the more moderat sort of Romanists which will not now seem to contend for an Infallible Judgment in their Church but to be content with an unappealable Autority This may be good Doctrine at Paris but not at Rome and we may farther say that such Autority or Autoritative Judgment being rightly stated for it must be placed some where as it hurts not us so doth it not help them For 1. they forsake the ground-work or formall reason of their belief which is the Autority and Testimony of their Church and it must be either Infallible or not that thing into which their Faith can beresolved for albeit such an anappealable Autority may in some sort provide for External peace yet can it not certainly and finally stay belief 2. There may the same Objections be made against it which they usually reproach us with for want of that pretended Infallibility viz. That men are so left to their own reason That there is not without it sufficient means for Peace and Unity of which Sect. 8 9 10 11 13 14. of the former book for although when we dissent from that unappealable Autority in matter of Belief and Opinion we be not happily bound to discover it at least to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church as above said Yet if the error be in commanding somthing for Religious Worship as adoration of Sacrament or Images that must needs discover and shew it self in outward practise the unappealable Autority cannot secure the external Submission or compliance In Civil affairs indeed Vnappealable Autority may absolutely require externall Submission because by submitting to the wrong Judgment or Sentence of such Autority the things we recede from for peace sake are but Temporals and in our own power to dispose of but it is not so in the Matters of the Soul and Conscience in the poims of Belief and Worship in which we must have the Evidence of that which is confessedly Infallible to stay upon 36. But what if men will be perverse as we have seen in these dayes to pretend error superstition in Worship where there is none Who shall judge VVho shall judge They that so oft put this question to us cannot well resolve it themselves for who shall judge say we to them Pope or Councel they cannot agree it where the Infallibility rests and if either or both of them must judg shall their judgment be taken for Infallible Neither are they here resolved some contending for Infallible some content with Vnappealable Autority As for us we answer Unanimously The Church shall judg be it National or Universal and take order with such persons by the Church here we mean the Guides and Governours that have public Judgment and Autority in every National Church or in the Catholic assembled in a General Councel and by Judging we mean their defining or demonstrating the Truth according to the Infallible Rule of Gods Word and their Sentencing of Persons refractory to due punishment So the Church shall judg either to the convincing and satisfying or to the censuring and punishing of such Persons who are to answer unto God also for their disobedience For the Church or Public Autority
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 Vnappealable 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
under King Edward the Popish party renouncing it and on the Protestant part John Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester maintaining it to be Synodical because compiled by Autority and Commission from the Synod for saith he this House granted Autority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and concludes that the Catechisme and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod since they had saith he our Synodal Autority unto them committed Now as all Catechisms do so this did contein the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod and therefore rejected by the Popish party 10. This Synod as I suppose was not held till the fift of King Edward But the Injunctions that went out in the first year were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Worship which was necessarily to be provided for in present and went no farther then those evident points above mentioned Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Autority for having suddenly dissolved the Convocation by her peremptory Mandate to Bishop Boner for that purpose in December She sent out the March following Injunctions not upon any Vote of the former Convocation touching Papal Supremacy Sacraments Priests-Marriage c. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments 1. Mariae If it be said as usually they reply that she did but restore what was before established in the Church so we may say by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Worship of God accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church in a known tongue with Communion in both kindes without Image-worship all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them 11. Those Injunctions sent out by advice of Bishops and were generally received of all the Bishops Thirdly They were sent out by the Kings Autority upon the advise of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land and generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses Both these things are avouched expresly in the charge given in against Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments to shew that he was the only Bishop that did not so readily conform as the rest did This also appears by the Letters of the Archbishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London to whom he sent the said Injunctions and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster who then was Thirlby twice promoted in King Edwards dayes to other Bishops for the execution of the same Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts. 12. And so the Vniformimity of Publick prayer If we looke on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King we find in the first Chapter a Law for the Vniformity of Public prayer and Administration of the Sacraments expressing thus much That for the drawing up such an Order and Form the King appointed the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops and other learned men of this Realm there 's the fitness of the Persons for the Work having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures and to the Vsages in the Primitive Church there 's the fitness of the rule they went by The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost and with one Vniform agreement is by them concluded Wherefore the Lords Spiritual note that and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled considering the godly travel of the King and the Lord Protector in gathering the said Archbishop and Bishops and Learned men together the godly Prayers Orders and Rites in the said Book and the considerations of altering those things that be altered and reteining those things which be reteined in the said book and also the honour of God and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same do give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same and humbly pray it may be enacted c. What could be more sweetly begun by the King carried on by the Bishops received by all the Estates then this work was Now if there wanted a formal Synodical Vote yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it the general reception of the thing done yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was commanded but did actually in Parliament give their consent there we find them all sitting and if all did not consent which is more then any can say yet the major part by far did undoubtedly for they continued as I observed above Num. 4. in their places unmolested all King Edwards dayes Neither can it make any real difference as to the justness of a Reformation whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy or Pastors of the Church be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign Autority It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived but as I insinuated before their number was inconsiderable to the other and their deprivation was not till the end of the Kings third year at soonest which shews their compliance at first 13. Councel of Trents Rule for Reformation Now after all this it will be worth our observing what the Councel of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation in the Decree de celebrat Missae Sess 6. sub Pio 4. did confess and thought fit to redress Multa jam sive temporum vitio sive hominum incuriâ improbitate irrepsisse aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate many things say they either through the iniquity of the Times or the carelesness and wickedness of Men have crept in far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice and what were those things quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit which covetousness or superstition hath brought in Then they give order for redress That the ordinary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere take them clean away This was well spoken had they done it throughly Now what they thought fit to be done and did it but slightly was done fully in the Protestant Reformation and particularly in that under King Edward for the shameful nundination of Masses which Covetousness had brought in was clean taken away by taking away the manner and Trade of Romish Massings and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament the many abuses which Superstition had brought in were removed by restoring the public Liturgy in a known Tongue the celebration of the Communion in both
Subjection and from all manner of Obedience So the Sentence ran and the Romish Priests began to stickle work busily thereupon then was it high time for the Queen State to look to themselves and therefore An. 13. made it Treason to disperse such Bulls and to reconcile or be reconciled upon them 6. Reconciling to the Bishop of Rome But we must note here 1. This reconciling there forbidden was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function but upon the Autority and by vertue of such Bulls which is plain by the words of the Statute If any person shall by colour of such Bull or Instrument or Autority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person c. and therefore they are called Bulls of absolution and reconciliation in that Statute 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation which we acknowledg to pertein to the Prieftly function by our Saviours institution that the very intent and purpose of it was formally Treason which also is plain by the same Statute in these words The effect whereof viz. of those Bulls and Instruments from Rome hath been and is to absolve and reconcile all those that wil be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to yeild and subject themselves to the usurped Autority of the Bishop of Rome Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God Had the Apostles preached such Gospel or practised such Reconciliation admitting none into the Christian Church but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their Kingdoms or to be cast out of them The Romish Priests then are justly ejected punished whose absolving of Penitents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due obedience whose reconciling men to God or his Church a cloak for their Reconciling to a forrein jurisdiction of Papal usurped Autority and what that brings after it who knows not If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it Seditions stirring up the People which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of Act. 24.12 and throughout his Epistles thence Insurrections Rebellions and because these suceeded not secret attempts upon the life of the Prince by Pystoes Poysonings and what not Therefore came out after ten years more the Statute which Champny cites out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute An. 12. Whereas sithence the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen divers evil affected persons have practised by other means then by Bulls or Instruments Written or Printed to withdraw her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience to obey the said usurped Autority of Rome For Reformation whereof be it enacted That all persons who shall pretend to have power or by any means shall put in practice though by pretence of Priestly function to absolve perswade or withdraw any of her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience or shall to that intent that 's noted stil in the drift of Romish practises and the ground of the Laws provision against them withdraw them from the Religion established to the Romish Religion 7. The frequent seditious practises of Romish Priests The Law looks at the consequents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church for they that made it were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it and by experience found what had been the practises following upon them and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion or expose it to Infamy let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it if upon their Priestly Function which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it let them blame themselves who have abused that Evangelical power to cloak and advance such hellish attempts If to the disparagement of privat Confession thanks to them that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons confessed 8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous as to confess and complain of the Seditious practises which those of the Society advanced and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests in their book set out in the latter end of the Queens Reign thus pag. 10. Amongst many things that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hardly of us all this is one that the pretended Brethren of that Society Jesuites and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State c. and afterward entring upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practises which he together with the rest of his society set on foot they thus write pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly in a seditious book set out by him against the cruelty of her Highness Lawes which we wish had been more mild but he never mentions that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traiterous courses against her Crown and Life Againe pag. 57. If these things viz. their endeavours to advance the Infanta's Title to this Crown should come to the knowledg of the State who will blame the same if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome be not wel entertained here Thus they truly and ingenuously of the practises of Romish Emissaries and of the justness of the Laws against them 9. I wil not say nor do I think that all their Priests which suffer here were Politicians or acquainted with all the devices of their Superiors I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such and do suppose there are some who in the simplicity of their hearts and out of meer Conscience of Religion do labour the propagation of it whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practises It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other that the punishment which the Law adjudges all Priests to that are found within the Land might only fall upon them who are indeed guilty of such practises which being so frequently found in their predecessors and the State being not able to distinguish between them who are all Missionaries of Rome caused those Lawes to be made for the security of Prince and State And if they that come into the Land without any treasonable intent do suffer for it they must thank their Fellows as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason Doctor Champny one would think should not be a stranger in France by the wisdome of which State the whole Order of the Jesuites was upon this score banished 1594. as Corrupters of Youth troublers of the public quiet and
use or exercise of that power nor could he lawfully Ordain others This is the summe of what he saith Of Bigamie or Digamie 1. We begin with that of Bigamie of which M. Mason took no notice in his defence of Bishop Cranmers Ordination and Doctor Champny only proves he was twice marryed which is not denyed but brings nothing to prove that such Bigamie or Digamie rather infers such an irregularitie as deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power of Ordaining To this charge it may be said I. That the Bigamy which the Apostle speaks of in his Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 and implicitly forbids when he saith Let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife was a superinduction of a Second Wife upon the former either kept still or put away a Polygamy both ways either direct by cohabitation with two Wives or that which followed upon unjust Divorce and was indeed the having of two Wives at once a licentious Custome frequent among Jews and Gentiles Now such a person that had done so before his Conversion to Christianity or after was justly debarred by the Apostle from Holy Orders but of this Cranmer was not guilty As for that Digamy which is the taking of a second Wife after the first being dead or the taking of a Widow to wife at first we acknowledg it forbidden by some Canons of the Church that for the most part the former place of the Apostle was by the Ancients applyed to this Digamy for no marvel if being earnest in the commendation of single life they should so readily receive the Apostles words in that sense which most answered to their purpose But some of the Ancients better considering it do acknowledg the meaning of the Apostle to be according to the former interpretation amongst whom are reckoned Justin Martyr Chrysostome and Theodoret. Yea that parallel place 1 Tim. 5.9 of a Widow having been the Wife of one Man doth most reasonably receive the like interpretation notwithstanding that the Romanists cry out of it as a thing unheard of that a Woman should have two Husbands at once which is true of two by cohabitation not by desertion for so it was often seen that the Woman either forsaking her Husband or forsaken of him married another the first being yet alive Such a Widow the Apostle rejects as one of ill fame and thus Theodoret and Theophylact are known to interpret the Apostle of a Widow that hath been coupled but to one Husband at once Lastly it is wel known how Tertullian after he was Montanist reproached the Catholicks with their twice marryed Bishops in his book de Monogam cap. 12. Quot apud vos praesident Digami How many that have been twice marryed preside among you Yet doth that practice tell us the Apostles words were not taken to be against Digamy but that which is properly Bigamy He that would see more of this phrase the Husband of one Wife and the Wife of one Husband he may please to look the places in Fulkes Rhemish Testament where the meaning is debated and Antiquity consulted 2. II. Therefore we may say That Digamy forbidden by Eccles Canon and found in Cranmer doth not make a Bishop so far irregular as to spoil him of the lawful use of his Order This rests upon the consideration of the purpose and binding force of such Canons And here it need not much trouble us in our proceeding that we meet with this Canon against Digamy among those which bear the name of the Apostles Whatever may be thought of some of them this seems plainly crept into that number if we consider the liberty of those firster Ages in this point of Marriage from after-Times and so of no other Autority then are after-Ecclesiastical Canons But let that be what it will for the present the Church of Rome stands bound to answer to the Autority of them as wel as we and hath transgressed against them especially the sixt Canon in a matter forbidden not only by these Canons but by the Law of God and the Judgment of the Apostle indeed and that is the putting away of Wife or forcing a Man to put her away in pretence of Religion or holy Orders As for Canons Ecclesiastical they deserve to have their due respect and obedience answerable to the Autority by which made Provincial National General and according to the Matter in which and the Purpose to which they are decreed The Canons which concern Digamy Marriage Single life Penance and the like are for Discipline and of such we may say 3. VVhat is said to the Canons forbidding it First Though they forbid men so or so qualified to be admitted into the Clergy or command them to be deposed if after admittance and receiving of Orders they transgress yet doth not such transgression ipso facto take away lawful use till the Canon hath his effect by actual deposing of such a person This is plain by transgressions of higher nature Heresie it self doth not take away the Lawful use of Order till it be notorious and the person so declared by the Church Concubinage also and Simony not only against the Canon but Gods Law too which they cannot say of Marriage do not ipso facto make such an irregularity for if all the Ordinations made by such Bishops were unlawful it would make a wide gap in the succession of their Romish Bishops and calling of their Priests who have received their several Orders from Concubinaries and Fornicators and Simoniacks all deposable by the Ecclesiastical Canons If they say which is all they can say that it was not notorious in those Ordainers this approves what I said that the transgression of such Canons against Marriage and Digamy cannot ipso facto take away lawful use of the power of Order and I can say as much for Bishop Cranmer who marryed in Germany the Kinswoman of Osiander before he was made Bishop and it was not known here all the time of Hen. 8. in which he ordained many Bishops But again we say the Whoredoms Incests Simony of many of the Popes Bishops Cardinals were notorious to the age they lived in and stand upon Record still so notorious and visible in the ninth and tenth Ages that Baronius cryes out Quae facies Ecclesiae Rom. Those abhominable misdemeanours were openly known and apparent in the face of the Church then and not only then but after too especially in Alexander the sixt most abhominably notorious They had need to look home and make up their own breaches before they charge us with such defects or irregularities as Marriage which is Honourable in all Men. 4. Secondly we must tell them the same Canons which forbid Marriage or Digamy forbid also Concubinage under the like punishment or irregularity and though there be a wide difference between Fornication and Marriage yet we appeal to them whether these be equally dealt with in the Church of Rome whether the like severity be used against the Concubinary
in expectance of life he recanted and repented of in the sight of Death That hand that wrought it first felt was consumed in the flames which yet could not seize upon his heart which consented not to it Therefore being dead he yet spake God himself by that miracle which had sufficient attestation bearing witness to him and to the Faith wherein he dyed giving the Lie to all the reproaches wherewith Champny in this 11. Chap. and other Romanists upon all occasions load the memory of that learned humble sober and godly Bishop known so to be unto all that knew him living 9. Protestant Doctrine not condemned by a lawful Councel His second Argument drawn into form stands thus That Doctrine which was condemned as Heretical by due Autority and due form of judgment is Heretical but the Doctrine which Cranmer after his departure from Rome professed was so That it was so condemned by due Autority he thus endeavours to prove That which was condemned by the same Autority and judgment by which the Arrian and other Heresies were in the General Councels of the Church is condemned by due Autority But the Protestant Doctrine which Cranmer and the rest embraced was so condemned viz. by the Councell of Trent against which saith he nothing can be objected by the Protestants which might not as well been said against the Nicene Nothing be said by them for their doctrine condemned at Trent which might not as well by the Arrians for their Heresie condemned at Nice Thus he cap. 11. pag. 384 385. Answ to the Prosyllogisme If by due Autority and form of Judgment be meant not only lawful Autority but Autority also lawfully and duly used that is that in such Councels the judgment be passed or given by those that have Autority and do use it accordingly giving their Judgment according to the rule of Gods Word which is the Chief Autority in such Judgments then we grant that whatever is so condemned of Heresie to be Heretical but deny the Protestant Doctrine to be ever so condemned And therefore we say the Assumption or second proposition in the second Syllogisme is false For the Protestant Doctrine was not condemned at all in Trent Councel when Cranmer forsook the Romish error which was before any Councel held at Trent Nor yet so condemned there when that Councel was held as the Arrian Heresie was in the Nicene Councel 19. Councel of Trent not such as the Nicene What can we find alike in these two either for the Autority or due use of it Were they assembled at Trent by the same Autority Imperial as at Nice Had they which were assembled in both these Councels the same or like Autority Were all the Patriarchs or chief Bishops of the Catholic Church at Trent as they were at Nice Was the number of Bishops at Nice made up of Titulars and Popes Pensioners as at Trent Or did they proceed by the same Autority and due form of Judgment Did they set the Holy Scriptures in the midst before them to judg by at Trent as they did at Nice Did they not set up unwritten Traditions in equal Autority with Scriptures and are not most of their Decrees grounded only upon such Tradition Did they at Nice receive their Determinations from the Popes Consistory as at Trent by weekly Curriers Did they at Nice threaten and drive away any of their Bishops for speaking his judgment freely as they did at Trent This and much more we can say against that Councel wherefore it should not have the like Autority with that of Nice or any lawful General Councel but stand in the same rank with the second of Ephesus with that of Syrmium and the like factious Heretical Councels So that we may justly retort his argument thus That Doctrine which was condemned by no better Autority then was the Catholic Doctrine in the Syrmian Councel by the Arrians or in the second of Ephesus by the Eutychians cannot be therefore Heretical but the Protestant Doctrine was condemned by no better Autority in Trent for what can they object against those factious Councels but may as well against that of Trent Or what can they say for their Doctrine I mean the main points of direct Popery but those Hereticks might for theirs Saying that the Romish Doctrines are not so immediatly against the Foundation and may plead a longer continuance then the other could which yet is no prescription against Truth that was before them Lastly by Champnyes Argument so far as it applyed to the Church of Rome may be concluded that our Saviour and his Doctrine was as rightly condemned as Judas of Galile or any false Prophet that went before him for he was condemned by the same Autority of the great Councel or Consistory by which that Judas and other false Prophets were before condemned Let Champny or any other Romanist answer this which must be by requiring as above said not only the same Autority but also the lawful use of it according to the Rule they are to judg by and he may have an answer to the like Argument proceeding in behalf of the Church of Romes Sentence and Judgment against Protestants and Protestant Doctrine 11. His third Argument runs thus He that forsakes or goes out of that Church in which he received Baptisme and knowingly opposes it is an Heretick unless he can shew that Church to have gone out of a more ancient Church for to go out of the Church is the Character set upon all Hereticks by S. John 1. Ep. 2.19 But Cranmer and the rest that followed him went out of the Church in which they were Baptized and cannot shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient one Answer Going out of a Church how makes Heretick Seeing the force of this Argument rests upon the truth or falsehood of that proposition which affirms us gone out of the Roman and not able to shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient We must note that the going out from a Church takes in the consideration of Jurisdiction which that Church hath over the other and of Doctrine or Faith which one Church professethin Cōmunion with another Now the Romanists phansying the Catholic Church as one society under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome and measuring the continuance and identity of that Church by local succession rather then the Doctrine of faith do accordingly judg of communion with it or opposition to it of going out from or staying in it and easily conclude but fallaciously of Heresie and Schism Whereas we conceiving of the Church as of one Society in subjection to Christ and not withall to any one pretended Vicat General and measuring the Union and Communion of it by that of Christian Faith and Doctrine rather then of Local succession and yeilding our subjection to the lawful Pastors of the Church succeeding one the other but with subordination to the Doctrine of Faith once delivered