definition of any General Councel that they are most clearly according 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 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 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 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 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 mistakeâ— 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 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 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
CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS Of present Concernment TOUCHING THIS REFORMED Church of ENGLAND WITH A particular Examination of AN CHAMPNY Doctor of the Sorbon his exceptions against the Lawful Calling and Ordination of the Protestant Bishops and Pastors of this Church By H FERNE D.D. LONDON Printed by J.G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1653. THE PREFACE HOw the several points handled in this Treatise concern this Reformed Church will be declared below when first we have taken notice of the causeless Aspersions and Reproaches which the Romanists cease not to cast upon is and against which these Considerations are purposely intended and opposed They think they have now a fitter oportunity by reason of the confusions of these Times to deal that way by Reproaches then as formerly by Arguments And it is no new thing for the enemies of Gods Truth to scoff at the afflicted condition of the professors of it The Ammonite is challenged for it Ezek. 25.3 Thou saidst Aha against my Sanctuary when it was profaned and so is Tyrus Ezek. 26.2 Thou saidst against Jerusalem Aha she is broken and laid wast I shall be replenished and so the Romanists looking now upon our disturbances say with those in the Psal 35.21 Aha we have seen it with our eyes and so would we have it Endeavouring by mocks and scoffs against the English Church to prevaile with ungrounded Protestants and all unwary ones that will be jeered out of their Religion One of their Pamphlets set out by a late Romish Convert the Reader must give me leave by the way to instance in for it gives us proof and example of what I said both wayes It shewes us a giddy unwary Protestant foolishly carryed away by the reproachful allegations of our Adversaries and having been a while among them presently instructed in this their way of scoffing at that Church and Religion he had forsaken Some of his wit he spends in a few Cursory animadversions as he calls them upon my former Treatise Those I let pass as inconsiderable and not fit to trouble the Reader with But the designe of his book was against that Learned and Solid piece of the University of Oxford set out by Act of Convocation 1647. against admitting of the Covenant He tells us there He is W. R. sometimes of Exeter Colledge but now a Convert of Rome and is not ashamed to profess that we may know his weaknes he had his impulsive cause of conjunction with Rome from that Act of the University pleading Tradition and the necessity of it as for Episcopacy so for other chief points of Faith But alas poor man he did not understand either what those Learned men said or what our Church allowes in the point of Tradition For however he pretend to Wit in reproving our Reformation and Religion yet in arguing when be ventures on it he behaves himself as a manforsaken of his Reason By his Titles prefixed to his book one may read what strein he meant to follow hold throughout his whole discourse for being not content to have at first entitled it An Examination of the Oxford Act he gives it two scoffing Titles more The Obit of Praelatick Protestancie and again The last dying words of Episcopacy faintly delivered in the Convocation at Oxford So he of the Modest and Sober Defence of those Learned Men against the then prevailing force And so might any Heathen Julian or Prophyry have derived the Apologies of the Ancients in the behalf of Christianity then under persecution and might have called them The last dying Words of Christian Religion So might the Arrians have termed the Defenses which Athanasius and others made The last dying Words of the Catholick cause and because Saint Hierom expresseth it dolefully with a Miratus ingemuit Orbis the whole Christian world wondred and sighed to see her selfe made Arrian Such a Reasoner as this might conclude the true Christian Faith was then groaning her last Now albeit there is nothing in this Pamphlet considerable either against our Church or against Episcopacy reteined in it yet did it give me occasion of further thoughts concerning them both and in order to the lawful Calling and Ordination of our Protestant Bishops to examine what Champny who professedly wrote against them hath alleged In the next place that I may give the Reader a better account of what was intended in the former and now pursued in this following Treatise He may please to take notice how the Romanists charge us with Schism in departing from their Communion upon our Reformation and reproach us with the Confusions of these Times as wrought under the like pretence of Reformation and defensible by the like principles upon which we stood in the work of our Reforming and to which we must hold in the defense of it To demonstrate the falshood of both Either that We who are now of a divided Communion from Rome are therefore guilty of Schism or that They who made the rupture in the Scottish first and then in the English Church can say justly for themselves against the former Doctrine and Government of those Churches what we can for our selves against the Church of Rome it was part of the work and purpose of the former book And it was demonstrable upon these grounds 1. There was a necessity of Reformation and we had just Cause for it by reason of the over-grown Papall power and the intolerable abuses in Doctrine and Worship 2. It was Warrantably done not only for the Cause of it but also for the Autority by which it was done whether we consider the Vote of the Clergy and the Iudgment of a Nationall Synod or the assent and command of the supreme and Sovereign power In which regard we see the Vanity of all that the Romanists allege from the Ancients concluding Schism Affirmatively or Negatively by Communion with the Church of Rome for however that Argument might be good when that Church stood right and held the Catholick Faith undefiled yet was it no more then they might and did conclude by Communion with other famous Churches confessedly Catholick No such conclusion can now be made upon holding or not holding Communion with the Romish Church since it gave such Cause of Reformation as abovesaid We see also the Vanity of their Reproaches that we leave every man to his privat Iudgment and Reason that we open a gap to all Sectaries to work confusion when they get force in any Church For however we leave men the use of their Reason and Iudgment in order to their own believing yet in order to Reformation we require not only just cause in regard of intolerable Error or Superstition but also due Autority for the carrying it on in the way of the Church These particulars were spoken to more or less in the first part of the former book Now for the further clearing of this point of the English Reformation and defending it so against the reproaches of Papists that no Sectaries
power under which it was before and so it was with the Church of England Reforming And all this a National Church may so much the rather do when the Universal stands so divided and distracted as it hath for these latter Ages that a free General Councel cannot be expected as was insinuated Sect. 4. of the former book 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgment in General Councels free and unquestionable doth not every National Church by name this of England ow submission of Judgment to them I answer as for matters of Faith and Worship there is no need that any National Church should dissent from any definition concerning that matter made or declared by any of the undoubted General Councels of the Church such as have not been justly excepted against and let any Romanist shew that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgment of such Councels either in matters of Faith or Worship 25. In Canons of Discipline Prudentiall Motives considerable As for Matters of Practice and Discipline under which I named Priests single life because they clamor against us as receding therein from the Catholick Church I may say generally of such points that the Church in them went upon prudential Motives and Reasons with respect to conveniences and inconveniences in those Times considerable and therefore we find it sometimes letting loose the Reins of Discipline sometimes drawing them streiter according to the Exigency of Times or condition of Persons As in those that enjoyn Priests single life Neither could they that made those Canons intend to bind the Church for ever which in after-Ages might have like cause upon experience of inconveniences to loosen that which they held stricter as we finde in the point of Penances and also in this very point of Single life if we look into the practise of it in several Ages and Countreys Nor was it necessary that this Remission or relaxation should alwayes expect the like Autority of Councels to decree it but it might be lawfully done by any National Church within it self upon long experience of the inconveniences and that especially when a free General Councel cannot be expected 26. As to this point of Priests single life I shall have occasion to speak more below against Champny cap. 6. here only I will hint these particulars I. It was conformable to the former Reason that Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope acknowledged often As at first they saw cause to forbid Priests Marriage so now there was greater cause to leave it free to them again Plat. in Pio. 2. II. The sixt General Councel in Trullo held in the seventh Century was the first General Councel that forbad Bishops to have or retein their Wives Can. 12. Where they excuse themselves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles which forbad Bishops to put them away by a pretence conformable stil to the former reason viz. because stricter Discipline was fitter for their times then it was for the beginnings of Christianity III. That General Councel doth permit Priests and Deacons to keep their Wives decreeing those to be deposed that cause them to forsake their Wives after ordination Can. 13. where the Councel expresly by name sets a black note upon the Roman Church for doing so and Can. 55. censures that Church again for their custom of Fasting on Saturdayes For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Councel as not General or Lawful yet the more reasonable among them admit of it and so we leave them to answer for their dissenting from a General Councel upon a double score as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons 27 But what tell we them of answering it to any Councel VVhat submission the Church of Rome exacts that will have the whole Catholick Church bound to submit to the decrees of their Church Let us see then what Submission the Church of Rome requires of all within her Communion and indeed of all Christians under pain of Damnation We may deliver it in general thus In all that she defines she requires or exacts rather absolute Submission of belief and judgment but then we say she cannot make good the ground on which she requires it viz. Infallible guidance In other things not Defined she requires submission of silence which she imposes on both parties as the heat of the controversie between them seems to require And this Submission we acknowledg due to Autority in every Church not only to the Autority of the chief Pastors in that Church but also of the Supreme Civil power this imposing of silence being not a Definitive sentence for determination of Doctrine but a suspending sentence for ceasing of the debate and providing for publick peace 28. In all things defined What strict submission of belief the Church of Rome requires to all her Definitions we may see by the Oath set out by Pius 4. to be taken by every Bishop wherein after the recital of the whole Romish Faith as it is patched up with the Tridentine Articles follows that very clause which we find in the Athanasian Creed subjoyned to the Catholick Faith there expressed Haec est fides Catholica extra quam this is the Catholick Faith without which none can be saved So that they which joyn themselves to that Church stand bound to believe all which that Church at present doth or shall hereafter propose to be believed Let them place the judgment of that Church where they will in the Pope or Councel 29. And absolute Submission Card. Bel. who according to the Divinity professed at Rome and more generally obtaining in that Church reduces all to the judgment of the Pope is very strict in exacting this submission of belief In his fourth book de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Popes Infallibility and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare sed simpliciter obâ—dirâ— It is not for Subjects or Inferiours to doubt of this matter viz. Whether the Pope can or doth erre but simply to obey And to shew the strength of this obligation the inconvenience that would fall upon the Church if the Pope be subject to erre in defining or commanding any thing to the Church he lets not to express it thus Si papa erraret praecipiendo c. If the Pope should erre in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vitia esse bona Virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare that Vice was good Vertue evill unlesse it would sin against conscience To mollifie the harshnesse of this he inserts presently in rebus dubiis as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubtfull Matters which as it is not all they say so is it to little purpose for if he please to judg the most apparent thing to be doubtful as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the people
convocated managing the business and concluding what was to be done in it and the soveraign Prince with Parliament confirming and giving public establishment to that which was so concluded and agreed upon by them Seeing also Champny doth largely insist upon this point of the Supremacy in his 15 16. Cha. upon occasion of deprivation of Popish Bishops for refusing the Oath of Supremacy under Q. Elizabeth we will defer farther prosecution of this point til we meet with him below CAP. III. Of the lawful calling of our English Protestant Bishops against Doctor Champny a Sorbonist and of the first prejudice from other Reformed Churches that have not Bishops 1. THis Writer having spent 8. Chap. of his book against the Vocation of Ministers in the Reformed Churches which want Bishops advanceth in the 9. against our English Protestant Bishops and labours what he can more indeed then all his fellows beside to make their Vocation or Ordination unlawful To that end Defects in Ordination how arising he layes this as the ground-work on which his whole discourse must proceed That Ordination which gives lawful calling to the Pastors of the Church must be valid and right in respect of the Ordainer of the Ordained and of the Ordination it self or Form of it and that a defect in any of these renders the Ordination and so the calling of the Party Ordained unlawful cap. 9. pag. 308. We admit the consideration of those three respects as proper and pertinent to the business in hand and do grant that there may be such a defect in any of them as wil render the ordination either Unlawful for the use or plainly Void or Nul for the substance of it 2. Our English Bishops receiving Ordination from the Romish He begins to examine the calling and ordination of our Bishops and Priests according to the first respect of their Ordainers viz. those of the Church of Rome For from thence the English Church received her Bishops and Pastors together with the Christian Faith in the time of Gregory the first this we acknowledge of the English though the Brittains had the Christian faith and their Bishops before and hath continued that ordination and calling of Bishops with uninterrupted succession down from those first Christian Bishops to Cranmer and our first reformed Bishops The Romish Ordainers he as he must needs allows of and approves the Orders given by them as good and lawful but would make our plea from thence void by our own judgment and according to the Protestant doctrine concerning them and the Orders received from them The summ of his Reasonings is briefly this 1. From the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches which renounce Ordination by Bishops especially from Rome pleading their vocation upon other grounds and therefore either they or we can have no lawful Pastors no Church 2. From the judgment and doctrine generally of all English Protestants by whom the Pope is held to be Antichrist or Antichristian therefore we must acknowledg we received our Ordination and calling if from Rome from the Ministers of Antichrist by whom also they of the Church of Rome are accounted Heretikes therefore we can have no lawful calling from such by whom also the Orders there given are accounted Antichristian abominable Sacrilegious and therefore cannot be lawfully received by us Lastly by whom the Sacramental Character is exploded and therefore no power of Order can be received by us All this he wil have follow upon Protestant doctrine to defeat us of our plea from Romish Ordainers This is the summ of his Reasonings in the 9. and 10. Chapt. We shall examine them in order as briefly as we can 3. The seeming prejudice from other Reformed Churches First for the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches He urges That they renounce our plea of having Ordination by Bishops and of receiving any orders from the Church of Rome esteeming them Antichristian and pleading extraordinary Vocation from whence he concludes against them that they have no lawful Pastors therefore no Church and consequently against us that we are bound by our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from Rome to renounce the fellowship of those Churches which hitherto we accounted of as Sisters and to stand alone divided from all other Churches as we are from the Roman and to hold the Church of England the only true Church thereby confining the Catholic Church within the bounds of that Kingdom which considering the Number of Puritans Brownists Anabaptists all which defie these Ordinations and that plea wil be too too narrow To this purpose he cap. 9. pag. 315 316. c. 4. Now although the different condition of some Reformed Churches doth not immediatly concern us who have retained the regular way of Ordination by Bishops yet because the Romanists make it a matter of reproach to us and some in these Times who covenanted the extirpation of Episcopal Government sought a defence in it for such Schismatical attempts we wil answer to the former charge and try what may be duly concluded upon the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches First therefore we may say in general However it stands with the Reformed Churches which want Ordination by Bishops and whatever be concluded on them by Champny and others as to the point of having lawful Pastors or being Churches yet his last inference of our restraining the Catholic Church within such narrow compass as this Kingdom is altogether inconsequent for we do not exclude the Roman Church out of the bounds of the Catholic Church neither doth it follow upon our division or want of externall Communion between us that either it or we should be wholly severed from the Catholic Much less do we exclude the Greek and Eastern Churches who have their Ordination and Succession of Pastors from the Apostles as well as the Romish Church Yea and we may add here We cannot exclude those Reformed which want the regular way of Ordination from belonging to the Catholic Church 5. All Reformed Churches not without Ordination by Bishops But 2. All Reformed Churches i.e. such as have purged themselves of Romish Error and Superstition besides the English are not without Government and Ordination by Bishops Those Churches which are the Remains of the ancient reformed Bohemians and are now in and about Poland or those parts do stil retain Bishops as appears by their Book set out 1626. containing the substance of their Doctrine the manner of their Government Synods c. Neither are Denmark and Sweden without their Bishops and therefore Champny's other inference That in this plea of Ordination by Bishops and that derived from the Romish Church we of England stand alone is also false 6. Now 3. The judgment of other Reformed Churches of our Bishops As for reformed Churches in a stricter sense such as those of France Geneva Germany which Champny names c. 9. what their judgment was of our Bishops and Ordination by them
though derived to us from the Church of Rome appears sufficiently by Bucer Peter Martyr and other Protestants being here in England and assisting our Bishops in the work of Reformation also by the Letters of the chief and best Learned in those Churches Calvin Zanchy c. to our Bishops and to others concerning them whose Testimonies collected by the Bishop of Durham were published in these Times and opposed to our Covenanters and all other Sectaries that attempted the extirpation of Episcopacy as Antichristian 7. As for the sayings which Champny gives us out of Luther Calvin Mornaeus to whom he adds Fulk and Whitaker rejecting and condemning the Romish Ordinations as Antichristian corrupt and unlawful he might remember that elsewhere he tels us of their pleading by them their alledging that Luther Bucer Oecolampad c. were ordained in the Church of Rome c. 4. and 9. and he could not but know that Fulk and Whitaker allowed of Bishops here and were ordained by them But hence he concludes them all to be taken in a contrary tale and put to a miserable shift For ask them saith he Whence came ye who sent you they will tell us they came from the same stock and originall as the Pastors of the Catholic Roman Church did for their first Doctors Luther Bucer Zuinglius were by them ordained Priests ask them again how can they account that to be a lawfull calling which is derived from the Ministers of Antichrist they will not stick to defy those Orders and Ordinations and presently flie to an extraordinary vocation So he c. 9. p. 323. 324. And yet this seeming contradiction is very reconcilable For when they reject the Ordinations received from Romish Bishops as corrupt and Antichristian they do it not simply as if they were Null or none at all but in regard of the additionall abuses especially that great and sacrilegious depravation of giving such a sacrificing power and placing the Priestly function chiefly in it Therefore so far as the Romish Ordinations pretend to give that power with other superadded abuses they are justly condemned and rejected but in as much as they retain withall the words of the Evangelicall commisson Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c which give the power of the Ministery of reconciliation in the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments of the Gospel they are valid and good and not to be reiterated where they are given 8. By this power of Order received in the Roman Church Luther Zuinglius Oecolamp and others had lawfull calling to preach the Word yea to preach against the very Errors of that Church which considering the condition of that Church and the Errors of it they might do and for any thing I know they did lawfully without transgressing the bounds and limits of submission due to a Church which I endevoured to fix at the beginning of this Treatise 9. Plea of â—extraordinary Vocation Now what is spoken by some of extraordinary Vocation as that implyes a renouncing of Orders received from Rome must not be taken as the generall plea or judgment of those Churches for we heard them pleading Orders received in the Roman Church and Luther wrote very well as Champny cites him chap. 8. against Munster and others that pretended to extraordinary Vocation bidding them prove it by Signs and Miracles Again that extraordinary calling which some in the Reformed Churches have alleged sounds not any new office they pretend to be call'd to but that of Pastors and Teachers and according to the end it was instituted for nor other way of comming to that office but by external vocation from men but it implies some difference from or failing in the ordinary and usual way of ordaining to that office viz. by Bishops for which they plead their case and concernment was extraordinary which rests upon them to demonstrate 10. Hitherto of their judgment in the point from whence we infer that the present Reformed Churches if they follow the judgment of the first Reformers and of the most sober and learned men that have been in them since must allow of our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from the Church of Rome and Champny must acknowledg an agreement so far between us Now for their Practise not conformable to that Judgment as we cannot approve of it so are we ready to excuse their failing so far as the necessity they plead will bear leaving it to the Romanists desperatly to cut off Nations and People from the Church for failings and wants in such things as do not immediatly touch the very life and being of a Church or of the Members of it 11. Two things in the constitution and continuance of the Church To this purpose there are two things considerable in the constitution and continuance of the Church both necessary though not equally 1. The Doctrine of Faith and Life the due profession of which makes a man a Member of the Visible Catholic Church and the true belief and practise of which makes him a lively Member of the true Symbolical Catholic Church that which we believe in the Creed that which is the true mystical body of Christ 2. The order of Ministery and Government in the Church for bringing of Men to that due profession of Doctrine and so on to be true lively Members of the body of Christ and for holding them in the Unity of faith To this end Pastors and Teachers in whom that Ministery and Government rests are given by our Saviour Eph. 4.11 12 13. 12. Concerning these two things are clear First that although Apostles Prophets Evangelists there mentioned and taken in a stricter sense were only then given and for those Times yet Pastors and Teachers were given to continue to the worlds end The purpose for which he gave them expressed Eph. 4.1 doth imply so much and so doth his Commission given to them As my Father sent me so I send you S. Jo. 20. by vertue whereof they were to send others and so doth his promise given them imply as much I am with you to the end of the world S. Math. 28. Secondly That this giving or sending of Pastors was to be continued by such as our Saviour appointed and his Apostles after him I send you saith he and accordingly they committed this power of sending or ordaining Pastors unto the hands of special men such as Timothy Titus Sylvanus Sosthenes Clemens Epaphroditus c. Whom we find either written to by the Apostle or joyned with him in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches or honourably mentiond for special labour and care in the affairs of the Church whom Antiquity also witnesseth to have been chief Pastors or Bishops in governing the Churches planted by the Apostles Such also and no other could be the Angels of the Asian Churches written to by S. John or by our Saviour rather 12. The concernment and necessity of 〈◊〉 But as it is clear that the having
a power wholly superadded or as the restraint of a power diffused it is clear that the exercise of that power the performance of Ordination was setled upon certain and speciall persons who were properly Bishops and Chief Pastors by Apostolical appointment and practice Of which there are so clear footsteps in Scripture suchapparent Monuments and Records in Antiquity that it is no less then a wonder any Learned Judicious Man should think it could be otherwise or conceive as the Presbyterians generally that this Order was afterwards set in the Church as an humane though prudent invention to avoid Schism and preserve Unity and not withall conceive it reasonable to think the Apostles did foresee that Reason and provide against it when as we hear Saint Paul complaining of it 1 Cor. 1. and Saint Hierom refers that Order of setting Bishops over Presbyters to that very cause pointing out that very time when some said I am of Paul I of Cephas 22. If therefor Doctor Field when he answered that Ordinations without Bishops were void according to the rigor of the ancient Canons did mean that such Ordinations offended only against Ecclesiastical Constitutions we grant that Champny duly proves it otherwise and do acknowledg them transgressions not only of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution and Practice but we are not therefore bound to yeild an utter nullity of them in all cases ex naturâ rei as he contends unless he can clearly demonstrat this faculty or office of ordaining to stand in a distinct power wholly superadded and not in the extension of the Priestly Order or limiting of the exercise of that power conceiv'd to be radically diffus'd with it Thus indeed Doctor Field as I said seems to conceive it and thereupon to deny such Ordination to be Null in themselves ex naturâ rei yet withal to hold as may be gathered out of his 5. book cap. 27. that this Order or limiting of the Power in the exercise of it to certain special persons was by Apostolical appointment 23. And no question the antient Church had respect to that Apostolical constitution when she pronounced such Ordinations without Bishops to be void and Null as repugnant to that constitution not defining whether they were void ex naturâ rei but declaring she had good cause to account them void and not to admit any to officiate that did so wilfully transgress against Apostolical order and practice and could have there being Bishops then at hand in every Nation where Christian Faith was professed no pretence of necessity or of loosing the band by which the Apostles had restrained the exercise of that power to certain persons thereunto consecrated And if any Presbyter should have heretofore presumed to ordain within the Church of England their Ordinations had deserved to be accounted of no otherwise then as void And so within every Church completed and regularly formed according to Apostolical Order ought they to be accounted 24. Now that I may draw to a Conclusion and freely speak what I think of the two forementioned wayes of conceiving the Ordaining power to be estated by the Apostles upon special and select men properly called Bishops or chief Pastors I suppose the first way which conceives it superadded as a distinct power to their Priestly function to be the clearer for securing the Episcopal function and distinguishing it from the other but the second way which conceives that power radically diffused and communicated in the very order of the Priestly function and restrained to such select persons in the exercise of it the faculty or immediate power whereof they received by consecration I suppose to be more easie and expedient for a peaceable accord of the difference in hand and yet safe enough for Episcopal Ordination 25. The first way conceives the Apostles who had the whole power given them by Christ both the extraordinary Apostolical power and that which was ordinary and to continue in the Church did communicate this power severally That which belonged to the office of Deacons to persons chosen for that purpose That which belonged to the Ministery of reconciliation to all Pastors or Presbyters So likewise That power of sending and ordaining others to these Offices was communicated entirely unto special persons appointed and consecrated to that work This as I said is more clear in the distinguishing of the several Functions of holy Order But the second way which estates the power or faculty of Ordaining upon special persons by restraining the exercise of it to them seems as above said to be more fair and easie for the making up this business of the Reformed Churches which have Ordination without Bishops and yet to afford safety enough to Episcopal function and Ordination For it first supposes that to be established and secured by Apostolical Order which none can transgress wilfully without Sacrilege and consequently it acknowledges such Ordinations without Bishops to be irregular and deficient in regard of Apostolical order and constitution and that they ought to receive a supply completion and confirmation by the imposing of Bishops hands before the persons so Ordained can be admitted to officiat in a Church completed and regularly formed Lastly by this way whatsoever is spoken by S. Hierom in appearance favourable to the Presbyterian pretence may be cleared and reconciled to Truth and by it may be answered also whatever is brought by Champny or others to prove such Ordinations utterly or ex naturâ rei null and void in all cases 26. I will not trouble the Reader to hear any long Scholastick contest with Champny in the business only I shal shew by one instance how well he hath acquitted himself in the defense of his assertion against the former argument of a Bishop ordained per saltum and therefore not having power to ordain others or consecrate the Sacrament because he wants the Priestly Order That which he replies to it returns more forcibly upon himself A Bishop per saltum cannot ordain and why Sicut ex eo c. Even as saith he because the Priestly function is exercised both about the Mystical body of Christ in absolving and binding and also about the Natural body of Christ in consecrating of it it doth not therefore follow there is a diverse Order but a diverse power of the same Order So the power of Ordaining though it make not a distinct Order from that of the Priestly Function yet is it a distinct power of Order To this purpose he cap. 7. pag. 183 184. But this comes not home to Ordination per saltum where it is supposed that the power of Ordaining is not given at all because the Priestly Order is wanting This also returns more forcibly upon him by applying it thus according to his reasoning Even as the Powers of absolving and consecrating are distinct yet both conteined within one Order of the Priestly function so may the power of Ordaining though distinct from the other be formally and immediately conteined
could have that defect supplyed Not other Reformed Churches for they can less prove themselves to be Churches or to have Lawful Vocation of Pastors then the Church of England can Not the Grecian Russian or Ethiopic Churches for they also are in Schism and Heresie and our English Reformers pretend not to receive their calling from them or to have it supplyed by them therefore they can no wayes have their defect supplyed or recover the Lawful use of Ordination So he p. 337. c. Thus having argued against our Vocation upon our supposal of Heresie in those we acknowledge our Ordainers and boasted of it as an indissoluble Argument pag. 335. he is now fain to take away the supposal it self by affirming them to be the only lawful Pastors and that none else in all the Christian world could give lawful Ordination or make a supply of what was wanting The issue indeed of this point of Heresie either charged by us upon them that gave Orders or by them on us who received them which wil be his Argument below comes to this Whether the Church of Rome be the only Church in whose Communion the Unity of the Church is confined and Ordination to be had and therefore we and all other out of it are in Schism and Heresie and can have no lawful Ordination To this hold after all the Velitation and light skirmishing upon our supposals it was necessary he should retire himself 17. Now the strength of this Hold stands but upon their unreasonable phansying of the whole Church as of one society in subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Pastor General or Vicar of Christ by which they judge of Heresie and Schism and admit none as returning from it but by actual reconciliation and submission to the Bishop of Rome as in Queen Maries time What he sayes of our not pretending to receive our calling from other Churches Reconciliation of Schismaticks and Hereticks or to have the defect of our Ordinations supplyed by them is true but to no purpose for the supposed defect in the Romish Ordination which we received doth as above said cease upon our leaving off or quitting that which is supposed to cause that defect in the Romish Church Nor was it needful either for the supplying of any such defect or for the stating us in the Union of the Catholic Church that we being a National Church and independing on any forrein Jurisdiction should upon our disagreement with Rome be bound to apply our selves to other Churches by actual reconciliation or full agreement in what they held or practised Of which in 16. Sect. of former book For privat men indeed and particular companies of men returning from Heresie or Schism actual reconciliation to the Church of which they were Members or from which they departed is necessary but not so for a National and independing Church Such actual reconciliation when it hath been performed was but of the Solemnity of the business and may be to good purpose done when the whole body of the Catholic Church stands entire in a condition fit to receive it but the soul of Unity with the Church is in the deposing of Heresie and professing the true Faith and consequently Communion with all others that do it not perhaps with a ful agreement in all things with us yet with a charitable compliance in not condemning us therefore as no Church 18. What he saith of the Roman Church as the only true Church to the concluding of all other Churches under Schism and Heresie is only said and not proved being but the product of the forementioned Phansie that the whole Church of Christ is one society bound together in subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head and general Pastor and therefore Hereticks and Schismaticks cannot be restored but by reconciliation to him This he urges more properly though to as little purpose below cap. 11. where he strives to fasten Heresie upon us because divided from that Church and not yet reconciled to it telling us the Ancient Councels of Nice Sardica and others did so esteem and conclude of Heretical Bishops of the Arrians Donatists and Novatians as no Bishops till received and reconciled to the Church It will be sufficient in this place to say I. That this comes not home to their purpose for those Councels did not appoint reconciliation to Rome and for some time of the Arrian Heresie reconciliation to that Church could not be good when as Liberius the ejected Bishop had subscribed to that Heresie for the recovering of his See and Faelix that possessed it was advanced by compliance with the Arrian faction which then prevailed every where II. Although such actual and solemn reconciliation of a National Church with the Bishops thereof to the body of the Catholic Church was fit to be performed whilest that body stood stil conspicuously in good proportion as it did in the beginning of the Arian Heresie yet when once that Heresie had overborn all and almost all Bishops with their flocks turned Arrian in so much that Constantius the Emperour told Liberius as the Romanists do usually reproach us that the whole world was against Athanasius and Liberius as yet Catholic answered for their paucity Time was when three only stood for the true Worship of God against the King Dan. 3. as appears in 1. Tom. Concil when I say it was thus with the Church how could such actual and solemn reconciliation of any Arian Bishops or Nation returning from Heresie be wel made enough it was for such to depose their Heresie and profess communion with all Christians wheresoever that held the true faith So was it enough for our Bishops and this Nation to forsake the Heresie and profess communion with all other Churches not guilty of the Romish errour and not imposing the belief or practice of that we differ in as the condition of their Communion And thus far in answer to his Inferences from our charging Antichristianisme or Heresie upon the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of the third prejudice from our Iudgment of their Orders that they are sacrilegious and do not give an indelible Character 1. HIs next Argument is drawn from our Doctrine or Judgment touching their Orders which we hold Sacrilegious abhominable unlawful and therefore cannot be lawful in us who confess we received Orders from them This is the Title and Work of his 10. Chapter and here he begins his contest with M. Mason whom he chiefly undertakes through the remainder of his book to refute Touching the Argument we must note by the way that the charge of Sacrilege and abhomination laid upon their Ordinations by Protestants How Protestants cal their Orders Sacrilegious doth immediatly concern their Order of Priests by reason of the Sacrificing power given them but the argument thereupon proceeds also against their Bishops who were such Priests and from whom being such we derived our Orders and Cranmer and others were made by them such Priests before they were
Ordained Bishops Mason had framed the like Argument by way of Objection to himself and given this Answer That their Order consisted of two parts The one expressed in these words Take thee power to offer sacrifice The other in these And in what respect allow them Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest c. The first part which stands in offering up Chrift gain is altogether abhominable The second which is in the Ministry of reconciliation is good for the substance though depraved by the Abuse of Auricular Confession To this purpose he 2. Champny replyes I. By cavilling at his making the Order to have two parts and runs into a needless disputation to shew that the Order being simple and like the Soul standing in indivisibili hath not Parts but several Powers from one character in the Soul But seeing he will be so subtil he should remember how he allowed above an Extension of the Character which now he telsus stands in indivisibili Well let him enjoy his Philosophical notions and Sholastick terms and let him call the different offices of Sacrificing and Absolving not Parts but Powers this we say still that the first power they give to their Priests of offering again really and properly the body and blood of Christ is Sacrilegious without any warrant from Scripture nay against it plainly and exceedingly derogatory to the Sacrifice of the Cross and therefore abominable unlawful altogether The other power of reconciliation or ministring the Word and Sacraments they give for the substance of it according to the Evangelical institution but deal not so sincerely in it as they should 3. II. He replies The Protestants though they hold Order no Sacrament Form of Ordination certain how yet must grant that a certain form is required to every Order and that such a depravation as they charge the Romish Ordination with must needs so change the Form as to make all void and null and so by their own doctrine they received no Order at all from the Romish Church This he endeavours to make good by the Form of Baptism which if depraved and changed as to say I Baptize thee in the name of the Father who is greater then the Son or the like the Baptism is null Answ It is true that unto lawful Ordination though not a Sacrament properly a lawful and certain form is required such as may express the institution of the Order and the function and power of it with application to the person receiving it Now if it be so changed and depraved that it doth not in a sufficient manner express so much it renders the Ordination invalid but if the Form be preserved as to the substance of it and only other Additions made to it by way of aggregation they however unlawful do not void what is given according to the right form reteined as in Baptism where the due Element and Form are reteined though there be additionals of marking the child with fire too as the Ethiopian Christians are said to do or of Salt Spitle and other trumperies with forms of words belonging to them as in the Church of Rome the Baptism notwithstanding is valid and good So in this of Orders that which we call abominable and unlawful is an addition of mans invention yet seeing the words of Christ are reteined receive the holy Ghost and whose sins ye remit c. in which the lawful and certain form of conveying the power of the Ministry of reconciliation is conteined we say the Ordination is so far valid and good and may stand without the corrupt additionals wherewith it is clogged in the Romish Church yea doth stand the clearer being freed from them as it is in the Church of England And therefore we do not re-ordain those Priests that come from them but cause them to renounce the corrupt additionals confirm what was validly received in their Ordination We may say in this point as Aug. answered Potil concerning Baptism administred by the Donatists Non vestrum est quod destruere metuimus sed Christi quod Sacrilegis per se Sanctum est nam venientes à vobis recipere non possumus nisi quod vestrum est destruamus We fear to destroy the Baptism given by you not as yours but as it is Christs which is holy even among them that are Sacrilegious for we could not else receive those that come from you except we destroyed that which is yours Contra lit Petil. lib. 2. So of Romish Orders we destroy what is theirs not what is Christs in them for that is yet holy and good notwithstanding their Sacrilegious additions and when we receive any that come from them it is necessary we destroy and cause them to renounce what is theirs but admit what they have reteined of Christs institution 4. Romish Priests fuffering here and for what III. He replies as to that part of their Ordination which we admit of viz. that which includes the ministry of reconciliation That we confess it to be of Christs institution and yet make their Priests guilty of Treason and execute them for exercising of it So is it decreed 23. Eliz. ◠to reconcile to the Church of Rome c. cap. 10.355 Answ It is not for that very work of the ministry as it is a reconciling of Penitents to God no more then for Baptizing which is another work of the ministry of reconciliation which if a Romish Priest do he is not therefore obnoxious to the Law But because one of these is abused to Treasonable attempts and made very fit for it by their kind of practising Sacramental confession the other is not neither can be so abused being admmistred to Infants therefore it comes to pass that the former is forbidden to be practised within this Land not directly but so far as it is a reconcileing to the Bishop or Church of Rome So the Statute expresses it and what that reconciliation means our State before it made that Statute had learnt experimentally viz. the instilling of many Treasonable Principles into the Party reconciled and moving them upon all occasions to answerable practises by vertue of the Obligation that was upon them by their reconciliation to the Pope 5. All this is most plain in the Story of those Times wherein we may see the beginning and progress of the boldness of Romish Priests in their Treasonable Practises and accordingly the first rise and advance of the severity of Laws made against them Til the thirteenth year of the Queen there was no Law that touched them in this point of their Priestly function They did baptize and absolve and both unpunished because it was supposed they did only exercise their function in absolving people from their sins not in absolving Subjects from obedience to their Soveraign But after Pius Quintus sent out his Bulls of Excommunication against the Queen pronouncing her deprived of all rule and dignity and her Subjects absolved from the Oath of their
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 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 Vnction which is the main of those Ceremonies we use not we say they 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 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 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 Vnction 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 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 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
Archbishop Parkers Ordination where his first exception is against the Form as new and so acknowledged by Mason saying that Matthew Parker had the happiness to be the first of so many Bishops since Austin that received consecration without Popes Bull Pall c. p. 478. 479. But this because it belonged to the form of Ordination I referred it thither and answered to it above in the former Chapter 1. Presumptions against the Ordainers Next he excepts against the Ordainers that they were not such as was pretended And here we must again trouble the Patience of the Reader with the importunity of their presumptions and conjectures alleged against public Records which though it little serve to the end they intended the disproving of the Ordination of our Bishops yet will it make to this good purpose the proving of the restless importunity of these Men in their calumniando fortiter ut aliquid adhaereat their custome in raising and nourishing any manner of Reports to discredit their Adversary That I may not be thought to slander them in so weighty a business hear what they say The Popish Art of belying Evident Truth that knew it very wel Those secular Priests of whom above Chap. 5.8 in their book there mentioned complain much of this unconscionable dealing in the Jesuites and their followers acknowledging the Queens Majesty had very just cause to think more hardly of them all for it The pretended brethren say they of that Society and such as follow their steps do in their Writings so calumniat the Actions and Doings of the State be they never so judicially and publickly proceeded in never so apparently proved true and known of many to be most certain and after of Father Parsons that he was a great Master in this Art I find also Jo Copley sometime Priest among them but returning to the Church of England in King James his time to acknowledg this to be usual among their Priests and that it was one Motive to him of forsaking them This he spoke upon occasion of lying reports raised by their Priests and spread among their Proselytes to make them believe the whole carriage of that fearful plot was but a Trick of State Of Gunpowder Treason to make the Catholicks odious Lastly John Goe Master of Arts returning from them upon the downfal of the Black Friers in acknowledgment as he saith in his Preface of Gods mercy by which he escaped with life discovers the several and close practices damnable dissimulations and Artifices of their Priests about London naming the persons and place to ensnare and delude unwary Protestants or hold on their credulous disciples and this is one Their confident denying or misreporting and discrediting of evident Truth At the end of his book he gives in a Catalogue of neer 200. Priests in and about London their Names and the Characters and Lodgings of most of them in which Number this Doctor Champny was one and then trading for Rome Now let us see how well he plaies this part against the evident Truth of public Records So passionately that he will not abate us the fond story of the Naggs head in Cheapside but strives all he can to make it probable as we shall see presently 2. His first conjecture or presumption against Matthew Parkers Ordination is because according to Masons Records saith he the Ordainers here are set down with their bare Names whereas in all other consecrations the Ordainers are named with the Titles of their Bishopricks Now what reason can there be of this difference but that his Ordainers were not indeed Bishops consecrated but Elect only But Champny might have seen them set down in the Queens Letters Patents with the Titles of those Bishops Seâ—s they before held and also of those they now were elected to and the Registers of those Sees shew their enstalment as Godwin hath set them down His second Consecration of Bishop Barlo That Barlo one of the Ordainers was never as it appears consecrated himself for Mason could not give us the Record of his Consecration as of the rest Answer Mason though he found not his Consecration yet he found him a Consecrator of Arthur Buckley Bishop of Bangor in King Hen. 8. his time which evidently shews he was himself consecrated or could not els been admitted to assist in that Action Champny excepts that is alike as if a man should thus reason Such a man hath a woman and children therefore he is a Lawful Husband and Father That is not alike but thus Such a man in all public Actions Deeds Instruments was by Law permitted to do towards that Woman and those Children unquestionably as a Lawful Husband and Father she accordingly enjoying her Dowry and they their inheritance so demised by him therefore he was a Lawful Husband and Father so it follows evidently that Barlo being without question admitted to that public Action was a Lawful consecrated Bishop Whereas Champnies Negative Argument against him runs thus weakly according to the former instance such a Mans Marriage cannot be found in the Register of the Parish Church therefore he is no Lawful Husband But Godwin a diligent searcher of the Registers of Bishops finds him consecrated Bishop of Asaph Feb. 22. 1535. and the next year translated to S. Davids where he sate ten years in King Henry's reign besides the time of King Edward Now what reason can be imaginable why he should continue Bishop doing all the Offices and duties of a Bishop so long without consecration or that he should be suffered so to do Furthermore that he may say something rather then nothing he observes pag. 494. that Landaff who was consecrated some years after Barlo is pretended to be set before him in the Queens Letters Patent for the Consecration of Mat. Parker and why saith he but that Landaff was consecrated indeed and Barlo only Elect Also at the solemnizing of the Funerals of Henry the second of France related by Stow he finds Parker Barlo Scory assisting as Bishops and Parker in the first place who then was but Elect which ought not to have been so if the other two had been Bishops consecrated They are goodly doubts fit for a Doctor of the Sorbon to dispute but to solve them if they fall not in pieces of themselves we leave to Heralds or the Master of the Ceremonies to do it at their Leasure 3. The shameless story of the Nags-head Tavern And now we are come to that shameless tale which hath more of impudency in it then the former Instances had of weakness That our first Bishops in the Queens time were made at the Naggs-head Tavern in Cheapside That Scory alone Landaff failing Ordained Parker Grindal c. and after this manner They kneeled down before him and he laying the Bible upon their heads severally said Receive the power of Preaching Gods Word sincerely and so they all rose up Bishops pag. 497. and this he saith he received from Father
Bluet and Bluet from Master Neale and Master Neale from I know not whom nor he neither Only he tells us that one Master Constable received it from Stow himself who acknowledged so much in private but durst not publish it Be it on Master Constables account whether he wrongs Stow or no We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Proselytes withall But setting aside the public Records that shew the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained this story betrayes it self many wayes First in that it pretends Scory alone to have Ordained them for as Master Mason here noted who can imagine that the other three Barlo Coverdale and Hodskinson who desired the advancement of the cause should decline the Action especially when the Penalty was a Premunire according to the 25. of Hen. 8. cap. 20. or that Parker an Archbishop Elect would have been Ordained by one when the other three were in the Queens Letters for his Consecration as well as Scory and as willing and at hand Secondly that they should make choice of such a place a Tavern for so sacred an Action which would shew them to be Madmen and fitter for Bedlam then Bishopricks when as Churches and Chappels were open to them as Mason noted Champny pretends they knew Landaff would not be brought to their Churches Very like when he notwithstanding continued in the Church of England all his life time after and held his Bishoprick to his death but if he scrupled to come into our Churches why should they think he would meet them at a Tavern or why make choice of a Tavern rather then some other privat though common place The question then is whether Landaff was so good a fellow to approve of a meeting there or whether Champney was in Wine when he wrote this or the Reader will be such a Fool as to believe it As for Parker Grindal and the other who are thus defamed their lives and manner of Conversation before and after did sufficiently recommend them to all men for persons Learned Grave Sober Temperat Lastly let me observe how this story betrays it self in the strange Form of their Ordination and must either conclude those grave Personages to be Madmen again that having the Form of Ordination used in King Edwards dayes and commanded by the Law would or durst use any other especially so ridiculous one as is here reported or els condemn the raisers of this report of sensless impudency and the believers of it of notorious folly 4. But we are yet again call'd back to answer a Negative argument from John Stow who hath omitted to speak any thing of the consecration of this Archbishop And why should that be so strange Because Stow doth not usually admit any memorable thing done at London and all Chroniclers use to be very diligent in Recording all Innovations in States and this Stow was punctual in describing the reception consecration and enstalment of Card. Pool which yet was but after the wonted manner it is then very strange he should say nothing of the Consecrating of this new Archbishop after the New Fashion not seen in England before and the more strange this because Stow is known to have born great respect to Mat. Parker There must needs be other cause of such wilful silence besides forgetfulness to this purpose he pag. 503 c. As for Card. Pools reception and consecration Stow doth not fuse describere describe it at large as Champny sayes but only mentions it as done and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shewn at the entrance or entertainment of Princes I marvel he did not enlarge himself in relating the manner how this great Cardinal such a special person comming upon such a special errand with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdome to the Chu of Rome was received consecrated and enstalled which no question was set off with all the holy Pageantry of the Romish pomp Whereas the Consecration of Protestant Bishops being now more simply and homely though more Apostolical with few but innocent Ceremonies did not afford matter so much for a Chronicle as a Register One thing more was special in the Cardinals entrance which Stow notes The same day saith he that Docter Cranmer his predecessour was burnt the Cardinal sang his first Mass A good beginning One was burning the other singing But what if Stow professed so much respect to Archbishop Parker was this the only kindness he could do his friend to tell the Kingdom what it knew that he was Archbishop That respect and honour he bore the Archbishop if he had meant to shew it would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal vertues and endowments which seeing he hath not once mentioned why should we marvell at his silence in the other And could there be done any thing at London more memorable and of more concernment in the way of the Church or a greater innovation in Champney's judgment then the first Synod held in the Queens reign where Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion drawn up in 39. Articles was concluded and published yet is it not once mentioned by Stow. It is the business of State not of the Church which affords work for this and other Chroniclers 5. The Consecration of Bishop Scory and Coverdale Next he endeavours to prove that Scory and Coverdale two other Ordainers of Parker were not consecrated themselves either after the old Roman or new English way and thinks he convinces it evidently thus The Ordinals saith he or old way of consecration were abolished by the Parliament of 2. and 3. of King Edward The new Form established by the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of the same King but the two former Ordainers were consecrated according to Masons records Aug. 30. 1551. that is five months before the new Form was set out and therefore by no Form in force even according to the Laws of this Realm So he pag. 510. This argument at the first appearance seems pressing and Champny doth not a litle set by it By what Form From hence saith he inevitably it is concluded that those two were never consecrated indeed and therefore not Parker as is pretended whereupon he concludes Masonum protervum inverecundum that Mason was obstinately shameless in avouching Parkers due consecration pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a meer mistake either through his inadvertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes or his wilfull concealment of what he did see The case stands thus It is true that the Ordinals are named with other superstitious books and with them abolished in the Parliament of 2. and 3. of Edward 6. and true also that the form of Ordination after agreed on was confirmed in the Parliament of the 5. and 6.
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 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 THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane LONDON A Collection of all the severall Tracts and Sermons formerly published by Henry Ferne D. D. 1. THe Resolving of the Conscience c. 2. Conscience satisfied c. 3. A Reply to severall Treatises c. 4. Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon the Reformation 5 Episcopacy and Presbytery considered c. 6. A Sermon preached at the publique Fast the 12. day of Aprill at St. Maries Oxford c. 7. A Sermon preached before his Majesty at Newport in the Isle of Wight c. 1. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the books of the New Testament briefly explaining all difficult places thereof by Hâ—ury Hammond D. D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechisme with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond D. D in two volumes in 4o. 3. Dissertiones quatuor quibus Episcopacus Jura ex S. Scripturis primaevâ Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli altorum Authore Henrico Ham nond in 4o. 4. A Letter of Resolution of fix Quaere's in 12o. By Jer Taylor D. D. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year Fitted to the great Necessities and for the supplying the wants of Preaching in many parts of this Nation Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4o. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2d Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4o. 5. An Apologie for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgie in 4o. 6. A Discourse of Baptisme its institution and efficacy upon all Believers in 4o. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12o. 8. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12o. 9. A short Catechism for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion in 12o. Certamen Religiosum or a Conference between the late King of England and the Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion at Ragland Castle Together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause by Christopher Cartwright in 4o. The Psalter of David with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm by the Right honourable Christopher Hatton in 12o. Boanerges and Barnabas or Judgment and Mercy for wounded and afflicted soules in severall Soliloquies by Francis Quarles in 12o. The Life of Faith in Dead Times by Chr Hudson in 12o. Motives for prayer upon the seven dayes of the Week by Sir Richard Baker Knight in 12o. The Guide unto true blessednesse or a body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures directing man to the saving knowledg of God by Sam. Crook in 12o. Six excellent Sermons upon severall occasions preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne in 4o. The Dipper dipt or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4o. Hermes Theologus or a Divine Mercury new descants upon old Records by Theoph. Wodnote in 12o. Philosophicall Elements concerning Government and Civill society by Tho Hobbs of Malmesbury in 12o. A Discourse of Holy Love by Sir George Strode Knight in 12o. The Saints Hony-Combe full of Divine Truths by Richard Gove Preacher of Henton Saint George in Somersetshire in 8o. Directions for the profitable reading of Scriptures by John White M. A. in 8o. The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9. the most worthy women of the world 3. Jews 3. Gentiles 3. Christians by Thomas Haywood in 4o. The Saints Legacies or a Collection of Promises out of the Word of God in 12o. Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solenni LigaÌ„ Foedere Juramente Negative c. in 8o. Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Iasper Mayne D. D. in 4o. Ianua Linguarum Reserata five omnium Scientiarum Linguarum seminarum Auctore Cl. Viro I. A. Comenio in 8o. A Treatise concerning Divine Providence very seasonable for all Ages by Thomas Morton Bishop of Duresme in 8o. Animadversions upon M. Hobbs his Leviathan with some Observations upon Sir Walter I. â—leighs History of the World by Alexander Rosse in 12o. Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine Iohn Donne in fol. Wits Common-wealth in 12o. The Banquet of Jests new and old in 12o. Balzal's Letters the 4th part in 8o. Quarles Virgin Widow a Play in 4o. Solomons Recantation in 4o. Amesii Antisynodalia in 12o. Christ's Commination against Scandalizers by John Tombes in 12o. Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountaine's Letter in 4. A Tract of Fortifications with 22 brasse cuts in 8. Dr. Griffith's Sermon Preached at S. Paul's in 4. Blessed birth-day printed at Oxford in 8o. A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical in 4. An Account of the Church Catholick where it was before the Reformation by Edw Boughen D D in 4. An Advertisement to the Jury-men of England touching Witches written by the Author of the Observations upon Mr. Hobbs Leviathan in 4. The Commoners Liberty or the English mans Birth-right in 4. An Expedient for coÌ„posing differences in Religion in 4. The holy life and death of the late Vi countesse Falkland in 12. Englands faithfull Reprover and Monitour Directed 1. To the Church of England 2. To the inferiour Ministers of the Gospell 3. To the Nobility and Gentry 4. To the expulsed Members of the University and to those now abiding therein 5. To the Judges Lawyers c. 6. To the City of London 7. To the seduced of this Nation and to as many as have seperated themselves from the Communion of our Church 8. To the whole body of this Nation 9. A Post script to the Reader The Author a Sequestred Divine FINIS
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 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 Vtil 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 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 Aâ—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. 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 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 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 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 or purged from many errors and freed from the Tyranny of forrein
by our own judgment for Orders cannot lawfully be received from Hereticks c. 9. 326. c. 11. That we may more fairly proceed in the clearing of this difficulty we must premise that we admit the distinction here between Legitimum and Legitimè between Lawful or valid Orders and Orders Lawfully given or received the first implyes the power of given which Romanists acknowledg to remain in Hereticks and Schismaticks the other speaks the due and lawful use of that power which is denyed to be in those that are in Heresie or Schisme The reason is because Hereticks and Schismaticks being actually divided from the Unity of the Church must needs lose the lawful use of that power and all other Ecclesiastical ministration but not the power it self which follows a Character that is indelible as the Romanists express it We admit though not a Sacramental character stampt upon the Soul of the Ordained as they wil have it yet such a disposition or power cleaving to his person for the doing of that he is ordained to that it is not lost by Heresie or Schism nor to be reiterated upon the return or restoring of that Person 12. This premised we have two points to speak to First how the charge of Heresies laid on those of the Church of Rome then how the lawful use of Orders may be supplyed by the restoring of the Person though at first they were not lawfully given and so by both these we shall have a double answer to the Argument above For the first we must note that Heresie is considered in regard of the Matter VVhat sort of Heresie takes away lawful use of Ordination or of the Declaration of the Church and this according to the Apostles speech to Tit. c. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick is so first before he be rejected or declared so Heresies also much differ in regard of the Matter by which some may be so immediatly fundamental as the Heresie of the Arrians and some other that it doth ipso facto before any sentence or declaration of the Church cut off or divide the Person so Heretical from the Union of the true Catholic Church because it divides him from the Foundation from being actual Member of the Visible Church upon the Notoriety of such Heresie so contrary to the Foundation and also long since declared against by the Ancient Church in the four first General Councels and therefore the lawful exercise of that power he had to administer Sacraments or Orders in the Church ceases upon such discovery or as I may say Self-condemnation We need not stand here to dispute when or how soon it ceases upon such Heresie for we do not charge such Heresie upon those of Rome i.e. Heresie immediatly Fundamental or those main Heresies declared against by the first General Councels but then we must say that many of their New Articles of Belief and Practise are in themselves Heretical and as much or more then were many Tenets of former Hereticks declared against by the Ancient Church whether we consider the matter and concernment of those Romish Articles or the Obstinacy and Tyranny with which they asserted and imposed so that if there could be a full General Councel of the whole Catholic Church they would undoubtedly be declared many of them Heretical 13. From whence it follows that Heresie thus lying upon them might give us just cause to renounce their Errors and quit their Communion so far as it was necessitated by renouncing their Errors though not just cause to condemn or renounce the Orders given by them or received from them This may give answer to all the Places alleged by Doctor Champny in his ninth cap. pag. 335 336. out of the Fathers against Orders given by Hereticks for they concern either Hereticks in fundamentals or such as were declared so and actually separated from the Unity of the Church 14. It is to be noted farther that when our first reformed Bishops were ordained by them the grand Heresie and mother of their other Errors as to the obstinate an heretical defending of them I mean the Papal Power and Autority was abjured and therefore their Ordainers however yet in Romish Errors could not be properly heretical or peremptorily engaged to defend the same as afterward they were especially since the Councel of Trent hath made them Errors established and sworn to But after that we went not to them for Orders yet do acknowledg they have Ordination still substantially valid and therefore we do not re-ordain Priests that return from them to us because the substance or Evangelical institution is by those words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c. reteined still in the Roman Ordination though clogged and depressed by additional corruptions but cause them to renounce those additionals and other Romish Errors So then the summ of our first answer is We do account them to be in Heresie and deeper then when we received Ordination from them yet so as not actually and wholly cut off from the Catholic Church either by the nature of the Heresie it self casting off from the foundation or by declaration of the Catholic Church casting them out of the Unity of it and therefore it doth not follow upon our accounting them Hereticks that we could not lawfully receive Orders from them 15. A supply of defect in Ordination through Heresie Our second answer is from the supply of any defect in our Ordination received from them that supposing them Hereticks in such a condition as made them forfeit their Union which the Catholic Church and consequently the due and lawful use of the power of Ordaining yet doth it not follow that we cannot have it but on the contrary that we recover it by leaving them in that which hindred the due and lawful use of it in them And so the Romanists answer for the Bishops which they own and yet were ordained by Cranmer in the time of the Schism as they call it saying they recovered the lawful use by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Maries time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome So if upon our charging them with Heresie we must suppose they could not lawfully ordain nor we lawfully receive Orders from them then must it conformably be supposed that we having deposed their Heresie and left their Communion and by no other Heresie forfeiting our Union with the Catholic Church do recover the due and lawful use of Orders and may lawfully administer them to others and now do it in the Unity of the Church 16. Champny did foresee this might be answered by us and therefore seeks to cut us off from this plea by replying That defect of lawful Ordination and Vocation which was in Cranmer by supposed Heresie in his Ordainers could not be supplyed but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof but besides the Church of Rome there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors by reconciliation to which he