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 Ivy-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 fit opportunity, 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 God's 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 waist, 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 prevail 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 ways; It shows us a giddy unwary Protestant foolishly carried 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 design 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 College, but now a Convert of Rome, and is not ashamed to profess (that we may know his weakness) 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 allows 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 strain 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 Obits of Praelatick protestancy; 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 Defences which Athanasius and others made, The last dying Words of the Catholic cause; and because Saint Hierom expresseth it dolefully, with a Miratus & ingemuit Orbis— the whole Christian world wondered and sighed to see herself 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 retained 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 defence of it. To demonstrate the falsehood 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 rapture 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 ourselves, 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 overgrown Papal 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 Authority by which it was done, whether we consider the Vote of the Clergy, and the judgement 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 Catholic Faith undefiled, yet was it no more than they might and did conclude by Communion with other famous Churches, confessedly Catholic. 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 private judgement 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 judgement 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 Authority 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 may pretend to the like defence, I thought it not amiss to treat upon these three points chief.  
First, The Submission of judgement, and the external peaceable subjection due to a Church. For unless that be yielded in due measure, there will be no preserving of peace and Unity, no keeping out of Error: and unless that be required in due measure (not absolutely and Tyrannically exacted) there will be no Reformation of Errors, when they have prevailed. The first we contend for, and I have endeavoured to set the bounds of it as near as I can in the first Chapter. The other (viz. absolute submission) the Church of Rome so far challenges, that she makes herself thereby incorrigible. And hence it is we find her so liberal of anathemas, in all her Definitions, however inconsiderable or remote from Truth the matter of them be.  
The first General Counsels had to do with Heresies touching the Foundation, and might well pronounce Anathema to them that believed or taught otherwise then they defined in those Fundamentals; but it had been well, if after-Councels had been more sparing in their Definitions, and more merciful in their anathemas. For although they conceived this to be the way to bind up all professors of Christianity in a streiter bond of Peace and Unity, yet it seems to have wrought to the contrary upon a double reason: because it was notorious, that after-Councels did sometimes out of faction or ignorance define against the Truth, and were notwithstanding as peremptory in their Decrees and anathemas: also because it is to be desired rather then expected, that Christians should be all of one mind, and a due liberty of d ssenting in points, wherein (saluâ pietate & charitate) good men may differ, makes for preserving of Peace and Unity, rather than a peremptory binding them under Anathema, to think and speak the same thing. The Church of Rome hath thought this good wisdom in some few points, as the Conception of the blessed Virgin, the Pope's power in Temporals, etc. in which she allower dissent of judgements and belief, being content to hold such an external Peace and Unity as is possible.  
It may be said, that the anathemas of the Church of Rome, in her Trent Council; are pronounced upon the dixerit, against him, that shall say to the contrary: and we acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously, turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment, may deserve to be Anathematised or put out of the Church; for such a one, though he deny not the faith, yet makes a breach of charity, whereby he goes out of the Church, against which he so sets himself; but to fasten the Anathema to a bare dixerit, as the Church of Rome doth, which will not suffer her Definitions to be spoken against how modestly soever, is too presumptuous: yea sometimes to fix it upon the senserit, the thinking or believing otherwise, as the Council of Trent hath done, though very rarely, is yet more presumptuous and Tyrannical: In the last Canon, de peccato Origin: having defined Concupiscence in the Regenerato not to have the Nature of Sin, it adds, Si quis contrà senserit, Anathema sit. If any think or believe the contrary, let him be accursed. And this is agreeable to that absolute submission of belief, which the Church of Rome requires to her Definitions: where he is accounted no Cotholick that doth not entirely hold, what she hath decreed to be held and believed; as there will be occasion to show in the first Chapter of due Submission.  
Secondly, The next General point, will be the warrantableness of the Reformation, begun at first by a National Synod under Henr. the Eight: carried on justifiably under Edward the Sixth: and perfected under Qu: Elizabeth, especially in the Synod, 62. Where the whole body of Uniform Doctrine was determined, drawn up and published in 39 Articles. The power also of Regal Supremacy will be considerable, as to this work of Reformation, for the causing, carrying on, and establishing thereof.  
Thirdly, There is one thing more, which mainly concerns a Church: The Lawful Ordination of Pastors by Bishops according to the perpetual way of the Church; in which respect our Reformation was more regular then in those Churches that are without Bishops. This defence the Reformers to these times do not pretend to: nay, have called themselves off from it by casting out Bishops, when they had them in the Churches of all the three Kingdoms.  
The Apostolical institution of Bishops hath been sufficiently cleared by many, in special by Doctor Hammond; in his learned Dissertations against Blondel, and the Presbyterian claim. Our work here is against the Romanists, who, admitting such Institution of them, deny plainly that we have such Bishops, so ordained: for, being not able here to reproach us, as usually they do, by saying Sectaries may plead the like for their pretended Reformations, they seek by all means they can, to undermine this Church by overthrowing the Ordination of our Bishops, and consequently the lawful calling of our Pastors.  
, Stapleton, Kellison, Harding, Fitz-Simons and others laboured much in this work, before Master Mason set out his book in defence of our Protestant Bishops, and their Ordination. Since that, Ant: Champny, Englishman, and Doctor of the Sorbon, undertook the business, against all Reformed Churches in a book of 19 Chapters; The first eight he spends against the Calling of Ministers in these Reformed Churches which have not Bishops, the rest against the Calling or Ordination of our Bishops: taking in Mason all along, and with great confidence triumphing over him at every turn. Certainly, he hath said as much in the Argument as can be said, how firmly, we shall see upon examination. And although it hath carried me beyond my intended measure, yet I determined to follow him by trespassing upon the Readers Patience, who, I hope, will consider the concernment of this point (the having of lawful Bishops) in opposition both to the Romanists usually reproaching us, you have no Priests, no Bishops, no Church: and also to the Presbyterians inconsiderately rejecting them, and presumptuously undertaking to Ordain without them. He that holds it not a point of concernment, let him tell me, how he likes the confused Estate of this Church, since the violence done unto Bishops; or how he can satisfy the Papists objecting the want of due calling, where Bishops are not: Nay, how he can answer the whole Catholic Church, which never knew any other Government then by Bishops, as chief Pastors in every Church.  
Having spoken the intent of this Treatise, I must, before I leave him, desire the Reader to remember one thing in the former, (the Error of the Millenary belief, and Infant-Communion often instanced there) and to take notice, that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church, as if thereby might be proved, that the whole Church Universally and in all the Members of it may Err, and be infected with Error in points of concernment, or prejudicial to the Faith; for that of the Millenary, as it was not Universal, so not of such moment: and that of the Infant-Communion, though more Universal and of longer continuance, was but a tolerable Mistake. The Church of Rome indeed, in her Council of Trent, hath pronounced Anathema to them, that shall say, such communicating of Infants is Necessary: which the ancient Church of Rome under Innocent the first did, no question, say, and accordingly practise.  
Therefore the instances of those Errors were not, as I said, directed against the whole Church, but only made use of against the Church of Rome, and the Errors there prevailing, which they will not acknowledge can take hold on that Church: First, to show that the use of Private judgement (which they scoff at) is necessary in discovering and for reforming of Errors prevailing; these two instanced in, being so discovered, and thereupon left off. Secondly, to show that the Church of Rome did Err in this of Infant Communion; Saint Augustin telling us directly, L. 1. Cont. Julian. c. 1. Definivit Innocentius, Nisi manducaverint— Innocentius defined, unless they (Infants) eat the flesh, etc. Nay saith Saint Augustine, Definivit Dominus— the Lord himself defined it, when he said, Except ye eat and drink the— ye have no life in you. S. Joh. 6.35. Whereby it is plain, that the practice of jufant. Communion being raised from that place, Except ye eat,— S. John 6. was held needful; and so it was held and practised in the Church of Rome; however the Trent Council condemning this Error, slubbers it over, saying, it was practised quibusdam in locis, in some places, as if not in the Roman Church: and that the Ancients doing so, held no necessity of it. Thirdly, to show that no point of Faith or Worship, wherein they and we differ, did so generally prevail in the Church and with so little contradiction made to it, as those Errors did, for some Ages. It is true, that Justin Martyr in his Dial. cum Tryiph. insinuates, that many piously affected, did not entertain the Millenary belief, yet he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That all who were in all points Orthodox, or of right Judgement held it: and I said no more, pag. 58. of the former book; Also, of all that wrote for 300. years even down to Lactantius inclusively, most of them avouch it, not one of them (as I can find) contradicting or writing against it. Whereas we can say to the Errors prevailing in the Roman Church, that there were always many piously affected, who entertained them not, and that they are upon Record, and their contradiction to those prevailing Errors more apparent, then was any made to the Millenary for the first 300. years, or to Infant-Communion, for more Ages. This is clear by the many Authors yet extant, which (albeit partial for the most part in the cause of the Church of Rome, yet) tell us of the opposition made to the prevailing conceit of a transubstantiating of the Elements in the Eucharist, from Bertram down to Berengarius; and after him how many opposed that, and other Errors prevailing in the Church of Rome to the time of the Albigenses, and fromt hence downward to the last Age. All this I say, is upon Record in many Writers of former times. Lastly, to show, by the prevailing of those two Errors (of the Millennium and Infant-Communion) without any contradiction recorded, how Cardinal perron's two Rules for knowing, who and what was Catholic, according to antiquity, were vain and inconsistent with truth; of which Sect. 31. of the  book. To these purposes was use made of those two prevailing Errors against the Church of Rome.  
Henry Ferne.   

Contents of the Chapters.  

Chap. I. OF Submission of Judgement, and external peaceable Subjection due to the Church, National or Universal, from the respective Members thereof. pag. 1.  
Chap. II. Of the Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward, perfected under Queen Elizabeth, and of the Warrantableness thereof. pag. 62.  
Chap. III. Of the lawful calling of our English Protestant Bishops, against Doctor Champny, (Sorbonist) and of the first Prejudice from other reformed Churches that have not Ordination by Bishops. pag. 89.  
Chap. IU. Of the second Prejudice against the Ordination from the Protestant Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist, and the Church of Rome Heretical. pag. 131.  
Chap. V Of the third Prejudice, from the Protestant Opinion of the Romish Orders, that they are Sacrilegious, and do not give an indelible Character. pag. 156.  
Chap. VI Of Archhishop Cranmers' Ordination, and the pretended defects of it, Bigamy and Heresy. pag. 177.  
Chap. VII. Of Bishops Ordained in King Edward's time, and the essential Defect pretended to be in the Form of their Ordination, and of other presumptions against it. pag. 210.  
Chap. VIII. Of Archbishop Parker's Ordination, and the pretended Defects of it from the New Form, and the Incapacity of his Ordainers. pag. 246.  
Chap. IX. Of the other Bishops Ordained in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign; and pretence of special defect in it, by reason of Intrusion; Where also of the Deprivation of the former Bishops, and of the Oath of Supremacy as the chief cause of it. pag. 264.  
Chap. X. The Exception against our Bishops, that they were not Priests. Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministry committed to us men, and of the Romish Presumption in assuming more. pag. 319.    

Errata.  
PAg. 15. l. 6. for that is, r. there is. p. 35. l. 25. for Natures, r. Natural. p. 37. l. 2. for producit, r. perducit. p. 68 l. 10. for speak, r. spoke p. 111. l. 9 for foe, r. of. p. 126. l. 24. for perplexity, r. prolixity. p. 143. l. 25. of given, deal of. p. 144. l. 21. laid, r. is laid. p. 146. l. 16. asserted, r. are asserted. p. 147. l. 14. for an, r. and. p. 191. l. 20. for wrought, r. wrote. p. 195. l. ult. applied, r. is applied. p. 200. l. 1. for was, r. were. p. 203. l. 16. for Mat. 15. r. Mat. 5. p. 205. l. 23. for that, r. then by. p. 208. l. 27. for his, r. this. p. 216. l. 27. for impertirently, r. impertinent. p. 239. l. 11. for let, r. let. p. 251. l. 20. for should, r. would. and l. ult. for. is, r. as is. p. 256. l. 1. for admit, r. omit. p. 264. l. 2. for authority, r. austerity. p. 266. l. 12. for perished, r. persisted. p. 274 l. 11. for alteration, r. altercation. p, 302. l. 19 for Subject, r. Submit. p. 325. l. 2. for his, r. it.  

Additionals.  
PAge 62. l. ult. After King Edward, add, That several Bishops were committed into several Prisons. pag. 237. line 26. after 7. Chapter, add, Now to the former part of the charge, I answer, that by the clause (any Statute, Law, or Canon notwithstanding) No Law Divine is dispensed with, nor yet any Canon of the whole Church; for Champny acknowledged above in his second proposition, (Nu. 5.) that the Matter and Form of Ordination is not expressed determinately in Counsels; Statutes and Laws, in this clause relate to those of this Land, those especially that concerned this business—    


CHAP. I.  
Of submission of judgement, and external peaceable subjection due to the Church, Nationall or Universal, from the respective Members thereof.  
WHat relation this point hath to the peace and unity of a Church, in preserving it from Error, and to the Reformation of a Church when Error hath prevailed upon it, was insinuated in the Preface: and in those respects there was occasion in the former Treatise, Of the Division of English and Romish Churches upon the Reformation, Sect. 9, 10, 13. to touch upon it.  
1. There, 
Limits of submission f●om the Authority to which, and matter in which.  however a possibility of just dissenting from the public could not be denied, a due Submission, with all peaceable external subjection, was required: and so it was a Limited, not Absolute submission which we required: the limits of it arising from the condition and concernment of the Authority to which, and of the Matter in which this Submission is to be yielded. The Authority is public, and (though not Infallible, yet) guiding others by an Infallible rule, and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly, as being answerable for their souls. The condition of the Matter also was observed to be divers, according to the difference of Belief and Practice, and in each kind to be of more or less concernment, according to the Nature of the things propounded to us, to be believed or practised by us. The general result was, that we ought to yield all the Submission of Judgement, and peaceable subjection, which such Authority may require, and all that the condition of the matter will admit of. Thus much was insinuated in the former book.  
2. Now to make a supply to that, 
Difficulty in fixing those Limits.  which was briefly couched there, and to discover more particularly the hounds and limits of this Submission, which to fix precisely is no easy matter. For this Submission must be carried even between God and Men, such Men as God himself hath set over us in his Church, and commanded us to hear and obey them: Yet such as possibly may entrench upon his right, in taking to themselves a dominion over our Faith, and if we follow them in a blind obedience and resignation of judgement wholly, we are sure to transgress in giving to them, what is due to God; So also must this Submission be carried even between Man and Man, by declining the Romish excess of arrogating too much to the public Authority, and avoiding the other extreme of giving too much Liberty to Private Judgement, into which Anabaptists and other Sectaries run, and thereby make void the Authority and Office of the Pastors of the Church.  
3. Therefore that we may better discover the bounds of due Submission, we must take aim, as abovesaid, from the consideration.  
First, 
General considerations of the Authority, and the Matter.  of the Authority to which the submission is yielded: That we find seated in the Church Nationall, or Universal, and justly requiring submission from the respective Members. The Church we hear speaking her judgement by the Bishops and Pastors of it, either in or out of Council; and whether it do speak either way secured from possibility of Error, will be considerable in the yielding of our Submission to it. Secondly, of the Matter or things, in which this Submission is yielded: These we find as was said to be of several sorts. Some are only in Opinion or belief, which being inward need not happily discover itself: Some are in Practice, as Worship, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies; which being outward must needs appear. Now in reference to both Authority and Matter, we shall have occasion to consider the Extent of Submission, from Judgement and belief (which begin within) to external compliance and conformity of Practice; and accordingly, in the Manner of performance, this submission either stays our judgement and belief within, when it dissents, or discovers it without, but so as not to a disturbance of peace.  
4. Judgement and Reason is that Light, which he that lighteth every one that comes into the World, Joh. 1.9. puts into the mind of Man, in order to his yielding assent and belief to that which is propounded; This light, as it shines inwardly to the aforesaid purpose, may not be put out, by absolute submission, or resignation of judgement to Man, or any company of Men; but as it is a light to shine outward for direction of others, so it may be concealed. For though a Man doth not acquiesce inwardly to that which is propounded, yet may he be silent in some cases, and forbear to publish his judgement to others. These things being premised, come we to some conclusions touching this submission.  
5. From the consideration of Authority, to which submission is due, we may say,  
I. 
Pastors of the Church singly taken have a public Authority.  Seeing the Church speaks her Judgement by the Pastors and teachers in it, every such Pastor is a Public Person, and by his Office and Commission for teaching, guiding, & ruling others, hath, in regard of all them, Authority & public Judgement, to which there is a submission due. They sit in Moses chair— and He, that despiseth you, despiseth me, saith our Saviour. Submit and obey, saith S. Paul, Heb. 13.17. All which is spoken of the Pastors and Teachers of the Church, not as joined in Council, but severally taken, and so teaching what the Church has learned of Christ, and what it declares and commands agreeable to the voice of the great Pastor, speaking in the Word. This Conclusion is against Anabaptists and Sectaries, that make void the Office and Authority of the Pastors of the Church; and against all others, that, acknowledging the Office, do too much weaken the Authority, receiving what they teach and declare, with little or no other respect, then if the same were spoken to them by any other Men. They of the Romish Church, as they are not behind hand in giving Authority to their Priests or Pastors, so do they acknowledge it not secured from error; and the submission due to it not to be absolute but limited. We need not therefore quarrel with them here. All the business will be, to conclude upon that submission, which is due to the Pastors of the Church joined or met in Council, to give out the Judgement of the Church.  
6. II. 
Pastors or Bishops met in Council.  Therefore we cannot but say, If they that meet either in a Provincial or National (much more in a General) Council, be gathered together in the Name of Christ, they have the promise of his presence among them, which is by the assistance of his Spirit, S. Mat. 18.20. This is the only place, as it seems to me, which delivers a promise immediately appliable to Counsels, though not to them only; other places so much beaten upon by the Romanists; I am with you to the end— S. Mat. 28. Tell the Church— S. Mat. 18. The gates of Hell shall not prevail— S. Mat. 16. The spirit of Truth shall guide you into all Truth. S. Joh. 16. and the like, cannot be drawn to concern Counsels, but by many consequences; and not at all to concern them in such an Infallible guidance as the Romanists would have.  
7. 
The assistance promised to them that meet in Christ's Name.  Now to know the Importance of this place, the promise and condition must be considered. The promise of Christ's being in the midst of them, is made as we see, to two or three, even to the meanest Ecclesiastical meeting or Synod, and therefore cannot assure that infallible guidance, which among the Romanists is applied only to General Counsels, or to the Pope with his Consistory. What then? It must needs imply such assistance as is needful and sufficient: Such, as we acknowledge there can be no danger for any in the Church, in submitting to her Definitions, when and where such assistance is given.  
8. But for that we must look to the Condition required: to be gathered together in the name of Christ; viz. With due Authority from him, and with minds answerable to the end and purpose of their meeting, that is, with minds free from worldly intents and designs, and from all factious engagements, seeking unfeignedly the glory of God, and the propagation of the true Catholic faith; and therefore setting before them the only Infallible Rule of Faith and Truth, God's Word, attending to it with due heed and submission, and with prayer (for that is express in the Text, to ask) for assistance. To such, so gathered in the name of Christ, the promise will be made good, and the issue will be a declaration of the Truth in all matters of Belief and Worship.  
9 Now for our Submission; 
The submission answerable.  were it certain they so met together in Christ's name, as it is certain the promise will be made good to them, if so met together, no more would remain for us to do, but to submit to their Definitions without any fear of danger, or farther inquiry, whether they be answerable to that Infallible Rule. But we must needs say  
III. It is not certain, that they which meet in Counsels are so gathered together; Sometimes it is certain and notorious, that they are not; as, in the second Council of Ephesius, a packed faction prevailed to the advancing of the Entychian Heresy; and in the Romish Counsels for these later Ages, the Papal power and faction hath managed and overruled all: so apparently in their glorious Council of Trent, that it was often and openly complained of, while the Council was sitting, and the decrees of that Council not received in France for about 40. years after it was concluded. Can we say such Counsels are gathered in the Name of Christ? or that the promise can belong to such, and the Infallible assistance of God's Spirit (which the Romanists pretend) can be given to such a company of Men, so gathered together, so overswayed with factious interests? or to a Pope, be he what he will be for person, so he be Pope? For such to say Visum est Spiritui sancto, & nobi— It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, what wants it of blasphemous arrogancy? and what wants it of Simon Magus his sin, to think the Holy Ghost can be bought with Money? or bound to a Pope that hath bought his Chair and enters Simoniacally? or to a company of Men, whose Votes in Council are purchased with Gold, or golden hopes of preferment, as it fared with a great part of them that met at Trent, being either Titulars, Pope's Pensioners, or bound to him upon like worldly concernments?  
10. But at the best, where there is not evident cause of exception, yet can there not be certainty, that they which meet in Council, are so gathered in the Name of Christ, with such minds, purposes and endeavours, as above required. Now the Issue of the promise depends upon performance of the Condition: of which performance though we may have a great presumption, in regard of their learning and judgement, and their high concernment, as being answerable for men's souls, (besides the care and respect that God hath towards his Church) yet can we not have such a certainty, as simply and absolutely to ground submission of judgement and belief upon it; and therefore we receive their Definitions concerning Faith, and Worship, not finally or chief upon the presumption we have of their performance, or conformity to the condition of the promise, but upon the evidence of that conformity, which their Definitions have to the Infallible Rule. It was the care of S. Paul and of the true Apostles (and so it should be of all the Pastors of the Church) by the demonstration of the Truth, to commend themselves to every Man's Conscience, that they have not handled the word of God deceitfully, 2 Cor. 4.2. Upon this evidence or demonstration of Truth, the Four first general Counsels have been so generally submitted to, so readily received by all good Christians.  
11. 
Submission and belief Conditional, and praevious, or absolute and Final.  But fourthly, lest that which is said of the Evidence and demonstration of Truth from God's Word, in order to assent or Faith, be mistaken to a slighting of public Authority and submission due to it, because it may be also said (and truly) that such evidence made out of God's Word by any man whatsoever, requires and obtains such Assent: we must know, there is an Assent and belief properly due to the proposals of the Church, or Doctrine of the Pastors and Teachers in it, and that by virtue of their Office and Commission which they have to teach and rule others, and that under so great a concernment, as the giving account for their souls: Only this Assent or belief is not at first absolute but conditional, not final but previous and preparatory, and so remains in the learner as a preparation, till that Evidence or Demonstration come and advance it into a Divine Assent, and final resolution, grounded upon the revelation of God's Word: Or else it is Cashired upon the like Evidence to the contrary; for we ought to submit and obey them, till upon such Evidence we can say, It is more right to hearken unto God, then unto them. Act. 4. and good reason, seeing our submission to them stands upon their Authority and Commission which they have to teach and guide us, therefore we must have a greater Authority against them from God's word, and seeing our judgement is not to be compared with theirs, whose profession is the study or interpretation of God's Word, and whose lips preserve knowledge, therefore we must have such Evidence of that greater Authority on our side; that is apparent to any that can use his reason, before we deny our submission to them. But some may say, if we cannot yield submission of judgement and belief, yet ought we to submit so far as not to publish it, not to oppose Authority: It is true, submission, as above was insinuated, extends itself so far even to a suffering for our judgement and belief, and such submission is due to the Pastors and Governors of the Church, by virtue of their public Authority; but the consideration of submission in the several extent of it much depends upon the several condition of the Maiter, in which we submit unto Authority, of which presently; here we are upon the submission of judgement due unto Authority, as to the unward belief; which submission we affirm to be not absolute but limited, and may conclude it upon the Apostles warrant, who, in one place, gives us the precept of it, and the reason of it, Obey, Submit; Why! they have the rule over you; that is, their Commission and Authority for teaching and guiding you; and they watch for your souls, and must give account, (Heb. 13.17.) there's the high concernment. But this Obedience and submission cannot be absolute, unless they alone were concerned to give account for our souls: if we must also, then are we also concerned to watch over our own souls, to see and judge what we do; and therefore the Apostle, as he tells us in this place, they have the rule over us, so in another place adds the limitation, Not as having dominion over your faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. and Not as Lords over God's heritage, saith S. Peter 1.5.3. how then? as Ministers by whom ye believe, 1 Cor. 3.9. as helpers of your joy. 2 Cor. 1.24. Ministers, Helpers, Guides they are in the way of Salvation; but as it is one thing for a Man to follow a Guide, till he see apparent danger, another thing to be led by him blindfold: So is it one thing to follow our spiritual Guides with a conditional belief, or reservation to Gods-Word, yea and to follow them to a mistrust of our own judgement, or knowledge we have of the way; another thing to resign up judgement and belief to them, and put out that light of reason which God hath put in us, in order to our receiving direction for the way of Salvation. The first we allow and require, the other let the Church of Rome exact, and gain where she can. Thus far from the consideration of Authority to which Submission is due: We may receive more particular directions for the extent and manner of performing this Submission, if we now add the Consideration of the Matter or things, in which Submission is yielded.  
12. 
Several conditions of the matter in which.  The matters or things wherein the Church declares her judgement, and requires Submission, are of divers condition (as was above insinuated;) some are matters of Opinion or belief only; and these, as they are of different condition from matters of Practice, and outward exercise, so are they to be distinguished one from the other in the Declarations of the Church: for it is considerable in our yielding of Submission, to know what things are Credenda or matters of belief, strictly taken for Catholic Faith, such as the prime Articles, Christ God and Man, and the like, or their immediate and apparent consequences, Two wills in Christ, Nature's distinct and unconfounded: and what things again are Credibilia; Credible Truths or Matters of Opinion, or belief largely taken. Also it is considerable, What the Church hath declared as Articles of Faith, and what she hath showed her judgement in, as Credible Truths, but not imposing them as Articles of Catholic Faith: for in case she should mistake in these, the danger in conforming our judgement to hers is the less; as if a Church upon mistake should (as many of the Ancients thought) judge it Credible, That the souls of just men are not admitted into the glorious presence of God, till the Resurrection, or that there may be some kind of purgatory after this life, turning S. Augustine's Non incredibile, into a Credibile, but not imposing it as an Article of Faith, as the Church of Rome hath boldly done. So likewise Matters of Practice are of divers forts, and of greater or less concernment. Some of Worship and Adoration, some of Discipline, Rites, Cercmony: Under matters of Discipline, the observing of set Times for Fasting, works and performances of public Penance, single life of Priests and the like, are considerable in the Canons or Declarations of the Church concerning them. In matters of Belief or Opinion, our subjection to a public judgement stands in a conformity of our judgement and belief to the public, and in the publishing or not publishing of our judgement. In Matters of practice, our Submission stands in the conformity of judgement, if we judge of Worship and other matters determined, as the Church judges, or in the outward exercise, if we do in these things as the Church does and practices.  
13. Having premised thus much, 
Submission of Judgement answerable.  come we now to more particular directions for the extent or manner of performing Submission to the judgement of the Church, when she hath declared it in Matters of Belief or Practice. As for the Submission of Private judgement to the public. 1. To all the determinations of the Church we owe Submission by assent and belief conditional, and preparatory at the least, which being given with reservation for evidence out of God's Word, does both acknowledge the Authority of our Pastors and Teachers, and withal reserve unto God his due. 2. In matters of Faith and Religious Worship, we cannot submit to any company of Men, by resignation of our judgement and belief, or standing bound to receive for Faith and Worship, all that they shall define and impose for such; for such resignation gives to Man, what is due to God, and stands excluded by the condition (as above shown) of the Authority, which is not Infallible, and also by the condition of the Matter, (Faith and Worship) of high concernment to our own Souls, and to be accounted for by ourselves, who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word, upon which we may finally and securely stay our judgements and belief in such matters. 3. In other Matters of Opinion and Credibility, or of Discipline and Rites, which the Church determins and proposes for such, as there is more cause for ready conformity of judgement, so is there more security, or less danger in it; for such Matters are either not determined by Scripture in particular, or not determinable but by several consequences. Only this conformity is yielded still with a reservation for any sufficient evidence or demonstration of Truth to the contrary: else, till that come, our conformity remains secure; for here's the difference of conforming in the former points of Catholic faith or worship, and these later of Opinion, Discipline, Rites; that, when the former are proposed to our belief and practice, we rest not secure till we have demonstation or evidence that they are so; but in the other we submit with security, till we have evidence that they are not so, as Authority hath determined. Indeed in matters of Discipline, and Ceremony (though in themselves of small concernment) great opposition hath often been made to the judgement and determination of Authority: of which I shall speak a little below under the conformity of Practice in such matters; and, in the mean, let us see what Cautions may be given in case of Private Judgement justly dissenting from the Public.  
14. 
Of concealing a dissent of Judgement in peaceable subjection.  If therefore it come to that (as possibly it may) yet for preserving of due submission, take care, 1. That our dissenting be not upon any comparing, or equalling our private judgement to the public, and autoritative judgement of the Church (for this will be absolutely against that conditional & preparatory belief or assent with which we are to receive all her determinations) but upon the evidence of a greater Authority on our side, viz. the demonstration of Truth from God's Word, or primitive consent of the Catholic Church; either of which is of more Authority than the present Governors of the Church. 2. That the dissenting of private judgement be only in order to a man's own believing and delivering of his own soul, for which he is to give account, not to any inconsiderate publishing of it to others; for, the light of Reason, though it may not be put out, yet may, and often aught to be concealed, and a man's private judgement silenced in submission to the public. 3. If he publish or make known his dissenting, it ought to be by modest proposal to his Superiors, not by clamours against the Church, to a disturbance of the peace of it: much less by force or tumult, as the manner of Sectaries hath usually been; for if he cannot internally acquiesce in the judgement of the Church, yet ought he to submit, as far as possible, externally, and to suffer for it, if need be.  
15. 
Whether in all Matters or Cases?  But here a question may be made about these matters, in which we were said to have evidence of Scripture, and Primitive consent; if a Church should so far err as to judge contrary to these, as for the error of Monothelites or Eutychians, or for the worshipping of Images, or any Creature with Religious worship, must a man submit with silence in such a case? I answer; The Ministers of the Word, being by that Church according to God's Ordinance called to publish the Gospel and Counsels of God for salvation, aught to propose their contrary judgement and belief to their Superiors so erring; if they reform, it is well; if not, the other ought to declare these Counsels of God; for in this case they have greater Authority (as was said) on their side, and may say to the Governors of the Visible Church, as the Apostles did to the great Council, Whether it be more right to hearken to you or to God, etc. Acts 4. And to this case I refer that other erroneous principle of belief (the mother of Error and Apostasy) that all the Members of the Church are bound to receive for Catholic Faith and Christian Worship all that the Church whereof they are Members proposes to them for such; herein we had, and all that are still of the Roman Communion, have cause to complain of that Church, and to declare dissent of judgement from it, which not only imposes Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and such novel errors for Articles of the Catholic faith, and commands Image-worship as lawful and pleasing to God; but also holds all the Members thereof bound to that former principle of mis-belief, in a blind receiving all for faith and worship, that shall be so proposed to them.  
16. 
The submiitting of Doctrine and Writings to the censure of the Church.  And this which hath been said will also speak the meaning of that submission, which we profess to yield, when we usually say (and not without cause) We submit our Judgement, Doctrine, or Writings to the censure of the Church: for 1. this is not a resignation of judgement in regard of believing, but a submission in regard of the publishing it, a putting it to the permission of the Church, whether such Doctrine, or Writings shall stand published or be silenced. 2. And this not in all things simply; for no Man can submit his Judgement and Doctrine to any Company of Men, when he believeth and teacheth the prime Articles of Catholic Faith, into which all Christians are baptised, or the immediate consequences of them, which are evident to all that can use Reason and Judgement, or the express commands of God concerning Religious Worship; but it is in things more questionable, not plainly determined in Scripture, and though deducible from some confessed Article, or express Command, yet by divers Consequences. As in the first kind, the Church hath power to silence and censure any, that teach contrary to such Articles, or Commandments, but cannot forbid to teach them. So in the second she hath power to silence any, that teach contrary to her declared Judgement in them. For it cannot be denied that the Church hath power to overrule and restrain the exercise of any man's Ministry, in order to the common peace and safety, she being answerable for others, as well as for him, whom she restrains in publishing his private judgement or belief to others.  
17. 
Submission of Practice, or Conformity in doing.  Thus much of Submission of Judgement in matters of Belief or Practice, either in conforming to the Judgement and determination of the Church therein declared, or in a fair and peaceable dissenting. Now come we to Submission of Practice, in a conformity of doing what the Church does and practices. The Judgement we have of Matters, either of belief or practice, need not happily discover itself, may for peace sake be silenced; but in matters of practice determined by the Church, and commanded to be done by us, our conformity both in Judgement, and Practice, must needs then appear. It was well and peaceably said of Jo: Frith (a young Man, but Learned and Moderate) in his Reply to Sir Thomas Moor, concerning Transubstantiation: Let it not (saith he) be Worshipped, and think what you will, for than is the Peril past. Difference of judgement may be in a Church without disturbance; 
In matter of worship.  but difference of practice, because apparent, endangers the peace of it. And let me here add, Notwithstanding the difference of judgement in the Protestant Churches de modo presentiae, yet may they well communicate together in the Sacrament, because neither of them allow or practise that Adoration directed to the Sacramental Symbols, which the Church of Rome practices and requires of all her Communicants, or Spectators rather. Now for Submission or Conformity in matters of practice, we must remember such matters were of different sorts and concernments, (Worship, Adoration, Discipline, Order, Ceremony) and then we have a double Caution, 1. According to the indifferency of the matter, or the greater, but evident concernment of it, either to yield conformity for Peace sake, or forbear for Conscience sake. 2. That such forbearance of any practice be an Act of simple and bare Omission without clamour and contempt of Authority, without tumult or resistance, with a readiness to suffer rather; then is there peaceable subjection, when private judgement keeps within these bounds. For such conscionable forbearance of many practices in the Church of Rome, (of high concernment and very evident) they have good cause, that are within her Communion; Such practice is the exercise of Religious Worship, many ways applied in that Church to the Creature; such also are some superstitious Rites and Ceremonies, having a kind of Sacramental virtue, and real holiness affixed to them.  
18. 
In Matters of Ceremony or Discipline.  But as for Rites and Ceremonies, in themselves indifferent, and by the Church enjoined only with respect to Order and Discipline, there is no cause of inconformity, or forbearance; yet in these hath there been great opposition from private Judgements, that could not keep within their bounds, and those places of Rom. 14. He that doubteth is damned, if he eat. and, what is not of Faith, is sin, have been abused to maintain a dissenting from the Judgement of the Church, and a forbearance of the Practice. We say therefore, those places are misapplyed to matters determined by public Authority: against which it is not doubting or want of Faith (i.e. persuasion of the Lawfulness or indifferency of the thing so determined) that can take place, or bear out disobedience, but evident demonstration of the thing out of God's Word to the contrary; and the Reason is plain, the command of God's Word for Obedience and Submission to them that are over us is evident, and therefore against them we must have evidence from God's Word, to show they are mistaken in their Judgement or determination of that particular. Now when a Church professes the thing determined by her to be indifferent in itself, or of a middle Nature, neither commanded by God nor forbidden, and that she neither affixes any Sacramental or Spiritual virtue or hollness to it, nor enjoins it as Worship, but only out of respect to Order and Discipline: no man can have any evident demonstration, but only a doubting or mixed persuasion of the unlawfulness of such a thing; and although a Man of doubting of a thing, in itself indifferent, but not determined, or enjoined by Authority, may by reason of his doubting have cause to forbear it: yet not in this case of the supposed determination and injunction of Authority; for he that will then urge [He that doubteth is damned] must remember, that he that disobeyeth is damned too: that former place of doubting, having many exceptions, of which this predetermination of Authority is one, but this disobeying of Authority hath only one, viz. when there is sufficient evidence of L. vine Authority against the thing determined by humane, and so it becomes an Obeying of God rather then Man.  
19 
Of Priest's celibacy, enjoined by the Church, and how.  But it may be expected, because I referred the injunction of Priests single life to matter of Discipline, that I should speak particularly to the conformity of Judgement and Practice to it. I referred it to Discipline, because anciently enjoined not in a disparagement to Marriage, which the Apostle concludes Honourable in all men, but in Order to their better discharge of their Duty and Priestlie or Ministerial function; and I do not now dispute the difference of that ancient injunction from the now Roman exaction of single life, nor question with what fullness of Authority it was enjoined, or how far, or how long binding, (which I shall have more fit occasion to touch a little 
Num. 25.26.  below, and more largely against Champny in the sixth Chapter) but only speak to the point of Submission and conformity to such judgement, or determination of the Church, supposing it fully concluded, and binding. Therefore I cannot but say, while it was so binding, every Clergyman had cause to Judge, the Governors of the Church saw reason to enjoin it, & was bound to endeavour conformity in Practice, i.e. to use such means by Temperance, Fasting, Prayer, as conduce to preserve that continency of Single life; but if, after due use, he found himself not answerable to that state, but in the condition to which S. Paul prescribes the use of that remedy which God had ordained, (Marriage against Burning) he was bound notwithstanding the Church-Ordinance, to take to it; and this as it hath direct Warrant from God's Word, so is it not a direct opposition to the Church Ordinance, which was but conditional, as in the prohibition of Marriage to Fellows of Colleges, under the pain of loss of their Fellowships. Only in this point of Priest's Marriage, the condition is of greater concernment, the loss of Clergy, or quitting the Ministerial function, which if happened to him, that hath dealt conscionably (as above) in the business, the Church must answer for it.  
20. Thus have I endeavoured as near as I can, to discover and fix the bounds of Submission of Private Judgement and Practice, according to the several condition of the matter, wherein it is shown, and according to the divers extent and manner of performing or showing it; either to a direct conformity and compliance with the public, or if dissenting, yet to a yielding of all possible, peaceable Subjection, and that, if need be, to a suffering under Authority. If Private Judgement keep itself within the former bounds of Submission, there can be no harm to the Church.  
21. I should now speak the respect, 
Passages out of 8. Augustine touching Authority and Reason.  which every National or particular Church ought to bear to the Universal, in this point of Submission; but before we go farther, it will be worth our pains to take a short view of some passages of S. Aug. (appliable to the business in hand) concerning Authority and Reason. (I called them, Authority, and Evidence, or demonstration of Truth) in his Books, de verâ Relig. and the Vtiltate credend. It is his purpose there, to show how Authority goes before Reason, in our believing or receiving the Christian Faith, which by the Romanists is sometimes misapplyed to the purpose of that Church, requiring belief to rest upon her Authority. We may therefore take notice, that the writing of those books was occasioned by the Manichees, who reproached the Catholics, for requiring belief of their Scholars or Auditors, before they shown them reason; and boasted, Se terribili Autoritate separatâ, etc. that laying aside all supercilious Authority, they would by simple and plain reason bring Men to God. cap. 1. de util. cred.. Had this Romish Infallible Authority (which exacts belief simply and finally) been then pretended to in the Church, they might well have called it terrible Authority, and S. Augustine could not but have spoken to it. Whereas it is his only work in both books to show that Men are first moved by Authority to a belief of things, before they see the Reason of the things themselves. Now the belief upon this Authority is but previous and preparatory (as I called it) in order to that which S. Augustine calls Reason, or evident knowledge of the truth. For he tells us this Authority (viz. of the Church proposing the Catholic 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 Authority of Pastors and Teachers of the Church, whom he calls Antistites Dei, whom God hath set in his Church as Governors 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 Authority 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 enlightening of God's Spirit; which he calls sometimes the punging of the mind, (viz. from Nature's 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 called 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 Authority 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 Authority, but finally resting in the Evidence and Demonstration of Truth: Like as the belief of the Samaritans given first to the Testimony of the Woman that had been with Christ, brought them out unto him, but stayed at last upon A●divimus ipsi, we have heard him ourselves, 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 private Judgement, keeping within bounds of peaceable subjection, hear what S. Augustine subjoins 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 mind) pride brings no man; quae si non esset nec Haeretici, nec Schismatici essent, but for this Pride and self-conceit (the cause why private Judgements do not keep within bounds) there would be no Heretics or Schismatics; for it comes not to this but when nimiâ levitate (as he speaks sometimes) through too much lightness of judgement they are driven tanquam palea vento Superbiae, as chaff by the puff of their own pride from the Lords floor, or Visible Church.  
23. 
 excommunication and want of the Communion of the Church upon it.  But what if Private Men for a peaceable dissenting in judgement 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 private Men, and so do we hitherto; but he supposes them cast out of the Church, in which the Catholic Faith is truly professed, with due Christian Worship, and therefore saith, Examples of such expelled good men are rare: Whereas we suppose 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 Catholic Church being such as it was in S. Augustine his days, 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 Universal.  of the respect which National Churches have and aught 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 practices of the Catholic Church, as Inferior or private 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 Judgement, above what is allowed proportionable to private persons; for they have only Judgement of discretion in order to their own believing, whereas a National Church hath public Judgement, both in receiving the Decrees of the Universal Church, or in making some herself, and in proposing them to others, whom she is to guide and answer for: and so can make public 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 reform, or purged from many errors, and freed from the Tyranny of foreign 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 Council cannot be expected: as was insinuated, Sect. 4. of the former book. 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgement in General Counsels, free and unquestionable, doth not every National Church (by name this of England) owe submission of Judgement to them? I answer, as for matters of Faith and Worship, there is no need that any National Church should descent from any definition (concerning that matter) made or declared by any of the undoubted General Counsels of the Church, such as have not been justly excepted against; and let any Romanist show that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgement of such Counsels, either in matters of Faith or Worship.  
25. 
In Canons of Discipline prudential Motives considerable.  As for Matters of Practice and Discipline, (under which I named Priests single life, because they clamour against us as receding therein from the Catholic 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 lose the Reins of Discipline, sometimes drawing them streiter according to the Exigency of Times, or condition of Persons. 
As in those that enjoin Priests single life.  Neither could they that made those Canons, intent 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 find in the point of Penances, and also in this very point of Single life, if we look into the practice of it in several Ages and Countries. Nor was it necessary, that this Remission or relaxation should always expect the like Authority of Counsels, to decree it, but it might be lawfully done by any National Church within itself upon long experience of the inconveniences; and that especially, when a free General Council 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 Silvius (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 sixth General Council in Trullo, held in the seventh Century, was the first General Council that forbade Bishops to have or retain their Wives. Can. 12. Where they excuse themselves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles (which forbade Bishops to put them away) by a pretence conformable still to the former reason, viz. because stricter Discipline was fit for their times, than it was for the beginnings of Christianity. III. That General Council 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 Council expressly & 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 saturdays. For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Council 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 Council upon a double score, as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons.  
27 But what tell we them of answering it to any Council, 
What submission the Church of Rome exacts.  that will have the whole Catholic 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 judgement; 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 controversy between them seems to require. And this Submission we acknowledge due to Authority in every Church, not only to the Authority 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 public 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 subjoined to the Catholic Faith there expressed, Haec est fides Catholica, extra quam— this is the Catholic Faith, without which none can be saved. So that they which join 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 judgement of that Church where they will, in the Pope or Council.  
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 judgement of the Pope, is very strict in exacting this submission of belief. In his fourth book, de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Pope's Infallibility, and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare, sed simpliciter ob●dir●— It is not for Subjects or Inferiors to doubt of this matter (viz. Whether the Pope can or doth err) but simply to obey. And to show the strength of this obligation, & the inconvenience that would fall upon the Church, if the Pope be subject to err in defining or commanding any thing to the Church, he lets not to express it thus. Si papa erraret praecipiendo, etc. If the Pope should err, in commanding Vice and forbidding Virtue, the Church were bound to believe, Vitia esse bona, & Virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare, that Vice was good, Virtue evil, unless it would sin against conscience. To mollify the harshness of this he inserts presently (in rebus dubiis) as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubtful Matters; which as it is not all they say, so is it to little purpose: for if he please to judge the most apparent thing to be doubtful (as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the people) and define against it, then are all in the Church bound to believe so, or sin against Conscience.  
30. And indeed it necessarily follows upon their ground and reason of believing all things, viz. the Papal Infallibility. Now considering, what Popes have been, and may be, how readily may all of that persuasion be brought under the Woe denounced by the Prophet, Isa. 5.20. against those that call Good Evil, Light Darkness, Truth Error, Virtue Vice. Thus have the people been put off with half-Communion, contrary to our Saviour's institution, and made to believe it is not so: thus brought to bow down to graven Images and to Worship them, contrary to the express words of God's command, and yet bound to believe it is not so: thus have they been raised here into Rebellions and Treasons against their Natural Prince, upon Pope Pius 5. his Bulls, and thereupon to believe Rebellion was good service to God and his Church: thus Princes themselves have been brought to incestuous Marriages, and to believe them not sinful upon the Pope's dispensation: as our Hen. 8. many years believed, till, upon better examination, he saw how vain and ungrounded the Judgement and Sentence of the Pope was.  
31. 
Not all agreed about the chief ground of their belief.  But they are not all agreed about this ground of Belief, (Papal infallibility) for though it be publicly professed, and maintained in their Schools, especially where the Jesuits are in the Chair, and none within the Pope's reach dare openly gainsay it; yet is it not every where believed within the Romish Communion. A fair pretence it carries to advance the work of that Church, or Court of Rome rather, and the Romish Emissaries make good advantage of it, when they have to deal with the unwary, and more simple sort of Christians; but when it falls under conscionable examination, what submission of belief it gains from those of that Communion, we may see by these examples. Clement the 7. was resolute in his sentence for the incestuous marriage of Henry the 8. yet both Universities of this Land, with many abroad, some of Italy itself, declared against it. Pope Paul 5. was as peremptory in his definitive sentence against the Venetians, yet was resisted by that whole State and their Subjects, and in the end forced to recall it. And many now living can remember, what difference there was among the Romish Catholics here, upon the same Pope's Breves sent out against the Oath of Allegiance; some urging obedience to them, some refusing, and showing their Reasons for their dissenting; which may be seen drawn up in a book set out by Mr. William Howard, one of the Romish Communion, and do speak the reasonableness of what is said by us, for the judgement of discretion allowed to private persons, or Inferiors.  
32. When there comes shame upon any Papal sentence, as in the former examples, they have excuses from the condition of the Matter defined, or the concernment of it to the Church, or the intention of the Pope in defining it, with a distinction of in and out of his Chair, to play fast and lose by; for they can shift him into it, or out of it, according to the event and success of his definitive Judgement. But those examples will not admit of such exceptions, for though in Hypothesi they were in and about particular Actions and Persons, yet in Thesi they were of general concernment as may be easily made to appear; and whether the Pope was in his chair or no, when he sent forth such definitive sentence, I know not; but me thinks, in business of such concernment to the Church and Christian people, it should have beseemed him to give his judgement not car elesly as a private Doctor, but as the Pastor, General of the Church, and it had been worth his pains to go up to his chair for infallible determination; and if he did it not then, when so much cause, so much time to do it, when shall any man ever know certainly that the Pope defined or spoke such or such a thing in his chair, that there may be sure ground for belief and obedience?  
33. Bel. in the place above cited, 
Difference about Papal Infallibility.  treating of the Pope's Infallibility sets down several opinions about it, of which this is one: That the Pope may be an Heretic and teach Heresy; This opinion he will not say is fully Heretical, because they are tolerated in the Church that hold it, but Haeresi proxima, at next door to Heresy: Yet as near as it is to Heresy, it is the sentence generally of the Popish Church in France, and other places too: and see their agreement. This may not be taught at Rome, nor the contrary of it at Paris. Now albeit this Party hath unanswerable reasons and arguments for rejecting the Infallibility of the Papal judgement, and setting up a General Council above him, which would be good out of the mouth of a Protestant: Yet they also when they have to deal with Protestants, tell of the Infallible guidance of the Roman Church, of the Pope as Vicar of Christ, and the visible Head of his Church, and boast of their Church as built upon the Rock; in all which they thwart themselves; for what privilege (of Infallibility or other) can the Roman Church pretend to above other, but by S. Peter, and then must it be derived by his supposed successors the Bishops of that Church? or how can they affirm the Pope to be Head, and deny him the Supremacy, or say a Council is above him? or how apply that promise of the Rock to their Church, but by allowing S. Peter, and so his successors to be that Rock, and consequently to give the stability and infallibility to their Church, if that place prove any to be in it? This Party indeed will say, they make the Pope but a Ministerial Head to the Church. Which how it reconciles the premises, or saves all they pretend to by the Pope, I see not; but surely it sets them at a wide difference with their fellow Catholics who are of a contrary persuasion. Let them agree it among themselves: yet note we their disagreement in points of such high concernment, as touch the very groundwork of their Faith; and consequently their uncertainty where to state the infallibility: and thereupon their unreasonableness in exacting (upon that pretence of infallible guidance) absolute submission of belief to all things defined and propounded by that Church: and lastly, their vanity in thinking to satisfy us with saying, They all agree in yielding submission to all, that is defined by General Counsels; and that the Differences we object to them about Pope and Council are not defined.  
34. For first, they must not here put us off with Submission of Silence or external peaceable subjection (which requires not that infallible guidance the Church of Rome boasts of, but an Autoritative judgement, or unappealeable Authority, which we quarrel not, if well stated, as will appear presently) but they must speak that agreement of theirs in yielding Submission of belief, and then it will not serve their turns to tell us, when we charge them with disagreement in the grounds of their belief, that they all agree in yielding Submission, etc. For seeing Infallible judgement is the ground with them of that submission of belief, and they cannot agree how that infallibility accrues, or where it is to be stated in Council, Pope, or partly in both (the reasons of the one part being sufficient to destroy the other) it must needs appear how much they disagree in and about the very groundwork of their belief. They would think it strange to hear us say, We and they do not disagree in the grounds of our belief, because we both agree in these Generals, That all Divine Revelation is to be believed, yea, All that is revealed in Scripture ought to be believed; for if we inquire farther into the Means of conveying Divine Revelation, we cannot admit Tradition in so careless and uncertain a sense, as they do: or if look into the Meaning of Scripture, we cannot allow of their pretended Infallible Judge or Interpreter; and they stick not to call us Heretics for our disagreement with them. So for their Principle in which they boast of their Universal agreement, (Submission to all that is defined) if we inquire into the reason and ground of it (Infallible Judgement in their definitions) we find wide differences and contrary persuasions among them; and Bell. could find in his heart to make them Heretics, that are against stating the Infallibility in the Pope, and therefore called their Persuasion Haeresi Proxima, next door to Heresy, as we heard above: and mark his reason there why it is not propriè haeretica, fully and properly so, Nam adhuc ab Ecclesiâ tolerantur— They are still tolerated of the Church, that hold it: A reason why he might not speak as he thought; He thought it Heresy no question, but might not call it so, for saving the Union of their Church. Union and Agreement among Christians is to be sought for by all fair means, and to be held upon all just grounds: and in order to it, Submission unto Authority is necessary, and Toleration again from Authority may be sometime and in some things needful; But the Church of Rome boasting of her Unity, and the means she hath for it (Infallible Judgement in her Definitions) and thereupon requiring not only external or peaceable subjection, but submission of belief, may be ashamed for preserving of her Unity to tolerat such different persuasions or Doctrines, so near unto Heresy. And this also shows the Vanity of what they farther say, that the points they differ in (as whether a Pope be above a Council, whether Infallible, etc.) are not defined, and therefore general submission of belief, or uniform agreement is not required: Why then say we, is that Doctrine tolerated amongst them, that is proxima Haeresi, so near to Heresy, as we heard above? Why is not that defined and stated, which is the ground of believing all other things that are defined? The reason is plain; The Pope knows well enough if those points were defined one way, they would not be generally believed, and that it is better to have them instilled in private into the minds of Men by his trusty Emissaries, then to have them publicly defined, and more for his advantage to have men brought to a persuasion of them in favoar of his power, then to hazard the peremptory belief of them either way. Other means there are, the chains of force and policy to hold all together, and I doubt not, but many are kept from revolting, whose Learning and Conscience shows them a more excellent way, then that of the Romish Church.  
35. Some there are, as I hear, 
Of unappealable Authority.  of the more moderate sort of Romanists, which will not now seem to contend for an Infallible Judgement in their Church, but to be content with an unappealable Authority. This may be good Doctrine at Paris, but not at Rome; and we may farther say, that such Authority or Autoritative Judgement, being rightly stated (for it must be placed some where) as it hurts not us, so doth it not help them.  
For 1. they forsake the groundwork or formal reason of their belief, which is the Authority and Testimony of their Church; and it must be either Infallible, or not that thing into which their Faith can beresolved; for albeit such an anappealable Authority may in some sort provide for External peace, yet can it not certainly and finally stay belief. 2. There may the same Objections be made against it, which they usually reproach us with for want of that pretended Infallibility: viz. That men are so left to their own reason, That there is not without it sufficient means for Peace and Unity; (of which Sect. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. of the former book) for although when we descent from that unappealable Authority, in matter of Belief and Opinion, we be not happily bound to discover it, at least to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church as above said: Yet if the error be in commanding something for Religious Worship (as adoration of Sacrament or Images) that must needs discover and show itself in outward practice, the unappealable Authority cannot secure the external Submission or compliance. In Civil affairs indeed Vnappealable Authority may absolutely require external Submission, because by submitting to the wrong Judgement or Sentence of such Authority, the things we recede from for peace sake, are but Temporals, and in our own power to dispose of; but it is not so in the Matters of the Soul and Conscience, in the poims of Belief and Worship, in which we must have the Evidence of that, which is confessedly Infallible, to stay upon.  
36. But what if mwn will be perverse (as we have seen in these days) to pretend error & superstition in Worship, where there is none? Who shall judge? 
Who shall judge?  They that so oft put this question to us, cannot well resolve it themselves; for who shall judge, say we to them? Pope or Council? they cannot agree it where the Infallibility rests; and if either or both of them must judge, shall their judgement be taken for Infallible? Neither are they here resolved, some contending for Infallible, some content with Vnappealable Authority. As for us, we answer Unanimously: The Church shall judge (be it National or Universal) and take order with such persons; by the Church here we mean the Guides and Governors that have public Judgement and Authority in every National Church, or in the Catholic assembled in a General Council; and by Judging, we mean their defining or demonstrating the Truth, according to the Infallible Rule of God's Word, and their Sentencing of Persons refractory, to due punishment. So the Church shall judge, either to the convincing and satisfying, or to the censuring and punishing of such Persons: who are to answer unto God also for their disobedience. For the Church or Public Authority, as it hath the advantage of Judgement above all Inferior or private persons, so of Power too, to proceed according to that Judgement against the obstinate. No other means of restraint had the Ancient Church, as was insinuated, Sect. 13. of the former book.  
To conclude. This Vnappealable and not Infallible Authority, as it cannot consist with the main Principle of Romish belief, so may it well enough stand with any thing asserted by us: and were it stated aright (not in the Pope, but in every National Church immediately, and in a General Council finally) I suppose, there needed not be any matter of difference about it. And hitherto of Submission of Judgement and Practice to the Definitions and Constitutions of a Church.   

CHAP. II.  
Of Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward, perfected under Queen Elizabeth, and the warrantableness of it.  
THat the English Reformation was not regular and warrantable, but carried against the consent of the Bishops of this Land, is the usual reproach of the Romanists. It was insinuated in the 4. Section of the former book, That the Reformation was begun under Hen. and perfected under Q. Elizabeth, not without a just National Synod; and that in the Reformation under Hen. 8. there was no displacing of Bishops, but all was passed by general consent. That late Romish Convert, as he pretends himself to be, that wrote the reproachful Pamphlet, Entitled, The Obits of Prelatic protestancy, took notice of what I had said, and returns the reproach double upon us, saying: All the Bishops of this Nation were excluded and imprisoned when the Doctor's party first decreed the breach— so that they had no more a National Synod, than Those, that could congregate when they pleased, as many of their own party, and style it a Synod, as the Presbyterians did. So he. pag. 136.  
We will consider then, how the Reformation was begun, carried on and perfected; which will appear to be so done as the Romanist can have no just cause to reprove, nor the Presbyterian or any Sectaries to pretend to the like.  
1. 
Reformation begun under Hen. 8.  The First Reformation began under Hen. 8. in the ejection of Papal jurisdiction with some superstitious abuses. And here I must first say, and desire the Reader to take notice, that to this first & main point of Reformation, the ejecting of that foreign Jurisdiction, there needed no vote of National Synod, or consent of Bishops: the King himself being a sufficient and competent Judge in that cause of Vindicating his own Rights, upon which that Papal jurisdiction was a plain Usurpation. And therefore the like had been often done by Kings of this Realm, before Hen. 
Not without the Vote of a National Synod.  8. putting their Subjects under Praemunire, that did acknowledge such an usurped power, or had recourse to Rome in any cause or matter of Jurisdiction. But Secondly, we can say, and that most truly, that it was carried with the general consent of the Bishops of this Land in full Synod, decreeing not a breach, but the casting off and renouncing of Papal supremacy, upon which the first breach followed; and so Saunders calls it Schisma Henricianum, King Henry's Schism.  
2. Now if Romanists will say; Those Bishops and the rest of the Clergy assembled in that Synod were of their party, because most of the Romish Doctrine was still retained; then let them say, that their Party first made the Breach, and cease to lay any imputation upon us for it, or for doing the like upon greater cause under Queen Elizabeth: however, their Party or Ours, they must confess the first-breach was then made, and the Reformation then begun, and that by full consent of the Bishops of this Nation, in full Synod.  
3. If again they say, as usually it is said by them of the Romish party, That Synod was not free, the Bishops and the rest being compelled by fear, to vote that, which they after repent of and retracted under Queen Mary. To say nothing of the liberty of Papal Counsels, where none can speak freely, without note of Heresy or danger of Inquisition; it is apparent, they voted the like again three years after, and it is strange that the Passion of Fear should continue so long, or that so many learned men should not in 16. years more see their error and retract it, till there came a Queen that discovered herself to be of another mind. But if they were compelled through fear so to Vote, what compelled them so to write, and to make good by such forcible Arguments what they had Voted, as the most learned of them did? what compelled them, I say, but the Evidence of Truth? and if they voluntarily retracted what they Voted in Synod, why did they not as voluntarily answer their own Arguments? They are yet to be seen, and will remain as a clear Evidence of the warrantableness of that Synodical Vote, upon which the first Breach followed.  
4. 
Reformation under K Edward.  Proceed we now to King Edward's Time, under whom the Reformation was carried on, and the Breach continued. And here, if we make enquiry, how it stood with the Bishops of this Land, we find the two Archbishops, 
Bishops at Liberty.  Cranmer and Holdgate, together with Thirlby and divers other Bishops made in King Henry's time, continuing in their places unmolested all King Edward's reign; As for those few, who at last were removed (viz. Boner, Gardiner, Heath. Day, Vessey) None of them were imprisoned till the third year of the King, except Gardiner and Boner, who for some Misdemeanours felt a short restraint, from which upon Submission being released, they enjoyed their Bishoprics, till the end of the King's third year. Neither can I find that any of them, during that time, was excluded from sitting in Parliament, there being indeed no cause for it; for They had all taken the Oath of Supremacy, to the renouncing of Papal power and Jurisdiction, the form of which Oath is set down in Fox his Acts and Monuments. They did also generally receive those few injunctions, sent out for Reformation, as we shall hear presently. I find in the first and second Parliaments in King Edward's Time, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and enacting: and John Stow gives us a Copy of Stephen Gardiner's letter sent out of the Tower, (in the third year of the King, for than he was imprisoned) to the Lords of the Council; 
Sitting in Parliament.  wherein he sues for his Liberty, that he might do his duty in Parliament then sitting, being a Member of the same. This plainly shows, the only hindrance of his sitting there, was want of Liberty, and that he only of all the Bishops was kept from thence. That which Master Fox saith in the beginning of his story of King Edward, that several prisons, is spoken by Anticipation, as other things also there insinuated, that were after done throughout the following course of the King's reign.  
5. 
National Synod.  If now it be asked, where is the judgement of a National Synod to warrant. King Edward's Reformation? I have many things to say. I. What I speak of the English Reformation, that it was not done without the judgement of a National Synod, did chief relate to the Synod under King Henry, which, as I said, began the Reformation, and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it. In the first was the main Annoyance, and cause of Corruption in the Church, removed by casting out the usurped Papal Jurisdiction, with some dependences of it; but in the latter Synod, the whole work (carried on under King Edw: according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign) was completed, showing itself in an Uniform body of Doctrine, voted and published in the 39 Articles of this Church.  
6. II. 
Title of Supreme Head.  For the work done in King Edward's time, if any thing did run out of Square, through the swelling Title of Supreme Head, stretched a little, perchance, by some beyond his Line, the thanks are first due to Those, whom they of the Popish party account theirs: I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have overdone their work, not in that part which they denied to the Pope, (for none could have written better against that usurped Papal Supremacy than Bishop Gardiner, Tonstal and others) but in that which they attributed to the King. And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, did relate to the Vote and Acknowledgement of the Clergy, [Seeing that all Authority of Jurisdiction is derived from the King's Highness, as Supreme Head, and so acknowledged by the Clergy of this Realm: Be it therefore Enacted, etc. 1 EDW: 6. c. 2.] that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and expressions, we may see whom they followed.  
7. 
Whether abused in this business of Reformation.  Now considering what was already granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw: 6. by the Bishops and Clergy of this Nation; considering also, the King (although of admirable piety and understanding beyond his years, yet) being under age, and so under Protection, it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-people, who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influence upon the Affairs of the Time. And however the King's Authority, under pretence of that Title and Jurisdiction, as it seems, was abused in disposing of Church-means, and diverting them to private gain, yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation, as to the point of God's Worship and Religion itself; but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it, that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time, the business of Religion was fairly carried on; and that is the third thing I have to say, That the Reformation under King Edward (to the abolishing of Image-Worship, the restoring of the Liturgy in a known Tongue, and Communion in both kinds, with that which followed thereupon, the abolishing of Romish Massing; for herein was the main of K. Edward's Reformation) was warrantably advanced, and carried on. For the clearing of which, as to the Authority that did it, I have these things to say.  
8. First, 
Synodical Vote how necessary in this business.  Reformation of God's Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote. Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determining Church-Affairs, where there is not just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated, and the times in which they are to assemble. To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen, That he saw no good end of Counsels, which he spoke not absolutely, but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected, by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians, who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Counsels held in those times. Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pastors of the Church, as to this point of Reformation, is directive, either in or out of Synod, and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction, is by their meeting and consulting in Synod, therefore the Prince, whose power or office is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties, what is evidenced to Him, hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod. But he is not simply and always bound, to take his direction thus, by any Law of God or Man; for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions, whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops, and learned men of the Church, to be the Law of Christ (such as were the forementioned points of Reformation, apparently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity) shall he not perform his known duty, till the Vote of a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it? The change of Religion for the worse is still charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Testament, and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings: which shows this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince, and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah, who were more forward in the Reformation of God's Worship then the Priests, do warrant the forward piety of our young Josiah, K. Edward. And this is also approved by that, which many Christian Emperors, and Kings have, to their great praise, done in the business of Religion, without or before the calling of a Council, though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bishops, and learned Men. Of this point more below, when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things.  
Neither can we say, the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his direction from a Vote in Synod, especially when there is just cause of fear, as above said; but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests, to which the most of them, that should meet, are apparently obnoxious. And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edward's reign, or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say; but this I have farther to say—  
9 
Injunctions sent out at first by the King.  Secondly, In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the public exercise of Religion or Worship, and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine, or Uniformity in points of Religion. In order to the latter (a Body of Doctrine) I find there was a Synod held under King Edward. The Acts of it I have not seen, but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals: for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae. Where in the Act of the second day (as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related) a dispute arises about a Catechism published in the name of the Synod under King Edward: the Popish party renouncing it, and on the Protestant part John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, maintaining it to be Synodical, because compiled by Authority and Commission from the Synod; for, saith he, this House granted Authority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws, unto certain persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty— and concludes, that the Catechism and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod, since they had, saith he, our Synodal Authority unto them committed. Now as all Catechisms do, so this did contain the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation, which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod, and therefore rejected by the Popish party.  
10. This Synod, as I suppose, was not held till the fift of King Edward. But the Injunctions, that went out in the first year, were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Worship, (which was necessarily to be provided for in present) and went no farther than those evident points above mentioned. Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Authority; for, having suddenly dissolved the Convocation by her peremptory Mandate to Bishop Boner for that purpose, in December, She sent out, the March following, Injunctions (not upon any Vote of the former Convocation) touching Papal Supremacy, Sacraments, Priests-Marriage, etc. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments, 1. Mariae. If it be said, as usually they reply, that she did but restore what was before established in the Church; so we may say, by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Worship of God, accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church, in a known tongue, with Communion in both kinds, without Image-worship,— all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church. And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them;  
11. 
Those Injunctions sent out by advice of Bishops, and were generally received of all the Bishops.  Thirdly, They were sent out by the King's Authority, upon the advice of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land; and generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Dioceses. Both these things are avouched expressly in the charge given in against Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, (extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments) to show that he was the only Bishop, that did not so readily conform as the rest did. This also appears by the Letters of the Archbishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London, to whom he sent the said Injunctions, and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster (who then was Thirlby, twice promoted in King Edward's days) to other Bishops, for the execution of the same. Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts.  
12. 
And so the Vniformimity of Public prayer.  If we look on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King, we find in the first Chapter, a Law for the Uniformity of Public prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments expressing thus much, That for the drawing up such an Order and Form, the King appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of this Realm (there's the fitness of the Persons for the Work) having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures, and to the Usages in the Primitive Church (there's the fitness of the rule they went by) The which at this time, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and with one uniform agreement, is by them concluded. Wherefore the Lords Spiritual (note that) and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, considering the godly travel of the King and the Lord Protector, in gathering the said Archbishop and Bishops and Learned men together, the godly Prayers, Orders, and Rites in the said Book, and the considerations of altering those things that be altered, and retaining those things which be retained in the said book, and also the honour of God, and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same: do give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same, and humbly pray it may be enacted, etc. What could be more sweetly begun by the King, carried on by the Bishops, received by all the Estates, than this work was? Now if there wanted a formal Synodical Vote, yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it, the general reception of the thing done; yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was commanded, but did actually in Parliament give their consent; there we find them all sitting, and if all did not consent (which is more than any can say) yet the major part by far did undoubtedly, for they continued, as I observed above (Num. 4.) in their places unmolested all King Edward's days. Neither can it make any real difference, as to the justness of a Reformation, whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod, and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established: or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince, moved by advice of faithful Bishops, and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy, or Pastors of the Church, be by them generally received and put in practice, according to the command of the Sovereign Authority. It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived: but, as I insinuated before, their number was inconsiderable to the other, and their deprivation was not till the end of the King's third year at soon, which shows their compliance at first.  
13. 
Council of Trents Rule for Reformation.  Now after all this it will be worth our observing, what the Council of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation, (in the Decree de celebrat. Missae. Sess. 6. sub Pio 4.) did confess, and thought fit to redress. Multa jam sive temporum vitio, sive hominum incuriâ & improbitate irrepsisse, aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate— many things (say they) either through the iniquity of the Times, or the carelessness and wickedness of Men have crept in, far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice: and what were those things? quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit, which covetousness or superstition hath brought in. Then they give order for redress, That the ordinary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere, take them clean away. This was well spoken, had they done it throughly.  
Now what they thought fit to be done, and did it but slightly, was done fully in the Protestant Reformation, and particularly in that under King Edward; for the shameful nundination of Masses, which Covetousness had brought in, was clean taken away, by taking away the manner and Trade of Romish Massing, and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament: & the many abuses, which Superstition had brought in, were removed by restoring the public Liturgy in a known Tongue, & the celebration of the Communion in both kinds, and by taking clean away the Worship of Images; And all this was done by the advice and travel of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church, under a Pious King. What exception then can there be? It may perchance be said, that, in the close of that Decree, this power of reforming is allowed to the Bishops of the place, ut Delegatis sedis Apostolicae, as to the Delegates of the Apostolic See: Yea, there is still the mischief, and hindrance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church. Deus non erit Deus, etc. God shall not be God except man please, as Tertul. said in his Apol. and Truth shall not be Truth except the Pope please, nor God Worshipped after his own Will, unless the Pope will too.  
14. 
The warrantableness of K. Edward's Reformation.  To conclude. Lay now the Premises together, and see the Warrantableness of the Reformation under King Edward, both for the Thing done, and the Authority by which it was done. The Thing done was for the general what the Council of Trent thought fit to be done; the removing of some things, which were crept in by the corruption of the Times, by the carelessness and iniquity of Men; Things, which Covetousness and Superstition (the two Breeders of all Popish abuses) had brought in: Things for the particular so evident by Scripture, and usage of Primative Church (the warrantable Rule of Reformation, which they went by as above noted in the statute of Parliament, Num. 12.) that nothing can be more. So for the Authority, by which this was done. It was begun by a good and gracious King, upon the advice and direction of sundry learned and discreet Bishops; was carried on and managed by divers Bishops and other learned Men of this Realm (as was also said in the forementioned Statute) and generally received by all the Estates of the Land, and accordingly confirmed and Established by King and Parliament. Such was the Condition and Warrant of that Reformation, which as no Romanist can justly reprove, 
Sectaries cannot pretend to the like.  so no Sectaries can pretend to the like, whether we consider the evidence of the Things or Abuses reform, according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity, or the Authority by which that Reformation was begun, carried on, and managed, and lastly confirmed and established; Of all which there is a great failing in the pretended Reformations of Sectaries; yea in that which the Presbyterians undertook, who of all other pretend most to regularity, and Order.  
15. 
Reformation under Q Eliz.  We are at last come down to Queen Elizabeth's reign; under whom we said the Reformation was perfected. And here we are to inquire too of the Imprisoning of Bishops, and look after a National Synod. We acknowledge that divers Bishops were Imprisoned, and, which is more, deprived too, and justly both, as will appear hereafter upon consideration of their offence. Here we must first note, that there was no design in the Imprisoning or depriving them, to make way for the holding of a Synod, nor any necessity was there of it in order to that end; for if we reckon that on the one part there were six Bishops remaining (to whom the Queen's Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed) and many Bishoprics actually void at Queen Mary's death, which being supplied, there was no fear that the Popish Bishops (who were very suddenly reduced to Nine, by death or quitting the Land) should make the Major part, had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote.  
16. 
Her Injunctions.  As for the Injunctions sent out before it came to a Synod, they were the same for substance with those of King Edward upon the Evidence and Warrant, as we heard above. Yet such was her tender care that all Persons doubtful should have satisfaction, and be brought to some good and charitable agreement (as in her Declaration, set down in Stow) that for this very purpose, before any thing of Religion should be established by Parliament, she appointed a Conference to be held publicly at Westminster, between learned Persons of both sides: as more amply will be shown below, against Champny, cap. 9) Again, those Injunctions were but provisional Orders (as I may call them) for the present exercise of Religion: the whole Doctrine being after concluded and drawn up in a just and Lawful Synod.  
17. 
A Synod,  A Lawful National Synod it was, in and by which, whatever belongs to the Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion was defined, drawn up and published in 39 Articles. The great difference twixt this Synod and the Presbyterian Assembly (however the reproaching Romanists rank them together) will appear upon these considerations. 
Presbyterians cannot pretend to the like.  I. They that took upon them to exclude or remove our Bishops, had not power either to call a Synod, or to deprive a Bishop, and that is the first irregularity, viz. Usurpation of Power. II. The cause pretended for the removing of our Bishops was not any offence against their Duty, as Subjects, or against their Office, as Bishops; but merely for their very Office, because they were Bishops; and that was purely Schismatical. III. The Persons taken in to make up their Assembly, did not pretend to succeed our Bishops so removed, in their Power and Office; and so it was a Synod clean out of the way of the Church, sitting and concluding by a power taken to themselves, and therefore also plainly Schismatical. Every one of these irregularities nulls the lawfulness of an Ecclesiastical Synod. But none of these can be charged upon us; for the Popish Bishops, that remained obstinate, were removed by due Authority, upon just cause, viz. their offence against the duty of Subjects, and of their own Office, (as will appear below, where their deprivation shall be examined, against Champny, c. 9) Lastly, the places void either by deprivation of these, or death of others, were supplied by Bishops lawfully ordained, as is also maintained against Champny) who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edward's days, and the rest of the Clergy of the Land, made up a due and Lawful Ecclesiastical Synod.  
18. 
Of Regal Supremacy in order to Reformation, and Church affairs.  Having thus far spoken of the care and travel of our Kings, and Queen in this work of reforming Religion and God's Worship within this Land, it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supremacy, or of the power, which by virtue of their Supremacy Princes have: and to show how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs, it may be so bounded that it entrench not upon, or infringe the power and office of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church. But seeing we found the Power and Office of the one, and the other severed and distinct throughout the Reformations spoken of in this Chapter (for we found Bishops advising, counselling, and the Prince commanding, appointing, convocating them to the work: then again Bishops with other learned Men, (so appointed and convocated) managing the business, and concluding what was to be done in it, and the sovereign 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. Cham) upon occasion of deprivation of Popish Bishops for refusing the Oath of Supremacy under Q. Elizabeth; we will defer farther prosecution of this point, till 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 lays this as the groundwork 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 itself, 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 will 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 gins 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 Britain's 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 reform 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 judgement, and according to the Protestant doctrine concerning them and the Orders received from them. The sum of his Reasonings is briefly this, 1. From the judgement 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 judgement and doctrine generally of all English Protestants; by whom the Pope is held to be Antichrist, or Antichristian: therefore we must acknowledge 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 Heretics; 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 will have follow upon Protestant doctrine, to defeat us of our plea from Romish Ordainers. This is the sum 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 judgement 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 defy these Ordinations, and that plea) will be too too narrow. To this purpose he, cap. 9 pag. 315, 316. etc.  
4. Now although the different condition of some Reformed Churches doth not immediately 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 will answer to the former charge, and try what may be duly concluded upon the judgement 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 external 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 still retain Bishops; as appears by their Book set out 1626. containing the substance of their Doctrine, the manner of their Government, Synods, etc. 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 judgement 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 judgement 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, etc. 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 say 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 tells us of their pleading by them, their alleging, that Luther, Bucer. Oecolampad, etc. 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 original 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 lawful calling, which is derived from the Ministers of Antichrist? they will not stick to defy those Orders and Ordinations, and presently fly 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 additional abuses, especially that great and sacrilegious depravation of giving such a sacrificing power, and placing the Priestly function chief 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 withal the words of the Evangelicall commisson, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, &c (which give the power of the Ministry 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 lawful 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 endeavoured to fix at the beginning of this Treatise.  
9 
Plea of ●extraordinary Vocation.  Now what is spoken by some of extraordinary Vocation, as that implies a renouncing of Orders received from Rome, must not be taken as the general plea or judgement of those Churches, for we heard them pleading Orders received in the Roman Church, and Luther wrote very well (as Champny citys 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 called to, but that of Pastors and Teachers, and according to the end it was instituted for; nor other way of coming 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 judgement in the point; from whence we infer, that the present Reformed Churches, if they follow the judgement 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 acknowledge an agreement so far between us. Now for their Practice not conformable to that Judgement, 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 desperately to cut off Nations and People from the Church for failings and wants in such things, as do not immediately 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 practice 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 Ministry 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 Ministry 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 world's 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 virtue 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, etc. Whom we find either written to by the Apostle, or joined with him in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches, or honourably mentioned for special labour and care in the affairs of the Church; whom Antiquity also witnesseth to have been chief Pastors or Bishops in governing the Churches planted by the Apostles. Such also and no other could be the Angels of the Asian Churches written to by S. John, or by our Saviour rather.  
12. 
The concernment and necessity of 〈◊〉  But as it is clear, that the having of Pastors duly sent and lawfully ordained doth highly concern the Church; so is it most clear that the first concernment (of the Doctrine of faith and life) is the chief and simply necessary to all the Members of the Church; and that the latter (Order of Ministry and Government by Pastors and Teachers) is to serve unto it. The Apostle shows us this by two similitudes he uses to set out the Constitution of the Church. One Eph. 4. of a Body fitly joined together, etc. That which joins the body of the Church to Christ the head, and knits one joint or part to another, is Faith, mentioned ver. 13. and Love or charity ver. 16. and He gave Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, for the perfecting and edifying of this body, ver. 12, 13. and that not carried away with every wind of doctrine, ver. 14. The other similitude is of a Building, 1. Cor. 3. The Foundation is Christ, that which joins us to it is Faith, and knits us as stones, to one another, is Charity, the bvilders are Pastors and Teachers, who lay us upon the Foundation by bringing us to the Faith, Ministers by whom ye believed, ver. 9 So then Faith and Charity join men formally, intrinsically to Christ the Head, and Foundation: Pastors and Teachers serve to that end, and do that work ministerially and extrinsecally. The first is the chief, and the doctrine that contains it necessarily concerns all the Members of that body in particular, as to their being such; concerns them, I say, simply and indispensably, as to the holding of the the Foundation, or Doctrines immediately fundamental, and also necessarily, as to the consectary doctrines according to the revelation or means they have of knowing them; but the latter, viz. the having of Pastors so sent and ordained, serves unto the former; yet so, as the Order left and established in the Church for the perfecting of it, is strictly to be observed, where it can possibly be had and kept; for wilful omission, or rejection of it is not only a great sin and Sacrilege committed against the commandment, and appointment of Christ and his Apostles, but also such a breach of charity in them who are guilty of it, that it renders them Schismatical, and so far disjoined from the body of Christ, which is his Church, as they stand guilty of it.  
14. 
Of Churches without due Ordination of Pastors by Bishops.  And now to come to some issue, by application to the Churches in question. I. Where the first (viz. the doctrine of faith and life) is truly and sufficiently professed and held, we cannot think that a bare Want there, or unavoidable defect and irregularity in the second (viz. the Order of sending or Ordaining Pastors) doth exclude such professed Christians from belonging to the Church. Which unavoidable and necessary defect may arise, either because they cannot have Ordination from Bishops abroad, or because the sovereign Power (being adverse) will not suffer them either to have Bishops among them, or to receive ordinations from foreign Bishops, that would give them. II. We must look at those, who are in such a condition, without Pastors regularly ordained, as at Churches defective, and not completely framed, but in a capacity or expectation of receiving their completion, when that necessity, which enforces the defect, is removed: and so continuing, as well as they may, rather than to give up that Truth and purity of Christian Doctrine they have attained to.  
15. 
Whether of choice, or of necessity.  Let me here add what Doctor Moulin, Son of Peter Moulin saith in behalf of the French Churches, and I add it chief for their sakes, that gave him the occasion; they were the Soottish and English Presbyterians, who, at the beginning of these Troubles, rejected Bishops, and Ordination by them, and sought to justify themselves by the example of the French Churches. He therefore shows them, in his book then set out, what judgement and desire the best in those Churches have expressed concerning Bishops, and that their not having them, was not of choice, but necessity: which he endeavours to demonstrat by several reasons drawn from the consideration of that Kingdom, and of their condition under the Sovereign Power there. And to show, if they might have their choice, they would willingly have Bishops, he tells us, that the Bishop of Troy's, having abjured Popery, began to preach the pure Word of God, and sent for the Elders of the Reformed Church, to know, whether they would confirm and acknowledge him for their Bishop: which they all with one consent did, submitting themselves to his obedience. And then adds: There is none I dare say, of all the Churches of France, but would do as much in the like case. None but would obey Bishops, if Bishops would reform and obey God. Till God extend so much mercy upon that Kingdom, the poor Churches will stay for the leisure of the Bishops (viz. which now possess the Sees, and are not Reform) keeping themselves in an estate fit for Obedience. Or, as he had said before, The Church of France, being under the Cross, and without Bishops, is a body prepared for Obedience, whensoever the Popish Bishops shall reform, in the 25. and 26. pag. of his book. But for those that reject Bishops when they may have them, he shows how they fall under the severe censures of Zanchy and Calvin, Testor me coram Deo— saith Zanchy, I protest before God and in my Conscience, that I hold them no better than Schismatics, that account or make it a part of Reformation of the Church to have no Bishops, etc. Yea, they are worthy (saith Calvin) of any execration that will not submit themselves unto that Hierarchy, that submitteth itself unto the Lord— These censures he citys (in his 13. pag.) out of their Tracts De Reform. Eccles. for both wrote of that Argument.  
16. Now to Champny's Argument (A true Church is not without true Pastors, for (as Cyprian saith) Ecclesia est populus Pastori conjunctus; and again, Ecclesia est in Episcopo, & Episcopus in Ecclesia. But those Reformed Churches have not true Pastors lawfully called, but only pretended Elders, which are made by those that have no power to ordain or send others, therefore they are no Churches.) Moulin would answer, and first grant with Calvin, That the World may be as well without the Sun, as the Church without true Pastors. l. 4. Inst. c. 3. And farther, take the word True Pastors, (that there be no ambiguity in it) for such as are called lawfully, after the original and ordinary way of the Church, viz. for Bishops, and those that are ordained by Bishops; He will grant the proposition true, of the whole Church, which is never without such; and also true of particular Churches, completed, perfected, and regularly form. Such Churches he acknowledgeth the French are not, but in a state imperfect, yet capable of a regular completion, and as it were, expecting of it. And therefore will deny, that they are concluded by the former argument, to be no Churches, or not to belong to the Church of Christ, because of that want or defect in the Vocation or Ordination of their Pastors.  
17. Those companies indeed of Christians, who believed in India upon the preaching of Frumentius, belonged to the Church of Christ, before they received Pastors from the Bishop of Alexandria: and that multitude which believed in Samaria upon the preaching of Philip, and were baptised by him, were indeed of the Church, and a Church of Christ, though not completed, till Peter and John went down with due Authority, to set all in order there. Accordingly we may account of those Reformed Churches (which have not their Pastors sent and ordained as from the beginning) as of Congregations not regularly form, as Churches not completed: not indeed without Pastors altogether, as those of India and Samaria at the first were, but having such as they can, viz. such as have (if we will speak properly) the Vocation on Election of their respective Churches, (which is one thing in the calling of Pastors) but not due Ordination, (which is the main thing in impowering them to the exercise of the office,) and so are Pastors by a moral designation to the Office, rather than any real or due consecration, which only is by those hands, that have received the power of sending or Ordaining Pastors, from the Apostles.  
18. It must be granted, that the Vocation of such Pastors is deficient, and their Ordination irregular, and that not only by the Ecclesiastical Canons in that behalf, but also by Apostolical Order and practice: Yet, because they hold the Faith which is the chief point in the constitution of the Church, and have not wilfully departed from that Apostolical Order, and way of the Church, by the breach of Charity, in condemning and rejecting it, but do approve of it where it may be had, we cannot say that irregularity, or deficiency infers a plain Nullity in their Pastors and Churches (as Champny will have it) but stands in a condition of receiving a supply or completion, and is in the mean time so far excusable, as the want or not having of that Supply is of Necessity, and not of Choice.  
19 But Champny will admit of no excuse, either of irregularity confessed in the calling so their Pastors, or of Necessity pleaded as the cause enforcing it. But proceeds to prove such a nullity in their Ordinations, that it concludes them to have no Pastors at all, and no Church. This argument he pursues chief against Doctor Field, 
Distinction of the power of Bishops and Presbyters as to Ordination.  who (in the 3. book of the Church, cap. 39) had endeavoured in behalf of the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops, to show that their Ordinations though not regular according to the way of the Church, yet were not simply invalid; and that by the Doctrine of the best Schoolmen, who held the Office of a Bishop to be not a distinct Order, or to imprint a distinct Character, from that of the Priestly function; which also they proved by this instance: A Bishop Ordained, per saltum, (i. e. who was not first made Presbyter) cannot either consecrate the Sacrament, or Ordain others; but a Priest, or Presbyter ordained per saltum, may execute the office of the Deacon, by reason that the Superior Order contains in itself the Inferior; whence Doctor Field would have it concluded, That Bishop and Presbyter differ not in Order, or in the very power of Order, but in eminency and dignity of an Office to which Ordination and other performances, as Confirmation, public absolution, etc. are reserved: also that, when the ancient Church declared Ordination by Presbyters to be void and null, it is to be understood according to the rigour of the Canons; not that all such Ordinations were simply null, ex naturâ rei, and in themselves, or not to be born with in any Case.  
20. See we now what Champny replies to all this, and then consider what may be reasonably allowed, and said as to this point. His answer is to this purpose, That those Schoolmen, if they hold not Episcopacy to be a distinct Order, yet say it is a distinct power; if not a different Character, yet a new Extension of the former Sacerdotal Character; and that the Argument from Ordination per saltum doth not disprove the latter way. Lastly that such Presbyterian Ordinations were, in the judgement of the Ancient Church, Null ex naturâ rei, and not by the Ecclesiastical Canons only; for that judgement or sentence of the Church was not a Constitutive decree (for then the beginning of it would appear in the Canons of the Ancient Counsels) but only Declarative of what was so in itself from the beginning of the Church. This he in his 7. Chap.  
21. Here something is doubtful and questionable, something clear and apparent. That Bishops had a power or faculty to do something which Presbyters could not (namely to ordain) is clear in Schoolmen and Fathers; but whether that power make the Episcopal function a distinct Order from the Priestly, or imprint a different sacramental character, we leave it to the Schoolmen to dispute. Also we grant that Bishops receive and exercise that power (as Champny saith truly) not by a Moral designation only (as Judges and Officers in a State do for the time of their office, or as those among the Presbyters seem to do, who are assigned to ordain others) but by Real consecration, or sacred devoting them to that office or work of ordaining and sending others. Which consecration, though it imprint not a Sacramental Character on the Soul (as the Romanists express it) yet it gives to the Person so ordained & devoted such a faculty or habitude to that action or work, as cannot be taken from him; the reason of which we shall inquire below, where occasion is given to speak more of that which the Romanists call Character indelible, in this point of Holy Orders. Furthermore, whether this office of Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function, 
Two ways of conceiving the power of Ordination in Bishops.  Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function, which is one way of conceiving it; or a faculty of exercising that power, supposed to be radicated or founded in the Priestly Order, and diffused with it, by restraining it to certain persons consecrated for that performance, it may be questioned. Doctor Field seem plainly to conceive it this latter way, and so do the Schoolmen alleged by him: and Champny's expression of their sense by extension of the Sacerdotal Character, if it have any sense, speaks as much, viz. the dilating of that which was before in the Sacerdotal Order radically, by extending that Radical power unto a proxima potentia, or immediate faculty in certain persons consecrated to the exercise of it, and keeping it restrained in all others of that Order, who are not so consecrated and devoted to that great work of Ordaining and sending others. Lastly, whether we conceive of it as a power wholly superadded, or as the restraint of a power diffused, it is clear that the exercise of that power, the performance of Ordination was settled upon certain and special 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 than 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 withal 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  Doctor Field, when he answered that Ordinations without Bishops were void according to the rigour of the ancient Canons, did mean that such Ordinations offended only against Ecclesiastical Constitutions, we grant that Champny duly proves it otherwise, and do acknowledge them transgressions not only of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution and Practice; but we are not therefore bound to yield 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, conceived to be radically diffused 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 ancient 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 losing 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 form 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 ways 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 easy 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 Ministry 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 easy 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 Bishop's hands, before the persons so Ordained can be admitted to officiat in a Church completed, and regularly form. 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 Scholastic contest with Champny in the business; only I shall show by one instance how well he hath acquitted himself in the defence 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, etc. 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 divers Order, but a divers 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 contained within one Order of the Priestly function, so may the power of Ordaining, though distinct from the other, be formally and immediately contained within the Priestly function; and this is more than is required, more than is true; but thus much at least he must by his own reasoning allow, that it may be radically founded in that Order; and for want of that foundation it may be, that a Bishop ordained per saltum cannot ordain others.  
27. Again, The reason saith he, why a Bishop so ordained cannot Ordain or Consecrate, is not quia Episcopatus non sit distincta potestas à sacerdotio, sed quia essentialiter illud praesupponit, ut potestas absolvendi necessariò praesupponit potestatem consecrandi: not because Episcopacy is not a distinct power from the Priesthood, but because that doth essentially pre-suppose this (which is very near to the founding of the power of Ordination in the Priestly Order) even as the power of absolving doth necessarily praesuppose the power of consecrating. So he, ibid. pag. 184. Now albeit this latter assertion be false (as being grounded upon their placing the whole perfection of the Priestly Order (so Champny there) in the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ, when as the power of Absolving is as immediate to that Order or Function, as the power of Consecrating can be; yea, the Ministry of reconciliation doth express the whole power of that function in Scripture, 2 Cor. 5.18. to which this fancy of Romish Sacrificing is a stranger: Albeit, I say, that instance speaks what is false, yet still it returns in the application more forcibly upon him, if we reason thus; As the power of Absolution necessarily supposes the power of consecrating (which he lays down for a Truth) and yet are contained in the same Order of the Priestly Function, so (for any thing that he says) may the power of Ordaining which necessarily & essentially presupposes, as he says, the power of Consecrating, be contained also with it in the Priestly Order; though not formally and immediately as the power of Absolution is, for that is still more than is required or can be maintained, yet radically founded in it, and diffused with it.  
28. The true reason, as I conceive, why Ordination of a Bishop per saltum doth not give him power to consecrate the Sacrament, or to absolve or to ordain others to those Offices, is because the Power of the Keys, which includes all those Powers and Offices, is received in the Priestly Function; which made me say, it is the more peaceable way, and may probably be defended, that the power of Ordaining is diffused with the Priestly Office, or founded in it: and is in it, not immediately and formally as a power ready for Act and exercise (as the power of Absolving and Ministering Sacraments is in it, to which the Priest hath particular and express Ordination) but radically, and as in primâ potentiâ, the remote power; so as the faculty of exercising it, or the proxima potentia of it, is given to special men by Consecration to the work, and that by Apostolical constitution. And in this sense the extension of the Sacerdotal Character, (which Champny allows) may stand. Now that first and radical power can never be lawfully reduced to Act or exercise in them that have not lawful consecration to it, but by extreme necessity, through the utter failing of them that have; which whether it be possible I leave it to Champny to dispute.  
29. As for the necessity, which those Reformed Churches have pleaded in excuse of this irregularity in their Ordinations, I shall not now inquire into it; Only I wish hearty, that they which have chief rule in those Churches, did not think themselves so far engaged to continue where they are; but that they would entertain a stronger apprehension of the necessary concernment of that Order, which was left in the Church by the Apostles, and continued always and in all places, where the Christian faith was received, till the last Age.  
30. As for those false Inferences which either Papist or Sectary hath made from the different condition of those Churches, to the seeming prejudice of the English Church, it was my work to discover them; and now I shall give the Reader a brief of what hath been said against them, in recompense of the trouble he hath been hitherto put to by a tedious perplexity. I. That we Protestant's of the English Church stand not alone in this point of Ordination by Bishops, received at first from Rome; Other Churches, severed from the Romish Communion, have retained Bishops, and Ordination by them, and that derived from Rome; and those Reformed Churches that have not, yet approve it in us, and have acknowledged their own deficiency, joining with us in judgement, but differing in practice, for which necessity is alleged. II. We must not for that deficiency quit all fellowship with them or disclaim them as no Churches, because of Consanguinit as Doctrine (as Tertul. phrases it) the Kindred and alliance of Doctrine which is between us; for the bond or agreement in Faith and Charity binds the body of Christ together, Eph. 4.16. and that is the main in the constitution of the Church. And although the other point of Order, as it concerns the sending and ordaining of those that should teach and publish that Doctrine, and build up the body of the Church, ought most carefully to be observed according to Apostolical practice, which fixed that office upon special Select Persons, called Bishops, yet because it is not so clear, whether it was fixed to their Persons as a superadded power, or as the faculty of exercising that power, which, being contained in the power of the Keys, might with them be radically received in their Priestly Order; we cannot pronounce absolute Nullity upon their Ordinations, especially the case standing with them as they plead. And because it doth not appear that a bare want, or Deficiency, in the appointed Order of the Church, should forfeit their belonging to the Church, where the main (viz. the Doctrine of Faith and Life) is preserved, and the other of Order not wilfully perverted to a breach of Charity with those Churches that have preserved it: therefore we cannot judge them to be no Churches or Congregations of Christians; but we look upon them as Churches not completed or regularly form, and excuse their defects so far as they are enforced on them by necessity, and conclude them bound to seek their Completion, and a supply of their defects from those that have Bishops, and hold the ancient Apostolic way of the Church. Lastly seeing their judgement concerning Bishops and Ordination by them, where it may be had, is such, and their excuse of the want of it pleaded by necessity, their example can in no wise be alleged in defence of those, who of late have rejected Bishops and Ordination by them, nay ejected them, when they had them. We bless God, that we had the happy means of a regular Reformation; the more they have to answer for, that disturbed our established Order; but as for those Churches which approve of that Order where it is, and want it by necessity, rather than choice, we leave it to Champny and other Romanists to conclude desperately upon them, and all that are not in their way, enclosing the whole Church within their Communion; and judge of Christians not so much by their Union to Christ by the bands of faith and charity, Eph. 4.13.16. as to his pretended Vicar by subjection to him; for so they conceive of the Church of Christ as of a Society joined together under one Pastor, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, and do accordingly define it, and acknowledge the Members of it, making themselves thereby Papists rather then Christians, and cutting off from the Church, not only for defects in ritu Apostolico the Order left by our Saviour and his Apostles (which is the charge they have against the Reformed Churches that are without Bishops) but also for failing ritu Romano, the not observing in this point of Ordination, the additional Rites and Papal Inventions used there; which is the charge they have against us, and for which they conclude we have no Bishops nor lawful Pastors: as will appear below.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the second Prejudice, From the Protestants Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist, and the Church of Rome Heretical.  
1. NOw proceed we to his second Argument, against our pleading of Ordination derived from the Church of Rome. It is grounded upon the Judgement of our own Writers, and amongst them some Bishops, that hold the Pope is Antichrist, and therefore that we fall by our own sentence and doctrine; For how can the Ministers of Christ, saith he, receive due and lawful Ordination from the Ministers of Antichrist? Or how can we think, that Christ should leave the power of Ordaining Pastors for the feeding of his Church, which he bought with his precious blood, and for the dispensing of his holy Word and Sacraments, in the hand of his sworn Enemy? c. 9 p. 320. etc.  
To this Argument I answer the more willingly, because I see how Presbyterians generally, with those of other Sects, suffer themselves by such inconsequencies and mistakes to be abused into many inconveniencies, to the great disturbance of the Church. Here are two points to be spoken to. 1. The Judgement of the Pope's being Antichrist. 2. The Inference against our Ordinations.  
2. 
Of the opinion of the Pope being Antichrist.  To the first, That there is much Antichristian doctrine taught in the Church of Rome, invented, broached, maintained by the Popes and others, that have been, and are chief in that Church, is most evident to any man that hath any reasonable insight into Christianity: and that they which hold and maintain such doctrine are, and may be called Antichrists, is not to be denied, for so there are many Antichrists, as St. John tells us of his time. But that the Pope is the Antichrist, is no point of our faith, none of the Articles of our Religion. Prophecies indeed are matter of Faith, and aught to be believed, that they shall be fulfilled, before they come to pass, and that they are fulfilled when the Scripture assures us they are; but when it leaves us to gather the event, by signs delivered in Prophetic expressions, and more general terms, such as is the description of Antichrists coming; then to say such a prophecy is now fulfilled, or such a State or Person is that Antichrist, is not the act of Faith, but the work of Reason, making a Conclusion or Inference, upon application of the signs and marks, describing him in the prophecy, to such or such a Person or State.  
3. 
Which admits several senses.  Now as King James in his Praemonition to Christian Princes falling upon this point (by occasion of Heresy laid to his charge by those of Rome, and the Oath of Allegiance declared by Pope Paul to be against the Catholic Faith) pursues it indeed eagerly, and with a long discourse, not as an Article of his Faith, but as a Problematical persuasion, to show he could better and with more appearance of Truth prove the Pope to be Antichrist, than the Pope could prove him to be Heretic, or himself to have such superiority over Kings. So we must take that Assertion of our Writers (de Papâ Antichristo) comparatively, not only in regard of ourselves, whom they call and hold to be Heretics, to say Antichristianism agrees more properly to them, than Heresy to us: but also in regard of all other Persons or States, that have fallen under the suspicion of being Antichrist, to say, Of all that yet appeared in the World, the signs and marks of Antichrist agree most plainly to the Pope and Popedom. I cannot but say I am much inclined to think, as learned Zanchy seems to do in his Tract the fine Seculi, that, whatever is done already in the working of the Mystery of Iniquity, the Antichrist will be revealed in that Seat, and sit in that Papal Chair.  
4. Many Antichrists, in a large and more remiss sense, there have been, and will go before the appearing of that great One; and a great appearance of such there hath been in the Popedom already. Bernard and many other that lived within the Communion of the Roman Church, discovered the appearance of Antichrist in the Papal Court and spoke it. Indeed the Spirit of Antichrist, which Saint John saith, did work in the Heretics of his time, (1. Ep. c. 4. v. 3.) who by Tertul. are called Praecursores illius Antichristi Spiritus, the forerunners of that great Antichrist, advers. Marc. l. 5. c. 16. that Spirit, I say, of Antichrist, hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Romish Church; not only by reason of Heretical and Antichristian doctrine there taught, (especially that Principle of mis-belief, Papal Infallibility, the ground of their faith or believing, than which no one can better fit the turn of Antichrist, or be a readier way to Apostasy from Christ) but also by reason of exorbitant power there challenged and usurped, first over all Bishops in the Church of Christ (for which by Saint Gregory's warrant we may style the Pope the forerunner of Antichrist) then, over Kings and all that are called Gods.  
5. Now in the second place, 
The seeming prejudice.  consider the Inference made from this. Champny, as we insinuated above, draws it ad impossibile, or to this Absurdity: Therefore Christ left his Church in the hand of his sworn Enemy, giving him the power of Ordaining, or providing Pastors for his Church— and tells us, The Reformed Churches do therefore abhor the Orders, and reject all things else, that come from Rome.  
Answ. First supposing the Popes to be such Antichrists or Antichristian Rulers, it was but part of the Christian Church, that they ruled in; and why should it seem so strange to any, that Christ should leave part of his Church under Antichristian Tyranny, when it is foretold plainly, that Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God? or why should it seem so strange and impossible to Champny, that Christ should suffer his sworn Enemy to sit as chief Pastor in the Roman Chair, 
Many Monsters of Men have sat as Popes in the Rom. Chair.  when as it is certain in History that many Popes have sat there, who have been as vile Monsters, and as great Enemies to Christ, and all godliness, as we need suppose those Antichrists to be, which we say are to be found in that Seat, if any where yet in the World? Such Popes as Champny himself must needs acknowledge to have been, not so much Christ's Vicars, as the Devils Chaplans, preferred by him, advanced to that Chair by all Devilish means, Murders, Whoredoms, Sorceries, and by the like Arts and Devilish Practices holding it, and ruling in it; as Platina and other of their own Historians testify. Genebrard, who is not forward to acknowledge such disparagements to that Seat, yet complains of almost 50. Pope's together in the 9 and 10. Centuries, calling them Apostaticos potiùs quàm Apostolicos, and saying they came not in by the door. Baronius, who always employed the utmost of his skill to excuse, is here forced to confess the Papal impieties, and to lament the condition of the Church under such Heads, particularly Joh. 12. and some other Popes notoriously abominable about the 10. Century.  
6. Bell. in his Praephatique Oration to his books the Pontif. Rom. could not pass this by in filence or deny it; but sets a good countenance on it, and by the fineness of a Jesuit Wit (which it seems Baronius, Genebrard, & Champny had not learned within their Societies) turns all to the advantage of that Seat, as testifying the Sanctity and perpetuity of it, notwithstanding the iniquity of them that sat in it. Nihil est quod Haeretici, etc. It is to no purpose for the Heretics to take so much pains in searching out the Vices of Popes, for we confess they were not few. But, Tantùm abest, etc. This is so far from diminishing the glory of this Seat, that it is thereby exceedingly amplified; for thereby we may perceive it consisteth by the special providence of God. What Bell. speaks of the Seat, i.e. the Papal Authority and power, had he spoken it of the Church of God oppressed under that usurped power, it had been a very sober, rational, and Christianlike acknowledgement of God's special providence, which did preserve a Church under such confusion and iniquity of Antichristian Rulers.  
7. 
This doth not invalidate Ordination.  And as in regard of the preservation of a Church, so in respect of the continuance of Ordination in particular, Champny must give us leave to say with much more Reason, Tantùm abest, etc. It is so far from seeming impossible or absurd that Christ should permit the power of Ordaining Pastors to the hand of his Enemy, that it makes more for the glory of his Power and special providence over his Church, that notwithstanding such Wolves, that entered, He preserved his sheep; notwithstanding such Antichristian Rulers, He continued and propagated a saving Truth, by transmitting down his Word and Scriptures, and a succession of Teachers and Pastors by Ordination still continued; Yea his special providence farther, in as much as by that Word of Truth transmitted and received from them that had the chief Rule, many have discovered their Errors and Tyranny, and cast them of: and by Ordination derived and received by their hands, have a lawful succession of Pastors to declare that Truth, and to continue the Church so purged and Reform, without running still to them for Ordination or confirmation in the Pastoral charge.  
8. Let us hear what S. Augustine saith appliable to this point, in his 165. Ep. Etiamsi quisquam Traditor subrepsisset, although some Traitor had crept into that Chair, (he means the Roman, and after-Ages have seen many Judasses' or Traitors in it as above said) nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae & innocentibus Christianis, quibus providens Deus, etc. He should nothing hurt the Church or innocent Christians, for whom our Lord hath provided, saying of Evil Prelates, What they say, do ye. Mat. 23. as if he had said, be their Persons what they will it doth not prejudice the work of their Function or Ministry, no more than it did in those to whom our Saviour there relates, viz. the Scribes and Pharisees, professed enemies to Christ, yet in Moses chair, and to be heard and obeyed. The Leper also is sent to the Priests, because they were in place, though generally Enemies to Christ. Yea the Ministerial Acts of Judas himself, who was Traditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Traitor and a Devil, were good and valid when he was sent, as were other Disciples, abroad to perform them. If then the Iniquity of Rulers or Pastors do not prejudice the Church in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, which are of nearer concernment to the Salvation of Christians, much less doth it in the transmitting of Orders.  
9 Lastly, 
We first derived Ordination from Rome before any suspicion of Antichrist there.  We begin the succession of our English Bishops, derived from the Church of Rome, in the time of Gregory the first, (when as no such Traitor or Antichristian Ruler had crept into that seat) and the power of Ordination, then received, hath ever since continued without interruption among us. And although after some Ages we see, that many Pope's proved Monsters and enemies to Christ, from whose Tyranny this Land and Church were not free: yet find we many of our Bishops not willingly bearing, but complaining under that Yoke, as Grosthead, and others. And as for those that Ordained Cranmer, and Latimer, they had ejured the supposed Antichrist, and cast out the Papal Authority. So that, whatever Protestants judge now of the Pope, it cannot prejudice the Ordination, either of our first English Bishops by Gregory the Great (who mainly resisted the beginnings of Papal Antichristianisme in John of Constantinople) or of our first Reformed Bishops, Cranmer, Latimer or others, for the Pope was then ejected and the Ordainers of those Bishops sworn against him: and so not to be accounted Ministers of the supposed Antichrist.  
To conclude; considering what was said above of the ministerial acts of Judas, and others that were in place and office, the charge of Antichristianisme (taken in any sense, strictly or remissly) cannot prejudice our judgement of the now Romish Ordinations, which we allow to be valid still, as to the substance of the Order appointed and settled in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles. And I wish, the pretended Reformers of these later Times had not been so strong in their Zeal against the Church of Rome, and so weak in their reasoning, as out of fear of such seeming prejudices, to decline and reject not only Ordination thence derived, but even many Truths there professed, and from that Church received.  
10. 
The seeming prejudice from our charging them with Heresy.  His next Argument is from the charge of Heresy laid by Protestants upon those of the Romish Church, from which he concludes our plea, of receiving Ordination by them, must fall by our own judgement; for Orders cannot lawfully be received from Heretics c. 9 326. etc.  
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 implies the power of given, which Romanists acknowledge to remain in Heretics and Schismatics, the other speaks the due and lawful use of that power, which is denied to be in those, that are in Heresy or Schism. The reason is, because Heretics and Schismatics 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 itself, which follows a Character that is indelible, as the Romanists express it; We admit though not a Sacramental character stamped upon the Soul of the Ordained, as they will 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 Heresy 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 supplied 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 Heresy is considered in regard of the Matter, 
What sort of Heresy 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 Heretic— 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 immediately fundamental, as the Heresy 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 Heresy, so contrary to the Foundation; and also long since declared against by the Ancient Church in the four first General Counsels: 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 Heresy: for we do not charge such Heresy upon those of Rome, i.e. Heresy immediately Fundamental, or those main Heresies declared against by the first General Counsels; but then we must say, that many of their New Articles of Belief and Practice, are in themselves Heretical, and as much or more, than were many Tenets of former Heretics, 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 Council of the whole Catholic Church, they would undoubtedly be declared many of them Heretical.  
13. From whence it follows, that Heresy 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 Heretics; for they concern either Heretics 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 reform Bishops were ordained by them, the grand Heresy and mother of their other Errors, as to the obstinate an heretical defending of them, I mean the Papal Power and Authority, 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 Council of Trent hath made them Errors established, and sworn to. But, after that, we went not to them for Orders, yet do acknowledge 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, etc.) retained 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 sum of our first answer is, We do account them to be in Heresy, and deeper than 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 Heresy itself 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 Heretics, that we could not lawfully receive Orders from them.  
15. 
A supply of defect in Ordination through Heresy.  Our second answer is from the supply of any defect in our Ordination received from them: that supposing them Heretics 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 hindered 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 Heresy in Queen Mary's time, when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome. So if, upon our charging them with Heresy, 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 Heresy and left their Communion, and by no other Heresy 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 Heresy in his Ordainers, could not be supplied, but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof; but, besides the Church of Rome, there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors, by reconciliation to which, he could have that defect supplied: Not other Reformed Churches, for they can less prove themselves to be Churches, or to have Lawful Vocation of Pastors, than the Church of England can: Not the Grecian, Russian, or Ethiopic Churches, for they also are in Schism and Heresy, and our English Reformers pretend not to receive their calling from them, or to have it supplied by them; therefore they can no ways have their defect supplied or recover the Lawful use of Ordination. So he, p. 337. etc.  
Thus having argued against our Vocation, upon our supposal of Heresy 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 itself, 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 Heresy, either charged by us upon them, that gave Orders, or by them on us who received them, (which will 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 Heresy, 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 Heresy and Schism, and admit none, as returning from it, but by actual reconciliation and submission to the Bishop of Rome, as in Queen Mary's time. What he says of our not pretending to receive our calling from other Churches, 
Reconciliation of Schismatics and Heretics.  or to have the defect of our Ordinations supplied 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 foreign Jurisdiction, should upon our disagreement with Rome be bound to apply ourselves to other Churches by actual reconciliation, or full agreement in what they held or practised. Of which in 16. Sect. of former book.  
For private men indeed and particular companies of men returning from Heresy 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 Heresy, and professing the true Faith, and consequently Communion with all others that do it, not perhaps with a full 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 Heresy, is only said, and not proved; being but the product of the forementioned Fancy, 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 Heretics and Schismatics 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 Heresy upon us, because divided from that Church, and not yet reconciled to it: telling us, the Ancient Counsels 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 Counsels did not appoint reconciliation to Rome, and for some time of the Arrian Heresy, reconciliation to that Church could not be good; when as Liberius the ejected Bishop had subscribed to that Heresy 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, whilst that body stood still conspicuously in good proportion, as it did in the beginning of the Arian Heresy, yet when once that Heresy had overborne all, and almost all Bishops with their flocks turned Arrian, in so much that Constantius the Emperor 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. Council.) when, I say, it was thus with the Church, how could such actual and solemn reconciliation of any Arian Bishops, or Nation, returning from Heresy, be well made? enough it was for such to depose their Heresy, 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 Heresy, and profess communion with all other Churches not guilty of the Romish error, 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 Heresy upon the Church of Rome.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the third prejudice, from our judgement of their Orders, that they are sacrilegious— and do not give an indelible Character.  
1. HIs next Argument is drawn from our Doctrine or Judgement touching their Orders, which we hold Sacrilegious, abominable, 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 gins his contest with M. Mason, whom he chief undertakes, through the remainder of his book, to refute. Touching the Argument we must note by the way, that the charge of Sacrilege and abomination laid upon their Ordinations by Protestants, 
How Protestants call their Orders Sacrilegious.  doth immediately 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, etc. The first part, which stands in offering up Chrift gain, is altogether abominable; 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 replies. I. By cavilling at his making the Order to have two parts, and runs into a needless disputation, to show 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 subtle, 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 ministering 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 Baptise thee in the name of the Father who is greater than 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 retained; as in Baptism, where the due Element and Form are retained, though there be additionals, of marking the child with fire too, as the Ethiopian Christians are said to do, or of Salt, Spittle, 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 man's invention; yet seeing the words of Christ are retained (receive the holy Ghost, and whose sins ye remit; etc.) in which the lawful and certain form of conveying the power of the Ministry of reconciliation is contained, 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 administered 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 Christ's, 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 Christ's 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 retained of Christ's institution.  
4. 
Romish Priests suffering 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 Christ's 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, etc. 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 Baptising, 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 learned experimentally, viz. the instilling of many Treasonable Principles into the Party reconciled, and moving them upon all occasions to answerable practices by virtue 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 Practices, and accordingly the first rise and advance of the severity of Laws made against them. Till the thirteenth year of the Queen, there was no Law, that touched them in this point of their Priestly function; They did baptise 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 Sovereign. 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 Subjection, and from all manner of Obedience; (So the Sentence ran) and the Romish Priests began to stickle & work busily thereupon: then was it high time for the Queen & State to look to themselves, and therefore An. 13. made it Treason to disperse such Bulls, and to reconcile or be reconciled upon them.  
6. 
Reconciling to the Bishop of Rome.  But we must note here, 1. This reconciling there forbidden, was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function, but upon the Authority and by virtue of such Bulls, which is plain by the words of the Statute; If any person shall by colour of such Bull, or Instrument, or Authority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person, etc. and therefore they are called Bulls of absolution and reconciliation in that Statute. 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation, which we acknowledge to pertain to the Prieftly function by our Saviour's institution, that the very intent. and purpose of it was formally Treason; which also is plain by the same Statute in these words, The effect whereof (viz. of those Bulls and Instruments from Rome) hath been, and is, to absolve and reconcile all those, that will be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady, the Queen, and to yield and subject themselves to the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome. Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God? Had the Apostles preached such Gospel, or practised such Reconciliation, admitting none into the Christian Church, but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes, unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion, had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their Kingdoms, or to be cast out of them? The Romish Priests than are justly ejected, punished, whose absolving of Penitents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due obedience; whose reconciling men to God or his Church, a cloak for their Reconciling to a foreign jurisdiction of Papal usurped Authority; and what that brings after it, who knows not? If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it; Seditions, stirring up the People (which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of, Act. 24.12. and throughout his Epistles) thence Insurrections, Rebellions, and, because these succeeded not, secret attempts upon the life of the Prince, by Pystoes', Poisonings, and what not? Therefore came out, after ten years more, the Statute which Champny citys out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute, An. 12. Whereas, since the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen— divers evil affected persons have practised by other means, then by Bulls or Instruments Written or Printed, to withdraw her Majesty's Subjects from their Natural Obedience, to obey the said usurped Authority of Rome: For Reformation whereof, be it enacted; That all persons, who shall pretend to have power, or by any means shall put in practice (though by pretence of Priestly function) to absolve, persuade or withdraw, any of her Majesty's Subjects, from their Natural Obedience, or shall to that intent (that's noted still in the drift of Romish practices, and the ground of the Laws provision against them) withdraw them from the Religion established, to the Romish Religion—  
7. 
The frequent seditious practices of Romish Priests.  The Law looks at the consequents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church, for they, that made it, were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it, and by experience found what had been the practices following upon them: and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them. Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion, or expose it to Infamy, let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it: if upon their Priestly Function (which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it) let them blame themselves, who have abused that Evangelical power, to cloak and advance such hellish attempts: If to the disparagement of private Confession, thanks to them, that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs, by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons confessed.  
8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous, as to confess and complain of the Seditious practices, which those of the Society advanced, and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests, in their book set out in the latter end of the Queen's Reign; thus pag. 10. Amongst many things, that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hardly of us all, this is one, that the pretended Brethren of that Society (Jesuits) and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State, etc. and afterward entering upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practices, which he, together with the rest of his society, set on foot, they thus write, pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly (in a seditious book set out by him) against the cruelty of her Highness' Laws, which we wish had been more mild; but he never mentions, that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traitorous courses against her Crown and Life. Again, pag. 57 If these things (viz. their endeavours to advance the Infanta's Title to this Crown) should come to the knowledge of the State, who will blame the same, if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome, be not well entertained here? Thus they, truly and ingenuously, of the practices of Romish Emissaries, and of the justness of the Laws against them.  
9 I will not say, nor do I think, that all their Priests, which suffer here, were Politicians, or acquainted with all the devices of their Superiors; I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such, and do suppose there are some, who in the simplicity of their hearts, and out of mere Conscience of Religion, do labour the propagation of it, whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practices. It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other, that the punishment (which the Law adjudges all Priests to, that are found within the Land) might only fall upon them, who are indeed guilty of such practices, which being so frequently found in their predecessors (and the State being not able to distinguish between them, who are all Missionaries of Rome) caused those Laws to be made for the security of Prince and State. And if they that come into the Land, without any treasonable intent, do suffer for it, they must thank their Fellows, (as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits) whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason. Doctor Champny, one would think, should not be a stranger in France, by the wisdom of which State, the whole Order of the Jesuits was upon this score banished, 1594. as Corrupters of Youth, troublers of the public quiet, and as Enemies to the King's state; and not to return under pain of High-Treason; so the Sentence ran. In like manner they were not long after driven out of the Territories of the Venetian Republic, and never since received in.  
To conclude; It is not Religion, nor the Function, nor any ministerial Act belonging to it, that is punished in Romish Priests, but Treason and Seditious Practices, to which Religion, Sacraments, Ministry of Reconciliation, and all that is reputed Holy, are made to serve; and all this to advance and secure the Papal Usurpation. And thus much in answer to Champny's reasonings against our condemning their Orders, and yet pleading by them— also against our condemning them in one part, and admitting them in another.  
10. 
Of the indelible Character.  There remains one Argument more against our pleading Ordinations from them, and that is drawn from our Doctrine about the Indelible character; which seeing we deny, we consequently must hold, we receive no Order from them, no power to ordain; it being not possible (saith he) to conceive how a Heretic declared, (in whom the designation of the Church ceaseth, and all lawful use of Order) still hath the power & the Act, if done, is valid, but only by reason of the Indelible character remaining in him. This Argument he doth not insist on, but hints it several times, cap. 9 and elsewhere, and in courtesy passes it over, suffering us to help ourselves by the Catholic Doctrine (as he saith) of the Character, when we are put to show, how those of the Church of Rome being fallen into Heresy could give us Orders, or why the Ancient Church received Bishops returning from Heresy, and restored them without Ordination. To this purpose he.  
11. 
Orders not to be reiterated.  But we can answer them. We need not the help of their Doctrine touching the indelible Character, of which, as they fancy it, they can give no solid reason: yea, we can help them with a better reason, why the power of Ordination remains, notwithstanding Heresy or other irregularity. Their Character (as they fancy it, to be a Sacramental effect, and real quality imprinted upon the soul) we have cause to deny; but we grant, as was above insinuated, there remains in the person such a disposition or habitude to the End or Office, he is ordained to, which is not by Heresy or Schism so lost or broken off, but that still he hath a power to the work or Ministerial Acts of that office. And this if any will call a Character or mark remaining, he may: Only, it is not a Sacramental effect properly, a or real quality impressed on the soul, as they will have it, but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or habitude consisting in respect and relation, as Dur. in 4. Distin. 4. seems plainly to acknowledge.  
12. Now if we put them to give a reason of their indelible Character, either in Baptism or Orders, they use very poor shifts, catching at the word, Seal and Sealing, wherever they meet with it, as 2 Cor. 1.22. Eph. 1.13. and 4.30. which is most plainly meant of the graces of the spirit; and as we see the impertinency, so the unreasonableness of it: They hold the graces of the spirit (which are real infused qualities, and do seal indeed) may be blotted out or lost, yet the supposed Character, they would prove by them, is indelible. Again they set it out, rather than prove it, by the indelible mark that Circumcision left upon the Person receiving it: but here are many impertinencies, for Circumcision was a mark in the flesh only, and imprinted none upon the soul, as the Romanists must hold of the Sacraments of the Old Testament; but this mark of theirs is only in the soul, and only marks a man out in respect of God's knowledge, who only can look into the Soul. Besides, that of Circumcision was not indelible, but by Art they could recover the praeputium, as we read some Apostate Jews did; to which device the Apostle relates, and gives us the word for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let him not become uncircumcised. 1 Cor. 7.18. Lastly, Women had not that mark in the flesh; yet as they were born to God, Ezek. 16.20. so they remained his, notwithstanding the Idolatry in which their Parents lived, and brought them up in: and this not by reason of any such Character or stamp set upon them, but because of the Covenant of God, into which that people were entered, and caused a relation, that could not wholly be broken off.  
13. Well we may help them from hence with a reason of that, which so remains of Baptism, that it need not be reiterated, and that is the entering of Covenant with God, a Covenant indeed of Salt (as that which is so called, 2 Chron. 12.) upon which such a relation ariseth, as cannot be quite lost, as appears by the forenamed place of Ezek. where God speaks to the Idolatrous Israelites, the Sons and Daughters, thou bearest to me. Also we know, what is consecrate to holy use may not be alienated; Now Baptism is a consecrating, a devoting of the party to God, and so is Ordination too; That according to the general profession and service of a Christian: This according to the special vocation or calling of a Minister of the Gospel; and in both, he that puts his hand to the plough, i. e. admitted to be a Disciple generally or specially taken must not look back.  
We may see then a reason, why the power received in Ordination remains: not because of the designation or deputation of the Church, (which ceaseth in Heretics actually broken off from the Unity of the Church, and so doth the lawful use of that power so long as they continue in Heresy, for the Church intends not to make use, or allow of the ministry of such) but by virtue of their consecration to God and his service, and that in such an office, as by our Saviour's institution may not be cast off by him, that is once admitted into it. Thus far in answer to Champneys several Arguments against our Ordinations, or the Lawful calling of our Pastors or Bishops, in regard of supposed Defects in the Ordainers (viz. those of the Church of Rome) according to our Doctrine and judgement of them, and the Orders given by them. Now proceed to his other general Heads, Defects in the Ordained, or in the Form of Ordination.   

CHAP. VI  
Of Archbishop Cranmers' Ordination, and the pretended defects of it, Bigamy, and Heresy.  
Doctor Champny, examining the Ordination of the Reformed Bishops, gins with the Archbishop and Metropolitan Cranmer, and it is the work of his 11. Chapter. With the Form of his Ordination he quarrels not, it being done ritu Romano, though with some protestation interposed on Cranmers' part: but he charges him with these Personal irregularities or Defects, Bigamy, Heresy, Schism. So that however by virtue of his Ordination he received the substance and power of the Order, yet by reason of those defects in his person, he did not receive the Lawful use or exercise of that power, nor could he lawfully Ordain others. This is the sum of what he saith. 
Of Bigamy, or digamy.   
1. We begin with that of Bigamy: of which M. Mason took no notice in his defence of Bishop Cranmers' Ordination; and Doctor Champny only proves he was twice married, which is not denied; but brings nothing to prove, that such Bigamy, or digamy rather, infers such an irregularity, as deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power of Ordaining. To this charge it may be said, I. That the Bigamy which the Apostle speaks of in his Canon, 1 Tim. 3.2. and implicitly forbids, when he saith, Let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife, was a superinduction of a Second Wife upon the former, either kept still or put away; a Polygamy both ways, either direct by cohabitation with two Wives, or that which followed upon unjust Divorce, and was indeed the having of two Wives at once, a licentious Custom frequent among Jews and Gentiles. Now such a person that had done so, before his Conversion to Christianity or after, was justly debarred by the Apostle from Holy Orders, but of this Cranmer was not guilty. As for that Digamy, which is the taking of a second Wife after the first being dead; or the taking of a Widow to wife at first, we acknowledge it forbidden by some Canons of the Church, & that for the most part the former place of the Apostle was by the Ancients applied to this Digamy; for no marvel if being earnest in the commendation of single life, they should so readily receive the Apostles words in that sense which most answered to their purpose. But some of the Ancients better considering it, do acknowledge the meaning of the Apostle to be according to the former interpretation: amongst whom are reckoned Justin Martyr, chrysostom, and Theodoret. Yea that parallel place, 1 Tim. 5.9. of a Widow, having been the Wife of one Man, doth most reasonably receive the like interpretation: notwithstanding that the Romanists cry out of it as a thing unheard of, that a Woman should have two Husbands at once; which is true of two by cohabitation, not by desertion; for so it was often seen that the Woman either forsaking her Husband or forsaken of him, married another, the first being yet alive. Such a Widow the Apostle rejects as one of ill fame; and thus Theodoret, and Theophylact are known to interpret the Apostle of a Widow that hath been coupled but to one Husband at once. Lastly, it is well known how Tertullian after he was Montanist reproached the Catholics with their twice married Bishops, in his book de Monogam. cap. 12. Quot apud vos praesident Digami? How many that have been twice married preside among you? Yet doth that practice tell us, the Apostles words were not taken to be against Digamy, but that which is properly Bigamy. He that would see more of this phrase (the Husband of one Wife, and the Wife of one Husband) he may please to look the places in Fulkes Rhemish Testament, where the meaning is debated, and Antiquity consulted.  
2. II. Therefore we may say, That Digamy forbidden by Eccles. Canon, and found in Cranmer, doth not make a Bishop so far irregular, as to spoil him of the lawful use of his Order. This rests upon the consideration of the purpose and binding force of such Canons. And here it need not much trouble us in our proceeding that we meet with this Canon against Digamy among those which bear the name of the Apostles. Whatever may be thought of some of them, this seems plainly crept into that number (if we consider the liberty of those firster Ages in this point of Marriage) from aftertimes, and so of no other Authority, then are after-Ecclesiastical Canons. But let that be what it will for the present, the Church of Rome stands bound to answer to the Authority of them, as well as we, and hath transgressed against them, especially the sixth Canon, in a matter forbidden not only by these Canons, but by the Law of God, and the Judgement of the Apostle indeed: and that is the putting away of Wife, or forcing a Man to put her away, in pretence of Religion, or holy Orders. As for Canons Ecclesiastical, they deserve to have their due respect and obedience, answerable to the Authority by which made, Provincial, National, General; and according to the Matter in which, and the Purpose to which they are decreed. The Canons which concern Digamy, Marriage, Single life, Penance and the like, are for Discipline, and of such we may say,  
3. 
What is said to the Canons forbidding it.  First, Though they forbidden men so or so qualified to be admitted into the Clergy, or command them to be deposed, if after admittance and receiving of Orders, they transgress, yet doth not such transgression, ipso facto, take away lawful use, till the Canon hath his effect by actual deposing of such a person. This is plain by transgressions of higher nature; Heresy itself doth not take away the Lawful use of Order, till it be notorious, and the person so declared by the Church. Concubinage also and Simony, (not only against the Canon but God's Law too, which they cannot say of Marriage) do not ipso facto make such an irregularity: for if all the Ordinations made by such Bishops were unlawful, it would make a wide gap in the succession of their Romish Bishops, and calling of their Priests, who have received their several Orders from Concubinaries, and Fornicators, and Simoniacs, all deposable by the Ecclesiastical Canons. If they say (which is all they can say) that it was not notorious in those Ordainers: this approves what I said, that the transgression of such Canons against Marriage and Digamy, cannot ipso facto take away lawful use of the power of Order; and I can say as much for Bishop Cranmer, who married in Germany the Kinswoman of Osiander, before he was made Bishop, and it was not known here all the time of Hen. 8. in which he ordained many Bishops. But again we say the Whoredoms, Incests, Simony of many of the Popes, Bishops, Cardinals, were notorious to the age they lived in, and stand upon Record still,— so notorious and visible in the ninth and tenth Ages, that Baronius cries out, Quae facies Ecclesiae Rom.? Those abominable misdemeanours were openly known, and apparent in the face of the Church then: and not only then, but after too, especially in Alexander the sixth most abominably notorious. They had need to look home and make up their own breaches, before they charge us with such defects or irregularities, as Marriage, which is Honourable in all Men.  
4. Secondly, we must tell them, the same Canons which forbidden Marriage or Digamy, forbidden also Concubinage under the like punishment or irregularity; and though there be a wide difference between Fornication and Marriage, yet we appeal to them, whether these be equally dealt with in the Church of Rome? whether the like severity be used against the Concubinary, as against the Married Man? Marriage in their Priests or Bishops causeth deprivation indispensably, but if a Priest that is accused of having a wife, plead she is his Concubine, i. e. his Whore, doth he not escape deposing by it? it was the plea of the Priest of Placentia, as P. Moulin tells it for a known story in his book of Purgatory. And seeing in most Ages, since Marriage was restrained, we meet with sad complaints of the frequent incontinency of their Clergy, let them tell us how many in so many Ages have been deposed, or made irregular for it? If we look into the constitutions of Otho the Pope's Legate in England, which are as severe against Concubines as any they have, yet see much difference in the proceeding against the Concubinary and the Married Clergy, The constitution against the Married runs, Si clam vel palam Matrimonium contraxerint, omnino sunt amovendi, if contracted Marriage secretly or openly, they are by all means to be removed, that's peremptory, and though the Marriage be secretly carried; but the Constitution against the Concubinary, si publicè Concubinas detinent, if they keep Concubines publicly, they are to be admonished, and after a Month to put them away, or else to be suspended— And in the comment or gloss upon it, ob simplicem Fornicationem de Canonicâ benignitate Clericus non debet deponi, licèt secùs fortè de Canonis rigore; for simple Fornication a Clergyman is not deposeable through the Courteste, but Rigour of the Canons. Thus have they extended the Courtesy of the Canons to Concubinage and Fornication, but reserved the Rigour of them for Marriage. As for Penances, which their Canons adjudge Concubinaries to, who knows not how easily that may be satisfied, and in extremity it is no other censure then a Layman incurs upon the like offence, doth not imply or carry with it Deposition, or such an irregularity, as they charge upon Marriage or Digamy. Nor will it boot to say (as they will be ready to reply) that if the Married Clergy put away their Wives, they are not deposed, and accordingly it is required of Concubinaries that they put away their Concubines; for as Marriage and Fornication stand not upon equal terms in themselves, the first being an indissoluble Conjunction, so neither are they with equal severity entertained by the Romanists, as appears by their practice, hinted in the premises.  
5. Lastly, we can answer to those Canons in behalf of Marriage or Digamy, what they cannot say in regard of Concubinage or Harlotry: that in respect of the first, those Canons were only disciplinary, as was said above, grounded on prudential motives, that seemed reasonable in those times, and therefore in time might, through the exigency of contrary experience, cease to bind: which cannot be said of them, as they forbidden and censure Harlotry. And accordingly we find, that however those prudential motives of the restraint of Marriage for the advancement of Discipline and stricter attendance upon the holy Function, seemed reasonable to Them that made the Canons, yet did they not to all or most in the Church, which was to receive them: for if we look to the reception of the Catholic Church (which is very considerable in the approbation of such Canons) we meet with a general dislike of them, and reluctancy against them: So that where they did obtain, they were rather forcibly imposed, then willingly received; as is apparent in the passages of History, which concerns the Western Church, in which those Canons were violently prosecuted. After-ages still found less cause to receive, or continue them, where received: and now long experience of many and great inconveniences and mischiefs by the exacting of them, persuades and enforces the restoring of the Clergy to that liberty of Marriage, which is left them by the Law of God, yea to the use of that Remedy, which is prescribed them by that Law, when need requires it.  
If we look into the History of this Church and Kingdom, we find that before the times of Lanfrank and Anselm, the Clergy were free, and enjoyed the liberty of Marriage; but when they were compelled by those hot Italians to forgo that freedom, what success had it, but the begetting of a licentious uncleanness, even unto Sodomy? which in few years grew so notorious, that the same Anselm who by Synod in London had severely forbidden Marriage, and caused those that had wives to put them away, was forced to call another Synod, before he died, for the repressing of that filthy uncleanness, as it is observed in story.  
6. The Counsels therefore, that made those Canons anciently (be they General or National) could not in reason intent to bind the Church for all Ages, at least could not in justice do it: when experience found those Canons served not to the end, for which they were intended, but occasioned far more mischiefs and inconveniences; and that this is no pretended plea (which is not fit to be made against Ecclesiastical Canons) the complaint and sad trial of many Ages doth sufficiently prove. To conclude, seeing those of the Roman Church, think they have reason to be favourable to Concubinage, and connive at it, and plead such excuse for it, as we find in the Glosses of their Canon Law,— Such Canons are not exacted, quia onerosi sunt, because they are burdensome, and quia corpora hodie fragiliora sunt, because our bodies now more frail, and as the Gloss upon the forementioned Constitution of Otho (which it seems appeared too quick in putting the Concubinary to give satisfaction) saith, quod nimis esset rigorosum attentâ fragilitate nostri Temporis, it is too rigorous considering the frailty of our times; If they, I say, can think it reasonable thus to plead against the Rigour of the Canons in behalf of Harlotry, how much more have we cause to plead for the necessity of using that Remedy of Honest Marriage, which God hath allowed and prescribed?  
7. 
Of Heresy charged upon Cranmer and the Reformers.  We now proceed to the next Defect wherewith he charges our Archbishop Cranmer, and concludes him not lawfully ordained, or to have received the Lawful use of his Order; and that is Heresy and Schism. Master Mason, in reference to the breach with Rome in Hen. 8: his days, spent one chapter upon the proof of this Truth, That to renounce the Pope is not Schism or Heresy: All this is neglected by Champny, who sets himself to prove, that Heresy deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power, because the lawful use of it requires union with the Catholic Church; which is but what he insisted upon in his 9 Chap. as we heard above, and yielded it to him. But now for the application of it to Crunmer.  
8. His first Argument to prove him Heretic, is from his own recantation, and renouncing the Protestant Doctrine as Heretical; But this Champny stands not much upon, knowing it was not the confession of Cranmers' Faith, but of his Frailty; and that recantation made in expectance of life, he recanted and repent of in the sight of Death; That hand, that wrought it, first felt & was consumed in the flames, which yet could not seize upon his heart which consented not to it. Therefore being dead he yet spoke, God himself by that miracle (which had sufficient attestation) bearing witness to him, and to the Faith wherein he died: & giving the Lie to all the reproaches, wherewith Champny in this 11. Chap. and other Romanists upon all occasions load the memory of that learned, humble sober, and godly Bishop, known so to be unto all, that knew him living.  
9 
Protestant Doctrine not condemned by a lawful Council.  His second Argument drawn into form stands thus. That Doctrine which was condemned as Heretical by due Authority, and due form of judgement is Heretical; but the Doctrine which Cranmer after his departure from Rome professed, was so— That it was so condemned by due Authority, he thus endeavours to prove. That which was condemned by the same Authority and judgement, by which the Arrian and other Heresies were in the General Counsels of the Church is condemned by due Authority: But the Protestant Doctrine, which Cranmer and the rest embraced, was so condemned, viz. by the Council of Trent; against which (saith he) nothing can be objected by the Protestants, which might not as well been said against the Nicene; Nothing be said by them for their doctrine condemned at Trent, which might not as well by the Arrians, for their Heresy condemned at Nice. Thus he, cap. 11. pag. 384, 385.  
Answ. to the Prosyllogisme; If by due Authority and form of Judgement, be meant not only lawful Authority, but Authority also lawfully and duly used, (that is, that in such Counsels the judgement be passed or given by those that have Authority, and do use it accordingly, giving their Judgement, according to the rule of God's Word, which is the Chief Authority in such Judgements) than we grant, that whatever is so condemned of Heresy to be Heretical, but deny the Protestant Doctrine to be ever so condemned. And therefore we say, the Assumption or second proposition in the second Syllogism is false, For the Protestant Doctrine was not condemned at all in Trent Council, when Cranmer forsook the Romish error, which was before any Council held at Trent: Nor yet so condemned there (when that Council was held) as the Arrian Heresy was in the Nicene Council.  
19 
Council of Trent not such as the Nicene.  What can we find alike in these two, either for the Authority, or due use of it? Were they assembled at Trent by the same Authority Imperial, as at Nice? Had they which were assembled in both these Counsels, the same or like Authority? Were all the Patriarches or chief Bishops of the Catholic Church at Trent, as they were at Nice? Was the number of Bishops at Nice, made up of Titulars and Pope's Pensioners, as at Trent? Or did they proceed by the same Authority and due form of Judgement? Did they set the Holy Scriptures in the midst before them to judge by at Trent, as they did at Nice? Did they not set up unwritten Traditions in equal Authority with Scriptures, and are not most of their Decrees grounded only upon such Tradition? Did they at Nice receive their Determinations from the Pope's Consistory, as at Trent by weekly Curriers? Did they at Nice threaten and drive away any of their Bishops for speaking his judgement freely, as they did at Trent?  
This and much more we can say against that Council, wherefore it should not have the like Authority with that of Nice or any lawful General Council: but stand in the same rank with the second of Ephesus, with that of Syrmium, and the like factious Heretical Counsels. So that we may justly retort his argument thus: That Doctrine which was condemned by no better Authority, than was the Catholic Doctrine in the Syrmian Council by the Arrians, or in the second of Ephesus by the Eutychians, cannot be therefore Heretical; but the Protestant Doctrine was condemned by no better Authority in Trent— for what can they object against those factious Counsels, but may as well against that of Trent? Or what can they say for their Doctrine (I mean the main points of direct Popery) but those Heretics might for theirs? Saying, that the Romish Doctrines are not so immediately against the Foundation, and may plead a longer continuance, than the other could; which yet is no prescription against Truth, that was before them.  
Lastly, by Champnyes' Argument, so far as it applied to the Church of Rome, may be concluded, that our Saviour and his Doctrine was as rightly condemned, as Judas of Galilee or any false Prophet, that went before him; for he was condemned by the same Authority of the great Council or Consistory, by which that Judas and other false Prophets were before condemned. Let Champny or any other Romanist answer this (which must be by requiring (as above said) not only the same Authority, but also the lawful use of it, according to the Rule they are to judge by) and he may have an answer to the like Argument, proceeding in behalf of the Church of Rome's Sentence and Judgement against Protestants, and Protestant Doctrine.  
11. His third Argument runs thus. He that forsakes or goes out of that Church, in which he received Baptism, and knowingly opposes it, is an Heretic, unless he can show that Church to have gone out of a more ancient Church; for to go out of the Church is the Character set upon all Heretics by S. John, 1. Ep. 2.19. But Cranmer and the rest that followed him, went out of the Church, in which they were Baptised, and cannot show that Church to have gone out of a more ancient one—  
Answer, 
Going out of a Church how makes Heretic.  Seeing the force of this Argument rests upon the truth, or falsehood of that proposition, which affirms us gone out of the Roman, and not able to show that Church to have gone out of a more ancient. We must note, that the going out from a Church takes in the consideration of Jurisdiction which that Church hath over the other; and of Doctrine or Faith, which one Church professethin Communion with another. Now the Romanists phansying the Catholic Church as one society under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome, and measuring the continuance and identity of that Church by local succession rather than the Doctrine of faith, do accordingly judge of communion with it or opposition to it, of going out from or staying in it: and easily conclude, but fallaciously, of Heresy and Schism. Whereas we conceiving of the Church as of one Society in subjection to Christ, and not withal to any one pretended Vicat General, and measuring the Union and Communion of it by that of Christian Faith and Doctrine, rather than of Local succession, and yielding our subjection to the lawful Pastors of the Church (succeeding one the other) but with subordination to the Doctrine of Faith once delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles, must affirm, that going out from the Communion of a Church determined to such a place or succession, is not always a going out of the Church (for that Church may happily usurp a Jurisdiction, and require an unlawful subjection, and pervert the Doctrine of Faith) and that a Church continuing the same for place and succession, may yet go out from itself, i. e. from what it was anciently, by taking to itself a new unwarrantable power of Jurisdiction, and forsaking the Doctrine it anciently professed.  
12. For a Church to go out of itself, and return to itself, needs not seem any strange thing or phrase: it is what we see in every Penitent Sinner, and read of that unthrifty Son, S. Luk. 15.17. that he came to himself; he was gone out of himself before. But to clear it in regard of the Church by instances. When the Arrians possessed all the Bishops Sees, and ruled the whole Church, as to the more Visible state of it, the true Catholics driven into corners, and so few or so little seen, that the Emperor Constantius thought he had cause to say the whole Christian World was against Athanasius: What could be judged of Heresy & Schism then, according to this Argument, without taking in the Doctrine of Faith? For first, Champny will not say, that they which were Baptised in the Communion of the Arrian Church were bound to continue in it; nor will he judge them Heretics or Schismatics for going out of it. If he say, they could show the Arrian Church gone out of a more Ancient: it is very true, but they could not show this by local succession, but by forsaking of ancient Doctrine. For the same Bishops for the most part, which before was Catholic, did with their flocks turn Arrian, and so the place and persons were the same, only the Doctrine or Faith was changed; by reason of which, they might truly be said to go out of the more Ancient Church, not by change of place and persons, (in regard of which the face and visible Communion of the Arrian Churches was still the same) but of Christian Faith and Doctrine. It was elegantly said of Nazianzen, Orat. 21. in the case of Athanasius, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, agreeing both in Seat and Doctrine with the Catholic Bishops that went before him; but not so with the Arrian Bishops who (though no intruders, as those that of Catholics turned Arrian) held the same Seats with those that sat before them, but not the same Doctrine.  
13. 
Of our going out of the Church of Rome.  This premised, it is easy to answer, I. That although we received Baptism and Christianity at first, from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the Great, (which we thankfully acknowledge) yet are we not therefore bound to receive or continue in the accrueing errors of that Church: and although Cranmer and those of his time were Baptised in the Communion of that Church, yet not bound therefore to continue in it; as neither were they, whom the Arrians, Eutychians, or Monothelites, converted and Baptised, bound to continue in those prevailing Heresies, when once brought to a knowledge of them. II. That our going out from the Church of Rome was a going out (in regard of the Papal Jurisdiction) from under a yoke and Tyranny, which that Church had usurped over this Nation, greater and heavier, than any of the former Heretics laid upon Christian people, over whom they prevailed: & in regard of the Doctrine, it was a going out of that Church, no otherwise then we went out of ourselves, i.e. out of our errors in which we were before: a going out of that Church, so far as it had gone out from itself, what anciently it was, by Errors and Superstition in the Belief, and Worship, which it required of all within her Communion.  
14. And thus Cranmer shown, that the Church of Rome was so gone out, when for three days together he boldly and learnedly argued before the whole Parliament against the six Articles: to the admiration, but grief of his Adversaries; showing plainly how the Church of Rome, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Half Communion, Priest's Marriage, Image-Worship, was departed or gone out of itself. Which also, as to the main point of Papal Jurisdiction or Supremacy, Gardiner, Tunstal, Stokesly, and the most learned of that party, did demonstrate by Scripture, Fathers, Counsels, Reasons. Here is all the difference, that when the Arrian or Eutychian Heresy prevailed, it was more clear and notorious, because it was a change of Doctrine by one singular Heresy; whereas the Romish change of Doctrine, was not by one, or so immediate to the foundation, or at once coming in, but by many errors creeping in successively and by degrees; also the continuance of the other Heresies in their prevailing condition, was not so long, but Men could remember it had been otherwise: whereas the Errors of the Church of Rome, have had the happiness (or unluckiness rather) in these Western parts, to continue longer, and, to be upheld and propagated with more Policy and force, though complained of and professed against more or less in all Ages since they became Notorious. But this continuance of Time is only the Pharisees Dictum Antiquis, it was said by them of old, (S. Mat. 25.) No prescription against Truth that was before the Error, or against our Saviour's caution, Non sic ab initio, it was not so from the beginning.  
15. He adds a fourth Argument. He that joins himself to that Society, which cannot show itself Christian, but by the Tradition and Succession of that Church which he hath forsaken and Opposed, is an Heretic. But Cranmer joined himself to that Society or Congregation, which cannot show itself to be Christian, but by— etc. Answer, 
How we may prove our Christianity by the Romish Church, how not.  For a Man or Nation to prove their Christianity by another Church (for example the Roman) may be taken in several respects: either because such a Man or Nation were converted to the Christian faith, or received Baptism, or Ordination in and by that Church: In all these respects we grant the Assumption, that Cranmer & the first Reformed English could not prove they received the Christian Faith, or Baptism, or Ordination in any other Church than the Roman: but we say the Proposition is false, and doth not make them Heretics in forsaking a Church wherein they have received these, or joining themselves to those that have had them from thence also. For instance: If of two Gottish Nations (which the Arrians by their Bishop Vlfilas and others converted from Heathenism to Christianity, and Baptised them, and ordained them Pastors, but infected with their Heresy) one of them renouncing the Heresy, and forsaking the Communion of them that they were made Christians by, the other Nation also should see and forsake the Error and join with the former: were then the Argument good against this latter Nation to prove it Heretical, for renouncing the Doctrine and Communion of that Church by which it received Christianity, and joining itself to that, which could not prove itself Christian, (i.e. to have received Baptism any where) but by those whom it had forsaken?  
16. But if the proving of our Christianity, be meant of proving the Truth of it, as that the Faith we profess, and the Baptism we received is Catholic, and truly Christian; or that the Ordination which our Pastors have is good and Apostolical; then we deny the Assumption, for Cranmer and the English Church were able to prove all this by other, and better means, that the Lineal (that is Champny's word) succession of that Church which they had forsaken, viz. by the written Word of God, and the Uniform consent of Antiquity. Lineal or local succession is but an empty conveyance of Christianity without truth of Doctrine assured by God's Word; for were Lineal succession the only or a good argument to prove a Man or Nation truly Christian, than the Arrian or other Heretics, whose Bishops were not intruders but of Catholics turned Heretics, might have passed for good Christians and true Catholics.  
17. 
The former charges retorted.  After these Arguments by which he would fasten Heresy upon our Archbishop Cranmer and the other first Reformers, he adds a vain boast, let the Adversary retort all or any of these Arguments upon the Ordainers of Cranmer (viz. those of the Romish Church) and I will confess them Heretics. But it is clear, that as all his Arguments as directed against Cranmer are too weak to prove what he would have, so they return more forcibly upon themselves. For their charge of irregularity upon Marriage we retort their irregularity by Concubinage, and for that of Digamy we appeal to them whether they suffer not a Priest or Bishop to have one or more Concubines rather than to be married once or twice. For Cranmers' recantation or condemning the Protestant Doctrine, we retort the example of Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribing to Arrianism: and it is strange that Champny should not remember that the Ordainers of Bishop Cranmer subscribed and swore the condemnation and ejection of Papal Authority: and if some of them lived to repent it in Qu. Mary's days, so did Cranmer revoke his condemnation of the Protestant doctrine, and sealed it with his Blood. For his Argument from the Authority condemning our Doctrine, it was retorted upon them when we answered it: For that of our going out from that Church, it was shown how it concerns them, who keeping the same Place and Seat, yet going out of the Doctrine of the Ancient Church are thereby concluded Heretical. The last also falls back upon themselves, who have nothing to prove their New Faith (wherein they differ from other Churches) but Lineal Succession from those first Catholic Roman Bishops, from whom they have departed, only keeping the same Place and Seat which they held.  
Having concluded, as he thinks, by the former Arguments that Cranmer and the rest were in Heresy and Schism, and therefore could not receive or lawfully use the power of Ordination: he than excludes them from receiving all supply of that defect; for, saith he, that must be by reconciliation to the Church, & confirmation by it, as we see in the practice of the Ancient Church, restoring Bishops that returned from Heresy. But Granmer cannot show any such reconciliation— which indeed (saith he) was impossible; there being no other Church in the World to which he could be reconciled, but only that which he had forsaken, viz. the Roman, so he.  
Answ. This is nothing else but what he said above in his ninth cap. endeavouring to reduce our English Bishops to his impossibility of having the defect of their Ordination supplied, which he said they were under by being ordained by those we account Heretics, viz. Romish Bishops: and the Answer to it was given 
* Cap. 4. Num. 16, 17, 18.  above. The sum of it was this, That Cranmer if he contracted that Defect by being Ordained of Heretics, than he recovered the due use of his Orders by deposing the Heresy of his Ordainers: That Cranmer was not alone but with him a whole National Church; and that the actual and solemn reconciliation of such a Church with the Bishops of it, to the whole body of the Catholic Church was fitting, and of good use and example, when the Catholic Church remained in such entire body and condition, as was fit to receive such reconciliation. But when it is otherwise with the state of the Catholic Church, as it was when Arrians prevailed, and now in the distracted condition of the whole Church such reconciliation is, as not well feizable, so not so necessary for a National Church. Only it is necessary such a Church depose the Errors or Heresy it had contracted, and profess Communion with all that do hold the Catholic Faith undefiled, in such a measure as is needful, not imposing any different doctrine they hold, as condition of Communion with them.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of Bishops ordained under King Edward, and the essential defect pretended to be in the form of their ordination, and of presumption against it.  
HIs 12. Chapter proceeds against those Bishops that were ordained in K. Edward's days: whom he charges not only with the same Heresy, he did Bishop Cranmer, (as true indeed of the one, as the other) but with a special, and that an essential defect in their Ordination; what is that? The Form of their Ordination, by which they were consecrated, was new, and invented by certain Commissioners appointed by the King: and therefore the Ordination was altogether nul and invalid. We grant the Form was altered, and different from that, which before was used in the Roman Church; but not new or changed, as to that which concerned the substance of the Order.  
1. 
The Form of Ordination altered under K. Edward, how.  For the work of those Commissioners was not to devise and invent a direct new Form, but to purge it from Popish corruptions, casting out what appeared to be either needless or superstitious additions, and retaining what imported the substance of the Order, or adding withal something to express more fully the purpose of the Order then collated, according to the institution of it, declared in the Word of God. To such a work fitting Commissioners were appointed, for number Twelve, for quality, Six Prelates; and Six other learned in God's Law: as we find them in the Statute of 3.4. Edward 6. c. 12. It is too light, that Champny lays hold on the word devise in their Commission, and bids the Reader mark it, as if they had power or went about to devise or invent a new Form on their own heads: their work being to devise and consult, what Romish additionals might be cut off, what depravations purged out, that so we might have a pure and just Form expressing more simply the substance, and purpose, and collation of the Order given.  
2. Mr. Mason having set down the Form, together with the Prayers used, challenges them to show what they can except against it: Unless (saith he) it be, because we retained not your Oil, Pall, Staff, etc. which we account as humane inventions, and not to belong to the substance or Essence of Ordination, unless you can show us them by the Word of God.— Champny answering the challenge, first gives him a note in the Margin, Scipsum jugulat, He cuts his own throat; and then tells us why: because (saith he) Mason requires Scripture for these and all other things of us, and yet cannot show us their Forms in Scripture; for where hath he in Scripture the words of their Ordering of Deacons, Take thee power of executing the Office of a Deacon in the Church of God, and so recites something of the Forms of the other two Orders. p. 40●. etc.  
Answ. Our requiring of them Scripture for their whole Form, doth not give us, but them only the wound; for they that make Order a Sacrament of the New Testament are bound to show both the Matter and Form of their Sacrament in the writing of that Testament. As for us, it is enough to prove our Forms by Scripture, to be answerable to the institution and purpose of the Order conferred: either retaining the very Form of words delivered in Scripture, as, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit,— or applying from thence what may fitly express the intention and purpose of the Office, and the designation of the Person Ordained to it; as in the ordering of a Bishop, after Accipe Spiritum Sanctum— is added out of Saint Paul, Remember to stir up the grace which is in thee by imposition, etc.  
3. We grant, 
What was of the substance of Ordination, is retained.  there is a certain Ceremony to be used (according to the constant practice of the Apostles) Imposition of hands, and that a certain Form is to be used; not certain for Words and Syllables (it being not necessary to have it, in all places and all times, so certainly the same) but for substance and meaning; that, in the conferring of Orders, such Words be used as do aptly express the Institution, purpose and intention of the Office, and the designation of the person to it, and such prayers withal, as do expressly concern that sacred action, in the imploring of help and grace. And thus we maintain our Forms of Ordination to be conformable to Scripture, and the Ancient Church; Neither hath Champny showed, nor can it be shown, that any thing is said or done in the whole action of our Ordinations, not allowable by Scripture and purer Antiquity. All that he can except is, that we cannot show our Words and Forms wholly set down in Scripture, or punctually so used by Antiquity, (which as we heard, we are not bound to show, or that we have left off their Unction and other Ceremonies, which (what Antiquity soever some of them may pretend to) we say belong not to the substance of Ordination, and therefore we stand not bound to use them for making our Orders valid; but are at liberty, for other good reasons to omit them, as also many other things, which being anciently well and conveniently used, were after abused by Popish innovation. And let them show us if they can, either that the Ceremonies they have clogged Baptism with, were used by the Ancient Church, or that they now use all those which the Ancient Church did: Or let them say, if they dare, that either their Baptism is invalid because it hath not those Ceremonies the Ancient Church used, or that our Baptism is invalid, because freed from many of the Romish Ceremonies; Till then, we may take leave to use the like freedom in refusing their Ceremonies in and about Ordination, they being not of the essence and substance of it.  
4. 
Uncertainty of Romish Doctrine about Matter and Form of Sacraments and Ordination.  But Champny attempts to prove our Ordinations essentially deficient, by wanting what is used in theirs; and why? because the whole Matter and Form of Ordination doth not, saith he, consist in the Imposition of hands, and the Words, Receive the Holy Ghost, etc. which is all that we use. This is the Brief of his 13. Chap. But foreseeing, that he must acknowledge their own Authors agree not among themselves about the Matter and Form wherein their Sacrament of Order doth consist essentially, he therefore first seeks to clear his way by laying down two Propositions.  
First, That the determinate Matter and Form of the Sacraments, is not fully expressed in Scripture. So pag. 412. Which how false it is of Baptism and the Eucharist, who sees not? yet he instances in both; In Baptism, saith he, the Form of the Western Church is, I Baptise thee in the name— but of the Eastern Church thus, Let the Servant of the Lord be Baptised in the name— how impertinently this is, who sees not? for, that difference toucheth not that part of the Form, which concerns the Essence of the Sacrament, viz. Baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which as it is fully expressed in Scripture, so retained in both Churches. So, saith he, about the Form required in the Eucharist, several questions have and may be moved. What then, if men will be either obstinately perverse to question what is most plain in the Institution, as the Romanists are in giving Bread only for the whole Matter of that Sacrament? it makes not his proposition true. Or what if some use several Words for the Form in delivering that Sacrament, so they amount to no greater difference than the several expressions of it in the several Evangelists? (This is my blood of the New Testament, Mat. 26. and, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, Luk. 22.) they touch not that which concerns the essence of the Sacrament.  
5. His second Proposition. The Determinat Matter and Form of some Sacraments (for example, of Order) is not so clearly delivered in Counsels, or the Monuments and Writings of the Fathers, but that divers Opinions may arise about them, and be defended with probability. This whether true or false doth not greatly concern us. But see we, how he will make it concern us. His Inference from it is this: Therefore we must trust the Tradition of the Church (he means the present Church of Rome) for the whole Matter and Form; and because we know not certainly in or by which Words or Actions the Sacrament is essentially perfected, therefore we must not omit any of those words, things, or actions, which the Church uses, and in the whole comprehension of which, their Authors all agree the whole Matter and Form of that Sacrament to consist, pag. 413, 414.  
But first, This doth not prove, that our Ordinations are certainly null and invalid, (as he pretended) because we omit some things and Words which they use, (for they are not agreed, whether it essentially consists in those we use, or in those we omit) but only concludes, we cannot (in their judgement) be certain that our Ordinations are full and perfect; For having acknowledged, that Vasques with others hold the immediate 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 retain and use) he makes but a Scholastic 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. etc. 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, careless 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 wisdom, 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 administered to the People.  
7. 
Of their Unction in Ordination.  Now for our omission of their Unction (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 virtue. 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 signify the Duty of man receiving, and these are the most innocent, and to this sort may refer the sign of the Cross in Baptism; which was used not to give any virtue any way, but to signify the duty of the baptised (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 signify God's 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 signify (not confer) that Charisma Spiritus, of which the Fathers often: This sort comes very near to entrenching upon God's institution who appoints his Sacramental Symbols to signify his grace, as also to confer it; Lastly therefore, when Ceremonies are added by man, not only to signify, but with a kind of Sacramental virtue 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 retained 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 Unction.  
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 than 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, etc. Even as if Parker (for there he disputes against his Ordination from the Form of it) had been baptised after any other form or manner than Augustine delivered, he had not received true Baptism: so neither true Ordination, being ordained by another Form, than Austin was ordained and did ordain by.— And pag. 483. he thus again argues against our Answering, that we retain in our Form of Ordination what is essential, and according to Scripture, Si nihil aliud ad essentiam, etc. If nothing else pertain to the Essence of Baptism or Holy Order, but what is expressed in Scripture, than 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 expressly contained, or deducible and approvable by it, was also there declared. But by both these reasonings it appears, that to him Baptism and Order are of like consideration, and therefore I would require a Reason, why they pronounce not our Baptism null, because not after their manner, as well as our Orders. A man would think that Champny in both these reasonings did imply we had not true Baptism, but durst not say it positively; for that had directly contradicted the practice of their Church, which doth not re-baptize those, that are baptised after our Form; yea, the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church, which required no more to the Essential Form, than what is expressly in Scripture, Baptise in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and therefore did not re-baptize Heretics that used the Form. It is enough for us (notwithstanding any thing that Champny hath said) to Baptise as our Saviour appointed, and to Ordain, as we find the Apostles (whom he sent, as his Father had sent him) to have done and taught, though not altogether Ritu Romano, as the Church of Rome doth, and teaches most imperiously.  
10. But we must here take leave to look back to that he said above of Parker being not ordained as Augustin (the first Archbishop) was, which, if taken with the occasion of it, may at first sight appear a seeming prejudice. The occasion of it was from Mr. Masons saying, That Mat. Parker, the 79. Archbishop after Austin, had the happiness to be the first of that Number, that was consecrated without the Pope's Bull, Pall, and other superfluous accoutrements. Hence Champny to the seeming disparagement of our Reformation infers, Therefore his Ordination (and so theirs that followed him) cannot be derived from the Apostles if not the same, that Austin delivered together with the Christian Faith to this Nation, above a thousand years ago— and as well, saith he, they may cast off Baptism, which the same Austin delivered, etc. p. 479, 480.  
But we may answer, That the Pope's Bull, and Pall, and other superfluities which Mason reflected on, were of later date, than Augustine's time; for long it was after that, ere the Pope's Bulls and wild Beasts roared within this Land, viz. after Gregory the 7. for then began the contention with Princes about investiture of Bishops; from which time those Bulls also began to rage, and did very much trouble this Land in that one particular of appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury: in which regard we may well say with Mr. Mason, it was a happiness to Matthew Parker to be the first that was consecrated without the Pope's Bull, not implying that all from Austin were so invested by the Pope, but of all in that number, who were consecrated after that usurped Papal investiture began, he was the first that was clearly without it.  
11. As for that which Austin delivered, (either Baptism or Ordination) we retain fully for substance, and do thankfully acknowledge the benefit; indeed some Ceremonies (as in that Age the Church of Rome began to abound in them) which he brought in and delivered in both, we happily omit to use, not because he delivered or used them, but because the Church of Rome hath since abused them, as above said. This shows the vanity of Champny's inference, that our Baptism and Ordination is not good, or derived from the Apostles, because not after the same form and manner (peradventure according to some additional Ceremonies) that Austin delivered to this Nation together with the Christian Faith. Yea by virtue of that Ordination received, which he delivered to us, we can better prove our Ordination Apostolical, than they can theirs; for the Succession of Lawful Romish Bishops was much broken by unlawful intrusion of many Popes about the 9 and 10. Ages, and after (as appeared above, when we spoke of Papal Antichristianism) whereas our succession of Bishops being by Gregory the first derived to us from the Apostles, (before that unlawful usurpation, and intrusion of many of their Popes together) hath been continued among us without interruption.  
12. 
Presumptions from stories against the Ordination of our Bishops.  And now Champny goes on in his 13, Chap. to invalidate their Ordination by seeming probabilities, or presumptions of the Nullity of it, which the Romanists have sought all corners for, and examined all passages of Stories, Statutes, clauses of Letters Patents, which may concern the making or consecrating of our Bishops: and this he calls his demonstration a posteriori, beginning at pag. 428.— Let us fee what weight there is in such not Demonstrations, but Presumptions. I should abuse the Reader too much to repeat and answer them all; blowing therefore away the lightest, I shall speak to those, that may seem to carry any show of probability.  
And first, he will prove it, such is the strength of his presumption, by the Judgement of Protestants themselves. Ridley, saith he, at the stake humbly begged, the Queen would be pleased to confirm the Leases, he had let as Bishop of London, therefore he held himself not Lawful Bishop. True: it was his humble supplication to the Lord Williams of Thame, that he would be a means to the Queen to do it; and this was a Demonstration of his charity, and conscionable respect to the Tenants, not of his thinking himself not lawful Bishop; he knew what they thought and judged of him, not only that no Bishop, but also no Bishop of London because of Boner then living, and thereupon would be ready to quarrel at those Leases demised by him. And so the Words which Champny citys out of Brook his reports, do not contain the Sentence of judgement in this case, but the plea that was pretended against such Leases, because the Bishops that let them, were not Ordained.  
13. His next Demonstration, 
Boners plea.  or Presumption is drawn from a story of Boner the ejected Bishop of London, who for refusing the Oath of Supremacy tendered to him by Horn Bishop of Winchester, was cited into the King's Bench, and answered, that he refused the Oath, because he that tendered it, had no power to do it, being no Bishop. The Judges thereupon consulted, whether they should admit Boner to traverse it, and concluded, he ought to have leave to do it, and to be acquitted the Court, if he could prove Horn to be no Bishop then. This out of Dier; But, saith he, Boner was never after called to plead it; whence he concludes they judged Horn to be indeed no Bishop. Answer, This is no Demonstration of the invalidity of his Ordination, but of the Moderation and justice of those Judges, that contained themselves within the compass of their own profession, not undertaking to determine whether the Form of Ordination was good or no; and of their equity in allowing Boner the liberty of his plea, how false soever his allegation was in itself: and it was an argument of their prudence, or of the Queen's wisdom, that held it more convenient to silence such a Bedlam Actor, then suffer him to come upon the Stage, who had more than once in King Edward's time so irreverently behaved himself with clamours and reproaches before the King's Commissioners. But this reward he had of his many misdemeanours, that he was confined to perpetual imprisonment, whereas his fellow Bishops, that denied the Oath, as well as he, enjoyed their Liberty, or else a pleasing and free Confinement to some Friend's house.  
14. The former presumption he enforces from the statute of Parliament the year following, which provided indemnity for all that had refused the Oath tendered by Archbishop or Bishop till that time, Anno 8. Eli. cap. 1. Which, saith he, evidently proves Boners' plea to be good, that they were not Bishops indeed and that the Parliament so judged of them. This is still the fallacy, à non causâ; for the cause or reason of this was not because the Parliament, of which the Bishops themselves were a good part, doubted of their lawful Ordination (for how could that be after so many years' practice of it, as had run in King Edward's and this Queen's reign?) but because they had respect to the doubtings, which others had of it. For considering the condition of the Kingdom, some years before turned from Popery, they had reason to think (and so they had found it by the reproaches of some, and the surmises of others, as they plainly signify in that Statute) that many were not satisfied concerning the Canonical and lawful Ordination of our Bishops and Priests, measuring it by the way of the Romish Church, and as they had seen it performed in Queen Mary's days: or thinking it not provided for by the Law of this Land since Queen Mary's repeal; and therefore the Parliament in respect to such as offended upon such scruple, decreed Indemnity for the seven years past, notwithstanding that such were punishable by the Statute of the first year of Queen Elizabeth for refusing the Oath so tendered. And this is a Demonstration of the great equity of our Protestant Reformers, which Champny is loath to allow them in this decree, judging of them, it seems, by the Romish severity against all offenders.  
15. 
A Statute of Parliament, and Queen's Dispensation.  Next he urges this Statute of Parliament, 8. Eliz. I. as purposely made to make good the Form of Ordination, and the Queen's letters patents given out to dispense with all Defects in that Ordination of the first Bishops made in her days. This Mason had objected to himself out of Sanders, and answered to this purpose; That the Parliament made them not Bishops, or their Ordination good, but they being Bishops indeed by Lawful Ordination, that Honourable Court declared them so to be. Also that the Queen's Letters for their consecration concerned not any defects in Essentials, but in Accidentals, such as might be charged on their Ordination by pretence of any Statute or Canon. Champney, in replying to this, tortures that Statute, to force it to speak a Constituting rather than a declaring of them Bishops; a making of their Ordination by the new Form valid, rather than a pronouncing of it to be so; Whereas it is most plain, that the end of that Statute was only to declare so much, against the slanders and reproaches, that some cast upon their Ordination, and to provide against them for the future: and to that very purpose the preamble to that Statute runs; and then follows, And to the intent that every Man, that is willing to know the Truth, may understand plainly, that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just Matter or Cause, It is thought fit to touch such Authorities as do allow and approve the making and consecrating of the same Archbishops, and Bishops: and then is repeated, what was ordained in 25. Hen. 8. touching the Election of Bishops, and in 5. of Edw. 6. touching the book of Common-Prayer, with the Order and Form of Consecration annexed to it; Lastly in 1 Eliz. c. 2. touching the Authorising of that book again, after Queen Mary's Repeal. Then it follows in that Statute, Wherefore, for the plain Declaration of all the premises, to the intent the same may be better known to all her Majesty's Subjects, whereby such evil speech, as heretofore hath been used against the High State of Prelacy, may hereafter cease; Be it declared and enacted; etc. Can any thing be more clearly spoken? And this the very place also, which Champney citys out of Cambden, doth plainly speak, In hos Ordinum conventu (saith he) declaratum est unanimi consensu, legitimam esse Consecrationem— In that Parliament was unanimously declared, that their consecration was Lawful. And why so declared? because Nonnulli calumniando in quaestionem vocarunt— and after, Pontificii illis tanquam pseudo-Episcopis obtrectarunt. The Papists reproached them as no Bishops.  
16. Nay but the peremptory decree of that Parliament, which no Law humane or divine (for it says, any Statute Law, Canon, notwithstanding) can hinder, sounds more than a declaration; such a singular Authority or power of an English Parliament, greater than that of the whole Church, was necessary, not to declare, but make that Ordination good. So he, p. 443. and then p. 444. Are they not truly called Parliament Bishops? for take away this Statute of Q. Elizab. and that other of K. Edward, which first authorised the New invented Form of their Ordination, and I do not see, whence or from what institution Mason can derive their Ordinations; or by what Authority, Divine or humane, he can possibly prove them good and lawful. So he. To answer this latter charge first; It stands upon a false supposal that they invented and made a New Form, which they did not, as to any thing that concerned the substance of Ordination; See above Num 1, 2, 3, 4. of this 7. Chap. this business in Queen Mary's days, when King Edward's Statutes were repealed; and Canon there also mentioned, relates to the Pope's Canon Law, which not long before was wholly in force, and was still retained with limitation: from the supposed binding of which, arose, as it seems, the scruples & doubtings, which many had in those days of the Validity of our Ordinations; And to this cause must be referred the reason of the clause of dispensation in the Queen's Letters: not implying any essential defect, which she knew was not in her, or the Parliaments power to supply, but such as might accrue by some point or nicety of Canon Law not expressly and in particular provided against.  
17. 
The Queen's Dispensation.  But such a full dispensation (saith he) had been needless, had there been no defects of moment indeed; For no prudent Prince will spend his Authority in dispensing aforehand with imaginary and possible defects.— Such it seems was the importunity of Popish slanderers, that the Queen in prudence thought best to take away the occasion, by taking away the ground on which any suspicion might be vaised, viz. the supposed force of any such pretended Canon, that might be thought to concern their Consecration. Thus Champny trifles again and again with his furmises and seeming probabilities of real and essential defect in the Ordination of our Bishops; I will not trouble the ingenuous Reader any farther with them. Only one thing I must take notice of, which he speaks positively, That the Queen had no power to dispense in rebus Ecclesiasticis, and after sets it on thus: She had no more power to dispense in such things, than her Subjects had to dispense with her Laws, pag. 451.455. And there he requires One approved example for 1500. years, to justify such a power. Though we extend not this power to all Ecclesiastical things or Canons, yet say we truly that a Sovereign Prince hath power to dispense in and about Ecclesiastical things: yea, hath power to forbid the Pope's Law to be received or obeyed within his Dominions. If Champny, as he shows himself in the next Chap. to be well acquainted with Tortus or Bellarm. so had looked into the Answer to Tortus, he might have seen examples brought there by B. Andrews of Counsels submitting their decrees to the Emperor's Authority, that he would be pleased, ea corrigere, supplere, perficere; to correct or supply them. Now what power the Emp. had in Orb Romano, that every Sovereign Prince hath in his own Dominions. But Champny, me thinks, should not be such a stranger in France as not to hear, or so forgetful, as not to remember, how many years the King kept out the decrees of the Trent Council; and when the Clergy by the mouth of the Archbishop of Tours petitioned the King 1598. to admit them, they did it with restriction and modification of them. to the privileges and Laws of the Land; and what did that want of a dispensation? It need not therefore seem strange that the Qu. should use her power in dispensing against any Papal Canon, that (however hitherto obtaining) should any way contrary the Laws established concerning Ordinations.  
18. 
Presumption against the racords weak.  One Argument more he adds upon the strength of presumption, not only against the Validity of the Form of Ordination, but against the Truth of the Tables or Records, that witness the Ordination of our Bishops. This presumption he raises chief upon Bishop Jewels silence in answering of Harding, when he put him to it, to make good his Ordination. Of this from pag. 457. to the end of his 13. Chap. Harding in his first reply had told the Bishop, that he was neither Bishop nor Priest, & put divers interrogatories to him concerning his Ordination. The Bishop briefly answered his impertinent Adversary as he saw fitting; Harding replies again with the like or greater importunity; and because the Bishop did not enter here a dispute with him and satisfy all his questions in particular, and withal produce the Records; therefore Champny, according to his wont presumption concludes the Ordination of our Bishops could not be maintained, and the Records were justly suspected, for who could better defend the lawfulness of their Ordination, or better know those Records (if any such had been) than Jewel, who was one of those pretended Bishops? To this purpose he.  
There is a time when, as the wise man tells us, some men are not to be answered in their folly. Half of M. Hardings importunity came to this, why Jewel being no Priest meddled in Holy things? and how could he be a Priest that could not offer Sacrifice? This the Bishop well knew to be fully answered, in disproving their Sacrifice of the Mass; which he largely and solidly did: and consequently evinced that we may be Priests in the Gospel sense, without taking to ourselves such a power, and that they are no Priests indeed, but Sacrilegious Impostors in assuming to themselves such a power. The rest of M. Hardings importunity questioned his being Bishop; and because he enters not a dispute about the Form by which he was consecrated, why should Champny conclude he could not defend it, when as Harding said not so much against it, as Champny himself hath done to invalidate it? and what that was we heard above, and found it too weak to disprove this our Assertion, That the form we retained doth contain all that essentially belongs to Ordination, and that which we cast out, was either superfluous addition, or superstitious abuse. Lastly, as for producing the Records to justify his consecration, he knew it was to little purpose, having to deal with Master Harding, who had often in this Reply called him a Forger and Falsary, and would certainly have accounted him so in producing the Records.  
19 But he tells us farther; Not only Master Harding, but many other English Catholics, objected to those pretended Bishops, the defect of Lawful calling and Ordination, and yet were not the Records produced by any of them, nor by any other in their behalf, till Mason now after 50. years gave us a view of them; So he, p. 47●. Naming their Catholic Writers, that objected this, Bristo, Sanders, Stapleton, Rainolds— The objections of those Writers, and generally of those Times, chief touched the Form of Ordination; to the answering of which, the producing of the Records had not been proper. But Champny, as he brought Rainolds objecting, so he might have met with Rainolds answering as to that point, if he had thought fit to take notice of that which Mason in the conclusion of his third book relates, from Doctor Rainolds himself, who told him, that in his conference with Hart, he satisfied him concerning our Bishops by Authentic Records, in so much that Hart would needs have that whole point (viz. touching the Ordination of our Bishops) left out of the Conference, confessing he thought no such thing could be shown, and that he had been born in hand otherwise. Born in hand by such Objectors as these, whom Champny named. Now had the Romanists that Candour and Conscience, which Hart shown (who indeed seemed to be one of the most ingenuous of that Society, as appears by many passages of the Conference) they would also receive satisfaction, and not thus contend to make good such foolish reports, by opposing such far-fetched surmises and presumptions against public Records. Champny also, might have taken notice, how in that very Statute of 8. Eliz. which he so narrowly sifted, there are Records spoken of, that declare the due consecration of the Bishops made in her Time. Every thing requisite and material for that purpose (viz. the Elections, Confirmations, and Consecrations of Bishops) hath been done as precisely and with as much care and diligence, as ever before her Majesty's time, (i. e. since the time the Papal Authority was cast out) as the Records of her Majesty's Father, and Brother's time, and also of her own time will plainly testify and declare. These are the Words of that Statute, and do expressly, as we see, witness there were Public Acts, which did show the Elections and Consecrations of the Bishops made from the beginning of the Queen's reign, as of those Bishops, which were made before.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of Archbishop Parker's Ordination, and of the pretended defects from the New Form, and the incapacity of his Ordainers.  
IN his 14. Chapter, he gins with Archbishop Parker's 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 Pope's Bull, Pall, etc. 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 custom 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 well: Those secular Priests of whom above, Chap. 5.8. in their book there mentioned, complain much of this unconscionable dealing in the Jesuits and their followers, acknowledging the Queen's 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 Do of the State, be they never so judicially and publicly 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 acknowledge 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 Catholics odious. Lastly, John Go Master of Arts, returning from them upon the downfall of the Black Friars, in acknowledgement (as he saith in his Preface) of God's 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 near 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 plays 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 Parker's Ordination is, because according to Mason's 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 Bishoprics; 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 Queen's Letters Patents with the Titles of those Bishops Se●s they before held, and also of those they now were elected to; and the Registers of those Sees show their instalment, 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 shows he was himself consecrated, or could not else 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 Man's 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. David's where he sat 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 than nothing, he observes, pag. 494. that Landaff, who was consecrated some years after Barlo, is pretended to be set before him in the Queen's 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 solemnising 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 Leisure.  
3. 
The shameless story of the Nagshead Tavern.  And now we are come to that shameless tale which hath more of impudence in it, than the former Instances had of weakness, That our first Bishops in the Queen's time were made at the Naggs-head Tavern in Cheapside. That Scory alone (Landaff failing) Ordained Parker, Grindal, etc. and after this manner, They kneeled down before him, and he laying the Bible upon their heads severally, said, Receive the power of Preaching God's Word sincerely, and so they all risen 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 Constable's account, whether he wrongs Stow or no; We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Proselytes withal.  
But setting aside the public Records that show the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained: this story betrays itself many ways; 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 Praemunire 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 Queen's 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 show them to be Madmen, and fit for Bedlam, than Bishoprics, when as Churches and Chapels 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 Bishopric 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 than some other private, though common place? The question than 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, Temperate. Lastly, let me observe, how this story betrays itself 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 Edward's days, and commanded by the Law, would or durst use any other, especially so ridiculous one, as is here reported: or else condemn the raisers of this report, of senseless impudence, and the believers of it, of notorious folly.  
4. But we are yet again called 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 instalment of Card. Pool, which yet was but after the wont 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, etc. As for Card. Pools reception, and consecration, Stow doth not fuse describere, describe it at large, as Champny says, but only mentions it as done; and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shown 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, coming upon such a special errand, with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdom to the Chu. of Rome) was received, consecrated and installed, 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 Cardinal's entrance, which Stow notes: The same day (saith he) that Doctor Cranmer (his predecessor) 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 show it, would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal virtues and endowments, which seeing he hath not once mentioned, why should we marvel 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 judgement) than the first Synod held in the Queen's 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 Mason's 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 little 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 Parker's due consecration, pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a mere mistake, either through his inadvertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes, or his wilful 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. of Edward 6. but here is the mistake. That form was not then first published, or then received the first Authority, but was in force before, by virtue of a provisional Ordinance, of the former Parliament which abolished the old Ordinals. For look into the 12. Chap. of that Parliament and see it there ordained, that 12 Commissioners, six Prelates and six other learned in God's Law, should be chosen by the King to draw up such a Form, and that to be set out under the Great-Seale before April next following; and that it should be used and no other. So that from that time it was in force, and accordingly was used in the consecration of the forementioned Bishops, (Scory and Coverdal) Aug. 30. which followed that April, and went before the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of Edward. In which Parliament, that Form was again confirmed, by adjoining it to the book of Uniformity of Divine Service or public Prayer, under the like provisions, exceptions, penalties, and with the same clauses, as that book Of Uniformity of public Prayer, was Provided for in the 2. of Edw. 6. This was the purpose of that Parliament, as by the express words of the Statute appears; not to give the first force to Authority of that Form which it received by the Act (as I said) of the former Parliament, as soon as it was set forth under the Great-Seal) but to secure it by like provisions and penalties, as the book of public prayer was, to which they annexed it. This is the issue of Champneys confidence, who, out of the strength thereof, often overshoots his Mark.  
6. 
The Records publicly shown to Romish Priests.  When he had thus far proceeded, and with great assurance discredited Parker's Consecration, and the public Records, he meets with a true story that dasheth all; and that is the satisfaction given to 4. Romish Priests by Archbishop Abbot in this business. But Champny must set a good face and encounter it boldly. He tells us, as he was writing this (of the Consecration of Mat: Parker) there comes to his hand Bishop Godwins book de praesul. Angl. of the English Bishops; Where, in the life of Matthew Parker, that story is set down; The particulars of it stand thus; Upon occasion of Thomas Fitzherberts' speech, who seeing Masons Tables of our Bishops, gave out, he would thank that man, that could certainly inform him, there were such Records indeed: Wherefore Archbishop Abbot taking to him 4. Bishops, London, Ely, Lincoln, Rochester (who then were King, Andrews, Neil, and Buckridge) sent for 4. Priests out of Prison, whose names are set down in Godwin, and caused the Records to be produced, showing them the consecration of Archbishop Parker, suffering them to look farther, and as long as was convenient for the purpose, they were sent for, and wishing them to write what they saw to Fitzherbert; which they also did.  
Champny would not take notice (as I observed above) of that satisfaction, which Doctor Reinolds had given Hart the Jesuit, touching these Records, and related by Mason upon his own knowledge; but this other was so home, that he could neither overlook it, nor deny it. Only he saith, they had a sleight view of such a book, but not permitted to peruse it as it was requisite, and when those Priests by letter to the Archbishop, begged leave to have a farther sight of it, they could not obtain it, pag, 527. If saying, or unsaying can blemish so public an Action, there will never want some among the Romish Priests to do it confidently. But is it likely, that so many Prelates, Persons of great severity and gravity, should in so solemn an action, play boys play with their Adversaries, to give them a sight of the Records, and then presently withdraw them? to put the book into their hands, and then presently snatch it from them? Or that such Prelates should meet to act a part in countenancing forged Records? To say nothing of the severe gravity of all those Bishops, Bishop Andrew's of all men living was least, fit to do it, who I dare say, would have cast off his Bishopric, rather than held it by such a pretended warrant, and so will all those think and say, that either know the authority of that learned man, or read his Epistles to Molinaeus touching the Episcopal Order. And thus much, if not too much to the trouble of the Reader, in refutation of Doctor Champney's presumptions against the due ordination of Archbishop Parker and the truth of the public Records.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the other Bishops ordained in the beginning of the Queen's reign; and the pretence of special defect by reason of Intrusion. Where, of the Deprivation of the former Bishops, and the Oath of Supremacy as a cause of it.  
HIs 15. and 16. Chap. proceed against the rest of the Bishops in the beginning of the Queen's reign, whom he charges with a special defect or failance, the want of lawful succession, in regard, of their places and Sees not void: and therefore, entering by intrusion and usurpation, could not be Lawful Pastors or Bishops.  
1. 
The Charge of Intrusion.  This charge concerns not all the Bishops made then, for there were many Sees actually void, but only those that entered upon the ejection, or deprivation of some Popish Bishops, fourteen in number; and of them some were dead, some voluntarily had quitted the Land, before the Queen caused others to be placed in their Sees. Now the force of this charge, so far as it concerns our Bishops, rests upon this proof, that the Deprivation of the other was unjust and unlawful. This is that which Doctor Champny endeavours to make good, by returning some answer to the crimes laid against them, and by making some proof that the Queen was no competent Judge in such a business. Begin we then, with the consideration of that, which was laid to the charge of the Popish Bishops; whereby it may appear that they were deservedly deprived, and that the Queen had power to do what she did therein.  
2. 
The causes of depriving the Popish Bishops.  I find those deprived Bishops charged with 3. things, which make them offenders against the Crown, and against their own Office. First, their refusing the Oath of Supremacy; Second, their joint refusing to crown the Queen, in which they all perished save one; Thirdly, their unreasonable perverseness in not standing to any Order, which was agreed on, in the Conference or public disputation holden at Westminster, for evidencing of the truth to the whole Kingdom; and therein their obstinate opposition to the Reformation of God's Worship and Religion. Our Chronicles generally refer the cause of their deprivation, to the refusal of the Oath, and that is chief insisted on, by M. Mason, lib. 3, and by Doctor Champny in answer to him; but I find not, that they were imprisoned, much less deprived till after they had declared their obstinacy in all three particulars, and must conclude, the two latter did add much to the cause of their deprivation, and rendered them high offenders against the Queen's Majesty, and their own Office.  
3. 
Their refusing to Crown the Queen.  For if it be the Office of the Bishops of this Land to crown the undoubted Prince, what do they deserve, who having acknowledged Her Right in Parliament, declared by the mouth of the Archbishop of York then Chancellor, and at Her coming to London, been all of them (except Boner) graciously received by Her, and admitted to kiss her hand, do after upon pretence of Religion refuse to set the Crown upon Her head? Again, when it was Her desire and purpose to have the exercise of Religion settled, as it was in King Edward's days, and might have done it upon the same Evidence and Warrant (of which above, cap. 2.) yet she caused a Conference between the best learned on both sides to be held at Westminster, 
A Conference appointed.  the Parliament then sitting, for the satisfying of persons doubtful, and for the knowledge of the Truth in matters of difference, that so there might be some good and charitable agreement: These are the words of the Queen's Declaration: Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament; for the better satisfying their judgements in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon: as it is there also specified.  
4. The Popish Party thought it at first reasonable, and by the Archbishop of York gave their answer, that they were ready to render an account of their faith, and did accordingly choose some Bishops with other Doctors to be Actors in the Conference, 
Their obstinate perverseness.  and agreed to the Orders set down for the more quiet and effectual managing of the business. But the very first day it appeared, they meant not to stand to the Order first agreed on, (which was to give in writing to the other party what reasons and proofs they had for each point) whereof being fairly admonished by the Lord Keeper (who was appointed Moderator of the Action, not to judge of the Controversy, but to see to the orderly proceeding) and by other Lords, they promised to give in the next day what was said by Doctor Cole in their behalf, and what they had farther to say: but that day being come, they would neither one way nor other, neither by writing nor speech declare what they had to say, but only returned them this answer, The Catholic Faith is not to be called in question. And this was the issue of that Conference; the passages of which are punctually set down in Stow.  
5. Now if it be the Office of Bishops to teach all things commanded by Christ, (as we find Champny arguing for them, out of S. Mat. 28.20. against the Regal Supremacy, in his 6. chap.) and to show us, that he hath commanded them: If a Bishop must be by Saint Paul's Canon (1 Tim. 3.2.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach, which implies not only Ability, of which other Bishops, who ordain him, must judge, but also Readiness to teach, of which the Queen and whole Parliament who in vain expected it from them might very well judge: what then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready, nay obstinately refused to do it, when their Sovereign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready, and desirous to hear, For the satisfying of their judgements and consciences, and for the bringing about some good and charitable agreement? What can we (I say) conclude of them, but that they highly offended against the Queen and whole Kingdom, and against the duty of their own Office, being also self-condemned in wilful receding from the Orders they had agreed to as most reasonable? The Protestant party were ready to say with Saint Paul, we commend ourselves to every man's conscience by the manifestation of the Truth, 2. Cor. 4.7. But the Popish party did in effect say with the proud Pharisees, This people know not the Law, are cursed, S. Jo. 7.49. and so leave them in their ignorance.  
6. Add to this their obstinate opposition to all reforming of Worship and Religion, from such evidenced Errors and corruptions, as Image-Worship, Prayers in an unknown tongue, Communion under one kind. If any of the Priests had withstood the reforming and purging of the Temple undertaken by Hezekiah and Josiah, and not consented to the restoring of the due worship of God, or to serve in the Temple according to that Form of Worship, had it been just to continue them in the Priest's Office, or to remove them? And was there any reason that the Queen, according to the power given Her of God, undertaking the reformation of Religion and Worship, should continue those as Pastors in the Church, which refused to teach or give a reason of their Doctrine, or to accord to any reformation of the known abuses in God's Worship, or to serve in the Church according to the form of Worship duly established?  
7. Now lest any should think, the like might be answered by those that some years ago cast out our Bishops as opposers of their Reformation, I must still remember the Reader, they cannot make the like defence for their pretended Reformation; whether we consider the Abuses to be Reform, or the Authority by which; in neither of these was their attempt answerable to that just Reformation that cast out Popery, and some of the Popish Bishops; as above seen, c. 2.  
To these two particulars of their not Crowning the Queen and nor holding the Conference, Champny in his 15. Chap. pag. 534. replies, 1. That neither of these was objected to them, and therefore no cause of their deprivation. But this is more than he can affirm, and altogether improbable, considering their presumptuous disobedience: and I find in Stow, that upon their abrupt breaking up the Conference, White, and Watson, the two Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, were immediately sent to the Tower for their extraordinary peremptoriness, and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queen's Council, save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster, who only shown himself reasonable, and very willing to have the Conference go orderly and peaceably on: and therefore had his Liberty. Neither is the question here what was objected to them, but what they deserved. The objecting of their refusal of the Oath was enough for their deprivation by the Statute newly Enacted: yet their presumptuous demeanour in the other particulars was no small aggravation of their offence, and might be too of the Queen's just displeasure against them 2. Champny allegeth two examples, the One in relation to the Conference, the Other to the Crowning; the first is of Saint Ambrose, that refused to dispute with the Arrians. But this is far wide from the business in hand; whether we look at the Subject Matter of the dispute, which with Saint Ambrose was a chief fundamental point, the Deity of our Saviour Christ, and newly declared in a General Council: with us the Subject of the Conference were certain points; which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the definition of any General Council, that they are most clearly according to the judgement 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 acknowledge Anastasius for Emperor, but repelled him as an Heretic, till he promised to admit the Council of Chalcedon. Here again is another fundamental point, and the Declaration of an undoubted General Council: which notwithstanding could not give Euphemius warrant to do any more then: express his judgement of the unworthiness of the Emperor. 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 Council? For what are the Novel Articles of Romish faith to the Fundamental Christian Faith declared in the Ancient Counsels? And yet must Princes, by the judgement (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 judge, it being so apparent 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 Council 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 Judgement 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 pertaining to Faith and Religion— and then assumes, that neither the Queen nor any Lay-people could be competent Judges of Bishops in such a Cause.— This he largely pursues, by places of Scripture which show 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 Emperors, Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, professing the judgement 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 Emperors 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 Majesty's 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 Governor of the Realm, etc. 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 foreign Jurisdiction. III. The cause rightly stated is not a matter directly pertaining to faith and religion, as he takes for granted. iv Albeit such a Judgement of matters pertaining to Faith and Religion, as those Emperors denied, doth not indeed belong unto them or any Lay-people, yet may Kings and Emperors have such a judgement, as is necessary for the due exercising their supreme power in and about matters and causes of Faith and Religion.  
11. 
Two things considerable in the Oath, and accordingly two mistake●.  That all this may the better appear, We must observe there are two things considerable in the Oath of Supremacy: What is attributed to the Sovereign Prince, and then what is denied to the Pope or any foreign Potentate; and accordingly there is commonly a double mistake which the Adversaries and reproachers of this Oath, (this Doctor 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 acknowledgements 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 Pope's pleasure: and according to the same Doctrine, the Oath of Allegiance is pronounced by Pope Paul V in his first Breve, to contain 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 Catholics. And have not Princes good cause to look to themselves upon this point of Supremacy, to the excluding of such foreign Jurisdiction, so dangerous, so injurious?  
12. Now that Security from this usurped power and jurisdiction is chief sought and aimed at in this Oath, appears by the Oaths which all the Bishops under King Henr. 8. and King Edw: 6. made, in which the first main thing is their renouncing of the Papal Jurisdiction, and their swearing never to admit it again within this Land: and by the Statutes under. Queen Eliz. enforcing this Oath; in which the end is expressed, wherefore the Oath is required, and former Acts concerning the Supremacy revived. For repressing the said usurped power. 1. Eliz: 1. For preservation of the Queen's Highness, and dignity of this imperial Crown, and for avoiding such Hurts, Perils, dishonours, and inconveniences, as have befallen to the Queen's Noble Progenitors, the Kings and Queens of this Realm, and to the whole estate thereof, by means of the Jurisdiction and power of the See of Rome, unjustly claimed and usurped within this Land. 5. Eliz. 1.  
13. 
Papal Supremacy no cause or point of Faith.  This therefore being the main point of the Oath, as that wherein the Prince is mainly concerned, it tells us, how their offence arises, and what they deserve, that by denying this Oath refuse to renounce such foreign Jurisdiction: and how the Kings and Queens of this Realm, if they could well understand their own power and right, and properly judge of it, might also understand and judge of what was so contrary to it, and be competent judges in this cause, of all those that offended against such their known right and power. Therefore Champny bending all his forces against the Title of Supremacy attributed to the Queen, 
Princes are competent judges in the cause.  and nothing against the renouncing of Papal jurisdiction, hath not (by this mistake) once touched the main point of the Oath, or of their offence who were deprived: which if he had considered, he would not have taken it for granted, as he doth, that this cause directly pertained to Faith and Religion. Neither can he or any Romanist ever prove, that Princes are bound to receive for points of faith, what ever Popish Bishops or Priests, according to their own and the Pope's Interests, shall tell them, are Points of Faith, (however prejudicial to their Crowns and Dignities) such as is the Papal Jurisdiction, with all the branches of Hildebrandine doctrine depending thereupon.  
14. All those say of Emperors and Bishops cited before by Champny, were well and piously spoken, and may well stand with that knowledge, judgement, or Supremacy which we attribute to the Prince in and about matters of Faith and Religion, as we shall see presently; but as to this Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction, which we renounce, they speak nothing that may confirm it. For had there risen up a Bishop in the days of those Pious and Moderate Emperors, and made such an Oration, as Card Perroun did before all the Estates of France (which King James declared against, and refuted) for the Papal Supremacy; or told those Emperors, that it belonged not to them to convocate Synods, and command Bishops to assemble, or to confirm their Decrees, but all this and much more belonged to the Bishop of Rome to do, to whom their Crowns in order to Spiritual things were subject, and Bishops exempt from their Judicature: those Emperors would have told such Bishops another tale, and not suffered such spiritual persons under pretence of preaching Heaven, to win upon them in the Earth (as the Pope hath done for divers Ages upon Christian Princes) or under show of teaching the Faith to disoblige their Subjects from their fidelity, as Pope Paul V did by his Breve against the Oath of Allegiance.  
15. 
Second mistake, is of what we attribute to the Prince.  The second mistake is in that, which by this Oath of Supremacy is attributed to the Prince, as if, by this Supreme power in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things, He were made Supreme Judge of Faith, & decider of all controversies thereunto belonging, and might ordain what he thought fit in matters of Religion. This mistaken sense of the King's Supremacy was first broached in Germany by the cunning of Stephen Gardiner, who being there among the Protestants, and challenged by them for the Six Articles, to decline the Odium of them from himself upon the Regal Supremacy, told them the King might Ordain so, and what he thought fit being Supreme Head of the Church. Calvin speaks of this, upon Amos 7. as Bishop Bilson in his book of Subjection hath noted: and it is clear, that all, which he or Kemnitius or others, cited above by Champny, spoke against that Title of Supreme Head, they spoke it against that mistaken sense.  
16. 
Expressions of the Supremacy attributed at first very large.  But that we may better understand what is indeed attributed to the Sovereign Prince, look we first to the Statutes, which declare this Supremacy; where we find the expressions very large and general. Seeing all Authority and Jurisdiction is derived from the King's Highness, as Supreme Head, and so acknowledged by the Clergy of this Realm— 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. Also Jurisdiction for Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State, and Persons, and for Reformation and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, Heresies, Schisms,— 1. Eliz. 1. Now see what hath been declared for the explaining and bounding this Supremacy. The Queen upon knowledge of offence taken at the Title of Supreme Head of the Church, waved it, 
Explication of the former Attributions.  as was said above, and declared in Her Admonition annexed to her Injunctions, that nothing else was challenged by that Supremacy, but to have a Sovereignty and Rule, under God, over all Persons born within her Realms of what Estate soever, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, so as no other foreign power shall or aught to have Superiority over them: and that nothing else was, is, or shall be intended by the Oath. So Article 37. of our Church, is thus declared, We give to our Princes that Prerogative which we see in Scripture always given to all godly Princes by God himself, to rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain with the Sword all stubborn and evil doers. So then we see by these Declarations, what is meant by this Supremacy: viz. a Sovereignty over all persons & estates (though Ecclesiastical) to rule them, etc. If it be said the Supremacy is not only over all Persons, but also in all Causes and Things Ecclesiastical, we bond this latter by the former, saying, that Kings have and necessarily must have a Supreme power in and about Causes and things Ecclesiastical, so far as is necessary to the ruling all Persons of what estate soever, moving and commanding them to act according to their several stations and offices for the service of God and his Church, keeping them to their known duty, and, as occasion may require, punishing them for transgressing against it.  
17. In Causes Ecclesiastical, 
In causes Ecclesiastical.  which are of suit and instance, and all other of judicial process, the Regal Supremacy or Jurisdiction is more apparent. It was therefore declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. That in the King's Highness there was full power to render justice and final Determination in all Debates, Contentions, etc. and upon this ground were made many and sundry Laws before Hen. 8. in the time of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. and of other Kings for the entire and sure conservation of the prerogatives and preeminencies of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and of the Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the same; to keep it from the annoyance of the See of Rome. ibid. Accordingly King James, in his Premonition to Christian Princes against the Usurped power of the Pope, gives us many examples of former Kings punishing Clergymen for citing others to Rome, in Ecclesiastical causes; Yea we have stories of Ecclesiastical causes wherein the Bishops of Rome have been Parties, judged and determined by Emperors and Kings. In that great contention twixt Symmachus and Laurence about the Place (which made the fourth Schism in the Roman Church) King Theodorick, who then ruled in Italy, took the cause into his own cognizance, and judged it for Symmachus. Afterward, in that contention twixt John of Constantinople and Gregory the first of Rome, about the Title of Universal Bishop, Gregory himself refers the cause to the Emperor (as appears in his Epistle to Mauritius,) to put end to it, by repressing the ambition of John, and nothing more known in History then the Elections of the Bishops of Rome, frequently ordered, judged and determined by the Emperors.  
18. Furthermore all that Judicial process of the Outward Court, with which Bishops were enabled for the better and more powerful exercise of their spiritual Censures, was derived from the Supremacy of the Regal power; and to this sense was it said, All Authority and Jurisdiction is derived from the King's Highness,— Edw. 6. cap. 2. that is, All external Jurisdiction, or Coactive, which indeed is properly Jurisdiction, when there is not only a power and ability to declare what is Law and just, but force also to procure execution: and therefore in that very Statute, and as an acknowledgement of all such Jurisdiction derived from the King, All process Ecclesiastical is ordained to go forth in the King's Name, and the Teste in the Bishop's name: also the King's Arms to be graven upon the Seal of the Bishops Office.  
19 
In things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine.  But in Things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine, or correction of Error and Heresy, the bounds of this Supremacy of Princes are not so apparent: Yet may they be so set, as the power and judgement we yield to Princes in and about such Things, do not entrench upon, but fortify the Power and Office of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church. For we acknowledge the Power and Office of Bishops to be both Directive, in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine & Discipline, of which things they are the immediate, proper and ordinary Judges: and also Coercive, in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gainsay, and that as far as the power of the Keys, put into their hands by Christ, for spiritual binding and losing, will reach. 
What also proper to Bishops & Pastors of the Church.  This power is Coercive or binding, upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church, but not coactive or forcing; for all such Jurisdiction, together with all judicial process of the outward Court, is, as I said, derived to them for the more forcible effect of their spiritual censures, from the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign Priner. His Powea we acknowledge to be Imperative, in commanding by Laws the public establishment of that which is evidenced to him by the Pastors of the Church to be the Law of Christ, and also Coactive in restraining and correcting by temporal pains those that are disobedient, yea in punishing and correcting Ecclesiastical persons for not doing their known duty, according to their forementioned Office. To this purpose it is declared, 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. that it belongs to Spiritual Prelates, Pastors, and Curates, to Minister, do, or cause to be done all Sacraments, Sacramentals, and divine services to the people (that for their Office) but if for any censure from Rome, or any such cause, they refuse to Minister as before, they are liable to Fine and Imprisonment during the King's pleasure: that for his Supremacy over all Estates to rule them, and cause them to do their duty, and punish them, when there is cause, for not doing it.  
20. If we consider the Defining of Matters of Doctrine, we said the Pastors of the Church are the proper and ordinary judges there, though called to the work by the Prince, and accountable to him how they do it: and therefore the judging of Heresy is restrained to the Declaration of the first General Counsels, for Heresies past: and for such as shall arise, to the Assent of the Clergy in their convocation. 1. Eliz. 1. The defining of Doctrine, demonstration of Truth, and the Evidencing of it, is the Office and work of the Pastors of the Church, but the Authority which at first commands them to the work, and after gives public establishment to it, when so done and evidenced, is of the Sovereign Prince: Which establishment is not in order to our believing, (as the Romanists use fond to reproach us, in saying our belief follows the State, and our Religion is Parliamentary) but to our secure and free profession and exercise of Religion. For Kings and Princes are not Ministers, by whom we believe, as the Pastors of the Church are. 1 Cor. 3.9. but Ministers of God for good or evil, Rom. 13.4. i.e. for reward or punishment according to our doing or not doing duty: and therefore they bear the Sword; 
jurisdiction of Princes is extrinsic:  Wherefore their jurisdiction is wholly Extrinsic, as is their Sword, not intrinsic or spiritual as is the power of the Keys, or the Sword of the Spirit in the hand of Ecclesiastical Governors or Pastors. Princes have not the conduct of Souls, but government of men, as making a Visible Society to be kept in order for God's service and glory, and for the good of the whole Community.  
21. But Princes and Sovereign Powers are not mere Executioners (as the Romanists would have them) of the Determinations and Decrees of the Church Pastors: nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion, what ever they define and propound for such. For the Power of the Sovereign is not Ministerial, but Autoritative, commanding and calling together the Clergy to the work of Religion or Reformation, which command it is their duty to execute, by meeting and doing the work so, as it may by the demonstration of Truth be evidenced to the Sovereign power, and receive again the Authority of the same power for public establishment. 
Princes have their judgement about Matters of Doctrine defined.  And in order to the due using of that supreme and Sovereign Power, we must allow him (that he go not blindly to work) Judgement in receiving of the evidence: not only a private Judgement of discretion, which we must allow every man, in order to his own believing, but also a public Judgement, answerable to the public care and office he bears; Yet is it not that immediate and ordinary Judgement of Matters of Religion, which belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church, in order to our believing, but that secundary Judgement (as I may call it) which is necessary in the Sovereign, for his establishing by Laws, that which is evidenced to him upon the Judgement and advise of the Pastors of the Church. This Judgement in matters of Religion in order to public establishment, the Sovereign ought to have upon a double reason: I. In respect of his duty to God, whose Laws and worship He is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions, and is accountable for it, if he do it amiss, as the Kings of Israel and Juda were. II. In respect of his own and his people's security, to judge that nothing be concluded or broached prejudicial thereunto, under pretence of Religion and Ecclesiastical Authority, as many points of Popery are. Now for this reason of the Prince's concernment, I suppose the Clergy under Hen. 8. saw there was cause, they should bind themselves, as they did in their convocation, by promise, in verbo sacerdotis, Not to Enact or promulge or execute any New Canons or Constitutions without the King's Assent.  
But if it be asked, What if the Sovereign be wilful in following his own judgement, rather than the evidence of Truth given in by the Pastors of the Church? That will not concern our belief or Religion, but the free and safe profession and exercise of it. For the establishment of Princes is not as I said, in order to our believing, but our free and public exercise of Religion; we must attend to the evidence of Truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church, who have commission to do it in order to our believing; and yield obedience to the establishment or Law of the Sovereign, either by doing and conforming thereunto, or by suffering for not doing accordingly.  
22. 
Princes truly said to reform Errors by their Supremacy.  By all this, which I have said to rectify the mistaken sense of this Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things, it may appear how the Sovereign Prince may have and use his Supreme Power, and his Judgement, in and about such things, without invading that spiritual power, and that immediate and ordinary judgement, which belongs to the Pastors of the Church; how also he may be said truly to Reform and Correct Errors, Heresies, etc. without taking to himself the office of those Pastors; For when he doth it by them, commanding them to the work, and taking account of them, he doth it truly, and doth it by a Supremacy of power. So did Hezekiah and Josiah truly reform all the errors and abuses about God's Worship, when they called and commanded the Priests to that work of purging the Temple and Ministering again in it, according to the right way of God's service. Justinian in his Epistle to the 5. Council, reckons up what his predecessors had done for the preservation of the true Faith. Semper studium fuit, etc. it was always their care and endeavour, Exortas haereses amputare— to cut off Heresy as it sprung up. How? or by whom? per Congregationem— by gathering together Religious Bishops— and causing them to preach the right faith. Then having instanced in those Emperors that called the 4. General Counsels, he concludes, Nos sequentes— & Volentes— We following their examples, and willing the right Faith be preached, do, etc. Nothing is more obvious in Antiquity then the care and pains, which good Emperors and Kings have used in employing their Sovereign power and Authority, for repressing and reforming Errors and Heresies. One of Justinians predecessors was Theodosius the second, who did repress the Heresy of Eutyches then prevailing, and newly advanced by the factious Council of Ephesus; and how did he do it? by nulling or forbidding the decrees of that Council to be received,— and to do this, he was advised and entreated by Leo Bishop of Rome and other Bishops. But of this example more largely below, when we shall examine Champneys answer to it; to whom it is now high time to return.  
23. His Arguments, above insinuated, are easily solved by what is already said, to rectify the mistakes about the Oath of Supremacy. His Testimonies from the acknowledgements of Emperors, and say of Bishops, telling them their duty, as he borrows them from Tortus or Bellarmine, so he might have seen particular answers to the chiefest of them in the Bishops Tortura; But these, and the places of Scripture which he brought, and King James his saying, and the Testimonies of other Protestants, which he alleged, do all fall to the ground, as impertinent and of no force, through those failings I noted at the beginning, and were made more apparent by what is said since, that they touch not the main part of the Oath of Supremacy, and cause of the deprivation of the Popish Bishops, viz. their refusing to renounce the foreign jurisdidiction and Supremacy of the Papal usurped power; also that those Arguments and Testimonies proceed only against the mistaken sense of the other part of the Oath, viz. of that Supremacy which is attributed to the Sovereign Prince: and are easily satisfied by distinguishing the spiritual power of Bishops and Pastors from the Sovereign power of Princes in and about Ecclesiastical matters; which powers though they have the same objects sometimes, yet their manner of proceeding about them is different; so by distinguishing the immediate and ordinary cognizance or judgement of matters of Religion, which belongs to the Pastors of the Church, defining and proposing them in order to our believing, from that secundary judgement of the Sovereign Power in order to public Establishment, and free exercise of what we believe and receive upon the former evidence.  
The judgement requisite to make the demonstration of truth out of God's Word, and to give out the Evidence, belongs to the Ecclesiastic Pastors; but the judgement requisite in receiving the Evidence is needful in all: especially and upon a public concernment in Princes, that they may discern that nothing is propounded prejudicial to their just Rights, or hurtful to their Subjects. Also that they may be satisfied, what is propounded as Faith and Worship to be according to the Law of Christ before they use or apply their Authority to the public establishment of it. This Judgement of the Prince I called secundary, not to the prejudice of his Supremacy, but to the acknowledgement of the immediate and ordinary judgement in matters of Religion belonging to the Pastors of the Church. Secundary in the consideration of Direction, which it supposes to be received from the Pastors of the Church, not Secundary in consideration of Authority, which commands them first to the work, requires an account of it, and confirms publicly what is evidenced by them to be according to Christ's law.  
24. We should now see what he answers to Mason's instances of Emperors and Kings dealing in Ecclesiastical matters; but first examine we a reasoning of his in the latter part of his 16. Chapter, which he falls upon by occasion of an objection, that Mason had made to himself, and improves so far, in his own conceit, that he challenges any Protestant to return him an answer: which notwithstanding may well be answered out of that which hath been said already.  
Out of the Objection, which Mason had made, 
Supremacy makes not the Princes will the Rule of our Faith.  he frames his first reasoning thus. If Princes be Supreme in spiritual things, then are their Subjects bound to obey their command in all matters of Faith and Religion: for as S. Paul saith, every soul must be subject to the higher (or Supreme) Powers; and bound to obey in all things in which they are supreme— who sees not the absurdity that would follow? But it is easy to answer, by distinguishing active and passive obedience— for should we make them as supreme in Ecclesiastical things (which we do not) as they are (and as Champny will acknowledge them to be) in civil matters, we could no more be bound to obey them in all their commands about matters of Religion, than we are in all their commands in and about Civil things; but in these if they should command a Subject to bear false witness, that Subject is not bound to obey actively, but to subject passively.  
25. Much to this purpose had Master Mason solved the like Objection: and Champny goes on to improve his Reasoning, and replies; So to answer is altogether impertinent, because the Protestants cannot give any certain Rule, whereby Subjects may know whether the Prince, in rebus Controversis, in controverted points of Religion, command, according to Truth or no. For example, The King of England forbids the Mass, etc. The King of France commands it. How shall the Subjects of either know, whether of the two commands for the Truth? and how could the Protestants know, that Hen. 8. commanded against Truth, when he enjoined the Six Articles? If they say, as usually, his Commands are according to Truth, that are conformable to the holy Seriptures, they still stick in the same dirt, as not able to give any certain Rule, whereby to know, which Commands are conformable to Scripture. Answer; 
Rule of our Faith●  All this proceeds upon the former mistake of that Supremacy which we attribute to the Sovereign Prince in matters of Faith and Religion, as if we gave him what properly belongs to the Pastors of the Church: Whereas in asserting his Supremacy, we suppose it their office to evidence what is Truth, and what is conformable to Scripture: and that in Order both to our and his believing. 
And the Means of it.  But more particularly; We acknowledge a certain Rule, more certain than the Papists can or will do, and that is Scripture; Now if still we be asked for a Rule, whereby to know what is conformable to Scripture: We say that having a certain Rule, as before, there remains no more to do, but to have evidence of it; and for that we have (not so much a Rule, as) Means: The same that the Church always had, the Doctrine of foregoing Ages, and of our present Teachers. The same that the Jews had, the Teaching and direction of those that sat in Moses Chair: S. Mat. 23. those whose Lips were to preserve knowledge, and at whose Mouth they were to seek the Law. Mal. c. 7. The same, that our Saviour left in his Church for that purpose, Pastors and Teachers, that we should not be carried about with every wind of Doctrine, Eph. 3.4. The same, that Champny & the Romanists pretend to contend for in this business. These we say are not the Rule, but the Means, or Ministers by which we believe, Cor. 3.9. according to the demonstration of Truth, commending themselves to every man's Conscience. 2 Cor. 4.2.  
26. Now seeing our Saviour bids them do what those which sat in Moses Chair said unto them. S. Mat. 23. and it is certain they did not teach infallibly or truly in all things, for which Stella, and Maldonate on the Gospel, and Espensaeus once a Doctor of the Sorbon, on Mal. 2.7. give us this limitation, Eatenuus audiendi, quatenus legem Mosis docent, They were so far to be heard and obeyed, as they taught what indeed was the Law of Moses: I would ask of Champny, what Rule then had men to know whether the Scribes and Pharisees taught that, or their own Traditions, but the evidence they made of the thing taught, out of the Law? He must answer according to the Romish way, The Doctrine of the Church was their Rule; But then the forementioned Authors should have said, quatenus docent secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae, so far forth, as they teach according to the Doctrine of the Church, and not have limited the matter, as we Protestants do, quatenus legem Mosis docent, so far forth as they teach according to the Law of Moses: Also those teachers (Scribes & Pharisees) could say, they taught according to the Doctrine then obtaining in the Church, yea and could say, Dictum Antiquis, it was so said by them of old, S. Mat. 5. as well as any Romanist can; yet our Saviour did not admit that Rule, but refuted their corrupt Doctrines by Evidencing the true meaning of the Law, S. Mat. 5.  
27. 
What certain Rule the Romanists can pretend to.  Again, Champny tells us not what certain Rule they have, but it must be such as I insinuated, the Judgement or Doctrine of their Church. Now seeing their Church must speak her Judgement by her Pastors, and supremely by Pope or Council, We ask in which they place this certain Rule? He and his fellow Sorbonists are for a general Council which they set above the Pope, with power to judge and depose him; we leave them to answer this to the Jesuits and other more devoted Creatures of the Pope; but let him answer us how he and his Sorbonists can attribute that to a Council, and yet with the Jesuits make the Pope Supreme Head of the Church (as he often insinuates in this discourse) which should imply the Supreme judgement in him, according to Champney's arguing against that Title here attributed to the Kings of this Realm. Let them place their supposed certain Rule, where they please, we find those of the Romish Communion following the evidence they had of Truth against the Pope's judgement or any pretended Hildebrandine Doctrine or determination of their Church. The Venetians stood out resolutely against the Interdict of Pope Paul 5. maintaining their right in that cause, (though Ecclesiastical) which was a branch of the Supremacy belonging to Sovereign Princes and States; And what Rule had they to go by, in disobeying the Pope, or their Subjects in obeying them, but the Evidence of the Truth of the thing manifested to them by learned men, Bishops and Pastors among them? So when the same Pope by his several Breves forbade the taking of the Oath of Allegiance, as contrary to the Catholic faith, and many Priests notwithstanding, with most of the Romish Catholics in this Land held it Lawful, and accordingly took it; What Rule had they to go by in obeying their Prince against the Pope, but the evidence of the thing or duty, they naturally owed to their Sovereign? which evidence, with all the reasons of it, is drawn up by Master William Howard, an English Catholic (as he styles himself) and published, An. 1634.  
28. Now for a general Council, when it can be had indeed, we grant it to be the greatest and highest means of direction, which Kings, or any other can have in matters of Religion; but still the limitation afore mentioned, Quatonus docent, etc. takes hold of the Pastors of the Church gathered in Council, it being possible the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests (as above in the first Chapter, n. 9) and so give Kings and Emperors, upon evidence of things unduly carried, cause to use their Supreme power, not for the confirming but forbidding of the Decrees, as we shall presently see done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus; and as Champny could not but know the Kings of France did against the Conventicle of Trent (so Hen. called it) forbidding the Decrees of it to be received for the space of 40. years; For Anno 1598. we find the Clergy assembled at Paris (as the French History relates) and the Archbishop of Tours, in their name petitioning the King (Hen. 4.) to reform several disorders in the Church, and that he would be pleased, the Council of Trent might be received and published in France, with certain qualifications. This was not at that time granted: the King answering them in brief to this purpose; that by the help of God he would settle the Church, admonishing them in the mean time to look to their duty, and he would study his. In all this we have an evident demonstration of Regal Supremacy, and that allowed by the French Clergy; and this done upon no other Rule, than the evidence of the thing, that packing and faction, which was apparent in that Council. There may be then Exceptions against the Romanists certain Rule. And much was spoken tending to this pupose, above cap. 1. Of Submission due to the Church.  
29. 
How Emperors shown their Supremacy in matters of the Church and of Religion.  In the last place let us see what is answered to Master Masons Instances of godly Emperors making Laws, and taking Order in matters of Religion, and of the Church. To these Champny answers in his 16. Chapter. First, None of them ever excluded the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome out of their Realms, as this Oath doth. pag. 557. True, that none of them denied him his Patriarchal Primacy known and bounded by the first general Counsels, neither would it have been denied him in this Realm, could he have contained himself within the due bounds thereof; but such a Papal Jurisdiction, as was usurped by the Bishop of Rome for some Ages past, those good Emperors never knew, never would have endured. If he can show us they admitted such Jurisdiction, or that the General Counsels acknowledged it, we will also acknowledge the Popish Bishops were unjustly deprived as to that point.  
Secondly, Those Emperors by their Laws did but confirm, and in their do about Church-affairs, did but follow the Canons and judgement of former Counsels. This is the sum of his second answer. And this is true of many of them: but derogats nothing from their Supremacy; for it only implies Direction received, which we acknowledge Kings and Emperors ought in Ecclesiastical matters to receive from the Pastors of the Church, in or out of Council: It doth not infringe the Authority which they have both in commanding the Pastors of the Church to meet in Council, in taking an account of what is done, and how; and lastly in confirming their decrees and Canons; as was before insinuated.  
30. Again, That answer is not true of all the Laws and Actions of pious and good Emperors in and about matters of Religion or the Church, as may appear by that which is cited by Mr. Mason, by Bishop Bilson, in his book of true subjection, by Bishop Andrews against Tortus, and by other Writers. To instance in one, which being urged by Mason, Champny thought himself concerned to labour in the solving it. The second Council of Ephesus had, by the prevalency of a stirring faction in it, passed judgement for deposing the good Bishop Flavianus, and advanced the Eutychian Error. Hereupon Leo Bishop of Rome, with other Bishops, humbly supplicated the Emperor Theodosius, that all things might stand in the same condition in which they were before any of those judgements, till a greater number of Bishops could be gathered out of the whole World, Ep. 43. and in another Epistle, he thus bespeaks the Emperor, The second Council of Ephesus, which cannot be called a Council (because held to the subversion of the Faith,) You most glorious Emperor, aliud statuendo cassabis, will make void or null by a contrary Decree, for the love you bear the Truth, etc. In all this, Three things are evident, I. That a King or Emperor may and ought (as he tenders the Truth of God) reform or extirpate an Error or Heresy prevailing, when it is made manifest to him by the information and advice of godly Bishops, as here by Leo Bishop of Rome, and other his fellow-Bishops, who as he said joined with him in the supplication, although there be no foregoing Synodical judgement against the same Error, as there had not yet been against the Eutychian Heresy. II. That He may Null and make void the Judgement or Decree (i. e. forbidden it to be received) of a Synod when manifested to him, that it was carried by faction to the subversion of the Faith; as this of Ephesus was; upon which reason the Kings of France, as was said, refused to receive the Decrees of Trent: III. That the Emperor might and ought to call a greater number of Bishops together for the confirmation of the Truth, and so the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by the Emperor Martianus.  
Now see we how Champny bestirs himself to get through the passages of this story. Leo saith, he, did Paternè hortari, fatherly exhort the Emperor to defend the Truth, as every good Prince should— pag. 568. This (though short of an humble supplication made to the Emperor) is fair, and we desire no more, then that it be granted, Princes may and should do so much within their Realms, as the Emperor is here supplicated or exhorted to do. And accordingly (saith he) this good Emperor did, praescriptum Leonis secutus, following the prescript of Leo. pag. 565. Now he makes the good Bishop speak and take upon him like one of the later Popes. Well this agrees not with the humble supplication made to the Emperor; but what saith he to the thing supplicated for, that the Emperor would make void that Council by a Decree to the contrary? I cannot find any thing in Champney that answers to it, but that Leo desired a suspension of the Decree and Judgement of the former Council— Which, (though short of that which is desired) is enough to establish that Authority which we desire to vindicate to Kings and Emperors in matters of the Church, without wronging or invading the Office of the Pastors of the Church: for both the Emperor and they had their parts in this Action. Champny in stead of giving us a good account of the former point, thinks to cross us with another passage of the story: Flavianus, saith he, the deposed Bishop, appeals from the unjust sentence, not to the Emperor but the Bishop of Rome, and delivers his appellation to his Legates, which was an acknowledgement of his being supreme Judge, pag. 561. But this cannot be concluded in Champnys sense of Supreem Judge, for it sounds nothing but the primacy of Order among the Patriarches. Flavianus delivered his appellation to the Pope's Legates, because they were present, the Emperor was not, because in order the Bishop of Rome was the first, and because he knew that Leo was truly favourable to his cause, and would commend it to the Emperor; which he did, and did it so, as appealing himself to the next general Council, which the Emperor should gahter; as we heard in his supplication to Theodosius. Neither had the Bishops of Rome, though chief Patriarches, the only or chief presidence in all the General Counsels, but according as the Emperor saw fit, as appears by the acts of those Counsels.  
But to conclude. In replication to that common answer of Romanists, that Kings and Emperors in commanding about Church affairs did but follow the determinations of foregoing Counsels, Mason had told them, that Queen Elizabeth, for this power and Supremacy had the determination of a Synod under Hen. 8. by unanimous assent acknowledging it. To this Champny replies, What Authority had that Synod, where the Bishops were compelled by fear to consent to that, which they after voluntarily revoked under Queen Mary? Or what Authority could a Snyod of the Bishops of one Kingdom have against the consent of the whole world— p. 549. 550. But this of the consent of the whole world is only a brag, and it is yet to be proved that the late usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was ever known to the Ancient Church, or ever received since, through all the Christian world. As for compulsion and defect of freedom, which he notes for the nulling of the Autorty of a Synod, we acknowledge the Doctrine good, and say he gives us a just way of exception to the Council of Trent, and all or most of the Romish Counsels that have been held under that usurped Papal Supremacy since Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh his time. But we deny the application of it to the Synods under Hen. 8. See above, cap. 2. Num. 3. concerning this allegation of fear and compulsion, where there was cause to think, the evidence of Truth compelled them, considering what the most learned amongst them did voluntarily write against the Papal Usurpation. And I cannot but here acknowledge the Providence of God, so disposing of this business, that the Papal supremacy or usurped Jurisdiction should be voted out of this Land, first by the Popish party, as I may call them, and that they which had twice been sworn against the admitting of it again into this Land, as many of the deprived Bishops had been under King Henry and King Edward, and then voluntarily broken their double Oath under Queen Mary, should be deposed under Queen Elizabeth, for that very cause of asserting the Papal Supremacy.   

CHAP. X.  
The Exception against our Bishops, that they were not Priests. Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministry committed to us men, and of the Romish Presumption in assuming more.  
HIs last exception against the Calling of our Bishops, ever since the beginning of the queen's time, is, because they were not Veri Sacerdotes, truly made Priests: Which, saith he, is such an Essential defect, that it renders their Episcopal Ordination altogether invalid. cap. 17. We grant it of Veri Presbyteri; those that are not truly made Presbyters first, cannot be true and complete Bishops. But for his Veri Sacerdotes, we say, as there are no such Priests under the Gospel, so is there no need, that Bishops should first be made such; for Priests in the Romish sense are such as in their Ordination receive a power of Sacrificing for the quick and the dead, i. e. a real offering up again the Son of God to his Father. And because we presume not to take this power, therefore they usually reproach us, that we have no Priests, none that can consecrate or make the Lords body, none that can absolve or reconcile Penitents.  
As for ourselves, 
Our warrant for our Gospel Ministry.  we have sufficient warrant and Commission for the power we take and use in the Gospel-Ministry. To Teach and Baptise, S. Mat. 28. to Bind, and to Lose, S. Mat. 18. or, to Remit and retain Sins, S. John 20. and, he hath given or committed to us, (saith Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.18.) the Ministry of reconciliation, which stands in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments. 
What the Romanists pretend for their Priesthood.  Now if we ask them, to show their Commission for that power of Sacrificing, they cannot direct us to any express Word of God, but lead us about, to seek it in the figurative and hyperbolical expressons of the Fathers; from which they would force these two Propositions, That there is such a real and external Sacrifice under the Gospel; and, That our Saviour Christ did really and truly offer himself up to his Father in his last Supper; from whence they conclude, If there be such a Sacrifice, then are there Sacrificers and Priests? If Christ offered up himself in his last Supper, than so it is still, for he bade Do this, S. Luk. 22.19. I do not mean to follow Champny here step by step, for the runs into the controversy of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, heaping up the say of the Fathers, usually alleged by their Writers, and as often answered and cleared by ours. I shall not examine those save particularly, but stay upon some Generals, which may in brief show the meaning of that manner of speech, the fathers commonly used in and about the celebration of the Eucharist: The high presumption of the Romanists in taking to themselves such a power of Sacraficing; and Their Vanity in reproaching us, for not assuming it.  
3. 
Whether Christ offered himself up in the jast Supper.  First, It is true that some Fathers seem to say, Christ offered himself up in his Last Supper; but it is evident they meant it not really and properly (for how could it be so, where there was no real effusion of his blood, no real occision or death) but mystically, or as Saint Augustine sometimes expresseth it, significante mysterio, in a Mystery or Sacrament, signifying or representing his Sa ifice or Offering on the Cross presently to follow: that Sacramentum Dominici Saerificii, Sacrament of the Lords Sacrifice, as Saint Cyprian calls it, Ep. 63. ad Cacil. The Sacrament then, at his Last Supper, showing the Lord's death, that should be, or the Sacrifice that should be offered on the Cross: and the Sacrament now showing the Lord's death that was, and the Sacrifice that was Offered. All the wit the Romanists have, cannot make the Offering up of himself in the Last Supper (as they fancy it) and after upon the Cross, to consist upon any reasonable terms; for as they may not say, there were two several Offerings up of the Son of God, so they cannot make them really the same. The Apostle tells us often in his Epistle to the Hebrews, cap. 7. cap. 9 cap. 10. He offered once to take away Sin: and the Romanists dare not say he offered himself twice for the sins of the World; Yet saying that he offered himself really in the Supper, and on the Cross, (where the Time and Place was several, and the Manner of Offering, as to the very nature of a real external Sacrifice, quite divers: for it was without bloodshed and death in the Supper, but with both on the Cross) they must needs say, He twice Offered himself; and all the cunning they have, cannot make once and twice here to be really the same, or to consist upon any terms free from contradiction. 
Relation of the Eucharist, to this Sacrifice of the Cross. 5.   
4. Champny endeavouring to clear the relation, which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, hath to that of the Cross, is forced to make a wide difference between them, and indeed to come to that, which we allow in the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, without placing such a Sacrifice in it as they vainly contend for. The Sacrifice of the Cross (saith he, pag. 704.) is absolute and independent, which hath his effect, ex propriâ suâ efficaciâ, valour & virtute, from his own Efficacy, Value and Virtue: but the sacrifice of Eucharist, is respectivum dependens & applicativum, relative to that Sacrifice on the Cross, depending on it, and borrowing totamsuam propitiandi Vim à Sacrificio crucis, all the propitiatory force it hath, from that on the Cross; Lastly, it is applicative of the Sacrifice of the Cross, applicando nobis crucis merita & Valorem, it applies, saith he, unto us the merits of that Sacrifice. Again, for the dependency of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist upon that of the Cross, he acknowledges there, in effectu suo non minù quam ●lim Judeorum sacrifisia ab eo dependere, that it depends no less upon it, as to his effect and force, than the Judaical Sacrifices did. And pag. 707. he makes the effect of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in and by the virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross, to be as the Working of the Second Cause, by the cooperation of the First. And endeavouring to show how the propitiatory virtue, attributed to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, doth not derogat from the sufficiency of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, he cannot do it, but by making the one medium applicationis, a means appointed to apply the other unto us; and this he proves by the Acts of Faith and Repentance, which besides the Sacrifice of the Cross are required in us, to make it effectual to us: and by Baptism Ordained of God to apply his blood to us; and neither of these derogatory to the sufficiency of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross. Thus he, pag. 714. 723.7●6.  
5. Now in all this we may observe what a wide difference is made between the Sacrifice in the Eucharist, and on the Cross, and thereupon how impossible it is to make them one and the same; also how senseless it is, to affirm this of Christ offering himself up in the Eucharist, whether we consider the dependency acknowledged, to say Christ's offering himself up in the Eucharist had not efficacy of itself but dependently of an other offering up of himself: or whether we consider the application spoken of, to say that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist, to apply the merit of his Cross unto us; But to let pass these and many more Absurdities which follow upon their saying, Christ offered himself up in the Last Supper, we may farther observe, how the Romanists, after all their contending for a real, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, are fain to make it but applicative, and that is it which we ascribe to the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament appointed for this end & purpose, that by it the Sacrifice of the Cross may be applied to us. The greater is their presumption, that have taken off this applicative virtue from the Eucharist, as a Sacrament appointed of God to that end, and ascribe it to the Eucharist under the notion of a Sacrifice of their own devising; have drawn off the people from seeking it in the Eucharist, of which they are made partakers, to expect it from the Mass, which is performed by the Priest alone. 
Romish vain pretence from Do this.  So finely do they plead for this their Sacrifice by our Saviour's bidding us Do this, and so plainly practise against it; for whereas our Saviour saying, Do this, commands the whole Action of the Sacrament, viz. Consecration and participation, that which belongs to the Priest to do, to bless, consecrate, distribute, and that which belongs to Priest and people to do, to take, eat, and drink, as the Apostle plainly shows, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26. the Romanists will not do this accordingly, but in the Eucharist suffer not the people to drink of the Cup, denying them therein the application of Christ's blood shed on the Cross; and in the Sacrifice of their Mass, they restrain, [do this] to that only which the Priest doth, as in their daily private Masses.  
6. 
Of the Father's placing a acrifice in the Eucharish.  Secondly. It is true, that the Fathers often speak of the Eucharist as of a Sacrifice, and that they say Melchisedech's Bread and Wine prefigured it, and that they often apply the words of Malachy, cap. 1.11. a pure offering to it: and a great noise is made by the Romanists of the say of Fathers upon these places, and all to no purpose. For what if some Father's thought, Melchisedech sacrificed not in Beasts as the Aaronical Priests did, 
Of Melchisedeches Bread and Wine applied thereunto.  but in Bread and Wine, and out of that Bread and Wine, so presanctified and offered before to God, he refreshed Abraham and his company? and what if they make application of this to the Eucharist? it will but amount to this at the most: that He, who was Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech, should likewise take of God's creatures, (as Ireneus speaks) Bread and Wine, and consecrate them into the Sacrament of his body and blood, to be offered up in Sacrifice unto God, and to be communicated, as spiritual refection, to them that come to receive it. And so the Eucharist (whether considered as first celebrated by our Saviour, or as after by us) is the representation and showing of that Sacrifice, 1 Cor. 11.26. and the participation or Communion of it, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. That this was prefigured in Melchisedeches Bread and Wine, as offered to God, and brought forth to Abraham, is all that by any force of reason can be driven out of the expressions of the Fathers.  
And for that other place of Malachi, 
Of Malachi his pure offering applied thereto.  of Incense and a pure offering divers Fathers give us the immediate and direct sense: Tertullian saith, It is Oratio simplex de conscientiâ purâ, unfeigned prayer from a pure Conscience, lib. 4. contra Marcionem, cap. 1. Eusebius in his first book de demonstr. Evangel. cap. 6. makes it the same with that worship, our Saviour speaks of, S. John 4.23. in spiritu & veritate, puròque obsequio, a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth, and with pure obedience. Hierom also tells us it is here foretold that the prayers of the Saints were to be offered to God, not in one place or province, but every where. Now the usual exception of Romanists (which Champny also pleads here) is, that such prayer, and spiritual Offerings were required under the Law, and therefore some Other external Offering, and divers from all that was before, must be meant by the Prophet. But this Exception hath no force for sure our Saviour spoke pertinently, when he opposed the Worship in spirit and Truth, (S. John 4.23.) to the Jewish manner of Worshipping, notwithstanding that it was required of the Jews to Worship in Spirit and Truth. For there is a double difference of this Christian Worship from that under the Law; One in the Manner of performance of it among the Gentiles, purely without mixture of external Sacrifices, or Legal performances, in respect to which Saint Paul calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reasonable service, Rom. 12.1. and Eusebius, lib. 1. de Demonstr. Evang. gives us this reason, why Malachi calls it, sacrificium mundum, a pure offering; because, the Gentiles were to offer to the high God, non per cruores, not with the blood of Beasts as under the Law, but per pias actiones by holy spiritual Acts and Duties: Another difference was in the place; The whole Worship and offerings of the Gentiles were to be performed to God in every place: Our Saviour tells us it was not to be bound either to Jerusalem, or to Samaria, S. John 4.22. and Saint Paul tells us of lifting up pure hands in every place, 2 Tim. 2. and Eusebius in the place forecited, showing how the Religion of the Patriarches before the Law agreed with the Christians, makes this one Instance, because they did in omni loco adorare, Worship in all places, and then proves it by this place of Malchi, that the Christians should do so. As for the Fathers that applied this pure Offering to the Eucharist, they might well do it upon the former account: the Eucharist having his name, from the Sacrifice of praise, and being that great and solemn performance, wherein the pure Offering of Prayer and Praise, and the devoting of ourselves to God's service is specially made. But it will be said, the Fathers apply this Pure Offering of Malachi to the Eucharist, in respect of the body and blood of Christ there offered up: It is true, that some of them so express it, and it is no more, than what they often say, without relation to that place of Malachi, according to their usual manner of speech: but far from the Romish sense or purpose; as it remains to show in the next place.  
7. 
The meaning of the Father's speaking of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist.  Thirdly. However the Fathers used for the most part to speak of this Mystery of the Eucharist Mystically and obscurely, under the properties of the things signified, rather than of the external Symbols, and therefore seeming to imply a real Conversion of Transubstantiation of the Symbols into the Body and blood of Christ, and a real Sacrifice, or Offering up of that Body and blood again in the Eucharist, yet do they sometimes punctually, and positively express their meaning by the Memorial, Representation, and showing in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross; and this they learned from Saint Paul, who tells us, 1 Cor. 11.26. to do this is to remember, and to show the Lords death. And for their mystical and figurative manner of speech they had his his example too, Gal. 3.1. Crucified amongst you; Was Christ really and properly crucified amongst the Galatians? No, but by description, setting forth, or representation of his Death and Passion often made among them in the Word and Sacraments. Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers, I shall instance only in three of them. First, in chrysostom, who of all the Fathers speaks most high and Hyperbolically in this matter of the Eucharist; and the place shall be that which Champny here citys, as advantageous to his cause; Homil. 17. in Hebr. he puts these questions: Do we not offer daily? Offerimus quidem, (saith he) sed mortem ejus in memoriam revocamus, we offer, but it is by making a remembrance of his death. Again, because we offer often, quomodo una est & non multae? how is his death or offering up but one and not many? Hoc est, saith he, figura illius, what we do is the figure of that. And because, he is offered in many places, Multine sunt Christi? are there many Christ's? No, hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum: What we do, is done in remembrance of what was then done by him. Lastly, We offer not aliam Hostiam, another Sacrifice, but Eandem semper facimus, vel potiùs hostiae, seu sacrificii recordationem facimus, we offer always the same that Christ did, or rather (mark this correcting of himself) we make a remembrance of his oblation or Sacrifice. He would be accounted a Lutheran or Heretic in the Church of Rome that should so answer to these questions. Next, S. Augustine, Ep. 23. solves the like question. Christ (saith he) was once immolatus in semetipso, offered up or sacrificed in himself, but is he not also daily in the Sacrament? Non Mentitur qui interrogatus respondet, immolari: he should not lie, that being asked that question, should answer, He is offered up: and what is his reason? quia Similitudinem, because of that near similitude, which Sacraments have of those things, of which they are Sacraments. But Champny and the Romanists do lie, when they say, Immolatur, He is offered up in their sense (i. e. really, properly) and when they say, the Priest hath power so to offer him up. But we do not lie, if we say (as the Fathers did) Christ is offered in the Eucharist, or that the Eucharist is his Death and Passion, or that the Bread and Wine is his Body and Blood, or that he is truly present in the Sacrament. Yea in such attributions of the thing signified to the Sacrament, 
Questions made by Sacramental attributions to be answered affirmatively, rather than negatively.  we ought to answer affirmatively; and that because of the similitude and near union between the Sacrament and the thing signified; but especially because of the effect to which God hath ordained the Sacrament, that it should be so really to us, in the true application of the Sacrifices of the Cross to us, in our real Communion and participation of his body and blood, in our real conjunction unto Christ. Many other places there are of the same Father to the like purpose, as lib. 20. contra Faustum, cap. 21. speaking of the respect which the Sacrifice before, and the Eucharist after, had to the Sacrifice of the Cross, in those saith he, promittebatur, it was promised: in his Passion the flesh and blood of Christ's Sacrifice per ipsam veritatem reddebatur; was truly and really exhibited; but after his ascension per sacramentune memoriae celebratur, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance: And as he is cited by Gratian, de Consecr. Dist. 2. Vocatur immolatio— that offering that is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Sacrifice, the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not that it is so in truth and very deed, but in a mystery signifying and representing it. Lastly, let Eusebius speak, who in his first book de Demonstr. Evang. cap. 10. accurately sets down and clears this whole business of the Eucharist; There he shows why Christians do not offer Beasts in Sacrifice as the Patriarches did before the Law: because all such are taken away in Christ's Sacrifice, which they did prefigure; also, because Christians have Spiritual Sacrifices now to offer unto God, but foretold in the Psalms, and the Prophets; and thereupon he tells us the relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice on the Cross; Christ saith he, offered a wonderful Sacrifice, for our Salvation to his Father, and instituted (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the memory thereof to be offered by us to God, for or in stead of a Sacrifice. Again, Hujus Sacrificii memoriam in mensâ per Symbola corporis & sanguinis ipsius— The remembrance of this his Sacrifice at the Holy Table by the Symbols of his body and blood we have received according to the institution of the New Testament, and thereupon Incruentas & rationales Victimas, we offer to God unbloudy and reasonable Sacrifices by the most eminent High Priest; (whereas the Romanists will have us offer up the High Priest himself.) And what are those unbloody Sacrifices, 
The unbloody Evangelical Sacrifices.  which we offer up at the Lords Table, as he calls it, or at the Altar, as the Fathers commonly speak? He there numbers them punctually, Sacrificamus, memoriam magni illius Sacrificii celebrantes, etc. We Sacrifice by celebrating the Memory of that great Sacrifice on the Cross; by giving thanks to God for our Redemption; by offering up holy prayers and Religious Hymns; Lastly, by dedicating ourselves wholly to him in Word, body and Soul. So that Ancient and learned Father.  
8. 
Vain exception or Reply of the Romanists.  All that the Romanists have to reply unto the Evidence of these and other Fathers, speaking properly of that respect and relation the Eucharist hath to the Sacrifice on the Cross, comes to this; that the placing of a remembrance or representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross in the Eucharist, doth not hinder it to be a true and proper Sacrifice also: no more, saith Champny, pag. 699. then the respect, which the Sacrifices of the Law had to Christ's Sacrifice hindered them to be true and real Sacrifices. But all this is very impertinent; for if the Fathers had barely said, there was a remembrance in the Eucharist of Christ's Sacrifice, it had not excluded a real Sacrifice; but when in explaining themselves (why they call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, and why they say Christ is there offered up,) they give it for the reason of their so speaking, because that Sacrifice once offered by our Saviour is there remembered, shown, and represented, it is most plain they did not think that which is done in the Eucharist to be a real Sacrificing of Christ. Their Instance also of the Legal Sacrifices is as impertinent, for they were real Sacrifices in regard of the Beasts really slain, and offered: Now if the Romanists will have the Bread and Wine (which represent the Body and Blood which was really offered) to be the real Sacrifice in the Eucharist, than indeed the remembrance or representation of Christ's Sacrifice there doth not hinder but there may be also an external oblation (and so many Fathers accounted the Bread and Wine to be, as they were brought and offered to that Holy use and service) But the Romanists will not say the Bread and Wine is the Sacrifice, they contend for, but that it is the very Body and Blood which is offered up; Which Body and Blood being the same, that was offered up upon the Cross, their Real Sacrifice cannot have help by their instance of the Legal Sacrifices of the Bodies and blood of Beasts, but stands excluded by the Fathers, saying, Christ is offered up in the Eucharist by a Mystical signification, by a remembrance, by representation, as above said. It is very remarkable what Peter Lombard saith to this purpose. The Question he puts is the same we have in hand, and his Resolution the same we give to it; Si quod gerit Sacerdos, etc. Whether that, which the Priest doth be properly called a Sacrifice or offering up? and whether Christ is daily offered up, or was but once? To the first he answers, It is called a Sacrifice, quia memoria est & representatio veri Sacrificii in arâ crucis— because it is the remembrance and representation of that true Sacrifice on the Cross; To the second, Christ once died on the Cross, ibique immolatus est in Semetipso, and there was offered up in himself, or offered up himself indeed, but he is daily offered up in the Sacrament, quia in Sacramento fit recordatio illins quod factum est Semel, because in the Sacrament, there is made a remembrance of that, which was done once upon the Cross. Bellarmine's answer here is a miserable shift; That the Master of the Sentences by this doth not deny a real Sacrifice in the Sacrament, 
Another vain exception,  but a real Occision or killing of Christ. For as this is plainly impertinent to Lombard's resolution of the question, so is it to that which Bellarmine and all of them do and must grant, that in a real Sacrifice there must be a real destruction or consumption of the thing Sacrificed: and they are as hard put to it, to show this destruction or consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ, as to show his Occision; for at last it comes to this with them, that the Species of Bread and Wine under which they will have his body and blood to be, are destroyed, and not his body indeed. A fair reckoning. This place of Lambard was cited by Mason, and Champny perceiving, as it seems, the weakness of Bellarmine's answer, doth wisely take no notice of it, altogether omitting to speak any thing to it. But to my apprehension it is very considerable, 1. Because it was the purpose and work of the Master of the Sentences to gather a body of Theology, or Resolutions to all Theological Doubts, out of the Sentences of the Fathers: and to this Quare of a Real Sacrifice, he could draw out of them no other resolution then what we have heard. 2. Because it is a clear evidence, how this present Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching a real Sacrifice, was not form or believed so long after the age of those Fathers, they so much boast of. The sum of all is this. The Fathers usually expressed the Celebration or work of the Eucharist by the Words of Sacrifice, or offering up the Body of Christ for themselves and others, because there was a Representing of the real Sacrifice of the Cross, and a Presenting (as we may say) of it again to God for the impetration or obtaining of the benefits thereof for themselves, and for all those, they remembered in the Celebration of the Eucharist.  
9 Fourthly, 
Of prayer and Offering for the Dead.  It is true, that the Ancient Fathers speak of offering this Sacrifice for the dead, but far from the Popish sense, according to which, Romish Priests in their Ordination are said to receive Power to offer Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead: For that offering for the Dead, which the Ancients speak of, in the Celebration of the Eucharist, had the same extent, purpose and meaning, that their prayers there for the dead had; and these anciently were made for those, whom they judged to be in bliss; Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Holy Bishops, etc. and the purposes of the Church, in remembering those in her public prayers, were many: as we find in the Ancient Writers, especially Epiphanius, Haer. 75. I may reduce them to these heads. First, They were Acknowledgements of the honour and pre-eminence of Christ above all men, that all they stood in need of mercy, and that he only was not to be prayed for, but to be prayed to; (note all Invocation of Saints stood excluded then by these prayers for the Dead) of the happy estate of those they prayed for, that they lived with God; Of their own hope, that they trusted to attain to the same state of bliss. Secondly, they were Thanksgivings for their sleeping in the Lord. Thirdly, Petitions for that which was yet behind, for their consummation: that which Saint Paul calls the Redemption of the body, Rom. 8.23. the Crown of Righteousness to be given in the last day, 2 Tim. 4.8. the Mercy, which he prays Onesiphorus may find in that day, 2. Tim. 1.18. The Arcient Prayer, which is yet retained in the Canon of the Mass, sounds to this purpose; Remember O Lord, the Souls of thy Servants, which rest in the sleep of Peace,— This prayer indeed seems to be framed with respect to that opinion, which anciently was very common in the Church, that the Souls of just men were not admitted into the sight and presence of God till the Resurrection, but kept in Receptacles of Rest, Peace and Light, of blessed comfort and refreshment: yet it tells us, that which they prayed for them, was in regard of all the mercy and glory that was behind; And it is plain by the Writers of those times, that this remembering of the Dead, thus in the Celebration of the Eucharist (which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice) was that which the Ancients called Offering for them, or as in Saint Augustine's time, Offering the Sacrifice of the Altar, or the Sacrifice of our Saviour for them, i.e. an acknowledging of, and thanksgiving for their sleeping (pro dormitione, as Saint Cypr. and others) in the Lord, and their saving by the merits of his death: and an Impetration (by his Sacrifice then represented) of all that mercy, redemption and glory which was yet behind. Thus Saint Augustine in his Confessions speaks of Offering for his Mother Monica, (whom he doubted not to be in bliss) i. e. remembering her upon the like respects.  
The Romanists have applied all prayers and Offering for the Dead to the Souls in Purgatory: 
Romish misapplication of all to the Souls in Purgatory.  Bellarmine tells us, the Mass may be said in honour of Saints, and with invocation of them, lib. 2. the Mis. cap. 8. so contrary doth the Church of Rome now run to Antiquity, which offered for and prayed for the Saints, and both in the honour of Christ and his Sacrifice— Now the Offering of their Mass, and the prayers for the dead are made for the souls in purgatory: and in regard of them only it is, that the Romish Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice for the Dead. And accordingly they are bound to apply the aforementioned prayer, (Remember O Lord, etc.) to the Souls in Purgatory: but so untowardly, that Bellarmine, answering for the Canon of the Mass, could not with all his wit come off any better than thus; They rest (saith he) from the works of sin, though not from Torment. So then to lie in Torment, is to rest in the sleep of peace.  
10. Indeed in the fourth Century, they began to inquire, what benefit of the prayers and oblations of the Church might redound to them, which were not in requie, in rest and sleep of peace, but in aerumnâ, in trouble and grief after this life. The second Quaere ad Dulcitium, is to that purpose; where Saint Augustine saith, that Paulinus had also consulted him about it. Now to this Quaere, they spoke their private opinions, such as their compassion to the dead suggested: Saint Augustine delivers his in that place, ad Dulcitium; in his Enchirid c. 109. and in his book de curâ pro Mortuis— Which book was also occasioned by a like quaere put to him by Paulinus out of like curiosity: 
Private conceits about a Purging fire.  Whether it was any help to the dead, to have their bodies buried near the Memories or Tombs of Martyrs? Then also was enquiry made after some kind of purging fire to help such as held the Foundation, dying in the profession of Christian Faith, but whose lives were not answerable: as we may see by Saint Augustine, Lib. de fide & oper, (where cap. 1. and 15. he confutes them, who conceived, by mistake of the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 3.15. that those which died, professed of the Christian saith, might be purged from all their evil works by some fire, and so come to salvation, merito fundamenti, by reason of the foundation held) also in his Enchirid: cap. 109. and in 1. quest. ad Dulcitium, and in his 20. and 21. books, the Civ. Dei. Now though they differed in their conceits about this fire, whether it was immediately after death, or at last day commonly called Ignis conflagrationis; and about the Persons to be purged and helped by it; yet all of them seem to conceive it to be a fire of Passage only for souls to go through to their appointed receptacles; not a fire of Durance, for souls to lie in, as in a receptacle till the day of judgement, as the Romanists believe it. All that Augustine concludes upon it, is nothing but uncertainty: Tale aliquid, some such thing may be after this life; and quaeri potest— it may be put to the question, & non est incredibile, it is not incredible, and forsitan verum est, perchance it may be true, so he of it, in the forementioned places. We see by this how from the curiosity of some of the Ancients enquiring after relief and help for those Dead, whose state was of more uncertain condition, Romish superstition hath taken her rise: and how from the private opinions, and uncertain conceits of some of the Ancients, length of Time and strength of Romish presumption hath framed Articles of Faith: this of Purgatory for one; in respect to which and relief of the Souls tormented therein, their Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice, even the body and blood of our Saviour.  
11. Now to conclude. By all that hath been said, it appears how groundless, unwarrantable, and presumptuous this power is, which the Romish Priests pretend to; and how that power which our Priests or Presbyters receive in ordination, and use in celebrating the Eucharist, is warranted by the express Word, and doth the whole work of the Sacrament sufficiently, according to all purposes that our Saviour intended it for, when he said, do this: and according to the true and proper meaning of the Fathers, speaking usually of a Sacrifice in it. And this is so much more considerable, because the Romanists place the highest and chiefest act of Worship Evangelicall in this Sacrifice of the Mass, and account the chief power and perfection of Evangelicall Priesthood or ministration, (totam vel maximam perfectionem sacri Ordinis, saith Champny, pag. 184.) to be in this real Sacrificing, or offering up the body and blood of Christ. And therefore it is most strange that in all the Evangelicall Writings, there should be no Precept for such a Worship, no institution of such a Sacrifice, no commission for using such a power: and that seeing the Apostle had often just occasion to speak of such a Sacrifice and Priesthood in his Epistle to the Hebrews; nay, had all the reason that could be to have acquainted them with it, had there been any such; whereas we show express commands for that way of Worship we retain, (which with the Romanists is nothing in comparison of their Mass.) We show direct commission for that power we use, of Preaching, Binding, Losing, consecrating and celebrating the Sacraments, which they account but dependent, and subservient to the power of making the body of Christ and offering it up. As for their pretence by our Saviour's command Do this, we found them thereby engaged to affirm that Christ offered himself up to his Father for the sins of the world in the Sacrament, flat contrary to the tenor of the Gospel which yields that only to the Cross: and expressly contrary to Saint Paul who affirms, he offered himself but once for sin, Heb. cap. 7. and cap. 9 see above Num. 3. And when they have persuaded themselves of this untruth, that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist, how can they assure themselves that do this warrants them to do all they suppose he did, i.e. to offer him up, as he did himself? It is enough for us men to do this, as a Sacramental action, blessing, distributing, eating, drinking; and by adding to it in remembrance of me, he plainly shows he meant no real Sacrifical action, by offering him up again, but the Sacramental only, by representing and remembering his once offering up himself to death, and so the Apostle tells us, Do this imports, 1 Cor. 11. How great presumption is this for Mortal man to take upon him thus to offer up the Son of God? Bell lib. 3. 
Bellarm. vain exception to excuse the Romish presumption.  de Pontif. Ro. c. 19 writing of Antichrist, and answering to this, as a piece of Antichristianisme charged upon the Church of Rome, dare not simply affirm that the Priest offers up Christ, but that Christ offers up himself, per manus Sacerdotis, by the hands of the Priest. Whether Bellarmine mend or mar his business here, its hard to say; This, we know, that Christ our Highpriest (according to the Apostle, Heb. 7.25. and 9.24.) is in Heaven at God's right hand, executing his eternal Priesthood, by interceding for us, and in that representing still what he hath done and suffered for us: And we know, we have warrant and his appointment, to do the like Sacramentally here below, i.e. in the celebration of the Eucharist to remember his Death, and Passion, and to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross, and by it to beg and impetrate, what we or the Church stand in need of: We know also, that as He gives His Minister's Commission and Authority to do this, so he assists them here below by his power and grace; But that Christ should daily here below offer himself up personally (for this Bellarmine must affirm in his qualifying of the Romis● presumption) by the hands of the Priest, is inconsistent with that once offering of himself on the Cross, and with the present performance of his Priesthood in Heaven, where he is ever to intercede for us, Heb. 7.25. and to appear in the sight of God for us, Heb. 9.24. This also would turn our Saviour's command Do this in remembrance of me (by which the Romanists pretend to take thus much upon them) into a promise, I will do this in remembrance of myself, by your hands: A meaning of our Saviour's words, which the Apostle knew not, when he told the Corinthians, what it was to do this; so oft as ye eat— and drink this— 1 Cor. 11. Yea, the Priest saith directly in order of their Mass: Suscipe Pater— hanc Hostiam— quam ego indignus servus tuus offero tibi— Receive, O Father, this Sacrifice— which I thine unworthy servant do offer up unto thee— They that composed this prayer knew not that Christ (as the Cardinal contrives it) offered up himself there by the hands of the Priest, or rather knew not that Christ was there really offered; but by the (Hanc Hostiam, this Sacrifice) meant as the ancient Fathers did, as shown 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 show 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 acknowledge 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 Christ's 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 Ivy-lane, LONDON.  

A Collection of all the several Tracts and Sermons formerly published, by Henry Ferne, D. D.  
1. THe Resolving of the Conscience, etc.  
2. Conscience satisfied, etc.  
3. A Reply to several Treatises, etc.  
4. Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon the Reformation.  
5 Episcopacy and Presbytery considered, etc.  
6. A Sermon preached at the public Fast, the 12. day of April, at St. Mary's Oxford, etc.  
7. A Sermon preached before his Majesty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, etc.  
1. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the books of the New Testament, briefly explaining all difficult places thereof, by H●ury Hammond, D. D. in fol.  
2. The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond, D. D in two volumes in 4ᵒ.  
3. Dissertiones quatuor, quibus Episcopacus Jura ex S. Scriptures & primaeuâ 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, sacredness, 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 Apology for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgy; in 4ᵒ.  
6. A Discourse of Baptism, 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 Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls, in several Soliloquies, by Francis Quarles, in 12ᵒ.  
The Life of Faith in Dead Times, by Chr: Hudson, in 12ᵒ.  
Motives for prayer upon the seven days of the Week, by Sir Richard Baker Knight, in 12ᵒ.  
The Guide unto true blessedness, or a body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures, directing man to the saving knowledge of God, by Sam. Crook, in 12ᵒ.  
Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions, preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne, in 4ᵒ.  
The Dipper dipped, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged 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.  
Philosophical Elements, concerning Government and Civil society: by Tho: Hobbs of Malmesbury, in 12ᵒ.  
A Discourse of Holy Love, by Sir George Strode Knight, in 12ᵒ.  
The Saint's Honeycomb 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 Ligan & Foedere, Jurament Negative, etc. in 8ᵒ.  
Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times, by jasper maine, D. D. in 4ᵒ.  
janua 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. ●leighs History of the World, by Alexander Rosse in 12ᵒ.  
Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine, john Donne, in fol.  
Wit's Commonwealth, 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.  
Solomon's Recantation, in 4ᵒ.  
Amesii Antisynodalia, in 12ᵒ.  
Christ's Commination against Scandalisers, by John Tombs in 12ᵒ.  
Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountaines Letter, in 4.  
A Tract of Fortifications, with 22 brass cuts, in 8.  
Dr. Griffith's Sermon Preached at S. Paul's, in 4.  
Blessed birthday, printed at Oxford, in 8ᵒ.  
A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical, in 4.  
An Account of the Church Catholic where it was before the Reformation, by Edw: Boughen D D in 4.  
An Advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching Witches, written by the Author of the Observations upon Mr. Hobbs Leviathan, in 4.  
The Commoners Liberty or the English man's Birthright in 4.  
An Expedient for composing differences in Religion, in 4.  
The holy life and death of the late Vi countess Falkland, in 12.  
England's faithful Reprover and Monitour. Directed,  
1. To the Church of England.  
2. To the inferior Ministers of the Gospel.  
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, etc.  
6. To the City of London.  
7. To the seduced of this Nation, and to as many as have separated 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 Sequestered Divine.   
FINIS.