we shall

III.

those things which may be unknown without violating the DISCOURSE sum of religion, or without loss of salvation," or have no Church at all "-doth not concern us, who do not dream of an anabaptistical perfection, and upon this very ground do admit them to be a true Church, though imperfect; who have not separated ourselves, but been chased away; who have only forsaken errors, not Churches, much less obstinately, and least of all in essentials; who would gladly be contented to wink at small faults, so they would not obtrude sinful duties upon us as a condition of their communion.

The same answer we give to Perkins & and Zanchy h, cited only in the margin; whose scope is far enough from going about to persuade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome, for which they are cited by him. Rather on the contrary, if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome, and allow it not the essence of a Church, what doth that concern the Church of England? Will he blame us for being more moderate? Trust me, these authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery.

He telleth us, that they say unto us as St. Austin said unto the Donatists, If ours be religion, yours is separation i."" They may rehearse the same words indeed; but neither is Saint Austin's case their case, nor the Donatists' case our case. Sometimes they cry down our religion as a negative religion, as faulty in the defect. And now they accuse us of superstition in the excess. We approve no Church, with which they communicate, and we do not.

Doctor Field "saith, that, if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church, they need not use any other argument *""

It is most certain. We all

f [Id., ibid. § 16. (§ 12. ibid. p. 274, a.), quoted by R. C., ibid.]

[In Symbol. (Expos. of the Creed, Art. on the Church; Works, vol. i. p. 307. B-D. ed. 1616),-Reform. Cathol. (ibid. pp. 616, &c.; arguing that we should separate from Rome on account of her fundamental errors); quoted by R. C., ibid.]

say

the same. But still he

PART

confoundeth the Church, that is, the universal Church, with a Church, that is, a particular Church, and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church. Why doth he cite authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense?

SECTION THE FIFTH.

[This sec- In this section there is nothing but 'crambe bis cocta,' a tion mere repetition.] repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over, of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian world in communion of Sacraments. Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvin, Doctor Potter, and Master Chillingworth, which have already been fully answered'.

Our ordination justified.

SECTION THE SIXTH.

He saith, I " endeavour to prove the lawful ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time by the testimony of public registers and confession of Father Oldcorn m."

He knoweth better if he please,-that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeth's time, but in Edward 254 the Sixth's time. If they were not Protestants, they did them the more wrong to burn them for it. The ecclesiastical registers do make their ordination so plain, that no man who will but open his eyes can be in doubt of it.

[Father He confesseth, that Father Oldcorn did "say our registers Öldcorn's testimony.] were authentical "."

So must every one say or think that seeth them, and every one is free to see them that will.

But Father Oldcorn was a prisoner, and "judged others by himself"."

Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman-Catholic opinions. Why did he change in this more than in any of the rest? Because there is no defence against a flail, no

resisting evident demonstration, which doth not persuade but DISCOURSE compel men to believe.

III.

But "wherefore were not these registers shewed before [The public regisKing James his time "." ters.]

They were always shewed to every man that desired to see them. Registers are public records, the sight whereof can be refused to no man. The officer's hand is known; the office is secured from all supposititious writings, both by the oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the register, and by the testimony of all others, who view the records from time to time. He might as well ask why a proclamation is not shewed; which is first publicly promulged, and after that affixed to the gates of the city, and of the common-hall, and all other public places. If he could have excepted against the persons, either consecrators or consecrated, as that there were not such persons, or not so qualified, or not present at that time, he had had some reason for himself. But Episcopal ordination in England was too solemn and too public an act to be counterfeited. And moreover the proceedings were published in print, to the view of the world, whilst there were very many living who were eye-witnesses of the ordination.

And yet, by his favour, if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were, it might have made the ordination illegal, but not invalid; for which I will give him a precedent and a witness beyond exception. The precedent is Austin, the first converter of the English; the witness St. Gregory. "Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia," &c.-" And truly, in the English Church, wherein there is no other Bishop but thyself, thou canst not ordain a Bishop otherwise than alone," &c.; "but when, by the grace of God, Bishops are ordained throughout all places, ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops 9."

alleged by

He asketh, 'why Bishop Jewel or Bishop Horne did not [Why not allege these registers, when they were charged by Dr. Harding and Dr. Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops r?'

Jewel and
Horne.]

[Why not produced against

I might even as well ask him, when he citeth an authority out of St. Austin, why such or such an author, that writ before him upon that subject, did not cite it; and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit. An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing. Perhaps, for I can but guess until he cite the places, Dr. Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the ordainers, but against the matter or form of their Episcopal ordination. Perhaps, judging them to be heretics, they thought they had lost their character; which yet he himself will acknowledge to be indeleble. Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants, and they gave a general answer. Perhaps they were better versed in the schools than in records. Or, lastly, perhaps, or indeed without perhaps, they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the laws of England, not upon the invalidity of it, as shall clearly appear in my next answer. In all these cases there

was no occasion to allege the registers.

Why were they not shewed" (saith he), "when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the bar?... Bonner.] What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight years after ?"

Now let him take one answer for all. There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it, to be used throughout England, in the reign of Edward the Sixth. This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary; and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer, intending but not expressly mentioning the Book of Ordination, which was an appendix to it. So it was restored 255 again, either expressly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer, as containing the public prayers of the Church for that occasion, or at least implicitly, as being printed in the Book of Common Prayer from the beginning as an appendix to it. Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's ordination, not against the validity of it (what have Parliaments to do with

III.

the essentials of ordination?), but against the legality of it as DISCOURSE to the realm of England, by reason of the former pretended omission. So, to take away scruple, the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English law'. The Parliament knew well, that they had no power to make that ordination valid in itself which was invalid in itself, nor to make that invalid which was valid. This had been to alter the essentials of ordination. But they had power, for more 'abundant caution,' which 'never doth hurt,' to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a statute of Queen Mary, which in truth was sufficiently removed before. What is this now to our registers, whether they be authentic or not? No, we beg no help from any civil acts or sanctions to maintain our ordinations, either for matter or form. But we are ready to justify them by those very rules, which he saith the Council of Trent offered to the Protestants, namely Scripture, Tradition, Councils, Fathers, and especially the practice of the Catholic Church ".

But he saith, we are not "ordered to offer true substantial [Of the Sacrifice."

omission to mention

in our ordi

Not expressly indeed. No more were they themselves for Sacrifice eight hundred years after Christ, and God knows how much nation.] longer. No more are the Greek Church, or any other Christian Church in the world (except the Roman), at this day. Yet they acknowledge them to be rightly ordained, and admit them to exercise all offices of their priestly function in Rome itself; which was alleged by me in the Vindication; and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this Survey. The Greeks have no more mention of a sacrifice in their ordination than we;-"The grace of God promotes such a venerable deacon to be a presbyter ";"-yet the Church of Rome approveth their ordination and all their other rites, so they will but only submit to the Pope's spiritual monarchy: as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Muzal, and the Russians subject to the Crown of Poloniaa; and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth, upon the same condition. It is not so long since "Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome