Abp. Cant. [14. Whether it be forefended by God's law, that if it so fortuned that all the bishops and priests of a realm were dead, and that the word of God should remain there unpreached, the sacrament of baptism and others unministered, that the king of that region should make bishops and priests to supply the same or no?] The answer to the other question next before dissolveth this. [15. Whether a man be bound by authority of this Scripture 'Quorum remiseritis," &c. and such like, to confess his secret deadly sins to a priest, if he may have him, or no?] He that knoweth himself guilty of any secret deadly sins must, if he will obtain the benefit of absolution ministered by the priest, confess the same secret sins unto him. Abp. Cant. Bishop Hereford. Tresham. Rochester Cocks. David's Crayford. Westminst. Absolution by a priest is the surest way, if he may be conveniently had. [16. Whether a bishop or a priest may excommunicate? For what crime? And whether [they] only by God's law?] Bishops or priests authorized by the prince may excommunicate by God's law for public and open crimes. But that others than bishops and priests may excommunicate, we have not read in Scripture. Some schoolmen say, that other than priests or bishops deputed thereunto by the church may excommunicate. Because it is an act "jurisdictionis," and not "ordinis." [17. Whether unction of the sick with oil to remit venial sins (as is now used) be spoken of in the Scripture or in any ancient authors.] We find it spoken of in Scripture and in old authors. Abp. Cant. [NUMBER XXVIII*. SOME QUERIES CONCERNING CONFIRMATION, WITH THE ANSWERS WHICH WERE GIVEN TO THEM BY CRANMER. The judgment of Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. Cotton Respon. There is no place in Scripture that declareth Cleop. E. v. this sacrament to be institute of Christ. fol. 83. Strype, First, for the places alleged for the same be no insti- Eccl. Mem. tutions, but acts and deeds of the apostles. App. vol. i. that Hist. of Second, These acts were done by a special gift given to Burnet, the apostles, for the confirmation of God's word at time. Reformat. Addenda, vol. i. No.3. Thirdly, the said special gift doth not now remain with ed. Oxon. the successors of the apostles. 1829. What is the external sign? The church useth "chrisma" for the exterior sign, but the Scripture maketh no mention thereof. d [This paper was "written with Cranmer's hand." Burnet's Hist. of Reformat. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 479. ed. Oxon. 1829. Strype however states, “This is writ (i. e. CRANMER, VOL. I. Hæc respondeo, &c.) with the What is the efficacy of this sacrament? The bishop, in the name of the church, doth invocate the Holy Ghost to give strength and constancy, with other spiritual gifts, unto the person confirmed; so that the efficacy of this sacrament is of such value as is the prayer of the bishop made in the name of the church. "Hæc respondeo, salvo semper eruditiorum et ecclesiæ orthodoxe judicio." Abp. Cranmer's Works, vol. ii. p. 80. Park. Soc. ed.] [Cotton MSS.] Cleop. 54 ARCHBISHOP NUMBER XXIX. CRANMER TO OSIANDER CONCERNING SOME ABUSES IN MATRIMONY AMONG THE GERMANS. Doctissimo Andreæ Osiandro, concionatori Norenburgensi. SALVE plurimum. Vix tribus abhinc diebus elapsis, Osiander dilectissime, literas ad te scriptitabam, quas per E. 5. p.111. subitum et festinatum tabellarii discessum coactus sum [British Museum. abbreviare, imo abrumpere plane, prætermisso eo, quod et Original.] tunc quam maxime scriptum volui, et nunc otii plusculum nactus, nescio quam nervose, verbose certe decrevi pertractare. Res est, ut mihi quidem videtur, non parva, neque leniter animadvertenda, ut quæ ad omnium evangelicam veritatem profitentium sugillationem, ne dicam ignominiam et culpam manifeste pertineat. Proinde te rogo, ut et scriptum hoc meum legas attente, et tuum vicissim responsum super eo conficias accurate, matureque remittas, quo habeam tandem quod respondeam iis, qui me interrogant. Nosti enim, opinor, ut soleant homines hic omnium quæ istic geruntur a me rationem exigere: alii quidem bono animo, et communis evangelicæ causæ studio soliciti, nequid a vobis fieret secus quam oporteret ; aliis autem malus est animus, mala mens. Nihil magis cupiunt aut captant, quam ut justam aliquam, vos et vestra facta dictave reprehendendi, ansam undecunque apprehendant; et gaudent si mihi in os subinde talia possint objicere. Quibus duobus inter se diversis hominum generibus respondeo ego persæpe, quæ vel ipse comminisci possum, vel quæ ex scriptis vestris, sive in publicum emissis, sive ad me privatim missis, possim colligere. Incidunt tamen persæpe nonnulla, quæ nec negare possum, nec absque rubore fateri; nequeo denique quo pacto a vobis honeste aut pie fieri doceantur, rationem ullam saltem excogitare sufficientem. Nam ut interim de usuris taceam, a vobis aut vestrum certe nonnullis, (ut apparet), approbatis, deque eo, quod magnatum filiis concubinas habendas permittitis, (videlicet ne per nuptias legitimas hereditates dispergantur), qui concubinatum in sacerdotibus tantopere aversati estis: quid poterit a vobis in excusationem allegari pro eo, quod permittitis, a divortio, utroque conjuge vivo, novas nuptias coire, et, quod adhuc deterius est, etiam absque divortio uni plures permittitis uxores? Id quod et tute, si recte memini, in quibusdam tuis ad me literis apud vos factum diserte expressisti, addens Philippum ipsume sponsalibus posterioribus, ut paranymphum credo atque auspicem, interfuisse. Quæ ambo, tum ipsius conjugii rationi, quæ non duo, sed unam carnem facit, tum etiam scripturis sunt expresse et manifeste contraria: ut patet Matth. xix. Marc. x. Luc. xvi. Rom. vii. 1 Cor. vii. Quibus locis perspicuum fit ex apostolorum, atque adeo Christi ipsius, institutione, unum uni debere matrimonio conjungi; nec posse sic conjunctos postea, nisi interveniente morte alterutrius, denuo contrahere. Quod si responderitis, hoc intelligi excepta causa fornicationis; an uxoris adulterium fuerit causa cur Philippus marito permiserit aliam superducere, e [i. e. Melancthon. See above, p. 180. n. *.] vos melius nostis. Quod si fuerit, tunc objiciemus, ab 55 ineunte hucusque ecclesia (cujus exemplis oportet scripturarum interpretationes conformari [confirmarique],) nunquam, quod scimus, hoc sic fuisse acceptum. Augustinus, quid ipse de hoc senserit, imo quid ecclesia ante ipsum, et usque ad ipsum, clare docet, Li. De adulterinis conjugiis, ad Pollentium. Quid igitur ad hæc dicetis, libenter vellem audire abs te quidem, si et ipse in eadem cum cæteris es sententia: sin minus, per te saltem vellem cognoscere, quid ab illis exploraveris ad talia responsum iri. Nam quum eorum nonnulli, ut audio, statuta nostra parliamentalia censorie nimis ac superciliose condemnent, quorum tamen gravissimas justissimasque causas ac rationes ignorant; mirum est quod interim ipsi non advertant apud ipsos plurima designari, quæ optimis atque gravissimis viris jure optimo displiceant. Scire atque aveo, an ista tanquam honesta, et promiscue quibusvis licita, ac evangelicæ veritati non repugnantia defendant; an secundum indulgentiam (ut dixit apostolus) ad ea, dum a quibusdam fiunt, connivent, nequid gravius contingat, non idem omnibus itidemque permissuri. Illud prius, haud equidem credo illos esse facturos, nisi legis Mahometanæ potius quam Christianæ assertores videri voluerint. Posterius hoc si faciunt, videant quomodo permittant, quæ Christus, apostoli, evangelistæ, atque adeo totius ecclesiæ consensus districte ab initio huc usque prohibuit. Quod si forte dixerint, ea jam quoque tolerari posse, eo quod ante Christum natum fuerunt, vel approbata vel tolerata, tunc enimvero causam nobis reddant, cur non et cætera toleremus, quæcunque tunc legimus pari jure usitata; aut definiant quænam hujus generis, ac quatenus erunt admittenda. Nam in Veteri Testamento expressum habemus olim patrem concubuisse cum filiabus, ut Loth; socerum cum nuro, ut Judam; patrem familias, nempe |