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 forbad the taking of the Oath of Allegiance as contrary to the Catholic faith and many Priests notwithstanding with most of the Romish Catholicks 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 stiles himself and published An. 1634. 28. Now for a general Councel 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 c. takes hold of the Pastors of the Church gathered in Councel 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 Emperours 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 Councel of Ephesus and as Champny could not but know the Kings of France did against the Conventicle of Trent so Hen. call'd it forbidding the Decrees of it to be received for the space of 40. years For Anno 1598. we finde 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 Councel 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 then the evidence of the thing that packing and faction which was apparent in that Councel 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 Emperours shewed 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 Emperours making Lawes 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 denyed him his Patriarchal Primacy known and bounded by the first general Councels neither would it have been denyed him in this Realm could he have conteined 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 shew us they admitted such Jurisdiction or that the General Councels acknowledged it we will also acknowledg the Popish Bishops were unjustly deprived as to that point Secondly Those Emperors by their Laws did but confirm and in their doings about Church-affairs did but follow the Canons and judgment of former Councels This is the summe of his second answer And this is true of many of them but derogats nothing from their Supremacy for it only implyes Direction received which we acknowledg Kings and Emperours ought in Ecclesiastical matters to receive from the Pastors of the Church in or out of Councel It doth not infringe the Autority which they have both in commanding the Pastors of the Church to meet in Councel 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 Councel of Ephesus had by the prevalency of a stirring faction in it passed judgment for deposing the good Bishop Flavianus and advanced the Eutychian Error Hereupon Leo Bishop of Rome with other Bishops humbly supplicated the Emperour Theodosius that all things might stand in the same condition in which they were before any of those judgments 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 Councel of Ephesus which cannot be called a Councel because held to the subversion of the Faith You most glorious Emperour aliud statuendo cassabis will make void or null by a contrary Decree for the love you bear the Truth c. In all this Three things are evident I. That a King or Emperour may and ought as he tenders the Truth of God reform or extirpate an Error or Heresie 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 joyned with him in the supplication although there be no foregoing Synodical judgment against the same Error as there had not yet been against the Eutychian Heresie II. That He may Null and make void the Judgment or Decree i. e. forbid it to be received of a Synod when manifested to him that it was carryed 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 Emperour might and ought to call a greater number of Bishops together for the confirmation of the Truth and so the Councel of Calcedon was gathered by the Emperour 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 Emperour is fair and we desire no more then that it be granted Princes may and should do so much within their Realms as the Emperour is here supplicated or exhorted to do And
Subjection and from all manner of Obedience So the Sentence ran and the Romish Priests began to stickle work busily thereupon then was it high time for the Queen State to look to themselves and therefore An. 13. made it Treason to disperse such Bulls and to reconcile or be reconciled upon them 6. Reconciling to the Bishop of Rome But we must note here 1. This reconciling there forbidden was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function but upon the Autority and by vertue of such Bulls which is plain by the words of the Statute If any person shall by colour of such Bull or Instrument or Autority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person c. and therefore they are called Bulls of absolution and reconciliation in that Statute 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation which we acknowledg to pertein to the Prieftly function by our Saviours institution that the very intent and purpose of it was formally Treason which also is plain by the same Statute in these words The effect whereof viz. of those Bulls and Instruments from Rome hath been and is to absolve and reconcile all those that wil be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to yeild and subject themselves to the usurped Autority of the Bishop of Rome Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God Had the Apostles preached such Gospel or practised such Reconciliation admitting none into the Christian Church but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their Kingdoms or to be cast out of them The Romish Priests then are justly ejected punished whose absolving of Penitents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due obedience whose reconciling men to God or his Church a cloak for their Reconciling to a forrein jurisdiction of Papal usurped Autority and what that brings after it who knows not If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it Seditions stirring up the People which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of Act. 24.12 and throughout his Epistles thence Insurrections Rebellions and because these suceeded not secret attempts upon the life of the Prince by Pystoes Poysonings and what not Therefore came out after ten years more the Statute which Champny cites out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute An. 12. Whereas sithence the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen divers evil affected persons have practised by other means then by Bulls or Instruments Written or Printed to withdraw her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience to obey the said usurped Autority of Rome For Reformation whereof be it enacted That all persons who shall pretend to have power or by any means shall put in practice though by pretence of Priestly function to absolve perswade or withdraw any of her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience or shall to that intent that 's noted stil in the drift of Romish practises and the ground of the Laws provision against them withdraw them from the Religion established to the Romish Religion 7. The frequent seditious practises of Romish Priests The Law looks at the consequents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church for they that made it were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it and by experience found what had been the practises following upon them and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion or expose it to Infamy let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it if upon their Priestly Function which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it let them blame themselves who have abused that Evangelical power to cloak and advance such hellish attempts If to the disparagement of privat Confession thanks to them that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons confessed 8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous as to confess and complain of the Seditious practises which those of the Society advanced and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests in their book set out in the latter end of the Queens Reign thus pag. 10. Amongst many things that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hardly of us all this is one that the pretended Brethren of that Society Jesuites and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State c. and afterward entring upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practises which he together with the rest of his society set on foot they thus write pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly in a seditious book set out by him against the cruelty of her Highness Lawes which we wish had been more mild but he never mentions that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traiterous courses against her Crown and Life Againe pag. 57. If these things viz. their endeavours to advance the Infanta's Title to this Crown should come to the knowledg of the State who will blame the same if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome be not wel entertained here Thus they truly and ingenuously of the practises of Romish Emissaries and of the justness of the Laws against them 9. I wil not say nor do I think that all their Priests which suffer here were Politicians or acquainted with all the devices of their Superiors I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such and do suppose there are some who in the simplicity of their hearts and out of meer Conscience of Religion do labour the propagation of it whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practises It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other that the punishment which the Law adjudges all Priests to that are found within the Land might only fall upon them who are indeed guilty of such practises which being so frequently found in their predecessors and the State being not able to distinguish between them who are all Missionaries of Rome caused those Lawes to be made for the security of Prince and State And if they that come into the Land without any treasonable intent do suffer for it they must thank their Fellows as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason Doctor Champny one would think should not be a stranger in France by the wisdome of which State the whole Order of the Jesuites was upon this score banished 1594. as Corrupters of Youth troublers of the public quiet and
use or exercise of that power nor could he lawfully Ordain others This is the summe of what he saith Of Bigamie or Digamie 1. We begin with that of Bigamie of which M. Mason took no notice in his defence of Bishop Cranmers Ordination and Doctor Champny only proves he was twice marryed which is not denyed but brings nothing to prove that such Bigamie or Digamie rather infers such an irregularitie as deprives a Bishop of the lawful use of his power of Ordaining To this charge it may be said I. That the Bigamy which the Apostle speaks of in his Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 and implicitly forbids when he saith Let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife was a superinduction of a Second Wife upon the former either kept still or put away a Polygamy both ways either direct by cohabitation with two Wives or that which followed upon unjust Divorce and was indeed the having of two Wives at once a licentious Custome frequent among Jews and Gentiles Now such a person that had done so before his Conversion to Christianity or after was justly debarred by the Apostle from Holy Orders but of this Cranmer was not guilty As for that Digamy which is the taking of a second Wife after the first being dead or the taking of a Widow to wife at first we acknowledg it forbidden by some Canons of the Church that for the most part the former place of the Apostle was by the Ancients applyed to this Digamy for no marvel if being earnest in the commendation of single life they should so readily receive the Apostles words in that sense which most answered to their purpose But some of the Ancients better considering it do acknowledg the meaning of the Apostle to be according to the former interpretation amongst whom are reckoned Justin Martyr Chrysostome and Theodoret. Yea that parallel place 1 Tim. 5.9 of a Widow having been the Wife of one Man doth most reasonably receive the like interpretation notwithstanding that the Romanists cry out of it as a thing unheard of that a Woman should have two Husbands at once which is true of two by cohabitation not by desertion for so it was often seen that the Woman either forsaking her Husband or forsaken of him married another the first being yet alive Such a Widow the Apostle rejects as one of ill fame and thus Theodoret and Theophylact are known to interpret the Apostle of a Widow that hath been coupled but to one Husband at once Lastly it is wel known how Tertullian after he was Montanist reproached the Catholicks with their twice marryed Bishops in his book de Monogam cap. 12. Quot apud vos praesident Digami How many that have been twice marryed preside among you Yet doth that practice tell us the Apostles words were not taken to be against Digamy but that which is properly Bigamy He that would see more of this phrase the Husband of one Wife and the Wife of one Husband he may please to look the places in Fulkes Rhemish Testament where the meaning is debated and Antiquity consulted 2. II. Therefore we may say That Digamy forbidden by Eccles Canon and found in Cranmer doth not make a Bishop so far irregular as to spoil him of the lawful use of his Order This rests upon the consideration of the purpose and binding force of such Canons And here it need not much trouble us in our proceeding that we meet with this Canon against Digamy among those which bear the name of the Apostles Whatever may be thought of some of them this seems plainly crept into that number if we consider the liberty of those firster Ages in this point of Marriage from after-Times and so of no other Autority then are after-Ecclesiastical Canons But let that be what it will for the present the Church of Rome stands bound to answer to the Autority of them as wel as we and hath transgressed against them especially the sixt Canon in a matter forbidden not only by these Canons but by the Law of God and the Judgment of the Apostle indeed and that is the putting away of Wife or forcing a Man to put her away in pretence of Religion or holy Orders As for Canons Ecclesiastical they deserve to have their due respect and obedience answerable to the Autority by which made Provincial National General and according to the Matter in which and the Purpose to which they are decreed The Canons which concern Digamy Marriage Single life Penance and the like are for Discipline and of such we may say 3. VVhat is said to the Canons forbidding it First Though they forbid men so or so qualified to be admitted into the Clergy or command them to be deposed if after admittance and receiving of Orders they transgress yet doth not such transgression ipso facto take away lawful use till the Canon hath his effect by actual deposing of such a person This is plain by transgressions of higher nature Heresie it self doth not take away the Lawful use of Order till it be notorious and the person so declared by the Church Concubinage also and Simony not only against the Canon but Gods Law too which they cannot say of Marriage do not ipso facto make such an irregularity for if all the Ordinations made by such Bishops were unlawful it would make a wide gap in the succession of their Romish Bishops and calling of their Priests who have received their several Orders from Concubinaries and Fornicators and Simoniacks all deposable by the Ecclesiastical Canons If they say which is all they can say that it was not notorious in those Ordainers this approves what I said that the transgression of such Canons against Marriage and Digamy cannot ipso facto take away lawful use of the power of Order and I can say as much for Bishop Cranmer who marryed in Germany the Kinswoman of Osiander before he was made Bishop and it was not known here all the time of Hen. 8. in which he ordained many Bishops But again we say the Whoredoms Incests Simony of many of the Popes Bishops Cardinals were notorious to the age they lived in and stand upon Record still so notorious and visible in the ninth and tenth Ages that Baronius cryes out Quae facies Ecclesiae Rom. Those abhominable misdemeanours were openly known and apparent in the face of the Church then and not only then but after too especially in Alexander the sixt most abhominably notorious They had need to look home and make up their own breaches before they charge us with such defects or irregularities as Marriage which is Honourable in all Men. 4. Secondly we must tell them the same Canons which forbid Marriage or Digamy forbid also Concubinage under the like punishment or irregularity and though there be a wide difference between Fornication and Marriage yet we appeal to them whether these be equally dealt with in the Church of Rome whether the like severity be used against the Concubinary
of Edward 6. but here is the mistake That form was not then first published or then received the first Autority but was in force before by vertue of a provisionall 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 Prelats and six other learned in Gods 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 adjoyning it to the book of Vniformity of Divine Service or publick Prayer under the like provisions exceptions penalties and with the same clauses as that book Of Vniformity of publick 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 Autority 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 over-shoots his Mark. 6. The Records publikly shewn to Romish Priests When he had thus far proceeded and with great assurance discredited Parkers 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 caus'd the Records to be produced shewing 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 Jesuite touching these Records and related by Mason upon his own knowledg 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 obtein 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 Prelats Persons of great severity and gravity should in so solemn an action play boyes 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 Prelats should meet to act a part in countenancing forged Records To say nothing of the severe gravity of all those Bishops Bishop Andrewes of all men living was least fit to do it who I dare say would have cast off his Bishoprick rather then held it by such a pretended warrant and so will all those think and say that either know the autority 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 Arch-Bishop Parker and the truth of the publick Records CHAP. IX Of the other Bishops ordained in the beginning of the Queens 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 Queens 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 entring 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 enter'd 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 Judg in such a businesse 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 joynt 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 publick disputation holden at Westminster for evidencing of the truth to the whole Kingdome and therein their obstinat opposition to the Reformation of Gods Worship and Religion Our Chronicles generally refer the cause of their deprivation to the refusal of the Oath and that is chiefly insisted on by M. Mason lib. 3 and by Docter 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 render'd them high