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 Autority without tumult or resistance with a readines to suffer rather then is there peaceable subjection when private judgment 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 wayes applyed in that Church to the Creature such also are some superstitious Rites and Ceremonies having a kind of Sacramental vertue 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 enjoyned only with respect to Order and Discipline there is no cause of inconformity or forbearance yet in these hath there been great opposition from privat Judgments 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 Judgment of the Church and a forbearance of the Practice We say therefore those places are misapplyed to matters determined by publick Autority against which it is not doubting or want of Faith i.e. perswasion 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 Gods Word to the contrary and the Reason is plain the command of Gods Word for Obedience and Submission to them that are over us is evident and therefore against them we must have evidence from Gods Word to shew they are mistaken in their Judgment or determination of that particular Now when a Church professes the thing determined by her to be indifferent in it self or of a middle Nature neither commanded by God nor forbidden and that she neither affixes any Sacramental or Spiritual vertue or hollness to it nor enjoyns it as Worship but only out of respect to Order and Discipline no man can have any evident demonstration but only a doubting or mixt perswasion of the unlawfulness of such a thing and although a Man of doubting of a thing in it self indifferent but not determined or enjoyned by Authority may by reason of his doubting have cause to forbeare it yet not in this case of the supposed determination and injunction of Autority 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 Autority is one but this disobeying of Autority hath only one viz. when there is sufficient evidence of L. vine Autority against the thing determined by humane and so it becomes an Obeying of God rather then Man 19. Of Priests Celebacie enjoyned 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 Judgment and Practice to it I referr'd it to Discipline because antiently enjoyned 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 antient injunction from the now Roman exaction of single life nor question with what fulness of Autority it was enjoyned or how far or how long binding which I shall have more fit occasion to touch a little Num. 25.26 below and more largly against Champny in the sixth Chapter but only speak to the point of Submission and conformity to such judgment or determination of the Church supposing it fully concluded and binding Therefore I cannot but say while it was so binding every Clergy-man had cause to Judge the Governors of the Church saw reason to enjoyn 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 Gods 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 Priests 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 neer as I can to discover and fixe the bounds of Submission of Privat Judgment and Practice according to the several condition of the matter wherein it is shewn and according to the divers extent and manner of performing or shewing it either to a direct conformity and compliance with the publick or if dissenting yet to a yeilding of all possible peaceable Subjection and that if need be to a suffering under Autority If Privat Judgment keep it self 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 Autority 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 wil be worth our pains to take a short view of some passages of S. Aug. appliable to the business in hand concerning Autority and Reason I calld them Autority and Evidence or demonstration of Truth in his Books de verâ Relig. and de Vtil tate credend It is his purpose there to shew how Autority 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 Autority We may therefore take notice that the writing of those books was occasioned by the Manichees who reproached the Catholiques for requiring belief of their Scholars or Auditors before they shewed them reason and boasted Se terribili Autoritate separatâ c. that laying aside all supercilious Autority they would by simple and plain reason bring Men to God cap. 1. de util cred Had this Romish Infallible Autority which exacts belief simply and finally been then pretended to in the Church they might well have call'd it terrible Autority and S. Augustine could not but have spoken to it Whereas it is his only work in both books to shew that Men are first moved by Autority to a belief of things before they see
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 stil the mischief and hinderance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church Deus non erit Deus c. 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. Edwards Reformation To conclude Lay now the Premisses together and see the Warrantableness of the Reformation under King Edward both for the Thing done and the Autority by which it was done The Thing done was for the general what the Councel of Trent thought fit to be done the removing of some things which were crept in by the corruption of the Times by the carelesness 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 Autority 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 reformed according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity or the Autority 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 Elizabeths reign under whom we said the Reformation was perfected And here we are to enquire 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 appeare 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 Queens Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed and many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Maries 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 publickly at Westminster between learned Persons of both sides as more amply will be shewn 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 wil 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 meerly 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 Autority 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 supplyed by Bishops lawfully ordained as is also maintained against Champny who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edwards dayes 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 Gods Worship within this Land it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supremacy or of the power which by vertue of their Supremacy Princes have and to shew how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs it may be so bounded that it intrench 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
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 Kings Highness there was full power to render justice and finall Determination in all Debates Contentions c. and upon this ground were made many and sundry Lawes 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 Clergy-men 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 Emperour 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 Emperours 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 Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings 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 acknowledgment of all such Jurisdiction derived from the King All process Ecclesiastical is ordained to go forth in the Kings Name and the Teste in the Bishops name also the Kings 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 Heresie the bounds of this Supremacy of Princes are not so apparent Yet may they be so set as the power and judgment we yeild to Princes in and about such Things do not entrench upon but fortifie the Power and Office of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church For we acknowledg the Power and Office of Bishops to be both Directive in defining and declaring what the Lawes of Christ be for Doctrine Discipline of which things they are the immediat proper and ordinary Judges and also Coercive in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinatly gainsay and that as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for spiritual binding and loosing will reach VVhat 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 acknowledg 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 restreining 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 Prelats Pastors and Curats 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 Kings 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 Heresie is restrained to the Declaration of the first General Councels for Heresies past and for such as shall arise to the Assent of the Clergy in their â—onvocation 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 Autority 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 fondly 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 evill Rom. 13.4 i.e. for reward or punishment according to our doing or not doing duty and therefore they bear the Sword Iurisdiction of Princes is extrinsic Wherefore their jurisdiction is wholly Extrinsick as is their Sword not intrinsick 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 Gods service and glory and for the good of the whole Community 21. But Princes and Sovereign Powers are not meer 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 Autority of the same power for public establishment Princes
definition of any General Councel that they are most clearly according to the judgment of the Ancient Church Or look we at the End or purpose of the dispute which with us was public satisfaction to all persons doubting and to bring about a good and charitable agreement and this upon the command of the Prince the desire and expectation of the whole Kingdom but no such good purpose intent or expectation in the dispute or alteration unto which Saint Ambrose was provoked 8. His other Example relates to their not Crowning of the Queen Euphemius saith he Patriarch of Constantinople refused to acknowledg Anastasius for Emperour but repell'd him as an Heretick till he promised to admit the Councel of Chalcedon Here again is another fundamental point and the Declaration of an undoubted General Councel which notwithstanding could not give Euphemius warrant to do any more then express his judgment of the unworthiness of the Emperour But what is this to their refusal of Crowning the Queen whose right they had acknowledged whose faith they could not question as contrary to any approved Councel For what are the Novel Articles of Romish faith to the Fundamental Christian Faith declared in the Ancient Councels And yet must Princes by the judgment it seems of Romanists not have their Crowns if they will not first admit that faith or else lose them if after by due Reformation they cast it off Thus far of the offence of those Bishops as to the business of Crowning and Conference of which offence the Queen might well be a competent judg it being so apparant for the fact and against so known a duty 9. Their refusal of the Oath of Supremacy Now to the other offence charged on them the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy the chief cause of their deprivation Upon this Doctor Champny spends his 15. and 16. chap. and that he may prove that Deprivation unjust states the question thus Whether Queen Elizabeth with her Councel or Parliament could deprive those Bishops because they refused to swear that she was the Supreme Head of the Church of England pag. 536. and thereupon makes his Argument thus That Judgment is unjust which is given by an incompetent Judg. Now to prove the Queen and Parliament were not competent Judges he supposes it as clear that this was a Cause ad fidem Religionem directe pertinentem directly perteining to Faith and Religion and then assumes that neither the Queen nor any Lay-persons could be competent Judges of Bishops in such a Cause This he largely pursues by places of Scripture which shew that Bishops and Pastors are set in the Church to teach all others of what degree and rank soever in matters of Faith and Religion and therefore cannot be judged by them in such matters Luke 16.16 He that heareth you heareth me and Heb. 13.17 Obey those that have the rule over you and submit and the like Also by the Testimony of Emperours Constantine Valentinian Theodosius professing the judgment of such matters did not belong to them Also of Bishops Athanasius Hosius Ambrose plainly telling other Emperors as much Yea calls King James himself to witness citing out of his Declaration against Card. Perrouns Oration these words It is true that Emperours did not bear themselves as Supreme Judges in matters of Faith and Doctrine Lastly adds the testimony of Calvin Kemnitius and the Centurists against that title of Supreme Head Then in his 16. Chapter undertakes to answer what Master Mason had brought for Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things and Causes 10. The Title of Supreme Head of the Church But to his whole Argument in his 15. Chapter we may return this general answer There are thus many failings in it I. The question wrong stated for those Bishops were not put to swear the Q. was Supreme Head of the Church of England there are no such words in the Oath of Supremacy but that the Q. was Supreme Governor of the Realm of England and all other her Majesties Dominions in spiritual and ecclesiastical things and Causes For upon notice of offence taken at the title of Supreme Head of the Church which her Father and Brother had used the Queen was graciously pleased to wave it and put it as above said Supreme Governour of the Realm c. But Champny wittingly reteins the former Title as obnoxious to more reproach and Envy II. His Argument touches not the whole cause or the main part of it which concerned the renouncing of forrein Jurisdiction III. The cause rightly stated is not a matter directly perteining to faith and religion as he takes for granted IV. Albeit such a Judgment of matters perteining to Faith and Religion as those Emperors denyed doth not indeed belong unto them or any Lay-Persons yet may Kings and Emperors have such a judgment as is necessary for the due exercising their supreme power in and about matters and causes of Faith and Religion 11. Two things considerable in the Oath and accordingly two mistakeâ— That all this may the better appear We must observe there are two things considerable in the Oath of Supremacy What is attributed to the Sovereign Prince and then what is denyed to the Pope or any forrein Potentate and accordingly there is commonly a double mistake which the Adversaries and reproachers of this Oath this Docter Champny in particular do run upon The First is the overlooking of the main thing aimed at in this Oath which is not so much the affirming or attributing a Supremacy to the Prince as the denying and renouncing of the Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction and the excluding it out of this Land For it is security which the Prince seeks here and that stands not so much in receiving acknowledgments of Titles and bare assertions from Subjects as in their renouncing of all adverse power and promising not to obey it In special that known usurped power of the Bishop of Rome mentioned and branded as unsufferable in all the Statutes that concern the Supremacy of the Crown and so indeed it deserved to be both for the intolerable burdens and exactions it laid upon the Subjects of this Land and for the dangerous positions and Doctrines it draws after it to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince his Crown and dignity as The exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons which in effect makes them none or but half Subjects The deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdoms upon Excommunication which makes them no Kings or but at the Popes pleasure and according to the same Doctrine the Oath of Allegeance is pronounced by Pope Paul V. in his first Breve to contein many things flat contrary to the Catholic Faith and to the salvation of Souls and therefore by no means to be taken by any of his Catholicks And have not Princes good cause to look to themselves upon this point of Supremacy to the excluding of such forrein Jurisdiction so dangerous so injurious 12. Now that Security from this
usurped power and jurisdiction is chiefly 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. inforcing 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 Queens Highness and dignity of this imperial Crown and for avoiding such Hurts Perils dishonours and inconveniences as have befaln to the Queens Noble Progenitors the Kings and Queens of this Realm and to the whole estate thereof by meanes 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 tels us how their offence arises and what they deserve that by denying this Oath refuse to renounce such forrein 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 judg 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 Iudges 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 Popes 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 sayings of Emperors and Bishops cited before by Champny were well and piously spoken and may well stand with that knowledg judgment 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 dayes of those Pious and Moderat 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 shew 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 Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things He were made Supreme Judg of Faith decider of all controversies thereunto belonging and might ordain what he thought fit in matters of Religion This mistaken sense of the Kings Supremacy was first broached in Germany by the cunning of Stephen Gardiner who being there among the Protestants and chalenged 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 Soveraign Prince look we first to the Statutes which declare this Supremacy where we finde the expressions very large and general Seeing all Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings 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 Schismes 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 Soveraignty and Rule under God over all Persons born within her Realms of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal so as no other forrein power shall or ought 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 alwayes 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 Soveraignty over all persons estates though Ecclesiastical to rule them c. If it be said the Supremacy is not only over all Persons but also in all Causes and Things Ecclesiastical we bound 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
have their judgment about Matters of Doctrine defined And in order to the due using of that supream and Sovereign Power we must allow him that he go not blindly to work Judgment in receiving of the evidence not only a private Judgment of discretion which we must allow every man in order to his own believing but also a publick Judgment answerable to the publick care and office he bears Yet is it not that immediat and ordinary Judgment of Matters of Religion which belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that secundary Judgment as I may call it which is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Lawes that which is evidenced to him upon the Judgment and advise of the Pastors of the Church This Judgment 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 Lawes 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 peoples security to judg that nothing be concluded or broached prejudicial thereunto under pretence of Religion and Ecclesiastical Autority as many points of Popery are Now for this reason of the Princes 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 Kings Assent But if it be asked What if the Sovereign be wilful in following his own judgment rather then 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 yeild 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 Supremacie By all this which I have said to rectifie 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 Judgment in and about such things without invading that spiritual power and that immediat and ordinary judgment which belongs to the Pastors of the Church how also he may be said truly to Reform and Correct Errors Heresies c. 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 Gods Worship when they called and commanded the Priests to that work of purging the Temple and Ministring again in it according to the right way of Gods service Justinian in his Epistle to the 5. Councel reckons up what his predecessors had done for the preservation of the true Faith Semper studium fuit c. it was alwaies their care and endeavour Exortas haereses amputare to cut off Heresie 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 Councels he concludes Nos sequentes Volentes We following their examples and willing the right Faith be preached do c. Nothing is more obvious in Antiquity then the care and pains which good Emperors and Kings have used in employing their Sovereign power and Autority for repressing and reforming Errors and Heresies One of Justinians predecessors was Theodosius the second who did repress the Heresie of Eutyches then prevailing and newly advanced by the factious Councel of Ephesus and how did he do it by nulling or forbidding the decrees of that Councel 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 rectifie the mistakes about the Oath of Supremacie His Testimonies from the acknowledgments of Emperors and sayings 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 alledged 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 Supremacie and cause of the deprivation of the Popish Bishops viz. their refusing to renounce the forrein jurisdidiction and Supremacie of the Papal usurped power also that those Arguments and Testimonies proceed onely against the mistaken sense of the other part of the Oath viz. of that Supremacie 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 judgment of matters of Religion which belongs to the Pastors of the Church defining and proposing them in order to our believing from that secundary judgment of the Sovereign Power in order to publick Establishment and free exercise of what we beleeve and receive upon the former evidence The judgment requisite to make the demonstration of truth out of Gods Word and to give out the Evidence belongs to the Ecclesiastick Pastors but the judgment requisite in receiving the Evidence is needful in all especially and upon a publick 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 Autority to the publick establishment of it This Judgment of the Prince I called Secundarie not to the prejudice of his Supremacie but to the acknowledgment of the immediat and ordinary judgment in matters of Religion belonging to the Pastors of the Church Secundary in the consideration
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
offenders against the Queens 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 Chancellour 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 setled as it was in King Edwards dayes 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 knowledg of the Truth in matters of difference that so there might be some good and charitable agreement These are the words of the Queens Declaration Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament for the better satisfying their judgments in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon as it is there also specified 4. The Popish Partie thought it at first reasonable and by the Arch-bishop 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 obstinat perversness 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 judg of the Controversie 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 call'd 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 shew us that he hath commanded them If a Bishop must be by Saint Pauls Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach which implies not only Ability of which other Bishops who ordain him must judg but also Readiness to teach of which the Queen and whole Parliament who in vain expected it from them might very well judg what then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready nay obstinately refused to do it when their Soveraign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready and desirous to hear For the satisfying of their judgments 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 Kingdome 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 our selves to every mans 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 Preists 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 Priests 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 Gods 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 Reformed or the Autority 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 then 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 immediatly sent to the Tower for their extraordinary peremptoriness and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queens Councel save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster who only shewed 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 Queens 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 Councel with us the Subject of the Conference were certain points which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the
of Direction which it supposes to be received from the Pastors of the Church not Secundary in consideration of Autority which commands them first to the work requires an account of it and confirms publicly what is evidenced by them to be according to Christs law 24. We should now see what he answers to Masons instances of Emperours 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 Supremacie makes not the Princes will the Rule of our Faith he frames his first reasoning thus If Princes be Supreme in spirituall 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 easie 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 acknowledg them to be in civil matters we could no more be bound to obey them in all their commands about matters of Religion then 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 replyes 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 c. 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 enjoyned the Six Articles If they say as usually his Commands are according to Truth that are conformable to the holy Seriptures they stil 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 acknowledg a certain Rule more certain then 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 alwayes 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 knowledg 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 mans Conscience 2 Cor. 4.2 26. Now seeing our Saviour bids them do what those which sate 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 Docter 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 obteining 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. VVhat 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 Judgment or Doctrine of their Church Now seeing their Church must speak her Judgment by her Pastors and supremely by Pope or Councel We ask in which they place this certain Rule He and his fellow Sorbonists are for a general Councel which they set above the Pope with power to judg and depose him we leave them to answer this to the Jesuites and other more devoted Creatures of the Pope but let him answer us how he and his Sorbonists can attribute that to a Councel and yet with the Jesuites make the Pope Supreme Head of the Church as he often insinuates in this discourse which should imply the Supreme judgment 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 finde those of the Romish Communion following the evidence they had of Truth against the Popes judgment 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 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