Commissioners But this reward he had of his many misdemeanors that he was confined to perpetual imprisonment whereas his fellow Bishops that denyed the Oath as well as he enjoyed their Liberty or els a pleasing and free Confinement to some Friends house 14. The former presumption he enforces from the statute of Parliament the year following which provided indemnity for all that had refused the Oath tender'd by Archbishop or Bishop till that time Anno 8. Eli. cap. 1. Which saith he evidently proves Boners plea to be good that they were not Bishops indeed and that the Parliament so judged of them This is still the fallacy à non causâ for the cause or reason of this was not because the Parliament of which the Bishops themselves were a good part doubted of their lawful Ordination for how could that be after so many years practice of it as had run in King Edwards and this Queens reigne but because they had respect to the doubtings which others had of it For considering the condition of the Kingdom some years before turned from Popery they had reason to think and so they had found it by the reproaches of some and the surmises of others as they plainly signifie in that Statute that many were not satisfied concerning the Canonical and lawful Ordination of our Bishops and Priests measuring it by the way of the Romish Church and as they had seen it performed in Queen Maries dayes or thinking it not provided for by the Law of this Land since Queen Maries repeal and therefore the Parliament in respect to such as offended upon such scruple decreed Indempnity for the seven years past notwithstanding that such were punishable by the Statute of the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth for refusing the Oath so tender'd And this is a Demonstration of the great equity of our Protestant Reformers which Champny is loath to allow them in this decree judging of them it seems by the Romish severity against all offenders 15. A Statute of Parliament and Queens Dispensation Next he urges this Statute of Parliament 8. Eliz. I. as purposely made to make good the Form of Ordination and the Queens letters patents given out to dispense with all Defects in that Ordination of the first Bishops made in her dayes This Mason had objected to himself out of Sanders and answered to this purpose That the Parliament made them not Bishops or their Ordination good but they being Bishops indeed by Lawful Ordination that Honourable Court declared them so to be Also that the Queens Letters for their consecration concerned not any defects in Essentials but in Accidentals such as might be charged on their Ordination by pretence of any Statute or Canon Champney in replying to this tortures that Statute to force it to speak a Constituting rather then a declaring of them Bishops a making of their Ordination by the new Form valid rather then a pronouncing of it to be so Whereas it is most plain that the end of that Statute was only to declare so much against the slanders and reproaches that some cast upon their Ordination and to provide against them for the future and to that very purpose the preamble to that Statute runs and then follows And to the intent that every Man that is willing to know the Truth may understand plainly that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just Matter or Cause It is thought fit to touch such Authorities as do allow and approve the making and consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops and then is repeated what was ordained in 25. Hen. 8. touching the Election of Bishops and in 5. of Edw. 6. touching the book of Common-Prayer with the Order and Form of Consecration annexed to it Lastly in 1 Eliz. c. 2. touching the Authorizing of that book again after Queen Maries Repeal Then it followes in that Statute Wherefore for the plain Declaration of all the premises to the intent the same may be better known to all her Majesties Subjects whereby such evil speech as heretofore hath been used against the High State of Prelacy may hereafter cease Be it declared and enacted c. Can any thing be more clearly spoken And this the very place also which Champney cites out of Cambden doth plainly speak In hos Ordinum conventu saith he declaratum est unanimi consensu legitimam esse Consecrationem In that Parliament was unanimously declared that their consecration was Lawful And why so declared because Nonnulli calumniando in quaestionem vocarunt and after Pontificii illis tanquam pseudo-Episcopis obtrectarunt The Papists reproached them as no Bishops 16. Nay but the peremptory decree of that Parliament which no Law humane or divine for it saies any Statute Law Canon notwithstanding can hinder sounds more then a declaration such a singular Autority or power of an English Parliament greater then that of the whole Church was necessary not to declare but make that Ordination good So he p. 443. and then p. 444. Are they not truly called Parliament Bishops for take away this Statute of Q. Elizab. and that other of K. Edward which first authorized the New invented Form of their Ordination and I do not see whence or from what institution Mason can derive their Ordinations or by what Autority Divine or humane he can possibly prove them good and lawful So he To answer this latter charge first It stands upon a false supposal that they invented and made a New Form which they did not as to any thing that concerned the substance of Ordination See above Num 1 2 3 4. of this 7. Chap. this business in Queen Maries daies when King Edward's Statutes were repealed and Canon there also mentioned relates to the Popes Canon Law which not long before was wholly in force and was still reteined with limitation from the supposed binding of which arose as it seems the scruples doubtings which many had in those daies of the Validity of our Ordinations And to this cause must be referred the reason of the clause of dispensation in the Queens Letters not implying any essential defect which she knew was not in her or the Parliaments power to supply but such as might accrew by some point or nicety of Canon Law not expresly and in particular provided against 17. The Queens Dispensation But such a ful dispensation saith he had been needless had there been no defects of moment indeed For no prudent Prince wil spend his Autority in dispensing aforehand with imaginary and possible defects Such it seems was the importunity of Popish slanderers that the Queen in prudence thought best to take away the occasion by taking away the ground on which any suspition might be vaised viz. the supposed force of any such pretended Canon that might be thought to concern their Consecration Thus Champny trifles again and again with his furmises and seeming probabilities of real and essential defect in the Ordination of our Bishops I
will not trouble the ingenuous Reader any farther with them Only one thing I must take notice of which he speaks positively That the Queen had no power to dispense in rebus Ecclesiasticis and after sets it on thus She had no more power to dispense in such things then her Subjects had to dispense with her Laws pag. 451.455 And there he requires One approved example for 1500. years to justifie such a power Though we extend not this power to all Ecclesiastical things or Canons yet say we truly that a Soveraign Prince hath power to dispense in and about Ecclesiastical things yea hath power to forbid the Popes Law to be received or obeyed within his Dominions If Champny as he shews himself in the next Chap. to be well acquainted with Tortus or Bellarm. so had looked into the Answer to Tortus he might have seen examples brought there by B. Andrews of Councels submitting their decrees to the Emperors Autority that he would be pleased ea corrigere supplere perficere to correct or supply them Now what power the Emp. had in Orbe Romano that every Soveraign Prince hath in his own Dominions But Champny me thinks should not be such a stranger in France as not to hear or so forgetful as not to remember how many years the King kept out the decrees of the Trent Councel and when the Clergy by the mouth of the Archbishop of Tours petitioned the King 1598. to admit them they did it with restriction and modification of them to the privileges and Laws of the Land and what did that want of a dispensation It need not therefore seem strange that the Qu. should use her power in dispensing against any Papal Canon that however hitherto obteining should any way contrary the Laws established concerning Ordinations 18. Presumption against the racords weak One Argument more he adds upon the strength of presumption not only against the Validity of the Form of Ordination but against the Truth of the Tables or Records that witness the Ordination of our Bishops This presumption he raises chiefly upon Bishop Jewels silence in answering of Harding when he put him to it to make good his Ordination Of this from pag. 457. to the end of his 13. Chap. Harding in his first reply had told the Bishop that he was neither Bishop nor Priest put divers interrogatories to him concerning his Ordination The Bishop briefly answered his impertinent Adversary as he saw fitting Harding replyes again with the like or greater importunity and because the Bishop did not enter here a dispute with him and satisfie all his questions in particular and withall produce the Records therefore Champny according to his wonted presumption concludes the Ordination of our Bishops could not be maintained and the Records were justly suspected for who could better defend the lawfulness of their Ordination or better know those Records if any such had been then Jewel who was one of those pretended Bishops To this purpose he There is a time when as the wise man tells us some men are not to be answered in their folly Half of M. Hardings importunity came to this why Jewel being no Priest medled in Holy things and how could he be a Priest that could not offer Sacrifice This the Bishop well knew to be fully answered in disproving their Sacrifice of the Mass which he largely and solidly did and consequently evinced that we may be Priests in the Gospel sense without taking to our selves such a power and that they are no Priests indeed but Sacrilegious Impostors in assuming to themselves such a power The rest of M. Hardings importunity questioned his being Bishop and because he enters not a dispute about the Form by which he was consecrated why should Champny conclude he could not defend it when as Harding said not so much against it as Champny himself hath done to invalidate it and what that was we heard above and found it too weak to disprove this our Assertion That the form we reteined doth contein all that essentially belongs to Ordination and that which we cast out was either superfluous addition or superstitious abuse Lastly as for producing the Records to justifie his consecration he knew it was to little purpose having to deal with Master Harding who had often in this Reply call'd him a Forger and Falsary and would certainly have accounted him so in producing the Records 19. But he tells us farther Not only Master Harding but many other English Catholicks objected to those pretended Bishops the defect of Lawful calling and Ordination and yet were not the Records produced by any of them nor by any other in their behalf till Mason now after 50. years gave us a view of them So he p. 47â— Naming their Catholic Writers that objected this Bristo Sanders Stapleton Rainolds The objections of those Writers and generally of those Times chiefly touched the Form of Ordination to the answering of which the producing of the Records had not been proper But Champny as he brought Rainolds objecting so he might have met with Rainolds answering as to that point if he had thought fit to take notice of that which Mason in the conclusion of his third book relates from Doctor Rainolds himself who told him that in his conference with Hart he satisfied him concerning our Bishops by Authentick Records in so much that Hart would needs have that whole point viz. touching the Ordination of our Bishops left out of the Conference confessing he thought no such thing could be shown and that he had been born in hand otherwise Born in hand by such Objectors as these whom Champny named Now had the Romanists that Candor and Conscience which Hart shewed who indeed seemed to be one of the most ingenuous of that Society as appears by many passages of the Conference they would also receive satisfaction and not thus contend to make good such foolish reports by opposing such far-fetcht surmises and presumptions against publick Records Champny also might have taken notice how in that very Statute of 8. Eliz. which he so narrowly sifted there are Records spoken of that declare the due consecration of the Bishops made in her Time Every thing requisite and material for that purpose viz. the Elections Confirmations and Consecrations of Bishops hath been done as precisely and with as much care and diligence as ever before her Majesties time i. e. since the time the Papal Autority was cast out as the Records of her Majesties Father and Brothers time and also of her own time will plainly testifie and declare These are the Words of that Statute and do expresly as we see witness there were Public Acts which did shew the Elections and Consecrations of the Bishops made from the beginning of the Queens reign as of those Bishops which were made before CHAP. VIII Of Archbishop Parkers Ordination and of the pretended defects from the New Form and the incapacity of his Ordainers IN his 14. Chapter he begins with
hath determined Indeed in matters of Discipline and Ceremony though in themselves of small concernment great opposition hath often been made to the judgment and determination of Autority of which I shal speak a litle below under the conformity of Practice in such matters and in the mean let us see what Cautions may be given in case of Privat Judgment justly dissenting from the Publike 14. Of concealing a dissent of Judgment in peaceable subjection If therfore it come to that as possibly it may yet for preserving of due submission take care 1. That our dissenting be not upon any comparing or equalling our privat judgment to the publique and autoritative judgment of the Church for this wil be absolutely against that conditional preparatory belief or assent with which we are to receive all her determinations but upon the evidence of a greater Autority on our side viz. the demonstration of Truth from Gods Word or primitive consent of the Catholique Church either of which is of more Autority then the present Governours of the Church 2. That the dissenting of privat judgment be only in order to a mans own believing and delivering of his own soul for which he is to give account not to any inconsiderate publishing of it to others for the light of Reason though it may not be put out yet may and often ought to be concealed and a mans privat judgment silenced in submission to the publique 3. If he publish or make known his dissenting it ought to be by modest proposal to his Superiours not by clamours against the Church to a disturbance of the peace of it much less by force or tumult as the manner of Sectaries hath usually been for if he cannot internally acquiesce in the judgment of the Church yet ought he to submit as far as possible externally and to suffer for it if need be 15. Whether in al Matters or Cases But here a question may be made about these matters in which we were said to have evidence of Scripture and Primitive consent if a Church should so far err as to judg contrary to these as for the error of Monothelites or Eutychians or for the worshiping of Images or any Creature with Religious worship must a man submit with silence in such a case I answer The Ministers of the Word being by that Church according to Gods Ordinance called to publish the Gospel and Counsels of God for salvation ought to propose their contrary judgment and belief to their Superiors so erring if they reform it is wel if not the other ought to declare these Counsels of God for in this case they have greater Autority as was said on their side and may say to the Governours of the Visible Church as the Apostles did to the great Councel Whether it be more right to hearken to you or to God c. Acts 4. And to this case I refer that other erroneous principle of belief the mother of Error and Apostacie that al the Members of the Church are bound to receive for Catholike Faith and Christian Worship all that the Church whereof they are Members proposes to them for such herein we had and all that are stil of the Roman Communion have cause to complain of that Church and to declare dissent of judgment from it which not only imposes Purgatory Transubstantiation and such novel errors for Articles of the Catholike faith and commands Image-worship as lawful and pleasing to God but also holds all the Members thereof bound to that former principle of mis-belief in a blind receiving all for faith and worship that shal be so proposed to them 16. The submiitting of Doctrine and Writings to the censure of the Church And this which hath been said will also speak the meaning of that submission which we profess to yeild when we usually say and not without cause We submit our Judgment Doctrine or Writings to the censure of the Church for 1. this is not a resignation of judgment in regard of believing but a submission in regard of the publishing it a putting it to the permission of the Church whether such Doctrine or Writings shall stand published or be silenced 2. And this not in all things simply for no Man can submit his Judgment and Doctrine to any Company of Men when he believeth and teacheth the prime Articles of Catholick Faith into which all Christians are baptized or the immediat consequences of them which are evident to all that can use Reason and Judgment or the express commands of God concerning Religious Worship but it is in things more questionable not plainly determined in Scripture and though deducible from some confessed Article or express Command yet by divers Consequences As in the first kind the Church hath power to silence and censure any that teach contrary to such Articles or Commandments but cannot forbid to teach them So in the second she hath power to silence any that teach contrary to her declared Judgment in them For it cannot be denyed that the Church hath power to over-rule and restrain the exercise of any mans Ministry in order to the common peace and safety she being answerable for others as wel as for him whom she restrains in publishing his private judgment or belief to others 17. Submission of Practise or Conformity in doing Thus much of Submission of Judgment in matters of Belief or Practice either in conforming to the Judgment and determination of the Church therein declared or in a fair and peaceable dissenting Now come we to Submission of Practice in a conformity of doing what the Church does and practises The Judgment we have of Matters either of belief or practice need not happily discover it self may for peace sake be silenced but in matters of practice determined by the Church and commanded to be done by us our conformity both in Judgment and Practice must needs then appear It was wel and peaceably said of Jo Frith a yong Man but Learned and Moderate in his Reply to Sir Thomas Moor concerning Transubstantiation Let it not saith he be Worshiped and think what you will for then is the Peril past Difference of judgment may be in a Church without disturbance In matter of worship but difference of practice because apparent endangers the peace of it And let me here add Notwithstanding the difference of judgment in the Protestant Churches de modo presentiae yet may they wel communicate together in the Sacrament because neither of them allow or practice that Adoration directed to the Sacramental Symbols which the Church of Rome practises and requires of all her Communicants or Spectators rather Now for Submission or Conformity in matters of practice we must remember such matters were of different sorts and concernments Worship Adoration Discipline Order Ceremony and then we have a double Caution 1. According to the indifferencie of the matter or the greater but evident concernment of it either to yeeld conformity for Peace sake
as it hath the advantage of Judgment above all Inferiour or privat persons so of Power too to proceed according to that Judgment against the obstinate No other means of restraint had the Ancient Church as was insinuated Sect. 13. of the former book To conclude This Vnappealable and not Infallible Autority as it cannot consist with the main Principle of Romish belief so may it well enough stand with any thing asserted by us and were it stated aright not in the Pope but in every National Church immediately and in a General Councel finally I suppose there needed not be any matter of difference about it And hitherto of Submission of Judgment and Practise to the Definitions and Constitutions of a Church CHAP. II. Of Reformation begun under Hen. 8. advanced under King Edward perfected under Queen Elizabeth and the warrantableness of it THat the English Reformation was not regular and warrantable but carried against the consent of the Bishops of this Land is the usual reproach of the Romanists It was infinuated in the 4. Section of the former book That the Reformation was begun under Hen. and perfected under Q. Elizabeth not without a just National Synod and that in the Reformation under Hen. 8. there was no displacing of Bishops but all was passed by general consent That late Romish Convert as he pretends himself to be that wrote the reproachful Pamphlet Entituled The Obit of Prelatic Protestancie took notice of what I had said and returns the reproach double upon us saying All the Bishops of this Nation were excluded and imprisoned when the Doctors party first decreed the breach so that they had no more a National Synod then Those that could congregate when they pleased as many of their own party and style it a Synod as the Presbyterians did So he pag. 136. We will consider then how the Reformation was begun carried on and perfected which will appear to be so done as the Romanist can have no just cause to reprove nor the Presbyterian or any Sectaries to pretend to the like 1. Reformation begun under Hen. 8. The First Reformation began under Hen. 8. in the ejection of Papal jurisdiction with some superstitious abuses And here I must first say and desire the Reader to take notice that to this first main point of Reformation the ejecting of that forrein Jurisdiction there needed no vote of National Synod or consent of Bishops the King himself being a sufficient and competent Judg in that cause of Vindicating his own Rights upon which that Papal jurisdiction was a plain Usurpation And therefore the like had been often done by Kings of this Realm before Hen. Not without the Vote of a National Synod 8. putting their Subjects under Premunire that did acknowledg such an usurped power or had recourse to Rome in any cause or matter of Jurisdiction But Secondly we can say and that most truly that it was carryed with the general consent of the Bishops of this Land in ful Synod decreeing not a breach but the casting off and renouncing of Papal supremacy upon which the first breach followed and so Saunders calls it Schisma Henricianum King Henries Schisme 2. Now if Romanists will say Those Bishops and the rest of the Clergy assembled in that Synod were of their party because most of the Romish Doctrine was still reteined then let them say that their Party first made the Breach and cease to lay any imputation upon us for it or for doing the like upon greater cause under Queen Elizabeth however their Party or Ours they must confess the first-breach was then made and the Reformation then begun and that by full consent of the Bishops of this Nation in full Synod 3. If again they say as usually it is said by them of the Romish party That Synod was not free the Bishops and the rest being compelled by fear to vote that which they after repented of and retracted under Queen Mary To say nothing of the liberty of Papal Councels where none can speak freely without note of Heresie or danger of Inquisition it is apparent they voted the like again three years after and it is strange that the Passion of Fear should continue so long or that so many learned men should not in 16. years more see their error and retract it till there came a Queen that discovered her self to be of another mind But if they were compelled through fear so to Vote what compelled them so to write and to make good by such forcible Arguments what they had Voted as the most learned of them did what compelled them I say but the Evidence of Truth and if they voluntarily retracted what they Voted in Synod why did they not as voluntarily answer their own Arguments They are yet to be seen and will remain as a clear Evidence of the warrantableness of that Synodicall Vote upon which the first Breach followed 4. Reformation under K Edward Proceed we now to King Edwards Time under whom the Reformation was carried on and the Breach continued And here if we make enquiry how it stood with the Bishops of this Land we find the two Archbishops Bishops at Liberty Cranmer and Holdgate together with Thirlby and divers other Bishops made in King Henries time continuing in their places unmolested all King Edwards reign As for those few who at last were removed viz. Boner Gardiner Heath Day Vessey None of them were imprisoned till the third year of the King except Gardiner and Boner who for some Misdemeanors felt a short restraint from which upon Submission being released they enjoyed their Bishopricks till the end of the Kings third year Neither can I find that any of them during that time was excluded from sitting in Parliament there being indeed no cause for it for They had all taken the Oath of Supremacy to the renouncing of Papal power and Jurisdiction the form of which Oath is set down in Fox his Acts and Monuments They did also generally receive those few injunctions sent out for Reformation as we shall hear presently I find in the first and second Parliaments in King Edwards Time the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting and enacting and John Stow gives us a Copy of Stephen Gardiners letter sent out of the Tower in the third year of the King for then he was imprisoned to the Lords of the Councel Sitting in Parliament wherein he sues for his Liberty that he might do his duty in Parliament then sitting being a Member of the same This plainly shews the only hinderance of his sitting there was want of Liberty and that he only of all the Bishops was kept from thence That which Master Fox saith in the beginning of his story of King Edward that several prisons is spoken by Anticipation as other things also there insinuated that were after done throughout the following course of the Kings reign 5. National Synod If now it be asked where is the judgment of a
National Synod to warrant King Edwards Reformation I have many things to say I. What I speak of the English Reformation that it was not done without the judgment of a National Synod did chiefly relate to the Synod under King Henry which as I said began the Reformation and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it In the first was the main Annoyance and cause of Corruption in the Church removed by casting out the usurped Papal Jurisdiction with some dependances of it but in the latter Synod the whole work carried on under King Edw according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign was compleated shewing it self in an Uniform body of Doctrine voted and published in the 39. Articles of this Church 6. II. Title of Supreme Head For the work done in King Edwards time if any thing did run out of Square through the swelling Title of Supreme Head stretched a little perchance by some beyond his Line the thanks are first due to Those whom they of the Popish party account theirs I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denyed to the Pope for none could have written better against that usurped Papal Supremacie then Bishop Gardiner Tonstal and others but in that which they attributed to the King And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction did relate to the Vote and Acknowledgment of the Clergie Seeing that all Autority of Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness as Supreme Head and so acknowledged by the Clergie of this Realm Be it therefore Enacted c. 1 EDW 6. c. 2. that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and expressions we may see whom they followed 7. VVhether abused in this business of Reformation Now considering what was already granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw 6. by the Bishops and Clergie of this Nation considering also the King although of admirable piety and understanding beyond his years yet being under age and so under Protection it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-persons who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influence upon the Affairs of the Time And however the Kings Autority under pretence of that Title and Jurisdiction as it seems was abused in disposing of Church-means and diverting them to private gain yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation as to the point of Gods Worship and Religion it self but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time the business of Religion was fairly carryed on and that is the third thing I have to say That the Reformation under King Edward to the abolishing of Image-Worship the restoring of the Liturgie in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds with that which followed thereupon the abolishing of Romish Massings for herein was the main of K. Edwards Reformation was warrantably advanced and carryed on For the clearing of which as to the Authority that did it I have these things to say 8. First Synodical Vote how necessary in this bufiness Reformation of Gods Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determining Church-Affairs where there is not just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times in which they are to assemble To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councels which he spoke not absolutely but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Councels held in those times Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pastors of the Church as to this point of Reformation is directive either in or out of Synod and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction is by their meeting and consulting in Synod therefore the Prince whose power or office is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties what is evidenced to Him hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod But he is not simply and always bound to take his direction thus by any Law of God or Man for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and learned men of the Church to be the Law of Christ such as were the forementioned points of Reformation apparently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it The change of Religion for the worse is stil charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Testament and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings which shews this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah who were more forward in the Reformation of Gods Worship then the Priests do warrant the forward piety of our yong Josiah K. Edward And this is also approved by that which many Christian Emperors and Kings have to their great praise done in the business of Religion without or before the calling of a Councel though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bishops and learned Men. Of this point more below when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things Neither can we say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Prudence alwaies to receive his direction from a Vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear as above said but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edwards reign or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say but this I have farther to say 9. Injunctions sent out at first by the King Secondly In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the publick exercise of Religion or Worship and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine or Uniformity in points of Religion In order to the latter a Body of Doctrine I find there was a Synod held under King Edward The Acts of it I have not seen but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae Where in the Act of the second day as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related a dispute arises about a Catechism published in the name of the Synod
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
no Churches or not to belong to the Church of Christ because of that want or defect in the Vocation or Ordination of their Pastors 17. Those companies indeed of Christians who believed in India upon the preaching of Frumentius belonged to the Church of Christ before they received Pastors from the Bishop of Alexandria and that multitude which believed in Samaria upon the preaching of Philip and were baptized by him were indeed of the Church and a Church of Christ though not completed til Peter and John went down with due Autority to set all in order there Accordingly we may account of those Reformed Churches which have not their Pastors sent and ordained as from the beginning as of Congregations not regularly formed as Churches not completed not indeed without Pastors altogether as those of India and Samaria at the first were but having such as they can viz. such as have if we wil speak properly the Vocation on Election of their respective Churches which is one thing in the calling of Pastors but not due Ordination which is the main thing in impowering them to the exercise of the office and so are Pastors by a moral designation to the Office rather then any real or due consecration which only is by those hands that have received the power of sending or Ordaining Pastors from the Apostles 18. It must be granted that the Vocation of such Pastors is deficient and their Ordination irregular and that not only by the Ecclesiastical Canons in that behalf but also by Apostolical Order and practice Yet because they hold the Faith which is the chief point in the constitution of the Church and have not wilfully departed from that Apostolical Order and way of the Church by the breach of Charity in condemning and rejecting it but do approve of it where it may be had we cannot say that irregularity or deficiency infers a plain Nullity in their Pastors and Churches as Champny will have it but stands in a condition of receiving a supply or completion and is in the mean time so far excusable as the want or not having of that Supply is of Necessity and not of Choice 19. But Champny will admit of no excuse either of irregularity confessed in the calling so their Pastors or of Necessity pleaded as the cause enforcing it But proceeds to prove such a nullity in their Ordinations that it concludes them to have no Pastors at all and no Church This argument he pursues chiefly against Doctor Field Distinction of the power of Bishops and Presbyters as to Ordination who in the 3. book of the Church cap. 39. had endeavoured in behalf of the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops to shew that their Ordinations though not regular according to the way of the Church yet were not simply invalid and that by the Doctrine of the best Schoolmen who held the Office of a Bishop to be not a distinct Order or to imprint a distinct Character from that of the Priestly function which also they proved by this instance A Bishop Ordained per saltum i. e. who was not first made Presbyter cannot either consecrate the Sacrament or Ordain others but a Priest or Presbyter ordained per saltum may execute the office of the Deacon by reason that the Superior Order conteins in it self the Inferior whence Doctor Field would have it concluded That Bishop and Presbyter differ not in Order or in the very power of Order but in eminency and dignity of an Office to which Ordination and other performances as Confirmation public absolution c. are reserved also that when the antient Church declared Ordination by Presbyters to be void and null it is to be understood according to the rigour of the Canons not that all such Ordinations were simply null ex naturâ rei and in themselves or not to be born with in any Case 20. See we now what Champny replies to all this and then consider what may be reasonably allowed and said as to this point His answer is to this purpose That those Schoolmen if they hold not Episcopacy to be a distinct Order yet say it is a distinct power if not a different Character yet a new Extension of the former Sacerdotal Character and that the Argument from Ordination per saltum doth not disprove the latter way Lastly that such Presbyterian Ordinations were in the judgment of the Ancient Church Null ex naturâ rei and not by the Ecclesiastical Canons only for that judgment or sentence of the Church was not a Constitutive decree for then the beginning of it would appear in the Canons of the Ancient Councels but only Declarative of what was so in it self from the beginning of the Church This he in his 7. Chap. 21. Here something is doubtful and questionable something clear and apparent That Bishops had a power or faculty to do something which Presbyters could not namely to ordain is clear in Schoolmen and Fathers but whether that power make the Episcopal function a distinct Order from the Priestly or imprint a different sacramental character we leave it to the Schoolmen to dispute Also we grant that Bishops receive and exercise that power as Champny saith truly not by a Moral designation only as Judges and Officers in a State do for the time of their office or as those among the Presbyters seem to do who are assigned to ordain others but by Real consecration or sacred devoting them to that office or work of ordaining and sending others Which consecration though it imprint not a Sacramental Character on the Soul as the Romanists express it yet it gives to the Person so ordained devoted such a faculty or habitude to that action or work as cannot be taken from him the reason of which we shall enquire below where occasion is given to speak more of that which the Romanists call Character indelible in this point of Holy Orders Furthermore whether this office of Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function Two wayes of conceiving the power of Ordination in Bishops Ordaining imply a power wholly superadded to the Priestly function which is one way of conceiving it or a faculty of exercising that power supposed to be radicated or founded in the Priestly Order and diffused with it by restraining it to certain persons consecrated for that performance it may be questioned Doctor Field seeme plainly to conceive it this latter way and so do the Schoolmen alleged by him and Champny's expression of their sense by extention of the Sacerdotal Character if it have any sense speaks as much viz. the dilating of that which was before in the Sacerdotal Order radically by extending that Radical power unto a proxima potentia or immediat faculty in certain persons consecrated to the exercise of it and keeping it restrained in all others of that Order who are not so consecrated and devoted to that great work of Ordaining and sending others Lastly whether we conceive of it as
a power wholly superadded or as the restraint of a power diffused it is clear that the exercise of that power the performance of Ordination was setled upon certain and speciall persons who were properly Bishops and Chief Pastors by Apostolical appointment and practice Of which there are so clear footsteps in Scripture suchapparent Monuments and Records in Antiquity that it is no less then a wonder any Learned Judicious Man should think it could be otherwise or conceive as the Presbyterians generally that this Order was afterwards set in the Church as an humane though prudent invention to avoid Schism and preserve Unity and not withall conceive it reasonable to think the Apostles did foresee that Reason and provide against it when as we hear Saint Paul complaining of it 1 Cor. 1. and Saint Hierom refers that Order of setting Bishops over Presbyters to that very cause pointing out that very time when some said I am of Paul I of Cephas 22. If therefor Doctor Field when he answered that Ordinations without Bishops were void according to the rigor of the ancient Canons did mean that such Ordinations offended only against Ecclesiastical Constitutions we grant that Champny duly proves it otherwise and do acknowledg them transgressions not only of Ecclesiastical but Apostolical Constitution and Practice but we are not therefore bound to yeild an utter nullity of them in all cases ex naturâ rei as he contends unless he can clearly demonstrat this faculty or office of ordaining to stand in a distinct power wholly superadded and not in the extension of the Priestly Order or limiting of the exercise of that power conceiv'd to be radically diffus'd with it Thus indeed Doctor Field as I said seems to conceive it and thereupon to deny such Ordination to be Null in themselves ex naturâ rei yet withal to hold as may be gathered out of his 5. book cap. 27. that this Order or limiting of the Power in the exercise of it to certain special persons was by Apostolical appointment 23. And no question the antient Church had respect to that Apostolical constitution when she pronounced such Ordinations without Bishops to be void and Null as repugnant to that constitution not defining whether they were void ex naturâ rei but declaring she had good cause to account them void and not to admit any to officiate that did so wilfully transgress against Apostolical order and practice and could have there being Bishops then at hand in every Nation where Christian Faith was professed no pretence of necessity or of loosing the band by which the Apostles had restrained the exercise of that power to certain persons thereunto consecrated And if any Presbyter should have heretofore presumed to ordain within the Church of England their Ordinations had deserved to be accounted of no otherwise then as void And so within every Church completed and regularly formed according to Apostolical Order ought they to be accounted 24. Now that I may draw to a Conclusion and freely speak what I think of the two forementioned wayes of conceiving the Ordaining power to be estated by the Apostles upon special and select men properly called Bishops or chief Pastors I suppose the first way which conceives it superadded as a distinct power to their Priestly function to be the clearer for securing the Episcopal function and distinguishing it from the other but the second way which conceives that power radically diffused and communicated in the very order of the Priestly function and restrained to such select persons in the exercise of it the faculty or immediate power whereof they received by consecration I suppose to be more easie and expedient for a peaceable accord of the difference in hand and yet safe enough for Episcopal Ordination 25. The first way conceives the Apostles who had the whole power given them by Christ both the extraordinary Apostolical power and that which was ordinary and to continue in the Church did communicate this power severally That which belonged to the office of Deacons to persons chosen for that purpose That which belonged to the Ministery of reconciliation to all Pastors or Presbyters So likewise That power of sending and ordaining others to these Offices was communicated entirely unto special persons appointed and consecrated to that work This as I said is more clear in the distinguishing of the several Functions of holy Order But the second way which estates the power or faculty of Ordaining upon special persons by restraining the exercise of it to them seems as above said to be more fair and easie for the making up this business of the Reformed Churches which have Ordination without Bishops and yet to afford safety enough to Episcopal function and Ordination For it first supposes that to be established and secured by Apostolical Order which none can transgress wilfully without Sacrilege and consequently it acknowledges such Ordinations without Bishops to be irregular and deficient in regard of Apostolical order and constitution and that they ought to receive a supply completion and confirmation by the imposing of Bishops hands before the persons so Ordained can be admitted to officiat in a Church completed and regularly formed Lastly by this way whatsoever is spoken by S. Hierom in appearance favourable to the Presbyterian pretence may be cleared and reconciled to Truth and by it may be answered also whatever is brought by Champny or others to prove such Ordinations utterly or ex naturâ rei null and void in all cases 26. I will not trouble the Reader to hear any long Scholastick contest with Champny in the business only I shal shew by one instance how well he hath acquitted himself in the defense of his assertion against the former argument of a Bishop ordained per saltum and therefore not having power to ordain others or consecrate the Sacrament because he wants the Priestly Order That which he replies to it returns more forcibly upon himself A Bishop per saltum cannot ordain and why Sicut ex eo c. Even as saith he because the Priestly function is exercised both about the Mystical body of Christ in absolving and binding and also about the Natural body of Christ in consecrating of it it doth not therefore follow there is a diverse Order but a diverse power of the same Order So the power of Ordaining though it make not a distinct Order from that of the Priestly Function yet is it a distinct power of Order To this purpose he cap. 7. pag. 183 184. But this comes not home to Ordination per saltum where it is supposed that the power of Ordaining is not given at all because the Priestly Order is wanting This also returns more forcibly upon him by applying it thus according to his reasoning Even as the Powers of absolving and consecrating are distinct yet both conteined within one Order of the Priestly function so may the power of Ordaining though distinct from the other be formally and immediately conteined
Baptism and Order are of like consideration and therefore I would require a Reason why they pronounce not our Baptism null because not after their manner as well as our Orders A man would think that Champny in both these reasonings did imply we had not true Baptism but durst not say it positively for that had directly contradicted the practice of their Church which doth not re-baptize those that are baptized after our Form yea the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church which required no more to the Essentiall Form then what is expresly in Scripture Baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and therefore did not re-baptize Hereticks that used the Form It is enough for us notwithstanding any thing that Champny hath said to Baptize as our Saviour appointed and to Ordein as we find the Apostles whom he sent as his Father had sent him to have done and taught though not altogether Ritu Romano as the Church of Rome doth and teaches most imperiously 10. But we must here take leave to look back to that he said above of Parker being not ordeined as Augustin the first Arch-Bishop was which if taken with the occasion of it may at first sight appear a seeming prejudice The occasion of it was from Mr. Masons saying That Mat. Parker the 79. Arch-Bishop after Austin had the happiness to be the first of that Number that was consecrated without the Popes Bul Pall and other superfluous accoutrements Hence Champny to the seeming disparagement of our Reformation infers Therefore his Ordination and so theirs that followed him cannot be derived from the Apostles if not the same that Austin delivered together with the Christian Faith to this Nation above a thousand years ago and as well saith he they may cast off Baptism which the same Austin delivered c. p. 479 480. But we may answer That the Popes Bul and Pall and other superfluities which Mason reflected on were of later date then Austins time for long it was after that ere the Popes Bulls and wild Beasts roared within this Land viz. after Gregory the 7. for then began the contention with Princes about investiture of Bishops from which time those Bulls also began to rage and did very much trouble this Land in that one particular of appointing the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in which regard we may well say with Mr. Mason it was a happiness to Mathew Parker to be the first that was consecrated without the Popes Bull not implying that all from Austin were so invested by the Pope but of all in that number who were consecrated after that usurped Papal investiture began he was the first that was clearly without it 11. As for that which Austin delivered either Baptism or Ordination we retein fully for substance and do thankfully acknowledg the benefit indeed some Ceremonies as in that Age the Church of Rome began to abound in them which he brought in and delivered in both we happily omit to use not because he delivered or used them but because the Church of Rome hath since abused them as above said This shews the vanity of Champny's inference that our Baptism and Ordination is not good or derived from the Apostles because not after the same form and manner peradventure according to some additional Ceremonies that Austin delivered to this Nation together with the Christian Faith Yea by vertue of that Ordination received which he delivered to us we can better prove our Ordination Apostolical then they can theirs for the Succession of Lawful Romish Bishops was much broken by unlawful intrusion of many Popes about the 9. and 10. Ages and after as appeared above when we spoke of Papal Antichristianism whereas our succession of Bishops being by Gregory the first derived to us from the Apostles before that unlawful usurpation and intrusion of many of their Popes together hath been continued among us without interruption 12. Presumptions from stories against the Ordination of our Bishops And now Champny goes on in his 13 Chap. to invalidate their Ordination by seeming probabilities or presumptions of the Nullity of it which the Romanists have sought all corners for and examined all passages of Stories Statutes clauses of Letters Patents which may concern the making or consecrating of our Bishops and this he calls his demonstration a posteriori beginning at pag. 428. Let us fee what weight there is in such not Demonstrations but Presumptions I should abuse the Reader too much to repeat and answer them all blowing therefore away the lightest I shall speak to those that may seem to carry any shew of probability And first he will prove it such is the strength of his presumption by the Judgment of Protestants themselves Ridley saith he at the stake humbly begged the Queen would be pleased to confirm the Leases he had letten as Bishop of London therefore he held himself not Lawful Bishop True it was his humble supplication to the Lord Williams of Thame that he would be a means to the Queen to do it and this was a Demonstration of his charity and conscionable respect to the Tenants not of his thinking himself not lawful Bishop he knew what they thought and judged of him not only that no Bishop but also no Bishop of London because of Boner then living and thereupon would be ready to quarrel at those Leases demised by him And so the Words which Champny cites out of Brook his reports do not contein the Sentence of judgment in this case but the plea that was pretended against such Leases because the Bishops that let them were not Ordained 13. His next Demonstration Boners plea. or Presumption is drawn from a story of Boner the ejected Bishop of London who for refusing the Oath of Supremacy tendred to him by Horn Bishop of Winchester was cited into the Kings Bench and answered that he refused the Oath because he that tender'd it had no power to do it being no Bishop The Judges thereupon consulted whether they should admit Boner to traverse it and concluded he ought to have leave to do it and to be acquitted the Court if he could prove Horn to be no Bishop then This out of Dier But saith he Boner was never after call'd to plead it whence he concludes they judged Horn to be indeed no Bishop Answer This is no Demonstration of the invalidity of his Ordination but of the Moderation and justice of those Judges that conteined themselves within the compass of their own profession not undertaking to determin whether the Form of Ordination was good or no and of their equity in allowing Boner the liberty of his plea how false soever his allegation was in it selfe and it was an argument of their prudence or of the Queens wisdome that held it more convenient to silence such a Bedlam Actor then suffer him to come upon the Stage who had more then once in King Edwards time so irreverently behaved himself with clamors and reproaches before the Kings
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
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
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 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
accordingly saith he this good Emperour did praescriptum Leonis secutus following the praescript of Leo. pag. 565. Now he makes the good Bishop speak and take upon him like one of the later Popes Well this agrees not with the humble supplication made to the Emperour but what saith he to the thing supplicated for that the Emperour would make void that Councel by a Decree to the contrary I cannot find any thing in Champney that answers to it but that Leo desired a suspension of the Decree and Judgment of the former Councel Which though short of that which is desired is enough to establish that Autority which we desire to vindicate to Kings and Emperours in matters of the Church without wronging or invading the Office of the Pastors of the Church for both the Emperour and they had their parts in this Action Champny in stead of giving us a good account of the former point thinks to cross us with another passage of the story Flavianus saith he the deposed Bishop appeals from the unjust sentence not to the Emperor but the Bishop of Rome and delivers his appellation to his Legats which was an acknowledgment of his being supreme Judg pag. 561. But this cannot be concluded in Champnys sense of Supreem Judg for it sounds nothing but the primacy of Order among the Patriarchs Flavianus delivered his appellation to the Popes Legats because they were present the Emperour was not because in order the Bishop of Rome was the first and because he knew that Leo was truly favourable to his cause and would commend it to the Emperour which he did and did it so as appealing himself to the next general Councel which the Emperour should gahter as we heard in his supplication to Theodosius Neither had the Bishops of Rome though chief Patriarchs the only or chief presidence in all the General Councels but according as the Emperour saw fit as appears by the acts of those Councels But to conclude In replication to that common answer of Romanists that Kings and Emperours in commanding about Church affaires did but follow the determinations of foregoing Councels Mason had told them that Queen Elizabeth for this power and Supremacy had the determination of a Synod under Hen. 8. by unanimous assent acknowledging it To this Champny replies What Authority had that Synod where the Bishops were compelled by fear to consent to that which they after voluntarily revoked under Queen Mary Or what Autority could a Snyod of the Bishops of one Kingdome have against the consent of the whole world p. 549. 550. But this of the consent of the whole world is only a brag and it is yet to be proved that the late usurped Jurisdiction of the Pope was ever known to the Antient Church or ever received since through all the Christian world As for compulsion and defect of freedom which he notes for the nulling of the Autorty of a Synod we acknowledg the Doctrine good and say he gives us a just way of exception to the Councel of Trent and all or most of the Romish Councels that have been held under that usurped Papal Supremacy since Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh his time But we deny the application of it to the Synods under Hen. 8. See above cap. 2. Num. 3. concerning this allegation of fear and compulsion where there was cause to think the evidence of Truth compelled them considering what the most learned amongst them did voluntarily write against the Papal Usurpation And I cannot but here acknowledg the Providence of God so disposing of this business that the Papal supremacy or usurped Jurisdiction should be voted out of this Land first by the Popish party as I may call them and that they which had twice been sworn against the admitting of it again into this Land as many of the deprived Bishops had been under King Henry and King Edward and then voluntarily broken their double Oath under Queen Mary should be deposed under Queen Elizabeth for that very cause of asserting the Papal Supremacy CHAP. X. The Exception against our Bishops that they were not Priests Of the Evangelical Priesthood or Ministry committed to us men and of the Romish Presumption in assuming more HIs last exception against the Calling of our Bishops ever since the beginning of the queens time is because they were not Veri Sacerdotes truly made Priests Which saith he is such an Essential defect that it renders their Episcopal Ordination altogether invalid cap. 17. We grant it of Veri Presbyteri those that are not truly made Presbyters first cannot be true and complete Bishops But for his Veri Sacerdotes we say as there are no such Priests under the Gospel so is there no need that Bishops should first be made such for Priests in the Romish sense are such as in their Ordination receive a power of Sacrificing for the quick and the dead i. e. a real offering up again the Son of God to his Father And because we presume not to take this power therefore they usually reproach us that we have no Priests none that can consecrate or make the Lords body none that can absolve or reconcile Penitents As for our selves Our warrant for our Gospel Ministery we have sufficient warrant and Commission for the power we take and use in the Gospel-Ministry To Teach and Baptize S. Mat. 28. to Binde and to Loose S. Mat. 18. or to Remit and retain Sins S. John 20. and he hath given or committed to us saith Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.18 the Ministry of reconciliation which stands in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments VVhat the Romanists pretend for their Priest-hood Now if we ask them to shew their Commission for that power of Sacrificing they cannot direct us to any express Word of God but lead us about to seek it in the figurative and hyperbolical expressons of the Fathers from which they would force these two Propositions That there is such a real and external Sacrifice under the Gospel and That our Saviour Christ did really and truly offer himself up to his Father in his last Supper from whence they conclude If there be such a Sacrifice then are there Sacrificers and Priests If Christ offered up himself in his last Supper then so it is still for he bad Do this S. Luk. 22.19 I do not meane to follow Champny here step by step for the runs into the controversie of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass heaping up the sayings of the Fathers usually alleged by their Writers and as often answered and cleared by ours I shall not examine those savings particularly but stay upon some Generals which may in brief shew the meaning of that manner of speech the fathers commonly used in and about the celebration of the Eucharist The high presumption of the Romanists in taking to themselves such a power of Sacraficing and Their Vanity in reproaching us for not assuming it 3. VVhether Christ offered himself up in the Iast