convocated managing the business and concluding what was to be done in it and the soveraign Prince with Parliament confirming and giving public establishment to that which was so concluded and agreed upon by them Seeing also Champny doth largely insist upon this point of the Supremacy in his 15 16. Cha. upon occasion of deprivation of Popish Bishops for refusing the Oath of Supremacy under Q. Elizabeth we will defer farther prosecution of this point til we meet with him below CAP. III. Of the lawful calling of our English Protestant Bishops against Doctor Champny a Sorbonist and of the first prejudice from other Reformed Churches that have not Bishops 1. THis Writer having spent 8. Chap. of his book against the Vocation of Ministers in the Reformed Churches which want Bishops advanceth in the 9. against our English Protestant Bishops and labours what he can more indeed then all his fellows beside to make their Vocation or Ordination unlawful To that end Defects in Ordination how arising he layes this as the ground-work on which his whole discourse must proceed That Ordination which gives lawful calling to the Pastors of the Church must be valid and right in respect of the Ordainer of the Ordained and of the Ordination it self or Form of it and that a defect in any of these renders the Ordination and so the calling of the Party Ordained unlawful cap. 9. pag. 308. We admit the consideration of those three respects as proper and pertinent to the business in hand and do grant that there may be such a defect in any of them as wil render the ordination either Unlawful for the use or plainly Void or Nul for the substance of it 2. Our English Bishops receiving Ordination from the Romish He begins to examine the calling and ordination of our Bishops and Priests according to the first respect of their Ordainers viz. those of the Church of Rome For from thence the English Church received her Bishops and Pastors together with the Christian Faith in the time of Gregory the first this we acknowledge of the English though the Brittains had the Christian faith and their Bishops before and hath continued that ordination and calling of Bishops with uninterrupted succession down from those first Christian Bishops to Cranmer and our first reformed Bishops The Romish Ordainers he as he must needs allows of and approves the Orders given by them as good and lawful but would make our plea from thence void by our own judgment and according to the Protestant doctrine concerning them and the Orders received from them The summ of his Reasonings is briefly this 1. From the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches which renounce Ordination by Bishops especially from Rome pleading their vocation upon other grounds and therefore either they or we can have no lawful Pastors no Church 2. From the judgment and doctrine generally of all English Protestants by whom the Pope is held to be Antichrist or Antichristian therefore we must acknowledg we received our Ordination and calling if from Rome from the Ministers of Antichrist by whom also they of the Church of Rome are accounted Heretikes therefore we can have no lawful calling from such by whom also the Orders there given are accounted Antichristian abominable Sacrilegious and therefore cannot be lawfully received by us Lastly by whom the Sacramental Character is exploded and therefore no power of Order can be received by us All this he wil have follow upon Protestant doctrine to defeat us of our plea from Romish Ordainers This is the summ of his Reasonings in the 9. and 10. Chapt. We shall examine them in order as briefly as we can 3. The seeming prejudice from other Reformed Churches First for the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches He urges That they renounce our plea of having Ordination by Bishops and of receiving any orders from the Church of Rome esteeming them Antichristian and pleading extraordinary Vocation from whence he concludes against them that they have no lawful Pastors therefore no Church and consequently against us that we are bound by our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from Rome to renounce the fellowship of those Churches which hitherto we accounted of as Sisters and to stand alone divided from all other Churches as we are from the Roman and to hold the Church of England the only true Church thereby confining the Catholic Church within the bounds of that Kingdom which considering the Number of Puritans Brownists Anabaptists all which defie these Ordinations and that plea wil be too too narrow To this purpose he cap. 9. pag. 315 316. c. 4. Now although the different condition of some Reformed Churches doth not immediatly concern us who have retained the regular way of Ordination by Bishops yet because the Romanists make it a matter of reproach to us and some in these Times who covenanted the extirpation of Episcopal Government sought a defence in it for such Schismatical attempts we wil answer to the former charge and try what may be duly concluded upon the judgment and practice of other Reformed Churches First therefore we may say in general However it stands with the Reformed Churches which want Ordination by Bishops and whatever be concluded on them by Champny and others as to the point of having lawful Pastors or being Churches yet his last inference of our restraining the Catholic Church within such narrow compass as this Kingdom is altogether inconsequent for we do not exclude the Roman Church out of the bounds of the Catholic Church neither doth it follow upon our division or want of externall Communion between us that either it or we should be wholly severed from the Catholic Much less do we exclude the Greek and Eastern Churches who have their Ordination and Succession of Pastors from the Apostles as well as the Romish Church Yea and we may add here We cannot exclude those Reformed which want the regular way of Ordination from belonging to the Catholic Church 5. All Reformed Churches not without Ordination by Bishops But 2. All Reformed Churches i.e. such as have purged themselves of Romish Error and Superstition besides the English are not without Government and Ordination by Bishops Those Churches which are the Remains of the ancient reformed Bohemians and are now in and about Poland or those parts do stil retain Bishops as appears by their Book set out 1626. containing the substance of their Doctrine the manner of their Government Synods c. Neither are Denmark and Sweden without their Bishops and therefore Champny's other inference That in this plea of Ordination by Bishops and that derived from the Romish Church we of England stand alone is also false 6. Now 3. The judgment of other Reformed Churches of our Bishops As for reformed Churches in a stricter sense such as those of France Geneva Germany which Champny names c. 9. what their judgment was of our Bishops and Ordination by them
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
agreement of theirs in yeilding Submission of belief and then it will not serve their turns to tell us when we charge them with disagreement in the grounds of their belief that they all agree in yeilding Submission c. For seeing Infallible judgment is the ground with them of that submission of belief and they cannot agree how that infallibility accrews or where it is to be stated in Councel Pope or partly in both the reasons of the one part being sufficient to destroy the other it must needs appear how much they disagree in and about the very ground-work of their belief They would think it strange to hear us say We and they do not disagree in the grounds of our belief because we both agree in these Generals That all Divine Revelation is to be believed yea All that is revealed in Scripture ought to be believed for if we enquire farther into the Means of conveying Divine Revelation we cannot admit Tradition in so careless and uncertain a sense as they do or if look into the Meaning of Scripture we cannot allow of their pretended Infallible Judg or Interpreter and they stick not to call us Hereticks for our disagreement with them So for their Principle in which they boast of their Universall agreement Submission to all that is defined if we enquire into the reason and ground of it Infallible Judgment in their definitions we find wide differences and contrary perswasions among them and Bell. could find in his heart to make them Hereticks that are against stating the Infallibility in the Pope and therefore call'd their Perswasion Haeresi Proxima next door to Heresie as we heard above and mark his reason there why it is not propriè haeretica fully and properly so Nam adhuc ab Ecclesiâ tolerantur They are still tolerated of the Church that hold it A reason why he might not speak as he thought He thought it Heresie no question but might not call it so for saving the Union of their Church Union and Agreement among Christians is to be sought for by all fair means and to be held upon all just grounds and in order to it Submission unto Autority is necessary and Toleration again from Autority may be sometime and in some things needful But the Church of Rome boasting of her Unity and the means she hath for it Infallible Judgment in her Definitions and thereupon requiring not only external or peaceable subjection but submission of belief may be ashamed for preserving of her Unity to tolerat such different perswasions or Doctrines so neer unto Heresie And this also shews the Vanity of what they farther say that the points they differ in as whether a Pope be above a Councel whether Infallible c. are not defined and therefore general submission of belief or uniform agreement is not required Why then say we is that Doctrine tolerated amongst them that is proxima Haeresi so neer to Heresie as we heard above Why is not that defined and stated which is the ground of believing all other things that are defined The reason is plain The Pope knows well enough if those points were defined one way they would not be generally believed and that it is better to have them instilled in privat into the minds of Men by his trusty Emissaries then to have them publickly defined and more for his advantage to have men brought to a perswasion of them in favoar of his power then to hazard the peremptory belief of them either way Other means there are the chains of force and policy to hold all together and I doubt not but many are kept from revolting whose Learning and Conscience shews them a more excellent way then that of the Romish Church 35. Some there are as I hear Of unappealable Autority of the more moderat sort of Romanists which will not now seem to contend for an Infallible Judgment in their Church but to be content with an unappealable Autority This may be good Doctrine at Paris but not at Rome and we may farther say that such Autority or Autoritative Judgment being rightly stated for it must be placed some where as it hurts not us so doth it not help them For 1. they forsake the ground-work or formall reason of their belief which is the Autority and Testimony of their Church and it must be either Infallible or not that thing into which their Faith can beresolved for albeit such an anappealable Autority may in some sort provide for External peace yet can it not certainly and finally stay belief 2. There may the same Objections be made against it which they usually reproach us with for want of that pretended Infallibility viz. That men are so left to their own reason That there is not without it sufficient means for Peace and Unity of which Sect. 8 9 10 11 13 14. of the former book for although when we dissent from that unappealable Autority in matter of Belief and Opinion we be not happily bound to discover it at least to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church as above said Yet if the error be in commanding somthing for Religious Worship as adoration of Sacrament or Images that must needs discover and shew it self in outward practise the unappealable Autority cannot secure the external Submission or compliance In Civil affairs indeed Vnappealable Autority may absolutely require externall Submission because by submitting to the wrong Judgment or Sentence of such Autority the things we recede from for peace sake are but Temporals and in our own power to dispose of but it is not so in the Matters of the Soul and Conscience in the poims of Belief and Worship in which we must have the Evidence of that which is confessedly Infallible to stay upon 36. But what if men will be perverse as we have seen in these dayes to pretend error superstition in Worship where there is none Who shall judge VVho shall judge They that so oft put this question to us cannot well resolve it themselves for who shall judge say we to them Pope or Councel they cannot agree it where the Infallibility rests and if either or both of them must judg shall their judgment be taken for Infallible Neither are they here resolved some contending for Infallible some content with Vnappealable Autority As for us we answer Unanimously The Church shall judg be it National or Universal and take order with such persons by the Church here we mean the Guides and Governours that have public Judgment and Autority in every National Church or in the Catholic assembled in a General Councel and by Judging we mean their defining or demonstrating the Truth according to the Infallible Rule of Gods Word and their Sentencing of Persons refractory to due punishment So the Church shall judg either to the convincing and satisfying or to the censuring and punishing of such Persons who are to answer unto God also for their disobedience For the Church or Public Autority
Chair Many Monsters of Men have sat as Popes in the Rom. Chair when as it is certain in History that many Popes have sate there who have been as vile Monsters and as great Enemies to Christ and all godliness as we need suppose those Antichrists to be which we say are to be found in that Seat if any where yet in the World Such Popes as Champny himself must needs acknowledg to have been not so much Christs Vicars as the Devils Chaplans preferred by him advanced to that Chair by all Divellish means Murders Whoredoms Sorceries and by the like Arts and Divellish Practises holding it and ruling in it as Platina and other of their own Historians testifie Genebrard who is not forward to acknowledg such disparagements to that Seat yet complains of almost 50. Popes together in the 9. and 10. Centuries calling them Apostaticos potiùs quà m Apostolicos and saying they came not in by the door Baronius who alwayes employed the utmost of his skil to excuse is here forced to confess the Papal impieties and to lament the condition of the Church under such Heads particularly Joh. 12. and some other Popes notoriously abhominable about the 10. Century 6. Bell. in his Praephatique Oration to his books de Pontif. Rom. could not pass this by in filence or deny it but sets a good countenance on it and by the fineness of a Jesuit Wit which it seems Baronius Genebrard Champny had not learnt within their Societies turns all to the advantage of that Seat as testifying the Sanctity and perpetuity of it notwithstanding the iniquity of them that sate in it Nihil est quod Haeretici c. It is to no purpose for the Hereticks to take so much pains in searching out the Vices of Popes for we confess they were not few But Tantùm abest c. This is so far from diminishing the glory of this Seat that it is thereby exceedingly amplified for thereby we may perceive it consisteth by the special providence of God What Bell. speaks of the Seat i.e. the Papal Autority and power had he spoken it of the Church of God oppressed under that usurped power it had been a very sober rational and Christian-like acknowledgment of Gods special providence which did preserve a Church under such confusion and iniquity of Antichristian Rulers 7. This doth not invalidate Ordination And as in regard of the preservation of a Church so in respect of the continuance of Ordination in particular Champny must give us leave to say with much more Reason Tantùm abest c. It is so far from seeming impossible or absurd that Christ should permit the power of Ordaining Pastors to the hand of his Enemy that it makes more for the glory of his Power and special providence over his Church that notwithstanding such Wolves that entred He preserved his sheep notwithstanding such Antichristian Rulers He continued and propagated a saving Truth by transmitting down his Word and Scriptures and a succession of Teachers and Pastors by Ordination stil continued Yea his special providence farther in as much as by that Word of Truth transmitted and received from them that had the chief Rule many have discovered their Errors and Tyranny and cast them of and by Ordination derived and received by their hands have a lawful succession of Pastors to declare that Truth and to continue the Church so purged and Reformed without running stil to them for Ordination or confirmation in the Pastoral charge 8. Let us heare what S. Augustine saith appliable to this point in his 165. Ep. Etiamsi quisquam Traditor subrepsisset although some Traitor had crept into that Chair he means the Roman and after-Ages have seen many Judasses or Traitors in it as above said nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae innocentibus Christianis quibus providens Deus c. He should nothing hurt the Church or innocent Christians for whom our Lord hath provided saying of Evil Prelats What they say do ye Mat. 23. as if he had said be their Persons what they wil it doth not prejudice the work of their Function or Ministry no more then it did in those to whom our Saviour there relates viz. the Scribes and Pharisees professed enemies to Christ yet in Moses chair and to be heard and obeyed The Leper also is sent to the Priests because they were in place though generally Enemies to Christ Yea the Ministerial Acts of Judas himself who was Traditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Traitor and a Devil were good and valid when he was sent as were other Disciples abroad to perform them If then the Iniquity of Rulers or Pastors do not prejudice the Church in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments which are of nearer concernment to the Salvation of Christians much less doth it in the transmitting of Orders 9. Lastly VVe first derived Ordination from Rome before any suspition of Antichrist there We begin the succession of our English Bishops derived from the Church of Rome in the time of Gregory the first when as no such Traitor or Antichristian Ruler had crept into that seat and the power of Ordination then received hath ever since continued without interruption among us And although after some Ages we see that many Popes proved Monsters and enemies to Christ from whose Tyranny this Land and Church were not free yet find we many of our Bishops not willingly bearing but complaining under that Yoke as Grosthead and others And as for those that Ordained Cranmer and Latimer they had ejured the supposed Antichrist and cast out the Papal Autority So that whatever Protestants judg now of the Pope it cannot prejudice the Ordination either of our first English Bishops by Gregory the Great who mainly resisted the beginnings of Papal Antichristianisme in John of Constantinople or of our first Reformed Bishops Cranmer Latimer or others for the Pope was then ejected and the Ordainers of those Bishops sworn against him and so not to be accounted Ministers of the supposed Antichrist To conclude considering what was said above of the ministerial acts of Judas and others that were in place and office the charge of Antichristianisme taken in any sense strictly or remisly cannot prejudice our judgment of the now Romish Ordinations which we allow to be valid still as to the substance of the Order appointed and setled in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles And I wish the pretended Reformers of these later Times had not been so strong in their Zeal against the Church of Rome and so weak in their reasoning as out of fear of such seeming prejudices to decline and reject not only Ordination thence derived but even many Truths there professed and from that Church received 10. The seeming prejudice from our charging them with Heresie His next Argument is from the charge of Heresie laid by Protestants upon those of the Romish Church from which he concludes our plea of receiving Ordination by them must fall
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
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
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
though derived to us from the Church of Rome appears sufficiently by Bucer Peter Martyr and other Protestants being here in England and assisting our Bishops in the work of Reformation also by the Letters of the chief and best Learned in those Churches Calvin Zanchy c. to our Bishops and to others concerning them whose Testimonies collected by the Bishop of Durham were published in these Times and opposed to our Covenanters and all other Sectaries that attempted the extirpation of Episcopacy as Antichristian 7. As for the sayings which Champny gives us out of Luther Calvin Mornaeus to whom he adds Fulk and Whitaker rejecting and condemning the Romish Ordinations as Antichristian corrupt and unlawful he might remember that elsewhere he tels us of their pleading by them their alledging that Luther Bucer Oecolampad c. were ordained in the Church of Rome c. 4. and 9. and he could not but know that Fulk and Whitaker allowed of Bishops here and were ordained by them But hence he concludes them all to be taken in a contrary tale and put to a miserable shift For ask them saith he Whence came ye who sent you they will tell us they came from the same stock and originall as the Pastors of the Catholic Roman Church did for their first Doctors Luther Bucer Zuinglius were by them ordained Priests ask them again how can they account that to be a lawfull calling which is derived from the Ministers of Antichrist they will not stick to defy those Orders and Ordinations and presently flie to an extraordinary vocation So he c. 9. p. 323. 324. And yet this seeming contradiction is very reconcilable For when they reject the Ordinations received from Romish Bishops as corrupt and Antichristian they do it not simply as if they were Null or none at all but in regard of the additionall abuses especially that great and sacrilegious depravation of giving such a sacrificing power and placing the Priestly function chiefly in it Therefore so far as the Romish Ordinations pretend to give that power with other superadded abuses they are justly condemned and rejected but in as much as they retain withall the words of the Evangelicall commisson Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c which give the power of the Ministery of reconciliation in the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments of the Gospel they are valid and good and not to be reiterated where they are given 8. By this power of Order received in the Roman Church Luther Zuinglius Oecolamp and others had lawfull calling to preach the Word yea to preach against the very Errors of that Church which considering the condition of that Church and the Errors of it they might do and for any thing I know they did lawfully without transgressing the bounds and limits of submission due to a Church which I endevoured to fix at the beginning of this Treatise 9. Plea of â—extraordinary Vocation Now what is spoken by some of extraordinary Vocation as that implyes a renouncing of Orders received from Rome must not be taken as the generall plea or judgment of those Churches for we heard them pleading Orders received in the Roman Church and Luther wrote very well as Champny cites him chap. 8. against Munster and others that pretended to extraordinary Vocation bidding them prove it by Signs and Miracles Again that extraordinary calling which some in the Reformed Churches have alleged sounds not any new office they pretend to be call'd to but that of Pastors and Teachers and according to the end it was instituted for nor other way of comming to that office but by external vocation from men but it implies some difference from or failing in the ordinary and usual way of ordaining to that office viz. by Bishops for which they plead their case and concernment was extraordinary which rests upon them to demonstrate 10. Hitherto of their judgment in the point from whence we infer that the present Reformed Churches if they follow the judgment of the first Reformers and of the most sober and learned men that have been in them since must allow of our plea of Ordinations by Bishops and those derived from the Church of Rome and Champny must acknowledg an agreement so far between us Now for their Practise not conformable to that Judgment as we cannot approve of it so are we ready to excuse their failing so far as the necessity they plead will bear leaving it to the Romanists desperatly to cut off Nations and People from the Church for failings and wants in such things as do not immediatly touch the very life and being of a Church or of the Members of it 11. Two things in the constitution and continuance of the Church To this purpose there are two things considerable in the constitution and continuance of the Church both necessary though not equally 1. The Doctrine of Faith and Life the due profession of which makes a man a Member of the Visible Catholic Church and the true belief and practise of which makes him a lively Member of the true Symbolical Catholic Church that which we believe in the Creed that which is the true mystical body of Christ 2. The order of Ministery and Government in the Church for bringing of Men to that due profession of Doctrine and so on to be true lively Members of the body of Christ and for holding them in the Unity of faith To this end Pastors and Teachers in whom that Ministery and Government rests are given by our Saviour Eph. 4.11 12 13. 12. Concerning these two things are clear First that although Apostles Prophets Evangelists there mentioned and taken in a stricter sense were only then given and for those Times yet Pastors and Teachers were given to continue to the worlds end The purpose for which he gave them expressed Eph. 4.1 doth imply so much and so doth his Commission given to them As my Father sent me so I send you S. Jo. 20. by vertue whereof they were to send others and so doth his promise given them imply as much I am with you to the end of the world S. Math. 28. Secondly That this giving or sending of Pastors was to be continued by such as our Saviour appointed and his Apostles after him I send you saith he and accordingly they committed this power of sending or ordaining Pastors unto the hands of special men such as Timothy Titus Sylvanus Sosthenes Clemens Epaphroditus c. Whom we find either written to by the Apostle or joyned with him in the inscription of his Epistles to the Churches or honourably mentiond for special labour and care in the affairs of the Church whom Antiquity also witnesseth to have been chief Pastors or Bishops in governing the Churches planted by the Apostles Such also and no other could be the Angels of the Asian Churches written to by S. John or by our Saviour rather 12. The concernment and necessity of 〈◊〉 But as it is clear that the having