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
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
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
Subjection and from all manner of Obedience So the Sentence ran and the Romish Priests began to stickle work busily thereupon then was it high time for the Queen State to look to themselves and therefore An. 13. made it Treason to disperse such Bulls and to reconcile or be reconciled upon them 6. Reconciling to the Bishop of Rome But we must note here 1. This reconciling there forbidden was not practised upon the power of their Priestly function but upon the Autority and by vertue of such Bulls which is plain by the words of the Statute If any person shall by colour of such Bull or Instrument or Autority take upon him to absolve or reconcile any person c. and therefore they are called Bulls of absolution and reconciliation in that Statute 2. This reconciling or absolving was so far from the ministry of reconciliation which we acknowledg to pertein to the Prieftly function by our Saviours institution that the very intent and purpose of it was formally Treason which also is plain by the same Statute in these words The effect whereof viz. of those Bulls and Instruments from Rome hath been and is to absolve and reconcile all those that wil be content to forsake their due Obedience to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to yeild and subject themselves to the usurped Autority of the Bishop of Rome Is this Evangelical or Priestly reconciliation of Penitents to God Had the Apostles preached such Gospel or practised such Reconciliation admitting none into the Christian Church but such as would be willing to forsake their Obedience to their Heathen Princes unless they also would embrace the Christian Religion had they not deserved to be forbidden entrance into their Kingdoms or to be cast out of them The Romish Priests then are justly ejected punished whose absolving of Penitents from sin is proved a pretence of absolving Subjects from their due obedience whose reconciling men to God or his Church a cloak for their Reconciling to a forrein jurisdiction of Papal usurped Autority and what that brings after it who knows not If we go on in our story we shall see what were the Consequents of it Seditions stirring up the People which S. Paul was most careful to clear himself and the Gospel of Act. 24.12 and throughout his Epistles thence Insurrections Rebellions and because these suceeded not secret attempts upon the life of the Prince by Pystoes Poysonings and what not Therefore came out after ten years more the Statute which Champny cites out of An. 23. Eliz. This in the preamble thus reflects upon the former Statute An. 12. Whereas sithence the Statute made in the 13. year of the Queen divers evil affected persons have practised by other means then by Bulls or Instruments Written or Printed to withdraw her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience to obey the said usurped Autority of Rome For Reformation whereof be it enacted That all persons who shall pretend to have power or by any means shall put in practice though by pretence of Priestly function to absolve perswade or withdraw any of her Majesties Subjects from their Natural Obedience or shall to that intent that 's noted stil in the drift of Romish practises and the ground of the Laws provision against them withdraw them from the Religion established to the Romish Religion 7. The frequent seditious practises of Romish Priests The Law looks at the consequents of reconciliation to the Pope or Romish Church for they that made it were not ignorant of the consectary Doctrines to it and by experience found what had been the practises following upon them and therefore in justice and prudence were bound to prevent them Now if this seem to entrench upon their Religion or expose it to Infamy let them discard such Doctrines for the credit of it if upon their Priestly Function which indeed hath the Ministry of Reconciliation annexed to it let them blame themselves who have abused that Evangelical power to cloak and advance such hellish attempts If to the disparagement of privat Confession thanks to them that have abused it to the searching out fit instruments for treasonable designs by seeing into the thoughts and inclinations of persons confessed 8. Some secular Priests were so ingenuous as to confess and complain of the Seditious practises which those of the Society advanced and acknowledge the just provocation which the State had against Romish Priests in their book set out in the latter end of the Queens Reign thus pag. 10. Amongst many things that give her Majesty and the State very just cause to think more hardly of us all this is one that the pretended Brethren of that Society Jesuites and such as follow their steps do calumniate the Actions of the State c. and afterward entring upon the story of Father Parsons his Seditious practises which he together with the rest of his society set on foot they thus write pag. 56. He inveighs bitterly in a seditious book set out by him against the cruelty of her Highness Lawes which we wish had been more mild but he never mentions that he and his fellows have been the occasion of them by their traiterous courses against her Crown and Life Againe pag. 57. If these things viz. their endeavours to advance the Infanta's Title to this Crown should come to the knowledg of the State who will blame the same if such Priests as come either from Spain or Rome be not wel entertained here Thus they truly and ingenuously of the practises of Romish Emissaries and of the justness of the Laws against them 9. I wil not say nor do I think that all their Priests which suffer here were Politicians or acquainted with all the devices of their Superiors I believe the forementioned Seculars were not such and do suppose there are some who in the simplicity of their hearts and out of meer Conscience of Religion do labour the propagation of it whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practises It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other that the punishment which the Law adjudges all Priests to that are found within the Land might only fall upon them who are indeed guilty of such practises which being so frequently found in their predecessors and the State being not able to distinguish between them who are all Missionaries of Rome caused those Lawes to be made for the security of Prince and State And if they that come into the Land without any treasonable intent do suffer for it they must thank their Fellows as the above mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason Doctor Champny one would think should not be a stranger in France by the wisdome of which State the whole Order of the Jesuites was upon this score banished 1594. as Corrupters of Youth troublers of the public quiet and
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
CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS Of present Concernment TOUCHING THIS REFORMED Church of ENGLAND WITH A particular Examination of AN CHAMPNY Doctor of the Sorbon his exceptions against the Lawful Calling and Ordination of the Protestant Bishops and Pastors of this Church By H FERNE D.D. LONDON Printed by J.G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1653. THE PREFACE HOw the several points handled in this Treatise concern this Reformed Church will be declared below when first we have taken notice of the causeless Aspersions and Reproaches which the Romanists cease not to cast upon is and against which these Considerations are purposely intended and opposed They think they have now a fitter oportunity by reason of the confusions of these Times to deal that way by Reproaches then as formerly by Arguments And it is no new thing for the enemies of Gods Truth to scoff at the afflicted condition of the professors of it The Ammonite is challenged for it Ezek. 25.3 Thou saidst Aha against my Sanctuary when it was profaned and so is Tyrus Ezek. 26.2 Thou saidst against Jerusalem Aha she is broken and laid wast I shall be replenished and so the Romanists looking now upon our disturbances say with those in the Psal 35.21 Aha we have seen it with our eyes and so would we have it Endeavouring by mocks and scoffs against the English Church to prevaile with ungrounded Protestants and all unwary ones that will be jeered out of their Religion One of their Pamphlets set out by a late Romish Convert the Reader must give me leave by the way to instance in for it gives us proof and example of what I said both wayes It shewes us a giddy unwary Protestant foolishly carryed away by the reproachful allegations of our Adversaries and having been a while among them presently instructed in this their way of scoffing at that Church and Religion he had forsaken Some of his wit he spends in a few Cursory animadversions as he calls them upon my former Treatise Those I let pass as inconsiderable and not fit to trouble the Reader with But the designe of his book was against that Learned and Solid piece of the University of Oxford set out by Act of Convocation 1647. against admitting of the Covenant He tells us there He is W. R. sometimes of Exeter Colledge but now a Convert of Rome and is not ashamed to profess that we may know his weaknes he had his impulsive cause of conjunction with Rome from that Act of the University pleading Tradition and the necessity of it as for Episcopacy so for other chief points of Faith But alas poor man he did not understand either what those Learned men said or what our Church allowes in the point of Tradition For however he pretend to Wit in reproving our Reformation and Religion yet in arguing when be ventures on it he behaves himself as a manforsaken of his Reason By his Titles prefixed to his book one may read what strein he meant to follow hold throughout his whole discourse for being not content to have at first entitled it An Examination of the Oxford Act he gives it two scoffing Titles more The Obit of Praelatick Protestancie and again The last dying words of Episcopacy faintly delivered in the Convocation at Oxford So he of the Modest and Sober Defence of those Learned Men against the then prevailing force And so might any Heathen Julian or Prophyry have derived the Apologies of the Ancients in the behalf of Christianity then under persecution and might have called them The last dying Words of Christian Religion So might the Arrians have termed the Defenses which Athanasius and others made The last dying Words of the Catholick cause and because Saint Hierom expresseth it dolefully with a Miratus ingemuit Orbis the whole Christian world wondred and sighed to see her selfe made Arrian Such a Reasoner as this might conclude the true Christian Faith was then groaning her last Now albeit there is nothing in this Pamphlet considerable either against our Church or against Episcopacy reteined in it yet did it give me occasion of further thoughts concerning them both and in order to the lawful Calling and Ordination of our Protestant Bishops to examine what Champny who professedly wrote against them hath alleged In the next place that I may give the Reader a better account of what was intended in the former and now pursued in this following Treatise He may please to take notice how the Romanists charge us with Schism in departing from their Communion upon our Reformation and reproach us with the Confusions of these Times as wrought under the like pretence of Reformation and defensible by the like principles upon which we stood in the work of our Reforming and to which we must hold in the defense of it To demonstrate the falshood of both Either that We who are now of a divided Communion from Rome are therefore guilty of Schism or that They who made the rupture in the Scottish first and then in the English Church can say justly for themselves against the former Doctrine and Government of those Churches what we can for our selves against the Church of Rome it was part of the work and purpose of the former book And it was demonstrable upon these grounds 1. There was a necessity of Reformation and we had just Cause for it by reason of the over-grown Papall power and the intolerable abuses in Doctrine and Worship 2. It was Warrantably done not only for the Cause of it but also for the Autority by which it was done whether we consider the Vote of the Clergy and the Iudgment of a Nationall Synod or the assent and command of the supreme and Sovereign power In which regard we see the Vanity of all that the Romanists allege from the Ancients concluding Schism Affirmatively or Negatively by Communion with the Church of Rome for however that Argument might be good when that Church stood right and held the Catholick Faith undefiled yet was it no more then they might and did conclude by Communion with other famous Churches confessedly Catholick No such conclusion can now be made upon holding or not holding Communion with the Romish Church since it gave such Cause of Reformation as abovesaid We see also the Vanity of their Reproaches that we leave every man to his privat Iudgment and Reason that we open a gap to all Sectaries to work confusion when they get force in any Church For however we leave men the use of their Reason and Iudgment in order to their own believing yet in order to Reformation we require not only just cause in regard of intolerable Error or Superstition but also due Autority for the carrying it on in the way of the Church These particulars were spoken to more or less in the first part of the former book Now for the further clearing of this point of the English Reformation and defending it so against the reproaches of Papists that no Sectaries
power under which it was before and so it was with the Church of England Reforming And all this a National Church may so much the rather do when the Universal stands so divided and distracted as it hath for these latter Ages that a free General Councel cannot be expected as was insinuated Sect. 4. of the former book 2. But the Church Universal hath heretofore declared her Judgment in General Councels free and unquestionable doth not every National Church by name this of England ow submission of Judgment to them I answer as for matters of Faith and Worship there is no need that any National Church should dissent from any definition concerning that matter made or declared by any of the undoubted General Councels of the Church such as have not been justly excepted against and let any Romanist shew that the Church of England hath receded from the Judgment of such Councels either in matters of Faith or Worship 25. In Canons of Discipline Prudentiall Motives considerable As for Matters of Practice and Discipline under which I named Priests single life because they clamor against us as receding therein from the Catholick Church I may say generally of such points that the Church in them went upon prudential Motives and Reasons with respect to conveniences and inconveniences in those Times considerable and therefore we find it sometimes letting loose the Reins of Discipline sometimes drawing them streiter according to the Exigency of Times or condition of Persons As in those that enjoyn Priests single life Neither could they that made those Canons intend to bind the Church for ever which in after-Ages might have like cause upon experience of inconveniences to loosen that which they held stricter as we finde in the point of Penances and also in this very point of Single life if we look into the practise of it in several Ages and Countreys Nor was it necessary that this Remission or relaxation should alwayes expect the like Autority of Councels to decree it but it might be lawfully done by any National Church within it self upon long experience of the inconveniences and that especially when a free General Councel cannot be expected 26. As to this point of Priests single life I shall have occasion to speak more below against Champny cap. 6. here only I will hint these particulars I. It was conformable to the former Reason that Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope acknowledged often As at first they saw cause to forbid Priests Marriage so now there was greater cause to leave it free to them again Plat. in Pio. 2. II. The sixt General Councel in Trullo held in the seventh Century was the first General Councel that forbad Bishops to have or retein their Wives Can. 12. Where they excuse themselves for varying from the 5. Canon of the Apostles which forbad Bishops to put them away by a pretence conformable stil to the former reason viz. because stricter Discipline was fitter for their times then it was for the beginnings of Christianity III. That General Councel doth permit Priests and Deacons to keep their Wives decreeing those to be deposed that cause them to forsake their Wives after ordination Can. 13. where the Councel expresly by name sets a black note upon the Roman Church for doing so and Can. 55. censures that Church again for their custom of Fasting on Saturdayes For this cause some Romanists quarrel at and make exceptions against this Councel as not General or Lawful yet the more reasonable among them admit of it and so we leave them to answer for their dissenting from a General Councel upon a double score as appears by the 13. and 55. Canons 27 But what tell we them of answering it to any Councel VVhat submission the Church of Rome exacts that will have the whole Catholick Church bound to submit to the decrees of their Church Let us see then what Submission the Church of Rome requires of all within her Communion and indeed of all Christians under pain of Damnation We may deliver it in general thus In all that she defines she requires or exacts rather absolute Submission of belief and judgment but then we say she cannot make good the ground on which she requires it viz. Infallible guidance In other things not Defined she requires submission of silence which she imposes on both parties as the heat of the controversie between them seems to require And this Submission we acknowledg due to Autority in every Church not only to the Autority of the chief Pastors in that Church but also of the Supreme Civil power this imposing of silence being not a Definitive sentence for determination of Doctrine but a suspending sentence for ceasing of the debate and providing for publick peace 28. In all things defined What strict submission of belief the Church of Rome requires to all her Definitions we may see by the Oath set out by Pius 4. to be taken by every Bishop wherein after the recital of the whole Romish Faith as it is patched up with the Tridentine Articles follows that very clause which we find in the Athanasian Creed subjoyned to the Catholick Faith there expressed Haec est fides Catholica extra quam this is the Catholick Faith without which none can be saved So that they which joyn themselves to that Church stand bound to believe all which that Church at present doth or shall hereafter propose to be believed Let them place the judgment of that Church where they will in the Pope or Councel 29. And absolute Submission Card. Bel. who according to the Divinity professed at Rome and more generally obtaining in that Church reduces all to the judgment of the Pope is very strict in exacting this submission of belief In his fourth book de Pontif Rom. he disputes of the Popes Infallibility and there c. 3. and 5. We find Non esse subditorum de hac re dubitare sed simpliciter obâ—dirâ— It is not for Subjects or Inferiours to doubt of this matter viz. Whether the Pope can or doth erre but simply to obey And to shew the strength of this obligation the inconvenience that would fall upon the Church if the Pope be subject to erre in defining or commanding any thing to the Church he lets not to express it thus Si papa erraret praecipiendo c. If the Pope should erre in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vitia esse bona Virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare that Vice was good Vertue evill unlesse it would sin against conscience To mollifie the harshnesse of this he inserts presently in rebus dubiis as if this Submission belonged only to his Commands and Definitions in doubtfull Matters which as it is not all they say so is it to little purpose for if he please to judg the most apparent thing to be doubtful as whether our Saviour appointed the Cup to be received by the people
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
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
under King Edward the Popish party renouncing it and on the Protestant part John Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester maintaining it to be Synodical because compiled by Autority and Commission from the Synod for saith he this House granted Autority to make Ecclesiastical and spiritual Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and concludes that the Catechisme and such Laws were truly said to be done by the Synod since they had saith he our Synodal Autority unto them committed Now as all Catechisms do so this did contein the Body of Doctrine answerable to the Articles of Reformation which no doubt were agreed on in that Synod and therefore rejected by the Popish party 10. This Synod as I suppose was not held till the fift of King Edward But the Injunctions that went out in the first year were provisional for the public exercise of Religion and Worship which was necessarily to be provided for in present and went no farther then those evident points above mentioned Like Injunctions we find sent out by Queen Mary in her own name and Autority for having suddenly dissolved the Convocation by her peremptory Mandate to Bishop Boner for that purpose in December She sent out the March following Injunctions not upon any Vote of the former Convocation touching Papal Supremacy Sacraments Priests-Marriage c. as we have them in Fox his Acts and Monuments 1. Mariae If it be said as usually they reply that she did but restore what was before established in the Church so we may say by the Injunctions of King Edward was restored the due Worship of God accordingly as it was established and used in the Ancient Church in a known tongue with Communion in both kindes without Image-worship all which were ruled cases in the Ancient Church And of those few Injunctions we may say farther for the warrant of them 11. Those Injunctions sent out by advice of Bishops and were generally received of all the Bishops Thirdly They were sent out by the Kings Autority upon the advise of sundry Bishops and other Learned men of this Land and generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses Both these things are avouched expresly in the charge given in against Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester extant in Fox his Acts and Monuments to shew that he was the only Bishop that did not so readily conform as the rest did This also appears by the Letters of the Archbishop Cranmer to Boner Bishop of London to whom he sent the said Injunctions and by the letters of Boner to the Bishop of Westminster who then was Thirlby twice promoted in King Edwards dayes to other Bishops for the execution of the same Which Letters are to be seen also in Fox his Acts. 12. And so the Vniformimity of Publick prayer If we looke on farther to the Parliament held in the second and third year of the King we find in the first Chapter a Law for the Vniformity of Public prayer and Administration of the Sacraments expressing thus much That for the drawing up such an Order and Form the King appointed the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and certain of the most Learned and discreet Bishops and other learned men of this Realm there 's the fitness of the Persons for the Work having respect to the pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures and to the Vsages in the Primitive Church there 's the fitness of the rule they went by The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost and with one Vniform agreement is by them concluded Wherefore the Lords Spiritual note that and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled considering the godly travel of the King and the Lord Protector in gathering the said Archbishop and Bishops and Learned men together the godly Prayers Orders and Rites in the said Book and the considerations of altering those things that be altered and reteining those things which be reteined in the said book and also the honour of God and the great quietness which is like to ensue upon the same do give his Highness most lowly thanks for the same and humbly pray it may be enacted c. What could be more sweetly begun by the King carried on by the Bishops received by all the Estates then this work was Now if there wanted a formal Synodical Vote yet was there in effect that which is equivalent to it the general reception of the thing done yea the Bishops not only received and put in practice what was commanded but did actually in Parliament give their consent there we find them all sitting and if all did not consent which is more then any can say yet the major part by far did undoubtedly for they continued as I observed above Num. 4. in their places unmolested all King Edwards dayes Neither can it make any real difference as to the justness of a Reformation whether it begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Sovereign Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy or Pastors of the Church be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign Autority It is true indeed that some of the Bishops were deprived but as I insinuated before their number was inconsiderable to the other and their deprivation was not till the end of the Kings third year at soonest which shews their compliance at first 13. Councel of Trents Rule for Reformation Now after all this it will be worth our observing what the Councel of Trent some years after in their Canons of Reformation in the Decree de celebrat Missae Sess 6. sub Pio 4. did confess and thought fit to redress Multa jam sive temporum vitio sive hominum incuriâ improbitate irrepsisse aliena à tanti sacrificii dignitate many things say they either through the iniquity of the Times or the carelesness and wickedness of Men have crept in far unmeet for the worthiness of so great a sacrifice and what were those things quae Avaritia vel superstitio induxit which covetousness or superstition hath brought in Then they give order for redress That the ordinary Bishops of the Place should de medio tollere take them clean away This was well spoken had they done it throughly Now what they thought fit to be done and did it but slightly was done fully in the Protestant Reformation and particularly in that under King Edward for the shameful nundination of Masses which Covetousness had brought in was clean taken away by taking away the manner and Trade of Romish Massings and reducing the free Ministration of the Sacrament the many abuses which Superstition had brought in were removed by restoring the public Liturgy in a known Tongue the celebration of the Communion in both
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
by our own judgment for Orders cannot lawfully be received from Hereticks c. 9. 326. c. 11. That we may more fairly proceed in the clearing of this difficulty we must premise that we admit the distinction here between Legitimum and Legitimè between Lawful or valid Orders and Orders Lawfully given or received the first implyes the power of given which Romanists acknowledg to remain in Hereticks and Schismaticks the other speaks the due and lawful use of that power which is denyed to be in those that are in Heresie or Schisme The reason is because Hereticks and Schismaticks being actually divided from the Unity of the Church must needs lose the lawful use of that power and all other Ecclesiastical ministration but not the power it self which follows a Character that is indelible as the Romanists express it We admit though not a Sacramental character stampt upon the Soul of the Ordained as they wil have it yet such a disposition or power cleaving to his person for the doing of that he is ordained to that it is not lost by Heresie or Schism nor to be reiterated upon the return or restoring of that Person 12. This premised we have two points to speak to First how the charge of Heresies laid on those of the Church of Rome then how the lawful use of Orders may be supplyed by the restoring of the Person though at first they were not lawfully given and so by both these we shall have a double answer to the Argument above For the first we must note that Heresie is considered in regard of the Matter VVhat sort of Heresie takes away lawful use of Ordination or of the Declaration of the Church and this according to the Apostles speech to Tit. c. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick is so first before he be rejected or declared so Heresies also much differ in regard of the Matter by which some may be so immediatly fundamental as the Heresie of the Arrians and some other that it doth ipso facto before any sentence or declaration of the Church cut off or divide the Person so Heretical from the Union of the true Catholic Church because it divides him from the Foundation from being actual Member of the Visible Church upon the Notoriety of such Heresie so contrary to the Foundation and also long since declared against by the Ancient Church in the four first General Councels and therefore the lawful exercise of that power he had to administer Sacraments or Orders in the Church ceases upon such discovery or as I may say Self-condemnation We need not stand here to dispute when or how soon it ceases upon such Heresie for we do not charge such Heresie upon those of Rome i.e. Heresie immediatly Fundamental or those main Heresies declared against by the first General Councels but then we must say that many of their New Articles of Belief and Practise are in themselves Heretical and as much or more then were many Tenets of former Hereticks declared against by the Ancient Church whether we consider the matter and concernment of those Romish Articles or the Obstinacy and Tyranny with which they asserted and imposed so that if there could be a full General Councel of the whole Catholic Church they would undoubtedly be declared many of them Heretical 13. From whence it follows that Heresie thus lying upon them might give us just cause to renounce their Errors and quit their Communion so far as it was necessitated by renouncing their Errors though not just cause to condemn or renounce the Orders given by them or received from them This may give answer to all the Places alleged by Doctor Champny in his ninth cap. pag. 335 336. out of the Fathers against Orders given by Hereticks for they concern either Hereticks in fundamentals or such as were declared so and actually separated from the Unity of the Church 14. It is to be noted farther that when our first reformed Bishops were ordained by them the grand Heresie and mother of their other Errors as to the obstinate an heretical defending of them I mean the Papal Power and Autority was abjured and therefore their Ordainers however yet in Romish Errors could not be properly heretical or peremptorily engaged to defend the same as afterward they were especially since the Councel of Trent hath made them Errors established and sworn to But after that we went not to them for Orders yet do acknowledg they have Ordination still substantially valid and therefore we do not re-ordain Priests that return from them to us because the substance or Evangelical institution is by those words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins ye remit c. reteined still in the Roman Ordination though clogged and depressed by additional corruptions but cause them to renounce those additionals and other Romish Errors So then the summ of our first answer is We do account them to be in Heresie and deeper then when we received Ordination from them yet so as not actually and wholly cut off from the Catholic Church either by the nature of the Heresie it self casting off from the foundation or by declaration of the Catholic Church casting them out of the Unity of it and therefore it doth not follow upon our accounting them Hereticks that we could not lawfully receive Orders from them 15. A supply of defect in Ordination through Heresie Our second answer is from the supply of any defect in our Ordination received from them that supposing them Hereticks in such a condition as made them forfeit their Union which the Catholic Church and consequently the due and lawful use of the power of Ordaining yet doth it not follow that we cannot have it but on the contrary that we recover it by leaving them in that which hindred the due and lawful use of it in them And so the Romanists answer for the Bishops which they own and yet were ordained by Cranmer in the time of the Schism as they call it saying they recovered the lawful use by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Maries time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome So if upon our charging them with Heresie we must suppose they could not lawfully ordain nor we lawfully receive Orders from them then must it conformably be supposed that we having deposed their Heresie and left their Communion and by no other Heresie forfeiting our Union with the Catholic Church do recover the due and lawful use of Orders and may lawfully administer them to others and now do it in the Unity of the Church 16. Champny did foresee this might be answered by us and therefore seeks to cut us off from this plea by replying That defect of lawful Ordination and Vocation which was in Cranmer by supposed Heresie in his Ordainers could not be supplyed but by his reunion to the true Church and Pastors thereof but besides the Church of Rome there was no other Church or Lawful Pastors by reconciliation to which he
in expectance of life he recanted and repented of in the sight of Death That hand that wrought it first felt was consumed in the flames which yet could not seize upon his heart which consented not to it Therefore being dead he yet spake God himself by that miracle which had sufficient attestation bearing witness to him and to the Faith wherein he dyed giving the Lie to all the reproaches wherewith Champny in this 11. Chap. and other Romanists upon all occasions load the memory of that learned humble sober and godly Bishop known so to be unto all that knew him living 9. Protestant Doctrine not condemned by a lawful Councel His second Argument drawn into form stands thus That Doctrine which was condemned as Heretical by due Autority and due form of judgment is Heretical but the Doctrine which Cranmer after his departure from Rome professed was so That it was so condemned by due Autority he thus endeavours to prove That which was condemned by the same Autority and judgment by which the Arrian and other Heresies were in the General Councels of the Church is condemned by due Autority But the Protestant Doctrine which Cranmer and the rest embraced was so condemned viz. by the Councell of Trent against which saith he nothing can be objected by the Protestants which might not as well been said against the Nicene Nothing be said by them for their doctrine condemned at Trent which might not as well by the Arrians for their Heresie condemned at Nice Thus he cap. 11. pag. 384 385. Answ to the Prosyllogisme If by due Autority and form of Judgment be meant not only lawful Autority but Autority also lawfully and duly used that is that in such Councels the judgment be passed or given by those that have Autority and do use it accordingly giving their Judgment according to the rule of Gods Word which is the Chief Autority in such Judgments then we grant that whatever is so condemned of Heresie to be Heretical but deny the Protestant Doctrine to be ever so condemned And therefore we say the Assumption or second proposition in the second Syllogisme is false For the Protestant Doctrine was not condemned at all in Trent Councel when Cranmer forsook the Romish error which was before any Councel held at Trent Nor yet so condemned there when that Councel was held as the Arrian Heresie was in the Nicene Councel 19. Councel of Trent not such as the Nicene What can we find alike in these two either for the Autority or due use of it Were they assembled at Trent by the same Autority Imperial as at Nice Had they which were assembled in both these Councels the same or like Autority Were all the Patriarchs or chief Bishops of the Catholic Church at Trent as they were at Nice Was the number of Bishops at Nice made up of Titulars and Popes Pensioners as at Trent Or did they proceed by the same Autority and due form of Judgment Did they set the Holy Scriptures in the midst before them to judg by at Trent as they did at Nice Did they not set up unwritten Traditions in equal Autority with Scriptures and are not most of their Decrees grounded only upon such Tradition Did they at Nice receive their Determinations from the Popes Consistory as at Trent by weekly Curriers Did they at Nice threaten and drive away any of their Bishops for speaking his judgment freely as they did at Trent This and much more we can say against that Councel wherefore it should not have the like Autority with that of Nice or any lawful General Councel but stand in the same rank with the second of Ephesus with that of Syrmium and the like factious Heretical Councels So that we may justly retort his argument thus That Doctrine which was condemned by no better Autority then was the Catholic Doctrine in the Syrmian Councel by the Arrians or in the second of Ephesus by the Eutychians cannot be therefore Heretical but the Protestant Doctrine was condemned by no better Autority in Trent for what can they object against those factious Councels but may as well against that of Trent Or what can they say for their Doctrine I mean the main points of direct Popery but those Hereticks might for theirs Saying that the Romish Doctrines are not so immediatly against the Foundation and may plead a longer continuance then the other could which yet is no prescription against Truth that was before them Lastly by Champnyes Argument so far as it applyed to the Church of Rome may be concluded that our Saviour and his Doctrine was as rightly condemned as Judas of Galile or any false Prophet that went before him for he was condemned by the same Autority of the great Councel or Consistory by which that Judas and other false Prophets were before condemned Let Champny or any other Romanist answer this which must be by requiring as above said not only the same Autority but also the lawful use of it according to the Rule they are to judg by and he may have an answer to the like Argument proceeding in behalf of the Church of Romes Sentence and Judgment against Protestants and Protestant Doctrine 11. His third Argument runs thus He that forsakes or goes out of that Church in which he received Baptisme and knowingly opposes it is an Heretick unless he can shew that Church to have gone out of a more ancient Church for to go out of the Church is the Character set upon all Hereticks by S. John 1. Ep. 2.19 But Cranmer and the rest that followed him went out of the Church in which they were Baptized and cannot shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient one Answer Going out of a Church how makes Heretick Seeing the force of this Argument rests upon the truth or falsehood of that proposition which affirms us gone out of the Roman and not able to shew that Church to have gone out of a more antient We must note that the going out from a Church takes in the consideration of Jurisdiction which that Church hath over the other and of Doctrine or Faith which one Church professethin Cōmunion with another Now the Romanists phansying the Catholic Church as one society under the subjection of the Bishop of Rome and measuring the continuance and identity of that Church by local succession rather then the Doctrine of faith do accordingly judg of communion with it or opposition to it of going out from or staying in it and easily conclude but fallaciously of Heresie and Schism Whereas we conceiving of the Church as of one Society in subjection to Christ and not withall to any one pretended Vicat General and measuring the Union and Communion of it by that of Christian Faith and Doctrine rather then of Local succession and yeilding our subjection to the lawful Pastors of the Church succeeding one the other but with subordination to the Doctrine of Faith once delivered
it Heretical for renouncing the Doctrine and Communion of that Church by which it received Christianity and joyning it self to that which could not prove it self Christian i.e. to have received Baptism any where but by those whom it had forsaken 16. But if the proving of our Christianity be meant of proving the Truth of it as that the Faith we profess and the Baptism we received is Catholic and truly Christian or that the Ordination which our Pastors have is good and Apostolical then we deny the Assumption for Cranmer and the English Church were able to prove all this by other and better means that the Lineal that is Champny's word succession of that Church which they had forsaken viz. by the written Word of God and the Uniform consent of Antiquity Lineal or local succession is but an empty conveiance of Christianity without truth of Doctrine assured by Gods Word for were Lineal succession the only or a good argument to prove a Man or Nation truly Christian then the Arrian or other Hereticks whose Bishops were not intruders but of Catholicks turned Hereticks might have passed for good Christians and true Catholicks 17. The former charges retorted After these Arguments by which he would fasten Heresie upon our Arch-Bishop Cranmer and the other first Reformers he adds a vain boast let the Adversary retort all or any of these Arguments upon the Ordainers of Cranmer viz. those of the Romish Church and I will confess them Hereticks But it is clear that as all his Arguments as directed against Cranmer are too weak to prove what he would have so they return more forcibly upon themselves For their charge of irregularity upon Marriage we retort their irregularity by Concubinage and for that of Digamy we appeal to them whether they suffer not a Priest or Bishop to have one or mo Concubines rather then to be married once or twice For Cranmers recantation or condemning the Protestant Doctrine we retort the example of Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribing to Arrianism and it is strange that Champny should not remember that the Ordainers of Bishop Cranmer subscribed and swore the condemnation and ejection of Papal Autority and if some of them lived to repent it in Qu. Maries dayes so did Cranmer revoke his condemnation of the Protestant doctrine and sealed it with his Bloud For his Argument from the Autority condemning our Doctrine it was retorted upon them when we answered it For that of our going out from that Church it was shewn how it concerns them who keeping the same Place and Seat yet going out of the Doctrine of the Ancient Church are thereby concluded Heretical The last also falls back upon themselves who have nothing to prove their New Faith wherein they differ from other Churches but Lineal Succession from those first Catholic Roman Bishops from whom they have departed only keeping the same Place and Seat which they held Having concluded as he thinks by the former Arguments that Cranmer and the rest were in Heresie and Schism and therefore could not receive or lawfully use the power of Ordination he then excludes them from receiving all supply of that defect for saith he that must be by reconciliation to the Church confirmation by it as we see in the practice of the Ancient Church restoring Bishops that returned from Heresie But Granmer cannot shew any such reconciliation which indeed saith he was impossible there being no other Church in the World to which he could be reconciled but only that which he had forsaken viz. the Roman so he Answ This is nothing else but what he said above in his ninth cap. endeavouring to reduce our English Bishops to his impossibility of having the defect of their Ordination supplied which he said they were under by being ordeined by those we account Hereticks viz. Romish Bishops and the Answer to it was given * Cap. 4. Num. 16 17 18. above The summ of it was this That Cranmer if he contracted that Defect by being Ordained of Hereticks then he recovered the due use of his Orders by deposing the Heresie of his Ordainers That Cranmer was not alone but with him a whole National Church and that the actual and solemn reconciliation of such a Church with the Bishops of it to the whole body of the Catholic Church was fitting and of good use and example when the Catholic Church remained in such entire body and condition as was fit to receive such reconciliation But when it is otherwise with the state of the Catholic Church as it was when Arrians prevailed and now in the distracted condition of the whole Church such reconciliation is as not well feizable so not so necessary for a National Church Only it is necessary such a Church depose the Errors or Heresie it had contracted and profess Communion with all that do hold the Catholic Faith undefiled in such a measure as is needful not imposing any different doctrine they hold as condition of Communion with them CHAP. VII Of Bishops ordained under King Edward and the essential defect pretended to be in the form of their ordination and of presumption against it HIs 12. Chapter proceeds against those Bishops that were ordained in K. Edwards daies whom he charges not only with the same Heresie he did Bishop Cranmer as true indeed of the one as the other but with a special and that an essential defect in their Ordination what is that The Form of their Ordination by which they were consecrated was new and invented by certain Commissioners appointed by the King and therefore the Ordination was altogether nul and invalid We grant the Form was altered and different from that which before was used in the Roman Church but not new or changed as to that which concerned the substance of the Order 1. The Form of Ordination altered under K. Edward how For the work of those Commissioners was not to devise and invent a direct new Form but to purge it from Popish corruptions casting out what appeared to be either needless or superstitious additions and reteining what imported the substance of the Order or adding withal something to express more fully the purpose of the Order then collated according to the institution of it declared in the Word of God To such a work fitting Commissioners were appointed for number Twelve for quality Six Prelates and Six other learned in Gods Law as we find them in the Statute of 3.4 Edward 6. c. 12. It is too light that Champny laies hold on the word devise in their Commission and bids the Reader mark it as if they had power or went about to devise or invent a new Form on their own heads their work being to devise and consult what Romish additionals might be cut off what depravations purged out that so we might have a pure and just Form expressing more simply the substance and purpose and collation of the Order given 2. Mr. Mason having set down the Form together with
of Edward 6. but here is the mistake That form was not then first published or then received the first Autority but was in force before by vertue of a provisionall Ordinance of the former Parliament which abolished the old Ordinals For look into the 12. Chap. of that Parliament and see it there ordained that 12 Commissioners six Prelats and six other learned in Gods Law should be chosen by the King to draw up such a Form and that to be set out under the Great-Seale before April next following and that it should be used and no other So that from that time it was in force and accordingly was used in the consecration of the forementioned Bishops Scory and Coverdal Aug. 30. which followed that April and went before the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of Edward In which Parliament that Form was again confirmed by adjoyning it to the book of Vniformity of Divine Service or publick Prayer under the like provisions exceptions penalties and with the same clauses as that book Of Vniformity of publick Prayer was Provided for in the 2. of Edw. 6. This was the purpose of that Parliament as by the express words of the Statute appears not to give the first force to Autority of that Form which it received by the Act as I said of the former Parliament as soon as it was set forth under the Great-Seal but to secure it by like provisions and penalties as the book of public prayer was to which they annexed it This is the issue of Champneys confidence who out of the strength thereof often over-shoots his Mark. 6. The Records publikly shewn to Romish Priests When he had thus far proceeded and with great assurance discredited Parkers Consecration and the public Records he meets with a true story that dasheth all and that is the satisfaction given to 4. Romish Priests by Archbishop Abbot in this business But Champny must set a good face and encounter it boldly He tells us as he was writing this of the Consecration of Mat Parker there comes to his hand Bishop Godwins book de praesul Angl. of the English Bishops Where in the life of Matthew Parker that story is set down The particulars of it stand thus Upon occasion of Thomas Fitzherberts speech who seeing Masons Tables of our Bishops gave out he would thank that man that could certainly inform him there were such Records indeed Wherefore Archbishop Abbot taking to him 4. Bishops London Ely Lincoln Rochester who then were King Andrews Neil and Buckridge sent for 4. Priests out of Prison whose names are set down in Godwin and caus'd the Records to be produced shewing them the consecration of Archbishop Parker suffering them to look farther and as long as was convenient for the purpose they were sent for and wishing them to write what they saw to Fitzherbert which they also did Champny would not take notice as I observed above of that satisfaction which Doctor Reinolds had given Hart the Jesuite touching these Records and related by Mason upon his own knowledg but this other was so home that he could neither overlook it nor deny it Only he saith they had a sleight view of such a book but not permitted to peruse it as it was requisite and when those Priests by letter to the Archbishop begged leave to have a farther sight of it they could not obtein it pag 527. If saying or unsaying can blemish so public an Action there will never want some among the Romish Priests to do it confidently But is it likely that so many Prelats Persons of great severity and gravity should in so solemn an action play boyes play with their Adversaries to give them a sight of the Records and then presently withdraw them to put the book into their hands and then presently snatch it from them Or that such Prelats should meet to act a part in countenancing forged Records To say nothing of the severe gravity of all those Bishops Bishop Andrewes of all men living was least fit to do it who I dare say would have cast off his Bishoprick rather then held it by such a pretended warrant and so will all those think and say that either know the autority of that learned man or read his Epistles to Molinaeus touching the Episcopal Order And thus much if not too much to the trouble of the Reader in refutation of Doctor Champney's presumptions against the due ordination of Arch-Bishop Parker and the truth of the publick Records CHAP. IX Of the other Bishops ordained in the beginning of the Queens reign and the pretence of special defect by reason of Intrusion Where of the Deprivation of the former Bishops and the Oath of Supremacy as a cause of it HIs 15. and 16. Chap. proceed against the rest of the Bishops in the beginning of the Queens reign whom he charges with a special defect or failance the want of lawful succession in regard of their places and Sees not void and therefore entring by intrusion and usurpation could not be Lawful Pastors or Bishops 1. The Charge of Intrusion This charge concerns not all the Bishops made then for there were many Sees actually void but only those that enter'd upon the ejection or deprivation of some Popish Bishops fourteen in number and of them some were dead some voluntarily had quitted the Land before the Queen caused others to be placed in their Sees Now the force of this charge so far as it concerns our Bishops rests upon this proof that the Deprivation of the other was unjust and unlawful This is that which Doctor Champny endeavours to make good by returning some answer to the crimes laid against them and by making some proof that the Queen was no competent Judg in such a businesse Begin we then with the consideration of that which was laid to the charge of the Popish Bishops whereby it may appear that they were deservedly deprived and that the Queen had power to do what she did therein 2. The causes of depriving the Popish Bishops I find those deprived Bishops charged with 3. things which make them offenders against the Crown and against their own Office First their refusing the Oath of Supremacy Second their joynt refusing to crown the Queen in which they all perished save one Thirdly their unreasonable perverseness in not standing to any Order which was agreed on in the Conference or publick disputation holden at Westminster for evidencing of the truth to the whole Kingdome and therein their obstinat opposition to the Reformation of Gods Worship and Religion Our Chronicles generally refer the cause of their deprivation to the refusal of the Oath and that is chiefly insisted on by M. Mason lib. 3 and by Docter Champny in answer to him but I find not that they were imprisoned much less deprived till after they had declared their obstinacy in all three particulars and must conclude the two latter did add much to the cause of their deprivation and render'd them high
offenders against the Queens Majesty and their own Office 3. Their refusing to Crown the Queen For if it be the Office of the Bishops of this Land to crown the undoubted Prince what do they deserve who having acknowledged Her Right in Parliament declared by the mouth of the Archbishop of York then Chancellour and at Her coming to London been all of them except Boner graciously received by Her and admitted to kiss her hand do after upon pretence of Religion refuse to set the Crown upon Her head Again when it was Her desire and purpose to have the exercise of Religion setled as it was in King Edwards dayes and might have done it upon the same Evidence and Warrant of which above cap. 2. yet she caused a Conference between the best learned on both sides to be held at Westminster A Conference appointed the Parliament then sitting for the satisfying of persons doubtful and for the knowledg of the Truth in matters of difference that so there might be some good and charitable agreement These are the words of the Queens Declaration Also that Conference was to be held before the Lords and other Members of Parliament for the better satisfying their judgments in concluding such Laws as might depend thereupon as it is there also specified 4. The Popish Partie thought it at first reasonable and by the Arch-bishop of York gave their answer that they were ready to render an account of their faith and did accordingly choose some Bishops with other Doctors to be Actors in the Conference Their obstinat perversness and agreed to the Orders set down for the more quiet and effectual managing of the business But the very first day it appeared they meant not to stand to the Order first agreed on which was to give in writing to the other party what reasons and proofs they had for each point whereof being fairly admonished by the Lord Keeper who was appointed Moderator of the Action not to judg of the Controversie but to see to the orderly proceeding and by other Lords they promised to give in the next day what was said by Doctor Cole in their behalf and what they had farther to say but that day being come they would neither one way nor other neither by writing nor speech declare what they had to say but only returned them this answer The Catholic Faith is not to be call'd in question And this was the issue of that Conference the passages of which are punctually set down in Stow. 5. Now if it be the Office of Bishops to teach all things commanded by Christ as we find Champny arguing for them out of S. Mat. 28.20 against the Regal Supremacy in his 6. chap. and to shew us that he hath commanded them If a Bishop must be by Saint Pauls Canon 1 Tim. 3.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach which implies not only Ability of which other Bishops who ordain him must judg but also Readiness to teach of which the Queen and whole Parliament who in vain expected it from them might very well judg what then should we conclude of those Bishops who were not ready nay obstinately refused to do it when their Soveraign Prince and the Estates of the Realm were ready and desirous to hear For the satisfying of their judgments and consciences and for the bringing about some good and charitable agreement What can we I say conclude of them but that they highly offended against the Queen and whole Kingdome and against the duty of their own Office being also self-condemned in wilful receding from the Orders they had agreed to as most reasonable The Protestant party were ready to say with Saint Paul we commend our selves to every mans conscience by the manifestation of the Truth 2. Cor. 4.7 But the Popish party did in effect say with the proud Pharisees This people know not the Law are cursed S. Jo. 7.49 and so leave them in their ignorance 6. Add to this their obstinate opposition to all reforming of Worship and Religion from such evidenced Errors and corruptions as Image-Worship Prayers in an unknown tongue Communion under one kind If any of the Preists had withstood the reforming and purging of the Temple undertaken by Hezekiah and Josiah and not consented to the restoring of the due worship of God or to serve in the Temple according to that Form of Worship had it been just to continue them in the Priests Office or to remove them And was there any reason that the Queen according to the power given Her of God undertaking the reformation of Religion and Worship should continue those as Pastors in the Church which refused to teach or give a reason of their Doctrine or to accord to any reformation of the known abuses in Gods Worship or to serve in the Church according to the form of Worship duly established 7. Now lest any should think the like might be answered by those that some years ago cast out our Bishops as opposers of their Reformation I must still remember the Reader they cannot make the like defence for their pretended Reformation whether we consider the Abuses to be Reformed or the Autority by which in neither of these was their attempt answerable to that just Reformation that cast out Popery and some of the Popish Bishops as above seen c. 2. To these two particulars of their not Crowning the Queen and nor holding the Conference Champny in his 15. Chap. pag. 534. replies 1. That neither of these was objected to them and therefore no cause of their deprivation But this is more then he can affirm and altogether improbable considering their presumptuous disobedience and I find in Stow that upon their abrupt breaking up the Conference White and Watson the two Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were immediatly sent to the Tower for their extraordinary peremptoriness and all the rest bound daily to attend the pleasure of the Queens Councel save Feckenham Abbot of Westminster who only shewed himself reasonable and very willing to have the Conference go orderly and peaceably on and therefore had his Liberty Neither is the question here what was objected to them but what they deserved The objecting of their refusal of the Oath was enough for their deprivation by the Statute newly Enacted yet their presumptuous demeanour in the other particulars was no small aggravation of their offence and might be too of the Queens just displeasure against them 2. Champny allegeth two examples the One in relation to the Conference the Other to the Crowning the first is of Saint Ambrose that refused to dispute with the Arrians But this is far wide from the business in hand whether we look at the Subject Matter of the dispute which with Saint Ambrose was a chief fundamental point the Deity of our Saviour Christ and newly declared in a General Councel with us the Subject of the Conference were certain points which as held by Protestants are so far from being against the
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
oper where cap. 1. and 15. he confutes them who conceived by mistake of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 3.15 that those which dyed professed of the Christian saith might be purged from all their evill works by some fire and so come to salvation merito fundamenti by reason of the foundation held also in his Enchirid cap. 109. and in 1. quest ad Dulcitium and in his 20. and 21. books de Civ Dei Now though they differed in their conceits about this fire whether it was immediatly after death or at last day commonly cald Ignis conflagrationis and about the Persons to be purged and helped by it yet all of them seem to conceive it to be a fire of Passage only for souls to go through to their appointed receptacles not a fire of Durance for souls to lie in as in a receptacle till the day of judgment as the Romanists believe it All that Augustine concludes upon it is nothing but uncertainty Tale aliquid some such thing may be after this life and quaeri potest it may be put to the question non est incredibile it is not incredible and forsitan verum est perchance it may be true so he of it in the forementioned places We see by this how from the curiosity of some of the Ancients enquiring after relief and help for those Dead whose state was of more uncertain condition Romish superstition hath taken her rise and how from the private opinions and uncertain conceits of some of the Ancients length of Time and strength of Romish presumption hath framed Articles of Faith this of Purgatory for one in respect to which and relief of the Souls tormented therein their Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice even the body and blood of our Saviour 11. Now to conclude By all that hath been said it appears how groundless unwarrantable and presumptuous this power is which the Romish Priests pretend to and how that power which our Priests or Presbyters receive in ordination and use in celebrating the Eucharist is warranted by the express Word and doth the whole work of the Sacrament sufficiently according to all purposes that our Saviour intended it for when he said do this and according to the true and proper meaning of the Fathers speaking usually of a Sacrifice in it And this is so much more considerable because the Romanists place the highest and chiefest act of Worship Evangelicall in this Sacrifice of the Mass and account the chief power and perfection of Evangelicall Priesthood or ministration totam vel maximam perfectionem sacri Ordinis saith Champny pag. 184. to be in this reall Sacrificing or offering up the body and blood of Christ And therfore it is most strange that in all the Evangelicall Writings there should be no Precept for such a Worship no institution of such a Sacrifice no commission for using such a power and that seeing the Apostle had often just occasion to speak of such a Sacrifice and Priesthood in his Epistle to the Hebrews nay had all the reason that could be to have acquainted them with it had there been any such whereas we shew express commands for that way of Worship we retein which with the Romanists is nothing in comparison of their Mass We shew direct commission for that power we use of Preaching Binding Loosing consecrating and celebrating the Sacraments which they account but dependent and subservient to the power of making the body of Christ and offering it up As for their pretence by our Saviours command Do this we found them thereby engaged to affirm that Christ offered himself up to his Father for the sins of the world in the Sacrament flat contrary to the tenour of the Gospel which yeilds that only to the Cross and expresly contrary to Saint Paul who affirmes he offered himself but once for sin Heb. cap. 7. and cap. 9. see above Num. 3. And when they have perswaded themselves of this untruth that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist how can they assure themselves that do this warrants them to do all they suppose he did i.e. to offer him up as he did himself It is enough for us men to do this as a Sacramentall action blessing distributing eating drinking and by adding to it in remembrance of me he plainly shews he meant no real Sacrifical action by offering him up again but the Sacramental only by representing and remembring his once offering up himself to death and so the Apostle tells us Do this imports 1 Cor. 11. How great presumption is this for Mortal man to take upon him thus to offer up the Son of God Bell lib. 3. Bellarm. vain exception to excuse the Romish presumption de Pontif. Ro. c 19. writing of Antichrist and answering to this as a piece of Antichristianisme charged upon the Church of Rome dare not simply affirme that the Priest offers up Christ but that Christ offers up himself per manus Sacerdotis by the hands of the Priest Whether Bellarmine mend or marre his business here its hard to say This we know that Christ our High-Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7.25 and 9.24 is in Heaven at Gods right hand executing his eternal Priesthood by interceding for us and in that representing still what he hath done and suffered for us And we know we have warrant and his appointment to do the like Sacramentally here below i.e. in the celebration of the Eucharist to remember his Death and Passion and to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of We know also that as He gives His Ministers Commission and Autority to do this so he assists them here below by his power and grace But that Christ should daily here below offer himself up personally for this Bellarmine must affirm in his qualifying of the Romis◠presumption by the hands of the Priest is inconsistent with that once offering of himself on the Cross and with the present performance of his Priesthood in Heaven where he is ever to intercede for us Heb. 7.25 and to appeare in the sight of God for us Heb. 9.24 This also would turn our Saviours command Do this in remembrance of me by which the Romanists pretend to take thus much upon them into a promise I will do this in remembrance of my self by your hands A meaning of our Saviours words which the Apostle knew not whē he told the Corinthians what it was to do this so oft as ye eat and drink this 1 Cor. 11. Yea the Priest saith directly in order of their Mass Suscipe Pater hanc Hostiam quam ego indignus servus tuus offero tibi Receive O Father this Sacrifice which I thine unworthy servant do offer up unto thee They that composed this prayer knew not that Christ as the Cardinal contrives it offered up himself there by the hands of the Priest or rather knew not that Christ was there
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