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
the Reason of the things themselves Now the belief upon this Autority is but previous and preparatory as I call'd it in order to that which S. Augustine calls Reason or evident knowledg of the truth For he tels us this Autority viz. of the Church proposing the Catholick Faith stands upon Miracles confirming that Faith and Multitude of believers that have embraced it and this indeed is the first motive to induce a Man to seek and believe he may have the true Faith and Religion in such a Church such a company of Relievers Again he pleads for belief due to the Autority of Pastors and Teachers of the Church whom he cals Antistites Dei whom God hath set in his Church as Governours and Teachers cap. 10. de Vtil Cred. and this is but according to the Rule common to the teaching of other Sciences Oportet discentem credere He that is taught must give credit to him that teacher him Lastly we find him every where speaking the end of that Autority and teaching in the Church it is praecolere procurare animum or idoneum facere percipiendae veritati to mould and fit the mind for perceiving and embracing the Truth and preparare illuminaturo Deo to prepare it for the enlightning of Gods Spirit which he calls sometimes the punging of the mind viz. from Natures ignorance self-conceit love of Worldly pleasures that it may be fit to behold the clear Truth and this is it which he calls Reason and gives it the chiefest Authority Summa est ipsius veritatis jam cognitae perspicuae Autoritas cap. 14. de verâ Relig. this was calld Evidence above or Demonstration of Truth and cap. 25. of the same book Purgatioris animae rationi quae ad veritatem pervenit nullo modo preponitur humana Autoritas Humane Autority must give way to Reason and Evident truth which a Soul purified by Faith knows and believes Thus much in reference to that which had been spoken above of preparatory conditional belief due to and beginning from Autority but finally resting in the Evidence and Demonstration of Truth Like as the belief of the Samaritans given first to the Testimony of the Woman that had been with Christ brought them out unto him but stayed at last upon Aâ—divimus ipsi we have heard him our selves S. John 4.42 22. Pride makes men pass the bounds of peaceable subjection Now in reference to that which was spoken of Submission of privat Judgment keeping within bounds of peaceable subjection hear what S. Augustine subjoyns immediately upon the former words cap. 25. de Verâ Rel. ad hanc nulla humana suPerbia producit To this viz. the reason and belief of a purified minde pride brings no man quae si non esset nec Haeretici nec Schismatici essent but for this Pride and self-conceit the cause why privat Judgments do not keep within bounds there would be no Hereticks or Schismaticks for it comes not to this but when nimiâ levitate as he speaks sometimes through too much lightness of judgment they are driven tanquam palea vento Superbiae as chaff by the puff of their own pride from the Lords floor or Visible Church 23. Vnjust excommunication and want of the Communion of the Church upon it But what if Privat Men for a peaceable dissenting in judgment or practice from the Visible Church of which they were Members in points of high concernment for Belief or Worship be censured and driven from the communion of it They are not for all that driven from the Communion of the Catholick Church but their condition is not unlike the case of those good men which S. Augustine speaks of cap. 6. de verâ Rel. Divine Providence saith he suffers sometimes Viros bonos per turbulentas sed tiones carnalium hominum expelli de Congregatione Christianâ Good men to be cast out of the Communion of the Visible Church through the turbulent Seditions of carnal Men How such if private men must behave themselves declaring also how they ought to behave themselves in that condition patiently constantly by charity to those to whose Violence they gave way and perseverance in the Faith of the Catholike Church sine Conventiculorum segregratione without making Conventicles apart testimonio suo juvantes eam fidem quam in Ecclesiâ and by their witness and profession helping that Faith which they know is still taught in the Church These saith he thus serving God in secret Pater viaens in occulto coronat their Father which sees in secret crowns and rewards Observe he speaks here of privat Men and so do we hitherto but he supposes them cast out of the Church in which the Catholick Faith is truly professed with due Christian Worship and therefore saith Examples of such expelled good men are rare Whereas we supose such to be cast out from the Visible Communion upon the cause of Faith and Worship and those turbulent persons to be the chief Rulers casting them out upon that account and therefore with more advantage may conclude it is well with such in the sight of God that sees in secret Indeed the condition of the Catholick Church being such as it was in S. Augustine his dayes it could not but be rare to find such examples but if he had seen these latter Ages and the corruption of Faith and Worship upheld by pride and Tyranny of the chief Rulers especially within the Communion of the Romish Church he might have seen examples great store of good men and pious for peaceable dissenting or desiring Reformation cast out and persecuted 24. Now in the last place Submission of National Churches to the Vniversal of the respect which National Churches have and ought to have to the Universal as to this point of submission we need not say much 1. Several National Churches being parts as it were and Members making one whole Church called the Catholic in some proportion ought to bear like respect to the Definitions and practises of the Catholick Church as Inferior or privat persons to the particular National Church of which they are Members in some proportion I say as also it was said Sect. 9. of the former book but with advantage to a National Church in this point of Judgment above what is allowed proportionable to privat persons for they have only Judgment of discretion in order to their own believing whereas a National Church hath publick Judgment both in receiving the Decrees of the Universall Church or in making some her self and in proposing them to others whom she is to guide and answer for and so can make publick reformation when there is cause for it and constitute a Visible Church in depending in point of Government of any other Visible Church or rather can continue a Visible Church as it was before but with this difference from what it was before that now it stands reformed or purged from many errors and freed from the Tyranny of forrein
then choice we leave it to Champny and other Romanists to conclude desperatly upon them and all that are not in their way enclosing the whole Church within their Communion and judg of Christians not so much by their Union to Christ by the bands of faith and charity Eph. 4.13.16 as to his pretended Vicar by subjection to him for so they conceive of the Church of Christ as of a Society joyned together under one Pastor the Pope or Bishop of Rome and do accordingly define it and acknowledg the Members of it making themselves thereby Papists rather then Christians and cutting off from the Church not only for defects in ritu Apostolico the Order left by our Saviour and his Apostles which is the charge they have against the Reformed Churches that are without Bishops but also for failing ritu Romano the not observing in this point of Ordination the additional Rites and Papal Inventions used there which is the charge they have against us and for which they conclude we have no Bishops nor lawful Pastors as will appear below CHAP. IV. Of the second Prejudice From the Protestants Opinion of the Pope being Antichrist and the Church of Rome Heretical 1. NOw proceed we to his second Argument against our pleading of Ordination derived from the Church of Rome It is grounded upon the Judgment of our own Writers and amongst them some Bishops that hold the Pope is Antichrist and therefore that we fall by our own sentence and doctrine For how can the Ministers of Christ saith he receive due and lawful Ordination from the Ministers of Antichrist Or how can we think that Christ should leave the power of Ordaining Pastors for the feeding of his Church which he bought with his precious bloud and for the dispensing of his holy Word and Sacraments in the hand of his sworn Enemy c. 9. p. 320. c. To this Argument I answer the more willingly because I see how Presbyterians generally with those of other Sects suffer themselves by such inconsequencies and mistakes to be abused into many inconveniencies to the great disturbance of the Church Here are two points to be spoken to 1. The Judgment of the Popes being Antichrist 2. The Inference against our Ordinations 2. Of the opinion of the Pope being Antichrist To the first That there is much Antichristian doctrine taught in the Church of Rome invented broached maintained by the Popes and others that have been and are chief in that Church is most evident to any man that hath any reasonable insight into Christianity and that they which hold and maintein such doctrine are and may be called Antichrists is not to be denyed for so there are many Antichrists as St. John tels us of his time But that the Pope is the Antichrist is no point of our faith none of the Articles of our Religion Prophecies indeed are matter of Faith and ought to be believed that they shall be fulfilled before they come to pass and that they are fulfilled when the Scripture assures us they are but when it leaves us to gather the event by signs delivered in Prophetick expressions and more general terms such as is the description of Antichrists comming then to say such a prophecie is now fulfilled or such a State or Person is that Antichrist is not the act of Faith but the work of Reason making a Conclusion or Inference upon application of the signs and marks describing him in the prophecy to such or such a Person or State 3. VVhich admits several senses Now as King James in his Praemonition to Christian Princes falling upon this point by occasion of Heresie laid to his charge by those of Rome and the Oath of Allegiance declared by Pope Paul to be against the Catholic Faith pursues it indeed eagerly and with a long discourse not as an Article of his Faith but as a Problematical perswasion to shew he could better and with more appearance of Truth prove the Pope to be Antichrist then the Pope could prove him to be Heretick or himself to have such superiority over Kings So we must take that Assertion of our Writers de Papâ Antichristo comparatively not only in regard of our selves whom they call and hold to be Heretikes to say Antichristianism agrees more properly to them then Heresie to us but also in regard of all other Persons or States that have fallen under the suspition of being Antichrist to say Of all that yet appeared in the World the signs and marks of Antichrist agree most plainly to the Pope and Popedome I cannot but say I am much inclined to think as learned Zanchy seems to do in his Tract de fine Seculi that whatever is done already in the working of the Mystery of Iniquity the Antichrist will be revealed in that Seat and sit in that Papal Chair 4. Many Antichrists in a large and more remiss sense there have been and will go before the appearing of that great One and a great appearance of such there hath been in the Popedome already Bernard and many other that lived within the Communion of the Roman Church discovered the appearance of Antichrist in the Papal Court and spoke it Indeed the Spirit of Antichrist which Saint John saith did work in the Hereticks of his time 1. Ep. c. 4. v. 3. who by Tertul. are called Praecursores illius Antichristi Spiritus the forerunners of that great Antichrist advers Marc. l. 5. c. 16. that Spirit I say of Antichrist hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Romish Church not only by reason of Heretical and Antichristian doctrine there taught especially that Principle of mis-belief Papal Infallibility the ground of their faith or believing then which no one can better fit the turn of Antichrist or be a readier way to Apostacy from Christ but also by reason of exorbitant power there challenged and usurped first over all Bishops in the Church of Christ for which by Saint Gregories warrant we may stile the Pope the forerunner of Antichrist then over Kings and all that are called Gods 5. Now in the second place The seeming prejudice consider the Inference made from this Champny as we insinuated above draws it ad impossibile or to this Absurdity Therefore Christ left his Church in the hand of his sworn Enemy giving him the power of Ordaining or providing Pastors for his Church and tels us The Reformed Churches do therefore abhor the Orders and reject all things else that come from Rome Answ First supposing the Popes to be such Antichrists or Antichristian Rulers it was but part of the Christian Church that they ruled in and why should it seem so strange to any that Christ should leave part of his Church under Antichristian Tyranny when it is foretold plainly that Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God or why should it seem so strange and impossible to Champny that Christ should suffer his sworn Enemy to sit as chief Pastor in the Roman
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
Bluet and Bluet from Master Neale and Master Neale from I know not whom nor he neither Only he tells us that one Master Constable received it from Stow himself who acknowledged so much in private but durst not publish it Be it on Master Constables account whether he wrongs Stow or no We know what advantage they make of such stories confidently reported to entertain and confirm their Proselytes withall But setting aside the public Records that shew the place and manner of their Ordination and how they were at several times Ordained this story betrayes it self many wayes First in that it pretends Scory alone to have Ordained them for as Master Mason here noted who can imagine that the other three Barlo Coverdale and Hodskinson who desired the advancement of the cause should decline the Action especially when the Penalty was a Premunire according to the 25. of Hen. 8. cap. 20. or that Parker an Archbishop Elect would have been Ordained by one when the other three were in the Queens Letters for his Consecration as well as Scory and as willing and at hand Secondly that they should make choice of such a place a Tavern for so sacred an Action which would shew them to be Madmen and fitter for Bedlam then Bishopricks when as Churches and Chappels were open to them as Mason noted Champny pretends they knew Landaff would not be brought to their Churches Very like when he notwithstanding continued in the Church of England all his life time after and held his Bishoprick to his death but if he scrupled to come into our Churches why should they think he would meet them at a Tavern or why make choice of a Tavern rather then some other privat though common place The question then is whether Landaff was so good a fellow to approve of a meeting there or whether Champney was in Wine when he wrote this or the Reader will be such a Fool as to believe it As for Parker Grindal and the other who are thus defamed their lives and manner of Conversation before and after did sufficiently recommend them to all men for persons Learned Grave Sober Temperat Lastly let me observe how this story betrays it self in the strange Form of their Ordination and must either conclude those grave Personages to be Madmen again that having the Form of Ordination used in King Edwards dayes and commanded by the Law would or durst use any other especially so ridiculous one as is here reported or els condemn the raisers of this report of sensless impudency and the believers of it of notorious folly 4. But we are yet again call'd back to answer a Negative argument from John Stow who hath omitted to speak any thing of the consecration of this Archbishop And why should that be so strange Because Stow doth not usually admit any memorable thing done at London and all Chroniclers use to be very diligent in Recording all Innovations in States and this Stow was punctual in describing the reception consecration and enstalment of Card. Pool which yet was but after the wonted manner it is then very strange he should say nothing of the Consecrating of this new Archbishop after the New Fashion not seen in England before and the more strange this because Stow is known to have born great respect to Mat. Parker There must needs be other cause of such wilful silence besides forgetfulness to this purpose he pag. 503 c. As for Card. Pools reception and consecration Stow doth not fuse describere describe it at large as Champny sayes but only mentions it as done and considering that Chroniclers use to be punctual in describing all the Pageants that are shewn at the entrance or entertainment of Princes I marvel he did not enlarge himself in relating the manner how this great Cardinal such a special person comming upon such a special errand with Legatine power to reconcile and bring back the whole Kingdome to the Chu of Rome was received consecrated and enstalled which no question was set off with all the holy Pageantry of the Romish pomp Whereas the Consecration of Protestant Bishops being now more simply and homely though more Apostolical with few but innocent Ceremonies did not afford matter so much for a Chronicle as a Register One thing more was special in the Cardinals entrance which Stow notes The same day saith he that Docter Cranmer his predecessour was burnt the Cardinal sang his first Mass A good beginning One was burning the other singing But what if Stow professed so much respect to Archbishop Parker was this the only kindness he could do his friend to tell the Kingdom what it knew that he was Archbishop That respect and honour he bore the Archbishop if he had meant to shew it would have rather invited him to be copious in setting out his personal vertues and endowments which seeing he hath not once mentioned why should we marvell at his silence in the other And could there be done any thing at London more memorable and of more concernment in the way of the Church or a greater innovation in Champney's judgment then the first Synod held in the Queens reign where Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion drawn up in 39. Articles was concluded and published yet is it not once mentioned by Stow. It is the business of State not of the Church which affords work for this and other Chroniclers 5. The Consecration of Bishop Scory and Coverdale Next he endeavours to prove that Scory and Coverdale two other Ordainers of Parker were not consecrated themselves either after the old Roman or new English way and thinks he convinces it evidently thus The Ordinals saith he or old way of consecration were abolished by the Parliament of 2. and 3. of King Edward The new Form established by the Parliament of the 5. and 6. of the same King but the two former Ordainers were consecrated according to Masons records Aug. 30. 1551. that is five months before the new Form was set out and therefore by no Form in force even according to the Laws of this Realm So he pag. 510. This argument at the first appearance seems pressing and Champny doth not a litle set by it By what Form From hence saith he inevitably it is concluded that those two were never consecrated indeed and therefore not Parker as is pretended whereupon he concludes Masonum protervum inverecundum that Mason was obstinately shameless in avouching Parkers due consecration pag. 511. But I shall easily make appear the weakness of this argument as raised upon a meer mistake either through his inadvertency of what he might have observed in the Statutes or his wilfull concealment of what he did see The case stands thus It is true that the Ordinals are named with other superstitious books and with them abolished in the Parliament of 2. and 3. of Edward 6. and true also that the form of Ordination after agreed on was confirmed in the Parliament of the 5. and 6.
definition of any General Councel that they are most clearly according to the judgment of the Ancient Church Or look we at the End or purpose of the dispute which with us was public satisfaction to all persons doubting and to bring about a good and charitable agreement and this upon the command of the Prince the desire and expectation of the whole Kingdom but no such good purpose intent or expectation in the dispute or alteration unto which Saint Ambrose was provoked 8. His other Example relates to their not Crowning of the Queen Euphemius saith he Patriarch of Constantinople refused to acknowledg Anastasius for Emperour but repell'd him as an Heretick till he promised to admit the Councel of Chalcedon Here again is another fundamental point and the Declaration of an undoubted General Councel which notwithstanding could not give Euphemius warrant to do any more then express his judgment of the unworthiness of the Emperour But what is this to their refusal of Crowning the Queen whose right they had acknowledged whose faith they could not question as contrary to any approved Councel For what are the Novel Articles of Romish faith to the Fundamental Christian Faith declared in the Ancient Councels And yet must Princes by the judgment it seems of Romanists not have their Crowns if they will not first admit that faith or else lose them if after by due Reformation they cast it off Thus far of the offence of those Bishops as to the business of Crowning and Conference of which offence the Queen might well be a competent judg it being so apparant for the fact and against so known a duty 9. Their refusal of the Oath of Supremacy Now to the other offence charged on them the Refusal of the Oath of Supremacy the chief cause of their deprivation Upon this Doctor Champny spends his 15. and 16. chap. and that he may prove that Deprivation unjust states the question thus Whether Queen Elizabeth with her Councel or Parliament could deprive those Bishops because they refused to swear that she was the Supreme Head of the Church of England pag. 536. and thereupon makes his Argument thus That Judgment is unjust which is given by an incompetent Judg. Now to prove the Queen and Parliament were not competent Judges he supposes it as clear that this was a Cause ad fidem Religionem directe pertinentem directly perteining to Faith and Religion and then assumes that neither the Queen nor any Lay-persons could be competent Judges of Bishops in such a Cause This he largely pursues by places of Scripture which shew that Bishops and Pastors are set in the Church to teach all others of what degree and rank soever in matters of Faith and Religion and therefore cannot be judged by them in such matters Luke 16.16 He that heareth you heareth me and Heb. 13.17 Obey those that have the rule over you and submit and the like Also by the Testimony of Emperours Constantine Valentinian Theodosius professing the judgment of such matters did not belong to them Also of Bishops Athanasius Hosius Ambrose plainly telling other Emperors as much Yea calls King James himself to witness citing out of his Declaration against Card. Perrouns Oration these words It is true that Emperours did not bear themselves as Supreme Judges in matters of Faith and Doctrine Lastly adds the testimony of Calvin Kemnitius and the Centurists against that title of Supreme Head Then in his 16. Chapter undertakes to answer what Master Mason had brought for Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things and Causes 10. The Title of Supreme Head of the Church But to his whole Argument in his 15. Chapter we may return this general answer There are thus many failings in it I. The question wrong stated for those Bishops were not put to swear the Q. was Supreme Head of the Church of England there are no such words in the Oath of Supremacy but that the Q. was Supreme Governor of the Realm of England and all other her Majesties Dominions in spiritual and ecclesiastical things and Causes For upon notice of offence taken at the title of Supreme Head of the Church which her Father and Brother had used the Queen was graciously pleased to wave it and put it as above said Supreme Governour of the Realm c. But Champny wittingly reteins the former Title as obnoxious to more reproach and Envy II. His Argument touches not the whole cause or the main part of it which concerned the renouncing of forrein Jurisdiction III. The cause rightly stated is not a matter directly perteining to faith and religion as he takes for granted IV. Albeit such a Judgment of matters perteining to Faith and Religion as those Emperors denyed doth not indeed belong unto them or any Lay-Persons yet may Kings and Emperors have such a judgment as is necessary for the due exercising their supreme power in and about matters and causes of Faith and Religion 11. Two things considerable in the Oath and accordingly two mistakeâ— That all this may the better appear We must observe there are two things considerable in the Oath of Supremacy What is attributed to the Sovereign Prince and then what is denyed to the Pope or any forrein Potentate and accordingly there is commonly a double mistake which the Adversaries and reproachers of this Oath this Docter Champny in particular do run upon The First is the overlooking of the main thing aimed at in this Oath which is not so much the affirming or attributing a Supremacy to the Prince as the denying and renouncing of the Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction and the excluding it out of this Land For it is security which the Prince seeks here and that stands not so much in receiving acknowledgments of Titles and bare assertions from Subjects as in their renouncing of all adverse power and promising not to obey it In special that known usurped power of the Bishop of Rome mentioned and branded as unsufferable in all the Statutes that concern the Supremacy of the Crown and so indeed it deserved to be both for the intolerable burdens and exactions it laid upon the Subjects of this Land and for the dangerous positions and Doctrines it draws after it to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince his Crown and dignity as The exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons which in effect makes them none or but half Subjects The deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdoms upon Excommunication which makes them no Kings or but at the Popes pleasure and according to the same Doctrine the Oath of Allegeance is pronounced by Pope Paul V. in his first Breve to contein many things flat contrary to the Catholic Faith and to the salvation of Souls and therefore by no means to be taken by any of his Catholicks And have not Princes good cause to look to themselves upon this point of Supremacy to the excluding of such forrein Jurisdiction so dangerous so injurious 12. Now that Security from this
usurped power and jurisdiction is chiefly sought and aimed at in this Oath appears by the Oaths which all the Bishops under King Henr. 8. and King Edw 6. made in which the first main thing is their renouncing of the Papal Jurisdiction and their swearing never to admit it again within this Land and by the Statutes under Queen Eliz. inforcing this Oath in which the end is expressed wherefore the Oath is required and former Acts concerning the Supremacy revived For repressing the said usurped power 1. Eliz 1. For preservation of the Queens Highness and dignity of this imperial Crown and for avoiding such Hurts Perils dishonours and inconveniences as have befaln to the Queens Noble Progenitors the Kings and Queens of this Realm and to the whole estate thereof by meanes of the Jurisdiction and power of the See of Rome unjustly claimed and usurped within this Land 5. Eliz. 1. 13. Papal Supremacy no cause or point of Faith This therefore being the main point of the Oath as that wherein the Prince is mainly concerned it tels us how their offence arises and what they deserve that by denying this Oath refuse to renounce such forrein Jurisdiction and how the Kings and Queens of this Realm if they could well understand their own power and right and properly judge of it might also understand and judg of what was so contrary to it and be competent judges in this cause of all those that offended against such their known right and power Therefore Champny bending all his forces against the Title of Supremacy attributed to the Queen Princes are competent Iudges in the cause and nothing against the renouncing of Papal jurisdiction hath not by this mistake once touched the main point of the Oath or of their offence who were deprived which if he had considered he would not have taken it for granted as he doth that this cause directly pertained to Faith and Religion Neither can he or any Romanist ever prove that Princes are bound to receive for points of faith what ever Popish Bishops or Priests according to their own and the Popes Interests shall tell them are Points of Faith however prejudicial to their Crowns and Dignities such as is the Papal Jurisdiction with all the branches of Hildebrandine doctrine depending thereupon 14. All those sayings of Emperors and Bishops cited before by Champny were well and piously spoken and may well stand with that knowledg judgment or Supremacy which we attribute to the Prince in and about matters of Faith and Religion as we shall see presently but as to this Papal Supremacy and Jurisdiction which we renounce they speak nothing that may confirm it For had there risen up a Bishop in the dayes of those Pious and Moderat Emperors and made such an Oration as Card Perroun did before all the Estates of France which King James declared against and refuted for the Papal Supremacy or told those Emperors that it belonged not to them to convocate Synods and command Bishops to assemble or to confirm their Decrees but all this and much more belonged to the Bishop of Rome to do to whom their Crowns in order to Spiritual things were subject and Bishops exempt from their Judicature those Emperors would have told such Bishops another tale and not suffered such spiritual persons under pretence of preaching Heaven to win upon them in the Earth as the Pope hath done for divers Ages upon Christian Princes or under shew of teaching the Faith to disoblige their Subjects from their fidelity as Pope Paul V. did by his Breve against the Oath of Allegiance 15. Second mistake is of what we attribute to the Prince The second mistake is in that which by this Oath of Supremacy is attributed to the Prince as if by this Supreme power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things He were made Supreme Judg of Faith decider of all controversies thereunto belonging and might ordain what he thought fit in matters of Religion This mistaken sense of the Kings Supremacy was first broached in Germany by the cunning of Stephen Gardiner who being there among the Protestants and chalenged by them for the Six Articles to decline the Odium of them from himself upon the Regal Supremacy told them the King might Ordain so and what he thought fit being Supreme Head of the Church Calvin speaks of this upon Amos 7. as Bishop Bilson in his book of Subjection hath noted and it is clear that all which he or Kemnitius or others cited above by Champny spoke against that Title of Supreme Head they spoke it against that mistaken sense 16. Expressions of the Supremacy attributed at first very large But that we may better understand what is indeed attributed to the Soveraign Prince look we first to the Statutes which declare this Supremacy where we finde the expressions very large and general Seeing all Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness as Supreme Head and so acknowledged by the Clergy of this Realm 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. Also Jurisdiction for Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation and correction of the same and of all manner of errors Heresies Schismes 1. Eliz. 1. Now see what hath been declared for the explaining and bounding this Supremacy The Queen upon knowledge of offence taken at the Title of Supreme Head of the Church waved it Explication of the former Attributions as was said above and declared in Her Admonition annexed to her Injunctions that nothing else was challenged by that Supremacy but to have a Soveraignty and Rule under God over all Persons born within her Realms of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal so as no other forrein power shall or ought to have Superiority over them and that nothing else was is or shall be intended by the Oath So Article 37. of our Church is thus declared We give to our Princes that Prerogative which we see in Scripture alwayes given to all godly Princes by God himself to rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Sword all stubborn and evil doers So then we see by these Declarations what is meant by this Supremacy viz. a Soveraignty over all persons estates though Ecclesiastical to rule them c. If it be said the Supremacy is not only over all Persons but also in all Causes and Things Ecclesiastical we bound this latter by the former saying that Kings have and necessarily must have a Supreme power in and about Causes and things Ecclesiastical so far as is necessary to the ruling all Persons of what estate soever moving and commanding them to act according to their several stations and offices for the service of God and his Church keeping them to their known duty and as occasion may require punishing them for transgressing against it 17. In Causes Ecclesiastical In causes Ecclesiastical which are of suit and instance and
all other of judicial process the Regal Supremacy or Jurisdiction is more apparent It was therefore declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. That in the Kings Highness there was full power to render justice and finall Determination in all Debates Contentions c. and upon this ground were made many and sundry Lawes before Hen. 8. in the time of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. and of other Kings for the entire and sure conservation of the prerogatives and preeminencies of the Imperial Crown of this Realm and of the Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the same to keep it from the annoyance of the See of Rome ibid. Accordingly King James in his Premonition to Christian Princes against the Usurped power of the Pope gives us many examples of former Kings punishing Clergy-men for citing others to Rome in Ecclesiastical causes Yea we have stories of Ecclesiastical causes wherein the Bishops of Rome have been Parties judged and determined by Emperors and Kings In that great contention twixt Symmachus and Laurence about the Place which made the fourth Schism in the Roman Church King Theodorick who then ruled in Italy took the cause into his own cognizance and judged it for Symmachus Afterward in that contention twixt John of Constantinople and Gregory the first of Rome about the Title of Universal Bishop Gregory himself refers the cause to the Emperour as appears in his Epistle to Mauritius to put end to it by repressing the ambition of John and nothing more known in History then the Elections of the Bishops of Rome frequently ordered judged and determined by the Emperours 18. Furthermore all that Judicial process of the Outward Court with which Bishops were enabled for the better and more powerful exercise of their spiritual Censures was derived from the Supremacy of the Regal power and to this sense was it said All Autority and Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness Edw. 6. cap. 2. that is All external Jurisdiction or Coactive which indeed is properly Jurisdiction when there is not only a power and ability to declare what is Law and just but force also to procure execution and therefore in that very Statute and as an acknowledgment of all such Jurisdiction derived from the King All process Ecclesiastical is ordained to go forth in the Kings Name and the Teste in the Bishops name also the Kings Arms to be graven upon the Seal of the Bishops Office 19. In things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine But in Things Ecclesiastical pertaining to Doctrine or correction of Error and Heresie the bounds of this Supremacy of Princes are not so apparent Yet may they be so set as the power and judgment we yeild to Princes in and about such Things do not entrench upon but fortifie the Power and Office of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church For we acknowledg the Power and Office of Bishops to be both Directive in defining and declaring what the Lawes of Christ be for Doctrine Discipline of which things they are the immediat proper and ordinary Judges and also Coercive in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinatly gainsay and that as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for spiritual binding and loosing will reach VVhat also proper to Bishops Pastors of the Church This power is Coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church but not coactive or forcing for all such Jurisdiction together with all judicial process of the outward Court is as I said derived to them for the more forcible effect of their spiritual censures from the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign Priner His Powea we acknowledg to be Imperative in commanding by Laws the public establishment of that which is evidenced to him by the Pastors of the Church to be the Law of Christ and also Coactive in restreining and correcting by temporal pains those that are disobedient yea in punishing and correcting Ecclesiastical persons for not doing their known duty according to their forementioned Office To this purpose it is declared 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. that it belongs to Spiritual Prelats Pastors and Curats to Minister do or cause to be done all Sacraments Sacramentals and divine services to the people that for their Office but if for any censure from Rome or any such cause they refuse to Minister as before they are liable to Fine and Imprisonment during the Kings pleasure that for his Supremacy over all Estates to rule them and cause them to do their duty and punish them when there is cause for not doing it 20. If we consider the Defining of Matters of Doctrine we said the Pastors of the Church are the proper and ordinary judges there though called to the work by the Prince and accountable to him how they do it and therefore the judging of Heresie is restrained to the Declaration of the first General Councels for Heresies past and for such as shall arise to the Assent of the Clergy in their â—onvocation 1. Eliz. 1. The defining of Doctrine demonstration of Truth and the Evidencing of it is the Office and work of the Pastors of the Church but the Autority which at first commands them to the work and after gives public establishment to it when so done and evidenced is of the Sovereign Prince Which establishment is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State and our Religion is Parliamentary but to our secure and free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as the Pastors of the Church are 1 Cor. 3.9 but Ministers of God for good or evill Rom. 13.4 i.e. for reward or punishment according to our doing or not doing duty and therefore they bear the Sword Iurisdiction of Princes is extrinsic Wherefore their jurisdiction is wholly Extrinsick as is their Sword not intrinsick or spiritual as is the power of the Keys or the Sword of the Spirit in the hand of Ecclesiastical Governors or Pastors Princes have not the conduct of Souls but government of men as making a Visible Society to be kept in order for Gods service and glory and for the good of the whole Community 21. But Princes and Sovereign Powers are not meer Executioners as the Romanists would have them of the Determinations and Decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion what ever they define and propound for such For the Power of the Sovereign is not Ministerial but Autoritative commanding and calling together the Clergy to the work of Religion or Reformation which command it is their duty to execute by meeting and doing the work so as it may by the demonstration of Truth be evidenced to the Sovereign power and receive again the Autority of the same power for public establishment Princes
National Synod to warrant King Edwards Reformation I have many things to say I. What I speak of the English Reformation that it was not done without the judgment of a National Synod did chiefly relate to the Synod under King Henry which as I said began the Reformation and to the Synod under Queen Elizabeth which perfected it In the first was the main Annoyance and cause of Corruption in the Church removed by casting out the usurped Papal Jurisdiction with some dependances of it but in the latter Synod the whole work carried on under King Edw according to the difficulties and shortness of his reign was compleated shewing it self in an Uniform body of Doctrine voted and published in the 39. Articles of this Church 6. II. Title of Supreme Head For the work done in King Edwards time if any thing did run out of Square through the swelling Title of Supreme Head stretched a little perchance by some beyond his Line the thanks are first due to Those whom they of the Popish party account theirs I mean those Bishops and Clergy under Hen. 8. who may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denyed to the Pope for none could have written better against that usurped Papal Supremacie then Bishop Gardiner Tonstal and others but in that which they attributed to the King And therefore the Parliament declaring for the Crown in this point of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction did relate to the Vote and Acknowledgment of the Clergie Seeing that all Autority of Jurisdiction is derived from the Kings Highness as Supreme Head and so acknowledged by the Clergie of this Realm Be it therefore Enacted c. 1 EDW 6. c. 2. that if they of the Parliament went too far in their attributions and expressions we may see whom they followed 7. VVhether abused in this business of Reformation Now considering what was already granted under Henr. 8. and sworn to again under Edw 6. by the Bishops and Clergie of this Nation considering also the King although of admirable piety and understanding beyond his years yet being under age and so under Protection it could be no marvel if the power of those Lay-persons who ruled in chief had thereby the greater influence upon the Affairs of the Time And however the Kings Autority under pretence of that Title and Jurisdiction as it seems was abused in disposing of Church-means and diverting them to private gain yet I cannot find it to have been abused in this Reformation as to the point of Gods Worship and Religion it self but must acknowledge the great and good Providence of God in it that notwithstanding the difficulties and prejudices of the time the business of Religion was fairly carryed on and that is the third thing I have to say That the Reformation under King Edward to the abolishing of Image-Worship the restoring of the Liturgie in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds with that which followed thereupon the abolishing of Romish Massings for herein was the main of K. Edwards Reformation was warrantably advanced and carryed on For the clearing of which as to the Authority that did it I have these things to say 8. First Synodical Vote how necessary in this bufiness Reformation of Gods Worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical Vote Synods indeed are the most prudential and safe way of determining Church-Affairs where there is not just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times in which they are to assemble To this purpose sounds that known complaint of Greg. Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councels which he spoke not absolutely but with respect to the Times and Persons as they stood then affected by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians who by their number and cunning made advantage often of the Councels held in those times Now seeing the office of Bishops and Pastors of the Church as to this point of Reformation is directive either in or out of Synod and the more convenient way of the two for giving out that direction is by their meeting and consulting in Synod therefore the Prince whose power or office is Imperative and Coactive for establishing by Laws and Penalties what is evidenced to Him hath great reason to receive his direction from the Pastors of the Church assembled in Synod But he is not simply and always bound to take his direction thus by any Law of God or Man for if by the Law of God he stand bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and learned men of the Church to be the Law of Christ such as were the forementioned points of Reformation apparently consonant to Scripture and primitive Antiquity shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a Major part of a Synod give him leave to do it The change of Religion for the worse is stil charged upon the evil Kings in the Old Testament and the Reforming it again is recorded to the praise of good Kings which shews this Obligation of Duty upon every Prince and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah who were more forward in the Reformation of Gods Worship then the Priests do warrant the forward piety of our yong Josiah K. Edward And this is also approved by that which many Christian Emperors and Kings have to their great praise done in the business of Religion without or before the calling of a Councel though not without the counsel and advice of faithful Bishops and learned Men. Of this point more below when to speak of Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things Neither can we say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of Prudence alwaies to receive his direction from a Vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear as above said but he may have greater reason to take advice from persons free from the exceptions of Factions Interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edwards reign or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical vote I cannot say but this I have farther to say 9. Injunctions sent out at first by the King Secondly In Reformation of Religion we must put a difference between provisional Injunctions sent out for the publick exercise of Religion or Worship and the Body or comprehension of Doctrine or Uniformity in points of Religion In order to the latter a Body of Doctrine I find there was a Synod held under King Edward The Acts of it I have not seen but it appears to have provided for Doctrinals for it is spoken of in the Convocation held 1. Mariae Where in the Act of the second day as Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath related a dispute arises about a Catechism published in the name of the Synod
kinds and by taking clean away the Worship of Images And all this was done by the advice and travel of Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church under a Pious King What exception then can there be It may perchance be said that in the close of that Decree this power of reforming is allowed to the Bishops of the place ut Delegatis sedis Apostolicae as to the Delegates of the Apostolic See Yea there is stil the mischief and hinderance of all good Reformation in the Christian Church Deus non erit Deus c. God shall not be God except man please as Tertul. said in his Apol. and Truth shall not be Truth except the Pope please nor God Worshipped after his own Will unless the Pope will too 14. The warrantableness of K. Edwards Reformation To conclude Lay now the Premisses together and see the Warrantableness of the Reformation under King Edward both for the Thing done and the Autority by which it was done The Thing done was for the general what the Councel of Trent thought fit to be done the removing of some things which were crept in by the corruption of the Times by the carelesness and iniquity of Men Things which Covetousness and Superstition the two Breeders of all Popish abuses had brought in Things for the particular so evident by Scripture and usage of Primative Church the warrantable Rule of Reformation which they went by as above noted in the statute of Parliament Num. 12. that nothing can be more So for the Autority by which this was done It was begun by a good and gracious King upon the advice and direction of sundry learned and discreet Bishops was carried on and managed by divers Bishops and other learned Men of this Realm as was also said in the forementioned Statute and generally received by all the Estates of the Land and accordingly confirmed and Established by King and Parliament Such was the Condition and Warrant of that Reformation which as no Romanist can justly reprove Sectaries cannot pretend to the like so no Sectaries can pretend to the like whether we consider the evidence of the Things or Abuses reformed according to Scripture and usage of Antiquity or the Autority by which that Reformation was begun carried on and managed and lastly confirmed and established Of all which there is a great failing in the pretended Reformations of Sectaries yea in that which the Presbyterians undertook who of all other pretend most to regularity and Order 15. Reformation under Q Eliz. We are at last come down to Queen Elizabeths reign under whom we said the Reformation was perfected And here we are to enquire too of the Imprisoning of Bishops and look after a National Synod We acknowledge that divers Bishops were Imprisoned and which is more deprived too and justly both as will appeare hereafter upon consideration of their offence Here we must first note that there was no design in the Imprisoning or depriving them to make way for the holding of a Synod nor any necessity was there of it in order to that end for if we reckon that on the one part there were six Bishops remaining to whom the Queens Letters for the consecration of Matthew Parker were directed and many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Maries death which being supplied there was no fear that the Popish Bishops who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or quitting the Land should make the Major part had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote 16. Her Injunctions As for the Injunctions sent out before it came to a Synod they were the same for substance with those of King Edward upon the Evidence and Warrant as we heard above Yet such was her tender care that all Persons doubtful should have satisfaction and be brought to some good and charitable agreement as in her Declaration set down in Stow that for this very purpose before any thing of Religion should be established by Parliament she appointed a Conference to be held publickly at Westminster between learned Persons of both sides as more amply will be shewn below against Champny cap. 9. Again those Injunctions were but provisional Orders as I may call them for the present exercise of Religion the whole Doctrine being after concluded and drawn up in a just and Lawful Synod 17. A Synod A Lawful National Synod it was in and by which whatever belongs to the Uniformity of Doctrine and Religion was defined drawn up and published in 39. Articles The great difference twixt this Synod and the Presbyterian Assembly however the reproaching Romanists rank them together wil appear upon these considerations Presbyterians cannot pretend to the like I. They that took upon them to exclude or remove our Bishops had not power either to call a Synod or to deprive a Bishop and that is the first irregularity viz. Usurpation of Power II. The cause pretended for the removing of our Bishops was not any offence against their Duty as Subjects or against their Office as Bishops but meerly for their very Office because they were Bishops and that was purely Schismatical III. The Persons taken in to make up their Assembly did not pretend to succeed our Bishops so removed in their Power and Office and so it was a Synod clean out of the way of the Church sitting and concluding by a power taken to themselves and therefore also plainly Schismatical Every one of these irregularities nulls the lawfulness of an Ecclesiastical Synod But none of these can be charged upon us for the Popish Bishops that remained obstinate were removed by due Autority upon just cause viz. their offence against the duty of Subjects and of their own Office as will appear below where their deprivation shall be examined against Champny c. 9. Lastly the places void either by deprivation of these or death of others were supplyed by Bishops lawfully ordained as is also maintained against Champny who together with the old Bishops remaining after King Edwards dayes and the rest of the Clergy of the Land made up a due and Lawful Ecclesiastical Synod 18. Of Regal Supremacy in order to Reformation and Church affairs Having thus far spoken of the care and travel of our Kings and Queen in this work of reforming Religion and Gods Worship within this Land it might seem convenient to say something more of the Supremacy or of the power which by vertue of their Supremacy Princes have and to shew how in this business of Reformation and Church-affairs it may be so bounded that it intrench not upon or infringe the power and office of the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church But seeing we found the Power and Office of the one and the other severed and distinct throughout the Reformations spoken of in this Chapter for we found Bishops advising counselling and the Prince commanding appointing convocating them to the work then again Bishops with other learned Men so appointed and
have their judgment about Matters of Doctrine defined And in order to the due using of that supream and Sovereign Power we must allow him that he go not blindly to work Judgment in receiving of the evidence not only a private Judgment of discretion which we must allow every man in order to his own believing but also a publick Judgment answerable to the publick care and office he bears Yet is it not that immediat and ordinary Judgment of Matters of Religion which belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that secundary Judgment as I may call it which is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Lawes that which is evidenced to him upon the Judgment and advise of the Pastors of the Church This Judgment in matters of Religion in order to public establishment the Sovereign ought to have upon a double reason I. In respect of his duty to God whose Lawes and worship He is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Juda were II. In respect of his own and his peoples security to judg that nothing be concluded or broached prejudicial thereunto under pretence of Religion and Ecclesiastical Autority as many points of Popery are Now for this reason of the Princes concernment I suppose the Clergy under Hen. 8. saw there was cause they should bind themselves as they did in their convocation by promise in verbo sacerdotis Not to Enact or promulge or execute any New Canons or Constitutions without the Kings Assent But if it be asked What if the Sovereign be wilful in following his own judgment rather then the evidence of Truth given in by the Pastors of the Church That will not concern our belief or Religion but the free and safe profession and exercise of it For the establishment of Princes is not as I said in order to our believing but our free and public exercise of Religion we must attend to the evidence of Truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and yeild obedience to the establishment or Law of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing accordingly 22. Princes truly said to reform Errors by their Supremacie By all this which I have said to rectifie the mistaken sense of this Supremacy in Ecclesiastical things it may appear how the Sovereign Prince may have and use his Supreme Power and his Judgment in and about such things without invading that spiritual power and that immediat and ordinary judgment which belongs to the Pastors of the Church how also he may be said truly to Reform and Correct Errors Heresies c. without taking to himself the office of those Pastors For when he doth it by them commanding them to the work and taking account of them he doth it truly and doth it by a Supremacy of power So did Hezekiah and Josiah truly reform all the errors and abuses about Gods Worship when they called and commanded the Priests to that work of purging the Temple and Ministring again in it according to the right way of Gods service Justinian in his Epistle to the 5. Councel reckons up what his predecessors had done for the preservation of the true Faith Semper studium fuit c. it was alwaies their care and endeavour Exortas haereses amputare to cut off Heresie as it sprung up How or by whom per Congregationem by gathering together Religious Bishops and causing them to preach the right faith Then having instanced in those Emperors that called the 4. General Councels he concludes Nos sequentes Volentes We following their examples and willing the right Faith be preached do c. Nothing is more obvious in Antiquity then the care and pains which good Emperors and Kings have used in employing their Sovereign power and Autority for repressing and reforming Errors and Heresies One of Justinians predecessors was Theodosius the second who did repress the Heresie of Eutyches then prevailing and newly advanced by the factious Councel of Ephesus and how did he do it by nulling or forbidding the decrees of that Councel to be received and to do this he was advised and entreated by Leo Bishop of Rome and other Bishops But of this example more largely below when we shall examine Champneys answer to it to whom it is now high time to return 23. His Arguments above insinuated are easily solved by what is already said to rectifie the mistakes about the Oath of Supremacie His Testimonies from the acknowledgments of Emperors and sayings of Bishops telling them their duty as he borrows them from Tortus or Bellarmine so he might have seen particular answers to the chiefest of them in the Bishops Tortura But these and the places of Scripture which he brought and King James his saying and the Testimonies of other Protestants which he alledged do all fall to the ground as impertinent and of no force through those failings I noted at the beginning and were made more apparent by what is said since that they touch not the main part of the Oath of Supremacie and cause of the deprivation of the Popish Bishops viz. their refusing to renounce the forrein jurisdidiction and Supremacie of the Papal usurped power also that those Arguments and Testimonies proceed onely against the mistaken sense of the other part of the Oath viz. of that Supremacie which is attributed to the Sovereign Prince and are easily satisfied by distinguishing the spiritual power of Bishops and Pastors from the Sovereign power of Princes in and about Ecclesiastical matters which powers though they have the same objects sometimes yet their manner of proceeding about them is different so by distinguishing the immediate and ordinary cognizance or judgment of matters of Religion which belongs to the Pastors of the Church defining and proposing them in order to our believing from that secundary judgment of the Sovereign Power in order to publick Establishment and free exercise of what we beleeve and receive upon the former evidence The judgment requisite to make the demonstration of truth out of Gods Word and to give out the Evidence belongs to the Ecclesiastick Pastors but the judgment requisite in receiving the Evidence is needful in all especially and upon a publick concernment in Princes that they may discern that nothing is propounded prejudicial to their just Rights or hurtful to their Subjects Also that they may be satisfied what is propounded as Faith and Worship to be according to the Law of Christ before they use or apply their Autority to the publick establishment of it This Judgment of the Prince I called Secundarie not to the prejudice of his Supremacie but to the acknowledgment of the immediat and ordinary judgment in matters of Religion belonging to the Pastors of the Church Secundary in the consideration
of the Supremacy belonging to Sovereign Princes and States And what Rule had they to go by in disobeying the Pope or their Subjects in obeying them but the Evidence of the Truth of the thing manifested to them by learned men Bishops and Pastors among them So when the same Pope by his several Breves forbad the taking of the Oath of Allegiance as contrary to the Catholic faith and many Priests notwithstanding with most of the Romish Catholicks in this Land held it Lawful and accordingly took it What Rule had they to go by in obeying their Prince against the Pope but the evidence of the thing or duty they naturally owed to their Sovereign which evidence with all the reasons of it is drawn up by Master William Howard an English Catholic as he stiles himself and published An. 1634. 28. Now for a general Councel when it can be had indeed we grant it to be the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings or any other can have in matters of Religion but still the limitation afore mentioned Quatonus docent c. takes hold of the Pastors of the Church gathered in Councel it being possible the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests as above in the first Chapter n. 9. and so give Kings and Emperours upon evidence of things unduly carried cause to use their Supreme power not for the confirming but forbidding of the Decrees as we shall presently see done by Theodosius against the second Councel of Ephesus and as Champny could not but know the Kings of France did against the Conventicle of Trent so Hen. call'd it forbidding the Decrees of it to be received for the space of 40. years For Anno 1598. we finde the Clergy assembled at Paris as the French History relates and the Archbishop of Tours in their name petitioning the King Hen. 4. to reform several disorders in the Church and that he would be pleased the Councel of Trent might be received and published in France with certain qualifications This was not at that time granted the King answering them in brief to this purpose that by the help of God he would settle the Church admonishing them in the mean time to look to their duty and he would study his In all this we have an evident demonstration of Regal Supremacy and that allowed by the French Clergy and this done upon no other Rule then the evidence of the thing that packing and faction which was apparent in that Councel There may be then Exceptions against the Romanists certain Rule And much was spoken tending to this pupose above cap. 1. Of Submission due to the Church 29. How Emperours shewed their Supremacy in matters of the Church and of Religion In the last place let us see what is answered to Master Masons Instances of godly Emperours making Lawes and taking Order in matters of Religion and of the Church To these Champny answers in his 16. Chapter First None of them ever excluded the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome out of their Realms as this Oath doth pag. 557. True that none of them denyed him his Patriarchal Primacy known and bounded by the first general Councels neither would it have been denyed him in this Realm could he have conteined himself within the due bounds thereof but such a Papal Jurisdiction as was usurped by the Bishop of Rome for some Ages past those good Emperors never knew never would have endured If he can shew us they admitted such Jurisdiction or that the General Councels acknowledged it we will also acknowledg the Popish Bishops were unjustly deprived as to that point Secondly Those Emperors by their Laws did but confirm and in their doings about Church-affairs did but follow the Canons and judgment of former Councels This is the summe of his second answer And this is true of many of them but derogats nothing from their Supremacy for it only implyes Direction received which we acknowledg Kings and Emperours ought in Ecclesiastical matters to receive from the Pastors of the Church in or out of Councel It doth not infringe the Autority which they have both in commanding the Pastors of the Church to meet in Councel in taking an account of what is done and how and lastly in confirming their decrees and Canons as was before insinuated 30. Again That answer is not true of all the Laws and Actions of pious and good Emperors in and about matters of Religion or the Church as may appear by that which is cited by Mr. Mason by Bishop Bilson in his book of true subjection by Bishop Andrews against Tortus and by other Writers To instance in one which being urged by Mason Champny thought himself concerned to labour in the solving it The second Councel of Ephesus had by the prevalency of a stirring faction in it passed judgment for deposing the good Bishop Flavianus and advanced the Eutychian Error Hereupon Leo Bishop of Rome with other Bishops humbly supplicated the Emperour Theodosius that all things might stand in the same condition in which they were before any of those judgments till a greater number of Bishops could be gathered out of the whole World Ep. 43. and in another Epistle he thus bespeaks the Emperor The second Councel of Ephesus which cannot be called a Councel because held to the subversion of the Faith You most glorious Emperour aliud statuendo cassabis will make void or null by a contrary Decree for the love you bear the Truth c. In all this Three things are evident I. That a King or Emperour may and ought as he tenders the Truth of God reform or extirpate an Error or Heresie prevailing when it is made manifest to him by the information and advice of godly Bishops as here by Leo Bishop of Rome and other his fellow-Bishops who as he said joyned with him in the supplication although there be no foregoing Synodical judgment against the same Error as there had not yet been against the Eutychian Heresie II. That He may Null and make void the Judgment or Decree i. e. forbid it to be received of a Synod when manifested to him that it was carryed by faction to the subversion of the Faith as this of Ephesus was upon which reason the Kings of France as was said refused to receive the Decrees of Trent III. That the Emperour might and ought to call a greater number of Bishops together for the confirmation of the Truth and so the Councel of Calcedon was gathered by the Emperour Martianus Now see we how Champny bestirs himself to get through the passages of this story Leo saith he did Paternè hortari fatherly exhort the Emperor to defend the Truth as every good Prince should pag. 568. This though short of an humble supplication made to the Emperour is fair and we desire no more then that it be granted Princes may and should do so much within their Realms as the Emperour is here supplicated or exhorted to do And
if they make application of this to the Eucharist it will but amount to this at the most that He who was Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech should likewise take of Gods creatures as Ireneus speaks Bread and Wine and consecrate them into the Sacrament of his body and blood to be offered up in Sacrifice unto God and to be communicated as spiritual refection to them that come to receive it And so the Eucharist whether considered as first celebrated by our Saviour or as after by us is the representation and shewing of that Sacrifice 1 Cor. 11.26 and the participation or Communion of it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. That this was prefigured in Melchisedechs Bread and Wine as offered to God and brought forth to Abraham is all that by any force of reason can be driven out of the expressions of the Fathers And for that other place of Malachi Of Malachi his pure offering applied thereto of Incense and a pure offering divers Fathers give us the immediat and direct sense Tertullian saith It is Oratio simplex de conscientiâ purâ unfeined prayer from a pure Conscience lib. 4. contra Marcionem cap. 1. Eusebius in his first book de demonstr Evangel cap. 6. makes it the same with that worship our Saviour speaks of S. John 4.23 in spiritu veritate puròque obsequio a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth and with pure obedience Hierom also tels us it is here foretold that the prayers of the Saints were to be offered to God not in one place or province but every where Now the usuall exception of Romanists which Champny also pleads here is that such prayer and spiritual Offerings were required under the Law and therefore some Other external Offering and divers from all that was before must be meant by the Prophet But this Exception hath no force for sure our Saviour spoke pertinently when he opposed the Worship in spirit and Truth S. John 4.23 to the Jewish manner of Worshiping notwithstanding that it was required of the Jews to Worship in Spirit and Truth For there is a double difference of this Christian Worship from that under the Law One in the Manner of performance of it among the Gentiles purely without mixture of external Sacrifices or Legal performances in respect to which Saint Paul calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12.1 and Eusebius lib. 1. de Demonstr Evang. gives us this reason why Malachi calls it sacrificium mundum a pure offering because the Gentiles were to offer to the high God non per cruores not with the blood of Beasts as under the Law but per pias actiones by holy spiritual Acts and Duties Another difference was in the place The whole Worship and offerings of the Gentiles were to be performed to God in every place Our Saviour tells us it was not to be bound either to Jerusalem or to Samaria S. John 4.22 and Saint Paul tells us of lifting up pure hands in every place 2 Tim. 2. and Eusebius in the place forecited shewing how the Religion of the Patriarchs before the Law agreed with the Christians makes this one Instance because they did in omni loco adorare Worship in all places and then proves it by this place of Malchi that the Christians should do so As for the Fathers that applyed this pure Offering to the Eucharist they might well do it upon the former account the Eucharist having his name from the Sacrifice of praise and being that great and solemn performance wherein the pure Offering of Prayer and Praise and the devoting of our selves to Gods service is specially made But it will be said the Fathers apply this Pure Offering of Malachi to the Eucharist in respect of the body and blood of Christ there offered up It is true that some of them so express it and it is no more then what they often say without relation to that place of Malachi according to their usual manner of speech but far from the Romish sense or purpose as it remains to shew in the next place 7. The meaning of the Fathers speaking of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist Thirdly However the Fathers used for the most part to speak of this Mystery of the Eucharist Mystically and obscurely under the properties of the things signified rather then of the external Symbols and therefore seeming to imply a real Conversion of Transubstantiation of the Symbols into the Body and blood of Christ and a real Sacrifice or Offering up of that Body and blood again in the Eucharist yet do they sometimes punctually and positively express their meaning by the Memorial Representation and shewing in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross and this they learnt from Saint Paul who tells us 1 Cor. 11.26 to do this is to remember and to shew the Lords death And for their mystical and figurative manner of speech they had his his example too Gal. 3.1 Crucified amongst you Was Christ really and properly crucified amongst the Galatians No but by description setting forth or representation of his Death and Passion often made among them in the Word and Sacraments Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers I shall instance only in three of them First in Chrysostome who of all the Fathers speaks most high and Hyperbolically in this matter of the Eucharist and the place shall be that which Champny here cites as advantagious to his cause Homil. 17. in Hebr. he puts these questions Do we not offer daily Offerimus quidem saith he sed mortem ejus in memoriam revocamus we offer but it is by making a remembrance of his death Again because we offer often quomodo una est non multae how is his death or offering up but one and not many Hoc est saith he figura illius what we do is the figure of that And because he is offered in many places Multine sunt Christi are there many Christs No hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum What we do is done in remembrance of what was then done by him Lastly We offer not aliam Hostiam another Sacrifice but Eandem semper facimus vel potiùs hostiae seu sacrificii recordationem facimus we offer alwaies the same that Christ did or rather mark this correcting of himself we make a remembrance of his oblation or Sacrifice He would be accounted a Lutheran or Heretick in the Church of Rome that should so answer to these questions Next S. Augustine Ep. 23. solves the like question Christ saith he was once immolatus in semetipso offered up or sacrificed in himself but is he not also daily in the Sacrament Non Mentitur qui interrogatus respondet immolari he should not lye that being asked that question should answer He is offered up and what is his reason quia Similitudinem because of that neer similitude which Sacraments have of those things of which they