Bishop should be delayed then he should be Consecrated by two Bishops appointed by the King and then in the same Statute grants further that all recourse be forbidden to Rome and Archbishops and Bishops be Confirmed and Consecrated by Bishops to be assigned by the King Secondly Out of the Act of 8. Eliz. 1. made purposely to set forth the Authority next under God by which Matthew Parker and the other first Protestant Bishops in the beginning of the Queens Reign were made by reciting how they were made by the Authority of her Majesty and how she was authorized to that end by the aforesaid Statute of Henry VIII and the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. in these words First It is well known to all the degrees of this Realm that the late King Henry the Eighth was as well by all the Clergy then of this Realm in their several Convocations as also by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in divers of his Parliaments justly and rightfully recognized and acknowledged to have the Supreme Power Jurisdiction and Authority over the Ecclesiastical State of the same and that the said King did in the twenty fifth year of his Reign set forth a certain order of the Manner and Form how Archbishops and Bishops should be made c. And although in the Reign of the late Queen the said Act was repealed yet nevertheless at the Parliament 1. Eliz. the said Act was revived and by another Act they made all Jurisdiction Priviledges c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath hitherto been or lawfully may be used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm is fully and absolutely by Authority of the same Parliament mark by what Authority united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm mark here how she is made Pope and by the same Statute there is also given to the Queen mark Given Power and Authority by Letters Patents to Assign and Authorize such Persons as she shall think fit whether Clergy-men Lawyers Merchants Coblers or any other so they be naturally born Subjects of the Realm for the Statute requires no more to exercise under her all manner of Jurisdiction in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual Jurisdiction in this Realm Whereupon the Queen having in her order and disposition all the said Jurisdictions c. hath by her Supreme Authority caused divers to be duly made and consecrated Archbishops and Bishops according to such Order and Form and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecration as were allowed and set out by the said Acts c. And further her Highness hath in her Letters Patents used divers special words whereby by her Supreme Authority she hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of imperfections or disability c. as is to be seen more aâ—… large in the same Act. In which you see declared by the Queen Matthew Parker himself and the whole Parliament That Matthew Parker the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury was made Archbishop as all the other Protestant Bishops in her time were by Authority of the Queen and that she had her Authority for it from the Statutes 25. Henry 8. 20. and 1. Eliz. 1. from whom all our Protestant Bishops since spring and descend and derive all the Power and Authority that they have From which you see clearly that Protestant Bishops have no Authority to teach Preach or to be Bishops but what originally they have from the Parliament Which is still more evidently confirmed by this Parliament now in being which in the year 1662. by the Act of Uniformity annulled the forementioned Forms of Ordination of Priests and Bishops as being deficient and appointed new ones by their own Authority So from the first to the last all the Protestant Priests and Bishops both heretofore and at this present are only Parliamentary Priests and Bishops and not so from Christ and his Church but only from their Kings Queen and Parliaments I must confess this present Parliament may easily answer the Parliaments of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth why it hath lately altered the Form of Ordination instituted and used by them to wit because their Forms were null and invalid but what Authority either of them had to make alter or use any Form of Ordination or to give Power to Teach Preach Minister Sacraments or the like of themselves without Authority from Christ our Saviour there I must leave them to answer him From the Premisses I infer First That they being no Priests nor Bishops theirs is no Church as Mr. Mason and St. Jerom grant Secondly If no Church no part of the Catholic Church out of which and without whose Faith kept entire and inviolate no man can be saved as their own Common-Prayer-Book affirms Thirdly They can never eat the Flesh of Christ our Lord nor drink his Blood without which they cannot have life in them John 6. 54. Fourthly They commit a most hainous Sacriledge as often as they attempt to Consecrate or Minister the most Holy Sacrament having no such Power Fifthly They commit the like Sacriledge in presuming to hear Confessions or forgive Sins Sixthly All that Communicate with them and follow the same Religion are involved in the same sins so that the blind leading the blind they must necessarily both fall into the ditch of eternal perdition foretold by our Saviour Matth. 15. 14. Lastly It is to be noted that although I conceive I have clearly proved the Ordination and Iurisdiction of their Priests and Bishops to be invalid by every argument I have used to those ends yet to my purpose it is sufficient to have proved it by any one For as to prove a man to be a Thief or Forger it is sufficient to prove he has stoln one Horse or forged one Deed to hang him for the one or set him on the Pillory for the other so to prove by one argument alone that they are no Priests nor Bishops nor have any Iurisdiction is sufficient to prove them guilty of Sacramental Forgery and by that means of deluding and stealing away innumerable souls A VINDICATION OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE Church of ENGLAND In answer to the former Paper THis Paper which you sent me being only a Repetition of those Objections which were long ago refuted by Master Mason with great learning and judgment and more lately by the most Ingenious Lord Primate of Ireland D. Bramhall there needs nothing else be said to it but only to refer the Reader to those learned and solid Writings on this Subject The same Plea was again taken up by the Writers of two little Books published since his Majesties Restauration entitled Erastus Senior and Erastus Iunior which was thought so unreasonable even to some of that Communion that one of the learnedst Priests they had in England did answer them and though he did not adventure on saying our Ordination was good and valid knowing how ingrateful that would have been to
had within the Kings Majesties Dominions it is requisite to have one Uniform fashion and manner for making and Consecrating Bishops Priests c. Be it therefore Enacted by the Kings Highness with the Assents of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same mark by which Authority they are made that such Form and manner of making and Consecrating of Archbishops Bishops Priests c. as by six Prelates and six other men of this Realm learned in Gods Law by the Kings Majesty who was but a Child to be appointed and assigned or by the most number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal of England before the first day of April next coming and shall by vertue of this present Act see what vertues be lawfully exercised and used and none other any Statute Law or Usage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding By Authority whereof those Prelates and meâ—… learned in the Law invented and made thâ—… Form before mentioned never heard of before either in Scripture or Church of God From which I thus argue and prove my Minor They that instituted the Form were thâ—… King and Parliament 3. 4. Edward VI. Buâ—… that King and Parliament were neither Authors of Grace not had power over the Body and Blood of Christ therefore they that Instituted this Form were neither Authors oâ—… Grace nor had power over the Body and Blood of Christ nor consequently could make it present Fifthly They are no true Priests because the Bishops that made them were no true Bishops nor so much as Priests and no man can give power to another which he hath not himself That they were no true Bishops nor Priests who pretended to make these Priests which shall be the second part of my Discourse I prove thus PROTESTANT BISHOPS NO BISHOPS NOR SO MUCH AS PRIESTS First They are no Priests because made by the same Form which other English Ministers were which I have clearly proved to be null That they are no true Bishops I prove first out of this very Principle already laid because they are no true Priests for as Master Mason a chief Champion of theirs says Epist. Ded. ad Episcop Paris Seeing he cannot be a Bishop who is not a Priest if it can be proved we are no Priests there 's an end to our English Church And the great Doctor of the Church St. Jerom Dial. cum Lucifero cap. 8. says Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem It is no Church that hath no Priests The Protestant Bishops therefore being no Priests can be no true Bishops nor their Church a Church at all Secondly They are no Bishops because their Form of Ordination is essentially invalid and null seeing it cannot be valid no more than that of Priesthood unless it be in fit words which signifies the Order given as Mr. Mason says in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae lib. 1. c. 16. n. 6. in these terms Not any words can serve for this Institution but such as are fit to express the power of the Order given And the reason is evident because Ordination being a Sacrament as the same Author says lib. 1. n. 8. and Doctor Bramhal page 96. of the Consecration of Protestant Bishops that is a visible sign of invisible Grace given by it There must be some visible sign or words in the Form of it to signifie the Power given and to determine the matter which is the Imposition of hands of it self a dumb sign and common to Priests and Deacons Confirming Curing c. to the Grace of Episcopal Order otherwise it were sufficient to say at the Imposition of hands Be thou a Constable or God make thee an honest man But there is no such visible sign or words in the Protestant Form expressing this Episcopal Power given therefore no such power is given That there is no such sign or words in the Protestant Form I prove out of the Form it self which is this made in King Edward the VI. time and continued till the happy Restauration of his Majesty that now is Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God that is in thee by Imposition of hands for God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear but of Power and of Love and Soberness In which is not any word signifying Episcopal Power or Ordination and therefore for this defect in their Form they are no true Bishops Against what has been said you will object first That I prove them to be no Priests because they are no Bishops that made them and on the other side I prove them no Bishops because they are no Priests which is a vicious Circle But I easily answer this because I first prove à priori that is from the essential which ought to give being to each of them tat they are severally null and each of them being null for that reason it is evident that it is a cause of Invalidity in the other for as he can be no Bishop who is proved to be no Priest so he can make no Priest who is proved to be no Bishop Secondly You will object and salve up all the Defects afore-mentioned in one word to wit That although the Form used in the Church of England were invalid in King Edward ' s Queen Elizabeth's King James ' s and King Charles the First 's time for want of a valid Form of Ordination yet now it is valid in our Sovereign King Charles the Second's with whom the Parliament now sitting hath appointed a true Form Enacting that for the future to wit after St. Bartholomew's Day 1662. the Form of Ordaining a Priest should be Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office of a Priest and of a Bishop Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Bishop But to this I 'le answer you in another word That the salve is worse than the sore because by this change of the Form before established they acknowledge it to be null for why else need they change it Secondly By it they in effect acknowledge all their Bishops and Priests till that time to be null because Ordained by a Form that was null and could not give Power it had not nor signified Thirdly Because being no Bishops already they cannot Ordain validly by any Form whatsoever for no man can give what he has not as has been said before Lastly Whatsoever Power this Act gives to Ordain is from the Parliament and not from Christ which is what I first undertook to show and destroys their Orders root and branch Now although the Bishops of the Church of England and their Ministers grant this change of their Form of Ordination yet if any one should deny it you need only look upon the Form of making Bishops and Priests made 〈◊〉 and which was only used in the Church of England for an hundred years to be found in every
Booksellers Shop authorized and commanded in the Act of Uniformity made 1662. to be only used to St. Bartholomew ' s Day of that Year and that other Enacted to be only used from thenceforward and Printed in the Common-Prayer-Books of Cathedral Churches out of which I have found it hard to be got the Bishops as most think suppressing it for shame and leaving it only in those places where it was necessary to be made use of and not permitting it to be otherwise dispersed abroad although the Act of Uniformity which made it commands upon forfeiture of 3 l. for every Month after St. Bartholomew's Day 1662. that every Church Chappel Collegiate Church College and Hall should have a true printed Copy of it Thus I hope I have fully proved that the Church of England has no true Priest or Bishop for want of Ordination Now I shall also show that they have no Iurisdiction or Authority to Teach Preach exact Tythes inflict Censures to be Pastors or to exercise any Ecclesiastical Function whatsoever from Christ but only from the Parliament and my third Conclusion is That Protestant Ministers and Bishops have no Power to Preach c. from Christ but only from the Parliament This I prove because they have no more Power than the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker had who was the Chief and from whom as it were the Conduit of all Iurisdiction was derived to the rest That he had no such Power or Iurisdiction I prove first because they that Confirmed and Consecrated him had no such Power to confer upon him of themselves to wit William Barlow late Bishop of Bath and Wells now Elect of Chichester John Scory late of Chichester now Elect of Hereford Miles Coverdale late of Exeter and John Hodgskins Bishop Suffragan who were none of them actual Bishops of any See but two Elect only and another quondam only and so had no actual Iurisdiction at all the fourth only Suffragan to Canterbury and who had no Iurisdiction but what he had from the Arshbishop of Canterbury much less Authority to give him Iurisdiction over himself and all the Bishops in the Land as the other three had no Power at all to give him much less so transcendent an one because none can give what he has not Secondly Because they had their sole Power from the Queen and she besides the incapacity of her Sex had no Power of her self but only according to the Statutes in that case provided as appears by her Letters Patent yet extant and to be seen in the Rolls in these words Elizabetha Regina c. Elizabeth Queen c. To the Reverend Father in Christ William c. Whereas the Archiepiscopal See of Canterbury being lately void by the natural death of my Lord Reginal Pool Cardinal the late and immediate Archbishop and Pastor of it at the humble Petition of the Dean and Chapter of our Cathedral and Metropolitan Church in Canterbury called Christs Church we did by our Letters Patents grant Licence to them to choose to themselves another for Archbishop and Pastor of the See aforesaid and they have chosen Matthew Parker c. We have given our Royal assent and favour to the said Election and we signifie this to you by the tenor of these presents requiring and by the fidelity and love wherein you are bound to us firmly enjoyning commanding you that you or four of you effectually Confirm the said Matthew Parker Archbishop and Pastor Elect of the said Church and Confirm the said Election and Consecrate him Archbishop and Pastor of the said Church and do all other things which in this behalf are incumbent on your Pastoral Office according to the Form of the Statutes in this case made and provided Out of which words first I note that the Queen here and all the Clergy with her acknowledge Cardinal Pool the true and rightful Archbishop of Canterbury by which they own Catholic Ordination and Iurisdiction to be valid lawful and good Secondly I note and confirm the main assertion That the Queen knowing the Common Law and ancient Laws of the Kingdom required the Authority Consent and Commission or Bull of the Pope to empower the Confirmers and Consecrators of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the only Superior of that See and withal that he would not grant and give it to make a Protestant Archbishop she by her Supreme Authority as Head of the Church of England not only authorized them that were to Confirm and Consecrate him but also Pope-like supplied all defects whether in Quality faculty or any other thing wanting and necessary in the Consecrators for that performance by the Laws of the Church or Kingdom for so it followed in the same Patent Supplying nevertheless by our Supreme Regal Authority if any thing in you or any of you or in your condition state or faculty to the performance of the Premisses is wanting of these things that by the Statutes of our Realm or the Ecclesiastical Laws in this behalf are requisite or necessary which she therefore supposed and knew well enough to be necessary and wanting for otherwise it had been in vain for her to supply them the condition of the time and necessity of things requiring it By which you see they could do neither of these Acts of Confirming or Consecrating him Archbishop of Canterbury without her Commission which was not only necessary to empower them but also to dispense with them and make their Acts valid non obstante notwithstanding the Laws of the Land That these Letters Patents Authorized them is clear out of the Instrument of his Confirmation to be seen in the Records at Lambeth in their own words following In the name of the Lord Amen We William Barlow Iohn Miles c. by the Queens Commissional Letters specially and lawfully deputed Commissioners c. by the Supreme Authority of the Queen to us in this behalf committed confirm the said Election of Matthew Parker c. supplying by the Supreme Authority of the Queen to us delegated if any thing be wanting in us or any of us or in our Condition State or Faculty to the performance of the Premisses of these things that by the Statutes of the Realm or the Ecclesiastical Laws in this behalf are requisite or necessary c. as above And whereas the Popes Commission or Bull used to be produced by authority of which all Archbishops of Canterbury were Consecrated and their Election confirmed Now in place of that says the Act of it upon Parker's Records Proferebatur Regium Mandatum pro ejus Consecratione The Queens Mandate or Commission for Consecrating him was produc'd as the Authority for what they did Lastly I prove that the Queen had her Authority from the Parliament First from the Statute 25. Henry 8. cap. 20. where the Parliament repeats out of another Act made that present Parliament That if any Elected by the King and presented to the See of Rome to be Archbishop or
800 years before this was used And to this day in the Greek Church there is no power given by the Consecration to offer propitiatory Sacrifices for though in the second Prayer said in Ordinations in which God's Holy Spirit is prayed for upon the Priest That he may be worthy to stand before the Altar of God without blame and may preach the Gospel of his Kingdom and holily administer the Word of his Truth It is added And may offer to thee Gifts and Spiritual Sacrifices but there is no reason to gather from these words that they give power for offering Propitiatory Sacrifices We acknowledg that we offer Gifts and Sacrifices in the Holy Eucharist but we reject Propitiatory ones and these words do not at all import them And the truth of it is when the Writers of the Roman Church are pressed with the Arguments before mentioned that the Eucharist can be no Propitiatory Sacrifice Since 1. there no Blood shed in it 2. No Destruction is made of the Sacrifice for it is only the Accidents and not the Blessed Body of Christ that the Priest consumes 3. That Christ's Cross is called one Sacrifice once offered 4. That his being now exalted at the Father's right hand shews his Body can no more be subject to be Sacrificed or mangled When these with many Authorities from the Father's are brought they are forced to fly to some Distinctions by which their Doctrine comes to differ little from ours but still those high and indecent Expressions remain in their Rituals and Missals which they are forced to mollifie as they do those Prayers in which the same things and in the same manner and words are asked of the Blessed Virgin and the other Saints which we ask of God And though they would stretch them to a bare Intercession which the genuine sense of the words will not bear yet they will never change them for it is the standing Maxim of that Church never to confess an error nor make any change to the better The third Reason against our Orders of Priesthood is a Repetition of the first and is already answered The fourth Argument is That none can Institute the Form of a Sacrament to give Grace and make present Christ's Body and Blood but the Authors of Grace and those that had power over his Body and Blood but they that Instituted this Form had only their Authority from the Parliament as appears by the Act it self by which some Prelates and other Learned men being impowered did Invent the Form before mentioned never before heard of either in Scripture or the Church of God To this I Answer First It is certain the Writer of this Paper did never think it would have been seen by any body that could examine it but intended only to impose on some Illiterate persons otherwise he would never have said that a Form which Christ himself used when he ordained his Apostles and which is used in their own Church as the proper Form of Ordination was never before heard of in the Scripture or the Church of God Secondly Those who compiled the Liturgy and Ordinal had no other Authority from the Parliament than Holy and Christian Princes did before give in the like cases It is a common place and has been handled by many Writers How far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws and give Commands about Sacred things 'T is known what Orders David and Solomon Iehosaphat Hezekiah and Iosiah gave in such cases They divided the Priests into several Courses gavâ—… Rules for their attendance turned out â—… High Priest and put another in his stead sent the Priests over the Cities to teach the People gathered the Priests and commanded them to Sanctifie themselves and the house of the Lord and offer Sacrifices oâ—… the Altar And gave orders about the Forms of their Worship that they should praise God in the words of David and Asaph and gave orders about the time 〈◊〉 observing the Passover that in a case oâ—… Necessity it might be observed on the second Month though by their Law it wâ—… to be kept the first Month. And for the Christian Emperors let the Code or the Novels or the Capitulars of Charles the Great be read and in them many Lawâ—… will be found about the Qualificationâ—… Elections and Consecrations of Church-men made by the best of all the Roman Emperors such as Constantine Theodâ—… sius c. They called Councils to judâ—… of the greatest points of Faith which met and sate on their Writ whose determinations they confirmed and added the Civil Sanction to them And even Pope Leo though a higher spiriteâ—… Pope than any of his Predecessors were did intreat the Emperor Martian to annul the second Council of Ephesus anâ—… to give order that the Ancient Decrees of the Council of Nice should remain in Force Now it were a great Scandal on those Councils to say that they had no Authority for what they did but what they derived from the Civil Powers So it is no less unjust to say because the Parliament Impowered some Persons to draw Forms for the more pure Administration of the Sacraments and Enacted that these only should be lawfully exercised in this Realm which is the Civil Sanction that therefore these persons had no other Authority for what they did Let those men declare upon their Consciences if there be any thing they desire more earnestly than such an Act for Authorizing their own Forms and would they make any Scruple to accept of it if they might have it Was it ever heard of that the Civil Sanction which only makes any constitution to have the force of a Law gives it another Authority than a Civil one and such Authority the Church of Rome thinks fit to accept of in all States and Kingdoms of that Religion Thirdly The Prelates and other Divines that compiled our Forms of Ordination did it by vertue of the authority they had from Christ as Pastors of his Church which did empower them to teach the people the pure Word of God and to administer the Sacraments and perform all other holy Functions according to the Scripture the practice of the Primitive Church and the rules of Expediency and Reason and this they ought to have done though the Civil Powers had opposed it in which case their duty had been to have submitted to whatever severities or persecutions they might have been put to for the Name of Christ and the Truth of his Gospel But on the other hand when it pleased God to turn the hearts of those that had the chief Power to set forward this good Work then they did as they ought with all Thankfulness acknowledg so great a Blessing and accept and improve the Authority of the Civil Powers for adding the Sanction of a Law to the Reformation in all the parts and branches of it So by the authority they derived from Christ and the Warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church these Prelates and
Divines made those Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal and the King and the Parliament who are vested with the Supream Legislative Power added their Authority to them to make them Obligatory on the Subjects Which is all that is imported by the word Lawful in the Act of Parliament the ordinary use whereof among Lawyers is A thing according to Law The â—…th Argument against the Validity of our Priestly Orders is That we have them from those that are not Bishops which carries him to the next Conclusion that our Bishops are not Bishops But before I follow him to that I must desire you would consider with how much disingenuity this Paper is framed that would impose on the easy Reader the belief of our first Reformers not being true Bishops when the Writer cannot but know that Arch Bishop Cranmer was a Bishop as truly Consecrated and Invested as any of the Roman Church were and was confirmed by the Pope who sent him the Pall and to satisfy you that they knew him to be such they degraded him with the usuall Ceremonies before his Martyrdom So that he being the Fountain of our Clergy that succeeded him and being truly Consecrated himself all those he Ordained are by the doctrine of the Church of Rome Bishops or Priests since Orders according to their Doctrine leave an Indelible Character which can never be taken away So that by their Principles no following sentence could deprive him of the power of Ordaining It is true there were many disorderly practices of some Popes in the latter Ages in annulling Orders and re-ordaining those ordained by others for Pope Urban the second appointed those who were ordained Simoniacally to be re-ordained And Stephen the 4th in a Synod Decreed that all the Ordinations his predecessor Pope Constantine had made were null and void because he from a Layman was chosen a Pope and though he passed through the Intermedial degrees of Priest and Deacon yet he stopt not so long in them as was appointy by the Canons and upon the same account it was also judged that Photius the Learned Patriarch of Constantinople who in six days went through all the Ecclesiastical Decrees from a Layman to a Patriarch had no power of Ordaining lawfully and all the Orders he gave were annulled by Pope Nicolaus And to mention no more the Orders given by Pope Formosus were annulled by his Successor Pope Stephen the 6th upon the pretence of some Crimes and Irregularities with which he was charged these practices as they gave great Scandal so they gave occasion to much disputing about the Legality and Canonicalness of these proceedings for the Canonists and Schoolmen being generally very ignorant and prepossessed with an opinion of the Popes Infallibility studied to flatter the Court of Rome all that was possible Yet on the other hand there was so much to be said against these proceedings that as appears by Petrus Damiani Auxilius and other Writers of that time there was great perplexity and many different Opinions about them But the ignorance and passion of those Ages appears evidently in this particular for there is nothing more manifest than that the Ancient Church was of another opinion and as in the debate between Pope Stephen and Saint Cyprian about the re-baptizing of Heretiques the constant opinion and practice of the following Ages was against re-baptizing such as were baptized by those Heretiques who retained the essentials of Baptism So by the same parity of reason and upon the same Arguments they held the Ordinations of Heretiques valid that retained the essentials of Ordination In the case of Heretiques we have these Instances Faelix was consecrated Bishop of Rome by the Arians in the room of Liberius whose banishment they had procured and yet he was acknowledged a righteous Pope and his Ordinations were accounted valid In the General Council of Ephesus the Priests of the Messalian Heresie were appointed to be received into the Church and continue Priests upon renouncing their Heresie The same was also granted to Nestorians Pelagians Eutychians Monothelites and divers other Heretiques as Morinus proves at length And at this day though the Greek Church is condemned by the Roman as Heretical in the point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost yet they are received according to their Orders into their Communion when they renounce their Heresie And their great Vasques says that all the Schoolmen and Summists agree that an heretical Excommunicate or suspended Bishop has still the power of giving Orders for which he cites many Schoolmen and he likewise proves that a Bishop after degradation retains the same power And the case of Schismaticks is no less clear for to wave the Decision of the Council of Nice which seems somewhat dubious in the case of the Novatian Ordinations we find frequently in St. Austins Treatises and Conferences with the Donatists that they offered to them if they would return to the Unity of the Church to receive them according to their Orders So that they did not think Schism did take away the power of giving Orders And in the case of that long and scandalous Schism of the Papacy for fifty years together when the one sat at Rome and the other at Avignon though beside their Schism Depositions Excommunications and Censures of all sorts passed on both sides by each of those Popes against the other and it must be confessed that one of them was the Schismatick and by consequence the Censures fell justly on him Yet both their Ordinations were held valid and when the matter was setled at the Council of Constance the Ordinations on no side were annulled or renewed And though Petrus de Lunay who was called Benedict the 13th refused to submit to them and lay down his pretensions as the others did yet when they gave sentence against him there is not a word in it of annulling Orders given by him From all which it follows that neither the pretence of Heresie Schism nor Censures will according to the practice either of the Primitive Church or of the Church of Rome even in these latter Ages be of any force to invalidate our Orders Which was well seen by Morinus and though he does not write upon this head with so much ingenuity as he does on other points yet he lays this down as a Maxim That all the Ordinations of a Heretiques and Schismatiques made according the forms of the Church and where the Heretiques that gave them were also rightly Ordained according to the forms of the Church are valid as to their Substance and are not to be repeated though they be unlawful and both he that gave and he that received them sinned grievously nor is it in any case lawful for a Catholick to receive Orders from Heretiques or Schismatiques Therefore in those Ordinations if all other things be done according to the form of the Church and only the Crime of Heresie be charged on the Orders given the substance of
the occasions of Cavilling is neither a change nor an annulling our former Orders Secondly The change of the Form of Consecration does not infer an annulling of Orders given another way for then all the Ordinations used in the Primitive Church are annulled by the Roman Church at this day since the forms of Ordination used by them now were not used in the former Ages and the Forms used in the former ages are not looked on by them now to be the Forms of Consecration but are only made parts of the Office and used as Collects or Anthems and yet here is a real change which by their own Principles cannot infer a nullity of Orders given before the Change made Thirdly If the addition of a few explanatory words invalidates former Orders then the adding many new Rites which were neither used by Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive nor Eastern Churches will much more invalidate former Orders especially when these are believed to be so essential as that they confer the power of consecrating Christ's Body and Blood and of offering Sacrifices and were for divers Ages universally looked on in that Church to be the Matter and Form of Orders as was already observed of the Rite of giving the Sacred Vessels with the words joyned to it which Pope Eugenius in express words calls the matter of Priestly Orders and the words joyned to them the Form in his Decree for the Armenians in the Council of Florence and even the Form he mentions is also altered now for the celebrating Masses are not in the Form he mentions but are now added to that part of the Office in the Roman Church Let the Pontifical be considered in the Ordination of Priests we find the Priestly Vestiments given both the Stole and the Casula then their hands are anointed then the Vessels of the Sacrament are delivered to them with words pronounced in every of those Rites besides many other lesser Rites that are in the Rubrick In the Consecration of a Bishop his head is Anointed then his hands then his Pastoral Staff is blessed and put in his hands next the Ring is blessed and put on his singer then the Gospels are put in his hands then the Mitre is blessed and put on his head next the Gloves are blessed and put on his hands and then they seâ—… him on his Throne Besides many lesser Rites to be seen in the Rubrick Now with what face can they pretend that our adding a few explanatory words can infer the annulling all Orders given before that addition when they have added so many material Ceremonies in which they place great significancy and vertue Is not this to swallow a Camel and to strain at a Gnat and to object to us a Mote in our eye when there is a Beam in their own eye Fourthly This Addition was indeed confirmed by the authority of Parliament and there was good reason to desire that to give it the force of a Law but the authority of these changes is wholly to be derived from the Convocation who only consulted about them and made them and the Parliament did take that care in the Enacting them that might shew they did only add the force of a Law to them for in passing them it was Ordered that the Book of Common-Prayer and Ordination should only be read over and even that was carried upon some debate for many as I have been told moved that the Book should be added to the Act as it was sent to the Parliament from the Convocation without ever reading it but that seemed indecent and too implicite to others and there was no change made in a Tittle by the Parliament So that they only Enacted by a Law what the Convocation had done As for what he adds that the Book of Ordination is not to found in every Edition of the Common-Prayer-Book with his gloss upon it that most think the Bishops for shame suppress it Really the Writer of this Paper must pardon me to say it seems he has no shame that can set down in writing such a disingenious Allegation Pray who are these most that think so Most in our Language stands for the greater part now how many can he find that agree with him in this Gloss I doubt very few for I am sure not all his own Party and not one of ours So that upon a Calculation those Most think will be found to be no more but himself and a very few ignorant persons on whom he has imposed this conceit Every body knows that when a Book is once printed by publick Authority and universally sold in the Shops those in Authority cannot out of shame study to suppress it But the use of the Book of Ordination not being so universal as are the other Offices of the Church the Stationers and Printers who do chiefly consider their Interest in the ready sale and vent of Books do not print so many of them as of the other there being at least 500 that use the Common-Prayer for one that needs the other and a Common-Prayer-Book without it will sell cheaper than with it therefore a great many Copies have it not This is not as Most think but as every body knows the true reason why in many Copies of the Common-Prayer-Book the Ordinal is wanting Let him name one Bishop that would not permit it to be dispersed abroad or let him be looked on as a bold and impudent Slanderer Thus far I have followed this Paper in the two first Conclusions and now I come to the Third which is That Protestant Ministers and Bishops have no power to Preach c. from Christ but only from the Parliament And this he proves because they have no more power than the first Protestant Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker had from whom all Jurisdiction was derived to the rest Now he had no power from Christ for first They that Consecrated him had no such Jurisdiction being no actual Bishops two of them were only Elect and not actual Bishops and a third only a quondam Bishop but had no actual Jurisdiction and a fourth was a Suffragan Bishop to Canterbury who had no Jurisdiction but what he had from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury much less Authority to give him Jurisdiction over himself and all the other Bishops of the Land because none can give what he has not This I must confess is such a piece that no man can read it but he must conclude the Writer of it has no sort of Ecclesiastical Learning or else has very little Moral honesty I need not tell him that Matthew Parker was not the first Protestant Arch-Bishop of Canterbury he knows Arch-Bishop Cranmer was both a Protestant and Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but this may be easily passed over there being more material Errors in this period And First Does he believe himself when he says that none can instal a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself Pray then who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction Do not
Pool to have been a righteous Arch-Bishop and so confesses Catholick Ordination and Jurisdiction to be lawful valid and good which was necessary by the Laws of England as appears from her Mandate in which she supplies any Defects they might have been under Now all the Authority the Queen had flowed from the Parliament which annexed all Jurisdiction Spiritual or Temporal over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm to the Crown by which they made her Pope So that by the very words of the Act Matthew Parker had his Jurisdiction from the Queen and she hers from the Parliament Therefore the Protestant Priests and Bishops are only Parliamentary Priests and Bishops and are not from Christ and his Church but from their Kings Queen and Parliaments Here is such a heap of things so unjustly and weakly said that it must needs grieve all honest men to see a company of Priests going up and down the Kingdom studying to abuse weak and unlearned persons with such disingenuous Stories or Writings Which I hope will appear more fully if you consider the following particulars First It is certain that King and Parliament have the Supream Legislative Authority in this Realm and this they have from the Laws of God Nature and Society confirmed by the Gospel which commands us to be subject to the Higher Powers Therefore whatever they Enact that is within the Limits of their Jurisdiction is Law and if it be not sinful is to be obeyed if it be sinful it is to be submitted to For instance if they set up a false Religion by Law it does not make it a true Religion but adds the sanction of Law and is the civil Warrant and Security for the Subject therefore the Civil Power cannot change the nature of things to make Good Evil or Evil Good but only gives Authority and Security and in this they are restrained in things Civil as well as Spiritual for if they make unjust Laws in Civil things the case is the same with their unjust Laws about Spirituals Therefore it is to be concluded as the Fundamental Maxim of Civil Government that whatever may be done lawfully and without Sin ought to be done when the Supream Civil Authority commands it and that the Subjects ought to obey Secondly Whosoever is empowered by the King and Parliament to execute this their Supream Authority has a full Right and Title to apply that Power so given or committed to him having the execution of that Law put in his hands and if any shall without their Warrant or Authority from them usurp or assume any sort of Power or Jurisdiction within this Kingdom they are Intruders and Usurpers and the success they have in it does no more justifie that Force than a Robber's does his Title to Goods unjustly taken And although some weak Princes in hard times did yield it up to the Pope yet both the Clergy themselves and the Parliaments did often assert their own Authority which was most eminently done by King Edward the First and King Edward the Third So that the Popes power here had no just Title but was a violent Invasion for that they neither had it from Christ nor Saint Peter nor by any Decree of General Councils and that for 800 years after Christ it was never allowed them that they never had it in the Eastern Churches and that what they had in the Western Churches was only extorted by force and fraud from the Princes and States of Europe and that they had no Law for it in England are things so certain that for proof of this I shall refer my self to the Writers of their own Church De Marca Launoy and Balusius with many others And at this very day the Pope has neither more nor less power in the other Kingdoms of Europe than the Connivence of Princes or the Laws give him Therefore the Pope had no power in England but what was unjustly usurped from the King and Parliament Thirdly When the Supream Authority the King and Parliament have long endured an Encroachment upon them that gives no just Title to it nor hinders them from asserting their own Rights when they find a fit opportunity for it and neither devests them of their Authority nor the Subjects of their due Rights and Freedoms Therefore the Government of the Kingdom and all the exercise of coercive Jurisdiction being inseparably annexed to the Supream Authority it was incumbent on them to shake off all Forrein Jurisdict they should have done it sooner but could never do it too soon Fourthly The King and Parliament asserting their Authority in this Particular and condemning the Popes Usurpations they might commit the execution of it to whom they would Therefore they putting it into the Queens hands and her Successors she had a good Right to exercise it having a Law for it This then being annexed to the Imperial Crown of the Realm by the Supream Authority of King and Parliament the King hath the power of exercising it fully and only in his hands and is to be obeyed in all his Injunctions that are not sinful by the Laws of the Supream Authority in this Kingdom which comes from God and is confirmed by the Gospel Fifthly Though the power of the Ministers of the Gospel comes only from Christ yet the exercise of that Power and this or that person being put in this or that Living or Preferment and having the right to the Tythes and all the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual and Prerogative Courts being things not appointed in the Gospel the King having the Supremacy over the Ecclesiastical State does not exceed his Limits when he reserves to himself such power that no person shall be vested with the Legal Authority for those things but by his knowledg or upon his Order It is true he cannot make a man a Bishop or a Priest nor can he take away Orders for if Bishops should Ordain or Consecrate without or against his pleasure he may proceed against both the Ordainers and Ordained and can hinder their exercising any Function in his Dominions by Banishing or Imprisoning them but â—…he cannot destroy or annul their Orders So that the power of Ordination comes from Christ and has a Spiritual Effect whatever opposition the King may make but the exercise of that power must be had from him If the King commands an Heretick or a Scandalous person to be Elected or Ordained Churchmen may well demur and offer their reasons why they cannot give Obedience not for the want of Authority in the King but because the matter is Morally evil As they must also do if the King should command them to commit Theft or Murther So that all Consecrations in this Land are made by Bishops by the power that is inherent in them only the King gives orders for the execution of that their power Therefore all that the Queen did in the Case of Matthew Parker and the Kings do since was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they