till they can shew their form so Instituted which they can never do the case is nothing like and so this is no answer 3. Ans In our Form Priestly power is sufficiently expressed First RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST that is the grace of the Holy Ghost to exercise and discharge the Office of Priesthood to which thou hast been now presented and accepted c. Rep. Had all these been the words of their Form we should never have questioned the validity of it But none of them belongs to it but those first Receive the Holy Ghost the rest are but his Gloss which I doubt not but the Ordainer meant but the intention of the Minister is not sufficient to give this grace without words signifying it which these do not Ans Secondly in these words WHOSE SINS THOV REMITTEST c. that is not onely by Priestly absolution but by preaching baptizing administring the holy Eucharist which is a means to apply the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins He who authorizes a man to accomplish a work doth authorize him to use all means which tend to the accomplishment thereof Rep. This answer hath the same fault with the former that it quotes his own Gloss for the Text and a much worse for in that it is like the Gloss was meant by the Ordainer but in this not it being a sense exploded by Protestants themselves as Puritanical Nor is it congruous to the words for the remitting sins here spoken of must be the act of the Priest himself whose sins THOV remittest whereas the remitting sins by preaching or any other of those wayes by him named except Absolution is not the act of the Priest but of God alone and the Priest doth onely apply the means whereby God doth it And for that Rule he who authorizes c. it holds onely in means necessary to the end which the administring of the Eucharist is not to the remitting of sins for regularly they are and ought to be remitted afore by the Sacrament of Penance and if Christ had pleased he might have given that power of remitting sins to a Deacon or Lay-man Ans Thirdly this Priestly power to Consecrate is contained in those words BE THOV A FAITHFVL DISPENSER OF THE WORD AND SACRAMENTS And afterwards when the Bishop delivers the Bible into his hands Have thou authority to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments Rep. It is contained in neither of them For 1. The former Be thou a faithful dispenser c. give no power but onely admonish and exhort to a faithful discharge of the Office And the latter Have thou authority c. give no power of Order but Jurisdiction onely as their own men interpret them In superioribus data est potestas Ordinis Mr. Mason l. 5. c. 14. n. 14. in his Jurisdictio vel facultas per quam potestas Ordinis ad usum reducitur seu loci duntaxat in quo potestas illa exercenda est designatio and as would have been evident by the words themselves had he set them down intirely and not by halves Have thou authority to preach c. in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed 2. Had they been absolute and imperative Have thou authority to preach and dispense Sacraments they would not have signified power of Order but Jurisdiction onely nor any greater Jurisdiction then a Deacon is capable of And his answer to this that the Priest doth dispense this Sacrament by way of Office a Deacon onely as his Minister is 1. false for if a Deacon be Beneficed and have a faculty from the Bishop in the interim till be a Priest to preach and dispense Sacraments he hath authority to dispense this Sacrament ex Officio and not as Minister to any Priest 2. Impertinent for the dispensing it ex Officio doth not formally signifie or necessarily include power to Consecrate it at least not as given by those words which give the power to dispense it for regularly he must first be made a Priest and afterward a dispenser of it or Pastour If he say that under this word dispense the Ordainer meant power not onely to administer the Eucharist but to Consecrate it I believe he did but as I have often said the intention of the Minister is not sufficient to give power of Order and the highest power of Order as this is to Consecrate the Eucharist without words signifying it And this shall serve for the first part of my Conclusion that they are no Bishops Ordine or valid Bishops The eighth Chapter Proving the second part of the Conclusion that they are no Bishops OFFICIO viz. For want of Jurisdiction in the Consecrators and urging the first reason want of the Patriarch's consent THe second part of my Conclusion is that they are no Bishops Officio Jurisdictione or simpliciter My reason is because they that Confirmed or Consecrated them had no Jurisdiction to either of those acts The Consequence they had no Jurisdiction therefore could not validly Confirm c. is good because the Confirming of one elected to a Bishoprick that is the ratifying of his election to it which if the party were Consecrated afore is that which makes him instantly Bishop of it and if he were not is that which makes him instantly Bishop or Lord elect of it and puts him in proxima potentiâ to be Consecrated Bishop of it is plainly an act of Jurisdiction and therefore cannot be exercised validly but by one having Jurisdiction to it 2. The Consecrating of a Bishop as it hath two effects in the party Consecrated one the creating him a Bishop Ordine another the creating him Bishop of such a See as ex gr Canterbury London c. so it requires in the Consecraters two powers one to create him a Bishop Ordine and so it is an act purely of the Key of Order another to create him Bishop of that See that is governing Pastour to that Flock of Clergy and People with authority to Institute Pastours hold Courts make Decrees determine Causes inflict or release Censures Ecclesiastical over or among them and so it is plainly an act of the Key of Jurisdiction because giving Jurisdiction onely and so cannot be validly exercised but by one having authority to exercise it The Antecedent they had no Jurisdiction is proved by two Mediums The first is because they had no authority from the Pope who alone could give it them For none can give Pastoral Jurisdiction but a Pastour nor Jurisdiction over such a flock but the Pastour to that flock because none can give a Jurisdiction which he hath not And hence even among themselves no Bishop in the land can validly Institute a Pastour to any Parochial Church but the Bishop of the Diocess or by Commission from him or his Superiour Nor can any number of Bishops validly Confirm or Consecrate the Bishop of any Diocess but the Metropolitane of the Province or some person authorized by him or
Chap. 19. Vrging the second inference for the opinion of the Parliament 67 Chap. 20. Refuting the shifts devised to evade this inference 72 Chap. 21. Proving the second part of the reason that it was not revived then 76 The first Chapter Proving the first part of the Conclusion the Protestant Bishops are no Bishops ORDINE and urging the first Reason the invalidity of the form whereby they were Ordained THere is a Bishop Ordine and there is a Bishop Officio Jurisdictione or simpliciter A Bishop Ordine I call him whose Ordination was essentially valid and so imprinted the Episcopall Character As ex gr if one should be Ordained in due matter and form by one or more Bishops having no Jurisdiction or should be Ordained without a Title or should be Consecrated Bishop of some See and afterward resign it or be deprived of it or degraded And Bishops in this sense are necessary to the Ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons and consequently to the interior essentiall form of the Church as it consists in a Hierarchy of Order A Bishop Officio I call him who was validly Confirmed and Consecrated Bishop or Archbishop and Pastour of that See or flock of Clergy and people whereof he is stiled as ex gr Canterbury London c. and continues actuall Bishop of it or of some other And Bishops in this sense are necessary to the Consecrating of Archishops and Bishops of Cathedrall or Metropoliticall Sees and to the Instituting of Pastors to Parochiall Churches and consequently to the exterior essential form of the Church as it consists in a Hierarchy of Jurisdiction The first part then of my Conclusion is that Protestant Bishops are no Bishops Ordine My reasons are two The first is because the Protestant form for Ordaining Bishops is essentially invalid For the essential form of Ordination is some fit words that is words fignifying the Order given Mr. Mason l. 2. c. 16. n. 6. So Protestants themselves Non verba quaelibet huic instituto for making a Priest and there is the same reason of a Bishop inservire poterunt sed quae ad Ordinis conferendi potestatem exprimendam sunt accomodata Dum per Apostolum Tit. 1.5 mandavit Christus ut crearentur Ministri mandavit implicitè ut inter Ordinandum verba adhiberentur idonea id est quae dati tum Ordinis potestatem complecterentur Istiusmodi autem verba quatenus datam potestatem denotant sunt illius ordinis forma essentialis And the reason is evident because Ordination being a Sacrament as Protestants themselves do * Id. l. ◠n. 8. D. Bramb p. 96. and must confess for else it is no argument of the parties having any authority from God more then another hath who is not Ordain'd that is a visible sign of an invisible grace or power given by it there must be some visible sign in it to signifie the power given for it cannot be a sign of what it signifies not and else the same Rite as ordains a man a Deacon would ordain him Priest and Bishop The essential matter then of Episcopal Ordination which is imposition of hands being a dumb sign and common to divers Orders as Bishops Priests Deacons and to divers other graces as Confirming curing the sick c. of necessity there must be some words joyn'd with it as its form to interpret it and determine it to the grace of Episcopal Order which no words can possibly do but such as signifie that Order either in the natural sense of the words as ex gr Be thou a Bishop or I ordain thee a Bishop c. or by the Institution of Christ as these words I baptize thee c. signifie the grace of regeneration because instituted by Christ to that end Now in the Protestant form there is no word signifying Episcopal Order in the natural sense of the words For this is their whole form Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of hands for God hath not given us the Spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness In which is nothing but what may be said to any Priest or Deacon at his Ordaining nay or to any childe at Confirming Nor is there any colour of ground to say that these words signifie it ex instituto Christi being there is no testimony in Scripture of such his institution nor did he ever use these words but once to his Apostles when he gave them power of remitting sins which is a power of Priestly Order onely nor do we finde that any of the Apostles ever used them De ordinat Sacr. par 2. and it appears by all the Rituals now extant set forth by Morinus that no Church Greek or Latine ever used these words for so much as any part of the Ceremony for ordaining a Bishop for 1200. years nor any of the Greek Churches yet to this day nor therefore doth the Roman Church which introduced them within these 400. years use them as essential form as shall be seen more anon The second Chapter Replying to Dr Bramhall's Answer TO the foregoing Objection he makes this Answer Pag. 222 Ans If these words be considered singly in a divided sense from the rest of the Office there is nothing in our form which doth distinctly and reciprocally express Episcopal power But if these words be considered conjoyntly in a compounded sense there is enough to express it distinctly 1. The party is presented to be made a Bishop 2. The Kings Letters Pattents are read requiring them to Consecrate him Bishop 3. He takes his Oath of Canonicall Obedience as Bishop elect 4. The Assembly is exhorted to pray for him before he be admitted to that Office that is of a Bishop 5. In the Letany he is prayed for as Bishop elect that he may have grace to discharge that Office of a Bishop 6. After the Letany he is prayed for as called to the Office of a Bishop 7. The Archbishop tells him he must examine him before he admit him to that administration whereunto he is called and after examination prayes for grace for him to use the authority committed to him as a prudent and faithfull Steward this Authority can be no other then Episcopal Authority nor this Stewardship any other thing then Episcopacy 8. Lastly after imposition of hands with those words Receive the Holy Ghost c. follows the tradition of the Bible into his hands with an exhortation to behave himself toward the flock as a Pastor All which implies Episcopall Authority Repl. This answer is either false or impertinent or a granting of the Argument For if his meaning be that there are no words in their essential form that express it this is a granting of the argument which proceeded onely upon their essential form the other expressions of it in the rest of the office signifying nothing to the purpose because not sacramentall For the conjunction of these
Declaration of his Majesty whom God grant long to Reign over us touching affairs of Religion in which he deprives all the Bishops and Archbishops in the land of their power of sole Ordaining and Censuring their Presbyters and joyns their Presbyters in Commission with them as to those acts of Ordaining and Censuring The eleventh Chapter Bringing the third Proof from the Consecration of Matthew Parker MY third proof shall be from the Consecration of Matthew Parker the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury from whom all the Archbishops and Bishops that have been since descend and so if he had no authority to Confirm or Consecrate a Bishop but what he had from the Queen none since him can have because they can have none but must be derived to them from and by him Now that he had none but from the Queen is proved They who Confirmed and Consecrated him had no authority for it but from the Queen Therefore he had none but from the Queen The Consequence I suppose will not be denied because he had all his Spiritual Jurisdiction by his Confirmation and Consecration to that See if then they who Confirmed and Consecrated him did it by no authority but of the Queen he could have none but what he had from Her The Antecedent is easily proved For if they had any it must be either as Bishops Ordine or as Bishops Officio but neither of these wayes had they any 1. Not as Bishops Ordine because to Confirm or Consecrate a Pastour is an act of Jurisdiction which a Bishop Ordine onely hath none 2. Not as Bishops Officio because First not one of them was so as appears by the stile given them in the Queens Letters Pattents to them for this business Regina c. Antonio Landavensi Episcopo Wilelmo Barlow quondam Bathoniensi Episcopo nunc Cicestrensi Electo Joanni Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Electo Herefordiensi Miloni Coverdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo Richardo Bedfordensi Joanni Thedfordensi Episcopis Suffraganeis Joanni Bale Ossoriensio Episcopo Where you see those four that Confirmed and Consecrated him admitting their Lambeth Records for true to wit Barlow Scory Coverdale and Hodgskins Suffragan of Bedford are not stiled Bishops of any See as two of the other are he of Landaff and he of Ossory but either quondam Bishops onely as Coverdale or quondam Bishops and Lords Elect onely as Barlow and Scory or Suffragan Bishops onely as John Hodgskins that is who had indeed the Episcopal Character but were Pastours of Parochial Churches onely erected into Suffragan Sees by the Act of 26. H. 8. 14. who by the Act could not exercise any least act of Jurisdiction no not within their own parish without license of the Bishop of the Diocesse Secondly because had they been all of them actual Bishops of Cathedral Churches yet they could not validly Confirm or Consecrate any lowest Bishop in the land and much less their Metropolitan without a Faculty or Commission from some Superiour to that See And the reason is evident Because 1. They could not by their own authority validly exercise any Jurisdiction out of their own Diocesses as London where they were to Confirm and Lambeth where they were to Consecrate him was out of all their Diocesses 2. Nor within his own Diocess could any one of them give Jurisdiction to be exercised in another Diocess as Canterbury was 3. Much less could they being but simple Bishops give a Jurisdiction Metropolitical and create a Superiour to themselves and to all the Bishops of the Province yea and to the Archbishop of another Province namely him of York for they could not give a Jurisdiction which they had not These two grand defects therefore in the condition state and faculty of the Confirmers and Consecraters of Matthew Parker the one against the Canons of the Church that they had no consent of the Metropolitane to the See of Canterbury the other against both the Canons of the Church and the laws of the land that not one of those who were like to execute the Commission was a Bishop simpliciter or in the sense wherein all laws both of the Church and of the Land mean when they speak of a Bishop rendring them uncapable to Confirm or Consecrate him till those defects were supplied the party that supplied those defects was the party that gave them their authority to those acts Now it is manifest by the Queens Commission to them that she by vertue of her Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical did supply to them those defects for these are the words of the Commission Regina c. Reverendissimis in Christo Patribus Antonio c. ut supra Cum Decanus Capitulum Ecclesiae nostrae Cathredalis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum Mattheum Parker sibi Ecclesiae praedictae elegerunt in Archiepiscopum Pastorem nos eidem electioni Regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter favorem hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo Mandantes quatenus vos aut quatuor vestrum eundem in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae sicut praefertur electum electionemque praedictam Confirmare eundem in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae Consecrare caeteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt Officio Pastorali juxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum velitis cum effectu Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate nostrá Regiâ si quid aut in his quae juxta mandatum nostrum praedictum per vos fient aut in vobis aut vestrûm aliquo conditione statu aut facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per Leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante viz. because neither the consent of the Metropolitane the Bishop of Rome nor four Bishops as the Law of the Realm nor three as the Canons of the Church required no nor any one Bishop could be then had to his Confirmation and Consecration Now though really she could give them no such authority because she had no power of the Keyes to which it pertained to dispense with the Canons of the Church yet this suffices to prove my intent that they had no authority to either of those acts but what they had from Her The twelfth Chapter Replying to Doctor Heylins Answer DOctor Heylin undertakes to answer all our Objections against the Canonicalness of Matthew Parkers Consecration Eccl. Rest p 2. f. 122. but he neither sets them down all nor solves those he doth as will appear by the Reply 1. Ans Though Barlow and Scory were deprived of their Episcopal Sees yet first the justice and legality of their Deprivation was not clear in Law
more surety thereof as hereafter shall be expressed First it is very well known to all degrées of this Realm that the late King of most famous memory K. Henry 8. 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 was justly and rightfully recognized and knowledged to have the supream Power Iurisdiction Order Rule and Authority over all the State Ecclesiastical of the same and the same power jurisdiction and authority did use accordingly And that also the said late King in the Five and twentieth year of his Reign did by authority of Parliament amongst other things set forth a certain Order of the manner and form how Archbishops and Bishops should be elected and made as by the same more plainly appears And that also the late King of worthy memory King Edward the Sixth did lawfully succeed his Father in the Imperial Crown of this Realm and did justly possess and enjoy all the same power jurisdiction and authority before mentioned as a thing to him descended with the said Imperial Crown and so used the same during his life And that also the said King Edw. 6. in his time by authority of Parliament caused a godly Book intituled The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England to be made and set forth not onely for one Vniform Order of Service Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments to be used within this Realm and other his Dominions but also did adde and put to the same Book a very good and godly Order of the manner and form how Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacons and Ministers should from time to time be Consecrated made and Ordered within this Realm and other his Dominions as by the same Book more plainly may and will appear And although in the time of the said late Queen Mary as well the said Act and Statute made in the five and twentieth year of the Reign of the said late King Hen. 8. as also the several Acts and Statutes made in the 2 3 4 5 and 6. years of the Reign of the said late King Edward for the authorizing and allowing the said Book of Common Prayer and other the premises amongst divers other Acts and Statutes touching the said supream authority were repealed yet nevertheless at the Parliament holden at Westminster in the first year of the Reigne of our Sovereign Lady the Queens Majesty that now is by one other Act and Statute there made all such Iurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preeminences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realme and the Order Reformaxion and Correction of the same is fully and absolutely by the authority of the same Parliament united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and by the same Act and Statute there is also given to the Queens Highness her heirs and successors Kings and Queens of this Realm full power and authority by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England from time to time to assigne name and authorize such person or persons as she or they shall think meet and convenient to exercise use occupy and execute under her Highness all manner of Iurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Iurisdiction within this Realm or any other her Dominions or Countries And also by the same Act and Statute the said Act made in the Five and twentieth year of the said late King Hen. 8. for the order and form of the electing and making of the said Archbishops and Bishops together with divers other Statutes touching the Iurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical is revived and made in full force and effect as by the same Act and Statute plainly appeareth And that also by another Act and Statute made in the said Parliament in the first year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Queen intituled An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church the said Book of Common Prayer and the Administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before mentioned and all things therein contained with certain Additions therein newly added and appointed by the said Statute is fully stablished and authorized to be used in all places within this Realm and all other the Quéens Majesties Dominions and Countries as by the same Act among other things more plainly appeareth Whereupon our said Sovereign Lady the Quéens most excellent Majesty being most justly and lawfully invested and having in her Majesties order and disposition all the said Iurisdictions Power and Authorities over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal as well in cases Ecclesiastical as Temporal within this Realm and other her Majesties Dominions and Countreys hath by her Supream Authority at divers times sithence the beginning of her Majesties Reign caused divers grave and well learned men to be duly Elected Made and Consecrated Archbishops and Bishops of divers Archbishopricks and Bishopricks within this Realm and other her Majesties Dominions and Countreys according to such Order and Form and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecration as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts Statutes and Orders annexed to the said Book of Common-Prayer before mentioned And further for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirmations Investing and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops her Highness in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England directed to any Archbishop Bishop or others for the Confirming Investing and Consecrating of any person elected to the Office or Dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop hath not onely used such words and sentences as were accustomed to be used by the said late King Henry and K. Edw. her Majesties Father and Brother in their like Letters Patents made for such causes but also hath used and put in her Majesties said Letters Patents divers other general words and sentences whereby her Highness by her Supream Power and Authority hath dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfection or disability that can or may in any wise be obiected against the same as by her Majesties said Letters Patents remaining of Record more plainly will appear So that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes and of the Supream and absolute authority of the Queens Highness and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents hath used and put in ure in and about the making and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops it is and may be very evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can or may justly be objected against the said Elections Confirmations or Consecrations or any other material thing meet to
be used or had in or about the same but that every thing requisite and material for that purpose hath been made and done as precisely and with as great a care and diligence or rather more as ever the like was done before her Majesties time as the Records of her Majesties said Fathers and Brothers time and also of her own time will more plainly testifie and declare Wherefore for the more plain Declaration of all the premises to the intent that the same may be better known to every of the Queens Majesties Subjects whereby such evil speech as heretofore hath been used against the high State of Prelac◠may hereafter cease Be it now declared and enacted that the said Act and Statute made in the first Year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Lady the Queens Maiesty whereby the said Book of Common-Prayer and the Administration of Sacraments with other Rites and Ceremonies is authorized and allowed to be used shall stand and remain good and perfect to all respects and purposes And that such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and for the making of Priests Deacons and Ministers as was set forth in the time of the said late King Edw. 6. and added to the said Book of Common-Prayer and authorized by Parliament in the 5. and 6. Year of the said late King shall stand and be in full force and effect and shall from henceforth be used and observed in all places within this Realm and other the Queens Majesties Dominions and Countreys And that all Acts and things heretofore had made or done by any person or persons in or about any Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person or persons elected to the Office or Dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop within this Realm or within any other her Majesties Dominions or Countreys by vertue of the Queens Majesties Letters Patents or Commission sithence the beginning of her Reign be and shall be by authority of this present Parliament declared judged and deemed at and from every of the several times of the doing thereof good and perfect to all respects and purposes any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding And that all persons that have been or shall be made Ordered or Consecrated Archbishops Bishops Priests Ministers of Gods holy Word and Sacraments or Deacons after the Form and Order prescribed in the said Order and Form how Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacons add Ministers should be Consecrated Made and Ordered be in very deed and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to be and shall be Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacons and Ministers and rightly Made Ordered and Consecrated any Statute Law Canon or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding Provided alwayes and nevertheless be it enacted hy the authority aforesaid that no person or persons shall at any time hereafter be impeached or molested in body lands lives or goods by occasion or mean of any Certificate by any Archbishop or Bishop heretofore made or before the last day of this Session of Parliament to be made by vertue of any Act made in the first Session of this present Parliament touching or concerning the refusal of the Oath declared and set forth by Act of Parliament in the first Year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Lady Q. Elizabeth any thing in this Act or any other Act or Statute heretofore made to the contrary notwithstanding And that all tenders of the said Oath made by any Archbishop or Bishop aforesaid or before the last day of this present Session to be made by authority of any Act established in the first Session of this present Parliament and all refusals of the same Oath so tendered or before the last day of this Session to be tendered by any Archbishop or Bishop by authority of any Act established in the first Session of this present Parliament shall be void and of none effect or validity in the Law FINIS Since the Printing of this they have acknowledged the justness of our Exception to their Forms by amending them in their New Book authorized by the late Act for Vniformity the Form of Ordaining a Bishop thus Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop c. In the name of the Father c. the Form of Ordaining a Priest thus Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office of a Priest c. But this comes too late for the past Ordinations and consequently also for the future because being no Bishops now they cannot Ordain validly by 〈◊〉 Form whatsoever Page 79. line 8. c. dele these words making it treasonable to take Orders from the Sea of Rome Pag. ead lin 15. after the word Spiritual insert these words all the Bishops then present in Parliament dissenting to those two Acts of 1. Eliz. and in the ensuing Parliaments Pag. 80. lin 5. for 20. read 25. Pag 87. lin 22. for authorized read inthronized Pag. 90. lin 26. for the read this
words with those other being not formal which is impossible betwixt words sacramentall as these are and not sacramentall as all the other are but onely materiall or locall because contained within the same Office their signifying of it can contribute or cooperate nothing to make these signifie it one whit the more then they would do taken singly by themselves And so if these taken singly by themselves do not signifie it as he confesses they do not then taken singly by themselves they give it not because they give no more then they signifie and if taken singly by themselves they give it not then none is given because none of the other can give any To make this more plain Suppose all the other expressions had been as they are and the words of their essential form had been onely these Be thou an Officer in the Church or take authority to some administration or God make thee an honest man or some such like mentioning no power of Order in certain will he say they would be valid to make a Bishop by reason of their conjunction with the other expressions I suppose he will not because these signifie no power given of a Bishop And if those would not no more will these for the same reason If his meaning be that there are other words in the Office which express it as intended desired prayed for or supposed to be given by imposition of hands and those words Receive the Holy Ghost c. this is impertinent because the argument proceeded onely upon the not expressing it as given If his meaning be that though these words do not yet they are joyn'd with other words which express it as given this is false because none of those other expressions by him named do express it as given or intended to be given by any of themselves but onely by the imposition of hands and the words joyn'd with it For in the seventh which immediately precedes Imposition of hands the Archbishop tells the party he must examine him before he admit him to that administration and after that onely prayer is made for grace that he may discharge the Office meaning after it should be committed to him as he ought And in the eighth which immediately follows the words of Ordination he is onely exhorted to behave him self as a good Pastor If his meaning be that these words do in some part express it as given and the other in some other part so as betwixt them they make up an expression of it as given this is also false because these express it not at all and none of the other express it as given So take his answer in what sense you will it is no answer to the Objection The third Chapter Answering Dr. Bramhalls Allegations for their Form and in this Chapter his first Allegation from Christs example TO prop up his Answer which he saw needed it he addes to it three Arguments for the validity of their Form but very weak ones all as will appear by the Answers 1. Arg. You may except against Christs own form of Ordaining his Apostles if you will but if that be a sufficient form ours is Ans This supposes that he ordained them Bishops by these words Receive the Holy Ghost which is a false supposition For he ordained them not Bishops by these or any other Sacramental words nay 't is most probable he made not one of them a Bishop but Saint Peter and him he made by those words Pasce oves meas The fourth Chapter Answering his second Argument from the Romane Forme 2. Arg. THe Form used at the same time when hands are imposed is the same both in our Form and yours Receive the Holy Ghost And so as much in our Form to express Episcopal power as in yours and if yours be valid ours is Ans If by the same time he mean the same time Physical or Physicè loquendo I deny his Consequence therefore as much in our Form as yours because their entire essential Form is used at the same time when hands are imposed which ours is not as we shall see anon If by the same time he mean the same time Moral or Moraliter loquendo that is continued without any moral interruption his Antecedent is a mistake For our Form is not those words alone Accipe Spiritum Sanctum nay perhaps they are no part of our essential Form for the reason given supra Cap. 1. but those that are immediately joyned with them to wit the Prayer Propitiare Domine c anciently called the Benediction Conc. Car. 4. Ordo Roman which hath been our Form ever since Saint Peters time and for the substance of it is the same with that which is used over all the Easterne Churches and which anciently until within these four hundred years our Church used at the same Physical time when hands were imposed onely in latter ages for the greater solemnity of the Ceremony and fuller signification of the grace of this Sacrament the giving of the Holy Ghost she hath interposed those words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum and perhaps by way of Prayer onely and appointed them and them alone to be pronounced at the same time when hands are imposed and to be pronounced by all the Bishops assisting and then one of the Bishops onely as the ancient Law and Custom was to pronounce the words of Ordination viz. Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris Vno super cum fundente Benedictionem Conc. Carth. 4. inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis bene ✚ dictionis tuae in eum infunde virtutem Per c. Anon after which follows the other Prayer anciently called Consecratio Episcopi to wit Deus honorum omnium c. tribuas ei Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam c. and after that the anointing his head with holy Chrisme with these words Vngatur Consecretur Caput tuum Benedictione coelesti in Ordine Pontificali In nomine Patris c. After which he is called Episcopus and Consecratus till then not but Electus or Consecrandus onely So all these pertain to the integrity of our Form and are morally which is sufficient to the unity of a moral compositum as a Sacrament is joyn'd with the Imposition of hands and in these you see is expressed Sacerdotal Episcopal and Pontifical grace or Order And so there is more in our Form to express Episcopal power then in theirs The fifth Chapter Answering his third Argument from Cardinal Pool's Dispensation 3. Arg. KIng Edward the sixth his Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Maries dayes by all the Catholique Bishops in Parliament 1. and 2. Phil. and Mar. 8. by Cardinal Pool then Apostolique Legat in England and by the Pope himself Paul the fourth This he proves by three Mediums The first Medium The Parliament proposed to the Cardinal this Article that all Institutions to Benefices might be confirmed And the Cardinal did
his Superiour must be one nor the Metropolitane of a Province but the Primate of the Nation or some person authorized by him or his Superiour must be one And consequently by parity of reason nor the Primate of any Nation but the Patriarch of that part of the world or some person having faculty from him must be one This was long ago defined or declared by the first Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mos antiquus obtitineat in Egypto Lybia Pentapoli ut Episcopus Alexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. Vniversim autem illud manifestum est quod si quis absque consensu Metropolitani fiat Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit non debere esse Episcopum Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is particularly and principally the Consecrating of their Primates c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Superior to that See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afore that by the Canons called the Apostles (a) Can. 35. and since that hath been confirmed by the great Council of Chalcedon (b) Can. 27. and divers other Councils and received by the practise and consent of the Universal Church from that time to this day Consequently the Patriark of the West the Bishop of Rome being the unquestionable rightful Metropolitane to the Primate of this Nation the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Founder of that See no number of Bishops in this land can validly Confirm or Consecrate him but the Bishop of Rome or by Faculty or Commission from him or at least not without his consent implicite or reasonably presumed And so there having been no rightful Primate of this Nation since the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign for want of the Popes consent to his Consecration there hath been no Bishop validly Confirmed or Consecrated in it since that time not can be till the Popes consent can be had The ninth Chapter Vrging the second reason their having no Jurisdiction but from the King and bringing the first proof of it from their own acts and confessions MY second Medium shall be because they have no Jurisdiction to these acts but what they have originally from the King who can give them none And First that he can give them none to these acts I suppose will be granted because to Institute or create a Pastour to a flock of Clergy and people is plainly a power of the Keyes which themselves acknowledge no temporal Prince as such hath And they give a good reason for it Dr. Bram. pag. 63. because the power of the Keyes was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successours not to Sovereign Princes Hence Queen Elizabeth in her Commission to them as were to Confirm and Consecrate Matthew Parker to the See of Canterbury would not use the words assign constitute or authorize as is used in all other Commissions but onely required them to Confirm and Consecrate him and do all other things which in this behalf belonged to their Pastoral Office thereby acknowledging that these were acts of the Pastoral Office which she could not authorize but onely command them to perform Secondly that they have no Jurisdion to these acts but what they have originally from the King may be shewed many wayes I shall make use of three The first shall be from their own acts and confessions As 1. Eccl. Rest in pref That Doctor Heylin notes of Q. Elizabeth as commendable in Her that she looked upon Her self as the sole fountain of both Jurisdictions temporal and spiritual For if she the sole fountain of both then they that Confirmed and Consecrated Matthew Parker and Her other first Bishops had no Jurisdiction for it but what they derived from Her 2. That afore their Consecration they take 1. the Oath of Supremacy whereby they acknowledge the King to be the onely Supream Governour as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal For if so they cannot exercise any Spiritual Jurisdiction in foro exteriori as this is to Confirm and Consecrate a Pastour but what must be derived from him Nor can they say that by the Supream Governour in that Oath is meant onely the Supream political Governour 1. Eliz. 1. for the Act that established that Oath declares it to belong to the Kings Supremacy to use and exercise all such Jurisdictions Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm and consequently to authorize any Bishops in the land as the Pope afore did to Confirm and Consecrate Archbishops and Bishops and so that none might Confirm or Consecrate any but by authority from the King as afore they might not but by authority from the Pope nay it gives to the King more authority and in this very kinde then the Pope can exercise or ever pretended to viz. to assign and authorize any persons as he shall think meet Bishops or not Bishops Clerks or Laymen so they be his natural born Subjects to exercise under him all manner of Jurisdictions and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual Jurisdiction within this Realm and consequently to Confirm or Consecrate Archbishops or Bishops of any Sees for this is a spiritual Jurisdiction 2. Besides this they take a particular Oath of Homage whereby they acknowledge to hold thir Archbishoprick or Bishoprick with all authority jurisdiction priviledges revenues and all else thereunto belonging solely and onely from his Majesty If all their Jurisdiction from him solely they can have no authority to constitute a Pastour of a Cathedral or Metropolitical Church but what they must have from him The tenth Chapter Bringing the second Proof from other publick Acts. THe second way of proof shall be from other publick Acts and proceedings approved by them by which it appears that the King can and sometimes does at his pleasure limit controul suspend or utterly deprive the Bishops of their Jurisdiction which he could not do if they had it from any other then himself Of this I shall name two Instances One shall be the sequestring of Doctor Abbot by the late King from his Office of Archbishop of Canterbury upon a displeasure taken against him for refusing to license a Sermon as the King desired and committing that Office he living unto other Bishops of his own appointing See the Commission at large in Mr. Rush Hist Collect p. 435. authorizing them to do all or any acts pertaining to the power or authority of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury in causes or matters Ecclesiastical as amply fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as the said Archbishop might have done And so by vertue of this Commission those persons had authority to Consecrate or Confirm the Archbishop of York if it should happen or any Bishop within the Province of Canterbury which without it they had not Another shall be the
Rep. 1. And why then did the Queen in her Letters Pattents not stile them Bishops but onely quondam Bishops of those Sees And why did she not in all that time being above thirteen moneths after her coming to the Crown restore them to those Sees And why did she or how could she they living place others in those Sees without their resignation 2. Grant the deprivation had been unjust yet till it was avoided and they restored by sentence they were no Bishops of those Sees in the eye of the Law 3. Had they been actual Bishops of those Sees yet they would have had no authority to Confirm or Consecrate him for the defects shewed supra 2. Ans Secondly they neither were nor could be deprived of their Episcopal Character and whilst that remained they were in a capacity for performing all Episcopal Offices to which they should be called by their Metropolitane or any higher power directing and commanding in all such matters as concerned the Church Rep. If by higher power c. he mean Ecclesiastical it is true he saith but impertinent because they were not called to Confirm or Consecrate Matthew Parker by any such higher power but onely by the Queen But if he mean that their Episcopal Character rendred them capable to perform all Episcopal Offices to which they should be called by a Lay-Prince onely having no other authority in matters as concern the Church but onely to direct or command Bishops to perform their Offices it is notorious false doctrine 3. Ans As for Suffragans by which title Hodgskins is Commissionated for the Consecration they were no other then the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive times ordained for easing the Diocesan c. Rep. They were in some things more then the Chorepiscopi for they the Chorepiscopi were no Bishops Ordine which these were but in other things they were less for the Chorepiscopi had Jurisdiction Episcopal from some lawful Bishop of the See which these had not but were onely established by an Act of Parliament of Hen. 8. nor had any of the Bishops then in the Realm Episcopal Jurisdiction being manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks and so could not constitute a Suffragan But grant they were no less then the Chorepiscopi he cannot shew that ever any Chorepiscopus was used for the Confirming or Consecrating of a Bishop And this shall serve for the second part of my Conclusion that they are no Bishops Officio or Canonical Bishops The thirteenth Chapter Proving the third part of the Conclusion that they are no legal Bishops and urging the first Reason because the Act of H. 8. for the Roman Form is still in force THough it matter not much to my purpose whether they be Legal Bishops or not Dr. Stapl. Counterbl ag Horne yet because our writers have objected this also against them Is it not notorious that you were not Ordained according to the prescript I will not say of the Church but even of the very Statutes and their late Champions have undertaken to defend it and the discussing of it will give much light into the whole Controversie and more abundantly discover the nullity of their Consecrations this shall be the third part of my Conclusion that they are no legal Bishops My reasons are two The first is because the Act of 25. Hen 8.20 which authorizes the Roman Form for Consecrating Bishops by giving Pall and using Benedictions Vnctions and all other Ceremonies requisite at that time viz. by the Romane Pontifical which was then in use in this Nation being repealed by Q. Mary was revived 1. Eliz. and never since repealed and so is still in force Nor will it serve to say that that Act of Hen. 8. was repealed as to that part of it virtually or interpretatively by the Act of 8. Eliz. which established another Form for in the judgement of Law an Act of Parliament is not repealed but by express words The fourteenth Chapter Vrging the second Reason because the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination being repealed by Queen Mary is not yet revived and proving the first part of the reason that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. THe second reason is because granting that the Act of Hen. 8. was virtually repealed by 8. Elizabethae and that such virtual repeal is sufficient in Law yet the Form of Edw. 6. by which they are Ordained cannot be legal because that part of the Act of Edward 6. which established the Book of Ordination and was repealed by Queen Mary was not revived afore 8. Eliz. nor then neither The first part of this reason that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. is easily proved For whereas that Act of 5. and 6. Edw. 6.1 consisted of two parts one which authorized the Book of Common-Prayer established 2. and 3. Edw 6. as it was then newly explained and perfected another which established the Form of Consecrating Bishops c. and added it to the Book of Common-Prayer this Act as to both these parts was repealed 1. Mar. and this repeal was reversed 1. Eliz. 1. as to that part which concerned the Book of Common-Prayer onely for so runs the Act The said Statute of Repeal and every thing therein contained ONELY concerning the said Book viz. of Common-Prayer authorized by Edw. 6. shall be void and of none effect And afterward 8. Eliz. 1. was revived that other part of it which concerned the Form of Ordination viz. in these words Such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops Bishops c. as was set forth in the time of Edw. 6. and added to the said Book of Common-Prayer and authorized 5. and 6. Edw. 6. shall stand and be in full force and shall from henceforth be used and observed The fifteenth Chapter Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer pag. 95. FIrst he sets down our Objection wrong The Book of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edw. 6. and that Act was expresly repealed by Queen Mary but the Book of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queen Eliz. but onely in general terms under the name and notion of the Book of Common-Prayer For this is not our objection but this it was not restored at all but rather formally excluded by 1. Eliz. For that Act of Edw. 6. consisting of nothing else but the authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer and establishing and adding to it the Book of Ordination and the Act of Queen Mary having repealed that whole Act that Act of 1. Eliz. reversing that repeal as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely did plainly and directly exclude the repealing of it as to the Book of Ordination there being nothing else to be excluded by that onely but that Book And I am confident it was the full intent of the Queen and Parliament at that time to retain still as the Order of Bishops so the Catholique Form of Consecrating them authorized by Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8. 20. after his revolt from Rome and used all his
added to the Book of Common-Prayer and administration of the Sacraments as a member of it or at least an appendant to it and therefore by 1. Eliz. was restored again together with the said Book of Common-Prayer intentionally at the least if not in terminis But being the words in the said Statute were not clear enough to remove all doubts they did therefore revive it now and did accordingly enact c. when there is not any one of these sentences in the Act I do not say in words but not so much as in sense nay when the Act supposed the contrary as is shown supra The seventeenth Chapter Confirming the Argument by the proceedings in Bonners Case and urging the first inference for the opinion of the Judges THis that I have urged that that part of the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination was not revived afore 8. Eliz. and consequently they no legal Bishops afore that Act is so true as that it was the opinion of even the Protestant Judges at that time and of the Parliament that made that Act as may be manifestly inferred from the proceedings of the Judges and Parliament in the Case of Bonner and Horn which was this By the first Session of that Parliament 5. Eliz. 1. power was given to any Bishop in the Realm to tender the Oath of Supremacy enacted 1. Eliz. to any Ecclesiastical person within his Diocess and the refuser was to incur a Premunire Mr. Horn the new Bishop of Winchester tenders by vertue of this Statute the Oath unto Doctor Bonner Bishop of London but deprived by Q. Eliz. and then a Prisoner in the Marshalsea which was within the Diocess of Winchester Bonner refuses to take it Horn certifies his refusal into the Kings Bench whereupon Bonner was indicted upon the Statute He prayes judgement Dyar fol. 234. whether he might not give in evidence upon this Issue Quod ipse non est inde culpabilis eo quod dictus Episcopus de Winchester non fuit Episcopus tempore oblationis Sacramenti And it was resolved by all the Judges at Serjeants Inne that if the verity and matter be so indeed he should well be received to give in evidence upon this Issue and the Jury should try it After which we hear no more of the Indictment And at the next Session of that Parliament which was 8. Eliz was revived the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination and enacted That all that have been or shall be made Ordered or Consecrated Archbishops Bishops c. after that Form of Edw. 6. be in very deed and by authority hereof declared and enacted to be and shall be Archbishops Bishops c. and rightly made Ordered and Consecrated any Statute Law Canon or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding But with this Proviso that no person shall be impeached by occasion or mean of any Certificate by any Archbishop or Bishop heretofore made or before the last day of this Session to be made by vertue of any Act made in the first Session of this Parliament touching the refusal of the Oath enacted 1. Eliz. And that all tenders of the said Oath and all refusals of it so tendered or before the last day of this Session to be tendered by any Archbishop or Bishop shall be void Now from this Story I make two inferences to my purpose The first that in the opinion of the Judges at that time the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination was not revived by 1. Eliz. and so Horn was no Legal Bishop For otherwise there is no reason imaginable why Horn would not joyn issue with Bonner upon that point non fuit Episcopus tempore oblationis Sacramenti and so come to a trial of it The eighteenth Chapter Refusing the shifts used by Mr. Mason and Doctor Heylin to evade this inference MAster Mason puts this for our Question l. 3. c. 11. n. 6. Quae ratio dilatae Sententiae whereas that is not our question but this Why did not Horn joyn issue c. and to avoid the true one gives other reasons for it but very frivolous ones as will appear by the Answers 1. Reas Bonner's Counsel though they pleaded Horn was no Bishop yet for ought appears by Dyar they gave no reason for it It seems therefore that the Judges allowed them longer time to produce their reasons that so the dignity of the Bishops might shine more clear Ans Doctor Heylin saith Bonners Councel did give their reason p. 2. f. 173. viz. that the Form of Edw. 6. had been repealed by Q. Mary and so remained at Horn 's pretended Consecration But I suppose it a mistake of his for it is not the use in the entring of a Plea to give a reason of it for that is to be shewn and pleaded at the hearing which this cause never came to And therefore that could be no reason of the delay of sentence 2. Reas Other Jurors were to be warned out of Surrey afore sentence could be given Ans It was not time to warn Jurors afore Issue joyned which this never was And when they were to be warn'd it was but out of Southwark which might have been against the next term and so could be no reason why sentence was delayed two years or near upon as it was betwixt this pleading at Serjeants Inne and the Session of 8. Eliz. 3. Reas Whilst the Suit was depending which began 7. Eliz. a Parliament was held 8. Eliz. in which all suits depending for refusal of the Oath of Supremacy were dissolved Ans He is out in his reckoning For Horn thirsting after Bonners ruine who it is thought was the man chiefly aimed at in that Act began the Suit soon after that Act of 5. Eliz. and procured him to be Indicted and Bonner demurr'd to it which as Doctor Heylin saith being put off from Term to Term came at last to be debated among the Judges at Serjeants Inne which was in Michaelmas Term which began in 6. Eliz. betwixt which and the Parliament was two years or near upon So that Act could be no reason why it was delayed all that time after the Judges had made that Rule for the Issue and trial of it Doctor Heylin therefore gives another reason for it and I believe the true one p. 2. f. 173. viz. that it was advised which he must mean by the Judges to Horn for it was not in the power of Bonner being Defendant to refer it that the decision of the point should rather be referred to the following Parliament And of this advice he gives this reason for fear such a weighty matter might miscarry by a contrary Jury Ans But this could be no reason because the Decision of the point in Law upon which rested the whole difficulty and which alone could be referred to the decision of the Parliament viz. whether the Form of Edw. 6. were Legal or whether one Consecrated by that Form were a Bishop
was not to be put to the Jury but to be determined by the Judges and the Jury to try onely the matter of fact whether he were so Consecrated If therefore the Judges had delivered it for Law that Horn if so Consecrated was a Bishop and he could have proved he was so Consecrated as was easie for him to do if the Records be true the Jury must have found him a Bishop or incurred an attaint which there was no reason to fear they would do in such a cause as that where the Queen was Plaintiff a Protestant Bishop and their neighbour and Landlord to most of them being Southwark men the Prosecutour all the Bishops and Clergy in the land made by the new Form extreamly interested in the verdict and onely a Papist generally hated and deprived of all Office and power in the State and then a prisoner the Defendant And that which he addes to colour his reason That there had been some proof made before of the partiallity or insufficiency of a Jury touching grants made by King Edwards Bishops if meant of Juries in Queen Maries time was no reason in Queen Elizabeths and if meant in Her time helps to confirm what I say that afore 8. Eliz. neither Judges nor Juries could finde King Edwards Bishops were legal Bishops The true reason therefore why the Judges advised Horn to refer his Cause to the Parliament can be no other then this as I say that they found an Act of Parliament was necessary to make him a Bishop The nineteenth Chapter Vrging the second inference for the opinion of the Parliament MY second inference is that the Parliament 8. Eliz. were not of opinion that Horn was a legal Bishop For if they had 1. They would not have revived the Act of Edw. 6. for the Form of Ordination for that implied it was not revived afore and if not they could be no legal Bishops 2. They would have made no Law in the Case but left it to a judgement of the Court or onely given a Sentence in it themselves 3. If they would make a Law for it yet 1. They would not have enacted them to be Bishops but onely declared that they were so 2. Nor would they have said as they do Be it declared and enacted that all things heretofore done in or about the Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops be and shall be by Authority of this Parliament at and from every of the several times of doing thereof good and perfect any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary notwithstanding which except meant of the making them so to be by vertue of that Act would be meer non-sense and contradiction but thus All things heretofore done c. were in very deed at and from every of the several times of doing thereof good without authority of this Act and any matter or thing to be objected to the contrary 3. Nor would they have said as they do All that have been Consecrated Archbishops c. since her Majesties Reign be in very deed and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to be and shall be Archbishops and Bishops and rightly Consecrated any Law Canon or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding which except as afore would be another strange medley of non-sense and contradictions which ambiguous language they were driven to out of a desire to use some words for the honour of the Bishops as if Bishops afore and of a necessity to use other for the creating them such then but they would have said in plain and good English which would have put the matter out of question All that have been Consecrated were in very deed at and from every of the several times of their Consecrations Archbishops and Bishops and rightly Consecrated according to Law 4. Nor would they have recited as they do at large the Supream Authority given to the Queen by 1. Eliz. To assign and authorize such persons as she should think meet to exercise under Her all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction and thereupon inferred So that to all that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Statutes and of the Supream and absolute authority of the Queen to make Bishops by Her Commission onely with or without any Legal Form of Consecration or with or without any Bishops for the Consecraters and which she by her said Letters Pattents hath used in and about their Consecration by supplying to them all defects either in the Form they should use or in the faculty state or condition of the Consecraters whether Bishops or not Bishops it is and may be evident that no cause of scruple can or may be objected against their Consecrations for this grounds the Legality both of the Form and of the Consecraters not upon the things in their own nature but upon the authority of the Queens Commission which supplied to them all defects in Law but they would have said plainly and without praying any such aid from the Queens Supremacy They were Consecrated by Legal Bishops and by a Legal Form or the Form of Edw. 6. was a Legal Form or was revived by 1. Eliz. c. seeing that was the onely exception against the Form of their Consecrations 5. Nor least of all after Bonner had put in a plea so insolent and reproachful to the Queen Her Bishops and their whole Clergy and Church and if Horn had been a Bishop had incurr'd a Premunire for refusing the Oath of Supremacy and when the acquittal of him and of all other refractory refusers of the Oath afore the last day of that Session when there was no other exception to the Certificates but this that they that made them were no Bishops and this without and afore any petition exhibited or submission promised on the Delinquents part would in the interpretation of all indifferent men redound notably to the justifying of Bonner's plea and consequently to the infamy of their whole Clergy and Church I say all this considered they would never have made such Proviso's for the indemnity of Bonner and the other Delinquents if they could have found Horn a Legal Bishop The twentieth Chapter Refuting the shifts devised to evade this inference l. 3. c. 11. n. 7. MAster Mason saith This annulling of Horn 's Certificate doth not argue Bonner 's innocence or any Defect in Horn 's being a Bishop but onely the great favour and indulgence of the Parliament For saith he first they cleared our Bishops from the calumny of their adversaries and then graciously pardoned Bonner and his fellows that had so impudently flown upon the Bishops for offering the Oath to them For they hoped it would come to pass that they who out of ignorance or malice had alwayes before that been snarling at their Consecrations would at length be wise Refut 1. They did not first clear their Bishops as is shewed afore 2. Nor did they pardon Bonner and his fellows but annul the process 3. That Act was
post priorom antiquissimus Oratio ad Ordinandos Episcopos Oremus dilectissimi c. ut supra Benedictio Episcoporum Adesto supplicationibus nostris omnipotens Deus quod humilitatis nostrae gerendum est ministerio virtutis tuae impleatur effectu Alia Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis c. Consecratio Deus honorum omnium c. ut supra ...... coelestis unguenti flore sanctifica Hîc mittatur Chrisma super Caput ejus Hoc Domine copiosè c. ut supra Incipit Ordinatio Episcopi MS. Ecclesiae Rotomagensis scriptus circa ann 900. in pro Angliâ Episcopum qui Ordinandus est duo Episcopi per manus de Secretario antequam Evangelium legatur deducant ante Altare eo inibi prosternato ab Archiepiscopo inchoetur Letania quâ finitâ eo erecto ponatur Evangelium super scapulas ejus has dicant Episcopi super eum orationes Oremus dilectissimi c. ut supra Alia Adesto Domine c. ut supra Alia Propitiare Domine c. ut supra Solus vero Archiepiscopus hanc dicat Consecrationem caeteris astantibus duobus Episcopis Evangelium super ipsum qui Ordinandus est tenentibus Deus honorum omnium c. ut supra rore sanctifica Hîc mittatur Chrisma c. Item alia super Episcopum Pater sancte c. ut per te in summum ad quod assumitur Sacerdotium Consecretur c ...... Consecratio manuum Episcopi oleo sancto Chrismate Hîc mittatur Oleum super caput ejus Vngatur Consecretur caput tuum in coelesti benedictione in Ordinem Pontificalem In nomine Patris c. MS. in Monast S. Germani in Suburb Paris scrip ante ann 950. Finita Letaniâ duo Episcopi tenentes librum Evangelii super scapulas Archiepiscopus benedicat eum Adesto Domine c. ut sup Alia Propitiare Domino c. ut sup Consecratio ab Archiepiscopo solo dicenda Deus honorum omnium c. MS. in Bibliotheca Canonic Regular S. Victoris in Suburb Paris circa ann 1100. Duo Episcopi ponant teneant textum Evangelii apertum super caput ejus D. Metropolitanus infundens Benedictionem super eum dicat lentâ voce Oremus dilectissimi c. Sequitur Benedictio Propitiare Domine c. Prefatio Deus honorum omnium c. ut supra Acts of Parliament 25. H. 8.20 IF the person be elected to the office of an Archbishop the King shall by his Letters Patents signifie the said election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops or else to four Bishops to be assigned by the King requiring and commanding him or them to confirm the said election and to invest and Consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected unto and to give and use to him such Pall and all other Benedictions and Ceremonies and things requisite for the same And every person being hereafter elected invested and Consecrated to the dignity or office of any Archbishop or Bishop according to the tenor of this Act shall and may be authorized and installed c. and shall and may do and execute in every thing and things touching the same as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realme without offending the prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customs of this Realm might at any time heretofore do 5. 6. Edw. 6. 1. An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments WHereas there hath béen a godly order set forth by authority of Parliament for Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments c. the King hath by the authority of the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled caused the aforesaid order of Common Service entituled The Book of Common Prayer to be explained and made perfect and by the aforesaid authority hath annexed and joyned it so explained and perfected to this present Statute adding also a form and manner of making and Consecrating of Archbishops Bishops Priests and Deacons to be of like force authority and value as the same like foresaid Book of Common Prayer was before c. If any shall wittingly hear and be present at any other manner or form of Common Prayer of administration of Sacraments of making Ministers in the Churches or of any other Rites contained in the Book annexed to this Act then is mentioned and set forth in the said Book c. 1. Eliz. 2. That there shall be Uniformity of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments WHereas at the death of our late Sovereign Lord King Edw. 6. there remained one uniform order of Common Service and Prayer and of the administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England which was set forth in one Book intituled The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England authorized by Act of Parliament holden in the 5. and 6. years of our said late Sovereigne intituled An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments the which was repealed by Act of Parliament in the first year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the Professors of the truth of Christs Religion Be it therefore enacted c. that the said Estatute of Repeal and every thing therein contained onely concerning the said Book and the Service Administration of the Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies contained or appointed in or by the said Book shall be void and of none effect And that the said Book with the order of Service and of the Administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies with the alterations and additions therein added and appointed by the Estatute shall stand and be in full force c. 8. Eliz. 1. All Acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the Consecrating Investing c. of any Archbishop or Bishop shall be good FOrasmuch as divers questions by overmuch boldness of speech and talk amongst many of the common sort of people hath lately grown upon the making and Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm whether the same were and be duly and orderly done according to the Law or not which is much tending to the slander of all the state of the Clergy being one of the greatest States of this Realm Therefore for the avoiding of such slanderous spéech and to the end that every man that is willing to know the truth may plainly understand that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just matter or cause It is thought convenient hereby partly to touch such authorities as do allow and approve the making and Consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops to be duly and orderly done according to the Lawes of this Realme and thereupon further to provide for the