seu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout jam multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in domino dispensabimus And we vvill graciously receive or interteine by our selves or by others deputed by us to that purpose as many have already been received in their Orders and in their Benifices all Ecclesiasticall PersoÌ„s as well Secularas Regular of whatsoever Orders vvhich have obteined any suites dispensations grants graces and indulgences as vvell in their Ecclesiasticall Orders as Benefices and other spirituall matters by the pretended authority of the Supremacy of the Church of England though ineffectually and onely de facto so they be penitent and be returned to the unity of the Church And vve vvill in due season dispense vvith them in the Lord for these things Here we see evidently that upon the request of the Loâ—ds Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the representative body of the Church and Kingdome of England by the intercession of the King and Queene the Popes Legate did receive all persons which had been Ordeined or Beneficed either in the time of King Henry or King Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices which they were actually possessed of at the time of the making of this dispensation or Confirmation without any exception or Condition but onely this that they were returned to the unity of the Catholick Church Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned either deprived of their Benefices or compelled to be reordeined From whence I argue thus Either King Henry the eighths Bishops and Priests and likewise the Bishops and Priests Ordeined in King Edward the sixths time had all the Essentialls of Episcopall and Priestly Ordination which were required by the institution of Christ and then they ought not to be reordeined Then in the judgement of these Fathers themselves it is grievous sacrilege to reordeine them Or they wanted some essentiall of their respective Ordinations which was required by the institution of Christ and then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirme their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church But the Legate did Dispense with them to hold their Orders and exercise their severall functions in the Church and the Pope did confirme that dispensation This doth clearely destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders It may perhaps be objected that the dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawfull to receive them in the present it was as unlawfull to receive theÌ„ in the future All that was done after was to take a particular absolution or confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the Principall Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops Not the Bishop of Landaff as Sanders witnesseth Yet he injoied his Bishoprick So did all the rest if the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not materiall at all whether they were confirmed by a generall or by a speciall dispensation so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can denie Secondly it may be objected that it is said in the Dispensation licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint Although they had obteined their Benefices and Promotions ineffectually and onely in fact without right which doth intimate that their Orders were voide and null before they had obteined this dispensation I answer that he stiled them voide and null not absolutely but respectively quoad exercitium because by the Roman law they might not be lawfully exercised without a Dispensation but not quoad Characterem as to the Character If they had wanted any thing necessary to the imprinting of the Character or any thing essentiall by the institution of Christ the Popes Dispensation and Confirmation had been but like a seale put to a blanke piece of paper And so the Cardinalls dispensation in generall and particularly for Benefices and Ecclesiasticall Promotions Dispensations and Graces given by such Order as the lawes of the Realme allowed and prescribed in King Henries time and King Edwards time was then and there ratified by act of Parliament Lastly that this Dispensation was afterwards confirmed by the Pope I prove by the confession of Sanders himself though a malicious enemy He that is Cardinall Pole in a publick Instrument set forth in the name and by the authority of the Pope Confirmed all Bishop which had bene made in the former Schisme so they were Catholick in their judgment of Religion and the six new Bishopricks which King Henry had erected in the time of the Schisme And this writing being affixed to the Statute was published with the rest of the Decrees of that Parliament and their minds were pacified All which things were established and confirmed afterwards by the Letters of Pope Paul the fourth We have seene that there were a competent number of Protestant Bishops beyond ' Exception to make a Consecration And so the necessity which is their onely Basis or Foundation of the Nagge 's head Consecration being quite taken away this prodigious fable having nothing els to support the incredibilities and inconsistencies of it doth melt away of it self like winter ice The fifth reason is drawen from that well known principle in Rethorick Cui bono or what advantage could such a consecration as the Nagge 's head Consecration is pretended to have been bring to the Consecraters or the persons consecrated God and Nature never made any thing in vaine The haire of the head the nailes upon the fingers ends do serve both for ornament and muniment The leafes defend the blossomes the blossomes produce the fruite which is Natures end In sensitives the Spider doth not weave her webbes nor the silly Bee make her celles in vaine But especially intellectuall creatures have alwaies some end of their Actions Now consider what good such a mock ConsecratioÌ„ could doe the persons so consecrated Could it helpe them to the possession of their Bishopricks by the law of England Nothing lesse There is such a concatenation of our English Customes and Recordes that the counterfeiting of of any one can do no good except they could counterfeite them all which is impossible When any Bishops See becommeth voide there issueth a Writ out of the Exchequer to seise the Temporalties into the Kings hand as being the ancient and well knowne Patron of the English Church leaving the Spiritualties to the Arch Bishop or to the Deane and Chapiter according to the custome of the place Next the King granteth his Conge d'Eslire or his License to chuse a Bishop to the Deane and Chapiter upon the receite of this License the Deane and Chapiter within a certein number of daies chuse a Bishop
a Discrimination betweene our â—â—â—shops and their Bishops as to the poiâ—â— of Ordination but the Marian Bishoâ— themselves who made a mutuall coâ—â—pact one and all that none of them shoulâ— impose hands upon any new electâ— Bishops thinking vainely there could other Consecraters have bene found out and that by this meanes they should both preserve their Bishopricks and bring the Queene to their bent but they found them selves miserably deceived Many Bishops who had bene chased out of their Bishopricks in Queene Maries daies did now returne from exile and supplie the place of Consecraters Then conjurationis eos penituit The Bishops repented of their Conspiracy Multi ad judices recurrunt c. many of them ran to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the oath of Supremacy Thus writeth Acworth an Author of good account in those daies If this foolish conspiracy had not bene we had had no Difference about our Consecrations To the second part of this objection that the forme of Ordeining used in King Edwards daies was declared invalide in Queene Maries Daies I answer First that we have no reason to regarde the Iudgment of their Iudges in Queene Maries Dayes more then they regard the judgment of our Iudges in Queene Elisabeths daies They who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make no scruple to take away their holy Orders Secondly I answer that which the Fatherâ— call a sentence was no sentence The word is Dicitur it is said or it is reported not decretum est it is decreed Neither were Queene Maries lawes proper rules nor Queene Maryes Iudges at common law the proper Iudges of the validity of an Episcopal consecration or what are the essentialls of ordination according to the institution of Christ. They have neither rules noâ— grounds for this in the common law Thirdly I answer that the question iâ— Queene Maries daies was not about the validity or invalidity of our Orders buâ— about the legality or illegality of them not whether they were conformable to the institution of Christ but whether they were conformable to the Lawes oâ— England The Lawes of England can neither make a valide ordination to be invalide nor an invalide ordination to be valide because they can not change the institutioâ— of Christ. In summe King Edwards Bishopâ— were both validely ordeined according to the institution of Christ and legally ordeined according to the lawes of EnglaÌ„d 〈◊〉 Queene Mary changed the Law that the forme of ordeining which had beeÌ„ allowed in King Edwards daies should not be allowed in her daies Notwithstanding Queene Maries law they continued still true Bishops by the institution of Christ But they were not for that time legall Bishops in the eie of the Law of England which is the Iudges rule But when Queene Elisabeth restored King Edwards law then they were not onely true valide Bishops but legall Bishops againe That corollary which the fathers adde in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by the Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not consecrated or Bishops that is in â—he eie of the English law at that time signiâ—ieth nothing at all Leases concerne the beâ—efice of a Bishop not the Office of a Bishop A Bishop who is legally ordeined though â—e be invalidely ordeined may make a lease â—hich is good in law And a Bishop â—hich is validely ordeined if he be illeâ—ally ordeined may make a lease which is â—oide in law Concerning Bishop Bonners Conscience â—hat he lost his Bishoprick for his conâ—ience and therefore it is not probaâ—â—e that he would make himself guilty of so much sacrilege as to declare King Edwards forme of ordination to be invalide for the profit of new Leases it belongeth not to me to judge of other mens Consciences But for Bishop Bonners Conscience I referre him to the Testimony of one of his Freinds Nicolas Sanders who speaking of Bishop Gardiner Bishop Bonner Bishop Tunstall and the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester concludeth with these words Tâ—â—mide ergo restiterunt pueri Regis primaâ—â— spirituali imo simpliciter subscripseruâ— in omnes caeteras innovationes quae neâ— videbantur ipsis continere apertam haerâ—â—sim ne Episcopatus honores perderent â— vel ulâ—ro vel comra conscientiam coaâ— consenserunt Therefore they resisted the spâ—â—rituall primacy of the King being but a boy fairly yea they subscribed to it simply and they consented to all the rest of the innovations whicâ— did not seeme to them to conteine manifest heresy either of their owne accord or compelled agaiâ— Conscience least they should lose their Bishopricks and honours We see they had no greaâ— reason to bragge of Bishop Bonners Conscience who sometimes had bene a greaâ— favorite of Cranmer and Crumwell He gâ—â— his Bishoprick by opposing the Pope aâ—â— lost his Bishoprick by opposing his Prince But if reordination be such a sacrilege many Romanists are guilty of grosse sacrilege who reordeine those Proselites whom they seduce from us with the same essentialls matter and forme imposition of hands and these words Receive the holy Ghost wherewith they had been formerly ordeined by us Lastly I answer and this answer alone is sufficient to determine this controversy that King Edwards forme of ordination was judged valide in Queene Maries daies by all Catholicks and particularly by Cardinall Pole then Apostolicall Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the fourth and by all the clergy and Parliament of England The case was this In the Act for repealing all statutes made against the see of Rome in the first and second yeares of Philip and Mary the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Parliament assembled representing the whole body of the Realme of England presented their common request to the King and Queene that they would be a meanes to the Legate to obteine some settlements by authority of the Popes Holiness for peace sake in some Articles where of this is one That institutioÌ„s of Benefices and other Promotions Ecclesiasticall and Dispensations made according to the forme of the Act of Parliament might be confirmed Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were confirmed For the greatest part of the English Clergy had received both their benefices and their holy orders after the casting out of the Popes usurped authority out of England And both benefices and holy orders are comprehended under the name of Ecclesiasticall Promotions This will appeare much more clearely by the very words of the Cardinalls Dispensation Ac omnes ecclesiasticas seculares seu quorumvis ordinum regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta tam ordines quam beneficia Ecclesiastica seu alias spirituales materias pretensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint ad cor reversae Ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus beneficiis per nosipsos
in the Commission or in the Register Regall Commissions are no essentialls of Ordination Notariall Acts are no essentialls of Ordination The misnaming of the Baptiseâ— in a Parish Register doth not make voide the Baptisme When Popes do consecrate themselves as they do sometimes they dâ— it by the names of Paul or Alexander oâ— Vrbanus or Innocentius yet these are not the names which were imposed upon them at their Baptismes or at their Confirmations but such names as themselves have been pleased to assume But to come to more serious matter There are two differences betweene these two Commissions The first is an aut minus Or at the least foure of you which clause is prudently inserted into all Commissions where many Commissioners are named least the sicknesse or absence or neglect of any one or more might hinder the worke The question is why they are limited to foure when the Canons of the Catholick Church require but three The answer is obvious because the Statutes of England do require foure in case one of the Consecraters be not an Arch Bishop or deputed by one Three had bene enough to make a valide Ordination yea to make a Canonicall Ordination and the Queene might have dispensed with her owne lawes but she would have the Arch Bishop to be ordeined both according to the canons of the Catholick Church and the known â—awes of England The second difference betweene the two Commissions is this that there is a Supplenâ—es in the later Commission which is not in the former Supplyng by our Soveraigne authority all defects either in the Execution or in ihe Executers of this Commission or any of them The Court of Rome in such like instruments have ordinarily such dispensative clauses for more abundant caution whether there be need of them or not to relaxe all sentences censures and penalties inflicted either by the law or by the Iudge But still the question is to what end was this clause inserted I answer it is enâ— enough if it serve as the Court of Rome useth it for a certeine salve to helpe any latent impediment though there be none A superfluous clause doth not vitiate 〈◊〉 writing Some thinke it might have reference to Bishop Coverdales syde woolloâ— gowne which he used at the Consecratioâ— toga lanea talari utebatur That was uncanonicall indeed and needed a dispensation foâ— him that used it not for him who was consecrated But this was so slender a defeâ—â— and so farre from the heart or essence oâ— OrdinatioÌ„ especially where the three otheâ— CoÌ„secraters which is the canonicall number where formally and regularly habiteâ— that it was not worth an intimation undâ—â— the great seale of England This Miles Coverdale had been both validely and legally ordeined Bishop and had as much power to ordeine as the Bishop of Rome himself If he had been Roman Catholick in his â—udgment he had been declared by Cardinall Pole as good a Bishop as either Bonâ—er or Thirleby or any of the rest Others thinke this clause might have relation to the present condition of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory who were not yet inthroned into their new Bishopricks It might be so but if it was it was a great mistake in the Lawiers who drew up the Commission The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthroned may ordeine as well as a Bishop inthroned The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishoprickes was alwaies admitted and reputed as good in the Catholick Church if the Suffragans had Episcopall Ordination as the Ordination of rhe greatest Bishops in the wolrd But since this clause doth extend ir self both to the Consecration and the Consecraters I am confident that the onely ground of it was that same exception oâ— rather cavill which Bishop Bonner did afterwards make against the legality of Bishop Hornes Consecration which is all that either Stapleton or any of our Adversaries haâ— to pretend against the legality of the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops that they were not ordeined according to the praescript of our very Statutes I have set downe this case formerly in my replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon But to avoide wrangling I will put iâ— downe in the very wordes of the Statute King Edward the Sixth in his time by authority of Parliament caused the booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England 〈◊〉 be made and set forth not onely for orâ— uniforme Order of Service CommoÌ„ Prayer and Administration of Sacramentâ— to be used whithin this Realme but also did adde and put to the said booke a very godly Order manner and forme hoâ— Arch-Bishops Bishops Priests Deacons and Ministers should from time to time be consecrated made and ordered within this Realme Afterwards it followeth that in the time of Queene Mary the severall Acts and statutes made in the secoÌ„d third fourth fifth and sixth yeares of King Edward for the authorising and allowing of the said booke of Common praier and other the premisses were repealed Lastly the Statute addeth that by an Act made in the first yeare of Queene Elisabeth entituled An act for the uniformity of Common prayer and service in the Church and administration of Sacraments the said booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before meÌ„tioned and all things therein conteined is fully stablished and authorised to be used in all places within the Realme This is the very case related by the Parliament Now the exception of Bishop Bonner and Stapleton and the rest was this The booke of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edward the Sixth And that Act was expresly repealed by Queene Mary But the booke of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queene Elisabeth but onely in generall termes under the name and notion of the Booke of Common Praiers and administration of Sacraments and other orders rites and Ceremonies Therefore they who were ordeined according to the said forme of Ordination in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time were not legally ordeined And those Bishops which had bene ordeined according to that forme in King Edwards time though they were legally ordeined then yet they were not legall Bishops now because Queeâ—â— Maries statute was still in force and was not yet repealed Is this all Take courage Reader Here is nothing that toucheth the validity of our Ordination but onely the legality of it which is easily satisfied First I answeâ— that Queene Maries Statute was repealeâ— sufficiently even as to rhe booke of Ordination as appeareth by the very word of the Statute which repealed it Aâ— that the said booke with the order of Service 〈◊〉 of the administration of Sacraments rites 〈◊〉 Ceremonies shall be after the feast of St. 〈◊〉 Baptist next in full force and effect any thing 〈◊〉 Queene Maries Statute of repeale
to the contrary in any wise not withstanding That the booke of Ordination was a part of this booke and printed in this booke in King Edwards daies besides the expresse testimony of the Statute in the eighth of Queene Elisabeth we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the booke of Common Praier and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons It is our forme of praier upon that occasion as much as our forme of baptising or administring the holy Eucharist or our forme of confirming or marryng or visiting the sick Secondly it is also a part of our forme of Administration of the Sacraments We denie not Ordination to be a Sacrament though it be not one of those two Sacraments which are generally necessary to salvation Thirdly although it were supposed that Ordination were no Sacrament nor the booke of Ordination a part of the booke of Common praier yet no man can denie that it is a part of our Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorised Lastly Ejus est legem imerpretari cujus est condere They who have legislative power to make a law have legislative power to expound a law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament made the law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament expounded the law by the same authority that made it declaring that under the booke of Common Praier the forme of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood And so ended the grand cavill of Bishop Bonner and Doctor Sapleton and the rest of the illegality of our Ordination shewing nothing but this how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed That the Supplentes or this dispensative clause had Relation to this cavill which as it did breake out afterwards into an open controversy so it was then whispered in corners is very evident by one clause in the Statute that for the avoiding of all questions and ambiguities that might he objected against the lawfull Confirmations investing and Consecrations of any Arch-Bishops Bishops c. the Queene in her Letters Patents had not onely used such words as had bene accustomed to be used by King Henry and King Edward but also diverse other generall wordes whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any imperfection or disability that could be objected The end of this clause and that Statute was the same And this was the onely question or ambiguity which was moved Yet although the case was so evident and was so judged by the Parliament that the forme of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the booke of Common praier c yet in the indictment against Bishop Bonner I do commend the discretion of our Iudges and much more the moderation of the Parliament Criminall lawes should be written with a beame of the sun without all ambiguity Lastly before I leave this third consideration I desire the Reader to observe three things with me First that this dispensative neither hath nor can be construed to have any reference to any Consecration that was already past or that was acted by Bishop Scory alone as that silly Consecration at the Nagge 's head is supposed to have been Secondly that this dispensative clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ or any essentiall of Ordination nor to the Canons of the universall Church but onely to the Statutes and Ecclesiasticall lawes of England Si quid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur Thirdly that the Commissioners authorised by these Letters PareÌ„ts to coÌ„firme and consecrate Arch Bishop Parker did make use of this Supplentes or dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a politicall Act as by the words of the Confirmation in the next paragraph shall appeare but not in the Consecration which is a purely spirituall act and belongeth meerely to the Key of Order Fourthly we say that by virtue of these Letters Patents of December the sixth foure of the Commissioners therein named did meete in Bowes Church upon the ninth day of the same moneth and then and there with the advise of the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Lawiers of the Kingdome the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience did solemnely confirme the election This is proved by the Recorde of the Confirmation or definitive sentence it self in these words In Dei nomine Amen Nos Willelmus quondam Bathonienfis VVellensis Episcopus nunc Cicestrensis Electus Iohannes Scory quondam Cicestrensis Episcopus nunc Electus Herefordensis Milo Coverdale quondam Exoniensis Episcopus Iohannes Bedford Episcopus Suffraganeus Mediantibus literis Commissionalibus Illustrissimae Reginae fidei Defensatricis c. Commissionarij cum hac clausula videlicet unae cum Iohanne Theâ—fordensi Suffraganeo Iohanne Bale Ossoriensi Episcopo Et etiam cum hac clausula Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum Nec non hac adjectione Supplentes nihil ominus c. specialiter legitime Deputati c. Idcirco nos Commissionarii Regii antedicti de cum assensic Iurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus praedictam ElectioneÌ„ Suprema Authoritate dictae Dominae nostrae Reginae nobis in hac parte Commissa Confirmamus SuppleÌ„tes ex Suprema Authoritate Regia ex mero principis motu certa Scientia nobis delegata quicquid in hac electione fuerit defectum Tum in his quae juxta mandatum nobis creditum a nobis factum processum est aut in nobis aut aliquo nostrum conditione Statu facultate ad haec perficienda deest aut deerit Tum etiam eorum quae per statuta hujus Regni Angliae aut per leges Ecelesiasticas in hac parte requisita sunt aut necessaria prout temporis ratio rerum praesentium necessitas id postulant per hanc nostram sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale decretum c. I cite this the more largely that our Adversaries may see what use was made of the dispensation whieh they cavill so much against But in the Consecration which is an act of the Key of order they made no use at all of it This is likewise clearly proved by the Queenes mandate for the restitution of Arch Bishop Parker to his Temporalties wherein there is this clause Cui quidem electioni personae sic Electae Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus favorem ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Archi-Episcopatu recepimus Fifthly we say that eight daies after the Confirmation that is to say the 17. of December Anno 1559 the same Commissioners did proceed to the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in the Archi-Episcopall Chappell at Lambeth according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England with solemne Praiers and Sermon and the holy Eucharist at which
to produce the same Registers when they were so hardly pressed by their Adversaries These are but empty pretenses there was no pressing to produce Registers nor any thing objected that did deserve the production of a Register That which was objected against our Orders in those dayes was about the Form of Ordination published by Edward the sixth and the Legality of our Ordination in the time of Queen Elisabeth the Nagge 's head Consecration was never objected in those dayes Besides Registers are Publick enough themselves and need no production and yet our Registers were produced produced by the Parliament 8 Elisab who cited them as authentick Records produced and published to the world in Print that was another production They adde Or that so many Catholicks should have been so foolish to invent or maintein the Story of the Nagge 's head in such a time when if it had been false they might have been convinced by a thousand Witnesses Feare them not they were wiser then to publish such a notorious Fable in those dayes they might perchance whisper it in Corners among themselves but the boldest of them durst not maintain it or object it in print for feare of shame and disgrace It was folly to give any eare to it but is was knavery to invent it and to doe it after such a bungling manner whosoever was the Inventer was knavery and Folly complicated together If the Fathers write any more upon this subject I desire them to bring us no more hearesay testimonies of their owne party whatsoever esteeme they may have themselves of their judgment and prudence and impartiality It is not the manner of Polemick writers to urge the authority of their owne Doctors to an Adversary or allege the moderne practise of their present Church We have our owne Church and our owne Doctors as well as they If we would pinne our faith to the sleeues of their Writers and submit to their judgments and beleeve all their reportes and let all things be as they would have it we needed not to have any more controversy with them but we might well raise a worse controversy in our selves with our owne consciences CHA. XI Of our formes of Episcopall and priestly ordination of Zuinglianisme of Arch Bishop Lavvd of ceremonies Our assurance of our Orders WE have done with the Nagge 's head for the present That which followeth next doth better become Schollers as having more shew of truth and reality in it They object that in all the Catholick Ritualls not onely of the west but of the East there is not one forme of consecrating Bishops that hath not the word Bishops in it or some other words expressing the particular authority and power of a Bishop distinctly But in our Consecration there is not one word to expresse the difference and power of Episcopacy For these vvordes receive the holy Ghost are indifferent to priesthood and Episcopacy and used in both Ordinations I answer that the forme of Episcopall Ordination used at the same time when hands are imposed is the same both in their forme and ours Receive the holy Ghost And if these words be considered singly in a divided sense from the rest of the Office there is nothing either in our forme or theirs which doth distinctly and reciprocally expresse Episcopall power and Authority But if these words be considered coniointly in a compounded sense there is enough to expresse Episcopall power and authority distinctly and as much in our forme as theirs First two Bishops present the Bishop elect to the Arch-Bishop of the Province with these words most Reverend Father in Christ we present to you this godly and learned man to be Consecrated Bishop There is one expression Then the Arch-Bishop causeth the Kings Letters Patents to be produced and read which require the Arch Bishop to consecrate him a Bishop There is a second expression Thirdly the new Bishop takes his oath of canonicall obedience I A B elected Bishop of the Church and See of C. do professe and promise all reverence and due obedience to the Arch Bishop and Metropoliticall Church of D. and his Successours So God help me c. This is a third Expression Next the Arch Bishop exhorts the whole Assembly to solemne praier for this person thus elected and presented before they admit him to that office that is the Office of a Bishop whereunto they hope he is called by the holy Ghost after the example of Christ before he did chuse his Apostles and the church of Antioch before they laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas This is a fourth expression Then followeth the Litany wherein there is this expresse petition for the person to be ordeined Bishop we beseech thee to give thy blessing and grace to this our brother elected Bishop that he may discharge that office whereunto he is called diligently to the Edification of thy Church To which all the congregation answer Heare us O Lord we beseech thee Here is a fifth expression Then followeth this praier wherewith the Litany is concluded Allmighty God the giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast constituted diverse orders of Ministers in thy Church vouchsafe we beseech the to looke graciously upon this thy servant now called to the Office of a Bishop This is a sixth expression Next the Arch-Bishop telleth him he must examine him before he admit him to that administratiō whereunto he is called and maketh a solemne praier for him that God who hath constituted some Prophets some Apostles c. to the Edification of his Church would grant to this his servant the grace to use the authority committed to him to edification not destruction to distribute food in due season to the family of Christ as becommeth a faithfull and prudent Steward This authority can be no other then Episcopall authority nor this Stewardship any other thing then Episcopacy This is a sevēth expressiō Then followeth imposition of hands by the Arch-Bishop and all the Bishops present with these words Receive the holy Ghost c and lastly the tradition of the Bible into his hands exhorting him to behave himself towards the flock of Christ as a Pastour not devouring but feeding the flock All this implieth Episcopall authority They may except against Christs owne forme of ordeining his Apostles if they will and against the forme used by their owne Church but if they be sufficient formes our forme is sufficient This was the same forme which was used in Edward the sixths time and we have seen how Cardinall Pole and Paul the fourth confirmed all without exception that were ordeined according to this forme so they would reunite themselves to the Roman Catholick Church They bring the very same objection against our Priestly Ordination The forme or words whereby men are made Priests must expresse authority and power to consecrate or make present Christs body and blood whether with or without transubstantiation is not the present controversy with Protestants Thus far we
accorde to the truth of the presence of Christs body and blood So they leave us this latitude for the manner of his presence Abate us Transubstantiation and those things which are consequents of their determination of the manner of presence and we have no difference with them in this particular They who are ordeined Priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ that is to make them present after such manner as they were present ar the first institution whether it be done by enunciation of the words of Christ as it is observed in the westerne Church or by praier as it is practised in the Easterne Church or whether these two be both the same thing in effect that is that the formes of the Sacraments be mysticall praiers and implicite invocations Our Church for more abundant caution useth both formes as well in the Consecration of the Sacrament as in the ordination of Priests In the holy Eucharist our consecration is a repetition of that which was done by Christ and now done by him that consecrateth in the person of Christ otherwise the Priest could not say this is my body And likewise in Episcopall Consecration Homo imponit manus deus largitur gratiam Sacerdos imponit supplicem dexâ—eram Deus benedicit potente dexâ—era Man imposeth hands God conferreth grace The Bishop imposeth his suppliant right hand God blesseth with his Almighty right hand In both consecrations Christ himself is the chiefe consecrater still Then if power of consecratioÌ„ be nothing els but power to do that which Christ did and ordeined to be done our Priests want not power to consecrate They adde in all formes of Ordeining Priests that ever were used in the Easterne or Westerne Church is expresly set downe the word Priest or some other words expressing the proper function and authority of Priesthood c. The Grecians using the word Priest or Bishop in their formes do sufficiently expresse the respective power of every Order But our Reformers did not put into the forme of ordeining Priests any words expressing authority to make Christs body present I answer that if by formes of ordeining Priests they understaÌ„d that essentiall forme of words which is used at the same instant of time whilest hands are imposed I denie that in all formes of Priestly ordination the word Priest is set downe either expresly or aequivalently It is set downe expresly in the Easterne Church it is not set downe expresly in the Westerne Church Both the Easterne and Westerne formes are lawfull but the Westerne commeth nearer to the institution of Christ. But if by formes of Ordeining they understand Ordinalls or Ritualls or the intire forme of ordeining both our Church and their Church have not onely aequivalent expressions of Priestly power but even the expresse word Priest it self which is sufficient both to direct and to expresse the intention of the Consecrater Vnder that name the Arch Deacon preseÌ„teth them Right Reverend Father in Christ I present unto you these persons here present to be admitted to the Order ef Priesthood Vnder that name the Bishop admitteth them well beloved brethren these are they whom we purpose by the grace of God this day to admit cooptare into the holy office of Priesthood Vnder this name the whole assembly praieth for them Almighty God vouchsafe we beseech thee to looke graciously upon these thy servants which this day are called to the office of Priesthood It were to be wished that writers of Controversies would make more use of their owne eyes and trust lesse other mens citations Secondly I answer that it is not necessary that the essentiall formes of Sacraments should be alwaies so very expresse and determinate that the words are not capable of extension to any other matter if they be as determinate and expresse as the example and prescription of Christ it is sufficient The forme of baptisme is I baptise the in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Not I baptise the to Regeneration or for Remission of sins There are many other kinds of baptismes or washings besides this Sacramentall baptisme yet this forme is as large as the institution of Christ. And these generall words are efficacious both to regeneration and remission of sinnes as well as if regeneration and remission of sins had bene expresly mentioned In this forme of baptisme there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intentions of the Minister So there is likewise in our forme of Ordination Thirdly I answer that in our very essentiall forme of Priestly Ordination Priestly power and authority is sufficiently expressed we need not seeke for a needle in a bottle of hay The words of our Ordinall are cleare enough First Receive the Holy Ghost That is the grace of the holy Ghost to exercise and dicharge the Office of Priesthood to which thou hast been now presented to which thou hast been now accepted and for which we have praied to God that in it thou maiest disscharge thy duty faithfully and acceptably Secondly in these words whose sins thou doest remit they are remitted that is not onely by Priestly absolution but by preaching by baptising by administring the holy Eucharist which is a meanes to applie the alsufficient sacrifice of Christ for the remission of Sinnes He who authoriseth a man to accomplish a worke doth authorise him to use all meanes which tend to the accomplishment thereof That which is objected that Laymen have power to remit sinnes by Baptisme but no power to consecrate signifieth nothing as to this point For first their owne Doctors do acknowledge that a Lay man can not baptise solemnely nor in the presence of a Priest or a Deacon nor in their absence except onely in case of necessity Saint Austin gives the reason because no man may invade another mans office Lay men may and are bound to instruct others in case of necessity yet the office of preaching and instructing others is Conferred by Ordination The ordinary office of remitting sinnes both by baptisme and by the holy Eucharist doth belong to Bishops and under theÌ„ to Priests Thirdly this Priestly power to consecrate is conteined in these words Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the word of God and Sacraments And afterwards when the Bishop delivers the holy Bible into the hands of those who are ordeined Priests Have thou authority to preach the word of God and Administer the Sacraments We do not deny but Deacons have been admitted to distribute and Minister the Sacraments by the Command or permission of Priests or as Subservient unto them but there is as much difference between a subservieÌ„t distributioÌ„ of the Sacrament and the Dispensing or Administring of it as there is betweene the Office of a Porter who distributeth the almes at the gate and the Office of the Steward who is the proper dispenser of it Looke to it Gentlemen If your owne Ordination