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