Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	law_n	parliament_n	repeal_v	2,928	5	12.0628	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88083	Erastus Junior. Or, A fatal blovv to the clergies pretensions to divine right. In a solid demonstration, by principles, forms of ordination, canon-laws, acts and ordinances of Parliament, and other publique acts, instruments, records, and proceedings, owned by themselves, that no bishop, nor minister, (prelatical, or Presbyterian) nor presbytery (classical, or national) hath any right or authority to preach, ... in this nation, from Christ, but onely from the Parliament. In two parts: the one demonstrating it to an episcopal, the other to a Presbyterian minister. By Josiah Web, Gent. a serious detester of the dregs of the Antichristian hierarchy yet remaining among us.	Lewgar, John, 1602-1665.	1660 (1660)	Wing L1831; Thomason E1010_11; ESTC R202720	19,588	24

Erastus Junior OR A FATAL BLOW TO THE CLERGIE'S Pretensions to DIVINE RIGHT In a solid Demonstration By Principles Forms of Ordination canon-Canon-Laws Acts and Ordinances of Parliament and other publique Acts Instruments Records and Proceedings owned by themselves THAT No Bishop nor Minister Prelatical or Presbyterian nor Presbytery Classical or National hath any Right or Authority to Preach and consequently much less to Officiate in the publique Worship minister Sacraments demand Tythes ordain Pastors inflict Censures or exercise any other act of Simple and much less of Governing Jurisdiction in this Nation from Christ but onely from the Parliament In two parts the one demonstrating it to an Episcopal the other to a Presbyterian Minister By Josiah Web Gent. a serious detester of the Dregs of the Antichristian Hierarchy yet remaining among us LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Livewell Chapman at the Signe of the Crown in Popeshead Alley 1660. The Preface THere hath been much debate a long time betwixt the Prelatical and Presbyterian Clergy which of them hath Divine Right or Authority from Christ to preach minister Sacraments ordain Pastors inflict Censures and exercise other Acts of Spiritual Jurisdiction in this Nation whereas the plain truth is neither of them hath any from Christ but onely from the Parliament This truth I shall demonstrate in the ensuing Discourse by their own Principles forms of Ordination Acts or Ordinances of Parliament and other publique Acts Instruments and Records owned by themselves And in regard one of my means of proof is to be from their own Principles I shall alledge divers things as truths which are not so in my opinion but onely in theirs against whom I urge them and therefore also I shall in urging of them use their own terms And because the Demonstration will be more expedite and clear in one of these Acts singly then in so many together and the confuting their Divine Right as to any one of them will in consequence confute it in all the rest because they all hang by one string and Preaching is the first and least act of Jurisdiction and so the proof against that will prove more strongly against all the rest therefore I shall insist onely upon that of preaching and demonstrate that no Minister ordained by Imposition of hands and constituted a Pastor whether it hath been by any of the late Bishops or a Classical Presbytery hath any authority by which I mean power to exercise the Office lawfully so much as to preach by which I mean teaching Gods word by way of Office to any creature in this Nation from Christ that is by any bene placitum or will of his by him revealed or any means or ordinance by him instituted to that end but onely from the Parliament originally under God as author of Nature onely And my end in it is First to unbeguile the common people in their believing their Ministers as men of God and Ministers of Christ and their teaching as Gods word because of their being Ordained by Bishops or a Presbytery and villifying all others not so Ordained by the nick name of Tub-preachers by making it appear that there is not the meanest Teacher in the Land allowed by the State or deputed by a Congregation but is a Teacher sent and a man of God and Minister of Christ as much as the Reverendst Bishop or Minister of them all and his teaching is as truly the word of God as the best of theirs is that is when he holds forth a Text of Scripture or other revealed truth and the the best of theirs is no more or otherwise Secondly to vindicate the Authority of the Parliament in what they have done in abolishing Episcopacy and several branches of it or shall hereafter think fit to do in abolishing the yet remaining branches of it Imposition of hands Tythes Presentations Classes Synods National Ministery Directory c. and impowering every Congregation to depute their own Pastor by making it appear there is no Minister Priest Bishop Classis or Synod in this Land hath or since the Reformation of Religion by Henry the Eighth ever had any authority to Ordain Pastors demand Tythes license Preachers or so much as to preach but what he or they have or had originally under God from the Parliament which therefore by the same Authority whereby it established them may when it pleases dissolve them without any ones just complaint at the Authority And now then to go in hand with what I have undertaken and to proceed against them severally beginning first with the elder of the two the Prelatical Minister or Priest as he loves to be called The first Part. Demonstrating to an Episcopal Priest that he hath no authority to Preach from Christ but onely from the Parliament SIr I shall suppose your Case the best can be supposed of any Prelaticall Minister in England viz. That William Lawd late commonly called Archbishop of Canterbury being a true Bishop Ordine or in power of Episcopal Order and as much as the King and all the Bishops in England could make him lawful Archbishop of Canterbury Ordained you a true Priest and afterward gave you Mission to the Church of N. within his Diocess that is Instituted you Rector or Pastor of it and Licensed you to preach in that Congregation And I say that in this Case you have no authority to preach to that Congregation from Christ but onely from the Parliament And I make it good by this Argument You have no authority from Christ to preach to that Congregation but what you have either by your Ordination or by your Mission But you have no authority to preach to that Congregation by your Ordination and none from him but from the Parliament onely by your Mission Therefore you have none from him but onely from the Parliament The major is supposed in the Case nor is there any other ordinary way imaginable and you pretend not to extraordinary The first part of the minor That you have no authority to preach to that Congregation by your Ordination I prove from the form of your Ordination which was this The Bishop with the other Priests present laying their hands upon you the Bishop said these words to you Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou forgivest they are forgiven whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his holy Sacraments In the Name of the Father c. After which the Bishop delivering the Bible to you said these words Take thou authority to preach the Word and to minister the holy Sacraments in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed So what authority you have by your Ordination must be given you by the one of these words Now First that the former words at the Imposition of hands Receive the holy Ghost c. gave you none is manifest because those words being Sacramental (a) We deny not Ordination to be a Sacrament

the time of Edw. 2. had prohibited it to all Lay persons under excommunication both to them that did it and to the Bishops that accepted it Which their desisting to use it after that time and the Parliaments silence in it who were at that time very active and full of animosity in vindicating the rights of the Crown against the Popes usurpations and incroachments seems to acknowledge that those who had done it before had done it defacto onely and not of right But however it were for that of Investing it is certain all our Histories will not afford one Instance of any King of England who appointed or assigned that is in the sense of the Statute authorized Bishops to Consecrate a Bishop So without all peradventure this priviledge was plainly granted to the Crown by this Statute And it was granted him at first onely in case of the Popes refractoriness but soon after by the Statute aforenamed all recourse to Rome for Confirmation or Consecration of any Bishop was forbidden and the power of authorizing Bishops within the Realm to perform those acts was placed absolutely in the King Whereas in the said act meaning that afore spoken of it is not plainly expressed in what manner Archbishops and Bishops shall be Invested and Consecrated within the Realm be it now therefore enacted by the authority of this Parliament that no person shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome nor shall send nor procure there for any manner of Bulls Palls or other things requisite for an Archbishop Bishop c. And if the person be elected to the office of an Archbishop after such Election certified to the King he shall be reputed Lord Elect to the said Office And the King shall by his Letters Patents signifie the said Election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops or else to four Bishops within this Realm to be assigned by the King requiring or 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 Benedictions and other Ceremonies as formerly were used And every person being hereafter Invested and Consecrated to the Dignity or Office of any Archbishop according to the tenor of this Act shall and may be Inthronized and Installed c. and shall be obeyed c. and shall do and execute in every thing and things touching the same as any Archbishop of this Realm without offending the Prerogative Royal and the Laws and Customs of this Realm might at any time heretofore do Secondly from the Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. made purposely to set forth the Authority next under God by which Mathew Parker and the other first Protestant Bishops in the beginning of the Queens Reign were made and sets it forth by reciting how they were made by authority of the Queen and how she was authorized to that end by the aforesaid Statute of Hen. 8. and by the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. These are the words of it for as much as concerns my purpose Forasmuch as divers questions hath lately grown upon the making and Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm whether the same were 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 speech 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 iust matter or cause It is thought convenient hereby partly to touch such author●ties as do allow and approve the making and Consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops to be duly and orderly done according to the Laws of this Realm First it is very well known to all degrees of this Realm that the late King Hen. 8. was as well by all the Clergy then of this Realm in their severall Convocations as also by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in divers of his Parliaments justly and rightfully recognized and knowledged to have the Supream Power Jurisdiction and Authority over the Ecclesiastical State of the same And that the said King did by Authority of Parliament in the twenty fifth year of his Reign set forth a certain order of the manner and form how Archbishops and Bishops should be made c. And although in the time of the late Queen the said Act was repealed yet nevertheless at the Parliament 1. Eliz. 1. the said Act was revived and by one other Act there made all such Jurisdictions Priviledges c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiasticall State of this Realm is fully and absolutely by the Authority of the same Parliament united and annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm And by the same Statute there is also given to the Queen mark given also to the Queen by that Statute full Power and Authority by Letters Patents to assign and authorize such person or persons as she shall think meet whether Bishops Noblemen Lawyers Merchants or who ever else so they be NATVRAL BORN SVBJECTS for the words of that Statute requires no other Qualification to them but that to exercise under her all manner of Jurisdiction in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual Jurisdiction within this Realm Whereupon that is upon the Authority given to her by this Act the Queen having in her order and disposition all the said Jurisdiction c. that is all that which formerly was in the Pope hath by her Supream Authority caused divers to be duly made and Consecrated Archbishops and Bishops according to such order and form and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecration as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts c. And further for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions might be objected against the lawfull Confirming Investing and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops her Highnesse hath in her Letters Patents used divers speciall words whereby by her Supream Authority she hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any Imperfection or disability c. So that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Statutes and of the Supream and absolute Authority of the Queen granted to her by them and which she by her said Letters Patents hath used in and about the making and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops it is and may be very evident no cause of doubt can or may justly be objected against the said Confirmations and Consecrations c. Loe here declared by the Queen her self by Matthew Parker himself and all the other Bishops then in the Land and by all the Lords Temporall and the Commons in Parliament that Matthew Parker

authority to give you Mission as he was a Bishop Ordine is manifest because the giving Mission is an act of compleat Jurisdiction which he had not as he was a Bishop Ordine no more in Canterbury then he had in Rome or Constantinople or no more then the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople had in Canterbury And the Stile in his Instrument whereby he Instituted and Licensed you William by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury shewes he Instituted and Licensed you not as he was a Bishop Ordine but as Archbishop of Canterbury which he might have been sufficiently to the Instituting and Licensing you in that Church although he had not been so much as a Deacon Ordine The second part of it That he had no authority from Christ but onely from the Parliament as he was Archbishop of Canterbury is thus proved He was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ but onely of the Parliament Therefore he had no authority from Christ but onely from the Parliament as he was Archbishop of Canterbury The Consequence is evident The Antecedent I prove thus Matthew Parker the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ but onely of the Parliament Therefore Will. Lawd was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ but onely of the Parliament The Consequence I suppose will be granted me because Matth. Parker was Confirmed and Consecrated in all the same form and by all the same authority as Will. Lawd was and he being the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury and consequently one and the chief in the Confirming and Consecrating of those by whose Successors William Lawd was Confirmed and Consecrated was the necessary pipe or channel for conveying Divine Authority from Christ to William Lawd and so must have his authority from Christ first afore William Lawd could have any by him The Antecedent which is indeed the onely difficult part of my Argument I prove from the form of creating him Archbishop which was this The See being void by the death of Cardinal Pool the Dean and Chapter petitioned the Queen for her Licence to chuse their Archbishop which she granting sent with it a Letter nominating to them Matthew Parker for the man and him they were bound to chuse under a Premunire The Election being made and certified into the Chancery there issued out a Commission under the great Seal to seven Bishops assigned by the Queen commanding and authorizing them or any four of them to Confirm the election and to Consecrate him This four of them did And his Consecration being certified by them into the Chancery there issued out a Writ to the Dean and Chapter commanding and authorizing them to Install or as they called it to Inthronize him that is to put him into the actual possession of his Office and Dignity After which he enjoyed his Spiritualties that is all Spiritual Jurisdiction pertaining to that See And then issued a Writ out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff to restore to him the Temporalties which at the death of any Bishop were used to be seized into the Prince's hands This was the whole form from first to last of creating him Archbishop which as you see consisted of four parts 1. His Election which presented him to the Queen to be created 2. His Confirmation which created him Archbishop elect Immediately after which by the ancient Canon-Law he should have had all ordinary Jurisdiction to which was not requisite powers of that Order which he wanted if he wanted any for any Lay-man might have been elected to it as Ambrose was to Milan and his Election confirmed pertaining to that See namely to Collate Benefices in his gift to Institute Pastors to License Preachers to visit the Province and Diocess to call and hold Courts and Synods inflict or release Censures appoint Chancellors Vicars Generall Archdeacons c. (a) Extra C. transmissam C. nostri C. inter corpor de Translat But by the later Canons of the Pope in grossing all Authority into his own hands he could not exercise any though Consecrated until he had his Pall from Rome and the Popes Bull for putting him in possession of his Church (b) Extra Injuctae de Elect. inter extra comm C. Nisi C. Quod sicut c And accordingly the Queen by the Law of the Land succeeding to the Pope in all his priviledges and in that among the rest he could not no not after Consecration exercise any Jurisdiction until by her Writ he was put in possession of his Bishoprick 3. His Consecration which gave him the Stile Name and Dignity of Archbishop absolute 4. His Installation which gave him possession of his Spiritualties The first and last of which Acts were performed by the Dean and Chapter the two middle most by the Bishops and the first mover of all was the Queen or her Chancery If I then make it evident that none of these Agents under the Queen acted in it by any Authority from Christ but meerly as the Queens Commissioners and that she had her Authority for Commissionating them not from Christ but from the Parliament I hope you will grant it a Demonstration that he was no Archbishop of Canterbury by Authority from Christ but onely of the Parliament Now all this is easily made evident For as to the Dean and Chapter I am sure you will grant me that they acted not in it by any Authority from Christ for though you hold Bishops to be de Jure Divino you hold not Deans and Chapters to be so too The rest I shall prove in the ensuing five Propositions The First Proposition Those Bishops who Confirmed and Consecrated Matthew Parker could not validly do either by their own Authority as Bishops without a Faculty or Commission from some Superiour in Jurisdiction to the See of Canterbury For First they could not do either validly as they were Bishops Ordine For first I suppose you will grant me that as Bishops Ordine they could not Confirm his Election because that was an act of compleat Jurisdiction and of giving compleat Jurisdiction speaking of that act per se or of its own original nature afore it was invalidated by the Popes Law Nor secondly for the same reason could they Consecrate him validly as Bishops Ordine For the Consecrating of a Bishop consisted of two parts or acts One was the Sacramental part viz. the Imposition of hands by all of them and pronouncing the words of Ordination by one of them in all their names Receive the Holy Ghost and remember to stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of hands c. And of this Act I will make no question but they being as they were true Bishops Ordine might and did as such perform it validly But then this Act did onely Ordain him a Bishop Ordine not Consecrate him Archbishop The other part therefore of the Ceremony which was all the

of the world which you grant the Pope to be of the West Conc. Nic. 1 Can. 6. which you count the proper Rule for judging even against Acts of Parliament in these matters (b) Councils truly General being the supream Tribunals of the Catholique Church do binde particular Churches as well in point of discipline as of faith Bish of Derr schism gard p. 475. English Statutes cannot change the essentials of ordination the validity or invalidity of it depends not upon humane Law but upon the Institution of Christ id 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. Judges at the Common Law have neither grounds nor rules in the Common Law for judging of the validity of an Episcopal Consecration id ib. p. 60. was not to it and partly because none of those who Confirmed or Consecrated him was an actual Bishop it was judged by her Council and by those Lawyers Civil and Canon who were advised with in it needful she should insert into her Patent a clause whereby by her supream royal authority she should enable those Bishops in regard of the present exigencies because neither the Popes consent nor actual Bishops enough to consecrate him could be had to supply to themselves all defects whatsoever in quality faculty or any other things necessary to that performance by the Laws of the Church For so it follows in the Patent Supplentes nihilominus suprema authoritate nostra Regia siquid in vobis aut vestrum aliquo conditione statu aut facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per Leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante That is Supplying nevertheless to your selves by our supream Regal Authority hereby delegated to you to that end if any thing in you or any one of you or in your condition state or faculty to the performing of the Premises is wanting of those things which by the Statutes of this our Realm or by the Ecclesiastical Laws are in this behalf requisite or necessary the condition of the time and necessity of things requiring it So you see how true it was I said they could do neither of those Acts without her Commission when not onely her Commission was judged necessary to give them power to do them but her Dispensation also to make their acts valid non obstante the Laws of the Church The fourth Proposition The Queens Letters Patents was not a meer Mandate commanding them to execute their Office which they might be supposed to have from Christ but a Commission authorizing them to do what they did so as they acted in it not as Bishops or Officers authorized by Christ but meerly as her Commissioners That in that quality onely they Confirmed him themselves expresly acknowledge and declare in the Instrument of his Confirmation as it is to be seen in the Records at Lambeth For thus they say In nomine Domini Amen Nos Wilhelmus Barlow c. Mediantibus Literis Commissionalibus Reginae Commissionarii specialiter legitime deputati c. praedictam electionem Mathei Parker in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae suprema authoritate Regiâ nobis in hac parte Commissa Confirmamus Supplentes ex suprema authoritate Regiâ nobis delegata quicquid in nobis aut alique c ut supra That is In the name of the Lord Amen We William c. By the Queens Commissional Letters specially and lawfully deputed Commissioners c. do by the supreme authority of the Queen to us in this behalf committed Confirm the aforesaid Election of Mat. Parker c. supplying by the supreme authority of the Queen to us delegated if any thing be wanting in us or any of us c. as above And if as her Commissioners they Confirmed as her Commissioners also they Consecrated him For 1. The Patent Commissionates them to both alike and they needed her Commission to both alike Mandantes quatenus eundem Confirmare Consecrare velitis c. Commanding you that you Confirm and Consecrate him So if Mandantes did authorise them to the one it did so to the other also 2. The Patent did in formal words authorise them to dispense with themselves for any defect of Faculty c. for the performing of both those acts alike Supplentes suprema authoritate nostra Regia si quid ad praemissa perficienda deest c. And this Dispensation was necessary to the validity of both those acts alike 3. To signifie they did Consecrate him in vertue of the Queens Commission to them for it when three of them at the performing of that Ceremony presented him to the fourth to be Consecrated whereas afore the Statute of H. 8. the Popes Bull for authorising the Consecrators was used to be read at that time in place thereof was read the Queens Patent to them Proferebatur saith the Act of it upon Parkers Records Regium Mandatum pro ejus Consecratione The Queens Mandate or Commission to them for Consecrating of him was read as the authority for what they did The fifth and last Proposition The Queen had her Authority for Commissionating them from the Parliament This is manifest First from the Statute of 25. H. 8.20 which recites how that by an Act made that Parliament they had enacted That if any person nominated or presented by the King to the See of Rome to be any Archbishop of this Realm should be delayed denied or otherwise disturbed from the same for lack of Palls Bulls or other things to him requisite by the Law of the Land then in force to be obtained of the See of Rome that then he might and should be Consecrated and Invested by any two Bishops in this Realm appointed by the King Where although in the next words according and after like manner as divers Archbishops and Bishops have been heretofore in ancient time by sundry of the Kings Progenitors made Consecrated and Invested within this Realm they were willing to seem as if they did not then first grant that right or priviledge to the Crown but onely restore it yet it is manifest they did then grant it to him For as they named none so nor could they name any one King of England who made a Bishop within this Realm and much less the Primate of England the Archbishop of Canterbury Indeed William the Conquerour Rufus and Hen. 1. and perhaps some of our Kings afore them did without asking the Popes consent Invest Bishops in vacant Sees that is by the delivery of a Ring and Crosiar did put them in possession of their Bishopricks so as to injoy their Temporalties and to be legal Bishops in the Kings Courts But I know no instance of one Archbishop of Canterbury Invested by any one of them without the Popes consent nor did any of them use that practice of Investing Bishops after the Council of Vienna which was in