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
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
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
time till his death and for some years of Edw. 6. For that Queen loved state and solemnity in the Rites of the Church where it justled not with her interest and loathed the slovinly way of Ordaining used by Lutherans and Calvinists until she was overborn in it at the Consecration of Matthew Parker when no Catholick Bishops could be got to Consecrate him and the Protestant would not Consecrate him ritu Romano And one good reason of my confidence is because that Act of 1. Eliz did expresly revive that Act of 25. Hen. 8. 20. which was inconsistent with the reviving of that part of the Act of Edw. 6. which concerned the Book of Ordination that Form authorized by the Act of Hen. 8. being the Roman Form with Pall Unction Benedictions Miter Ring c. and that of Edw. 6. a bald thing without any of that dress Secondly the answers he gives to the Objection are false or frivolous as will appear by the Replies Ans Queen Maries Statute was repealed sufficiently even as to the Book of Ordination as appears by the very words of that Statute which repealed it And that the said Book with the order of Service and administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies shall be in full force and effect any thing in Queen Maries Statute of repeal to the contrary notwithstanding Rep. By these words appears it was not repealed as to the Book of Ordination because the words preceding repealed it expresly as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely and these words revive the Statute of Edw. 6. as to that Book onely Ans That the Book of Ordination was a part of the Book of Common-Prayer and printed in this Book in King Edwards dayes beside the express testimony of the Statute of 8. Eliz. we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops Rep. The Statute of 8. Eliz. testifies no such thing much less expresly And the Canon by him cited is against himself implying it was no part of the Book of Common-Prayer for then it had been vain to say the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops but a distinct Book by it self though bound up in one volume or under one cover with the Book of Common-Prayer and thence called singularly the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops i. e. the Book containing both those Books Ans It is our Form of Prayer upon that occasion as much as our Form of Baptizing or administring the Holy Eucharist or our Form of Confirming Marrying or visiting the Sick Rep. True but not contained in the Book of Common-Prayer but in a distinct Book and therefore not revived with it necessarily or in vertue of that name the Book of Common-Prayer Ans It is also a part of our Form of administration of the Sacraments We deny not Ordination to be a Sacrament Rep. But it is not a Sacrament contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and therefore not revived with that Book Ans No man can deny that it is a part of our Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorized Rep. Any man can and I do deny it to be any Rite or Ceremony pertaining to the Book of Common-Prayer and therefore under that notion it could not be authorized by an Act authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer Ans Lastly Ejus est Legem interpretari cujus est condere Q. Eliz. and her Parliament made the Law and expounded it by the same authority that made it declaring that under the Book of Common-Prayer the Form of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood Rep. He should have quoted the words so declaring and no doubt would have done it had there been any but there are no such Nay divers passages of that Act do rather declare the contrary As 1. When speaking of the Act of 1. Marie they say it repealed the Act of Edw. 6. for allowing the Book of Common-Prayer and other the premises that is the Book of Ordination spoken of before as added by that Act to the Book of Common-Prayer but speaking of the Act of 1. Eliz. they do not say it established the said Book of Common-Prayer and other the premises but onely the said Book of Common-Prayer and of the administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before mentioned that is contained in the said Book of Common-Prayer for no other were before mentioned 2. When for the Book of Common-Prayer the mention the Act of 1. Eliz. that had authorized it and onely confirm that Act The said Act of 1. Eliz. whereby the said Book of Common-Prayer is authorized shall stand and remain good But for the Book of Ordination they mention not the Act of 1. Eliz. but revive the Act of Edw. 6. for it Such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops c. as was authorized by 5. and 6. Edw. 6. shall stand and be in full force which had been vain if it had been revived before by 1. Eliz. as it would have been if it had been a part of the Book of Common-Prayer The sixteenth Chapter Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himself and falsifying the Act of 8. Eliz. DOctor Heylin relating this matter as an Historian first varies from himself and then notoriously falsifies the Act of 8. Eliz. 1. He varies from himself for one while he delivers it as the truth was that the Liturgy was confirmed 1. Eliz. and the Book of Ordination not afore 8. Ecc. Rest in Ep. to Reader Eliz In the first year of Her Reign the Liturgy was confirmed by Parliament In her fifth the Articles of Religion were agreed upon in the Convocation And in the eighth the Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops received as strong a Confirmation as the Laws could give it And for this last we are beholden unto Bonner c. And elsewhere In the six and thirtieth Article is declared that whosoever were Consecrated according to the Rites of the Ordinal of Edw. 6. p. 1. f. 83. should be reputed lawfully Consecrated which Declaration of the Church was afterwards made good by Act of Parliament in the eighth year of that Queen in which the said Ordinal is confirmed and ratified And yet another while he saith Ibid. it was approved of and confirmed as a part of the Liturgy For if so then it was confirmed with the Liturgy 1. Eliz. 2. Then he notoriously falsifies the Act of 8. p. 2. f. 174. Eliz. The business saith he came under consideration in the following Parliament 8. Eliz. where all particulars being fully and considerately discoursed upon it was first declared setting down these that follow as the words of the Act. That their the Parliament 1. Eliz. not restoring of that Book to the former power in terms significant and express was but Casus omissus and secondly that by the Statute of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. it had been
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
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
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
confirm them and the Pope ratified it Now Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were nor they unless they were essentially valid Ergo they supposed them valid Ans Either he argues upon the Institutions of such as had been Ordained by the new Form and were returned to Catholique unity and so had been re-ordained or of such as had not been re-ordained If the former I deny his Consequence for their Institutions might be confirmed without confirming their Ordinations If of the latter I deny his Antecedent for the Parliament proposed not nor did the Cardinal promise to confirm their Institutions there being no Beneficed men then in the land that had been Ordained by the new form but what were re-ordained in Queen Maries time And though it be sufficient for me being the Respondent to say it onely till he prove what he boldly faith that none of those Ordained by King Edwards form were in Queen Maries time compelled to be re-ordained yet for more satisfaction to the Reader I shall give some Reasons of my saying viz. because 1. In the first Parliament of Queen Mary which began on the 5. of Octob. 1553. and ended on the 6. of Decemb. following which was a twelve moneth afore this Act all Consecrations which had been made according to the Ordinal of Edward the sixth were declared saith Doctor Heylin to be null and void Eccles Restaur par 2. fol. 38. And if Consecrations surely much more Ordinations their Form for Ordaining Priests being much more questionable then that for Bishops 2. In the beginning of March following the Bishops procured from the Queen an Injunction to all the Ordinaries in the Realm to execute certain Articles recommended whereof the fifteenth was this Touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders after the new sort and fashion of Orders Mr. Fox Act. and Mon. par 2. fol. 1464. considering they were not Ordained in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which they wanted and then according to his discretion admit them to Minister Upon which Master Fox makes this note In Indice Ministers revolting to Popery must with their new Religion have new Orders And these Articles we may be sure were quickly and strictly put in execution by the Bishops and so Master Fox saith Par. 2. fol. 1289. all such Beneficed men which either were married or would constantly adhere to their profession were removed Hist of Q. Mary and others placed in their rooms and Doctor Goodwin Omnes cujuscunque conditionis Ecclesiastici qui vel uxores repudiare nollent vel Pontificiam doctrinam postea tueri defendere non promitterent sacerdotiis hujusmodi unde ob Pontificiam doctrinam pertinaciter defensam exturbatus quisquam fuisset indiscriminatim universi exacti sunt And Doctor Heylin For want of Canonical Ordination on the one side and under colour of uncanonical marriage on the other we shall finde such a general remove amongst the Bishops and Clergy as is not any where to be parallel'd in so short a time The second Medium The Parliament in that Article propounded to the Cardinal that all Ecclesiastical promotions might be confirmed Now under promotions Ecclesiastical were comprehended holy Orders Ans Under Ecclesiastical promotions were not comprehended holy Orders but onely promotions of like nature as Institutions to Benefices for so runs the Article Institutions to Benefices and other promotions Ecclesiastical that is promotions giving Jurisdiction Office or Dignity in the Church as Deans Prebends Chancellours Archdeacons c. The third Medium The Cardinal promised to receive in their Orders all who had obtained Orders without any other exception or condition but this that they were return'd to Catholique Vnity Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned compelled to be re-ordained This doth clearly destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders Ans This is triumphing afore the victory For first that any of them that were returned to Catholique unity would presume to exercise any function of a Priest or Deacon by vertue of Order received by the new Form is not imaginable considering how all the Catholique Bishops at that time counted those Ordinations null so as there was no need to compel any of them to re-ordination Secondly the Cardinal did not promise to receive in their Orders all who had obtained Orders simpliciter as he alledges it but onely all who had obtained Orders essentially valid for else they were no Orders but Canonically invalid because received from them who had no authority to Ordain but what they pretended from the King as Supream head of the Church of England for so are the Cardinals words Omnes personas quae aliquas impetratioones dispensationes gratias indulta tam Ordines quam Beneficia Ecclesiastica seu alias spirituales materias praetensa authoritate Supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae licet nulliter de facto obtinuerint And that this was his meaning and the utmost of it is manifest from divers other clauses in the Dispensation As 1. That in the preamble he describes the things he was desired and did intend to dispense with to be things done perniciosissimo schismate vigente per authoritatem Parliamenti quae licet ex sacrorum Canonum institutis irrita declarari possent yet he might de Apostolicâ benignitate eorum firmitati providere 2. That for his motive to dispence with those things he names the necessity of it to the publick peace and quiet of the whole Realm Quae si ad alium statum quam in quo nunc sunt revocarentur publica pax quies universi Regni turbaretur maxima confusio oriretur which was true of Ordinations Canonically null because all or well nigh all in the land were so but not of Ordinations made by the new Form for that had been legally established by Parliament and the Parliament took care for no other Institutions of Benefices and other promotions Ecclesiastical and dispensations made according to the Form of the Act of Parliament but in the last year of Edward the sixth in which there had not been many Ordinations and those few as had been Ordained by it and were become Catholiques as the Parliament and Cardinal provided for no other had been afore this re-ordained so as no disturbance of the Realm could be feared from the not confirming those Ordinations 3. That he promised to receive them in their Orders though obtained nulliter de facto which could not be possibly meant of Orders essentially null because he well knew no power upon earth could confirm them but onely of Canonical nullity 4. That he put this condition or qualification upon them as should have benefit by the Dispensation modò ad cor reversae Ecclesiae Catholicae unitati restitutae fuerint which may have place in Ordinations Canonically null but not in
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
so far from shewing the Catholiques their errour touching the nullity of their Bishops as it served rather to confirm them in it 4. I cannot think Master Mason was so simple as either to believe it himself or hope to perswade it to any reasonable man either that the Parliament had any such hope of Bonner and his fellows or if they had that that hope should move them to shew such favour to men that had so impudently flown upon their Bishops onely for offering an Oath to them which the Law authorized them to do or if they did that they would not have intimated that to have been the reason of their favour thereby to prevent the adversaries misconstruction of it nor have limited that favour to such who should at length be wise and not snarl any more at their Consecrations nor have appointed sentence to be first given for their being Bishops and then the Delinquents to have their pardons upon suing out but wholly annul the Indictments and all Certificates of their Bishops Doctor Heylin saith par 2. fol. 174. This favour was indulged to them of the Laiety in hope of gaining them by fair means to a sense of their duty to Bonner and the rest of the Bishops as men that had sufficiently suffered upon that account by the loss of their Bishopricks Refut But 1. no favour could be intended to them of the Laiety because the Act of 5. Eliz. authorized not the tendring of the Oath to any but Ecclesiastical persons 2. The favour was indulged not to deprived Bishops onely but to all Deans Archdeacons Prebends Parsons Vicars c. and to them that had yet perhaps lost nothing as well as to them that had 3. As soon as their Bishops should be Legal that is presently after that Session the penalty of that Law was to be inflicted on all alike as well the deprived Bishops as any other Doctor Bramhal therefore gives a more likely reason of those Proviso's viz. the ambiguity of the Act of 1 Eliz. whether it had revived the Book of Ordination pag. 99. or not Although saith he the Case was so evident and was so judged by the Parliament that the Form of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the Book of Common-Prayer yet in the Indictment against Bonner I commend the discretion of our Judges and much more the moderation of the Parliament Criminal Laws should be written with a beam of the Sun without all ambiguity Refut But neither will this reason hold water For 1. the Case was not evident that the Book of Ordination was revived with the Liturgy as a part of it but rather evident it was not for the reasons given supra 2. The Case was not so judged by the Parliament but rather the contrary as is shewed supra 3. How could the Case be evident and yet Ambiguous as he saith both 4. Had it been meer moderation of the Parliament by reason of the ambiguity of the Law they might and no doubt would have intimated as much and considering the conjuncture of things have found out some other way of shewing that moderation as by pardoning the Delinquents c. then by annulling the Indictment after such a plea entred by Bonner that Horn was no Bishop for this could signifie no less then an acknowledging of the Plea The one and twentieth Chapter Proving the second part of the reasor that it was not revived then THe second part of my reason that the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination was not revived by 8. Eliz. is proved because the Act of Queen Mary for repeal of it was never yet repealed and so being then in force was an obstacle to the Legal reviving of King Edwards Act because two repugnant Laws as those were cannot be both in force and the Act of Q. Eliz. being the latter could not be in force till the other were repealed If it be said Queen Maries Form was repealed virtually and in the intention of the Law-maker by authorizing another 1. This is not sufficient because an Act of Parliament is not legally repealed but by express words 2. Grant it were sufficient yet Queen Maries Form was not repealed so much as virtually because a Law cannot be abrogated but by as great an authority as made it which this was not because Queen Maries Act was made by a full Parliament or by all the three Estates Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons whereas the repeal was but by two thirds of the Parliament or by two Estates onely the Lords Temporal and Commons those that then sate upon the Bishops Bench in the Lords House being no Bishops as is proved supra and all the Catholique Bishops then living which were the rightful Bishops being by unjust force hindered from being present and dissenting to what was done I say by unjust force because neither were they deprived by any judicial sentence whence it was found needful afterward to make their deprivations good by a Law 39. Eliz. 1. nor was that Act of 1. Eliz. which enacted the Oath of Supremacy and involved the refusers of it in a Premunire by vertue whereof they were by force put out of their Bishopricks and kept in prison a Legal Act for reasons given infra If it be said the authority of the two Estates if they were no more was as great formally as of all the three because the Bishops are no essential part of the Parliament 1. This is said gratis for they are and when no violence hath been on foot against them ever have been counted an essential part And this Parliament now in being seems to acknowledge as much when speaking of the Act of the Long Parliament for abolishing the Bishops Jurisdiction 13. Car. 2.2 they say it contained divers alterations prejudicial to the constitution and ancient rights of Parliament and contrary to the Laws of the Land meaning principally the excluding them from their Votes in Parliament and so thereby implying that they were a constitutive part of the Parliament by ancient Right and the Law of the Land 2. Granting as it may be true in case of necessity as now when there are no Bishops in the Land that they were no necessary part absolutely or as to all affairs namely not as to the making of Civil Laws or which should concern the Subjects in common yet certainly in Acts that purely concern Religion and the Clergy in particular it must be said in reason they are an essential part because they alone are to be supposed knowing in Gods Law and they being so considerable a part of the Nation cannot be concluded by the Laws there made unless they have some to represent them and interpose in their behalf which they have none there but the Bishops And so for this reason this act of 8. Eliz. for authorizing the Form of Consecrating Bishops and the first and second Acts of 1. Eliz. for enacting the Oath of Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical making it
treasonable to take Orders from the See of Rome establishing the Form of publick Divine Service and Sacraments c. and all other that have been made since in matters of Religion are no valid Acts in Law because made without consent of the Lords Spiritual the rightful Bishops at that time whilst there were any living being unjustly excluded from the Parliament and none of those that have been made since the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign being Legal Bishops Epilogue ANd now the Reader may judge how little reason Doctor Heylin had to boast as he does of his Church as it was settled by Q Eliz. and to bestow so much pains in writing that Book to describe that settlement And now we may behold saith he the face of the Church of England as it was first settled and established under Q. Eliz. The Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops c. These Bishops nominated and elected according to the Statute of 20. Hen. 8. and Consecrated by the Ordinal confirmed by Parliament 5 and 6. Edw. 6 c. the Doctrine of the Church reduced into its ancient purity according to the Articles agreed upon in Convocation in the Year 1562. and ratified in due form of Law by the Queens authority The Liturgy confirmed in Parliament And a little after By this last Act of 8. Eliz. the Church of England is strongly settled on Her natural Pillars of Doctrine Government and Worship not otherwise to have been shaken but by the blinde zeal of such furious Sampsons as were resolved to pull it on their own heads rather then to suffer it to stand in so much glory Eccl. Restau p. 2. f. 122. and 173. For what was this glorious Church of his but a natural Fabrick rear'd upon as he calls them natural Pillars and the foundations of those Pillars natural foundations the Queen and Parliament and that Parliament without any Bishops or so much as one Clergy-man in it Whence this glorious Church as it hath been once already overturned to the ground and as he acknowledges and complains the very foundations of it digged up by those furious Sampsons so it may be at any time again when a Presbyterian or Fanatick Parliament or Army shall get which God avert the Sword again into their hands FINIS Appendix For the better understanding of the former Discourse I have here set down some Extracts out of the ancient forms of Ordaining Bishops in the Greek and Latine Church and out of the Acts of Parliament quoted in the third Part and the Act of 8. Eliz. at large Forms of the Greek Church UNus ex primis Episcopis S. Clem. Const una cum duobus aliis stans prope Altare reliquis Episcopis Presbyteris tacitè precationem facientibus Diaconis aperta Evangelia super caput ejus qui Ordinatur tenentibus in hunc modum precetur Here Domine Deus omnipotens c. Da huic famulo tuo quem ad Episcopatum elegisti ut pascat sanctum gregem tuum atque ut Pontificatu tibi sanctè fungatur c. Da ei participationem Sancti Spiritûs ut habeat potestatem remittendi peccata secundum mandatum tuum item dandi cleros ut tu jussisti ac solvendi omne vinculum secundum potestatem quam Apostolis dedisti offerendi tibi sacrificium mundum incruentum quod per Christum instituisti c. S. Dionys Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 5. Pontifex qui ad Consecrationem in Pontificem adducitur utroque genu flexo ante Altare supra caput habet Evangelia manumque Pontificis atque hoc modo ab eo Pontifice qui eum Consecrat sanctissimis precationibus Consecratur MS. antitiquus in Bibl. Card. Barberini Aperiens Episcopus Evangelium imponit illud super caput collum ipsius Ordinandi astantibus aliis Episcopis tangentibus ipsum S. Evangelium Archiepiscopus autem imponens illi manum sic precatur Here Domine Deus noster confirma hunc electum ut per manum mei peccatoris assistentium Ministrorum Coepiscoporum Sanctique Spiritûs adventu virtute gratia subeat Evangelicum jugum dignitatem Episcopalem c. Eucholog Constantinopolit Ecclesiae Evangelium accipit Praesul imponit illud super dorsum illius qui Ordinatur omnes Episcopi qui illic sunt imponunt manus super illum ex utroque latere donec omnes preces absolutae fuerint Repetit Praesul Domine Deus elige in Ecclesia tua N. hunc N. Presbyterum in opus magnum Episcopatus Precemur omnes pro eo ut veniat donum tuum Domine eum virtute perficiat consummet in ministerio Episcopali Indue eum Domine virtute ex alto ut liget solvat in coelis in terra creet in virtute doni tui Presbyteros Diaconos c. Forms of the Latine Church Episcopus cum Ordinatur MS. Paris scriptus ante annum 560. duo Episcopi manus eorum super caput ejus ponant teneant Evangeliorum codicem supra cervicem ejus Et unum super eum fundentem benedictionem reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis supra caput ejus teneant Oratio precis de Episcopis Ordinandis Oremus dilectissimi nobis ut his viris ad utilitatem Ecclesiae providendis benignitas omnipotentis Dei gratiae suae tribuat largitatem Per c. Exaudi Domine supplicum preces ut quod nostrum gerendum est ministerium tua potius virtute firmetur Per c. Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris inclinatus super hos famulos tuos cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis benedictionis tuae in eos effunde virtutem Per c. Consecratio Deus honorum omnium c. qui Moysen famulum tuum inter caetera coelestis documenta culturae de habitu quoque indumenti Sacerdotalis instituens electum Aaron mystico amictu vestire inter sacra jussisti ut intelligentiae sensum de exemplis priorum caperet secutura posteritas c. Et id circo famulis tuis quaesumus quos ad Summi Sacerdotii Sacerdotium elegisti hanc quaesumus Domine gratiam largiaris ut quicquid illa velamina in fulgore auri in nitore gemmarum multimodi operis varietate signabant hoc in horum moribus clarescat Comple Domine in Sacerdotibus tuis mysterii tui summam ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica Hoc Domine copiosè in eorum caput influat hoc in oris subjecta decurrat hoc in totius corporis extrema descendat c. Da eis Domine claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaverint super terram sit ligatum in coelis ..... Tribuas eis Domine Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam tuam plebem universam Sis eis authoritas sis eis potestas c. Benedictiones super eos qui sacris Ordinationibus benedicendi sunt Sacramentarium Gelasianum MS.