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the answers he gives to the Objection are false or frivolous as will appear by the Replies Ans Queen Maries Statute was repealed sufficiently even as to the Book of Ordination as appears by the very words of that Statute which repealed it And that the said Book with the order of Service and administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies shall be in full force and effect any thing in Queen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 By these words appears it was not repealed as to the Book of Ordination because the words preceding repealed it expresly as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely and these words revive the Statute of Edw. 6.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
Erastus Senior Scholastically Demonstrating this Conclusion that admitting their Lambeth Records for true those called BISHOPS here in England are no Bishops either in Order or Jurisdiction or so much as Legal Wherein is answered to all that hath been said in Vindication of them by Mr. MASON in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Doctor HEYLIN in his Ecclesia Restaurata or Doctor BRAMHALL then called Bishop of DERRY now Primate of ARMAGH in his last Book Intituled The Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified With an Appendix containing Extracts out of ancient Rituals Greek and Latine for the Form of Ordaining Bishops And Copies of the Acts of Parliament quoted in the third Part. Printed in the Year 1662. To the Reader THe intent of this Treatise is onely of my Charity to my Friends and Countreymen of the Protestant Profession to shew them this great Defect in their Church the want of Bishops thereby to invite them into ours which even by the confession of her adversaries wants them not And the intent of this Preface is onely to note to them the greatness of this defect in their Church from the hideous Consequences of it For if theirs be no Bishops either in Order or Jurisdiction as this discourse undertakes to demonstrate this will follow First that theirs being no Bishops Ordine they cannot validly Ordain either Bishop Priest or Deacon and so they have none of these Orders in their Church nor have had since the death of those that were Ordained by our Bishops Secondly that theirs being no Bishops Jurisdictione or Pastors of Cathedral Churches they cannot validly Institute a Pastor to any Parochial Church for none but a Pastor can Institute a Pastor and so they have no Pastors in their Church nor have had since the outing of the Catholique Bishops Parsons and Vicars in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign Thirdly that theirs is no true Church or Member of the Catholique for want of Pastors it being an essential part of the Catholique Church Fourthly that Salvation cannot be had in their Church because no Member of the Catholique out of which no Salvation Fifthly that the beleif they have of the Scriptures Trinity Incarnation Death and Merits of Christ and other Mysteries of Christian Religion is no Divine or Supernatural but Moral or Humane Faith onely which cannot avail to eternal Salvation because they believe them finally or in the last resolution of their Faith into the witness or proponent of Gods Word to them upon the testimony of preachers having no mission from God Sixthly that the hope they have of remission of Sins of obtaining Eternal Beatitude by the merits of Christ and of other Evangelical promises is no Divine but Moral or Natural Hope onely which hath no efficacy to an eternal recompence because it cannot be Diviner then the Faith is upon which it is and must be grounded and theirs is but Humane Faith Seventhly that their Ministers having no power because no Priests to remit Sins every time they receive the Communion since they committed Mortal Sin they eat and drink it unworthily and consequently 1 Cor. 11.29 to their owne Damnation because they presume to eat and drink of that which they believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ Catechism in the Book of Common-Prayer which is verily and truly received of the faithful with a Soul foul and abominable to God with Mortal Sin as it must needs be because since Christ Instituted the Word of Priestly Absolution for the ordinary means of giving that grace viz. when he said to his Apostles S. John 20.22 whose Sins you remit they are remitted no Mortal Sin committed after Baptism can be remitted but by that means at least in voto which cannot be supposed in a wilful Protestant which means theirs being no Priests they cannot have in their Church And for the same reason at their Death they go away with all the Sins upon their Soul that ever they committed Eighthly that their Ministers having no power because no Priests to Consecrate Christs Body and Blood they live and dye without ever once offering to God that Sacrifice which is the principal and most necessary Act of Divine Worship under the New Testament the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in remembrance of his death and without ever once partaking of that Flesh and Blood of his S. John 6.54 of which he said Except ye eat and drink of it ye shall have no life in you Lastly that every time any of their Bishops presume to Ordain Confirm Excommunicate Institute a Parson or Vicar or exercise other Act of the Episcopal Office or any of their Ministers to Preach Baptize Celebrate publick Divine Service Consecrate the Eucharist take Confessions give Absolution or exercise other Act of Priestly Function so often do they commit the hainous Sin of Sacriledge in which the people are involved with them so often as they do communicate with them in or cooperate to those Sacrilegious Presumptions The Contents Chap. 1. PRoving the first part of the Conclusion the Protestant Bishops are no Bishops ORDINE and urging the first Reason the invalidity of the Form whereby they were Ordained page 1 Chap. 2. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer 5 Chap. 3. Answering Doctor Bramhall's Allegations for their Form and in this Chapter his first Allegation from Christs example 9 Chap. 4. Answering his second Argument from the Romane Form 10 Chap. 5. Answering his third Argument from Cardinal Pool's Dispensation 13 Chap. 6. Vrging the second Reason invalidity of the Minister 21 Chap. 7. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answers 24 Chap. 8. 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 30 Chap. 9. Vrging the second reason their having no Jurisdicton but from the King and bringing the first proof of it from their own acts and confessions 34 Chap. 10. Bringing the second Proof from other publick Acts. 38 Chap. 11. Bringing the third Proof from the Consecration of Matthew Parker 39 Chap. 12. Replying to Doctor Heylins Answer 45 Chap. 13. 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 49 Chap. 14. 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. 50 Chap. 15. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer 52 Chap. 16. Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himself and falsifying the Act of 8. Eliz. 58 Chap. 17. Confirming the Argument by the proceedings in Bonners Case and urging the first inference for the opinion of the Judges 60 Chap. 18. Refuting the shifts used by Mr. Mason and Doctor Heylin to evade this inference 63
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
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