Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	common_a	prayer_n	rite_n	2,290	5	10.0209	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29194	The consecration and succession, of Protestant bishops justified, the Bishop of Duresme vindicated, and that infamous fable of the ordination at the Nagges head clearly confuted by John Bramhall ...	Bramhall, John, 1594-1663.	1658 (1658)	Wing B4216; ESTC R24144	93,004	246

in the Commission or in the Register Regall Commissions are no essentialls of Ordination Notariall Acts are no essentialls of Ordination The misnaming of the Baptise● in a Parish Register doth not make voide the Baptisme When Popes do consecrate themselves as they do sometimes they d● it by the names of Paul or Alexander o● Vrbanus or Innocentius yet these are not the names which were imposed upon them at their Baptismes or at their Confirmations but such names as themselves have been pleased to assume But to come to more serious matter There are two differences betweene these two Commissions The first is an aut minus Or at the least foure of you which clause is prudently inserted into all Commissions where many Commissioners are named least the sicknesse or absence or neglect of any one or more might hinder the worke The question is why they are limited to foure when the Canons of the Catholick Church require but three The answer is obvious because the Statutes of England do require foure in case one of the Consecraters be not an Arch Bishop or deputed by one Three had bene enough to make a valide Ordination yea to make a Canonicall Ordination and the Queene might have dispensed with her owne lawes but she would have the Arch Bishop to be ordeined both according to the canons of the Catholick Church and the known ●awes of England The second difference betweene the two Commissions is this that there is a Supplen●es in the later Commission which is not in the former Supplyng by our Soveraigne authority all defects either in the Execution or in ihe Executers of this Commission or any of them The Court of Rome in such like instruments have ordinarily such dispensative clauses for more abundant caution whether there be need of them or not to relaxe all sentences censures and penalties inflicted either by the law or by the Iudge But still the question is to what end was this clause inserted I answer it is en● enough if it serve as the Court of Rome useth it for a certeine salve to helpe any latent impediment though there be none A superfluous clause doth not vitiate 〈◊〉 writing Some thinke it might have reference to Bishop Coverdales syde woollo● gowne which he used at the Consecratio● toga lanea talari utebatur That was uncanonicall indeed and needed a dispensation fo● him that used it not for him who was consecrated But this was so slender a defe●● and so farre from the heart or essence o● Ordinatiō especially where the three othe● Cōsecraters which is the canonicall number where formally and regularly habite● that it was not worth an intimation und●● the great seale of England This Miles Coverdale had been both validely and legally ordeined Bishop and had as much power to ordeine as the Bishop of Rome himself If he had been Roman Catholick in his ●udgment he had been declared by Cardinall Pole as good a Bishop as either Bon●er or Thirleby or any of the rest Others thinke this clause might have relation to the present condition of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory who were not yet inthroned into their new Bishopricks It might be so but if it was it was a great mistake in the Lawiers who drew up the Commission The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthroned may ordeine as well as a Bishop inthroned The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishoprickes was alwaies admitted and reputed as good in the Catholick Church if the Suffragans had Episcopall Ordination as the Ordination of rhe greatest Bishops in the wolrd But since this clause doth extend ir self both to the Consecration and the Consecraters I am confident that the onely ground of it was that same exception o● rather cavill which Bishop Bonner did afterwards make against the legality of Bishop Hornes Consecration which is all that either Stapleton or any of our Adversaries ha● to pretend against the legality of the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops that they were not ordeined according to the praescript of our very Statutes I have set downe this case formerly in my replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon But to avoide wrangling I will put i● downe in the very wordes of the Statute King Edward the Sixth in his time by authority of Parliament caused the booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England 〈◊〉 be made and set forth not onely for or● uniforme Order of Service Commō Prayer and Administration of Sacrament● to be used whithin this Realme but also did adde and put to the said booke a very godly Order manner and forme ho● Arch-Bishops Bishops Priests Deacons and Ministers should from time to time be consecrated made and ordered within this Realme Afterwards it followeth that in the time of Queene Mary the severall Acts and statutes made in the secōd third fourth fifth and sixth yeares of King Edward for the authorising and allowing of the said booke of Common praier and other the premisses were repealed Lastly the Statute addeth that by an Act made in the first yeare of Queene Elisabeth entituled An act for the uniformity of Common prayer and service in the Church and administration of Sacraments the said booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before mētioned and all things therein conteined is fully stablished and authorised to be used in all places within the Realme This is the very case related by the Parliament Now the exception of Bishop Bonner and Stapleton and the rest was this The booke of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edward the Sixth And that Act was expresly repealed by Queene Mary But the booke of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queene Elisabeth but onely in generall termes under the name and notion of the Booke of Common Praiers and administration of Sacraments and other orders rites and Ceremonies Therefore they who were ordeined according to the said forme of Ordination in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time were not legally ordeined And those Bishops which had bene ordeined according to that forme in King Edwards time though they were legally ordeined then yet they were not legall Bishops now because Quee●● Maries statute was still in force and was not yet repealed Is this all Take courage Reader Here is nothing that toucheth the validity of our Ordination but onely the legality of it which is easily satisfied First I answe● that Queene Maries Statute was repeale● sufficiently even as to rhe booke of Ordination as appeareth by the very word of the Statute which repealed it A● that the said booke with the order of Service 〈◊〉 of the administration of Sacraments rites 〈◊〉 Ceremonies shall be after the feast of St. 〈◊〉 Baptist next in full force and effect any thing 〈◊〉 Queene Maries Statute of repeale

to the contrary in any wise not withstanding That the booke of Ordination was a part of this booke and printed in this booke in King Edwards daies besides the expresse testimony of the Statute in the eighth of Queene Elisabeth we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the booke of Common Praier and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons It is our forme of praier upon that occasion as much as our forme of baptising or administring the holy Eucharist or our forme of confirming or marryng or visiting the sick Secondly it is also a part of our forme of Administration of the Sacraments We denie not Ordination to be a Sacrament though it be not one of those two Sacraments which are generally necessary to salvation Thirdly although it were supposed that Ordination were no Sacrament nor the booke of Ordination a part of the booke of Common praier yet no man can denie that it is a part of our Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorised Lastly Ejus est legem imerpretari cujus est condere They who have legislative power to make a law have legislative power to expound a law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament made the law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament expounded the law by the same authority that made it declaring that under the booke of Common Praier the forme of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood And so ended the grand cavill of Bishop Bonner and Doctor Sapleton and the rest of the illegality of our Ordination shewing nothing but this how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed That the Supplentes or this dispensative clause had Relation to this cavill which as it did breake out afterwards into an open controversy so it was then whispered in corners is very evident by one clause in the Statute that for the avoiding of all questions and ambiguities that might he objected against the lawfull Confirmations investing and Consecrations of any Arch-Bishops Bishops c. the Queene in her Letters Patents had not onely used such words as had bene accustomed to be used by King Henry and King Edward but also diverse other generall wordes whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any imperfection or disability that could be objected The end of this clause and that Statute was the same And this was the onely question or ambiguity which was moved Yet although the case was so evident and was so judged by the Parliament that the forme of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the booke of Common praier c yet in the indictment against Bishop Bonner I do commend the discretion of our Iudges and much more the moderation of the Parliament Criminall lawes should be written with a beame of the sun without all ambiguity Lastly before I leave this third consideration I desire the Reader to observe three things with me First that this dispensative neither hath nor can be construed to have any reference to any Consecration that was already past or that was acted by Bishop Scory alone as that silly Consecration at the Nagge 's head is supposed to have been Secondly that this dispensative clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ or any essentiall of Ordination nor to the Canons of the universall Church but onely to the Statutes and Ecclesiasticall lawes of England Si quid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur Thirdly that the Commissioners authorised by these Letters Parēts to cōfirme and consecrate Arch Bishop Parker did make use of this Supplentes or dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a politicall Act as by the words of the Confirmation in the next paragraph shall appeare but not in the Consecration which is a purely spirituall act and belongeth meerely to the Key of Order Fourthly we say that by virtue of these Letters Patents of December the sixth foure of the Commissioners therein named did meete in Bowes Church upon the ninth day of the same moneth and then and there with the advise of the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Lawiers of the Kingdome the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience did solemnely confirme the election This is proved by the Recorde of the Confirmation or definitive sentence it self in these words In Dei nomine Amen Nos Willelmus quondam Bathonienfis VVellensis Episcopus nunc Cicestrensis Electus Iohannes Scory quondam Cicestrensis Episcopus nunc Electus Herefordensis Milo Coverdale quondam Exoniensis Episcopus Iohannes Bedford Episcopus Suffraganeus Mediantibus literis Commissionalibus Illustrissimae Reginae fidei Defensatricis c. Commissionarij cum hac clausula videlicet unae cum Iohanne The●fordensi Suffraganeo Iohanne Bale Ossoriensi Episcopo Et etiam cum hac clausula Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum Nec non hac adjectione Supplentes nihil ominus c. specialiter legitime Deputati c. Idcirco nos Commissionarii Regii antedicti de cum assensic Iurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus praedictam Electionē Suprema Authoritate dictae Dominae nostrae Reginae nobis in hac parte Commissa Confirmamus Supplētes ex Suprema Authoritate Regia ex mero principis motu certa Scientia nobis delegata quicquid in hac electione fuerit defectum Tum in his quae juxta mandatum nobis creditum a nobis factum processum est aut in nobis aut aliquo nostrum conditione Statu facultate ad haec perficienda deest aut deerit Tum etiam eorum quae per statuta hujus Regni Angliae aut per leges Ecelesiasticas in hac parte requisita sunt aut necessaria prout temporis ratio rerum praesentium necessitas id postulant per hanc nostram sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale decretum c. I cite this the more largely that our Adversaries may see what use was made of the dispensation whieh they cavill so much against But in the Consecration which is an act of the Key of order they made no use at all of it This is likewise clearly proved by the Queenes mandate for the restitution of Arch Bishop Parker to his Temporalties wherein there is this clause Cui quidem electioni personae sic Electae Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus favorem ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Archi-Episcopatu recepimus Fifthly we say that eight daies after the Confirmation that is to say the 17. of December Anno 1559 the same Commissioners did proceed to the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in the Archi-Episcopall Chappell at Lambeth according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England with solemne Praiers and Sermon and the holy Eucharist at which