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
other because they are eternally valid or invalid in all alike as well Hereticks or Schismaticks as Catholicks 5. That he promises to receive them prout multi jam recepti fuerunt meaning those who had sued out their Dispensations as many had But not one can be named who had been Ordained Bishop Priest or Deacon by the new Form and upon his return to Catholique Religion was received in that Order And I am the more confident of it because besides the reasons given supra after this Parliament heretical Bishops Priests and Deacons if they had been Ordained ritu Romano were degraded as such but if by the new Form not but onely in that Order which they had received ritu Romano As namely John Bradford Mr. Fox par 2. fol. 1464. Ordained a Minister by the new Form was not degraded at all but proceeded with as a meer lay-man And Doctor Hooper Id. ib. fol. 1289. made Priest by the Roman Form Bishop by the new was degraded as a Priest onely And by this time I hope the Reader sees how little cause Doctor Bramhal had to vaunt as he did of this Argument as unanswerable And this shall serve for my first Reason The sixth Chapter Vrging the second Reason invalidity of the Minister BUt grant their Form were valid yet they would be no Bishops Ordine for another reason invalidity of the Minister For the essential Minister of this Sacrament the Consecrating of a Bishop is at least according to their own doctrine one Bishop Ordine Now none of them are Bishops Ordine because no Priests as Priest is the proper name of a holy Order betwixt Bishop and Deacon That none can be a Bishop but he that is a Priest is a received axiome amongst all Divines and granted by themselves Mr. Mason Ep. ded ad Episc Paris Cum Episcopus esse nequeat qui non fuerit Presbyter si nos Presbyteros non esse probatum dederit actum erit de Ministerio Anglicano And that their Ministers are no Priests is manifest because this word Priest as it is the name of a holy Order signifies one set apart or impower'd to offer to God the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ This is evident from all the Forms now extant of Ordaining Priests Vid. ap Morin de Ordin sacr par 2. either ancient or modern either of the Greek or Latin Church and from the use of this word in all approved Christian Authours from the Apostles times to this day Now themselves disclaim to Priesthood in this sense and claim to it onely as it signifies in a new sense of their own devising a Minister of the Gospel having power to dispence the Word and Sacraments Sacrificium propriè dictum ad Ministros Evangelicos spectare non agnoscimus (a) Mr. Mason pag. 545. Si Sacerdotis vocabulo nihil aliud significasses quam Ministrum Evangelii cui verbi Sacramentorum commissa est dispensatio nos Sacerdotes esse (b) id l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. profiteremur If they will say as otherwhiles they do and even the same Authour (c) l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. c. 5. n. 11. that the Eucharist is a mystical Sacrifice offered to God in commemoration or representation of Christs death which is as much as we believe of it and that they have power to offer it as such this is manifestly false because in all their essential Form there is not this word Priest nor any word equivalent nor any word signifying or necessarily including power to offer any Sacrifice Nay should we admit this word Priest in their own sense for one set apart to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ in way of Sacrament onely yet they would be no Priests because the words of their Form signifie no such power For these are the words of it Take the Holy Ghost whose sins thou forgivest they are forgiven whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments In which you see is no power given as to this or any other Sacrament but onely to dispense them Now to dispense this Sacrament is not to Consecrate it for it must first be Consecrated afore it can be dispensed and in some cases as if one at point of death should desire his viaticum and no Priest or Deacon could be had to give it him it may be dispensed by a Deacon yea by a Lay-man but cannot be Consecrated but by a Priest and in a Priest the Consecrating it belongs to his power of Order the Dispensing it to power of Jurisdiction onely The seventh Chapter Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answers pag. 226. 1. Ans I Deny that in all Forms of Priestly Ordination the word Priest is set down either expresly or equivalently It is set down expresly in the Eastern Church in the Western not Reply In the Western Church 1. it is set down equivalently For these words at the delivery of the paten with an hoast and of the chalice with wine in it Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. are equivalent to these Take the power of Priesthood or be thou a Priest But 2. it is also set down expresly viz. in the prayer joyned with the Imposition of hands anciently called Benedictio Presbyteri and which alone as I noted afore was the ancient Form for Ordaining a Priest Exaudi nos Domine Deus noster super kos famulos tuos Bene ✚ dictionem Sancti Spiritus gratiae SACERDOTALIS infunde virtutem And in the Prayer anciently called Consecratio Presbyteri which followeth soon after the other Dain hos famulos tuos PRESBYTERII dignitatem c. ut panem vinum in corpus sanguinem filii tui immaculatâ benedictione transforment c. both which Prayers still are used in our Form 2. Ans If the words of our Form be as determinate and express as the example and prescription of Christ it is sufficient The form of Baptism is I BAPTIZE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER c. Not I BAPTIZE THEE TO REGENERATION OR REMISSION OF SINS There are many other kindes of Baptisms or washings besides this Sacramental Baptisme yet this form is as large as the Institution of Christ and these general words are efficacious both to regeneration and remission of sins as well as if they had been expresly mentioned In this form of Baptism there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intention of the Minister So there is likewise in our Form of Ordination Rep. Had Christ instituted those words of their Form Take the Holy Ghost c. for giving the grace of Priestly Order as he did those I Baptize thee c. for giving the grace of regeneration we neither could nor should have excepted against it because then it would have signified it as the Form of Baptism doth regeneration ex instituto Christi But
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
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
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
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