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
words with those other being not formal which is impossible betwixt words sacramentall as these are and not sacramentall as all the other are but onely materiall or locall because contained within the same Office their signifying of it can contribute or cooperate nothing to make these signifie it one whit the more then they would do taken singly by themselves And so if these taken singly by themselves do not signifie it as he confesses they do not then taken singly by themselves they give it not because they give no more then they signifie and if taken singly by themselves they give it not then none is given because none of the other can give any To make this more plain Suppose all the other expressions had been as they are and the words of their essential form had been onely these Be thou an Officer in the Church or take authority to some administration or God make thee an honest man or some such like mentioning no power of Order in certain will he say they would be valid to make a Bishop by reason of their conjunction with the other expressions I suppose he will not because these signifie no power given of a Bishop And if those would not no more will these for the same reason If his meaning be that there are other words in the Office which express it as intended desired prayed for or supposed to be given by imposition of hands and those words Receive the Holy Ghost c. this is impertinent because the argument proceeded onely upon the not expressing it as given If his meaning be that though these words do not yet they are joyn'd with other words which express it as given this is false because none of those other expressions by him named do express it as given or intended to be given by any of themselves but onely by the imposition of hands and the words joyn'd with it For in the seventh which immediately precedes Imposition of hands the Archbishop tells the party he must examine him before he admit him to that administration and after that onely prayer is made for grace that he may discharge the Office meaning after it should be committed to him as he ought And in the eighth which immediately follows the words of Ordination he is onely exhorted to behave him self as a good Pastor If his meaning be that these words do in some part express it as given and the other in some other part so as betwixt them they make up an expression of it as given this is also false because these express it not at all and none of the other express it as given So take his answer in what sense you will it is no answer to the Objection The third Chapter Answering Dr. Bramhalls Allegations for their Form and in this Chapter his first Allegation from Christs example TO prop up his Answer which he saw needed it he addes to it three Arguments for the validity of their Form but very weak ones all as will appear by the Answers 1. Arg. You may except against Christs own form of Ordaining his Apostles if you will but if that be a sufficient form ours is Ans This supposes that he ordained them Bishops by these words Receive the Holy Ghost which is a false supposition For he ordained them not Bishops by these or any other Sacramental words nay 't is most probable he made not one of them a Bishop but Saint Peter and him he made by those words Pasce oves meas The fourth Chapter Answering his second Argument from the Romane Forme 2. Arg. THe Form used at the same time when hands are imposed is the same both in our Form and yours Receive the Holy Ghost And so as much in our Form to express Episcopal power as in yours and if yours be valid ours is Ans If by the same time he mean the same time Physical or Physicè loquendo I deny his Consequence therefore as much in our Form as yours because their entire essential Form is used at the same time when hands are imposed which ours is not as we shall see anon If by the same time he mean the same time Moral or Moraliter loquendo that is continued without any moral interruption his Antecedent is a mistake For our Form is not those words alone Accipe Spiritum Sanctum nay perhaps they are no part of our essential Form for the reason given supra Cap. 1. but those that are immediately joyned with them to wit the Prayer Propitiare Domine c anciently called the Benediction Conc. Car. 4. Ordo Roman which hath been our Form ever since Saint Peters time and for the substance of it is the same with that which is used over all the Easterne Churches and which anciently until within these four hundred years our Church used at the same Physical time when hands were imposed onely in latter ages for the greater solemnity of the Ceremony and fuller signification of the grace of this Sacrament the giving of the Holy Ghost she hath interposed those words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum and perhaps by way of Prayer onely and appointed them and them alone to be pronounced at the same time when hands are imposed and to be pronounced by all the Bishops assisting and then one of the Bishops onely as the ancient Law and Custom was to pronounce the words of Ordination viz. Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris Vno super cum fundente Benedictionem Conc. Carth. 4. inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis bene ✚ dictionis tuae in eum infunde virtutem Per c. Anon after which follows the other Prayer anciently called Consecratio Episcopi to wit Deus honorum omnium c. tribuas ei Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam c. and after that the anointing his head with holy Chrisme with these words Vngatur Consecretur Caput tuum Benedictione coelesti in Ordine Pontificali In nomine Patris c. After which he is called Episcopus and Consecratus till then not but Electus or Consecrandus onely So all these pertain to the integrity of our Form and are morally which is sufficient to the unity of a moral compositum as a Sacrament is joyn'd with the Imposition of hands and in these you see is expressed Sacerdotal Episcopal and Pontifical grace or Order And so there is more in our Form to express Episcopal power then in theirs The fifth Chapter Answering his third Argument from Cardinal Pool's Dispensation 3. Arg. KIng Edward the sixth his Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Maries dayes by all the Catholique Bishops in Parliament 1. and 2. Phil. and Mar. 8. by Cardinal Pool then Apostolique Legat in England and by the Pope himself Paul the fourth This he proves by three Mediums The first Medium The Parliament proposed to the Cardinal this Article that all Institutions to Benefices might be confirmed And the Cardinal did
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
Chap. 19. Vrging the second inference for the opinion of the Parliament 67 Chap. 20. Refuting the shifts devised to evade this inference 72 Chap. 21. Proving the second part of the reason that it was not revived then 76 The first Chapter 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 THere is a Bishop Ordine and there is a Bishop Officio Jurisdictione or simpliciter A Bishop Ordine I call him whose Ordination was essentially valid and so imprinted the Episcopall Character As ex gr if one should be Ordained in due matter and form by one or more Bishops having no Jurisdiction or should be Ordained without a Title or should be Consecrated Bishop of some See and afterward resign it or be deprived of it or degraded And Bishops in this sense are necessary to the Ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons and consequently to the interior essentiall form of the Church as it consists in a Hierarchy of Order A Bishop Officio I call him who was validly Confirmed and Consecrated Bishop or Archbishop and Pastour of that See or flock of Clergy and people whereof he is stiled as ex gr Canterbury London c. and continues actuall Bishop of it or of some other And Bishops in this sense are necessary to the Consecrating of Archishops and Bishops of Cathedrall or Metropoliticall Sees and to the Instituting of Pastors to Parochiall Churches and consequently to the exterior essential form of the Church as it consists in a Hierarchy of Jurisdiction The first part then of my Conclusion is that Protestant Bishops are no Bishops Ordine My reasons are two The first is because the Protestant form for Ordaining Bishops is essentially invalid For the essential form of Ordination is some fit words that is words fignifying the Order given Mr. Mason l. 2. c. 16. n. 6. So Protestants themselves Non verba quaelibet huic instituto for making a Priest and there is the same reason of a Bishop inservire poterunt sed quae ad Ordinis conferendi potestatem exprimendam sunt accomodata Dum per Apostolum Tit. 1.5 mandavit Christus ut crearentur Ministri mandavit implicitè ut inter Ordinandum verba adhiberentur idonea id est quae dati tum Ordinis potestatem complecterentur Istiusmodi autem verba quatenus datam potestatem denotant sunt illius ordinis forma essentialis And the reason is evident because Ordination being a Sacrament as Protestants themselves do * Id. l. ◠n. 8. D. Bramb p. 96. and must confess for else it is no argument of the parties having any authority from God more then another hath who is not Ordain'd that is a visible sign of an invisible grace or power given by it there must be some visible sign in it to signifie the power given for it cannot be a sign of what it signifies not and else the same Rite as ordains a man a Deacon would ordain him Priest and Bishop The essential matter then of Episcopal Ordination which is imposition of hands being a dumb sign and common to divers Orders as Bishops Priests Deacons and to divers other graces as Confirming curing the sick c. of necessity there must be some words joyn'd with it as its form to interpret it and determine it to the grace of Episcopal Order which no words can possibly do but such as signifie that Order either in the natural sense of the words as ex gr Be thou a Bishop or I ordain thee a Bishop c. or by the Institution of Christ as these words I baptize thee c. signifie the grace of regeneration because instituted by Christ to that end Now in the Protestant form there is no word signifying Episcopal Order in the natural sense of the words For this is their whole form Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of hands for God hath not given us the Spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness In which is nothing but what may be said to any Priest or Deacon at his Ordaining nay or to any childe at Confirming Nor is there any colour of ground to say that these words signifie it ex instituto Christi being there is no testimony in Scripture of such his institution nor did he ever use these words but once to his Apostles when he gave them power of remitting sins which is a power of Priestly Order onely nor do we finde that any of the Apostles ever used them De ordinat Sacr. par 2. and it appears by all the Rituals now extant set forth by Morinus that no Church Greek or Latine ever used these words for so much as any part of the Ceremony for ordaining a Bishop for 1200. years nor any of the Greek Churches yet to this day nor therefore doth the Roman Church which introduced them within these 400. years use them as essential form as shall be seen more anon The second Chapter Replying to Dr Bramhall's Answer TO the foregoing Objection he makes this Answer Pag. 222 Ans If these words be considered singly in a divided sense from the rest of the Office there is nothing in our form which doth distinctly and reciprocally express Episcopal power But if these words be considered conjoyntly in a compounded sense there is enough to express it distinctly 1. The party is presented to be made a Bishop 2. The Kings Letters Pattents are read requiring them to Consecrate him Bishop 3. He takes his Oath of Canonicall Obedience as Bishop elect 4. The Assembly is exhorted to pray for him before he be admitted to that Office that is of a Bishop 5. In the Letany he is prayed for as Bishop elect that he may have grace to discharge that Office of a Bishop 6. After the Letany he is prayed for as called to the Office of a Bishop 7. The Archbishop tells him he must examine him before he admit him to that administration whereunto he is called and after examination prayes for grace for him to use the authority committed to him as a prudent and faithfull Steward this Authority can be no other then Episcopal Authority nor this Stewardship any other thing then Episcopacy 8. Lastly after imposition of hands with those words Receive the Holy Ghost c. follows the tradition of the Bible into his hands with an exhortation to behave himself toward the flock as a Pastor All which implies Episcopall Authority Repl. This answer is either false or impertinent or a granting of the Argument For if his meaning be that there are no words in their essential form that express it this is a granting of the argument which proceeded onely upon their essential form the other expressions of it in the rest of the office signifying nothing to the purpose because not sacramentall For the conjunction of these
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