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of Common Prayer and other the premises amongst divers other Acts and Statutes touching the said supream authority were repealed yet nevertheless at the Parliament holden at Westminster in the first year of the Reigne of our Sovereign Lady the Queens Majesty that now is by one other Act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
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
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
Rep. 1. And why then did the Queen in her Letters Pattents not stile them Bishops but onely quondam Bishops of those Sees And why did she not in all that time being above thirteen moneths after her coming to the Crown restore them to those Sees And why did she or how could she they living place others in those Sees without their resignation 2. Grant the deprivation had been unjust yet till it was avoided and they restored by sentence they were no Bishops of those Sees in the eye of the Law 3. Had they been actual Bishops of those Sees yet they would have had no authority to Confirm or Consecrate him for the defects shewed supra 2. Ans Secondly they neither were nor could be deprived of their Episcopal Character and whilst that remained they were in a capacity for performing all Episcopal Offices to which they should be called by their Metropolitane or any higher power directing and commanding in all such matters as concerned the Church Rep. If by higher power c. he mean Ecclesiastical it is true he saith but impertinent because they were not called to Confirm or Consecrate Matthew Parker by any such higher power but onely by the Queen But if he mean that their Episcopal Character rendred them capable to perform all Episcopal Offices to which they should be called by a Lay-Prince onely having no other authority in matters as concern the Church but onely to direct or command Bishops to perform their Offices it is notorious false doctrine 3. Ans As for Suffragans by which title Hodgskins is Commissionated for the Consecration they were no other then the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive times ordained for easing the Diocesan c. Rep. They were in some things more then the Chorepiscopi for they the Chorepiscopi were no Bishops Ordine which these were but in other things they were less for the Chorepiscopi had Jurisdiction Episcopal from some lawful Bishop of the See which these had not but were onely established by an Act of Parliament of Hen. 8. nor had any of the Bishops then in the Realm Episcopal Jurisdiction being manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks and so could not constitute a Suffragan But grant they were no less then the Chorepiscopi he cannot shew that ever any Chorepiscopus was used for the Confirming or Consecrating of a Bishop And this shall serve for the second part of my Conclusion that they are no Bishops Officio or Canonical Bishops The thirteenth Chapter Proving the third part of the Conclusion that they are no legal Bishops and urging the first Reason because the Act of H. 8. for the Roman Form is still in force THough it matter not much to my purpose whether they be Legal Bishops or not Dr. Stapl. Counterbl ag Horne yet because our writers have objected this also against them Is it not notorious that you were not Ordained according to the prescript I will not say of the Church but even of the very Statutes and their late Champions have undertaken to defend it and the discussing of it will give much light into the whole Controversie and more abundantly discover the nullity of their Consecrations this shall be the third part of my Conclusion that they are no legal Bishops My reasons are two The first is because the Act of 25. Hen 8.20 which authorizes the Roman Form for Consecrating Bishops by giving Pall and using Benedictions Vnctions and all other Ceremonies requisite at that time viz. by the Romane Pontifical which was then in use in this Nation being repealed by Q. Mary was revived 1. Eliz. and never since repealed and so is still in force Nor will it serve to say that that Act of Hen. 8. was repealed as to that part of it virtually or interpretatively by the Act of 8. Eliz. which established another Form for in the judgement of Law an Act of Parliament is not repealed but by express words The fourteenth Chapter Vrging the second Reason because the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination being repealed by Queen Mary is not yet revived and proving the first part of the reason that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. THe second reason is because granting that the Act of Hen. 8. was virtually repealed by 8. Elizabethae and that such virtual repeal is sufficient in Law yet the Form of Edw. 6. by which they are Ordained cannot be legal because that part of the Act of Edward 6. which established the Book of Ordination and was repealed by Queen Mary was not revived afore 8. Eliz. nor then neither The first part of this reason that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. is easily proved For whereas that Act of 5. and 6. Edw. 6.1 consisted of two parts one which authorized the Book of Common-Prayer established 2. and 3. Edw 6. as it was then newly explained and perfected another which established the Form of Consecrating Bishops c. and added it to the Book of Common-Prayer this Act as to both these parts was repealed 1. Mar. and this repeal was reversed 1. Eliz. 1. as to that part which concerned the Book of Common-Prayer onely for so runs the Act The said Statute of Repeal and every thing therein contained ONELY concerning the said Book viz. of Common-Prayer authorized by Edw. 6. shall be void and of none effect And afterward 8. Eliz. 1. was revived that other part of it which concerned the Form of Ordination viz. in these words Such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops Bishops c. as was set forth in the time of Edw. 6. and added to the said Book of Common-Prayer and authorized 5. and 6. Edw. 6. shall stand and be in full force and shall from henceforth be used and observed The fifteenth Chapter Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer pag. 95. FIrst he sets down our Objection wrong The Book of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edw. 6. and that Act was expresly repealed by Queen Mary but the Book of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queen Eliz. but onely in general terms under the name and notion of the Book of Common-Prayer For this is not our objection but this it was not restored at all but rather formally excluded by 1. Eliz. For that Act of Edw. 6. consisting of nothing else but the authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer and establishing and adding to it the Book of Ordination and the Act of Queen Mary having repealed that whole Act that Act of 1. Eliz. reversing that repeal as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely did plainly and directly exclude the repealing of it as to the Book of Ordination there being nothing else to be excluded by that onely but that Book And I am confident it was the full intent of the Queen and Parliament at that time to retain still as the Order of Bishops so the Catholique Form of Consecrating them authorized by Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8. 20. after his revolt from Rome and used all his
time till his death and for some years of Edw. 6. For that Queen loved state and solemnity in the Rites of the Church where it justled not with her interest and loathed the slovinly way of Ordaining used by Lutherans and Calvinists until she was overborn in it at the Consecration of Matthew Parker when no Catholick Bishops could be got to Consecrate him and the Protestant would not Consecrate him ritu Romano And one good reason of my confidence is because that Act of 1. Eliz did expresly revive that Act of 25. Hen. 8. 20. which was inconsistent with the reviving of that part of the Act of Edw. 6. which concerned the Book of Ordination that Form authorized by the Act of Hen. 8. being the Roman Form with Pall Unction Benedictions Miter Ring c. and that of Edw. 6. a bald thing without any of that dress Secondly the answers he gives to the Objection are false or frivolous as will appear by the Replies Ans Queen Maries Statute was repealed sufficiently even as to the Book of Ordination as appears by the very words of that Statute which repealed it And that the said Book with the order of Service and administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies shall be in full force and effect any thing in Queen Maries Statute of repeal to the contrary notwithstanding Rep. By these words appears it was not repealed as to the Book of Ordination because the words preceding repealed it expresly as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely and these words revive the Statute of Edw. 6. as to that Book onely Ans That the Book of Ordination was a part of the Book of Common-Prayer and printed in this Book in King Edwards dayes beside the express testimony of the Statute of 8. Eliz. we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops Rep. The Statute of 8. Eliz. testifies no such thing much less expresly And the Canon by him cited is against himself implying it was no part of the Book of Common-Prayer for then it had been vain to say the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops but a distinct Book by it self though bound up in one volume or under one cover with the Book of Common-Prayer and thence called singularly the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops i. e. the Book containing both those Books Ans It is our Form of Prayer upon that occasion as much as our Form of Baptizing or administring the Holy Eucharist or our Form of Confirming Marrying or visiting the Sick Rep. True but not contained in the Book of Common-Prayer but in a distinct Book and therefore not revived with it necessarily or in vertue of that name the Book of Common-Prayer Ans It is also a part of our Form of administration of the Sacraments We deny not Ordination to be a Sacrament Rep. But it is not a Sacrament contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and therefore not revived with that Book Ans No man can deny that it is a part of our Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorized Rep. Any man can and I do deny it to be any Rite or Ceremony pertaining to the Book of Common-Prayer and therefore under that notion it could not be authorized by an Act authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer Ans Lastly Ejus est Legem interpretari cujus est condere Q. Eliz. and her Parliament made the Law and expounded it by the same authority that made it declaring that under the Book of Common-Prayer the Form of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood Rep. He should have quoted the words so declaring and no doubt would have done it had there been any but there are no such Nay divers passages of that Act do rather declare the contrary As 1. When speaking of the Act of 1. Marie they say it repealed the Act of Edw. 6. for allowing the Book of Common-Prayer and other the premises that is the Book of Ordination spoken of before as added by that Act to the Book of Common-Prayer but speaking of the Act of 1. Eliz. they do not say it established the said Book of Common-Prayer and other the premises but onely the said Book of Common-Prayer and of the administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before mentioned that is contained in the said Book of Common-Prayer for no other were before mentioned 2. When for the Book of Common-Prayer the mention the Act of 1. Eliz. that had authorized it and onely confirm that Act The said Act of 1. Eliz. whereby the said Book of Common-Prayer is authorized shall stand and remain good But for the Book of Ordination they mention not the Act of 1. Eliz. but revive the Act of Edw. 6. for it Such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops c. as was authorized by 5. and 6. Edw. 6. shall stand and be in full force which had been vain if it had been revived before by 1. Eliz. as it would have been if it had been a part of the Book of Common-Prayer The sixteenth Chapter Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himself and falsifying the Act of 8. Eliz. DOctor Heylin relating this matter as an Historian first varies from himself and then notoriously falsifies the Act of 8. Eliz. 1. He varies from himself for one while he delivers it as the truth was that the Liturgy was confirmed 1. Eliz. and the Book of Ordination not afore 8. Ecc. Rest in Ep. to Reader Eliz In the first year of Her Reign the Liturgy was confirmed by Parliament In her fifth the Articles of Religion were agreed upon in the Convocation And in the eighth the Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops received as strong a Confirmation as the Laws could give it And for this last we are beholden unto Bonner c. And elsewhere In the six and thirtieth Article is declared that whosoever were Consecrated according to the Rites of the Ordinal of Edw. 6. p. 1. f. 83. should be reputed lawfully Consecrated which Declaration of the Church was afterwards made good by Act of Parliament in the eighth year of that Queen in which the said Ordinal is confirmed and ratified And yet another while he saith Ibid. it was approved of and confirmed as a part of the Liturgy For if so then it was confirmed with the Liturgy 1. Eliz. 2. Then he notoriously falsifies the Act of 8. p. 2. f. 174. Eliz. The business saith he came under consideration in the following Parliament 8. Eliz. where all particulars being fully and considerately discoursed upon it was first declared setting down these that follow as the words of the Act. That their the Parliament 1. Eliz. not restoring of that Book to the former power in terms significant and express was but Casus omissus and secondly that by the Statute of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. it had been