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