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 [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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.

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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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, [Page 9] 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.

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 [Page 10] the Holy Ghost: which is a false supposi­tion. For he ordained them not Bishops, by these or any other Sacramental words: nay, 'tis most probable he made not one of them a Bishop, but Saint Pe­ter, and him he made by those words [Pasce oves meas.]

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, [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] pronounce the words of Ordination, viz. [Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris, Ʋno 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 [Ʋn­gatur & 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.

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 confirm them, and the Pope ratifi­ed it. Now Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were, nor they, unless they were essentially valid.’ Ergo they supposed them valid.

Ans. Either he argues upon the Insti­tutions of such as had been Ordained by the new Form, and were returned to Ca­tholique unity, and so had been re-or­dained; or of such as had not been re-ordained. If the former, I deny, his [Page 14] Consequence; for their Institutions might be confirmed, without confirm­ing their Ordinations. If of the latter, I deny his Antecedent; for the Parlia­ment proposed not, nor did the Cardi­nal promise to confirm their Instituti­ons; there being no Beneficed men then in the land, that had been Ordained by the new form, but what were re-ordained in Queen Maries time. And though it be sufficient for me, being the Respondent, to say it onely, till he prove what he boldly faith, that none of those Ordained by King Edwards form, were in Queen Maries time compelled to be re-ordained: yet for more satisfaction to the Reader, I shall give some Reasons of my saying, viz. because

1. In the first Parliament of Queen Mary, (which began on the 5. of Octob. 1553. and ended on the 6. of Decemb. following, which was a twelve moneth afore this Act) all Consecrations which had been made according to the Ordinal of Edward the sixth were declared (saith Doctor Heylin) to be null and void. Eccles. Restaur. par. 2. fol. 38. And if Consecrations, surely much more, Or­dinations; their Form for Ordaining Priests, being much more question­able [Page 15] then that for Bishops.

2. In the beginning of March fol­lowing, the Bishops procured from the Queen an Injunction to all the Ordina­ries in the Realm, to execute certain Ar­ticles recommended, whereof the fif­teenth was this [Touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders af­ter the new sort and fashion of Orders, Mr. Fox, Act. and Mon. par. 2. fol. 1464. con­sidering they were not Ordained in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men, may supply that thing which they wanted, and then according to his discre­tion, admit them to Minister.] Upon which Master Fox makes this note,In Indice. [Mi­nisters revolting to Popery, must with their new Religion have new Orders.] And these Articles we may be sure were quickly and strictly put in execution by the Bishops; and so Master Fox saith,Par. 2. fol. 1289. [all such Beneficed men, which either were married, or would constantly adhere to their profession, were removed, Hist. of Q. Mary. and others placed in their rooms:] and Doctor Goodwin, [Omnes cujuscunque conditionis Ecclesia­stici, qui vel uxores repudiare nollent, vel Pontificiam doctrinam postea tueri & de­fendere non promitterent, sacerdotiis hujus­modi [Page 16] unde ob. Pontificiam doctrinam perti­naciter defensam exturbatus quisquam fu­isset, indiscriminatim universi exacti sunt.] And Doctor Heylin, [For want of Canonical Ordination on the one side, and under colour of uncanonical marriage on the other, we shall finde such a general remove amongst the Bishops and Clergy, as is not any where to be parallel'd in so short a time.]

The second Medium. The Parliament, in that Article, propounded to the Cardi­nal, that all Ecclesiastical promotions might be confirmed. Now under promo­tions Ecclesiastical, were comprehended holy Orders.

Ans. Under Ecclesiastical promotions, were not comprehended holy Orders, but onely promotions of like nature as Institutions to Benefices; for so runs the Article [Institutions to Benefices, and other promotions Ecclesiastical:] that is, promotions giving Jurisdiction, Office, or Dignity in the Church, as Deans, Pre­bends, Chancellours, Archdeacons, &c.

The third Medium. The Cardinal pro­mised to receive in their Orders all who had obtained Orders; without any other ex­ception or condition but this, that they were [Page 17] return'd to Catholique Ʋnity. Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned, compelled to be re-ordained. This doth clearly destroy all the pretensi­ons of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders.

Ans. This is triumphing afore the vi­ctory. For first, that any of them that were returned to Catholique unity, would presume to exercise any function of a Priest or Deacon, by vertue of Or­der received by the new Form, is not imaginable, considering how all the Catholique Bishops at that time counted those Ordinations null; so as there was no need to compel any of them to re-ordination. Secondly, the Cardinal did not promise to receive in their Or­ders, all who had obtained Orders (simpli­citer, as he alledges it.) but onely all who had obtained Orders, essentially valid (for else they were no Orders,) but Ca­nonically invalid, because received from them who had no authority to Ordain, but what they pretended from the King as Supream head of the Church of Eng­land: for so are the Cardinals words, [Omnes personas, quae aliquas impetratio­ones, dispensationes; gratias & indulta, [Page 18] tam Ordines, quam Beneficia Ecclesia­stica, seu alias spirituales materias, prae­tensa authoritate Supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae, licet nulliter, & de facto, ob­tinuerint.] And that this was his mean­ing, and the utmost of it, is manifest from divers other clauses in the Dispen­sation. As

1. That in the preamble, he describes the things, he was desired, and did intend to dispense with, to be things done, per­niciosissimo schismate vigente, per autho­ritatem Parliamenti; & quae licet ex sa­crorum Canonum institutis irrita declara­ri possent; yet he might de Apostolicâ be­nignitate, eorum firmitati providere.

2. That for his motive to dispence with those things, he names the necessity of it to the publick peace and quiet of the whole Realm, [Quae si ad alium sta­tum quam in quo nunc sunt revocarentur, publica pax & quies universi Regni tur­baretur, & maxima confusio oriretur.] which was true of Ordinations Canoni­cally null, because all, or well nigh all in the land were so; but not of Ordinati­ons made by the new Form, for that had been legally established by Parlia­ment (and the Parliament took care for [Page 19] no other; Institutions of Benefices, and other promotions Ecclesiastical, and dispen­sations, made according to the Form of the Act of Parliament,) but in the last year of Edward the sixth, in which there had not been many Ordinations; and those few as had been Ordained by it, and were become Catholiques (as the Parliament and Cardinal provided for no other,) had been, afore this, re-ordained; so as no disturbance of the Realm could be feared from the not confirming those Ordinations.

3. That he promised to receive them in their Orders, though obtained, nulli­ter, & de facto: which could not be pos­sibly meant of Orders essentially null, be­cause he well knew no power upon earth could confirm them; but onely of Ca­nonical nullity.

4. That he put this condition or qua­lification upon them as should have be­nefit by the Dispensation, [modò ad cor reversae, Ecclesiae Catholicae unitati resti­tutae fuerint:] which may have place in Ordinations Canonically null, but not in other, because they are eternally valid or invalid in all alike, as well Hereticks or Schismaticks, as Catholicks.

[Page 20]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.

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 [Page 22] 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. Mr. Mason. pag. 545. Si Sacerdo­tis vocabulo nihil aliud significasses quam Ministrum Evangelii cui verbi & Sacra­mentorum commissa est dispensatio, nos Sa­cerdotes esse id. l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. profiteremur.]

If they will say (as otherwhiles they do, and even the same Authour)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, [Page 23] 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.

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 [Page 25] [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 [Page 26] thee, &c.] for giving the grace of rege­neration, we neither could nor should have excepted against it; because then it would have signified it, as the Form of Baptism doth regeneration, ex instituto Christi. But till they can shew their form so Instituted, which they can never do, the case is nothing like; and so this is no answer.

3. Ans. In our Form, Priestly power is sufficiently expressed. First, RE­CEIVE THE HOLY GHOST, that is, the grace of the Holy Ghost, to exercise and discharge the Office of Priest­hood, to which thou hast been now presented and accepted, &c.

Rep. Had all these been the words of their Form, we should never have que­stioned the validity of it. But none of them belongs to it but those first, Re­ceive the Holy Ghost: the rest are but his Gloss; which I doubt not but the Or­dainer meant; but the intention of the Minister, is not sufficient to give this grace, without words signifying it; which these do not.

Ans. Secondly, in these words [WHOSE SINS THOƲ RE­MITTEST, &c.] that is, not onely [Page 27] 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 THOƲ 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 [Page 28] 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 THOƲ A FAITHFƲL 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 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 [Page 31] 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,) [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] Nice, [ [...],Mos anti­quus obti­tineat, in Egypto, Lybia, & Pentapo­li, ut E­piscopus Alexan­drinus ho­rum omni­um habeat potesta­tem, &c. Ʋniver­sim 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; Can. 35. and since that, hath been confirmed, by the great Council of Chalcedon,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 [Page 34] 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.

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, [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 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 [Page 39] 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 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.

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, [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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.

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.’

[Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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.)

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, Ʋn­ctions, and all other Ceremonies requi­site [Page 50] 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 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 [Page 51] 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. [Page 52] 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.]

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, [Page 53] 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; [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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. [Page 58] 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.

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 [Page 59] 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 added to [Page 60] the Book of Common-Prayer, and ad­ministration of the Sacraments, as a member of it, or at least an appendant to it; and therefore by 1. Eliz. was restored again together with the said Book of Common-Prayer, intentional­ly at the least, if not in terminis. But being the words in the said Statute were not clear enough to remove all doubts, they did therefore revive it now, and did accordingly enact, &c.]’ when there is not any one of these sen­tences in the Act, I do not say in words, but not so much as in sense; nay, when the Act supposed the contrary, as is shown supra.

THis that I have urged, (that that part of the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination, was not revi­ved afore 8. Eliz. and consequently they no legal Bishops, afore that Act) is so true, as that it was the opinion of [Page 61] even the Protestant Judges at that time, and of the Parliament that made that Act; as may be manifestly inferred from the proceedings of the Judges and Par­liament in the Case of Bonner and Horn; which was this.

By the first Session of that Parlia­ment, 5. Eliz. 1. power was given to any Bishop in the Realm, to tender the Oath of Supremacy, (enacted 1. Eliz.) to any Ecclesiastical person within his Diocess, and the refuser was to incur a Premunire. Mr. Horn (the new Bishop of Winchester,) tenders (by vertue of this Statute,) the Oath unto Doctor Bonner (Bishop of London, but deprived by Q. Eliz. and then a Prisoner in the Mar­shalsea, which was within the Diocess of Winchester.) Bonner refuses to take it. Horn certifies his refusal, into the Kings Bench, whereupon Bonner was indicted upon the Statute. He prayes judgement,Dyar. fol. 234. whether he might not give in evidence upon this Issue, Quod ipse non est inde cul­pabilis, eo quod dictus Episcopus de Win­chester non fuit Episcopus tempore oblatio­nis Sacramenti. And it was resolved by all the Judges at Serjeants Inne, that if the verity and matter be so indeed, he [Page 62] should well be received to give in evidence upon this Issue, and the Jury should try it. After which we hear no more of the In­dictment. And at the next Session of that Parliament (which was 8. Eliz) was revived the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination, and enacted, That all that have been, or shall be made, Or­dered, or Consecrated Archbishops, Bi­shops, &c. after that Form of Edw. 6. be in very deed, and by authority hereof, declared, and enacted to be, and shall be Archbishops, Bishops, &c. and rightly made, Ordered, and Consecrated, any Sta­tute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding. But with this Proviso, that no person shall be impeached by occasion or mean of any Certificate, by any Archbishop, or Bishop, heretofore made, or before the last day of this Session, to be made, by vertue of any Act made in the first Session of this Parliament, touch­ing the refusal of the Oath, enacted 1. Eliz. And that all tenders of the said Oath, and all refusals of it so tendered, or before the last day of this Session, to be ten­dered, by any Archbishop, or Bishop, shall be void.

Now from this Story, I make two [Page 63] inferences to my purpose.

The first, that in the opinion of the Judges at that time, the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination, was not revived by 1. Eliz. and so Horn was no Legal Bishop. For otherwise, there is no reason imaginable, why Horn would not joyn issue with Bonner upon that point, non fuit Episcopus tempore oblatio­nis Sacramenti; and so come to a trial of it.

MAster Mason puts this for our Question,l. 3. c. 11. n. 6. Quae ratio dilatae Sen­tentiae? (whereas that, is not our question, but this, Why did not Horn joyn issue? &c.) and, to avoid the true one, gives other reasons for it; but very frivolous ones, as will appear by the Answers.

1. Reas. ‘Bonner's Counsel, though they pleaded Horn was no Bishop; yet (for ought appears by Dyar) they gave no reason for it. It seems there­fore [Page 64] that the Judges allowed them longer time, to produce their reasons, that so the dignity of the Bishops might shine more clear.’

Ans. Doctor Heylin saith, Bonners Councel did give their reason,p. 2. f. 173. viz. that the Form of Edw. 6. had been repealed by Q. Mary, and so remained at Horn's pretended Consecration. But I suppose it a mistake of his, for it is not the use, in the entring of a Plea, to give a reason of it, for that is to be shewn and plea­ded at the hearing; which this cause ne­ver came to. And therefore that could be no reason of the delay of sentence.

2. Reas. ‘Other Jurors were to be warned out of Surrey, afore sentence could be given.’

Ans. It was not time to warn Jurors, afore Issue joyned, which this never was. And when they were to be warn'd, it was but out of Southwark; which might have been against the next term: and so could be no reason, why sentence was delayed, two years, or near upon, as it was betwixt this pleading at Serjeants Inne, and the Session of 8. Eliz.

3. Reas. ‘Whilst the Suit was de­pending, which began 7. Eliz. a [Page 65] Parliament was held, 8. Eliz. in which all suits depending for refusal of the Oath of Supremacy, were dissol­ved.’

Ans. He is out in his reckoning. For Horn (thirsting after Bonners ruine, who it is thought was the man chiefly aimed at in that Act) began the Suit soon after that Act of 5. Eliz. and procured him to be Indicted, and Bonner demurr'd to it; which (as Do­ctor Heylin saith) being put off from Term to Term, came at last to be debated among the Judges at Serjeants Inne; which was in Michaelmas Term, which began in 6. Eliz.: betwixt which and the Parliament, was two years or near upon. So that Act could be no reason why it was delayed all that time, after the Judges had made that Rule for the Issue and trial of it.

Doctor Heylin therefore gives another reason for it, and I believe the true one,p. 2. f. 173. viz. that it was advised (which he must mean,) by the Judges, to Horn, for it was not in the power of Bonner, being De­fendant, to refer it,) that the decision of the point should rather be referred to the following Parliament. And of this advice, he gives this reason, for fear such a weigh­ty [Page 66] matter might miscarry by a contrary Jury.

Ans. But this could be no reason: because the Decision of the point in Law, upon which rested the whole dif­ficulty, and which alone could be refer­red to the decision of the Parliament, (viz. whether the Form of Edw. 6. were Legal; or, whether one Consecrated by that Form, were a Bishop,) 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 [Page 67] 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.

MY second inference is, that the Parliament 8. Eliz. were not of opinion that Horn was a legal Bishop. For if they had:

[Page 68]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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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.

l. 3. c. 11. n. 7.MAster Mason, saith, This annulling of Horn's Certificate, doth not argue Bonner's innocence, or any Defect in Horn's being a Bishop, but onely the great favour and indulgence of the Parlia­ment. For (saith he) first they cleared our Bishops from the calumny of their adversa­ries, and then graciously pardoned Bonner and his fellows, that had so impudently flown upon the Bishops, for offering the Oath to them. For they hoped it would come to pass, that they who out of ignorance, or malice, had alwayes before that been snar­ling at their Consecrations, would at length be wise.

Refut. 1. They did not first clear their Bishops (as is shewed afore.) 2. Nor did they pardon Bonner and his fellows, but annul the process. 3. That Act was so far from shewing the Catholiques their errour touching the nullity of their Bi­shops, as it served rather to confirm them in it. 4. I cannot think Master [Page 73] Mason was so simple, as either to be­lieve it himself, or hope to perswade it to any reasonable man, either that the Parliament had any such hope of Bonner and his fellows, or if they had, that that hope should move them to shew such favour to men that had so impudent­ly flown upon their Bishops, onely for of­fering an Oath to them, which the Law authorized them to do: or if they did, that they would not have intimated that to have been the reason of their favour, (thereby to prevent the adversaries mis­construction of it,) nor have limited that favour to such who should at length be wise, and not snarl any more at their Consecrations; nor have appointed sen­tence to be first given for their being Bi­shops, and then the Delinquents to have their pardons upon suing out, but whol­ly annul the Indictments, and all Certi­ficates of their Bishops.

Doctor Heylin, saith,par. 2. fol. 174. This favour was indulged, to them of the Laiety, in hope of gaining them by fair means, to a sense of their duty; to Bonner, and the rest of the Bishops, as men that had sufficiently suf­fered upon that account, by the loss of their Bishopricks.

[Page 74] Refut. But 1. no favour could be in­tended to them of the Laiety, because the Act (of 5. Eliz.) authorized not the tendring of the Oath to any but Ecclesiastical persons.

2. The favour was indulged, not to deprived Bishops onely, but to all Deans, Archdeacons, Prebends, Parsons, Vicars, &c. and to them that had yet perhaps lost nothing, as well as to them that had.

3. As soon as their Bishops should be Legal (that is, presently after that Ses­sion,) the penalty of that Law was to be inflicted on all alike, as well the deprived Bishops, as any other.

Doctor Bramhal therefore gives a more likely reason of those Proviso's, viz. the ambiguity of the Act of 1: Eliz. whether it had revived the Book of Ordination,pag. 99. or not. [Although (saith he) the Case was so evident, and was so judged by the Parliament, that the Form of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the Book of Com­mon-Prayer: yet in the Indictment against Bonner, I commend the discre­tion of our Judges, and much more the moderation of the Parliament. Cri­minal Laws should be written with a beam [Page 75] of the Sun, without all ambiguity.]

Refut. But neither will this reason hold water. For 1. the Case was not evident, that the Book of Ordination was revived with the Liturgy as a part of it, but rather evident it was not (for the reasons given supra.] 2. The Case was not so judged by the Parliament, but rather the contrary (as is shewed supra.) 3. How could the Case be evident, and yet Ambiguous? (as he saith both.) 4. Had it been meer moderation of the Parlia­ment, by reason of the ambiguity of the Law; they might, and no doubt would have intimated as much and (considering the conjuncture of things) have found out some other way of shewing that mo­deration (as by pardoning the Delin­quents, &c.) then by annulling the In­dictment, after such a plea entred by Bonner, that Horn was no Bishop: for this could signifie no less then an acknow­ledging of the Plea.

THe second part of my reason, that the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination was not revived by 8. Eliz. is proved: because the Act of Queen Mary for repeal of it, was never yet re­pealed: and so being then in force, was an obstacle to the Legal reviving of King Edwards Act: because two repugnant Laws, (as those were) cannot be both in force: and the Act of Q. Eliz. be­ing the latter, could not be in force, till the other were repealed.

If it be said, Queen Maries Form was repealed virtually, and in the intention of the Law-maker, by authorizing an­other. 1. This is not sufficient, because an Act of Parliament is not legally re­pealed but by express words. 2. Grant it were sufficient: yet Queen Maries Form was not repealed, so much as vir­tually; because a Law cannot be abro­gated, but by as great an authority as made it; which this was not: because Queen Maries Act was made by a full [Page 77] Parliament, or by all the three Estates, (Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and Com­mons,) whereas the repeal was but by two thirds of the Parliament, or by two Estates onely, (the Lords Temporal and Commons;) those that then sate upon the Bishops Bench in the Lords House, being no Bishops (as is proved supra,) and all the Catholique Bishops then li­ving, (which were the rightful Bishops) being, by unjust force, hindered from be­ing present, and dissenting to what was done. I say, by unjust force: because neither were they deprived by any judi­cial sentence, (whence it was found need­ful afterward to make their deprivations good, by a Law, 39. Eliz. 1.) nor was that Act of 1. Eliz. which enacted the Oath of Supremacy, and involved the refusers of it in a Premunire, by vertue whereof they were by force put out of their Bishopricks, and kept in prison, a Legal Act, for reasons given infra.

If it be said, the authority of the two Estates (if they were no more) was as great formally, as of all the three; be­cause the Bishops are no essential part of the Parliament. 1. This is said gratis, for they are, and (when no violence [Page 78] hath been on foot against them) ever have been counted, an essential part. And this Parliament now in being, seems to acknowledge as much, when speaking of the Act of the Long Parliament for abolishing the Bishops Jurisdiction,13. Car. 2.2. they say, it contained divers alterations preju­dicial to the constitution, and ancient rights of Parliament, and contrary to the Laws of the Land: meaning principally the excluding them from their Votes in Parliament; and so thereby implying, that they were a constitutive part of the Parliament, by ancient Right, and the Law of the Land. 2. Granting (as it may be true, in case of necessity, as now, when there are no Bishops in the Land) that they were no necessary part absolute­ly or as to all affairs, namely, not as to the making of Civil Laws, or which should concern the Subjects in common: yet certainly in Acts that purely con­cern Religion, and the Clergy in parti­cular, it must be said in reason, they are an essential part: because they alone are to be supposed knowing in Gods Law; and they being so considerable a part of the Nation, cannot be conclu­ded by the Laws there made, unless they [Page 79] have some to represent them, and inter­pose in their behalf; which they have none there but the Bishops. And so for this reason, this act of 8. Eliz. for au­thorizing the Form of Consecrating Bi­shops, and the first and second Acts of 1. Eliz. for enacting the Oath of Su­premacy in causes Ecclesiastical, making it treasonable to take Orders from the See of Rome, establishing the Form of publick Divine Service and Sacraments, &c. and all other that have been made since, in matters of Religion, are no valid Acts in Law; because made with­out consent of the Lords Spiritual; the rightful Bishops at that time, (whilst there were any living) being unjustly ex­cluded from the Parliament; and none of those that have been made since the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign, being Legal Bishops.