The first Part. Demonstrating to an Episcopal Priest, that he hath no authority to Preach, from Christ, but onely from the Parliament.

SIr, I shall suppose your Case the best can be supposed of any Prelati­call Minister in England, viz. That William Lawd, late (commonly called) Archbishop of Canterbury, being a true Bishop Ordine, (or in power of Episcopal Order) and as much as the King and all the Bi­shops in England could make him, lawful Archbishop of Canterbury, Ordain­ed you a true Priest, and afterward gave you Mission to the Church of N. within his Diocess, (that is, Instituted you Rector or Pastor of it, and Licensed you to preach in that Congregation.) And I say, that in this Case, you have no authority to preach to that Congregation, from Christ, but onely from the Par­liament. And I make it good by this Argument.

You have no authority from Christ to preach to that Congregation, but what you have, either by your Ordination, or by your Mission.

But you have no authority to preach to that Congregation, by your Or­dination; and none from him, but from the Parliament onely; by your Mission.

Therefore you have none from him, but onely from the Parliament.

The major is supposed in the Case: nor is there any other ordinary way imaginable, and you pretend not to extraordinary.

The first part of the minor [That you have no authority to preach to that Con­gregation, by your Ordination,] I prove from the form of your Ordination, which was this. The Bishop, with the other Priests present, laying their hands upon you, the Bishop said these words to you, [Receive 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 the Name of the Father, &c.] After which the Bishop deliver­ing the Bible to you, said these words [Take thou authority to preach the Word, and to minister the holy Sacraments, in this Congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed] So, what authority you have by your Ordination, must be given you by the one of these words. Now,

First, that the former words at the Imposition of hands [Receive the ho­ly Ghost, &c.] gave you none, is manifest; because those words, being Sacra­mental, (a)We deny not Ordination to be a Sa­crament, though it be not one of those two, which are generally necessary to salvation. Bish. of Derr. [...]. p. 97. (that is, giving a grace (or free gift of the Holy Ghost) from Christ immediately, to preach and mi­nister [Page 6] Sacraments;) what grace they gave you, they gave you to all Con­gregations in the world alike, as much to every one as to any one; because they propagated to you the same power as Christ gave to his Apostles, when he said to them, [As my father sent me, so I send you. Receive the Holy Ghost; Whose sins you remit, &c. Preach the Gospel to every creature, &c.] whence it is, that being once Ordained, you are capable to preach and minister Sacra­ments to any creature or Congregation in the world, by meer Mission onely, without a new Ordination. If then the grace they gave you were Authority to preach and minister Sacraments to that Congregation; these absurdities would inevitably follow.

1. You would be a Pastor Apostolique, or such a one as the Apostles were, that is, a Ʋniversal one, created by Christ immediately, and consequently a supreme one, (subject to no mortal superior, in the exercise of your juris­diction:) which would utterly overthrow all your Hierarchy.

2. The next words, at the delivery of the Bible to you [Take thou autho­rity to preach in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed:] would be, 1. Vain, and absurd, to give authority given before. 2. Retractatory of the former. 1. To qualifie the authority, given before absolute. 2. To suspend it to a future condition, or event, possible never to be; when it was given be­fore, absolutely, and in present.

3. Your Mission afterward to that Church of N. would have been, 1. An act vain and arrogant in the Bishop, to authorize you to preach, and to one Congregation; after Christ himself had authorized you, both to that, and to any other. 2. A proceeding injurious to all other Priests, to Institute you Pastor of that as your proper charge, with this priviledge, that none might minister a Sacrament, or so much as preach there without your con­sent: when Christ had Instituted every one of them Pastor of it, in common with you; for if, by the words of Ordination, he authorized you to that Cure; by the same words he authorized every other Priest in the world to it, as much as you. 3. A proceeding injurious to your own self. 1. To ac­cept of a Pastorship from the Bishop, and so to hold it of him, as your mesne Lord, liable to be suspended, or deprived of it at any time, by sentence of his Court; when you had a right to hold it immediately of the Lord Pa­ramont, and so without subjection or service to any but him. 2. To accept from him the Pastorship of one Cure, and that none of the best in England, when Christ had authorised you to any Cure in the land, or in the world, where you would please to undertake it.

The Church of Rome therefore (whose apes you are in this right of Ordi­nation, and whose scholars in your doctrine of its being a Sacrament,) doth not hold, that the qualifying grace (or, as they call it, Character) given by [Page 7] Ordination is any authority, but a meer power to exercise lawfully such an Office, when authority shall be given for it by Mission. And if you will avoid these absurdities, you must say, that no authority, but this power onely was given you by these first words, [Receive the Holy Ghost, &c.]

Secondly, that the next words, at the delivery of the Bible to you [Take thou authority, &c.] gave you no authority to preach in that Congregation of N. is manifest from the words themselves, because they authorized you onely as to such Congregation where you should be appointed: which you were not then in that Church of N.

If you say, these words gave you your authority to preach in any Con­gregation where you should be appointed, and your appointing in that of N. onely determined the place, or assigned you a matter or subject whereon to exercise it: I ask, whether after these words, [Take thou authority, &c.] and afore your appointing in that Church of N. you had a power (in your own right, without asking the Pastors consent) to preach lawfully in that Church of N. I suppose you will not, dare not, say you had: for then your appoint­ing to it signified nothing; and then every Priest would be a lawful Pastor to every flock, where and when he pleased; and all your Hierarchy (which subsists in the distinction of Pastors and Flocks) would fall to the ground. And if you say, you had no such power; you grant what I say, that these words gave you no authority to preach in that Congregation; but your appointment (or, as I call it, your mission) did not only determine the place, or assign you a matter or subject whereon to exercise the authority afore given you, but gave you your first authority there. And consequently, though the Bishop said to you, [Take authority, &c.] he could not possibly mean by authority, any more then a power to preach lawfully in any place where you should be appointed.

If you say, that power was given you in the words afore, and so would be vainly given you again here; I grant your inference: for though I argue va­lidly from your form of Ordination, against you who approve it, I who ap­prove it not, am not concerned to defend it. So I hope I have sufficiently proved the first part of my Minor, [That you have no Authority to preach to that Congregation of N. by your Ordination.]

The second part of it, [That you have none from Christ, (but onely from the Parliament) by your Mission:] I thus make good.

If he who gave you your Mission had no authority from Christ (but onely from the Parliament) to give it you, you have no authority from Christ, but onely from the Parliament, by your Mission.

But he who gave you your Mission, had no authority from Christ (but onely from the Parliament) to give it you.

Therefore you have no authority from Christ (but onely from the Parlia­ment) by your Mission.

[Page 8]The sequel of the major is evident in the terms.

The minor is thus proved.

If William Lawd had authority from Christ to give you Mission, it must be, either as he was a Bishop Ordine, or as he was a Bishop Officio; that is, as he was Archbishop of Canterbury.

But he had no authority to give you Mission, as he was a Bishop Ordine, nor from Christ (but onely from the Parliament) as he was Archbi­shop of Canterbury.

Therefore he had no authority from Christ (but onely from the Parlia­ment) to give you Mission.

The sequel of the major I cannot suppose will be denied, because no third ordinary way is imaginable. And you cannot say he had it in both respects joyntly, if (as will appear in proof of the minor) he had none at all, as he was a Bishop Ordine.

The first part of the minor [That he had no authority to give you Mission, as he was a Bishop Ordine] is manifest; because the giving Mission, is an act of compleat Jurisdiction, which he had not as he was a Bishop Ordine (no more in Canterbury, then he had in Rome, or Constantinople; or no more then the Bishop of Rome, or Constantinople, had in Canterbury.) And the Stile, in his Instrument, whereby he Instituted, and Licensed you [William, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of Canterbury;] shewes, he Instituted and Licensed you, not as he was a Bishop Ordine, but as Archbishop of Canterbury: which he might have been (sufficiently, to the Instituting and Licensing you in that Church,) although he had not been so much as a Deacon Ordine.

The second part of it [That he had no authority from Christ, but onely from the Parliament, as he was Archbishop of Canterbury] is thus proved.

He was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament.

Therefore he had no authority from Christ, but onely from the Parlia­ment, as he was Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Consequence is evident, The Antecedent, I prove thus.

Matthew Parker (the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury) was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament.

Therefore Will. Lawd was no Archbishop of Canterbury by authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament.

The Consequence I suppose will be granted me: because Matth. Parker was Confirmed and Consecrated, in all the same form, and by all the same authority, as Will. Lawd was: and he being the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, (and consequently one, and the chief, in the Confirming and [Page 9] Consecrating of those by whose Successors William Lawd was Confirmed and Consecrated) was the necessary pipe or channel, for conveying Divine Authority from Christ to William Lawd; and so must have his authority from Christ first afore William Lawd could have any by him.

The Antecedent (which is indeed the onely difficult part of my Argu­ment) I prove from the form of creating him Archbishop, which was this. The See being void, by the death of Cardinal Pool, the Dean and Chapter petitioned the Queen for her Licence to chuse their Archbishop, which she granting, sent with it a Letter, nominating to them Matthew Parker for the man; and him they were bound to chuse, under a Premunire. The Election being made, and certified into the Chancery, there issued out a Commission under the great Seal to seven Bishops, assigned by the Queen, commanding and authorizing them, or any four of them, to Confirm the election, and to Consecrate him. This four of them did. And his Consecration being certified by them into the Chancery, there issued out a Writ to the Dean and Cha­pter, commanding and authorizing them to Install (or as they called it, to Inthronize) him: that is, to put him into the actual possession of his Office and Dignity. After which he enjoyed his Spiritualties, (that is, all Spiritual Jurisdiction pertaining to that See.) And then issued a Writ out of the Ex­chequer to the Sheriff to restore to him the Temporalties, (which at the death of any Bishop were used to be seized into the Prince's hands.)

This was the whole form, from first to last, of creating him Archbishop: which (as you see) consisted of four parts, 1. His Election, which present­ed him to the Queen, to be created. 2. His Confirmation, which created him Archbishop elect. Immediately after which, by the ancient Canon-Law, he should have had all ordinary Jurisdiction, (to which was not requi­site powers of that Order which he wanted, if he wanted any; for any Lay­man might have been elected to it, (as Ambrose was to Milan) and his Electi­on confirmed) pertaining to that See: namely to Collate Benefices in his gift, to Institute Pastors, to License Preachers, to visit the Province and Dio­cess, to call and hold Courts and Synods, inflict or release Censures, appoint Chancellors, Vicars Generall, Archdeacons, &c.(a)Extra C. transmissam & C. nostri, & C. inter corpor. de Translat. But by the later Canons of the Pope (in grossing all Authority into his own hands) he could not exer­cise any, though Consecrated, until he had his Pall from Rome, and the Popes Bull for putting him in possession of his Church(b)Extra Injuctae, de Elect. inter extra comm. & C. Nisi & C. Quod sicut, &c. And accordingly, the Queen, by the Law of the Land, succeed­ing to the Pope in all his priviledges: and in that among the rest, he could not, no not after Consecration, exercise any Jurisdiction, until by her [Page 10] Writ, he was put in possession of his Bishoprick. 3. His Consecration, which gave him the Stile, Name, and Dignity of Archbishop (absolute.) 4. His Installation, which gave him possession of his Spiritualties. The first and last of which Acts, were performed by the Dean and Chapter, the two middle most by the Bishops, and the first mover of all was the Queen, (or her Chancery.) If I then make it evident, that none of these Agents under the Queen, acted in it by any Authority from Christ, but meerly as the Queens Commissioners, and that she had her Authority for Commissionating them, not from Christ, but from the Parliament: I hope you will grant it a Demonstration, that he was no Archbishop of Canterbury by Authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament. Now all this is easily made evi­dent. For as to the Dean and Chapter, I am sure you will grant me that they acted not in it by any Authority from Christ: for though you hold Bi­shops to be de Jure Divino, you hold not Deans and Chapters to be so too. The rest I shall prove in the ensuing five Propositions.

The First Proposition. Those Bishops who Confirmed and Consecrated Mat­thew Parker, could not validly do either, by their own Authority, as Bishops, with­out a Faculty (or Commission) from some Superiour in Jurisdiction to the See of Canterbury. For,

First, they could not do either validly, as they were Bishops Ordine. For first, I suppose you will grant me, that as Bishops Ordine, they could not Con­firm his Election: because that was an act of compleat Jurisdiction, and of giving compleat Jurisdiction, (speaking of that act per se, or of its own ori­ginal nature, afore it was invalidated by the Popes Law.) Nor secondly, for the same reason could they Consecrate him validly, as Bishops Ordine. For the Consecrating of a Bishop consisted of two parts, or acts. One was the Sacramental part: viz. the Imposition of hands by all of them, and pro­nouncing the words of Ordination by one of them in all their names, [Receive the Holy Ghost: and remember to stir up the Grace of God which is in thee, by Imposition of hands, &c.] And of this Act I will make no question, but they being (as they were) true Bishops Ordine, might, and did, as such, perform it validly, But then, this Act did onely Ordain him a Bishop Ordine, not Consecrate him Archbishop. The other part therefore of the Ceremony, (which was all the rest of it, and from whence the whole Ceremony had its name of Consecration) which may be called the Sacring (or the Ritual) part, was that which Consecrated him Archbishop; to wit, the Investing of him with his Mitre, Ring, Crosiar-staff, Cross, Rochet, &c. the anointing of his head and hands with Chrisme, the pronouncing over him the Prayers and Bene­dictions proper to an Archbishop, and the adhibiting of all these Ceremonies with that intent to create him Archbishop and Pastor of the Cathedrall and [Page 11] Metropolitical Church, called Christs-Church, in Canterbury. For so was their Commission, [Quatenus eundem in Archiepiscopum & Pastorem Ecclesiae Ca­thedralis & Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis, Consecrare, &c.] And so was their demand, when three of them, at his Consecration, presented him to the fourth to be Consecrated: [Hunc tibi praesentamus, ut Archiepiscopus Consecretur.] Now this therefore being plainly a meer act of compleat Ju­risdiction; they could not perform it validly, as Bishops Ordine onely.

Secondly, they could do neither of these acts validly, as they were Bishops Officio (or Jurisdictione:) because,

1. Not one of them was an actual Bishop Officio. For, one of them (Hodgskins) was onely a Bishop Suffragan of Dover, which was no Cathe­dral Church, nor could he exercise any Jurisdiction but by Commission from the Bishop of Canterbury. Another of them (Coverdale) was onely a quondam Bishop of Exeter. And the remaining two (Barlow and Sco [...]y) were so also, (that is, quondam Bishops onely:) but onely that they were Elect, the one to Chichester, the other to Hereford. This appears by the stile given them in the Letters Patents: [Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Wilhelmo quondam Bathoniensi & Wellensi Episcopo, nunc Cicestrensi Electo: Joanni quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Electo Herefordensi: Miloni quon­dam Exoniensi Episcopo, Joanni Episcopo Suffraganeo, &c. That is, ‘To the Reverend Fathers in Christ, William late Bishop of Bath and Wells, now Elect of Chichester: John, late Bishop of Chichester, now Elect of Here­ford: Miles late Bishop of Exeter: John Bishop Suffragan.]’

2. No Bishop could validly exercise any least act of Episcopal Jurisdiction (as both these were, and of the highest nature) out of his own Diocess; as London, where they Confirmed, and Lambeth where they Consecrated him, was: and as any place possible, must have been out of the Diocess of all but one of them.

3. No Bishop could validly give a Jurisdiction to be exercised out of his own Diocess; as Canterbury was out of all their Diocesses.

4. No Bishop, nor number of Bishops (alwayes meaning, by their own au­thority) could validly give a Jurisdiction greater then their own, and supe­rior to their own, and over themselves and all the Bishops in the Land, as that of the See of Canterbury was.

The second Proposition. [No Bishops in the Land could validly Confirm, or Consecrate an Archbishop of Canterbury without Commission from the Queen.] I shall give the reason in the words of the Statute, 8. Eliz 1. Be­cause all Jurisdiction Spiritual, and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Eccle­siastical power or authority, hath hitherto been or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm, was fully and absolutely, by the Statute of [Page 12] 1. Eliz. 1. united, and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Now it is well known I believe to your self, that afore the Statute of 25. H. 8. and after the repeal of that Statute, by Queen Mary, until that Act of 1. Eliz 1. the Pope had this priviledge in this Realm, that no Bishops in the Land could validly either Confirm, or Consecrate an Archbishop of Canterbury without a Faculty (or Bull) from him: and consequently, after that Statute, which settled all the Popes priviledges in the Crown, that priviledge was in the Queen, that none could do either of those acts without a Faculty from her.

The third Proposition. [The Queen did give Commission to those Bishops, for the Confirming and Consecrating of Matth. Parker.] This appears by the Letters Patents themselves, extant in the Rolls, in these words: [Elizabetha Regina, &c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Wilhelmo, &c. (naming seven Bishops.) Cùm vacante nuper sede Archiepiscopali Cantuariensi per mortem naturalem D. Reginaldi Poli Cardinalis, ultimi, & immediati Archiepiscopi & Pastoris ejusdem; ad humilem petitionem Decani & Capituli Ecclesiae nostrae Ca­thedralis & Metropoliticae, Christi, Cantuariensis, eisdem per Literas nostras Patentes Licentiam concesserimus alium sibi eligendi in Archiepiscopum & Pa­storem sedis praedictae, ac iidem Mattheum Parker elegerunt, &c Nos eidem electi­oni Regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter & favorem. Et hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus: Rogantes, ac in fide & dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter praecipiendo, Mandantes, quatenus vos, aut quatuor vestrûm, cundem Matheum Parker in Archiepiscopum & Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae Ele­ctum, electionemque praedictam, Confirmare, & eundem in Archiepiscopum & Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae Consecrare, caeteraque omnia peragere, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt Officio Pastorali, juxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum & provisorum, velitis cum effectu. That is. ‘Elizabeth Queen, &c. To the Reverend Fathers in Christ, William, &c. Whereas the Archiepis­copal See of Canterbury being lately void by the natural death of my Lord Reginald Pool Cardinal, the last and immediate Archbishop and Pastor of it; at the humble petition of the Dean and Chapter of our Cathedral and Metropolitical Church in Canterbury, called Christs Church, we did by our Letters Patents grant Licence to them to chuse themselves another for Archbishop and Pastor of the See aforesaid, and they have chosen Matthew Parker, &c. We have given our royal assent and favour to the said Electi­on. And we signifie this to you by the tenor of these presents. Requi­ting, and by the fidelity and love wherein you are bound to us, firmly en­joyning, Commanding you, that you, or four of you, effectually Confirm the said Matthew Parker Archbishop and Pastor Elect of the said Church, and Confirm the said Election, and Consecrate him Archbishop and Pastor [Page 13] of the said Church, and do all other things which in this behalf are incum­bent on your Pastoral Office, according to the form of the Statutes in this case made and provided.]’

And further, for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirming and Consecrating of the said Matthew Parker: (partly because the Popes consent (without which all was void and null by the Canon Law esta­blished in generall Councels(a)But universally this is clear, that if any one be made a Bishop, without the con­sent of his Metropolitane, the great Synod hath defined, that such a [...]one ought not to be a Bishop, (meaning by Bishop, any Bi­shop whatsoever, and principally the Pri­mate of a Nation; and by Metropolitane, meaning any Metropolitane whatsoever, but principally the Patriarch of that part of the world, which you grant the Pope to be of the West.) Conc. Nic. 1 Can. 6. which you count the proper Rule for judging, even against Acts of Par­liament, in these matters,(b)Councils truly General, being the supream Tribunals of the Catholique Church, do binde particular Churches, as well in point of discipline, as of faith. Bish. of Derr. schism gard. p. 475. English Statutes cannot change the essentials of ordination: the vali­dity or invalidity of it, depends not upon hu­mane Law, but upon the Institution of Christ. id. [...]. p. 41. Judges at the Common Law, have neither grounds nor rules in the Com­mon Law for judging of the validity of an Episcopal Consecration, id. ib. p. 60. was not to it; and partly because none of those who Confirmed or Consecrated him was an actual Bishop) it was judged (by her Council, and by those Lawyers, Civil, and Canon, who were advised with in it) needful she should insert into her Patent, a clause, whereby by her supream royal autho­rity she should enable those Bishops, in regard of the present exigencies (because neither the Popes consent nor actual Bishops enough to conse­crate him, could be had,) to supply to themselves all defects whatsoever, in quality, faculty, or any other things necessary to that performance, by the Laws of the Church. For so it fol­lows in the Patent. [Supplentes nihilominus suprema authoritate nostra Regia, siquid in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, aut facultate vestris, ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri, aut per Leges Ecclesiasticas, in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt; temporis ratione, & rerum necessitate, id postulante. That is, ‘Supplying nevertheless (to your selves) by our supream Regal Authority (hereby delegated to you to that end) if any thing, in you, or any one of you, or in your condition, state, or faculty, to the performing of the Premises, is wanting of those things which by the Statutes of this our Realm, or by the Ecclesiastical Laws, are in this behalf requisite or necessary: the condition of the time, and ne­cessity of things requiring it.]’ So you see how true it was I said, they could do neither of those Acts without her Commission; when not onely her Com­mission was judged necessary to give them power to do them, but her Dispen­sation [Page 14] also, to make their acts valid, non obstante, the Laws of the Church.

The fourth Proposition. [The Queens Letters Patents was not a meer Mandate, commanding them to execute their Office, which they might be supposed to have from Christ, but a Commission, authorizing them to do what they did; so as they acted in it, not as Bishops, (or Officers authorized by Christ) but meerly as her Commissioners.] That in that quality onely they Confirmed him, themselves expresly acknowledge and declare in the Instrument of his Confirmation, (as it is to be seen in the Records at Lambeth.) For thus they say, [In nomi­ne Domini, Amen. Nos Wilhelmus Barlow, &c. Mediantibus Literis Commissionalibus Reginae, Commissionarii specialiter & legitime deputati, &c. praedictam electionem Mathei Parker in Archiepiscopum & Pastorem Ecclesiae prae­dictae, suprema authoritate Regiâ nobis in hac parte Commissa, Confirmamus. Sup­plentes ex suprema authoritate Regiâ nobis delegata, quicquid in nobis, aut alique &c, ut supra. That is, ‘In the name of the Lord, Amen. We, William, &c. By the Queens Commissional Letters, specially, and lawfully deputed Com­missioners, &c. do by the supreme authority of the Queen to us, in this behalf, committed, Confirm the aforesaid Election of Mat. Parker, &c. supplying, by the supreme authority of the Queen, to us delegated, if any thing be wanting in us, or any of us, &c. as above.]’ And if as her Commissioners they Confirmed, as her Commissioners also they Consecrated him. For, 1. The Patent Commissionates them to both alike, and they needed her Commission to both alike. [Mandantes quatenus eundem Confir­mare, & Consecrare velitis, &c. ‘Commanding you that you Confirm and Consecrate him.]’ So if Mandantes did authorise them to the one, it did so to the other also. 2. The Patent did, in formal words, authorise them to dispense with themselves for any defect of Faculty, &c. for the performing of both those acts alike: [Supplentes, suprema authoritate nostra Regia, si quid, ad praemissa perficienda, deest, &c.] And this Dispensation was necessary to the validity of both those acts alike. 3. To signifie they did Consecrate him in vertue of the Queens Commission to them for it, when three of them, at the performing of that Ceremony, presented him to the fourth, to be Consecrated; whereas (afore the Statute of H. 8.) the Popes Bull for authorising the Consecrators, was used to be read, at that time; in place thereof was read the Queens Patent to them. [Proferebatur (saith the Act of it, upon Parkers Records) Regium Mandatum pro ejus Consecratione, &. ‘The Queens Mandate (or Commission) to them for Consecrating of him was read.]’ as the authority for what they did.

The fifth and last Proposition. [The Queen had her Authority for Commissio­nating them, from the Parliament.] This is manifest.

First, from the Statute of 25. H. 8.20. which recites how that by an Act [Page 15] made that Parliament, they had enacted [That if any person nominated or pre­sented by the King to the See of Rome, to be any Archbishop of this Realm should be delayed, denied, or otherwise disturbed from the same, for lack of Palls, Bulls, or other things to him requisite (by the Law of the Land then in force) to be ob­tained of the See of Rome; that then he might and should be Consecrated, and In­vested by any two Bishops in this Realm, appointed by the King.] Where although in the next words, [according, and after like manner, as divers Archbishops and Bishops have been heretofore in ancient time, by sundry of the Kings Progenitors, made, Consecrated, and Invested within this Realm:] they were willing to seem as if they did not then first grant that right or priviledge to the Crown, but onely restore it: yet it is manifest they did then grant it to him. For, as they named none, so nor could they name any one King of England, who made a Bishop within this Realm, and much less (the Primate of England) the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed William the Conquerour, Rufus, and Hen. 1. (and perhaps some of our Kings afore them) did without asking the Popes consent, Invest Bishops, in vacant Sees; that is, by the delivery of a Ring, and Crosiar, did put them in possession of their Bishopricks, so as to injoy their Temporalties, and to be legal Bishops in the Kings Courts. But I know no instance of one Archbishop of Canterbury, Invested by any one of them, without the Popes consent; nor did any of them use that pra­ctice of Investing Bishops, after the Council of Vienna (which was in the time of Edw. 2.) had prohibited it to all Lay persons, under excommunica­tion both to them that did it, and to the Bishops that accepted it. Which their desisting to use it after that time, and the Parliaments silence in it, (who were at that time very active, and full of animosity, in vindicating the rights of the Crown, against the Popes usurpations and incroachments) seems to acknowledge, that those who had done it before, had done it de­facto onely, and not of right. But however it were for that of Investing: it is certain, all our Histories will not afford one Instance of any King of Eng­land, who appointed, or assigned (that is, in the sense of the Statute, authorized) Bishops, to Consecrate a Bishop. So, without all peradventure, this priviledge was plainly granted to the Crown by this Statute. And it was granted him at first, onely in case of the Popes refractoriness; but soon after, by the Statute aforenamed, all recourse to Rome for Confirmation, or Consecration, of any Bishop, was forbidden, and the power of authorizing Bishops within the Realm to perform those acts, was placed absolutely in the King. ‘[Whereas in the said act (meaning, that afore spoken of) it is not plainly expressed in what manner Archbishops and Bishops shall be Invested, and Consecrated, within the Realm: be it now therefore enacted by the authority of this Par­liament that no person shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome, nor shall [Page 16] send, nor procure there for any manner of Bulls, Palls, or other things re­quisite for an Archbishop, Bishop, &c. And if the person be elected to the of­fice of an Archbishop, after such Election certified to the King, he shall be reputed Lord Elect to the said Office. And the King shall by his Letters Patents signifie the said Election to one Archbishop, and two other Bishops, or else to four Bishops within this Realm, to be assigned by the King, re­quiring or commanding him or them to Confirm the said Election, and to Invest and Consecrate the said person so elected, to the Office and Dignity that he is elected unto, and to give and use to him, such Pall, Benedictions, and other Ceremonies, as formerly were used. And every person being hereafter Invested and Consecrated to the Dignity or Office of any Archbishop, according to the tenor of this Act, shall and may be Inthro­nized, and Installed, &c. and shall be obeyed, &c. and shall do and execute in every thing and things, touching the same, as any Archbishop of this Realm, (without offending the Prerogative Royal, and the Laws and Cu­stoms of this Realm) might at any time heretofore do.]’

Secondly, from the Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. made purposely to set forth the Authority, (next under God) by which Mathew Parker, and the other first Protestant Bishops in the beginning of the Queens Reign were made: and sets it forth, by reciting how they were made by authority of the Queen, and how she was authorized to that end, by the aforesaid Statute of Hen. 8. and by the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. These are the words of it, for as much as concerns my purpose. ‘[Forasmuch as divers questions hath lately grown upon the making and Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm, whether the same were duly and orderly done, according to the Law or not, which is much tending to the slander of all the state of the Clergy, being one of the greatest States of this Realm; therefore for the avoiding of such slanderous speech, and to the end that every man that is willing to know the truth, may plainly understand, that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any iust matter or cause: It is thought convenient hereby partly to touch such author [...]ties as do allow and approve the making and Consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops to be duly and orderly done, according to the Laws of this Realm. First, it is very well known to all degrees of this Realm, that the late King Hen. 8. was as well by all the Clergy then of this Realm in their severall Convocations, as also by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com­mons in divers of his Parliaments, justly and rightfully recognized and knowledged to have the Supream Power, Jurisdiction, and Authority over the Ecclesiastical State of the same. And that the said King did by Autho­rity of Parliament in the twenty fifth year of his Reign, set forth a cer­tain [Page 17] order of the manner and form how Archbishops and Bishops should be made, &c. And although in the time of the late Queen, the said Act was repealed, yet nevertheless at the Parliament 1. Eliz. 1. the said Act was revived; and by one other Act there made, all such Jurisdictions, Pri­viledges, &c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiasti­cal Power or Authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiasticall State of this Realm, is fully and absolutely, by the Authority of the same Parliament, united and annexed to the Impe­riall Crown of this Realm. And by the same Statute, there is also gi­ven to the Queen (mark, given also to the Queen by that Statute) full Power and Authority, by Letters Patents, to assign, and authorize such person or persons as she shall think meet,’ (whether Bishops, Noblemen, Lawyers, Merchants, or who ever else, so they be NATƲRAL BORN SƲBJECTS; for the words of that Statute requires no other Qualification to them but that) ‘to exercise under her all manner of Jurisdiction in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual Jurisdiction within this Realm. Whereupon (that is, upon the Authority given to her by this Act) the Queen having in her order and disposition all the said Jurisdiction, &c. (that is, all that which formerly was in the Pope) hath, by her Supream Authority, caused divers to be duly made and Consecrated Archbishops and Bishops, according to such order and form, and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecration, as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts, &c. And further, for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions might be objected against the lawfull Confirming, Investing, and Conse­crating of the said Archbishops and Bishops, her Highnesse hath (in her Letters Patents) used divers speciall words, whereby, by her Supream Authority, she hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any Imper­fection, or disability, &c. So that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Statutes, and of the Supream and absolute Authority of the Queen, (granted to her by them) and which she, by her said Letters Patents, hath used in and about the making and Con­secrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops, it is and may be very evi­dent, no cause of doubt can or may justly be objected against the said Confirmations and Consecrations, &c.]’ Loe here declared, by the Queen her self, by Matthew Parker himself, and all the other Bishops then in the Land, and by all the Lords Temporall, and the Commons in Parliament, that Matthew Parker was made, Confirmed and Consecrated Archbishop, by Authority of the Queen, and that she had her Authority for it from the Sta­tutes of 25. H. 8. 20. & 1. Eliz. 1.

[Page 18]3. From that Clause in the Commission it self, for the Confirming and Consecrating of Matthew Parker, wherein she expresly refers to the Statutes made in that behalf, meaning those two aforenamed. [Juxta formam (saith she) Statutorum in ea parte provisorum & editorum. According to the form of the Statutes in this case made and set forth.] As much as to say, that the Patent was grounded upon those Statutes.

And so I have abundantly demonstrated my Thesis, as to you, [That you have no Authority to preach, but what you have originally from the Par­liament.]

The second Part. Demonstrating to a Presbyterian Minister, that he hath no Authority to preach from Christ, but onely from the Parliament,

SIr, I shall suppose your Case the best that can be supposed of any Pres­byterian Minister in England; viz. That William Juxon late Bishop of London, being a true Presbyter, together with all the Presbyters then of London assisting him, Ordained twelve Presbyters, whom after­ward he placed as Pastors, or preaching Ministers, in so many Parish Church­es in London lying next to one another. These twelve preaching Ministers were the first Classical Presbytery, that after the abolishing of Bishops, was erected in the Nation. And the Church of N. within the Precinct of that Classis, falling void, they Ordained you a Presbyter, and afterward gave you Mission to that Congregation of N. (that is, placed you to be the Pastor or preaching Minister of it) And I say, that in this Case, you have no authority to preach to that Congregation from Christ, but onely from the Parliament. And I make it good by this Argument.

You have no Authority from Christ to preach to that Congregation, but what you have either by your Ordination, or your Mission.

But you have no Authority to preach to that Congregation by your Ordination: and none from him, but from the Parliament onely, by your Mission.

Therefore you have none from him, but onely from the Parliament.

The Major is supposed in the Case: nor is there any third ordinary way imaginable, and you pretend not to extraordinary.

The first part of the Minor, [That you have no Authority to preach to that Con­gregation by your Ordination] I prove from the form of it; which (supposing it the same as is prescribed in your Directory) was this. The Presbytery of that Classis laid their hands upon you, accompanying it with a short Prayer, or [Page 20] Blessing, by the Preacher who carried on the Work of that day, to this effect: [Thankefully acknowledging, &c. for fitting and inclining this man to this great work, we beseech him to fill him with his holy Spirit, (whom in his name (here they laid their hands upon you) we set apart to this holy Service) to fulfill the work of his Ministery in all things, that he may save both himself, and his people committed to his charge.] In which words (added to the Imposition of hands, to inter­pret the meaning of it, that it might not be a dumb Ceremony) you see there is not one syllable of authorizing you to preach to that Congregation of N. but onely that they who laid their hands on you, set you apart to this great and holy work and office of the Ministery; that is, that by, in, or with that Imposition of hands, there was given to you from and by Christ himself im­mediately, a divine power lawfully to execute the Office of preaching, and ministring Sacraments in Christs name, and with his authority, to that Con­gregation unto which you were then designed, or to any other in the Nati­on, or in the world, whereunto you should be duly admitted. And that this power (I speak of) was all that these words, or the Imposition of bands, gave you and not any Authority as to that Congregation of N. is manifest; be­cause if they gave you Authority to that Congregation, it was either to that Congregation alone, or to more then that. If to that alone, you could not be admitted as Minister to any other Congregation, without being anew Or­dained: which you count neither necessary, nor lawful.(a)If a Minister be designed to a Congregation, who hath been formerly Ordained Presbyter; let him be admitted after examination, without any new Ordination. And if to more then that, it must be to any (or every) one in the Nati­on and in the world; because the words name none, nor mean no one more then another, and authorized you as much to every one, as to any one: or else when you should be admit­ted to Officiate in any Congregation, neither you nor the people could be certain, whether that were one of the Congregations or no, to which your Ordination authorized you: which uncertainty would render it useless as to any one. And if you say, your Ordination authorized you to every one, you would be a Pastor Apostolique, (or such a one as the Apostles were) that is, universal, created by Christ immediately, and consequently supream, (sub­ject to no Classis, Synod, Parliament, or other mortal superiour) which would utterly overthrow all your form of Church Government and Disci­pline. For then you might preach and minister Sacraments in any Church, where you should please, against the Pastors will; then all Admissions of Pres­byters to be preaching Ministers to such or such a Church, would be vain, ab­surd, and arrogant acts: Then no Classis, Synod, or Parliament, could for [Page 21] any crime whatsoever, convent, or silence you, and much less depose or eject you. In fine, then there would be no distinction betwixt Pastors and flocks. Of necessity therefore, to avoid such horrid absurdities, the first part of my minor must be granted me, [That you have no authority, by your Ordination, to preach in that Congregation.]

The second part of the Minor, [That you have no authority from Christ, but onely from the Parliament, by your Mission.] I thus make good.

They who gave you your Mission had no Authority from Christ, but one­ly from the Parliament, to give it you.

Therefore you have no Authority from Christ, but onely from the Parlia­ment, by your Mission.

The Consequence is evident in the terms. The Antecedent is firm, for two reasons.

First, because those Presbyters who gave you Mission, were no Ministers of those Churches, by any Divine Right, or Authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament, because placed in those Churches by the Bishop of London, as he was Bishop of London: which I am sure you will not, cannot, dare not say he was by authority from Christ, (for then it had been a wicked and sacrile­gious act in the Parliament to deprive him of his Bishoprick; and in you, to advise and encourage them to it) nor by any other Authority but that of the Parliament; for then it had exceeded the power of the Parliament to de­prive him of it. Nor can you say, those Ministers were placed in those Churches by him in any other quality or capacity, but as he was Bishop of London: because as he was a Presbyter, he could not Institute Pastors by him­self alone, as he did those; nor Institute them in any wise, as a Bishop Ordine.

Secondly, because supposing they had been Ministers of those Churches by Authority from Christ; yet as they were single Presbyters, they had no autho­rity so much as to Ordain, and much less to give Mission, but onely as they were Associated into a Classis, (or Presbytery.)(a)Preaching Ministers, or­derly Associated, are those to whom Imposition of hands doth appertain. Humb. Adv. of Div. at Westm. in the Doctr. part of Ordin. §. 10. Now this Association was not made, formed, or authorized by any authority from Christ, but onely of the Parliament: and so those Ministers who gave you your Mission, did not give it you as Presbyters or Officers of the Church, instituted by Christ, but meerly as Officers or Commissioners of the Parliament, (which it was by accident, that any of them were Presbyters.) This appears,

First, because for Associating the first Presbytery, there was no other ima­ginable (ordinary) Authority then in the Land, but that of the Parliament. And if you will say, the first was Associated by Christ immediately; any [Page 22] of those whom you call Sectaries, say as much for their authority, and with as much reason.

Secondly, because it appears by the Ordinances, Acts, and publick Proceed­ings of the Parliament, by you owned and abetted, in abolishing the form of Church Government and Discipline then established, and introducing an­other in place thereof; in settling Classes, and authorizing them to Ordain Mi­nisters; in ejecting Ministers, and placing others in their Cures; in Collating, and Instituting to vacant Benefices; and executing these powers not by Presbyters onely, but by Lay-Committees, nay, by single Lords and Officers of the Army, &c. that the supream visible Authority in matters Ecclesiastical in this Land was in the Parliament: and so no Classis was Associated but by authority of the Parliament, and after its Association, had no authority to give Mission, or exercise any other act of Jurisdiction, but what it had from the Parliament.

For Instance I name these Ordinances.

1. That of 12. June, 1643. ‘[Whereas it hath been declared and resol­ved by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, that the present Church Government, by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. is evil, &c. and that therefore they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a Government shall be settled in the Church of England, as may be most agreeable to Gods Word, &c. the right Honourable Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland, &c. (naming other Earls and Lords) John Selden, Dr. Gouge, &c. (naming divers others Lawyers, Gentlemen, and Divines) are hereby authorized and enjoyned to sit, confer, and treat of such things as concern the Discipline and Government of the Church of England, as shall be proposed to them by both, or either House of Parliament, &c Provi­ded that they assume not to exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical whatso­ever, or any other power then is particularly expressed.]’

2. That of 22. January following. ‘[The Earl of Manchester shall have authority in the associated Counties, to eject all such Ministers as he shall judge unfit for their places, and to place in their rooms such as shall be ap­proved of by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster.]’

3. That of 22. Feb. following. ‘[The Lord Fairfax shall nominate and appoint such able and godly Divines as he shall think fit, into all such Churches in the County of York, as are, or shall be destitute of Mi­nisters.’

4. That of 23. April 1645. ‘[Philip Goodwin shall be henceforth Vicar of Watford, and Officiate the Cure as Vicar thereof, during his life, without any further Admission or Induction.]’

[Page 23]5. That of 26. April following. ‘[None may preach, but Ordained Ministers, except such as intending the Ministery shall for trial of their Gifts be allowed by such as shall be appointed by the Parliament.]’

6. That of 29. August, 1648. ‘[Be it Ordained by the Authority of this Parliament, that all Parishes in this Nation shall be brought under the Government of Congregational, Provincial, and National Assem­blies, &c. And all Classes, and Parochial Congregations, are respectively hereby authorized and required to proceed accordingly, &c. The Province of London shall be divided into twelve Classical Elderships. The first Classis to contain Alhallows, &c. The several Classes where no Congre­gational Presbyteries are already settled, shall have power to nominate such Ministers and others as are qualified according to this Ordinance, to joyn with them in the same, to be approved by the Committee of Lords and Commons for Scandal, until such time as Congregational Presbyteries shall be settled in the said respective Precincts, &c. When seven Congre­gational Elderships or more shall be constituted into any Classical Pre­cinct, the same shall be signified to the several Congregational Elders so established, who shall depute fit Elders, who, together with their Mini­sters, shall meet as a Classis, &c. That which shall be done by the major part of the Classis, shall be esteemed as the act of the whole. And none shall be esteemed a valid act, unless done by four Ministers, and eight Ru­ling Elders, &c. The power of Classicall Assemblies, shall be: 1. To Or­dain, and admit Ministers for the Congregations. 2. To censure Ministers, &c. It is Ordained by the Authority of this Parliament, that the Classi­cal Presbyters within their Bounds may and shall Ordain Presbyters, ac­cording to the Directory for Ordination hereafter expressed, &c. The Presbytery, or five Ministers at least sent from them, shall solemnly set him who is to be Ordained, apart to the Office and work of the Ministery, &c. Laying their hands on him, with a short Prayer or Blessing to this effect, &c. Let every one which is or shall be chosen for any Congregation or place not being at that time within the Bounds of any Classical Presby­tery, be Ordained by that Classis which he shall address himself unto, &c. And it is further Ordained by the Authority Aforesaid, That all persons who shall be Ordained Presbyters, according to this Directory, shall be for­ever reputed, to all intents, for lawfull, and sufficiently authorized Mi­nisters, &c.]’

Thirdly, It appears from the humble Advice of your Divines assembled at Westminster, unto the Parliament (afore any Classes were formed) to authorize Ministers to Associate themselves into Classes, for the Ordaining [Page 24] of Ministers, for the Army, Navy, City of London, &c. ‘[In these present exigencies, while we cannot have any Presbyteries form'd up to their whole power and work, &c. And yet it is requisite that Ministers be Or­dained for the service of places and Congregations destitute of Ministers, by some who being set apart themselves for the work of the Ministery, have power to joyn in the setting apart of others: Let some Ministers in or about London be designed BY PUBLIQUE AUTHORITY, (meaning, of the Parliament, to which they addressed that Advice) who be­ing ASSOCIATED, may Ordain Ministers for the City, and vici­nity, &c. And let the like ASSOCIATION, be made BY THE SAME AUTHORITY, in other Counties, &c.]’

And so I have abundantly demonstrated my Thesis, [That you have no Authority to preach in that Church of N. (where you are Minister) from Christ, but from the Parliament onely.]