The firſt Chapter. Proving the firſt part of the Concluſion, the Proteſtant Biſhops are no Biſhops ORDINE: and urging the firſt Reaſon, the invalidity of the form whereby they were Ordained.

THere is a Biſhop Ordine, and there is a Biſhop Officio (Juriſdictione, or ſimpliciter.) A Biſhop Ordine, I call him whoſe Ordination was eſſentially valid, and ſo imprinted the Epiſcopall Character. As ex. gr. if one ſhould be Ordained, in due matter and form, by one or more Biſhops having no Juriſdiction, or ſhould be Ordained without a Title: or ſhould be Conſecrated Biſhop of ſome See, and afterward reſign it, or be deprived of it, or degraded. And Biſhops in this ſenſe, are neceſſary to the Ordaining of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons; and conſequently to the interior eſſentiall form of the Church, as it conſiſts in a Hierarchy of Order. A Biſhop Officio, I call him who was validly Confirmed, and Conſecrated Biſhop, or Archbiſhop, and Paſtour, of that See (or flock of Clergy and people) whereof he is ſtiled: as ex. gr. Canterbury, London, &c. and continues actuall Biſhop of it, or of ſome other. And Biſhops in this ſenſe, are neceſſary to the Conſecrating of Archiſhops and Biſhops of Cathedrall or Metropoliticall Sees, and to the Inſtituting of Paſtors to Parochiall Churches; and conſequently to the exterior eſſential form of the Church, as it conſiſts in a Hierarchy of Juriſdiction.

The firſt part then of my Concluſion is, that Proteſtant Biſhops are no Biſhops Ordine. My reaſons are two.

The firſt is, becauſe the Proteſtant form for Ordaining Biſhops is eſſentially invalid. For the eſſential form of Ordination, is ſome fit words, that is, words fignifying the Order given. Mr. Maſon, l. 2. c. 16. n. 6. So Proteſtants themſelves. [Non verba quaelibet huic inſtituto (for making a Prieſt, and there is the ſame reaſon of a Biſhop) inſervire poterunt, ſed quae ad Ordinis conferendi poteſtatem exprimendam ſunt accomodata. Dum per Apoſtolum (Tit. 1.5.) mandavit Chriſtus ut crearentur Miniſtri, mandavit implicitè, ut inter Ordinandum verba adhiberentur idonea, id eſt, quae dati tum Ordinis poteſtatem complecterentur, Iſtiuſmodi autem verba, quatenus datam poteſtatem denotant, ſunt illius ordinis forma eſſentialis.] And the reaſon is evident, becauſe Ordination being a Sacrament, (as Proteſtants themſelves do,Id. l. • . n. 8. & D. Bramb. p. 96. and muſt confeſs, for elſe it is no argument of the parties having any authority from God more then another hath who is not Ordain'd) that is, a viſible ſign of an inviſible grace or power given by it; there muſt be ſome viſible ſign in it to ſignifie the power given, for it cannot be a ſign of what it ſignifies not; and elſe, the ſame Rite as ordains a man a Deacon, would ordain him Prieſt and Biſhop. The eſſential matter then of Epiſcopal Ordination (which is impoſition of hands) being a dumb ſign, and common to divers Orders, (as Biſhops, Prieſts, Deacons) and to divers other graces, as Confirming, curing the ſick, &c. of neceſſity there muſt be ſome words joyn'd with it as its form, to interpret it, and determine it to the grace of Epiſcopal Order, which no words can poſſibly do, but ſuch as ſignifie that Order, either in the natural ſenſe of the words, as ex gr. Be thou a Biſhop, or I ordain thee a Biſhop, &c. or by the Inſtitution of Chriſt, as theſe words [I baptize thee, &c.] ſignifie the grace of regeneration, becauſe inſtituted by Chriſt to that end.

Now in the Proteſtant form, there is no word ſignifying Epiſcopal Order in the natural ſenſe of the words. For this is their whole form, [Take the Holy Ghoſt, and remember that thou ſtir up the grace of God which is in thee by Impoſition of hands; for God hath not given us the Spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and ſoberneſs.] In which is nothing but what may be ſaid to any Prieſt or Deacon at his Ordaining, nay or to any childe at Confirming. Nor is there any colour of ground to ſay that theſe words ſignifie it ex inſtituto Chriſti; being there is no teſtimony in Scripture of ſuch his inſtitution, nor did he ever uſe theſe words but once to his Apoſtles, when he gave them power of remitting ſins, which is a power of Prieſtly Order onely; nor do we finde that any of the Apoſtles ever uſed them;De ordinat. Sacr. par. 2. and it appears by all the Rituals now extant, (ſet forth by Morinus) that no Church, Greek, or Latine, ever uſed theſe words for ſo much as any part of the Ceremony for ordaining a Biſhop, for 1200. years, nor any of the Greek Churches yet to this day; nor therefore doth the Roman Church (which introduced them within theſe 400. years) uſe them as eſſential form, as ſhall be ſeen more anon.

The ſecond Chapter. Replying to Dr Bramhall's Anſwer.

TO the foregoing Objection he makes this Anſwer.Pag. 222

Anſ. If theſe words be conſidered ſingly in a divided ſenſe from the reſt of the Office, there is nothing in our form, which doth diſtinctly and reciprocally expreſs Epiſcopal power. But if theſe words be conſidered conjoyntly in a compounded ſenſe, there is enough to expreſs it diſtinctly. 1. The party is preſented to be made a Biſhop. 2. The Kings Letters Pattents are read, requiring them to Conſecrate him Biſhop. 3. He takes his Oath of Canonicall Obedience, as Biſhop elect. 4. The Aſſembly is exhorted to pray for him, before he be admitted to that Office, (that is, of a Biſhop.) 5. In the Letany, he is prayed for as Biſhop elect, that he may have grace to diſcharge that Office (of a Biſhop.) 6. After the Letany, he is prayed for, as called to the Office of a Biſhop. 7. The Archbiſhop tells him he muſt examine him before he admit him to that adminiſtration whereunto he is called, and after examination prayes for grace for him to uſe the authority committed to him, as a prudent and faithfull Steward; this Authority can be no other then Epiſcopal Authority, nor this Stewardſhip any other thing then Epiſcopacy. 8. Laſtly, after impoſition of hands, with thoſe words, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, &c. follows the tradition of the Bible into his hands, with an exhortation to behave himſelf toward the flock as a Paſtor. All which implies Epiſcopall Authority.

Repl. This anſwer, is either falſe, or impertinent, or a granting of the Argument. For if his meaning be, that there are no words in their eſſential form, that expreſs it, this is a granting of the argument; which proceeded onely upon their eſſential form; the other expreſſions of it in the reſt of the office, ſignifying nothing to the purpoſe, becauſe not ſacramentall. For the conjunction of theſe words with thoſe other, being not formal (which is impoſſible betwixt words ſacramentall, as theſe are, and not ſacramentall, as all the other are,) but onely materiall, or locall, (becauſe contained within the ſame Office,) their ſignifying of it can contribute or cooperate nothing to make theſe ſignifie it one whit the more then they would do taken ſingly by themſelves. And ſo if theſe, taken ſingly by themſelves, do not ſignifie it, (as he confeſſes they do not) then taken ſingly by themſelves they give it not (becauſe they give no more then they ſignifie:) and if taken ſingly by themſelves they give it not, then none is given, becauſe none of the other can give any. To make this more plain. Suppoſe all the other expreſſions had been as they are, and the words of their eſſential form had been onely theſe [Be thou an Officer in the Church; or take authority to ſome adminiſtration; or God make thee an honeſt man,] or ſome ſuch like, mentioning no power of Order in certain: will he ſay, they would be valid to make a Biſhop, by reaſon of their conjunction with the other expreſſions? I ſuppoſe he will not, becauſe theſe ſignifie no power given of a Biſhop. And if thoſe would not, no more will theſe, for the ſame reaſon.

If his meaning be, that there are other words in the Office, which expreſs it as intended, deſired, prayed for, or ſuppoſed to be given, by impoſition of hands, and thoſe words, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, &c. this is impertinent; becauſe the argument proceeded onely upon the not expreſſing it as given.

If his meaning be, that though theſe words do not, yet they are joyn'd with other words, which expreſs it as given; this is falſe: becauſe none of thoſe other expreſſions by him named, do expreſs it as given, or intended to be given by any of themſelves, but onely by the impoſition of hands, and the words joyn'd with it. For in the ſeventh, which immediately precedes Impoſition of hands, the Archbiſhop tells the party, he muſt examine him before he admit him to that adminiſtration: and after that, onely prayer is made for grace that he may diſcharge the Office (meaning, after it ſhould be committed to him) as he ought. And in the eighth which immediately follows the words of Ordination, he is onely exhorted to behave him ſelf as a good Paſtor.

If his meaning be, that theſe words do in ſome part expreſs it as given, and the other in ſome other part, ſo as betwixt them they make up an expreſſion of it as given; this is alſo falſe: becauſe theſe expreſs it not at all, and none of the other expreſs it as given.

So take his anſwer in what ſenſe you will, it is no anſwer to the Objection.

The third Chapter. Anſwering Dr. Bramhalls Allegations for their Form; and in this Chapter, his firſt Allegation, from Chriſts example.

TO prop up his Anſwer (which he ſaw needed it) he addes to it three Arguments for the validity of their Form; but very weak ones all, as will appear by the Anſwers.

1. Arg. You may except againſt Chriſts own form of Ordaining his Apoſtles, if you will: but if that be a ſufficient form, ours is.

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

The fourth Chapter. Anſwering his ſecond Argument, from the Romane Forme.

2. Arg. THe Form uſed at the ſame time when hands are impoſed, is the ſame both in our Form and yours. [Receive the Holy Ghoſt.] And ſo as much in our Form to expreſs Epiſcopal power as in yours; and if yours be valid ours is.

Anſ. If by, the ſame time, he mean the ſame time Phyſical, (or Phyſicè loquendo) I deny his Conſequence [therefore as much in our Form as yours:] becauſe their entire eſſential Form is uſed at the ſame time when hands are impoſed, which ours is not, as we ſhall ſee anon. If by, the ſame time, he mean the ſame time Moral (or Moraliter loquendo, that is, continued without any moral interruption:) his Antecedent is a miſtake. For our Form is not thoſe words alone [Accipe Spiritum Sanctum] nay, perhaps they are no part of our eſſential Form (for the reaſon given ſupra, Cap. 1.) but thoſe that are immediately joyned with them, to wit, the Prayer, Propitiare Domine, &c anciently called, the Benediction; Conc. Car. 4. & Ordo Roman. which hath been our Form ever ſince Saint Peters time, and (for the ſubſtance of it) is the ſame with that which is uſed over all the Eaſterne Churches, and which anciently (until within theſe four hundred years) our Church uſed at the ſame (Phyſical) time when hands were impoſed; onely in latter ages, for the greater ſolemnity of the Ceremony, and fuller ſignification of the grace of this Sacrament, (the giving of the Holy Ghoſt) ſhe hath interpoſed thoſe words [Accipe Spiritum Sanctum] and perhaps by way of Prayer onely, and appointed them, and them alone, to be pronounced at the ſame time when hands are impoſed, and to be pronounced by all the Biſhops aſſiſting; and then, one of the Biſhops onely (as the ancient Law and Cuſtom was) to pronounce the words of Ordination, viz. [Propitiare Domine ſupplicationibus noſtris, 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.

The fifth Chapter. Anſwering his third Argument, from Cardinal Pool's Diſpenſation.

3. Arg. KIng Edward the ſixth his Form of Ordination, was judged valid in Queen Maries dayes, by all the Catholique Biſhops in Parliament, 1. and 2. Phil. and Mar. 8. by Cardinal Pool (then Apoſtolique Legat in England) and by the Pope himſelf, Paul the fourth. This he proves by three Mediums.

The firſt Medium. The Parliament propoſed to the Cardinal, this Article, that all Inſtitutions to Benefices might be confirmed. And the Cardinal did 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

5. That he promiſes to receive them, prout multi jam recepti fuerunt; meaning thoſe who had ſued out their Diſpenſations, as many had. But not one can be named who had been Ordained Biſhop, Prieſt, or Deacon, by the new Form, and upon his return to Catholique Religion, was received in that Order. And I am the more confident of it, becauſe (beſides the reaſons given ſupra) after this Parliament, heretical Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons, if they had been Ordained ritu Romano, were degraded as ſuch: but if by the new Form, not, but onely in that Order which they had received ritu Romano. As namely, John Bradford, Mr. Fox. par. 2. fol. 1464. Ordained a Miniſter by the new Form, was not degraded at all, but proceeded with as a meer lay-man. And Doctor Hooper, Id. ib. fol. 1289. made Prieſt, by the Roman Form, Biſhop, by the new, was degraded as a Prieſt onely. And by this time I hope the Reader ſees how little cauſe Doctor Bramhal had to vaunt as he did of this Argument as unanſwerable. And this ſhall ſerve for my firſt Reaſon.

The ſixth Chapter. Ʋrging the ſecond Reaſon, invalidity of the Miniſter.

BUt grant their Form were valid, yet they would be no Biſhops Ordine, for another reaſon; invalidity of the Miniſter. For the eſſential Miniſter of this Sacrament (the Conſecrating of a Biſhop) is at leaſt (according to their own doctrine) one Biſhop Ordine. Now none of them are Biſhops Ordine, becauſe no Prieſts, (as Prieſt, is the proper name of a holy Order, betwixt Biſhop, and Deacon.)

That none can be a Biſhop but he that is a Prieſt, is a received axiome amongſt all Divines, and granted by themſelves.Mr. Maſon, Ep. ded. ad Epiſc. Pariſ. [Cum Epiſcopus eſſe nequeat qui non fuerit Presbyter, ſi nos Presbyteros non eſſe probatum dederit, actum erit de Miniſterio Anglicano.]

And that their Miniſters are no Prieſts, is manifeſt: becauſe this word Prieſt (as it is the name of a holy Order) ſignifies one ſet apart, or impower'd, to offer to God the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. This is evident from all the Forms (now extant) of Ordaining Prieſts,Vid. ap. Morin. de Ordin. ſacr. par. 2. either ancient or modern, either of the Greek or Latin Church; and from the uſe of this word in all approved Chriſtian Authours from the Apoſtles times to this day. Now themſelves diſclaim to Prieſthood in this ſenſe, and claim to it onely as it ſignifies (in a new ſenſe of their own deviſing) a Miniſter of the Goſpel, having power to diſpence the Word and Sacraments. [Sacrificium propriè dictum ad Miniſtros Evangelicos ſpectare non agnoſcimus. 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, power to offer any Sacrifice.

Nay, ſhould we admit this word Prieſt, in their own ſenſe, for one ſet apart to Conſecrate the Body and Blood. of Chriſt in way of Sacrament onely, yet they would be no Prieſts; becauſe the words of their Form ſignifie no ſuch power. For theſe are the words of it [Take the Holy Ghoſt: whoſe ſins thou forgiveſt they are forgiven, whoſe ſins thou retaineſt they are retained: and be thou a faithful diſpenſer of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments.] In which you ſee is no power given, as to this or any other Sacrament, but onely to diſpenſe them. Now to diſpenſe this Sacrament, is not to Conſecrate it; for it muſt firſt be Conſecrated, afore it can be diſpenſed; and (in ſome caſes, as if one at point of death, ſhould deſire his viaticum, and no Prieſt or Deacon could be had to give it him,) it may be diſpenſed by a Deacon, yea by a Lay-man, but cannot be Conſecrated but by a Prieſt: and in a Prieſt, the Conſecrating it belongs to his power of Order, the Diſpenſing it, to power of Juriſdiction onely.

The ſeventh Chapter. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Anſwers.

pag. 226.1. Anſ. I Deny that in all Forms of Prieſtly Ordination, the word Prieſt is ſet down either expreſly or equivalently. It is ſet down expreſly in the Eaſtern Church, in the Weſtern not.

Reply. In the Weſtern Church, 1. it is ſet down equivalently. For theſe words, at the delivery of the paten with an hoaſt, and of the chalice with wine in it [Accipe poteſtatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, &c.] are equivalent to theſe [Take the power of Prieſthood, or be thou a Prieſt.] But 2. it is alſo ſet down expreſly, viz. in the prayer (joyned with the Impoſition of hands) anciently called Benedictio Presbyteri, and which alone (as I noted afore) was the ancient Form for Ordaining a Prieſt [Exaudi nos Domine Deus noſter, & ſuper kos famulos tuos Bene ✚ dictionem Sancti Spiritus, & gratiae SACERDOTALIS infunde virtutem.] And in the Prayer anciently called Conſecratio Presbyteri, which followeth ſoon after the other [Dain hos famulos tuos PRESBYTERII dignitatem, &c. ut panem & vinum in corpus & ſanguinem filii tui immaculatâ benedictione transforment, &c.] both which Prayers ſtill are uſed in our Form.

2. Anſ. If the words of our Form be as determinate and expreſs, as the example and preſcription of Chriſt, it is ſufficient. The form of Baptiſm is, I BAPTIZE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, &c. Not, I BAPTIZE THEE TO REGENERATION OR REMISSION OF SINS. There are many other kindes of Baptiſms or waſhings beſides this Sacramental Baptiſme, yet this form is as large as the Inſtitution of Chriſt; and theſe general words are efficacious both to regeneration and remiſſion of ſins, as well as if they had been expreſly mentioned. In this form of Baptiſm there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intention of the Miniſter, So there is likewiſe in our Form of Ordination.

Rep. Had Chriſt inſtituted thoſe words of their Form [Take the Holy Ghoſt, &c.] for giving the grace of Prieſtly Order, as he did thoſe [I Baptize thee, &c.] for giving the grace of regeneration, we neither could nor ſhould have excepted againſt it; becauſe then it would have ſignified it, as the Form of Baptiſm doth regeneration, ex inſtituto Chriſti. But 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 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 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 by halves [Have thou authority to preach, &c. in this Congregation where thou ſhalt be ſo appointed.]

2. Had they been abſolute, and imperative, [Have thou authority to preach, and diſpenſe Sacraments] they would not have ſignified power of Order, but Juriſdiction onely;; nor any greater Juriſdiction then a Deacon is capable of. And his anſwer to this, [that the Prieſt doth diſpenſe this Sacrament by way of Office, a Deacon onely as his Miniſter,] is 1. falſe, for if a Deacon be Beneficed, and have a faculty from the Biſhop, in the interim till be a Prieſt, to preach and diſpenſe Sacraments, he hath authority to diſpenſe this Sacrament ex Officio, and not as Miniſter to any Prieſt. 2. Impertinent, for the diſpenſing it ex Officio, doth not formally ſignifie, or neceſſarily include power to Conſecrate it, at leaſt, not as given by thoſe words which give the power to diſpenſe it; for (regularly) he muſt firſt be made a Prieſt, and afterward a diſpenſer of it (or Paſtour.)

If he ſay, that under this word, diſpenſe, the Ordainer meant power, not onely to adminiſter the Euchariſt, but to Conſecrate it; I believe he did; but (as I have often ſaid) the intention of the Miniſter is not ſufficient to give power of Order, and the higheſt power of Order (as this is, to Conſecrate the Euchariſt,) without words ſignifying it.

And this ſhall ſerve for the firſt part of my Concluſion, that they are no Biſhops Ordine (or valid Biſhops.)

The eighth Chapter. Proving the ſecond part of the Concluſion, that they are no Biſhops OFFICIO, viz. For want of Juriſdiction in the Conſecrators; and urging the firſt reaſon, want of the Patriarch's conſent.

THe ſecond part of my Concluſion is, that they are no Biſhops Officio (Juriſdictione, or ſimpliciter.) My reaſon is, becauſe they that Confirmed, or Conſecrated them, had no Juriſdiction to either of thoſe acts.

The Conſequence (they had no Juriſdiction, therefore could not validly Confirm, &c.) is good: becauſe the Confirming of one elected to a Biſhoprick (that is, the ratifying of his election to it; which if the party were Conſecrated afore, is that which makes him inſtantly Biſhop of it; and if he were not, is that which makes him inſtantly Biſhop (or Lord) elect of it, and puts him in proxima potentiâ to be Conſecrated Biſhop of it,) is plainly an act of Juriſdiction: and therefore cannot be exerciſed validly, but by one having Juriſdiction to it. 2. The Conſecrating of a Biſhop, as it hath two effects in the party Conſecrated, one the creating him a Biſhop Ordine, another the creating him Biſhop of ſuch a See (as ex. gr. Canterbury, London, &c.) ſo it requires in the Conſecraters two powers; one, to create him a Biſhop Ordine, and ſo it is an act purely of the Key of Order; another, to create him Biſhop of that See, (that is, governing Paſtour to that Flock of Clergy and People, with authority to Inſtitute Paſtours, hold Courts, make Decrees, determine Cauſes, inflict or releaſe Cenſures Eccleſiaſtical, over, or among them,) and ſo it is plainly an act of the Key of Juriſdiction, becauſe giving Juriſdiction onely: and ſo cannot be validly exerciſed but by one having authority to exerciſe it.

The Antecedent, (they had no Juriſdiction,) is proved by two Mediums.

The firſt is, becauſe they had no authority from the Pope, who alone could give it them. For none can give Paſtoral Juriſdiction, but a Paſtour; nor Juriſdiction over ſuch a flock; but the Paſtour to that flock; becauſe none can give a Juriſdiction which he hath not. And hence, even among themſelves, no Biſhop in the land can validly Inſtitute a Paſtour to any Parochial Church, but the Biſhop of the Dioceſs, or by Commiſſion from him, or his Superiour. Nor can any number of Biſhops validly Confirm or Conſecrate the Biſhop of any Dioceſs, but the Metropolitane of the Province (or ſome perſon authorized by him or his Superiour) muſt be one: nor the Metropolitane of a Province, but the Primate of the Nation, (or ſome perſon authorized by him or his Superiour) muſt be one. And conſequently, by (parity of reaſon) nor the Primate of any Nation, but the Patriarch of that part of the world (or ſome perſon having faculty from him) muſt be one. This was long ago defined (or declared) by the firſt Council of Nice, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (that is, particularly, and principally, the Conſecrating of their Primates,) &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (the Eccleſiaſtical Superior to that See) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] 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 of Queen Elizabeths Reign, for want of the Popes conſent to his Conſecration; there hath been no Biſhop validly Confirmed or Conſecrated in it, ſince that time, not can be, till the Popes conſent can be had.

The ninth Chapter. Ʋrging the ſecond reaſon, their having no Juriſdiction but from the King: and bringing the firſt proof of it, from their own acts and confeſſions.

MY ſecond Medium ſhall be, becauſe they have no Juriſdiction to theſe acts, but what they have originally from the King, who can give them none. And

Firſt, that he can give them none to theſe acts, I ſuppoſe will be granted; becauſe to Inſtitute or create a Paſtour to a flock of Clergy and people, is plainly a power of the Keyes, which themſelves acknowledge no temporal Prince (as ſuch) hath. And they give a good reaſon for it,Dr. Bram. pag. 63. becauſe the power of the Keyes was evidently given by Chriſt in Scripture to his Apoſtles and their Succeſſours, not to Sovereign Princes. Hence, Queen Elizabeth in her Commiſſion to them as were to Confirm and Conſecrate Matthew Parker to the See of Canterbury, would not uſe the words, aſſign, conſtitute, or authorize, (as is uſed in all other Commiſſions) but onely required them to Confirm and Conſecrate him, and do all other things which in this behalf belonged to their Paſtoral Office: thereby acknowledging, that theſe were acts of the Paſtoral Office, which ſhe could not authorize, but onely command, them to perform.

Secondly, that they have no Juriſdion to theſe acts, but what they have (originally) from the King, may be ſhewed many wayes. I ſhall make uſe of three.

The firſt ſhall be from their own acts and confeſſions, As

1.Eccl. Reſt. in pref. That Doctor Heylin notes of Q. Elizabeth (as commendable in Her,) that ſhe looked upon Her ſelf as the ſole fountain of both Juriſdictions (temporal, and ſpiritual.) For if ſhe the ſole fountain of both; then they that Confirmed and Conſecrated Matthew Parker, and Her other firſt Biſhops, had no Juriſdiction for it, but what they derived from Her.

2. That afore their Conſecration, they take, 1. the Oath of Supremacy, whereby they acknowledge the King to be the onely Supream Governour, as well in all Spiritual or Eccleſiaſtical things or cauſes, as Temporal. For if ſo, they cannot exerciſe any Spiritual Juriſdiction in foro exteriori (as this is, to Confirm and Conſecrate a Paſtour) but what muſt be derived from him. Nor can they ſay, that by the Supream Governour, in that Oath, is meant onely the Supream political Governour:1. Eliz. 1. for the Act that eſtabliſhed that Oath, declares it to belong to the Kings Supremacy, to uſe and exerciſe all ſuch Juriſdictions Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical, as by any Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical power or authority, hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be uſed, over the Eccleſiaſtical State of this Realm, and conſequently, to authorize any Biſhops in the land (as the Pope afore did) to Confirm and Conſecrate Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and ſo that none might Confirm or Conſecrate any, but by authority from the King, as afore they might not but by authority from the Pope: nay, it gives to the King more authority, and in this very kinde, then the Pope can exerciſe, or ever pretended to, viz. to aſſign and authorize any perſons as he ſhall think meet (Biſhops, or not Biſhops, Clerks, or Laymen, ſo they be his natural born Subjects) to exerciſe under him all manner of Juriſdictions and Authorities, in any wiſe touching or concerning any Spiritual Juriſdiction within this Realm: and conſequently, to Confirm, or Conſecrate Archbiſhops or Biſhops, of any Sees; for this is a ſpiritual Juriſdiction. 2. Beſides this, they take a particular Oath, of Homage, whereby they acknowledge to hold thir Archbiſhoprick (or Biſhoprick) with all authority, juriſdiction, priviledges, revenues, and all elſe thereunto belonging, ſolely and onely from his Majeſty. If all their Juriſdiction from him ſolely, they can have no authority to conſtitute a Paſtour of a Cathedral or Metropolitical Church, but what they muſt have from him.

The tenth Chapter. Bringing the ſecond Proof, from other publick Acts.

THe ſecond way of proof ſhall be, from other publick Acts and proceedings, approved by them; by which it appears that the King can and ſometimes does at his pleaſure, limit, controul, ſuſpend, or utterly deprive the Biſhops of their Juriſdiction; which he could not do, if they had it from any other then himſelf. Of this, I ſhall name two Inſtances.

One, ſhall be the ſequeſtring of Doctor Abbot by the late King, from his Office of Archbiſhop of Canterbury, upon a diſpleaſure taken againſt him, for refuſing to licenſe a Sermon as the King deſired, and committing that Office (he living) unto other Biſhops of his own appointing;See the Commiſſion at large, in Mr. Ruſh. Hiſt. Collect. p. 435. authorizing them, to do all, or any acts pertaining to the power or authority of the Arch-biſhop of Canterbury in cauſes or matters Eccleſiaſtical, as amply, fully, and effectually to all intents and purpoſes, as the ſaid Archbiſhop might have done. And ſo by vertue of this Commiſſion, thoſe perſons had authority to Conſecrate or Confirm the Archbiſhop of York (if it ſhould happen,) or any Biſhop within the Province of Canterbury; which without it they had not.

Another, ſhall be the Declaration of his Majeſty, (whom God grant long to Reign over us) touching affairs of Religion: in which he deprives all the Biſhops and Archbiſhops in the land of their power of ſole Ordaining and Cenſuring their Presbyters, and joyns their Presbyters in Commiſſion with them, as to thoſe acts of Ordaining and Cenſuring.

The eleventh Chapter. Bringing the third Proof from the Conſecration of Matthew Parker.

MY third proof, ſhall be from the Conſecration of Matthew Parker, the firſt Proteſtant Archbiſhop of Canterbury, from whom all the Archbiſhops and Biſhops that have been ſince, deſcend; and ſo if he had no authority to Confirm or Conſecrate a Biſhop, but what he had from the Queen, none ſince him can have; becauſe they can have none but muſt be derived to them from and by him.

Now that he had none but from the Queen, is proved.

They who Confirmed and Conſecrated him, had no authority for it, but from the Queen.

Therefore he had none but from the Queen.

The Conſequence, I ſuppoſe will not be denied; becauſe he had all his Spiritual Juriſdiction, by his Confirmation and Conſecration to that See: if then they who Confirmed and Conſecrated him, did it by no authority but of the Queen; he could have none but what he had from Her.

The Antecedent is eaſily proved. For if they had any, it muſt be, either as Biſhops Ordine, or as Biſhops Officio: but neither of theſe wayes had they any.

1. Not as Biſhops Ordine: becauſe to Confirm or Conſecrate a Paſtour, is an act of Juriſdiction: which a Biſhop Ordine onely, hath none.

2. Not as Biſhops Officio: becauſe

Firſt, not one of them was ſo, as appears by the ſtile given them in the Queens Letters Pattents to them for this buſineſs [Regina &c. Antonio Landavenſi Epiſcopo, Wilelmo Barlow quondam Bathonienſi Epiſcopo, nunc Ciceſtrenſi Electo, Joanni Scory quondam Ciceſtrenſi Epiſcopo, nunc Electo Herefordienſi, Miloni Coverdale quondam Exonienſi Epiſcopo, Richardo Bedfordenſi, Joanni Thedfordenſi, Epiſcopis Suffraganeis, & Joanni Bale Oſſorienſio Epiſcopo.] Where you ſee, thoſe four that Confirmed and Conſecrated him, (admitting their Lambeth Records for true,) to wit, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskins (Suffragan of Bedford,) are not ſtiled Biſhops of any See, as two of the other are, (he of Landaff, and he of Oſſory,) but either quondam Biſhops onely, as Coverdale; or quondam Biſhops and Lords Elect onely, as Barlow and Scory; or Suffragan Biſhops onely (as John Hodgskins,) that is, who had indeed the Epiſcopal Character, but were Paſtours of Parochial Churches onely, erected into Suffragan Sees, by the Act of 26. H. 8. 14. who by the Act could not exerciſe any leaſt act of Juriſdiction, no not within their own pariſh, without licenſe of the Biſhop of the Dioceſſe.

Secondly, becauſe had they been all of them actual Biſhops of Cathedral Churches, yet, they could not validly Confirm or Conſecrate any loweſt Biſhop in the land, and much leſs their Metropolitan, without a Faculty or Commiſſion from ſome Superiour to that See. And the reaſon is evident: Becauſe

1. They could not (by their own authority) validly exerciſe any Juriſdiction out of their own Dioceſſes, as London where they were to Confirm, and Lambeth, where they were to Conſecrate him, was out of all their Dioceſſes.

2. Nor within his own Dioceſs could any one of them give Juriſdiction to be exerciſed in another Dioceſs, as Canterbury was.

3. Much leſs could they (being but ſimple Biſhops) give a Juriſdiction Metropolitical, and create a Superiour to themſelves, and to all the Biſhops of the Province, yea and to the Archbiſhop of another Province, namely him of York: for they could not give a Juriſdiction which they had not.

Theſe two grand defects therefore, in the condition, ſtate, and faculty of the Confirmers and Conſecraters of Matthew Parker, the one againſt the Canons of the Church, that they had no conſent of the Metropolitane to the See of Canterbury, the other againſt both the Canons of the Church, and the laws of the land, that not one of thoſe who were like to execute the Commiſſion, was a Biſhop (ſimpliciter, or in the ſenſe wherein all laws, both of the Church and of the Land, mean, when they ſpeak of a Biſhop,) rendring them uncapable to Confirm or Conſecrate him, till thoſe defects were ſupplied; the party that ſupplied thoſe defects, was the party that gave them their authority to thoſe acts. Now it is manifeſt by the Queens Commiſſion to them, that ſhe, by vertue of her Supremacy in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, did ſupply to them thoſe defects: for theſe are the words of the Commiſſion. [Regina, &c. Reverendiſſimis in Chriſto Patribus, Antonio, &c. (ut ſupra) Cum Decanus & Capitulum Eccleſiae noſtrae Cathredalis & Metropoliticae Chriſti Cantuarienſis dilectum nobis in Chriſto Magiſtrum Mattheum Parker, ſibi & Eccleſiae praedictae elegerunt in Archiepiſcopum & Paſtorem: nos eidem electioni Regium noſtrum aſſenſum adhibuimus pariter & favorem, & hoc vobis tenore praeſentium ſignificamus, rogantes, ac in fide & dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter praecipiendo, Mandantes, quatenus vos aut quatuor veſtrum eundem in Archiepiſcopum & Paſtorem Eccleſiae praedictae ſicut praefertur electum, electionemque praedictam, Confirmare, & eundem in Archiepiſcopum & Paſtorem Eccleſiae praedictae Conſecrare, caeteraque omnia & ſingula peragere, quae veſtro in hac parte incumbunt Officio Paſtorali, juxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum & proviſorum, velitis cum effectu. Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate noſtrá Regiâ, ſi quid, aut in his quae juxta mandatum noſtrum praedictum per vos fient, aut in vobis aut veſtrûm aliquo, conditione, ſtatu, aut facultate veſtris, ad praemiſſa perficienda deſit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni noſtri, aut per Leges Eccleſiaſticas, in hac parte requiruntur aut neceſſaria ſunt, temporis ratione & rerum neceſſitate id poſtulante, viz.] becauſe neither the conſent of the Metropolitane (the Biſhop of Rome,) nor four Biſhops, as the Law of the Realm, nor three, as the Canons of the Church required, no nor any one Biſhop could be then had to his Confirmation and Conſecration. Now though really ſhe could give them no ſuch authority, becauſe ſhe had no power of the Keyes, to which it pertained to diſpenſe with the Canons of the Church: yet this ſuffices to prove my intent, that they had no authority to either of thoſe acts, but what they had from Her.

The twelfth Chapter. Replying to Doctor Heylins Anſwer.

DOctor Heylin undertakes to anſwer all our Objections againſt the Canonicalneſs of Matthew Parkers Conſecration:Eccl. Reſt. p 2. f. 122. but he neither ſets them down all, nor ſolves thoſe he doth; as will appear by the Reply.

1. Anſ. Though Barlow and Scory were deprived of their Epiſcopal Sees; yet, firſt, the juſtice and legality of their Deprivation was not clear in Law.

Rep. 1. And why then did the Queen in her Letters Pattents not ſtile them Biſhops, but onely quondam Biſhops of thoſe Sees? And why did ſhe not in all that time (being above thirteen moneths after her coming to the Crown) reſtore them to thoſe Sees? And why did ſhe, or how could ſhe, they living, place others in thoſe Sees, without their reſignation. 2. Grant the deprivation had been unjuſt, yet till it was avoided, and they reſtored by ſentence, they were no Biſhops of thoſe Sees, in the eye of the Law. 3. Had they been actual Biſhops of thoſe Sees, yet they would have had no authority to Confirm or Conſecrate him, for the defects ſhewed ſupra.

2. Anſ. Secondly, they neither were nor could be deprived of their Epiſcopal Character: and whilſt that remained, they were in a capacity for performing all Epiſcopal Offices to which they ſhould be called by their Metropolitane, or any higher power directing and commanding in all ſuch matters as concerned the Church.

Rep. If by, higher power, &c. he mean Eccleſiaſtical; it is true, he ſaith, but impertinent; becauſe they were not called to Confirm or Conſecrate Matthew Parker, by any ſuch higher power, but onely by the Queen. But if he mean, that their Epiſcopal Character rendred them capable to perform all Epiſcopal Offices, to which they ſhould be called by a Lay-Prince onely, having no other authority in matters as concern the Church, but onely to direct or command Biſhops to perform their Offices, it is notorious falſe doctrine.

3. Anſ. As for Suffragans (by which title Hodgskins is Commiſſionated for the Conſecration) they were no other then the Chorepiſcopi of the Primitive times, ordained for eaſing the Dioceſan, &c.

Rep. They were in ſome things more then the Chorepiſcopi, for they (the Chorepiſcopi) were no Biſhops Ordine, which theſe were: but in other things they were leſs, for the Chorepiſcopi had Juriſdiction Epiſcopal from ſome lawful Biſhop of the See; which theſe had not, but were onely eſtabliſhed by an Act of Parliament of Hen. 8. nor had any of the Biſhops then in the Realm Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, being manifeſt Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, and ſo could not conſtitute a Suffragan. But grant they were no leſs then the Chorepiſcopi, he cannot ſhew that ever any Chorepiſcopus was uſed for the Confirming or Conſecrating of a Biſhop. And this ſhall ſerve for the ſecond part of my Concluſion, that they are no Biſhops Officio, (or Canonical Biſhops.)

The thirteenth Chapter. Proving the third part of the Concluſion, that they are no legal Biſhops: and urging the firſt Reaſon, becauſe the Act of H. 8. for the Roman Form, is ſtill in force.

THough it matter not much to my purpoſe, whether they be Legal Biſhops, or not:Dr. Stapl. Counterbl. ag. Horne. yet becauſe our writers have objected this alſo againſt them, [Is it not notorious, that you were not Ordained according to the preſcript, I will not ſay, of the Church, but even of the very Statutes,] and their late Champions have undertaken to defend it, and the diſcuſſing of it will give much light into the whole Controverſie, and more abundantly diſcover the nullity of their Conſecrations, this ſhall be the third part of my Concluſion, that they are no legal Biſhops. My reaſons are two.

The firſt is, becauſe the Act of 25. Hen 8.20. which authorizes the Roman Form for Conſecrating Biſhops (by giving Pall, and uſing Benedictions, Ʋnctions, and all other Ceremonies requiſite at that time, viz. by the Romane Pontifical, which was then in uſe, in this Nation,) being repealed by Q. Mary, was revived 1. Eliz. and never ſince repealed, and ſo is ſtill in force.

Nor will it ſerve to ſay, that that Act of Hen. 8. was repealed (as to that part of it) virtually, (or interpretatively,) by the Act of 8. Eliz. which eſtabliſhed another Form; for in the judgement of Law, an Act of Parliament is not repealed but by expreſs words.

The fourteenth Chapter. Ʋrging the ſecond Reaſon, becauſe the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination, being repealed by Queen Mary, is not yet revived; and proving the firſt part of the reaſon, that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz.

THe ſecond reaſon is, becauſe granting that the Act of Hen. 8. was virtually repealed, by 8. Elizabethae, and that ſuch virtual repeal is ſufficient in Law, yet the Form of Edw. 6. (by which they are Ordained) cannot be legal, becauſe that part of the Act of Edward 6. which eſtabliſhed the Book of Ordination, and was repealed by Queen Mary, was not revived afore 8. Eliz. nor then neither.

The firſt part of this reaſon, (that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz.) is eaſily proved. For whereas that Act of 5. and 6. Edw. 6.1. conſiſted of two parts; one, which authorized the Book of Common-Prayer (eſtabliſhed 2. and 3. Edw, 6.) as it was then newly explained and perfected; another which eſtabliſhed the Form of Conſecrating Biſhops, &c. and added it to the Book of Common-Prayer: this Act, as to both theſe parts, was repealed 1. Mar. and this repeal was reverſed 1. Eliz. 1. as to that part which concerned the Book of Common-Prayer onely: for ſo runs the Act [The ſaid Statute of Repeal, and every thing therein contained, ONELY concerning the ſaid Book (viz. of Common-Prayer, authorized by Edw. 6.) ſhall be void and of none effect.] And afterward, 8. Eliz. 1. was revived that other part of it which concerned the Form of Ordination, viz. in theſe words [Such Order and Form for the Conſecrating of Archbiſhops, Biſhops, &c. as was ſet forth in the time of Edw. 6. and added to the ſaid Book of Common-Prayer, and authorized 5. and 6. Edw. 6. ſhall ſtand and be in full force, and ſhall from henceforth be uſed and obſerved.]

The fifteenth Chapter. Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Anſwer.

pag. 95.FIrſt, he ſets down our Objection wrong. [The Book of Ordination was expreſly eſtabliſhed by name, by Edw. 6. and that Act was expreſly repealed by Queen Mary: but the Book of Ordination was not expreſly reſtored by Queen Eliz. but onely in general terms, under the name and notion of the Book of Common-Prayer.] For this is not our objection, but this: it was not reſtored at all, but rather formally excluded, by 1. Eliz. For that Act of Edw. 6. conſiſting of nothing elſe, but the authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer, and eſtabliſhing, and adding to it, the Book of Ordination; and the Act of Queen Mary having repealed that whole Act: that Act of 1. Eliz. reverſing that repeal, as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely, did plainly and directly exclude the repealing of it as to the Book of Ordination, there being nothing elſe to be excluded by that onely, but that Book. And I am confident, it was the full intent of the Queen and Parliament at that time, to retain ſtill, as the Order of Biſhops, ſo the Catholique Form of Conſecrating them, authorized by Act of Parliament, 25. Hen. 8. 20. after his revolt from Rome, and uſed all his time till his death, and for ſome years of Edw. 6. For that Queen loved ſtate and ſolemnity in the Rites of the Church where it juſtled not with her intereſt, and loathed the ſlovinly way of Ordaining, uſed by Lutherans and Calviniſts; until ſhe was overborn in it, at the Conſecration of Matthew Parker, when no Catholick Biſhops could be got to Conſecrate him, and the Proteſtant, would not Conſecrate him ritu Romano. And one good reaſon of my confidence is, becauſe that Act of 1. Eliz, did expreſly revive that Act of 25. Hen. 8. 20. which was inconſiſtent with the reviving of that part of the Act of Edw. 6. which concerned the Book of Ordination; that Form authorized by the Act of Hen. 8. being the Roman Form, with Pall, Unction, Benedictions, Miter, Ring, &c. and that of Edw. 6. a bald thing, without any of that dreſs.

Secondly, the anſwers he gives to the Objection are falſe, or frivolous: as will appear by the Replies.

Anſ. Queen Maries Statute was repealed ſufficiently even as to the Book of Ordination, as appears by the very words of that Statute which repealed it. [And that the ſaid Book, with the order of Service and adminiſtration of Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies, ſhall be in full force and effect, any thing in Queen Maries Statute of repeal to the contrary notwithſtanding.]

Rep. By theſe words appears it was not repealed as to the Book of Ordination, becauſe the words preceding, repealed it expreſly as to the Book of Common-Prayer onely; and theſe words revive the Statute of Edw. 6. as to that Book onely.

Anſ. That the Book of Ordination was a part of the Book of Common-Prayer, and printed in this Book in King Edwards dayes, beſide the expreſs teſtimony of the Statute of 8. Eliz. we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England, which call it ſingularly, the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Biſhops.

Rep. The Statute of 8. Eliz. teſtifies no ſuch thing, much leſs expreſly. And the Canon by him cited is againſt himſelf, implying it was no part of the Book of Common-Prayer, (for then it had been vain to ſay, the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Biſhops) but a diſtinct Book by it ſelf, though bound up in one volume, or under one cover, with the Book of Common-Prayer; and thence, called ſingularly, the Book of Common-Prayer, and of Ordering Biſhops; i. e. the Book containing both thoſe Books.

Anſ. It is our Form of Prayer upon that occaſion, as much as our Form of Baptizing or adminiſtring the Holy Euchariſt, or our Form of Confirming, Marrying, or viſiting the Sick.

Rep. True, but not contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, (but in a diſtinct Book,) and therefore not revived with it neceſſarily, or in vertue of that name, the Book of Common-Prayer.

Anſ. It is alſo a part of our Form of adminiſtration of the Sacraments. We deny not Ordination to be a Sacrament.

Rep. But it is not a Sacrament contained in the Book of Common-Prayer; and therefore not revived with that Book.

Anſ. No man can deny that it is a part of our Eccleſiaſtical Rites and Ceremonies, and under that notion, ſufficiently authorized.

Rep. Any man can, and I do deny it to be any Rite or Ceremony pertaining to the Book of Common-Prayer: and therefore under that notion it could not be authorized by an Act authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer.

Anſ. Laſtly, Ejus eſt Legem interpretari cujus eſt condere. Q. Eliz. and her Parliament made the Law, and expounded it by the ſame authority that made it; declaring, that under the Book of Common-Prayer, the Form of Ordination was comprehended, and ought to be underſtood.

Rep. He ſhould have quoted the words ſo declaring, and no doubt would have done it, had there been any: but there are no ſuch. Nay divers paſſages of that Act, do rather declare the contrary. As

1. When ſpeaking of the Act of 1. Marie, they ſay, it repealed the Act of Edw. 6. for allowing the Book of Common-Prayer, and other the premiſes (that is, the Book of Ordination, ſpoken of before, as added, by that Act, to the Book of Common-Prayer:) but ſpeaking of the Act of 1. Eliz. they do not ſay, it eſtabliſhed the ſaid Book of Common-Prayer, and other the premiſes; but onely, the ſaid Book of Common-Prayer, and of the adminiſtration of Sacraments, and other the ſaid Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies before mentioned (that is, contained in the ſaid Book of Common-Prayer; for no other were before mentioned.)

2. When for the Book of Common-Prayer, the mention the Act of 1. Eliz. that had authorized it, and onely confirm that Act [The ſaid Act (of 1. Eliz.) whereby the ſaid Book of Common-Prayer is authorized, ſhall ſtand and remain good.] But for the Book of Ordination; they mention not the Act of 1. Eliz. but revive the Act of Edw. 6. for it. [Such Order and Form for the Conſecrating of Archbiſhops, &c. as was authorized by 5. and 6. Edw. 6. ſhall ſtand and be in full force;] which had been vain, if it had been revived before, by 1. Eliz. as it would have been, if it had been a part of the Book of Common-Prayer.

The ſixteenth Chapter. Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himſelf, and falſifying the Act of 8. Eliz.

DOctor Heylin relating this matter as an Hiſtorian, firſt, varies from himſelf, and then notoriouſly falſifies the Act of 8. Eliz.

1. He varies from himſelf; for one while, he delivers it (as the truth was) that the Liturgy was confirmed 1. Eliz. and the Book of Ordination not afore 8.Ecc. Reſt. in Ep. to Reader. Eliz: [In the firſt year of Her Reign, the Liturgy was confirmed by Parliament. In her fifth, the Articles of Religion were agreed upon in the Convocation. And in the eighth, the Government of the Church by Archbiſhops and Biſhops, received as ſtrong a Confirmation as the Laws could give it. And for this laſt, we are beholden unto Bonner, &c.] And elſewhere [In the ſix and thirtieth Article is declared that whoſoever were Conſecrated according to the Rites of the Ordinal of Edw. 6.p. 1. f. 83. ſhould be reputed lawfully Conſecrated; which Declaration of the Church was afterwards made good by Act of Parliament in the eighth year of that Queen, in which the ſaid Ordinal is confirmed, and ratified.] And yet another while he ſaith,Ibid. it was approved of and confirmed as a part of the Liturgy. For if ſo, then it was confirmed with the Liturgy, 1. Eliz.

2. Then he notoriouſly falſifies the Act of 8.p. 2. f. 174. Eliz. [The buſineſs (ſaith he) came under conſideration in the following Parliament (8. Eliz.) where all particulars being fully and conſiderately diſcourſed upon, it was firſt declared, (ſetting down theſe that follow as the words of the Act.) That their (the Parliament 1. Eliz.) not reſtoring of that Book to the former power, in terms ſignificant and expreſs, was but Caſus omiſſus; and ſecondly, that by the Statute of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. it had been added to 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.

The ſeventeenth Chapter. Confirming the Argument, by the proceedings in Bonners Caſe; and urging the firſt inference for the opinion of the Judges.

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 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 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 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.

The eighteenth Chapter. Refuſing the ſhifts uſed by Mr. Maſon, and Doctor Heylin to evade this inference.

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 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 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 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 hated, and deprived of all Office and power in the State, and then a priſoner, the Defendant. And that which he addes to colour his reaſon, [That there had been ſome proof made before, of the partiallity or inſufficiency of a Jury, touching grants made by King Edwards Biſhops:] if meant of Juries in Queen Maries time, was no reaſon in Queen Elizabeths: and if meant in Her time, helps to confirm what I ſay, that afore 8. Eliz. neither Judges, nor Juries, could finde King Edwards Biſhops were legal Biſhops. The true reaſon therefore why the Judges adviſed Horn to refer his Cauſe to the Parliament, can be no other then this, as I ſay, that they found an Act of Parliament was neceſſary to make him a Biſhop.

The nineteenth Chapter. Ʋrging the ſecond inference, for the opinion of the Parliament.

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

1. They would not have revived the Act of Edw. 6. for the Form of Ordination: for that implied, it was not revived afore: and if not, they could be no legal Biſhops.

2. They would have made no Law in the Caſe, but left it to a judgement of the Court, or onely given a Sentence in it themſelves.

3. If they would make a Law for it: yet 1. They would not have enacted them to be Biſhops, but onely declared that they were ſo. 2. Nor would they have ſaid as they do [Be it declared and enacted, that all things heretofore done, in or about the Conſecration of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, be, and ſhall be, by Authority of this Parliament, at, and from every of the ſeveral times of doing thereof, good and perfect, any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary notwithſtanding;] which, except meant of the making them ſo to be, by vertue of that Act, would be meer non-ſenſe and contradiction: but thus, [All things heretofore done, &c. were in very deed, at and from every of the ſeveral times of doing thereof, good, without authority of this Act, and any matter or thing to be objected to the contrary.] 3. Nor would they have ſaid as they do, [All that have been Conſecrated Archbiſhops, &c. ſince her Majeſties Reign, be in very deed, and alſo by authority hereof, declared, and enacted to be, and ſhall be, Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, and rightly Conſecrated, any Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithſtanding;] which, except as afore, would be another ſtrange medley of non-ſenſe and contradictions, (which ambiguous language they were driven to, out of a deſire to uſe ſome words for the honour of the Biſhops, as if Biſhops afore, and of a neceſſity to uſe other, for the creating them ſuch then:) but they would have ſaid, in plain and good Engliſh, which would have put the matter out of queſtion [All that have been Conſecrated, were in very deed, at and from every of the ſeveral times of their Conſecrations, Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, and rightly Conſecrated, according to Law.]

4. Nor would they have recited (as they do) at large, the Supream Authority given to the Queen, by 1. Eliz. To aſſign and authorize ſuch perſons as ſhe ſhould think meet, to exerciſe under Her all manner of Spiritual Juriſdiction, and thereupon inferred. [So that to all that will well conſider of the effect and true intent of the ſaid Statutes, and of the Supream and abſolute authority of the Queen (to make Biſhops, by Her Commiſſion onely, with, or without any Legal Form of Conſecration, or with, or without any Biſhops for the Conſecraters,) and which ſhe by her ſaid Letters Pattents hath uſed, in, and about their Conſecration, (by ſupplying to them all defects, either in the Form they ſhould uſe, or in the faculty, ſtate, or condition of the Conſecraters, whether Biſhops or not Biſhops) it is and may be evident that no cauſe of ſcruple can or may be objected againſt their Conſecrations; for this grounds the Legality, both of the Form, and of the Conſecraters, not upon the things in their own nature, but upon the authority of the Queens Commiſſion, which ſupplied to them all defects in Law: but they would have ſaid plainly, and without praying any ſuch aid from the Queens Supremacy, [They were Conſecrated by Legal Biſhops, and by a Legal Form; or the Form of Edw. 6. was a Legal Form, or was revived by 1. Eliz. &c.] ſeeing that was the onely exception againſt the Form of their Conſecrations.

5. Nor, leaſt of all, after Bonner had put in a plea ſo inſolent, and reproachful to the Queen, Her Biſhops, and their whole Clergy and Church, and (if Horn had been a Biſhop) had incurr'd a Premunire for refuſing the Oath of Supremacy; and when the acquittal of him, and of all other refractory refuſers of the Oath, afore the laſt day of that Seſſion, (when there was no other exception to the Certificates, but this, that they that made them were no Biſhops,) and this, without, and afore any petition exhibited, or ſubmiſſion promiſed, on the Delinquents part, would, in the interpretation of all indifferent men, redound notably to the juſtifying of Bonner's plea, and conſequently, to the infamy of their whole Clergy, and Church: I ſay, all this conſidered, they would never have made ſuch Proviſo's, for the indemnity of Bonner and the other Delinquents, if they could have found Horn a Legal Biſhop.

The twentieth Chapter. Refuting the ſhifts deviſed to evade this inference.

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

Refut. 1. They did not firſt clear their Biſhops (as is ſhewed afore.) 2. Nor did they pardon Bonner and his fellows, but annul the proceſs. 3. That Act was 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 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.

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 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 one and twentieth Chapter. Proving the ſecond part of the reaſor, that it was not revived then.

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 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 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 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.

Epilogue.

ANd now the Reader may judge how little reaſon Doctor Heylin had to boaſt, (as he does) of his Church, as it was ſettled by Q Eliz. and to beſtow ſo much pains in writing that Book to deſcribe that ſettlement. And now we may behold (ſaith he) the face of the Church of England, as it was firſt ſettled and eſtabliſhed under Q. Eliz. The Government of the Church, by Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, &c. Theſe Biſhops nominated and elected according to the Statute of 20. Hen. 8. and Conſecrated by the Ordinal confirmed by Parliament, 5 and 6. Edw. 6, &c. the Doctrine of the Church, reduced into its ancient purity, according to the Articles agreed upon in Convocation, in the Year 1562. and ratified in due form of Law, by the Queens authority. The Liturgy, confirmed in Parliament And a little after. "[By this laſt Act (of 8. Eliz.) the Church (of England) is ſtrongly ſettled on Her natural Pillars of Doctrine, Government, and Worſhip, not otherwiſe to have been ſhaken but by the blinde zeal of ſuch furious Sampſons as were reſolved to pull it on their own heads, rather then to ſuffer it to ſtand in ſo much glory.] Eccl. Reſtau. p. 2. f. 122. and 173.

For, what was this glorious Church of his, but a natural Fabrick, rear'd upon (as he calls them) natural Pillars, and the foundations of thoſe Pillars, natural foundations, the Queen, and Parliament; and that Parliament without any Biſhops, or ſo much as one Clergy-man in it? Whence this glorious Church, as it hath been once already overturned to the ground, and (as he acknowledges, and complains) the very foundations of it digged up, by thoſe furious Sampſons; ſo it may be at any time again, when a Presbyterian or Fanatick Parliament or Army, ſhall get (which God avert) the Sword again into their hands.