Erastus' Senior.  
Scholastically Demonstrating this Conclusion, that (admitting their Lambeth Records for true) those called BISHOPS here in England, are no Bishops, either in Order, or Jurisdiction, or so much as Legal.  
Wherein is answered to all that hath been said, in Vindication of them, by Mr. MASON, in his Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Doctor HEYLIN, in his Ecclesia Restaurata, or Doctor BRAMHALL, (then called Bishop of DERRY, now Primate of ARMAGH,) in his last Book, Entitled, The Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified.  
With an Appendix, containing Extracts out of ancient Rituals, Greek and Latin, for the Form of Ordaining Bishops: And Copies of the Acts of Parliament, quoted in the third Part.  
Printed in the Year, 1662.   

To the Reader.  
THe intent of this Treatise, is only, of my Charity to my Friends and Countrymen of the Protestant Profession, to show them this great Defect in their Church, the want of Bishops, thereby to invite them into ours, which (even by the confession of her adversaries) wants them not.  
And the intent of this Preface, is only to note to them the greatness of this defect in their Church, from the hideous Consequences of it. For if theirs be no Bishops, either in Order or Jurisdiction (as this discourse undertakes to demonstrate,) this will follow:  
First, that theirs being no Bishops Ordine, they cannot validly Ordain, either Bishop, Priest, or Deacon: and so they have none of these Orders in their Church, nor have had since the death of those that were Ordained by our Bishops.  
Secondly, that theirs being no Bishops Jurisdictione, (or Pastors of Cathedral Churches) they cannot validly Institute a Pastor to any Parochial Church (for none but a Pastor can Institute a Pastor:) and so they have no Pastors in their Church, nor have had, since the outing of the Catholic Bishops, Parsons, and Vicars, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign.  
Thirdly, that theirs is no true Church (or Member of the Catholic,) for want of Pastors, it being an essential part of the Catholic Church.  
Fourthly, that Salvation cannot be had in their Church; because no Member of the Catholic, out of which no Salvation.  
Fifthly, that the beleif they have of the Scriptures, Trinity, Incarnation, Death, and Merits of Christ, and other Mysteries of Christian Religion, is no Divine, (or Supernatural,) but Moral (or Humane) Faith only, (which cannot avail to eternal Salvation:) because they believe them finally (or in the last resolution of their Faith into the witness or proponent of God's Word to them) upon the testimony of preachers having no mission from God.  
Sixthly, that the hope they have, of remission of Sins, of obtaining Eternal Beatitude by the merits of Christ, and of other Evangelical promises, is no Divine, but Moral (or Natural) Hope only, (which hath no efficacy to an eternal recompense:) because it cannot be Diviner than the Faith is upon which it is and must be grounded; and theirs is but Humane Faith.  
Seventhly, that their Ministers having no power (because no Priests) to remit Sins; every time they receive the Communion (since they committed Mortal Sin,) they eat and drink it unworthily (and consequently, 
1 Cor. 11.29.  to their own Damnation;) because they presume to eat and drink of that which they believe to be the Body and Blood of Christ, 
Catechism in the Book of Common-Prayer.  which is verily and truly received of the faithful, with a Soul foul, and abominable to God, with Mortal Sin; as it must needs be, because since Christ Instituted the Word of Priestly Absolution, for the ordinary means of giving that grace, (viz. when he said to his Apostles, 
S. John 20.22.  whose Sins you remit, they are remitted:) no Mortal Sin, committed after Baptism, can be remitted but by that means (at least, in voto; which cannot be supposed in a wilful Protestant:) which means (theirs being no Priests,) they cannot have in their Church. And for the same reason, at their Death, they go away with all the Sins upon their Soul, that ever they committed.  
Eighthly, that their Ministers having no power, (because no Priests) to Consecrate Christ's Body and Blood; they live, and die, without ever once offering to God that Sacrifice, which is the principal and most necessary Act of Divine Worship under the New Testament (the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in remembrance of his death) and without ever once partaking of that Flesh and Blood of his, 
S. John 6.54.  of which he said, [Except ye eat and drink of it, ye shall have no life in you.]  
Lastly, that every time any of their Bishops presume to Ordain, Confirm, Excommunicate, Institute a Parson, or Vicar, or exercise other Act of the Episcopal Office; or any of their Ministers, to Preach, Baptise, Celebrate public Divine Service, Consecrate the Eucharist, take Confessions, give Absolution, or exercise other Act of Priestly Function; so often do they commit the heinous Sin of Sacrilege: in which the people are involved with them, so often as they do communicate with them in, or cooperate to, those Sacrilegious Presumptions.   

The Contents.  
Chap. 1. 
PRoving the first part of the Conclusion, the Protestant Bishops are no Bishops ORDINE: and urging the first Reason, the invalidity of the Form. whereby they were Ordained. page 1  Chap. 2. 
Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer. 5  Chap. 3. 
Answering Doctor Bramhall's Allegations for their Form; and in this Chapter, his first Allegation, from Christ's example. 9  Chap. 4. 
Answering his second Argument, from the Roman Form. 10  Chap. 5. 
Answering his third Argument, from Cardinal Pool's Dispensation. 13  Chap. 6. 
Urging the second Reason, invalidity of the Minister. 21  Chap. 7. 
Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answers. 24  Chap. 8. 
Proving the second part of the Conclusion, that they are no Bishops OFFICIO, viz. For want of Jurisdiction in the Consecrators; and urging the first Reason, want of the Patriarch's consent. 30  Chap. 9 
Urging the second reason, their having no Jurisdicton but from the King: and bringing the first proof of it, from their own acts and confessions. 34  Chap. 10. 
Bringing the second Proof, from other public Acts. 38  Chap. 11. 
Bringing the third Proof from the Consecration of Matthew Parker. 39  Chap. 12. 
Replying to Doctor Heylins' Answer. 45  Chap. 13. 
Proving the third part of the Conclusion, that they are no legal Bishops: and urging the first Reason, because the Act of H. 8. for the Roman Form, is still in force. 49  Chap. 14. 
Urging the second Reason, because the Act of Edw. 6. for the Book of Ordination, being repealed by Queen Mary, is not yet revived; and proving the first part of the reason, that it was not revived afore 8. Eliz. 50  Chap. 15. 
Replying to Doctor Bramhall's Answer. 52  Chap. 16. 
Noting Doctor Heylin's varying from himself, and falsifying the Act of 8. Eliz. 58  Chap. 17. 
Confirming the Argument, by the proceed in Bonners Case; and urging the first inference, for the opinion of the Judges. 60  Chap. 18. 
Refuting the shifts used by Mr. Mason, and Doctor Heylin to evade this inference. 63  Chap. 19 
Urging the second inference, for the opinion of the Parliament. 67  Chap. 20. 
Refuting the shifts devised to evade this inference. 72  Chap. 21. 
Proving the second part of the reason, that it was not revived then. 76    

The first Chapter. Proving the first part of the Conclusion, the Protestant Bishops are no Bishops ORDINE: and urging the first Reason, the invalidity of the form whereby they were Ordained.  
THere is a Bishop Ordine, and there is a Bishop Officio (Jurisdictione, or simpliciter.) A Bishop Ordine, I call him whose Ordination was essentially valid, and so imprinted the Episcopal 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 essential 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 Pastor, of that See (or flock of Clergy and people) whereof he is styled: as ex. gr. Canterbury, London, etc. and continues actual Bishop of it, or of some other. And Bishops in this sense, are necessary to the Consecrating of Archishops and Bishops of Cathedral or Metropolitical Sees, and to the Instituting of Pastors to Parochial 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 signifying 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 than another hath who is not Ordained) that is, a visible sign of an invisible grace or power given by it; there must be some visible sign in it to signify 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, etc. of necessity there must be some words joined 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 signify that Order, either in the natural sense of the words, as ex gr. Be thou a Bishop, or I ordain thee a Bishop, etc. or by the Institution of Christ, as these words [I baptise thee, etc.] signify 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 child at Confirming. Nor is there any colour of ground to say that these words signify 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 only; nor do we find 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 Latin, 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 conjointly in a compounded sense, there is enough to express it distinctly. 1. The party is presented to be made a Bishop. 2. The King's Letters Patents are read, requiring them to Consecrate him Bishop. 3. He takes his Oath of Canonical 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 Litany, he is prayed for as Bishop elect, that he may have grace to discharge that Office (of a Bishop.) 6. After the Litany, 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 prays for grace for him to use the authority committed to him, as a prudent and faithful Steward; this Authority can be no other than Episcopal Authority, nor this Stewardship any other thing than Episcopacy. 8. Lastly, after imposition of hands, with those words, Receive the Holy Ghost, etc. follows the tradition of the Bible into his hands, with an exhortation to behave himself toward the flock as a Pastor. All which implies Episcopal 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 only upon their essential form; the other expressions of it in the rest of the office, signifying nothing to the purpose, because not sacramental. For the conjunction of these words with those other, being not formal (which is impossible betwixt words sacramental, as these are, and not sacramental, as all the other are,) but only material, or local, (because contained within the same Office,) their signifying of it can contribute or cooperate nothing to make these signify it one whit the more than they would do taken singly by themselves. And so if these, taken singly by themselves, do not signify it, (as he confesses they do not) then taken singly by themselves they give it not (because they give no more than they signify:) and if taken singly by themselves they give it not, than 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 only 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 signify 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, etc. this is impertinent; because the argument proceeded only upon the not expressing it as given.  
If his meaning be, that though these words do not, yet they are joined 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 only by the imposition of hands, and the words joined 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, only 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 only exhorted to behave himself 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. bramhall's Allegations for their Form; and in this Chapter, his first Allegation, from Christ's example.  
TO prop up his Answer (which he saw needed it) he adds 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 Christ's 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 Roman Form.  
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 joined 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 Peter's time, and (for the substance of it) is the same with that which is used over all the Eastern Churches, and which anciently (until within these four hundred years) our Church used at the same (Physical) time when hands were imposed; only 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 only, 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 only (as the ancient Law and Custom was) to pronounce the words of Ordination, viz. [Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris, 
Vno super cum fundente Benedictionem. Conc. Carth. 4.  & inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis, been ✚ dictionis tuae in eum infunde virtutem. Per, etc.] Anon after which follows the other Prayer, anciently called, Consecratio Episcopi; to wit, [Deus honorum omnium, etc. tribuas ei Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam, etc.] and after that, the anointing his head with holy Chrism, with these words [Vngatur & Consecretur Caput tuum Benedictione coelesti, in Ordine Pontificali, In nomine Patris, etc.] After which he is called Episcopus, and Consecratus; till then, not, but Electus, or Consecrandus only. 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) joined 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 Mary's days, by all the Catholic Bishops in Parliament, 1. and 2. Phil. and Mar. 8. by Cardinal Pool (then Apostolic Legate 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 Catholic 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 Mary's time. And though it be sufficient for me, being the Respondent, to say it only, till he prove what he boldly faith, that none of those Ordained by King Edward's form, were in Queen Mary's 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 month 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 than 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 Diocese 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 find such a general remove amongst the Bishops and Clergy, as is not any any where to be paralleled 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 only 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, prebend's, Chancellors, Archdeacon's, etc.  
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 returned to Catholic Unity. 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 Catholic unity, would presume to exercise any function of a Priest or Deacon, by virtue of Order received by the new Form, is not imaginable, considering how all the Catholic 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 alleges it.) but only 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 Supreme head of the Church of England: for so are the Cardinal's 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 intent 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 dispense with those things, he names the necessity of it to the public 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 Catholics (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 only 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 Heretics or Schismatics, as Catholics.  
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 Catholic 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 only 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 mere layman. And Doctor Hooper, 
Id. ib. fol. 1289.  made Priest, by the Roman Form, Bishop, by the new, was degraded as a Priest only. 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. Urging 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 axiom 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 Authors from the Apostles times to this day. Now themselves disclaim to Priesthood in this sense, and claim to it only as it signifies (in a new sense of their own devising) a Minister of the Gospel, having power to dispense the Word and Sacraments. [Sacrificium propriè dictum ad Ministros Evangelicos spectare non agnoscimus. 
(a) Mr. Mason. pag. 545.  Si Sacerdotis vocabulo nihil aliud significasses quam Ministrum Evangelii cui verbi & Sacramentorum commissa est dispensatio, nos Sacerdotes esse 
(b) id. l. 5. c. 1. n. 3.  profiteremur.]  
If they will say (as otherwhiles they do, and even the same Author) 
(c) l. 5. c. 1. n. 3. etc. 5. n. 11.  that the Eucharist is a mystical Sacrifice, offered to God, in commemoration or representation of Christ's 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 only, yet they would be no Priests; because the words of their Form signify 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 only 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 Layman, 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 only.   

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 expressly or equivalently. It is set down expressly 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 host, and of the chalice with wine in it [Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, etc.] are equivalent to these [Take the power of Priesthood, or be thou a Priest.] But 2. it is also set down expressly, viz. in the prayer (joined 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, etc. ut panem & vinum in corpus & sanguinem filii tui immaculatâ benedictione transforment, etc.] 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 BAPTISE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, etc. Not, I BAPTISE THEE TO REGENERATION OR REMISSION OF SINS. There are many other kinds of Baptisms or washings besides this Sacramental Baptism, 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 expressly 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, etc.] for giving the grace of Priestly Order, as he did those [I Baptise thee, etc.] for giving the grace of regeneration, we neither could nor should have excepted against it; because than it would have signified it, as the Form of Baptism doth regeneration, ex instituto Christi. But till they can show 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, etc.  
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 THOU REMITTEST, etc.] that is, not only by Priestly absolution, but by preaching, baptising, administering the holy Eucharist, which is a means to apply the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins. He who authorises a man to accomplish a work, doth authorise 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 THOU remittest,] whereas the remitting sins by preaching, or any other of those ways by him named (except Absolution) is not the act of the Priest, but of God alone, and the Priest doth only apply the means whereby God doth it. And for that Rule [he who authorises, etc.] it holds only in means necessary to the end: which the administering of the Eucharist is not to the remitting of sins: for (regularly) they are and aught 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 Layman.  
Ans. Thirdly this Priestly power to Consecrate, is contained in those words [BE THOU A FAITHFUL 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, etc.] give no power, but only admonish, and exhort, to a faithful discharge of the Office. And the latter [Have thou authority, etc.] give no power of Order, but Jurisdiction only: 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 entirely, and not by halves [Have thou authority to preach, etc. 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 only;; nor any greater Jurisdiction than a Deacon is capable of. And his answer to this, [that the Priest doth dispense this Sacrament by way of Office, a Deacon only 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 signify, 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 Pastor.)  
If he say, that under this word, dispense, the Ordainer meant power, not only 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, etc.) is good: because the Confirming of one elected to a Bishopric (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, etc.) 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 Pastor to that Flock of Clergy and People, with authority to Institute Pastors, 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 only: 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 Pastor; nor Jurisdiction over such a flock; but the Pastor 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 Pastor to any Parochial Church, but the Bishop of the Diocese, or by Commission from him, or his Superior. Nor can any number of Bishops validly Confirm or Consecrate the Bishop of any Diocese, but the Metropolitan of the Province (or some person authorized by him or his Superior) must be one: nor the Metropolitan of a Province, but the Primate of the Nation, (or some person authorized by him or his Superior) must be one. And consequently, by (parity of reason) nor the Primate of any Nation, but the Patriarch of that part of the world (or some person having faculty from him) must be one. This was long ago defined (or declared) by the first Council of Nice, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Mos antiquus obtitineat, in Egypto, Lybia, & Pentapoli, ut Episcopus Alexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem, etc. Vniversim autem illud manifestum est, quod si quis absque consensu Metropolitani fiat Episcopus, hunc magna Synodus definivit non debere esse Episcopum. Can. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (that is, particularly, and principally, the Consecrating of their Primates,) etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (the Ecclesiastical Superior to that See) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] And afore that, by the Canons called the Apostles; 
(a) Can. 35.  and since that, hath been confirmed, by the great Council of Chalcedon, 
(b) Can. 27.  and divers other Councils, and received by the practice and consent of the Universal Church from that time to this day. Consequently, the Patriarch of the West, (the Bishop of Rome) being the unquestionable rightful Metropolitan 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 implicit, or reasonably presumed. And so there having been no rightful Primate of this Nation since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, for want of the Pope's consent to his Consecration; there hath been no Bishop validly Confirmed or Consecrated in it, since that time, not can be, till the Pope's consent can be had.   

The ninth Chapter. Urging 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 Pastor to a flock of Clergy and people, is plainly a power of the Keys, 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 Keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors, 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 authorise, (as is used in all other Commissions) but only 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 authorise, but only command, them to perform.  
Secondly, that they have no Jurisdion to these acts, but what they have (originally) from the King, may be showed many ways. 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 Herself 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 only Supreme Governor, 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 Pastor) but what must be derived from him. Nor can they say, that by the Supreme Governor, in that Oath, is meant only the Supreme political Governor: 
1. Eliz. 1.  for the Act that established that Oath, declares it to belong to the King's 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 authorise 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 kind, than the Pope can exercise, or ever pretended to, viz. to assign and authorise 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 their Archbishopric (or Bishopric) with all authority, jurisdiction, privileges, revenues, and all else thereunto belonging, solely and only from his Majesty. If all their Jurisdiction from him solely, they can have no authority to constitute a Pastor of a Cathedral or Metropolitical Church, but what they must have from him.   

The tenth Chapter. Bringing the second Proof, from other public Acts.  
THe second way of proof shall be, from other public Acts and proceed, approved by them; by which it appears that the King can and sometimes does at his pleasure, limit, control, suspend, or utterly deprive the Bishops of their Jurisdiction; which he could not do, if they had it from any other than himself. Of this, I shall name two Instances.  
One, shall be the sequestering of Doctor Abbot by the late King, from his Office of Archbishop of Canterbury, upon a displeasure taken against him, for refusing to licence 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.  authorising them, to do all, or any acts pertaining to the power or authority of the Archbishop 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 virtue 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 joins 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 Bishop's Ordine, or as Bishops Officio: but neither of these ways had they any.  
1. Not as Bishops Ordine: because to Confirm or Consecrate a Pastor, is an act of Jurisdiction: which a Bishop Ordine only, hath none.  
2. Not as Bishops Officio: because  
First, not one of them was so, as appears by the stile given them in the Queen's Letters Patents to them for this business [Regina etc. 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 styled Bishops of any See, as two of the other are, (he of Landaff, and he of Ossory,) but either quondam Bishops only, as Coverdale; or quondam Bishops and Lords Elect only, as Barlow and Scory; or Suffragan Bishops only (as John Hodgskins,) that is, who had indeed the Episcopal Character, but were Pastors of Parochial Churches only, 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 licence of the Bishop of the Diocese.  
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 Superior 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 Dioceses, as London where they were to Confirm, and Lambeth, where they were to Consecrate him, was out of all their Dioceses.  
2. Nor within his own Diocese could any one of them give Jurisdiction to be exercised in another Diocese, as Canterbury was.  
3. Much less could they (being but simple Bishops) give a Jurisdiction Metropolitical, and create a Superior 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 Metropolitan 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,) rendering 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 Queen's Commission to them, that she, by virtue of her Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, did supply to them those defects: for these are the words of the Commission. [Regina, etc. Reverendissimis in Christo Patribus, Antonio, etc. (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 Metropolitan (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 Keys, 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 Parker's 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 Patents not style them Bishops, but only quondam Bishops of those Sees? And why did she not in all that time (being above thirteen months 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 shown 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 Metropolitan, or any higher power directing and commanding in all such matters as concerned the Church.  
Rep. If by, higher power, etc. 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 only by the Queen. But if he mean, that their Episcopal Character rendered them capable to perform all Episcopal Offices, to which they should be called by a Lay-Prince only, having no other authority in matters as concern the Church, but only 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 than the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive times, ordained for easing the Diocesan, etc.  
Rep. They were in some things more than 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 only established by an Act of Parliament of Hen. 8. nor had any of the Bishops then in the Realm Episcopal Jurisdiction, being manifest Heretics and Schismatics, and so could not constitute a Suffragan. But grant they were no less than the Chorepiscopi, he cannot show 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. Horn.  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 Controversy, 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 authorises the Roman Form for Consecrating Bishops (by giving Pall, and using Benedictions, Unctions, and all other Ceremonies requisite at that time, viz. by the Roman 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. Urging 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 authorised 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, etc. 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 only: for so runs the Act [The said Statute of Repeal, and every thing therein contained, ONLY 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, etc. 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 expressly established by name, by Edw. 6. and that Act was expressly repealed by Queen Mary: but the Book of Ordination was not expressly restored by Queen Eliz. but only 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 authorising 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 only, did plainly and directly exclude the repealing of it as to the Book of Ordination, there being nothing else to be excluded by that only, 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 Catholic 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 overborne in it, at the Consecration of Matthew Parker, when no Catholic 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 expressly 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, Mitre, Ring, etc. 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 Mary's 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 Mary's 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 expressly as to the Book of Common-Prayer only; and these words revive the Statute of Edw. 6. as to that Book only.  
Ans. That the Book of Ordination was a part of the Book of Common-Prayer, and printed in this Book in King Edward's days, 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 not such thing, much less expressly. 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 itself, 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 Baptising or administering 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 virtue 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 authorising 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 aught 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. Marry, 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 only, 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 only 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, etc. 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, etc.] 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, than 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 appendent 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, etc.] 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 proceed 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 proceed 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 Diocese, and the refuser was to incur a Praemunire. Mr. Horn (the new Bishop of Winchester,) tenders (by virtue 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 Diocese of Winchester.) Bonner refuses to take it. Horn certifies his refusal, into the King's Bench, whereupon Bonner was indicted upon the Statute. He prays 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 Sergeants Inn, 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, etc. after that Form of Edw. 6. be in very deed, and by authority hereof, declared, and enacted to be, and shall be Archbishops, Bishops, etc. 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 virtue 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 join 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 join issue? etc.) 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 aught 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, Bonner's Council 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 entering of a Plea, to give a reason of it, for that is to be shown 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 joined, which this never was. And when they were to be warned, 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 Sergeants Inn, 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 Bonner's ruin, who it is thought was the man chief aimed at in that Act) began the Suit soon after that Act of 5. Eliz. and procured him to be Indicted, and Bonner demurred to it; which (as Doctor Heylin saith) being put off from Term to Term, came at last to be debated among the Judges at Sergeants Inn; 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 only 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 easy, 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,) extremely interested in the verdict, and only a Papist, generally hated, and deprived of all Office and power in the State, and then a prisoner, the Defendant. And that which he adds to colour his reason, [That there had been some proof made before, of the partiality or insufficiency of a Jury, touching grants made by King Edward's Bishops:] if meant of Juries in Queen Mary's time, was no reason in Queen Elizabeth's: and if meant in Her time, helps to confirm what I say, that afore 8. Eliz. neither Judges, nor Juries, could find King Edward's Bishops were legal Bishops. The true reason therefore why the Judges advised Horn to refer his Cause to the Parliament, can be no other than this, as I say, that they found an Act of Parliament was necessary to make him a Bishop.   

The nineteenth Chapter. Urging 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 only 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 only 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 virtue of that Act, would be mere nonsense and contradiction: but thus, [All things heretofore done, etc. 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, etc. since her Majesty's 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 nonsense 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 Supreme Authority given to the Queen, by 1. Eliz. To assign and authorise 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 Supreme and absolute authority of the Queen (to make Bishops, by Her Commission only, with, or without any Legal Form of Consecration, or with, or without any Bishops for the Consecraters,) and which she by her said Letters Patents 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 Queen's Commission, which supplied to them all defects in Law: but they would have said plainly, and without praying any such aid from the Queen's 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. etc.] seeing that was the only exception against the Form of their Consecrations.  
5. Nor, lest 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 incurred a Praemunire 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 Provisoes, 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 only 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 always before that been snarling at their Consecrations, would at length be wise.  
Refut. 1. They did not first clear their Bishops (as is showed afore.) 2. Nor did they pardon Bonner and his fellows, but annul the process. 3. That Act was so far from showing the Catholics their error 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 persuade 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 show such favour to men that had so impudently flown upon their Bishops, only for offering an Oath to them, which the Law authorised 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 Bishoprics.  
Refut. But 1. no favour could be intended to them of the Laiety, because the Act (of 5. Eliz.) authorised not the tendering of the Oath to any but Ecclesiastical persons.  
2. The favour was indulged, not to deprived Bishops only, but to all Deans, Archdeacon's, prebend's, Parsons, Vicars, etc. 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 Provisoes, 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 showed supra.) 3. How could the Case be evident, and yet Ambiguous? (as he saith both.) 4. Had it been mere 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 showing that moderation (as by pardoning the Delinquents, etc.) then by annulling the Indictment, after such a plea entered by Bonner, that Horn was no Bishop: for this could signify no less than 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 Edward's 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 Mary's Form was repealed virtually, and in the intention of the Lawmaker, by authorising 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 Mary's 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 Mary's 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 only, (the Lords Temporal and Commons;) those that then sat upon the Bishop's Bench in the Lord's House, being no Bishops (as is proved supra,) and all the Catholic 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 Praemunire, by virtue whereof they were by force put out of their Bishoprics, 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 Bishop's 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 God's 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 authorising 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 public Divine Service and Sacraments, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 Queen's 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 blind zeal of such furious sampson's as were resolved to pull it on their own heads, rather than 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 Fabric, reared 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 Clergyman 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 sampson's; so it may be at any time again, when a Presbyterian or Fanatic Parliament or Army, shall get (which God avert) the Sword again into their hands.   
FINIS.  

Appendix.  
For the better understanding of the former Discourse, I have here set down some Extracts out of the ancient forms of Ordaining Bishops, in the Greek and Latin Church: and out of the Acts of Parliament quoted in the third Part; and the Act of 8. Eliz. at large.  

Forms of the Greek Church.  
UNus ex primis Episcopis, 
S. Clem. Const.  una cum duobus aliis stans prope Altar, reliquis Episcopis & Presbyteris tacitè precationem facientibus, & Diaconis aperta Evangelia super caput ejus qui Ordinatur tenentibus, in hunc modum precetur. Here Domine Deus omnipotens, etc. Da huic famulo tuo quem ad Episcopatum elegisti, ut pascat sanctum gregem tuum, atque ut Pontificatu tibi sanctè fungatur, etc. Da ei participationem Sancti Spiritûs, ut habeat potestatem remittendi peccata secundum mandatum tuum; item dandi cleros, ut tu jussisti, ac solvendi omne vinculum secundum potestatem quam Apostolis dedisti, & offerendi tibi sacrificium mundum & incruentum quod per Christum instituisti, etc.  

S. Dionys. Areop. de Eccl. Hier. c. 5.  Pontifex qui ad Consecrationem in Pontificem adducitur, utroque genu flexo ante Altare, supra caput habet Evangelia, manumque Pontificis: atque hoc modo ab eo Pontifice qui eum Consecrat, sanctissimis precationibus Consecratur.  

MS. antitiquus in Bibl. Card. Barberini.  Aperiens Episcopus Evangelium, imponit illud super caput & collum ipsius Ordinandi, astantibus aliis Episcopis, & tangentibus ipsum S. Evangelium, Archiepiscopus autem imponens illi manum, sic precatur. Here, Domine Deus noster, confirma hunc electum, ut per manum mei peccatoris, & assistentium Ministrorum & Coepiscoporum, Sanctique Spiritûs adventu, virtute, & gratia., subeat Evangelicum jugum, & dignitatem Episcopalem, etc.  

Eucholog. Constantinopolit. Ecclesiae.  Evangelium accipit Praesul, & imponit illud super dorsum illius qui Ordinatur, & omnes Episcopi qui illic sunt, imponunt manus super illum ex utroque latere, donec omnes preces absolutae fuerint. Repetit Praesul, Domine Deus, elige in Ecclesia tua N. hunc N. Presbyterum, in opus magnum Episcopatus. Precemur omnes pro eo, ut veniat donum tuum Domine, & eum virtute perficiat, & consummet in ministerio Episcopali. Indue eum Domine virtute ex alto, ut liget & solvat in coelis & in terra, & creet in virtute doni tui Presbyteros & Diaconos, etc.   

Forms of the Latin Church.  
Episcopus cum Ordinatur, 
MS. Paris. scriptus ante annum, 560.  duo Episcopi manus eorum super caput ejus ponant, & teneant Evangeliorum codicem supra cervicem ejus. Et unum super eum fundentem benedictionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt, manibus suis supra caput ejus teneant.   

Oratio, & precis de Episcopis Ordinandis.  
Oremus, dilectissimi nobis, ut his viris ad utilitatem Ecclesiae providendis, benignitas omnipotentis Dei gratiae suae tribuat largitatem. Per, etc.  
Exaudi, Domine, supplicum preces, ut quod nostrum gerendum est ministerium, tua potius virtute firmetur. Per, etc.  
Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris, & inclinatus super hos famulos tuos cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis, benedictionis tuae in eos effunde virtutem. Per, etc.  
Consecratio.  
Deus honorum omnium, etc. qui Moysen famulum tuum, inter caetera coelestis documenta culturae, de habitu quoque indumenti Sacerdotalis instituens, electum Aaron mystico amictu vestire inter sacra jussisti, ut intelligentiae sensum de exemplis priorum caperet secutura posteritas, etc. Et id circo, famulis tuis, quaesumus, quos ad Summi Sacerdotii Sacerdotium elegisti, hanc quaesumus Domine gratiam largiaris, ut quicquid illa velamina, in fulgore auri, in nitore gemmarum, & multimodi operis varietate signabant, hoc in horum moribus clarescat. Comple, Domine, in Sacerdotibus tuis mysterii tui summam, & ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica. Hoc Domine copiosè in eorum caput influat, hoc in oris subjecta decurrat, hoc in totius corporis extrema descendat, etc. Da eis Domine claves regni coelorum: quodcunque ligaverint super terram, sit ligatum & in coelis; ..... Tribuas eis Domine Cathedram Episcopalem ad regendam Ecclesiam tuam, & plebem universam. Sis eis authoritas, sis eis potestas, etc.  
Benedictiones super eos qui sacris Ordinationibus benedicendi sunt. 
Sacramentarium Gelasianum. MS. post priorom antiquissimus.   
Oratio ad Ordinandos Episcopos Oremus dilectissimi, etc. ut supra. Benedictio Episcoporum. Adesto supplicationibus nostris, omnipotens Deus, & quod humilitatis nostrae gerendum est ministerio, virtutis tuae impleatur effectu. Alia. Propitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris, & inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae Sacerdotalis, etc. Consecratio. Deus honorum omnium, etc. ut supra ...... coelestis unguenti flore sanctifica. (Hîc mittatur Chrisma super Caput ejus) Hoc Domine copiosè, etc. ut supra.  
Incipit Ordinatio Episcopi. 
MS. Ecclesiae Rotomagensis, scriptus circa ann 900. in, & pro Angliâ.  Episcopum qui Ordinandus est duo Episcopi per manus de Secretario, antequam Evangelium legatur, deducant ante Altare, & eo inibi prosternato, ab Archiepiscopo inchoetur Letania: quâ finitâ, & eo erecto, ponatur Evangelium super scapulas ejus, & has dicant Episcopi super eum orationes. Oremus dilectissimi, etc. ut supra. Alia. Adesto Domine, etc. ut supra. Alia. Propitiare Domine, etc. ut supra. Solus vero Archiepiscopus hanc dicat Consecrationem, caeteris astantibus, & duobus Episcopis Evangelium super ipsum qui Ordinandus est tenentibus. Deus honorum omnium, etc. ut supra, rore sanctifica. (Hîc mittatur Chrisma) etc. Item alia super Episcopum. Pater sancte, etc. ut per te, in summum ad quod assumitur Sacerdotium Consecretur, &c ...... Consecratio manuum Episcopi oleo sancto & Chrismate. Hîc mittatur Oleum super caput ejus. [Vngatur & Consecretur caput tuum in coelesti benedictione, in Ordinem Pontificalem. In nomine Patris, etc.]  

MS. in Monast. S. Germani, in Suburb. Paris. scrip. ante ann. 950.  Finita Letaniâ, duo Episcopi tenentes librum Evangelii super scapulas; Archiepiscopus benedicat eum. Adesto Domine, etc. ut sup. Alia. Propitiare Domino, etc. ut sup. Consecratio, ab Archiepiscopo solo dicenda. Deus honorum omnium, etc.  

MS. in Bibliotheca Canonic. Regular. S. Victoris in Suburb. Paris. circa ann. 1100.  Duo Episcopi ponant & teneant textum Evangelii apertum super caput ejus: & D. Metropolitanus infundens Benedictionem super eum, dicat, lentâ voce, Oremus dilectissimi, etc. Sequitur Benedictio. Propitiare Domine, etc. Prefatio. Deus honorum omnium, etc. ut supra.    

Acts of Parliament. 25. H. 8.20.  
IF the person be elected to the office of an Archbishop, the King shall by his Letters Patents signify the said election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops, or else to four Bishops to be assigned by the King, requiring and 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, and all other Benedictions, and Ceremonies, and things requisite for the same. And every person being hereafter elected, invested, and Consecrated to the dignity or office of any Archbishop or Bishop, according to the tenor of this Act, shall and may be authorized and installed, etc. and shall and may do and execute in every thing and things touching the same, as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm (without offending the prerogative Royal of the Crown, and the Laws and Customs of this Realm) might at any time heretofore do.  

5. & 6. Edw. 6. 1. An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments.  
WHereas there hath been a godly order set forth by authority of Parliament, for Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, etc. the King hath by the authority of the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled, caused the aforesaid order of Common Service, entitled, The Book of Common Prayer, to be explained and made perfect; and by the aforesaid authority, hath annexed and joined it so explained and perfected, to this present Statute, adding also a form and manner of making and Consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be of like force, authority, and value, as the same like foresaid Book of Common Prayer was before, etc. If any shall wittingly hear and be present at any other manner or form of Common Prayer, of administration of Sacraments, of making Ministers in the Churches, or of any other Rites contained in the Book annexed to this Act, then is mentioned and set forth in the said Book, etc.   

1. Eliz. 2. That there shall be Uniformity of Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments.  
WHereas at the death of our late Sovereign Lord King Edw. 6. there remained one uniform order of Common Service and Prayer, and of the administration of Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies in the Church of England, which was set forth in one Book, entitled, The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England, authorized by Act of Parliament, holden in the 5. and 6. years of our said late Sovereign, entitled, An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, the which was repealed by Act of Parliament in the first year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Queen Mary, to the great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the Professors of the truth of Christ's Religion: Be it therefore enacted, etc. that the said statute of Repeal, and every thing therein contained, only concerning the said Book, and the Service, Administration of the Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies contained or appointed in or by the said Book, shall be void and of none effect. And that the said Book, with the order of Service, and of the Administration of Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies, with the alterations and additions therein added and appointed by the statute, shall stand and be in full force, etc.   

8. Eliz. 1. All Acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the Consecrating, Investing &c. of any Archbishop or Bishop, shall be good.  
FOrasmuch as divers questions by overmuch boldness of speech and talk amongst many of the common sort of people, hath lately grown upon the making and Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm, whether the same were and be 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 just matter or cause, It is thought convenient hereby, partly to touch such authorities 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; and thereupon further to provide for the more surety thereof, as hereafter shall be expressed.  
First, it is very well known to all degrees of this Realm, that the late King, of most famous memory, K. Henry 8. as well by all the Clergy then of this Realm, in their several Convocations, as also by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in divers of his Parliaments, was justly and rightfully recognized and knowledged to have the supreme Power, jurisdiction, Order, Rule and Authority over all the State Ecclesiastical of the same; and the same power, jurisdiction and authority did use accordingly. And that also the said late King, in the Five and twentieth year of his Reign, did by authority of Parliament, amongst other things, set forth a certain Order of the manner and form how Archbishops and Bishops should be elected and made, as by the same more plainly appears. And that also the late King of worthy memory King Edward the Sixth, did lawfully succeed his Father in the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and did justly possess and enjoy all the same power, jurisdiction, and authority before mentioned, as a thing to him descended with the said Imperial Crown, and so used the same during his life. And that also the said King Edw. 6. in his time, by authority of Parliament caused a godly Book, entitled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England, to be made and set forth, not only for one uniform Order of Service, Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments to be used within this Realm, and other his Dominions, but also did add and put to the same Book a very good and godly Order of the manner and form how Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Ministers should from time to time be Consecrated, made, and Ordered, within this Realm, and other his Dominions, as by the same Book more plainly may and will appear.  
And although in the time of the said late Queen Mary, as well the said Act and Statute, made in the five and twentieth year of the Reign of the said late King Hen. 8. as also the several Acts and Statutes made in the 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. years of the Reign of the said late King Edward, for the authorising and allowing the said Book of Common Prayer, and other the premises, amongst divers other Acts and Statutes touching the said supreme authority, were repealed; yet nevertheless at the Parliament holden at Westminster in the first year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lady the Queen's Majesty that now is, by one other Act and Statute there made, all such jurisdictions, Privileges, Superiorities, and Preeminences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm, and the Order, Reformaxion, and Correction of the same, is fully and absolutely by the authority of the same Parliament, united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; and by the same Act and Statute, there is also given to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors Kings and Queens of this Realm, full power and authority, by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, from time to time, to assign, name, and authorise such person or persons as she or they shall think meet and convenient, to exercise, use, occupy, and execute, under her Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminences, and Authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or jurisdiction within this Realm or any other her Dominions or Countries.  
And also by the same Act and Statute, the said Act made in the Five and twentieth year of the said late King Hen. 8. for the order and form of the electing and making of the said Archbishops and Bishops, together with divers other Statutes touching the jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical, is revived, and made in full force and effect, as by the same Act and Statute plainly appeareth.  
And that also by another Act and Statute made in the said Parliament in the first year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Queen, entitled, An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church; the said Book of Common Prayer, and the Administration of Sacraments, and other the said Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies before mentioned, and all things therein contained, with certain Additions therein newly added and appointed by the said Statute, is fully established and authorized, to be used in all places within this Realm, and all other the Queen's Majesty's Dominions and Countries, as by the same Act among other things more plainly appeareth.  
Whereupon our said Sovereign Lady the Queen's most excellent Majesty, being most justly and lawfully invested, and having in her Majesty's order and disposition, all the said jurisdictions, Power, and Authorities, over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal, as well in cases Ecclesiastical as Temporal, within this Realm and other her Majesty's Dominions and Countries, hath by her Supreme Authority, at divers times since the beginning of her Majesty's Reign, caused divers grave and well learned men to be duly Elected, Made, and Consecrated Archbishops and Bishops of divers Archbishoprics and Bishoprics within this Realm, and other her Majesty's Dominions and Countries, according to such Order and Form, and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecration as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts, Statutes, and Orders annexed to the said Book of Common-Prayer before mentioned. And further for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirmations, Investing, and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops, her Highness in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England, directed to any Archbishop, Bishop, or others for the Confirming, Investing, and Consecrating of any person elected to the Office or Dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop, hath not only used such words and sentences as were accustomed to be used by the said late King Henry and K. Edw. her Majesty's Father and Brother, in their like Letters Patents made for such causes: but also hath used and put in her Majesties said Letters Patents divers other general words and sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority, hath dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfection or disability that can or may in any wise be objected against the same, as by her Majesties said Letters Patents remaining of Record, more plainly will appear. So that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes, and of the Supreme and absolute authority of the Queen's Highness, and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents, hath used and put in ure in and about the making and Consecrating of the said Archbishops and Bishops, it is and may be very evident, that no cause of scruple, ambiguity, or doubt, can or may justly be objected against the said Elections, Confirmations, or Consecrations, or any other material thing meet to be used or had in or about the same; but that every thing requisite and material for that purpose hath been made and done, as precisely, and with as great a care and diligence, or rather more, as ever the like was done before her Majesty's time, as the Records of her Majesties said Fathers and Brother's time, and also of her own time, will more plainly testify and declare.  
Wherefore for the more plain Declaration of all the premises, & to the intent that the same may be better known to every of the Queen's Majesty's Subjects, whereby such evil speech as heretofore hath been used against the high State of Prelac●, may hereafter cease: Be it now declared, and enacted, that the said Act and Statute made in the first Year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Lady the Queen's Majesty, whereby the said Book of Common-Prayer, and the Administration of Sacraments, with other Rites and Ceremonies, is authorized and allowed to be used, shall stand and remain good and perfect to all respects and purposes.  
And that such Order and Form for the Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, and for the making of Priests, Deacons, and Ministers, as was set forth in the time of the said late King Edw. 6. and added to the said Book of Common-Prayer, and authorized by Parliament in the 5. and 6. Year of the said late King, shall stand and be in full force and effect, and shall from henceforth be used and observed, in all places within this Realm, and other the Queen's Majesty's Dominions and Countries.  
And that all Acts and things heretofore had, made, or done, by any person or persons, in or about any Consecration, Confirmation, or Investing of any person or persons elected to the Office or Dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop within this Realm, or within any other her Majesty's Dominions or Countries, by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's Letters Patents or Commission, since the beginning of her Reign, be, and shall be, by authority of this present Parliament, declared, judged, and deemed, at and from every of the several times of the doing thereof, good and perfect to all respects and purposes, any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.  
And that all persons that have been or shall be made, Ordered, or Consecrated, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers of God's holy Word and Sacraments, or Deacons, after the Form and Order prescribed in the said Order and Form how Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, add Ministers, should be Consecrated, Made, and Ordered be in very deed, and also by authority hereof, declared, and enacted to be, and shall be Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Ministers, and rightly Made, Ordered, and Consecrated, any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding.  
Provided always, and nevertheless be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no person or persons shall at any time hereafter be impeached, or molested, in body, lands, lives, or goods, by occasion, or mean of any Certificate, by any Archbishop, or Bishop, heretofore made, or before the last day of this Session of Parliament, to be made, by virtue of any Act made in the first Session of this present Parliament, touching or concerning the refusal of the Oath, declared and set forth by Act of Parliament in the first Year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Lady Q. Elizabeth, any thing in this Act, or any other Act or Statute heretofore made, to the contrary notwithstanding.  
And that all tenders of the said Oath, made by any Archbishop, or Bishop aforesaid, or before the last day of this present Session, to be made, by authority of any Act established in the first Session of this present Parliament, and all refusals of the same Oath so tendered, or before the last day of this Session, to be tendered, by any Archbishop or Bishop, by authority of any Act established in the first Session of this present Parliament, shall be void and of none effect or validity in the Law.   
FINIS.   

Since the Printing of this, they have acknowledged the justness of our Exception to their Forms, by amending them in their New Book, authorized by the late Act for Uniformity: the Form of Ordaining a Bishop, thus, [Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Bishop, etc. In the name of the Father, etc.] the Form of Ordaining a Priest, thus, [Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office of a Priest, etc.] But this comes too late for the past Ordinations, and consequently also for the future; because being no Bishops now, they cannot Ordain validly by 〈◊〉 Form whatsoever.  
Page 79. line 8. etc. deal these words, making it treasonable to take Orders from the Sea of Rome.  
Pag. ead. lin. 15. after the word, Spiritual, insert these words, all the Bishops then present in Parliament, dissenting to those two Acts of 1. Eliz. and in the ensuing Parliaments.  
Pag. 80. lin. 5. for 20. read 25.  
Pag 87. lin. 22. for, authorized, read enthronized.  
Pag. 90. lin. 26. for, the, read, this.