An Appendix to my humble Petition, lately presented to the most Honourable Courts of Parliament: wherein I did but lightly touch upon the point of Consecration: Now because as I conceive, the King's Supremacy is therein denied, I humbly crave leave further to clear up this point.  
Of a Bishop's Consecration to his Office.  
THe Office of a Bishop as I humbly conceive, is a mixed office, partly divine, and partly humane or Civil: It is Divine, as concerning the Administration of the Word and Sacraments. It is Humane, as concerning the use of their coercive power in the Church: For 1. They receive authority to excercise a coercive power by Commission from the King; and therefore it is humane. 2. It cannot be proved to be Divine, and therefore it must be humane. 3. I prove, it is not Divine; because Christ forbade his Apostles, and in them all the Clergy to exercise authority, Mat. 20.25, 26. And St. Peter forbade it saying, Not as though ye were Lords over God's heritage, or people, 1 Pet. 5.3. So that this Jurisdiction, Authority, and Coercive power is not divine, because Christ forbade it. 4 Coercive power in the Church hath been used by Kings, Princes, and Rulers, Ezra 10.8. 1 Kings 2.27. And therefore it is not divine, but humane.  
A Bishop was ordained a Minister, before he was consecrated and made a Bishop: and when he steps above the Ministry, into the office of a Bishop, than De novo he takes upon him the office to rule and exercise authority and his coercive power over an whole Diocese. If then he preach and administer the Sacraments (which few of them do, or do as other Ministers constantly) than he preacheth not as a Bishop, but as a Minister: And when he ruleth over a Diocese, he ruleth not as a Minister, but as a Bishop. Whereby it appears, that the office of a Bishop, as he is a Bishop, i● only to rule and exercise a Coercive power: and this power is an humane or Civil thing. Hence it follows,  
That being this Authority is humane, it must be of and from the King, and must be derived from the King, who is supreme in Authority in or over the Church: The King derives his authority and supremacy from Christ, 1 Pet. 2.13. But Bishops like other Magistrates must derive all their authority, not from Christ immediately, but from the King: Wherefore if the King may have his right, Bishops must be consecrated only in the King's name, not in Christ's name; for this is to derive from another and higher power than the King, and to make themselves next unto CHRIST, and equal to the KING, for the King only is next unto Christ: but Bishops are now consecrated by authority of Christ and the holy Ghost immediately, and Peter's keys: not in the name of the King, whereby they deny the King's authority and supremacy in the Church, in their consecration as I conceive it. I have formerly wrote in defence of the King's Prerogative and Supremacy, and here added this, as being more full, and more clear.  
Object. 1. But Bishops may say, We have authority from the King, to exercise our Coercive power: and therefore we acknowledge the King's Authority and Supremacy?  
I answer, 1. By distinguishing between an office and the exercise of that office. If therefore you own the King's Supremacy in the exercise of your office, yet it followeth not, that thereby you own it in your office, and in your Consecration to your office: It is evident, that you deny it in your Consecration, because you refuse to consecrate in the King's Name, and do all in the name of another and higher power. 2. Your authority from the King, to exercise your office, doth not imply the King's Supremacy: thereby indeed you acknowledge the King's Authority, but not his Supremacy. 3. As far as I can see, you acknowledge neither the King's Supremacy, nor his Authority in your office, nor in the exercise of it: For in your Courts, you issue out all Citations, Processes, Summons, and Excommunications, not in the King's name, but in your own names. 4. Supposing but not granting, that in the exercise of your office, the King's Supremacy is by consequence implied, why then do you not in express words do it also, but refuse to do it in the Consecration to your office? For both the office and the exercise of it, are wrought to be from the same hand and power.  
Object. 2. Again, Bishops may say, We took the Oath of Supremacy at our Consecration, and therefore we own the King's Supremacy.  
I answ. 1. You took this Oath indeed at your Consecration, but not in your Consecration: before it, but not in it: for about a quarter of an hour before Consecration this Oath is taken: but in Consecration it is not, nor any words expressing or implying the King's Supremacy: And yet all Magistrates in the Kingdom, who exercise a Coercive power, do besides the Oath of Supremacy, take also a Commission in the King's name, as deriving their Authority from him, and so should Bishops do in Consecration. 2. Bishops a little before Consecration, do swear that the King is supreme in Authority, but presently after in their Consecration they deny it; for they refuse to name the King, or own his Supremacy: For they are Consecrated in the name of another and higher power than the King, as in the name of Christ, the holy Ghost, and as by the authority of Peter's keys. Suppose, a Judge, high Sheriff, or Mayor of a City, who after they have taken the Oath of Supremacy, should refuse to take also a Commission for their office in the King's name? and will derive their Authority from some other or higher power, as from the Emperor of Rome, or Germany, would not this be a denial of the King's Authority and Supremacy? It will not excuse the matter to say, we first took the Oath of Supremacy: and can the like excuse Bishops from denying the King's Supremacy in their Consecration? My humble Petition therefore is, that if it may stand with your Honour's wisdom, this Consecration may be altered and changed into a Commission in the King's name; like as it is with all Magistrates, who exercise a Coercive power under the King.  
Your Honour's humble and dutiful Servant, THEOPHILUS BRABOURN,