f) Duties and Clergy, p.352.

Rights of Far.

evident (fays he) that the Intent of the Contrivers was by Degrees to weaken the Authority of the Epifcopal Order, by forcing them from their strong Hold of Divine Institution, and making them no other than the Kings Minifters only, or as it were his Ecclefiaftical Sheriffs, to execute his Will and difperfe his Mandates. And of this Act fuch ufe was made (tho' poffibly beyond the true Intention thereof) that (as the faid Dr. Heylin obferves) the Bishops of thofe times were not in a Capacity of conferring Orders, but as they were thereunto impowered by Special Licenfe. The Tenour whereof (if Saunders be to be believed) was in thefe Words following, viz. The King to fuch a Bishop Greeting, whereas all and all manner of Jurifdiction ८ as well Ecclefiaftical as Civil, flows from the King as from the Supreme Head of all the Body, &c. We therefore give and grant to thee full Power and Licenfe,to continue during our good Pleasure, for holding Ordination within thy Diocefs of N. and for promoting fit Perfons unto Holy Orders, even to that of the Priesthood. Which being looked upon by Queen Mary, not only as a dangerous Diminution of the Epifcopal Power, but as an Odious Innovation in the Church of Chrift; She caufed this Act to be repealed in the first Year of her Reign, leaving the Bishops to depend on their former Claim, and to Act in all things which belonged to their Jurifdiction in their own Names, and under their own Seals as in former Times. In which Estate they have continued without any legal Interruption from that time to this.

(c) But fome Perfons in our Age who love to be always starting to be always starting Difficulties to Humor

fuch

Cap. 25.

n. 48.

fuch as bear ill Will to our Constitution, have Suggested, That altho' this Act of Edw. VI. was repealed in the (d) First year of Queen (d) Cap. z. Mary, yet that Repeal was taken off again in the First year of King James, and therefore, fay they, this Statute is revived. But the plain and fhort Answer is this, That there was no need of any Debate about the Repeal of the Statute of Edward VI. after the first of Queen Elizabeth wherein the above cited Act of Hen. VIII. was exprefly revived. So that Bishops are still Elected and perform their Ecclefiaftical Functions legally according to that Act.

For whereas, (e) fays Bishop Sanderfon, it was (c) Epifcopacy thought convenient in King Edward's Reign to not Prejudicial to Regal Power change the Style ufed in the Ecclefiaftical Courts, be- sect. 38. caufe it was contrary to the Form used in the common law-Courts within this Realm, (which is one of the Reafons in the faid Statute expressed) it might very well upon further Confideration be afterwards thought more convenient for the like Reason to retain the accustomed Stile, because otherwise the Form of the Ecclefiaftical Courts would be contrary to the Form of the other Civil-Law Courts within the Realm (as the Admiralty, and Earl-Marshall's Court) and of other Courts of the King's Grant made to Corporations, with either of which, the Ecclefiaftical Courts had a nearer Affinity, than with the King's Courts of Record, or other his own immediate Courts of Common-Law. Nor does there yet appear any valuable Reason of Difference, why the Inconformity to the Common Law-Courts Should be thought a fufficient Ground for the altering of the Forms used in the Ecclefiaftical Courts, and yet the like Forms used in the Admiralty, in the Earl-Marshall's Court, in Court-Barons, in Corpora

tion

tion Courts, &c. fhould (notwithstanding the fame Inconformity) continue as they had been formerly accustomed without Alteration. Neither, as he obferves at the Beginning of his Difcourfe, can the Bishops or any of the Judges of thofe Courts laft mentioned, take upon them the Authority to cite any Perfon, or to give any Sentence, or to do any Act of Jurifdiction in the King's Name; Having never been by him authorized fo to do.

And now I have no more to fay on this Subject, but only to Anfwer an Objection made by the Author of the Rights, who from this Authority which is allowed to our Princes as well as to others to nominate to Bishopricks, infers that the whole Epifcopal Power is derived from the Crown, or rather from the People; for, according to this Author, all Power is Originally theirs, and they bestow it as they please. (4) Rights of the And he tells us, (a) That there's no Scheme Church, p. 389. which can give the Proteftants any Bishops, without fuppofing the Power of a Deceafed Bishop devolves to the People, to be difpofed of by them, or by an Authority derived from them. For it cannot be pretended, fuppofing the Power a Bishop had over his District was owing to the Bishops laying Hands on or Confecrating him, that the Bifhops act in their own Right, or by a Power inherent in themfelves difpofe of the Power of the Deceased Bifhop, as upon his Death devolving to them; because then only they to whom it devolves, whether they are all the Bishops of the Catholick Church, or a fet number, or fome one Bishop, could dif 'pose of it again; which would be inconfiftent with the Magiftrates Authorizing any two or three Bishops, or even a single Bishop

exclu

८

C exclufively of all the reft, to lay Hands up< on him; and confequently the Power, which in this Cafe is fuppofed to be conferred on him, is derived from the Magiftrate who Commiffions which of 'em he pleases, to give one a Jurifdiction in a District where C they had none themselves; and 'tis he who 6 impowers them to do more for other Bishops C than they can for themselves, fince they can< not appoint their own Succeffors. As no Bishop by his own Authority can give another Power out of his own District, out of which he has none himself, fo none can give C one a Jurifdiction greater than his own, not only over his own Diocefs, but over the whole Province and all the Bishops of it, as Primates, Metropolitans and Patriarchs • have.

With us (and 'tis the fame in other Protestant Countries which have Bishops) nothing can be plainer than that the Bishops act only Minifterially, and by virtue of the Regal Commiffion, by which the Prince firmly enjoyns and Commands 'em, on the Fidelity by which they are bound to him, to proceed according to the Form of the Statute in Chufing, Confirming and Confecrating: Strange words for one who is fuppofed to be a Subject to

them in this Spiritual Matter, (b) but more () as Hen. 8. ftrange that the Difobeying him in note 20. Chufing, Confirming and Confecrating the

• Man he appoints, is under no lefs Penalty than a Pramunire, a greater Punishment than ⚫ the Civil Minifters fuffer for not obeying the Royal Mandate. And the Bishops have fo Religiously in this matter obferved their Princes Commands, that there's no Instance

of

(c) A&t. 6. 2.

• of their scrupling to comply with the King's Writ, ever fince the Parliament invested the King with all manner of Spiritual 'Power, which from him as the Fountain is ' derived to the Bishops and other Ecclefiafti'cal Perfons.

This is the Summ of this Gentleman's Objection against the Divine Right of Ecclefiaftical Power, upon the Right which our own and other Soveraign Princes Claim in the Nomination of Bishops. I have fet it down in its full Force in the Authors own Words: And I truft that I fhall fhew that it will not admit of those Confequences which this Author pretends to draw from it. Being indeed no more than a Right of Patronage or Nomination to a Benefice. Such a Right of Nomination the Apostles allowed to the People when they first appointed or inftituted the Order of Deacons; they directed the People to choose out Seven Perfons proper for that Function. (c) Then the twelve called the Multitude of the Disciples unto them, and faid, It is not Reafon that we should leave the word of God, and ferve Tables. Wherefore, Brethren, look ye out among you feven Men of honeft Report, full of the Holy Ghost, and Wisdom whom WE may appoint over this Bufinefs. And the faying pleafed the whole Multitude, and they chofe Stephen, &c. whom they set before the Apoftles: And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them. Now it is evident from this Text, that tho' the People chofe or nominated thefe Ecclefiaftical Officers, yet it was the Apoftles only that appointed them, or gave them Authority to execute the Office unto which they were Chofen. And thus as I have already fhewed, in the Primitive Church, Bi

shops,