us, that a bill of indictment was actually preferred against him in the Star-chamber, for no less crimes than 66* oppressions, extorsions, and simonies; containing matter enough, not only to disgrace, but degrade him if prosecut ed. But he bought out his innocence with money."

Miles Coverdale,

Some time an Austin Friar; but quitting his habit, and his religion with it, he retired into Germany, and assisted Tindal in his wicked translation of the Bible. "+He lived for the most part at Tubingen, an University belonging to the Duke of Saxony, where he received the degree of Doctor."-Returning into England in King Edward's reign, he was, upon Bp. Vesey's deposition, (or resignation as some call it) advanced to the See of Exeter, being ordained on the same day with Scory, and according to the new form prescribed by King Edward's Ordinal, as we have already observed. Queen Mary being crowned, Coverdale was obliged to take another trip into Germany, where he shewed himself a confirmed Puritan ; and, in the subsequent troubles at Frankfort, became a mighty stickler against King Edward's Common Prayer-Book. Being called upon by Q. Elizabeth (for want of a better) to make one of Parker's assistant-consecrators (if there be any truth in Mason's story, which yet the Catholics deny) our German Doctor could not be prevailed upon, by any means, to put on the episcopal habiliments, or to assist at the supposed solemnity, in any other shape than that of a formal Puritan, in a long woollen gown, as Mr. Mason describes him. [Milo vero Coverdallus non nisi togâ laneâ talari utebatur.]—And D. Heylin gives us this reason for it, viz. his disaffection to the episcopalia. "As for Miles Coverdale, he did not only wave the acceptation of Exon, but of any other Church then vacant. Somewhat might be in it of disaffection to the [episcopal] habit; which it is to be believed the rather, be cause be attended not at the Consecration in his Cope and Rochet, as others did, but in a plain black gown, reaching down to his ankles."

Now here we beg leave to throw in an observation or two which this quotation naturally suggests. And

First, we observe, that D. Heylin has transmitted to

posterity a grand secret, an important discovery! and what should that be, but the colour, the identical colour of Miles Coverdale's long gown! And we are very much surprised, that a particularity of such importance could possibly escape the knowledge of the acute Mr. Mason; especially when we consider how affectedly, and even ridiculously circumstantial be labours to appear, through the whole process of his supposed Lambeth-Ordination!

Secondly, we observe, that these words, as others did, seem to imply, that though Coverdale did not, yet all the others did assist in their Copes and Rochets. But this is contradicted by Mason himself, who represents the Suffragan of Bedford as much a Puritan in querpo, and as formal and precise a figure as old Coverdale. And in order to prove this, it will be requisite to subjoin a word or two relative to this same

Suffragan Hodgskins.

But, with regard to this man, sorry we are that it is not in our power, with any tolerable degree of certainty, to gratify the reader's curiosity or our own. We dare not peremptorily transcribe his name, for fear of lapsing into a mistake. Bramhall will have him to be Richard, Mason calls him John. Again, Mason styles him Suffragan of Bedford; Strype (from no less authority than Cant. Reg.) assures us, that the See (as he calls it) is not mentioned in the Register. Some suppose it to be Bedford, others Dover. In short, so little can be positively advanced with relation to this man, either from history or the records, that, perhaps, he may not improperly be compared to a ghost in a play, which dramatic writers introduce or conjure up, only to act its part, and then vanish off the stage. And truly this seems to have been Hodgskins' case. For after Parker's Consecration at Lambeth, (if that was the scene of action) he immediately disappears, and we hear no more of him.

As to his principles, we conjecture they were much of the same stamp with those of the famous old Puritan Miles Coverdale. Nay, this appears to be something more than mere conjecture, from Mason's own Register, wherein it is expressly held forth, that at Lambeth, (supposing Parker to have been ordained there) Coverdale and Hogdskins disdained to suffer either Copes or Rochets, or any such-like Popish gear, to come upon their backs, but assisted (and undoubtedly cut puritanical figures) in their long gowns.–

[Coverdallus vero et Bedfordiæ Suffraganeus, togis solummodò talaribus utebantur.]—And such were Parker's consecrators!

In fine, since, we apprehend, it will prove a hard matter to make good, or justify the title and pretensions of Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskins, to the episcopal character, we have reason to conclude, that Parker's 'Ordination can appear in no other light or colour than that of a lame cause; and so very lame indeed, as to halt on all four.

§ 7.-What Form of Ordination was made use of in the Reign of K. Edward VI... When, upon what Account, and by whom corrected?

WE shall begin our remarks upon the Form of making Bishops, &c. in the days of King Edward the Sixth, with Heylin's account of it, which is this:

"Nov. 4, 1559, it was enacted in Parliament, That such form and manner of making and consecrating Archbi shops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Ministers of the Church, as by six Prelates, and six other learned men, learned in God's Law, by the King to be appointed and assigned, or by the most number of them, shall be devised for that purpose, and set forth under the Great Seal, before the first of April next coming, shall be lawfully exercised and used, and no other.'" Now the Form devised by a majority in this committee, was thus expressed.

Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is now in thee, by the imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.

And according to this new-invented form, the celebrated D. Parker is supposed by Mr. Mason (in his supposititious Register) to have been consecrated at Lambeth: and D. Heylin seems to confirm this supposition, when he tells us, that "The service was performed according to the Ordi nal of King Edward the Sixth, then newly published for that purpose."

But to this the Catholics reply, that K. Edward's Form and manner of making Bishops, &c. comes not up to the Idem, p. 121.

Heylin's Hist. Presb. p. $2.

design nor answers the purpose of valid Ordinations. They observe, that there is nothing in the form and manner expressive of the order, power, character, office, or duty of a Bishop. They observe, (what even Bramhall and Mason acknowledge) that no Ordination is to be esteemed valid, unless there be fit words to determine the outward rites, so and in such manner as to signify the Order given. And therefore, since neither the Order given, nor so much as the word Bishop, &c. are expressed in the Edwardian Form, the Catholics conclude it must be a very insufficient one. Nay, the Church-of-England Protestants seem to acknowledge, in fact, as much as this comes to. Witness the new edition of K. Edward's Ordinal, which was published (with considerable amendments) upon the following oc

casion.

Anno 1662, a book entitled Erastus Senior, appeared in public. The author of that performance demonstratively proves, that K. Edward's Form of making Bishops, Priests, &c. has nothing in it that denotes expressly (or so much as by implication) the office or character of a Bishop, Priest, &c. Upon which the Convocation, then sitting, took it into their heads to make some alterations and improvements in the said Form; of which the following is an exact copy, a faithful transcript.

Receive the Holy Ghost ["for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."] And remember thou stir up the grace of God, which is given thee by the imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.'

Now here indeed we have the office and work of a Bishop very dexterously hocus-pocus'd into the Edwardian Form of Ordination, but to what purpose, the Catholics desire to be informed. For if, previously to these amendments, the Ordination-Form was right, sufficient, and valid, what could induce the Convocation to alter it? But if (before these last corrections) it was wrong, insufficient, and invalid, does it not inevitably follow. that the present Cler gy of the Church of England have derived, and do still derive their Orders from a succession of Bishops, who, for an hundred years and upwards, were, not one of them, rightly, sufficiently, or validly ordained? But more of this in our answer to the third objection,

$8.-Q. Elizabeth dispenses with all Irregularities and Defects in Parker's Consecration..

FROM what we have already advanced upon this subject, it seems pretty plain, that Parker's consecrators were not a little deficient in their Episcopal Character, or Power of Order, which may not, perhaps, be improperly compared to a magni nominis umbra; nor does their Power of Jurisdiction appear, upon enquiry, to be better grounded. For what Power of Jurisdiction can be supposed to be lodged in the hands of those, who, in the Queen's Commission, and Mason's Register, are only styled quondam Bishops, or Bishops elect? They had been legally outed and deprived of their Bishoprics by Queen Mary; and in this state of deprivation, and stript as they were of all manner of Jurisdiction, how they could nevertheless confer (what they had not) a Metropolitical Jurisdiction on Matthew Parker, is unaccountable.

We grant, indeed, that it had been enacted by Stat. 1. Eliz. 1. that her Majesty might assign, name, and autho-rize any persons, being natural born subjects to her High-. ness, to exercise all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction. But still it does not appear plain to us, that her Highness had any Pastoral Jurisdiction herself, to any body. We ive to grant also, that Barlow and Scory had both been nominated by Q. Elizabeth to Bishoprics, the first to Chichester, the latter to Hereford; but then it seems, they were not con...! firmed in those sees, and consequently could have no actual jurisdiction at or before the time of Parker's Ordination. A circumstance ingenuously confessed by D. Heylin.

"No sooner was the solemnity ended, but a new mandate comes for the confirmation of D. Barlow in the See of Chichester, and D. Scory to the See of Hereford. And tho' the not restoring then to their former Sees, night seem to justify Queen Mary in their deprivation, yet the Queen wanted not good reasons for their present removal."

What reasons might induce Q. Elizabeth to remove these gentry from one Bishopric to another, the Doctor does not tell us; nor is it, I believe, worth any body's while to enquire but what reason (good or bad) can be assigned or pretended, why she did not confirm them in their respective Sees, and invest them with actual Jurisdiction (if it were in

+ Heylin's Hist. Ref. p. 123.