scandall for Catholicks They were too modest They might easily have prevailed with him or have had him commanded to joine in their consecration in a Church after a legall manner He who did not stick at renouncing the Pope and swearing an oath of Supremacy to his Prince would not have stucke at a legall Ordination upon the just command of his Prince But to desire him to do it in a taverne in a clandestine manner without the authority of the greate seale before their election was confirmed was to desire him out of Curtesy to run into a Premunire that is to forfeit his Bishoprick of Landaffe his estate his liberty Is it become a more notorious scandall to Catholicks to ordeine in a Church then in a taverne in the judgment of these fathers There may be scandall taken at the former but notorious scandall is given by the later Here Bishop Bonner steppeth upon the stage and had well neare prevented the whole pageant by sending his Chaplein to the Bishop of Landaffe to forbid him under paine of excommunication to exercise any such power of giving Orders in his diocesse where with the old man being terrified and other wise moved in conscience refused to proceed Bishop Bonner was allwaies very fierce which way soever he went If Acworth say true he escaped once very narrowly in Rome either burning or boiling in scalding leade for being so violent before the Assembly of Cardinalls against the Pope on the behalf of Henry the eight if he had not secured himself by flight Afterwards he made such bonefires of protestants and rendered himself so odious that his prison was his onely safeguard from being torne in pieces by the People But that was dum stetit Iliam ingens Gloria Teucrorum whilest he had his Prince to be his second Now he was deprived and had no more to doe with the Bishoprick of London then with the Bishoprick of Constantinople he had the habituall power of the Keies but he had no flock to exercise it upon If he had continued Bishop of London still what hath the Bishop of London to do with the Bishop of Landaffe Par in parem non habet potestatem Thirdly Bowes Church which is neare the Nagges-head wherein the Ecclesiasticall parte of this story so farre as it hath any truth in it was really acted that is the Confirmation of Arch Bishop Parkers election though it be in the City of London as many Churches more is not in the Diocesse of London but a Peculiar under the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Lastly the Fathers say that when Parker and the rest see that he had refused they reviled the poore old man calling him doating foole and some of them saying This old foole thinketh that we can not be Bishops unlesse we be greased The contrary is evident by the Recordes of the confirmation that Arch Bishop Parker was not present in person So this whole narration is composed of untruthes and mistakes and incongruities and contradictions But that which discovereth the falsity of it apparently to all the world is this that the Bishop of Landaff lived and died a protestant Bishop in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as he had bene formerly in the reigne of King Edward for proofe whereof I produce two of their owne Authours The one is Sanders But the Bishops who had bene created out of the Church in those most wicked times who had now repented from their hearts of their Schisme being not contented wiih this common dispensation and confirmation did each of them particularly crave pardon of their former grievous fault from the See Apostolick and Confirmation in their Bishopricks excepting the Bishop of Landaffe who omitting it rather out of negligence then malice did onely relapse into Schisme in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as we interprete it by the just judgement of god He acknowledgeth that he became a Protestant againe that is in their language relapsed into Schisme The other is cited by Doctor Harding We had onely one foole among us we see whose livery the foole was who now I know not by what entisements is become yours being unworthy the name of a Lord and a Bishop whose learning is very little and his credit by this action much lost Thus writeth Doctor Harding of the Bishop of Landaffe about the fifth yeare of Queene Elisabeth at which time he was living and continued protestant Bishop of Landaff A second objection against the truth of that which hath bene said of the competent Number of our Protestant Bishops to make a canonicall Ordination is an exception against all the seven Bishops named in the letters Patents that they were no true Bishops because all of them were ordeined in a time of Schisme and two of them in King Edwards time according to a new forme of Ordination and consequently they could not ordeine That Ordination which was instituted by Edward the sixth was judged invalide by the Catholicks and so declared by publick judgment in Queene Maries reigne in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not saith the sentence consecrated nor Bishops To the First part of this objection that our consecraters were ordeined themselves by Schismaticks or in a time of Schisme I answer three waies First this argument is a meere begging of the quaestion The case in briefe is this If those branches of Papall power which we cast out of England by our Lawes at the Reformation were â—laine usurpations then our Reformation 〈◊〉 but a reinfanchisement of our selves and â—he Schisme lieth at their dore then they may question the validity of their owne Ordination upon this ground not ours But we are ready to mainteine to all the world â—hat all those branches of Papall power which we cast out by our lawes at the Reâ—ormation were grosse usurpations â—irst introduced into England above eleâ—en hundred yeares after Christ. So this â—art of the Objection concerneth them 〈◊〉 us â—econdly these Fathers know wel enough â—â—d can not but acknowledg that according to the principles of the Catholick Church and their owne practise the Ordination not onely of Schismaticks but oâ— hereticks if it have no essentiall defect iâ—â—valide and the persons so Ordeined oughâ— not to be reordeined but onely reconciled Many Orthodox Christians had their holy orders from hereticall Arrians If Craâ—mer and Latimer and Barlow and Hodgkins were no true Bishops because theâ— were ordeined in a time of Schisme then Gardinar and Bonner and Tuâ—â—stall and Thurleby c. were no true Biâ—shops for they were ordeined in a timâ— of Schisme likewise then Cardinall Polâ— and Bishop Watson and Christophers and all rest of their Bishops were no truâ— Bishops who were ordeined by these 〈◊〉 to put out one of our eies like the envioâ— man in the fable they would put out 〈◊〉 their owne Thirdly I answer that it was not we 〈◊〉 made
that Sacerdos Signifieth both a Priest and a Bishop Let it signify so and in St. Hieroms sense what will he inferre from thence Next he askes Bishop Iewell of Bishoply and Priestly vocation and sending What new canting language is this Could he not as well have made use of the old Ecclesiasticall word of Ordination Thirdly he taxeth the Bishop that he answereth not by what example hands were laid on him or who sent him What doth this concern any question between them and us Hands were laid on him by the example of Christ of his Apostlesâ— of the Primitive and Modern Church so Christ seÌ„t him the King seÌ„t him the Church sent him in severall respects He telleth us that when he had duely considered his Protestant Ordination in King Edwards time he did not take himself for lawfull deacon in all respects If his Protestant Ordination were a Nullity as these meÌ„ say theÌ„ he was a lawfull Deacon in no respect Pope Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were of another mind Then follow his two grand excepitons against our Ordination wherein you shal find nothing of your Nagge 's head fable The former exceptioÌ„ is that King Edwards Bishops who gave Orders were out of Orders themselves The second is that they ministred not orders according to the Rite aÌ„d manner of the Catholick Church For the former exception I referre him to the Councell of Carthage in St. Austins time and for both his excepitons to Cardinall â—oles Confirmation of King Edwards Bishops and Priests and Paul the 4. Ratification of his Act. If any man have a mind to inquire further into the Validity of our Form of Ordination let him leave these Fables and take his scope freely To all this they say that Bishop Iewell answers with profound silence yet they adde onely he sayes without any proofe that their Bishops are made by Form and Order and by the Consecration of the Arch bishop and other three Bishops and by admission of the Prince I expected profound sileâ—ce but I find a profound answer this is the first time I learned how a man can both keep profound silence â—nd answer so pertinently all at once How doth Dr. Harding goe about to take away â—his answer For Bishop Iewell was the defendent and the burthen of the proofe did â—ot rest upon him First I pray you how was â—our Archbishop consecrated If Dr. Harding did not see his Consecration he might have â—een it if he would He askes further what â—ree Bishops were there in the Realm to lay hands â—pon him Ask the Queens Letters patents â—â—d they will shew you seven What a â—â—eake Socraticall kind of arguing is this â—ltogether by questions without any Infeâ—ence If Dr. Harding could have said it justly and he could have said it if it had been so he should have confuted him boldly and told him your Metropolitan was consecrated in the Nagge 's head by one single Bishop in a fanaticall and phantasticall manner but he did not he durst not do it because he knew it to be otherwise and it was publickly known to be otherwise All his exception is against our Form If you had been Consecrated after the Form and Order vvhich hath ever been used you might have had Bishops out of France or at home in England It is the Forme established in King Edwards time and restored in Queen Elisabeths time which Doctr. Harding impugneth not thaâ— ridiculous Form which they Father upon Bishop Scory and their cheife objection against that Form was that vain Cavill that it was not restored by Act of Parliament which since hath been answereâ— abundantly by an Act of Parliament Here upon he telleth Bishop Iewell that his Metropolitan had no lawfull Consecration Thougâ— his Consecration had not been lawfull yâ—â— it might have been valid but it was botâ— legall and valid This is all that Doctoâ— Harding hath which a much meane Schollar then that learned Prelate might have adventured upon without feare of burning his Fingers Their next proofe against our Records is taken from the Contradictions of our Writers Mr. Masons Registers and Records disagree with those that Mr. Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops sometimes in the Day sometimes in the moneth sometimes in the year And againe Mr. Mason Sutcliffe and Mr. Butler all speaking of Mr. Parkers Consecration doe all differ one from another in naming his Consecraters Mr. Mason saith it was done by Barlow Scory Coverdale and Hodgskins Mr. Sutcliffe saith besides the three first there vvas tvvo Suffragans M Butler saith the Suffragan of Dover vvas one vvho is not named in the Commission So as these men seem to have had three Disagreeing Registers I answer first that it is scarcely possible to avoid errours in transcribing and printing of Bookes in the Authors absence especially in names and numbers To keep a balling and a stirre about these Errata of the pen or of the presse is like the barking of little Curres which trouble the whole Vicinage about the Mooneshining in the Water Such were the most of these Secondly supposing that some very few of these were the reall mistakes of the Authors yet innocent mistakes which have no plot in them or design of Interest or Advantage which conduce neither pro nor contra to any Controversy that is on Foot they ought not to be exaggerated or pressed severely It is the Wisdome of a wise man to passe by an Infirmity Such are all these petty Differences Whether Arch-Bishop Parker was consecrated by three City Bishops and two Suffragan or by three City Bishops and one Suffragan Bishop and whether this one Suffragan were SuffragaÌ„ of Bedford or Suffragan of Dover coÌ„duceth nothing to any Controversy which is on Foot in the Church and signifieth nothing to the Validity or invalidity legality or illegality canonicalnesse or uncanonicalnesse of his Ordination All Memories are not so happy to remember names and numbers after a long distance of time especially if they entered but by the â—are and were not Oculis subjecta fidelibus Iâ— any man should put me to depose wanting my notes and memorialls what Priests did impose hands upon me with Archbishop Mathews at my Priestly Ordination or what Bishops did joine with my Lord Primate of Ireland at my Episcopall Ordination I could not doe it exactly I know there were more then the Canons doe require at either Ordination and referre my self to the Register Whether two Suffragans or one Suffragan is an easy mistake when there were two in the Commission and but one at the Consecration so is the Suffragan of Dover for the Suffragan of Bedford Thirdly whether these were the faults of the pen or the presse or the Authour yet after retractation it ought not to be objected It is inhumane to charge any man with that fault which he himself had corrected and amended Bishop Goodwin corrected all these errours himself without any Monitor and published his Correction of his errours to the world in
the publick authentick Recordes of the Kingdome were to make our selves guilty of more madness then they accuse the Bishops ofâ— If St. Paul forbid Timothy to receiâ—â— an accusation against a single Presbyter under two or three witnesses he would noâ— have us to condemne fifteen Bishops of such a penall crime upon a ridiculous rumour contrary both to the lawes and Recordâ— of the Kingdome The severity of ouâ— lawes doth destroy the credit of this fable CHAP. III. The fourth and fifth reasons against this improbable fiction from the no necessity of it and the lesse advantage of it MY fourth plea is because there was no need to play this counterfeit pageant We use to say Necessity hath no law that is regardeth no law In time of warre the lawes are silent but this was a time of peace First there could be no necessity why they should have a clandestine Consecration without a Register or publick Notary when they might have had an Army of publick Notaries ready upon their whistle eveÌ„ under their elbowes at Bowes Church out of the Courtes of the Arches and the Audience and Prerogative Secondly there was no necessity why they should anticipate the Queenes Letters patents for their consecration by whose gracious favour they were elected and of the accomplishmeÌ„t whereof in due time they could not doubt unlesse they would wilfully destroy their owne hopes by such a mad pranke as this had been that is unlesse they would themselves hew downe the bough where upon they stood Thirdly there was no necessity that they should chuse a common Taverne for the place of their Consecration when the Keies of all the Churches in the Kingdome were at their Command Fourthly there could be no necessity why they should deserte the forme of Ordination prescribed by the Law which was agreeable both to their judgements and to their desires and to their duties and to omitte the essentialls of Ordination both matter and forme which they knew well enough to be consecrated after a new brainsick manner Then all the necessity which can be pretended is want of a competent number of Ordeiners Suppose there had bene such a necessity 'to be ordeined by two Bishops or by one Bishop this very necessity had bene a sufficient Dispensation with the rigour of the Canons and had instified the Act. as St. Gregory pleadeth to Augustine In the English Church wherein there iâ— no other Bishop but thy self thou canâ— not ordeine a Bishop otherwise then alone And after this manner our First English Bishops were ordeined And so mighâ— these protestant Bishops have bene validely ordeined if they received the essentialls of Ordination But what a remedy is this because they could not have a competent number of Bishops according to the canons of the Church and the lawes of England therefore to reject the essentialls of Ordination for a defect which was not essentiall and to cast of obedience to their superiours both civill aÌ„d Ecclesiasticall This had bene just like little children which because they caÌ„ not have some toy which they desire cast away their garments and whatsoever their PareÌ„ts had provided for them Wante of three Bishops might in some cases make a consecration illegall or uncanonicall but it could not have rendered it invalide as this silly preteÌ„ded OrdinatioÌ„ had But now I come up close to the ground worke of the fable and I denie positively that there was any such want of a competent number of Bishops as they pretend And for proofe hereof I bring no vaine rumours or uncertein conjectures but the evident and authentick testimony of the great seale of England affixed to the Queenes Leuers Patents for authorising the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker dated the sixth day of December Anno 1559. directed to seven protestant Bishops namely Anthony Bishop of Landaffe William Barlow sometimes Bishop of Bath and Welles and then elect Bishop of Chichester Iohn Scory sometimes Bishop of Chichester then Elect Bishop of Hereforde Miles Coverdale sometimes Bishop of Exceter Iohn Suffragan Bishop of Bedford Iohn Suffragan Bishop of Theâ—ford and Iohn Bale Bishop of Ossory in Ireland Three are a Canonicall number if there were choise of seven then there was no wante of a competent number to ordeine canonically I adde that if it had bene needfull they might have had seven more out of Ireland Arch Bishops and Bishops for such a worke as a consecration Ireland never wanted store of Ordeiners Nor ever yet did any man object want of a Competent number of Consecraters to an Irish Protestant Bishop They who concurred freely in the Consecration of Protestant Bishops at home would not have denied their concurrence in England if they had been commanded Which makes me give no credit to that vaine reporte of an Irish Arch Bishop prisoner in the tower who refused to complie with the desires of the protestant Bishops for his liberty and a large rewarde But the Arch Bishop wanteth a name and the Fablâ— wanteth a ground the witnesses and persuaders are all unkowne And if there had bene a grane of truth in this relation yet in this case one man is no man one mans refusall signifieth nothing Against the evident truth of this assertion two things may be opposed out of the relation of these Fathers The First is particular concerning the Bishop of Landaffe that he was no Protestant but a Roman Catholick untill his death So they say indeed that he was the onely man of all the Catholick Bishops that tooke the oath of Supremacy Observe how prejudice and partiality doth blindfold men of learning and partes They confess he tooke the oath of supremacy and yet esteeme him a good Roman Catholick I see censures go by favour and one may Steale an horse better then another looke over the hedge I am well contented that they reckon him for so good a Catholick They adde that he knew Parker and the rest which were to be ordered Bishops to be hereticks and averse from the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church which he Constantly adhered unto the Supremacy onely excepted during his life And a little after they tell us that he desired to be numbred among Catholicks Now what if the Bishop of Landaff after all this should prove to be a protestaÌ„t Then all the Fathers story is quite spoiled And so he was If he knew Parker and the rest to be heretickes he knew himself to be one of their brother hereticks His daily masse was the English Leiturgy as well as theirs He adhered constantly to a Protestant Bishoprick during his life as well as any of them And if he did not hold it as long as any of them it was deaths fault and none of his fault They say they prevailed with him to give them a meeting at the Nagge 's head in Cheapeside where they hoped he would ordeine them Bishops despairing that ever he would do it in a Church because that would be too great and notorious a
seu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout jam multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in domino dispensabimus And we vvill graciously receive or interteine by our selves or by others deputed by us to that purpose as many have already been received in their Orders and in their Benifices all Ecclesiasticall PersoÌ„s as well Secularas Regular of whatsoever Orders vvhich have obteined any suites dispensations grants graces and indulgences as vvell in their Ecclesiasticall Orders as Benefices and other spirituall matters by the pretended authority of the Supremacy of the Church of England though ineffectually and onely de facto so they be penitent and be returned to the unity of the Church And vve vvill in due season dispense vvith them in the Lord for these things Here we see evidently that upon the request of the Loâ—ds Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the representative body of the Church and Kingdome of England by the intercession of the King and Queene the Popes Legate did receive all persons which had been Ordeined or Beneficed either in the time of King Henry or King Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices which they were actually possessed of at the time of the making of this dispensation or Confirmation without any exception or Condition but onely this that they were returned to the unity of the Catholick Church Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned either deprived of their Benefices or compelled to be reordeined From whence I argue thus Either King Henry the eighths Bishops and Priests and likewise the Bishops and Priests Ordeined in King Edward the sixths time had all the Essentialls of Episcopall and Priestly Ordination which were required by the institution of Christ and then they ought not to be reordeined Then in the judgement of these Fathers themselves it is grievous sacrilege to reordeine them Or they wanted some essentiall of their respective Ordinations which was required by the institution of Christ and then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirme their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church But the Legate did Dispense with them to hold their Orders and exercise their severall functions in the Church and the Pope did confirme that dispensation This doth clearely destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders It may perhaps be objected that the dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawfull to receive them in the present it was as unlawfull to receive theÌ„ in the future All that was done after was to take a particular absolution or confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the Principall Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops Not the Bishop of Landaff as Sanders witnesseth Yet he injoied his Bishoprick So did all the rest if the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not materiall at all whether they were confirmed by a generall or by a speciall dispensation so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can denie Secondly it may be objected that it is said in the Dispensation licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint Although they had obteined their Benefices and Promotions ineffectually and onely in fact without right which doth intimate that their Orders were voide and null before they had obteined this dispensation I answer that he stiled them voide and null not absolutely but respectively quoad exercitium because by the Roman law they might not be lawfully exercised without a Dispensation but not quoad Characterem as to the Character If they had wanted any thing necessary to the imprinting of the Character or any thing essentiall by the institution of Christ the Popes Dispensation and Confirmation had been but like a seale put to a blanke piece of paper And so the Cardinalls dispensation in generall and particularly for Benefices and Ecclesiasticall Promotions Dispensations and Graces given by such Order as the lawes of the Realme allowed and prescribed in King Henries time and King Edwards time was then and there ratified by act of Parliament Lastly that this Dispensation was afterwards confirmed by the Pope I prove by the confession of Sanders himself though a malicious enemy He that is Cardinall Pole in a publick Instrument set forth in the name and by the authority of the Pope Confirmed all Bishop which had bene made in the former Schisme so they were Catholick in their judgment of Religion and the six new Bishopricks which King Henry had erected in the time of the Schisme And this writing being affixed to the Statute was published with the rest of the Decrees of that Parliament and their minds were pacified All which things were established and confirmed afterwards by the Letters of Pope Paul the fourth We have seene that there were a competent number of Protestant Bishops beyond ' Exception to make a Consecration And so the necessity which is their onely Basis or Foundation of the Nagge 's head Consecration being quite taken away this prodigious fable having nothing els to support the incredibilities and inconsistencies of it doth melt away of it self like winter ice The fifth reason is drawen from that well known principle in Rethorick Cui bono or what advantage could such a consecration as the Nagge 's head Consecration is pretended to have been bring to the Consecraters or the persons consecrated God and Nature never made any thing in vaine The haire of the head the nailes upon the fingers ends do serve both for ornament and muniment The leafes defend the blossomes the blossomes produce the fruite which is Natures end In sensitives the Spider doth not weave her webbes nor the silly Bee make her celles in vaine But especially intellectuall creatures have alwaies some end of their Actions Now consider what good such a mock ConsecratioÌ„ could doe the persons so consecrated Could it helpe them to the possession of their Bishopricks by the law of England Nothing lesse There is such a concatenation of our English Customes and Recordes that the counterfeiting of of any one can do no good except they could counterfeite them all which is impossible When any Bishops See becommeth voide there issueth a Writ out of the Exchequer to seise the Temporalties into the Kings hand as being the ancient and well knowne Patron of the English Church leaving the Spiritualties to the Arch Bishop or to the Deane and Chapiter according to the custome of the place Next the King granteth his Conge d'Eslire or his License to chuse a Bishop to the Deane and Chapiter upon the receite of this License the Deane and Chapiter within a certein number of daies chuse a Bishop
onely extant but publickly printed whilest all things were fresh in mens memories yet no man did or durst except against the truth of them So free they were not onely from corruption but from suspicion The sixth and last ground to prove that the Recordes were not forged is taken from the agreement and concurrence of our civill Recordes which no man ever doubted of with our Ecclesiasticall Registers We have seene the Queenes Letters PateÌ„ts directed to seven other Bishops for the confirmation and consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker dated the sixth of December anno 1559 Therefore upon the sixth of December 1559 he was neither Confirmed nor Consecrated We have seene the Ecclesiasticall Recordes how by virtue of those very Letters Patents he was confirmed upon the ninth day and consecrated upon the seventeenth day of the same Moneth We find three other Letters Patents directed to Arch-Bishop Parker himself as a Consecrated Bishop for the Confirmation and Consecration of other Bishops namely Richard Coxe Edmund Grindall and Edwin Sandes dated the Eighteenth of December that is the very next day after his consecration Therefore he was then consecrated And this agreeth exactly with the Ecclesiasticall Register Elisabeth Dei gratia Angliae c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Domino Matthaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano c Salutem Rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo mandantes quatenus eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Divi Pauli London praedictae sic ut praefertur Electum Electionemque praedictam Confirmare eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare ceteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt Officio pastorali c. Teste Regina apud west monasterium decimo Octavo die Decembris Anno Reginae Elizabeth Angliae c. secundo Examinatur per RICH BROUGHTON Consimilia Brevia Eisdem forma verbis mutatis solummodo Mutandis directa sunt cidem Mattbaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi pro confirmatione Electionis consecratione Richardi Cox Sacrae Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum Eliensem Et Edwini Sands sacra Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum VVigornensem Omnia sub dato praedicto in Rotulo supradicto Examinatur per RICHARDUM BROUGHTON There cannot be a clearer proofe in the world to prove that Arch-Bishop Parker was neither confirmed nor Consecrated upon the sixth of December Anno 1559. and that he was both Confirmed and Consecrated and commanded to Consecrate others upon the eighteenth of the same moneth Neither doth the King or Church or Lawes of England take notice of any man as a true Arch-Bishop or Bishop untill hands be imposed upon him but alwaies with this addition Elect as in the booke of Ordination Ego I N. Ecclesiae atque sedis N. Elecius Episcopus profiâ—eor And in the letany Te Rogamus ut huic fratri nostro Electo Episcopo Benedicionem gratiam â—uam largiri digneris Lastly by the lawes of England a Bishop can not be admitted to do his homage or sweare fealty for his Bishoprick nor be restored to his Temporalties untill he be legally Consecrated But it is Apparent by the Queenes Letters Patents dated the one and twentieth day of March following that was at the end of Hilary terme as speedily as could be he had done his homage and was then restored to his Temporalties Which proveth clearly that he was legally Consecrated that is to say according to the Register Such a perpetuall agreement there is between our Ecclesiasticall-Recordes and our Civill Recordes CHAPT V. The eighth ninth and tenth reasons against that fabulous relation from the Authority of our Statute the booke of the life 's of the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and all sorts of witnesses THe eighth reason to prove the Nagges-head OrdinatioÌ„ to be a fable is takeÌ„ froÌ„ the authority of the Statute in the eighth yeare of Queene Elisabeth which is thus entituled An Act declaring the manner of making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realme to be good lawfull and perfect An Act declaring not enacting or making the manner of making and Consecrating the Arch Bishops and Bishops of this Realme that is those in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time as appeareth by the whole body of the Act to be good lawfull and perfect The title of the Statute alone is sufficient to confute this fable But there is much more in the body of the Statute As where it approveth the making and consecrating of the same Arch Bishops and Bishops to be duely and orderly done according to the lawes of this Realme If it was done duely and orderly according to the lawes of this Realme then it was not done at the Nagge 's head nor after such a silly ridiculous manner as these Fathers do relate it That forme differeth from our forme in all things In the Consecrater or Minister of the Consecration We must have three Bishops at the least there was but one In the matter Our matter is Imposition of handes their matter was the laying the Bible upon the head or shoulders of the person Consecrated In the forme Our forme is receive the holy Ghost c Their forme was Take thou Authority to preach the word of God sincerely The Statute proceedeth that they were elected made and consecrated Arch Bishops and Bishops according to such order and forme and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecrations as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts Statutes and Orders annexed to the said booke of Common praier before mentioned This is plaine enough If the Parliament say truely then they were Consecrated in a Church not in a Taverne not according to the Brainsick whiâ—sies of a self conceited Foole or rather the ludibrious devise of an Archenemy but according to the forme prescribed by the Church and Kingdome The Parliament had more reason to know the truth then these Fathers for there were personally present both the persons who did consecrate and the persons who were consecrated and many Lords and Gentlemen who were eye witnesses of the consecration Chuse Reader whether thoâ— wilt trust the tale of a single obscure malicious spie tatling in a corner or the asseveration of the Parliament of England iâ— the face of the sun published to the world in print The Parliament testifieth further that iâ— is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt 〈◊〉 or may justly be objected against the said Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Do they thinke the Parliament would have giveâ— such a testimony for the Nagge 's head Consecrations And so they conclude thâ— all persons which had been or should be ordeâ—â— or consecrated after the forme and order prescâ—â—bed in the said English Ordinall werâ— very deed and by authority of Parliament were declared and enacted to
Print long since in a new Edition of his booke Likewise Dr. Sutcliffe acknowledged his mistake and gave order to Mr. Mason to publish it to the world as he did To ground exceptions upon the errours of the presse or the slips of the tongue or pen or of the memory after they have been publickly amended is like flies to delight in sores and neglect the body when it is sound I have the same errour crept into a booke of mine of five for four how it came I know not for the booke was printed in my absence but I have corrected it in mine own Copy and in many Copies of my Friends where I meet with the booke Lastly there is no danger in such petty differences so long as all parties doe submit themselves to the publick Registers of the Church as all these writers doe although is may be some of them were better acquainted with Polemick Writers theÌ„ with Registers or the practicall customes of the Church of England The very Reference or submission of themselves to the Register is an Implicit retractation of their errours As in a City the Clocks may differ and the peoples Iudgements of the time of the day but both Clocks and Clerkes must submit to the Sun dyall when the sun shineth out so all private memorialls must be and are submitted to the publick Register of the Church Where these Fathers talk of plurality of Registers they erre because they understand not our Customes Every Bishop throughout the Kingdome hath one Registry at least every Dean and Chapter hath a Registry The ordinations of Priests and Deacons and the Institution of Clerkes to Benefices are recorded in the Registries of the Respective Bishops in whose diocesses they are ordeined and instituted The elections of Bishops and Inthronisations and Installations in the Registry of the respective Deans and Chapiters and the Confirmations and Consecrations of Bihops in the Registry of the Archbishop where they are consecrated except thâ— Archbishop be pleased to grant a Commission to some other Bishops to Consecrate the elected and confirmed Bishop in some other place But the same thing can not be recorded originally but in one Registry CAP. VIII Dr. VVhitaker and Dr. Fulke defended Bishop Barlowes Consecration justified of Iohn Stowes Testimony and the Earle of Notinghams c. HEre the Fathers take upon them the office of Iudges or Censors rather then of Advocates Mr. Mason ought to have answered as Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Fulke they were both eminent Drs. in the Schooles who had reason to be better informed of the Records then he How Nay nor half so well They were both contemplative men Cloistered up in St. Iohns College better acquainted with Polemick writers then with Records They were both ordeined Deacons and Priests legally Canonically according to the Form prescribed by the Church of England and were no such ill Birds to defile their own nests If the Records of their Ordination will â—atisfy you that they were no Enthusiasts as you imagin you may quickly receive satisfaction But if they had said any thing contrary to our Lawes and Canons you must not thinke to wrangle the Church of England out of a good possession by private voluntary speculations Let us see what these Doctrs say as you allege them for I have not their bookes in present Mr. Whitaker saith I would not have you thinke we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our own Vocation unlawfull without them You see Doctor Whitaker justifieth our Ordination in this very place as lawfull and much more plainly elswhere in his writings That though our Bishops and Ministers be not Ordeined by Papisticall Bishops yet they are orderly and lawfully ordeined Again The Romanists account none lawfull Pastors but such as are created according to their Form or Order These are your two main Objections against our Ordination that we are not ordeined by Bishops of your Communion That we are not ordeined according to the Roman Form In both of these Doctor Whitaker is wholy for us against you that which he maketh no reckoning of is your Form of Ordination as it is contradistinct from ours as it is in many things especially in your double matter and Form in Priestly Ordination You say Mr. Fulke speakes more plainly Let us heare him You are highly deceived if you thinke we esteem your Offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons better then Laymen and with all our heart we defie abhorre detest and spit at your stinking greasy Antichristian Orders This is high enough indeed and might have been expressed in more moderate termes but it is to be expounded not of the invalidity of your Ordination as if it wanted any Essentiall but partly in respect of the not using or abusing these sacred Offices and partly in respect of the Lawes of England Excesses may make an Ordination unlawfull although they do not make it invalid Holy Orders are an excellent Grace conferred by God for the Conversion of men but if those who have them instead of preaching truth do teach errours to his people and adulterate the old Christian Faith by addition of new Articles they are no longer true Pastors but Wolves which destroy the Flock and so they are not onely no better but worse then Lay men Corruptio optimi pessima In this respect they tell you that your Priests and Bishops are no true Priests and Bishops as Marcellus told his Soldiers that they were no true Romans who were naturall Romans because they wanted the old Roman virtue Lastly you have habituall power to exercise these Offices but you want actuall power in England by reason of the not application or rather the substraction of the matter by our Lawes so you are no legall Bishops or Priests there This I take to have been the sense of these two Doctors Now are we come to their grand exception against Bishop Barlow who was one of the Consecraters of Archbishop Parker whose Consecration is not found in the Archbishops Register and there fore they conclude that he was never consecrated If this objection were true yet it doth not render Archbishop Parkers Consecration either invalid or uncanonicall because there were three other Bishops who joined in that Consecration besides Bishop Barlow which is the full number required by the Canons But this objection is most false Bishop Barlow was a Consecrated Bishop above 20 yeares before the ConsecratioÌ„ of Archbishop Parker They should have done well to have proposed this doubt in Bishop Barlows lifetime and then they might have had the Testimony of his Consecraters under an Archiepiscopall or Episcopall Seale for their satisfaction The Testimony of the Archi-Episcopall Register is a full proofe of Consecration affirmatively but it is not a full proofe negatively such a Bishops Consecration is not recorded in this Register therefore he was not Consecrated For first the negligence of an Officer or some crosse accident might hinder the recording Secondly Fire or Thieves or some such
to produce the same Registers when they were so hardly pressed by their Adversaries These are but empty pretenses there was no pressing to produce Registers nor any thing objected that did deserve the production of a Register That which was objected against our Orders in those dayes was about the Form of Ordination published by Edward the sixth and the Legality of our Ordination in the time of Queen Elisabeth the Nagge 's head Consecration was never objected in those dayes Besides Registers are Publick enough themselves and need no production and yet our Registers were produced produced by the Parliament 8 Elisab who cited them as authentick Records produced and published to the world in Print that was another production They adde Or that so many Catholicks should have been so foolish to invent or maintein the Story of the Nagge 's head in such a time when if it had been false they might have been convinced by a thousand Witnesses Feare them not they were wiser then to publish such a notorious Fable in those dayes they might perchance whisper it in Corners among themselves but the boldest of them durst not maintain it or object it in print for feare of shame and disgrace It was folly to give any eare to it but is was knavery to invent it and to doe it after such a bungling manner whosoever was the Inventer was knavery and Folly complicated together If the Fathers write any more upon this subject I desire them to bring us no more hearesay testimonies of their owne party whatsoever esteeme they may have themselves of their judgment and prudence and impartiality It is not the manner of Polemick writers to urge the authority of their owne Doctors to an Adversary or allege the moderne practise of their present Church We have our owne Church and our owne Doctors as well as they If we would pinne our faith to the sleeues of their Writers and submit to their judgments and beleeve all their reportes and let all things be as they would have it we needed not to have any more controversy with them but we might well raise a worse controversy in our selves with our owne consciences CHA. XI Of our formes of Episcopall and priestly ordination of Zuinglianisme of Arch Bishop Lavvd of ceremonies Our assurance of our Orders WE have done with the Nagge 's head for the present That which followeth next doth better become Schollers as having more shew of truth and reality in it They object that in all the Catholick Ritualls not onely of the west but of the East there is not one forme of consecrating Bishops that hath not the word Bishops in it or some other words expressing the particular authority and power of a Bishop distinctly But in our Consecration there is not one word to expresse the difference and power of Episcopacy For these vvordes receive the holy Ghost are indifferent to priesthood and Episcopacy and used in both Ordinations I answer that the forme of Episcopall Ordination used at the same time when hands are imposed is the same both in their forme and ours Receive the holy Ghost And if these words be considered singly in a divided sense from the rest of the Office there is nothing either in our forme or theirs which doth distinctly and reciprocally expresse Episcopall power and Authority But if these words be considered coniointly in a compounded sense there is enough to expresse Episcopall power and authority distinctly and as much in our forme as theirs First two Bishops present the Bishop elect to the Arch-Bishop of the Province with these words most Reverend Father in Christ we present to you this godly and learned man to be Consecrated Bishop There is one expression Then the Arch-Bishop causeth the Kings Letters Patents to be produced and read which require the Arch Bishop to consecrate him a Bishop There is a second expression Thirdly the new Bishop takes his oath of canonicall obedience I A B elected Bishop of the Church and See of C. do professe and promise all reverence and due obedience to the Arch Bishop and Metropoliticall Church of D. and his Successours So God help me c. This is a third Expression Next the Arch Bishop exhorts the whole Assembly to solemne praier for this person thus elected and presented before they admit him to that office that is the Office of a Bishop whereunto they hope he is called by the holy Ghost after the example of Christ before he did chuse his Apostles and the church of Antioch before they laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas This is a fourth expression Then followeth the Litany wherein there is this expresse petition for the person to be ordeined Bishop we beseech thee to give thy blessing and grace to this our brother elected Bishop that he may discharge that office whereunto he is called diligently to the Edification of thy Church To which all the congregation answer Heare us O Lord we beseech thee Here is a fifth expression Then followeth this praier wherewith the Litany is concluded Allmighty God the giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast constituted diverse orders of Ministers in thy Church vouchsafe we beseech the to looke graciously upon this thy servant now called to the Office of a Bishop This is a sixth expression Next the Arch-Bishop telleth him he must examine him before he admit him to that administratiō whereunto he is called and maketh a solemne praier for him that God who hath constituted some Prophets some Apostles c. to the Edification of his Church would grant to this his servant the grace to use the authority committed to him to edification not destruction to distribute food in due season to the family of Christ as becommeth a faithfull and prudent Steward This authority can be no other then Episcopall authority nor this Stewardship any other thing then Episcopacy This is a sevēth expressiō Then followeth imposition of hands by the Arch-Bishop and all the Bishops present with these words Receive the holy Ghost c and lastly the tradition of the Bible into his hands exhorting him to behave himself towards the flock of Christ as a Pastour not devouring but feeding the flock All this implieth Episcopall authority They may except against Christs owne forme of ordeining his Apostles if they will and against the forme used by their owne Church but if they be sufficient formes our forme is sufficient This was the same forme which was used in Edward the sixths time and we have seen how Cardinall Pole and Paul the fourth confirmed all without exception that were ordeined according to this forme so they would reunite themselves to the Roman Catholick Church They bring the very same objection against our Priestly Ordination The forme or words whereby men are made Priests must expresse authority and power to consecrate or make present Christs body and blood whether with or without transubstantiation is not the present controversy with Protestants Thus far we
concerning me is a most notorious untruth and a grosse slander For to the best of my knowledge and remembrance no such booke as he there mentions was ever presented to the upper house in that or any other Parliament that ever I sate in And if there had I could never have made such a speech as is there pretended seeing I have ever spokeÌ„ according to my thoughts and alwaies believed that fable of the Nagge 's head consecration to have proceded from the father of lies as the Authentick Recordes of the Church still extant which were so faithfully transcribed and published by Mr. Mason do evidently testifie And whereas the same impudent Libeller doth moreover say that what he there affirmes was told to many by one of the ancientest Peeres of England praesent in Parliament when I made this praetended speech and that he is ready to depose the same upon his oath And that he can not believe any will be so impudent to denie a thing so notorious whereof there are as many witnesses living as there are Lords and Bishops that were that day in the upper house of Parliament c. I answer that I am very unwilling to beleeve any peere of England should have so little sense of his Conscience and honour as either to sweare or so much as affirme such a notorious untruth And therefore for the justification of my self and Manifestation of the truth in this Particular I do freely and vvillingly appeale as he directs me to those many honourable persons the Lord Spirituall and temporall yet alive vvho sate in the house of Peeres in that Parliament or to as many of them as this my Protestation shall come to for a true certificate of vvhat they knovv or believe Concerning this matter Humbly desiring them and charging it upon their soules as they vvill ansvver it to god at the day of Iudgment that they vvill be pleased to testifie the truth and nothing but the truth herein to the best of their knovvledg and remembrance vvithout any favour or affection to me at all I cannot reasonably be suspected by any indifâ—erent man of denyng any thing that I knovv or believe to be true seeing I am so shortly in all probability to render an account to the searcher of hearts of all my words and actions being now at the least upon the ninetyfifth yeare of my age And I acknowledge it a great mercy and favour of God that he hath reserved me thus long to cleare the Church of England and my self of this most notorious Slander before he takes me to himself For I can not imagine any reason why this shamelesse writer might not have cast the same upon any of my Reverend Brethren as well as me but onely that I being the eldest it was probable I might be in my graue before this untruth could be taken notice of in the world And now I thanke god I can cherefully sing my nunc dimittis unlesse it please him to reserve me for the like service hereafter for I desire not to live any longer upon earth then he shall be pleased to make me his instrument to defend the truth and promote his glory And for the more solemne and full Confirmation of this my free and voluntary protestation and declaration I have hereunto set my hand and seale this seventeenth day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. THOMAS DVRESME Signed sealed published and declared in the presence of Tho Sanders Sen Tho Sanders Iun Iohn Barwick Clerke R Gray Evan Davies I Tobias Holder publick Notary being requested by the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Lo. Bishop of Duresme at the house of Thomas Sanders Esquire in the Parish of Flamstead in the County of Hartford in the yeare of our Lord moneth and day above specified was then and there personally present where and vvhen the said Reverend Bishop did Signe publish and declare this his Protestation and declaration above vvriten to be his Act and deed and did cause his Authentick Episcopall Seale to be there to affixed in the presence of the vvitnesses vvhose names are there to subscribed And did there and then likevvise signe publish and declare as his Act and deed another of the same Tenor vvritten in paper vvhich he Signed vvith his Manuall Seale in the presence of the same vvitnesses All this I heard saw and therefore knovv to be done In Testimony vvhereof I have subscribed and thereto put my usuall and accustomed Notaries Signe TOBIAS HOLDER Publick Notary How doth this so solemne Protestation agree with the former Relation of the Fathers that the Bishop of Durham affirmed publickly in the upper house that the first Protestant Bishops were Consecrated in the Nagge 's head that they were not Consecrated at Lambeth that this was notorious to all the world that it is not Credible that any will be so impudent as to denie it that all the rest of the Bishops approved his assertion by their silence and were glad to have such a retiring place against the Presbyterians that none of the Bishops did give credit to Mr. Masons new found Registers Even as light and Darknesse or truth and falshood or two Contradictory Propositions do agree together This is the first witnesse whom any of that party hath adventured to cite publickly and directly for that infamous story whilest he was living And they see the successe of it I hope they will be wiser hereafter then to cite any more living witnesses But it may be that they who do not stick to suppose that our Arch-Bishops make false certificates may object this is but the Testimony of the Bishop of Durham in his owne cause Let us see whether the other Bishops dissent from the Bishop of Duresme Take the Testimony of them all who sate in that Parliament which are now lining except the Bishop of Bangor whose absence in Wales is the onely reason why he is not a subscriber with the rest Whereas we the surviving Bishops of the Church of England who sate in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640 are required by our Reverend Brother the Lord Bishop of Duresme to declare and attest the truth concerning an imputation cast upon him in the Pamphlet of that namelesse Author mentioned in his Protestation and Declaration here prefixed And whereas we are obliged to performe what he requesteth both for the justification of the truth and for the clearing of our selves of another slanderous aspersion which the same Authour casteth upon us as if we had heard our said Reverend Brother make such a speech as is there pretended and by our silence had approved what that Libeller falsely affirmeth was delivered in it VVe do hereby solemnely protest and declare before God and all the world that we never knew of any such booke presented to the house of Peeres as he there pretendeth nor believe any such vvas ever presented And therefore could never heare any such speech made against it as he mentioneth by
hands upon them And that they had not of themselves two or three Bishops or so much as one Metropolitan What a shameless untruth is this that there were not two or three Protestant Bishops when the Queenes Commission under the great Seale of England recorded in the Rolles is directed to seven Protestant Bishops expresly by their names and titles He addeth that they were very instant with an Irish Arch Bishop to have presided at their Ordination but he would not He mistaketh the matter altogether They might have had seven Irish Arch Bishops and Bishops if they had needed them where the procedings were not so rigorous where the old Bishops complied and held their places and joined in such Ecclesiasticall Acts untill they had made away to their kindred all the lands belonging to their Sees We found one Bishoprick reduced to five markes a yeare by these temporisers another to forty shillings a yeare and all of them to very poore pittances for Prelates But by this meanes there wanted no Ordeiners Never did any man question the Ordination of the first Protestant Bishops in Ireland untill this day Then he telleth how being thus rejected by the Catholick Bishops and the Irish Arch Bishop they applied themselves to the lay Magistrate in the ensuing Parliament for a confirmation from whence they were called Parliamentary Bishops By whom were they called so By no man but himself and his fellowes How many Ordinations were passed over one after another before that Parliament Was there any thing moved in this Parliament concerning any the least essentiall of our Episcopall Ordination Not at all but onely concerning the repealing and reviving of an English Statute English Statutes can not change the essentialls of Ordination either to make that Consecration valid which was invalid or that invalid which was valid The validity or invalidity of Ordination dependeth not upon humane law but upon the institution of Christ. Neither did we ever since that Parliament change one syllable in our forme of Ordination Then what was this Confirmation which he speakes of It was onely a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordeined in the Queenes time had bene rightly ordeined according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England and the Lawes of the Land These men want no confidence who are not ashamed to cite this Statute in this case But we shall meete with this Parliament againe In all this impertinent Discourse where is the fable of the Nagge 's head Ordination It had bene a thousand times more materiall then all this Iargon And you may be sure it had not been missing if there had bene the least graine of truth in it or is there had but been any suspicion of it when that was written It was not then full thirty yeares after Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and there were store of eye-witnesses living to have hissed such a senselesse fable out of the world And therefore Sanders very prudently for himself after so many intimations passeth by their Ordination in a deepe silence which was the onely worke he tooke in hand to shew Qualescunque fuerint aut quo modocunque facti sint isti Pseudo-Episcopi c. VVhat manner of persons soever these False-Bishops were or after what manner soever they were ordeined c. If Bishop Scory had ordeined them all at the Naggeshead by layng a Bible upon their heads and this forme of wordes Take thou Authority to preach the word of god Sincerely M. SaÌ„ders needed not to have left the case so doubtfull how they were ordeined And if there had bene the least suspicion of it he would have blowen it abroad upon a silver Trumpet but God be thanked there was none The universall silence of all the Romish writers of that age when the Naggeshead Ordination is pretended to have been done in a case which concerned them all so nearely and which was the Chiefe subject of all their disputes is a convincing proofe to all men who are not altogether possessed with prejudice that either it was devised long after or was so lewde a lie that no man dared to owne it whilest thousands of eyewitnesses of Arch Bishop Parkers true Consecration at Lambeth were living A third reason against this ridiculous libell of the Nagge 's head Consecration is taken from the strictness of our lawes which allow no man to consecrate or be consecrated but in a sacred place with due matter and forme and all the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed by the Church of England No man must be Consecrated by fewer then foure Bishops or three at least And that after the Election of the Deane and Chapiter is duely confirmed And upon the mandate oâ— Commission of the King under the great seale of England under the paine of a Premunire that is the forfeiture of lands and goods and livings and liberty and protection They allow not Consecration in a Taverne without due matte and forme without the Ceremonies and solemnity prescribed by the Church without Election without Confirmation without letters Patents by one single Bishop or two at the most such as they feine the Nagges head Ordination to have been Who can beleeve that two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishoppes having the reputation of learning and prudence should wilfully thrust themselves into an apparent Premunire to forfeite not onely their Arch Bishopricks and Bishopricks but all their estates and all their hopes for a phantastick forme and scandalous Consecration when the Queene and Kingdome were favorable to them when the forme prescribed by the Church did please them well enough when there were protestant Bishops of their owne Communion enough to Consecrate them when all the Churches in the Kingdome were open to them unlesse it had been Midsummer moone in December and they were all starke mad and then it is no matter where they were consecrated In criminall causes where things are â—retended to be done against penall lawes â—uch as this is the proofes ought to be cleaâ—er then the noone day light Here is noâ—hing proved but one single witnesse named â—nd he a professed enemy who never testiâ—â—ed it upon Oath or before a Iudge or so much as a publick Notary or to the face of a protestant but onely whispered it in corners as it is said by Adversaries among some of his owne party Such a testimony is not worth a deafe nut in any cause betweene party and party If he had bene a witnesse beyond all exception and had beeÌ„ duly sworne and legally examined yet his testimony in the most favourable cause had been but halfe 〈◊〉 proofe though an hundred did testifie it from his mouth it is still but 〈◊〉 single testimony And as it is it iâ— plaine prittle prattle and ought to be vaâ—lued no more then the shadow of an asse To admit such a testimony or an hundred such testimonies against
and certifie their Election to the King under the common seale of the Chapiter Upon the returne of this Certificate the King granteth out a Commission under the great seale of England to the Arch Bishop or in the vacancy of the Arch Bishoprick to so many Bishops to examine the Election and if they find it fairely made to confirme it and after Confirmation to proceed to the Consecration of the person elected according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England This Commission or Mandate must passe both through the Signet office and Chancery and be attested by the Clerkes of both those offices and signed by the Lord Chanceller and Lord privy seale and be inrolled So as it is morally impossible there should be any forgery in it Vpon the receite of this Mandate the Bishops who are authorised by the King do meete first at Bowes Church in London where with the assistence of the Chiefe Ecclesiasticall Judges of the Realme the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience with their Registers to Actuate what is done they do solemnely in forme of law confirme the election Which being done and it being late before it be done the Commissioners and Iudges were and are sometimes invited to the Nagge 's head to a dinner as being very neare Bowes Church and in those daies the onely place of note This meeting led Mr. Neale a man altogether unacquainted with such formes into this fooles Paradise first to suspect and upon suspicion to conclude that they were about an Ordination there and lastly to broach his brainsick conceites in corners and finding them to be greedily swallowed by such as wished them true to assert his owne drowsy suspicion for a reall truth But the mischief is that Doctor Parker who was to be consecrated was not present in person but by his Proxie After the Confirmation is done commonly about three or foure daies but as it happened in Arch Bishop Parkers case nine daies the Commissioners proceed to the Consecration for the most part out of their respect to the Archbishop in the Chappell at Lambeth with Sermon Sacrament and all solemnity requisite according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England in the presence of publick Notaries or sworne Officers who reduce every thing that is done with all the circumstances into Acts and enter them into the Register of the See of Canterbury Where they are carefully kept by the principall Officer in a publicke office as Recordes where every one who desireth may view them from time to time and have a copy of them if he please And it is to be noted that at any Consecration especially of an Arch-Bishop great numbers of principall Courtiers and Citisens are present so as it is no more possible to counâ—erfeite such a Consecration then to walke â—nvisible upon the Exchange at noone day After the Consecration is done the perâ—on Consecrated is not presently admitted to his Bishoprick First the Arch Bishop maketh his certificate of the Consecration with all the circumstances of it under his Arch-Episcopall seale Thereupon the King taketh the new Bishops oath of fealty â—nd commands that he be put into the Actuall possessioÌ„ of his Bishoprick Then he is â—nthroned and at his Inthronisation his Orâ—ination is publickly read Then he injoieth â—is Spiritualties Then issueth a Writ out â—f the Exchequer to the Sherif to restore â—im to the Temporalties of his Bishoprick This custome is so ancient so certein so generall that no Englishman can speakâ— against it Here we see evidently how al things 〈◊〉 pursue one another and what a necessary and essentiall connexion there is betweeâ— them So as the stealing of an Electioâ— or the stealing of a Consecration can geâ— no man a Bishoprick as Mr. Neale dreamed He that would advantage himselâ— that way must falsifie all the Recordâ— both Ecclesiasticall and Civill He muâ—â— falsifie the Recordes of the Chancery 〈◊〉 the Signet office of the Exchequer 〈◊〉 the Registries of the Bishop of the Deâ—â—ne and Chapiter He must counterfeit thâ— hands and seales of the King of the Archâ— Bishop of the Lord Chanceller the Loâ—â— Privy seale of the Clerkes and publicâ— Notaries which is not imaginable 〈◊〉 Mr. Neale who first devised this drowâ— dreame or somebody for him had 〈◊〉 more experience of our English lawes 〈◊〉 Customes he would have feined a moâ—â— probable tale or have held his peace foâ— ever Answer me They who are calumniate to have had their Consecration at the Nâ—â—ges head did they meane to conceale it 〈◊〉 have it kept secret Then what good could it do them De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio If it were concealed it was all one aâ— if it had never bene Or did they meane to have it published Such an Ordination had bene so farre from helping them to obteine a Bishoprick that it had rendred them uncapable of a Bishoprick for ever And moreover subjected both the Consecraters and the Consecrated to deprivation and degradation and a Premunire or forfeiture of their lands goods and liberties and all that were present at it to excommunication Rome is a fitte place wherein to publish such Ludibrious fables as this where they can perswade the people that the Protestants are stupid creatures who have lost their Reâ—igion their reason and scarcely reteine their humaine shapes It is too bold an attempt to obtrude such counterfeit wareâ—â—n England CHAP IIII. The sixth and seventh reasons that all the Records of England are diametrally opposite to their Relation and do establith our Relation HItherto we have beene taking in the out workes Now I come directly to assault this Castle in the aire That which hath bene said already is sufficient to perswade any man who is not brimme full of prejudice and partiality The other five reasons which follow next have power to compell all men and command their assenâ—â— My sixth reason is taken from the diametrall oppositioÌ„ which is betweene this fabulous relation of the Nagge 's head Ordinatioâ— and all the Recordes of England both Ecclesiasticall and civill First for the time The Romanists say that this Ordination was before the ninth of September Ann. 2559 〈◊〉 it is apparent by all the Recordes of the Chancery all the distinct Letters Patenâ—â— or Commissions for their Respective Confirmations and Consecrations whereupoâ— they were consecrated did issue out loâ—â— after namely Arch Bishop Parkers Letteâ—â— Patents which were the first upon the sixth day of December following Next thâ— Commissions for Grindall Cox and Sands Then for Bullingham Iewel and Davis Then for Bentham and Barkley and in the yeare following for Horn Alley Scambler and Pilkinton He that hath a mind to see the Copies of these Commissions may find them Recorded Verbatim both in the Rolles of the Arch Bishops Register and in the Rolles of the Chancery To what end were all these Letters Patents to authorise so many ConfirmatioÌ„s and Consecrations if
in the Commission or in the Register Regall Commissions are no essentialls of Ordination Notariall Acts are no essentialls of Ordination The misnaming of the Baptiseâ— in a Parish Register doth not make voide the Baptisme When Popes do consecrate themselves as they do sometimes they dâ— it by the names of Paul or Alexander oâ— Vrbanus or Innocentius yet these are not the names which were imposed upon them at their Baptismes or at their Confirmations but such names as themselves have been pleased to assume But to come to more serious matter There are two differences betweene these two Commissions The first is an aut minus Or at the least foure of you which clause is prudently inserted into all Commissions where many Commissioners are named least the sicknesse or absence or neglect of any one or more might hinder the worke The question is why they are limited to foure when the Canons of the Catholick Church require but three The answer is obvious because the Statutes of England do require foure in case one of the Consecraters be not an Arch Bishop or deputed by one Three had bene enough to make a valide Ordination yea to make a Canonicall Ordination and the Queene might have dispensed with her owne lawes but she would have the Arch Bishop to be ordeined both according to the canons of the Catholick Church and the known â—awes of England The second difference betweene the two Commissions is this that there is a Supplenâ—es in the later Commission which is not in the former Supplyng by our Soveraigne authority all defects either in the Execution or in ihe Executers of this Commission or any of them The Court of Rome in such like instruments have ordinarily such dispensative clauses for more abundant caution whether there be need of them or not to relaxe all sentences censures and penalties inflicted either by the law or by the Iudge But still the question is to what end was this clause inserted I answer it is enâ— enough if it serve as the Court of Rome useth it for a certeine salve to helpe any latent impediment though there be none A superfluous clause doth not vitiate 〈◊〉 writing Some thinke it might have reference to Bishop Coverdales syde woolloâ— gowne which he used at the Consecratioâ— toga lanea talari utebatur That was uncanonicall indeed and needed a dispensation foâ— him that used it not for him who was consecrated But this was so slender a defeâ—â— and so farre from the heart or essence oâ— OrdinatioÌ„ especially where the three otheâ— CoÌ„secraters which is the canonicall number where formally and regularly habiteâ— that it was not worth an intimation undâ—â— the great seale of England This Miles Coverdale had been both validely and legally ordeined Bishop and had as much power to ordeine as the Bishop of Rome himself If he had been Roman Catholick in his â—udgment he had been declared by Cardinall Pole as good a Bishop as either Bonâ—er or Thirleby or any of the rest Others thinke this clause might have relation to the present condition of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory who were not yet inthroned into their new Bishopricks It might be so but if it was it was a great mistake in the Lawiers who drew up the Commission The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthroned may ordeine as well as a Bishop inthroned The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishoprickes was alwaies admitted and reputed as good in the Catholick Church if the Suffragans had Episcopall Ordination as the Ordination of rhe greatest Bishops in the wolrd But since this clause doth extend ir self both to the Consecration and the Consecraters I am confident that the onely ground of it was that same exception oâ— rather cavill which Bishop Bonner did afterwards make against the legality of Bishop Hornes Consecration which is all that either Stapleton or any of our Adversaries haâ— to pretend against the legality of the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops that they were not ordeined according to the praescript of our very Statutes I have set downe this case formerly in my replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon But to avoide wrangling I will put iâ— downe in the very wordes of the Statute King Edward the Sixth in his time by authority of Parliament caused the booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England 〈◊〉 be made and set forth not onely for orâ— uniforme Order of Service CommoÌ„ Prayer and Administration of Sacramentâ— to be used whithin this Realme but also did adde and put to the said booke a very godly Order manner and forme hoâ— Arch-Bishops Bishops Priests Deacons and Ministers should from time to time be consecrated made and ordered within this Realme Afterwards it followeth that in the time of Queene Mary the severall Acts and statutes made in the secoÌ„d third fourth fifth and sixth yeares of King Edward for the authorising and allowing of the said booke of Common praier and other the premisses were repealed Lastly the Statute addeth that by an Act made in the first yeare of Queene Elisabeth entituled An act for the uniformity of Common prayer and service in the Church and administration of Sacraments the said booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other the said Orders Rites and Ceremonies before meÌ„tioned and all things therein conteined is fully stablished and authorised to be used in all places within the Realme This is the very case related by the Parliament Now the exception of Bishop Bonner and Stapleton and the rest was this The booke of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edward the Sixth And that Act was expresly repealed by Queene Mary But the booke of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queene Elisabeth but onely in generall termes under the name and notion of the Booke of Common Praiers and administration of Sacraments and other orders rites and Ceremonies Therefore they who were ordeined according to the said forme of Ordination in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time were not legally ordeined And those Bishops which had bene ordeined according to that forme in King Edwards time though they were legally ordeined then yet they were not legall Bishops now because Queeâ—â— Maries statute was still in force and was not yet repealed Is this all Take courage Reader Here is nothing that toucheth the validity of our Ordination but onely the legality of it which is easily satisfied First I answeâ— that Queene Maries Statute was repealeâ— sufficiently even as to rhe booke of Ordination as appeareth by the very word of the Statute which repealed it Aâ— that the said booke with the order of Service 〈◊〉 of the administration of Sacraments rites 〈◊〉 Ceremonies shall be after the feast of St. 〈◊〉 Baptist next in full force and effect any thing 〈◊〉 Queene Maries Statute of repeale
to the contrary in any wise not withstanding That the booke of Ordination was a part of this booke and printed in this booke in King Edwards daies besides the expresse testimony of the Statute in the eighth of Queene Elisabeth we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the booke of Common Praier and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons It is our forme of praier upon that occasion as much as our forme of baptising or administring the holy Eucharist or our forme of confirming or marryng or visiting the sick Secondly it is also a part of our forme of Administration of the Sacraments We denie not Ordination to be a Sacrament though it be not one of those two Sacraments which are generally necessary to salvation Thirdly although it were supposed that Ordination were no Sacrament nor the booke of Ordination a part of the booke of Common praier yet no man can denie that it is a part of our Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorised Lastly Ejus est legem imerpretari cujus est condere They who have legislative power to make a law have legislative power to expound a law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament made the law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament expounded the law by the same authority that made it declaring that under the booke of Common Praier the forme of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood And so ended the grand cavill of Bishop Bonner and Doctor Sapleton and the rest of the illegality of our Ordination shewing nothing but this how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed That the Supplentes or this dispensative clause had Relation to this cavill which as it did breake out afterwards into an open controversy so it was then whispered in corners is very evident by one clause in the Statute that for the avoiding of all questions and ambiguities that might he objected against the lawfull Confirmations investing and Consecrations of any Arch-Bishops Bishops c. the Queene in her Letters Patents had not onely used such words as had bene accustomed to be used by King Henry and King Edward but also diverse other generall wordes whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any imperfection or disability that could be objected The end of this clause and that Statute was the same And this was the onely question or ambiguity which was moved Yet although the case was so evident and was so judged by the Parliament that the forme of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the booke of Common praier c yet in the indictment against Bishop Bonner I do commend the discretion of our Iudges and much more the moderation of the Parliament Criminall lawes should be written with a beame of the sun without all ambiguity Lastly before I leave this third consideration I desire the Reader to observe three things with me First that this dispensative neither hath nor can be construed to have any reference to any Consecration that was already past or that was acted by Bishop Scory alone as that silly Consecration at the Nagge 's head is supposed to have been Secondly that this dispensative clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ or any essentiall of Ordination nor to the Canons of the universall Church but onely to the Statutes and Ecclesiasticall lawes of England Si quid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur Thirdly that the Commissioners authorised by these Letters PareÌ„ts to coÌ„firme and consecrate Arch Bishop Parker did make use of this Supplentes or dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a politicall Act as by the words of the Confirmation in the next paragraph shall appeare but not in the Consecration which is a purely spirituall act and belongeth meerely to the Key of Order Fourthly we say that by virtue of these Letters Patents of December the sixth foure of the Commissioners therein named did meete in Bowes Church upon the ninth day of the same moneth and then and there with the advise of the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Lawiers of the Kingdome the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience did solemnely confirme the election This is proved by the Recorde of the Confirmation or definitive sentence it self in these words In Dei nomine Amen Nos Willelmus quondam Bathonienfis VVellensis Episcopus nunc Cicestrensis Electus Iohannes Scory quondam Cicestrensis Episcopus nunc Electus Herefordensis Milo Coverdale quondam Exoniensis Episcopus Iohannes Bedford Episcopus Suffraganeus Mediantibus literis Commissionalibus Illustrissimae Reginae fidei Defensatricis c. Commissionarij cum hac clausula videlicet unae cum Iohanne Theâ—fordensi Suffraganeo Iohanne Bale Ossoriensi Episcopo Et etiam cum hac clausula Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum Nec non hac adjectione Supplentes nihil ominus c. specialiter legitime Deputati c. Idcirco nos Commissionarii Regii antedicti de cum assensic Iurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus praedictam ElectioneÌ„ Suprema Authoritate dictae Dominae nostrae Reginae nobis in hac parte Commissa Confirmamus SuppleÌ„tes ex Suprema Authoritate Regia ex mero principis motu certa Scientia nobis delegata quicquid in hac electione fuerit defectum Tum in his quae juxta mandatum nobis creditum a nobis factum processum est aut in nobis aut aliquo nostrum conditione Statu facultate ad haec perficienda deest aut deerit Tum etiam eorum quae per statuta hujus Regni Angliae aut per leges Ecelesiasticas in hac parte requisita sunt aut necessaria prout temporis ratio rerum praesentium necessitas id postulant per hanc nostram sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale decretum c. I cite this the more largely that our Adversaries may see what use was made of the dispensation whieh they cavill so much against But in the Consecration which is an act of the Key of order they made no use at all of it This is likewise clearly proved by the Queenes mandate for the restitution of Arch Bishop Parker to his Temporalties wherein there is this clause Cui quidem electioni personae sic Electae Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus favorem ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Archi-Episcopatu recepimus Fifthly we say that eight daies after the Confirmation that is to say the 17. of December Anno 1559 the same Commissioners did proceed to the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in the Archi-Episcopall Chappell at Lambeth according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England with solemne Praiers and Sermon and the holy Eucharist at which
the Nagge 's head he saith onely that the consecration of the first Protestant Bishop was attempted there but not accomplished If it were onely attempted not accomplished then the Nagge 's head Ordination is a fable But it falleth out very unfortunately for Mr Wadsworths attempt that of all those first Protestant Bishops whose elections were all confirmed at Bowes Church about that time And it might be all of them it is very probable â—undry of them had a confirmation dinner at the Nagge 's head not one was confirmed in person but all of them by their Proxies Arch Bishop Parker by Doctor Bullingham Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory by Walier Iones Bachelour of Law Bishop Grindall by Thomas Hink Doctor of Law Bishop Cox by Edward Gascoine Bishop Sands by Thomas Bentham c as appeareth by the authentick Recordes of their confirmation Bishops are ordinarily confirmed by Proxie but no man was ever consecrated no man was ever attempted to be consecrated by Proxie The four next witnesses are Mr. Collimoâ— Mr. Laithwait Mr. Faircloth and Mr. Leake two of them of the same order with these Fathers to whom the ArchBishop of Canterbury caused these Recordes to be shewed in the presence of himself the Bishops of London Durham Ely Bath and Welles Lincolne and Rochester They viewed the Register they turned it over and over and perused it as much as they pleased and in Conclusion gave this sentence of it that the booke was beyond exception To say that afterwards they desired to have the Recordes into prison to peruse them more fully is ridiculous Such Recordes may not goe out of the presence of the Keeper But these Fathers may see them as much as they list in the Registriâ— if they seeke for satisfaction not altercation Lastly Bishop Bonner had a suite with Bishop Horne and the issue was whether Bishop Horne were lâ—gally consecrated Bishop upon that â—câ—uple or rather cavill which I have formerlâ— mentioned If Mr. Neale who they say was Bishop Bonners Chaplein and â—ent on purpose to spie what the â—ishops did could have proved the ordination of Bishop Horne at the Nagge 's head he might not onely have cleared his Master but have turned Bishop Horne deservedly out of his Bishoprick But he was loath to forfeit his cares by avouching such a palpaple lie The Nagge 's head Ordination was not talked of in those daies How should it before it was first devised Mr. Sanders dedicated a booke to ArchBishop Parker which he called the Rock of the Church If the Nagges head Ordination had bene a serious truth how would he have triumphed over the poore Arch-Bishop To conclude â—f faith ought to be given to concurring Recordes Ecclesiasticall and civill of the Church and Kingdome of England If a full Parliament of the whole Kingdome deserve any credit If the testimony of the most eminent publick Notaries in the Kingdome If witnesses without exception If the silence or contradiction or confession of knowne Adversaries be of any force If the strongest presumtions in 〈◊〉 world may have any place that men in their right wittes will not ruine themselves willfully without necessity or hope of advantage If all these grounds put together do over ballance the clandestine Relation of a single malicious Spie without either oath or any other obligation then I hope every one who readeth these grounds will conclude with me that the Register of the Church of England is beyond all exception and the malicious Relation of the Nagge 's head Ordination a very tale of a tub and no better so full of Ridiculous folly in it self that I wonder how any prudent man can relate it without laughter Who told this to Bluet Neale Who told this to Haberley Neale Who told it to the rest of the Prisoners at Wisbich Neale Onely Neale Who suggested it to Neale The Father of lies Neale made the fable Neale related it in Corners long after the time it was pretended to be acted If his Maister Bishop Bonner had knowne any thing of it we had heard of it long before That the Arch-Bishop should leave Lambeth to come to London to be consecrated That he should leave all those Churches in London which are immediately under his owne Iurisdiction to chuse a common taverne as the fittest place for such a worke That Bishop Bonner being deprived of his Bishoprick and a prisoner in London should send Neale from Oxford and send a command by him to one over whom he never had any Iurisdiction That the other Bishop being then a Protestant should obey him being a Roman Catholick when there were so many Churches in the City to performe that worke in where the Bishop of London never pretended any Iurisdiction That these things should be treated and concluded and executed all at one meeting that Bishop Bonner did foresee it would be so And command his servant to attend there untill he see the end of that businesse That the Bishops being about such a Clandestine worke should suffer a knowne enemy to stay all the while in their company is incredible If Neale had feined that he had heard it from one of the Drawers boies it had deserved more credit then this silly improbable inconsistent Relation which looketh more like an heape of fictions made by severall Authours by starts then a continued Relation of one man Quicquid ostendas mihi sic incredulus odi CHAPT VI. The Naggâ—s head Ordination is but a late devise Of the Earle of Nottingham Bishop Bancroft Doctor Stapleton the Statute 8. El. 1. And the Queenes dispâ—nsation NOw having laid our grounds in the next place let us see what the Fathers have to say further for themselves This storâ— of the Nagge 's head was first cnoâ—radicted bâ— Mason in the yeare 1613 yet so weakly and family that the aâ—tenâ—ive Reader may easily perceive he feared to be caught in a lie First the Fathers seem to argue after this manner Many Athenian writers did mention the Cretan Bulls and Minotaurs and Labyrinth but no Cretan did write against them therefore those ridiculous Fables were true Rather the Cretans laughed at their womannish â—evenge to thinke to repaire themselves for a beating with scolding and lying such ridiculous Fictions ought to be entertained with scorne and contempt Spreta exolescunt si irascaris agnita videmur Secondly it might be for any thing I know to the contrary Mr. Mason was the first who dissected this lie and laid the falsity of it open to the world but he was not the first who avouched and justified the Canonicall Consecration and personall Succession of our Protestant Bishops which is the same thing in effect the Bishop of Hereford did it before him and Doctor Reynolds before the Bishop of Hereford and he that writ the life of Arch-Bishop Parker before Doctor Reynolds and the Parliament before him that writ Arch Bishop Parkers life and the publick Registers of the Church before the Parliament Thirdly they would make us believe
that Arch Bishop Parkers own booke should be printed in London by the Queens Printer in his life time and have any thing foisted into it contrary to his sense Here then we have a Register of Protestant Bishops with their Confirmations and Consecrations published to the world in Print at London by Arch Bishop Parker himself who was the principall person and most concerned in that Controversy as if it should dare all the Adversaries of our Church to except against it if they could Registers cannot be concealed being alwaies kept in the most publick and conspicuous places of great Cities whither every one hath accesse to them who will They need no printing but this was printed a work of supererogation They who dared not to except against it then when it was fresh in all mens memories ought not to be admitted to make conjecturall exceptions now Now the Fathers come to shew how their Doctors did object to our Protestant Clergy the Nullity and Illegality of their Ordination If their Doctors give a cause or reason of their knowledge we are bound to answer that but if they object nothing but their own Iudgement and authority we regard it not their judgement may weigh some thing with them but nothing at all with us This is not to make themselves Advocates but Iudges over us which we do not allow If I should produce the Testimonies of fourscore Protestant Doctors who affirm that we have a good Succession or that their Succession is not good what would they value it The first is Doctor Bristow Consider what Church that is whose Ministers are but very Laymen unsent uncalled unconsecrated holding therefore amongst us when they repent and return no other place but of Laymen in no case admitted no nor looking to Minister in any Office unlesse they take Orders which before they had not Here is Doctor Bristows Determination but where are his grounds He bringeth none at all but the practise of the Roman Church and that not generall Paul the 4 and Cardinall Poole and the Court of Rome in those dayes were of another Iudgement and so are many others and so may they themselves come to be when they have considered more seriously of the matter that we have both the same old Essentialls That which excuseth their Reordination from formall Sacrilege for from materiall it cannot be excused upon their own grounds is this that they cannot discover the truth of the matter of Fact for the hideous Fables raised by our Countrymen But where is the Nagge 's head Ordination in Dr. Bristow Then had been the time to have objected it and printed it if there had beeÌ„ any reality in it Either Dr. Bristow had never heard of this Pageant or he was ashamed of it Here we meet with Dr. Fulke again aÌ„d what they say of him shall be aÌ„swered in its proper place Their next witnesse is Mr. Reinolds There is no Heardman in all Turky who doth not undertake the Government of his Heard upon better reason and greater right Order and authority then these your magnificent Apostles c. And why an Heardsman in Turky but onely to allude to his Title of Calvino Turcismus An heardsman in Turky hath as much right to order his heard as an heardman in Christendome unlesse perhaps your Dr. did think that DominioÌ„ was founded in Grace not in nature This is saying but we expect proving It is well known that you pretend more to a magnificent Apostolate them we If the authority of the holy Scripture which knoweth no other Essentialls of Ordination but imposition of hands aÌ„d these words Receive the Holy Ghost if the perpetual practise of the universall church if the Prescription of the ancient Councell of Carthage and above 200. Orthodox Bishops with the concurrent approbation of the Primitive Fathers be sufficient grounds we want not sufficient grounds for the exercise of our Sacred Functions But on the contrary there is no Heardman in Turky who hath not more sufficient grounds or assuraÌ„ce of the lawfulnesse of his Office then you have for the discharge of your Holy Orders upon your own grounds The Turkish Heardman receives his Maisters Commands without examining his intention but according to your grounds if in â—n hundred successive Ordinations there were but one Bishop who had an intention not to Ordein or no intention to ordein or but one Priest who had an inteÌ„tioÌ„ notto bapâ—â—ise or no intention to baptise any of these Bishops then your whole Succession commeth to nothing But I must aske still where â—s your Nagge 's head Ordination in all this â—r Reinolds might have made a pleasaÌ„t Paâ—â—lell between the Nagge 's head Ordination â—nd the Ordination of the Turkish Mufti and wanted not a mind mischievous enough against his Mother the Church of England if he could have found the least pretext but there was none You seek for water out of a Pumice Their third Witnesse is Dr. Stapleton in his Counterblast against Bishop Horn. To say truely you are no Lord Winchester nor elsvvhere but onely Mr Robert Horn. Is 〈◊〉 not notorious that you and your Collegues vvere not ordeined according to the prescript I vvill not say of the Church but even of the very Statutes Hovv then can you challenge to your self the name of the Lord Bishop of Winchester You are vvithout anâ— Consecration at all of your Metropolitan himself pooreman being no Bishop neither This was a loud blast indeedâ— but if Dr Stapleton could have said any thing of the Nagge 's head Ordination he would have given another manner of blast thaâ— should have made the whole world Echâ— again with the Sound of it In vain you seeâ— any thing of the Nagge 's head in your writers untill after the yeare 1600. For answeâ— Dr. Stapleton raiseth no Objection froâ— the Institution of Christ whereupon anâ— onely whereupon the Validity or Invalidity of Ordination doth depend but onely from the Lawes of England First for the Canons we maintein that our Form of Episcopall Ordination hath the same Essentialls with the Roman but in other things of an inferiour allay it differeth from it The Papall Canons were never admitted for binding Lawes in England further then they were received by our selves and incorporated into our Lawes but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholick Church which prescribe no new Matter and Form in Priestly Ordination And for our Statutes the Parliament hath answered that Objection sufficiently shewing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legall and for the Validity of it we crave no mans favour Their last witnesse is Dr. Harding who had as good a will if there had been any reality in it to have spoken of the Nagge 's head Ordination as the best but he speaketh not a Syllable of it more then the rest and though they keep a great stirre with him he bringeth nothing that is worth the weighing First he readeth us a profound Lecture
Casualty might destroy or purloin the Record Thirdly though it be not recorded in this Register it may be recorded in another the Arch Bishop may and Arch Bishop Cranmer usually did delegate or give Commission to three other Bishops for Consecration And though the work be ordinarily performed at Lambeth because of the place where they may have three Bishops alwaies present without any further Charge yet they are not obliged by any Law to Consecrate them there And if there be a sufficient number of Bishops near the Cathedrall which is to be filled or if the person who is to be Consecrated do desire it they may be Consecrated either in that or any of their own Churches The Bishops of the Province of Yorke by reason of the former convenience are usually consecrated at Lambeth yet I have known in my time Bishop Sinewes of Carlile consecrated at Yorke upon his own desire by the Archbisop of Yorke and the Bishops of Durham Chester and MaÌ„ A man might seek long enough for his Consecration in the Archbishop of Canterburies Register and misse it but it is to be found in the Register at Yorke So the Omission of it in that Register though it be no full proofe yet it is a probable proofe that Bishop Barlow was not Consecrated there but it is no proofe at all that he was not Consecrated elswere And this I take to have been the case both of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Gardiner and although the effluxion of above an hundred yeares since hath rendered it more difficult to find where it was done yet by the help of those Records which are in the Court of Faculties I should not despaire of finding it yet But there are so many evident proofes that he was Cousecrated that no ingenuous person can have the Face to deny it The first reason is his actuall possession of 4. Bishopricks one after another St. Assaph St. Davids Bath and Wells and Chichester in the Reigns of three Princes They feign some pretenses why Archbishop Parker was not consecrated Canonically because there wanted a competent number of Bishops though it were most false but what can they feign why Bishop Barlow was not consecrated in Henry the eighths time was Henry the eighth a Baby to be jeasted withall In Archbishop Parkers case they suppose all the Bishops to have been stark mad to cast themselves down headlong from a Precipice when they had a faire paire of Stairs to descend by but in Bishop Barlowes case they suppose all the world to have been asleep except there had been such an Vniversall sleep it had been impossible for any man in those dayes to creep into a Bishoprick in England without Consecration To say he is actually possessed of a Bishoprick therefore he is Consecrated is as clear a Demonstration in the English Law as it is in nature to say the Sun shineth therefore it is Day But it may be objected that he held all these Bishopricks as a Commendatory noâ— in Title as an Vsufructuary not as a true owner It is impossible Vsufructuaries are not elected and confirmed but Bishop Barlow was both elected and Confirmed The Conge d'eslire to the Dean and Chapter the Letters Patents for his Confirmation the Commission for the restitution of his Temporalties do all prove that he was no Vsufructuary but a right owner This is a second reason Thirdly The same Letters Patents that doe authorise Bishop Barlowes Confirmation did likewise Command the Archbishop with the assistence of other Bishops to Consecrate him himself or to give a CommissioÌ„ to other Bishops to Consecrate him which if they did not perform within a prescribed time or perform after another manner theÌ„ is prescribed by the Law it was not onely a losse of their Bishopricks by the Law of England but a Premunire or the losse of all their Estates their Liberties and a casting themselves out of the Kings ProtectioÌ„ 25 Hen 8. c. 20. No meÌ„ in their right wits would râ—n such a hazard or rather evideÌ„tly ruine theÌ„selves and all their hopes without any need without any eÌ„d in the whole world Fourthly by the same Law no man could be acknowledged a Bishop in England but he who was Consecrated legally by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan but Bishop Barlow was acknowledged to be a true Bishop The King received his Homage for his Bishoprick the King commaÌ„ded him to be restored to his Temporalties which is never done untill the ConsecratioÌ„ be passed King Henry sent him into Scotland as his Ambassadour with the title of Bishop of St. Davids and in his restitution to the Temporalties of that See the King related that the Arch Bishop had made him Bishop and Pastor of the Church of St. Davids This could not be if he had not been Consecrated Thirdly he was admitted to sit in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop for no man can sit there as a Bishop before he be Consecrated but it is plain by the Records of the house of the Lords that he did sit in Parliament many times in the 31 of Henry the 8. in his Episcopall habit as a Consecrated Bishop and being neither a Bishop of one of the five Principall Sees nor a Privy Counseller he must sit and did sit according to the time of his Consecration between the Bishops of Chichester and St Assaph What a strange boldnesse is it to question his Consecration now whom the whole Parliament and his Consecraters among the rest did admit without scruple then as a CoÌ„secrated Bishop Sixthly There is no act more proper or essentiall to a Bishop then Ordination What doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not saith St. Hierom except Ordination But it is evident by the Records of his own See that Bishop Barlow did Ordein Priests and Deacons froÌ„ time to time and by the Arch Bishops Register that he joined in Episcopall Ordination and was one of those three Bishops who imposed hands upon Bishop Buckley Feb. 19. 1541 Seventhly there is nothing that â—â—inth a Bishops Title to his Chuch more then â—he Validity and Invalidity of his Leases If Bishop Barlow had been unconsecrated all the Leases which he made in the See of St. Davids and Bath and Wells had been voide and it had been the easiest thing in the whole world for his Successour in those dayes to prove whether he was consecrated or not but they never questioned his Leases because they could not question his Consecration Lastly an unconsecrated person hath neither Antecessors nor Successors he succeedeth no man no man succeedeth him If a grant of any hereditaments be made to him and his Successours it is absolutely voidâ— not worth a deaf Nut If he alien any Lands belonging to his See from him and his Successours it is absolutely void But Bishop Barlowâ— received the Priory of Brâ—cknock from the Crown to him and his Successors Bishops of St. Davids and in King Edwards reign being Bishop of Bath and Wells he alienated
from him and his Successours to the Crown much Land and received back again from the Crown to him and his Successours equivalent Lands If he had been unconsecrated all these Acts had been utterly void In summe whosoever dreameth now that all the world were in a dead sleep then for twenty yeares together whilest all these things were acting is much more asleep himself To these undeniable proofes I might adde as many more out of the Records of the Chancery if there needed any to prove him a Consecrated Bishop As. A grant to the said William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to hold in Commendam with the said Bishoprick the Rectory of Carewe in the county of Pembrooke Dated Octob. the 29. Anno 38. Hen. 8. A commission for Translation of William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to the Bishoprick of Bath and VVels Dated 3. Feb. 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Consecration of Robert Farrer to be Bishop of St. Davids per translationem VVillelmi Barlow c. Dated 3. Iul. Anno 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Restitution of the Temporalties of the said Bishoprick to the said Robert Farrer as being void per translationem Willelmi Barlow Dated 1. Augusti Anno 2. Edv. 6. In all which Records and many more he is alwaies named as a true Consecrated Bishop And lastly in Bishop Goodwins booke de Praesulibus Angliae pa. 663. of the Latin Edition printed at London Anno 1616. in his Catalogue of the Bishops of St. Assaph num 37. he hath these words Gulielmus Barlow Canonicorum Regularium apud Bisham Prior Consecratus est Feb. 22. Anno 1535 Aprili deinde sequente Meneviam translatus est VVilliam Barlow Prior of the Canons Regulars at Bisham was consecrated the two and twentieth Day of February in the yeare 1535 and in Aprill Follovving vvas translated to St. Davids Which confirmeth me in my former conjecture that he was Consecrated in Wales which Bishop Goodwin by reason of his Vicinity had much more reason to know exactly then we have They say Mr. Mason acknowledgeth that Mr Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker because Hodgskins the Suffragan of Bedford was onely an Assistent in that action and the Assistents in the Protestant Church doe not consecrate By the Fathers leave this is altogether untrue Neither was Bishop Barlow the onely man who Consecrated Archbishop Parker Neither was Bishop Hodgskins a meere Assistent in that action Thirdly who soever doe impose hands are joint consecraters with us as wel as them Lastly Mr. Mason saith no such thing as they affirm but directly the Contrary that all the foure Bishops were equally Consecraters all imposed hands all joined in the words and this he proveth out of the Register it self L. 3. c. 9. n. 8. l 3. c. 10. n. 9. They object He might as well be proved to have been a lawfull Husband because he had a woman and diverse Children as to have been a Consecrated Bishop because he ordeined and Discharged all acts belonging to the Order of a Bishop What was Bishop Barlowes Woman pertinent to his cause Are not Governants and Devotesses besides ordinary maidservants women All which Pastours not onely of their own Communion but of their own Society are permitted to have in their houses Let themselves be â—udges whether a Woman a wife or a Woman a Governant or a Devotesse be more properly to be ranged under the name or notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such women as were prohibited to Cohabit with Clerkes by the Councell of Nice But to leave the Hypothesis and come to the Thesis as being more pertinent to the present case If a man have cohabited long with a Woman as man and wife in the Generall estimation of the world and begot children upon her and dies as her husband without any doubt or dispute during his life and long after though all the Witnesses of their Marriage were dead and the Register lost this their Conjugall cohabitation and the common reputation of the world during his Life uncontroverted is in Law a sufficient proofe of the Marriage but all the world nemine contradicente esteemed Bishop Barlow as the undoubted Bishop and Spouse of his Church They adde Ridley Hooper Farrer were acknowledged and obeyed as Bishops in King Edwards time yet were Iudged by both the Spirituall and Temporall Court not to have been consecrated They mistake they were not judged not to have been consecrated for their Consecrations are upon Record but not to have been consecrated ritu Romano after the Roman Form And who gave this Iudgement Their open enemies who made no scruple to take away their Lifes whose unjust judgement we doe not value a rush but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Pole more authentick Iudges of their own party gave a later IudgemeÌ„t to the CoÌ„trary They aske how it is possible that Barlowes CoÌ„secration should not be found recorded if ever it was as well as his preferment to the Priory of Bisham and Election and Confirmation to the Bishoprick of St. Assaph I answer it is very easy to conceive I have shewed him sundry wayes how it might be and one probable way how it was I desire the Reader to observe the extreme partiality of these Fathers they make it impossible for the Acts of one Consecration to be lost or stollen and yet accuse us of forging fifteen Consecrations It is easier to steale fifteen then to Forge one Act. We have often asked a reason of them why the Protestants should decline their own Consecrations They give us one The truth is that Barlow as most of the Clergy in England in those times were Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therefore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome and were contented with the extraordinary calling of God and the Spirit as all other Churches are who pretend Reformation It is well they premised the truth is otherwise there had not been one word of truth in what they say First how do they know this It must be either by Relation but I am confident they can name no author for it or by Revelation but that they may not doe or it is to speake sparingly their own Imagination It is a great boldnesse to take the liberty to cast aspersions upon the Clergy of a whole Nation Secondly how commeth Bishop Barlow to be taxed of Puritanism we meet him a Prior and a Bishop we find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope Officiating Ordaining Confirming He who made no scruple to Ordein and Consecrate others gratis certainly did not forbeare his own Consecration with the apparent hazard of the losse of his Bishoprick out of scruple of Conscience Thirdly this aspersion is not well accommodated to the times For first Zuinglianisme was but short heeled in those Dayes when Bishop Barlow was Consecrated who sate in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop 31. Henr. 8 and the first Sermon that ever Zuinglius Preached as a Probationer was in Zurick in
the yeare 1510. that was in the 10. or 11. yeare of HeÌ„ry the eighth If there were any one Zuinglian in those dayes upon their grounds it is most likely to have been Bishop Gardiner for his Consecration doth not appeare more then Bishop Barlowes But there is yet a greater mistake in it it is the Anabaptists who reject Ordination and content themselves with the extraordinary calling of the Spirit not the Zuinglians In the writings of Zuinglius we find a Letter of him and ten other of the principall Helvetian Theologians to the Bishop of Constance beseeching him in all humility and observance to favour and help forward their beginnings as an excellent work and worthy of a Bishop They implore his Clemency Wisdome learning that he would be the first fruits of the German Bishops They beseech him by the Common Christ by that fatherly affection which he owes unto them to looke graciously upon them c They court him to shew himself a Father and grant the request of his obedient sonnes Zuinglius and the Zuinglians liked Bishops well enough if he could have had them But the Bishop of Constance of another Communion was their Bishop Here Meanderlike they make a winding from St. Asaph back again to Cheapside from Bishop Barlowes Consecration to Archbishop Parkers They say that if there had been any other Consecration of Archbishop Parker then that of the Nagge 's head Iohn Stow would not conceale it in his Annales who is so diligent in setting down all that passed in and about London and professeth personall respect to him he having related the Consecration of Cardinall Pole with so many particulars They adde out of Dr. Champney that Iohn Stow acknowledged to many persons that the story of the Nagge 's head was true Their store is very low when they are forced to produce Iohn Stow who scarce knew what a Consecration was But what saith he in his Chronicles Not a word either of the feigned Consecration at the Nagge 's head or of the true Consecration at Lambeth But he told it to many persons by word of mouth that the Story of the Nagge 's head was very true If he did he lied notoriously to many persons but we acquit him of that calumny let it rest upon them who think it a meritorious Act to advance religion by any means true or false we are too well acquainted with their hearsay reports They who dare wrest his printed workes ought not to be trusted what he spake by word of mouth to some body whom no body knowes Their Authour saith to some persons they say to many persons thus this snowball increaseth Iohn Stowe is now dead and dead men do not bite yet let us know to whom he said it Doctor Champney tells us they are â—imorous and would not be named Good reason for they have no names so Iohn Stow is a silent witnesse and they are namelesse witnesses So much for the man now for the thing I give three answers First if Iohn Stow were a lover of the truth he should rather have set down the Nagge 's head Ordination if there was any such thing then the Lambeth Ordination Men would suppose the Lambeth Ordination of themselves where nothing is said to the contrary it is presumed for the Law but the Nagge 's head Consecration had been such a Consecration as never was before never will follow after Secondly their Authours wrest Iohn Stow abhominably He was no profest writer of Ecclesiasticall Annales It is true he mentioneth the Consecration of Cardinall Pole whether it was his respect to his Eminence as being a neare Kinsman to the Queen a Cardinall the Popes Legate and his grand Minister for the reconciliation of England or because a toy tooke him in the head but not with so many particulars as the Fathers intimate all he saith is this the 21 of March Dr. Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury was burnt at Oxford the same day Cardinall Pole sang his first Masse at Greenwich in the Friars Church on Sunday next he was Consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury here was speedy worke and the 25 of March received the Pall with the usuall Ceremonies at Bowes Church in Cheape Here is another Nagge 's head meeting where he was Consecrated by whom after what Form he leaveth the Reader to presume but of all the other Consecrations performed in Queen Maries time this diligent Authour mentioneth not so much as one of all the Consecrations in Queen Elizabeths time I think not one of all the Consecrations in England since the Conquest not one or so rarely that they are not to be taken notice of If the Argument of these Fathers were of any value Iohn Stow mentioneth not his Consecration at Lambeth therefore he was not Consecrated there we never had a Consecration in England since the Conquest but Cardinal ' Poles for he mentioneth none but that which I remember I am sure if he mention any it is most rarely If the Fathers argument were good Archbishop Parker was never elected nor confirmed because his Election and Confirmation are not recordsd by Iohn Stow but all our Records Civill as well as Ecclesiasticall do testify the Contrary Lastly if the Fathers would lay aside their prejudice there is enough in Iohn Stowes Annales to discover the falshood of their lying Fable of the Consecration at the Nagge 's head By their account the Nagges head Consecration was September 7. Anno 1559 but after this in relating the solemne Obsequies kept in St. Pauls Church for the French King Iohn Stow calleth him Dr. Parker Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Elect therefore the Nagges head Consecration is a lying Fable if he was still Elect he was not then Consecrated But afterward speaking of his Death May 17. 1575 which is the next time I find him mentioned he stileth him the right Reverend Father in God Matthew Parker Dr. of Divinity Archbishop of CaÌ„terbury Here is no more the word Elect for after Confirmation and Consecration the word Elect ceaseth here he is complete Archbishop of Canterbury They say they who make no Conscience to falsify Scripâ—ure will forge Records And how notoriously the English Clergy have falsified Scripture is Demonstrated by Gregory Martin I hope none of us did ever attempt to purge St. Pauls Epistles because there were in them Quaedam male sonamia Something 's that sounded not well in the point of Iustification We desire good words untill they be able to prove their allegation Rather then be accounted falsifiers of Scripture we are contented to stand to the vulgar Latin in any Controversy between them and us But who is the man doth accuse us of so many Falsifications One Gregory Martin one of their fellowes whose censure we do not weigh a button This is a new Inartificiall Kind of arguing from the Authority of their own Writers But they use it much so it followeth in the next words it is want of Charity to think that Stapleton Harding Bristow and the
doubted of his Ordination They answer first that Mr. Mason did not seek so solicitoâ—sly or diligently for Bishop Gardiners Consecration as for Bishop Barlowes Then why do not they whom it doth concern cause more diligent search to be made without finding the Records of Bishop Gardiners Consecration they cannot accuse Bishop Barlow of want of Consecration upon that onely reason Secondly they answer that if Gardiners Consecration were as doubtfull as Barlowes and Parkers they would take the same advise they give us to repaire with speed to some other Church of undoubted Clergy Yes where will they find a more undoubted Clergy They may goe further and fare worse Rome itself hath not more exact Records nor a more undoubted Succession then the Church of England There is no reason in the world to doubt either of Archbishop Parkers Consecration or Bishop Gardiners or Bishop Barlowes Neither doth his Consecration concern us so much at the Fathers imagine there were three Consecraters which is the Canonicall number besides him It is high time for the Fathers to wind up and draw to a Conclusion of this ArgumeÌ„t That which followeth next is too high and can scarcely be tolerated to accuse the publick Records and Archives of the Kingdome and to insimulate the Primates and Metropolitans of England of Forgery upon no ground but their own ImaginatioÌ„ I doubt whether they durst offer it to a widow Woman As to the impossibility of forging so many Registers in case there be so many it is easily answered that it is no more then that the Consecraters and other persons concerned should have conspired to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Cerimonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble Should any man accuse the Generall of their order or one of their Provincialls or but the Rector of one of their Colleges of Forgery and counterfeiting the publick Records of the Order how would they storm and thunder and mingle heaven and earth together and cry out No moderate or prudent persons can suspect that such persons should damne their soules that so many pious learned Divines should engage themselves and their posterity in damnable Sacrileges without feare of damnation If a man will not believe every ridiculous Fable which they tell by word of mouth upon hearsay they call persons of more virtue learning and prudence then themselves Fooles and Knaves But they may insimulate the principall Fathers of our Church of certifying most pernicious lyes under their hands and seales not for a piece of bread which is a poore temptatioÌ„ but for nothing that is to make them both Fooles and Knaves Is not this blowing hot and cold with the same breath or to have the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ with respect of persons Compare the politicall principles of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so pernicious to mankind and all humane Society in ours more then in yours Compare the Case Theology of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so destructive to Morality to truth and Iustice and Conscience as might lead us to perpetrate such Crimes more then yourselves We are not affraid of a Paralell You professe great endeavours to make Proselites we do not condemne Zeale yet wish you had more light with it even in prudence which you yourselves extoll this is not your right Course to follow those Birds with noise and clamour which you desire to catch In summe your answer or solution is full of ignorant mistakes It confoundeth Civill Rolles and Ecclesiasticall Registers It supposeth that our Records are but transcriptions one out of another whereas every Court recordeth its own Acts and keeps itself within its own bounds It taketh notice but of one Consecrater where as we have alwaies three at the least many times five or six It quite forgetteth publick Notaries which must be present at every Consecration with us to draw up what is done into Acts with us every one of these Notaries when he is admitted to that charge doth take a solemne Oath upon his knees to discharge his Office faithfully that is not to make false Certificates Secondly it is absurd and unseasonable to enquire how a thing came to passe that never was you ought First to have proved that our Records were forged and then it had been more seasonable to have enquired modestly how it came to passe Thirdly it is incredible that persons of such prudence and eminence should make false Certificates under their hands and seales to the utter ruine of themselves and all that had a hand it and no advantage to any person breathing It is incredible that those Records should be counterfeited in a corner which were avowed publickly for Authentick by the whole Parliament of England in the 8 yeare of Queen Elisabeth which were published to the world in print by the person most concerned as if he dared all the world to except against them and yet no man offered to except against them then Fourthly it is impossible to give in a false Certificate of a Consecration which was never performed in England especially at Lambeth before lesse then thousands of eye witnesses and that at Lambeth in the Face of the Court and Westminster Hall Surely they thinke we consecrate in Closets or holes or hay mowes They may even as well say that the publick Acts of our Parliaments are counterfeited and the publick Acts of our Synods are counterfeited and all our publick monuments counterfeited It is none of the honestest Pleas Negare factum to deny such publick Acts as these Fifthly this answer is pernicious to mankind it is destructive to all Societies of men that Bishops of so great eminence should conspire with publick Notaries to give in false Certificates in a matter of such High Consequence as Holy Orders are without any temptation without any hope of Advantage to them selves or others It affordeth a large Seminary for jealousies and suspicions It exterminateth all credit and confidence out of the world and instructeth all men to trust nothing but what they see with their eyes Lastly it is contradictory to themselves They have told us I know not how often and tell us again in this Paragraph That if the Nagge 's head Consecration had been false they might have convinced it by a thousand witnesses Here they make it an easy thing for the Consecraters and other persons concerned to conspire together to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Ceremonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble If the world will be deceived so it is but right and reason that it be deceived to be deceived by a false Certificate that may be convinced by a thousand witnesses is selfdeceit But they say this is more possible and more probable then that all the Clergy should conspire not
be valide Ours is as valide and more pure They make the cause of these defects in our forme of Ordination to be because Zuinglianisme and Puritanisme did prevaile in the English Church in those daies They beleâ—ved not the reall presence therefore they put no word in their forme expressing power to consecrate They held Episcopacy and Priesthood to be one and the same thing Therefore they put not in one word expressing the Episcopall Function This is called leaping over the stile before a man comes at it To devise reasons of that which never was First prove our defects if you can And then find out aâ— many reasons of them as you list But to say the truth the cause and the effect are well coupled together The cause that is the Zuinglianisme of our predecessours never had any reall existence in the nature of things but onely in these meÌ„s imaginations So the defects of our Ordinalls are not reall but imaginary Herein the Fathers adventured to farre to tell us that we have nothing in our formes of Ordeining to expresse either the Priestly or Episcopall functioÌ„ when every child that is able to reade can tell them that we have the expresse words of Bishops and Priests in our Formes over and over againe And mainteine to all the the world that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons have been ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ. This they say is the true reason why Parker and his Collegues were contented with the Nagge 's head Consecration that is to say one brainsick whimsey is the reason of another and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queene Elisabeths time Say what others name one genuine son of the Church of England if you can Doctor Whitakers and Doctor Fulke who are the onely two men mentioned by you are both professedly against you Doctor Whitakers saith we do not condemne all the Order of Bishops as he falsely slanders us but onely the false Bishops of the Church of Rome And Doctor Fulke for Order and seemely goverment among the Clergy there was allwaies one Principall to whom the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which roome Titus exercised in Crete Timothy in Ephesus others in other Places Adding that the Ordination or Consecration by imposition of hands was alwaies principally committed to him The Fathers proceed If Mr. Lawd had found successe in his first attempts it is very credible he would in time have reformed the Forme of the English Ordination That pious and learned Prelate wanted not other degrees in Church and Schooles which they omit He was a great lover of peace but too judicious to dance after their pipe too much versed in Antiquity to admit their new matter and forme or to attempt to correct the Magnificat for satisfaction of their humours But whence had they this credible Relation We are very confident they have neither Authour nor ground for it but their owne imagination And if it be so what excuse they have for it in their Case Divinity they know best but in ours we could not excuse it from down right calumny They have such an eye at our order and uniformity that they can not let our long Cloakes and Surplesses alone We never had any such animosities among us about our Cloakes as some of their Religious Orders have had about their gownes both for the colour of them whether they should be black or white or gray or the naturall Colour of the sheep And for the fashion them whether they should belong or short c in so much as two Popes successively could not determine it If Mr. Mason did commend the wisedome of the English Church for paring away superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination he did well Ceremonies are advancements of Order decency modesty and gravity in the service of God Expressions of those heavenly desires and dispositions which we ought to bring along with us to Gods house Adjuments of attention and devotion Furtherances of Edification visible instructers helps of Memory excercises of faith the shell that preserves the Kernell of Religion from contempt the leaves that defend the blossomes and the fruite but if they grow over thick and ranke they hinder the fruite from comming to maturity and then the Gardiner pluckes them of There is great difference between the hearty expressions of a faithfull Friend and the mimicall gestures of a fawning flatterer betweeÌ„ the unaffected comelenesse of a grave Matrone and the phantasticall paintings and patchings and powderings of a garish Curtesan When Ceremonies become burthensome by excessive superfluity or unlawfull Ceremonies are obtruded or the Substance of divine worship is placed in Circumstances or the service of God is more respected for humane ornaments then for the Divine Ordinance it is high time to pare away excesses and reduce things to the ancient meane These Fathers are quite out where they make it lawfull at some times to adde but never to pare away yet we have pared away nothing which is either prescribed or practised by the true Catholick Church If our Ancestors have pared away any such things out of any mistake which we do not beleeve let it be made appeare evidently to us and we are more ready to welcome it againe at the foredore then our Ancestours were to cast it out at the backdore Errare possumus haeretici esse nolumus To conclude as an impetuous wind doth not blow downe those trees which are well radicated but causeth them to spread their rootes more firmely in the earth so these concussions of our Adversaries do confirme us in the undoubted assurance of the truth and validity and legality of our holy Orders We have no more reason to doubt of the truth of our Orders because of the different judgment of an handfull of our partiall countrymen and some few forreine Doctors misinformed by them then they themselves have to doubt of the truth of their Orders who were ordeined by Formosus because two Popes Stephen and Sergius one after another out of passion and prejudice declared them to be voide and invalide But supposing that which we can never grant without betraying both our selves and the truth that there were some remote probabilities that might occasion suspicion in some persons prepossessed with prejudice of the legality of our Orders yet for any man upon such pretended uncerteinties to leave the communion of that Church wherein he was baptised which gave him his Christian being and to Apostate to them where he shall meet with much greater grounds of feare both of Schisme and Idolatry were to ploÌ„ge himself in a certein crime for feare of an uncertein danger Here the Fathers make a briefe repetition of whatsoever they have said before in this discourse either out of distrust of the Readers memory or confidence of their owne atchievements of the Nagge 's head and Mr. Neale and the Protestant writers and Bishop Bancroft and Bishop Morton and the
great numbers of grave persons communicated with him at that time frequens gravissimorum hominum caetus This is proved evidently by the authentick Recordes of the Consecration as they are still and alwaies have been to be seen in the publick Registry of the Archi-Episcopall See of Canterbury Registrum Reverendissimi in Christo Paâ—ris Domini Domini Matthaei Parker c. Principio Sacellum tapetibus ad Orientem adornabatur solum vero panno rubro insternebatur c. And so first setting downe both how the Chappell was adorned for the Consecration and what habit and garments as well the Consecraters as the person who was to be consecrated did weare both at the Praiers and Sermon as likewise at the holy Sacrament and Consecration it proceedeth to the Consecration itself Finito tandem Evangelio Herefordensâ—â— Electus Bedfordensis Suffraganeus Milo Coverdale Archiepiscopum coram Cicestrensi Electo apud mensam in Cathedra sedente his verbis adduxerunt Reverende in Deo Pater hunc virum pium pariter atque doctum tibi offerimus atque praesentamus ut Archiepiscopus consecretur Postquam haec dixissent proferebatur ilico regium Diploma sive Mandatum pro consecratione ArchiEpiscopi quo per Dominum Doctorem Yale legum Doctorem perlecto Sacramentum de Regio primatu sive suprema ejus authoritate tuenda juxta statuta primo anno Regni Serenissimae Reginae nostrae Elizabethae edita promulgata ab eodem Archi-Episcopo exigebatur Quod cum ille solemniter tactis corporaliter sacris Evangeliis conceptis verbis praestitisset Cicestrensis Electus populum ad orationem hortatus ad Letanias decantandas Choro respondence se accinxit Quibus finitis post questiones aliquot Archi-Episcopo per Cicestrensem Electum propositas post orationes suffragia quaedam juxta formam libri authoritate Parliamenti editi apud deum habita Cicestrensis Herefordensis Suffraganeus Bedfordensis Milo Coverdallus manibus Archi-Episcopo impositis dixerunt Accipe Spiritum Sanctum excitare memineris gratiam Dei quae in te est per manuum impositionem Dedit enim nobis Deus Spiritum non timoris sed Potestatis Charitatis Sobrietatis c. This is so evident that our Adversaries have nothing to say but to crie the Recordes are forged Forgery of Recordes is a grievous crime and ought to be manifestly proved or the accuser to suffer for his Calumny Let them tell us who forged them and when and where they were forged But they know nothing of it Did any of the succeding Proto-Noâ—aries complaine that they were forged or so much as an under Clerke of the Office or any man that had once occasion to view them and afterwards found some change in them No such thing Examine all the Officerâ— and Notaries and Clerkes living whether ever they observed any change in them during their remembrance And they will all answer No. And so would all their predecessors since Arch-Bishop Parkers time have answered if they had beeÌ„ put to their Oathes Who are they then that accuse them of Forgery They are the Adversaries of the Church of England who neveâ— read one word of them nor know mucâ— what belongeth to such Recordes Buâ— they wish if they be not forged that they were forged What would you have 〈◊〉 do If they could answer them otherwise they would But they can not and theâ—â—fore they crie them downe as forged It is possible to forge private Acts 〈◊〉 in a corner But to forge a consecratioâ— done publickly at Lambeth in Queene Eâ—â—â—sabeths time And to forge it so early as thâ—â— was published to the world is incrediblâ— Surely these Fathers do not know the Câ—â—stomes of the Church that all things whiâ—â— are done at publick Consecrations are pâ—â—â—sently drawne into Acts by principall Nâ—â—taries and kept in publick Registries 〈◊〉 the custody of them committed to swoâ—â— Officers And this practise was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in England upon this occasion but â—â—th beeÌ„ observed throughout both Provinâ—â—s for time immemoriall I should not 〈◊〉 one Penfull of inke upon an English â—an who either doth know or ought to â—â—ow what credit the law of England doth 〈◊〉 to these Recordes But for the satisâ—â—â—tion of strangers who are misled by 〈◊〉 bold calumnies I will take leave for 〈◊〉 to prove that which like the common â—â—â—nciples of Artes ought to be taken for â—â—anted and De quo nefas est dubitare 〈◊〉 us trie whether they can say more for 〈◊〉 Vatican Recordes then we can for 〈◊〉 For the present I produce six grounds 〈◊〉 convince all those who gainsay them 〈◊〉 first is that value and respect which 〈◊〉 Lawes of the Kingdome do give them 〈◊〉 is to allow them to be authentick â—â—ofes Especially in cases of this nature â—â—â—cerning Spirituall Acts belonging to 〈◊〉 Key of Order If a Clerke have lost 〈◊〉 Letters of Orders a certificate out 〈◊〉 this Registrie under the Seale of the â—â—ch-Bihop or the hand of the Protonoâ—â—â— is an authentick proofe Shall 〈◊〉 or three Adversaries who are strangers and know little of our affaires altogetheâ— unacquainted with our Lawes and Recordes dare without any ground to defaâ—â— that for forged which the Lawes of 〈◊〉 Kingdome do allow for authentick Eitheâ— these Recordes are authentick or Christendome never had an authentick Ecclesiasticall Record The very Actâ— of our Synods or Convocations are 〈◊〉 more undoubted then these are My second proofe is taken from 〈◊〉 credit of the Publick Notaries who 〈◊〉 testifie this individuall Consecration 〈◊〉 draw it up into Acts. The Testimony 〈◊〉 two publick Notaries for matter of 〈◊〉 maketh full proofe over all Europe but 〈◊〉 at least foure Publick Notaries weâ—â— present at this Consecration and testifâ—â—â—he truth of these Acts Whereof two 〈◊〉 them were the Principall Publick Notariâ—â— in England that is Anthony Huse protoâ—â—â—tary of the See of Canterbury and 〈◊〉 Argall Registerer of the Prerogative 〈◊〉 assisted in actuating this Consecration 〈◊〉 Thomas Willet and Iohn Iucent Publick Nâ—â—taries Who can make doubt of a mâ—â—â—ter of fact so attested But is it further Observable that these foure publick Notaries were the same who did draw Cardinall Poles Consecration into Acts and attest them Either let â—hese Fathers denie that Cardinall Pole was Consecrated or let them grant that Arch-Bishop Parker was Consecrated Aut uâ—ramque negate aut uâ—rumque concedâ—â—e There are the same Proofes for the one and for the other There needeth no more to be done to satisfie any man that hath eyes in his head but to compare the one Register with the other We owe a third ground to the Queenes extraordinary care who was so solicitous least some Circumstance in the Politicall part might be defective in some punctilio of law by reason of the frequent change of the Statutes in the reignes of her Father Brother Sister and Her self that she caused the Letters Patents to be carefully perused by six of our most eminent Lawiers who
that this Fable was ancient and published to the world from the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time in print and unanswered by the Protestants untill the 13 of King Iames but there is no such thing For their credit let them produce one Authour that mentioneth it in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time or if they cannot doe that for forty yeares after that is before the yeare 1600 or otherwise the case is plain that it is an upstart lie newly coined about the beginning of King Iames his time the Fathers would not have us answer it before it was coined or before it was known to us Where they say that Mr Mason did handle this Controversy weakly and faintly they know they doe him wrong He hath so thrashed their Authours Fusherbert and Fitz-Simon and Holywood and Constable and Kellison and Champney that the cause hath wanted a Champion eversince untill these Fathers tooke up the Bucklers But whereas they adde that Mr. Mason vvas affraid to be convinced by some aged persons that might then be living and remember vvhat passed in the beginning of Queen Eâ—isabeths reign is so farre from truth that Mr. Mason nameth a witnesse beyond all exception that was invited to Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration at Lambeth as being his Kinsman and was present there The Earle of Nottingâ—am Lord High Admirall of England Why did none of their Authors goe to him or imploy some of their Friends to inquire of him The case is cleare they were more affraid of Conviction and to be caught in a lie then Mr. Mason who laid not the Foundation of his Discourse upon loose prittle-prattle but upon the Firm Foundation of Originall Records They say in the yeare 1603 none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable as some now doe I am the man I did call it so I do call it so Such a blind relation as this is of a businesse pretended to be acted in the yeare 1559 being of such consequence as whereupon the succession of the Church of England did depend and never published untill after the yeare 1600 as if the Church of England had neither Friends nor Enemies deserveth to be stiled a Tale of a Tub and no better They adde Bancroft Bishop of London being demanded by Mr. VVilliam Alabaster hovv Parker and his Collegues vvere consecrated Bishops â—nsvvered he hoped that in Case oâ— neâ—essity a Priest alluding to Scory might ordein Bishops This answer of his was objected in Print by Holywood against him and all the English Clergy in the yeare 1603 not a word replied Bancroft himself being then living And why might not Holywood be misinformed of the Bishop of London aâ— well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham This is certain he could not allude to Bishop Scory whâ— was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the sixth as by the Records of those times appeareth unlesse you have a miâ—â— to accuse all Records of Forgery If you have any thing to say against Bishop Scâ—ryes Consecration or of any of them who joined in Ordeining Arch Bishop Parker spare it not we wil not seek help of 〈◊〉 Act of Parliament to make it good In summe I doe not believe a word 〈◊〉 what is said of Bishop Bancroft sub modâ—â— it iâ— here set down nor that this Accusation did ever come to the knowledge of 〈◊〉 prudent Prelate if it did he had greatâ—â— matters to trouble his head withall theâ— Mr. Holywords bables but if ever such a a question was proposed to him it may be after a clear answer to the matter of Fact he might urge this as argumentum ad hominem that though both Bishop Scory and Bishop Coverdale had been but simple Priests as they were complete Bishops yet joining with Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgskings two undoubted Bishops otherwiâ—e Gardiner and Bonner and Tunstall and Thurleby and the rest were no Bishops the Ordination was as Canonicall as for one Bishop and two Mitred Abbats to consecrate a Bishop which you allow in case of Necessity or one Bishop and two simple Presbyters to consecrate a Bishop by Papall Dispensation So this question will not concern us at all but them very much to reconcile themselves to themselves They teach that the matter and form of Ordination are essentialls of Christs own Institution They teach that it is grievous Sacrilege to change the matter of this Sacrament They teach that the matter of Episcopall Ordination is Imposition of hands of three Bishops upon the person consecrated and yet with them one Bishop and two Abbats or one Bishop and two simple Priests extraordinarily by Papall dispensation may ordein Bishops The essentialls of Sacraments doe consist in indivisibili once Essentiall alwaies Essentiall whether ordinarily or extraordinarily whether with dispensation or without So this Question whether a Priest in case of Necessity may ordein Bishops doth concern them much but us not at all But for my part I believe the whole Relation is feined for so much as concerneth Bishop Bancroft They adde or the one of them I have spoken vvith both Catholicks and Protestants that remember neare 80. yeares and acknovvledge that so long they have heard the Nagges head story related as an undoubted truth Where I wonder sooner in Rome or Rhemes or Doway then in England and sooner in a Corner then upon the Exchange You have heard from good Authors of the Swans singing and the Pellicans pricking of her Breast with her bill but you are wiser then to believe such groundlesse Fictions I produce you seven of the ancient Bishops of England some of them neare an 100. yeares old who doe testify that it is a groundlesse Fable yet they have more reason to know the right value of our Ecclesiasticall Records and the truth of our affaires then any whom you conversâ— withall The Authours proceed This Narration of the Consecration at the Nagge 's head have I taken out of Holywood Constable and Doctor Champnies vvorkes They heard it from many of the ancient Clergy vvho vvere Prisoners for the Catholick Religion in Wysbich Castle as Mr. Blewet Doctor Watson Bishop of Lincoln and others These had it from the said Mr. Neale and other Catholicks present at Parkers Consecration in the Nagge 's head as Mr. Constable affirmes Here is nothing but hearsay upon hearsay such Evidence would not passe at a tryall for a lock of Goats wooll Holywood and the rest had it from some of the Wisbich Prisoners and the Wisbich Prisoners heard it from Mr. Neale and others What others had they no names did Bishop Bonner send more of his Chapleins then one to be Spectators of the Consecration and they who were to be consecrated permit them being Adversaries to continue among them during the Consecration supposed to be a Claâ—deâ—â—ine Action It is not credible without a Plâ—â— between Neale and the Host of the Nagge 's head to put him and his fellowes for that day into Drawers habits least the Bishops