a Discrimination betweene our â—â—â—shops and their Bishops as to the poiâ—â— of Ordination but the Marian Bishoâ— themselves who made a mutuall coâ—â—pact one and all that none of them shoulâ— impose hands upon any new electâ— Bishops thinking vainely there could other Consecraters have bene found out and that by this meanes they should both preserve their Bishopricks and bring the Queene to their bent but they found them selves miserably deceived Many Bishops who had bene chased out of their Bishopricks in Queene Maries daies did now returne from exile and supplie the place of Consecraters Then conjurationis eos penituit The Bishops repented of their Conspiracy Multi ad judices recurrunt c. many of them ran to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the oath of Supremacy Thus writeth Acworth an Author of good account in those daies If this foolish conspiracy had not bene we had had no Difference about our Consecrations To the second part of this objection that the forme of Ordeining used in King Edwards daies was declared invalide in Queene Maries Daies I answer First that we have no reason to regarde the Iudgment of their Iudges in Queene Maries Dayes more then they regard the judgment of our Iudges in Queene Elisabeths daies They who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make no scruple to take away their holy Orders Secondly I answer that which the Fatherâ— call a sentence was no sentence The word is Dicitur it is said or it is reported not decretum est it is decreed Neither were Queene Maries lawes proper rules nor Queene Maryes Iudges at common law the proper Iudges of the validity of an Episcopal consecration or what are the essentialls of ordination according to the institution of Christ. They have neither rules noâ— grounds for this in the common law Thirdly I answer that the question iâ— Queene Maries daies was not about the validity or invalidity of our Orders buâ— about the legality or illegality of them not whether they were conformable to the institution of Christ but whether they were conformable to the Lawes oâ— England The Lawes of England can neither make a valide ordination to be invalide nor an invalide ordination to be valide because they can not change the institutioâ— of Christ. In summe King Edwards Bishopâ— were both validely ordeined according to the institution of Christ and legally ordeined according to the lawes of EnglaÌ„d 〈◊〉 Queene Mary changed the Law that the forme of ordeining which had beeÌ„ allowed in King Edwards daies should not be allowed in her daies Notwithstanding Queene Maries law they continued still true Bishops by the institution of Christ But they were not for that time legall Bishops in the eie of the Law of England which is the Iudges rule But when Queene Elisabeth restored King Edwards law then they were not onely true valide Bishops but legall Bishops againe That corollary which the fathers adde in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by the Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not consecrated or Bishops that is in â—he eie of the English law at that time signiâ—ieth nothing at all Leases concerne the beâ—efice of a Bishop not the Office of a Bishop A Bishop who is legally ordeined though â—e be invalidely ordeined may make a lease â—hich is good in law And a Bishop â—hich is validely ordeined if he be illeâ—ally ordeined may make a lease which is â—oide in law Concerning Bishop Bonners Conscience â—hat he lost his Bishoprick for his conâ—ience and therefore it is not probaâ—â—e that he would make himself guilty of so much sacrilege as to declare King Edwards forme of ordination to be invalide for the profit of new Leases it belongeth not to me to judge of other mens Consciences But for Bishop Bonners Conscience I referre him to the Testimony of one of his Freinds Nicolas Sanders who speaking of Bishop Gardiner Bishop Bonner Bishop Tunstall and the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester concludeth with these words Tâ—â—mide ergo restiterunt pueri Regis primaâ—â— spirituali imo simpliciter subscripseruâ— in omnes caeteras innovationes quae neâ— videbantur ipsis continere apertam haerâ—â—sim ne Episcopatus honores perderent â— vel ulâ—ro vel comra conscientiam coaâ— consenserunt Therefore they resisted the spâ—â—rituall primacy of the King being but a boy fairly yea they subscribed to it simply and they consented to all the rest of the innovations whicâ— did not seeme to them to conteine manifest heresy either of their owne accord or compelled agaiâ— Conscience least they should lose their Bishopricks and honours We see they had no greaâ— reason to bragge of Bishop Bonners Conscience who sometimes had bene a greaâ— favorite of Cranmer and Crumwell He gâ—â— his Bishoprick by opposing the Pope aâ—â— lost his Bishoprick by opposing his Prince But if reordination be such a sacrilege many Romanists are guilty of grosse sacrilege who reordeine those Proselites whom they seduce from us with the same essentialls matter and forme imposition of hands and these words Receive the holy Ghost wherewith they had been formerly ordeined by us Lastly I answer and this answer alone is sufficient to determine this controversy that King Edwards forme of ordination was judged valide in Queene Maries daies by all Catholicks and particularly by Cardinall Pole then Apostolicall Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the fourth and by all the clergy and Parliament of England The case was this In the Act for repealing all statutes made against the see of Rome in the first and second yeares of Philip and Mary the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Parliament assembled representing the whole body of the Realme of England presented their common request to the King and Queene that they would be a meanes to the Legate to obteine some settlements by authority of the Popes Holiness for peace sake in some Articles where of this is one That institutioÌ„s of Benefices and other Promotions Ecclesiasticall and Dispensations made according to the forme of the Act of Parliament might be confirmed Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were confirmed For the greatest part of the English Clergy had received both their benefices and their holy orders after the casting out of the Popes usurped authority out of England And both benefices and holy orders are comprehended under the name of Ecclesiasticall Promotions This will appeare much more clearely by the very words of the Cardinalls Dispensation Ac omnes ecclesiasticas seculares seu quorumvis ordinum regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta tam ordines quam beneficia Ecclesiastica seu alias spirituales materias pretensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint ad cor reversae Ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus beneficiis per nosipsos
Essentiall matter of Ordination and these words Receive the Holy Ghost as the form of Ordination but your Nagge 's head Ordination is a mere Phantasm without matter or Forme our Statutes allow no such fanaticall and Phantasticall Formes as your Form of the Nagge 's head And so your Consequence Consequently that of the Nagge 's head might passe is foundered of all four and can neither passe nor repasse unlesse you can rase these words by virtue of the Queens Letters Patents out of the Statute and insert these without the Queens Letters Patents and likewise rase these words out of the Commission according to the Form and effect of the Statutes and insert these contrary to the Form and effect of the Statutes A single Falsification will doe your cause no good Two poisons may perchance help it at a dead lift It is in vain to tell us that Mr Mason see this over clear to be denied who know better that Mr. Mason did not onely deny it over and over again but sqeesed the poore Fable to durt I have shewed you particularly what was the end of the Queens Dispensations the same which is the end of Papall Dispensations to meet with latent objections or cavills I have shewed you what that Cavill was which needed no Dispensation in point of Law but onely to stop the mouths of Gainsaiers But where you adde that the Queens Dispensation was given not in conditionall but in very absolute Termes You are absolutely mistaken The Queens dispensation was both in Generall Termes which determin nothing not like the Popes Dispensations A quibusvis excommunicationis suspensionis interdicti sententiis and also in these conditionall Terms si quid c. desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur If any thing is or shall be wanting which are required by the Lawes Civill or Ecclesiasticall of this Kingdome You see it is conditionall and hath reference onely to the Lawes of England They goe on the truth is all the world laughed at the Nagge 's head Consecration and held it to be invalid not so much for being performed in a Tavern as for the new form invented by Scory If all the world did laugh at it in those dayes they laughed in their sleeves where no body could see them laugh It had been too much to laugh at a jeast before it was made nay before it was devised The Reader may well wonder how all the world came to get notice of it so early as the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign and we onely in England should heare nothing of it for above 40 yeares after but assoone as we did heare of it we laught at it as well as they and held it as invalid as they could doe for their hearts but they laught at it as Bishop Scoryes Invention and we laught at it as theirs CAP. VII Of Bishop Bonner the Reordination of our Clergy the quality of their witnesses Mr. Fitzherberts suspicions the testimony of their Doctors and the Publishing of our Register before Mr. Mason Their next instance is in Bishop Bonners case who was indited by Mr. Horn one of the First Protestant Bishops consecrated by Mr. Parker or together with him for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy The first errour might be pardoned as being onely a mistake in a word to say that Bishop Bonner was indited by Mr. Horn where as he was onely signified by Bishop Horn but the second mistake is fatall that after all this confidence and this great Notoreity of the Nagge 's head Ordination to all the world these Fathers themselves are still uncertain whether Bishop Horn were consecrated by Archbishop Parker or at the same time with him that is as much as to say they know not certainly what was done at the Nagge 's head but they wish that if the Confirmation dinner were not a Consecration it had been one It could never end better for Mr. Neale to feign an Ordination without an Actuary to record what was done Bishop Waâ—son and Mr. Bluet and the rest were much to blame that since he had the fortune to weare Gyges his ring and walk invisible they did not cause him to play the publick Notary himself and draw that which was done there into Acts then we might have known as certainly as he could tell us whether Dr Parker had been consecrated there by his Proctor Dr Bullsngham It may be some very credulous Reader who like the old Lamiae could take out his eyes and put them in again when he pleased would have given more credit to Mr Neales pleasant Fable then to the publick Rolles and Registers of the Kingdome I have handled Bishop Bonners case before and thâ—se Fathers themselves have unwittingly given sentence in it against him That King Edwards Forme of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliamant in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth But finall sentence there was never any given untill the Parliament gave a finall sentence in it That Bishop Horn and all the rest were legall Bishops To admit a Plea to be tryed by a Iury and the veredict of the Iury are two very distinct things They tell us he was a man specially shot at Rather he was a man graciously preserved by the Queens mercy from the rage of the Common people against him If they had shot at him they could have found waies enough to have tendered the Oath of Supremacy to him without Bishop Horn. I professe I am no great Patron of such Oaths men have more dominion over their actions then over their judgements Yet there is lesse to be said for Bishop Bonner then for other men He who had so great a hand in framing the Oath He who had taken it himself both in King Henryes time and King Edwards time and made so many others to take it He who had been so great a stickler in Rome for the Kings Supremacy who writ that Preface before Bishop Gardiners booke de vera Obedientia if he had suffered by the Oath of Supremacy he had but been scourged with a rod of his own making Their next reason to prove the Nullity of our Holy Orders is taken from the constant Practice of the Romane Catholicks to Reordein Protestant Ministers not conditionally but absolutely which they call an evident Argument of our mere Laity A doughty Argument indeed drawn from their own Authority Can any man doubt that that they which make no scruple of taking away our lifes will make conscience of taking away our Orders This is that which we accuse them of and they doe fairly begge the Question If Reordination be Sacrilege as they say it is we are ready to convince them of grosse Sacrilege or iterating all the Essentialls of Ordination the same matter and the same Form that is for Episcopacy the same Imposition of Hands by three Bishops and the same words Receive the Holy Ghost c.
to assault the maine fable it self as it is related by these Fathers Having told how the Protestant Doctors who were designed for Bishopricks in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths Reigne had prevailed with Anthony Kitchin Bishop of Landaffe to give them a meeting at the Nagged head in Cheapesyde in hope â—he would Ordeine them Bishops there And how the Bishop of Landaffe through Bishop Bonners threatenings refused all which shall be examined and laid open to the view of the world in due order how it is stuffed with untruth and absurdities They adde that being thus deceived of their expectation and having no other meanes to come to their desires that is to obteine consecration they resolved to use Mr. Scories helpe an Apostate religious Priest who having borne the name of Bishop in King Edward the sixths time vvas thought to have sufficient povver to performe that Office especially in such a strait necessity as they pretended He having cast of together vvith his Religious habite all scruple of conscience vvillingly vvent about the matter vvhich he performed in this sort Having the bible in hand and they all kneeling before him he laid it upon every one of their heads or shoulders saying take thou Authority to preach the world of God sincerely And so they rose up Bishops of the nevv Church of England This narration of the consecration at the Nagge 's head they say they have taken out of Holywood Constable and Dr. Champneys workes They might as well have taken it out of Aesops fables and with as much credit or expectation of truth on our partes So the controversy betweene them and us is this They say that Arch Bishop Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bihops in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne or at the least sundry of them were consecrated at the Nagge 's head in Cheapesyde together by Bishop Scory alone or by him and Bishop Barlow jointly without Sermon without Sacrament without any solemnity in the yeare 1559. but they know not what day nor before what publick Notaries by a new phantastick forme And all this they say upon the supposed voluntary report of Mr. Neale a single malicious spie in private to his owne party long after the businesse pretended to be done We say Arch Bishop Parker was consecrated alone at Lambeth in the Church by foure Bishops authorised thereunto by Commission under the great Seale of England with Sermon with Sacrament with all due solemnities upon the 17 day of December Anno 1559. before foure of the most eniment publick Notaries in England and particularly by the same publick Notary who was Principall Actuary both at Cardinall Poles Consecration and Arch Bishop Parkers And that all the rest of the Bishops were Consecrated at other times some in the same moneth but not upon the same day some in the same yeare but not the same moneth and some the yeare following And to prove the truth of our relation and falshood of theirs we produce the Registet of the See of Canterbury as authentick as the world hath any the Registers of the other fourteene Sees then vacant all as carefully kept by sworne Officers as the Recordes of the Vatican it self We produce all the Commissions under the privy seale and great Seale of England We produce the rolles or Recordes of the Chancery And if the Recordes of the Signet office had not been unfortunately burned in King Iames his time it might have been verified by those also We produce an Act of Parliament express in the pointe within seven yeares after the Consecration We produce all the controverted Consecrations published to the world in printe Anno 1572 three yeares before Arch Bishop Parkers death whilest all things were fresh in mens memories These bright beames had bene able to dasell the eies of Mr. Neale himself whilest he was living and have made him recant his lewd lie or confess himself starke blinde The first reason which I bring against this ridiculous fable it taken from the palpable Contradictions and grosse absurdities and defects of those Roman Catholick writers who have related this silly tale of a tub and agree in nothing but in their common malice against the Church of England It is no strange matter for such as write upon hearesay or relie upon the exact truth of other mens notes or memories to mistake in some inconsiderable circumstance as to set downe the name of a place amisse which may be the transcribers faulte or the printers as well as the Authours Or to say two Suffragans for one when there were two named in the Commission and but one present at the Consecration Such immateriall differences which are so remote from the heart of the Cause about indifferent Circumstances may bring the exactnesse of the Relation into question but not the substantiall truth of it Such petty unsignificant variations do rather prove that the Relations were not made upon compact or confederacy Especially where there are originall Recordes taken upon the place by sworne Notaries whose names and hands and Acts are as well known to every man versed in the Recordes of those times as a man knoweth his owne house To which all Relaters and Relations must submitte and are ready to submitte as to an infallible rule But he who should give credit to such a silly senslesse fable as this is which is wholy composed of absurd improbable incoherent inconsistent contradictory fictions had need to have a very implicite faith The greatest shew of any accord among them is about the Consecrater yet even in this they disagree one from another The common opinion is that Bishop Scory alone did consecrate them But Mr. Constable one of their principall authours supposeth that Bishopâ— Barlow might joine with him in the Consecration And Sanders whose penne in other cases useth to runne over one who had as much malice as any of them and had reason to know the passages of those times better then all of them leaveth it doubtfull when or where or by whom they were ordeined quomodocunque facti sunt isti Pseudo-Episcopi by what meanes soever they were ordeined But they disagree much more among themselves who they should be that were ordeined First Mr. Waddesworth whose ingenuity deserveth to be commended doth not say that any of our Bishops were actually consecrated there but onely that there was an attempt to consecrate the First of them that was Arch-Bishop Parker But that which destoyeth the credit of this attempt is this that it is evident by the Recordes that Arch-Bishop Parker was not personally present at his Confirmation in Bowes Church or at his Confirmation dinner at the Nagge 's head which gave the occasion to this merry Legend but was confirmed by his Proctor Nicholas Bullingham Doctor in the Lawes upon the ninth of December Anno 1559. A man may be confirmed by Proxie but no man can be ordeined by proxie It is a ruled case in their owne law Non licet Sacramentum aliquod
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
the Consecrations were done and past long before No mans Election can be confirmed in England but by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents Therefore the Letters Patents must precede the Confirmation and Consecration not follow after â—t three moneths or foure moneths or six moneths and in some of theÌ„ above a yeare And as by the Recordes of the Chancery â—o their relation is proved to be a notorious fable by all the Ecclesiasticall Recordes first of their severall and distinct Confirmations which pursued their Commissions punctually Then of their severall and distinct Consecrations which pursued their Confirmations punctually He who desireth â—o see these may finde Authentick Recordes of them all both Confirmations and Consecrations in the Register of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury It is not the forging of one Recorde that would serve the turne Either all these Recordes must be forged oâ— the Nagges head Ordination is a silly senslesse fable Lastly after the Consecration followeth the Installement or Inthronisation which is to be found in the Register of the Deaâ—â— and Chapiter And the Restitution of the new Bishop to his Temporalties by virtâ—â— of the Kings Writ mentioning the Confirmation and oath of fealty to the King 〈◊〉 being temporall things Observe hoâ— every one of these do pursue anotherâ— Arch Bishop Parkers Commission issueâ— December the sixth his Confirmation followed December the ninth his Consecration December the seventeenth his Inthronisation forthwith and the Restitution 〈◊〉 his temporalties the first of March ensuâ—â—ing that is at the later end of the verâ— next terme But by their Relation thâ— Consecration was long before the Electioâ— was confirmed which can not be Thâ— Letter Patents to license the Confirmation and Consecration come out three monethâ— after the Consecration was done which 〈◊〉 incredible As for the Confirmation Mâ— Neale who was their contriver knew not what it was The installement followed three moneths after the Consecration and the Restitution to the Temporalties six moneths after which have no probability Thus for the time next for the place Their lying Relation saith the elected Bishops were consecrated at the Nagge 's head All the Ecclesiasticall Recordes say they were consecrated at Lambeth The Kings Commission injoineth a legall Consecration according to the forme prescribed by law Such a legall Consecration ours at Lambeth was Such a legall Consecration theirs at the Nagge 's head was not neither for the place nor for the rites nor for the essentialls of Consecration And without good assurance that the Consecration was legall neither the person consecrated could have bene inthroned nor made his oath of fidelity to the King nor have bene restored to his Temporalties but he was inthroned and did his fealty and was restored to his temporalties that is as much as to say that his Consecration was legally performed at Lambeth not illegally at the Nagge 's head Thirdly for the Consecrater That faâ—ulous Relation feineth that there was but one Consecrater or at the most two the authentick Recordes of the Church of England testifie that there were foure Consecraters The Letters Patents require that there should be four Consecraters and without an authentick Certificate that there were four Consecraters the Kingâ— Writ for restitution had not issued They feine that they imposed hands mâ—tually Scory upon them and they upoâ— Scorie But the Recordes witnesse that Scorâ—â— was solemnely ordeined Bishop in King Edwards time the thirteenth day of Auguâ—â— Anno. 1551 by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Susfragan Bishop of Bedford and needed noâ— to be reordeined at the Nagge 's head Lastly for the persons consecrated soâ— of them feine that all the elected Bishops and all of them say that many of them weâ—â— consecrated together at one time wiâ—â— Arch Bishop Parker But all the Recordâ— both Civill and Ecclesiasticall do testifieth contrary that they had severall Commissions severall Confirmations severall Consecrations upon severall daies in severaâ— moneths in several yeares severall Coâ—â—secraters as appeareth most evidently 〈◊〉 onely by the Authentick Recordes of the Sâ— of Canterbury but also by the Recordâ— of the Chancery And particularly by the severall Commissions directed expresly to ArchBishop Parker as a Bishop actually consecrated for the Consecration of all the rest the three first of which Commissions or Letters Patents beare date the eighteenth of December An 1559 that is the very next day after ArchBishop Parkers Consecration for the Confirmation and Consecration of Grindall Coxe and Sands three of those elected Bishops He that doubteth of the truth of these Letters Patents may find them recorded verbatim both in the Arch-Bishops Registry and in the Rolles If they were confirmed and consecrated by Arch-Bishop Parker then they were not consecrated together with Arch-Bishop Parker as in that lyng relation is affirmed And with this their subsequent Installements and Restitutions do exactly agree Either all the Recordes of England must be false or this silly fable of the Nagge 's head is a prodigious forgery Thus we have seene how the Recordes of England civill and Ecclesiasticall do contradict this tale of a tub My seventh reareason sheweth how the same Recordes do confirme and Establish our relation We say first that the See of Canterbury being voide by the death of Cardinall Pole who died as some say the very same day with Queene Mary others say the day following the Queene granted her conge d'esâ—ire to the Deane and Chapiter of Canterbury to chuse an Arch-Bishop This is clearlâ— proved by the authentick Copy of the congâ— d'eslire itself in the Rolles Regina dilectâ— sibi in Christo Decano Capitulo Ecclesiae Mâ—tropoliticae Cantuariensis saluiem c. Examinatur RICHARD BROUGHTON Secondly we say that the Deane and chapiter having received this license did chuse Doctor Mathew Parker for their Arch-Bishop This is apparent by the Queenes Commission for his Confirmation and Restitution wherein there is this clause And the said Deane and Chapiter by virâ—â—â— of our license have chosen our beloved in Christ Mathew Parker Professor of Theology for Arch-Bishop and Pastour to them and the aforesaid Church as by their letters Patentâ— directed to us thereupon it appeareth more fully Thirdly the Queene accepting this Election was graciously pleased to issue out two Commissions for the legall Confirmation of the said Election and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishop The former dated the ninth of September Anno 1559 Directed to six Bishops Cuthbert Bishop of Durham Gilbert Biâ—hop of Bath David Bishop of Peterburough Anthony Bishop of Landaff William Barlow Bishop and Iohn Scory Bishop in these words Elisabetâ— dei gratia Angliae c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus Cuthberto Episcopo Dunelmensi Gilberto Bathoniensi Episcopo Davidi Episcopo Burgi Sancti Petri Anthonio Landavensi Episcopo VVillelmo Barlo Episcopo Iohanni Scory Episcopo Salutem Cum vacante nuper Sede Archi-Episcopali Cantuariensi per mortem naturalem Domini Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis ultimi
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
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