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
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
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
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
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
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
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
enough to confute your Romance of the Nagge 's head Yet thus much you yourselves confesse in the same Paragraph that in a booke printed in the yeare 1605 that is eight yeares before the yeare 1613 wherein you say that Mr Mason printed his booke called Antiquitates Britanniae there is a Register of the Protestant Bishops of England TheÌ„ there was a Register of the Consecration of Protestant Bishops extant before Mr. Mason did write of that subject You say that Register doth not mention any certain place or Form of their Consecration It was not needfull the Law prescribeth the Form and the place was indifferent so it were a consecrated place which the Law doth likewise prescribe But you tell us further that thiâ— Register was forged or foisted in and that your learned but namelesse Friend see the old Manuscript of that booke wherein there is no mention of any such Register which you tell us in your Friends words that all the world may see how this Register was forged Why are all the world bound to believe your Friend How should we give credit to a man who tells us three notorious untruths in foure lines First that it is pretended that Archbishop Parker was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and three others by virtue of a Commission from Queen Elisabeth he was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and two others Secondly that this work was acted on the 17. day of September An 1559 which was acted on the 17. Day of December 1559. Thirdly that we had no form then or Order to doe such a businesse whereas you yourselves confesse that Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished in the First yeare of Queen Elisabeth and Archbishop Parkers Ordination was in the second of Queen Elisabeth He who stumbles so thick and three fold may erre in his viewing the Manuscript as well as the rest But to gratify you suppose it was foisted in what good will that doe you It must of necessity be foisted in before it was printed it could not be foisted in after it was printed And it must be foisted in by a Protestant for no Roman Catholick would foist it in So still you see a Register of Protestant Bishops was published to the world in print eyght yeares before Mr. Mason published his booke Your Friend saith that this printed Booke of Parkers Antiquitates Britanniae is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecration of him and the rest So it might be well when it was first printed that was not in the yeare 1605 but in Arch-Bishop Parkers life time three yeares before his death An. 1570. So much you might have learned from the very Title-page of the Booke printed at Hannovv Historia antehac non nisi semel nimirum Londini in Aedibus Iohannis Day anno 1572. excusa That this History vvas printed formerly at London in the house of Iohn Day in the yeare 1572. This doth utterly destroy the Credit of your Friends Relation that he had viewed the Manuscript of that Booke There needed no Manuscript where they had a Printed booke for their Copy as the Title-page telleth us they had and that printed above sixty yeares before your Friend writ it is probable before his Birth If there be any thing of foisting in the case there is rather something foisted out of the former Edition then foisted in namely Archbishop Parkers Life untill that time with the particular Consecrations of our first Bishops which were in the London Edition and are omitted in this Edition of Hannow This is cleare enough by the very Title An History of 70. Archbishops and there are in this Edition but 69. Archbishops because the Life of Archbishop Parker is wanting which neverthelesse is promised in the Life of Archbishop Warham pag. 312. ut in Matthaei Parker Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi viâ—a inferius diâ—emus As we shall say hereafâ—er in the Life of Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury You see how infortunate you are in accusing others of Forgery Your Authour proceedeth Any man reading the printed Booke will manifestly see it is a meerly foisted and inserted thing having no connexion correspondence or affinity either vvith that which goeth before or followeth it Say you so There was never any thing more fitly inserted The Author undertaketh to write the Life 's of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury from Austin to Matthew Parker and having premitted some generall Observations concerning the Antiquity of Christian Religion in Britany with the names of some Arch-Bishops of London and the Originall and Changes of Episcopall Sees in England and some other Generalities concerning the Privileges of the See of Canterbury and the Conversion of Kent Iust before he enter upon the Life of St. Austin the first Archbishop he presenteth the Reader with a summary View of the Archbishoprick of Canterbury at that time when the booke was first printed in the yeare 1572 with the names of all the Bishops of the Province at that time their Countries their Armes both of their Sees and of their Families their respective Ages their Vniversities their Degrees in Schooles with the times of their severall Consecrations if they were ordeined Bishops or Confirmations if they were translated from another See It is hardly possible for the wit of man to contriue more matter into a lesser Roome Then he settes downe a like Table for the Province of Yorke and lastly an Alphabeticall Catalogue of the Bishops whose Lifes were described in this booke and among the rest Archbishop Parker whose Life if you call it foisting is foisted out of this Hannow Edition If this hath no connexion or affinity with that which goeth before and followeth after I know not what Connexion or Affinity is Your Friends last Exception against the Authority of that booke called Antiquitates Britanniae is that it conteineth more things done after Matthew Parker had written that Booke So you confesse that Archbishop Parker himself about whom all our controversy is was the Author of that booke wherein I agree with you The conclusion of the Preface and many other reasons invite me to doe so Surely this Author meant that there is something conteined in this Register which is not within the Compasse of the following Lifes in the Hannow Edition that may well be because Matthew Parkers life is foisted out in this Edition but there is nothing which was not in the London Edition much more largely then it is in this Register especially for the Confirmations and Consecrations of our Protestant Bishops there is nothing after the time when this Register was made which is prefixed in the Frontispice of it in the Hannow Edition with M P for Matthew Parker Matthew Parker died May the 27 Anno 1575 he printed his booke at London three yeares before his death without the Authours name in the yeare 1572. I appeale to the ingenuous Reader let him be of what Communion he will or never so full of prejudice whether it be credible
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