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
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 Sacerdos Signifieth both a Priest and a Bishop Let it signify so and in St. Hieroms sense what will he inferre from thence Next he askes Bishop Iewell of Bishoply and Priestly vocation and sending What new canting language is this Could he not as well have made use of the old Ecclesiasticall word of Ordination Thirdly he taxeth the Bishop that he answereth not by what example hands were laid on him or who sent him What doth this concern any question between them and us Hands were laid on him by the example of Christ of his Apostlesâ— of the Primitive and Modern Church so Christ seÌ„t him the King seÌ„t him the Church sent him in severall respects He telleth us that when he had duely considered his Protestant Ordination in King Edwards time he did not take himself for lawfull deacon in all respects If his Protestant Ordination were a Nullity as these meÌ„ say theÌ„ he was a lawfull Deacon in no respect Pope Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were of another mind Then follow his two grand excepitons against our Ordination wherein you shal find nothing of your Nagge 's head fable The former exceptioÌ„ is that King Edwards Bishops who gave Orders were out of Orders themselves The second is that they ministred not orders according to the Rite aÌ„d manner of the Catholick Church For the former exception I referre him to the Councell of Carthage in St. Austins time and for both his excepitons to Cardinall â—oles Confirmation of King Edwards Bishops and Priests and Paul the 4. Ratification of his Act. If any man have a mind to inquire further into the Validity of our Form of Ordination let him leave these Fables and take his scope freely To all this they say that Bishop Iewell answers with profound silence yet they adde onely he sayes without any proofe that their Bishops are made by Form and Order and by the Consecration of the Arch bishop and other three Bishops and by admission of the Prince I expected profound sileâ—ce but I find a profound answer this is the first time I learned how a man can both keep profound silence â—nd answer so pertinently all at once How doth Dr. Harding goe about to take away â—his answer For Bishop Iewell was the defendent and the burthen of the proofe did â—ot rest upon him First I pray you how was â—our Archbishop consecrated If Dr. Harding did not see his Consecration he might have â—een it if he would He askes further what â—ree Bishops were there in the Realm to lay hands â—pon him Ask the Queens Letters patents â—â—d they will shew you seven What a â—â—eake Socraticall kind of arguing is this â—ltogether by questions without any Infeâ—ence If Dr. Harding could have said it justly and he could have said it if it had been so he should have confuted him boldly and told him your Metropolitan was consecrated in the Nagge 's head by one single Bishop in a fanaticall and phantasticall manner but he did not he durst not do it because he knew it to be otherwise and it was publickly known to be otherwise All his exception is against our Form If you had been Consecrated after the Form and Order vvhich hath ever been used you might have had Bishops out of France or at home in England It is the Forme established in King Edwards time and restored in Queen Elisabeths time which Doctr. Harding impugneth not thaâ— ridiculous Form which they Father upon Bishop Scory and their cheife objection against that Form was that vain Cavill that it was not restored by Act of Parliament which since hath been answereâ— abundantly by an Act of Parliament Here upon he telleth Bishop Iewell that his Metropolitan had no lawfull Consecration Thougâ— his Consecration had not been lawfull yâ—â— it might have been valid but it was botâ— legall and valid This is all that Doctoâ— Harding hath which a much meane Schollar then that learned Prelate might have adventured upon without feare of burning his Fingers Their next proofe against our Records is taken from the Contradictions of our Writers Mr. Masons Registers and Records disagree with those that Mr. Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops sometimes in the Day sometimes in the moneth sometimes in the year And againe Mr. Mason Sutcliffe and Mr. Butler all speaking of Mr. Parkers Consecration doe all differ one from another in naming his Consecraters Mr. Mason saith it was done by Barlow Scory Coverdale and Hodgskins Mr. Sutcliffe saith besides the three first there vvas tvvo Suffragans M Butler saith the Suffragan of Dover vvas one vvho is not named in the Commission So as these men seem to have had three Disagreeing Registers I answer first that it is scarcely possible to avoid errours in transcribing and printing of Bookes in the Authors absence especially in names and numbers To keep a balling and a stirre about these Errata of the pen or of the presse is like the barking of little Curres which trouble the whole Vicinage about the Mooneshining in the Water Such were the most of these Secondly supposing that some very few of these were the reall mistakes of the Authors yet innocent mistakes which have no plot in them or design of Interest or Advantage which conduce neither pro nor contra to any Controversy that is on Foot they ought not to be exaggerated or pressed severely It is the Wisdome of a wise man to passe by an Infirmity Such are all these petty Differences Whether Arch-Bishop Parker was consecrated by three City Bishops and two Suffragan or by three City Bishops and one Suffragan Bishop and whether this one Suffragan were SuffragaÌ„ of Bedford or Suffragan of Dover coÌ„duceth nothing to any Controversy which is on Foot in the Church and signifieth nothing to the Validity or invalidity legality or illegality canonicalnesse or uncanonicalnesse of his Ordination All Memories are not so happy to remember names and numbers after a long distance of time especially if they entered but by the â—are and were not Oculis subjecta fidelibus Iâ— any man should put me to depose wanting my notes and memorialls what Priests did impose hands upon me with Archbishop Mathews at my Priestly Ordination or what Bishops did joine with my Lord Primate of Ireland at my Episcopall Ordination I could not doe it exactly I know there were more then the Canons doe require at either Ordination and referre my self to the Register Whether two Suffragans or one Suffragan is an easy mistake when there were two in the Commission and but one at the Consecration so is the Suffragan of Dover for the Suffragan of Bedford Thirdly whether these were the faults of the pen or the presse or the Authour yet after retractation it ought not to be objected It is inhumane to charge any man with that fault which he himself had corrected and amended Bishop Goodwin corrected all these errours himself without any Monitor and published his Correction of his errours to the world in
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
seu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout jam multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in domino dispensabimus And we vvill graciously receive or interteine by our selves or by others deputed by us to that purpose as many have already been received in their Orders and in their Benifices all Ecclesiasticall PersoÌ„s as well Secularas Regular of whatsoever Orders vvhich have obteined any suites dispensations grants graces and indulgences as vvell in their Ecclesiasticall Orders as Benefices and other spirituall matters by the pretended authority of the Supremacy of the Church of England though ineffectually and onely de facto so they be penitent and be returned to the unity of the Church And vve vvill in due season dispense vvith them in the Lord for these things Here we see evidently that upon the request of the Loâ—ds Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the representative body of the Church and Kingdome of England by the intercession of the King and Queene the Popes Legate did receive all persons which had been Ordeined or Beneficed either in the time of King Henry or King Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices which they were actually possessed of at the time of the making of this dispensation or Confirmation without any exception or Condition but onely this that they were returned to the unity of the Catholick Church Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned either deprived of their Benefices or compelled to be reordeined From whence I argue thus Either King Henry the eighths Bishops and Priests and likewise the Bishops and Priests Ordeined in King Edward the sixths time had all the Essentialls of Episcopall and Priestly Ordination which were required by the institution of Christ and then they ought not to be reordeined Then in the judgement of these Fathers themselves it is grievous sacrilege to reordeine them Or they wanted some essentiall of their respective Ordinations which was required by the institution of Christ and then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirme their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church But the Legate did Dispense with them to hold their Orders and exercise their severall functions in the Church and the Pope did confirme that dispensation This doth clearely destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders It may perhaps be objected that the dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawfull to receive them in the present it was as unlawfull to receive theÌ„ in the future All that was done after was to take a particular absolution or confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the Principall Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops Not the Bishop of Landaff as Sanders witnesseth Yet he injoied his Bishoprick So did all the rest if the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not materiall at all whether they were confirmed by a generall or by a speciall dispensation so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can denie Secondly it may be objected that it is said in the Dispensation licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint Although they had obteined their Benefices and Promotions ineffectually and onely in fact without right which doth intimate that their Orders were voide and null before they had obteined this dispensation I answer that he stiled them voide and null not absolutely but respectively quoad exercitium because by the Roman law they might not be lawfully exercised without a Dispensation but not quoad Characterem as to the Character If they had wanted any thing necessary to the imprinting of the Character or any thing essentiall by the institution of Christ the Popes Dispensation and Confirmation had been but like a seale put to a blanke piece of paper And so the Cardinalls dispensation in generall and particularly for Benefices and Ecclesiasticall Promotions Dispensations and Graces given by such Order as the lawes of the Realme allowed and prescribed in King Henries time and King Edwards time was then and there ratified by act of Parliament Lastly that this Dispensation was afterwards confirmed by the Pope I prove by the confession of Sanders himself though a malicious enemy He that is Cardinall Pole in a publick Instrument set forth in the name and by the authority of the Pope Confirmed all Bishop which had bene made in the former Schisme so they were Catholick in their judgment of Religion and the six new Bishopricks which King Henry had erected in the time of the Schisme And this writing being affixed to the Statute was published with the rest of the Decrees of that Parliament and their minds were pacified All which things were established and confirmed afterwards by the Letters of Pope Paul the fourth We have seene that there were a competent number of Protestant Bishops beyond ' Exception to make a Consecration And so the necessity which is their onely Basis or Foundation of the Nagge 's head Consecration being quite taken away this prodigious fable having nothing els to support the incredibilities and inconsistencies of it doth melt away of it self like winter ice The fifth reason is drawen from that well known principle in Rethorick Cui bono or what advantage could such a consecration as the Nagge 's head Consecration is pretended to have been bring to the Consecraters or the persons consecrated God and Nature never made any thing in vaine The haire of the head the nailes upon the fingers ends do serve both for ornament and muniment The leafes defend the blossomes the blossomes produce the fruite which is Natures end In sensitives the Spider doth not weave her webbes nor the silly Bee make her celles in vaine But especially intellectuall creatures have alwaies some end of their Actions Now consider what good such a mock ConsecratioÌ„ could doe the persons so consecrated Could it helpe them to the possession of their Bishopricks by the law of England Nothing lesse There is such a concatenation of our English Customes and Recordes that the counterfeiting of of any one can do no good except they could counterfeite them all which is impossible When any Bishops See becommeth voide there issueth a Writ out of the Exchequer to seise the Temporalties into the Kings hand as being the ancient and well knowne Patron of the English Church leaving the Spiritualties to the Arch Bishop or to the Deane and Chapiter according to the custome of the place Next the King granteth his Conge d'Eslire or his License to chuse a Bishop to the Deane and Chapiter upon the receite of this License the Deane and Chapiter within a certein number of daies chuse a Bishop
should discover them Here is enough said to disgrace this Narration for ever that the first Authors that published it to the world did it after the yeare 1600 untill then it was kept close in Lavander Bishop Waâ—son lived splendidly with the Bishops of Ely and Rochester at the time of Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and a long time after before he was removed to Wisbich Castle If there had been anâ— such thing really acted and so notoriously known as they pretend Bishop Waâ—sâ—â— and the other Prisoners must needs haâ—â— known it long before that time when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought theâ— the first newes of it The whoâ—e story 's composed of Inconsistences That which quite spoileth their story is that Arch Bishop Parker was never present at any 〈◊〉 these Consecrations otherwise calleâ— Confirmation Dinners but it may be 〈◊〉 merry Host shewed Mr. Neale Doctoâ— Bullingham for Arch Bishop Parker and told him what was done in the withdrawing roome which to gaine more credit to his Relation he feigued that he had seen out of pure zeale Howsoever they say the Story was divulged to the great griefe of the newly Consecrated yet being so evident a truth they durst not contradict it We must suppose that these Fathers have a Privilege to know other meÌ„s hearts but let that pâ—sse Let them tell us how it was divulged by word or writing when and where it was divulged whilest they were newly consecrated who divulged it and to whom If they can tell us none of all this it may passe for a great presumption but it cannot passe for a proofe But they say that not onely the Nullity of the Consecration but also the illegality of the same was objected in Print against them not long after by that famous writer Doctor Stapleton and others We looke upon Doctor Stapleton as one of the most Rationall heads that your Church hath had since the seperation but speake to the purpose Fathers did Doctor Stapleton print one word of the Nagge 's head Consecration You may be sure he would not have balked it if there had been any such thing but he did balke it because there was no such thing No no Doctr. Stapletons pretended illegality was upon another ground because he dreamed that King Edwards Statute was repealed by Queen Mary and not restored by Queen Elisabeth for which we have an expresse Act of Parliament against him in the point and his supposed invalidity was because they were not consecrated ritu Romano If you think Doctor Stapleton hath said any thing that is materiall to prove the invalidity or nullity of our Consecration take your bowes and arrowes and shoote over his shafts againe and try if you do not meet with satisfactory answers both for the Institution of Christ and the Canons of the Catholick Church and the Lawes of England You say Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not being able to answer the Catholick arguments against the invalidity of their Ordination c. Words are but wind The Church of England wanted nor Orthodox Sonnes enough to cope with Stapleton and all the rest of your Emissaries nor to cry down the illegall and extravagant manner of it at the Nagge 's head How should they cry down that which never had been cryed up in those daies We condemne that form of Ordination which you feign to have beeÌ„ used at the Nagge 's head as illegall and extravagant and which weigheth more then both of them invalid as much as yourselves They were forced to begge an act of Parliament whereby they might enjoy the Temporalities not withstanding the known defects of their Consecration c. O Ingenuity whither art thou Fled out of the world Say where is this Petition to be found in the Records of Eutopia Did the Parliament ever make any such establishment of their Temporalties more then of their Spiritualties Did the Parliament ever take any notice of any Defects of their Consecration Nay did not the Parliament declare their Consecration to have been free from all defects Nay doth not the Parliament quite contrary brand these Reports for slanderous speeches and justify their Consecrations to have been duely and orderly done according to the Lawes of this Realm and that it is very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against their Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Yet they give a reason of what they say for albeit Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth yet it was notorious that the Ordination at the Nagge 's head was very different from it and formed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit c. I take that which you grant out of Sanders that King Edwards Form of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament 1. Elisabethae wherein you doe unwittingly condemne both Bishop Bonners and Stapletons plea of illegality The rest which you say is partly true and partly false It is very true that there is great difference between the English Form of Ordeining and your Nagge 's head Ordination as much as is between the head of a living horse and the sign of the Nagge 's head or between that which hath a reall entity and an imaginary Chimâ—ra Mr. Mason was the Bellerephon that destroyed this monster But that the Form of the Nagge 's head Ordination was framed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit is most false That Posthumus brat was the Minerva or Issue of Mr. Neales brain or some others who fathered this rapping lie upon him Then they repeat the words of a part of the Statute and thence conclude By which Act appeares that not onely King Edwards rite but any other used since the beginning of the Queeens reign upon her Commission was enacted for good and consequently that of the Nagge 's head might passe Cujus coÌ„trarium verum est The Contrary to what these Fathers inferre doth follow necessarily from these words which the Fathers cite The words of the Act are these By virtue of the Queens Letters Patents or Commission Every one of the Letters Patents is extant in the Rolles not one of them did ever authorise any form but that which was legally established that is the Form of Edward the sixth First the Queens Letters Patents or Commission hath an aut minus in it or at the least three or foure of you but to justify the Nagges head Ordination the aut minus must be altered to at the least one or two of you Secondly the Queens Letters Patents have alwaies this clause in them Iuxta Formam effectum Statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum According to the form and effect of the Statutes in that case made and provided but the Statutes allow no lesse number then four or at the least three to ordein At the Nagges head you say there was but one Ordeiner Our Statutes prescribe Imposition of Hands as the
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.
related of my Lord of Durham yet we are not guilty of such extravagant expressions CAP. IX The Fathers insist too much upon the Authority of their ovvn party VVhy Consecration is not mentioned at Restitution The exactnesse of our Records justified IT seemeth to me that the Fathers insist too much upon the honesty and virtue and learning of their own party In dispute with an Adversary virtue is like fire which preserveth it self by being covered with ashes but spread abroad by ostentation it is quickly extinguished especially Comparisons are odious and beget altercation We say there is not a Hill so high in Lincolnshire but there is another within a Mile as high as it take you the reputation of learning and prudence so you leave us the better cause and we shall be able to defeÌ„d it well enough against you But the maine defect in this part of your discourse is this the Bishop of Chalcedâ—â— confesseth of Mr. Oldcorn one of your Order that he acknowledged these Records to be Authentick and the rest of the imprisoned Priests who viewed the Records are charged publickly in print to have done the same by Bishop Goodwin by Mr. Mason every thing ought to be unloosed the same way it is bound They were all Schollars and could write if this charge were not true they ought to have published a Protestation to the world in print to the contrary whilest their Adversaries were living whilest the Witnesses were living but now after they and their Adversaries and the witnesses are all so long dead to talke of a verball protestation to some of their Friends upon hearsay signifieth nothing Now we must make another winding and return to Bishop Barlow but I hold to the clue in hope at length to get out of this fictitious Labyrinth Henry the 8. Letters Patents vvhereby Bishop Barlow vvas installed in they would say restored to the Temporalties of his Bishoprick make mention of his acceptation and Confirmation but none of his Consecration why should this last be omitted if he were really consecrated This objectioÌ„ sheweth nothing but the unskilfulnesse of the Fathers in our English Customes and Forms Let them compare all the restitutions of their friends to their Temporalties in England as Cardinall Poles Bishop Gardiners and the rest and they shall find the Form the very same with Bishop Barlowes I hope they will not conclude thence that none of them were consecrated The reason of the Forme is very prudent In a Restitution to Temporalties they take no notice of any Acts that are purely Spirituall as Consecration is but onely of such Acts as are Temporall as Acceptation and Confirmation But if he was restored to his Temporalties not being Consecrated he might also sit in Parliament without Consecration The Assumtion is understood but Bishop Barlow was restored to his Temporalties without Consecration which is most false From the Conversion of the Nation untill this Day they are not able to produce one instance of one Bishop who was duely Elected duely confirmed and duely restored to his Temporalties by the Kings Mandate without Consecration or did sit in Parliament without Consecration He must sit in Parliament in his Episcopall habit but that cannot be before Consecration It seemeth they think that Bishops sit in Parliament as Temporall Barons but it a great mistake Bishops sate in the Great Councells of the Kingdome before the names of Parliament or Barons were heard of in England They bring an Argument from the exactnesse of our Records and that connexion that is between Records of one Court and another The first thing necessary to obtein a Bishoprick in England is the Kings Conge d'eslire that appears in the Rolles Next the actuall Election that appeares in the Records of the Dean and Chapiter Thirdly the Kings Acceptation of the Election and his Commission to the Archbishop or four Bishops in the Vacancy to Confirm the Election and Consecrate the person Elected and Confirmed legally that appeares in the Letters Patents enrolled Fourthly the Confirmation of the Election before the Dean of the Arches but by the Archbishops appointment this is performed alwaies in Bow Church except extraordinarily it be performed elswhere by Commission this appeares in the Records of the Archbishop Fifthly the Consecration it self by the Archbishop and other Bishops or other Bishops without him by virtue of his Commission this appeares in the Records of the Protonothary of the See of Canterbury Lastly the Restitution of the Temporalties which appeares in the Rolles and his Enthronisation in the Records of the Dean and Chapiter Every one of these takes another by the hand and he who will enjoy a Bishoprick in England must have them all The Chapiter cannot elect without the Kings Conge d'Eslire The King never grants his Letters Patents for Confirmation and Consecration untill he have a Certificate of the DeaÌ„ and Chapiters ElectioÌ„ The Dean of the Arches never confirms untill he have the Kings Commission The Archbishop never Consecrates untill the Election be confirmed And lastly the King never receiveth Homage for the Bishoprick or giveth the Temporalties nor the DeaÌ„ and Chapiter Enthrone untill after Consecration He that hath any one of these acts must of Necessity have all that goe before it in this Method and he that hath the last hath them all But this was more then Mr. Neale or whosoever was Inventer of that silly Fable did understaÌ„d otherwise he would have framed a more possible relatioÌ„ Hence they argue The Records being so exact how is it possible that no Copies of Barlowes Consecration do appeare in any Court or Bishoprick of England They mistake the matter wholy the Consecration ought not to appeare in any Court but one that is that Registry where he was Consecrated which being not certainly known at so great a distance of time is not so easily found and I believe was neversought for yet further theÌ„ Lambeth But all the other Acts doe appeare in their proper Courts The Kings License the Dean and Chapiters Election the Kings Letters Patents the Confirmation of the Dean of the Arches which all goe before Consecration and his doing Homage and the Restitution of him to his Temporalties and his Enthronisation all which do follow the Consecration and are infallible proofes in Law of the Consecration as likewise his sitting in Parliament his Ordeining of Priests his Consecrating of Bishops his letting of Leases his receiving of HeriditameÌ„ts to him and his Successours his exchanging of Lands all which are as irrefragable proofes of his Consecration as any man hath to prove that such persons were his Parents either Father or Mother And wheÌ„ the right Register is sought which must be by the help of the Court of Faculties I doubt not but his Consecration will be found in the proper place as all the rest are Mr. Mason alleged that Bishop Gardiners Consecration was not to be found in the Register of Lambeth any more then Bishop Barlowes yet no man
Casualty might destroy or purloin the Record Thirdly though it be not recorded in this Register it may be recorded in another the Arch Bishop may and Arch Bishop Cranmer usually did delegate or give Commission to three other Bishops for Consecration And though the work be ordinarily performed at Lambeth because of the place where they may have three Bishops alwaies present without any further Charge yet they are not obliged by any Law to Consecrate them there And if there be a sufficient number of Bishops near the Cathedrall which is to be filled or if the person who is to be Consecrated do desire it they may be Consecrated either in that or any of their own Churches The Bishops of the Province of Yorke by reason of the former convenience are usually consecrated at Lambeth yet I have known in my time Bishop Sinewes of Carlile consecrated at Yorke upon his own desire by the Archbisop of Yorke and the Bishops of Durham Chester and MaÌ„ A man might seek long enough for his Consecration in the Archbishop of Canterburies Register and misse it but it is to be found in the Register at Yorke So the Omission of it in that Register though it be no full proofe yet it is a probable proofe that Bishop Barlow was not Consecrated there but it is no proofe at all that he was not Consecrated elswere And this I take to have been the case both of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Gardiner and although the effluxion of above an hundred yeares since hath rendered it more difficult to find where it was done yet by the help of those Records which are in the Court of Faculties I should not despaire of finding it yet But there are so many evident proofes that he was Cousecrated that no ingenuous person can have the Face to deny it The first reason is his actuall possession of 4. Bishopricks one after another St. Assaph St. Davids Bath and Wells and Chichester in the Reigns of three Princes They feign some pretenses why Archbishop Parker was not consecrated Canonically because there wanted a competent number of Bishops though it were most false but what can they feign why Bishop Barlow was not consecrated in Henry the eighths time was Henry the eighth a Baby to be jeasted withall In Archbishop Parkers case they suppose all the Bishops to have been stark mad to cast themselves down headlong from a Precipice when they had a faire paire of Stairs to descend by but in Bishop Barlowes case they suppose all the world to have been asleep except there had been such an Vniversall sleep it had been impossible for any man in those dayes to creep into a Bishoprick in England without Consecration To say he is actually possessed of a Bishoprick therefore he is Consecrated is as clear a Demonstration in the English Law as it is in nature to say the Sun shineth therefore it is Day But it may be objected that he held all these Bishopricks as a Commendatory noâ— in Title as an Vsufructuary not as a true owner It is impossible Vsufructuaries are not elected and confirmed but Bishop Barlow was both elected and Confirmed The Conge d'eslire to the Dean and Chapter the Letters Patents for his Confirmation the Commission for the restitution of his Temporalties do all prove that he was no Vsufructuary but a right owner This is a second reason Thirdly The same Letters Patents that doe authorise Bishop Barlowes Confirmation did likewise Command the Archbishop with the assistence of other Bishops to Consecrate him himself or to give a CommissioÌ„ to other Bishops to Consecrate him which if they did not perform within a prescribed time or perform after another manner theÌ„ is prescribed by the Law it was not onely a losse of their Bishopricks by the Law of England but a Premunire or the losse of all their Estates their Liberties and a casting themselves out of the Kings ProtectioÌ„ 25 Hen 8. c. 20. No meÌ„ in their right wits would râ—n such a hazard or rather evideÌ„tly ruine theÌ„selves and all their hopes without any need without any eÌ„d in the whole world Fourthly by the same Law no man could be acknowledged a Bishop in England but he who was Consecrated legally by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan but Bishop Barlow was acknowledged to be a true Bishop The King received his Homage for his Bishoprick the King commaÌ„ded him to be restored to his Temporalties which is never done untill the ConsecratioÌ„ be passed King Henry sent him into Scotland as his Ambassadour with the title of Bishop of St. Davids and in his restitution to the Temporalties of that See the King related that the Arch Bishop had made him Bishop and Pastor of the Church of St. Davids This could not be if he had not been Consecrated Thirdly he was admitted to sit in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop for no man can sit there as a Bishop before he be Consecrated but it is plain by the Records of the house of the Lords that he did sit in Parliament many times in the 31 of Henry the 8. in his Episcopall habit as a Consecrated Bishop and being neither a Bishop of one of the five Principall Sees nor a Privy Counseller he must sit and did sit according to the time of his Consecration between the Bishops of Chichester and St Assaph What a strange boldnesse is it to question his Consecration now whom the whole Parliament and his Consecraters among the rest did admit without scruple then as a CoÌ„secrated Bishop Sixthly There is no act more proper or essentiall to a Bishop then Ordination What doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not saith St. Hierom except Ordination But it is evident by the Records of his own See that Bishop Barlow did Ordein Priests and Deacons froÌ„ time to time and by the Arch Bishops Register that he joined in Episcopall Ordination and was one of those three Bishops who imposed hands upon Bishop Buckley Feb. 19. 1541 Seventhly there is nothing that â—â—inth a Bishops Title to his Chuch more then â—he Validity and Invalidity of his Leases If Bishop Barlow had been unconsecrated all the Leases which he made in the See of St. Davids and Bath and Wells had been voide and it had been the easiest thing in the whole world for his Successour in those dayes to prove whether he was consecrated or not but they never questioned his Leases because they could not question his Consecration Lastly an unconsecrated person hath neither Antecessors nor Successors he succeedeth no man no man succeedeth him If a grant of any hereditaments be made to him and his Successours it is absolutely voidâ— not worth a deaf Nut If he alien any Lands belonging to his See from him and his Successours it is absolutely void But Bishop Barlowâ— received the Priory of Brâ—cknock from the Crown to him and his Successors Bishops of St. Davids and in King Edwards reign being Bishop of Bath and Wells he alienated
from him and his Successours to the Crown much Land and received back again from the Crown to him and his Successours equivalent Lands If he had been unconsecrated all these Acts had been utterly void In summe whosoever dreameth now that all the world were in a dead sleep then for twenty yeares together whilest all these things were acting is much more asleep himself To these undeniable proofes I might adde as many more out of the Records of the Chancery if there needed any to prove him a Consecrated Bishop As. A grant to the said William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to hold in Commendam with the said Bishoprick the Rectory of Carewe in the county of Pembrooke Dated Octob. the 29. Anno 38. Hen. 8. A commission for Translation of William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to the Bishoprick of Bath and VVels Dated 3. Feb. 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Consecration of Robert Farrer to be Bishop of St. Davids per translationem VVillelmi Barlow c. Dated 3. Iul. Anno 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Restitution of the Temporalties of the said Bishoprick to the said Robert Farrer as being void per translationem Willelmi Barlow Dated 1. Augusti Anno 2. Edv. 6. In all which Records and many more he is alwaies named as a true Consecrated Bishop And lastly in Bishop Goodwins booke de Praesulibus Angliae pa. 663. of the Latin Edition printed at London Anno 1616. in his Catalogue of the Bishops of St. Assaph num 37. he hath these words Gulielmus Barlow Canonicorum Regularium apud Bisham Prior Consecratus est Feb. 22. Anno 1535 Aprili deinde sequente Meneviam translatus est VVilliam Barlow Prior of the Canons Regulars at Bisham was consecrated the two and twentieth Day of February in the yeare 1535 and in Aprill Follovving vvas translated to St. Davids Which confirmeth me in my former conjecture that he was Consecrated in Wales which Bishop Goodwin by reason of his Vicinity had much more reason to know exactly then we have They say Mr. Mason acknowledgeth that Mr Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker because Hodgskins the Suffragan of Bedford was onely an Assistent in that action and the Assistents in the Protestant Church doe not consecrate By the Fathers leave this is altogether untrue Neither was Bishop Barlow the onely man who Consecrated Archbishop Parker Neither was Bishop Hodgskins a meere Assistent in that action Thirdly who soever doe impose hands are joint consecraters with us as wel as them Lastly Mr. Mason saith no such thing as they affirm but directly the Contrary that all the foure Bishops were equally Consecraters all imposed hands all joined in the words and this he proveth out of the Register it self L. 3. c. 9. n. 8. l 3. c. 10. n. 9. They object He might as well be proved to have been a lawfull Husband because he had a woman and diverse Children as to have been a Consecrated Bishop because he ordeined and Discharged all acts belonging to the Order of a Bishop What was Bishop Barlowes Woman pertinent to his cause Are not Governants and Devotesses besides ordinary maidservants women All which Pastours not onely of their own Communion but of their own Society are permitted to have in their houses Let themselves be â—udges whether a Woman a wife or a Woman a Governant or a Devotesse be more properly to be ranged under the name or notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such women as were prohibited to Cohabit with Clerkes by the Councell of Nice But to leave the Hypothesis and come to the Thesis as being more pertinent to the present case If a man have cohabited long with a Woman as man and wife in the Generall estimation of the world and begot children upon her and dies as her husband without any doubt or dispute during his life and long after though all the Witnesses of their Marriage were dead and the Register lost this their Conjugall cohabitation and the common reputation of the world during his Life uncontroverted is in Law a sufficient proofe of the Marriage but all the world nemine contradicente esteemed Bishop Barlow as the undoubted Bishop and Spouse of his Church They adde Ridley Hooper Farrer were acknowledged and obeyed as Bishops in King Edwards time yet were Iudged by both the Spirituall and Temporall Court not to have been consecrated They mistake they were not judged not to have been consecrated for their Consecrations are upon Record but not to have been consecrated ritu Romano after the Roman Form And who gave this Iudgement Their open enemies who made no scruple to take away their Lifes whose unjust judgement we doe not value a rush but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Pole more authentick Iudges of their own party gave a later IudgemeÌ„t to the CoÌ„trary They aske how it is possible that Barlowes CoÌ„secration should not be found recorded if ever it was as well as his preferment to the Priory of Bisham and Election and Confirmation to the Bishoprick of St. Assaph I answer it is very easy to conceive I have shewed him sundry wayes how it might be and one probable way how it was I desire the Reader to observe the extreme partiality of these Fathers they make it impossible for the Acts of one Consecration to be lost or stollen and yet accuse us of forging fifteen Consecrations It is easier to steale fifteen then to Forge one Act. We have often asked a reason of them why the Protestants should decline their own Consecrations They give us one The truth is that Barlow as most of the Clergy in England in those times were Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therefore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome and were contented with the extraordinary calling of God and the Spirit as all other Churches are who pretend Reformation It is well they premised the truth is otherwise there had not been one word of truth in what they say First how do they know this It must be either by Relation but I am confident they can name no author for it or by Revelation but that they may not doe or it is to speake sparingly their own Imagination It is a great boldnesse to take the liberty to cast aspersions upon the Clergy of a whole Nation Secondly how commeth Bishop Barlow to be taxed of Puritanism we meet him a Prior and a Bishop we find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope Officiating Ordaining Confirming He who made no scruple to Ordein and Consecrate others gratis certainly did not forbeare his own Consecration with the apparent hazard of the losse of his Bishoprick out of scruple of Conscience Thirdly this aspersion is not well accommodated to the times For first Zuinglianisme was but short heeled in those Dayes when Bishop Barlow was Consecrated who sate in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop 31. Henr. 8 and the first Sermon that ever Zuinglius Preached as a Probationer was in Zurick in