mysteries signified vvithout which formes neither of these Orders can be validly conferred This is the best vvay to reconcile the Greeke and Latin formes of ordination and the ancient and modern Rituals though in every one is expressed the particular function of a Priest or a Bishop Only yours because it vvas composed vvhen Zuinglianisme prevailed in England makes no mention of either in any forme or any thing like a forme But if you vvold be pleased to read Morinus a late Author de Ordinationibus sacris who may instruict both Polemick and Scholastick writers in this matter you will find how dangerous it is for particular persons or Churches to alter the present aÌ„d approved vse in the administration of the Sacrement of Order or even to resume the practise of ancient Rituals canonically abrogated much more when like malicious or ignorant surgeons the Swinglian heretiques cut away nerves and arteries and the very substance vnder pretext of superflous excrescences You will find the danger of neglecting the vsual matter and forme notwithstanding these termes were not so vsual in all ancient times Nor that your recourse to the grecian practise although it vvere like yours as it is not vvill secure you as it doth them and you vvill find the Greeke and Latin vse much better reconciled by him then by vulgar Authors of your or our profession even better then by Arcudius who gave some light to schoolemen in this particular You will find the Roman Church to vse the most assured way that can be imagined and never tooke away any thing that might give the least scruple either for the change or the povver or manner of changing You vvill find you have put a most satisfactory discourse conncerning the buisines of Formosus Pope and his succeeding enemies To transcribe all this at large â—s neyther vsefull to the ignorant who will vnderstand very litle nor needfull to the learned who may see the author nor proper to this â—hort trectise which without all this doth evinâ—e the Nullity of your Clergy and according to the most favourable opinion of any tolerable Devine makes your Ordinaion in a high degree vncertaine 4. Pag. 232. But you deny that Zuinglianisme preuailed in England in Edvvard the 6. time vvhen the 12. or 7. learned men forsooth in the lavv of God and the land made your formes of Ordination I hope you do not take vs to be as ignorant in the History of England as one of your chiefe Doctors did a Gentlewoeman lately in Paris when hearing of her inclinations to Catholique religion he dissuaded her from it by assuring her that it vvas not the ancient faith of England nor ever professed in that Kingdome before Henry the 8. time Do not all vnpartial vvriters mention the Protector Seamours perfidiousnesse in establishing Zvvinglianisme in England during the minority of Edvvard the 6. contrary to his promise and engagement to Henry the 8. Is it not notorious that in the second Parliament of K. Edvvard 6. Convers of England part 2. pag. 607. pag. 611. begun the 4. of November 1548. vvherin your booke of common praier and administration of Sacraments being imposed by Zuinglian heretiques chosen by the Protector and his faction vvas confirmed there vvas a great contention vvhether the Kingdome should be Lutheran or Zuinglian in religion and that after foure monthes debate the Zuinglians did overbeare the other side by some voices And hovv Peter Martyr and Bucer vvere inspired by the posts that brought newes of the Parliaments resolution from London to teach publiquely in the Vnniversities that Christ vvas not present in the Sacrament of the alter and that this is my body was no more then this is the signe of my body Is it not evident by Iohn Fox an Author of your own his Acts and Monuments Part. 3. Convers pag 372. eait 1604 that the far greater part of all your Protestant Saints and Martyrs were put to death for denying the real presence and not only transubstantiation Do not the bookes which our Catholique Doctors writ against your first superintendens demonstrate that these were of the same opinion with your Martyrs But vvhat need we go farther then the 25. of your 39. articles and translations of Scripture to prove your Zuinglian Tenet in matter of holy Orders They who thrust out of Scripture in the English versions the words Priest and Bishop putting insteed therof Elder and Superintendent were not likely men to put them or expresse their function in your formes of ordination But you say that in the Preface yee maintaine to all the vvorld that the three Orders of Bishops Priests Pag. 232. and Deacons have bin ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ Are men ordained by your Preface or because in your Preface it is maintained that the Church of Christ had alvvayes the said Orders doth it follow that the English Church in those times was the Church of Christ Call them Svvinglians call them Lutherans call them what you plaese their Creed their versions their writings show they contemned Consecration and were content with election and when they vsed some thing like consecration it was to satisfy the people not themselves And that Whitaker and Fulke whom you cite pag. 233. never admitted the necessity of consecrated Bishops no the very state of the question disputed in those times betweene our English sectaries was not about consecrated or not consecrated Bishop but whether one Minister was to be elected to Lord it over the rest Most of the Ministers misliked it but the Prince approved it for reason of state thereby to Keepe the Clergy in awe and to have so many mercenary Votes in the house of Lords 5. At length you tell vs that if your ancestours have pared away any thing out of mistake from ordination Pag. 235. that is either prescribed or practised by the true Catholique Church let it be made appeare evidently to you and you are more ready to vvelcome it againe at the fore dore then your Ancestours were to cast it out at the back dore Errare possumus haeretici esse nolumus Your Church hath so many times changed its Tenets and is so indifferent for any beneficial addition or subtraction of doctrine that it seemes to be composed of nothing but back dores and starting holes wherby you cast out and welcome in whatsoever is gratefull or not gratefull to the humor of the Prince or prevailing faction Now seing it hath bin made appeare that your Ancestours valued not episcopal consecration admitted no priesthood but baptisme and denied the real presence I hope you can not imagine that these men would compose formes of Ordination contrary to their owne Tenets and profession or that a Zuinglian Parliament would confirme your booke of administration of Sacraments and rites before they had vvell examined whether it contained any thing contrary to their owne conscience and reformation And if they had bin Lutherans you gaine litle seing
artificial Rhetorique of a slighting pretermission so stupify the natural logique of every one that is come to the vse of reason as not to see the force of this conclusion He hath killed his father what vvonder is it if he kill his brother They falsify Scripture what marvel if they forge records Hath your custome of vrging light conjectures against the Church of Rome so destroyed the nature of reason in you as not to feele your selfe or to thinke that others doe not feele the weight of an argument à fortiore Records are humane Scripture devine Records are kept in a corner Scripture exposed to the vew of all Records have fevv copies and kept by a few and those of one faction The Christian vvorld is full of Bibles Is it not then lesse against conscience of easier contrivence and further from danger of a shamefull discovery to forge records then to falsify Scripture This is onely to stop you a while from posting with so much speed from this passage In the end of the booke I shal detaine you longer and hould you faster and put a rub to the sliding eloquence you have learned in Holland If you vvil not yet the Reader shall see by vvhat I shal lay clearely before his eyes and shal remit to the judgement of his owne eyes if he be pleased to view and coÌ„fer him selfe what I shal set downe of some and direct him to seeke of other Protestant Ministers in point of grosse wilfull malicious and impudent falsifications of Scripture and Authours whereby he will conclude with himselfe how far he shal thinke fit to give credit hereafter to their sayings or writings and namely and particularly D. Morton called B. of Duresme that Minister of simple truth as he called himselfe in those very bookes which seeme to have bin dictated by the father of lyes and now in his late testimony is not ashamed to speake thus Pag. 15. I could never have made such a speech marke the proofe he adjoyneth seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts He may very well have forgot what he once spoke in Parlament seeing he hath forgot what he hath so often writ against his thoughts and cleer knowledge in â—everal bookes But of this mans false writings hereafther Pag. 107. now I returne to your false records being you are resolved to convince all â—hose vvho gainsay them by six doughty arguments which I hope to retortagainst you and by your owne grounds prove the contrary of what you are confident to maintaine 3. Your first argument is that value and respect which the lawes of England do give the Registers The lawes of England were so farre from valuing or respecting these Registers that they did not as much as cite or mention them when Parker and his Colleagues were pressed to â—hew the letters of their Orders being accuâ—ed by our Catholique Doctors that they had â—ever bin ordained And the Parliament 8. Eliz. thought it more for the credit of their protestant Church and Clergy to make them Bishops by a statute then examine the matter which resolution had never bin taken if any witnesses or Records of their consecration at Lambeth could have bin produced in the 8. yeare of Q. Elizabeths reigne But what marvaile is it that the lawes of England should not value your Records when your first superintendents themselves never durst send D. Harding or any of the rest who desired it an authentique Copie of them out of your Registry Or so muchas make mention of the original 4. Your second argument is taken from the credit of the foure publique Notaries who did testify Parkers individual consecration at Lambeth it being observable that these four Notaries were the same who did draw Cardinal Pooles consecration into Acts and attest them This proofe and observation weighs as litle as foure publique Notaries conscience and credit who in Cardinal Pooles time professed one faith and in Parkers an other Men that counterfeit religions will have no difficulty te counterfeit Registers if they be commanded or inclined to do it neither would their testimony be of vndoubted credit in any place of the world if contradicted by so many arguments and circumstances as your pretended consecration at Lambeth But in case these Notaries had bin persons beyond all exception might not their hands be counterfeited as well as the Register What greater difficulty can there be in one more then in the other It s a silly argument that involves in it selfe the same difficulty it ought to cleere Your third and fourth ground of the Queens Commission and of the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. have bin ansvvered in the former Chapter and are evident proofes that your Records are forged 5. Pag. 115. 116. Your fifth ground is taken from a booke you say vvas printed an 1572. of the lives of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury vvherin the Author that vvas Archbishop Parker himselfe having described the Confirmations and Consecrations of his fellovves he addeth in the margent These confirmations and consecrations do appeare in the Registers It seemes you learnt from Parker to cite your selfe as a vvitnesse for your felfe Is this the manner of Polemick Writers But why did not Parker or Ievvel remit D. Harding to these Registers wherof M. Parker some seaven yeares after made if vve believe you marginal notes when he so earnestly called for them Confut. Apolog. fol. 57. 59 edit 1566. shevv vs your Registers in the yeare 1566. Then vvas the time for Parker and the rest to cite them and not in the yeare 1572. Yet D. Champney doubts whether any such booke vvas printed of your Archbishops as you pretend Whether it was or no it matters not for the Registers cited in the margent by Parker mentioneth not any place or forme of their consecrations and is as indifferent for the Nagshead Taverne as for the Chapell of Lamheth as you may see in the booke called Antiquitates Britannia edit 1605. into which this forged Register was foisted being a meere novelty and therfore contrary to the drift and title of the booke without connexion to what goeth before or followeth after 6. But how comes it to passe M. Doctor that in this booke and Register are set dovvne as you say the names of your Bishops their Countries their Armes both of their sees and families Pag. 164. their respective ages their vniversities their degrees in Schooles vvith the times but not the place of their several consecrations How comes it to passe I say there should be roome for all these things and none at all for Lambeth which takes vp no more then Ipsvvich Parkers Countrey or Cambridge his vniverfity Is it more material to put in a Register the place of a Bishops nativity or education then the place where he received his caracter or consecration Did he esteeme more the degree of a Doctor then the dignity of a Bishop I could not exact nor expect from M. Parker
translateth in to English that very text of Azor. which himself citeth in the margen The words in latin are Si venit ex loco aliquo peste minimè infecto qui falsò habetur pro infecto Which Morton turnes thus into English if he com from a place infected But truely translated make the case wholy different and are these if he came from a place not infected which falsely is held to be infected But he is not only content to be convicted of vnexcusable falsehood by men that study moralists but even by schoolboys that read Tullies offices in his 90. page he doth so grossely pervert the sense change the words and distroy the whole drift of Tullies discourse l. 3. offic § Regulus and § sed si that it is a wonder to see what impudensy growes from a custom of lying These are but a few examples of the many detected by the aforesaid Treatise of Mitigation and an other called A quiet and sober reckoning with Thomas Morton by the reading wherof and conferring each particular with the bookes cited every one may in a short time and no great trouble judge by his eyes whether I have reason to except against such a witnes in his owne cause and what reason there is to follow so wilfully and wickedly blind leaders But I cannot but wonder at one circumstance that after Morton had gained reputation by this practise he was promoted to the title and profits of a Bishopricke purchasing by a new kind of fimony not with buying but with lyeing a rich benefice I Bellarmin or Perron could have bin convicted of this false and base proceeding either before or after their Cardinals caps what a noyse would have bin when we heare such a clamour vpon that which is not proved but only pretended to be a credulous mistake Yet when I consider John Foxes Acts and Monuments the very Magazin of no lesse malicious then ridiculous lies to have got so honorable a place in Protestant Churches and that not by vulgar simplicity but by publick authority not by connivence or negligence but vpon designe and by command when I see this abomination hath stood so long in the holy place I wonder no more at Mortons promotion nor at whole Nations deceaved by Mahomets Alcoran If I should insist vpon the number of those that by commaund or concurrence are guilty of the falsehood of Foxes booke I should accuse many more then I am by this present occasion obliged but the Ministers I cannot excuse vpon any title for although they be of meane learning and no extraordinary reading yet the falsities are so numerous and obvious that it is impossible but many should have fallen under the observation of most And by the booke of the three Conversions of England and the Examen of Foxes Calender which have bin printed almost threescore yeares since and have come to the hands of many Protestant Ministers this Foxes fowle worke hath bin so plainly discovered that those who have seen it if they had least zeale or love or care of truth ought to have informed their Brethren and not to have permitted any Christian Religion to be longer prophaned with so publick a slaunder and shame of Christianity Should a renegate Captive tell his maister that the sect amongst Christians which he had bin taught was maintained by such false and shamfull practises he would easily gaine Credit of a true Proselite turned Turke vpon conscience and not convenience I need not set downe Foxes impostures for you shall see them in the forsaid bookes so grosse and thick set one by another that it will be harder to make a way through them then find the way to them I will passe my word the Author does him no wrong and the reader vpon his owne examination will take my word in an other occasion But to returne to Morton now with a white Rochet on his backe but with as little ingenuity and candour of mind as before The imposition of those unhallowed hands hath not imprinted the least marke of grace in his soule or shame in his forehead In the grand imposture writ by him then B. of Cov. and Lichf pag. 85. edit 2. he sets doune a large and lying description of the Inquisitions cruelty and addes So your Authour And who do you thinke is this Author but Cornellius Agrippa a Magitian as himself confesseth of himselfe And where doth he write what heer is alleaged against vs In a booke condemned by our Church Not a word of these circumstances but only that he is our Author to make the Reader believe he is one we have no reason to except against You had better take him to your selfe for his blacke art is of the same colour with yours and taught by one maister who esteems you the better scholler having done more mischiefe with your false jugling then Agrippa with his conjuring Now pag. 388. the same jugling trick over againe Marke the ensuing words Els why is it that your owne Thuanus speaking of this separation Viz of Luther sayd that some in those days layd the fault vpon the Pope Leo More fully your Cassander an Author selected in those days by the King of the Romans as the chiefest divine of his And pag. 385. He cals Thuanus our noble Historian Who knows nothing of Thuanus but by this mans relation would take him to be not only a sound unsusspected Catholique but of special regard amongst vs wheras both our common opinion and his owne Annals prove him a Hugonot But besides falsely reporting him for a Catholic he is plainly falsified in these very places alleaged In the first he speaks not of Luthers separation but of the election of Prelats in France and in the 2. where he speaks of benefices Morton makes him speake of Indulgences in both places evidently against his cleere words which read as they stand in Thuanus have not the least shadow of ambiguity But the makeing Cassander ours and our chiefest Devine being listed in our Index of forfidden bookes amongst the Heretiques of the first ranke and his owne writings accusing him not only of the general heresies of these times but of others also particular to himself is not only a shamles but senseles imposture It is a labour too loathsom to dig any longer in this filthy dunghil of corruptions And it is a madnes in any man that already knowes Morton by his notoriously impudent lying bookes or before he take knowledge of him vpon this admonition to give the lest credit to any thing he shal say write signe or sweare concerning Religion as being convicted by his owne writings to have lost all remorse of conscience all feare of reproach from men or punishment from God Did he believe there is a God who hath prepared a Hel of torments for those who maintaine a division in the Church by so many wilfull impostures and seriously intended to prevent the scourge of his heavy hand could he stand gazing vpon his grave at
THE NULLITY Of the Prelatique Clergy and Church of England Further discovered In answer to the plaine prevarication or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his Booke intituled The Consecration and succession of Protestant Bishops justified c. AND That most true story of the first Protestant Bishops Ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous Consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons Records cleerely detected by N. N. Non misi eos non precepi eis neque locutus sum ad eos visionem mendacem divinationem fraudulentiam seductionem cordis sui prophetant vobis Jerem. 14.14 J sent them not and I commanded them not neither have I spoken vnto them lying vision and deceitfull guilfulnes and seduction of their ovvne heart they prophecie vnto you Jerem. 14. v. 14. Printed at Antwerp in the yeare M.DC.LIX THE PREFACE CONTAINING The State of the Controversy and the Summe of the Authors reasons produced in the Treatise of the nature of Catholique faith and Heresy with some reflexions vpon D. Bramhalls impertinent digressions and expressions I. IN the second Chapter of a booke printed an 1657. and intituled A Treatise of the Nature of Catholique faith and Heresy Was occasionaly proved that the English Protestant Bishops were never validly or in very deed ordained And albeit the proofs were so cleere as to make the nullity of their Clergy and consequently of their Church manifest to the judgement of any vnpartial disinteressed Reader y yet I vvas content to presse him no further then to an vndemiable doubt this being sufficient for my purpose because a doubtfull Clergy is to the effect i intended as good as no Clergy for a doubtfull Clergy makes a doubtfull Church and a doubtfull Church is no Church as giving no assurance to Christian faith The arguments reduced to a brief summe were as follovveth II. First the Catholique Doctors as Stapleton Harding Bristouw Reynolds c. in their bookes printed some but fiue or six yeares some not long afther the pretended ordination of M. Parker of Canterbury and his fellovves vpon vvhose consecration confessedly depends the prelatique Clergie of England pressed these very persons frequently and earnestly to make good their consecration to shevv hovv and by vvhom they received episcopal orders and yet none of them could cleere this point either by Registers vvitnesses or any circumstances much less ever mentioned the nevv Records produced by M. Mason fifty yeares after of their consecration at Lambeth by certaine persons pretended to be Bishops vvhich they being in their vvits vvould never have failed to have donne if there had bin any such thing III. Secondly that these Records vvher vpon they vvholy rely are proved to be forged not only by their not appearing in so vrgent necessity but also by the manifest incoherence of the Prelatique Authors that writ of the ordination of the foresaid Parker and his fellovves vvith reference to the said records disagreeing in the persons of the Consecrators and in the time of their consecration Besides the admiration of ancient and learned persons at the first appareance of these nevv found vnheard of Registers and the exception made against them by Fitzherbert an ancient and knovving man and namely those vvho vvhere permitted to have sight of them but denied after to peruse them vvith leasure as they requested Furthermore if those Records vvere true hovv could it have bin objected that the ordination vvas not only not canonical but not so much as legal contrary to the very lavves of the land wheras the Records make it so precise and formal in this later point that there vvas no place of cavilling Besides the falsefying of Records is a thing neither hard nor vnheard of and easily presumed in those that so grossely corrupt Scripture and Fathers a crime both more abominable and more discoverable Lastly it is incredible that Iohn Stow should have concealed such a solemne buisnesse as Parkers consecration at Lambeth hapening in is ovvne tyme and having related the consecration of Cardinal Poole Predecessor to Parker and making it the greatest part of his buisnesse the choosing of Mayors of London the creation of Lords and such kinde of stuffe suitable to such a vvriter IV. Thirdly that no man of conscience or common sense can imagine that the Catholique Doctors of those times vvho had such care of their salvation as to suffer so much as they did vpon that account should vvilfully damne their soules by obliging posterity vpon misinformation to reordaine those that had bin validly or dained before for it is a known Tenet wherein the Catholique Moralists though infinite in number in these later ages vnanimously agree that we can not without commiting a damnable sinne no more reordaine then rebaptise and it is a practise wel knowen that as many of that Clergy as after their conversion have received orders a mongst vs have bin ordained absolutly and without any condition and consequently without any probability of having received orders I doe not say canonically but even validly V. Fourthly that although the foresaid persons had bin against all appearance ordained by true Bishops yet to omit the vncertainty of the matter the forme or words vsed in the act of consecration are at least of a doubtfull sufficiency and farre from that certainty which is required in a matter of so great consequence VI. Fiftly by publique Acts both in Q. Mary and Queene Elisabeths Reigne it is plainly discovered that the pretended Consecrators of Parker and his fellowes were looked vpon as in very deed no Bishops For in an article of Queenes Maries Acts and monum pag. 1295. cited by John Fox himselfe is declared that Edward the VI. his Clergy were not ordered in very deed And even in the Reigne of King Henry the 8. after his schisme there was such neglect and contempt of consecration that heretiques without it plaid the Bishops as it appeares in Ridley of London and Latimer of Worcester who being burnt for heresy in Queene Maries time were degraded only as Priests and not as Bishops the Judge telling Ridley as Fox recounts they were to degrade him only of Priesthood for that they did not take him for a Bishop Now Q Elisabeth supplying as you shal see hereafter at large the inhability not only of the number but even of the very State and Condition of the ordainors doth manifestly declare the defect not only in formality but reality and withal her presumption to supply any thing by her spiritual headship VII Sixtly Authors of credit have related and persons of judgment and knovvledge have generaly believed that the pretended Consecration vvas performed at the Nagshead taverne in cheapside in à manner so cleerly defective in the opinion now vniversally received amongst Prelatique Protestants that they are ashamed to heare of it little regarding the different Tenets of their Ancestours who as much contemned Consecration and caracter as they seeme now to esteeme them and cared for no more but
law as yow pretend Pag. 109. but an extreme necessity that is the want of as much as one true Bishop to consecrate the rest and therfore she dispensed not only with censures Pag. 92. and penalties as the Pope doth in his Bulls but also with the condition and state oâ— the Consecraters who being only simple Priests and noe Bishops were by the Queenes commission and supremacy exalted and enobled to conferre episcopal orders The words of the Queens letters patents are Supplentes nihilominus supremá nostrâ authoritate regiâ c. Si quid aut in his quae juxta mandatum nostrum per vos fient aut in vobis aut vestrum aliquo conditione statu facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit aut deerit eorum quae penstatuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessariâ sunâ—â— temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante In cujus rei c. Teste Regina c. 3. This part of the Queens letters patent you translate into English thus Pag. 92. supplying bâ— our Souveraigne authority all defects either in the Executors of this Commission or any of them It s strange you ever made mention of a Commission so evidently contrary to your principles and to the cause you vndertake to maintaine that you dare not translate it faithfully But I vvil supply your defect in this particular Supplying by our Soveraigne Royal authority c. If any thing be or shall be vvanting in these things vvhich yee are to do by our command either in your selves or in any of you or in your condition state faculty vvhich by the statute of this our Kingdome or by the lavves of the Church are required or necessary the time and necessity of affaires exacting this c. You make this dispensation à superflous clause or at most a salue to help a latent impediment but the Queene and the commission it selfe declare that it vvas a necessary remedy to enable the condition and state of the consecraters who were no Bishops 4. Yet you are confident that the only ground of this monstruos dispensation Pag. 94. 95. vvas the same exception vvhich Bishop Bonner did aftervvards make against the legality of Hornes consecration vvhich is all say you that Stapleton or any of your adversaires had to pretend or except against the legality of the ordination of the first protestant Bishops There is as litle reason to doubt of your confidence as there is for you to be so confident Did either B. Bonner D. Stapleton or any other of your adversaries mention that exception vvhich you father vpon them They were not so ignorant in the lawes and statutes of England as you would make them and all other Writers besides your selfe It had bin not onely confidence but impudence to object illegality of ordination contrary to the lawes of England if your first Bishops had bin ordained accordring to the lavves and forme of Edward VI. and so solemnly at Lambeth as your forged Registers pretend Bonners exception vvas Counter bl fol. 7. 9. fol. 301. that Horne vvas no Bishop and Stapletons vvords are You Horne are vvithout any consecration at all of your Metropolitan Parker himselfe poore man being no Bishop neither Is it not notarious that yee and your Collegues vvere not ordained according to the prescript I vvill not say of the Church but even of the very statuts These vvords can have no relation to the doubt you move but our Authors never toucht concerning your booke of ordination being or not being restored by Act of Parliament 1. Pag. 97. Elizab. Therfore D. Stapletons vvords and exceptions were against some other illegality to wit your first Bishops merry ordination at the Nagshead for no other vvas ever pretended by your Authors but either this or that formal ceremony at Lambeth vvhich if ever it had bin D. Stapleton would not have bin so impudent as to object notorious illegality against your first consecrations Pag. 98. But you say that his objection and exception sheweth nothing but this how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed By your leave M. Doctor it also sheweth how apt a drunken cause is to catch hold of every cup and that your spiritual Forefathers had a plot to make the old Bishop of Landaf halfe drunke that at least in a pleasant humor he might lay hands on them therfore they invited him to a Taverne Pag. 129. in ep ad ami this is the reason Q. Maries priests did give vvhy they met at the Nagshead as you may see in the answers to M. Watsvvorhts letters cited by your self 5. Yet you desire your Reader to observe Pag. 99. 100. that this dispensative clause neyther had nor can be construed to have any reference to any consecration that vvas acted by Scory alone as that silly consecration at the Nagshead is supposed to have bin and the same Dispensative clause doth not extend at all to any essential of ordination nor to the Canons of the universal Church and that the Commissioners authorised by these letters patents to confirme and consecrate Parker did make no use of this supplentes or dispensative povver in the consecration vvhich is a purely spiritual Act and belongeth meerly to the Key of order All this you desire the Reader to observe vvith you vvithout giving him any reason or ground for your observation Is it the manner of Polenick Writers to beg the controversy out of meere civility Readers must be persuaded by reason and not desired by empty words to give their assent in controverted matters You say that the Commissioners or Consecraters of Parker did make no use of the Queens dispensative power in the consecration But themselves say the contrary being conscious of their owne incapacity to consecrate Bishops as being only simple Priests and never consecrated and declare in their desinitive sentence that they will make vse in the consecration of the Queenes dispensative povver Their words are See this definitive sentence in D. Bramhall pag. 101. Therfore vve the Queens Commissioners Barlovv Scory c by consent of the Lavviers that vve have consulted do confirme the foresaid election by the supreme authority of the Queene communicated vnto vs. Supplying also by the sayd supreme authority vvhatsoever hath him defective in this election as also is or shall be vvanting in vs or any of vs in our condition state faculty to perfect these things vvhich vve are commanded te doe They were commanded not only to confirme Parkers election but also to perfect the worke and consecrate him and they say that they vvill do so and do supply the defects of their owne state and condition which could be no other but the want of episcopal consecration by the Queens dispensative and supreme authority And yet D. Bramhall doth desire the Reader out of curtesy te observe and thinke
and Coverdale the tvvo other pretended Confecraters had never received being made protestant Bishops in King Edvvards time episcopal ordination But this shift availes them not I produce two others who were called Bishops in King Henries time sate in Parliament and tooke vpon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as greate gravity and solemnity as Barlow and yet they were de-declared by publique sentence in Q Maries time to be no Bishops nor validly consecrated These were Latimer and Ridley to whom D. Brookes Bishop of Glocester in his last speech before they were put to death for heresy Fox pag. 1604. told that they were to degrade them only of priesthood because they were no Bishops To this you answer M. Doctor that they who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make none tot take away their Orders You are quite out Cranmer was burnt for heresy as well as Latimer and Ridley and yet they made a scruple to take away his Orders though they tooke away his life because they knew he had validly received orders and therfore was degraded the same would have bin practised with Latimer and Ridley if the omission of degrading them had not bin vvaranted by evidence that they vvere never validly consecrated 4. We have often sayth D. Bramhall asked à reason of them why the Protestants should decline their ovvne consecrations They give vs one that Barlovv as most of the Clergy in England in those times vvere Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therfore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome c. This reason the Doctor solidly refutes by saying It is a greate boldnesse Pag. 195. to take the liberty to cast aspersions vpon the Clergy of a whole Nation If it be a boldnesse to say that your first Protestant Bishops contemned and rejected consecration and that they were of the same opinion concerning it with Luther Zuinglius and other Reformers themselves and not I are guilty of the crime Did not M. Horne and the rest of your first Bishops publish to the world in print an 1559. the very same yeare of the pretended consecration their sense of Priesthood and Priestly functions in these words In the Habor an 1559. Protest Apology tr 2. C. 2. sect 10. subd 7. In this point vve must vse a certaine moderation and not absolutely in every vvise debarre women herein c. I pray you vvhat more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbiding vvomen to preach then in forbidding them to vncover their heads and yet you knovv in the best reformed Churches of Germany all the maides be bare headed This your first Bishops tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptisme and consequently of allovving women to be Priests was so vvel knowne that D. Harding objects it to Ievvel Parker and the rest If yee allovv not every man yea and every vvoman to be a Priest Confut. Apol. fol. 60. vvhy drive yee not some of your fellovves to recant that so have preached Why allovv yee the bookes of your nevv Evangelists that so have vvritten 5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my boldnesse and condemne the Doctors mistake let him read the 25 article of his Creed which is this Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and extreame vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Ghospel being such as have grovvne partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apostles partly are states of life allovved in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of Sacraments vvith baptisme and the Lords supper for that they have not any visible signe or ceremony ordained of God It evidently follovveth out of this article that your first Bishops who made and published it an 1562. were of opinion that imposition of hands in ordination was not ordained by God vnlesse you will deny imposition of hands to be a visible signe and ceremony How doth this agree with your moderne Prelatique principles doth it not evince that Parker and the rest condemned in their judgment imposition of hands and contemned it as an idle superstition of Rome The evidence that the world had of their not being consecrated made them vtter so absurd doctrine and impose it as an article of faith vpon ignorant Protestants Whether they were Zvvinglians Lutherans Calvinists or vvhat you please their profession of faith showes what account they made of imposition of hands which is the buisines now in hand and makes them Svvinglians and Puritans in this point 6. Pag. 195. Yet you would faine know how cometh Barlovv to be taxed of Puritanisme because forsooth you find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope officiating ordaining confirming Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Henry the eight and Barlow sate in Parlament in the 31. therfore Barlow could not be a Svvinglian This is your learned discouse out of Chronology I must allow you more time to summe vp your numbers or to save you a labour tell you before hand that make what account you please you will find that Luther himselfe begun the contempt of sacred Orders though Swinglius after insisted more vpon it and there vvas time enough for Barlovv eyther to take it from Svvinglius or at least from Luther which is all one to our present purpose As for his ordaining others you vvill have much adoe to prove it at least those you would have for vve have proved your Registers to be forged but if any such thing be attemted you may conclude his presumption not his consecration And for his Robes Rochet Cope and Cap the spirit doth dispence with all puritans to weare them when they are named Bishops I hope John Hooper one of the purest brethren that England ever bred had as tender a conscience as William Barlovv but when he was to be made Bishop of Glocester Pag. 136. he vvas faine sayth Foxto agree to this condition that some times in his sermons he should shevv himselfe aparalled as the other Bishops vvere And yet it is evident that he vvas never consecrated though Cranmer and Ridley who were his enemies forced him to weare a square Cap and a linnend Rochet the only caracter of a protestant Bishop Though they vvanted the reality and truth of consecration yet they insisted vpon this formality and cloke of ambition in their sinister as Iohn Fox calls it and vnlucky contention 7. And that you may see what litle hazard your protestant Bishops did runn of Promunires by such practises Pag. 1456 John Fox tells you how D. Ridley that vvorthy Bishop of London called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon according to the Order that then vvas in the Church of England vvhich was the forme of Edvvard the 6. but for that this order was not vvithout some such abuse as to the vvhich Bradford vvold not consent the Bishop then vvas content to Order him Deacon vvithout any abuse
would have cost or served him was he dead I see no more signes in this then in other occasions of Gods favourable providence to your Church Will the Earles saying to a namelesse friend that he had bin at a banquet in Lambeth restore the credit of your Church deprived of lawfull Clergy vpon so many titles as have bin alleadged and this man not speacke of what he had heard till the Author was speechlesse and in his grave but the Earle tould it to a friend What friend Why is his name concealed and his relation printed if it be not that he neither hath name nor being You do not believe that John Stow related the story of the Nagshead to more then one friend because D. Champney doth not name them and you exact from us to believe that the Earle of Notingham related the story of Lambeth to one friend though you do not name him Yet John Stowes friends had good reasons why they would not be named by D. Champney when your Clergy was so powerfull and spitefull in England but what reason could the Earle of Notinghams friend have not to be named by M. Mason Did he peradventure feare that your Clergy would persecute him for endeavoring to maintaine their Orders and credit do you not see M. Doctor how ill grounded a fable this is of your first Bishops consecration at Lambeth that you can not name for it one witnesse allowable I doe not say nor exact as you doe according to the rigour of legal formality but not so much as by the favour of ordinary probability 5. You will find on the other side the Nags-head story much more credible delivered to us by the tradition and testimony of the most able persons of our Religion and Nation He who gainsaies it may vpon the same score gainsay any thing that is beyond the reach of his memory or depends vpon the testimony of others What ground hath any man to fix his beliefe vpon but a constant tradition and testimony of honest and knowing persons It s now à century of yeares since the Nagshead story happened it hath bin constantly related and credited by wise men as a certaine truth ever since the yeare 1559. It was never contradicted by any untill it was imagined by our adversaries that their new Registers might contest with our ancient tradition and make the. Nagshead story seeme improbable in the yeare 1613. of which no man doubted for the space of 52. yeares before But they were mistaken because evident truths though they relate absurd actions can not by any device or art be made improbable untill their evidence be blotted out of the memory of men Time may weare out writings and all other monuments but tradition will last as long as men and time it is a never decaying evidence that makes any thing evidently credible which hath not bin seasonably contradicted when it mought and ought to have bin done especially if with much advantage and litle difficulty 6. That there hath bin these hundred yeares a constant tradition betweene sober and wise men of the Nagshead story can not be denyed by our Adversaries vnlesse they be resolved to say that we Catholiques have had no sober or learned men since they left vs. I hope the Catholique Bishops and Doctors of Q. Maries time were sober and wise men they believed this story and recounted it to Persons Fitzherbert D. Kellison Holiwood D. Champney Fitzsimons c. Persons believed it and recounted it as a serious truth to many as is well knowne to F. Henry Silisdon a man of knowen integrity and truth yet living Fitzherbert and the rest above named gave so much credit to it that they published it in print as every one may see in their bookes Therfore this story is farre from being improbable but is rather evident as being supported by the credit testemony and tradition of most wise and sober Authors however so improbable it may seeme to somme out of a Protestant zeale or want of knowledge But your maine argument against the evidence of this story is that all our Catholiques seeme to have it only from M. Neale Who told this to D. Bluet Pag. 132. Neale Who told this to Haberley Neale Who told it to the rest of the prisoners at Wisbich Neale Only Neale By your leave M. Doctor you forget yourselfe for in an other place o◠your booke Pag. 32. you acknowledge that M. Constable writ the story and he is one of our principal Authors but he sayes in his relation written when this story happened that is was a thing without doubt because not only M. Neale but other Catholiques integerrimae fidei of most intire credit were eyewitnesses of Scorys ridiculous manner of consecrating Parker and the rest in the Nagshead Taverne Yet suppose that M. Neale had bin the only eye-witnesse of this action I see nothing that followes more cleerly from such a supposition then this conclusion Ergo M. Neale must needs have bin a person of very greate ing enuity and integrity Be pleased to turne and frame your interrogations thus Who believed M. Neale D. Watson Bishop of Lincoln Who believed M. Neale D. Bluet Who believed M. Neale D. Haberley Who believed M. Neale All the learned and vertuous Priests prisoners for their conscience at Wisbich Who believed M. Neale All the Catholiques of England The conclusion is Ergo M. Neale was a man that deserved great credit otherwise you must condemne the greatest heads amongst Cathoques for believing so odd a story without any credible authority M. Neale had bin a professor in the Vniversity of Oxford and forfeited his chaire and livelihood for not taking the oath of supremacy It is incredible that he would feigne such a story as that of the Nags-head and therby engage the Catholique Church to practise Reordination against our knowen Tenets and his owne conscience and by such a relation declare himselfe to be not only a virulent backbiter but an impudent Impostor 7. But now I must prove that the Nags-head story is more then probable not onely for the quality of the persons reporting and believing it but also by the very circumstances or rather exigences of the time If you looke vpon the Church of England as it was in the late Kings reigne it will seeme improbable that men should choose a Taverne for an episcopal consecration but if we consider the straight passages through which the said Church was forced to march in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reigne by reason of the notorius want it had of Bishops it will not appeare strange unto vs that the first protestant superintendents should go to a Taverne with intention to supply there the want of their Church it being well knowne in those days that neither Scory nor Hadgkins nor Coverdale were consecrated Bishops And though they had the Keyes of the Churches at their command they had not the Key of Order nor the command of the true Bishops hands or tongues
too well knowne in those dayes to be called in question and not only then but even in the beginning of King James his reigne when F. Sacrobosc Lib. de investiganda Christi Ecclesia Cap. 4. edit 1603. Holiwood objected it in print an 1603. to all your protestant Clergy and confirmed it by the testimony and confession of D. Bancroft then living being actualy in place of Bishop of London Yet no certificats appeared to contradict the story or Bancrofs acknowledgment none to convince the Puritans objection What reason could there be of this silence and patience but cleere evidence of what you now so confidently deny so that you see M. Doctor how this stir which you have made about Mortons vindication doth prove the truth of your Nagshead Consecration and that your certificats to disprove my Lord Audleys testimony reflect vpon more then you did designe or desire and totaly destroy the plea of your forged Registers But let vs heare what he saith for himselfe in his ovvne words Having seene a booke intituled the Consecration Succession of Protestant Bishops c. particularly perused that Chapter calld the Vindication of the Bishop of Durham I finde my self reflecting of some expressions therein the Bishop of Derry author obliged to say something as concerned so have desired place here for a few linies Who the Author of the treatise of Catholique faith c. fixeth on to prove his allegations touching the Bishop of Durhams speech I know not for he told me of it before ever I spoke to him but sure I am if it be looked after he may have sufficient testimony to satisfy half a douzen juries but that which stirs me to speake in this matter is a note I have at the request of the Bishop of Derry given him vnder my hand wherein I say in substance the same with the Author touching the Bishop of Durhams speech as for the booke against Episcopacy which was the ground of the discourse my note only avers it was brought into the howse but said not by whome nor who was the author in truth I wondered much to finde that the Bishop of Durham doth deny this speech for I can not remember that ever I heard of or read the story of the Nagshead till that day in Parlament of my Lord of Durham then I heard it from him and this I say as I shall answeare it before the judgement seat of God Allmighty And I doe not remember that ever I heard the Bishop of Lincolne or any other Bishop before or since mention the Nagshead or touch that story if I had not named him my Lord of Durham mought have just reason to complaine but my Lord of Derry will not beleeve that I for I can not but take it to my self doe or ever did know the Bishop of Durham so well as to sweare this was the man If his Lordship had bin an English Bishop an frequented Parliaments he would have omitted this Not to multiply vvordes I can assure his Lordsp I could as well surely have sworen this is the man the Bishop of Durham as his Lordship could of Sir George Ratclif when he lived Besides his person place of the Bishops bench is too eminent to be mistaken An other expression of my Lord of Derry is I do not take my self to be so exact Analyser of a discourse as to be able to take my oath what vvas the true scope of it Here likevvyse I must beg his Lordships pardon I knovv no such defect in my self for there is not any thing more easy then to comprehend the true cope of a short a plaine Historicall discourse as this was to conclude as to the Bishop of Durhams denial I hope that confessing him self novv of the age of 95. yeares it vvill be held no crime to say or improbable to beleeve that one of that grear age may at least forget vvhat he spake so many yeares since For the tvvo cerficats of the other Lords that of the temporall saith litle to my Lord of Derryes purpose neither with an indifferent judgment can that of the spirituall worke much For my part I doe not say that any or all their Lordships whose names are put to the certificats in the booke were in the Howse at this time or if any of them were that they tooke notice of what my Lord of Durham spake for many discourses are made in Parlaments litle notice taken of them neither had I of this but that it was to me a new thing The Clarque of the Parliament is all so brought in to certify though as to my note his paines mought have bin spared for I doe not mention a booke presented and consequently none to be recorded and as for speeches I doe assure his Lordship in the authority of an old Parliament man that it is not the office of the Clarque to recorde them his worke would be too great till it be a result or conclusion then he writes them downe as Orders Ordinances c. of Parliament I vvill end this short faithfull defence which I have bin here necessitated to make for my self vvith many thanks to my Lord of Derry for his charity opinion of my ingenuity seing his Lordships inclination in this matter is to absolve me from a malicious lye I vvill absolve my self as to the mistakes either in the person or matter assuring his Lordship all the vvorld there is none 3. Though this relation and testimony given by my Lord Audley doth not only cleere me from casting any aspertion vpon D. Monton but also makes the whole speeche layd to his charge sufficiently credible one positive witnesse with such circumstances proving more then many negative and it being more probable that D. Morton or any other in the Parliament should forget then my Lord Audley feigne such a story without any possible designe or profit yet I must vindicate my selfe from the note of credulity rashnesse overmuch confidence and formal calumly fixed vpon me by D. Bramhall for believing my Lord Audley and publishing his relation Is it credulity or rashnesse good M. Doctor to believe a person of honour Pag. 26. and of so greate ingenuity as you confesse my Lord Audley to be and no man of honour can deny in a matter wherof he had as cleere evidence and hath as perfect memory as is possible for any man to have of any object by the acts of his senses and understanding He protesteth before God and man that he never heard any thing of the Nagshead consecration till then and that the novelty of the story made him very attentive that he remembers the individual circumstances of the place where D. Morton stood his posture and all other actions wherwith he accompanied his speech and that after D. Morton had finished the same he asked a Lord of knowne reputation and wisedome whether the first protestant Bishops had bin ordained in a Taverne and that he
answered the story of the Nagshead was very true 4. Now M. Doctor I beseech you to consider how impossible it is that he should be mistaken having such assurance of his attention and of the evidence of his senses and understanding Want of memory the only thing is or can be objected to make roome for a mistake in this matter may occasion doubts and perplexities but not cause such positive assurances and cleere evidences as my Lord Audley to this howre retaines If it be once granted that men of judgment may be mistaken in the evidence they sweare to have of their owne perfect remembrance and understanding concerning an object cleerly acted before their eyes and distinctly convejed into their eares and particularly reflected vpon and immediately discoursed vpon you may perswade all the world that whatsoever they have seene heard and understood are but dreames and mistakes occasioned by want of memory for to impute so much dulnes and ignorance to my Lord of Audley that he could not comprehend the scope of a speculation so abstracted so sublime so Metaphysical as Mortons saying his forefathers were made Bishops in a Tarverne this were enough to degrade a Doctor of Divinity and dispend your episcopal pen from its endles and sensles function of scribling if you held these titles vpon science conscience or common sense This is to charge both the Relator and Reader with plaine stupidity Must men be made out of their wits because they beare witnes against your Clergy Or can you hope that any man in his wits will heed what you write when you care so little what the Readers judge of you and your writings 5. But here comes a full tide of testimonies to bring him of the sand he stuck himself in Ni ne Peeres have bin so vexed with your importunity that they have condescended to yield you som succour in so urgent necessity Pag. 23. We doe hereby testifie and declare that to the best of our present knowledge and remembrance no such booke against Bishops as is there mentioned was presented to the house of Peeres in that Parliament and consequently that no such speech as is there pretended was or could bo made by him or any other against it Jam far from calling in question the ingenuity of these honorable persons or imputing unto them the want of incapacity to comprehend the scope of what Morton then said or of any thing he ever could have said if it had any scope but I must call your judgment in question for thinking that what yow have got will serve your turne If it doe not it s not their fault in giving what you asked but yours in asking you knew not what The question is whether Morton acknowledged in parliament the Nagshead merry meeting but whether it were vpon occasion of a booke publickly presented or privatly delivered whether dedicated to the parliament or distributed amongst the members of Parlement whether in this man or that mans name whether Lord or not Lord what imports it to the matter in hand There are none of these Lords will deny or doubt but that many by-speeches have bin made by Bishops in Parliament vpon lesser occasions then these J rehearsed and perhaps some with no occasion and also to no purpose at all unles the rest have bin more carefull in speaking then you in printing Pag. 10. You confesse a booke to have bin dedicated to the Parliament against Episcopacy and the booke to have bin writ by a Lord you confesse to have heard that the B. Pag. 26. of Lincolne did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament and you will not deny but that Durham for his many writings and great age might have bin as fit and forward to talke as another and if you looke but upon the text of the testimony you have begged you find not a word that argues or intimats his not having avowed the Nags-head ordination They only say they remember no such booke to wit with all the circumstances mentioned and consequently no speech against it They may remember a speech vpon occasion of a booke wherin Durham took harbour in the Nagshead Tarverne and yet say with truth they do not remember that speech or any other to have bin made against such a booke signed with all those individual particularities And further there might have bin such a speech and such a booke and such circumstances and yet they might have forgot them all or in part after so many years but I need not this for they do not deny to remember the speech nor the booke nor any circumstance belonging to the point we dispute And I marke their attestation to be couched in termes so precise and cautious as both to content you who presume to make any thing serve your purpose and yet neyther to contradict nor wholy conceale the truth For those that with so carefull attention tyed their attestation so fast to the circumstantial part of the buisnes knew full well that the attentive Reader would therby perceave they could have said more of the substance if they had not bin by themselves or by others persuaded that it was not convenient to publish all they remembred But your adding the Clark of the Parliaments testimony is a meere childish simplicity what sayth he I do not find any such booke presented nor any entery of any such speech made by B. Morton Will you make men beleeve that every speech is entered or that if just such a booke was not formally presented that the speech was not made vpon occasion of a booke or that a booke in good English may not be said to be presented although it be not delivered in such solemnity as requires the putting it vpon record It is much want that brought you doune to such beggarly shifts to go from dore to dore begging attestations about an inconsiderable circumstance and make soo poore and pittifull vse of what you have scraped together You forget to beg the favour of your adversary to let you talke disparatas in this desperat case and beg pardon of your Reader for abusing his patiēce and presuming that he is void of common sense and no less reason you have to beg pardon of your partners for your want of ability or Perhaps fidelity in the defence of the common cause If you were a lawyer by profession as you professe here much skill to litle purpose in law matters I beleeve after such pleading as this you would get few clients and smal fees 6. Put the case your Brother Durham had bin accused of treason and you were allowed to plead for him which equity in other countries is not denied now there coms in a witnes whose ingenuity you grant and no man can deny he takes vpon his oath as he hopes to be saved that he heard the said Durham vpon occasion of a sedicious pamphlet make a speech to the people wherin he exhorted them to deliver vp a