to the contrary in any wise not withstanding That the booke of Ordination was a part of this booke and printed in this booke in King Edwards daies besides the expresse testimony of the Statute in the eighth of Queene Elisabeth we have the authority of the Canons of the Church of England which call it singularly the booke of Common Praier and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons It is our forme of praier upon that occasion as much as our forme of baptising or administring the holy Eucharist or our forme of confirming or marryng or visiting the sick Secondly it is also a part of our forme of Administration of the Sacraments We denie not Ordination to be a Sacrament though it be not one of those two Sacraments which are generally necessary to salvation Thirdly although it were supposed that Ordination were no Sacrament nor the booke of Ordination a part of the booke of Common praier yet no man can denie that it is a part of our Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and under that notion sufficiently authorised Lastly Ejus est legem imerpretari cujus est condere They who have legislative power to make a law have legislative power to expound a law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament made the law Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament expounded the law by the same authority that made it declaring that under the booke of Common Praier the forme of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood And so ended the grand cavill of Bishop Bonner and Doctor Sapleton and the rest of the illegality of our Ordination shewing nothing but this how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed That the Supplentes or this dispensative clause had Relation to this cavill which as it did breake out afterwards into an open controversy so it was then whispered in corners is very evident by one clause in the Statute that for the avoiding of all questions and ambiguities that might he objected against the lawfull Confirmations investing and Consecrations of any Arch-Bishops Bishops c. the Queene in her Letters Patents had not onely used such words as had bene accustomed to be used by King Henry and King Edward but also diverse other generall wordes whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of any imperfection or disability that could be objected The end of this clause and that Statute was the same And this was the onely question or ambiguity which was moved Yet although the case was so evident and was so judged by the Parliament that the forme of Consecration was comprehended under the name and notion of the booke of Common praier c yet in the indictment against Bishop Bonner I do commend the discretion of our Iudges and much more the moderation of the Parliament Criminall lawes should be written with a beame of the sun without all ambiguity Lastly before I leave this third consideration I desire the Reader to observe three things with me First that this dispensative neither hath nor can be construed to have any reference to any Consecration that was already past or that was acted by Bishop Scory alone as that silly Consecration at the Nagge 's head is supposed to have been Secondly that this dispensative clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ or any essentiall of Ordination nor to the Canons of the universall Church but onely to the Statutes and Ecclesiasticall lawes of England Si quid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur Thirdly that the Commissioners authorised by these Letters PareÌ„ts to coÌ„firme and consecrate Arch Bishop Parker did make use of this Supplentes or dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a politicall Act as by the words of the Confirmation in the next paragraph shall appeare but not in the Consecration which is a purely spirituall act and belongeth meerely to the Key of Order Fourthly we say that by virtue of these Letters Patents of December the sixth foure of the Commissioners therein named did meete in Bowes Church upon the ninth day of the same moneth and then and there with the advise of the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Lawiers of the Kingdome the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience did solemnely confirme the election This is proved by the Recorde of the Confirmation or definitive sentence it self in these words In Dei nomine Amen Nos Willelmus quondam Bathonienfis VVellensis Episcopus nunc Cicestrensis Electus Iohannes Scory quondam Cicestrensis Episcopus nunc Electus Herefordensis Milo Coverdale quondam Exoniensis Episcopus Iohannes Bedford Episcopus Suffraganeus Mediantibus literis Commissionalibus Illustrissimae Reginae fidei Defensatricis c. Commissionarij cum hac clausula videlicet unae cum Iohanne Theâ—fordensi Suffraganeo Iohanne Bale Ossoriensi Episcopo Et etiam cum hac clausula Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum Nec non hac adjectione Supplentes nihil ominus c. specialiter legitime Deputati c. Idcirco nos Commissionarii Regii antedicti de cum assensic Iurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus praedictam ElectioneÌ„ Suprema Authoritate dictae Dominae nostrae Reginae nobis in hac parte Commissa Confirmamus SuppleÌ„tes ex Suprema Authoritate Regia ex mero principis motu certa Scientia nobis delegata quicquid in hac electione fuerit defectum Tum in his quae juxta mandatum nobis creditum a nobis factum processum est aut in nobis aut aliquo nostrum conditione Statu facultate ad haec perficienda deest aut deerit Tum etiam eorum quae per statuta hujus Regni Angliae aut per leges Ecelesiasticas in hac parte requisita sunt aut necessaria prout temporis ratio rerum praesentium necessitas id postulant per hanc nostram sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale decretum c. I cite this the more largely that our Adversaries may see what use was made of the dispensation whieh they cavill so much against But in the Consecration which is an act of the Key of order they made no use at all of it This is likewise clearly proved by the Queenes mandate for the restitution of Arch Bishop Parker to his Temporalties wherein there is this clause Cui quidem electioni personae sic Electae Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus favorem ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Archi-Episcopatu recepimus Fifthly we say that eight daies after the Confirmation that is to say the 17. of December Anno 1559 the same Commissioners did proceed to the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in the Archi-Episcopall Chappell at Lambeth according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England with solemne Praiers and Sermon and the holy Eucharist at which
enough to confute your Romance of the Nagge 's head Yet thus much you yourselves confesse in the same Paragraph that in a booke printed in the yeare 1605 that is eight yeares before the yeare 1613 wherein you say that Mr Mason printed his booke called Antiquitates Britanniae there is a Register of the Protestant Bishops of England TheÌ„ there was a Register of the Consecration of Protestant Bishops extant before Mr. Mason did write of that subject You say that Register doth not mention any certain place or Form of their Consecration It was not needfull the Law prescribeth the Form and the place was indifferent so it were a consecrated place which the Law doth likewise prescribe But you tell us further that thiâ— Register was forged or foisted in and that your learned but namelesse Friend see the old Manuscript of that booke wherein there is no mention of any such Register which you tell us in your Friends words that all the world may see how this Register was forged Why are all the world bound to believe your Friend How should we give credit to a man who tells us three notorious untruths in foure lines First that it is pretended that Archbishop Parker was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and three others by virtue of a Commission from Queen Elisabeth he was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and two others Secondly that this work was acted on the 17. day of September An 1559 which was acted on the 17. Day of December 1559. Thirdly that we had no form then or Order to doe such a businesse whereas you yourselves confesse that Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished in the First yeare of Queen Elisabeth and Archbishop Parkers Ordination was in the second of Queen Elisabeth He who stumbles so thick and three fold may erre in his viewing the Manuscript as well as the rest But to gratify you suppose it was foisted in what good will that doe you It must of necessity be foisted in before it was printed it could not be foisted in after it was printed And it must be foisted in by a Protestant for no Roman Catholick would foist it in So still you see a Register of Protestant Bishops was published to the world in print eyght yeares before Mr. Mason published his booke Your Friend saith that this printed Booke of Parkers Antiquitates Britanniae is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecration of him and the rest So it might be well when it was first printed that was not in the yeare 1605 but in Arch-Bishop Parkers life time three yeares before his death An. 1570. So much you might have learned from the very Title-page of the Booke printed at Hannovv Historia antehac non nisi semel nimirum Londini in Aedibus Iohannis Day anno 1572. excusa That this History vvas printed formerly at London in the house of Iohn Day in the yeare 1572. This doth utterly destroy the Credit of your Friends Relation that he had viewed the Manuscript of that Booke There needed no Manuscript where they had a Printed booke for their Copy as the Title-page telleth us they had and that printed above sixty yeares before your Friend writ it is probable before his Birth If there be any thing of foisting in the case there is rather something foisted out of the former Edition then foisted in namely Archbishop Parkers Life untill that time with the particular Consecrations of our first Bishops which were in the London Edition and are omitted in this Edition of Hannow This is cleare enough by the very Title An History of 70. Archbishops and there are in this Edition but 69. Archbishops because the Life of Archbishop Parker is wanting which neverthelesse is promised in the Life of Archbishop Warham pag. 312. ut in Matthaei Parker Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi viâ—a inferius diâ—emus As we shall say hereafâ—er in the Life of Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury You see how infortunate you are in accusing others of Forgery Your Authour proceedeth Any man reading the printed Booke will manifestly see it is a meerly foisted and inserted thing having no connexion correspondence or affinity either vvith that which goeth before or followeth it Say you so There was never any thing more fitly inserted The Author undertaketh to write the Life 's of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury from Austin to Matthew Parker and having premitted some generall Observations concerning the Antiquity of Christian Religion in Britany with the names of some Arch-Bishops of London and the Originall and Changes of Episcopall Sees in England and some other Generalities concerning the Privileges of the See of Canterbury and the Conversion of Kent Iust before he enter upon the Life of St. Austin the first Archbishop he presenteth the Reader with a summary View of the Archbishoprick of Canterbury at that time when the booke was first printed in the yeare 1572 with the names of all the Bishops of the Province at that time their Countries their Armes both of their Sees and of their Families their respective Ages their Vniversities their Degrees in Schooles with the times of their severall Consecrations if they were ordeined Bishops or Confirmations if they were translated from another See It is hardly possible for the wit of man to contriue more matter into a lesser Roome Then he settes downe a like Table for the Province of Yorke and lastly an Alphabeticall Catalogue of the Bishops whose Lifes were described in this booke and among the rest Archbishop Parker whose Life if you call it foisting is foisted out of this Hannow Edition If this hath no connexion or affinity with that which goeth before and followeth after I know not what Connexion or Affinity is Your Friends last Exception against the Authority of that booke called Antiquitates Britanniae is that it conteineth more things done after Matthew Parker had written that Booke So you confesse that Archbishop Parker himself about whom all our controversy is was the Author of that booke wherein I agree with you The conclusion of the Preface and many other reasons invite me to doe so Surely this Author meant that there is something conteined in this Register which is not within the Compasse of the following Lifes in the Hannow Edition that may well be because Matthew Parkers life is foisted out in this Edition but there is nothing which was not in the London Edition much more largely then it is in this Register especially for the Confirmations and Consecrations of our Protestant Bishops there is nothing after the time when this Register was made which is prefixed in the Frontispice of it in the Hannow Edition with M P for Matthew Parker Matthew Parker died May the 27 Anno 1575 he printed his booke at London three yeares before his death without the Authours name in the yeare 1572. I appeale to the ingenuous Reader let him be of what Communion he will or never so full of prejudice whether it be credible
to the upper house a certeine booke proving that the Protestant Bishops had no succession or consecration and therefore were no Bishops and by consequence had no right to sitte in Parliament Hereupon Doctor Morton pretended Bishop of Durrham who is yet alive made a speech against this booke in his owne and all the Bishops behalfe then present He endeavoured to prove succession from the last Catholick Bishops who said he by imposition of hands ordeined the first Protestant Bishops at the Nagge 's head in Cheap syde as vvas Notorious to all the vvorld Therefore the afore said booke ought to be looked upon as a groundless libell This vvas told to many by one of the ancientest Peeres of England praesent in Parliament vvhen Morton made his speech And thesame he is ready to depose upon his oath Nay he cannot believe that any vvill be so impudent as to denie a thing so notorious vvhereof there are as many vvitnesses living as there are Lords and Bishops that vvere that day in the upper house of Parliament Here are three passages One concerning a booke presented to the upper house against the successioÌ„ of English Bishops by some presbiterian Lords The second concerning the pretended refutation of this booke by the Bishop of Duresme The third the proofe of both these allegations by the Testimony of an Ancient Peere of England First for the booke It is most true there was a booke written about that time by a single Lord against Episcopacy and dedicated to the members of both houses of Parliament No wonder How often have the Parliaments in the reignes of Queene Elisabeth and King Iames bene troubled with such Requests and Representations It is no strange thing that a weake eie should be offended with the light of the sun We may justly ascribe the reviving of the Aerian heresy in these later daies to the Dispensations of the Courte of Rome who licensed ordinary Priests to ordeine and confirme and do the most essentiall offices of Bishops So their Scholes do teach us A Preest may be the exâ—raordinary Minister of Priesthood and inferiour orders by the delegation of the Pope Againe The Pope may conferre the power of confirmation upon a simple Priest By such exorbitant practises as these they chalked ouâ— the way to â—nnovators And yet they are not able to produce one president of such a dispensation throughout the primitive times A good Christian ought to regarde more what the whole Christian world in all ages hath practised then what a few conceited persons in this last age have fancied Among all the Easterne Southern and Northerne Christians who make innumerable multitudes there neither is nor ever was one formed Church that wanted Bishops Yet these are as farre from submitting to the exorbitant power of the Roman Bishop as we Among all the westerne Churches and their Colonies there never was one formed Church for 1500. yeares that wanted Bishops If there be any persons so farre possessed with prejudice that they chuse rather to follow the private dictates of their owne phrensy then the perpetuall and universall practise of the Catholick Church enter not into their secrets o my soule Thus farre we agree but in all the rest of the circumstances though they be not much materiall the Fathers do pittifully mistake themselves and vary much from the Testimony of their witness and much more from the truth First the Authour of this booke was no presbyterian Lord much less a company or caball of Presbiterian Lords in the plurall but my Lord Brookes one that had as little favour for Presbytery as for Episcopacy Secondly the booke was not praesented to the upper house It might be brought into the house privately yet not be praesented to the house publickly If it had bene publickly praesented the Clerkes of the Parliament or some of them must needes have known of it and made an Act of it but they know no such thing The Lords Spirituall and Temporall could not all have Forgotten it but they remember no such thing as by their respective certificates praesently shall appeare Thirdly as the Authour is mistaken and praesentation mistaken So the subject likewise is mistaken Sit liber Iudex let the booke speake for it self Thus an able freind certifieth me I have got my Lord Brookes booke which he wrote against the Bishops with much labour and perused it with no less Patience And there is not in it the least shadow of any Argument that the Bishops ought not to sitte in Parliament because they had no succession or consecration What did my Lord Brookes regard succession or Consecration or holy orders who had a Coachman to be his preacher The less Canonicall the ordination had bene the more he would have applauded it Time and place and forme and all were agreeable to that Christian liberty which he dreamed of it was not wante of consecration but consecration it self which he excepted against as all men knew who knew him And in this quarrell he lost his life after a most remarkable and allmost miraculous manner at the siege of Lichfield Church upon St. Ceaddas anniversary day who was the founder of that Church and Bishop of it I know the Fathers will be troubled much that this which they have published to the view of the world concerning the Bishop of Durrham as a truth so evident which no man can have the impudence to denie should be denied yea denied positively and throughout denied not onely by the Bishop of Durrham himself but by all the Lords spirituall and Temporall that can be met with Denied by some Lords of their owne communion who understand them selves as well as any among them though their names are not subscribed to the certificate Denied by the Clerkes of the Parliament whose office it is to keepe a diary of all the speeches made in the house of the Peeres For Proofe hereof First I produce the Protestation of the Bishop of Duresme him self attested by witnesses in the Praesence of a publick Notary Take it in his owne words VVhereas I am most injuriously and slanderously traduced by a nameles Authour calling himself N. N. in a booke said to be printed at Rouen 1657. intituled a treatise of the nature of Catholick faith and haeresy as if upon the praesenting of a certein booke to the upper house in the beginning of the late Parliament prouing as he saith the protestant Bishops had no succession nor consecration and therefore were no Bishops and by consequence ought not to sit in Parliament I should make a speech against the said booke in my owne and all the Bishops behalfs endevouring to prove succession from the last Catholick Bishops as he there stiles them who by imposition of hands ordeined the first protestant Bishops at the nagges head in cheapsyde as was notorious to all the world c. I do hereby in the praesence of Almighty God solemnely protest and declare to all the world that what this Authour there affirmes