Print long since in a new Edition of his booke Likewise Dr. Sutcliffe acknowledged his mistake and gave order to Mr. Mason to publish it to the world as he did To ground exceptions upon the errours of the presse or the slips of the tongue or pen or of the memory after they have been publickly amended is like flies to delight in sores and neglect the body when it is sound I have the same errour crept into a booke of mine of five for four how it came I know not for the booke was printed in my absence but I have corrected it in mine own Copy and in many Copies of my Friends where I meet with the booke Lastly there is no danger in such petty differences so long as all parties doe submit themselves to the publick Registers of the Church as all these writers doe although is may be some of them were better acquainted with Polemick Writers theÌ„ with Registers or the practicall customes of the Church of England The very Reference or submission of themselves to the Register is an Implicit retractation of their errours As in a City the Clocks may differ and the peoples Iudgements of the time of the day but both Clocks and Clerkes must submit to the Sun dyall when the sun shineth out so all private memorialls must be and are submitted to the publick Register of the Church Where these Fathers talk of plurality of Registers they erre because they understand not our Customes Every Bishop throughout the Kingdome hath one Registry at least every Dean and Chapter hath a Registry The ordinations of Priests and Deacons and the Institution of Clerkes to Benefices are recorded in the Registries of the Respective Bishops in whose diocesses they are ordeined and instituted The elections of Bishops and Inthronisations and Installations in the Registry of the respective Deans and Chapiters and the Confirmations and Consecrations of Bihops in the Registry of the Archbishop where they are consecrated except thâ— Archbishop be pleased to grant a Commission to some other Bishops to Consecrate the elected and confirmed Bishop in some other place But the same thing can not be recorded originally but in one Registry CAP. VIII Dr. VVhitaker and Dr. Fulke defended Bishop Barlowes Consecration justified of Iohn Stowes Testimony and the Earle of Notinghams c. HEre the Fathers take upon them the office of Iudges or Censors rather then of Advocates Mr. Mason ought to have answered as Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Fulke they were both eminent Drs. in the Schooles who had reason to be better informed of the Records then he How Nay nor half so well They were both contemplative men Cloistered up in St. Iohns College better acquainted with Polemick writers then with Records They were both ordeined Deacons and Priests legally Canonically according to the Form prescribed by the Church of England and were no such ill Birds to defile their own nests If the Records of their Ordination will â—atisfy you that they were no Enthusiasts as you imagin you may quickly receive satisfaction But if they had said any thing contrary to our Lawes and Canons you must not thinke to wrangle the Church of England out of a good possession by private voluntary speculations Let us see what these Doctrs say as you allege them for I have not their bookes in present Mr. Whitaker saith I would not have you thinke we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our own Vocation unlawfull without them You see Doctor Whitaker justifieth our Ordination in this very place as lawfull and much more plainly elswhere in his writings That though our Bishops and Ministers be not Ordeined by Papisticall Bishops yet they are orderly and lawfully ordeined Again The Romanists account none lawfull Pastors but such as are created according to their Form or Order These are your two main Objections against our Ordination that we are not ordeined by Bishops of your Communion That we are not ordeined according to the Roman Form In both of these Doctor Whitaker is wholy for us against you that which he maketh no reckoning of is your Form of Ordination as it is contradistinct from ours as it is in many things especially in your double matter and Form in Priestly Ordination You say Mr. Fulke speakes more plainly Let us heare him You are highly deceived if you thinke we esteem your Offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons better then Laymen and with all our heart we defie abhorre detest and spit at your stinking greasy Antichristian Orders This is high enough indeed and might have been expressed in more moderate termes but it is to be expounded not of the invalidity of your Ordination as if it wanted any Essentiall but partly in respect of the not using or abusing these sacred Offices and partly in respect of the Lawes of England Excesses may make an Ordination unlawfull although they do not make it invalid Holy Orders are an excellent Grace conferred by God for the Conversion of men but if those who have them instead of preaching truth do teach errours to his people and adulterate the old Christian Faith by addition of new Articles they are no longer true Pastors but Wolves which destroy the Flock and so they are not onely no better but worse then Lay men Corruptio optimi pessima In this respect they tell you that your Priests and Bishops are no true Priests and Bishops as Marcellus told his Soldiers that they were no true Romans who were naturall Romans because they wanted the old Roman virtue Lastly you have habituall power to exercise these Offices but you want actuall power in England by reason of the not application or rather the substraction of the matter by our Lawes so you are no legall Bishops or Priests there This I take to have been the sense of these two Doctors Now are we come to their grand exception against Bishop Barlow who was one of the Consecraters of Archbishop Parker whose Consecration is not found in the Archbishops Register and there fore they conclude that he was never consecrated If this objection were true yet it doth not render Archbishop Parkers Consecration either invalid or uncanonicall because there were three other Bishops who joined in that Consecration besides Bishop Barlow which is the full number required by the Canons But this objection is most false Bishop Barlow was a Consecrated Bishop above 20 yeares before the ConsecratioÌ„ of Archbishop Parker They should have done well to have proposed this doubt in Bishop Barlows lifetime and then they might have had the Testimony of his Consecraters under an Archiepiscopall or Episcopall Seale for their satisfaction The Testimony of the Archi-Episcopall Register is a full proofe of Consecration affirmatively but it is not a full proofe negatively such a Bishops Consecration is not recorded in this Register therefore he was not Consecrated For first the negligence of an Officer or some crosse accident might hinder the recording Secondly Fire or Thieves or some such
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
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
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
onely extant but publickly printed whilest all things were fresh in mens memories yet no man did or durst except against the truth of them So free they were not onely from corruption but from suspicion The sixth and last ground to prove that the Recordes were not forged is taken from the agreement and concurrence of our civill Recordes which no man ever doubted of with our Ecclesiasticall Registers We have seene the Queenes Letters PateÌ„ts directed to seven other Bishops for the confirmation and consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker dated the sixth of December anno 1559 Therefore upon the sixth of December 1559 he was neither Confirmed nor Consecrated We have seene the Ecclesiasticall Recordes how by virtue of those very Letters Patents he was confirmed upon the ninth day and consecrated upon the seventeenth day of the same Moneth We find three other Letters Patents directed to Arch-Bishop Parker himself as a Consecrated Bishop for the Confirmation and Consecration of other Bishops namely Richard Coxe Edmund Grindall and Edwin Sandes dated the Eighteenth of December that is the very next day after his consecration Therefore he was then consecrated And this agreeth exactly with the Ecclesiasticall Register Elisabeth Dei gratia Angliae c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Domino Matthaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano c Salutem Rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo mandantes quatenus eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Divi Pauli London praedictae sic ut praefertur Electum Electionemque praedictam Confirmare eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare ceteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt Officio pastorali c. Teste Regina apud west monasterium decimo Octavo die Decembris Anno Reginae Elizabeth Angliae c. secundo Examinatur per RICH BROUGHTON Consimilia Brevia Eisdem forma verbis mutatis solummodo Mutandis directa sunt cidem Mattbaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi pro confirmatione Electionis consecratione Richardi Cox Sacrae Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum Eliensem Et Edwini Sands sacra Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum VVigornensem Omnia sub dato praedicto in Rotulo supradicto Examinatur per RICHARDUM BROUGHTON There cannot be a clearer proofe in the world to prove that Arch-Bishop Parker was neither confirmed nor Consecrated upon the sixth of December Anno 1559. and that he was both Confirmed and Consecrated and commanded to Consecrate others upon the eighteenth of the same moneth Neither doth the King or Church or Lawes of England take notice of any man as a true Arch-Bishop or Bishop untill hands be imposed upon him but alwaies with this addition Elect as in the booke of Ordination Ego I N. Ecclesiae atque sedis N. Elecius Episcopus profiâ—eor And in the letany Te Rogamus ut huic fratri nostro Electo Episcopo Benedicionem gratiam â—uam largiri digneris Lastly by the lawes of England a Bishop can not be admitted to do his homage or sweare fealty for his Bishoprick nor be restored to his Temporalties untill he be legally Consecrated But it is Apparent by the Queenes Letters Patents dated the one and twentieth day of March following that was at the end of Hilary terme as speedily as could be he had done his homage and was then restored to his Temporalties Which proveth clearly that he was legally Consecrated that is to say according to the Register Such a perpetuall agreement there is between our Ecclesiasticall-Recordes and our Civill Recordes CHAPT V. The eighth ninth and tenth reasons against that fabulous relation from the Authority of our Statute the booke of the life 's of the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and all sorts of witnesses THe eighth reason to prove the Nagges-head OrdinatioÌ„ to be a fable is takeÌ„ froÌ„ the authority of the Statute in the eighth yeare of Queene Elisabeth which is thus entituled An Act declaring the manner of making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realme to be good lawfull and perfect An Act declaring not enacting or making the manner of making and Consecrating the Arch Bishops and Bishops of this Realme that is those in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time as appeareth by the whole body of the Act to be good lawfull and perfect The title of the Statute alone is sufficient to confute this fable But there is much more in the body of the Statute As where it approveth the making and consecrating of the same Arch Bishops and Bishops to be duely and orderly done according to the lawes of this Realme If it was done duely and orderly according to the lawes of this Realme then it was not done at the Nagge 's head nor after such a silly ridiculous manner as these Fathers do relate it That forme differeth from our forme in all things In the Consecrater or Minister of the Consecration We must have three Bishops at the least there was but one In the matter Our matter is Imposition of handes their matter was the laying the Bible upon the head or shoulders of the person Consecrated In the forme Our forme is receive the holy Ghost c Their forme was Take thou Authority to preach the word of God sincerely The Statute proceedeth that they were elected made and consecrated Arch Bishops and Bishops according to such order and forme and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecrations as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts Statutes and Orders annexed to the said booke of Common praier before mentioned This is plaine enough If the Parliament say truely then they were Consecrated in a Church not in a Taverne not according to the Brainsick whiâ—sies of a self conceited Foole or rather the ludibrious devise of an Archenemy but according to the forme prescribed by the Church and Kingdome The Parliament had more reason to know the truth then these Fathers for there were personally present both the persons who did consecrate and the persons who were consecrated and many Lords and Gentlemen who were eye witnesses of the consecration Chuse Reader whether thoâ— wilt trust the tale of a single obscure malicious spie tatling in a corner or the asseveration of the Parliament of England iâ— the face of the sun published to the world in print The Parliament testifieth further that iâ— is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt 〈◊〉 or may justly be objected against the said Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Do they thinke the Parliament would have giveâ— such a testimony for the Nagge 's head Consecrations And so they conclude thâ— all persons which had been or should be ordeâ—â— or consecrated after the forme and order prescâ—â—bed in the said English Ordinall werâ— very deed and by authority of Parliament were declared and enacted to
Some were of the same mind with these Fathers in Queen Maries time but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were wiser who confirmed all Ordinations in Edward the sixths time indifferently so the Persons professed but their Conformity to the Roman Religion How doth this consist with your pretended Nullity They say Our Records were produced by Mr Mason in the yeares 1613 fifty yeareâ— after they ought to have been shewed They forget that they were published in Print in Arch Bishop Parkers lifetime that they were justified by the Parliament 8. Elisabethae that all of them goe hand in hand with our Civill Records He saith it cannot be testified by any lawfull witnesses produced by us that they were 〈◊〉 forged This is their Method first to â—ccuse us of Forgery and then to put us to prove a Negative where learnt he this Form of proceding By all Lawes of God and man the Accuser is to make good his Accusation yet we have given him witnesses beyond exception They say there can not be a more evident mark of Forgery then the concealment of Registers if they 〈◊〉 usefull and necessary to the persons in whose Custody they are The proofe lieth on the other hand Tell us how they were concealed which were published to the world in Print by a whole Parliament by private persons and were evermore left in a Publick Office where all the world might view them from time to time who had either occasion or desire to doe it That our Adversaries did insult and Triumph over us is but un empty flourish without truth or reality as we shall see presently They say it is not worth refuting which some modern Protestants say ye have no witnesses of the story of the Nagge 's head c. but Roman Catholicks we value not their Testimony because they are known Adversaries This answer they term Ridiculous and paralell it with the answer of an Officer in Ireland You will not find this answer so ridiculous upon more serious consideration Protestants know that some Exceptions in Law do destroy all Credit and some other Exceptions do onely diminish credit An Adversaries Testimony may be admitted in some cases but it is subject to exception and makes no full proofe especially in cases favourable in the Law as the case of persons spoiled which is your Irish case such witnesses may be admitted anâ—e omnia spoliatus restitui debet but then they ought to make up in number what they want in weight But you mistake wholy our answer is not that you produce no witnesses for the story of the Nagge 's head but Roman Catholickâ— Our answer is that you produce no witnesses at all neither Roman Catholicks nor others For first one witnesse is no witnesse in Law Let him be beyond exception duely sworn and examined yet his Testimony makes but semiplenam probationem half a proofe especially in Criminall causes such as this is it is nothing One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any Iniquity or any sinne At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be stablished Which law is confirmed by our Saviour They were never yet able to pretend any eye witnesse by name but Mr. Neale or some body that had no name because he had no being in the nature of things all the rest had it from Mr. Neales single Testimony because they cannot testify what was done but what Mr. Neale said Secondly Mr. Neale testifieth nothing as a single witnesse ought to testify He was never sworn to speake the truth he never testified it before a publick Notary he was never examined before a competent Iudge 〈◊〉 was never produced before the face of a Protestant Is this the manner of the Romans now a daies to condemne whole Churches upon the verâ—all Testimony of a single witnesse before â—e be brought face to face with those whom â—e accuseth and such a Testimony which 〈◊〉 clogged with so many improbabilities â—nd incongruities and incoherences 〈◊〉 no rationall impartiall man 〈◊〉 trust one syllable of it whereas in such a case as this against the third Estate of the Kingdome against the Records Civill and Ecclesiasticall against the testimony of a Parliament an hundred witnesses ought not to be admitted We regard not Mr. Fitzherberts suspicions at all What are the suspicions of a private stranger to the well known credit of a publick Register His suspicions can weigh no more then his reasons that is just nothing He saith this exception is no new quarrell but vehemently urged to the English Clergy in the beginning of the Queens reign 〈◊〉 shew how and by whom they were made Priests Bishops c You have said enough to confute yourselves but you touch not us If they had known that they were consecrated at the Nagge 's head as well as you would seem to know it they needed not to urge it so vehemently to shew how and by whom they were ordeined they would have done that for them readily enough unlesse perhaps you thinke that they concealed the Nagges head Ordination out oâ— favour to the Protestants But I see you are mistaken in this as in all other things There was an old objection indeed that ouâ— Consecraters were not Roman Catholiks and that our Consecration was not Riâ—â— Romano or that we were not Ordeined by Papall Authority but the Nagge 's head Ordination is a new question What might be whispered underhand in the eares of credulous persons of your own party in Corners we do not know but for all your contrary intimations none of all your Writers did dare to put any such thing in print for above fourty yeares after Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration If silent Witnesses in such circumstances prove more then others as you affirm then all your writers are our witnesses But none of all your Doctors did ever urge any such thing as required that we should cite the Registers in prudence as by a cleare answer to all your Testimonies shall appeare The water did not stop there in those dayes yet even in Arch Bishop Parkers life time the Consecration of our Bishops was published to the world in Print either shew us as much for your Nagge 's head Ordination or hold your peace for ever Bishop Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchesters absurdities falsities and lies are easily talked of men may talke of black Swans but he who hath laid your greatest Champions in the dust requires another manner of Discoverer then Mr. Fitzherbert But these Fathers are resolved to confute themselves without the help of an Adversary They tell us that no mention was ever made of Registers testifying Parkers Consecration at Lambeth untill Mr. Mason printed his booke This is not true they were mentioned by the Parliament mentioned in Print I think before Mr. Mason was born What though Lambeth were not mentioned if the Legality of his Consecration were mentioned This is enough to answer your Objection this is