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
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
our said Reverend brother or any other much lesse approve of it by our silence And if any such booke had bene presented or any such speech had bene made there is none among us so ignorant or negligent of his duty in defending the truth but vvould have bene both able and ready to have confuted so groundlesse a fable as the preteÌ„ded consecration of Bishops at the Nagge 's head out of the Authentick and knovvne registers of the Church still extant mentioned and faithfully traÌ„scribed and published by Mr. Mason so long before For the confirmation of which truth and attestation of what our said Reverend Brother hath herewith Protested and declared we have hereunto set our hands Dated the 19th day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. LONDON M. ELI BR SARUM BATH WELLS JO. ROFFENS OXFORD If all these proofes seeme not satisfactory to the Fathers they shall have more Let them take the Testimony of the Principall Peeres now living who sate then in Parliament VVe of the Lords temporall whose names are here under written who sate in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640 being desired by the Bishop of Duresme to testify our knowledge concerning an imputation cast upon him about a speech pretended to be made by him in that Parliament more particularly mentioned and disavowed in his prefixed Protestation Doe hereby testify 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 be made by him or ony other against it In testimony whereof we have signed this our attestation with our owne hands Dated the nineteenth day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. DORCHESTER RVTLAND LINCOLNE CLEVELAND DOVER LINDSEY SOVTHAMTON DEVONSHIRE MONMOVTH To this proofe nothing remaineth that can be added but onely the testimony of the Clerke of the Parliament who after a diligent search made in the booke of the Lords house hath with his owne hand written this short Certificate in the margent of one of your bookes pag. 9. over against your relation Vpon search made in the booke of the Lords house I do not find any such booke presented nor any entery of any such speech made by Bishop Morton HENRY SCOBEL CLERK Of the Parliament And now methinkes I heare the Fathers blaming of their owne credulity and rashnesse and over much confidence They had forgotten Epictetus his rule Remember to distrust I judge them by my self Homo sum humani a me nihil alienum puâ—o One circumstance being either latent or mistaken may change the whole drift and scope of a relation But though we would be contented to lend a skirt of our coate to cover the fault of them who calumniate our Church yet this relation can never be excused in any man from a most grievous mistake where both the person and the whole scope of his discourse is altogether mistaken This is almost as great a mistake as the Nagge 's head Ordination it self where a confirmation dinner was mistaken for a solemne consecration But those who cherish such mistakes for advantage and deck them up with new matter and publish them to the world for undoubted truths can not be excused from formall calumnie The last thing to be considered in this first part of this discourse being the vindication of the Reverend Bishop of Duresme is concerning the witnesse whom as the Fathers do forbeare to name so shall I. Of whom they say foure things â— that he is one of the Ancientest Peeres of England that he was present in Parliament when Morton made this speech that he will take his Oath of the truth of it and that he can not believe that any will be so impudent to denie it We have no dispute concerning the antiquity of Peerage Let that passe but I am confideÌ„t whatsoever his present judgement had been either of the speaker or of the speech your witness would have abstained from uncivill language as to stile the Reverend Bishop of Duresme a pretended Bishop and plaine Morton without either welt or garde He would not have forgotten all his degrees both in the Church and in the Scholes He will not charge all them with downe right Impudence who tell him that he was doubly mistaken Nor call that noâ—orious to all the world which he himself acknowledgeth that he never heard of before in his life He is not guilty of those inferences and eo nomineâ— which you have added I do not beleeve that he doth or ever did know the Bishop of Duresme so well as to sweare this is the man Nor doth take himself to be so exact an Analyser of a discourse as to be able to take his Oath what was the true scope of it pro or contra especially wheÌ„ some thing is started that doth quite divert his attention as the sound of the market bell did the Philosophers Auditours This is my Charity And my ground for it is this When I had once conference with him about this relation he told me the name of the Naggeshead did surprise him and he betooke himself to inquire of another what it meant And when I urged to him that it was incredible that any Protestant Bishop should make such a speech unlesse he used it onely by way of Supposition as argumentum ad hominem a reason fitte for my Lord Brookes that such a Consecration as that was agreed well enough with his principles He told me he knew not that the Bishop might answer so for himself To conclude I have heard the Bishop of Lincolne did once mention the Fable of the Nagge 's head in a speech in Parliament but with as much Detestation of it as our Ancestours used to name the Devill Why might not the mistake both of the person and of the drift or scope of his speech be the occasion of this relation I had rather out of charity run into two such right handed errours then condemne a Noble Gentleman of whose ingenuity I never had any reason to doubt of a malicious lie Take it at the very best the mistake is great enough to mistake both the person of the speaker and the scope of his speech I hope they will all do that which in Conscience they are obliged to do that is acquitte the Bishop of Duresme and crave his pardon for their mistake If they do not the world will acquitte him and condemne them But the greatest mistake of all others was to publish such a notorious untruth to the world so temerariously without better advise CHAP. III. Three reasons against the Nagges head Consecration 1. from the Contradictions of the Relaters 2. from the latenesse of the Discovery 3. from the Strictnesse of our lavves NOw having beaten Downe the Pillar about their eares which they had set up to underproppe their Nagge 's head Ordination it remaineth next
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
Essentiall matter of Ordination and these words Receive the Holy Ghost as the form of Ordination but your Nagge 's head Ordination is a mere Phantasm without matter or Forme our Statutes allow no such fanaticall and Phantasticall Formes as your Form of the Nagge 's head And so your Consequence Consequently that of the Nagge 's head might passe is foundered of all four and can neither passe nor repasse unlesse you can rase these words by virtue of the Queens Letters Patents out of the Statute and insert these without the Queens Letters Patents and likewise rase these words out of the Commission according to the Form and effect of the Statutes and insert these contrary to the Form and effect of the Statutes A single Falsification will doe your cause no good Two poisons may perchance help it at a dead lift It is in vain to tell us that Mr Mason see this over clear to be denied who know better that Mr. Mason did not onely deny it over and over again but sqeesed the poore Fable to durt I have shewed you particularly what was the end of the Queens Dispensations the same which is the end of Papall Dispensations to meet with latent objections or cavills I have shewed you what that Cavill was which needed no Dispensation in point of Law but onely to stop the mouths of Gainsaiers But where you adde that the Queens Dispensation was given not in conditionall but in very absolute Termes You are absolutely mistaken The Queens dispensation was both in Generall Termes which determin nothing not like the Popes Dispensations A quibusvis excommunicationis suspensionis interdicti sententiis and also in these conditionall Terms si quid c. desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur If any thing is or shall be wanting which are required by the Lawes Civill or Ecclesiasticall of this Kingdome You see it is conditionall and hath reference onely to the Lawes of England They goe on the truth is all the world laughed at the Nagge 's head Consecration and held it to be invalid not so much for being performed in a Tavern as for the new form invented by Scory If all the world did laugh at it in those dayes they laughed in their sleeves where no body could see them laugh It had been too much to laugh at a jeast before it was made nay before it was devised The Reader may well wonder how all the world came to get notice of it so early as the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign and we onely in England should heare nothing of it for above 40 yeares after but assoone as we did heare of it we laught at it as well as they and held it as invalid as they could doe for their hearts but they laught at it as Bishop Scoryes Invention and we laught at it as theirs CAP. VII Of Bishop Bonner the Reordination of our Clergy the quality of their witnesses Mr. Fitzherberts suspicions the testimony of their Doctors and the Publishing of our Register before Mr. Mason Their next instance is in Bishop Bonners case who was indited by Mr. Horn one of the First Protestant Bishops consecrated by Mr. Parker or together with him for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy The first errour might be pardoned as being onely a mistake in a word to say that Bishop Bonner was indited by Mr. Horn where as he was onely signified by Bishop Horn but the second mistake is fatall that after all this confidence and this great Notoreity of the Nagge 's head Ordination to all the world these Fathers themselves are still uncertain whether Bishop Horn were consecrated by Archbishop Parker or at the same time with him that is as much as to say they know not certainly what was done at the Nagge 's head but they wish that if the Confirmation dinner were not a Consecration it had been one It could never end better for Mr. Neale to feign an Ordination without an Actuary to record what was done Bishop Waâ—son and Mr. Bluet and the rest were much to blame that since he had the fortune to weare Gyges his ring and walk invisible they did not cause him to play the publick Notary himself and draw that which was done there into Acts then we might have known as certainly as he could tell us whether Dr Parker had been consecrated there by his Proctor Dr Bullsngham It may be some very credulous Reader who like the old Lamiae could take out his eyes and put them in again when he pleased would have given more credit to Mr Neales pleasant Fable then to the publick Rolles and Registers of the Kingdome I have handled Bishop Bonners case before and thâ—se Fathers themselves have unwittingly given sentence in it against him That King Edwards Forme of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliamant in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth But finall sentence there was never any given untill the Parliament gave a finall sentence in it That Bishop Horn and all the rest were legall Bishops To admit a Plea to be tryed by a Iury and the veredict of the Iury are two very distinct things They tell us he was a man specially shot at Rather he was a man graciously preserved by the Queens mercy from the rage of the Common people against him If they had shot at him they could have found waies enough to have tendered the Oath of Supremacy to him without Bishop Horn. I professe I am no great Patron of such Oaths men have more dominion over their actions then over their judgements Yet there is lesse to be said for Bishop Bonner then for other men He who had so great a hand in framing the Oath He who had taken it himself both in King Henryes time and King Edwards time and made so many others to take it He who had been so great a stickler in Rome for the Kings Supremacy who writ that Preface before Bishop Gardiners booke de vera Obedientia if he had suffered by the Oath of Supremacy he had but been scourged with a rod of his own making Their next reason to prove the Nullity of our Holy Orders is taken from the constant Practice of the Romane Catholicks to Reordein Protestant Ministers not conditionally but absolutely which they call an evident Argument of our mere Laity A doughty Argument indeed drawn from their own Authority Can any man doubt that that they which make no scruple of taking away our lifes will make conscience of taking away our Orders This is that which we accuse them of and they doe fairly begge the Question If Reordination be Sacrilege as they say it is we are ready to convince them of grosse Sacrilege or iterating all the Essentialls of Ordination the same matter and the same Form that is for Episcopacy the same Imposition of Hands by three Bishops and the same words Receive the Holy Ghost c.
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