hands upon them And that they had not of themselves two or three Bishops or so much as one Metropolitan What a shameless untruth is this that there were not two or three Protestant Bishops when the Queenes Commission under the great Seale of England recorded in the Rolles is directed to seven Protestant Bishops expresly by their names and titles He addeth that they were very instant with an Irish Arch Bishop to have presided at their Ordination but he would not He mistaketh the matter altogether They might have had seven Irish Arch Bishops and Bishops if they had needed them where the procedings were not so rigorous where the old Bishops complied and held their places and joined in such Ecclesiasticall Acts untill they had made away to their kindred all the lands belonging to their Sees We found one Bishoprick reduced to five markes a yeare by these temporisers another to forty shillings a yeare and all of them to very poore pittances for Prelates But by this meanes there wanted no Ordeiners Never did any man question the Ordination of the first Protestant Bishops in Ireland untill this day Then he telleth how being thus rejected by the Catholick Bishops and the Irish Arch Bishop they applied themselves to the lay Magistrate in the ensuing Parliament for a confirmation from whence they were called Parliamentary Bishops By whom were they called so By no man but himself and his fellowes How many Ordinations were passed over one after another before that Parliament Was there any thing moved in this Parliament concerning any the least essentiall of our Episcopall Ordination Not at all but onely concerning the repealing and reviving of an English Statute English Statutes can not change the essentialls of Ordination either to make that Consecration valid which was invalid or that invalid which was valid The validity or invalidity of Ordination dependeth not upon humane law but upon the institution of Christ. Neither did we ever since that Parliament change one syllable in our forme of Ordination Then what was this Confirmation which he speakes of It was onely a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordeined in the Queenes time had bene rightly ordeined according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England and the Lawes of the Land These men want no confidence who are not ashamed to cite this Statute in this case But we shall meete with this Parliament againe In all this impertinent Discourse where is the fable of the Nagge 's head Ordination It had bene a thousand times more materiall then all this Iargon And you may be sure it had not been missing if there had bene the least graine of truth in it or is there had but been any suspicion of it when that was written It was not then full thirty yeares after Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and there were store of eye-witnesses living to have hissed such a senselesse fable out of the world And therefore Sanders very prudently for himself after so many intimations passeth by their Ordination in a deepe silence which was the onely worke he tooke in hand to shew Qualescunque fuerint aut quo modocunque facti sint isti Pseudo-Episcopi c. VVhat manner of persons soever these False-Bishops were or after what manner soever they were ordeined c. If Bishop Scory had ordeined them all at the Naggeshead by layng a Bible upon their heads and this forme of wordes Take thou Authority to preach the word of god Sincerely M. SaÌ„ders needed not to have left the case so doubtfull how they were ordeined And if there had bene the least suspicion of it he would have blowen it abroad upon a silver Trumpet but God be thanked there was none The universall silence of all the Romish writers of that age when the Naggeshead Ordination is pretended to have been done in a case which concerned them all so nearely and which was the Chiefe subject of all their disputes is a convincing proofe to all men who are not altogether possessed with prejudice that either it was devised long after or was so lewde a lie that no man dared to owne it whilest thousands of eyewitnesses of Arch Bishop Parkers true Consecration at Lambeth were living A third reason against this ridiculous libell of the Nagge 's head Consecration is taken from the strictness of our lawes which allow no man to consecrate or be consecrated but in a sacred place with due matter and forme and all the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed by the Church of England No man must be Consecrated by fewer then foure Bishops or three at least And that after the Election of the Deane and Chapiter is duely confirmed And upon the mandate oâ— Commission of the King under the great seale of England under the paine of a Premunire that is the forfeiture of lands and goods and livings and liberty and protection They allow not Consecration in a Taverne without due matte and forme without the Ceremonies and solemnity prescribed by the Church without Election without Confirmation without letters Patents by one single Bishop or two at the most such as they feine the Nagges head Ordination to have been Who can beleeve that two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishoppes having the reputation of learning and prudence should wilfully thrust themselves into an apparent Premunire to forfeite not onely their Arch Bishopricks and Bishopricks but all their estates and all their hopes for a phantastick forme and scandalous Consecration when the Queene and Kingdome were favorable to them when the forme prescribed by the Church did please them well enough when there were protestant Bishops of their owne Communion enough to Consecrate them when all the Churches in the Kingdome were open to them unlesse it had been Midsummer moone in December and they were all starke mad and then it is no matter where they were consecrated In criminall causes where things are â—retended to be done against penall lawes â—uch as this is the proofes ought to be cleaâ—er then the noone day light Here is noâ—hing proved but one single witnesse named â—nd he a professed enemy who never testiâ—â—ed it upon Oath or before a Iudge or so much as a publick Notary or to the face of a protestant but onely whispered it in corners as it is said by Adversaries among some of his owne party Such a testimony is not worth a deafe nut in any cause betweene party and party If he had bene a witnesse beyond all exception and had beeÌ„ duly sworne and legally examined yet his testimony in the most favourable cause had been but halfe 〈◊〉 proofe though an hundred did testifie it from his mouth it is still but 〈◊〉 single testimony And as it is it iâ— plaine prittle prattle and ought to be vaâ—lued no more then the shadow of an asse To admit such a testimony or an hundred such testimonies against
the publick authentick Recordes of the Kingdome were to make our selves guilty of more madness then they accuse the Bishops ofâ— If St. Paul forbid Timothy to receiâ—â— an accusation against a single Presbyter under two or three witnesses he would noâ— have us to condemne fifteen Bishops of such a penall crime upon a ridiculous rumour contrary both to the lawes and Recordâ— of the Kingdome The severity of ouâ— lawes doth destroy the credit of this fable CHAP. III. The fourth and fifth reasons against this improbable fiction from the no necessity of it and the lesse advantage of it MY fourth plea is because there was no need to play this counterfeit pageant We use to say Necessity hath no law that is regardeth no law In time of warre the lawes are silent but this was a time of peace First there could be no necessity why they should have a clandestine Consecration without a Register or publick Notary when they might have had an Army of publick Notaries ready upon their whistle eveÌ„ under their elbowes at Bowes Church out of the Courtes of the Arches and the Audience and Prerogative Secondly there was no necessity why they should anticipate the Queenes Letters patents for their consecration by whose gracious favour they were elected and of the accomplishmeÌ„t whereof in due time they could not doubt unlesse they would wilfully destroy their owne hopes by such a mad pranke as this had been that is unlesse they would themselves hew downe the bough where upon they stood Thirdly there was no necessity that they should chuse a common Taverne for the place of their Consecration when the Keies of all the Churches in the Kingdome were at their Command Fourthly there could be no necessity why they should deserte the forme of Ordination prescribed by the Law which was agreeable both to their judgements and to their desires and to their duties and to omitte the essentialls of Ordination both matter and forme which they knew well enough to be consecrated after a new brainsick manner Then all the necessity which can be pretended is want of a competent number of Ordeiners Suppose there had bene such a necessity 'to be ordeined by two Bishops or by one Bishop this very necessity had bene a sufficient Dispensation with the rigour of the Canons and had instified the Act. as St. Gregory pleadeth to Augustine In the English Church wherein there iâ— no other Bishop but thy self thou canâ— not ordeine a Bishop otherwise then alone And after this manner our First English Bishops were ordeined And so mighâ— these protestant Bishops have bene validely ordeined if they received the essentialls of Ordination But what a remedy is this because they could not have a competent number of Bishops according to the canons of the Church and the lawes of England therefore to reject the essentialls of Ordination for a defect which was not essentiall and to cast of obedience to their superiours both civill aÌ„d Ecclesiasticall This had bene just like little children which because they caÌ„ not have some toy which they desire cast away their garments and whatsoever their PareÌ„ts had provided for them Wante of three Bishops might in some cases make a consecration illegall or uncanonicall but it could not have rendered it invalide as this silly preteÌ„ded OrdinatioÌ„ had But now I come up close to the ground worke of the fable and I denie positively that there was any such want of a competent number of Bishops as they pretend And for proofe hereof I bring no vaine rumours or uncertein conjectures but the evident and authentick testimony of the great seale of England affixed to the Queenes Leuers Patents for authorising the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker dated the sixth day of December Anno 1559. directed to seven protestant Bishops namely Anthony Bishop of Landaffe William Barlow sometimes Bishop of Bath and Welles and then elect Bishop of Chichester Iohn Scory sometimes Bishop of Chichester then Elect Bishop of Hereforde Miles Coverdale sometimes Bishop of Exceter Iohn Suffragan Bishop of Bedford Iohn Suffragan Bishop of Theâ—ford and Iohn Bale Bishop of Ossory in Ireland Three are a Canonicall number if there were choise of seven then there was no wante of a competent number to ordeine canonically I adde that if it had bene needfull they might have had seven more out of Ireland Arch Bishops and Bishops for such a worke as a consecration Ireland never wanted store of Ordeiners Nor ever yet did any man object want of a Competent number of Consecraters to an Irish Protestant Bishop They who concurred freely in the Consecration of Protestant Bishops at home would not have denied their concurrence in England if they had been commanded Which makes me give no credit to that vaine reporte of an Irish Arch Bishop prisoner in the tower who refused to complie with the desires of the protestant Bishops for his liberty and a large rewarde But the Arch Bishop wanteth a name and the Fablâ— wanteth a ground the witnesses and persuaders are all unkowne And if there had bene a grane of truth in this relation yet in this case one man is no man one mans refusall signifieth nothing Against the evident truth of this assertion two things may be opposed out of the relation of these Fathers The First is particular concerning the Bishop of Landaffe that he was no Protestant but a Roman Catholick untill his death So they say indeed that he was the onely man of all the Catholick Bishops that tooke the oath of Supremacy Observe how prejudice and partiality doth blindfold men of learning and partes They confess he tooke the oath of supremacy and yet esteeme him a good Roman Catholick I see censures go by favour and one may Steale an horse better then another looke over the hedge I am well contented that they reckon him for so good a Catholick They adde that he knew Parker and the rest which were to be ordered Bishops to be hereticks and averse from the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church which he Constantly adhered unto the Supremacy onely excepted during his life And a little after they tell us that he desired to be numbred among Catholicks Now what if the Bishop of Landaff after all this should prove to be a protestaÌ„t Then all the Fathers story is quite spoiled And so he was If he knew Parker and the rest to be heretickes he knew himself to be one of their brother hereticks His daily masse was the English Leiturgy as well as theirs He adhered constantly to a Protestant Bishoprick during his life as well as any of them And if he did not hold it as long as any of them it was deaths fault and none of his fault They say they prevailed with him to give them a meeting at the Nagge 's head in Cheapeside where they hoped he would ordeine them Bishops despairing that ever he would do it in a Church because that would be too great and notorious a
seu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout jam multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in domino dispensabimus And we vvill graciously receive or interteine by our selves or by others deputed by us to that purpose as many have already been received in their Orders and in their Benifices all Ecclesiasticall PersoÌ„s as well Secularas Regular of whatsoever Orders vvhich have obteined any suites dispensations grants graces and indulgences as vvell in their Ecclesiasticall Orders as Benefices and other spirituall matters by the pretended authority of the Supremacy of the Church of England though ineffectually and onely de facto so they be penitent and be returned to the unity of the Church And vve vvill in due season dispense vvith them in the Lord for these things Here we see evidently that upon the request of the Loâ—ds Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the representative body of the Church and Kingdome of England by the intercession of the King and Queene the Popes Legate did receive all persons which had been Ordeined or Beneficed either in the time of King Henry or King Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices which they were actually possessed of at the time of the making of this dispensation or Confirmation without any exception or Condition but onely this that they were returned to the unity of the Catholick Church Neither was there ever any one of them who were then returned either deprived of their Benefices or compelled to be reordeined From whence I argue thus Either King Henry the eighths Bishops and Priests and likewise the Bishops and Priests Ordeined in King Edward the sixths time had all the Essentialls of Episcopall and Priestly Ordination which were required by the institution of Christ and then they ought not to be reordeined Then in the judgement of these Fathers themselves it is grievous sacrilege to reordeine them Or they wanted some essentiall of their respective Ordinations which was required by the institution of Christ and then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirme their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church But the Legate did Dispense with them to hold their Orders and exercise their severall functions in the Church and the Pope did confirme that dispensation This doth clearely destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders It may perhaps be objected that the dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawfull to receive them in the present it was as unlawfull to receive theÌ„ in the future All that was done after was to take a particular absolution or confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the Principall Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops Not the Bishop of Landaff as Sanders witnesseth Yet he injoied his Bishoprick So did all the rest if the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not materiall at all whether they were confirmed by a generall or by a speciall dispensation so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can denie Secondly it may be objected that it is said in the Dispensation licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint Although they had obteined their Benefices and Promotions ineffectually and onely in fact without right which doth intimate that their Orders were voide and null before they had obteined this dispensation I answer that he stiled them voide and null not absolutely but respectively quoad exercitium because by the Roman law they might not be lawfully exercised without a Dispensation but not quoad Characterem as to the Character If they had wanted any thing necessary to the imprinting of the Character or any thing essentiall by the institution of Christ the Popes Dispensation and Confirmation had been but like a seale put to a blanke piece of paper And so the Cardinalls dispensation in generall and particularly for Benefices and Ecclesiasticall Promotions Dispensations and Graces given by such Order as the lawes of the Realme allowed and prescribed in King Henries time and King Edwards time was then and there ratified by act of Parliament Lastly that this Dispensation was afterwards confirmed by the Pope I prove by the confession of Sanders himself though a malicious enemy He that is Cardinall Pole in a publick Instrument set forth in the name and by the authority of the Pope Confirmed all Bishop which had bene made in the former Schisme so they were Catholick in their judgment of Religion and the six new Bishopricks which King Henry had erected in the time of the Schisme And this writing being affixed to the Statute was published with the rest of the Decrees of that Parliament and their minds were pacified All which things were established and confirmed afterwards by the Letters of Pope Paul the fourth We have seene that there were a competent number of Protestant Bishops beyond ' Exception to make a Consecration And so the necessity which is their onely Basis or Foundation of the Nagge 's head Consecration being quite taken away this prodigious fable having nothing els to support the incredibilities and inconsistencies of it doth melt away of it self like winter ice The fifth reason is drawen from that well known principle in Rethorick Cui bono or what advantage could such a consecration as the Nagge 's head Consecration is pretended to have been bring to the Consecraters or the persons consecrated God and Nature never made any thing in vaine The haire of the head the nailes upon the fingers ends do serve both for ornament and muniment The leafes defend the blossomes the blossomes produce the fruite which is Natures end In sensitives the Spider doth not weave her webbes nor the silly Bee make her celles in vaine But especially intellectuall creatures have alwaies some end of their Actions Now consider what good such a mock ConsecratioÌ„ could doe the persons so consecrated Could it helpe them to the possession of their Bishopricks by the law of England Nothing lesse There is such a concatenation of our English Customes and Recordes that the counterfeiting of of any one can do no good except they could counterfeite them all which is impossible When any Bishops See becommeth voide there issueth a Writ out of the Exchequer to seise the Temporalties into the Kings hand as being the ancient and well knowne Patron of the English Church leaving the Spiritualties to the Arch Bishop or to the Deane and Chapiter according to the custome of the place Next the King granteth his Conge d'Eslire or his License to chuse a Bishop to the Deane and Chapiter upon the receite of this License the Deane and Chapiter within a certein number of daies chuse a Bishop
and certifie their Election to the King under the common seale of the Chapiter Upon the returne of this Certificate the King granteth out a Commission under the great seale of England to the Arch Bishop or in the vacancy of the Arch Bishoprick to so many Bishops to examine the Election and if they find it fairely made to confirme it and after Confirmation to proceed to the Consecration of the person elected according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England This Commission or Mandate must passe both through the Signet office and Chancery and be attested by the Clerkes of both those offices and signed by the Lord Chanceller and Lord privy seale and be inrolled So as it is morally impossible there should be any forgery in it Vpon the receite of this Mandate the Bishops who are authorised by the King do meete first at Bowes Church in London where with the assistence of the Chiefe Ecclesiasticall Judges of the Realme the Deane of the Arches the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience with their Registers to Actuate what is done they do solemnely in forme of law confirme the election Which being done and it being late before it be done the Commissioners and Iudges were and are sometimes invited to the Nagge 's head to a dinner as being very neare Bowes Church and in those daies the onely place of note This meeting led Mr. Neale a man altogether unacquainted with such formes into this fooles Paradise first to suspect and upon suspicion to conclude that they were about an Ordination there and lastly to broach his brainsick conceites in corners and finding them to be greedily swallowed by such as wished them true to assert his owne drowsy suspicion for a reall truth But the mischief is that Doctor Parker who was to be consecrated was not present in person but by his Proxie After the Confirmation is done commonly about three or foure daies but as it happened in Arch Bishop Parkers case nine daies the Commissioners proceed to the Consecration for the most part out of their respect to the Archbishop in the Chappell at Lambeth with Sermon Sacrament and all solemnity requisite according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England in the presence of publick Notaries or sworne Officers who reduce every thing that is done with all the circumstances into Acts and enter them into the Register of the See of Canterbury Where they are carefully kept by the principall Officer in a publicke office as Recordes where every one who desireth may view them from time to time and have a copy of them if he please And it is to be noted that at any Consecration especially of an Arch-Bishop great numbers of principall Courtiers and Citisens are present so as it is no more possible to counâ—erfeite such a Consecration then to walke â—nvisible upon the Exchange at noone day After the Consecration is done the perâ—on Consecrated is not presently admitted to his Bishoprick First the Arch Bishop maketh his certificate of the Consecration with all the circumstances of it under his Arch-Episcopall seale Thereupon the King taketh the new Bishops oath of fealty â—nd commands that he be put into the Actuall possessioÌ„ of his Bishoprick Then he is â—nthroned and at his Inthronisation his Orâ—ination is publickly read Then he injoieth â—is Spiritualties Then issueth a Writ out â—f the Exchequer to the Sherif to restore â—im to the Temporalties of his Bishoprick This custome is so ancient so certein so generall that no Englishman can speakâ— against it Here we see evidently how al things 〈◊〉 pursue one another and what a necessary and essentiall connexion there is betweeâ— them So as the stealing of an Electioâ— or the stealing of a Consecration can geâ— no man a Bishoprick as Mr. Neale dreamed He that would advantage himselâ— that way must falsifie all the Recordâ— both Ecclesiasticall and Civill He muâ—â— falsifie the Recordes of the Chancery 〈◊〉 the Signet office of the Exchequer 〈◊〉 the Registries of the Bishop of the Deâ—â—ne and Chapiter He must counterfeit thâ— hands and seales of the King of the Archâ— Bishop of the Lord Chanceller the Loâ—â— Privy seale of the Clerkes and publicâ— Notaries which is not imaginable 〈◊〉 Mr. Neale who first devised this drowâ— dreame or somebody for him had 〈◊〉 more experience of our English lawes 〈◊〉 Customes he would have feined a moâ—â— probable tale or have held his peace foâ— ever Answer me They who are calumniate to have had their Consecration at the Nâ—â—ges head did they meane to conceale it 〈◊〉 have it kept secret Then what good could it do them De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio If it were concealed it was all one aâ— if it had never bene Or did they meane to have it published Such an Ordination had bene so farre from helping them to obteine a Bishoprick that it had rendred them uncapable of a Bishoprick for ever And moreover subjected both the Consecraters and the Consecrated to deprivation and degradation and a Premunire or forfeiture of their lands goods and liberties and all that were present at it to excommunication Rome is a fitte place wherein to publish such Ludibrious fables as this where they can perswade the people that the Protestants are stupid creatures who have lost their Reâ—igion their reason and scarcely reteine their humaine shapes It is too bold an attempt to obtrude such counterfeit wareâ—â—n England CHAP IIII. The sixth and seventh reasons that all the Records of England are diametrally opposite to their Relation and do establith our Relation HItherto we have beene taking in the out workes Now I come directly to assault this Castle in the aire That which hath bene said already is sufficient to perswade any man who is not brimme full of prejudice and partiality The other five reasons which follow next have power to compell all men and command their assenâ—â— My sixth reason is taken from the diametrall oppositioÌ„ which is betweene this fabulous relation of the Nagge 's head Ordinatioâ— and all the Recordes of England both Ecclesiasticall and civill First for the time The Romanists say that this Ordination was before the ninth of September Ann. 2559 〈◊〉 it is apparent by all the Recordes of the Chancery all the distinct Letters Patenâ—â— or Commissions for their Respective Confirmations and Consecrations whereupoâ— they were consecrated did issue out loâ—â— after namely Arch Bishop Parkers Letteâ—â— Patents which were the first upon the sixth day of December following Next thâ— Commissions for Grindall Cox and Sands Then for Bullingham Iewel and Davis Then for Bentham and Barkley and in the yeare following for Horn Alley Scambler and Pilkinton He that hath a mind to see the Copies of these Commissions may find them Recorded Verbatim both in the Rolles of the Arch Bishops Register and in the Rolles of the Chancery To what end were all these Letters Patents to authorise so many ConfirmatioÌ„s and Consecrations if
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
a Discrimination betweene our â—â—â—shops and their Bishops as to the poiâ—â— of Ordination but the Marian Bishoâ— themselves who made a mutuall coâ—â—pact one and all that none of them shoulâ— impose hands upon any new electâ— Bishops thinking vainely there could other Consecraters have bene found out and that by this meanes they should both preserve their Bishopricks and bring the Queene to their bent but they found them selves miserably deceived Many Bishops who had bene chased out of their Bishopricks in Queene Maries daies did now returne from exile and supplie the place of Consecraters Then conjurationis eos penituit The Bishops repented of their Conspiracy Multi ad judices recurrunt c. many of them ran to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the oath of Supremacy Thus writeth Acworth an Author of good account in those daies If this foolish conspiracy had not bene we had had no Difference about our Consecrations To the second part of this objection that the forme of Ordeining used in King Edwards daies was declared invalide in Queene Maries Daies I answer First that we have no reason to regarde the Iudgment of their Iudges in Queene Maries Dayes more then they regard the judgment of our Iudges in Queene Elisabeths daies They who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make no scruple to take away their holy Orders Secondly I answer that which the Fatherâ— call a sentence was no sentence The word is Dicitur it is said or it is reported not decretum est it is decreed Neither were Queene Maries lawes proper rules nor Queene Maryes Iudges at common law the proper Iudges of the validity of an Episcopal consecration or what are the essentialls of ordination according to the institution of Christ. They have neither rules noâ— grounds for this in the common law Thirdly I answer that the question iâ— Queene Maries daies was not about the validity or invalidity of our Orders buâ— about the legality or illegality of them not whether they were conformable to the institution of Christ but whether they were conformable to the Lawes oâ— England The Lawes of England can neither make a valide ordination to be invalide nor an invalide ordination to be valide because they can not change the institutioâ— of Christ. In summe King Edwards Bishopâ— were both validely ordeined according to the institution of Christ and legally ordeined according to the lawes of EnglaÌ„d 〈◊〉 Queene Mary changed the Law that the forme of ordeining which had beeÌ„ allowed in King Edwards daies should not be allowed in her daies Notwithstanding Queene Maries law they continued still true Bishops by the institution of Christ But they were not for that time legall Bishops in the eie of the Law of England which is the Iudges rule But when Queene Elisabeth restored King Edwards law then they were not onely true valide Bishops but legall Bishops againe That corollary which the fathers adde in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by the Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not consecrated or Bishops that is in â—he eie of the English law at that time signiâ—ieth nothing at all Leases concerne the beâ—efice of a Bishop not the Office of a Bishop A Bishop who is legally ordeined though â—e be invalidely ordeined may make a lease â—hich is good in law And a Bishop â—hich is validely ordeined if he be illeâ—ally ordeined may make a lease which is â—oide in law Concerning Bishop Bonners Conscience â—hat he lost his Bishoprick for his conâ—ience and therefore it is not probaâ—â—e that he would make himself guilty of so much sacrilege as to declare King Edwards forme of ordination to be invalide for the profit of new Leases it belongeth not to me to judge of other mens Consciences But for Bishop Bonners Conscience I referre him to the Testimony of one of his Freinds Nicolas Sanders who speaking of Bishop Gardiner Bishop Bonner Bishop Tunstall and the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester concludeth with these words Tâ—â—mide ergo restiterunt pueri Regis primaâ—â— spirituali imo simpliciter subscripseruâ— in omnes caeteras innovationes quae neâ— videbantur ipsis continere apertam haerâ—â—sim ne Episcopatus honores perderent â— vel ulâ—ro vel comra conscientiam coaâ— consenserunt Therefore they resisted the spâ—â—rituall primacy of the King being but a boy fairly yea they subscribed to it simply and they consented to all the rest of the innovations whicâ— did not seeme to them to conteine manifest heresy either of their owne accord or compelled agaiâ— Conscience least they should lose their Bishopricks and honours We see they had no greaâ— reason to bragge of Bishop Bonners Conscience who sometimes had bene a greaâ— favorite of Cranmer and Crumwell He gâ—â— his Bishoprick by opposing the Pope aâ—â— lost his Bishoprick by opposing his Prince But if reordination be such a sacrilege many Romanists are guilty of grosse sacrilege who reordeine those Proselites whom they seduce from us with the same essentialls matter and forme imposition of hands and these words Receive the holy Ghost wherewith they had been formerly ordeined by us Lastly I answer and this answer alone is sufficient to determine this controversy that King Edwards forme of ordination was judged valide in Queene Maries daies by all Catholicks and particularly by Cardinall Pole then Apostolicall Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the fourth and by all the clergy and Parliament of England The case was this In the Act for repealing all statutes made against the see of Rome in the first and second yeares of Philip and Mary the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Parliament assembled representing the whole body of the Realme of England presented their common request to the King and Queene that they would be a meanes to the Legate to obteine some settlements by authority of the Popes Holiness for peace sake in some Articles where of this is one That institutioÌ„s of Benefices and other Promotions Ecclesiasticall and Dispensations made according to the forme of the Act of Parliament might be confirmed Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were confirmed For the greatest part of the English Clergy had received both their benefices and their holy orders after the casting out of the Popes usurped authority out of England And both benefices and holy orders are comprehended under the name of Ecclesiasticall Promotions This will appeare much more clearely by the very words of the Cardinalls Dispensation Ac omnes ecclesiasticas seculares seu quorumvis ordinum regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta tam ordines quam beneficia Ecclesiastica seu alias spirituales materias pretensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint ad cor reversae Ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus beneficiis per nosipsos
that this Fable was ancient and published to the world from the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time in print and unanswered by the Protestants untill the 13 of King Iames but there is no such thing For their credit let them produce one Authour that mentioneth it in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time or if they cannot doe that for forty yeares after that is before the yeare 1600 or otherwise the case is plain that it is an upstart lie newly coined about the beginning of King Iames his time the Fathers would not have us answer it before it was coined or before it was known to us Where they say that Mr Mason did handle this Controversy weakly and faintly they know they doe him wrong He hath so thrashed their Authours Fusherbert and Fitz-Simon and Holywood and Constable and Kellison and Champney that the cause hath wanted a Champion eversince untill these Fathers tooke up the Bucklers But whereas they adde that Mr. Mason vvas affraid to be convinced by some aged persons that might then be living and remember vvhat passed in the beginning of Queen Eâ—isabeths reign is so farre from truth that Mr. Mason nameth a witnesse beyond all exception that was invited to Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration at Lambeth as being his Kinsman and was present there The Earle of Nottingâ—am Lord High Admirall of England Why did none of their Authors goe to him or imploy some of their Friends to inquire of him The case is cleare they were more affraid of Conviction and to be caught in a lie then Mr. Mason who laid not the Foundation of his Discourse upon loose prittle-prattle but upon the Firm Foundation of Originall Records They say in the yeare 1603 none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable as some now doe I am the man I did call it so I do call it so Such a blind relation as this is of a businesse pretended to be acted in the yeare 1559 being of such consequence as whereupon the succession of the Church of England did depend and never published untill after the yeare 1600 as if the Church of England had neither Friends nor Enemies deserveth to be stiled a Tale of a Tub and no better They adde Bancroft Bishop of London being demanded by Mr. VVilliam Alabaster hovv Parker and his Collegues vvere consecrated Bishops â—nsvvered he hoped that in Case oâ— neâ—essity a Priest alluding to Scory might ordein Bishops This answer of his was objected in Print by Holywood against him and all the English Clergy in the yeare 1603 not a word replied Bancroft himself being then living And why might not Holywood be misinformed of the Bishop of London aâ— well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham This is certain he could not allude to Bishop Scory whâ— was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the sixth as by the Records of those times appeareth unlesse you have a miâ—â— to accuse all Records of Forgery If you have any thing to say against Bishop Scâ—ryes Consecration or of any of them who joined in Ordeining Arch Bishop Parker spare it not we wil not seek help of 〈◊〉 Act of Parliament to make it good In summe I doe not believe a word 〈◊〉 what is said of Bishop Bancroft sub modâ—â— it iâ— here set down nor that this Accusation did ever come to the knowledge of 〈◊〉 prudent Prelate if it did he had greatâ—â— matters to trouble his head withall theâ— Mr. Holywords bables but if ever such a a question was proposed to him it may be after a clear answer to the matter of Fact he might urge this as argumentum ad hominem that though both Bishop Scory and Bishop Coverdale had been but simple Priests as they were complete Bishops yet joining with Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgskings two undoubted Bishops otherwiâ—e Gardiner and Bonner and Tunstall and Thurleby and the rest were no Bishops the Ordination was as Canonicall as for one Bishop and two Mitred Abbats to consecrate a Bishop which you allow in case of Necessity or one Bishop and two simple Presbyters to consecrate a Bishop by Papall Dispensation So this question will not concern us at all but them very much to reconcile themselves to themselves They teach that the matter and form of Ordination are essentialls of Christs own Institution They teach that it is grievous Sacrilege to change the matter of this Sacrament They teach that the matter of Episcopall Ordination is Imposition of hands of three Bishops upon the person consecrated and yet with them one Bishop and two Abbats or one Bishop and two simple Priests extraordinarily by Papall dispensation may ordein Bishops The essentialls of Sacraments doe consist in indivisibili once Essentiall alwaies Essentiall whether ordinarily or extraordinarily whether with dispensation or without So this Question whether a Priest in case of Necessity may ordein Bishops doth concern them much but us not at all But for my part I believe the whole Relation is feined for so much as concerneth Bishop Bancroft They adde or the one of them I have spoken vvith both Catholicks and Protestants that remember neare 80. yeares and acknovvledge that so long they have heard the Nagges head story related as an undoubted truth Where I wonder sooner in Rome or Rhemes or Doway then in England and sooner in a Corner then upon the Exchange You have heard from good Authors of the Swans singing and the Pellicans pricking of her Breast with her bill but you are wiser then to believe such groundlesse Fictions I produce you seven of the ancient Bishops of England some of them neare an 100. yeares old who doe testify that it is a groundlesse Fable yet they have more reason to know the right value of our Ecclesiasticall Records and the truth of our affaires then any whom you conversâ— withall The Authours proceed This Narration of the Consecration at the Nagge 's head have I taken out of Holywood Constable and Doctor Champnies vvorkes They heard it from many of the ancient Clergy vvho vvere Prisoners for the Catholick Religion in Wysbich Castle as Mr. Blewet Doctor Watson Bishop of Lincoln and others These had it from the said Mr. Neale and other Catholicks present at Parkers Consecration in the Nagge 's head as Mr. Constable affirmes Here is nothing but hearsay upon hearsay such Evidence would not passe at a tryall for a lock of Goats wooll Holywood and the rest had it from some of the Wisbich Prisoners and the Wisbich Prisoners heard it from Mr. Neale and others What others had they no names did Bishop Bonner send more of his Chapleins then one to be Spectators of the Consecration and they who were to be consecrated permit them being Adversaries to continue among them during the Consecration supposed to be a Claâ—deâ—â—ine Action It is not credible without a Plâ—â— between Neale and the Host of the Nagge 's head to put him and his fellowes for that day into Drawers habits least the Bishops
should discover them Here is enough said to disgrace this Narration for ever that the first Authors that published it to the world did it after the yeare 1600 untill then it was kept close in Lavander Bishop Waâ—son lived splendidly with the Bishops of Ely and Rochester at the time of Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and a long time after before he was removed to Wisbich Castle If there had been anâ— such thing really acted and so notoriously known as they pretend Bishop Waâ—sâ—â— and the other Prisoners must needs haâ—â— known it long before that time when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought theâ— the first newes of it The whoâ—e story 's composed of Inconsistences That which quite spoileth their story is that Arch Bishop Parker was never present at any 〈◊〉 these Consecrations otherwise calleâ— Confirmation Dinners but it may be 〈◊〉 merry Host shewed Mr. Neale Doctoâ— Bullingham for Arch Bishop Parker and told him what was done in the withdrawing roome which to gaine more credit to his Relation he feigued that he had seen out of pure zeale Howsoever they say the Story was divulged to the great griefe of the newly Consecrated yet being so evident a truth they durst not contradict it We must suppose that these Fathers have a Privilege to know other meÌ„s hearts but let that pâ—sse Let them tell us how it was divulged by word or writing when and where it was divulged whilest they were newly consecrated who divulged it and to whom If they can tell us none of all this it may passe for a great presumption but it cannot passe for a proofe But they say that not onely the Nullity of the Consecration but also the illegality of the same was objected in Print against them not long after by that famous writer Doctor Stapleton and others We looke upon Doctor Stapleton as one of the most Rationall heads that your Church hath had since the seperation but speake to the purpose Fathers did Doctor Stapleton print one word of the Nagge 's head Consecration You may be sure he would not have balked it if there had been any such thing but he did balke it because there was no such thing No no Doctr. Stapletons pretended illegality was upon another ground because he dreamed that King Edwards Statute was repealed by Queen Mary and not restored by Queen Elisabeth for which we have an expresse Act of Parliament against him in the point and his supposed invalidity was because they were not consecrated ritu Romano If you think Doctor Stapleton hath said any thing that is materiall to prove the invalidity or nullity of our Consecration take your bowes and arrowes and shoote over his shafts againe and try if you do not meet with satisfactory answers both for the Institution of Christ and the Canons of the Catholick Church and the Lawes of England You say Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not being able to answer the Catholick arguments against the invalidity of their Ordination c. Words are but wind The Church of England wanted nor Orthodox Sonnes enough to cope with Stapleton and all the rest of your Emissaries nor to cry down the illegall and extravagant manner of it at the Nagge 's head How should they cry down that which never had been cryed up in those daies We condemne that form of Ordination which you feign to have beeÌ„ used at the Nagge 's head as illegall and extravagant and which weigheth more then both of them invalid as much as yourselves They were forced to begge an act of Parliament whereby they might enjoy the Temporalities not withstanding the known defects of their Consecration c. O Ingenuity whither art thou Fled out of the world Say where is this Petition to be found in the Records of Eutopia Did the Parliament ever make any such establishment of their Temporalties more then of their Spiritualties Did the Parliament ever take any notice of any Defects of their Consecration Nay did not the Parliament declare their Consecration to have been free from all defects Nay doth not the Parliament quite contrary brand these Reports for slanderous speeches and justify their Consecrations to have been duely and orderly done according to the Lawes of this Realm and that it is very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against their Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Yet they give a reason of what they say for albeit Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth yet it was notorious that the Ordination at the Nagge 's head was very different from it and formed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit c. I take that which you grant out of Sanders that King Edwards Form of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament 1. Elisabethae wherein you doe unwittingly condemne both Bishop Bonners and Stapletons plea of illegality The rest which you say is partly true and partly false It is very true that there is great difference between the English Form of Ordeining and your Nagge 's head Ordination as much as is between the head of a living horse and the sign of the Nagge 's head or between that which hath a reall entity and an imaginary Chimâ—ra Mr. Mason was the Bellerephon that destroyed this monster But that the Form of the Nagge 's head Ordination was framed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit is most false That Posthumus brat was the Minerva or Issue of Mr. Neales brain or some others who fathered this rapping lie upon him Then they repeat the words of a part of the Statute and thence conclude By which Act appeares that not onely King Edwards rite but any other used since the beginning of the Queeens reign upon her Commission was enacted for good and consequently that of the Nagge 's head might passe Cujus coÌ„trarium verum est The Contrary to what these Fathers inferre doth follow necessarily from these words which the Fathers cite The words of the Act are these By virtue of the Queens Letters Patents or Commission Every one of the Letters Patents is extant in the Rolles not one of them did ever authorise any form but that which was legally established that is the Form of Edward the sixth First the Queens Letters Patents or Commission hath an aut minus in it or at the least three or foure of you but to justify the Nagges head Ordination the aut minus must be altered to at the least one or two of you Secondly the Queens Letters Patents have alwaies this clause in them Iuxta Formam effectum Statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum According to the form and effect of the Statutes in that case made and provided but the Statutes allow no lesse number then four or at the least three to ordein At the Nagges head you say there was but one Ordeiner Our Statutes prescribe Imposition of Hands as the
be valide Ours is as valide and more pure They make the cause of these defects in our forme of Ordination to be because Zuinglianisme and Puritanisme did prevaile in the English Church in those daies They beleâ—ved not the reall presence therefore they put no word in their forme expressing power to consecrate They held Episcopacy and Priesthood to be one and the same thing Therefore they put not in one word expressing the Episcopall Function This is called leaping over the stile before a man comes at it To devise reasons of that which never was First prove our defects if you can And then find out aâ— many reasons of them as you list But to say the truth the cause and the effect are well coupled together The cause that is the Zuinglianisme of our predecessours never had any reall existence in the nature of things but onely in these meÌ„s imaginations So the defects of our Ordinalls are not reall but imaginary Herein the Fathers adventured to farre to tell us that we have nothing in our formes of Ordeining to expresse either the Priestly or Episcopall functioÌ„ when every child that is able to reade can tell them that we have the expresse words of Bishops and Priests in our Formes over and over againe And mainteine to all the the world that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons have been ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ. This they say is the true reason why Parker and his Collegues were contented with the Nagge 's head Consecration that is to say one brainsick whimsey is the reason of another and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queene Elisabeths time Say what others name one genuine son of the Church of England if you can Doctor Whitakers and Doctor Fulke who are the onely two men mentioned by you are both professedly against you Doctor Whitakers saith we do not condemne all the Order of Bishops as he falsely slanders us but onely the false Bishops of the Church of Rome And Doctor Fulke for Order and seemely goverment among the Clergy there was allwaies one Principall to whom the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which roome Titus exercised in Crete Timothy in Ephesus others in other Places Adding that the Ordination or Consecration by imposition of hands was alwaies principally committed to him The Fathers proceed If Mr. Lawd had found successe in his first attempts it is very credible he would in time have reformed the Forme of the English Ordination That pious and learned Prelate wanted not other degrees in Church and Schooles which they omit He was a great lover of peace but too judicious to dance after their pipe too much versed in Antiquity to admit their new matter and forme or to attempt to correct the Magnificat for satisfaction of their humours But whence had they this credible Relation We are very confident they have neither Authour nor ground for it but their owne imagination And if it be so what excuse they have for it in their Case Divinity they know best but in ours we could not excuse it from down right calumny They have such an eye at our order and uniformity that they can not let our long Cloakes and Surplesses alone We never had any such animosities among us about our Cloakes as some of their Religious Orders have had about their gownes both for the colour of them whether they should be black or white or gray or the naturall Colour of the sheep And for the fashion them whether they should belong or short c in so much as two Popes successively could not determine it If Mr. Mason did commend the wisedome of the English Church for paring away superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination he did well Ceremonies are advancements of Order decency modesty and gravity in the service of God Expressions of those heavenly desires and dispositions which we ought to bring along with us to Gods house Adjuments of attention and devotion Furtherances of Edification visible instructers helps of Memory excercises of faith the shell that preserves the Kernell of Religion from contempt the leaves that defend the blossomes and the fruite but if they grow over thick and ranke they hinder the fruite from comming to maturity and then the Gardiner pluckes them of There is great difference between the hearty expressions of a faithfull Friend and the mimicall gestures of a fawning flatterer betweeÌ„ the unaffected comelenesse of a grave Matrone and the phantasticall paintings and patchings and powderings of a garish Curtesan When Ceremonies become burthensome by excessive superfluity or unlawfull Ceremonies are obtruded or the Substance of divine worship is placed in Circumstances or the service of God is more respected for humane ornaments then for the Divine Ordinance it is high time to pare away excesses and reduce things to the ancient meane These Fathers are quite out where they make it lawfull at some times to adde but never to pare away yet we have pared away nothing which is either prescribed or practised by the true Catholick Church If our Ancestors have pared away any such things out of any mistake which we do not beleeve let it be made appeare evidently to us and we are more ready to welcome it againe at the foredore then our Ancestours were to cast it out at the backdore Errare possumus haeretici esse nolumus To conclude as an impetuous wind doth not blow downe those trees which are well radicated but causeth them to spread their rootes more firmely in the earth so these concussions of our Adversaries do confirme us in the undoubted assurance of the truth and validity and legality of our holy Orders We have no more reason to doubt of the truth of our Orders because of the different judgment of an handfull of our partiall countrymen and some few forreine Doctors misinformed by them then they themselves have to doubt of the truth of their Orders who were ordeined by Formosus because two Popes Stephen and Sergius one after another out of passion and prejudice declared them to be voide and invalide But supposing that which we can never grant without betraying both our selves and the truth that there were some remote probabilities that might occasion suspicion in some persons prepossessed with prejudice of the legality of our Orders yet for any man upon such pretended uncerteinties to leave the communion of that Church wherein he was baptised which gave him his Christian being and to Apostate to them where he shall meet with much greater grounds of feare both of Schisme and Idolatry were to ploÌ„ge himself in a certein crime for feare of an uncertein danger Here the Fathers make a briefe repetition of whatsoever they have said before in this discourse either out of distrust of the Readers memory or confidence of their owne atchievements of the Nagge 's head and Mr. Neale and the Protestant writers and Bishop Bancroft and Bishop Morton and the
THE CONSECRATION AND SUCCESSION Of Protestant Bishops justified The BISHOP of DURESME vindicated And That infamous Fable of the ordination at the Nagge 's head clearly confuted By JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. Bishop of Derry Necesse est ut lancē in libra ponderibus impositis Deprimi sic animum perspicuis cedere GRAVENHAGH By JOHN RAMZEY Anno 1658. CHAP. I. The occasion of this Treatise THe fairest eares of Corne are soonest blasted so the more conspicuous the Church of England was among the reformed Churches as not being framed according to the brainsicke dictates of some seditious Oratour or the giddy humours of a tumultuous multitude but with mature deliberation and the free consent and concurrence of all the Orders of the Kingdome the more it was subjected to the envie and groundless calumnies of our Country men of the Roman Communion But of all the slanderous aspersions cast upon our Church that liyng fable of the Nagge 's head Ordination doth beare the bell away Those monstrous fictions of the Cretian bulles and minotaures devised by the Athenians to revenge themselves upon Minos King of Creete who had subdued them in a just warre and compelled them to send their sons to him for hostages were not more malicious nor that shamelesslie of Kentish long tailes more ridiculous The first deviser of it doth justly deserve the Character of A man of a brasen forhead and leaden hearie If the unpartiall reader after he have perused this treatise thinke I doe him wrong I do willingly submitte my self to his censure This prodigious fable received its deathes wound from Mr. Masons penne and hath remained ever since for the space of thirty yeares buried in deepe oblivion And those assaies which it maketh now to get wing againe by the assistence of two Ignatian Fathers are but the vaine attempts of a dying Cause Neither would I have troubled the Reader or my self to bring Owles to Athens or to confute a Cause which hath bene so demonstratively confuted to my hand but for two new additions lately spread abroad The one by orall tradition which concerneth my self That Father T. and Father B. had so confuted the Bishop of Derry in the presence of the King that he said he perceived his Father had made me a Lord but not a Bishop And that afterwards by my power I had procured those two Iesuits to be prohibited that presence So that whereas Father Talbot used to be the Interpreter in the Spanish treaties now he was not admitted and Don Iohn would admitte no other So the Bishop of Derry is accused not onely to have bene publickly baffeled but also to have bene a disturber of publick affaires Yet I know nothing of all this which concerneth myself I never heard of any such conference or any such words I never knew that Father Talbot was designed to that imploiment I was never guilty of having any such power muchlesse of any endevour to turne out any man If the Fathers seemed too pragmaticall to those who were intrusted or to involue the interest of their Religion into Civill treaties what is that to me If it were true they may thanke themselves If it were false they may thanke them who did it Whether true or false I never had an hand nor so much as a little finger in it All the truth that I know is this Hearing that these two Fathers had spoken largely in the Courte of the Succession of our English Bishops but never in my presence I sought out Father B and had private conference with him about it in the Iesuits College at Bruges and afterwards some discourse with Father T. and him together in mine owne Chamber Whatsoever they did say they put into writing to which I returned them an answer shewing not onely that there was not but that it was morally impossible there should be any such Ordination at the nagges head From that day to this I never heard any thing of it that concerned myself Now if a man should search for an Authour of this fabulous Relation he shall be sure to have it fathered upon some very credible persōs without names who had it from Iohn an okes whilest he was living and he had it from Iohn a Stiles and he had it from No body but feined it himself out of a good intention according to that case Theology which he had learned of Machiavell To advance the credit of Religion by all meanes possible true or false The other addition concerneth the learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme one of the ancientest Bishops this day living in the Christian world being 95 yeares old at least That he owned and justified the nagges head Ordination in publick Parliament in the house of the Peeres It is very well we can not desire a better place where to have it spoken then the house of Parliament Nor better witnesses then the Lords spirituall and temporall We have no man of the Episcopall Order whose memory can reach so neare those times or in whose integrity we doe more confide then the Bishop of Duresme He might heare many things either from the persons praetended to have bene then consecrated or from the Notaries or witnesses who were then present at that imaginary Consecration Or at least he might receive the tradition of that age from such as were eiewitnesses of what passed Let it be put to his Testimony if they thinke fitte without doubt he is the same man he was then or to the Testimony of any other of his age and Reputation whom they can produce We refuse no sort of proofe but onely vaine hear say which as our English proverbe saith is commonly and in this case most undoubtedly a lier Nay we would not refuse the Testimony of Mr. Neale himself though a professed enemy who was the onely founder of this silly fable so he might be examined upon oath before equall Iudges but compell him either to shame the divell and eate his owne words or to runne himself into such palpable absurdities Contradictions and impossibilities that no man of reason how partiall soever could give any credit to him My first taske shall be before I meddle with the fable it self to vindicate the Bishop of Duresme and the truth which is wounded through his sydes with this intimation to the Reader that if this branch of the Legend be proved apparently to be false which is pretended to have bene publickly acted in a full house of the Peeres of the Realme we can expect no truth from the voluntary reporte of one single meane malicious enemy to his own party And with all a confessed Spie of what was done at the Nagge 's head Breake ice in one place and it will crack in more CHAPT II. The Vindication of the Bishop of Duresme TO vindicate the Bishop of Duresme I shall first set downe the relation of this passage in the words of the Fathers themselves In the beginning of the late Parliament some Presbiterian Lordes presented
scandall for Catholicks They were too modest They might easily have prevailed with him or have had him commanded to joine in their consecration in a Church after a legall manner He who did not stick at renouncing the Pope and swearing an oath of Supremacy to his Prince would not have stucke at a legall Ordination upon the just command of his Prince But to desire him to do it in a taverne in a clandestine manner without the authority of the greate seale before their election was confirmed was to desire him out of Curtesy to run into a Premunire that is to forfeit his Bishoprick of Landaffe his estate his liberty Is it become a more notorious scandall to Catholicks to ordeine in a Church then in a taverne in the judgment of these fathers There may be scandall taken at the former but notorious scandall is given by the later Here Bishop Bonner steppeth upon the stage and had well neare prevented the whole pageant by sending his Chaplein to the Bishop of Landaffe to forbid him under paine of excommunication to exercise any such power of giving Orders in his diocesse where with the old man being terrified and other wise moved in conscience refused to proceed Bishop Bonner was allwaies very fierce which way soever he went If Acworth say true he escaped once very narrowly in Rome either burning or boiling in scalding leade for being so violent before the Assembly of Cardinalls against the Pope on the behalf of Henry the eight if he had not secured himself by flight Afterwards he made such bonefires of protestants and rendered himself so odious that his prison was his onely safeguard from being torne in pieces by the People But that was dum stetit Iliam ingens Gloria Teucrorum whilest he had his Prince to be his second Now he was deprived and had no more to doe with the Bishoprick of London then with the Bishoprick of Constantinople he had the habituall power of the Keies but he had no flock to exercise it upon If he had continued Bishop of London still what hath the Bishop of London to do with the Bishop of Landaffe Par in parem non habet potestatem Thirdly Bowes Church which is neare the Nagges-head wherein the Ecclesiasticall parte of this story so farre as it hath any truth in it was really acted that is the Confirmation of Arch Bishop Parkers election though it be in the City of London as many Churches more is not in the Diocesse of London but a Peculiar under the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Lastly the Fathers say that when Parker and the rest see that he had refused they reviled the poore old man calling him doating foole and some of them saying This old foole thinketh that we can not be Bishops unlesse we be greased The contrary is evident by the Recordes of the confirmation that Arch Bishop Parker was not present in person So this whole narration is composed of untruthes and mistakes and incongruities and contradictions But that which discovereth the falsity of it apparently to all the world is this that the Bishop of Landaff lived and died a protestant Bishop in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as he had bene formerly in the reigne of King Edward for proofe whereof I produce two of their owne Authours The one is Sanders But the Bishops who had bene created out of the Church in those most wicked times who had now repented from their hearts of their Schisme being not contented wiih this common dispensation and confirmation did each of them particularly crave pardon of their former grievous fault from the See Apostolick and Confirmation in their Bishopricks excepting the Bishop of Landaffe who omitting it rather out of negligence then malice did onely relapse into Schisme in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as we interprete it by the just judgement of god He acknowledgeth that he became a Protestant againe that is in their language relapsed into Schisme The other is cited by Doctor Harding We had onely one foole among us we see whose livery the foole was who now I know not by what entisements is become yours being unworthy the name of a Lord and a Bishop whose learning is very little and his credit by this action much lost Thus writeth Doctor Harding of the Bishop of Landaffe about the fifth yeare of Queene Elisabeth at which time he was living and continued protestant Bishop of Landaff A second objection against the truth of that which hath bene said of the competent Number of our Protestant Bishops to make a canonicall Ordination is an exception against all the seven Bishops named in the letters Patents that they were no true Bishops because all of them were ordeined in a time of Schisme and two of them in King Edwards time according to a new forme of Ordination and consequently they could not ordeine That Ordination which was instituted by Edward the sixth was judged invalide by the Catholicks and so declared by publick judgment in Queene Maries reigne in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not saith the sentence consecrated nor Bishops To the First part of this objection that our consecraters were ordeined themselves by Schismaticks or in a time of Schisme I answer three waies First this argument is a meere begging of the quaestion The case in briefe is this If those branches of Papall power which we cast out of England by our Lawes at the Reformation were â—laine usurpations then our Reformation 〈◊〉 but a reinfanchisement of our selves and â—he Schisme lieth at their dore then they may question the validity of their owne Ordination upon this ground not ours But we are ready to mainteine to all the world â—hat all those branches of Papall power which we cast out by our lawes at the Reâ—ormation were grosse usurpations â—irst introduced into England above eleâ—en hundred yeares after Christ. So this â—art of the Objection concerneth them 〈◊〉 us â—econdly these Fathers know wel enough â—â—d can not but acknowledg that according to the principles of the Catholick Church and their owne practise the Ordination not onely of Schismaticks but oâ— hereticks if it have no essentiall defect iâ—â—valide and the persons so Ordeined oughâ— not to be reordeined but onely reconciled Many Orthodox Christians had their holy orders from hereticall Arrians If Craâ—mer and Latimer and Barlow and Hodgkins were no true Bishops because theâ— were ordeined in a time of Schisme then Gardinar and Bonner and Tuâ—â—stall and Thurleby c. were no true Biâ—shops for they were ordeined in a timâ— of Schisme likewise then Cardinall Polâ— and Bishop Watson and Christophers and all rest of their Bishops were no truâ— Bishops who were ordeined by these 〈◊〉 to put out one of our eies like the envioâ— man in the fable they would put out 〈◊〉 their owne Thirdly I answer that it was not we 〈◊〉 made
be rightly Ordered and Consecrated The scope of the Parliament and of this Act was to confirme the consecration of Arch Bishop Parker and the rest of the Bishops and to free them from caâ—ills and objections But they confirme no Ordination at the Nagge 's head neither can their words be extended any way to such a ridiculous Consecration Therefore the Ordination of Arch Bishop Parker and the rest was no Nagges head OrdinatioÌ„ My ninth reason to prove that Nagges-head Relation fabulous and counterfeit is taken from the Testimony of that book formerly mentioned of the life 's of the seventy Arâ—h Bishops of Canterbury wherein the Consecrations of Arch Bishop Parker and all the rest are particulary related That which was published to the world in print above thirty yeares before the death of Queene Elisabeth was not lately forged But the legall Ordinations of Arch-Bishop Parker and the rest according to the Register was published to the world in print above thirty yeares before the death of Queene Elisabeth Againe that which was published to the world in print with the allowance of Arch Bishop Parker or rather by Arch Bishops Parker himself was not intended by Arch Bishop Parker to be smothered oâ— concealed Men do not use to publish their forgeries in print especially so soone and of such publick actions whilest there are so many eye witnesses living That the Relation was not confuted That the Authour was never called to an account for it That no man stood up against the Registers nor on the behalf of the Naggâ—â—head Ordination in those daies That 〈◊〉 Neale was so tame to endure the lie in prieâ— and all his party so silent at that timâ— when the truth might so easily have beeâ— discovered as if it had bene written with â— beame of the sun as it was indeed is 〈◊〉 evident proofe that our Relation is undeniable and the Relation which theiâ— Fathers make is but a drowsy dreamâ— which could not indure the light of the sun The tenth and last reason to prove on Relation true and theirs fabulous is taken from all sortes of witnesses ours and theirs indifferently Mr Mason reckoned up seven of our writers who had justiâ—â—ed the legality of our Ordinations and â—ited our Registers as authentick Recorâ—es before himself Bishop Iewell Bishop Hall Bishop Goodwin Doctor â—ollings Mr Camden Mr. Shelden â—nd one who was then living when this â—uestion was so hotely debated in King â—unes his time and had been an eye-witâ—esse of Arch Bishop Parkers Consecraâ—â—ons at Lambeth that was the Earle of â—ottingham One that was well stored â—ith our English writers in Queene Elisabeths time might adde many more â—ut that can not well be expected from me 〈◊〉 this distance We may produce as many of theirs â—ho have confessed or been convinced of 〈◊〉 truth of Arch Bishop Parkers Conseâ—â—ation First Mr. Clerke whose Father â—as Register to Cardinall Pole in his Leâ—â—ntine Courte and he himself an Actuâ—â—y under him when Theophilus Higgins 〈◊〉 out of England to St. Omars or â—â—oway I remember not well whether â—here he met with this Mr. Clerke â—ho falling into discourse with him â—â—ncerning his Reasons why he had forsaken the Church of England Mr Higgins told him that one of them 〈◊〉 that saying of St. Hierome It is no Church which hath no Priests reflecting upon thiâ— Nagges head Consecration Mr. Clerke approved well of his Caution because 〈◊〉 dubiis tutior pars sequenda but withall 〈◊〉 wished that what their Authours had written concerning that point could be maâ— good confessing that he himself was 〈◊〉 England at that time The witnesse doâ—â— not positively remember whether at tâ—â— Consecration or not But Mr Clerâ—â— said that he himself was present when 〈◊〉 Advocate of the Arches whom the Queeâ— sent to peruse the Register after the Consecration and to give her an account whether it was performed Canonically returâ—â— her this answer that he had peruse the Register and that no just exceptiâ—â— could be made against the Consecration But he said something might hâ—â— been better particularly that Bishâ—â— Coverdale was not in his Rochet 〈◊〉 he assured her that could make no â—â—â—fect in the Consecration Here 〈◊〉 have if not an eye witnesse yet at least 〈◊〉 eare witnesse in an undoubted manner ofâ—â— legall Consecration and of the truth of the Register and of the judgement of the Advocate of the Arches concerning the Canonicalnesse of the Consecration Thus much Mr. Higgins was ready to make faith of whilest he was living and Mr. Barwick a person of very good credit from him of at this present The second witnesse is Mr. Higgins himself who comming afterwards into England had a desire to see the Register and did see it and finding those expresse words in it Milo vero Coverdallus non nisi togalanea talari â—â—ebatur and remembring withall what Mr. Clerke had told him whereas the Canonicall garments of the rest of the Bishops are particularly described he was so fully satisfied of the truth of the Consecration and lawfull succession of our English Bishops that he said he never made doubt of it afterwards My third witnesse is Mr. Hart a stiffe Roman Catholick but a very ingenuous person who having seene undoubted copies of Doctor Reynolds his Ordination by Bishop Freake and of Bishop Freakes Consecration by Arch Bishop Parker and lastly of Arch Bishop Parkers owne Consecration he was so fully satisfied with it that he himself did rase out all that part of the conference betweene him and Doctor Reinoldes My fourth witnesse is Father Oldcorne the Iesuit This testimony was urged by me in my treatise of Schisme in these words These authentick evidences being upon occasion produced out of our Ecclesiasticall Courtes and deliberately perused and viewed by Father Oldcorne the Iesuit he both confessed himself clearly convinced of that whereof he had so long doubted that was the legitimate succession of Bishops and Priests in our Church and wished heartily towards the reparation of the breach of Christendome that all the world were so abundantly satisfied as he himself was blaming us as partly guilty of the grosse mistake of many for not having publickly and timely made knowne to the world the notorious falshood of that empty but farre spread aspersion against our succession To this the Bishop of Chalcedon who was better acquainted with the passages of those times in England then any of those persons whom these Fathers stile of undoubted credit makes this confession That father Oldcorne being in hold for the povvder treason and judging others by himself should say those Registers to be authentick is no marvell A fifth witnesse is Mr. Wadsworth who in an Epistle to a freind in England doth testifie that before he left England he read the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in our Registers This made him so moderate above his fellowes that whereas some of them tell of five and the most of them of fifteen which were consecrated at
that Arch Bishop Parkers own booke should be printed in London by the Queens Printer in his life time and have any thing foisted into it contrary to his sense Here then we have a Register of Protestant Bishops with their Confirmations and Consecrations published to the world in Print at London by Arch Bishop Parker himself who was the principall person and most concerned in that Controversy as if it should dare all the Adversaries of our Church to except against it if they could Registers cannot be concealed being alwaies kept in the most publick and conspicuous places of great Cities whither every one hath accesse to them who will They need no printing but this was printed a work of supererogation They who dared not to except against it then when it was fresh in all mens memories ought not to be admitted to make conjecturall exceptions now Now the Fathers come to shew how their Doctors did object to our Protestant Clergy the Nullity and Illegality of their Ordination If their Doctors give a cause or reason of their knowledge we are bound to answer that but if they object nothing but their own Iudgement and authority we regard it not their judgement may weigh some thing with them but nothing at all with us This is not to make themselves Advocates but Iudges over us which we do not allow If I should produce the Testimonies of fourscore Protestant Doctors who affirm that we have a good Succession or that their Succession is not good what would they value it The first is Doctor Bristow Consider what Church that is whose Ministers are but very Laymen unsent uncalled unconsecrated holding therefore amongst us when they repent and return no other place but of Laymen in no case admitted no nor looking to Minister in any Office unlesse they take Orders which before they had not Here is Doctor Bristows Determination but where are his grounds He bringeth none at all but the practise of the Roman Church and that not generall Paul the 4 and Cardinall Poole and the Court of Rome in those dayes were of another Iudgement and so are many others and so may they themselves come to be when they have considered more seriously of the matter that we have both the same old Essentialls That which excuseth their Reordination from formall Sacrilege for from materiall it cannot be excused upon their own grounds is this that they cannot discover the truth of the matter of Fact for the hideous Fables raised by our Countrymen But where is the Nagge 's head Ordination in Dr. Bristow Then had been the time to have objected it and printed it if there had beeÌ„ any reality in it Either Dr. Bristow had never heard of this Pageant or he was ashamed of it Here we meet with Dr. Fulke again aÌ„d what they say of him shall be aÌ„swered in its proper place Their next witnesse is Mr. Reinolds There is no Heardman in all Turky who doth not undertake the Government of his Heard upon better reason and greater right Order and authority then these your magnificent Apostles c. And why an Heardsman in Turky but onely to allude to his Title of Calvino Turcismus An heardsman in Turky hath as much right to order his heard as an heardman in Christendome unlesse perhaps your Dr. did think that DominioÌ„ was founded in Grace not in nature This is saying but we expect proving It is well known that you pretend more to a magnificent Apostolate them we If the authority of the holy Scripture which knoweth no other Essentialls of Ordination but imposition of hands aÌ„d these words Receive the Holy Ghost if the perpetual practise of the universall church if the Prescription of the ancient Councell of Carthage and above 200. Orthodox Bishops with the concurrent approbation of the Primitive Fathers be sufficient grounds we want not sufficient grounds for the exercise of our Sacred Functions But on the contrary there is no Heardman in Turky who hath not more sufficient grounds or assuraÌ„ce of the lawfulnesse of his Office then you have for the discharge of your Holy Orders upon your own grounds The Turkish Heardman receives his Maisters Commands without examining his intention but according to your grounds if in â—n hundred successive Ordinations there were but one Bishop who had an intention not to Ordein or no intention to ordein or but one Priest who had an inteÌ„tioÌ„ notto bapâ—â—ise or no intention to baptise any of these Bishops then your whole Succession commeth to nothing But I must aske still where â—s your Nagge 's head Ordination in all this â—r Reinolds might have made a pleasaÌ„t Paâ—â—lell between the Nagge 's head Ordination â—nd the Ordination of the Turkish Mufti and wanted not a mind mischievous enough against his Mother the Church of England if he could have found the least pretext but there was none You seek for water out of a Pumice Their third Witnesse is Dr. Stapleton in his Counterblast against Bishop Horn. To say truely you are no Lord Winchester nor elsvvhere but onely Mr Robert Horn. Is 〈◊〉 not notorious that you and your Collegues vvere not ordeined according to the prescript I vvill not say of the Church but even of the very Statutes Hovv then can you challenge to your self the name of the Lord Bishop of Winchester You are vvithout anâ— Consecration at all of your Metropolitan himself pooreman being no Bishop neither This was a loud blast indeedâ— but if Dr Stapleton could have said any thing of the Nagge 's head Ordination he would have given another manner of blast thaâ— should have made the whole world Echâ— again with the Sound of it In vain you seeâ— any thing of the Nagge 's head in your writers untill after the yeare 1600. For answeâ— Dr. Stapleton raiseth no Objection froâ— the Institution of Christ whereupon anâ— onely whereupon the Validity or Invalidity of Ordination doth depend but onely from the Lawes of England First for the Canons we maintein that our Form of Episcopall Ordination hath the same Essentialls with the Roman but in other things of an inferiour allay it differeth from it The Papall Canons were never admitted for binding Lawes in England further then they were received by our selves and incorporated into our Lawes but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholick Church which prescribe no new Matter and Form in Priestly Ordination And for our Statutes the Parliament hath answered that Objection sufficiently shewing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legall and for the Validity of it we crave no mans favour Their last witnesse is Dr. Harding who had as good a will if there had been any reality in it to have spoken of the Nagge 's head Ordination as the best but he speaketh not a Syllable of it more then the rest and though they keep a great stirre with him he bringeth nothing that is worth the weighing First he readeth us a profound Lecture
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
from him and his Successours to the Crown much Land and received back again from the Crown to him and his Successours equivalent Lands If he had been unconsecrated all these Acts had been utterly void In summe whosoever dreameth now that all the world were in a dead sleep then for twenty yeares together whilest all these things were acting is much more asleep himself To these undeniable proofes I might adde as many more out of the Records of the Chancery if there needed any to prove him a Consecrated Bishop As. A grant to the said William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to hold in Commendam with the said Bishoprick the Rectory of Carewe in the county of Pembrooke Dated Octob. the 29. Anno 38. Hen. 8. A commission for Translation of William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to the Bishoprick of Bath and VVels Dated 3. Feb. 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Consecration of Robert Farrer to be Bishop of St. Davids per translationem VVillelmi Barlow c. Dated 3. Iul. Anno 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Restitution of the Temporalties of the said Bishoprick to the said Robert Farrer as being void per translationem Willelmi Barlow Dated 1. Augusti Anno 2. Edv. 6. In all which Records and many more he is alwaies named as a true Consecrated Bishop And lastly in Bishop Goodwins booke de Praesulibus Angliae pa. 663. of the Latin Edition printed at London Anno 1616. in his Catalogue of the Bishops of St. Assaph num 37. he hath these words Gulielmus Barlow Canonicorum Regularium apud Bisham Prior Consecratus est Feb. 22. Anno 1535 Aprili deinde sequente Meneviam translatus est VVilliam Barlow Prior of the Canons Regulars at Bisham was consecrated the two and twentieth Day of February in the yeare 1535 and in Aprill Follovving vvas translated to St. Davids Which confirmeth me in my former conjecture that he was Consecrated in Wales which Bishop Goodwin by reason of his Vicinity had much more reason to know exactly then we have They say Mr. Mason acknowledgeth that Mr Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker because Hodgskins the Suffragan of Bedford was onely an Assistent in that action and the Assistents in the Protestant Church doe not consecrate By the Fathers leave this is altogether untrue Neither was Bishop Barlow the onely man who Consecrated Archbishop Parker Neither was Bishop Hodgskins a meere Assistent in that action Thirdly who soever doe impose hands are joint consecraters with us as wel as them Lastly Mr. Mason saith no such thing as they affirm but directly the Contrary that all the foure Bishops were equally Consecraters all imposed hands all joined in the words and this he proveth out of the Register it self L. 3. c. 9. n. 8. l 3. c. 10. n. 9. They object He might as well be proved to have been a lawfull Husband because he had a woman and diverse Children as to have been a Consecrated Bishop because he ordeined and Discharged all acts belonging to the Order of a Bishop What was Bishop Barlowes Woman pertinent to his cause Are not Governants and Devotesses besides ordinary maidservants women All which Pastours not onely of their own Communion but of their own Society are permitted to have in their houses Let themselves be â—udges whether a Woman a wife or a Woman a Governant or a Devotesse be more properly to be ranged under the name or notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such women as were prohibited to Cohabit with Clerkes by the Councell of Nice But to leave the Hypothesis and come to the Thesis as being more pertinent to the present case If a man have cohabited long with a Woman as man and wife in the Generall estimation of the world and begot children upon her and dies as her husband without any doubt or dispute during his life and long after though all the Witnesses of their Marriage were dead and the Register lost this their Conjugall cohabitation and the common reputation of the world during his Life uncontroverted is in Law a sufficient proofe of the Marriage but all the world nemine contradicente esteemed Bishop Barlow as the undoubted Bishop and Spouse of his Church They adde Ridley Hooper Farrer were acknowledged and obeyed as Bishops in King Edwards time yet were Iudged by both the Spirituall and Temporall Court not to have been consecrated They mistake they were not judged not to have been consecrated for their Consecrations are upon Record but not to have been consecrated ritu Romano after the Roman Form And who gave this Iudgement Their open enemies who made no scruple to take away their Lifes whose unjust judgement we doe not value a rush but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Pole more authentick Iudges of their own party gave a later IudgemeÌ„t to the CoÌ„trary They aske how it is possible that Barlowes CoÌ„secration should not be found recorded if ever it was as well as his preferment to the Priory of Bisham and Election and Confirmation to the Bishoprick of St. Assaph I answer it is very easy to conceive I have shewed him sundry wayes how it might be and one probable way how it was I desire the Reader to observe the extreme partiality of these Fathers they make it impossible for the Acts of one Consecration to be lost or stollen and yet accuse us of forging fifteen Consecrations It is easier to steale fifteen then to Forge one Act. We have often asked a reason of them why the Protestants should decline their own Consecrations They give us one The truth is that Barlow as most of the Clergy in England in those times were Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therefore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome and were contented with the extraordinary calling of God and the Spirit as all other Churches are who pretend Reformation It is well they premised the truth is otherwise there had not been one word of truth in what they say First how do they know this It must be either by Relation but I am confident they can name no author for it or by Revelation but that they may not doe or it is to speake sparingly their own Imagination It is a great boldnesse to take the liberty to cast aspersions upon the Clergy of a whole Nation Secondly how commeth Bishop Barlow to be taxed of Puritanism we meet him a Prior and a Bishop we find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope Officiating Ordaining Confirming He who made no scruple to Ordein and Consecrate others gratis certainly did not forbeare his own Consecration with the apparent hazard of the losse of his Bishoprick out of scruple of Conscience Thirdly this aspersion is not well accommodated to the times For first Zuinglianisme was but short heeled in those Dayes when Bishop Barlow was Consecrated who sate in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop 31. Henr. 8 and the first Sermon that ever Zuinglius Preached as a Probationer was in Zurick in
doubted of his Ordination They answer first that Mr. Mason did not seek so solicitoâ—sly or diligently for Bishop Gardiners Consecration as for Bishop Barlowes Then why do not they whom it doth concern cause more diligent search to be made without finding the Records of Bishop Gardiners Consecration they cannot accuse Bishop Barlow of want of Consecration upon that onely reason Secondly they answer that if Gardiners Consecration were as doubtfull as Barlowes and Parkers they would take the same advise they give us to repaire with speed to some other Church of undoubted Clergy Yes where will they find a more undoubted Clergy They may goe further and fare worse Rome itself hath not more exact Records nor a more undoubted Succession then the Church of England There is no reason in the world to doubt either of Archbishop Parkers Consecration or Bishop Gardiners or Bishop Barlowes Neither doth his Consecration concern us so much at the Fathers imagine there were three Consecraters which is the Canonicall number besides him It is high time for the Fathers to wind up and draw to a Conclusion of this ArgumeÌ„t That which followeth next is too high and can scarcely be tolerated to accuse the publick Records and Archives of the Kingdome and to insimulate the Primates and Metropolitans of England of Forgery upon no ground but their own ImaginatioÌ„ I doubt whether they durst offer it to a widow Woman As to the impossibility of forging so many Registers in case there be so many it is easily answered that it is no more then that the Consecraters and other persons concerned should have conspired to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Cerimonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble Should any man accuse the Generall of their order or one of their Provincialls or but the Rector of one of their Colleges of Forgery and counterfeiting the publick Records of the Order how would they storm and thunder and mingle heaven and earth together and cry out No moderate or prudent persons can suspect that such persons should damne their soules that so many pious learned Divines should engage themselves and their posterity in damnable Sacrileges without feare of damnation If a man will not believe every ridiculous Fable which they tell by word of mouth upon hearsay they call persons of more virtue learning and prudence then themselves Fooles and Knaves But they may insimulate the principall Fathers of our Church of certifying most pernicious lyes under their hands and seales not for a piece of bread which is a poore temptatioÌ„ but for nothing that is to make them both Fooles and Knaves Is not this blowing hot and cold with the same breath or to have the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ with respect of persons Compare the politicall principles of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so pernicious to mankind and all humane Society in ours more then in yours Compare the Case Theology of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so destructive to Morality to truth and Iustice and Conscience as might lead us to perpetrate such Crimes more then yourselves We are not affraid of a Paralell You professe great endeavours to make Proselites we do not condemne Zeale yet wish you had more light with it even in prudence which you yourselves extoll this is not your right Course to follow those Birds with noise and clamour which you desire to catch In summe your answer or solution is full of ignorant mistakes It confoundeth Civill Rolles and Ecclesiasticall Registers It supposeth that our Records are but transcriptions one out of another whereas every Court recordeth its own Acts and keeps itself within its own bounds It taketh notice but of one Consecrater where as we have alwaies three at the least many times five or six It quite forgetteth publick Notaries which must be present at every Consecration with us to draw up what is done into Acts with us every one of these Notaries when he is admitted to that charge doth take a solemne Oath upon his knees to discharge his Office faithfully that is not to make false Certificates Secondly it is absurd and unseasonable to enquire how a thing came to passe that never was you ought First to have proved that our Records were forged and then it had been more seasonable to have enquired modestly how it came to passe Thirdly it is incredible that persons of such prudence and eminence should make false Certificates under their hands and seales to the utter ruine of themselves and all that had a hand it and no advantage to any person breathing It is incredible that those Records should be counterfeited in a corner which were avowed publickly for Authentick by the whole Parliament of England in the 8 yeare of Queen Elisabeth which were published to the world in print by the person most concerned as if he dared all the world to except against them and yet no man offered to except against them then Fourthly it is impossible to give in a false Certificate of a Consecration which was never performed in England especially at Lambeth before lesse then thousands of eye witnesses and that at Lambeth in the Face of the Court and Westminster Hall Surely they thinke we consecrate in Closets or holes or hay mowes They may even as well say that the publick Acts of our Parliaments are counterfeited and the publick Acts of our Synods are counterfeited and all our publick monuments counterfeited It is none of the honestest Pleas Negare factum to deny such publick Acts as these Fifthly this answer is pernicious to mankind it is destructive to all Societies of men that Bishops of so great eminence should conspire with publick Notaries to give in false Certificates in a matter of such High Consequence as Holy Orders are without any temptation without any hope of Advantage to them selves or others It affordeth a large Seminary for jealousies and suspicions It exterminateth all credit and confidence out of the world and instructeth all men to trust nothing but what they see with their eyes Lastly it is contradictory to themselves They have told us I know not how often and tell us again in this Paragraph That if the Nagge 's head Consecration had been false they might have convinced it by a thousand witnesses Here they make it an easy thing for the Consecraters and other persons concerned to conspire together to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Ceremonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble If the world will be deceived so it is but right and reason that it be deceived to be deceived by a false Certificate that may be convinced by a thousand witnesses is selfdeceit But they say this is more possible and more probable then that all the Clergy should conspire not