and Coverdale the tvvo other pretended Confecraters had never received being made protestant Bishops in King Edvvards time episcopal ordination But this shift availes them not I produce two others who were called Bishops in King Henries time sate in Parliament and tooke vpon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as greate gravity and solemnity as Barlow and yet they were de-declared by publique sentence in Q Maries time to be no Bishops nor validly consecrated These were Latimer and Ridley to whom D. Brookes Bishop of Glocester in his last speech before they were put to death for heresy Fox pag. 1604. told that they were to degrade them only of priesthood because they were no Bishops To this you answer M. Doctor that they who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make none tot take away their Orders You are quite out Cranmer was burnt for heresy as well as Latimer and Ridley and yet they made a scruple to take away his Orders though they tooke away his life because they knew he had validly received orders and therfore was degraded the same would have bin practised with Latimer and Ridley if the omission of degrading them had not bin vvaranted by evidence that they vvere never validly consecrated 4. We have often sayth D. Bramhall asked à reason of them why the Protestants should decline their ovvne consecrations They give vs one that Barlovv as most of the Clergy in England in those times vvere Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therfore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome c. This reason the Doctor solidly refutes by saying It is a greate boldnesse Pag. 195. to take the liberty to cast aspersions vpon the Clergy of a whole Nation If it be a boldnesse to say that your first Protestant Bishops contemned and rejected consecration and that they were of the same opinion concerning it with Luther Zuinglius and other Reformers themselves and not I are guilty of the crime Did not M. Horne and the rest of your first Bishops publish to the world in print an 1559. the very same yeare of the pretended consecration their sense of Priesthood and Priestly functions in these words In the Habor an 1559. Protest Apology tr 2. C. 2. sect 10. subd 7. In this point vve must vse a certaine moderation and not absolutely in every vvise debarre women herein c. I pray you vvhat more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbiding vvomen to preach then in forbidding them to vncover their heads and yet you knovv in the best reformed Churches of Germany all the maides be bare headed This your first Bishops tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptisme and consequently of allovving women to be Priests was so vvel knowne that D. Harding objects it to Ievvel Parker and the rest If yee allovv not every man yea and every vvoman to be a Priest Confut. Apol. fol. 60. vvhy drive yee not some of your fellovves to recant that so have preached Why allovv yee the bookes of your nevv Evangelists that so have vvritten 5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my boldnesse and condemne the Doctors mistake let him read the 25 article of his Creed which is this Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and extreame vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Ghospel being such as have grovvne partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apostles partly are states of life allovved in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of Sacraments vvith baptisme and the Lords supper for that they have not any visible signe or ceremony ordained of God It evidently follovveth out of this article that your first Bishops who made and published it an 1562. were of opinion that imposition of hands in ordination was not ordained by God vnlesse you will deny imposition of hands to be a visible signe and ceremony How doth this agree with your moderne Prelatique principles doth it not evince that Parker and the rest condemned in their judgment imposition of hands and contemned it as an idle superstition of Rome The evidence that the world had of their not being consecrated made them vtter so absurd doctrine and impose it as an article of faith vpon ignorant Protestants Whether they were Zvvinglians Lutherans Calvinists or vvhat you please their profession of faith showes what account they made of imposition of hands which is the buisines now in hand and makes them Svvinglians and Puritans in this point 6. Pag. 195. Yet you would faine know how cometh Barlovv to be taxed of Puritanisme because forsooth you find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope officiating ordaining confirming Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Henry the eight and Barlow sate in Parlament in the 31. therfore Barlow could not be a Svvinglian This is your learned discouse out of Chronology I must allow you more time to summe vp your numbers or to save you a labour tell you before hand that make what account you please you will find that Luther himselfe begun the contempt of sacred Orders though Swinglius after insisted more vpon it and there vvas time enough for Barlovv eyther to take it from Svvinglius or at least from Luther which is all one to our present purpose As for his ordaining others you vvill have much adoe to prove it at least those you would have for vve have proved your Registers to be forged but if any such thing be attemted you may conclude his presumption not his consecration And for his Robes Rochet Cope and Cap the spirit doth dispence with all puritans to weare them when they are named Bishops I hope John Hooper one of the purest brethren that England ever bred had as tender a conscience as William Barlovv but when he was to be made Bishop of Glocester Pag. 136. he vvas faine sayth Foxto agree to this condition that some times in his sermons he should shevv himselfe aparalled as the other Bishops vvere And yet it is evident that he vvas never consecrated though Cranmer and Ridley who were his enemies forced him to weare a square Cap and a linnend Rochet the only caracter of a protestant Bishop Though they vvanted the reality and truth of consecration yet they insisted vpon this formality and cloke of ambition in their sinister as Iohn Fox calls it and vnlucky contention 7. And that you may see what litle hazard your protestant Bishops did runn of Promunires by such practises Pag. 1456 John Fox tells you how D. Ridley that vvorthy Bishop of London called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon according to the Order that then vvas in the Church of England vvhich was the forme of Edvvard the 6. but for that this order was not vvithout some such abuse as to the vvhich Bradford vvold not consent the Bishop then vvas content to Order him Deacon vvithout any abuse
the contrary 6. You talke much of your key of order which vvas no other then the key of a celler elevated by the Queens scepter and spiritual authority to be efficient of your first Bishops consecration in a Taverne which you most ungratefully Pag. 60. 121. 171. 148. and vnwarily reject when contrary to the statutes you affirme that neyther she nor the lavves of England can make an ordination to be valid or invalid because they can not change the institution of Christ who determined for the essential matter of ordination imposition of hands This is very true but no protestant doctrine in those times as being contrary to the 25. article of your english Creed which teacheth that Christ never apointed any visible signe for Orders and consequently it is no Sacrament Therfore if imposition of hands be a visible signe it can not be according to the symbol of the English Church the essential matter of ordination by Christs institution If you had vttered in your primitive Church the Doctrine which now you print you had not only fallen into a Premunire but also incurred the penalties of an Heretique for being so obstinat against your new Creed and the articles set downe by your first Apostles 7. It is not to be wondered that a man so ignorant of his Creed should knowe so litle of the law as you do Read I pray these vvords of the statute 8. Eliz. 1. referring to an other made the first yeare of her reigne And by the same Act and statute there is also given to the Q. Highnesse her heirs c. full povver and authority by letters patents vnder the great seale of England from time to time to assigne name and authorise such person or persons as she or they shal thinke meete and convenient to exercise use occupie and execute vnder her Highnesse all manner of jurisdictions privileges preheminences and auihorities in any vvise toucking or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical povver or jurisdiction vvithin this Realme or any other her H. Dominions or Countries I beseech you M. Doctor answer now directly and without tergiversation might not the Queene by her letters patents without any other ceremony name and authorize according to this Act of Parliament any Carrier Carter or Catchpol to exercise vse occupie and execute all manner of jurisdictions preheminencies and authorities in any vvise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiasticall povver What is episcopacy or priesthood but a spiritual and ecclesiastical power And what is ordination or consecration but to exercise vse or execute this spiritual povver by conferring it vpon others Therfore according to the statuts of England the Queene and her heires and successors may make Priests and Bishops vvithout imposition of hands or any other matter or forme but their letters patents vnder the greate seale of England Which though it be cleere enough by the very words of the statute to any one that vnderstands English yet it is made most vndeniably evident by the Protestant Tenet of those dayes requiring no more for Order then Election of Prince or people which Tenet appeares in their writings in their translations of Scripture and in their Creed so that the Prince in England having assumed full power in point of Election could accordingly dispose and dispense at will in any thing belonging to Order And when any ceremony of consecration was vsed they cared not what it was so it might serve to amuse the vulgar not yet invred to the new Doctrine of Priests and Bishops not consecrated 8. This vvas the power assumed let vs now see their practise vsed Kellison survey pag. 373. 374. edit 1603. They vvere enforced sayth D Kellison to make superintendents and ministers of our apostating Priests such as Parker Grindal Sands Horne c. vvho vvere thought paste sit to make such Ministers on vvithout any other moulding or knedding And vvhen they vvanted Apostatas vvho vvere consecrated afther the Catholique manner they tooke laymen of their ovvne of vvhich some vvere base artificers and vvithout any other consecration or ordination then the Princes or the Superintendents letters vvho themselves vvere no Bishops they made them Ministers and Bitshops vvith as fevv ceremonies and lesse solemnity then they make their Aldermen yea Constables and Cryers of the Market Pag. 149. And from this stock proceedeth all the rable of their Ministers c. D. Stapleton whom you call one of the most rational heads our Church had since the separation gives you this Catalogue of your first protestant Clergy Counterblast lib. 4. num 481. printed an 1567. And vvherin I pray you resteth a great part of your nevv Clergy but in butchers cookes catchpols and coblers diers and dawbers fellons cayrring their marke in their hand instead of a shaven crowne fishermen gunners harpers inkeepers merchants and mariners netmakers potters potycaries and porters of Belingsgate pinners pedlers ruffling ruffins sadlers sheermen and sheaperds tanners tilers tinkers trumpeters weavers wherymen c. If D. Stapleton was so rational a head as you are pleased to acknowledge you havâ— but litle reason to brag of the first heads anâ— members of your schisme or separation anâ— much lesse to be angry vvith my lord Brookes for applying his Coachman to the office of a protestant Preacher Bram Pag. 12. who by his trade not to speake of his talent might challenge an eminenâ— place amongst your first Ministers and without disgracing your Church might head thiâ— rable that D. Stapleton hath so particularly described But speake to the purpose M. Doctor Doe you persuade your selfe that all these fellows were ordained by impofition oâ— episcopal hands and with all that formality you bring out of your Pontifical no truly they were only ordained by letters patents or so me paper of your first Bishopss who practiseâ— the same stile with their Ministers that thâ— Queene did with themselves and if sometimes vvith ceremony it vvas onely for ceremony not necessity and consequently with no more formality then might suffise to blind the ignorant And truly when I consider the Queens supreme and spiritual authority confirmed by the statuts 1. 8. Eliz. I do not wonder at this practise of your primitive Church in ordaining any Post or Carrier they met in the high way and that legally without any imposition of hands or Ceremony The statute doth warrant it by these words 8. Eliz. 1. And further for thâ— avoyding of all ambiguities and questions thaâ— might bee objected against the lawfull confirmations â—nvesting and consecrations of the said Archbishops and Bishops that is Parker and his felâ—ows her highnes in her letters patents under the great seale of England directed to any Archbisâ—op Bishops or others marke the word others which comprehendeth laymen or simple Priests for the confirming investing and consecrating of any person elected to the office or digniâ—y of any Archbishop or Bishop hath not only used such words and sentences as were acustomed to be â—sed
artificial Rhetorique of a slighting pretermission so stupify the natural logique of every one that is come to the vse of reason as not to see the force of this conclusion He hath killed his father what vvonder is it if he kill his brother They falsify Scripture what marvel if they forge records Hath your custome of vrging light conjectures against the Church of Rome so destroyed the nature of reason in you as not to feele your selfe or to thinke that others doe not feele the weight of an argument à fortiore Records are humane Scripture devine Records are kept in a corner Scripture exposed to the vew of all Records have fevv copies and kept by a few and those of one faction The Christian vvorld is full of Bibles Is it not then lesse against conscience of easier contrivence and further from danger of a shamefull discovery to forge records then to falsify Scripture This is onely to stop you a while from posting with so much speed from this passage In the end of the booke I shal detaine you longer and hould you faster and put a rub to the sliding eloquence you have learned in Holland If you vvil not yet the Reader shall see by vvhat I shal lay clearely before his eyes and shal remit to the judgement of his owne eyes if he be pleased to view and coÌ„fer him selfe what I shal set downe of some and direct him to seeke of other Protestant Ministers in point of grosse wilfull malicious and impudent falsifications of Scripture and Authours whereby he will conclude with himselfe how far he shal thinke fit to give credit hereafter to their sayings or writings and namely and particularly D. Morton called B. of Duresme that Minister of simple truth as he called himselfe in those very bookes which seeme to have bin dictated by the father of lyes and now in his late testimony is not ashamed to speake thus Pag. 15. I could never have made such a speech marke the proofe he adjoyneth seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts He may very well have forgot what he once spoke in Parlament seeing he hath forgot what he hath so often writ against his thoughts and cleer knowledge in â—everal bookes But of this mans false writings hereafther Pag. 107. now I returne to your false records being you are resolved to convince all â—hose vvho gainsay them by six doughty arguments which I hope to retortagainst you and by your owne grounds prove the contrary of what you are confident to maintaine 3. Your first argument is that value and respect which the lawes of England do give the Registers The lawes of England were so farre from valuing or respecting these Registers that they did not as much as cite or mention them when Parker and his Colleagues were pressed to â—hew the letters of their Orders being accuâ—ed by our Catholique Doctors that they had â—ever bin ordained And the Parliament 8. Eliz. thought it more for the credit of their protestant Church and Clergy to make them Bishops by a statute then examine the matter which resolution had never bin taken if any witnesses or Records of their consecration at Lambeth could have bin produced in the 8. yeare of Q. Elizabeths reigne But what marvaile is it that the lawes of England should not value your Records when your first superintendents themselves never durst send D. Harding or any of the rest who desired it an authentique Copie of them out of your Registry Or so muchas make mention of the original 4. Your second argument is taken from the credit of the foure publique Notaries who did testify Parkers individual consecration at Lambeth it being observable that these four Notaries were the same who did draw Cardinal Pooles consecration into Acts and attest them This proofe and observation weighs as litle as foure publique Notaries conscience and credit who in Cardinal Pooles time professed one faith and in Parkers an other Men that counterfeit religions will have no difficulty te counterfeit Registers if they be commanded or inclined to do it neither would their testimony be of vndoubted credit in any place of the world if contradicted by so many arguments and circumstances as your pretended consecration at Lambeth But in case these Notaries had bin persons beyond all exception might not their hands be counterfeited as well as the Register What greater difficulty can there be in one more then in the other It s a silly argument that involves in it selfe the same difficulty it ought to cleere Your third and fourth ground of the Queens Commission and of the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. have bin ansvvered in the former Chapter and are evident proofes that your Records are forged 5. Pag. 115. 116. Your fifth ground is taken from a booke you say vvas printed an 1572. of the lives of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury vvherin the Author that vvas Archbishop Parker himselfe having described the Confirmations and Consecrations of his fellovves he addeth in the margent These confirmations and consecrations do appeare in the Registers It seemes you learnt from Parker to cite your selfe as a vvitnesse for your felfe Is this the manner of Polemick Writers But why did not Parker or Ievvel remit D. Harding to these Registers wherof M. Parker some seaven yeares after made if vve believe you marginal notes when he so earnestly called for them Confut. Apolog. fol. 57. 59 edit 1566. shevv vs your Registers in the yeare 1566. Then vvas the time for Parker and the rest to cite them and not in the yeare 1572. Yet D. Champney doubts whether any such booke vvas printed of your Archbishops as you pretend Whether it was or no it matters not for the Registers cited in the margent by Parker mentioneth not any place or forme of their consecrations and is as indifferent for the Nagshead Taverne as for the Chapell of Lamheth as you may see in the booke called Antiquitates Britannia edit 1605. into which this forged Register was foisted being a meere novelty and therfore contrary to the drift and title of the booke without connexion to what goeth before or followeth after 6. But how comes it to passe M. Doctor that in this booke and Register are set dovvne as you say the names of your Bishops their Countries their Armes both of their sees and families Pag. 164. their respective ages their vniversities their degrees in Schooles vvith the times but not the place of their several consecrations How comes it to passe I say there should be roome for all these things and none at all for Lambeth which takes vp no more then Ipsvvich Parkers Countrey or Cambridge his vniverfity Is it more material to put in a Register the place of a Bishops nativity or education then the place where he received his caracter or consecration Did he esteeme more the degree of a Doctor then the dignity of a Bishop I could not exact nor expect from M. Parker
mysteries signified vvithout which formes neither of these Orders can be validly conferred This is the best vvay to reconcile the Greeke and Latin formes of ordination and the ancient and modern Rituals though in every one is expressed the particular function of a Priest or a Bishop Only yours because it vvas composed vvhen Zuinglianisme prevailed in England makes no mention of either in any forme or any thing like a forme But if you vvold be pleased to read Morinus a late Author de Ordinationibus sacris who may instruict both Polemick and Scholastick writers in this matter you will find how dangerous it is for particular persons or Churches to alter the present aÌ„d approved vse in the administration of the Sacrement of Order or even to resume the practise of ancient Rituals canonically abrogated much more when like malicious or ignorant surgeons the Swinglian heretiques cut away nerves and arteries and the very substance vnder pretext of superflous excrescences You will find the danger of neglecting the vsual matter and forme notwithstanding these termes were not so vsual in all ancient times Nor that your recourse to the grecian practise although it vvere like yours as it is not vvill secure you as it doth them and you vvill find the Greeke and Latin vse much better reconciled by him then by vulgar Authors of your or our profession even better then by Arcudius who gave some light to schoolemen in this particular You will find the Roman Church to vse the most assured way that can be imagined and never tooke away any thing that might give the least scruple either for the change or the povver or manner of changing You vvill find you have put a most satisfactory discourse conncerning the buisines of Formosus Pope and his succeeding enemies To transcribe all this at large â—s neyther vsefull to the ignorant who will vnderstand very litle nor needfull to the learned who may see the author nor proper to this â—hort trectise which without all this doth evinâ—e the Nullity of your Clergy and according to the most favourable opinion of any tolerable Devine makes your Ordinaion in a high degree vncertaine 4. Pag. 232. But you deny that Zuinglianisme preuailed in England in Edvvard the 6. time vvhen the 12. or 7. learned men forsooth in the lavv of God and the land made your formes of Ordination I hope you do not take vs to be as ignorant in the History of England as one of your chiefe Doctors did a Gentlewoeman lately in Paris when hearing of her inclinations to Catholique religion he dissuaded her from it by assuring her that it vvas not the ancient faith of England nor ever professed in that Kingdome before Henry the 8. time Do not all vnpartial vvriters mention the Protector Seamours perfidiousnesse in establishing Zvvinglianisme in England during the minority of Edvvard the 6. contrary to his promise and engagement to Henry the 8. Is it not notorious that in the second Parliament of K. Edvvard 6. Convers of England part 2. pag. 607. pag. 611. begun the 4. of November 1548. vvherin your booke of common praier and administration of Sacraments being imposed by Zuinglian heretiques chosen by the Protector and his faction vvas confirmed there vvas a great contention vvhether the Kingdome should be Lutheran or Zuinglian in religion and that after foure monthes debate the Zuinglians did overbeare the other side by some voices And hovv Peter Martyr and Bucer vvere inspired by the posts that brought newes of the Parliaments resolution from London to teach publiquely in the Vnniversities that Christ vvas not present in the Sacrament of the alter and that this is my body was no more then this is the signe of my body Is it not evident by Iohn Fox an Author of your own his Acts and Monuments Part. 3. Convers pag 372. eait 1604 that the far greater part of all your Protestant Saints and Martyrs were put to death for denying the real presence and not only transubstantiation Do not the bookes which our Catholique Doctors writ against your first superintendens demonstrate that these were of the same opinion with your Martyrs But vvhat need we go farther then the 25. of your 39. articles and translations of Scripture to prove your Zuinglian Tenet in matter of holy Orders They who thrust out of Scripture in the English versions the words Priest and Bishop putting insteed therof Elder and Superintendent were not likely men to put them or expresse their function in your formes of ordination But you say that in the Preface yee maintaine to all the vvorld that the three Orders of Bishops Priests Pag. 232. and Deacons have bin ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ Are men ordained by your Preface or because in your Preface it is maintained that the Church of Christ had alvvayes the said Orders doth it follow that the English Church in those times was the Church of Christ Call them Svvinglians call them Lutherans call them what you plaese their Creed their versions their writings show they contemned Consecration and were content with election and when they vsed some thing like consecration it was to satisfy the people not themselves And that Whitaker and Fulke whom you cite pag. 233. never admitted the necessity of consecrated Bishops no the very state of the question disputed in those times betweene our English sectaries was not about consecrated or not consecrated Bishop but whether one Minister was to be elected to Lord it over the rest Most of the Ministers misliked it but the Prince approved it for reason of state thereby to Keepe the Clergy in awe and to have so many mercenary Votes in the house of Lords 5. At length you tell vs that if your ancestours have pared away any thing out of mistake from ordination Pag. 235. that is either prescribed or practised by the true Catholique Church let it be made appeare evidently to you and you are more ready to vvelcome it againe at the fore dore then your Ancestours were to cast it out at the back dore Errare possumus haeretici esse nolumus Your Church hath so many times changed its Tenets and is so indifferent for any beneficial addition or subtraction of doctrine that it seemes to be composed of nothing but back dores and starting holes wherby you cast out and welcome in whatsoever is gratefull or not gratefull to the humor of the Prince or prevailing faction Now seing it hath bin made appeare that your Ancestours valued not episcopal consecration admitted no priesthood but baptisme and denied the real presence I hope you can not imagine that these men would compose formes of Ordination contrary to their owne Tenets and profession or that a Zuinglian Parliament would confirme your booke of administration of Sacraments and rites before they had vvell examined whether it contained any thing contrary to their owne conscience and reformation And if they had bin Lutherans you gaine litle seing
Luther himselse in the places alleadged in the next chapter maketh all Christians Priests by baptisme 6. But suppose it had not bin evident but only probable that your Ancestors pared avvay some part of the essential forme or matter of Ordination is it part of your Case Theology to contemne prudent doubts in a matter of fo greate importance and of absolute necessity for the being of a Church There is not a more infallible marke of heresy then to exact cleere evidence for obscure mysteries or to contemne ancient publique ceremonies vpon the warrant of a moderne private spirit as you might have seene and ought to have refuted if you could in the Treatise of Catholique faith and heresy But it seenes you regard not what is thought of your Heresy provided you may seeme to maintaine your episcopacy and that yee are content to vndergo the infamy of sectaries so vee retaine the titles of Lords and Bishops Pag. 234. You say we have such an eye at your Order and vniformity that wee can not let your long cloakes and surplises alone As for vniformity yee never had any and your vvant of Orders makes vs take notice of the superfluity of your long cloakes and surplisses The old Protestant cut would become yee much better and I believe yee will returne to it and welcome it at the fore dore of your Church alvvayes open for any advantage if the puritan or presbyterian faction prevaile CHAP. VI. That the Pope did not confirme Edward 6. forme of Ordination and that all sectaries admitted no priesthood but baptisme and that in Henry the 8. reigne and Edvvard the 6. men played the Bishops though never consecrated and so did Barlovv 1. TO my first reason you answer nothing to the purpose Pag. 63. but only that King Edvvards forme of ordination vvas judged valid in Queene Maries days by all Catholiques and particularly by Cardinal Pole then Apostolicall legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the 4 and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England This you prove by Cardinal Poles dispensation vvhich the Pope confirmed to all those that were ordained Praetensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclefiae Anglicanae pretending the Authority of the English supremacy I perceave by your other bookes you are well versed in Foxes Acts and monuments and some what in the Dutch Centurists vvith the story and statutes of England whence you gather what in passion hath bin done against the Popes authority vpon certaine abuses The attention to that made you not reflect vpon this decree or article as Fox calls it of Q. Maries made by the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal Fox pag. 1295. Item touching such persons as vvere heretofore promoted to any Orders after the nevv sort and fashion of Orders considering they vvere not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocese finding othervvise sufficiency and ability in these men may supply that thing which vvanted in them before and then according to his aiscretion admit them to Minister I hope this Article or Decree made vvith the consent and advise of Cardinal Poole and of the Lords spiritual and temporal of England doth sufficiently declare that his Dispensation and the Popes confirmation vvas intended and extended only to such as had bin ordained after the ancient and Catholique manner in the time of schisme Of others promoted to any Orders after the new fashion and forme of Edvvard the 6. its declared they vvere not ordered in very deed and therfore the Bishop ought to supply their want of ordination And yet you are so confident as to say that the question in Q. Maries dayes vvas not about the validity or invalidity of your Orders but about the legality or illegality of them I pray you not to be ordered in very deed is it only an illegality 2. The ill successe you had in recurring to King Edwards forme and Bishops doth force you appeale to Henry the 8. times wherin you imagine that neither Barlow nor any other durst play the Bishop if not cōsecrated because forsooth Henry the 8. was not a Baby to be ieasted withall Pag. 186. We know M Doctor that Henry the 8. was no Baby but you also ought te have knowen that he was a man more led by passion then by reason or religion After that he perceived how the Pope was resolved not to declare voyd his marriage with Q. Chatharine of Spaine he did so persecute his adherents and authority vvithout regard to conscience or even to his owne statuts that his principal care was to countenance heretical Preachers and principles as far as they concurred to maintaine his headship of the Church to enrich him with the spoiles therof to vex and endommage the Pope * Luther tom 2. de Min Ecclesiae instituendis fol. 368. seq de abroganda missa privata to 2. fol. 249. in lib. de capt Babylon C. de ordine Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. vers 5. Zuinglius tom 1. explanat a. 17. fine D. Horne and the first protestant Bishops in the Harborough an 1559 H. 2. Three Cōvers of England part 2. pag. 570. 571. Now heretiques generally in those days did agree in this principle that there is no other priestshood in the lavv of grace but baptisme and therfore all Christians both men and women were Priests and might preach and Ministers all Sacraments though to avoyd confusion the exercise of Priestly authority ought to be committed to some either by election of the Magistrate or by the letters patents of the Prince This doctrine they grounded vpon 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. Christ made vs all a holy nation a royal priesthood and Priests to his father This principle vvas so sutable to Henry the 8. designe of making himselse supreme head of the Church in spirituall affaires and of possessing himselse of its temporalities that he was well pleased to winke at the practise of all heretiques who pretended to be Bishops though they never had bin consecrated Archbishop Cranmer to whom all such matters were remitted being himselfe a prime heretique and in so greate favor with the King that romvvel before his fall sayd vnto him See Fox pag. 1694 1695. being accused of denying the real presence My Lord of Canterbury you are most happy of all men for you may doe and speake vvhat you list and let all men speake against you vvhat they can the King vvill never believe one vvord to your detriment or hinderance c. There was no such danger of Premunires as D. Bramhall pretends who would have vs take his word against the evidences cited in the margen that only Anabaptists Pag. 196. and not Zvvinglians rejected ordination 3. They who forged Masons Register thought fit to name among Parkers Consecraters Barlovv and Hodgkins both pretended Bishops in King Henry the 8. reigne not doubting therby to make it credible that they both and consequently Parker were validly consecrated though Scory
accordingly Evagrius reports this Canon Lib 2. c. 4 it was decreed saith he that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome should have the primacy before the other Sees And Socrates testifieth no more to have bin decreed in the Councell of Constantiple Lib. 5. c. 8. And Justinian the Emperour speaking of both these Councels Novel 131. sayth As the holy Pope of Rome is the first of all Prelates so the Archebishop of Constantinople new Rome should have the second place after the See Apostolique of old Rome and be preferred before all other Sees So you may see M. Doctor this grievous crime is no new thing and no lesse possible then probable that your protestant forefathers were as well versed in falsifying Registers as the Grecians and Arrians But you need no information in this matter And for the information of others I shall vpon occasion of Morton make it appeare how litle conscience and ashame your Ministers have in point of wilfull falsifications 7. Your third reason against the Nags head Consecration you take from the strictnesse of the english lawes But this hath bin answered in the 3. Chapter and the largenesse of the Queenes letters patents and statutes in favor of the Nagshead consecration demonstrated 8. Your fourth reason is Pag. 47. that there was no necessity to play this pageant But in this you contradict the Queenes commission and letters patents as you may see in the said 2. Chap. And besides D. Banewft beares witnesse against you in the answer he gave to M Alabaster that he boped Pag. 138. 140. in case of necessity a Priest might ordaine Bishops You answer I do not believe a word of what is said of B. Bancroft sub modo as it is heer set down For my part I believe the whole relateon is feined Is this your polemick manner of answering If you desire to be satisfied of the substance and manner of this story for as much of it as concerns me that is the faithfull relation you may find it in the Jesuits libraryes of Gant Antvverp ad Brussels in Holiwoods booke de investiganda Christi Ecclesia Cap. 4. But if you imagine that Father Holiwood did feigne such a story I must let you know that he was not only one of the most learned Doctors of his time having taught Divinity in some of the chiefest universities of Europ with great satisfaction and applause but that he was esteemed by all who knew him a man of eminent vertu and supernaturall gifts He foretold the future miseries of his Countrey Ireland when it was most florisking and assured that the posterity of the ancient english Conquerours inhabiting the English Pale would be driven out ef their howses and homes though since the conquest they were never more favored by the state then when he told this to F. Robert Nugent and others Being heire to a faire estate and chiefe of a noble family he renounced all that his birth had given and his hopes or deserts might promise to follow Christ in a religious state of life Now to say that this man feigned Bancrofts answer and printed such an imposture in Bancrofts life time is no better then a childish evasion or such a Ministers confutation as undertooke to refute Bellarmine by saying Bellarmine thou lyest 9. You are pleased also to call D. Sanders relation of the Irish Archbishops refusal to consecrate your first Superintendents a vaine report Pag. 50. 51. because forsooth the Archbishop wanteth a name and the fable wanteth a ground His name was Richard Creagh Archbishop of Armach Analect sacr Hiber edit 1617. who died many yeares afterward in the tower of London You say that if Consecraters had bin wanting in England Yee might have seven out of Ireland and that your Irish protestant Consecration was never questioned It s strange that the Bishops of Ireland should comply so with your heresy wheras it is well known that three hundred persons of the whole nation could not be drawen to it Fitz. Simons in Britan. nomach either by faire or foule meanes since Henry the 8. Schisme untill King Charles his reigne Your Irish consecration is every jot as invalid as your english neither can you make it appeare that any Catholique Bishop ever imposed hands Macragh was never consecrated as his owne friars testify vpon your first protestant Superintendents of Ireland who were all made Bishops by the Queens letters patents and with as litle consecration as those of England Is it credible that if the Queene could have found in Ireland true Bishops that could have bin brought to impose hands vpon those that were to be ordained in England that she would have alledged such necessity as you have seene in the 2. Chapt. could not she have called for her owne subjects Rather then give such a povver as never vvas heard of supplying the vvant of the condition and state of the person and adding such words as imply the sufficiency of one person and even a lay person If she might have had several true Bishops out of Ireland vvould this have bin done If they had consecrated Protestants in Ireland vvould they have refused the like in England though you have no ground to build vpon your Irish succession yet I have ground enough in your worke to suspect that you have willingly and wittingly prevaricated in the succession of your English Bishops that they may be forced to recurre to your Irish ordination Truly in your booke you have given me so many advantages against your cause that I shall never accuse my selfe of rashnesse for this suspition of your plaine prevarication or at least it must have bin a most vaine presumption to thinke that vvith petty tricks of auvoiding rather then ansvvering the force of arguments and florishing vvith your negative testimonies about a speech of one man you can maintaine a cause vpon so many and manifest titles defective What if there had bin a mistake about Mortons speech is the prize vvonne on your side Is the question stated vpon that circumstance Your fift reason is drawne from a principle of Rhetorique Cni bono or vvhat advantage could such a consecration as that of the Nagshead bring to the Consecraters or the persons consecrated I shall tell you vvhat It served seing they could get no better to raise a rumour that they had bin consecrated and thereby to delude the people which had not so soone fully learned the nevv doctrine of those times that election vvithout consecration vvas sufficient This vvas all the superintendents cared for vvho in their opinions slighted consecration as a thing not necessary as I have made appeare by the common Tenet of those dayes by the statutes and Acts by the 25. Article of their ovvne Creed Your 6. and 7. Reasons taken from the diametricall opposition which you pretend is betvveen this Nagshead story and all the Records of England are
would have cost or served him was he dead I see no more signes in this then in other occasions of Gods favourable providence to your Church Will the Earles saying to a namelesse friend that he had bin at a banquet in Lambeth restore the credit of your Church deprived of lawfull Clergy vpon so many titles as have bin alleadged and this man not speacke of what he had heard till the Author was speechlesse and in his grave but the Earle tould it to a friend What friend Why is his name concealed and his relation printed if it be not that he neither hath name nor being You do not believe that John Stow related the story of the Nagshead to more then one friend because D. Champney doth not name them and you exact from us to believe that the Earle of Notingham related the story of Lambeth to one friend though you do not name him Yet John Stowes friends had good reasons why they would not be named by D. Champney when your Clergy was so powerfull and spitefull in England but what reason could the Earle of Notinghams friend have not to be named by M. Mason Did he peradventure feare that your Clergy would persecute him for endeavoring to maintaine their Orders and credit do you not see M. Doctor how ill grounded a fable this is of your first Bishops consecration at Lambeth that you can not name for it one witnesse allowable I doe not say nor exact as you doe according to the rigour of legal formality but not so much as by the favour of ordinary probability 5. You will find on the other side the Nags-head story much more credible delivered to us by the tradition and testimony of the most able persons of our Religion and Nation He who gainsaies it may vpon the same score gainsay any thing that is beyond the reach of his memory or depends vpon the testimony of others What ground hath any man to fix his beliefe vpon but a constant tradition and testimony of honest and knowing persons It s now à century of yeares since the Nagshead story happened it hath bin constantly related and credited by wise men as a certaine truth ever since the yeare 1559. It was never contradicted by any untill it was imagined by our adversaries that their new Registers might contest with our ancient tradition and make the. Nagshead story seeme improbable in the yeare 1613. of which no man doubted for the space of 52. yeares before But they were mistaken because evident truths though they relate absurd actions can not by any device or art be made improbable untill their evidence be blotted out of the memory of men Time may weare out writings and all other monuments but tradition will last as long as men and time it is a never decaying evidence that makes any thing evidently credible which hath not bin seasonably contradicted when it mought and ought to have bin done especially if with much advantage and litle difficulty 6. That there hath bin these hundred yeares a constant tradition betweene sober and wise men of the Nagshead story can not be denyed by our Adversaries vnlesse they be resolved to say that we Catholiques have had no sober or learned men since they left vs. I hope the Catholique Bishops and Doctors of Q. Maries time were sober and wise men they believed this story and recounted it to Persons Fitzherbert D. Kellison Holiwood D. Champney Fitzsimons c. Persons believed it and recounted it as a serious truth to many as is well knowne to F. Henry Silisdon a man of knowen integrity and truth yet living Fitzherbert and the rest above named gave so much credit to it that they published it in print as every one may see in their bookes Therfore this story is farre from being improbable but is rather evident as being supported by the credit testemony and tradition of most wise and sober Authors however so improbable it may seeme to somme out of a Protestant zeale or want of knowledge But your maine argument against the evidence of this story is that all our Catholiques seeme to have it only from M. Neale Who told this to D. Bluet Pag. 132. Neale Who told this to Haberley Neale Who told it to the rest of the prisoners at Wisbich Neale Only Neale By your leave M. Doctor you forget yourselfe for in an other place o◠your booke Pag. 32. you acknowledge that M. Constable writ the story and he is one of our principal Authors but he sayes in his relation written when this story happened that is was a thing without doubt because not only M. Neale but other Catholiques integerrimae fidei of most intire credit were eyewitnesses of Scorys ridiculous manner of consecrating Parker and the rest in the Nagshead Taverne Yet suppose that M. Neale had bin the only eye-witnesse of this action I see nothing that followes more cleerly from such a supposition then this conclusion Ergo M. Neale must needs have bin a person of very greate ing enuity and integrity Be pleased to turne and frame your interrogations thus Who believed M. Neale D. Watson Bishop of Lincoln Who believed M. Neale D. Bluet Who believed M. Neale D. Haberley Who believed M. Neale All the learned and vertuous Priests prisoners for their conscience at Wisbich Who believed M. Neale All the Catholiques of England The conclusion is Ergo M. Neale was a man that deserved great credit otherwise you must condemne the greatest heads amongst Cathoques for believing so odd a story without any credible authority M. Neale had bin a professor in the Vniversity of Oxford and forfeited his chaire and livelihood for not taking the oath of supremacy It is incredible that he would feigne such a story as that of the Nags-head and therby engage the Catholique Church to practise Reordination against our knowen Tenets and his owne conscience and by such a relation declare himselfe to be not only a virulent backbiter but an impudent Impostor 7. But now I must prove that the Nags-head story is more then probable not onely for the quality of the persons reporting and believing it but also by the very circumstances or rather exigences of the time If you looke vpon the Church of England as it was in the late Kings reigne it will seeme improbable that men should choose a Taverne for an episcopal consecration but if we consider the straight passages through which the said Church was forced to march in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reigne by reason of the notorius want it had of Bishops it will not appeare strange unto vs that the first protestant superintendents should go to a Taverne with intention to supply there the want of their Church it being well knowne in those days that neither Scory nor Hadgkins nor Coverdale were consecrated Bishops And though they had the Keyes of the Churches at their command they had not the Key of Order nor the command of the true Bishops hands or tongues
therfore it was plotted that old Landaffe should be inveigled to give them a meeting in a Taverne where with good words and good cups they hoped to bring the old man to a good humour But God gave him grace to abstaine from a second scandal though himself had taken the oath of supremacy yet in his judgment he was à Catholique and more sensible of B. Bonners excomunication ready to be fulminated against him then D. Bramhall would have his Reader believe Now if we will add to this necessity the principles and inclinations of the persons that were to be ordeined Bishops we shall find there was nothing in the circumstances of the Taverne consecration which makes it incredible for the persons were of the opinion then à la Mode condemning consecration as a point not necessary for Ecclestical power though not te be refused for publique satisfaction and seeing no better could be had they thought it more expedient to have something presently which they might give out for Consecration then to expect longer for their benefices which was the buisnes they were about and sought vvith all care and speed to bring about 8. I must returne once more to M. Neale and complaine of your railing M. Doctor against a learned and honest man You call him a spie brainsick foole c. and despise his testimony because he was not sworne the credit which as wise men as you did give him is an argument that he was no foole and that he could well distinguish a Consecration dinner from an ordination such a mistake doth not much misbecome a Protestant Courtier as the Earle of Noting ham was but it can not be believed of such a Priest and a Lector of the University of Oxford as M. Neale I remember when you tooke vpon you in Bruges to confirme some eminent persons of the English Court many of the Courtiours were starled at so vnusual a ceremony as your confirmation seemed to them and were solicitous to know what it meant Why should not the Earle of Notingham be as ignorant of a Protestant consecration as the Courtiers of Bruges were of your ceremonious confirmation Especially seing confirmation should be given to all and therfore frequent Fitz. Simons in Britan. Pag. 317. where as Consecration of Bishops happens seldome 9 To M. Neale and other Catholiques eye vvitnesses of your Nagshead consecration cited by M. Constable may be added the testimony of all the Puritans who say that the profane Order and Ordination of Protestant Bishops in England Demonstrat disciplina cap. 8. §. 1. 2. pag. 43. had its beginning and progresse in a corner not in a congregation I hope the Archiopiscopal Chappell of Lambeth is no corner these words must allude to the Nagshead Taverne for no other place is heard of but these two and do prove that your Registers deserve no credit but that they were forged in a corner To the Puritans I will aggregate all your English Clergy in the beginning of K. Iames his reigne when Holiwood printed how D. Alabaster asked of M. Brancroft pretended Bishop of London how his first Superintendents Parker c. were consecrated he answered that he hoped in case of necessity a Priest might ordaine Bishops This answer demonstrats the truth of the Nagshead story and the forgery of your Records because all your Clergy did acquiesce to Brancroft answer not one of them had a word to oppose against F. Holivvoods booke and by their silence proved themselves our witnesses Qui tacet consentire videtur 10. Now M. Doctor that we have produced the grounds circumstances and witnesses of the Nagshead story and of your solemne consecration at Lambeth let vs compare one with the other that the Reader may judge which of both ought to be credited Our story of the Nagshead is grounded vpon a constant tradition of a hundred yeares betweene wise and sober persons which tradition can not be counterfeited because no human industry can reach or spread so farre as to speake the same thing by so different mouthes and interest as there are amongst our witnesses Catholiques Puritans and Protestants But the ground of your protestant consecration at Lambeth comes farre short of what yee intend to prove by it for your ground is your Register vvhich appeared not being called for neere a hundred yeares ago vntill the yeare 1613. And besides it might be as easely counterfeited as any other writing by one or fewe hands without the concurrence or conspiracy of so many hands heads and opposite interests as would have bin necessary for the counterfeiting of one Tradition So that as to the grounds of both stories ours is the more credible 11. As for circumstances which must relate to the place tyme and persons there is no doubt that our story hath the advantage The place of your pretended consecration Lambeth vvas never named even in your Hanovv Register vntill 1613. Our story named the Nagshead Taverne from the beginning As for the persons their conscience and religion we have also the better for you have seene how litle in those dayes your religion valued Ordination and your first Bishops conscience could make no scruple to act and receive in a Taverne what they judged to be no act of religion As for the danger of Premunires or other penalties they could not feare any having in their comission an ample dispensation to do what they pleased against the Statutes and Canons as hath bin demonstrated in the 2. Chap. And finaly the last circumstance which is of time and persons doth so divide the relations of your writers vvho speake of this consecration at Lambeth that their contradictions are a sufficient proofe of your forged records because relations drawne out of true records can not vary in the names and nomber of persons in the month or day which of course are expressed with great exactnes You can find no such contradictions in the Nagshead story 12. But now let vs reflect vpon the number and quality of the witnesses Ours are not only M. Neale but others of most intire credit spectators of the Nagthead Consecration as M. Constable writ in their owne life times neere a hundred yeares ago but yee never named any eyewitnesse but one the Earle of Notingham eyther dead when he was cited or if alive in a manner and lesse credible then if he had bin dead Our eye witnesses related the story of the Nagshead to D. Watson Bishop of Lincolns D. Bluet D. Haberley M. Constable John Stow to the Priests prisoners at Wisbich c. but your one witnesse never related the story of Lambeth to any that had a name but only is sayd by M. Mason to have told it to a namelesse friend Our witnesses published the story of the Nagshead in the very beginning as soone as it happened but your Witnesse never published that of Lambeth but told it privatly to a friend as if forsooth it had bin a secret or a prejudice to his Church
even as he desired After this Deaconship he was imediately without any orders made Prebend and Preacher of S. Paules having never studied but one yeare and all his life before having bin a serving man to Sr. John Harington Doe you imagine M. Doctor that Barlowes Consecrater would not be as indulgent to him as Ridley was to Bradford Or do you thinke that Ridley vvould not venture as farre for his owne conscience when he vvas to be consecrated as he did for that of his Deacon There vvas no such rigour or danger of Premunires in those dayes as you endeavor to perswade your Reader neither Henry the 8. nor his Vicar General Cromvvel nor Archbishop Cranmer nor sir Thomas Audley a Lutheran and Chancelor after Sir Thomas More did thinke it vvas for their purpose to presse any other ordination or Consecration vpon tender consciences but baptisme because by this principle the King had some colour for his spiritual headship and for the temporalities of the Church and the three others by dissembling and suspending the rigour of the lavves vvith a pretense of enriching the King countenanced and planted their owne errours in the Kingdome 8. What wonder is it therfore if the consecration of Protestant Bishops should not appeare in any Register but yours and Barlovvs in none at all seing it was against their principles and practise to be consecrated But your invisible Register hath a property of making visible what never had a being Pag. 185. Yet by the helpe of those Records vvhich are in the Court of faculties I should not despaire sayth the Doctor of finding Barlovves consecration I must confesse my ignorance of your Court of faculties but like wise acknowledge my experience of the faculties of your Court and Church in finding things never thought of by any but your selves But where trow you doth the Doctor hope to find out Barlovvs consecration I am confirmed Pag. 191. saith he in my former conjecture that he vvas consecrated in Wales which Bishop Goodvin had much more reason to knovv exactly then we have Yet Bishop Geadvin speaking of Barlovv in three sundry places viz as Bishops of S. Davids Bath and Welles Chishester sayes not a word of his cōsecrationin any of them for of his being B. of S. Asaph there is no mention in the English edition much lesse of his being consecrated there though you tell vs that in his Latin edition printed at London 1616. are these vvords he vvas consecrated 22. Feb. 1535. From whence came this new knowledge It is à preparation and disposition for a further forgery Without doubt the next edition wil say he was consecrated at S. Davids or S. Asaph in Wales and that indeed may confirme your conjecture of the place and my evidence of your Clergies practise of forging Registers But why you should hope or conjecture that Barlows consecration after the effluxion of a hundred yeares may be found in Wales I vnderstand not if it be not that you are resolved to imitate the example of meane upstarts who insert their families into welch pedigrees So yee it seemes intend to furnish your upstart Church and Clergies want of Ordination with welch Registers as in an other occasion you indeavored to prove your independency of Rome by a welch proverb You are pleased to say but without any proofe that Barlows leases made in the sees of S. Davids Bath and Wels were never questioned We deny it And prove our denial by the example of Ridley who being as much à Bishop in Henry the 8. time as Barlow begged as a favor before his death of Q. Mary that the leases made by him in the see of London might stand good This you may reade in your owne John Fox where he relates Ridleys martyr dome What greater right I pray could Barlow pretend for the vaildity of his leases then his brother Ridley both of them being pretēded Bishops of Henry the 8. time You are very unfortunate in all your arguments unlesse your intention be prevarication of your cause to make your selfe more looked after upon the title of deriving your Episcopacy from the line of Irish Prelacy which thoug I can not say it had its beginning in a Taverne as the English had yet it wanted as much in the substance Had there bin true Bishops in Ireland who could have bin brouglt to lay hands on the new Superintendents the Queene might have saved her labour and credit of giving such enormous dispēsations as never were heard of Besides I must aske you a question in your eare Were you Mr. Doctor made Priest in Ireland you find an occasion to thrust in your being Bishoped in Ireland but I can not find you speake of the other and you know that no Priest no Bishop But although you were if matters litle for your Irish descent is no better then the English nor any reason hitherto hath bin produced to make it better CHAP. VII D. Bramhalls ten reasons against the Nagshead story refuted and retorted against Masons Records and the fable of the first Protestant Bishops Consecration at Lambeth 1. WE are come at length to the Nags-head M. Doctor the place of your florishes and triumphs against this very true story you produce ten reasons to make it incredible which I will not only refute but retort against your Records and feigned Consecration at Lambeth Your first reason against the Nagshead story Pag. 31. Is taken from the palpable contradictions of the Catholique Writers who have related this tale of a tub Pag. 32. Let us heare these palpable contradictions The common opinion is that Scory a lone did consecrate them But M. Constable See Chāpney edit Lat. 1618. pag. 502. one of their principal Authors supposeth thus you English me latet that Barlow might joyne with him in that and Sanders leaveth it doubtfull Pag. 33. when or where or by whom they were ordeined You must have learned a peevish wrangling logique that makes you fall vpon another as contradicting you when you affirming the thing to be so he doth not say no but onely me latet I doe not know But you say that M. Wadsworth only doth affirme that there was an attempt to consecrate Parker All others writers say the same There was no more then an attempt that Landaffe should consecrate Parker I hope you do not imagine that we take Scoryes ridiculous ceremony vvith Parker and the rest to be an episcopal consecration it vvas no more then an absurd attempt Here is another contradiction of people that say the same thing in different words 2. Seing these contradictions are so farre from being palpable that they are not intelligible the Doctor brings others Other say Pag. 34. there was more then an attempt but they name none Others name some but they accord not one with an other in naming them Some say I ewel Sands Horne c. Others say Parker Grindall c. Lastly others say they were all ordeined