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
to the upper house a certeine booke proving that the Protestant Bishops had no succession or consecration and therefore were no Bishops and by consequence had no right to sitte in Parliament Hereupon Doctor Morton pretended Bishop of Durrham who is yet alive made a speech against this booke in his owne and all the Bishops behalfe then present He endeavoured to prove succession from the last Catholick Bishops who said he by imposition of hands ordeined the first Protestant Bishops at the Nagge 's head in Cheap syde as vvas Notorious to all the vvorld Therefore the afore said booke ought to be looked upon as a groundless libell This vvas told to many by one of the ancientest Peeres of England praesent in Parliament vvhen Morton made his speech And thesame he is ready to depose upon his oath Nay he cannot believe that any vvill be so impudent as to denie a thing so notorious vvhereof there are as many vvitnesses living as there are Lords and Bishops that vvere that day in the upper house of Parliament Here are three passages One concerning a booke presented to the upper house against the successioÌ„ of English Bishops by some presbiterian Lords The second concerning the pretended refutation of this booke by the Bishop of Duresme The third the proofe of both these allegations by the Testimony of an Ancient Peere of England First for the booke It is most true there was a booke written about that time by a single Lord against Episcopacy and dedicated to the members of both houses of Parliament No wonder How often have the Parliaments in the reignes of Queene Elisabeth and King Iames bene troubled with such Requests and Representations It is no strange thing that a weake eie should be offended with the light of the sun We may justly ascribe the reviving of the Aerian heresy in these later daies to the Dispensations of the Courte of Rome who licensed ordinary Priests to ordeine and confirme and do the most essentiall offices of Bishops So their Scholes do teach us A Preest may be the exâ—raordinary Minister of Priesthood and inferiour orders by the delegation of the Pope Againe The Pope may conferre the power of confirmation upon a simple Priest By such exorbitant practises as these they chalked ouâ— the way to â—nnovators And yet they are not able to produce one president of such a dispensation throughout the primitive times A good Christian ought to regarde more what the whole Christian world in all ages hath practised then what a few conceited persons in this last age have fancied Among all the Easterne Southern and Northerne Christians who make innumerable multitudes there neither is nor ever was one formed Church that wanted Bishops Yet these are as farre from submitting to the exorbitant power of the Roman Bishop as we Among all the westerne Churches and their Colonies there never was one formed Church for 1500. yeares that wanted Bishops If there be any persons so farre possessed with prejudice that they chuse rather to follow the private dictates of their owne phrensy then the perpetuall and universall practise of the Catholick Church enter not into their secrets o my soule Thus farre we agree but in all the rest of the circumstances though they be not much materiall the Fathers do pittifully mistake themselves and vary much from the Testimony of their witness and much more from the truth First the Authour of this booke was no presbyterian Lord much less a company or caball of Presbiterian Lords in the plurall but my Lord Brookes one that had as little favour for Presbytery as for Episcopacy Secondly the booke was not praesented to the upper house It might be brought into the house privately yet not be praesented to the house publickly If it had bene publickly praesented the Clerkes of the Parliament or some of them must needes have known of it and made an Act of it but they know no such thing The Lords Spirituall and Temporall could not all have Forgotten it but they remember no such thing as by their respective certificates praesently shall appeare Thirdly as the Authour is mistaken and praesentation mistaken So the subject likewise is mistaken Sit liber Iudex let the booke speake for it self Thus an able freind certifieth me I have got my Lord Brookes booke which he wrote against the Bishops with much labour and perused it with no less Patience And there is not in it the least shadow of any Argument that the Bishops ought not to sitte in Parliament because they had no succession or consecration What did my Lord Brookes regard succession or Consecration or holy orders who had a Coachman to be his preacher The less Canonicall the ordination had bene the more he would have applauded it Time and place and forme and all were agreeable to that Christian liberty which he dreamed of it was not wante of consecration but consecration it self which he excepted against as all men knew who knew him And in this quarrell he lost his life after a most remarkable and allmost miraculous manner at the siege of Lichfield Church upon St. Ceaddas anniversary day who was the founder of that Church and Bishop of it I know the Fathers will be troubled much that this which they have published to the view of the world concerning the Bishop of Durrham as a truth so evident which no man can have the impudence to denie should be denied yea denied positively and throughout denied not onely by the Bishop of Durrham himself but by all the Lords spirituall and Temporall that can be met with Denied by some Lords of their owne communion who understand them selves as well as any among them though their names are not subscribed to the certificate Denied by the Clerkes of the Parliament whose office it is to keepe a diary of all the speeches made in the house of the Peeres For Proofe hereof First I produce the Protestation of the Bishop of Duresme him self attested by witnesses in the Praesence of a publick Notary Take it in his owne words VVhereas I am most injuriously and slanderously traduced by a nameles Authour calling himself N. N. in a booke said to be printed at Rouen 1657. intituled a treatise of the nature of Catholick faith and haeresy as if upon the praesenting of a certein booke to the upper house in the beginning of the late Parliament prouing as he saith the protestant Bishops had no succession nor consecration and therefore were no Bishops and by consequence ought not to sit in Parliament I should make a speech against the said booke in my owne and all the Bishops behalfs endevouring to prove succession from the last Catholick Bishops as he there stiles them who by imposition of hands ordeined the first protestant Bishops at the nagges head in cheapsyde as was notorious to all the world c. I do hereby in the praesence of Almighty God solemnely protest and declare to all the world that what this Authour there affirmes
concerning me is a most notorious untruth and a grosse slander For to the best of my knowledge and remembrance no such booke as he there mentions was ever presented to the upper house in that or any other Parliament that ever I sate in And if there had I could never have made such a speech as is there pretended seeing I have ever spokeÌ„ according to my thoughts and alwaies believed that fable of the Nagge 's head consecration to have proceded from the father of lies as the Authentick Recordes of the Church still extant which were so faithfully transcribed and published by Mr. Mason do evidently testifie And whereas the same impudent Libeller doth moreover say that what he there affirmes was told to many by one of the ancientest Peeres of England praesent in Parliament when I made this praetended speech and that he is ready to depose the same upon his oath And that he can not believe any will be so impudent to denie a thing so notorious whereof there are as many witnesses living as there are Lords and Bishops that were that day in the upper house of Parliament c. I answer that I am very unwilling to beleeve any peere of England should have so little sense of his Conscience and honour as either to sweare or so much as affirme such a notorious untruth And therefore for the justification of my self and Manifestation of the truth in this Particular I do freely and vvillingly appeale as he directs me to those many honourable persons the Lord Spirituall and temporall yet alive vvho sate in the house of Peeres in that Parliament or to as many of them as this my Protestation shall come to for a true certificate of vvhat they knovv or believe Concerning this matter Humbly desiring them and charging it upon their soules as they vvill ansvver it to god at the day of Iudgment that they vvill be pleased to testifie the truth and nothing but the truth herein to the best of their knovvledg and remembrance vvithout any favour or affection to me at all I cannot reasonably be suspected by any indifâ—erent man of denyng any thing that I knovv or believe to be true seeing I am so shortly in all probability to render an account to the searcher of hearts of all my words and actions being now at the least upon the ninetyfifth yeare of my age And I acknowledge it a great mercy and favour of God that he hath reserved me thus long to cleare the Church of England and my self of this most notorious Slander before he takes me to himself For I can not imagine any reason why this shamelesse writer might not have cast the same upon any of my Reverend Brethren as well as me but onely that I being the eldest it was probable I might be in my graue before this untruth could be taken notice of in the world And now I thanke god I can cherefully sing my nunc dimittis unlesse it please him to reserve me for the like service hereafter for I desire not to live any longer upon earth then he shall be pleased to make me his instrument to defend the truth and promote his glory And for the more solemne and full Confirmation of this my free and voluntary protestation and declaration I have hereunto set my hand and seale this seventeenth day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. THOMAS DVRESME Signed sealed published and declared in the presence of Tho Sanders Sen Tho Sanders Iun Iohn Barwick Clerke R Gray Evan Davies I Tobias Holder publick Notary being requested by the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Lo. Bishop of Duresme at the house of Thomas Sanders Esquire in the Parish of Flamstead in the County of Hartford in the yeare of our Lord moneth and day above specified was then and there personally present where and vvhen the said Reverend Bishop did Signe publish and declare this his Protestation and declaration above vvriten to be his Act and deed and did cause his Authentick Episcopall Seale to be there to affixed in the presence of the vvitnesses vvhose names are there to subscribed And did there and then likevvise signe publish and declare as his Act and deed another of the same Tenor vvritten in paper vvhich he Signed vvith his Manuall Seale in the presence of the same vvitnesses All this I heard saw and therefore knovv to be done In Testimony vvhereof I have subscribed and thereto put my usuall and accustomed Notaries Signe TOBIAS HOLDER Publick Notary How doth this so solemne Protestation agree with the former Relation of the Fathers that the Bishop of Durham affirmed publickly in the upper house that the first Protestant Bishops were Consecrated in the Nagge 's head that they were not Consecrated at Lambeth that this was notorious to all the world that it is not Credible that any will be so impudent as to denie it that all the rest of the Bishops approved his assertion by their silence and were glad to have such a retiring place against the Presbyterians that none of the Bishops did give credit to Mr. Masons new found Registers Even as light and Darknesse or truth and falshood or two Contradictory Propositions do agree together This is the first witnesse whom any of that party hath adventured to cite publickly and directly for that infamous story whilest he was living And they see the successe of it I hope they will be wiser hereafter then to cite any more living witnesses But it may be that they who do not stick to suppose that our Arch-Bishops make false certificates may object this is but the Testimony of the Bishop of Durham in his owne cause Let us see whether the other Bishops dissent from the Bishop of Duresme Take the Testimony of them all who sate in that Parliament which are now lining except the Bishop of Bangor whose absence in Wales is the onely reason why he is not a subscriber with the rest Whereas we the surviving Bishops of the Church of England who sate in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640 are required by our Reverend Brother the Lord Bishop of Duresme to declare and attest the truth concerning an imputation cast upon him in the Pamphlet of that namelesse Author mentioned in his Protestation and Declaration here prefixed And whereas we are obliged to performe what he requesteth both for the justification of the truth and for the clearing of our selves of another slanderous aspersion which the same Authour casteth upon us as if we had heard our said Reverend Brother make such a speech as is there pretended and by our silence had approved what that Libeller falsely affirmeth was delivered in it VVe do hereby solemnely protest and declare before God and all the world that we never knew of any such booke presented to the house of Peeres as he there pretendeth nor believe any such vvas ever presented And therefore could never heare any such speech made against it as he mentioneth by
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
our said Reverend brother or any other much lesse approve of it by our silence And if any such booke had bene presented or any such speech had bene made there is none among us so ignorant or negligent of his duty in defending the truth but vvould have bene both able and ready to have confuted so groundlesse a fable as the preteÌ„ded consecration of Bishops at the Nagge 's head out of the Authentick and knovvne registers of the Church still extant mentioned and faithfully traÌ„scribed and published by Mr. Mason so long before For the confirmation of which truth and attestation of what our said Reverend Brother hath herewith Protested and declared we have hereunto set our hands Dated the 19th day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. LONDON M. ELI BR SARUM BATH WELLS JO. ROFFENS OXFORD If all these proofes seeme not satisfactory to the Fathers they shall have more Let them take the Testimony of the Principall Peeres now living who sate then in Parliament VVe of the Lords temporall whose names are here under written who sate in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640 being desired by the Bishop of Duresme to testify our knowledge concerning an imputation cast upon him about a speech pretended to be made by him in that Parliament more particularly mentioned and disavowed in his prefixed Protestation Doe hereby testify and Declare that to the best of our present knowledge and remembrance no such booke against Bishops as is there mentioned was presented to the house of Peeres in that Parliament And consequently that no such speech as is there pretended was or could be made by him or ony other against it In testimony whereof we have signed this our attestation with our owne hands Dated the nineteenth day of Iuly Anno Domini 1658. DORCHESTER RVTLAND LINCOLNE CLEVELAND DOVER LINDSEY SOVTHAMTON DEVONSHIRE MONMOVTH To this proofe nothing remaineth that can be added but onely the testimony of the Clerke of the Parliament who after a diligent search made in the booke of the Lords house hath with his owne hand written this short Certificate in the margent of one of your bookes pag. 9. over against your relation Vpon search made in the booke of the Lords house I do not find any such booke presented nor any entery of any such speech made by Bishop Morton HENRY SCOBEL CLERK Of the Parliament And now methinkes I heare the Fathers blaming of their owne credulity and rashnesse and over much confidence They had forgotten Epictetus his rule Remember to distrust I judge them by my self Homo sum humani a me nihil alienum puâ—o One circumstance being either latent or mistaken may change the whole drift and scope of a relation But though we would be contented to lend a skirt of our coate to cover the fault of them who calumniate our Church yet this relation can never be excused in any man from a most grievous mistake where both the person and the whole scope of his discourse is altogether mistaken This is almost as great a mistake as the Nagge 's head Ordination it self where a confirmation dinner was mistaken for a solemne consecration But those who cherish such mistakes for advantage and deck them up with new matter and publish them to the world for undoubted truths can not be excused from formall calumnie The last thing to be considered in this first part of this discourse being the vindication of the Reverend Bishop of Duresme is concerning the witnesse whom as the Fathers do forbeare to name so shall I. Of whom they say foure things â— that he is one of the Ancientest Peeres of England that he was present in Parliament when Morton made this speech that he will take his Oath of the truth of it and that he can not believe that any will be so impudent to denie it We have no dispute concerning the antiquity of Peerage Let that passe but I am confideÌ„t whatsoever his present judgement had been either of the speaker or of the speech your witness would have abstained from uncivill language as to stile the Reverend Bishop of Duresme a pretended Bishop and plaine Morton without either welt or garde He would not have forgotten all his degrees both in the Church and in the Scholes He will not charge all them with downe right Impudence who tell him that he was doubly mistaken Nor call that noâ—orious to all the world which he himself acknowledgeth that he never heard of before in his life He is not guilty of those inferences and eo nomineâ— which you have added I do not beleeve that he doth or ever did know the Bishop of Duresme so well as to sweare this is the man Nor doth take himself to be so exact an Analyser of a discourse as to be able to take his Oath what was the true scope of it pro or contra especially wheÌ„ some thing is started that doth quite divert his attention as the sound of the market bell did the Philosophers Auditours This is my Charity And my ground for it is this When I had once conference with him about this relation he told me the name of the Naggeshead did surprise him and he betooke himself to inquire of another what it meant And when I urged to him that it was incredible that any Protestant Bishop should make such a speech unlesse he used it onely by way of Supposition as argumentum ad hominem a reason fitte for my Lord Brookes that such a Consecration as that was agreed well enough with his principles He told me he knew not that the Bishop might answer so for himself To conclude I have heard the Bishop of Lincolne did once mention the Fable of the Nagge 's head in a speech in Parliament but with as much Detestation of it as our Ancestours used to name the Devill Why might not the mistake both of the person and of the drift or scope of his speech be the occasion of this relation I had rather out of charity run into two such right handed errours then condemne a Noble Gentleman of whose ingenuity I never had any reason to doubt of a malicious lie Take it at the very best the mistake is great enough to mistake both the person of the speaker and the scope of his speech I hope they will all do that which in Conscience they are obliged to do that is acquitte the Bishop of Duresme and crave his pardon for their mistake If they do not the world will acquitte him and condemne them But the greatest mistake of all others was to publish such a notorious untruth to the world so temerariously without better advise CHAP. III. Three reasons against the Nagges head Consecration 1. from the Contradictions of the Relaters 2. from the latenesse of the Discovery 3. from the Strictnesse of our lavves NOw having beaten Downe the Pillar about their eares which they had set up to underproppe their Nagge 's head Ordination it remaineth next
to assault the maine fable it self as it is related by these Fathers Having told how the Protestant Doctors who were designed for Bishopricks in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths Reigne had prevailed with Anthony Kitchin Bishop of Landaffe to give them a meeting at the Nagged head in Cheapesyde in hope â—he would Ordeine them Bishops there And how the Bishop of Landaffe through Bishop Bonners threatenings refused all which shall be examined and laid open to the view of the world in due order how it is stuffed with untruth and absurdities They adde that being thus deceived of their expectation and having no other meanes to come to their desires that is to obteine consecration they resolved to use Mr. Scories helpe an Apostate religious Priest who having borne the name of Bishop in King Edward the sixths time vvas thought to have sufficient povver to performe that Office especially in such a strait necessity as they pretended He having cast of together vvith his Religious habite all scruple of conscience vvillingly vvent about the matter vvhich he performed in this sort Having the bible in hand and they all kneeling before him he laid it upon every one of their heads or shoulders saying take thou Authority to preach the world of God sincerely And so they rose up Bishops of the nevv Church of England This narration of the consecration at the Nagge 's head they say they have taken out of Holywood Constable and Dr. Champneys workes They might as well have taken it out of Aesops fables and with as much credit or expectation of truth on our partes So the controversy betweene them and us is this They say that Arch Bishop Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bihops in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne or at the least sundry of them were consecrated at the Nagge 's head in Cheapesyde together by Bishop Scory alone or by him and Bishop Barlow jointly without Sermon without Sacrament without any solemnity in the yeare 1559. but they know not what day nor before what publick Notaries by a new phantastick forme And all this they say upon the supposed voluntary report of Mr. Neale a single malicious spie in private to his owne party long after the businesse pretended to be done We say Arch Bishop Parker was consecrated alone at Lambeth in the Church by foure Bishops authorised thereunto by Commission under the great Seale of England with Sermon with Sacrament with all due solemnities upon the 17 day of December Anno 1559. before foure of the most eniment publick Notaries in England and particularly by the same publick Notary who was Principall Actuary both at Cardinall Poles Consecration and Arch Bishop Parkers And that all the rest of the Bishops were Consecrated at other times some in the same moneth but not upon the same day some in the same yeare but not the same moneth and some the yeare following And to prove the truth of our relation and falshood of theirs we produce the Registet of the See of Canterbury as authentick as the world hath any the Registers of the other fourteene Sees then vacant all as carefully kept by sworne Officers as the Recordes of the Vatican it self We produce all the Commissions under the privy seale and great Seale of England We produce the rolles or Recordes of the Chancery And if the Recordes of the Signet office had not been unfortunately burned in King Iames his time it might have been verified by those also We produce an Act of Parliament express in the pointe within seven yeares after the Consecration We produce all the controverted Consecrations published to the world in printe Anno 1572 three yeares before Arch Bishop Parkers death whilest all things were fresh in mens memories These bright beames had bene able to dasell the eies of Mr. Neale himself whilest he was living and have made him recant his lewd lie or confess himself starke blinde The first reason which I bring against this ridiculous fable it taken from the palpable Contradictions and grosse absurdities and defects of those Roman Catholick writers who have related this silly tale of a tub and agree in nothing but in their common malice against the Church of England It is no strange matter for such as write upon hearesay or relie upon the exact truth of other mens notes or memories to mistake in some inconsiderable circumstance as to set downe the name of a place amisse which may be the transcribers faulte or the printers as well as the Authours Or to say two Suffragans for one when there were two named in the Commission and but one present at the Consecration Such immateriall differences which are so remote from the heart of the Cause about indifferent Circumstances may bring the exactnesse of the Relation into question but not the substantiall truth of it Such petty unsignificant variations do rather prove that the Relations were not made upon compact or confederacy Especially where there are originall Recordes taken upon the place by sworne Notaries whose names and hands and Acts are as well known to every man versed in the Recordes of those times as a man knoweth his owne house To which all Relaters and Relations must submitte and are ready to submitte as to an infallible rule But he who should give credit to such a silly senslesse fable as this is which is wholy composed of absurd improbable incoherent inconsistent contradictory fictions had need to have a very implicite faith The greatest shew of any accord among them is about the Consecrater yet even in this they disagree one from another The common opinion is that Bishop Scory alone did consecrate them But Mr. Constable one of their principall authours supposeth that Bishopâ— Barlow might joine with him in the Consecration And Sanders whose penne in other cases useth to runne over one who had as much malice as any of them and had reason to know the passages of those times better then all of them leaveth it doubtfull when or where or by whom they were ordeined quomodocunque facti sunt isti Pseudo-Episcopi by what meanes soever they were ordeined But they disagree much more among themselves who they should be that were ordeined First Mr. Waddesworth whose ingenuity deserveth to be commended doth not say that any of our Bishops were actually consecrated there but onely that there was an attempt to consecrate the First of them that was Arch-Bishop Parker But that which destoyeth the credit of this attempt is this that it is evident by the Recordes that Arch-Bishop Parker was not personally present at his Confirmation in Bowes Church or at his Confirmation dinner at the Nagge 's head which gave the occasion to this merry Legend but was confirmed by his Proctor Nicholas Bullingham Doctor in the Lawes upon the ninth of December Anno 1559. A man may be confirmed by Proxie but no man can be ordeined by proxie It is a ruled case in their owne law Non licet Sacramentum aliquod
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
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
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
the Consecrations were done and past long before No mans Election can be confirmed in England but by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents Therefore the Letters Patents must precede the Confirmation and Consecration not follow after â—t three moneths or foure moneths or six moneths and in some of theÌ„ above a yeare And as by the Recordes of the Chancery â—o their relation is proved to be a notorious fable by all the Ecclesiasticall Recordes first of their severall and distinct Confirmations which pursued their Commissions punctually Then of their severall and distinct Consecrations which pursued their Confirmations punctually He who desireth â—o see these may finde Authentick Recordes of them all both Confirmations and Consecrations in the Register of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury It is not the forging of one Recorde that would serve the turne Either all these Recordes must be forged oâ— the Nagges head Ordination is a silly senslesse fable Lastly after the Consecration followeth the Installement or Inthronisation which is to be found in the Register of the Deaâ—â— and Chapiter And the Restitution of the new Bishop to his Temporalties by virtâ—â— of the Kings Writ mentioning the Confirmation and oath of fealty to the King 〈◊〉 being temporall things Observe hoâ— every one of these do pursue anotherâ— Arch Bishop Parkers Commission issueâ— December the sixth his Confirmation followed December the ninth his Consecration December the seventeenth his Inthronisation forthwith and the Restitution 〈◊〉 his temporalties the first of March ensuâ—â—ing that is at the later end of the verâ— next terme But by their Relation thâ— Consecration was long before the Electioâ— was confirmed which can not be Thâ— Letter Patents to license the Confirmation and Consecration come out three monethâ— after the Consecration was done which 〈◊〉 incredible As for the Confirmation Mâ— Neale who was their contriver knew not what it was The installement followed three moneths after the Consecration and the Restitution to the Temporalties six moneths after which have no probability Thus for the time next for the place Their lying Relation saith the elected Bishops were consecrated at the Nagge 's head All the Ecclesiasticall Recordes say they were consecrated at Lambeth The Kings Commission injoineth a legall Consecration according to the forme prescribed by law Such a legall Consecration ours at Lambeth was Such a legall Consecration theirs at the Nagge 's head was not neither for the place nor for the rites nor for the essentialls of Consecration And without good assurance that the Consecration was legall neither the person consecrated could have bene inthroned nor made his oath of fidelity to the King nor have bene restored to his Temporalties but he was inthroned and did his fealty and was restored to his temporalties that is as much as to say that his Consecration was legally performed at Lambeth not illegally at the Nagge 's head Thirdly for the Consecrater That faâ—ulous Relation feineth that there was but one Consecrater or at the most two the authentick Recordes of the Church of England testifie that there were foure Consecraters The Letters Patents require that there should be four Consecraters and without an authentick Certificate that there were four Consecraters the Kingâ— Writ for restitution had not issued They feine that they imposed hands mâ—tually Scory upon them and they upoâ— Scorie But the Recordes witnesse that Scorâ—â— was solemnely ordeined Bishop in King Edwards time the thirteenth day of Auguâ—â— Anno. 1551 by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Susfragan Bishop of Bedford and needed noâ— to be reordeined at the Nagge 's head Lastly for the persons consecrated soâ— of them feine that all the elected Bishops and all of them say that many of them weâ—â— consecrated together at one time wiâ—â— Arch Bishop Parker But all the Recordâ— both Civill and Ecclesiasticall do testifieth contrary that they had severall Commissions severall Confirmations severall Consecrations upon severall daies in severaâ— moneths in several yeares severall Coâ—â—secraters as appeareth most evidently 〈◊〉 onely by the Authentick Recordes of the Sâ— of Canterbury but also by the Recordâ— of the Chancery And particularly by the severall Commissions directed expresly to ArchBishop Parker as a Bishop actually consecrated for the Consecration of all the rest the three first of which Commissions or Letters Patents beare date the eighteenth of December An 1559 that is the very next day after ArchBishop Parkers Consecration for the Confirmation and Consecration of Grindall Coxe and Sands three of those elected Bishops He that doubteth of the truth of these Letters Patents may find them recorded verbatim both in the arch-Arch-Bishops Registry and in the Rolles If they were confirmed and consecrated by Arch-Bishop Parker then they were not consecrated together with Arch-Bishop Parker as in that lyng relation is affirmed And with this their subsequent Installements and Restitutions do exactly agree Either all the Recordes of England must be false or this silly fable of the Nagge 's head is a prodigious forgery Thus we have seene how the Recordes of England civill and Ecclesiasticall do contradict this tale of a tub My seventh reareason sheweth how the same Recordes do confirme and Establish our relation We say first that the See of Canterbury being voide by the death of Cardinall Pole who died as some say the very same day with Queene Mary others say the day following the Queene granted her conge d'esâ—ire to the Deane and Chapiter of Canterbury to chuse an Arch-Bishop This is clearlâ— proved by the authentick Copy of the congâ— d'eslire itself in the Rolles Regina dilectâ— sibi in Christo Decano Capitulo Ecclesiae Mâ—tropoliticae Cantuariensis saluiem c. Examinatur RICHARD BROUGHTON Secondly we say that the Deane and chapiter having received this license did chuse Doctor Mathew Parker for their Arch-Bishop This is apparent by the Queenes Commission for his Confirmation and Restitution wherein there is this clause And the said Deane and Chapiter by virâ—â—â— of our license have chosen our beloved in Christ Mathew Parker Professor of Theology for Arch-Bishop and Pastour to them and the aforesaid Church as by their letters Patentâ— directed to us thereupon it appeareth more fully Thirdly the Queene accepting this Election was graciously pleased to issue out two Commissions for the legall Confirmation of the said Election and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishop The former dated the ninth of September Anno 1559 Directed to six Bishops Cuthbert Bishop of Durham Gilbert Biâ—hop of Bath David Bishop of Peterburough Anthony Bishop of Landaff William Barlow Bishop and Iohn Scory Bishop in these words Elisabetâ— dei gratia Angliae c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus Cuthberto Episcopo Dunelmensi Gilberto Bathoniensi Episcopo Davidi Episcopo Burgi Sancti Petri Anthonio Landavensi Episcopo VVillelmo Barlo Episcopo Iohanni Scory Episcopo Salutem Cum vacante nuper Sede Archi-Episcopali Cantuariensi per mortem naturalem Domini Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis ultimi
immediati Archi-Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem ad humilem petitionem Decani Capituli Ecclesiae nostrae Cathedralis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis eisdem per literas nostras patentes licentiam concesserimus alium sibi eligendi in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Sedis praedictae Ac iidem Decanus Capitulum vigore obtentu licentiae nostrae praedictae dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum Matthaeum Parker Sacrae Theologiae Professorem sibi Ecclesie praedictae elegerint in Archiepiscopum Pastorem prout per literas suas patentes Sigillo eorum communi sigillatas nobis inde directas plenius liquet apparet Nos electionem illam acceptantes eidem electioni Regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter favorem hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus Rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo mandantes quatenus eundeÌ„ Magistrum Matthaeum Parker in Archepiscopum Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis praedictae sic ut praefertur electum electionemque praedictam confirmare eundem Magistrum Matthaeum in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare caeteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbant officio Pastorali juxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum velitis cum effectu In cujus rei testimonium c. Teste Regina apud Redgrave nono die Septembris Anno Regni Elisabethae Angliae c. primo Per breve de privato Sigillo Examinatur RI BROVGHTON Now if any man desire a reason why this first Commission was not executed the best account I can give him is this That it was directed to six Bishops without an aut minus or at the least foure of you so as if any one of the six were sick or absent or refused the rest could not proceed to Confirme or Consecrate And that some of them did refuse I am very apt to beleeve because three of them not long after were deprived But the Reader may note First that there were three Protestant Bishops in that First Commission They who were such punctuall observers of the law of England that they would not proceed to consecrate without a fourth in the vacancy of both the Archiepiscopall Sees certeinly would never give way to a private profane Ordination at the Nagge 's head by one single Bishop And secondly that for all their pretended intelligence our English Romish writers are great strangers to the true passages of those times knowing nothing but what they heare at Rome or Rhemes or Doway If it were otherwise we should have heard of this Commission sooner The second Letters Patents which were executed were dated the sixth of December following directed to Anthony Bishop of Landaff William Barlow sometimes Bishop of Bath now Elect Bishop of Chicester Iohn Scory sometimes Bishop of Chichester now Elect Bishop of Hereford Miles Coverdale sometimes Bishop of Exceter Richard Suffragan Bishop of Bedford Iohn Suffragan Bishop of Theâ—ford and Iohn Bale Bishop of Ossory in Ireland in these words Regina c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus Anthonio Landavensi Episcopo Willelmo Barlow quondam Bathoniensi Episcopo nunc Cicestrensi Electo Iohanni Scory quondam Cicestrensi Episcopo nunc Electo Herefordiensi Miloni Coverdale quondam Exoniensi Episcopo Richardo Bedfordensi Iohanni Thedfordensi Episcopis Suffraganeis Iohanni Bale Ossoriensi Episcopo Salutem Cum vacante nuper Sede Archiepiscopali Cantuariensi per mortem naturalem Domini Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis ultimi immediati Archiepiscopi Pastoris ejusdem ad humilem petitionem Decani Capituli Ecclesiae nostrae Cathedralis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis eisdem per Literas nostras Patentes licentiam concesserimus alium sibi Eligendi in Archiepiscopum Pastorem Sedis praedictae Ac iidem Decanus Capitulum vigore obtentu Licentiae nostrae praedictae dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum Matthaeum Parker Sacrae Theologiae Professorem sibi Ecclesiae praedictae Elegerunt in Archi-Episcopum Pastorem prout per Literas suas patentes nobis inde directas plenius liquet apparet Nos electionem illam acceptantes eidem electioni Regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter favorem hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus Rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus Nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo mandantes quatenus vos aut minus quatuor vestrum eundem Matthaeum Parker in Archi-Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis praedictae sicut praefertur Electum electionemque praedictam Confirmare eundem Magistrum Matthaeum Parker in Archi-Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare Caeteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbant officio Pastorali juxta formam statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum velitis cum effectu Supplentes nihilominus suprema Authoritate nostra Regia ex mero motu certa Scientia nostris si quid aut in his quae juxta mandatum nostrum praedictum per vos fient aut in vobis aut vestrum aliquo conditione Statu facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit aut dèerit eorum quae per statuta hujus Regni nostri aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante In cujus Rei c. Teste Regina apud VVestmonasteriuÌ„ sexto die Decembris Anno Regni Reginae Elisabeth Angliae c. Secundo Examinatur RI BROUGHTON Before I proceed further to prevent cavills I must acquainte the Reader that the Suffragan Bishop of Bedford is misnamed Richard in the Rolles by what mistake or errour after so long time it is folly to inquire We may Conjecture how it might easily and most probably did come to passe but to say positively how it did come to passe whether it was the errour of the transcriber or the mistake of him who gave the instructions or it was no faulte at all he might have two names as many have had and many have and owne them severally is not possible In the Ecclesiasticall Register of the Church he is alwaies stiled by his right name Iohn throughout all the Acts of the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker Once his name had been written Richard but it was corrected and my friend assureth me that it is the onely word in that long narration which is expunged or interlined So exact is that Recorde This is certeine his right name was Iohn as it is in the Register To this the Recordes of his own Consecration and twenty other Recordes do beare witnesse But as to the validity of the Act or Ordination it is not materiall whether his name were Iohn or Richard or both or neither So he was truely ordeined himself and did truely concurre in ordeining it is no matter how he is Stiled
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
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
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
enough to confute your Romance of the Nagge 's head Yet thus much you yourselves confesse in the same Paragraph that in a booke printed in the yeare 1605 that is eight yeares before the yeare 1613 wherein you say that Mr Mason printed his booke called Antiquitates Britanniae there is a Register of the Protestant Bishops of England TheÌ„ there was a Register of the Consecration of Protestant Bishops extant before Mr. Mason did write of that subject You say that Register doth not mention any certain place or Form of their Consecration It was not needfull the Law prescribeth the Form and the place was indifferent so it were a consecrated place which the Law doth likewise prescribe But you tell us further that thiâ— Register was forged or foisted in and that your learned but namelesse Friend see the old Manuscript of that booke wherein there is no mention of any such Register which you tell us in your Friends words that all the world may see how this Register was forged Why are all the world bound to believe your Friend How should we give credit to a man who tells us three notorious untruths in foure lines First that it is pretended that Archbishop Parker was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and three others by virtue of a Commission from Queen Elisabeth he was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and two others Secondly that this work was acted on the 17. day of September An 1559 which was acted on the 17. Day of December 1559. Thirdly that we had no form then or Order to doe such a businesse whereas you yourselves confesse that Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished in the First yeare of Queen Elisabeth and Archbishop Parkers Ordination was in the second of Queen Elisabeth He who stumbles so thick and three fold may erre in his viewing the Manuscript as well as the rest But to gratify you suppose it was foisted in what good will that doe you It must of necessity be foisted in before it was printed it could not be foisted in after it was printed And it must be foisted in by a Protestant for no Roman Catholick would foist it in So still you see a Register of Protestant Bishops was published to the world in print eyght yeares before Mr. Mason published his booke Your Friend saith that this printed Booke of Parkers Antiquitates Britanniae is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecration of him and the rest So it might be well when it was first printed that was not in the yeare 1605 but in Arch-Bishop Parkers life time three yeares before his death An. 1570. So much you might have learned from the very Title-page of the Booke printed at Hannovv Historia antehac non nisi semel nimirum Londini in Aedibus Iohannis Day anno 1572. excusa That this History vvas printed formerly at London in the house of Iohn Day in the yeare 1572. This doth utterly destroy the Credit of your Friends Relation that he had viewed the Manuscript of that Booke There needed no Manuscript where they had a Printed booke for their Copy as the Title-page telleth us they had and that printed above sixty yeares before your Friend writ it is probable before his Birth If there be any thing of foisting in the case there is rather something foisted out of the former Edition then foisted in namely Archbishop Parkers Life untill that time with the particular Consecrations of our first Bishops which were in the London Edition and are omitted in this Edition of Hannow This is cleare enough by the very Title An History of 70. Archbishops and there are in this Edition but 69. Archbishops because the Life of Archbishop Parker is wanting which neverthelesse is promised in the Life of Archbishop Warham pag. 312. ut in Matthaei Parker Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi viâ—a inferius diâ—emus As we shall say hereafâ—er in the Life of Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury You see how infortunate you are in accusing others of Forgery Your Authour proceedeth Any man reading the printed Booke will manifestly see it is a meerly foisted and inserted thing having no connexion correspondence or affinity either vvith that which goeth before or followeth it Say you so There was never any thing more fitly inserted The Author undertaketh to write the Life 's of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury from Austin to Matthew Parker and having premitted some generall Observations concerning the Antiquity of Christian Religion in Britany with the names of some arch-Arch-Bishops of London and the Originall and Changes of Episcopall Sees in England and some other Generalities concerning the Privileges of the See of Canterbury and the Conversion of Kent Iust before he enter upon the Life of St. Austin the first Archbishop he presenteth the Reader with a summary View of the Archbishoprick of Canterbury at that time when the booke was first printed in the yeare 1572 with the names of all the Bishops of the Province at that time their Countries their Armes both of their Sees and of their Families their respective Ages their Vniversities their Degrees in Schooles with the times of their severall Consecrations if they were ordeined Bishops or Confirmations if they were translated from another See It is hardly possible for the wit of man to contriue more matter into a lesser Roome Then he settes downe a like Table for the Province of Yorke and lastly an Alphabeticall Catalogue of the Bishops whose Lifes were described in this booke and among the rest Archbishop Parker whose Life if you call it foisting is foisted out of this Hannow Edition If this hath no connexion or affinity with that which goeth before and followeth after I know not what Connexion or Affinity is Your Friends last Exception against the Authority of that booke called Antiquitates Britanniae is that it conteineth more things done after Matthew Parker had written that Booke So you confesse that Archbishop Parker himself about whom all our controversy is was the Author of that booke wherein I agree with you The conclusion of the Preface and many other reasons invite me to doe so Surely this Author meant that there is something conteined in this Register which is not within the Compasse of the following Lifes in the Hannow Edition that may well be because Matthew Parkers life is foisted out in this Edition but there is nothing which was not in the London Edition much more largely then it is in this Register especially for the Confirmations and Consecrations of our Protestant Bishops there is nothing after the time when this Register was made which is prefixed in the Frontispice of it in the Hannow Edition with M P for Matthew Parker Matthew Parker died May the 27 Anno 1575 he printed his booke at London three yeares before his death without the Authours name in the yeare 1572. I appeale to the ingenuous Reader let him be of what Communion he will or never so full of prejudice whether it be credible
that Sacerdos Signifieth both a Priest and a Bishop Let it signify so and in St. Hieroms sense what will he inferre from thence Next he askes Bishop Iewell of Bishoply and Priestly vocation and sending What new canting language is this Could he not as well have made use of the old Ecclesiasticall word of Ordination Thirdly he taxeth the Bishop that he answereth not by what example hands were laid on him or who sent him What doth this concern any question between them and us Hands were laid on him by the example of Christ of his Apostlesâ— of the Primitive and Modern Church so Christ seÌ„t him the King seÌ„t him the Church sent him in severall respects He telleth us that when he had duely considered his Protestant Ordination in King Edwards time he did not take himself for lawfull deacon in all respects If his Protestant Ordination were a Nullity as these meÌ„ say theÌ„ he was a lawfull Deacon in no respect Pope Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were of another mind Then follow his two grand excepitons against our Ordination wherein you shal find nothing of your Nagge 's head fable The former exceptioÌ„ is that King Edwards Bishops who gave Orders were out of Orders themselves The second is that they ministred not orders according to the Rite aÌ„d manner of the Catholick Church For the former exception I referre him to the Councell of Carthage in St. Austins time and for both his excepitons to Cardinall â—oles Confirmation of King Edwards Bishops and Priests and Paul the 4. Ratification of his Act. If any man have a mind to inquire further into the Validity of our Form of Ordination let him leave these Fables and take his scope freely To all this they say that Bishop Iewell answers with profound silence yet they adde onely he sayes without any proofe that their Bishops are made by Form and Order and by the Consecration of the Arch bishop and other three Bishops and by admission of the Prince I expected profound sileâ—ce but I find a profound answer this is the first time I learned how a man can both keep profound silence â—nd answer so pertinently all at once How doth Dr. Harding goe about to take away â—his answer For Bishop Iewell was the defendent and the burthen of the proofe did â—ot rest upon him First I pray you how was â—our Archbishop consecrated If Dr. Harding did not see his Consecration he might have â—een it if he would He askes further what â—ree Bishops were there in the Realm to lay hands â—pon him Ask the Queens Letters patents â—â—d they will shew you seven What a â—â—eake Socraticall kind of arguing is this â—ltogether by questions without any Infeâ—ence If Dr. Harding could have said it justly and he could have said it if it had been so he should have confuted him boldly and told him your Metropolitan was consecrated in the Nagge 's head by one single Bishop in a fanaticall and phantasticall manner but he did not he durst not do it because he knew it to be otherwise and it was publickly known to be otherwise All his exception is against our Form If you had been Consecrated after the Form and Order vvhich hath ever been used you might have had Bishops out of France or at home in England It is the Forme established in King Edwards time and restored in Queen Elisabeths time which Doctr. Harding impugneth not thaâ— ridiculous Form which they Father upon Bishop Scory and their cheife objection against that Form was that vain Cavill that it was not restored by Act of Parliament which since hath been answereâ— abundantly by an Act of Parliament Here upon he telleth Bishop Iewell that his Metropolitan had no lawfull Consecration Thougâ— his Consecration had not been lawfull yâ—â— it might have been valid but it was botâ— legall and valid This is all that Doctoâ— Harding hath which a much meane Schollar then that learned Prelate might have adventured upon without feare of burning his Fingers Their next proofe against our Records is taken from the Contradictions of our Writers Mr. Masons Registers and Records disagree with those that Mr. Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops sometimes in the Day sometimes in the moneth sometimes in the year And againe Mr. Mason Sutcliffe and Mr. Butler all speaking of Mr. Parkers Consecration doe all differ one from another in naming his Consecraters Mr. Mason saith it was done by Barlow Scory Coverdale and Hodgskins Mr. Sutcliffe saith besides the three first there vvas tvvo Suffragans M Butler saith the Suffragan of Dover vvas one vvho is not named in the Commission So as these men seem to have had three Disagreeing Registers I answer first that it is scarcely possible to avoid errours in transcribing and printing of Bookes in the Authors absence especially in names and numbers To keep a balling and a stirre about these Errata of the pen or of the presse is like the barking of little Curres which trouble the whole Vicinage about the Mooneshining in the Water Such were the most of these Secondly supposing that some very few of these were the reall mistakes of the Authors yet innocent mistakes which have no plot in them or design of Interest or Advantage which conduce neither pro nor contra to any Controversy that is on Foot they ought not to be exaggerated or pressed severely It is the Wisdome of a wise man to passe by an Infirmity Such are all these petty Differences Whether Arch-Bishop Parker was consecrated by three City Bishops and two Suffragan or by three City Bishops and one Suffragan Bishop and whether this one Suffragan were SuffragaÌ„ of Bedford or Suffragan of Dover coÌ„duceth nothing to any Controversy which is on Foot in the Church and signifieth nothing to the Validity or invalidity legality or illegality canonicalnesse or uncanonicalnesse of his Ordination All Memories are not so happy to remember names and numbers after a long distance of time especially if they entered but by the â—are and were not Oculis subjecta fidelibus Iâ— any man should put me to depose wanting my notes and memorialls what Priests did impose hands upon me with Archbishop Mathews at my Priestly Ordination or what Bishops did joine with my Lord Primate of Ireland at my Episcopall Ordination I could not doe it exactly I know there were more then the Canons doe require at either Ordination and referre my self to the Register Whether two Suffragans or one Suffragan is an easy mistake when there were two in the Commission and but one at the Consecration so is the Suffragan of Dover for the Suffragan of Bedford Thirdly whether these were the faults of the pen or the presse or the Authour yet after retractation it ought not to be objected It is inhumane to charge any man with that fault which he himself had corrected and amended Bishop Goodwin corrected all these errours himself without any Monitor and published his Correction of his errours to the world in
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
Casualty might destroy or purloin the Record Thirdly though it be not recorded in this Register it may be recorded in another the Arch Bishop may and Arch Bishop Cranmer usually did delegate or give Commission to three other Bishops for Consecration And though the work be ordinarily performed at Lambeth because of the place where they may have three Bishops alwaies present without any further Charge yet they are not obliged by any Law to Consecrate them there And if there be a sufficient number of Bishops near the Cathedrall which is to be filled or if the person who is to be Consecrated do desire it they may be Consecrated either in that or any of their own Churches The Bishops of the Province of Yorke by reason of the former convenience are usually consecrated at Lambeth yet I have known in my time Bishop Sinewes of Carlile consecrated at Yorke upon his own desire by the Archbisop of Yorke and the Bishops of Durham Chester and MaÌ„ A man might seek long enough for his Consecration in the Archbishop of Canterburies Register and misse it but it is to be found in the Register at Yorke So the Omission of it in that Register though it be no full proofe yet it is a probable proofe that Bishop Barlow was not Consecrated there but it is no proofe at all that he was not Consecrated elswere And this I take to have been the case both of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Gardiner and although the effluxion of above an hundred yeares since hath rendered it more difficult to find where it was done yet by the help of those Records which are in the Court of Faculties I should not despaire of finding it yet But there are so many evident proofes that he was Cousecrated that no ingenuous person can have the Face to deny it The first reason is his actuall possession of 4. Bishopricks one after another St. Assaph St. Davids Bath and Wells and Chichester in the Reigns of three Princes They feign some pretenses why Archbishop Parker was not consecrated Canonically because there wanted a competent number of Bishops though it were most false but what can they feign why Bishop Barlow was not consecrated in Henry the eighths time was Henry the eighth a Baby to be jeasted withall In Archbishop Parkers case they suppose all the Bishops to have been stark mad to cast themselves down headlong from a Precipice when they had a faire paire of Stairs to descend by but in Bishop Barlowes case they suppose all the world to have been asleep except there had been such an Vniversall sleep it had been impossible for any man in those dayes to creep into a Bishoprick in England without Consecration To say he is actually possessed of a Bishoprick therefore he is Consecrated is as clear a Demonstration in the English Law as it is in nature to say the Sun shineth therefore it is Day But it may be objected that he held all these Bishopricks as a Commendatory noâ— in Title as an Vsufructuary not as a true owner It is impossible Vsufructuaries are not elected and confirmed but Bishop Barlow was both elected and Confirmed The Conge d'eslire to the Dean and Chapter the Letters Patents for his Confirmation the Commission for the restitution of his Temporalties do all prove that he was no Vsufructuary but a right owner This is a second reason Thirdly The same Letters Patents that doe authorise Bishop Barlowes Confirmation did likewise Command the Archbishop with the assistence of other Bishops to Consecrate him himself or to give a CommissioÌ„ to other Bishops to Consecrate him which if they did not perform within a prescribed time or perform after another manner theÌ„ is prescribed by the Law it was not onely a losse of their Bishopricks by the Law of England but a Premunire or the losse of all their Estates their Liberties and a casting themselves out of the Kings ProtectioÌ„ 25 Hen 8. c. 20. No meÌ„ in their right wits would râ—n such a hazard or rather evideÌ„tly ruine theÌ„selves and all their hopes without any need without any eÌ„d in the whole world Fourthly by the same Law no man could be acknowledged a Bishop in England but he who was Consecrated legally by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan but Bishop Barlow was acknowledged to be a true Bishop The King received his Homage for his Bishoprick the King commaÌ„ded him to be restored to his Temporalties which is never done untill the ConsecratioÌ„ be passed King Henry sent him into Scotland as his Ambassadour with the title of Bishop of St. Davids and in his restitution to the Temporalties of that See the King related that the Arch Bishop had made him Bishop and Pastor of the Church of St. Davids This could not be if he had not been Consecrated Thirdly he was admitted to sit in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop for no man can sit there as a Bishop before he be Consecrated but it is plain by the Records of the house of the Lords that he did sit in Parliament many times in the 31 of Henry the 8. in his Episcopall habit as a Consecrated Bishop and being neither a Bishop of one of the five Principall Sees nor a Privy Counseller he must sit and did sit according to the time of his Consecration between the Bishops of Chichester and St Assaph What a strange boldnesse is it to question his Consecration now whom the whole Parliament and his Consecraters among the rest did admit without scruple then as a CoÌ„secrated Bishop Sixthly There is no act more proper or essentiall to a Bishop then Ordination What doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not saith St. Hierom except Ordination But it is evident by the Records of his own See that Bishop Barlow did Ordein Priests and Deacons froÌ„ time to time and by the Arch Bishops Register that he joined in Episcopall Ordination and was one of those three Bishops who imposed hands upon Bishop Buckley Feb. 19. 1541 Seventhly there is nothing that â—â—inth a Bishops Title to his Chuch more then â—he Validity and Invalidity of his Leases If Bishop Barlow had been unconsecrated all the Leases which he made in the See of St. Davids and Bath and Wells had been voide and it had been the easiest thing in the whole world for his Successour in those dayes to prove whether he was consecrated or not but they never questioned his Leases because they could not question his Consecration Lastly an unconsecrated person hath neither Antecessors nor Successors he succeedeth no man no man succeedeth him If a grant of any hereditaments be made to him and his Successours it is absolutely voidâ— not worth a deaf Nut If he alien any Lands belonging to his See from him and his Successours it is absolutely void But Bishop Barlowâ— received the Priory of Brâ—cknock from the Crown to him and his Successors Bishops of St. Davids and in King Edwards reign being Bishop of Bath and Wells he alienated
related of my Lord of Durham yet we are not guilty of such extravagant expressions CAP. IX The Fathers insist too much upon the Authority of their ovvn party VVhy Consecration is not mentioned at Restitution The exactnesse of our Records justified IT seemeth to me that the Fathers insist too much upon the honesty and virtue and learning of their own party In dispute with an Adversary virtue is like fire which preserveth it self by being covered with ashes but spread abroad by ostentation it is quickly extinguished especially Comparisons are odious and beget altercation We say there is not a Hill so high in Lincolnshire but there is another within a Mile as high as it take you the reputation of learning and prudence so you leave us the better cause and we shall be able to defeÌ„d it well enough against you But the maine defect in this part of your discourse is this the Bishop of Chalcedâ—â— confesseth of Mr. Oldcorn one of your Order that he acknowledged these Records to be Authentick and the rest of the imprisoned Priests who viewed the Records are charged publickly in print to have done the same by Bishop Goodwin by Mr. Mason every thing ought to be unloosed the same way it is bound They were all Schollars and could write if this charge were not true they ought to have published a Protestation to the world in print to the contrary whilest their Adversaries were living whilest the Witnesses were living but now after they and their Adversaries and the witnesses are all so long dead to talke of a verball protestation to some of their Friends upon hearsay signifieth nothing Now we must make another winding and return to Bishop Barlow but I hold to the clue in hope at length to get out of this fictitious Labyrinth Henry the 8. Letters Patents vvhereby Bishop Barlow vvas installed in they would say restored to the Temporalties of his Bishoprick make mention of his acceptation and Confirmation but none of his Consecration why should this last be omitted if he were really consecrated This objectioÌ„ sheweth nothing but the unskilfulnesse of the Fathers in our English Customes and Forms Let them compare all the restitutions of their friends to their Temporalties in England as Cardinall Poles Bishop Gardiners and the rest and they shall find the Form the very same with Bishop Barlowes I hope they will not conclude thence that none of them were consecrated The reason of the Forme is very prudent In a Restitution to Temporalties they take no notice of any Acts that are purely Spirituall as Consecration is but onely of such Acts as are Temporall as Acceptation and Confirmation But if he was restored to his Temporalties not being Consecrated he might also sit in Parliament without Consecration The Assumtion is understood but Bishop Barlow was restored to his Temporalties without Consecration which is most false From the Conversion of the Nation untill this Day they are not able to produce one instance of one Bishop who was duely Elected duely confirmed and duely restored to his Temporalties by the Kings Mandate without Consecration or did sit in Parliament without Consecration He must sit in Parliament in his Episcopall habit but that cannot be before Consecration It seemeth they think that Bishops sit in Parliament as Temporall Barons but it a great mistake Bishops sate in the Great Councells of the Kingdome before the names of Parliament or Barons were heard of in England They bring an Argument from the exactnesse of our Records and that connexion that is between Records of one Court and another The first thing necessary to obtein a Bishoprick in England is the Kings Conge d'eslire that appears in the Rolles Next the actuall Election that appeares in the Records of the Dean and Chapiter Thirdly the Kings Acceptation of the Election and his Commission to the Archbishop or four Bishops in the Vacancy to Confirm the Election and Consecrate the person Elected and Confirmed legally that appeares in the Letters Patents enrolled Fourthly the Confirmation of the Election before the Dean of the Arches but by the Archbishops appointment this is performed alwaies in Bow Church except extraordinarily it be performed elswhere by Commission this appeares in the Records of the Archbishop Fifthly the Consecration it self by the Archbishop and other Bishops or other Bishops without him by virtue of his Commission this appeares in the Records of the Protonothary of the See of Canterbury Lastly the Restitution of the Temporalties which appeares in the Rolles and his Enthronisation in the Records of the Dean and Chapiter Every one of these takes another by the hand and he who will enjoy a Bishoprick in England must have them all The Chapiter cannot elect without the Kings Conge d'Eslire The King never grants his Letters Patents for Confirmation and Consecration untill he have a Certificate of the DeaÌ„ and Chapiters ElectioÌ„ The Dean of the Arches never confirms untill he have the Kings Commission The Archbishop never Consecrates untill the Election be confirmed And lastly the King never receiveth Homage for the Bishoprick or giveth the Temporalties nor the DeaÌ„ and Chapiter Enthrone untill after Consecration He that hath any one of these acts must of Necessity have all that goe before it in this Method and he that hath the last hath them all But this was more then Mr. Neale or whosoever was Inventer of that silly Fable did understaÌ„d otherwise he would have framed a more possible relatioÌ„ Hence they argue The Records being so exact how is it possible that no Copies of Barlowes Consecration do appeare in any Court or Bishoprick of England They mistake the matter wholy the Consecration ought not to appeare in any Court but one that is that Registry where he was Consecrated which being not certainly known at so great a distance of time is not so easily found and I believe was neversought for yet further theÌ„ Lambeth But all the other Acts doe appeare in their proper Courts The Kings License the Dean and Chapiters Election the Kings Letters Patents the Confirmation of the Dean of the Arches which all goe before Consecration and his doing Homage and the Restitution of him to his Temporalties and his Enthronisation all which do follow the Consecration and are infallible proofes in Law of the Consecration as likewise his sitting in Parliament his Ordeining of Priests his Consecrating of Bishops his letting of Leases his receiving of HeriditameÌ„ts to him and his Successours his exchanging of Lands all which are as irrefragable proofes of his Consecration as any man hath to prove that such persons were his Parents either Father or Mother And wheÌ„ the right Register is sought which must be by the help of the Court of Faculties I doubt not but his Consecration will be found in the proper place as all the rest are Mr. Mason alleged that Bishop Gardiners Consecration was not to be found in the Register of Lambeth any more then Bishop Barlowes yet no man
other Bishops that sate with him the last Parliament which being the onely thing alleged by them in the Authours life time and proved so undeniably to be false is enough to condemne all the rest of their Hearesay reports for groundlesse fables of our Registers of King Edwards Bishops of Bishop Barlow and of the forme of our ordination Directing him who will cleare all those doubtes what he hath to do as if we were their Iournymen Let them not trouble themselves about that they are cleared to the least graine But if they will receive advise for advise and pursue a prudentiall course which they prescribe to others if they regard the present face of the skie and looke well to their owne interest and the present conjuncture of their affaires they have more need and are more ingaged in reputation to defend themselves then to oppugne others So they conclude their discourse with this short Corollary How unfortunately was Charles the first late King of England misinformed in matter of his Bishops and Clergy what scruple could he have had if he had known the truth to give way to the Parliament to pull downe Parliament Bishops who were so farre from being de jure divino that they were not so much as de jure Ecclesiastico We thanke you Gentlemen for your good will The Orthodox Clergy of England are your feare And you know what commonly followeth after feare Hate Oderunt quos metuunt What pitty it is that you were not of King Charles his Councell to have advised him better yet we observe few Princes thrive worse then where you pretend to be great ministers If you had counsailed him upon this Subject perhaps you might have found him too hard for you as another did whose heart he burst with downe right reason If ever that innocent King had a finger in the blood of any of that party that was it to choake a man with reason but certeinly that wise Prince would not have much regarded your positive conclusions upon hearsay premisses We hold our Benefices by human right our offices of Priests and Bishops both by divine right and humane right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks onely by humane right Is it one of your cases of conscience that a Soveraigne Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by humane right If one man take from another that which he holds justly by the law of man he is a thief and a robber by the law of God Let us alter the case a little from our Bishoprickes to their Colleges or their treasures If any man should attempt to take them from them upon this ground because they held them but by humane right they would quickly cry out with Ploiden the case is altered Be our right divine or humane or both if we be not able to defend it against any thing the Fathers can bring against it we deserve to lose it FINIS ERRATA P. 14. l. 9. r. that the. p. 15. l. 22. r. as to p. 18. l. 9. and p. 19. l. 10. r. Tobâ—e p. 20. l. 20. r. requested p. 23. l. 2. d. present p. 30. l. 2 r. Chapel p. 37. l. 23. r. to present p. 40. Maâ—g lib. 3. p 47. l. 1. r. chap. 4. and in like manner correct the number of the chapter till chap. â—1 p. 63. l. 21. r. temporal and commons in p. 76. l. 20. r. 1599. p. 77. l. 8. Rolles r. Acts. p. 82. l. 20. r. Ac iâ—dem Decanus Capitulum c. And p. 86. ad l. 24. Marg. add Rot. par 14.2 Eâ—â—zab p. 101 l. 10 r. Commissaru l. 19. assensu r. Consilio p. 104. l. â— Marg. add Regist. Parker Tom. 1 sol 10. l 12. r. per Thomam Yale l. 25. r. se adjuâ—â—it p. 105 l. 7. r. dix erunt Anglico take c. as in the Preface p. 108. l. 25. r. John Incent p. 117. l. 11. r. Metropolitano salutem c. p. 127. l. 7. d. of p. 154. l. 1. d. that p. 162. l. 14. r. 1572. p. 168. l. 14 râ— r. merry and for w. r. we p. 188. l. 7. r. Fifâ—ly p. 190. l. ult r. 31. Iul. p. 191. l. 12. r. num 27. p. 200. l. 19. r. September 9. p. 211. l. 10. p. 212. l. 12. and p. 213. l. 10. for Dean of the Aâ—ches r. Archbishop or his Commâ—ssioner Treatise of the nature of Catholick faith and haeresy c. 2. p. 9. The first reason Seeond reason De Schism Angl. c. 3. p. 400. Edit Rom. The third Reason 25. H. 8. c. 20. Resp. Int. 8. August Rot. 14. Pars 2. Elisab Acworth cont monar Sander l. 6. p. 195. Sand. de Schism l. 2. p. 350 Confut. Apol. parte 6. c. 2. Brookes Novel Cafes placit 493. Ace worth cont Sander l. 2. pag. 197. De Schismate l. 2. p. 282 Edit Rom. Cardinall Poles Dispensation De Schism l. 2. p. 305. De Schism l. 2. p. 350. A fifth reason Rotâ— pars 1 4.2 El. Reg. Cran. fol. 334. The seventh Reason The seventh reason Rot. pa. 6.1 Elis. Ro Pars 2.1 Elis. Can. 36 8. Elc. cap. 1. Rot. pars 14.2 El. Reg. Park t. 1. f. 2. 8. El. c. 1. The eighth reason The tenth reason Survey c. 9. p. 122. In Ep. ad ami n. 5. 8. Elis. cap. 1. Deut. 19.15 Mat. 18.16 pa. 10. Bell. de Sac. Bapt. l. 1. c. 7. In praefaâ—ione De Eccles cont 2. q. 5 c. 3. In Titum c. 1
praeter matrimonium absenti administrare So if there was an attempt to consecrate any man at the Nagge 's head it must be Doctor Bullingham it could not be Arch Bishop Parker Others say there was more then an attempt that one or more of them were actually ordeined there but they name none Others name some but they accorde not one with another in naming of them Some say Iewell Sands Horn Grindall where was Arch Bishop Parker Others say Parker Grindall Horne Sands Lastly others say they were all ordeined there who were named to Bishopricks and number fifteen of them These fathers speake indefinitely Parker and his fellowes But they seeme to extend this word fellowes as farre as Doctor Champneys fifteene for they tell us that they all kneeled downe before him and he laid the Bible upon every one of their heads or shoulders Thus these Cadmean brethren like those false witnesses which testified against Christ destroy one another with their mutuall Contradictions Thirdly the time is a principall Circumstance in all Consecrations and is evermore most punctually recorded by the Actuaries or publick Notaries But in this fabulous Relation the time is concealed It seemeth the Forger was no good Actuary and either did not know how materiall that Circumstance was or had forgotten it Onely Doctor Champney telleth us that it was before the ninth of September Anno 1559. But this is not precise enough for an Act and moreover it is most apparently false and impossible For whereas there are two Commissions under the greate Seale of England for the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker both recorded in the Rolles the one which was not executed dated the said very ninth day of September and the other which was executed dated the sixth day of December following if Doctor Champney said true Arch Bishop Parker was consecrated before he was confirmed yea before there was any Commission out either for his Consecration or Confirmation which is one of the drowsiest dreames that could droppe from an English penne Lastly every Consecration must be performed before one or more publick Notaries We shall shew them Notaries enough of great eminence beyond all exception for Arch-Bishop Parkers true Consecration And indeed what could a Consecration availe any man without a publick Notary to Recorde it to make an authentick Certificate of it under the seale of the principall Consecrater Now who recorded the Nagges head Consecration who drew it up into Acts Who certified it No body because the silly forger did not understand what things were requisite to a Consecration Onely as the Athenians sometimes said of Metiochus Metiochus grindes the corne Metiochus bakes the bread Metiochus mendes the high-waies Metiochus doth all an evill yeare to Metiochus So we may say of Mr. Neale Mr. Neale was the spie Mr. Neale was the witness Mr. Neale was the publick Notary Mr. Neale was the chiefe Eugenier or forger Mr. Neale was all what honours are due to Mr. Neale Qui tot sustinuit qui tanta negotia solus So they feine a Consecration without a publick Notary or which is all one no man ever knew who that publick Notary was At a time impossible or els no man knoweth at what time without any certeinty who consecrated whether Scory alone or Scory and Barlow together or God knoweth who and yet with much lesse certeinty who were consecrated whether none at all but onely an attempt was made or one and who that one was or some indefinitely without naming who they were or how many they were or foure expressly but dissenting one from another who those foure were Here is a story composed altogether of uncerteinties and contradictions like A man and no man â—it a bird and no bird on a tree and no tree with a stone and no stone To make this uncerteine groundless contradictory rumour to be the touchstone of truth and to overballance all the authentick Recordes of the Kingdome in a matter of such publick concernment is just to make the Parish clock goe truer then the Sun because the Clerke who settes it is our Freind My second reason against this senseless fable is the late discovery of it to the world and the long concealing of it in holes and corners before they durst adventure present it to the view of the world Can any man who is in his right wittes be so stupide as to imagine that the Nagge 's head Ordination happened in the yeare 1559 and if these Fathers say truely was notoriously knowne to all the world and that it should never once Peepe into the light for almost a whole age after it was pretended to have been done that is till after the yeare sixteen hundred We use to say a monster is but nine daies wonder but this ugly monster was not taken notice of in the world untill after forty yeares The reason is evident Either it was then but newly hatched or it had bene kept all that time at dry nurse in a closet If it had bene so notorious to all the world from the yeare 1559 as the fathers feine all the windowes in the Nagge 's head would have been full of it and the roome would have been shewed to all their guests where such a prodigious pageant had bene acted I dare appeale to the judgments of these Fathers themselves whether it be Credible that this story should be notoriously knowne to the world in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne and yet neither Stapleton nor Harding nor Bristow nor Alan nor Reynoldes nor Parsons nor any one of all their Roman Catholick writers should so much as mention it for forty yeares ensuing especially writing so much as they did upon that very subject the validity or invalidity of our Ordination How could their silence have bene excused from betraying of their cause to lose such an egregious advantage Was it peradventure out of affection to us to conceale the Defects of the ProtestaÌ„ts No they had will enough but they durst not avouch such a Monstrous untruth in earnest if ever they did heare of such a vain rumour which I can not easily beleeve so contrary to the knowledg of that age Especially let them tell me how it commeth to passe that Nicolas Sanders who professeth to write the Ecclesiasticall history of England from the one and twentieth yeare of Henry the eighth untill the Eight and twentieth yeare of Queene Elisabeth then current in his three bookes of the Originall and progresse of the English Schisme hath not one syllable of the Nagge 's head Ordination He was never accused of partiality for the Protestants but as malicious against the Protestants as any man could wish nor of concealing truths to their advantage but of Devising fables to their prejudice He having related the forme of our English Consecrations partly true and partly false proceedth to this first Ordination of Protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reigne alleging that the Catholick Bishops refused to impose
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