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
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
a Discrimination betweene our â—â—â—shops and their Bishops as to the poiâ—â— of Ordination but the Marian Bishoâ— themselves who made a mutuall coâ—â—pact one and all that none of them shoulâ— impose hands upon any new electâ— Bishops thinking vainely there could other Consecraters have bene found out and that by this meanes they should both preserve their Bishopricks and bring the Queene to their bent but they found them selves miserably deceived Many Bishops who had bene chased out of their Bishopricks in Queene Maries daies did now returne from exile and supplie the place of Consecraters Then conjurationis eos penituit The Bishops repented of their Conspiracy Multi ad judices recurrunt c. many of them ran to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the oath of Supremacy Thus writeth Acworth an Author of good account in those daies If this foolish conspiracy had not bene we had had no Difference about our Consecrations To the second part of this objection that the forme of Ordeining used in King Edwards daies was declared invalide in Queene Maries Daies I answer First that we have no reason to regarde the Iudgment of their Iudges in Queene Maries Dayes more then they regard the judgment of our Iudges in Queene Elisabeths daies They who made no scruple to take away their lifes would make no scruple to take away their holy Orders Secondly I answer that which the Fatherâ— call a sentence was no sentence The word is Dicitur it is said or it is reported not decretum est it is decreed Neither were Queene Maries lawes proper rules nor Queene Maryes Iudges at common law the proper Iudges of the validity of an Episcopal consecration or what are the essentialls of ordination according to the institution of Christ. They have neither rules noâ— grounds for this in the common law Thirdly I answer that the question iâ— Queene Maries daies was not about the validity or invalidity of our Orders buâ— about the legality or illegality of them not whether they were conformable to the institution of Christ but whether they were conformable to the Lawes oâ— England The Lawes of England can neither make a valide ordination to be invalide nor an invalide ordination to be valide because they can not change the institutioâ— of Christ. In summe King Edwards Bishopâ— were both validely ordeined according to the institution of Christ and legally ordeined according to the lawes of EnglaÌ„d 〈◊〉 Queene Mary changed the Law that the forme of ordeining which had beeÌ„ allowed in King Edwards daies should not be allowed in her daies Notwithstanding Queene Maries law they continued still true Bishops by the institution of Christ But they were not for that time legall Bishops in the eie of the Law of England which is the Iudges rule But when Queene Elisabeth restored King Edwards law then they were not onely true valide Bishops but legall Bishops againe That corollary which the fathers adde in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by the Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not consecrated or Bishops that is in â—he eie of the English law at that time signiâ—ieth nothing at all Leases concerne the beâ—efice of a Bishop not the Office of a Bishop A Bishop who is legally ordeined though â—e be invalidely ordeined may make a lease â—hich is good in law And a Bishop â—hich is validely ordeined if he be illeâ—ally ordeined may make a lease which is â—oide in law Concerning Bishop Bonners Conscience â—hat he lost his Bishoprick for his conâ—ience and therefore it is not probaâ—â—e that he would make himself guilty of so much sacrilege as to declare King Edwards forme of ordination to be invalide for the profit of new Leases it belongeth not to me to judge of other mens Consciences But for Bishop Bonners Conscience I referre him to the Testimony of one of his Freinds Nicolas Sanders who speaking of Bishop Gardiner Bishop Bonner Bishop Tunstall and the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester concludeth with these words Tâ—â—mide ergo restiterunt pueri Regis primaâ—â— spirituali imo simpliciter subscripseruâ— in omnes caeteras innovationes quae neâ— videbantur ipsis continere apertam haerâ—â—sim ne Episcopatus honores perderent â— vel ulâ—ro vel comra conscientiam coaâ— consenserunt Therefore they resisted the spâ—â—rituall primacy of the King being but a boy fairly yea they subscribed to it simply and they consented to all the rest of the innovations whicâ— did not seeme to them to conteine manifest heresy either of their owne accord or compelled agaiâ— Conscience least they should lose their Bishopricks and honours We see they had no greaâ— reason to bragge of Bishop Bonners Conscience who sometimes had bene a greaâ— favorite of Cranmer and Crumwell He gâ—â— his Bishoprick by opposing the Pope aâ—â— lost his Bishoprick by opposing his Prince But if reordination be such a sacrilege many Romanists are guilty of grosse sacrilege who reordeine those Proselites whom they seduce from us with the same essentialls matter and forme imposition of hands and these words Receive the holy Ghost wherewith they had been formerly ordeined by us Lastly I answer and this answer alone is sufficient to determine this controversy that King Edwards forme of ordination was judged valide in Queene Maries daies by all Catholicks and particularly by Cardinall Pole then Apostolicall Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the fourth and by all the clergy and Parliament of England The case was this In the Act for repealing all statutes made against the see of Rome in the first and second yeares of Philip and Mary the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Parliament assembled representing the whole body of the Realme of England presented their common request to the King and Queene that they would be a meanes to the Legate to obteine some settlements by authority of the Popes Holiness for peace sake in some Articles where of this is one That institutioÌ„s of Benefices and other Promotions Ecclesiasticall and Dispensations made according to the forme of the Act of Parliament might be confirmed Institutions could not be confirmed except Ordinations were confirmed For the greatest part of the English Clergy had received both their benefices and their holy orders after the casting out of the Popes usurped authority out of England And both benefices and holy orders are comprehended under the name of Ecclesiasticall Promotions This will appeare much more clearely by the very words of the Cardinalls Dispensation Ac omnes ecclesiasticas seculares seu quorumvis ordinum regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta tam ordines quam beneficia Ecclesiastica seu alias spirituales materias pretensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae licet nulliter de facto obtenuerint ad cor reversae Ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus beneficiis per nosipsos
that 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
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
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
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-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
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
all with one unanimous consent did certifie that the Commission was good in law and that the Consecraters might proceed legally to Consecration upon it which Certificate subscribed with their owne hands is preserved in the Recordes So if these Recordes be forged not onely the Acts of the Principall Noâ—â—ries of England but also the hands of the Principall Lawiers of England 〈◊〉 be forged for company which is incredible The fourth ground is irrefragable taken from the testimony and authority 〈◊〉 the Parliament of England in the eightâ— yeare of Queen Elisabeth that was about six yeares after this Consecration waâ— acted which speaking of the great carâ— was taken in and about the Elections Confirmations and Consecrations of Arch-Bishop Parker and the rest of those firâ—â— Bishops in Queene Elisabeths time for proofe thereof referreth us to these very Recordes As the Recordes of her Majesties said Fathers and Brothers time and also her owne time will moâ—â— plainly testifie and declare Doth the Parliament referre subjects to Recordes which are forged You see the contrary that it mentioneth them as authentick undoubted undeniable proofes of what was really done To this unanswerable reason these Fathers pretend to give two answers But they are such as are able to satisfie any man that no answer is to be expected The first answer is in their printed booke pag. 16 that the word Recordes is but a generall terme As if truth ought not to be regarded in generalls as well as in particulars Yet the termes which are added to Recordes that is of her Fathers time her brothers time and her time are no generall but restreining termes They adde that it is a word of course which men do rather suppose then examine when they mention things that have been practised in former times What latitude these Fathers may allow their Confitents in case Theology for words of Course I do not now examine but what have words of Course to do in a printed law They might as well tell the Parliament in plaine termes that they lied or that they spake they knew not or regarded not what as tell them that their words were but words of course If these wordes of course were not true why did not â—hey confute them then when all things were fresh in mens memories No man can beleeve that they did forbeare out of affection to the Parliament but because they could not then oppose so evident truth Yet they conclude it to be evident that there were no such Recordes of Parkers consecration This is more then words of course to charge the Parliament directly with an untruth But how is it evident that there were no such Recordes because they were never produced to those Roman Catholick Doctors who desired to see some evidence of Parkers Consecration This is wonderfull They were cited in printe they were alleged by the Parliament in the Publick Lawes of the Kingdome of which no man can pleade ignorance and yet they tell us they were never produced But to satisfie their very pretensions Their exceptionâ— in those daies were of another nature either against our English Ordinall or against the Legality of our Bishops which later exception hath been answered already and the former shall be answered iâ— due place The reason why Bishop Iewell and Bishop Horne and others did not ciâ—â— these Recordes more expressely was no dread at all least they should be found to be counterfeit but because they had no need to cite them to answer any thing that was objected against them Either the Roman Catholick writers of those daies were false to their owne interest to smother a thing which if it had been true had been so much to their advantage which no rationall man can imagine Or the Nagges head Ordination was altogether unknowne and unheard of in those daies which is most certeine But now the Fathers change their note could they not be forged as well in Queene Elisabeths time as in King Iames his reigne This is to blow hote and cold with the same breath Before they demanded how it was possible they should be extant then and not produced Now they tell us they might be extant then and yet forged Nay such a dexterity they have in turning all which they touch into gold that they make this very supposition that they were extant then to be a proofe against us that they were forged Therefore they were not produced because in Queene Elisabeths time many were living who would have proved them to be forged Observe first what honour and respect our Countrymen do beare to our Princes and Parliaments united Before they did as good as gave them the lie And now they make them at the least Accessaries to forgery so farre as to avouch and justifie forged Recordes Secondly observe with what confidence and conscience they say that these Recordes were never produced And yet confesse that they were cited in Printe and alleged in our very Statutes If Bishop Iewell and Bishop Horne had cited them as they would have cited them if they had had occasion they could have done no more then was done Did any man upon this publication go about to convince them of forgery No I warrant you The case was too plaine to be convinced The Parliament and the booke of the life 's of the seventy Arch Bishops of Canterbury printed by Iohn Day Anno 1572. have spoiled the Fathers Arguments They were not produced therefore they were forged and furnished us with a demonstrative proofe of the contrary They were produced and cited in printe and neither convinced nor so much as accused of forgery Therefore they were not forged It seemeth this answer did not satisfie the Fathers themselves and therefore the one of them hath addeth a second answer in the margent with his penne in these words The Act of Parliament relates onely to the Recordes of the Queenes Letters Patents and not to the Recordes of the Bishops Consecration or Ordination They say that glosse is accursed which corrupteth and Contradicteth the text as this glosse doth egregiously The Statute speaketh expresly of the Recordes of Elections and Confirmations and Consecrations which are all of them Ecclesiasticall Acts and none of them Recorded in the Rolles of Chancery or any other civill Court of Recordes but onely in the Ecclesiasticall Registers of the Arch-Bishops Deanes and Chapiters respectively This answer is a groundlesse evasion My fifth ground to prove that these Recordes were not forged is taken from that booke of the life 's of the seventy succeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury printed in London in the yeare 1572 wherein the Authour that was Arch Bishop Parker himself having described the Confirmations and Consecrations of Bishop Grindall Bishop Sands Bishop Iewell Bishop Horne and all the rest of those first Protestant Bishops he addeth in the margent Hae confirmationes consecrationes in Registris apparent These confirmations and consecrations de appeare in the Registers Then the Registers were then extant and not
onely extant but publickly printed whilest all things were fresh in mens memories yet no man did or durst except against the truth of them So free they were not onely from corruption but from suspicion The sixth and last ground to prove that the Recordes were not forged is taken from the agreement and concurrence of our civill Recordes which no man ever doubted of with our Ecclesiasticall Registers We have seene the Queenes Letters PateÌ„ts directed to seven other Bishops for the confirmation and consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker dated the sixth of December anno 1559 Therefore upon the sixth of December 1559 he was neither Confirmed nor Consecrated We have seene the Ecclesiasticall Recordes how by virtue of those very Letters Patents he was confirmed upon the ninth day and consecrated upon the seventeenth day of the same Moneth We find three other Letters Patents directed to Arch-Bishop Parker himself as a Consecrated Bishop for the Confirmation and Consecration of other Bishops namely Richard Coxe Edmund Grindall and Edwin Sandes dated the Eighteenth of December that is the very next day after his consecration Therefore he was then consecrated And this agreeth exactly with the Ecclesiasticall Register Elisabeth Dei gratia Angliae c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Domino Matthaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano c Salutem Rogantes ac in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter praecipiendo mandantes quatenus eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Divi Pauli London praedictae sic ut praefertur Electum Electionemque praedictam Confirmare eundem magistrum Edmundum Grindall in Episcopum Pastorem Ecclesiae praedictae consecrare ceteraque omnia singula peragere quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt Officio pastorali c. Teste Regina apud west monasterium decimo Octavo die Decembris Anno Reginae Elizabeth Angliae c. secundo Examinatur per RICH BROUGHTON Consimilia Brevia Eisdem forma verbis mutatis solummodo Mutandis directa sunt cidem Mattbaeo Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi pro confirmatione Electionis consecratione Richardi Cox Sacrae Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum Eliensem Et Edwini Sands sacra Theologiae Professoris in Episcopum VVigornensem Omnia sub dato praedicto in Rotulo supradicto Examinatur per RICHARDUM BROUGHTON There cannot be a clearer proofe in the world to prove that Arch-Bishop Parker was neither confirmed nor Consecrated upon the sixth of December Anno 1559. and that he was both Confirmed and Consecrated and commanded to Consecrate others upon the eighteenth of the same moneth Neither doth the King or Church or Lawes of England take notice of any man as a true Arch-Bishop or Bishop untill hands be imposed upon him but alwaies with this addition Elect as in the booke of Ordination Ego I N. Ecclesiae atque sedis N. Elecius Episcopus profiâ—eor And in the letany Te Rogamus ut huic fratri nostro Electo Episcopo Benedicionem gratiam â—uam largiri digneris Lastly by the lawes of England a Bishop can not be admitted to do his homage or sweare fealty for his Bishoprick nor be restored to his Temporalties untill he be legally Consecrated But it is Apparent by the Queenes Letters Patents dated the one and twentieth day of March following that was at the end of Hilary terme as speedily as could be he had done his homage and was then restored to his Temporalties Which proveth clearly that he was legally Consecrated that is to say according to the Register Such a perpetuall agreement there is between our Ecclesiasticall-Recordes and our Civill Recordes CHAPT V. The eighth ninth and tenth reasons against that fabulous relation from the Authority of our Statute the booke of the life 's of the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and all sorts of witnesses THe eighth reason to prove the Nagges-head OrdinatioÌ„ to be a fable is takeÌ„ froÌ„ the authority of the Statute in the eighth yeare of Queene Elisabeth which is thus entituled An Act declaring the manner of making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realme to be good lawfull and perfect An Act declaring not enacting or making the manner of making and Consecrating the Arch Bishops and Bishops of this Realme that is those in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time as appeareth by the whole body of the Act to be good lawfull and perfect The title of the Statute alone is sufficient to confute this fable But there is much more in the body of the Statute As where it approveth the making and consecrating of the same Arch Bishops and Bishops to be duely and orderly done according to the lawes of this Realme If it was done duely and orderly according to the lawes of this Realme then it was not done at the Nagge 's head nor after such a silly ridiculous manner as these Fathers do relate it That forme differeth from our forme in all things In the Consecrater or Minister of the Consecration We must have three Bishops at the least there was but one In the matter Our matter is Imposition of handes their matter was the laying the Bible upon the head or shoulders of the person Consecrated In the forme Our forme is receive the holy Ghost c Their forme was Take thou Authority to preach the word of God sincerely The Statute proceedeth that they were elected made and consecrated Arch Bishops and Bishops according to such order and forme and with such Ceremonies in and about their Consecrations as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts Statutes and Orders annexed to the said booke of Common praier before mentioned This is plaine enough If the Parliament say truely then they were Consecrated in a Church not in a Taverne not according to the Brainsick whiâ—sies of a self conceited Foole or rather the ludibrious devise of an Archenemy but according to the forme prescribed by the Church and Kingdome The Parliament had more reason to know the truth then these Fathers for there were personally present both the persons who did consecrate and the persons who were consecrated and many Lords and Gentlemen who were eye witnesses of the consecration Chuse Reader whether thoâ— wilt trust the tale of a single obscure malicious spie tatling in a corner or the asseveration of the Parliament of England iâ— the face of the sun published to the world in print The Parliament testifieth further that iâ— is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt 〈◊〉 or may justly be objected against the said Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Do they thinke the Parliament would have giveâ— such a testimony for the Nagge 's head Consecrations And so they conclude thâ— all persons which had been or should be ordeâ—â— or consecrated after the forme and order prescâ—â—bed in the said English Ordinall werâ— very deed and by authority of Parliament were declared and enacted to
doubted of his Ordination They answer first that Mr. Mason did not seek so solicitoâ—sly or diligently for Bishop Gardiners Consecration as for Bishop Barlowes Then why do not they whom it doth concern cause more diligent search to be made without finding the Records of Bishop Gardiners Consecration they cannot accuse Bishop Barlow of want of Consecration upon that onely reason Secondly they answer that if Gardiners Consecration were as doubtfull as Barlowes and Parkers they would take the same advise they give us to repaire with speed to some other Church of undoubted Clergy Yes where will they find a more undoubted Clergy They may goe further and fare worse Rome itself hath not more exact Records nor a more undoubted Succession then the Church of England There is no reason in the world to doubt either of Archbishop Parkers Consecration or Bishop Gardiners or Bishop Barlowes Neither doth his Consecration concern us so much at the Fathers imagine there were three Consecraters which is the Canonicall number besides him It is high time for the Fathers to wind up and draw to a Conclusion of this ArgumeÌ„t That which followeth next is too high and can scarcely be tolerated to accuse the publick Records and Archives of the Kingdome and to insimulate the Primates and Metropolitans of England of Forgery upon no ground but their own ImaginatioÌ„ I doubt whether they durst offer it to a widow Woman As to the impossibility of forging so many Registers in case there be so many it is easily answered that it is no more then that the Consecraters and other persons concerned should have conspired to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Cerimonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble Should any man accuse the Generall of their order or one of their Provincialls or but the Rector of one of their Colleges of Forgery and counterfeiting the publick Records of the Order how would they storm and thunder and mingle heaven and earth together and cry out No moderate or prudent persons can suspect that such persons should damne their soules that so many pious learned Divines should engage themselves and their posterity in damnable Sacrileges without feare of damnation If a man will not believe every ridiculous Fable which they tell by word of mouth upon hearsay they call persons of more virtue learning and prudence then themselves Fooles and Knaves But they may insimulate the principall Fathers of our Church of certifying most pernicious lyes under their hands and seales not for a piece of bread which is a poore temptatioÌ„ but for nothing that is to make them both Fooles and Knaves Is not this blowing hot and cold with the same breath or to have the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ with respect of persons Compare the politicall principles of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so pernicious to mankind and all humane Society in ours more then in yours Compare the Case Theology of the Church of England with your own and try if you can find any thing so destructive to Morality to truth and Iustice and Conscience as might lead us to perpetrate such Crimes more then yourselves We are not affraid of a Paralell You professe great endeavours to make Proselites we do not condemne Zeale yet wish you had more light with it even in prudence which you yourselves extoll this is not your right Course to follow those Birds with noise and clamour which you desire to catch In summe your answer or solution is full of ignorant mistakes It confoundeth Civill Rolles and Ecclesiasticall Registers It supposeth that our Records are but transcriptions one out of another whereas every Court recordeth its own Acts and keeps itself within its own bounds It taketh notice but of one Consecrater where as we have alwaies three at the least many times five or six It quite forgetteth publick Notaries which must be present at every Consecration with us to draw up what is done into Acts with us every one of these Notaries when he is admitted to that charge doth take a solemne Oath upon his knees to discharge his Office faithfully that is not to make false Certificates Secondly it is absurd and unseasonable to enquire how a thing came to passe that never was you ought First to have proved that our Records were forged and then it had been more seasonable to have enquired modestly how it came to passe Thirdly it is incredible that persons of such prudence and eminence should make false Certificates under their hands and seales to the utter ruine of themselves and all that had a hand it and no advantage to any person breathing It is incredible that those Records should be counterfeited in a corner which were avowed publickly for Authentick by the whole Parliament of England in the 8 yeare of Queen Elisabeth which were published to the world in print by the person most concerned as if he dared all the world to except against them and yet no man offered to except against them then Fourthly it is impossible to give in a false Certificate of a Consecration which was never performed in England especially at Lambeth before lesse then thousands of eye witnesses and that at Lambeth in the Face of the Court and Westminster Hall Surely they thinke we consecrate in Closets or holes or hay mowes They may even as well say that the publick Acts of our Parliaments are counterfeited and the publick Acts of our Synods are counterfeited and all our publick monuments counterfeited It is none of the honestest Pleas Negare factum to deny such publick Acts as these Fifthly this answer is pernicious to mankind it is destructive to all Societies of men that Bishops of so great eminence should conspire with publick Notaries to give in false Certificates in a matter of such High Consequence as Holy Orders are without any temptation without any hope of Advantage to them selves or others It affordeth a large Seminary for jealousies and suspicions It exterminateth all credit and confidence out of the world and instructeth all men to trust nothing but what they see with their eyes Lastly it is contradictory to themselves They have told us I know not how often and tell us again in this Paragraph That if the Nagge 's head Consecration had been false they might have convinced it by a thousand witnesses Here they make it an easy thing for the Consecraters and other persons concerned to conspire together to give in a false Certificate that the Consecration was performed with all due Ceremonies and Rites and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble If the world will be deceived so it is but right and reason that it be deceived to be deceived by a false Certificate that may be convinced by a thousand witnesses is selfdeceit But they say this is more possible and more probable then that all the Clergy should conspire not