THE CONSECRATION AND SUCCESSION Of Protestant Bishops justified The BISHOP of DURESME vindicated And That infamous Fable of the ordination at the Nagge 's head clearly confuted By JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. Bishop of Derry Necesse est ut lancē in libra ponderibus impositis Deprimi sic animum perspicuis cedere GRAVENHAGH By JOHN RAMZEY Anno 1658. CHAP. I. The occasion of this Treatise THe fairest eares of Corne are soonest blasted so the more conspicuous the Church of England was among the reformed Churches as not being framed according to the brainsicke dictates of some seditious Oratour or the giddy humours of a tumultuous multitude but with mature deliberation and the free consent and concurrence of all the Orders of the Kingdome the more it was subjected to the envie and groundless calumnies of our Country men of the Roman Communion But of all the slanderous aspersions cast upon our Church that liyng fable of the Nagge 's head Ordination doth beare the bell away Those monstrous fictions of the Cretian bulles and minotaures devised by the Athenians to revenge themselves upon Minos King of Creete who had subdued them in a just warre and compelled them to send their sons to him for hostages were not more malicious nor that shamelesslie of Kentish long tailes more ridiculous The first deviser of it doth justly deserve the Character of A man of a brasen forhead and leaden hearie If the unpartiall reader after he have perused this treatise thinke I doe him wrong I do willingly submitte my self to his censure This prodigious fable received its deathes wound from Mr. Masons penne and hath remained ever since for the space of thirty yeares buried in deepe oblivion And those assaies which it maketh now to get wing againe by the assistence of two Ignatian Fathers are but the vaine attempts of a dying Cause Neither would I have troubled the Reader or my self to bring Owles to Athens or to confute a Cause which hath bene so demonstratively confuted to my hand but for two new additions lately spread abroad The one by orall tradition which concerneth my self That Father T. and Father B. had so confuted the Bishop of Derry in the presence of the King that he said he perceived his Father had made me a Lord but not a Bishop And that afterwards by my power I had procured those two Iesuits to be prohibited that presence So that whereas Father Talbot used to be the Interpreter in the Spanish treaties now he was not admitted and Don Iohn would admitte no other So the Bishop of Derry is accused not onely to have bene publickly baffeled but also to have bene a disturber of publick affaires Yet I know nothing of all this which concerneth myself I never heard of any such conference or any such words I never knew that Father Talbot was designed to that imploiment I was never guilty of having any such power muchlesse of any endevour to turne out any man If the Fathers seemed too pragmaticall to those who were intrusted or to involue the interest of their Religion into Civill treaties what is that to me If it were true they may thanke themselves If it were false they may thanke them who did it Whether true or false I never had an hand nor so much as a little finger in it All the truth that I know is this Hearing that these two Fathers had spoken largely in the Courte of the Succession of our English Bishops but never in my presence I sought out Father B and had private conference with him about it in the Iesuits College at Bruges and afterwards some discourse with Father T. and him together in mine owne Chamber Whatsoever they did say they put into writing to which I returned them an answer shewing not onely that there was not but that it was morally impossible there should be any such Ordination at the nagges head From that day to this I never heard any thing of it that concerned myself Now if a man should search for an Authour of this fabulous Relation he shall be sure to have it fathered upon some very credible persōs without names who had it from Iohn an okes whilest he was living and he had it from Iohn a Stiles and he had it from No body but feined it himself out of a good intention according to that case Theology which he had learned of Machiavell To advance the credit of Religion by all meanes possible true or false The other addition concerneth the learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme one of the ancientest Bishops this day living in the Christian world being 95 yeares old at least That he owned and justified the nagges head Ordination in publick Parliament in the house of the Peeres It is very well we can not desire a better place where to have it spoken then the house of Parliament Nor better witnesses then the Lords spirituall and temporall We have no man of the Episcopall Order whose memory can reach so neare those times or in whose integrity we doe more confide then the Bishop of Duresme He might heare many things either from the persons praetended to have bene then consecrated or from the Notaries or witnesses who were then present at that imaginary Consecration Or at least he might receive the tradition of that age from such as were eiewitnesses of what passed Let it be put to his Testimony if they thinke fitte without doubt he is the same man he was then or to the Testimony of any other of his age and Reputation whom they can produce We refuse no sort of proofe but onely vaine hear say which as our English proverbe saith is commonly and in this case most undoubtedly a lier Nay we would not refuse the Testimony of Mr. Neale himself though a professed enemy who was the onely founder of this silly fable so he might be examined upon oath before equall Iudges but compell him either to shame the divell and eate his owne words or to runne himself into such palpable absurdities Contradictions and impossibilities that no man of reason how partiall soever could give any credit to him My first taske shall be before I meddle with the fable it self to vindicate the Bishop of Duresme and the truth which is wounded through his sydes with this intimation to the Reader that if this branch of the Legend be proved apparently to be false which is pretended to have bene publickly acted in a full house of the Peeres of the Realme we can expect no truth from the voluntary reporte of one single meane malicious enemy to his own party And with all a confessed Spie of what was done at the Nagge 's head Breake ice in one place and it will crack in more CHAPT II. The Vindication of the Bishop of Duresme TO vindicate the Bishop of Duresme I shall first set downe the relation of this passage in the words of the Fathers themselves In the beginning of the late Parliament some Presbiterian Lordes presented
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
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
scandall for Catholicks They were too modest They might easily have prevailed with him or have had him commanded to joine in their consecration in a Church after a legall manner He who did not stick at renouncing the Pope and swearing an oath of Supremacy to his Prince would not have stucke at a legall Ordination upon the just command of his Prince But to desire him to do it in a taverne in a clandestine manner without the authority of the greate seale before their election was confirmed was to desire him out of Curtesy to run into a Premunire that is to forfeit his Bishoprick of Landaffe his estate his liberty Is it become a more notorious scandall to Catholicks to ordeine in a Church then in a taverne in the judgment of these fathers There may be scandall taken at the former but notorious scandall is given by the later Here Bishop Bonner steppeth upon the stage and had well neare prevented the whole pageant by sending his Chaplein to the Bishop of Landaffe to forbid him under paine of excommunication to exercise any such power of giving Orders in his diocesse where with the old man being terrified and other wise moved in conscience refused to proceed Bishop Bonner was allwaies very fierce which way soever he went If Acworth say true he escaped once very narrowly in Rome either burning or boiling in scalding leade for being so violent before the Assembly of Cardinalls against the Pope on the behalf of Henry the eight if he had not secured himself by flight Afterwards he made such bonefires of protestants and rendered himself so odious that his prison was his onely safeguard from being torne in pieces by the People But that was dum stetit Iliam ingens Gloria Teucrorum whilest he had his Prince to be his second Now he was deprived and had no more to doe with the Bishoprick of London then with the Bishoprick of Constantinople he had the habituall power of the Keies but he had no flock to exercise it upon If he had continued Bishop of London still what hath the Bishop of London to do with the Bishop of Landaffe Par in parem non habet potestatem Thirdly Bowes Church which is neare the Nagges-head wherein the Ecclesiasticall parte of this story so farre as it hath any truth in it was really acted that is the Confirmation of Arch Bishop Parkers election though it be in the City of London as many Churches more is not in the Diocesse of London but a Peculiar under the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Lastly the Fathers say that when Parker and the rest see that he had refused they reviled the poore old man calling him doating foole and some of them saying This old foole thinketh that we can not be Bishops unlesse we be greased The contrary is evident by the Recordes of the confirmation that Arch Bishop Parker was not present in person So this whole narration is composed of untruthes and mistakes and incongruities and contradictions But that which discovereth the falsity of it apparently to all the world is this that the Bishop of Landaff lived and died a protestant Bishop in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as he had bene formerly in the reigne of King Edward for proofe whereof I produce two of their owne Authours The one is Sanders But the Bishops who had bene created out of the Church in those most wicked times who had now repented from their hearts of their Schisme being not contented wiih this common dispensation and confirmation did each of them particularly crave pardon of their former grievous fault from the See Apostolick and Confirmation in their Bishopricks excepting the Bishop of Landaffe who omitting it rather out of negligence then malice did onely relapse into Schisme in the reigne of Queene Elisabeth as we interprete it by the just judgement of god He acknowledgeth that he became a Protestant againe that is in their language relapsed into Schisme The other is cited by Doctor Harding We had onely one foole among us we see whose livery the foole was who now I know not by what entisements is become yours being unworthy the name of a Lord and a Bishop whose learning is very little and his credit by this action much lost Thus writeth Doctor Harding of the Bishop of Landaffe about the fifth yeare of Queene Elisabeth at which time he was living and continued protestant Bishop of Landaff A second objection against the truth of that which hath bene said of the competent Number of our Protestant Bishops to make a canonicall Ordination is an exception against all the seven Bishops named in the letters Patents that they were no true Bishops because all of them were ordeined in a time of Schisme and two of them in King Edwards time according to a new forme of Ordination and consequently they could not ordeine That Ordination which was instituted by Edward the sixth was judged invalide by the Catholicks and so declared by publick judgment in Queene Maries reigne in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available because they were not saith the sentence consecrated nor Bishops To the First part of this objection that our consecraters were ordeined themselves by Schismaticks or in a time of Schisme I answer three waies First this argument is a meere begging of the quaestion The case in briefe is this If those branches of Papall power which we cast out of England by our Lawes at the Reformation were â—laine usurpations then our Reformation 〈◊〉 but a reinfanchisement of our selves and â—he Schisme lieth at their dore then they may question the validity of their owne Ordination upon this ground not ours But we are ready to mainteine to all the world â—hat all those branches of Papall power which we cast out by our lawes at the Reâ—ormation were grosse usurpations â—irst introduced into England above eleâ—en hundred yeares after Christ. So this â—art of the Objection concerneth them 〈◊〉 us â—econdly these Fathers know wel enough â—â—d can not but acknowledg that according to the principles of the Catholick Church and their owne practise the Ordination not onely of Schismaticks but oâ— hereticks if it have no essentiall defect iâ—â—valide and the persons so Ordeined oughâ— not to be reordeined but onely reconciled Many Orthodox Christians had their holy orders from hereticall Arrians If Craâ—mer and Latimer and Barlow and Hodgkins were no true Bishops because theâ— were ordeined in a time of Schisme then Gardinar and Bonner and Tuâ—â—stall and Thurleby c. were no true Biâ—shops for they were ordeined in a timâ— of Schisme likewise then Cardinall Polâ— and Bishop Watson and Christophers and all rest of their Bishops were no truâ— Bishops who were ordeined by these 〈◊〉 to put out one of our eies like the envioâ— man in the fable they would put out 〈◊〉 their owne Thirdly I answer that it was not we 〈◊〉 made
be rightly Ordered and Consecrated The scope of the Parliament and of this Act was to confirme the consecration of Arch Bishop Parker and the rest of the Bishops and to free them from caâ—ills and objections But they confirme no Ordination at the Nagge 's head neither can their words be extended any way to such a ridiculous Consecration Therefore the Ordination of Arch Bishop Parker and the rest was no Nagges head OrdinatioÌ„ My ninth reason to prove that Nagges-head Relation fabulous and counterfeit is taken from the Testimony of that book formerly mentioned of the life 's of the seventy Arâ—h Bishops of Canterbury wherein the Consecrations of Arch Bishop Parker and all the rest are particulary related That which was published to the world in print above thirty yeares before the death of Queene Elisabeth was not lately forged But the legall Ordinations of Arch-Bishop Parker and the rest according to the Register was published to the world in print above thirty yeares before the death of Queene Elisabeth Againe that which was published to the world in print with the allowance of Arch Bishop Parker or rather by Arch Bishops Parker himself was not intended by Arch Bishop Parker to be smothered oâ— concealed Men do not use to publish their forgeries in print especially so soone and of such publick actions whilest there are so many eye witnesses living That the Relation was not confuted That the Authour was never called to an account for it That no man stood up against the Registers nor on the behalf of the Naggâ—â—head Ordination in those daies That 〈◊〉 Neale was so tame to endure the lie in prieâ— and all his party so silent at that timâ— when the truth might so easily have beeâ— discovered as if it had bene written with â— beame of the sun as it was indeed is 〈◊〉 evident proofe that our Relation is undeniable and the Relation which theiâ— Fathers make is but a drowsy dreamâ— which could not indure the light of the sun The tenth and last reason to prove on Relation true and theirs fabulous is taken from all sortes of witnesses ours and theirs indifferently Mr Mason reckoned up seven of our writers who had justiâ—â—ed the legality of our Ordinations and â—ited our Registers as authentick Recorâ—es before himself Bishop Iewell Bishop Hall Bishop Goodwin Doctor â—ollings Mr Camden Mr. Shelden â—nd one who was then living when this â—uestion was so hotely debated in King â—unes his time and had been an eye-witâ—esse of Arch Bishop Parkers Consecraâ—â—ons at Lambeth that was the Earle of â—ottingham One that was well stored â—ith our English writers in Queene Elisabeths time might adde many more â—ut that can not well be expected from me 〈◊〉 this distance We may produce as many of theirs â—ho have confessed or been convinced of 〈◊〉 truth of Arch Bishop Parkers Conseâ—â—ation First Mr. Clerke whose Father â—as Register to Cardinall Pole in his Leâ—â—ntine Courte and he himself an Actuâ—â—y under him when Theophilus Higgins 〈◊〉 out of England to St. Omars or â—â—oway I remember not well whether â—here he met with this Mr. Clerke â—ho falling into discourse with him â—â—ncerning his Reasons why he had forsaken the Church of England Mr Higgins told him that one of them 〈◊〉 that saying of St. Hierome It is no Church which hath no Priests reflecting upon thiâ— Nagges head Consecration Mr. Clerke approved well of his Caution because 〈◊〉 dubiis tutior pars sequenda but withall 〈◊〉 wished that what their Authours had written concerning that point could be maâ— good confessing that he himself was 〈◊〉 England at that time The witnesse doâ—â— not positively remember whether at tâ—â— Consecration or not But Mr Clerâ—â— said that he himself was present when 〈◊〉 Advocate of the Arches whom the Queeâ— sent to peruse the Register after the Consecration and to give her an account whether it was performed Canonically returâ—â— her this answer that he had peruse the Register and that no just exceptiâ—â— could be made against the Consecration But he said something might hâ—â— been better particularly that Bishâ—â— Coverdale was not in his Rochet 〈◊〉 he assured her that could make no â—â—â—fect in the Consecration Here 〈◊〉 have if not an eye witnesse yet at least 〈◊〉 eare witnesse in an undoubted manner ofâ—â— legall Consecration and of the truth of the Register and of the judgement of the Advocate of the Arches concerning the Canonicalnesse of the Consecration Thus much Mr. Higgins was ready to make faith of whilest he was living and Mr. Barwick a person of very good credit from him of at this present The second witnesse is Mr. Higgins himself who comming afterwards into England had a desire to see the Register and did see it and finding those expresse words in it Milo vero Coverdallus non nisi togalanea talari â—â—ebatur and remembring withall what Mr. Clerke had told him whereas the Canonicall garments of the rest of the Bishops are particularly described he was so fully satisfied of the truth of the Consecration and lawfull succession of our English Bishops that he said he never made doubt of it afterwards My third witnesse is Mr. Hart a stiffe Roman Catholick but a very ingenuous person who having seene undoubted copies of Doctor Reynolds his Ordination by Bishop Freake and of Bishop Freakes Consecration by Arch Bishop Parker and lastly of Arch Bishop Parkers owne Consecration he was so fully satisfied with it that he himself did rase out all that part of the conference betweene him and Doctor Reinoldes My fourth witnesse is Father Oldcorne the Iesuit This testimony was urged by me in my treatise of Schisme in these words These authentick evidences being upon occasion produced out of our Ecclesiasticall Courtes and deliberately perused and viewed by Father Oldcorne the Iesuit he both confessed himself clearly convinced of that whereof he had so long doubted that was the legitimate succession of Bishops and Priests in our Church and wished heartily towards the reparation of the breach of Christendome that all the world were so abundantly satisfied as he himself was blaming us as partly guilty of the grosse mistake of many for not having publickly and timely made knowne to the world the notorious falshood of that empty but farre spread aspersion against our succession To this the Bishop of Chalcedon who was better acquainted with the passages of those times in England then any of those persons whom these Fathers stile of undoubted credit makes this confession That father Oldcorne being in hold for the povvder treason and judging others by himself should say those Registers to be authentick is no marvell A fifth witnesse is Mr. Wadsworth who in an Epistle to a freind in England doth testifie that before he left England he read the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker in our Registers This made him so moderate above his fellowes that whereas some of them tell of five and the most of them of fifteen which were consecrated at
the Nagge 's head he saith onely that the consecration of the first Protestant Bishop was attempted there but not accomplished If it were onely attempted not accomplished then the Nagge 's head Ordination is a fable But it falleth out very unfortunately for Mr Wadsworths attempt that of all those first Protestant Bishops whose elections were all confirmed at Bowes Church about that time And it might be all of them it is very probable â—undry of them had a confirmation dinner at the Nagge 's head not one was confirmed in person but all of them by their Proxies Arch Bishop Parker by Doctor Bullingham Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory by Walier Iones Bachelour of Law Bishop Grindall by Thomas Hink Doctor of Law Bishop Cox by Edward Gascoine Bishop Sands by Thomas Bentham c as appeareth by the authentick Recordes of their confirmation Bishops are ordinarily confirmed by Proxie but no man was ever consecrated no man was ever attempted to be consecrated by Proxie The four next witnesses are Mr. Collimoâ— Mr. Laithwait Mr. Faircloth and Mr. Leake two of them of the same order with these Fathers to whom the ArchBishop of Canterbury caused these Recordes to be shewed in the presence of himself the Bishops of London Durham Ely Bath and Welles Lincolne and Rochester They viewed the Register they turned it over and over and perused it as much as they pleased and in Conclusion gave this sentence of it that the booke was beyond exception To say that afterwards they desired to have the Recordes into prison to peruse them more fully is ridiculous Such Recordes may not goe out of the presence of the Keeper But these Fathers may see them as much as they list in the Registriâ— if they seeke for satisfaction not altercation Lastly Bishop Bonner had a suite with Bishop Horne and the issue was whether Bishop Horne were lâ—gally consecrated Bishop upon that â—câ—uple or rather cavill which I have formerlâ— mentioned If Mr. Neale who they say was Bishop Bonners Chaplein and â—ent on purpose to spie what the â—ishops did could have proved the ordination of Bishop Horne at the Nagge 's head he might not onely have cleared his Master but have turned Bishop Horne deservedly out of his Bishoprick But he was loath to forfeit his cares by avouching such a palpaple lie The Nagge 's head Ordination was not talked of in those daies How should it before it was first devised Mr. Sanders dedicated a booke to ArchBishop Parker which he called the Rock of the Church If the Nagges head Ordination had bene a serious truth how would he have triumphed over the poore Arch-Bishop To conclude â—f faith ought to be given to concurring Recordes Ecclesiasticall and civill of the Church and Kingdome of England If a full Parliament of the whole Kingdome deserve any credit If the testimony of the most eminent publick Notaries in the Kingdome If witnesses without exception If the silence or contradiction or confession of knowne Adversaries be of any force If the strongest presumtions in 〈◊〉 world may have any place that men in their right wittes will not ruine themselves willfully without necessity or hope of advantage If all these grounds put together do over ballance the clandestine Relation of a single malicious Spie without either oath or any other obligation then I hope every one who readeth these grounds will conclude with me that the Register of the Church of England is beyond all exception and the malicious Relation of the Nagge 's head Ordination a very tale of a tub and no better so full of Ridiculous folly in it self that I wonder how any prudent man can relate it without laughter Who told this to Bluet Neale Who told this to Haberley Neale Who told it to the rest of the Prisoners at Wisbich Neale Onely Neale Who suggested it to Neale The Father of lies Neale made the fable Neale related it in Corners long after the time it was pretended to be acted If his Maister Bishop Bonner had knowne any thing of it we had heard of it long before That the Arch-Bishop should leave Lambeth to come to London to be consecrated That he should leave all those Churches in London which are immediately under his owne Iurisdiction to chuse a common taverne as the fittest place for such a worke That Bishop Bonner being deprived of his Bishoprick and a prisoner in London should send Neale from Oxford and send a command by him to one over whom he never had any Iurisdiction That the other Bishop being then a Protestant should obey him being a Roman Catholick when there were so many Churches in the City to performe that worke in where the Bishop of London never pretended any Iurisdiction That these things should be treated and concluded and executed all at one meeting that Bishop Bonner did foresee it would be so And command his servant to attend there untill he see the end of that businesse That the Bishops being about such a Clandestine worke should suffer a knowne enemy to stay all the while in their company is incredible If Neale had feined that he had heard it from one of the Drawers boies it had deserved more credit then this silly improbable inconsistent Relation which looketh more like an heape of fictions made by severall Authours by starts then a continued Relation of one man Quicquid ostendas mihi sic incredulus odi CHAPT VI. The Naggâ—s head Ordination is but a late devise Of the Earle of Nottingham Bishop Bancroft Doctor Stapleton the Statute 8. El. 1. And the Queenes dispâ—nsation NOw having laid our grounds in the next place let us see what the Fathers have to say further for themselves This storâ— of the Nagge 's head was first cnoâ—radicted bâ— Mason in the yeare 1613 yet so weakly and family that the aâ—tenâ—ive Reader may easily perceive he feared to be caught in a lie First the Fathers seem to argue after this manner Many Athenian writers did mention the Cretan Bulls and Minotaurs and Labyrinth but no Cretan did write against them therefore those ridiculous Fables were true Rather the Cretans laughed at their womannish â—evenge to thinke to repaire themselves for a beating with scolding and lying such ridiculous Fictions ought to be entertained with scorne and contempt Spreta exolescunt si irascaris agnita videmur Secondly it might be for any thing I know to the contrary Mr. Mason was the first who dissected this lie and laid the falsity of it open to the world but he was not the first who avouched and justified the Canonicall Consecration and personall Succession of our Protestant Bishops which is the same thing in effect the Bishop of Hereford did it before him and Doctor Reynolds before the Bishop of Hereford and he that writ the life of Arch-Bishop Parker before Doctor Reynolds and the Parliament before him that writ Arch Bishop Parkers life and the publick Registers of the Church before the Parliament Thirdly they would make us believe
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
that this Fable was ancient and published to the world from the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time in print and unanswered by the Protestants untill the 13 of King Iames but there is no such thing For their credit let them produce one Authour that mentioneth it in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time or if they cannot doe that for forty yeares after that is before the yeare 1600 or otherwise the case is plain that it is an upstart lie newly coined about the beginning of King Iames his time the Fathers would not have us answer it before it was coined or before it was known to us Where they say that Mr Mason did handle this Controversy weakly and faintly they know they doe him wrong He hath so thrashed their Authours Fusherbert and Fitz-Simon and Holywood and Constable and Kellison and Champney that the cause hath wanted a Champion eversince untill these Fathers tooke up the Bucklers But whereas they adde that Mr. Mason vvas affraid to be convinced by some aged persons that might then be living and remember vvhat passed in the beginning of Queen Eâ—isabeths reign is so farre from truth that Mr. Mason nameth a witnesse beyond all exception that was invited to Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration at Lambeth as being his Kinsman and was present there The Earle of Nottingâ—am Lord High Admirall of England Why did none of their Authors goe to him or imploy some of their Friends to inquire of him The case is cleare they were more affraid of Conviction and to be caught in a lie then Mr. Mason who laid not the Foundation of his Discourse upon loose prittle-prattle but upon the Firm Foundation of Originall Records They say in the yeare 1603 none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable as some now doe I am the man I did call it so I do call it so Such a blind relation as this is of a businesse pretended to be acted in the yeare 1559 being of such consequence as whereupon the succession of the Church of England did depend and never published untill after the yeare 1600 as if the Church of England had neither Friends nor Enemies deserveth to be stiled a Tale of a Tub and no better They adde Bancroft Bishop of London being demanded by Mr. VVilliam Alabaster hovv Parker and his Collegues vvere consecrated Bishops â—nsvvered he hoped that in Case oâ— neâ—essity a Priest alluding to Scory might ordein Bishops This answer of his was objected in Print by Holywood against him and all the English Clergy in the yeare 1603 not a word replied Bancroft himself being then living And why might not Holywood be misinformed of the Bishop of London aâ— well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham This is certain he could not allude to Bishop Scory whâ— was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the sixth as by the Records of those times appeareth unlesse you have a miâ—â— to accuse all Records of Forgery If you have any thing to say against Bishop Scâ—ryes Consecration or of any of them who joined in Ordeining Arch Bishop Parker spare it not we wil not seek help of 〈◊〉 Act of Parliament to make it good In summe I doe not believe a word 〈◊〉 what is said of Bishop Bancroft sub modâ—â— it iâ— here set down nor that this Accusation did ever come to the knowledge of 〈◊〉 prudent Prelate if it did he had greatâ—â— matters to trouble his head withall theâ— Mr. Holywords bables but if ever such a a question was proposed to him it may be after a clear answer to the matter of Fact he might urge this as argumentum ad hominem that though both Bishop Scory and Bishop Coverdale had been but simple Priests as they were complete Bishops yet joining with Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgskings two undoubted Bishops otherwiâ—e Gardiner and Bonner and Tunstall and Thurleby and the rest were no Bishops the Ordination was as Canonicall as for one Bishop and two Mitred Abbats to consecrate a Bishop which you allow in case of Necessity or one Bishop and two simple Presbyters to consecrate a Bishop by Papall Dispensation So this question will not concern us at all but them very much to reconcile themselves to themselves They teach that the matter and form of Ordination are essentialls of Christs own Institution They teach that it is grievous Sacrilege to change the matter of this Sacrament They teach that the matter of Episcopall Ordination is Imposition of hands of three Bishops upon the person consecrated and yet with them one Bishop and two Abbats or one Bishop and two simple Priests extraordinarily by Papall dispensation may ordein Bishops The essentialls of Sacraments doe consist in indivisibili once Essentiall alwaies Essentiall whether ordinarily or extraordinarily whether with dispensation or without So this Question whether a Priest in case of Necessity may ordein Bishops doth concern them much but us not at all But for my part I believe the whole Relation is feined for so much as concerneth Bishop Bancroft They adde or the one of them I have spoken vvith both Catholicks and Protestants that remember neare 80. yeares and acknovvledge that so long they have heard the Nagges head story related as an undoubted truth Where I wonder sooner in Rome or Rhemes or Doway then in England and sooner in a Corner then upon the Exchange You have heard from good Authors of the Swans singing and the Pellicans pricking of her Breast with her bill but you are wiser then to believe such groundlesse Fictions I produce you seven of the ancient Bishops of England some of them neare an 100. yeares old who doe testify that it is a groundlesse Fable yet they have more reason to know the right value of our Ecclesiasticall Records and the truth of our affaires then any whom you conversâ— withall The Authours proceed This Narration of the Consecration at the Nagge 's head have I taken out of Holywood Constable and Doctor Champnies vvorkes They heard it from many of the ancient Clergy vvho vvere Prisoners for the Catholick Religion in Wysbich Castle as Mr. Blewet Doctor Watson Bishop of Lincoln and others These had it from the said Mr. Neale and other Catholicks present at Parkers Consecration in the Nagge 's head as Mr. Constable affirmes Here is nothing but hearsay upon hearsay such Evidence would not passe at a tryall for a lock of Goats wooll Holywood and the rest had it from some of the Wisbich Prisoners and the Wisbich Prisoners heard it from Mr. Neale and others What others had they no names did Bishop Bonner send more of his Chapleins then one to be Spectators of the Consecration and they who were to be consecrated permit them being Adversaries to continue among them during the Consecration supposed to be a Claâ—deâ—â—ine Action It is not credible without a Plâ—â— between Neale and the Host of the Nagge 's head to put him and his fellowes for that day into Drawers habits least the Bishops
should discover them Here is enough said to disgrace this Narration for ever that the first Authors that published it to the world did it after the yeare 1600 untill then it was kept close in Lavander Bishop Waâ—son lived splendidly with the Bishops of Ely and Rochester at the time of Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and a long time after before he was removed to Wisbich Castle If there had been anâ— such thing really acted and so notoriously known as they pretend Bishop Waâ—sâ—â— and the other Prisoners must needs haâ—â— known it long before that time when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought theâ— the first newes of it The whoâ—e story 's composed of Inconsistences That which quite spoileth their story is that Arch Bishop Parker was never present at any 〈◊〉 these Consecrations otherwise calleâ— Confirmation Dinners but it may be 〈◊〉 merry Host shewed Mr. Neale Doctoâ— Bullingham for Arch Bishop Parker and told him what was done in the withdrawing roome which to gaine more credit to his Relation he feigued that he had seen out of pure zeale Howsoever they say the Story was divulged to the great griefe of the newly Consecrated yet being so evident a truth they durst not contradict it We must suppose that these Fathers have a Privilege to know other meÌ„s hearts but let that pâ—sse Let them tell us how it was divulged by word or writing when and where it was divulged whilest they were newly consecrated who divulged it and to whom If they can tell us none of all this it may passe for a great presumption but it cannot passe for a proofe But they say that not onely the Nullity of the Consecration but also the illegality of the same was objected in Print against them not long after by that famous writer Doctor Stapleton and others We looke upon Doctor Stapleton as one of the most Rationall heads that your Church hath had since the seperation but speake to the purpose Fathers did Doctor Stapleton print one word of the Nagge 's head Consecration You may be sure he would not have balked it if there had been any such thing but he did balke it because there was no such thing No no Doctr. Stapletons pretended illegality was upon another ground because he dreamed that King Edwards Statute was repealed by Queen Mary and not restored by Queen Elisabeth for which we have an expresse Act of Parliament against him in the point and his supposed invalidity was because they were not consecrated ritu Romano If you think Doctor Stapleton hath said any thing that is materiall to prove the invalidity or nullity of our Consecration take your bowes and arrowes and shoote over his shafts againe and try if you do not meet with satisfactory answers both for the Institution of Christ and the Canons of the Catholick Church and the Lawes of England You say Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not being able to answer the Catholick arguments against the invalidity of their Ordination c. Words are but wind The Church of England wanted nor Orthodox Sonnes enough to cope with Stapleton and all the rest of your Emissaries nor to cry down the illegall and extravagant manner of it at the Nagge 's head How should they cry down that which never had been cryed up in those daies We condemne that form of Ordination which you feign to have beeÌ„ used at the Nagge 's head as illegall and extravagant and which weigheth more then both of them invalid as much as yourselves They were forced to begge an act of Parliament whereby they might enjoy the Temporalities not withstanding the known defects of their Consecration c. O Ingenuity whither art thou Fled out of the world Say where is this Petition to be found in the Records of Eutopia Did the Parliament ever make any such establishment of their Temporalties more then of their Spiritualties Did the Parliament ever take any notice of any Defects of their Consecration Nay did not the Parliament declare their Consecration to have been free from all defects Nay doth not the Parliament quite contrary brand these Reports for slanderous speeches and justify their Consecrations to have been duely and orderly done according to the Lawes of this Realm and that it is very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against their Elections Confirmations or Consecrations Yet they give a reason of what they say for albeit Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth yet it was notorious that the Ordination at the Nagge 's head was very different from it and formed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit c. I take that which you grant out of Sanders that King Edwards Form of Ordination was reestablished by Act of Parliament 1. Elisabethae wherein you doe unwittingly condemne both Bishop Bonners and Stapletons plea of illegality The rest which you say is partly true and partly false It is very true that there is great difference between the English Form of Ordeining and your Nagge 's head Ordination as much as is between the head of a living horse and the sign of the Nagge 's head or between that which hath a reall entity and an imaginary Chimâ—ra Mr. Mason was the Bellerephon that destroyed this monster But that the Form of the Nagge 's head Ordination was framed extempore by Scoryes Puritanicall Spirit is most false That Posthumus brat was the Minerva or Issue of Mr. Neales brain or some others who fathered this rapping lie upon him Then they repeat the words of a part of the Statute and thence conclude By which Act appeares that not onely King Edwards rite but any other used since the beginning of the Queeens reign upon her Commission was enacted for good and consequently that of the Nagge 's head might passe Cujus coÌ„trarium verum est The Contrary to what these Fathers inferre doth follow necessarily from these words which the Fathers cite The words of the Act are these By virtue of the Queens Letters Patents or Commission Every one of the Letters Patents is extant in the Rolles not one of them did ever authorise any form but that which was legally established that is the Form of Edward the sixth First the Queens Letters Patents or Commission hath an aut minus in it or at the least three or foure of you but to justify the Nagges head Ordination the aut minus must be altered to at the least one or two of you Secondly the Queens Letters Patents have alwaies this clause in them Iuxta Formam effectum Statutorum in ea parte editorum provisorum According to the form and effect of the Statutes in that case made and provided but the Statutes allow no lesse number then four or at the least three to ordein At the Nagges head you say there was but one Ordeiner Our Statutes prescribe Imposition of Hands as the
to produce the same Registers when they were so hardly pressed by their Adversaries These are but empty pretenses there was no pressing to produce Registers nor any thing objected that did deserve the production of a Register That which was objected against our Orders in those dayes was about the Form of Ordination published by Edward the sixth and the Legality of our Ordination in the time of Queen Elisabeth the Nagge 's head Consecration was never objected in those dayes Besides Registers are Publick enough themselves and need no production and yet our Registers were produced produced by the Parliament 8 Elisab who cited them as authentick Records produced and published to the world in Print that was another production They adde Or that so many Catholicks should have been so foolish to invent or maintein the Story of the Nagge 's head in such a time when if it had been false they might have been convinced by a thousand Witnesses Feare them not they were wiser then to publish such a notorious Fable in those dayes they might perchance whisper it in Corners among themselves but the boldest of them durst not maintain it or object it in print for feare of shame and disgrace It was folly to give any eare to it but is was knavery to invent it and to doe it after such a bungling manner whosoever was the Inventer was knavery and Folly complicated together If the Fathers write any more upon this subject I desire them to bring us no more hearesay testimonies of their owne party whatsoever esteeme they may have themselves of their judgment and prudence and impartiality It is not the manner of Polemick writers to urge the authority of their owne Doctors to an Adversary or allege the moderne practise of their present Church We have our owne Church and our owne Doctors as well as they If we would pinne our faith to the sleeues of their Writers and submit to their judgments and beleeve all their reportes and let all things be as they would have it we needed not to have any more controversy with them but we might well raise a worse controversy in our selves with our owne consciences CHA. XI Of our formes of Episcopall and priestly ordination of Zuinglianisme of Arch Bishop Lavvd of ceremonies Our assurance of our Orders WE have done with the Nagge 's head for the present That which followeth next doth better become Schollers as having more shew of truth and reality in it They object that in all the Catholick Ritualls not onely of the west but of the East there is not one forme of consecrating Bishops that hath not the word Bishops in it or some other words expressing the particular authority and power of a Bishop distinctly But in our Consecration there is not one word to expresse the difference and power of Episcopacy For these vvordes receive the holy Ghost are indifferent to priesthood and Episcopacy and used in both Ordinations I answer that the forme of Episcopall Ordination used at the same time when hands are imposed is the same both in their forme and ours Receive the holy Ghost And if these words be considered singly in a divided sense from the rest of the Office there is nothing either in our forme or theirs which doth distinctly and reciprocally expresse Episcopall power and Authority But if these words be considered coniointly in a compounded sense there is enough to expresse Episcopall power and authority distinctly and as much in our forme as theirs First two Bishops present the Bishop elect to the Arch-Bishop of the Province with these words most Reverend Father in Christ we present to you this godly and learned man to be Consecrated Bishop There is one expression Then the Arch-Bishop causeth the Kings Letters Patents to be produced and read which require the Arch Bishop to consecrate him a Bishop There is a second expression Thirdly the new Bishop takes his oath of canonicall obedience I A B elected Bishop of the Church and See of C. do professe and promise all reverence and due obedience to the Arch Bishop and Metropoliticall Church of D. and his Successours So God help me c. This is a third Expression Next the Arch Bishop exhorts the whole Assembly to solemne praier for this person thus elected and presented before they admit him to that office that is the Office of a Bishop whereunto they hope he is called by the holy Ghost after the example of Christ before he did chuse his Apostles and the church of Antioch before they laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas This is a fourth expression Then followeth the Litany wherein there is this expresse petition for the person to be ordeined Bishop we beseech thee to give thy blessing and grace to this our brother elected Bishop that he may discharge that office whereunto he is called diligently to the Edification of thy Church To which all the congregation answer Heare us O Lord we beseech thee Here is a fifth expression Then followeth this praier wherewith the Litany is concluded Allmighty God the giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast constituted diverse orders of Ministers in thy Church vouchsafe we beseech the to looke graciously upon this thy servant now called to the Office of a Bishop This is a sixth expression Next the Arch-Bishop telleth him he must examine him before he admit him to that administratiō whereunto he is called and maketh a solemne praier for him that God who hath constituted some Prophets some Apostles c. to the Edification of his Church would grant to this his servant the grace to use the authority committed to him to edification not destruction to distribute food in due season to the family of Christ as becommeth a faithfull and prudent Steward This authority can be no other then Episcopall authority nor this Stewardship any other thing then Episcopacy This is a sevēth expressiō Then followeth imposition of hands by the Arch-Bishop and all the Bishops present with these words Receive the holy Ghost c and lastly the tradition of the Bible into his hands exhorting him to behave himself towards the flock of Christ as a Pastour not devouring but feeding the flock All this implieth Episcopall authority They may except against Christs owne forme of ordeining his Apostles if they will and against the forme used by their owne Church but if they be sufficient formes our forme is sufficient This was the same forme which was used in Edward the sixths time and we have seen how Cardinall Pole and Paul the fourth confirmed all without exception that were ordeined according to this forme so they would reunite themselves to the Roman Catholick Church They bring the very same objection against our Priestly Ordination The forme or words whereby men are made Priests must expresse authority and power to consecrate or make present Christs body and blood whether with or without transubstantiation is not the present controversy with Protestants Thus far we
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