hands upon them And that they had not of themselves two or three Bishops or so much as one Metropolitan What a shameless untruth is this that there were not two or three Protestant Bishops when the Queenes Commission under the great Seale of England recorded in the Rolles is directed to seven Protestant Bishops expresly by their names and titles He addeth that they were very instant with an Irish Arch Bishop to have presided at their Ordination but he would not He mistaketh the matter altogether They might have had seven Irish Arch Bishops and Bishops if they had needed them where the procedings were not so rigorous where the old Bishops complied and held their places and joined in such Ecclesiasticall Acts untill they had made away to their kindred all the lands belonging to their Sees We found one Bishoprick reduced to five markes a yeare by these temporisers another to forty shillings a yeare and all of them to very poore pittances for Prelates But by this meanes there wanted no Ordeiners Never did any man question the Ordination of the first Protestant Bishops in Ireland untill this day Then he telleth how being thus rejected by the Catholick Bishops and the Irish Arch Bishop they applied themselves to the lay Magistrate in the ensuing Parliament for a confirmation from whence they were called Parliamentary Bishops By whom were they called so By no man but himself and his fellowes How many Ordinations were passed over one after another before that Parliament Was there any thing moved in this Parliament concerning any the least essentiall of our Episcopall Ordination Not at all but onely concerning the repealing and reviving of an English Statute English Statutes can not change the essentialls of Ordination either to make that Consecration valid which was invalid or that invalid which was valid The validity or invalidity of Ordination dependeth not upon humane law but upon the institution of Christ. Neither did we ever since that Parliament change one syllable in our forme of Ordination Then what was this Confirmation which he speakes of It was onely a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordeined in the Queenes time had bene rightly ordeined according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England and the Lawes of the Land These men want no confidence who are not ashamed to cite this Statute in this case But we shall meete with this Parliament againe In all this impertinent Discourse where is the fable of the Nagge 's head Ordination It had bene a thousand times more materiall then all this Iargon And you may be sure it had not been missing if there had bene the least graine of truth in it or is there had but been any suspicion of it when that was written It was not then full thirty yeares after Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration and there were store of eye-witnesses living to have hissed such a senselesse fable out of the world And therefore Sanders very prudently for himself after so many intimations passeth by their Ordination in a deepe silence which was the onely worke he tooke in hand to shew Qualescunque fuerint aut quo modocunque facti sint isti Pseudo-Episcopi c. VVhat manner of persons soever these False-Bishops were or after what manner soever they were ordeined c. If Bishop Scory had ordeined them all at the Naggeshead by layng a Bible upon their heads and this forme of wordes Take thou Authority to preach the word of god Sincerely M. SaÌ„ders needed not to have left the case so doubtfull how they were ordeined And if there had bene the least suspicion of it he would have blowen it abroad upon a silver Trumpet but God be thanked there was none The universall silence of all the Romish writers of that age when the Naggeshead Ordination is pretended to have been done in a case which concerned them all so nearely and which was the Chiefe subject of all their disputes is a convincing proofe to all men who are not altogether possessed with prejudice that either it was devised long after or was so lewde a lie that no man dared to owne it whilest thousands of eyewitnesses of Arch Bishop Parkers true Consecration at Lambeth were living A third reason against this ridiculous libell of the Nagge 's head Consecration is taken from the strictness of our lawes which allow no man to consecrate or be consecrated but in a sacred place with due matter and forme and all the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed by the Church of England No man must be Consecrated by fewer then foure Bishops or three at least And that after the Election of the Deane and Chapiter is duely confirmed And upon the mandate oâ— Commission of the King under the great seale of England under the paine of a Premunire that is the forfeiture of lands and goods and livings and liberty and protection They allow not Consecration in a Taverne without due matte and forme without the Ceremonies and solemnity prescribed by the Church without Election without Confirmation without letters Patents by one single Bishop or two at the most such as they feine the Nagges head Ordination to have been Who can beleeve that two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishoppes having the reputation of learning and prudence should wilfully thrust themselves into an apparent Premunire to forfeite not onely their Arch Bishopricks and Bishopricks but all their estates and all their hopes for a phantastick forme and scandalous Consecration when the Queene and Kingdome were favorable to them when the forme prescribed by the Church did please them well enough when there were protestant Bishops of their owne Communion enough to Consecrate them when all the Churches in the Kingdome were open to them unlesse it had been Midsummer moone in December and they were all starke mad and then it is no matter where they were consecrated In criminall causes where things are â—retended to be done against penall lawes â—uch as this is the proofes ought to be cleaâ—er then the noone day light Here is noâ—hing proved but one single witnesse named â—nd he a professed enemy who never testiâ—â—ed it upon Oath or before a Iudge or so much as a publick Notary or to the face of a protestant but onely whispered it in corners as it is said by Adversaries among some of his owne party Such a testimony is not worth a deafe nut in any cause betweene party and party If he had bene a witnesse beyond all exception and had beeÌ„ duly sworne and legally examined yet his testimony in the most favourable cause had been but halfe 〈◊〉 proofe though an hundred did testifie it from his mouth it is still but 〈◊〉 single testimony And as it is it iâ— plaine prittle prattle and ought to be vaâ—lued no more then the shadow of an asse To admit such a testimony or an hundred such testimonies against
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
Some were of the same mind with these Fathers in Queen Maries time but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were wiser who confirmed all Ordinations in Edward the sixths time indifferently so the Persons professed but their Conformity to the Roman Religion How doth this consist with your pretended Nullity They say Our Records were produced by Mr Mason in the yeares 1613 fifty yeareâ— after they ought to have been shewed They forget that they were published in Print in Arch Bishop Parkers lifetime that they were justified by the Parliament 8. Elisabethae that all of them goe hand in hand with our Civill Records He saith it cannot be testified by any lawfull witnesses produced by us that they were 〈◊〉 forged This is their Method first to â—ccuse us of Forgery and then to put us to prove a Negative where learnt he this Form of proceding By all Lawes of God and man the Accuser is to make good his Accusation yet we have given him witnesses beyond exception They say there can not be a more evident mark of Forgery then the concealment of Registers if they 〈◊〉 usefull and necessary to the persons in whose Custody they are The proofe lieth on the other hand Tell us how they were concealed which were published to the world in Print by a whole Parliament by private persons and were evermore left in a Publick Office where all the world might view them from time to time who had either occasion or desire to doe it That our Adversaries did insult and Triumph over us is but un empty flourish without truth or reality as we shall see presently They say it is not worth refuting which some modern Protestants say ye have no witnesses of the story of the Nagge 's head c. but Roman Catholicks we value not their Testimony because they are known Adversaries This answer they term Ridiculous and paralell it with the answer of an Officer in Ireland You will not find this answer so ridiculous upon more serious consideration Protestants know that some Exceptions in Law do destroy all Credit and some other Exceptions do onely diminish credit An Adversaries Testimony may be admitted in some cases but it is subject to exception and makes no full proofe especially in cases favourable in the Law as the case of persons spoiled which is your Irish case such witnesses may be admitted anâ—e omnia spoliatus restitui debet but then they ought to make up in number what they want in weight But you mistake wholy our answer is not that you produce no witnesses for the story of the Nagge 's head but Roman Catholickâ— Our answer is that you produce no witnesses at all neither Roman Catholicks nor others For first one witnesse is no witnesse in Law Let him be beyond exception duely sworn and examined yet his Testimony makes but semiplenam probationem half a proofe especially in Criminall causes such as this is it is nothing One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any Iniquity or any sinne At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be stablished Which law is confirmed by our Saviour They were never yet able to pretend any eye witnesse by name but Mr. Neale or some body that had no name because he had no being in the nature of things all the rest had it from Mr. Neales single Testimony because they cannot testify what was done but what Mr. Neale said Secondly Mr. Neale testifieth nothing as a single witnesse ought to testify He was never sworn to speake the truth he never testified it before a publick Notary he was never examined before a competent Iudge 〈◊〉 was never produced before the face of a Protestant Is this the manner of the Romans now a daies to condemne whole Churches upon the verâ—all Testimony of a single witnesse before â—e be brought face to face with those whom â—e accuseth and such a Testimony which 〈◊〉 clogged with so many improbabilities â—nd incongruities and incoherences 〈◊〉 no rationall impartiall man 〈◊〉 trust one syllable of it whereas in such a case as this against the third Estate of the Kingdome against the Records Civill and Ecclesiasticall against the testimony of a Parliament an hundred witnesses ought not to be admitted We regard not Mr. Fitzherberts suspicions at all What are the suspicions of a private stranger to the well known credit of a publick Register His suspicions can weigh no more then his reasons that is just nothing He saith this exception is no new quarrell but vehemently urged to the English Clergy in the beginning of the Queens reign 〈◊〉 shew how and by whom they were made Priests Bishops c You have said enough to confute yourselves but you touch not us If they had known that they were consecrated at the Nagge 's head as well as you would seem to know it they needed not to urge it so vehemently to shew how and by whom they were ordeined they would have done that for them readily enough unlesse perhaps you thinke that they concealed the Nagges head Ordination out oâ— favour to the Protestants But I see you are mistaken in this as in all other things There was an old objection indeed that ouâ— Consecraters were not Roman Catholiks and that our Consecration was not Riâ—â— Romano or that we were not Ordeined by Papall Authority but the Nagge 's head Ordination is a new question What might be whispered underhand in the eares of credulous persons of your own party in Corners we do not know but for all your contrary intimations none of all your Writers did dare to put any such thing in print for above fourty yeares after Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration If silent Witnesses in such circumstances prove more then others as you affirm then all your writers are our witnesses But none of all your Doctors did ever urge any such thing as required that we should cite the Registers in prudence as by a cleare answer to all your Testimonies shall appeare The water did not stop there in those dayes yet even in Arch Bishop Parkers life time the Consecration of our Bishops was published to the world in Print either shew us as much for your Nagge 's head Ordination or hold your peace for ever Bishop Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchesters absurdities falsities and lies are easily talked of men may talke of black Swans but he who hath laid your greatest Champions in the dust requires another manner of Discoverer then Mr. Fitzherbert But these Fathers are resolved to confute themselves without the help of an Adversary They tell us that no mention was ever made of Registers testifying Parkers Consecration at Lambeth untill Mr. Mason printed his booke This is not true they were mentioned by the Parliament mentioned in Print I think before Mr. Mason was born What though Lambeth were not mentioned if the Legality of his Consecration were mentioned This is enough to answer your Objection this is