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
accorde to the truth of the presence of Christs body and blood So they leave us this latitude for the manner of his presence Abate us Transubstantiation and those things which are consequents of their determination of the manner of presence and we have no difference with them in this particular They who are ordeined Priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ that is to make them present after such manner as they were present ar the first institution whether it be done by enunciation of the words of Christ as it is observed in the westerne Church or by praier as it is practised in the Easterne Church or whether these two be both the same thing in effect that is that the formes of the Sacraments be mysticall praiers and implicite invocations Our Church for more abundant caution useth both formes as well in the Consecration of the Sacrament as in the ordination of Priests In the holy Eucharist our consecration is a repetition of that which was done by Christ and now done by him that consecrateth in the person of Christ otherwise the Priest could not say this is my body And likewise in Episcopall Consecration Homo imponit manus deus largitur gratiam Sacerdos imponit supplicem dexâ—eram Deus benedicit potente dexâ—era Man imposeth hands God conferreth grace The Bishop imposeth his suppliant right hand God blesseth with his Almighty right hand In both consecrations Christ himself is the chiefe consecrater still Then if power of consecratioÌ„ be nothing els but power to do that which Christ did and ordeined to be done our Priests want not power to consecrate They adde in all formes of Ordeining Priests that ever were used in the Easterne or Westerne Church is expresly set downe the word Priest or some other words expressing the proper function and authority of Priesthood c. The Grecians using the word Priest or Bishop in their formes do sufficiently expresse the respective power of every Order But our Reformers did not put into the forme of ordeining Priests any words expressing authority to make Christs body present I answer that if by formes of ordeining Priests they understaÌ„d that essentiall forme of words which is used at the same instant of time whilest hands are imposed I denie that in all formes of Priestly ordination the word Priest is set downe either expresly or aequivalently It is set downe expresly in the Easterne Church it is not set downe expresly in the Westerne Church Both the Easterne and Westerne formes are lawfull but the Westerne commeth nearer to the institution of Christ. But if by formes of Ordeining they understand Ordinalls or Ritualls or the intire forme of ordeining both our Church and their Church have not onely aequivalent expressions of Priestly power but even the expresse word Priest it self which is sufficient both to direct and to expresse the intention of the Consecrater Vnder that name the Arch Deacon preseÌ„teth them Right Reverend Father in Christ I present unto you these persons here present to be admitted to the Order ef Priesthood Vnder that name the Bishop admitteth them well beloved brethren these are they whom we purpose by the grace of God this day to admit cooptare into the holy office of Priesthood Vnder this name the whole assembly praieth for them Almighty God vouchsafe we beseech thee to looke graciously upon these thy servants which this day are called to the office of Priesthood It were to be wished that writers of Controversies would make more use of their owne eyes and trust lesse other mens citations Secondly I answer that it is not necessary that the essentiall formes of Sacraments should be alwaies so very expresse and determinate that the words are not capable of extension to any other matter if they be as determinate and expresse as the example and prescription of Christ it is sufficient The forme of baptisme is I baptise the in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Not I baptise the to Regeneration or for Remission of sins There are many other kinds of baptismes or washings besides this Sacramentall baptisme yet this forme is as large as the institution of Christ. And these generall words are efficacious both to regeneration and remission of sinnes as well as if regeneration and remission of sins had bene expresly mentioned In this forme of baptisme there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intentions of the Minister So there is likewise in our forme of Ordination Thirdly I answer that in our very essentiall forme of Priestly Ordination Priestly power and authority is sufficiently expressed we need not seeke for a needle in a bottle of hay The words of our Ordinall are cleare enough First Receive the Holy Ghost That is the grace of the holy Ghost to exercise and dicharge the Office of Priesthood to which thou hast been now presented to which thou hast been now accepted and for which we have praied to God that in it thou maiest disscharge thy duty faithfully and acceptably Secondly in these words whose sins thou doest remit they are remitted that is not onely by Priestly absolution but by preaching by baptising by administring the holy Eucharist which is a meanes to applie the alsufficient sacrifice of Christ for the remission of Sinnes He who authoriseth a man to accomplish a worke doth authorise him to use all meanes which tend to the accomplishment thereof That which is objected that Laymen have power to remit sinnes by Baptisme but no power to consecrate signifieth nothing as to this point For first their owne Doctors do acknowledge that a Lay man can not baptise solemnely nor in the presence of a Priest or a Deacon nor in their absence except onely in case of necessity Saint Austin gives the reason because no man may invade another mans office Lay men may and are bound to instruct others in case of necessity yet the office of preaching and instructing others is Conferred by Ordination The ordinary office of remitting sinnes both by baptisme and by the holy Eucharist doth belong to Bishops and under theÌ„ to Priests Thirdly this Priestly power to consecrate is conteined in these words Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the word of God and Sacraments And afterwards when the Bishop delivers the holy Bible into the hands of those who are ordeined Priests Have thou authority to preach the word of God and Administer the Sacraments We do not deny but Deacons have been admitted to distribute and Minister the Sacraments by the Command or permission of Priests or as Subservient unto them but there is as much difference between a subservieÌ„t distributioÌ„ of the Sacrament and the Dispensing or Administring of it as there is betweene the Office of a Porter who distributeth the almes at the gate and the Office of the Steward who is the proper dispenser of it Looke to it Gentlemen If your owne Ordination
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
from him and his Successours to the Crown much Land and received back again from the Crown to him and his Successours equivalent Lands If he had been unconsecrated all these Acts had been utterly void In summe whosoever dreameth now that all the world were in a dead sleep then for twenty yeares together whilest all these things were acting is much more asleep himself To these undeniable proofes I might adde as many more out of the Records of the Chancery if there needed any to prove him a Consecrated Bishop As. A grant to the said William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to hold in Commendam with the said Bishoprick the Rectory of Carewe in the county of Pembrooke Dated Octob. the 29. Anno 38. Hen. 8. A commission for Translation of William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to the Bishoprick of Bath and VVels Dated 3. Feb. 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Consecration of Robert Farrer to be Bishop of St. Davids per translationem VVillelmi Barlow c. Dated 3. Iul. Anno 2. Edv. 6. A Commission for the Restitution of the Temporalties of the said Bishoprick to the said Robert Farrer as being void per translationem Willelmi Barlow Dated 1. Augusti Anno 2. Edv. 6. In all which Records and many more he is alwaies named as a true Consecrated Bishop And lastly in Bishop Goodwins booke de Praesulibus Angliae pa. 663. of the Latin Edition printed at London Anno 1616. in his Catalogue of the Bishops of St. Assaph num 37. he hath these words Gulielmus Barlow Canonicorum Regularium apud Bisham Prior Consecratus est Feb. 22. Anno 1535 Aprili deinde sequente Meneviam translatus est VVilliam Barlow Prior of the Canons Regulars at Bisham was consecrated the two and twentieth Day of February in the yeare 1535 and in Aprill Follovving vvas translated to St. Davids Which confirmeth me in my former conjecture that he was Consecrated in Wales which Bishop Goodwin by reason of his Vicinity had much more reason to know exactly then we have They say Mr. Mason acknowledgeth that Mr Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker because Hodgskins the Suffragan of Bedford was onely an Assistent in that action and the Assistents in the Protestant Church doe not consecrate By the Fathers leave this is altogether untrue Neither was Bishop Barlow the onely man who Consecrated Archbishop Parker Neither was Bishop Hodgskins a meere Assistent in that action Thirdly who soever doe impose hands are joint consecraters with us as wel as them Lastly Mr. Mason saith no such thing as they affirm but directly the Contrary that all the foure Bishops were equally Consecraters all imposed hands all joined in the words and this he proveth out of the Register it self L. 3. c. 9. n. 8. l 3. c. 10. n. 9. They object He might as well be proved to have been a lawfull Husband because he had a woman and diverse Children as to have been a Consecrated Bishop because he ordeined and Discharged all acts belonging to the Order of a Bishop What was Bishop Barlowes Woman pertinent to his cause Are not Governants and Devotesses besides ordinary maidservants women All which Pastours not onely of their own Communion but of their own Society are permitted to have in their houses Let themselves be â—udges whether a Woman a wife or a Woman a Governant or a Devotesse be more properly to be ranged under the name or notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such women as were prohibited to Cohabit with Clerkes by the Councell of Nice But to leave the Hypothesis and come to the Thesis as being more pertinent to the present case If a man have cohabited long with a Woman as man and wife in the Generall estimation of the world and begot children upon her and dies as her husband without any doubt or dispute during his life and long after though all the Witnesses of their Marriage were dead and the Register lost this their Conjugall cohabitation and the common reputation of the world during his Life uncontroverted is in Law a sufficient proofe of the Marriage but all the world nemine contradicente esteemed Bishop Barlow as the undoubted Bishop and Spouse of his Church They adde Ridley Hooper Farrer were acknowledged and obeyed as Bishops in King Edwards time yet were Iudged by both the Spirituall and Temporall Court not to have been consecrated They mistake they were not judged not to have been consecrated for their Consecrations are upon Record but not to have been consecrated ritu Romano after the Roman Form And who gave this Iudgement Their open enemies who made no scruple to take away their Lifes whose unjust judgement we doe not value a rush but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Pole more authentick Iudges of their own party gave a later IudgemeÌ„t to the CoÌ„trary They aske how it is possible that Barlowes CoÌ„secration should not be found recorded if ever it was as well as his preferment to the Priory of Bisham and Election and Confirmation to the Bishoprick of St. Assaph I answer it is very easy to conceive I have shewed him sundry wayes how it might be and one probable way how it was I desire the Reader to observe the extreme partiality of these Fathers they make it impossible for the Acts of one Consecration to be lost or stollen and yet accuse us of forging fifteen Consecrations It is easier to steale fifteen then to Forge one Act. We have often asked a reason of them why the Protestants should decline their own Consecrations They give us one The truth is that Barlow as most of the Clergy in England in those times were Puritans and inclined to Zuinglianisme therefore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome and were contented with the extraordinary calling of God and the Spirit as all other Churches are who pretend Reformation It is well they premised the truth is otherwise there had not been one word of truth in what they say First how do they know this It must be either by Relation but I am confident they can name no author for it or by Revelation but that they may not doe or it is to speake sparingly their own Imagination It is a great boldnesse to take the liberty to cast aspersions upon the Clergy of a whole Nation Secondly how commeth Bishop Barlow to be taxed of Puritanism we meet him a Prior and a Bishop we find him in his Robes in his Rochet in his Cope Officiating Ordaining Confirming He who made no scruple to Ordein and Consecrate others gratis certainly did not forbeare his own Consecration with the apparent hazard of the losse of his Bishoprick out of scruple of Conscience Thirdly this aspersion is not well accommodated to the times For first Zuinglianisme was but short heeled in those Dayes when Bishop Barlow was Consecrated who sate in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop 31. Henr. 8 and the first Sermon that ever Zuinglius Preached as a Probationer was in Zurick in
be valide Ours is as valide and more pure They make the cause of these defects in our forme of Ordination to be because Zuinglianisme and Puritanisme did prevaile in the English Church in those daies They beleâ—ved not the reall presence therefore they put no word in their forme expressing power to consecrate They held Episcopacy and Priesthood to be one and the same thing Therefore they put not in one word expressing the Episcopall Function This is called leaping over the stile before a man comes at it To devise reasons of that which never was First prove our defects if you can And then find out aâ— many reasons of them as you list But to say the truth the cause and the effect are well coupled together The cause that is the Zuinglianisme of our predecessours never had any reall existence in the nature of things but onely in these meÌ„s imaginations So the defects of our Ordinalls are not reall but imaginary Herein the Fathers adventured to farre to tell us that we have nothing in our formes of Ordeining to expresse either the Priestly or Episcopall functioÌ„ when every child that is able to reade can tell them that we have the expresse words of Bishops and Priests in our Formes over and over againe And mainteine to all the the world that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons have been ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ. This they say is the true reason why Parker and his Collegues were contented with the Nagge 's head Consecration that is to say one brainsick whimsey is the reason of another and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queene Elisabeths time Say what others name one genuine son of the Church of England if you can Doctor Whitakers and Doctor Fulke who are the onely two men mentioned by you are both professedly against you Doctor Whitakers saith we do not condemne all the Order of Bishops as he falsely slanders us but onely the false Bishops of the Church of Rome And Doctor Fulke for Order and seemely goverment among the Clergy there was allwaies one Principall to whom the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied which roome Titus exercised in Crete Timothy in Ephesus others in other Places Adding that the Ordination or Consecration by imposition of hands was alwaies principally committed to him The Fathers proceed If Mr. Lawd had found successe in his first attempts it is very credible he would in time have reformed the Forme of the English Ordination That pious and learned Prelate wanted not other degrees in Church and Schooles which they omit He was a great lover of peace but too judicious to dance after their pipe too much versed in Antiquity to admit their new matter and forme or to attempt to correct the Magnificat for satisfaction of their humours But whence had they this credible Relation We are very confident they have neither Authour nor ground for it but their owne imagination And if it be so what excuse they have for it in their Case Divinity they know best but in ours we could not excuse it from down right calumny They have such an eye at our order and uniformity that they can not let our long Cloakes and Surplesses alone We never had any such animosities among us about our Cloakes as some of their Religious Orders have had about their gownes both for the colour of them whether they should be black or white or gray or the naturall Colour of the sheep And for the fashion them whether they should belong or short c in so much as two Popes successively could not determine it If Mr. Mason did commend the wisedome of the English Church for paring away superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination he did well Ceremonies are advancements of Order decency modesty and gravity in the service of God Expressions of those heavenly desires and dispositions which we ought to bring along with us to Gods house Adjuments of attention and devotion Furtherances of Edification visible instructers helps of Memory excercises of faith the shell that preserves the Kernell of Religion from contempt the leaves that defend the blossomes and the fruite but if they grow over thick and ranke they hinder the fruite from comming to maturity and then the Gardiner pluckes them of There is great difference between the hearty expressions of a faithfull Friend and the mimicall gestures of a fawning flatterer betweeÌ„ the unaffected comelenesse of a grave Matrone and the phantasticall paintings and patchings and powderings of a garish Curtesan When Ceremonies become burthensome by excessive superfluity or unlawfull Ceremonies are obtruded or the Substance of divine worship is placed in Circumstances or the service of God is more respected for humane ornaments then for the Divine Ordinance it is high time to pare away excesses and reduce things to the ancient meane These Fathers are quite out where they make it lawfull at some times to adde but never to pare away yet we have pared away nothing which is either prescribed or practised by the true Catholick Church If our Ancestors have pared away any such things out of any mistake which we do not beleeve let it be made appeare evidently to us and we are more ready to welcome it againe at the foredore then our Ancestours were to cast it out at the backdore Errare possumus haeretici esse nolumus To conclude as an impetuous wind doth not blow downe those trees which are well radicated but causeth them to spread their rootes more firmely in the earth so these concussions of our Adversaries do confirme us in the undoubted assurance of the truth and validity and legality of our holy Orders We have no more reason to doubt of the truth of our Orders because of the different judgment of an handfull of our partiall countrymen and some few forreine Doctors misinformed by them then they themselves have to doubt of the truth of their Orders who were ordeined by Formosus because two Popes Stephen and Sergius one after another out of passion and prejudice declared them to be voide and invalide But supposing that which we can never grant without betraying both our selves and the truth that there were some remote probabilities that might occasion suspicion in some persons prepossessed with prejudice of the legality of our Orders yet for any man upon such pretended uncerteinties to leave the communion of that Church wherein he was baptised which gave him his Christian being and to Apostate to them where he shall meet with much greater grounds of feare both of Schisme and Idolatry were to ploÌ„ge himself in a certein crime for feare of an uncertein danger Here the Fathers make a briefe repetition of whatsoever they have said before in this discourse either out of distrust of the Readers memory or confidence of their owne atchievements of the Nagge 's head and Mr. Neale and the Protestant writers and Bishop Bancroft and Bishop Morton and the