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 Nagges 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 [Page 4] 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.

[Page 5]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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 Nagges head. Breake ice in one place, and it will crack in more.

TO vindicate the Bishop of Duresme, I shall first set downe the relation of this passage in the words of the Fathers themselves.

Treati­se of the nature of Catholick faith and hae­resy c. 2. p. 9. 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 [Page 9] 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 Nagges 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 successiō of English Bishops, by some presbiterian Lords. [Page 10] 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 ex [...]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 ou [...] the way to [...]nno­vators. And yet they are not able to pro­duce one president of such a dispensation throughout the primitive times, A good [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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.

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 Nag­ges 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 [Page 20] 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.

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.

[Page 24]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 pu [...]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 Nagges 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, [...] that he is one of the Ancientest▪ Peeres of England, that [Page 25] 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 confidēt 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 no [...]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 nomine [...] 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 whē some thing is started that doth quite divert his attention, as the sound of the market bell did the Philosophers Au­ditours.

[Page 26]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 Nagges 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 [Page 27] 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.

NOw having beaten Downe the Pillar about their eares, which they had set up to underproppe their Nagges 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 [Page 28] at the Nagged head in Cheapesyde, in hope [...]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 [Page 29] Bishops of the nevv Church of England. This narration of the consecration at the Nagges 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 Nagges 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.

[Page 30]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 [Page 31] 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, The first reason. 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 [Page 32] 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 Bishop [...] Barlow might joine with him in the Consecration. And Sanders, whose penne in other cases useth to runne over, one who had as much [Page 33] 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 Nagges 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 [Page 34] ordeined by proxie. It is a ruled case in their owne law, Non licet Sacramentum ali­quod praeter matrimonium absenti administrare. So if there was an attempt to consecrate any man at the Nagges head, it must be Doctor Bullingham, it could not be Arch Bishop Parker.

Others say there was more then an at­tempt, that one or more of them were a­ctually ordeined there: but they name none. Others name some, but they ac­corde not one with another in naming of them. Some say, Iewell, Sands, Horn, Grindall; where was Arch Bishop Parker? Others say, Parker, Grindall, Horne, Sands. Lastly others say, they were all ordeined there, who were named to Bishopricks, and number fifteen of them. These fathers speake indefinitely, Parker and his fellowes. But they seeme to extend this word fellowes as farre as Doctor Champneys fifteene: for they tell us, that they all kneeled downe before him, and he laid the Bible upon every one of their heads or shoulders. Thus these Cadmean brethren, like those false wit­nesses which testified against Christ, destroy one another with their mutuall Contra­dictions.

[Page 35]Thirdly, the time is a principall Cir­cumstance in all Consecrations, and is evermore most punctually recorded by the Actuaries, or publick Notaries. But in this fabulous Relation the time is con­cealed. It seemeth the Forger was no good Actuary, and either did not know how materiall that Circumstance was, or had forgotten it. Onely Doctor Champney telleth us, that it was before the ninth of September Anno 1559. But this is not precise enough for an Act: and more­over, it is most apparently false and im­possible. For whereas there are two Com­missions under the greate Seale of England, for the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker, both recorded in the Rolles; the one which was not exe­cuted, dated the said very ninth day of September; and the other which was executed, dated the sixth day of December following: if Doctor Champney said true, Arch Bishop Parker was conse­crated before he was confirmed, yea before there was any Commission out, either for his Consecration or Confir­mation; which is one of the drowsiest dreames that could droppe from an English penne.

[Page 36]Lastly, every Consecration must be per­formed before one or more publick Nota­ries. (We shall shew them Notaries enough of great eminence, beyond all exception, for Arch-Bishop Parkers true Consecra­tion.) And indeed what could a Consecra­tion availe any man, without a publick No­tary to Recorde it, to make an authentick Certificate of it under the seale of the prin­cipall Consecrater? Now who recorded the Nagges head Consecration? who drew it up into Acts? Who certified it? No bo­dy, because the silly forger did not under­stand what things were requisite to a Con­secration. Onely as the Athenians some­times said of Metiochus, Metiochus grindes the corne, Metiochus bakes the bread, Metiochus mendes the high­waies, Metiochus doth all, an evill yeare to Metiochus: So we may say of Mr. Neale; Mr. Neale was the spie, Mr. Neale was the witness, Mr. Neale was the publick Notary, Mr. Neale was the chiefe Eugenier or forger, Mr. Neale was all, what honours are due to Mr. Neale?

So they feine a Consecration without a publick Notary, or (which is all one) no [Page 37] man ever knew who that publick Notary was; At a time impossible, or els no man knoweth at what time; without any cer­teinty who consecrated, whether Scory alone, or Scory and Barlow together, or God knoweth who; and yet with much lesse certeinty who were consecrated, whe­ther none at all, but onely an attempt was made, or one, and who that one was; or some indefinitely, without naming who they were, or how many they were; or foure expressly, but dissenting one from another who those foure were. Here is a story com­posed altogether of uncerteinties and con­tradictions, like A man and no man, [...]it a bird and no bird, on a tree and no tree, with a stone and no stone. To make this uncerteine, groundless, contradictory rumour, to be the touchstone of truth, and to overballance all the authentick Recordes of the King­dome, in a matter of such publick concern­ment: is just to make the Parish clock goe truer then the Sun, because the Clerke who settes it is our Freind.

My second reason against this senseless fable, Seeond reason. is the late discovery of it to the world, and the long concealing of it in▪ holes and corners before they durst adven­ture present it to the view of the world, [Page 38] Can any man who is in his right wittes be so stupide as to imagine, that the Nagges head Ordination happened in the yeare 1559, and (if these Fathers say truely) was notoriously knowne to all the world; and that it should never once Peepe into the light for almost a whole age after it was pre­tended to have been done, that is till after the yeare sixteen hundred? We use to say a monster is but nine daies wonder: but this ugly monster was not taken notice of in the world untill after forty yeares. The reason is evident; Either it was then but newly hatched, or it had bene kept all that time at dry nurse in a closet. If it had bene so notorious to all the world from the yeare 1559 as the fathers feine, all the windowes in the Nagges head would have been full of it, and the roome would have been shewed to all their guests, where such a prodigious pageant had bene acted.

I dare appeale to the judgments of these Fathers themselves, whether it be Credible, that this story should be notoriously know­ne to the world in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne, and yet neither Stapleton, nor Harding, nor Bristow, nor Alan, nor Reynoldes, nor Parsons, nor any one of all their Roman Catholick writers, should [Page 39] so much as mention it for forty yeares en­suing; especially writing so much as they did upon that very subject, the validity or invalidity of our Ordination. How could their silence have bene excused from be­traying of their cause, to lose such an egre­gious advantage? Was it peradventure out of affection to us, to conceale the Defects of the Protestāts? No, they had will enough, but they durst not avouch such a Monstrous untruth in earnest, (if ever they did heare of such a vain rumour, which I can not ea­sily beleeve,) so contrary to the knowledg of that age.

Especially let them tell me how it com­meth to passe, that Nicolas Sanders, who professeth to write the Ecclesiasticall history of England, from the one and twentieth yeare of Henry the eighth, untill the Eight and twen­tieth yeare of Queene Elisabeth then current, in his three bookes of the Originall and pro­gresse of the English Schisme, hath not one syl­lable of the Nagges head Ordination? He was never accused of partiality for the Pro­testants, (but as malicious against the Pro­testants as any man could wish): nor of concealing truths to their advantage, but of Devising fables to their preju­dice.

[Page 40]He having related the forme of our En­glish Consecrations, partly true and partly false, proceedth to this first Ordination of Protestant Bishops, in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reigne; alleging that the Catholick Bishops refused to impose hands upon them, De Schism. Angl. c. 3. p. 400. Edit Rom. 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 Nagges 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 eye­witnesses living to have hissed such a sense­lesse fable out of the world, And therefore [Page 43] 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. Sāders 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 [Page 44] 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.

The third Reason.A third reason, against this ridiculous libell of the Nagges 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 o [...] Commission of the King under the great seale of England; under the paine of a Premunire, that is, the forfeiture of lands, and goods, 25. H. 8. c. 20. 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 [Page 45] 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 [...]retended to be done against penall lawes, [...]uch as this is, the proofes ought to be clea­ [...]er then the noone day light. Here is no­ [...]hing proved, but one single witnesse named [...]nd he a professed enemy, who never testi­ [...]ed it upon Oath, or before a Iudge, or so [Page 46] 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 beē 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 i [...] plaine prittle prattle. and ought to be va [...]lued no more then the shadow of an asse▪ To admit such a testimony, or an hun­dred such testimonies, against the publick authentick Recordes of the Kingdome were to make our selves guilty of more madness, then they accuse the Bishops of [...] If St. Paul forbid Timothy to recei [...] an accusation against a single Presbyter under two or three witnesses, he would no [...] have us to condemne fifteen Bishops of such a penall crime, upon a ridiculous rumour contrary both to the lawes and Record [...] of the Kingdome. The severity of ou [...] lawes doth destroy the credit of this fable.

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, evē 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 accomplishmēt 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 [Page 48] 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 i [...] no other Bishop but thy self, Resp. Int. 8. August. thou can [...] not ordeine a Bishop otherwise then alone ▪ And after this manner, our First English Bishops were ordeined. And so migh [...] [Page 49] 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 ād Ecclesiasticall? This had bene just like little children which be­cause they cā not have some toy which they desire, cast away their garments, and what­soever their Parēts 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 pretēded Ordinatiō had.

But now I come up close to the ground worke of the fable, Rot. 14. Pars 2. Elisab. 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 [Page 50] 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 The [...]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 [Page 51] Bishop wanteth a name, and the Fabl [...] 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) [Page 52] 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 protestāt? 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 Nagges 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 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 [Page 53] 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, Ac­worth cont. monar. Sander. l. 6. p. 195. 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, [Page 54] 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 Nagges­head, 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 [Page 55] 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. Sand. de Schism. l. 2. p. 350 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. Confut. Apol. parte 6. c. 2. 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 [Page 56] 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, Brookes Novel, Cafes placit. 493. and so declared by publick judg­ment in Queene Maries reigne, in so much as leases made by King Ed­wards [Page 57] 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 [...]laine usurpations, then our Reformation [...] but a reinfanchisement of our selves, and [...]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 [...]hat all those branches of Papall power, which we cast out by our lawes at the Re­ [...]ormation, were grosse usurpations, [...]irst introduced into England above ele­ [...]en hundred yeares after Christ. So this [...]art of the Objection concerneth them [...] us.

[...]econdly these Fathers know wel enough, [...]d can not but acknowledg, that accor­ding [Page 58] to the principles of the Catholick Church and their owne practise, the Ordi­nation not onely of Schismaticks, but o [...] hereticks, if it have no essentiall defect i [...]valide, and the persons so Ordeined ough [...] not to be reordeined, but onely reconciled▪ Many Orthodox Christians had their holy orders from hereticall Arrians. If Cra [...] ­mer, and Latimer, and Barlow, and Hodg­kins, were no true Bishops, because the [...] were ordeined in a time of Schisme then Gardinar, and Bonner, and Tu [...]stall, and Thurleby, &c. were no true Bi [...]shops, for they were ordeined in a tim [...] of Schisme likewise; then Cardinall Pol [...] and Bishop Watson, and Christophers ▪ and all rest of their Bishops were no tru [...] Bishops who were ordeined by these. [...] to put out one of our eies (like the envio [...] man in the fable) they would put out [...] their owne.

Thirdly I answer, that it was not we [...] made a Discrimination betweene our [...]shops and their Bishops, as to the poi [...] of Ordination, but the Marian Bisho [...] themselves, who made a mutuall co [...]pact, one and all, that none of them shoul [...] impose hands upon any new elect [...] Bishops; thinking vainely, there could [Page 59] other Consecraters have bene found out, and that by this meanes they should both preserve their Bishopricks, and bring the Queene to their bent: but they found them selves miserably deceived. Many Bishops who had bene chased out of their Bishop­ricks in Queene Maries daies, did now re­turne from exile, and supplie the place of Consecraters. Then conjurationis eos peni­tuit, The Bishops repented of their Conspi­racy. Ace worth. cont. Sander. l. 2. pag. 197. Multi ad judices recurrunt, &c. many of them ran to the Iudges, confessed their obsti­nacy, and desired leave to take the oath of Supre­macy. Thus writeth Acworth an Author of good account in▪ those daies. If this foolish conspiracy had not bene. we had had no Difference about our Consecra­tions.

To the second part of this objection, that the forme of Ordeining used in King Ed­wards daies, was declared invalide in Quee­ne Maries Daies, I answer, First, that we have no reason to regarde the Iudgment of their Iudges in Queene Maries Dayes, mo­re then they regard the judgment of our Iudges in Queene Elisabeths daies. They who made no scruple to take away their lifes, would make no scruple to take away their holy Orders.

[Page 60]Secondly I answer that which the Father [...] call a sentence, was no sentence. The word is Dicitur, it is said or it is reported, not decre­tum est, it is decreed. Neither were Queene Maries lawes proper rules, nor Queene Maryes Iudges at common law the proper Iudges, of the validity of an Episcopal consecration, or what are the essentialls of ordination, according to the institution of Christ. They have neither rules, no [...] grounds for this in the common law.

Thirdly I answer that the question i [...] Queene Maries daies was not about the va­lidity or invalidity of our Orders, bu [...] about the legality or illegality of them, not whether they were conformable to the institution of Christ, but whether they were conformable to the Lawes o [...] England.

The Lawes of England can neither make a valide ordination to be invalide▪ nor an invalide ordination to be valide, because they can not change the institutio [...] of Christ. In summe King Edwards Bishop [...] were both validely ordeined according to the institution of Christ, and legally ordei­ned according to the lawes of Englād. [...] Queene Mary changed the Law, that the [Page 61] forme of ordeining which had beē allowed in King Edwards daies should not be allo­wed in her daies. Notwithstanding Queene Maries law, they continued still true Bi­shops, by the institution of Christ, But they were not for that time legall Bishops in the eie of the Law of England, which is the Iudges rule. But when Queene Elisa­beth restored King Edwards law, then they were not onely true valide Bishops, but legall Bishops againe.

That corollary which the fathers adde, in so much as leases made by King Edwards Bishops though confirmed by the Deane and Chapiter were not esteemed available, because they were not consecrated or Bishops, that is in [...]he eie of the English law at that time, signi­ [...]ieth nothing at all. Leases concerne the be­ [...]efice of a Bishop, not the Office of a Bishop. A Bishop who is legally ordeined, though [...]e be invalidely ordeined, may make a lease [...]hich is good in law. And a Bishop [...]hich is validely ordeined, if he be ille­ [...]ally ordeined, may make a lease which is [...]oide in law.

Concerning Bishop Bonners Conscience, [...]hat he lost his Bishoprick for his con­ [...]ience, and therefore it is not proba­ [...]e that he would make himself guilty of so [Page 62] much sacrilege, as to declare King Edwards forme of ordination to be invalide for the profit of new Leases, it belongeth not to me to judge of other mens Consciences. But for Bishop Bonners Conscience I referre him to the Testimony of one of his Freinds, Nico­las Sanders, who speaking of Bishop Gar­diner, Bishop Bonner, Bishop Tunstall and the Bishops of Worcester and Chiche­ster, concludeth with these words. T [...]mide ergo restiterunt pueri Regis prima [...] spirituali, imo simpliciter subscripseru [...], & in omnes caeteras innovationes, quae ne [...] videbantur ipsis continere apertam haer [...]sim, ne Episcopatus & honores perderent [...] vel ul [...]ro, vel comra conscientiam coa [...] consenserunt. Therefore they resisted the sp [...]rituall primacy of the King being but a boy fair­ly, yea they subscribed to it simply, and they con­sented to all the rest of the innovations, De Schis­mate l. 2. p. 282 Edit. Rom. whic [...] did not seeme to them to conteine manifest heresy either of their owne accord, or compelled agai [...] Conscience, least they should lose their Bishop­ricks and honours. We see they had no grea [...] reason to bragge of Bishop Bonners Con­science, who sometimes had bene a grea [...] favorite of Cranmer and Crumwell. He g [...] his Bishoprick by opposing the Pope, a [...] lost his Bishoprick by opposing his Prince▪ [Page 63] But if reordination be such a sacrilege, many Romanists are guilty of grosse sacri­lege, who reordeine those Proselites whom they seduce from us, with the same essen­tialls, matter and forme, imposition of hands, and these words Receive the holy Ghost; wherewith they had been formerly ordei­ned by us.

Lastly I answer, (and this answer alone is sufficient to determine this controversy,) that King Edwards forme of ordination was judged valide in Queene Maries daies by all Catholicks, and particularly by Cardinall Pole then Apostolicall Legate in England, and by the then Pope Paul the fourth, and by all the clergy and Parlia­ment of England. The case was this. In the Act for repealing all statutes made against the see of Rome, in the first and second yeares of Philip and Mary, the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Parlia­ment assembled, representing the whole body of the Realme of England, presented their common request to the King and Queene, that they would be a meanes to the Legate to obteine some settlements by authority of the Popes Holiness, for peace sake, in some Articles where of this is one. That institutiōs of Benefices and other Promotions [Page 64] Ecclesiasticall, and Dispensations made accor­ding to the forme of the Act of Parliament might be confirmed. Institutions could not be con­firmed, except Ordinations were confirmed. For the greatest part of the English Clergy had received both their benefices and their holy orders, after the casting out of the Popes usurped authority out of England. And both benefices and holy orders are comprehended under the name of Ecclesia­sticall Promotions. This will appeare much more clearely by the very words of the Cardinalls Dispensation, Ac omnes ecclesiasticas seculares seu quorumvis or­dinum regulares personas, quae aliquas impetrationes, dispensationes, conces­siones, gratias & indulta, tam ordines quam beneficia Ecclesiastica, seu alias spirituales materias, pretensa authori­tate supremitatis Ecclesiae Anglicanae, licet nulliter & de facto obtenuerint, & ad cor reversae Ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint, in suis Ordinibus & beneficiis, per nosipsos seu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus, prout jam multae receptae fuerunt, secumque super his opportune in domino dispensabimus; [Page 65] And we vvill graciously receive (or in­terteine) by our selves or by others depu­ted by us to that purpose, Cardi­nall Po­les Dis­pensati­on. (as many have already been received) in their Orders and in their Benifices, all Ecclesiasticall Persōs as well Secularas Regular of what­soever Orders, vvhich have obteined any suites, dispensations, grants, graces, and indulgences, as vvell in their Ecclesiasticall Orders, as Benefices and other spirituall matters, by the preten­ded authority of the Supremacy of the Church of England, though ineffectually and onely de facto, so they be penitent, and be returned to the unity of the Church. And vve vvill in due season dispense vvith them in the Lord for these things.

Here we see evidently, that upon the re­quest of the Lo [...]ds Spirituall and Temporall and Commons, being the representative body of the Church and Kingdome of England, by the intercession of the King and Queene, the Popes Legate did receive all persons, which had been Ordeined or Beneficed, either in the time of King Henry or King Edward, in their respective Orders [Page 66] and Benefices, which they were actually possessed of, at the time of the making of this dispensation or Confirmation, without any exception or Condition, but onely this, that they were returned to the unity of the Catholick Church. Neither was there ever any one of them who were then retur­ned, either deprived of their Benefices, or compelled to be reordeined. From whence I argue thus, Either King Henry the eighths Bishops and Priests, and likewise the Bi­shops and Priests Ordeined in King Ed­ward the sixths time, had all the Essentialls of Episcopall and Priestly Ordination, which were required by the institution of Christ; and then they ought not to be reor­deined, Then (in the judgement of these Fathers themselves) it is grievous sacrilege to reordeine them: Or they wanted some essentiall of their respective Ordinations, which was required by the institution of Christ; and then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world, to confirme their respective Orders, or dispense with them to exe­cute their functions in the Church. But the Legate did Dispense with them to hold their Orders, and exercise their severall functions in the Church, and the Pope [Page 67] did confirme that dispensation. This doth clearely destroy all the pretensions of the Romanists against the validity of our Orders.

It may perhaps be objected, that the dis­pensative word is recipiemus, we will re­ceive, not we do receive. I answer, the case is all one; If it were unlawfull to re­ceive them in the present, it was as unlaw­full to receive thē in the future. All that was done after, was to take a particular absoluti­on or confirmation from the Pope or his Le­gate, which many of the Principall Clergy did, but not all; No not all the Bishops, Not the Bishop of Landaff, as Sanders wit­nesseth, De Schism. l. 2. p. 305. Yet he injoied his Bishoprick, So did all the rest if the Clergy, who never had any particular confirmation. It is not materiall at all, whether they were confir­med by a generall or by a speciall dispensa­tion, so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all, to hold all their Benefices, and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church, which no man can denie.

Secondly it may be objected, that it is said in the Dispensation, licet nulliter & de facto obtenuerint, Although they had obteined their Benefices and Promotions ineffectu­ally and onely in fact without right: which [Page 68] doth intimate that their Orders were voide and null, before they had obteined this dispensation. I answer, that he stiled them voide and null, not absolutely but re­spectively, quoad exercitium, because by the Roman law they might not be lawfully exercised without a Dispensation: but not quoad Characterem, as to the Character. If they had wanted any thing necessary to the imprinting of the Character, or any thing essentiall by the institution of Christ, the Popes Dispensation and Confirmation had been but like a seale put to a blanke piece of paper. And so the Cardinalls dis­pensation in generall, and particularly for Benefices and Ecclesiasticall Promotions, Dispensations, and Graces given by such Order as the lawes of the Realme allowed and prescribed, in King Henries time and King Edwards time, was then and there ratified by act of Parliament.

Lastly, that this Dispensation was af­terwards confirmed by the Pope, I pro­ve by the confession of Sanders himself, though a malicious enemy. He (that is Cardinall Pole, in a publick Instrument set forth in the name and by the autho­rity of the Pope) Confirmed all Bishop [Page 69] which had bene made in the former Schisme, De Schism. l. 2. p. 350. so they were Catholick in their judgment of Religion, and the six new Bishopricks which King Henry had erected in the time of the Schisme. And this writing being affixed to the Statute, was published with the rest of the Decrees of that Parliament, and their minds were pacified. All which things were established and confirmed afterwards, by the Letters of Pope Paul the fourth.

We have seene, that there were a com­petent number of Protestant Bishops be­yond 'Exception to make a Consecration: And so the necessity, which is their onely Basis or Foundation of the Nagges head Consecration, being quite taken away, this prodigious fable having nothing els to support the incredibilities and inconsi­stencies of it, doth melt away of it self like winter ice.

The fifth reason is drawen from that well known principle in Rethorick, A fifth reason Cui bono? or what advantage could such a consecration, as the Nagges head Consecra­tion is pretended to have been, bring to the [Page 70] Consecraters or the persons consecrated. God and Nature never made any thing in vaine. The haire of the head, the nailes upon the fingers ends, do serve both for ornament and muniment. The leafes de­fend the blossomes, the blossomes produce the fruite, which is Natures end. In sen­sitives, the Spider doth not weave her webbes, nor the silly Bee make her celles in vaine. But especially intellectuall crea­tures have alwaies some end of their Acti­ons. Now consider, what good such a mock Consecratiō could doe the persons so consecrated? Could it helpe them to the possession of their Bishopricks by the law of England? Nothing lesse. There is such a concatenation of our English Customes and Recordes, that the counterfeiting of of any one can do no good, except they could counterfeite them all, which is im­possible.

When any Bishops See becommeth voide, there issueth a Writ out of the Ex­chequer to seise the Temporalties into the Kings hand, as being the ancient and well knowne Patron of the English Church; leaving the Spiritualties to the Arch Bishop or to the Deane and Chapiter, according to the custome of the place. Next the King [Page 71] granteth his Conge d'Eslire or his License to chuse a Bishop, to the Deane and Chapiter; upon the receite of this License, the Deane and Chapiter, within a certein number of daies, chuse a Bishop, and certifie their Election to the King, under the common seale of the Chapiter.

Upon the returne of this Certificate, the King granteth out a Commission under the great seale of England to the Arch Bishop, or in the vacancy of the Arch Bishoprick to so many Bishops, to examine the Ele­ction: and if they find it fairely made to confirme it, and after Confirmation to proceed to the Consecration of the person elected, according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England. This Com­mission or Mandate must passe both through the Signet office and Chancery, and be at­tested by the Clerkes of both those offices, and signed by the Lord Chanceller and Lord privy seale, and be inrolled. So as it is morally impossible there should be any forgery in it.

Vpon the receite of this Mandate, the Bishops who are authorised by the King, do meete first at Bowes Church in London, where with the assistence of the Chiefe Ec­clesiasticall Judges of the Realme, the [Page 72] Deane of the Arches, the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience, with their Re­gisters to Actuate what is done, they do solemnely in forme of law confirme the election. Which being done, and it being late before it be done, the Commissioners and Iudges were and are sometimes invited to the Nagges head to a dinner, as being very neare Bowes Church, and in those daies the onely place of note, This mee­ting led Mr. Neale (a man altogether un­acquainted with such formes,) into this fooles Paradise; first to suspect, and upon suspicion to conclude, that they were a­bout an Ordination there, and lastly to broach his brainsick conceites in corners; and finding them to be greedily swallowed by such as wished them true, to assert his owne drowsy suspicion for a reall truth. But the mischief is, that Doctor Parker who was to be consecrated, was not present in person, but by his Proxie.

After the Confirmation is done, com­monly about three or foure daies, (but as it happened in Arch Bishop Parkers case nine daies,) the Commissioners proceed to the Consecration; for the most part out of their respect to the Archbishop in the Chappell at Lambeth, with Sermon, Sacrament, and all solemnity requisite, according to the forme [Page 73] prescribed by the Church of England; in the presence of publick Notaries or sworne Officers, who reduce every thing that is done with all the circumstances into Acts, and enter them into the Register of the See of Canterbury. Where they are carefully kept by the principall Officer in a publicke office, as Recordes, where every one who desireth may view them from time to time, and have a copy of them if he please. And it is to be noted, that at any Consecration, especially of an Arch-Bishop, great num­bers of principall Courtiers and Citisens are present: so as it is no more possible to coun­ [...]erfeite such a Consecration, then to walke [...]nvisible upon the Exchange at noone day.

After the Consecration is done, the per­ [...]on Consecrated is not presently admitted to his Bishoprick, First the Arch Bishop maketh his certificate of the Consecration with all the circumstances of it, under his Arch-Episcopall seale: Thereupon the King taketh the new Bishops oath of fealty [...]nd commands that he be put into the A­ctuall possessiō of his Bishoprick: Then he is [...]nthroned, and at his Inthronisation his Or­ [...]ination is publickly read: Then he injoieth [...]is Spiritualties: Then issueth a Writ out [...]f the Exchequer to the Sherif, to restore [...]im to the Temporalties of his Bishoprick. [Page 74] This custome is so ancient, so certein, so generall, that no Englishman can speak [...] against it.

Here we see evidently how al things [...] pursue one another, and what a necessary and essentiall connexion there is betwee [...] them. So as the stealing of an Electio [...] or the stealing of a Consecration, can ge [...] no man a Bishoprick, as Mr. Neale drea­med. He that would advantage himsel [...] that way, must falsifie all the Record [...] both Ecclesiasticall and Civill. He mu [...] falsifie the Recordes of the Chancery, [...] the Signet office, of the Exchequer, [...] the Registries, of the Bishop, of the De [...]ne and Chapiter. He must counterfeit th [...] hands and seales of the King, of the Arch [...] Bishop, of the Lord Chanceller, the Lo [...] Privy seale, of the Clerkes and public [...] Notaries, which is not imaginable. [...] Mr. Neale, who first devised this drow [...] dreame (or somebody for him) had [...] more experience of our English lawes [...] Customes, he would have feined a mo [...] probable tale, or have held his peace fo [...] ever.

Answer me, They who are calumniate to have had their Consecration at the N [...]ges head, did they meane to conceale it [...] [Page 75] have it kept secret? Then what good could it do them? De non existentibus & non appa­rentibus eadem est ratio: If it were concea­led, it was all one a [...] if it had never bene. Or did they meane to have it published? Such an Ordination had bene so farre from helping them to obteine a Bishoprick, that it had rendred them uncapable of a Bishoprick for ever: And moreover sub­jected both the Consecraters and the Con­secrated to deprivation, and degradation, and a Premunire or forfeiture of their lands goods and liberties, and all that were present at it to excommunication. Rome is a fitte place wherein to publish such Lu­dibrious fables as this; where they can per­swade the people, that the Protestants are stupid creatures, who have lost their Re­ [...]igion, their reason, and scarcely reteine their humaine shapes. It is too bold an attempt, to obtrude such counterfeit ware [...] [...]n England.

HItherto we have beene taking in the out workes: Now I come directly to assault this Castle in the aire, That which hath bene said already is sufficient to per­swade any man, who is not brimme full of prejudice and partiality: The other five reasons which follow next, have power to compell all men, and command their assen [...] ▪

My sixth reason is taken from the diame­trall oppositiō which is betweene this fabu­lous relation of the Nagges head Ordinatio [...] ▪ and all the Recordes of England, both Eccle­siasticall and civill. First for the time. The Romanists say, that this Ordination was be­fore the ninth of September Ann. 2559: [...] it is apparent by all the Recordes of the Chancery, all the distinct Letters Paten [...] or Commissions for their Respective Con­firmations, and Consecrations, whereupo [...] they were consecrated, did issue out lo [...] after; namely, Arch Bishop Parkers Lette [...] Patents (which were the first) upon the sixth day of December following. Next th [...] [Page 77] Commissions for Grindall, Cox and Sands, Then for Bullingham, Iewel, and Davis. Then for Bentham and Barkley: and in the yeare following for Horn, Al­ley, Scambler, and Pilkinton. He that hath a mind to see the Copies of these Commissi­ons, may find them Recorded Verbatim both in the Rolles of the Arch Bishops Re­gister, Rot [...] pars 1 4.2. El. and in the Rolles of the Chancery. To what end were all these Letters Patents, to authorise so many Confirmatiōs and Con­secrations, if the Consecrations were done and past long before? No mans Election can be confirmed in England, but by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents. Therefore the Letters Patents must precede the Confir­mation and Consecration, not follow after [...]t three moneths, or foure moneths, or six moneths, and in some of thē above a yeare.

And as by the Recordes of the Chancery, [...]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 [...]o see these, may finde Authentick Recordes of them all, both Confirmations and Consecrations, [Page 78] 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, o [...] 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 Dea [...] and Chapiter: And the Restitution of the new Bishop to his Temporalties by virt [...] of the Kings Writ, mentioning the Con­firmation and oath of fealty to the King, [...] being temporall things. Observe ho [...] every one of these do pursue another [...] Arch Bishop Parkers Commission issue [...] 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 ensu [...]ing, that is, at the later end of the ver [...] next terme: But by their Relation, th [...] Consecration was long before the Electio [...] was confirmed, which can not be; Th [...] Letter Patents to license the Confirmation and Consecration, come out three moneth [...] after the Consecration was done, which [...] incredible. As for the Confirmation, M [...] [Page 79] 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 Nagges 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 Nagges 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 Nagges head.

Thirdly for the Consecrater. That fa­ [...]ulous Relation feineth that there was but [Page 80] 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 King [...] Writ for restitution had not issued.

They feine that they imposed hands m [...] ­tually, Scory upon them and they upo [...] Scorie: But the Recordes witnesse that Scor [...] was solemnely ordeined Bishop in King Edwards time, Reg. Cran. fol. 334. the thirteenth day of Augu [...] Anno. 1551, by the Arch Bishop of Can­terbury, the Bishop of London and the Sus­fragan Bishop of Bedford; and needed no [...] to be reordeined at the Nagges head.

Lastly, for the persons consecrated so [...] of them feine that all the elected Bishops and all of them say that many of them, we [...] consecrated together at one time wi [...] Arch Bishop Parker: But all the Record [...] both Civill and Ecclesiasticall do testifieth contrary, that they had severall Commis­sions, severall Confirmations, severall Con­secrations, upon severall daies, in severa [...] moneths, in several yeares, severall Co [...]secraters; as appeareth most evidently [...] onely by the Authentick Recordes of the S [...] of Canterbury, but also by the Record [...] [Page 81] 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 Nagges head is a prodigious forgery.

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 vir [...] 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. Patent [...] directed to us thereupon it appeareth more fully.

[Page 83]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 Bi [...]hop of Bath, David Bishop of Peterburough, Anthony Bishop of Landaff, William Barlow Bishop, and Iohn Scory Bishop, in these words.

Now if any man desire a reason why this first Commission was not executed, the best account I can give him is this, That it was directed to six Bishops, with­out an [ aut minus, or at the least foure of you]: so as if any one of the six were sick or absent, or refused, the rest could not proceed to Confirme, or Consecrate. And that some of them did refuse, I am very apt to belee­ve, because three of them not long after were deprived. But the Reader may note, First that there were three Protestant Bi­shops in that First Commission. They who were such punctuall observers of the law of England, that they would not proceed to consecrate without a fourth, in the va­cancy [Page 86] of both the Archiepiscopall Sees, certeinly would never give way to a pri­vate profane Ordination at the Nagges head, by one single Bishop. And secondly, that for all their pretended intelligence, our English Romish writers are great strangers to the true passages of those times, knowing nothing but what they heare at Rome, or Rhemes, or Doway. If it were otherwise we should have heard of this Commission sooner.

The second Letters Patents which were executed, were dated the sixth of Decem­ber following, directed to Anthony Bi­shop of Landaff, William Barlow sometimes Bishop of Bath, now Elect Bishop of Chicester, Iohn Scory sometimes Bishop of Chichester, now Elect Bishop of Hereford, Miles Coverdale sometimes Bishop of Exceter, Richard Suffragan Bishop of Bedford, Iohn Suffragan Bishop of The [...] ­ford, and Iohn Bale Bishop of Ossory in Ire­land, in these words.

Before I proceed further, to prevent cavills, I must acquainte the Reader, that the Suffragan Bishop of Bedford is misna­med Richard in the Rolles; by what mi­stake or errour, after so long time it is folly to inquire. We may Conjecture how it might easily, and most probably did come to passe: but to say positively how it did come to passe, whether it was the errour of the transcriber, or the mi­stake of him who gave the instructions, or it was no faulte at all, (he might have two names, as many have had, and many [Page 90] have and owne them severally,) is not pos­sible. In the Ecclesiasticall Register of the Church, he is alwaies stiled by his right name Iohn, throughout all the Acts of the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker. Once his name had been written Richard, but it was corrected, and my friend assureth me, that it is the onely word in that long narration which is ex­punged or interlined; So exact is that Re­corde. This is certeine, his right name was Iohn, as it is in the Register. To this the Recordes of his own Consecration, and twenty other Recordes do beare wit­nesse.

But as to the validity of the Act or Or­dination, it is not materiall whether his na­me were Iohn or Richard, or both, or nei­ther. So he was truely ordeined himself, and did truely concurre in ordeining, it is no matter how he is Stiled in the Commis­sion, or in the Register. Regall Com­missions are no essentialls of Ordination▪ Notariall Acts are no essentialls of Ordi­nation. The misnaming of the Baptise [...] in a Parish Register doth not make voide the Baptisme. When Popes do consecrate themselves, (as they do sometimes), they d [...] it by the names of Paul, or Alexander o [...] [Page 91] Vrbanus, or Innocentius: yet these are not the names which were imposed upon them at their Baptismes, or at their Confirma­tions, but such names as themselves have been pleased to assume. But to come to more serious matter.

There are two differences betweene these two Commissions. The first is an [ aut minus, Or at the least foure of you], which clause is prudently inserted into all Com­missions, where many Commissioners are named, least the sicknesse, or absence, or neglect of any one or more, might hinder the worke. The question is, why they are limited to foure, when the Canons of the Catholick Church require but three. The answer is obvious, because the Statutes of England do require foure in case one of the Consecraters be not an Arch Bishop, or deputed by one. Three had bene enough to make a valide Ordination, yea to make a Canonicall Ordination; and the Queene might have dispensed with her owne lawes: but she would have the Arch Bishop to be ordeined both according to the canons of the Catholick Church, and the known [...]awes of England.

The second difference betweene the two Commissions is this, that there is a Sup­plen [...]es [Page 92] in the later Commission, which is not in the former. [ Supplyng by our Sove­raigne authority all defects either in the Execu­tion, or in ihe Executers of this Commission, or any of them]. The Court of Rome in such like instruments have ordinarily such dis­pensative clauses, for more abundant cau­tion, whether there be need of them or not, to relaxe all sentences censures, and pe­nalties inflicted either by the law or by the Iudge.

But still the question is, to what end was this clause inserted? I answer, it is en [...] enough, if it serve (as the Court of Rome useth it,) for a certeine salve to helpe any latent impediment, though there be none▪ A superfluous clause doth not vitiate [...] writing. Some thinke it might have refe­rence to Bishop Coverdales syde woollo [...] gowne, which he used at the Consecratio [...] toga lanea talari utebatur. That was uncano­nicall indeed, and needed a dispensation fo [...] him that used it, not for him who was con­secrated. But this was so slender a defe [...] and so farre from the heart or essence o [...] Ordinatiō; especially where the three othe [...] Cōsecraters, (which is the canonicall num­ber) where formally and regularly habite [...] that it was not worth an intimation und [...] [Page 93] the great seale of England. This Miles Co­verdale had been both validely and legally ordeined Bishop, and had as much power to ordeine as the Bishop of Rome himself. If he had been Roman Catholick in his [...]udgment, he had been declared by Car­dinall Pole as good a Bishop, as either Bon­ [...]er, or Thirleby, or any of the rest.

Others thinke, this clause might have relation to the present condition of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Scory, who were not yet inthroned into their new Bishopricks. It might be so, but if it was, it was a great mistake in the Lawiers who drew up the Commission. The Office and the Bene­fice of a Bishop are two distinct things; Ordination is an act of the Key of Order, and a Bishop uninthroned may ordeine as well as a Bishop inthroned. The Ordi­nation of Suffragan Bishops, who had no peculiar Bishoprickes, was alwaies admit­ted and reputed as good in the Catho­lick Church, (if the Suffragans had Episcopall Ordination,) as the Ordi­nation of rhe greatest Bishops in the wolrd.

But since this clause doth extend ir self both to the Consecration and the Conse­craters, I am confident that the onely [Page 94] ground of it was that same exception, o [...] rather cavill which Bishop Bonner did after­wards make against the legality of Bishop Hornes Consecration; which is all that ei­ther Stapleton or any of our Adversaries ha [...] to pretend against the legality of the Or­dination of our first Protestant Bishops▪ that they were not ordeined according to the praescript of our very Statutes.

I have set downe this case formerly in my replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon ▪ But to avoide wrangling, I will put i [...] downe in the very wordes of the Statute▪ King Edward the Sixth in his time by authority of Parliament, caused the booke of Common Praier and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ce­remonies in the Church of England, [...] be made and set forth, not onely for or [...] uniforme Order of Service, Commō Pray­er, and Administration of Sacrament [...] to be used whithin this Realme, but also did adde and put to the said booke, a very godly Order manner and forme, ho [...] Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Dea­cons and Ministers, should from time [Page 95] to time be consecrated, made, and or­dered, within this Realme. After­wards it followeth, that in the time of Queene Mary, the severall Acts and statutes made in the secōd, third, fourth, fifth and sixth yeares of King Edward, for the authorising and allowing of the said booke of Common praier and other the premisses, were repealed. Lastly the Statute addeth, that by an Act made in the first yeare of Queene Elisabeth, entituled An act for the uniformity of Common prayer and service in the Church, and administration of Sacra­ments, the said booke of Common Prai­er and Administration of Sacraments, and other the said Orders Rites and Ce­remonies before mētioned, and all things therein conteined, is fully stablished and authorised to be used in all places with­in the Realme.

This is the very case related by the Par­liament. Now the exception of Bishop Bonner, and Stapleton, and the rest, was this. The booke of Ordination was expresly established by name by Edward the Sixth, [Page 96] And that Act was expresly repealed by Queene Mary: But the booke of Ordination was not expresly restored by Queene Eli­sabeth, but onely in generall termes under the name and notion of the Booke of Com­mon Praiers and administration of Sacra­ments, and other orders rites and Ceremo­nies. Therefore they who were ordeined according to the said forme of Ordination in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time, were not legally ordeined. And those Bi­shops which had bene ordeined according to that forme in King Edwards time, though they were legally ordeined then, yet they were not legall Bishops now, because Quee [...] Maries statute was still in force, and was not yet repealed.

Is this all? Take courage Reader, Here is nothing that toucheth the validity of our Ordination, but onely the legality of it▪ which is easily satisfied. First I answe [...] that Queene Maries Statute was repeale [...] sufficiently, even as to rhe booke of Or­dination; as appeareth by the very word of the Statute which repealed it. A [...] that the said booke, with the order of Service [...] of the administration of Sacraments rites [...] Ceremonies, shall be after the feast of St. [...] Baptist next in full force and effect, any thing [...] [Page 97] Queene Maries Statute of repeale to the con­trary in any wise not withstanding. That the booke of Ordination was a part of this booke, and printed in this booke in King Edwards daies, besides the expresse testi­mony of the Statute in the eighth of Queene Elisabeth we have the authority of the Ca­nons of the Church of England, which call it singularly the booke of Common Praier, and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons. Can. 36 It is our forme of praier upon that occasion, as much as our forme of baptising, or admi­nistring the holy Eucharist, or our forme of confirming, or marryng, or visiting the sick.

Secondly, it is also a part of our forme of Administration of the Sacraments. We denie not Ordination to be a Sacrament, though it be not one of those two Sacra­ments, which are generally necessary to salvation.

Thirdly, although it were supposed that Ordination were no Sacrament, nor the booke of Ordination a part of the booke of Common praier: yet no man can denie that it is a part of our Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies, and under that notion suffi­ciently authorised. Lastly,

[Page 98] They who have legislative power to make a law, have legislative power to expound a law. 8. Elc. cap. 1. Queene Elisabeth and her Parlia­ment made the law, Queene Elisabeth and her Parliament expounded the law, by the same authority that made it; declaring that under the booke of Common Praier, the forme of Ordination was comprehended and ought to be understood. And so ended the grand cavill of Bishop Bonner and Do­ctor Sapleton and the rest, of the illega­lity of our Ordination; shewing nothing but this, how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed,

That the Supplentes or this dispensative clause had Relation to this cavill, (which as it did breake out afterwards into an open controversy, so it was then whispered in corners,) is very evident by one clause in the Statute: that for the avoiding of all que­stions and ambiguities that might he objected against the lawfull Confirmations, investing, and Consecrations of any Arch-Bishops, Bishops &c. the Queene in her Letters Patents had not onely used such words as had bene accustomed to be used by King Henry and King Edward, but also diverse other generall wordes, whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and autho­rity, hath dispensed with all causes and doubts of [Page 99] any imperfection or disability that could be ob­jected. The end of this clause and that Statute was the same: And this was the onely question or ambiguity which was moved.

Yet although the case was so evident, and was so judged by the Parliament, that the forme of Consecration was compre­hended under the name and notion of the booke of Common praier &c: yet in the indictment against Bishop Bonner, I do commend the discretion of our Iudges, and much more the moderation of the Par­liament. Criminall lawes should be written with a beame of the sun, without all ambiguity.

Lastly, before I leave this third consi­deration, I desire the Reader to observe three things with me. First, that this dis­pensative neither hath, nor can be construed to have any reference to any Consecration that was already past, or that was acted by Bishop Scory alone; as that silly Conse­cration at the Nagges head is supposed to have been.

Secondly, that this dispensative clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ, or any essentiall of Ordination, nor to the Canons of the universall Church: but [Page 100] onely to the Statutes and Ecclesiasticall lawes of England. Si quid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus Regni nostri, aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur.

Thirdly, that the Commissioners authorised by these Letters Parēts to cōfirme and con­secrate Arch Bishop Parker, did make use of this Supplentes or dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election, which is a politicall Act, (as by the words of the Confirmation in the next paragraph shall appeare,) but not in the Consecration, which is a purely spirituall act, and be­longeth meerely to the Key of Or­der.

Fourthly we say, that by virtue of these Letters Patents of December the sixth, foure of the Commissioners therein named did meete in Bowes Church, upon the ninth day of the same moneth: and then and there with the advise of the chiefe Ec­clesiasticall Lawiers of the Kingdome, the Deane of the Arches, the Iudges of the Prerogative and Audience, did solemnely confirme the election. This is proved by the Recorde of the Confirmation or definitive sentence it self, in these words.

I cite this the more largely, that our Ad­versaries may see what use was made of the dispensation, whieh they cavill so much against: But in the Consecration which is an act of the Key of order, they made no use at all of it. This is likewise clearly proved by the Queenes mandate for the restitu­tion of Arch Bishop Parker to his Tempo­ralties, wherein there is this clause. [ Cui quidem electioni & personae sic Electae Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus & favorem, Rot. pars 14.2. El. ipsi­usque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Archi-Episcopatu recepimus.]

Fifthly, we say that eight daies after the [Page 103] Confirmation, that is to say the 17. of December Anno 1559, the same Commis­sioners did proceed to the Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker, in the Archi-Epi­scopall Chappell at Lambeth, according to the forme prescribed by the Church of En­gland, with solemne Praiers and Sermon, and the holy Eucharist; at which great numbers of grave persons communicated with him at that time, [ frequens gravissimo­rum hominum caetus.] This is proved evi­dently by the authentick Recordes of the Consecration, as they are still and alwaies have been to be seen, in the publick Re­gistry of the Archi-Episcopall See of Can­terbury.

Registrum Reverendissimi in Christo Pa [...]ris & Domini, Reg. Park. t. 1. f. 2. Domini Matthaei Parker &c. Principio Sacellum tapetibus ad Orientem ador­nabatur, solum vero panno rubro insternebatur, &c. And so first setting downe both how the Chappell was adorned for the Conse­cration, and what habit and garments as well the Consecraters as the person who was to be consecrated did weare, both at the Praiers and Sermon, as likewise at the holy Sacrament and Consecration, it proceedeth to the Consecration itself.

This is so evident that our Adversaries have nothing to say, but to crie the Re­cordes are forged. Forgery of Recordes is a grievous crime, and ought to be mani­festly proved, or the accuser to suffer for his Calumny. Let them tell us who forged them, and when and where they were forged. But they know nothing of it. Did any of the succeding Proto-No­ [...]aries complaine that they were forged? or so much as an under Clerke of the Office, or any man that had once occasion to view them, and afterwards found some change in them?

[Page 106]No such thing. Examine all the Officer [...] and Notaries and Clerkes living, whether ever they observed any change in them du­ring their remembrance; And they will all answer, No. And so would all their pre­decessors since Arch-Bishop Parkers time have answered, if they had beē put to their Oathes. Who are they then that accuse them of Forgery? They are the Adversa­ries of the Church of England, who neve [...] read one word of them, nor know muc [...] what belongeth to such Recordes: Bu [...] they wish if they be not forged, that they were forged. What would you have [...] do? If they could answer them otherwise they would; But they can not, and the [...]fore they crie them downe as forged.

It is possible to forge private Acts [...] in a corner: But to forge a consecratio [...] done publickly at Lambeth, in Queene E [...]sabeths time, And to forge it so early as th [...] was published to the world, is incredibl [...] Surely these Fathers do not know the C [...]stomes of the Church, that all things whi [...] are done at publick Consecrations, are p [...]sently drawne into Acts by principall N [...]taries, and kept in publick Registries, [...] the custody of them committed to swo [...] Officers. And this practise was not [...] [Page 107] [...] in England upon this occasion, but [...]th beē observed throughout both Provin­ [...]s for time immemoriall. I should not [...] one Penfull of inke upon an English [...]an, who either doth know or ought to [...]ow what credit the law of England doth [...] to these Recordes: But for the satis­ [...]tion of strangers who are misled by [...] bold calumnies, I will take leave for [...] to prove that, which like the common [...]nciples of Artes, ought to be taken for [...]anted, and De quo nefas est dubitare. [...] us trie whether they can say more for [...] Vatican Recordes, then we can for [...].

For the present, I produce six grounds [...] convince all those who gainsay them. [...] first is that value and respect which [...] Lawes of the Kingdome do give them, [...] is to allow them to be authentick [...]ofes; Especially in cases of this nature, [...]cerning Spirituall Acts belonging to [...] Key of Order. If a Clerke have lost [...] Letters of Orders, a certificate out [...] this Registrie, under the Seale of the [...]ch-Bihop, or the hand of the Protono­ [...], is an authentick proofe. Shall [...] or three Adversaries, who are strangers [Page 108] and know little of our affaires, altogethe [...] unacquainted with our Lawes and Re­cordes, dare without any ground to defa [...] that for forged, which the Lawes of [...] Kingdome do allow for authentick? Eithe [...] these Recordes are authentick, or Chri­stendome never had an authentick Ec­clesiasticall Record. The very Act [...] of our Synods or Convocations are [...] more undoubted, then these are.

My second proofe is taken from [...] credit of the Publick Notaries, who [...] testifie this individuall Consecration, [...] draw it up into Acts. The Testimony [...] two publick Notaries, for matter of [...] maketh full proofe over all Europe: but [...] at least foure Publick Notaries we [...] present at this Consecration, and testif [...] [...]he truth of these Acts; Whereof two [...] them were the Principall Publick Notari [...] in England, that is, Anthony Huse proto [...]tary of the See of Canterbury, and [...] Argall Registerer of the Prerogative [...] assisted in actuating this Consecration [...] Thomas Willet and Iohn Iucent Publick N [...]taries. Who can make doubt of a m [...]ter of fact so attested?

[Page 109]But is it further Observable that these foure publick Notaries were the same who did draw Cardinall Poles Consecration into Acts, and attest them. Either let [...]hese Fathers denie that Cardinall Pole was Consecrated, or let them grant that Arch-Bishop Parker was Consecrated, Aut u [...]ramque negate, aut u [...]rumque conced [...]e. There are the same Proofes for the one and for the other. There needeth no more to be done to satisfie any man that hath eyes in his head, but to compare the one Regi­ster with the other,

We owe a third ground to the Queenes extraordinary care, who was so solicitous least some Circumstance in the Politicall part might be defective in some punctilio of law, by reason of the frequent change of the Statutes in the reignes of her Father, Brother, Sister, and Her self, that she cau­sed the Letters Patents to be carefully pe­rused by six of our most eminent Lawiers, who all with one unanimous consent did certifie, that the Commission was good in law, and that the Consecraters might proceed legally to Consecration upon it; which Certificate subscribed with [Page 110] their owne hands is preserved in the Re­cordes. So if these Recordes be forged not onely the Acts of the Principall No [...] ­ries of England, but also the hands of the Principall Lawiers of England [...] be forged for company, which is incre­dible.

The fourth ground is irrefragable, ta­ken from the testimony and authority [...] the Parliament of England, in the eight [...] yeare of Queen Elisabeth, that was about six yeares after this Consecration wa [...] acted; which speaking of the great car [...] was taken in and about the Elections, Con­firmations, and Consecrations of Arch-Bishop Parker, and the rest of those fir [...] Bishops in Queene Elisabeths time, for proofe thereof referreth us to these very Recordes, [ As the Recordes of her Ma­jesties said Fathers and Brothers time, and also her owne time, 8. El. c. 1. will mo [...] plainly testifie and declare]. Doth the Parliament referre subjects to Recordes which are forged? You see the contrary, that it mentioneth them as authentick, un­doubted, undeniable proofes of what was really done.

[Page 111]To this unanswerable reason, these Fa­thers pretend to give two answers: But they are such as are able to satisfie any man, that no answer is to be expected. The first answer is in their printed booke pag. 16, that the word Recordes is but a generall terme. As if truth ought not to be regarded in generalls; as well as in particulars. Yet the termes which are added to Recordes, that is, [ of her Fathers time, her brothers time, and her time], are no generall but restrei­ning termes.

They adde, that it is a word of course, which men do rather suppose then exa­mine, when they mention things that have been practised in former times. What latitude these Fathers may allow their Confitents in case Theology for words of Course, I do not now examine; but what have words of Course to do in a printed law? They might as well tell the Parlia­ment in plaine termes, that they lied, or that they spake they knew not or regarded not what: as tell them that their words were but words of course. If these wordes of course were not true, why did not [...]hey confute them then, when all things were fresh in mens memories? No man [Page 112] can beleeve that they did forbeare out of affection to the Parliament, but because they could not then oppose so evident truth.

Yet they conclude it to be evident, that there were no such Recordes of Parkers consecra­tion. This is more then words of course, to charge the Parliament directly with an un­truth. But how is it evident that there were no such Recordes? because they were never produced to those Roman Catholick Do­ctors, who desired to see some evidence of Par­kers Consecration. This is wonderfull, They were cited in printe, they were alle­ged by the Parliament in the Publick La­wes of the Kingdome, of which no man can pleade ignorance; and yet they tell us they were never produced. But to satisfie their very pretensions. Their exception [...] in those daies were of another nature, either against our English Ordinall, or against the Legality of our Bishops; which later exception hath been answered alrea­dy, and the former shall be answered i [...] due place. The reason why Bishop Iewell, and Bishop Horne, and others did not ci [...] these Recordes more expressely, was no dread at all least they should be found to be counterfeit, but because they had no [Page 113] need to cite them, to answer any thing that was objected against them. Either the Roman Catholick writers of those daies were false to their owne interest, to smo­ther a thing which (if it had been true) had been so much to their advantage; which no rationall man can imagine: Or the Nagges head Ordination was altogether unknowne and unheard of in those daies; which is most certeine.

But now the Fathers change their note, could they not be forged as well in Queene Eli­sabeths time as in King Iames his reigne? This is to blow hote and cold with the same breath. Before they demanded, how it was possible they should be extant then and not produced? Now they tell us, they might be extant then, and yet forged: Nay, such a dexterity they have in turning all which they touch into gold, that they make this very supposition that they were extant then, to be a proofe against us that they were forged. Therefore they were not produced, because in Queene Elisabeths time many were living, who would have proved them to be forged.

Observe first, what honour and respect [Page 114] our Countrymen do beare to our Princes and Parliaments united. Before they did as good as gave them the lie, And now they make them at the least Accessaries to forgery, so farre as to avouch and justifie forged Recordes. Secondly observe, with what confidence and conscience they say that these Recordes were never produ­ced: And yet confesse that they were cited in Printe, and alleged in our very Statutes. If Bishop Iewell and Bishop Horne had cited them, (as they would have cited them if they had had occasion), they could have done no more then was done. Did any man upon this publication go about to con­vince them of forgery? No I warrant you, The case was too plaine to be con­vinced. The Parliament, and the booke of the lifes of the seventy Arch Bishops of Canterbury printed by Iohn Day Anno 1572. have spoiled the Fathers Arguments, [ They were not produced, therefore they were forged]▪ and furnished us with a demonstrative proofe of the contrary. They were pro­duced and cited in printe, and neither con­vinced, nor so much as accused of forgery; Therefore they were not for­ged.

It seemeth this answer did not satisfie [Page 115] the Fathers themselves: and therefore the one of them hath addeth a second ans­wer in the margent, with his penne, in these words; The Act of Parliament relates onely to the Recordes of the Queenes Letters Patents, and not to the Recordes of the Bishops Consecra­tion or Ordination. They say that glosse is accursed which corrupteth and Contradicteth the text, as this glosse doth egregiously. The Statute speaketh expresly, of the Recordes of Elections and Confirmations and Consecrations, which are all of them Ecclesiasticall Acts, and none of them Recorded in the Rolles of Chancery, or any other civill Court of Recordes, but onely in the Ecclesiasticall Registers of the Arch-Bishops, Deanes and Chapiters respectively. This an­swer is a groundlesse evasion.

My fifth ground to prove that these Re­cordes were not forged, is taken from that booke of the lifes of the seventy suc­ceding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, printed in London in the yeare 1572; wherein the Authour, (that was Arch Bishop Parker himself,) having described the Confirma­tions and Consecrations of Bishop Grindall, [Page 116] Bishop Sands, Bishop Iewell, Bishop Horne, and all the rest of those first Pro­testant Bishops, he addeth in the mar­gent, Hae confirmationes & consecratio­nes in Registris apparent: These confirma­tions and consecrations de appeare in the Regi­sters. Then the Registers were then extant, and not onely extant but publickly prin­ted, whilest all things were fresh in mens memories, yet no man did or durst except against the truth of them; So free they were not onely from corruption, but from suspicion.

The sixth and last ground to prove that the Recordes were not forged, is taken from the agreement and concurrence of our civill Recordes (which no man ever doubted of) with our Ecclesiasticall Re­gisters. We have seene the Queenes Let­ters Patēts, directed to seven other Bishops, for the confirmation and consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker, dated the sixth of De­cember anno 1559; Therefore upon the sixth of December 1559 he was neither Confir­med nor Consecrated. We have seene the Ecclesiasticall Recordes, how by virtue of those very Letters Patents, he was confir­med upon the ninth day, and consecrated upon the seventeenth day of the same [Page 117] Moneth. We find three other Letters Pa­tents, directed to Arch-Bishop Parker him­self as a Consecrated Bishop, for the Con­firmation and Consecration of other Bi­shops; namely Richard Coxe, Edmund Grin­dall, and Edwin Sandes, dated the Eigh­teenth of December, that is the very next day after his consecration: Therefore he was then consecrated. And this agreeth exactly with the Ecclesiasticall Register.

There cannot be a clearer proofe in the world, to prove that Arch-Bishop Parker was neither confirmed nor Consecrated upon the sixth of December Anno 1559. [Page 119] and that he was both Confirmed and Con­secrated, and commanded to Consecrate others, upon the eighteenth of the same moneth. Neither doth the King, or Church, or Lawes of England, take notice of any man as a true Arch-Bishop or Bishop, un­till hands be imposed upon him, but al­waies with this addition [ Elect] as in the booke of Ordination, Ego I N. Ecclesiae atque sedis N. Elecius Episcopus profi [...]eor ▪ And in the letany, Te Rogamus ut huic fratri nostro Electo Episcopo Benedicionem & gratiam [...]uam largiri digneris.

Lastly, by the lawes of England, a Bi­shop can not be admitted to do his homage or sweare fealty for his Bishoprick, nor be restored to his Temporalties, untill he be legally Consecrated: But it is Appa­rent by the Queenes Letters Patents, dated the one and twentieth day of March follo­wing, (that was at the end of Hilary terme, as speedily as could be) he had done his homage, and was then restored to his Tem­poralties. Which proveth clearly, that he was legally Consecrated, that is to say, according to the Register. Such a perpe­tuall agreement there is, between our Ec­clesiasticall-Recordes and our Civill Re­cordes.

The eighth reason.THe eighth reason to prove the Nagges-head Ordinatiō to be a fable, is takē frō the authority of the Statute in the eighth yeare of Queene Elisabeth, which is thus entituled. An Act declaring the manner of making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realme, to be good lawfull and perfect. [An Act declaring] not ena­cting or making; [the manner of making and Consecrating the Arch Bishops and Bishops of this Realme,] that is, those in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths time, as appeareth by the whole body of the Act; [ to be good law­full and perfect. The title of the Statute alone is sufficient to confute this fable: But there is much more in the body of the Sta­tute; As where it approveth the making and consecrating of the same Arch Bishops and Bi­shops [Page 121] to be duely and orderly done, according to the lawes of this Realme. If it was done duely and orderly according to the lawes of this Realme, then it was not done at the Nagges head, nor after such a silly ridicu­lous manner, as these Fathers do relate it. That forme differeth from our forme in all things. In the Consecrater, or Minister of the Consecration: We must have three Bishops at the least, there was but one. In the matter: Our matter is Imposition of handes, their matter was the laying the Bible upon the head or shoulders of the person Consecrated. In the forme: Our forme is receive the holy Ghost &c, Their forme was, Take thou Authority to preach the word of God sincerely.

The Statute proceedeth, that they were elected made and consecrated Arch Bishops and Bishops, according to such order and forme, and with such Ceremo­nies in and about their Consecrations, as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts Statutes and Orders, annexed to the said booke of Common praier before mentioned. This is plaine enough. If the Parliament say truely, then they [Page 122] were Consecrated in a Church, not in a Ta­verne; not according to the Brainsick whi [...] sies of a self conceited Foole, or rather the ludibrious devise of an Archenemy, but according to the forme prescribed by the Church and Kingdome. The Parlia­ment had more reason to know the truth then these Fathers, for there were per­sonally present both the persons who did consecrate, and the persons who were con­secrated, and many Lords and Gentle­men who were eye witnesses of the conse­cration. Chuse Reader, whether tho [...] wilt trust the tale of a single, obscure, mali­cious spie, tatling in a corner: or the asse­veration of the Parliament of England, i [...] the face of the sun, published to the world in print.

The Parliament testifieth further, that i [...] is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt [...] or may justly be objected, against the said Elec­tions Confirmations or Consecrations. Do they thinke the Parliament would have give [...] such a testimony for the Nagges head Con­secrations. And so they conclude, th [...] all persons which had been or should be orde [...] or consecrated, after the forme and order presc [...] ­bed in the said English Ordinall, wer [...] [Page 123] very deed, and by authority of Parliament were declared and enacted to 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 ca­ [...]ills and objections: But they confirme no Ordination at the Nagges 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 Ordinatiō.

My ninth reason to prove that Nagges-head Relation fabulous and counterfeit, is taken from the Testimony of that book formerly mentioned, of the lifes of the se­venty Ar [...]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 [Page 124] of Arch Bishop Parker, or rather by Arch Bishops Parker himself, was not intended by Arch Bishop Parker to be smothered o [...] 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 Nagg [...]head Ordination in those daies, That [...] Neale was so tame to endure the lie in prie [...] and all his party so silent, at that tim [...] when the truth might so easily have bee [...] discovered, as if it had bene written with [...] beame of the sun, (as it was indeed); is [...] evident proofe that our Relation is unde­niable, and the Relation which thei [...] Fathers make is but a drowsy dream [...], which could not indure the light of the sun.

The tenth reason.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 justi­ [...]ed [Page 125] the legality of our Ordinations, and [...]ited our Registers as authentick Recor­ [...]es, before himself; Bishop Iewell, Bishop Hall, Bishop Goodwin, Doctor [...]ollings, Mr, Camden, Mr. Shelden, [...]nd one who was then living when this [...]uestion was so hotely debated in King [...]unes his time, and had been an eye-wit­ [...]esse of Arch Bishop Parkers Consecra­ [...]ons at Lambeth, that was the Earle of [...]ottingham. One that was, well stored [...]ith our English writers in Queene Elisabeths time, might adde many more: [...]ut that can not well be expected from me [...] this distance.

We may produce as many of theirs, [...]ho have confessed or been convinced of [...] truth of Arch Bishop Parkers Conse­ [...]ation. First Mr. Clerke, whose Father [...]as Register to Cardinall Pole in his Le­ [...]ntine Courte, and he himself an Actu­ [...]y under him, when Theophilus Higgins [...] out of England to St. Omars, or [...]oway, (I remember not well whether). [...]here he met with this Mr. Clerke, [...]ho falling into discourse with him [...]ncerning his Reasons why he [Page 126] 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 thi [...] 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 ma [...] good; confessing that he himself was [...] England at that time, (The witnesse do [...] not positively remember whether at t [...] Consecration or not.) But Mr, Cler [...] said that he himself was present when [...] Advocate of the Arches, whom the Quee [...] sent to peruse the Register after the Con­secration, and to give her an account whe­ther it was performed Canonically, retur [...] her this answer, that he had peruse the Register, and that no just excepti [...] could be made against the Consecration But (he said) something might h [...] been better, particularly that Bish [...] Coverdale was not in his Rochet, [...] he assured her, that could make no [...]fect in the Consecration. Here [...] have, if not an eye witnesse, yet at least [...] eare witnesse in an undoubted manner, of [...] [Page 127] 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 [...]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 [Page 128] 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 [Page 129] stile of undoubted credit, makes this confession. That father Oldcorne being in hold for the povvder treason, and judging others by himself, Survey c. 9. p. 122. 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 Nagges head, In Ep. ad ami. n. 5. 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 Nagges 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 [...]undry of them had a confir­mation dinner at the Nagges head) not one was confirmed in person, but all of them by their Proxies: Arch Bishop Parker by Doctor Bullingham, Bishop [Page 130] 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. Collimo [...] ▪ 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 Registri [...], if they seeke for satisfaction, not alterca­tion.

[Page 131]Lastly Bishop Bonner had a suite with Bishop Horne, and the issue was whether Bishop Horne were l [...]gally consecrated Bi­shop; upon that [...]c [...]uple, or rather cavill, which I have formerl [...] mentioned. If Mr. Neale who they say was Bishop Bonners Chaplein, and [...]ent on purpose to spie what the [...]ishops did, could have proved the or­dination of Bishop Horne at the Nagges 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 Nagges 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, [...]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 [Page 132] 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 Nagges 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 [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] inconsistent Relation; which looketh more like an heape of fictions made by severall Authours by starts, then a continued Rela­tion of one man,

NOw having laid our grounds, in the next place let us see what the Fathers have to say further for themselves. This stor [...] of the Nagges head was first cno [...]radicted b [...] Ma­son in the yeare 1613: yet so weakly and family that the a [...]ten [...]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 [Page 135] at their womannish [...]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 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 [Page 136] 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 E [...]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 Notting­ [...]am Lord High Admirall of England.

[Page 137]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? [...]nsvvered, he hoped that in Case o [...] ne­ [...]essity a Priest (alluding to Scory, [Page 138] 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, a [...] well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham? This is certain he could not allude to Bishop Scory, wh [...] was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the sixth, as by the Records of those times appeareth; unlesse you have a mi [...] to accuse all Records of Forgery. If you have any thing to say against Bishop Sc [...] ­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 mod [...] it i [...] here set down, nor that this Accusation did ever come to the knowledge of [...] prudent Prelate; if it did, he had great [...] matters to trouble his head withall, the [...] 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 [Page 139] 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 (otherwi [...]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 [Page 140] 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 [Page 141] affaires, then any whom you convers [...] withall▪

The Authours proceed, This Nar­ration of the Consecration at the Nag­ges 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 Nagges 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 [Page 142] consecrated permit them being Adversaries to continue among them, during the Con­secration, supposed to be a Cla [...]de [...]ine Action. It is not credible, without a Pl [...] between Neale and the Host of the Nagges 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 Wa [...]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 an [...] such thing really acted, and so notoriously known, as they pretend, Bishop Wa [...]s [...] and the other Prisoners, must needs ha [...] known it long before that time, when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought the [...] the first newes of it. The who [...]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 calle [...] Confirmation Dinners: but it may be [...] merry Host shewed Mr. Neale Docto [...] [Page 143] 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 mēs hearts, but let that p [...]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 Nagges head Consecration. You may be sure he would not have balked it, if there had been any such thing, but he did balke [Page 144] 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 Nagges head, How should they cry down, that which never had been cryed up in those daies? We condemne, that [Page 145] form of Ordination which you feign to have beē used at the Nagges 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, 8. Elis. cap. 1. 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 [Page 146] Parliament in the first yeare of Queen Elisa­beth: yet it was notorious that the Ordination at the Nagges 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 Nagges head Ordination, as much as is between the head of a living horse and the sign of the Nagges head, or between that which hath a reall entity and an ima­ginary Chim [...]ra ( Mr. Mason was the Bellerephon that destroyed this monster): But that the Form of the Nagges 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 [Page 147] rite, but any other used since the begin­ning of the Queeens reign, upon her Commission was enacted for good, and consequently that of the Nagges head might passe. Cujus cōtrarium 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 [Page 148] Ordeiner. Our Statutes prescribe Imposi­tion of Hands as the Essentiall matter of Or­dination, and these words, Receive the Holy Ghost as the form of Ordination: but your Nagges head Ordination is a mere Phan­tasm, without matter or Forme; our Sta­tutes allow no such fanaticall and Phanta­sticall Formes, as your Form of the Nagges head. And so your Consequence, [ Conse­quently that of the Nagges head might passe], is foundered of all four, and can neither passe nor repasse, unlesse you can rase these words [ by virtue of the Queens Letters Patents] out of the Statute, and insert these [ without the Queens Letters Patents]: and likewise rase these words out of the Commission [ according to the Form and effect of the Statutes], and insert these [ contrary to the Form and ef­fect of the Statutes]. A single Falsification will doe your cause no good. Two poisons may perchance help it at a dead lift.

It is in vain to tell us, that Mr Mason see this over clear to be denied, who know better that Mr. Mason did not onely deny it over and over again, but sqeesed the poore Fable to durt. I have shewed you particularly what was the end of the Queens Dispensations, [Page 149] the same which is the end of Papall Dis­pensations, to meet with latent objections or cavills. I have shewed you what that Cavill was; which needed no Dispensa­tion in point of Law, but onely to stop the mouths of Gainsaiers. But where you adde, that the Queens Dispensation was given, not in conditionall but in very absolute Termes: You are absolutely mistaken. The Queens dis­pensation was both in Generall Termes, which determin nothing, (not like the Popes Dispensations, A quibusvis excom­municationis suspensionis & interdicti sententiis): and also in these condi­tionall Terms, si quid &c. desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus reg­ni nostri, aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur: If any thing is or shall be wanting, which are required by the Lawes Civill or Ecclesiasticall of this Kingdome. You see it is conditionall and hath reference onely to the Lawes of England.

They goe on, the truth is, all the world laughed at the Nagges head Consecration, and held it to be invalid, not so much for being performed in a Tavern, as for the new form invented by Scory. [Page 150] If all the world did laugh at it in those dayes, they laughed in their sleeves, where no body could see them laugh. It had been too much to laugh at a jeast before it was made, nay before it was devised. The Reader may well wonder, how all the world came to get notice of it so early as the be­ginning of Queen Elizabeths reign, and we onely in England should heare nothing of it for above 40 yeares after? but assoone as we did heare of it, we laught at it as well as they, and held it as invalid as they could doe for their hearts; but they laught at it as Bishop Scoryes Invention, and we laught at it as theirs.

Their next instance is in Bishop Bonners case, who was indited by Mr. Horn, one [Page 151] of the First Protestant Bishops consecrated by Mr. Parker, or together with him, for refu­sing to take the Oath of Supremacy. The first errour might be pardoned, as being onely a mistake in a word, to say that Bi­shop Bonner was indited by Mr. Horn, where as he was onely signified by Bishop Horn: but the second mistake is fatall, that after all this confidence, and this great Noto­reity of the Nagges head Ordination to all the world, these Fathers themselves are still uncertain, whether Bishop Horn were consecrated by Archbishop Parker, or at the same time with him; that is as much as to say, they know not certainly what was done at the Nagges head, but they wish that if the Confirmation dinner were not a Conse­cration, it had been one. It could never end better, for Mr. Neale to feign an Or­dination, without an Actuary to record what was done. Bishop Wa [...]son and Mr. Bluet and the rest were much to blame, that (since he had the fortune to weare Gyges his ring and walk invisible) they did not cause him to play the publick Notary him­self, and draw that which was done there into Acts; then we might have known as certainly as he could tell us, whether Dr▪ Parker had been consecrated there by his [Page 152] Proctor Dr Bullsngham. It may be, some very credulous Reader, who like the old Lamiae, could take out his eyes and put them in again when he pleased, would have given more credit to Mr Neales plea­sant Fable, then to the publick Rolles and Registers of the Kingdome.

I have handled Bishop Bonners case be­fore: and th [...]se Fathers themselves have unwittingly given sentence in it against him; That King Edwards Forme of Ordination, was reestablished by Act of Parliamant in the first yeare of Queen Elisabeth. But finall sentence there was never any given, untill the Parliament gave a finall sentence in it, That Bishop Horn and all the rest were legall Bis­hops. To admit a Plea to be tryed by a Iury, and the veredict of the Iury, are two very distinct things.

They tell us, he was a man specially shot at. Rather he was a man graciously preserved by the Queens mercy, from the rage of the Common people against him. If they had shot at him, they could have found waies enough to have tendered the Oath of Supremacy to him, without Bi­shop [Page 153] Horn. I professe I am no great Pa­tron of such Oaths, men have more domi­nion over their actions then over their judgements: Yet there is lesse to be said for Bishop Bonner, then for other men. He who had so great a hand in framing the Oath, He who had taken it himself, both in King Henryes time, and King Edwards time, and made so many others to take it, He who had been so great a stick­ler in Rome for the Kings Supremacy, who writ that Preface before Bishop Gar­diners booke de vera Obedientia: if he had suffered by the Oath of Supremacy, he had but been scourged with a rod of his own making.

Their next reason to prove the Nullity of our Holy Orders, is taken from the constant Practice of the Romane Catholicks, to Reor­dein Protestant Ministers, not condi­tionally but absolutely, which they call an evident Argument of our mere Laity. A doughty Argument indeed, drawn from their own [Page 154] Authority. Can any man doubt, that that they which make no scruple of taking away our lifes, will make conscience of taking away our Orders? This is that which we accuse them of, and they doe fairly begge the Question. If Reordina­tion be Sacrilege (as they say it is), we are ready to convince them of grosse Sacrilege, or iterating all the Essentialls of Ordina­tion, the same matter and the same Form that is for Episcopacy, the same Imposi­tion of Hands by three Bishops, and the same words Receive the Holy Ghost &c. 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 yeare [...] 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,

[Page 155]He saith, it cannot be testified by any law­full witnesses (produced by us) that they were [...] forged. This is their Method, first to [...]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 Nagges head &c. but Roman Catholicks, we value not their Testimony, be­cause they are known Adversaries. This answer they term Ridiculous, and paralell [Page 156] 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, an [...]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 Nagges head but Roman Catholick [...]: 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. Deut. 19.15. One witnesse shall not rise up against a [Page 157] 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. Mat. 18.16. 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 ver­ [...]all Testimony of a single witnesse, before [...]e be brought face to face with those whom [...]e accuseth; and such a Testimony which [...] clogged with so many improbabilities [...]nd incongruities, and incoherences, [...] no rationall impartiall man [...] trust one syllable of it? [Page 158] 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 Nagges 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 o [...] favour to the Protestants. But I see you are mistaken in this as in all other things▪ There was an old objection indeed, that ou [...] Consecraters were not Roman Catholiks and that our Consecration was not Ri [...] [Page 159] Romano, or that we were not Ordeined by Papall Authority: but the Nagges 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 Nagges 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.

[Page 160]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 enough to con­fute your Romance of the Nagges head. Yet thus much you yourselves confesse, in the same Paragraph, that in a booke prin­ted in the yeare 1605 (that is eight yeares before the yeare 1613, wherein you say that Mr, Mason printed his booke) called Antiquitates Britanniae, there is a Register of the Protestant Bishops of England: Thē there was a Register of the Consecration of Prote­stant Bishops extant, before Mr. Mason did write of that subject. You say, that Register doth not mention any certain place or Form of their Consecration. It was not needfull; the Law prescribeth the Form, and the place was indifferent, so it were a consecrated place, which the Law doth likewise pre­scribe. But you tell us further, that thi [...] Re­gister [Page 161] was forged or foisted in, and that your learned but namelesse Friend, see the old Ma­nuscript of that booke, wherein there is no men­tion of any such Register, which you tell us in your Friends words, that all the world may see how this Register was forged. Why are all the world bound to believe your Friend? How should we give credit to a man who tells us three notorious untruths in foure lines? First, that it is preten­ded that Archbishop Parker was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and three others, by virtue of a Commission from Queen Elisabeth: he was made a Bishop by Barlow Scory and two others. Secondly, that this work was acted on the 17. day of Septem­ber, An: 1559, which was acted on the 17. Day of December 1559. pa. 10. Thirdly, that we had no form then or Order to doe such a busi­nesse; whereas you yourselves confesse, that Edward the sixths rite of Ordination, was reesta­blished in the First yeare of Queen Elisabeth: and Archbishop Parkers Ordination was in the second of Queen Elisabeth. He who stumbles so thick and three fold, may erre in his viewing the Manuscript as well as the rest. But to gratify you, suppose it was foisted in, what good will that doe you? It must of necessity be foisted in before it was printed, it could not be foisted [Page 162] in after it was printed, And it must be foi­sted in by a Protestant, for no Roman Ca­tholick would foist it in. So still you see a Register of Protestant Bishops, was pu­blished to the world in print, eyght yeares before Mr. Mason published his booke.

Your Friend saith, that this printed Booke of Parkers Antiquitates Britanniae, is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecration of him and the rest. So it might be well when it was first printed, that was not in the yeare 1605, but in Arch-Bishop Parkers life time, three yeares before his death, An. 1570. So much you might have lear­ned from the very Title-page of the Booke, printed at Hannovv; Historia antehac non nisi semel, nimirum Londini in Ae­dibus Iohannis Day anno 1572. excusa: That this History vvas printed formerly at London in the house of Iohn Day in the yeare 1572. This doth utterly de­stroy the Credit of your Friends Relation, that he had viewed the Manuscript of that Booke. There needed no Manuscript, where they had a Printed booke for their Copy, (as the Title-page telleth us they had)▪ and that printed above sixty yeares before your Friend writ, it is probable be­fore his Birth. If there be any thing of foi­sting [Page 163] in the case, there is rather something foisted out of the former Edition, then foi­sted in; namely, Archbishop Parkers Life untill that time, with the particular Con­secrations of our first Bishops, which were in the London Edition, and are omitted in this Edition of Hannow. This is cleare enough by the very Title, An History of 70. Archbishops, and there are in this Edi­tion but 69. Archbishops, because the Life of Archbishop Parker is wanting; which neverthelesse is promised in the Life of Archbishop Warham pag. 312. [ ut in Mat­thaei Parker Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi vi [...]a inferius di [...]emus: As we shall say hereaf [...]er in the Life of Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury. You see how infortunate you are in accusing others of Forgery.

Your Authour proceedeth, Any man reading the printed Booke, will manifestly see it is a meerly foisted and inserted thing, having no connexion correspondence or affinity, either vvith that which goeth before, or followeth it. Say you so? There was never any thing more fitly inserted. The Author under­taketh to write the Lifes of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury, from Austin [Page 164] to Matthew Parker, and having premit­ted some generall Observations concer­ning the Antiquity of Christian Religion in Britany, with the names of some Arch-Bishops of London, and the Originall and Changes of Episcopall Sees in England, and some other Generalities concerning the Privileges of the See of Canterbury, and the Conversion of Kent; Iust before he en­ter upon the Life of St. Austin the first Archbishop, he presenteth the Reader with a summary View of the Archbishop­rick of Canterbury, at that time when the booke was first printed, in the yeare 1572, with the names of all the Bishops of the Province at that time, their Countries, their Armes, both of their Sees and of their Families, their respective Ages, their Vniversities, their Degrees in Schooles, with the times of their severall Consecra­tions, if they were ordeined Bishops, or Confirmations, if they were translated from another See. It is hardly possible for the wit of man to contriue more matter into a lesser Roome. Then, he settes downe a like Table for the Pro­vince of Yorke: and lastly an Alphabeti­call Catalogue of the Bishops whose Lifes were described in this booke, and a­mong [Page 165] the rest, Archbishop Parker, whose Life (if you call it foisting) is foisted out of this Hannow Edition. If this hath no con­nexion or affinity with that which goeth before, and followeth after, I know not what Con­nexion or Affinity is.

Your Friends last Exception against the Authority of that booke called Antiquita­tes Britanniae, is, that it conteineth more things done after Matthew Parker had writ­ten that Booke. So you confesse that Arch­bishop Parker himself (about whom all our controversy is,) was the Author of that booke; wherein I agree with you. The conclusion of the Preface, and many other reasons invite me to doe so. Surely this Author meant that there is something con­teined in this Register, which is not with­in the Compasse of the following Lifes in the Hannow Edition. (that may well be because Matthew Parkers life is foisted out in this Edition:) but there is nothing which was not in the London Edition, much more largely then it is in this Register, especially for the Confirmations and Consecrations of our Protestant Bishops: there is no­thing after the time when this Register was made, which is prefixed in the Frontispice of it in the Hannow E­dition, with M P for Matthew Parker. [Page 166] Matthew Parker died May the 27, Anno 1575: he printed his booke at London three yeares before his death, without the Au­thours name, in the yeare 1572. I appeale to the ingenuous Reader, (let him be of what Communion he will, or never so full of prejudice), whether it be credible, that Arch Bishop Parkers own booke should be printed in London, by the Queens Printer, in his life time, and have any thing foisted into it contrary to his sense.

Here then we have a Register of Prote­stant Bishops, with their Confirmations and Consecrations, published to the world in Print at London, by Arch Bishop Parker himself, (who was the principall person and most concerned in that Controversy,) as if it should dare all the Adversaries of our Church to except against it, if they could▪ Registers cannot be concealed, being al­waies kept in the most publick and conspi­cuous places of great Cities, whither every one hath accesse to them who will. They need no printing, but this was printed (a work of supererogation). They who dared not to except against it then, when it was fresh in all mens memories, ought not to be admitted to make conjecturall exceptions now.

Now the Fathers come to shew, how [Page 167] their Doctors did object to our Protestant Clergy, the Nullity and Illegality of their Or­dination. If their Doctors give a cause or reason of their knowledge, we are bound to answer that: but if they object nothing but their own Iudgement and authority, we regard it not; their judgement may weigh some thing with them, but nothing at all with us. This is not to make them­selves Advocates, but Iudges over us, which we do not allow. If I should produce the Testimonies of fourscore Protestant Do­ctors, who affirm that we have a good Succession, or that their Succession is not good, what would they value it?

The first is Doctor Bristow; Consider what Church that is, whose Ministers are but very Laymen, unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, holding therefore amongst us when they repent and re­turn, no other place but of Laymen, in no case admitted, no nor looking to Minister in any Office, unlesse they take Orders which before they had not. Here is Doctor Bristows Determi­nation, but where are his grounds? He bringeth none at all, but the practise of the Roman Church, and that not generall. Paul the 4, and Cardinall Poole, and the Court of Rome in those dayes were of ano­ther Iudgement, and so are many others: and so may they themselves come to be, [Page 168] when they have considered more serious­ly of the matter, that we have both the same old Essentialls. That which excuseth their Reordination from formall Sacrilege (for from materiall it cannot be excused upon their own grounds,) is this, that they cannot discover the truth of the matter of Fact, for the hideous Fables raised by our Countrymen. But where is the Nag­ges head Ordination in Dr. Bristow? Then had been the time to have objected it, and printed it, if there had beē any reality in it. Either Dr. Bristow had never heard of this Pageant, or he was ashamed of it. Here we meet with Dr. Fulke again, ād what they say of him shall be āswered in its proper place

Their next witnesse is Mr. Reinolds, There is no Heardman in all Turky, who doth not undertake the Government of his Heard, upon better reason and greater right Order and au­thority, then these your magnificent Apostles. &c. And why an Heardsman in Turky, but onely to allude to his Title of Calvino Tur­cismus? An heardsman in Turky hath as much right to order his heard, as an he­ardman in Christendome; unlesse perhaps your Dr. did think, that Dominiō was foun­ded in Grace, not in nature. This is saying, but we expect proving. It is well known that you pretend more to a magnificent Apo­stolate, [Page 169] them we. If the authority of the holy Scripture (which knoweth no other Essen­tialls of Ordination; but imposition of hands ād these words Receive the Holy Ghost,) if the perpetual practise of the universall church, if the Prescription of the ancient Councell of Carthage, and above 200. Orthodox Bi­shops, with the concurrent approbation of the Primitive Fathers be sufficient grounds, we want not sufficient grounds for the ex­ercise of our Sacred Functions. But on the contrary, there is no Heardman in Tur­ky who hath not more sufficient grounds or assurāce of the lawfulnesse of his Office, then you have for the discharge of your Holy Orders, upon your own grounds. The Turkish Heardman receives his Maisters Commands without examining his inten­tion: but according to your grounds, if in [...]n hundred successive Ordinations, there were but one Bishop who had an intention not to Ordein, or no intention to ordein, or but one Priest who had an intētiō notto bap [...]ise, or no intention to baptise any of these Bishops, then your whole Succession com­meth to nothing. But I must aske still where [...]s your Nagges head Ordination in all this? [...]r. Reinolds might have made a pleasāt Pa­ [...]lell between the Nagges head Ordination [...]nd the Ordination of the Turkish Mufti, [Page 170] and wanted not a mind mischievous enough against his Mother the Church of England, if he could have found the least pretext: but there was none. You seek for water out of a Pumice.

Their third Witnesse is Dr. Stapleton, in his Counterblast against Bishop Horn. To say truely, you are no Lord Winchester, nor elsvvhere, but onely Mr Robert Horn. Is [...] not notorious that you and your Collegues vvere not ordeined▪ according to the prescript, I vvill not say of the Church, but even of the very Statutes? Hovv then can you challenge to your self the name of the Lord Bishop of Winchester? You are vvithout an [...] Consecration at all of your Metropoli­tan, himself pooreman being no Bishop neither. This was a loud blast indeed [...] but if Dr Stapleton could have said any thing of the Nagges head Ordination, he would have given another manner of blast, tha [...] should have made the whole world Ech [...] again with the Sound of it. In vain you see [...] any thing of the Nagges head in your wri­ters, untill after the yeare 1600. For answe [...] Dr. Stapleton raiseth no Objection fro [...] the Institution of Christ, whereupon an [...] [Page 171] onely whereupon, the Validity or Inva­lidity of Ordination doth depend: but onely from the Lawes of England. First for the Canons, we maintein that our Form of Episcopall Ordination hath the same Essentialls with the Roman: but in other things of an inferiour allay it differeth from it. The Papall Canons were never admit­ted for binding Lawes in England, further then they were received by our selves, and incorporated into our Lawes: but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholick Church, which prescribe no new Matter and Form in Priestly Ordi­nation. And for our Statutes, the Parli­ament hath answered that Objection suffi­ciently, shewing clearly, that the Ordina­tion of our first Protestant Bishops was le­gall, and for the Validity of it, we crave no mans favour.

Their last witnesse is Dr. Harding, who had as good a will (if there had been any reality in it) to have spoken of the Nagges head Ordination as the best, but he spea­keth not a Syllable of it more then the rest: and though they keep a great stirre with him, he bringeth nothing that is worth the weighing. First he readeth us a pro­found Lecture, that Sacerdos Signifieth both a Priest and a Bishop. Let it signify so, [Page 172] and in St. Hieroms sense, what will he inferre from thence? Next, he askes Bishop Iewell of Bishoply and Priestly vocation and sending. What new canting language is this? Could he not as well have made use of the old Ecclesiasticall word of Ordination? Thirdly he taxeth the Bishop, that he answereth not by what example hands were laid on him, or who sent him. What doth this concern any questi­on between them and us? Hands were laid on him by the example of Christ, of his A­postles [...], of the Primitive and Modern Church: so Christ sēt him, the King sēt him, the Church sent him, in severall respects. He telleth us, that when he had duely considered his Protestant Ordination in King Edwards time, he did not take himself for lawfull deacon in all respects. If his Protestant Ordination were a Nullity (as these mē say), thē he was a lawfull Deacon in no respect. Pope Paul the 4. and Cardinall Poole were of another mind. Then follow his two grand excepit­ons against our Ordination, wherein you shal find nothing of your Nagges head fable The former exceptiō is, that King Edwards Bishops who gave Orders, were out of Orders themselves, The second is, that they ministred not orders according to the Rite ād manner of the Catholick Church. For the former exception, I referre him to the Councell of Carthage in [Page 173] St. Austins time, and for both his excepitons to Cardinall [...]oles Confirmation of King Edwards Bishops and Priests, and Paul the 4. Ratification of his Act. If any man have a mind to inquire further into the Va­lidity of our Form of Ordination, let him leave these Fables and take his scope freely.

To all this they say, that Bishop Iewell answers with profound silence, yet they adde, onely he sayes without any proofe, that their Bi­shops are made by Form and Order, and by the Consecration of the Arch bishop and other three Bishops, and by admission of the Prince. I ex­pected profound sile [...]ce, but I find a pro­found answer; this is the first time I learned how a man can both keep profound silence [...]nd answer so pertinently all at once. How doth Dr. Harding goe about to take away [...]his answer: For Bishop Iewell was the de­fendent, and the burthen of the proofe did [...]ot rest upon him? First I pray you how was [...]our Archbishop consecrated? If Dr. Harding did not see his Consecration, he might have [...]een it if he would. He askes further, what [...]ree Bishops were there in the Realm to lay hands [...]pon him? Ask the Queens Letters patents, [...]d they will shew you seven. What a [...]eake Socraticall kind of arguing is this, [...]ltogether by questions, without any Infe­ [...]ence? If Dr. Harding could have said it [Page 174] justly, (and he could have said it if it had been so), he should have confuted him boldly, and told him your Metropolitan was consecrated in the Nagges head, by one single Bishop, in a fanaticall and phantasti­call manner: but he did not, he durst not do it, because he knew it to be otherwise, and it was publickly known to be other­wise. All his exception is against our Form, If you had been Consecrated after the Form and Order vvhich hath ever been used, you might have had Bishops out of France or at home in England. It is the Forme established in King Edwards time, and restored in Queen Elisabeths time which Doctr. Harding impugneth, not tha [...] ridiculous Form which they Father upon Bishop Scory: and their cheife objection against that Form, was that vain Cavill that it was not restored by Act of Parlia­ment, which since hath been answere [...] abundantly by an Act of Parliament. Here upon he telleth Bishop Iewell, that his Me­tropolitan had no lawfull Consecration. Thoug [...] his Consecration had not been lawfull, y [...] it might have been valid, but it was bot [...] legall and valid. This is all that Docto [...] Harding hath, which a much meane [Page 175] Schollar then that learned Prelate might have adventured upon, without feare of burning his Fingers.

Their next proofe against our Records, is taken from the Contradictions of our Writers, Mr. Masons Registers and Records, disagree with those that Mr. Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops, sometimes in the Day sometimes in the moneth, sometimes in the year. And againe, Mr. Mason Sutcliffe and Mr. Butler, all speaking of Mr. Parkers Consecration, doe all differ one from another in naming his Consecraters; Mr. Mason saith it was done by Barlow, Scory, Coverdale▪ and Hodgskins. Mr. Sutcliffe saith, besides the three first there vvas tvvo Suffragans. M Butler saith, the Suffragan of Dover vvas one. vvho is not named in the Commission. So as these men seem to have had three Disagreeing Registers. I answer, first that it is scarcely possible to avoid errours in transcribing and printing of Bookes, in the Authors absence, especially in names and numbers. To keep a balling and a stirre about these Errata of the pen or of the presse, is like the barking of little Curres, [Page 176] which trouble the whole Vicinage about the Mooneshining in the Water. Such were the most of these.

Secondly supposing that some very few of these were the reall mistakes of the Au­thors, yet innocent mistakes, which have no plot in them or design of Interest or Advantage, which conduce neither pro nor contra to any Controversy that is on Foot, they ought not to be exaggerated or pres­sed severely; It is the Wisdome of a wise man to passe by an Infirmity. Such are all these petty Differences. Whether Arch-Bishop Parker was consecrated by three City Bishops and two Suffragan, or by three City Bishops and one Suffragan Bi­shop, and whether this one Suffragan were Suffragā of Bedford or Suffragan of Dover, cōduceth nothing to any Controversy which is on Foot in the Church, and signifieth no­thing to the Validity or invalidity, legality or illegality, canonicalnesse or uncanoni­calnesse of his Ordination. All Memories are not so happy, to remember names and numbers, after a long distance of time, e­specially if they entered but by the [...]are▪ and were not Oculis subjecta fidelibus. I [...] any man should put me to depose (wanting my notes and memorialls,) what Priests [Page 177] did impose hands upon me with Archbi­shop Mathews at my Priestly Ordination, or what Bishops did joine with my Lord Primate of Ireland at my Episcopall Ordi­nation, I could not doe it exactly. I know there were more then the Canons doe require, at either Ordination; and re­ferre my self to the Register. Whether two Suffragans or one Suffragan, is an easy mi­stake. when there were two in the Com­mission, and but one at the Consecration: so is the Suffragan of Dover for the Suffra­gan of Bedford.

Thirdly, whether these were the faults of the pen or the presse or the Authour: yet after retractation it ought not to be ob­jected. It is inhumane to charge any man with that fault, which he himself had cor­rected and amended. Bishop Goodwin cor­rected all these errours himself, with­out any Monitor, and published his Cor­rection of his errours to the world in Print long since, in a new Edition of his booke. Likewise Dr. Sutcliffe acknow­ledged his mistake and gave order to Mr. Mason to publish it to the world, as he did.

To ground exceptions upon the errours of the presse, or the slips of the tongue or [Page 178] pen or of the memory, after they have been publickly amended, is like flies to delight in sores, and neglect the body when it is sound. I have the same errour crept into a booke of mine, of [five] for [four], how it came I know not, for the booke was printed in my absence: but I have corrected it in mine own Copy and in many Copies of my Friends, where I meet with the booke.

Lastly, there is no danger in such petty differences, so long as all parties doe sub­mit themselves to the publick Registers of the Church, as all these writers doe; al­though is may be some of them were better acquainted with Polemick Writers, thē with Registers, or the practicall customes of the Church of England. The very Reference or submission of themselves to the Register, is an Implicit retractation of their errours. As in a City the Clocks may differ, and the peoples Iudgements of the time of the day, but both Clocks and Clerkes must submit to the Sun dyall when the sun shineth out: so all private memorialls must be, and are submitted to the publick Register of the Church. Where these Fathers talk of plu­rality of Registers, they erre because they understand not our Customes. Every Bi­shop [Page 179] throughout the Kingdome hath one Registry at least, every Dean and Chapter hath a Registry. The ordinations of Priests and Deacons, and the Institution of Clerkes to Benefices, are recorded in the Registries of the Respective Bishops, in whose dio­cesses they are ordeined and instituted. The elections of Bishops and Inthronisations and Installations, in the Registry of the respective Deans and Chapiters: and the Confirmations and Consecrations of Bi­hops, in the Registry of the Archbishop where they are consecrated; except th [...] Archbishop be pleased to grant a Commis­sion to some other Bishops, to Consecrate the elected and confirmed Bishop in some other place. But the same thing can not be recorded originally but in one Regi­stry.

HEre the Fathers take upon them the office of Iudges or Censors rather then of Advocates. Mr. Mason ought to have an­swered as Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Fulke, (they were both eminent Drs. in the Schooles) who had reason to be better informed of the Records then he. How? Nay nor half so well. They were both contemplative men, Cloistered up in St. Iohns College, better acquainted with Polemick writers, then with Records, They were both ordeined Deacons and Priests legally, Canonically, according to the Form prescribed by the Church of England: and were no such ill Birds to defile their own nests. If the Re­cords of their Ordination will [...]atisfy you, that they were no Enthusiasts, (as you imagin,) you may quickly receive satis­faction: But if they had said any thing con­trary to our Lawes and Canons, you must [Page 182] not thinke to wrangle the Church of England out of a good possession, by private voluntary speculations. Let us see what these Doctrs say as you allege them, for I have not their bookes in present. Mr. Whitaker saith, I would not have you thinke we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our own Vocation unlawfull without them. You see Doctor Whitaker justifieth our Ordina­tion in this very place as lawfull, and much more plainly elswhere in his writings. That though our Bishops and Ministers be not Or­deined by Papisticall Bishops, yet they are or­derly and lawfully ordeined: Again, The Ro­manists account none lawfull Pastors, but such as are created according to their Form or Order. These are your two main Objections a­gainst our Ordination, that we are not or­deined by Bishops of your Communion. That we are not ordeined according to the Roman Form. In both of these Doctor Whitaker is wholy for us against you, that which he maketh no reckoning of, is your Form of Ordination, as it is contradistinct from ours, as it is in many things, especi­ally in your double matter and Form in Priestly Ordination.

You say Mr. Fulke speakes more plainly Let us heare him. You are highly deceived [Page 181] if you thinke we esteem your Offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons better then Laymen: and with all our heart we defie, abhorre, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian Or­ders. This is high enough indeed, and might have been expressed in more mode­rate termes: but it is to be expounded, not of the invalidity of your Ordination, as if it wanted any Essentiall, but partly in re­spect of the not using or abusing these sa­cred Offices, and partly in respect of the Lawes of England. Excesses may make an Ordination unlawfull, although they do not make it invalid. Holy Orders are an excellent Grace conferred by God for the Conversion of men: but if those who have them, instead of preaching truth do teach errours to his people, and adulterate the old Christian Faith by addition of new Articles, they are no longer true Pastors, but Wolves which destroy the Flock, and so they are not onely no better, but worse then Lay men, Corruptio optimi pessima. In this respect they tell you, that your Priests and Bishops are no true Priests and Bi­shops, as Marcellus told his Soldiers that they were no true Romans (who were naturall Romans) because they wanted the old Roman virtue. Lastly you have [Page 183] habituall power to exercise these Offi­ces, but you want actuall power in England, by reason of the not applicati­on, or rather the substraction of the matter by our Lawes: so you are no legall Bishops or Priests there. This I take to have been the sense of these two Doctors.

Now are we come to their grand ex­ception, against Bishop Barlow, who was one of the Consecraters of Archbishop Parker, whose Consecration is not found in the Archbishops Register, and there fore they conclude that he was never con­secrated. If this objection were true, yet it doth not render Archbishop Parkers Con­secration either invalid or uncanonicall, because there were three other Bishops who joined in that Consecration besides Bishop Barlow, which is the full number required by the Canons. But this objection is most false. Bishop Barlow was a Consecrated Bi­shop above 20 yeares before the Conse­cratiō of Archbishop Parker. They should have done well to have proposed this doubt in Bishop Barlows lifetime, and then they might have had the Testimony of his Con­secraters under an Archiepiscopall or [Page 184] Episcopall Seale, for their satisfaction, The Testimony of the Archi-Episcopall Register, is a full proofe of Consecration affirmatively, but it is not a full proofe ne­gatively; such a Bishops Consecration is not recorded in this Register, therefore he was not Consecrated. For first, the ne­gligence of an Officer or some crosse acci­dent might hinder the recording. Secondly Fire or Thieves or some such Casualty might destroy or purloin the Record. Thirdly though it be not recorded in this Register, it may be recorded in another, the Arch Bishop may, and Arch Bishop Cranmer usually did delegate or give Com­mission to three other Bishops for Conse­cration. And though the work be ordi­narily performed at Lambeth, because of the place, where they may have three Bi­shops alwaies present without any further Charge: yet they are not obliged by any Law to Consecrate them there. And if there be a sufficient number of Bi­shops near the Cathedrall which is to be filled, or if the person who is to be Conse­crated do desire it, they may be Consecra­ted either in that, or any of their own Churches. The Bishops of the Province of Yorke, by reason of the former conve­nience [Page 185] are usually consecrated at Lambeth, yet I have known in my time Bishop Sine­wes of Carlile consecrated at Yorke upon his own desire, by the Archbisop of Yorke, and the Bishops of Durham, Chester, and Mā A man might seek long enough for his Consecration in the Archbishop of Canter­buries Register and misse it, but it is to be found in the Register at Yorke. So the Omission of it in that Register though it be no full proofe, yet it is a probable proofe that Bishop Barlow was not Consecrated there, but it is no proofe at all that he was not Consecrated elswere.

And this I take to have been the case both of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Gardiner: and although the effluxion of above an hundred yeares since, hath rendered it mo­re difficult to find where it was done, yet by the help of those Records which are in the Court of Faculties, I should not despaire of finding it yet.

But there are so many evident proofes that he was Cousecrated, that no ingenu­ous person can have the Face to deny it. The first reason is, his actuall possession of 4. Bishopricks one after another, St. Assaph, St. Davids, Bath and Wells and Chichester, in the Reigns of three Princes. They feign some pretenses why Archbishop Parker was [Page 186] not consecrated Canonically▪ because there wanted a competent number of Bishops, though it were most false: but what can they feign why Bishop Barlow was not consecra­ted in Henry the eighths time? was Henry the eighth a Baby to be jeasted withall? In Arch­bishop Parkers case, they suppose all the Bi­shops to have been stark mad, to cast them­selves down headlong from a Precipice, when they had a faire paire of Stairs to des­cend by: but in Bishop Barlowes case they sup­pose all the world to have been asleep; ex­cept there had been such an Vniversall sleep it had been impossible for any man in those dayes to creep into a Bishoprick in England without Consecration. To say he is actually possessed of a Bishoprick therefore he is Consecrated, is as clear a Demonstration in the English Law, as it is in nature to say the Sun shineth, therefore it is Day.

But it may be objected, that he held all these Bishopricks as a Commendatory, no [...] in Title, as an Vsufructuary not as a true owner. It is impossible, Vsufructuaries are not elected and confirmed, but Bishop Barlow was both elected and Confirmed. The Conge d'eslire to the Dean and Chapter, the Letters Patents for his Confirmation, the Commission for the restitution of his Temporalties, do all prove that he was no [Page 187] Vsufructuary but a right owner, This is a second reason.

Thirdly, The same Letters Patents that doe authorise Bishop Barlowes Confirma­tion, did likewise Command the Archbi­shop with the assistence of other Bishops to Consecrate him himself. or to give a Com­missiō to other Bishops to Consecrate him, which if they did not perform within a prescribed time, or perform after another manner thē is prescribed by the Law, it was not onely a losse of their Bishopricks by the Law of England, but a Premunire or the losse of all their Estates, their Liberties, and a ca­sting themselves out of the Kings Protectiō 25, Hen: 8. c. 20. No mē in their right wits would r [...]n such a hazard, or rather evidētly ruine thēselves and all their hopes without any need, without any ēd in the whole world. Fourthly, by the same Law no man could be acknowledged a Bishop in England, but he who was Consecrated legally, by three Bi­shops with the consent of the Metropolitan, but Bishop Barlow was acknowledged to be a true Bishop; The King received his Ho­mage for his Bishoprick; the King commā ­ded him to be restored to his Temporalties, which is never done untill the Consecratiō be passed. King Henry sent him into Scotland as his Ambassadour with the title of Bishop [Page 188] of St. Davids; and in his restitution to the Temporalties of that See, the King related that the Arch Bishop had made him Bishop and Pastor of the Church of St. Davids. This could not be if he had not been Con­secrated.

Thirdly, he was admitted to sit in Par­liament as a Consecrated Bishop: for no man can sit there as a Bishop before he be Consecrated, but it is plain by the Records of the house of the Lords that he did sit in Parliament many times in the 31 of Henry the 8. in his Episcopall habit, as a Conse­crated Bishop; and being neither a Bishop of one of the five Principall Sees, nor a Privy Counseller, he must sit and did sit according to the time of his Consecration, between the Bishops of Chichester and St, Assaph. What a strange boldnesse, is it to question his Consecration now, whom the whole Parliament, and his Conse­craters among the rest, did admit wi­thout scruple then as a Cōsecrated Bishop.

Sixthly, There is no act more proper or essentiall to a Bishop then Ordination, What doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not (saith St. Hierom) except Ordination? But it is evi­dent by the Records of his own See, that Bishop Barlow did Ordein Priests and [Page 189] Deacons frō time to time, and by the Arch Bishops Register that he, joined in Episco­pall Ordination, and was one of those three Bishops who imposed hands upon Bishop Buckley Feb. 19. 1541,

Seventhly, there is nothing that [...]inth a Bishops Title to his Chuch more then [...]he Validity and Invalidity of his Leases. If Bishop Barlow had been unconsecrated, all the Leases which he made in the See of St. Davids, and Bath and Wells, had been voide, and it had been the easiest thing in the whole world for his Successour in those dayes, to prove whether he was consecra­ted or not, but they never questioned his Leases; because they could not question his Consecration.

Lastly, an unconsecrated person hath neither Antecessors nor Successors, he succeedeth no man, no man succeedeth him. If a grant of any hereditaments be made to him and his Successours, it is absolutely void [...], not worth a deaf Nut; If he alien any Lands belon­ging to his See from him and his▪ Suc­cessours, it is absolutely void: But Bishop Barlow [...] received the Priory of Br [...]cknock from the Crown, to him and his Suc­cessors Bishops of St. Davids, and in King Edwards reign being Bishop of Bath [Page 190] and Wells, he alienated 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.

[Page 191]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.

[Page 192]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 [Page 193] 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 [...]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.

[Page 194]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 Iudgemēt to the Cōtrary.

They aske, how it is possible that Barlowes Cōsecration 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, [Page 195] 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 [Page 194] [...] [Page 195] [...] [Page 196] 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 the yeare 1510. that was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Hēry the eighth. If there were any one Zuinglian in those dayes, upon their grounds, it is most likely to have been Bi­shop Gardiner, for his Consecration doth not appeare more then Bishop Barlowes.

But there is yet a greater mistake in it; it is the Anabaptists who reject Ordination, and content themselves with the extraordinary calling of the Spirit, not the Zuinglians. In the writings of Zuinglius we find a Letter of him and ten other of the principall Hel­vetian Theologians, to the Bishop of Constance; beseeching him in all humility and observance, to favour and help forward their beginnings, as an excellent work and wor­thy of a Bishop; They implore his Clemency, Wisdome, learning, that he would be the first fruits of the German Bishops; They beseech him by the Common Christ, by that fatherly af­fection which he owes unto them, to looke graci­ously [Page 197] upon them &c; They court him to shew himself a Father, and grant the request of his obedient sonnes, Zuinglius and the Zuin­glians liked Bishops well enough, if he could have had them. But the Bishop of Constance of another Communion was their Bishop.

Here Meanderlike they make a winding from St. Asaph back again to Cheapside, from Bishop Barlowes Consecration to Archbishop Parkers. They say, that if there had been any other Consecration of Arch­bishop Parker then that of the Nagges head, Iohn Stow would not conceale it in his Annales; who is so diligent in setting down all that passed in and about London, and professeth personall respect to him, he having related the Consecration of Cardinall Pole with so many particulars. They adde out of Dr. Cham­pney, that Iohn Stow acknowledged to many persons that the story of the Nagges head was true. Their store is very low, when they are forced to produce Iohn Stow, who scarce knew what a Consecration was. But what saith he in his Chronicles? Not a word, either of the feigned Consecration at the Nagges head, or of the true Consecration at Lambeth. But he told it to many persons by word of mouth, that the Story of the Nagges head was very true. If he did, he lied notoriously [Page 198] to many persons, but we acquit him of that calumny: let it rest upon them, who think it a meritorious Act, to advance religion by any means true or false, we are too well acquainted with their hearsay reports. They who dare wrest his printed workes, ought not to be trusted what he spake by word of mouth, to some body, whom no body knowes. Their Authour saith to some persons, they say to many persons, thus this snowball increaseth. Iohn Stowe is now dead, and dead men do not bite: yet let us know to whom he said it? Doctor Cham­pney tells us, they are [...]imorous and would not be named. Good reason, for they have no names: so Iohn Stow is a silent witnesse, and they are namelesse witnesses.

So much for the man: now for the thing I give three answers; First if Iohn Stow were a lover of the truth, he should rather have set down the Nagges head Ordination (if there was any such thing) then the Lam­beth Ordination. Men would suppose the Lambeth Ordination of themselves, where nothing is said to the contrary, it is presu­med for the Law: but the Nagges head Consecration, had been such a Conse­cration, as never was before, never will follow after.

Secondly, their Authours wrest Iohn [Page 199] Stow abhominably. He was no profest wri­ter of Ecclesiasticall Annales. It is true he mentioneth the Consecration of Cardinall Pole, whether it was his respect to his Emi­nence, as being a neare Kinsman to the Queen, a Cardinall, the Popes Legate, and his grand Minister for the reconciliation of England, or because a toy tooke him in the head: but not with so many particulars as the Fathers intimate; all he saith is this, the 21 of March Dr. Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury was burnt at Oxford, the sa­me day Cardinall Pole sang his first Masse at Greenwich in the Friars Church, on Sunday next he was Consecrated Archbishop of Can­terbury (here was speedy worke), and the 25 of March received the Pall with the usuall Ceremonies at Bowes Church in Cheape. Here is another Nagges head meeting; where he was Consecrated, by whom, after what Form, he leaveth the Reader to presume: but of all the other Consecrations perfor­med in Queen Maries time, this diligent Authour mentioneth not so much as one; of all the Consecrations in Queen Eliza­beths time, I think not one; of all the Consecrations in England since the Con­quest, not one, or so rarely that they are not to be taken notice of. If the Ar­gument of these Fathers were of any value [Page 200] Iohn Stow mentioneth not his Consecration at Lambeth, therefore he was not Conse­crated there, we never had a Consecra­tion in England, since the Conquest, but Cardinal ' Poles: for he mentioneth none but that which I remember, I am sure if he mention any it is most rarely. If the Fathers argument were good, Archbishop Parker was never elected, nor confirmed, because his Election and Confirmation are not recordsd by Iohn Stow: but all our Records Civill as well as Ecclesiasticall do testify the Contrary.

Lastly, if the Fathers would lay aside their prejudice, there is enough in Iohn Stowes Annales, to discover the falshood of their lying Fable of the Consecration at the Nagges head. By their account the Nagges head Consecration was September 7. Anno 1559, but after this in relating the solemne Obsequies kept in St. Pauls Church, for the French King, Iohn Stow calleth him, Dr. Parker Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Elect, therefore the Nagges head Consecration is a lying Fable; if he was still Elect, he was not then Consecrated. But afterward speaking of his Death May 17. 1575, which is the next time I find him mentio­ned, he stileth him the right Reverend Fa­ther [Page 201] in God Matthew Parker Dr. of Divi­nity Archbishop of Cāterbury. Here is no more the word Elect, for after Confirmation and Consecration, the word Elect ceaseth, here he is complete Archbishop of Canterbury.

They say, they who make no Conscience to falsify Scrip [...]ure will forge Records: And how notoriously the English Clergy have falsified Scripture, is Demonstrated by Gregory Mar­tin. I hope none of us did ever attempt to purge St. Pauls Epistles, because there were in them, Quaedam male sonamia, Some­things that sounded not well, in the point of Iu­stification. We desire good words, untill they be able to prove their allegation. Ra­ther then be accounted falsifiers of Scrip­ture, we are contented to stand to the vulgar Latin, in any Controversy between them and us. But who is the man doth accuse us of so many Falsifications? One Gregory Martin, one of their fellowes, whose censure we do not weigh a button. This is a new Inartificiall Kind of ar­guing, from the Authority of their own Writers.

But they use it much, so it followeth in the next words, it is want of Charity to think that Stapleton, Harding, Bristow and the rest of the English Catholick Doctors, who did [Page 202] forsake all at home for Conscience sake, would publish to the world in print, the Nullity of Par­kers Ordination; thereby engaging posterity to commit so many damnable Sacrileges, in reor­deining those who had been validly ordeined al­ready, without due examination of the matter. This plea is much like that of the old Ro­man, that his Adversary, did not receive the wound with his whole body, that he might have killed him fairly. They would have us rather put up the losse of our Holy Orders, then the skill of their Doctors should be questioned. If Reordinatiō be da­mnable Sacrilege, the Authority of your own Doctors may be a fit medium to convince yourselves of Sacrilege, not us of the Invali­dity of our Ordination. I hope Stephen the sixth and Sergius the third, two Popes, were other manner of men then your English Doctors, and did both pretend to examine the matter as duely, and to be as a verse from damnable Sacrilege as you, yet they decreed publickly, and most unjustly, (as you yourselves doe now confesse) that all the holy Orders received from Formosus were void, and compelled all those who had been ordeined by him, to be reordei­ned. Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 12.

Mr. Mason cited the Testimony of a [Page 203] witnesse beyond all exception, Charles How­ard Earle of Nottingham, Lord High Ad­mirall of England, who acknowledged Archbishop Parker to be his Kinsman, and that he was an invited Guest at his Cōsecra­tion at Lambeth. To this the Fathers reply, If this were true, it proves onely that there was a good Dinner at Lambeth, which might well be to conceale the shamefull Consecration at the Nagges head. It proves there was a good Consecration, as well as a good Dinner, the words are to honour his Consecration, and the solemnity thereof with his presence. It had been something uncivill, to encumber the Tavern with a Consecration, and not stay dinner there. The Earle was invited to the Consecration, at Lambeth, therefore it was at Lambeth, The Earle was not at the Nagges head; Mr. Neale himself, who see more then ever was acted, or so much as thought of, did not see that. Is it the Cu­stome when one is invited to a Consecra­tion, to come after it is done to dinner: or to invite a Nobleman to a Consecration in one place, and then be consecrated in ano­ther? This had been so farre from concea­ling the shamefulnesse of such a brainsick Consecration, that it been a ready meanes to divulge it to all the world.

[Page 204]They adde, Besides we must take the Earles Friends word for the Earles Testimony, and Mr. Masons word for his namelesse Friend. That is none of Mr. Masons fault, but Mr. Holywoods, Mr. Constables, Mr. Sacrobo­scoes, Dr. Champneys, Mr. Fitz Herberts, Mr Fitz-Simons, who first broached this odious Fable. Mr. Mason published this rela­tion to the world in print while the Earle was yet living, on purpose that they might enquire and satisfy themselves; if they did not, they can blame no body but them­selves; if they did by themselves or their Friends, (as it is most likely they did) it is evident the answer did not content them, and so we never heard more of them since. It had been the greatest folly in the world to allege the Testimony of such a Noble man in his Life time, contrary to his own knowledge, which might have been dis­proved from his own Authority, and so have easily laid Mr. Mason flat upon his back. You may remember your own case with the Bishop of Durham. But it was too true to be contradicted then, and too late to be Contradicted now.

They say, they bring more then one witnesse of the Nagges head Consecration. Pardon me, You never produced one yet, and which is lesse then producing, you never so much [Page 205] as named a witnesse, whilst he himself was living. In or about the yeare 1603. you first named Mr. Neale and in­nocent Iohn Stow, when they were both dead; you might as well have named the man in the Moone as Iohn Stow. Onely I confesse you named the Bishop of Durham in his life time, and you see what is the issue of it: and if you had named the others in their life times, you must have expected a like issue, either the perpetuall infamy of your witnesse, or the utter confusion of your Cause. You speake much of the lear­ning, and virtue, and judgement of your hearsay Witnesses, who knew how to distin­guish between an Episcopall Consecration, and a banquet. I hope you doe not meane that the Earle of Nottingham did not know, how to distinguish between a banquet and a Consecration, if he did not, the High Ad­miralship of England was ill committed to him: or that he had not as much regard to his honour and Conscience, as any of your Priests. We meddle not with their Learning and virtue, but we are no more obliged to take their Testimonies upon hearsay, then they would take our Testi­monies. They have givē an account to God, and know before this time whether they [Page 206] have done well or ill.

They proceed, The Priests and Iesuits, to whom the Recordes were shewed in King Iames his time, protested against them as forged and im­probable, as appeareth by the Testimony of men yet living, whose honesty cannot be called in question. Father Faircloth, one of the impri­soned Iesuits, testified so much to many by word of mouth and in writing. Where is the wri­ting? where is the protestation? why are they not produced? Still here are no proo­fes but upon Hearsay. One eye Witnesse is worth an hundred such, who can sweare to no more but that they heard it, and God knowes through how many Hucksters hands. I hope the Bishop of Durhams case will make them more wary for the future.

But they are angry with some Protestants, who endeavour to make this well grounded story a meer Fable, and thereby call many persons of much more learning, virtue, and prudence then themselves Fooles or knaves. We are plain Macedonians, who call a Fable a Fable, without either welt or gard: yea, so noto­rious a Fable, that (but that you tell us the Contrary), we could not believe that any one of you did ever give any credit to it your selves; any more then the Athenians did believe those monstrous Fables of Bulls [Page 207] and Minotaures, which themselves had raised, because some of their eminent Citizens had devised it or related it: But we call no men Fooles or Knaues, That lang­guage is too unmannerly for civill Writers. What new Topick is this, because we can­not beleeve a [...]mans relation or his Iudge­ment, do we straightway call him Foole or Knave? Excuse me, there are credulity, and prejudice, and mistakes, and pious frauds in the world, and none of these will willingly weare the Livery of Knaves or Fooles. We are not of the same mind with Pope Stephen and Pope Sergius, for the reordeining of those, who had been ordei­ned by Formosus, yet we do not call them knaves or Fooles. We cannot beleeve what you yourselves have related of my Lord of Durham, yet we are not guilty of such ex­travagant expressions.

IT seemeth to me, that the Fathers insist too much upon the honesty, and virtue, and learning of their own party▪ In dis­pute with an Adversary, virtue is like fire, which preserveth it self by being covered with ashes: but spread abroad by osten­tation, it is quickly extinguished; espe­cially Comparisons are odious, and beget altercation. We say, there is not a Hill so high in Lincolnshire, but there is another within a Mile as high as it: take you the reputation of learning and prudence, so you leave us the better cause; and we shall be able to defēd it well enough against you. But the maine defect in this part of your discourse is this, the Bishop of Chalced [...] confesseth of Mr. Oldcorn, one of your Order, that he acknowledged these Re­cords to be Authentick, and the rest of the [Page 209] imprisoned Priests, who viewed the Re­cords, are charged publickly in print to have done the same, by Bishop Goodwin, by Mr. Mason; every thing ought to be unloosed the same way it is bound. They were all Schollars and could write, if this charge were not true, they ought to have published a Protestation to the world in print to the contrary, whilest their Adver­saries were living, whilest the Witnesses were living: but now after they and their Adversaries, and the witnesses are all so long dead, to talke of a verball protestation to some of their Friends, upon hearsay, signifieth nothing.

Now we must make another winding, and return to Bishop Barlow: but I hold to the clue, in hope at length to get out of this fictitious Labyrinth. Henry the 8. Letters Patents, vvhereby Bishop Barlow vvas installed in (they would say restored to) the Temporalties of his Bishoprick, make mention of his acceptation and Confir­mation, but none of his Consecration. why should this last be omitted, if he were really consecrated? This objectiō sheweth nothing, but the unskilfulnesse of the Fa­thers in our English Customes and Forms. [Page 210] Let them compare all the restitutions of their friends to their Temporalties in En­gland, as Cardinall Poles, Bishop Gardiners and the rest, and they shall find the Form the very same with Bishop Barlowes; I hope they will not conclude thence that none of them were consecrated. The reason of the Forme is very prudent, In a Restitution to Temporalties, they take no notice of any Acts that are purely Spirituall, as Con­secration is: but onely of such Acts as are Temporall, as Acceptation and Confirma­tion.

But if he was restored to his Temporalties not being Consecrated, he might also sit in Parlia­ment without Consecration. The Assumtion is understood, but Bishop Barlow was restored to his Temporalties without Consecration; which is most false. From the Conver­sion of the Nation untill this Day, they are not able to produce one instance, of one Bishop, who was duely Elected, duely confirmed, and duely restored to his Tem­poralties by the Kings Mandate, without Consecration, or did sit in Parliament without Consecration. He must sit in Parli­ament in his Episcopall habit, but that can­not be before Consecration. It seemeth they think that Bishops sit in Parliament, as Tem­porall [Page 211] Barons: but it a great mistake, Bi­shops sate in the Great Councells of the Kingdome, before the names of Parlia­ment or Barons were heard of in England.

They bring an Argument from the exact­nesse of our Records, and that connexion that is between Records of one Court and ano­ther. The first thing necessary to obtein a Bishoprick in England, is the Kings Conge d'eslire; that appears in the Rolles. Next, the actuall Election; that appeares in the Records of the Dean and Chapiter. Third­ly, the Kings Acceptation of the Election, and his Commission to the Archbishop, or four Bishops in the Vacancy, to Confirm the Election and Consecrate the person E­lected and Confirmed legally; that appeares in the Letters Patents enrolled. Fourth­ly, the Confirmation of the Election be­fore the Dean of the Arches, but by the Archbishops appointment, (this is perfor­med alwaies in Bow Church, except extra­ordinarily it be performed elswhere by Commission); this appeares in the Records of the Archbishop. Fifthly, the Conse­cration it self by the Archbishop and other Bishops, or other Bishops without him by virtue of his Commission; this appeares in the Records of the Protonothary of the See [Page 212] of Canterbury. Lastly the Restitution of the Temporalties; which appeares in the Rolles, and his Enthronisation in the Re­cords of the Dean and Chapiter. Every one of these takes another by the hand, and he who will enjoy a Bishoprick in England, must have them all. The Chapiter cannot elect without the Kings Conge d'Eslire. The King never grants his Letters Patents for Confirmation and Consecration, untill he have a Certificate of the Deā and Chapiters Electiō. The Dean of the Arches never con­firms, untill he have the Kings Commission. The Archbishop never Consecrates untill the Election be confirmed. And lastly the King never receiveth Homage for the Bi­shoprick, or giveth the Temporalties, nor the Deā and Chapiter Enthrone, untill after Consecration. He that hath any one of these acts, must of Necessity have all that goe be­fore it in this Method: and he that hath the last, hath them all. But this was more then Mr. Neale, or whosoever was Inventer of that silly Fable, did understād, otherwise he would have framed a more possible relatiō.

Hence they argue, The Records being so exact, how is it possible that no Copies of Barlowes Consecration do appeare in any Court or Bi­shoprick of England? They mistake the mat­ter wholy, the Consecration ought not to [Page 213] appeare in any Court but one, that is that Registry where he was Consecrated, which being not certainly known, at so great a distance of time, is not so easily found, and I believe was neversought for yet further thē Lambeth. But all the other Acts doe appeare in their proper Courts; The Kings Licen­se, the Dean and Chapiters Election, the Kings Letters Patents, the Confirmation of the Dean of the Arches, which all goe be­fore Consecration: and his doing Homage, and the Restitution of him to his Tempo­ralties, and his Enthronisation, all which do follow the Consecration, and are infal­lible proofes in Law of the Consecration: as likewise his sitting in Parliament, his Or­deining of Priests, his Consecrating of Bi­shops, his letting of Leases, his receiving of Heriditamēts to him and his Successours, his exchanging of Lands; all which are as irrefragable proofes of his Consecration, as any man hath to prove that such persons were his Parents, either Father or Mother. And whē the right Register is sought, which must be by the help of the Court of Faculties, I doubt not but his Consecration will be found in the proper place, as all the rest are.

Mr. Mason alleged, that Bishop Gardiners Consecration was not to be found in the Register of Lambeth, any more then Bi­shop [Page 214] Barlowes: yet no man doubted of his Ordination. They answer first, that Mr. Mason did not seek so solicito [...]sly or diligently for Bishop Gardiners Consecration, as for Bishop Barlowes. Then why do not they whom it doth concern, cause more diligent search to be made? without fin­ding the Records of Bishop Gardiners Con­secration, they cannot accuse Bishop Bar­low of want of Consecration, upon that onely reason. Secondly they answer, that if Gardiners Consecration, were as doubt­full as Barlowes and Parkers, they would take the same advise they give us, to repaire with speed to some other Church of undoubted Cler­gy. Yes, where will they find a more un­doubted Clergy? They may goe further and fare worse. Rome itself hath not more exact Records, nor a more undoubted Succession, then the Church of England. There is no reason in the world to doubt either of Archbishop Parkers Consecra­tion, or Bishop Gardiners, or Bishop Barlo­wes. Neither doth his Consecration con­cern us so much, at the Fathers imagine: there were three Consecraters (which is the Canonicall number) besides him.

It is high time for the Fathers to wind up, and draw to a Conclusion of this Argu­mēt. That which followeth next is too high [Page 215] and can scarcely be tolerated; to accuse the publick Records and Archives of the Kingdome, and to insimulate the Primates and Metropolitans of England of Forgery, upon no ground but their own Imaginatiō. I doubt whether they durst offer it to a wi­dow Woman. As to the impossibility of forging so many Registers, in case there be so many, it is easily answered, that it is no more then that the Consecraters and other persons concerned, should have conspired to give in a false Certifi­cate, that the Consecration was perfor­med with all due Cerimonies and Rites, and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dissemble. Should any man accuse the Generall of their order, or one of their Provincialls, or but the Rector of one of their Colleges, of Forgery and counterfei­ting the publick Records of the Order; how would they storm, and thunder, and mingle heaven and earth together and cry out. No moderate or prudent persons can suspect that such persons should damne their soules, that so many pious learned Divines should engage them­selves and their posterity, in damnable Sacrileges, without feare of damnation. [Page 216] If a man will not believe every ridiculous Fable, which they tell by word of mouth upon hearsay, they call persons of more vir­tue learning and prudence then themselves, Foo­les and Knaves: But they may insimulate the principall Fathers of our Church, of certifying most pernicious lyes under their hands and seales, not for a piece of bread, which is a poore temptatiō, but for nothing, that is to make them both Fooles and Kna­ves. Is not this blowing hot and cold with the same breath? or to have the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ with respect of persons? Com­pare the politicall principles of the Church of England with your own, and try if you can find any thing so pernicious to mankind and all humane Society, in ours more then in yours. Compare the Case Theology of the Church of England, with your own, and try if you can find any thing so destru­ctive to Morality, to truth, and Iustice, and Conscience, as might lead us to perpe­trate such Crimes more then yourselves. We are not affraid of a Paralell. You pro­fesse great endeavours to make Proselites; we do not condemne Zeale, yet wish you had more light with it: even in prudence, which you yourselves extoll, this is not your right Course, to follow those Birds, with noise and clamour, which you desire to catch.

[Page 217]In summe, your answer or solution is full of ignorant mistakes. It confoundeth Civill Rolles and Ecclesiasticall Registers. It supposeth that our Records are but tran­scriptions, one out of another; whereas every Court recordeth its own Acts, and keeps itself within its own bounds. It ta­keth notice but of one Consecrater: where as we have alwaies three at the least, many times five or six. It quite forgetteth pu­blick Notaries, which must be present at every Consecration with us, to draw up what is done into Acts; with us every one of these Notaries when he is admitted to that charge, doth take a solemne Oath upon his knees to discharge his Office faithfully, that is, not to make false Certificates. Se­condly, it is absurd and unseasonable, to enquire how a thing came to passe that ne­ver was: you ought First to have proved, that our Records were forged, and then it had been more seasonable to have enqui­red modestly, how it came to passe. Third­ly, it is incredible, that persons of such prudence and eminence, should make false Certificates under their hands and seales, to the utter ruine of themselves and all that had a hand it, and no advantage to any per­son breathing. It is incredible that those [Page 218] Records should be counterfeited in a cor­ner, which were avowed publickly for Au­thentick by the whole Parliament of En­gland in the 8 yeare of Queen Elisabeth; which were published to the world in print by the person most concerned, as if he da­red all the world to except against them: and yet no man offered to except against them then. Fourthly, it is impossible to give in a false Certificate of a Consecration which was never performed in England, (especially at Lambeth) before lesse then thousands of eye witnesses: and that at Lambeth, in the Face of the Court and West­minster Hall. Surely they thinke we con­secrate in Closets, or holes, or hay mowes. They may even as well say that the publick Acts of our Parliaments are counterfeited, and the publick Acts of our Synods are counterfeited, and all our publick monu­ments counterfeited. It is none of the ho­nestest Pleas, Negare factum, to deny such publick Acts as these. Fifthly, this answer is pernicious to mankind, it is destructive to all Societies of men, that Bishops of so great eminence, should conspire with pu­blick Notaries, to give in false Certificates, in a matter of such High Consequence as Holy Orders are, without any temptation, [Page 219] without any hope of Advantage to them selves or others. It affordeth a large Semi­nary for jealousies and suspicions. It ex­terminateth all credit and confidence out of the world, and instructeth all men to trust nothing, but what they see with their eyes. Lastly, it is contradictory to them­selves; They have told us, I know not how often, and tell us again in this Paragraph, That if the Nagges head Consecration had been false, they might have convinced it by a thousand witnesses: Here they make it an easy thing, for the Consecraters and other per­sons concerned, to conspire together to give in a false Certificate, that the Consecration was per­formed with all due Ceremonies and Rites, and thereby deceive the Courts or make them dis­semble. If the world will be deceived so, it is but right and reason that it be deceived; to be deceived by a false Certificate, that may be convinced by a thousand witnesses, is selfdeceit.

But they say, this is more possible and more probable, then that all the Clergy should conspire not 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 [Page 220] 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 Nagges 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 Nagges 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.

[Page 221]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.

WE have done with the Nagges 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 [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] 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 [Page 225] 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 [Page 226] 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 [Page 227] 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 dex­ [...]eram, Deus benedicit potente dex [...]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 consecratiō 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 understād 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 [Page 228] 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 presēteth 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, [Page 229] 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, [Page 230] 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, Bell. de Sac. Bapt. l. 1. c. 7. 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 thē to Priests.

[Page 231]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 subserviēt distributiō 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 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 bele [...] ­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 [Page 232] a man comes at it, To devise reasons of that which never was. First prove our de­fects, if you can: And then find out a [...] 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 mēs 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 fun­ctiō: 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, In prae­fa [...]ione. 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 Nagges 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 [Page 233] 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, De Ec­cles. cont. 2. q. 5 c. 3. 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, In Ti­tum c. 1 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.

[Page 234]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 [Page 235] the hearty expressions of a faithfull Friend, and the mimicall gestures of a faw­ning flatterer: betweē 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 [Page 236] 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 plōge himself in a certein crime, for feare of [Page 237] 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 Nagges head, and Mr. Neale, and the Protestant writers, and Bishop Bancroft, and Bishop Morton and the 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 [Page 238] 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 [Page 239] 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.