I. PART Bishop Horne and all the rest were legal Bishops. To admit a plea to be tried by a jury, and the verdict of the jury, are two very distinct things. [Their reordination of our clergy no argument They tell us," he was a man specially shot at." Rather, he was a man graciously preserved by the Queen's mercy from the rage of the common people against him. If they had "shot at❞ him, they could have found ways enough to have tendered the oath of supremacy to him, without Bishop Horne. I profess I am no great patron of such oaths. Men have more dominion over their actions than over their judgments. Yet there is less to be said for Bishop Bonner, than 467 for other men. He who had so great a hand in framing the oath; he who had taken it himself, both in King Henry's time and King Edward's time, and made so many others to take it; he who had been so great a stickler in Rome for the king's supremacy; who writ that preface before Bishop Gardiner's book De Verá Obedientiá; 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 Roman-Catholics, to reordain Protestant ministers, not conditionally but absoluteagainst the ly," which they call " an evident argument of our mere laity." validity of our or ders.] 4 [See above p. 54. note r.] e [See Replic. to the Bp. of Chalced., c. vii. sect. 1. (vol. ii. p. 222.) Disc. iii. Pt. i.] f[See Just Vindic., c. iii. vol. i. p. 121.-Replic. &c., c. iii. sect. 2. vol. ii. pp. 100, 101; and c. vii. sect. 1. ibid. pp. 217, 218: Discourses ii. and iii. Part i.] [Re-ordination of Anglican clergymen has undoubtedly been the unvarying practice of the Roman Churches since the year 1704, when the rule was so determined by Clement XI. in the case of one John Gordon, sometime Bishop (not of Glasgow but) of Galloway (see Keith, Hist. Catal. of Scottish Bps., p. 284. ed. Russell), and then a convert to the Romish Church, who upon his petition (setting forth the Nag's Head story and the alleged invalidity of Edw. VI.'s Ordinal) was reordained" ad omnes ordines" (Le Quien, Null. des Ordin. Angl., tom. ii. pp. 313, &c.; and Pr. Just. num. v.-Elrington, pp. 145-152).--Gordon's own aplication, followed by what professed (although with very little ground) to be a formal examination of the question, proves that it had not been the invariable practice before that time:and this view is confirmed by the facts. First, in the beginning of Qu. Mary's reign, the existing clergy, by whatever ordinal ordained, were confirmed in their orders, a distinction which did not amount to re-ordination being taken by Bonner in compliance with Qu. Mary's directions between those ordained by the old and those ordained by the new form, and no distinction at all by Cardinal Pole. This is proved,-1. by the admission of Sanders, De Schism. Angl. lib ii. pp. 293, 306 (see above p. 62);2. by Bonner's rehabilitation of Scory in July 1554 (see above p. 70. note s); 3. by Art. 15 of a "Letter with Articles" sent by Qu. Mary to Bonner March 4, 1553-4; directing, with reference to "such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders, considering they were not ordered in very deed," that "the Bishop of the Diocese V. A doughty argument indeed, drawn from their own autho- DISCOURSE rity. Can any man doubt, that they which make no scruple of taking away our lives, will make conscience of taking away our orders? This is that which we accuse them of, and they do fairly beg the question. If re-ordination be sacrilege (as they say it is), we are ready to convince them of gross sacrilege; or iterating all the essentials of ordina may supply that thing which was wanting in them before, and then according to his discretion admit them to minister;" compared with Art. 29. of Bonner's Visitation Articles in 1554, which directs enquiry, "whether any such as were ordered schismatically and contrary to the old order and custom of the Catholic Church, . . being not yet reconciled nor admitted by the ordinary, have celebrated or said mass," &c. (ap. Burnet, Records, Pt. II. bk. ii. numm. 10. 15); 4. by the Breve of Julius III. to Cardinal Pole March 8, 1554, compared with the commissions issued accordingly to the Chapter of Canterbury and to the several Bishops, wherein they are authorized to confirm all clergy in their respective orders, "etiam ab hæreticis et schismaticis Episcopis, etiam minus rite, dummodo in eorum" (ordinum) "collatione Ecclesiæ forma et intentio sit servala, per eos susceptis" (see above pp. 59-62; and Wharton's Specim., Append.), and with the fact that no record whatever of re-ordination at this time, remains in the Registers hitherto searched for that purpose, viz. those of the (principal) sees of Canterbury, London, and Nor. wich (Tanner, ap. Couray., Déf. de la Diss., liv. iv. c. 9). On the other hand, in 1555, when Ridley was degraded, his Episcopal orders were not recognised, and by one of the commissioners (Brooks, Bp. of Gloucester) were denied, although another (White, Bp. of Lincoln) acknowledged him to have been consecrated by the old ordinal, and Cardinal Pole's commission, including both Latimer and him under the description of" pretenced Bishops," directed the degradation of both as Bishops (Foxe, Acts and Mon., vol. iii. pp. 416, 417, 427). Farrer, Bp. of St. David's, in the same year (Foxe, ibid. p. 178; consecrated Sept. 9, 1548, by the old ordinal), and Hooper, of Gloucester, in 1554 (Foxe, ibid. p. 125;consecrated by the new ordinal March 8, 1550-1), were likewise degraded from Priest's orders only; and Taylor, of 66 Lincoln, in 1553 (consecrated by the new ordinal June 6, 1552), was displaced from his see on the ground of the "nullity of his consecration" (Collier, Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 365). Secondly, after the time of Qu. Mary, and subsequently to the alleged consecration at the Nag's Head, among instances of re-ordination, whether at the party's own request (as in the case of Harding, -Detection, &c., fol. 230. b.), or not (see Le Quien, tom. ii. pp. 308, &c.), and with a very general denial of English orders by English Romanists (but upon what grounds, see below pp. 124-130, and notes), there occur on the other side,-1. the offer of Pius V. to acknowledge the Engl. 'Liturgy" (which would include the Ordinal); see above Replic. &c., c. ii. sect. 6, vol. ii. p. 85. note 1; Twysden, Hist. Vindic., c. ix; and other authorities quoted by Couray., Déf. de la Diss., liv. v. c. 3;-2. The case of Dr. Carrier, on whose application to the Pope in 1613 an offer of reconciliation was allowed to be made not involving reordination; see Carrier's Letter to Kg. James § 46. p. 52. ed. 1649, quoted by Courayer, ibid., and another letter of Carrier's to the Abp. of Canterbury in Dodd, Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 517. Pt. V. bk. iii. art. 7;-3. The case of Dr. Gough in the time of the Rebellion, whose (English) orders were acknowledged by the Sorbonne, although denied by the then Pope; see Prideaux, Valid. of Orders of Ch. of Engl., p. 78.-Le Quien, tom. ii. pp. 316, 317.-4. The authority of Cudsemius(De Desper. Calvin. Causâ Tract., c. xi. p. 122. Mogunt. 1609), and of Bossuet and others in 1690 and 1699 (ap. Couray., Dissert., Pr. Just. art. i., and Déf. de la Diss., Pr. Just. art. i), affirming in general the validity of Engl. Orders; and of S. Clara in 1634 (Expos. Paraph. Artic., art. 36), and Walsh (Hist. of Irish Remonstr., Advert. p. xlii. n. 13. in 1674; and Letters to Persons of Quality &c., Pref. pp. 26-30. § 6. in 1686), affirming the validity of the English Ordinal.] I. PART tion, 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 Mary's time: but Paul the Fourth and Cardinal Pole were wiser, who confirmed all ordinations in Edward the Sixth's 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 concealed.] year 1613, fifty years after they ought to have been shewed." They forget, that they were published in print in Archbishop Parker's lifetime; that they were justified by the Parliament, 8. Elizabethæ; that all of them go hand in hand with our civil records. [Our records not [Of the quality of their witnesses.] He saith, "it cannot be testified by any lawful witnesses" (produced by us), "that they were not forged." This is their method, first, to accuse us of forgery, and then to put us to prove a negative. Where learnt he this form of proceeding? By all laws of God and man, the accuser is to make good his accusation. Yet we have given him witnesses beyond exception'. They say, "There cannot be a more evident mark of forgery than the concealment of registers, if they be useful and necessary to the persons in whose custody they are." The proof 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 public office, where all the world might view them from time to time, who had either occasion or desire to do it? That our adversaries did "insult and triumph over" us, is but an 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 Nag's Head," &c., "but Roman Catholics; we value not their testimony, because they are known adversaries." This answer they term " ridiculous," and parallel it with the answer of an officer in Ireland. You will not find this answer so "ridiculous" upon more i [See above pp. 97, 98.] [See above pp. 71, &c., 94, 96.] V. serious consideration. Protestants know, that some excep- DISCOURSE tions in law do destroy all credit, and some other exceptions do only diminish credit. An adversary's testimony may be admitted in some cases, but it is subject to exception and makes no full proof; especially in cases favourable in the law, as the case of persons spoiled (which is your Irish case), such witnesses may be admitted; ante omnia spoliatus restitui debet:' but then they ought to make up in number what they want in weight. But you mistake wholly. Our answer is not, that 'you [Mr. Neale produce no witnesses for the story of the Nag's Head but no witness at all.] Roman Catholics' our answer is, that you produce no witnesses at all, neither Roman Catholics nor others. 15. For, first, one witness is no witness in law. Let him be beyond exception duly sworn and examined, yet his testimony makes but semiplenam probationem'-' half a proof;' especially in criminal causes such as this is, it is nothing. "One Deut. xix. witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or any sin;.. at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be stablished:"-which law Matt. xviii. is confirmed by our Saviour. They were never yet able to pretend any eye-witness by name, but Mr. Neale; or somebody that had no name, because he had no being in the 468 nature of things. All the rest had it from Mr. Neale's single testimony, because they cannot testify what was done, but what Mr. Neale said'. [See above pp. 44, 102, 103. To what is said in the text may be added, that Neale died in 1590, 14 years before his testimony was publicly cited. And see Mason, bk. iii. c. 8. § 6, 7.] 1 [Other witnesses (so called), independent of Neale, all cited after their deaths, were brought forward at different times in support either of the story according to Holywood's version or of something like it: viz. 1. Stow, said by Champney (in 1616) to have said to certain persons unnamed, that he believed the story, although afraid to insert it in his Chronicles (see below in c. ix.). Stow died in 1605.-2. Holinshead, of whom the same tale is repeated by the same author. He died between 1578 and 1582. 3. Parsons, also at third hand and by hearsay and after his death; see above p. 45. note a. 4. Thomas Darbyshire, nephew to Bonner, and sometime Archdeacon of Essex, deprived 1559, died abroad 1604 16. PART I. [Mr. FitzHerbert's suspicions. ] Secondly, Mr. Neale testifieth nothing as a single witness ought to testify. He was never sworn to speak the truth, he never testified it before a public notary, he was never examined before a competent judge, he was never produced before the face of a Protestant. Is this the manner of the Romans now-a-days, to condemn whole Churches upon the verbal testimony of a single witness, before he be brought face to face with those whom he accuseth? and such a testimony, which is clogged with so many improbabilities and incongruities and incoherences, that no rational impartial man can trust one syllable of it? whereas in such a case as this, against the third estate of the kingdom", against the records civil and ecclesiastical, against the testimony of a Parliament, a hundred witnesses ought not to be admitted. We regard not "Mr. Fitz-Herbert's suspicions" at all. What are the "suspicions" of a private stranger to the well known credit of a public register? His "suspicions" can weigh no more than his reasons; that is, just nothing. He saith, "This exception is no new quarrel, but vehemently urged to the English clergy in the beginning of the Queen's reign, to 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 Nag's Head, as well as you would seem to know it, they needed not to "urge" it so "vehemently,' to shew how and by whom they were ordained; they would have done that for them readily enough; unless perhaps you think that they concealed the Nag's Head Ordination out of favour to the Protestants. But I see you are mistaken in this as in all other things. There was an old objection indeed, that our consecraters were not Roman Catholics, and that our consecration was not "ritu Romano," or that we were not ordained by Papal authority": but the Nag's Head Ordination is a new question. What might be whispered underhand in the ears of credulous persons of your own party in corners, we do not know: but for all your contrary inti |