V.

are timorous, and would not be named." Good reason, for DISCOURSE they have no names. So John Stow is a silent witness, and they are nameless witnesses.

So much for the man; now for the thing, I give three

answers ;

First, if John Stow were a lover of the truth, he should rather have set down the Nag's Head ordination (if there was any such thing) than 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 Nag's Head consecration had been such a consecration as never was before, never will follow after.

Secondly, their authors wrest John Stow abominably. He was no professed writer of ecclesiastical annals. It is true, he mentioneth the consecration of Cardinal Pole; whether it was his respect to his eminence, as being a near kinsman to the Queen, a Cardinal, the Pope's legate, and his grand minister for the reconciliation of England, or because a toy took him in the head; but not with so many particulars as the Fathers intimate: all he saith is this, "The twenty-first of March Dr. Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury was burnt at Oxford, the same day Cardinal Pole sang his first Mass at Greenwich in the Fryar's Church, on Sunday next he was [March 22, consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury" (here was speedy 1555-6.] work), "and the twenty-fifth of March received the pall.with the usual ceremonies at Bow's Church in Cheap"." Here is another Nag's 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 Mary's time, this diligent author mentioneth not so much as one; of all the consecrations in Queen Elizabeth's 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,―John 479 Stow mentioneth not his consecration at Lambeth, therefore

"[Stow, Annals, p. 628. ed. 1615; fol. 386. a, b. ed. 1574. This book, a very small octavo in the first instance, was published repeatedly, and each time with the addition here and there irregularly of new matter, between (the first edit. in) 1565 and 1631; so as to destroy all

ground (little enough at best) for argu-
ing negatively from it. In his Descrip-
tion of London, p. 491, first ed. in 1603,
Stow speaks of Grindal's consecration to
that see Dec. 21, 1559, being the correct
date according to the Register, and in-
consistent with the Nag's Head story.]

I.

PART he was not consecrated there, we never had a consecration in England since the Conquest, but Cardinal Pole's; 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 recorded by John Stow: but all our records, civil as well as ecclesiastical, do testify the contrary.

1559.]

Lastly, if the Fathers would lay aside their prejudice, there is enough in John Stow's Annals, to discover the falsehood of their lying fable of the Consecration at the Nag's Head. By their account, the Nag's Head Consecration was September 7, anno 1559°: but after this, in relating the solemn [Sept. 8, 9, obsequies kept in St. Paul's Church for the French king, John Stow calleth him "Dr. Parker Archbishop of Canterbury elect";" therefore the Nag's 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 styleth him the "Right Reverend Father in God, Matthew Parker, Doctor of Divinity, Archbishop of Canterbury ." Here is no more the word "elect," for after confirmation and consecration the word "elect" ceaseth; here he is complete "Archbishop of Canterbury."

[Of the Fathers'

They say, "They who make no conscience to falsify Scripmethod of ture, will forge records ;" and "how notoriously the English arguing clergy have falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by Gregory authority of Martin."

from the

their own writers.]

[2 Peter

iii. 16.]

I hope none of us did ever attempt to purge St. Paul's Epistles, because there were in them "quædam malè sonantia” -"some things that sounded not well," in the point of Justification. We desire good words, until they be able to prove their allegation. Rather than be accounted falsifiers of

0

[See above p. 44.]
P[Annals, p. 639. ed. 1615. So also
the orig. record of "The Obsequye of
.. Henry the ijde," &c. &c., in the Col-
lege of Arms, printed in the Report of
the Record Commission, pp. 482-486.
fol. 1833. "Elect," legally, sometimes
means merely not inthroned; com-
monly, and in ordinary language always,
not consecrated to a first see, not con-

firmed to a second. It is applied ac-
cordingly, by both Stow in this passage
and the record just mentioned, to Par-
ker in the one, to Barlow and Scory in
the other, of the latter senses: Barlow
also being called in Stow by mistake
or misprint Bp. of Chester. His and
Scory's sees are blank in the record.]
↑ [Ibid. p. 679.]

V.

Scripture, we are contented to stand to the Vulgar Latin, in DISCOURSE
any controversy between them and us. But who is the man
doth accuse us of so many falsifications? One Gregory Martin,
one of their fellows', whose censure we do not weigh a button.
This is a new inartificial 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 Catholic doctors, who did forsake all at home for conscience' sake, would publish to the world in print the nullity of Parker's ordination, thereby engaging posterity to commit so many damnable sacrileges, in re-ordaining those who had been validly ordained 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 loss of our holy orders, than the skill of their doctors should be questioned. If re-ordination 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 than your English doctors, and did both pretend to examine the matter as duly, and to be as averse from damnable sacrilege as you; yet they decreed publicly, and most unjustly (as you yourselves do now confess), that all the holy orders received from Formosus were "void," and "compelled all those who had been ordained by him, to be reordained."

Mr. Mason cited the testimony of a witness beyond all [The Earl of Nottingexception, Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, Lord High hain's tes Admiral of England, who acknowledged Archbishop Parker timony.] to be his kinsman, and that he was an invited guest at his consecration at Lambeth. To this the Fathers reply, "If

I.

PART this were true, it proves only that there was a good dinner at Lambeth, which might well be, to conceal the shameful consecration at the Nag's Head."

[Mr. Neale the only witness

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 uncivil, to encumber the tavern with a consecration, and not stay dinner there. The Earl was invited to the consecration at Lambeth, therefore it was at Lambeth; the Earl was not at the Nag's Head; Mr. Neale himself, who see more than ever was acted, or so much as thought of, did not see that. Is it the custom, when one is invited to a con- 180 secration, 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 far from concealing the shamefulness of such a brainsick consecration, that it had been a ready means to divulge it to all the world.

They add, "Besides, we must take the Earl's friend's word for the Earl's testimony, and Mr. Mason's word for his nameless friend."

That is none of Mr. Mason's fault, but Mr. Holywood's, Mr. Constable's, Mr. Sacrobosco's, Dr. Champney's, Mr. Fitzherbert's, Mr. Fitzsimon's, who first broached this odious fable. Mr. Mason published this relation to the world in print, while the Earl was yet living, on purpose that they might inquire and satisfy themselves; if they did not, they can blame nobody 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 nobleman in his lifetime, 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 than one witness of the Nag's Head consecration." Pardon me, you never produced one the discomfiture of the Spanish Armada, accompanied the Earl of Essex in the Cadiz expedition, and was created in

consequence Earl of Nottingham in 1597. See the Biogr. Brit.]

V.

Fathers.]

yet, and (which is less than producing) you never so much as Discourse named a witness, whilst he himself was living". In or about produced the year 1603 you first named Mr. Neale, and innocent John by the Stow, when they were both dead; you might as well have named the man in the moon, as John Stow. Only I confess 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 perpetual infamy of your witness, or the utter confusion of your cause.

You speak much of "the learning, and virtue, and judgment" of your hearsay witnesses, "who knew how to distinguish between an Episcopal consecration and a banquet."

I hope you do not mean, that the Earl 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, than they would take our testimonies. They have given an account to God, and know before this time whether they have done well or ill.

They proceed, "The priests and Jesuits, to whom the records were shewed in King James 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 Jesuits, 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 proofs but upon hearsay. One eye-witness is worth a hundred such, who can swear to no more but that they heard it, and God knows through how many hucksters' hands. I hope the Bishop of Durham's 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 mere fable, and thereby call many persons of much more learning, virtue, and prudence than themselves, fools or knaves."

[See above p. 117. note 1.]

[See above p. 101. notes z, a.]