PART I. We are plain Macedonians, who call a fable a fable, without either welt or guard; 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 yourselves; any more than the Athenians did believe those monstrous fables of bulls and minotaurs, which themselves had raised, because some of their eminent citizens had devised it or related it; but we call no men "fools or knaves," that language is too unmannerly for civil writers. What new topic is this? Because we cannot believe a man's relation or his judgment, do we straightway "call him fool or knave?" Excuse me; there are credulity, and prejudice, and mistakes, and pious frauds in the world, and none of these will willingly wear the livery of "knaves or fools." We are not of the same mind with Pope Stephen and Pope Sergius, for the re-ordaining of those who had been ordained by Formosus; yet we do not call them "knaves or fools." We cannot believe what you yourselves 481 have related of my Lord of Durham, yet we are not guilty of such extravagant expressions. [The Fathers insist upon the authority of their own party.] CHAP. X. THE FATHERS INSIST TOO MUCH UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR OWN It seemeth to me, that the Fathers insist too much upon too much the honesty, and virtue, and learning of their own party. In dispute with an adversary, virtue is like fire, which preserveth itself 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 defend it well enough against you. But the main defect in this part of your discourse is this:-the Bishop of Chalcedon confesseth of Mr. Oldcorn, one of your order, that he acknowledged these records to be authentic; and the rest [Plut., De Apophth. Reg., in p. 496. ed. Wyttenb.] Philip. num. 15. Op. Moral. tom. i. V. of the imprisoned priests, who viewed the records, are charged DISCOURSE publicly in print to have done the same, by Bishop Godwin, by Mr. Mason. Every thing ought to be unloosed the same way it is bound. They were all scholars and could write. If this charge were not true, they ought to have published a protestation to the world in print to the contrary, whilst their adversaries were living, whilst the witnesses were living: but now, after they, and their adversaries, and the witnesses, are all so long dead, to talk of a verbal protestation to some of their friends, upon hearsay, signifieth nothing". tion was Now we must make another winding, and return to Bishop [Why Barlow but I hold to the clue, in hope at length to get out Barlow's Bishop of this fictitious labyrinth. "Henry the Eighth's letters consecrapatents, whereby Bishop Barlow was installed in" (they would not mensay, restored to) "the temporalties of his Bishopric, make the restitumention of his acceptation and confirmation, but none of his of his tem consecration: why should this last be omitted, if he were poralties.] really consecrated?" This objection sheweth nothing but the unskilfulness of the Fathers in our English customs and forms. Let them compare all the restitutions of their friends to their temporalties in England, as Cardinal Pole's, Bishop Gardiner's, and the rest, and they shall find the form the very same with Bishop Barlow's". I hope they will not conclude thence, z [See above pp. 101 and 153, notes a, x.] a [This assertion requires some explanation, as the form of the Writ of Restitution had varied considerably up to the accession of Queen Elizabeth; and in such a way that the argument in the text fails. 1. Up to the renunciation of the Papal supremacy in 1534, that writ regularly recited the appointment and provision by the Pope's Bulls, the renunciation by the Bp. elect of all words in those Bulls prejudicial to the king and his crown, and the homage of the said Bishop, and thereupon directed the sheriff to restore the temporalties; a writ of this form being sent to each county wherein the temporalties of the see were. Here, it will be observed, consecration is never mentioned, whether it had or had not already been performed. 2. From 1534 and in consequence of the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, a change took place, in conformity with that statute; and the writ now recited 3. all the acts required by the statute;- tioned, in tion to him I. PART that none of them were consecrated. The reason of the form is very prudent. In a restitution to temporalties, they take no notice of any acts that are purely spiritual, as consecration is; but only of such acts as are temporal, as acceptation and confirmation. [Of the exactness of our But "if he was restored to his temporalties not being consecrated, he might also sit in Parliament without consecration." The assumption is understood, 'But Bishop Barlow was restored to his temporalties without consecration;' which is most false. From the conversion of the nation until this day, they are not able to produce one instance of one Bishop, who was duly elected, duly confirmed, and duly restored to his temporalties by the king's mandate", without consecration, or did sit in Parliament without consecration. He must sit in Parliament in his Episcopal habit, but that cannot be before consecration. It seemeth they think, that Bishops sit in Parliament as temporal barons; but it is a great mistake. Bishops sat in the great Councils of the kingdom, before the names of Parliament or barons were heard of in England. They bring an argument from "the exactness of our records," and that connexion that is between records of one records.] court and another. The first thing necessary to obtain a Bishopric in England, is the king's Congé d'Eslire; that appears in the Rolls. Next, the actual election; that appears in the records of the Dean and Chapter. Thirdly, the king's acceptation of the election, and his commission to the ArchMary (and accordingly in Pole's case, Rym. tom. xv. p. 432, and such others as occurred-Gardiner is a mistake of Bramhall's), and so continued until the re-establishment of the Papal supremacy in 1555, when the original form used prior to 1534 was revived in every point, and employed until Qu. Mary's death; upon which last event, and the renewed abolition of the Papal supremacy, that used in the beginning of Mary's reign was again revived. There were therefore three forms; one reciting the Papal appointment of the Bishop restored and not mentioning consecration, in use upto 1534, and from 1555 to 1558; a second, reciting all the acts required by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, consecration included, in use from 1534 to 1517; and, thirdly, a form resembling the latter but omitting confirmation and consecration, in use in 1517, from 1553 to 1555, and restored by Queen Elizabeth in 1559. Barlow's writ for St. David's belongs to the second class, and therefore ought to recite his consecration if it had happened. It does not recite it, the words above quoted (p. 142) referring only to confirmation; and therefore he was probably not then consecrated (see above p. 138. note d). Further, the writ which is given in Mason as that of the restitution of Barlow's temporalties (for St. David's), is not the ordinary writ addressed to the sheriff, but corresponds in form rather to the provisional writ De Custodia Temporalium, issued (usually to the intended Bishop) during the vacancy of a see; excepting that it is an absolute and not, as this is, a merely provisional grant.] b [But see above p. 141. note 1.] V. bishop, or four Bishops in the vacancy, to confirm the elec- DISCOURSE tion, and consecrate the person elected and confirmed legally; 482 that appears in the letters patents enrolled. Fourthly, the confirmation of the election before the Dean of the Arches but by the Archbishop's appointment (this is performed always in Bow Church, except extraordinarily it be performed elsewhere by commission); this appears in the records of the Archbishop. Fifthly, the consecration itself by the Archbishop and other Bishops, or other Bishops without him by virtue of his commission; this appears in the Records of the protonotary of the see of Canterbury. Lastly, the restitution of the temporalties; which appears in the Rolls; and his enthronization, in the records of the Dean and Chapter. Every one of these takes another by the hand; and he who will enjoy a Bishopric in England, must have them all. The Chapter cannot elect without the king's Congé d'Eslire. The king never grants his letters patents for confirmation. and consecration, until he have a certificate of the Dean and Chapter's election. The Dean of the Arches never confirms until he have the king's commission. The Archbishop never consecrates until the election be confirmed. And, lastly, the king never receiveth homage for the Bishopric or giveth the temporalties, nor the Dean and Chapter enthrone, until after consecration. He that hath any one of these acts, must of necessity have all that go before it in this method; and he that hath the last hath them all. But this was more than Mr. Neale, or whosoever was inventer of that silly fable, did understand; otherwise he would have framed a more possible relation. Hence they argue, the records "being so exact, how is it [No record of Bishop possible that no copies of Barlow's consecration do appear in Barlow's any court or Bishopric of England." They mistake the matter wholly; the consecration ought not to appear 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 never sought for yet further than Lambeth. But all the other acts do appear in their proper courts; the king's license, the Dean and Chapter's election, the king's [See above pp. 63-66. note k; and c. v. pp. 67, &c.] C consecration to be expected in more than one Registry.] I. PART letters patents, the confirmation of the Dean of the Arches, which all go before consecration: and his doing homage, and the restitution of him to his temporalties, and his enthronization, all which do follow the consecration, and are infallible proofs in law of the consecration; as likewise his sitting in Parliament, his ordaining of priests, his consecrating of Bishops, his letting of leases, his receiving of hereditaments to him and his successors, his exchanging of lands; all which are as irrefragable proofs of his consecration, as any man hath to prove that such persons were his parents, either father or mother. And when 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. [No record of Bishop Mr. Mason alleged, that Bishop Gardiner's consecration Gardiner's was not to be found in the register of Lambeth, any more consecra- than Bishop Barlow's yet no man doubted of his ordinamore than tiond. They answer, first, that Mr. Mason did not seek so soliof Bishop Barlow's] citously or diligently "for Bishop Gardiner's consecration, as tion, any [The mon strous accu for Bishop Barlow's." Then why do not they whom it doth concern, cause more diligent search to be made? Without finding the records of Bishop Gardiner's consecration, they cannot accuse Bishop Barlow of want of consecration upon that only reason. Secondly, they answer, that if " Gardiner's consecration were as doubtful as Barlow's and Parker's, they would take the same advice they give us, to repair with speed to some other Church of undoubted clergy." Yes; where will they find a more undoubted clergy? They may go further and fare worse. Rome itself hath not more exact records, nor a more undoubted succession, than the Church of England. There is no reason in the world to doubt either of Archbishop Parker's consecration, or Bishop Gardiner's, or Bishop Barlow's. Neither doth his consecration concern us so much as the Fathers imagine; there were three consecrators (which is the canonical number) besides hime. It is high time for the Fathers to wind up, and draw to a [Mason, bk. iii. c. 10. § 7. But in Gardiner's case there are at Lambeth no documents at all, neither confirmation nor consecration; and the register is a different one (viz. Warham's), where they ought to appear; so that it is not a fair parallel to Barlow's. For cases which are parallel to his, see above p. 138. note d. in fin. and p. 141.note l.] [See above p. 136. note y.] e |