PART needful; the law prescribeth the form, and the place was I. indifferent, so it were a consecrated place, which the law doth likewise prescribe. But you tell us further, that "this register was forged or foisted in," and that your "learned" but nameless "friend see the old manuscript of that book, wherein there is no mention of any such registers;" which you tell us in your friend's words, that "all the world may 469 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 four 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 Elizabeth: he was made a Bishop by Barlow, Scory, and two others: secondly, that this work was acted on the 17th day of " September, anno 1559;" which was acted on the 17th day of December, 1559. Thirdly, that we "had no form then or order to do such a business";" whereas you yourselves confess, that "Edward the Sixth's rite of ordination was re-established in the first year of Queen Elizabeth:" and Archbishop Parker's ordination was in the second of Queen Elizabeth. He who stumbles so thick and threefold, may err in his viewing the manuscript as well as the rest. But to gratify you, suppose it was "foisted in," what good will that do you? It must of necessity be "foisted in" before it was printed; it could not be "foisted in" after it was printed. And it must be "foisted in" by a Protestant, for no Roman Catholic would "foist it in." So still, you see, a register of Protestant Bishops was published to the world in print eight years before Mr. Mason published his book. [The Antiquitates Your friend saith, that "this printed book of Parker's, Britannia Antiquitates Britannia, is the first that mentioneth any such first published in 1572.] 8 [The Register in question is not p. 11. note c. in fine. The passages V. pretended consecration of him and the rest." So it might DISCOURSE be well, when it was first printed; that was not in the year 1605, but in Archbishop Parker's lifetime, three years before his death, anno 1572. So much you might have learned from the very title-page of the book, printed at Hannow,"Historia antehac non nisi semel, nimirum Londini in ædibus Johannis Day anno 1572, excusa"-" That this History was printed formerly at London in the house of John Day in the year 1572 y." This doth utterly destroy the credit of your friend's relation, that he had viewed the "manuscript of that book." There needed no "manuscript," where they had a printed book for their copy (as the title-page telleth us they had); and that printed above sixty years before your friend writ, it is probable before his birth. If there be any thing of "foisting" in the case, there is rather something foisted out of the former edition than foisted in; namely, Archbishop Parker's Life until that time, with the particular consecra [See above p. 11. note c. and pp. 96, 97.] [The full title of the edition of 1605 runs thus, "De Antiquitate Britannicæ Ecclesiæ, et nominatim De Privilegiis Ecclesiæ Cantuariensis atque De Archiepiscopis ejusdem LXX, Historia (&c. as above in the text), nunc vero boni publici ergo recognita et recusa." It was taken from one of the worst and most imperfect copies of the edit. of 1572, accord. to Drake (Preface to his edition), and omits the Life of Parker altogether (with of course "the particular" account of the several consecrations which it contained), but contains the table or register described below in p. 122. For the genuineness of the edition of 1572, see above p. 11. note c.] [There are two Latin Lives of Abp. Parker in existence, both (most probably) from the pen of Joscelin; one appended to the Historiola (see above p. 11. note f), of which the Puritan "Lyfe" is a translation; the other (which is a distinct Life, although containing many passages almost identical with the first named) inserted in the De Antiq. Brit. Eccl. The latter is not in all the copies of the first edition of the last named book; and where it does exist, is continued to very different periods, the book having been printed under the Archbishop's own superintendence for private distribution among his friends, and each successive a [This edition is usually dated in I. PART tions of our first Bishops; which were in the London edition, and are omitted in this edition of Hannow. This is clear enough by the very title="A History of seventy Archbishops,”—and there are in this edition but sixty-nine Archbishops, because the Life of Archbishop Parker is wanting; which nevertheless is promised in the Life of Archbishop Warham p. 312, -"Ut in Matthæi Parker Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi vitá inferius dicemus"--" As we shall say hereafter in the Life of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury ." You see how infortunate you are in accusing others of forgery. [The register which b Your author proceedeth, "Any man reading the printed that book book, will manifestly see it is a merely foisted and inserted contains, a thing, having no connexion, correspondence, or affinity, either with that which goeth before, or followeth it." genuine portion of it.] Say you so? There was never any thing more fitly inserted. The author undertaketh to write the Lives of seventy succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury, from Austin to Matthew Parker, and having premitted some general observations "concerning the antiquity" of Christian religion in Britanny, with the "names of some Archbishops of London," and "the original and changes of Episcopal sees in England," and some other generalities concerning "the privileges of the see of Canterbury," and the conversion of Kent; just before he enters upon the life of St. Austin the first Archbishop, he presenteth the reader with a summary view of the Archbishopric of Canterbury, at that time when the book was first printed, in the year 1572; with the names of all the Bishops of the province at that time, their countries, their arms, both of their sees and of their families, their respective ages, their universities, their degrees in schools, with the times of their several consecrations, if they were ordained Bishops, or confirmations, if they were translated from another see. It is hardly possible for the wit of man to contrive more matter into a lesser room. Then he sets down a like table for the province of York; and, lastly, an alphabetical catalogue of the Bishops, whose Lives were described in this book, and among the rest, Archbishop Parker; whose Life (if you call it "foisting") is "foisted" out of this Hannow edition. If this hath "no 470 [p. 312. l. 31. ed. 1605. Parker's name occurs also in the table of Lives (at p. 40 of this edition), of course without reference to any page of the volume.] connexion or affinity with that which goeth before, and DISCOURSE followeth after," I know not what connexion or affinity is. sistent with Your friend's last exception against the authority of that [And conbook called Antiquitates Britanniæ, is, that "it containeth the rest of the book.] more things done after Matthew Parker had written that book." So you confess, that Archbishop Parker himself (about whom all our controversy is) was the author of that book; wherein I agree with you. The conclusion of the preface, and many other reasons, invite me to do so. Surely this author meant, that there is something contained in this register, which is not within the compass of the following Lives in the Hannow edition (that may well be, because Matthew Parker's Life is foisted out in this edition); but there is nothing which was not in the London edition, much more largely than 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 frontispiece of it in the Hannow edition, with M. P. for Matthew Parkers. Matthew Parker died May the 27th, anno 1575: he printed his book at London three years before his death, without the author's name, in the year 1572. I appeal to the ingenuous reader (let him be of what communion he will, or never so full of scribed.] d See above p. 11. note d.] C With all deference to Bramhall's judgment, the last words of the Preface appear to lead to a rather different conclusion; viz. that the actual composition of the book was the work either of Jocelyn or of some one dependent upon the Archbishop, and not of the Archbishop himself. They run thus,"Cujus" (i. e. fructûs e libro percipiendi) "tota laus ei tribuenda est, qui eâdem vigilantiâ et sedulitate, quâ singula quæ ad Xtianam gerendam Ecclesiam sunt necessaria, rimatur atque colligit, etiam in istius sedis antiquitatem penitus retrospexit, nosque peregrinantes ac errantes ad certissimam rerum nostrarum fidem atque veritatem amanter iterum reduxit domum," &c.] f [See p. 11. note d.] [The last date in the above-mentioned table or register (whether in the editions of 1572 or 1605), is that of the consecration of Edmund Freake to the see of Rochester, 9 March, 1571 (i. e. 1571-2). A list of Kings and contemporary Archbishops, which occurs likewise in many copies of the edition of 1572, but is not in the Hannow edition, extends to Abp. Parker inclusive as printed, but with the addition in MS. of Grindal and Whitgift and no more, in one copy in the Bodleian; as is the case also with a list of Cambridge Bishops in the account of Cambridge University, which is added to most of the copies of the edit. of 1572, in that preserved in Merton Library. These may be added to the multiplied proofs of the absurdity of supposing the edition of 1572 to have been a forgery of 1605. Further, May 27 in the text is a misprint or mistake for May 17; the day on which the Archbishop really died (Strype's Parker, bk. iv. c. 44). And, lastly, the table in question contains several errors, one or two in common with the Life of Parker itself (see above p. 92. note q), others either obvious misprints or as obviously arising from carelessness.] PART prejudice), whether it be credible, that Archbishop Parker's I. own book should be printed in London by the Queen's [Of the printer, in his lifetime, 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 Archbishop Parker himself (who was the principal 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 always kept in the most public and conspicuous places of great cities, whither every one hath access 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 men's memories, ought not to be admitted to make conjectural exceptions now. Now the Fathers come to shew, how their doctors did obtestimony ject to our Protestant clergy "the nullity and illegality of own doc- their ordination." If their doctors give a cause or reason of of their tors against of our orders. ] the validity their knowledge, we are bound to answer that: but if they object nothing but their own judgment and authority, we regard it not; their judgment may weigh something with them, but nothing at all with us. This is not to make themselves advocates, but judges 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? [1. Dr. Bristow gives no his deter The first is Dr. Bristow ;-"Consider what Church that is, whose ministers are but very laymen, unsent, uncalled, unreasons for consecrated, holding therefore amongst us, when they repent mination and return, no other place but of laymen, in no case adsubject.] mitted, no, nor looking to minister in any office; unless they take orders which before they had not "." upon the h [Motives to the Cathol. Faith, § 21. fol. 91. a. Antw. 1574, and 1599; quoted by Talbot from Champney. The latter clause stands in the original thus: "unless they take our orders which before they had not," the word omitted by Champney and Talbot destroying the whole force of their argument. Bristow in fol. 90. b. had affirmed, that the English "seek as much as they can possibly, to be consecrated by one of our" (Romanist) "ordre, least there might some danger or doubt aryse afterward of their right institution;" and in § 22. fol. 93. a, 94. b. he denies that they can shew "the lawful, orderly, intiere, without any breach, and sound notorious succession of Bishopes," &c., "ever synce the Apostles' tyme." The man who |