V. Here is Dr. Bristow's determination, but where are his DISCOURSE grounds? He bringeth none at all, but the practice of the Roman Church, and that not general. Paul the Fourth and Cardinal Pole and the Court of Rome in those days were of another judgment; and so are many others; and so may they themselves come to be, when they have considered more seriously of the matter,—that we have both the same old essentials. That which excuseth their re-ordination from formal sacrilege (for from material 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 Nag's Head Ordination in Dr. Bristow? Then had been the time to have objected it, and printed it, if there had been any reality in it. Either Dr. Bristow had never heard of this merry pageant, or he was ashamed of it. Here we meet with Dr. Fulke again, and what they say of him shall be answered in its proper place'. Their next witness is Mr. Reynolds ;-"There is no herds- [2. Nor Mr. man in all Turkey, who doth not undertake the government Reynolds.] of his herd upon better reason, and greater right, order, and authority, than these your magnificent apostles," &c. * And why a "herdsman in Turkey," but only to allude to his 471 title of "Calvino-Turcismus?" A "herdsman in Turkey” hath as much right to order his herd, as a herdsman in Christendom; affirmed this and no more, had certainly never heard of the Nag's Head story. And the case is plainer from the fact, that Worthington, who in 1608 (four years after Holywood) published a Latin work founded on Bristow's and professing to be a translation of it by Bristow himself, although almost entirely a different book, adds to the above passage an assertion, that Parker, Grindall, Sandys, Horne, and the others, having been ordained priests "secundum Catholicum ritum," thought themselves Bishops and even Archbishops "sine novâ ordinatione," and were made Bishops "vel solis literis Regiis vel ridiculâ quâdam consecratione eorum qui nullam nisi a Reginâ potestatem consecrandi acceperant" (Antihæret. Motiva, Motiv. 24. § 4. pp. 266, 277). And even this (which is unfairly quoted by Le Quien as from Bristow in 1567;-if it was his, it was not published until 1608, which [See below in c. ix.] [Calvino-Turcism., lib. iv. c. 15. p. 914. Antw. 1597; quoted by Talbot from Champney. Reynolds is speaking in the passage in question principally of foreign Protestants; and affirms of their ministers and (perhaps, but not expressly) of the English clergy, that they are so "nullo Episcopo designante;" which proves nothing as to his grounds for denying English orders, but merely the fact that he did deny them. In page 909 where he is speaking in particular of the English Church, 'as appears by a particular address to "Englishmen," he speaks of English Bishops as having no vocation "nisi a solâ Principe," but immediately explains himself to be speaking of their "election," scil. by the intervention of the Royal letter missive.] PART unless perhaps your Doctor did think, that dominion was founded in grace, not in nature. This is saying, but we expect proving. It is well known, that you pretend more to a [Acts vi. 6, "magnificent Apostolate,” than we. If the authority of the 23-1 Tim. Holy Scripture (which knoweth no other essentials of ordinaiv. 14, v. 22, tion but "imposition of hands '," and these words, "Receive xiii. 3, xiv. -2 Tim. i. 6.] 22.] [3. Dr. Stapleton gality to the Holy Ghost m"), if the perpetual practice of the Universal Church", if the prescription of the ancient Council of Carthage and above two hundred orthodox Bishops, with the concurrent approbation of the Primitive Fathers P, be sufficient grounds, we want not sufficient grounds for the exercise of our sacred functions. But, on the contrary, there is no "herdsman in Turkey," who hath not more sufficient grounds or assurance of the lawfulness of his office, than you have for the discharge of your holy orders upon your own grounds. The Turkish herdsman receives his master's commands without examining his intention; but according to your grounds, if in a hundred successive ordinations there were but one Bishop who had an intention not to ordain or no intention to ordain, or but one Priest who had an intention not to baptize or no intention to baptize any of these Bishops, then your whole succession cometh to nothing. But I must ask still, where is your Nag's Head Ordination in all this? Mr. Reynolds might have made a pleasant parallel between the Nag's Head Ordination and the ordination of the Turkish Mufti, 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 9." Their third witness is Dr. Stapleton, in his Counterblast objects ille- against Bishop Horne;-"To say truly, you are no Lord Winchester, nor elsewhere, but only Mr. Robert Horne; . . Is it not notorious that you and your colleagues were not the Nag's ordained according to the prescript, I will not say of the secration.] Church, but even of the very statutes? our orders, but says nothing of Head Con How then can you can. 2-4; ap. Labb., Concil., tom. ii. pp. 1199. D. E, 1200. A. Two hundred and fourteen Bishops assisted at this Council.] P [See Bellarm., as before quoted, p. 1534. B-D.] [Plaut., Pers., I. i. 42.] V. challenge to yourself the name of the Lord Bishop of Win- DISCOURSE chester?.. You are without any consecration at all of your Metropolitan, himself poor man being no Bishop neither "." This was a loud blast indeed: but if Dr. Stapleton could have said any thing of the Nag's Head Ordination, he would have given another manner of blast, that should have made the whole world echo again with the sound of it. In vain you seek any thing of the Nag's Head in your writers until after the year 1600. For answer, Dr. Stapleton raiseth no objection from the institution of Christ, whereupon, and only whereupon, the validity or invalidity of ordination doth depend; but only from the laws of England. First, for the canons, we maintain, that our form of Episcopal ordination hath the same essentials with the Roman; but in other things of an inferior allay it differeth from it. The Papal canons were never admitted for binding laws in England, further than they were received by ourselves, and incorporated into our laws: but our ordination is conformable to the canons of the Catholic Church, which prescribe no new matter r [The quotation in the text is made up of three distinct clauses, as above marked; taken from widely separated passages-viz. bk. i. c. 1. fol. 7. b, 9. b; bk. iii. c. 19. fol. 301. a. of the original edit., Louv. 1567, of Stapleton's Counterblast to M. Horne's Vayn Blaste against M. Fekenham (tom. ii. pp. 838, 839, 840, 1031, in Stapleton's Works, ed. 1620), written upon occasion of Horne's tendering the oath of supremacy to Feckenham, Abbot of Westminster. The second passage should stand thus, "were not ordained no not according to," &c. A perusal of the context of the above passages, which Talbot borrowed as they stand above from Champney, will prove beyond possibility of doubt, that the writer of them had never heard of anything in the slightest degree resembling the Nag's Head story. In his Preface to the Reader (pp. 828, 829. ed. 1620; not paged in edit. of 1567) he advances the legal objection noticed above p. 79. note p; in bk. i. c. 1. (here quoted) he specifies as the grounds of his denial of Horne's orders, 1. the want of the Pope's confirmation, 2. that he did not possess "approbatam et assuetam vocationem et consecrationem ;" and lastly in bk. iii. c. 19 he returns to the legal objection. Other passages are quoted by Le Quien (Null. des Ordin. Angl., I. PART 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 legalt: and for the validity of it, we crave no man's favour. [4. Nor Dr. Their last witness is Dr. Harding, who had as good a will Harding. (if there had been any reality in it) to have spoken of the Nag's Head Ordination as the best, but he speaketh not a syllable of it more than the rest; and though they keep a great stir 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, and in St. Hierome's sense; what will he infer [See above pp. 94-96.] [Detection of Sundrie fowle Errours, &c., in the Defense of the Apologie, fol. 229. b. Louv. 1568, from Hieron., Adv. Lucif., tom. iv. P. 2. p. 295; quoted by Talbot from Champney. In the Confutat. of the Apologie, Pt. ii. c. 5. fol. 56. a-57. b, 59. a, b. Antw. 1565, Harding had affirmed, that exclusive of the "apostates" (viz. from the Romanist side) that be fledde unto your congregation," "ye have not in your secte consecrated Bishops; and therefore being withoute Priests made with lawfull laying on of handes . . . how can ye say,.. that ye have any lawful ministers at all?" He had then gone on to distinguish between succession of person and succession of doctrine, and to deny Jewel only the latter, affirming in the margin that he could " prove no lawfull succession;" and demanding "the register" (not of his own consecration, as Talbot in answering Bramhall assumes, but) "of your Bishops continually succeeding one another from the beginning." From succession he passed on to vocation, demanding "who had laid hands on" Jewel, "who had consecrated him " Bp. of Salisbury, and other questions to the same purpose, adding that " Bishoppes have alwaies after the Apostles' tyme according to the ecclesiastical canons benne consecrated by three other Bishoppes with the consent of the Metropolitane and confirmation of the Bishop of Rome." The whole of this passage, with Jewel's answer (for which see below p. 129. note d) and Harding's reply, is repeated in the Detection &c. as above quoted, fol. 229. b-231. a. Another passage quoted with the same view as the above, occurs in fol. 59. a, b. of the Confutation, and fol. 197. a. of the Detection, where Harding demands of Jewel, in case he affirm his "vocation" to be "ordinarie," to "shew the letters" of his "orders"or at least shew us that you have received power to do the office you presume to exercise by our order of laying on of hands and consecration:" adding, that "order and consecration you have not; for who could give that to you of all these newe ministers how so ever you call them which he hath not himselfe?" For a detailed examination of this and other passages of Harding adduced for this purpose, see Browne, cc. ix. x. in reply to Le Quien, tom. i. pp. 288-309. It may be added here in general: 1. that Harding in denying the validity of his own ordination by the new Ordinal, implies the fact of that ordination, and therefore in arguing from his own case to Jewel's, bears testimony also to the fact of Jewel's consecration by that Ordinal, i.e. contradicts the Nag's Head story: 2. that it is impossible to believe, that Harding, or the others, knowing the Nag's Head story, would have omitted it, while the utmost licence which the most forced construction of their words would admit, will do no more than make that story a possible interpretation of them; 3. that Jewel did in his reply affirm the fact of his own consecration and that of the other Bishops by affirming (what alone was denied) the canonicalness of the way in which it was performed (see p. 129. note d) 4. that the words last quoted from Harding in this note imply necessarily that Harding believed Jewel to have been consecrated by Parker and others of the new Bps. and therefore not at the Nag's Head by Scory or Barlow.] V. from thence? Next, he asks Bishop Jewel "of Bishoply DISCOURSE and priestly vocation and sending." What new canting. language is this? Could he not as well have made use of the old ecclesiastical 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 sent him, the king sent him, the Church sent him, in several respects. He telleth us, that when he had "duly considered” his Protestant ordination in King Edward's time, he "did not take himself for lawful deacon in all respects "." If his Protestant 472 ordination were a nullity (as these men say), then he was a "lawful deacon" in no respect. Pope Paul the Fourth and Cardinal Pole were of another mind. Then follow his two grand exceptions against our ordination, wherein you shall find nothing of your Nag's Head fable; the former exception is, that King "Edward's Bishops who gave orders were out of orders themselves;" the second is, that "they ministered not orders according to the rite and manner of the Catholic Church z." For the former exception, I refer him to the Council of Carthage in St. Austin's time, and for both his exceptions to Cardinal Pole's confirmation of King Edward's Bishops and Priests, and Paul the Fourth's ratification of his act b. 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 Jewel answers with profound silence;" yet they add, "only he says without any proof, that their Bishops are made by form and order, and by the consecration of the Archbishop and other three Bishops, and by admission of the prince." I expected "pro |