V. from the in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth; which is thus en- Discourse tituled, "An Act declaring the manner of making and conNag's Head secrating of the Archbishops and Bishops of this realm to Consebe good, lawful, and perfect "." "An Act declaring,"-not cration;enacting or making;-" the manner of making and con- 8 Eliz. c. 1.] secrating the Archbishops and Bishops of this realm,”—that is, those in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time, as appeareth by the whole body of the Act;-" to be good, lawful, and perfect." The title of the statute alone is sufficient to confute this fable; but there is much more in the body of the statute; as where it "approveth the making and consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops to be duly and orderly done, according to the laws of this realm." If it was "done duly and orderly according to the laws of this realm," then it was not done at the Nag's Head, nor after such a silly ridiculous manner as these Fathers do relate it. That form differeth from our form in all things. In the consecrater, or minister of the consecration:-we must have 459 three Bishops at the least, there was but one. In the matter:-our matter is imposition of hands, their matter was the laying the Bible upon the head or shoulders of the person consecrated. In the form :- -our form is "Receive the Holy Ghost," &c.; their form was, "Take thou authority to preach the word of God sincerely." The statute proccedeth, that "they were elected, made, and consecrated, Archbishops and Bishops, according to such order and form, and with such ceremonies in and about their consecrations, as were allowed and set forth by the said Acts, statutes, and orders, annexed to the said Book of Common Prayer before mentioned." This is plain enough. If the Parliament say truly, then they were consecrated in a Church, not in a tavern; not according to the brainsick whimsies of a self-conceited fool, or rather the ludibrious device of an arch-enemy, but according to the form prescribed by the Church and kingdom. The Parliament had more reason to know the truth than these Fathers; for there were personally present both the persons who did consecrate, and the persons who were consecrated, and many I. PART Lords and gentlemen who were eye-witnesses of the consecration. Choose, reader, whether thou wilt trust the tale of a single, obscure, malicious spy, tattling in a corner; or the asseveration of the Parliament of England, in the face of the sun, published to the world in print. [IX. The ninth rea The Parliament testifieth further, that it is and may be very evident and apparent, that "no cause of scruple, ambiguity, or doubt, can or may justly be objected against the said elections, confirmations, or consecrationsb." Do they think the Parliament would have given such a testimony for the Nag's Head Consecrations? And so they conclude, that "all persons which had been or should be ordered or consecrated after the form and order prescribed" in the said English Ordinal, were "in very deed, and by authority of Parliament were declared and enacted to be, rightly ordered and consecrated"." The scope of the Parliament and of this Act, was to confirm the consecration of Archbishop Parker and the rest of the Bishops, and to free them from cavils and objections; but they confirm no ordination at the Nag's Head, neither can their words be extended any way to such a ridiculous consecration; therefore the ordination of Archbishop Parker and the rest was no Nag's Head Ordination. IX. My ninth reason to prove that Nag's Head relation son against fabulous and counterfeit, is taken from the testimony of that the Nag's Head Con- book formerly mentioned, of the lives of the seventy Archsecration; bishops of Canterbury; wherein the consecrations of ArchDe Anti- bishop Parker and all the rest are particularly related". tannica Ec- That which was published to the world in print above thirty clesiæ.] years before the death of Queen Elizabeth, was not lately -from the quitate Bri forged; but the legal ordination of Archbishop Parker and the rest, according to the register, was published to the world in print above thirty years before the death of Queen Elizabeth. Again, that which was published to the world in print with the allowance of Archbishop Parker, or rather by Archbishop Parker himself, was not intended by Archbishop b [Ibid., paragr. 11.] c [Ibid., § 5.] [See the Postscript, above pp. 11, 12; and below in c. viii. same mistake of "Richard" for "John" of Bedford in this book, as was mentioned before; arising of course from the same source, the mistake in the original commission.] Parker to be smothered or concealed. Men do not use to DISCOURSE V. publish their forgeries in print; especially so soon, and of such public actions, whilst there are so many eye-witnesses living. That the relation was not confuted,-that the author was never called to an account for it,-that no man stood up against the registers, nor on the behalf of the Nag's Head Ordination, in those days, that Mr. Neale was so tame to endure the lie in print, and all his party so silent, at that time when the truth might so easily have been discovered, as if it had been "written with a beam of the sun" (as it was indeed),—is an evident proof, that our relation is undeniable, and the relation which these Fathers make, is but a drowsy dream, which could not endure the light of the sun. tenth the Nag's secration; X. The tenth and last reason to prove our relation true, X. The and theirs fabulous, is taken from all sorts of witnesses, ours reason and theirs indifferently. Mr. Mason reckoneth up seven of against our writers, who had justified the legality of our ordinations, Head Conand cited our registers as authentic records, before himself; from the Bishop Jewel, Bishop Hall, Bishop Godwin, Dr. Collins h, evidence Mr. Camden, Mr. Sheldon, and one who was then living of witnesses.] [Of our [De Præsul. Angl., in V. Parkeri, own wrip. 219. Lat. ed. of 1616; referring to ters.] Mason. Neither the register nor Mason are expressly referred to in the edition of 1615.] [Jewel certainly justified both the legality and the canonical order of our ordinations, and is quoted by Mason (bk. iii. c. 18. § 4-9) as so doing; but he did not "cite the registers," because the registers would have been no answer to his opponent. He asserted the rights of the case, and the customary order of English consecrations, which were then disputed; but had no need to prove the facts of particular cases, which were not then disputed. See Def. of Apol., P. ii. c. v. Divis. 1. pp. 148, 152. ed. 1571; and below in c. viii. pp. 128, &c.] f [Honour of Married Clergy, bk. i. sect. 17. pp. 91-93. first edit. in 1620; referring to Mason. The latter (bk. iii. c. 18. § 14. ed. 1625.) does not quote either Bp. Hall or the three next mentioned in the text as having cited the registers" before" him; but merely says, that since he published his book' (i. e. the first edition), 'he had met with four other men.. who had truly taken the consecration of Parker out of the register, as he had done.' Sheldon therefore is of those named the only one, whose evidence is to the point. The first edition of Mason's work appeared in 1613.] g [Epphata to F. T., or, the Defence of.. the Lord Bishop of Elie (i. e. Andrewes).. concerning his answer to Card, Bellarmine's Apologie, &c., c. 10. § 50. p. 490. Cambr. 1617; by Dr. Sam. Collins, Reg. Prof. of Divin. at Cambridge; referring to Mason, but adding that he himself had had his "instructions long since ex alio capite" (p. 494).] [Annal. Eliz. P. i. pp. 24, 25. ed. 1639. p. 38. of the orig. ed. of the first Part, Lond. 1615; evidently, although not expressly, quoting from the register, and not referring to Mason. See also p. 103. ed. 1639. (p. 108. ed. 1615.), where the registers are expressly quoted.] of all sorts I. PART when this question was so hotly debated in King James his time, and had been an eye-witness of Archbishop Parker's consecrations at Lambeth, that was, the Earl of Nottingham'. One that was well stored with our English writers in Queen 460 Elizabeth's time, might add many morem; but that cannot well be expected from me at this distance. [Of their writers and 1. Mr. Clerke.] We may produce as many of theirs, who have confessed or been convinced of the truth of Archbishop Parker's consecration. First, Mr. Clerke" (whose father was register to Cardinal Pole in his legantine court, and he himself an actuary under him), when Theophilus Higgins fled out of England to St. Omers, or Douay° (I remember not well whether). There he met with this Mr. Clerke, who falling into discourse with him concerning his reasons why he had forsaken the Church of England, Mr. Higgins told him, that one of them was that saying of St. Hierome, "It is no Church which hath no Priests P;" reflecting upon this Nag's Head Consecration. Mr. Clerke approved well of his caution, because 'in dubiis tutior pars sequenda;' but withal he wished, that what their authors had written concerning that point [See below c. ix. ; and Mason, bk. iii. c. 7. § 5.] m [E. g. Thynne, in his Catalogue of Archbishops of Canterbury inserted in Hollinshead (one of the passages struck out of the castrated editions), pp. 1434, 1491, Lond. 1586; being a very short abridgment from the De Antiq. Brit. Eccl., and quoting the Register from that book;-Sutcliffe, Exam, and Confut. of Kellison's Survey, c. i. p. 5. Lond. 1606. (see below in c. viii. p. 131.); -Butler (see below c. viii. p. 131).] n [Francis Clerk, Notary Public, acted for Antony Huse, the Registrar, at Parker's consecration (see the record at the end of this discourse); and a person of the same name practised civil law with great success for the space of 40 years until about 1599 (Wood, Athen. Oxon, vol. i. pp. 657, 658. ed. Bliss); whom Tanner (Biblioth. Britannico-Hibern.) supposes to be the same with the notary. A John Clark is mentioned also in the Record as assisting at Parker's consecration. Now the Clerke spoken of in the text seems to have been a Romanist, and to have been alive in 1609 or 1610 (see next note); both of which conditions might agree very well with a son of Francis Clerke: and nothing is more probable than that his son should have heard an answer given as is most likely by his own father to the advocate in question. To the witnesses above cited two printed testimonies are to be added of indisputable credit in such a point; viz. Sanders (De Schism Angl., lib. iii. p. 347), and Stapleton (Counterblast &c., Pref. tom. ii. p. 828. ed. 1620); the first affirming that the Bishops in Qu. Elizabeth's reign were required to be consecrated by the legally established Ordinal; the second founding an argument upon the fact, that they were so consecrated.] [Theophilus Higgons (as Wood spells his name), first of Ch. Ch., then chaplain to Bp. Ravis, and Lecturer of St. Dunstan's in Fleet Street, turned Romanist about 1608, and went to Douay, St. Omer's, and Rouen, but was afterwards (in 1610, or 1611) brought back to the Engl. Church by Bp. Morton (Wood, Athen. Oxon., vol. iii. pp. 482-485. ed. Bliss). He died in 1659 (Wood, ibid. p. 485). His connection with Morton accounts for Barwick's acquaintance with him.] P["Ecclesia non est, quæ non habet Sacerdotes," Hieron., Advers. Lucifer., Op. tom. iv. P. ii. p. 302. F.] V. could be made good; confessing that he himself was in Eng- DISCOURSE land at that time (the witness doth not positively remember whether at the consecration or not). But Mr. Clerke said, that he himself was present, when the advocate of the Arches, whom the Queen sent to peruse the register after the consecration, and to give her an account whether it was performed canonically, returned her this answer, that he had perused the register, and that no just exception could be made against the consecration, but' (he said) something might have been better, particularly that Bishop Coverdale was not in his rochet;' but he assured her, 'that could make no defect in the consecration.' Here we have, if not an eyewitness, yet at least an ear-witness, in an undoubted manner, of the legal consecration, and of the truth of the register, and of the judgment of the Advocate of the Arches concerning the canonicalness of the consecration. Thus much Mr. Higgins was ready to make faith of, whilst he was living; and Mr. Barwick, a person of very good credit, from him at this present. The second witness is Mr. Higgins himself, who coming [2. Mr. Higgins.] afterwards into England had a desire to see the register, and did see it, and finding those express words in it,-" Milo vero Coverdallus non nisi togá laneâ talari utebatur,”—and remembering withal what Mr. Clerke had told him, whereas the canonical garments of the rest of the Bishops are particularly described, he was so fully satisfied of the truth of the consecration and lawful succession of our English Bishops, that he said he never made doubt of it afterwards. My third witness is Mr. Hart, a stiff Roman Catholic, but [3. Mr. Hart.] a very ingenuous person, who having seen undoubted copies of Doctor Reynolds his ordination by Bishop Freake, and of Bishop Freake's consecration by Archbishop Parker, and lastly of Archbishop Parker's own consecration, he was so fully satisfied with it, that he himself did raze out all that part of the conference between him and Doctor Reynolds 9. [The conference between Dr. Reynolds (or Rainolds) and Mr. Hart was held about 1583, and published first in the following year (according to Wood, Athen. Oxon., vol. ii. p. 15. ed. Bliss). The account in the text is taken from Mason (bk. iii. c. 18. § 13), who had it from Reynolds himself. An attes- |