THE
SUCCESSION
OF
Proteſtant BISHOPS Afferted ;
Ο R, Τ Η Ε
Regularity of the ORDINA-
TIONS of the CHURCH of
ENGLAND Juſtify'd.
WHEREIN
The Firſt Proteſtant Biſhops are clear'd
from the Aſperſions lately caft upon them by
Mr. THOMAS WARD, a Romaniſt, in his
Book, Intituled, The Controverſy of Ordination
truly Stated, &c.
By DANIEL WILLIAMS, a Presby-
ter of the Church of England.
Voluntas inordinate poft fe trahit judicium rationis, ut
verum judicetur illud quod placet. Thomas Aquinas.
LONDON:
Printed for CHARLES RIVINGTON, at the Bible
and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCCXXI.
(Price Two Shillings.)

BX
5136
.W68

398138-1 12
TOSTEPHEN PARR y, Eſq;
a Member of the Honour-
able Houſe of Commons.
SIR,
Come now to give you an Account
of what I have done, in complyance
with your Deſires, in the Contro-
verſy of Ordination, which has al-
ready fo frequently been brought up-
on the Stage by the Adherents of the Court of
Rome ; and ſince you have been pleas'd to be
inftrumental in engaging me in this Cauſe, I
think I can apply myſelf to no Body ſo pro-
perly to be my Patron as to your felf.
I preſume we are both agreed to wave the
ordinary Style of Dedications, For I know you
are much better pleas’d to be a Patron without
a Compliment, than to want an Opportunity
to be truly ſuch ; I ſhall therefore omit even
your juſt Praiſes, as well in your publick as in
your private Capacity, and rather chooſe to give
you ſome Account of the Subject debated in
this Treatiſe.
The Book you put into my Hands, to which
this is an Anſwer, contains little or nothing

A 2
new
iv
the Preface.
new, it is only a Collection of thoſe little mean
Quibbles and Fallhoods in Fact, which have
been frequently urg'd before, and have been as
frequently confuted: But it is the way of the
Prieſts and Emiſſaries of the Court of Rome,
never to ſuffer any Controverſy to drop which
they once engag’d in, they inake it even ne-
ceſſary to be ſupported, tho' by ſuch low Arts
which Men of Ingenuity and Senſe would be
loath to practiſe.
A very polite Writer has obſerv'd with re-
ſpect to Philofophy, “ that
BURNET's Theo-
" there is no Temper or Ge-
ry of the Earth in
" nius ſo improper for it, as
" that which we call a mean
“ and narrow Spirit, and which the Greeks call
Littleneſs of Soul. And truly I think the
fame may be ſaid of thoſe who engage in Re-
ligious Controverſies, who are poſſeſs’d with
ſo mean, fo narrow a diſpoſition as to ſacrifice
the eternal Laws of Truth to the Intereſts of
any Faction ; But when this is practis'd in de-
bates about Matters of Fact, it demonſtrates
the Perſon guilty of it to be not only very
Wicked, but very Fooliſh ; very Wicked, be-
cauſe it underinines the Foundation of all Con-
fidence between Man and Man, and in a Word,
is deſtructive of all ſocial Virtues. Very Fool-
iſh, becauſe Matters of Fact are generally more
obvious to all Capacities than Matters of Spe-
culation, and conſequently the want of Inge-
nuity is much more liable to a Diſcovery, and
more eſpecially when the Facts are ſuch as are
acted
acted as upon a publick Stage, in the Eyes of
all Men, and atteſted to future Generations by
publick Acts of State, publick Liturgies, pub-
lick Records, and all other Requiſites neceſſary
to prove any Fact.
This, Sir, you'll find to have been the Caſe
of the Author of The Controverſy of Ordination
truly Stated, &c. For when he denies that
we had any Biſhops or Ordinals at the begin-
ning of the Reformation, that we were forc'd
to put up with a ludicrous Conſecration at the
Nag's-Head in Cheapfide, &c. he raiſes an Op-
poſition to ſuch Evidenices as muſt render him
and his Memory very contemptible: For who
can, without a very great ſtretch of Fancy, be-
lieve, that our firſt Reformers ſhould make Ci-
vil and Eccleſiaſtical Laws, whereby Confecra-
tions ſhould be made a neceſſary qualification
in a Biſhop towards the Poffeffion of a Bi-
fhoprick, and compoſe and eſtabliſh Ordinals in
order to ſuch Conſecrations; and farther, that
publick Regiſters ſhould appear in ſeveral of
our publick Offices of theſe Conſecrations, and
other Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Requiſites incident
to their Calling; and yet notwithſtanding all
this, to believe ſtill further that theſe Laws
were not ſubmitted to, that theſe Ordinals were
not us’d, and that our firſt Reform’d Bi-
ſhops intruded themſelves into Biſhopricks,
contrary to all theſe Laws, contrary to
the teſtiinony of all our publick Regiſters :
This, I ſay, ſeems to be ſuch an impo-
ſition upon ſuch reaſonable Creatures as Men

A 3
are
ví
are; that none but Perſons ſtrongly addicted
to the civil Intereſts of the Court of Rome
can be guilty of: Before they perſwade
us to believe thoſe Things, they muſt prove
themſelves to be as infallible in Facts, as
they pretend to be in Faith.
But what is moft obſervable in this Con-
troverſy, is, the ſeveral flow Steps and De-
grees it took, before it attain’d to the pre-
ſent pitch of Perfection. In the Time of
Henry the Eighth nothing of this Controver-
ſy was heard of; but after the Death of
Edward the Sixth, in the Marian Perſecu-
tion, the Covetouſneſs of fome, and the Paſ-
fion of others, ignorant and weak Men,
prompted them to diſpute the validity of
Orders, either receiv'd or confer'd by Here-
ticks; but they were not uniform even in
this, for the poorer Prieſts, who had little
to loſe by the ſuppoſition of their want of a
true Ordination, were, upon their Repentance
or rather their relapſe to Popery, adınitted
to the exerciſe of their Functions, only with
a few Amendments agreeable with the Su-
perftitions of thoſe Times.
WHEN Queen Elizabeth came to the Throne,
and thoſe exild Biſhops were reſtor’d, who had
been forc'd to fly for the Chriſtian Cauſe in the
former Reign, there was nothing ſaid at firſt a-
gainſt their Ordinations, ſo far from it, that
the Pope himſelf ( as you will find it obſerv’d
in this Treatiſe) was inclin'd to eſtabliſh our
Liturgy in the vulgar Tongue, in cafe lie ſhould
be
vii
be reſtor'd to his old Uſurpations; but no ſooner
was this found to be a thing not to be effected,
when thoſe, who had rather be Subject to the
Dominion of a Foreigner, than to their own
natural Sovereign, launch'd out, in this as well
as in other Controverſies, into very great de-
grees of Extravagancy, as if the bounds of
Truth and Falſhood were to have been deter-
minable only by their Humours. The only
thing that ſurpriſeth me, is, that Natives of this
Soil, fo remarkable for their Modeſty, ſhould
in ſome particular Inſtances of that Age, be-
tray ſuch a want of it ; certainly Men that
had ſuch Principles, and Inclinations about
them, as the Romaniſ Writers of thoſe Times ap- .
pear to have had, muſt have been poſſeſs'd with
ſome other inore powerful Noſtrum againſt
bluſhing, than that which Titus Oats is report-
ed to have usd in a Morning before he publiſh'd
fome of his ſurpriſing Teſtimonies.
I ſhall not revive the Scurrilities of that
Time, by troubling you with an Account of
them: I ſhall only obſerve that the Subject of
Ordination was but ſlightly touch'd upon by the
Writers of that Reign. For the Story of the
Nags-Head was not as yet invented, and the
firſt Writer wherein I find any mention made
of it, is one Kelliſon, a Man remarkable in no-
thing, but as the firſt Inventer, or at leaſt the
firſt Publiſher of this story in the beginning of
Reign of King James the firſt : His words are
theſe. " The Author of the Book
“
of the Schiſm of Ingland, tells Reply to Dr.
Sutcliff. p. 31.
* us how when your New Super-
A 4
intendents

viii
>
“ intendents were to be created, they finding
none to Conſecrate them, were fain to make
their Suit to a Biſhop of Ireland to aſſiſt at
" their Confecration, who refuſing, they made
one another Biſhops : And as I have heard
credibly reported, fome of them were made
Biſhops at the Nags-Head, with no other Ce-
remonies, then laying the Inglifb Bible on
" their Heads.
You are to obſerve Sir, That the latter
part of this Paſſage, which relates to the Nags-
Head, is Kelliſon's own, and not to be inet with
either in Sanders's Book, De Schiſmate Anglica-
no, which he refers to, or in any other Writer
during the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth.
So that the Credit of this Story depends alto-
gether upon this Kelliſons's Reputation, which,
as he had none to loſe himſelf, ſo he was the
fitter Man to deſtroy the Reputation of other
Men.
FROM this ſlender foundation, all the inco-
herent Clamours relating to a Nags-Head Con-
ſecration took it's Riſe : How it has been
ſince improv'd into a Story attended by many
Circumſtances, you will find ſome Account of
in this Treatiſe: For you muſt know that Rome
never wanted a Genius for Improvements of this
kind, much more refin’d than any the Heathen
World have produc'd.
But one would think that if there had been
any colour for the Truth of this Story, it would
have been ſooner produc'd than the Year 1608,
which is near fifty Years after the time it was
ſupposºd
ix
ſuppos'd to be done; and what is ſtill more re-
markable, is that it was capable of Improve-
ments afterwards. Why was it not publiſh'd
intire at firſt to the World? And why no ſooner?
But Rome well knew, that ſuch an unaccounta-
ble Tale as this would not bear the telling,
while the People of the Age wherein it was
Tranſacted did ſurvive, and even in this, they
have been unfortunate, for there happen'd to be
one ſurviving Witneſs of noble Birth, who had
been preſent at Archbiſhop Parker's Confe-
Creation at Lambeth Chapel, and openly
teſtify'd the contrary to the World under his
Hand when they began to impoſe this Story
upon Mankind : For ſo it happen'd that the
old Earl of Nottingham was alive when this
Story came out, and we have his Certificate to
the contrary in Mr. Maſon. This ſingle Teſti-
mony, if we had to deal with Men of any In-
genuity and Modeſty, would for ever Silence
this Calumny; but the Caſe is otherwiſe, and
who can help it.
I am very ſenſible that ſome of the prevailing
Principles of this Age would ſave me the Trou-
ble of this Vindication ; but ſince what I write
is for the Information of Chriſtians, I am the
leſs follicitous what Opinion others may have
of the preſent Undertaking. Prieſt-craft we
know is a Word of late, very much in Vogue
among the more licentious part of Mankind, and
therefore a Vindication of the Prieſthood a-
mong ſuch Men, may be look'd upon us no ve-
ry faſhionable performance; nor is this all,
there
X
there is ſomething yet inore remarkable, and that
is, that any Perſon engaging in this Cauſe is
ſure, not only to meet with the Reproaches of
thoſe illiterate vain Men, who have no other Me-
rit to recommend them, except a bold Prophane-
neſs; but he will alſo find himſelf no very grate-
ful Object to Perſons who pretends Superiour
Qualifications, and who ought to be Patrons
and Encouragers of Religion and Virtue.
Rome has her Ends in the Vices, and Pro-
phaneneſs of theſe Times. She has of late gain'd
a very plentiful Harveſt, perhaps much grea-
ter than ſhe can boaſt of from the Reſtoration,
until the late bold Revivals of Infidelity, nor is
this much to be wonder'd at, it being natural for
Men to run from one Extreain to another, from
Prophaneneſs to Superſtition; what I now ſay,
is not grounded upon Speculation only ; but
there are alſo many living Inſtances of it now
I know the Free-Thinkers of theſe times,
think theinfelves the fartheſt from Superſtition
of
any People in the World, but herein they
3 re much Miſtaken, not only upon the Accourrt
that they are generally Superſtitious in their In-
fidelity, but alſo becauſe the one is the Parent
of the other, and we may preſume this Rea-
fon, fway'd with ſome Jefuits of late to turn
Converts, not to Chriſtianity, but to Irreligion :
All the World knows the Latitude of thoſe
Peoples Principles, and how well qualified
their Conſciences are for ſuch an Undertaking.
Overturn, overturn, is the Principle they go up-
on
before us.
xi
on in order to Eſtabliſh their Superſtition;
the
Effects of it are too viſible.
But it is ſome comfort to the Religious part
of Mankind, that the Chriſtian Prieſthood has
a few remaining Patrons, ſuch as your ſelf, even
among thoſe in high Places, who notwithſtand-
ing the Diſcouragements they labour under, in
ſome Meaſure upon this Account, yet da re own
themſelves to be Chriſtianis.
IT is for the ſake of ſuch as theſe that I have
taken upon me the preſent Trouble, left there
ſhould any doubts ariſe in the Minds of ſuch
Men concerning the validity of the Prieſthood
of the Church of England, whereby I doubt
not, but I ſhall ſatisfie any reaſonable and real-
ly Religious Difpofition, and as for thoſe I write
againſt, I do not deſpair even to convince ſome
of them, I mean thoſe who are Men of Ho-
nour, Men of Honeſty and Men of Learning,
who hate Mif-repreſentations in Matters of Fact,
whenever they find them, who, by their Birth
and Education, are above ſuch little mean Arts
as thoſe they'll find I have been forc'd to oppoſe.
There are others indeed of my Adverſaries who
I have no imanner of Hopes to gain upon :
They are there, the Prieſts, the Women, and
the ignorant Laymen. I am ſenſible theſe are
not to be ſatisfied by a much inore learned Pen
than mine, becauſe the moſt evident Facts, when
they are againſt them, are falſe ; and the most
inconſiſtent Story when on their Side is True.
I leave theſe to be convinc'd by a Superior Be-
ing.
THERE
xii
V
:. For
THERE is one Thing that requires an Exami.
nation, and that is what Mr. Ward has ſaid up-
on the Head of Contradictions, which he very
freely lays to the Charge of the Church of Eng-
land in her Articles, Homilies, &c. Theſe Con-
tradictions he is very loud about, and ſpares no
Words to repreſent our Eccleſiaſtical Conſtituti-
on juſt as he himſelf would have it; this is not
inuch unlike the uſage the Primitive Chriſti-
ans receiv'd froin the Heathens of old:
they were us’d for their Diverſion to have thein
baited in the Skins of Wild Beaſts. But Mr.
Ward has been very awkward in his Manage-
ment in this, as well as in other things. He
brings one Paſſage out of the Homily againſt Peo
ril of Idolatry, and another out of the Homily of
the Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, which in his blind
Opinion contradicts one another, becauſe one
maintains that it appeareth not by any Story of
Credit, that true and ſincere Preaching hath en-
dured in any one Place above One hundred Yearsò
But that it is evident that Images, : fuperftition,
and worſhipping of Images and Idolatry have con-
tinu'd many Hundred Years. But on the other
Hand in the ſecond Homily referr'd to, our
Church maintains, that our Saviour departing
out of the World unto his Father, promis'd his
Diſciples to ſend down another Comforter that
ſhould continate with them for ever, and direct them
into All Truth ; which thing to be faithfully and
truely perform'd, the Scriptures do fefficiently
witneſs : Neither muſt we think that this Comfor-
ter was either promis'l, or elſe given only to the
Apo-

xiii
Apoſtles, but alſo to the Univerſal Church of Chriſt,
diſpers' tbro the whole world. For unleſs the
Holy Ghoſt had been always preſent, governing
and preſerving the Church from the beginning, it
could never have ſuſtain’d ſo many great Brunts
of Affliction, with ſo little Damage and Harm as
it bath.
THE Contradiction between theſe two Paſ-
ſages, it ſeems is, that whereas the firſt Homily
maintains that true and ſincere Preaching hath en-
dured in no Place above One hundred Years,
and this Latter, that true Faith, by the pro-
mis’d Aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit, was to con-
tinue for ever.
But if Mr. Ward had allow'd
himſelf a little time to think, and ſoften'd a
little the hurry of his Zeal, he might eaſily
have diſentangl'd him felf, and fav'd this Blun-
der for another opportunity, tho' I muſt own, I
do not find he had any Reaſon to be Frugal, he
ſeems to have had enough of theſe for himſelf,
and fomne to ſpare for others.
None can be ignorant, among the leaſt pre-
tenders to reading, that there were many Here-
fies in the earlier Ages of Chriſtianity, nay,
that no Age whatſoever was abſolutely free
from thoſe noxious Weeds; and therefore the
Homily, repreſents the prevailing Nature of Er-
ror, that tho’ there was hardly any Age where-
in true Preaching had generally prevail'd, yet
there were ſeveral Ages wherein Idolatry and
Worſhiping of Images was almoſt univerſally
practi’sd; theſe things are Matters of Fact,
which appear upon the Face of Hiſtory, and
therefore
xiy
>
therefore the Romaniſts ought to conſider how
the latter Part of the Antitheſis is to be an-
fwer'd. But to conclude from hence, that the
Church of Chriſt was not viſible (which the fe-
cond Homily contradicts) is to conclude contrary
to the univerſal Doctrine of all Proteſtants ; I
mean Proteſtants in their Wits, and I am not con-
cern'd for the reſt. We do not deny the Church
of Rome to be a true Church, and that ſhe has
maintain'd all Truths neceſſary for Salvation,
and this we doubt not to be the Effect of theor-
dinary Direction of the Holy Spirit, nor doth
the many notorious and damnable Errors, which
fhe now doth, and hath for many Ages main-
tain'd, deſtroy thoſe fundamental Iruths, which
ſhe holds in Common with all Chriſtians. This
I take to be the meaning of both theſe Homilies,
ſo that there is no ſuch oppoſition between them,
as Mr. Ward contends for.
To clear this point further, I ſhall remind
you of a Paliage in Archbiſhops Laud's Confe-
rence with Fiſher, with reſpect to the viſibility of
the Church of Chriſt.
Laud againſt 56 the whole Church cannot Err
Filber. p. 14.
« in Doctrines abſolutely Fun-
damental, and neceflary to all Mens Salvati-
on, ſeems to me (ſays he) to be the clear pro-
us mife of Chriſt. St. Matth. 16. That the Gates
of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it:'where-
as moſt certain it is, that the Gates of Hell
prevail very far againſt it, if the whole Mi-
« litant Church univerſally taken, can Err, froin,
er in the Foundation : But then this Power
6 of
" That
XV
66
66
66
65
of not erring is not to be conceiv'd, as if the
« Church primo & per fe, Originally, or by a-
ny Power it hath of itſelf: For the Church
is conſtituted of Men, and Humanum eft erra-
qe, all Men can Err. But this power is in it
partly by the virtue of this promiſe of Chrift;
s and partly by the Matter which it teacheth,
which is the unerring word of God, fo plain-
ly and manifeſtly deliver'd to her, as that it
is not poſſible we ſhould univerſally fall from
s it, or teach againſt it in things abſolutely ne-
ceffary to Salvation.
This Sir, is the receiv'd Doctrine of our
Church in this Point, and if Mr. Ward had
read and conſider'd things a little more he would
not, I hope, have ſo rafhly charg'd our Church
with contradictions.
ONE thing more I have to trouble you with,
and then I have done, and that is a Curioſity
communicated to me by my worthy Friend Tho-
mas Rawlinſon, Erq; which clears the Diſpute
about the time of the coming out of King
Edward the Sixths Ordinal, which Mr. Ward
fays was not publiſh'd till the Year 1551, which
is after the time when two of Archbiſhop Parker's
confecrators are ſuppos’d to be Conſecrated by
it. But I find the Ordinal publiſh'd in the Year
1549. The Title of it is this, The forme and
maner of Makyng and Confecratyng of Archebi-
fisoppes, Biſhoppes and Prieſtes and Deacons, 1549,
and the laſt Page, Richardus Grafton Typographus
Regius excudebat, Menſe Martii A.MD XLIX.
cum privilegio ad imprimendum folum.
THIS
xvi
This is a Curioſity which perhaps Mr.Ward
could not eaſily make himſelf Maſter of, they
are only to be met with in ſuch Repoſitories
of Rarities, as Mr. Rawlinſon has with great
Expence and Induſtry collected. But you will
find Mr. Ward capable of no Excuſe, notwith-
ſtanding this, for there are Evidences coinmon
enough beſides to have Inſtructed him in the
contray of what he has aflerted, as you may
eaſily Judge if you'll be at the trouble to con-
fult the third Page of this Treatiſe.
I hope Sir, you'll excuſe the length of this
Dedication, my Deſign by it is to inake it as
uſeful as I can to pave the way for what fol-
lows, as well as to expreſs the great Reſpect
which is due to you from
Sir, Your moſt Oblig'd
Humble Servant
DAN. WILLIAMS.


Τ Η Ε
INTRODUCTION.
more ,
HOS E, who are acquainted with the
Faith and Practices of the Primitive
Church, can be no otherwiſe than
Senſible that the Reformation from
the Corruptions of Popery in this Na-
tion was carryed on in a more regular way, and
more agreeable to the true Primitive Principles of
the Chriſtian Religion, than in any other part of
Europe, where Courage, Sincerity and Piety pre-
vaid againſt the Spiritual Impoſitions of Rome.
THIS Adherence to Antiquit y hath procured
the Clourch of England a great many Enemies very
oppoſite in their Principles to one another. But none
have been more artful in their Afſarilts, than
thoſe who have Sacrificed all their Reafonable and
Religious Faculties to the Intereſts of the Court
of Rome ; and all this at the Expence of Truth
and Honeſty : A very particular Inſtance of this
we have now before us. This Gentleman who
(2)
writes

The INTRODUCTION.
Hudibra fick
writes himſelf Thomas Ward, bath of late been
very induſtrious, both in Proſe and Verſe to re-
preſent our Reformation in the moſt odious Colours
* Hiſtory of to the World. As to bis Poetical
the Reformation Hiſtory, * I ſhall take no further
from the time of Notice of it, eſpecially ſince all
Oats's Plot in Men who are acquainted with obat
great Turn in our Affairs, cannot
Verſe. London, but be ſenſible of the exactneſs of
1716.
bis Fudgment in chuling to convey
ſuch a Hiſtory as be bas written to the World in
the way of a Poem, for nothing ſhort of a Li-
cenſe from Parnaſſus could in any Meafue ex-
cuiſe a Man in vending ſuch Fables for Hiſtori-
cal Truths.
IT is another Book fince written in Profe,
which is the occaſion of this preſent trouble, tho?
it is my Opinion be bad much better have kept to
bis Verfes ſtill, or elſe bave had a little more re-
gard to that ſaying of Tully's, Ne quid falfi di-
cere audeat, ne quid veri non audeat.
The Title of this Book, is this. The Contro-
verſy of Ordination truly Stated, as far as it
concerns the Church of England by Law eſta-
bliſhed, Ó. Alſo Contradiction authoris’d by
the Canons and Articles of the Church of England,
with ſome Reflections upon the fame by Thomas
Iard, Author of the Hiſtory of the Reforma:
tion. London, Printed. 1719.
THERE is nothing which the Italian Fa-
chion among ſi 145 are more artful in,
!than when
they endeaucair to perfovede the World that over
Ordi-
The INTRODUCTION.
Ordinations are invalid, they will ſtick at no
Falſboods to support this preſumption, and this
any Body may ſee who will give himſelf the trou-
ble to peruſe this Treatiſe. They know very well
what an influence the want of a true. Chriſtian
Miniſtry muſt bave with fober underſtanding
Chriſtians ; and if they could but once gain this
Point upon us, they may then think they have
effectually done our Buſineſs and their own to,
But if we are not able to defend the Regularity
of our Orders against any thing that ſuch Wri-
ters can ſay against them, I am ſure we deſerve
to looſe all our Right to administer in Holy Things.
For their principal objections against us are
founded in the most notorious Falſhoods that ever
were invented; so that there needs no Art but to
ſet Matters in their true Light for our Vindica-
tion. This is what you are to expect from the
enſuing Treatiſe where you will find the follow-
ing Points truly repreſented.
I. The Validity of the Engliſh Forms of
Ordination,


II. Their agreeableneſs to the ancient Forms
of the Primitive Church,
III. That the Alterations made in them, in
the Year 1662, are no Argument of their In-
validity before.
IV. That Archbiſhop Parker was Conſecra-
ted by regular Biſhops,
V. What
The INTRODUCTION.
V. What Opinion the World at that Time
had of our Ordinations:
VI. That our Firſt Biſhops were třue Biſhops
according to our Laws.
VII. The Nag's-Head Fable examined.
VIII. The Falſhoods of the Nag's-Head Cori-
ſecration farther prov’d.
IX. That the Lambeth Regiſter is Genuine.
X. That there was no neceſſity to produce
Regiſters in Queen Elizabeth's Days.
XI. That Epifcopacy was reputed a Divine
Inſtitution in Oneen Elizabeth's Days.
Theſe Chapters take in all that this Writer
bath ſaid againſt our Orders, or indeed any other
of our Adverſaries. And as to the Contradicti-
ons he charges us with in our Articles, Canons,
&c. I thought to have paſi'd it by with Con-
i empt, brit conſidering what a Clamour theſe Men
are wont to raiſe if any thing of theirs, tho?
never ſo trifling, be left unanſwered; you find 1
have taken fufficient Notice of it in the Dedica-
107.


THE
[1]

THE
SUCCESSION
OF
Proteſtant BISHOPS
Aſſerted, &c.
> ຮັກເຮັດ
Titraratri
ใช้เป็นข้อมใrtrai
CH A P. I.
of the Validity of the Engliſh Forms of
Ordination.

H E firſt Thing Mr. Ward undertakes
to prove againſt our Church, is the In-
validity of thoſe Forms of Ordination,
which were compos’d in the Days of
Edward the Sixth; and which continu'd
in Uſe until the Review of the Com-
mon. Prayer in the Year 1662. For it was thought
expedient at that Time, to inake ſome Alterations
B
in
[ 2 ]
in our Ordinals ; not as if they had been defective
before in the eſſential Parts of them, but only to
avoid fome unreaſonable Conſequences, drawn by
the Presbyterians, concerning the Senti-
Hit. of the Re ments of our Church with reſpect to the
forma ion, Vol. Diſtinction between a Bihop and a Prieſt.
II. Pag. 136.
And therefore, in ſhort, the Queſtion now
to be diſcuſſed is, Whether our Forms before this
Alteration, were valid, with reſpect to the Com-
munication of the Epiſcopal and Prieſtly Powers, or
BURNETS
110?
tells us,
The Contro-
verſy of Ordi.
66
CE
But before I enter upon this point, I find my
ſelf obliged to clear fome Difficulties, which this
Mr. Ward has raiſed, relating to the Ordination of
two of Archbiſhop Parker's Conſecrators: For Mr.
Ward, who I fiud is reſolved to diſpute every thing,
“ That Fobii Scory and Miles
Coverdale, two of Parker’s Conſecrators,
nation truly Sta. " were not made Biſhops, till after the
ted. Pag. 4, 5.
aboliſhing of the ancient Catholick
“Forin of Confecration, and before the new Form
was deviſed : ſo that they could be Conſecrated by
“ neither of thoſe Forms : For they (as both Mafort
" and Dr. Heylin tellus) were Confecrated on the
“30th of Auguſt, in the Year 1551. Whereas the
" Parliament that abrogated the Catholick Ordinal,
began November the 4th, 1549, and ended Febril-
ary the iſt, after, which was above a Year and a
“ Half before their being. Confecrated. And the
« Parliament which authoriz'd the new Form, did
“ not begin till Fanuary the 13th, 1551, which was
« above four Months after their pretended Conſe-
** cration; ſo that there was then, I ſay, 10 Forin
“ in Being, whereby to Confecrate them”.
BUT I muſt beg Leave to obſerve, that our Acts
of Parliament give us a very different Account of
this Matter , and that very Act of Par-
Ibid. Pag. 3.
liament which Mr. Ward referreth to, if
he
[3]
he had given the leaſt heed to the Words of it,
would eaſily have cleared this Difficulty which he
has raiſed.
The Words of the Act are theſe.“That
6 ſuch Form and Manner of making and Statutes 30, 40,
KEBLE'S
Conſecrating of Archbiſhops, Biſhop, Edwardi Sexti
Prieſts, and Deacons, and other Mi? Pug. 674.
“ niſters of the Church, as by fix Biſhops and ſix
66 other Men learned in God's Law, by the King
to be appointed and alligned, or by the moſt
" Number of them, ſhall be deviſed for that Pur-
poſe, and ſet forth under the Great Seal, before
" the firſt of April next coming, ſhall be lawful.
“ ly Exerciſed, and none other”.
Now this Parliament began the 4th of No-
vember, 1549, and ended the iſt of February follow-
ing; and the ift of April mentioned in this Act
muſt be in the Year 1550 ; ſo that there was a Form
in Being, a Year and five Months at leaſt before
Scory or Coverdale were conſecrated Bi-
ſhops; becauſe the Parliament confin’d conf
. crated at
the Commiſſioners to compoſe the ſaid Croydo», Aug.
Form before the ijt, of April, which was
in the Beginning of the Year 1550; which Form
was to be ſet forth under the Great Seal, and to be law.
fülly uſed, and none other. Beſides, the very Form it
Tell, which was then publiſhed accordingly, is not
yet quite out of Print, and is a farther Confirmati-
on, that it was in Uſe long before the Time this
Author aſſerts it to be ; and Dr. Heylin
plainly intimateth the Publication of it Hiſtory of the
to be in the Year 1550.
THE Calumny which he caſteth up-
on Queen Elizabeth's thirty ſixth Arti-
cle, upon this true State of the Cafe, troverſy of Or.
plainly appeareth to be truly ſuch. But dination, cc.
hear what Dr. Heylin faith upon this pag. 4, s.
whole Matter, and he is an Author of fome Credit,
B 2
even,
They were
30. 1551.
Reformation P.
99.
See the Con-
[ 4 ]
66
CC
૮૮
66
even with the Romaniſts themſelves. : “ Which Book
(of Ordination) being finiſhed, was
HEYL Í N's iade Uſe of without farther Autho-
Hiſtory Pag. 83.
rity, (thair what the Act I juſt 110w reci-
“ted gave it) till the Year 1552; at what Time be-
ing added to the ſecond Liturgy, it was approved
" of and confirmed, as a Part thereof by Act of
" Parliament, Ann. 5. Edw. 6. cap. I. And of this
" Book it is, we find mentioned in the 36th Article
“ of Queen Elizabeth's Time : In which it is declar-
ed, That whoſoever were conſecrated and ordered ac-
cording to the Rites thereof, ſhould be reputed and
adjudg’d to be lawfully confecrated and rightly or-
“ dered. Which Declaration of the Church was af-
terwards made good by Act of Parliament, in the
eighth Year of that Queen ; in which the ſaid Or-
dinal of the 3d of King Edward the VIth is
o confirmed and ratified.
I think it is but a poor Shift for our Author to ſay,
that our Book of Ordination did not come forth till
the Year 1552, only becauſe the Parliament of that
Year eſtabliſh'd King Edward's Second Liturgy, and
joyn'd this Ordinal with it then, although it was
publiſh'd, almoſt two Years before, as it plainly ap-
pears by the moſt authentick Atteſtations, if ſuch
Things as publick Acts of State may be allowed to
be fo.
If we meet with ſuch uncommon Uſage as this is,
at the very Entrance of this Book, What may we not
expect, of this Kind, from ſuch a Writer ? Surely
this is a Piece of ſtubborn Oppoſition, not eaſily to
be reconciled with common Honeſty.
By this View of the Caſe, it plainly appears,
that there was an Ordinal in Force long before Scory
and Coverdale were made Biſhops : The next Thing
to be conſider'd, is, Whether this Ordinal, itſelf,
was valid, in order to convey the Epiſcopal and
Prieſtly Character? This Mr. ward denieth; for
he
[ 5 ]
he ſeems to give up what he had aſſerted before, about
the Time of the coming forth of the Or-
dinal in King Edward's Days. His Words Vide Contro-
are theſe : But let thoſe Forms be tien, cc. pa. 6.
“ made in King Edward's Firſt Year; it
matters not, ſeeing they are invalid and nullin
themſelves, as the Reader will ſee they are, if he
« conſiders them, they are theſe.
The Form of ordering MINISTER S.
"R
06
66 Eceive the holy Ghoſt: Whoſe Sins thou doft
forgive, they are forgiven, and whoſe
“ Sins thou doſt retain, they are retained ; and be
" thou a faithful Diſpenſer of the Word of God, and
of his Holy Sacraments. In the Name of the Fa-
" ther, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft.
CC
The Form of making BISHOPS.
66
TA
KE the Holy Ghoſt, and remember that
thou ſtir up the Grace of God, which is in
thee, by the Impoſition of our Hands : For God
“ has not given us the Spirit of Fear, but Power and
“ Soberneſs.
Now I will not poſitively affirin, that our Author
is ſo inſincere, as to endeavour to perſwade his Rea-
der, that theſe two Forms are the whole of our Ordi-
nals, by which we confer the Prieſtly and Epiſcopal
Functisns in our Church ; though it muſt be confeſs’d,
that by the Arguments which he brings to prove
the
Deficiency of them, he is either not acquainted with
their own Roman Ordinal, or elſe he is plainly guilty.
of ſuch an Impoſition.
B 3
BE-
[6]
BECAUSE this part of the Ordinal for Prieſts is
more compleat and expreſs than the Roman Ordi-
iial is, in particular; viz. At the Time of the Impo-
ſition of Hands : The Words which they
Pontificale Ro- uſe then are theſe; Receive the Holy Ghojt;
manum. p. 62. Whoſe Sins thou doft remit, they are remit-
ted; and whoſe Sins thou doſt retain, they are
retained. Now we uſe theſe Words, as well as they,
when the Biſhop lays his Hands upon the Perſon to be
ordain’d a Prieſt, as you ſee by the firſt Form which
he has quoted, only with this farther Addition ;
and be thou a faithful Diſpenſer of the Word of God and
of his Holy Sacraments
. In the Name of the Father, of
the Son, and of the Holy Gholt
. Amen.
AND here I muſt appeal to all Chriſtians, Papiſts
as well as Proteſtants, to all Men of common Juſtice,
common Honeſty, and common Senſe, whether theſe
laſt Words, which we uſe extraordinary, do any way
diminiſh from the Force of the former, which they
themſelves uſe as well as we. I am ſure, all Men
muſt own, that they are more expreſs and confined,
with reſpect to the Office the Perſon is ordained to,
than theirs ; and conſequently if theſe Words bear any
Signification, they muſt add to the Force of the for-
mer, which both uſe in common.
But what need I trouble my Reader with this;
for this is not the Fault the Author finds with our
Ordinal; it is the Defectiveneſs of it that he blames,
tho'it plainly appears to be more compleat than
their own, if more expreſs Terms can add to the
Compleatneſs of it; fo that we muſt conclude, that
he was either ignorant of their own Forms, or elſe he
has condeſcended fo low, as to infinuate, that the
Form before quoted is the whole which we uſe at the
Ordination of a Prieſt.
THE Arguments he brings for the Deficiency of
our Form, are theſe,



« BUT
[7]
of Ordination
C
26
26
jor any
૮૮
< But in thoſe Proteſtant Forms are
not any Words that can ſignify, or im Controverſy
ply, the Order given: For the Word tru: ftatcci p.7.
Prieſt, or Biſhop, is not once named,
Word equivalent thereunto, whereby to
“ ſignify or denote the Power or Grace, giveni
by Impoſition of Hands, to be Sacerdotal or Epif-
“ copal Power. For thoſe Words, (Receive the Holy
« Ghoſt) as not being conjoyn’d with other Words, to
“ interpret and determine to what Office, Power, or
Grace, cannot alone ſignify or denote the Order
cs of Prieſthood given, becauſe alone they do not
expreſs it, and they ſignify no more than they
expreſs.
Now I muſt obſerve, in the firſt place, that if
what he ſayeth here is of any Strength, it muſt bear
harder upon their own Form than it doth upon ours;
for it evidently appeareth before, that ours is more
expreſs than theirs is, and ſo is our Form for the Or-
dination of a Biſhop, as ſhall be made to appear
hereafter ; and therefore it may eaſily be concluded,
that Mr. Ward hath endeavour'd to impoſe upon the
World the Forms aforeſaid, as the Whole of our Or-
dinals, whereas it appeareth, by the Ordinals them-
ſelves, that we, as well as they, have the Word Prieſt
in ſeveral Parts of the Miniſtration : And if he infiſts
upon it, that the Word Prieſt ought to be uſed in that
Form, which the Biſhop uſeth at the
Time of the Impoſition of Hands, as it Controverſy
plainly appears he doth by his Approba: p. 9, GC.
tion of our Forms, with that Alteration
in Kirg Charles the Second’s Time, then it is evident
as aforeſaid, that they labour under the ſame Defect
(if it is a Defect) as we do, and that in a more emi-
nent Manner. But I ſhall farther prove, that we
have the Word Prieſt, and the Powers of a Prieſt, as
ftrongly expreſs’d in our Ordinal, before the laſt Re-
view
of Ordination.
B 4
[8]
p. 152, c.
view in the Year 1662, as they need to be expreſs’d
in any Ordinal whatſoever.
In the firſt place, the Archdeacon,
SPARROW's or his Official in his ſtead, preſents the
Collection, oc. Perſons to be ordain’d Prieſts to the Bi-
ſhop, in theſe Words : Reverend Father
in God, I prefent unto you theſe Perſons preſent, to be
admitted to the Order of Prieſthood. Now here we find,
at the very Entrance of this ſolemn Action, the De-
ſign of it expreſs’d, which is to admit the Perſons
preſented to the Order of Prieſthood. Here is one
Expreſſion of the Order deſign'd to be conferr’d: Again,
the Biſhop himſelf tells the Congregation, in another
Part of the Office, that theſe are they whom we propoſe,
God willing, to receive this Day unto the Holy Office of
Prieſthood. This is another proper Expreſſion of the
Order, wherein the Biſhop declareth his Intention,
when he comes afterwards to lay on his Hands, and
to ſay, Receive the Holy Gholt, &c. which muſt plainly
refer to what he here declares his Purpoſe to be.
In another Part of the Office, the Biſhop uſeth
this Prayer. Almighty God, Giver of all good Things,
which by thy Holy Spirit hajt appointed divers Orders of
Miniſters in the Church,mercifully behold theſe thyServants,
now call’d to the Office of Prieſthood, and repleniſh them
ſo with the Truth of thy Do&trine, and Innocency of Life,
that both by Word and good Example they may faithfully
ſerve thee in this Ofice, to the Glory of thy Name, and
Profit of thy Congregation, through the Merits of our Sa-
viozir Feſus Chriſi, who liveth and reigneth with thee and
the Holy Ghoſt, World without end. Amen.
If there were no other, this ſingle Prayer, accord-
ing to the Uſage of the Primitive Church, with Im-
poſition of Hands by an Officer duly qualified, is ſuf-
ficient to convey the Prieſtly Office. The fourth
Council of Carthage requires no more than this.


66 WHEN
[ 9 ]
Council Cars
3.
« WHEN a Prieſt is ordain’d, the
« Biſhop ſhall Bleſs him, laying his
<< Hand upon his Head ; alſó all the thage, 4. Can.
« Prieſts that are preſent laying their
“ Hands upon his Head, by the Biſhop's Hand.
But our Church is yet more cautious, if Caution
conſiſts in being more particular ; for the Biſhop
proceedeth to demand of the Perſons to be ordain’d,
whether they be truly callid, according to the Will of
our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the Order of this Church of
England, to the Miniſtry of the Prieſthood?
There are ſeveral other Queſtions relating to
their Diligence in their Calling, as Prieſts, which are
clos'd by this ſhort Benediction, and which the Biſhop
is to ſay:
Almighty God, who hath given you this Will to do all
theſe Things, grant alſo unto you Strength and Power to
perform the ſame, that he may accompliſh his Work which
he hath begun in you, until the Time Shall come, at the
latter Day, to judge the Quick and the Dead.
By what you have ſeen of our Ordinal, you may
eaſily find, how ſincere Mr. Ward hath
been to tell the World ; 66 That the
Controverſy
Word Prieſt is not once named, nor any Page 7.
« Word equivalent thereunto, whereby
to ſignify and denote the Power or Grace given
by Impoſition of Hands.
WHEREAS the Word Prieſt is no leſs than four
times particularly apply'd to the Purpoſe of the Con-
ſecration. For the whole Office is a continued Act,
and no Part is to be conſider'd ſeparately from the
Act



of Ordination

CC
C6
Presbyter cun ordinatur, Epiſcopo eum benedicente et
manum fuper caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri
qui præſentes ſunt manus ſuas juxta manum Epiſcopi ſuper
caput illius teneant. Howel's Synopſis, Can. Vol. 2.
Pag. 130
[ 10 ]
3
Act of Conſecration itſelf, which is the Impoſition of
Hands; whatever goes before, is only preparatory to
that, tho' the Words, then us’d, do fully expreſs the
Power convey'd to be no other than that of the Prieſt-
hood; for none but a Prieſt can remit and retain
Sins, or miniſter the Doctrine of the Sacraments
and therefore theſe words that follow, are Words
equivalent to the Word Prieſt, and are certainly more
fúll than the Romiſh Ordinal itſelf is, when the Bi-
Thop lays on his Hands. I ſhall here, again, fet both
before the Reader, in order to ſatisfy him of the Un-
reaſonableneſs of theſe Mens Clamours.
The Engliſh FORM.
Receive the Holy Ghoſt : Whoſe Sins thou doſt forgive,
they are forgiven , and whoſe Sins thou doſi retain, they
are retained. And be thou a faithful Diſpenſer of the
Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments. In the
name of the Father, Gc.
The Romiſh FORM.
Receive the Holy Ghoſt : Whoſe Sins thou
Romanum Cle- doft forgive, they are forgiven; and whoſe
mentis. 8. Pag. Sins thou doſt retain, they are
ed.
Pontificale
retazii-
62.
THES E are the Words uſed at the Impoſition of
Hands in both Churches; and if our Form is not
valid, I am ſure theirs is not fo; and therefore both
muſt, in this reſpect, ſtand or fall together.
BUT Mr. Ward is wiſer, not only
Controverſy
of Ordination. than our Church, but his owní too: For he
Pag. 7. ſays, our Saviour did not uſe the Words
above recited : “ When he made his Apoſtles Prieſts,
" but Ordained them by theſe Words, Hoc facite,
(Do this)". This I find is Mr. Ward's Form, and
certainly it is one of his own choofing; for neither
the Church of Rome, nor Ours, uſe it as the Form
of
[11]
of Conſecrating a Prieſt; and conſequently neither
do believe it to be the Form which our Saviour uſed
when he conſecrated his Apoſtles Prieſts.
AND Mr. Ward , in purſuance of the fame Specu.
lation in the ſame Page, tells us, that our Saviour
Ordained his Apoſtles Prieſts at his Laſt Supper. If I
oppoſe Mr. Ward in this, I hope the Adherents of
the Church of Rome will not be angry with me; for
herein I not only vindicate our Church, but theirs
too, againſt the Aſſaults of this mighty Goliah,
Bellarmine, of all the Writers that ever appear’d
in the Behalf of the Church of Rome, is he that de-
ſerveth the greateſt Regard. Now he makes Impoſi-
tion of Hands an Effential of Ordination ; but it
does not appear that our Saviour laid his Hands up-
on his Apoſtles at his Laſt Supper; therefore, ac-
cording to Bellarmine, ſince an Eſſential of Ordinati-
on was then omitted, the Apoſtles were not then or-
dained Prieſts. The learnedCardinal's Words are theſe:
“ The Council of Trent, (which is a thing to be
“ obſerved upon the account of thoſe who think
“ otherwiſe, ſince the holding of that Council) Seſſion
14. Chap. 3. faith of extream Unction, that the
“ Miniſter of it is a Biſhop or Prieſt, rightly ordain-
“ed by Impoſition of Hands. And Sefion 23. Chap.
4. the Council hath theſe Words concerning the
ti Sacramentof Order ; If any Body ſhall aſſert, that in
holy Orders, the Holy Ghoſt is not given, and conſe-
“ quently that the Biſhop ſaith in vain, Receive the Holy
“ Ghoſt'; let him be accurſed. The Council here doth
“ declare, that they are then ordained Prieſts, and
" that then the Grace of the Holy Ghoſt is given
to them, when it is ſaid unto them, Receive the
Holy
co
Ipſum etiam Tridentinum Concilium (quod eſt obſervan-
dum propter eos, qui poft Concilium celebratum, aliter ſen-
tiunt) Seil. 14. cap. 3. de extrema Unctione dicit, Miniſtrum
extre-
[ 12 ]

are, both being the ſame, and both refer to what is
6 Holy Ghoſt
. But when this is ſaid, then the Hands
are laid, as it appears by the Pontificale, and by
" the Cuſtom of the Church : Therefore the Coun-
“ cil thought the Impofition of the Hand to be ef-
6 ſential.
HERE we find Cardinal Bellarmine and the
Council of Trent on our fide; they think that this
Form above mentioned, (and indeed fo doth the Pon-
tificale) is what conveys the Prieſtly Power, and
not Mr. Ward's Hoc facite. It is a ſtrange thing, that
Men will preſume to engage in Controverſies, when
they know not what they are to defend, and what
they are to oppoſe.
WHATEVER Mr. Ward has ſaid againſt that
Part of our Form, Receive the Holy Ghoſt: Whoſe Sins
you remit, &c. equally affects the Church of Rome
as it doth us for their Words are as general as ours
before in the ſame Offices, and which I have already
ſhewn with reſpect to ours. What I ſhall next ob-
ſerve, in Mr. Ward, is what he faith of thoſe addi-
tional Words, which we have in our Form, at the
Impoſition of Hands, inore than what they have
in theirs.
“ As for thoſe Words, (Be thou a
" faithful Diſpenſer, &c.) they are no
Controverſy
of Ordinario',
more than what inay be apply'd to a &c. Page 8.
“ Deacon. They only give Authority to
c diſtribute

extremæ Unctionis effe Epiſcopum,aut Presbyterum rite ordi-
natum, per manûs impofitionem. Et Sell. 23. cap. 4. de Sa-
cramento Ordinis habet hæc verba Siquis dixerit per ſacram
or dinationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum, ac proinde fruftra
Epifcopum dicere, Accipe Spiritum Sanétum, Anathema
fit
. Ubi Concilium declarat, tunc ordinari Presbyteros, &
tunc dari illis gratiam Spiritus Sancti, cum eis dicitur, Ac-
cipe Spiritum San&tum. At cum hoc dicitur, manus impo-
muntur, ut patet ex Pontificali, & Eccleſiæ confuetudine ;
ergo ſentiebat Concilium illam impoſitionem manûs eſſe de
effentia. Bellarmin. de Controverſiis. Vol. 3. Pag. 1280.
[ 13 ]
cc diſtribute the Sacraments of Chriſt's Body and
« Blood, but not to conſecrate it, nor to offer it in
c Sacrifice to God the Father.
Now theſe Words plainly refer to what went be-
fore in the Form; the ſame Perſon who has Autho-
rity given him, to remit and retain Sins, is to do this,
by diſpenſing the Word and Sacraments, which are
the Means appointed by God to remit and retain Sins ;
ſo that theſe Words cannot be underſtood any other-
wiſe, than as diſpenſing the Word and Sacraments to
all Intents and Purpoſes, for the remitting and retain-
ing of Sins.
But it ſeems (according to Mr. Ward) the Nicety
turns upon this ; That as a Deacon may allift a Prieſt
in diſtributing the Sacraments, fo conſequently diſ-
penting the Sacraments may as properly be apply'd
to a Deacon's Commiſſion as to a Prieſt's. But I muſt
beg Mr. Ward's Pardon in this; for I know of no
Power of this Nature in a Deacon's Commiſſion, ei-
ther by Divine or Human Authority. A Diſpenſer
of the Sacraments muſt anſwer all the Ends of the
Diſpenſation, otherwiſe he acts imperfectly ; and
conſequently this Term cannot be apply'd to a Dea-
con, eſpecially when it is made explanatory of re-
mitting and retaining of Sins, which is what a Deacon
has nothing to do with : For ſuppoſe there be no Prieſt
preſent to confecrate the Sacrament, What ſort of a
Diſpenſer will a Deacon make by himſelf ? He that
talks at this Rate, muſt either have a ſtrong Inclina-
tion to diſpute, or elſe ſuch a Cauſe to maintain,
(which is indeed the Caſe) as can be ſupported by no
better Arguments.
But the main Defeet which Mr.Ward has diſco-
ver’d in our Prieſthood, is yet behind; it is, it
ſeems, becauſe he thinks our Form, at the Time of
the Impoſition of Hands, doth not expreſs particular-
ly a Power to confecrate the Sacrament,
and to offer it in Sacrifice to God the Fa-
ther,
Ibid.
[ 14 ]
Pontifica le
ther. If there is ſuch a Defect, it is what they la:
bour under as well as we, becauſe they mention no
ſuch Power given at their Impoſition of Hands ; nay,
if this Writer's Judgment were of any Conſequence,
we are in this particular more perfect than they ; for
we do give Power, at the Iinpoſition of Hands, to
diſpenſe the Sacraments, which is more than they do.
They have nothing like the Word Sacrament in their
Form at all, if we conſider their Imperative Form at
Impoſition of Hands, ſeparate from the reſt of the
Ordinal, as Mr. Ward duth ours.
BUT, I preſume, this Gentleman has an Eye up-
on another Part of the Roman Ordinal, if
he knows any Thing of it, viz. Receive
Roman. Page, Power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to cele-
brate Maſſes, both for the Living and the
Dead, in the Name of the Lord. Amen. Now this
Part of their Ordinal is not uſed at the Impoſition of
Hands, but at the Delivery of the Chalice, &c. and
both that Ceremony and this Forın never
Morinus came to be practis'd in the Church, till
de Sacris. Ec- about 700 Years ago, as it appears by
tionibus. P. 262. Morinus, a learned Prieſt of their own
Church, who has publiſh'd a Collection
of the ancient Ordinals; and therefore this can be no
eſſential Part, unleſs we preſume that the whole Ca-
tholick Church wanted the Eſſentials of Ordination
for a thouſand Years next after Chriſt; and this is a
Suppoſition ſo very unreaſonable, that, I think, I
need ſay no more of it.
But if you take a View of our Ordinal, you'll
find a Form
there, even more particular than this is,
with Reſpect to the Sacraments in general; for the Bi-
ſhop with us, upon the Delivery of the Bible, makes
Uſe of theſe Words: Take thon Authority to Preach the
Word of God, ard to Miniſter the Holy Sacraments in this
Congregation, where thou ſhalt be appointed. Now if the
Sacrament of the Eucharift be a Sacrifice, as the
moſt

[ 15 ]
moſt Learned among the Proteſtants do naintain,
here is a Commiſſion given to execute that Mini-
ſtration, notwithſtanding what Mr. Ward may have
ſaid to the contrary. But as for their Maſſes for the
Living and the Dead, we know no ſuch Cuſtom, neither
the Church of God. They muſt firſt of all prove
ſuch Maſſes by Holy Scripture, or the Practice of
the univerſal Church in her Ordinals, for a thouſand
Years next after Chriſt, to be a part of the Com-
miſſion of a Prieſt, before they give us any farther
Trouble, or raiſe any farther Scruples upon this
Head.
UPON the Whole then, we find that Mr. Ward
is entirely miſtaken, when he affirmeth, that we have
not the Word Prieſt in our Ordinal, or any Word
equivalent thereunto. Whereas it evidently appears,
by what has been ſaid before, that both the Name
and Thing too are there particularly mentioned
and deſcribed ; and if it be inſiſted upon, that no
ſuch Word as Prieſt is to be found in the very Form
uſed at the Impoſition of Hands, you find that this is
what they want in that Part of their Ordinal as
well as we; ſo that they muſt ſee to it, for if their
Ordinals are valid, ours muſt needs be ſo.
I proceed now to ſhew the Validity of our Epifco-
pal Ördinal. The Forms uſed both by the Church of
Rome and Us, at the Impoſition of Hands, are theſe.
The Engliſh FORM.
" Take the Holy Ghoſt, and remember, that thou ſtir
ир
the Grace of God, which is in Thee, by the Impofi-
“ tion of our Hands : For God has not given us tbe Spi,
“ rit of Fear, but of Power and Soberneſs.
The Roman FORM.
« Take the Holy Ghoſt.
Mr. Ward findeth Fault with this our Form, which
we uſe at the Impoſition of Hands ; becauſe “ The
66 Word

Pont. Roma. P. 80
[ 16 ]
of Ordination
CG
“ Word Biſhop is not once named, nor
Contioverly, co
any Word equivalent thereto, where.
Page 7.
by to ſignify and denote the Power
or Grace given by Impoſition of Hands
“ to be Epiſcopal Power”.
This is the ſame Objection which has been al-
ready conſidered under the Ordinal for Prieſts, and
you ſee it equally affects the Roman Ordinal with
ours; but Mr. Ward was cunning enough to know,
that the Commonalty, for whom his Diſcourſe is par-
ticularly calculated, had no Opportunity to conſult
the Roman Pontificale ; and conſequently, that they
were not in a Capacity to know that we uſe the
very Words of that Ordinal in ours, at the Impoſi-
tion of Hands. But I ſhould have thought that the
ſame Cunning might have ſuggeſted to him, that
there are others who have Opportunities to conſult
their Ordinals, and who would be inclined to do the
World Juſtice, and ſet this Matter in it's true Light.
But if this Gentleman means, that there is not
the Word Biſhop, or any word equivalent thereto, in
any Part of our Ordival, any Body that will be at
the Pains to conſult it, will find that he is as much
miſtaken in this, as he has been before about the
Ordinal for Prieſts. And becauſe our Ordinals are
not commonly publiſhed along with our Cummon-
Prayers, for vulgar Uſe, I ſhall ſhew the ſeveral
Paſſages in it, wherein both the Name and Office of
a Biſhop are particularly expreſs’d and diſtinguiſh-
ed : But it ſhall be, as I find it in Biſhop Bram-
hall's Book, for the ſake of his judicious Obſervati-
ons upon each Particular.
“ The Form of Epiſcopal Ordination,
uſed at the farne time when Hands are
impos'd, is the ſame both in their Form
teſtant Biſhops « and ours, (Receive the holy Ghoſt). And if
Juſtificd, c.
Pag: 223. C.
" theſe Words be conſidered fingly in a di-
6 vided Senſe from the reſt of the Office,
there

The Conſe.
cration and Suc-
cellion of Pro-
[ 17 ]

66
66
Co
is there is nothing either in our Form or theirs,
66 which doth diſtinctly, and reciprocally expreſs
Epiſcopal Power and Authority. But if theſe
" Words be conſidered conjointly in a compound-
« ed Senfe, there is enough to exprefs Epiſcopal
“ Power and Authority diſtinctly, and as much
c in our Form as theirs”.
"FIRST, two Biſhops préſent the Biſhop
ci Elect to the Archbiſhop of the Province, with
" theſe Words ; Moſt Reverend Father in God, we
prefent unto you this Godly and well Learned Man
“ to be Conſecrated Biſhop: There is one Expreſſion.
“ Then the Archbiſhop cauſeth the King's Let-
ters Patents to be produced and read, which re-
quire the Archbiſhop to Conſecrate him a Biſhop.
“ There is a ſecond Expreſſioni.
« THIRD L Y, the new Biſhop takes his Oath
" of Canonical Obedience. 1. A. B. Elected Bi-
shop of the Church and See of C. do promiſe and
profeſs all Reverence and due Obedience to the
Archbiſhop and Metropolitical Church of D. and
« his Succefors. This is a third Expreſſion.
" Next, the Archbiſhop exhorts the whole
• Aſſembly to folemn Prayer for this Perſon thus
“ Elected and Preſented, before they admit him
“ to that Office; (that is, the Office of a Biſhop)
“ whereunto they hope he is called by the Holy
" Ghoſt, after the Example of Chriſt before he
s did chuſe his Apoſtles, and the Church of An-
“ tioch before they laid Hands upon Paul and Bar-
co nabas. This is a fourth Expreſſion.
" THEN followeth the Litany, wherein there
66 is this expreſs Petition for the Perſon to be Ora
6 dained Biſhop ; We beſeech thee to give thy Blefing
« and Grace to this our Brother ele&ted Bifhop, that
" he may diſcharge that Office wherezinto he is called
diligently, to the Edification of thy Church. To
С
"
whichi


CC
CC

25
[ 18 ]
CG
06
(6
c
« which all the Congregation anſwer, Hear us,
« O Lord, we be ſeech thee. Here is a fifth Ex-
preilion.
« Then followeth this Prayer, wherewith the
Litany is concludled ; Almighty God, the Giver of
- all good Things, which by thy Holy Spirit haft con-
“ ſtituted divers Orders of Miniſters in thy Church,
vouchſafe we beſeech Thee to look graciouſly upon
" this thy Servant, now called to the Office of a Bi-
ſhop. This is the ſixth Expreſſion.
« NEXT, the Archbiſhop telleth him he muſt
" Examine him, before he admit him to that Ad-
“ ininiftration whereunto he is called ; and maketh
a folemn Prayer for him, that God who hath
conſtituted fome Prophets, Some Apoſtles, &c. to
" the Edification of his Church, would grant to this
" bis Servant the Grace to uſe the Authority com-
mitted to Him, to Edification, not Deſtruction ;
to diſtribute Food in due Seafon to the Family of
Chriſt, as becometh a faithful and prudent Steward.
“ This Authority can be no other than Epiſcopal
Authority, nor this Stewardſhip any other
Thing than Epifcopacy. This is a ſeventh Ex-
« preſſion.
i Then followeth Impoſition of Hands by
" the Archbiſhop, and all the Biſhops preſent ;
“ with theſe Words, Receive the Holy Ghoft, &c.
“ And laſtly, the Tradition of the Bible into his
Hands, exhorting Him to behave Himſelf towards
" the Flock of Chriſt
, as a Paſtor, not Devouring, but
Feeding the Flock; all this implyeth Epiſcopal
“ Authority. They may except againſt Chriſt's
"own Form of Ordaining his Apoſtles if they
will, and againſt the Form uſed by their own
“Church ; but if they be ſufficient Forms, our
- Form is ſufficient.
To


6C
CC
CC
G

[ 19 ]

To this I ſhall ſubjoin the ſame pious Prelates
Wiſh. “ It were to be wiſhed, that
Ibid. Pag. 228.
“ Writers of Controverſy would make
more Uſe of their own Eyes, and truſt leſs
66 other Mens Citations..
Now whether Mr. Ward's Character comes
within the Excuſe even of this Wifh, is what I
very much queſtion. We will preſume that he
did not voucħſafe to look into our Ordinals, but
that he took what he has quoted out of them at
ſecond Hand: But how he can get over what Bi-
ſhop Bramhall has here ſaid, I know not; for he
himſelf owns he has peruſed this Book, in the
eleventh Page, and in ſeveral other places of his
Book; yet for all this, to ſay we have nothing in
our Ordinal, that ſignifies or denotes either the
Name or Office of a Biſhop, is what appears to
me very unaccountable.
BUT nothing can ſet this Matter of the Vali-
dity of our Ordinals in a clearer Light, than an
Examination into the old primitive Way of Ordi-
nation ; and if we have all the Requiſites which
they had, this will not only vindicate Ours effectu-
ally, but alſo demonſtrate the Abſurdities and
Superſtitions which have crept, by the Corrupti-
ons of an ignorant illiterate Age, into the pre-
ſent Roman Pontificale. And this ſhall be the Sub-
ject of the next Chapter.


C 2
CHAP
[ 20 ]

0000
CA larger than the Author of it did at
CHA P. II.
Of the ancient Forms of Ordination.
T is not to be expected that I ſhould
here tranſcribe all the old Ordinals ;
that Trouble would but incumber the
Reader, and make this Treatiſe much
firſt deſign ; it ſhall be therefore ſuffi-
cient to give a general Account of this Matter,
but ſo, as to be particular enough with reſpect to
the preſent Controverſy.
OUR Bleſſed Saviour, before his Departure
hence, inveſted his Apoſtles with thoſe miniſteri-
al Powers which were neceſſary, in order to the
Edification of his Church, 'till his ſecond Coming
to change her preſent Militant for a Triumphant
Condition. The Form and Ceremony by which
this Commiſſion was convey'd, is more particular-
ly deſcrib'd by St. John, than by any of the other
Evangeliſts. As my Father hath ſent me,
Chap. 20. v.
even ſo fend I you. And when he had
ſaid this, he breathed on them, and faith
unto tberi, Receive ye the Holy Ghojt, whojeſoever
Sins


21, 22.,23.
[21]
AETs 6. . 6.
I Tim. 4. 14.
Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whoſe-
ſoever Sius ye retain, they are retained. This was
our Saviour's Manner of Ordination ; but we do
not find that the Apoſtles ſtrictly followed it :
For in their Ordinations, we find no-
thing mentioned beſides Prayer and
Impoſition of Hands ; which Practice, 2 Tēm. 1 * 6.
in conferring of Orders of what kind
foever, always prevailed in the Church in all
Ages ; ſo that Impoſition of Hands, and a Prayer
ſuitable to the Order conferred, is undoubtedly
all that is eſſentially requiſite in Ordination ;
for that Imperative Form uſed by our Saviour,
Take the Holy Ghojt, &c. was not obſerv'd for many
Ages in the Primitive Church.
THE Apoftolical Conſtitutions (though un-
doubtedly ſpurious, with Reſpect to the Antiqui-
ty they pretend to be of) are certainly a Part of
the Ancient des donaníze of the Apo-
ftles, mentioned by Ancient Writers;
and the Forms of Ordination recom- Pag. 19.
mended therein, are of no finall An-
tiquity, though far from being Apoſtolical.
WHAT we find in theſe Books,
with Reſpect to the Ordination of a Morinus de Sa-
Biſhop, is iſt, Election by the People. dinasionib.p. 18
2d, The Prieſts, and the reſt of the
Congregation are demanded three Times, whether
they think the Perſon to be Ordained, worthy
of the Office of a Biſhop. 3d, One Bithop, with
two others ftanding by the Altar, and a Deacon
holding the Evangeliſts upon the Head of the
Perſon to be confecrated, ſhall ſay the Confecra-
tion Prayer : The Prayer is very long, and there-
fore I omit it, but it is ſuch as is ſuitable to an
Epifcopal Conſecration. The Prayer being ended,
one of the Biſhops puts the Sacrament into the
Hands
Cave's Hift.
Literar. Vol.i.
C3
[ 22 ]
Hands of the Perſon Ordained, and then all fa-
lute him with the Holy Kiſs; and after ſome
Portions of Scripture are read, the Biſhop, thus
Ordained, falutes the Congregation in theſe
Words, η χάρις τα Κυεία μΙησε Χρισέ, η αγάπη τέ Θεέ
κ Πατρός και κοινωνία το αγία ενδύμασάνων ημ.
The Grace of our Lord 'Feſus Chriſt, and the Love of
God the Father, and the Fellowſhip of the Holy Ghoſt
be with you all; and, laſtly, the then conſecrated
Biſhop maketh a Sermon to the People.
In the Ordinal for Prieſts in theſe Conſtituti-
ons, there are no other Ceremonies uſed, but a
Prayer ſuitable to the Occaſion, and Impoſition of
Hands by the Biſhop. The ſame Ceremonies are
mentioned in thoſe Books, which are
MORINUS very unjuſtly attributed to Dionyſius
de Sacris Ordi-
nationibus p. 43.
the Areopagite, with the Addition on-
ly of the Sign of the Croſs; but theſe
are Teſtimonies of uncertain Writers, who lived in
an uncertain Age ; ſo that there is no extraordi-
nary Weight to be put upon them, any farther
than to ſhew the Novelty of ſeveral of the Practi-
ces of the Church of Rome in their Ordinations.
I therefore proceed, in the next Place, to a more
folid Evidence of their Novelties, than thoſe two
laſt mentioned, and that is the Canons of the
fourth Council of Carthage, with reſpect to the Or-
dination of Biſhops and Prieſts. This Council was
held in the Year of Chriſt 398, and
How EL's Sy. there were preſent no leſs than 214
Vol. 2. P. 130. Biſhops, who agreed, that in the Ordi-
nation of a Bishop, two Biſhops flould
hold the Goſpel over his Head, and another was
to pronounce the Prayer, or Benediction, and all
laying their Hands upon his Head. The Number
here preſcribed of three Biſhops, who are to aſſiſt
in Epiſcopal Ordinations, though not abſolutely
neceffary,
[ 23 ]
MORINUS
CC
neceſſary, is yet a very ancient Cuſtom; and not on-
ly mentioned by the Conſtitutions before
referr’d to, but the Apoſtolical Canons de Ec. Ordina-
do ordain, 'Ezionon xereglovciato so tionibus, Binius
Con. V.1. p. 6.
Επισκόπων δύο ή τριών. That a Biſhop
ſhould be Ordained by two or three Biſhops; which
Practice is farther confirmed by the common Con-
fent of all Churches.
The Ordination of a Presbyter, according to
this Council, is no other than Prayer and Impofi-
tion of Hands. I have already given an Account
of this in the Words of the Council in the former
Chapter.
This is all that is eſſential to Epiſcopal and
Prieſtly Ordination ; and the Authority of a Coun-
cil is ſufficient to determine any reaſonable Chriſti-
an, with reſpect to ancient Uſage.
(And as Dr. Heylen obſerves,) though Hiſtory of the
" this Council be but National in it 83.
“ felf, yet it was generally approved
" and received, as to the Form of Making and
Conſecrating Biſhops and other inferior Mi-
of niſters in all the Churches of the Weſt”.
But there can be nothing which doth more
evidently demonſtrate the fond Innovations and
Corruptions of the preſent Roman Ordinals,_than
a Peruſal of ſeveral of the moſt ancient Forms
of Ordination, in the Greek and Latin Churches;
which Morinus, a Learned Prieſt of the Church of
Rome, has publiſhed in his excellent Treatiſe, De
Sacris Eccleſia Ordinationibus ; the firſt Greek Or-
dinal which he has there publiſhed, is about 800
years Old ; and in the Form for Ordaining a Bi-
ihop, there is nothing mentioned
which the Romaniſts will think worth Sacris Ecc. or-
their while to contend for, beſides dinationibus, P.
Prayer, Impoſition of Hands, and the 53.
C4
laying
MORINUS de
[ 24 ]
laying of the Evangelifts upon the Head and
Shoulder of the Perſon to be ordained; all which
Ceremonies are uſed in King Edward's Ordinal,
only with this Difference, that inſtead of puting
the Evangeliſts upon the Head and Shoulder, it is
here delivered into the Hand, which I ſuppoſe no
Body will contend for to be an eſſential Differ-
ence, there being no Colour for the Divine Inſti-
tution of it.
In this Ordinal for Prieſts, Prayer
Ibil. Page 54. and Impoſition of Hands are the only
Ceremonies uſed which are ſignificant: The Bi-
ſhop maketh a Sign of the Croſs in the Air, but
this is too airy to be reputed an Eſſential in Or-
dination; beſides, it has no Foundation in any
divine Law, nor do the Romaniſts themſelves re-
pitte this to be of any material Conſequence iil
Ordination.
Bu T to ſhorten this Matter as much as poſſible,
I Mall ſet before the Reader the imperative Forms
uſed in the Ordination of Prieſts and Biſhops in
the Roman Pontificale, which we have rejected,
and which thoſe who adhere to the Intereſts of the
Court of Rome lay ſo great a Streſs upon the
Want of, as if the Eſſentials of Ordination de-
pended upon the Uſe of them.
These three Imperative Forms in the Ordi-
nation of a Prieſt, are in their Ordinal, and not in
ours. 1. The Forin of Words uſed when the Biſhop
Pontificale' putteth on the Tippet upon the Perfon
Roman. Page Ordain'd, viz. Receive the Toke of the
Lord, for his Toke is eaſy, and his Bur.
den is light. 2. That uſed at the putting on the
Veſtment, viz. Receive the Sacerdotal
Veftment, by which Charity is underſtood;
for God is powerful to increaſe in thee Charity and the
perfect Work. 3. When the holy Veſſels, with the
confecrated
55.
Ibid.
[ 25 ]
confecråted Elements, are deliver'd,
Ib. Page 58.
they have this Form; Receive Power to
offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Maſſes, as well
for the Living as the Dead,
But if we look into the Ordinals of
the GreekChurch,as they were publiih'd MORINUS
by Mocinus, a Prieſt of their own fiz Ordinarioni.
Church, we ſhall find no ſuch Forms bus, Par. 2.
as theſe in any of them; ſo that if the
Engliſh Ordinal be invalid upon this Account, all
the Ordinations of the Greek Church are as invalid
as ours are, for they evidently labour under the
fame Defect.
Nor did the Latin Church, for the firſt thouſand
Years, or thereabouts, uſe any ſuch Forms as are
now contended for by the Romaniſts : Theſe are
the Productions of a dark ſuperſtitious Age, when
Ignorance prevail'd, and when it was reputed al-
moſt an Hereſy for a Man to know more than his
Neighbours. The Truth of this will evidently ap-
pear to thoſe who will be at the trouble to conſult
the aforeſaid Morinus.
AND as to their way of confecrating Biſhops,
it is ſo ridiculous and antick, in ſeveral of thoſe In-
ſtances which they differ from us, that I am really
aſhamed to expoſe ſuchStuffto the view of theWorld;
at leaſt I think it altogether unneceſſary to trouble
my Reader with them, it being ſufficient for him
to find that our Ordinal is agreeable to the noſt
ancient Ordinals now extant in the World, and
that we obſerve all that the fourth Council of Car-
thage thought expedient to be obſerv’d.
In ſhort, I think it ſufficient, if Prayers ſuitable
to the Occaſion, together with Impoſition of Hands,
be uſed in all Ordinations ; for it is this only
which appeareth to me to have had the univerſal
Suffrage of all Antiquity, and which hath always
been
[ 26 ]
been reputed the eſſential Parts of Ordination: And
I may very well ſay with Bellarmine,
BELLARMINI that very learned Cardinal, upon this
Opera. 3. To. P. Occaſion. Quis enim credat tot Patres
& Concilia, cum nihil frequentius tra&tent
quam Ordinationes Sacerdotum, ne semel attigiſe id
quod ad eſentiam Sacramenti pertinet ? « Who can
“ believe that ſo many Fathers and Councils, when
they mention nothing ſo often as the Ordi-
nations of Prieſts, ſhould never once touch upon
“ what belongeth to the Eſſence of this Sacrament?

CC

2
C H A P.
[ 27 ]

CHA P. III.
Of Alterations made in the Engliſh Ordi-
nals, Anno 1662.
Here is nothing which Mr. Ward
triumphs more in, and which, he
thinks, proves to a Demonſtration the
invalidity of our Ordinals, than the
Alterations made in them, juſt after
the Reſtoration of King Charles the
Second; for he thinks it is very plain, that if
they were good before, there was no need of any
Alteration then. His Words are theſe :
AND this the Church of England's The Contros
" Officers themſelves ſeem to have verlyofOrdina-
“ been ſufficiently convinc'd of, when tion, ec. P.8.
“ in the Year 1662, ſoon after King Charles the
“ Second's Reſtoration, they rejected the ſaid inva-
" lid Form of King Edward's deviſing, and deviſed
new ones in their Places. And again he pro-
ceeds very magiſterially,
“ To ſay thoſe firſt Forms were
“ ſufficient, and contain'd all Things
Ibid, Page 13.
neceſſary, is to ſay, the new ones were more
“ than ſufficient, and that whatſoever they contain


CC
૮૮
more
[ 28 ]
C
more than the firſt had, is ſuperſtitious, unnecef-
ſary, and added in vain. And this is to condemn
" the Convocation,call'd in 1662,of great Weakneſs,
“ Raihneſs, and of great Error.
MR. Ward, I preſume, thought he had here
brought the Proteſtants to a Dilemma,either to grant
the old Ordinals invalid, or elſe to own the Con-
vocation in 1662 to be Raſh, Weak, &c. But, by
his leave, there is no need of either.
For, in the firſt place, to argue from the Alte-
ration in 1662, that the old Ordinals before that
Time were invalid, is not to argue like a Scholar,
or a Divine; for it is a plain Argument, a facto ad
jus, which was never admitted in the Schools,
eſpecially in ſuch a Caſe as this: He muſt prove
the old Forms were in themſelves invalid, which
he cannot do, without invalidating their own, and
all the Forms that ever were uſed in the Catholick
Church.
2d, THE Imprudence of the Convocation is no-
thing to the Purpoſe; yet, I preſume, they may
as juſtly make Additions to our Forms, without
any Reflection upon the Validity of the Old, as
the Church of Rome may make any Additions to
theirs, which, it is known, they have frequently
done. And this will evidently appear to all Men,
who can and will be at the trouble to conſult Mo-
rinus's Collections of ancient Ordinals.
THE Words added at the Conſecration of a Prieſt,
in the Year 1662, are theſe: For the Office and Work
of a Prieſt in the Church of God, now cùmmitted unto
thee, by the Impoſition of our Hands. The Addition
in the Forin for Biſhops is this: For the Office and
Work of a Biſhop in the Church of God, now committed
to thee, by the Impoſition of our Hands.
Now if thefe Additional Words are eſſential to
Ordination, their Orders muſt be invalid too,
becauſe
[ 29 ]
becauſe it evidently appears that they have nothing
of this Nature in their Ordinals, at the Juncture
when Hands are impos’d. But the Truth is, both
their Forms and ours too are valid, notwithſtand-
ing the Want of theſe Additions, as any Body may
gather by what has gone before. And the Reaſon
of theſe Additions in the Year 1662, did not pro-
ceed from a Conſciouſneſs of the Invalidity of our
Forms before, but to ſet aſide fome Occaſions
which ignorant Presbyterians took, to comfort them-
ſelves with the Validity of their own Ordinations,
becauſe that in our Ordinals they did not find any
poſitive Diſtinction made between a Biſhop and a
Prieſt in the Words uſed at the Impoſition of Hands;
Ignorant Presbyterians I call them, becauſe none
but Men that had a very great Share of that, or of
ſomething worſe, could ever conclude, from our
Ordinals before the Reſtoration, that our Church
look'd upon the Order of a Biſhop and a Prieſt to
be the ſame. Burnet gives us this Account of the
Matter.
" THERE was then [That is in
BURNET's
King Edward's Time, &c.] no expreſs Hiſtory of the
“ Mention inade in the Words of Or- Reformation.
Vol. 2. P.13 6.
daining them, that it was for the one
or the other; in both it was ſaid, Receive the
Holy Gholt. In the Name of the Father, & c.
“ But that having been ſince made Uſe of, to prove
« both Functions the ſame, it was of late Years
e alter'd, as it is now. Nor were theſe Words,
being the ſame in giving both Orders, any
66 Ground to infer that the Church eſteem'd them
one Order, the reſt of the Office fhewing the
contrary very plainly.
Now, if we conſider, that this Hiſtory was pub-
liſh'd by a Perſon that wanted not Opportunities
to know the Reaſon of theſe Alterations from the
very


6C
[ 30.]
very Perſons that inade them ; and beſides, that
the Hiſtory itſelf was publiſh'd during the Lives of
ſeveral that were Members of that Convocation;
we cannot but conclude this to be a very true and
authentick Account of this Affair.
BESIDE S, the Thing is in itſelf very natural,
becauſe ſuch an Amendment could be to no other
but for ſuch an Intent as this. For it could not
add to the Validity of our Orders, if they were in-
valid before this Time, for Want of a proper Or-
dinal : But the Perſons that were concern'd in theſe
Alterations were too Learned, not only not to
know that, but alſo they were too well acquainted
with the Forms of Ordination in the primitive
Church, not to know that they were valid before,
and conſequently that there could be any need of
ſuch an Addition upon that Accounc.
MR. Ward ſays farther, " That it
Controverſy 66
of Ordination, « Charles the Second's Convocation,
was a very great Overſight in King
Page 13
not to alter the 36th Article, when
“ they changed their forms of Ordaining; for it
enjoyns them yet to believe that King Edward's
“ Forms contain all Things neceſſary to ſuch Or-
daining and Conſecrating, when, at the ſame
Time, themſelves plainly and openly teſtify a
• contrary Belief of them, by their rejecting them,
“ and making new ones.
If there had been ſuch an Alterationi inade in
the 36th Article, then our Adverſaries of Rome
wou'd have had Reaſon to think that we thought
our Ordinals were invalid before this Alteration
but the Article continuing now, as we find it does,
Mhews our contrary Belief; for, I preſume, it is
poſſible that two Ordinals, that are not directly
worded in the fame Terms, may be valid Forms;
We as openly teſtify our Belief of the Validity of
their
co
3
[ 31
their Orders, by our Practice in not Re-ordaining
their Prieſts, or Biſhops, when they come over to
us, and yet they find we believe our own Orders
good too ; ſo that all he hath ſaid upon this Head, is
grounded upon ſuch an ignorant Propoſition, as
this ; that it is impoflible for a Man to believe that
two Ordinals, which differ in ſome Expreſſions,
can be both valid.



C H A P.
[ 32 ]

CH A P. IV.
Of Archbiſhop PARKÉ R's Conſecrators.

H.
AVING in the foregoing Chapters
proved the Validity of our Ordinals
againſt the Cavils of this Writer,
whereby I doubt not but it will appear
to every impartial Reader, that it is
not the Love of Truth, but Faction, has
engaged him in this Cauſe; I proceed now to
ſhew that thoſe Men who uſed this Form at Arch-
biſhop Parker's Conſecration, were true Biſhops.
THIS Author will by no means
The Contro- admit of this, tho' he ſhould “ Admit
verſy of Ordi.
nation, P.14,15.
" that King Edward's Forms had been
“ valid ; yet thoſe who impoſed Hands
on Matthew Parker were not made Biſhops them-
ſelves by either it or any other Form. As for
“ Coverdale and Scory, it is ſewn already, that
“ when they were made Biſhops, we find no Form
“ in Being to confecrate them by. And as for
<- Hodgkins, another of Parker's Conſecrators, it is
a Queſtionwhether ever there was ſuch Man
or no. But fuppofing all thofe three to have
CC
CC
66 been
[ 33 ]
6 been Bishops, yet none of them were Parker's
“ principal Conſecrator,nor pronounced the Form.
. Matthew Parker's principal Conſecrator was
“ oñe Barlow, who was never made Biſhop by any
“ pretended Conſecration .whatſoever. Nor are
“ there any Records in Being in the World, that
“ give the leaſt Hint of his being ever confecra-
“ ted. And ſince this Confecration is not any
“ where regiſter’d, nor found in any Author, it
" is unreafonable to have him impoſed upon the
" Nation for a Biſhop.
You fee here the Strength of what this Au-
thor has ſaid againſt Archbiſhop Parker's Confe-
crators; and now we are to examine into the
Truth of what he has here written.
1. A s to Scory and Coverdale, you'll find that
Matter ſet in a clear Light in the ift Chapter ;
where you'll find; by the moſt authentick Teftimo-
nies that any Nation can produce, viz. publick
Acts of State, that there was an Ordinal in Being,
(contrary to his bold, confident, not to ſay im-
pudent Affertions) whereby they were to be Con-
fecrated, and without which Confecration they
were incapable, by the Laws of this Land, to en-
joy the Revenues of their Biſhopricks. For it ap-
pears above by Act of Parliament, that the Oro
dinals were ſet forth under the Great Seal, by the
ift of April 1550, and by the Regiſter it appears that
John Scory? were Confec.Tho. Canterbury.
and Miles 30th of Aug. Nich. London.
Coverdale $1551, by Fobn Bedford.

ſo that there was a Form in Being a Year and five
Months before their Conſecration.
But poor Hodgskins is like to come off by the
worſt on't ; for we find Mr. Ward has reduced him
D
into
[ 34 ]
into a State of Nonentity; tho' it appears by
Cranmer's Regiſter, that he was conſecrated the 9th
of December, in the 29th Year of Henry the VIII.
by John Stokejley, Biſhop of London ; fohn Hilley,
Biſhop of Rocheſter; Robert Warton, Biſhop of
St. Afaph; all good Catholicks.
He faith Barlow was not conſecrated, becauſe
he doth not find him regiſter'd in Cranmer's Re-
giſter; and he denies there ever was ſuch a Man
as Hodgskins, tho’his Confecration is found here.
Strange Magick this! this is a Note beyond
Tranfubftantiation. If I had been as he, ſince I was
in this denying Humour, I would have carryed the
Jeft a little farther, and deny'd there were ever
ſuch Men as William Barlow, Miles Coverdale, John
Scory, Matthew Parker, and ſo on. I would have
denyed King Edward had any Ordinals at all, that
all Acts of Parliament, publick Records, and
every Thing elſe relating to this Matter, were
forgd by that ſly Rogue Mafon, in the Year 1613.
This would have put an end to this Diſpute at once;
for I dare ſay, no Soul living would ever have
anſwer'd him ; and many a good Catholick would
have believ'd him, as firmly as they believe the
Saints in Heaven do hear the Prayers they make
to them here on Earth.
AND therefore for once not to make a Practice
of it, I will be fo bold as to preſume, there was
ſuch a Man as this Hodgskins, who was conſecra-
ted as aforeſaid, Suffragan of Bedford; and fo I
ihall go on to prove Barlow's Confecration.
His firſt Argument, to prove that Barlow ne-
ver was conſecrated, is becauſe he is not found in
Cranmer’s Regiſter ; tho' at the faine time, Scory,
Coverdale, and Hodgskins are found there, yet their
Confecrations muſt go for nothing; and becauſe
Barlum is not there, he was no Biihop; ſo that theſe
Records

[ 35 ]
Records, when they are for Mr. Ward's Purpoſe,
are very good, and when they are againſt him they
are not worth a Straw.
NAY, he goeth farther, and faith, there is not
the leaſt Hint of his being conſecrated in any Re-
cord in the World : But how true this is, theſe Re-
cords, which you find here quoted, are ſufficient to
inform you. The firſt Record I preſent you with,
is King Henry the Eight's Mandate for his Conſecra-
tion, directed to Archbiſhop Cranmer.
" To the moſt Reverend Father in God Thomas
Archbiſhop of Canterbury, the King wiſhethHealth,
“Know ye, that by Election lately made in the
sc Cathedral Church of St. Afaph, vacant by the
“ Death of Henry Standiſh, of pious Meinóry,
" the laſt Biſhop of that Place, we have given our
“ Conſent and Favour to the venerable and religi-
ous Man William Barlow, Prior of Eiſham, of
" the Order of St. Auguſtine, in the Dioceſs of Salis-
bury, to be Biſhop and Paftor of the Place afore-
« faid: And by theſe Preſents we ſignify unto
you, that you ſhould execute what belongs to
your Office in this Matter. Witneſs the King at
“ Weſtminſter, the 22d of February, 1536.
Here


cc
ec
D 2
Pro Epiſcopo Affavenſi de Regio Aſſenſu. Rex Re-
verendiffimo in Chriſto Patri Thome Cantuarienſi Archie-
piſcopo, totius Angliæ Primati, Salutem. Sciatis quod
Electioni nuper factæ in Eccleſia Cathedrali Alſavenfi per
mortem, bonæ Memoriz, Domini Henrici Standiſhe ulti-
mi Epiſcopi ibidem vacante, de venerabili & religioſo viro
Domino Willielmo Barlowe, Priore Domus ſive Prioratus de
Biſham,Ordinis S. Auguſtini SarumDiæceſis,in Epiſcopum
loci illius & Paftorem, Regium aſſenſum & Favorem ad-
hibuimus ; & hoc vobis Tenore Præſentium Significamus,
ut qund veſtrum eſt in hac parte exequamini. In cujus, &c.
Teſte Rege apud Weftmonafterium, 22. Feb. 1536. Rymer,
Vol, 14. Page 559
[ 36 ]
KEBLE'S
425.
HERE is the Mandate which all our Kings ſend
to our Archbiſhops in theſe Caſes; and the Que-
ſtion is, Whether it appears by any publick Record,
or Hiſtory, that Archbiſhop Cranmer diſobey'd this
Mandate, or that ever he was proſecuted in a Pre-
miinire, for ſuch his Diſobedience, which is ſo re-
markable a Thing, that there muſt have been ſome
publick Notice taken of it? If this appears, we may
ſafely venture to give up the Cauſe.
The Laws in Henry the Eight's Time were too
freſh in Memory to countenance ſo much as the
leaſt Omillion in this Kind : For there was a Law
made in the 25th Year of his Reign, " That when-
" ſoever any ſuch Preſentment, cr No-
" mination, ſhall be made by the
Statues, Puge
King's Highneſs, his Heirs, or Suc-
ceflors, by Virtue and Authority
< of t' is Act, and according to the Tenour of the
" fame : That then every Archbishop and Biſhop,
to wloſe Hands any ſuch Preſentment and No-
c? mination ſhall be directed, ihall, with all ſpeed
" and celerity, inveft and conſecrate the Perſon
“ nominated and preſented by the King's Highneſs,
“lis Heirs, and Succeſſors, to the Office and Diga
nity that ſuch Perſon ſhall be preſented.
Now here follows the Penalty annex'd to a Re-
fuſal of Obedience to the Mandate aforeſaid.
“If any Archbiſhop, or Biſhop,
Ib. Pige 426.
" within any of the King's Domi-
" nions, after any ſuch Election, Nomina-
tion, or Preſentation, ſhall be ſignified unto
" them by the King's Letters Patents, ſhall
“ refuſe, and do not confirm, inveſt, and confe-
crate with all due Circumſtance, as is aforeſaid,
every ſuch Perfon as is ſo elected, nominated,
or preſented, and to them fignified as is above-
mentioned, within twenty Days next after
66
16
66
66 the
[ 37 ]
« the King's Letters Patents of ſuch Signification
or Preſentation ſhall come to their Hands; or
“ elſe if any of them, or any other Perſon or Per-
“ fons, admit, maintain, allow, obey, do, or exe-
" cute any Cenſures, Excommunications, Inter-
“ dictions, Inhibitions, or any other Proceſs or
“ Act, of what Nature, Name, or Quality ſoever it
“ be to the contrary, or Let of due Execution of
" this Act ; That then every Archbiſhop and
Bihop, and all other Perſons ſo offending, and
“ doing contrary to this Act, or any Pait there-
“ of, and their Aiders, Counſellors, Abettors,
“ Thall run in the Dangers, Pains and Penalties
“ of the Eſtatute of Proviſion and Pramunire,
" made in the 25th Year of the Reign of Edward
“ the third, and in the 16th Year of King Richard
the Second.
Now this Law was made but two Years be-
fore Barlow's Conſecrationi ; and I would fain
know, what Reaſon any rational Man can
frame to himſelf, why Archbiſhop Cranmer ſhould
refuſe to conſecrate Barlow, or ſo much as neglect
to do it, after he had received the Letters Pa-
when by ſuch Neglect, or Refuſal, he ex-
pos’d himſelf even to the higheſt Penalties our
Laws can inflict upon him; and why Barlow him-
ſelf ſhould not take care that Cranmer and the
reft did their Duty; for otherwiſe he could not
enjoy the Reveniies of his Biſhoprick, let
Leaſes, or do any other Act, tho' never ſo much to
his own perſonal Intereſt, for unleſs he ſued for
his Temporalities, nothing of this Nature could be
done by him, and no Court either would or could
admit of ſuch a Suit, without the Perſon ſueing was
actually conſecrated a Biſhop, that being a necef-
fary Qualification for ſuch a Suit, as all the Law-
yers
tents
j
D 3
[ 38 ]
yers in England, that know any Thing of this Mat-
ter, are Witneſſes of.
There is one very merry Argument this Author
brirgs againſt Biſhop Barlow's Con-
Page 18.
ſecration, and that is, that « Henry
" the Eighth was a Man led by his Paſſions."
But I would fain know which of King Henry's Par-
fions were gratified by Barlow's want
of Conſecra-
tion : But it appears by the Mandate for Conſecra-
tion, that the King's Paſſions prompted him to
have him conſecrated.
It is a ſtrange Thing that Barlow ſhould be the
only Biſhop in all that Reign, and contrary
to all Laws then in Being, that ſhould want Conſe-
cration : This is a Thing ſo contrary to common
Senſe, that none but thoſe, whoſe Inclinations are
ſtrongly biaſs’d againſt any Truth which makes
againſt them, can give any Credit to it, eſpecially
if we conſider that this Opinion is directly oppoſite
to the Notions of all Men in that Age, and of the
Biſhops too; for we find him concern'd in a Conſe-
cration in the Year 1541. He was one
of the three that conſecrated Arthur
glicanæ P. :84. Buckley, Biſhop of Bangor, a Papiſt
and 'tis a Wonder, that ſince there
were ſo many other confecrated Biihops, he ſhould
be pitch'd upon to do this Office, if there was then
any Suſpicion of his want of Conſecration : But it
appears farther, by publick Records, in Henry the
Eight's Time, in King Edward's Time, and in the
Days of Queen Mary, that all theſe Princes had
different Notions of him from what the modern
Prieſts and Jeſuits of the Church of Rome pretend
to have ; I ſay pretend to have, becauſe I do not
think that they believe themſelves in what they
ſay with reſpect to this Matter.

MASON Vindi.
cia E clefiæ An..
j
YOU
[ 39 ]
You have already ſeen King Henry's Mandate
for his Conſecration; the ſame Prince afterwards
ſtyled him
Biſhop in two Inſtruments, upon the Re-
moval of Barlow from the Biſhoprick of St. Afaph
to that of St. David's, in the Year 1536, as you
may ſee by the Records underneath; the one is
the Licence for electing one in his room to the Bi-
ſhoprick of St. Afaph, the other is Wartor's Significavit,
who was Barlow's Succeſſor in the See of St. Afaph :
The Inſtruments, you find, are dated May the
29th, and June the 24th, Anno 1536. The Va-
cancy to which Warton ſucceeded, is in Terins de-
clar'd

D4
Rex Dilectis fibi in Chrifto Decano & Capitulo Eccleſiæ
noftræ Cathedralis Alavenfis, Salutem. Ex parte veſtra
nobis eſt humiliter ſupplicatum, ut, cum Eccleſia noſtra
prædicta, per liberam tranſmutationem Willielmi Barlowe
ultimi Epiſcopi ibidem electi, fit Paftoris Solatio deſtituta,
alium vobis eligendi in Epiſcopum & Paforem Licentiam
concedere dignaremur. Nos precibus veftris in hac parte
favorabiliter inclinati, Licentiam illam vobis tenore præ-
ſentium duximus concedendam ; Mandantes quod talem
vobis eligatis in Epiſcopum & Paftorem qui Deo devotus
Eccleſiæ veftræ neceffarius, nobiſque & noftro Regno utilis
& fidelis exiftat. In Cujus, Egc. Tefte Rege apud Wefi-
monafterium viceſimo none Die Maij, 1536. Rymer,
Vol. 14, Page 570.
De Significavit pro Epiſcopo Aſſaven. Ibid.
Rex Reverendiſſimo in Chrifto Patri Thomæ eadem
Gratia Archiepiſcopo Cantuarienfi, totius Angliæ Primati
& Metropolitano, Salutem. --
Cum nuper vacante ſede
Epiſcopali Allavenſi, per liberam tranſmutationem
Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Epiſcopi ibidem Electi, ad hu-
milem Supplicationem Dilectorum nobis in Chriſto Deca-
ni & Capituli Eccleſiæ Cathedralis Aljavenfis, eiſdem per
literas noftras Patentes licentiam noftram concefferimus
alium ſibi eligendi in Epiſcopum losi prædi&ti & Paſto-
rem, 6°c.
Tefte Rege apud Weſtmonaſterium viceſimo quarto Die
Junij, 1536. Rymer, Vol. 14, Page 570.


[ 40 ]
clard to be made ; Per liberam tranſmutationem Wil-
lielmi Barlowe ultimi Epiſcopi ibidem, & c. And would
Henry the Eighth have ſtyld Barlow a Biſhop in
two publick Inſtruments, within leſs than fix
Months after his firſt Election, had he not known
him to be a Biſhop.
KING Edward the Sixth, when he tranſlated
Barlow to the Biſhoprick of Bath, he ſtyles him in
the Inſtrument of Tranſlation ; Reverendus Pater mo-
do Epiſcopus Menevenſis : And again, Concedimus &
damus præfato Reverendo Patri Willielmo nunc Mene-
ven. Epiſcopo, predi&tum Epiſcopatum Bathon, &
Wellen: Ac eundem Willielmum in Epifcopum Bathon
& Wellen. transferimus per preſentes, &c. You
have the Record at large in Rymer, Vol. 15, Page 169.
But what is moft remarkable to prove him a
Biſhop, is the Teſtimony of that zealous Lady
Queen Mary, who, in ſeven publick Inſtruments
owns him to be ſuch ; firſt in her Licence to the
Dean and Chapter of Wells to chooſe another Biſhop
in his room.
“ The Queen wiſheth Health to our beloved in
Chriſt, the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral
66 Church of Wells. Our Cathedral Church of
“ Wells being now deſtitute of the Comfort of a Pa-
« ſtoly
Regina, dilectis nobis in Chriſto, Decano & Capitulo Ec-
eleſiæ Cathedralis Wellen. Saluten.Cùm Eccleſia noſtra Ca-
thedralis prædicta per liberam & ſpontaneam Reſignationem
in Manus noftras ultimi Epiſcopi ibidem, jam ſit Paftoris fo-
Jario deſtituța. ---Nos alium vobis eligendi in Epiſcopum
& Paſtorem duximus concedendum. Mandantes quod
talem vobis eligatis in Epifcopum & Paftorem, qui Sacra-
run Literarum cognitione ad id munus aptus, Deo devo-
tus,nobis & regno noftro utilis & fidelis, Ecclefiæque noftræ
prædiétæ neceſſarius exiſtat. In cujus, tớc. Tefte Regina
apud Weftmonafterium, 13 Martij1554. Rymer, Vol;
15, Page 369.
1
[ 41 ]
16
& ftor, by the free and ſpontaneous Reſignation in-
« to our Hands of the laſt Biſhop of that Place, we
" have given you Leave to chooſe another into the
“ Epiſcopal and Paſtoral Office, commanding that
you
chooſe ſuch a Biſhop and Paſtor as is meet by
“his Learning in the Holy Scriptures, and fit for
" that Office, devoted
to God, profitable and faith-
“ ful to us and our Kingdom, and who will be
« uſeful to our Church aforeſaid. In Witneſs where-
6 of, &c.
“Witness the Queen at Weſtminſter, the 13th
Day of March.
AND here I muſt beg Leave to appeal to all
the World, whether Queen Mary, or her Counſellors,
who were ſo violent in other Things, would have
accepted of a Reſignation from a Perſon that had no
Title, by the Laws of the Land, to a Biſhoprick;
for no Man then, any more than at this Day, could
have any Title to a Biſhoprick, by our Laws, that
wants Confecration. If this had been the Cafe,
would ſhe not rather have directed her Letters Pa-
tents, without any more ado, to the Dean and
Chapter, as to a vacant Biſhoprick, which indeed
would have been the Cafe if Barlow had not been
conſecrated.
ANOTHER eminent Inſtance of Queen Mary's
acknowledging Barlow for a Biſhop, is in another
Inſtrument directed to the Archbiſhops, &c. in
theſe Words.
“ THE Queen to all Archbiſhops and Biſhops,
and to all others whom it may concern, wiſheth
Health.


Regina, 60C, Omnibus Archiepiſcopis, Epiſcopis, vel
aliis quibufcunque quorum in hac parte intererit, ſalutem.
Vacante nuper fede Epiſcopali infra Eccleſiam noftram
Cathes
[ 42 ]
26
" Health. By the late Vacancy of the Epiſcopal
« See in our Cathedral Church of Wells, upon the
Deprivation and Removal of the laſt Biſhop of
“ that Place, the Dean and Chapter of that Church
(having firſt fought and obtain'd our Licence to
c chooſe another Biſhop and Paftor) have cano-
& nically choſen and nominated that diſcreet Man
« Gilbert Borune, Batchelor in Divinity, to be
« their Biſhop and Paſtor, as it more fully appears
« by their Letters which we ſend you, together
" with theſe Preſents.
Now here I would be glad to know whether
Queen Mary would firſt obtain a Reſignation, and
afterwards would the rebellious Dioceſans (becauſe
acting without and againſt the Conſent of their Me-
tropolitan Cranmer, who was then alive) have pro-
ceeded to deprive Barlow, if they had not known
him to be a Biſhop: The Attempt to deprive him,
which is directly affirm'd in this laſt Inſtrument,
proves him, upon their own Teſtimony, to have
been a Biſhop.
THERE are five publick Inſtruments in Rymer's
Fædera, relating to the Reſtitution of the Tempora-
lities, in five ſeveral Counties, wherein are theſe
Words:Vacante nuper EpiſcopatuBathon.
RYMER, Vol. & Wellen. per liberam Reſignationem ulti-
Bathon. P. 384.
mi Epiſcopi ibidem; ſo that here, in
all,

15. Reſtitution.
Cathedralem Wellenſem, per deprivationem & amotionem
ultimi Epiſcopi ibidem, Decanus & Capitulum ejuſdem
Eccleſiæ (Licentiâ prius a nobis per eos alium eligendi in
eorum Epifcopun & Paftorem petitâ pariter & obtenta)
diſcretum virum Magiſtrum Gilbertum Bourne Sacræ
Theologiz Bachalaureum in eorurn Epiſcopum & Paſtorem
canonice elegerunt & nominaverunt, ficuti per eorum lite-
ras, quas vobis mittimus præfentibus incluſas, plenius li-
quet, 66°C. Rymer, Vol. 15, Page 376.
[ 43 ]
Vide Supra.
all, there are no leſs than ſeven Records under
Queen Mary's own Hard, that acknowledge him to
be a Biſhop; and therefore Mr.Ward had not truly
inform'd himſelf in this Matter, when
he faith, There is not the leaſt Hint of his
Conſecration in any Records in the World. I am
ſure theſe, and thoſe others that are before, give
the ſtrongeſt Hints of this Nature that can be given,
unleſs it be the Regiſter itſelf, wherein he is regi-
ſter'd as conſecrated, which is not yet found; tho'
I do not doubt but it may be found, if there were
a ſtricter Enquiry made for it. Archbiſhop Bram-
hall obſerves, that it is to be doubted, whether it
was ever yet fought for farther than
Lambeth. But he farther obſerves, BRAMHAIL'S
" That all the other Acts do appear Proteſtant Bi-
Confecration of
“ in their proper Courts; the King's ſhops,&c P.213.
" Licence, the Dean and Chapters
“ Election, the King's Letters Patents, (which is
" that you ſee before) the Confirmation of the
“ Dean of the Arches, which all go before Conſe-
and his doing Homage, and the Reſti-
“ tution of him to his Temporalities, and his En-
“ throniſation, all which do follow the Confecra-
« tion, and are infallible Proofs in Law of his
“ Conſecration.” To theſe we may add theſe Re-
cords of Queen Mary's, which are publick Records
of an Eneiny to confirm this Matter.
Mr. Ward faith farther; “. There
Vide Supra
6 is 110 Author that mentions his Con-
« fecration.” I know not what he means by this,
unleſs he means that no Author mentions him as a
Biſhop in the Time he liv'd; for it is not every
Author's Buſineſs to mention Confecrations : By
the ſame Rule he might deny that our Biſhops now
are conſecrated; but if he means that no Author
mentions him as a Biſhop, I can tell him of a very
remark-
46 cration;
כל
[ 44 ]
remarkable Book, publiſh'd not two Years after
his Conſecration, wherein there is mention made
of his being a Biſhop, and that in a very eminent
Manner, The Book I mean is, The Inſtitution of a
Chriſten Man, publiſh'd in the Year 1537, by 21 of
the Biſhops of England, and ſign’d by them, and
among the reſt by Biſhop Barlow, thus, Gulielmus
Meneven. There are two Biſhops that ſubſcribe
after him. This Book I lately ſaw in the Hands of
a learned and curious Friend of mine ; but not ha-
ving the Book at preſent by me, I can give no par-
ticular Account who the reſt are: Yet this Proof
extends ſo far as this, that he is there, by a Number
of good Catholick Biſhops, acknowledg’d as Biſhop
of St. Davids ; for certainly they would not have
ſign’d any thing in Company with an Intruder
that wanted Conſecration, much more wou'd thoſe
two Biſhops who fign’d after him, have given the
Precedency to ſuch a Man.
The only Thing that has the Face of an Argu-
ment of Barlow's not being confecrated, is the
want of a Regiſter of it, but then you ſee this is
ſupply'd by ſo many other unanſwerable Eviden-
ces, that there can be no juſt Scruple rajs’d upon
this Head. And we ſee that theſe Men can, upon
other Occaſions, undervalue the Teſtimony of theſe
very Regiſters: For you ſee they are not ſufficient
to atteft the Confecrations of Hodgskin's, Scory, and
Coverdale, and yet they muſt be brought in as E-
vidence againſt Barlow; and again, on the other
Hand, we find no Record made in theſe Regiſters
of the Confecration of their great Goliah, Stephen
Gardiner, Biſhop of Wincheſter ; and, notwithſtand-
ing this Defect, he muſt be reputed a gond Conſo-
crated Biſhop, and no doubt of it he was, not-
withſtanding this Omillion ; and you ſee they op-
poſe

[ 45 )
poſe Barlow's Confecration upon the account of the
very ſame Defect.
In 1hort, there appears ſo much of Faction in
this whole Affair, that Men of Senſe of all Parties
inuſt neceſſarily look with the utmoſt Contempt
upon the Supporters of it.
WHÁ Í he ſays farther upon this Head is of no
Weight, as when he ſays the Hereticks
of thoſe Days (as he calls them) held Pag. 18.
and taught, that there is no other Prieſt-
hood in the Law of Grace but Baptiſın; that Henry
the eighth thought himſelf a Prieſt, that he might
be Head of the Church, and that he was pleas'd with
Barlow's want of Conſecration, upon that Account;
and a great deal more ſuch Stuff as this; which, as
it is directly contrary to our Laws, and'the known
Practice of that Time, deſerves no other Anſwer
but Contempt : It is too romantick to be oppos’d.
He brings an Argument out of Champney's Book
againſt our Ordination, which he thinks of great
Weight, and that is, “ If Barlow had been truly
« conſecrated Biſhop, the Queen, in her Letters
" Patents for Mr. Parker's Conſecration, would ne-
ver have put him after Anthony Kitchen, Biſhop
cc of Landaf. And again he farther proceeds:
• Doubtleſs if Mr. Barlow had known himſelf truly
a Biſhop, he would have diſdain’d to have been
« his Second in that honourable Action, ſeeing he
" ſhould, if conſecrated, have been his Senior.
I own Barlow was Kitchen's Senior by many
Years, and yet ſuch a Punttilio as this can be of no
Force againſt ſuch Arguments as have already been
produced for his Conſecration.
But this Argument, trifling as it is, has long
ago receiv’d its Anſwer from the learned Pen of
Mr. Maſon ; but it is the way of ſuch People as I
have to deal with, never to take notice of any An-
ſwers


יכ
33

[ 46 ]
Vindicæ Ecc.
Anglicanx Lib.
CG
ſwers which have been made to their Objections,
tho' never ſo ſolid, but to continue to urge them
over and over again, with a bold Air peculiar to
themſelves, and their foreign Education.
BUT Mr. Ward has one Advantage, and that
is, that the Anſwer is in Latin, and ſo out of the
Reach of thoſe for whom his Book is deſign'd; or
elſe this Reaſon may be his Excuſe, for ought I know,
and therefore I ſhall take the trouble to tranſlate
it.
“ BARLOW, by reaſon of his Confecration
ought to have had the Precedence,
“ if there had not been a particular
3. C. 10. P.370.
“ Reaſon to the contrary. Therefore
« it is to be obſerv'd, that Anthony
“ Landaff always kept the Poſſeſſion of his See,nor
was he depriv'd of it by any of the Diſturbances
" in the Church of England; ſo that at the Date of
" the Patent he was actually Biſhop of Landaff.
“ But Barlow, altho' in the Days of Henry the
eighth he was actually Biſhop, perhaps of St.
Afaph, but certainly of St. Davids, and in the
Reign of Edward the Sixth, of Bath and Wells :
< But in the Marian Perſecution he was forc'd to
“ leave his Biſhoprick, into which another, name-
ly Gilbert Bourne,was collated ; and altho' at the
“ time when Parker was conſecrated to Canterbury,
" he was choſe Biſhop of Chicheſter, yet he had not
" taken Poſſeſſion of it. And therefore altho' he
was then a true Bishop, with reſpect to the Cha-
"racter, he did not actually poſſeſs a Biſhoprick,
" which Thing the Queen's Letters Patents plain-
<< ly ſhew. For they Style the one fimply Anthony
Landaff, but the other neither ſimply Bath and
* Wells, nor abſolutely Chicheſter, but William
“ Barlow formerly Biſhop of Bath and Wells, noi
* Eléct of Chichejter ; and therefore for this Cauſe
(if

66
66


66
ܙܢܬ
[ 47 ]
The Controvers
« (if I may conje&ture) Barlow is put after Lan-
" daff in Queen Elizabeth's Letters Patents.
AND here I muſt appeal to all Men of Senſe,
whether this is not a very natural Account of this
Matter.
ANOTHER Argument Mr. Ward brings againſt
Parker’s Conſecrators, is from Queen
“ Elizabeth's difpenſing with all their
« Defects and Diſabilities,in her Letc. P.21.
ſy of Ordination,
ters Patents,--- If the Queen had
« not been conſcious of their Deficiency, there
" had been no need, nor any occaſion of her pre-
tending to ſupply what was wanting in their
“ Condition, State, or Faculty. This Want, as to
" their Condition and State, could be nothing but
“the wanting of Confecration, for it is only this
“ that changes their State.
This is a ſtrange Aſſertion, that Conſecration
only changes the State of a Biíhop. I wou'd fajn
know whether a Biſhop that is depriv'd thinks
himſelf to be in the ſame State as he was in before
his Deprivation? But if our Author will confine
the Word State to Conſecration, I hope he will ſhew
us what Authority he has to limit tħe Words of a
Patent publish'd 150 Years ago, to what Conſtru-
ctions he is pleas'd to put upon them. But it is
plain, by the Words of the Patent, that it refers
only to Incapacities in the eye of our Laws. Que
per Statuta hujus Regni, aut per Leges Ecclefiafticas ir
hac parte requiruntur aut neceſaria ſunt. And if we
conſider that Barlow, Coverdale, and Scory, were
neither of them in the actual Poffeffion of Bi-
fhopricks, there may be reaſon enough for ſuch a
Patent with reſpect to the Laws; for 'tis a Queſtion
w ether any but thoſe who are actually in the Por-
ſellion of fome See, can legally conſecrate a Biſhop,
ſo as to be reputed ſuch in the Eye of our Laws,
Eccle-

[ 48 ]
Silence the empty Gueſſes Ob
Eccleſiaſtical and Civil. But it is plain, the Pa-
tent had 110 reſpect to their Conſecrations, becauſe
the Act of Conſecration does not derive its Power
from the Laws of Man, whether they be Ecclefi.
aſtical or Civil, but from the Laws of God. And
as the Patent has only reſpect to the former, as
appears by the Words of it; therefore it cannot
without manifeſt Violence be apply'd to the latter.
UPON the whole then we find, that the four Bi-
Thops that conſecrated Archbiſhop Parker, were
all regularly conſecrated Biſhops, Barlow and Hodg-
kins, in the Time of Henry the Eighth by the Ro-
miſh Ordinal, and Scory and Coverdale, by that made
in King Edward the Sixth's Time ; and all this is
prov'd by the moſt authentick Evidences that ever
were produc'd in a Caſe of this Nature, and which
muſt unavoidably, in the Opinion of Men of Senſe;
factious Heads.



1
€ Η Α Ρ.
[ 49 ]

942
LOTURUSU
CH A P. V.
Concerning the opinions of the Doctors, of
our and their Side, of the Engliſh
Conſecrations.

NOTHER Argument which he brings
againſt our Ordinations, is the Opini-
on of their Church, and of ſome of
their own Creatures; and alſo he brings
ſome Teſtimonies out of our Writers,
that they did not think Succeſſion in Ordination
neceffary, &c.
iſt. Then he ſays, that the Catholick Church
s from the Beginning to this Day, ne-
ver accounted them Biſhops, nor
ſy of Ordination,
« does ſhe look upon thoſe by thein Page zz.
ordain’d, for any more than Laymen,
as is plain from their Practice of Ordáining
theni
anew after the Catholick Manner, and by Catho-
“ lick Biſhops, when they come over, and are to
< be made Prieſts in the Catholick Church.
Crede quod habes G habes is a mighty Ingredient in
the Religion of Rome ; it is in virtue of this mig ty
E
Princi-
TheControver-
૮૮
66
[ 50 ]
Principle that they have uſurped to themſelves the
Style of the Catholick Church, their Biſhops are
Catholick Biſhops, and every thing they do is Ca-
tholick ; it is with ſuch fpecions Words as theſe
they amuſe the Ignorant, and ſet ſuch a Value up-
on their own Actions. They indeed reject our Or-
ders, but then it is upon the ſame Principle with
the old Doratiſts, and truly they are ſo like theſe
and other old Heretics in the ancient Church in fe-
veral other Particulars, that they are not to be di-
ſtinguiſh'd from them in their little Quirks and
Forgeries, ſeveral eminent Inſtances of which you
have in this very Book. But if the Truth had been
of their Side, it is too well known that the ſtands
in need of no ſuch Supports ; it is purely Faction
and Intereſt, and not Religion, which is their
Ground for denying the validity of our Orders,
as will evidently appear by the medium, which this
Mr. Ward brings to prove that their Church doth
deny the Validity of our Orders: His Words are
theſe ;
Ibid.
CC
૮૮
“ WHEN Hooper, Farrer and Ridley
were Degraded, they were not Degrad-
" ed as Biſhops, but only as Prieſts ( for Prieſts
they had been made in the Catholick Church,
“ before they fell.) The Biſhop of Glocefter, when
degrading Ridley, tells him, we are to deprive
“ thee (Ridley) only of Prieſthood, for we know
“thee to be 110 Biihop. To this Ridley was filent,
" without ever offering to affert any Epiſcopal
• Character of his, from his pretended Conſecra-
« tion, by King Edward the Sixth's Forms, which
argues him not to have look'd upon himſelf as
“ Bihop.
BUT here is an unhappy blunder committed
in this Proof, which ſhews at one view the Prin-
ciples of theſe People; for two of the Biſhops
here
CC
[ 51 )
can&, p. 209
here were actually ordain'd by their own Ordi-
nal, and by ſuch Biſhops as were ordain’d by it
too.
HERE are their Conſecrations to prove it, as
they are in the Regiſter.
Nic. Ridley conf. 5. Fohn Bedford. Eccleſ. Anglia
2 Hen. Lincoln.
MÁSonVindica
Sept. 1547. by
Tho. Sidon.
Robert Farrer, conf. 9 Sept. 2 Tho
. Canterb.
Hen, Lincoln.
0549, by
Nic. Roffen.
So that the Confecration of Ridley was two
Years and a half before King Edward's Ordinal
was eſtabliſhed, and that of Farrer, above half a
Year before ; for King Edward's Ordinal, was not
ſet forth till April 1. 1550. as it appears before;
ſo that their Ordinal was then in force; and uſe,
and 110 Alterations made, but in the Communion
Office, as appears by our Acts of Parliament in
that Time.
Now here, we fee, they reject Biſhops made
in every reſpect as their own are, excepting that
of the Authority of the Biſhop of Rome, which
their Ignorant or Factious Doctors then thought
to be an eſſential ; as I ſhall fhew preſently.
BUT the true Reafon, as it appears to me,
why they would not allow of the Confecrations of
Farrer and Ridley, was not Sacred, but merely Se-
cular, that thereby they might invalidate the
Leaſes they had made, as Bithops of their re-
ſpective Sees, ſo that they themſelves might have
the Benefit of Letting new ones.
Latimer, who was conſecrated by the very ſame
Ordinal, but having no Biſhoprick, was vouch-
E 2
faf'd
For poor
[ 52 ]
ſaf'a the Honour of a Degradation. Nor is it
much to be wonder'd at, that Men profeſſing the
Religion of Rome, ſhould facrifice all Honour
and Conſcience to ſecular Intereſt; for that is
evidently the principal Ingredient in the Compo-
ſition of moſt of the Doctrines peculiar to that
Church,
As to Mr. Ward's Obſervation, that Ridley
was filent, when the Biſhop of Glouceſter, in an
upbraiding Manner told him, he was no Biſhop ;
and he did not pretend to affert, any Epiſcopal
Character of his, from his pretended
Page 22.
Conſecration by Edward the Vith's
Forins; This is far from any Argument, that he did
not look upon himſelf as Biſhop; for he had no need
to juſtify his Conſecration from thoſe Forms
nor indeed was it to any purpoſe to juſtify it from
any Form, any more than it would be to Reafon
with Mad-men; for that unjuſt, and unrea-
fonable Zeal, which the Biſhop of Glouceſter and
his Fellows were enrag'd with at that Time, had
a great deal of actual Madneſs in it.
It is
plain they were not actuated by the Laws of rea-
ſon and Religion, when they appear’d fo contra-
dictory to themſelves, when they degraded Lati-
mer, and did not degrade the other two, who ap-
pears to have been conſecrated by the ſame Forms:
This I ſay is evident, if any Body will be ſo
charitable as to ſuppoſe, that Covetuouſneſs was
not at the Bottom of this whole Affair.
BUT Mr.Ward brings in his Catholick Doctors,
as if their Opinion were of any Conſequence in
this Diſpute. Briſtow, Stapleton, and 'Harding,
and the Rhemiſi Divines are brought in ; but of
what Conſequence are theſe Sentiments, or rather
the Words of a few exaſperated Exiles, ignorant
of our Laws, in Oppoſition to ſuch manifeſt
Proofs

[ 53 ]
Vide CUDSE-
Proofs, as I have already produced ; their Ob-
jections have not the Face of an Argument; they are
only confident Aſſertions; as for In- to
ſtance, Stapleton tells the Bishop of 'See Ward's
Wincheſter, you are no Lord of Win- Book, p. 24.
cheſter, nor elſewhere, but only Mr.
Robert Hoorn. Do theſe Words amount to any
Proof? but ſome Men admire Confidence in
others, becauſe they have ſo great a Share of it
themſelves.
BUT Cudſemius (a violent Papiſt, who came
into England, in the Year 1608. much about the
Tiine when their famous Nag's-Head Story was
invented) had a very different Notion of our Or-
dinations, he is ſo ſincere as to own
them to be Regular. His Words are
MIUS, apud
theſe “As to the State of the Cal- Maforum, de
Minift. Anglic.
viniſtical Sect in England, it is ſo
Page 14.
“ form’d, as either to laſt a great
“while, or elſe to be chang’d on the ſudden, be-
a cauſe of the Catholick Order there, in a per-
« petual Series of Biſhops, and a Lawful Succef-
“ fion of Paſtors received of the Church ; for
“ the Honour of which, we are wont to call the
Engliſh Calviniſts, by a milder Name, not
« Hereticks; but Schiſmaticks.
* ANOTHER eminent Inſtance, what Opinion
the Papiſts had of our Orders, is indeed prior to
this, ribut much more remarkable;
we find it in the Injunctions of Art. 29, in
Biſhop Bonner, one of Queen Mary's cords, Vol. 2.
unnatural Inſtruments. The Articles w
of Enquiry runs thus ;
«. Whether any ſuch as were ordain'd Schif
matically, and contrary to the old Order and
si Cuſtom of the Catholick Church, or being Un-
lawfully and Shifmatically Married, after the
late
E 3
[ 54 ]
66
$ Tate Innovation and Manner, being not yet recon-
ciled nor admitted by the Ordinary, have Cele-
“ brated, or ſaid, either Maſs, or other Divine
“ Service, within any Cure or Place of this City
or Dioceſs.
This Injunction, to a perſon that has but
an ordinary Acquaintance with the Hiſtory of
thoſe Times, plainly appears to refer to the
Miniſters ordaind in King Edward's Days; for
the firſt Defcription is of thoſe who were or-
dain'd contrary to the old Order ; and as the old
Order was always obferv'd in King Henry's Tine,
and part of King Edward's, fo the Perſons here
deſcribed, muſt be thoſe ordain’d by the New, in
the latter Part of King Edward's Reign. Secondly,
They are farther deſcrib'd by their being Married,
and that Statute, which gave this Liberty to Per-
fons in Holy Orders, was not eſtabliſhed till the
Third Year of King Edward.
WHAT I infen from hence is, that Bonner did
not look upon King Edward's Orders to be in-
valid, but that the ordained were to be recon-
ciled, and aimitted by the Ordinary, as real
Schiſmaticks generally were, to the Exerciſe of
their Function in the Church. This fhews, that
the Nullity of our Orders was a more modern In-
vention, not thought of till afterward, when it was
the Intereſt of Rome that they fhould be fo re-
puted; for the Pope us'd many Artifices, in the
beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, to regain
his former Authority in this Realm. Among the
reſt one was, that he would, by his pretended
Apoftolick Authority, confirm our
HEYLIN's then Liturgy, in the Engliſh, Tongue,
Hiltury of the
which is in effect to confirin the
whole Reformation, the uſe of the
Communion in both Kinds, &c. ſo
that
Reformation P.
303.
[ 55 ]
that it appears, that Pope Pius the IVth, and the
Church of Rome had then other Sentiments of our
Liturgies and Orders, and the other Parts of the
Reformation; but when they found no hopes of
eſtablishing the Temporal Concerns of their Ho-
ly Father here, the Caſe was alter'd; ſo that by
this we may perceive upon what pitiful Grounds
they deny the validity of our Orders, being no-
thing elſe but Avarice and Ambition.
THES E are Teſtimonies of another Nature,
from what Mr. Ward has produced ; he has pro-
duced the paſſionate Expreſſions of a few angry
Men of our own Country, who did not determine
in this Point agreeable to God's Word, nor the
known Practice of the Catholick Church, but to
thoſe Reſentnients, they were ſo full of, upon the
account of the ſuppos'd Hardſhips they had un-
dergone. Whereas you ſee. I have
brought the Judgment of a Man that
was a Foreigner,who came over to view the State of
our Church and Univerſities, and conſequently is
not to be preſum'd partial in his Opinion, at
leaſt he cannot
be ſuſpected of Partiality to our
Side. Again, I bring the Teſtimony of one of
their own Biſhops, who wanted not
ſtrong Refentments, acting in his
Epiſcopal Capacity.
And laſtly,
The Pope himſelf, you ſee, acknow-
ledg’d the Validity of our Ordinals, and Orders
too, or elſe he wou'd not have agreed to eſtabliſh
them by his Authority. And now I leave it to
every common Reader to judge (though the
Merits of the Cauſe doth not depend upon this)
what Opinion the Catholick Church, as he calls
it, had of our Orders at the beginning; how their
Notions of them came to be alter'd, I have al-
ready accounted for.
E 4
I
CUDSEMIUS.
BONNER
PIUS IV.
[ 56 ]
the Church of
78.
CC
I ſhall cloſe this Head with a more modern Ina
Itance, it is the Opinion of the Doctors of the Sor-
bonne, as I find it related by the Learned Dean of
Normich.
“In the late Times, when one
Validity of
the Orders of
Goffe went over to the Church of
“ Rome, a Queſtion ariſing about the
England. P-ge • Validity of our Orders, on his
“ taking upon himn at Paris to ſay
“ Maſs by virtue of his Orders received in our
“ Church, it was refer'd to the Sorbonne, to ex-
“ amine the Matter ; where it being fully diſcuſſed,
they gave in their Opinion that our Orders were
good: And this I have by-the Teſtimony of one
now an eininent Papiſt, who ſome Years ſince
“ told me the whole Story from his own Know-
ledge, he being then in Paris when the whole
“ Matter was there tranſacted ; and altho? after-
“ wards, as he told me the Pope determined other-
wiſe of this Matter, and ordered the Archbishop
** of Paris to re-ordain him, yet the Sorbonniſts ſtill
« ſtuck to their Opinion that he was a good Prieſt
by his firſt Ordination. And if you will know
s whence this Difference in the Determination a-
roſe, it was that the one proceeded according
" to che Merits of the Cauſe, and the other as wou'd
5 beſt ſuit to his Intereſt, and the Intereſt of the
Party he was to ſupport. Tot
MR. Ward doth in the next Place
Ward's Book bring in ſome of the Doctors of our
Page 25.
Church, ſpeaking againſt the Orders
of
66
* Mr. Obadiah Walker Maſter of Univerſity College in
Oxford, who apoftatized to Popery in the Reign of King
James the lId. a little before the firſt Edițion of this Tract
was publiſhed.
[[ 57 ]
Ibid.
of the Church of Rome ; they are Whitaker, Fulk,
and Sutcliff, and concludes from thence, that they
did not think Parker to have received an
Epiſcopal Power from the Church of Rome. Page 26.
But it is evident that he putteth a Co: ſtruction upon
their Words, which they will not ſtrictly bear; for
I doubt not but if I had their Books by me, I could
prove, that what they ſay, is only againſt the Cor-
ruptions and inſignificant ridiculous Ceremonies in
the Romißh Ordinations. For his Qnotation out of
Fulk plainly alludes to their innovating Ceremony
of anointing in Ordination, when he ſays, “We
Spit at your ſtinking greaſy antichriſtian
« Örders. And if the Cafe is as he ſays,
I do not think what they ſay ſo material as to
rake into the Rubbiſh of old Libraries - for their
Writings to prove the contrary. They were Men
well enough in their Way, but they were confin'd
to the Schools, and were little acquainted with the
Affairs of the World. The Caſe which he-diſputes
doth too evidently appear by publick Records, Acts
of Parliament, and our Publick Ordinals, for any
body that takes upon him to defend our Ordinals,
to condeſcend to ſeek out for ſuch Evidences as
theſe, to ſupport his Cauſe, if they do not hapo
pen to be 'immediately within his Reach.
BUT if we may judge of the reſt, by what
Dr. Fulke has written upon that Head, he was
very far from giving up the Cauſe of Epiſcopacy,
er owning that there were 110 conſecrated Biihops
in the Church of England. For in v
his Anfwer to Stapleton's Fortreſs,
Fortreſs over
where Dr. Stapleton, according to the thrown, p. 13.
bold: impudent Way of Popiſh Wri-
ters, tells the World, The Spiritual Rulers of the
imitive Church, were Biſhops and Paſtors duly
confecrated, but Proteſtants have no Confecration,



STAPLETON'S

no
[ 58 ]


710 true Bifhops at a!l. Fulke enrag'd at fo loud a
Lye, returns this Anſwer ; “This is another lewd
Slander againſt the Proteſtants, for they have
true Biſhops, though not confecrated after the
“ Popish Manner. Laurence, the Second Archbiſhop
5 of Canterbury, acknowledgeth the Miniſters of
" the Scots and Britains for Biſhops, although they
were not ſubject to the Church and See of Rome,
« Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Aidanus, Finanus, Colmanus, are
“ judged of Beda, for true Biſhops, although they
were divided from the Church of Rome, and ſo
are ſuch Biſhops as were ordain’d by them.
But Dr. Fulke comes more home to the Point, in
the 113th page of this very Book, with reſpect to
our Succelhon from the Popiſh Biſhops, before
the Reformation. « The 3ift Difference is Iin.
poſition of Hands, which is a meer Slander, for
" the Ceremony is us’d of us in Ordaining of
" Miniſters, likewiſe where he faith, that when
4 all the Popiſh Biſhops were depofed, there was
none to lay Hands on the Biſhops, that ſhould
“ be newly conſecrated; it is utterly falſe, for
" there was one of the Popiſh Biſhops that con-
“ tinued in his Place, there were alſo divers that
were confecrated Biſhops in King Edward's Days,
By this you may ſee how far theſe Men are to
be depended upon in what they write, they are
not alham'd to-belye Dr. Fulke, after ſo many
Years reſts and Chriſtian Burial, and I think we
may fairly sconclude that the other Proteftant
Doctors have received the ſame Uſage.
But Mr. Ward tells us, that it
See his Book,
was an univerſal Cry among the
" Proteſtants at that Time, that the
« Church of Rome was in Apoftacy, and drown'd
« in damnable Idolatry
that Rome was the
• Whore of Babylon, the Pope Antichriſt, &c.
“ which charge of Antichriſtianiſm, Apoftacy,






CC
Rage 26.
" and
[ 59 ]
" and Idolatry, is inconſiſtent with the Apoftolical
“ Succeſſion of Biſhops and Prieſts, and with all
" Chriſtian Prieſthood.
As to the Idolatry of the Church of Rome,
and conſequently of the Apoſtaſy, &c. of the
Pope, and all that adhere to that Church, he'll
find the Cry continu'd ; and I wiſh with all my
heart, that there were even now, any reaſon for
an abatement of it, but this they muſt not ex-
peet, until they have made very conſiderable
Abatements in their Corruptions : Indeed Mr.
Ward would willingly, you fee, flatter himſelf
and his own Party, with a Notion that we do now
no more charge Rome with Idolatry, or that the
Pope is Antichriſt, in the Senſe of being an op:
poſer of the Chriſtian Religion.
But that this Charge of Idolatry, Apoſtaſy,
and Antichriſtianiſm ſo juſtly imputed to the
Romaniſts ſhould be inconſiſtent with an Apofto-
lical Succeſſion of Biſhops is what he has yet to
prove, for we deny that Hereſies do diſannul
Holy Orders, and we have the Primitive Church
on our Side, in this Doctrine, whofe Practice it
was to admit the Arian Prieſts, and other Here-
tical Miniſters, to the exerciſe of their Functions,
without any further Ordination. And this is the
Foundation which we go upon in allowing of the
Orders of the preſent corrupt Church of Rome, for
we reject nothing but their Errors, and though
they have, even in their Ordinals, introduced many
corrupt Superftitious Ceremonies and Practices, yet
the Providence of Almighty God hath ſo ordered it,
that they have retain’d ſo much of the Apoſtolical
and Primitive Forin, as is ſufficient to convey the
Epiſcopal and Prieſtly Functions,
As to what he ſays, of the Opinions of ſome
Proteſtants contrary to this, it is nothing to the
purpoſe, for private Opinions prove no more than
the


[ 60 ]

nation, Pa. 26. is all of a piece with the reſt ; the
thie Arguments do which they are ſupported by:
But the Paffage which he produceth out of Bur-
net, to prove that there are ſuch private Opinions,
proves leſs even than private Opinion it ſelf, un-
leſs he thought we have any Regard for his own,
becauſe he refers us to Burnet, p. 230. Now the
late Biſhop Burnet has written a great many
Books, and where to find the Paſſage I cannot
tell, fo that at preſent they ſhall paſs with me;
but as Mr. Ward's own Words; and what Weight
there can be in the Words of a Man,
Vide Cap. 1.5t that has falſified Acts of Parliament,
and the Date of a Publick Liturgy, &c. I leave
to the Conſideration of every honeft Man: And
as to what follows afterwards of Fewel's and Horn's
&c. Branding the Roman Epifcopacy
The Contro- Twith the Character of Antichriſt, this


verly of Ordi.
רו
Popie indeed they juſtly Branded with
ſuch a Character, not upon the account of his Épiſ-
copal Character, but becauſe of his Uſurpation and
Tyranny over the reſt of his Brethren the Biſhops,
wrich is neither founded in Scripture nor Primitive
Practice; and becauſe he both practiſeth and fup-
porteth the Idolatry and Errors of his Vaflals, in
oppoſition to the true Faith of Chriſt, eſtabliſhed
by Chriſt and his Apoſtles.
Torebit
THERE is one curious Thought more which is
very obſerveable in this Writer, I ſhall tranfèribe
rb the Paſſage at large. “I do not fay
Ibid, Pag. 26.
is for all this, but that the Queen (who
“ in her own Thoughts was much better principled
towards Epiſcopacy than themſelves were) de-
« fired to have her new Bithops Confecrated by Ca-
" tholick Bishops, and the Catholick Forms. For
cher Ambition was, That her new Reformed Con-
gregation of England ihould bear the Face of a
66
" Church
[61]
« Church, and have in it an Epifcopacy and true
Prieſthood, which ſhe knew the foreign Reform'd
“ wanted ; and it was in compliance with her (not
“ from any good Principles of their own) that
« Parker and his Collegues, made ſo much ſuit to
« Catholick Biſhops for Confecration.
Now I wonder what could hinder Queen
Elizabeth from having her Deſires ſatisfied ; and all
the World know's ſhe was a Lady that very well
knew the means how to have her Deſires ſatisfied. She
would not in her two firſt Statutes have aboliſh'd
all the Superſtitions of Rome, if ſhe did know there
was no other way to procure good Biſhops, but by
the Adminiſtrations of the Popiſi ones ; for the
was too cunning not to know, that theſe Means
would effectually prevent thoſe Popiſlı Biſhops from
complying with her Deſires : Nay, we find thoſe
Catholick Forms, as he is pleas'd to call them, were
ſo far from being agreeable to her Deſires, that
King Edward's Forms of Ordination were usd in
all her Reign, which ſhe never would have permit-
ted, if ſhe had thought that they were Invalid.
But this ſimple Suggeſtion is of a piece with the
reft of what this Author has written.
I F there were no other Reaſon but the great Op-
poſition which Queen Elizabeth's Bishops made a-
gainſt the Puritans ; this alone were ſufficient to
prove their good Affections to Epiſcopacy, and that
it was not the Queen's deſire alone to have this Go-
verninent Eſtabliſhed. But Mr. Ward, according
to the notorious Examples of Sanders, Champney,
and the reſt of that Tribe, will ſay any thing he
has a Mind to, without any Senſe of Shame or Bluſh-
ing.
СНАР.
[ 62 ]

ut
IT
C H A P. VI.
That our Biſhops were not reputed true
Biſhops according to our Laws.

HE next Argument, which he bring:
eth againſt the Confecration of our
Bishops, is fome diſputes among the
Lawyers, whether they were legal Bi-
ſhops, which, by the by, doth not at
all relate to the validity of their Conſe-
crations, with reſpect to the Laws of Chriſt : For
it is one thing to be a true Chriſtian Biſhop, and
another thing to be a true legal Biſhop in the Eye
of the Laws of England. And I believe it is a Cafe
that would not be eaſily folv'd by the moſt eini-
nent Gentlemen of the long Robe; Whether a Bi-
ſhop, as our Laws now ſtand, who is Ordained by
the Popiſh Ordinal, and by Popiſh Biſhops, can fue
for his Temporalities, or otherwiſe legally poſſeſs a
Biſhoprick in England, in virtue of ſuch an Ordi-
nation. And tho we do admit their Prieſts with-
out any farther Ordination to hold Preferments
here, yet I very inuch queſtion, if this Matter were
put upon the Iſſue ; Whether they could or no, for
every Man muſt have a Legal, as well as a ſpiritu-
al Right to all Preferinents in this Kingdom; and
yet

[ 63 ]
Man may
yet for any Man to argue that a Man is no Chriſti-
an Prieſt, becauſe our Laws have not in all parti-
culars authorized the Manner of his Ordination, is
not to argue like a Chriſtian or a Scholar: For a
be a regular Prieſt in the Chriſtian Ac-
count, tho' he has not been Ordained by our pre-
ſent eſtabliſh'd Ordinals. So that whatever Mr.
Ward faith with reſpect to the Invalidity of our
Ordinations, at the beginning of the Reformation,
becauſe our Law-makers were not cautious enough to
guard againſt all the Objections of captious Heads,
is nothing to the purpoſe, and doth not in the leaſt
affect the Merits of the Cauſe. For if our Ordi-
nals are Valid, as I have already proved them to
be, and if we had then regular Biſhops to uſe theſe
Ordinals, which Barlow, Hodgskins, Coverdale, and
Scory plainly appear to be by what is already faid,
and what I ſhall farther urge as to this point, this
will be ſufficient: For the Queſtion is not, Whe-
ther they were ſufficiently Eſtabliſhed to Act ac-
cording to our Laws, as they were then in Being,
but whether they were true Biſhops according to the
Laws of God; if they were fo, it was time enough,
afterwards, to fix their Authority here by Law,
without any ground for the Imputation of being
called Parliament Biſhops ; for our Parliament doth
not pretend to give them any ſpiritual Authority,
but only to oblige the People, by a civil Sanction,
to yield an Obedience to thoſe fpiritual Powers
which they are already, according to the Chriſtian
Inſtitution, inveſted with. For let us put the Caſe
that Popery and Popiſh Biſhops were to be Eſtabliſh-
ed here again, we muſt preſume, the firſt Step in
that Cafe to be taken, is to repeal the preſent Laws
in Being againſt that Religion and their Ordinals,
to ſet alide Ours, and to eſtabliſh Theirs: And
therefore I here appeal to all Men of coinnon
Senſe


[ 64 ]
Senſe, whether the Popular Cry of a Parliament
Religion, and Parliament Bishops, may 110t as
juſtly be rais’d againſt them, as they do at pre-
ſent raiſe the fame Cry againſt us. We have an
Inſtance of this in the Days of Queen Mary. In
the firſt Year of that Queen, all Statutes made
relating to the Reformation in the Time of King
Edward were repeal'd, and the Religion of Rome
was again eſtabliſhd, and All ſuch
Divine Service and Adminiſtration of
Sacrainents, as were commonly uſed
in England, in the laſt year of King
Henry the VIIIth, Jhall be uſed thorough the Realm,
after the twentieth Day of December, Anno Dom.
1553. and no other Kind of Service, nor Admini-
ftration of Sacraments.
If this be not as much a Parliament Religion
as ours is, I have nothing more to ſay. But we
find no Cry ſo loud as this againſt us, though it
appears to have been their own Caſe as well as


KEBLE's Star.
P. 739. Mar.
S 13. 1. c. 2.
Ours.
BUT leaſt Mr. Ward's Friends ſhould think
we deſpiſe his Reaſons, from theſe Premiſſes,
more than they deſerve, I ſhall conſider particu-
larly what he ſays upon this Head.
THE firſt Argument he brings to prove that
our Biſhops were not reputed true Biſhops by our
Laws, is a Caſe out of Brook’s Novel Caſes, printed
Anno 1604. who writes thus.
“It is ſaid, that the Biſhops
Controverſy of
Ordination.pe28
created in the Time of Edward
not conſecrated, and
" therefore were not Biſhops ; and for this Rea-
fon, the Locations of Lands, for a certain
" Terin of Years by them made, though confirm-
" ed alſo by Dean and Chapter, did not oblige
" the Succeffor, becauſe ſuch had never been
Bilhops.
Mrs
C VI. were
CS
66
[ 65 ]
BROOKE,
Ascun's No-
P. fol.
MR. Ward ſays, we are to obſerve, “That the
5. Reaſon given why the Law did not look upon
< them as Biſhops, was, becauſe they were not
óc conſecrated. But here Mr. Wärd, (as he gene-
rally is) is miſtaken, for he does 110t diſtin-
guiſh the Law from the Pleadings of the Counſel;
nor was it ever heard of before, that the Argu-
ments urg'd on both Sides by the Lawyers, were
ever look'd upon aš Law, for if this were the Cafe,
then both sides of the Queſtion would be true, and
according to Law, which is a thing impoflible.
Brook doth not report it as the Judgment of the
Court, that the Biſhops in King Ed-
ipard's Time, were not confecrated, but
only Dicitur que Eveſques in Tempore vel Cafes, de
E. 6. nė fueront Sacres ; “ It is ſaid, les Anf. &c.
" that the Biſhops in King Edward's
“ Time were not conſecrated, and when he
comes to Report what was pleaded on the other
Side, he ſays, contra de Evefquie deprive que fuit
Evefque in fáit tempore diſmiſionis, et confirmat' fa&.
“ The contrary of a Biſhop who was depriv’d,
who was Biſhop indeed at the Time of the De-
6. mife and Confirmation made.
So that here you ſee nothing that can affect
the Confecrations in King Edward's Days, to
which Time thie Cafe here referr’d to does re-
late ; for you fee the Caſe is put as well to
Biſhops depriv’d (which is indeed the true Cafe )
as with reſpect to Biſhops not conſecrated: For
Brook only reports what was urg'd of both
Sides, and mentions nothing of the Judgment
given. And Dr. Champney, was fo ſenſible of this,
in his Book of the Vocation of the Engliſh Biſhops,
that though he has mentioned this Cafe of Brook's
in his Engliſh Edition, yet he has entirely omit-
ted it in the Latin one, which he afterwards
F
publifhed,

66

[66]
The Contro-
publiſhed. And perhaps the Reaſon of this was,
that he thought any thing would go down with
the Engliſh Papifts, who are loaded with Prejudice,
but would not well bear a Foreign Examina-
tion.
But it ſeems Ridley was convinc'd of this,
“ becauſe after his Degradation from his Prieſt-
hood, be petitioned, That thoſe Lo-
cations, which he had made for cer-
verſy of Ordina-
tion, P.28.
" tain Terms of Tears, might rem
“ valid and firm to the Popeſor.
“ But if he had been, or believed himſelf Biſhop, he
“ needed not have begg’d this as a Favour, but
" have demanded it as his Right. This is Mr.
Ward's Concluſion.
BUT to talk of Law and Reaſon to a Rab-
ble full of Rage, whoſe ratio ultima lay in their
Broomſticks, would argue as much Weakneſs in
Biſhop Ridley, as in thoſe he had to deal with :
Such Men are only capable of Perſuaſion, but 1106
of Argument.
I have already prov'd Bihop Ridley to have
been conſecrated by their own Ordinal, and by
ſuch Biſhops as were conſecrated by it too. But
notwithſtanding this, you ſee they deny him to
be a Biſhop. In ſhort, they deny or affirin any
thing, as their Humours and Intereſts lead them.
What Burnet obſerves, with reſpect to this Matter
of Ordination, is very juſt.
“One thing, ſays he, is remark-
Hiſtory of the able, both by theſe (viz. Bonner's In-
junctious, and the Queen's Injuncti-
ons that they do not pretend to Re-
" ordain thoſe that had been Ordained by the new
“ Book in King Edward's Time; but to reconcile
them, and add thoſe things that were wanting ;
which were the Anointing, and giving the
Prieſtly


BURNET'S
Retorination,
Vol. 2. P. 269.
the
66
“
[ 67 ]
66
CG
દદ
C6
Prieſtly Veſtments, with other Rites of the
“ Roman Pontifical. In this point of Re-ordaining
“ ſuch as were Ordained in Hereſy or Schiſm,
6 the Church of Rome has not gone by any ſteady
“ Rule : For though they account the Greek
66 Church
to be guilty both of Hereſy and
“ Schiſm, they receive their Prieſts without a
new Ordination. Yet after the Time of the
“ Conteſts betweeni Pope Nicolaus and Photius,
« and much more after the outragious Heats at
Rome, between Sergius and Formoſus, in which the
6 dead Bodies of the former Popes were raiſed and
dragged about the Streets by their Succeſſors, they
" annulled the Ordinations, which they pretended
were made irregularly.
" AFTERWARDS again, upon the great
Schiſin between the Popes of Rome and Avig-
non, they did neither annul nor renew the Or-
is ders that had been given : But now in England,
is though they only ſupply'd at this Time the
“ Defects, which they ſaid were in their former
“ Ordinations ; yet afterwards, when they pro-
« ceeded to burn them that were in Orders, they
" went upon the old Maxim, That Orders given
6 in Schiſm were not valid; fo they did not
“ eſteem Hooper or Ridley Biſhops, and therefore
only degraded them from the Prieſthood;
" though they had been ordained by their own
“ Forms, ſave only the Oath to the Pope.
L ET the Reader now judge how a Man ſhall
deal with ſuch Men ; ſometimes they deny the
Validity of Orders, though conferr'd by their own
Ordinal ; at other Tiines they deny Orders con-
fer'd by all Ordinals, unleſs the Perſon ordain'd
ſubmits himſelf to their Superftitions, and if he
does fo, that fanctifieth him at once, as it was the
Cafe
66
“

F 2
[ 68 ]
Caſe of ſeviral of the Clergy in King Edward's
Time.
But ſuppoſing the Popiſh Índges, in Queen
Mary's Days, did dený our Orders to be valid in
the Eye of the Laws of England, what is this to
the purpoſe of a true Chriſtian Ordination?
For if the Perſons ordain’d, were conſecrated by
a good Ordinal, as I have prov'd King Edward's
to be, and by good Biſhops, it is ſufficient, no
matter for Human Laws in this Caſe.
WH A T is a farther Inſtance of the waver-
ing uncertain Humours of theſe Men in the Caſe
of Ordination, is the Certificate which Bonner
gave Scory, (one of Parker's Conſecrators) of his
having renounc'd his Wife, wherein
BURN E T'S he calls him Dile&tus Confrater nofter
Johannes nuper Ciceſtrien. Epifcopus.
Our beloved Brother John late Biſhop
in the App in-
dix, Num. 1.
of Chicheſter. And will any Body
imagine, that Burner, who was ſo re-
narkably zealous in his Superſtition, would ſtile
Scory his Brother Biſhop, if he did not really
know and think him a truly conſecrated Biſhop.
Now Story and Miles Coverdale
, were two of Par-
ker's Conſecrators, and both ordain’d at the ſame
Time by King Edwards Ordinal; and if one was
a true Biſhop, the other muſt be fo too
ſequently, in Bonner's Opinion, we had two good
Biſhops at Parker's Conſecration ; beſides, they
muſt own Barlow and Hodgkins, the other two, to
be good Biſhops, becauſe they were conſecrated
by the Romiſ) Ordinal ; ſo that here our Succeſſion
is prov'd down to Parker, and conſequently fron
him down to this Day, even out of their own
Mouths.
Records, Part
Lib
Se: the Record
2.
2
and con-
3
WHAT
[ 69 ]
WHAT Mr. Ward brings next to prove, that
our Biſhops were not Lawful in the Eye of our
own Laws, till the Parliament of the Eighth of
Elizabeth, is the Caſe of Horn Biſhop of 1'in-
cheſter and Bonner. The Cafe, as he relates it,
is thus;
“ Hooril tendered the Oath of Su-
premacy to Bonner, deſigning up- verify of : di-
on his Refuſal to bring him un-
nation, P. 29.
“ der a Pramunire. The Biſhop re-
¢¢ fusd this Oath upon which Horn pro-
“ ceeds againſt him in the Court of King's
Bench, accuſing him there of denying that
“ Oath by him tendered. Biſhop Bonner deny'd
" not the Fact, but Pleaded, that he had not in-
is curr’d thereby the Penalty inflicted by the Law
“ for refuſing the Oath, becauſe it was not Law-
" fully tender'd him: Becauſe Robert Hoorui,
" who offer'd it to him, was no Biſhop when he
« tendered it to him; and by the Law, no Ec-
« cleſiaſtical Perſon, who is not a Biſhop, has
“ Power to tender the Oath. Upon this the
“ Judges of the Kingdom met at Judge Catalin's
« Chambers, in Serjeant's Inn, to conſult of the
“ Matter, and after all, were forced to admit
• Bonner's Plea good, as appears from their letting
" the Matter fall without any farther Proceſs a-
gainſt him upon that Affair.
But Mr. Ward is unjuſt to the Judges, in ſaying
that they admitted Bonner's Plea for good; they on-
ly put the Cauſe upon this iſſue, in order to be
try'd by a Jury, which was never done ; for
the Parliament interpos’d, and put the Le-
gality of Horn's Conſecration out of Diſpute, and
at the ſame Time skreen'd Bonner froin a far-
ther Proſecution at that Time.
as
F3
BUT
[ 70 ]
But leaſt the Reader ſhould from hence con-
clude, that he was no true Chriſtian Biſhop, I
ſhall relate this Cafe, as it lies before me in our
Statutes.
THE Parliament of the Iſt Elīz. that efta-
bliſh'd the Common Prayer, and indeed, and in
effect, eſtabliſh'd the Ordinal, but in
KEELE'S theſe general Words, “ That the ſaid
St tates, Page
764.
“ Book of Coinmon Prayer, with the
“ Order of Service, and of the Admi-
“niſtration of Sacraments, and other Rites and
“ Ceremonies, ſhould ſtand and be in full Force.
Now Bonner, in his Plea, taking Advantage of
theſe general Words, affirm'd that the Ordinal
was not comprehended in them, and conſequently
that Horn, who was conſecrated by it, was not
therefore legal Biſhop of Wincheſter, in the Eye
of our Laws; there was no Pretence, upon his
want of Conſecration, in any other Senſe than
this, which appeareth by the Words of the Statute
of the Eighth Year of that Queen, whereby this
Ordinal was in Ternis eſtabliſhed.
Sia ures, p.816.
" That all Perfons that have been
See the AP-
" made, or ſhall be made Arch-
pendix
biſhops, Biſhops, &c. by the ſaid
" Form and Order, are declared and
enacted
to be, and ſhall be Archbiſhops,
Biſhops, &c.
HENCE it is plain, that Horn was ordain'
by King Edward's Ordinal, otherwiſe he was by
this Act no other than he was before ; ſo that
this Act which I have given the
Reader in the Appendix, is a ſtanding
Teſtimony, that all our Bishops were ordain'd,
before the Time of this Act, by King Edward's
Ordinal, and that conſequently Biſhop Horn was
fo ordaind too; otherwiſe, as it appears by the
whole
KE SLI's
Num. II.
Numb. II.
[ 71 ]
3
whole Tenor of the Statute, they were no more
Legal Biſhops by this, than they were before
becauſe this Act authorizeth only fiuch Biſhops as
were made by this Ordinal; and therefore it far-
ther very evidently appears, that the Cavils
rais'd by Bonner, and that Faction, were not upon
the account of the want of any Conſecration, but
only that their Confecrations were not ſufficient-
ly authorizd by our Laws; though that is no
more than a mere Cavil, becauſe certainly the
Ordinal may well be number'd among the Sacra-
ments, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of England,
eſtabliſh'd by the Firſt of Elizabeth ; nay, the
Act of Queen Mary, which firſt repeaľ d this
Ordinal, and annull'd it in Law, ſtands repeal'd
to all Intents and Purpoſes by the Statute of the
Eliz. So that a reaſonable Man would conclude,
that whereas the Act, whereby it was annull’d,
being repeal'd, this Ordinal muſt then be of the
ſame Force it was before, in the Days of King
Edward.
By this View, a Man may fee from what Îlen-
der Foundations fome People will raiſe a Cla-
mour, whereas it is plain, their Oppoſition is not
reaſonable, but factious.


F4
СНА Р.
[ 72 ]

Brela
СНАР.
VII.
The Story of the Nag's Head Conſecration,
Examined.

R. Ward, after a Romantick Account
of the Shifts Queen Elizabeth's firſt
Biſhops were put to, to get them-
ſelves confecrated by Dr. Creagh,
Archbiſhop of Armagh, and a great
deal icre ſuch Stuff as this, which has no Foun-
dation either in Hiſtory, nor indeed in common
Senſe, proceeds to affert the old ridiculous baffled
Tale of the Nag's Head Confecration. His Words
are theſe ;
« Parker and his Fellows being
ve ſy of Ordi.
" thus balk'd of their Expectations,
narion, dr. p. " and now therefore out of all far-
“ther Hopes or Proſpect of ever re-
ceiving Conſecration from the Hands of any
" Catholick Biſhop, reſolved to make the beſt
Co of
The Contro:
37, 38.
[ 73 ]
CG
CC
}
CC
çc of a bad Market, and to content them-
“ felves with what ſort of Conſecration they
“ could have from the Proteſtant Super.inten-
“ dants, who ſupply'd the Places of Biſhops in
“ the Days of King Edward the VIth. Here-
upon Parker apply'd himſelf to John Scory,
one who had been ordain'd a Prieſt truly in the
ç Catholick Church, and turning over to Proteſtan-
cy, had been by King Edward's Appointment
prefer?d to a Biſhoprick, but without Epiſcopal
". Conſecration, by any known Form. This Scory
“ undertook the Office, and conſecrated Parker,
" and the reſt, not by the Catholick Form (for
“this was contrary to his Principle ) nor by King
« Edward's Form (for this was by the Queen de-
fignedly left remaining, unlawful, and unre-
ſtored, after Queen Mary's Repeal of it, as is
faid) but by a new Extemporary Form of his
own deviſing. Thus far the Legend.
When Men have loſt all Senſe of Shame, they are
then capable of any Crime, much greater if poſſible
than that of a Miſrepreſentation ; this I fear was poor
Mr. Ward's Cafe, but it is a Misfortune with him
in common with all others of the ſame Temper, to
want a good Memory. In the 15th Page, Barlow
is made principal Conſecrator, but here in the
38th, Scory alone undertakes the Office ; how this
can be reconciled, I know not, but I leave it to
thoſe who believe Tranſubſtantiation, to do it for
As to what he faith of Scory's not being con-
fecrated, the Reader muſt conſult the firſt Chap-
ter, where he will find the Matter of Fact plain-
ly proved, that he was ; though very much to Mr.
71"ard's Diſcredit, I own, whom you'll find there to
be guilty of a very groſs Miſrepreſentation of an
Act of Parliament, in denying, that there was any
Form



CC
me.
[ 74 ]
HEY LYN'S
P. 345.
Form in Being, when Biſhop Scory was ſuppos’d
to be conſecrated.
ANOTHER very ſtrange Piece of Hiſtory
in this Paſſage is, that Scory conſecrated Parker
and the reſt, not by the Catholick Form, nor by
King Edward's,but by an extempore Form of his own.
Here is another Inſtance of that Talent, which
ſeems to have been Mr. Ward's Maſter-piece. But
there is a fatal Inſtance in the Caſe of Biſhop
Bonner, that ſets the Advancers of this Argument in
a very wretched contemptible Light;
Hiſtory of the
and that is one of Bonner's Pleas, to
Reformation,
diſqualify Horn as a proper Miniſter of
the Oath of Allegiance, which is this;
that Horn being conſecrated by King Edward's
Form, which form being aboliſh'd by Queen
Mary, and not being eſtabliſh'd in Terms by the Act
of the iſt of Elizabeth, which eſtabliſhed the Common
Prayer ; and conſequently that Horn was no Legal
Biſhop of Wincheſter, and ſo no proper Admini-
ſtrator of the Oaths tender'd to him by Horn or
his Chancellor.
Now this Plea doth ſuppoſe Hori conſecrated
by theſe Forms, otherwiſe the Plea had been ri-
diculous, and according to the Nag's Head Legend,
Parker, and Horn, and Fewel, and ſeveral others,
were ordain’d together by Scory, at the ſame Time,
and in the ſame Place; and therefore you ſee
Mr. Ward is no Changling, when he faith, that
Parker and the reſt were conſecrated by Scory,
by a new extemporary Forin of his own de-
viſing
THE Statute of the Eighth of Queen Elizabeth,
farther ſhews the inanifeſt Untruth of the Romiſh
,
Emiſſaries Aſſertions, that Scory conſecrated Para
ker, and the reſt, at the Nag's Head, by a Form
of his own deviſing. The Words of the Statute
are,

[ 75 ]
KEBLE'S
CC
CC
are, « That the Queen had, by her
“ Supreme Authority, at divers
« Times from the beginning of her 815.
Statutes, Page
Majeſty's Reign, cauſed divers and
fundry Grave and well Learned Men, to be
duly elected, made, and conſecrated Archbilhops
“ and Biſhops, of divers Archbiſhopricks and
Biſhopricks within this Realm, and other her
Majeſty's Dominions and Countries, according
" to ſuch Order and Form, and with ſuch Cere-
« monies in and about their Conſecrations, as were
" allowed and ſet forth by the faid Acts, Statutes,
" and Orders annexed to the ſaid Book of Common
Prayer before-mentioned.
Now theſe Words plainly refer to no other
Orders and Ceremonies, but what were annex d to
the Common Prayer ; and I leave every Body to
judge what Forms of Ordination thoſe were which
were uſed from the Beginning of that Queen's
Reign. By this you inay eaſily gueſs what is be-
come of Biſhop Scory's extempore Form, at the
Nag's Head, and even of the Story of the Nag's
Head it felf.
A s to what Mr. Ward ſays, of Queen Eliza-
beth’s not reſtoring King Edward's Forms of Or-
dination, till the Eighth Year of her Reign ; this
you ſee is bury'd in the fame Grave with Biſhop
Scory's Form, and the Nag's Head Legend; and he
that will not be ſatisfied with the Teſtimony of the
Lords and Commons of England, in a Matter of
Fact which happened in their own Times, but
will prefer the empty ridiculous Surmiſes of thoſe
who can believe Purgatory and Tranfubftantiation,
before ſuch Evidence; theſe, I ſay, muſt be aban-
don'd, as paſs'd Conviction, they muſt be look'd
upon as given up, to the weak Paſſions of their
own Minds, and no more to be regarded, in what
they

[76]
Ordination,
they ſay, than a Man would do the Words of them
who lodge in the beſt Houſe in Moor-fields.
MR. Ward farther proceeds in the Hiſtory of the
Nag's Head Conſecration, out of Dr. Champney's
Book of the Vocation of Miniſters, whoſe Words it
ſeems are theſe;" At the Nag's Head Tavern in
Cheapfide, by accorded Appoint-
Controve fy of ment, met all thoſe who were no-
P. 39. OC.
« minated for Biſhopricks, vacant ei-
" ther by Death, as
was that of
Canterbury only, or by unjuſt Depoſition, as were
“ all the reſt. Thither came alſo the old Biſhop
“ of Landaff, to make them Biſhops : Which thing
being known to Dr. Bonner Biſhop of London,
" then
Priſoner, he ſent to the Biſhop of Landaff,
forbidding him, under Pain of Excommunica-
« tion to exerciſe any ſuch Power within his Dio-
ceſs, as to Order thoſe Men: Wherewith the
56 old Biſhop being terrified, and otherwiſe alſo
6 moved in his own Conſcience, refus’d to proceed
* in this Action, alledging chiefly, for Reaſon of
ss his Forbearance, his want of Sight, as is ſaid
5 before. Which Excuſe they interpreting to be
but an Evaſion, were much moved againſt the
poor old Man
and whereas hitherto they had
56 uſed him with all Courteſey and Reſpect, they
* then turned their Copy, and reviled him, and
* call’d him doating Fool, and the like ; ſome of
« thein faying (this old Fool thinks we cannot be
Biſhops unleſs we be greas’d) to the Diſgrace
as well of him, as to the Catholick Manner of
ss Conſecration. Being, notwithſtanding, thus de-
* ceiv’d in their Expectation, and having no other
“ Means to come to their Deſire, they reſolv'd to
uſe Mr. Scory's Help, who having born the Name
« of Biſhop in King Edward's Time, was thought
to have ſufficient power to perform that Office,
“ eſpecially
16
3
[ 77 ]
eſpecially in ſuch a great Neceſſitý , he having
« caſt off, together with his Religious Habit (for
“ he had been a Religious Man) all Scruple of
Conſcience, willingly went about the Matter,
« which he perform’d in this Sort, having the Bi-
“ ble in his Hand, and they all kneeling before
“ him, he laid it upon every one of their Heads
or Shoulders, ſaying, “.(Take thou Authority to
« Preach the Word of God ſincerely) and ſo they
“ roſe up Biſhops.
" This whole Relation (ſays he ) I myſelf had
" from the venerable Prieſt, Mr. Thomas Bluet, a
grave, learned, and prudent Man, who has
« often aſſured me, that he had heard it from
“ Mr. Neal, a Man of great Probity and Learn-
ing, forinerly Profeſſor of the Hebrew Tongue,
" in the Univerſity of Oxford ; and then, when
" that happen'd, belong'd to the Family of Bi-
ſhop Bonner, who ſent him to the Biſhop of
Landaff, to prohibit and charge him, under
“ Pain of Excommunication, not to meddle in
" that Sacrilegious Conſecration; and he ſaid alſo,
" that the Biſhop ordered him to remain there to
“ ſee what the Matter would at laſt come to, and
is what would be its Iſſue ; ſo that he was an Eye-
“ Witneſs of all that happen’d in that Matter.
“ And of this Relation, there are as many Wit-
“ neſſes, as there are Prieſts now living, who were
« Priſoners for the Faith, together with the ſaid
“ Mr. Bluet, in Wisbich Caſtle, in which Place I
cc alſo have heard the ſame from hiin.
MR. Ward brings Chriſtopher Sacrobosco, Fitz-
Simons, and others, to affert this Story, but as
they have nothing more than what you find in
this Account, unleſs it be the Teſtimony of old
Stow, who Fitz-Simons ſays,
Page 41.
diligently examined after all the


66 had
66 Cir-
[ 78 )
" Circumſtances of it (though he durſt not give
6 the Relation of it in his Chronicles ) has
teſtified the fame Thing; and therefore, for my
Reader's Eaſe, I ſhall omit the reſt, ſince all that
they ſay, with reſpect to this Matter, is com-
prehended in this Account of Champney's.
The firſt Thing obſervable in this Account, is
the Place they chooſe for their Confecration, which
we find is the Nag's Head in Cheapfide. This ap-
pears, at firſt View, to be fo like an Old Woman's
Goſſipping Story, that Men of Senſe muſt needs
reject it: For what need had they to be conſe-
crated at a Tavern, when all the Churches in
England, at that Time, were at their Cominand?
Beſides, if the Conſecration was to have been
clandeſtine, they would never have choſe fo pub-
lick a Place as a Tavern for ſuch a Purpoſe;
and we may ſuppoſe the Biſhop of Landaff, who
was to have been their Confecrator, had ſo much
of the good Catholick remaining in him, as not to
have been perſuaded to perform ſuch a Ceremony
in ſuch a Place,
The next Thing is, That Biſhop Bonner
ſhould ſend his Chaplain Neal, to threaten the
Bishop of
Landaff with Excommunication, if he
ſhould offer to ordain within his Dioceſe.
If we conſider, that Borner is ſuppos'd to be
in Priſon at this Juncture, and therefore conſe-
quently it is not probable, that a Man in his Cir-
cumſtances ſhould keep a Chaplain, and that if
he did, that the Biſhop of Landaff ſhould be
frightned by the Threats of a Man, who may
reaſonably be ſuppos’d to be almoſt in the loweſt
Condition of Life ; for all Men well know, that
the Thunder of Éxcommunication is of little Force,
when not arm'with Power, at leaſt when it has
for its Object a Perſon ſo complying with the
Times,


[ 79 ]
Times, as the Biſhop of Landaff is deſcrib'd to be;
and ſuppoſing all this, yet if we conſider, that the
Conſecrator, and the Perſons to be confecrated,
were not abſolutely confin’d, either to the Nag's
Head, or even to the Dioceſe of London, if we
muſt ſtrain Reaſon ſo far, as to ſuppoſe, that
Bonner, in his then Circumſtances, had any Power
in that Diſtrict, yet was not Lambeth Chappel,
or any other Place, not within that Juriſdiction,
near enough, to avoid any Reſentments of this Na-
ture, that could be fear'd from him ?
THESE are Objections ſtrong enough to de-
ſtroy the Credit of this part of the Story, yet
greater ſtill remain; for by ſuch an Obſtruction as
this, both Borner and Neal too ran themſelves into
the Guilt and Penalties of a Præmunire, eſtabliſh'd
by a Statute already referr’d to, in Henry the
VIIIth's Time, and eſtabliſhed and confirmed by
Queen Elizabeth, before the Time that this ridi-
culous Story is ſuppos’d to be acted. But we do
not find that either Bonner or Neal were ever
Su'd
upon this Statute, which No-body could ſup-
poſe, but that the Perſons offended would have
readily put in Execution, if this had been the
Cafe ; and therefore we may ſafely conclude this
to be one (among many more) of the Roman
Forgeries.
ANOTHER thing to be obſerv’d, is the Man-
ner of Scory's conſecrating them, by laying the
Bible upon their Heads, or Shoulders, ſaying,
Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God fin-
cerely : and ſo they roſe up Biſhops.
THERE is one Circumſtance in this very
remarkable, and that is, that Scory ſhould in
vent no other Form than this, which only gives
Authority to preach the Word of God, which Au.
thority they had before, by Popish Ordination,

as
[ 80 )
as Prieſts; whereas one would think, that he
would either have uſed King Edward's Form,
which was that he himſelf was conſecrated by ;
or elſe, if Scory muſt make a Form of his own,
he would have us’d one more to the Purpoſe of
Epiſcopal Ordination than this is.
ANOTHER ſtrange Thing is, that Mr. Neal,
who was the Eye-Witneſs of all this, could not
diſtinguiſh whether the Bible was laid upon the
Head or Shoulder, (for you ſee the Legend leaves
that uncertain) it is wonderful, that he ſhould
not ſtrictly obſerve the only Cereinony then us’d,
eſpecially, ſince he was commanded by his Dio-
ceſan and Lord, to be there, to obſerve all Things,
that were done, it is a sign that he was but a
very careleſs Spectator; and what is ſtill more
wonderful is, tħat Bonner himſelf, whom we muſt
ſuppoſe fully inform’d of this Marter, did not
put this odd Confecration into his Plea, inſtead of
that by King Edward's Form ; it had been much
inore to his purpoſe, if it had been Matter of fact,
for this would have effectually deſtroy'd Horn's
Conſecration, with reſpect to the Legality of it,
it being a very diſputable Point, to urge the
Illegality of the Confecration, becauſe he was
confecrated by King Edward's Forms ; eſpecially,
becauſe it was not founded upon Matter of
Fact, if Horiz was conſecrated, às aforeſaid, by
Scorý.
I have already obſerved, that ſometimes, when
theſe Men are in the Humour, they make Barlow
the Conſecrator ; but here they make Scory to be
the Man. What ih all Man ſay to ſuch Contra-
dictions?
We are farther told, that this story was hand-
ed down by a Popiſh Tradition, by one Bluet,
and this Bluet, had it from Neal the Eye-Witneſs;
but

[ 81 ]
3
but you ſee this Eye-Witneſs could have no other
account of the only Ceremony us’d at this Con-
ſecration
but what was very uncertain, that it
was either this Ceremony or that, he could not
tell which : A very proper Witneſs indeed, to
atteft a Matter of Fax, eſpecially when he was
ſent thither on purpoſe, to ſee and give an account
of what was done. Beſides, it is ſtrange, that he
ſhould not inform Bonner of this Matter, who was
the very Perſon that ſent him ; if he had, Bonner
would never have grounded his plea upon a
Falſhood, which was, that Horn was conſecrated
by King Edward's Liturgy ; whereas if this Story
be true, Biſhop Bunner's Plea was falſe, and there-
fore either this Catholick Biſhop's Veracity, be-
fore a Court of Juſtice, when all this muſt have
been freſh in Memory, muſt be called in Queſtion,
or elſe this Nag's Head Relation muſt fall to the
Ground.
We are further told, that there are as many
Witneſſes of this Relation, as there were Prieſts
then living, who were Priſoners with Bluet in
Wisbich Caftle. I ſhall not inquire into their
Numbers now, but I ſhall only obſerve, that all
terminates in the Credibility of Neal, for he is
ſaid to have told it to Bluet, and he to all the
reſt. But you ſee what ſort of a Witneſs Neal
was, who could not inform his own Maſter, who
ſent him to know what was done ; and therefore I
rather conclude this to be an invention of about
Forty Years afterwards, and that Neal knew 110-
thing of this Matter, as I ſhall prove in the next
Chapter.
Poor old Stow is brought in by Head and
Shoulders, as another Witneſs to this Nag's Head
G
Buſineſs
[ 82 ]
Buſineſs. The Syllogiſm runs thus,
TheCantrover. John Stow taketh no Notice of
ſy of Ordination,
Page 22.
Archbiſhop Parkers Confecration.
But he does take Notice of Cardi-
nal Pole's Confecration, therefore Archbiſhop
Parker was ordain'd, as aforeſaid, at the Nag's
Head. This my Reader will think is very nicely
concluded, but I beg leave to draw up one Syllo-
gifin my felf. John Stow takes no Notice of the
Conſecration of any Archbiſhop from Auguſtine's
Time down to Cardinal Pool's; but he does take No-
tice of Cardinal Pool's : Therefore there was never
any Archbiſhop in England beſides Cardinal Pool.
I appeal to the Reader, if my Conclufion is
not as fairly drawn as his, from John Stow's
Silence, and I further appeal to the Readers
of his Book, whether I have done him any In-
juſtice in the firſt Syllogiſm, which I have drawn
up for him, and whether it contains not the whole
of his Argument.
Raphael Holling/hed’s Silence is made another Evi-
dence of the Nag's Head Conſecration : But then
his Silence proves more than Stom's doth, for he
taketh no Notice even of Cardinal Fool's Confecra-
tion, ſo that if this be a Proof, it proves too much,
even that we never had any Archbiſhop con-
fecrated.
But the truth is Stow and Hollingſhed, and
other Civil Hiſtorians, have little regarded
Conſecrations, and ſuch other particular Parts of
Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. And when they do ſay
any thing of Church Affairs, it is only fome-
thing General, and which has fome dependance
upon Civil Tranſactions; and therefore, he that
draws ſuch Concluſions from ſuch Premiſſes, muſt
have





[ 83 ]
p. 43.
have a very ſtrong Inclination to defend a Cauſe
at any Rate.
We are further told out of
the Author of The Nullity of the The Controverſy
ot Ordination,
Proteſtant Clergy of England, That
one Father Faircloth being ihew'd
the Publick Regiſters by Archbiſhop Abbot, told
the Archbiſhop," that his Father was a Pro-
« teſtant and kept a Shop in Cheapſide, and that
" he aſſur'd him that he was preſent at Parker's
" and the firſt Proteſtant Biſhops Conſecration at
" the Nag's Head in Cheapfide.
I preſuine in a Hundred Years more, we ſhall
have more Evidences of the fame Nature brought
againſt us, for here is a new Witneſs brought.
At Firſt Neal was the Man, and the only Man of
that Party, as far as I can find, that was preſent ;
I ſuppoſe we ſhall have Affidavits of the Pre-
ſence of other Witneſſes, printed upon us e'er it
be long. The Teſtimonies of Rome are endleſs,
and 110 doubt of it they are as infallible in theſe
as they are in their other Determinations in Con-
troverſy.
But the true Hiſtory of this Matter is this;
Fitzherbet, in a Book of his publiſh'd about the
Year 1614. deſired that ſome Learned Men of the
Roman Catholick Party, might have the peruſal of
our Publick Regiſters, in order to be ſatisfied of
their being authentick. This Requeſt was foon
comply'd with, and ſome Romill
Prieſts then in Priſon, Faircloth being MASON Vin-
one, were ſent for, and had the full diviæ Eccleſ. An.
glicanze, p. 415.
peruſal of thoſe Records, in the Pre-
fence of ſeveral of our Biſhops, viz.
the Biſhops of London, Durbain, Ely, Bath and
Wells, Lincoln, and Rocheſter : For theſe are Men
not to be truſted alone with ſuch Things, Lecauſe
they
G2
[ 84 ]
they are as great Eneinies to true Records, as they
are Friends to thoſe that are falſe, and probably
without ſuch Caution and Care as was then us'd
they would have defaced them. I ſay they had a
liberty to peruſe them as much as they pleas’d,
and own’d themſelves ſatisfy'd of their being au-
thentick, which Thingthe Archbiſhop defired them
to ſignify by a Letter to Father Fitzherbert, who
was the Man that caus’d this Examination. If they
afterwards repented of this Conviction, that is a
Caſe of Conſcience to be reconciled by ſome Ro-
man Caſuiſt, who will tell you very gravely,
without bluſhing, that to tell a Lye, to advance
the Catholick Religion, alias the Religion of Rome,
is a Duty, and no Sin.
But as to the Buſineſs in Hand, there was
not a word then ſpoken by Faireloth, of his Fa-
ther's being preſent at the Nag's Head Confecra-
tion ; nor did Champney, who at that Time raiſed
ſome Objections againſt this Examination, fay a
word of any ſuch Paſſage, between Faircloth and
the Archbishop, which no doubt of it he would
have done if there had been any truth in it; for
he could ſay nothing ſo much to his purpoſe as this
is. This was a Story afterwards invented by the
Author of the Nullity of the Proteſtant Clergy,
when Mr. Mafon was dead, who was acquainted
with this Affair, and gives us an Hiſtory of it.

С НАР.
[ 85]

DONO
od CH A P.
VIII.
The Falſhood of the Nag's Head Conſe-
cration fartber Prov.d.

Van HAT has been already ſaid in the
laſt Chapter, in Anſwer to Mr. 7/'ard,
is ſufficient to prove the Nag's Head
Conſecration to be a mere Fable, in-
vented, without any colour of Truth,
in order to Nullify the Orders of the Church of
England. But, that I may as much as poſſible take
away all occaſion for Scruples out of the Minds of
honeft Men, who labour under the Yoke of
Popery, and who have been miſled by theſe and
the like Infinuations, I ſhall farther prove the
Fallhood of this Story, by ſuch Arguments as did
not naturally fall in with Mr. Ward's Ob-
jections.
The firſt Thing I ſhall take notice of in this
Caſe, is Errors in Chronology, which manifeſtly
appear in the relation of this Fable; and this has
G 3
ever
[ 86 ]
P. 345.
293.
ever been a certain Sign among all Criticks, of
the Falſhood of any Fact. Dr.
Vide Champney, Champney, in his Book of the Voca-
apud Mafon.
tion of Engliſh Biſhops, fixeth the
Date of this Nag's Head Confecra-
tion, ſometime before the 9th of September 1559.
which cannot be, becauſe Parker and the reſt could
not be confecrated without a Commiſſion from the
Queen. Now Parker's Commiſſion does not bear
Date, till the Sixth of December following, be-
fides his Election was not confirm’d
TEYLIN's
Hiſtory of the by the Dean of the Arches, until the
Reformation P. Ninth of the fame Month, both
which are undeniable Proofs that he
could not be ordain'd before that Time. Beſides
there are fourteen more who are ſaid to be confe-
crated at the ſame Place, and at the ſame Time,
which is as incredible as the former,
Mason: Vin becauſe it appears that ſome of them
Anglicanæ, P. were not ſo much as conſecrated in
346. 2 the fame Year: If this be pot a cer-
tain undeniable Evidence of the
Falíhood of this Story, I know not
what is.
2. ANOTHER very manifeſt Argument of
the Falſhood of this Story, is the profound Silence
of all Popish Writers (a Generation not much in-
cin'd to Silence ) during the whole Reign of
Queen Elizabeth, and the beginning of King
Farnes's of any ſuch ridiculous Confecration as this
is. We do not find a word of it even in Sander's
wild Book De Schiſonate Anglicano, although the
has there Collected together all the Scandalthat
could well be invented of the Reformation, yet he
is as mute as a Fiſh, with reſpect to this Matter,
which No-body can ſuppoſe to be owing either to
his Modeſty or good will to us for he had as little
of
d cia Ecclefiae
HEYLIN'S
Hift. P. 310.
[ 87 ]
KELLISON'S
be the
of the one, as he had of the other, and therefore
it is certain that this Story was the prodoct of ſome
other more inodern Genius than his.
BESIDE s him there, are a great many others,
as Harding, Stapleton, Parſons, and even Kellifon,
before his Reply to Sutcliff, were abſolute Strani-
gers to any ſuch Account of our Conſecrations as
this is, which evidently appears by their Writings:
I ſhall Inſtance only in Kellifoul
, whom I take to
Project caine into his Head, he argu'd againſt our
Orders, becauſe he thought our firſt Ordainers
were Apoftates and Hereticks, and becauſe they
did not uſe the Popiſh Ordinal, but not one word
of the Nag's Head, or of Biſhop Scory’s Form there :
His Words are theſe :
They will peradventure ſay
" that their frff Biſhops, Prieſts and Survey of the
New Religi n.
Preachers, were ordained by ours, P. 6,
“ before they departed froin us, and
" that they ordaining others, ſtill continued the
" Succeflion. But this Evaſion is not ſufficient ;
“ for firſt of all, either our Paſtors were Lawful or,
« Unlawful ; if Lawful, then are theirs Unlaw-
ful, who Preached againſt the Commandment
" of ours, yea, then are they Uſurpers, who thruſt
out their Lawful Paſtors, and ſettled theinſelves
16 in their rooms. If Unlawful, then do they
abſurdly Challenge Succeiſion from them; be-
“ cauſe none can ſucceed Lawfully to Unlawful
“ Predeceſſors, if they have 110 other Title but
“ from thein. Secondly, although ſome of their
Apoftates were made Prieſts and Paſtors by our
Biſhops; yet all were not ſuch, Luther and Cal-
« viil the firſt Founders, and many others were
not Biſhops, and fo conld not Ordain Prieſts
" and Paſtors, and they which were true Bishops
among
66
C

66
66
G4
[ 88 ]
૮૮
among them uſed not the Matter and Form of
" Ordination. And if they had truly ordained
" their Miviſters, as their Apoftate Biſhops might
" have done if they had uſed the Matter and Form
“ of Order, becauſe Power of Conſecrating and
“ Ordering, which Divines call Poteſtas Ordinis,
" is never aboliſhed; yet beſides Order, Juriſ-
c diction and Miſſion from a Lawful Paſtor is alſo
« required, for as St. Paul faith, Quomodo prædi-
" cabunt
, nifi mittantur ? How ſhall they Preach ex-
cept they be ſent? And ſeeing our Paſtors were
“ fo far from ſending them, that they forbade
s them all Pulpits, and Preaching, from them
they could have no Million : And ſo they can-
" not prove their ordinary Miſſion. Thus far
Kellifon.
Now here it is obſervable, that the manner of
his Oppoſition runs thus ; firſt, that it is not Law-
ful to ſeparate from Lawful Paſtors. Secondly, If
we ſay their Paſtors were Unlawful, ours could
not be Lawful, becauſe deriving their Authority
and Miſſion from them. Thirdly, That though
our firft Bishops were trus Bishops, yet all were
not ſuch as Luther and Calvin; but then the Mif-
fion of Luther and Calvin is nothing to us, for we
do not pretend to prove any Milion froin them.
Fourthly, That our Biſhops did not uſe the true
Matter and Form of Ordination. Fifthly, That
their Bishops gave them 110 Juriſdiction, but ra-
ther oppos'd them.
But when Dr. Satcliff ſet aſide theſe Objections,
by proving the Juſtice and Piety of our Separa-
tion, and the validity of our Forms and the
Juriſdiction of our Biihops. Kelliſan being thus
beaten out of his Holds, is forced to take Refuge
under the Protection of a Lye, which is this of the
Nag's Hiad Fable, For in the Year 1608. he
publiſh'd
[ 89 ]
publiſh'd a Reply to Dr. Sutcliff, wherein this
Story had it firſt Life; nor was it ever heard of
before this, notwithſtanding there were ſo many
very proper Occafions to mention it. You ſee
Kelli for himſelf takes no manner of Notice of it
in his Survey of the New Religion, which was
publiſhed in the Year 1605, though it was more to
his purpoſe than all that he has there urg'd. If
there had been any Truth in this story it had cer-
tainly been produced before the Year 1608, which
is almoſt Fifty Years after the Time when the
thing was ſuppos’d to be done ; eſpecially ſince
there is ſo much depends upon it, as the Validity
of our whole Reformation: And we cannot ſuppoſe
it to be conceald out of any favour or tenderneſs
towards us ; for indeed if it had been true, it had
been no tenderneſs to the Souls of Men to have
conceal'd it ſo long; and therefore we muſt con-
clude this Fable to be the Invention of a Man,
preſs’d hard by an Adverſary, who had nothing
elſe to ſay for himſelf.
3. ANOTHER Argument, to prove this a
Fiction, is the the Silence alſo of the Factious
Puritans of that Age, who, no doubt of it, if there
had been any thing of Truth in the Nag's Head
Story, would ſoon have caſt it in the Teeth of the
Orthodox Biſhops and Clergy, as the readieſt and
fireſt way to overturn the Apoſtolical Order of
Biſhops, which they were ſo much diſpleas'd with.
This had been a ready Way to Silence all Argu-
ments, if they could once ſhew, that the Epiſco-
pacy contended for by the Orthodox, was only
Nominal, and not Real ; but they were ſo far
from urging any Argument of this Nature, that
they call'd our Biſhops Popiſh and Antichriſtian,
becauſe they had their Orders by Succeſſion from
the Popiſh Biſhops.




[ 90 ]
a
I never
I find a Manuſcript Quotation to this purpoſe,
in the Margin of the Preface to Parſon's Diſcuſſion,
which I have, and which I take to be written by
a Papiſt; the words are taken out of a Book writ-
ten by one Prudent Ball, a Nonconformiſt, which
Scory made Parker the firſt Archbiſhop of Canter-
bury, in Queen Elizabeth's Time, they received
their Orders of Cranmer, and he of Pope Clement
the VIIth, who gave him Popiſh Antichriſtian Orders,
vide Prudent Ball, the Second Part, C. II. p. 544.
This fhews how well pleas’d they were with our
Orders upon the account of this Succeſſion. But
if any Body Should think this Quotation not ſo
well Atteſted as it ought to be; I refer him to
Bancroft's Dangerous Pofitionis, &c.
Vide Bancr-TT's where he will find much of the
Dangerous Poſi-
tions, C. p. 49.
Humour of that Set of Men in
this, as well as in other Inſtances,
taken out of their own Writings, and will any
Body fay, that if theſe Men had kuown any
thing of this Story, that they would not have
produced it; and inſtead of hard Words they
would have produced one hard Argument, eſpe-
cially when it was ſuch, as was juſt upon the
level with their own Capacities.
But it is evident, by the Books then written
6
in Defence of Epifcopacy by Biſhop Bilſon,
Hooker, Saravia, and others, that the Subject of
the then Debate was the Divine Right of Epifpacy,
and can any Body think that thoſe einpty
Wretciles would not have been glad to rid them-
felves of ſuch an untoward Subject, if they could
fo eaſily have taken away the ground of the De-
bate, by faying, that though Epiſcopacy were of
Divine Right, yet that their Adverſáries could
pretend to no ſuch Right, becauſe they wanted
2000
Conſecra-

[91]
Conſecration, or at leaſt that they were forced to be
contented with a ridiculous one, which was rather
worſe than none.
4. THE Publick Manner of this ludicrous Con-
fecration is another plain Argument againſt the
Truth of it ; for if they were put to ſuch Shifts,
as is pretended, they would have choſe ſome other
more Private Place than a Tavern to have acted it
in, at leaſt they would never have permitted a
known Enemy to be there, as Neal was, to Report
the ſame to the World, and fo to make themſelves
a laughing Stock to Friends and Foes.
5. THERE was no Neceſſity for ſuch a proceed-
ing as this is, becauſe they neither wanted an Or-
dinal, nor a competent Number of Biſhops of the
Proteſtant Religion to uſe it, nor yet a Church to
go to, to perform this Ordinance in. For in the
firſt Place there was an Ordinal ever ſince King
Edward's Time, and which was eſtabliſh'd by the
Act of Uniformity in the firſt Year of this Queen,
notwithſtanding Bonner's Quibble to the contrary,
in order to ſave his Bacon, and which Scory and
Coverdale two of King Edward's Biſhops, were
themſelves conſecrated by, and therefore there was
no deficiency upon the account of an Ordinal,
which was of Proteſtant Extraction. 2. There was
a fufficient number of Proteſtant Biſhops then
alive, there were no leſs than four, viz. Barlow,
Hodgskin, Coverdale and Scory. For
Barlow did not dye till about the GODWIN de
Year 1570. which was Ten Years Angl. p. 562.
after this Conſecration : For Curtis
his Succeſſor in the See of Chicheſter, was conſecra-
ted May 20. 1570. Secondly, Hodgskins was then
alive, becauſe we find the Queen
See MASON,
Nominated him for one of the Con-
ſecrators in her Letters Patents, and
certainly






P. 126.
[ 92 ]
Elizabeth â reg-
GODWYN ubi
Supra. p. 476.
opy old at
certainly ſhe would not have named a Perſon that
was then dead. Thirdly, and as to Coverdale, we
have not only the Queen's Letters Patents, to teſti-
fy his being then alive, but alſo Biſhop Godwyn,
in his Catalogue of the Bishops of Exeter, takes
Notice of his return from Baniſhment, after the
Marian Perſecution.
num adepta, in patriam quidem rever-
Jūs eſt ; fedem vero reli&tam repetere
3101 curavit. Londini grandavus deceffit, & in Paro-
chiali Ecclefia S. Bartholomai, Sepultura-eſt traditus.
“ Elizabeth coming to the Crown, he returned to
“his Country, but having left his See he did not
s6 care to be reſtor’d. He dy'd very
s« London, and he lies Buried in the Pariſh-
« Church of St. Bartholomew. 4. Scory lived
till the beginning of the Year 1585.
GOD WYN, which was Twenty-five Years after
P. 546,
all this Confecration, ſo that you ſee
here are Biſhops enough to perform this Office,
without being oblig’d to Popiſh Biſhops for a Con-
fecration, not to ſay any thing of Bale Biſhop of
Ofory, or the Suffragan of Thetford, who were alſo
nam'd in the Queen's Mandate for the Confecra-
tion. Laſtly, That there were Churches enough,
whoſe Doors muſt fly open to ſuch a Confecration,
will, I believe, hardly be diſputed by any Body
of common Senſe, who confidereth that the Laws
and Government were at that Time on the ſide of
the Reformation : So that weighing all theſe
Things according to the common Laws of Reaſon),
there could be no manner of Neceſſity, but on the
contrary, it would have been the height of Folly
and Madneſs, to act ſuch a . Part as the Nag's
Head Conſecration is deſcrib'd to be. nou
6. THERE is not one ſufficient Witneſs pro-
duced to atteft this Matter of Fact, and without
ſuch


[ 93 ]
ſuch a Witneſs, no Fact can be prov'd; one Wit-
neſs indeed they pretend to have, but he is ſuch a
Witnefs, as impartial Men muſt own to be very
incompetent; for it does not appear that he ever
teſtified it upon Oath, or before a publick Notary,
as a Witneſs ought to do; ſo far from this, that he
was never produced to have affirm'd it before any
Perſon of impartiality. Nor do I believe, that
this pretended Witneſs Mr. Neal ever ſaid it at all,
becauſe if he had told any Body this, he muſt
have told it to Bonner, who is ſaid to have ſent
him to the Nag's Head to fee, and to give an Ac-
count to his Maſter what was done : But it plainly
appears by Biſhop Bonner's Caſe before-mentioned,
that he never told him one word of it, otherwiſe he
would have urg'd this in his Plea, and conſequent-
ly we may reaſonably conclude, that this Mr.
Neal never faid it, and therefore they have not ſo
much as one Witneſs to Atteſt this Fact.
To Number up all the Improbabilities and In-
conſiſtencies of this ridiculous Story were endleſs;
it has not ſo much as one Mark of Truth belong.
ing to it. It is neither atteſted by fufficient
Witneſſes, who liv'd in the Time when it was ſup-
pos’d to be done, nor is it founded upon any pro-
bable Circumſtances, peculiar to that Age, nor
upon any Record whatſoever, but on the contrary
it evidently appears to be invented to ſerve the
turn of a contemptible Faction, who had nothing
elſe to ſay for themſelves.
I ſhall conclude this Chapter with the Account
which Dr. Heylin giveth of our firſt Conſecrators in
Oppoſition to this Fable : And this is an Hiſtorian
which the Romaniſts themſelves often expreſs an
eſteein for, not that he is to be regarded the more
for that Reaſon ; but becauſe he really is in himſelf
ſuch a Man as Tully deſcribes a good Hiſtorian to
be,


ز
[ 94 )
P. 293
CC
6
be. Ne quid falſi dicere audeat, ne quid veri non
audeat.
But to proceed (ſays Heylin )
Hiſtory of the c unto the Conſecration of the new
Reformation,
“ Archbiſhop ; the firſt Thing to be
" done after the paſſing the Royal
". Aflent for Ratifying of the Election of the Dean
6 and Chapter, was the confirming of it in the
« Court of Arches, according to the uſual Form
ss in that behalf; which being accordingly per-
cs formed, the Vicar-General, the Dean of the
c. Arches, the Proctors and Officers of the Court,
whoſe Preſence was required at this Solemnity,
or were entertained at a Dinner provided for them,
at the Nag's Head Tavern in Cheapſide ; for which
though Parker paid the Shot, yet ſhall the
Church be called to an after-reckoning. No-
thing remains to expedite the Confecration, but
the Royal Mandate, which I find Dated on the
Sixth of December, directed to Anthony Kitchin,
Biſhop of Landaff ; William Barlow, late Biſhop
<c of Bath and Wells, Lord elect of Chicheſter ; John
Scory late Biſhop of Chicheſter, Lord elect of
Hereford ; Miles Coverdale, late Biſhop of Exe-
" ter; John Hodgskins Suffragan of Bedford ;
John
Suffragan of Thetford; and fohit
• Bale, Biſhop of Oſory, in the Realm of Ireland,
requiring them, or any four of them at the leaſt,
to proceed unto the Conſecration of the Right
“ Reverend Matthew Parker, lately elected to the
“ Metropolitical See of Canterbury. The firſt, and
" the two laft, either hinder'd by Sickneſs, or by
« fome other lawful Impediment, were not in a
« Condition to attend the Service ; which not-
6 withſtanding was performed by the other four,
on Sunday the ſeventeenth of that Month, ac-
“cording to the Ordinal of King Edward the
Sixth,
06
( 95 )

66
« Sixth, then newly printed for that Purpoſe
" the Ceremony performed in the Chapel at Lam-
“ beth-Houſe, the Eaſt End whereof was hanged
“ with rich Tapeſtry, and the Floor covered with
“ red Cloth ; the Morning Service read by Fear.
fon the Archbiſhop's Chaplain, the Sermon
“ preach'd by Dr. Scory Lord elect of Hereford,
on thoſe words of St. Peter, The Elders, which
are among you I exhort, &c. I Pet, v. I. The
“ Letters Patents for proceeding to the Conſecra-
" tion publickly read by Dr. Tale, the Act of
“ Conſecration, legally performed by the Impo-
“ poſition of Hands of the ſaid four Biſhops, āc-
cording to the ancient Canons, and King Ed-
“ ward's Ordinal; and after all a Plentiful Din-
ner for the Entertainment of the Company
" which reſorted thither : Among whom Charles
“ Howard ( eldeſt Son of William Lord Effingham,
“ created afterwards Lord Admiral, and Earl of
Nottingham ) happened to be one, and after-
“ wards teſtified the Truth of all theſe Particulars,
“ when the reality and Form of this Conſecration
was called in Queſtion by fonie captious Stick-
« lers for the Church of Rome.
“ FOR ſo it was, that ſome Sticklers for the
“ Church of Rome, having been told of the Dinner
“ which was made at the Nag's Head Tavern, at
« ſuch Times as the Election of the new Arch-
“ biſhop was Confirmed in the Arches, raiſed a
“ Report that the Nag's Head Tavern was the Place
“ of Conſecration. And this Report was counte-
“ nanced by another Slander, cauſing it to le
“ noiſed abroad, and publiſhed in ſome Seditious
Pamphlets, that the Perfons deſigned by the
66 Queen, for the ſeveral Biſhopricks, being met at
a Tavern, did then and there lay Hands upon
one another without Form or Order.
Now
[ 96 ]
Now 'I appeal even to a prejudiced Reader,
that has not loſt his Senſes, which of theſe two
Accounts looks moſt like a true Hiſtory; whe-
ther their Fable of the Nag's Head, which has
ſo many Inconſiſtencies in it, and is founded
upon 10 Evidence; or this Account which Dr.
Heylin giveth of Parker's Confecration, the Facts
which he relates are founded upon what ought
to be the Foundation of all Hiſtory, viz. publick
Records; but their Story has no ſuch Founda-
tion, it is all hear-fay work, which was never
before reputed a competent Teſtimony to aſſert
à Matter Fact. I have now done with it, and let
it eft in the ſame Pit of Oblivion, with the firſt
I entors of it.

C H A P,
[97]

CH A P. IX.
That the Lambeth Regiſters are
Genuine.

A
AVING already ſo 'evidently prov’d
the Nag's Head Story to be Spurions;
upon ſuch undeniable Grounds; there
is no need for any further Proof, that
the Lambeth Regiſter of Parker's Con:
fecration is Genuine, becauſe the Oppoſition rais’d
againſt them is purely to ſupport the Credit of this
Fable; but left Mr. Ward's ſurviving Frien ls
fhould think that any Reaſons brought by him,
however conteniptible they be, to prove theni
Spurious, are overlook'd as unanſwerable, I ſhall;
for the ſake of their Conviction, take upon ne
the Drudgery of a particular Examination of wat
he has ſaid.

H
MR.
[98]
The Contro-
MR. Iard introduceth his Oppoſition with a
Paſlage out of Mr. Mafon, which relates to the
manner of Archbiſhop . Parker's Confecration,
which is this ; " Now the See of
Canterbury continu'd void till De.
verſy of Ordina-
tion, P. 45
" cember following, (Anno 1559.)
" about which Time the Dean and
Chapter having receiv'd the Conge d' Eſire, E-
“ lected Mr. Dr. Parker for their Archbiſhop, ac-
cording to the ancient manner, and laudable
“ Cuſtom of the ſaid Church anciently usd, and
inviolably obſerv’d. After which Election or-
derly perform’d, and ſignify'd according to
“ Law, it pleas'd her Highneſs to fend her Letters
“ Patents of Commiffion, for his Confirmation and
“ Confecration, to ſevenl Biſhops, ſix whereof
were lately returned from Exile. Anthony
Landaff, William Barlow, John Scory, Miles
“ Coverdale, Fohn Suffragan of Bedford, John Suf-
fragan of Thetford, and John Bale Biſhop of
Ofory. (And then ſays he ) to take away all
Scruple, I will faithfully deliver unto you out
“ of Authentical Records, both the Day when he
was conſecrated, and the Perſons by whom,


CC
૮૮
CC
૮૮
૮૮
66 viz.
William Barlon,
Ajino 1559. M. Parker, Cant. (Fohu Scory,
conf. 17. December, by Miles Coverdale,
Fobi Hodgkins.
Thus Mr. Mafon relates the Matter, and
the firſt thing Mr. Ward obſerves, from this Re-
lation to the prejudice of the Lambeth Regiſter is,
that they ſay, “ Matthew Parker was
Ibid, Pag. 46
“ Elected by Conge d'Efire, this is
e ſuch a Flaw in them, as cannot be imagined to
have
[99]
See the Re.
have happened in an authentick and genuine
« Regiſter, which in the Relation of the Matter
* of Fact, cannot but Record it as it was actual,
ly done : At that Time there was no ſuch thing
« in uſe as a Conge d Ejire, it being contrary,
« not only to the King and Queen's Supremacy,
éc but alſo to the Statutes and Laws of the Land
C then in Force.
MR. Ward goeth on to prove by Acts of Parlia.
ment, that the Conge d' Ejlire Writ was aboliſhed,
whereas this is what no Man living, that under-
ſtands this Matter, will deny him. But as to the
Flaw which Mr. Ward ſpeaks of, that will be
found in Mr. Ward's Underſtanding, and not in
the Regiſter; for the Regiſter has
hot one word of the Conge d Eflire in
it; if Mr. Wárd had examined the contes de telf in
Record, that would have told him
to Bramhall's
otherwife, but ſome Men love to
write upon a Subject they know 110-
thing of. Indeed Mr. Mafon ſpeaks of a Conge ?"
Efire, but I hope his Writings are no Records,
he calls the Writ for Election by that Name in
compliance with the Vulgar way of ſpeaking,
and that Form of Speech has continu'd to this
Day; for we find nothing more common of this
Nature than to hear of a Congè d' Eflire, even in
our Days, directed to a Dean and Chapter to
chooſe a new Biſhop : How to correct this popular
Error I leave to Mr. Ward's ſurviving Friends to
find out an expedient for it, and farther, they
fliall have all the little Intereſt I am Maſter of,
in order to obtain a Patent for the ſole Property,
in the honour of accompliſhing ſo great an Un-
dertaking.
A fecond Flaw in the Record, is
Ibid. Pag. 47.
ſaying, that the Dean and Chap-
H 2


Works.

66
is tet
[ 100 ]
Numb. III.
" ter did chuſe Mr. Dr. Parker, juxta morem anti.
qiI772 , &c. according to the ancient Manner, and
“ laudable Cuſtom of the ſaid Church, anciently
“ us’d, and inviolably. obferv’d: For this could
not be; becauſe the ancient Cuſtom of that
“ and other ſuch Churches, was to have free
“ Election by Conge d'Efire.
This again is another Flaw, not to be found
in the Record, there are no ſuch Words as juxta
morem antiquum, &c. in the Record
itſelf, if confidered ſeparately from
the Queen's Letters Patents, ſo that the Flaw is in
Mr. Ward, for blindly following a Miftake in Mr.
Maſon's firſt Edition of his Book of Engliſh Biſhops,
where he quotes the Lambeth Regiſter, for what he
fays, inſtead of the Queen's Letter Millive, or
Writ to the Dean and Chapter. This Error he has
taken care to correct in his Latin Edition,
publiihed in the Year 1625. which Edition, being
more augmented, and more correct than the for.
mer, ought to be the Standard for References in
this Controverſy.
But though this doth not affect the Lambeth
Regiſter, yet it may be wonder'd how the Letter
Miliive comes to aſlèrt, that Parker was Elected
juſta morem antiquum, after the ancient Manner,
whereas the Conge d'Efire was then aboliſh'd. The
Reader muſt here obſerve, that the Quieen's Let-
ter refers to the ancient Manner of Election,
and not to the old Writ of Conge d'Efire, which is
no part of the Election, but only a Mandate to
Elect one Man for a Bihop out of two or three
therein-nominated, and the only difference between
the Letter Miſſive and the old Conge d'Efire is this,
that the firſt Names but one, and the latter named
more than one, the old Ceremony of chooſing
continues to this Day, and this is all that is meant
by
[ 101 ]
The Contro-
CC
«
nacion, P. 48.
66
by juxta morenz antiquum & laudabilem conſuetudi-
nem Ecclefiæ prædicta, &c. in the Queen's Writ
to the Dean and Chapter for the Election of Dr.
Parker, to the Archbiſhoprick of Canterbury;
which Form of Words continue to be us'd in all
thoſe Wri's to this very Day.
Another Objection againſt this Re-
giſter (which a Man muſt have ſome
veify of Odia
1:atience to anſwer ) is this, That
the Election of Matthew Parker, in
the Regiſter, agrees not in Time with his being
56 called Biſhop Elect by John Stow, and Raphael
Hollingſhed in their Chronicles. For they ſpeak-
ing of the Solemnity of the French King, Henry
II. kept at St. Paul's Church in Lond011, on the
Eighth and Ninth Days of September, ſtile Mat-
" thew Parker, at that Time Dr. Parker, Arch-
“ billiop of Canterbury Elect, which is near three
6 Months before Mafor Elects him in his Regiſter ;
" and farther we find, Dr. Grindal call'd by Hol-
56 linghed, Biſhop newly Elect on the 12th of Au-
guft, and we may reaſonably conclude Parker
elected before him, this, ſays he, is four
6 Months before Maſon's Election of him, by his
pretended Conge d Eflire. But which is yet
more, Dr. Heylin tells us, That Doctor Matthew
“ Parker, was ele&ted to the See of Canterbury,
on the firft of Auguft. The Conge d'Elire,
ſays he, which opened him the way to this eminent
Ko Dignity, bears date on the 8th of July, within a
fem Days after the Deprivation of the former
This Man certainly either knew not what he
was about, or elſe he thought to amuſe Some .
body, very ignorant, with this for an Argument.
He ſeems to me to confound the Time of Parker's
Election, and the Time of his Conſecration, and
then
૮૮.
6. Biſhops,
H 3
[ 102 ]
then he is ſo weak as to bring a Paſſage out of
Heylin to confound himſelf, for it is to no other
Purpoſe that I know of. Heylin fays, that Parker
was elected Auguſt the firſt, if ſo, he was elected a-
bove a Month before the Soleinnities of Henry
the Second, mention’d by Stow and Hollingſhed;
both Maſon and Heylin agree with the Regiſter, in
the Time of his Conſecration, which was December
the ſeventeenth; this indeed was three Months after
the Solemnities, but then you fee, that he was
elected before, and conſequently might be called
Biſhop Elect at that Time : The ſame may be
ſaid as to Grindal, and if I were to prove his
Election, I would bring in Stow and Hollingſhed,
to prove that he was elected before the twelfth of
Auguſt, and conſequently long enough before Hen-
ry the IId's Solemnities, to be called Biſhop Elect
at thoſe Soleinnities. But I would be glad to
know what all this is, to the Lambeth Regiſter,
and how it affects the veracity of it; for this is a
Record of their Conſecrations, and not of their
Elections; Election is always ſuppos'd to go before
Confecration,
But perhaps this Writer means, that when a
Biſhop is calld a Biſhop Elect, he is ſuppoſed to
be conſecrated too ; but this is contrary to com-
mon Practice, for there is nothing more common
than to call a Biſhop after his Election,Biſhop Elect
of ſuch a Place, and ſometimes Biſhop abſolutely,
though he has not been yet confecrated ; this is
what any old Woman almoſt would have told him,
that walks the Streets : So that this is very far
from having any influence upon the Lambeth
Regiſter, it being indeed to the laſt degree
trifling

His
[ 103 ]
The Contre
His next pretended Argument
is drawn from two of the Queen's veily of Odi.
Commiſſions, which he has found in narion, p.49:50,
Archbiſhop Bramhall's Book, for the
Conſecration of Parker. The 'firſt Commillion is
dated September the ninth, 1559. directed to fix
Biſhops, Cuthbert Biſhop of Durham ; Gilbert
Biſhop of Bath; David Biſhop of Peterborough ;
Anthony Biſhop of Landaff; William Barlom Biſhop,
and John Scory. The ſecond Commiſſion is dated
December the ſixth following, this laſt directed to
Anthony Landaff, William Barlow, Fohn Scory,
Miles Coverdale, Fohn Suffragan of Bedford, and
Fohn Suffragan of Thetford, John Bale Biſhop of
Oſory.
The firſt Commiſſion is, it ſeems, according
to him, a great blemiſh upon the Records, be-
cauſe it is directed to three Catholick Biſhops,
viz. the Biſhops of Durham, Bath, and Peterborough,
the Reaſon is, becauſe they were deprived. Now
I think this to be the Reaſon, why this firſt Com-
million was not executed, becauſe when it came to
be conſidered, that it would be illegal to Au-
thorize illegal Biſhops, to act after their Depri-
vation or elſe perhaps it was afterwards thought,
that thoſe three Biſhops would not comply, with-
out force, with the Coinmiſſion ; or it may be as
Biſhop Bramhall ſays, " that it was dropt becauſe
“ it wanted an & ut minus, or any four of you,
« ſo that if any of the fix were Sick, or Abſent,
or refus’d, the reſt could not proceed to Confc-
crate; which they certainly could not according
to this firſt Mandate. But whether all or any of
theſe Reaſons was the Cauſe why this Commif-
fion was diopt I know not, yet am I equally
ignorant, how this firſt Commillion can affect the
Lambeth Regiſter, they having no Relation one
with
;
H4
[ 104 ]
with the other, for one is kept ať the Rolls, the
other at Lambeth, two different Offices. The Lam-
Beth Regiſter indeed refers to the Second Commif-
ſion which is that which was executed, and it would
be ſtrange if it did not.
I F they ſay, that both theſe Inſtruments are
forged, let them prove it, they may as well ſay,
that all our Records are forgºd as well as theſe,
but ſaying and proving are two Things : The firſt
the Romaniſts are very well acquainted with ; but
to the latter they are the greateſt Straugers in the
World. But there is one Circumſtance attending
theſe Commiſſions, that has as little of the Marks
of a Forgery as any I know of; and that is, that
there ſhould be two, for thoſe Men muſt be very
fond of forging Inſtruments, that will be at the
trouble of forging twc, when one is ſufficient.
But it ſeems the terrible Conſequence of this
firſt Commiflion is this, " that it is dated Septem-
ber the ninth, which ſhews, that Dr. Parker was
e elected before that Time, ſo that by this, his
Election inuſt be full three Months before Mr.
5. Mafor ſpeaks him elećted. But Mr. Vard's
Misfortune here ſeems to me to be, that he has
not conſulted Mr. Mafon upon this Subject ; For
Mr. Mafon tells us, that the Writ, to the Dean and
Chapter for his Election, is dated July 18. 1559.
and that he was choſen accordingly, Auguſt the
firſt, in the ſame Year. Mr. Maſon's Words are
theſe, Porro Eccleſia Cantuarienfis,
morte Poli, per Annum integrum &
cleiiæ Angli tres circiter Septimanas, paſtorali
cara, Puge
Solatio eft viduata. Interim Decanus
& capitulum, eligendi facultate accepta,
Dat. 18. july juxta morem antiquum & laudabilem
conſuetudinem Eccleſiæ prædictæ ab
antiquo ulitatam & inconcuſſe obfer-
Vindiciæ Ec-
359
1552.
vatam
[105 ]
IS59.
vatam procedentes, Matthaum Par.
I Aug. 1559
kerum, Sacre Theologie Do&torem, in
Archiepiſcopum elegerunt. " Moreover the Church
“ of Canterbury, from the Death of Pool, for one
" whole Year, and about three weeks was deſti-
" tute of a Paſtor. In the mean while the Dean
« and Chapter having received a
Dat. 18. July
“ Licence for electing, according to
" the ancient Manner, and laudable
“ Cuſtom of the ſaid Church, anciently us’d, and
« inviolably obſerv’d, they choſe Matthew Par.
si ker, Doctor in Divinity, to be
"
1 Aug. 1559:
Archbiſhop.
HERE we ſee what Mr. Mafon ſays, we find
the Archbiſhop choſen on the iſt of Auguſt
, before
the Date of this Commiſſion, which Mr. Ward
doth mention. But I believe it was Mr. Maſon's
Engliſh imperfect Edition of this Book, publiſhed
in the Year 1613. that led Mr. Ward into this
Miſtake ; for in that Edition Mr. Maſon's Words
are general, without any Reference in the Margin
to the particular Time when Parker's Election hap-
pened; and perhaps Mr. Maſon had not then con-
ſulted the Records relating to his Election : For
his words are general, about that Time, viz. De-
cember, the Dean and Chapter having
received_the Conge d'Eſlire, elected MASON's En-
Mafter Doctor Parker for their Arch- glijb Edicion,
biſhop. But how Mr. Ward comes to
confine theſe general Words to his own Time
I know not, at leaſt how to excuſe him, or
any Writer, for not examining into the bottom
of a Subject he undertaketh to write of, is what
I know leſs how to do.
Mr. Ward goes on to ſay abun-
Pag. 58.
dance of fine Things of theſe three
Biſhops, that they were zealous Catholicks, they
woull


P. 126.
j
[ 106 ]
would not Conſecrate without the Pope's Authori-
ty, that they would not uſe King Edward's Ordi-
nal, becauſe they had condemn’d it in Queen Ma-
ry’s Days, and abundance more ſuch ſtuff as this,
which is nothing at all to the Buſineſs in hand,
which is the validity of the Lambeth Regiſter ; he
might as well have ſaid that the Archbiihop of
Toledo was never conſecrated, becauſe it doth not
appear that the Archbiſhop of Paris ever conſecra-
ted him, as to argue againſt the Lambeth Regiſter,
from ſuch premiſes.
Equally inſufficient is what he ſays, of the
Queen's not thinking Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, &c.
true Biſhops, becauſe ſhe directed her firſt Com-
miſſion to three of thoſe which he has dignified
with the Title of Catholick Biſhops, whereas this
very Commiſſion itſelf thews the contrary, be-
cauſe Barlow and Scory are both named in it, as
well as the other three, and as for Coverdale, Hodga
kirs, and the reſt, who are nominated in the
roon of theſe three in the Second Commiſſion, the
had the fame Reaſon to think them true Biſhops
as ſhe had to think Barlow and Scory to be ſuch.
But if neither had been named, to conclude from
thence that Queen Elizabeth did not think them
good Biſhops upon that account, is the ſame as to
conclude, that if there were a Commiſſion now
directed to the Bithops of London, Wincheſter, Dur-
Þan and Ely, to Conſecrate a new Biſhop, and
that becauſe the Biſhop of Rocheſter, or St. Da-
vid's or any of the reſt of our Biſhops, are not
pamed in ſuch a Commiſſion, that for this reaſon
the preſent Government did not repute theſe true
Biſhops; this I think is to conclude very wildly,
Surely our Princes have a liberty to name who
ey pleaſe in their Commiſſions, without conſult-
ing the captious; but ſuch Concluſions we may
expect


[ 107 )
expect from thoſe whoſe principal Talents are
Ignorance or Inſincerity.
ANOTHER Argument againſt this Regiſter,
is this, “ That the Time of Parker's
“ Conſecration in the Regiſter, The Controverfy
ot Ordination,
« which is December the ſeven- p.61.
“ teenth, differs a Month, and per-
“ haps more, from the Time that Raphael Holling-
« Jhed takes him for a Biſhop in the Chronicle,
which is November the eighteenth ; and I be-
" lieve few doubt, but as inuch Credit is to be
given to that Hiſtorian, as to the Lambeth Re-
“ cords, all Things conſidered. He ſpeaking of
« Tunſtall Biſhop of Durham ſays, He was by the
noble Queen Elizabeth depriv'd of his Biſhoprick,
&c. and was committed to Matthew Parker Biſhop of
Canterbury, who us’d him very honourably, both for
the Gravity, Learning and Age of the ſaid Tunſtall;
but he not long remaining under the Ward of the ſaid
Biſhop did ſhortly after, the 18th of November, de-
part, this Life at Lambeth, where he firſt receiv'd
bis Conſecration. “ Thus writes Holling/hed.
“From which it is manifeſt, that Parker
was conſecrated Biſhop (ſuch Conſecration as it
" was) before the eighteenth Day of November;
« for elſe he could not have ſtiled him Biſhop of
Canterbury, and have placed him in the Biſhop's
Palace at Lambeth, and all this before the Death
“ of his Priſoner, who died November the eigh-
( teenth.
Mr. Ward is very unfortunate in the choice of
his Proofs againſt this Regiſter ; for here is another
Record beſides, that looks Mr. Ward (or his
Friends, if he is dead ) full in the Face, and
that is the Letters Patents which are dated the
ſix of December ; how he could not be conſecra-
ted before this Mandate, without running himſelf
and


[ 108 ]
j
and his Conſecrators into the Guilt of a Pramu-
nire ; ſo that we find Parker, was not confecrated
before the eighteenth of September, notwithſtand-
ing that Hollingſhed calleth him a Biihop before
that Time. There are a number of other Records
to be refer’d to, upon this occaſion, if ſo trifling
an Objection deſerv'd ſo much trouble ; for what
is there more common, than to call a Man Biſhop
when he is Elected, and publickly deſigned to be
conſecrated to that Office. But it ſeems in Mr.
TV ard's Eye that Hollingſhed deſerves more Cre-
dit than all our Publick Records, Civil as well
as Eccleſiaſtical, which all confpire in the Proof of
Parker's not being conſecrated till December. I
have often heard that the exactneſs and fidelity
of private Hiſtorians, have been try'd by Records
but I never heard before that Records were to be
trvd by private Hiſtorians. Not that I charge
Hollingſhed with any unfaithfulneſs in this Cale,
for he only uſes the cominon Modes of Speech,
of calling a Man a Biſhop when he is elected in-
to that Office ; I only ſhew the unreaſonableneſs
of theſe Inferences, which diſtracted Brains put
upon Words that will not bear it.
Equally weak is his next Objection out of old
Stow, relating to Grindal Bishop of London, be-
cauſe Stow calls himn Biſhop abſolute-
Co troverſy of ly at the Celebration of the French
Odination,
King's Obſequies in September, 1559.
" whereas it is plain that he calls
“ Parker and others, Biſhops Elect only, who ac-
cording to them were conſecrated at the ſame
“ Time, and this pretended Confecration of theirs
too was after this September mentioned in the
Objection.
BUT how ver left his Friends ſhould think
I deſpiſe his Objections too much, I ſhall
abridge
P. 62. c.
CC
[ 109 ]
can.
ment.
abridge this Objection in the ſtrongeſt Terms I
“ Grindall according to Maſon's Regiſter, was
conſecrated the 21ſt of December 1559. but Stom
" calls Grindall Biſhop of London on the ninth of
September in the ſame Year; therefore the Lan-
“ beth Regiſter muſt be falſe, becauſe Grindal was
« above three Months before conſecrated accord-
ing to Stow that faithful Hiſtorian.
This I take to be the Strength of his Argu.
Now for Argument fake, I will give up this
Conſecration on the 21ſt of December, and will
grant that he was conſecrated before. But where?
at the Nag's Head. When ? Dr.
Champney will tell you it was in the
Vide Champ-
ney, in MA-
beginning of November, but then here SON'S Vina
we are at a loſs again; for November diciæ Eccleliz
Anglicanæ, P.
is after September, as well as our
346.
December is. So that by this, Grin-
dall muſt be conſecrated thrice ; by föhn Stov,
before the ninth of September ; by Neal, Champ-
ney and Ward at the Nag's Head in the beginning
of November ; and laſtly, by our Regiſter in Den
cember.
1

Spectatum admiffi Riſum teneatis ainici?
away with ſuch Trifles.
CC
“Hi s ſeventh Objection againſt the Lambeth.
Regiſter, ariſes from the different Names of that
pretended Suffragan Hodgskins : Sometimes he is
" called John Suffragan of Bedford, ſometimes
" Richard Suffragan of the ſame
Page 65.
in one place Richard is put
“out, and John put in; Dr. Butler calls him Fobni
Suffragan. of Dover, and Sutcliff fays, there
" Place;
Were
[110]
were two Suffragans; the Queen's Commiſſion
c mentions alſo two, John Suffragan of Bedford,
* and Fohn Suffragan of Thetford.
Now I would fain know, how theſe Miſtakes
affect this Record; theſe people that he mentions,
as thus miſtaking the Names, are very different
from the Record; and ſhall the blunder of a Tran-
fcriber have ſuch an effect as to deſtroy the Ori-
ginal. This I am ſure is ſomewhat new, The
Truth of what any Man writes, from any Re-
cord, is to be determined by that Record. If
what he has Tranſcribed is falfe, that is not to be
imputed to the Record, but to the Tranſcriber
This is the common Practice of the World, but it
ſeenis it is not the Practice of Ward and his
Friends, nor is it worth my while to perfuade
them to act otherwiſe, i
THE Eighth Objection is, “ That
CG there is no Coherence between Ma.
Son's Lambetb Records, and thoſe Mr. Goodwin,
so vſes in his Catalogue of Biſhops. For they
“ differ ſometimes in the Day, ſometimes in the
Month, and ſometimes in the Year, as appears
" in the pretended Confecrations of Grindall,
“ Horn, Gueaft, Piers, and others,
This is a formidable Argument, I own, and
it muſt unavoidably deſtroy the Credit of this
Lambeth Regiſter. But, as far as I can ſee, there is
but one Misfortune that attends it, and that is,
that there is not a word of Truth in this whole
Relation; and what a pity it is, that fo fine an
Argument ſhould be ſpoil'd, only for the want of
fo ſimple an Ingredient as this is.
I will put the Proof of this, upon the iſfue of ani
Examination, into the Coherency between theſe
two Writers, in their Accounts of the Confecrations
of thoſe four Biſhops, which he has brought as In-
ſtances

Ibiel.
[1]
Prælul.bus
p. 384
GOD WYN
frances of this Diſagreement, viz. Horn, Grindall,
Gueaſt and Piers.
MR. Mafon gives us this Account
of the Conſecration of Biſhop Horn, MASON Vit-
Robertus Horn, conf. 1560. 16. Februa- glicane, p. 385.
rii a Matth. Cantuar. Tho. Menev. Edm.
London. Tho. Covent. & Litchf.
Biſhop Godwyn gives this Account
of it, Februarij 16. 1560. Robertus Godwin de
Horn in Epifcopum Wintonienfem confe- Angl. p. 300.
cratus eft : In both you ſee he was
confecrated the 16. of February, 1569. Biſhop
Grindall, according to Maſon, was
conſecrated the 21. of December, 1559,
MASON,
and ſo we find him in Biſhop Godwyn.
Gueaft in Maſon is conſecrated the p. 253.
24. of March, 1559. and he is the Mason, P. 388.
fame ini Godwyn. Laſtly, Piers in
GODWYN, P.
383.
Mafon, was conſecrated April the 15.
MASON, p. ib.
1576. the ſame in Bishop God.
GOD WYN, ib.
wyn.
All that I conclude from this Examination
is, that Mr. Ward, if he is dead, was when alive,
a true truſty Member of the Church of Rome, and
knew how to defend his Church, and oppoſe her
Adverſaries as well as the beſt Jeſuit of them all ;
and let any of his ſurviving Friends deny me this
if they can.
6 We are come at laſt to diſcover
many inſignificant and ridiculous
6 Circumſtances in theſe Records, Page 66.
ſy of Ordinacivis,
66 ſuch as become not the Gravity
w of ſuch a Relation, and conſequently quite de-
4 ſtroy the Credit of theſe Records" with a Man
of Judgment as Mr. Ward was.
si
BUT



1
TheControvér.
[ 112 1
fbid.
66
1.
tô BRAMHALI'S
Works.
]
BUT what are theſe ridiculous
Circumſtances? why they are
“ A Sermon, and a Communion. 2. A Concourſe
“ of People. 3, The Queen ſent to ſee if all
things were rightly performed. 4. Anſwer
was brought her that nothing was amiſs, only
“ Miles Coverdale, could not be prevail'd with to
“ veft himſelf in any Canonical Ornaments, but
“had on only his Side Woollen Gown all the
" Time of the Conſecration. 5. That the Law:
yers aſſured the Queen, that this Gown of his
“ could not cauſe any defect in the Confecration.
Sixthly, The Chappel was adorn'd with
Tapeſtry towards the Eaſt End, and a Red
cc Cloth oil the Floor.
Now all theſe Circumſtances,
Vide the Appendix excepting the firſt and the laſt
are falſe, and not to be met
with in the Record, as the Rea-
der may fee, if he conſults the Regiſter. Indeed
Miles Coverdal's Habit is taken notice of, and no
wonder becauſe it was ſingular, and indeed fo are
the Habits of all the Reſt ; but not a word of
the Lawyers bringing the Queen Word, that this
was no defect. It is neither the adorning of the
Chappel, the Sermon, nor ſeveral other Circum-
ſtances of this Nature, can affect theſe Records,
becauſe every Body knows that thoſe punttilio's, in
ſuch publick Tranſactions as this was, are in
other Regiſters, as well as in this; but it is what
this fly Forgerer himſelf has brought in, that
maketh theſe Records look contemptible, viz.
That the Queen ſent to ſee if Things were rightly
performed, and ſecundum artem as he calls it, as
if ſhe had been ſupicious of the Capacities of the
Biſhops to know when they did right, or when
they did wrong: Taat ſhe ſent her Lawyers there


te
[ 13 ]
Eyes;
૮િ૮
68.
to this purpoſe. Not one word of this in all the
Record. So that here we have again more Forge-
ries ; a Record forg’d for us, by Mr. Ward, or
ſome of his Kidney : So that all his Arguments,
which he has ſpun out, into a very fine length,
which are founded upon this Forgery of theirs,
are not to be taken Notice of by me, in a Vindi-
cation of the Lambeth Regiſter; for there are 110
ſich Premiſes in that Regiſter, to draw ſuch Con-
cluſions from, as the Reader may fee with his own
therefore let us farther fee what he has to
ſay next againſt this Record.
“THERE are beſides theſe, feve-
• ral other Conſiderations, which not
Controverſy of
Ordination, po
a little leſſen the Credit of the
“ Lambeth Regiſter, eſpecially this,
that it was never ſeen, nor ſo much as ſpoken of
• before fifty Years after that pretended Lambeth
" Confecration.
HERE we find the Tables turned
upon us ; we have often urged the Viz. By Maſon,
Falfhood of the Nag's Head Fable, ball, &c.
Heylin, Brama
becauſe it was no ſooner produ -
ced, and now they bring the fame Argument a.
gainſt us, but how juſtly any Body may deter-
mnine, who conſiders that when Records are pro-
duced, there is fomething faid by the adverſe
Party, that maketh ſuch a Teſtimony neceſſary;
but if nothing of that Nature happens, to produce
Records would be trifling and inſignificant: For
there was nothing ſaid by the Popith Writers, in
all Queen Elizabeth's Reign, that could make their
Teſtimony neceſſary. The Controverfy then turn-
ed upon the Legality of our Ordinations, the Fact
of the Confecration was never diſputed, and no
Indicrous Nag's Head Buſinefs ever thought on ; yet
1
Do

[ 114 ]
no ſooner was this Fable urg'd, but out came the
Records, and it was time enough then ; for until
they came to invent a falſe Conſecration upon us,
where was the Neceſſity of producing the Regiſter
of the true?
But were theſe Regiſters never talk'd of, till
Fifty Years afterwards ? Here again Mr. Ward is
out in his Hiſtory, for all the Lords and Commons
of England, very publickly refer to them, in an
Aet of Parliament, within ſeven Years after the
Time of the Confecrations, which they are Regi-
ſters of : For upon a Diſpute whether King Ed-
ward's Ordinal was ſufficiently eſtabliſhed by
Law, by the Act of the i of Eliz. the Parliament,
in her Eighth Year, took this into Conſideration,
and declared by another Act of that
See the Ap- Sellion, that this Form was Lawful,
pendix, · Num.
and fufficiently eſtabliſhed ; in which
Act, among other Things, there are
thefe Words, which do plainly refer to theſe Regi-
ſters, viz.
“ That everything Requiſite
KEBLE's Stat.
" and Material hath been made
« and done as preciſely, and with
as great Care and Diligence, or rather
inore, as ever the like was done before her
Majeſty's Time, as the Records of her Majeſty's
“ faid Father and Brother’s Time, and alſo of her
own Time, will more plainly teſtify and de-
2.
P. 8:6.
66 clare.
HERE you ſee a very publick Teftimony
given to theſe Records, within ſeven Years after
the Confecration. Again,
Archbiihop Parker himſelf publiſh'd, an ac-
count of the Confecrations of Queen Elizabeth's
firſt Biſhops, in his excellent Book, intituled,
Anti-
[ 115 ]
3
1
Vita Parkeri
Antiquitates Britannica, printed in the Year
1572. in a ſpare Leaf, after the Arons of all the
Biſhops of England, and before the Life of All-
guſtine, the firſt Archbiſhop of Canterbury, you
have the Names of the Perſons conſecrated, the
Time when confecrated, what Univerſity they
were of, and what School Degrees they had taken,
and I hope this is another Publication of theſe
Regiſters, at a Time when all Parties concerned
were then living, at leaſt moſt of them were for
it was within 13 Years after the Time of this Con-
ſecration.
AGAIN, The Author of the Hiſtory of this
Archbiſhop's own Life, has theſe Words of his
Conſecration.
Anno Domini 1559.
Cantuarienfis Archiepiſcopus ele&tzis eft
in Antiquitates
a Decano et Capitulo Eccleſia Metropoli- Britan.
tane Cantuarienfis, pofteáque eodem An-
no 17. Decemb. adhibitis quatuor Epiſcopis, Willielmo
Ciceſtrenſi
, Johanne Herefordenſi, Milone quondam
Exonienſi, & Fohanne Bedfordienſi
, lege quadam ir
ac re láta, Conſecratus eft
.
66 In the Year 1559.
he (viz. Matthew Parker) was Elected Arch-
biſhop of Canterbury, by the Dean and Chapter
" of the Metropolitical Church of Canterbriry, and
“ afterwards on the 17. of December in the ſame Year
“ he was confecrated by the aid of four Biſhops,
“ William Chicheſter, John Hereford, Miles former-
ly Biſhop of Exeter, and John Bedford, accord-
ing to a certain Law made for that pur-
poſe.
AND in the Margin over-againſt the Account
he gives of the Biſhops conſecrated by Parker,
we have theſe Words He Conſecrationes & Confir-
mationes in Regiſtris apparent. " Theſe Conſecra-
és tions


CC
12
[ 116 ]
(6 ſters.
<tions and Confirmations appear in the Regi-
We find Mr. Ward all along very ſhort ini
his Examinations into the Subject he writes of.
I hope if he had been acquainted with theſe Pai-
ſages, he would not have been Guilty of ſo low a
part, as to aſiert that theſe Regiſters were never
heard of, nor publiſhed till Fifty Years after the
Time of this Lambeth Conſecration, whereas it
plainly appears that they were publickly referred
to in Parliament, within ſeven Years of the Time,
and that they were publiihed in Part by that very
Archbiſhop,about whoſe Conſecration allthis diſpute
has happened, and in ſtrict Terms refer’d to in his
Life,written (probably) by his own Approbation, and
all this within 13 Years after the Time that theſe
Things were tranſacted. If theſe are not plain
Teſtimonies, not only of the Truth of theſe Re-
cords, but alſo of the Falſhcod of what Mr. Ward
and his Authors have faid with reſpect to their not
having been Publiſhed until the Year 1613. by
Mr. Mafon; I ſay if this is not a ſufficient Teſti-
mony of that, I own I am at a loſs to know what
is.
But this is not all yet, we have another Teſti-
mony of theſe Records, being produced beſides
theſe, and that in this very Controverſy about
Onders, long before Mr. Maſon engag'd in this
this was in the Conference between Rainolds
and Hart. The account of this Affair I ſhall give
you out of Mr. Mafor.
". WHEN John Hart, thirty Years
ago,
denied our Orders, as you
cleiiæ Angli “ do now; the Learned Rainolds,
cang, Page « out of the Regiſters of Edmund
Freak, by whom he was Ordain’d a
os Prieſt,
Cauſe;
'MASON'S
Vindiciæ
Ec-.
414,
[117]
el
CL
CC
" Prieſt, and out of Matthew Parker's Regiſters,
• by whom Freak was ordain’d Biſhop, tranſcrib'd
" the Confecrations, which when Hart faw, he
“ prefently confeſs'd, that he thought nothing of
” that nature could be produced ; and therefore he
agreed, that that whole Argument ſhould be
“ eras'd and expung'd cut of the Conference,
" that it might not be printed in it, being then
to go the Preſs. This Rainolds told me. More-
over in his Epiſtler to that Pious and Learned
“ Man Thomas Baker, Rector of Soham in Suffolk,
" he ſignified the ſame in writing, becauſe Ba-
" ker was attack'd from the ſaine Quarter, by
“ fome Popiſh Priſoners in Framlington Caſtle ;
“ he conſulted Rainolds by Letter ; whoſe Letter,
they ſent into Suffolk, I have it, being given
me by my Friend Edward Baker, after his Fa-
" ther's Death. Another Copy, written by Rai-
« nold's own Hand, is in the Cuſtody of my
“ Friend Henry Maſon, (that Learnied Divine)
formerly Domeſtick Chaplain to the Right
" Reverend Father Fobu Biſhop of London, of
“ pious Memory.
By what has been already produc’d, we may
eaſily diſcover that it is not Truth, but Faétioni
,
that makes Fitz-Simons, Fitz-Herbert, Champney
and Mr. Ward ſo eagerly contend, that theſe
Regiſters were 110t made publick till fifty odd
Years, to teſtify our Conſecrations, by Mr. Macon ;
and we all know, that where Intereſt and Faction
concern themſelves to bear down the moſt evi.
dent Teſtimonies, it is in vain to contend; for ſuch
Men will follow their own Humours in ſpite of
Truth, and the moſt evident Reaſons that can be
brought. But I freely own that ſuch Men, la-
I 3
bouring
.
[ 118 ]
bouring under theſe unhappy Circumſtances, are
more the Objects of Pity than Reſentnient.
THEREFORE I defire the Reader to con-
ſider the little Weight that is to be put upon what
Mr. Ward ſays, with reſpect to theſe Regiſters
not being made publick in all the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth. But Mr. Ward goes on to prove this
Silence, from ſome of our Writers of Controver-
fy in thoſe Days.
An Examination into this,
hall be the Subject of the next Chapter.

ON
Hollola
СНАР.
[ 119 ]

CH A P. X.
That there was no Neceſity to pro-
duce Regiſters in Queen Elizabeth's
Time.

G HERE is nothing which our Ad-
verſaries of Rome, and Mr. Ward,
inlift more upon than the Silence of
our Controverſial Writers, in the
beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign,
with reſpect to theſe Regiſters ; and
conſequently they argue from hence, that there
were then no ſuch Regiſters in being
But it appears that they were under no Ne-
ceflity, from any thing their Adverſaries then
ſaid, to produce ſuch Evidences for the Regulari-
ty of their Ordinations; becauſe the Controverſy
then turned upon this, that they
had 110 Succeſſion of Doctrine, and Fulk de Suc.
that they were not confirm’d by the faltica pallim.
Pope. They did not mean that they
wanted
I 4.
[ 120 ]
P. 119.
wanited all Conſecration, but that they had no law-
ful Conſecration, and in conſequence of that, they
had none in this limited Senſe.
MR. Harding is the Man whom I ſhall ſingle out
to prove this, not only becauſe he is one whom Mr.
Ward refers to, but alſo becauſe he is very large
upon this Head; what others ſay are only ſhort
Hints, from which nothing can be concluded.
This Man, in his verboſe way, tells Biſhop
Fewel, in Anſwer to his Apology, where Jewel ſays,
that a Miniſter ought to be lawfully callid. “ Ye
ſay, faith Harding, that the Mini-
See Harding in “ fter ought to be lawfully call’d, and
Jewel's Works
duly order?d to be preferr'd to that
" Office of the Church of God
" Whatſoever you mean by your Miniſter, and by
" that Office, this are we afſür'd of, that in this
your new Church, Biſhops, Prieſts, Deacons,
Sub-deacons, or any other inferior Orders ye have
Biſhop Jewel, overagainſt theſe laſt Words in the
Margin, writes thus. 6. Untruth. For it is known
we have them. Meaning Biſhops, Prieſts and
Deacons.
A GAIN, Mr. Harding proceeds.“ Ye have aban-
es doned the external Sacrifice and Prieſthood of
is the New Teſtament, and have not in your Sect
“ Conſecrated Biſhops. And therefore being with-
out Prieſts made with laying on of Hands, as
Scripture requires all Holy Orders being given
by Biſhops only : How can you ſay that any
among you can lawfully Miniſter, or that ye
“ have any lawful Miniſters at all.
AGAINST this Biſhop Jewel in the Margin
writs thus. Untruth. For we have neither abandoned
the Prieſthood, nor the Sacrifice that Chriſt appointed.
CC
none.
90
1
<C
Mr.
[ 121 ]

46
i
f
MR. Harding again proceeds, and directs his
Diſcourſe particularly to Biſhop Jewel.
“ How many Biſhops of Salisbary can you reck-
on who preceded you as well in Doctrine, as in
outward fitting in that Chair ? How many can
you tell us of, that being your Predeceſſors in
"? Order before you, were of your opinion, and
“ taught the faithful People of that Dioceſs the
“ Doctrine that you teach ? Did Biſhop Capon teach
your Doctrine ? Did Shaxton ? Did Campegius?
“ Did Biſhop Audley ? Briefiy, did ever any Bishop
“ of that See, before you, teach your Doctrine ? It
" is moſt certain that they did not.
This Paſſage Mr. Ward entirely omits, becauſe
he knew this was not to his Purpoſe : For this ſhews
that the Controverſy then was about a Succeſſion of
Doctrine. You ſee Mr. Ward can pick and chuſe,
but you ſhall have more ſignal Inſtances of it. pre-
fently.
< Bu to go from your Succeſſion, and to come
“ to your Vocation. -- Who hath called you? Who
“ hath laid Hands upon you ?
Be you a Prieſt,
be you not? If you be, who gave you
gave you Orders
(Fewel here in the Margin, even be that gave Mr.
Harding Orders in the Time of King Edward.) The
“ Inſtitution of a Prieſt was never yet but in the
“ Power of a Biihop. Bishops have always after
" the Apoſtles Time, according to the Ecclefiaftical
" Canons, been Conſecrated by three other Biſhops,
with the conſent of the Metropolitan, and Con-
firmation of the Biſhop of Rome.
“ This being true it remaineth, Mr. Jewel,
you
tell
us, whether
your Vocation be Ordinary
or Extraordinary. If Ordinary, ſhew us the
" Letters of your Orders. At leaſt, ſliew us that
you have received Power to do the Office you
preſume to exerciſe, by due Order of laying on
co
or
CG
i
૯૮
66
of
[ 122 ]
SC
6
6 of Hands and Conſecration; but Order and Con-
46 ſecration you have not. To this laſt Mr. Jewel
in the Margin Anſwers, A Manifeft Untruth. For we
have both Order and Confecration.
You ſee here, that the main Hinge upon which
Mr. Harding's Argument turns, is the want of the
Confirmation from Rome. When he ſpeaks of Con-
ſecrations, not one Word of an Ordination at the
Nag's Head. But hear what Biſhop Jewel himſelf
fays to all this.
“ Here hath Mr. Harding taken
B thop/EWEL'S
more Pains than Ordinary. He W rk, p. 120,
thought if he could by any Colour co.
« inake the World believe, we have neither Biſhops,
nor Prieſts, nor Deacons, this Day in the Church
of England, he might the more eaſily claim the
“ whole Right unto himſelf.
“ WHERE you ſay, Mr. Harding,
that according to the Ecclefiaftical Page 12.5.
Canons, ever from the Apoſtles Time, Bihops
have evermore been confecrated by three Biſhops,
with the Confirmation of the Biſhop of Rome,
as if without him no Man might be allow'd to
" be a Bihop; ye ſhould not unadviſedly report
" lo manif ft an Urtruth. For I beſeech you, where
be there Eccefiaſtical Canons ? Who deviſed)
" them? Who made them? Who gave the Pope
" that fingnlar Privilege, that 10 Bihop ſhould be
vi admitted in the World but only by him ? I re-
member your Canoniſts have fuid, Papa ſolo ver-
bo poteft facere Epiſcopum : The Pope inay inake
a Bithop only by his Word, without any farther
Confecration. And Abbot Fanormitanie moveth a
" Doubt, wether the Pope, by the fullneſs of his
"Power, may deprive all the Bishops in the whole
World at one time. But this they ſay that care
not greatly what they ſay.
TO
a
[ 123 )
6 You forget
To this Mr. Harding anſwers, after the ancient
and modern Popiſh Manner, viz. nothing to the
Purpoſe. “That among the Canons of the A-
poſtles this is the firſt; Epiſcopus a duobus aut tribus
Epiſcopis ordinetur,yet you can ask,where be theſe
$6 Eccleſiaſtical Canons? Who devis'd them? Who
66 made them?
To this Biſhop Femel anſwers.
“ yourſelf, Mr. Harding, very much ; this is not
5 the Queſtior; you are demanded one Thing, and
“ anſwer another. We deny not the Conſecration
s of three Biſhops. We deny not the Confirmation
6 of the Metropolitane. We ourſelves are ſo
C Conſecrated and ſo Confirmed. The Matter that
lyeth between us is this, Whether through the
« whole Church of Chriſt no Man may be allow'd for a
Biſhop, without the Confirmation of the Pope? There-
1" to I ſay, where be your Eccleſiaſtical Canons ?
" Who deviſed them? Who made them? If you
« have them ſhew them forth hardly, they will
“ further your Cauſe. If ye have none at all,why
« ſhould you thus vaunt yourſelf of empty Story?
“Why ſhould you talk fo vainly of your Ecclefi-
6 aftical Canonis, fo old, ſo ancient, ſo long con-
istinu'd in the Catholick Church, from the Apoſt-
*" les Time, until this Day.
You ſee here the Queſtion then debated,was not
the Confecration at the Nag's Head, but the Confir-
mation of the Biſhop of Rome. Biſhop Jewel pro-
ceeds.
is WHERE A S it pleaſeth you to
Jewel's Works
6 call for my Letters of Orders, and
to demand of ine, as by fome Authority, whether
" I be a Prieſt or :0 ? What Hands were laid on me
" and by what Order I was made? I anſwer you, I
am a Prieſt, made long ſince, by the ſame Or-
“ der and Ordinance, and I think alſo by the ſame




p. 129.
s
Man
[ 124 ]
ye
CC
“ Man, and fame Hands, that you, Mr. Harding,
were made Prieſt by, in the late Time of that
" moft virtuous Prince King Edward the Sixth.
« Therefore ye cannot well doubt of my Prieſthood,
56 without like doubting of your own.
“ FURTHER, as if you were my Metropolitane,
demand of me, whether I be a Biſhop or no? I
" anſwer you, I am a Biſhop, and that by the free
" accuſtomed Canonical Election of the whole
Chapter of Salisbury, aſſembled folemnly toge-,
" ther for that purpoſe ; of which Company you
e. Mr. Harding were then one, and, as I was
« informed, being there freſint in your own
Perſon, among your Brethren, gave free, and
" and open Conſent unto the Election. If you de-
ny this, take heed leaſt your own Breath blow
not againſt you.
" As for the impertinent Tales of Iſchyras and
« Zacchaus,they touch is nothing, they were none of
ours, we know them not. Our Biſhops are made in
« Form, and Order, as they have been ever by free
“ election of the Chapter,by conſecration of the Arch-
Bilhop, and other three Billiops, and by the ad-
6 million of the Prince. And in this Sort, pot
“ long ſince, the Pope himſelf was admitted. And
as Platina faith, without the Emperor's Letters)
“ Patent, the Pope was no Pope, as hereafter it
« ſhall be ſhewed more at large.
“ To be ſhort, we ſucceed the Biſhops that have
been before our Days; we are Elected, Conſe-
“ crated, Confirmed, and Admitted, as they were.
« If they were deceived in any thing, we ſucceed
e them in Place, but not in Error. They were our
Predeceſſors, but not the Rulers and Standards of
our Faith. Or rather, to ſet apart all Compari-
" ſon of Perſons, the Doctrine of Chriſt this Day,
* Mr. Harding, ſucceedeth your Doctrine, as the
c Day
[ 125 )
Day ſucceedeth the Night, as the Light ſucceed-
“ eth the Darkneſs, and as the Truth ſucceedeth
- Error,
I have here given you a view of this Controverſy
as it ſtood in the Days of Queen Elizabeth ; where-
by it appears, that they then only deny'd our Con-
ſecrations in general Terms, and the Medium where-
by they then pretend to prove theſe general Aſſer-
tions was the want of the Confirmation of the Bi-
Thops of Rome, which they pretended at thatTime,
to be eſſential to Ordination. This Point Biſhop
Fewel is very large in Oppoſing, as well as another,
of the want of Succeſſion in the ſame Doctrine. As
to the reſt, I have given you his Anſwers, which
you ſee are only General, that he was Conſecrated
by three Biſhops, as the Apoſtolical Ca non directs,
nor was he under any neceſſity to produce Records,
at that time of Day; for the Conſecrations were
freſh in the Memory of all Men, and particularly
in that of his Antagoniſt Mr. Harding, whoin it
appears was one of the Chapter of Salisbury, at the
time of his Election. So that to produce Records
againſt ſuch a Man, who was acquainted with the
whole Tranſaction, would be impertinent : there-
fore fewel (who well knew where the ſtreſs of their
Arguments lay, and upon which they depended)
goes on jinmediately to prove that the Pope had no
lawful Authority here, nor any where elſe, but in
his own diſtrict or Dioceſs, and conſequently, that
our Ordinations are valid and good, tho' they were
perforin'd without the Pope's Authority. This is the
true State of the Caſe, as it will appear to any Body
that will be at the trouble to conſult the contro-
verſy at large in Jewel's Works.
From hence therefore I am ſure, that the im-
partial Reader will conclude, as well as I, that Mr.
Tard's Argument drawn from the ſilence of our
Writers.
)
[ 126 ]
Writers, with reſpect to theſe Records, is equally
inconcluſive with the reſt ; for it appears they were
under no manner of Neceſſity to produce theſe, as
a Teſtimony of the Validity of their Confecrations
at that Time.
But on the contrary he muſt conclude, the fi-
lence of the Popiſh Writers of that Age with re-
ſpect to the Nag's Head Fable, is a certain Sign
that there was no ſuch Thing ever acted otherwiſe,
there is no Doubt to be made, but they would have
made Uſe of it to caſt a Blemiſh upon the Reforma-
tion, and therefore as this Story is falſe, theſe Rea
cords muſt be reputed the Regiſters of the true
Conſecrations.


СНАР.
[ 127 ]

C H A P. XI.
That Epiſcopacy was reputed a divine Izz-
ſtitution in Queen Elizabeth's Days.
4

M
Y Deſign was to have concluded withi
the laſt Chapter, but ſince this Book
went to the Preſs, I conſider'd that no-
thing is more frequent in the Mouths
and Writings of our Adverfaries, than
that it was the general Doctrine of Queen Eliza-
beth's Reign, that the Order of a Biſhop was not
Jure Divino, if it be conſider'd as a diſtinct Order
from that of a Presbyter ; I therefore thought it
neceſſary, in this place, to ſay ſomething to this
Charge ; eſpecially ſince the Author now under
Examination, frequently advanceth it in ſeveral
Places of his Book; and he concludes from thence,
that as the Church of England did not then think
the Order of Biſhops neceſſary to the Conſtitution
of a Church, She was therefore the lefs Solicitous
to preſerve the Regularity of their Ordinations.
IT


[ 128 ]
It muſt be confeſs'd, that ſome Writers of that
Age are too favourable towards this ridiculous Opi-
nion, but I do not ſee how this is an evidence of the
General Judgment of the then Church of England.
For it has always been complain’d of, by all Parties,
as a great Hardſhip to charge any Chucrh with the
ſentiments of private Men, and none more forward
in complaints of this Nature, than the Vaſſals of
the Court of Rome, tho' none ſo frequent as them-
ſelves in the Practice of it.
The Judgment of Dr. Whitaker has often been
caſt in our Teeth upon this Occaſion; but muſt the
Opinion of ſuch an Apocryphal Writer as he was,
paſs for the Judgment of our Church ? Muſt his
particular Syſtems paſs for the Eſtabliſh'd Doctrine
of the Church of England? When he defends the
undoubted Principles of the Chriſtian Religion E-
ſtabliſh'd in the Church of England, he is ſo far
a Doctor of that Church; but when he deviates
from theſe, he is no longer a Chriſtian Doctor, but
a Doctor of Anti-Chriſt, and we are not reſponſible
for what he, or any other privaté Man whatſoever,
may have written.
.
I am afraid we have Inſtances even in this Age,
of Fathers in the Church that never were true
Sons, but will future Generations be ſo inconſide-
rate, as to ſay, that they deſerve the Titles they
bear, or that the Hereſies which they have advancd
are the preſent eſtabliſh'd Doctrines of the Church
of England, I hope not, for no Opinions are to be
imputed to the Church, but ſuch as are found in her
publick Liturgies and Ordinals, and the reſt of her
Synodical Determinations and when any Man
tranſgreſſeth theſe Rules, whether he is a pretended
Father, or a pretended Son, he evidently proves
himſelf to be of a ſpurious Original.
BUT



3