The consecration and succession, of Protestant bishops justified, the Bishop of Duresme vindicated, and that infamous fable of the ordination at the Nagges head clearly confuted by John Bramhall ...

CAP. VIII. Dr. VVhitaker and Dr. Fulke defen∣ded, Bishop Barlowes Consecration justified, of Iohn Stowes Testimony, and the Earle of Notinghams &c. (Book 8)

HEre the Fathers take upon them the office of Iudges or Censors rather then of Advocates. Mr. Mason ought to have an∣swered as Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Fulke, (they were both eminent Drs. in the Schooles) who had reason to be better informed of the Records then he. How? Nay nor half so well. They were both contemplative men, Cloistered up in St. Iohns College, better acquainted with Polemick writers, then with Records, They were both ordeined Deacons and Priests legally, Canonically, according to the Form prescribed by the Church of England: and were no such ill Birds to defile their own nests. If the Re∣cords of their Ordination will ••atisfy you, that they were no Enthusiasts, (as you imagin,) you may quickly receive satis∣faction: But if they had said any thing con∣trary to our Lawes and Canons, you must

not thinke to wrangle the Church of En¦gland out of a good possession, by private voluntary speculations. Let us see what these Doctrs say as you allege them, for I have not their bookes in present. Mr. Whitaker saith, I would not have you thinke we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our own Vocation unlawfull without them. You see Doctor Whitaker justifieth our Ordina∣tion in this very place as lawfull, and much more plainly elswhere in his writings. That though our Bishops and Ministers be not Or∣deined by Papisticall Bishops, yet they are or∣derly and lawfully ordeined: Again, The Ro∣manists account none lawfull Pastors, but such as are created according to their Form or Order. These are your two main Objections a∣gainst our Ordination, that we are not or∣deined by Bishops of your Communion. That we are not ordeined according to the Roman Form. In both of these Doctor Whitaker is wholy for us against you, that which he maketh no reckoning of, is your Form of Ordination, as it is contradistinct from ours, as it is in many things, especi∣ally in your double matter and Form in Priestly Ordination.

You say Mr. Fulke speakes more plainly Let us heare him. You are highly deceived

if you thinke we esteem your Offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons better then Laymen: and with all our heart we defie, abhorre, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian Or∣ders. This is high enough indeed, and might have been expressed in more mode∣rate termes: but it is to be expounded, not of the invalidity of your Ordination, as if it wanted any Essentiall, but partly in re∣spect of the not using or abusing these sa∣cred Offices, and partly in respect of the Lawes of England. Excesses may make an Ordination unlawfull, although they do not make it invalid. Holy Orders are an excellent Grace conferred by God for the Conversion of men: but if those who have them, instead of preaching truth do teach errours to his people, and adulterate the old Christian Faith by addition of new Articles, they are no longer true Pastors, but Wolves which destroy the Flock, and so they are not onely no better, but worse then Lay men, Corruptio optimi pessima. In this respect they tell you, that your Priests and Bishops are no true Priests and Bi∣shops, as Marcellus told his Soldiers that they were no true Romans (who were naturall Romans) because they wanted the old Roman virtue. Lastly you have

habituall power to exercise these Offi∣ces, but you want actuall power in England, by reason of the not applicati∣on, or rather the substraction of the matter by our Lawes: so you are no legall Bishops or Priests there. This I take to have been the sense of these two Doctors.

Now are we come to their grand ex∣ception, against Bishop Barlow, who was one of the Consecraters of Archbishop Parker, whose Consecration is not found in the Archbishops Register, and there fore they conclude that he was never con∣secrated. If this objection were true, yet it doth not render Archbishop Parkers Con∣secration either invalid or uncanonicall, because there were three other Bishops who joined in that Consecration besides Bishop Barlow, which is the full number required by the Canons. But this objection is most false. Bishop Barlow was a Consecrated Bi∣shop above 20 yeares before the Conse∣cratiō of Archbishop Parker. They should have done well to have proposed this doubt in Bishop Barlows lifetime, and then they might have had the Testimony of his Con∣secraters under an Archiepiscopall or

Episcopall Seale, for their satisfaction, The Testimony of the Archi-Episcopall Register, is a full proofe of Consecration affirmatively, but it is not a full proofe ne∣gatively; such a Bishops Consecration is not recorded in this Register, therefore he was not Consecrated. For first, the ne∣gligence of an Officer or some crosse acci∣dent might hinder the recording. Secondly Fire or Thieves or some such Casualty might destroy or purloin the Record. Thirdly though it be not recorded in this Register, it may be recorded in another, the Arch Bishop may, and Arch Bishop Cranmer usually did delegate or give Com∣mission to three other Bishops for Conse∣cration. And though the work be ordi∣narily performed at Lambeth, because of the place, where they may have three Bi∣shops alwaies present without any further Charge: yet they are not obliged by any Law to Consecrate them there. And if there be a sufficient number of Bi∣shops near the Cathedrall which is to be filled, or if the person who is to be Conse∣crated do desire it, they may be Consecra∣ted either in that, or any of their own Churches. The Bishops of the Province of Yorke, by reason of the former conve∣nience

are usually consecrated at Lambeth, yet I have known in my time Bishop Sine∣wes of Carlile consecrated at Yorke upon his own desire, by the Archbisop of Yorke, and the Bishops of Durham, Chester, and Mā A man might seek long enough for his Consecration in the Archbishop of Canter∣buries Register and misse it, but it is to be found in the Register at Yorke. So the Omission of it in that Register though it be no full proofe, yet it is a probable proofe that Bishop Barlow was not Consecrated there, but it is no proofe at all that he was not Consecrated elswere.

And this I take to have been the case both of Bishop Barlow and Bishop Gardiner: and although the effluxion of above an hundred yeares since, hath rendered it mo∣re difficult to find where it was done, yet by the help of those Records which are in the Court of Faculties, I should not despaire of finding it yet.

But there are so many evident proofes that he was Cousecrated, that no ingenu∣ous person can have the Face to deny it. The first reason is, his actuall possession of 4. Bishopricks one after another, St. Assaph, St. Davids, Bath and Wells and Chichester, in the Reigns of three Princes. They feign some pretenses why Archbishop Parker was

not consecrated Canonically▪ because there wanted a competent number of Bishops, though it were most false: but what can they feign why Bishop Barlow was not consecra∣ted in Henry the eighths time? was Henry the eighth a Baby to be jeasted withall? In Arch∣bishop Parkers case, they suppose all the Bi∣shops to have been stark mad, to cast them∣selves down headlong from a Precipice, when they had a faire paire of Stairs to des∣cend by: but in Bishop Barlowes case they sup∣pose all the world to have been asleep; ex∣cept there had been such an Vniversall sleep it had been impossible for any man in those dayes to creep into a Bishoprick in England without Consecration. To say he is actually possessed of a Bishoprick therefore he is Consecrated, is as clear a Demonstration in the English Law, as it is in nature to say the Sun shineth, therefore it is Day.

But it may be objected, that he held all these Bishopricks as a Commendatory, no•• in Title, as an Vsufructuary not as a true owner. It is impossible, Vsufructuaries are not elected and confirmed, but Bishop Barlow was both elected and Confirmed. The Conge d'eslire to the Dean and Chapter, the Letters Patents for his Confirmation, the Commission for the restitution of his Temporalties, do all prove that he was no

Vsufructuary but a right owner, This is a second reason.

Thirdly, The same Letters Patents that doe authorise Bishop Barlowes Confirma∣tion, did likewise Command the Archbi∣shop with the assistence of other Bishops to Consecrate him himself. or to give a Com∣missiō to other Bishops to Consecrate him, which if they did not perform within a prescribed time, or perform after another manner thē is prescribed by the Law, it was not onely a losse of their Bishopricks by the Law of England, but a Premunire or the losse of all their Estates, their Liberties, and a ca∣sting themselves out of the Kings Protectiō 25, Hen: 8. c. 20. No mē in their right wits would r••n such a hazard, or rather evidētly ruine thēselves and all their hopes without any need, without any ēd in the whole world. Fourthly, by the same Law no man could be acknowledged a Bishop in England, but he who was Consecrated legally, by three Bi∣shops with the consent of the Metropolitan, but Bishop Barlow was acknowledged to be a true Bishop; The King received his Ho∣mage for his Bishoprick; the King commā∣ded him to be restored to his Temporalties, which is never done untill the Consecratiō be passed. King Henry sent him into Scotland as his Ambassadour with the title of Bishop

of St. Davids; and in his restitution to the Temporalties of that See, the King related that the Arch Bishop had made him Bishop and Pastor of the Church of St. Davids. This could not be if he had not been Con∣secrated.

Thirdly, he was admitted to sit in Par∣liament as a Consecrated Bishop: for no man can sit there as a Bishop before he be Consecrated, but it is plain by the Records of the house of the Lords that he did sit in Parliament many times in the 31 of Henry the 8. in his Episcopall habit, as a Conse∣crated Bishop; and being neither a Bishop of one of the five Principall Sees, nor a Privy Counseller, he must sit and did sit according to the time of his Consecration, between the Bishops of Chichester and St, Assaph. What a strange boldnesse, is it to question his Consecration now, whom the whole Parliament, and his Conse∣craters among the rest, did admit wi∣thout scruple then as a Cōsecrated Bishop.

Sixthly, There is no act more proper or essentiall to a Bishop then Ordination, What doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not (saith St. Hierom) except Ordination? But it is evi∣dent by the Records of his own See, that Bishop Barlow did Ordein Priests and

Deacons frō time to time, and by the Arch Bishops Register that he, joined in Episco∣pall Ordination, and was one of those three Bishops who imposed hands upon Bishop Buckley Feb. 19. 1541,

Seventhly, there is nothing that ••••inth a Bishops Title to his Chuch more then ••he Validity and Invalidity of his Leases. If Bishop Barlow had been unconsecrated, all the Leases which he made in the See of St. Davids, and Bath and Wells, had been voide, and it had been the easiest thing in the whole world for his Successour in those dayes, to prove whether he was consecra∣ted or not, but they never questioned his Leases; because they could not question his Consecration.

Lastly, an unconsecrated person hath neither Antecessors nor Successors, he succeedeth no man, no man succeedeth him. If a grant of any hereditaments be made to him and his Successours, it is absolutely void••, not worth a deaf Nut; If he alien any Lands belon∣ging to his See from him and his▪ Suc∣cessours, it is absolutely void: But Bishop Barlow•• received the Priory of Br••cknock from the Crown, to him and his Suc∣cessors Bishops of St. Davids, and in King Edwards reign being Bishop of Bath

and Wells, he alienated from him and his Successours to the Crown much Land, and received back again from the Crown to him and his Successours equi∣valent Lands. If he had been unconsecra∣ted all these Acts had been utterly void. In summe, whosoever dreameth now, that all the world were in a dead sleep then, for twenty yeares together, whilest all these things were acting, is much more asleep himself.

To these undeniable proofes I might adde as many more out of the Records of the Chancery, if there needed any to pro∣ve him a Consecrated Bishop. As.

A grant to the said William Barlow Bi∣shop of St. Davids, to hold in Commen∣dam with the said Bishoprick the Recto∣ry of Carewe in the county of Pembrooke, Dated Octob. the 29. Anno 38. Hen. 8.

A commission for Translation of William Barlow Bishop of St. Davids to the Bishop∣rick of Bath and VVels, Dated. 3. Feb. 2. Edv. 6.

A Commission for the Consecration of Robert Farrer to be Bishop of St. Davids, per translationem VVillelmi Barlow &c. Da∣ted 3. Iul. Anno 2. Edv. 6.

A Commission for the Restitution of the Temporalties of the said Bishoprick to the said Robert Farrer, as being void per transla∣tionem Willelmi Barlow. Dated 1. Augusti Anno 2. Edv. 6. In all which Records and many more he is alwaies named as a true Consecrated Bishop.

And lastly, in Bishop Goodwins booke de Praesulibus Angliae pa. 663. of the Latin Edition printed at London Anno 1616. in his Catalogue of the Bishops of St. Assaph num. 37. he hath these words. Gulielmus Barlow Canonicorum Regularium apud Bisham Prior Consecratus est. Feb. 22. Anno 1535; Aprili deinde sequente Meneviam translatus est. VVilliam Barlow Prior of the Canons Regulars at Bisham was consecrated the two and twentieth Day of February, in the yeare 1535, and in Aprill Follovving vvas translated to St. Davids. Which confirmeth me in my former conjecture, that he was Consecrated in Wales, which Bishop Goodwin by reason of his Vicinity, had much more reason to know exactly then we have.

They say Mr. Mason acknowled∣geth that Mr Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker, because Hod∣gskins the Suffragan of Bedford was o∣nely an Assistent in that action: and the Assistents in the Protestant Church doe not consecrate. By the Fathers leave, this is altogether untrue. Neither was Bishop Barlow the onely man who Con∣secrated Archbishop Parker; Neither was Bishop Hodgskins a meere Assistent in that action; Thirdly, who soever doe impose hands are joint consecraters, with us as wel as them; Lastly, Mr. Mason saith no such thing as they affirm, but directly the Con∣trary, that all the foure Bishops were e∣qually Consecraters, all imposed hands, all joined in the words, and this he proveth out of the Register it self, L. 3. c. 9. n. 8. & l: 3. c. 10. n. 9.

They object He might as well be pro∣ved to have been a lawfull Husband, because he had a woman▪ and diverse Children, as to have been a Consecra∣ted Bishop because he ordeined. and Discharged all acts belonging to the Or∣der of a Bishop. What was Bishop Barlowes

Woman pertinent to his cause. Are not Governants, and Devotesses, besides ordi∣nary maidservants, women?

All which Pastours not onely of their own Communion, but of their own Soci∣ety, are permitted to have in their houses. Let themselves be ••udges whether a Wo∣man a wife, or a Woman a Governant or a Devotesse, be more properly to be ranged under the name or notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such women as were prohibited to Coha∣bit with Clerkes by the Councell of Nice. But to leave the Hypothesis and come to the Thesis, as being more pertinent to the pre∣sent case. If a man have cohabited long with a Woman as man and wife in the Ge∣nerall estimation of the world, and begot children upon her, and dies as her husband without any doubt or dispute during his life and long after, though all the Witnes∣ses of their Marriage were dead, and the Register lost, this their Conjugall co∣habitation and the common reputation of the world during his Life uncontrover∣ted, is in Law a sufficient proofe of the Marriage: but all the world nemine contra∣dicente esteemed Bishop Barlow as the un∣doubted Bishop and Spouse of his Church.

They adde, Ridley Hooper Farrer were acknowledged and obeyed as Bishops in King Edwards time, yet were Iudged by both the Spirituall and Temporall Court not to have been consecrated. They mistake, they were not judged not to have been consecrated, (for their Consecrations are upon Record,) but not to have been consecrated ritu Romano, after the Roman Form. And who gave this Iudgement? Their open enemies, who made no scruple to take away their Lifes, whose unjust judgement we doe not value a rush: but Paul the 4. and Cardinall Pole; more authentick Iudges of their own party, gave a later Iudgemēt to the Cōtrary.

They aske, how it is possible that Barlowes Cōsecration should not be found recorded (if ever it was), as well as his preferment to the Priory of Bisham, and Election and Confirmation to the Bishoprick of St. Assaph. I answer it is very easy to conceive. I have shewed him sun∣dry wayes how it might be, and one pro∣bable way how it was. I desire the Rea∣der to observe the extreme partiality of these Fathers, they make it impossible for the Acts of one Consecration to be lost or stollen, and yet accuse us of forging fif∣teen Consecrations. It is easier to steale fifteen, then to Forge one Act.

We have often asked a reason of them,

why the Protestants should decline their own Consecrations? They give us one, The truth is, that Barlow as most of the Clergy in England in those times were Puritans, and inclined to Zuin∣glianisme, therefore they contemned and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome, and were contented with the ex∣traordinary calling of God and the Spi∣rit, as all other Churches are, who pre∣tend Reformation. It is well they premised the truth is, otherwise there had not been one word of truth in what they say. First how do they know this? It must be either by Rela∣tion, but I am confident they can name no author for it: or by Revelation, but that they may not doe: or it is (to speake spa∣ringly) their own Imagination. It is a great boldnesse, to take the liberty to cast aspersi∣ons upon the Clergy of a whole Nation. Secondly, how commeth Bishop Barlow, to be taxed of Puritanism? we meet him a Prior and a Bishop, we find him in his Robes, in his Rochet, in his Cope, Officiating, Or∣daining, Confirming. He who made no scruple to Ordein and Consecrate others gratis, certainly did not forbeare his own Consecration with the apparent hazard of the losse of his Bishoprick, out of scru∣ple

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of Conscience. Thirdly, this asper∣sion is not well accommodated to the times, For first Zuinglianisme was but short hee∣led in those Dayes when Bishop Barlow was Consecrated, who sate in Parliament as a Consecrated Bishop 31. Henr. 8: and the first Sermon that ever Zuinglius Preached as a Probationer, was in Zurick in the yeare 1510. that was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Hēry the eighth. If there were any one Zuinglian in those dayes, upon their grounds, it is most likely to have been Bi∣shop Gardiner, for his Consecration doth not appeare more then Bishop Barlowes.

But there is yet a greater mistake in it; it is the Anabaptists who reject Ordination, and content themselves with the extraordinary calling of the Spirit, not the Zuinglians. In the writings of Zuinglius we find a Letter of him and ten other of the principall Hel∣vetian Theologians, to the Bishop of Constance; beseeching him in all humility and observance, to favour and help forward their beginnings, as an excellent work and wor∣thy of a Bishop; They implore his Clemency, Wisdome, learning, that he would be the first fruits of the German Bishops; They beseech him by the Common Christ, by that fatherly af∣fection which he owes unto them, to looke graci∣ously

upon them &c; They court him to shew himself a Father, and grant the request of his obedient sonnes, Zuinglius and the Zuin∣glians liked Bishops well enough, if he could have had them. But the Bishop of Constance of another Communion was their Bishop.

Here Meanderlike they make a winding from St. Asaph back again to Cheapside, from Bishop Barlowes Consecration to Archbishop Parkers. They say, that if there had been any other Consecration of Arch∣bishop Parker then that of the Nagges head, Iohn Stow would not conceale it in his Annales; who is so diligent in setting down all that passed in and about London, and professeth personall respect to him, he having related the Consecration of Cardinall Pole with so many particulars. They adde out of Dr. Cham∣pney, that Iohn Stow acknowledged to many per¦sons that the story of the Nagges head was true. Their store is very low, when they are forced to produce Iohn Stow, who scarce knew what a Consecration was. But what saith he in his Chronicles? Not a word, either of the feigned Consecration at the Nagges head, or of the true Consecration at Lambeth. But he told it to many persons by word of mouth, that the Story of the Nagges head was very true. If he did, he lied notoriously

to many persons, but we acquit him of that calumny: let it rest upon them, who think it a meritorious Act, to advance religion by any means true or false, we are too well acquainted with their hearsay reports. They who dare wrest his printed workes, ought not to be trusted what he spake by word of mouth, to some body, whom no body knowes. Their Authour saith to some persons, they say to many persons, thus this snowball increaseth. Iohn Stowe is now dead, and dead men do not bite: yet let us know to whom he said it? Doctor Cham∣pney tells us, they are ••imorous and would not be named. Good reason, for they have no names: so Iohn Stow is a silent witnesse, and they are namelesse witnesses.

So much for the man: now for the thing I give three answers; First if Iohn Stow were a lover of the truth, he should rather have set down the Nagges head Ordination (if there was any such thing) then the Lam∣beth Ordination. Men would suppose the Lambeth Ordination of themselves, where nothing is said to the contrary, it is presu∣med for the Law: but the Nagges head Consecration, had been such a Conse∣cration, as never was before, never will follow after.

Secondly, their Authours wrest Iohn

Stow abhominably. He was no profest wri∣ter of Ecclesiasticall Annales. It is true he mentioneth the Consecration of Cardinall Pole, whether it was his respect to his Emi∣nence, as being a neare Kinsman to the Queen, a Cardinall, the Popes Legate, and his grand Minister for the reconciliation of England, or because a toy tooke him in the head: but not with so many particulars as the Fathers intimate; all he saith is this, the 21 of March Dr. Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury was burnt at Oxford, the sa∣me day Cardinall Pole sang his first Masse at Greenwich in the Friars Church, on Sunday next he was Consecrated Archbishop of Can∣terbury (here was speedy worke), and the 25 of March received the Pall with the usuall Ceremonies at Bowes Church in Cheape. Here is another Nagges head meeting; where he was Consecrated, by whom, after what Form, he leaveth the Reader to presume: but of all the other Consecrations perfor∣med in Queen Maries time, this diligent Authour mentioneth not so much as one; of all the Consecrations in Queen Eliza∣beths time, I think not one; of all the Consecrations in England since the Con∣quest, not one, or so rarely that they are not to be taken notice of. If the Ar∣gument of these Fathers were of any value

Iohn Stow mentioneth not his Consecration at Lambeth, therefore he was not Conse∣crated there, we never had a Consecra∣tion in England, since the Conquest, but Cardinal 'Poles: for he mentioneth none but that which I remember, I am sure if he mention any it is most rarely. If the Fathers argument were good, Archbishop Parker was never elected, nor confirmed, because his Election and Confirmation are not recordsd by Iohn Stow: but all our Records Civill as well as Ecclesiasticall do testify the Contrary.

Lastly, if the Fathers would lay aside their prejudice, there is enough in Iohn Stowes Annales, to discover the falshood of their lying Fable of the Consecration at the Nagges head. By their account the Nagges head Consecration was September 7. Anno 1559, but after this in relating the solemne Obsequies kept in St. Pauls Church, for the French King, Iohn Stow calleth him, Dr. Parker Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Elect, therefore the Nagges head Consecration is a lying Fable; if he was still Elect, he was not then Consecrated. But afterward speaking of his Death May 17. 1575, which is the next time I find him mentio∣ned, he stileth him the right Reverend Fa∣ther

in God Matthew Parker Dr. of Divi∣nity Archbishop of Cāterbury. Here is no more the word Elect, for after Confirmation and Consecration, the word Elect ceaseth, here he is complete Archbishop of Canterbury.

They say, they who make no Conscience to falsify Scrip••ure will forge Records: And how notoriously the English Clergy have falsified Scripture, is Demonstrated by Gregory Mar∣tin. I hope none of us did ever attempt to purge St. Pauls Epistles, because there were in them, Quaedam male sonamia, Some∣things that sounded not well, in the point of Iu∣stification. We desire good words, untill they be able to prove their allegation. Ra∣ther then be accounted falsifiers of Scrip∣ture, we are contented to stand to the vulgar Latin, in any Controversy between them and us. But who is the man doth accuse us of so many Falsifications? One Gregory Martin, one of their fellowes, whose censure we do not weigh a button. This is a new Inartificiall Kind of ar∣guing, from the Authority of their own Writers.

But they use it much, so it followeth in the next words, it is want of Charity to think that Stapleton, Harding, Bristow and the rest of the English Catholick Doctors, who did

forsake all at home for Conscience sake, would publish to the world in print, the Nullity of Par∣kers Ordination; thereby engaging posterity to commit so many damnable Sacrileges, in reor∣deining those who had been validly ordeined al∣ready, without due examination of the matter. This plea is much like that of the old Ro∣man, that his Adversary, did not receive the wound with his whole body, that he might have killed him fairly. They would have us rather put up the losse of our Holy Orders, then the skill of their Doctors should be questioned. If Reordinatiō be da∣mnable Sacrilege, the Authority of your own Doctors may be a fit medium to convince yourselves of Sacrilege, not us of the Invali∣dity of our Ordination. I hope Stephen the sixth and Sergius the third, two Popes, were other manner of men then your English Doctors, and did both pretend to examine the matter as duely, and to be as a verse from damnable Sacrilege as you, yet they decreed publickly, and most unjustly, (as you yourselves doe now confesse) that all the holy Orders received from Formosus were void, and compelled all those who had been ordeined by him, to be reordei∣ned. Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 12.

Mr. Mason cited the Testimony of a

witnesse beyond all exception, Charles How∣ard Earle of Nottingham, Lord High Ad∣mirall of England, who acknowledged Archbishop Parker to be his Kinsman, and that he was an invited Guest at his Cōsecra∣tion at Lambeth. To this the Fathers reply, If this were true, it proves onely that there was a good Dinner at Lambeth, which might well be to conceale the shamefull Consecration at the Nagges head. It proves there was a good Consecration, as well as a good Dinner, the words are to honour his Consecration, and the solemnity thereof with his presence. It had been something uncivill, to encumber the Tavern with a Consecration, and not stay dinner there. The Earle was invited to the Consecration, at Lambeth, therefore it was at Lambeth, The Earle was not at the Nagges head; Mr. Neale himself, who see more then ever was acted, or so much as thought of, did not see that. Is it the Cu∣stome when one is invited to a Consecra∣tion, to come after it is done to dinner: or to invite a Nobleman to a Consecration in one place, and then be consecrated in ano∣ther? This had been so farre from concea∣ling the shamefulnesse of such a brainsick Consecration, that it been a ready meanes to divulge it to all the world.

They adde, Besides we must take the Earles Friends word for the Earles Testimony, and Mr. Masons word for his namelesse Friend. That is none of Mr. Masons fault, but Mr. Holywoods, Mr. Constables, Mr. Sacrobo∣scoes, Dr. Champneys, Mr. Fitz Herberts, Mr Fitz-Simons, who first broached this odious Fable. Mr. Mason published this rela∣tion to the world in print while the Earle was yet living, on purpose that they might enquire and satisfy themselves; if they did not, they can blame no body but them∣selves; if they did by themselves or their Friends, (as it is most likely they did) it is evident the answer did not content them, and so we never heard more of them since. It had been the greatest folly in the world to allege the Testimony of such a Noble man in his Life time, contrary to his own knowledge, which might have been dis∣proved from his own Authority, and so have easily laid Mr. Mason flat upon his back. You may remember your own case with the Bishop of Durham. But it was too true to be contradicted then, and too late to be Contradicted now.

They say, they bring more then one witnesse of the Nagges head Consecration. Pardon me, You never produced one yet, and which is lesse then producing, you never so much

as named a witnesse, whilst he himself was living. In or about the yeare 1603. you first named Mr. Neale and in∣nocent Iohn Stow, when they were both dead; you might as well have named the man in the Moone as Iohn Stow. Onely I confesse you named the Bishop of Durham in his life time, and you see what is the issue of it: and if you had named the others in their life times, you must have expected a like issue, either the perpetuall infamy of your witnesse, or the utter confusion of your Cause. You speake much of the lear∣ning, and virtue, and judgement of your hearsay Witnesses, who knew how to distin∣guish between an Episcopall Consecration, and a banquet. I hope you doe not meane that the Earle of Nottingham did not know, how to distinguish between a banquet and a Consecration, if he did not, the High Ad∣miralship of England was ill committed to him: or that he had not as much regard to his honour and Conscience, as any of your Priests. We meddle not with their Learning and virtue, but we are no more obliged to take their Testimonies upon hearsay, then they would take our Testi∣monies. They have givē an account to God, and know before this time whether they

have done well or ill.

They proceed, The Priests and Iesuits, to whom the Recordes were shewed in King Iames his time, protested against them as forged and im∣probable, as appeareth by the Testimony of men yet living, whose honesty cannot be called in question. Father Faircloth, one of the impri∣soned Iesuits, testified so much to many by word of mouth and in writing. Where is the wri∣ting? where is the protestation? why are they not produced? Still here are no proo∣fes but upon Hearsay. One eye Witnesse is worth an hundred such, who can sweare to no more but that they heard it, and God knowes through how many Hucksters hands. I hope the Bishop of Durhams case will make them more wary for the future.

But they are angry with some Protestants, who endeavour to make this well grounded story a meer Fable, and thereby call many persons of much more learning, virtue, and prudence then themselves Fooles or knaves. We are plain Macedonians, who call a Fable a Fable, without either welt or gard: yea, so noto∣rious a Fable, that (but that you tell us the Contrary), we could not believe that any one of you did ever give any credit to it your selves; any more then the Athenians did believe those monstrous Fables of Bulls

and Minotaures, which themselves had raised, because some of their eminent Citi¦zens had devised it or related it: But we call no men Fooles or Knaues, That lang∣guage is too unmannerly for civill Writers. What new Topick is this, because we can∣not beleeve a ••mans relation or his Iudge∣ment, do we straightway call him Foole or Knave? Excuse me, there are credulity, and prejudice, and mistakes, and pious frauds in the world, and none of these will willingly weare the Livery of Knaves or Fooles. We are not of the same mind with Pope Stephen and Pope Sergius, for the reordeining of those, who had been ordei∣ned by Formosus, yet we do not call them knaves or Fooles. We cannot beleeve what you yourselves have related of my Lord of Durham, yet we are not guilty of such ex∣travagant expressions.