A detection or discovery of a notable fraud committed by R.B., a seminary priest of Rome, upon two of the articles of the Church of England in a booke imprinted in anno 1632, intituled, The judgment of the apostles and of those of the first age in all points of doctrine, questioned betweene the Catholikes and Protestants of England as they are set downe in the nine and thirty articles of their religion : with an appendix concerning Episcopacy / by a lay gentleman.

SECT. II.

R.B. OBIECTION. II.

[Num. 11] * 1.1 AGaine the first Protestant Censecration or admittance of any to be a Bishop by that Booke or Order in Queene Eli∣zabeths Raigne, was on the 17 day of December in her second yeare (as they pretend from the Register of Marthew Parker) But their owne both private and publike Authorities prove, * 1.2 that both Matthew Parker (their first pretended Archbishop) and others were received and allowed for Arch-Bishops, and Bishops about 6 moneths before their first pretended Conse∣cration on the 17 of December;—For Parker Barlow, Scory, and Grindall, were allowed and received for Bishops in the mo∣neth of August before in publike S••emniti••s:—None can say; these were onely Bishops Elect, and not perfectly allowed or admitted for the true Bishops; For by the Statute of Hen. 8. Anno 25. revived by Queene Elizabeth in her first Parliament Anno 1. cap. 1. it is ordained that Consecration must be within twenty dayes of Election.

P. H. ANSWER.

[Numb. 12] It is readily yeelded unto, that Doctor Parker not our first Protestant Arch-bishop, seeing (Arch-bishop Cranmer was his Predecessor, but our first in Queene Elizabeths time) was allowed Arch-bishop of Canterbury five or sixe moneths before the 17 of December 1559, which is the time ascribed for his Consecration; And also Barlow; Scory, and Grindall were allowed, and acknowledged Bishops before; But what use you would make of it I know not, unlesse it be to the end, that the Reg••ster which Records the Consecration of Archbishop Parker on the 17 of December 1559. should be thereby conceived to be fictitious and untrue, such (I thinke) is your meaning, because you elsewhere call that Register (a new-borne Re∣gister)

which is contraryed by the outhenticke Register of Can∣terbury, * 1.3 whereby it so appeares to be a true and faithfull Re∣gister as nothing needs to be said for it: But be your mea∣ning there in what it will, I had upon the first reading of the former part of this Objection, this ready! Answer That Do∣ctor Parker might be Bishop elect all that time. But R. B. well foreseeing the readines of that kind of Answer, did imme∣diatly take that help from me (as he thought) by trumping in my way his Statute of Consecration within twenty dayes after election, so as it cannot (as he sayes) be alleadged that He stood Bishop onely elect for the space of five or six moneths together: But shall R. B. be so gently used, As to say, He in mi∣staken? If I should so deale with him, I shall (in good sooth) be mistaken then too. For I cannot conceive that an old Student can be so mistaken in such a matter as ordinary Schoole-boyes may easily know by meere reading, without helpe of Tutor or Expositor; I pray God it was not wilfully done, contra dictamen conscientia suae, against his owne par∣ticular knowledge per bypocrism.

Here are the words of the Statute.

[Num. 13] * 1.4

Be it enacted that if any Archbishop or Bishop within the Kings Dominions after Election—shall be signified unto them by the Kings Letters Patents, shall refuse and doe not confirme, invest and consecrate with all due circum∣stance —such person as shall be elected-and to them signified—within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters of such signification—shall come to their hands —That then—every Archbishop, Bishop and other persons so offending—shall runne into the dangers, paines, and penalties of the Estatute of provision & Prae∣munire.

It it not most evidently obvious to every Reader, that This, Act doth not ordaine that Consecration shall be within Twentie dayes next after Election, but within twentie dayes next after the Kings Letters signifying such Election, shall come to those who are by his Majestie appointed to be Con∣secrators of the New-Bishop? And the very troth is, * 1.5 That Matthew Parker was elected to be Archbishop of Canterbury on the first day of August 1559. But the Queenes Letters Patents

signifying his Election were dated not before the sixt of Decem∣ber following, and bee was confirmed the ninth, and Consecra∣ted the seventeenth of December aforesaid: So as his consecra∣tion was celebrated within the time limited by the Law, And on the 21 of the same December was Edmond Grindall con∣secrated Bishop of London, and from the time of their Elections, they stood all the while Lord Bishop elect: And Barlow and Scory were Bishops consecrated long before Q Elizabeth came to the Crowne, as in Answer to the subsequent objection shall evidently appeare: But in the meane time, let it be observed, that where he sayes in this place, that Barlow and Scory were allowed Bishops in August 1559; * 1.6 Hee elsewhere sayes, the said Barlow and Scory were not allowed for Bishops till the 20 of December following, And is not that a direct contra∣diction? But what cares bee or the Iesuited partie for con∣tradictions or false-hoods, so as beliefe be gained from the simply credulous?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 343.
• * 1.2

  Godwyn Catal of bishop Durbam 58. Cath. Tunsto'l Stow hist Queen. Fliz. an. 1. Injun. Eli. Reginae. Injunct. 8.28.40.51.53. R.B. pag. 348. 1.
• * 1.3

  R. B. pag. 209.
• * 1.4

  Statut.25. Hen. 8.cap.20.
• * 1.5

  Register Parker. Lib. 1. fol. 2. a.b. & fol. 3. a & fol. 9. b.
• * 1.6

  R.B. pag. 210. 211. Vide hic infra. Object. 3.