The nullity of the prelatique clergy, and Church of England further discovered in answer to the plaine prevarication, or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his booke, intituled, The consecration and succession of Protestant bishops justified, &c. : and that most true story of the first Protestant bishops ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons records cleerely detected / by N.N.

CHAP. I. (Book 1)

My first and second reason defended against the Doctors objections.

1. TO the first argument, deduced from the authority of our Ca∣tholique Doctors, charging in their printed bookes your first superintendents vvith vvant of Episcopal consecration, some five or six yea∣res after you pretend it vvas so solemnly per∣formed at Lambeth, you give no other ansvver; * 1.1 but that you regard not their judgment, and autho∣rity, beause they give no cause, or reason of their Knovvledge. Ipray, Mr. Doctor, vvhat greater cause of Knovvledge can ther be of the not being of a visible, and publicque solemnity, then the not being seene, or heard of by kno∣vving parsons, vvho made it their busines to inquire after it, in the very same time, and place vvherin its pretended to have bin acted? To say that D. Harding, Stapleton, Bristovv, Reynolds, and others, should object in print against your protestant Bishops, vvant of or∣dination, vvithout inquiring, and examining vvhether they vvere ordained or no, is in equi∣valent termes, to call them fooles, and Knaves, * 1.2 hovvever averse you pretend to be from so unma∣nerly language; your attributing the obiections of these great Doctors to credulity, and preiu∣dice, doth rather increase, then diminish the

jury, for, you ought to knovv, that credulity contradicted by publique and obvious eviden∣ce; is of the grosser sort of foolery, and preju∣dice that makes men slight such evidence, is the most malicious knavery: neither of both can be layd to the charge of so learned, and honest persons, as the foresaid Doctors, who would never presse Parker, and his fellovves, to shevv the register, and hovv, and by vvhom, they re∣ceived Episcopal Orders, if there had bin in tho∣se days as publique, and authentique registers, as now yee pretend.

2. To this you say, that none of our Doctors did ever vrge any such thing, as required that yee should cite the registers, in prudence. And that the •…•…re vvas no pressing to produce Registers. What thē? Doe not men in à suite of lavv produce what is for their manifest advantage of their ovvne accord? I am sure you bring many things, you thinke advantagious, which neyther any per∣son, nor reason pressed you to doe. But that they were pressed immediately after, you may learne out of D. Harding.

We say likvvise to you M.r Ievvel, * 1.3 and to each of your companions, shevv vs the register of your Bishops, &c. Shevv vs the letters of your orders. But order you have not: for, vvho could give that to you of all these nevv Ministers, hovv soever el∣se you call them, vvhich he hath not himselfe Yet I must confesse it vvas prudence in your first Bishops, not to cite the registers, though D. Harding called for them; because it was bet∣ter, by their silence, to acknowledge, the want

of registers, then to prove themselves impo∣stors, by producing them in a time, wherin their forgery had bin discovered by thousands of witnesses incase they were forged then, and not afterwards, when ordination was grow∣ne into more credit. And as I commend the prudent silence of your first Bishops, so I must condemne your silly answer in averring, that the registers or records, vvere cited in print, * 1.4 and alleaged by the Parliament in the publique lavves of the Kingdome, of which our Doctors, that desi∣red to see some evidence of Parkers consecra∣tion, could pleade no ignorance: wheras it is notorious that the act of Parliament 8. Eliz. which as yow pretend (but without any grovvnd, as shall be proved here after) makes mention of the records of Parkers consecra∣tion at Lambeth, vvas made at least à yeare af∣ter your Register was called for and our Do∣ctors had objected to your Bishops the nullity, and illegality, of their ordination; and the booke of the 70. Archbishops of Canterbury was printed 1572. seven yeares after that D. Harding had called for the same Register, and Letters of their Orders. Though he was a wi∣se man, I hope he might pleade ignorance of what then vvas not as much as thought of, vvhen he vvrit, nor indeed ever after by any, but your selfe; vvho confounds the records of Kings, and Queens letters patents, vvith the registers of the Archbishops of Canterbury.

3. Another reason against the pretended con∣secration of your first protestant superinten∣dents,

vvas, the contradictions of your ovvne Authors vpon this subject, disagreeing in the persons of the consecraters, and in the time of their consecrations. These contradictions you call innocent mistakes, and thinke to excuse them by the retractation of the Authors, who desired that they might be corrected by Mr. Masons newfound registers, * 1.5 which you com∣pare to the sun diall, wherby all clockes, and Clerks must be regulated, when the sun shi∣neth out. It seemes Mr Doctor, that the sun never shined vpon your church, vntill Mr Ma∣sons tecords were printed, for if it had, Mr Goduin, Mr Sutcliffe, and Mr Butler, three of the most famous Clerks amongst you, infallibly vvould have consulted the sundial; and their judgements, and bookes concerning your con∣secrations, had not bin so different. How co∣mes this sun to be more then fifty yeares vn∣der a cloud, if it vvas not, that your new regi∣sters might participate in some measure, of the ould invisibility, of your Church? Doe yow imagine, that learned, and sober men, would venture to write, and publish to the world a matter of such importance, as the consecration of your first Bishops, vvithout consulting the registers therof if any such had bin exstant, or visible when they vnder∣tooke the worke? were they paradventure ignorant of the place where this sun did shine? Or were they negligent in setting their clocks to it? Nheiter can be presumed of so eminent persons as you make them. But your compari∣son

of Masons records to the sun, or sundial, is very improper; for, if the suns motion were as irregular, as those registers are incoherent, the sun would be as unfit for a measure of ti∣me, as those are for a proofe of truth. But if one should mistake for the sun à false Meteor, called a Parhelion, and set his clock by the light of a cloud, he would guide the towne, as you do your Church: and men of understan∣dingh would be as litle regulated by such a dial, or clock, as Fitzherbert was perswaded by Masons registers at their first appearance, who suspected them of forgery by the latenes∣se of their discovry as you may see in his boo∣ke of D. Andrevvs absurdities, falsities, lyes, &c.

4. * 1.6 But yovv regard not Mr Fitzherherts su∣spicions at all. What are the suspicions of a priva∣te stanger, to the vvel knovvn credit of a publique register? If you Mr Doctor, had not bin a stran∣ger to such pious and learned bookes as Poli∣cy and Religion, and others composed by F. Fitzherbert, and had informed your selfe how long he lived, you would not have spoken so strangely, and ignorantly, of his Knowledge in his owne countreys affairs, nor so contemp∣tibly of his discovery, of Andrevvs absurdities. But you say his suspicions can vveigh no more then his roasons, that is, just nothing. Doth it weigh nothing in your judgement, that this register should be called for so frequently, and earnestly in the beginning of Queen Elizbeths reigne, when some evidence was desired by the Catholique Doctors of your first Bishops

consecration; and that neither it selfe should be cited, nor any other authenticall proofe therof produced by Parker; Ievvel or any of the rest; and that after fifty yeares it should ap∣peare, when none called for it, and they were dead, whom it most imported, and the time of your Protestant Prelatique Church was mo∣re then halfe expired? do you call this obscu∣re, and forged scroll, a well known, and publi∣que register? I am confident, that in any pru∣dential balance, the suspicion, and reasons of Fitzherbert will weigh more then your judge∣ment; and that every one who reads his disco∣very of Andrevvs absurdieies, will confess, that he hath layd him not only in the dust, (as you vainely brag Andrevvs hath donne to our greatest Champions) but also hath buried him in the dirt of his own lyes, * 1.7 the fittest monu∣ment for so notorious an Impostor. I shall in the end stir vp in the reader a curiosity te exa∣min Andrewes impostures by what I shall no∣te out of Morton and others.

V. Yet we need not any discoverer of yours but your selfe, you tell vs that the imprisoned Priests, * 1.8 and Iesuits vievved your register, turned it over and over, perused it as much as they plea∣sed, and in conclusion gave this sentence of it, that the booke vvas beyond exception. If they perused it as much as they pleased, why do you ach∣nowledge, that afterwards they desired to∣peruse it more fully, and that their request was not granted? What a silly excuse you bring for not permitting them te see the register againe,

that forsooth such Records may not goe out of the presence of the Keeper? Why could not the Kee∣per goe along with the Records, or the Fathers come with their Keepers to the Registri? Ceer∣tainely there was lesse difficulty, then in F. Ol∣cornes perusing the records, who was fur∣therof as being prisoner in Worcester. * 1.9 Whom you make also an approvēr of the same re∣cords vpon your owne bare assertion. And yet forsooth, Polemique writers must cite no wit∣nes of their owne party, though you be so bould as to cite your selfe. But it is more then bould∣nes to bring in My lord of Calcedon as confes∣sing it, * 1.10 whereas he onely lets it passe vpon your word, not granting it so, as having any knovvledge of it from another hand, but in case it were so as you say, that it maketh not much to your purpose. But the truth is, the im∣prisoned Iesuits did never allovv your Re∣cords, as those yet living, and then living in England (and at least in this matter belonging to their ovvne people may know as much as you, or My Lord of Calcedon) wil testify. One as being on this side the sea, I may name to you without danger, and stop your mouth alwayes crying against nameles witnesses. It is the R. F. Henry More novv Rector of the Se∣minary of S. Omers, whose word in any mat∣ter of fact will be taken, as soone as yours, even by the persons of your owne party, and sooner in this particular, as having more rea∣son to know it. What if M. Wadsvvorth say he read Paockers consecration in the registers,

doth that make your registers good against so many signes of forgery. Nay put the case he, and some few should have bin something mo∣ved at the sight of them, it argues no more then their ignorance of the manifold argu∣ments I bring to convince them of falsood. As for your other witnesses I must take them vpon your word, which I have found so pal∣pably faile in the former, and shall take occa∣sion in another chapter to examine them, and what you say of them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 167.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 207.
• * 1.3

  Confut. apol. fol. 57. & 59. edit an. 1566.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 112.
• * 1.5

  Pag. 176.177. & 178.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 158.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 159.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 130.
• * 1.9

  Pag. 128.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 129.