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. III. (Book 3)

The Protestants Consecration at Lam∣beth is proved to be a fable, and their Register to be forged, by their falsi∣fications of Scripture, and by the 25. of their 39. articles; and D. Bram∣hals arguments to maintaine the con∣trary, are retorted against himselfe.

1 NOt withstanding all this, the Do∣ctor sayes, it is incredible that the Registers of the first Protestant Bishops consecration should be forged. * 1.1 And why so M Doctor? Is it incredible that they who falsify Scripture, should forge Records? And hovv notoriously your first Bishops have falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by D. Gre∣gory Martin in a learned booke, intituled A Discovery of the manifold corruptions, * 1.2 &c. You give fovver ansvvers to this argument 1. you desire good words. And I desire a better an∣svver. 2. That Gregory Martin is an adversary, vvhose censure you do not esteeme a button. I de∣sire you once more M. Doctor to answer, and speake to the purpose. Though you do not weigh D. Martins censure, ansvver his reasons, and the examples he brings: confute his booke, and demonstrations. Your third ansvver is, I hope none of vs did ever attempt to purge S. Paules Epistles, because there were in them some things that sounded not well in point of justification. I vn∣derstand

not to what, or to whom do you al∣lude by this answer. But I am sure, your Pro∣to-Patriarche Luther to make good his justifi∣cation by faith alone in his Dutch translation inserted the word alone into the very text, a∣gainst all originals, or copies, or versions that ever had bin seene before. Fourthly you an∣swer. Rather then be accounted falsifiers of Scrip∣ture, vve are content to stand to the vulgar Latin in any controversy betvveen them and vs. Is this to solve an argument? Are your Protestant readers satisfied with such stuffe? stay sir, I must in the name of convincing logique arrest your shifting Rhethorique. This was the ar∣gument. Those that have grossely falsified Scripture, may easily be presumed to have falsified records, especially when the records vpon other circumstances are deepely suspe∣cted, but the first hath bin the frequent vse of Euglish Protestant Ministers, ergo you should have proved at least in som general termes, that your English translations were not cor∣rupted: you should have called them innocent mistakes, or Erratas of the print, as Dover for Bedford, which you thought sufficient to serve your turn at least in another occasiō. If one we∣re accused, ād pressed by sundry proofes to ha∣ve killed his Brother, and it should be further vrged, that notwithstanding the crime was enormous, and not easily to be beleeved in o∣ther persons, yet in him it might justly be pre∣sumed, by reason of the knowne publique evi∣dences, whereby he had bin plainely convi∣cted

to have killed his father. Must this be slipt over? Would this availe nothing? Can the artificial Rhetorique of a slighting pretermis∣sion, so stupify the natural logique of every one that is come to the vse of reason, as not to see the force of this conclusion? He hath kil∣led his father, what vvonder is it if he kill his brother? They falsify Scripture what marvel if they forge records. Hath your custome of vrging light conjectures against the Church of Rome so destroyed the nature of reason in you, as not to feele your selfe, or to thinke that o∣thers doe not feele the weight of an argument à fortiore? Records are humane, Scripture de∣vine, Records are kept in a corner, Scripture exposed to the vew of all, Records have fevv copies, and kept by a few, and those of one fa∣ction. The Christian vvorld is full of Bibles. Is it not then lesse against conscience, of easier contrivence, and further from danger of a shamefull discovery, to forge records, then to falsify Scripture. This is onely to stop you a while from posting with so much speed from this passage. In the end of the booke I shal detaine you longer, and hould you faster, and put a rub to the sliding eloquence you ha∣ve learned in Holland If you vvil not, yet the Reader shall see by vvhat I shal lay clearely before his eyes, and shal remit to the judge∣ment of his owne eyes, if he be pleased to view, and cōfer him selfe what I shal set dow∣ne of some, and direct him to seeke of other Protestant Ministers, in point of grosse, wil∣full,

malicious, and impudent falsifications of Scripture, and Authours, whereby he will con∣clude with himselfe how far he shal thinke fit to give credit hereafter to their sayings, or writings, and namely, and particularly D. Morton called B. of Duresme, that Minister of simple truth, as he called himselfe in those very bookes which seeme to have bin dictated by the father of lyes, and now in his late testimo∣ny is not ashamed to speake thus. * 1.3 I could never have made such a speech (marke the proofe he adjoyneth) seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts. He may very well have forgot what he once spoke in Parlament seeing he hath forgot what he hath so often writ a∣gainst his thoughts, and cleer knowledge in ••everal bookes. But of this mans false wri∣tings hereafther, * 1.4 now I returne to your false records, being you are resolved to convince all ••hose vvho gainsay them by six doughty argu∣ments, which I hope to retortagainst you, and by your owne grounds prove the contrary of what you are confident to maintaine.

3. Your first argument is, that value, and respect which the lawes of England do give the Registers. The lawes of En∣gland were so farre from valuing, or respe∣cting these Registers, that they did not as much as cite, or mention them, when Par∣ker, and his Colleagues were pressed to ••hew the letters of their Orders, being accu∣••ed by our Catholique Doctors that they had ••ever bin ordained. And the Parliament 8.

Eliz. thought it more for the credit of their protestant Church, and Clergy, to make them Bishops by a statute, then examine the matter; which resolution had never bin taken, if any witnesses, or Records of their consecration at Lambeth could have bin produced in the 8. yea∣re of Q. Elizabeths reigne. But what marvai∣le is it, that the lawes of England should not value your Records, when your first superin∣tendents themselves never durst send D. Har∣ding, or any of the rest who desired it, an au∣thentique Copie of them out of your Regi∣stry? Or so muchas make mention of the origi∣nal.

4. Your second argument is taken from the credit of the foure publique Notaries, who did testify Parkers individual consecration at Lambeth, it being observable that these four Notaries were the same who did draw Cardi∣nal Pooles consecration into Acts, and attest them. This proofe, and observation weighs as litle, as foure publique Notaries conscien∣ce, and credit, who in Cardinal Pooles time professed one faith, and in Parkers an other. Men that counterfeit religions, will have no difficulty te counterfeit Registers, if they be commanded, or inclined to do it; neither would their testimony, be of vndoubted cre∣dit in any place of the world, if contradicted by so many arguments, and circumstances as your pretended consecration at Lambeth. But in case these Notaries had bin persons beyond all exception, might not their hands be coun∣terfeited

as well as the Register? What grea∣ter difficulty can there be in one more then in the other? Its a silly argument that involves in it selfe the same difficulty it ought to cleere. Your third and fourth ground of the Queens Commission, and of the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. have bin ansvvered in the former Chap∣ter, and are evident proofes, that your Re∣cords are forged.

5. * 1.5 Your fifth ground is taken from a booke you say vvas printed an. 1572. of the lives of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury, vvherin the Author (that vvas Archbishop Parker him∣selfe) having described the Confirmations, and Consecrations of his fellovves, he addeth in the mar∣gent. These confirmations, and consecrations do appeare in the Registers. It seemes you learnt from Parker to cite your selfe as a vvitnesse for your felfe. Is this the manner of Polemick Writers? But why did not Parker, or Ievvel, remit D. Harding to these Registers, wherof M. Parker some seaven yeares after made (if vve believe you) marginal notes; when he so earnestly called for them, * 1.6 shevv vs your Regi¦sters, in the yeare 1566. Then vvas the time for Parker, and the rest to cite them, and not in the yeare 1572. Yet D. Champney doubts whether any such booke vvas printed of your Archbishops as you pretend. Whether it was, or no, it matters not, for the Registers cited in the margent by Parker, mentioneth not any place, or forme of their consecrations, and is as indifferent for the Nagshead Taver∣ne,

as for the Chapell of Lamheth, as you may see in the booke called Antiquitates Britannia edit. 1605. into which this forged Register was foisted, being a meere novelty, and ther∣fore contrary to the drift, and title of the boo∣ke, without connexion to what goeth before, or followeth after.

6. But how comes it to passe M. Doctor, that in this booke, and Register, are set dovvne, as you say, the names of your Bishops, their Countries, their Armes both of their sees and families, * 1.7 their respective ages, their vniversities, their degrees in Schooles, vvith the times (but not the place) of their several consecrations? How comes it to pas∣se I say, there should be roome for all these things, and none at all for Lambeth, which ta∣kes vp no more then Ipsvvich, Parkers Coun∣trey, or Cambridge, his vniverfity? Is it more material to put in a Register, the place of a Bishops nativity, or education, then the pla∣ce where he received his caracter, or consecra∣tion? Did he esteeme more the degree of a Do∣ctor, then the dignity of a Bishop? I could not exact, nor expect from M. Parker, that he should assure vs in his Register, whether the Chapell of Lambeth vvas adorned with ta∣pestry on the east, or west side, as Mason doth; but me thinks his Lordship might have remembered on which side the Thames stands Lambeth, if it had bin the place of his conse∣cration.

7. * 1.8 It is hardly possible for the vvit of man, saith the Doctor, to contrive more matter into a lesser

roome. My complaint is, that so much super∣flous matter was thrust in, and that which im∣ported most, (to wit the place of your first Bishops consecration) omitted. I confesse M. Doctor, you have as much reason to commend in this case, Parkers wit for not mentioning Lambeth, as in an other you had to commend Jevvels prudence, for not answering Harding when he pressed him to shew the Registers of his Bishops, and their letters of Orders. For, if M. Parker had but named Lambeth as the place of his consecration, the forgery of his Records had bin as manifest to as many as then remembred the 17. of December 1559. and never heard of any solemnity at Lambeth on that day: But though I commend M. Parkers wit in concealing the place of his consecra∣tion, yet I must condemne your judgement, good M. Bramhall, for citing a Register so disadvantagious to your cause.

8. Your 6. and last ground destroyes the fi∣ve former, because it is taken from the agreement, * 1.9 and concurrence of your civil Records vvith your ecclesiastical Registers. There can not be greater disagreement, and opposition then there is betweene the Queenes commission, or letters patents, the Act of Parliament 8, Elizab. and your Registers. These Registers suppose, and declare, ther was no need of a dispensation, the letters patents, and Act of Parliament de∣clare, there vvas a necessity to dispense vvith defects, and disabilities. Your Registers sup∣pose that the consecraters vvere true Bishops;

The Queens Commission suppose they vvere not, becanse she dispenseth vvith defects of the consecraters state, and condition, vvhich de∣fects could be no other, then vvant of episco∣pal consecration. Your Registers suppose that foure Bishops did consecrate; but the Acts of Parliament do suppose, that one person might do it, and that one did it, and therfore makes good whatsoever any person, or persons did about the consecration of any Archbishop, and Bishop sithence the beginning of the Queens reigne. Your Registers suppose that Bishops must be consecrated by imposition of hands; but the Acts of Parliament 1. & 8. Elizabeth. And also your 25. article of the 39. suppose that Bishops are consecrated by election, or by the Queens letters patents, or commission; and conse∣quently might say that your first Bishops vvere orderly consecrated, and according to the la∣vves of the land, though they had no imposi∣tion of hands; yet to take avvay all protestant scruples, there vvas an ample povver, and di∣spensation more particularly expressed in the Queens commission to the consecrators, then ever vvas seene or heard of before her Majesties Reigne. Many other disagreements might be set dovvne, but these may suffice to shevv, how impossible it is for you, or any other, to recon∣cile plaine contradictions by improbable fi∣ctions, or impostures.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 106.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 201.
• * 1.3

  Pag. 15.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 107.
• * 1.5

  Pag. 115. & 116.
• * 1.6

  Confut. Apolog. fol. 57. & 59 edit. 1566.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 164.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 164.
• * 1.9

  Pag. 116.