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 IV. (Book 4)

The fabulous consecration at Lambeth, and the protestant Registers dispro∣ved by John Stow; and by the Catho∣lique Tenet of not reordaining, and by the authority of our Writers.

1. I Produced Iohn Stovves silence of your solemnity, and consecration at Lambeth, as an argument, that never any such thing had bin, as your Registers pretend. For, how could a man that made it his buisnesse to rela∣te, and describe the solemnities, and casualties of his time, especially hapening in, and about London, conceale so notorious, and rare a so∣lemnity, as the first protestant consecration of an Archbishop of Canterbury? To this you answere in rime, that my store is very lovv, * 1.1 when I am forced to produce Iohn Stovv. The rime is ptety, and in the Nagshead Taverne may be sung to the tune of Iohn Derry, or Dovvne Der∣ry, but it is time vvithout reason: for all the reason you give, is, that, Iohn Stovv scarce knew what a consecration was. Notwithstanding his ignorance, you confesse that he writ in his Annals the consecration of Cardinal Poole, who was the immediate Predecessor to Parker. Why did not he say so much at least of your first protestant Archiepiscopal solemnity, as he

did of the last Catholique, himselfe being a protestant, and a greate servant of M. Parkers? Its no marvaile that he involved in silence the story of the Nagshead, because he had rather his Annals should be defective, then testify a truth that might prove dangerous to his per∣son, and was disadvantagious to his profession. But that he would not, if with truth he could, grace his Church, friend, and Chronicle, with a narrative of Parkers solemne consecration at Lambeth, is incredible. Though he was no Di∣vine, I hope he might write in his Annals, as learnedly as your Maister Mason, to wit that the Chappell of Lambeth on the 17. of December 1559. vvas adorned vvith tapestry on the east side, the floore covered vvith a read cloth, that there vvas greate concourse of people, lords, and cour∣triers, and that many grave persons received the communion vvith Parker. This much he might have said of his owne knowledge, or heard from the assistents, copied out of your Regi∣sters, if they had bin then as publique as you pretend, and he had believed they were authen∣tique. But after diligent search (saith D. Cham∣pney) he found the Nagshead story to he very true, * 1.2 and declared so much to some of his friends that testified the same to D. Champney, though they were as loath to be named, as so∣me lords are, who heard the pretended Bishop of Durham in the late Parliament make the speech layd to his charge by the lord Audley.

2. To my third reason, to wit, that no man of conscience, or common sense, can imagine,

that the Catholique Doctors of these times, as Harding, Bristow, Stapleton, and others, who had such care of their salvation as to suffer so much as they did vpon that account, should vvilfully damne their soules by obliging po∣sterity vpon misinformation, to Reordaine your Ministers, if they had bin validly ordai∣ned before; it being a knowne Tenet of Ca∣tholiques, that we can not without commit∣ting a damnable sinne, no more Reordaine, then rebaptise. To this reason I say, * 1.3 you ans∣wer, that if Reordination be damnable sacrilege, the authority of our owne Doctors may be a fit me∣dium to convince our selves of sacrilege, not you of the invalidity of your ordination. I am both sory, and ashamed to find so litle substance in my Adversaries answer; Authority, which must be a fit medium to perswade, supposeth two things in the Author; knowledge, and hone∣sty. If he hath these two qualityes, no ratio∣nal man (though of a contrary religion) can except against his relation, or testimony; for, his knowledge of the matter that is treated, doth free himselfe from the danger of being mistaken; and his honesty, doth assure others, that he will not misinforme them. Now M. Doctor, can you object vvant of knowledge of your first Bishops consecrations, to Har∣ding, Stapleton, Reynolds, &c. They lived in that very time, and made it their buisnesse to ob∣serve all your Clergyes proceedings; and though they had not inquired after their ordi∣nation, they could not be ignorant of it, being

so rare, and notorious a solemnitie, as your Registers pretend: notwithstanding all this, they printed in those very times, that neither Parker, nor any of your first Bishops vvere consecrated, not so much as according to the lawes of the kingdome. Want of honesty you can not object to men that suffered so much for their conscience. How can you then assu∣me their owne authority, as a fit medium to convince themselves of sacrilege? Is know∣ledge, and conscience a fit argument to prove, that they who are indowed with them, have committed damnable sinns, and ingaged po∣sterity to do the same by Reordaining? If your Bishops ordination had bin as litle questioned, as our Doctors knowledge, and integrity, you might with some colour pretend, that your ordination is as fit a medium to convince vs of sacrilege, as our Doctors authority is, to de∣monstrate the nullity of your ordination. But hitherto never any man but your selfe excep∣ted against Harding, Stapleton, or Bristovvs knowledge concerning your Clergy, or against their conscience, and integrity, and your Or∣ders have bin continualy excepted against not only as invalid, but even illegal.

3. I know not to what purpose you cite the two Popes, if it be not to prove Recordination is lawfull: But you did ill to Father your ensu∣ing words vpon so obvious an Author as Be∣larmine. * 1.4 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 exa∣mine

the matter as duely, and to be as averse from damnable sacrilege as you; yet they decreed public∣quely, and most vniustly, that all the holy orders re∣ceived from Formosus, were void; and compelled all those who had bin ordained by him, to be reor∣dained. All this you lay to Bellarmines charge de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 12. whosoever rea∣deth him, must discover your litle ingenuity; Bellarmins words are. Respondeo Stephanum, & Sergium non edidisse aliquod decretum, quo decerne∣rent ordinatos ab Episcopo degradato, vel nomina∣tim à Formoso tanquam dègradato, esse iterum or∣dinandos, sed solum de facto jussisse iterum eos or∣dinari: quae jussiò non ex ignorantia, aut haeresi, sed ex odio in Formosum procedebat. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 2. I answer that Stephen, and Sergius did not publish any decree whereby they decreed that such as vvere ordained by a Bishop de∣graded, or namely by Formosus as degraded, ought ••o be reordained: but only that de facto commanded they should be ordained againe. Which command proceeded not from ignorance, or heresi, but from the hatred they bore to Formosus. You see Belarmine himselfe denies, that Stephen, or Sergius pu∣blished any decree, and you affirme that Be∣larmine sayes they decreed publiquely that all the holy Orders received from Formosus were void. Belarmine accuseth those two Po∣pes of passion, and to the same attributs their commands of reordination: you indeavor to cleere them from it, and make them appeare men of greater moderation then you judge in your conscience they were; not out of any af∣fection

to the See Apostolique, but out of ha∣tred to our Catholique Tenet of not Reordai∣ning; but you labour in vaine; for these two Popes were of the same judgment that wee are, though passion made them practise what they knevv to be vnlavvful. If you could prove that Harding, Stapleton, Bristovv, and the rest generally were men so vvicked, and desperately bent to damne their soules to he revenged of your first Prelates, or that they held it safe in conscience to reordaine Priests, and Bishops meerely vpon title that they had bin ordained by hereticks, or that grave Ca∣suists in their time were of that opinion, then your Reader might afford you attention, and thinke you said something worth the ansvve∣ring. But you know too wel the contrary.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 197.
• * 1.2

  D. Chāp∣ney edit. lat. pag. 501.
• * 1.3

  Pag. 202.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 202.