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. V. (Book 5)

That the Protestant forme of ordaining Priests, and Bishops is of doubtfull sufficiency, and that it vvas composed by Zuinglians, who contemned Or∣dination as a rag of Rome.

1. TO my fourth reason against the doubtfull sufficiency of your Prote∣stant forme, * 1.1 or words, vsed in the act of consecration of Bishops, and Priests, you ansvver, that both these names, and functions,

are sufficiently expressed by being presented to the Archbishop, and producing the Kings letters patents by the exhortation of the Con∣secraters, and by the litany that followeth, and the examination of him that is to be con∣secrated. This is new doctrine indeed, that men should be ordained by litanies, exhorta∣tions, presentations, and examinations. In our consecration of Bishops are comprehen∣ded also the words that are vttered in the a∣nointing of the Bishops head, and hands, Vn∣gatur & consecretur caput tuum caelesti benedictione in ordine Pontificiali: and you see how cleerly the episcopal Order is therin expressed: nei∣ther doth our Rituall call the Bishop elect, con∣secrated, vntill these words be pronounced.

2. I grant that Vasques, and some other Di∣vines of late, say, that episcopal Ordination is conferred by the words Receive the holy Ghost; but I never read any of them that gives a clee∣re solution to that argument, which you in∣deavor to ansvver, by saying, that these words Receive the holy Ghost, must be considered con∣jointly in a compounded sense with the lita∣nies, &c. Whence it follovveth, that the Sex∣ton, or any other lay man who answers, Hea∣re vs o Lord vve beseech thee, hath no smal sha∣re in consecrating. But make the best of Vas∣ques his opinion, it is no more then probable, and therfore doubtfull, and consequently ought not to be relyed vpon in a matter that concernes the being, or not being of a Church: in things of such importance, we ought to fol∣lovv

the securest vvay by adhering to vndenia∣ble principles. All you can say against vs, is that vve vse two formes both in priesthood, and episcopacy; but no Divine can take excep∣tion against that, if he considers, that they are incomplete, and make but one total forme, without any danger of multiplicity of cara∣cters, or Reordination. But your forme makes yee, at the most, but halfe Priests, or Bishops; and that it selfe is as vncertaine, as it is doubt∣full, whether the caracter can be divided. If we vse two eyther by one, or both all ocasion of doubt is taken avvay.

3. Yet I must tell you for your comfort, and instruction, M. Doctor, that it is not only a common, but tho most probable opinion, that Christ left to his Church power, to make par∣ticular formes, both of priesthood, and epi∣scopacy, (himselfe only determining in gene∣ral, that the words should be appliable to the mysteries signified) vvithout which formes, neither of these Orders can be validly confer∣red. This is the best vvay to reconcile the Greeke, and Latin formes of ordination, and the ancient, and modern Rituals, though in every one is expressed the particular fun∣ction of a Priest, or a Bishop. Only yours (be∣cause it vvas composed vvhen Zuinglianis∣me prevailed in England) makes no men∣tion of either, in any forme, or any thing li∣ke a forme. But if you vvold be pleased to read Morinus, a late Author de Ordinationibus sacris, who may instruict both Polemick, and Schola∣stick

writers in this matter, you will find how dangerous it is for particular persons, or Chur∣ches to alter the present, ād approved vse in the administration of the Sacrement of Order, or e∣ven to resume the practise of ancient Rituals ca∣nonically abrogated, much more when like ma∣licious, or ignorant surgeons the Swinglian he∣retiques cut away nerves, and arteries, and the very substance vnder pretext of superflous ex∣crescences. You will find the danger of negle∣cting the vsual matter, and forme, notwith∣standing these termes were not so vsual in all ancient times. Nor that your recourse to the grecian practise although it vvere like yours (as it is not) vvill secure you as it doth them, and you vvill find the Greeke and Latin v∣se much better reconciled by him then by vulgar Authors of your, or our profession, e∣ven better then by Arcudius, who gave some light to schoolemen in this particular. You will find the Roman Church to vse the most assured way that can be imagined, and never tooke away any thing that might give the least scruple either for the change, or the povver, or manner of changing. You vvill find you have put a most satisfactory discourse conncerning the buisines of Formosus Pope, and his succee∣ding enemies. To transcribe all this at large, ••s neyther vsefull to the ignorant, who will vn∣derstand very litle, nor needfull to the learned who may see the author, nor proper to this ••hort trectise which without all this doth evin∣••e the Nullity of your Clergy, and according

to the most favourable opinion, of any tolera∣ble Devine makes your Ordinaion in a high de∣gree vncertaine.

4. * 1.2 But you deny that Zuinglianisme preuai∣led in England in Edvvard the 6. time, vvhen the 12. or 7. learned men forsooth, in the lavv of God, and the land, made your formes of Or∣dination. I hope you do not take vs to be as ignorant in the History of England, as one of your chiefe Doctors did a Gentlewoeman, la∣tely in Paris; when (hearing of her inclinations to Catholique religion) he dissuaded her from it, by assuring her, that it vvas not the ancient faith of England, nor ever professed in that Kingdome before Henry the 8. time. Do not all vnpartial vvriters mention the Protector Seamours perfidiousnesse in establishing Zvvin∣glianisme in England, during the minority of Edvvard the 6. contrary to his promise, and en∣gagement to Henry the 8.? Is it not notorious that in the second Parliament of K. Edvvard. 6. * 1.3 begun the 4. of November 1548. (vvherin your booke of common praier, and administra∣tion of Sacraments, being imposed by Zuin∣glian heretiques chosen by the Protector and his faction, vvas confirmed) there vvas a great contention, vvhether the Kingdome should be Lutheran, or Zuinglian in religion; and that after foure monthes debate, the Zuinglians did overbeare the other side, by some voices. And hovv Peter Martyr, and Bucer vvere inspired by the posts that brought newes of the Par∣liaments resolution from London, to teach pu∣bliquely

in the Vnniversities, that Christ vvas not present in the Sacrament of the alter, and that this is my body was no more then this is the signe of my body. Is it not evident by Iohn Fox (an Author of your own) his Acts, and Monu∣ments, * 1.4 that the far greater part of all your Protestant Saints, and Martyrs, were put to death for denying the real presence, and not only transubstantiation? Do not the bookes which our Catholique Doctors writ against your first superintendens demonstrate, that these were of the same opinion with your Martyrs? But vvhat need we go farther then the 25. of your 39. articles, and translations of Scripture, to prove your Zuinglian Tenet in matter of holy Orders? They who thrust out of Scripture in the English versions, the words Priest, and Bishop, (putting insteed therof Elder, and Superintendent) were not likely men to put them, or expresse their fun∣ction in your formes of ordination. But you say that in the Preface yee maintaine to all the vvorld, that the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, * 1.5 and Deacons, have bin ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ. Are men ordained by your Preface? or because in your Preface it is maintained that the Church of Christ had al∣vvayes the said Orders, doth it follow that the English Church in those times was the Church of Christ? Call them Svvinglians, call them Lutherans, call them what you plaese, their Creed, their versions, their writings, show they contemned Consecration, and we∣re

content with election, and when they vsed some thing like consecration, it was to satisfy the people not themselves. And that Whitaker, and Fulke, whom you cite pag. 233. never ad∣mitted the necessity of consecrated Bishops, no the very state of the question disputed in those times betweene our English sectaries, was not about consecrated, or not consecrated Bishop but whether one Minister was to be e∣lected to Lord it over the rest. Most of the Mi∣nisters misliked it, but the Prince approved it for reason of state, thereby to Keepe the Cler∣gy in awe and to have so many mercenary Votes in the house of Lords.

5. At length you tell vs that if your ance∣stours have pared away any thing out of mistake from ordination, * 1.6 that is either prescribed, or practi∣sed by the true Catholique Church, let it be made ap∣peare evidently to you, and you are more ready to vvelcome it againe at the fore dore then your Ance∣stours were to cast it out at the back dore. Errare pos∣sumus, haeretici esse nolumus. Your Church hath so many times changed its Tenets, and is so in∣different for any beneficial addition, or sub∣traction of doctrine, that it seemes to be com∣posed of nothing but back dores, and starting holes, wherby you cast out, and welcome in, whatsoever is gratefull, or not gratefull to the humor of the Prince, or prevailing faction. Now seing it hath bin made appeare, that your Ancestours valued not episcopal conse∣cration, admitted no priesthood but baptisme, and denied the real presence; I hope you can

not imagine, that these men would compose formes of Ordination contrary to their owne Tenets, and profession: or that a Zuinglian Parliament would confirme your booke of administration of Sacraments, and rites, be∣fore they had vvell examined, whether it con∣tained any thing contrary to their owne con∣science, and reformation. And if they had bin Lutherans you gaine litle, seing Luther himselse in the places alleadged in the next chapter maketh all Christians Priests by bap∣tisme.

6. But suppose it had not bin evident, but only probable, that your Ancestors pa∣red avvay some part of the essential forme, or matter of Ordination; is it part of your Case Theology, to contemne prudent doubts in a matter of fo greate importance, and of absolute necessity for the being of a Church? There is not a more infallible marke of here∣sy, then to exact cleere evidence for obscure mysteries, or to contemne ancient publique ceremonies, vpon the warrant of a moderne private spirit, as you might have seene, (and ought to have refuted, if you could) in the Treatise of Catholique faith, and heresy. But it seenes you regard not what is thought of your Heresy, provided you may seeme to maintaine your episcopacy: and that yee are content to vndergo the infamy of sectaries, so vee retaine the titles of Lords, and Bishops. * 1.7 You say we have such an eye at your Order, and vniformity, that wee can not let your long cloakes,

and surplises alone. As for vniformity yee never had any; and your vvant of Orders makes vs take notice of the superfluity of your long cloakes, and surplisses. The old Protestant cut would become yee much better, and I be∣lieve yee will returne to it, and welcome it at the fore dore of your Church (alvvayes open for any advantage) if the puritan, or presby∣terian faction prevaile.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 223. & seq.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 232.
• * 1.3

  Convers. of En∣gland part. 2. pag. 607. & pag. 611.
• * 1.4

  Part. 3. Convers. pag 372. eait. 1604
• * 1.5

  Pag. 232.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 235.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 234.