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. VI. (Book 6)

That the Pope did not confirme Edward 6. forme of Ordination, and that all sectaries admitted no priesthood, but baptisme, and that in Henry the 8. reigne, and Edvvard the 6. men played the Bishops though never con∣secrated, and so did Barlovv;

1. TO my first reason you answer nothing to the purpose, * 1.1 but only that King Edvvards forme of ordination vvas judged valid in Queene Maries days by all Catholiques, and particularly by Cardinal Po∣le then Apostolicall legate in England, and by the then Pope Paul the 4 and by all the Cler∣gy, and Parliament of England. This you pro∣ve by Cardinal Poles dispensation (vvhich the Pope confirmed) to all those that were ordai∣ned,

Praetensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclefiae Anglicanae, pretending the Authority of the En∣glish supremacy. I perceave by your other boo∣kes you are well versed in Foxes, Acts and mo∣numents, and some what in the Dutch Cen∣turists vvith the story, and statutes of En∣gland, whence you gather what in passion hath bin done against the Popes authority v∣pon certaine abuses. The attention to that, made you not reflect vpon, this decree, or arti∣cle (as Fox calls it) of Q. Maries, made by the consent of the Lords spiritual, and temporal. * 1.2 Item touching such persons as vvere heretofore pro∣moted to any Orders, after the nevv sort, and fas∣hion of Orders; considering they vvere not ordered in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocese, finding othervvise sufficiency, and ability in these men, may supply that thing which vvanted in them before and then according to his aiscretion, admit them to Mi∣nister. I hope this Article, or Decree, made vvith the consent, and advise of Cardinal Poo∣le, and of the Lords spiritual, and temporal of England, doth sufficiently declare, that his Dispensation, and the Popes confirmation vvas intended, and extended only to such, as had bin ordained after the ancient and Catho∣lique manner in the time of schisme. Of others promoted to any Orders after the new fas∣hion, and forme of Edvvard the 6. its decla∣red, they vvere not ordered in very deed, and therfore the Bishop ought to supply their want of ordination. And yet you are so con∣fident as to say, that the question in Q. Maries

dayes, vvas not about the validity, or invalidity of your Orders, but about the legality, or illegality of them. I pray you, not to be ordered in very deed, is it only an illegality?

2. The ill successe you had in recurring to King Edwards forme, and Bishops, doth for∣ce you appeale to Henry the 8. times, wherin you imagine that neither Barlow, nor any other durst play the Bishop, if not cōsecrated; becau∣se forsooth, Henry the 8. was not a Baby to be iea∣sted withall. Pag. 186. We know M, Doctor, that Henry the 8. was no Baby, but you also ought te have knowen, that he was a man more led by passion, then by reason, or religion. Af∣ter that he perceived, how the Pope was resol∣ved not to declare voyd his marriage with Q. Chatharine of Spaine, he did so persecute his adherents, and authority, vvithout regard to conscience, or even to his owne statuts, that his principal care was to countenance hereti∣cal Preachers, and principles, as far as they concurred to maintaine his headship of the Church to enrich him with the spoiles therof, to vex, and endommage the Pope. * 1.3 Now he∣retiques generally in those days, did agree in this principle, that there is no other priestshood in the lavv of grace, but baptisme, and therfore all Christians both men, and women, were Priests, and might preach, and Ministers all Sacra∣ments; though to avoyd confusion, the exer∣cise of Priestly authority ought to be commit∣ted to some, either by election of the Magi∣strate, or by the letters patents of the Prince.

This doctrine they grounded vpon 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. Christ made vs all a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and Priests to his father This princi∣ple vvas so sutable to Henry the 8. designe of making himselse supreme head of the Church in spirituall affaires, and of possessing him∣selse of its temporalities, that he was well pleased to winke at the practise of all hereti∣ques, who pretended to be Bishops, though they never had bin consecrated: Archbishop Cranmer (to whom all such matters were re∣mitted) being himselfe a prime heretique, and in so greate favor with the King, that (rom∣vvel before his fall sayd vnto him, * 1.4 (being ac∣cused of denying the real presence) My Lord of Canterbury you are most happy of all men, for you may doe, and speake vvhat you list, and let all men speake against you vvhat they can, the King vvill never believe one vvord, to your detriment, or hin∣derance, &c. There was no such danger of Pre∣munires, as D. Bramhall pretends; who would have vs take his word against the evidences cited in the margen, that only Anabaptists, * 1.5 and not Zvvinglians, rejected ordination.

3. They who forged Masons Register, thought fit to name among Parkers Consecra∣ters Barlovv, and Hodgkins both pretended Bishops in King Henry the 8. reigne, not doubting therby to make it credible, that they both, and consequently Parker, were validly consecrated, though Scory, and Co∣verdale, (the tvvo other pretended Confe∣craters) had never received (being made pro∣testant

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Bishops in King Edvvards time) e∣piscopal ordination. But this shift availes them not; I produce two others, who were called Bishops in King Henries time, sate in Parlia∣ment, and tooke vpon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as greate gravity, and solemnity, as Barlow; and yet they were de∣declared by publique sentence in Q Maries time, to be no Bishops, nor validly consecra∣ted. These were Latimer, and Ridley, to whom D. Brookes Bishop of Glocester, in his last speech, before they were put to death for he∣resy, * 1.6 told; that they were to degrade them only of priesthood, because they were no Bishops. To this you answer M. Doctor, that they who ma∣de no scruple to take away their lifes, would make none tot take away their Orders. You are quite out. Cranmer was burnt for heresy, as well as Latimer, and Ridley; and yet they made a scruple to take away his Orders, though they tooke away his life; because they knew he had validly received orders, and therfore was degraded; the same would have bin pra∣ctised with Latimer, and Ridley, if the omission of degrading them, had not bin vvaranted by evidence, that they vvere never validly con∣secrated.

4. We have often, sayth D. Bramhall, asked à reason of them, why the Protestants should decli∣ne their ovvne consecrations? They give vs one, that Barlovv, as most of the Clergy in England in those times, vvere Puritans, and inclined to Zuinglianisme; therfore they contemned, and re∣jected

Consecration, as a rag of Rome, &c. This rea∣son the Doctor solidly refutes, by saying, It is a greate boldnesse, * 1.7 to take the liberty to cast aspersions vpon the Clergy of a whole Na∣tion. If it be a boldnesse to say, that your first Protestant Bishops contemned, and rejected consecration, and that they were of the same opinion concerning it, with Luther, Zuin∣glius, and other Reformers; themselves, and not I, are guilty of the crime. Did not M. Hor∣ne, and the rest of your first Bishops, publish to the world in print an. 1559. (the very same yeare of the pretended consecration) their sense of Priesthood, and Priestly functions, in these words. * 1.8 In this point vve must vse a certai∣ne moderation and not absolutely in every vvise de∣barre women herein, &c. I pray you vvhat more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbiding vvomen to preach, then in forbidding them to vncover their heads; and yet you knovv in the best reformed Chur∣ches of Germany, all the maides be bare headed. This your first Bishops tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptisme and conse∣quently of allovving women to be Priests, was so vvel knowne, that D. Harding objects it to Ievvel, Parker, and the rest, If yee allovv not every man, yea and every vvoman to be a Priest. * 1.9 vvhy drive yee not some of your fellovves to recant, that so have preached? Why allovv yee the bookes of your nevv Evangelists, that so have vvritten?

5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my bold∣nesse, and condemne the Doctors mistake, let him read the 25 article of his Creed, which

is this. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreame vnction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Ghospel, being such as have grovvne partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apostles, partly are states of life, allovved in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sa∣craments vvith baptisme, and the Lords supper, for that they have not any visible signe, or ceremony ordained of God. It evidently follovveth out of this article; that your first Bishops, who made, and published it an 1562. were of opi∣nion, that imposition of hands in ordination, was not ordained by God; vnlesse you will de∣ny imposition of hands to be a visible signe, and ceremony. How doth this agree with your moderne Prelatique principles? doth it not e∣vince that Parker, and the rest condemned in their judgment imposition of hands, and con∣temned it as an idle superstition of Rome? The evidence that the world had of their not being consecrated, made them vtter so absurd do∣ctrine, and impose it as an article of faith v∣pon ignorant Protestants. Whether they were Zvvinglians, Lutherans, Calvinists, or vvhat you please, their profession of faith showes what account they made of imposition of hands, which is the buisines now in hand, and makes them Svvinglians, and Puritans in this point.

6. * 1.10 Yet you would faine know how cometh Barlovv to be taxed of Puritanisme? because for∣sooth, you find him in his Robes, in his Rochet, in

his Cope officiating, ordaining, confirming. Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Henry the eight, and Bar∣low sate in Parlament in the 31. therfore Bar∣low could not be a Svvinglian. This is your learned discouse out of Chronology. I must allow you more time to summe vp your num∣bers, or to save you a labour, tell you before hand that make, what account you please, you will find that Luther himselfe begun the con∣tempt of sacred Orders, though Swinglius af∣ter insisted more vpon it, and there vvas time enough for Barlovv eyther to take it from Svvinglius, or at least from Luther, which is all one to our present purpose. As for his or∣daining others you vvill have much adoe to prove it, at least those you would have: for vve have proved your Registers to be forged; but if any such thing be attemted, you may con∣clude his presumption, not his consecration, And for his Robes, Rochet, Cope and Cap, the spirit doth dispence with all puritans to weare them, when they are named Bishops. I hope John Hooper, one of the purest brethren that England ever bred, had as tender a conscience as William Barlovv; but when he was to be ma∣de Bishop of Glocester, * 1.11 he vvas faine (sayth Fox∣to agree to this condition, that some times in his ser∣mons, he should shevv himselfe aparalled as the other Bishops vvere. And yet it is evident, that he vvas never consecrated, though Cranmer, and Ridley, who were his enemies, forced him to weare a square Cap, and a linnend, Rochet,

the only caracter of a protestant Bishop. Though they vvanted the reality and truth of consecration, yet they insisted vpon this for∣mality, and cloke of ambition, in their sini∣ster (as Iohn Fox calls it) and vnlucky conten∣tion.

7. And that you may see what litle hazard your protestant Bishops did runn of Promuni∣res by such practises, * 1.12 John Fox tells you, how D. Ridley that vvorthy Bishop of London, called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon, accor∣ding to the Order that then vvas in the Church of England, (vvhich was the forme of Edvvard the 6.) but for that this order was not vvithout so∣me such abuse, as to the vvhich Bradford vvold not consent, the Bishop then vvas content to Order him Deacon vvithout any abuse, even as he desi∣red. After this Deaconship he was imediately without any orders, made Prebend, and Preac∣her of S. Paules, having never studied but one yeare, and all his life before having bin a ser∣ving man to S^r. John Harington. Doe you ima∣gine M. Doctor; that Barlowes Consecrater would not be as indulgent to him, as Ridley was to Bradford? Or do you thinke that Ridley vvould not venture as farre for his owne con∣science, when he vvas to be consecrated, as he did for that of his Deacon? There vvas no such rigour or danger of Premunires in those dayes, as you endeavor to perswade your Reader: neither Henry the 8. nor his Vicar General Cromvvel, nor Archbishop Cranmer, nor sir Thomas Audley a Lutheran, and Chan∣celor

after Sir Thomas More, did thinke it vvas for their purpose, to presse any other ordina∣tion, or Consecration vpon tender conscien∣ces, but baptisme; because by this principle the King had some colour for his spiritual heads∣hip, and for the temporalities of the Church; and the three others by dissembling, and sus∣pending the rigour of the lavves vvith a preten∣se of enriching the King, countenanced, and planted their owne errours in the Kingdome.

8. What wonder is it therfore, if the conse∣cration of Protestant Bishops should not ap∣peare in any Register but yours and Barlovvs in none at all seing it was against their principles, and practise, to be consecrated. But your invi∣sible Register hath a property of making visi∣ble, what never had a being. * 1.13 Yet by the helpe of those Records vvhich are in the Court of faculties, I should not despaire (sayth the Doctor) of fin∣ding Barlovves consecration. I must confesse my ignorance of your Court of faculties, but like wise acknowledge my experience of the facul∣ties of your Court, and Church, in finding things never thought of by any but your selves. But where trow you, doth the Doctor hope to find out Barlovvs consecration? I am confirmed, * 1.14 saith he, in my former conjecture, that he vvas con∣secrated in Wales, which Bishop Goodvin had much more reason to knovv exactly then we have. Yet Bishop Geadvin speaking of Barlovv in three sundry places, viz as Bishops of S. Da∣vids, Bath, and Welles, & Chishester sayes not a word of his cōsecrationin any of them, for

of his being B. of S. Asaph there is no mention in the English edition, much lesse of his being consecrated there, though you tell vs that in his Latin edition printed at London 1616. are these vvords, he vvas consecrated 22. Feb. 1535. From whence came this new knowledge? It is à preparation, and disposition for a further for∣gery? Without doubt the next edition wil say, he was consecrated at S. Davids or S. Asaph in Wales, and that indeed may confirme your con∣jecture of the place, and my evidence of your Clergies practise of forging Registers. But why you should hope, or conjecture that Barlows consecration, after the effluxion of a hundred yeares, may be found in Wales, I vnderstand not, if it be not, that you are resolved, to imi∣tate the example of meane upstarts, who insert their families into welch pedigrees. So yee, it seemes, intend to furnish your upstart Church, and Clergies want of Ordination, with welch Registers; as in an other occasion you indeavo∣red to prove your independency of Rome, by a welch proverb. You are pleased to say (but without any proofe) that Barlows leases made in the sees of S. Davids, Bath, and Wels, were never questioned. We deny it. And prove our denial by the example of Ridley, who being as much à Bishop in Henry the 8. time as Barlow, begged, as a favor before his death, of Q. Mary, that the leases made by him in the see of Lon∣don, might stand good. This you may reade in your owne John Fox where he relates Ridleys martyr dome. What greater right I pray, could

Barlow pretend for the vaildity of his leases, then his brother Ridley, both of them being pretēded Bishops of Henry the 8. time? You are very unfortunate in all your arguments, unlesse your intention be prevarication of your cause, to make your selfe more looked after upon the title of deriving your Episcopacy from the line of Irish Prelacy which thoug I can not say it had its beginning in a Taverne as the English had: yet it wanted as much in the substance. Had there bin true Bishops in Ireland who could have bin brouglt to lay hands on the new Super∣intendents, the Queene might have saved her labour and credit of giving such enormous dis∣pēsations as never were heard of. Besides I must aske you a question in your eare. Were you M^r. Doctor made Priest in Ireland? you find an oc∣casion to thrust in your being Bishoped in Ire∣land, but I can not find you speake of the other, and you know that no Priest, no Bishop. But although you were, if matters litle for your Irish descent is no better then the English, nor any reason hitherto hath bin produced to make it better.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 63.
• * 1.2

  Fox pag. 1295.
• * 1.3

  Luther. tom. 2. de Min Ec∣clesiae in∣stituendis fol.- 368. & seq. & de abro∣ganda missa pri∣vata to. 2. fol. 249. & in lib. de capt. Babylon. C. de or∣dine.

  Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 5.

  Zuinglius tom 1. ex∣planat. a. 17. fine.

  D. Horne and the first pro∣testant Bishops in the Harbo∣rough an. 1559 H. 2. Three Cō∣vers of England part 2. pag. 570. & 571.
• * 1.4

  See Fox pag. 1694 & 1695.
• * 1.5

  Pag. 196.
• * 1.6

  Fox pag. 1604.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 195.
• * 1.8

  In the Ha∣bor an. 1559. Protest. Apology tr. 2. C. 2. sect. 10. subd. 7.
• * 1.9

  Confut. Apol. fol. 60.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 195.
• * 1.11

  Pag. 136.
• * 1.12

  Pag. 1456
• * 1.13

  Pag. 185.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 191.