Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

living at that time as Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgekin? Have they forged the Names of those Bishops, and forged their Poffeffion of feveral Bifhops Sees, for fo Barlow and Scory had Sees both before and after Parker's Confecration? Did they forge the Confecrations of thefe Men alfo, and clap them into the refpective Registers fo dextrously, that none can difcover the Cheat by confulting the Records themselves? Did they forge that Barlow and Scory made a Figure in the Church of England above Thirty Years? Did they forge the Fourteen Confecrations that Hodgekin affifted at as a Bishop? Or did they forge the Inftrument delivered into the Houfe of Lords, when Parker was returned there as confecrated by thofe four Bifhops, 'before he could take his Seat in that Houfe? And could all the Lords be impofed upon, and made to believe that Parker was confecrated by thefe Men, and yet there were really no fuch Men to confecrate him? Was there a Man in the Houfe of Lords when Archbishop Parker was firft introduced into that House in the Year 1559 or 1560 (except fome young Lords just come of Age, or fome newly created) but muft remember whether Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale, fat amongst them upon the Bishops Bench not above Seven Years before? Was it poffible to impofe fo grofly upon the whole Houfe of Peers, amongft which many Popifh Lords alfo fat at that time, in a Matter which their own Remembrance could not but tell them whether it was true or falfe? Now the Church of England muft have feigned all this, and a great deal more, impoffible to be put upon the World, if it were not true, or elfe Archbishop Parker muft be owned to have been regularly confecrated by the Bishops which the Regifter fays did confecrate him.

[blocks in formation]

§ LXIV. Let us now hear upon what Grounds they pretend to make out the Falfity of fo many Records: which are as full and authentick Proofs as a Matter of that Age is capable of. They tell us in the forementioned Book, that it was proved by Two Witnesses. The former of them was Dr. Darbifhire, then Dean of St. Paul's, and Nephew to Dr. Bonner Bishop of London, who almoft Sixty Tears fince (that is, Sixty Years before 1654, or thereabouts, when this Book was printed at Doway) lived at Meufe Pont, then an holy religions Man, very aged, but perfect in Senfe and Memory, who Speaking what he knew, affirmed to my felf (fays this Author) and another with me, that, like good Fellows, they made themselves Bishops at an Inn, because they could get no true Bifhops to confecrate them. My other Witnefs was a Gentleman of known Worth and Credit, dead not many Years fince, whofe Father, a chief Judge of this Kingdom, vifiting Archbishop Heath, Jaw a Letter fent from BiShop Bonner out of the Marfhalfea, by one of his Chaplains, to the Archbishop, read while they fat at Dinner together, wherein he merrily related the manner how these new Bishops (because he had diffuaded Ogilthorp Bishop of Carlile, from doing it in his Diocefe) ordained one another at an Inn, where they met together. And while others laughed at this new manner of confecrating Bishops, the Archbishop himself gravely, and not without Tears, expreffed his Grief to fee fuch a ragged Company of Men, come poor out of Foreign Parts, and appointed to fucceed the Old Clergy. Now not to cavil with this Author for calling Dr. Darbifhire Dean of St. Paul's, when he was never more than Canon of that Church: what Evidence did this Doctor give, more than his own bare Word, for what he faid? He did not pretend that he himself was either at the Inn

or

or near it, where this mock Confecration he spoke of was made. He only told it as a Story that he had heard once upon a time. And fo had a great many others as well as he, for the Nags-Head Fable was in Print before he died. But it does not appear that he could fay any thing to the Matter from his own Knowledge. The other Evidence is a nameless Judge, and a nameless Gentleman, that heard him tell the Story, and the whole Relation is alfo given by a nameless Author. And if fuch Evidence as this is fufficient to overthrow the Credit of fo many Registers and Records, then is it in vain for any Nation to make or keep fuch Records, when a meer hear-fay Story fhall deferve more Credit. But we know that hear-fay Stories are easily invented and fpread, and the Authors of them not easy to be found out, and very little Credit is to be given to them, even where they are not contradi&ted: But where they are contradicted by better Evidence, they are of no manner of Credit, nor deserve the leaft Notice. Whereas Registers and Records are by no means easy to be feigned or forged, they are publick Acts, and publick Officers are appointed for the keeping them, they are open, and liable to the Inspection of every one that pleases to take a View of them; and howsoever in Matters of private nature relating to particular Perfons, it is poffible, and but poffible, fome Particulars may be mifreprefented in them, yet in Matters of publick nature, fuch as the Confecration of Bifhops, it is morally im+ poffible they fhould be forged, because fo many feveral Offices are concerned in that Affair,

§ LXV. However, the Romanifts have fo often and fo long told this Story, that they are now afhamed to defert it, and own themselves to have

N 3

been

been impofed upon by it. And to make it more credible, they had the Confidence, in a Book printed at Roan 1657, called a Treatife of Catholick Faith, to tell the World that it was owned by a Proteftant Bishop: And named Morton Bifhop of Durham for the Man: pretending that in the Parliament of 1641 he had acknowledged the NagsHead Confecration in the Houfe of Lords, and made a Speech in Vindication of it. But that learned and good Bishop happening to be alive at that time when this Story was printed of him (which we may reafonably fuppofe they little thought of, he being then very old) did publickly under his Hand and Seal proteft and declare the faid Story to be falfe and most untrue, dated July 17, 1658, and had it attefted by a Publick Notary. The whole Proteftation of which pious Bishop is extant in Archbishop Bramhall's Book of the Confecration of Proteftant Bishops vindicated. In which Treatife that learned Primate confuted, and moft effectually overthrew the then late Attempts of the Jefuits against our Church, by this Calumny of the Confecration of Parker, and the other firft Bishops of this Church in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. So that I do not find that they have fince had the Confidence openly and in Print to trump up those old Fables, only thofe two Anfwers before mentioned to Mr. Lefly's Cafe ftated have given broad Hints as if they ftill gave Credit to them: For which reafon I thought proper to be fo particular in the Confutation of them, fince it is not unlikely thefe Papers may fall into the Hands of fome who may not have Opportunity of confulting the Authors I have cited, who have fo fully confuted the Romanifts on this Topick of our Ordinations. And I hope I have proved Parker's Confecration by four Bifhops to the Satisfaction of every unprejudiced Perfon.

§ LXVI.

LXVI. (1) Matthew Parker therefore having been himself confecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, December 17, 1559, by the Bishops Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgekin, did four Days after, being St. THOMAS's Day, December 21, affifted by Barlow, Scory, and Hodgekin, confecrate alfo in Lambeth Chapel Edmund Grindal to the Bishoprick of London, Richard Cox to Ely, Edwin Sandys to Worcester, and Rowland Merick to Banger. And about a Month after, which was Sunday, January 21, being affifted by Grindal, Cox, and Hodgekin, he confecrated Thomas Young to the Bishoprick of St. Davids, Nicolas Bullingham to Lincoln, John Jewel to Salisbury, Richard Davis to St. Afaph, and Edmund Gueft to Rochefter. Thus Archbishop Parker having been regularly confecrated by four Bishops, according to the Canons of the Church, as well as the Laws of the Land, the other Bishops were also regularly confecrated by him their Metropolitan, in Conjunction with two or three of his Provincial Bishops. And in the fame manner has the Succeffion been continuéd ed from that time to this. And we are at this Day able to prove from our Registers and Records (the best Evidence that can be produced in fuch a Cafe) not only the Year, Month, and Day when, but also the Perfons by whom every par-, ticular Bishop has been confecrated from that time to this.

§ LXVII. Having therefore I truft fully proved the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, together with the Neceffity of an Epifcopal Commiffion to the valid Adminiftration of the Sacraments, from the Scriptures,

(1) Strype's Life of A. B. Parker, P. 63, 64. Mason, p. 134, N 4 and

« FöregåendeFortsätt »