The consecration and succession, of Protestant bishops justified, the Bishop of Duresme vindicated, and that infamous fable of the ordination at the Nagges head clearly confuted by John Bramhall ...

CHAPT. VI. The Nagg••s head Ordination is but a late devise. Of the Earle of Not∣tingham, Bishop Bancroft, Do∣ctor Stapleton▪ the Statute 8. El. 1. And the Queenes disp••nsation. (Book 6)

NOw having laid our grounds, in the next place let us see what the Fathers have to say further for themselves. This stor•• of the Nagges head was first cno••radicted b•• Ma∣son in the yeare 1613: yet so weakly and family that the a••ten••ive Reader may easily perceive he feared to be caught in a lie. First, the Fa∣thers seem to argue after this manner; Many Athenian writers did mention the Cretan Bulls and Minotaurs and Laby∣rinth, but no Cretan did write against them, therefore those ridiculous Fables were true. Rather, the Cretans laughed

at their womannish ••evenge, to thinke to repaire themselves for a beating, with scolding and lying: such ridiculous Fictions ought to be entertained with scor∣ne and contempt, Spreta exolescunt, si iras∣caris agnita videmur. Secondly, it might be (for any thing I know to the contrary) Mr. Mason was the first who dissected this lie, and laid the falsity of it open to the world: but he was not the first who avou∣ched and justified the Canonicall Conse∣cration, and personall Succession of our Protestant Bishops, which is the same thing in effect; the Bishop of Hereford did it before him, and Doctor Reynolds be∣fore the Bishop of Hereford, and he that writ the life of Arch-Bishop Parker before Doctor Reynolds, and the Parliament be∣fore him that writ Arch Bishop Parkers life, and the publick Registers of the Church before the Parliament.

Thirdly, they would make us believe that this Fable was ancient, and published to the world from the beginning of Queen Elisabeths time in print, and unanswered by the Protestants untill the 13, of King Iames: but there is no such thing. For their credit, let them produce one Authour that mentioneth it in the beginning of

Queen Elisabeths time, or if they cannot doe that, for forty yeares after, that is, before the yeare 1600: or otherwise the case is plain that it is an upstart lie, newly coined about the beginning of King Iames his time; the Fathers would not have us answer it before it was coined, or before it was known to us.

Where they say that Mr, Mason did handle this Controversy weakly and faintly, they know they doe him wrong: He hath so thrashed their Authours, Fusherbert, and Fitz-Simon, and Holywood, and Constable, and Kellison, and Champney, that the cause hath wanted a Champion eversince, untill these Fathers tooke up the Bucklers. But whereas they adde, that Mr. Mason vvas affraid to be convinced by some aged per∣sons that might then be living, and re∣member vvhat passed in the begin∣ning of Queen E••isabeths reign; is so farre from truth, that Mr. Mason na∣meth a witnesse beyond all exception, that was invited to Arch Bishop Parkers Conse∣cration at Lambeth, as being his Kinsman, and was present there, The Earle of Notting∣••am Lord High Admirall of England.

Why did none of their Authors goe to him, or imploy some of their Friends to inquire of him? The case is cleare, they were more affraid of Conviction, and to be caught in a lie, then Mr. Mason: who laid not the Foundation of his Discourse upon loose prittle-prattle, but upon the Firm Foundation of Originall Re∣cords.

They say, in the yeare 1603, none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable, as some now doe. I am the man, I did call it so, I do call it so. Such a blind relation as this is, of a businesse pretended to be acted in the yeare 1559, being of such consequence, as whereupon the succession of the Church of England did depend, and never publi∣shed untill after the yeare 1600, as if the Church of England had neither Friends nor Enemies; deserveth to be stiled a Tale of a Tub and no better.

They adde, Bancroft Bishop of London being demanded by Mr. VVil∣liam Alabaster, hovv Parker and his Collegues vvere consecrated Bishops? ••nsvvered, he hoped that in Case o•• ne∣••essity a Priest (alluding to Scory,

might ordein Bishops. This answer of his was objected in Print by Holy∣wood, against him and all the English Clergy in the yeare 1603▪ not a word re∣plied, Bancroft himself being then living. And why might not Holywood be misinformed of the Bishop of London, a•• well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham? This is certain he could not allude to Bishop Scory, wh•• was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the sixth, as by the Records of those times appeareth; unlesse you have a mi•••• to accuse all Records of Forgery. If you have any thing to say against Bishop Sc••∣ryes Consecration, or of any of them who joined in Ordeining Arch Bishop Parker, spare it not, we wil not seek help of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act of Parliament to make it good.

In summe, I doe not believe a word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what is said of Bishop Bancroft, sub mod•••• it i•• here set down, nor that this Accusation did ever come to the knowledge of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prudent Prelate; if it did, he had great•••• matters to trouble his head withall, the•• Mr. Holywords bables: but if ever such a a question was proposed to him, it may be after a clear answer to the matter of Fact

he might urge this as argumentum ad homi∣nem; that though both Bishop Scory and Bi∣shop Coverdale had been but simple Priests, (as they were complete Bishops), yet joi∣ning with Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgskings, two undoubted Bishops (otherwi••e Gardiner and Bonner and Tunstall and Thurleby and the rest were no Bi∣shops,) the Ordination was as Cano∣nicall, as for one Bishop and two Mi∣tred Abbats to consecrate a Bishop (which you allow in case of Necessity), or one Bishop and two simple Presbyters to consecrate a Bishop by Papall Dispen∣sation. So this question will not concern us at all, but them very much, to reconcile themselves to themselves. They teach that the matter and form of Ordination are essentialls of Christs own Institution, They teach that it is grievous Sacrilege to change the matter of this Sacrament, They teach that the matter of Episcopall Ordination is Imposition of hands of three Bishops, upon the person consecrated: and yet with them one Bishop and two Abbats, or one Bishop and two simple Priests extraor∣dinarily by Papall dispensation, may or∣dein Bishops. The essentialls of Sacra∣ments doe consist in indivisibili, once Essen∣tiall

alwaies Essentiall, whether ordinarily, or extraordinarily whether with dispensa∣tion or without. So this Question whether a Priest in case of Necessity may ordein Bi∣shops, doth concern them much, but us not at all. But for my part I believe the whole Relation is feined, for so much as concer∣neth Bishop Bancroft.

They adde, or the one of them, I have spoken vvith both Catholicks and Pro∣testants, that remember neare 80. yeares, and acknovvledge that so long they have heard the Nagges head story related as an undoubted truth. Where I wonder? sooner in Rome or Rhe∣mes or Doway, then in England, and sooner in a Corner then upon the Exchange. You have heard from good Authors of the Swans singing, and the Pellicans pricking of her Breast with her bill: but you are wiser then to believe such groundlesse Fictions. I produce you seven of the ancient Bishops of England, some of them neare an 100. yeares old, who doe testify that it is a groundlesse Fable: yet they have more rea∣son to know the right value of our Eccle∣siasticall Records, and the truth of our

affaires, then any whom you convers•• withall▪

The Authours proceed, This Nar∣ration of the Consecration at the Nag∣ges head, have I taken out of Holy∣wood, Constable, and Doctor Champnies vvorkes. They heard it from many of the ancient Clergy, vvho vvere Prisoners for the Catholick Religion in Wysbich Castle, as Mr. Blewet, Doctor Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and others. These had it from the said Mr. Neale and other Ca∣tholicks present at Parkers Consecration in the Nagges head, as Mr. Constable affirmes Here is nothing but hearsay, upon hearsay, such Evidence would not passe at a tryall for a lock of Goats wooll. Holywood and the rest had it from some of the Wisbich Prisoners: and the Wis∣bich Prisoners heard it from Mr. Neale and others.

What others? had they no names? did Bishop Bonner send more of his Chapleins then one to be Spectators of the Consecration, and they who were to be

consecrated permit them being Adversaries to continue among them, during the Con∣secration, supposed to be a Cla••de••••ine Action. It is not credible, without a Pl•••• between Neale and the Host of the Nagges head, to put him and his fellowes for that day into Drawers habits, least the Bishops should discover them. Here, is enough said to disgrace this Narration for ever, that the first Authors that published it to the world, did it after the yeare 1600; untill then it was kept close in Lavander, Bishop Wa••son lived splendidly with the Bishops of Ely and Rochester, at the time of Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration, and a long time after, before he was removed to Wisbich Castle. If there had been an•• such thing really acted, and so notoriously known, as they pretend, Bishop Wa••s•••• and the other Prisoners, must needs ha•••• known it long before that time, when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought the•• the first newes of it. The who••e story's composed of Inconsistences. That which quite spoileth their story, is that Arch Bi∣shop Parker was never present at any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these Consecrations, otherwise calle•• Confirmation Dinners: but it may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 merry Host shewed Mr. Neale Docto••

Bullingham for Arch Bishop Parker, and told him what was done in the withdraw∣ing roome, which (to gaine more credit to his Relation) he feigued that he had seen, out of pure zeale.

Howsoever, they say the Story was divul∣ged to the great griefe of the newly Consecrated, yet being so evident a truth they durst not contra∣dict it. We must suppose that these Fathers have a Privilege to know other mēs hearts, but let that p••sse. Let them tell us how it was divulged by word or writing, when and where it was divulged whilest they were newly consecrated, who divulged it and to whom? If they can tell us none of all this, it may passe for a great presump∣tion, but it cannot passe for a proofe,

But they say, that not onely the Nullity of the Consecration, but also the illegality of the same was objected in Print against them not long after, by that famous writer Doctor Stapleton and others. We looke upon Doctor Sta∣pleton, as one of the most Rationall heads that your Church hath had since the sepe∣ration: but speake to the purpose Fathers, did Doctor Stapleton print one word of the Nagges head Consecration. You may be sure he would not have balked it, if there had been any such thing, but he did balke

it because there was no such thing. No, no, Doctr. Stapletons pretended illegality was upon another ground, because he dre∣amed that King Edwards Statute was repe∣aled by Queen Mary, and not restored by Queen Elisabeth, for which we have an expresse Act of Parliament against him in the point: and his supposed invalidity was because they were not consecrated ritu Ro∣mano. If you think Doctor Stapleton hath said any thing that is materiall, to prove the invalidity or nullity of our Consecration, take your bowes and arrowes and shoote over his shafts againe, and try if you do not meet with satisfactory answers, both for the Institution of Christ, and the Ca∣nons of the Catholick Church, and the Lawes of England.

You say, Parker and the rest of the Pro∣testant Bishops, not being able to answer the Ca∣tholick arguments against the invalidity of their Ordination &c. Words are but wind. The Church of England wanted nor Orthodox Sonnes enough to cope with Stapleton and all the rest of your Emissaries: nor to cry down the illegall and extravagant manner of it at the Nagges head, How should they cry down, that which never had been cryed up in those daies? We condemne, that

form of Ordination which you feign to have beē used at the Nagges head, as illegall, and extravagant, and (which weigheth more then both of them) invalid, as much as yourselves.

They were forced to begge an act of Parliament, whereby they might enjoy the Temporalities, not withstanding the known defects of their Conse∣cration &c. O Ingenuity! whither art thou Fled out of the world? Say, where is this Petition to be found, in the Records of Eu∣topia? Did the Parliament ever make any such establishment of their Temporalties, more then of their Spiritualties? Did the Parliament ever take any notice of any De∣fects of their Consecration? Nay, did not the Parliament declare their Consecration to have been free from all defects? Nay, doth not the Parliament quite contrary, brand these Reports for slanderous speeches,* 1.1 and justify their Consecrations to have been duely and orderly done, according to the Lawes of this Realm: and that it is very evident and apparent, that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt, can be justly objected against their Ele∣ctions Confirmations or Consecrations.

Yet they give a reason of what they say, for albeit Edward the sixths rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act of

Parliament in the first yeare of Queen Elisa∣beth: yet it was notorious that the Ordination at the Nagges head was very different from it, and formed extempore by Scoryes Puritani∣call Spirit &c. I take that which you grant out of Sanders, that King Edwards Form of Ordination, was reestablished by Act of Parliament 1. Elisabethae; wherein you doe unwittingly condemne both Bishop Bonners and Stapletons plea of illegality. The rest which you say is partly true and partly false. It is very true that there is great difference between the English Form of Ordeining, and your Nagges head Ordination, as much as is between the head of a living horse and the sign of the Nagges head, or between that which hath a reall entity and an ima∣ginary Chim••ra (Mr. Mason was the Bellerephon that destroyed this monster): But that the Form of the Nagges head Ordina∣tion was framed extempore by Scoryes Puri∣tanicall Spirit, is most false; That Posthu∣mus brat was the Minerva or Issue of Mr. Neales brain, or some others who fathered this rapping lie upon him.

Then they repeat the words of a part of the Statute, and thence conclude, By which Act appeares that not onely King Edwards

rite, but any other used since the begin∣ning of the Queeens reign, upon her Commission was enacted for good, and consequently that of the Nagges head might passe. Cujus cōtrarium verum est. The Contrary to what these Fathers infer∣re, doth follow necessarily from these words which the Fathers cite. The words of the Act are these, [By virtue of the Queens Letters Patents or Commission]: Every one of the Letters Patents is extant in the Rolles, not one of them did ever authorise any form but that which was legally establis∣hed; that is, the Form of Edward the sixth. First, the Queens Letters Patents or Com∣mission hath an aut minus in it, or at the least three or foure of you: but to justify the Nag∣ges head Ordination, the aut minus must be altered to at the least one or two of you. Se∣condly, the Queens Letters Patents have alwaies this clause in them: Iuxta Formam & effectum Statutorum in ea parte editorum & provisorum; According to the form and effect of the Statutes in that case made and provided: but the Statutes allow no lesse number then four, or at the least three to ordein, At the Nagges head (you say there was but one

Ordeiner. Our Statutes prescribe Imposi∣tion of Hands as the Essentiall matter of Or∣dination, and these words, Receive the Holy Ghost as the form of Ordination: but your Nagges head Ordination is a mere Phan∣tasm, without matter or Forme; our Sta∣tutes allow no such fanaticall and Phanta∣sticall Formes, as your Form of the Nagges head. And so your Consequence, [Conse∣quently that of the Nagges head might passe], is foundered of all four, and can neither passe nor repasse, unlesse you can rase these words [by virtue of the Queens Letters Patents] out of the Statute, and insert these [without the Queens Letters Patents]: and likewise rase these words out of the Commission [according to the Form and effect of the Statutes], and insert these [contrary to the Form and ef∣fect of the Statutes]. A single Falsification will doe your cause no good. Two poisons may perchance help it at a dead lift.

It is in vain to tell us, that Mr Mason see this over clear to be denied, who know better that Mr. Mason did not onely deny it over and over again, but sqeesed the poore Fable to durt. I have shewed you particularly what was the end of the Queens Dispensations,

the same which is the end of Papall Dis∣pensations, to meet with latent objections or cavills. I have shewed you what that Cavill was; which needed no Dispensa∣tion in point of Law, but onely to stop the mouths of Gainsaiers. But where you adde, that the Queens Dispensation was given, not in conditionall but in very absolute Termes: You are absolutely mistaken. The Queens dis∣pensation was both in Generall Termes, which determin nothing, (not like the Popes Dispensations, A quibusvis excom∣municationis suspensionis & interdicti sententiis): and also in these condi∣tionall Terms, si quid &c. desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus reg∣ni nostri, aut per leges Ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur: If any thing is or shall be wanting, which are required by the Lawes Civill or Ecclesiasticall of this Kingdome. You see it is conditionall and hath reference onely to the Lawes of England.

They goe on, the truth is, all the world laughed at the Nagges head Consecration, and held it to be invalid, not so much for being performed in a Tavern, as for the new form invented by Scory.

If all the world did laugh at it in those dayes, they laughed in their sleeves, where no body could see them laugh. It had been too much to laugh at a jeast before it was made, nay before it was devised. The Reader may well wonder, how all the world came to get notice of it so early as the be∣ginning of Queen Elizabeths reign, and we onely in England should heare nothing of it for above 40 yeares after? but assoone as we did heare of it, we laught at it as well as they, and held it as invalid as they could doe for their hearts; but they laught at it as Bishop Scoryes Invention, and we laught at it as theirs.

Notes

• * 1.1

  8. Elis. cap. 1.