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 ...

CHAP. III. Three reasons against the Nagges head Consecration, 1. from the Contra∣dictions of the Relaters, 2. from the latenesse of the Discovery, 3. from the Strictnesse of our lavves.

NOw having beaten Downe the Pillar about their eares, which they had set up to underproppe their Nagges head Or∣dination, it remaineth next to assault the maine fable it self, as it is related by these Fathers. Having told, how the Protestant Doctors who were designed for Bisho∣pricks in the beginning of Queene Elisa∣beths Reigne, had prevailed with Anthony Kit∣chin Bishop of Landaffe, to give them a meeting

at the Nagged head in Cheapesyde, in hope ••he would Ordeine them Bishops there. And how the Bishop of Landaffe through Bishop Bon∣ners threatenings refused, (all which shall be examined and laid open to the view of the world in due order, how it is stuffed with untruth and absurdities.) They adde, that being thus deceived of their expectation, and having no other meanes to come to their desires (that is, to obteine conse∣cration), they resolved to use Mr. Scories helpe, an Apostate religious Priest, who having borne the name of Bishop in King Edward the sixths time, vvas thought to have sufficient povver to performe that Office, especially in such a strait necessity as they pretended. He, having cast of together vvith his Religious habite all scruple of conscience, vvillingly vvent about the matter, vvhich he performed in this sort. Ha∣ving the bible in hand, and they all knee∣ling before him, he laid it upon every one of their heads or shoulders, saying, take thou Authority to preach the world of God sincerely. And so they rose up

Bishops of the nevv Church of England. This narration of the consecration at the Nagges head (they say) they have taken out of Holywood, Constable, and Dr. Champneys workes. They might as well have taken it out of Aesops fables, and with as much credit or expectation of truth on our partes.

So the controversy betweene them and us is this. They say that Arch Bishop Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bi∣hops, in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne, or at the least sundry of them were consecrated at the Nagges head in Cheapesyde together, by Bishop Scory alone, or by him and Bishop Barlow jointly, without Sermon, without Sacrament, without any solemnity, in the yeare 1559. (but they know not what day, nor before what pu∣blick Notaries,) by a new phantastick forme. And all this they say upon the supposed voluntary report of Mr. Neale (a single malicious spie,) in private to his owne party, long after the businesse pre∣tended to be done.

We say Arch Bishop Parker was conse∣crated alone, at Lambeth, in the Church, by foure Bishops, authorised thereunto by Commission under the great Seale of England, with Sermon, with Sacrament, with all due solemnities, upon the 17 day of December Anno 1559. before foure of the most eniment publick Notaries in En∣gland; and particularly by the same publick Notary who was Principall Actuary both at Cardinall Poles Consecration and Arch Bishop Parkers. And that all the rest of the Bishops were▪ Consecrated at other times, some in the same moneth but not upon the same day, some in the same yeare but not the same moneth, and some the yeare following. And to prove the truth of our relation and falshood of theirs, we produce the Registet of the See of Canter∣bury, as authentick as the world hath any, the Registers of the other fourteene Sees then vacant, all as carefully kept by sworne Officers as the Recordes of the Vatican it self. We produce all the Com∣missions under the privy seale and great Seale of England: We produce the rolles or Recordes of the Chancery; And if the Recordes of the Signet office had not been unfortunately burned in King Iames his time, it might have been ve∣rified

by those also: We produce an Act of Parliament express in the pointe, within seven yeares after the Consecration: We produce all the controverted Consecra∣tions published to the world in printe Anno 1572▪ three yeares before Arch Bishop Parkers death, whilest all things were fresh in mens memories. These bright beames had bene able to dasell the eies of Mr. Neale himself, whilest he was living, and have made him recant his lewd lie, or confess himself starke blinde.

The first reason which I bring against this ridiculous fable, it taken from the palpable Contradictions, and grosse absur∣dities and defects of those Roman Catho∣lick writers, who have related this silly tale of a tub, and agree in nothing but in their common malice against the Church of En∣gland. It is no strange matter for such as write upon hearesay, or relie upon the exact truth of other mens notes or memories, to mistake in some inconsiderable circum∣stance: as to set downe the name of a place amisse, which may be the transcribers faulte, or the printers, as well as the Au∣thours: Or to say two Suffragans for one, when there were two named in the Com∣mission, and but one present at the Conse∣cration. Such immateriall differences

which are so remote from the heart of the Cause, about indifferent Circumstances, may bring the exactnesse of the Relation into question, but not the substantiall truth of it. Such petty unsignificant variations, do rather prove that the Relations were not made upon compact or confederacy. Especially where there are originall Re∣cordes taken upon the place by sworne No∣taries, whose names, and hands, and Acts are as well known to every man versed in the Recordes of those times, as a man knoweth his owne house. To which all Relaters and Relations must submitte, and are ready to submitte as to an infallible rule.

But he who should give credit to such a silly senslesse fable as this is, which is wholy composed of absurd, improbable, incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory fictions, had need to have a very implicite faith. The greatest shew of any accord among them is about the Consecrater, yet even in this they disagree one from ano∣ther. The common opinion is that Bi∣shop Scory alone did consecrate them. But Mr. Constable one of their principall au∣thours supposeth, that Bishop•• Barlow might joine with him in the Consecration. And Sanders, whose penne in other cases useth to runne over, one who had as much

malice as any of them, and had reason to know the passages of those times better then all of them, leaveth it doubtfull, when, or where, or by whom they were ordeined, quomodocunque facti sunt isti Pseudo-Episcopi; by what meanes soever they were ordeined.

But they disagree much more among themselves, who they should be that were ordeined. First Mr. Waddesworth (whose ingenuity deserveth to be commended) doth not say that any of our Bishops were actu∣ally consecrated there, but onely that there was an attempt to consecrate the First of them, that was Arch-Bishop Parker. But that which destoyeth the credit of this attempt is this, that it is evident by the Recordes, that Arch-Bishop Parker was not personally present at his Confirmation in Bowes Church, or at his Confirmation dinner at the Nagges head, which gave the occasion to this merry Legend: but was confir∣med by his Proctor Nicholas Bullingham Doctor in the Lawes, upon the ninth of December Anno 1559. A man may be confirmed by Proxie, but no man can be

ordeined by proxie. It is a ruled case in their owne law, Non licet Sacramentum ali∣quod praeter matrimonium absenti administrare. So if there was an attempt to consecrate any man at the Nagges head, it must be Doctor Bullingham, it could not be Arch Bishop Parker.

Others say there was more then an at∣tempt, that one or more of them were a∣ctually ordeined there: but they name none. Others name some, but they ac∣corde not one with another in naming of them. Some say, Iewell, Sands, Horn, Grindall; where was Arch Bishop Parker? Others say, Parker, Grindall, Horne, Sands. Lastly others say, they were all ordeined there, who were named to Bishopricks, and number fifteen of them. These fathers speake indefinitely, Parker and his fellowes. But they seeme to extend this word fellowes as farre as Doctor Champneys fifteene: for they tell us, that they all kneeled downe before him, and he laid the Bible upon every one of their heads or shoulders. Thus these Cadmean brethren, like those false wit∣nesses which testified against Christ, destroy one another with their mutuall Contra∣dictions.

Thirdly, the time is a principall Cir∣cumstance in all Consecrations, and is evermore most punctually recorded by the Actuaries, or publick Notaries. But in this fabulous Relation the time is con∣cealed. It seemeth the Forger was no good Actuary, and either did not know how materiall that Circumstance was, or had forgotten it. Onely Doctor Champney telleth us, that it was before the ninth of September Anno 1559. But this is not precise enough for an Act: and more∣over, it is most apparently false and im∣possible. For whereas there are two Com∣missions under the greate Seale of England, for the Confirmation and Consecration of Arch Bishop Parker, both recorded in the Rolles; the one which was not exe∣cuted, dated the said very ninth day of September; and the other which was executed, dated the sixth day of December following: if Doctor Champney said true, Arch Bishop Parker was conse∣crated before he was confirmed, yea before there was any Commission out, either for his Consecration or Confir∣mation; which is one of the drowsiest dreames that could droppe from an English penne.

Lastly, every Consecration must be per∣formed before one or more publick Nota∣ries. (We shall shew them Notaries enough of great eminence, beyond all exception, for Arch-Bishop Parkers true Consecra∣tion.) And indeed what could a Consecra∣tion availe any man, without a publick No∣tary to Recorde it, to make an authentick Certificate of it under the seale of the prin∣cipall Consecrater? Now who recorded the Nagges head Consecration? who drew it up into Acts? Who certified it? No bo∣dy, because the silly forger did not under∣stand what things were requisite to a Con∣secration. Onely as the Athenians some∣times said of Metiochus, Metiochus grindes the corne, Metiochus bakes the bread, Metiochus mendes the high∣waies, Metiochus doth all, an evill yeare to Metiochus: So we may say of Mr. Neale; Mr. Neale was the spie, Mr. Neale was the witness, Mr. Neale was the publick Notary, Mr. Neale was the chiefe Eugenier or forger, Mr. Neale was all, what honours are due to Mr. Neale?

Qui tot sustinuit, qui tanta negotia solus.

So they feine a Consecration without a publick Notary, or (which is all one) no

man ever knew who that publick Notary was; At a time impossible, or els no man knoweth at what time; without any cer∣teinty who consecrated, whether Scory alone, or Scory and Barlow together, or God knoweth who; and yet with much lesse certeinty who were consecrated, whe∣ther none at all, but onely an attempt was made, or one, and who that one was; or some indefinitely, without naming who they were, or how many they were; or foure expressly, but dissenting one from another who those foure were. Here is a story com∣posed altogether of uncerteinties and con∣tradictions, like A man and no man, ••it a bird and no bird, on a tree and no tree, with a stone and no stone. To make this uncerteine, groundless, contradictory rumour, to be the touchstone of truth, and to overballance all the authentick Recordes of the King∣dome, in a matter of such publick concern∣ment: is just to make the Parish clock goe truer then the Sun, because the Clerke who settes it is our Freind.

My second reason against this senseless fable, is the late discovery of it to the world, and the long concealing of it in▪ holes and corners before they durst adven∣ture present it to the view of the world,

Can any man who is in his right wittes be so stupide as to imagine, that the Nagges head Ordination happened in the yeare 1559, and (if these Fathers say truely) was notoriously knowne to all the world; and that it should never once Peepe into the light for almost a whole age after it was pre∣tended to have been done, that is till after the yeare sixteen hundred? We use to say a monster is but nine daies wonder: but this ugly monster was not taken notice of in the world untill after forty yeares. The reason is evident; Either it was then but newly hatched, or it had bene kept all that time at dry nurse in a closet. If it had bene so notorious to all the world from the yeare 1559 as the fathers feine, all the windowes in the Nagges head would have been full of it, and the roome would have been shewed to all their guests, where such a prodigious pageant had bene acted.

I dare appeale to the judgments of these Fathers themselves, whether it be Credible, that this story should be notoriously know∣ne to the world in the beginning of Queene Elisabeths reigne, and yet neither Stapleton, nor Harding, nor Bristow, nor Alan, nor Reynoldes, nor Parsons, nor any one of all their Roman Catholick writers, should

so much as mention it for forty yeares en∣suing; especially writing so much as they did upon that very subject, the validity or invalidity of our Ordination. How could their silence have bene excused from be∣traying of their cause, to lose such an egre∣gious advantage? Was it peradventure out of affection to us, to conceale the Defects of the Protestāts? No, they had will enough, but they durst not avouch such a Monstrous untruth in earnest, (if ever they did heare of such a vain rumour, which I can not ea∣sily beleeve,) so contrary to the knowledg of that age.

Especially let them tell me how it com∣meth to passe, that Nicolas Sanders, who professeth to write the Ecclesiasticall history of England, from the one and twentieth yeare of Henry the eighth, untill the Eight and twen∣tieth yeare of Queene Elisabeth then current, in his three bookes of the Originall and pro∣gresse of the English Schisme, hath not one syl∣lable of the Nagges head Ordination? He was never accused of partiality for the Pro∣testants, (but as malicious against the Pro∣testants as any man could wish): nor of concealing truths to their advantage, but of Devising fables to their preju∣dice.

He having related the forme of our En∣glish Consecrations, partly true and partly false, proceedth to this first Ordination of Protestant Bishops, in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reigne; alleging that the Catholick Bishops refused to impose hands upon them, And that they had not of them∣selves two or three Bishops, or so much as one Me∣tropolitan. What a shameless untruth is this, that there were not two or three Protestant Bishops, when the Queenes Commission under the great Seale of England, recorded in the Rolles, is directed to seven Prote∣stant Bishops, expresly by their names and titles?

He addeth, that they were very instant with an Irish Arch Bishop to have presided at their Ordination, but he would not. He mistaketh the matter altogether, They might have had seven Irish Arch Bishops and Bishops if they had needed them; where the proce∣dings were not so rigorous, where the old Bishops complied and held their places, and joined in such Ecclesiasticall Acts, un∣till they had made away to their kin∣dred, all the lands belonging to their Sees. We found one Bishoprick reduced to

five markes a yeare by these tempo∣risers, another to forty shillings a yeare, and all of them to very poore pittances for Prelates. But by this meanes there wanted no Ordeiners. Never did any man question the Ordination of the first Protestant Bishops in Ireland untill this day.

Then he telleth, how being thus rejected by the Catholick Bishops and the Irish Arch Bishop, they applied themselves to the lay Magistrate in the ensuing Parliament for a confirmation, from whence they were called Parliamentary Bishops. By whom were they called so? By no man but himself and his fellowes. How many Ordina∣tions were passed over, one after another, before that Parliament? Was there any thing moved in this Parliament, concer∣ning any the least essentiall of our Episco∣pall Ordination? Not at all, but onely concerning the repealing and reviving of an English Statute. English Statutes can not change the essentialls of Ordination, either to make that Consecration valid which was invalid, or that invalid which was valid. The validity or invalidity of Ordination, depen∣deth

not upon humane law, but upon the institution of Christ. Neither did we ever since that Parliament change one syllable in our forme of Ordination. Then what was this Confirmation which he speakes of? It was onely a Declaration of the Par∣liament, that all the Objections which these men made against our Ordinations, were slanders and calumnies: and that all the Bishops which had been ordeined in the Queenes time, had bene rightly ordeined, according to the forme prescribed by the Church of England, and the Lawes of the Land. These men want no confidence, who are not ashamed to cite this Statute in this case. But we shall meete with this Parliament againe.

In all this impertinent Discourse, where is the fable of the Nagges head Ordination▪ It had bene a thousand times more mate∣riall then all this Iargon. And you may be sure it had not been missing, if there had bene the least graine of truth in it, or is there had but been any suspicion of it when that was written. It was not then full thirty yeares after Arch-Bishop Parkers Consecration, and there were store of eye∣witnesses living to have hissed such a sense∣lesse fable out of the world, And therefore

Sanders very prudently for himself, after so many intimations, passeth by their Or∣dination in a deepe silence, which was the onely worke he tooke in hand to shew. Qualescunque fuerint aut quo modocun∣que facti sint isti Pseudo-Episcopi &c. VVhat manner of persons soever these False-Bishops were, or after what man∣ner soever they were ordeined &c. If Bishop Scory had ordeined them all at the Naggeshead, by layng a Bible upon their heads, and this forme of wordes, Take thou Authority to pre∣ach the word of god Sincerely, M. Sāders needed not to have left the case so doubtfull, how they were ordeined. And if there had bene the least suspicion of it, he would have blowen it abroad upon a silver Trumpet: but God be thanked there was none. The universall silence of all the Romish writers of that age, when the Naggeshead Ordination is pretended to have been done, in a case which concer∣ned them all so nearely, and which was the Chiefe subject of all their disputes; is a convincing proofe to all men who are not altogether possessed with prejudice, that

either it was devised long after, or was so lewde a lie, that no man dared to owne it, whilest thousands of eyewitnesses of Arch Bishop Parkers true Consecration at Lambeth were living.

A third reason, against this ridiculous libell of the Nagges head Consecration, is taken from the strictness of our lawes, which allow no man to consecrate or be consecrated but in a sacred place, with due matter and forme, and all the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed by the Church of England. No man must be Conse∣crated by fewer then foure Bishops, or three at least, And that after the Ele∣ction of the Deane and Chapiter is duely confirmed, And upon the mandate o•• Commission of the King under the great seale of England; under the paine of a Premunire, that is, the forfeiture of lands, and goods, and livings, and liberty, and protection. They allow not Consecra∣tion in a Taverne, without due matte: and forme, without the Ceremonies and solemnity prescribed by the Church, with∣out Election, without Confirmation, without letters Patents, by one single Bishop, or two at the most; such as they

feine the Nagges head Ordination to have been. Who can beleeve, that two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishoppes, ha∣ving the reputation of learning and pru∣dence, should wilfully thrust them∣selves into an apparent Premunire, to forfeite not onely their Arch Bishopricks and Bishopricks, but all their estates and all their hopes, for a phantastick forme, and scandalous Consecration: when the Queene and Kingdome were favorable to them, when the forme prescribed by the Church did please them well enough, when there were protestant Bishops of their owne Communion enough to Con∣secrate them, when all the Churches in the Kingdome were open to them; unlesse it had been Midsummer moone in December▪ and they were all starke mad, and then it is no matter where they were consecrated?

In criminall causes, where things are ••retended to be done against penall lawes, ••uch as this is, the proofes ought to be clea∣••er then the noone day light. Here is no∣••hing proved, but one single witnesse named ••nd he a professed enemy, who never testi∣••••ed it upon Oath, or before a Iudge, or so

much as a publick Notary, or to the face of a protestant, but onely whispered it in corners (as it is said by Adversaries) among some of his owne party. Such a testi∣mony is not worth a deafe nut, in any cause betweene party and party. If he had bene a witnesse beyond all exception, and had beē duly sworne and legally examined▪ yet his testimony in the most favou∣rable cause had been but halfe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proofe, though an hundred did te∣stifie it from his mouth, it is still but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 single testimony: And as it is, it i•• plaine prittle prattle. and ought to be va••lued no more then the shadow of an asse▪ To admit such a testimony, or an hun∣dred such testimonies, against the publick authentick Recordes of the Kingdome were to make our selves guilty of more madness, then they accuse the Bishops of•• If St. Paul forbid Timothy to recei•••• an accusation against a single Presbyter under two or three witnesses, he would no•• have us to condemne fifteen Bishops of such a penall crime, upon a ridiculous rumour contrary both to the lawes and Record•• of the Kingdome. The severity of ou•• lawes doth destroy the credit of this fable.

Notes

• The first reason.
• Seeond reason.
• De Schism. Angl. c. 3. p. 400. Edit Rom.
• The third Reason.
• 25. H. 8. c. 20.