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. VIII. (Book 8)

The vvitnesses of the Nagshead story do exceed those of the fabulous Consecra∣tion at Lambeth, both in number, and in authority; and the constant tradition of the said story, doth mani∣fest the forgery of M. Masons Regi∣ster.

1. YOur tenth reason M. Doctor, against the Nagshead story, is taken from all sorts of Witnesses. You say M. Mason reckoneth vp seven of your writers, * 1.1 who had justified the legality of your Ordinations, and cited your Registers as authentique Records, before him∣selfe, wherof the first is Jewell. How false this is, may be evident by Jewells answer to Har∣ding, wherin he cites no Registers, though his adversary called for them expressely, * 1.2 Shew vs your Registers. As for your other Writers, they cited no authentique Registers, because they disagreed amongst themselves, and agree not with Masons newfound Records, which alone you allow for authentique. As for Camdens te∣stimony it availeth litle both because he vvas not so bold as to put downe a thing so disad∣vētagious to his Clergy and dangerous to him∣selfe as also because you cite not his first edi∣tion, which should have bin cited; for al∣though

I can not find it, yet I have found no small conjectures of knavery vsed in his other editions, as there hath bin with Stow, and others, this I am assured of, that Camb∣den for feare of displeasing others lert out sundry particulars well knowne to himsel∣fe.

2. You produce some Catholiques, not as witnesses of your consecration at Lambeth, but as men convinced by protestant testimonies, and Registers. If this be true, it only proves, that yee never wanted forgers, and that we have some weake, and credulous brothers, which is but a very weake proofe of your or∣ders. The first of these, is one M. Clerke, who was (you say) an Actuary in Cardinal Poole his legative Court.

This M. Clerke met with one M. Higgins, who had bin made a Catholique by reflecting vpon the Nagshead consecra∣tion, and M. Clerke approved well of his caution, because in dubiis tutior pars sequenda, in doubtfull matters we must follow the se∣curest: but withall he wished, that what our Authors had written concerning that point, could be made good. For M. Clerke sayd that he himselfe was present, when the advocate of the Arches, whom the Queene sent to pe∣ruse the Register after the consecration, and to give her an account whether it was perfor∣med Canonically, returned her this answer, that he had perused the Register, and that no just exception could be made against the Consecra∣tion; But (he said) something might have bin

better, particularly that Corverdale was not in his Rochet, but he assured her, that could make no defect in the Consecration.

This is your wise story, and your Author is one M. Barwick, who had it from M. Higgins.

3. I will suppose at the present, that ther is such a man in the world, as this. M. Barwick, and that you do not feigne this story, as you do that of F. Oldcorne; but I must thinke it is no better then a fable, though I will not make you the Author, because it hath so many silly, and improbable circumstances. First that the Quee∣ne should send to peruse the Register after the consecration, to be informed whether it was performed Canonically. Her Majesty without doubt spared that labour, because she might have as particular, and à more unpartial rela∣tion from the Lords, and Courtiours that assi∣sted (as the Register says) at the consecration, then from the Records. And if she doubted of the skill, or attention of her Courtiours, she might examine some of the Doctors that were present. Secondly, your story makes the Queene a very silly woman, that needed the assurance of the Advocate of the Arches, to settle her conscience, in so intricate à case forsooth, as the want of a rochet in a friar, at a Bishops consetration. Thirdly this story is proved to be feigned, by the Queens letters patents and commission; wherin her Majesty declares, that there was a necessity to dispense with Canons; how then could she doubt, and send the Ad∣vocate of the Arches to give her an account,

whether the consecration was performed Ca∣nonically? A necessity of dispensing with the Canons, is cleere evidence that à consecration can not be Canonical; the Queene declared this necessity in her letters patents before the consecration was performed. Therfore she had cleere evidence that it could not be canonical. How then could she doubt of what was evident to herselfe? Or to what purpose should she send the Advocate of the Arches to resolve her of a doubt, which she could never entertaine? This is evidence enough to prove, that your story, good M. Doctor, is feigned. The only doubt remaining is, whether your selfe, or M. Barwick feigned it, which I leave to your con∣sideration. But suppose it had not bin a fiction, all that can be concluded out of it, is, that M. Clerke confessed the Nagshead story was doubtfull, but so that the contrary wanted assurance, and therfore approved of M. Hig∣gins caution. What advantage can this be to your cause, I do not understand; though every man doth see the prejudice it suffers by your stories, and pretended vindication, which is real and plaine prevarication. Would any men in earnest bring so weake testimonies in a mat∣ter of so great importance? doe you not make all the world see how litle you have to say to the point which is to make your succession vndoubted?

4. Your other witnes is one M. Hart, who was satisfied with Parkers consecration, when he saw copies of your Register. You may cite

many other simple Catholiques that would be∣lieve the same; but that only proves their cre∣dulity, and cleeres not your Register from for∣gery. Yet this story we must believe vpon your word, wherin all they will have greate difficul∣ty, that read in the 1. Chap. how falsely you accuse the Jesuits, and imprisoned Priests of acknowledging that your Register was beyond ex∣ception. Neither you, nor any other Writer of your Church, named a witresse for your fable of Lambeth, but one, towit, Charles Howard earle of Notingham, Lord Admiral of England, whose testimony M. Mason would not have valued at so high a rate, as to attribute his long life to a particular providence of God reserving him for the Vindication of your Clergy, unlesse he had bin in great want of others. But how doth he testify? Forsooth, he tould it a friend, and this friend tould it M. Mason, who put it in print. First I must question you whether the Earle was alive, when M. Mason printed his testimony. If he were, why did not M. Mason get a formal attestation as you have done? J am sure yours have cost you more labour, and do∣ne you lesse service then that would have cost, or served him. was he dead? I see no more sig∣nes in this then in other occasions of Gods fa∣vourable providence to your Church. Will the Earles saying to a namelesse friend that he had bin at a banquet in Lambeth restore the credit of your Church deprived of lawfull Clergy vpon so many titles as have bin alleadged, and this man not speacke of what he had heard, till

the Author was speechlesse, and in his grave? but the Earle tould it to a friend. What friend? Why is his name concealed, and his relation printed, if it be not, that he neither hath na∣me, nor being? You do not believe that John Stow related the story of the Nagshead to more then one friend because D. Champney doth not name them; and you exact from us to believe, that the Earle of Notingham related the story of Lambeth to one friend, though you do not name him. Yet John Stowes friends had good reasons, why they would not be named by D. Champney, when your Clergy was so powerfull and spitefull in England; but what reason could the Earle of Notinghams friend have not to be named by M. Mason? Did he peradventure feare, that your Clergy would persecute him for endeavoring to maintaine their Orders and credit? do you not see M. Doctor, how ill groun∣ded a fable this is of your first Bishops conse∣cration at Lambeth, that you can not name for it one witnesse allowable; I doe not say, nor exact as you doe, according to the rigour of legal formality, but not so much as by the favour of ordinary probability.

5. You will find on the other side the Nags∣head story much more credible, delivered to us by the tradition, and testimony of the most able persons of our Religion, and Nation. He who gainsaies it, may vpon the same score gain∣say any thing, that is beyond the reach of his memory, or depends vpon the testimony of others. What ground hath any man to fix his

beliefe vpon, but a constant tradition, and te∣stimony, of honest, and knowing persons? Its now à century of yeares since the Nagshead story happened; it hath bin constantly related, and credited by wise men, as a certaine truth, ever since the yeare 1559. It was never contra∣dicted by any, untill it was imagined by our ad∣versaries, that their new Registers might con∣test with our ancient tradition, and make the. Nagshead story seeme improbable, in the yeare 1613. of which no man doubted for the space of 52. yeares before. But they were mistaken be∣cause evident truths, though they relate absurd actions, can not, by any device or art, be ma∣de improbable, untill their evidence be blot∣ted out of the memory of men. Time may wea∣re out writings, and all other monuments, but tradition will last as long as men and time, it is a never decaying evidence, that makes any thing evidently credible, which hath not bin seasonably contradicted, when it mought, and ought to have bin done, especially if with much advantage, and litle difficulty.

6. That there hath bin these hundred yea∣res a constant tradition betweene sober, and wise men, of the Nagshead story, can not be denyed by our Adversaries, vnlesse they be re∣solved to say, that we Catholiques have had no sober, or learned men, since they left vs. I hope the Catholique Bishops, and Doctors of Q. Maries time, were sober and wise men; they believed this story, and recounted it to Persons, Fitzherbert, D. Kellison, Holiwood,

D. Champney, Fitzsimons &c. Persons believed it, and recounted it as a serious truth to many, as is well knowne to F. Henry Silisdon, a man of knowen integrity, and truth, yet living. Fitzherbert, and the rest above named, gave so much credit to it, that they published it in print, as every one may see in their bookes. Therfore this story is farre from being impro∣bable, but is rather evident, as being suppor∣ted by the credit, testemony, and tradition of most wise, and sober Authors, however so im∣probable it may seeme to somme, out of a Pro∣testant zeale, or want of knowledge. But your maine argument against the evidence of this story, is, that all our Catholiques seeme to have it only from M. Neale. Who told this to D. Bluet? * 1.3 Neale. Who told this to Haberley? Neale. Who told it to the rest of the prisoners at Wisbich? Neale. Only Neale. By your leave M. Doctor, you forget yourselfe, for, in an other place o•• your booke, * 1.4 you acknowledge, that M. Consta∣ble writ the story, and he is one of our principal Authors; but he sayes in his relation, (writ∣ten when this story happened) that is was a thing without doubt, because not only M. Neale, but other Catholiques integerrimae fidei, of most intire credit, were eyewitnesses of Scorys ridiculous manner of consecrating Parker, and the rest in the Nagshead Taverne. Yet suppose that M. Neale had bin the only eye∣witnesse of this action, I see nothing that fol∣lowes more cleerly from such a supposition, then this conclusion. Ergo M. Neale must needs

have bin a person of very greate ing enuity, and integrity. Be pleased to turne, and frame your interrogations thus. Who believed M. Neale? D. Watson Bishop of Lincoln. Who believed M. Neale? D. Bluet. Who believed M. Neale? D. Haberley. Who believed M. Neale? All the learned, and vertuous Priests, prisoners for their conscience at Wisbich. Who believed M. Neale? All the Catholiques of England. The conclusion is. Ergo M. Neale was a man that deserved great credit, otherwise you must condemne the greatest heads amongst Catho∣ques, for believing so odd a story, without any credible authority. M. Neale had bin a pro∣fessor in the Vniversity of Oxford, and forfei∣ted his chaire, and livelihood, for not taking the oath of supremacy: It is incredible that he would feigne such a story as that of the Nags∣head, and therby engage the Catholique Church to practise Reordination against our knowen Tenets, and his owne conscience, and by such a relation, declare himselfe to be not only a virulent backbiter, but an impudent Impostor.

7. But now I must prove, that the Nags∣head story is more then probable, not onely for the quality of the persons reporting; and believing it, but also by the very circumstan∣ces, or rather exigences of the time If you looke vpon the Church of England, as it was in the late Kings reigne, it will seeme impro∣bable that men should choose a Taverne for an episcopal consecration: but if we consider

the straight passages through which the said Church was forced to march in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reigne by reason of the noto∣rius want it had of Bishops; it will not appea∣re strange unto vs, that the first protestant su∣perintendents should go to a Taverne with in∣tention to supply there the want of their Church, it being well knowne in those days, that neither Scory, nor Hadgkins, nor Co∣verdale, were consecrated Bishops. And though they had the Keyes of the Churches at their command, they had not the Key of Order, nor the command of the true Bishops hands, or tongues; therfore it was plotted, that old Landaffe should be inveigled to give them a meeting in a Taverne, where with good words, and good cups they hoped to bring the old man to a good humour. But God gave him grace to abstaine from a second scandal, though him∣self had taken the oath of supremacy yet in his judgment he was à Catholique, and more sen∣sible of B. Bonners excomunication ready to be fulminated against him, then D. Bramhall would have his Reader believe. Now, if we will add to this necessity the principles, and incli∣nations of the persons that were to be ordeined Bishops, we shall find there was nothing in the circumstances of the Taverne consecration which makes it incredible; for, the persons were of the opinion then à la Mode, condem∣ning consecration as a point not necessary for Ecclestical power, though not te be refused for publique satisfaction, and seeing no better

could be had, they thought it more expedient to have something presently, which they might give out for Consecration, then to ex∣pect longer for their benefices, which was the buisnes they were about, and sought vvith all care, and speed to bring about.

8. I must returne once more to M. Neale, and complaine of your railing M. Doctor, a∣gainst a learned, and honest man. You call him a spie, brainsick foole, &c. and despise his testimony, because he was not sworne; the credit which as wise men as you, did give him, is an argument that he was no foole, and that he could well distinguish a Consecration din∣ner from an ordination; such a mistake doth not much misbecome a Protestant Courtier, as the Earle of Noting ham was; but it can not be believed of such a Priest, and a Lector of the University of Oxford, as M. Neale. I re∣member when you tooke vpon you in Bruges to confirme some eminent persons of the En∣glish Court, many of the Courtiours were starled at so vnusual a ceremony, as your con∣firmation seemed to them, and were solici∣tous to know what it meant. Why should not the Earle of Notingham be as ignorant of a Protestant consecration, as the Courtiers of Bruges were of your ceremonious confirma∣tion? Especially seing confirmation should be given to all, and therfore frequent, * 1.5 where as Consecration of Bishops happens seldome.

9, To M. Neale, and other Catholiques eye vvitnesses of your Nagshead consecration, ci∣ted

by M. Constable, may be added the testimo∣ny of all the Puritans. who say, that the profa∣ne Order, and Ordination of Protestant Bishops in England, * 1.6 had its beginning, and progresse in a corner not in a congregation. I hope the Archio∣piscopal Chappell of Lambeth is no corner; these words must allude to the Nagshead Ta∣verne (for no other place is heard of but these two) and do prove that your Registers deser∣ve no credit, but that they were forged in a corner. To the Puritans I will aggregate all your English Clergy in the beginning of K. Iames his reigne, when Holiwood printed, how D. Alabaster asked of M. Brancroft pre∣tended Bishop of London, how his first Super∣intendents Parker, &c. were consecrated? he answered, that he hoped, in case of necessity a Priest might ordaine Bishops. This answer de∣monstrats the truth of the Nagshead story, and the forgery of your Records: because all your Clergy did acquiesce to Brancroft answer, not one of them had a word to oppose against F. Holivvoods booke, and by their silence proved themselves our witnesses. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

10. Now M. Doctor, that we have produ∣ced the grounds, circumstances, and witnesses of the Nagshead story, and of your solemne consecration at Lambeth, let vs compare one with the other, that the Reader may judge, which of both ought to be credited. Our story of the Nagshead, is grounded vpon a constant tradition of a hundred yeares, betweene wise

and sober persons; which tradition can not be counterfeited, because no human industry can reach, or spread so farre, as to speake the sa∣me thing by so different mouthes, and inte∣rest, as there are amongst our witnesses, Ca∣tholiques, Puritans, and Protestants. But the ground of your protestant consecration at Lambeth, comes farre short of what yee in∣tend to prove by it; for, your ground is your Register, vvhich appeared not (being called for neere a hundred yeares ago) vntill the yeare 1613. And besides, it might be as ease∣ly counterfeited, as any other writing by one, or fewe hands without the concurrence, or conspiracy of so many hands, heads, and op∣posite interests, as would have bin necessary for the counterfeiting of one Tradition. So that as to the grounds of both stories, ours is the more credible.

11. As for circumstances, which must rela∣te to the place, tyme, and persons, there is no doubt that our story hath the advantage. The place of your pretended consecration (Lam∣beth) vvas never named (even in your Ha∣novv Register) vntill 1613. Our story named the Nagshead Taverne from the beginning. As for the persons, their conscience, and reli∣gion; we have also the better; for you have seene how litle in those dayes your religion valued Ordination, and your first Bishops conscience could make no scruple, to act, and receive in a Taverne, what they judged to be no act of religion. As for the danger of Pre∣munires,

or other penalties, they could not feare any; having in their comission an ample dispensation to do what they pleased against the Statutes, and Canons, as hath bin demon∣strated in the 2. Chap. And finaly the last cir∣cumstance, which is of time, and persons, doth so divide the relations of your writers, vvho speake of this consecration at Lambeth, that their contradictions are a sufficient proofe of your forged records, because relations drawne out of true records can not vary in the names, and nomber of persons, in the month, or day, which of course are expressed with great ex∣actnes. You can find no such contradictions in the Nagshead story.

12. But now let vs reflect vpon the number, and quality of the witnesses. Ours are not on∣ly M. Neale, but others of most intire credit, spectators of the Nagthead Consecration, as M. Constable writ in their owne life times, nee∣re a hundred yeares ago; but yee never na∣med any eyewitnesse but one, the Earle of Notingham, eyther dead when he was cited, or if alive in a manner, and lesse credible then if he had bin dead. Our eye witnesses related the story of the Nagshead to D. Watson Bis∣hop of Lincolns, D. Bluet, D. Haberley, M. Constable, John Stow, to the Priests prisoners at Wisbich, &c. but your one witnesse never related the story of Lambeth to any that had a name, but only is sayd by M. Mason, to ha∣ve told it to a namelesse friend. Our witnesses published the story of the Nagshead in the ve∣ry

beginning as soone as it happened; but your Witnesse never published that of Lambeth, but told it privatly to a friend, as if forsooth, it had bin a secret, or a prejudice to his Church. The testimony of our witnesses agreeth with the principles of your reformation, with the 25. article of your religion, with your translations of scripture, with the statuts, 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. and with the confession of Bancroft, and the tacite consent of all your ancient Clergy of En∣gland; and with the publique testimony of all the Puritans in print, the testimony of your one Witnesse, and Records, are irreconcilable with the foresaid evidences. Now judge M. Doctor, who deserves most credit, one yong gallant (in case the earle ever shold have said what Mason pretends) invited to a banket, or many knowing men, eyewitnesses of the fact? An an∣cient, and constant tradition of learned, and honest men, agreable to your owne principles of religion, to the confession of your owne Do∣ctors, ad to the statuts of the land; or a new∣found Register, never cited, nor produced (though earnestly called for) untill the season, and occasion was past; diametricaly opposite to your owne articles of faith, and to the prin∣ciples of your Church, and to the evidence of your statuts. I hope that neither you, nor any other, will be so obstinate, as hereafter to preferre the relation of an obscure scrole, hid∣den for the space of 52. yeares, (the best, and greatest part of the age of your protestant Church) be fore the cleere, and publique tra∣dition

of so many eminent persons that related, and credited the Nagshead story. But in case that you, or any other of your communion, should not be perswaded by so evident reasons to a truth so credible, I must attribute your blind obstinacy to a most refined heresy, which not only depraves the will, and obscures the understanding, but also deprives men of com∣mon sense, and makes them walke, and wan∣der in darknesse applauding, and extolling with as greate zeale, and as litle discretion, their invisible Records, as your protestant forefa∣thers did their invisible Church.

13. And now M. Doctor, I believe you will pitty the late Kings misfortune, and wish that he had guien way to the Parliament, to pull doune parliament Bishops, who had neither hu∣man, nor divine right to temporal benefices, or spiritual offices. * 1.7 Though it be no pitty that I was not of his Councell, its greate pitty that he was not better informed of your Orders; had he bin pleased to advise, in time vpon this sub∣ject, your superficiall formality had never bin able, to roote out his posterity, of their well grounded right to three Kindomes. And truly if the Jesuits Colleges had no more right to the plate of their Churches, and revenues, then yee have to your bishoprickes, and benefices, I wold not crye out with Ploiden (as you imagine) the case is altered; * 1.8 but would perswade them to restitution, and exhort you to the same, if this charitable office had not bin prevented by Di∣vine justice, depriving your Clergy of what

they so wrong fully possessed. Yet notwithstan∣ding your miserable condition, you are pleased to say, that yee are our feare, and hate. We love your persons, hate your errours, wonder at your obstinacy, pardon your former cruel∣ties, and present contumelies, pitty your mi∣sery, and much more your blindnes the cause of your misery: neyther enuy your talents, nor feare your power, but continually pray to the Father of mercies, that he may vouchsafe to enlighten your Clergy, and by them open the eyes of others misled by their errours.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 125.
• * 1.2

  Confut. Apol. fol. 57. & 59. edit. an. 1566.
• * 1.3

  Pag. 132.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 32.
• * 1.5

  Fitz. Si∣mons in Britan. Pag. 317.
• * 1.6

  Demon∣strat. dis∣ciplina cap. 8. §. 1. & 2. pag. 43.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 238.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 239.