V. of Nottingham's tes timony.] But whereas they add, that "Mr. Mason was afraid to be DISCOURSE convinced by some aged persons that might then be living, and remember what passed in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's The Earl reigu," [this] is so far from truth, that Mr. Mason nameth a witness beyond all exception, that was invited to Archbishop Parker's consecration at Lambeth, as being his kinsman, and was present there, the Earl of Nottingham, Lord High Admiral of England. Why did none of their authors go to him, or employ some of their friends to inquire of him? The case is clear; they were more afraid of conviction,' and 463" to be caught in a lie," than Mr. Mason; who laid not the foundation of his discourse upon loose prittle-prattle, but upon the firm foundation of original records. They say, "In the year 1603, none of the Protestant clergy durst call it a fable, as some now do." I am the man, I did call it so, I do call it so. Such a blind relation as this is, of a business pretended to be acted in the year 1559, being of such consequence as whereupon the succession of the Church of England did depend, and never published until after the year 1600, as if the Church of England had neither friends nor enemies, deserveth to be styled a tale of a tub, and no better. They add, "Bancroft Bishop of London, being demanded [Of Bishop Bancroft.] by Mr. William Alabaster how Parker and his colleagues were consecrated Bishops, answered, He hoped that in case of necessity a priest (alluding to Scory) might ordain Bishops; this answer of his was objected in print by Holywood, against him and all the English clergy, in the year 1603; not a word replied, Bancroft himself being then living " [Mason, bk. iii. c. 7. § 5. See below c. ix. in fine.] i [Bramhall's pen has outrun his thoughts in this sentence. In the year 1603 he was a boy of ten years old. The true answer to Talbot is, of course, that no one could deny in 1603 what was not affirmed until 1604.] k [Alabaster (a clergyman of some reputation, who went over to the Romish Church, when in Spain as chaplain to the Earl of Essex on the Cadiz expedition in 1596, but returned almost immediately afterwards both to the English Church and to England) held preferment in Hertfordshire, and k a prebendal stall in St. Paul's (accord. PART I. And why might not Holywood be misinformed of the Bishop of London, as well as you yourselves were misinformed of the Bishop of Durham? This is certain, he could not allude to Bishop Scory, who was consecrated a Bishop in the reign of Edward the Sixth, as by the records of those times appeareth, unless you have a mind to accuse all records of forgery. If you have any thing to say against Bishop Scory's consecration, or of any of them who joined in ordaining Archbishop Parker, spare it not; we will not seek help of an Act of Parliament to make it good. In sum, I do not believe a word of what is said of Bishop Bancroft, 'sub modo'as it is here set down; nor that this accusation did ever come to the knowledge of that prudent Prelate; if it did, he had greater matters to trouble his head withal than Mr. Holywood's bables: but if ever such 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 hominem,'— that though both Bishop Scory and Bishop Coverdale had been but simple priests (as they were complete Bishops), yet, joining with Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgskins, two undoubted Bishops (otherwise Gardiner, and Bonner, and Tonstall, and Thirlby, and the rest, were no Bishops), the ordination was as canonical as for one Bishop and two mitred Abbots to consecrate a Bishop (which you allow in case of necessity"), or one Bishop and two simple presbyters to consecrate a Bishop by Papal dispensation". 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 essentials of Christ's own institution. They teach, that it is grievous sacrilege to change the matter of this Sacrament. They teach, that the matter of Episcopal ordination is imposition of hands of three Bishops upon the person consecrated. And yet with them, one Bishop and two Abbots, or one Bishop and two simple priests extraordinarily by Papal dispensation, may ordain Bishops. The essentials of Sacraments do consist ‘in indivisibili;' once essential, always essential; whether ordinarily, V. or extraordinarily; whether with dispensation, or without. DISCOURSE So this question, whether a priest in case of necessity may ordain Bishops, doth concern them much, but us not at all. But for my part, I believe the whole relation is feigned, for so much as concerneth Bishop Bancroft. posed au thorities for the story.] They add, or the one of them, "I have spoken with both [The supCatholics and Protestants, that remember near eighty years, and acknowledge, that so long they have heard the Nag's Head story related as an undoubted truth." Where, I wonder? Sooner in Rome, or Rheims, or Douay, than in England; and sooner in a corner, than upon the exchange. You have heard from good authors of the swan's singing, and the pelican's pricking of her breast with her bill; but you are wiser than to believe such groundless fictions. I produce you seven of the ancient Bishops of England, some of them near a hundred years old, who do testify, that it is a "groundless fable ";" yet they have more reason to know the right value of our ecclesiastical records, and the truth of our affairs, than any whom you converse withal. The authors proceed, "This narration of the consecration at the Nag's Head, have I taken out of Holywood, Constable, and Dr. Champney's works." They heard it from many "of 464 the ancient clergy, who were prisoners for the Catholic religion in Wisbeach Castle, as Mr. Bluet, Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and others. These had it from the said Mr. Neale and other Catholics present at Parker's consecration in the Nag's Head, as Mr. Constable affirms P." Here is nothing but hearsay upon hearsay; such evidence would not pass at a trial for a lock of goat's wool. Holywood and the rest had it from some of the Wisbeach prisoners: and the Wisbeach prisoners heard it from Mr. Neale "and others." What "others"? had they no names? did Bishop Bonner send more of his chaplains than one to be spectators of the consecration? and they who were to be consecrated,. [Above p. 33.] P[In the year 1582, Bishop Watson, Feckenham Abbot of Westminster, and other Romanist Priests (among the rest Bluet and Haberley), were committed prisoners to Wisbeach Castle; which became thenceforward, until the middle of the reign of James I., the head quarters of the Romanist party 1. PART permit them being adversaries to continue among them during the consecration, supposed to be a clandestine action? It is not credible, without a plot between Neale and the host of the Nag's Head, to put him and his fellows for that day into drawers' habits, lest 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 year 1600; until then it was kept close in lavender. Bishop Watson lived splendidly with the Bishops of Ely and Rochester at the time of Archbishop Parker's consecration, and a long time after, before he was removed to Wisbeach Castle. If there had been any such thing really acted, and so notoriously known as they pretend, Bishop Watson and the other prisoners must needs have known it long before that time, when Mr. Neale is supposed to have brought them the first news of it. The whole story is composed of inconsistencies. That which quite spoileth their story, is, that Archbishop Parker was never present at any of these consecrations, otherwise called confirmation dinners; but it may be, the merry host shewed Mr. Neale Dr. Bullingham for Archbishop Parker, and told him what was done in the withdrawing room, which (to gain more credit to his relation) he feigned that he had seen, out of pure zeal. [Dr. Stapleton says nothing of it, but rests his objections on other grounds.] Howsoever, they say, "the story was divulged to the great grief of the newly consecrated, yet being so evident a truth, they durst not contradict it." We must suppose that these Fathers have a privilege to know other men's hearts, but let that pass. Let them tell us, how it was "divulged," by word or writing; when and where it was "divulged," whilst they were "newly consecrated;" who "divulged" it, and to whom. If they can tell us none of all this, it may pass for a great presumption, but it cannot pass for a proof. 25. But they say, that "not only the nullity of the consecra [Watson was sent to the Tower April 5, 1559, but set at liberty June He was in the Tower again in 1560; and in the custody successively of Bp. Guest of Rochester and Bp. Cox of Ely from thence until 1582, when he was committed to Wisbeach Castle, for intriguing with foreign emissaries. He died in 1584. See Strype, Annals I. 1. 210-214.-Godwin-Br. Willis, Cathedr.] 465 V. tion, but also the illegality of the same, was objected in print DISCOURSE against them not long after, by that famous writer Dr. Stapleton and others." We look upon Dr. Stapleton as one of the most rational heads that your Church hath had since the separation; but speak to the purpose, Fathers,-did Dr. Stapleton print one word of the Nag's Head Consecration? You may be sure he would not have balked it, if there had been any such thing; but he did balk it,-because there was no such thing. No, no, Dr. Stapleton's pretended illegality was upon another ground, because he dreamed that King Edward's statute was repealed by Queen Mary, and not restored by Queen Elizabeth; for which we have an express Act of Parliament against him in the point; and his supposed invalidity was, because they were not consecrated 'ritu Romano'.' If you think Dr. Stapleton hath said any thing that is material, to prove the invalidity or nullity of our consecration, take your bows and arrows and shoot over his shafts again, and try if you do not meet with satisfactory answers, both for the institution of Christ, and the canons of the Catholic Church, and the laws of England. You say, "Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops, [Of the sta tute passed not being able to answer the Catholic arguments against the 8 Eliz c.1.] invalidity of their ordination," &c.-Words are but wind; the Church of England wanted not orthodox sons enough to cope with Stapleton and all the rest of your emissaries ;nor to cry down the illegal and extravagant manner of it at the Nag's Head ;"-how should they cry down that which never had been cried up in those days? we condemn that form of ordination which you feign to have been used at the Nag's Head, as "illegal and extravagant," and (which weigheth more than both of them) invalid, as much as yourselves;-they were forced to beg an Act of Parliament, whereby they might enjoy the temporalties notwithstanding the known defects of their consecration," &c. 66 O ingenuity! whither art thou fled out of the world? Say, where is this petition to be found? in the records of Utopia? Did the Parliament ever make any such establishment of their temporalties, more than of their spiritual |