Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	lord_n	nottingham_n	3,121	5	13.6957	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29194	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 ...	Bramhall, John, 1594-1663.	1658 (1658)	Wing B4216; ESTC R24144	93,004	246

rest of the English Catholick Doctors who did forsake all at home for Conscience sake would publish to the world in print the Nullity of Parkers Ordination thereby engaging posterity to commit so many damnable Sacrileges in reordeining those who had been validly ordeined already without due examination of the matter This plea is much like that of the old Roman that his Adversary did not receive the wound with his whole body that he might have killed him fairly They would have us rather put up the losse of our Holy Orders then the skill of their Doctors should be questioned If Reordinatiō be damnable Sacrilege the Authority of your own Doctors may be a fit medium to convince yourselves of Sacrilege not us of the Invalidity of our Ordination I hope Stephen the sixth and Sergius the third two Popes were other manner of men then your English Doctors and did both pretend to examine the matter as duely and to be as a verse from damnable Sacrilege as you yet they decreed publickly and most unjustly as you yourselves doe now confesse that all the holy Orders received from Formosus were void and compelled all those who had been ordeined by him to be reordeined Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 12. Mr. Mason cited the Testimony of a witnesse beyond all exception Charles Howard Earle of Nottingham Lord High Admirall of England who acknowledged Archbishop Parker to be his Kinsman and that he was an invited Guest at his Cōsecration at Lambeth To this the Fathers reply If this were true it proves onely that there was a good Dinner at Lambeth which might well be to conceale the shamefull Consecration at the Nagge 's head It proves there was a good Consecration as well as a good Dinner the words are to honour his Consecration and the solemnity thereof with his presence It had been something uncivill to encumber the Tavern with a Consecration and not stay dinner there The Earle was invited to the Consecration at Lambeth therefore it was at Lambeth The Earle was not at the Nagge 's head Mr. Neale himself who see more then ever was acted or so much as thought of did not see that Is it the Custome when one is invited to a Consecration to come after it is done to dinner or to invite a Nobleman to a Consecration in one place and then be consecrated in another This had been so farre from concealing the shamefulnesse of such a brainsick Consecration that it been a ready meanes to divulge it to all the world They adde Besides we must take the Earles Friends word for the Earles Testimony and Mr. Masons word for his namelesse Friend That is none of Mr. Masons fault but Mr. Holywoods Mr. Constables Mr. Sacroboscoes Dr. Champneys Mr. Fitz Herberts Mr Fitz-Simons who first broached this odious Fable Mr. Mason published this relation to the world in print while the Earle was yet living on purpose that they might enquire and satisfy themselves if they did not they can blame no body but themselves if they did by themselves or their Friends as it is most likely they did it is evident the answer did not content them and so we never heard more of them since It had been the greatest folly in the world to allege the Testimony of such a Noble man in his Life time contrary to his own knowledge which might have been disproved from his own Authority and so have easily laid Mr. Mason flat upon his back You may remember your own case with the Bishop of Durham But it was too true to be contradicted then and too late to be Contradicted now They say they bring more then one witnesse of the Nagge 's head Consecration Pardon me You never produced one yet and which is lesse then producing you never so much as named a witnesse whilst he himself was living In or about the yeare 1603. you first named Mr. Neale and innocent Iohn Stow when they were both dead you might as well have named the man in the Moone as Iohn Stow. Onely I confesse you named the Bishop of Durham in his life time and you see what is the issue of it and if you had named the others in their life times you must have expected a like issue either the perpetuall infamy of your witnesse or the utter confusion of your Cause You speake much of the learning and virtue and judgement of your hearsay Witnesses who knew how to distinguish between an Episcopall Consecration and a banquet I hope you doe not meane that the Earle of Nottingham did not know how to distinguish between a banquet and a Consecration if he did not the High Admiralship of England was ill committed to him or that he had not as much regard to his honour and Conscience as any of your Priests We meddle not with their Learning and virtue but we are no more obliged to take their Testimonies upon hearsay then they would take our Testimonies They have givē an account to God and know before this time whether they have done well or ill They proceed The Priests and Iesuits to whom the Recordes were shewed in King Iames his time protested against them as forged and improbable as appeareth by the Testimony of men yet living whose honesty cannot be called in question Father Faircloth one of the imprisoned Iesuits testified so much to many by word of mouth and in writing Where is the writing where is the protestation why are they not produced Still here are no proofes but upon Hearsay One eye Witnesse is worth an hundred such who can sweare to no more but that they heard it and God knowes through how many Hucksters hands I hope the Bishop of Durhams case will make them more wary for the future But they are angry with some Protestants who endeavour to make this well grounded story a meer Fable and thereby call many persons of much more learning virtue and prudence then themselves Fooles or knaves We are plain Macedonians who call a Fable a Fable without either welt or gard yea so notorious a Fable that but that you tell us the Contrary we could not believe that any one of you did ever give any credit to it your selves any more then the Athenians did believe those monstrous Fables of Bulls and Minotaures which themselves had raised because some of their eminent Citizens had devised it or related it But we call no men Fooles or Knaues That langguage is too unmannerly for civill Writers What new Topick is this because we cannot beleeve a ●mans relation or his Iudgement do we straightway call him Foole or Knave Excuse me there are credulity and prejudice and mistakes and pious frauds in the world and none of these will willingly weare the Livery of Knaves or Fooles We are not of the same mind with Pope Stephen and Pope Sergius for the reordeining of those who had been ordeined by Formosus yet we do not call them knaves or Fooles We cannot beleeve what you yourselves have

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 persons that might then be living and remember vvhat passed in the beginning of Queen E●isabeths reign is so farre from truth that Mr. Mason nameth a witnesse beyond all exception that was invited to Arch Bishop Parkers Consecration 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 Records 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 published 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. VVilliam 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 Holywood against him and all the English Clergy in the yeare 1603 not a word replied 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 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 Hodgskings two undoubted Bishops otherwi●e Gardiner and Bonner and Tunstall and Thurleby and the rest were no Bishops the Ordination was as Canonicall as for one Bishop and two Mitred 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 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 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 extraordinarily by Papall dispensation may ordein Bishops The essentialls of Sacraments doe consist in indivisibili once Essentiall alwaies Essentiall whether ordinarily or extraordinarily whether with dispensation or without So this Question whether a Priest in case of Necessity may ordein Bishops doth concern them much but us not at all But for my part I believe the whole Relation is feined for so much as concerneth Bishop Bancroft They adde or the one of them I have spoken vvith both Catholicks and Protestants 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 Rhemes 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 reason to know the right value of our Ecclesiasticall Records and the truth of our affaires then any whom you convers● withall The Authours proceed This Narration of the Consecration at the Nagge 's head have I taken out of Holywood 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 Catholicks present at Parkers Consecration in the Nagge 's 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 Wisbich 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 Consecration supposed to be a Cla●de●●ine Action It is not credible without a Pl●● between Neale and the Host of the Nagge 's head to put him and his fellowes for that day into Drawers habits least the Bishops