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
A62542	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.	Talbot, Peter, 1620-1680.	1659 (1659)	Wing T117; ESTC R38284	70,711	150

confuted and retorted in the 3. Chap. And your 8. and 9. Reasons from the statute 8. Elizab. and the Register in the lives of the 70. Archbishops of Canterbury are also proved to be against yourselfe in the 2. and 3. Chapters CHAP. VIII The vvitnesses of the Nagshead story do exceed those of the fabulous Consecration at Lambeth both in number and in authority and the constant tradition of the said story doth manifest the forgery of M. Masons Register 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 Pag. 125. who had justified the legality of your Ordinations and cited your Registers as authentique Records before himselfe wherof the first is Jewell How false this is may be evident by Jewells answer to Harding wherin he cites no Registers though his adversary called for them expressely Confut. Apol. fol. 57. 59. edit an 1566. 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 testimony it availeth litle both because he vvas not so bold as to put downe a thing so disadvētagious to his Clergy and dangerous to himselfe as also because you cite not his first edition which should have bin cited for although 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 Cambden for feare of displeasing others lert out sundry particulars well knowne to himselfe 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 orders 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 consecration and M. Clerke approved well of his caution because in dubiis tutior pars sequenda in doubtfull matters we must follow the securest 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 peruse the Register after the consecration and to give her an account whether it was performed Canonically returned her this answer that he had perused the Register and that no just exception could be made against the Consecration 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 Queene 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 relation from the Lords and Courtiours that assisted 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 Advocate of the Arches to give her an account whether the consecration was performed Canonically 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 consideration 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. Higgins 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 matter 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 believe the same but that only proves their credulity and cleeres not your Register from forgery Yet this story we must believe vpon your word wherin all they will have greate difficulty that read in the 1. Chap. how falsely you accuse the Jesuits and imprisoned Priests of acknowledging that your Register was beyond exception 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 done you lesse service then that

would have cost or served him was he dead I see no more signes in this then in other occasions of Gods favourable 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 name 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 grounded a fable this is of your first Bishops consecration 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 gainsay 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 testimony of honest and knowing persons It s 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 contradicted by any untill it was imagined by our adversaries that their new Registers might contest 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 because evident truths though they relate absurd actions can not by any device or art be made improbable untill their evidence be blotted out of the memory of men Time may weare 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 yeares a constant tradition betweene sober and wise men of the Nagshead story can not be denyed by our Adversaries vnlesse they be resolved 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 improbable but is rather evident as being supported by the credit testemony and tradition of most wise and sober Authors however so improbable it may seeme to somme out of a Protestant 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 Pag. 132. 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 Pag. 32. you acknowledge that M. Constable writ the story and he is one of our principal Authors but he sayes in his relation written 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 followes 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 Cathoques for believing so odd a story without any credible authority M. Neale had bin a professor in the Vniversity of Oxford and forfeited 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 circumstances 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 improbable 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 notorius want it had of Bishops it will not appeare strange unto vs that the first protestant superintendents should go to a Taverne with intention to supply there the want of their Church it being well knowne in those days that neither Scory nor Hadgkins nor Coverdale 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