the age of ninety-five years, it will be held no crime to say, or improbable to believe, that one of that great age may at least forget what he spake so many years since. For the two certificates of the other lords, that of the temporal [lords] says little to my lord of Derry's purpose; neither with an indifferent (impartial) judgment can that of the spiritual (lords, i. e. bishops) work much. For my part, I do not say that any or all their lordships, whose names are put to the certificate in the book, were in the house at the time; or, if any of them were, that they took notice of what my lord of Durham spake: for many discourses are made in Parliament, and little notice taken of them; neither had I of this, but that it was to me a new thing. The clerk of the Parliament is also brought in to certify, though as to my note, his pains might have been spared; for I do not mention a book presented, and, consequently, none to be recorded and as for speeches, I do assure his lordship, on the authority of an old parliament-man, that it is not the office of the clerk to record them, (his work would be too great) till it be a result or a conclusion, and then he writes them down as orders, ordinances, etc. of parliament. I will end the short and faithful defence which I have been necessitated to make for myself, with many thanks to my Lord of Derry for his charity and opinion of my ingenuity (honesty,' from the Latin ingenuus,) and seeing his lordship's inclination in this matter is to absolve me from a malicious lie, I will absolve him as to the mistakes either in the person or matter, assuring his lordship and all the world, that there is none. ."* The temperate and Christian tone of this defence is no bad voucher of its truth. : To the testimonies in support of the narrative of the * Nullity of the Prelatic Clergy, p. 89. Nag's-head consecration, many objections, as may naturally be supposed, have been made. Most of these are very trivial; some of them do not at all touch on the real difficulty, and only impeach the consistency of some Catholic writers who have maintained its truth; and only a few present any appearance of real difficulty. I proceed now briefly to notice all the objections that are usually urged by the advocates of Anglican orders against the narrative of this extraordinary event. First. It is not likely that Landaff, who had already incurred ecclesiastical censures, by taking the oath of supremacy, would have been afraid of Bonner's threat of excommunication. Answer. This is by no means unlikely; because, on one occasion, he acted without regard to the threat of excommunication in order to keep possession of his see, it does not follow that he would do so again, when so great an interest was not at stake. Besides, although he had incurred the penalty of excommunication, by taking the oath of supremacy, it does not appear that that sentence had been actually pronounced upon him. Now Bonner's excommunication was to be actually fulminated by Neal. Secondly. It does not appear probable that Kitchin would have been moved by the threat of a man in prison, as Bonner then was. Answer. There is no improbability in the supposition, when that threat was of a spiritual character, the execution of which could not be prevented by Bonner's imprisonment. Thirdly. Bonner could not have a chaplain, while he was confined in the tower. Answer. It is certain that he had. Fourth. Bonner and Neal would thus have incurred the penalty of a premunire; now this penalty was never inflicted on them. Answer. A man who, like Bonner, exchanged a palace for a prison, rather than violate his conscience, was not likely to care much for a premunire. There were obvious reasons for not enforcing the law.* Fifth. Mr. Neal, who says he was present, could not say whether it was on the head or shoulders. Answer. Let any one place a large book on the inclined head of a person kneeling, and he will be able to say, "head or shoulders," precisely as Mr. Neal. Sixth. Ward makes the Nag's-head consecration to have taken place before the 9th of September; whereas the Queen's commission did not issue before the 6th of December following. Answer. Whether Ward is right or not, makes no matter in this investigation. The genuine commission of the 9th of September, proves that the consecration, if any ever took place, must have been shortly after the 9th of that month. As to the commission of the 6th December, I will prove, in a subsequent chapter, that its authenticity is, at least, very doubtful. Seventh. The silence of the Roman Catholics for upwards of forty-five years after the event is supposed to have taken place, forms a strong presumption against this alleged fact. Answer. Were this silence certain, it would not disprove the truth of the narrative, as will be evident by considering the condition of the Catholics during these forty * For Bonner's boldness of character, see Wood's "Athena Oxonienses." Art. "Bonner." five years. The sanguinary persecution which the Catholics suffered in the reign of Elizabeth, sufficiently shows that, far from having the liberty of publishing, they were obliged to avoid, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, even the external worship of their religion. Hence, those Catholic writers, and they were many, who denied the consecration of the English bishops, were forced to publish their works on the continent of Europe, principally in the Low Countries; and every conceivable impediment was opposed to their introduction into England during the reign of Elizabeth. The supposed silence of Catholic writers, even were it as real as it is imaginary, is, consequently, no argument against the Nag's-head consecration narrative. But they were not silent. I have shown, in the third chapter of this book, that, from the year 1563 up to the time of the publication of Mason's book, the Protestant bishops were reproached with having received no consecration; and although this, of itself, may not prove the Nag's-head story, it certainly is conclusive against the supposed consecration at Lambeth; and is, as will be presently seen, intimately connected with the mock consecration at Cheapside. Mason's work professes, in the title-page, to clear the English bishops and clergy, "from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Endemon, Becanus, and other Romanists." What these "slanders and odious imputations" were, we learn from the work of Mason, who, far from decrying the Nag's-head consecration as a recent fiction, supplies the most positive evidence of the contrary. He shows very clearly that the fact was, before his writing, very generally believed. This of the Nagges head," says he, "thought it goe currant at Rome, and be blazed for a trueth, through the world by men of your rancke, It is evident from the words of Heylin, already quoted in page 80, that the matter was noised abroad, and published in seditious pamphlets, shortly after the event. And, indeed, how otherwise could an ordinary dinner-party, after the lapse of fifty years, be supposed to have given rise to so improbable a rumour? According to Fuller, "Sanders (who died in 1583) lewdly lies that these new elected bishops, out of good fellowship, mutually consecrated each other." The same was also affirmed of Sanders by Dr. Kellison, as we learn from Mason, who, however, says that Sanders mentions no such thing. It may not, perhaps, be found in his "History of the English Schism," which of all his works is the one most generally known: but these testimonies render it probable that he mentioned it in some other of his numerous works. The denial of Mason is, consequently, inconclusive. We have the positive testimony of Bishop Godwin that Harding mentioned it, and that no one had then as yet denied it. The words of Fuller, shew that long before Kellison and Holliwood (Sacrobosco), the Nag's head narrative was publicly declared by Parsons and Constable. "But when once one Jesuite had got this shameless lie of the Nag's head (I cannot say by the tail, but) by the ears, instantly Champney, Fitzsimmons, Parsons, Kellison, and Constable, and all the whole kennel of them, baule it out in their books to all posterity."§ The only refutation, or rather attempt at * Mason, p. 123. + See |