1. TO the first argument, deduced from the authority of our Ca­tholique Doctors, charging in their printed bookes your first superintendents vvith vvant of Episcopal consecration, some five or six yea­res after you pretend it vvas so solemnly per­formed at Lambeth, you give no other ansvver; Pag. 167. but that you regard not their judgment, and autho­rity, beause they give no cause, or reason of their Knovvledge. Ipray, Mr. Doctor, vvhat greater cause of Knovvledge can ther be of the not being of a visible, and publicque solemnity, then the not being seene, or heard of by kno­vving parsons, vvho made it their busines to inquire after it, in the very same time, and place vvherin its pretended to have bin acted? To say that D. Harding, Stapleton, Bristovv, Reynolds, and others, should object in print against your protestant Bishops, vvant of or­dination, vvithout inquiring, and examining vvhether they vvere ordained or no, is in equi­valent termes, to call them fooles, and Knaves, Pag. 207. hovvever averse you pretend to be from so unma­nerly language; your attributing the obiections of these great Doctors to credulity, and preiu­dice, doth rather increase, then diminish the [Page 2]jury, for, you ought to knovv, that credulity contradicted by publique and obvious eviden­ce; is of the grosser sort of foolery, and preju­dice that makes men slight such evidence, is the most malicious knavery: neither of both can be layd to the charge of so learned, and honest persons, as the foresaid Doctors, who would never presse Parker, and his fellovves, to shevv the register, and hovv, and by vvhom, they re­ceived Episcopal Orders, if there had bin in tho­se days as publique, and authentique registers, as now yee pretend.

2. To this you say, that none of our Doctors did ever vrge any such thing, as required that yee should cite the registers, in prudence. And that the [...]re vvas no pressing to produce Registers. What thē? Doe not men in à suite of lavv produce what is for their manifest advantage of their ovvne accord? I am sure you bring many things, you thinke advantagious, which neyther any per­son, nor reason pressed you to doe. But that they were pressed immediately after, you may learne out of D. Harding.

We say likvvise to you M.r Ievvel, Confut. apol. fol. 57. & 59. edit an. 1566.and to each of your companions, shevv vs the register of your Bishops, &c. Shevv vs the letters of your orders. But order you have not: for, vvho could give that to you of all these nevv Ministers, hovv soever el­se you call them, vvhich he hath not himselfe Yet I must confesse it vvas prudence in your first Bishops, not to cite the registers, though D. Harding called for them; because it was bet­ter, by their silence, to acknowledge, the want [Page 3]of registers, then to prove themselves impo­stors, by producing them in a time, wherin their forgery had bin discovered by thousands of witnesses incase they were forged then, and not afterwards, when ordination was grow­ne into more credit. And as I commend the prudent silence of your first Bishops, so I must condemne your silly answer in averring, that the registers or records, vvere cited in print, Pag. 112.and alleaged by the Parliament in the publique lavves of the Kingdome, of which our Doctors, that desi­red to see some evidence of Parkers consecra­tion, could pleade no ignorance: wheras it is notorious that the act of Parliament 8. Eliz. which as yow pretend (but without any grovvnd, as shall be proved here after) makes mention of the records of Parkers consecra­tion at Lambeth, vvas made at least à yeare af­ter your Register was called for and our Do­ctors had objected to your Bishops the nullity, and illegality, of their ordination; and the booke of the 70. Archbishops of Canterbury was printed 1572. seven yeares after that D. Harding had called for the same Register, and Letters of their Orders. Though he was a wi­se man, I hope he might pleade ignorance of what then vvas not as much as thought of, vvhen he vvrit, nor indeed ever after by any, but your selfe; vvho confounds the records of Kings, and Queens letters patents, vvith the registers of the Archbishops of Canterbury.

3. Another reason against the pretended con­secration of your first protestant superinten­dents, [Page 4]vvas, the contradictions of your ovvne Authors vpon this subject, disagreeing in the persons of the consecraters, and in the time of their consecrations. These contradictions you call innocent mistakes, and thinke to excuse them by the retractation of the Authors, who desired that they might be corrected by Mr. Masons newfound registers, Pag. 176.177. & 178. which you com­pare to the sun diall, wherby all clockes, and Clerks must be regulated, when the sun shi­neth out. It seemes Mr Doctor, that the sun never shined vpon your church, vntill Mr Ma­sons tecords were printed, for if it had, Mr Goduin, Mr Sutcliffe, and Mr Butler, three of the most famous Clerks amongst you, infallibly vvould have consulted the sundial; and their judgements, and bookes concerning your con­secrations, had not bin so different. How co­mes this sun to be more then fifty yeares vn­der a cloud, if it vvas not, that your new regi­sters might participate in some measure, of the ould invisibility, of your Church? Doe yow imagine, that learned, and sober men, would venture to write, and publish to the world a matter of such importance, as the consecration of your first Bishops, vvithout consulting the registers therof if any such had bin exstant, or visible when they vnder­tooke the worke? were they paradventure ignorant of the place where this sun did shine? Or were they negligent in setting their clocks to it? Nheiter can be presumed of so eminent persons as you make them. But your compari­son [Page 5]of Masons records to the sun, or sundial, is very improper; for, if the suns motion were as irregular, as those registers are incoherent, the sun would be as unfit for a measure of ti­me, as those are for a proofe of truth. But if one should mistake for the sun à false Meteor, called a Parhelion, and set his clock by the light of a cloud, he would guide the towne, as you do your Church: and men of understan­dingh would be as litle regulated by such a dial, or clock, as Fitzherbert was perswaded by Masons registers at their first appearance, who suspected them of forgery by the latenes­se of their discovry as you may see in his boo­ke of D. Andrevvs absurdities, falsities, lyes, &c.

4. Pag. 158. But yovv regard not Mr Fitzherherts su­spicions at all. What are the suspicions of a priva­te stanger, to the vvel knovvn credit of a publique register? If you Mr Doctor, had not bin a stran­ger to such pious and learned bookes as Poli­cy and Religion, and others composed by F. Fitzherbert, and had informed your selfe how long he lived, you would not have spoken so strangely, and ignorantly, of his Knowledge in his owne countreys affairs, nor so contemp­tibly of his discovery, of Andrevvs absurdities. But you say his suspicions can vveigh no more then his roasons, that is, just nothing. Doth it weigh nothing in your judgement, that this register should be called for so frequently, and earnestly in the beginning of Queen Elizbeths reigne, when some evidence was desired by the Catholique Doctors of your first Bishops [Page 6]consecration; and that neither it selfe should be cited, nor any other authenticall proofe therof produced by Parker; Ievvel or any of the rest; and that after fifty yeares it should ap­peare, when none called for it, and they were dead, whom it most imported, and the time of your Protestant Prelatique Church was mo­re then halfe expired? do you call this obscu­re, and forged scroll, a well known, and publi­que register? I am confident, that in any pru­dential balance, the suspicion, and reasons of Fitzherbert will weigh more then your judge­ment; and that every one who reads his disco­very of Andrevvs absurdieies, will confess, that he hath layd him not only in the dust, (as you vainely brag Andrevvs hath donne to our greatest Champions) but also hath buried him in the dirt of his own lyes, Pag. 159. the fittest monu­ment for so notorious an Impostor. I shall in the end stir vp in the reader a curiosity te exa­min Andrewes impostures by what I shall no­te out of Morton and others.

V. Yet we need not any discoverer of yours but your selfe, you tell vs that the imprisoned Priests, Pag. 130. and Iesuits vievved your register, turned it over and over, perused it as much as they plea­sed, and in conclusion gave this sentence of it, that the booke vvas beyond exception. If they perused it as much as they pleased, why do you ach­nowledge, that afterwards they desired to­peruse it more fully, and that their request was not granted? What a silly excuse you bring for not permitting them te see the register againe, [Page 7]that forsooth such Records may not goe out of the presence of the Keeper? Why could not the Kee­per goe along with the Records, or the Fathers come with their Keepers to the Registri? Ceer­tainely there was lesse difficulty, then in F. Ol­cornes perusing the records, who was fur­therof as being prisoner in Worcester. Pag. 128. Whom you make also an approvēr of the same re­cords vpon your owne bare assertion. And yet forsooth, Polemique writers must cite no wit­nes of their owne party, though you be so bould as to cite your selfe. But it is more then bould­nes to bring in My lord of Calcedon as confes­sing it, Pag. 129. whereas he onely lets it passe vpon your word, not granting it so, as having any knovvledge of it from another hand, but in case it were so as you say, that it maketh not much to your purpose. But the truth is, the im­prisoned Iesuits did never allovv your Re­cords, as those yet living, and then living in England (and at least in this matter belonging to their ovvne people may know as much as you, or My Lord of Calcedon) wil testify. One as being on this side the sea, I may name to you without danger, and stop your mouth alwayes crying against nameles witnesses. It is the R. F. Henry More novv Rector of the Se­minary of S. Omers, whose word in any mat­ter of fact will be taken, as soone as yours, even by the persons of your owne party, and sooner in this particular, as having more rea­son to know it. What if M. Wadsvvorth say he read Paockers consecration in the registers, [Page 8]doth that make your registers good against so many signes of forgery. Nay put the case he, and some few should have bin something mo­ved at the sight of them, it argues no more then their ignorance of the manifold argu­ments I bring to convince them of falsood. As for your other witnesses I must take them vpon your word, which I have found so pal­pably faile in the former, and shall take occa­sion in another chapter to examine them, and what you say of them.

1. BVt if your Register be not forged, and all was so legally performed at Lam­beth, as it relates, vvhy should our Doctors object to your first Bishops, not only nullity, but also illegality of consecration, contrary to the statutes, and lawes of the land? Why did the Queene make good by act of Par­liament, 8. Eliz. 1. not only the forme of Ed. 6. ordina­tion, But also all Actes, and things had, made, or donne by any person, or persons, in or about any consecration, confirmation, or investing of any per­son, or persons elected to the office, or dignity of [Page 9]Archbishops, or Bishops by vertue of the Queenes letters patents, or commission, sithence the begin­ning of her reigne? If Parker and the rest had bin consecrated according to the forme of Ed­ward 6. as your Records, and Writers pretend, what need had there bin of this Act of Parlia­ment? This is so cleere against your forged Registers, and feigned solemnity at Lambeth, that you thought fit to omit in your answer to this objection, the words of the statute; Pag. 146. & 147. and only say, that I repeate, the vvords of apart of the statute, and thence conclude, by which act appea­res, that not only King Edvvards rite, but any other vsed since the beginning of the Queenes rei­gne, vpon her commission, vvas enacted for good, and consequently that of the Nagshead might pas­se. Cujus contrarium verum est. The contrary to vvhat these Fathers inferre, doth follovv necessari­ly from these vvords, vvhich the Fathers cite. The vvords of the Act are these, By vertue of the Quee­nes letters patents, or Commission. I pray M^r Do­ctor, have a better opinion of your Readers, then to thinke they are so mad, as to be per­swaded by you, that men should, cite only the­se words of a statute, By vertue of the Queenes letters patents, or Commission, to prove the nul­ [...]ity, or illegality of your protestant consecra­ [...]ion. Is it the manner, I do not say of Pole­nick, but even of honest Writers, to concea­ [...]e, and mangle the words wherupon the Ad­ [...]ersary grounds the force of his argument.

2. But yow are as unfortunate in citing these few words By vertue of the Queenes letters [Page 10]patents, or Comission, as your Reader must be unsatisfied of your ingenuity, for concealing the others to wch they relate. Pag. 88. The Queenes letters patents which yow cite, declare expres­sly, that the reason why by her supreme au­thority, she dispensed with all invalidities of the persons condition, state, and faculty, and with all illegalities against the Canons of the Church, and statutes of the land, was not her Majesties extraordinary care, least some cir­cumstance in the politicall part might be defective in some punctitilio of law as yow pretend; Pag. 109. but an extreme necessity; that is, the want of as much as one true Bishop, to consecrate the rest; and therfore she dispensed not only with censu­res, Pag. 92. and penalties, as the Pope doth in his Bulls; but also with the condition, and state o [...] the Consecraters, who being only simple Priests, and noe Bishops, were by the Quee­nes commission, and supremacy, exalted, and enobled to conferre episcopal orders. The words of the Queens letters patents are. Sup­plentes nihilominus supremá nostrâ authoritate re­giâ, &c. Si quid aut in his quae juxta mandatum nostrum per vos fient, aut in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facultate, vestris, ad prae­missa perficienda desit, aut deerit eorum, quae pen­statuta hujus Regni nostri, aut per leges Ecclesia­sticas in hac parte requiruntur, aut necessariâ sun [...] temporis ratione, & rerum necessitate id postulan­te. In cujus rei, &c. Teste Regina, &c.

3. This part of the Queens letters patent you translate into English thus, Pag. 92. supplying b [...] [Page 11]our Souveraigne authority all defects either in the Executors of this Commission, or any of them. Its strange you ever made mention of a Commis­sion so evidently contrary to your principles, and to the cause you vndertake to maintai­ne, that you dare not translate it faithfully. But I vvil supply your defect in this particu­lar, Supplying by our Soveraigne Royal authority, &c. If any thing be, or shall be vvanting in these things vvhich yee are to do by our command, either in your selves, or in any of you, or in your condi­tion, state, faculty, vvhich by the statute of this our Kingdome, or by the lavves of the Church are re­quired, or necessary, the time, and necessity of af­faires exacting this, &c. You make this dispen­sation à superflous clause, or at most a salue to help a latent impediment; but the Queene, and the commission it selfe declare, that it vvas a necessary remedy to enable the condition, and state of the consecraters, who were no Bis­hops.

4. Yet you are confident that the only ground of this monstruos dispensation, Pag. 94. & 95.vvas the same excep­tion vvhich Bishop Bonner did aftervvards make against the legality of Hornes consecration, vvhich is all (say you) that Stapleton, or any of your ad­versaires had to pretend, or except against the le­gality of the ordination of the first protestant Bis­hops There is as litle reason to doubt of your confidence, as there is for you to be so confi­dent. Did either B. Bonner, D. Stapleton, or any other of your adversaries, mention that exception vvhich you father vpon them? [Page 12]They were not so ignorant in the lawes, and statutes of England, as you would make them, and all other Writers besides your selfe. It had bin, not onely confidence, but impudence to object illegality of ordination contrary to the lawes of England, if your first Bishops had bin ordained accordring to the lavves, and forme of Edward VI. and so solemnly at Lambeth, as your forged Registers pretend. Bonners exception vvas, Counter. bl. fol. 7. & 9. & fol. 301. that Horne vvas no Bishop, and Stapletons vvords are. You (Hor­ne) are vvithout any consecration at all of your Metropolitan, (Parker) himselfe poore man being no Bishop neither. Is it not notarious that yee, and your Collegues vvere not ordained according to the prescript, I vvill not say of the Church, but even of the very statuts? These vvords can have no relation to the doubt you move (but our Au­thors never toucht) concerning your booke of ordination being, or not being restored by Act of Parliament 1. Pag. 97. Elizab. Therfore D. Sta­pletons vvords, and exceptions were against some other illegality, to wit, your first Bis­hops merry ordination at the Nagshead, for no other vvas ever pretended by your Authors, but either this, or that formal ceremony at Lambeth; vvhich if ever it had bin, D. Staple­ton would not have bin so impudent, as to ob­ject notorious illegality against your first con­secrations. Pag. 98. But you say that his objection, and exception sheweth nothing but this, how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed; By your leave M. Doctor, it also she­weth, [Page 13]how apt a drunken cause is to catch hold of every cup; and that your spiritual Fo­refathers had a plot to make the old Bishop of Landaf halfe drunke, that at least in a pleasant humor he might lay hands on them; therfore they invited him to a Taverne; Pag. 129. in ep. ad ami. this is the rea­son Q. Maries priests did give, vvhy they met at the Nagshead, as you may see in the answers to M. Watsvvorhts letters cited by your self.

5. Yet you desire your Reader to observe, Pag. 99. & 100.that this dispensative clause neyther had, nor can be construed to have any reference to any consecration that vvas acted by Scory alone, as that silly conse­cration at the Nagshead is supposed to have bin: and the same Dispensative clause doth not extend at all to any essential of ordination: nor to the Ca­nons of the universal Church; and that the Com­missioners authorised by these letters patents to con­firme, and consecrate Parker, did make no use of this supplentes, or dispensative povver in the con­secration, vvhich is a purely spiritual Act, and belongeth meerly to the Key of order. All this you desire the Reader to observe vvith you, vvit­hout giving him any reason, or ground for your observation. Is it the manner of Pole­nick Writers to beg the controversy out of meere civility? Readers must be persuaded by reason, and not desired by empty words, to give their assent in controverted matters. You say that the Commissioners, or Consecraters of Parker did make no use of the Queens di­spensative power in the consecration. But themselves say the contrary, (being conscious [Page 14]of their owne incapacity to consecrate Bis­hops, as being only simple Priests, and never consecrated) and declare in their desinitive sentence, that they will make vse in the conse­cration, of the Queenes dispensative povver. Their words are. See this definitive sentence in D. Bram­hall pag. 101. Therfore vve the Queens Com­missioners (Barlovv, Scory, &c) by consent of the Lavviers that vve have consulted, do confirme the foresaid election by the supreme authority of the Queene, communicated vnto vs. Supplying also by the sayd supreme authority vvhatsoever hath him defective in this election: as also is, or shall be vvan­ting in vs, or any of vs, in our condition, state, fa­culty, to perfect these things vvhich vve are com­manded te doe. They were commanded not on­ly to confirme Parkers election, but also to perfect the worke, and consecrate him; and they say that they vvill do so, and do supply the defects of their owne state, and condition, (which could be no other, but the want of e­piscopal consecration) by the Queens dispen­sative, and supreme authority. And yet D. Bramhall doth desire the Reader out of curte­sy, te observe, and thinke the contrary.

6. You talke much of your key of order, which vvas no other, then the key of a celler, elevated by the Queens scepter, and spiritual authority, to be efficient of your first Bishops consecration in a Taverne, which you most ungratefully, Pag. 60. 121. 171. & 148. and vnwarily reject, when con­trary to the statutes you affirme, that neyther she, nor the lavves of England can make an ordination to be valid, or invalid, because [Page 15]they can not change the institution of Christ, who determined for the essential matter of or­dination, imposition of hands. This is very true, but no protestant doctrine in those ti­mes as being contrary to the 25. article of your english Creed, which teacheth, that Christ never apointed any visible signe for Orders, and consequently it is no Sacrament. Therfo­re if imposition of hands be a visible signe, it can not be (according to the symbol of the English Church) the essential matter of ordi­nation by Christs institution. If you had vtte­red in your primitive Church the Doctrine, which now you print, you had not only fallen into a Premunire, but also incurred the penal­ties of an Heretique for being so obstinat a­gainst your new Creed, and the articles set downe by your first Apostles.

7. It is not to be wondered, that a man so ignorant of his Creed, should knowe so litle of the law as you do. Read I pray these vvords of the statute 8. Eliz. 1. referring to an other made the first yeare of her reigne. And by the same Act, and statute, there is also given to the Q. Highnesse, her heirs &c. full povver, and au­thority by letters patents vnder the great seale of England, from time to time, to assigne, name, and authorise such person, or persons, as she, or they shal thinke meete, and convenient, to exercise, use, occupie, and execute vnder her Highnesse, all man­ner of jurisdictions, privileges, preheminences, and auihorities, in any vvise toucking, or concerning any spiritual, or Ecclesiastical povver, or jurisdi­ction [Page 16]vvithin this Realme, or any other her H. Do­minions or Countries. I beseech you M. Doctor, answer now directly, and without tergiversa­tion might not the Queene by her letters pa­tents, without any other ceremony, name and authorize, according to this Act of Parliament, any Carrier, Carter, or Catchpol, to exercise, vse, occupie, and execute all manner of jurisdictions, preheminencies, and authorities, in any vvise tou­ching, or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiasticall povver. What is episcopacy, or priesthood, but a spiritual, and ecclesiastical power? And what is ordination, or consecration, but to exercise, vse, or execute this spiritual povver, by con­ferring it vpon others? Therfore according to the statuts of England, the Queene, and her heires, and successors, may make Priests, and Bishops, vvithout imposition of hands, or any other matter, or forme, but their letters pa­tents vnder the greate seale of England. Which though it be cleere enough by the very words of the statute to any one that vnderstands En­glish, yet it is made most vndeniably evident, by the Protestant Tenet of those dayes requi­ring no more for Order then Election of Prince or people, which Tenet appeares in their writings, in their translations of Scrip­ture, and in their Creed, so that the Prince in England having assumed full power in point of Election, could accordingly dispose, and dispense, at will in any thing belonging to Or­der. And when any ceremony of consecration was vsed they cared not what it was, so it [Page 17]might serve to amuse the vulgar, not yet inv­red to the new Doctrine of Priests, and Bis­hops not consecrated.

8. This vvas the power assumed: let vs now see their practise vsed. Kellison survey pag. 373. & 374. edit, 1603. They vvere enforced (sayth D Kellison) to make superintendents, and ministers of our apostating Priests, such as Par­ker, Grindal, Sands, Horne &c. vvho vvere thought paste sit to make such Ministers on, vvit­hout any other moulding, or knedding. And vvhen they vvanted Apostatas, vvho vvere consecrated af­ther the Catholique manner, they tooke laymen of their ovvne, of vvhich some vvere base artificers; and vvithout any other consecration, or ordination then the Princes, or the Superintendents letters (vvho themselves vvere no Bishops) they made them Ministers, and Bitshops vvith as fevv cere­monies, and lesse solemnity, then they make their Aldermen, yea Constables, and Cryers of the Market.Pag. 149.And from this stock proceedeth all the rable of their Ministers, &c. D. Stapleton, whom you call one of the most rational heads our Church had since the separation, gives you this Catalo­gue of your first protestant Clergy. Counter­blast lib. 4. num. 481. prin­ted an. 1567. And vvhe­rin I pray you resteth a great part of your nevv Clergy, but in butchers, cookes, catchpols, and coblers, diers, and dawbers, fellons cayrring their marke in their hand instead of a shaven crowne, fis­hermen, gunners, harpers, inkeepers, merchants. and mariners, netmakers, potters, potycaries, and porters of Belingsgate, pinners, pedlers, ruffling, ruffins, sadlers, sheermen, and sheaperds, tan­ners, tilers, tinkers, trumpeters, weavers, whery­men, [Page 18]&c. If D. Stapleton was so rational a head as you are pleased to acknowledge, you hav [...] but litle reason to brag of the first heads, an [...] members of your schisme, or separation; an [...] much lesse to be angry vvith my lord Brookes for applying his Coachman to the office of a protestant Preacher; Bram Pag. 12. who by his trade, (not to spea­ke of his talent) might challenge an eminen [...] place amongst your first Ministers, and without disgracing your Church, might head thi [...] rable, that D. Stapleton hath so particularly described. But speake to the purpose M. Do­ctor: Doe you persuade your selfe, that all these fellows were ordained by impofition o [...] episcopal hands, and with all that formality you bring out of your Pontifical? no truly, they were only ordained by letters patents, or so me paper of your first Bishopss, who practise [...] the same stile with their Ministers, that th [...] Queene did with themselves, and if sometimes vvith ceremony, it vvas onely for ceremony, not necessity, and consequently with no more formality then might suffise to blind the ignorant.

And truly when I consider the Queens su­preme, and spiritual authority, confirmed by the statuts 1. & 8. Eliz. I do not wonder at this practise of your primitive Church in ordai­ning any Post, or Carrier they met in the high way, and that legally without any imposition of hands, or Ceremony. The statute doth war­rant it by these words. 8. Eliz. 1. And further for th [...] avoyding of all ambiguities, and questions tha [...] [Page 19]might bee objected against the lawfull confirmations, [...]nvesting, and consecrations of the said Archbis­hops, and Bishops (that is Parker, and his fel­ [...]ows) her highnes in her letters patents, under the great seale of England, directed to any Archbis­ [...]op, Bishops, or others, (marke the word, others, which comprehendeth laymen, or simple Priests) for the confirming, investing, and con­secrating of any person elected to the office, or digni­ [...]y of any Archbishop, or Bishop, hath not only used such words, and sentences as were acustomed to be [...]sed by the late K. Henry, and K. Edward, her Majesties father, and brother, in their like letters [...]atents, made for such causes: but also hath vsed, [...]nd put in her Majesties said letters patents, divers [...]her general vvords, and sentences, wherby her H. [...]y her supreme power, and authority, hath dispen­ [...]ed vvith all causes, or doubts of any imperfection, [...]r disability, that can, or may in any vvise be obje­ [...]ted against the same as by her Majesties said letters [...]atents remaining of record, more plainly vvill ap­care, So that to all those, that vvill vvell consider of the effect, and true intent of the said lavves, and [...]atutes, and of the supreme, and absolute authori­ [...] of the Queens Highnes, and vvhich shee by her Majesties said letters patents hath vsed, and put in [...]e, in, and about the making, and consecrating, of the sayd Archbishops, and Bishops, it is, and [...]ay be very evident, (D. Pag. 122. Bramhall cites these last words vvithout mentioning the former, of which their sense depends) and apparent that [...] cause of scruple, ambiguity, or doubt, can, or [...]ay justly be objected against the said elections, con­firmations, [Page 20]or consecrations, or any other materia [...] thing meete to be vsed, or had, in, or about the sa­me but that every thing requisite, and material for that purpose (that is the Queens letters patents, and ample dispensation vnder the great seale of England) hath bin made, and donne as precise­ly, and vvith as greate a care, and diligence, or rather more, as ever the like vvas done before her Majesties tyme, as the Records of her Majesties sayd Father, and brothers tyme, and also of her ovvne time, vvill more plainly testify, and declare. This is a clause indeed that taketh a vvay all ocasion of Protestant scruples, and doubts, not only of the invalidity, but also of the illegali­ty of your ordination at the Nagshead.

10. Yet because you vvould needs have the ordination performed at Lambeth, you main­taine that these last words, the Records of her Majesties sayd Fathers, and Brothers time, and also of her owne time, will more plainely testify, and de­clare, relate to your forged Registers. And to make good your assertion, you falsify the text egregiously; for, you say, the statute speaketh expressely of the Records of elections, and confir­mations,Pag. 115.and consecrations, and this you put in a distinct caracter, as if they had bin words of the very statute. Its strange, that where you lay to my charge, falsifying of the text, your selfe should commit the crime so notoriously. In all the statute you can not find any such words, Records of elections, and confirmations, and Consecrations: but you will find expressely these words, as by her Majesties sayd letters pa­tents [Page 21]remaining of record. more plainly will appea­re. If that Glosse is accursed, which corrup­teth, and cōtradicteth the text, vvhat shall wee say of yours? Read with attention the text, and you will be convinced, that the Records of her Majesties said Father, and Brothers time, and also of her owne time, relate not to any Records, or Registers of the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor to the Records of elections, confirma­tions, and consecrations; but to the Records of the Kings, and Queenes letters patents; for, the statute sayth: that every thing requisi­te, and material for the taking away all causes of scruples, doubts, and ambiguities, that might be objected against the sayd elections, and consecrations, and confirmations, or any other material thing meete to be vsed, or had in, or about the same, had bin made, and do­ne, as precisely, or rather more, then ever be­fore her Majesties time, as by the Records of her Majesties said Father, and Brothers time, and al­so of her ovvne, vvill more plainely appeare. The words, or rather more precisely, and with mo­re care, and diligence, can not relate to Par­ker, and his Camerades consecration though we should grant, it was performed at Lam­beth with a read cloth on the floore, and tape­stry on the east side; for, I hope, in Catholique times they were as precise, diligent, and de­cent in consecrations, as in Q Elizabeths, (though they vsed not a read cloth vpon à Sunday of Advent, as your Register sayes yee did vpon the 17. of December 1559.) especia­ly

1 NOt withstanding all this, the Do­ctor sayes, it is incredible that the Registers of the first Protestant Bishops consecration should be forged. Pag. 106. And why so M Doctor? Is it incredible that they who falsify Scripture, should forge Records? And hovv notoriously your first Bishops have falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by D. Gre­gory Martin in a learned booke, intituled A Discovery of the manifold corruptions, Pag. 201.&c. You give fovver ansvvers to this argument 1. you desire good words. And I desire a better an­svver. 2. That Gregory Martin is an adversary, vvhose censure you do not esteeme a button. I de­sire you once more M. Doctor to answer, and speake to the purpose. Though you do not weigh D. Martins censure, ansvver his reasons, and the examples he brings: confute his booke, and demonstrations. Your third ansvver is, I hope none of vs did ever attempt to purge S. Paules Epistles, because there were in them some things that sounded not well in point of justification. I vn­derstand [Page 25]not to what, or to whom do you al­lude by this answer. But I am sure, your Pro­to-Patriarche Luther to make good his justifi­cation by faith alone in his Dutch translation inserted the word alone into the very text, a­gainst all originals, or copies, or versions that ever had bin seene before. Fourthly you an­swer. Rather then be accounted falsifiers of Scrip­ture, vve are content to stand to the vulgar Latin in any controversy betvveen them and vs. Is this to solve an argument? Are your Protestant readers satisfied with such stuffe? stay sir, I must in the name of convincing logique arrest your shifting Rhethorique. This was the ar­gument. Those that have grossely falsified Scripture, may easily be presumed to have falsified records, especially when the records vpon other circumstances are deepely suspe­cted, but the first hath bin the frequent vse of Euglish Protestant Ministers, ergo you should have proved at least in som general termes, that your English translations were not cor­rupted: you should have called them innocent mistakes, or Erratas of the print, as Dover for Bedford, which you thought sufficient to serve your turn at least in another occasiō. If one we­re accused, ād pressed by sundry proofes to ha­ve killed his Brother, and it should be further vrged, that notwithstanding the crime was enormous, and not easily to be beleeved in o­ther persons, yet in him it might justly be pre­sumed, by reason of the knowne publique evi­dences, whereby he had bin plainely convi­cted [Page 26]to have killed his father. Must this be slipt over? Would this availe nothing? Can the artificial Rhetorique of a slighting pretermis­sion, so stupify the natural logique of every one that is come to the vse of reason, as not to see the force of this conclusion? He hath kil­led his father, what vvonder is it if he kill his brother? They falsify Scripture what marvel if they forge records. Hath your custome of vrging light conjectures against the Church of Rome so destroyed the nature of reason in you, as not to feele your selfe, or to thinke that o­thers doe not feele the weight of an argument à fortiore? Records are humane, Scripture de­vine, Records are kept in a corner, Scripture exposed to the vew of all, Records have fevv copies, and kept by a few, and those of one fa­ction. The Christian vvorld is full of Bibles. Is it not then lesse against conscience, of easier contrivence, and further from danger of a shamefull discovery, to forge records, then to falsify Scripture. This is onely to stop you a while from posting with so much speed from this passage. In the end of the booke I shal detaine you longer, and hould you faster, and put a rub to the sliding eloquence you ha­ve learned in Holland If you vvil not, yet the Reader shall see by vvhat I shal lay clearely before his eyes, and shal remit to the judge­ment of his owne eyes, if he be pleased to view, and cōfer him selfe what I shal set dow­ne of some, and direct him to seeke of other Protestant Ministers, in point of grosse, wil­full, [Page 27]malicious, and impudent falsifications of Scripture, and Authours, whereby he will con­clude with himselfe how far he shal thinke fit to give credit hereafter to their sayings, or writings, and namely, and particularly D. Morton called B. of Duresme, that Minister of simple truth, as he called himselfe in those very bookes which seeme to have bin dictated by the father of lyes, and now in his late testimo­ny is not ashamed to speake thus. Pag. 15. I could never have made such a speech (marke the proofe he adjoyneth) seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts. He may very well have forgot what he once spoke in Parlament seeing he hath forgot what he hath so often writ a­gainst his thoughts, and cleer knowledge in [...]everal bookes. But of this mans false wri­tings hereafther, Pag. 107. now I returne to your false records, being you are resolved to convince all [...]hose vvho gainsay them by six doughty argu­ments, which I hope to retortagainst you, and by your owne grounds prove the contrary of what you are confident to maintaine.

3. Your first argument is, that value, and respect which the lawes of England do give the Registers. The lawes of En­gland were so farre from valuing, or respe­cting these Registers, that they did not as much as cite, or mention them, when Par­ker, and his Colleagues were pressed to [...]hew the letters of their Orders, being accu­ [...]ed by our Catholique Doctors that they had [...]ever bin ordained. And the Parliament 8. [Page 28]Eliz. thought it more for the credit of their protestant Church, and Clergy, to make them Bishops by a statute, then examine the matter; which resolution had never bin taken, if any witnesses, or Records of their consecration at Lambeth could have bin produced in the 8. yea­re of Q. Elizabeths reigne. But what marvai­le is it, that the lawes of England should not value your Records, when your first superin­tendents themselves never durst send D. Har­ding, or any of the rest who desired it, an au­thentique Copie of them out of your Regi­stry? Or so muchas make mention of the origi­nal.

4. Your second argument is taken from the credit of the foure publique Notaries, who did testify Parkers individual consecration at Lambeth, it being observable that these four Notaries were the same who did draw Cardi­nal Pooles consecration into Acts, and attest them. This proofe, and observation weighs as litle, as foure publique Notaries conscien­ce, and credit, who in Cardinal Pooles time professed one faith, and in Parkers an other. Men that counterfeit religions, will have no difficulty te counterfeit Registers, if they be commanded, or inclined to do it; neither would their testimony, be of vndoubted cre­dit in any place of the world, if contradicted by so many arguments, and circumstances as your pretended consecration at Lambeth. But in case these Notaries had bin persons beyond all exception, might not their hands be coun­terfeited [Page 29]as well as the Register? What grea­ter difficulty can there be in one more then in the other? Its a silly argument that involves in it selfe the same difficulty it ought to cleere. Your third and fourth ground of the Queens Commission, and of the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. have bin ansvvered in the former Chap­ter, and are evident proofes, that your Re­cords are forged.

5. Pag. 115. & 116. Your fifth ground is taken from a booke you say vvas printed an. 1572. of the lives of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury, vvherin the Author (that vvas Archbishop Parker him­selfe) having described the Confirmations, and Consecrations of his fellovves, he addeth in the mar­gent. These confirmations, and consecrations do appeare in the Registers. It seemes you learnt from Parker to cite your selfe as a vvitnesse for your felfe. Is this the manner of Polemick Writers? But why did not Parker, or Ievvel, remit D. Harding to these Registers, wherof M. Parker some seaven yeares after made (if vve believe you) marginal notes; when he so earnestly called for them, Confut. Apolog. fol. 57. & 59 edit. 1566. shevv vs your Registers, in the yeare 1566. Then vvas the time for Parker, and the rest to cite them, and not in the yeare 1572. Yet D. Champney doubts whether any such booke vvas printed of your Archbishops as you pretend. Whether it was, or no, it matters not, for the Registers cited in the margent by Parker, mentioneth not any place, or forme of their consecrations, and is as indifferent for the Nagshead Taver­ne, [Page 30]as for the Chapell of Lamheth, as you may see in the booke called Antiquitates Britannia edit. 1605. into which this forged Register was foisted, being a meere novelty, and ther­fore contrary to the drift, and title of the boo­ke, without connexion to what goeth before, or followeth after.

6. But how comes it to passe M. Doctor, that in this booke, and Register, are set dovvne, as you say, the names of your Bishops, their Countries, their Armes both of their sees and families, Pag. 164.their respective ages, their vniversities, their degrees in Schooles, vvith the times (but not the place) of their several consecrations? How comes it to pas­se I say, there should be roome for all these things, and none at all for Lambeth, which ta­kes vp no more then Ipsvvich, Parkers Coun­trey, or Cambridge, his vniverfity? Is it more material to put in a Register, the place of a Bishops nativity, or education, then the pla­ce where he received his caracter, or consecra­tion? Did he esteeme more the degree of a Do­ctor, then the dignity of a Bishop? I could not exact, nor expect from M. Parker, that he should assure vs in his Register, whether the Chapell of Lambeth vvas adorned with ta­pestry on the east, or west side, as Mason doth; but me thinks his Lordship might have remembered on which side the Thames stands Lambeth, if it had bin the place of his conse­cration.

7. Pag. 164. It is hardly possible for the vvit of man, saith the Doctor, to contrive more matter into a lesser [Page 31]roome. My complaint is, that so much super­flous matter was thrust in, and that which im­ported most, (to wit the place of your first Bishops consecration) omitted. I confesse M. Doctor, you have as much reason to commend in this case, Parkers wit for not mentioning Lambeth, as in an other you had to commend Jevvels prudence, for not answering Harding when he pressed him to shew the Registers of his Bishops, and their letters of Orders. For, if M. Parker had but named Lambeth as the place of his consecration, the forgery of his Records had bin as manifest to as many as then remembred the 17. of December 1559. and never heard of any solemnity at Lambeth on that day: But though I commend M. Parkers wit in concealing the place of his consecra­tion, yet I must condemne your judgement, good M. Bramhall, for citing a Register so disadvantagious to your cause.

8. Your 6. and last ground destroyes the fi­ve former, because it is taken from the agreement, Pag. 116.and concurrence of your civil Records vvith your ecclesiastical Registers. There can not be greater disagreement, and opposition then there is betweene the Queenes commission, or letters patents, the Act of Parliament 8, Elizab. and your Registers. These Registers suppose, and declare, ther was no need of a dispensation, the letters patents, and Act of Parliament de­clare, there vvas a necessity to dispense vvith defects, and disabilities. Your Registers sup­pose that the consecraters vvere true Bishops; [Page 32]The Queens Commission suppose they vvere not, becanse she dispenseth vvith defects of the consecraters state, and condition, vvhich de­fects could be no other, then vvant of episco­pal consecration. Your Registers suppose that foure Bishops did consecrate; but the Acts of Parliament do suppose, that one person might do it, and that one did it, and therfore makes good whatsoever any person, or persons did about the consecration of any Archbishop, and Bishop sithence the beginning of the Queens reigne. Your Registers suppose that Bishops must be consecrated by imposition of hands; but the Acts of Parliament 1. & 8. Elizabeth. And also your 25. article of the 39. suppose that Bishops are consecrated by election, or by the Queens letters patents, or commission; and conse­quently might say that your first Bishops vvere orderly consecrated, and according to the la­vves of the land, though they had no imposi­tion of hands; yet to take avvay all protestant scruples, there vvas an ample povver, and di­spensation more particularly expressed in the Queens commission to the consecrators, then ever vvas seene or heard of before her Majesties Reigne. Many other disagreements might be set dovvne, but these may suffice to shevv, how impossible it is for you, or any other, to recon­cile plaine contradictions by improbable fi­ctions, or impostures.

1. I Produced Iohn Stovves silence of your solemnity, and consecration at Lambeth, as an argument, that never any such thing had bin, as your Registers pretend. For, how could a man that made it his buisnesse to rela­te, and describe the solemnities, and casualties of his time, especially hapening in, and about London, conceale so notorious, and rare a so­lemnity, as the first protestant consecration of an Archbishop of Canterbury? To this you answere in rime, that my store is very lovv, Pag. 197.when I am forced to produce Iohn Stovv. The rime is ptety, and in the Nagshead Taverne may be sung to the tune of Iohn Derry, or Dovvne Der­ry, but it is time vvithout reason: for all the reason you give, is, that, Iohn Stovv scarce knew what a consecration was. Notwithstanding his ignorance, you confesse that he writ in his Annals the consecration of Cardinal Poole, who was the immediate Predecessor to Parker. Why did not he say so much at least of your first protestant Archiepiscopal solemnity, as he [Page 34]did of the last Catholique, himselfe being a protestant, and a greate servant of M. Parkers? Its no marvaile that he involved in silence the story of the Nagshead, because he had rather his Annals should be defective, then testify a truth that might prove dangerous to his per­son, and was disadvantagious to his profession. But that he would not, if with truth he could, grace his Church, friend, and Chronicle, with a narrative of Parkers solemne consecration at Lambeth, is incredible. Though he was no Di­vine, I hope he might write in his Annals, as learnedly as your Maister Mason, to wit that the Chappell of Lambeth on the 17. of December 1559. vvas adorned vvith tapestry on the east side, the floore covered vvith a read cloth, that there vvas greate concourse of people, lords, and cour­triers, and that many grave persons received the communion vvith Parker. This much he might have said of his owne knowledge, or heard from the assistents, copied out of your Regi­sters, if they had bin then as publique as you pretend, and he had believed they were authen­tique. But after diligent search (saith D. Cham­pney) he found the Nagshead story to he very true, D. Chāp­ney edit. lat. pag. 501. and declared so much to some of his friends that testified the same to D. Champney, though they were as loath to be named, as so­me lords are, who heard the pretended Bishop of Durham in the late Parliament make the speech layd to his charge by the lord Audley.

2. To my third reason, to wit, that no man of conscience, or common sense, can imagine, [Page 35]that the Catholique Doctors of these times, as Harding, Bristow, Stapleton, and others, who had such care of their salvation as to suffer so much as they did vpon that account, should vvilfully damne their soules by obliging po­sterity vpon misinformation, to Reordaine your Ministers, if they had bin validly ordai­ned before; it being a knowne Tenet of Ca­tholiques, that we can not without commit­ting a damnable sinne, no more Reordaine, then rebaptise. To this reason I say, Pag. 202. you ans­wer, that if Reordination be damnable sacrilege, the authority of our owne Doctors may be a fit me­dium to convince our selves of sacrilege, not you of the invalidity of your ordination. I am both sory, and ashamed to find so litle substance in my Adversaries answer; Authority, which must be a fit medium to perswade, supposeth two things in the Author; knowledge, and hone­sty. If he hath these two qualityes, no ratio­nal man (though of a contrary religion) can except against his relation, or testimony; for, his knowledge of the matter that is treated, doth free himselfe from the danger of being mistaken; and his honesty, doth assure others, that he will not misinforme them. Now M. Doctor, can you object vvant of knowledge of your first Bishops consecrations, to Har­ding, Stapleton, Reynolds, &c. They lived in that very time, and made it their buisnesse to ob­serve all your Clergyes proceedings; and though they had not inquired after their ordi­nation, they could not be ignorant of it, being [Page 36]so rare, and notorious a solemnitie, as your Registers pretend: notwithstanding all this, they printed in those very times, that neither Parker, nor any of your first Bishops vvere consecrated, not so much as according to the lawes of the kingdome. Want of honesty you can not object to men that suffered so much for their conscience. How can you then assu­me their owne authority, as a fit medium to convince themselves of sacrilege? Is know­ledge, and conscience a fit argument to prove, that they who are indowed with them, have committed damnable sinns, and ingaged po­sterity to do the same by Reordaining? If your Bishops ordination had bin as litle questioned, as our Doctors knowledge, and integrity, you might with some colour pretend, that your ordination is as fit a medium to convince vs of sacrilege, as our Doctors authority is, to de­monstrate the nullity of your ordination. But hitherto never any man but your selfe excep­ted against Harding, Stapleton, or Bristovvs knowledge concerning your Clergy, or against their conscience, and integrity, and your Or­ders have bin continualy excepted against not only as invalid, but even illegal.

3. I know not to what purpose you cite the two Popes, if it be not to prove Recordination is lawfull: But you did ill to Father your ensu­ing words vpon so obvious an Author as Be­larmine.Pag. 202.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 [Page 37]the matter as duely, and to be as averse from damnable sacrilege as you; yet they decreed public­quely, and most vniustly, that all the holy orders re­ceived from Formosus, were void; and compelled all those who had bin ordained by him, to be reor­dained. All this you lay to Bellarmines charge de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 12. whosoever rea­deth him, must discover your litle ingenuity; Bellarmins words are. Respondeo Stephanum, & Sergium non edidisse aliquod decretum, quo decerne­rent ordinatos ab Episcopo degradato, vel nomina­tim à Formoso tanquam dègradato, esse iterum or­dinandos, sed solum de facto jussisse iterum eos or­dinari: quae jussiò non ex ignorantia, aut haeresi, sed ex odio in Formosum procedebat. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. cap. 2. I answer that Stephen, and Sergius did not publish any decree whereby they decreed that such as vvere ordained by a Bishop de­graded, or namely by Formosus as degraded, ought [...]o be reordained: but only that de facto commanded they should be ordained againe. Which command proceeded not from ignorance, or heresi, but from the hatred they bore to Formosus. You see Belarmine himselfe denies, that Stephen, or Sergius pu­blished any decree, and you affirme that Be­larmine sayes they decreed publiquely that all the holy Orders received from Formosus were void. Belarmine accuseth those two Po­pes of passion, and to the same attributs their commands of reordination: you indeavor to cleere them from it, and make them appeare men of greater moderation then you judge in your conscience they were; not out of any af­fection [Page 38]to the See Apostolique, but out of ha­tred to our Catholique Tenet of not Reordai­ning; but you labour in vaine; for these two Popes were of the same judgment that wee are, though passion made them practise what they knevv to be vnlavvful. If you could prove that Harding, Stapleton, Bristovv, and the rest generally were men so vvicked, and desperately bent to damne their soules to he revenged of your first Prelates, or that they held it safe in conscience to reordaine Priests, and Bishops meerely vpon title that they had bin ordained by hereticks, or that grave Ca­suists in their time were of that opinion, then your Reader might afford you attention, and thinke you said something worth the ansvve­ring. But you know too wel the contrary.

1. TO my fourth reason against the doubtfull sufficiency of your Prote­stant forme, Pag. 223. & seq. or words, vsed in the act of consecration of Bishops, and Priests, you ansvver, that both these names, and functions, [Page 39]are sufficiently expressed by being presented to the Archbishop, and producing the Kings letters patents by the exhortation of the Con­secraters, and by the litany that followeth, and the examination of him that is to be con­secrated. This is new doctrine indeed, that men should be ordained by litanies, exhorta­tions, presentations, and examinations. In our consecration of Bishops are comprehen­ded also the words that are vttered in the a­nointing of the Bishops head, and hands, Vn­gatur & consecretur caput tuum caelesti benedictione in ordine Pontificiali: and you see how cleerly the episcopal Order is therin expressed: nei­ther doth our Rituall call the Bishop elect, con­secrated, vntill these words be pronounced.

2. I grant that Vasques, and some other Di­vines of late, say, that episcopal Ordination is conferred by the words Receive the holy Ghost; but I never read any of them that gives a clee­re solution to that argument, which you in­deavor to ansvver, by saying, that these words Receive the holy Ghost, must be considered con­jointly in a compounded sense with the lita­nies, &c. Whence it follovveth, that the Sex­ton, or any other lay man who answers, Hea­re vs o Lord vve beseech thee, hath no smal sha­re in consecrating. But make the best of Vas­ques his opinion, it is no more then probable, and therfore doubtfull, and consequently ought not to be relyed vpon in a matter that concernes the being, or not being of a Church: in things of such importance, we ought to fol­lovv [Page 40]the securest vvay by adhering to vndenia­ble principles. All you can say against vs, is that vve vse two formes both in priesthood, and episcopacy; but no Divine can take excep­tion against that, if he considers, that they are incomplete, and make but one total forme, without any danger of multiplicity of cara­cters, or Reordination. But your forme makes yee, at the most, but halfe Priests, or Bishops; and that it selfe is as vncertaine, as it is doubt­full, whether the caracter can be divided. If we vse two eyther by one, or both all ocasion of doubt is taken avvay.

3. Yet I must tell you for your comfort, and instruction, M. Doctor, that it is not only a common, but tho most probable opinion, that Christ left to his Church power, to make par­ticular formes, both of priesthood, and epi­scopacy, (himselfe only determining in gene­ral, that the words should be appliable to the mysteries signified) vvithout which formes, neither of these Orders can be validly confer­red. This is the best vvay to reconcile the Greeke, and Latin formes of ordination, and the ancient, and modern Rituals, though in every one is expressed the particular fun­ction of a Priest, or a Bishop. Only yours (be­cause it vvas composed vvhen Zuinglianis­me prevailed in England) makes no men­tion of either, in any forme, or any thing li­ke a forme. But if you vvold be pleased to read Morinus, a late Author de Ordinationibus sacris, who may instruict both Polemick, and Schola­stick [Page 41]writers in this matter, you will find how dangerous it is for particular persons, or Chur­ches to alter the present, ād approved vse in the administration of the Sacrement of Order, or e­ven to resume the practise of ancient Rituals ca­nonically abrogated, much more when like ma­licious, or ignorant surgeons the Swinglian he­retiques cut away nerves, and arteries, and the very substance vnder pretext of superflous ex­crescences. You will find the danger of negle­cting the vsual matter, and forme, notwith­standing these termes were not so vsual in all ancient times. Nor that your recourse to the grecian practise although it vvere like yours (as it is not) vvill secure you as it doth them, and you vvill find the Greeke and Latin v­se much better reconciled by him then by vulgar Authors of your, or our profession, e­ven better then by Arcudius, who gave some light to schoolemen in this particular. You will find the Roman Church to vse the most assured way that can be imagined, and never tooke away any thing that might give the least scruple either for the change, or the povver, or manner of changing. You vvill find you have put a most satisfactory discourse conncerning the buisines of Formosus Pope, and his succee­ding enemies. To transcribe all this at large, [...]s neyther vsefull to the ignorant, who will vn­derstand very litle, nor needfull to the learned who may see the author, nor proper to this [...]hort trectise which without all this doth evin­ [...]e the Nullity of your Clergy, and according [Page 42]to the most favourable opinion, of any tolera­ble Devine makes your Ordinaion in a high de­gree vncertaine.

4. Pag. 232. But you deny that Zuinglianisme preuai­led in England in Edvvard the 6. time, vvhen the 12. or 7. learned men forsooth, in the lavv of God, and the land, made your formes of Or­dination. I hope you do not take vs to be as ignorant in the History of England, as one of your chiefe Doctors did a Gentlewoeman, la­tely in Paris; when (hearing of her inclinations to Catholique religion) he dissuaded her from it, by assuring her, that it vvas not the ancient faith of England, nor ever professed in that Kingdome before Henry the 8. time. Do not all vnpartial vvriters mention the Protector Seamours perfidiousnesse in establishing Zvvin­glianisme in England, during the minority of Edvvard the 6. contrary to his promise, and en­gagement to Henry the 8.? Is it not notorious that in the second Parliament of K. Edvvard. 6. Convers. of En­gland part. 2. pag. 607. & pag. 611. begun the 4. of November 1548. (vvherin your booke of common praier, and administra­tion of Sacraments, being imposed by Zuin­glian heretiques chosen by the Protector and his faction, vvas confirmed) there vvas a great contention, vvhether the Kingdome should be Lutheran, or Zuinglian in religion; and that after foure monthes debate, the Zuinglians did overbeare the other side, by some voices. And hovv Peter Martyr, and Bucer vvere inspired by the posts that brought newes of the Par­liaments resolution from London, to teach pu­bliquely [Page 43]in the Vnniversities, that Christ vvas not present in the Sacrament of the alter, and that this is my body was no more then this is the signe of my body. Is it not evident by Iohn Fox (an Author of your own) his Acts, and Monu­ments, Part. 3. Convers. pag 372. eait. 1604 that the far greater part of all your Protestant Saints, and Martyrs, were put to death for denying the real presence, and not only transubstantiation? Do not the bookes which our Catholique Doctors writ against your first superintendens demonstrate, that these were of the same opinion with your Martyrs? But vvhat need we go farther then the 25. of your 39. articles, and translations of Scripture, to prove your Zuinglian Tenet in matter of holy Orders? They who thrust out of Scripture in the English versions, the words Priest, and Bishop, (putting insteed therof Elder, and Superintendent) were not likely men to put them, or expresse their fun­ction in your formes of ordination. But you say that in the Preface yee maintaine to all the vvorld, that the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, Pag. 232.and Deacons, have bin ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ. Are men ordained by your Preface? or because in your Preface it is maintained that the Church of Christ had al­vvayes the said Orders, doth it follow that the English Church in those times was the Church of Christ? Call them Svvinglians, call them Lutherans, call them what you plaese, their Creed, their versions, their writings, show they contemned Consecration, and we­re [Page 44]content with election, and when they vsed some thing like consecration, it was to satisfy the people not themselves. And that Whitaker, and Fulke, whom you cite pag. 233. never ad­mitted the necessity of consecrated Bishops, no the very state of the question disputed in those times betweene our English sectaries, was not about consecrated, or not consecrated Bishop but whether one Minister was to be e­lected to Lord it over the rest. Most of the Mi­nisters misliked it, but the Prince approved it for reason of state, thereby to Keepe the Cler­gy in awe and to have so many mercenary Votes in the house of Lords.

5. At length you tell vs that if your ance­stours have pared away any thing out of mistake from ordination, Pag. 235.that is either prescribed, or practi­sed by the true Catholique Church, let it be made ap­peare evidently to you, and you are more ready to vvelcome it againe at the fore dore then your Ance­stours were to cast it out at the back dore. Errare pos­sumus, haeretici esse nolumus. Your Church hath so many times changed its Tenets, and is so in­different for any beneficial addition, or sub­traction of doctrine, that it seemes to be com­posed of nothing but back dores, and starting holes, wherby you cast out, and welcome in, whatsoever is gratefull, or not gratefull to the humor of the Prince, or prevailing faction. Now seing it hath bin made appeare, that your Ancestours valued not episcopal conse­cration, admitted no priesthood but baptisme, and denied the real presence; I hope you can [Page 45]not imagine, that these men would compose formes of Ordination contrary to their owne Tenets, and profession: or that a Zuinglian Parliament would confirme your booke of administration of Sacraments, and rites, be­fore they had vvell examined, whether it con­tained any thing contrary to their owne con­science, and reformation. And if they had bin Lutherans you gaine litle, seing Luther himselse in the places alleadged in the next chapter maketh all Christians Priests by bap­tisme.

6. But suppose it had not bin evident, but only probable, that your Ancestors pa­red avvay some part of the essential forme, or matter of Ordination; is it part of your Case Theology, to contemne prudent doubts in a matter of fo greate importance, and of absolute necessity for the being of a Church? There is not a more infallible marke of here­sy, then to exact cleere evidence for obscure mysteries, or to contemne ancient publique ceremonies, vpon the warrant of a moderne private spirit, as you might have seene, (and ought to have refuted, if you could) in the Treatise of Catholique faith, and heresy. But it seenes you regard not what is thought of your Heresy, provided you may seeme to maintaine your episcopacy: and that yee are content to vndergo the infamy of sectaries, so vee retaine the titles of Lords, and Bishops. Pag. 234. You say we have such an eye at your Order, and vniformity, that wee can not let your long cloakes, [Page 46]and surplises alone. As for vniformity yee never had any; and your vvant of Orders makes vs take notice of the superfluity of your long cloakes, and surplisses. The old Protestant cut would become yee much better, and I be­lieve yee will returne to it, and welcome it at the fore dore of your Church (alvvayes open for any advantage) if the puritan, or presby­terian faction prevaile.

1. TO my first reason you answer nothing to the purpose, Pag. 63. but only that King Edvvards forme of ordination vvas judged valid in Queene Maries days by all Catholiques, and particularly by Cardinal Po­le then Apostolicall legate in England, and by the then Pope Paul the 4 and by all the Cler­gy, and Parliament of England. This you pro­ve by Cardinal Poles dispensation (vvhich the Pope confirmed) to all those that were ordai­ned, [Page 47] Praetensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclefiae Anglicanae, pretending the Authority of the En­glish supremacy. I perceave by your other boo­kes you are well versed in Foxes, Acts and mo­numents, and some what in the Dutch Cen­turists vvith the story, and statutes of En­gland, whence you gather what in passion hath bin done against the Popes authority v­pon certaine abuses. The attention to that, made you not reflect vpon, this decree, or arti­cle (as Fox calls it) of Q. Maries, made by the consent of the Lords spiritual, and temporal. Fox pag. 1295. Item touching such persons as vvere heretofore pro­moted to any Orders, after the nevv sort, and fas­hion of Orders; considering they vvere not ordered in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocese, finding othervvise sufficiency, and ability in these men, may supply that thing which vvanted in them before and then according to his aiscretion, admit them to Mi­nister. I hope this Article, or Decree, made vvith the consent, and advise of Cardinal Poo­le, and of the Lords spiritual, and temporal of England, doth sufficiently declare, that his Dispensation, and the Popes confirmation vvas intended, and extended only to such, as had bin ordained after the ancient and Catho­lique manner in the time of schisme. Of others promoted to any Orders after the new fas­hion, and forme of Edvvard the 6. its decla­red, they vvere not ordered in very deed, and therfore the Bishop ought to supply their want of ordination. And yet you are so con­fident as to say, that the question in Q. Maries [Page 48]dayes, vvas not about the validity, or invalidity of your Orders, but about the legality, or illegality of them. I pray you, not to be ordered in very deed, is it only an illegality?

2. The ill successe you had in recurring to King Edwards forme, and Bishops, doth for­ce you appeale to Henry the 8. times, wherin you imagine that neither Barlow, nor any other durst play the Bishop, if not cōsecrated; becau­se forsooth, Henry the 8. was not a Baby to be iea­sted withall. Pag. 186. We know M, Doctor, that Henry the 8. was no Baby, but you also ought te have knowen, that he was a man more led by passion, then by reason, or religion. Af­ter that he perceived, how the Pope was resol­ved not to declare voyd his marriage with Q. Chatharine of Spaine, he did so persecute his adherents, and authority, vvithout regard to conscience, or even to his owne statuts, that his principal care was to countenance hereti­cal Preachers, and principles, as far as they concurred to maintaine his headship of the Church to enrich him with the spoiles therof, to vex, and endommage the Pope. Luther. tom. 2. de Min Ec­clesiae in­stituendis fol.- 368. & seq. & de abro­ganda missa pri­vata to. 2. fol. 249. & in lib. de capt. Babylon. C. de or­dine. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 5. Zuinglius tom 1. ex­planat. a. 17. fine. D. Horne and the first pro­testant Bishops in the Harbo­rough an. 1559 H. 2. Three Cō ­vers of England part 2. pag. 570. & 571. Now he­retiques generally in those days, did agree in this principle, that there is no other priestshood in the lavv of grace, but baptisme, and therfore all Christians both men, and women, were Priests, and might preach, and Ministers all Sacra­ments; though to avoyd confusion, the exer­cise of Priestly authority ought to be commit­ted to some, either by election of the Magi­strate, or by the letters patents of the Prince. [Page 49]This doctrine they grounded vpon 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. Christ made vs all a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and Priests to his father This princi­ple vvas so sutable to Henry the 8. designe of making himselse supreme head of the Church in spirituall affaires, and of possessing him­selse of its temporalities, that he was well pleased to winke at the practise of all hereti­ques, who pretended to be Bishops, though they never had bin consecrated: Archbishop Cranmer (to whom all such matters were re­mitted) being himselfe a prime heretique, and in so greate favor with the King, that (rom­vvel before his fall sayd vnto him, See Fox pag. 1694 & 1695. (being ac­cused of denying the real presence) My Lord of Canterbury you are most happy of all men, for you may doe, and speake vvhat you list, and let all men speake against you vvhat they can, the King vvill never believe one vvord, to your detriment, or hin­derance, &c. There was no such danger of Pre­munires, as D. Bramhall pretends; who would have vs take his word against the evidences cited in the margen, that only Anabaptists, Pag. 196.and not Zvvinglians, rejected ordination.

3. They who forged Masons Register, thought fit to name among Parkers Consecra­ters Barlovv, and Hodgkins both pretended Bishops in King Henry the 8. reigne, not doubting therby to make it credible, that they both, and consequently Parker, were validly consecrated, though Scory, and Co­verdale, (the tvvo other pretended Confe­craters) had never received (being made pro­testant [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50]Bishops in King Edvvards time) e­piscopal ordination. But this shift availes them not; I produce two others, who were called Bishops in King Henries time, sate in Parlia­ment, and tooke vpon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as greate gravity, and solemnity, as Barlow; and yet they were de­declared by publique sentence in Q Maries time, to be no Bishops, nor validly consecra­ted. These were Latimer, and Ridley, to whom D. Brookes Bishop of Glocester, in his last speech, before they were put to death for he­resy, Fox pag. 1604. told; that they were to degrade them only of priesthood, because they were no Bishops. To this you answer M. Doctor, that they who ma­de no scruple to take away their lifes, would make none tot take away their Orders. You are quite out. Cranmer was burnt for heresy, as well as Latimer, and Ridley; and yet they made a scruple to take away his Orders, though they tooke away his life; because they knew he had validly received orders, and therfore was degraded; the same would have bin pra­ctised with Latimer, and Ridley, if the omission of degrading them, had not bin vvaranted by evidence, that they vvere never validly con­secrated.

4. We have often, sayth D. Bramhall, asked à reason of them, why the Protestants should decli­ne their ovvne consecrations? They give vs one, that Barlovv, as most of the Clergy in England in those times, vvere Puritans, and inclined to Zuinglianisme; therfore they contemned, and re­jected [Page 51]Consecration, as a rag of Rome, &c. This rea­son the Doctor solidly refutes, by saying, It is a greate boldnesse, Pag. 195.to take the liberty to cast aspersions vpon the Clergy of a whole Na­tion. If it be a boldnesse to say, that your first Protestant Bishops contemned, and rejected consecration, and that they were of the same opinion concerning it, with Luther, Zuin­glius, and other Reformers; themselves, and not I, are guilty of the crime. Did not M. Hor­ne, and the rest of your first Bishops, publish to the world in print an. 1559. (the very same yeare of the pretended consecration) their sense of Priesthood, and Priestly functions, in these words. In the Ha­bor an. 1559. Protest. Apology tr. 2. C. 2. sect. 10. subd. 7. In this point vve must vse a certai­ne moderation and not absolutely in every vvise de­barre women herein, &c. I pray you vvhat more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbiding vvomen to preach, then in forbidding them to vncover their heads; and yet you knovv in the best reformed Chur­ches of Germany, all the maides be bare headed. This your first Bishops tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptisme and conse­quently of allovving women to be Priests, was so vvel knowne, that D. Harding objects it to Ievvel, Parker, and the rest, If yee allovv not every man, yea and every vvoman to be a Priest. Confut. Apol. fol. 60.vvhy drive yee not some of your fellovves to recant, that so have preached? Why allovv yee the bookes of your nevv Evangelists, that so have vvritten?

5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my bold­nesse, and condemne the Doctors mistake, let him read the 25 article of his Creed, which [Page 52]is this. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreame vnction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Ghospel, being such as have grovvne partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apostles, partly are states of life, allovved in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sa­craments vvith baptisme, and the Lords supper, for that they have not any visible signe, or ceremony ordained of God. It evidently follovveth out of this article; that your first Bishops, who made, and published it an 1562. were of opi­nion, that imposition of hands in ordination, was not ordained by God; vnlesse you will de­ny imposition of hands to be a visible signe, and ceremony. How doth this agree with your moderne Prelatique principles? doth it not e­vince that Parker, and the rest condemned in their judgment imposition of hands, and con­temned it as an idle superstition of Rome? The evidence that the world had of their not being consecrated, made them vtter so absurd do­ctrine, and impose it as an article of faith v­pon ignorant Protestants. Whether they were Zvvinglians, Lutherans, Calvinists, or vvhat you please, their profession of faith showes what account they made of imposition of hands, which is the buisines now in hand, and makes them Svvinglians, and Puritans in this point.

6. Pag. 195. Yet you would faine know how cometh Barlovv to be taxed of Puritanisme? because for­sooth, you find him in his Robes, in his Rochet, in [Page 53]his Cope officiating, ordaining, confirming. Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. yeare of Henry the eight, and Bar­low sate in Parlament in the 31. therfore Bar­low could not be a Svvinglian. This is your learned discouse out of Chronology. I must allow you more time to summe vp your num­bers, or to save you a labour, tell you before hand that make, what account you please, you will find that Luther himselfe begun the con­tempt of sacred Orders, though Swinglius af­ter insisted more vpon it, and there vvas time enough for Barlovv eyther to take it from Svvinglius, or at least from Luther, which is all one to our present purpose. As for his or­daining others you vvill have much adoe to prove it, at least those you would have: for vve have proved your Registers to be forged; but if any such thing be attemted, you may con­clude his presumption, not his consecration, And for his Robes, Rochet, Cope and Cap, the spirit doth dispence with all puritans to weare them, when they are named Bishops. I hope John Hooper, one of the purest brethren that England ever bred, had as tender a conscience as William Barlovv; but when he was to be ma­de Bishop of Glocester, Pag. 136.he vvas faine (sayth Fox­to agree to this condition, that some times in his ser­mons, he should shevv himselfe aparalled as the other Bishops vvere. And yet it is evident, that he vvas never consecrated, though Cranmer, and Ridley, who were his enemies, forced him to weare a square Cap, and a linnend, Rochet, [Page 54]the only caracter of a protestant Bishop. Though they vvanted the reality and truth of consecration, yet they insisted vpon this for­mality, and cloke of ambition, in their sini­ster (as Iohn Fox calls it) and vnlucky conten­tion.

7. And that you may see what litle hazard your protestant Bishops did runn of Promuni­res by such practises, Pag. 1456 John Fox tells you, how D. Ridley that vvorthy Bishop of London, called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon, accor­ding to the Order that then vvas in the Church of England, (vvhich was the forme of Edvvard the 6.) but for that this order was not vvithout so­me such abuse, as to the vvhich Bradford vvold not consent, the Bishop then vvas content to Order him Deacon vvithout any abuse, even as he desi­red. After this Deaconship he was imediately without any orders, made Prebend, and Preac­her of S. Paules, having never studied but one yeare, and all his life before having bin a ser­ving man to S^r. John Harington. Doe you ima­gine M. Doctor; that Barlowes Consecrater would not be as indulgent to him, as Ridley was to Bradford? Or do you thinke that Ridley vvould not venture as farre for his owne con­science, when he vvas to be consecrated, as he did for that of his Deacon? There vvas no such rigour or danger of Premunires in those dayes, as you endeavor to perswade your Reader: neither Henry the 8. nor his Vicar General Cromvvel, nor Archbishop Cranmer, nor sir Thomas Audley a Lutheran, and Chan­celor [Page 55]after Sir Thomas More, did thinke it vvas for their purpose, to presse any other ordina­tion, or Consecration vpon tender conscien­ces, but baptisme; because by this principle the King had some colour for his spiritual heads­hip, and for the temporalities of the Church; and the three others by dissembling, and sus­pending the rigour of the lavves vvith a preten­se of enriching the King, countenanced, and planted their owne errours in the Kingdome.

8. What wonder is it therfore, if the conse­cration of Protestant Bishops should not ap­peare in any Register but yours and Barlovvs in none at all seing it was against their principles, and practise, to be consecrated. But your invi­sible Register hath a property of making visi­ble, what never had a being. Pag. 185. Yet by the helpe of those Records vvhich are in the Court of faculties, I should not despaire (sayth the Doctor) of fin­ding Barlovves consecration. I must confesse my ignorance of your Court of faculties, but like wise acknowledge my experience of the facul­ties of your Court, and Church, in finding things never thought of by any but your selves. But where trow you, doth the Doctor hope to find out Barlovvs consecration? I am confirmed, Pag. 191.saith he, in my former conjecture, that he vvas con­secrated in Wales, which Bishop Goodvin had much more reason to knovv exactly then we have. Yet Bishop Geadvin speaking of Barlovv in three sundry places, viz as Bishops of S. Da­vids, Bath, and Welles, & Chishester sayes not a word of his cōsecrationin any of them, for [Page 56]of his being B. of S. Asaph there is no mention in the English edition, much lesse of his being consecrated there, though you tell vs that in his Latin edition printed at London 1616. are these vvords, he vvas consecrated 22. Feb. 1535. From whence came this new knowledge? It is à preparation, and disposition for a further for­gery? Without doubt the next edition wil say, he was consecrated at S. Davids or S. Asaph in Wales, and that indeed may confirme your con­jecture of the place, and my evidence of your Clergies practise of forging Registers. But why you should hope, or conjecture that Barlows consecration, after the effluxion of a hundred yeares, may be found in Wales, I vnderstand not, if it be not, that you are resolved, to imi­tate the example of meane upstarts, who insert their families into welch pedigrees. So yee, it seemes, intend to furnish your upstart Church, and Clergies want of Ordination, with welch Registers; as in an other occasion you indeavo­red to prove your independency of Rome, by a welch proverb. You are pleased to say (but without any proofe) that Barlows leases made in the sees of S. Davids, Bath, and Wels, were never questioned. We deny it. And prove our denial by the example of Ridley, who being as much à Bishop in Henry the 8. time as Barlow, begged, as a favor before his death, of Q. Mary, that the leases made by him in the see of Lon­don, might stand good. This you may reade in your owne John Fox where he relates Ridleys martyr dome. What greater right I pray, could [Page 57] Barlow pretend for the vaildity of his leases, then his brother Ridley, both of them being pretēded Bishops of Henry the 8. time? You are very unfortunate in all your arguments, unlesse your intention be prevarication of your cause, to make your selfe more looked after upon the title of deriving your Episcopacy from the line of Irish Prelacy which thoug I can not say it had its beginning in a Taverne as the English had: yet it wanted as much in the substance. Had there bin true Bishops in Ireland who could have bin brouglt to lay hands on the new Super­intendents, the Queene might have saved her labour and credit of giving such enormous dis­pēsations as never were heard of. Besides I must aske you a question in your eare. Were you M^r. Doctor made Priest in Ireland? you find an oc­casion to thrust in your being Bishoped in Ire­land, but I can not find you speake of the other, and you know that no Priest, no Bishop. But although you were, if matters litle for your Irish descent is no better then the English, nor any reason hitherto hath bin produced to make it better.

1. WE are come at length to the Nags­head, M. Doctor, the place of your florishes and triumphs; against this very true story, you produce ten reasons, to make it in­credible, which I will not only refute, but re­tort against your Records, and feigned Conse­cration at Lambeth. Your first reason against the Nagshead story, Pag. 31. Is taken from the palpable contradictions of the Catholique Writers, who have related this tale of a tub. Pag. 32. Let us heare these pal­pable contradictions. The common opinion is, that Scory a lone did consecrate them. But M. Con­stable,See Chā ­pney edit. Lat. 1618. pag. 502.one of their principal Authors, supposeth (thus you English me latet) that Barlow might joyne with him in that; and Sanders, leaveth it doubtfull, Pag. 33.when or where, or by whom they were or­deined. You must have learned a peevish wran­gling logique, that makes you fall vpon ano­ther as contradicting you, when you affirming the thing to be so, he doth not say no, but one­ly me latet I doe not know. But you say that M. Wadsworth only doth affirme that there was an at­tempt to consecrate Parker. All others writers say [Page 59]the same. There was no more then an attempt that Landaffe should consecrate Parker. I hope you do not imagine, that we take Scoryes ridi­culous ceremony vvith Parker, and the rest, to be an episcopal consecration, it vvas no more then an absurd attempt. Here is another con­tradiction of people that say the same thing in different words.

2. Seing these contradictions are so farre from being palpable, that they are not intelligi­ble, the Doctor brings others. Other say, Pag. 34.there was more then an attempt, but they name none. Others name some, but they accord not one with an other in naming them. Some say I ewel, Sands, Hor­ne &c. Others say Parker Grindall &c. Lastly others say, they were all ordeined there. Here we have a contradiction of some & others. Why do not you name these others, and some? who are they? where met you vvith them? I have sought our Authours that vvrite of this matter, and find not those Some, or others named or un named? Must I credit more your saying, then my ovvne seeking?

Against your feigned consecration at Lam­beth. I bring no contradictions of others, or some. I name your Bishop Gooduin, D. Sudcliffe, and M. Butler, I give you their names, and their vvords. And though you attribute their con­tradictions to the Transscriber, or printer, the vnpartial Reader will hardly believe that such Erratas should passe the pen, or the presse, as Bedford for Dover, John for Richard, one month for another, &c. And vvill further re­flect [Page 60]vpon the difference of stories recorded, and related. In these, both dayes, and monthes, or the names of persons are easily forgot, and so­me diversity herein argues nocertainty of the fact. But what is alledged as taken out of Re­cords vvill be much suspected if the Relators differ in those particularities which in records are alvvayes precisely specified.

3. Yoor second reason against the Nags­head story, Pag. 37. & 38. is the latenesse of the Discovery of it to the world, after forty yeares vvere passed. But this you refute your selfe by the story you tell vs of Theophilus Higgins, who was (as you say) converted to Catholique Religion by refle­cting vpon the Nagshead consecration; Pag. 125. & 126. and that M. Clerke, vvho had bin an Actuary in Cardinal Poles legative Court, approved well of his caution; but vvithall vvished, that vvhat Catholiques had vvritten concerning the Nagshead story, could be made good, &c. heer you confesse that it vvas published by our vvriters, and that it came not only to the ea­res, but the hearts of Protestants; and yet in other places of your booke you say it never on­ce peeped into the light vntil K. Iames his reigne, and that it vvas only vvhispered in cor­ners amongst Catholiques. Pag. 46. You have given the advantage of a story, I knevv not, vvhich you are not vsed to doe vvhen you defende [...] cause in good earnest.

4. But you appeale to my judgment vvhether it be credible, that this story should be notoriously knovvne to the vvorld in the beginning of Q. Eliza­beths [Page 61]reigne, and yet neither Stapleton, nor Har­ding, nor any one of all the Roman Catholique Wri­ters, should so much as mention it for forty yeares ensuing. I appeale to your eyes M. Doctor, and desire you to read in your owne Bishop Good­vin, whose knowledge you so much esteeme, Goodvin in edit. Londin. 1616. pag. 218. & 219. these words. The 17. of December 1559. is con­secrated (Parker) according to the rites received in our Church, &c. If you inquire of the place of this consecration, it vvas no other but the accuste­med, to vvit, the Chappell of the Archbishop at Lambeth, hovvever the most impudent Raylers Harding, Fitzsimons, and others, give other re­lations; although Harding in some manner may be pardoned, because he related things not before called in question by any, though not believed by himselfe. For vvho in his vvits vvould give credit to a calomny so ridiculous, and so farre from all probability. Is not this the Nagshead Taverne consecration M. Doctor? Is not this the ridi­culous story you so much detest? Doe you re­member vvhen D. Harding lived? Its no mar­vel you should not know what our Authors writ concerning this subiect, being so ill ver­sed in your owne. You may see how particu­larly M. Constable, cited by D. Champney, and your selfe, writ and described the whole story, Pag. 32. in the beginning of Q Elizabeths reig­ne. D. Sanders had donne the same, if your first superintendents had not waved that con­secration, and begged of the Queene, and Parliament to make them Bishops, thinking it more for their honor to be Parliament Bis­hops, [Page 62]then Tavern Bishops. If yee had stood in Sanders time, vpon succession, and ordi­nation by imposition of hands, as you did in King James his Reigne, not only he, but all other Catholique Doctors, had written as par­ticularly the Nagshead story, as Holvvood, Fitzsimons Champney, &c. But in Queene Elizabeths time yee relied vpon her letterspa­tents, or vpon the Act of Parliament 8. Eli­zab. 1. And therfore Harding in the name of all our Doctors ob [...]ected to your first Bishops: If yee can prove no succession, Confut. Apol. fol. 57.then wherby hold yee? Will yee shew vs the letters patents of the Prince? Though they have thus promoted you, yet be yee presumers, and thrusters in of yourselves. Lands, Fol. 60.and Mannours the Prince may give you, Priesthood, and Bishoprick (or Episcopacy) the Prince can not give you.

6. Apply I beseech you, M. Doctor, the latenesse of the discovery of your feigned Consecration at Lambeth, and you will be convinced of the forgery of your Registers. For the space of more then 50. yeares, not one word was spoken of it amongst Catholiques, or Protestants not with standing the urgent necessity not a Syllable written of it in any History that could be seene, untill in the yeare 1605. it was thought fit to foist into Antiqui­tates Britanniae a certaine Register of Parkers, and his Collegues consecration, but named not Lambeth. At length about the yeare 1613. it was thought time to publishin print the so­lemnity of Lambeth, at which all ancient and [Page 63]knowing men were startled, and concluded, that it deserved no more credit, then if a French man should now write, or shew re­cords that in the battell of Pavia, not Francis the first, but Charles the fift was taken priso­ner, and his whole army defeated. You have not any thing to say for your selves, but that the crime of forging records which we lay to your charge, is a grievous crime; it is so in­deed, but very ordinary amongst heretiques. Two epistles were foisted into the fift synod, one of Vigilius Pope, an other of Menas Pa­triarch of Constantinople, which was detected in the 6. synod in the 12. and 14. action upon reading over the Acts of the 5. Synod; for they found three whole quaternions inserted by the heretiques, and in them the two foresaid let­ters. Pope Leo the greate in his 38. epistle, ad Palaestinos, complains of the Grecians, that they had corrupted his letter to Flavianus. And S. Gregory the greate avers that those of Con­stantinople had corrupted the synod of Calce­don, Lib. 5. E­pist. 14. ad Narsem. and suspects they had donne the same with the Councell of Ephesus. And as for that of Cal­cedon, it appeares cleerly the clause of the Bishop of Constantinople having equal privi­leges with the Bishop of Rome, to have bin falsely inserted; both because the fathers of the Councell in their relation to Leo the Po­pe, never ownd it, only said, we have confir­med the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Con­stantinople, which ordained, that after your most holy and Apostolique See, that of Constantinople [Page 64]should have the second place of honor. And accor­dingly Evagrius reports this Canon, Lib 2. c. 4 it was de­creed saith he, that the See of new Rome, by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome, should have the primacy before the other Sees. And Socrates testifieth no more to have bin decreed in the Councell of Constantiple. Lib. 5. c. 8. And Justinian the Emperour speaking of both these Coun­cels, Novel. 131. sayth, As the holy Pope of Rome is the first of all Prelates, so the Archebishop of Con­stantinople, new Rome, should have the second place after the See Apostolique of old Rome, and be pre­ferred before all other Sees. So you may see M. Doctor, this grievous crime is no new thing, and no lesse possible, then probable that your protestant forefathers were as well versed in falsifying Registers, as the Grecians, and Ar­rians. But you need no information in this matter. And for the information of others I shall vpon occasion of Morton make it appea­re how litle conscience, and ashame your Ministers have in point of wilfull falsifica­tions.

7. Your third reason against the Nags head Consecration you take from the strictnesse of the english lawes. But this hath, bin answe­red in the 3. Chapter, and the largenesse of the Queenes letters patents, and statutes in favor of the Nagshead consecration, demonstra­ted.

8. Your fourth reason is, Pag. 47. that there was no ne­cessity to play this pageant. But in this you contra­dict [Page 65]the Queenes commission, and letters pa­tents, as you may see in the said 2. Chap. And besides D. Banewft beares witnesse against you in the answer he gave to M Alabaster, that he boped, Pag. 138. & 140.in case of necessity a Priest might ordaine Bishops. You answer, I do not believe a word of what is said of B. Bancroft, sub modo, as it is heer set down. For my part I believe the whole relateon is feined. Is this your polemick manner of ans­wering? If you desire to be satisfied of the sub­stance, and manner of this story, for as much of it as concerns me, that is the faithfull rela­tion, you may find it in the Jesuits libraryes of Gant, Antvverp, ad Brussels, in Holiwoods booke, de investiganda Christi Ecclesia. Cap. 4. But if you imagine that Father Holiwood did feigne such a story, I must let you know, that he was not only one of the most learned Do­ctors of his time, having taught Divinity in some of the chiefest universities of Europ with great satisfaction, and applause; but that he was esteemed by all who knew him, a man of eminent vertu, and supernaturall gifts. He fo­retold the future miseries of his Countrey (Ireland) when it was most florisking; and assured that the posterity of the ancient english Conquerours, inhabiting the English Pale, would be driven out ef their howses, and ho­mes, though since the conquest they were ne­ver more favored by the state, then when he told this to F. Robert Nugent, and others. Being heire to a faire estate, and chiefe of a noble family, he renounced all that his birth [Page 66]had given, and his hopes, or deserts might promise, to follow Christ in a religious state of life. Now to say that this man feigned Ban­crofts answer, and printed such an imposture in Bancrofts life time, is no better then a chil­dish evasion, or such a Ministers confutation, as undertooke to refute Bellarmine, by saying, Bellarmine thou lyest.

9. You are pleased also to call D. Sanders relation of the Irish Archbishops refusal to consecrate your first Superintendents, a vaine report, Pag. 50. & 51. because forsooth the Archbishop wan­teth a name, and the fable wanteth a ground. His name was Richard Creagh Archbishop of Ar­mach, Analect. sacr. Hi­ber. edit. 1617. who died many yeares afterward in the tower of London. You say that if Consecraters had bin wanting in England, Yee might have seven out of Ireland, and that your Irish prote­stant Consecration was never questioned. Its stran­ge that the Bishops of Ireland should comply so with your heresy, wheras it is well known that three hundred persons of the whole na­tion could not be drawen to it, Fitz. Si­mons in Britan. nomach. either by faire, or foule meanes, since Henry the 8. Schisme, untill King Charles his reigne. Your Irish consecration is every jot as invalid as your en­glish, neither can you make it appeare, that any Catholique Bishop ever imposed hands (Macragh was never consecrated as his owne friars testify) vpon your first protestant Super­intendents of Ireland, who were all made Bis­hops, by the Queens letters patents and with as litle consecration as those of England. Is [Page 67]it credible that if the Queene could have found in Ireland true Bishops that could have bin brought to impose hands vpon those that were to be ordained in England, that she would have alledged such necessity as you ha­ve seene in the 2. Chapt. could not she have called for her owne subjects? Rather then gi­ve such a povver as never vvas heard of sup­plying the vvant of the condition, and state of the person, and adding such words as imply the sufficiency of one person, and even a lay per­son. If she might have had several true Bis­hops out of Ireland, vvould this have bin do­ne? If they had consecrated Protestants in Ire­land, vvould they have refused the like in En­gland? though you have no ground to build vpon your Irish succession yet I have ground enough in your worke to suspect, that you ha­ve willingly, and wittingly prevaricated in the succession of your English Bishops, that they may be forced to recurre to your Irish ordination. Truly in your booke, you have given me so many advantages against your cause, that I shall never accuse my selfe of rashnesse for this suspition of your plaine pre­varication, or at least it must have bin a most vaine presumption to thinke that vvith petty tricks of auvoiding rather, then ansvvering the force of arguments, and florishing vvith your negative testimonies about a speech of one man, you can maintaine a cause vpon so many, and manifest titles defective. What if there had bin a mistake about Mortons speech, [Page 68]is the prize vvonne on your side? Is the que­stion stated vpon that circumstance? Your fift reason is drawne from a principle of Rhetori­que Cni bono? or vvhat advantage could such a consecration as that of the Nagshead bring to the Consecraters, or the persons consecrated? I shall tell you vvhat? It served, seing they could get no better, to raise a rumour that they had bin consecrated, and thereby to delude the peo­ple which had not so soone fully learned the nevv doctrine of those times, that election vvithout consecration vvas sufficient. This vvas all the superintendents cared for, vvho in their opinions slighted consecration as a thing not necessary, as I have made appeare by the common Tenet of those dayes, by the statutes, and Acts, by the 25. Article of their ovvne Creed.

Your 6. and 7. Reasons taken from the dia­metricall opposition, which you pretend is be­tvveen this Nagshead story, and all the Re­cords of England, are 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.

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 [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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, [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 [Page 74]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 Nags­head 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 [Page 75]beliefe vpon, but a constant tradition, and te­stimony, 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 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, [Page 76]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 eye­witnesse of this action, I see nothing that fol­lowes more cleerly from such a supposition, then this conclusion. Ergo M. Neale must needs [Page 77]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 Nags­head, 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 Nags­head 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 [Page 78]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; 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 him­self had taken the oath of supremacy yet in his judgment he was à Catholique, and more sen­sible 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 incli­nations 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, condem­ning consecration as a point not necessary for Ecclestical power, though not te be refused for publique satisfaction, and seeing no better [Page 79]could be had, they thought it more expedient to have something presently, which they might give out for Consecration, then to ex­pect 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, a­gainst 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 din­ner 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 re­member when you tooke vpon you in Bruges to confirme some eminent persons of the En­glish Court, many of the Courtiours were starled at so vnusual a ceremony, as your con­firmation seemed to them, and were solici­tous 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 confirma­tion? Especially seing confirmation should be given to all, and therfore frequent, Fitz. Si­mons in Britan. Pag. 317. where as Consecration of Bishops happens seldome.

9, To M. Neale, and other Catholiques eye vvitnesses of your Nagshead consecration, ci­ted [Page 80]by M. Constable, may be added the testimo­ny of all the Puritans. who say, that the profa­ne Order, and Ordination of Protestant Bishops in England,Demon­strat. dis­ciplina cap. 8. §. 1. & 2. pag. 43.had its beginning, and progresse in a corner not in a congregation. I hope the Archio­piscopal Chappell of Lambeth is no corner; these words must allude to the Nagshead Ta­verne (for no other place is heard of but these two) and do prove that your Registers deser­ve 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 pre­tended Bishop of London, how his first Super­intendents Parker, &c. were consecrated? he answered, that he hoped, in case of necessity a Priest might ordaine Bishops. This answer de­monstrats 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 produ­ced 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 [Page 81]and sober persons; which tradition can not be counterfeited, because no human industry can reach, or spread so farre, as to speake the sa­me thing by so different mouthes, and inte­rest, as there are amongst our witnesses, Ca­tholiques, Puritans, and Protestants. But the ground of your protestant consecration at Lambeth, comes farre short of what yee in­tend 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 ease­ly counterfeited, as any other writing by one, or fewe hands without the concurrence, or conspiracy of so many hands, heads, and op­posite 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 rela­te to the place, tyme, and persons, there is no doubt that our story hath the advantage. The place of your pretended consecration (Lam­beth) vvas never named (even in your Ha­novv Register) vntill 1613. Our story named the Nagshead Taverne from the beginning. As for the persons, their conscience, and reli­gion; 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 Pre­munires, [Page 82]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 demon­strated in the 2. Chap. And finaly the last cir­cumstance, 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 ex­actnes. 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 on­ly M. Neale, but others of most intire credit, spectators of the Nagthead Consecration, as M. Constable writ in their owne life times, nee­re a hundred yeares ago; but yee never na­med 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 Bis­hop 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 ha­ve told it to a namelesse friend. Our witnesses published the story of the Nagshead in the ve­ry [Page 83]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 En­gland; 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 an­cient, and constant tradition of learned, and honest men, agreable to your owne principles of religion, to the confession of your owne Do­ctors, ad to the statuts of the land; or a new­found 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 prin­ciples 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, hid­den for the space of 52. yeares, (the best, and greatest part of the age of your protestant Church) be fore the cleere, and publique tra­dition [Page 84]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 com­mon sense, and makes them walke, and wan­der in darknesse applauding, and extolling with as greate zeale, and as litle discretion, their invisible Records, as your protestant forefa­thers 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 hu­man, nor divine right to temporal benefices, or spiritual offices. Pag. 238. 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 sub­ject, 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; Pag. 239. but would perswade them to restitution, and exhort you to the same, if this charitable office had not bin prevented by Di­vine justice, depriving your Clergy of what [Page 85]they so wrong fully possessed. Yet notwithstan­ding 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 cruel­ties, and present contumelies, pitty your mi­sery, 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.

1. I Am confirmed in my Lord Audleys evi­dence of D. Mortons speech granting the Nagshead ordination by the very ground you offer to him, and propose to others, to make credible a mistake: For, if my Lord had not bin well assured that there is none, he would have willingly layd hold of your courtesy, and of the speech, and person of the pretended [Page 86]Bishop of Lincoln, who, (as you say) did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament, Pag. 26.but with as much detestation of it, as your ancestors vsed to name the Devil. Why might not the mistake both of the person, and of the drift, or scope of his speech, be the occasion of this rela­tion? To this interrogation my Lord Audley himselfe will give you an answer. But give me leave to aske of you, upon what occasion could Lincoln mention your Nagshead consecration in a speech in Parliament which might not as well have moved Durham to speake of the same? Once you grant speeches of this subiect in the vpper house, you can hardly free D. Mor­ton from having a share in them.

2. Pag. 27. But the greatest mistake of all others was (sayth the Doctor) to publish such a notorious untruth to the world, so temerariously without better advise. I confesse that though I never doubted of the truth of my Lord Audleys relation, yet I did foresee that D. Morton would protest against it, and deny the story, as you do D. Bancrofts, concerning the same subject of the Nagshead. But it is a greate mistake in you to thinke, that this story of my Lord Audleyes was published temerariously, and without consideration and designe. For, it was considered that either yee would deny it, or grant it. If yee granted D. Mortons speech, I had my intent. If yee de­nied it, and produced authentique certificats, and testimonies to disprove what was layd to his charge, your owne certificats, and authen­tique testimonies, would be cleer evidences of [Page 87]the truth of the Nagshead story, though tkey should vindicate D. Morton. For, if the Nags­head story had not bin notoriously true, and evident in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reigne, why did not your predecessours produ­ce then authentique Records, or at least such Certificats, as you now do, of your pretended solemnity at Lambeth, when some evidence was desired of your first Bishops to cleere their consecrations, and the very Registers so ear­nestly called for? Why did not some of your Clergy of those days accuse D. Harding (as you do me) of calumny, rashnesse, temerarious cre­dulity &c. For publishing, and objecting the Nagshead story? That yee were vpbraided by him for that ridiculous consecration, you may see in your Bishop Goodvins catalogue, whose words I cited. Why did they not make the like noyse when the puritans told them of the be­ginning of their Ordination in a corner, not in a Congregation. Are you more zelous for the honour of one D. Morton, then your former Bishops were for their owne credit, and the being of their whole Church? If they had not wanted matter, how could they want minde, or meanes to procure, and publish such testimo­nies of the Lords recorded to be present at the solemnity of Lambeth, as you have got of nine other Lords, members of the late Parliament? could they find no testimonies to stop the Puri­tans clamour? The truth is, the Nagshead story was too well knowne in those dayes to be called in question; and not only then, but even [Page 88]in the beginning of King James his reigne, when F. Sacro­bosc. Lib. de inve­stiganda Christi Ecclesia. Cap. 4. e­dit. 1603. Holiwood objected it in print an. 1603. to all your protestant Clergy, and confirmed it by the testimony and confession of D. Ban­croft then living, being actualy in place of Bishop of London. Yet no certificats appeared to contradict the story, or Bancrofs acknow­ledgment, none to convince the Puritans ob­jection What reason could there be of this si­lence, and patience, but cleere evidence of what you now so confidently deny? so that you see M. Doctor, how this stir which you have made about Mortons vindication, doth prove the truth of your Nagshead Consecration, and that your certificats to disprove my Lord Audleys testimony, reflect vpon more then you did designe, or desire, and totaly destroy the plea of your forged Registers. But let vs heare what he saith for himselfe in his ovvne words.

‘Having seene a booke intituled the Con­secration, & Succession of Protestant Bis­hops, &c. & particularly perused that Chap­ter calld the Vindication of the Bishop of Durham I finde my self (reflecting of some expressions therein, & the Bishop of Derry author) obliged to say something as concer­ned, & so have desired place here for a few linies. Who the Author of the treatise of Ca­tholique faith, &c. fixeth on to prove his al­legations touching the Bishop of Durhams speech, I know not, for he told me of it befo­re ever I spoke to him, but sure I am, if it [Page 89]be looked after he may have sufficient testi­mony to satisfy half a douzen juries; but that which stirs me to speake in this matter, is, a note I have at the request of the Bishop of Derry given him vnder my hand, wherein, I say in substance the same with the Author touching the Bishop of Durhams speech, as for the booke against Episcopacy, which was the ground of the discourse, my note only avers it was brought into the howse, but said not by whome, nor who was the author, in truth I wondered much to finde that the Bishop of Durham doth deny this speech, for I can not remember that ever I heard of, or read the story of the Nagshead, till that day in Parlament of my Lord of Durham; then I heard it from him, and this I say, as I shall answeare it before the judgement seat of God Allmighty. And I doe not remember that ever I heard the Bishop of Lincolne, or any other Bishop before, or since mention the Nagshead, or touch that story: if I had, & not named him, my Lord of Durham mought have just reason to complaine, but my Lord of Derry will not beleeve that I (for I can not but take it to my self) doe, or ever did know the Bishop of Durham, so well as to sweare this was the man. If his Lordship had bin an English Bishop, an fre­quented Parliaments, he would have omit­ted this. Not to multiply vvordes. I can as­sure his Lordsp, I could as well, & surely ha­ve sworen this is the man, the Bishop of [Page 90]Durham, as his Lordship could of Sir Geor­ge Ratclif when he lived. Besides, his per­son, & place of the Bishops bench is too eminent to be mistaken. An other expres­sion of my Lord of Derry is, I do not take my self to be so exact Analyser of a discour­se, as to be able to take my oath, what vvas the true scope of it. Here likevvyse I must beg his Lordships pardon. I knovv no such defect in my self, for there is not any thing more easy then to comprehend the true co­pe of a short a plaine Historicall discourse as this was; to conclude, as to the Bishop of Durhams denial, I hope that confessing him self novv of the age of 95. yeares, it vvill be held no crime to say, or impro­bable, to beleeve that one of that grear a­ge, may at least forget, vvhat he spake so many yeares since. For the tvvo cerficats of the other Lords, that of the temporall saith litle to my Lord of Derryes purpose, nei­ther with an indifferent judgment can that of the spirituall worke much. For my part, I doe not say, that any, or all their Lords­hips, whose names are put to the certificats in the booke, were in the Howse at this ti­me, or if any of them were, that they tooke notice of what my Lord of Durham spake, for many discourses are made in Parlaments, & litle notice taken of them, neither had I, of this, but that it was to me a new thing. The Clarque of the Parliament is all so brought in to certify, though as to my note [Page 91]his paines mought have bin spared, for I doe not mention a booke presented, and conse­quently none to be recorded, and as for speeches, I doe assure his Lordship, in the authority of an old Parliament man, that it is not the office of the Clarque to recorde them (his worke would be too great) till it be a result or conclusion, & then he writes them downe as Orders, Ordinances, &c. of Parliament. I vvill end this short, & faith­full defence, which I have bin here necessi­tated to make for my self vvith many thanks to my Lord of Derry for his charity, & opinion of my ingenuity: & seing his Lords­hips inclination in this matter is to absolve me from a malicious lye, I vvill absolve my self as to the mistakes either in the person, or matter, assuring his Lordship, & all the vvorld there is none.’

3. Though this relation, and testimony gi­ven by my Lord Audley doth not only cleere me from casting any aspertion vpon D. Monton, but also makes the whole speeche layd to his charge, sufficiently credible, (one positive witnesse with such circumstances proving more then many negative, and it being more proba­ble, that D. Morton, or any other in the Par­liament, should forget, then my Lord Audley feigne such a story, without any possible desig­ne or profit) yet I must vindicate my selfe from the note of credulity, rashnesse, overmuch confi­dence, and formal calumly fixed vpon me by D. Bramhall, for believing my Lord, Audley, and [Page 92]publishing his relation. Is it credulity or rash­nesse, good M. Doctor, to believe a person of honour, Pag. 26. and of so greate ingenuity, as you con­fesse my Lord Audley to be and no man of honour can deny in a matter, wherof he had as cleere evidence, and hath as perfect memory, as is possible for any man to have of any object, by the acts of his senses, and understanding. He protesteth before God and man, that he never heard any thing of the Nagshead consecration till then, and that the novelty of the story, ma­de him very attentive; that he remembers the individual circumstances of the place where D. Morton stood, his posture, and all other actions, wherwith he accompanied his speech: and that after D. Morton had finished the same, he asked a Lord of knowne reputation and wisedome, whether the first protestant Bishops had bin ordained in a Taverne? and that he answered, the story of the Nagshead was very true.

4. Now M. Doctor, I beseech you to con­sider, how impossible it is, that he should be mistaken, having such assurance of his atten­tion, and of the evidence of his senses, and understanding? Want of memory (the only thing is, or can be objected to make roome for a mistake in this matter) may occasion doubts, and perplexities; but not cause such positive assurances, and cleere evidences as my Lord Audley to this howre retaines. If it be once granted, that men of judgment may be mista­ken in the evidence they sweare to have of their owne perfect remembrance, and under­standing, [Page 93]concerning an object cleerly acted before their eyes, and distinctly convejed into their eares, and particularly reflected vpon, and immediately discoursed vpon, you may perswa­de all the world, that whatsoever they have seene, heard, and understood, are but dreames, and mistakes, occasioned by want of memory. for to impute so much dulnes, and ignorance to my Lord of Audley, that he could not com­prehend the scope of a speculation so abstra­cted, so sublime, so Metaphysical, as Mor­tons, saying his forefathers were made Bishops in a Tarverne: this were enough to degrade a Doctor of Divinity, and dispend your episcopal pen from its endles, and sensles function of scribling, if you held these titles vpon science, conscience, or common sense. This is to char­ge both the Relator, and Reader with plaine stupidity. Must men be made out of their wits, because they beare witnes against your Clergy? Or can you hope that any man in his wits will heed what you write, when you care so little what the Readers judge of you, and your wri­tings?

5. But here comes a full tide of testimonies, to bring him of the sand he stuck himself in. Ni ne Peeres have bin so vexed with your impor­tunity, that they have condescended to yield you som succour in so urgent necessity. Pag. 23. We doe hereby testifie, and declare that to the best of our present knowledge, and remembrance, no such booke against Bishops as is there mentioned was pre­sented to the house of Peeres in that Parliament, [Page 94]and consequently that no such speech as is there pre­tended was, or could bo made by him, or any other against it. Jam far from calling in question the ingenuity of these honorable persons, or im­puting unto them the want of incapacity to comprehend the scope of what Morton then said, or of any thing he ever could have said, if it had any scope; but I must call your judgment in question for thinking that what yow have got will serve your turne. If it doe not its not their fault in giving what you asked, but yours in asking you knew not what. The question is, whether Morton acknowledged in parliament the Nagshead merry meeting; but whether it were vpon occasion of a booke publickly pre­sented, or privatly delivered, whether dedica­ted to the parliament, or distributed amongst the members of Parlement, whether in this man, or that mans name, whether Lord, or not Lord, what imports it to the matter in hand? There are none of these Lords, will de­ny, or doubt, but that many by-speeches have bin made by Bishops in Parliament vpon lesser occasions, then these J rehearsed, and perhaps some with no occasion, and also to no purpose at all, unles the rest have bin more carefull in speaking then you in printing. Pag. 10. You confesse a booke to have bin dedicated to the Parliament against Episcopacy, and the booke to have bin writ by a Lord; you confesse to have heard that the B. Pag. 26.of Lincolne did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament, and you will not deny, but that Durham for his many [Page 95]writings, and great age might have bin as fit, and forward to talke as another, and if you looke but upon the text of the testimony, you have begged, you find not a word that argues, or intimats his not having avowed the Nags­head ordination. They only say they remem­ber no such booke, to wit with all the circum­stances mentioned, and consequently no speech against it. They may remember a speech vpon occasion of a booke, wherin Durham took harbour in the Nagshead Tarverne, and yet say with truth they do not remember that speech, or any other to have bin made against such a booke signed with all those individual particularities. And further there might have bin such a speech, and such a booke, and such circumstances: and yet they might have forgot them all, or in part, after so many years; but I need not this, for they do not deny to remember the speech, nor the booke, nor any circumstance belonging to the point, we dispute. And I marke their attestation to be couched in termes so precise, and cautious, as both to content you, who presume to make any thing serve your purpose, and yet ney­ther to contradict, nor wholy conceale the truth. For, those that with so carefull attention tyed their attestation so fast to the circum­stantial part of the buisnes, knew full well that the attentive Reader would therby percea­ve they could have said more of the substance, if they had not bin by themselves, or by o­thers persuaded that it was not convenient to [Page 96]publish all they remembred. But your adding the Clark of the Parliaments testimony is a meere childish simplicity, what sayth he? I do not find any such booke presented, nor any entery of any such speech made by B. Morton. Will you make men beleeve that every speech is ente­red, or that if just such a booke was not for­mally presented, that the speech was not ma­de vpon occasion of a booke, or that a booke in good English may not be said to be presen­ted, although it be not delivered in such solem­nity, as requires the putting it vpon record? It is much want that brought you doune to such beggarly shifts, to go from dore to dore begging attestations about an inconsiderable circumstance, and make soo poore, and pitti­full vse of what you have scraped together. You forget to beg the favour of your adversa­ry to let you talke disparatas in this desperat case, and beg pardon of your Reader for abu­sing his patiēce, and presuming that he is void of common sense, and no less reason you have to beg pardon of your partners for your want of ability, or Perhaps fidelity in the defence of the common cause. If you were a lawyer by profession, as you professe here much skill to litle purpose in law matters, I beleeve after such pleading as this, you would get few clients, and smal fees.

6. Put the case your Brother Durham had bin accused of treason, and you were allowed to plead for him (which equity in other coun­tries is not denied) now there coms in a wit­nes [Page 97]whose ingenuity you grant, and no man can deny, he takes vpon his oath, as he hopes to be saved, that he heard the said Durham vpon occasion of a sedicious pamphlet, make a speech to the people, wherin he exhorted them to deliver vp a towne to the enemy; that he knowes the man accused as vvell as you knew Sir George Ratcliffe; that he remembers cleer­ly the very place, and posture, wherin he ma­de the speech, and further more that the speech was so vnexpected, that it made him in a par­ticular manner attentive, that immediately af­ter, he discoursed vpon it with an other, to in­forme himself better of the ground of that speech, and all this he protests over, and over agine in all occasions offered, as he is to ans­wer in the day of judgment. Put the case fur­ther he should say that he thinks the pamphlet was writ by such a man, or given in such a mans name, and that it was presented by one, that made a leg as he gave it, and delivered it with his right hand; but of these petty circum­stances he gives no assurance vnder his hand, as being things he made no very particular account of, or reflexion vpon. Now enters M. Bramhall the lawyer puft vp vvith presum­ption that he can talke all the world out of their wits, and senses, First bragging, and vapouring, and threatening no lesse then con­vincing demonstrations, then vpbraiding his adversary with credulity, temerity for taking notice of such a testimony, and forewarning him with a most passionate zeale of his credit, [Page 98]hereafter to turne stoick with Epictetus, and learne to distrust, and having wearied himself, and others with these Preambular imperti­nences, and disposed all by his presumption, and passion not to beleeve a word he shall say, atlength he coms close to the point, and tels the judge, that the witnesse doth not take himself for so exact Analyser of a discourse, as to vnderstand what is meant by these words, to deliver a tovvne to the enemy, and if this be not sufficient to cleere the matter, he pro­duces a writing wherin some persons say noe more, but that they doe not remember after 17. or 18. yeares such a Pamphlet, that is writ by such a man, and delivered with that cere­mony, and in such a mans name, and conse­quently no speech to have bin made against it, as is pretended, and that it was not in such manner presented, as those are, which are no­ted in publicke Registers, but as to the effect of the speech not so much as a negative testi­mony, not so much as a word signifying it to be not remembred, but rather the contrary: otherwise they had spoken home to the sub­stance, and not confined their oblivion within a few circumstances, and those nothing con­ducing to what is in question. But if the said lawyer should not so much as prove that the witnesses produced by him were present at the foresaid speech, nor give any reason, or con­jecture why they said nothing towards the de­nial of the speech it self, in case they had bin present, but only of their having forgot cer­taine [Page 99]accidental superflous particularities, not regarded, or formally avouched by the con­trary witnes; nor alleadge any Lavv, Custom, president, or argument, why such a negative testimony of the not remembrance of inconsi­derable circumstances should prevaile against the plaine, cleere, positive, vndoubted re­membrance of a witnes beyond all exce [...]tion: and further should presse his adversary ever, and an on to legal proofes, and admit of no others, and yet himself insist chiefely vpon a proof against the law of all nations that have law, to wit vpon the denial of the person ar­raigned, and others equally concerned; if, I say, a Lawyer should plead in this manner, would any judge, or any man of judgment cleere the Delinquent of treason, or the Ad­vocate of treacherous prevarication, or igno­rant presumption vpon so frivolous, and idle discourse.

7. And yet this is your case, M. Doctor, this, I say, or worse then this; for besides your il­legal plea of producing Morton as a witnes in his owne cause opposing a negative testimony against a positive; and that of the circumstan­ce, this of substance, and his fellow Superin­tendents as much concerned in this matter as himself, who, if this story be confessed, have no more character, or order, then a Brovvnist Minister, or Tubpreacher, yet there is a spe­cial exception against the person of Morton, as having bin often, and evidently convicted of most plaine wilfull, vn excusable lies, and [Page 100]impostures in his severall writings concer­ning Religion, which shamefull abominable practise he hath vsed when he was less concer­ned, then in this present occasion. Whether I speake with reason, or passion the Reader will shortly judge of himself, and with all what exception may be taken against his Col­legues. I shall give neyther him, or you any names though provoked by both, he calls me an impudent libeller, you call M. Neale a brai­nesicke foole. I know you are both as vvell ver­sed in Civility, as Divinity, and need not to take you for my Maisters, or Paternes. But I shall teach the Reader to frame a right no­tion of you, and your tribe, and remit the gi­ving you names to his discretion.

As to the Noblemen you cited, I have exa­mined their attestation with that regard, as neyther to give offence to them, nor advan­tage to you, nor prejudice to the truth. To whom I make bold to present this humble petition that they will be pleased in their wis­dome to consider the difference betwixt these two consequences, which without any ar­tificiall Logique is easily discerned.

8. The first. I remember cleerly, and di­stinctly to have heard such a speech, which the attention to it, the admiration of it, the re­flexion vpon it hath deeply imprinted in my memory, therfore I may securely say, and sweare such a speech y have heard. The se­cond. I doe not remember after 17. or 18. yea­res certaine occasional circumstances of such a [Page 101]speech, or perhaps not the speech it self, be­cause I might have bin absent, or not atten­tive to it, or made litle account of it. Ther­fore another mans perfect remembrance is not to be credited. Although the Roman Se­natour Hortensius is renowned for his prodi­gious memory, yet I could never heare any thing of him which might give occasion to thinke that if he had forget somthing belon­ging to a speech made in the senate 17. yea­res before, that his oblivion would have bin thought sufficient to voyd the evidence of it drawne from the solemne oath, and perfect remonstrance of a lawfull witnes. And albeit Mithridates could give account of every soul­diers name in his army, yet if one had bin proved by the oath of a person of honour to have served him in his warres, can any man imagin the King would have disavo­wed his service, because after 17 yeares he, or some others had forgot his name? Not many yeares since there appeared a dim Co­met observed by fevv, yet I could never find any that hath pervsed their ohservations so mad, as to call it in question, because he or some others can not call to memory the sight of it, notwithstanding a perfect remembran­ce they might have had of their being abroad that very night it is said to have bin seen by others.

9. But you M. Doctor, advance not so far as to evince the presence of your witnesses, much less their speciall attention, reflexion, [Page 102]admiration, or the like, which are the fun­dations of a lasting memory, for my witnes doth not mention the day. Wherefore it was a worke not only of supererogation, but su­perfluity, that your superintending Brethren should put in their attestation, that they sate in the Parliament begun at Wesminster the 3. day of Novemb. 1640. without giving some si­gne of their sitting, or standing in Parliament the time of the speech. Yet Mortons attesta­tion is not only superflous, but ridiculous. A man that hath bin publickely, manifestly, and frequently convicted of most wilfull, and most impudent lyes in his writings, is grovvne so forgetfull not only of what he spoke, but of what any man in his wits ought to speake, that he delivers himself in these terms. I could never have made such a speech as is there preten­ded (and the proofe it excellent) seeing y have ever spoken according to my thoughts, and alvvays believed that fable of the Nagshead consecration to have proceeded from the father of lyes. A deafe man might as well say, he heard it with his heeles, as that Morton should say he spoke ac­cording to his thoughts, when he thought it convenient to speake otherwise. And no lesse ridiculous industry was vsed in procuring a publique Notary, and five witnesses to ma­ke men believe that the attestation is truly his owne, not falsly fathered vpon him, for no body doubted but he would give a most am­ple testimony for himself, and his cause, but no man that knowes him by his writings vvill [Page 103]give credit to any thing he sayeth in behalfe of religion. Persuade the old man that you have found a new trick to make better vse of of the Nagshead consecration, then that of Lambeth, you shall have him, with double number of witnesses avow the speech, he hath disavowed. For is it credible he feares a fevv private mens silent censure, who hath hard­ned his face against the publicke reproach of as many schollers as read bookes of contro­versy? But I shall present him, and his fello­wes to your eyes, in their owne glasse, that you may know them better by sight then by hearsay.