THE NULLITY Of the Prelatique Clergy, and Church of England Further discovered In answer to the plain prevarication, or vain presumption of D. John Bramhall in his Book, entitled The Consecration and succession of Protestant Bishops justified, etc. AND That most true story of the first Protestant Bishop's Ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous Consecration at Lambeth with the forgery of Masons Records clearly detected by N. N.  
Non misi eos, & non precepi eyes, neque locutus sum ad eos: visionem mendacem, & divinationem, & fraudulentiam, & seductionem cordis sui, prophetant vobis.  Jerem. 14.14. 
I sent them not, and I commanded them not, neither have I spoken unto them; lying vision, and deceitful guilfulnes, and seduction of their own heart they prophesy unto you.  Jerem. 14. v. 14. 
Printed at Antwerp, in the year M.DC.LIX.   

THE PREFACE CONTAINING The State of the Controversy, and the Sum of the Author's reasons produced in the Treatise of the nature of Catholic faith, and Heresy; with some reflections upon D. bramhall's impertinent digressions and expressions.  
I. IN the second Chapter of a book printed an. 1657. and entitled, A Treatise of the Nature of Catholic faith, and Heresy: Was occasionaly proved that the English Protestant Bishops were never validly, or in very deed ordained. And albeit the proofs were so clear, as to make the nullity of their Clergy, and consequently of their Church, manifest to the judgement of any unpartial disinteressed Reader; y yet I was content to press him no further then to an undemiable doubt, this being, sufficient for my purpose, because a doubtful Clergy is to the effect i intended as good as no Clergy; for a doubtful Clergy makes a doubtful Church, and a doubtful Church is no Church, as giving no assurance to Christian faith. The arguments reduced to a brief sum, were as followeth.  
II. First, the Catholic Doctors, as Stapleton, Harding, Bristouw, Reynolds, etc. in their books printed, some but five, or six years, some not long afther the pretended ordination of M. Parker of Canterbury, and his fellows, (upon whose consecration confessedly depends the prelatique Clergy of England) pressed these very persons frequently, and earnestly, to make good their consecration, to show how, and by whom they received episcopal orders; and yet none of them could clear this point, either by Registers, witnesses, or any circumstances; much less ever mentioned the new Records, produced by M. Mason fifty years after, of their consecration at Lambeth, by certain persons pretended to be Bishops; which they, being in their wits, would never have failed to have done, if there had been any such thing.  
III. Secondly, that these Records, where upon they wholly rely, are proved to be forged, not only by their not appearing in so urgent necessity, but also by the manifest incoherence of the Prelatique Authors that writ of the ordination of the foresaid Parker, and his fellows, with reference to the said records; disagreeing in the persons of the Consecrators, and in the time of their consecration. Besides, the admiration of ancient, and learned persons at the first appareance of these new found unheard of Registers, and the exception made against them by Fitzherbert, an ancient and knowing man and namely those who where permitted to have sight of them; but denied after to peruse them with leisure, as they requested. Furthermore, if those Records were true, how could it have been objected, that the ordination was not only not canonical, but not so much as legal, contrary to the very laws of the land; whereas the Records make it so precise, and formal in this later point, that there was no place of cavilling. Besides, the falsifying of Records is a thing neither hard, nor unheard of, and easily presumed in those, that so grossly corrupt Scripture, and Fathers, a crime both more abominable, and more discoverable. Lastly, it is incredible, that john Stow should have concealed such a solemn business, as Parker's consecration at Lambeth, hapening in is own time, and having related the consecration of Cardinal Poole, Predecessor to Parker, and making it the greatest part of his business, the choosing of Mayors of London, the creation of Lords, and such kind of stuff suitable to such a writer.  
IU. Thirdly, that no man of conscience, or common sense can imagine, that the Catholic Doctors of those times, who had such care of their salvation, as to suffer so much as they did upon that account, should wilfully damn their souls, by obliging posterity upon misinformation, to reordaine those that had been validly, or dained before; for, it is a known Tenet wherein the Catholic Moralists, though infinite in number in these later ages unanimously agree, that we can not, without commiting a damnable sin, no more reordaine, then rebaptise; and it is a practice well known, that as many of that Clergy as after their conversion have received orders a mongst us, have been ordained absolutely, and without any condition, and consequently without any probability of having received orders, I do not say canonically, but even validly.  
V. Fourthly, that although the foresaid persons had been against all appearance, ordained by true Bishops, yet, to omit the uncertainty of the matter; the form, or words used in the act of consecration, are at least, of a doubtful sufficiency, and fare from that certainty which is required in a matter of so great consequence.  
VI Fiftly, by public Acts both in Q. Mary, and Queen Elisabeths' Reign, it is plainly discovered, that the pretended Consecrators of Parker, and his fellows, were looked upon as in very deed no Bishops. For, in an article of Queens Maries, 
Acts and monum. pag. 1295.  cited by John Fox himself, is declared, that Edward the VI his Clergy, were not ordered in very deed. And even in the Reign of King Henry the 8. after his schism, there was such neglect, and contempt of consecration, that heretics without it, played the Bishops, as it appears in Ridley of London, and Latimer of Worcester; who being burnt for heresy in Queen Mary's time, were degraded only, as Priests, and not as Bishops; the Judge telling Ridley, as Fox recounts, they were to degrade him only of Priesthood, for that they did not take him for a Bishop Now Q Elisabeth supplying, as you shall see hereafter at large, the inability not only of the number, but even of the very State, and Condition of the ordainors, doth manifestly declare the defect not only in formality, but reality, and withal her presumption to supply any thing by her spiritual headship.  
VII. Sixtly, Authors of credit have related, and persons of judgement, and knowledge, have generaly believed, that the pretended Consecration was performed at the Nagshead tavern in cheapside, in à manner so clearly defective in the opinion now universally received amongst Prelatique Protestants, that they are ashamed to hear of it, little regarding the different Tenets of their Ancestors, who as much contemned Consecration, and character, as they seem now to esteem them; and cared for no more, but for some exterior show of a ceremony, to amuse the world, and raise them in the vulgar opinion to the degree of Bishops. Amongst other proofs of this story, was produced the credible, and public testimoney of a person of honour, and ingenuity, who declared to many persons of prime quality, that he perfectly remembered a speech made by D. Morton called Bishop of Duresme in Parliament, wherein he derived their Episcopal succession from the ordination at the Nagshead. This small scrap D. Bramhall snatcheth up very greedily, as though it were a matter of substance, and able to maintain their decaying Episcopacy. He hath obtainedof Morton to disavow the speech, and of six others of the same calling, to say, they do not remember it, and withal a testimony of the lords, who also confess they can not call to memory some antecedent circumstances of that speech and hereof makes flourishes, and triumphs, as if forsooth, he had got the victory in the main point; or as if upon à mistake (if it were such) in so small, and inconsiderable à circumstance, depended the matter, which is in hand. Have patience a while, you shall see how much you have got by the bargain. You shall find there was more reason to believe it, and publish it, than you are ware of; and that this stir you have made, and was foreseen you would make, hath raised the dust in your own eyes.  
VIII. But I will first clearly, and briefly refute your exceptions against my chief arguments, and contrary to your method, begin with, and insist upon that which is most material. But I can not omit in a word, or two to put you in mind of some of your many impertinent digressions, as fare from the truth, as from the purpose. You frame to yourself two opponents, as if either the argument, or you the adversary, required a concurrence of endeavours. You are much mistaken, one hand was more than sufficient, and no more was employed. 
Pag. 4.  You seem to be troubled upon a report of a foil you received, which I never knew but by your book, and I wonder your long experience made you not reflect, that such things might be maliciously told you, thereby to sharpen your passion and pen. For my part, I never conceived you so forward, as to put yourself into any such danger. 
Pag. 5.  Methinks a man of your coat should not blame mingling the interest of religion with matters of state, unless it be, that some other speaks here by your pen; or that by a secret instinct you unawares utter the hidden mystery of your protestant prelacy, which was introduced, and maintained in England, not for religion, but reason of state. Some late passages you mention, I suppose rather upon instigation of others, than your own inclination, however it had been more for your credit to have done it upon better information of the truth and with more connexion to the subject of your book; 
Pag. 4. in fine.  for my part, while I followed you wand'ring out of the way both of truth; and method, about you do not know what imputed to me, I was in fear at every step, to meet with the ridiculous story, 
Cardin. Bleho.  of an imaginary Cardinal laid to my charge; who hath more affinity with a matter of ordination, 
Pag. 4.  than the late Governor of the Lowcountries.  
IX. You, are much bragging of the learning of your Prelatical English Clergy, 
Pag. 144. & 216.  and will cope with our greatost Doctors, and fear not to make parallels, and other such fond bravadoes; which obligeth me to tell you against my will, what you are not willing to hear. I would gladly knouw, how many Prelatiques have made known to others nations, that afther Haeresy came into England, there remained any mark or footstep of Divinity, or Philosophy Withaker, I grant, was not unskilful in matters of controversy and could speak in a language understood by scholars of foreign countries, but he speaks far from the principles of prelatique Protestancy, from that which is called the Church of England. Was there ever any amongst you, that deserved to carry the books after Alensis, Scotus, Bacon, Mediavilla, or Midleton, Ocham, Holcot, Waldensis, and others, not to go out of our own Lands. It is no wonder you burned their books publicly in the Vniverfity to be rid of so public reproachers of your ignorance. Some of late I grant, have contributed much to the advancement of knowledge, each one in their kind, as Gilbert, Verulam, Harvey; but these were laymen, and meddled not with any matter of Divinity. What can you allege in point of learning amongst you, but that which merely belongs to memory, and even that, patched up of rotten rags of corrupted history, and small shreds of scattered collections, mingled, and mangled, turned inside out, to make the ancient Fathers in a few obscure words, speak contrary to what they have clearly delivered in whole homilies, and books. If but in this part rather of reading then learning, rather memory than wit, you had come to any degree of perfection, what need had there been to have made so much of Casaubon for impugning Baronius, and in a later occasion of an other stranger Salmasius? And when out of mere shame, one of yours was forced to reply to him that answered Salmasius, you see what a piece of stuff was woven, not only threadbare in point of learning, but stained with so many foul Barbarismes, and Solecisms, that it is a pity to see, what a sport was made of it by the adversary, and yet there is more reason to think, that many hadst concurred to it, then to the book you undertake to refute. I expect you should attribute all those gross faults to Erratas of the printer, 
Pag. 175.  as you do the mistake of Bedford for Dover, and one month for an other, or of the Transcriber, as Richard for john in another place, 
Pag. 89.  to reconcile the contradictions of your solemn consecration as Lambeth. And yet forsooth these scrapers of rude indigested rubbish of incoherent historical Notes, must be set forth in the false disguise of Doctors of Divinity, whom this Epithet becomes as much, as a Bricklayer, or Dauber the name of an Architect. I am sure S. Gregory Nazianzen amongst the Fathers, and Plato amongst the Philosophers purchased the title of Divines at a higher rate, with expense of their labour in higher matters.  
X. And it is without doubt upon the diffidence of their learning that you spread so broad your skill in Congee d'eslires, Premunires, Actuaries, Notaries, Signet offices, Deane of the Arches, Court of Faculties, etc. Wherewith you would blind ignorant Readers of your book to a persuasion of your mysterious knowledge, as either you, or your brethren are used to do in sermons, and marginal notes, with scantlings of Greek, and Hebrew words. You shall find that your Congee d'eslires and Actuaries will help little to clear your Records from plain forgery and that you spill your skill to as little purpose, as your Forefathers did their wine, or Metheglin, to get the Welsh Bishop to ordain them in a Tavern.  
XI. Now upon hopes to deprive your adversary of credible testimonies, you will needs persuade him, that it is; against the art oft polemique disputers, 
Pag. 221.  to cite Authors either dead, or unsworne, or of their own party. I pray you M. Doctor, in S. Augustins' polemics, how much of this precise caution do you find? 
Tomo 6. & 7.  Do you think that all which Christian Authors relate against Turcks, jews, Gentiles; and Catholics against Arians, Macedonians, Manicheans, Eutychians, Nestorians, claims no belief from a judicious impartial Reader? when they produce witnesses dead or unsworne, or of their own party. Is there no difference between disputing in Schools, and pleading at the bar, 
Pag. 157.  between persuading a sober judicious Reader with the reality of reason, and coherence of circumstances, and the stopping the mouth of a clamourous, froward, litigious advocate with formalities of law; which you do most indiscreetly press, being further of from bringing legal proofs than I, or any man that writ of this subject. For my part I am so far of from peevish jangling obstinacy, that I will not stick to believe an adversary, if I have not special reason to mistrust his understanding, or honesty, or discover much inconsequence, or find better evidence to the contrary. Before I have done, you shall find why I question your Relators, and Records, and by occasion of D. Mortons' testimony, the Reader, if he have but the light of reason not eclipsed with passion, shall need neither school, nor law learning to see, how little credit is to be given to protestant Ministers.  
XII. 
Pag. 1. & 134. & passim.  You please yourself much in a poetical fable of the Cretan Minotaur, whereupon you make many glosses, and I shall make of it a glass for you to represent to your eyes the beautiful figure of your Prelatique Clergy; the cause of both was a very unlawful lust, in Henry the 8. King of England, and Pasiphae Queen of Crete; the Minotaur was half beast, half man; and your Clergy, half Zuinglian, half Catholic; both kept in a labyrinth, both fed with innocent blood, and both at length destroyed by the sword.  
XIII. You pretend to show wit in applying this fable to the relation of your Clergys' descent from the Nagshead, which you might better have called a tale of a tun, than a tub, as more relating to a Tavern; unless it be, because your Taverne-Prelates came at length to give place to Tubpreachers. This is only to give you an Item, rather te show yourself wary then witty; as being more suitable to your age, and profitable to your cause. But I can not perceive how you were either wary, or witty, in upbraiding men of my coat with the ill success of Princes that follow their counsel, after such, and so fresh an example, which never happened since God created the world, by the counsel of any Clergy but yours. You say it is pity I was not of his Council, I am sure it is pity that ever any Prince, or state, should here after be led by the advice of your Clergy, unless they deserve the like success.  
XIV. But this fond vindication of your forged Records must be decked with more pedantical stuff of Poetical fables. The Nagshead true story you metamorphose into an imaginary Chimaera and M. 
Pag. 146.  Mason was the Bellerophon that destroyed this monster, this Posthumus brat was the Minerva, or Issue of M. Neales' brain, or some others who fathered this rapping lie upon him. If a chimaera be composed of contradictions, what can be more chimerical, than your solemn consecration at Lambeth that contradicts not only the constant tradition of wise and conscienable men, but the very statutes of the Prince, the acts of Parliament, the doctriner of Protestants, and even the Protestant Creed contrived in those times. This is no Minerva, no issue of any brain but an abortive reeling Bacchus hatched far from the brain, a Vulcan ridiculously halting at every step. Your Bellerophon with his Pegasus, or poetical Nagshoofe hath only opened a fountain of fictions when he published his feigned Records, but the Nagshead head relation hath made such a breach in your Prelatic Church, that all your Heads put together will never stop it.  
XV. You are not content to make ostentation of your wit, but are pleased also to show your judgement in taxing us of imprudence, because forsooth, with indiscreet zeal we endeavour to make Proselytes, 
Pag. 216.  and follow those birds with noise, and clamour, which we desire to catch. Many sinners are so fast a sleep in their wickedness, and heresy, that they will not hear ordinary admonitions; to such God commands his preachers, 
Isa. 58.1.  cry, and cease not, as a trumpet exalt thy voice, and tell my people their wicked do. But why you should compare your protestants to birds, I know not, unless it be, because you have caged them up in ignorance, or frighted them with skarcrowes of Idols, superstitions, superstructures from flocking to the field of the true Church. Christ called his Apostles rather fishers then fowlers, and it is the practice of fishers to dash in the water thereby to drive the fish to their nets, and I suppose you have observed no such vehemency that surpasses the invectives of Christ against the Scribes and Pharisees misleaders of the birds he desired to catch. But those he catcheth, he maketh them silent like fishes, not prating like parrots out of Scripture they know not what, nor chattering togeter like different birds in a bush, every one in a several note, as those do, who are caught, and taught by Protestant, not fishers, but fowlers: unless it be in troubled waters. You would do well hereafter to reflect before hand, that what you would say, have the ground of common sense, before you work it, and trim it into acquaint sentences which in this particular you forgot; for the noise is not used (if any be used) to fright away the game, but those that would make an injust prey of it, and hinder it from falling into better hands.  
XVI. 
Pag. 24.  You think I have forgotten Epictetus his rule, Remember to distrust. But you will find me not much guilty of that forgetfulness, when you see how often I put the Reader in mind, and upon what grounds, not to trust the allegations, and attestations of Protestant Ministers. But that I should rather distrust the perfect remembrance testified upon oath of a person, both of understanding, and honour (that neither would for any interest forswear himself, nor could have any interest in so doing) then a negative testimony of men not remembering either upon absence, or inadvertence, or distance of time, I can not find either in the text of Epictetus, nor in the commentary of your grammatical Champion Salmasius any such rule. Had I taken for witness à man that takes Religion upon interest, and makes it his profession to advance his own, and other men's interest by cheating Policy, or foolish knavery, than you had done a deed of Christian Charity by teaching me this lesson of your Stoical Philosophy.   

CHAP. I.  
My first and second reason defended against the Doctor's objections.  
1. TO the first argument, deduced from the authority of our Catholic Doctors, charging in their printed books your first superintendents with want of Episcopal consecration, some five or six years after you pretend it was so solemnly performed at Lambeth, you give no other answer; 
Pag. 167.  but that you regard not their judgement, and authority, because they give no cause, or reason of their Knowledge. Ipray, Mr. Doctor, what greater cause of Knowledge can there be of the not being of a visible, and public solemnity, than the not being seen, or heard of by knowing parsons, who made it their business to inquire after it, in the very same time, and place wherein its pretended to have been acted? To say that D. Harding, Stapleton, Bristol, Reynolds, and others, should object in print against your protestant Bishops, want of ordination, without enquiring, and examining whether they were ordained or no, is in equivalent terms, to call them fools, and Knaves, 
Pag. 207.  however averse you pretend to be from so unmannerly language; your attributing the objections of these great Doctors to credulity, and prejudice, doth rather increase, then diminish the jury, for, you ought to know, that credulity contradicted by public 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 laid to the charge of so learned, and honest persons, as the foresaid Doctors, who would never press Parker, and his fellows, to show the register, and how, and by whom, they received Episcopal Orders, if there had been in those days as public, and authentic registers, as now ye pretend.  
2. To this you say, that none of our Doctors did ever urge any such thing, as required that ye should cite the registers, in prudence. And that the ●…re was no pressing to produce Registers. What then? Do not men in à suit of la produce what is for their manifest advantage of their own accord? I am sure you bring many things, you think advantageous, which neither any person, nor reason pressed you to do. But that they were pressed immediately after, you may learn out of D. Harding.  
We say likewise to you M. r jewel, 
Confut. apol. fol. 57 & 59 edit an. 1566.  and to each of your companions, show us the register of your Bishops, etc. Show us the letters of your orders. But order you have not: for, who could give that to you of all these new Ministers, how soever else you call them, which he hath not himself Yet I must confess it was 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 of registers, then to prove themselves impostors, by producing them in a time, wherein their forgery had been discovered by thousands of witnesses incase they were forged then, and not afterwards, when ordination was grown into more credit. And as I commend the prudent silence of your first Bishops, so I must condemn your silly answer in averring, that the registers or records, were cited in print, 
Pag. 112.  and alleged by the Parliament in the public laws of the Kingdom, of which our Doctors, that desired to see some evidence of Parker's consecration, could plead no ignorance: whereas it is notorious that the act of Parliament 8. Eliz. which as you pretend (but without any ground, as shall be proved here after) makes mention of the records of Parker's consecration at Lambeth, was made at least à year after your Register was called for and our Doctors had objected to your Bishops the nullity, and illegality, of their ordination; and the book of the 70. Archbishops of Canterbury was printed 1572. seven years 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 plead ignorance of what then was not as much as thought of, when he writ, nor indeed ever after by any, but yourself; who confounds the records of Kings, and Queen's letters patents, with the registers of the Archbishops of Canterbury.  
3. Another reason against the pretended consecration of your first protestant superintendents, was, the contradictions of your own Authors upon this subject, disagreeing in the persons of the consecraters, and in the time of their consecrations. These contradictions you call innocent mistakes, and think 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 dial, whereby all clocks, and Clerks must be regulated, when the sun shineth out. It seems Mr Doctor, that the sun never shined upon your church, until 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 would have consulted the sundial; and their judgements, and books concerning your consecrations, had not been so different. How comes this sun to be more than fifty years under a cloud, if it was not, that your new registers might participate in some measure, of the old invisibility, of your Church? Do you 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, without consulting the registers thereof if any such had been exstant, or visible when they undertook the work? 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 of Masons records to the sun, or sundial, is very improper; for, if the sun's 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 proof 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 town, as you do your Church: and men of understandingh would be as little regulated by such a dial, or clock, as Fitzherbert was persuaded by Mason's registers at their first appearance, who suspected them of forgery by the lateness of their discoury as you may see in his book of D. Andrews absurdities, falsities, lies, etc.  
4. 
Pag. 158.  But you regard not Mr Fitzherherts' suspicions at all. What are the suspicions of a private stanger, to the well known credit of a public register? If you Mr Doctor, had not been a stranger to such pious and learned books as Policy and Religion, and others composed by F. Fitzherbert, and had informed yourself how long he lived, you would not have spoken so strangely, and ignorantly, of his Knowledge in his own countries' affairs, nor so contemptibly of his discovery, of Andrews absurdities. But you say his suspicions can weigh no more than 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' reign, when some evidence was desired by the Catholic Doctors of your first Bishop's consecration; and that neither itself should be cited, nor any other authentical proof thereof produced by Parker; jewel or any of the rest; and that after fifty years it should appear, when none called for it, and they were dead, whom it most imported, and the time of your Protestant Prelatique Church was more than half expired? do you call this obscure, and forged scroll, a well known, and public register? I am confident, that in any prudential balance, the suspicion, and reasons of Fitzherbert will weigh more than your judgement; and that every one who reads his discovery of Andrews absurdieies, will confess, that he hath laid him not only in the dust, (as you vainly brag Andrews hath done to our greatest Champions) but also hath buried him in the dirt of his own lies, 
Pag. 159.  the fittest monument for so notorious an Impostor. I shall in the end stir up in the reader a curiosity te examine Andrew's impostures by what I shall note out of Morton and others.  
V Yet we need not any discoverer of yours but yourself, you tell us that the imprisoned Priests, 
Pag. 130.  and jesuits viewed your register, turned it over and over, perused it as much as they pleased, and in conclusion gave this sentence of it, that the book was 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 again, that forsooth such Records may not go out of the presence of the Keeper? Why could not the Keeper go along with the Records, or the Fathers come with their Keepers to the Registri? Ceertainely there was less difficulty, then in F. Olcornes perusing the records, who was furtherof as being prisoner in Worcester. 
Pag. 128.  Whom you make also an approvenr of the same records upon your own bare assertion. And yet forsooth, Polemique writers must cite no witness of their own party, though you be so bold as to cite yourself. But it is more than boldness to bring in My lord of Chalcedon as confessing it, 
Pag. 129.  whereas he only lets it pass upon your word, not granting it so, as having any knowledge 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 jesuits did never allow your Records, as those yet living, and then living in England (and at least in this matter belonging to their own people may know as much as you, or My Lord of Chalcedon) will testify. One as being on this side the sea, I may name to you without danger, and stop your mouth always crying against nameless witnesses. It is the R. F. Henry More now Rector of the Seminary of S. Omers, whose word in any matter of fact will be taken, as soon as yours, even by the persons of your own party, and sooner in this particular, as having more reason to know it. What if M. Wadsworth say he read Paockers consecration in the registers, doth that make your registers good against so many signs of forgery. Nay put the case he, and some few should have been something moved at the sight of them, it argues no more than their ignorance of the manifold arguments I bring to convince them of falsood. As for your other witnesses I must take them upon your word, which I have found so palpably fail in the former, and shall take occasion in another chapter to examine them, and what you say of them.   

CHAP. II.  
The fabulous Consecration at Lambeth, and the forgery of its records proved by the Statute 8. Eliz. 1. and by the Queen's letters patents, and Commission.  
1. But if your Register be not forged, and all was so legally performed at Lambeth, as it relates, why should our Doctor's object to your first Bishops, not only nullity, but also illegality of consecration, contrary to the statutes, and laws of the land? Why did the Queen make good by act of Parliament, 
8. Eliz. 1.  not only the form of Ed. 6. ordination, But also all Acts, and things had, made, or done 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 Archbishops, or Bishops by virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or commission, since the beginning of her reign? If Parker and the rest had been consecrated according to the form of Edward 6. as your Records, and Writers pretend, what need had there been of this Act of Parliament? This is so clear 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 repeat, the words of apart of the statute, and thence conclude, by which act appears, that not only King Edward's rite, but any other used since the beginning of the Queen's reign, upon her commission, was enacted for good, and consequently that of the Nagshead might pass. Cujus contrarium verum est. The contrary to what these Fathers infer, doth follow necessarily from these words, which the Fathers cite. The words of the Act are these, By virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or Commission. I pray Mr Doctor, have a better opinion of your Readers, then to think they are so mad, as to be persuaded by you, that men should, cite only these words of a statute, By virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or Commission, to prove the nullity, or illegality of your protestant consecration. Is it the manner, I do not say of Polenick, but even of honest Writers, to concea●e, and mangle the words whereupon the Adversary grounds the force of his argument.  
2. But you are as unfortunate in citing these few words By virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or Commission, as your Reader must be unsatisfied of your ingenuity, for concealing the others to which they relate. 
Pag. 88  The Queen's letters patents which you 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 Majesty's extraordinary care, lest some circumstance in the political part might be defective in some punctitilio of law as you pretend; 
Pag. 109.  but an extreme necessity; that is, the want of as much as one true Bishop, to consecrate the rest; and therefore 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 no Bishops, were by the Queen's commission, and supremacy, exalted, and ennobled to confer episcopal orders. The words of the Queen's letters patents are. Supplentes nihilominus supremá nostrâ authoritate regiâ, etc. 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, etc. Teste Regina, etc.  
3. This part of the Queen's letters patent you translate into English thus, 
Pag. 92.  supplying b● our Sovereign authority all defects either in the Executors of this Commission, or any of them. It's strange you ever made mention of a Commission so evidently contrary to your principles, and to the cause you undertake to maintain, that you dare not translate it faithfully. But I will supply your defect in this particular, Supplying by our Sovereign Royal authority, etc. If any thing be, or shall be wanting in these things which ye are to do by our command, either in yourselves, or in any of you, or in your condition, state, faculty, which by the statute of this our Kingdom, or by the laws of the Church are required, or necessary, the time, and necessity of affairs exacting this, etc. You make this dispensation à superflous clause, or at most a salve to help a latent impediment; but the Queen, and the commission itself declare, that it was 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.  was the same exception which Bishop Bonner did afterwards make against the legality of Horn's consecration, which 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 little 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 which you father upon them? They were not so ignorant in the laws, and statutes of England, as you would make them, and all other Writers besides yourself. It had been, not only confidence, but impudence to object illegality of ordination contrary to the laws of England, if your first Bishops had been ordained accordring to the laws, and form of Edward VI and so solemnly at Lambeth, as your forged Registers pretend. Bonner's exception was, 
Counter. bls. fol. 7. & 9 & fol. 301.  that Horn was no Bishop, and Stapletons' words are. You (Horn) are without any consecration at all of your Metropolitan, (Parker) himself poor man being no Bishop neither. Is it not notarious that ye, and your Colleagues were not ordained according to the prescript, I will not say of the Church, but even of the very statutes? These words can have no relation to the doubt you move (but our Authors never touched) concerning your book of ordination being, or not being restored by Act of Parliament 1. 
Pag. 97.  Elizab. Therefore D. stapleton's words, and exceptions were against some other illegality, to wit, your first Bishops merry ordination at the Nagshead, for no other was ever pretended by your Authors, but either this, or that formal ceremony at Lambeth; which if ever it had been, D. Stapleton would not have been so impudent, as to object notorious illegality against your first consecrations. 
Pag. 98.  But you say that his objection, and exception showeth nothing but this, how apt a drowning cause is to catch hold of every reed; By your leave M. Doctor, it also showeth, 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 half drunk, that at least in a pleasant humour he might lay hands on them; therefore they invited him to a Tavern; 
Pag. 129. in ep. ad ami.  this is the reason Q. Mary's priests did give, why they met at the Nagshead, as you may see in the answers to M. Watsworhts letters cited by yourself.  
5. Yet you desire your Reader to observe, 
Pag. 99 & 100  that this dispensative clause neither had, nor can be construed to have any reference to any consecration that was acted by Scory alone, as that silly consecration at the Nagshead is supposed to have been: 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 confirm, and consecrate Parker, did make no use of this supplentes, or dispensative power in the consecration, which is a purely spiritual Act, and belongeth merely to the Key of order. All this you desire the Reader to observe with you, without giving him any reason, or ground for your observation. Is it the manner of Polenick Writers to beg the controversy out of mere 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 Queen's dispensative power in the consecration. But themselves say the contrary, (being conscious of their own incapacity to consecrate Bishops, as being only simple Priests, and never consecrated) and declare in their desinitive sentence, that they will make use in the consecration, of the Queen's dispensative power. Their words are. 
See this definitive sentence in D. Bramhall pag. 101.  Therefore we the Queen's Commissioners (Barlow, Scory, &c) by consent of the Lawiers that we have consulted, do confirm the foresaid election by the supreme authority of the Queen, communicated unto us. Supplying also by the said supreme authority whatsoever hath him defective in this election: as also is, or shall be wanting in us, or any of us, in our condition, state, faculty, to perfect these things which we are commanded te do. They were commanded not only to confirm Parker's election, but also to perfect the work, and consecrate him; and they say that they will do so, and do supply the defects of their own state, and condition, (which could be no other, but the want of episcopal consecration) by the Queen's dispensative, and supreme authority. And yet D. Bramhall doth desire the Reader out of courtesy, te observe, and think the contrary.  
6. You talk much of your key of order, which was no other, than the key of a cellar, elevated by the Queen's sceptre, and spiritual authority, to be efficient of your first Bishop's consecration in a Tavern, which you most ungratefully, 
Pag. 60. 121. 171. & 148.  and unwarily reject, when contrary to the statutes you affirm, that neither she, nor the laws of England can make an ordination to be valid, or invalid, because 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 appointed any visible sign for Orders, and consequently it is no Sacrament. Therefore if imposition of hands be a visible sign, it can not be (according to the symbol of the English Church) the essential matter of ordination by Christ's institution. If you had uttered in your primitive Church the Doctrine, which now you print, you had not only fallen into a Praemunire, but also incurred the penalties of an Heretic for being so obstinate against your new Creed, and the articles set down by your first Apostles.  
7. It is not to be wondered, that a man so ignorant of his Creed, should know so little of the law as you do. Read I pray these words of the statute 8. Eliz. 1. referring to an other made the first year of her reign. And by the same Act, and statute, there is also given to the Q. Highness, her heirs etc. full power, and authority by letters patents under the great seal of England, from time to time, to assign, name, and authorize such person, or persons, as she, or they shall think meet, and convenient, to exercise, use, occupy, and execute under her Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and avihorities, in any wise toucking, or concerning any spiritual, or Ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction within this Realm, or any other her H. Dominions or Countries. I beseech you M. Doctor, answer now directly, and without tergiversation might not the Queen by her letters patents, without any other ceremony, name and authorise, according to this Act of Parliament, any Carrier, Carter, or Catchpol, to exercise, use, occupy, and execute all manner of jurisdictions, preeminencies, and authorities, in any wise touching, or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiastical power. What is episcopacy, or priesthood, but a spiritual, and ecclesiastical power? And what is ordination, or consecration, but to exercise, use, or execute this spiritual power, by conferring it upon others? Therefore according to the statutes of England, the Queen, and her heirs, and successors, may make Priests, and Bishops, without imposition of hands, or any other matter, or form, but their letters patents under the great seal of England. Which though it be clear enough by the very words of the statute to any one that understands English, yet it is made most undeniably evident, by the Protestant Tenet of those days requiring no more for Order then Election of Prince or people, which Tenet appears 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 used they cared not what it was, so it might serve to amuse the vulgar, not yet enured to the new Doctrine of Priests, and Bishops not consecrated.  
8. This was the power assumed: let us now see their practice used. 
Kellison survey pag. 373. & 374. edit, 1603.  They were enforced (saith D Kellison) to make superintendents, and ministers of our apostating Priests, such as Parker, Grindal, Sands, Horn etc. who were thought paste sit to make such Ministers on, without any other moulding, or knedding. And when they wanted Apostatas, who were consecrated afther the Catholic manner, they took laymen of their own, of which some were base artificers; and without any other consecration, or ordination then the Princes, or the Superintendents letters (who themselves were no Bishops) they made them Ministers, and Bitshops with as few ceremonies, and less solemnity, than they make their Aldermen, yea Constables, and Criers of the Market. 
Pag. 149.  And from this stock proceedeth all the rabble of their Ministers, etc. 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 wherein I pray you resteth a great part of your new Clergy, but in butchers, cooks, catchpoles, and cobblers, dyer's, and dawbers, felons cayrring their mark in their hand instead of a shaved crown, fishermen, gunner's, harpers, innkeepers, merchants. and mariners, netmakers, potters, potycaries, and porters of Belingsgat, pinner's, pedlars, ruffling, ruffians, saddlers, sheermen, and sheaperds, tanner's, tilers, tinkers, trumpeters, weavers, wherymen, etc. If D. Stapleton was so rational a head as you are pleased to acknowledge, you hav● but little reason to brag of the first heads, an● members of your schism, or separation; an● much less to be angry with my lord Brooks for applying his Coachman to the office of a protestant Preacher; 
Bram Pag. 12.  who by his trade, (not to speak of his talon) might challenge an eminent place amongst your first Ministers, and without disgracing your Church, might head thi● rabble, that D. Stapleton hath so particularly described. But speak to the purpose M. Doctor: Do you persuade yourself, 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● Queen did with themselves, and if sometimes with ceremony, it was only for ceremony, not necessity, and consequently with no more formality than might suffice to blind the ignorant.  
And truly when I consider the Queen's supreme, and spiritual authority, confirmed by the statutes 1. & 8. Eliz. I do not wonder at this practice 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● avoiding of all ambiguities, and questions tha● might be objected against the lawful confirmations, investing, and consecrations of the said Archbishops, and Bishops (that is Parker, and his fellow's) her highness in her letters patents, under the great seal of England, directed to any Archbishop, Bishops, or others, (mark 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 accustomed to be used by the late K. Henry, and K. Edward, her Majesty's father, and brother, in their like letters patents, made for such causes: but also hath used, ●nd put in her Majesties said letters patents, divers ●●her general words, and sentences, whereby her H. ●y her supreme power, and authority, hath dispensed with all causes, or doubts of any imperfection, ●r disability, that can, or may in any wise be objected against the same as by her Majesties said letters patents remaining of record, more plainly will apcare, So that to all those, that will well consider of the effect, and true intent of the said laws, and statutes, and of the supreme, and absolute authori●● of the Queen's Highness, and which she by her Majesties said letters patents hath used, and put in ●●e, in, and about the making, and consecrating, of the said Archbishops, and Bishops, it is, and ●ay be very evident, (D. 
Pag. 122.  Bramhall citys these last words without 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, or consecrations, or any other material thing meet to be used, or had, in, or about the same but that every thing requisite, and material for that purpose (that is the Queen's letters patents, and ample dispensation under the great seal of England) hath been made, and done as precisely, and with as great a care, and diligence, or rather more, as ever the like was done before her Majesty's time, as the Records of her Majesties said Father, and brother's time, and also of her own time, will more plainly testify, and declare. This is a clause indeed that taketh a way all occasion 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 would needs have the ordination performed at Lambeth, you maintain that these last words, the Records of her Majesties said Fathers, and Brother's time, and also of her own time, will more plainly 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 expressly of the Records of elections, and confirmations, 
Pag. 115.  and consecrations, and this you put in a distinct character, as if they had been words of the very statute. It's strange, that where you lay to my charge, falsifying of the text, yourself 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 expressly these words, as by her Majesties said letters patents remaining of record. more plainly will appear. If that Gloss is accursed, which corrupteth, and contradicteth the text, what shall we say of yours? Read with attention the text, and you will be convinced, that the Records of her Majesties said Father, and Brother's time, and also of her own 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 Queen's letters patents; for, the statute saith: that every thing requisite, and material for the taking away all causes of scruples, doubts, and ambiguities, that might be objected against the said elections, and consecrations, and confirmations, or any other material thing meet to be used, or had in, or about the same, had been made, and done, as precisely, or rather more, than ever before her Majesty's time, as by the Records of her Majesties said Father, and Brother's time, and also of her own, will more plainly appear. The words, or rather more precisely, and with more care, and diligence, can not relate to Parker, and his Comrades consecration though we should grant, it was performed at Lambeth with a read cloth on the floor, and tapestry on the east side; for, I hope, in Catholic times they were as precise, diligent, and decent in consecrations, as in Q Elizabeth's, (though they used not a read cloth upon à Sunday of Advent, as your Register says ye did upon the 17. of December 1559.) especially   

CHAP. III.  
The Protestants Consecration at Lambeth is proved to be a fable, and their Register to be forged, by their falsifications of Scripture, and by the 25. of their 39 articles; and D. Bramhals' arguments to maintain the contrary, are retorted against himself.  
1 NOt withstanding all this, the Doctor says, it is incredible that the Registers of the first Protestant Bishop's consecration should be forged. 
Pag. 106.  And why so M Doctor? Is it incredible that they who falsify Scripture, should forge Records? And how notoriously your first Bishops have falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by D. Gregory Martin in a learned book, entitled A Discovery of the manifold corruptions, 
Pag. 201.  etc. You give four answers to this argument 1. you desire good words. And I desire a better answer. 2. That Gregory Martin is an adversary, whose censure you do not esteem a button. I desire you once more M. Doctor to answer, and speak to the purpose. Though you do not weigh D. Martin's censure, answer his reasons, and the examples he brings: confute his book, and demonstrations. Your third answer is, I hope none of us did ever attempt to purge S. Paul's Epistles, because there were in them some things that sounded not well in point of justification. I understand 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 been seen before. Fourthly you answer. Rather than be accounted falsifiers of Scripture, we are content to stand to the vulgar Latin in any controversy between them and us. Is this to solve an argument? Are your Protestant readers satisfied with such stuff? stay sir, I must in the name of convincing logic arrest your shifting Rhetoric. This was the argument. Those that have grossly falsified Scripture, may easily be presumed to have falsified records, especially when the records upon other circumstances are deeply suspected, but the first hath been the frequent use of Euglish Protestant Ministers, ergo you should have proved at least in some general terms, 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 occasion. If one were accused, and pressed by sundry proofs to have killed his Brother, and it should be further urged, that notwithstanding the crime was enormous, and not easily to be believed in other persons, yet in him it might justly be presumed, by reason of the known public evidences, whereby he had been plainly convicted to have killed his father. Must this be slipped over? Would this avail nothing? Can the artificial Rhetoric of a slighting pretermission, so stupify the natural logic of every one that is come to the use of reason, as not to see the force of this conclusion? He hath killed his father, what wonder is it if he kill his brother? They falsify Scripture what marvel if they forge records. Hath your custom of urging light conjectures against the Church of Rome so destroyed the nature of reason in you, as not to feel yourself, or to think that others do not feel the weight of an argument à fortiore? Records are humane, Scripture divine, Records are kept in a corner, Scripture exposed to the view of all, Records have few copies, and kept by a few, and those of one faction. The Christian world is full of Bibles. Is it not then less against conscience, of easier contrivence, and further from danger of a shameful discovery, to forge records, then to falsify Scripture. This is only to stop you a while from posting with so much speed from this passage. In the end of the book I shall detain you longer, and hold you faster, and put a rub to the sliding eloquence you have learned in Holland If you will not, yet the Reader shall see by what I shall lay clearly before his eyes, and shall remit to the judgement of his own eyes, if he be pleased to view, and confer himself what I shall set down of some, and direct him to seek of other Protestant Ministers, in point of gross, wilful, malicious, and impudent falsifications of Scripture, and Authors, whereby he will conclude with himself how far he shall think fit to give credit hereafter to their say, or writings, and namely, and particularly D. Morton called B. of Duresme, that Minister of simple truth, as he called himself in those very books which seem to have been dictated by the father of lies, and now in his late testimony is not ashamed to speak thus. 
Pag. 15.  I could never have made such a speech (mark the proof he adjoineth) seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts. He may very well have forgot what he once spoke in Parliament seeing he hath forgot what he hath so often writ against his thoughts, and clear knowledge in several books. But of this man's false writings hereafther, 
Pag. 107.  now I return to your false records, being you are resolved to convince all ●hose who gainsay them by six doughty arguments, which I hope to retortagainst you, and by your own grounds prove the contrary of what you are confident to maintain.  
3. Your first argument is, that value, and respect which the laws of England do give the Registers. The laws of England were so fare 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 accused by our Catholic Doctors that they had ●ever been ordained. And the Parliament 8. 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 been taken, if any witnesses, or Records of their consecration at Lambeth could have been produced in the 8. year of Q. Elizabeth's reign. But what marvel is it, that the laws 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 authentic Copy 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 four public Notaries, who did testify Parker's individual consecration at Lambeth, it being observable that these four Notaries were the same who did draw Cardinal Pools consecration into Acts, and attest them. This proof, and observation weighs as little, as four public Notary's conscience, and credit, who in Cardinal Pools 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 undoubted 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 been persons beyond all exception, might not their hands be counterfeited as well as the Register? What greater difficulty can there be in one more than in the other? It's a silly argument that involves in itself the same difficulty it ought to clear. Your third and fourth ground of the Queen's Commission, and of the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. have been answered in the former Chapter, and are evident proofs, that your Records are forged.  
5. 
Pag. 115. & 116.  Your fifth ground is taken from a book you say was printed an. 1572. of the lives of 70. succeeding Archbishops of Canterbury, wherein the Author (that was Archbishop Parker himself) having described the Confirmations, and Consecrations of his fellows, he addeth in the margin. These confirmations, and consecrations do appear in the Registers. It seems you learned from Parker to cite yourself as a witness for your self. Is this the manner of Polemic Writers? But why did not Parker, or jewel, remit D. Harding to these Registers, whereof M. Parker some seven years after made (if we believe you) marginal notes; when he so earnestly called for them, 
Confut. Apolog. fol. 57 & 59 edit. 1566.  show us your Registers, in the year 1566. Then was the time for Parker, and the rest to cite them, and not in the year 1572. Yet D. Champney doubts whether any such book was printed of your Archbishops as you pretend. Whether it was, or no, it matters not, for the Registers cited in the margin by Parker, mentioneth not any place, or form of their consecrations, and is as indifferent for the Nagshead Tavern, as for the Chapel of Lamheth, as you may see in the book called Antiquitates Britannia edit. 1605. into which this forged Register was foisted, being a mere novelty, and therefore contrary to the drift, and title of the book, without connexion to what goeth before, or followeth after.  
6. But how comes it to pass M. Doctor, that in this book, and Register, are set down, as you say, the names of your Bishops, their Countries, their Arms both of their sees and families, 
Pag. 164.  their respective ages, their universities, their degrees in Schools, with the times (but not the place) of their several consecrations? How comes it to pass I say, there should be room for all these things, and none at all for Lambeth, which takes up no more than Ipswich, Parker's Country, or Cambridge, his univerfity? Is it more material to put in a Register, the place of a Bishop's nativity, or education, than the place where he received his character, or consecration? Did he esteem more the degree of a Doctor, than the dignity of a Bishop? I could not exact, nor expect from M. Parker, that he should assure us in his Register, whether the Chapel of Lambeth was 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 been the place of his consecration.  
7. 
Pag. 164.  It is hardly possible for the wit of man, saith the Doctor, to contrive more matter into a lesser room. My complaint is, that so much superflous matter was thrust in, and that which imported most, (to wit the place of your first Bishop's consecration) omitted. I confess M. Doctor, you have as much reason to commend in this case, Parker's wit for not mentioning Lambeth, as in an other you had to commend Jewels prudence, for not answering Harding when he pressed him to show 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 been as manifest to as many as then remembered the 17. of December 1559. and never heard of any solemnity at Lambeth on that day: But though I commend M. Parker's wit in concealing the place of his consecration, yet I must condemn your judgement, good M. Bramhall, for citing a Register so disadvantageous to your cause.  
8. Your 6. and last ground destroys the five former, because it is taken from the agreement, 
Pag. 116.  and concurrence of your civil Records with your ecclesiastical Registers. There can not be greater disagreement, and opposition then there is between the Queen's commission, or letters patents, the Act of Parliament 8, Elizab. and your Registers. These Registers suppose, and declare, there was no need of a dispensation, the letters patents, and Act of Parliament declare, there was a necessity to dispense with defects, and disabilities. Your Registers suppose that the consecraters were true Bishops; The Queen's Commission suppose they were not, becanse she dispenseth with defects of the consecraters state, and condition, which defects could be no other, than want of episcopal consecration. Your Registers suppose that four Bishops did consecrate; but the Acts of Parliament do suppose, that one person might do it, and that one did it, and therefore makes good whatsoever any person, or persons did about the consecration of any Archbishop, and Bishop since the beginning of the Queen's reign. 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 Queen's letters patents, or commission; and consequently might say that your first Bishops were orderly consecrated, and according to the laws of the land, though they had no imposition of hands; yet to take away all protestant scruples, there was an ample power, and dispensation more particularly expressed in the Queen's commission to the consecrators, than ever was seen or heard of before her Majesty's Reign. Many other disagreements might be set down, but these may suffice to show, how impossible it is for you, or any other, to reconcile plain contradictions by improbable fictions, or impostures.   

CHAP IU.  
The fabulous consecration at Lambeth, and the protestant Registers disproved by John Stow; and by the Catholic Tenet of not reordaining, and by the authority of our Writers.  
1. I Produced john Stowes silence of your solemnity, and consecration at Lambeth, as an argument, that never any such thing had been, as your Registers pretend. For, how could a man that made it his business to relate, and describe the solemnities, and casualties of his time, especially hapening in, and about London, conceal so notorious, and rare a solemnity, as the first protestant consecration of an Archbishop of Canterbury? To this you answer in rhyme, that my store is very low, 
Pag. 197.  when I am forced to produce john Stow. The rhyme is ptety, and in the Nagshead Tavern may be sung to the tune of john Derry, or Down Derry, but it is time without reason: for all the reason you give, is, that, john Stow scarce knew what a consecration was. Notwithstanding his ignorance, you confess 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 did of the last Catholic, himself being a protestant, and a great servant of M. Parkers? It's no marvel 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 disadvantageous to his profession. But that he would not, if with truth he could, grace his Church, friend, and Chronicle, with a narrative of Parker's solemn consecration at Lambeth, is incredible. Though he was no Divine, I hope he might write in his Annals, as learnedly as your Master Mason, to wit that the Chapel of Lambeth on the 17. of December 1559. was adorned with tapestry on the east side, the floor covered with a read cloth, that there was great concourse of people, lords, and courtriers, and that many grave persons received the communion with Parker. This much he might have said of his own knowledge, or heard from the assistants, copied out of your Registers, if they had been then as public as you pretend, and he had believed they were authentic. But after diligent search (saith D. Champney) he found the Nagshead story to he very true, 
D. Champney 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 laid to his charge by the lord Audley.  
2. To my third reason, to wit, that no man of conscience, or common sense, can imagine, that the Catholic Doctors of these times, as Harding, Bristol, Stapleton, and others, who had such care of their salvation as to suffer so much as they did upon that account, should wilfully damn their souls by obliging posterity upon misinformation, to Reordaine your Ministers, if they had been validly ordained before; it being a known Tenet of Catholics, that we can not without committing a damnable sin, no more Reordaine, then rebaptise. To this reason I say, 
Pag. 202.  you answer, that if Reordination be damnable sacrilege, the authority of our own Doctors may be a fit medium to convince ourselves of sacrilege, not you of the invalidity of your ordination. I am both sorry, and ashamed to find so little substance in my Adversaries answer; Authority, which must be a fit medium to persuade, supposeth two things in the Author; knowledge, and honesty. If he hath these two qualities, 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 himself from the danger of being mistaken; and his honesty, doth assure others, that he will not misinform them. Now M. Doctor, can you object want of knowledge of your first Bishop's consecrations, to Harding, Stapleton, Reynolds, etc. They lived in that very time, and made it their business to observe all your Clergyes proceed; and though they had not inquired after their ordination, they could not be ignorant of it, being so rare, and notorious a solemnity, as your Registers pretend: notwithstanding all this, they printed in those very times, that neither Parker, nor any of your first Bishops were consecrated, not so much as according to the laws of the kingdom. Want of honesty you can not object to men that suffered so much for their conscience. How can you then assume their own authority, as a fit medium to convince themselves of sacrilege? Is knowledge, and conscience a fit argument to prove, that they who are endowed with them, have committed damnable sins, and engaged posterity to do the same by Reordaining? If your Bishop's ordination had been as little questioned, as our Doctor's knowledge, and integrity, you might with some colour pretend, that your ordination is as fit a medium to convince us of sacrilege, as our Doctor's authority is, to demonstrate the nullity of your ordination. But hitherto never any man but yourself excepted against Harding, Stapleton, or Bristows knowledge concerning your Clergy, or against their conscience, and integrity, and your Orders have been continually 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 lawful: But you did ill to Father your ensuing words upon so obvious an Author as Belarmine. 
Pag. 202.  I hope Stephen the sixth, and sergius the third, two Popes, were other manner of men than your English Doctors, and did both pretend to examine the matter as duly, and to be as averse from damnable sacrilege as you; yet they decreed publicquely, and most unjustly, that all the holy orders received from Formosus, were void; and compelled all those who had been ordained by him, to be reordained. All this you lay to Bellarmine's charge de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. cap. 12. whosoever readeth him, must discover your little ingenuity; Beauties 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 were 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 again. Which command proceeded not from ignorance, or heresis, but from the hatred they bore to Formosus. You see Belarmine himself denies, that Stephen, or Sergius published any decree, and you affirm that Belarmine says they decreed publicly 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 endeavour to clear them from it, and make them appear men of greater moderation than you judge in your conscience they were; not out of any affection to the See Apostolic, but out of hatred to our Catholic Tenet of not Reordaining; but you labour in vain; for these two Popes were of the same judgement that we are, though passion made them practise what they known to be unlawful. If you could prove that Harding, Stapleton, Bristol, and the rest generally were men so wicked, and desperately bend to damn their souls to he revenged of your first Prelates, or that they held it safe in conscience to reordaine Priests, and Bishops merely upon title that they had been ordained by heretics, or that grave Casuists in their time were of that opinion, than your Reader might afford you attention, and think you said something worth the answering. But you know too well the contrary.   

CHAP. V.  
That the Protestant form of ordaining Priests, and Bishops is of doubtful sufficiency, and that it was composed by Zwinglians, who contemned Ordination as a rag of Rome.  
1. TO my fourth reason against the doubtful sufficiency of your Protestant form, 
Pag. 223. & seq.  or words, used in the act of consecration of Bishops, and Priests, you answer, that both these names, and functions, are sufficiently expressed by being presented to the Archbishop, and producing the King's 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 uttered in the anointing of the Bishop's head, and hands, Vngatur & consecretur caput tuum caelesti benedictione in ordine Pontificiali: and you see how clearly the episcopal Order is therein expressed: neither doth our Ritual call the Bishop elect, consecrated, until 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 clear solution to that argument, which you endeavour to answer, by saying, that these words Receive the holy Ghost, must be considered conjointly in a compounded sense with the litanies, etc. Whence it followeth, that the Sexton, or any other lay man who answers, Hear us o Lord we beseech thee, hath no small share in consecrating. But make the best of Vasques his opinion, it is no more than probable, and therefore doubtful, and consequently ought not to be relied upon in a matter that concerns the being, or not being of a Church: in things of such importance, we ought to follow the securest way by adhering to undeniable principles. All you can say against us, is that we use two forms 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 form, without any danger of multiplicity of characters, or Reordination. But your form makes ye, at the most, but half Priests, or Bishops; and that itself is as uncertain, as it is doubtful, whether the character can be divided. If we use two either by one, or both all occasion of doubt is taken away.  
3. Yet I must tell you for your comfort, and instruction, M. Doctor, that it is not only a common, but though most probable opinion, that Christ left to his Church power, to make particular forms, both of priesthood, and episcopacy, (themselves only determining in general, that the words should be appliable to the mysteries signified) without which forms, neither of these Orders can be validly conferred. This is the best way to reconcile the Greek, and Latin forms 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 was composed when Zuinglianisme prevailed in England) makes no mention of either, in any form, or any thing like a form. But if you would be pleased to read Morinus, a late Author de Ordinationibus sacris, who may instruict both Polemic, and Scholastic writers in this matter, you will find how dangerous it is for particular persons, or Churches to alter the present, and approved use in the administration of the Sacrament of Order, or even to resume the practice of ancient Rituals canonically abrogated, much more when like malicious, or ignorant surgeons the Swinglian heretics cut away nerves, and arteries, and the very substance under pretext of superflous excrescences. You will find the danger of neglecting the usual matter, and form, notwithstanding these terms were not so usual in all ancient times. Nor that your recourse to the graecian practise although it were like yours (as it is not) will secure you as it doth them, and you will find the Greek and Latin use much better reconciled by him then by vulgar Authors of your, or our profession, even better than by Arcudius, who gave some light to schoolmen in this particular. You will find the Roman Church to use the most assured way that can be imagined, and never took away any thing that might give the least scruple either for the change, or the power, or manner of changing. You will find you have put a most satisfactory discourse conncerning the business of Formosus Pope, and his succeeding enemies. To transcribe all this at large, ●s neither useful to the ignorant, who will understand very little, nor needful to the learned who may see the author, nor proper to this ●hort trectise which without all this doth evince the Nullity of your Clergy, and according to the most favourable opinion, of any tolerable Devine makes your Ordinaion in a high degree uncertain.  
4. 
Pag. 232.  But you deny that Zuinglianisme prevailed in England in Edward the 6. time, when the 12. or 7. learned men forsooth, in the la of God, and the land, made your forms of Ordination. I hope you do not take us to be as ignorant in the History of England, as one of your chief Doctors did a Gentlewoeman, lately in Paris; when (hearing of her inclinations to Catholic religion) he dissuaded her from it, by assuring her, that it was not the ancient faith of England, nor ever professed in that Kingdom before Henry the 8. time. Do not all unpartial writers mention the Protector Seamours' perfidiousness in establishing Zwinglianisme in England, during the minority of Edward the 6. contrary to his promise, and engagement to Henry the 8.? Is it not notorious that in the second Parliament of K. Edward. 6. 
Convers. of England part. 2. pag. 607. & pag. 611.  begun the 4. of November 1548. (wherein your book of common prayer, and administration of Sacraments, being imposed by Zuinglian heretics chosen by the Protector and his faction, was confirmed) there was a great contention, whether the Kingdom should be Lutheran, or Zuinglian in religion; and that after four months' debate, the Zwinglians did overbeare the other side, by some voices. And how Peter Martyr, and Bucer were inspired by the posts that brought news of the Parliaments resolution from London, to teach publicly in the Vnniversities, that Christ was not present in the Sacrament of the altar, and that this is my body was no more than this is the sign of my body. Is it not evident by john 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 books which our Catholic Doctors writ against your first superintendens demonstrate, that these were of the same opinion with your Martyrs? But what need we go farther than 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 instead thereof Elder, and Superintendent) were not likely men to put them, or express their function in your forms of ordination. But you say that in the Preface ye maintain to all the world, that the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, 
Pag. 232.  and Deacons, have been 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 always the said Orders, doth it follow that the English Church in those times was the Church of Christ? Call them Swinglians, call them Lutherans, call them what you plaese, their Creed, their versions, their writings, show they contemned Consecration, and were content with election, and when they used 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 between 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 Keep the Clergy in awe and to have so many mercenary Votes in the house of Lords.  
5. At length you tell us that if your ancestors have pared away any thing out of mistake from ordination, 
Pag. 235.  that is either prescribed, or practised by the true Catholic Church, let it be made appear evidently to you, and you are more ready to welcome it again at the fore door than your Ancestors were to cast it out at the back door. 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 seems to be composed of nothing but back doors, and starting holes, whereby you cast out, and welcome in, whatsoever is grateful, or not grateful to the humour of the Prince, or prevailing faction. Now seeing it hath been made appear, that your Ancestors valued not episcopal consecration, admitted no priesthood but baptism, and denied the real presence; I hope you can not imagine, that these men would compose forms of Ordination contrary to their own Tenets, and profession: or that a Zuinglian Parliament would confirm your book of administration of Sacraments, and rites, before they had well examined, whether it contained any thing contrary to their own conscience, and reformation. And if they had been Lutherans you gain little, seeing Luther himselse in the places alleged in the next chapter maketh all Christians Priests by baptism.  
6. But suppose it had not been evident, but only probable, that your Ancestors pared away some part of the essential form, or matter of Ordination; is it part of your Case Theology, to contemn prudent doubts in a matter of fo great importance, and of absolute necessity for the being of a Church? There is not a more infallible mark of heresy, then to exact clear evidence for obscure mysteries, or to contemn ancient public ceremonies, upon the warrant of a modern private spirit, as you might have seen, (and aught to have refuted, if you could) in the Treatise of Catholic faith, and heresy. But it seenes you regard not what is thought of your Heresy, provided you may seem to maintain your episcopacy: and that ye are content to undergo the infamy of sectaries, so ye retain the titles of Lords, and Bishops. 
Pag. 234.  You say we have such an eye at your Order, and uniformity, that we can not let your long cloaks, and surplises alone. As for uniformity ye never had any; and your want of Orders makes us take notice of the superfluity of your long cloaks, and surplices. The old Protestant cut would become ye much better, and I believe ye will return to it, and welcome it at the fore door of your Church (always open for any advantage) if the puritan, or presbyterian faction prevail.   

CHAP. VI  
That the Pope did not confirm Edward 6. form of Ordination, and that all sectaries admitted no priesthood, but baptism, and that in Henry the 8. reign, and Edward the 6. men played the Bishops though never consecrated, and so did Barlow;  
1. TO my first reason you answer nothing to the purpose, 
Pag. 63.  but only that King Edward's form of ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by all Catholics, and particularly by Cardinal Pole then Apostolical 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 (which the Pope confirmed) to all those that were ordained, Praetensa authoritate supremitatis Ecclefiae Anglicanae, pretending the Authority of the English supremacy. I perceive by your other books you are well versed in Foxes, Acts and monuments, and some what in the Dutch Centurists with the story, and statutes of England, whence you gather what in passion hath been done against the Pope's authority upon certain abuses. The attention to that, made you not reflect upon, this decree, or article (as Fox calls it) of Q. Mary's, made by the consent of the Lords spiritual, and temporal. 
Fox pag. 1295.  Item touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders, after the new sort, and fashion of Orders; considering they were not ordered in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocese, finding otherwise sufficiency, and ability in these men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his aiscretion, admit them to Minister. I hope this Article, or Decree, made with the consent, and advise of Cardinal Poole, and of the Lords spiritual, and temporal of England, doth sufficiently declare, that his Dispensation, and the Pope's confirmation was intended, and extended only to such, as had been ordained after the ancient and Catholic manner in the time of schism. Of others promoted to any Orders after the new fashion, and form of Edward the 6. its declared, they were not ordered in very deed, and therefore the Bishop ought to supply their want of ordination. And yet you are so confident as to say, that the question in Q. Mary's days, was 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 success you had in recurring to King Edward's form, and Bishops, doth force you appeal to Henry the 8. times, wherein you imagine that neither Barlow, nor any other durst play the Bishop, if not consecrated; because forsooth, Henry the 8. was not a Baby to be jested withal. Pag. 186. We know M, Doctor, that Henry the 8. was not Baby, but you also aught te have known, 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 void his marriage with Q. Chatharine of Spain, he did so persecute his adherents, and authority, without regard to conscience, or even to his own statutes, that his principal care was to countenance heretical Preachers, and principles, as far as they concurred to maintain his headship of the Church to enrich him with the spoils thereof, 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 captain. Babylon. C. de ordine.  
Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 5.  
Zuinglius tom 1. explanat. a. 17. fine.  
D. Horn and the first protestant Bishops in the harbour an. 1559 H. 2. Three Convers of England part 2. pag. 570. & 571.   Now heretics generally in those days, did agree in this principle, that there is no other priestshood in the la of grace, but baptism, and therefore all Christians both men, and women, were Priests, and might preach, and Ministers all Sacraments; though to avoid 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. This doctrine they grounded upon 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. Christ made us all a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and Priests to his father This principle was so suitable to Henry the 8. design of making himselse supreme head of the Church in spiritual affairs, and of possessing himselse of its temporalities, that he was well pleased to wink at the practice of all heretics, who pretended to be Bishops, though they never had been consecrated: Archbishop Cranmer (to whom all such matters were remitted) being himself a prime heretic, and in so great favour with the King, that (romwel before his fall said unto 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 do, and speak what you list, and let all men speak against you what they can, the King will never believe one word, to your detriment, or hindrance, etc. There was no such danger of Premunires, as D. Bramhall pretends; who would have us take his word against the evidences cited in the margin, that only Anabaptists, 
Pag. 196.  and not Zwinglians, rejected ordination.  
3. They who forged Mason's Register, thought fit to name among Parker's Consecraters Barlow, and Hodgkins both pretended Bishops in King Henry the 8. reign, not doubting thereby to make it credible, that they both, and consequently Parker, were validly consecrated, though Scory, and Coverdale, (the two other pretended Confecraters) had never received (being made protestant Bishops in King Edward's time) episcopal ordination. But this shift avails them not; I produce two others, who were called Bishops in King Henry's time, sat in Parliament, and took upon them to exercise all episcopal functions with as great gravity, and solemnity, as Barlow; and yet they were de-declared by public sentence in Q Mary's time, to be no Bishops, nor validly consecrated. These were Latimer, and Ridley, to whom D. Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, 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 lives, 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 took away his life; because they knew he had validly received orders, and therefore was degraded; the same would have been practised with Latimer, and Ridley, if the omission of degrading them, had not been waranted by evidence, that they were never validly consecrated.  
4. We have often, saith D. Bramhall, asked à reason of them, why the Protestants should decline their own consecrations? They give us one, that Barlow, as most of the Clergy in England in those times, were Puritans, and inclined to Zuinglianisme; therefore they contemned, and rejected Consecration, as a rag of Rome, etc. This reason the Doctor solidly refutes, by saying, It is a great boldness, 
Pag. 195.  to take the liberty to cast aspersions upon the Clergy of a whole Nation. If it be a boldness to say, that your first Protestant Bishop's 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. Horn, and the rest of your first Bishops, publish to the world in print an. 1559. (the very same year 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 we must use a certain moderation and not absolutely in every wise debar women herein, etc. I pray you what more vehemency useth S. Paul in forbidding women to preach, then in forbidding them to uncover their heads; and yet you know in the best reformed Churches of Germany, all the maids be bare headed. This your first Bishop's tenet of admitting no other Priesthood but baptism and consequently of allowing women to be Priests, was so well known, that D. Harding objects it to jewel, Parker, and the rest, If ye allow not every man, yea and every woman to be a Priest. 
Confut. Apol. fol. 60.  why drive ye not some of your fellows to recant, that so have preached? Why allow ye the books of your new Evangelists, that so have written?  
5. If this be not sufficient to excuse my boldness, and condemn the Doctors mistake, let him read the 25 article of his Creed, which is this. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life, allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with baptism, and the Lords supper, for that they have not any visible sign, or ceremony ordained of God. It evidently followeth 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; unless you will deny imposition of hands to be a visible sign, and ceremony. How doth this agree with your modern Prelatique principles? doth it not evince that Parker, and the rest condemned in their judgement 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 utter so absurd doctrine, and impose it as an article of faith upon ignorant Protestants. Whether they were Zwinglians, Lutherans, Calvinists, or what you please, their profession of faith shows what account they made of imposition of hands, which is the business now in hand, and makes them Swinglians, and Puritans in this point.  
6. 
Pag. 195.  Yet you would feign know how cometh Barlow to be taxed of Puritanisme? because forsooth, you find him in his Robes, in his Rochet, in his Cope officiating, ordaining, confirming. Or because Swinglius his first sermon was in the 10. or 11. year of Henry the eight, and Barlow sat in Parliament in the 31. therefore Barlow could not be a Swinglian. This is your learned discouse out of Chronology. I must allow you more time to sum up your numbers, or to save you a labour, tell you before hand that make, what account you please, you will find that Luther himself begun the contempt of sacred Orders, though Swinglius after insisted more upon it, and there was time enough for Barlow either to take it from Swinglius, or at least from Luther, which is all one to our present purpose. As for his ordaining others you will have much ado to prove it, at least those you would have: for we have proved your Registers to be forged; but if any such thing be attempted, you may conclude his presumption, not his consecration, And for his Robes, Rochet, Cope and Cap, the spirit doth dispense with all puritans to wear 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 Barlow; but when he was to be made Bishop of Gloucester, 
Pag. 136.  he was feign (saith Foxto agree to this condition, that some times in his sermons, he should show himself aparalled as the other Bishops were. And yet it is evident, that he was never consecrated, though Cranmer, and Ridley, who were his enemies, forced him to wear a square Cap, and a linnend, Rochet, the only character of a protestant Bishop. Though they wanted the reality and truth of consecration, yet they insisted upon this formality, and cloak of ambition, in their sinister (as john Fox calls it) and unlucky contention.  
7. And that you may see what little hazard your protestant Bishops did run of Promunires by such practices, 
Pag. 1456  John Fox tells you, how D. Ridley that worthy Bishop of London, called John Bradford to take the degree of Deacon, according to the Order that then was in the Church of England, (which was the form of Edward the 6.) but for that this order was not without some such abuse, as to the which Bradford would not consent, the Bishop then was content to Order him Deacon without any abuse, even as he desired. After this Deaconship he was immediately without any orders, made Prebend, and Preacher of S. Paul's, having never studied but one year, and all his life before having been a serving man to Sr. John Harington. Do you imagine M. Doctor; that Barlowes Consecrater would not be as indulgent to him, as Ridley was to Bradford? Or do you think that Ridley would not venture as fare for his own conscience, when he was to be consecrated, as he did for that of his Deacon? There was no such rigour or danger of Premunires in those days, as you endeavour to persuade your Reader: neither Henry the 8. nor his Vicar General Cromwell, nor Archbishop Cranmer, nor sir Thomas Audley a Lutheran, and Chancellor after Sir Thomas More, did think it was for their purpose, to press any other ordination, or Consecration upon tender consciences, but baptism; 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 laws with a pretence of enriching the King, countenanced, and planted their own errors in the Kingdom.  
8. What wonder is it therefore, if the consecration of Protestant Bishops should not appear in any Register but yours and Barlows in none at all seeing 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 help of those Records which are in the Court of faculties, I should not despair (saith the Doctor) of finding Barlowes consecration. I must confess 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 yourselves. But where trow you, doth the Doctor hope to find out Barlows consecration? I am confirmed, 
Pag. 191.  saith he, in my former conjecture, that he was consecrated in Wales, which Bishop Goodvin had much more reason to know exactly then we have. Yet Bishop Geadvin speaking of Barlow in three sundry places, viz as Bishops of S. David's, Bath, and Welles, & Chishester says not a word of his consecrationin any of them, for of his being B. of S. Asaph there is no mention in the English edition, much less of his being consecrated there, though you tell us that in his Latin edition printed at London 1616. are these words, he was 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 will say, he was consecrated at S. David's or S. Asaph in Wales, and that indeed may confirm 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 years, may be found in Wales, I understand not, if it be not, that you are resolved, to imitate the example of mean upstarts, who insert their families into welsh pedigrees. So ye, it seems, intent to furnish your upstart Church, and Clergies want of Ordination, with welsh Registers; as in an other occasion you endeavoured to prove your independency of Rome, by a welsh proverb. You are pleased to say (but without any proof) that Barlows leases made in the sees of S. David's, Bath, and Wells, 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 favour before his death, of Q. Marry, that the leases made by him in the see of London, might stand good. This you may read in your own John Fox where he relates Ridleys' martyr doom. What greater right I pray, could Barlow pretend for the vaildity of his leases, than his brother Ridley, both of them being pretended Bishops of Henry the 8. time? You are very unfortunate in all your arguments, unless your intention be prevarication of your cause, to make yourself 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 Tavern as the English had: yet it wanted as much in the substance. Had there been true Bishops in Ireland who could have been brouglt to lay hands on the new Superintendents, the Queen might have saved her labour and credit of giving such enormous dispensations as never were heard of. Besides I must ask you a question in your ear. Were you Mr. Doctor made Priest in Ireland? you find an occasion to thrust in your being Bishoped in Ireland, but I can not find you speak of the other, and you know that no Priest, no Bishop. But although you were, if matters little for your Irish descent is no better than the English, nor any reason hitherto hath been produced to make it better.   

CHAP. VII.  
D. bramhall's ten reasons against the Nagshead story refuted, and retorted against Mason's Records, and the fable of the first Protestant Bishop's Consecration at Lambeth.  
1. WE are come at length to the Nagshead, M. Doctor, the place of your flourishes 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 Catholic Writers, who have related this tale of a tub. 
Pag. 32.  Let us hear these palpable contradictions. The common opinion is, that Scory a loan did consecrate them. But M. Constable, 
See Champney edit. Lat. 1618. pag. 502.  one of their principal Authors, supposeth (thus you English me latet) that Barlow might join with him in that; and Sanders, leaveth it doubtful, 
Pag. 33.  when or where, or by whom they were ordained. You must have learned a peevish wrangling logic, that makes you fall upon another as contradicting you, when you affirming the thing to be so, he doth not say no, but only me latet I do not know. But you say that M. Wadsworth only doth affirm that there was an attempt to consecrate Parker. All others writers say the same. There was no more than an attempt that Landaffe should consecrate Parker. I hope you do not imagine, that we take Scoryes ridiculous ceremony with Parker, and the rest, to be an episcopal consecration, it was no more than an absurd attempt. Here is another contradiction of people that say the same thing in different words.  
2. Seeing these contradictions are so fare from being palpable, that they are not intelligible, the Doctor brings others. Other say, 
Pag. 34.  there was more than 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, Horn etc. Others say Parker Grindall etc. Lastly others say, they were all ordained there. Here we have a contradiction of some & others. Why do not you name these others, and some? who are they? where met you with them? I have sought our Authors that write of this matter, and find not those Some, or others named or un named? Must I credit more your saying, than my own 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 words. And though you attribute their contradictions to the Transscriber, or printer, the unpartial Reader will hardly believe that such Erratas should pass the pen, or the press, as Bedford for Dover, John for Richard, one month for another, etc. And will further reflect upon the difference of stories recorded, and related. In these, both days, and months, or the names of persons are easily forgot, and some diversity herein argues nocertainty of the fact. But what is alleged as taken out of Records will be much suspected if the Relators differ in those particularities which in records are always precisely specified.  
3. Your second reason against the Nagshead story, 
Pag. 37. & 38.  is the lateness of the Discovery of it to the world, after forty years were passed. But this you refute yourself by the story you tell us of Theophilus Higgins, who was (as you say) converted to Catholic Religion by reflecting upon the Nagshead consecration; 
Pag. 125. & 126.  and that M. Clerk, who had been an Actuary in Cardinal Poles legative Court, approved well of his caution; but withal wished, that what Catholics had written concerning the Nagshead story, could be made good, etc. here you confess that it was published by our writers, and that it came not only to the ears, but the hearts of Protestants; and yet in other places of your book you say it never once peeped into the light until K. james his reign, and that it was only whispered in corners amongst Catholics. 
Pag. 46.  You have given the advantage of a story, I known not, which you are not used to do when you defend 〈◊〉 cause in good earnest.  
4. But you appeal to my judgement whether it be credible, that this story should be notoriously known to the world in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, and yet neither Stapleton, nor Harding, nor any one of all the Roman Catholic Writers, should so much as mention it for forty years ensuing. I appeal to your eyes M. Doctor, and desire you to read in your own Bishop Goodvin, whose knowledge you so much esteem, 
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, etc. If you inquire of the place of this consecration, it was no other but the accustemed, to wit, the Chapel of the Archbishop at Lambeth, however the most impudent Railers 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 himself. For who in his wits would give credit to a calomny so ridiculous, and so fare from all probability. Is not this the Nagshead Tavern consecration M. Doctor? Is not this the ridiculous story you so much detest? Do you remember when D. Harding lived? It's no marvel you should not know what our Authors writ concerning this subject, being so ill versed in your own. You may see how particularly M. Constable, cited by D. Champney, and yourself, writ and described the whole story, 
Pag. 32.  in the beginning of Q Elizabeth's reign. D. Sanders had done the same, if your first superintendents had not waved that consecration, and begged of the Queen, and Parliament to make them Bishops, thinking it more for their honour to be Parliament Bishops, than Tavern Bishops. If ye had stood in Sanders time, upon succession, and ordination by imposition of hands, as you did in King James his Reign, not only he, but all other Catholic Doctors, had written as particularly the Nagshead story, as Holwood, Fitzsimons Champney, etc. But in Queen Elizabeth's time ye relied upon her letterspatents, or upon the Act of Parliament 8. Elizab. 1. And therefore Harding in the name of all our Doctors ob●ected to your first Bishops: If ye can prove no succession, 
Confut. Apol. fol. 57  then whereby hold ye? Will ye show us the letters patents of the Prince? Though they have thus promoted you, yet be ye presumers, and thrusters in of yourselves. Lands, 
Fol. 60.  and Manors the Prince may give you, Priesthood, and Bishopric (or Episcopacy) the Prince can not give you.  
6. Apply I beseech you, M. Doctor, the lateness 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 than 50. years, not one word was spoken of it amongst Catholics, or Protestants not with standing the urgent necessity not a Syllable written of it in any History that could be seen, until in the year 1605. it was thought fit to foist into Antiquitates Britanniae a certain Register of Parkers, and his Colleagues consecration, but named not Lambeth. At length about the year 1613. it was thought time to publishin print the solemnity of Lambeth, at which all ancient and knowing men were startled, and concluded, that it deserved no more credit, then if a French man should now write, or show records that in the battle 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 yourselves, 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 heretics. 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 heretics, and in them the two foresaid letters. Pope Leo the great in his 38. epistle, ad Palaestinos, complains of the Grecians, that they had corrupted his letter to Flavianus. And S. Gregory the great avers that those of Constantinople had corrupted the synod of Chalcedon, 
Lib. 5. Epist. 14. ad Narsem.  and suspects they had done the same with the Council of Ephesus. And as for that of Chalcedon, it appears clearly the clause of the Bishop of Constantinople having equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, to have been falsely inserted; both because the fathers of the Council in their relation to Leo the Pope, never owned it, only said, we have confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople, which ordained, that after your most holy and Apostolic See, that of Constantinople should have the second place of honour. 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 been decreed in the Council of Constantiple. 
Lib. 5. c. 8.  And Justinian the Emperor speaking of both these Counsels, 
Novel. 131.  saith, 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 Apostolic 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 less 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 upon occasion of Morton make it appear how little conscience, and ashame your Ministers have in point of wilful falsifications.  
7. Your third reason against the Nag's head Consecration you take from the strictness of the english laws. But this hath, been answered in the 3. Chapter, and the largeness of the Queen's letters patents, and statutes in favour 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 the Queen's commission, and letters patents, as you may see in the said 2. Chap. And besides D. Banewft bears witness against you in the answer he gave to M Alabaster, that he boped, 
Pag. 138. & 140.  in case of necessity a Priest might ordain Bishops. You answer, I do not believe a word of what is said of B. Bancroft, sub modo, as it is here set down. For my part I believe the whole relateon is feigned. Is this your polemic 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 faithful relation, you may find it in the Jesuits libraries of Gant, Antwerp, ad Brussels, in Holiwoods' book, de investiganda Christi Ecclesia. Cap. 4. But if you imagine that Father Holiwood did feign 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 Europe with great satisfaction, and applause; but that he was esteemed by all who knew him, a man of eminent virtue, and supernatural gifts. He foretold the future miseries of his Country (Ireland) when it was most florisking; and assured that the posterity of the ancient english Conquerors, inhabiting the English Pale, would be driven out of their houses, and homes, though since the conquest they were never more favoured by the state, then when he told this to F. Robert Nugent, and others. Being heir to a fair estate, and chief of a noble family, he renounced all that his birth 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 bancroft's answer, and printed such an imposture in bancroft's life time, is no better than a childish evasion, or such a Ministers confutation, as undertook to refute Bellarmine, by saying, Bellarmine thou liest.  
9 You are pleased also to call D. Sanders relation of the Irish Archbishops refusal to consecrate your first Superintendents, a vain 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 years afterward in the tower of London. You say that if Consecraters had been wanting in England, Ye might have seven out of Ireland, and that your Irish protestant Consecration was never questioned. It's strange that the Bishops of Ireland should comply so with your heresy, whereas it is well known that three hundred persons of the whole nation could not be drawn to it, 
Fitz. Simons in Britan. nomach.  either by fair, or foul means, since Henry the 8. Schism, until King Charles his reign. Your Irish consecration is every jot as invalid as your english, neither can you make it appear, that any Catholic Bishop ever imposed hands (Macragh was never consecrated as his own friars testify) upon your first protestant Superintendents of Ireland, who were all made Bishops, by the Queen's letters patents and with as little consecration as those of England. Is it credible that if the Queen could have found in Ireland true Bishops that could have been brought to impose hands upon those that were to be ordained in England, that she would have alleged such necessity as you have seen in the 2. Chapt. could not she have called for her own subjects? Rather than give such a power as never was heard of supplying the want 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, would this have been done? If they had consecrated Protestants in Ireland, would they have refused the like in England? though you have no ground to build upon your Irish succession yet I have ground enough in your work 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 book, you have given me so many advantages against your cause, that I shall never accuse myself of rashness for this suspicion of your plain prevarication, or at least it must have been a most vain presumption to think that with petty tricks of auvoiding rather, then answering the force of arguments, and flourishing with your negative testimonies about a speech of one man, you can maintain a cause upon so many, and manifest titles defective. What if there had been a mistake about Mortons' speech, is the prize won on your side? Is the question stated upon that circumstance? Your fift reason is drawn from a principle of Rhetoric Cni bono? or what advantage could such a consecration as that of the Nagshead bring to the Consecraters, or the persons consecrated? I shall tell you what? It served, seeing they could get no better, to raise a rumour that they had been consecrated, and thereby to delude the people which had not so soon fully learned the new doctrine of those times, that election without consecration was sufficient. This was all the superintendents cared for, who in their opinions slighted consecration as a thing not necessary, as I have made appear by the common Tenet of those days, by the statutes, and Acts, by the 25. Article of their own Creed.  
Your 6. and 7. Reasons taken from the diametrical opposition, which you pretend is between 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 yourself in the 2. and 3. Chapters.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The witnesses of the Nagshead story do exceed those of the fabulous Consecration at Lambeth, both in number, and in authority; and the constant tradition of the said story, doth manifest the forgery of M. Mason's Register.  
1. YOur tenth reason M. Doctor, against the Nagshead story, is taken from all sorts of Witnesses. You say M. Mason reckoneth up seven of your writers, 
Pag. 125.  who had justified the legality of your Ordinations, and cited your Registers as authentic Records, before himself, whereof the first is Jewel. How false this is, may be evident by Jewels answer to Harding, wherein he citys no Registers, though his adversary called for them expressly, 
Confut. Apol. fol. 57 & 59 edit. an. 1566.  Show us your Registers. As for your other Writers, they cited no authentic Registers, because they disagreed amongst themselves, and agree not with Masons newfound Records, which alone you allow for authentic. As for Camden's testimony it availeth little both because he was not so bold as to put down a thing so disadventagious to his Clergy and dangerous to himself as also because you cite not his first edition, which should have been cited; for although I can not find it, yet I have found no small conjectures of knavery used in his other editions, as there hath been with Stow, and others, this I am assured of, that Cambden for fear of displeasing others lert out sundry particulars well known to himself.  
2. You produce some Catholics, 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 ye never wanted forgers, and that we have some weak, and credulous brothers, which is but a very weak proof of your orders. The first of these, is one M. Clerk, who was (you say) an Actuary in Cardinal Poole his legative Court. This M. Clerk met with one M. Higgins, who had been made a Catholic by reflecting upon the Nagshead consecration, and M. Clerke approved well of his caution, because in dubiis tutior pars sequenda, in doubtful matters we must follow the securest: but withal he wished, that what our Authors had written concerning that point, could be made good. For M. Clerke said that he himself was present, when the advocate of the Arches, whom the Queen 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 been 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 there is such a man in the world, as this. M. Barwick, and that you do not feign this story, as you do that of F. Oldcorne; but I must think it is no better than a fable, though I will not make you the Author, because it hath so many silly, and improbable circumstances. First that the Queen 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 Courtiers that assisted (as the Register says) at the consecration, then from the Records. And if she doubted of the skill, or attention of her Courtiers, she might examine some of the Doctors that were present. Secondly, your story makes the Queen 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 Bishop's consetration. Thirdly this story is proved to be feigned, by the Queen's letters patents and commission; wherein her Majesty declares, that there was a necessity to dispense with Canons; how then could she doubt, and send the Advocate of the Arches to give her an account, whether the consecration was performed Canonically? A necessity of dispensing with the Canons, is clear evidence that à consecration can not be Canonical; the Queen declared this necessity in her letters patents before the consecration was performed. Therefore she had clear evidence that it could not be canonical. How then could she doubt of what was evident to herself? Or to what purpose should she send the Advocate of the Arches to resolve her of a doubt, which she could never entertain? This is evidence enough to prove, that your story, good M. Doctor, is feigned. The only doubt remaining is, whether yourself, or M. Barwick feigned it, which I leave to your consideration. But suppose it had not been a fiction, all that can be concluded out of it, is, that M. Clerke confessed the Nagshead story was doubtful, but so that the contrary wanted assurance, and therefore 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 plain prevarication. Would any men in earnest bring so weak testimonies in a matter of so great importance? do you not make all the world see how little you have to say to the point which is to make your succession undoubted?  
4. Your other witness is one M. Hart, who was satisfied with Parker's consecration, when he saw copies of your Register. You may cite many other simple Catholics that would believe the same; but that only proves their credulity, and clears not your Register from forgery. Yet this story we must believe upon your word, wherein all they will have great 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 earl of Nottingham, 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, unless he had been in great want of others. But how doth he testify? Forsooth, he told it a friend, and this friend told it M. Mason, who put it in print. First I must question you whether the Earl was alive, when M. Mason printed his testimony. If he were, why did not M. Mason get a formal attestation as you have done? I am sure yours have cost you more labour, and done you less service than that would have cost, or served him. was he dead? I see no more signs in this then in other occasions of Gods favourable providence to your Church. Will the Earls saying to a nameless friend that he had been at a banquet in Lambeth restore the credit of your Church deprived of lawful Clergy upon so many titles as have been alleged, and this man not speacke of what he had heard, till the Author was speechless, and in his grave? but the Earl told 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 than one friend because D. Champney doth not name them; and you exact from us to believe, that the Earl of Nottingham related the story of Lambeth to one friend, though you do not name him. Yet John Stows friends had good reasons, why they would not be named by D. Champney, when your Clergy was so powerful and spiteful in England; but what reason could the Earl of Notinghams' friend have not to be named by M. Mason? Did he peradventure fear, that your Clergy would persecute him for endeavouring to maintain their Orders and credit? do you not see M. Doctor, how ill grounded a fable this is of your first Bishop's consecration at Lambeth, that you can not name for it one witness allowable; I do not say, nor exact as you do, 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 gainsays it, may upon the same score gainsay any thing, that is beyond the reach of his memory, or depends upon the testimony of others. What ground hath any man to fix his belief upon, but a constant tradition, and testimony, of honest, and knowing persons? It's now à century of years since the Nagshead story happened; it hath been constantly related, and credited by wise men, as a certain truth, ever since the year 1559. It was never contradicted by any, until it was imagined by our adversaries, that their new Registers might contest with our ancient tradition, and make the. Nagshead story seem improbable, in the year 1613. of which no man doubted for the space of 52. years before. But they were mistaken because evident truths, though they relate absurd actions, can not, by any device or art, be made improbable, until their evidence be blotted out of the memory of men. Time may wear 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 been seasonably contradicted, when it might, and aught to have been done, especially if with much advantage, and little difficulty.  
6. That there hath been these hundred years a constant tradition between sober, and wise men, of the Nagshead story, can not be denied by our Adversaries, unless they be resolved to say, that we Catholics have had no sober, or learned men, since they left us. I hope the Catholic Bishops, and Doctors of Q. Mary's time, were sober and wise men; they believed this story, and recounted it to Persons, Fitzherbert, D. Kellison, Holiwood, D. Champney, Fitzsimons etc. Persons believed it, and recounted it as a serious truth to many, as is well known to F. Henry Silisdon, a man of known 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 books. Therefore this story is fare from being improbable, but is rather evident, as being supported by the credit, testimoney, and tradition of most wise, and sober Authors, however so improbable it may seem to some, out of a Protestant zeal, or want of knowledge. But your main argument against the evidence of this story, is, that all our Catholics seem 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 yourself, for, in an other place o● your book, 
Pag. 32.  you acknowledge, that M. Constable writ the story, and he is one of our principal Authors; but he says in his relation, (written when this story happened) that is was a thing without doubt, because not only M. Neale, but other Catholics integerrimae fidei, of most entire credit, were eyewitnesses of Scorys ridiculous manner of consecrating Parker, and the rest in the Nagshead Tavern. Yet suppose that M. Neale had been the only eyewitness of this action, I see nothing that follows more clearly from such a supposition, than this conclusion. Ergo M. Neale must needs have been a person of very great ingenuity, and integrity. Be pleased to turn, 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 virtuous Priests, prisoners for their conscience at Wisbich. Who believed M. Neale? All the Catholics of England. The conclusion is. Ergo M. Neale was a man that deserved great credit, otherwise you must condemn the greatest heads amongst Cathoques, for believing so odd a story, without any credible authority. M. Neale had been a professor in the University of Oxford, and forfeited his chair, and livelihood, for not taking the oath of supremacy: It is incredible that he would feign such a story as that of the Nagshead, and thereby engage the Catholic Church to practise Reordination against our known Tenets, and his own conscience, and by such a relation, declare himself to be not only a virulent backbiter, but an impudent Impostor.  
7. But now I must prove, that the Nagshead story is more than probable, not only for the quality of the persons reporting; and believing it, but also by the very circumstances, or rather exigences of the time If you look upon the Church of England, as it was in the late King's reign, it will seem improbable that men should choose a Tavern for an episcopal consecration: but if we consider the strait passages through which the said Church was forced to march in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign by reason of the notorious want it had of Bishops; it will not appear strange unto us, that the first protestant superintendents should go to a Tavern with intention to supply there the want of their Church, it being well known in those days, that neither Scory, nor Hadgkins, nor Coverdale, were consecrated Bishops. And though they had the Keys of the Churches at their command, they had not the Key of Order, nor the command of the true Bishop's hands, or tongues; therefore it was plotted, that old Landaffe should be inveigled to give them a meeting in a Tavern, where with good words, and good cups they hoped to bring the old man to a good humour. But God gave him grace to abstain from a second scandal, though himself had taken the oath of supremacy yet in his judgement he was à Catholic, and more sensible of B. Bonner's excommunication 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 ordained Bishops, we shall find there was nothing in the circumstances of the Tavern consecration which makes it incredible; for, the persons were of the opinion than à la Mode, condemning consecration as a point not necessary for Ecclestical power, though not te be refused for public satisfaction, and seeing no better 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 business they were about, and sought with all care, and speed to bring about.  
8. I must return once more to M. Neale, and complain of your railing M. Doctor, against a learned, and honest man. You call him a spy, brainsick fool, etc. and despise his testimony, because he was not sworn; the credit which as wise men as you, did give him, is an argument that he was no fool, and that he could well distinguish a Consecration dinner from an ordination; such a mistake doth not much misbecome a Protestant Courtier, as the Earl 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 took upon you in Bruges to confirm some eminent persons of the English Court, many of the Courtiers were starled at so unusual a ceremony, as your confirmation seemed to them, and were solicitous to know what it meant. Why should not the Earl of Nottingham be as ignorant of a Protestant consecration, as the Courtiers of Bruges were of your ceremonious confirmation? Especially seeing confirmation should be given to all, and therefore frequent, 
Fitz. Simons in Britan. Pag. 317.  where as Consecration of Bishops happens seldom.  
9, To M. Neale, and other Catholics eye witnesses of your Nagshead consecration, cited 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 progress in a corner not in a congregation. I hope the Archiopiscopal Chapel of Lambeth is no corner; these words must allude to the Nagshead Tavern (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. james his reign, when Holiwood printed, how D. Alabaster asked of M. Brancroft pretended Bishop of London, how his first Superintendents Parker, etc. were consecrated? he answered, that he hoped, in case of necessity a Priest might ordain 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. Holiwoods book, 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 solemn consecration at Lambeth, let us compare one with the other, that the Reader may judge, which of both aught to be credited. Our story of the Nagshead, is grounded upon a constant tradition of a hundred years, between wise and sober persons; which tradition can not be counterfeited, because no human industry can reach, or spread so fare, as to speak the same thing by so different mouths, and interest, as there are amongst our witnesses, Catholics, Puritans, and Protestants. But the ground of your protestant consecration at Lambeth, comes fare short of what ye intent to prove by it; for, your ground is your Register, which appeared not (being called for near a hundred years ago) until the year 1613. And besides, it might be as easily counterfeited, as any other writing by one, or few hands without the concurrence, or conspiracy of so many hands, heads, and opposite interests, as would have been 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, time, and persons, there is no doubt that our story hath the advantage. The place of your pretended consecration (Lambeth) was never named (even in your Hanow Register) until 1613. Our story named the Nagshead Tavern from the beginning. As for the persons, their conscience, and religion; we have also the better; for you have seen how little in those days your religion valued Ordination, and your first Bishop's conscience could make no scruple, to act, and receive in a Tavern, what they judged to be no act of religion. As for the danger of Premunires, or other penalties, they could not fear any; having in their commission an ample dispensation to do what they pleased against the Statutes, and Canons, as hath been demonstrated in the 2. Chap. And finally the last circumstance, which is of time, and persons, doth so divide the relations of your writers, who speak of this consecration at Lambeth, that their contradictions are a sufficient proof of your forged records, because relations drawn out of true records can not vary in the names, and number of persons, in the month, or day, which of course are expressed with great exactness. You can find no such contradictions in the Nagshead story.  
12. But now let us reflect upon the number, and quality of the witnesses. Ours are not only M. Neale, but others of most entire credit, spectators of the Nagthead Consecration, as M. Constable writ in their own life times, near a hundred years ago; but ye never named any eyewitness but one, the Earl of Nottingham, either dead when he was cited, or if alive in a manner, and less credible than if he had been dead. Our eye witnesss related the story of the Nagshead to D. Watson Bishop of Lincoln's, D. Bluet, D. Haberley, M. Constable, John Stow, to the Priests prisoners at Wisbich, etc. but your one witness never related the story of Lambeth to any that had a name, but only is said by M. Mason, to have told it to a nameless friend. Our witnesses published the story of the Nagshead in the very beginning as soon as it happened; but your Witness never published that of Lambeth, but told it privately to a friend, as if forsooth, it had been 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 statutes, 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. and with the confession of Bancroft, and the  consent of all your ancient Clergy of England; and with the public testimony of all the Puritans in print, the testimony of your one Witness, and Records, are irreconcilable with the foresaid evidences. Now judge M. Doctor, who deserves most credit, one young gallant (in case the earl ever should have said what Mason pretends) invited to a banquet, or many knowing men, eyewitnesses of the fact? An ancient, and constant tradition of learned, and honest men, agreeable to your own principles of religion, to the confession of your own Doctors, ad to the statutes of the land; or a newfound Register, never cited, nor produced (though earnestly called for) until the season, and occasion was passed; diametricaly opposite to your own articles of faith, and to the principles of your Church, and to the evidence of your statutes. I hope that neither you, nor any other, will be so obstinate, as hereafter to prefer the relation of an obscure scroll, hidden for the space of 52. years, (the best, and greatest part of the age of your protestant Church) be fore the clear, and public tradition 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 persuaded 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 walk, and wander in darkness applauding, and extolling with as great zeal, and as little discretion, their invisible Records, as your protestant forefathers did their invisible Church.  
13. And now M. Doctor, I believe you will pity the late King's misfortune, and wish that he had given way to the Parliament, to pull down parliament Bishops, who had neither human, nor divine right to temporal benefices, or spiritual offices. 
Pag. 238.  Though it be no pity that I was not of his Council, its great pity that he was not better informed of your Orders; had he been pleased to advise, in time upon this subject, your superficial formality had never been able, to root out his posterity, of their well grounded right to three Kingdoms. And truly if the Jesuits Colleges had no more right to the plate of their Churches, and revenues, than ye have to your bishoprickes, and benefices, I would not cry out with Ploiden (as you imagine) the case is altered; 
Pag. 239.  but would persuade them to restitution, and exhort you to the same, if this charitable office had not been prevented by Divine justice, depriving your Clergy of what they so wrong fully possessed. Yet notwithstanding your miserable condition, you are pleased to say, that ye are our fear, and hate. We love your persons, hate your errors, wonder at your obstinacy, pardon your former cruelties, and present contumelies, pity your misery, and much more your blindness the cause of your misery: neither envy your talents, nor fear 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 errors.   

CHAP. IX.  
My Lord Audley's testification upon oath of Mortons' acknowledging the Nagshead ordination in Parliament. The reason of believing, and publishing the said testification, which upon due examination is much preferred before all others alleged against it.  
1. I Am confirmed in my Lord Audley's 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 been well assured that there is none, he would have willingly laid hold of your courtesy, and of the speech, and person of the pretended 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 used 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 himself will give you an answer. But give me leave to ask 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 speak of the same? Once you grant speeches of this subject in the upper house, you can hardly free D. Morton from having a share in them.  
2. 
Pag. 27.  But the greatest mistake of all others was (saith the Doctor) to publish such a notorious untruth to the world, so temerariously without better advice. I confess that though I never doubted of the truth of my Lord Audley's relation, yet I did foresee that D. Morton would protest against it, and deny the story, as you do D. bancroft's, concerning the same subject of the Nagshead. But it is a great mistake in you to think, that this story of my Lord Audleyes was published temerariously, and without consideration and design. For, it was considered that either ye would deny it, or grant it. If ye granted D. Mortons' speech, I had my intent. If ye denied it, and produced authentic certificats, and testimonies to disprove what was laid to his charge, your own certificats, and authentic testimonies, would be clear evidences of the truth of the Nagshead story, though tkey should vindicate D. Morton. For, if the Nagshead story had not been notoriously true, and evident in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, why did not your predecessors produce then authentic 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 clear 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, rashness, temerarious credulity etc. For publishing, and objecting the Nagshead story? That ye were upbraided 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 noise when the puritans told them of the beginning of their Ordination in a corner, not in a Congregation. Are you more zealous for the honour of one D. Morton, than your former Bishops were for their own credit, and the being of their whole Church? If they had not wanted matter, how could they want mind, or means 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 known in those days to be called in question; and not only then, but even in the beginning of King James his reign, 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 acknowledgement, none to convince the Puritans objection What reason could there be of this silence, and patience, but clear 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 Audley's testimony, reflect upon more than you did design, or desire, and totaly destroy the plea of your forged Registers. But let us hear what he saith for himself in his own words.  
Having seen a book entitled the Consecration, & Succession of Protestant Bishops, etc. & particularly perused that Chapter called the Vindication of the Bishop of Durham I find myself (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 Catholic faith, etc. fixeth on to prove his allegations touching the Bishop of durham's speech, I know not, for he told me of it before ever I spoke to him, but sure I am, if it be looked after he may have sufficient testimony to satisfy half a dozen juries; but that which stirs me to speak in this matter, is, a note I have at the request of the Bishop of Derry given him under my hand, wherein, I say in substance the same with the Author touching the Bishop of durham's speech, as for the book against Episcopacy, which was the ground of the discourse, my note only avers it was brought into the house, but said not by whom, nor who was the author, in truth I wondered much to find 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 Parliament of my Lord of Durham; then I heard it from him, and this I say, as I shall answer it before the judgement seat of God Allmighty. And I do not remember that ever I heard the Bishop of Lincoln, or any other Bishop before, or since mention the Nagshead, or touch that story: if I had, & not named him, my Lord of Durham might have just reason to complain, but my Lord of Derry will not believe that I (for I can not but take it to myself) do, or ever did know the Bishop of Durham, so well as to swear this was the man. If his Lordship had been an English Bishop, an frequented Parliaments, he would have omitted this. Not to multiply words. I can assure his Lordsp, I could as well, & surely have sworens this is the man, the Bishop of Durham, as his Lordship could of Sir George Ratclif when he lived. Besides, his person, & place of the Bishop's bench is too eminent to be mistaken. An other expression of my Lord of Derry is, I do not take myself to be so exact Analyser of a discourse, as to be able to take my oath, what was the true scope of it. Here likewise I must beg his Lordship's pardon. I know no such defect in myself, for there is not any thing more easy then to comprehend the true cope of a short a plain Historical discourse as this was; to conclude, as to the Bishop of durham's denial, I hope that confessing himself now of the age of 95. years, it will be held no crime to say, or improbable, to believe that one of that great age, may at least forget, what he spoke so many years since. For the two cerficats of the other Lords, that of the temporal saith little to my Lord of Derryes' purpose, neither with an indifferent judgement can that of the spiritual work much. For my part, I do not say, that any, or all their Lordships, whose names are put to the certificats in the book, were in the House at this time, or if any of them were, that they took notice of what my Lord of Durham spoke, for many discourses are made in Parliaments, & little 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 his pains might have been spared, for I do not mention a book presented, and consequently none to be recorded, and as for speeches, I do assure his Lordship, in the authority of an old Parliament man, that it is not the office of the Clarque to record them (his work would be too great) till it be a result or conclusion, & then he writes them down as Orders, Ordinances, etc. of Parliament. I will end this short, & faithful defence, which I have been here necessitated to make for myself with many thanks to my Lord of Derry for his charity, & opinion of my ingenuity: & seeing his Lordship's inclination in this matter is to absolve me from a malicious lie, I will absolve myself as to the mistakes either in the person, or matter, assuring his Lordship, & all the world there is none.  
3. Though this relation, and testimony given by my Lord Audley doth not only clear me from casting any aspersion upon D. Monton, but also makes the whole speech laid to his charge, sufficiently credible, (one positive witness with such circumstances proving more than many negative, and it being more probable, that D. Morton, or any other in the Parliament, should forget, than my Lord Audley feign such a story, without any possible design or profit) yet I must vindicate myself from the note of credulity, rashness, overmuch confidence, and formal calumly fixed upon me by D. Bramhall, for believing my Lord, Audley, and publishing his relation. Is it credulity or rashness, good M. Doctor, to believe a person of honour, 
Pag. 26.  and of so great ingenuity, as you confess my Lord Audley to be and no man of honour can deny in a matter, whereof he had as clear 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, wherewith he accompanied his speech: and that after D. Morton had finished the same, he asked a Lord of known reputation and wisdom, whether the first protestant Bishops had been ordained in a Tavern? 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 room for a mistake in this matter) may occasion doubts, and perplexities; but not cause such positive assurances, and clear evidences as my Lord Audley to this hour retains. If it be once granted, that men of judgement may be mistaken in the evidence they swear to have of their own perfect remembrance, and understanding, concerning an object clearly acted before their eyes, and distinctly convejed into their ears, and particularly reflected upon, and immediately discoursed upon, you may persuade all the world, that whatsoever they have seen, heard, and understood, are but dreams, and mistakes, occasioned by want of memory. for to impute so much dulness, and ignorance to my Lord of Audley, that he could not comprehend the scope of a speculation so abstracted, so sublime, so Metaphysical, as morton's, 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 endless, and senseless function of scribbling, if you held these titles upon science, conscience, or common sense. This is to charge both the Relator, and Reader with plain stupidity. Must men be made out of their wits, because they bear witness against your Clergy? Or can you hope that any man in his wits will heed what you writ, 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 Peers have been so vexed with your importunity, that they have condescended to yield you some succour in so urgent necessity. 
Pag. 23.  We do hereby testify, and declare that to the best of our present knowledge, and remembrance, no such book against Bishops as is there mentioned was presented to the house of Peers in that Parliament, and consequently that no such speech as is there pretended was, or could be made by him, or any other against it. Jam far from calling in question the ingenuity of these honourable 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 judgement in question for thinking that what you have got will serve your turn. If it do not it's not their fault in giving what you asked, but yours in ask you knew not what. The question is, whether Morton acknowledged in parliament the Nagshead merry meeting; but whether it were upon occasion of a book publicly presented, or privately delivered, whether dedicated to the parliament, or distributed amongst the members of Parliament, whether in this man, or that man's 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 been made by Bishops in Parliament upon lesser occasions, than these I rehearsed, and perhaps some with no occasion, and also to no purpose at all, unless the rest have been more careful in speaking then you in printing. 
Pag. 10.  You confess a book to have been dedicated to the Parliament against Episcopacy, and the book to have been writ by a Lord; you confess to have heard that the B. 
Pag. 26.  of Lincoln did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament, and you will not deny, but that Durham for his many writings, and great age might have been as fit, and forward to talk as another, and if you look 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 book, to wit with all the circumstances mentioned, and consequently no speech against it. They may remember a speech upon occasion of a book, wherein Durham took harbour in the Nagshead Tarverne, and yet say with truth they do not remember that speech, or any other to have been made against such a book signed with all those individual particularities. And further there might have been such a speech, and such a book, 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 book, nor any circumstance belonging to the point, we dispute. And I mark their attestation to be couched in terms so precise, and cautious, as both to content you, who presume to make any thing serve your purpose, and yet neither to contradict, nor wholly conceal the truth. For, those that with so careful attention tied their attestation so fast to the circumstantial part of the business, knew full well that the attentive Reader would thereby perceive they could have said more of the substance, if they had not been by themselves, or by others persuaded that it was not convenient to publish all they remembered. But your adding the Clerk of the Parliaments testimony is a mere childish simplicity, what saith he? I do not find any such book presented, nor any entry of any such speech made by B. Morton. Will you make men believe that every speech is entered, or that if just such a book was not formally presented, that the speech was not made upon occasion of a book, or that a book in good English may not be said to be presented, although it be not delivered in such solemnity, as requires the putting it upon record? It is much want that brought you down to such beggarly shifts, to go from door to door begging attestations about an inconsiderable circumstance, and make so poor, and pitiful use of what you have scraped together. You forget to beg the favour of your adversary to let you talk disparatas in this desperate case, and beg pardon of your Reader for abusing his patience, 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 profess here much skill to little purpose in law matters, I believe after such pleading as this, you would get few clients, and small fees.  
6. Put the case your Brother Durham had been accused of treason, and you were allowed to plead for him (which equity in other countries is not denied) now there comes in a witness whose ingenuity you grant, and no man can deny, he takes upon his oath, as he hopes to be saved, that he heard the said Durham upon occasion of a seditious pamphlet, make a speech to the people, wherein he exhorted them to deliver up a town to the enemy; that he knows the man accused as well as you knew Sir George Ratcliff; that he remembers clearly the very place, and posture, wherein he made the speech, and further more that the speech was so unexpected, that it made him in a particular manner attentive, that immediately after, he discoursed upon it with an other, to inform 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 judgement. Put the case further he should say that he thinks the pamphlet was writ by such a man, or given in such a man's 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 under his hand, as being things he made no very particular account of, or reflection upon. Now enters M. Bramhall the lawyer puffed up with presumption that he can talk all the world out of their wits, and senses, First bragging, and vapouring, and threatening no less than convincing demonstrations, then upbraiding his adversary with credulity, temerity for taking notice of such a testimony, and forewarning him with a most passionate zeal of his credit, hereafter to turn stoic with Epictetus, and learn to distrust, and having wearied himself, and others with these Preambular impertinences, and disposed all by his presumption, and passion not to believe a word he shall say, atlength he comes close to the point, and tells the judge, that the witness doth not take himself for so exact Analyser of a discourse, as to understand what is meant by these words, to deliver a town to the enemy, and if this be not sufficient to clear the matter, he produces a writing wherein some persons say no more, but that they do not remember after 17. or 18. years such a Pamphlet, that is writ by such a man, and delivered with that ceremony, and in such a man's name, and consequently no speech to have been made against it, as is pretended, and that it was not in such manner presented, as those are, which are noted in public 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 remembered, 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 itself, in case they had been present, but only of their having forgot certain accidental superflous particularities, not regarded, or formally avouched by the contrary witness; nor allege any Law, Custom, precedent, or argument, why such a negative testimony of the not remembrance of inconsiderable circumstances should prevail against the plain, clear, positive, undoubted remembrance of a witness beyond all exception: and further should press his adversary ever, and an on to legal proofs, and admit of no others, and yet himself insist chiefly upon a proof against the law of all nations that have law, to wit upon 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 judgement clear the Delinquent of treason, or the Advocate of treacherous prevarication, or ignorant presumption upon so frivolous, and idle discourse.  
7. And yet this is your case, M. Doctor, this, I say, or worse than this; for besides your illegal plea of producing Morton as a witness in his own 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, than a Brownist Minister, or Tubpreacher, yet there is a special exception against the person of Morton, as having been often, and evidently convicted of most plain wilful, un excusable lies, and impostures in his several writings concerning Religion, which shameful abominable practice he hath used when he was less concerned, then in this present occasion. Whether I speak with reason, or passion the Reader will shortly judge of himself, and with all what exception may be taken against his Colleagues. I shall give neither him, or you any names though provoked by both, he calls me an impudent libeler, you call M. Neale a brainsick fool. I know you are both as well versed in Civility, as Divinity, and need not to take you for my Masters, or Patterns. 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 neither 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 wisdom to consider the difference betwixt these two consequences, which without any artificial Logic is easily discerned.  
8. The first. I remember clearly, and distinctly to have heard such a speech, which the attention to it, the admiration of it, the reflection upon it hath deeply imprinted in my memory, therefore I may securely say, and swear such a speech y have heard. The second. I do not remember after 17. or 18. years certain occasional circumstances of such a speech, or perhaps not the speech itself, because I might have been absent, or not attentive to it, or made little account of it. Therefore another man's perfect remembrance is not to be credited. Although the Roman Senator Hortensius is renowned for his prodigious memory, yet I could never hear any thing of him which might give occasion to think that if he had forget something belonging to a speech made in the senate 17. years before, that his oblivion would have been thought sufficient to void the evidence of it drawn from the solemn oath, and perfect remonstrance of a lawful witness. And albeit Mithridates could give account of every soldier's name in his army, yet if one had been proved by the oath of a person of honour to have served him in his wars, can any man imagine the King would have disavowed his service, because after 17 years he, or some others had forgot his name? Not many years since there appeared a dim Comet observed by few, yet I could never find any that hath perused 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 been seen by others.  
9 But you M. Doctor, advance not so far as to evince the presence of your witnesses, much less their special attention, reflection, admiration, or the like, which are the fundations of a lasting memory, for my witness doth not mention the day. Wherefore it was a work not only of supererogation, but superfluity, that your superintending Brethren should put in their attestation, that they sat in the Parliament begun at Wesminster the 3. day of Novemb. 1640. without giving some sign 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 been publicly, manifestly, and frequently convicted of most wilful, and most impudent lies in his writings, is grown so forgetful not only of what he spoke, but of what any man in his wits ought to speak, that he delivers himself in these terms. I could never have made such a speech as is there pretended (and the proof it excellent) seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts, and always believed that fable of the Nagshead consecration to have proceeded from the father of lies. A deaf man might as well say, he heard it with his heels, as that Morton should say he spoke according to his thoughts, when he thought it convenient to speak otherwise. And no less ridiculous industry was used in procuring a public Notary, and five witnesses to make men believe that the attestation is truly his own, not falsely fathered upon him, for no body doubted but he would give a most ample testimony for himself, and his cause, but no man that knows him by his writings will give credit to any thing he sayeth in behalf of religion. Persuade the old man that you have found a new trick to make better use 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 fears a few private men's silent censure, who hath hardened his face against the public reproach of as many scholars as read books of controversy? But I shall present him, and his fellows to your eyes, in their own glass, that you may know them better by sight then by hearsay.   

AN APPENDIX.  
Of the wilful, and shameful falsifications, and falsities of Protestant Ministers.  
I require no gentle, and courteous, nor so much as unpartial, and unpassionate readers, I am content with any partiality, or passion, provided that it do not wholly deprive them of the use of their eyes, and reason. I give but a scantling, and that in haste, and out of such books I had at hand, and what I found with little seeking. I am so assured by my own experience of the plenty of this kind of ware, promiscuously to be found in the prime Protestant writers, particularly in the English Nation, that I fear no other reproach, but of my sparing pains in collecting no greater heaps of this abominable filth, to cause thereby a wholesome, though noisome detestation of that Religion, which is upheld by so , unhuman, Diabolical Policy. I begin with Morton.  
In a virulent, and calumnious pamphlet entitled. A discovery of Romish doctrinein case of conspiracy, and rebellion pag. 4. he allegeth as an ancient decree out of Gracian. Causa 15. qu. 6. c. 40. Si juravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam qui excommunicatur, non teneor ei solvere: first it is no decree either of Pope, or Council, but only words of the gloss; secondly it is an objection, not the resolution of the gloss, for it resolves that he is bound to pay, and proves it by divers laws, and reasons.  
In his treatise called a confutation of the Pope's supremacy, as supreme head of rebellion pag. 2. He affirmeth that in the old testament the Jesuits are forced to allow that the king was supreme head of the Church in spiritual affairs, and ordering Priests, and for proof citeth Salmeran. d. 12. in ep. Pauli in gen. §. sed contra. Where he doth not only clearly hold, but largely prove the quite contrary, and solves the objections, and further adds that in case it had been so in the old, it doth not follow that it is so in the new.  
In his reply, and full satisfaction concerning the charge against Protestants for rebellion etc. pag. 3. he imputeth to Vasques, that he holds a man may be an heretic though he be not obstinate, whereas in the very disputation mentioned; Vasques guieth this definition of heresy, commonly received. Haeresis nihil est aliud, 
Disp. 126. c. 3.  quam error in rebus fidei cum partinacia, and it is impossible that Morton should have been ignorant of this notion of heresy, so frequently taught, and generally received, and by Vasques expressly.  
In the same book pag. 38. Morton feigneth that divers Catholic authors hold that Popes cannot possibly be heretics as Popes, now for the conclusion, and consequently cannot be deposed, among these, he brings Bellarmin, and Gratian, though Bellarmin directly teach that the Pope may be an heretic, and thereupon deposed by the Church, or rather is ipso facto deposed, and may be so declared by the Church, and citeth the very canon of Gracian, saying haereticum Papam posse judicari, expressè habetur Can. si Papa dist. 40. Morton citeth Azor for the same l. 5. c. 14. & Valentia analy: l. 8. c. 3. and Salmeron. Cam. in Galat: 2. d. 24. and Canus de locis l. 6. cap. 8. and Stapleton doctrine. l. 6. initio. And Costerus de Pontif. in Ench. c. 3. and yet all these in the very places teach plainly, and flatly the very contrary. And further he is not ashamed to add that these authors confirm their doctrine by the universal consent of Romish Divines, and Canonists for the space of 100 years, whereas they boath teach the contrary, to wit, that the Pope may be heretic, and deposed, and innumerable others of that age, true it is that God neither hath, nor will permit, that any Pope, though heretic in his private opinion should by public decree ex cathedrâ define any heresy, neither, for any thing we know out of history well examined, can it be convinced that any Pope hitherto hath been an heretic in his private persuasion, albeit in this point there be different opinions, which nothing at all belong to the present purpose.  
But I must invite the reader, at least for a pleasant entertainment, if no higher motive can induce him, to peruse Mortons' discourse against Aequivocation, and confer it with the answer contained in a book entitled A treatise tending to Mitigation, it will be no small sport, I do not say, to catch him napping in ignorant mistakes, but to hear rapping loud lies one after an other, in that very book where he detesteth Aequivocation, and professeth a most religious preciseness in point of truth. For example, he citeth Azor. l. 11. instit. cap. 4. quite contrary to this meaning, patching words to gather, that were spoken separately, and to an other end, and falsely translateth in to English that very text of Azor. which himself citeth in the margin. The words in latin are, Si venit ex loco aliquo peste minimè infecto, qui falsò habetur pro infecto. Which Morton turns thus into English, if he come from a place infected. But truly translated make the case wholly different, and are these, if he came from a place not infected, which falsely is held to be infected. But he is not only content to be convicted of unexcusable falsehood by men that study moralists, but even by schoolboys, that read Tully's offices, in his 90. page he doth so grossly pervert the sense, change the words, and destroy the whole drift of Tully's discourse l. 3. offic. §. Regulus and §. sed si, that it is a wonder to see what impudensy grows from a custom of lying. These are but a few examples of the many detected by the aforesaid Treatise of Mitigation, and an other called A quiet, and sober reckoning with Thomas Morton by the reading whereof, and conferring each particular with the books cited every one may in a short time, and no great trouble judge by his eyes whether I have reason to except against such a witness in his own cause, and what reason there is to follow so wilfully, and wickedly blind leaders.  
But I cannot but wonder at one circumstance, that after Morton had gained reputation by this practice, he was promoted to the title and profits of a Bishopric, purchasing by a new kind of fimony, not with buying, but with lying, a rich benefice. I Bellarmin, or Perron could have been convicted of this false, and base proceeding either before, or after their Cardinal's caps, what a noise would have been, when we hear such a clamour, upon that which is not proved, but only pretended to be a credulous mistake? Yet when I consider John Foxes Acts, and Monuments, the very Magazine of no less malicious, then ridiculous lies, to have got so honourable a place in Protestant Churches, and that not by vulgar simplicity, but by public authority, not by connivance, or negligence, but upon design, and by command: when I see this abomination hath stood so long in the holy place, I wonder no more at Mortons' promotion, nor at whole Nations deceived by Mahomet's Alcoran. If I should insist upon the number of those, that by command, or concurrence are guilty of the falsehood of Fox's book, I should accuse many more, than I am by this present occasion obliged; but the Ministers I cannot excuse upon any title, for although they be of mean learning, and no extraordinary reading, yet the falsities are so numerous, and obvious, that it is impossible but many should have fallen under the observation of most. And by the book of the three Conversions of England, and the Examen of Fox's Calendar, which have been printed almost threescore years since; and have come to the hands of many Protestant Ministers, this Foxes fowl work hath been so plainly discovered, that those, who have seen it, if they had least zeal, or love, or care of truth, aught to have informed their Brethren, and not to have permitted any Christian Religion to be longer profaned with so public a slander, and shame of Christianity. Should a renegade Captive tell his master, that the sect amongst Christians, which he had been taught, was maintained by such false, and shameful practices, he would easily gain Credit of a true Proselyte turned Turk upon conscience, and not convenience. I need not set down Foxes impostures, for you shall see them in the forsaid books so gross, and thick set one by another, that it will be harder to make a way through them, then find the way to them. I will pass my word the Author does him no wrong, and the reader upon his own examination will take my word in an other occasion.  
But to return to Morton now with a white Rochet on his back, but with as little ingenuity, and candour of mind as before. The imposition of those unhallowed hands hath not imprinted the least mark of grace in his soul, or shame in his forehead. In the grand imposture writ by him then B. of Cou. and Lichf. pag. 85. edit. 2. he sets down a large, and lying description of the Inquisitions cruelty, and adds, So your Author. And who do you think is this Author, but Cornellius Agrippa a Magician, as himself confesseth of himself? And where doth he write what here is alleged against us? In a book condemned by our Church. Not a word of these circumstances; but only that he is our Author, to make the Reader believe he is one we have no reason to except against. You had better take him to yourself: for his black art is of the same colour with yours, and taught by one master, who esteems you the better scholar, having done more mischief with your false juggling, than Agrippa with his conjuring. Now pag. 388. the same juggling trick over again. Mark the ensuing words. Else why is it that your own Thuanus speaking of this separation (Viz of Luther) said that some in those days laid the fault upon the Pope Leo? More fully your Cassander, an Author selected in those days by the King of the Romans, as the chiefest divine of his. And pag. 385. He calls Thuanus our noble Historian. Who knows nothing of Thuanus but by this man's relation, would take him to be, not only a sound unsusspected Catholic, but of special regard amongst us: whereas both our common opinion, and his own Annals prove him a Huguenot. But besides falsely reporting him for a Catholic, he is plainly falsified in these very places alleged. In the first he speaks not of Luther's separation, but of the election of Prelates in France; and in the 2. where he speaks of benefices, Morton makes him speak of Indulgences, in both places evidently against his clear words, which read as they stand in Thuanus have not the least shadow of ambiguity. But the making Cassander ours, and our chiefest Divine being listed in our Index of forfidden books amongst the Heretics of the first rank, and his own writings accusing him, not only of the general heresies of these times, but of others also particular to himself, is not only a shameless, but senseless imposture. It is a labour too loathsome to dig any longer in this filthy dunghill of corruptions. And it is a madness in any man that already knows Morton by his notoriously impudent lying books, or before he take knowledge of him upon this admonition to give the  credit to any thing he shall say, writ, sign, or swear concerning Religion, as being convicted by his own writings to have lost all remorse of conscience, all fear of reproach from men, or punishment from God. Did he believe there is a God who hath prepared a Hell of torments for those, who maintain a division in the Church by so many wilful impostures, and seriously intended to prevent the scourge of his heavy hand, could he stand gazing upon his grave at so nigh a distance without repenting, or can he truly repent without recanting. Be not amazed that he remains without feeling, for, no pharao's, no Anthiochus pride, and cruelty doth so harden the hart of a Reprobate as a long custom of denving, and belying the known truth, which Morton hath done for many years. For, albeit his blindness were so great as not to see the manifest truth of our Religion, yet impossible it is, he should not see the false calumnies, false translations, and false allegations he bringeth against our Authors, whom he hath read with his own eyes. Let any man mark his manner of perverting them, he shall clearly perceive that it could not be so done without having seen the very places, and read them at leisure.  
But this hath been the continual practice of defenders of heresy in all ages, and in this last age, and in English writers, and in the most eminent of them most conspicuous. Let the reader, who desires to be satisfied in this point, procure, as he may easily, the forenamed treatise tending to mitigation, where in the 12. chap. he shall find the prime Protestant writers in the beginning of Q. Eliz. reign, and in the first place Jewel called B. of Salisb. guilty of most enormous, unexcusable untruths. He shall hear this impudent Minister bragging, and braving that we cannot allege one Author, one Doctor, one sentence, no not two lines in behalf of any one of the 28. articles he attributeth to us, wherein are contained the real presence, private Mass, images, the Pope's primacy, offering up of Christ in sacrifice, common prayer in a strange language etc. Whether we have sufficient authority for these Tenets is not the present question; but whether we cannot find one ancient Doctor, or two lines in favour of any one oft them. He shall hear him cite S. Austin as allowing marriage after vows made of chastity in his book de Bono viduitatis the drift of which book being wholly, and plainly to the contrary. He shall hear him cry down another S. Austin the Apostle of Engl. not only against the authority of ancient History, but even against the confession of John Foxes Acts, and Monuments. He shall hear so much, that he will not need to go further to Seek Harding, and others, who have at large discovered the false lustre of this counterfeit Jewel, this precious stone laid in the foundation of the English Babylon. He shall find the like false dealing of Casshill, Clarke, and Perkins. As for John Fox the Reader after a short taste of his knavery is remitted to the third part of the three conversions of Engl. where in one chap. are set down severally above a hundred and twenty wilful lies, uttered by Fox in less than three leaves of his Acts, and Monuments, and those such, as no ways may be excused, either by ignorance, or error; but must needs proceed from voluntary fraud, and malice, himself knowing that it was false, which he related. I omit what is further alleged of malicious fraud in the writings of Sir Francis Hastings, and Sir Edoard Cook, but a word I must add of Sir Philip Plessis Mornay a frenchman, to show that it is not a national inclination of the English, but of any nation infected with heresy to maintain heretical errors with voluntary falsehood. The french Jansenists of late make good my assertion, and this french Calvinist will make it better. In a book of his full of authorities against the Mass, he was charged by Peron, then B. of Eureux, after Cardinal, with five hundred wilful falsifications, and upon suit made to Henry the fourth by the said Peron it came to a public trial in presence of the King of France, and great part of his Nobility on the 4. of May 1600. Of these five hundred were exhibited threescore to Plessis to take his choice for the first day's trial, who took nineteen of those, which he thought himself best able to excuse. Now the straitness of time permitting only nine to be examined, he was both by his own Protestant Judges, and the Catholic Judges on the other side condemned of falsification, and untrue dealing in all nine, after he had been permitted to say what he could in his defence. And Peron further pressed him to return to the like trial of the rest of the five hundred, but Plessis could not be brought to it. This public trial is largely related, and defended in the end of the first tome of the 3. part of the three Conversions of England, and appears in the Kings own letter in print, as also by the public Acts set forth by the approbation of the said King and his counsel.  
If I should proceed on with the , and unhuman proceeding of our English Ministers in their shameful calumniations, and falsifications, it would be an endless work. I shall remit the reader to a book entitled a search made into matters of Religion by Francis Walsingham Deacon of the Protestant Church before his change to the Catholic, where he may find such foul dealing of so many English Protestant Ministers, Bel, Doves, Jewel, Sutclif etc. that with conferring the praces by his own industry he will never need to inform himself more by the relations of others. Let him but read the Discussion of D. Barlows answer together with the suplement, and adjoynder, he shall know the lying spirit of Barlow, Reynolds, Dunnes, and Andrew's, and this mans not only falfities, but follies in his answer to Card. Bellarmine's Apology. Infelix puer, atque impar Achilli. I cannot conceive what excuse a Protestant that hath any sense of Religion can allege why he should not endeavour to rectify his judgement upon so easy conditions. The books are not hard to be got, the places are easy to be found, and examined; there is no more exacted of him, but to believe what he sees. And in case he be a Protestant of the modern prelatique fashion, who by an indifferency to any Religion whereunto the Apostles short Creed admitted by Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutichians, Pelagians, may be applied, hath little, or no regard of any Religion at all; yet to satisfy himself in point of curiosity, or Policy concerning Religion, methinks he should be desirous to try by his own experience whether men by facing about with inconstancy of interchanging opinions, and facing it out with impudence of manifest lies, and calumnies may build, and uphold an imaginary Church in the fancies of ignorant, and careless people. I can assure him that he shall discover in the practice of Protestant writers more admirable effects of knavery, then in the precepts and precedents of his only admired, and adored Apostle Machiavelli. He will prefer English men in this point of wit, which he esteems the highest, before the Italians; for Machiavelli, the sole Italian, he admires could never make such resolutions in Italy, although it was the mark he aimed at, as English Ministers have made in England. Unless it were not the want of wit in the Minister, but the too much wit of the scholars. Perhaps Machiavelli durst not presume to find people in his country apt to believe, that of a number of Popes for many ages could be forged one monstrous man called Antichrist. He could not imagine that Italians would kill one another in good earnest, upon hopes to destroy this imaginary Monster: nor that Tinkers, and Cobbler's brains could be so far past mending, that they would be cast into the fire in defence of the fond inventions of a fewlewd, and lying Apostatas: or that the folly of these brainsike Idiots would serve for a testimony to men in their wits. Machiavelli had read as much history, as John Fox, or his Dutch Masters the Magdeburgeans, and could have made Acts, and Monuments with as many falsities, and fewer follies; yet he had a better conceit of his Nation, then to hope that such a book should be placed in Churches by public authority, and stand so long by the shameless malice of some, and careless stupidity of others. He knew his countrymen had seen many pieces of ancient Architecture, that they would not be easily persuaded to pray with security in a Chapel supported by such a pillar. They had heard so much of the Bulls sacrificed to Jupiter Capitolinus, that it would be hard to make them believe that the praying before the Picture of Christ was in effect the old Idolatry of the Romans. The Crosses, and Images they had seen in the grots of the ancient Martyrs, freed them from the suspicion of superstitious Novelty. Machiavelli knew better than Ministers the vices, and abuses of the Roman Clergy, and desired no less to decry, and destroy it; yet he was far from expecting, that Carters, and Catchpoles, Porters, and Pedlars would be heard with patience in Italy prate Nonsense out of pulpits, and take upon them to reform, and pull down Pope and Prelates; and much less that the successors of these should be respected as priests merely by their wearing long coats without any evidence produced of their vocation, consecration, and Jurisdiction, besides what they received from a woman dispensing with the very State, and condition of the Consecraters beyond all that hath been practised, or pretended by the Vicar of Christ. He could not suspect that wary and jealous Italians would confess their hidden sins to men who had no other key of power, nor lock of Secrecy, but of a Woman's making. Machiavelli could have forged a new Bible with false translations, and knew fulwel that destruction is caused by Division, and no better way to divide Religion in to innumerable sects then to make every man's fond faney the Judge of a falsified Rule of Religion, he had got what he sought and by contrary senses of God's word had abolished all sense of God, and goodness, had he thought that Italian Bibles would do what the English have done, but being by office a Secretary, he was afraid to be proved a notorious falsary. He knew that by abusing scripture as our English translators have done both he and all those, who should conspire with him would forfeit their credit, and become infamous after so many, so gross, so palpable discoveries of their false dealing. I shall note a few, and direct the Reader for many more to be found in Gregory Martin's discovery of the manifold corruptions of holy scriptures by the Heretics of our days, especially the English Sectaries.  
In the Bible of the year 1562. close upon the time of the pretended solemn, and Canonical Consecration at Lambeth by imposition of hands, and other things requisite they make the Scripture speak in those terms Act. 14. v. 23. When they had ordained Elders by Election in every Congregation, and the same words are kept saving the Change of Congregation into Church in the Bible 1628. upon this place I have two things to note first the wresting of the word Chirotonia from the Ecclesiastical to the profane sense of election by stretching forth the hand according to the use of the Athenians, and against the interpretation of S Hierome, who in cap. 58. Isai. interprets Chirotonia, Clericorum ordinatio, not Electio; and against S. Paul 1. Tim. 5. v. 22. where speaking of ordination he saith, lay hands suddenly on no man. The second, that both in those first times, and also in these later they declared by their version of Scripture their opinion concerning orders by election, and not by consecration, which includes imposition of hands. Now you shall see how the Scripture is made to speak to the tune of the Prince's humour, notwithstanding they preach so loud that all men, both Kings, and Popes must be put in tune by the sound of the letter. During King Edward the sixth his reign, the only translation of this place 1. Petr. 2. v. 13. which in the original Greek is submit yourselves unto every humane creature for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as excelling, or, etc. was then submit yourselves unto all manner ordinauce of man whether it be to the King, as into the chief head, or, etc. But under Q. Eliz. who, as Cambden in her lise relateth, would not be called head of the Church, but supreme gouvernor, To the King as having pre-eminence Bible 1577. and To the King as superior Bible 1579. But in King james his time, who pressed much the oath of supremacy. To the King as supreme Bibles 1012. 1618. Do you not see these fawning Parasites make sport with the Scripture to please their Princes?  
Whilst liberty was cried down where they should have put he gave them power (exusian) to be made the sons of God. Io. 2. v. 12. they place Prerogative. Bible 1558. but now since liberty is come into credit, they have restored the word Power Bible 1628. Is this to follow Scripture, or rather force Scripture to follow themselves? But to be sure their wives may follow them, they make S. Paul wand'ring about the world like a Germane Soldier with his wife behind him. 1. Cor. 9 v. 5. Have not we power to lead about a wife being a sister Bible 1580. and this remains unchanged even in the Bible 1628. and is like to remain till Ministers be weary of their wives. Notwithslanding S. Paul a little before c. 7. v. 8. sufficiently giveth to be understood, he was not married. Notwithstanding S. Hiorome interprets it, and S. Austin proves it to be, not wife, but woman, and the Greek fathers most expressly. Notwithslanding, these very Bibles a little before c. 7. v. 1. translate woman, not wife upon the same Greek word, and without any article, or particle of difference betwixt the same word in both places, saving that it was not for their purpose to make S. Paul say it were good for aman not to touch a wife. Notwithslanding that all who know Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Hebrew, High, or Low dutch, in which languages the same word no less then in Greek signifies both woman, and wife, are not ignorant that wheresoever there is no more determinative signs then in the text of S. Paul it is generally understood for a woman, not wife. And this their lewd humour makes them have such a spite against the ever Virgin Mother of God. They could translate (Helcomenos) full of sores Luc. 16. v. 20. speaking of Lazarus, but (Kecharitomene) Luc. 1. v. 28. must not be full of grace, but freely beloved Bible 1628. because it was spoken of the Virgin Mother, and in the margin is put received into favour, as if the Greek word were capable of many senses but by no means, of that sense which might signify that the mother of God being à Virgin should befull of grace. So much she hath lost in the opinion of these lewd fellows upon the prerogative of her Virginity.  
After their fraud occasioned by a false pretence of ambiguity, they fall upon down right falsity. Where both the Greek and Latin have 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. Who so ever shall eato this bread, or drink the cup They put, and instead of (or) Bible 628. to persuade the ignorant that Catholics gainsay the Scripture in not giving always the communion under both kinds. But it is no marvel they sold change or into and when Beza had changed as into signifies and the Germane heretics solum for soli to make David say, I have nothing else but sinned, in lieu of, To thee alone I have sinned. Ps. 51. And Luther added the word alone to faith, and said it should stand in spite of all that opposed it. But what are these changes to the making whole books Apocryphal because prejudicial to their errors. The Maccabees thrust out upon account of Purgatory, Ecclesiasticus of liberty, Toby of the assistance of Angels. For, as to their having been questioned, it is a vain excuse, seeing the Apocalypse, no less questioned, is held for good because it serves the Ministers to fool the people with the horns of the beast planted on the Pope's head which would become their own much better. But it is ridiculous to see these petty Grammarians so Critical in the Etymological sense that Baptism must be washing, Priest, Elder, Beelzebub, Lord of afly, Catholic Universal, and yet Paradosis must not be traditions 2. Thess. 2. v. 15. but instructions Bible 1628. or ordinances, preach, institutions, or any thing, but what it should be; yet where mention is made of reprehensible traditions, you shall be sure to have this word to English the same Paradosis as Matt. 15, v. 2. & 3. of the same Bible. Nay you shall have Traditions where the Greek word is neither Paradosis, nor any thing like: for; Col. 2. v 20. by (Tidogmatizesthe) any one that knows the Greek language, is rather put in mind of Decrees, Doctrines; or opinions, than Traditions; but to make them odious they are left where any thing is spoken to their commendation, although the original Greek deliver them in their proper word, and here they are thrust in by head and shoulders, where the Greek hath a word very different, and this not only in the old Bible 1579. are you led with traditions? but in a later 1628. are you burdened with Traditions? The Greek having no word proper to Traditions, much less to burdening. I wonder the translater of this late Bible was not ashamed here as in another place for 2. Cor. 6. v. 16. he puts, as he ought, what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, not daring to be so impudent, as to follow the Bible 1567. How agreeth the Temple of God with images, being a thing known that, ever the jews Temples wanted not images. Much more of this kind, and even more shameful profanation you may see M. Bramhall in Gregory Martin, whose authority, though you slight, yet you ought not to slight the manifold, and manifest examples he brings. Perhaps the authority of your Brethren the Puritans, whom you now, and then find occasion to flatter in your books, will be of more weight with you, or at least with others. In a petition directed to her most excellent Majesty, etc. pag they speak in these terms. Our translation of the Psalms comprised in the book of common prayer doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two thou and places at least. And M. Carliele a Protestant, in his book that Christ descended into Hell, saith of the English translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, deceived the ignorant.  
Now Sir I hope you will be pleased, or forced to take notice of the argument which before you passed by winking, as if it were unworthy to be regarded. Ministers falsify Scriptures, no wonder if they forge records. They are so deprived of conscience, and shame, that they conspire to maintain their religion with John Foxes most false, and foolish stories, with most impudent falsifications of Scripture, of ancient, and modern Authors, which any man that will take the least pains may evidently see to be wilful, unconscionable, unexcusable; therefore no marvel if they give false attestations of a matter not extant in writing, and which may after so long a time have been forgot by some, and remembered by others, who are not pressed to testify their remembrance as being a thing needles to the cause, and dangerous to their persons. You thought that as one man's yawning makes others yaw, so your winking at this argument, would make others wink, and not mark the force of it. You hoped to persuade the Reader that you might as lawfully reject my Authors, as I yours. As if there were no difference betwixt men of true, and false dealing. Let any man judge that is acquainted with Stapleton, Belarmine, Parsons, Peron, show in any of them such fowl, and wilful cheating, as manifestly appears in Jewel, Morton, Andrews Barlow, and generally in the rest of the prime Protestant Ministers, or if he be not acquainted with our writers, let him but peruse the aforesaid Walsinghams' search into Religion, or the Quiet, and sober reckoning with M. Thomas Morton, where he shall find Protestants never more false, then in their imputation of falsood to our Authors. In whom I could never discover any wilful corruption in defence of our Religion against heretics, and the Author of the Treatise tending to Mitigation, a man well versed in the writings, of both sides, hath c. 12. pag. 489. long since challenged Morton to bring forth any Catholic Authors whatsoever that wrote against Protestants since these heresies began, that hath been taken in this impiety, I mean that hath set down in print any such falsity, as can not be excused either by iguorance, oversight, negligence, error of print, translation, diversity of editions, or the like; but that it must needs be presumed that he knew the untruth, and yet would set it forth: of this kind, I say, let him show but one example among all Catholic writers of our time, and I will in my conscience greatly mistrust, and discredit the Author, whether it be another or myself. But if he show me two or three in any writer of this kind I shall never be able to believe him more. Thus he. Certainly, if we were given to this practice, it would have been discovered in the innumerable citations of Bellarmine, or of the Author of the Protestants Apology who hath collected the say, of all Protestant writers, he could possibly find. We have used fair dealing in the edition of Scripture, we follow, as having been in use many ages in the Church before these Controversies, and therefore not fraudalently chosen, much less falsely changed to favour our doctrine, which D Covel Protestant in his answer to M. John Burges pag 94. confesseth to have been used in the Church a thou and three hundred years ago; where he prefers it before others, and pag. 91. prefers amongst English translations, that which comes nearest it. Which is highly commended by Beza in his Annot. in c. 2 Luc. v. 1. and by Molinaeus the famous french Calvinist, is more esteemed than the translation of Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Tigurines, and of Calvin himself, and all others.  
To conclude, what Protestant so ever will not take the pains to confer the doctrines, and Doctors of both parties, but will take M. Bramhals empty words for found arguments, his pretermissions for solutions, his prevarication, or presumption for a serious, and solid defension, his Rhetorical Tropes for rational answers, his negative attestations about a small accessary, for a positive Vindication of the principal charge made against his Clergy, scraps of History, for Christian Theology, a deceitful appearance of long coats, and surplices, for a sufficient evidence of Priestly character, to such a one, I say, that he neither deserves a more faithful champion to rescue him in his dangers, nor a more skilful Devine to resolve him in his doubts, nor a more lawful Priest to absolve him from his sins.  
FINIS.