The nullity of the prelatique clergy, and Church of England further discovered in answer to the plaine prevarication, or vaine presumption of D. John Bramhall in his booke, intituled, The consecration and succession of Protestant bishops justified, &c. : and that most true story of the first Protestant bishops ordination at the Nagshead verified their fabulous consecration at Lambeth vvith the forgery of Masons records cleerely detected / by N.N.

CHAP. IX. (Book 9)

My Lord Audleys testification vpon oath of Mortons acknowledging the Nags∣head ordination in Parliament. The reason of beleeving, and publishing the said testification, which vpon due examination is much preferred before all others alleadged against it.

1. I Am confirmed in my Lord Audleys evi∣dence of D. Mortons speech granting the Nagshead ordination by the very ground you offer to him, and propose to others, to make credible a mistake: For, if my Lord had not bin well assured that there is none, he would have willingly layd hold of your courtesy, and of the speech, and person of the pretended

Bishop of Lincoln, who, (as you say) did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament, * 1.1 but with as much detestation of it, as your ancestors vsed to name the Devil. Why might not the mistake both of the person, and of the drift, or scope of his speech, be the occasion of this rela∣tion? To this interrogation my Lord Audley himselfe will give you an answer. But give me leave to aske of you, upon what occasion could Lincoln mention your Nagshead consecration in a speech in Parliament which might not as well have moved Durham to speake of the same? Once you grant speeches of this subiect in the vpper house, you can hardly free D. Mor∣ton from having a share in them.

2. * 1.2 But the greatest mistake of all others was (sayth the Doctor) to publish such a notorious untruth to the world, so temerariously without better advise. I confesse that though I never doubted of the truth of my Lord Audleys relation, yet I did foresee that D. Morton would protest against it, and deny the story, as you do D. Bancrofts, concerning the same subject of the Nagshead. But it is a greate mistake in you to thinke, that this story of my Lord Audleyes was published temerariously, and without consideration and designe. For, it was considered that either yee would deny it, or grant it. If yee granted D. Mortons speech, I had my intent. If yee de∣nied it, and produced authentique certificats, and testimonies to disprove what was layd to his charge, your owne certificats, and authen∣tique testimonies, would be cleer evidences of

the truth of the Nagshead story, though tkey should vindicate D. Morton. For, if the Nags∣head story had not bin notoriously true, and evident in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reigne, why did not your predecessours produ∣ce then authentique Records, or at least such Certificats, as you now do, of your pretended solemnity at Lambeth, when some evidence was desired of your first Bishops to cleere their consecrations, and the very Registers so ear∣nestly called for? Why did not some of your Clergy of those days accuse D. Harding (as you do me) of calumny, rashnesse, temerarious cre∣dulity &c. For publishing, and objecting the Nagshead story? That yee were vpbraided by him for that ridiculous consecration, you may see in your Bishop Goodvins catalogue, whose words I cited. Why did they not make the like noyse when the puritans told them of the be∣ginning of their Ordination in a corner, not in a Congregation. Are you more zelous for the honour of one D. Morton, then your former Bishops were for their owne credit, and the being of their whole Church? If they had not wanted matter, how could they want minde, or meanes to procure, and publish such testimo∣nies 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 Puri∣tans clamour? The truth is, the Nagshead story was too well knowne in those dayes to be called in question; and not only then, but even

in the beginning of King James his reigne, when F. * 1.3 Holiwood objected it in print an. 1603. to all your protestant Clergy, and confirmed it by the testimony and confession of D. Ban∣croft then living, being actualy in place of Bishop of London. Yet no certificats appeared to contradict the story, or Bancrofs acknow∣ledgment, none to convince the Puritans ob∣jection What reason could there be of this si∣lence, and patience, but cleere evidence of what you now so confidently deny? so that you see M. Doctor, how this stir which you have made about Mortons vindication, doth prove the truth of your Nagshead Consecration, and that your certificats to disprove my Lord Audleys testimony, reflect vpon more then you did designe, or desire, and totaly destroy the plea of your forged Registers. But let vs heare what he saith for himselfe in his ovvne words.

Having seene a booke intituled the Con∣secration, & Succession of Protestant Bis∣hops, &c. & particularly perused that Chap∣ter calld the Vindication of the Bishop of Durham I finde my self (reflecting of some expressions therein, & the Bishop of Derry author) obliged to say something as concer∣ned, & so have desired place here for a few linies. Who the Author of the treatise of Ca∣tholique faith, &c. fixeth on to prove his al∣legations touching the Bishop of Durhams speech, I know not, for he told me of it befo∣re ever I spoke to him, but sure I am, if it

be looked after he may have sufficient testi∣mony to satisfy half a douzen juries; but that which stirs me to speake in this matter, is, a note I have at the request of the Bishop of Derry given him vnder my hand, wherein, I say in substance the same with the Author touching the Bishop of Durhams speech, as for the booke against Episcopacy, which was the ground of the discourse, my note only avers it was brought into the howse, but said not by whome, nor who was the author, in truth I wondered much to finde that the Bishop of Durham doth deny this speech, for I can not remember that ever I heard of, or read the story of the Nagshead, till that day in Parlament of my Lord of Durham; then I heard it from him, and this I say, as I shall answeare it before the judgement seat of God Allmighty. And I doe not remember that ever I heard the Bishop of Lincolne, or any other Bishop before, or since mention the Nagshead, or touch that story: if I had, & not named him, my Lord of Durham mought have just reason to complaine, but my Lord of Derry will not beleeve that I (for I can not but take it to my self) doe, or ever did know the Bishop of Durham, so well as to sweare this was the man. If his Lordship had bin an English Bishop, an fre∣quented Parliaments, he would have omit∣ted this. Not to multiply vvordes. I can as∣sure his Lordsp, I could as well, & surely ha∣ve sworen this is the man, the Bishop of

Durham, as his Lordship could of Sir Geor∣ge Ratclif when he lived. Besides, his per∣son, & place of the Bishops bench is too eminent to be mistaken. An other expres∣sion of my Lord of Derry is, I do not take my self to be so exact Analyser of a discour∣se, as to be able to take my oath, what vvas the true scope of it. Here likevvyse I must beg his Lordships pardon. I knovv no such defect in my self, for there is not any thing more easy then to comprehend the true co∣pe of a short a plaine Historicall discourse as this was; to conclude, as to the Bishop of Durhams denial, I hope that confessing him self novv of the age of 95. yeares, it vvill be held no crime to say, or impro∣bable, to beleeve that one of that grear a∣ge, may at least forget, vvhat he spake so many yeares since. For the tvvo cerficats of the other Lords, that of the temporall saith litle to my Lord of Derryes purpose, nei∣ther with an indifferent judgment can that of the spirituall worke much. For my part, I doe not say, that any, or all their Lords∣hips, whose names are put to the certificats in the booke, were in the Howse at this ti∣me, or if any of them were, that they tooke notice of what my Lord of Durham spake, for many discourses are made in Parlaments, & litle notice taken of them, neither had I, of this, but that it was to me a new thing. The Clarque of the Parliament is all so brought in to certify, though as to my note

his paines mought have bin spared, for I doe not mention a booke presented, and conse∣quently none to be recorded, and as for speeches, I doe assure his Lordship, in the authority of an old Parliament man, that it is not the office of the Clarque to recorde them (his worke would be too great) till it be a result or conclusion, & then he writes them downe as Orders, Ordinances, &c. of Parliament. I vvill end this short, & faith∣full defence, which I have bin here necessi∣tated to make for my self vvith many thanks to my Lord of Derry for his charity, & opinion of my ingenuity: & seing his Lords∣hips inclination in this matter is to absolve me from a malicious lye, I vvill absolve my self as to the mistakes either in the person, or matter, assuring his Lordship, & all the vvorld there is none.

3. Though this relation, and testimony gi∣ven by my Lord Audley doth not only cleere me from casting any aspertion vpon D. Monton, but also makes the whole speeche layd to his charge, sufficiently credible, (one positive witnesse with such circumstances proving more then many negative, and it being more proba∣ble, that D. Morton, or any other in the Par∣liament, should forget, then my Lord Audley feigne such a story, without any possible desig∣ne or profit) yet I must vindicate my selfe from the note of credulity, rashnesse, overmuch confi∣dence, and formal calumly fixed vpon me by D. Bramhall, for believing my Lord, Audley, and

publishing his relation. Is it credulity or rash∣nesse, good M. Doctor, to believe a person of honour, * 1.4 and of so greate ingenuity, as you con∣fesse my Lord Audley to be and no man of honour can deny in a matter, wherof he had as cleere evidence, and hath as perfect memory, as is possible for any man to have of any object, by the acts of his senses, and understanding. He protesteth before God and man, that he never heard any thing of the Nagshead consecration till then, and that the novelty of the story, ma∣de him very attentive; that he remembers the individual circumstances of the place where D. Morton stood, his posture, and all other actions, wherwith he accompanied his speech: and that after D. Morton had finished the same, he asked a Lord of knowne reputation and wisedome, whether the first protestant Bishops had bin ordained in a Taverne? and that he answered, the story of the Nagshead was very true.

4. Now M. Doctor, I beseech you to con∣sider, how impossible it is, that he should be mistaken, having such assurance of his atten∣tion, and of the evidence of his senses, and understanding? Want of memory (the only thing is, or can be objected to make roome for a mistake in this matter) may occasion doubts, and perplexities; but not cause such positive assurances, and cleere evidences as my Lord Audley to this howre retaines. If it be once granted, that men of judgment may be mista∣ken in the evidence they sweare to have of their owne perfect remembrance, and under∣standing,

concerning an object cleerly acted before their eyes, and distinctly convejed into their eares, and particularly reflected vpon, and immediately discoursed vpon, you may perswa∣de all the world, that whatsoever they have seene, heard, and understood, are but dreames, and mistakes, occasioned by want of memory. for to impute so much dulnes, and ignorance to my Lord of Audley, that he could not com∣prehend the scope of a speculation so abstra∣cted, so sublime, so Metaphysical, as Mor∣tons, saying his forefathers were made Bishops in a Tarverne: this were enough to degrade a Doctor of Divinity, and dispend your episcopal pen from its endles, and sensles function of scribling, if you held these titles vpon science, conscience, or common sense. This is to char∣ge both the Relator, and Reader with plaine stupidity. Must men be made out of their wits, because they beare witnes against your Clergy? Or can you hope that any man in his wits will heed what you write, when you care so little what the Readers judge of you, and your wri∣tings?

5. But here comes a full tide of testimonies, to bring him of the sand he stuck himself in. Ni ne Peeres have bin so vexed with your impor∣tunity, that they have condescended to yield you som succour in so urgent necessity. * 1.5 We doe hereby testifie, and declare that to the best of our present knowledge, and remembrance, no such booke against Bishops as is there mentioned was pre∣sented to the house of Peeres in that Parliament,

and consequently that no such speech as is there pre∣tended was, or could bo made by him, or any other against it. Jam far from calling in question the ingenuity of these honorable persons, or im∣puting unto them the want of incapacity to comprehend the scope of what Morton then said, or of any thing he ever could have said, if it had any scope; but I must call your judgment in question for thinking that what yow have got will serve your turne. If it doe not its not their fault in giving what you asked, but yours in asking you knew not what. The question is, whether Morton acknowledged in parliament the Nagshead merry meeting; but whether it were vpon occasion of a booke publickly pre∣sented, or privatly delivered, whether dedica∣ted to the parliament, or distributed amongst the members of Parlement, whether in this man, or that mans name, whether Lord, or not Lord, what imports it to the matter in hand? There are none of these Lords, will de∣ny, or doubt, but that many by-speeches have bin made by Bishops in Parliament vpon lesser occasions, then these J rehearsed, and perhaps some with no occasion, and also to no purpose at all, unles the rest have bin more carefull in speaking then you in printing. * 1.6 You confesse a booke to have bin dedicated to the Parliament against Episcopacy, and the booke to have bin writ by a Lord; you confesse to have heard that the B. * 1.7 of Lincolne did once mention the fable of the Nagshead in a speech in Parliament, and you will not deny, but that Durham for his many

writings, and great age might have bin as fit, and forward to talke as another, and if you looke but upon the text of the testimony, you have begged, you find not a word that argues, or intimats his not having avowed the Nags∣head ordination. They only say they remem∣ber no such booke, to wit with all the circum∣stances mentioned, and consequently no speech against it. They may remember a speech vpon occasion of a booke, wherin Durham took harbour in the Nagshead Tarverne, and yet say with truth they do not remember that speech, or any other to have bin made against such a booke signed with all those individual particularities. And further there might have bin such a speech, and such a booke, and such circumstances: and yet they might have forgot them all, or in part, after so many years; but I need not this, for they do not deny to remember the speech, nor the booke, nor any circumstance belonging to the point, we dispute. And I marke their attestation to be couched in termes so precise, and cautious, as both to content you, who presume to make any thing serve your purpose, and yet ney∣ther to contradict, nor wholy conceale the truth. For, those that with so carefull attention tyed their attestation so fast to the circum∣stantial part of the buisnes, knew full well that the attentive Reader would therby percea∣ve they could have said more of the substance, if they had not bin by themselves, or by o∣thers persuaded that it was not convenient to

publish all they remembred. But your adding the Clark of the Parliaments testimony is a meere childish simplicity, what sayth he? I do not find any such booke presented, nor any entery of any such speech made by B. Morton. Will you make men beleeve that every speech is ente∣red, or that if just such a booke was not for∣mally presented, that the speech was not ma∣de vpon occasion of a booke, or that a booke in good English may not be said to be presen∣ted, although it be not delivered in such solem∣nity, as requires the putting it vpon record? It is much want that brought you doune to such beggarly shifts, to go from dore to dore begging attestations about an inconsiderable circumstance, and make soo poore, and pitti∣full vse of what you have scraped together. You forget to beg the favour of your adversa∣ry to let you talke disparatas in this desperat case, and beg pardon of your Reader for abu∣sing his patiēce, and presuming that he is void of common sense, and no less reason you have to beg pardon of your partners for your want of ability, or Perhaps fidelity in the defence of the common cause. If you were a lawyer by profession, as you professe here much skill to litle purpose in law matters, I beleeve after such pleading as this, you would get few clients, and smal fees.

6. Put the case your Brother Durham had bin accused of treason, and you were allowed to plead for him (which equity in other coun∣tries is not denied) now there coms in a wit∣nes

whose ingenuity you grant, and no man can deny, he takes vpon his oath, as he hopes to be saved, that he heard the said Durham vpon occasion of a sedicious pamphlet, make a speech to the people, wherin he exhorted them to deliver vp a towne to the enemy; that he knowes the man accused as vvell as you knew Sir George Ratcliffe; that he remembers cleer∣ly the very place, and posture, wherin he ma∣de the speech, and further more that the speech was so vnexpected, that it made him in a par∣ticular manner attentive, that immediately af∣ter, he discoursed vpon it with an other, to in∣forme 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 ans∣wer in the day of judgment. Put the case fur∣ther he should say that he thinks the pamphlet was writ by such a man, or given in such a mans name, and that it was presented by one, that made a leg as he gave it, and delivered it with his right hand; but of these petty circum∣stances he gives no assurance vnder his hand, as being things he made no very particular account of, or reflexion vpon. Now enters M. Bramhall the lawyer puft vp vvith presum∣ption that he can talke all the world out of their wits, and senses, First bragging, and vapouring, and threatening no lesse then con∣vincing demonstrations, then vpbraiding his adversary with credulity, temerity for taking notice of such a testimony, and forewarning him with a most passionate zeale of his credit,

hereafter to turne stoick with Epictetus, and learne to distrust, and having wearied himself, and others with these Preambular imperti∣nences, and disposed all by his presumption, and passion not to beleeve a word he shall say, atlength he coms close to the point, and tels the judge, that the witnesse doth not take himself for so exact Analyser of a discourse, as to vnderstand what is meant by these words, to deliver a tovvne to the enemy, and if this be not sufficient to cleere the matter, he pro∣duces a writing wherin some persons say noe more, but that they doe not remember after 17. or 18. yeares such a Pamphlet, that is writ by such a man, and delivered with that cere∣mony, and in such a mans name, and conse∣quently no speech to have bin made against it, as is pretended, and that it was not in such manner presented, as those are, which are no∣ted in publicke Registers, but as to the effect of the speech not so much as a negative testi∣mony, not so much as a word signifying it to be not remembred, but rather the contrary: otherwise they had spoken home to the sub∣stance, and not confined their oblivion within a few circumstances, and those nothing con∣ducing 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 con∣jecture why they said nothing towards the de∣nial of the speech it self, in case they had bin present, but only of their having forgot cer∣taine

accidental superflous particularities, not regarded, or formally avouched by the con∣trary witnes; nor alleadge any Lavv, Custom, president, or argument, why such a negative testimony of the not remembrance of inconsi∣derable circumstances should prevaile against the plaine, cleere, positive, vndoubted re∣membrance of a witnes beyond all exce••tion: and further should presse his adversary ever, and an on to legal proofes, and admit of no others, and yet himself insist chiefely vpon a proof against the law of all nations that have law, to wit vpon the denial of the person ar∣raigned, and others equally concerned; if, I say, a Lawyer should plead in this manner, would any judge, or any man of judgment cleere the Delinquent of treason, or the Ad∣vocate of treacherous prevarication, or igno∣rant presumption vpon so frivolous, and idle discourse.

7. And yet this is your case, M. Doctor, this, I say, or worse then this; for besides your il∣legal plea of producing Morton as a witnes in his owne cause opposing a negative testimony against a positive; and that of the circumstan∣ce, this of substance, and his fellow Superin∣tendents as much concerned in this matter as himself, who, if this story be confessed, have no more character, or order, then a Brovvnist Minister, or Tubpreacher, yet there is a spe∣cial exception against the person of Morton, as having bin often, and evidently convicted of most plaine wilfull, vn excusable lies, and

impostures in his severall writings concer∣ning Religion, which shamefull abominable practise he hath vsed when he was less concer∣ned, then in this present occasion. Whether I speake with reason, or passion the Reader will shortly judge of himself, and with all what exception may be taken against his Col∣legues. I shall give neyther him, or you any names though provoked by both, he calls me an impudent libeller, you call M. Neale a brai∣nesicke foole. I know you are both as vvell ver∣sed in Civility, as Divinity, and need not to take you for my Maisters, or Paternes. But I shall teach the Reader to frame a right no∣tion of you, and your tribe, and remit the gi∣ving you names to his discretion.

As to the Noblemen you cited, I have exa∣mined their attestation with that regard, as neyther to give offence to them, nor advan∣tage to you, nor prejudice to the truth. To whom I make bold to present this humble petition that they will be pleased in their wis∣dome to consider the difference betwixt these two consequences, which without any ar∣tificiall Logique is easily discerned.

8. The first. I remember cleerly, and di∣stinctly to have heard such a speech, which the attention to it, the admiration of it, the re∣flexion vpon it hath deeply imprinted in my memory, therfore I may securely say, and sweare such a speech y have heard. The se∣cond. I doe not remember after 17. or 18. yea∣res certaine occasional circumstances of such a

speech, or perhaps not the speech it self, be∣cause I might have bin absent, or not atten∣tive to it, or made litle account of it. Ther∣fore another mans perfect remembrance is not to be credited. Although the Roman Se∣natour Hortensius is renowned for his prodi∣gious memory, yet I could never heare any thing of him which might give occasion to thinke that if he had forget somthing belon∣ging to a speech made in the senate 17. yea∣res before, that his oblivion would have bin thought sufficient to voyd the evidence of it drawne from the solemne oath, and perfect remonstrance of a lawfull witnes. And albeit Mithridates could give account of every soul∣diers name in his army, yet if one had bin proved by the oath of a person of honour to have served him in his warres, can any man imagin the King would have disavo∣wed his service, because after 17 yeares he, or some others had forgot his name? Not many yeares since there appeared a dim Co∣met observed by fevv, yet I could never find any that hath pervsed their ohservations so mad, as to call it in question, because he or some others can not call to memory the sight of it, notwithstanding a perfect remembran∣ce they might have had of their being abroad that very night it is said to have bin seen by others.

9. But you M. Doctor, advance not so far as to evince the presence of your witnesses, much less their speciall attention, reflexion,

admiration, or the like, which are the fun∣dations of a lasting memory, for my witnes doth not mention the day. Wherefore it was a worke not only of supererogation, but su∣perfluity, that your superintending Brethren should put in their attestation, that they sate in the Parliament begun at Wesminster the 3. day of Novemb. 1640. without giving some si∣gne of their sitting, or standing in Parliament the time of the speech. Yet Mortons attesta∣tion is not only superflous, but ridiculous. A man that hath bin publickely, manifestly, and frequently convicted of most wilfull, and most impudent lyes in his writings, is grovvne so forgetfull not only of what he spoke, but of what any man in his wits ought to speake, that he delivers himself in these terms. I could never have made such a speech as is there preten∣ded (and the proofe it excellent) seeing y have ever spoken according to my thoughts, and alvvays believed that fable of the Nagshead consecration to have proceeded from the father of lyes. A deafe man might as well say, he heard it with his heeles, as that Morton should say he spoke ac∣cording to his thoughts, when he thought it convenient to speake otherwise. And no lesse ridiculous industry was vsed in procuring a publique Notary, and five witnesses to ma∣ke men believe that the attestation is truly his owne, not falsly fathered vpon him, for no body doubted but he would give a most am∣ple testimony for himself, and his cause, but no man that knowes him by his writings vvill

give credit to any thing he sayeth in behalfe of religion. Persuade the old man that you have found a new trick to make better vse of of the Nagshead consecration, then that of Lambeth, you shall have him, with double number of witnesses avow the speech, he hath disavowed. For is it credible he feares a fevv private mens silent censure, who hath hard∣ned his face against the publicke reproach of as many schollers as read bookes of contro∣versy? But I shall present him, and his fello∣wes to your eyes, in their owne glasse, that you may know them better by sight then by hearsay.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 26.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 27.
• * 1.3

  Sacro∣bosc. Lib. de inve∣stiganda Christi Ecclesia. Cap. 4. e∣dit. 1603.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 26.
• * 1.5

  Pag. 23.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 10.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 26.