very weak and hasty pamphlet), and a second Fair Warning in reply, by the Rev. Richard Watson; and the three were again published together in London in 1662, and Bramhall's tract separately also about the same times; and it had likewise been translated into Dutch in 1649h. It is here reprinted from the two original editions, which serve to correct one another. The second Discourse, Serpent-Salve, is of earlier date, being Bramhall's first publication. It was originally printed either at York or Newcastle (for there is no place named in the title-page), in 1643', anonymously, whilst Bramhall was with the Marquis (then Earl) of Newcastle and his army, about a year previously to the unfortunate battle of Marston Moori; upon the publication of a Parliamentarian tract, which excited considerable attention at the time, although it was in truth little more than a rechauffée of the more extreme topics of the Parliamentary Declarations and Remonstrances up to the date of its appearance; viz., Observations upon some of His Majesty's late Papers and Expresses (by Henry Parker, but anonymous), printed in 1642 (see below

e This tract was written immediately upon the publication of Baillie's, but its publication was delayed until 1651, through the influence of the Prince of Orange. See the Life of Baillie in the new edition of his Letters, &c., p. lxii.; and the Append. num. II., pp. xcvi. xcvii.

So says White Kennett, Register, P. 571.

* See above in vol. i. p. xxx. note a. See the letter of Baillie to Voetius quoted in note b above.

i The date in the title-page of the original edition is 1643; and as a rather long discussion occurs in the latter part of the book (below pp. 436454) concerning Sir John Hotham's conduct in shutting the king out of Hull in April, 1642, in which there occurs no allusion whatever to the decapitation of that unhappy politician by the Parliament, or even his arrest, which last occurred June 29, 1643, the greater part of the book must have been at least written, if not printed, before the last-named date. The same conclusion would follow from the fact, that in the same part of the book (below p. 451) some dates in July 1642 are given with the day of the month only. A book bearing the date of 1644 in its title-page is quoted in p. 473, note k

(of the present volume), of which I suppose there must be an earlier edition; unless the date is an anticipation. That Bramhall had certainly published his book before March 20, 1643-4, see above in vol. i. p. xxxi. note c; the text to which must be corrected by the present note.

July 2, 1644. Bramhall quitted Ireland before Aug. 1642, at which time a motion was made by the Irish House of Lords to the Commons for the withdrawal of the charge of treason against him, but in vain (Carte, Life of the Duke of Ormonde, vol. i. p. 372); and joined the Earl of Newcastle before January 1642-3, as he preached a funeral sermon in York Cathedral for Mr. Slingsby, Lord Strafford's secretary, who was slain in a skirmish in the civil war at Gisborough on the 15th of that month (Rushw., vol. v. p. 774; and see Whitelocke's Memor., p. 63). On Feb. 2, also, of the same year, there appeared a Declaration of the Right Honble. the Earle of Newcastle his Excellency," &c., "in answer to six groundless aspersions cast upon him by the Lord Fairefax in his late warrant" (in Rushw., vol. vi. pp. 133141), which is manifestly Bramhall's composition.

p. 313, note a). This tract has been also reprinted from the original edition, that of 1643. Of the third Discourse, the Vindication of (Bramhall) himself and the Episcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian charge of Popery, against Baxter, reprinted here from the first (and only separate) edition of it in 1672 (after the author's death), an account will be found below in p. 503, note b, and in vol. i. p. xxxi. A very foolish and violent preface was prefixed to it by Dr. Samuel Parker (by whom it was published), which called forth the satirical powers of the celebrated Andrew Marvell"; who, however, treats the author with due respect, notwithstanding his contemptuous indignation against the Prefacer.

It remains to say a few words upon the subject of the first tract in the volume, on which considerable pains have been bestowed, in collecting such evidence as exists relative to the points therein treated. The principal purpose of this tract is to establish the fact of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, and the other English Bishops, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, A.D. 1559-1561, according to King Edward's Ordinal, in opposition to the absurd fiction of their mock consecration at the Nag's Head in 1559; a subject, it is true, admitting of so little doubt, that it might seem superfluous to add a word to the treatise itself, and to those of Courayer1 and others upon the same subject, did it not

The Rehearsal Transprosed, or, Animadversions on a late Book entitled a Preface, &c., &c., printed by A. B, for the Assigns of John Calvin and Theodore Beza, &c., Lond. 1672. -in Marvell's Works, vol. ii. pp. 15— 30. 4to. Lond. 1777.-Baxter does not stand alone in his accusation of Bramhall. In a letter of Baillie to James Sharp, April 16, 1660 (Letters &c., vol. iii. p. 400), it is observed, that "the leaders of the Episcopal party," and among others "Dr. Bramble," are "most expresse and bitter for all Arminianisme, for the farre most of Popery, as much as Grotius maintains."

I have had occasion to go over the same ground as Courayer, so far as the question of fact is concerned, and to consult a large portion (although not the whole) of the original documents from which he has quoted; and I am able to vouch for the extent and general accuracy of his information, and for the honesty with which he has

employed it. That he was misled or mistaken in some though very few instances (see e. g. below p. 35, note d), is not to be wondered at, but I have noticed but one instance in which he has (although obviously without intending it) misrepresented an authority; viz. where, in printing extracts from the endorsements upon two writs of summons, to the Parliaments of 1536 and 1541, in Rymer from the Rolls, in which "T. Menev." has been erroneously written for " W. Menev.," he in his original treatise omitted the erroneous letter altogether; see below at the end of this Preface, note t, and p. 142, note o, and Couray., Diss. Pr. Just. art. vii. § 3, 4, Déf. de la Diss., Pr. Justif. art. xvii. num. 2; and I have failed in tracing only one document quoted by him; viz. one which he describes as, "Transsumptum Veterum Statutorum et Ordinationum Curiæ Metrop. Cantuar. de Archubus London. una cum rescriptis

appear from the publications mentioned below", that some Romanists are still willing to burden their cause by adopting or defending an exploded fable. As the case stands, I may be permitted to say, that the result of a tolerably minute examination of the evidence upon the subject, is in few words this:-that if any one is disposed to question the truth of the account given in the Lambeth Register, he must be prepared to assert the forgery, not only of that Register itself, and the first volume of Archbishop Parker's Register, which is the volume in question, consists of 411 pages, containing a mass of circumstantial entries upon a great variety of subjects", but of the Registers also of the several

Sees and Chapters throughout the kingdom for the period referred to (so far as they are preserved or as it has been found possible to consult them)o,—of many pages of entries in the Registers of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,-of thirty or forty documents in the Rolls-of a mass of con

temporary letters and other documents preserved in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, with the existence of which Mason, an Oxonian (who is the person accused, most absurdly, of forging the Register in 1613), was unacquainted,—of other also contemporary documents preserved in the State Paper Office, likewise unknown to Mason, -of others (which are by themselves enough to prove the case) preserved at Zurich, and unknown in England until 1685, seventy-two years after Mason's book was published, -of Archbishop Parker's book De Antiquitate Britannica Ecclesiæ as privately printed by him in 1572, a work, of which twenty-two copies were known to exist (out of fifty originally printed) in 17244,-of a Puritan translation of a Life of Parker (the original of which is in C.C.C. library, Cambridge), containing a table of the consecrations in question, according mainly with the Register', and printed in 1574, of which several copies exist,-of pp. 1490, 1491, in the middle of vol. iii. of Holinshead's Chronicle as first published in 1586,-and, lastly, of at least three other printed authorities, prior to 1613 (see below pp. 97-101. notes k, m, u) ;—all of which evidences are independent of each other, bear no signs whatever of want of genuineness, and tally to a very minute degree of accuracy:—and he must be prepared to do this, upon the testimony of two, or at the most three, obscure controversialists, the earliest forty-four years after the event, writing in foreign countries, and avowedly upon mere hearsay, whose evidence is in itself rendered absolutely unworthy of credit by the undisguised virulence and palpable ignorance of the writings in which it

it doothe by ye byrd y' hathe skapyd out of y cage, whch tastyng ye swettnes of lyberte neu' returnes unforcyd. Thus w thanks for yo' lett' I leaue eny further to tro'le yo" fro. Redgre 7th Septembre 1559 by-yo' graces assurydly N. Baco"." in C.C.C.C. MSS. vol. 114. p. 125. The writ itself also is dated from Redgrave (see below pp. 72, 73), where Queen Elizabeth appears to have been paying a visit to Bacon, and on Sept. 9, i. e. two days after the above letter; it was therefore post-dated by that period; which was not at all an improbable step under the circumstances, in order to allow the full

period of twenty days, without the possibility of cavil, as granted by the statute (25 Hen. VIII. c. 20), for the Bishops to whom the writ was addressed to comply with it.

See below p. 11. note c; and a MS. note in the handwriting of Thomas Baker, the Antiquary, at the foot of p. cxix. tom. iv. of his copy of Courayer's Déf. de la Diss. (now in St. John's Coll. library, Cambridge), as an addition to Drake's list of owners of copies of the De Ant. B. E. ed. 1572; thus"22. Sir Tho. Coke, noted thus in marg: ex dono Joh: Parker Militis. Edw. Coke." r See below p. 229. note f.