"This letter I communicated to Mr. Dodwell when in town, which he thought clear enough for closing the schism, and I suppose in a short time he may have one to the same purpose."[1]
On the 5th of March, Brokesby writes to a gentleman on the same subject for Dodwell, whose weak sight at that time prevented him from writing himself. He cites Ken's answer to Dodwell, the same in substance as that to Nelson. It was as follows:
"In that you are pleased to ask me, whether I insist on my episcopal claim? my answer is, that I do not: and that I have no reason to insist on it, in regard that I made cession to my present most worthy successor: who came into the fold with my free consent and approbation. As for any clandestine claim, my judgment was always against it: and I have nothing to do with it, foreseeing that it would perpetuate a schism, which I found very afflicting to good people scattered in the country, where they could have no divine offices performed."
Brokesby adds:
"We are here satisfied the schism is at an end, when there is no altar against altar, nor any other Bishops but Suffragans to require our subjection. And therefore we go all to church."[2]
In Hickes's Constitution of the Catholic Church, a work not published until the year 1716, as will be
- ↑ Marshall, App. No. V.
- ↑ Ibid. App. No. VI. It seems that the Archbishop of York was instrumental in bringing back Nelson. On the 27th of January 1709, the Archbishop records, in his Diary, a notice to this effect, that Nelson was considering the subject: and on the 15th of February he records the fact itself. Nelson received the Sacrament from the hands of the Archbishop on Easter Day following. Life of Archbishop Sharpe, ii. 31, 32, 33.
