Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	king_n	1,876	5	3.7874	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

Bishop of Chester as appears by the Third Part of the Monasticon page 218. as also by Bishop Godwin Jsaackson Doctor Heylin Simeon Dunelmensis Matt. Paris and many other antient Authors from about 1128. until about the year 1148. or 1149. which fell out to be in the time of Randle de Gernoniis for he was Earl as appears in your Book from about the year 1128 till about the year 1153. And I doubt not but to make it as clear that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton and though the said William was afterwards ousted yet whilst he enjoyed that Archbishoprick he was and would in Deeds and otherways be owned as Archbishop of York Now that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Earl and the said Bishop I have already shewed you in my former Book out of Isaackson's Chronology and shall thus make it further to appear If you look into Bishop Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England printed at London 1615 page 581. in the life of Heny Murdack Archbishop of York you may find him saying thus King Stephen had a kinsman named William 1142. Stephen 8. that was Son unto Emma his Sister by Earl Herbert a Man no less noble in Mind and Vertue then Stock and Lineage He being Treasurer of York was now elected unto the Archbishoprick and having obtained Consecration also sent to Rome for his Pall. His speed there was not so good as he looked for by some Adversaries many exceptions were taken against him whereby it came to pass not only his Suit was put off and stayed for that time but also Process awarded to admonish him to come thither in Person to answer the accusations laid against him At his coming to Rome he found his Adversaries many and Mighty And among the rest it is remembred that St. Bernard then living was very earnest against him Eugenius the Pope had been brought up in the Abbey of Clareual under St. Bernard together with Henry Murdac whom Williams adversaries had set up to be a Suiter for his Archbishoprick The Pope being thus carried away with the perswasion of his old Acquaintance and some shew of matter was content to deprive William and to place Henry Murdac in his room whom he caused to be Consecrated presently and sent him home into England with his Pall. King Stephen hearing this Newes was much grieved with the disgrace of his Nephew which all Men judged undeserved Therefore He stood upon Termes with the new Arch-bishop and required him to Swear unto Him fealty in some extraordinary manner and when he denyed easily took occasion of displeasure against him The Townsmen of York that loved William exceedingly for his Gentleness and Vertuous behaviour amongst them hearing how the King was affected refused to receive Murdac into their City For this resistance he suspended them which notwithstanding Eustach the King's Son commanded Service to be said as at all other times was accustomed By means hereof as also by reason that the King's Officers were very terrible and heavy enemies unto all that had laboured for the Deprivation of William Seditions and Tumults were daily raised in the City amongst which a certain Archdeacon a Friend of the Archbishop was slain Two or three years these stirs continued till at last the Kings wrath by means being appeased York-men were content to receive their Archbishop peaceably He governed very austerely the space of ten years dyed Octob. 14. 1153. at Sherborne and was buryed in his Cathedral Church And when Bishop Godwin hath thus said he presently after tells you how the said William there called Saint William after the death of Henry Murdac was again restored to the said Archbishoprick Also if you look in John Brompton's Chronicon col 1028. l. 63. in the life of King Stephen you may find him thus saying Dicto autem Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Monasterii Fontanensis aliorumque octo fundatore ut dictum est decedente and he dyed sayes the said Brompton col 1028 l. 25. in the year 1140. with which Bishop Godwin doth accord Singuli Ecclesiae Eboracensis Canonici beatum Willielmum ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarium praeferunt tam pro honestate morum quam excellentia meritorum Iste namque Willielmus ex spectabili prosapia Regis Stephani ortus praeclaris natalium titulis fuerat insignitus erat enim silius potentissimi viri Comitis Herberti Qui quamvis post decessum dicti Archiepiscopi Thurstani ad sedem Eboracensem electus fuerat invidia tamen impetuosus amor dominandi quemdam ejusdem Ecclesiae Archilevitam adeo in regionem dissimilitudinis traxerant ut inter eligentes discidium excitavit ipsum Willielmum a saniori parte eïectum impediens licet de ejus electione clerus populus acclamassent laudum praeconia suspenditur igitur causa ad Apostolicae sedis examen provocata See also the said Brompton to the same purpose Col. 1041. l. 10. Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the time of King Henry the Second King Richard the First and King John in the First Part of his Annalls Printed at Frankfort 1601. Page 490. l. 51. writes thus of the Restitution of the said William eodem anno obiit Henricus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus quo defuncto Willielmus Archiepiscopus quem Papa Eugenius suspenderat Romam profectus est invenit gratiam apud Anastasium Papam redditus est ei Archiepiscopatus Eboracensis And I think it is not to be doubted though I have not yet found the place but that the said Hoveden doth speak of his being chosen after the death of Thurstan because Isaakson in his Chronology cites Hoveden for what he there sayes but he names not the Pages Also Thomas Stubbs a Dominican writing of the Archbishops of York col 1721. l. 15. thus sayes Vicessimus nonus successit in Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae Henricus Murdak ●isterciensis ordinis Monachus ae professor probatissimus vir magnae sanctitatis abstinentiae laudabilis Defuncto namque ut praemittitur Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo convocatisque ad electionem pontificis Canonicis ecclesiae Eboracensis Willielmus ejusdem Ecelesiae Thesaurarius Canonicus exigentibus suis meritis a Majori saniore parte in Archiepiscopum est electus Erat enim strenuissimi Comitis Herberti filius ex Emma sorore Regis Anglorum Stephani progenitus Vir quidem genere nobilis sed morum excellentia vita mundissima incomparabiliter insignis Interea vero Osbertus archidiaconus Eboracensis invidiae stimulo agitatus facta inter eligentes dissentione confirmationem ipsius electi licet ab omnibus dignus haberetur pertinaciter impedivit suspenso igitur negotio partibusque coram Romano pontifice super hujus electionis discussione personditer vocatis idem Willielmus persequentibus illum adversariis suis injuste accusantibus conseerationis gratiam minime potuit optimere Lite ergo in

Lands in Free-marriage with his Bastard Daughter yet there are other wayes whereby any Man that pleases and hath a disposing power may settle Lands on a Bastard Daughter and her heires Also if Glanvills words did prove as you would pretend they do To what purpose should men in those ages leave the word Bastard out of their Deeds of Free-marriage to their bastard Daughters with design thereby to cause such lands to continue to them and their heirs if such gifts might be made with any woman whatsoever so that you never observe how finely you have argued here against your self VVhere you say in the 34 35 36 and 37 Pages of your Book that though you do not find Geva called a Bastard in express terms yet you find it implyed in an Author contemporary meaning Ordericus by certain and sure consequence which you believe can never be fully answered and for the fortifying of which you pretend to give some reasons Give me leave since you give the occasion again to say what I have formerly said viz. that though Ordericus speaking of Hugh Lupus his death doth add these words Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claramonte genuit I am not yet satisfied but that he might as well mean that he was the only Son which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude as that he was the only child that he had by her For there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book though it be so in yours and yet in his Book Adverbs are usually marked And though you alleadg that Ordericus doth not say quem solum filium as I interpret him but indefinitly quent solum ex Ermentrude genuit and so whether solum be understood adverbially or whether it be taken for a Noun no more can be made of it in English than thus Richard a beautiful youth whom only Earl Hugh begot on Ermentrude c. and so whether we English it whom only he begot or whom he only begot it retains the same sense and shews that no other person either Son or Daughter was begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh You must give me leave to dissent from you herein For I conceive this expression of quem solum genuit doth amount to as much as if he had said quem solum filium genuit which if it do then notwithstanding the said expression Earl Hugh might possibly have a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude For to what Antecedent can the word quem so properly relate as to the word puer and if so then quem solum puerum is as much as quem solum filium and so doth not exclude him from having a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude For though the word puer be by some understood to signifie a Child of either Sex as you also seem to take it in your Historical Antiquities p. 113 114. But misprinted 121 122. Yet Mr. Gouldman in his Dictionary will tell you that it is a mistake where on the word puer he thus writes Nonnullis habetur communis generis sed male ex Ovidiano illo Carmine de Iphide puella in puerum mutata Dona puer solvit quae faeminavoverat Iphis. And though you say that Geva could not be by any former Wife because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife Yet that is more than either you or I know for there were many things done in those Ages which never came to our knowledges And therefore I do not take upon me to tell whether Geva was by a former Wife than Ermentrude or whether she was by Ermentrude or whether she was a Bastard But I say she might be any of the three for any thing that you have yet proved and so long as it is uncertain what she was you can bring no considerable Argument from her against Amicia And if you could prove her a Bastard it would signifie nothing because the Deed made to her is not a gift in Frank-marriage as hath formerly and will hereafter appear And whereas you ask p. 36. Being I expound the words of Ordericus to be that Earl Hugh had no other Son What advantage it is to my purpose unless Geva was that Daughter and was legitimate I answer That possibly Geva might be that Daughter or possibly Geva might be by a former Wife and that Daughter which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude might die before Earl Richard so that nothing of certainty can be gathered from such Arguments as these As to what you say p. 38 39 40 41. that I am not to argue upon possibilities and because it might possibly be so to say that the Earldome of Chester was antiently entayled on the heires Males I Answer That I do not positively aver any such thing But let the case be how it will and whethersoever Geva or Randle de Meschines was the heir general to Richard Earl of Chester it seems to me that the said Earldome did not come by descent to the heir general whoever that was For it clearly appears that Geva had it not and Randle de Meschines had it not by descent For if what James York in his Vnion of Honour p. 105. sayes be true Randle de Meschines was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First and Ordericus p. 876. tells us that he restored to the said King Henry all the Land which he had by his Wife the Widow of Roger de Romara for the Earldom of Chester which was more than was needful for him to do if he had a good title thereto by descent And whereas you ask me Why may I think that the King though he gave it to Randle did not give the honour and lands unto him as in whom was the greatest right to have it and do say that to this I give no answer at all I may well tell you that I could not give an Answer until you did ask the Question and you never asked the Question in your former Book But the Answer which I shall now give to this Question is That I suppose Kings in such cases do that which to them seems most just but yet Kings in these cases as well as in others are of different Judgments from one another very many times and indeed the very same Princes will be sometimes of one mind and sometimes of another mind concerning the same thing And thus we see when Randle Blundevile Earl of Chester dyed which was in the year 1232. King Henry the Third did suffer the four Sisters of the said Earl Randle who were of the whole blood to inherit that estate and the said Earldome went to John Scot son of David Earl of Huntingdon in right of Maud his Mother the eldest of the said four Sisters But when the said John Scot dyed which was in the year 1237 the said King Henry the Third would not suffer the said Earldome of Chester to come to any