in this caâ—e came before by whose continual importunity and 〈◊〉 the breach of the Treaties followed after The King lov'd peace â—oo well to lay aside the Treaties and engage in War before he was desperate of success any other way then by that of the Sword and was assur'd both of the hands and hearts of his subjects to assist him in it And therefore ouâ— Author should have said that the King not only called together his great Councel but broke off the Treaty and not have given us here such an Hysteron Proteron as neither doth consist with reason not the truth of story ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Eleventh Book OF The Church History OF BRITAIN Containing the Reign of King Charles THis Book concludes our Authors History and my Animadverâ—â—ons And 〈◊〉 the end be 〈◊〉 unto the beginning it is like to 〈…〉 enough our Author stumbling at the Threshold 〈◊〉 â—moâ—gst superstitious people hath been 〈…〉 presage Having placed King Charles upon 〈…〉 he goes on to tell us that Fol. 117. On the fourtâ—enth 〈…〉 James his Funerals were 〈…〉 Collegiat Church at 〈…〉 but the fourth saith the 〈…〉 Reign of King Charls and 〈…〉 was on the 〈…〉 â—â—venth of May on which those solemn Obsequies were 〈…〉 Westminster Of which if he will not take my word seâ— him consult the Pamphleâ— called the 〈…〉 â—ol 6. and he shall be satisfied Our 〈…〉 muâ—â— keep time better or else we shall neveâ— know how the day goes with him Fol. 119. As for Dr. Preâ—â—on c. His party would 〈◊〉 us that he might have chose his own Mitre And 〈…〉 his party would perswade us That he had not only large parts of suâ—â—icient receipt to manage the broad 〈…〉 but that the Seal was proffered to him fol. 131. But we are not bound to believe all which is said by that party who look'd vpon the man with such a reverence as came near Idolaâ—â—y His Principles and engagements were too well known by those which governed Affairs to ventâ—â—e him â—nto any such great trust in Church or State and his activity so suspected that he would not have been long suffered to continue Preacher at Lincolns Inn. As for his intimacy with the Duke too violent to be long lasting it proceeded not from any good â—pinion which the Duke had of him but that he found how instrumental he might be to manage that prevailâ—â—g party to the Kings advantage But when it was 〈◊〉 that he had more of the Serpent in him then of the 〈◊〉 and that he was not tractable in steering the 〈◊〉 of his own Party by the Court Compass he was discountenanc'd and â—aid by as not worth the keeping He seemed the Court Mâ—reor for a while 〈◊〉 to a sâ—dden height of expectation and having 〈◊〉 and blaz'd a 〈◊〉 went out again and was as suddâ—â—nly â—oâ—gotten â—ol 119. Next day the King coming from Canterbury 〈…〉 with all solemnity she was 〈…〉 in London where a Chappel 〈…〉 her Devâ—tionâ— with a Covent 〈…〉 to the Articles of her 〈…〉 how â—ame he to be suffered to be present at 〈◊〉 in the capacity of Lord Keeper For that he did so is affirmed by our Author saying That the King took a Sâ—role of Parchment out of his bosom and gave it to the Lâ—rd 〈…〉 who read it to the Commons four sevâ—raâ— times East-West North and South fol. 123. Thirdly the Lord Keeper who read that Scrole was not the 〈◊〉 Keeper Williams but the Lord Keeper Coventry 〈◊〉 Seal being taken from the Bishop of Lincoln and 〈◊〉 to the custoâ—y of Sir Thomas Coventry in October before And therefore fourthly our Author is much ouâ— in placing both the Coronation and the following Parliament befoâ—e the change of the Lord Keeper and sending Sir Iohn Suckling to feâ—ch that Seal at the end of a Parliâ—ment in the Spring which he had brought away with him before Michaelmas Term. But as our Author was willing to keep the Bishop of Lincoln in the Deaâ—â—y of Westminster for no less then five or six years after it was confer'd on another so is he as desirous to continue him Lord Keeper for as many months after the Seal had been entrusted to another hand Fol. 122. The Earl of Arundel as Earl Marshal of 〈◊〉 and the Duke of Buckingham as Lord High Constâ—ble of England for that day went before his Majesty in that great Solemnity In this passage and the next that follows ouâ— Author shews himself as bad an Herald in marshalling a Royal shew as in stating the true time of the câ—eation of a Noble Peer Here in this place he plaâ—eth the Earl Marshal before the Constable whereas by the 〈◊〉 31 H. 8. c. 10. the Constable is to have 〈◊〉 before the Marshal Not want there Precedents to shew that the Lord High-Constable did many times direct his Mâ—ndats to the Earl Marshal as one of the Miniâ—â—ers of his Court willing and requiring him to perform such and such services as in the said Precepts were expâ—essed In the next place we are informed that Ibid. That the Kings Train being six yards long of Purple Velvet was held up by the Lord Compton and the Lord Viscount Dorcester That the Lord Compton was one of them which held up the Kings Train I shall easily grant he being then Master of the Robes and thereby châ—llenging a right to peâ—foâ—m this service But that the Lord Viscount Dorcester was the other of them I shall never grant there being no such Viscount at the time of the Coronation I cannot 〈◊〉 but that Sir Dâ—dley Carleton might be one of those which held up the Train though I am not sure of it But sure I am that Sir Dudley Carleton was not made Baron of Imber-Court till towards the latter end of the following Parliament of An. 1626 nor created Viscount Dorcester until some years after Fol. 122. The Lord Archbishop did present his Majesty to the Lords and Commons East West North South asking their mindes four several times if they did consent to the Coronation of King Charles their lawful â—overaign This is a piece of new State-doctrine never known before that the Coronation of the King and consequently his Succession to the Crown of England should depend on the consent of the Lords and Commons who were then assembled the Coronation not proceeding as he after â—elleth us till their consent was given four times by â—cclamations And this I call a piece of new State-doctrine never known before because I finde the contrary in the Coronation of our former Kings For in the form and manner of the Coronation of King Edward 6. described in the Catalogue of Honor â—et â—orth by Tho. Mills of Canterbury Anno 1610. we finde it thus The King being carried by certain Noble Courtiers in another Chair â—nto the four sides of the Stage was by the Archbishop of Canterbury declared unto the people standing round about both by Gods and mans Laws to be the right and lawâ—ul King of
Discourse with the Bishop of Winchester And for the Narrative the Doctor whom I have talked with in this business doth not shame to say that he borrowed it from that great Treasury of Academical Antiquities Mr. Brian Twine whose learned Works stanâ— good against all Opponents and that he found the passage justified by Sir Isaack Wake in his Rex Platonicus Two Persons of too great wit and judgement to relate a matter of this nature on no better gâ—ound then common 〈◊〉 talk and that too spoke in merriment by Sir Henry Savil. Assuredly Sir Henry Savil was too great a Zealot for that University and too much a friend to Mr. Wake who was Fellow of the same Colledge with him to have his Table-talk and discourses of merriment to be put upon Record as grounds and arguments for such men to build on in that weighty Controversie And therefore when our Author tells us what he was told by Mr. Hubbard Mr. Hubbard by Mr. Barlow Mr. Barlow by Mr. Bust and Mr. Bust by Sir Henry Savil it brings into my minde the like Pedegree of as true a Story even that of Mother Miso in Sir Philip Sidney telling the young Ladies an old Tale which a good old woman told her which an old wise man told her which a great learned Clerk told him and gave it him in writing and there she had it in her Prayer-book as here our Author hath found this on the end of his Creed Not much unlike to which is that which I finde in the Poet Quae Phoebo Pater omnipotens mihi Phoebus Apollo Praedixit vobis Furiarum ego maxima pandâ— That is to say What Iove told Phoebus Phoebus told to me And I the chief of Furies tell to thee But to proceed Fol. 190. This was that Nevil who for Extraction Estate Alliance Dependents Wisdom Valour Success and popularity was superior to any English Subject since the Conquest Our Author speaks this of that Richard Nevil who was first Earl of Warwick in right of Anne his Wife Sister and Heir of Henry Beauchamp the last of that Family and after Earl of Salisbury by descent from his Father a potent and popular man indeed but yet not in all or in any of those respects to be match'd with Henry of Bullenbrook son to Iohn of Gaunt whom our Author must needs grant to have lived since the time of the Conquest Which Henry after the death of his Father was Duke of Lancaster and Hereford Earl of Leicester Lincoln and Darby c. and Lord High Steward of England Possessed by the donation of King Henry the third of the County Palatin of Lancaster the forfeited Estates of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester Robert de Ferrars Earl of Darby and Iohn Lord of Monmouth by the compact made between Thomas Earl of Lancaster and Alice his Wife of the Honor of Pomfret the whole Estate of the Earl of Lincoln and a great part of the Estates of the Earl of Salisbury of the goodly Tertitories of Ogmore and Kidwelly in Wales in right of his descent from the Chaworths of the Honor and Castle of Hartford by the grant of King Edward the third and of the Honor of Tickhill in Yorkshire by the donation of King Richard the second and finally of a Moity of the vast Estate of Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford Essex and Northampton in right of his Wife So royal in his Extraction that he was Grandchilde unto one King Cousin german to another Father and Grandfather to two more So popular when a private person and that too in the life of his Father that he was able to raise and head an Army against Richard the Second with which he discomfited the Kings Forces under the command of the Duke of Ireland so fortunate in his successes that he not only had the better in the battail mentioned but came off with Honor and Renown in the War of Africk and finally obtained the Crown of England And this I trow renders him much Superior to our Authors Nevil whom he exceeded also in this particular that he dyed in his bed and left his Estates unto his Son But having got the Crown by the murther of his Predecessor it stay'd but two descents in his Line being unfortunately lost by King Henry the sixth of whom being taken and imprisoned by those of the Yorkish Faction our Author telleth us Fol. 190. That States-men do admire how blind the Policy of that Age was in keeping King Henry alive there being no such sure Prison as a Grave for a Captive King whose life though in restraint is a fair mark for the full Aim of mal-contents to practise his enlargement Our Author might have spâ—r'd this Doctrine so frequently in practise amongst the wordly Politicians of all times and ages that there is more need of a Bridle to hold them in then a Sput to quicken them Parce precor stimulis fortiùs utere loris had been a wholesom Caveat there had any friend of his been by to have advis'd him of it The muâ—thering of depos'd and Captive Princes though too often practised never found Advocates to plead for it and mâ—â—h less Preachers to preach for it until these latter times First made a Maxim of State in the School of Machiavel who lays it down for an Aphorism in point of policy viz. that great Persons must not at all be touched or if they be must be made sure from taking Revenge inculcated afterwards by the Lord Gray who being sent by King Iames to intercede for the life of his Mother did undeâ—-hand solicit her death and whispered nothing so much in Queen Elizabeths ears as Mortua non mordet if the Scots Queen were once dead she would never bite But never prest so home never so punctually apply'd to the case of Kings as here I finde it by our Author of whom it cannot be â—ffirm'd that he speaks in this case the senâ—e of others but positively and plainly doth declare his own No such Divinity pâ—each'd in the Schools of Ignatius though fitter for the Pen of a Mariana then of a Divine or Minister of the Church of England Which whether it passed from him before oâ— since the last sad accident of this nature it comes all to one this being like a two-hand-sword made to strike on both â—â—des and if it come too late for instruction will serve abundantly howsoever for the justification Another note we have within two leaves after as derogatory to the Honor of the late Archbishop as this is dangerous to the Estate of all Soveraign Princes if once they chance to happen into the hands of their Enemies But of this our Author will give me an occasion to speak more in another place and then he shall hear further from me Now to go on Fol. 197. The Duke requested of King Richard the Earldom of Hereford and Hereditary Constableship of England Not so it was not the Earldom that is
severally chalenged that Trial against the French King and by Charles of Arragon and Peter de Taâ—â—acone for the 〈◊〉 of Sicilie Either the Author or the Printer is much mistaken here The title to the Realm of Sicilie was once indeed intended to be tried by Combat not between Charles of Arragon and Peter of Tarracone as is here affirmed but between Peter King of Arragon and Charles Earl of Anâ—ou pretending severally to that Kingdom 10. Such another mistake we have Fol. 55. Where it is said that there were some preparations in King James his time intended betwen two Scotch mâ—n the Lord Ree and David Ramsey Whereas indeed those preparations were not made in King Iames but King 〈◊〉 his time Robert Lord Willoughby Earl of 〈◊〉 and Lord great Chamberlain of England being made Lord Constable pro tempore to deside that Controversie Fol. 83. Katherine de Medices Pope Clements Brothers Daughter and Mother of King Charles c. 11 Katheriâ—e de medices was indeed wife to Henry the second and mother to Charles the ninth Frâ—nch Kings but by no means a â—â—â—thers daughter to Pope Clement the seventh For first Pope Clement being the natural son of 〈…〉 who was killed young and unmarried had nâ— brother at all And secondly Katherine de Medeces was Daughter of 〈◊〉 Duke of Vrbin son of Peter de Medeâ—es and Grâ—ndson of Laurence de Medicâ—s the brother of 〈◊〉 before mentioned By which account the father of that Pope and the great Grandfather of that Queen were Brothers and so that Queeu not Broâ—hers Daughter to the Pope Of nearer kiâ— she was to Pope Leo the tenth though not his Brothers Daughter neither Pâ—pe Leo being Brother to Peter de Medices this great Ladies Grand-father Fol. 84. This yâ—â—r took away James Hamilton Earl of Arran and Duke of Castle-herauld at Poictures a Province in France The name of the Province is Poictou of which Poictires is the pâ—â—â—cipal City accounted the third City next to Paris and 〈◊〉 â—ll that Kingdom And such anothâ—r slight mistake we have fol. 96. where we finde mention of the absâ—nce of the Duke of Arran Whereas indeed the chief of the Hamiltons was but Earl of Arrar as he after calls him the Title of Duke being first confâ—â—'d by King Charls upon Iames Marquess of Hâ—milâ—on created Duke Hâ—milâ—on of Arran Anno 1643. The like mâ—â—nomers we have after fol. 139. Where we finde mention of the History of Q. Elizabeth writ by 〈◊〉 whereas 〈◊〉 writ no further then King Henry 8. the rest which follows being clapt to by the publisher of it and possibly may be no other then Camdeâ—s Annals of that Queen in the English Tongue The like I frequently observe in the name of Metallan Metellanus he is called by their Latine Writers whom afterward he rightly calleth by the name of 〈◊〉 fol. 149. Fol. 156. The Leagures with some iustice in Rebellion elect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a degree nearer to the Crown then Navar. Not so but one degree at the least further off the Cardinal of 〈◊〉 called â—harls being the yongest Son of â—harls Duke of 〈◊〉 whereas Henry King of Navar was the onely Son and Heir of Anâ—hoâ—y the eldest Brother So that not oâ—ely the King of Navar but the Princes of the Hâ—use of 〈◊〉 deriv'd from Francis Duke of Anghein the second Brother had the precedency in Title before this 〈◊〉 But being of the Catholick party and of the Royal Hâ—use of Bourbon in which the Rights of the Crown remained and withal a man of great Age and small Abilities he was set up to serve the turn and screen'd the main Plot of the Lâ—aguers from the eyes of the people Fol. 161. Sir Thomas Randolph bred a Civilian was taken from Pembroke Colledge in Oxford Not otherwise to be made good in case he were of that House in Oxford which is now called Pembroke Colledge but by Anticipation Lavinaqueveâ—t Littora as in the like case the Poet has it that which is now called Pembroke Colledge was in those times call'd Broadgates Hâ—ll not changed into a Colledge till the latter end of the Reign of King Iames and then in Honor of William Earl of Pembroke Chancellor of that University and in hope of some endowment from him called Pembroke Colledge Fol. 189. The other Title was of the Iâ—â—ant of Spain In laying down whose several Titles the Author leaves out that which is most material that is to say the direct and lineal Succession of the Kings of Spain from the Lady Katherine Daughter of Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster marryed to Henry the third King of Castile and Mother to King Iohn the second from whom descend the Kings of Castile to this very day Fol. 191. Hawkins Drake Baskervile c. Fiâ—e sâ—ne Towns in the Isle Dominica in the West Indies They fired indeed some Towns in Hispanâ—olâ— and amongst others that of Dominica or St. Domâ—ngo But they attempted nothing on the Isle of Dominica which is one of the Châ—rybes and they had no reason that Island being governed by a King of its own at deadly enmity with the 〈◊〉 anâ— conseqâ—ently more likely to be aydâ—d then annâ—yed by those Sea Adventurers A like mistake we had before in the name of Câ—â—mâ—rdin fol. 157. That party who discovered unto Queen Elizabeth the Estate of the Customs not being named 〈◊〉 but Carwâ—rdin Fol. 229. Sr. Thomas Erskin created Earl of Kelly and by degrees Knight of the Garter Not so Knight of the Garter first by the name of Thomas Viscount Fenton as appeares by the Registers of the Order and then Earl of Kelly Thus afterwards we finde Sr. Iohn Danvers for Sr. Charles Dâ—nvers fol. 238. And Iohn Lord Norris for Sr. Iohn Norris fol. 243. And some mistakes of this nature we finde in the short story of the Earle of Essex in which it is said first that Fol. 233. He was eldest son to Waltar Devereux c. created by Queen Elizabeth Earl of Essex and Ewe Not so but Earl of Essex onely as appears by Camden in his Britannia fol 454. If either he or any of his Descendants have taken to themselves the Tittle of Earl's of Ewe they take it not by vertue of this last Creation but in right of their descent from William Boâ—rchier created Earl of Ewe in Normandy by King Henry the fift and father of Henry Bourchier created Earl of Essex by King Edward the fourth Secondly it is said of Robert Earl of Essex the son of this Walâ—er that in 89. he went Commander in chief in the expedition into Portugal Fol. 233. whereas indeed he went but as a Voluntier in that expedition and had no command And so much our Author hath acknowledged in another place saying that Ambitious of common fame he put himself to Sea and got aboard the Fleet conceiting that their respect to his biâ—th and quâ—liâ—y would receive him their chief but was mistaken in that honouâ— Fol. 155. Thirdly it is said of this
of Tirone who had the conduct of that War was forced to submit unto him upon condition of his Pardon which not without great difficulty was obtain'd of the Queen After whose death the Lord Mountâ—oy returned into England brought the said Earl of Tyrone with him and presented him unto King Iames who by this means reaped the fruit of that Victory and setled Ireland upon a better foundation of Peace and Happiness then all the Kings which had Reign'd before him Thirdly There was never any such Lord Deputy of Ireland as Sir William Fitzers mentioned within few lines after Sir William Fitz-Williams was once Deputy there whom I think he means Nor â—ourthly was Sir George Cary whom he brings in by Head and shoulders to be the Governor of Ireland f. 187. ever advanced unto that Honor and our Author being as much mistaken in the name of the Man as of his Office Sir George Cary never had Command in Ireland Sir George Caâ—ew had made by the Queen Lord President of Muâ—ster which place he worthily discharg'd but not the Governor of that Kingdom Fol. 192. The Queen was delivered of her second Son the 13 of October 1633. and not upon the 14 of November 1634. he was 〈◊〉 ten days 〈…〉 James and created Duke of York by Letters Patents c. Our Author here corrects the former Historian for making the Kings second Son to be born on the 14 of 〈◊〉 and deâ—erves himself to be corrected for making him to be created Duke of York by Letters Patents on 〈…〉 day after his Birth For though he was by the King dâ—signed to be Duke of York and that it was commanded that he should be called so accordingly yet was he not created Duke of York by Letters Patents until ten years after and aâ—ove those Letters Patents bearing date at Iâ—nuaryâ—7 â—7 Anno 1643. The like mistake to that which he corrects in the former Historian he falls intâ— himâ—elf fol. 312. wheâ—e he makes Henry Duke of Glocester the Kings yongest Son to be born on the twentieth day 〈◊〉 Iuly Anâ—o 1640. whereas it appears by the Arch Bishops Breviâ—t that he was born on Wednesday the eighth day of that Moneth being the day of the solemn Faâ—t And by this rule we may correct a passâ—ge in the sâ—oâ—t view of this Kings life pag. â—3 wherâ— he is 〈…〉 born on the seventeenth of this Moneth though rightly 〈◊〉 46. on the eighth day of it he is said to be bâ—rn upâ—n the eighth And thus he fails fol. 232. in making Edwâ—rd 〈◊〉 the onely Son of George Duke of Clarence to be Duke of Warwick whom all our Heralds and 〈…〉 Earl of Warwick The like mistake I finde in the name of a Town near unto which a great Battle was fought between the 〈◊〉 and the Swedes The Town near which that Battle was fought being named Norlinghen a City of that part of Svevia which is called North-schwâ—hâ—n misâ—akingly by 〈◊〉 Author called the Battle of Norlington The loss of which Battle drew after it the loss of the Palatinate restored to the Electoral Family but the year before Fol. 209. And that Story of truth that John of Orleans of this Family like a second Judith saved France from the Oppression of Strangers Not now to quarrel the ungrammaticalness of this passage nor the mistake of Iohn of Orleans for Iohane I would fain know by what Authority our Author makes this Iohn orâ— Ioane to be descended of this Illustrious Family of the Dukes of Lorrein Most of the French who have written the Story of her life report her to be a poor mans daughter of Ocolieur a Town in that Dukedom instructed by the Earl of Dunois commonly called the Bastard of Orleans to pretend to some Divine Revelations the better to incourage that dejected Nation and to take upon her the Conduct of the French Armies against the English in which she sped fortunately at the first but in the end was taken Prisoner and burnt at Rouen Nor does the paralel between her and Iudish hold so well as our Author would have it that Lady adventuring into the Tent of Holophernes accompanied onely with her Maid this Damosel Errant never looking on the face of an Enemy but when she was backt by the best Commanders and united Forces of the French that Lady carrying back with her the head of her Enemy which occasioned the total overthrow of all his Aâ—my this Damosâ—l not being able to save her own Head from the power of the Conqueror that Lady dying honorably in the Bed of Peace and this ingloriously in a Ditch Fol. 219. A severe eye had been upon the Roman Catholicks and their numerous râ—sorts c. to the ancient Chappel at Denmark House An ancient Chappel questionless of not much above twenty years continuance when our Author writ this part of his History and then built for the devotions of a small Covent of Capuchins whom the Queen had got leave â—o sâ—ttle there for her personal comfort No Chappell anciently belonging to that House which our Authour cals by the name of Denmark but is more commonly called Somerset House It having been observed of Edward Duke of Somerset the first Founder of it that having pull'd down one Parish Church and three Bishops houses each of which had their several Oratories to make room for that Palace for himself he could not finde in his heart to build a Chappell to it for the Service of God And though some Room was afterward set apart in it for Family-duties and devotions by the name of a Closet yet so uncapable was that Closet of admitting any numerous resort of Catholiques out of other places that it was not able to contain the Queens Domesticks at her first coming hither But perhaps our Authour will hit it better in the affairs of Scotland and therefore passe we on to them where first we finde That He makes Sir Iohn Stewart Earl of Traquair to succeed the Earl of Marr in the Office of Lord Treasurer of Scotland fol. 193. Whereas it is most undoubtedly true and acknowledged by himself in another place that he succeeded in that Office to the Earl of Morton the Earl of Morton being made Captain of the guard in the place of the Earl of Holland and the Earl of Holland made Groom of the Stool upon the death of the Earl of Carlile His making of Sir Iohn Hay of Scotlandâ—o â—o be the Master of the Robes for that Kingdom fol. 237. in stead of Master of the Rolls Clerk-Register they call him there I look on as a mistake of the Printer only though such mistakes condemn our Authour of no small negligence in not reviewing his own work Sheet by Sheet as it came from the Presse and making an Errata to it as all Authours carefull of their credit have been used to do Fol. 230. And because the Earl of Strathern a bold man and had the Kings ear and deservedly too being faithfull and true these
King Edward having no dominion over them could not impose a Law upon them Not was it probable that he should borrow any of their Lawes or impose them on his natural subjects considering the Antipathy and disaffection betwixt the Nations There were indeed at that time in England three kinds of Lawes The first called Dane-lage or the Danish Lawes prevailing for the most part in the Kingdom of the East-Angles and that of Northumberland secondly Saxon-lage used generally in the Kingdoms of the West-Saxons East-Saxons South-Saxons and that of Kent and thirdly Merceâ—-lage extending over all the Provinces of the Kingdom of Mercia As for the Britans of Cornwal and Cumberland they had no distinct Law for themselves as had those of Wales but were governed by the Lawes of that Nation unto which they were subject By these three sorts of Laws were these Nations governed in their several and respective limits which being afterwards reduced into one body and made common equally to all the subjects did worthily deserve the name of the Common-Law But secondly I dare not give the honour of this action to King Edward the Confessor The great Iustinian in this work was another Edward called for distinctions sake King Edward the elder who began his Reign Anno 900. almost 150 years before this Confessor to whom our Author hath ascribed it But the truth is that these Lawes being suppressed by the Danish Kings who governed either in an arbitrary way or by the Lawes of their own Countrey they were revived and reinforced in the time of this Edward from whence they had the name of Edward the Confessors Lawes and by that name were sued and fought for in the time succeeding of which more hereafter Now as this work may be ascribed to his love to justice so from his piety his successors derive as great a benefit of curing the disease which from thence is called the Kings evill which some impute as our Author tels us to secret and hidden causes Fol. 145. Others ascribe it to the power of fancy and an exalted imagination Amongst which others I may reckon our Author for one He had not else so strongly pleaded in defence thereof But certainly what effect soever the strength of fancy and an exalted imaginationâ— as our Author cals it may produce in those of riper years it can contribute nothing to the cure of children And I have seen some children brought before the King by the hanging sleeves some hanging at their Mothers breasts and others in the armes of their Nurses all touch'd and cur'd without the help of any such fancies or imaginations as our Author speaks of Others lesse charitably condemn this cure as guilty of superstiâ—ion quarrelling at the Circumstances and Ceremonies which are used and this they do Saith he ibid. either displeased at the Collect consisting of the first nine verses of the Gospell of St. John as wholly improper and nothing relating to the occasion c. Our Author tels us more then once lib. 11. 167. of his being a Clerk of the Convocation but I finde by this that he never came so high as to be Clerk of the Closet Which had he been he would not have mistaken the Gospel for a Collect or touched upon that Gospel which is lesse material without insisting on the other which is more pertinent and proper to the work in hand or suffered the displeased party to remain unsatisfied about the sign of the Crosse made by the Royall hands on the place infected as it after followeth when there is no such crossing used in that sacred Ceremony the King only gently drawing both his hands over the sore at the reading of the first Gospel But that both he and others may be satisfied in these particulars I have thought fit to lay down the whole form of prayers and readings used in the healing of that malady in this manner following The form of the Service at the healing of the Kings-evill The first Gospel is exactly the same with that on Ascension day At the touching of every infirm person these words are repeated They shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover The second Gospell begins the first of St. Iohn and ends at these words Full of grace and truth At the putting the Angell about their necks were repeated That Light was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world Lord have mercy upon us Christ have mercy upon us Lord have mercy upon us Our Father which art in Heaven hallowed be thy Name c. Min. O Lord save thy servants An. Which put their trust in thee Min. Send unto them help from above An. And evermore mightily defend them Min. Help us O God our Saviour An. And for the glory of thy name sake deliver us be merciful unto us sinners for thy names sake Min. O Lord hear our Prayer An. And let our cry come unto thee The Collect. Almighty God the eternal health of all such as put their trust in thee hear us we beseech thee on the behalf of these thy servants for whom we call for thy merciâ—â—l help that they receiving health may give thanks â—nto thee in thy holy Church through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen The peace of God c. This is the whole form against which nothing is objected but the using of the words before mentioned at the putting on of the Angel the pertinency whereof may appear to any who consider that the Light which was the true Light and lighteth every man which cometh into the world did not shine more visibly at the least moâ—e comfortably upon the people then in the healing of â—o many sick infirm and leprous persons as did from time to time receive the benefit of it But it is time I should proceed Fol. 148. These chose Harald to be King whose Titlâ— to the Crown is not worth our deriving of itâ— much 〈◊〉 his râ—lying on it A Title not so deâ—picable as our Author makes it nor much inferior unto that by which hiâ— Predecessor obtain'd the Kingdom Harald being â—on to Earl Godwin the most potent man of all the Sâ—â—xons by Theyra the natural Daughter of Canutus the fiâ—st was consequently Brother by the whole bloud to Harald Harâ—agar and Brother by the half bloud to Canutus the â—econd the two last Danish Kings of England In which respect being of Saxon Anceâ—â—ry by his Faâ—her and of the Danish Royal bloud by his Mother he might be look'd on as the fittest person in that conjâ—ncture to conâ—ent both Nations But whatsoever his Title was it was undoubtedly better then that of the Norman had either his success been answerable or his sword as good Upon occasion of which Conquest our Author telleth us that Ibid. This was the fifth time wherein the South of this Island was conquered first by Romans secondly by Picts and Scots thirdly by Saxons fourthly by the Danes and fifthlyâ— by the Norman But this I can by no means
thereof in the main body of it not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses This I can say on certain knowledge being casually invited to his Funeral when I thought not of it though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of Fol. 153. The Right to the Crown lay not in this Henry but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March descended by his Mother Philippa from Lionel Duke of Clarence elder son to Edward the third I shall not now dispute the Title of the House of Lancaster though I think it no hard matter to defend it and much less shall I venture on the other controversie viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry though I finde him better studied in it then in matter of History And certainly our Author is here out in his own dear Element Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence and Mother of Roger Mortimer Earl of March whom Richard the second to despite the House of Lancaster declared Heir apparent to the Kingdom of England 'T is true this Edmond was the son of another Philippa that is to say of Philip Montacute wife of a former Roger Earl of March one of the founders of the Garter So that in whomsoever the best Title lay if lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it 〈◊〉 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing 〈…〉 the Temporaâ—â— and Spiritual Lordsâ— that 〈…〉 be tryed per pares by their Peers being 〈…〉 Noâ— shall I here dispute the point 〈…〉 may not challenge to be tryed by his 〈…〉 wheâ—â—er the Bishops were not Barons and 〈◊〉 of the Realm Our Author intimates that they were not but I think they were and this I think on the authority of the learned Selden in whom we finde that at a Parliament at Northampton 〈◊〉 Henry the 2. the Bishops thus challenge their own â—ee age viz. Non sedemus hiâ— Episcopi sed Barones Nos â—â—â—â—nes vâ—s Barones Pares hiâ— sumus that is to 〈◊〉 We 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as Bishops only but as Barons We are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also 〈…〉 in terminis by the words of a Statuâ—e 〈◊〉 Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to â—e Peers of the Land And for further proof heâ— eoâ— Ihon â—tratford Archbishop of Canterbury if I remember it aright being fallen into the displeâ—sure of King Edward the third and denyed entrance into the House of 〈◊〉 made his Protest that he was Primus 〈◊〉 Regni the 〈◊〉 Peer of the Realm and therefoâ—e not to be 〈…〉 from his place and Suffrage But of this Argument enough iâ— not too much as the case now stands 〈…〉 thing to consider what they have 〈…〉 what they are at this preâ—ent 〈…〉 Reign theâ—e paâ—â— an Act of Paâ—liament by which it was enacted That the Countrey of Wales should be stand and continue for ever from thenceforth incorpoâ—aâ—ed united and annexed to and with this Realm of England And that all and singular person and persons born and to be born in the said principality countrey or dominion of Wales shall have inâ—oy and inhe â—it all and singular Freedoms Liberties Rights Priviledges and Lawes within this Realm and other the Kings Dominions as other the Kings Subjects naturally boâ—n within the same have and injoy and inheâ—â—it And thirdly between the time which our Author speaks of being the 14 year of King Henry the fourth and the making of this Act by King Henry the eighth there passed boâ—e an hundâ—ed and twenty years which intimates a longer time then some years after as out Author words it Fol. 168. I will not complain of the dearness of this Univeâ—sity where seventeen weeks cost me more then seventeen years in Cambridge even all that I had The oâ—dinary and unwary Reâ—der might collect from hence that Oxford is a chargeable place and that all commodities there are exceeding dear but that our Author lets him know that it was on some occasion of distâ—â—bance By which it seems our Author doth 〈◊〉 to the time of the War when men from all 〈◊〉 did repair to Oxford not as a University but a place of safety and the fear Royall of the King at 〈◊〉 time notwithstanding all provisions were so plenâ—â—ull and at such cheap rates as no man had reason to complain of the 〈◊〉 of them No better argument of the 〈◊〉 of the soil and richness of the 〈◊〉 in which Oxford standeth then that the 〈…〉 on the accession of such 〈…〉 at that 〈◊〉 and on that occasion 〈◊〉 Author therefoâ—e 〈◊〉 be thought to relate unto somewhat else then is here expâ—essed and possibly may be that his being at Oxford at that time 〈◊〉 him within the compass of Delinquency and consequently of Sequestration And 〈…〉 hath 〈…〉 son to complain of the Vniversity or the dearness of it but rather of himself for coming to a place so chargeable and destructive to him He might have tarryed where he was for I never heard that he was sent foâ— and then this great complaint against the dearness of that Vniversity would have found no place Fol. 175. Surely what Charles the fifth is said to have said of the City of Florence that it is pity 〈◊〉 should be seen save only on holy-dayes c. Our Author is somewhat out in this in fachering that saying on Charles the fifth Emperor and King of Spain which Boterus and all other Authors ascribe to Charles Archduke of Austria that is to say to Charles of Inspruch one of the younger sons of the Emperor Ferdinand the first and consequently Nephew to Charles the fifth Not is oâ—r Author very right in taking Aquensis for Aix in Provence Fol. 178. Especially â—aith he if as I take it by Aquensis Aix be meantâ— scited in the fâ—rthermost parts of Provence though even now the English power in France was a waning For first the English never had any power in Provence no interest at all therein nor pretentions to it as neither had the French Kings in the times our Author speaks of Provence in thoâ—e dayes was independent of that Crown an absolute Estate and held immediately of the Empire as being a part and member of the Realm of Burgundy and in the actual possession of the Dukes of â—njou on the expiring of which House by the last will and Testament of Duke Rene the second it was bequeathed to Lewis the eleventh of France by him and his successors to be enjoyed upon the death of Charles Earl of Maine as it was accordingly And secondly that Bernard whom the Latine cals Episcopus Aquensis is very ill taken by our Author to be Bishop of Aix He was indeed Bishop of Acqus or
have produc'd those arguments by which some shameless persons endeavoured to maintain both the conveniency and necessity of such common Brothel houses Had Bishop Iewel been alive and seen but half so much from Dr. Harding pleâ—ding in behalf of the common women permitted by the Pope in Rome he would have thought that to cal to him an Advocate for the Stews had not beeen enough But that Doctor was nor half so wise as our Author is and doth not fit each Argument with a several Antidâ—te as our Author doth hoping thereby by but vainly hoping that the arguments alleadged will be wash'd away Some of our late Criticks had a like Design in marking all the wanton and obscene Epigrams in Martial with a Hand or Asterism to the intent that young Scholars when they read that Author might be fore-warn'd to pass them over Whereas on the contrary it was found that too many young fellows or wanton wits as our Author calls them did ordinarily skip over the rest and pitch on those which were so mark't and set out unto them And much I fear that it will so fall out with our Author also whose Arguments will be studied and made use of when his Answers will not Fol. 253. Otherwise some suspect had he survived King Edward the sixth we might presently have heard of a King Henry the ninth Our Author speaks this of Henry Fitz Roy the Kings natural Son by Elizabeth Blunt and the great disturbance he might have wrought to the Kings two Daughters in their Succession to the Crown A Prince indeed whom his Father very highly cherished creating him Duke of Somerset and Richmond Earl of Nottingham and Earl Marshal of England and raising him to no small hopes of the Crown it self as appears plainly by the Statute 22 H. 8. c. 7. But whereas our Author speaks it on a supposition of his surviving King Edward the sixth he should have done well in the first place to have inform'd himself whether this Henry and Prince Edward were at any time alive together And if my Books speak true they were not Henry of Somerset and Richmond dying the 22. of Iuly Anno 1536. Prince Edward not being born till the 12. of October An. 1537. So that if our Author had been but as good at Law or Grammar as he is at Heraldry he would not have spoke of a Survivor-ship in such a case when the one person had been long dead before the other was born These incoherent Animadversions being thus passed over we now proceed to the Examination of our Authors Principles for weakning the Authority of the Church and subjecting it in all proceedings to the power of Parliaments Concerning which he had before given us two Rules Preparatory to the great business which we have in hand First that the proceedings of the Canon Law were subject in whatsoever touched temporals to secular Laws and National Customs And the Laitie at pleasure limited Canons in this behalf Lib. 3. n. 61. And secondly that the King by consent of Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in cases of Heresie Lib. 4. n. 88. And if the Ecclesiastical power was thus curbed and feâ—â—ered when it was at the highest there is no question to be made but that it was much more obnoxious to the secular Courts when it began to sink in reputation and decline in strength How true and justifiable or rather how unjustifiable and false these two principles are we have shewn already and must now look into the rest which our Author in pursuance of the main Design hath presented to us But first we must take notice of another passage concerning the calling of Convocations or Synodical meetings formerly called by the two Archbishops in their several Provinces by their own sole and proper power as our Author grants fol. 190. to which he adds Fol. 190. But after the Statute of Praemunire was made which did much restrain the Papal power and subject it to the Laws of the Land when Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute command but at the pleasure of the King In which I must confess my self to be much unsatisfied though I finde the same position in some other Authors My reasons two 1. Because there is nothing in the Statute of Praemunire to restrain the Archbishops from calling these meetings as before that Act extending only to such as purchase or pursue or cause to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome or elsewhere any such translatations Processes Sentences of Excommunication Bulls Instruments or any other things whatsoever which touch the King against him his Crown and his Regality or his Realm or to such as bring within the Realm or them receive or make thereof notification or any other Execution whatsoever within the same Realm or without c. And 2. because I finde in the Statute of the submission of the Clergy that it was recognized and acknowledged by the Clergie in their Convocation that the Convocation of the said Clergie is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ And if they had been always call'd by the Kings Writ then certainly before the Statute of Praemunire for that the whole Clergy in their Convocation should publickly declare and avow a notorious falsehood especially in a matter of fact is not a thing to be imagined I must confess my self to be at a loss in this intricate Labyrinth unless perhaps there were some critical difference in those elder times between a Synod and a Convocation the first being call'd by the Archbishops in their several and respective Provinces as the necessities of the Church the other only by the King as his occasions and affairs did require the same But whether this were so or not is not much material as the case now stands the Clergie not assembling since the 25 of King Henry the eighth but as they are convocated and convened by the Kings wâ—it only I only adde that the time and year of this submission is mistook by our Author who plâ—ceth it in 1533. whereas indeed the Clergy made this acknowledgement and submission in their Convocation Anno 1532. though it pass'd not into an Act or Statute till the year next following Well then suppose the Clergy call'd by the Kings Authority and all their Acts and Constitutions ratiâ—ied by the Râ—yal assent are they of force to binde the Subject to submit and conform unto them Not if our Author may be judge for he tels us plainly Fol. 191. That even such Convocations with the Royal assent subject not any for recusancy to obey their Canons to a civil penalty in person or property untill confirmed by 〈◊〉 of Parliament I marvel where our Author took up this opinion which he neither finds in the Registers of Convocation or Records of Parliament Himself hath told us fol. 190. that such Canons and Constitutions as were concluded on in Synods or Convocations before the
their private discontents into open practices endeavouring to settle their Religion by the destruction of the King and the change of Government And first beginning with the Papists because first in time Fol. 5. Watson with William Clark another of his own profession having fancied a Notional Treason imparted it to George Brooks To these he after adds the Lord Cobham a Protestant the Lord Gray of Whaddon a Puritan and Sir Walter Rawleigh an able Statesman and some other Knights In the recital of which names our Author hath committed a double fault the one of omission and the other of commission A fault of omission in leaving out Sir Griffith Markham as much concerned as any of the principal actors design'd to have been Secretary of Estate had the Plot succeeded and finally arraign'd and condemn'd at Winchester as the others were His fault of commission is his calling the Lord Gray by the name of the Lord Gray of Whaddon a fault not easily to be pardon'd in so great an Herald whereas indeed though Whaddon in Buckinghamshire was part of his Estate yet Wilton in Herefordshire was his Barony and antâ—ent Seat his Ancestors being call'd LL. Gray of Wilton to difference them from the Lord Gray of Reuthen the Lord Gray of Codnor c. Having thus satisfied our Author in this particular I would gladly satisfie my self in some others concerning this Treason in which I finde so many persons of such different humors and Religions that it is very hard to think how they could either mingle their interefles or unite their counsels But discontentments make men fuel fit for any fire and discontents had been on purpose put upon some of them the more to estrange them from the King and the King from them And though I am not Oedipus enough for so dark a Sphinx yet others who have had more light into the businesses of that time have made their discontents to grow upon this occasion Sir Robert Cecil then principal Secretary to the Estate fearing the great abilities of Rawleigh and being wearied with the troublesome impertinencies of Gray and Cobham all which had joyned with him in design against the Earl of Essex their common Enemy had done their errand to Kings Iames whose counsels he desired to ingross to himself alone before his coming into England And the Plot took so good effect that when the Lord Cobham went to meet the King as he came towards London the King checked him being then Warden of the Cinqne Ports for his absence from his charge in that dangerous time The Lord Gray was not look'd upon in the Court as he had been formerly there being no longer use of his rashness and praecipitations And the better to discountenance Rawleigh who had been Captain of the Guard to Queen Elizabeth the King bestowed that Office on Sir Thomas Erskin then Vicount Fenton and Captain of his Guard in Scotland All which being publickly observ'd it was no haâ—d matter for George Brook to work upon the weak spiâ—its of Gray and Cobâ—am of which the last was his brother and the first his brothers special friend and by such Artifices as he us'd in laying before them their disgraces and shewing them a way to right themselves to draw them into the confederacy with Clark and Watson And it is possible that they not being substantive enough to stand alone might acquaint Rawleigh with the Plot whose head was able to do more then all their hands But of his actings in it or consenting to it when the paâ—ties were brought unto their Tryal there appear'd no proof but that Cobham in his confession taken before the Lords had accus'd him of it and that not only as an accessary but a principal actor But Cobham not being brought into the open Court to justifie his accusation face to face as the custom as it was thought a good argument by many that Rawleigh was not so criminal in this matter as his Enemies made him And though found guilty by the Jury on no other evidence then a branch of Cobhams confession not so much as subscribed by his hand yet all men were not satisfied in the manner of this proceeding it being then commonly affirm'd that Cobham had retracted his accusation as since it hath been said and printed that in a letter written the night before his Tryal and then sent to the Lordâ—â— he cleared Rawlâ—igh from all manner of Treasons against the King or State for which consult the Observations upon some particular Persons and passages c. printed Anno 1656. But from the practices of the Papists which have led me thus far out of my way it is now time that I proceed to the Petition of the Puritans presented to the King much about that time Fol. 7. This called the Millenary Petition And it was called so because given out to be subscribed by 〈◊〉 thousand hands though it wanted a fourth part of thiâ— number More modest now then they had been in Pâ—â—ries time when in stead of one thousand they threatnâ—â— to bring a Petition which should be presented by the hands of a hundred thousand More modest also in the style and phrase of their Petition and in the subject Mâ—â—ter of it then they had been when Martin Mar Prâ—â—â—rul'd the Rost and would be satisfied with nothing 〈◊〉 the ruine of the English Hierarchy Which notwithstanding the King thought fit to demur upon it and 〈◊〉 commended the answering of their Petition to the Uâ—â—versity of Oxford and was done accordingly The Anâ—â—â— and Petition printed not long after gave the first stopâ—â— this importunity represt more fully by the Conferâ—â—â— at Hampton-Court of which it is told us by our Authâ—â— how some of the Millenary party complained that 〈◊〉 Fol. 21. This Conference was partially set forth only 〈◊〉 Dr. Barlow Dean of Chester their professed Adversaâ—â— to the great disadvantage of their Divines If so 〈◊〉 did it come to pass that none of their Divines thâ—â— present noâ— any other in their behalf did ever manifeâ—â— the world the partialities and falsehoods of it The 〈◊〉 was printed not long after the end of the Conference publickly passing from one hand to another and neâ— convicted of any such crime as it stands charged with 〈◊〉 any one particular pâ—â—â—age to this very day Only pleas'd some of the Zealoâ—s to scatter abroad some triâ—â—ing Papers not amounting to half a sheet amongst them which tended to the holding up of their sinking Party and being brought by Dr. Barlow were by him put in Print and publisht at the end of his Book Vt deterrim comparatione gloriam sibi compararet in the words of Tacitus He could not better manifest his own abilities then by having those weak and imperfect Scribbles for a foil unto them And here before I leave this conference I must make a start to fol. 91. for rectifying a mistake of our Authors which relates unto it Where speaking of Dr. King then Bishop of London and
termes about Religion and consequently could not tell in what â—orme to bury him that if the Dr. had died a profest Papist he would have buried him himself but being as it was he could not see how any of the Prebendaries could â—ither with safty or with credit performe that office But the Artifice and design being soon discovered took so little effect that Dr. Newel one of the Senior Prebendaâ—ies performed the Obsequies the rest of the whole Chapter attending the body to the grave with all due solâ—mnitie Fol 228. He was so great an honourer of the English 〈◊〉 that of his own cost he caused the same to be translated into Spanish and fairly printed to confute their false concept of our Church c. If this be true it makes not onely to his honour but also to the honour of the English Liturgy translated into more languages then any Liturgy in the world whatsoever it be translated into Latine by Alexand. Alesius a learned Scot in King Edwards time as afterward by Dr. Walter Haddon in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and his translation mended by Dr. Mocket in the time of King Iames translated into French by the command of that King for the Isles of Guernsey and Iersey into Spanish at the charge of this Bishop as our Author telleth us and finally into Greek by one Mr. â—etly by whom it was dedicated and presented to the late Arch Bishop of Canterbury the greatest Patron and Advancer of the English Liturgy But 2. I have some reason to doubt that the Liturgy was not translated at the charges of Bishop VVilliams That it was done by his procurement I shall easily grant but whosoever made the Bill of Charges the Church paid the â—eckoning the Dominican Fryer who translated it being â—ewarded with a Benefice and a good Prebend as Cab p. 7â— â—he Bishop himself did signifie by letter to the Duke of â—uckingham And as for the printing of the book I cannot â—hink that it was at his charges neither but at the charâ—es of the Printer it not being usual to give the Printers â—oney and the copy too And 3. Taking it for grantâ—d that the Liturgy was translated and printed at this â—ishops charges yet does not this prove him to be so â—reat an honourer of it as our Authour makes him for â—â—d he been indeed a true honourer of the English Liturgy 〈◊〉 would have been a more diligent attendant on it then 〈◊〉 shewed himself never repairing to the Church at Westminster whereof he was Dean from the 18. oâ— â—â—bruary 1635. when the businesse of the great â—ew was judged against him till his Commitment to the Tower in Iuly 1637. Nor ever going to the Chappell of the Tower where he was a Prisoner to attend the Divine Service of the Church or receive the Sacrament from Iuly 1637. when he was committed to November 1640 when he was enlarged A very strong Argument that he was no such Honourer of the English Liturgie as is here pretended A Liturgy most highly esteemed in all places wheresoever it came and never so much vilified despis'd condemn'd as amongst our selves and those amongst our selves who did so vilifie and despise it by none more countenanced then by him who is here said to be so great an Honourer of it But for this Blow our Author hath his Buckler ready telling us that Ibid Not out of Sympathy to Non-conformists but Antipathy to Arch-bishop Laud he was favourable to some select Persons of that Opinion An Action somewhat like to that of the Earl of Kildare who being accused before Henry the Eighth for burning the Cathedrall Church of Cassiles in Ireland profess'd ingeniously That he would never have burnt the Church if some body had not told him that the Bishop was in it Hare to that Bishop and Arch-Bishop of Irâ—land incited that mad Earle to burn his Cathedrall Church and hate to Bishop Laud the Primate and Metropolitan of all England stird up this Bishop to raise a more unquenchable Combuâ—â—ion in the Church of England So that we may affirm of him as Tertullian in another case of the Primitive Christians Viz. Tanti non est bonum quanti est odium Christianorum But are we sure that hee was favourable to the Non-Conformists out of an antipathy to Bishop Laud only I believe not so His antipathy to the King did at strongly biass him that way as any thing else For which I have the Testimony of the Author of the History of King Charls publisht 1656. who telleth us of him That being malevolently inclin'd about the loss of the great Seale he thought he could not gratifie beloved Revenge better then to endeavour the supplanting of his Soveraign To which end finding him declining in the Affectionâ— of his People he made his Apostrophe and Applications to them fomenting popular discourses tending to the Kings dishonour C. And being once set upon that Pin flectere si nequeo superos Achâ—ronta movebâ— as we know who said it is no mâ—rvell if he shewd himself favourable to the Nâ—n Conformists as being Enemies to Kings anâ— a Kingly Government and therefore likeliest to provide Fuell for a publick Fire and yet besides these two there was a third impressive which might move aâ— strongly on his Nature as either of them Our Author fâ—rmerly told us of him that he was A bâ—ck Friend to the Canons because he had no hand in the making of them And for the same reason also I conceive that he might shew himself a back Friend to the Church a Patron to the Non Conformists of purpose to subvert those Counsells and ruinate those Designs for uniformity which had been resolved and agreed on without his Advice Consilii omnis cujus ipse non Author esset inimicus as we know who said In order whereunto he had no sooner heard that there was a purpose in some great Bishops of the Court to regulate the standing of the Communion Table according to the Pattern of the Mother Cathedrall and the royall Chappels but he presently set himselfe against it dispercing Copies of a Letter pretended to be writâ—en â—y him to the Vicar of Grantham on that occasion and publishing his Book called the Holy Table â—ull of quotations but more in number then in weight Anâ— this he did out or a meer Spirit of Contradiction directly contrary to his own practice in all places where he had to do that is to say not only in the Collegiate Church at VVestminster whereof he was Dean and in the Cathedrall Church of Lincoln whereof he was Bishop but in his own private Chappell at Bugden also where there was no body to act any thing in it but himself alone And so I take my leave of this great Prelate whom I both reverence for hiâ— Place and honour for his Parts as much as any And yet I cannot choose but say that I find more reason to condemn then there is to commend him so that we
Earl of Essex that he went Deputy into Ireland Fol. 234. Whereas indeed he was not sent over into Ireland with the Title of Deputy but by the more honourable Title of Lord Leviâ—enant having power to create a Lord Deputy under him when his occasions or the the necessities of the state should require his absence Fol. 2â—1 The 26. of February 1â—00 was born the Kings third son and Christnâ—â— Charles at Dunferling The Kings third son and afterwards his Successor in the Crown of England was not born on the 26. of February but on the 19. of Noveâ—â—er as is averred by all others who have written of it and publickly attested by the annual ringing of Bells upon that day in the City of London during the whole time of his pâ—wer and prosperity The like mistake we finde in the tiâ—e and day of the Birth of Queen Elizabeth of whom it is â—â—id Fol. 261. 25. That she gave up the Ghost to Gâ—d oâ— that day of her Birth from whom she had it intimating thaâ— she died on the Eve of the same Lady-day on which she was born But the truth is that she was born on the Eve of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary being the seventh day of September and died on the Eve of the Annuntiation being the 24. of March And so much for the History of the Reign of Queen Mary and King Iames her Son as to the Realm of Scotland onely both of them Crowned as Iames the fift had also been in their tenderest infancy But whereas our Author tells us Fol. 8. that Q Mary 〈◊〉 the kingdom to her son who was born a King I can by no means yeild to that I finde indeed that our Saâ—iour Christ was born King of the Iews and so proclaimed to be by the Angel Gabriel at the very time of his Conception And I have read that Sapores one of the Kings of Persia was not onely born a King but crowned King too before his birth for his Father dying withouâ—â—â—ue as the story saith left his wife with child which child the Magi having signified by their Art to be a Male the Persian Princes caused the Crown and Royal Ornaments to be set upon his Mothers Belly acknowledging him there by for their King and Sovaraign But so it was not with King Iames who was born on the 19 of Iune Anno. 1566. and Crowned King on the 24. of Iuly being the 5. day after his Mothers resignation of the Crown and Government Anno. 1567. ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE REIGN DEATH OF KING IAMES Of GREAT BRITAIN FRANCE and IRELAND the first WE are now come unto the Reign of King Iames as King of England or rather as King of England and Scotland under the notion of Great Britain of whose reception as he passed through Godmanchestâ—r the Historian telleth us that Fol. 270. At Godmanchester in the Counâ—y of Notthamptonshire they presented him with 70 Teem of Horses c. beâ—â—g his Tenants and holding their Land by that Tenure But first Godâ—aâ—chester is not in Northampton but in Huntiâ—gtonshire And secondly Though it be a custom for those in Godmanchâ—ster to shew their Bravery to the Kings of England in that rustical Pomp yet I conceive it not to be the Tenure which they hold their Lands by For Camden who is very punctual in observing Tenures mentions not this as a Tenure but a Custom onely adding withal that they make their boast That they have in former time received the Kings of England as they passed in their progress this way with ninescore Ploughs brought forth in a rustical kinde of Pomp for a gallant shew If onely for a gallant shew or a rustical Pomp then not observed by them as their Tenure or if a Tenure not 〈◊〉 from ninescore to 70. all Tenures being â—ixt not variable at the will of the Tenants Fol. 273. This most honorable Order of the Garter was instituted by King Edward the third c. So far our Author right enough as unto the â—ounder and rigâ—â— enough as to the time of the institution which he placeth in the year 1350. But whereas he telleth us withal that this Order was founded by King Edward the third 〈◊〉 John of France and King James of Scotland being then Prisâ—ners in the Tower of London and King Henry of Castile the Bastard expulst and Don Pedro restored by the Prince of Wales called the Black Prince in that he is very much mistaken For first It was David King of the Scots not Iames who had been taken Prisoner by this Kings Forces there being no Iames King of the Scots in above fifty years after Secondly Iohn of France was not taken Prisoner till the year 1356. nor Henry of Castile expulsed by the Prince of Wales till ten years after Anno 1366. By consequence neither of those two great Actions could precede the Order But worse is he mistaken in the Patron Saint of whom he tells us that Fol. 273. Among sundry men of valor in ancient days was Geo. born at Coventry in England c. This with the rest that follows touching the Actions and Atchievements of Sir George of Coventry is borrowed from no better Author then the doughty History of the Seven Châ—mpions of Christendom of all that trade in Knighthood-errant the most empty Bable â—But had our Author look'd so high as the Records of the Order the titles of Honor writ by Selden the Catalogue of Honor publisht by Mills of Canterbury Camdens Britannia or any other less knowing Antiquary he might have found that this most noble Order was not dedicated to that fabulous Knight Sâ—â— George of Coventry but to the famous Saint and Soldier of Christ Jesus St. George of Cappadocia A Saint so universally received in all parts of Christendom so generally attested to by the Ecclesiastical Writers of all Ages from the time of his Martyrdom till this day that no one Saint in all the Calender those mentioned in the holy Scriptures excepted onely can be better evidenced Nor doth he finde in Matthew Parts that St. George fought in the air at Antioch in behalf of the English the English having at that time no such iâ—â—eress in him but that he was thought to have been seen figâ—ting in behalf of the Christians Fol. 275. Earldoms without any place are likewise of two kindes either in respect of Office as Earl-Morshal of England or by Birth and so are all the Kings Sons In the Authority and truth of this I am much unsatisfied as never having met with any such thing in the course of my reading and I behold it as a diminution to the Sons of Kings to be born but Earls whereby they are put in an equal rank with the eldest sons of Dukes in England who commonly have the Title of their Fathers Earldoms since it is plain they are born Princes which is the highest civil Dignity next to that of Kings It was indeed usual with the Kings of England to bestow upon
their yongest Sons some Earldom or other until the time of Edward the third after which time they were invested with the Title of Dukes as appears evidently to any who are studied in their Chronologies But that they or any of them were Earls by Birth is a new piece of learning for which if the Historian can give me any good proof I shall thank him for it Fol. 278. Henry the eight thus cousened into some kindness both by his own power and purse makes Charls Emperor and the French King his Prisoner 1519. Neither so nor so For first though King Henry did contribute both his power and purse to the taking of the French King Prisoner yet to the making of Charls Emperor he contributed neither the one nor the other And secondly though Charls were created Emperor Anno 1519 yet the French King was not taken Prisoner till six years after Anno 1525. Fol. 31â— Oswald united the Crowns of England and Scotland which were 〈◊〉 afterwards for many Ages 3â— That Oswald King of Northumberland here mentioned was a Puiâ—â—ant Prince as being the ninth Monarch of the English I shall easily grant but that he united the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland is not any where found Our Author therefore must be understood of his uniting the two Realms of Deâ—ra and Pernicia part of which last hath for long time been accounted part of Scotland which after his decease were again divided Fol. 317. Whose Results notwithstanding are not to be obtruded on the Sâ—culars to be obsâ—rved with the Authority of Laws until they be allowed by assent of the King and both Houses An error far more pardonable in our present Author to whom the concernments of the Church are not so necessary to be known or studied then in our Church Historian where before we had it and which hath had a full Conâ—utation in our Animadversions to which for brevity sake I shall now refer Fol. 320. Rory Duke of Solia from France Either the Printer or the Author are mistaken here The Ambassador who was sent from France was neither called Rory nor Duke of Solia but Marquess of Rhosney created afterward Duke of Sully and Lord High Treasurer of that Kingdom by King Henry 4. A Protestant and therefore purposely selected for that imployment Of whom it is reported in the conference at Hampton-Court that having observed the order and gravity of our Church Service in the Cathedral Chuâ—ch at Câ—nâ—erbury he was heard to say that if the like had been used in France there would have been many thousands of Protestants more then were at that present Fol. 329. Ceâ—il foâ— his good Service was created Earl of Salisbury That is to say for so it must be understood for his activity and diligence in discovering the Powder-Treason But he was Earl of Salisbury before that Discovery call'd so by the Historian himself in the course of thaâ— Naâ—rative and made so by King Iames in the Mâ—y foregoâ—ng at what time also his Brother Thomas Lord Burley was made Earl of EXCESTER The like mistake I finde in the advancement of Thomas Lord Buckhurst to the Earldom of Dorcet plac'd by the Author fol. 342. in the year 1605. whereas indeed he was created Earl of Dorcet in the first year of King Iames March 13. Anno 1603. Fol. 333. The Earl of Flanders c. being by Storm cast upon our Coast c. was fain to yield to all the Kings demands in delivering up the Countess of Warwick and other Fugitives resident in Flanders This story is well meant but not rightly told there being at that time no Earl of Flanders commonly so called to be cast upon the Coast of England nor any such Woman as a Countess of Warwick whom King Henry the seventh could be afraid of the truth is that the person here meant was Philip King of Castile Duke of Burgundy Earl of Flanders c. who in his return from Spain was driven by Tempest on the Coast of England and being Royally Feasted by King Henry the seventh was detained here till he had delivered into the Kings hands the Earl of Suffolk who had fled into the Nether-lands for protection and began to work new troubles against his Soveraign The story whereof we have at large in the History of King Henry the seventh writ by the Lord Viscount St. Alban from fol. 222. to 225. Fol. 334 The fate of that Family evermore false to the crown This spoken of the Piercies Earls of Northumberland too often false to the Crown though not always so For Henry the second Earl of this Family lost his life fighting for King Henry the sixth in the Battle of St. Albans as Henry his Son and Successor also did at the Battle of â—owton And so did Henry the fifth Earl in the time of King Henry the seventh for his Fidelity to that King in a tumultuous Insurrection of the Common People not to say any thing of his Son and Successor who dyed without any imputation of such disloyalty Fol. 362. Zutphen and Gelders did of right belong to the Dukâ— Arnold who being Prisoner with the last Duke of Burgundy who died before Nancy that Duke intruded upon his Possession c. 40. Not so it was not Arnold Duke of Gelders that was Imprisoned by Charls Duke of Burgundy but his Son Adolphus who having most ungratiously Imprison'd his aged Father was vanquished by Duke Charls and by him kept Prisoner and the old Duke restored again to his power and liberty In a grateful acknowledgement of which favor he made a Donation of his Estates to Duke Charls and his Heirs to commence after his decease though it took no effect till Conquered under that pretence by Charls the fifth uniting it unto the rest of his Belgick Provinces Anno 1538. Fol. 423. Sir William Seymour Grandchilde to the third Son and the Heir of the Earl of Hertford created by Henry the eighth whose sister he marryed c. And being thus near the Crown c. In this business of Sir William Seymer now Marquess of Hertford there are two mistakes For first the Earl of Hertford from whom he derived his discent married not any of the Sisters of King Henry the eighth he having but two Wives in all the first the Daughter of Filol of Woodland from whom comes Baronet Seymer of the West the second Anne Daughter of Sir Edward and Sister to Sir Michael Stanhop from whom discends the House of Hertford still in being It s true King Henry married a Sister of Sir Edward Seymer by him created Earl of Hertford but not é contra the Earl of Hertford married not with a sister of his Secondly The nearness of this House to the Crown of England came not from any such Marriage of this first Earl with that Kings Sister but from the Marriage of Edward the second Earl with a Neece of that Kings that is to say with 〈◊〉 Daughter of Henry Duke of Suffolk and of Fâ—aâ—ces his Wife
over to the King when he was at Oxford about the latter end of the year 1643. But finding his sufferings unregarded and his Person neglected as not being suffered to appear as a Member of the House of Commons when the Parliament was summoned thither he retired again into France to his Wife and Children And secondly He dyed not a profest Catholick but continued to the last a true Son of the Church of England reproacht in his best fortunes by the name of a Papist because preferr'd by the Arch-Bishop a faithful servant to the Queen and a profest enemy to the Puritan Faction For which last reason the Earl of Arundel must be given out to be a Papist though I have seen him often at Divine Service in the Kings Chappel and is so declared to be by our Author also who tells us further That finding his native Countrey too hot for him to hold out he went with the Queen Mother unto Colen fol. 428. as if the Land had been hotter for him or his Zeal hotter then the place had he been a Papist as he was not then for any other Noble Man of that Religion Fol. 320. The English proposed a Cessation of Arms but the Scots as they would obey his Majesties command not to advance so they could not return till they had the effects of their Errand And all this while I would fain know what became of the Irish Army which had been raised in so much haste by the Earl of Strafford with the beginning of the Spring An Army consisting of 10000 Foot and 1500 Horse kept ever since in constant pay and continual Exercise by which the King might have reduced the Scots to their due obedience as the Earl of Strafford declared openly at the Councel Table immediately on the dissolving of the former Parliament yet now this Army lies dormant without acting anything thing toward the suppressing of the Scots exprest in their invading England their wasting the Northern parts of the Kingdom and their bold Demands Which Army if it had been put over into Cumberland to which from the Port of Carick-Fergus in Ireland is but a short and easie passage they might have got upon the back of the Scots and caught that wretched People in a pretty Pit-fall so that having the English Army before them and the Irish behinde them they could not but be ground to powder as between two Mill-stones But there was some fatality in it or rather some over-ruling providence which so dulled our Councels that this Design was never thought of for ought I can learn but sure I am that it was never put into Execution An Army of which the prevailing Members in both Houses stood in so much fear that they never left troubling the King with their importunities till they had caus'd him to Disband it the Scots in the mean time nesting in the Northern Counties and kept at most excessive charges to awe the King and countenance their own proceedings Fol. 334. The Book whilst in loose Papers â—re it was compleat and secured into his Cabinet and that being lost was seized by the enemy at Naseby fight c. Our Author here upon occasion of his Majesties most excellent Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he hath wholly Incorporated part per part in this present History gives a very strange Pedigree of it that being composed before Naseby fight it was there taken with the rest of the Kings Papers and coming to his hands again was by the King committed to the hands of one Mr. Symonds and by him to the Press In all which there is nothing true but the last particular For first That Book and the Meditations therein contained were not composed before Naseby fight many of them relating to subsequent Passages which the King without a very hâ—gh measure of the Spirit of Prophecy was not able to look so far intoâ— as if past already Besides that Book being called The Porâ—raiâ—ure of his Maâ—esty in his Solitudes and Sufferings must needs relate unto the times of his Solitude and therefore could not be digested before Naseby fight when he had been continually exercised in Camp or Counsel and not reduc'd to any such Solitude as that Title intimateth Secondly These Papers were not found with the rest in the Kings Cabinet or if they were there must be somewhat in it above a miracle that he should get them again into his hands Assuredly those men who used so much diligence to suppress this Book when it was published in print and many thousand Copies disperst abroad would either have burnt it in the fire or use some other means to prevent the printing of it to their great trouble and disadvantage Thirdly These papers were not delivered by the King to Mr. Symonds who had no such near access to him at that time For the truth is that the King having not finisht his Conceptions on the several Subjects therein contained till he was ready to be carried away from Carisbrook Castle committed those papers at the time of his going thence to the hands of one of his trusty Servants to be so disposed of as might most conduce to the advancement of his Honor Interest By which trusty Servant whosoever he was those papers were committed to the care of the said Mr. Symons who had shewed himself exceeding zealous in the Kings Affairs by whom there was care taken for the publishing of them to the infinite contentment of all those well affected Subjects who could get a â—ight of them Fol. 372. The loss of his place viz. the City of Arras animated the Portugueses to revolt from the Spanish Yoke and to submit themselvesâ— to the right Heir Duke John of Braganza Our Author is out of this also For first it was not the loss of the City of Arras but the secret practices and sollicitations of Cardinal Richelieu which made the Portuguez to revolt And secondly if the King of Spains Title were not good as the best Lawyers of Portugal in the Reign of the Cardinal King Don Henry did affirm it was yet could not the Duke of Braganza be the right Heir of that Kingdom the Children of Mary Dutchess of Parma the eldest Daughter of Prince Edward the third Son of Emmanuel being to be preferr'd before the Children of Katherine Dutchess of Braganza her younger Sister He tells next of Charls That Fol. 373. The Soveraignty of Utrick and Dutchy of Gelders he bought that of William he won by Arms with some pretence of right But first the Soveraignty of Vtreckt came not to him by purchase but was resigned by Henry of Bavaria the then Bishop thereof who being then warred on by the Duke of Gelders and driven out of the City by his own Subjects was not able to hold it Which resignation notwithstanding he was fain to take the City by force and to obtain a confirmation of the Grant not onely from Pope Ciement the 7. but also from the Estates of the Countrey
Lindsey Lord High Constable â— Our Author borrows this Error as he does some others from the former History and makes it worse by an addition of his own For first The Earl of Lindsey was not made High Constable upon this occasion nor did he act there in that capacityâ—â— He had been made High Constable to decide the difference between the Lord Rey and David Ramsey which being an extraordinary case was likely to be tried by battle But in this case there was no need of any such Officer the Triall being to be made by proofs and Evidences the verdict to be given by the Lords of Parliament and sentence to be pronounced by the Lord High Steward all â— things being to be carried and transacted in due form of Law Secondly The Court being broken up which was before the passing of the Bill of Attainder in the end of April the Office of Lord High Steward expired also with it And therefore when our Authour speaks of a Request which was made unto the King in Parliament that the Earl of Pembroke should be made Lord High Steward in the place of the Earl of Arundel then absent fol. 430. he either speaks of a Request which was never made or else mistakes the Lord Steward of the Kings houshold which place might possibly be desired for the Earl of Pembroke not long before turn'd out of the Office of Lord Chamberlain for the Lord High Steward of the Kingdome And now we are fallen on his mistakes touching these great Officers I shall adde another It being said in our Authours unfigured Sheets that the King having signed the Bill of Attainder sent Sir Dudly Carlton Secretary of State to acquaint him what he had finished An errour too grosse and palpable for our Authour to be guilty of considering his Acquaintances in the Court and relations to it which may perswade me to beleeve that these unfigured Sheets patcht in I know not how between fol. 408. and 409. should be none of his But whether they be his or not certain I am that there was no Secretary at this time but Sir Henry Vane Windebank being then in France and his place not filled with the Lord Falkland till the Christmas after Sir Dudly Carlton Lord Imbercourt and Vicount Dorchester was indeed Secretary for a while but he died upon Ashwednesday in the year 1631. which was more then nine years before the sending of this message and I perswade my self the King did not raise him from the grave as Samuel was once raised at the instance of Saul to go on that unpleasing errand Sir Dudly Carlton whom he means being Brothers son unto the former was at that time one â—f the Clerks of the Councel but never attained unto the place and honour of a principall Secretary Our Authour having brought the businesse of the Earl of Strafford toward a Conclusion diverts upon the Authour of the Observations on the former History to whom he had been so much beholden for many of the most materiall and judicious Notes in the former part of his Book and he chargeth thus Fol. 406. I conceive it convenient in more particular to clear two mistakes of our Authours concerning the Articles of Irâ—land and the death of the Earl of Strafford reflecting upon the late most Reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland whilest he was liuing and worse pursued since his decease somewhat too sharp also upon D. Bernard What Fee or Salary our Authour hath for this undertaking I am noâ— able to determine but if he be not well paid by them I am sure he hath been well paid by another who in his Answer to D. Bernards Book entituled The â—udgement of the late Primate of Ireland Ac. hath fully justified the Observator against all the exceptions which either our Authour or D. Bernard or the Lord Primate himself have made against him in these two points Which being extrinsecall as to the matter of this History shall not be repeated the Reader being desired if he want any further satisfaction to look for it there All I shall here observe is this that our Authour grounds himself in his whole Discourse of that businesse upon somewhat which he had in writing under the hand of the said Lord Primate and more which he hath took verbatim out of the said Book of D. Bernards who being both parties to the Suit ought not to be admitted for Witnesses in their own behalf And yet our Authour having driven the matter to as good a conclusion as he could from such faulty Premises conceives an hope that by the â—ight of those Testimonies he will be of more moderation notwithstanding he hath there shewn much disaffection to the Primate in endeavouring to his utmost to evade divers of those particulars either in giving the worst sense of them or turning them to other ends But as I can sufficiently clear the Observator from bearing any disaffection to the Lord Primates person and the equal Reader may defend him from the imputation of giving the worst sense of any thing which he found in the Pamphlet called The Observator observed or turning it to other ends then was there intended so am I no more satisfied by this tedious nothing touching the Articles of Ireland or the death of the Earl of Strafford as they reflect upon the Archbishop of Armagh then I was before As little am I satisfied with the following passage in the last Folio of the unfigured Sheets viz. That D. Iuxon Bishop of London resigned his Office of Treasurer of England into the hands of five Commissioners more sufficient then he could be Our Authour might have spared these last words of disparagement and diminution and yet have left his Proposition full and perfect But taking them as they come before me I must first tell him that the Lord Bishop of London resigned not his Office of Treasurer into the hands of any Commissioners but only into the hands of the King who not knowing at the present how to dispose of it for his best advantage appointed some Commissioners under the great Seal of England to discharge the same And next I would have him tell me what great sufficiency he found in those Commissioners which was not to be found in the Bishop of London how many of his debts they paid what improvement they made of his Revenue what stock of money they put him into toward the maintaining of the Warre which not long after followed In all which particulars the Bishop of London had very faithfully performed his part though not as to the Warre of England to the great honour of the King and content of the Subject But to look back upon some passages in the businesâ—e of the Earl of Strafford which are not toucht at by the Observator or his alteridâ—m the first we meet with is a very pretty devise of the Bishop of Lincoln to cheat the poor Gentleman of his head by getting a return of the
King as our Authour words is it gave the King occasion to consider of the generall tendency of the Puritan doctrine in this point unto downright Iudâ—â—sme and thereupon to quicken the reviving of his Fathers Declaration about Lawfull sports in which the signification of his pleasure beareth date the 18. of October in the 9. year of his Reign Anno 1633. A remedy which had been prescribed unseasonably to prevent and perhaps too late to cure the disease if Bradburns Book had been publisht six years before as our Authour makes 〈◊〉 Our Authour secondly relating this very businesse of Bradburnes Book or rather of Barbarous Books as he cals them there fol. 196. must either be confest to speak Vngrammatically or else the coming out of these Barbarous Books must be one chief motive for setting out that Declaration by King Iames Anno. 1618. Thirdly This Bradbuâ—u was not made a Convert by the High Commission Couâ—t bâ—t by a private conference with some Learned Divines to which he had submitted himself and which by Gods blessing so far prevailed with him that he became a Converts and freely conformed himself to the Orthodoxall Doctrine of the Church of England both concerning the Sabbath day and likewise concerning the Lords day So Bishop White relates the Story in his Epistle Dedicatory before his Book to the Aâ—ch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno 1635. Fourthly Whereas our Authour tels us fol. 175. That the Declaration was not 〈◊〉 on the Ministers to publish more proper for a Lay-Officer or a Constable I must needs grant that the publishing of this Declaration was not prest on the Minister by any expresse command of the King But then I would fain know withall how the Bishops could take Order that publication thereof be made in all the Parish Churches of their severall Diocesses according to his 〈◊〉 will and pleasure but by the mouth of the Ministers The Constable and other Lay-Officers whom our Authour thinks more proper for that Employment were not under the Bishopâ— command as to that particular and therefore as he â—ad nâ— Authority so he had no reason to require any such duty from them And as for the Church-Wardens which are more liable to the power and command of the Oâ—dinary it happeneth many times especially in Countrey-Villages that they cannot reade and theâ—efore no such publication of the Kings pleasure to be laid on them The Ministers who had takeâ— an Oath oâ— Canonicall Oâ—edience to their severall and respective Bishops must consequently bâ— the fittest men for that Employment implicitly intended though not explicitly named in the Declaration As many mistakes there are concerning the decay and repair of S. Pauls Church in London For first the high Spire was not burnt down by accident of Lightning in the time of Queen Elizâ—beth as our Authour tels us fol. 176. That vulgar Errour hath been confuted long agoe and no such thing as the burning of Pauls Steeple by Lightning hath for these twenty years and more occurred in the Chronologies of our common Almanacks that dreadfull accident not happening by the hand of Hâ—aven but by the negligence of a Plumber who leaving his pan of Coals there when he went to Dinner was the sole occasion of that mischief Secondly The Commission for the Repair of this Church issued in the time of King Charles came not out in the year 1632. where our Authour placeth it but had past the Seal and was published in Print the year before Anno 1631. Thirdly The Reparation of the Church began not at the West end as our Authour tels us fol. 177. the Quire or Eastern part of the Church being fully finisht before the Western part or the main body of the Chuâ—ch had been undertaken Fourthly The little Church called S. Gregories was not willingly taken down to the ground the Parishioners opposing it very strongly and declaring as much unwillingnesse as they could or durst in that particular and fiftly the Lord Mayor for the time then being was not named Sir Robert 〈◊〉 as our Authour makes it but Sir Robert Ducy advanc'd by â—is â—ajesty to the dâ—gree of a Baronet as by the Commission doth appear so many mistakes in so few linâ—â— are not easily met with in any Author but our present Histâ—â—rian But we proceed Fol. 179. â—he Turkâ— hâ—ve Auxiliâ—ry friendâ—hip of the 〈◊〉 Tartar Chrim from whose Ancestors Tamberlain proceeded â— A Proposition strangely mixt of truth and falshood it being most true that the Turks have Auxiliary Forces from the Tartar Chrim and no less false that Tamberlain dâ—â—cended from him All who have written of that great Prince make him the son of Og or Zain-Cham the Cham of Zagathey a Province some thousands of miles distant from the dwellings of the Tartar-Chrim which Og or Zâ—in-Châ—m was the Grand-childe of another Zâ—in-Cham the third great Cham of the Tartars and he the Grand-childe of Cingis the first great Cham who laid the foundation of that mighty and for a time most terrible Empire Whereas the Chrim-Tartar or the Tartar-Chrim as our Authâ—r calls him derives 〈◊〉 from Lochtan-Cham descended from one Bathu or Roydo a great Commander of the Tartars who during the Reign of Hoccata the second great Cham subdued these Countries But this mistake I shall more easily pardon in our Author then another of like nature touching Vladislaus King of Poland of whom he tells us that being the fâ—urth of that name he succeeded his Brother Sigismund in that Kingdom Vladislaus the fâ—â—rth saith he was after the death of his Brother Sigismund by the consent of the States preferred to the â—hroâ—e fol. 182. In which few words there are two things to be corrected For first Vlâ—dislâ—us who succeeded Sigâ—smund was not his Brother but his Son And secondly he succeeded not by the name of Vladislaus the fourth but of Vladâ—slâ—us the sevenâ—h Adde herein his making of Smolensko a Town of Pâ—land ibâ—d which most of our Geograpâ—ers have placed in Râ—ssia A Town whâ—ch sometime by the chance of War or otherwise hâ—th been in possession of the Pole though properly belonging to the great Duke of Muscovy which can no more entitle it to the name of a Polish Town then Calice may be now said to be an English Colony because once a Colony of the English Nor does our Author speâ—k more properly I will not say more understandingly of the Affairs of Ireland then of those of Poland For first He tells us fol. 185. That the Conquest of it was never perfected till its subjection to King Charls whereas there was no other subjection tendred by that People to King Charls then by those of his other two Kingdoms of England and Scotland Secondly Forgetting what he had said before he tells us fol. 186. That Mountâ—oy made an end of that War in the Reign of King James and yet he says not true in that neither â—or the War was ended by Mountjoy at the Battle of Kingsale by which that great Rebel the Earl