Aux in Guienne called antiently Aquae Augustae from whence those parts of France had the name of Aquitaine and not of Aix which the antient writers called Aquae Sextiae in the Countrey of Provence Now Guienne was at that time in the power of the Kings of England which was the reason why this Bernard was sent with the rest of the Commissioners to the Councell of Basil and being there amongst the rest maintained the rights and preheminences of the English Kings In agitating of which controversie as it stands in our Author I finde mention of one Iohannes de Voragine a worthless Author fol. 181. Mistook both in the name of the man and his quality also For first the Author of the Book called Legenda aurea related to in the former passage was not Iohannes but Iacobus de Voragiâ—e In which Book though there are many idle and unwarrantable fictions yet secondly was the man of more esteem then to passe under the Character of a Worthless Author as being learned for the times in which he lived Archbishop of Genâ—a a chief City of Italy moribus dignitate magno precio as Philippus Bergomensis telleth us of him Anno 1290. at what time he liv'd most eminent for his translation of the Bible into the Italian tongue as we read in Vossius a work of great both difficulty and danger as the times then were sufficient were there nothing else to free him from the ignominious name of a worthlesse Author A greater mistake then this as to the person of the Man is that which followes viz. Fol. 185. â—umphâ—y Duke of Gâ—oueâ— son to King Henry the fifth This though I cannot look on as a fault of the Presle yet I can easily consider it as a slip of the pen it being impossible that our Author should be so far mistaken in Duke Humphry of Gloster who was not son but bâ—otheâ— to King Henry the fifth But I cannot think so charitably of some other errors of this kinde which I finde in his History of Cambridge fol. 67. Where amongst the English Dukes which carryed the title of Earl of Cambridge he reckoneth Edmund of Langly fifth son to Edward the third Edward his son Richard Duke of York his brother father to King Edward the fourth But first this Richard whom he speaks of though he were Earl of Cambridge by the consent of Edward his elder brother yet was he never Duke of York Richard being executed at South-Hampton for treason against King Harry the fifth before that Kings going into France and Edward his elder brother slain not long after in the Battail of Agincourt And secondly this Richard was not the Father but Grandfather of King Edward the fourth For being marryed unto Anne sister and heir unto Edmund Mortimer Eaâ—l of March he had by her a son called Richard improvidently â—estored in bloud and advanced unto the Title of Duke of York by King Henry the sixth Anno 1426. Who by the Lâ—dy Cecely his wife one of the many Daughters of Ralph Eâ—rl of Westmerland was father of King Edward the fourth George Duke of Clarence and King Richard the third Thirdly as Richard Earl of Cambridge was not Duke of York so Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge though by our Author made the last Earl thereof Hist. of Cam. 162. before the restoring of that title on the House of the Hamiltons If our Author be no better at a pedegree in private Families then he is in those of Kings and Princes I shall not give him mâ—â—h for his Art of Memory for his History less and for his Heraldry just nothing But I see our Author is as good at the succession of Bishops as in that of Princes For saith he speaking of Cardinal Beaufort Fol. 185. He built the fair Hospital of St. Cross neer Winchester and although Chancellor of the University of Oxford was no grand Benefactor thereunto as were his Predecessoâ—s Wickam and Wainfleet Wickam and Wainfleet are here made the Predecessors of Cardinal Beaufort in the See of Winchester whereas in very deed though he succeeded Wickam in that Bishopâ—ick he preceded Wainfleet For in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Winchester they are marshalled thus viz. 1365. 50. William of Wickham 1405. 51. Henry Beaufort 1447. 52. William de Wainfleet which last continued Bishop till the year 1486. the See being kept by these three Bishops above 120. years and thereby giving them gâ—eat Advantages of doing those excellent works and founding those famous Colledges which our Author rightly hath ascribed to the first and last But whereas our Author telleth us also of this Cardinal Beaufort that he built the Hospital of St. Crosse he is as much out in that as he was in the other that Hospital being first built by Henry of Blais Brotheâ— of King Stephen and Bishop of Winchester Anno 1129. augmented only and perhaps more liberally endowed by this Potent Câ—â—dinal From these Foundations made and enlarged by these three great Bishops of Winchester successively pâ—oâ—eed we to two others raised by King Henry the sixth of which our Author telleth us Fol. 183. This good precedent of the Archbishops bounty that is to say the foundation of All-Souls Colledge by Archbishop Châ—cheley may be presumed a Spur to the speed of the Kings liberality who soon after founded Eaton Colledge c. to be a Nursery to Kings Colledge in Cambridge fol. 184. Of â—aton Colledge and the condition of the same our Author hath spoken here at large but we must look foâ— the foundation of Kings Colledge in the History of Cambridge fol 77. where I finde some thing which requireth an Animadversion Our Author there chargeth Dr. Heylyn for avowing something which he cannot justifie that is to say for saying That when William of Wainfleet Bishop of Winchester afterwards founder of Magdalen Colledge perswaded King Henry the Sixth to erect some Monument for Learning in Oxford the King returned Imo potius Cantabrigiae ut duas si fieri possit in Anglia Academias habeam Yea rather said he at Cambridge that if it be possible I may have two Universities in England As if Cambridge were not reputed one before the founding of Kings Colledge therein But here the premises only are the Doctors the inference or conclusion is our Authors own The Doctor infers not thereupon that Cambridge was not reputed an Vniversity till the founding of Kings Colledge by King Henry the sixth and indeed he could not for he acknowledged before out of Robert de Reningtâ—n that it was made an Vniversity in the time of King Edward the second All that the Doctor says is this that as the Vniversity of Cambridge was of a later foundation then Oxford was so it was long before it grew into esteem that is to say to such a measure of esteem at home or abroad before the building of Kings Colledge and the rest that followed but that the King might use those words in his
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
Parliament that they should warn the Clergy of their several and respective Dioceses some in their persons and others by their Procurators to attend there also But this hath been so long unpractic'd that we finde no track of foot-steps of it since the Parliaments of the time of King Richard the second It 's true indeed that in the 8. year of King Henry the sixth there passed a Statute by which it was enacted That all the Clergy which should be called thenceforth to the Convocation by the Kings Writ together with their servants and Families should for ever after fully use and enjoy such liberty or immunity in coming tarrying and returning as the great men Commonalty of the Realm of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliament have used or ought to have or enjoy Which though it make the Convocation equal to the Parliament as to the freedom of their Persons yet can it not from hence be reckoned and much less commonly reputed for a part thereof Fol. 14. Indeed the Queen bare Poole an unfeigned affection and no wonder to him that considereth 1. their Age he being about ten years older the proportion allowed by the Philosopher betwixt Husband and Wife c. In Queen Maries afâ—ection unto Poole and the reasons of it I am very well satisfied better then in the explication which he adds unto it For if by the Philosopher he means Aristotle as I think he doth he is very much out in making no more then ten years to be the proportion allowed by him betwixt the Husband and the Wife For Aristotle in the seventh Book of his Politicks having discoursed of the fittest time and age for marriage both in men and women concludes at last that it is expedient that maidens be married about the age of eighteen years and Men at seven and thirty or thereabouts His reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Because they shall then be joyned in wedlock while their bodies be in full strength and shallâ— cease from procreation in fit time Whether so great a dispâ—oportion were allowed of then or that it was a matter of Speculation only and not reducible to practice I dispute not now Only I note that it is twenty years not ten which the Philosopher requires in the different ages of the Man and Wife Fol. 19. Lincoln Diocess the largest of the whole Kingdom containing Leicester c. with parts of Haâ—tford and Warwickshires That the greatâ— Diocess of Lincoln containeth the whole Counties of Bedford Buckingham Huntington Leicester and Lincoln with part of Hartfordshire is confessed by all but that it containeth also some part of Warwickshire I doe very much doubt Certain I am that Archbishop Parker a man very well skilled in the jurisdiction of his Suffragan Bishops assigns no part of Warwickshire to the See of Lincoln dividing that County between the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield and the Bishop of Worcester I see by this our Author is resolved to play at all games though he get by none Fol. 27. The Letany Surplice and other Ceremonies in Service and Sacraments they omitted both as superfluoâ—s and superstitioâ—s Our Author speaks this of the Schismatical Congregation at Franckford who tâ—rn'd the publick Church Liturgy quite out of their Church fashioning to themselves a new form of Worship which had no warrant and foundation by the laws of this Realm And first saith he the Letany Surplice and other Ceremonies they omitted both as superfluous and superstitious Superfluous and superstitious in whose opinion In that of the Schismaticks at Franckford our Authors or in both alike Most probably in our Authors as well as theirs for otherwise he would have added some note of qualification such as they thought they judg'd or they suppos'd them according as he hath restrain'd them to their own â—ense in the clause next following viz. in place of the English Confession they used another adjudged by them of more effect Adjudged by them in this not the former sentence makes me inclinable to believe that the Letany Surplice and other Ceremonies are both superfluous and superstitious in our Authors judgement not in theirs alone Secondly our Author as we have noted formerly on the second Book of this History reckons the Cross in Baptism used and required to be used by the Church of England among the superstitious Ceremonies and such like Trinckets with which that Sacrament is loaded And if he durst declare himself so plain in this second Book written as he affirms in the Reign of the late King when he might fear to be call'd to an account for that expression there is little question to be made but since Monarchy was turn'd into a State he would give his pen more liberty then he did before in counting the Letany Surplice and other Ceremonies is superfluous and superstitious as the Cross in Baptism Thirdly having laid down an abstract of the form of worship contriv'd by the Schismaticks at Franckford he honoreth them with no lower Title then that of Saints and counts this liberty of deviating from the Rules of the Church for a part of their happiness For so it followeth fol. 28. This saith he is the Communion of Saints who never account themselves peaceably possest of any happiness untill if it be in their power they have also made their fellow-sufferers partakers thereof If those be Saints who separate themselves schismatically from their Mother Church and if it be a happiness to them to be permitted so to do our Author hath all the reason in the world to desire to be admitted into their Communion and be made partaker of that happiness which such Saints enjoy And if in order thereunto he counts the Letany Surplice and other Ceremonies of the Church to be both superstitious and superfluous too who can blame him for it Fol. 39. Trinity Colledge built by Sir Thomas Pope â—I shall not derogate so much from Sir Thomas Pope as our Author doth from Trinity Colledge naming no Bishop of this House as he doth of others He tells us that he liv'd in this University about 17 weeks and all that time Dâ— Skinner the Bishop of Oxford liv'd there too Dr. Wright the Bishop of Liâ—chfield pâ—obably was then living alâ—o for he deceased not till after the beginning of the year 1643. but living at that time in his own House of Ecclesal Castle Both of them Members of this Colledge and therefore worthily deserving to have found some place in our Authors History And because our Author can finde no learned Writers of this Colledge neither I will supply him with two others in that kinde also The first whereof shall be Iohn Sâ—lden of the Inner Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that renown'd Humanitian and Philologer sometimes a Commoner of this House and here initiated in those Studies in which he afâ—erwards attain'd to so high an eminence The second William Chillingworth an able and acute Divine and once a
false But I must needs say that there was small ingenâ—ity in acknowledging a mistake in that wherein they 〈◊〉 not been mistaken or by endeavouring to avoid a reputed Rock to run themselves on a certain Rock even the Rock of scandal For that the English Bishops had their vote in Parliament as a third 〈◊〉 and not in the capacity of temporal Barons will evidently appear by these reasons following For first the Clegy in all other Christian Kingdoms of theâ—e Noâ—thwest pâ—rts make the third Estate that is to say in the German Empire as appears by Thuanus the Historian lib. 2. In France as is affirmed by Paulus Aemilius lib. 9. in Spain as testifieth Bodinus in his De Bepub lib. 3. Foâ— which consult also the General History of Spain as in point of practice lib. 9 10 11 14. In Hâ—ngâ—ry as witnesseth Bonfinius Dec. 2. l. 1. In 〈…〉 by Thuanus also lib. 56. In Denmarkâ— as 〈◊〉 telleth us in Historia 〈…〉 observing antiently the same form and order of Government as was us'd by the Danes The like we finde in Camden for the Realm of Scotland in which antiently the Lords Spiritual viz. Bishops Abbots Priors made the third Estate And certainly it were very strange if the Bishops and other Prelates in the Realm of England being a great and powerful body should move in a lower Sphere in England then they doe elsewhere But secondly not to stand only upon probable inferences we finde first in the History of Titus Livius touching the Reign and Acts of King Henry the fifth that when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declared his Son King Henry the sixth being an Infant of eight moneths old to be their Soveraign Lord as his Heir and Successor And if the Lords Spiritual did not then make the third Estate I would know who did Secondly the Petition tendred to Richard Duke of Glocester to accept the Crown occurring in the Parliament Rolls runs in the name of the three Estates of the Realm that is to say The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons thereof Thirdly in the first Parliament of the said Richard lately Crowned King it is said expresly that at the request and by the consent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land assembled in this present Parliament and by Authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared That our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very and undoubted King of this Realm of England c. Fourthly it is acknowledged so in the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled being said expresly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of this Realm of England did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true lawful and undoubted Soveraign Liege Lady and Queen Adde unto these the Testimony of Sir Edward Cooke though a private person who in his Book of the Jurisdiction of Courts published by order of the long Parliament chap. 1. doth expresly say That the Parliament consists of the Head and Body that the Head is the King that the Body are the three Eâ—tates viz. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons In which words we have not only the opinion and tesâ—imony of that learned Lawyer but the Authority oâ— the long Parliament also though against it self Thoâ—e aged Bishops had been but little studied in their own concernments and betray'd their Rights if any of them did acknowledge any such mistake in châ—llenging to themselves the name and priviledges of the third 〈◊〉 Fol. 196. The Convocation now not sittingâ— and matters of Religion being brought under the cognizance of the Parliament their Wisdoms adjudged it not only convenient but necessary that some prime Clergy men might be consulted with It seems then that the setting up oâ— the new Assembly consisting of certain Lords and Gentlemen and two or more Divineâ— out of every County must be ascrib'd to the not sitting of the Convocation Whereas if that had been the reaâ—on the Convocation should have been first waâ—ned to reassemble with liberty and safe conducts given them to attend that service and freedom to debate such matters as conduced to the Peace of the Church If on those terms they had not met the substituting of the new Assembly might have had some ground though being call'd and nominated as they were by the Hoâ—se of Commons nothing they did could binde the Clergy further then as they were compellable by the power of the sword But the truth is the Convocation was not held fit to be trusted in the present Designs there being no hope that they would 〈…〉 change of the Goverâ—â—ent or to the abrogating of the Liturgy of the Church of England in all which the Divines of their own nomination were presum'd to serve them And so accordingly they did advancing their Presbyteries in the place of Episcopacy their Directory in the room of the Common Prayer Book their Confession to the quality of the Book of Articles all of them so short liv'd of so little continuance that none of them past over their Probationers year Finally having seâ—v'd the turn amus'd the world with doing nothing they made their Exit with far fewer Plaudites then they expected at their entrance In the Recital of whose names our Author craves pardon for omitting the greatest part of them as unknown to him whereas he might have found them all in the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons by which they were called and impowered to be an Assembly Of which pardon he afterwards presumes in case he hath not marshalled them in their Seniority because saith he Fol. 198. It â—avours something of a Prelatical Spirit to be offended about Precedency I â—ee our Author is no Changeling Primus ad extremum similis sibi the very same at last as he was at the first Certainly if it â—avour of a Prelatical Spirit to contend about Precedencies that Spirit by some Pythagorean Metempsychosis hath passed into the bodies of the Presbyterians whose pride had swell'd them in conceit above Kings and Princes Nothing more positive then that of Travers one of our Authors shining Lights for so he cals him Lib. 9. fol. 218. in his Book of Discipline Huic Discipline omnes Principes submittere Fasces suos necesse est as his words there are Nothing more proud and arrogant then that of the Presbyterians in Queen Elizabeths time who used frequently to say That King and Queens must lay down their Scepters and lick up the very dust of the Churrches feet that is their own And this I trow doth not savour so much of a Prelatical as a Papal Spirit Diogenes the Cynick affecting a vain-glorious poverty came into Plato's Chamber and trampled the Bed and other furniture thereof under his feet using these words Calco Platonis fastum
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
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
74. But leaving him to stand or fall to his own Master I would fain know what text of Scripture ancient Writer or approved Councel can be brought to justifie Bounds Doctrines which he affirms for ancient truths and consonant to holy Scripture But more particularly where he can shew me any ground for the third Position viz. That there is as great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath it being one of the moral Commandements whereof all are of equall authority This if it be a truth is no ancient truth and whensoever it be received and allowed for truth will in conclusion lay as heavy and insupportable Burthens upon the consciences of Gods people as ever were imposed upon the Jewes by the Scribes and Pharisees And secondly I would fain know the meaning of the following words in which it is said that others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion it was pity to oppose them I would fain know I say considering that the foundation of the Christian faith is laid on the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Christ himself being the chief corner stone how any thing which is not built upon this foundation but grounded on a wrong bottom as this seemed to be could tend to the manifest advance of the true Religion That it tended to the manifest advance of some Religion I shall easily grant and if our Author mean no otherwise we shall soon agree But sure I am no part of the true Religion was ever grounded upon â—alshood and therefore is 〈◊〉 Doctrine were grounded on so ill â— bottom aâ— they say it was it might â—onâ—â—â— to the advancement of a Faction and mens private 〈◊〉 but to the true Religion it was likely to contribute nothing but disgrace and scandal Lâ—stly I am to minde our Author that he makes Mr. Greenhams Treatise of the Sabbath to be published in pursuance of Bounds opinions which could not be till in or after the year 1595. Whereas he had laid him in his grave above two years before telling us that he died of the Plugue in London Anno 1592. fol. 219. By which it seems that Greenham either writ this Treatise after his decease oâ— else our Author hath done ill in giving the fâ—â—st honour of these new Doctrins unto Dr. Bound In the next place we shall see our Author engage himself in defence of the Calviâ—an Doctrins about Predestâ—ation Grace c. of which he telleth us that Fol. 229. Having much troubled both the Schools and Puâ—pit Archbishop Whitgift out of his Christian care to propogate the truth and suppress the opposite errors 〈◊〉 used a solemn meeting of many grave and learned 〈◊〉 at Lanibâ—th The occasion this The controversâ—â— about Predestination Grace c. had been long 〈◊〉 in the Schools between the Dominicant on the one side and the Francisâ—ans on the other 〈◊〉 the Dominicans grounding their opinion on the Authority of St. Augustin Prosper and some others of the following 〈◊〉 the Franciscans on the general current of the 〈◊〉 Fathers who lived ante motâ— certamina Pelagiana before the rising of the Pelagian Hereâ—ies 〈◊〉 disputes being after taken up in the 〈◊〉 Churches 〈◊〉 moderate Lutherans as they 〈◊〉 them followed the Doctrine of Melanchâ—hon conformable to the 〈…〉 those particulars The others whom they 〈…〉 or rigid Lutherans of whom 〈◊〉 Illyricus was the chief go in the same way with the Dominicans The authority of which last opinion after it had been entertained and publishe in the works of Calvin for his sake found admiâ—â—ance in the Schools and Pulpits of most of the Reformed Churches And having got footing here in England by the preaching of such Divines as had fled to Geneva in Queen Maries time it was defended in the Schools of Cambridge without opposition till Peter Barâ— a French man came and setled there Who being the Lady Margarets Pâ—ofessor in that University and liking better of the Melanchthonian way then that of Calvin defended it openly in the Schools many of parts and qâ—ality being gained unto his opinion Which gave so much displeasure to Dr. Whitaker Dr. Tyndall Mr. Perkins and some other leading men of the contrary judgement that they thought best to use the Argument ab Authoritatâ— to convince their Adversaries and complained thereof to the Archbishop and in the end prevailed with him to call that meeting at Lambeth which our Author speaks of in which some Articles commonly called the Nine Articles of Lambeth were agreed upon and sent down to Cambridge in favour of Dr. Whitaker and his Associates But our Author not content to relate the story of the Quarrel must take upon him also to be a judge in the Controversie He had before commended the Dominicans for their Orthodoxie in these points of Doctrine as they were then in agitation betwixt them and the Iesuits He now proceeds to do the like between the two parties men of great piety and learning appearing in it on both sides disputing the same points in the Church of England honouring the opinion of Dr. Whitaker and his Associates with the name of the truth and branding the other with the Title of the opposite error And yet not thinking that he had declared himself sufficiently in the favour of the Calvinian party he telleth us not long after of these Lambeth Articles fol. 232. that though they wanted the Authority of Provincial Acts yet will they readily be received of all Orthodox Christians for as far as their own purity bears conformity to Gods word Which last words though somewhat perplextly laid down must either intimate their conformity to the word of God or else signifie nothing But whatsoever opinion our Author hath of these Nine Articles certain it is that Queen Elizabeth was much displeased at the making of them and commanded them to be supprest which was done accordingly and with such diligence withall that for long time a Copy of them was not to be met with in that University Nor was King Iames better pleased with them then Queen Elizabeth was Insomuch that when Dr. Renalds mov'd in the Conference of Hampton-Court that the Nine Articles of Lambeth might be superadded to the 39. Articles of the Church of England King Iames upon an information of the true staâ—e of the businesse did absolutely refuse to give way to it But of this more at large elsewhere I only add a Memorandâ—m of our Authors mistake in making Dr. Richard Bancroft Bishop of London to be one of the Bishops which were present at the meeting at Lambeth whereas indeed 〈◊〉 was Richard Fletcher Bishop elect of London and by that name entituled in such Authors as relate this story Dr. Bancroft not being made Bishop of London or of any place else till the year 1597. which was two years after this Assembly Alike mistake relating to this business