were subject to the Pope Neither indeed was there any need at that time of this Councel that any such Definitions should be made no new Heresie or any new doctrine which by them might be called Heresie being then on foot for Luther did not rise in Germany till this Counsel was ended which might create any disturbance to the peace of that Church If any such priviledges were arrogated by Pope Leo the 10. that none should be accounted members of Christ and his Church but such as were subject to the Pope which you cannot find definitively in the Acts of that Councel you must rather have looked for it in the Bulls of that Pope after Luther had begun to dispute his power and question his usurped authority over all the Church In one of which Bulls you may finde somewhat to your purpose where you shall find him saying that the Church of Rome is Mother and Mistress of all Christians and that her doctrines ought to be received of whosoever would be in the Communion of the Church If this be that you mean much good do it you with though this be rather to be taken for a Declaration then a Definition 45. But if your meaning is as perhaps it may be that the Papists Faith may be called Faction because they appropriate to themselves the name of the Church and exclude all other Christians from being members of Christ and his Church which are not subject to the Pope as indeed they do take heed you lose not more in the Hundreds then you got by the County for then it may be proved by the very same Argument if there were no other that the Puritan Faith is Faction and so to be accounted by all that know it because they do appropriate unto themselves the name of the Church as the old Affrican Scismaticks confined it intra partem Donati For proof whereof if you please to consult Bâ—shop Bancrofts book of Dangerous Positions anâ— Proceedings c. part 3. chap. 15. you will find them writing in this manner viz I know the state of this Church make known to us the state of the Church with you Our Churches are in danger of such as having been of us do renounce all fellowship with us It is long since I have heard from you saith one Blake of the state of the Church of London Another By M. West and M. Brown you shall understand the state of the Churches wherein we are A third If my offence may not be passed by without a further confessiâ—n even before God and his Churâ—h in London will I lye down and lick the dust off your feet where you may see what it is which the heavenly-mindednesse the self-denial meeknesse and Humility which the brethren aim at and confesse it c. I have received saith the fourth a Letter from you in the name of the rest of the Brethren whereby I understand your joining together in choosing my self unto the service of the Church under the Earl of Leicester I am ready to run if the Church command me according to the holy Decrees and Orders of the Discipline Lay all which hath been said together and tell me he that can my wits not being quick enough for so great a nicety whether the Papists Faith or that of the Puritans most properly and meritoriously may be counted Faction 46. The third thing in which you seem unsatisfied in what I say concerning Popery is whether it be true or not that the Popes Decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not being abrogated which being made for the direction and reiâ—lement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendome and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative royal or the municipal laws and statutes of this Realm of England These words I must confesse for mine owning Hist Sab. pa. 2. ch 7. p. 202. and not 210. as your Letter cites it your parenthesis being only excepâ—ed and you name it this Kingdome in stead of the Realm of England though both expressions be to one and the same effect In which you might have satisfied your self by M. Dow who as you say gives some reason for it out of a Statute of Hen. 8. But seeing you remain still unsatisfied in that particular I shall adde something more for your satisfaction In order whereunto you may please to know that in the Stat. 29. Hen. 8. ch 19. commonly called the Statute of the submission of the Clergy it is said expresly First that the Clergie in their convocation promised the King in verbo Saâ—erdoris not to enact or execute any new Canons but by his Majesties royal assent and by his authority first obtained in that behalf and secondly that all such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial as were made before the said submission which were not contrary or repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal were to be used and executed as in former times By which last clause the Decretal of preceding Popes having been admitted into this Land and by several Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England and the main body of the Canon-law having for a long time been accounted for a standing rule by which all proceedings in the Courts Ecclesiastical were to be regulated and directed remain still in force and practice as they had done formerly But then you are to know withall that they were no longer to remain in force and practice then till the said preceding Canons and Constitutions as appears by the said Act of Parliament should be viewed and accommodated to the use of this Church by 32. Commissioners selected out of the whole body of the Lords and Commons and to be nominated by the King But nothing being done therein during the rest of the Kings reign the like authority was granted to King Edw. 6. 3. 4. Edw 6. c. 11. And such a progresse was made in it that a Sub-committee was appointed to review all their said former Canons and Constitutions and to digest such of them into form and order as they thought most fit and necessary for the use of this Church Which Sub committee consisted of eight persons only that is to say Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Lord Bishop of Eli Dr. Richard Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr his Majesties professor for Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Doctors of the Law John Lucas and Richard Gooderick Esquires who having prepared and digested the whole work into form and order were to submit the same to the rest of the 32. and finally to be presented to the King for his Royal Assent and confirmation And though the said Sub-committee had performed their parts as appears by the Book entituled REFORMATIO LEGUM ECCLESIASTICARUM ex authoritate primum Regis HENRICI VIII inchâ—aâ—a Deinde
hunts the Hare is the Hare which is hunted so that although the Religion of the Church of Rome had defined the Deposition of Kings by the Pope for denying Transubstantiation c. as it never did yet could not the Popish Religion upon that account be called Rebellion Rebellion by the Law of England 25. Edw. 3. c. 2. is defined to be an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in hâ— Realm or an adhering to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere And by the Civil Law all those qui arripiant arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt who tak up arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject are declared to be Rebels for which see Spigelus in his Lexicon of the terms of Law But that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is not an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in his Realm or an adhering c.. Nor the the taking up of Arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject Therefore that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes c. neither is really or nominally to be called Rebellion if either the laws of England or the Civil laws do rightly understand what Rebellion is as I think they do And whereas you hope to mend the matter by calling it a Rebellion doctrinal you make it worse on your side then it was before For besides that there is no such thing as Rebell on doctrinal though some Doctrines there may be too frequently preached for inciting the people to Rebellion you find not the word Doctrinal in the proposition which you have undertook to prove and wh en presents it self simply to you in these words that the Religion of the Papists is Rebellion 37. Such being the faultinesse of your Mejor we will next consider whether the Assumption or your Minor be any thing more evident then your Major was Your Minor is that the Popish Religion is such that is to say such a Religion that defineth the Deposition of Kings by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. This is the matter to be proved and you prove it thus That which is defined by a Pope and General Councel is the Popish Religion But the aforesaid Doctrine is defined by a Pope and an approved General Councel viz at the Laterane under Innocent the 3. Erge c. This makes it evident indeed that you never saw the Cannons nor Decrees of the Laterane Councel and possibly your learning may not lie so high but that you took this passage upon trust from some ignorant hand which had seen them as little as your self Your Major I shall grant for true but nothing can be falser or mere unable to be proved then your Minor is Consult the Acts of that Councel search into all Editions of them and into the Commentaries of such Cannonists as have writ upon them and you shall neither find in the one or the other that the Deposition of Kings and Princes by the Pope was defined to be lawful for that I take to be your meaning either for denying Transubstantiation or for any other cause whatsoever Most true it is that the word Transubstantiation then newly hammered on the Anvil by some of the Schoolmen to expresse that carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they then maintained was first received in this Councel and received then ad â—vitandaâ— haereâ—icorum tergiversationes as my Author hath it for avoiding the wranglingâ— and fallacious shifts which Hereticks otherwise might use But that the word was made such an Idol in this Councel that all Christian Kings and Princes which would noâ— fall down and worship it were to be deposed hath neither colour nor foundation in the Acts of that Councel And therefore I wil first lay down the Canon which I think you aim at for otherwise there is none in that Councel which you can pretend to and then acquaint as well with the occasion and the meaning of it and your own mistakings 38. And first the words of the Canon as these now stand in the Tomes of the Councels are these that follow Si quis Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate per Metropolitanum com provinciales Episcopos excommunicationis â—inculo innodetur Etsi satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Poniifici ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponant catholicis occupandam qui eam exterminatis haereticis â—ine ulla contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure domini principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum oppâ—nat eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales such is the Canon or Decree And this was the occasion of it The Albigenses and Waldenses differing in many points from the received opinions of the Church of Rome and constantly denying the Popes Supremacy amongst other things some years before the calling of this Councel was grown to a very great power and insolencie countenanced therein by the two last Raimonds Earls of Tholouse and some of the Petit Lords of Gascoyn all which though absolute enough in their several Territories in respect of their vassals but were fudataries either to the Empire or the Kings of France as the Lords in chief for the reduction of these Albingenses to the Church of Rome Dominick a Spaniard the Founder afterwards of the Order of Dominical Fryars used his best endeavours in the way of Argument and perswasion but failing of his design therein he instigated Pope Innocent the 3. to call this Councel Anno 1215. and the Prelates there assembled to passe this Canon for the suppressing both of them and their Patrons also for having summed up the principle heads of that Religion which was then publickly maintained in the Church of Rome they framed an Oath to be taken by all secular Magistrates ut haereticos universos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus ex terminare studeant to use their best endeavours for the exterminating of all Hereticks that is to say all such as did oppose those Doctrines before laid down out of their dominions and then it followeth as before si quis vero dominus temporalis c that if any Temporal Lord being thereunto required by the Church should neglect to purge his Territories of that Infection he should be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province in which he lived and if he gave no satisfaction within the year notice thereof was to be given to the Pope that thereupon he might absolve his vassals from their Allegiance and give their Countries to the next Catholick Invador
betwixt him and King Hen. the 6. nor in any one of his many Children though Edmund his third Sonne was made Earl of Rutland which Title had been formerly conferred on Edward Duke of York in his Fathers life time And though I give no credit to Ralph Brook whom I have found to be as full of Errors as our Author himself yet the Authority of Augustine Vincent shall prevail for the present and so let it go But then our Author might have found in the Animadversions that admitting Richard Duke of Yorke to be Earl of Cambridge he must have been the seventh not the eighth Earl of it as he saith he was and then that Errors lies before our Authors Doors as before it did And then again whereas our Authors tells us p. 2. fol. 49. that it is questionable whether his Father that is to say Richard of Conningburg Earl of Cambridge were Duke of York I must needs look upon it as a thing unquestionable and so must all men else which are skilled in Heraldry that Richard being executed at Southampton by King Hâ—n the 5. before Edward Duke of York his elder Brother had been slain at the Battel of Agen-Court 25. But whereas our Author thinks it not onely difficult but impossible to defend a Title of the House of Lancaster to the Crown of England except I can challenge â—the priviledge of the Patriarch Jacob by crossing my hands to prefer the younger child in the succession before the Elder p. 2. fol. 43. admitting Richard the Second to resign the Crown or dying without children by course of nature For I behold Hen. of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster as Cousin German to that King and consequently his nearest Kinsman at that time wherein Edmund Mortimer Earl of March in whom remained the Rights of the House of Clarence was but Grandchild to the Lady Philip Daughter and sole Heir of Lionel Duke of Clarence and consequently more remote by two degrees from King Richard the Second then the other was By which proximity of blood as Edward the Third laid claim to the Crown of France and Philip the Second carried the Crown of Portugal and Robert Bruce the Crown of Scotland against the Balions so I am confident of some ability to prove that Henry of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster had a better Title to this Crown then the house of Mortimer For thoughby the common Law of England he may find it otherwise yet there are many things in the common Law which cannot extend to the succession of the Kings of England as in the case of Aliens which was that of King James or in the case of Parseners as in that of the two Daughters of King Hen. the 8. or in that of the half blood in the case of the sisters of King Edw. the 6. and finally in that of the tenure by curtesie in the case of King Philip the 2d of Spain admitting that Queen Mary had been Mother of a living Child And now I am fallen on these matters of Heraldy I will make bold to take in a Remembrance of the House of the Mountagues descended in the Principal branches of it from a Daughter of King Edw. the Third concerning which our Author tells us that I have made up such a heap of Errors as is not to be paralelled in any Author which pretends to the emendation of another p. 2. fol. 37. How so because forsooth I have made Sir Edward Mountague the Grand-child of the Lord chief Justice and the first Lord Mountague of Broughton not to have been the elder Brother of Henry Earl of Manchester and James Bishop of Winton but their Brothers Son But first this Error was corrected in a Postscript to the Examen Historicum before he could accuse me of it and consequently he doth but Actum agere and fit a Plaister for that sore which had before been cured by a better Chyrurgion Secondly This can be at the most but a single Error in case it had not been retracted and therefore no such heap of Errors as is not to he paralelled in any other And Thirdly It appears by another passage in this present Appeal p. 2. fol. 96. that he had seen the Postscript to the said Examen which rendereth him the more inexcusable by raising such an out-cry on no occasion In which passage he taxeth me with sallery in my third endeavour touching the late Barons of that House in making the said Sir Edward Mountague to be Lord Mountague of Broughton in Northamptonshire which acknowledged for one of his Mannors but not his Barronie For I knew well that Broughton and not Broughton gave the nomination to this branch of that Family having never heard before of any Estate they had in Broughton And therefore I must needs charge this Error which he so triumpheth at as one of the Errata's which were made at the Press though not observed when the sheets were read over to me and so not Printed with the rest Less candidly deals he with me in another place about the mistaking of a number that is to say 1555. for 1585. p. 1. fol. 41. The Errors being meerly pretal as is own phrase is And this he could not chuse but see though he can winck sometimes when it makes best for his meeting of that precedent once again on a more particular occasion then was given at the present where the time thereof is truly stated and where he spends some few lines in relation to it so that the motion was direct not Retrograde but that he had a mind to pull me a little back seeing how much I had got the start of him in the present race And as for the Error in the Errata I know not how it came but a friend of mine in reading over the first sheets as they came from the Press had put a Quere in the Margin whether Melkinus or Felkinus and that afterwards by the ignorance or incogitancy of my Amanuensis it might be put in amongst the rest of the Errata which is all that I am able to say as to that particular 26. Our Author had affirmed that St. Davids had been a Christian some hundred years whilst Canterbury was yet Pagan The contrary whereof being proved by the Animedvertor he flyes to Caerleon upon Vsk p. 2. fol. 29. by which instead of mending the matter he hath made it worse Mistaking wilfully the point in difference between us For if the Reader mark it well the question is not whether St. Davids or Canterbury were the Ancienter Archi-Espiscopal See or how many hundred years the one was elder then the other but for how long time Canterbury had continued Pagan when the other was Christian which he acknowledgeth to be no more then 140 years as was before observed by the Animadvertor And though Caerleon upon Vske had been an Archi-Episcopal See some hundreds of years before that honour was conferred on the City of Canterbury yet Canterbury might be be Christian as soon as
who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae â— 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are nâ—â— of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which â—e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the manâ—old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that
per Regem EDW. VI. provecta c. Reprinted not long since at London 1641. But that King also dying before the said Canons so digested and accommodated could be confirmed and ratified by the Royal Assent and authorised under the Great Seal of England the former Canons Constiâ—utions and Ordinances and consequently the Decretals of the Popes and the body of the Canon law according to the limitations and restrictions by the Statute of King Hen. 8. did remain in force and so continue to this day so that your hopes of their not being in force amongst us declares you for as sorry a Lawyer as you confesse your self to be 47. Next when you say how little you know by what authority the Popes Decretals are laws to theâ— Church in genâ—ral or to us I will improve youâ— knowledge in that particular also as far as I can and for so doing I am to put you in mind that the Popes for a long tract of time were possessed of the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical matters over all the Churches in the Western and North-western parts and amongst others in this also and that he did pretend the like authority over all the Churches in the East and South so that their Decretals were made by them intentionally to serve for a rule and reiglement of the Church in general but were admitted only in the Churches of the Western and North-western parts which did acknowledge his Supremacy and made themselves subject to his power But having now shaken off his power in the three Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland in the three Realms of Denmark Norway and Sweden in the united Provinces of the Netherlands and many great Provinces and Estates of the Higher Germany besides some thousands of the Protestant Churches in the Realm of France he hath now lost that power which before he challenged of making laws for the Government of the Church in general though such of them as we here received are still so far in force as I have affirmed that is to say according to the sad restrictions and limitations before laid down And therefore I can well maintain that the Pope and his Councels had a power you never heard me say he hath of imposing his Decretals and the body of the Canon law as a law for the Government of so much of the Church as was then actually under his command having been made intentionally for the reiglement of the Church in general and that being here received are still so far in force that is to say in such form and maner as I have affirmed and yet not grant that he and his Councels have any such power at this present time or that are and all other Christians must be thought to be his Subjects which is the thing you seem glad to understand if ever I should put my self to the trouble of writing to you again as I have done now 48. Having thus laid before you the true state of the Question I am in the next place to answer such Objections as you make against it and your Objections being built chiefly on your own thoughts and such hopes as you had fancied to your self For want of knowledg in these matters will be easily answered You object first That you will yet hope that they are not in force but I have proved to you that they are And you object next That you thought the Acts that impose the Oathes of allegeance and supremacy had disobliged us from all forreigue power and nulled the Pope's authority in England and though you thought well enough in this yet if you think that because those Acts of Parliament above mentioned have disobliged us from all forreign power and nulled the Popes authority in England and therefore that all the Decretals of the former Popes or Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical made in times of Popery are either by those Acts and Oths anulled and abrogated your thoughts will prove to be as deceitful as your hopes are groundless and therefore when you say that if ever you live to see another Parliament which you are like to do very shortly if the news be true you will crave a freedom from that bondage I would fain know from what bâ—ndage you desire this freedom If from subjection to the Pope you are freed from it by the Act primo Eliz. cap. 1. by which all the Popes authority and jurisdiction in the Realm of England as well over the consciences as the pens of men were finally exterminated and abolished If from their Canons and Decrees made and in force within this Realm before the 25. of King Henry 8. they were confirmed by the Parliament of that year according to the limitations before expressed and are so complicated since that time with the Laws of the Land that the alteration will be far more difficult then you may imagine so that you may do well to spare your address to the following Parliament and reserve that strong influence which you believe you have upon it for some greater occasions or at the least for such as are more possible to be compassed then this present project Besides you may be pleased to know that a great part of the Civil or Imperial Laws are in force amongst us and that they are the standing rules by which the Court of Admiralty as also that for the probate of Wills and Testaments are generally regulated and directed and yet you may conclude as strongly that because no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority within this Realm no not the Emperour himself though honoured with the Title of Augustus Cesar and such like glorious attributes belonging to the Roman Empire therefore the Civil and Imperial Laws so long continued in this Kingdom are to be reckoned of no force and effect amongst us but to be utterly abrogated and abolished also which if it should be took for granted as you take the other you must then double your design in moving and soliciting the next Parliament to free you from that yoke of bondage that the Pontificial and Imperial laws may be for ever banished and expelled this Kingdome that so it may be said of us as Haman once objected against the Jews their Laws were contrary to all Nations Divisâ—s orbe Brittannos even in that sense also It is reported of Alphonso surnamed the Wise one of the Kings of Castile in Spain that he used many times to say never the wiser for so saying that if he had stood at Gods elbow when he made the World many things should have been ordered better then they were in the first Creation Take heed left that you be thought no wiser then Alphonso was in pressing at the Parliament dores and urging your desires for abrogating all those ancient Canons and Constitutions by what name soever they are called and by what Authority soever they were first enacted which so many Kings and Queens of
Brownist Ranters Quakers may not as well pretend that our first Reformers were of their Religion as the Calvinists can if Wicklifâ— doctrines be the Rule of our Reformation 27. It is alledged in the next place that the Calvinistical Doctrines in these points may be found in the writings of John Fryth William Tyndall and Dr. Barnes collected into one Volumne and to be seen the easier as he knows who saith because it was printed by John Bay 1563. Who as they suffered death for their Religion in the time of King Hen. 8. so Mr. Fox in his Preface to the said Book calls them the Ring-leaders of the Church of England But first I do not take Mr. Fox to be a fit Judge in matters of the Church of England the Articles of whose confession he refused to subscribe being thereto required by Arch-Bishop Parker and therefore Tyndal Fryth and Barnes not to be hearkened to the more for his commendation Secondly If this Argument be of any force for defence of the Calvinists the Anti-Sabbatarians may more justly make use of it in defence of themselves against the new Sabbath speculatioâ—s of Dr. Bound and his Adherents imbrac'd more passionately of late then any one Article of Religion here by Law established For which consult the History of the Sabbath lib. 2. c. 8. Let Fryth and Tyndal be admitted as sufficient Witnesses when they speak against the Sabbath Doctrines or not admitted when they speak in behalf of Calvin and then the Brethren I am sure will lose more on the one side then they gain on the other Thirdly taking it for granted that they maintain'd the same opinions in these points which afterwards were held forth by Calvin yet they maintained them not as any points of Protestant Doctrine in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome but as received opinions of the Dominican Friars in opposition to the Franciscans the doctrine of the Dominicans by reason of their diligent Preaching being more generally received in England then that of the other Fourthly it is to be considered that the name of Luther at that time was in high estimation as the first man which brake the Ice and made the way more easie for the rest that followed who concurring in judgment with the Dominicans as to these particulars drew after him the greatest part of such learned men as began to fall off from the Pope And so it stood till Melancthon not underservedly called the Phaenix of Germany by moderating the rigours of Luther and carrying on the Reformation with a gentlier hand became a pattern unto those who had the first managing of that great work in the Reign of King Edward Fiftly it is Recorded in the 8th of St. Mark that the blind man whom our Saviour at Bethsaida restored to sight at the first opening of his eyes saw men as trees walking v. 24. that is to say that he saw men walking as trees quasi dicat homines quos ambulantes video non homines sed arbores mihi videntur as we read in Maldonate By which words the blind man declared saith he so quidem videre aliquid cum ante nihil videret imperfecte tamen videre cum inter homines arbores distinguere non posset More briefly Estius on the place Nondum ita clare perfecte video ut discernere possim inter homines arbores I discern somewhat said the poor man but so imperfectly that I am not able to distinguish betwixt trees and men Such an imperfect sight as this the Lord gave many times to those whom he recover'd out of the Aegyptian Darkness who not being able to discern all divine truths at the first opening of the eyes of their understanding were not to be a Rule or precedent to those that followed and lived in clearer times and under a brighter beam of illumination then the others did 28. In the third place he referres himself to our Articles Homilies Liturgies and Catechisms for the proof of this that the Calvinistical opinions were the establish'd doctrines of the Church of England and if his proof holds good in this he hath gained the cause But first he directs us to no particular place in the Catechisms Homilies or Liturgies where any such matter may be found but keeps himself aloof and in generals only and we know who it was that said Dolosus versatur in generâ—libuâ— When he shall tell us more particularly what he would insist on I doubt not but I shall be able to give him a particular answer Secondly skipping over those passages of the Liturgie and Catâ—chisms which maintain the Universality of Redemption by the Death of Christ and taking no notice that the possibility of falling from grace is positively maintained in the 16th Article and the Cooperation of mans will with the Grace of God as clearly published in the tenth he sets up his rest on the 17th Article touching Predestination and Election as if the Article had been made in favour of Calvin's Doctrine But first the Papists have observed two Reformations in the Church of England the one under King Edward the 6th which they called the Lutheran and the other under Queen Elizabeth which they called the Calvinian And thereupon we may conclude that the 17th Article as well as any of the rest being framed approved and ratified under Edward 6. was modelled rather in relation to the Lutheran then Calvinian doctrines the Reformers of the Church of England and the Lutheran Doctors holding more closely to the Rules of Antiquity and the practise of the Primitive Church then the Zuinglians and Calvinists were observed to do Secondly The 17th Article doth visibly presuppose a curse or state of Damnation in which all Mankind was presented to the sight of God which overthrows the Doctrine of the Supra-lapsarians who make the Purpose and Decree of Predestination to precede the Fall and consequently also to precede the curse Thirdly It is to be observed that the Article extends Predestination to all those whom God hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind that is to say to all true Believers For so the phrase Ephes 1. 4. is generally interpreted by the ancient Fathers For thus St. Ambrose amongst others Sicut eligit nos in ipse as he hath chosen us in him Prescius enim Deuâ— omnes scit qui credituri essent in Christum for God saith he by his general Prescience did fore-know every man that would believe in Christ The like saith Chrysostom on that Text. And that our first Reformers did conceive so of it appears by that of Bishop Latimer in his Sermon on the third Sunday after the Epiphany When saith he we hear that some be choseâ— and some be damned let us have good hope that we be amongst the chosen and live after this hope that is uprightly and godly then shall we not be deceived Think that God hath chosen those that believe in Christ and Christ is the book of life If thou believest lievest
much better in his instance of D. Laud inveighed against most bitterly in a Sermon preach'd by the said D. Robert Abbot then Vice-Chancellor on Easter Sunday doth affirm it was For in that Sermon there is nothing charged upon him in the way of Arminianism which was the matter to be proved but that under Colour of preaching against the Puritans he showed himself so inclinable to some Popish opinions that he seemed to stand upon the brink and to be ready on all occasions to step over to them a Censure which hath little truth and less charity in it that Renowned Prelate giving a greater testimony of his aversness from the Romish Religion at the time of his death then any of his persecutors and accusers did in the best Act of their lives 40. More pertinent but not more memorable is the case of Peter Barâ—e Professor for the Lady Margaret in the University of Cambridge a forrainer by birth but one that better understood the Doctrine of the Church of England then many of the Natives his Contemporaries in the University Some differences falling out between him and Whitakers in the Predestinarian points the whole Calvinian Faction rose in Armes against him Tyndal Some Willet Perkins Chatterton and the rest of the tribe siding with Whitaker in the quarrel But not being able altogether to suppress him by Argument they resolve to work their Ends by power apply themselves to Archbishop Whitgift to whom they represent the danger of a growing Faction which was made against them to the disturbance of their peace and the disquiet which might happen by it to the Church in general By their continuall complaints and solicitations they procure that Reverend Prelate to advise with such other Bishops as were next at hand that is to say the two Elected Bishops of London and Banger with whose consent some Articles were drawn up and sent down to Cambridge for the appeasing of the controversies which were then on foot These Articles being nine in number contained the whole Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination with the concomitants thereof received at Cambridge for a time and again suppressed rejected by King James in the conference at Hampton-Court Anno 1603. inserted by D. Vsher afterwards Archbishop of Armah in the Articles of Ireland Anno 1615. and finally suppressed again by the Repeating of those Articles in a full Convocation Anno 1634. Concerning which your Adversary tells us many things which must be examined 41. For first he tells us that his Arminianism did not only lose him from his place but lost him the affections of the University But I must tell him that his Arminianism as he calls it caused not the losing of his place for I am sure he held his place till the expiring of the term allowed by the Lady Margarets Statute whose professor he was Which term expired he left it in a just disdain of seeing himself so over-powered and consequently exposed unto contempt and scorn by the Arts of his Enemies Secondly If he lost the affection of the university which is more then your Adversary can make proof of unless he mean it of that part of the university onely which conspired against him yet gained he as much love in London as he lost in Cambridge For dying there within few years after it was ordered by Bishop Bancroft that most of the Divines in the City should be present at his interment which may be a sufficient argument that not the Bishop onely but the most eminent Divines of London were either inclinable to his opinions or not so much averse from them as not to give a solemn attendance at the time of his Funeral In the next place he quarrels with Bishop Mountague of Chichester for saying that those Articles were afterwards forbid by Authority and brings in M. Fuller making himself angry with the Bishop for the when and the where thinking it strange that a Prohibition should be conspired so softly that none but he alone should hear it But first the Bishop living in Cambridge at that time might hear it amongst many others though none but he were pleased to give notice of it when it came in question And Secondly the noise thereof did spread so far that it was heard into the Low Countries the making of these Articles the Queens displeasure when she heard it her strict command to have them speedily supprest and the actual suppression of them being all laid down distinctly in a Book published by the Remonstrants of Holland Entituled Necessaria Responsio and Printed at Leyden 1618. almost seven years before the comming out of Mountague's Book 42. And now I am fallen upon this Bishop I cannot but take notice of your adversarys most unequal dealing against him and you in his discrediting that part of your Argument which contains K. James's Judgment of him the incouragement he gave him to proceeed in his appeal and his command to have it Dedicated unto him to which you might have added for further proof of the Kings concurring in opinion with him that he had given him his discharge or quietus est from all those calumnies of his being a Papist or Arminian which by the two Informers had been charged upon him And secondly that the appeal being recommended by that King to D. Fr. White then Dean of Carlisle exceedingly cried up at that time for his zeal against Popery was by him licensed to the Press as containing nothing in the same but what was agreeable to the publique Faith Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England And whereas your adversary doth not think that the King should command any Book written by a private Subject to be Dedicated to himself which to my knowledge is a matter not without examples he doth not so much clash with you as put a lye into the mouth of the Reverend Prelate from whose hand you took it That Bishop certainly must be a man of an unheard of and unparalleld impudence in putting such an untruth on the King deceased to gain no greater favour from the King then Raigning then what of ordinary course might have been presumed on 43. For other points which are in difference between you upon this account I leave them wholly to your self advertising you only of these two things First that when King James published his Declaration against Vristius in which there are so many bitter Expressions against Arminius Bertius and the rest of that party he was much governed by the Counsels of Dr. James Montague who having formerly been a great stickler against Barnet and Baroe in the stirrs at Cambridge was afterwards made Dean of the Chappel Bishop of Bath and Wells and at last of Winton an excellent Master in the art of insinuations and the Kings Ecclesiastical Favourite till the time of his death which happened on the 19th of July 1618. Secondly that the Reason why King James so branded the Remonstrants in the Declaration That if they were not with speed rooted out
no other issue could be expected then the curse of God in making a perpetual rent and destruction in the whole body of the state pag. 39. was not because they were so in and of themselves but for other Reasons which our great Masters in the Schools of policy called Reason of State That King had said as much as this comes too of the Puritans of Scotland whom in the second Book of his Basilicon Doron he calls the very pests of a Common-wealth whom no deserts can oblige neither Oaths nor Promises bind breathing nothing but sedition and calumny c. Advising his Son Prince Henry then Heir of the Kingdom not to suffer the Principles of them to brook his Land if he list to sit at rest except he would keep them for trying his patience as Socrates did an evil wise And yet I trow your adversary will not grant upon these expressions though he might more warrantably do it in this case then he doth in the other that Puritans are not to be suffered in a State or Nation especially in such a State which hath any mixture in it of Monarchical Government Now the Reason of State which moved King James to so much harshness against the Remonstrants or Arminians call them which you will was because they had put themselves under the Patronage of John Olden Barnevelt a man of principal authority in the Common-wealth whom the King looked upon as the profess'd Adversary of the Prince of Orange his dear Confederate and Ally who on the other side had made himself the Patron and Protector of the Rigid Calvinists In favour of which Prince that King did not only press the States to take heed of such infected persons as he stiles them which of necessiry would by little and little bring them to utter ruine if wisely and in time they did not provide against it but sent such of his Divines to the Synod of Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation By which means having served his own turn secured that Prince and quieted his neighbouring provinces from the present distemper he became every day more willing then other to open his eyes unto the truths which were offered to him and to look more carefully into the dangers and ill consequence of the opposite Doctrines destructive in their own nature of Monarchial Government a matter not unknown to any who had acquaintance with the Court in the last times of the King Noâ— makes it any thing against you that his Majesties repeating the Articles of the Creed two or three days before his death should say with a kind of sprightfulness and vivacity that he believed them all in that sense which was given by the Church of England and that whatsoever he had written of this faith in his life he was now ready to seal with his death For first the Creed may be believed in every part and article of it according as it is expounded in the Church of England without reflecting on the Doctrine of Predestination and the points depending thereupon And secondly I hope your Adversary doth not think that all the bitter speeches and sharp invectives which that King made against Remonstrants were to be reckoned amongst those Articles of his faith which he had writ of in his life and was resolved to seal with his death no more then those reproachful speeches which he gives to those of the Puritan Faction in the conference at Hampton Court the Basilicon Doron for which consult my answer to Mr. Baxter neer 29. and elsewhere passim in his Writings 44. The greatest part of his Historical Arguments being thus passed over we will next see what he hath to say of his Late Majesties Declaration printed before the Articles An. 1628. and then proceed unto the rest He tells us of that Declaration how he had learned long since that it was never intended to be a two edged Sword nor procured out of any charitable design to setle the Peace of the Church but out of a Politique design to stop the mouths of the Orthodox who were sure to be censured if at any time they declared their minds whilst the new upstart Arminians were suffered to preach and print their Heterodox Notions without controul And for the proof hereof he voucheth the Authority of the Late Lord Faulkland as he finds it in a Speech of his delivered in the House of Commons Anno 1640. In which he tells us of these Doctrines that though they were not contrary to Law yet they were contrary to custome that for a long time were no ofter preached then recanted Next he observes that in the Recantation made by Mr. Thorne Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ford it is not charged upon them that they had preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church according to the ancient Form of the like Recantations enjoyned by the ancient Protestants as he calls them but onely for their going against the Kings Declaration which but only determined not having commanded silence in those points Thirdly that the Prelatical oppressions were so great in pressing this Declaration and the other about lawful Sports as were sufficient in themselves to make wise men mad 45. For answer to these Arguments if they may be called so I must first tell you that the man and his Oratour both have been much mistaken in saying that his Majesties Declaration was no two edged sword or that it tyed up the one side and let loose the other for if it wounded Mr. Thorn and his companions on the one side it smote as sharply on the other against Dr. Rainford whose Recantation he may find in the Book called Canterbury's Doome out of which he hath filched a great part of his store He is mistaken secondly in saying that this Declaration determined nothing for it determineth that no man shall put his own sence or Comment to be the meaning of the Article but should take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense which Rule if the Calvinians would be pleased to observe we should soon come to an agreement Thirdly if the supposition be true as I think it be that the Doctrines which they call Arminianism be not against the Law but contrary to custome only then is the Law on our side and nothing but custome on theirs and I think no man will affirm that Custome should be heard or kept when it is against Law But fourthly if the noble Oratour were mistaken in the supposition I am sure he is much more mistaken in the proposition these Doctrines being preach'd by Bishop Latimer and Bishop Hooper in King Edwards time by Dr. Harsnet and Peter Baroe in Queen Elizabeths time by Dr. Howson and Dr. Laud in King James his time none of which ever were subjected to the infamy of a Recantation Fiftly if the Recantation made by Mr. Thorn and his companions imported not a retracting of their opinions as he saith they did not it is a strong argument of the
them and one that hated the Idolatries and superstitions of the Church of Rome with a perfect hatred This Reverend Father must not be consulted in the business for fear it might be thought that it was not to be done without him A Parish Vestry must be called by which M. Sherfield is inabled to take down the offensive Pictures and put new white Glass in the place though he be transported with a fit of unruly zeal instead of taking it down breaks it all in pieces Here then we have an Eldership erected under the Bishops nose a Reformation undertaken by an Act of the Vestry in contempt of those whom God and his Majesty and the Laws had made the sole Judges in the case An example of too sad a consequence to escape unpunished and such as might have put the people upon such a Gog as would have leâ—t but little work to the late Long Parliament Non ibi consistent Exemplaubi ceperunt sed in tenuem recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi viam faciunt as my Author hath it 52. But he proceeds according to his usual way of asking Questions and would fain know in what respect they may be accounted the obedient Sons of the Church who study by all their learning to take off that ignominous name of Antichrist from the Pope of Rome which had bin fastned on him by King James Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Andrews and the late Lord Primate and finally by the whole Clergy in their Convocation An. 1605. In the recital of which Proof I find not that the name of Antichrist was ever positively and and in terminis ascribed unto the Popes of Rome by any Article Homily Canon or injunction or by any other publick Monument of the Church of England which leave it to the Liberty of every man to conceive therein according as he is satisfied in his own mind and convinced in his understanding Arch-bishop Whitgift the Primate Bishop Andrews conceived the Pope to be Antichrist and did write accordingly Archbishop Laud and Bishop Mountague were otherwise perswaded in it and were not willing to exasperate those of the Popish Party by such an unnecessary provocation yet this must be accounted amongst their crimes For aggravating whereof he telleth us that the Pope was proved to be Antichrist by the Pen of King James which is more then he can prove that said it K. James used many Arguments for the proof thereof but whether they proved the point or not may be made a question Assuredly the King himself is to be looked on as the fittest Judge of his own intentions performance And he declared to the Prince at his going to Spain that he writ not that discourse concludingly but by way of Argument to the end that the Pope and his Adherents might see there was as good Arguments to prove him Antichrist as for the Pope to challenge any temporal Jurisdiction over Kings and Princes This your Antagonist might have seen in his own Canterburies doom fol. 264. Out of which Book he makes his other Argument also which proves the name of Antichrist to be ascribed unto the Pope by the Church of England because the Lords spiritual in the upper house and the whole Convocation in the Act of the subsidy 3. Jacobi so refined â—â— If so If any such Definition passed in the Convocation it is no matter what was done by the Lords Spiritual in the upper House of Parliament for that I take to be his meaning as signifying nothing to the purpose Wherein Gods name may such an unstudied man as I find that definition not in the Acts of Convocation I am sure of that and where there was no such point debated and agreed upon all that occurs is to bee found onely in the preamble to the Grant of Subsidies made at a time when the Prelates and Clergy were amazed at the horror of that Divellish plot for blowing up the Parliament Houses with the King Prelates Peers Judges and the choicest Gentry of the Nation by the fury of Gun-powder But were the man acquainted amongst Civilians they would tell him that they have a Maxime to this Effect that Apices juris nihil ponuns The Titles and preambles to Laws are no definitions and neither bind the subject in his purse or Pater-noster 53. As for the rest of the Bishops I find two of them charged particularly and the rest in General Mountague charged from D. Prideaux to be merus Grammatius and Linsel charged from M. Smart to have spoken reproachfully of the first Reformers on the Book of Homilies But as Mountague was too great a Scholar to be put to School to D. Prideaux in any point of Learning of what kind soever so Linsol was a Man of too much sobriety to use those rash and unadvised speeches which he stands accused of And as for Mr. Smart the apology of D. Cosens speaks him so sufficiently that I may very wel save myself the labour of a Repetition More generally he tells us from a speech of the late Lord Faulkland that some of the Bishops and their adherents have destroyed unity under pretence of uniformity have brought in superstition and scandal under the title of Reverence and decency and have defiled our Churches by adoring our Churches c. p. 40. and not long after p 64. That they have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome that they have given great suspition that in Gratitude they desire to return thither or at least to meet it half way Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English though not a Romish Papacy not the out side and dress of it onely but equally absolute a blind dependence of the People on the Clergy and of the Clergy on themselves and have opposed Papacy beyond the Sea that they might settle one beyond the water But these are onely the evaporations of some discontents which that noble Orator had contracted He had been at great charges in accommodating himself with necessaries for waiting on his Majesty in his first expedition against the Scots in hope of doing service to his King and Country and gaining honour to himself dismist upon the Pacifiation as most of the English Adventurers without thanks of honour where he made himself more sensible of the neglect which he conceived he suffered under then possibly might consist with those many favours which both Kings had shewed unto his Father But no sooner had that noble soul dispers'd those clouds of discontent which before obscured it but he brake out again in his natural splendor and show'd himself as zealous an advocate for the Episcopal order as any other in that house witness this passage in a speech of his not long before the dismissing of the Scottish Army Anno 1641. viz. The Ground of this Government by Episcopacy is so ancient and so general so uncontradicted in the first and best times that our most laborious antiquaries can find no Nation no City no Church no Houses
flyings out of the Nobility and People during the Minority of Lewis the 13th and the omni-regency of his Mother for I think there be not many other instances of it being no sufficient argument to prove the contrary And this you could not chuse but see though it seems you will not when you tell us within few lines after that the Government of France for want of Gratifying the Nobility and People with such Lawes and Liberties as were sit for them did become Tyrannical and if it be Tyrannical it must needs be absolute 7. You instance secondly in the rise and progress of the Norman liâ—e within this Kingdom concerning which you first suppose that their Monarchy here was founded on a Nobility or a Nobility and the People that is to say for so I am to understand you upon the love and good affections of the Nobility and people of England And secondly that being so founded they were to gratifie the Nobility or the Nobility and the people with such Laws and Liberties as are fit for them or else there Government in this Land had become Tyrannical But first the Monarchy of Normans was not founded here on the Nobility and the people conjunct or separate The greatest part of the Nobility were either lost or forfeited at the battel of Hastins And most of those that were not engaged in Battel were either outed of their Estates which were immediately distributed amongst the Normans according to their several Ranks qualities or forcedly to take them back on such terms and tenures as the Conquerors was pleased to give them And that he might make sure work with them he compelled some of them to fly the Land and wasted others in his Wars against the French so that the poor Remainders of them were both few in number and inconsiderable in power And then as for the common people they were so bridled by his Souldiers Garisoned up and down in several Castles some old and others of his own erection that they could never stir against him but the Souldiers were presently on their backs and though disperst in several places were ready to unite together upon all occasions Nor staid he here but to prevent all practises and contrivances which might be hammered in the night which the eye of no humane providence could be able to see into or discover he commanded that no light or fire should be seen in any of their Houses after the ringing of a Bell at eight of the clock called thence the Cover few or the Cur few Bell as it is called to this very day Which rigorous courses were held also by the Kings succeeding till there was no male Prince surviving of the Saxon race and that King Henryâ— had married a daughter of that line by means whereof the people seeing no hopes of bettering their condition in the change of time became obedient to that yoke which was laid upon them and looked upon their Kings of the House of Normandy as their natural Princes 8. Nor is your inference better grounded then your suposition the Norman Kings not gratifying the Nobility and people wiâ—h such Laws and Liberties as were fit for them for fear least otherwise the Government which you say we have known by experience and no doubt was seen by Eurypon might be thought tyrannical What you intend by these words we have known by experience as I am loth to understand so I am not willing to enquire What had been seen by Eurypon though you make no doubt of it I believe you know as little as I but what was practised by the Normans I may perhaps know as much as you and if I know any thing of them and of their affairs I must needs know this that the first Norman Kings did never Court the Nobility or the people of England by gratifying them with such Laws and Liberties as you speak of here but governed them for the most part by the Grand Customeiur of the Normans or in an arbitrary way as to them seemed best For though sometimes for quietness sake they promised the abolishing of Dane gelt and the restoring the Laws of King Edward the Confessor yet neither was the one abolished till the Raign of King Steven who came in upon a broken Title nor the other restored though often promised till the time of King John and then extorted from him by force of Arms so that by this account the Government of the first sinking of the Norman Race must become Tyrannical because they gratified not the people with such Laws and Liberties as in your judgment were fit for them For having gained the Magna Charta with the other Charta de Foresta in the time of King John and being frequently called to Parliaments by the Kings which followed they had as much as they had reason to expect in those early days Where by the way that I may lay all things together which relate to England I would fain know what ground you have for the position which you give us afterwards that is to say That King Henry 3. instituted his Parliament to be assistant to him in his Government Our ancient Writers tell us that Parliaments or Common Councils consisting of the Prelates Peers and other great men of the Realm were frequently held in the time of the Saxon Kings and that the Commons were first called to these great Assemblies at the Coronation of King Henry 1. to the end that his succession to the Crown being approved by the Nobility and People he might have the better colour to exclude his Brother And as the Parliament was not instituted by King Henry 3. so I would fain know of whom you learnt that it was instituted by him to be assistant to him in his Government unless it were from some of the Declaration of the Commons in the late long Parliament in which it is frequently affirmed That the fundamental Government of this Realm was by King Lords and Commons For then what did become of the Government of this Kingdom under Henry 3. when he had no such Assistants joyned with him or what became of the foundation in the intervals of following Parliaments when there was neither Lords nor Commons on which the Government could be laid And therefore it must be apparantly necessary either that the Parliaments were not instituted by King Henry 3. to be his Assistants in the Government and that the Lords and Commons were not a part of the foundation on which the Government is built or else that for the greatest space of time since King H. 3. the Kingdom hath bin under no Government at all for want of such Assistants and such a Principal part of the fundamentals as you speak of there The Government of such times must be in obeysance at the least as our Lawyers phrase it But because you make your Proposition in Geneneral terms and use the rise and progress of the Norman line for an instance onely I would fain learn who
but know the manner of those Assemblies which Charles Martel thought good to introduce and settle in the Realm of France that giving them some influence in the publick Government and binding them unto him by so great a favour he might make use of their Authority to preserve his own as his Son Pepin after did to obtain the Crown But that the. Assembly of Estates in either Kingdom did take upon them to fine imprison or to depose or murder any of their Kings as the Tribunes sometimes did the Consuls and the Ephori did the Kings of Sparta you cannot easily prove out of all their stories 15. But you go on and tell me first that the estates in a Gothish Moddel are such by virtue of their estates that is of their over ballance in dominion and then you put it upon me to show both why the over ballance in dominion should not amount to Empire and practically that it amounteth not to Empire in quiet and well governed times But this by your leave is a strange way of Disputation by cutting out what â—work you please and sending it to me to make it up as well as I can But being sent to me I am bound to dispatch it out of hand for your satisfaction I say then first that the Estates in a Gothish Moddel are not such by virtue of their Estates that is to say by being above the rest of the people in titles of Honour and Revenue which you call an over ballance in Dominion For were it so they were of power to exercise the same Authority as you suppose the Tribunes and the Ephori to have done before them in all times alike and not when they are called together by the Kings command For being Masters of their Estates as well out of as in those Generall Assemblies and Conventions and consequently in all times alike what reason can you show me that they should make no use of that Power which belongs to them in right of their Estates but in those General Assemblies and Conventions onely Secondly If they have that power by virtue of their Estates and yet cannot exercise but in such Conventions how doth it come to pass that such Conventions are not of their own appointment but onely at the pleasure and command of their several Kings And Thirdly If they hold and enjoy that Power by virtue of their said Estates you may do well to show some reason why all that are above the rest of the people in Titles of Honour and Revenue should not be called to those assembly of Estates but onely some few out of every Order as in France and Spain to represent the rest of their several Orders For being equal or somewhat near to an equality with one another in Estates and Honours those which were pretermitted have the greater wrong in not being suffered to make use of that natural power which their over balance in dominion hath conferred upon them And then I would be glad to right whether this over ballance in Dominion be ascribed unto them in reference to the King or the common people If in relation to the King you put the King into no better condition then any one of his subjects by making him accomptable to so many Masters who may say to him whensoever they shall meet together Redde rationem villicationis tuae and tell him plainly That he must give up an account of his stewardship for he shall be no longer steward And then have Kings done very ill in raising so many of their subjects to so great a Power and calling them together to make use of that power which they may make use of if they please to his destruction And if they have this over-ballance of Dominion in reference onely to the common people above whom they are raised in Estates and Honours what then becomes of that natural liberty of Mankind that underived Majesty of the common people which our great Masters in the School of Politie have so much cryed up The people must needs take it as ill as the King to be deprived of their natural Liberty without giving their consent unto it or to be deposed from that Majesty which is inherent in themselves without deriving it from any but their first Creator But on the other side if the three Estates in a Gothick Moddel receive that power which they enjoy in those Conventions either from the hands of the King as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which make up two of the three Estates did here in England or from the hands of the People as the 3d. Estate have done in all Kingdoms else which is the generall opinion and practise of all Nations too you must stand single by your self in telling me that they have that power by virtue of those Estates which they are possest of And this may also serve to show you that an over ballance in Dominion or the greatness of Estate which some subjects have above the rest amounteth not to such an Empire as may give them any power over Prince or people unless it can be showed as I think it cannot that the King doth not over ballance them in the point of Dominion as they do the rest of their fellow subjects or that the whole body of the people cannot as well pretend to Dominion over themselves as any of their fellow-subjects can pretend to have over them And then if this Dominion do amount to an Empire also we shall have three Empires in one Kingdom that is to say the King the three Estates and the Common people I must confess I have not weigh'd all Orders and degrees of men in so even a scale as to resolve which of them ballanceth counter-ballanceth or over-ballanceth the other which must be various and uncertain according to the Lawes of severall Countrys and the different constitutions of their several Governments And I conceive it altogether as impossible to make a new Garment for the Moon which may as well fit her in the full as in her wainings and increasings as to accommodate these Metaphisical speculations to the rules of Government which varying in all places must have different forms And having different forms must have different ballances according to the Lawes and constitutions of each several Country And yet I am not altogether so dimme sighted as not to see what these new Notions which otherwise indeed would prove new Nothings do most chiefly aim at the chief design of many of the late Discourses being apparently no other then to put the supream Government into the hands of the common people or at least into the hands of those whom they shall chuse for their Trustees and Representors which if it could be once effected the underived Majesty of the common people would not appear so visibly in any one person whatsoever as in those Trustees and Representors and then the King or supream Magistrate being thus out shined would seem no other then a Star of the lesser Magnitude which
c. which no man can conceive to relate onely to the Judges of the lower Courts Nor find I any variation in the rest that follows no nor in that which comes after neiher v. 14. where those directions do begin which concern the people and not the Priests or Judges onely in the Election of their King And therefore give me leave to think and laugh not at me I beseech you for my singularity that there is no other meaning in that Text but this i e. That if a doubt or scruple should arise amongst them in their severall dwellings in matters which concerned Religion and the right understanding of the law of God they should have recourse to the Priests and Levites for satisfaction in the same according unto that of the Prophet Malachy that the people were to seek the Law from the mouth of the Priest as before we had it But if it were a civil controversie matters of difference which they could not end amongst themselves and by the interposition of their friends and Neighbours they should refer it to the Judge or Judges in whose times they lived to be finally decided by him And for this Exposition I have not onely some authority but some reason also My Authority shall be taken from the words of Estius who makes gloss upon the Text viz. Haec sententia modo sacerdotem modo judicem nominat propter duplicem magistratum qui erat in populo dei sacram civilem quamvis contingeret aliquando duplicem magistratum in eandem personam concurrere My reasons shall be taken first from that passage in the 12. verse in which it is said that the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God c. Where the Priest seems to be considered in personal capacity as he stands ministring before the Lord at his holy Altar not as he sits upon the bench and acts â—with other of the Judges in an open Court But whether that be so or not certain I am that many inconveniences must needs happen amongst the people if the Text be no otherwise to be understood as you would have it It is confest on all hands that there was some intervall of time from the death of every one of the supream Judges and the advancing of the next though in Chronologies the years of the succeeding Judges are counted from the death of his Predecessor And you your selfe confess p. 14. that the Sanhedrim did not continue long after Josuah And I can find no restitution of it till the time of Iehoshaphat For though you tell us p. 16. that never any King except David had Session or Vote in this Councel by which you intimate that the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David Yet you have shewed us neither reason nor authority for it And therefore you may do me a greater favour as your own words are then you suddenly imagine to tell me really in what Book of Scripture or in what other Author I may find it written that either the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David or that David did at any time sit and vote amongst them Hereupon I conclude at last that if the Text be to be understood as you would have it and as you say it is understood in the sence of all Authors both Iewish and Christians then must the people be without remedy at the least without remedy of Appeal in their suits and controversies during the interval of time betwixt the Judges and without remedies also in their doubts scruples touching the meaning of the Law for the whole space of time which past betwixt the death of Iosuah and the raign of Iehoshaphat which comes to 511. years or there abouts which I desire you seriously to consider of 32. And yet the matter were the less if having given the Sanhedrim the Dernier Resort or the supream power in all appeals you did not ascribe to them an authority also to controul their Kings For proof whereof you tell us that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that if the King came to violate the Laws and the Statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporall punishment How far Skickardus hath assured you I am not able to say not being directed by you to any Book or Books of his where it may be found But if you find no more in Skickardus then you do in Grotius you will have little cause to brag of this discovery For Grotius in his first Book de jure belli c. cap. 3. and not cap. 1. as is mistaken in the print first telleth us thus viz. Samuel jus regum describens satis ostendit adversus Regis injurias nullam in populo relictam potestatem c. Samuel saith he describing the power of the King of Israel showes plainly that the people had no power to relieve themselves from the oppressions of their Kings according unto that of some antient Writers on those words of David Against thee onely have I sinned Psal 51. And to show how absolutely Kings were exempted from such punishments he presently subjoyns the testimony of Barnach monus an Hebrew In dictis Rabinorum titulo de judicibus which is this nulla creatura judicat regem sed benedictus that is to say that no creature judgeth or can judge the King but onely God for ever blessed According unto which I find a memorable Rule in Bracton an old English Lawyer relating to the Kings of England viz. Omnem esse sub rege ipsum sub nullo sed tantum sub deo That every man is under the King but the King is under none but God Betwixt which passages so plainly destructive of the power ascribed to the Sanhedrim Grotius interlopes this following passage from some Iewish Writers viz. Video consentire Hebraeos regi in eas leges quae de officio regis scriptae extabant peccanti inflicta verbera sedâ—a apud illos infamiâ carebant a rege in signum penitentiae sponte suscipiebantur ideoque non a lictore sed ab eo quem legisset ipse probatur suo arbitrio verberibus statuebat modum I have put down the words at large that the learned and judicious Reader may see what he is to trust to in this point The sence whereof is this in English viz. that stripes were inflicted on the King if he transgressed those Lawes which had been written touching the Regal office But that those stripes carried not with them any mark of infamy but were voluntary undergone by him in testimony of his repentance upon which ground the said stripes were not laid upon him by a common Officer but by some one or other of his own appointment it being also in his power to limit both the the number and severity of those stripes which they were to give him
Caerleon upon Vske for any thing our Author can affirm to the contrary and was undoubtedly such at the first coming in of the Saxons though afterwards for the space of 140. years as before is said it remained Pagan so that our Author might have spared his pains in proving the Metropolitans of St. Davids to be successors unto them of Caerleon which was never denyed unless he could infer from thence that Caerl on was Senior in Christianity unto Canterbury for four hundred years as he expresly saith it was as well as in the Metrapolitical Dignity invested in it And this if he can do I shall conclude him willingly for a subtle Logitian though I shall hardly ever allow him for a sound Historian 27. The like imperfect defence he makes about the time when Lillies Grammer was imposed by King Hen. the 8. on all the Grammer Schools of England plac'd by him in the 11th year of that King Anno 1619 which was full eleven years before it was ordered by the Convocation of the year 1630. ut una edatur formula Authoritate hujus sacrae Synodi c. that one onely form of Teaching Grammer should be enjoyned from thenceforth by the authority of the Convocation to be used in all the Grammer Schools of the Province of Canterbury And questionless the Clergy in their Convocation would not have troubled themselves in ordering one onely Form of Grammer to be taught in all the Schooles of the Province of Canterbury if the King so many years before had commanded Lillies Grammer to be used in all the Schools of England Considering therefore that this order of the Convocation preceded the command of King Henry the 8. and that Lilly dyed some years before the making of this Order as our Author plainly proves he did the difference between us may be thus made up that Lillies Grammer being one of those many the multiplicity whereof had been complained of in that Convocation was chosen out of all the Râ—st by the Convocation as fittest for the publick use and as such Recommended by the King to all the Grammer Schools within his Dominions The Animadvertor was mistaken in making Lilly to be living after the Convocation who was dead before And yet he discovers no such indiscretion not made any such cavelling at a well timed truth in the Authors Book as the Appealant lays upon him the time of the imposing and not the making of Lillies Grammer being the matter in dispute in which the Appealant must be found as much mistaken for the Reasons formerly laid down as the Animadvertor in the other 28. His next defence is worse then this because he finds not any shift to convey himself out of the Reach of the Animadversion For finding it so clealy proved from the words of the instrument that the payment of the 100000. for the Province of Canterbury was to be made in five years and not in four which he held most probable he hopes to save himself by saying that not reckoning the first summe which was paid down on the nâ—il they had just four years assigned them for the payment of the remaindâ—r And so indeed it must have been if the first twenty thousand pound had been paid down upon the nail as he saith it was but indeed was not the instrument of that Grant bearing date the 22. of March 1530. and the first payment to be made at Michaelmas following As bad an Auditor he is in casting up the smaller summe of Pilkintons pension as in the true stating of this payment making no difference no great difference betwixt taking away 1000 l. yearly from the Bishoprick and charging it with an annual pension of 1000 l. For he that hath 1000 l. per annum in Farms and Mannors may pay a 1000 l. pension yearly out of it to a publick use and reserve a good Revenue out of it for his own occasions by fines and casualties in the Renovation of Eâ—â—ates and in such services and provisions for domestick uses as commonly are laid upon them 29 Our Author tells us of the Homilies as a Church Historian That if they did little good they did little harm but he avows as an Appealant that he hath as high an esteem of them as the Animadvertor p. 2. fol. 87. And then I am sure he must needs acknowledge them to be in a capacity of doing much good and no harm at all which is directly contrary to his first Position That the Homilies had been Reproached by the name of Homily Homilies by many of the Puritan faction I have often heard but never heard before that they had been called so by any of the same party with the Animadvertor and am as farre as ever I was from knowing whom that one man should be who did call them so he not being named by the Appealant Where by the way the Author hath uncased himself appears in his own proper person without any disguise for having first told us in the second Chapter of his Apparatus that he was one of the same party with Dr. Heylyn he now declares himself to be of the other and well it had been saith he for the peace and happiness of the Church if the Animadvertor and all of his party had as high an esteem as the Author hath c. where if the Author hath not plainly declared himselfe to be of a different party from the Animadvertor his many protestations pretences notwithstanding I must needs think my selfe as much darkned in my understanding as in my Bodily sight when he can extricate himselfe out of this entanglement I may perhaps think fit to enter on a set discourse whether the Images of God and his Saints may be countenanced in Churches I know by the word Countenancing whom he chiefly aims at without a visible opposition to the second Homily of the second Book but till then I shall not 30. As little am I bound to return any answer to his Argument taken Acts 2. 27. against the Local descent of Christ into Hâ—ll this being not a fit time and place for such set discourses The question and dispute between us relates unto the judgement of the Church of England touching this particular in which he cannot concur with the Animadvertor that any such Local descent hath constantly been maintained by the Church of England But that this is the positive Doctrine of the Church of England appears first by giving that Article a distinct place by its selfe both in the Book of Articles published in the time of King Edward the 6. Anno 1552. and in the Book agreed upon in the Convocation of the 5. of Queen Eliz. An. 1562. In both which it is said expresly in the self same words That as Christ dyed for us and was buried so is it to be believed that he went down into Hell which is either to be underderstood of a Local descent or else we are tyed to believe nothing by it but what
zeal and ignorance A writing is subscribed on the 10th of May by Finch Lord Keeper Manchester Lord Privy Seal Littleton Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Banks Atturney General Witsield and Heath his Majesties Serjeants at the Law in which it was declared expresly that the Convocation being called by the Kings writ ought to continue till it was dissolved by the Kings Writ notwithstanding the dissolution of the Parliament But what makes this unto the purpose Our Author a more learned Lawyer then all these together hath resolved the contrary and throw it out as round as a boul that after the dissolution of the Parliament the Clarks of Diocesses and Cathedrals desisted from being publick persons and lost the notion of Representatives and thereby returned to their private condition The Animadvertor instanced in a convocation held in the time of Queen Eliz. An. 1585. which gave the Queen a Benevolence of two shillings in the pound to be raised on the Estates of all the Clergy by the meer censures of the Church without act of peachment Against which not able to object as to the truth and realty of it in matter of Fâ—ct he seems to make it questionable whecher it would hold good or not in point of Law if any turbulent Clergy-man had proved Recusant in payment and having slighted by the name of a blâ—ck â—wan a single instance of an unparliamented inpowred Convocation he imputes the whole success of that â—ash adventure rather unto the popularity of so Peerless a Princess the necessity of her occasions and the tranquillity of the times then to any efficacy or validity in the act it self And to what purpose all this pains but to expose the poor Clergy of the Convocation An. â—640 to the juster censure for following this unquestioned precedent in granting a more liberal benevolence to a gracious soveraign by no other authority then their own 34. If the â—ppealant still remain unsatisfied in this part of the Churches power I shall take a little more pâ—ins to instruct him in it though possibly I may tell him nothing which he knows not already being as learned in the Canons as in the common Law In which capacity I am sure he cannot chuse but know how ordinary a thing it was with Bishops to suspend their Clergy not onely ab officio but a Beneficio and not so onely but to sentence them if they saw just cause for it to a deprivation Which argues them to have a power over the property of the Clergy in their several Diocesses and such a power as had no ground to stand on but the authority of the Canons which conferred it on them And if our Author should object as perhaps he may that though the Canons in some cases do subject the Clergy not only to suspentions but deprivations of their cures and Benefices â—in which their property is concerned yet that it is not so in the case of the Laity whose Estates are not to be bound by so weak a thred I must then lead him to the Canons of 1603 for his satisfaction In which we find six Canons in a row one after another for providing the Book of Common Prayer the Book of Homilies the Bible of the largest Edition a Font for Baptism a fair Communion Table with a Carpet of Silk or other decent stuff to be laid upon it a Pulpit for Preaching of Gods Word a Chest to receive the alms for the Poor and finally for repairing of the Churches or Chappels whensoever they shall fall into any decay all these provisions and reparations to be made at the charges of the several and respective Parishes according to such rates as are indifferently assest upon them by the Church wardens Sides men and such other Parishioners as commonly convened together in the case which rates if any did refuse to make payment of they were compellable thereunto on a presentment made to the Ordinary by the said Church-wardens and other sworn Officers of the several and respective Parishes And yet those Canons never were confirmed by Act of Parliament as none of the like nature had been formerly in Queen Eliz time though of a continual and uncontroled practise upon all occasions The late Lord Primate in * a Letter more lately published by D. Barnard assures the honourable person unto whom he writ it that the making of any Articles or Canons at all to have ever been confirmed in that Kingdom by Act of Parliament is one of Dr. Heylyns Fancies And now it must be another of the Doctors Fancies to say that never any Articles or Canons had ever been confirmed by Act of Paliament in England though possible they may relate unto the binding of the subject in point of Poperty 35. But our Author hath a help at Maw and making use of his five fingers hath thrust a word into the proposition in debate between us which is not to be sound in the first drawing up of the issue The Question at the first was no more then this whether such Canons as were made by the Clergy in their Convocations and authorized by the King under the broad Seal of England could any further bind the subject then as they were confirmed by Act of Parliament And Secondly Whether such Canons could so bind either at such times as the Clergy acted their own Authority or after their admission to King Hen. the 8. in such things as concerned Temporals or temporal matters otherwise then as they were confirmed by national Customes that is to say as afterwards he expounds himselfe until they were consirmed by Act of Parliament Which points being so clearly stated by the Animadvertor in behalf of the Church that no honest evasion could be found to avoid his Argument the Appealant with his five fingers layes down life at the stake and then cryes out that the Animadvertor arrogates more power unto the Church then is due unto it either by the laws of God or man maintaining but he knows not where that Church men may go beyond Ecclesiastical Censures even to the limbs and lives of such as are Recusants to their Constitutions p. 2. so 53. And having taken up the scent he hunts it over all his Book with great noise and violence assuring us that such Canons were constantly checkt and controlled by the Laws of the Land in which the temporal Estate life and limbs of persons were concerned p. 2. fol. 27. As also that the King and Parliament though they directed not the proceedings of Ecclesiastical Courts in cases of Heresie which is more then his History would allow of yet did they order the power of Bishops over declared Hereticks without the direction of the Statute not to proceed to limb and life p. 2. fol. 45. And finally reduceth the whole Question to these two Propositions viz. 1. The proceedings of the Canon Law in what touched temporals of life limb and estate was alwayes limited with the secular Laws and national Customes of England And
shall please to let me understand in what such Authors as I trusted have not well informed me let it be done in jest or earnest in love or anger in a fair manner or a foul with respect or disrespect unto me in what way soever I shall most thankfully receive the instruction from him and give him the honour of the Reformation when that Book shall come to another Edition I am not of the humour of the Appealant or my Doughty Squire either in kicking against those who rub upon such sores as I have aboutme or flinging dirt on them who shall take the pains to bestow a brushing on my Coat I was trained up when I was a child to kiss the Rod and I can do it I thank God now I am a man Cur nescire pudens pravae quam discere mallem rather to be ashamed of mistaking in any thing I have written then to learn of any body what I was to write was taken up by me both for a rule and resolution in the very first putting out of my Geography and I shall be at the same pass to the very last 39. In the Raign of King James there remain onely two passages which are to be brought under consideration all the rest being either confessed Traversed or Avoided as before is said The first relates to Dr. Hackwel whom he affirms to have been put out of his Chaplains place for opposing the Spanish Match when first tendred to Prince Henry But by his leave Dr. Hackwel was not put out of his Chaplains place for opposing the Match but for some indiscretion in the managing of it for having written a well studyed peece against that Match not without some reflections on the Spaniard which could not be pleasing to the King he to whom he presented it the King soon undermined him and blew him up For finding it to be transcribed in a very fair Character he gave the Doctor thanks for it within few days after adding that he had seen few great Scholars which were Masters of so good a hand To which when the Doctor modestly answered that it was none of his own hand-writing but that he was fain to make use in it of another mans the King reply'd in no small choller that he that would commit a matter of such weight and secresie to the trust of a Clark or common Scrivener was not fit to live about a King and so dismist him of his place without more ado The second Relates to Dr. Davenant Bishop of Salum whom he affirms to have received consecration from Arch-bishop Abbot notwithanding the Irregularity under which he was supposed to lie by some squemish and nice conscienced Elects which before refused it But our Author is as much out in this as in any thing else for first we find in the late Arch-bishops Breviat published by M. Prinne An 1644. that he the said Bishop Laud was consecrated Bishop of S. Davids at the Chapel in London House Novemb. 18. 1621 the solemnities of the Consecration being performed by the Bishops of London Worcester Chichester Ely Landaff and Oxford the Archbishop being thought irregular for casual Homicide Then look into the continuation of Godwins Catalogue of Bishops and we shall find it thus exprest Novemb. 18. 1621. Johannes Davenant Sacrae Theologiae Doctor c. ad hanc sedem that is to say the See of Salisbury Consecratus est una cum Exoniensi menevensi Electis And certainly if he were consecrated on Sunday together with the Bishops of Exeter and St. Davids as he saith he was he must be consecrated in the same place and by the same hands also as the others were Whereof see more in the said Continuation for Laud and Cary. 40. Proceed we next unto the Raign of King Charles where the first thing in which I am to grapple with him relates unto his making dependance of the Kings Coronation upon the sufferage of the People Disproved by such passages as occur in the same particular in the Coronations of King James and King Edward the 6. But neither being willing to acknowledge the dangerous consequences of that Error nor able to deny their words with which he was charged he hopes to reconcile all parties by making little or no difference betwixt the peoples acknowledging their Allegiance to their Soveraign when required to do it at the Solemnities of the Coronation of the said two Kings and the asking of their consent unto it as is affirmed by our Author in the case of King Charles Which words or Phrases he finds to encline to an agreement there being as he saith not onely a vicinity but an affinity betwixt them and much condemns the Animadvertor for endeavouring to make the difference to be vast exceeding vast and utterly against the will of the words But fearing that these Grammatical speculations would be no fit plaister for the sore he hopes to salve the help of an old Receipt taken out of Mills but in what age he hath not told us in which it is recorded That after the King had a little reposed himself in the Chair or Throne erected upon the Scaffold then the Archbishop of Canterbury shall go unto the fore-squares of the Scaffold and with a loud voice ask the good liking of the people concerning the Coronation of the King To which it will be easily answered that when the good liking or consent of the People was publickly required to a Coronation it was at such times onely and in such cases when the Kings came in by broken Titles for maintenance whereof the favour and consent of the people seemed most considerable which consent I find to have been asked at the Coronations of King Hen. 4. and K. Rich. 3. to whose times it is very possible that the old precedent found in Mills is to have relation such arts were used by Otho in the Roman story scattering abroad his Complements distributing his Embraces prostituting the most affectionate pledges of love and friendship omnia serviliter pro dominatione as it is in Tacitus Courses not used by any of the Kings of England who claimed the Crown in their own Right as their lawful inheritance and not as Tenants to the people 41. The next particular which we meet with is the substituting of Viscount Doncaster whom he makes to be assisting at his late Majesties Coronation Feb. 2. 1625. by virtue of an office which his Father is affirmed to have had in the Wardrobe But I must needs confess my self to be much unsatisfied in the one and the other the charge of the Wardrobe being at that time in the E. of Denbigh and Viscount Dorchester two young to perform that service When I have more of Assurance of the truth hereof I shall conceive the place to be rightly mended but till then I shall suspend my beliefe therein The next thing which occurreth comes in upon occasion of Bishop Andrews the footsteps of whose moderation are proposed as a
from the death of Bishop Andrews and Archbishop Harsâ—et then he had taken those of York on this last occasion But I hope onâ— Author was somewhat more then half asleep when this note fell from him for otherwise me thinks he could not be so much a stranger to the affairs of the Church as not to know that ever since the time of William the second for so long that ill custome hath continued nothing hath been more ordinary with the Kings of England then to enter on the temporalities of all vacant Bishoppricks whether it be by death promotion or what way soever and to receive the mean profits of them till the new Bishop after the doing of his homage hath taken out a writ for their restitution 47. Our Author now drawes toward an end and for a conclusion to his Book contrary in a manner to all former Precedents addresseth an Epistle To the Religious Learned and judicious Reader In which he feeds himself and his Reader also with the hopes of this that there are no more Errors to be found in his History then those which have been noted in the Animadversions This I will add saith he for thus he doth bespeak his Reader for my comfort and thy better confidence in reading my Book that according to the received rule in Law Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis it followeth proportionably that Animadversio firmat Regulam in non Animadversis And if so by the Tacit consent of my Adversary himself all other passages in my Book are allowed sound and true save those few which fall under his reproof But if so as it is much otherwise the passages which fall under the Reproof of the Animadvertor are not so few as to give the Reader any confidence that all the rest are to be allowed for sound and true Non omnem molitor quae fluit unda videt as the Proverb hath it The Miller sees not all the water which goes under his Mill much of it passing by without observation and if the blind eat many a fly as the English Adage saith he doth he may swallow many an Error also without discovery when he first finds them in his dish And so it was with me in the Review of our Authors History the second perusal whereof presented many Errors to my consideration which had not been noted in the first And since the publishing of the Animadversions I have fallen accidentally upon divers others not observed before of which I shall advertise him in a private way whensoever he shall please to desire it of me 48. And here I thought I should have ended but the Appealant puts me to the answering of two Objections against the Bishops having place in Parliament as a third Estate Which two Objections may be Answered without being heard as being made against the clear letter of the Law the express words of several Statutes and Records of Parliament as also against the positive determination of Sir Edward Cook the most learned Lawyer of our times whose judgement in that point may seem to carry the authority of a Parliament with it because by Order of this Parliament his Books were appointed to be Printed But since the Appealant doth require it in the way of curtesie I will serve him in it as well as I can at the present without engaging my self in any further enquiry after those particulars And first as to the Bishop of Man the reason why he hath no vote in Parliament is not because he doth not hold his Lands per integram Baroâ—iam as is implyed in the Objections but because he doth not hold his Lands of the King at all The Bishop of Man is Homiger to the Earl of Darby as the chief Lord of the Island of his sole nomination and dependance and therefore there could be no reason which might induce the King of England to admit those Bishops to a place and vote in Parliament who held nothing of them and of whose dutie and affections they could promise little And so much I remember to have read in the learned Work of Francis Mason de Ministerio Anglicano building therein if my memory do not too much fail me upon the judgement and authority of the learned Andrews in his Elaborate Apologie against Cardinal Bellarmine To the second Objection That some Statutes have been made absente or Exclusâ— clero which notwithstanding are esteemed to be good and valid therefore that the Bishops sit not in the Parliament as a third Estate I shall for brevity sake refer the Appealant to my answer to the Book called The stumbling Block c. cap. 5. Sect. 7. 8. c. where he shall find the point discoursed more at large then these short Remembrances can admit of I shall onely now adde thus much that in the Protestation made by the twelve Bishops which was enrolled amongst the Records of that house they thereby entred their Protest against all such Laws Orders Votes Resolutions and determinations as in themselves null and of none effect which in their absence since the 27th of December 1641. as were already passed and likewise against such as should hereafter pass in that most honourable house during the time of their forced and violent absence from it c. Which certainly so many Grave Learned and Judicious men would never have done if they had not looked upon themselves in the capacity of a third Estate according to the Laws of the Realm exprest in several Acts and Records of Parliament And whereas he requests me when my hand is in to answer an Objection taken from a passage in the Parliament at Northampton under Hen. the second in which the Bishops claimed their place not as Bishops but Barons Non sedemus hiâ— Episcopi sed Barones c. it must be understood with reference to the case which was then before them in which they thought themselves better qualified to pass their judgements in the capacity of Barons then in that of Bishops For that the Bishops sat in Parliament in a double capacity will be no hard matter to evince considering that they sat as Bishops in all publick Councels before the entrance of the Normans and that when William the Conqueror changed their tenure from Frank Almoigne to Bâ—râ—nage he rather added some new capacity to them which before they had not then took any of their old Capacities from them which before they had But this dispute is out of doors as the case now stands which makes me willing to decline all such further trouble which the Appealant seems desirous to impose upon me 50. That which I have already done in Order to his satisfaction is more then he can challenge in the ordinary course of Disputation or hath deserved at my hands in the managing of it He tells us in the Third Chapter of his Apparatus that finding himselfe necessitated to return an answer to the Animadversions he was resolved first to abstain from all Rayling that being a